Respuesta a "Preservative Against Popery". El Papado. Parte II.

 III.

I proceed to examine the next supposition of the Church monarchists, which is, that St. Peter's primacy, with its rights and prerogatives, was not personal, but derivable to successors ; against which succession I do assert, that ad.. mitting a primacy of St. Peter, ofwhatkind or to what purpose soever, weyet have reason to deem it merely personal, and not (according to its grounds, and its design) communicable to any successors, nor indeed in effect conveyed to any such. It is a rule in the canon law, that “ a personal privilege doth follow the person, and is extinguished with the person ; " † and such we affirm that of St. Peter : for

1. His primacy was grounded upon personal acts (such as his cheerful following of Christ, his faithful confessing of Christ, his resolute adherence to Christ, his embracing special revelations from God), or upon personal graces (hisgreat faith, his special love to our Lord, his singular zeal for Christ's service), or upon personal gifts and endowments (his courage, resolution, activity, forwardness in apprehension, and in speech), the which advantages are not transient, and consequently a pre-eminency built on them is not in its nature such.

2. All the pretence of primacy granted to St. Peter is grounded upon words directed to St. Peter's person, character- ized by most personal adjuncts, as name, parentage, andwhich exactly were accomplished in St. Peter's personal actings, which therefore it is unreasonable to extend farther. ‡

Our Lord promised to Simon son ofJonas, to build his Church on him ; accordingly in eminent manner the Church was founded upon his ministry, or by his first preaching, testi- mony, performances . * OurLord promised to give him the keys of the heavenly kingdom ; this power St. Peter signally did execute in con- verting Christians, and receiving them by baptism into the Church, by conferring the Holy Ghost, and the like administrations. Our Lord charged Simon son of Jonas to feed his sheep; † this he performed by preaching, writing, guiding andgoverning Christians, as he found opportunity ; wherefore if any thing was couched under those promises or orders, singularly perti nent to St. Peter ; for the same reason that they were singular, they were personal : for, These things being, in a conspicuous manner accomplished in St. Peter's person, the sense of those words is exhausted; there may not, with any probability, there cannot with any assurance be any more grounded on them ; whatever more is inferred, must be by precarious assumption ; and justly we may cast at those who shall infer it that expostulation of Ter- tullian, " What art thou, who dost overturn and change the manifest intention of our Lord, personally conferring this on Peter?"‡

3. Particularly the grand promise to St. Peter of founding the Church on him cannot reach beyond his person ; because there can be no other foundations of a society than such as are first laid ; the successors of those, who first did erect a society, and establish it, are themselves but superstructures .

4. The Apostolical office as such was personal and tempo- rary ; and therefore according to its nature and design not successive or communicable to others in perpetual descendence from them . It was, as such, in all respects extraordinary, conferred in a special manner, designed for special purposes, dis- charged by special aids, endowed with special privileges, as was needful for the propagation of Christianity, and founding of Churches.

To that office it was requisite, that the person should have an immediate designation and commission from God ; such as St. Paul so often doth insist upon for asserting his title to the office : " Paul an Apostle, not from men, or by man" -" Not by men (saith St. Chrysostom), this is a property of the Apostles. " * It was requisite that an Apostle should be able to attest concerning our Lord's resurrection or ascension, either imme- diately as the twelve, or by evident consequence as St. Paul; thus St. Peter implied, at the choice of Matthias, " Wherefore of those men which have companied with us-must one be ordained to be a witness with us of the resurrection ;" and, "Am Inot (saith St. Paul) anApostle, have I not seen the Lord ?"‡ According to that of Ananias, " The God of our Fathers hath chosen thee that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth ; for thou shalt bear witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard."§ It was needful also that an Apostle should be endowed with miraculous gifts and graces, enabling him both to assure his authority, and to execute his office ; wherefore St. Paul calleth these, "the marks of an Apostle," the which were wrought by him among the Corinthians in all patience (or perseveringly) in signs and wonders, and mighty deeds. || It was also in St. Chrysostom's opinion, proper to an Apostle, that he should be able, according to his discretion, in acertain and conspicuous manner to impart spiritual gifts ; as St. Peter and St. John did at Samaria ; which to do, according to that Father, was " the peculiar gift and privilege of the Apostles. " It was also a privilege of an Apostle, by virtue of his commission from Christ, " to instruct all nations" in the doctrine and law of Christ : he had right and warrant to exercise his function every where ; " his charge was universal and indefinite ; the whole world was his province ; " * he was not affixed to one place, nor could be excluded from any ; he was (as St. Cyril calleth him) " an œcumenical judge, and an instructor of all the sub-celestial world." + Apostles also did govern in an absolute manner, according to discretion, as being guided by infallible assistance, to the which they might upon occasion appeal, and affirm, " It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us." Whence their writings have passed for inspired, and therefore canonical, or certain rules of faith and practice. It did belong to them to found churches, to constitute pastors, to settle orders, to correct offences, to perform all such acts of sovereign, spiritual power, in virtue of the same Divine assistance, " according to the authority which the Lord had given them for edification ; " as we see practised by St. Paul . In fine, the " Apostleship was (as St. Chrysostom telleth us) a business fraught with ten thousand good things ; both greater than all privileges of grace, and comprehensive of them."§ Now such an office, consisting of so many extraordinary privileges and miraculous powers, which were requisite for the foundation of the Church, and the diffusion of Christianity, against the manifold difficulties and disadvantages, which it then needs must encounter, was not designed to continue by derivation, for it containeth in it divers things, which apparently were not communicated, and which no man without gross imposture and hypocrisy could challenge to himself. Neither did the Apostles pretend to communicateit,they did indeed appoint standing pastors and teachers in each Church ; they did assume fellow-labourers or assistants in the work ofpreaching and governance, but they did not constitute Apostles equal to themselves in authority, privileges, or gifts. For "who knoweth not (saith St. Augustine) that principate of Apostleship to bepreferred before any episcopacy ?"|| and " the bishops (saith Bellarmine) have no part of the true apostoli- cal authority. " * Wherefore, St. Peter, who had no other office mentioned in Scripture, or known to antiquity, beside that of an Apostle, could not have properly and adequately any successor to his office, but it naturally did expire with his person, as did that of the other Apostles .

5.Accordingly, whereas the other Apostles, as such, had no successors, the apostolical office not being propagated ; the primacy of St. Peter (whatever it were, whether of order or jurisdiction, in regard to his brethren) did cease with him, for when there were no Apostles extant, there could be no head, or prince of the Apostles in any sense.

6. If some privileges of St. Peter were derived to Popes, why were not all ? why was not Pope Alexander VI. as holy as St. Peter ? why was not Pope Honorius as sound in his private judgment ? why is not every Pope inspired ? why is not every papal epistle to be reputed canonical? why are not all Popes endowed with power of doing miracles ? why doth not the Pope by a sermon convert thousands ? (why, indeed, do Popes never preach) why doth not he cure men by his shadow (he is, say they, himself his shadow) : what ground is there of distinguishing the privileges, so that he shall have some, and not others ? where is the ground to be found ?

7. If it be objected, that the Fathers commonly do call bishops successors of the Apostles ; to assail that objection we may consider that whereas the apostolical office virtually did contain the functions of teaching and ruling God's people, the which for preservation of Christian doctrine and edifica- tion of the Church, were requisite to be continued perpetually in ordinary standing offices, these indeed were derived from the Apostles; but not properly in way ofsuccession, as by univocal propagation, but by ordination, imparting all the power need- ful for such offices : which therefore were exercised by persons during the Apostles' lives concurrently, or in subordination to them; even as a dictator of Rome might create inferior magis- trates, who derived from him, but not as his successors ; for succession but in repect of one preceding, but Apostles and Bishops were together in the Church. " * (The Fathers therefore so in a large sense call all bishops successors of the Apostles, not meaning that any one of them did succeed into the whole apostolical office, but that each did receive his power from some one (immediately or mediately) whom some Apostle did constitute bishop, vesting him with authority to feed the particular flock committed to him inway of ordinary charge ; according to the sayings of that aposto- lical person, Clemens Rom. " The Apostles preaching in regions and cities did constitute their first converts, having approved them by the Spirit, for bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe ; and having constituted the foresaid (bishops and deacons) , they withal gave them further charge, that if they should die, other approved men succes- sively should receive their office :" † thus did the bishops supply the room of the Apostles, each in guiding his particu- lar charge, all of them together by mutual aid conspiring to govern the whole body of the Church.

8. In which regard it may be said that not one single bishop, but all bishops together through the whole Church do succeed St. Peter, or any other Apostle ; so that all of them in union together have an universal sovereign authority, com- mensurate to an Apostle.

9. This is the notion, which St. Cyprian doth so much in- sist upon, affirming that the bishops do succeed St. Peter, and the other Apostles, " by vicarious ordination;" that " the bishops are Apostles ;" that there is but " one chair by the Lord's word built upon one Peter; one undivided bishopric, diffused in the peaceful numerosity of many bishops, whereof each bishop doth hold his share ; one flock whom the Apostles by unanimous agreement did feed, and which afterward the bishops do feed ; having a portion thereof allotted to each, which he should govern. " * So the Synod of Carthage with St. Cyprian. † So also St. Chrysostom saith, that " the sheep of Christ were committed by him to Peter and to those after him,"‡ that is, in his meaning, to all bishops.

10. Such, and no other power wer St. Peter might devolve on any bishop ordained by him in any Church, which he did con- stitute or inspect ; as in that of Antioch, of Alexandria, of Babylon, of Rome. The like did the other Apostles communicate, who had the same power with St. Peter in founding and settling Churches, whose successors of this kind were equal to those of the same kind, whom St. Peter did constitute; enjoying in their several precincts an equal part of the apostolical power; as St. Cy- prian often doth assert.§ 11. It is in consequence observable, that in those Churches, whereof the Apostles themselves were never accounted bishops, yet the bishops are called successors of the Apostles ; which cannot otherwise be understood, than according to the sense which we haveproposed ; that is, because they succeeded those whowere constituted by the Apostles ; according to those say- ings of Irenæus and Tertullian : " We can number those, who were instituted bishops by the Apostles and their successors ; and, all the Churches do shew those, whom being by the Apostles constituted in the episcopal office they have as con tinuers of the apostolical seed. " * So although St. Peter was never reckoned Bishop of Alex- andria, yet because it is reported that he placed St. Mark there, the Bishop of Alexandria is said to succeed the Apostles. † And because St. John did abide at Ephesus, inspecting that Church, and " appointing bishops there," the bishops of that see did " refer their origin to him."‡ So many bishops did claim from St. Paul. So St. Cyprian and Firmilian do assert themselves, " suc- cessors of the Apostles," who yet perhaps never were at Car- thage or Cæsarea.§ So the Church of Constantinople is often in the acts of the sixth General Council, called " this great Apostolic Church," being such Churches, as those of whom Tertullian saith, that " although they do not produce any of the Apostles, or apostolical men for their author, yet conspiring in the same faith, are no less, for the consanguinity of doctrine, reputed apostolical."|| Yea, hence St. Jerome doth assert a parity of merit and dignity sacerdotal to all bishops, because (saith he) " all of them are successors to the Apostles, " having all a like power by their ordination conferred on them.

12. Whereas our adversaries do pretend, that indeed the other Apostles had an extraordinary charge as legates of Christ, which had no succession, but was extinct in their persons ; but that St. Peter had a peculiar charge, as ordinary pastor of the whole Church which surviveth* . To this it is enough to rejoin that it is a mere figment, de- vised for a shift, and affirmed precariously, having no ground either in holy Scripture, or in ancient tradition, there being no such distinction in the sacred or ecclesiastical writings : no mention occurring there of any office which he did assume, or which was attributed to him, distinct from that extraordinary one of an Apostle ; and all the pastoral charge imaginable being ascribed by the ancients to all the Apostles in regard to the whole Church, as hath been sufficiently declared.

13. In fine, if any such conveyance of power (of power so great, so momentous, so mightily concerning the perpetual state of the Church, and of each person therein) had been made; it had been (for general direction and satisfaction, for voiding all doubt and debate about it, for stifling these pre- tended heresies and schisms) very requisite, that it should have been expressed in some authentic record, that a particular law should have been extant concerning it, that all posterity should bewarned to yield the submission grounded thereon. Indeed a matter of so great consequence to the being and welfare of the Church could scarce have escaped from being clearly mentioned somewhere or other in Scripture, wherein so much is spoken, touching ecclesiastical discipline ; ( it could scarce have avoided the pen of the first Fathers (Clemens, Ignatius, the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions, Tertullian, &c.), who also so much treat concerning the function and authority of Christian governors. Nothing can be more strange than that in the statute-book of the new Jerusalem, and in all the original monuments con- cerning it, there should be such a dead silence concerning the succession of its chief magistrate . Wherefore no such thing appearing we may reasonably con- clude no such thing to have been, and that our adversaries' assertion of it is wholly arbitrary, imaginary, and groundless.

14. I might add, as a very convincing argument, that if such a succession had been designed, and known in old times, it is morally impossible that none of the Fathers (Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Jerome, Theodoret, &c.) in their exposition of the places alleged by the Romanists for the primacy of St. Peter, should declare that primacy to have been derived and settled on St. Peter's successor ; a point of that moment, if they had been aware of it, they could not but have touched as a most useful application and direction forduty.

IV. They affirm that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, con- cerning which assertion we say, that it may withgreat reason be denied, and that it cannot anywise be assured, as will appear by the following considerations.

1. St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome would confound the offices which God made distinct : for " God did appoint first apostles, then prophets, then pastors and teachers ;" * where- fore St. Peter after he was an Apostle, could not well become abishop, it would be such an irregularity, as if a bishop should be made a deacon .

2. The offices of an Apostle and of a Bishop are not in their nature well consistent, for the Apostleship is an extraordinary office, charged with instruction and government of the whole world ; and calling for an answerable care (" the Apostles being rulers (as St. Chysostom saith), ordained by God, rulers not taking several nations and cities, but all of them in common entrusted with the whole world ;")† but episcopacy is an ordinary standing charge affixed to one place, and requiring a special attendance there ; bishops being pastors, who (as St. Chrysostom saith) " do sit, and are employed in one place;"‡ now he that hath such a general care, can hardly discharge such a particular office ; and he that is fixed to so particular attendance, can hardly look well after so general a charge : either of those offices alone would suffice to take up a whole man ; as those tell us, who have considered the burthen incum- bent on the meanest of them, the which we may see described in St. Chrysostom's discourses concerning the priesthood. Baronius saith of St. Peter, that " it was his office, not to stay in one place, but as much as it was possible for one manto travel over the whole world, and to bring those who did not yet believe to the faith, but thoroughly to establish believers ; "§ if so, how could he be bishop of Rome, which was an office inconsistent with such vagrancy ?

3. It would not have beseemed St. Peter, the prime Apostle, to assume the charge of a particular bishop ; it had been a degradation of himself, and a disparagement to the apostolical majesty for him to take upon him the bishopric of Rome ; as if the King should become Mayor of London ; as if the Bishop of London should be Vicar of Pancras.

4. Wherefore it is not likely, that St. Peter, being sensible of that superior charge belonging to him, which did exact a more extensive care, would vouchsafe to undertake an inferior charge. We cannot conceive, that St. Peter did affect the name of abishop, as now men do, allured by the baits of wealth and power, which then were none : if he did affect the title, why did he not in either of his epistles (one ofwhich, as they would persuade us, was written from Rome) inscribe himself bishop ofRome? Especially considering, that being an Apostle, he did not need any particular authority, that involving all power, and enabling him in any particular place to execute all kinds of ecclesiastical administrations : there was no reason, that an Apostle (or universal bishop) should become a particular bishop.

