A dissertation concerning the government of the ancient church by bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs more particularly concerning the ancient power and jurisdiction of the bishops of Rome and the encroachments of that upon other sees, especially the See of Constantinople / by William Cave ...

A DISSERTATION Concerning the GOVERNMENT OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, BY Bishops, Metroplitans, and Patriarchs, &c.

CHAP. I. The State of the Church-Government, and Power of the Roman Bishops till the Council of Nice.

An Equality among the Apostles as Church Governours appointed by

Christ. Peters pretended Supre∣macy over the rest shewed to be vain and groundless. If any such had been granted, it belong'd not to the Roman Bishops. Early ap∣pearances of the Pride and Usurpa∣tion of the Bishops of that Church. Special advantages of that See to set up for Tyranny and Usurpati∣on. The foundation of that Church by two great Apostles, Peter and Paul. Rome the Seat of the Em∣pire. The honour and advantages of that Church thereby. The Ca∣tholick Faith long time preserv'd intire in the Church of Rome. Its large Revenues affording libe∣ral Hospitality. Its sending forth Emissaries to plant Christianity in other Countries▪ and thereby claim∣ing superiority over them. The pride of that Church severely cen∣sur'd by St. Basil. A general Scheme of the subordination in the

Government of the Primitive Church, by Bishops, Arch-bishops and Patriarchs, and the Conformi∣ty herein to the Civil State. Epi∣scopal Government how it spreads it self at first? Metropolitans in∣troduc'd and why. A brief ac∣count of the ancient way of Eccle∣siastical Administration out of Cy∣prian and others, by the Bishop and his Clergy, by Provincial Sy∣nods. What things usually ma∣nag'd there. Foreign Churches how mutually transacting with one another. The Bishops of Rome had no more authority in this Peri∣od than the Bishops of other great∣er Sees. Pope Melchiades appoint∣ed Commissioner by Constantine. Donatus appeals from his Judg∣ment. His sentence brought under Examinations in the Synod of Arles.

I. ORDER and Go∣vernment are so essentially necessa∣ry to the peace and welfare of Mankind, that no So∣ciety whether civil or sacred can subsist without it: Where there is none to command, there will be none to obey, and where e∣very one is left to do what he please, there must be confusion and every evil work. No sooner therefore had our Blessed Savi∣our laid the foundation of the Christian Church, but he chose twelve, whom he named Apostles, to whose care and conduct he com∣mitted the administration of it. These he invested with equal powers, upon these he deriv'd the same mission, which he him∣self had receiv'd from God, As my father sent me, so send I you.* 1.1

All had the same authority to Preach, Plant, and propagate the Church, to feed and rule the flock of Christ, to go teach and baptize all Nations; the same Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to one as well as another, that whatsoever sins they should remit, they should be remitted, and whosoe∣ver sins they retain, they should be retained: The same Holy Spirit breathed upon all with a receive ye the Holy Ghost. Notwithstand∣ing all which, it is confident∣ly pretended on the behalf of S. Peter, that a paramount au∣thority was conferr'd upon him, and that not only above, but over the rest, that he was con∣stituted by our Lord, Prince and Head of the Colledge; the other Apostles were indeed Shepherds of the Flock, but were them∣selves Christs Sheep, and St. Pe∣ter

appointed Pastor over them; with a great deal more, boldly asserted at a venture, and at∣tempted to be made good by such warrant from Scripture, as any thing, but the necessity of maintaining a desperate cause would be ashamed to produce. And as no such charter can be produc'd, sign'd by our Saviour, so neither do we find S. Peter chal∣lenging, much less exercising any such superiority. He submitted to the Orders of the Apostolical Colledge, and rendered himself accountable to them for his acti∣ons, styles himself no more than their Fellow-Presbyter, and cauti∣ons against Lording over God's He∣ritage.* 1.2 How openly did S. Paul assert, that he came not a whit be∣hind* 1.3 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the very chiefest Apostles? and that the Go∣spel* 1.4 of the Uncircumcision was com∣mitted

unto him, as well as that of the Circumcision was to Peter. James and John are said to be Pil∣lars* 1.5 as well as he; nay, the whole twelve Apostles are equally styl'd the twelve foundations of the* 1.6 new Jerusalem, that descended out of Heaven, and it was indifferently promised to all, that they should* 1.7 sit upon twelve Thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel. Nay, when a strife arose amongst them, which of them should be great∣est in his Kingdom, our Lord on purpose to silence all such am∣bitious attempts for the future, plainly told them, that though the Kings of the Gentiles exercised* 1.8 Dominion over their Subjects, and they that are great exercised autho∣rity upon them: Yet ye shall not be so; but whosoever will be great a∣mong you, let him be your Mini∣ster, and whosoever will be chief

among you, let him be your Ser∣vant.

II. AND yet after all should it be granted, that our Lord gave S. Peter some kind of superiour power over the rest, yet what is this to the Bishops of Rome? un∣less it could be prov'd, that those priviledges were to be Hae∣reditary, and were not to de∣termine and expire with S. Pe∣ter's person. Bellarmine * 1.9 pleads, that it is founded in a Right of Succession, and this Right settled jure divino, and by our Lords own Institution, who expresly com∣manded S. Peter to fix the A∣postolical Seat at Rome. The proofs he brings to make good this command are a passage out of an Apocryphal Epistle of Pope Marcellus, long since discarded to∣gether with the rest, as the most notorious cheat and imposture

that ever was put upon the Chri∣stian Church; and at best an un∣certain story of our Lords ap∣pearing to Peter, and that too nothing to his purpose. And therefore not daring to trust to them, he fairly quits * 1.10 the jus divinum, and confesses that the Pontifical Succession has no foun∣dation in Scripture: However, that 'tis not improbable, and that 'tis a thing piously to be be∣lieved; that is, perhaps it may be so, and perhaps not, we may do well to believe it, but there's no certain ground for it. An admirable foundation to build so important a claim upon, and for the sake whereof they have now for many ages created so much trouble and disturbance to the Christian World. And besides, there's a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this case lies at the bottom, it

being generally taken for grant∣ed, that S. Peter was in a proper sence Bishop of Rome, which yet I believe can never be made good. That he constituted that Church, and laid down his life there for the Confirmation of it, I easily grant, but this makes him not properly Bishop of it, and consequently the Popes cannot properly be his Successours. Dye he might there, but how comes this to entitle the Bishops of Rome to the Succession? If so, then (as a Learned Man * 1.11 of the Greek Church long since urged in this case) because our Lord died at Jerusalem, therefore the Bishop of Jerusalem, as possessing the Seat of our great High-Priest, may claim an Universal superio∣rity, and challenge to be as much greater than the Bishop of Rome, as Christ is than Peter.

Once more, let it be suppos'd that this Supremacy was entail'd not only upon S. Peter, but up∣on his Successors, how comes it to pass that it was not lodg'd in the See of Antioch, where they grant S. Peter resided as Bishop several years before he went to Rome, and which therefore in all reason ought to challenge a Primary title? An Objection which Bellarmin with all the sub∣tilties of his Wit and Learning is not able to claw off. So many insuperable barrs are there lying in the way to this soveraign and unaccountable authority of their Church.

III. BUT what Power soe∣ver the Bishops of Rome may pretend to derive from S. Peter, sure I am they thus far inherit too much of his spirit and tem∣per, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I mean, that

rash and busie fervour and eager∣ness, so frequently noted in him by the Ancients: Forward like him to speak, run, and interpose at every turn; and forward like him too to smite with the Sword, when meeting with the least opposition. No sooner were the heats of the fifth per∣secution somewhat cooled, and the Church entred a little upon more calm and prosperous days, but we find Pope Victor, An. 196. picking a quarrel with some of the Eastern Churches about the time of Celebrating Easter, and though they justified themselves to the Christian World by Apo∣stolical practice, and a constant uninterrupted observation ever since, yet because refusing to comply with the custome of the Church of Rome, he hastily threw them under Excommunication,

to the great disturbance and a∣mazement of the Christian World, for which he was se∣verely rebuked by the wise and good men of that time, especi∣ally the mild and peaceable Ire∣naeus. It was not much above half an Age after this, when the practice of Baptizing a new those who had been Baptized by Hereticks begun mightily to pre∣vail in some parts of the East, but especially in the African Churches. Stephen, who was then Bishop of Rome, storm'd hereat, and in a great rage publickly declared, that he would hold no Communion with them; and when, accord∣ing to the custome whereby Churches mutually acted in those days, they sent some Bishops to give him an account of their opinion and practice, he proud∣ly

refused * 1.12 either to see them, or speak with them; and not content to deprive them of the Peace and Communion of the Church, he denied them the common offices of humanity and charity, forbidding the Christi∣ans at Rome so much as to enter∣tain them. To Cyprian he gave very hard words, calling him false Christ, false Apostle, deceitful Worker; and no better did he treat Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and the Churches of Iconium. But Cyprian (though a man otherwise of great gentle∣ness and moderation) plainly told him, * 1.13 that this was no∣thing but the effect of a proud, impertinent, imprudent, self∣contradicting humour, that it proceeded from blindness and perverseness, from obstinacy and presumption, and directly tend∣ed

to the Patronage and encou∣ragement of error and Heresie. Firmilian charg'd * 1.14 him with in∣humanity, audaciousness and in∣solence, with doing very unjust and unwarrantable things; that they at Rome, however vainly pretending Apostolical authori∣ty, did not themselves exactly observe primitive tradition, that he could not but disdain Stephens open and manifest folly, who while he boasted so much of the eminency of his Episcopal place, and contended that he had the Succession of Peter, upon whom the foundations of the Church were laid, did yet hereby intro∣duce several other rocks, and build new Churches upon them. And when not long after the controversie came to be can∣vass'd in a Synod of Eighty seven African Bishops, whom Cyprian

had assembled at Carthage for that purpose, in the speech that he made at the opening of the Council, Cyprian tax'd the Pride and ambition of the Bishop of Rome, telling * 1.15 them that they should all freely speak their minds, without judging, or Ex∣communicating any that were of another opinion, that none of them took upon himself to make himself Bishop of Bishops, or by a tyrannical threatning to force his Colleagues into a necessity of compliance: since every Bi∣shop, according to the power and liberty granted to him, had his proper rule and jurisdiction, and could no more be judg'd by another, than he himself could judge others; that in these mat∣ters they were to expect the Judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone had power

both of appointing Governours over his Church, and of calling them to an account for their ad∣ministration.

IV. BY these instances (and many more no doubt, which the History of those times would have set before us, had the Churches Records come safe to us) it appears, how early the Bishops of Rome set out to usurp a Dominion over the Church, and though they generally met with opposition, yet they still went on, and vigorously im∣prov'd all advantages, with what success, the Christian world has now for many ages found to their cost. And certainly never any stood fairer to start and car∣ry on such a design. For,

First, Their Church was not only Apostolical, but had been founded by two of the most emi∣nent

Apostles, Peter and Paul, which gave a mighty reputation to it in after Ages; the Christian world bearing an extraordinary reverence to those great names, which the Bishops of that See knew how to improve to their own advantage. For this reason Irenaeus * 1.16 calls the Church of Rome the greatest and most eminent Church, and most Universally known, as being founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul; and S. Augustine * 1.17 says, that in it there always flourished the principality of the Apostolick Chair; and Origen took a journey * 1.18 on purpose to Rome, to grati∣fy his curiosity with the sight of so ancient and renowned a Church. And upon this account must be discharged very many of those great things, which se∣veral of the Fathers speak so li∣berally

concerning the Church of Rome; who thought they could never express a veneration big enough towards S. Peter, and consequently towards the place which he had honoured with his Doctrine and Residence, and watred with his Blood: which however spoken by them out of a devout intent, prov'd the first rounds of that Ladder, by which the Roman Bishops moun∣ted up to a Supremacy above the rest. It happening in a few Ages that nothing was talkt of at Rome, but of the Prince of the Apostles, and the authority of the Apostolick See, 'till almost every thing there became Apo∣stolical, and was covered with S. Peters name.

Secondly, Their Church was planted in the Imperial City, a place that seem'd born for Em∣pire

and Soveraignty, that had long since Conquered, and at that time Governed* 1.19 the greatest part of the World; a City that was the Center of all Nations, and the Seat of Maje∣sty and Magnificence, where all great af∣fairs were transacted, and all the Scenes of glory and greatness represented in a little compass. Which could not but reflect a more than ordinary lustre upon those Bishops that sat at the upper end of the world, and make them appear consider∣ably bigger, more conspicuous and useful than the rest of their Brethren, and by reason of the general confluence of all Nati∣ons to Rome, enable them in a

little time to draw the cogni∣zance of Ecclesiastick Causes from all parts thither. 'Twas this conveniency of Situation gave them opportunity to insinu∣ate themselves into the favour of the Emperors, and by their pow∣er to enlarge their own Borders, yea, and to succour and relieve their Clients and Dependants, which made many to court their protection and assistance, though often with the loss of their own freedom and liberty. This was especially done after the Empe∣rours became Christians, the Ro∣man Church being by them en∣rich'd with vast honours and pri∣viledges, accounting that the greatness of that Church would not a little contribute to the splendour and magnificence of the Empire. And though the Imperial Seat was quickly tran∣slated

to another place, yet be∣sides that the Emperours a long time retain'd their affection for Rome, what the Pope lost in one sence, he gain'd in another, making use of the Emperours absence to enhance his own Power and Revenue, 'till he was able not only to Lord it over his brethren, but over Prin∣ces themselves.

Thirdly, The Roman Church continued for several Ages the Seat of true Apostolick Doctrine, maintaining that character that S Paul had given them, that their Faith was spoken of throughout the whole world, it being here pre∣serv'd pure and uncorrupt, while a great part of the Christian world besides was over run with Error and Heresie, and torn in pieces by Schisms and Factions. This made Rome in those days

(while it remain'd sound and Orthodox) in a manner the Stan∣dard of Catholick Communion, most other Churches veering in point of Communion, as they found the Wind blow from that Quarter, and saw how the busi∣ness far'd at Rome. Accordingly Theodosius in the beginning of his Reign resolving to reform the Doctrine of the Church, then miserably degenerated in the Eastern parts, commanded, * 1.20 that that Faith only should take place, that was profess'd by Pope Damasus, and Peter of A∣lexandria, that Faith and Religi∣on which S. Peter had delivered to the Church of Rome, and which had all along 'till that time flourisht there. This made way for Appeals, every party being desirous to gain the good will of that Church, and to have

its Bishop pronounce for their cause, 'till from an honourary arbitration it came to be claim'd as a right and due. And per∣sons (especially those who were persecuted in their own Coun∣tries for their adherence to the Catholick Faith) were the more encourag'd to repair hither, be∣cause here they were kindly treated, and hospitably enter∣tain'd; a piece of charity which the Bishops of that Church by reason of their ample possessions and large endowments, were very capable to afford. For be∣sides their standing Rents and Revenues, their gains by col∣lections and oblations was so great, that by them alone in the time of Pope Damasus, they were enabled to live in a state and grandeur like that of Tem∣poral Princes, if we may believe

the account given by Ammi∣anus Marcellinus; * 1.21 and the sto∣ry is known of Praetextatus (a zealous Gentile) design'd to be Consul, who reflecting upon the plenty of that See, was wont pleasanly to tell * 1.22 Pope Dama∣sus, make me but Bishop of Rome, and I will immediately become a Chri∣stian. 'Tis certain that Church could never want plentiful In∣comes flowing in upon it; and as charitable it was in those days, as it was wealthy, and was not only very kind to strangers when they came thither, but was wont to transmit very liberal distribu∣tions of its charity to forreign Churches, to relieve the necessi∣ties of the Brethren that were under Persecution, and were condemned to the Mines, as Dionysius Bishop of Corinth tells us in his Letter * 1.23 to Soter Bishop

of Rome, written about the Year CLXXIV. and that this had been the custome of that Church from the very Infancy of Christianity.

Fourthly, The Church of Rome by the advantage of the Imperi∣al City was capable of propa∣gating the Christian Doctrine in∣to several parts of the West, to send out Disciples, receive Di∣spatches, transmit Directions, and supply all Emergencies that might arise. Accordingly upon this foundation the Popes built and advanc't a claim to Superio∣rity and Dominion. Thus Da∣masus writing * 1.24 to the Bishops of Africk, tells them, that in all doubtful cases they ought to have recourse to him as to the head, and thence to take their deter∣mination, from whence they had received their institution and instruction in the Christian Faith.

And Pope Innocent tells * 1.25 Decen∣tius Bishop of Eugubium, that all the Churches in those parts ought to take their measures from Rome, and nothing to be valid, but what's received from thence; it being evident, that no Churches had been planted in Italy, France, Spain, Africk, Sicily, and the interjacent Islands by any, but such as had been Ordain'd by S. Peter, or his Successors. And this is the Plea we are so often urg'd with, whereby the Roman See challenges jurisdiction over England, its commissionating Au∣gustine the Monk to convert the Saxons, and settle Religion in these parts. But were there no more to be offered in answer to it, this were enough, that Chri∣stianity had for several ages been planted here, before ever Austin set his foot on English ground:

as perhaps we may have occa∣sion to shew afterwards. In short, though it became Churches thus planted, to bear a very grateful respect to that Mother Church, that was the instrument to convey to them the Christian faith; yet did it lay them under no obligation to subjection and servitude: however the Church of Rome has handled the matter to its own advantage, and from the lenity and tenderness of a Parent, had degenerated into the pride and cruelty of a Step∣mother; and not content to ex∣ercise authority over its own Co∣lonies, began to advance its ban∣ners over all the rest; proudly proclaiming it self the Mother and Mistres of all Churches. I observe no more, then that pride seems to be a vice more peculiar to Rome, than other places: 'twas

this put the old Romans upon sub∣duing the world; and by this the Emperors tyrannized over it for some ages, and when Rome shifted its Lords, it did not change its Task-masters; the ambition which the Emperors laid down, the Popes took up, and prosecuted it by far worse arts and methods, than ever the Romans did of old. S. Basil more than once complains * 1.26 of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the pride of the West, and how little help was to be expected from them that neither understood the truth, nor would be content to learn it; that he was resolved to write to the Pope, to let him know that it did not become him to insult over and add to the miseries of the afflicted, nor to think pride to be honourable; a thing alone sufficient to render a man odious

in the sight of God: and else∣where he expresses * 1.27 a very pas∣sionate resentment, that he hated the pride of that Church.

V. FURNISHED with these advantages, the Roman Prelates set up for themselves, and gave not over, till they had by right and wrong spread such an Eccle∣siastic Empire over the world, as would admit neither superior nor equal. In order to the disco∣very whereof, it will be necessa∣ry to enquire what was of old the proper jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome, before they remo∣ved those antient Land-marks which the Fathers had set. We have else∣where * 1.28 observ'd, (what has been remarkt by many, and in∣deed is evident to any one vers'd in Church-antiquity) that in the primitive times, the external Polity of the Church was con∣form'd

as near as might be to the Mode that obtain'd in the ci∣vil State. Now the whole Roman Empire consisted of thirteen Dio∣ceses, (for so they began to style those large Divisions about the time of Constantine,) whereof se∣ven in the Eastern parts, Egypt, the Orient, or East properly so call'd, Asiana, Pontica, Thrace, Macedonia and Dacia; and six in the West, Ita∣ly, Afric, Illyricum, France, Spain, and Britain; besides the Roman Prae∣fecture, extending to the Provin∣ces round about the City, which had anciently been a peculiar government, equal, yea superior in dignity to any Diocess; where∣of hereafter. In each of these Diocesses were several Provinces, (118 in all) the chief City whereof in every Province, was the Metropolis, that had a kind of jurisdiction over all the rest;

both title and dignity being pe∣culiarly settled by imperial con∣stitution. Now the civil and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, were concurrent after this manner; in every City there was a civil Judge, who presided over it, and the Towns about it; and to him answered the Bishop of that City: in every Province a Pro∣consul or President resided at the Metropolis, govern'd that whole division, received appeals, and determined all important cases brought before him from the in∣ferior Cities. Correspondent to him was the Metropolitan, or (as they after call'd him) the Arch∣bishop, whose See was in the same City, who superintended the several Churches, and or∣dained the several Bishops with∣in his Province. And then in e∣very Diocess, there was a Vicarius

or Lieutenant, who kept his resi∣dence in the principal City, thence dispatcht the Imperial Edicts, and there heard and decided those causes, that were not finally deter∣min'd by inferiour Courts. And concurrent with him in Ecclesia∣stical matters was the Primate, or (as some of them were more eminently stiled) the Patriarch, who presided over the several Metropolitans within that Dio∣cess, appointed the conventions of his Clergy, Umpir'd the dif∣ferences that arose between the several Bishops, and gave the last determination to all Appeals brought before him. And thus by an orderly Subordination of Deacons and Presbyters to their Bishops, of Bishops to their im∣mediate Metropolitans, of Metro∣politans to their respective Pri∣mates or Patriarchs, and by a

mutual correspondence between the several Primates of every Diocess, the affairs of the Chri∣stian Church were carried on with great decorum and regu∣larity.

VI. THIS excellent Plat∣form was not fram'd and set up all at once. In the more early Ages Christianity being general∣ly first Preacht and planted in the greater Cities, and the Ec∣clesiastical Government settled there, thence spread it self into the neighbouring Country, and persons were thence dispatcht to Preach and attend the Ministeries of Religion in those rural Plan∣tations, who yet were in all things steer'd and directed by the Bishop and his Ecclesiastick Senate residing in the City. As Churches multiplied, and Chri∣stianity extended it self into wi∣der

circles, it was found necessa∣ry to fix a particular Bishop al∣most in every City, to whom was committed the care and su∣perintendency over all the Cler∣gy and people there, and in all the Towns and Villages belong∣ing to the jurisdiction of that place. But because controver∣sies began to arise between the several Bishops (and sometimes between them and the inferiour Clergy) which could not easily be determin'd, where every ones authority was independant, it was necessary that some one should preside over all the other Bishops of that Province, as the Proconsul did in the civil state, who might convene Synodical Assemblies, adjust the differen∣ces, and manage the Ordinati∣ons of the Provincial Bishops. And for this none could be so fit

as he that resided in the Metro∣polis of the Province (thence call'd Metropolitan) partly be∣cause the Countries for the most part round about had originally derived their Christianity from thence, and 'twas but fit they should pay a peculiar respect to the Mother-church, partly be∣cause most persons had occasion to resort thither for the dispatch of business, and might with the same opportunity conveniently transact both their civil and Ec∣clesiastick matters, and partly because 'twas but reasonable, that the Bishop of so eminent a place should 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have an honourable presidency over the rest, as the Council of Antioch par∣ticularly provides * 1.29 in this case; Ordaining accordingly, that tho every Bishop might Ordain Pres∣byters and Deacons, and manage

the affairs of his own 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or particular Diocess (as we now call it) yet that all the Bishops of the Province should acknow∣ledge the Metropolitan, and at∣tempt nothing of moment with∣out his knowledge and consent; which they there enact, not as any Novel constitution, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as they tell us, according to a most ancient Rule and Canon, that had been in force from the times of their fore-fathers. To the Metropo∣litan then upon every extraordi∣nary occasion the Provincial Bi∣shops addressed themselves, to him also other Metropolitans, such especially as lay nearest to him, were wont to send Letters of Communion, to testify their consent with him in the faith (a confession whereof every new

Metropolitan us'd to send abroad upon his advancement to his See) and mutually to consult each o∣thers advice in all important cases.

VII. THIS 'tis plain from the Writings of S. Cyprian and others, was the way of Admi∣nistration during those first and most early Ages of Christianity: Private causes every Bishop judg'd of within his particular jurisdiction, where taking to him the assistance of his Clergy, his Presbyters and Deacons, they did Communi Consilio ponderare, * 1.30 weigh things by common advice and deliberation; where the case was of greater importance, or more general concernment, it was re∣ferr'd to a provincial Synod, wherein the chief Bishop of the Province presided, and directed all affairs. Here the Ordination

of Bishops was usually per∣form'd, or where a Synod could not conveniently be had, by as many Bishops as could be got together, the rest * 1.31 who were absent by writing under their hands testifying their consent, and the whole either actually manag'd by, or at least done by the allowance and confirmation of the chief Bishop. Here al∣so criminal Bishops were de∣pos'd, and the same way of ge∣neral suffrage observ'd: Thus when Cornelius and his Synod at Rome * 1.32 had condemn'd and cast out Novatian for his Schis∣matical Usurpation of that See, the Bishops that were not pre∣sent at the Council, did by their Letters ratify and subscribe that Decree.

VIII. IN reference to the affairs of Churches abroad, they

acted by a kind of mutual conso∣ciation, they communicated coun∣cils, interpos'd in differences, op∣pos'd the same common enemies, and upon all occasions afforded ready help and assistance to one another, that dilectio communis, that Cyprian so often speaks of, * 1.33 the common bond of love and cha∣rity obliging them to advise to∣gether, that so by joynt consul∣tations things might be carried on to the best advantage of Ec∣clesiastick Administration. For they look'd upon themselves, he tells us, * 1.34 as members of the same Body of the Church, though stretcht out into many several Provinces, and that therefore they were bound to have care one of another, and to watch o∣ver the welfare of the whole Bo∣dy. Upon a Persons Election to any of the greater Sees, they

were wont to send their congra∣tulatory Letters, to give him joy of that place, to signify their concurrence with his advance∣ment to a share of the Govern∣ment of the Church, and their communion with him in the Faith. Thus Cyprian by Letters * 1.35 approv'd Cornelius his Election to the See of Rome, which he did, he tells us according to divine tradition and Ecclesiastick insti∣tution; nay he sent to all the Bi∣shops of his Province, requiring them by their Letters to do the like. And when Marcian Bishop of Arles was depos'd for his siding with Novatian, Cyprian wrote * 1.36 to Pope Stephen to send him word who succeeded in that Bishop∣prick, that so he might know to whom to direct his communica∣tory Letters. When any person was duly Excommunicated in

on Church, he could not be ad∣mitted to Communion in ano∣ther. Thus when Felicissimus, who had been Excommunicated by Cyprian and the African Synod, fled to Rome, * 1.37 and came thither guarded with a potent faction, he found the doors shut against him, whereof Cornelius advis'd Cyprian by Letters, which the good man commends as reple∣nisht with Brotherly Love, Ec∣clesiastick Discipline, and Epi∣scopal censure. And when the Legats of Novatian (who had procur'd himself to be irregular∣ly Ordain'd Bishop of Rome, for which he was Synodically con∣demn'd) came into Africk, Cy∣prian rejected them, * 1.38 and utter∣ly refus'd to receive them to Communion.

In short, no sooner did any extraordinary emergency arise,

but notice was presently given of it to other Churches, and ad∣vice return'd what was fit to be done in those matters, and all possible assistance afforded to∣wards the dispatching of them. In all which transactions the Bi∣shop of Rome was no otherwise considered than (as all others were) as a Bishop of the Catho∣lick Church, nor was his Sen∣tence any more regarded than that of other Bishops. Donatus à casis nigris accus'd * 1.39 Cecilian Bi∣shop of Carthage to Constantine the Great. The Emperour referr'd the case to Pope Melchiades, and three French Bishops, together with whom Assembled fifteen Bishops of Italy, who gave judg∣ment against Donatus. Wherein as the Pope acted as the Empe∣rours Delegate, and had no more power than the rest of his Col∣legues,

so the sturdy African slight∣ed his judgment, and appeal'd from it. Constantine hereupon re∣ferrs the business to a Synod at Arles in France, Ann. CCCXIV. where the former sentence is a∣gain brought under examination, and this thought no injury or dishonour to the Bishop of Rome, nay, his Legates in that Council subscribed only in the fifth place, * 1.40 as the subscriptions publisht by Sirmoud out of an Ancient Copy, stand at this day. In short, 'tis ingenuously confess'd by Pope Pius the second, * 1.41 then Cardi∣nal, that before the time of the Nicene Council very little regard was had to the Church of Rome. By all which we see how the Government of the Church in those days was carried on; Bishops superintended the affairs of the Church in every City and

its adjacent Territory, over them were Metropolitans and Provincial Synods, and with fo∣reign Churches they transacted by a mutual agreement and con∣federation for the good of the whole, but without any coer∣cive power over one another.

CHAP. II. The Government of the Church, and Power of the Bishops of Rome, as 'tis represented in the Canons of the Nicene Council.

The Sixt Canon of the Synod of Nice set down, with the occasion of it. Seven Observations drawn from that Canon. I. That the larger bounds of Ecclesiastick ju∣risdiction were the Roman Pro∣vinces. A Province what. Whi∣ther the Countries in Italy so cal∣led. II. That the chief Church-Governour in every Province was the Metropolitan. The pru∣dence and convenience of that way

of Government. Patriarchs prov'd not to be intended in the Nicene Canon. III. That the Bishop of Rome no less than the rest had his proper and limited Metropoli∣tical power. This own'd by some of the greatest Champions of Rome. IV. That the Metro∣politick Sees of Rome, Alexan∣dria and Antioch were ever of the greatest note in the Christian Church, and of these Rome the chief. The eminency of Sees ac∣cording to the greatness of the Cities wherein they were planted. This gave precedency to the Church of Rome. The three Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch ascrib'd to S. Peter. Blasphemous things spoken of the Pope upon that account. Pri∣macy allow'd to the See of Rome. No Supremacy belonging to it. The Christian Church then knew

of no such supereminent power. V. That the rights of the Ro∣man Metropolitan were not due by any divine constitution, but by cu∣stome and the practice of the Church. This plainly shew'd to be the sence of this, and other following Councils. VI. That the Ordination of Provincial Bi∣shops was one of the prime rights and priviledges of every Metropo∣litan within his own jurisdiction. The fourth, sixth and seventh Canons of this Council noted to that purpose. The same shew'd to be the determination of other Synods. What other rights be∣long'd to Metropolitans. VII. That this way of Ecclesiastick Admi∣nistration was not any late novel institution, but founded upon an∣cient custome and practice. What this antiquity implies. The ori∣ginal of Metropolitans briefly en∣quir'd

into. Several instances of this way of Government noted in the second and third Centuries. The word Metropolitan not met with till the Council of Nice. But the thing long before. The Sum of the Observations upon this Canon.

IN this condition stood things at that time when the great Council Assembled at Nice, An. CCCXXV. where what had hitherto been transacted on∣ly by custome and mutual con∣sent, became then a Law of the Church. For Alexander the ve∣nerable Bishop of Alexandria ha∣ving complain'd to the Synod, that the Metropolitical Rights of that See had been invaded by the irregular and ambitious at∣tempts of Meletius, the Schismati∣cal Bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais,

who during the late persecution had amongst other crimes taken upon him to Ordain Bishops, and to confer inferiour orders where∣ever he came, the Synod did not* 1.42 only depose Meletius, and in a manner null his Ordinations, but pass'd among others this following Canon.

* 1.43LEt ancient customs still take place; those that are in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Ale∣xandria have power o∣ver all these; because such also is the custome of the Bishop of Rome. And accordingly in An∣tioch, and in other Pro∣vinces, let the privi∣ledges be preserved to the Churches. This also is altogether evident, that

if any man be made a Bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, this great Synod Decrees such a one to be no Bishop. And if two or three, out of a contentious humour, shall oppose the common election duly and regu∣larly made according to the Canon of the Church, let the majority of voices in this case prevail.

In this Canon, which has been the subject of infinite debate and controversie, there are several things very observable to our purpose, which every impartial unprejudicate Reader will see do naturally flow from it.

First, That the larger bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction at that time were concurrent with the Roman Provinces.

Secondly, That the chief Church Governour within every Pro∣vince was the Metropolitan.

Thirdly, That the Bishop of Rome no less than the rest had his proper and limited Metro∣political power.

Fourthly, That the Metropoli∣tick Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were ever of greatest note in the Christian Church, and of these Rome the chief.

Fifthly, That the rights of the Roman Metropolitan were not due by any Divine constitution, but flow'd only from Custome and the Practice of the Church.

Sixthly, That the Ordination of Provincial Bishops was one of the prime Rights and Privi∣ledges of every Metropolitan within his own Jurisdiction.

Seventhly, That this way of Ecclesiastick Admiration was not* 1.44 any late novel institution, but was founded upon ancient cu∣stome and practice.

All which Observations I shall briefly explain and make good.

* 1.451. THAT the lar∣ger bounds of Ecclesia∣stick Jurisdiction were the Roman Provinces. Every City, besides what was within its Walls, and immedi∣ate Suburbs, had usually some adjacent Territory, whither its Government did extend, as Stra∣bo * 1.46 notes of Nemausus or Nismes, a City of the Gallia Narbonensis, that it had under it twenty four Villages, all well peopled and inhabited, and so commonly in other places; and these were the Towns and Villages (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as they are call'd in the ninth Canon of Antioch) that were under the superintendency and jurisdiction of the City-Bi∣shop.

But a Province was a Collection of many Cities, with all the Tracts and Territories belonging to them; and was greater or less according to the custome of places, or as the will of Princes had set them out.

Augustus (as Strabo who lived about that time informs * 1.47 us) when he resolv'd to commit some parts of the Empire to the immediate care of the Se∣nate, and to reserve the rest to himself, divided each moiety 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into several Pro∣vinces, and caus'd a Rationarium or Book to be made of it (this he did out of the Commentaries * 1.48 of Balbus, whom he had ap∣pointed to measure the several parts of the Empire:) Some ac∣count of these Provinces Strabo there gives us, but a more full

and particular account is given by Dion Cassius. * 1.49 How these Pro∣vinces stood divided in the fol∣lowing Ages, especially from the times of Constantine, is di∣stinctly and accurately set down in the Notitia Imperii, compos'd under the reign of the younger Theodosius.

I observe no more then that if at Augustus his settlement (which is taken notice of, and objected by some * 1.50) the Coun∣tries in Italy were not styl'd Pro∣vinces, but Regions, (he divided it says Pliny * 1.51 into eleven Regi∣ons; whence Italy and the Pro∣vinces, and jus Italicum, and jus Provinciale are frequently distin∣guisht) yet this distinction held not long, nor universally, the words being promiscuously us'd, as is evident from the Scriptores Rei agrariae (some whereof if

their Titles bely them not, liv'd not long after Augustus his age) where we find more than once, the Territory of the Province of* 1.52 Picenum, as well as the Region of Picenum, the Province of Apu∣lia and Calabria * 1.53, of Valeria ‖ 1.54, of Tuscia * 1.55, and the like. And for after ages, especially from the times of Constantine, no man can doubt of it, that has but once lookt either into the Justi∣nian, or Theodosian Code.

II. THAT the chief Church-Governour within every Province was the Metropolitan, that is, the Bi∣shop that resided in the Metropo∣lis, or Mother-City of the Pro∣vince. For as the preventing Schism and disorder had necessi∣tated Provincial Bishops (who being all equal had no power one over the other) to chuse one common President to um∣pire

and determine differences, and manage those affairs which could not be done by every single Bishop, so reason and conveniency, the example of the civil Government, and the great∣ness of the place, pleaded for the Bishop of the Metropolis to be the person, who hence deriv'd the title of Metropolitan. And this Salmasius * 1.56 himself, how ill a friend soever to the whole Episcopal Order, cannot but con∣fess was wisely contriv'd, and that had but Metropolitans con∣tain'd themselves within their proper bounds, there could not have heen a more useful and laudable Institution. His busi∣ness was upon all important oc∣casions synodically to summon together the Bishops of his Pro∣vince, and therein to enquire into their miscarriages and mis∣demeanors,

to judg of the conten∣tions that arose between them, to ordain persons to vacant Bi∣shopricks, or at least to ratify their Ordination, and to direct all transactions that were of greater and more general con∣cernment. Therefore the Fa∣thers of Antioch take care, that* 1.57 forasmuch as all that have any business to dispatch, are forc'd to go to the Metropolis, there∣fore the Bishops in every Pro∣vince should own, honour and give precedence to the Bishop that presided in the Metropolis, and attempt nothing of moment without his concurrence, and this according to a more anci∣ent Canon derived to them from their Fore-fathers. By the An∣cient Canon here spoken of can∣not be meant this of Nice, which was but sixteen years before it,

and therefore without doubt re∣ferrs to the XXXIV. Canon of the Apostles, which almost in the same words commands the Bi∣shops in every Nation to own him who is first or chief a∣mongst them, and to esteem him as Head, and to do nothing of moment without his consent, which truly expresses the anci∣ent practice of the Church; these Apostolick Canons being no∣thing else but a collection of Rules and Customes agreed upon in the first ages of Christianity. For (that I may note this by the way) 'tis vain to think, that a thing then first began to be, when we find it first mention'd or enjoyn'd by a Synodal De∣cree; the Canons in such cases being very oft expressive of a more ancient practice, which they then take notice of, or en∣force,

only because some extra∣ordinary accidents at that time may have given particular oc∣casion for it. As here at Nice, in the case of the Rights of Metropolitans, which the Canon mentions and re∣settles, only because Meletius's usurpation had brought it into question. It had been long be∣fore an ancient custome, and having lately received some lit∣tle shock, the Church no soon∣er had an opportunity of meet∣ing together in a general Coun∣cil, but it establisht these Me∣tropolitical priviledges by its Oe∣cumenical Authority. There are, I know, and they too men of no mean name and note, both heretofore and of later times, who tell us, that this Nicene Ca∣non is to be understood not of Metropolitans, but Patriarchs: But

where does the Council say, or so much as hint any such thing, the Synod both here and in all other places constantly calls them Metropolitans, and makes the bounds of their jurisdiction to be Provinces, not Diocesses. And indeed the word Diocese, as relating to this extent of Eccle∣siastick Government, was not in use till above an intire age af∣ter. Nay perhaps at this time it was scarce in use for the lar∣ger division of Countries in the civil state: For it was but a∣bout this time that Constantine new modell'd the Government, and brought in Dioceses as com∣prehending several Provinces un∣der them.

So that either here must be Patriarchs without Dioceses, or if the Canon be meant (as some explain it) of Metropolitani Metro∣politanorum,

of some prime and principal Metropolitans, that presided over the Metropolitans of the several Provinces within their jurisdiction, then 'tis plain the Synod must intend such whereever it mentions Metro∣politans, for it all along speaks of them as of the same. In the fourth Canon it provides, that in every Province a Bishop Or∣dain'd shall be confirm'd by the Metropolitan; which is necessa∣rily to be restrain'd to proper provincial Metropolitans. In this sixth Canon it speaks more par∣ticularly, and because the Me∣tropolitick rights had been in∣vaded in Egypt, Ordains that the Bishop of Alexandria, no less than he of Rome, and that he of An∣tioch, and the Churches in all other Provinces should still en∣joy their ancient priviledges.

Where we see it speaks of them all without any difference in this respect as provincial Churches. And thus the ancient Version of this Canon (whereof more hereafter) understood it, when it rendred it thus, in caeteris pro∣vinciis privilegia propria reserven∣tur Metropolitanis Ecclesiis, that at Antioch, and in the other Pro∣vinces, the Metropolitan Church∣es should have their own pri∣viledges.

And to put the case out of doubt what the Council meant, the Canon adds in the close, that no Bishop should be made without the consent of the Me∣tropolitan. Nothing therefore can be more absurd, than to say, that Patriarchs are meant in the former part of the Canon, and Metropolitans only in the latter, when as the Canon it self makes

no difference. And indeed were that the meaning, the grave and wise Fathers of that Coun∣cil took an effectual course that posterity should never under∣stand their mind. If we look into the following Canon, that secures the rights of the Metro∣politan Church of Caesarea in Palestine, and though it grants the next place of honour to the Bishop of Jerusalem, yet still it subjects him to his own Metro∣politan. And I suppose it will puzzle any man to give a wise reason, why the Church of Je∣rusalem (for which the Christi∣an World ever had so great and so just a veneration) should be subject to that of Caesarea, but only that Caesarea was the Metro∣polis of that Province, and so had been ever since the time of Vespasian, and accordingly

Josephus says * 1.58 'twas the greatest City in the Country, and Taci∣tus * 1.59 calls it the head of Judaea. So miserably does Alexander Ari∣stinus blunder in his Exposition of this Canon, when by virtue of it he makes the Bishop of Jerusalem to become a Patriarch, and yet withal to be subject to the Metropolitan of Caesarea, or, which is all one, that the Me∣tropolitan of Caesarea should not hereby lose his ancient power and dignity. As if any Patri∣arch, and much more one of the five greater, could be sub∣ject to a private Metropolitan, or a Metropolitan could have his ancient rights reserv'd to him, when at the same time a consi∣derable part of them are taken from him. But Patriarchs were not then heard, or so much as dreamt of in the Church; no∣thing

being truer than what Balsamon has observ'd * 1.60 in this case, that anciently all the Me∣tropolitans of Provinces were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 absolute and inde∣pendent, and Ordain'd by none but their own Provincial Bi∣shops.

III. THAT the Bishop of Rome no less than the rest had his proper and limited Metropolitical Power. This is so evidently the sence of the Canon, that few, who have otherwise Will good enough, have yet the hardiness to oppose it. The Sun it self is not clearer at Noon-day, than that hereby the Council de∣sign'd, that the Bishop of Ale∣xandria should have the same power within his Province, that the Bishop of Rome had in his. Let the Bishop of Alexandria (says the Canon) have all his ancient

and accustomed powers and privi∣ledges in Egypt, Libya and Pen∣tapolis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 since, or forasmuch as the Bishop of Rome has the like Custome, that is, (as a learned and zealous Champion * 1.61 for the Popes Supremacy does yet with great ingenuity expound it)

that he and none but he should exercise Jurisdiction within his own bounds; as the Alexandri∣an Bishop has prescrib'd limits to his Diocess, so also has he of Rome: And as he of Rome manages the affairs of his own Diocess without the interposal or medling of any other per∣son, so we Will that he of A∣lexandria shall have the same power, and that none shall obstruct him in the exercise of it.

The Canon then makes a double comparison between

these two Metropolitans, the one respecting the extent of their Jurisdiction, that one was con∣fin'd and limited as well as the other; the other the fulness of their power, which they might exercise within their respective limits, and that none might presume to invade or hinder it, but by the same Right by which the Roman Prelate Govern'd his Churches, by the same might he of Alexandria the Churches subject to him.

One of the Greek Scholiasts * 1.62 Summs up the Canon into these words. Let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over E∣gypt, Libya and Pentapolis: And the Roman Bishop over those pla∣ces that are subject to Rome. Har∣menopulus * 1.63 expresses it in some∣what more general terms: Let the ancient customes of Arch-Bishops

still prevail, and every one have power over his own Province. I enquire not now what were the peculiar bounds, within which the Power of the Bishops of Rome was terminated. 'Tis enough at present, that whether larger or narrower, limits he had, which he might not regularly pass, and that the Church of Rome was in those days accounted a particu∣lar Church, and as much a Member of the Church Univer∣sal, as Alexandria, Antioch, or that of any other Province.

IV. THAT the Metropolitick Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, were ever of greatest note in the Christian Church, and of these Rome the chief. Hence they are here particularly named, while others are dismist with an Et cae∣tera, and Rome as the most emi∣nent, made the Exemplar accor∣ding

to which the Rights of A∣lexandria were to be recovered and resettled. 'Twere imper∣tinent to shew that respect was always paid to places proporti∣onable to their Temporal pow∣er and greatness; S. Cyprian * 1.64 long since told us, that the reason why Rome had the pre∣cedency of Carthage, was pro mag∣nitudine sua, because 'twas the greater City. And 'twere as endless as 'tis needless to prove, that the places mention'd in this Canon were Capital Cities of the Empire: Rome was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as Athanasius styles * 1.65 it) the Metropolis, or chief City of the Roman World, it had for several Ages been the Governing City, and was still the Seat of Empire, the great∣ness whereof the Geographi∣cal Poet * 1.66 has no less brief∣ly

than Elegantly thus summ'd up.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Rome triumphs in th' Imperial Seat, and is Wealth's Store-house, and the World's Metropolis.

Alexandria besides the vastness of the place, numerousness of its inhabitants, the riches and plen∣ty of its Traffick, was the Seat of the Imperial Vice-roy, call'd the Augustal Prefect: Indeed it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 * 1.67 the second City under the Sun, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as Aristides * 1.68 styles it, the greatest next to Rome; and thence by ancient

Writers * 1.69 emphatically call'd THE CITY. Antioch was fre∣quently the Court of Emperors, constantly the residence of their Lieutenants, the most ancient, rich and populous City of the East, commonly styl'd Antioch the Great: Now the greatness of these places added a propor∣tionable reputation to their se∣veral Bishops, it being but rea∣sonable that they should 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as the Fathers at Anti∣och speak * 1.70) precede others in honour, who presided in the most eminent and honourable Cities.

And because Rome was con∣fessedly the greatest and noblest City of the Empire, hence the Church there had an honourary precedency before all others, and the Bishops of it in all publick meetings and consultations had

the first place allowed them, and upon all occasions a mighty deference and respect paid to them, and their favour was courted, and Addresses made to them from all parts. And in this sence 'tis plain the ancients understood the honour due to the Roman Bishop. When the Council of Constantinople decrees, * 1.71 that the Bishop of that City shall have the next place to him of Rome, for that Constantino∣ple was new Rome, it sufficient∣ly shews upon what foundati∣on the precedency of the Roman Prelate stood. And that of Chal∣cedon * 1.72 much more expresly, that the cause why* 1.73 the Fathers gave pri∣viledges to the See of old Rome was, because that was the Imperial City.

And in pursuance of these Canons (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) the Empe∣rour Justinian enacts, * 1.74 that the Bishop of old Rome should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first of all Bi∣shops.

I know there are, ‖ 1.75 who place the E∣minency of these three great Sees upon ano∣ther bottom, and tell us it was, because they were all founded by S. Peter, two of them by himself, and that of Alexandria by the Ministry of S. Mark his peculiar Disciple, sent thither by his immediate direction and authority: And the assertion fur∣ther improv'd, that these three Cities being severally the chief Cities of the three then known

parts of the World, Europe, Asia and Africa, thence it follows that the Government of these three great Churches, and in them of the whole Christian World is lodg'd in S. Peters Successour, and 'tis added * 1.76 (with greater boldness shall I say, or blasphemy?) that S. Peter herein exprest a lively representation both of the Unity of the God∣heads, and of the Holy Trini∣ty, and that as 'tis but one and the same Episcopal Office that is in a Bishop, a Metropolitan, and a Patriarch, so a Trinity of Patriarchs meets in the Unity of the Pope; so that in the See of the Prince of the Apostles, there is an Unity in Trinity, and a Tri∣nity in Unity. But where Men can suffer their wits want only to sport at this rate (though 'tis gravely brought in by way

of Argument, by some other∣wise learned enough) 'tis no wonder, that nothing should be stuck at, true or false, that may serve their cause. But I spare any farther censure of this Au∣thour, finding by his life * 1.77 (pub∣lisht since the Writing of these Papers) that he repented after∣wards of so hasty and inconsi∣derate an undertaking, and oft intended to have brought that work under a review and casti∣gation. And indeed any Man may at first sight discern 'twas the issue of a Juvenile heat, and wanted the corrections of calm∣er and maturer thoughts.

But perhaps it might prove no such easie task to make it out that S. Peter founded those three Sees, and if he did, that any such authority as is claim'd, is thence deriv'd to the See of

Rome. Antioch and Alexandria did always maintain their Jurisdi∣ction Independent, though the Popes frequently inculcated their being originally Instituted by S. Peter, as a kind of obligati∣on to Rome, and that which re∣flected the greatest honour up∣on those Churches. And the Fathers we see found their pre∣heminence upon the Glory and Majesty of their Cities, and none more expresly than that of Rome, the Bishop whereof was therefore honoured, caress'd and add rest unto, because Bishop of Rome. And had he content∣ed himself with that place and deference which the Fathers gave him, and not broken down Inclosures, and trampled over the Heads of his Brethren, we should neither have envied, nor denied it. And though perhaps

it might admit some dispute, whe∣ther Rome having for so many Ages lost the honor of being the Impe∣rial City, the Privileges conferr'd upon that Church, upon that ac∣count, ought not in reason to abate proportionably; yet we are wil∣ling to grant, what genuine An∣tiquity did allow, that the Bi∣shop of that place containing himself within Primitive Rules and Orders, should be esteem∣ed the most honourable among all Christian Bishops, that he should be first, but not Lord, much less Tyrant over his Bre∣thren. The Priviledges assign'd him by the ancient Canons, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (says a late learned Patriarch of Alexandria * 1.78) Pri∣viledges of honour, not convey∣ances of a Tyrannical power to make or abrogate Laws as he pleases.

And therefore suppose the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Primacy of the Church of Rome (mention'd in the beginning of this sixt Nicene Canon, as 'tis quoted by Pas∣chasinus the Popes Legate in the Council of Chalcedon) were gran∣ted, yet who knows not that there is a Primacy of Order as well as Power; a Primacy a∣mongst equals; and such 'tis plain was that which the anci∣ent Councils did assign him, not an Universal, Monarchical, un∣controulable Power and Supre∣macy over the whole Christian Church, which would have fundamentally destroy'd the ve∣ry design of this Nicene Canon, which makes the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, the other Provinces, independent, and as supream within their own li∣mits, as the Pope is in his.

Is there no difference between Precedency and Supremacy, be∣tween Dignity and Dominion? Let the Roman Church be the Head of all Churches (as 'tis sometimes styl'd by the Ancients, and fre∣quently challeng'd by the Popes) 'tis so only in an honourary sence, and in that respect o∣ther Churches, especially that of * 1.79 Constantinople, have the same title given to them. Where then shall we find the Soveraign, Arbitrary, and unbounded Pow∣er of the Bishop of Rome? and where, but in the pride, ambi∣tion and Usurpation of that See? certain I am it has not the least footing in this or any other an∣cient Council.

Nor can it be suppos'd, that had the Fathers of this venerable Synod known of any such su∣pereminent Power of the Roman

Bishop, as is now pretended to (and know it they must, if there had been any, meeting from all parts of the World) we cannot suppose, I say, they would have given the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, &c. equal Power within their respective Provinces, without inserting into the Canon a Salvo to the Supreme Rights and Pre∣rogatives of the See of Rome, especially when we find them in the very next Canon, giving the Bishop of Jerusalem an ho∣nourable Session, but still with a Proviso to preserve the Rights of the Metropolitan of that Pro∣vince.

V. THAT the Rights of the Roman Metropolitan were not due by any Divine Constitution, but flow'd only from Custome and the practice of the Church. This is

here laid down as one of the main foundations upon which the whole Body of the Ca∣non is built, the Right here convey'd not being Divine In∣stitutions, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ancient Customs, introduc'd by time and use and a wise contrivance. Which is not only the case of Metropolitans in general, but is particularly applied to him of Rome, it being (says the Canon) the custome for the Bishop of Rome to have such Metropolitick Power.

Had these good Fathers known of any peculiar Com∣mission given by Christ to Peter, and in him to the Bishop of Rome, to be his Supream and Universal Bishop upon Earth, to Govern his Church by a de∣spotical unaccountable power, or that our Lord had but so much as authorized and appoint∣ed

him to be Superiour to all the Bishops within the Roman Province, it had been hard, not to say unjust and unreasonable in them to conceal it, and an irreparable injury to that Church, to derive its authority from any meaner original. An injury, which we cannot con∣ceive but that the Popes Le∣gates, who were then in Coun∣cil, must have immediately en∣tred their Protest against. But the Christian World was as yet unacquainted with such Noti∣ons, and the Popes then either did not claim any such power, or to be sure durst not chal∣lenge it in that Assembly, where they knew it must be shame∣fully baffled and rejected.

What Power soever our Lord or his Apostles convey'd to Bi∣shops, this is certain, that all

Bishops as such stand upon a common level, and that Supe∣riority and Subordination among them is meerly from humane positive Institution, borrowed from the Forms in the civil state, and with great reason brought in to comply with the conveniencies and necessities of the Church. And to this the Fathers usually refer it. Thus we see they here determined the case of Metropolitans. And in the following Canon the Bishop of Jerusalem's taking place next to his Metropolitan before all the other Bishops of that Pro∣vince, is ascrib'd to custome, and ancient tradition. In the Council of Ephesus the Bishop of Antioch was complain'd of for invading the Rights of the Metropolitan of Cyprus, in de∣ciding whereof the Fathers af∣firm,

* 1.80 it would be sufficient prejudice to his cause, if he had not ancient custome on his side: And having determin'd the case against him, decree, That every Province should en∣joy those original Rights pure and inviolable, which had been deriv'd to them by long con∣tinuance, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according as the power of ancient custome had prevail'd. And when some years after by reason of the Incursions of the barbarous people, the Metropolitan of Cy∣prus was forc't to remove to Nova Justinianopolis in the Hellespont, the Fathers of the sixt Council in Trullo confirm'd * 1.81 his rights to him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ac∣cording to ancient custome: For the Holy Fathers (say they) have de∣termin'd, that Customs should be preserv'd in every Church.

VI. THAT the Ordination of Provincial Bishops was one of the prime Rights and Priviledges of every Metropolitan within his own Jurisdi∣ction. No Man in those days was bound to go beyond his own Metropolis, much less did they know of any obligation to seek to Rome either for Consecrati∣on, or Confirmation. And for this the Laws of the Church are as express and peremptory as words could make them. Our great Council had made Provision herein by their fourth Canon, that a Bishop should be Ordain'd by all the Bishops in the Province: But because pers haps business, or distance, might render that inconvenient, and sometimes impossible, they decree that it should be done by three, the rest testifying their consent in writing; and that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the validity of what was done, should be from the Confirmation of the Metropoli∣tan in every Province.

And because the case of Mele∣tius was then before them, and had rais'd a mighty noise and clamour, they again establish this matter in the close of the sixth Canon by way of recapi∣tulation, that whoever should be made Bishop without the consent of his Metropolitan, his Ordination should be null and void, and that if any doubt and dispute arose in this case, the majority of Votes should carry it: Accordingly in their Synodical Epistle * 1.82 to the Church of Alexandria they tell them, they had taken care about the Election of their Bishops, and that it must be with the Concurrence and Confirmation

of the Bishop of Alexandria. This Constitution we find unani∣mously ratified by almost all following Councils; by that of Antioch a 1.83 most expresly, by that of Laodicea b 1.84, by that of Sardica c 1.85, by the Second d 1.86 and Fourth e 1.87 Councils of Car∣thage, by the general Council of Chalcedon f 1.88, who take no∣tice of the neglect of some Me∣tropolitans in delaying the Or∣dinations of their Provincial Bi∣shop; and in the particular con∣troversie between Anastasius of Nice, and Eunomius of Nicome∣dia g 1.89, they all with one voice ratify the Nicene Canon.

In all which Canons, and in∣finite more that might be men∣tion'd, there is not the least in∣timation given of any Preroga∣tive peculiar to the Bishop of Rome, or that he has any power

to take this Right out of the hands of the respective Metro∣politans. Nor is Ordination the only Priviledge which the Sy∣nod of Nice vests in Metropoli∣tans, for though they more par∣ticularly insist upon this, be∣cause Meletius had given such fresh occasion by violating the Metropolitan Rights of Alexan∣dria, yet in the beginning of the sixt Canon they establish their Priviledges in general, that they should have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all the ancient Powers and Privi∣ledges that belong'd to their Churches in every Province.

What these were, practice and the subsequent Canons of the Church do inform us; to take care that vacant Sees were well supplied, to call Provincial Synods, to disperse Canons there agreed on

for the common good, to end controversies between their Bi∣shops, to admonish the unruly, to censure and suspend the irre∣regular, to give communicato∣ry Letters to their Provincial Bishops that were to go into foreign parts, and such like. In short, the Synod of Antioch (than which perhaps none ever made wiser and better Rules for the Government and Discipline of the Church) order * 1.90 the Bishops of every Province not only to honour their Metropolitan, but to do nothing of moment with∣out his consent.

Lastly, I observe hence, That this way of Ecclesiastick Administra∣tion was not any late Novel Insti∣tution, but was founded upon anci∣ent custome and practice. 'Twas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, says the Canon most expresly. How far this Anti∣quity

does extend, it is not ea∣sie precisely to determine. Sal∣masius * 1.91 himself grants it for an hundred years before the Synod of Nice: And we would not have thankt him for a larger concession, had the state of things before that Council been as clearly transmitted to us, as they were afterwards. Indeed the Records and Writings of those early Ages are generally lost, and the defending Christi∣anity from the assaults of Hea∣thens on the one side, and He∣reticks on the other, take up the far greatest part of those few that remain. So that little light is afforded us to disco∣ver the Originals of particular Churches, and to trace out the gradual advances of Polity and Church-Discipline. Whether the Apostles themselves fixt a Supe∣riour

Bishop in every Metropo∣lis of the civil State, as some will have it; or whether the Apostles only form'd the Scheme and draught, but left it to fol∣lowing Ages to erect and set it up, as de Marca * 1.92 thinks, I leave it to the Reader, who is curi∣ous about these matters, to weigh their arguments, and then pass his Sentence.

To me it seems probable that it actually commenc'd not long after the Apostolick Age, when Sects and Schisms began to break in apace, and when the Apostles who were the supream Gover∣nours and Moderators being re∣mov'd off the Stage, and con∣troversies multiplying between particular Bishops, it was found necessary to pitch upon one in every Province, to whom the Umpirage of cases might be re∣ferr'd,

and by whom all com∣mon and publick affairs might be directed.

In the declining part of the second Century we find Philip styl'd * 1.93 not only Bishop of the Diocess of Gortyna, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) but also of all the rest of the Churches or Dioceses (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) in Crete, a∣mong which Pinytus is reckon'd Bishop of the Parochia of Gnossus. Towards the latter end of the same Century we find several Provincial Synods conven'd for determining the Paschal contro∣versie * 1.94: Pope Victor presided in that at Rome; in that of Pa∣lestine, Theophilus Bishop of Caesa∣rea, and Narcissus of Jerusalem; where Narcissus is joyn'd with Theophilus, because the Bishop of Jerusalem had ever the place of honour next to his Metro∣politan

of Caesarea, and this (say our Nicene Fathers) from custome and ancient tradition. Polycra∣tes Bishop of Ephesus, at the re∣quest of Victor summon'd a Sy∣nod of the Bishops of Asia (i. e. of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia, whereof Ephesus was the Metro∣polis) wherein he was presi∣dent, who all subscrib'd his o∣pinion, as he tells us in his Let∣ter to Pope Victor. In France there was a convention 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Bishops of the several Gallick Dioceses, wherein Irenaeus Bishop of the Metropolis of Lyons was chief Moderator. Bacchylus also Bi∣shop of Corinth (that was a Me∣tropolis too) held a Synod of the Bishops of Achaia (if S. Je∣rome * 1.95 understand Eusebius aright) and in their name wrote an E∣pistle about this matter. This

the Author of the Ancient Syno∣dicon * 1.96 calls a Provincial Synod, and expresly styles Bacchylus Arch-bishop of Corinth. How oft does S. Cyprian * 1.97 mention his Province, and his Fellow-Bishops in it, to whom he communica∣ted affairs of the Church, and commanded (Mandavimus is his own word) their help and assi∣stance: and this Province no mean one neither, as extending over Africk properly so call'd, Numidia, and the two Maurita∣nia's.

Nor can I see any reason with Salmasius * 1.98 to understand it of the civil Province, especially when the best reason he gives, is, that the Power of Primates or Metropolitans was not yet in force, which is a plain and shameful begging of the Questi∣on. Indeed if he means it only of

the Title, by which they were call'd, I grant that the word Metropolitan is very rarely, if perhaps at all, to be found in any Authentick Writer before the time of the Nicene Council: They were in those days styl'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first Bishops, and the Heads of Provinces, (as is plain from the XXXIV. Apostolick Canon) i. e they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the chief Bishops that re∣sided in the several Metropoles, as Zonaras truly expounds that Canon. But whatever becomes of the Title, the thing it self is plain to all that are not byass'd by prejudice and partiality, that there was a Superiour Bishop in every Province, resident at the Metropolis, who partly by himself, partly by the assistance of his Provincial Bishops meeting

in Council, usually manag'd all the more important Church-af∣fairs within that Province.