5. Also St. Peter's general charge of converting and in- specting the Jews, dispersed over the world ("his Apostleship," as St. Paul calleth it, " of the circumcision") * which required much travel, and his presence in divers places, doth not well agree to his assuming the episcopal office at Rome. Especially at that time, when they first make him to assume it ; which was in the time of Claudius, who (as St. Luke and other histories do report) did banish all the Jews from Rome, as Tiberius also had done before him :† he was too skilful a fisherman to cast his net there, where there were no fish .

6. If we consider St. Peter's life, we may well deem him incapable of this office ; which he could not conveniently dis- charge: for it, as history doth represent it, and may be col- lected from divers circumstances of it, was very unsettled ; he went much about the world, and therefore could seldom reside at Rome.

Manyhave argued him to have never been at Rome ; which opinion I shall not avow, as bearing a more civil respect to ancient testimonies and traditions ; although many false and fabulous relations of that kind having crept into history and common vogue * many doubtful reports having passed con- cerning him ; many notorious forgeries having been vented about his travels and acts (all that is reported of him out of Scripture having a smack of the legend), would tempt a man to suspect anything touching him, which is grounded only upon human tradition ; so that the forger of his Epistle to St. James might well induce him saying, " If while I do yet survive, men dare to feign such things of me, how much more will they dare to do so after my decease ?" + But at least the discourse of those men have evinced that it is hard to assign the time when he was at Rome ; and that he could never long abide there. For, The time which old tradition assigneth of his going to Rome, iş rejected by divers learned men, even of the Roman party.‡ He was often in other places ; sometimes at Jerusalem, sometimes at Antioch, sometimes at Babylon, sometimes at Corinth, § sometimes probably at each of those places unto which he directeth his catholic epistles ; among which Epipha- nius saith, that " Peter did often visit Pontus and Bithynia. "|| And that he seldom was at Rome, may well be collected from St. Paul's writings ; for he writing at different times one epistle to Rome, and divers epistles from Rome (that to the Galatians, that to the Ephesians, that to the Philippians, that to the Colossians, and the second to Timothy ) dothnever men- tion him, sending any salutation to him, or from him. Particularly St. Peter was not there, when St. Paul men- tioning Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Marcus, and Justus, addeth " these alone my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, who have been a comfort unto me. "

He was not there, when St. Paul said, " At my first defence no man stood with me, but all men forsook me."" "* He was not there immediately before St. Paul's death (when "the time of his departure was at hand" )† when he telleth Timothy, that " all the brethren did salute him, "‡ and naming divers of them, he omitteth Peter. Which things being considered, it is not probable that St. Peter would assume the episcopal chair of Rome, he being little capable to reside there, and for that other needful affairs would have forced him to leave so great a Church destitute of their pastor.

7. It was needless that he should be bishop, for that by virtue of his apostleship (involving all the power of inferior degrees) he might, whenever he should be at Rome, exercise episcopal functions and authority. What need a sovereign prince to be made a justice of peace ?

8. Had he done so, he must have given a bad example of non-residence, a practice that would have been very ill relished in the primitive Church, as we may see by several canons in- terdicting offences of kin to it (it being I think then not so known as nominally to be censured), and culpable upon the same ground ; and by the sayings of Fathers condemning prac- tices approaching to it.§ Even later Synods in more corrupt times, and in the declen- sion of good order, yet did prohibit this practice. ||

Epiphanius therefore did well infer, that it was needful the Apostles should constitute bishops resident at Rome : " It was (saith he) possible that the Apostles Peter and Paul yet sur- viving otherbishops should be constituted, because the Apostles often did take journeys into other countries, for preaching Christ, but the city of Rome could not be without a bishop. " *

9. If St. Peter were bishop of Rome, he thereby did offend against divers other good ecclesiastical rules, which either were in practice from the beginning, or at least the reason of them was always good, upon which the Church did after- ward enact them ; so that either he did ill in thwarting them, or the Church had done it in establishing them, so as to condemn his practice .

10. It was against rule that any bishop should desert one church and transfer himself to another; † and indeed against reason, such a relation and endearment being contracted be- tween a bishop and his church, which cannot well be dissolved. But St. Peter is by ecclesiastical historians reported (and by Romanists admitted) to have been bishop of Antioch for seven years together. ‡ He therefore did ill to relinquish that Church, " that most ancient and truly apostolic Church of Antioch (as the Constan- tinopolitan Fathers called it ), and to place his see at Rome.§ This practice was esteemed bad, and of very mischievous consequence ; earnestly reproved as heinously criminal by great Fathers, severely condemned by divers Synods. Particularly a transmigration from a lesser and poorer to a greater and more wealthy bishopric (which is the present case)

was checked by them as rankly savouring of selfish ambition or avarice. The Synod of Alexandria (in Athanasius) in its epistle to all catholic bishops doth say, " that Eusebius by passing from Berytus to Nicomedia had annulled his episcopacy, making it an adultery, " * worse than that which is committed by mar- riage upon divorce : " Eusebius (say they) did not consider the Apostle's admonition, Art thou bound to a wife, do not seek to be loosed ; for if it be said of a woman, how much more of a church; of the same bishopric; to which one being tied, ought not to seek another, that he may not be found also an adul- terer, according to the holy Scripture ?"† Surely, when they said this, they did forget what St. Peter was said to have done in that kind ; as did also the Sardican Fathers in their Sy- nodical letter, extant in the same apology of Athanasius, condemning " translations from lesser cities unto greater dio- ceses."‡ The same practice is forbidden by the Synods of Nice I. of Chalcedon, of Antioch, of Sardica, ofArles I. &c.§ In the Synod under Mennas, it was laid to the charge of Anthimus, that having been Bishop of Trebisond, he had " adulterously snatched the See of Constantinople, against all ecclesiastical laws and canons. " || Yea, great Popes of Rome (little considering how peccant therein theirpredecessor Pope Peter was), Pope Julius and Pope Damasus did greatly tax this practice ; whereofthe latter in his Synod at Rome did excommunicate all those who should com- mit it .

In like manner Pope Leo I. * These laws were so indispensable, that in respect to them, Constantine M. who much loved and honoured Eusebius (ac- knowledging him in the common judgment of the worldde- serving to be bishop of the whole Church), did not like, that he should accept the bishopric of Antioch, to which he was in- vited ; and commended his waving it, as an act not only " consonant to the ecclesiastical canons, but acceptable to God, and agreeable to apostolical tradition. "† So little awarewas the good emperor of St. Peter being translated from Antioch to Rome. In regard to the same law, Gregory Nazianzen (apersonof so great worth, and who had deserved so highly of the Church at Constantinople), could not be permitted to retain his bishop- ric of that church, to which he had been called from that small one of Sasima : " The Synod (saith Sozomen) , observing the ancient laws and the ecclesiastical rule, did receive his bishop- ric, from himbeing willingly offered, nowise regarding thegreat merits of the person ; "‡ the which Synod surely would have excluded St. Peter from the bishopric of Rome : and it is ob- servable that Pope Damasus did approve and exhort those Fathers to that proceeding.§ We may indeed observe, that Pope Pelagius II. did excuse the translations of bishops by the example of St. Peter : " For whoever dareth to say (argueth he) that St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles did not act well, when he changed his see from Antioch to Rome ? " * But I think it more advisable to excuse St. Peter from being author ofa practice, judged so irregular, by denying the mat- ter of fact laid to his charge. II. It was anciently deemed a very irregular thing, "con- trary (saith St. Cyprian) to the ecclesiastical disposition, con- trary to the evangelical law, contrary to the unity of catholic institution. " † A symbol (saith another ancient writer) ofdis- sension, and disagreeable to ecclesiastical law; " ‡ which, there- fore, was condemned by the Synod of Nice, by Pope Cornelius, by Pope Innocent I. and others, that two bishops should pre- side together in one city.§ This was condemned with good reason; for this on the Church's part would be a kind of spiritual polygamy ; this would render a church a monster with two heads ; this would destroy the end of episcopacy, which is unity and prevention ofschisms.|| But if St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, this irregularity was committed; for the same authority upon which St. Peter's episcopacy of Rome is built, doth also reckon St. Paul bishop of the same; the same writers do make both founders and planters of the Roman Church, and the same call both Bishops of it ; wherefore if episcopacy be taken in a strict and proper sense, agreeable to this controversy, that rule must needs be infringed thereby. Irenæus saith that "the Roman Church was founded and constituted by the two most gloriousApostles, Peter and Paul : " Dionysius of Corinth calleth it " the plantation of Peter and Paul ; " ** Epiphanius saith, that " Peter and Paul were first at Rome both Apostles and bishops ; " * so Eusebius implieth, saying that " Pope Alexander derived a succession in the fifth place from Peter and Paul. " † Wherefore both of them were Roman bishops, or neither of them : in reason and rule neither of them may be called so in a strict and proper sense ; but in a larger and improper sense both might be so styled. Indeed, that St. Paul was in some acception Bishop of Rome (that is , had a supreme superintendence, or inspection ofit), is reasonable to affirm ; because he did for a good time reside there, and during that residence could not but have the chief place, could be subject to no other. " He (saith St. Luke) did abide two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that entered in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no man forbidding him. "‡ It may be inquired, if St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, how he did become such ? Did our Lord appoint him such ; did the Apostles all or any constitute him ; did the people elect him ; did he put himself into it ? Of none of these things there is any appearance, nor any probability. Non constat

V. They affirm, that St. Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation, and was so at his decease. Against which assertions we may consider.

1. Ecclesiastical writers do affirm, that St. Peter (either alone, or together with St. Paul) did constitute other bishops; wherefore St. Peter was never bishop, or did not continue bishop there. Irenæus saith, that " theApostles founding and rearing that church, delivered the episcopal office into the hands of Linus; " § if so, how did they retain it in their own hands or persons? could they give, and have ? Tertullian saith, that " Peter did ordain Clement. "|| In the Apostolical Constitutions (a very ancient book, and setting forth the most ancient traditions of the Church), the Apostles ordering prayers to be made for all bishops, and naming the principal, do reckon, not St. Peter, but Clement : " Let us pray for our Bishop James, for our Bishop Clemens, for our Bishop Evodius," &c. * These reports are consistent, and reconciled by that which the Apostolical Constitutions affirm ; that " Linus was first ordained Bishop of the Roman Church by Paul ; but Clemens after the death of Linus by Peter in the second place . " † Others between Linus and Clemens do interpose Cletus or Anacletus (some taking these for one, others for two persons), which doth not alter the case . ‡ Now hence we may infer, both that St. Peter was never bishop ; and, upon supposition that he was, that he did not continue so. For,

2. If he had ever been bishop, he could not well lay down his office, or subrogate another, either to preside with him, or to succeed him ; according to the ancient rules ofdiscipline, and that which passed for right in the primitive Church. This practice Pope Innocent I. condemned, as irregular and never known before his time : " We (saith he in his epistle to the clergy and people of Constantinople) never have known these things to have been adventured by our fathers, but rather to have been hindered ; for that none hath power given him to ordain another into the place of one living : "§ he did not (it seems) consider, that St. Peter had used such a power. Accordingly the Synod ofAntioch (to secure the tradition and practice of the Church, which began by some to be in- fringed) did make this sanction that " it should not be lawful for any bishop to constitute another in his room to succeed him ; although it were at the point of death. " *

3. But supposing St. Peter were bishop once, yet by con- stituting Linus, or Clemens in his place, he ceased to be so, and divested himself of that place ; for it had been agreat irregu- larity for him to continue bishop together with another. That being, in St. Cyprian's judgment, the ordination of Linus had been void and null ; for " seeing (saith that holy martyr) there cannot after the first be any second; whoever is after one, who ought to be sole bishop, he is not now second, but none. " † Upon this ground, when the Emperor Constantius would have procured Felix to sit bishop of Rome together with Pope Liberius, at his return from banishment (after his compliance with the Arians), the people of Rome would not admit it, ex- claiming " One God, one Christ, one Bishop ;" ‡ and whereas Felix soon after that died, the historian remarketh it as " a special providence of God that Peter's throne might not suffer infamy ; being governed under two prelates ;" § he never con- sidered, that St. Peter and St. Paul, St. Peter and Linus had thus governed that same Church. Upon this account St. Augustine, being assumed by Valerius with him to be bishop of Hippo, did afterward discern and acknowledge his error.|| In fine, to obviate this practice, so many canons of Councils (both general and particular) were made, which we before did mention.

4. In sum, when St. Peter did ordain others (as story doth accord in affirming) , either he did retain the episcopacy, and then (beside need, reason, and rule) there were concurrently divers bishops of Rome at one time ; or he did quite relinquish and finally divorce himself from the office, so that he did not die Bishop of Rome, the which overturneth the mainground of the Romish pretence. Or will they say, that St. Peter, having laid aside the office for a time, did afterward before his death resume it ? Then what became of Linus, of Cletus, of Clemens ?* were they dispossessed of their place, or deposed from their function ? would St. Peter succeed them in it ? This in Bellarmine's own judgment had been plainly intolerable. †

5. To avoid all which difficulties in the case, and perplexities in story, it is reasonable to understand those of the ancients , who call Peter bishop of Rome, and Rome the place, the chair, the see of Peter, as meaning that he was bishop or superintendent of that Church, in a large sense ; because he did found the Church by converting men to the Christian faith ; because he did erect the chair by ordaining the first bishops ; because he did in virtue both of his apostolical office, and his special parental relation to that Church main- tain a particular inspection over it, when he was there : which notion is not new, for of old Rufinus affirmeth that he had it, not from his own invention, but from tradition of others : " Some (saith he) inquire how, seeing Linus and Cletus were bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, Clement himself writing to James, could say that the see was delivered to him by Peter; whereof this reason has been given us, viz. that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops of Rome before Clement, but Peter being yet living, viz. that they might take the epis- copal charge, but he fulfilled the office of the apostleship. " ‡

6. This notion maybe confirmed by divers observations. It is observable that the most ancient writers, living nearest the fountains of tradition, do not expressly style St. Peter Bishop of Rome, * but only say, that he did found that Church, instituting and ordaining bishops there ; as the other Apostles did in the churches which they settled ; so that the bishops there in a large sense did succeed him, as deriving their power from his ordination, and supplying his room in the instruction and governance of that great Church. Yea their words, if we well mark them, do exclude the Apostles from the episcopacy. Which words the later writers (who did not foresee the consequence, nor what an exorbitant superstructure would be raised on that slender bottom, and who were willing to comply with the Roman Bishops, affecting by all means to reckon St. Peter for their predecessor) did easily catch, and not well distinguishing, did call him Bishop, and St. Paul also, so making two heads of one Church. †

7. It is also observable, that in the recensions of the Roman bishops, sometimes the Apostles are reckoned in, sometimes excluded. So Eusebius calleth Clemens the third bishop of Rome, yet before him he reckoneth Linus and Anacletus. ‡ And of Alexander he saith, that " he deduced his succession in the fifth place from Peter and Paul,"§ that is excluding theApostles. And Hyginus is thus accounted sometimes the eighth, some- times the ninth bishop of Rome. || The same difference in reckoning may be observed in other churches ; for instance, although St. Peter is called no less bishop of Antioch, than of Rome, by the ancients, yet Eusebius saith, that " Evodius was first bishop of Antioch;" and another " bids the Antiocheans remember Evodius, who was first entrusted with the presidency over them by the Apostles . "

Other instances may be seenin the notes of Cotellerius upon the Apostolical Constitutions, where he maketh this general ob- servation. " It is a usual custom with the Apostles, according to their power ordinary, or extraordinary, episcopal or apostolical, to prefix," * &c. but it was needless to suppose these two powers, when one was sufficient, it virtually containing the other. This is an argument that the ancients were not assured in opinion, that the Apostles were bishops ; or that they did not esteem them bishops in the same notion with others.