The Sum in short of this great Nicene Canon amounts to this That the greater limits of Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction were concurrent with the Provinces of the Roman Empire, that the prime Governours within those bounds were the Metropolitans, and though some were more honourable than others, by rea∣son of the eminency of their Episcopal Stations, yet that e∣very Metropolitan had a free and independent power of Or∣dination, and steering the main affairs of the Church within that Province; that the Bishop of Rome had the same, and no more within the Roman Pro∣vince; a Power not granted by any immediate commission,

or Divine authority, but intro∣duc't for conveniency, and set∣led by custome and long con∣tinuance.

CHAP. III. The extent of the Bi∣shop of Romes Jurisdi∣ction, considered as a Metropolitan.

A Search into the proper bounds of the Roman Bishop. His Power Four-fold, Episcopal, Metropoli∣tical, Patriarchal, Apostolical. The First not controverted. The last discharg'd as extravagant and groundless, and as frequent∣ly baffled, both by the Reform∣ed, and Greek Church. L. Al∣latius's

Jeer of his Country∣men. His Metropolitical Ju∣risdiction considered as concur∣rent with that of the Provost of Rome. That how great, and how far extending. The Suburbicary Regions what. Si∣cily no part of the Urbicary Regions. The usual conformity between the extent of the Civil and Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction in those times. The Power of the Roman Metropolitan confin'd within an Hundred Miles of Rome. Rufinus his Expositi∣on of the Suburbicary Church∣es. Greatly quarrell'd at by the Romish Writers. His autho∣rity in other cases allow'd suffi∣cient and unquestionable. His Book approv'd by Pope Gelasi∣us and others. No probability of his being mistaken in the sence of the Canon, or the extent of

the Roman Metropolitanship, or the Suburbicary Church∣es. His Explication confirm'd by most ancient Interpreters of this Canon. The Bishops of Rome and Italy distinct. The Bishop of Milan ranckt with him of Rome. The objection of the Bishop of Romes being confin'd to so narrow a compass, consi∣dered and answered. The Ma∣jores Dioeceses in the Epistle of the Synod of Arles what. The bounds of the Roman Bishops shew'd to have been heretofore small from an ancient Notitia Episcopatuum. The fraud in the first publication of that No∣titia. Morinus noted. The greatness of Rome equivalent to a large extent.

I. THUS far then we have gain'd; that the Bishop of Rome as well as the rest was bounded within his Metropolitical Province; the Council supposing this as the ground of its constitution, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have jurisdiction over all with∣in his Province, as the Bishop of Rome had in his. 'Tis true, the Council does not assign the proper limits of the Roman Me∣tropolitanship, as it does that of Alexandria, there being a more particular reason why it should specify the latter, that being the Subject under debate, and the main, if not only oc∣casion of the Canon; we must therefore search it out some o∣ther way.

And here we are told * 1.99 of a Three-fold power vested in the Pope; Episcopal, Patriarchal, and Apostolical; or as others * 1.100 distin∣guish a little more accurately, he may be considered under a Four-fold capacity, as a Bishop, as a Metropolitan, as a Patri∣arch, and lastly as Pope, or as he is the Vicar of Christ, and Head of the Universal Church. In which capacity he is not on∣ly more honourable than all other Bishops and Patriarchs, but has full authority over them, to consecrate, confirm, or depose them, yea when he pleases, to suppress old, and to erect new Episcopal Sees. Here∣by (they tell us) he is consti∣tuted Judge over all Churches in the World, and may at plea∣sure visit, govern, and give Laws to them. For the First

of these, as he is a private Bi∣shop, we have no controversie with him: And for the last, his Supreme and Apostolical power over the whole Christi∣an Church; 'tis so wild and extravagant a claim, so ground∣less and precarious, so utter a stranger to Scripture and Pri∣mitive Antiquity, that it's need∣less to take pains in the refuting of it. Nay, the Popes them∣selves how desirous soever to amplify their own Power, have not yet dar'd to challenge it where they knew it would be disputed or denied. In the dis∣course that past between Con∣stantius and Pope Liberius about the condemnation of Athanasi∣us, the Emperour askt him, * 1.101 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what great part of the World are you, that you only should take his part?

and that (as he urges a little before) when the whole World had past Sentence upon him. The proper answer to which (had Liberius known of any such power) had been this. I only am intrusted by Christ with Supream Authority over the whole Church, and I having acquitted him, 'tis no matter though the whole World be∣sides has condemn'd him. And so no doubt he would have an∣swered, had he been aware of any such Prerogative affixt to his See. But Popes had not then set this claim on foot, nor 'tis like dreamt of it, nor if they had, was the World as yet dis∣pos'd to receive it. Something we said to this before, when we considered the Bishop of Rome as standing uppermost a∣mong the Metropolitans men∣tion'd

in the Nicene Canon. To add more, were a vain, and im∣pertinent loss of time; especi∣ally after so much as has been said upon this Argument, both by the Writers of the Greek Church, (Alexius Aristinus, Zo∣nar as, Balsamon, Matthaeus Blasta∣res, Pet. Antiochenus, Macarius Ancyranus, Demetrius Chomatenus, Barlaam, Nilus Thessalonicensis, Nicetus Seidus, Nilus Doxopatrius, Geo. Coressius, Gabriel Philadel∣phensis, Maximus Margunius, Me∣letius Alexandrinus, &c. whom Leo Allatius * 1.102 in a scornful insul∣tation over the deplorable state of his own Country is pleas'd to style Graecanica ingenia, the Witts of Greece) and by them of the Reform'd Religion, and by some too of their own Church, by whom all pleas and pretences to this power

have been so often and so shamefully baffled, that a man would wonder if at this time of the day they should be again rallied, and brought into open Field. It remains then that we consider him in his Metropoliti∣cal, and Patriarchal capacity.

II. AND first we shall en∣quire what were the bounds of his Metropolitical Power.

And the best measures we can take in this matter, will be to enquire into the extent of the civil Jurisdiction of the Pro∣vost of Rome, with which that that of the Roman Prelate must run parallel, no man can doubt, that considers the course of things in those times, when in this re∣spect the Church and the State went so fairly hand in hand. A thing not only affirm'd by Protestants, but granted by the

most Learned and zealous Wri∣ters of the Church of Rome. Let us therefore consider first how the case stood in the civil State.

The Prefect of Rome was an Officer of great Antiquity, in∣stituted in the very infancy of that state, while govern'd by Kings, but being only of a pro tempore-use, was never made fixt and ordinary till Augustus, who being much engag'd in foraign Wars, appointed a Magistrate, who might in the interim sup∣ply his room, manage his af∣fairs, and administer Justice at home. His publick appearan∣ces were very pompous and stately, and he had several great Officers under him, as may be seen in the Notitia Imperii. The greatest persons in the City were not exempt from his pow∣er, for calling five persons of

the Senatorian Order to his as∣sistance, he might try and pass Sentence upon the Head of a Senator himself. His Govern∣ment extended not only to Rome, but to an hundred miles round about it, where the limits of his jurisdiction ceas'd, as is ex∣presly said in a Rescript a 1.103 of the Emperour Severus. Ditioni suae non solum Roma commissa (quamvis in illa contineantur uni∣versa) verum etiam intra Centesi∣mum Miliarium potestatem te pro∣tendere, antiqua jura voluerunt, as his Patent runs in b 1.104 Cassi∣odore.

Within this compass were se∣veral Countries, which partly from their lying round about, partly from their subjection to, and dependance upon the praefe∣cture of Rome, were usually styl'd Urbicariae c 1.105 and Suburbicariae d 1.106,

and Suburbanae Regiones e 1.107, some∣times also Regiones solitae f 1.108, the Countries within which the Governour of Rome was wont to exercise his solemn jurisdi∣ction, and Vicinae Regiones g 1.109, Countries that lie next to the City. And these I doubt not are those Four Regions menti∣on'd in a Law h 1.110 of Constan∣tine M. directed to Orfitus Prae∣fect of the City.

III. THIS circumference Salmasius conceives * 1.111 (though herein stiffly oppos'd by his Learned Antagonist) to be the Romana regio, mention'd in an old Inscription at Nola, and by the Historian (as he corrects * 1.112 him out of an ancient Ma∣nuscript) in the Life of Probus, where 'tis oppos'd to Verona, Benacum, and other Regions of Italy; and that this was the

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Region of the Romans, spoken of by Ignatius in the front of his Epistle to that Church. What these Four Regions were, mention'd in the Law of Constantine, is not agreed by those that have searcht fur∣thest into this matter. Gotho∣fred * 1.113 makes them to have been Tuscia Suburbicaria (ano∣ther part of it being call'd An∣nonaria) Picenum Suburbicarium (to distinguish it from the An∣nonarium) and of these there is no doubt: The other Two he makes to be Latium Vetus, and Latium Novum, lying South of Rome, and extending as far as Sinuessa upon the River Safo, which divided beween Latium and Campania. Salmasius * 1.114 will have the Latium Vetus and No∣vum to have been but one and the same, and which was after∣wards

call'd Campania Latina, and to fill up the number, substi∣tutes the Province of Valeria, so call'd from the Valerian way, that lay through it. Another French Lawyer, * 1.115 who takes upon him in less than half a sheet of Paper (which he pub∣lisht on purpose) to state the controversie, will have five of the Eleven Regions (into which Pliny tells us Augustus the Em∣perour divided Italy) to belong to this, viz. the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh, as those that lay next the City, and were bounded with the Rivers Tifernus and Silarus on the East, and Marca and Constantinum on the West. But herein he offers no other evidence than his own conjecture. Sirmondus * 1.116 (and o∣thers after him) extends the number of the Suburbicary Coun∣tries

to Ten, which he makes the same with the Ten Provin∣ces, that were under the Vica∣rius Urbicus, and to have thence taken their denomination.

But there are two things a∣mongst many others that lye strongly in prejudice of that o∣pinion, and with me turn the Scales. First, That some of these Ten Provinces, especially the Three Islands of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica lay too remote to come under the notion of Sub∣urbicary Regions: For Urbicari∣um, and Suburbicarium, Suburba∣num, and Suburbicum all import∣ing the same thing (as the Learned Jerom Aleander * 1.117 readi∣ly grants) must necessarily im∣ply their lying within some to∣lerable neighbourhood to the City. Secondly, That Sicily, one of the Ten Provinces be∣longing

to the Vicarius Urbicus, is most expresly distinguish'd * 1.118 from the Urbicary Regions, and as equally as 'tis from Italy, strictly so call'd, that is, the Seven Provinces that constituted the Italick Diocess. A case so clear, that Sirmond * 1.119 though he endeavours to say something to it, yet 'tis so thin and trifling, that it rather shews he had a good mind to answer it, than that his answer would ever hold water. Others * 1.120 are wil∣ling to suggest, as if in that Law of Constantius, Illyricum ought to be read instead of Sicily: but this is thrown in only as a con∣jecture, and that too against all reason, Illyricum belonging at that time to another jurisdicti∣on. For by the famous distribu∣tion * 1.121 which Constantine the Great made of the Parts and Offices

of the Empire, Illyricum was under a Praetorian Prefect of its own, and so I suppose conti∣nued all the time of Constantius (in the latter part of whose Reign this Law was made) though afterwards a great part of it was laid to the command of the Praetorian Prefect of Italy. But Morinus * 1.122 like a young and daring Champion that was re∣solv'd to do the work, is for quite dashing it out of the Bo∣dy of the Law, as a word con∣trary to the usage of that time. All which shuffling Artifices are a shrew'd sign it was a bad cause they had to manage.

In short, though men of Learning may by tricks and subtilty intangle and perplex an argument (as they have done in this controversie) yet two things are plain beyond all just

exception. First, that the Ju∣risdiction of the City-Praefect reacht an Hundred miles about Rome. Secondly, that the Ur∣bicary and Suburbicary Regions lay chiefly, and in all likelyhood, intirely within that compass, and deriv'd that title from their vicinity to the City, and their immediate dependance upon the Government of its Provost. And I cannot but a little wonder that Sirmond, who more than once grants * 1.123 the Praefect of Rome to have had jurisdiction within an Hundred miles, should yet as often deny * 1.124, that he had any Provinces under his Government, as if there had been no Provinces within that compass, when they are expres∣ly call'd the Suburbanae Provinciae in the Theodosian Code * 1.125, and the ordinary Judges in those parts

commanded to return all great∣er causes to the Tribunal of the City-Praefect, and this in contra∣distinction to the course of o∣ther Provinces, which were to be accountable to the Praetorian Praefect.

IV. HAVING thus found out the Jurisdiction of the Ro∣man Praefect, it should one would think be no hard matter to dis∣cover that of the Bishop of Rome, there being so known a correspondence between the Ci∣vil and Ecclesiastical Govern∣ment of those days. And though this did not always, nor Uni∣versally take place (and how should it, when time, and the Will of Princes made such al∣terations in the bounds of places and Provinces?) yet did it ge∣nerally obtain. A thing intro∣duc'd at first for greater conve∣niency,

founded upon long cu∣stome, and settled by several Laws and Canons of the Church, insomuch that if a change or alteration had been, or should hereafter be made by imperial authority in any City, that then the Order of Episcopal Sees should follow the civil and Po∣litical forms, as is expresly pro∣vided by two general Councils, the one of Chalcedon * 1.126, the o∣ther of Constantinople * 1.127. Nor can any reason be given, why the Bishop of Alexandria should exercise a Pastoral Authority over Three such large Provin∣ces, as Egypt, Libya and Penta∣polis, but only because they were under the civil Govern∣ment of the Praefectus Augustalis, the Imperial Vice-roy, who kept his residence in that City. The Jurisdiction then of the Bishop

of Rome being of equal circum∣ference with that of the Roman Provost, must extend to all the City-Provinces, that lay within an Hundred miles round about it.

Accordingly we find that when great disturbances were made in the Church of Rome by the Manichees, and other He∣reticks and Schismaticks, Valen∣tinian the Third writes * 1.128 to Fau∣stus Praefect of Rome to expel them all out of the City; but especially to proceed against those who separated themselves from the Communion of the venerable Pope, and whose Schism did infect the people; commanding him, that if upon warning given they should not within Twenty days reconcile themselves, he should banish them One hundred miles out of the City; that so they might

be punisht with their self-chosen solitude and separation. The Emperour thinking it but just, that they who had voluntarily rejected, should be themselves cast out of the bounds of his Jurisdiction, that they who had perverted many in the Capital City, should not be left with∣in any part of his Diocess to in∣fect the people. And this was done in compliance with the course observ'd in civil cases, where notorious malefactours were so us'd. Thus Symmachus * 1.129 the Gentile was for his inso∣lence banish'd an Hundred miles out of Rome. And some Ages before that, Severus having cashiered the Souldiers that mur∣dered the Emperour Pertinax, banisht * 1.130 them, and charg'd them at the peril of their Heads not to come within an Hundred miles

of Rome, that is, within the li∣mits of the City-Praefecture. And more plainly yet, in the case of Ursicinus, who had rais'd infinite stirs at Rome about the choice of Pope Damasus, and had set up himself as Com∣petitor in that Election, for which he had been banish'd in∣to France, Valentinian the Elder afterwards (as appears by his Rescript * 1.131 directed to Ampelius the City-Provost) gave him and his companions leave to return into Italy, provided they came not to Rome, nor any place within the Suburbicary Regions, that is, within the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop.

But Rufinus has put the case beyond all question, who in his short paraphrase (for for a tran∣slation we may be sure he never intended it) of the Sixt Nicene

Canon, tells * 1.132 us, that accord∣ing to ancient custome, as he of Alexandria had in Egypt, so the Bishop of Rome had the care and charge of the Suburbicary Church∣es. The Champions of the Roman Church finding them∣selves sorely pinch'd with this authority, have no other way to relieve themselves but to throw it quite off their Necks, and to fall foul upon Rufinus, loading him with all the hard Names and Characters of re∣proach, charging him with ma∣lice, falshood, ignorance, want of learning, and indeed what not. But the World is not now to be taught that Rufinus was a Man of parts and learning, witness the reputation which his Works had of old, and still have to this day. Pope Gelasius with his Synod of seven∣ty

Bishops allow'd * 1.133 them (the case only of free-will except∣ed:) And among the rest his Ecclesiastical History, wherein this very Nicene Canon is ex∣tant, and gives him too the title of a Religious Man into the bar∣gain. So that Rufinus his Ex∣position has the Popes own ap∣probation on its side. And sure∣ly if ever his judgment be in∣fallible, it is, when he has his Council about him to advise and assist him. And though perhaps that Gelasian Synod, if searcht into, may not be of that authentick credit, as to lay any considerable stress upon it, yet however it stands good a∣gainst them, that own its au∣thority, and thereby approve its determination. And though it had not given this testimony to Rufinus, yet there wants not

other evidence that the thing was so. Accordingly Hincmar of Rhemes, speaking of this very Book of Rufinus whence this passage is taken, assures us * 1.134, it was one of those that were re∣ceiv'd in the Catalogue of the Apostolick See. Nay, his Eccle∣siastical History obtain'd such credit, that it was wont so∣lemnly to be appeal'd * 1.135 to by Fathers and Councils in some of the most weighty and im∣portant cases of the Church.

V. NOR is there any sha∣dow of probability, that he should be mistaken either in the sence of the Nicene Canon, or in the Province of the Bishop of Rome. He was himself an Italian, born not above Twen∣ty years after the Synod of Nice, Baptiz'd, and perhaps born at Aquileia, a famous City

of Friuli, (honoured heretofore with the residence of Augustus and some other Emperours, and made afterwards a Metropolis, and the Seat of the Praetorian Prefect) and himself a Presby∣ter of that Church: He had been frequently conversant at Rome, had travell'd over most parts of the Christian World, and had convers'd with per∣sons of the greatest note and eminency in every place. In all which respects he could no more mistake the jurisdiction of the See of Rome, than we can suppose, that a Prebend of York born and bred in the Church of England, should be ignorant how far the Province of Canter∣bury does extend. Nor can there be the least reason to imagine, either that by Subur∣bicary Churches Rufinus should

mean any other, than what lay within those Provinces, that were universally known by that title, or that he should dare so openly, and in the face of the World to shut up the Bishop of Rome within those Suburbica∣ry Regions, had not his power at the time of the Nicene Coun∣cil (whose Canon he must in all reason be suppos'd to ex∣plain as things stood at the time of that Synod) been no∣toriously known to have been confin'd within those limits.

But what need we take pains to vindicate the credit of our witness? he stands not alone in this matter, his testimony being sufficiently justified by concur∣rent evidence. The ancient Ver∣sion of the Nicene Canons (pub∣lish'd by Sirmond * 1.136 out of the Records of the Vatican, and an∣other

exactly agreeing with it by Mons. Justell, from a very ancient Manuscript) the Author whereof was perhaps not much later than Rufinus, renders it by Suburbicaria loca, the Suburbicary places; the three Arabick Ver∣sions, the Alexandrian, that of the Melchites, and the Paraphrase of Joseph the Egyptian, all ex∣press it to the same effect, that he should have power over his Countries and Provinces, and what ever lay next to him: Alex. Ariste∣nus, and Sim. Logotheta, two Greek Canonists, and a third ancient Epitomizer of the Ca∣nons, mention'd by Leo Alla∣tius * 1.137, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the places and Provinces that lay under Rome, i. e. the Suburbicary Coun∣tries.

Nor will it a little contri∣bute to the further clearing of

this matter, to observe, that as the civil Government of the Roman Provost is distinguish'd from that of Italy in the Wri∣tings of those times, so is this of the Roman Prelate: and this distinction very ancient. When Paul of Samosata Bishop of An∣tioch refus'd to give Domnus pos∣session of that Church, an ap∣peal was made to the Empe∣rour Aurelian, who referr'd the Decision of the case to the Bi∣shops of Italy and of Rome, as Eusebius * 1.138 tells us: and in the title of the Letter written by the Sardican Synod to the Church of Alexandria, 'tis said, * 1.139 that the Bishops Assembled from Rome and Italy, i. e. Italy taken in its strict and peculiar notion, as 'tis there distingusht from Campania, Calabria, &c. Thence Milan as being Head

of the Italick Dioces, is in an Ecclesiastick sence call'd * 1.140 the Metropolis of Italy, and Dionysius Bishop of that Church styl'd * 1.141 Bishop of the Metropolis of Italy, and Sulpitius Severus speaking of Priscilian and his company com∣ing into Italy, says * 1.142 they ad∣dress'd themselves to Damasus Bishop of Rome, and Ambrose of Milan, as Bishops that had the greatest authority in those days. And in this respect in the civil sence Berterius * 1.143 truly makes Rome to be the Metropolis of the Suburbicary Regions, as Mi∣lan was of the rest of Italy.

VI. BUT it seems no small prejudice to the great men of that Church, that so venerable a person as the Bishop of Rome should be pent up with∣in such narrow limits, much inferiour to many others, espe∣cially

him of Alexandria or Antioch. But besides that the Eastern Dio∣ceses (as some think) were gene∣rally larger than those of the West, the Ecclesiastick Provinces (as we noted before) were re∣strain'd to the form of the ci∣vil constitution, and were more or fewer, as it happened in the political Distribution: Wherein if the Roman Bishop had not so large an extent as some o∣thers, yet was it made up in the number, and frequency of Episcopal Sees, beyond what was in all those times in other places of the like extent. And therefore when the Synod at Arles in their Letter * 1.144 to Pope Sylvester, say that he did majo∣res Dioeceses tenere (a passage fre∣quently quoted by the Writers of the Roman Church) possess greater Dioceses; besides, that

the place as Salmasius * 1.145 ob∣serves is very corrupt, and af∣fords no currant sence, 'tis plain that the word Diocess there can∣not be understood of Patriarchal Dioceses (Constantine not having yet made the division of the Empire, nor Dioceses come up in a civil, much less in an Ec∣clesiastical sence) and must there∣fore be meant of single Bish∣opricks, in the modern use of the word, and which was not unusual in those days, as is evi∣dent from the Code of the Afri∣can Church, and the conference between the Catholicks and Do∣natists at Carthage, where nothing is more common and obvious than this usage of the word Diocess, for a single Episcopal See; the places * 1.146 are too nu∣merous to be reckon'd up. And thus also. Pope Leo uses

* 1.147 the word in the case of Re∣stitutus an African Bishop.

VII. AND indeed that the bounds of the Church of Rome for several Ages after the Ni∣cene Council were much nar∣rower than some others, appears from an old Greek Notitia Epi∣scopatuum, wherein the five Pa∣triarchates are distinctly reckon'd up, with all the Provinces and Bishopricks contain'd under them. Where under him of Rome, are set down no more than six Provinces (whereof the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Pro∣vince of Urbicary Rome is the first) containing not above One hun∣dred and eight Episcopal Sees. A number far inferiour to the rest, especially the Patriarch of Con∣stantinople, who had subject to him XXXiii Provinces, and in them CCCLXXXiX Bishopricks,

besides some others then new∣ly added to him. This Notitia had been heretofore publisht by Carolus a S. Paulo in his Geo∣graphia Sacra, but when he came to that part of it that con∣cerns the Diocess of Rome, he quite leaps over it, pretending the Manuscript Copy to be im∣perfect, and that the words were so corrupted, that scarce any one remain'd entire; lea∣ving somewhat more than a bare suspicion, that he himself, or some before him had pur∣posely rac'd the Manuscript, least the nakedness of the Coun∣try, the thinness and smallness of the Roman Diocess in com∣parison of others, should be discovered. But to their great confusion it has been lately pub∣lish'd * 1.148 intire and perfect out of the Oxford Library, where

the account that we have given is plain and notorious. All which considered, with how little reason and pretence to truth does Morinus * 1.149 appeal to the Ecclesiastick Notitia's, even such as were made long after the times of Constantine, to prove the amplitude of the Roman Province, as to the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. But to return, there can be no rea∣son to expect, that the Eccle∣siastick limits in those days should be longer than those of the State, which were the stan∣dard and measure, by which the others were ordinarily re∣gulated. Nor is the greatness of any Jurisdiction so much to be measured by the largeness of its extent, as by the honor and authority of the place, where 'tis exercised; as that of the

Lord Mayor of London, though reaching no further than the Liberties of the City, (which take not in half the Suburbs) is yet a more honourable autho∣rity, than that of a Sheriff of the largest County in England. In this regard the Bishop of Rome had though a shorter cut, a better and more noble Juris∣diction, than any other Prelate in the World besides; Rome be∣ing the Seat of Majesty and Power, the residence of the Emperours, the highest Court of Justice, the place to which all parts paid either homage, or at least respect and veneration, honoured with the Title of ROME THE GREAT, the Pro∣vost whereof was reckoned next * 1.150 in honour to the Emperour, and up∣on all occasions went

equal in dignity to the Praetorian Pre∣fect, who yet com∣manded ten times as many Provinces: He had the precedence a 1.151 of all the great Officers of Rome, and to him belong'd Ci∣vilium rerum summa, b 1.152 the management of all civil affairs. Hence the Title gi∣ven to Sylvester, is that of Bishop of the Imperial City c 1.153 and the Council of Chalcedon tells us, that the Fathers therefore gave a Prerogative to the See of Rome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be∣cause that was the Governing and Imperial City; and Con∣stantius the Emperour though

he had already condemn'd and depos'd Athanasius, did yet to put the better colour upon it, desires to have it ratified by the au∣thority enjoy'd by the Bishops of the eternal City, as the Hea∣then Historian * 1.154 has remark'd. And thus much may serve for the Metropolitical bounds of the Roman Prelate.

CHAP. IV. An Enquiry into the Rise and Original of Patriarchs in the Chri∣stian Church.

An Enquiry into the Rise and Ori∣ginal of Patriarchs in general. None before the Council of Nice. What that Council contributed to them. Civil Dioceses when, and by whom introduc'd. These gave start to Primary Metropolitans. Dioceses, when first brought in∣to the Church. The title of Patriarch borrowed from the Jews. Who their Patriarchs, and whence descended. Exarchs what. The word Patriarch when

first us'd by Church-writers in a strict and proper sence. The Pa∣triarchs among the Montanists, who. A short Survey of the four great Patriarchates. The ex∣tent of the Patriarchate of Ale∣xandria. The Dioecesis Aegy∣ptiaca, what. The Patriarchal Jurisdiction in what sence larger than that of the Augustal Pre∣fect. Little gain'd to this Pa∣triarchate more than a title of honour. The Patriarchate of Antioch commensurate to the Eastern Diocess. The contest about Cyprus how determin'd? Palestine for some time under Antioch. The Patriarchship of Constantinople. By what degrees it rose. What priviledge conferr'd upon it by the second general Coun∣cil. The Bishops henceforwards exercising a kind of Patriarchal power over the Churches of the

neighbouring Provinces. The Power granted to that See by the Council of Chalcedon. It's ninth, seventeenth and eight and twenty∣eth Canons considered to that pur∣pose. Jurisdiction over the three Dioceses of Asiana, Pontica, and Thrace. This settled upon a full debate and discussion of the matter. This Power own'd by the Synod to have been exer∣cised of a long time before. This grant urg'd against the univer∣sal Supremacy of the See of Rome. The extent of the Con∣stantinopolitan Patriarchate in after times manifested from se∣veral ancient Notitiae. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The honour confirm'd to this Church by the Nicene Council. Its sub∣jection to the See of Caesarea. When first attempting a Metro∣political Power. The contest be∣tween

this Bishop, and the Bi∣shop of Antioch How deter∣min'd in the Council of Chalce∣don. When first styl'd Patri∣arch. The extent of this Pa∣triarchate.

I. PROCEED we in the second place to consider him as a Pa∣triarch, the highest Degree of Ecclesiastick Govern∣ment which the Church ever owned. And in order to the better clearing the whole matter, it will be of some advantage, and perhaps not unpleasant to the Reader, to enquire briefly into the rise and original of Patriarchs in general, and then survey each particular Patriar∣chate. The rise of Patriarchs is but obscurely delivered in the Records of the Church,

the thing not being particular∣ly and by name taken notice of, 'till like a River that has run a great way, and gathered many tributary rivulets, it had swell'd it self into a considera∣ble stream.

That there were none at the time of the Nicene Council we shew'd before, the chief Church-Governours then being the Me∣tropolitans, some of which soon after set up for more room, and began to enlarge the bounds of their Jurisdiction. And two things there were greatly con∣tributed to that attempt. First, The mighty reputation which the Synod of Nice had given to Metropolitans, and especially to the particular Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. This inspir'd them with an ambiti∣ous affectation of extending their

Superiority and Jurisdiction, and prepar'd the way among their Brethren, for the easier recep∣tion of it. Socrates observ'd, * 1.155 that long before his time (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which must reach as far as the Council of Nice at least) the Bishop of Rome (as he also of Alexandria) had gone beyond the bounds of his place, and had aspir'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to a Power and Dominion over his Brethren. A remark so ve∣ry clear and plain (especially as to the Bishop of Rome) that nothing is more obvious in the whole History of the Church.

The Synod of Nice was be∣holden by all with a just re∣gard and veneration, and its Decrees receiv'd as Oracles from Heaven, and the Christian World finding what particular

care it had taken of those three great Sees, were the more rea∣dy to submit and strike Sail to their Usurpations. Hence the following Popes, but especial∣ly Leo the First, do upon all occasions magnifie the Nicene Canons, and amplify their meaning beyond what was at first intended by them. Second∣ly, The late division of the Em∣pire, and the alteration of it from that form, whereinto it had been cast, first by Augustus, and afterwards by the Emperour Hadrian, new modell'd by Con∣stantine the Great much about the time of the Nicene Coun∣cil, gave a singular advantage and opportunity to promote and further this design.

II. FOR Constantine intro∣duc't four Praetorian Praefectures, each Praefecture containing seve∣ral

Dioceses (XIII. in all) and each Diocess comprehending se∣veral Provinces, the Vicar or civil Lieutenant residing in the Metropolis of every Diocess, and presiding over all the Provinces within that division. And how easie was it, the World being so prepar'd and dispos'd, and the Church so readily embrace∣ing the forms of the civil state, for the chief Metropolitan of every Diocess to set up for him∣self. The dignity of the City where he resided, and the re∣sort of people thither for the dispatch of business made him at first be esteem'd and hono∣red as the First Bishop of the Diocess, and this in a little time brought on the priviledge of Ordaining the Metropolitans of the several Provinces, and to be intrusted with almost the same

powers over Metropolitans, which they had over Provin∣cial Bishops.

And no doubt it made per∣sons more willing to comply with such a Model, that have∣ing frequent occasion of repair∣ing to the Metropolis, (as is intimated in the ninth Canon of Antioch) they might with the greater conveniency dispatch their civil and Ecclesiastical af∣fairs both at once. It serv'd not a little to help on this bu∣siness, that the second general Council gave the Bishop of Con∣stantinople the next place of ho∣nour to him of Rome upon the account of its being the Impe∣rial City; which gave no small encouragement to the Bishops of all Diocesan Metropoles to at∣tempt the extending their Supe∣riority equal to that of the Im∣perial

Governour that kept his residence in that City. But that which puts the case past dispute is▪ that that Council took in the form of civil Dio∣ceses into the Church, at least, approv'd what was already taken in: for so they provide * 1.156 that Bishops should not go beyond the Diocess to meddle in Churches that were without their bounds.

Socrates * 1.157 giving an account of this Canon, says expresly, that the Fathers of the Synod having made division of the Provinces, constituted Patriarchs. And though perhaps by Pa∣triarchs Socrates means no more than those Pro tempore Commissioners who were with∣in such and such places ap∣pointed to judge who should be received to Catholick Com∣munion

(as we have else∣where * 1.158 observ'd) yet very plain it is, that the Council there intends Diocess properly, and in an Ecclesiastick sence, and therefore opposes it to Pro∣vince, ordaining that Bishops should not ordinarily go out of the Diocess to celebrate Ordi∣nations, or any other Church∣offices; and that the Canon concerning Dioceses being ob∣serv'd, the Synod in every Pro∣vince should manage the affairs of it according to the Nicene constitution. And in the sixt Canon they speak yet more ex∣presly, that if any take upon him to accuse a Bishop, he shall first exhibit and prosecute his charge before the Provin∣cial Synod; and in case they cannot end it, that then the accusers shall apply themselves

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the greater Synod of the Bishops of that Diocess, who shall be assembled for that purpose. And if any slighting the Bishops of the Diocess, shall sue to the Emperour, or the secular Tribunals, or to a general Council, he shall not in any wise be admitted to ex∣hibit an accusation, but be re∣jected as a Violator of the Ca∣nons, and a disturber of Eccle∣siastick Order. And to name no more in a case so evi∣dent, Pope Innocent * 1.159 in a Letter written about the year CCCCVIII. says of the Church of Antioch, that its authority reacht not over a single Pro∣vince, but over a Diocess; though withal he falsly makes it to have been so settled by the Synod of Nice. Nay long

before all this we meet with Ecclesiastick Dioceses in this sence. For by a Law * 1.160 of the Empe∣rour Gratian bearing date May the XVII. Ann. CCCLXXVI. it is provided, that the same customs that were in use in civil Judi∣catures, should obtain in Church matters, and the final decision and determination of Ecclesia∣stick causes should be made in their proper places, and by the Synod of every Diocess. And this course the Emperour insi∣nuates, as that which was not then first introduc't.

III. FROM all this it appears that according to the Political constitution, Diocesan or, as 'twas after call'd Patriarchal, Jurisdicti∣on was brought into the Church, and that accordingly the Bi∣shops of some of those Cities, who had hitherto been but

Metropolitans, advanc't into the Title and Dignity of Primates (which was the word that ge∣nerally obtain'd in the Western parts, the word Patriarch being late, and little us'd in the West∣ern Church) extending their su∣perintendency commensurate to the Jurisdiction of the Vicar of the Diocess. And because some of these Metropoles were Cities of far greater eminency and account than others, as Rome, Alexandria, &c therefore the Bishops of them were (in the East especially) honoured with the Title of Patriarchs, differing at first from other Primates not so much in power, as in dig∣nity and honour, they were di∣versorum nominum, sed ejusdem of∣ficii, as Gratian * 1.161 notes. That this Title of Patriarch was bor∣rowed from the Jews, there can

be no doubt. Upon the final destruction of their Church and State, they were dispers'd into several Countries, especially in the Eastern parts, where not being capable of continuing their Levitical Polity, exactly according to the Mosaick Insti∣tution, they constituted some persons to exercise the chief authority among that people, who kept their residence in some of the greater Cities, as at Babylon, Alexandria, Tiberias, and afterwards probably at Je∣rusalem. The persons thus made choice of, are thought to have been of the Tribe of Judah, and more particularly to have descended from the Line of Da∣vid. Epiphanius * 1.162 seems to make them (at least them of Tibe∣rias) to have been the Posteri∣ty of Gamaliel, the great Coun∣cellour

spoken of in the Acts. But Theodorit * 1.163 has a more pe∣culiar fancy, that they were the descendants of Herod the Great, who was by his Fathers side an Ascalonite, by his Mo∣thers an ••dumaean. But howe∣ver descended, they were en∣trusted with the chief Power and Government over the Jews within their particular Jurisdi∣ctions. These are they who so often calld 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Heads of the Exiles, and other∣whiles Princes, and frequently Patriarchs (though besides these Supream, it seems probable from some of the Imperial Laws, that they had an in∣feriour sort of Patriarchs, who were but just Superi∣our to their Presbyters, or El∣ders) of these Jewish Patriarchs there is frequent mention both

in Jewish a 1.164, and Christian b 1.165 writers, and especially in the Theodosian c 1.166 Code: Whence also 'tis evi∣dent that this Office and Title ceas'd, or rather was abolisht by the Imperial Authori∣ty not long before the year d 1.167 CCCCXXIX. in the time of the younger Theodosius. But though it be plain whence this Title was deriv'd, yet when it first sprung up in the Christian Church, it is hard to say. In the Canons * 1.168 of the Chalcedon Council he is call'd Exarch of the Diocess, and any Bishop or Clergy-man that has a controversie with his own Metropolitan, is al∣low'd to appeal to him (the

word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indifferently notes any chief Person in place or power, and the sence or it is to be determin'd according to the circumstances of the case: Thus the Canons mention both Exarch * 1.169 of the Province, and Exarch of the Diocess, the First denoting a Metropolitan, the Se∣cond a Patriarch) But in the Acts * 1.170 of that Council we are told of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the most holy Patri∣archs of every Diocess; and in the several Libels * 1.171 exhibited against Dioscurus, Pope Leo is intitled Patriarch of Great Rome. And that this Title was not then newly taken up we are assured from the Letters * 1.172 of Theodosius and his Empress Pla∣cidia, about calling the third general Council, holden at E∣phesus Ann. CCCCXXXI. in both

which Leo is styl'd the most Re∣verend Patriarch. This is the first time that I remember to have met with a Patriarch strictly so call'd, unless we will understand the passage of So∣crates I mention'd concerning Patriarchs in a proper sence.

IV. INDEED the Monta∣nists or Cataphrygians, who start∣ed up under the Reign of the Emperour Antoninus, had their Patriarchs. They had three Or∣ders * 1.173 of Church-Officers, Pa∣triarchs, Cenones and Bishops. But besides that they were an odd and absurd Sect, whom the Ca∣tholick Church alwas disown'd, 'tis not easie to guess what they meant by Patriarchs, whom they plainly make distinct from Bishops. They were it seems their prime Ecclesiastick Go∣vernours, the chief whereof re∣sided

probably at Pepuza in Phrygia, which they Fantastical∣ly call'd * 1.174 Jerusalem, affirming it to be the New Jerusalem, that came down out of Heaven, and this 'tis like in imitation of the Jewish High-Priest; for from the Judaical constitution they borrowed many of their De∣vices, and perhaps might bor∣row the very name as well as thing from them, the prime Church-Officer among the Jews after the Destruction of the Temple, and the Abrogation of that Polity, being styl'd Pa∣triarch, as we noted before. But it may be doubted, whe∣ther the Montanists had those three Orders from the begin∣ning of their Sect, it being ta∣ken notice of by none Elder than S. Jerome, nor that I know of, mention'd by any other an∣cient

Writer after him. How∣ever 'tis certain, that in the common use of the word, it occurrs not till the time of Pope Leo, and the Ephesine and Chalcedon Councils. After that the Title became fixt, and no∣thing more common than the word Patriarch, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Patriarchal Sees in the writings of the Church. What and how many these particu∣lar Sees were, we are told by the sixt Council in Trullo * 1.175, where they are particularly e∣numerated, and their order and precedency adjusted in this manner, Rome, Constantinople, A∣lexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. From hence then we descend to sur∣vey these particular Patriarchates; not designing to meddle with Secondary and later Patri∣archates, such as that of Aquileia,

Grado, Russia, the Patriarchs of the Maronites, Jacobites, Armeni∣ans, the Catholick or Patriarch of Bagdad or Mauzel and the like. Our business now is with the five ancient, and eminent Patriarchships, and though first in order, we shall reserve that of Rome to be treated of in the last place, intending to di∣scourse more fully concerning it.

V. WE begin with the Pa∣triarch of Alexandria (for I shall take them in order, as I con∣ceive they grew up in time) who seems to have gain'd little by his new Patriarchship be∣sides the honour of the Title, whether we consider him in point of precedency, in point of power, or in the extent of his Jurisdiction; nay in some respects he was a loser rather

than a gainer by it. In point of precedency, he was before the second Metropolitan in the whole Christian World, where∣as now he was thrust down into the third place. In point of power he was before this change sole Metropolitan of those parts, and the Ordinati∣on of his suffragan Bishops in∣tirely belong'd to him, or de∣pended upon his consent and confirmation, which now ac∣cording to the constitution of Church-Policy must be devolv'd upon the several Metropolitans under him: Nor was he much advanc't in the extent of his Jurisdiction.

'Tis true the Dioecesis Aegy∣ptiaca consisted of six large Provinces, all under the Go∣vernment of the Augustal Prae∣fect, who constantly resided at

Alexandria (and consequently in Spirituals belong'd to the Pa∣triarch of that place:) These in the Notitia Imperii * 1.176 we find thus reckon'd up; Libya Superior, Libya Inferior, Thebais, Aegyptus, Arcadia, Augustanica. Whereas in the Nicene Canon the Ale∣xandrian Metropolitanship is said to extend but over three, E∣gypt, Libya and Pentapolis. But when it is considered, that The∣bais, Arcadia and Augustanica, were of old parts of, and lay hid under the more general name of Egypt, and that Penta∣polis was the same with the Upper Libya, the account will be much the same.

We find in the Council of Nice * 1.177 that the Bishop of A∣lexandria was appointed to give an account of those Synodal transactions to the Churches

throughout all Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, and the neighbouring Countries as far as the Pro∣vinces of India. Where the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or whole Egypt (in opposition to the other two which were but single Provin∣ces) takes in Egypt strictly so call'd, Thebais, Arcadia and Au∣gustanica; and by the neighbo∣ring Regions that lay as far as India, are doubtless meant the Frontier Countries that border∣ed upon the Roman Provinces, and were perhaps confederate with the Empire, and where∣in 'tis like the Bishops of Ale∣xandria had propagated Christi∣anity (as we know Athanasius did in India) whose Churches therefore own'd a dependance upon the See of Alexandria. And in this respect I grant the Bishop had somewhat a larger

Jurisdiction than the Augustal Praefect, tho otherwise they were the same.

Upon the erection of this See into a Patriarchate, several Metropolitans start up: Ten of the Metropolitans of his Di∣ocess, the Emperour Theodo∣sius * 1.178 commanded Dioscorus to bring along with him to the Council of Ephesus. How many more he had is not certain. Nilus Doxopatrius in his Notitia * 1.179 says there were thirteen; the old Greek Notitia we mention'd be∣fore a 1.180 reckons ten Provin∣ces, and in them ninety nine Bishopricks, which surely ar∣gues that a miserable desolati∣on had laid waste those Coun∣tries, and reduc't the number of Episcopal Sees. Seeing be∣fore the time of the Nicene Council there met in Synod

near an Hundred * 1.181 Bishops out of Egypt and Libya, whom Alexander had summon'd to the condemnation of Arius. And that so many there were, Athanasius expresly * 1.182 tells us more than once. And how greatly Bi∣shopricks were multiplied af∣terwards, the Reader who is vers'd in these matters needs not be told.

VI. THE See of Antioch al∣ways took place next that of Alexandria, being ever account∣ed the prime City of the East. Like the rest it arose by de∣grees into a Patriarchate, First getting an honourary, then an au∣thoritative Superiority over that Diocess. During the Session of the Second general Council, the Bi∣shops not only of that Pro∣vince, but of the Eastern Dio∣cess met together to Ordain

Flavianus Bishop of Antioch, whose Act herein was ratified by the Vote of that Council, as the remaining part of the Synod, meeting again the next year, tell * 1.183 Pope Damasus in their Letter to him.

About this time, or rather sometime before, I guess the Bishop of Antioch had set up for a Patriarchal power, and had begun to enlarge his Juris∣diction from a Province to a Diocess. Now the Eastern Di∣ocess * 1.184 under the care of the Comes Orientis contain'd fifteen Provinces, the Three Palestine's, Phoenice, Syria, Cyprus, Phoenice Libani, Euphratensis, Syria Salu∣taris, Osrhoëna, Mesopotamia, Ci∣licia Secunda, Isauria and Arabia; Cyprus indeed stood out, and would not submit to the See of Antioch, and though the Bi∣shop

stickled hard to bring them under, yet the Cyprian Bishops stoutly maintain'd their ancient rights. The case was canvass'd and debated at large in the Council of Ephesus * 1.185, and upon hearing the whole matter, the Council adjudg'd it for the Cyprian Churches, that they should still enjoy their ancient 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 their liberties independent upon the See of Antioch, and pass'd a particular Canon in favour of them. And so they continued for many Ages: And therefore in the old Notitia * 1.186 Cyprus is not plac'd under any of the Patriarchates, but is noted to be a Province 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 having Jurisdiction within it self.

But the rest of the Provin∣ces for any thing that appears, submitted, and the Bishop of

Jerusalem with his Metropolitan of Caesarea, were both for some time under the See of Antioch. And this renders S. Jerom's meaning plain enough in that known passage * 1.187, when he tells John Bishop of Jerusalem, who in the controversie be∣tween him and Epiphanius had appeal'd to Theophilus of Alexan∣dria, that if he would have appeal'd, it should have been either to him of Caesarea, who was his Metropolitan, or to the Bishop of Antioch as Me∣tropolitan of the whole East, that is, of the Eastern Diocess. But when he says, this course was settled by the Synod of Nice, 'tis plain 'twas his mi∣stake. And indeed his own Ni fallor shews he was not very confident and peremptory in the case.

The account of this Patriar∣chate, as delivered by * 1.188 Nilus Doxopatrius (with whom in the main concurr many other an∣cient Notitiae * 1.189) stands thus. Immediately subject to the Pa∣triarch were VIII. Metropoli∣tans, who had no suffragan Bi∣shops under them, and VIII. or as others reckon, XII. Arch-Bishopricks: Besides which he had XIII. Metropolitick Sees; Tyre containing under it XIII. Bishopricks; Tarsus VI; Edessa XI. or as others X; Apamea VII; Hierapolis XI, the Latine No∣titiae reckon but VIII; Bostra XIX, or XX; Azarbus IX. Seleu∣cia in Isauria XXIV; Damascus XI; Amida VIII, or as the Latins VII; Sergiopolis V, but by some one less; Daras X, the Latin Notitiae call it Theodosiopolis, and allow but VII. Episcopal Sees; and

lastly Emesa containing VI. This was the state of that once vene∣rable Patriarchate.

VII. THE next that suc∣ceeds is the Patriarchate of Con∣stantinople, which though start∣ing later in time, soon got be∣yond the other two. The Bi∣shop of Byzantium or Constanti∣nople had for several Ages been only a private Bishop, Subject to the Metropolitan of Hera∣clea, which anciently had the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as Procopius * 1.190 tells us) the Primacy of all the Cities of that Country; in ac∣knowledgment of which sub∣jection the Bishops of Heraclea had ever the priviledge to Or∣dain the Patriarch of Constanti∣nople. But no sooner was that City made the Seat of the Em∣pire, but great things were spo∣ken of it, 'twas styl'd the Go∣verning

City, the Metropolis of the whole World a 1.191, a great City (says Nazianzen b 1.192 in one of his Sermons to the people of that place) and the very next to Rome, nay not at all yielding the Primacy to it, it being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the first and chiefest City of the Empire. And now the Bi∣shop of Constantinople began to appear considerable in the World, and both Church and State conspir'd to render him great and powerful.

The Fathers of the second general Council holden in that City, considering that Constanti∣nople was new Rome, conferr'd * 1.193 upon him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the priviledge of honour and re∣spect next to the Bishop of Rome. This at one lift set him over the Heads of the Bi∣shops of Alexandria and Antioch.

Accordingly in the preceding Canon of that Council, and in a Law * 1.194 of Theodosius con∣forme thereto concerning the bounds of Dioceses, and Ca∣tholick Communion, he is set before both the Bishops of those Sees; and if the subscri∣ptions to this Synod be of any credit, we find Nectarius sub∣scribing first to the Decrees of the Council. And when the Acts of the clancular Synod at Ephesus were read in the Chal∣cedon Council * 1.195, and it was found that the Bishop of Con∣stantinople was therein put in the fifth place, the Bishops pre∣sently rais'd a clamour, why had he not his proper place, why was he thrust down into the fifth place; whereupon Pa∣schasinus the Popes Legate de∣clar'd that he held Anatolius of

Constantinople in the first place: which Diogenes of Cyzicum af∣firm'd was according to the con∣stitutions of the Fathers. But to return to what we were upon. Though this Canon of Con∣stantinople gave the Bishop no direct power, yet it gave him so mighty a value and re∣putation, that he wanted not opportunities enough to carve for himself. He was soon court∣ed on all hands, his mediati∣on requested, and his interpo∣sal desired for the ending diffe∣rences, and where Provincial Bishops could not agree about the Election of their Metropo∣litans, the case was very often referr'd to him, and he per∣form'd the Ordination.

This in time begat a right, at least a claim, over the Churches in those Countries that lay next

him, especially the Dioceses of Asiana, Pontica and Thrace, in which 'tis plain he exercised a Patriarchal power. Thus to omit other instances, S. Chryso∣stom Synodically heard the cause of Antoninus Bishop of Ephesus (the Metropolis of the Asian Diocess) and afterwards went himself in person thither, where he conven'd a Synod of LXX. Bishops of those parts, heard the cause over again, gave judgment upon it, and ordain'd a Metropolitan in that City. He likewise depos'd Gerontius Bishop of Nicomedia, which lay in the Diocess of Pontica, and some others, and fill'd up their Sees; whereof we have elsewhere given an account at large. And this very instance we find produc'd and pleaded in the Chalcedon Synod * 1.196 to

prove the rights of the Con∣stantinopolitan See over those Churches. I know the validity of these good mans proceedings in this matter is disputed by some, and was of old put a∣mong the Articles exhibited a∣gainst him to the Synod at the Oke. But no doubt can be made, but Chrysostom thought he had sufficient authority and right to do it, and would not have attempted it, had it not been warranted by the practise of his predecessors.

In the mean time I cannot but smile at the grave fancy of a Learned Man * 1.197, who without the least shadow of any other warrant than his own conjecture, will have Chrysostom to have acted herein as the Popes Legate, and to have done all this by vertue of his

absolute and supreme autho∣rity. So quick-sighted and acute are men to discern what never was, and so willing to believe, what 'tis their interest should be true.

VIII. BUT to proceed with our Patriarch of Constantinople, he held on much at this rate till the general Council at Chal∣cedon holden there Ann. CCCCLI. when what he had hitherto holden by custome, Canonical authority made his right. By their ninth Canon they provide, that if any Bishop or Clergy∣man have a controversie with his own Metropolitan, it shall be at his liberty to appeal ei∣ther to the Exarch, that is, Primate of the Diocess, or to the See of Constantinople, where his cause shall be heard. A Canon that invested him with

a vast power, putting him in∣to a capacity of receiving and determing final appeals from all those parts. The same they again ratify by their seventeenth Canon, and by their twenty∣eight make a more particular provision for him. First, they profess in general altogether to follow the Decrees of the Holy Fathers, then they recog∣nize the third Canon of the se∣cond general Council (which was then read before them) and Decree the same Privi∣ledges, and upon the same ac∣count, as that had done to the Church of Constantinople.

For∣asmuch (say they) as the reason why the Fathers con∣ferr'd such Priviledges upon the See of Old Rome, was, that it was the Imperial City. And upon the same conside∣ration

the Bishops* 1.198 of that second ge∣neral Council gave* 1.199 equal Priviledges to the See of New Rome; rightly judg∣ing (as the Canon goes on) that the City which was honoured with the Empire, and the Senate, and enjoy'd equal Priviledges with old Imperi∣al Rome, should al∣so in Ecclesiastical matters have the same ho∣nour with it, only coming after it in the second place.

And because the Bishop of Constantinople had hitherto had no certain Diocess, nor any place wherein to exercise Ju∣risdiction, but what he held

precariously, and as it were by courtesie, in the latter part of the Canon they fix his bounds, giving him power o∣ver the three Dioceses of Pon∣tica, Asiana and Thrace, that the Metropolitans of all those pla∣ces, and all the Bishops of the Barbarous Countries belonging to those Dioceses, should be bound to come, and receive their Ordination from the Bi∣shop of Constantinople.

And now he lookt like Bi∣shop of the Imperial City, being invested with so ample and extensive a Jurisdiction. For the three Dioceses of Asi∣ana, Pontica and Thrace were great and large. The First * 1.200 containing eight Provinces (viz. Pamphylia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Lycaonia, Pisidia, Phrygia Pacati∣and, and Phrygia Salutaris, both

which were anciently compre∣hended under the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or greater Phrygia, as it stood oppos'd to the lesser, that lay upon the Hellespont:) the Se∣cond * 1.201 eleven (Bithynia, Gala∣latia, Paphlagonia, Honorias, Ga∣latia Salutaris, Cappadocia Prima, Cappadocia Secunda, Hellenopontus, Pontus Polemoniacus, Armenia Pri∣ma, Armenia Secunda:) the third * 1.202 six (Europa, Thracia, Haemi∣montus, Rhodopa, Maesia Secunda, Scythia.) The Popes Legates were infinitely enrag'd at this Canon, and the Powers and Priviledges hereby given to the See of Constantinople, and us'd all possible arts to overthrow it, but all in vain, it pass'd clearly, and was subscrib'd by all the Bishops then present in the Synod, amounting to a very great number, whose sub∣scriptions

are still extant * 1.203 in the Acts of the Council. Af∣ter a full discussion of the whole matter, that no pretence of force or fraud might be ob∣jected, as many of the Bishops of Asiana and Pontica as were then in the Synod were de∣sir'd to declare whether they had freely submitted to this constitution. Who accordingly stood up, and one after ano∣ther did most solemnly protest that they had voluntarily and unconstrainedly assented to, and subscrib'd the Canon, and that nothing was more acceptable to them. And many of them expresly declar'd they did it for this reason, because not only themselves, but their Predeces∣sors had been Ordain'd by the Bishops of Constantinople, and that the See of Constantinople had

these rights 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from Canons and precedent customs.

So that it's more than pro∣bable that the Bishop of Con∣stantinople had exercised this power within those Dioceses almost ever since the time of, and by virtue of the third Ca∣non of the second general Council. And 'tis observable what Eusebius Bishop of Dory∣laeum, a City of the greater Phrygia, tells the Synod upon this occasion, that he had been at Rome, and there in the pre∣sence of the Clergy of Constan∣tinople that were with him had read the Canon (I suppose he means that of the second ge∣neral Council) to the Pope, who approv'd and received it, (which I the rather take notice of because not only modern Wri∣ters,

but Gregory the Great * 1.204 so confidently affirms, that the Church of Rome neither had Copies, nor did admit the Acts and Canons of that Coun∣cil.) And whereas Eusebius of Ancyra scrupled to subscribe, yet he confest, that he himself had been Ordain'd by the Bi∣shop of Constantinople, that he had ever declin'd Ordaining Provincial Bishops, and had done it only by direction of the Bishop of Constantinople. And after Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia told the Synod, that they were of Arch-bishop Ana∣tolius his side, and did decree the same thing. The Judges hereupon having weighed all that had past, declar'd, that in the first place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that precedency and singular honour should accor∣ding

to the Canons be paid to the Arch-bishop of Old Rome; and that withal the Arch-bi∣shop of the Imperial City of Constantinople, being New Rome, ought to enjoy the same Pri∣viledges of honour, and to have besides 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, power of himself, and by his own authority to Ordain the Metro∣politans within the Dioceses of Asiana, Pontica and Thrace; the Election being first duly made within every Province, and that then it shall be at the choice of the Arch-bishop of Constantinople, whether the Me∣tropolitan Elect shall come to him for his Consecration, or whether by his permission it shall be done at home by the Provincial Bishops; and that this shall no ways prejudice the Rights of Metropolitans and

Provincial Bishops in Ordain∣ing private and particular Bi∣shops, wherein the Arch-bishop of Constantinople shall not inter∣pose. Whereupon all with one voice cried out, 'twas a righte∣ous Sentence, that they were all of that mind, that this just judgment pleas'd them all, that the things that had been establisht should take place, and that every thing had been done decently and in order. In conclusion, they wrote a Sy∣nodical Letter * 1.205 to Pope Leo, acquainting him with what had past, and upon what grounds they had done it, and desiring his concurrence in it. And we may observe they tell him, that in settling this pow∣er upon the See of Constanti∣nople, they did but confirm 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the cu∣stome which that Church had

of a long time obtained over those three Dioceses. Which puts it past all peradventure what we noted before, that from the very time of the se∣cond general Council, the Con∣stantinopolitan Bishops had exer∣cised a kind of Patriarchal Ju∣risdiction over those Churches, though never till now settled by Canon.

IX. AND now let the Reader impartially reflect upon the whole affair, and when he has considered what this wise and great Council expresly af∣firm, that the Priviledges which the Fathers gave to the See of Rome were meerly upon the account of its being the Impe∣rial City, and that for the ve∣ry same reason they gave equal Priviledges to the See of Con∣stantinople, only reserving a ho∣nourary

precedence to him of Rome; let him tell me, whe∣ther it can be suppos'd, they could or would have said and done this, had they known, or but so much as dream't of any su∣pream authority, which Christ had immediately given the Bi∣shops of Rome over the whole Church of God. Nor was this the only Council that thus ho∣noured the Constantinopolitan See; somewhat more than two Ages after met the sixt general Council in the Trullus, or great Arch'd-hall or Secretarium of the Pallace, who confirm'd * 1.206 what both the former Councils, that of Constantinople, and the other of Chalcedon, had done in this matter, and assigned each Pa∣triarch his proper place.

X. WHAT additions, or alte∣rations after Ages made in the

See of Constantinople, the Reader may perceive somewhat by perusing the following accounts. In the Greek Notitia publisht * 1.207 not long since out of the Bod∣leian Library, compos'd in the Reign of the Emperour Leo the Wise, about the year DCCCXCI. this Patriarchate had under it XXXIII. Metropolitans, who had under them CCCLXXV. Episco∣pal Sees, besides XLI. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or independent Arch-bisho∣pricks, subject to no Metropo∣litan. Leunclavius * 1.208 presents us with another 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or di∣sposition of the Churches of this Patriarchate made by this same Emperour, wherein are set down LXXXI. Metropoli∣tans, containing under them DLXXIV. Suffragan Sees, and XXXIX. Arch-bishopricks. But surely this list is either greatly

interpolated, or must be of a later date than it pretends to, being so different from the o∣ther both in the number, and the names of places, and not very consistent with it self. For whereas it reckons up LXXXI. yet when it comes to set down each Metropolitan with his par∣ticular Suffragans, it gives but an account of LVII. of the num∣ber. But however this be, with∣in an Age or two after, partly by the addition of new Provinces, partly by erecting new Metropo∣les, it was enlarg'd For in the Notitia, or discourse con∣cerning the five Patriarchal Sees written by Nilus Doxopatrius the Archimandrite, Ann. MXLIII. the account stands thus. * 1.209 Me∣tropolitans LXV. under the Bi∣shopricks DCXL. Arch-bisho∣pricks without Suffragans, and

immediately subject to the Pa∣triarch XXXIV. Ann. MCCLXXXIII. Andronicus Palaeologus entred up∣on the Empire: He publisht an order * 1.210 according to which the Metropolitans were to take place, wherein they are rec∣kon'd up to the number of an Hundred and nine. And in an∣other, agreed upon by the Em∣perour and the Patriarch, put out by Leunclavius * 1.211, but with∣out any date either of time or persons, are mention'd LXXX. Metropolitical Sees, Archiepi∣scopal XXXIX. And thus much for the Patriarchship of Constan∣tinople.

XI. THE fourth that re∣mains is the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the last in time, and least in circuit. For several Ages the Bishop of Jerusalem was no more than a private

Prelate, subject to the Metro∣politan of Caesarea. For so the Notitia publisht by William Arch∣bishop of Tyre informs * 1.212 us, that according to ancient tra∣dition, and Records of good authority in those parts, the Church of Jerusalem had no Bi∣shop under it, nor enjoy'd any, or very little prerogative till the Reign of Justinian, and the times of the fifth general Council; though always out of reverence to the place, custom and ancient tradition (as the Fathers of Nice inform * 1.213 us) had allow'd him a pecu∣liar honour, and therefore those Fathers decree him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the consequence of honour, that is, that he should have respect and precedence before all the Bishops of that Province next to his own Metropolitan.