8. It is observable, that divers churches did take denomination from the Apostles, and were called " apostolical thrones, or chairs," † not because the Apostles themselves did sit bishops there, but because they did exercise their apostleship, in teach- ing ; and in constituting bishops there, who (as Tertullian saith) "did propagate the apostolical seed. " ‡ So was Ephesus esteemed, because St. Paul did found it, and ordained Timothy there ; and because St. John did govern and appoint bishops there.§ So was Smyrna accounted, because " Polycarpus was settled there by the Apostles, or by St. John. "||

So Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, had a controversy about metropolitical rights with Acacius bishop of Cæsarea, as pre- siding in an apostolical see. " * SoAlexandria was deemed, because St. Mark was supposed by the appointment of St. Peter to sit there. So were Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi, called by Tertullian, because St. Paul did found them, and furnish them with pastors ; in which respect peculiarly the bishops of thoseplaces were called successors of the Apostles. † So Constantinople did assume the title of an Apostolical Church, probably because, according to tradition, St. Andrew did found that Church, although Pope Leo I. would not allow it that appellation. ‡ Upon the same account might Rome at first be called an Apostolical see ; although afterward the Roman bishops did rather pretend to that denomination, upon account of St. Peter being bishop there ; and the like may be said of An- tioch. §

9. It is observable, that the authors of the Apostolical Constitutions, reciting the first bishops constituted in several churches, doth not reckon any of the Apostles ; particularly not Peter, or Paul, or John. ||

10. Again, any Apostle wherever he did reside by virtue of his apostolical office, without any other designation or assump- tion of a more special power, was qualified to preside there, exercising a superintendency comprehensive of all episcopal functions ; so that it was needless that he should take upon himself the character or style of a bishop.

This (beside the tenor of ancient doctrine) doth appear from the demeanour of St. John, who never was reckoned Bishop of Ephesus, nor could be without displacing Timothy, who by St. Paul was constituted bishop there, or succeeding in his room : yet he abiding at Ephesus, did there discharge the office of ametropolitan, " governing the churches, and in the adja- cent churches constituting bishops, there forming whole churches, otherwise allotting to the clergy persons designed by the Spirit." * Such functions might St. Peter execute in the parts of Rome or Antioch, without being a bishop, and as the bishops of Asia did ( saith Tertullian) " refer their original to St. John, so might the bishops of Italy, upon the like ground, refer their original to St. Peter." † It is observable, that whereas St. Peter is affirmed to have been Bishop of Antioch seven years before his access to Rome, that is within the compass of St. Luke's story; yet he passeth over a matter of so great moment, as St. Jerome observeth ‡ I cannot grant, that if St. Luke had thought Peter sove- reign of the Church, and his episcopacy of a place a matter of such consequence he would have slipped it over, being so ob- vious a thing, and coming in the way of his story. He, therefore, I conceive was no bishop of Antioch, although a bishop at Antioch.§

11. If, in objection to some of these discourses, it be alleged, that St. James our Lord's near kinsman, although he was an Apostle, was made bishop of Jerusalem ; and that for the like reason St. Peter might assume the bishopric of Rome :

I answer.

1. It is not certain, that St. James the bishop of Jerusalem was an Apostle (meaning an Apostle of the primary rank) ; for Eusebius (the greatest antiquary of the old times) doth reckon him " one of the seventy disciples . " * So doth the author of the Apostolical Constitutions in di- vers places suppose. † Hegesippus (that most ancient historian) was of the same mind, who saith, that " there were many of this name, and that this James did undertake the Church with the Apostles. "‡ Of the same opinion was Epiphanius, who saith that St. James was the son of Joseph by another wife.§ The whole Greek Church doth suppose the same, keeping three distinct solemnities for him, and the two Apostles of the same name. Gregory Nyssen, St. Jerome, and divers other ancient writers do concur herein, whom we may see alleged by Grotius, Dr. Hammond ( who themselves did embrace the same opinion), Valesius, Blondel, &c . || Salmasius (after his confident manner) saith, " it is certain, that he was not one of the twelve : " I may at least say, it is not certain that he was, and, consequently, the objection is grounded on an uncertainty.

2. Granting that St. James was one of the Apostles (as some of the ancients seem to think, calling him an Apostle; ** and as divers modern divines conceive, grounding chiefly upon these words of St. Paul : " But other 'of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother,"†† and taking Apostles there in the strictest sense) , I answer:

That the case was peculiar, and there doth appear a special reason, why one of the Apostles should be designed to make a constant residence at Jerusalem, and consequently to preside there like a bishop. For Jerusalem was the metropolis, the fountain, the centre of the Christian religion, where it had birth, where was greatest matter and occasion of propagating the Gospel, most people disposed to embrace it resorting thither, where the Church was very numerous, consisting as St. Luke (or St. James in him) doth intimate, " of divers myriads of believing Jews ; " * whence it might seem expedient, that a per- son of greatest authority should be fixed there for the confirm- ing and improving that Church, together with the propagation of religion among the people, which resorted thither ; the which might induce the Apostles to settle St. James there, both for discharging the office of anApostle, and the supply- ing the room of a bishop there. Accordingly to him (saith Eusebius) " the episcopal throne was committed by the Apostles;" or " our Lord (saith Epi- phanius) did entrust him with his own throne. "† But there was no need of fixing an Apostle at other places ; nor doth it appear that any was so fixed ; especially St. Peter was incapable of such an employment, requiring settlement and constant attendance, who beside his general apostleship, had a peculiar apostleship of the dispersed Jews committed to him ; who therefore was much engaged in travel for propaga- tion of the faith, and edifying his converts everywhere. 3. The greater consent of the most ancient writers making St. James not to have been one of the twelve Apostles, it is thence accountable, why (as we before noticed) St. James was called by some ancient writers, " the bishop of bishops, the prince of bishops," &c. because he was the first bishop, of the first see, and mother church; the Apostles being excluded from the comparison. Upon these considerations we have great reason to refuse the assertion or scandal cast on St. Peter, that he took on him to be bishop of Rome, in a strict sense, as it is understood in this controversy.

V. A farther assertion is this, superstructed by consequence on the former, that the bishops of Rome (according to God's institution and by original right derived thence), should have an universal supremacy and jurisdiction (containing the privi- leges and prerogatives formerly described), over the Christian Church. This assertion to be very uncertain, yea, to be most false, I shall by divers considerations evince.

1. If any of the former suppositions be uncertain, or false, this assertion, standing on those legs, must partake of those defects, and answerably be dubious, or false. If either Peter was not monarch of the Apostles, or if his privileges were not successive, or if he were not properly bishop of Rome at his decease, then farewell the Romish claim ; if any of those things be dubious, it doth totter ; if any of them prove false, then down it falleth . But that each of them is false, hath, I conceive, been suffi- ciently declared ; that all of them are uncertain, hath at least been made evident. The structure, therefore, cannot be firm, which relyeth on such props .

2. Even admitting all those suppositions, the inference from them is not assuredly valid. For St. Peter might have an universal jurisdiction, he might derive it by succession, he might be bishop of Rome ; yet no such authority might hence accrue to the Roman bishop, his successor in that see. For that universal jurisdiction might be derived into another channel ; and the bishop of Rome might in other respects be successor to him, without being so in this . As for instance in the Roman Empire, before any rule of succession was established therein, the emperor was sovereign governor, and he might die consul of Rome, having assumed that place to himself; yet, when he died, the supreme autho- rity did not lapse into the hands of the consul, who succeeded him, but into the hands of the senate, and people : his consular authority only going to his successor in that office. So might St. Peter's universal power be transferred unto the ecclesiastical college of bishops, and of the Church ; his episcopal inferior authority over the singular παροικία or province of Rome, being transmitted to his followers in that chair.

3. That in truth it was thus, and that all the authority of St. Peter and of all other Apostles, was devolved to the Church, and to the representative body thereof, the Fathers did suppose ; affirming the Church to have received from our Lord a sovereign power. "This (saith St. Cyprian) is that one Church, which holdeth and possesseth all the power of its Spouse and Lord, in this we preside ; for the honour and unity of this we fight, " * saith he in his epistle to Jubaianus, wherein he doth impugn the proceedings of Pope Stephanus : the which sentence St. Augustine appropriateth to himself, speaking it absolutely, without citing St. Cyprian. † To this authority of the Church St. Basil would have all that confess the faith of Christ to submit : " To which end we exceedingly need your assistance, that they who confess the apostolic faith, would renounce the schisms which they have devised, and submit themselves henceforth to the authority of the Church. " ‡ They (after the holy Scripture, which saith, that " each bishop hath a care of God's Church, and is obliged to feed the Church of God-and is appointed to edify the body of Christ"), § do suppose the administration of ecclesiastical affairs concerning the public state of the Church, the defence of the common faith, the maintenance of order, peace, and unity, jointly to belong unto the whole body of pastors ; || ac- cording to that of St. Cyprian to Pope Stephanus himself : " Therefore, most dear brother, the body of priests is copious, being joined together by the glue of mutual concord and the bond ofunity, that if any of our college shall attempt to make heresy, and to tear or waste the flock of Christ, the rest may come to succour; and like useful and merciful shepherds may re-collect the sheep into the flock. " And again, ** " Which thing it concerns us to look after and redress, most dear brother, who bearing in mind the Divine clemency, and holding the scales of the Church government," &c. So even the Roman clergy did acknowledge : " For we ought all of us to watch for the body of the whole Church whose members are digested through several provinces. " * " Like the Trinity, whose power is one and undivided, there is one priesthood among divers bishops."† So in the Apostolical Constitutions, the Apostles tell the bishops, that an universal episcopacy is intrusted to them. ‡ So the Council of Carthage with St. Cyprian : " Clear and manifest is the mind and meaning of our Lord Jesus Christ, sending his Apostles, and affording to them alone the power given him of the Father ; in whose room we succeeded, govern- ing the Church of God with the same power. "§ " Christ our Lord and our God going to the Father, com- mended his Spouse to us. "|| Avery ancient instance of which administration is the pro- ceeding against Paulus Samosatenus ; when " the pastors of the churches, some from one place, some from another, did assemble together against him as a pest of Christ's flock, all of them hastening to Antioch ; " where they deposed, extermi- nated, and deprived him of communion, warning the whole Church to reject and disavow him. " Seeing the pastoral charge is common to us all, who bear the episcopal office, although thou sittest in a higher and more eminent place. " **

" Therefore for this cause the holy Church is committed to you and to us, that we may labour for all, and not be slack in yielding help and assistance to all. " * Hence St. Chrysostom said of Eustathius his bishop : "For he was well instructed and taught by the grace of the Holy Spirit, that a president or bishop of a Church ought not to take care of that Church alone, wherewith he is entrusted by the Holy Ghost, but also of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world."+ They consequently did repute schism, or ecclesiastical re- bellion to consist in a departure from the consent of the body of the priesthood, ‡ as St. Cyprian in divers places doth express it inhis epistles to Pope Stephen and others. They deem all bishops to partake ofthe apostolical authority, according to that of St. Basil to St. Ambrose : "The Lord himself hath translated thee from the judges of the earth unto the prelacy of the Apostles. " § They took themselves all to be vicars of Christ, and judges in his stead ; according to that of St. Cyprian : " For heresies are sprung up, and schisms grown from no other ground nor root but this, because God's priest was not obeyed, nor was there one priest or bishop for a time in the Church, nor a judge thought on for a time to supply the room of Christ. " Where that by Church is meant any particular Church, and by priest a bishop of such Church, any one not bewitched with prejudice by the tenor of St. Cyprian's discourse will easily discern.||

They conceive that our Saviour did promise to St. Peter the keys in behalf of the Church, and as representing it . * They suppose the combination of bishops in peaceable con- sent, and mutual aid, to be the rock on which the Church is built. They allege the authority granted to St. Peter as a ground of claim to the same in all bishops jointly, and in each bishop singly, according to his rata pars, or allotted proportion. "Which may easily be understood by the words of our Lord, when he says to blessed Peter, whose place the bishops supply, whatsoever, " † &c . "I have the sword of Constantine in my hands, you of Peter," said our great King Edgar. ‡ They do therefore in this regard take themselves all to be successors of St. Peter, that his power is derived to them all, and that the whole episcopal order " is the chair by the Lord's voice founded on St. Peter :" thus St. Cyprian in divers places (before touched) discourseth ; and thus Firmilian from the keys granted to St. Peter inferreth, disputing against the Roman bishop : " Therefore (saith he) the power of remitting sins is given to the Apostles and to the Churches, which they being sent from Christ did constitute, and to the bishops, which do succeed them by vicarious ordination . " §

4. The bishops of any other Churches founded by the Apostles, in the Fathers' style are successors of the Apostles, in the same sense, and to the same intent as the Bishop of Rome is by them accounted successor of St. Peter the apostolical power, which in extent was universal, being in some sense, in reference to them, not quite extinct, but transmitted by succession ; yet the bishops of apostolical Churches did never claim, nor allowedly exercise apostolical jurisdiction, beyond their own precincts ; according to those words of St. Jerome, " Tell me, what doth Palestine belong to the Bishop of Alexandria ?"||

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

5. So again, for instance, St. James (whom the Roman Church, in her Liturgies, doth avow for an Apostle), was Bishop of Jerusalem more unquestionably than St. Peter was Bishop of Rome ; Jerusalem also was the root, and the mother of all Churches, * ( as the Fathers of the second General Synod, in their letter to Pope Damasus himself, and the occidental Bishops did call it, forgetting the singular pretence of Rome to that title. ) Yet the bishops of Jerusalem, successors of St. James, did not thence claim I know not what kind ofextensivejurisdiction ; yea, notwithstanding their succession they did not so much as obtain a metropolitical authority in Palestine, which did belong to Cæsarea (having been assigned thereto, in conformity to the civil government), and was by special provision reserved thereto in the Synod of Nice ; † whence St. Jerome did not stick to affirm, that the Bishop of Jerusalem was subject to the Bishop of Cæsarea ; for speaking to John bishop of Jerusalem, who for compurgation of himself from errors imputed to him had appealed to Theophilus bishop of Alex- andria, he saith, " Thou hadst rather cause molestation to ears possessed, than render honour to thy metropolitan,"‡ that is to the bishop of Cæsarea. Bywhich instance we may discern, what little consideration sometimes was had of personal or topical succession to the Apostles, in determining the extent of jurisdiction, and why should the Roman bishop upon that score pretend more validly than others ?

6. St. Peter probably ere that he came at Rome did found divers other Churches, § whereof he was paramount bishop, or did retain a special superintendency over them ; particularly "Antioch was anciently called his see, " * and he is acknowledged to have sat there seven years, before he was bishop of Rome. Why therefore may not the bishop of Antioch pretend to succeed St. Peter in his universal pastorship as well as his younger brother of Rome? why should Evodius ordained by St. Peter at Antioch, yield to Clemens afterward by him ordained at Rome ? Antioch was the first-born of Gentile Churches, where the name of Christians was first heard ; Antioch was (as the Constantinopolitan Fathers called it) " the most ancient and truly apostolical Church. " † Antioch by virtue of St. Peter's sitting there, or peculiar relation to it, was (according to their own conceits) the princi- pal see .‡ Why therefore should St. Peter be so unkind to it, as not only to relinquish it, but to debase it ; not only transferring his see from it, but divesting it of the privilege, which it had got ? § Why should he prefer before it the city of Rome, the mystical Babylon, " the mother of abominations of the earth, "|| the throne of Satan's empire, the place which did then most persecute the Christian faith, and was drunk with the blood of the saints?

7. The ground of this preference was, say they, St. Peter's will ; and they have reason to say so, for otherwise if St. Peter had died intestate, the elder son of Antioch would have had best right to all his goods and dignities. ** But how doth that will appear ? in what tables was it written? in what registers is it extant? in whose presence did he nuncupate it ? it is nowhere to be seen or heard of. Neither do they otherwise know of it, than by reasoning it out; and in effect they say only that it was fit he should will it, but they may be mistaken in their divinations ; and perhaps notwithstanding them St. Peter might will as well to his former see of Antioch, as to his latter of Rome.

8. Indeed Bellarmine sometimes positively and briskly enough doth affirm, that " God did command St. Peter to fix his seat at Rome ?" * but his proofs of it are so ridiculously fond and weak, that I grudge the trouble of reciting them ; and he himself sufficiently confuteth them by saying other- where : " It is not improbable that our Lord gave an express command, that Peter should so fix his see at Rome, that the bishop of Rome should absolutely succeed him. " † He saith it is not improbable : if it be no more than so, it is uncertain ; it may be a mere conjecture or a dream. It is much more not improbable that if God had commanded it, there would have been some assurance of a command so very important.

9. Antioch hath at least a fair plea for a share in St. Peter's prerogatives ; for it did ever hold the repute of an apostolical Church, and upon that score some deference was paid to it ; why so, if St. Peter did carry his see with all its prerogatives to another place ? But if he carried with him only part of his prerogative, leaving some part behind at Antioch, how much then I pray did he leave there ? Why did he divide unequally, or leave less than half ? if perchance he did leave half, the bishop of Antioch is equal to him of Rome.

10. Other persons also may be found, who according to equal judgment might have a better title to the succession of Peter in his universal authority than the Pope ; having a nearer relation to him than he (although his successor in one charge), or upon other equitable grounds. For instance, St. John, or any other Apostle, who did sur- vive St. Peter ; for if St. Peter was the father of Christians, (which title yet our Saviour forbiddeth any one to assume), St. John might well claim to be his eldest son ; and it had been a very hard case for him to have been postponed in the succession ; it had been a derogation to our Lord's own choice, a neglect of his special affection, adisparagement of the apos- tolical office for him to be subjected to any other ; neither could any other pretend to the like gifts for management of that great charge.

11. The bishop of Jerusalem might with much reason have put in his claim thereto, as being successor of our Lord him- self, who unquestionably was the High-priest of our profession, and Archbishop of all our souls ; whose see was the mother of all Churches ; wherein St. Peter himselfdid at first reside, exercising his vicarship : if our Lord, upon special accounts out of course, had put the sovereignty into St. Peter's hands, yet after his decease it might be fit, that it should return into its proper channel, This may seem to have been the judgment of the times, when the author of the Apostolical Constitutions did write, who reporteth the Apostles to have ordered prayers to be made first for James, then for Clement, then for Evodius.

12. Equity would rather have required, that one should by common consent and election of the whole Church be placed in St. Peter's room, than that the bishop of Rome, by election of a few persons there, should succeed into it. As the whole body of pastors was highly concerned in that succession, so it was reasonable that all of them should concur in designation of a person thereto ; it is not reasonable to suppose that either God would institute, or St. Peter by will should devise a course of proceeding in such a case, so unequal and unsatisfactory. If therefore the Church considering this equity of the case, together with the expediency of affairs in relation to its good, should undertake to choose for itself another monarch (the bishop of another see, who should seem fitter for the place), to succeed into the prerogatives of St. Peter, that personwould have a fairer title to that office than the Pope ; for such a person would have a real title, grounded on some reason of the case ; whereas the Pope's pretence doth only stand upon a positive institution, whereof he cannot exhibit any certificate : this was the mind of a great man among themselves ; who saith, " that if possibly the bishop of Triers should be chosen for head of the Church. For the Church has free power to provide itself a head. " *

Bellarmine himself confesseth, " That if St. Peter (as he might have done if he had pleased) should have chosen no particular see, as he did not for the first five years, then after Peter's death, neither the bishop of Rome, nor of Antioch had succeeded, but he whom the Church should have chosen for itself. " * Now if the Church upon that supposition would have had such aright, it is not probable, that St. Peter by his fact would have deprived it thereof, or willingly done any thing in prejudice of it, there being apparently so much equity, that the Church should have a stroke in designation of its pastor. In ancient times there was not any small Church, which had not a suffrage in the choice of its pastor ; and was it fitting that all the Church should have one imposed on it without its consent ?† If we consider the manner in ancient time of electing and constituting the Roman bishop, we may thence discern not only the improbability, but iniquity of this pretence : how was he then chosen? was it by a General Synod of bishops, or by delegates from all parts of Christendom, whereby the commoninterest inhim might appear ; and whereby the whole world might be satisfied that one was elected fit for that high office? No ; he was chosen, as usually then other particular bishops were, by the clergy and people of Rome ; none of the world being conscious of the proceeding, or bearing any share therein. Nowwas it equal that such a power of imposing a sovereign onall the grave bishops, and on all the good people of the Christian world, should be granted to one city ? Was it fitting that such a charge, importing advancement above all pastors, and being entrusted with the welfare of all souls in Christendom, would be the result of an election liable to so many defects and corruptions ? which assuredly often, if not almost constantly, would be procured by ambition, bri- bery, or partiality, would be managed by popular faction and tumults. It was observed generally of such elections by Nazianzen, that " prelacies were not got rather by virtue than by naughti- ness ; and that episcopal thrones did not rather belong to the more worthy than to the more powerful. " * And declaring his mind or wish that elections of bishops should " rest only or chiefly in the best men ; not in the weal- thiest and mightiest ; or in the impetuousness and unreason- ableness of the people, and among them in those who are most easily bought and bribed ; "† whereby he intimateth the common practice, and subjoineth : " but now I can hardly avoid thinking, that the popular (or civil) governances are better ordered than ours, which are reputed to have Divine grace at- tending them. " And that the Roman elections in that time were come into that course, we may see by the relation and reflections of an honest pagan historian concerning the election of Pope Dama- sus (contemporary of Gregory Nazianzen) : " Damasus (saith he) and Ursinus, above human measure burning with desire to snatch the episcopal see, did with divided parties most fiercely conflict ; " ‡ in which conflict upon one day in the very church 130 persons were slain ; § so did that great Pope get into the chair ; " thus (as the historian reflecteth ) the wealth and pomp of the place naturally did provoke ambition, " || by all means to seek it, and did cause fierce contentions to arise in the choice ; whence commonly, wise and modest persons being excluded from any capacity thereof, any ambitious and cunning man, who had the art or the luck to please the multitude would by violence obtain it ; which was a goodly way of constituting a sovereign to the Church. Thus it went within three ages after our Lord, and after- wards in the declensions of Christian simplicity and integrity matters were not like to be mended ; but did indeed rather grow worse ; as beside the reports and complaints of historians, * how that commonly by ambitious prensations, by simoniacal corruptions, by political bandyings, by popular factions, by all kinds of sinister ways, men crept into the place, doth appear by those many dismal schisms, which gave the Church many pretended heads, but not one certain one : as also by the result ofthem, being the choice of persons very unworthy and hor- ribly flagitious. † If it be said, that the election of a Pope in old times was wont to be approved by the consent of all bishops in the world, according to the testimony of St. Cyprian ; who saith of Cornelius, that " he was known by the testimony of his fellow- bishops, whose whole number through all the world did with peaceful unanimity consent. " * I answer, that this consent was not in the election, or ante- cedently to it : that it was only by letters or messages declaring the election, according to that of St. Cyprian ; † that it wasnot anywise peculiar to the Roman bishop, but such as was yielded to all Catholic bishops, each of whom was to be approved, as St. Cyprian saith, " by the testimony and judgment of his col- leagues;"‡ that it was in order only to the maintaining fra- ternal communion and correspondence, signifying that such a bishop was duly elected by his clergy and people, was rightly ordained by his neighbour bishops, did profess the catholic faith, and was therefore qualified for communion with his brethren : such a consent to the election of any bishop of old was given ( especially upon occasion, and when any question concerning the right of a bishop did intervene), whereofnow in the election of a Pope no footstep doth remain. Wemay also note, that the election of Corneliusş being con- tested, he did more solemnly acquaint all the bishops of the world with his case, and so did obtain their approbation, in a way more than ordinary.

13. If God had designed this derivation of universal sove- reignty, it is probable, that he would have prescribed some certain, standing, immutable way of election ; and imparted the right to certain persons, and not left it at such uncertainty to the chances of time, so that the manner of election hath often changed, and the power of it tossed into divers hands. " And though in several times there have been observed several ways as to the election of the Roman pontiffs, according as the necessity, and the expediency of the Church re- quired."* Of old it was (as other elections) managed by nomination of the clergy, and suffrage of the people. Afterwards the emperors did assume to themselves the no- mination, or approbation of them. " For then nothing was done by the clergy in the choice of the Pope, unless the emperor had approved his election. "† "But he, seeing the prince's consent was required, sent messengers with letters, to intreat Mauritius, that he would not suffer the election made by the clergy and people of Rome in that case to be valid. "‡ " Leo VIII . being tired out with the inconstancy of the Ro- mans, transferred the whole power and authority of choosing the Pope from the clergy and people of Rome, to the emperor. "§ At some times the clergy had no hand in the election ; but Popes were intruded by powerful men or women at their pleasure.|| Afterwards the cardinals (that is, some of the chief Roman clergy) did appropriate the election to themselves ; by the decree of Pope Nicholas II., in his Lateran Synod. Sometimes (out of course) general Synods did assume the choice to themselves : as at Constance, Pisa, and Basil.

14. From the premises to conclude the Pope's title to St. Peter's authority, it is requisite to shew the power demised by him to be according to God's institution and intent, immutable, and indefectible : for power built upon the like, but far more certain principles hath in course of times, and by worldly changes been quite lost, or conveyed into other channels than those wherein it was first put; and that irrecoverably, so that it cannot anywise be retrieved, or reduced into the first order. For instance, Adam was by God constituted universal sove- reign of mankind ; and into that power his eldest son of right did succeed ; and so it of right should have been continually propagated. Yet soon did that power fail, or was diverted into other courses ; the world being cantonized into several dominions ; so that the heir at law among all the descendants of Adam cannot so easily be found, as " a needle in a bottle of hay ; " he probably is a subject, and perhaps is a peasant. So might St. Peter be monarch ofthe Church, and the Pope might succeed him, yet by revolutions of things, by several de- faults and incapacities in himself, by divers obstructions inci- dent, by forfeiture upon encroaching on other men's rights, according to that maxim of a great Pope : " Heloseth his own, who coveteth more than his due, " * his power might be clipped, might be transplanted, might utterly decay and fail ; to such fatalities other powers are subject ; nor can that ofthe Pope be exempt from them, as otherwise we shall more largely declare.

15. Indeed, that God did intend his Church should per- petually subsist united in any one political frame of govern- ment, is a principle, which they do assume, and build upon, but can nowise prove. Nor indeed is it true. For, If the unity of the Church designed and instituted by God were only an unity of faith, of charity, of peace, of fraternal communion and correspondence between particular societies and pastors, then in vain it is to seek for the subject and seat of universal jurisdiction ; now that God did not intend any other unity, than such as those specified, we have good reason to judge, and shall, we hope, otherwhere sufficiently prove.

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

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

2. In times when the Romans would not suffer Popes to live with then. *

3. In case of discontinuance from Rome, when the Popes (so calling themselves) did for above seventy years abide in France, when they indeed, not being chosen by the Roman people, nor exercising pastoral care over them, were only titu- lar, not real bishops of Rome (they were Popes of Avignon, not of Rome, and successors of God knows who, not of St. Peter) ; no more than one continually living in Englandcan be bishop of Jerusalem. †

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

5. When Popes were intruded by violence, whom Baronius himself positively affirmeth to have been no Popes, how then could a succession of true Popes be continued from them by the clergy, which they in virtue of their papal authority did pretend to create ?§

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

7. When Popes were simonically chosen, who by their own rules and laws are no true Popes, being heretics, heresiarchs. || The which was done for long courses of time very com- monly, and in a manner constantly.

8. When Popes have been deposed, (as some by the empe- rors, others by General Councils) in which case, according to papal principles, the successors were illegal, for the Pope being sovereign, he could not be judged or deposed, and his successor is an usurper.

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

10. When atheists, sorcerers ,- Elections in some of these cases being null, and therefore the acts consequent to them invalid, there is probably a de- failance of right continued to posterity. * And probably, therefore, there is now no true Pope. For (upon violent intrusion, or simoniacal choice, or any usurpation) the cardinals, bishops, &c. which the Pope createth are not truly such, and consequently their votes not good in the choice of another Pope, and so successively. These considerations may suffice to declare the inconse- quence of their discourses, even admitting their assertions, which yet are so false, or so apparently uncertain .

I shall in the next place level my arguments directly against their main conclusion itself.

I. My first argument against this pretence shall be, that it is destitute of any good warrant, either from divine or human testimony, and so is groundless. As will appear by the follow- ing considerations.

1. If God had designed the bishop of Rome to be for the perpetual course of times sovereign monarch of his Church, it may reasonably be supposed that he would expressly have declared his mind in the case, it being a point of greatest im- portance of all that concern the administration of his kingdom in the world. † ) Princes do not use to send their viceroys unfurnished with patents clearly signifying their commission, that no man, out of ignorance or doubt concerning that point, excusably may refuse compliance ; and in all equity promulga- tion is requisite to the establishment of any law, or exacting obedience. But in all the pandects of Divine revelation the bishop of Rome is not so much as once mentioned, either by name or by character, or by probable intimation ; they cannot hook him in otherwise, than by straining hard and framing a long chain of consequences, each of which is too subtle for to constrain any man's persuasion : they have indeed found the Pope in the first chapter of Genesis ; for (if we believe Pope Innocent III. ) he is one of the two great luminaries there, and he is as plainly there as anywhere else in the Bible. * Wherefore if upon this account we should reject this pre- tence, we might do it justly ; and for so doing we have the allowance of the ancient Fathers ; for they did not hold any man obliged to admit any point of doctrine, or rule of manners which is not in express words, or in terms equivalent contained in holy Scripture ; or which at least might not thence be de- duced by clear and certain inference ; this their manner of disputing with heretics and heterodox people doth shew ; this appeareth by their way of defining and settling doctrines of faith ; this they often do avow in plain words applicable to our case ; for " If (saith St. Augustine) about Christ, or about his Church, or about any other thing which concerneth our faith and life, I will not say we, who are nowise comparable to him, who said Although we ; but even as he going on did add, If an angel from heaven should tell you beside what you have received in the legal and evangelical Scriptures, let him be anathema: "† in which words we have St. Augustine's warrant not only to refuse, but to detest this doctrine, which being nowhere extant in law or gospel, is yet obtruded on us as nearly relating both to Christ and his Church ; as greatly concerning both our faith and practice.

2. To enforce this argument, we may consider that the Evangelists do speak about the propagation, settlement, and continuance of our Lord's kingdom ; that the Apostles do often treat about the state of the Church, and its edification, order, peace, unity ; about the distinction of its officers and members ; about the qualifications, duties, graces, privileges of spiritual governors and guides ; about prevention and remedy ofheresies, schisms, disorders ; upon any of which occasions how is it possible that the mention ofsuch a spiritual monarch (whowas to have a main influence on each of those particu- lars) should wholly escape them, if they had known such an one instituted by God ? In the Levitical law all things concerning the high-priest ; not only his designation, succession, consecration, duty, power, maintenance, privileges ; but even his garments, marriage, mourning, &c. are punctually determined and described ; and is it not wonderful that in the many descriptions ofthe new law, no mention should be made concerning any duty or privilege of its high-priest? whereby he might be directed in the adminis- tration of his office, and know what observance to require ?