And indeed whatever they of the Church of Rome may talk of the merit of S. Peter, as the foundation of the su∣pereminent authority of that Church, surely if any Church might have pleaded merit, one might have thought it should have been that of Jerusalem, which for so many Ages had been the Metropolis of the Jewish Nation, the Seat of their Kings, adorn'd with a most magnificent Temple, and all the Solemnities of Divine Wor∣ship; the place where our Bles∣sed Saviour spent the greatest part of his publick Ministry, where he Preacht so many Ser∣mons, wrought so many Mi∣racles, where he suffered, died, and rose again, and whence he ascended into Heaven, where the Apostolical Colledge was

kept for some years, and all affairs of the Church transact∣ed there; where S. James the Brother of our Lord was made (and that say some of the an∣cients by our Lords own hands) the first Christian Bishop of that See; the place where the first Church was planted, and from whence Christianity was propagated into all other parts of the World. This was the true Mother Church, and if merit might have challeng'd Primacy and Power, it had more to say for it self, than all other Churches in the World besides. But Caesarea happen∣ing to be the Metropolis of that Province, and the Seat of the Roman Governour, carried away the Superiority, and so Jerusalem though it had an ho∣nourary respect, continued a

private See, subject to the Me∣tropolitan of Caesarea, as he for some time was to the Patriarch of Antioch.

But after that the Empire was become Christian, and that Constantine the Great, and his Mother Helena, and some fol∣lowing Emperours began to reflect some peculiar favours upon that place, and had grac'd it with stately and magnificent buildings, and other marks of honour; and after that the De∣votion of Christians began to pay an extraordinary respect to the places of our Lords Cruci∣fixion, Sepulchre, and Resurre∣ction, the Bishops of that Church lookt upon themselves as hardly dealt with to be coop'd up within so narrow a compass, and to be subjected to another jurisdiction, and there∣fore

resolv'd to throw off the yoke, and to get what power they could into their own hands.

The first that graspt at the Metrpolitick Rights was S. Cy∣rill, who disputed the case with Acacius Bishop of Caesarea, for which Acacius depos'd him, and persecuted him both in the Synod at Seleucia, and in that which followed at Constantinople about the latter end of Constan∣tius his Reign. What imme∣diately followed in this con∣troversie, is uncertain, the Hi∣story of the Church being si∣lent in that matter. In the Council of Ephesus, Juvenal Bi∣shop of Jerusalem laid claim to the Metropolitical Jurisdiction of that Province, and sought to have it confirm'd by a De∣cree of that Synod. But Cyrill of Alexandria President of the

Council, oppos'd and hindred it. After this a high contest arose between him and Maxi∣mus Bishop of Antioch, who challeng'd Jerusalem and Pale∣stine as within his Diocess. The case was brought before the Chalcedon Council * 1.214, where it was debated, and at last by compromise between the two contending parties brought to this issue, that the Bishop of Antioch should retain the two Phoenicia's and Arabia (which it seems were also in dispute) and the See of Jerusalem should have the three Palaestine Provin∣ces for the bounds of his Ec∣clesiastick Jurisdiction. This was assented to, and ratified by the Decree of the Coun∣cil.

And now the Bishop of Je∣rusalem had his peculiar Diocess,

though of no very great ex∣tent, allotted him, and the tables were turn'd, and Caesarea it self subjected to him, and the fifth and last place among the Patriarchs assign'd to him; as appears from the constitution of the sixth general Council. And because Jerusalem lay in the borders both of the Antio∣chain, and Alexandrian Patriar∣chates, therefore to make up its jurisdiction, we are told * 1.215 that something was taken out of each, the Metropolitick Sees of Rabba and Berytus, from him of Alexandria, as Caesarea and Scythopolis from him of Antioch. And that as a badge of his ancient subjection, the Metro∣politan of Caesarea still had the honour * 1.216 to Ordain the Patri∣arch of Jerusalem, as upon the fame account he of Heraclea had

to Consecrate the Patriarch of Constantinople. And in this Pa∣triarchal capacity we find the Bishop of Jerusalem subscribing in all Councils, and upon oc∣casions summoning the Bishops of his Patriarchate. Thus Ann. DXVIII. we find John Bishop of Jerusalem with his Synod of the Bishops of the three Palaestines sending a Letter * 1.217 to John Pa∣triarch of Constantinople. And when the Council at Constanti∣nople under Mennas had con∣demn'd Anthimus, Severus, and the rest of the Acephali Ann. DXXXVI. Peter Patriarch of Jeru∣salem (as he is all along call'd in the Acts * 1.218 of his Council) summon'd a Patriarchal Synod of all the Bishops of the three Palaestine Provinces, who con∣firm'd what had been done in the Council at Constantinople.

And thenceforwards the Patri∣archate of Jerusalem runs smooth and currant through the Histo∣ry of the Church. As to what Bishops and Metropolitans he had under him, the old No∣titiae * 1.219 give us this account. The Patriarch himself had im∣mediately under him XXV. Bi∣shops, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Nilus Doxopatrius * 1.220 calls them, Inde∣pendent Bishopricks, because sub∣ject to no other Metropolitan; besides which he had four Me∣tropolitans: The Metropoli∣tan of Caesarea, who had twen∣ty Bishops under him; he of Scythopolis or Basan, who had nine; Rabba Moabitis, or as Doxopatrius has it, Petra, who had twelve, and Berytus, who had XXXV. which by the Au∣thors we have cited are parti∣cularly reckon'd up.

CHAP. V. The bounds of the Ro∣man Patriarchate.

A return to the Roman Patri∣archate. The limits hereof not expresly set down by the anci∣ents. Unjustly pretended to reach over the whole West. This granted by them of the Greek Church, and why. The Popes Patriarchal Power dis∣own'd by the Churches of Mi∣lan, Aquileia and Ravenna. The independency and opposition of those Churches to the Roman See, severally evinc't by parti∣cular cases and instances. The Power of Metropolitans in France

kept up independant from Rome. The truth of this consess'd and clear'd by De Marca. Other instances of preserving their Rights against the pretensions of Rome; Hincmar of Rhemes, and the Synod of Metz. Two other National Churches instanc't in: the African, and the Britannick Churches. The famous case of Appeals in the Church of Africk. A clear ac∣count of that matter. Their publick rejecting the power which the Pope challeng'd over those Churches. The Letters of the Council of Carthage to Pope Boniface, and Caelestine to that purpose. Several useful and proper Corollaries deduc't from this story for the evin∣cing the vain pretensions of the Papal Power over those Churches. The boldness of some

in denying the truth of this whole story. The state of the Britannick Church. The Pro∣gress of Religion and Church-Government here 'till the times of Pope Gregory. The Church Govern'd by an Arch-bishop and Bishop at Austin's arrival. Their customs wholly different from, and independant upon Rome. Their absolute refusal to own the authority of Austin or the Pope. The slaughter of the Bangor-Monks suspiciously charg'd upon Austin. The Popes proper Patriarchate most pro∣bably shew'd to be of equal ex∣tent with the Jurisdiction of the Vicarius Urbicus. What Pro∣vinces under his Government. The Roman Synod consisting of the Bishops of those Provinces. A two-fold Patriarchate of the Pope trifling and precarious. The

Bishops of Rome daily amply∣fying their Jurisdiction. The means whereby they did this brief∣ly intimated.

I. HAVING thus dis∣patcht the other Patriarchs, we re∣turn to him of Rome, ever allow'd to be the first, and most honourable of the number. What his Patri∣archal bounds were, the Re∣cords of the Church have not so particularly set out, as they have done the rest. And here the Champions of that Church when they find themselves prest upon, and that rhe Popes Universal and Apostolical Pow∣er is a Post not to be defend∣ed, presently retreat to his Pa∣triarchate, which with great confidence they extend over

the whole Western World, be∣ing content with half, when they cannot have all. And to this prodigious Latitude some * 1.221 of them stretch the Subur∣bicary Churches, (as if the whole Western Empire had been nothing but the Suburbs of Rome) and in this sence they tell us Rufinus meant the Ca∣non of Nice, and this upon no wiser reason than (what is as trifling and precarious as the other) that the whole West was the Special Diocess of the Bishop of Rome. But this looks rather like Fancy and Ro∣mance, than that grave and sober arguing that becomes those great Names that use it. Omitting therefore this extra∣vagant notion of Suburbicary Churches, come we to the thing it self.

And herein it must be grant∣ed, they have the later Greeks, Zonaras, Balsamon, Barlaam, Ni∣lus, &c. on their side, who very liberally give him all the Western Provinces, and that too by vertue of the sixth Canon of Nice. A concession which they make not so much out of any kindness to the Church of Rome, as partly out of a design to magnifie the power and great∣ness of their own Patriarch of Constantinople, who was to share equal priviledges with him of Rome; partly because they were willing to keep the Pope with∣in any bounds, whose restless ambition they saw carrying all before it, and therefore car'd not to throw him the West for his portion, for which they had no care or concernment what became of it, being mainly in∣tent

upon preserving their Ju∣risdiction at home. And here I cannot but by the way re∣mark the indiscreet and injudici∣ous Zeal of a very Learned man * 1.222, who confidently as∣serts, that in the expedition of the Franks for the recovery of the Holy Land, God by a pe∣culiar providence let the East∣ern Parts be subdued by the Western Armies; that so those famous Patriarchal Sees might learn to strike Sail to the See of Rome, and own the great∣ness and dignity of that Church. Besides, 'tis to be conside∣red, that in this concession the Greeks took their measures of things from the state of the Church as it was in their time, when the Pope had in a man∣ner intirely subdued the West∣ern Provinces to the See of

Rome. But in the better and more early Ages the case was otherwise.

And indeed that the Popes Patriarchal Jurisdiction was far enough from extending over the whole West, there can be no better evidence, than that there was scarce any Western Church in those days, that did not upon occasion oppose the power, and remonstrate against the Usurpations of the See of Rome. In Italy we need go no further than to those Churches that lay next it, I mean the great Churches of Milan, Aqui∣leia, and Ravenna.

II. HOW great Milan was, and of how great reputation the Bishop of it, so that he stood upon a level with him of Rome, we briefly noted be∣fore; it being next Rome, the

largest, richest, most plentiful, and populous City of the West, as Procopius * 1.223 tells us. S. Am∣brose his Election and Ordinati∣on to that See was made pure∣ly by the Provincial Bishops, and at the command of the Emperour, without the least notice taken of the Roman Bi∣shop. A case so clear, that De Marca * 1.224 fairly gives up the cause, and confesses that in those times and for some Ages after, the Pope had nothing to do in the Ordination of the Metropolitan of Milan: Nay, that this was the case of all Metropolitans out of the Popes Jurisdiction in Italy, where the Bishops of every Province con∣stantly Ordain'd their own Me∣tropolitans without any autho∣rity; or so much as consent had from the Bishop of Rome.

But then not being able to shift off the evidence of truth, and yet willing withall to serve his cause, he does in order to that design, distinguish the Roman Patriarchate into ordinary, over a great part of Italy, and ex∣traordinary, over the whole West. A distinction wholly pre∣carious, and which is worse, false.

And indeed what kind of Patriarchate that must be, that could consist without right of Ordaining Metropolitans, the first and most inseparable branch of Patriarchal Power, would have become a person of his, I say not ingenuity, but wis∣dom and learning to have con∣sidered. As for Milan, the Metropolitick Rights of that Church, he confesses, continued independant at least till the

year DLV. And indeed 'tis plain from the Epistle * 1.225 of Pope Pelagius; who confesses that the Bishops of Milan did not use to come to Rome, but they and the Bishops of Aquileia Ordain'd each other: and when he was not able to reduce them by other means, he endeavour'd to bring them in by the help of the secular Arm, as appears from his Let∣ter * 1.226 to Narses the Emperours Lieutenant to that purpose. And afterwards upon a difference that hapened, Milan withdrew it self from the Communion of the Church of Rome for Two hundred years * 1.227 together. And though with others it was brought at last under the com∣mon yoke, yet upon every little occasion it reasserted its original liberty. Thus when Ann. MLIX. great disturbances

arose in that Church * 1.228, Pope Nicolaus the Second sent Peter Damian as his Legate to inter∣pose. This made it worse, the common out-cry presently was, That the Ambrosian Church ought not be subject to the Laws of Rome, and that the Pope had no power of Judging, or ordering matters in that See; that it would be a great indignity, if that Church which under their Ancestors had been always free, should now to their extream reproach (which God forbid) become subject to another Church. The clamour increas'd, and the people grew into an higher ferment, the Bells are rung, the Episcopal Pallace be∣set, the Legate threatned with Death, who getting into the Pulpit, and having in a short speech set forth the Pope's and S. Peter's power, and wheedled

the people with some popular insinuations, reduc'd things to a better order.

III. THE Church of Aquileia was much at the same pass with that of Milan, the Bishops whereof mutually Ordain'd one another, without so much as ask∣ing the Pope leave. And though Pelagius * 1.229 would insi∣nuate, that this was done only to save the trouble and charge of a journy to Rome, yet De Marca * 1.230 honestly confesses the true reason was, that Milan be∣ing the Head of the Italick Diocess, the Ordaining the Me∣tropolitan of Aquileia belong'd to him as Primate; and the Ordaining the Primate of Mi∣lan belong'd to him of Aquileia, as being the first Metropolitan of the Diocess of Italy.

Upon this account, and that of the tria capitula, this Church held no correspondence with that of Rome for above an Hundred years, and when Gre∣gory the Great having got the Emperour on his side, attempt∣ed by force and armed vio∣lence to bring them to answer their stubbornness at Rome, the Bishop of Aquileia with his Pro∣vincial Synod met, and wrote an humble remonstrance * 1.231 to the Emperour Mauricius, where∣in they set forth the true state of their case, and the unjust and violent proceedings of the Pope, and plainly tell him that they had at the time of their Ordination given caution in writing to their Metropolitan, which they never had, nor would violate, and that unless his Majesty was pleas'd to re∣move

this compulsion, their Successours would not be suf∣fered to come to Aquileia for Ordination, but would be forc't to fly to the Arch-bishops of France, as being next at hand, and receive it there. The Emperour was satisfied with their Addresses, and wrote * 1.232 to the Pope (Baronius calls them imperious Letters, written more Tyrannico, like a Tyrant) com∣manding him to surcease the Prosecution, and to create those Bishops no farther trouble, 'till the affairs of Italy were quie∣ted, and things might more calmly be enquired into. Ba∣ronius is strangely angry at this Letter, even to the heighth of rudeness and passion, especial∣ly towards so good an Empe∣rour, that he should take up∣on him arroganti fastu, with so

much pride and arrogancy not to beseech, but to command the Pope, which he again says was done not like an Empe∣rour, but a Tyrant. But the Istrian and Ligurian Bishops, little regarded how it thun∣dred at Rome. Nay, to make the ballance hang more even, they had some time since ad∣vanc't their Metropolitan to the title and honour of a Pa∣triarch, which Baronius * 1.233 him∣self grants was done while Pau∣linus was Metropolitan of A∣quileia about the year DLXX. An honour a long time resi∣dent at Aquileia, then translated to Grado, and at last fixt at Venice. Though withal Aquileia having recovered its broken fortunes, resum'd the style and dignity of a Patriarch, an ho∣nour

which it retains to this day.

IV. LET us next view the Church of Ravenna, and see whether that was any more conformable to Rome than the rest. Ravenna had for some time, especially from the days of Honorius, been the Seat of the Roman Emperours; and in the declining times of the Empire, the Exarchs of Italy, who go∣vern'd in chief under the Em∣perour, constantly resided there, while Rome was under the command of a petty Duke: Swell'd with so much honour and advantage, the Bishops of Ravenna for some Ages dispu∣ted place with them of Rome, the Exarchs taking all occasi∣ons to curb and repress the Pope. Ann. DCXLIX. Mau∣rus, sometimes Steward of

that Church * 1.234, entred upon the Archiepiscopal See of Ra∣venna. A man as my Author grants, wise, and of a shrew'd sharp Wit. He without taking any notice of Rome, was Con∣secrated by three Bishops of his own Province, Ordain'd his own Provincial Bishops, and was so far from seeking any Confirmation from the Pope, that he received his Pall from the Emperour. This gave infinite distaste to Pope Martin, and 'tis like to his Successour Eugenius, who sat but one year. But Pope Vitalian who succeed∣ed, would not so put it up, but summons Maurus to appear, and answer his contempt at Rome, but he slighted the Sum∣mons, for which the Pope Ex∣communicated him, and he in requital did the like to the

Pope, nay upon his Death-bed oblig'd his Clergy never to submit themselves to the Bi∣shop of Rome. Reparatus his Successour trod in the same steps, and procur'd the Empe∣rours Rescript to free that Church from any subjection to the Roman See. Ann. DCCVIII. * 1.235 Felix of Ravenna was con∣tent to receive his Ordination at the hands of the Pope, but when he came thither, an Oath of Allegiance and Fidelity was required of him to the See of Rome. This he utterly denied, a confession of his Faith he offe∣red, but homage he would not pay, nor engage to send mo∣ney to Rome. Nor more he did, but home he goes, where his people gave him little thanks for what he had done, and both agreed to defend

their liberty; but it cost the old man dear, and them too for that attempt. For Justinian Rhinotmetes the Emperour (who favoured the Pope) being made acquainted with what was done at Ravenna; a Fleet is sent under the command of Theodorus Patricius, the City be∣sieg'd, and taken, several of prime quality lost their lives and fortunes, and the poor Arch-bishop had his eyes put out, and was banisht into Pon∣tus, where he remain'd, 'till the severity of Discipline had taught him better manners.

The same courage in assert∣ing the priviledges of their Church against the Papal en∣croachments was afterwards shewn by John, and Guibert Suc∣cessors in that See, as were it necessary, might be particularly

related. But the case is too evident to be denied, and the argument thence too strong to be evaded, how little those times understood of any Patri∣archal Jurisdiction which the Pope had over all Italy, much less over the whole West.

V. IF we look into France, we shall find them careful to secure the Rights of Metropo∣litans, and the priviledges of Provincial Bishops, without be∣ing oblig'd to fetch them from Rome. The second Council of Arles Ann. CCCCLII. decree * 1.236, that no Bishop shall be Or∣dain'd without his own Me∣tropolitan, and three of the Provincial Bishops, the rest te∣stifying their consent by Let∣ter. The second of Orleans holden Ann. DXXXIII. renew * 1.237 the ancient form and man∣ner

of Ordaining Metropoli∣tans, that it shall be done by the Bishops of the Province, which shews how little they depended upon any foreign power in this matter.

But it's needless to insist up∣on this point, which the Learn∣ed De Marca * 1.238 has so fully cleared and vindicated, as a fundamental part of the liber∣ties of the Gallican Church, and has deduc't it through the se∣veral Ages and Dynasties of their Kings. I shall only re∣mark, that when Hincmar Arch-bishop of Remes had de∣pos'd Rothald Bishop of Sues∣sons for great misdemeanours, Rothald appeal'd to Rome, and Pope Nicolaus espous'd his cause, wrote sharply to Hincmar, and cited him to appear, and an∣swer what he had done at

Rome. But Hincmar would not stir, but publisht a large Apo∣logetick * 1.239 to the Pope, where∣in he justifies his Act, and though he gives good words, and great deference to the See Apostolick, yet stoutly con∣tends, that he ought to be con∣tent with a general care and inspection, and not interrupt the ordinary Rights of Metro∣politans, and that 'twas infi∣nitely reasonable, that the cri∣minal should be referr'd to the judgment of his own Pro∣vince.

Two years before this, viz. Ann. DCCCLXIII. a French Sy∣nod met at Metz * 1.240 about the Marriage of King Lotharius, wherein they determin'd con∣trary to the liking of the Pa∣pal Legates. However they sent Letters with the reasons of

their proceedings by Guntharius Arch-bishop of Colen, and The∣atgaud of Triers to Pope Nico∣laus. The Pope upon their ar∣rival call'd a Synod, wherein he Excommunicated the Synod of Metz, and depos'd the two Arch-bishops that were sent with the Letters, and publisht * 1.241 a manifesto of what he had done. To this the Bishops re∣turn'd an answer, wherein ha∣ving represented the personal affronts, and ill usage they had met with from him, they tell him Chap. IV. that as for his froward, unjust, and unreaso∣nable sentence, contrary to all Canons, they did not own it, yea as being illegal and un∣warrantable, they together with the rest of their Brethren slight∣ed and despised it, and utterly renounc'd Communion with

him, contenting themselves with the Communion and fel∣lowship of the whole Church, over which he had so proud∣ly exalted himself, and from which through his pride and contempt he had separated him∣self. And whereas he had styl'd them his Clerks, they bid him take notice they were none of his Clerks, but per∣sons, whom, if his pride would have suffer'd him, he ought to have own'd and treated as his Brethren and fellow Bishops, with much more there spoken with a just, but smart resent∣ment.

And now can any man believe, the Pope should have met with such treatment upon all occasions, and that from the wisest, gravest, most learned, and eminent persons in their

several Ages, had his title to the Jurisdiction of the West been so clear and unquestiona∣ble, as some men seem to re∣present it. The same might be shew'd in other Countries, and he must be a great stran∣ger to Church-History, that can be at a loss for instances of this nature. I shall therefore instance only in two more (and with them dispatch this argu∣ment) the African and the Bri∣tanick Churches.

VI. I chuse to instance in the Churches of Africk, because so confidently challeng'd by them of Rome at every turn, and because they were under the civil Jurisdiction of the Praetorian Praefect of Italy. And here omitting infinite argu∣ments that offer themselves, I shall insist only upon the fa∣mous

case of Appeals, com∣menc'd under Pope Zosimus, Ann. CCCCXVIII. and not en∣ded 'till some years after, which will furnish us with a plain and uncontroulable evi∣dence, how little authority more than what was honoura∣ry, the See of Rome in those days had over those Chur∣ches.

The case, as briefly as it can well be summ'd up, stands thus, * 1.242 Apiarius a Presbyter of Sicca in Africk had been depos'd by his Diocesan Urbanus for very notorious and scandalous offen∣ces, and the sentence ratified by a Provincial Council. Hope∣less of any relief at home, o∣ver he flies to Rome, tells his tale to Pope Zosimus, who re∣stores him to Communion, e∣spouses his cause, and sends

him back with Faustinus an Ita∣lian Bishop, and two Roman Presbyters into Africk, to see him resettled in his former place. When they arriv'd in Africk, they found a Council of African Bishops to the num∣ber of CCXVII. sitting at Car∣thage, to whom they delivered their message partly by word of mouth, partly by writing. But the writing being deman∣ded, a memorial was produc't containing instructions from Pope Zosimus what they should insist upon; it consisted of four Heads. First, concerning the Appeals of Bishops to the See of Rome. Secondly, against the busie resorting of Bishops to Court. Thirdly, concerning the handling the causes of Presby∣ters and Deacons by the neigh∣bouring Bishops, where they

were unjustly Excommunicated by their own. Fourthly, con∣cerning the Excommunicating Bishop Urban (who had de∣pos'd Apiarius) or at least his appearing at Rome, unless he corrected what he had done amiss. But the main thing in∣sisted on was that of Appeals, and the Popes sending Legates thither to hear causes, and this too challeng'd by Zosimus in his memorial by vertue of a Ca∣non of the Council of Nice, giving leave to Bishops accus'd or condemn'd to appeal to Rome, and power to the Pope to hear and determine those Appeals, either immediately by himself, or by Commishoners which he should send to that purpose.

The African Fathers were in∣finitely surpriz'd to hear such

a power claim'd, and more to hear it claim'd as due by a Canon of Nice. They had search'd into the Canons of that Council, which they found to be but twenty, and not one of that number to this purpose. While these things were de∣bating, Zosimus dies, and Bo∣niface succeeds, and the case is again canvast, and the result of the consultation was, that for the present things should rest upon that bottom, whereon the Popes memorial had plac't them, 'till they could send to the three great Churches of Constantinople, Antioch and Ale∣xandria for authentick Copies of the Nicene Canons, to adjust and decide this matter. They wrote likewise to Pope Boni∣face by his Legates (who then return'd) acquainting him with

the state of the case, and what was done in it, and withal tell him, that if it were as those pretended Canons claim'd, the issue would be intolerable to them: But they hop'd it would be found otherwise, no such thing appearing in their Copies of that Council. However they had sent to the Eastern Chur∣ches for such as were most au∣thentick, and intreated him al∣so to do the like.

VII. SOME years pass'd in this matter, at length the Mes∣sengers that had been sent into the East return'd, and brought Letters * 1.243 from Cyril of Alexan∣dria, and Atticus of Constanti∣nople, importing that they had sent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 most true and exact Copies of the authentick Synod of Nice, pre∣serv'd in the Archives of their

Churches, Copies of which they had also sent to Pope Boniface. Hereupon a full Coun∣cil of African Bishops is con∣ven'd, to which Pope Caelestine (for Boniface was lately dead) dispatcht Faustinus as his Le∣gate. And now the case of Apiarius is again brought under examination, and found worse than it was before, the farther they rak'd into it, the more foul and offensive did it appear to them, 'till the conviction of his conscience, though sore against his Will, forc'd him to confess all, and save them the trouble of any farther Scru∣tiny.

And now this cause being over, and the pretence of Appeals overthrown by the authentick Copies of the Canons of Nice, nothing remain'd but to write

to Caelestine, which they did in a quick and smart strain,

Wherein they first give him an account of the case of A∣piarius, and how troublesome and injurious his Legate Fau∣stinus had been to the whole Synod, in asserting the pri∣viledges of the Church of Rome, and by vertue there∣of challenging that Apiarius should be readmitted to com∣munion, because his Holiness (believing his Appeal, which yet could not be made good) had restor'd him to commu∣nion, a thing which he ought in no wise to have done. Next they proceed earnestly to beseech him, that hence∣forth he would not so easily give ear to those that came from hence, nor admit any to communion, whom they

had excommunicated, which he might easily perceive was prohibited by the Council of Nice, which if it has taken so much care about the Infe∣riour Clergy, how much more did it intend it in the case of Bishops, that where any are suspended from com∣munion within their own Province, his Holiness should not rashly and unduly readmit them, that he should, as be∣came him, reject the un∣warrantable repairing of Pres∣byters and others of the In∣feriour Clergy, there being no Canon of any Council that has depriv'd the African Church of this Right, and that the Decrees of Nice have most plainly committed both the Inferiour Clergy, and the Bishops themselves to their

own Metropolitans; having most wisely and justly pro∣vided, that all affairs shall be determin'd in the very places where they arise, and that the Grace of the Holy Spirit will not be wanting to every Province, whereby equity may be prudently discern'd, and constantly main∣tain'd by the Ministers of Christ, especially since every man has liberty, if he be of∣fended with the determinati∣on of his Judges, to appeal to a Provincial, or if need be, to a general Council: Unless perhaps any one can think, that God should en∣able single persons to examin the Justice of a cause, and deny it to a vast number of Bishops Assembled in Coun∣cil. Or, how shall a Judg∣ment

then made beyond Sea be valid, whereto the persons that are necessary to give in evidence, either through the infirmity of their Sex, or Age, and many other impe∣diments that will intervene, cannot be brought? For that any Commissioners should be sent hither by your Ho∣liness, we do not find Or∣dain'd by the Fathers in any Synod. For as to what you long since sent us by Fausti∣nus as part of the Nicene Council, in the true and au∣thentick Copies of that Coun∣cil (which we received from Cyril of Alexandria, and Atti∣cus of Constantinople, and which we sent to your Predecessour Boniface) we could find no such matter. In conclusion, they advise him, that he

should not upon the request of any man, send any of his Clerks thither to execute his sentence, nor grant such leave to any, lest they should seem to introduce the smoaky pride of the World into the Church of Christ, which holds forth the light of sim∣plicity, and the brightness of humility to all them that are desirous to see God: That as to Faustinus, they are con∣fident, that Brotherly love continuing through the good∣ness and moderation of his Holiness, Africa shall no lon∣ger be troubled with him.

Such was their Letter to the Pope, a Letter not fuller fraught with true matters of fact, than fortified with clearness and strength of reason.

VIII. FROM this naked and unartificial representation of the case, its plain; First, That whatever power the ••••shop of Rome claim'd in Africk, was even by his own tacit confes∣sion, founded upon the Canons of the Church. Zosimus did not pretend a Commission from Christ, or a Delegation from S. Peter, but only a Canon of Nice to justify his proceed∣ings.

Secondly, That the Canons of the Church give the Bishop of Rome no power over foreign Churches, either to receive their excommunicated Members, to hear and decide their cau∣ses, or to restore them to com∣munion, or to send Legates and Commissioners with autho∣rity to determine the cause at home; for this, say the African

Fathers, nullâ invenimus patrum Synodo constitutum.

Thirdly, That Zosimus was guilty of a notorious forgery and imposture in falsifying the Nicene Canons, pretending a Canon of Sardica to be a Ca∣non of Nice, and as such en∣deavouring to impose it, and his own power by it upon the African Churches. Can it be suppos'd, that Zosimus should be ignorant what and how ma∣ny the Nicene Canons were? the Popes Legates were pre∣sent, and as we are often told, presided in that Synod, brought the Decrees home with them (as all other great Churches did) where they were no doubt carefully preserv'd among the Records of that Church, and the frequent occasions of those times, made them be daily

lookt into. Was not the Pope, think we, able to distinguish between Nice and Sardica, be∣tween an Oecumenical Coun∣cil, and a Synod only of Western Bishops, call'd in another Empe∣rours Reign above Twenty years after. No, no, it was not a sin of ignorance, but the Pope knew well enough which Council would best serve his turn, that the World had a just and a mighty veneration for that of Nice, and that his design would be easily swal∣lowed, if he could gild it o∣ver with the reputation and authority of that Synod. It was obvious to except against Sardica, that it was but a par∣ticular Council, and that the Canon it made for Appeals to Rome was only a Provisionary Decree, when the injur'd per∣son

was not like to meet with Justice at home, but the whole Mass of Bishops was corrupted, and set against him, as was the case of Athanasius and two or three more in respect of the Arians, who were the oc∣casion, and for whose sakes that Canon was made. But that of Nice was universal, and unexceptionable, and which he hoped would pass without con∣troul. But the African Bishops according to the humour of that Nation were of too honest and blunt a temper to be ca∣jol'd by the arts of Rome. They requir'd to have the matter brought to the test, and to be Judg'd by the Original Canons, and so the fraud was discove∣red, and brought to light in the eye of the World.