3. Whereas also the Scripture doth inculcate duties of all sorts, and not forget frequently to press duties of respect and obedience toward particular governors of the Church ; is it not strange that it never should bestow one precept, whereby we might be instructed and admonished to pay our duty to the universal pastor ? especially considering that God who directed the pens of the Apostles, and who intended that their writings should continue for the perpetual instruction of Christians, did foresee, how requisite such a precept would be to secure that duty ; for if but one such precept did appear, it would do the business, and void all contestation about it .

4. They who so carefully do exhort to honour and obey the temporal sovereignty, how came they so wholly to wave urging the no less needful obligations to obey the spiritual monarch? while they are so mindful of the emperor, why are they so neglectful of the Pope ? insomuch that divers Popes afterward, to ground and urge obedience to them, are fain to borrow those precepts, which command obedience to princes, accom- modating them by analogy and inference to themselves ?†

5. Particularly St. Peter, one would think, who doth so earnestly enjoin to obey the king as supreme, and to honour him, should not have been unmindful of his successors ; or quite have forborne to warn Christians of the respect due to them : surely the Popes afterward do not follow him in this reservedness ; for in their Decretal Epistles they urge nothing so much as obedience to the apostolical see.

6. One might have expected something of that nature from St. Paul himself, who did write so largely to the Romans, and so often from Rome ; that at least some word, or some inti- mation should have dropped from him concerning these huge rights and privileges of this see, and of the regard due to it. Particularly then, when he professedly doth enumerate the offices, instituted by God, for standing use and perpetual duration ; " for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ ; till we all come in the unity of faith," &c. * He commendeth them for their faith, which was spoken of through the whole world ; † yet giveth them no advantage above others ; as St. Chrysostom observeth on those words : "for obedience to the faith among all nations, among whom also are ye ; this (saith St. Chrysostom) he saith to depress their conceit, to void their haughtiness of mind, and to teach them (to deem others equal in dignity with them. ")‡ Whenhe writeth to that Church (which was some time after St. Peter had settled the Popedom) § he doth only style them κλητοὶ ἅγιοι (called saints) and ἀγαπητοὶ Θεοῦ (beloved of God), which are common adjuncts of all Christians ; he saith their faith was spoken ofgenerally, but of the fame of their authority being so spread, he taketh no notice ; that “ their obedience had come abroad to all men," but their commands hadnot (it seemeth) come anywhere. He wrote divers epistles from Rome, wherein he resolveth many cases debated, yet never doth urge the authority of the RomanChurch for any point, which now is so ponderous an argument.

7. But however, seeing the Scripture is so strangely reserved, how cometh it to pass that tradition is also so defective, and staunch in so grand a case ? Wehave in divers of the Fathers, (particularly in Tertullian, in St. Basil, in St. Jerome|| ) , catalogues of traditional doctrines and observances, which they recite to assert tradition in some cases supplemental to Scrip- ture ; in which their purpose did require, that they should set down those of principal moment ; and they are so punctual as to insert many ofsmall consideration ; how then came they to neglect this, concerning the Papal authority over the whole Church, which had been most pertinent to their design, and in consequence did vastly surpass all the rest, which they do name ?

8. The designation of the Roman bishop by succession to obtain so high a degree in the Church being above all others a most remarkable and noble piece of history, which it had been a horrible fault in an ecclesiastical history to slip over, with- out careful reporting, and reflecting upon it ; yet Eusebius, that most diligent compiler of all passages relating to the original constitution of the Church, and to all transactions therein, hath not one word about it ; who yet studiously doth report the successions of the Roman bishops, and all the notable occurrences he knew concerning them, with favourable advantage.

9. Whereas this doctrine is pretended to be a point of faith, of vast consequence to the subsistence of the Church and to the salvation ofmen, it is somewhat strange, that it should not be inserted into any one ancient summary of things to be believed (of which summaries divers remain, some composed by public consent, others by persons of eminency in the Church) * nor by fair and forcible consequence should be de- ducible from any article in them ; especially considering, that such summaries were framed upon occasion ofheresies springing up, which disregarded the Pope's authority, and which by asserting it were plainly confuted. We are therefore beholden to Pope Innocent III. and his Lateran Synod for first synodi- cally defining this point, together with other points no less new and unheard of before. The creed of Pope Pius IV. formed the other day, is the first, as I take it, which did contain this article of faith †

10. It is much that this point of faith should not be de- livered in any of those ancient expositions of the Creed (made by St. Augustine, Ruffin, &c.) which enlarge it to necessary points ofdoctrine, connected with the articles therein, especially with that of the Catholic Church, to which the Pope's authority hath so close a connection; that it should not be touched in the catechetical Discourses of Cyril, Ambrose, &c.; that in the Systems of Divinity composed by St. Augustine, Lactantius, &c. it should not be treated on : the world is now changed ; for the Catechism of Trent doth not overlook so material a point ; and it would pass for a lame body of theology, which should omit to treat on this subject.

11. It is more wonderful, that this point should never be defined, in downright and full terms, by any ancient Synod ; it being so notoriously in those old times opposed by divers, who dissented in opinion, and discorded in practice from the Pope; it being also a point of that consequence, that such a solemn declaration of it would have much conduced to the ruin of all particular errors and schisms, which were main- tained then in opposition to the Church. 12. Indeed had this point been allowed by the main body of orthodox bishops, the Pope could not have been so drowsy or stupid, as not to have solicited for such a definition thereof; nor would the bishops have been backward in compliance thereto ; it being, in our adversaries' conceit, so compendious and effectual a way of suppressing all heretics, schisms, and disorders; (although indeed later experience hath shewed it no less available to stifle truth, justice, and piety) : the Popes after Luther were better advised, and so were the bishops ad- hering to his opinions .

13. Whereas also it is most apparent, that many persons disclaimed this authority, not regarding either the doctrines or decrees of the Popes ; it is wonderful, that such men should not be reckoned in the large catalogues of heretics ; wherein errors ofless obvious consideration, and of far less importance did place men ; if Epiphanius, Theodoret, Leontius, &c. were so negligent, or unconcerned, yet St. Augustine, Philastrius- western men, should not have overlooked this sort of desperate heretics : Aërius for questioning the dignity of bishops is set among the heretics, but who got that name for disavowing the Pope's supremacy, among the many who did it? (It is but lately, that such as we have been thrust in among heretics. )

14. Whereas no point avowed by Christians could be so apt to raise offence and jealousy in Pagans against our religion as this, which setteth up a power of so vast extent, and huge influence ; whereas no novelty could be more surprising or startling, than the erection of an universal empire over the consciences and religious practices of men; whereas also this doctrine could not but be very conspicuous and glaring in ordinary practice ; it is prodigious, that all Pagans should not loudly exclaim against it. It is strange, that Pagan historians (such as Marcellinus, who often speaketh of Popes, and blameth them for their luxurious way ofliving, and pompous garb : * as Zozimus, who bore a great spite at Christianity ; as all the writers of the imperial history before Constantine) should not report it, as a very strange pretence newly started up.

It is wonderful, that the eager adversaries of our religion (such as Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, Julian himself) should not particularly level their discourse against it, as a most scandalous position and dangerous pretence, threatening the government of the empire.

It is admirable, that the emperors themselves, inflamed with emulation and suspicion of such an authority (the which hath been so terrible even to Christian princes), should not in their edicts expressly decry and impugn it ; that indeed every one of them should not with extremest violence implacably strive to extirpate it.

In consequence of these things it may also seem strange, that none of the advocates of our faith (Justin, Origen, Tertullian, Arnobius, Cyril, Augustine) should be put to defend it, or so much as forced to mention it, in their elaborate apologies for the doctrines and practices, which were reprehended by any sort of adversaries thereto.

We may add, that divers of them in their apologies and representations concerning Christianity would have appeared not to deal fairly, or to have been very inconsiderate, + when they profess for their common belief assertions repugnant to that doctrine ; as when Tertullian saith, " We reverence the emperor as a man second to God, and less only than God ; " when Optatus affirmeth,* " that above the emperor there is none beside God who made the emperor; " and, †" that Dona- tus by extolling himself (as some now do) above the emperor, did in so doing as it were exceed the bounds of men, that he did esteem himself as God, not as man." When St. Chrysos- tom asserteth,‡ " the emperor to be the crown and head of all menupon earth ; " and saith, that " even apostles, evangelists, prophets, any men whoever" are to be subject to the temporal powers ; when St. Cyrils calleth the emperor " the supreme top ofglory among men, elevated above all others by incom- parable differences," &c. When even Popes talk at this rate; as Pope Gregory I. || calling the emperor his " Lord, and Lord ofall," telling the emperor that his competitor, by assuming the title of universal bishop " did set himself above the honour of his imperial majesty; " which he supposeth a piece ofgreat absurdity and arrogance ; and even Pope Gregory II. doth call that emperor (against whom he afterward rebelled) " the head of Christians . " Whereas indeed if the Pope be monarch of the Church, endowed with the regalities which they now ascribe to him, it is plain enough that he is not inferior to any man living, in real power and dignity : wherefore the modern doctors of Rome are far more sincere or considerate in their heraldry, then were those old Fathers of Christendom ; who now stick not downrightly to prefer the Pope before all princes of the world ; * not only in doctrine and notion, but in the sacred offices ofthe Church ; for in the very canon oftheir mass, the Pope ( together with the bishop of the diocese, one of his ministers) is set before all Christian princes ; every Christian subject being thereby taught to deem the Pope superior to his prince.

Now we must believe (for one Pope hath written it, another hath put it in his decretals, and it is current law) that the Papal authority doth no less surpass the royal, than the sun doth outshine the moon. †

Now it is abundantly " declared by Papal definition, as a point necessary to salvation, that every human creature (neither king nor Cesar excepted) is subject to the Roman high- priest."‡ Nowthe mystery is discovered, why Popes, when summoned by emperors, declined to go in person to General Synods ; be- cause " it was not tolerable, that the emperor (who sometime would be present in Synods) should sit above the Pope : " § as in the pride of his heart he might perhaps offer to do. I cannot forbear to note what an ill conceit Bellarmine had of Pope Leo I. and other Popes, that they did forbear coming at Synods out of this villanous pride and haughtiness. ) 15. One would admire, that Constantine, if he had smelt this doctrine, or any thing like it in Christianity, should be so ready to embrace it ; or that so many emperors should in those times do so; some princes then probably being jealous of their honour, and unwilling to admit any superior to them. It is at least much, that emperors should with so much in- dulgence foster and cherish Popes, being their so dangerous rivals for dignity ; and that it should be true, which Pope Nicholas doth affirm ; " that the emperors had extolled the Romansee with divers privileges, had enriched it with gifts, had enlarged it with benefits ; " * he had done I know not how many things more for it ; surely they were bewitched thus to advance their concurrent competitor for honour and power ; one who pretended to be a better man than themselves. Bel- larmine (in his Apology against King James) saith, " that the Pope was (vellet, nollet,) constrained to be subject to the emperors, because his power was not known to them; " † it was well it was not : but how could it be concealed from them, if it were a doctrine commonly avowed by Christians ; it is hard keeping so practical a doctrine from breaking forth into light. But to leave this consideration. Farthermore, we have divers ancient writings, the special nature, matter, scope whereof did require, or greatly invite giving attestation to this power, if such an one had been known and allowed in those times ; which yet do afford no counte- nance, but rather much prejudice thereto.

16. The Apostolical Canons, and the Constitutions of Cle- ment, which describe the state of the Church, with its laws, customs, and practices current in the times of those who com- piled them (which times are not certain, but ancient, and the less ancient the more it is to our purpose), wherein especially the ranks, duties, and privileges of all ecclesiastical persons are declared, or prescribed, do not yet touch the prerogatives of this universal head, or the special respects due to him, nor mention any laws or constitutions framed by him : which is no less strange than that there should be a body of laws, or description of the state of any kingdom, wherein nothing should be said concerning the king, or the royal authority. It is not so in our modern Canon Law, wherein the Pope doth make utramque paginam ; we read little beside his authority, and decrees made by it . The Apostolical Canons particularly doprescribe, " that the bishops of each nation should know him that is first among them, and should esteem him the head, and should do nothing considerable (or extraordinary) without his advice ; as also that each one (of those head bishops) should only meddle with those affairs, which concerned his own precinct, and the places under it : "* also " that no such primate should do any thing without the opinion of all, that so there maybe con- cord. " Now what place could be more opportune to mention the Pope's sovereign power? How could the canonist, with- out strange neglect, pass it over ? Doth he not indeed exclude it, assigning the supreme disposal (without further resort) of all things to the arbitration of the whole body of pastors, and placing the maintenance of concord in that course?

17. So also the old writer, under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, † treating in several places about the degrees of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, was monstrously overseen in omiting the sovereign thereof. In the fifth chapter of his Ec- clesiastical Hierarchy he professeth carefully to speak of those orders, but hath not a word of this supereminent rank, but averreth " Episcopacy to be the first and highest of divine orders, in which the Hierarchy is consummated:"‡ and in his epistle to Demophilus there is a remarkable place, wherein he could hardly have avoided touching the Pope, had there been then one in such vogue as now ; for in advising that monk to gentleness and observance towards his superiors, he thus speaketh : " Let passion and reason be governed byyou; but you by the holy deacons, and these by the priests, andthe priests by the bishops, and the bishops by the Apostles, or by their successors, (that is, saith Maximus, those which we now call patriarchs), and if perhaps any one of them shall fail of his duty, let him be corrected by those holy persons, who are co-ordinate to him; " * why not in this case, let him be cor- rected by the Pope, his superior ? but he knew none of an order superior to the Apostles' successors.

18. Likewise, Ignatius in many epistles frequently describeth the several ranks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, extolleth their dignity and authority to the highest pitch, mightily urgeth the respect due to them, yet never doth he so much as mention or touch this sovereign degree, wherein the majesty of the clergy did chiefly shine. In his very Epistle to the Romans he doth not yield any deference to their bishop, nor indeed doth so much as take notice of him ; is it not strange he should so little mind the sovereign of the Church ? or was it, for a sly reason, because being bishop of Antioch, he had a pique to his brother Jacob, who had supplanted him and got away his birthright ? The counterfeiter therefore of Ignatius did well personate him, when he saith, that " in the Church there is nothing greater than a bishop ; " † and that " a bishop is beyond all rule and authority ; " ‡ for in the time of Ignatius there was no do- mineering Pope over all bishops.

19. We have some letters of Popes, (though not many ; for Popes were not then very scribacious, or not so pragmatical ; whence to supply that defect, lest Popes should seem not able towrite, or to have slept almost four hundred years, they have forged divers for them, and those so wise ones, that we who love the memory of those good Popes, disdain to acknowledge them authors of such idle stuff; we have yet some letters of) , and to Popes, to and from divers eminent persons in the Church, wherein the former do not assume, nor the latter ascribe any such power ; the Popes do not express themselves like sovereigns, nor the bishops address themselves like sub- jects ; but they treat one another in a familiar way like brethren and equals : this is so true, that it is a good mark of a spurious epistle (whereof we have good store, devised by colloguing knaves, and fathered on the first Popes) when any of them talketh in an imperious strain, or arrogateth such a power to himself.

20. Clemens bishop of Rome in the apostolical times, unto the Church of Corinth, then engaged in discords and factions, wherein the clergy was much affronted ( divers presbyters, who had well and worthily behaved themselves, were ejected from their office, in a seditious manner), did write a very large epistle ; * wherein like a good bishop, and charitable Christian brother, he doth earnestly, by manifold inducements, persuade them to charity and peace ; but nowhere doth he speak im- periously like their prince. In such a case one would think, if ever, for quashing such disorders and quelling so perverse folks, † who spurned the clergy, it had been decent, it had been expedient, to employ his authority, and to speak like himself, challenging obedience, upon duty to him, and at their peril : how would a modern Pope have ranted in such a case ; how thundering a bull would he have dispatched against such out- rageous contemners of the ecclesiastical order ? how often would he have spoken of the apostolic see and its authority ? we should infallibly have heard him swagger in his wonted style : "Whoever shall presume to cross our will, let him know that he shall incur the indignation of Almighty God, and his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul : " ‡ but our Popes, it seemeth, have more wit, or better mettle than Pope Clemens; that good Pope did not know his own strength, or had not the heart to use it.