Fourthly, That the Church of Africk, and accordingly eve∣ry National Church, has an in∣haerent power of determining all causes that arise within it self: That this Right is foun∣ded both upon most evident reason, (nothing being fitter than that controversies should be ended in the places where they began, where there are all advantages of bringing matters to a more speedy and equal trial) and upon the wisdom and justice of the Divine pro∣vidence, which would not let his assistance be wanting in one place more than another, and especially there where doing right to truth did more im∣mediately make it necessary; and that 'twas as probable two or three hundred should sift out truth as a single person.

That the Nicene Synod had made this the Right of the African no less than other Chur∣ches, and they did not under∣stand how they had forfeited it, or that any Council had ta∣ken it from them.

Fifthly, That it was not law∣ful for any person, accused or proceeded against in Africk, to appeal to Transmarine Churches, no not to the See of Rome. This they tell Coelestine most expresly, and call them improba refugia, wicked and unwarrant∣able refuges. Against this they had particularly provided in the Council at Milevis * 1.244 not long before this contest arose, that if any Clergyman had a con∣troversie with his Bishop, the neighbouring Bishops should hear and determine it. But if there were any occasion of ap∣pealing,

they should appeal no further than to an African Council, or to the Primates of those Provinces. And that if any should resolve to appeal to any Transmarine Judgment, no man in Africk should admit them to communion. The Ca∣non 'tis true expresses only the Appeals of Presbyters, Deacons, and the Inferiour Clergy; but as the Fathers in their Letters to Caelestine argue strongly, if this care be taken about the Inferiour Clergy, how much more ought it to be observ'd by Bishops.

Sixthly, That the power which the Bishop of Rome sought to establish over other Churches, evidently made way to bring pride, and tyranny, and a secular ambition into the Church of God, and that if

this course were follow'd, it would let in force, and domi∣nation, and a scornful tram∣pling over the Heads of our Brethren, and perhaps the cal∣ling in the secular arm to re∣move the opposition it would meet with; Principles and Pra∣ctices infinitely contrary to the mild and humble Spirit of the Gospel.

And now let the Reader Judge what power the Pope had over the African Churches, so solemnly denied, so stiffly oppos'd, not by two or three, but by two or three hundred Bishops, twice met in Council upon this occasion, and their judgment herein not precipi∣tated, but past upon most ma∣ture and deliberate debate and consultation, and after that the cause had been depending for

five or six years together. The truth is, so great a shock is this to the Papal power, that the Advocates of that Church know not which way to de∣cline it. At last stands up one, * 1.245 who not being able to un∣ty, resolv'd to cut the knot, directly charging both the Acts of the Council, and the E∣pistles to Boniface and Caelestine, without any warrant from An∣tiquity, to be forg'd and sup∣posititious. But the best of it is, the Writers in this Cause that came after him, had not the hardiness to venture in his bottom. Nor have any of the many Publishers of the Coun∣cils since that time stigmatiz'd them with the least suspicion of being spurious, nor taken any notice of the trifling exceptions he makes against them.

IX. FROM Africk let us Sail into Britain, and see how things stood in our own Coun∣try, the first Nation of the whole Western World that re∣ceived the Christian Faith; it being planted here (as Gildas, an Authour of untainted credit, and no inconsiderable antiquity, informs us, and he speaks it too with great assurance) * 1.246 Tem∣pore summo Tiberii Caesaris, in the latter time of Tiberius his Reign, which admit to have been the very last year of his Life (he died March the XVI. Ann. Chr. XXXVII.) it was five or six years before 'tis pretended S. Peter ever came at, or foun∣ded any Church at Rome. Chri∣stianity though struggling with great difficulties, and but luke∣warmly entertain'd by some, yet as Gildas assures us, made

shift to keep up its head in the following Ages, as is evi∣dent from some passes in Ori∣gen, Tertullian, and others, and from the known story of King Lucius (Leuer Maur as the Britains call him, the great Brightness) the first Christian King. But this we have particularly no∣ted elsewhere * 1.247. Religion be∣ing settled, that Church Go∣vernment grew up here as in other Countries, by Bishops and then Metropolitans, or Su∣periour Bishops, there can be no just cause to doubt.

At the Council of Arles Ann. CCCXIV. we find three British Bishops among others subscri∣bing the Decrees of that Sy∣nod, Eborius of York, Restitutus of London (the same perhaps that subscrib'd the determinati∣on made by the Sardican Sy∣nod)

Adelfius de civitate Coloniae Londinensium, with Sacerdos a Priest, and Arminius a Deacon. After the Empire had submit∣ted to Christianity, we cannot question but that Religion pro∣spered greatly in this Island, and that Constantine who made it his business to advance it in all places, would much more give it the highest encourage∣ment in that place, to which he owed both his first breath and Empire.

What progress it made after∣wards, I may not stand nicely to enquire; 'tis certain it flou∣rish'd here under the Roman Government 'till the Declensi∣on of the Empire, when that guard and protection being withdrawn, the Country be∣came a prey to the neighbour-Picts and Scots, as not long af∣ter

to the Saxons, a War-like but Pagan Nation, whom the Britains had call'd in to their Assistance, who drove the remainder of the Britains, and with them Religion into the Mountains, where yet it throve under the greatest hard∣ships.

Things continued thus, when Ann. DXCVI. Pope Gregory the Great sent Austine the Monk to convert these Saxons, who af∣ter his first expedition being at Arles consecrated Arch-bishop of Canterbury, applied himself more closely to this errand than he had done before. He found Paganisme covering the greatest parts of the Island, but withal a considerable Church among the Britains; seven Bi∣shops * 1.248 they had as Bede informs us; A number says

Bale * 1.249, conform'd to the se∣ven Churches of Asia; their Sees were Hereford, Tavensis or Landaff, Lhan-Padern-Vaur, Ban∣gor, Elviensis or S. Asaph, Worce∣ster and Morganensis, suppos'd by many to be Glamorgan, but that being the same with Lan∣daff, R. Hoveden * 1.250 reckons Chester in the room of it, or as Bishop Usher * 1.251 thinks not im∣probable, it might be Caer-Guby or Holy-head in the Isle of Angle∣sey. These seven were under the superintendency of a Me∣tropolitan, whose Archiepisco∣pal See had been formerly at Caer-leon upon Uske (the fa∣mous River Isca) in Monmouth∣shire, but some years before Au∣stins arival had been translated to Menevia or S. Davids (so call'd from the Bishop that translated it) in Pembrook-shire,

though for some time after re∣taining the Title of Arch-bishop of Caer-Leon. And to him were the Welsh Bishops subject, and by him Ordain'd, as he by them, until the time of King Henry the First. Besides these Episcopal Sees, the Britains had Colledges or Seminaries, and in them vast numbers of Chri∣stian Monks, who dwelt espe∣cially at Bangor under the care and superintendency of Abbot Dinooth. But that which spoil'd all was, that this Church had Rites and Usages * 1.252 vastly diffe∣rent from them of Rome, both in the Observation of Easter, the Administration of Baptism, and many other Customes. A most infallible Argument, that the Britannick Church had no de∣pendance upon, had held no communication with the Church

of Rome. Their celebration of Easter after the manner of the ancient Asiatick Churches, clear∣ly shewing that they had ori∣ginally deriv'd their Religion from those Eastern parts. To reduce therefore this Church into subjection to Rome, was a great part of Austins work.

In order whereunto by the help of King Ethelbert, he pro∣cur'd a conference with them at a place upon the Borders of Worcester-shire, call'd from this occasion Augustins Oke. Austin us'd all his arts to pre∣vail upon them, perswaded, in∣treated, threatned, but in vain. After a long disputation they declar'd they preferr'd their own ancient Traditions and Cu∣stoms, from which they might not depart without leave and liberty from their own Church.

Nay, if the British fragment produc'd by one of our great Antiquaries * 1.253 be of any credit, Abbot. Dinoth plainly told him with a Be it known to you, and without doubt,

That they ow'd no more to the Pope of Rome, than to every godly Christian, vzi. the obedience of Love and Brotherly assistance, other than this he knew none due to him, whom they call'd Pope, and who claim'd to be own'd and styl'd Father of Fathers; that for themselves they were un∣der the Government of the Bishop of Caer-Leon upon Uske, who under God was to over∣see and guide them▪

Austin saw 'twas to no purpose at pre∣sent to treat further, and so reserv'd himself for another conference. A second there∣fore

and a more general meet∣ing is propounded and agreed to, whereto came the seven British Bishops, and many other persons of Learning, especially of the College of Bangor. Au∣stin as before press'd them to a compliance with the Roman and Apostolick Church. But they, offended with his proud and contemptuous treatment of them, never so much as rising out of his Chair, at their com∣ing to salute him, told him plainly, they would do nothing of what he demanded, nor would they own him for Arch∣bishop; prudently arguing a∣mong themselves, If he would not now vouchsafe so much as to rise up to us, how much more when we have submitted to him, will he despise and scorn us. Austin find∣ing no good was to be done

upon them, parted from them with this passionate farewel, That since they would not have peace with their Brethren, they should have war from their Enemies, and for as much as they refus'd to preach the way of life to the English, they should be punisht with death by their hands. And his word it seems was made good: For soon af∣ter Ethelfrid King of Northum∣berland, at the instigation (as is said) of Ethelbert King of Kent, march'd with a powerful Army to Caer-Leon, and made great ha∣vock and destruction, and a∣mong the rest slew Twelve hundred of the innocent Monks of Bangor, who were come a∣long with their Army, by fast∣ing and prayer to intercede with Heaven for its prosperous suc∣cess. That Austin was the first spring of this fatal Tragedy,

moving Ethelbert, as he did E∣thelfrid, there are not only strong suspicions, but the thing is expresly affirm'd by several Historians of no inconsiderable credit and antiquity. 'Tis true Bede says this happened not till after Austins Death. But be∣sides the inconsistency in point of Chronology, 'tis suspicious that passage was foisted into Bede, it being wanting in the ancient Saxon Translation of King Alfred, done within CL. years after Bedes Death. Nay, though we should grant the slaughter to have happened af∣ter the death of Austin, yet who knows not but he might easily lay the design with E∣thelbert, though himself liv'd not to see the Execution. And the proud and haughty spirit of the man gives but too much

encouragement to the suspici∣on. What became of the Bri∣tish Churches after this, I am not concern'd to relate. 'Tis enough to my purpose, that from the very originals of this Church it was independant up∣on Rome, and that for Six hundred years together; nor could be brought to strike Sail, 'till Fire and Sword (the most powerful Arguments of the Pa∣pal cause) had converted, that is, in effect ruin'd and destroy'd it.

X. FROM the whole of what has been said, laid toge∣ther, the impartial Reader will easily make this conclusion, how vain and frivolous the pretences are to the Popes Pa∣triarchal Authority over the whole West, when there's scarce any one Western Church that

did not in those times stoutly appear against the incroach∣ments of Rome. But you'll say, where then shall we find the Roman Patriarchate? certain∣ly within much narrower li∣mits.

And here nothing can offer it self with so much rational probability, as that his Patriar∣chal Jurisdiction was concur∣rent with that of the Vicarius Urbicus, or the Lieutenant of Rome, as his Metropolitical was with that of the Praefectus Urbis, or City-Provost. Now the Vica∣rius Urbicus had ten Provinces * 1.254 under his Government, four Consular, viz. Campania, Tuscia, and Umbria, Picenum Suburbica∣rium (the Suburbicary as well as other Provinces being in some cases * 1.255, especially that of Tribute, under the Inspection

of the Praetorian Praefect, and his Lieutenant) Sicilia; Two Correctorial, Apulia with Calabria, and Lucania Brutiorum; Four Praesidial, Samnium, Sardinia, Corsica, and Valeria. This was the Urbicary Diocess, distinct from the Italick Diocess, the Metro∣polis whereof was Milan.

Within these bounds the Bi∣shops of Rome, especially after the times of the Nicene Coun∣cil took upon them to exer∣cise Jurisdiction, to call Sy∣nods, Ordain Metropolitans, and dispatch other Church-af∣airs. Hence they had their u∣sual Synod, which was a kind of Council in ordinary to the Bishop of Rome, and met up∣on all important occasions. Such was the Synod of Pope Damasus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and of the Bishops that

Assembled with him at Rome, mention'd by Athanasius * 1.256, as conven'd about his Cause. Such that of the Bishops 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in those parts, spoken of by Pope Julius * 1.257, as concur∣ring with him in his Letter to the Eastern Bishops. The old Roman notitia (produc'd by Baronius * 1.258 out of the Records of the Vatican, but of an Age much later than the times we write of) tells us this Sy∣nod consisted of LXX. Bishops. And much about that number, we find them in the Acts of Councils, as in the Synod un∣der Pope Gelasius a 1.259, and in that under Symmachus b 1.260. Thus we find Pope Leo c 1.261 requi∣ring the Bishops of Sicily to send three of their number e∣very year upon Michaelmus-day to meet the Roman Synod, fra∣terno

concilio soc••andi. And the Synod of Sardica * 1.262 sending their Decrees to Pope Julius, desire him to communicate them to the Bishops in Sicily, Sardinia and Italy, (i. e. that part of Italy that lay within the Urbicary Diocess) that none of them might receive com∣municatory Letters from any that had been depos'd in that Council. And this was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the multitude of Bishops wherewith Pope Leo was encompast, and whom by vertue of the power and pre∣heminence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of his own proper place and Jurisdi∣diction he had conven'd out of many Cities in Italy, as the Empress Galla Placidia speaks in her Letter * 1.263 to Theodosius. Not but that sometimes here (as in other places)▪ we find

foreign Bishops convening in Synods, with those under the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bi∣shop, especially upon some extraordinary emergencies: But then this was only in a Bro∣therly way, and at the invita∣tion of the chief Bishop of those parts, and not that they were under his charge and go∣vernment. He had no direct and immediate influence over any but those who lay within the bounds, over which the ci∣vil Governours who resided at Rome, extended their authority, and who no doubt fell in the willinglier with his Jurisdicti∣on, for the conveniency of their being aided and assisted by the Church of Rome.

By all which we see, that no sooner were Dioceses divi∣ded and settled by the civil

constitution, but the Roman Bi∣shop began to extend his Ju∣risdiction commensurate to the Urbicary Diocess, within which his Metropolitical was at last swallowed up. This the Learn∣ed Arch-bishop of Paris * 1.264 rea∣dily grants, and thinks is inti∣mated in the ancient Version of the Nicene Canon, which we mention'd before, where the Bishop of Rome is said to have Principality over the Sub∣urbicary places, and all the Pro∣vince; the first denoting the Government of the Provost, the latter that of the Vicarius, or Lieutenant of Rome, and con∣sequently the one represents the Popes Metropolitical, the other his Patriarchal Juris∣diction. 'Tis true he often tells us of a two-fold Patriar∣chate the Pope had, ordinary,

and extraordinary, the one reaching to the Urbicary Dio∣cess, the other over the whole West. But with how little rea∣son and pretence of truth we noted before.

We grant the Pope had al∣ways great honour given him by all, and more by the Western Churches, but authoritative power he had not but over his own special Diocess, nor does S. Basil's styling him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the chief of the Western Bishops, imply any more than dignity and prece∣dence; or the Empires being divided into East and West, and in allusion thereto the Chur∣ches being sometimes distin∣guish'd into Eastern and Western make any more for his Western Patriarchate, than it did for the Bishop of Constantinoples be∣ing

Patriarch over the whole East. Arguments which I should be asham'd to mention, but that they are produc'd by such great Names, and are indeed the best they have in this mat∣ter. I grant that according to the ambitious humour of that Church they were always at∣tempting to enlarge their Bor∣ders, and to propagate their power beyond its just limits: and partly by recommending persons to be Bishops in foreign Chur∣ches, and thence proceeding to impose them, partly by inter∣posing in Ordinations, and ex∣acting an Oath of Obedience to the See of Rome from the persons Consecrated, partly by challenging the immediate de∣cision of Episcopal Causes, and a power to confirme, translate, excommunicate, depose, or re∣store

all delinquent Bishops, partly by drawing Appeals to Rome, and taking the determi∣nation of matters from the cognizance of their proper Judges, and arrogating the sole priviledge of judging and con∣demning Heresies, partly by claiming to preside in all Coun∣cils, and if disoblig'd, with∣holding their assent to the De∣crees of Synods, partly by send∣ing their Legates into foreign Countries to hear and decide cases, and take up controver∣sies, by taking off, and enga∣ging brisk and active Bishops by honourary Imployments, by sending Commissions to the Bishops of the greater Sees, and lodging certain powers in their hands to act as their Vi∣cars within their several Provin∣ces, that so they might seem to

derive their authority from the Roman See, as they did at Thes∣salonica, Corinth, Justiniana Prima, Arles, &c. partly by giving all imaginable encouragement to persons, whether of the Clergy or Laity to send to Rome for the resolution of difficult and important cases, and partly by dispatching Missionaries to con∣vert Pagan Countries; by these and infinite other the like Arts and Methods, they grew in time though not 'till some Ages, to challenge and exercise a power over all the Churches of the West. But from the beginning it was not so. The summ then of all that has been discours'd hitherto is this; that as 'twas the Dignity of the City of Rome gave the Bishops of that place preheminence above all other Primates or Patriarchs, so 'twas

the division of the Empire made by Constantine, exalted his pow∣er from that of a Metropoli∣tan to a Patriarch, and enlar∣ged it to an equal extent with the Diocess of the Lieutenant of Rome; within which Bounds they pretty well contain'd them∣selves 'till their pride and am∣bition began more openly to break out, and to disturb the peace and order of the Church.

CHAP. VI. The Encroachments of the See of Rome upon other Sees, espe∣cially the See of Con∣stantinople.

The Roman Bishops breaking the bounds of all Laws and Ca∣nons. Their taking hold of all occasions of magnifying their own power. Instances of Julius, Da∣masus, Innocent, Zosimus to this purpose. The briskness and activity of Pope Leo. His many Letters written to advance the reputation of his authority. His jealous eye upon the grow∣ing greatness of the See of Con∣stantinople.

The attempts and actings of his Legates in the Council of Chalcedon. Their mighty opposition against the pas∣sing the XXVIII. Canon of that Synod. The fraud of Pascha∣sinus in citing the sixth Canon of Nice. Their protestation a∣gainst the power granted to the Bishop of Constantinople. Pope Leo's zeal and rage a∣gainst these Synodal proceedings. Faelix his Excommunicating A∣cacius of Constantinople. The pretended occasion of that Sen∣tence. The same spleen continu∣ed and carried on by Pope Ge∣lasius. A reconciliation procur'd by the Emperour Justin between the Bishops of Rome and Con∣stantinople. Pope John's insult∣ing over Epiphanius in his own Church at Constantinople. John the Seconds raving Let∣ter

to Justinian. The Bishop of Constantinople assumes the Title of Oecumenical Patri∣arch. This in what sence (pro∣bably) meant. The passionate resentment of Pope Pelagius hereat. The same zeal shew'd by his Successour Gregory the Great. His Letters written upon that occasion. The hard words he every where bestows upon that Title. His mistake about the offer of that Title to the Pope in the Chalcedon Council. The true state of that case. This Title frequently gi∣ven to the Constantinopolitan Bishops in the Council under Menans, before John assum'd it. Baronius's poor evasion of that matter. Gregory still continues to thunder out Anathema's a∣gainst this Title. All this su∣spected to be but noise, and the

quarrel only because themselves had not the Title. Phocas his Usurpation of the Empire. The monstrous villany and wickedness of that Man. Pope Gregory's scandalously flattering Caresses to him and his Empress. Bo∣niface the Third makes suit to Phocas, and procures the Title of Oecumenical to be affixt to the See of Rome. The Popes daily enlargement of their Power and Tyranny, and their advantages for so doing. The whole concluded with the Canons or DICTATES of Pope Hildebrand.

I. THOUGH Custome and the Canons of the Church had set out the Bishop of Rome his proper Portion in the Ecclesiastick Government,

yet how hard is it for cove∣tousness and ambition to keep within any bounds? A spirit of pride still fermented in that See, that made them restless, 'till they had thrown down all enclosures, and that their Sheaf alone (as it was in Joseph's Vision) arose and stood upright, and the Sheaves of their Brethren stood round about, and did obey∣sance to it. In the discovery whereof we shall only remark the more general attempts they made concerning it. And first nothing made more way to their Usurpt Dominion, than the magnifying their own pow∣er, and the priviledges of their Church upon all occasions.

II. TO begin no earlier than Pope Julius; in his Letters to the Bishops of Antioch, to make them more willing to

submit their Cause to be tried at Rome, he had it seems high∣ly extoll'd the greatness of that Church, and the dignity and authority of his See, as ap∣pears by the summ of their an∣swer * 1.265, and his rejoynder to their Letter. Not long after Pope Damasus writing also to the Eastern Bishops, commends * 1.266 them that they had yielded due reverence to the Apostolick See: And though this was spoken with modesty enough (aw'd hereinto perhaps by the Synod at Rome, in whose Name he wrote) yet in his Epistle * 1.267 to them of Numidia, and in general to all Catholick Bi∣shops (if that Epistle be ge∣nuine) he speaks out, telling them that according to ancient institutions, they did well in all doubtful cases to have re∣course

to him as to the head, and that this was founded up∣on Custome and Ecclesiastick Canons; concluding his long Epistle thus,

All which De∣cretals, and the constitutions of all my Predecessors, which have been publish'd concern∣ing Ecclesiastical Orders and Canonical Discipline, we command to be observ'd by you, and all Bishops and Priests, so that whoever shall offend against them, shall not be received to par∣don, the Cause properly re∣specting us, who ought to steer the Government of the Church.

This was most Pon∣tifically spoken, and boldly ventured at, especially if we consider how little the African Bishops regarded the authority of the Roman Church, when

the case of Appeals arose a few years after, as we have already seen at large. Siricius came next to Damasus, and he in his Letter * 1.268 to Himerius of Tara∣gon in Spain, magnifies the Ro∣man Church as the Head of that Body, and bids him con∣vey those Rules he had sent to all the Bishops in that and the neighbour Countries, it not being fit that any Bishop should be ignorant of the constituti∣ons of the Apostolick See. In∣nocent the First, more than once and again styles * 1.269 the Church of Rome the Fountain and Head of all Churches, and this built upon ancient Canons; and yet perhaps meant no more, than that it was the principal and most eminent Church of the Christian World: An honour, which upon several accounts

intimated before, Antiquity free∣ly bestow'd upon it. Zosunus in a Letter to the Council of Carthage (produc'd by Baronius * 1.270 out of a Vatican Copy) makes a mighty flourish with the unlimited power of S. Pe∣ter, that he had the care not only of the Roman, but of all Churches, ratified by the Rules of the Church, and the traditi∣on of the Fathers, that both by Divine and Humane Laws this Power descended upon the Bishop of that See, whose sen∣tence none might presume to reverse.

III. LEO the Great entred that See about the year CCCCXL. A Man of somewhat a brisker and more active temper, than those that had been before him, and one that studied by all imaginable methods to enlarge

his Jurisdiction, and being a Man of Parts and Eloquence, did amplify and insinuate his power with more advantage. He tells * 1.271 the Mauritanian Bi∣shops,

That he would dis∣pence with the Election of those Bishops, who had been immediately taken out of the Laity, so they had no o∣ther irregularity to attend them, not intending to pre∣judice the commands of the Apostolick See, and the De∣crees of his Predecessours; and that what he pass'd by at pre∣sent, should not hereafter go without its censure and pu∣nishment, if any one should dare to attempt, what he had thus absolutely forbidden.

And elsewhere * 1.272 that Bishops and Metropolitans were there∣fore constituted, that by them

the care of the Universal Church might be brought to the one See of S. Peter, and that there might be no disagreement be∣tween the Head and the Mem∣bers. And in a Sermon upon the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul, in a profound admiration he breaks out * 1.273 into this Rhe∣torical Address.

These (says he) are the Men that have advanced thee to this ho∣nour, that thou art become a holy Nation, a peculiar Peo∣ple, a Royal and Priestly City, that being by the Holy See of S. Peter made Head of the World, thou mightest govern farther by means of a Divine Religion, than by worldly power. For al∣though enlarg'd by many vi∣ctories, thou hast extended the Bounds of thy Empire

both by Sea and Land, yet is it far less which thou hast conquer'd by force of Arms, than that which thou hast gain'd by the peace of the Church.

IV. BUT Leo was a Man not only for speaking, but for action. He saw the Empe∣rours and the Eastern Bishops were resolv'd to advance the See of Constantinople, that it might bear some proportion to the Imperial Court, and that the Synod of Constantinople had already adjudg'd it the place of honour next to Rome; that therefore it concern'd him to bestir himself to stifle all at∣tempts that way, well know∣ing that the glory of that would eclipse his lustre, and cramp those designs of superi∣ority and dominion, which the

Bishops of Rome were conti∣nually driving on over the Church of Christ. A general Council was now call'd to meet at Chalcedon, Ann. CCCCLI. wherein were present no less than Six hundred and thirty Bishops: Hither Pope Leo sent his Legates, furnished with pe∣remptory instructions (which they afterwards read openly in the Synod) to keep a quick eye upon all motions that way, and with all possible re∣solution to suppress them. At the opening of the Council, the Legates cunningly slipt in a clause, telling * 1.274 the Fathers, that they had such and such things in command from the most Blessed and Apostolical Bishop of the City of Rome, which was the Head of all Chur∣ches: Which either was not

heeded by that Synod, or pass'd by in the sence before declar'd, as allowing it an honourary preheminence above the rest.

In the fifth Session of that Council * 1.275 the Papal Legates mov'd that the Epistle of Leo about the condemnation of Nestorius might be inserted in∣to the very definition of the Council against that Heresie. Craftily foreseeing what a mighty reputation it would give the Pope in the eye of the World, and to what vast advantage it might be stretch'd afterwards. But the Council stiffly oppos'd the motion, and said, they freely own'd the Letter and were ready to subscribe it, but would not make it part of the definition. The Legates were angry, demanded the Let∣ter back again, and threatned

to be gone, and to have a Sy∣nod at Rome. And when the Emperour intimated some such thing, the Bishops cried out, they were for the definition as it was, and they that did not like it, nor would subscribe it, might if they please get them gone to Rome. After this, all things went on smoothly 'till they came to frame the Ca∣nons, among which one was * 1.276, that the Bishop of Constantinople should enjoy equal Priviledges with the Bishop of Rome; and then the Legates could hold no longer, plainly telling them, that this was a violation of the constitution of the great Synod of Nice, and that their Com∣mission oblig'd them by all ways to preserve the Papal dignity, and to reject the de∣signs of any, who relying upon

the greatness of their Cities, should attempt any thing to the contrary.

To prove that this was con∣trary to the Nicene Decrees, they produc'd the Sixth and Se∣venth Canons of that Council, beginning thus as Paschasinus repeated them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. The Church of Rome ever had the Primacy. Let Egypt therefore have this privi∣ledge, that the Bishop of Alexan∣dria have power, &c. where in∣stead of the first words of that Canon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 let ancient Customs still take place, the Legate shuffled in this sen∣tence as more to his purpose, the Church of Rome ever had the Primacy. And admitting here that this was only the Title to that Canon in the Roman Co∣py,

yet 'tis somewhat more than suspicious, that Paschasinus intended it should be under∣stood as part of the Canon it self. Which if so, there could not be a bolder piece of for∣gery and imposture. But the Fathers were not to be so im∣pos'd upon. Aetius Arch-deacon of Constantinople produc'd a Co∣py from among the Records of that Church, which he deli∣vered to Constantine the Secre∣tary, who read it according to the genuine words of the Canon, without any such ad∣dition, Let ancient Customs still take place, &c. and in confirma∣tion of that were next read the second and third Canons of the second general Council at Constantinople. And because the Legate had objected that the Canon had been procur'd

by fraud, the Judges requir'd the Bishops concern'd to de∣clare their minds, who all readily declar'd the contrary. The case having been thus ful∣ly debated, and nothing mate∣rial being alledg'd against it, the Canon pass'd by the una∣nimous suffrage of the Fathers, the Roman Legates only entring their protestation, and resol∣ving to acquaint the Pope with what was done, that so he might judge both of the injury done to his own See, and the violence offered to the Canons.

V. NO sooner did the news of what had pass'd in the Sy∣nod arrive at Rome, but Pope Leo storm'd to purpose, wrote * 1.277 to Anatolius Bishop of Con∣stantinople, charging him with pride and ambition, with inva∣sion

of the Rights of others, with irreverence towards the Nicene Canons, contrary to which he had exalted himself above the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. He dispatch'd * 1.278 Letters also to the Emperour Marcianus, to his Lady the Empress Pulcheria, and to Juve∣nal Bishop of Jerusalem, and the rest of the Fathers of the Synod, all to the same effect, complaining of the pride of Anatolius, and the irregular pro∣ceedings of the Council, that the priviledges of Churches were destroy'd, the bounds of Metropolitans invaded, many depressed to make way for one, venerable Decrees made void, and ancient Orders trodden in the dirt. That whatever Rules were made contrary to the Canons of Nice were null, that

the care and inspection of these things was committed to him, a duty which he could not neglect without being guilty of unfaithfulness to his trust, that therefore by the authority of S. Peter he repeal'd and made void what ever any Council had agreed upon, repugnant to the Nicene Canons, yea, though done by many more in num∣ber than were in that venera∣ble Synod, declaring that no re∣gard or reverence was to be paid to their constitutions. In all which though nothing ap∣pear above ground but a mighty zeal for the honour of the Ni∣cene Canons, yet 'tis plain e∣nough 'twas his own ambition, his envy and emulation that lay at the bottom. And in∣deed, neither Leo, nor any of the Bishops of that See could

ever pardon the Chalcedon Sy∣nod, not only for making the Bishop of Constantinople equal to him of Rome, but for placing the Primacy of the Roman Church, not in any Divine Right, but only in Romes ha∣ving been the Seat of the Em∣pire.