21. Among the epistles of St. Cyprian there are divers epistles of him to several Popes (to Cornelius, to Lucius, to Stephanus) , § in the which, although written with great kindness and respect, yet no impartial eye can discern any special regard to them, as to his superiors in power, or pastors in doc- trine, or judges of practice ; * he reporteth matters to them, he conferreth about points with all freedom ; he speaketh his sense and giveth his advice without any restraint or awe ; he spareth not upon occasions to reprove their practices and to reject their opinions ; he in his addresses to them and dis- courses of them styleth them brethren and colleagues ; † and he continually treateth them as such, upon even terms : "When (saith he to the clergy ofRome), dearest brethren, there was among us an uncertain rumour concerning the de- cease of the good manmy colleague, Fabianus ; " upon which words Rigaltius had cause to remark, " How like an equal and fellow-citizen doth the bishop of Carthage mention the bishop of Rome, even to the Roman clergy ?"‡ but would not any man now be deemed rude and saucy, who should talk in that style of the Pope ? Pope Cornelius also to St. Cyprian hath some epistles, § wherein no glimpse doth appear of any superiority assumed by him. But ofSt. Cyprian's judgment and demeanour toward Popes we shall have occasion to speak more largely, in a way more positively opposite to the Roman pretences. Eusebius citeth divers long passages out of an epistle of Cornelius to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, against Novatus ;|| wherein no mark of supremacy doth appear ; although the magnitude and flourishing state of the Roman Church is described, for aggravation of Novatus's schism and ambition. Pope Julius hath a notable long epistle, extant in one of Athanasius's Apologies, unto the bishops assembled at Antioch; wherein he had the fairest occasion that could be to assert and insist upon this sovereign authority, they flatly denying and impugning it ; questioning his proceedings as singular, sup- posing him subject to the laws of the Church no less than any other bishop ; and downrightly affirming each of themselves to be his equal; about which point he thought good not to con- tend with them, but waving pretences to superiority, he justi- fieth his actions by reasons, grounded on the merit of the cause, such as any other bishop might allege : but this epistle I shall have more particular occasion to discuss . Pope Liberius hath an epistletoSt. Athanasius, whereinhe not only (for his direction and satisfaction) doth inquire his opinion about the point ; but professeth, in compliment perchance. that he shall obediently follow it : " Write (saith he) whether you do think as we do and just so about the true faith ; that I may be undoubtedly assured about what you think good to command me ; " * was not that spoken indeed like a courteous sovereign, and an accomplished judge in matters of faith ? The same Pope in the head of the Western, doth write to a knot of Eastern bishops, whomthey call " their belovedbrethren and fellow-ministers ; " † and in a brotherly strain, not like an emperor. In the time of Damasus, successor to Liberius, St. Basil hath divers epistles to the Western bishops, wherein having re- presented and bewailed the wretched state of the Eastern Churches, then overborne with heretics, and unsettled by factions, he craveth their charity, their prayers, " their sympathy, their comfort, their brotherly aid ; " ‡ by affording to the or- thodox and sound party the countenance of their communion, by joining with them in contention for truth and peace ; for that the communion of so great Churches would be ofmighty weight to support and strengthen their cause ; giving credit thereto among the people, and inducing the emperor to deal fairly with them, in respect to such a multitude of adherents ; especially of those which were at such a distance, and not so immediately subject to the eastern emperor ; for, " If ( saith he) very many of you do concur unanimously in the same opinion, it is manifest, that the multitude of consenters will make the doctrine to be received without contradiction ; '" * and, " I know (saith he again, † writing to Athanasius about these matters) but one way of redress to our Churches, the con- spiring with us of the Western bishops ; " the which being ob- tained, " would probably yield some advantage to the public, the secular power revering the credibility of the multitude, and the people all about following them without repugnance : " ‡ and, " You (saith he to the Western bishops) the farther you dwell from them, the more credible you will be to the people."§ This, indeed, was according to the ancient rule and practice in such cases, that any Church being oppressed with error, or distracted with contentions, should from the bishops of other Churches receive aid to the removal of those inconveniences . That it was the rule doth appear from what we have before spoken ; and of the practice there be many instances ; for so did St. Cyprian send two of his clergy to Rome to compose the schism there, moved by Novatian against Cornelius ; || so was St. Chrysostom called to Ephesus (although out of his juris- diction) to settle things there ; so (to omit divers instances oc- curring in history) St. Basil himself was called by the Church of Iconium to visit it, and to give it a bishop; although it did not belong to his ordinary inspection ; and he doth tell the bishops of the coasts, * that they should have done well in sending some to visit and assist his Churches in their distresses . But now how, I pray, cometh it to pass, that in such a case he should not have a special recourse to the Pope ? but in so many addresses should only wrap him up in a community? why should he not humbly petition him to exert his sovereign authority for the relief of the Eastern Churches, laying his charge, and inflicting censures on the dissenters ? why should he lay all the stress of his hopes on the consent of the Western bishops ? why doth he not say a word of the dominion resi- dent in them over all the Church ? These things are inconceivable, if he did take the Pope to be the man our adversaries say he is. But St. Basil had other notions ; † for, indeed, being so wise and good a man, if he had taken the Pope for his sovereign, he would not have taxed him as he doth, and so complain of him ; when speaking of the Western bishops (whereof the Pope was the ringleader, and most concerned) he hath these words : (oc- casioned as I conceive by the bishop of Rome's rejecting that excellent person, Meletius bishop of Antioch :) " What we should write, or how to join with those that write, I am in doubt-for I am apt to say that of Diomedes, you ought not to request, for he is a haughty man ; for in truth observance doth render men of proud manners more contemptuous than otherwise they are. For if the Lord be propitious to us, what other addition do we need ? but if the anger of God continue, what help can we have from the Western superciliousness ? who in truth neither know, nor endure to learn ; but being prepossessed with false suspicions, do now do those things, which they did before in the cause of Marcellus ; affecting to contend with those, who report the truth to them ; and estab- lishing heresy by themselves: " would that excellent person (thegreatest man of his time in reputation for wisdom and piety) have thus, unbowelling his mind in an epistle to a very eminent bishop, smartly reflected on the qualities and proceed- ings of the Western clergy, charging them with pride and haughtiness, with a suspicious and contentious humour, with incorrigible ignorance, and indisposition to learn ; if he had taken him, who was the leader in all these matters, to have beenhis superior and sovereign ? would he have added the following words, immediately touching him: " I would not in the common name have written to their ringleader, nothing indeed about ecclesiastical affairs , except only to intimate, that they neither do know the truth ofthings with us, nor do admit the way by which they may understand it ; but in general about their being bound not to set uponthose, who were hum- bledwith afflictions : nor should judge themselves dignified by pride, asin which alone sufficeth to make one God's enemy.' Surely this great man knew better what belonged to govern- ment and manners, then in such rude terms to accost his sove- reign: nor would he have given him that character, which he doth otherwhere ; where speaking of his brother St. Gre- gory Nyssen, he saithhe was an unfit agent to Rome ; be- cause, "Although his address with a sober man would find much reverence and esteem ; yet to a haughty and reserved mansitting I know not where above, and thence not able to bear those below speaking the truth to him, what profit can there be to the public from the converse of such a man, whose disposition is averse from illiberal flattery ?" † But these speeches suit with that conceit, which St. Basil (as Baronius I know not whence reporteth) expressed by saying, " I hate the pride of that Church ; " * which humour in them that good manwould not be guilty of fostering by too much obsequiousness . St. Chrysostom, † having by the practices of envious men combined against him, in a packed assembly of bishops, upon vain surmises, been sentenced and driven from his see, did thereupon write an epistle to Pope Innocent I., bishop of Rome, together with his brethren the bishops of Italy ; † therein representing his case, complaining of the wrong, vindicating his innocency, displaying the iniquity of the proceedings against him, together with the mischievous consequences of them towards the whole Church, then requiring his succour for redress : yet (although the sense of his case, and care of his interest were likely to suggest the greatest deference that could be) neither the style, which is very respectful, nor the matter, which is very copious, do imply any acknowledgment of the Pope's supremacy ; he doth not address to him as to a go- vernor of all, who could by his authority command justice to be done, § but as to a brother, and a friend of innocence, from whose endeavour he might procure relief; he had recourse not to his sovereign power, but to his brotherly love ; he informed his charity, not appealed to his bar ;|| he in short did no more than implore his assistance in an ecclesiastical way ; that he would express his resentment of so irregular dealings, that he would avow communion with him, as with an orthodox bishop innocent and abused ; that he would procure his cause to be brought to a fair trial in a Synod of bishops, lawfully called and indifferently affected : had the goodman had any conceit of the Pope's supremacy, he would, one would think, have framed his address in other terms, and sued for another course of proceeding in his behalf: but it is plain enough that he had no such notion ofthings, nor had any ground for such an one. For indeed Pope Innocent in his answer to him, could do no more than exhort him to patience ; in another to his clergy and people could only comfort them ; declare his dislike of the adversaries' proceedings and grounds ; signify his intentions to procure a General Synod, with hopes of a redress thence ; his sovereign power, it seems, not availing to any such purposes : "But what (saith he) can we do in such cases ? a synodical cognizance is necessary, which we heretofore did say ought to be called ; the which alone can allay the motions of such tempests. " * It is true that the later Popes (Siricius, Anastasius, Inno- cent, Zozimus, Bonifacius, Celestinus, &c.) after the Sardican Council in their epistles to the Western bishops, over whom they had encroached, and who were overpowered by them, &c. do speak in somewhat more lofty strain ; but are more modest toward those of the East, who could not bear, &c .

22. Further : it is mostprodigious that in the disputes ma- naged by the Fathers against heretics (the Gnostics, Valenti- nians, Marcionites, Montanists, Manichees, Paulianists, Arians, &c.) they should not, even in the first place allege and urge the sentence of the universal pastor and judge, as a most evidently conclusive argument, as the most efficacious and com- pendious method of convincing and silencing them : had this point been well proved and pressed, then without any more concertations from Scripture, tradition, reason, all heretics hadbeen quite defeated ; and nothing then could more easily have beenproved, if it had been true ; when the light of tradi- tion did shine so brightly ; nothing indeed had been to sense more conspicuous, than the continual exercise of such an au- thority. We see now among those who admit of such an authority, how surely when it may be had it is alleged, and what sway it hath, to the determination of any controversy ; and so it would have been then, if it had been then as commonly known and avowed.

23. Whereas divers of the Fathers purposely do treat on methods of confuting heretics, it is strange they should be so blind or dull, as not to hit on this most proper and obvious way, of referring debates to the decision of him, to whose office of universal pastor and judge it did belong : particularly one would wonder at Vincentius Lirinensis ; that he on set purpose, with great care, discoursing about the means of settling points of faith, and of overthrowing heresies, should not light upon this notable way, by having recourse to the Pope's magisterial sentence ; yea that indeed he should exclude it : for he (after most intent study and diligent inquiry, consulting the best and wisest men) could find but two ways of doing it : " I (saith he ) † did always and from almost every one receive this answer, that if either I or any other would find out the frauds and avoid the snares of upstart heretics, and continue sound and upright in the true faith, he should guard and strengthen his faith, God helping him by these two means, viz.: first by the authority of the Divine law, and then by the tradition of the catholic Church." And again : " We before have said, that this hath always been, and is at present the custom of catholics, that they prove their faith by these two ways, first, by the authority of the Divine canon, then by the tradition of the universal Church." Is it not strange that he (especially being a Western man, living in those parts where the Pope had got much sway, and who doth express great reverence to the Apostolic see), should omit that way of determining points, which of all (according to the modern conceits about the Pope), is most ready and most sure ?

24. In like manner Tertullian professeth the catholics in his time to use such compendious methods of confuting here- tics : " We (saith he), when we would dispatch against heretics for the faith of the Gospel, do commonly use these short ways, which do maintain both the order of times prescribing against the lateness of impostors, and the authority of the Churches patronizing apostolical tradition ; " but why did he skip over a more compendious way than any of those, namely, standing to the judgment of the Roman bishop ?*

25. It is true that both he, and St. Irenæus before him, disputing against the heretics of their times, who had intro- duced pernicious novelties of their own devising, when they allege the general consent of Churches (planted by the Apos- tles, and propagated by continual successions of bishops from those whom the Apostles did ordain) in doctrines and practices opposite to those devices, as a good argument (and so indeed it then was, next to a demonstration) against them, do produce the Roman Church as a principal one among them, upon several obvious accounts ; and this indeed argueth the Roman Church to have been then one competent witness, or credible retainer of tradition ; † as also were the other apostolical Churches, to whose testimony they likewise appeal : but what is this to the Roman bishop's judicial power in such cases ? why do they not urge that in plain terms ? They would cer- tainly have done so, if they had known it, and thought it of any validity. Do but mark their words, involving the force of their argu- mentation : " When (saith Irenæus)‡ we do again (after allegation of Scripture) appeal to that tradition, which is from the Apostles, which by successions of presbyters is preserved in the Churches : " and, " that (saith Tertullian) § will appear to have been delivered by the Apostles, which hath been kept as holy in the apostolical Churches : let us see what milk the Corinthians diddraw from Paul ; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians do read : what also the Romans our nearer neighbours do say, to whom both Peter and Paul did leave the Gospel sealed with their blood ; we have also the Churches nursed by St. John, " &c. Again, " It is therefore manifest (saith he, * in his prescriptions against heretics) that every doctrine, which doth conspire with those apostolical Churches, in which the faith originally was planted, is to be accounted true ; as undoubtedly holding that, which the Churches did receive from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God ; but all other doctrine is to be prejudged false, which doth think against the truth of the Churches, and of the Apostles, and of Christ, and of God." Their argumentation then in short is plainly this, that the con- spiring of the Churches in doctrines contrary to those, which the heretics vented, did irrefragably signify those doctrines to be apostolical ; which discourse doth nowise favour the Roman pretences, but indeed, if we do weigh it, is very prejudicial thereto ; it thereby appearing, that Christian doctors then in the canvassing of points and assuring tradition had no peculiar regard to the Roman Church's testimony, no deference at all to the Roman bishop's authority ; (not other at least than to the authority of one single bishop yielding attestation to tra- dition.)

26. It is odd, that even old Popes themselves in elaborate tracts disputing against heretics (as Pope Celestine against Nestorius and Pelagius, Pope Leo against Eutyches--) do con- tent themselves to urge testimonies of Scripture, and argu- ments grounded thereon ; not alleging their own definitive authority, or using this parlous argumentation, " I, the supreme doctor of the Church, and judge of controversies, do assert thus ; and therefore you are obliged to submit your assent. "

27. It is matter of amazement, if the Pope were such as they would have him to be, that in so many bulky volumes of the ancient Fathers, living through many ages after Christ, in those vast treasuries of learning and knowledge, wherein all sorts oftruth are displayed, all sorts of duty are pressed ; this momentous point of doctrine and practice should nowhere be expressed in clear, and peremptory terms ; (I speak so, for that by wresting words, by impertinent application, by straining consequences the most ridiculous positions imaginable maybe deduced from their writings . ) It is strange that somewhere or other, at least incidentally, in their commentaries upon the Scripture, wherein many places concerning the Church and its hierarchy do invite to speak of the Pope ; in their treatises about the priesthood, about the unity andpeace of the Church, about heresy and schism; in their epistles concerning ecclesiastical affairs ; in their historical narrations about occurrences in the Church, in their concertations with heterodox adversaries, they should not frequently touch it, they should not sometimes largely dwell uponit. Is it not marvellous, that Origen, St. Hilary, St. Cyril, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, in their commentaries and tractates upon those places of Scripture (Tu es Petrus . Pasce oves,) whereon they now build the Papal authority, should be so dull and drowsy as not to say a word concerning thePope? That St. Augustine in his so many elaborate tractates against the Donatists (wherein he discourseth so prolixly about the Church, its unity, communion, discipline), should never insist upon the duty of obedience to the Pope, or charge those schismatics with their rebellion against him, or allege his authority against them ?