VI. HENCEFORWARD they beheld the Bishops of that place with an evil Eye, as competitors with them in the Government of the Church, and the likeliest persons to give check to their extravagant de∣signs, and therefore laid hold upon all occasions to weak∣en their interest, and to vent their spleen against their per∣sons. And it was not long af∣ter, that a fit occasion present∣ed it self.

John the Tabennosiot * 1.279 had by gifts and bribes (enabled thereto by being Steward and Treasurer of that Church) pro∣cur'd himself to be made Bi∣shop of Alexandria, expresly contrary to his Oath lately made to the Emperour Zeno, that he would never attempt that See. For which he caus'd him to be expell'd, and Peter Mongus, who had been heretofore con∣secrated to that place to be re∣stor'd. Peter was a Patron of the Eutychian Heresie, but which at first he craftily dissembled, insinuating himself into the fa∣vour and friendship of Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, who constantly held Communion with him. But was so far from siding with him in any Heretical Sentiments, that no sooner did he hear * 1.280 that Peter

had publickly Anathematiz'd the Chalcedon Council, but he dis∣patch'd Messengers to Alexan∣dria to know the truth of things, before whose Eys Peter cast a mist, having form'd a judicial Process about that mat∣ter, and brought in persons to depose that he had done no such thing. Nay, he himself wrote * 1.281 to Acacius, assuring him, that the charge was false, and that he had, and did con∣firm and embrace the Council of Chalcedon; though all this was pretence and elaborate hy∣pocrisie. John driven out from Alexandria, flies to Rome, giving out himself to be a Martyr for the Cause of Pope Leo, and the Faith of the Chalcedon Synod.

Welcome he was to Pope Simplicius, who wrote to the

Emperour in his behalf; but dying not long after his arri∣val, his Successour Faelix readi∣ly espous'd the quarrel, and af∣ter some preparatory messages and citations (wherein he re∣quired of the Emperour Zeno, that Acacius might be sent to Rome, there to answer what John of Alexandria laid to his charge) taking advantage of two Synods at Rome, held one soon after the other, twice ex∣communicated and depos'd A∣cacius, for communicating with him of Alexandria. Letter after Letter he wrote both to the Emperour, and the Clergy and People of Constantinople, that the Sentence against Acacius might be own'd and put into execu∣tion, who yet continued in his See 'till his death, without any great regard to the Sentence

from Rome, which he so far slighted * 1.282, that to be even with him, he struck the Popes name out of the Diptychs, to shew the World he renounc'd all communion with him. This so much the more enrag'd his enemies at Rome, who all his life long pelted him with con∣tinual clamours and threatnings. Nay, Faelix and his Successours persecuted his very memory, denouncing censures against any that should mention his name with respect and honour. And I cannot but observe that in the Edict * 1.283 that was pass'd a∣gainst him at Rome, mention is made of nothing but contuma∣cy against the Popes Admoni∣tions, the ill usage and im∣prisonment of his Legates, and the affront therein offered to his person, and in the Excom∣municatory

Letter sent to Aca∣cius* 1.284 himself, though favouring of Hereticks was the great and indeed only thing pretended a∣broad, yet the very first thing wherewith he charges him, is contempt of the Nicene Coun∣cil, and invading the Rights of other mens Provinces. It seems though he was loth to speak out, it was the Decree of the late Synod of Chalcedon still stuck in his stomach, by which the Constantinopolitan Patriarch had been advanc'd to so much power in the East, and made equal to him of Rome.

And indeed Gelasius, who came after Faelix, says * 1.285 plain∣ly, that the Apostolick See never approv'd that part of the Chal∣cedon Canons, that it had gi∣ven no power to treat about it, and by its Legates had pro∣tested

against it, and thence most infallibly inferrs, that therefore it was of no autho∣rity or value; and according∣ly Peter of Alexandria, which was the second See (i. e. ac∣cording to the constitution of the Nicene Canon) could not be duly absolv'd by any other power then that of the first See, i. e. his own; accounting that of Constantinople (as he else∣where * 1.286 asserts) not to be reckon'd so much as among Metropolitan Sees: And as he argues in his Epistle * 1.287 to the Emperour Anastasius, if Christi∣ans be oblig'd in general to submit to their Regular Bishops, how much more should sub∣mission be made to the Bi∣shop of that See, to whom both God and the subsequent piety of the Church have al∣ways

given the preheminence above all Bishops; and so he goes on, according to the cu∣stome of the men, to speak big words of the authority and priviledges of the Apostolick See.

VII. SEVERAL years this breach that had been made re∣main'd, 'till Justin, a Man of very mean Originals, having by no good arts gain'd the Empire, thought it his interest to oblige and unite all parties. And first he begins to court the Pope, to whome he wrote * 1.288, giving him an account of his advancement to the Empire, and begging his prayers to God to confirm and establish it. This Hormisda in his an∣swer calls a paying the first fruits of his Empire due to S. Peter. Hereupon reconcilia∣tion

is offered, and John Bishop of Constantinople writes to him to that purpose, which he at length consents to upon this condition, that the name of A∣cacius might be stricken out of the Diptychs; which at last is done, and that of the Pope a∣gain put in, and so a Peace is piec'd up, and the Catholick Faith profess'd on both sides, according to the Decrees of the four general Councils. And though Epiphanius, who suc∣ceeded John in the See of Con∣stantinople, maintain'd the same correspondence, yet when ever it came to any important in∣stance, the Pope could not for∣get his proud domineering tem∣per over the Bishops of that Church. Which sufficiently ap∣pear'd about this very time, when John the first, Hermisda's

Successour, being by Theodorick King of the Goths sent Embas∣sadour to Constantinople, with this message to the Emperour Justin, either that he should re∣store to the Arians their Chur∣ches in the East, or expect that the Catholicks in Italy should have the same measures, he departed from Rome with weep∣ing eyes and a sad heart, be∣ing grieved not more to be made the bearer of a message, so contrary to his judgment, than to be put upon an im∣ployment that seemed a dimi∣nution to the Papal dignity; he being (as Marcellinus * 1.289 ob∣serves) the only Pope that had ever been commanded out of the City upon any such Er∣rand. However arriving at the Imperial City, he resolved to keep up his Port, entred

with great state, and being in∣vited * 1.290 to sit upon a Seat even with that of Epiphanius Bishop of that Church, he refus'd, telling them he would main∣tain the Prerogative of the A∣postolick See, not giving over, 'till a more eminent Throne was purposely plac'd for him above that of the Bishop of Constantinople. As if it had not been enough to reproach and vilify him at a distance, unless contrary to all Laws and Ca∣nons, and to the Rules of mo∣desty, civility and reason, he also trampled upon him in his own Church. Nay, Anastasius * 1.291 adds, that the Emperour in honour to God came before him, and prostrated himself upon the ground to adore and worship him.

Pope John the second, about ten years after writing * 1.292 to Justinian (though there want not very learned men, who question the credit of that E∣pistle) talks stylo Romano, just after the rate of his Predeces∣sours; he tells the Emperour, 'twas his singular honour and commendation, that he pre∣serv'd a reverence for the Ro∣man See, that he submitted all things to it, and reduc'd them to the unity of it, a Right ju∣stified by S. Peter's authority, conveyed to him by that au∣thentick deed of gift, Feed my sheep; that both the Canons of the Fathers, and the Edicts of Princes, and his Majesties own professions declar'd it to be truly the head of all Churches. Where yet (as in infinite o∣ther expressions of that nature

in the Pontifical Epistles) he warily keeps himself within general terms, capable of a gentler or a brisker interpreta∣tion, as it stood with their in∣terest to improve.

VIII. WEARIED out with continual provocations, opposi∣tions and affronts from Rome, the Patriarchs of Constantinople began to think upon some way, by which they might be bet∣ter enabled to bear up against them. To this end, John who from his extraordinary absti∣nence was Sir-nam'd Nesteutes or the Faster, being then Bi∣shop of that See in a Synod conven'd there Ann. DLXXXIX. about the Cause of Gregory Bishop of Antioch, procur'd the Title of Oecumenical or Univer∣sal Bishop to be conferr'd up∣on him; with respect proba∣bly,

to that Cities being the head Seat of the Empire, which was usually styl'd Orbis Romanus, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Universe, or whole World, and it could not be therefore thought extravagant, if the Bishop of it did assume a proportionable Title of honour, nothing ap∣pearing that hereby he laid claim to any extraordinary Ju∣risdiction.

Nor indeed is it reasonable to conceive, that the Eastern Patriarchs (who as Evagrius, who was advocate for Gregory in that Synod, tells us * 1.293) were all either by themselves or their Legates present in this Council, together with very many Metropolitans, should at one cast throw up their own power and authority, and give John an absolute Empire and

Dominion over them; and therefore can be suppos'd to grant no more, than that he being the Imperial Patriarch should alone enjoy that hono∣rable Title above the rest. Be∣sides that every Bishop as such, is in a sence intrusted with the care and sollicitude of the U∣niversal Church, and though for conveniency limited to a particular charge, may yet act for the good of the whole. Upon this ground it was, that in the ancient Church, so long as Order and Regular Disci∣pline was observ'd, Bishops were wont upon occasion not only to communicate their Councils, but to exercise their power and functions beyond the bounds of their particular Diocess, and we frequently find Titles and Characters given to

particular Bishops (especially those of Patriarchal Sees) equi∣valent to that of Universal Bi∣shop: I cannot but mention that passage of Theodorit, who speaking of Nestorius his being made Bishop of Constantinople, says * 1.294, that he was intrusted with the Presidency of the Ca∣tholick Church of the Ortho∣dox there, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which was nothing less then that of the whole World. A pas∣sage which perhaps might the more incourage and invite John at this time to assume the Title.

IX. BUT in what sence so∣ever intended, it sounded high▪ but especially made a loud noise at Rome, where they were strangely surpris'd to find themselves outshot in their own Bow; for though they had all

along driven on the design with might and main, yet they had hitherto abstain'd from the Title. Pelagius, who at this time sat in that Chair, was ex∣treamly netled at it, and im∣mediately dispatch'd Letters * 1.295 to John and the Bishops of his Synod, wherein he rants against this pride and folly, talks high of the invalidity of all Concili∣ary Acts without his consent and approbation, charges them, though summon'd by their Pa∣triarch, not to appear at any Synod, without authority first had from the Apostolick See, threatens John with excommu∣nication, if he did not present∣ly recant his error, and lay a∣side his unjustly usurpt Title of Universal Bishop; affirming that none of the Patriarchs might use that Profane Title,

and that if any one of them were styl'd Oecumenical, the Ti∣tle of Patriarch would be ta∣ken from the rest, a piece of insolence which ought to be far from all true Christians; with a great deal more to the same effect.

I know the last publishers of the Councils make this E∣pistle to be spurious, a false piece of Ware patch'd up in Insidore Mercators shop. But how∣ever that be, plain it is from S. Gregory * 1.296, (who sent Co∣pies of them to the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria) that Pe∣lagius did write such Letters, wherein by the authority of S. Peter he rescinded the Acts of that Synod, propter nephandum elationis vocabulum, for the sake of that proud and ungodly Ti∣tle, prohibiting his Arch-Dea∣con

then at Constantinople, so much as to be present at pray∣ers with the Patriarch of that place.

X. GREGORY the Great succeeded Pelagius, whose Apo∣crisiarius, or Agent he had been at Constantinople when the thing was done. A man of good learning, and greater piety, and of somewhat a more meek and peaceable temper, then most of those that had gone before him, which perhaps he owed in a great measure, to those sad calamitous times, he so oft complains of, wherein he liv'd: And yet as tender in this point as his Predecessours. John of Constantinople had late∣ly sent him an account * 1.297 of the proceedings in the case of John Presbyter of Chalcedon, wherein he took occasion to

style himself Oecumenical Patri∣arch almost in every sentence. This touch'd Pope Gregory to the quick, and as he had an excellent talent at writing Let∣ters, he presently sends to Mau∣ritius the Emperour, to the Empress Constantina, to the Pa∣triarchs of Alexandria and Anti∣och, to John himself, and to Sabinian his own Deacon then residing at Constantinople.

In all which he strains all the Nerves of his Rhetoric to load the case with the heaviest Ag∣gravations, complaining * 1.298 that by the contrivance of this proud and pompous Title, the peace of the Church, the holy Laws, and venerable Synods, yea and the commands of our Lord Jesus himself (who by that In∣strument, Tu es Petrus, &c. had committed the care of the whole

Church to Peter, Prince of the Apostles) were disturb'd and shatter'd; that it better became Bishops of this time rather to lye upon the ground, and to mourn in Sackcloth and Ashes, than to affect names of Vanity, and to glory in new and profane Titles, a piece of Pride and Blasphemy, injurious to all other Bishops, yea to the whole Church, and which it became the Emperour to restrain: * 1.299 that by this new Arrogancy and Pre∣sumption he had lift up himself above all his Brethren, and by his Pride had shewn, that the times of Antichrist were at hand; that he wondred the Emperour should write to him to be at peace with the Bishop of Constantinople, chi∣ding * 1.300 Sabinian his Deacon for not preventing the Emperour's Commands being sent to him.

To Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, and Anastasius of Antioch (whom elsewhere * 1.301 he tickles with their three Sees being the only three Apostolical Sees founded by S. Pe∣ter Prince of the Apostles, and that they mutually reflected Ho∣nour upon each other) he re∣presents, * 1.302 how great a diminu∣tion this was to their Dignity, that they should therefore give none this Title, for that so much undue Honour as they gave to another, so much they took a∣way of what was due to them∣selves; that this fond attempt was the invention of him, who goes about as a roaring Lyon, seek∣ing whom he may devour, and a forerunner of him, who is King over all the Children of Pride. He tells John * 1.303 himself, and that as he pretends with tears in his Eyes, that unless he quitted this

proud foolish Title, he must pro∣ceed further with him, and that if his profane and ungodly humour could not be cur'd by gentler methods, it must be lanc'd by Canonical severity; that by this perverse▪ Title he had imitated the Devil, and had made him∣self like to Lucifer Son of the Morning, who said, I will ascend above the heights of the Clouds, I will exalt my Throne above the Stars of God; telling us, that by Clouds and Stars we are to understand Bishops, who water by their Preaching, and shine by the light of their Conversation, whom while he despis'd and trod upon, and proudly lift up himself a∣bove them, what did he but aspire above the height of the Clouds, and exalt his Throne above the Stars of Heaven; that such proud Attempts had been

always far from him or his Pre∣decessors, who had refus'd the Title of Universal Bishop, when for the honour of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles, the venerable Council of Chalcedon offered it to them.

XI. IN which last passage (inculcated by him at every turn, no less * 1.304 than four or five several times) I cannot but re∣mark either his Carelesness, or Insincerity; Carelesness, in ta∣king such an important passage upon trust; or Insincerity, if knowing it to be otherwise, to lay so much stress upon so false and sandy a foundation. For the truth is, neither were his Pre∣decessors so modest, that I know of, as to refuse such a Title, nei∣ther did the Synod of Chalcedon ever offer it to them. There being nothing in all the Acts of

that Council that looks this way more than this, that four persons that came from Alexandria with Articles against Dioscorus their Bishop, exhibited their several Libels of Accusation, which they had presented to Pope Leo (who had beforehand espoused the quarrel) with this inscri∣ption, To Leo the most holy and religious Oecumenical Archbishop and Patriarch of Great Rome. These Libels the Papal Legats desired might be inserted into the Acts of the Council; which was done accordingly (as is usual in all judiciary Proceedings) for no other reason (as the Synod it self tells * 1.305 us) but this, that remaining there, they might thence be again rehears'd in Council, when Dioscorus himself should appear, and come to make his defence.

This is the true state of the case, and now let the Reader judge, whether the Council of∣fer'd the Pope this Title, when they were so far from appro∣ving it, that they did not so much as once take notice of it. I do not deny, but that the Pope's Legats might have an eye that way, and design to have that Title remain among the Re∣cords of the Council (as they were watchful Stewards to im∣prove all advantages for their Master;) and therefore we find them sometimes subscri∣bing * 1.306 themselves Vice-gerents of Leo of Rome, Bishop of the uni∣versal Church, which yet else∣where * 1.307 they thus explain, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Apostolical and chief Bishop of the whole Church. But however they intended it, cer∣tain

it is for any thing that ap∣pears to the contrary, that the Fathers themselves never dreamt of any such matter, and accor∣dingly when they came * 1.308 sin∣gly to declare their Judgments about the Epistle of Pope Leo, they style him only Pope, or Arch∣bishop of Rome, nor do his Le∣gates there give him any other Title. And in their Synodal Epistle * 1.309 to him, they super∣scribe it only, To the most holy and blessed Archbishop of Rome. Binius * 1.310 indeed will have the word Oecumenical to have been in the Inscription, and that it was maliciously struck out by some Transcriber, because (says he) in the body of the Epistle the Fathers own Leo to be the Head of the Universal Church, and the Father of all Bishops. When as the Letter has not one

word to that purpose, more than this, That as the Head presides over the Members, so did Leo over the Bishops in that Synod; which can import no more than his presiding by his Legates (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in his qui tuas vices gerebant, as the last publishers of the Councils truly correct the Translation) in that Council.

But suppose the Pope had had this Title conferr'd upon him, (as Gregory untruly affirms) 'twas no more than what was fre∣quently given to the Patriarch of Constantinople, as, to omit other instances, is evident from the Council holden there Ann. DXXXVI. under Mennas, and ano∣ther under John 18 years before, where John and Mennas, succes∣sively Bishops of that See, have both in the Acts of those Coun∣cils,

and in Libels of Address from whole Synods, the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch near twenty times bestow'd upon them. And this was several years before it was assum'd by that Patriarch John whom we mention'd before.

And 'tis methinks a sorry eva∣sion of Baronius * 1.311, and his Foot∣man Binius ‖ 1.312 (though 'tis that which they always have at hand, when an Argument pinches, which they know not how to decline) that this Title was foi∣sted into the Acts of the Coun∣cil by some later Greeks. And yet they produce no authority, no nor shadow of pretence from any ancient Copy that ever it was otherwise. And what if the Church of Rome did receive the Acts of that Council, and yet make no such clamours and

loud outcry against it? Perhaps it did not intirely admit the Acts of that Synod under John of Con∣stantinople Ann. DXVIII. Binius himself says, they were but Magna ex parte recepta, in a great measure receiv'd by the Church of Rome. And who knows whether this Title might not be some part of what was rejected. But if not, perhaps the Popes might slight it as a Title only accidentally given, not claim'd as due. Whereas Pelagius and Gregory rant so much against the other John, because he assum'd it in opposition to Rome, and had it by a solemn Synodical Act conferr'd upon him. I ob∣serve no more concerning this, than that Leo Allatius * 1.313 (who is not wont to neglect the least hint that may serve his cause) speaking of this passage, barely

takes notice of Baronius's infe∣rence, without the least sign of his approving it. But to re∣turn.

XII. WHILE Gregory was venting these passionate Resent∣ments, John the Patriarch dies. But the quarrel died not with him, Cyriacus, who came after him, keeping up the Title. This put the Popes passion into a fresh ferment, and now all the hard things are said over a∣gain, and Cyriacus * 1.314 is warn'd to lay aside the scandal of that un∣godly Title, that had given so much offence; and that * 1.315 he would hold no communion with him 'till he had renounc'd that proud and superstitious word, which was the invention of the Devil, and laid * 1.316 a foundation for Anti∣christ to take possession, nay peremptorily affirms * 1.317 with an

Ego autem fidenter dico, that who∣ever either styles himself, or de∣sires to be styl'd by others, Uni∣versal Bishop, is by that very Pride of his a fore-runner of Anti∣christ. And when he under∣stood that John Bishop of Thessa∣lonica, Urbicius of Dyrrachium, John of Corinth, and several o∣thers, were summoned to a Sy∣nod at Constantinople, not know∣ing whether a Snake might not lye hid in the Grass, he writes * 1.318 to them, giving them an ac∣count of the rise and progress of that proud and pestiferous Ti∣tle, (as he calls it) cautioning them not only not to use it them∣selves, but not to consent to it in others, nor by any overt Act to approve or own it; and if any thing should be craftily star∣ted in the Synod in favour of it, he adjures them by all that

is sacred, that none of them would suffer themselves to be wrought upon by any Arts of Flattery and Insinuation, of Re∣wards or Punishments to assent to it, but stoutly oppose them∣selves against it, and couragi∣ously drive out the Wolf that was breaking into the Fold.

XIII. HE that shall view these passages, and look no far∣ther than the outside of things, will be apt to think, surely S. Gregory was the most self-de∣nying man in the World, and that he and his Successors would sooner burn at a Stake, than touch this Title. And yet not∣withstanding all these passionate outcries, 'tis shrewdly suspicious, that they were levell'd not so much against the Title it self, as the person that bore it. We have taken notice all along what

an inveterate Pique the Bishops of Rome had against those of Constantinople, ever since the Em∣perours and Councils had made them equal to them, and this now added to all the rest, seem'd to exalt Constantinople infinitely above S. Peter's See.

Had this Title been Synodi∣cally conferr'd upon the Pope, we had heard none of this noise and clamour; but for him to be pass'd by, and his Enemy the Patriarch of Constantinople to be crown'd with this Title of Ho∣nour, 'twas this dropt the Gall into his Ink. And therefore in the midst of all this Humility he ceas'd not to challenge a kind of Supremacy over that Bishop: Who doubts (says he * 1.319) but that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See, a thing which both the Emperour,

and Eusebius the Bishop of it, daily own. But this 'tis plain is there spoken in the case of Rites and Ceremonies, wherein it seems all Churches must take their Measures from Rome; un∣less with Spalato * 1.320 we understand it of a subjection in point of Or∣der and Dignity, that Rome was the first See, and Constantinople the second.

The truth is, to me the pas∣sage seems suspected, and that Constantinople is there thrust in for some other place; and the rather, because there was no Eusebius at that time Bishop of that See, nor for a long time either before or after. How∣ever, Gregory had all his Eyes about him, that no disadvantage might surprise him; and there∣fore in his Letter to the Bishops of Greece (mentioned before)

that were going to the Synod at Constantinople, he tells them, that although nothing should be at∣tempted for the confirmation of the Universal Title, yet they should be infinitely careful, that nothing should be done there to the prejudice of any place or person: which though coucht in general terms, yet whoever understands the state of those Times, and the Pope's admi∣rable tenderness in those Mat∣ters, will easily see, that he means himself. And indeed, that the Bishops of Rome look'd upon the Title of Oecumenical Bishop to be foul and abomi∣nable only 'till they could get it into their own hands, is evident, in that Gregory had scarce been 12 Months cold in his Grave, when Pope Boniface the Third got that Title taken from Con∣stantinople,

and affix'd to the See of Rome; the manner whereof we shall a little more particu∣larly relate.

XIV. MAURICIUS the Emperour had in his Army a Centurion call'd Phocas, one whose deformed looks were the Index of a more brutish and mi∣shapen Mind. He was * 1.321 angry, fierce, bloody, ill-natur'd, de∣bauch'd, and unmeasurably given to Wine and Women; so bad, that when a devout Monk * 1.322 of that time oft expo∣stulated with God in Prayer, why he had made him Empe∣rour, he was answer'd by a voice from Heaven, Because I could not find a worse. This Man taking the opportunity of the Soldiers mutinying, murder'd the Empe∣rour, and possess'd his Throne, which he fill'd with Blood,

and the most savage Barbarities. Ten of the Imperial Family * 1.323 he put to death, and so far let loose the Reins to fierceness and cruelty, that he had it in de∣sign, to cut off all those, whom Nobility, or Wisdom, or any generous or honourable Actions had advanc'd above the com∣mon Rank. And yet as bad as this lewd Villain was, scarce was he warm in the Throne when he receiv'd Addresses from Pope Gregory, who complemen∣ted the Tyrant, and that too in Scripture-phrase, at such a rate, that I know not how to recon∣cile it with the honesty of a good Man. His Letter * 1.324 be∣gins with a Glory be to God on high, who, according as it is writ∣ten, changes Times, and transfers Kingdoms, who gives every one to understand so much, when he says

by his Prophet, the most High ru∣leth in the Kingdom of Men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

The whole Letter is much of the same strain, represen∣ting the happy advantages the World would reap under the benign influences of his Go∣vernment. And in another * 1.325 written not long after he tells him, what infinite Praise and Thanks they ow'd to Almighty God, who had taken off the sad and heavy Yoak, and had restor'd times of Liberty under the conduct of his Imperial Grace and Piety. He wrote * 1.326 likewise to the Empress Leontia (one who is said to have been not one jot better than her Hus∣band) with flattering Cares∣ses; and under abundance of good words, courts her kind∣ness and patronage to the Church

of S. Peter, which he fails not to back with, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock, &c. To thee I will give the Keys, &c.

XV. NOT long after Grego∣ry dies, and Sabinian, who succee∣ded, living not full six Months, Boniface the Third of that name takes the Chair. He had very lately been Apocrisiarius, or the Pope's Legate at Constantinople, where he wanted not opportu∣nities to insinuate himself into the favour of Phocas, and the Courtiers. And now he thought it a fit time to put in for what the Popes not∣withstanding all the pretences of Self-denial, so much desir'd, the Title of Universal Bishop, and the rather because Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople, was at this time under disfavour at Court. From the very first entrance upon the Papacy he

dealt * 1.327 with Phocas about this matter, and at length gain'd the point, though not without some considerable difficulty and op∣position, aegre nec sine multa con∣tentione, as my Authors have it.

At last out comes an Edict from Phocas, commanding, that the Church of Rome should be styl'd and esteem'd the Head of all Churches, and the Pope Universal Bishop. A rare Char∣ter sure, not founded upon the Canons of the Church, but upon an Imperial Edict, and this Edict too granted by the vilest and the worst of Men. But so they had it, no mat∣ter how they came by it. And now that Title that had so lately been new, vain, proud, foolish, prophane, wicked, hypo∣critical, presumptuous, perverse,

blasphemous, devilish, and Anti∣christian, became in a moment not only warrantable, but ho∣ly and laudable, being sancti∣fied by the Apostolic See.

XVI. FROM henceforth the Church of Rome sate as Queen, and govern'd in a man∣ner without control. For the Empire being broken in the West by the irruptions of the Lombards into Italy, and its Power declining in the East by the successful in∣vasions of the Saracens, the Em∣perours were but little at lea∣sure to support and buoy up the Honour of the Constantino∣politan Patriarchate. Advanta∣ges which the Popes knew well enough how to improve. And indeed every Age made new Additions to the height of the Papal Throne, and the Pride of that Church increasing pro∣portionably

to its Power and Grandeur, hector'd the World into submission to the See of Rome, which as imperiously impo∣sed its Commands and Principles upon other Churches, as Ty∣rants do Laws upon conquer'd Countries. Witness (for a con∣cluding instance) those extra∣vagant Canons * 1.328 or Articles, (DICTATES he calls them) which Pope Gregory the Seventh publish'd about the year MLXXV. I know Monsieur Launoy ‖ 1.329 has attempted to shew that these Dictates concerning the Prero∣gative of the See Apostolic were not fram'd by Gregory the Se∣venth. Whether his Reasons be conclusive, I am not now at leasure to enquire. Sure I am they are without any scruple own'd for his by Baronius, and generally by all the Writers of

that Church: And Launoy him∣self is forc'd to grant, that se∣veral of them are agreeable e∣nough to the Humour, Preten∣sions, and Decrees of that Pope. They run thus.

• 1. That the Church of Rome is founded by our Lord alone.
• 2. That the Bishop of Rome only can be truly styl'd Universal Bishop.
• 3. That he alone has power to depose or reconcile Bishops.
• 4. That his Legate, though of an inferiour Degree, is above all Bishops in Council, and may pro∣nounce sentence of Deposition a∣gainst them.
• 5. That the Pope may depose ab∣sent Bishops.
• 6. That where any are excom∣municated by him, we may not, a∣mong other things, so much as

• abide in the same House with them.
• 7. That he only may, according to the necessity of Times, make new Laws, constitute new Churches, turn a Canonry into an Abby, and on the contrary divide a rich Bi∣shoprick, and unite such as are poor.
• 8. That it is lawful only for him to use the Imperial Ornaments.
• 9. That all Princes shall kiss none but the Pope's Feet.
• 10. That his Name alone shall be recited in Churches.
• 11. That there is but one only name in the World [that is, that of Pope.]
• 12. That it is in his power to depose Emperours.
• 13. That in case of necessity he may translate Bishops from one See to another.
• ...

• 14. That wheresoever he please, he may ordain a Clerk to any Church.
• 15. That whoever is ordain'd by him, may have the Government of any other Church, but may not bear Arms, nor may receive a supe∣riour Degree from any Bishop.
• 16. That no Council ought to be call'd General without his Com∣mand.
• 17. That no Chapter nor Book shall be accounted Canonical without his authority.
• 18. That no Man may reverse Sentence past by him, and he only may reverse all others.
• 19. That he ought not to be judg'd by any.
• 20. That none presume to con∣demn any person that appeals to the Apostolic See.
• 21. That the weightier Causes of every Church ought to be referr'd to that See.
• ...

• 22. That the Church of Rome never err'd, nor, as the Scripture testifies, shall ever err.
• 23. That the Bishop of Rome, if Canonically ordain'd, is by the merits of S. Peter undoubtedly made holy, as S. Ennodius Bishop of Pavia bears witness, favour'd here∣in by many of the holy Fathers, as is contain'd in the Decrees of the blessed Pope Symmachus.
• 24. That by his leave and com∣mand Subjects may accuse [their Su∣periours.]
• 25. That without any Synod he may depose and reconcile Bishops.
• 26. That no Man shall be ac∣counted Catholic, that agrees not with the Church of Rome.
• 27. That it is in his power to absolve the Subjects of unjust Go∣vernours from their Fealty and Al∣legiance.