If we consider that the Pope was bishop ofthe imperial city , the metropolis of the world ; that he thence was most eminent in rank, did abound in wealth, did live in great splendour and reputation; had many dependencies, and great opportunities to gratify, and relieve many of the clergy ; that of the Fathers, whose volumes we have, all well affected towards him, divers were personally obliged to him, for his support in their distress (asAthanasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret) , or as to their patrons and benefactors (as St. Jerome) : divers could not but highly respect him as patron of the cause wherein they were engaged (as Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, Gregory Nyssen, Ambrose, Augustine) : some were his partizans in a common quarrel (as Cyril) : divers of them lived in places, and times whereinhe hadgot much sway (as all the Western bishops) : that hehadthen improved his authority much beyond the old limits : that all the bishops of the Western or Latin Churches had a peculiar dependence on him (especially after that by advantage of his station, by favour of the court, by colour of the Sardican canons, by voluntary deferences and submissions, by several tricks he had wound himself to meddle in most of their chief affairs ) : that hence divers bishops were tempted to admire, to court, to flatter him ; that divers aspiring Popes were apt to encourage the commenders of their authority which theythemselves were apt to magnify and inculcate; * considering, I say, such things, it is a wonder, that in so manyvoluminous discourses so little should be said favouring this pretence, so nothing that proveth it, [so much that crosseth it, so much indeed ( as I hope to shew) that quite overthroweth it . ] If it be asked how we can prove this : I answer, that (beside who carefully peruseth those old books, will easily see it) we are beholden to our adversaries for proving it to us, when they least intended us such a favour ; for that no clear and cogent passages for proof of this pretence can be thence fetched, is sufficiently evident from the very allegations, which after their most diligent raking in old books they produce ; the which are so few, and fall so very short of their purpose, that without much stretching they signify nothing.

28. It is monstrous, that in the code of the Catholic Church (consisting of the decrees of so many Synods, concerning ecclesiastical order and discipline) there should not be one canon directly declaring his authority ; nor any mention made of him, except thrice accidentally ; once upon occasion of declaring the authority of the Alexandrine bishop, the other upon occasion of assigning to the bishop of Constantinople the second place of honour, and equal privileges with him. † If it be objected, that these discourses are negative, and therefore of small force ; I answer, that therefore they are most proper to assert such a negative proposition ; forhow can we otherwise better shew a thing not to be, than by shewing it to have no footstep there, where it is supposed to stand ? how can we more clearly argue a matter of right to want proof, than by declaring it not to be extant in the laws grounding such right ; not taught by the masters, who profess to instruct in such things ; not testified in records concerning the exercise of it ? Such arguments indeed in such cases are not merely negative, but rather privative ; proving things not to be, because not affirmed there, where in reason they ought to be affirmed ; standing therefore upon positive suppositions, that holy Scripture, that general tradition are not imperfect and lame toward their design ; that ancient writers were compe- tently intelligent, faithful, diligent ; that all of them could not conspire in perpetual silence about things, of which they had often fair occasion, and great reason to speak : in fine, such considerations, however they may be deluded by sophistical wits, will yet bear great sway, and often will amount near to the force of demonstration, with men of honest prudence. However, we shall proceed to other discourses more direct and positive against the popish doctrine.

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

1. This pretence doth thwart the holy Scripture, by assign- ing to another the prerogatives, and peculiar titles appropri- ated therein to our Lord. The Scripture asserteth him to be our only Sovereign Lord and King: " To us (saith it) there is one Lord ;" and, " One King shall be king over them ; " who " shall reign over the house of David for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end ; " who is " the only Potentate ; the King of kings and Lord of lords ; the " One Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. " * ८८ The Scripture speaketh of one " arch-pastor," and great Shepherd of the sheep ; " exclusively to any other, for " I will (saidGod in the prophet) set up one Shepherd over them, and he shall feed the sheep : " and " There (saith our Lord himself) shall be one fold, and one shepherd ; " † who that shall be, he expresseth, adding, " I am the good Shepherd ; the good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep," (by Pope Boni- face, his good leave, who maketh St. Peter or himself this shepherd.)‡ The Scripture telleth us, that we have " one High-priest of our profession," answerable to that " one" in the Jewish Church, his type.§ 湯 The Scripture informeth us, that there is but one Supreme Doctor, Guide, Father of Christians, prohibiting us to acknowledge any other for such : " Ye are all brethren ; and call ye not any one father upon earth ; for one is your Father, even he that is in heaven; neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ. " * Good Pope Gregory (not the seventh of that name) did take this for a good argument ; for " What therefore, dearest brother (said he to John of Constantinople) , wilt thou say in that terrible trial of the Judge who is coming; who dost affect to be called not only Father, but General Father in the world ?" + The Scripture representeth the Church as " a building whereof Christ himself is the chief corner- stone; "† as a family, whereof he being the Pater-familias, all others are fellow- servants ; as " one body," having " one head : " whom " God hath given to be Head over all things to the Church, which is his body." § Hs is the one Spouse of the Church ; which title one would think he might leave peculiar to our Lord, there being no vice- husbands ; yet hath he been bold even to claim that, as may be seen in the Constitution of Pope Gregory X. in one of their General Synods . || It seemeth therefore a sacrilegious arrogance (derogating from our Lord's honour) for any man to assume or admit those titles of " Sovereign of the Church, Head of the Church, our Lord, Arch-pastor, High- priest, Chief Doctor, Master, Father, Judge of Christians ; " upon what pretence, or under what dis- tinction soever : these " pompatic, foolish, proud, perverse, wicked, profane words ; " these " names of singularity, elation, vanity, blasphemy ; " ** (to borrow the epithets, with which Pope Gregory I. doth brand the titles of Universal Bishop, and Ecumenical Patriarch, no less modest in sound, and far more innocent meaning, than those now ascribed to the Pope), are therefore to be rejected, not only because they are injurious to all other pastors, and to the people of God's heritage ; but because they do encroach upon our only Lord, to whom they do only belong ; much more to usurp the things, which they do naturally signify, is a horrible invasion upon our Lord's prerogative. Thus hath the great Pope taught us to argue, in words expressly condemning some, and consequentially all of them, to- gether with the things which they signify :* " What (saith he, writing to the Bishop of Constantinople, who had admitted the title of Universal Bishop or Patriarch) wilt thou say to Christ, the head of the Universal Church, in the trial of the last judg- ment, who by the appellation of UNIVERSAL, dost endeavour to subject all his members to thee ? Whom I pray dost thou mean to imitate in so perverse a word, but him who despising the legions of angels constituted in fellowship with him, did endeavour to break forth unto the top of singularity, that he might both be subject to none, and alone be over all ? who also said, I will ascend into heaven, and will exalt my throne above the stars for what are thy brethren all the Bishops of the Universal Church, but the stars of heaven ; to whom while by this haughty word thou desirest to prefer thyself, and to trample on their name in comparison to thee, what dost thou say, but I will climb into heaven ? " Andagain, in another epistle to the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch he taxeth the same Patriarch for " assuming to boast, so that he attempteth to ascribe all things to himself, and studieth by the elation of pompous speech to subject to himself all the members of Christ, which do cohere to one sole head, namely to Christ. " †

Again, " I confidently say, that whoever doth call himself Universal Bishop, or desireth to be so called, doth in his ela- tion forerun Antichrist, because he pridingly doth set himself before all others . " * If these argumentations be sound or signify any thing, what is the pretence of universal sovereignty and pastorship but a piece of Luciferian arrogance ? Who can imagine that even this Pope could approve, could assume, could exercise it ? If he did, was he not monstrously senseless and above measure impudent to use such discourses, which so plainly, without altering a word, might be retorted upon him; which are built upon suppositions that it is unlawful and wicked to assume superiority over the Church, over all Bishops, over all Christians ; the which indeed (seeing never Pope was of greater repute, or did write in any case more solemnly and seriously) have given to the pretences of his successors so deadly awound, that no balm of sophistical interpretation can be able to heal it . We see that accordingto St. Gregory M. our Lord Christ is " the one only head of the Church, † to whom for company let us adjoin St. Basil M. (that we may have both Greek and Latin for it), who saith, that (according to St. Paul) " we are the body of Christ and members one of another, be- cause it is manifest, that the one and sole truly head, which is Christ, doth hold and connect each one to another unto concord." To decline these allegations of Scripture, they have forged distinctions, of several kinds of Churches, and several sorts of heads; the which evasions I shall not particularly discourse, seeing it may suffice to observe in general, that no such distinctions have any place or any ground in Scripture ; nor can well consist with it ; which simply doth represent the Church as one kingdom, " a kingdom of heaven, a kingdom not of this world;"* all the subjects whereof have their πολίτευμα in heaven, or are considered as members of a city there ; so that it is vain to seek for a sovereign thereof in this world ; the which also doth to the catholic Church sojourning on earth usually impart the name and attributes properly appertaining to the Church most universal (comprehensive of all Christians in heaven and upon earth)† because that is a visible represen- tative of this, and we byjoining in offices of piety with that do communicate with this ; whence that which is said of one (concerning the unity of its king, its head, its pastor, its priest) is to be understood of the other ; especially considering that our Lord, according to his promise, is ever present with the Church here, governing it by the efficacy of his Spirit and grace, so that no other corporal or visible head of this spiritual body is needful. ‡ It was to be sure a visible headship, which St. Gregory did so eagerly impugn, and exclaim against; for he could not ap- prehend the bishop of Constantinople so wild, as to affect a jurisdiction over the Church, mystical or invisible.

2. Indeed, upon this very account the Romish pretence doth not well accord with holy Scripture, § because it transformeth the Church into another kind of body, than it was constituted byGod, according to the representation of it in Scripture, for there it is represented as a spiritual and heavenly society, com- pacted by the bands of " one faith, one hope, one spirit, "|| of charity ; * but this pretence turneth it into aworldly frame ; united by the same bands of interest and design, managed in the same manner by terror and allurement, supported by the same props of force, of policy, of wealth, of reputation and splendour, as all other secular corporations are. You may call it what you please, but it is evident that in truth the Papal monarchy is a temporal dominion, driving on worldly ends by worldly means; such as our Lord did never mean to institute , so that the subjects thereof may with far more reason, than the people of Constantinople had, when their bishop Nestorius did stop some of their priests from contradicting him, say, " We have a king, a bishop we have not ;" † so that upon every Pope we may charge that, whereof Anthi- mus was accused, in the Synod of Constantinople, under Menas : " that he did account the greatness and dignity of the priesthood to be not a spiritual charge of souls, but as a kind of politic rule."‡ This was that, which seeming to be affected by the bishop of Antioch, in encroachment upon the Church of Cyprus, the Fathers of the Ephesine Synod did endeavour to nip ; enact- ing a canon against all such invasions, § " lest under pretext of holy discipline the pride of worldly authority should creep in;" and what pride of that kind could they mean beyond that which now the Popes do claim and exercise. || Now, do I say, after that the Papal empire hath swollen to such a bulk; whereas so long ago, when it was but in its bud, and stripling age, it was observed of it by a very honest historian, " that the Roman episcopacy had long since advanced into a high degree of power beyond the priesthood. "

3. This pretence doth thwart the Scripture by destroying that brotherly co-ordination and equality, which our Lord did appoint among the bishops and chief pastors of his Church. He did (as we before shewed) prohibit all his Apostles to as- sume any denomination or authoritative superiority over one another ; the which command, together with others concern- ing the pastoral function, we may well suppose to reach their successors ; so did St. Jerome suppose, collecting thence that all bishops by original institution are equals, or that no one by our Lord's order may challenge superiority over another : "Wherever (saith he) a bishop is, whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth, and of the same priesthood ; the power of wealth or lowness of poverty do not make a bishop higher or lower, but all are successors of the Apostles ; " * where doth not he plainly deny the bishop of Eugubium to be inferior to him ofRome, as being no less a successor of the Apostles than he ? doth he not say these words, in way of proof, that the authority of the Roman bishop or Church was of no validity against the practice of other bishops and Churches ? (upon occasion of deacons there taking upon them more than in other places, as cardinal-deacons do now) which excludeth such distinctions, as scholastical fancies have devised to shift off his testimony, the which he uttered simply, never dreaming of such distinctions. This consequence St. Gregory did suppose, when he there- fore did condemn the title of " Universal Bishop," because it did " imply an affectation of superiority," and dignity in one bishop above others ; of " abasing the name of other bishops in comparison of his own," of extolling " himself above the rest of priests," &c. ‡ This the ancient Popes did remember, when usually in their compellation of any bishop, they did style them, “ brethren, colleagues, fellow-ministers, fellow-bishops," * not intending thereby compliment or mockery, but to declare their sense of the original equality among bishops ; notwithstanding some differences in order and privileges, which their see had ob- tained. And that this was the general sense of the Fathers we shall afterwards shew. Hence, when it was objected to them, that they did affect superiority, they did sometimes disclaim it ; so did Pope Gelasius I. (a zealous man for the honour of his see.) †

4. This pretence doth thwart the holy Scripture, not only by trampling down the dignity of bishops (which, according to St Gregory. doth imply great pride and presumption) but as really infringing the rights granted by our Lord to his Church, and the governors of it . ‡ For to each Church our Lord hath imposed a duty, and im- parted a power of maintaining Divine truth, and so approving itself " a pillar and support of truth: " of deciding controversies possible and proper to be decided with due temper, ultimately without farther resort ; for that he, who will not obey or ac- quiesce in its decision, is to be " as a heathen or publican : " § of censuring, and rejecting offenders (in doctrine, or demean- our) : " Those within (saith St. Paul to the Church of Corinth) do not ye judge ? But them that are without God judgeth ; wherefore put away from among yourselves that wicked per- son: " || of preserving order and decency; according to that rule, prescribed to the Church of Corinth, " let all things be done decently and in order : " of promoting edification : of deciding causes . + All which rights and privileges the Roman bishop doth bereave the Churches of, snatching them to himself; pretending that he is the sovereign doctor, judge, regulator ofall Churches ; overruling and voiding all that is done by them, according to hispleasure. The Scripture hath enjoined and empowered all bishops to feed, guide, and rule their respective Churches, as the ministers, stewards, ambassadors, angels of God; " for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ. " * To them God hath committed the care of their people, so that they are responsible for their souls . † All which rights and privileges of the episcopal office the Pope hath invaded, doth obstruct, cramp, frustrate, destroy ; pretending (without any warrant) that their authority is de- rived from him; forcing them to exercise it no otherwise than as his subjects, and according to his pleasure. But of this point more afterward.‡

5. This pretence doth thwart the Scripture, by robbing all Christian people of the liberties and rights, with which by that divine charter they are endowed, and which they are obliged to preserve inviolate.§ St. Paul enjoineth the Galatians to " stand fast in the liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free ; and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage; " || there is therefore a liberty, which we must maintain, and a power to which we must not submit ; and against whom can we have more ground to do this, than against him, who pretendeth to dogmatize, to define points of faith, to impose doctrines (new and strange enough) on our consciences, under a peremptory obligation of yielding assent to them ? to prescribe laws, as divine and necessary to be observed, without warrant, as those dogmatists did, against whom St. Paul biddeth us to maintain our liberty : (so that if he should declare " virtue to be vice, and white to be black, we must believe him," * some of his adherents have said, con- sistently enough with his pretences) ; for, Against such tyrannical invaders we are bound to maintain our liberty, according to that precept ofSt. Paul; thewhich it a Pope might well allege against the proceedings of a General Synod, † with much more reason may we therefore justify our non- submission to one man's exorbitant domination. This is a power, which the Apostles themselves did not chal- lenge to themselves ; for " we ( saith St. Paul) have not do- minion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy. " ‡ They did not pretend, that any Christian should absolutely believe them, in cases wherein they hadnot revelation (general or special) from God ; in such cases referring their opinion to the judgment and discretion of Christians.§ They say, " Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed ; if any man, " || &c. which pre- cept, with many others of the like purport (enjoining us to examine the truth, to adhere unto the received doctrine, to decline heterodoxies and novelties), doth signify nothing, if every Christian hath not allowed to him a judgment of dis- cretion, but is tied blindly to follow the dictates of another. St. Augustine (I am sure) did think this liberty such, that without betraying it no man could be obliged to believe any- thing not grounded upon canonical authority : for to a Dona- tist his adversary, citing the authority of St. Cyprian against him, he thus replieth : "But now seeing it is not canonical which thou recitest, with that liberty to which the Lord hath called us, I do not receive the opinion, differing from Scripture, of that man whose praise I cannot reach, to whose great learn- ing I do not compare my writings, whose wit I love, in whose speech I delight, whose charity I admire, whose martyrdom I reverence."