These were Maxims with a witness, deliver'd like a true DICTATOR and Head of the Church. And it shew'd, the World was sunk into a pro∣digious Degeneracy, when a Man durst but so much as think of obtruding such Principles upon the Consciences of Men, and imposing them upon the belief of Mankind.

The END.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Joh. xx. 21.
• * 1.2

  1 Pet. v. 1, 2, 3.
• * 1.3

  11 Cor. xi. 5.
• * 1.4

  Gal. ii. 7.
• * 1.5

  —9.
• * 1.6

  Rev. xxi. 14.
• * 1.7

  Matth. xix. 28.
• * 1.8

  Matth xx. 25, 26, 27.
• * 1.9

  De Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 1. Col. 5••9. c. 12. Col. 628. l. 4. c. 4. Col. 803.
• * 1.10

  L. 2. c. 12. l. 4. c. 4. ubi supr.
• * 1.11

  Barlaam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 25. edit. Graec.
• * 1.12

  Firmil. Ep. ad Cypr. in∣ter Ep. Cypr. p. 150.
• * 1.13

  Epist. 74. ad Pomp. per tot. p. 129.
• * 1.14

  Epist. supr. cit. p. 143, &c.
• * 1.15

  Synod. Carth. apud Cypr. p. 282.
• * 1.16

  Adv. Hae∣res. l. 3. c. 3. p. 232.
• * 1.17

  Epist. 162. col. 728.
• * 1.18

  Euseb. H. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. p. 216.
• * 1.19

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Herod. Hist. l. 1. in vit. Commod. p. 32. Tibi proficiscentium major facul∣tas fuit: primò, quia in com∣mune imperii caput undique gentium convenitur; tum, quod clementissimum princi∣pem in hac parte degentem, varia omnium desideria vel necessitates sequuntur. Sym∣mach. l. 4. Epist. xxviii. (ad Protad.) vid. sis not Lectii.
• * 1.20

  De fid. Ca∣thol. C. Th. leg. 2. vid. Soz. l. 7. c. 4. p. 708.
• * 1.21

  Lib. 27. p. 1739.
• * 1.22

  Hieron. ad Pammach. adv. error. Jo. Hierosol. p. 165.
• * 1.23

  Ap. Euseb. H. E. l. 4. c. 23. p. 145.
• * 1.24

  Epist. v. Concil. Tom. ii. col. 876.
• * 1.25

  Innoc. Epist. I. ibid. col. 1245.
• * 1.26

  Epist. 10. ad Gregor, p. 54.
• * 1.27

  Ap. Baron. ad An. 372. T. 4. p. 322.
• * 1.28

  Prim. Chr. Part. 1. Ch. 8. p. 227. Edit. 1. vid. Breer∣woods Quaer. 1. & Berter. Pithan. fere per tot. alii∣que.
• * 1.29

  Can. 9.
• * 1.30

  Cypr. Epist. xxxiii. p. 47. xxxii. p. 46.
• * 1.31

  Vid. Cone. Nic. Can. iv.
• * 1.32

  Cornel. E∣pist. ad Fab. Antioch. ap. Eus. l. 6. c. 43. p. 245.
• * 1.33

  Epist. xxix. p. 41.
• * 1.34

  Epist. xxx. p. 42.
• * 1.35

  Epist. XLii. p. 56.
• * 1.36

  Epist. LXVii. infin.
• * 1.37

  Epist. LV. p. 78.
• * 1.38

  Epist. XLi. p. 55.
• * 1.39

  Optat. l. 1. p. 27, &c. & Const. Epist. ad Melch. ap. Euseb. l. 10. c. 5. p. 391.
• * 1.40

  Vid. Conc. Tom. 1. col. 1428.
• * 1.41

  Epist. CCLXXXii. p. 802.
• * 1.42

  Vid. Epiph. Haeres. 68. p. 307. So∣zom. l. 1. c. 24. p. 438.
• * 1.43

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.44

  nist
• * 1.45

  Territorium est universi∣tas agrorum intra fines cujus∣que civitatis: quod ab eo di∣ctum quidam aiunt quod ma∣gistratus ejus loci intra eos fines terrendi, id est, sub∣movendi jus habet. l. 239. § 7. de verb. signific.
• * 1.46

  Geograph. l. 4 p. 186. vid. Plin. l. 3. c. 4. p. 39.
• * 1.47

  Lib. 17. p. 84.
• * 1.48

  Vid. J. Front. de Co∣lon. inter s••r. Rei Agr. à Goes. Edit. p. 141. frag. de Term. ib. p. 148.
• * 1.49

  Lib. 53. in vit. August.
• * 1.50

  Sirmond. Censur. P. 1. c. 2. p. 10. Aleand. Refut. Con∣ject. P. 1. c. 3. p. 25.
• * 1.51

  Lib. 3. c. 5. p. 41.
• * 1.52

  Front. ib. p. 118. 123. & alibi.
• * 1.53

  Ib. p. 127.
• ‖ 1.54

  Ib. p. 144.
• * 1.55

  Hyg. de li∣mit. ib. p. 211.
• * 1.56

  Appar. ad Primat. pap. p. 273.
• * 1.57

  Can. ix.
• * 1.58

  De bell-Jud. l. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 854.
• * 1.59

  Hist. l. 2. p. 359.
• * 1.60

  In Can. II. Concil. C P. p. 88.
• * 1.61

  L. Allat. de consens. Eccles. Ori∣ent. & Oc∣cid. l. 1. c. 12. N. 4. p. 190.
• * 1.62

  Alex. Arist. in loc.
• * 1.63

  Epit. Can. Sect. I. Tit. I. in Jur. Gr. Rom. p. 1.
• * 1.64

  Epist. XLIX. p. 63.
• * 1.65

  Epist. ad solit. p. 644.
• * 1.66

  Dionys. de script. Orb. vers. 355. p. 8.
• * 1.67

  Dion. Orat. xxxii. (ad A∣lex.) p. 362
• * 1.68

  Orat. in Rom. p. 358. Tom. 1.
• * 1.69

  Alexand. ap. Eustath. comment. in Homer. I••i∣ad. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ste∣phan. in v. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.70

  Can. ix.
• * 1.71

  Can. ii.
• * 1.72

  Can. xxviii.
• * 1.73

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, p. 8. Edit. Graec. vid. Barlaam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 26.
• * 1.74

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 374. fac. 2. Edit. Graec.
• ‖ 1.75

  L. Allat. ib. c. 2. N. 6, 7, &c. p. 12, &c. Morin. ex∣ercit. Eccles. l. 1. exerc. 1. p. 9.
• * 1.76

  Morin. ib. p. 8. 11. vide sis etiam Hi∣eron. Aleand. de Region. Suburb. dis∣sert. 11. c. 2. p. 90.
• * 1.77

  Vit. I. Mo∣rin. p. 5. 7.
• * 1.78

  Melet. Alex. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 14.
• * 1.79

  Constanti∣nopolitana Ecclesia om∣nium alia∣rum est ca∣put. Lib. 1. Cod. Just. Tit. 11. l. 24.
• * 1.80

  Concil. Ephes. Can. viii.
• * 1.81

  Can. xxxix
• * 1.82

  Ap. Theod. l. 1. c. 6. p. 31.
• a 1.83

  Can. xix.
• b 1.84

  Can. xii.
• c 1.85

  Can. vi.
• d 1.86

  Can. xii.
• e 1.87

  Can. i.
• f 1.88

  Can. xxv.
• g 1.89

  Conc. Chalced. Act. xiii. col. 715.
• * 1.90

  Can. ix.
• * 1.91

  De primat. c. 4. p. 57.
• * 1.92

  De Con∣cord. l. 6. c. 1. n. 9. p. 176.
• * 1.93

  Epist. Dio∣nys. Corinth. Episc. ap. Eus. l. 4. c. 23. p. 144.
• * 1.94

  Euseb. H. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23. p. 190▪
• * 1.95

  De Script. in Bacchyl. c. 44.
• * 1.96

  A Papp•• edit. p. 7.
• * 1.97

  Vid. Epist. XLii. p. 56. XLV. p. 59.
• * 1.98

  Loc. ••itat.
• * 1.99

  L. Allat. ib. c. 8. n. 1. p. 158. Filesac. de S. Episc. au∣ctor. c. 9. §. 3. p. 225.
• * 1.100

  Bellarm. de R. Pont. l. 2. c. 18. col. 659 Aleand. de reg. suburb. Part. II. c. 4. p. 142. Sir∣mond. Cen∣sur. P. II. c. 5. p. 76.
• * 1.101

  Ap. Theod. l. 2. c. 16. p. 94.
• * 1.102

  Ib. 16 n. 2. col. 240.
• a 1.103

  Ap. Ʋlp. de offic praef. urb. l. 1. ff. §. 4. Lib. 1. Tit. 12. & collat. Ll. Mosac. Tit. 14. de plag.
• b 1.104

  Form. Lib. 5. p. 207
• c 1.105

  L. 3. C. Th. Lib. 9. Tit. 30. l. 3. Lib. 11. Tit. 3. l. 9. Tit. 16. ib.
• d 1.106

  L. 9. C. Th. Lib. 11. Tit. 1. l. 12. Tit. 16. ib. l. 12. Tit. 28.
• e 1.107

  L. 13. C. Th. Lib. 9. Tit. 1.
• f 1.108

  Ʋlp. ubi supr. §. 13.
• g 1.109

  L. 4. C. Th. Lib. 14. Tit. 10.
• h 1.110

  L. 1 C. Th. Lib. 14. Tit. 6.
• * 1.111

  Epist. ad Amic. p. 4. Euchar. P. 1. c. 1. p. 7. P. 11. c. 1. p. 249.
• * 1.112

  Euchar. ib. p. 11. & not. Salm. in vit. Probi.
• * 1.113

  Conjectur. de region. suburb. c. 5. p. 27. 30, 31. & com. ad C. Th. Lib. 14. Tit. 6. l. 1.
• * 1.114

  Epist. cit. p. 23, 24. Eu∣charist. 1. c. 5. p. 170. 186, &c.
• * 1.115

  Io Lechas∣ser. observat. de Eccles. Suburb. p. 4, 5.
• * 1.116

  Censur. Con∣ject. l. 1. c. 4. p. 23. Advent. P. 1. c. 3. p. 31.
• * 1.117

  Refut Con∣ject. P. 1 c. 3. p. 26.
• * 1.118

  Lib. 11. C. Th. Tit. 16. l. 9. p. 120.
• * 1.119

  Censur. ubi supr. c. 6. p. 38. vid. Advent. ib. p. 36.
• * 1.120

  Aleand. ubi supr. c. 2. p. 23.
• * 1.121

  Vid. Zo∣sim. Hist. l. 2. p. 688.
• * 1.122

  Exercit. Eccles. l. 1. c. 30. p. 243.
• * 1.123

  Cens. c. 1. p. 9. Adv. c. 1. p. 7.
• * 1.124

  Cens. p. 12. Propemp. l. 1. c. 7. p. 87.
• * 1.125

  Lib. 9. Tit. 1. l. 13.
• * 1.126

  Conc. Chalc can. 17.
• * 1.127

  Conc. C. P. in Trull. c. 38.
• * 1.128

  L. 62. C. Th▪ Lib. 16. Tit. 5.
• * 1.129

  Prosp. de promiss. div. P. iii. prom. 38. p. 60.
• * 1.130

  Herodian. Hist. l. 2. p. 97.
• * 1.131

  Ext. ap. Baron. ad Ann. 371. vid. item Re∣scr. ad Ma∣xim. V. V. ibid.
• * 1.132

  H. Eccl. l. 1. c. 6.
• * 1.133

  Distinct. xv. c. 3. Sancta Romana. p. m. 34.
• * 1.134

  Adv. Hincm. Laud. cap. 21. p. 100.
• * 1.135

  Vid. Conc. Nic. II. Act. 1 Con. T. vii. Col. 80. 85. vid. Cyril. Epist. ad PP. Afric. Conc. T. 2. col. 1143.
• * 1.136

  Censur. P. ii. c. 4. p. 68.
• * 1.137

  De Eccl. Occid. & Or. consens. l. 1. c. 12. S. 4. p. 191.
• * 1.138

  H. E. l. 7. c. 30. p. 282.
• * 1.139

  Ap. Athan. Apol. II. p. 588. vid. ad solitar. p. 640.
• * 1.140

  Ap. Ath. ib. p. 643.
• * 1.141

  Ap. Theod. H. Eccl. l. 2. c. 15. p. 91.
• * 1.142

  Sac. Hist. l. 2. p. 169.
• * 1.143

  Pithan. P. 1. c. 3. p. 26.
• * 1.144

  Ext. Conc. T. 1. col. 1429.
• * 1.145

  De Primat. c. Ʋlt. p. 390.
• * 1.146

  Vid. Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric. Can. 53. 56. 71. 93. 98. 99. 117. 118. 119 123. & in collat. Car∣thag. passim.
• * 1.147

  Epist. LXXXVii. c. 2. p. 158.
• * 1.148

  A D. Beve∣reg. inter Annot. ad Can. XXXVi. Conc. Vi. in Trull. p. 135.
• * 1.149

  Exerc. Eccl. l. 1. exercit. XXX. p. 250.
• * 1.150

  —Adoratum populo ca∣put, & crep••t ingens Seja∣mis: deinde ex facie toto or be secunda, &c. Juvenal. Satyr. x. vers. 62. orbe &c.] quia praefectus Ʋrbi fuit ve∣nerabilis, secundus à Caesare Tiberio. Vet. Scholiast. ibid.

  —erubuit tanto spoliare ministro Imperium fortuna tuum: stat proxima cervix Ponderis immensi— P. Stat. Sylv. l. 1. c. 4. vers. 5. de Rub. Gallico. P. V.

  Vid. Gothofred. conjectur. dissert. I. c. 1. II. c. 5. & J. Dartis. de Reg. Suburb. Part. I. c. 16. p. 147.
• a 1.151

  L 3. C. Lib. 1. Tit. 28. Symmach. l. 10. Epist. 36. p. 503.
• b 1.152

  Id. ib. Epist. 30. p 459.
• c 1.153

  Ap. Eus. de Vis. C. l. 3. c. 7. p. 487. Can. 28.
• * 1.154

  A. Mar∣cell. Hist. l 15. p. m. 1454.
• * 1.155

  L. 7. c. xi. p. 347.
• * 1.156

  Concil. C. P. Can. 11.
• * 1.157

  L. 5. c. 8. p. 275.
• * 1.158

  Life of Greg. Nazi∣anz. Sect. v. Num. 8.
• * 1.159

  Epist. xviii. non longe ab¦init▪
• * 1.160

  Lib. 16. C. Th. Tit. 2 l. 23.
• * 1.161

  Distinct. xcix. p. 302.
• * 1.162

  Haeres. 30. p. 60.
• * 1.163

  Dial. 1. Tom. iv. p. 22.
• a 1.164

  Seder Olam, R. Abraham, R. Dav. Ganz. in Zemach, David. Benjamin in itin. &c.
• b 1.165

  Epiph. Haeres. xxx. ubi supra. Cyril. Catech. xii. p. 261. Hieron. Comm. in Esa. c. 3. p. 18. & alibi. Chrysost. adv. Jud. l. 4. p. 448. & de hisce intelligen∣dus est locus in Epistola Ha∣driani ap. Vopisc. in Satur∣nino p. 960.
• c 1.166

  Lib. 16. Tit. viii. de Judaeis. l. 1. 2. 8. 11. 13, 14, 15. 17. 22. 29.
• d 1.167

  Vid. C. Th. ubi supr. l. 29. & Theod. loc. supr. citat.
• * 1.168

  Can. ix. & xvii.
• * 1.169

  Con. Sard. Can. vi.
• * 1.170

  Conc. Chal. Act. ii. col. 338. Tom. 4.
• * 1.171

  Ib. Act. iii. col. 395.
• * 1.172

  Ext. ibid. col. 57.
• * 1.173

  Hieron. E∣pist. ad Mar∣cellam. p. 28 T. 2. Habent primos de Pepusa Phrygiae Patriarchas. Secundos, quos, &c.
• * 1.174

  Vid. Apol∣lon. ap. Eu∣seb. l. 5. c. 18. p. 184. &c. 16. p. 180.
• * 1.175

  Can. xxxv.
• * 1.176

  Ca. 116. fol. 76. ubi vid. comment. Panciroll.
• * 1.177

  Gel. Cyz. H. Conc. Nic. l. 2. c. 32. p. 268.
• * 1.178

  Conc. Chalc. Act. I. p. 100 T. iv.
• * 1.179

  Ap. L. Al∣lat. de cons. Eccl. Or. & Occid. l. 1. c. 9. n. 2. p. 167.
• a 1.180

  Chap. 2. Num. 7.
• * 1.181

  Vid. Ale∣xand. Epist. Encycl. ap. Socr. l. 1. c. 6. p. 11.
• * 1.182

  Apol. II. p. 611. vid. p. 560.
• * 1.183

  Ap. Theod. l. 5. c. 9. p. 211.
• * 1.184

  Not. Imp. Orient. c. 104 fol. 71.
• * 1.185

  Act. vii. col. 787. &c. Tom. iii.
• * 1.186

  Ʋbi supr. p. 147.
• * 1.187

  Hier. ad Pammach. Tom. 2. p. 178
• * 1.188

  Ap. L. Al∣lat. l. 1. c. 9. n. 1. col. 165.
• * 1.189

  Ap. Guil. Tyr. l. 23 Mirae. notit. Episc. &c.
• * 1.190

  De aedific. Justin. Lib. 4 c. 9. p. 87. vid. Chron. Alex. ad An. Const. XXV. p. 666.
• a 1.191

  Chrysost. Homil. iv. de verb. Esai. T. 2. p. 865.
• b 1.192

  Orat. xxvii. p. 472.
• * 1.193

  Can. iii.
• * 1.194

  C. Th. Lib. 16. Tit. 1. l. 3.
• * 1.195

  Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. col. 116.
• * 1.196

  Act. xi. col. 669.
• * 1.197

  Morin. l. 1. Exercit. xiv. p. 102.
• * 1.198

  Impp. THEODOSIUS & Honorius AA. Philippo PF. P. Illyrici.
• * 1.199

  Omni innovatione C••ssan∣te, vetustatem & Canones. pristinos Ecclesiasticos, qui nunc usque tenuerunt, per omnes Illyrici provincias, servari praecipimus: Tum, si quid dubietatis emerserit, id oporteat, non absque scien∣tia Viri Reverendissimi Sacrosanctae legis Antistitis Ʋrbis Constantinopolitanae (QUAE ROMAE VETE∣RIS PRAEROGATIVA LAETATUR) conventui Sacerdotali Sanctoque judi∣cio reservari. Dat. Prid. Jul. Eustathio & Agri∣cola COSS. [421]
• * 1.200

  Vid. notit; Imp. c. 122. fol. 78.
• * 1.201

  Ib. c. 126. fol. 79.
• * 1.202

  Ib. c. 132. fol. 82.
• * 1.203

  Act. xvi. col. 798, &c. Tit. iv.
• * 1.204

  Lib. 6. In∣dict. xv. E∣pist. 31. col. 614.
• * 1.205

  Ext. ib. col. 833. vid. ib. col. 838. A.
• * 1.206

  Can. xxxvi▪
• * 1.207

  Inter An∣not. D. Be∣vereg. ubi supr.
• * 1.208

  Jur. Gr. Rom. l. 2. p. 88.
• * 1.209

  Ext. ap. L. Allat. loc. cit. c. 24. col. 411, &c.
• * 1.210

  Ext. ad calc. Codin. cle offic. CP. p. 117.
• * 1.211

  Ib. l. 3. p. 244.
• * 1.212

  Ad colc. lib. 23. Hi∣stor. suae p. 1015.
• * 1.213

  Can. vii.
• * 1.214

  Act. vii. col. 614. &c.
• * 1.215

  Guilielm. Tyr. loc. ci∣tat.
• * 1.216

  Nil. Doxo∣patr. ap. L. Allat. ubi supr. c. 9. n. 5. col. 196.
• * 1.217

  Ext. conc. T. v. col. 188.
• * 1.218

  Ext. ibid. col. 276. &c.
• * 1.219

  Ap. Guil. Tyr. ibid & Miraeum no∣tit. Episc. p. 48.
• * 1.220

  Ʋbi supra.
• * 1.221

  Sirmond. Censur. de Eccl. Suburb. c. 4. p. 69. Advent. P. II c. 1. p. 63.
• * 1.222

  Ph. Berter. Pithan. Dia∣trib. II. c. 3. p. 170. 171.
• * 1.223

  Goth. lib. 2. c. 7. p. 406.
• * 1.224

  DeConcord. l. 6. c. 4. n. 7. 8 p. 188. vid. n. 6.
• * 1.225

  Ext. Conc. T. v. col. 805.
• * 1.226

  Epist. v. ib. col. 794.
• * 1.227

  Plat. in vit. Steph. ix. p. 172.
• * 1.228

  P. Dam. Act. Medi∣ol. à seipso conscript. ext. ap. Baron. T. xi. p. 265. & Jo. Monach. de vlt. P. Dam. c. 16.
• * 1.229

  Epist. supr. laud col. 815.
• * 1.230

  Loc. supra citat.
• * 1.231

  Ext. ap. Ba∣ror. An. 590. n. xxxviii. Tom. 8.
• * 1.232

  Ext. ib. n. XLiii.
• * 1.233

  Tom. 7. p. 568.
• * 1.234

  Hieron. Rub. Hist. Ravennat. l. 4. ad Ann. DCXLiX. p. 203. 205. 206. vid. Bar. ad Ann. 669. n. ii. iii. T. 8.
• * 1.235

  Baron. cod. An n. ii. iii. iv. Rub. ibid. p. 213. 214.
• * 1.236

  Can. v. Conc. T. 4. col. 1012.
• * 1.237

  Can. vii. ib. col. 1781.
• * 1.238

  De Con∣cord. l. 6. c. 3. per tot. c. 4. n. 3. 4.
• * 1.239

  Ext. ap. Bar. ad Ann. 865. T. 10. n. XXXV. &c.
• * 1.240

  Annal. in∣cert. auct. ad Ann. 863. inter script. coetan. a Pith. edit. p. 62.
• * 1.241

  Ext. loc. cit.
• * 1.242

  Epist Syv. Afric. ad Bonifac. Con∣cil. T. ii. col. 1670. item ad Coelest. ib. col. 1674. Concil. Car∣th. vi. col. 1589. Cod. Can. Eccles. Afric. in init.
• * 1.243

  Ext. ubi supr. col. 1143.
• * 1.244

  Conc. Mil. ii. Can. xxii. T. 2. col. 1542.
• * 1.245

  M. A. Ca∣pell. de Apel∣lat. Eccl. Afric. c. 4. p. 118.
• * 1.246

  Gild. de Excid. Brit. non longe ab init.
• * 1.247

  Antiq. A∣post. Life of S. Paul. §. x. n. 7. Introd. to the Apo∣stolici. n. 8. 9.
• * 1.248

  Bed. l. 2. c. 2. p. 111. vid. Galfr. Monomuth. l. 11. c. 12. Girald. Cambr. itin. Cambr. l. 2. c. 1. p. 856. & not. D. Powell. ibid.
• * 1.249

  De Script. Cent. i. n. 70. p. 64.
• * 1.250

  Annal. Par. Post. sub Jo∣ann. R. fol. 454.
• * 1.251

  De Pri∣mord. Eccl. Brit. c. 5. p. 91.
• * 1.252

  Bed. ubi supr. p. 110.
• * 1.253

  Spelm. Conc. Brit. An. 601. T. 1. p. 108.
• * 1.254

  Notit. im∣per. c. 48. fol. 149.
• * 1.255

  Vid Zosim. Hist. l. 2. p. 688.
• * 1.256

  Epist ad A∣fric. in init.
• * 1.257

  Ep. ad Ori∣ent. ap. A∣than. Apol. ii. p. 580.
• * 1.258

  Ad. Ann. 1057. Tom. xi. p. 243.
• a 1.259

  Concil. T. iv. col. 1260.
• b 1.260

  Ibid. col. 1312.
• c 1.261

  Ep. iv. c. 7. p. 101.
• * 1.262

  Ext. Ep. ap. Hilar. in fragm. col. 407.
• * 1.263

  Conc. T. 4. col. 53.
• * 1.264

  De Con∣cord l. 1. c. 7. §. 6. p. 26.
• * 1.265

  Ap. Sozom. l. 3. c. 8. p. 508. ap. Al∣ban. Apol. II. p. 579.
• * 1.266

  Theod. H. E l. 5. c. 10. p. 212.
• * 1.267

  Dam. E∣pist. v. Conc. T. 2. col. 876.
• * 1.268

  Epist. 1. c. 15. ib. col. 1022.
• * 1.269

  Vid. Innoc. Epist. 21. 24. 25. Conc. T. 2.
• * 1.270

  Ad An. 418. Tom. 5.
• * 1.271

  Epist. 87. c. 1. p. 157.
• * 1.272

  Epost. 84. c. 11. p. 155.
• * 1.273

  Serm. 1. in Natal. App. c. 1. p. 79.
• * 1.274

  Conc. Chalc. Act. I. Conc. T. 4. col 93.
• * 1.275

  Act. v. col. 555. &c.
• * 1.276

  Ibid. Act. xvi. col. 810.
• * 1.277

  Epist. 53. c. 2. p. 130.
• * 1.278

  Epist. 54. 55. 61. 62. 105.
• * 1.279

  Evagr. H. E. l. 3. c. 11. 12. &c. p. 343 & seq. vid. Gest. de nom. Acacii. Conc. T. 4. col. 1081 Gelas. Epist. 13. ad Epp. Dard. ib. 1199. & Tom. de A∣nath. vincul. ib. col. 1227.
• * 1.280

  Evagr. ib. c. 16. p. 347.
• * 1.281

  Ext. Epist. ib. c. 17.
• * 1.282

  Basil. Cil. H. Eccl. ap. Niceph. l. 16. c. 17. p. 683.
• * 1.283

  Ext. in calc. Gest. de nom. Acac. ubi supr. col. 1083.
• * 1.284

  Faelic. Epist. vi. ib. col. 1073.
• * 1.285

  Tom. de Anath. ubi supr.
• * 1.286

  Ad Epp. Dard. ib. col. 1207.
• * 1.287

  Epist. viii. ib. col. 1182.
• * 1.288

  Inter Epist. Hormisd. Conc. T. 4. col. 1469.
• * 1.289

  Chron. In∣dict. 3. Phi∣lox. & Prob. Coss. p. 61.
• * 1.290

  Niceph. H. E. l. 17. c. 9. p. 746.
• * 1.291

  In vit. Jo∣an. 1▪ Conc. T. 4. col. 1601.
• * 1.292

  Epist. 2. ibid. col. 1745.
• * 1.293

  H. Eccl. l. 6. c. 7. p. 450.
• * 1.294

  Haeret. fab. l. 4. c. 12. T. 4. p. 245.
• * 1.295

  Pelag. E∣pist. viii. Conc. T. 5. col. 949.
• * 1.296

  Lib. 4. In∣dict. 13. E∣pist. 36. col. 549. vid. eti∣am Epist. 38. ibid.
• * 1.297

  Lib. ••▪ pist. 39▪ 555.
• * 1.298

  Ib. Epist. 32.
• * 1.299

  Epist. 33.
• * 1.300

  Epist. 39.
• * 1.301

  Lib 6. Ind. 15. Epist. 37.
• * 1.302

  Lib. 4. E∣pist. 36.
• * 1.303

  Epist. 38.
• * 1.304

  Epist. 32, 36, 38. lib. 7. Epist. 30.
• * 1.305

  Conc. Chalc. Act. III. col. 419. Conc. T. 4.
• * 1.306

  Ib. Act. vi. col. 579.
• * 1.307

  Act. xvi. col. 818.
• * 1.308

  Act. iv. col. 472. &c.
• * 1.309

  Ext. ib. col. 834.
• * 1.310

  Not. in loc. col. 997.
• * 1.311

  Ad An. 518. T. 7. p. 5.
• ‖ 1.312

  Not. in Conc. sub Menna. Conc. T. v. col. 274.
• * 1.313

  De Consens. Eccl. Or. & Occ. l. 1. c. 19. n. 7. col. 289.
• * 1.314

  Lib. 6. E∣pist. 4. (vid. l. xi. Epist. 47. al. 45.
• * 1.315

  Ib. Ep. 24.
• * 1.316

  Epist. 28.
• * 1.317

  Ib. Ep. 30.
• * 1.318

  Lib. 7. E∣pist. 70.
• * 1.319

  Lib. 7. E∣pist. 64.
• * 1.320

  De Rep. Eccl. l. 4. c. 4, n. 28. p. 582.
• * 1.321

  Cedren▪ compend. Hist. p. 404.
• * 1.322

  Cedren. ib. p. 407. vid. Anastas. Si∣nait. Quaest. xvi. p. 182.
• * 1.323

  Vid. Ni∣ceph. l. 18. c. 41, 55.
• * 1.324

  L. xi. E∣pist. xxxvi. Indict. vi. col. 793.
• * 1.325

  Ib. Ep. xliii. col. 796.
• * 1.326

  Ib. Ep. xliv.
• * 1.327

  Sabell. En∣nead. viii. l. 6. col. 528. Plat. in vit. Bonif. iii. p. 85. Nau∣cher. vol. ii. Gener. xxi. p. 754. A∣don. Marty∣rol. prid. Id. Novembr.
• * 1.328

  Ext. inter Epist. Greg. vii. ad calc. Ep. lv. Conc. T. 10. col. 110. & ap. Baron. ad ann. 1076. p. 479.
• ‖ 1.329

  Epist. Part. vi. Epist. 13. (ad Ant. Faur.)