This liberty, not only the ancients, but even divers Popes have acknowledged to belong to every Christian ; as we shall hereafter shew, when we shall prove, that we may lawfully re- ject the Pope, as a patron of error and iniquity.

6. It particularly doth thwart Scripture by wronging princes in exempting a numerous sort of people from subjec- tion to their laws and judicatures ; whereas by God's ordina- tion and express command " every soul is subject to them ; " * not excepting the Popes themselves ; (in the opinion of St. Chrysostom, except they be greater than any Apostle. ) By pretending to govern the subjects of princes without their leave ; to make laws, without his permission or confirma- tion ; to cite his subjects out of their territories, &c. which are encroachments upon the rights of God's unquestionable ministers

III . Farther, because our adversaries do little regard any allegation of Scripture against them (pretending themselves to be the only masters of its sense or of common sense, judges and interpreters of them) we do allege against them, that this pre- tence doth also cross tradition, and the common doctrine ofthe Fathers . For,

1. Common usage and practice is a good interpreter of right, and that sheweth no such right was known in the pri- mitive Church

2. Indeed, the state of the primitive Church did not ad- •mit it. i

3. The Fathers did suppose no order in the Church, by original right or Divine institution, superior to that of a bishop ; whence they commonly did style a bishop the highest priest, and episcopacy the top of ecclesiastical orders. "The chief priest (saith Tertullian), that is the bishop, hath the right of giving baptism." " Althoughs (saith Saint Ambrose) the presbyters also do it, yet the beginning of the ministry is from the highest priest."

Optatus calleth bishops " the tops and princes of all. " * " The Divine order of bishops (saith Dionysius)† is the first of Divine orders ; the same being also the extreme and last of them ; for into it all the frame of our hierarchy is resolved and accomplished." This language is common even among Popes themselves, complying with the speech then current ; for, " presbyters‡ (saith Pope Innocent I.) although they are priests, yet have they not the top of high priesthood." "No man (saith Pope Zosimus I. ), § against the precepts of the Fathers should presume to aspire to the highest priest- hood of the Church. " " It is decreed (saith Pope Leo I.)|| that the chorepiscopi, or presbyters, who figure the sons of Aaron, shall not pre- sume to snatch that, which the princes of the priests (whom Moses andAaron did typify) are commanded to do. " (Note by the way, that seeing according to this Pope's mind (after St. Jerome) Moses and Aaron did in the Jewish policy re- present bishops, there was none there to prefigure the Pope.)

Optatus calleth bishops " the tops and princes of all. " * " The Divine order of bishops (saith Dionysius)† is the first of Divine orders ; the same being also the extreme and last of them ; for into it all the frame of our hierarchy is resolved and accomplished." This language is common even among Popes themselves, complying with the speech then current ; for, " presbyters‡ (saith Pope Innocent I.) although they are priests, yet have they not the top of high priesthood." "No man (saith Pope Zosimus I. ), § against the precepts of the Fathers should presume to aspire to the highest priest- hood of the Church. " " It is decreed (saith Pope Leo I.)|| that the chorepiscopi, or presbyters, who figure the sons of Aaron, shall not pre- sume to snatch that, which the princes of the priests (whom Moses andAaron did typify) are commanded to do. " (Note by the way, that seeing according to this Pope's mind (after St. Jerome) Moses and Aaron did in the Jewish policy re- present bishops, there was none there to prefigure the Pope.)

In those days the bishop of Nazianzum* (a petty town in Cappadocia) was an high-priest (so Gregory calleth his father.) And the bishop of a poor city in Africa, is styled " Sovereign Pontiff of Christ, most blessed Father, most blessed Pope ; " † and the very Roman clergy doth call St. Cyprian, " most blessed and glorious Pope ; "‡ which titles the Pope doth now so charily reserve and appropriate to himself. But innumerable instances of this kind might be produced ; I shall only therefore add two other passages, which seem very observable, to the enforcement of this discourse. St. Jerome, reprehending the discipline of the Montanists, hath these words, § " With us the bishops do hold the places of the Apostles ; with them, a bishop is in the third place ; for they have for the first rank the Patriarchs of Pepusa in Phrygia; for the second those whom they call Cenones ; so are bishops thrust down into the third, that is almost the last place ; as if thence religion became more stately, if that which is first with us, be the last with them. " Now doth not St. Jerome here affirm that every bishop hath the place of anApostle, and the first rank in the Church? doth not he tax the advancement of any order above this ? may not the Popish hierarchy most patly be compared to that of the Montanists, and is it not equally liable to the cen- sure of St. Jerome ? doth it not place the Roman Pope in the first place, and the cardinals in the second, detruding the bishops into a third place ? Could the Pepusian patriarch, or his Cenones either more over-top in dignity, or sway by power over bishops, than doth the Roman patriarch and his car- dinals. Again, St. Cyprian telleth Pope Cornelius, that in episco- pacy doth reside " the sublime and Divine power of governing the Church, it being the sublime top of the priesthood : he (saith the blessed man concerning Pope Cornelius), did not suddenly arrive to episcopacy, but being through all ecclesias- tical offices promoted, and having in divine administrations often merited of God, did by all the steps of religion mount to the sublimest pitch of priesthood ;"* where it is visible that St. Cyprian doth not reckon the papacy, but the episcopacy of Cornelius to be that top of priesthood (above which there was nothing eminent in the Church) unto which he passing through the inferior degrees of the clergy had attained. Infine, it cannot well be conceived that the ancients con- stantly would have spoken in this manner, if they had allowed the papal office to be such as now it doth bear itself; the which indeed is an order no less distant from episcopacy, than the rank of a king differeth from that of the meanest baron in his kingdom . Neither is it prejudicial to this discourse (or to any preced- ing) that in the primitive Church there were some distinctions and subordinations of bishops (as ofpatriarchs, primates, metro- politans, common bishops) ; for, † These were according to prudence constituted by the Church itself for the more orderly and peaceable administration of things. These did not import such a difference among the bishops that one should domineer over others to the infringing of pri- mitive fraternity, or common liberty : but a precedence in the same rank, with some moderate advantages for the common good. These did stand under authority of the Church, and might be changed or corrected as was found expedient by common agreement. By virtue of these the superiors ofthis kind could nonothing over their subordinates in an arbitrary manner, but according to the regulation of Canons, established by consent in Synods; by which their influence was amplified or curbed. ‡

When any of these did begin to domineer or exceed his limits, he was liable to account and correction : he was ex- claimed against as tyrannical. * Whenprimates did begin to swell and encroach, good men declared their displeasure at it, and wished it removed ; as is known particularly by the famous wish of Gregory Nazi- anzen. † But we are discoursing against a superiority of a different nature, which foundeth itself in the institution of Christ, im- poseth itself on the Church, is not alterable or governable by it, can endure no check or control, pretendeth to be endowed with an absolute power to act without, or against the consent of the Church, is limited by no certain bounds but its own pleasure, &c.‡

‡ IV. Farther this pretence may be impugned, bymany ar- guments springing from the nature and reason of things abstractedly considered ; according to which the exercise of such an authority may appear impracticable without much iniquity and great inconvenience, in prejudice to the rights of Christian states and people, to the interests of religion and piety, to the peace and welfare of mankind, whence it is to be rejected as a pest of Christendom. 66

1. Whereas all the world in design and obligation is Christian ; ( " the utmost parts of the earth" being granted in possession to our Lord ; and his Gospel extending to every creature under heaven ;")§ and may in effect become such, when God pleaseth, by acceptance of the Gospel ; whereas it may easily happen that the most distant places on the earth may embrace Christianity : whereas really Christian Churches have been and are dispersed all about the world ; it is thence hugely incommodious that all the Church should depend upon an authority resident in one place, and to be managed by one person : the Church being such is too immense, boundless, un- circumscribed, unwieldy a bulk to be guided by the inspection, or managed by the influence of one such authority or person. If thewhole world were reduced under the government of one civil monarch, it would necessarily be ill- governed, as to policy, to justice, to peace the skirts or remoter parts from the metropolis or centre of the government would extremely suffer thereby ; for they would feel little light or warmth from majesty shining at such a distance : they would live under small awe ofthat power, which was so far out of sight : they must have very difficult recourse to it for redress ofgrievances, and relief of oppressions ; for final decision of causes and com- posure of differences ; for correction of offences, and dispen- sation of justice, upon good information, with tolerable ex- pedition: it would be hard to preserve peace or quell seditions, and suppress insurrections that might arise in distant quarters. Whatman could obtain the knowledge or experience needful skilfully and justly to give laws, or administer judgment to so many nations different in humour, in language, in customs ? Whatmind of man, what industry, what leisure could serve to sustain the burthen of that care, which is needful to the wielding such an office ?* How and when should one man be able to receive all the addresses, to weigh all the cases, to make all the resolutions and dispatches requisite for such a charge ? If the burden of one small kingdom be so great, that wise and good princes do groan under its weight, what must that be of all mankind ? To such an extent of government there must be allowed a majesty, and power correspondent, the which cannot be committed to one hand, without its degeneration into extreme tyranny. The words of Zosimus to this purpose are observable ; who saith, that the Romans by admitting Augustus Cæsar to the government, did do very perillously ; † for, " If he should choose to manage the government rightly and justly, he would not be capable of applying himself to all things as were fit ; not being able to succour those, who do lie at greatest distance ; nor could he find so many magistrates, as would not be ashamed to defeat the opinion conceived of them ; nor could he suit them to the differences of so many manners : or, if transgressing the bounds of royalty, he should warp to tyranny, disturbing the magistracies, overlooking mis- demeanours, bartering right for money, holding the subjects for slaves (such as most emperors, or rather near all have been, few excepted), then it is quite necessary, that the brutish authority of the prince should be a public calamity, for then flatterers being by him dignified with gifts and honours do invade the greatest commands; and those who are modest and quiet, not affecting the same life with them, are conse- quently displeased, not enjoying the same advantages ; so that from hence cities are filled with seditions and troubles . the civil and military employments being delivered up to avaricious persons do both render a peaceable life sad and grievous to men of better disposition, and do enfeeble the resolution of soldiers in war." And Hence St. Augustine was of opinion, that " it were happy for mankind, if all kingdoms were small, enjoying a peaceful neighbourhood. " * a It is commonly observed by historians, that " Rome growing in bigness, did labour therewith, " and was not able to support itself; many distempers and disorders springing up in so vast body, which did throw it into continual pangs, and at length did bring it to ruin : for " then (saith St. Augustine concerning the times of Pompey) Rome had subdued Africa, it had sub- dued Greece ; and widely also ruling over other parts, as not able to bear itself did in a manner by its own greatness break itself."+ Hence that wise prince Augustus Cæsar did himself forbear to enlarge the Roman dominion, and did in his testament advise the senate to do the like. ‡

To the like inconveniences (and much greater in its kind, temporal things being more easily ordered than spiritual, and having secular authority, great advantages ofpower andwealth to aid itself) must the Church be obnoxious, if it were subjected to the government of one sovereign, unto whom the mainte- nance of faith, the protection of discipline, the determination of controversies, the revision ofjudgments, the discussion and final decision of causes upon appeal, the suppression ofdisorders and factions, the inspection over all governors, the correction of misdemeanours, the constitution, relaxation, and abolition of laws, the resolution of all matters concerning religion and the public state, in all countries must be referred. Τίς πρὸς ταῦτα ἱκανός ; what shoulders can bear such a charge without perpetual miracle ? (and yet we do not find that the Pope hath any promise of miraculous assistance, nor in his demeanour doth appear any mark thereof :) what mind would not the care of so many affairs utterly distract, and overwhelm ? who could find time to cast a glance on each of so numberless particulars ? what sagacity of wit, what variety of learning, what penetrancy of judgment, what strength of memory, what indefatigable vigour ofindustry, what abundance of experience would suffice for enabling one man to weigh exactly all the controversies of faith, and cases of discipline perpetually starting up in so many regions . * What reach ofskill and ability would serve for accommo- dation of laws to the different humours and fashions of so many nations ? Shall a decrepit old man in the decay of his age, parts, vigour-(such as Popes usually are) undertake this ? May we not say to him, as Jethro did to Moses, Ultra vires tuas est negotium ; " The thing thou doest is not good ; thou wilt surely wear away, both thou and this people that is with thee ; for this thing is too heavy for thee ; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. " †

If the care of a small diocese hath made the most able and industrious bishops (who had a conscience and sense of their duty) to groan under its weight, how insupportable must such acharge be? The care of his own particular Church, if he would act the part of a bishop indeed, would sufficiently take up the Pope ; especially in some times ; when as Pope Alexander saith, -" Ut intestina nostræ specialis Ecclesiæ negotia vix possemus venti- lare, nedum longinqua ad plenum extricare. " * Ifit be said that St. Paul testifieth of himself, that he had " a care of all the Churches" + incumbent on him; I answer, that he (and other Apostles had the like) questionless had a pious solicitude for the welfare of all Christians, especially of the Churches which he had founded, being vigilant for occasions to edify them ; butwhat is this to bearing the charge of a standing government over all Churches diffused through the world ? that care of a few Churches then was burthensome to him,what is the charge of so many now ? to one seldom endowed with such apostolical graces and gifts as St. Paul was . Howweak must the influence of such an authority be upon the circumferential parts of its cœcumenical sphere ? How must the outward branches of the Churches faint and fade for want of sap from the root of discipline, which must be conveyed through so many obstructions to such a distance ? How discomposed must things be in each country, for want of seasonable resolution, hanging in suspense, till information do travel to Rome, and determination come back thence ?‡ How difficult, how impossible will it be for him there to receive faithful information, or competent testimony, where- upon to ground just decisions of causes ? Howwill it be in the power thence of any malicious and cunning person to raise trouble against innocent persons ? for any like person to decline the due correction laid on him ? by transferring the cause from home to such a distance ?

How much cost, how much trouble, how much hazard must parties concerned be at to fetch light and justice thence ? Put case a heresy, a schism, a doubt or debate of great moment should arise in China, how should the gentleman in Italy proceed to confute that heresy, to quash that schism, to satisfy that doubt, to determine that cause ? how long must it be ere he can have notice thereof ? to how many cross accidents of weather and way must the transmitting of information be subject ? how difficult will it prove to get a clear and sure knowledge concerning the state of things? How hard will it be to get the opposite parties to appear, so as to confront testimonies, and probations requisite to a fair and just decision ? how shall witnesses of infirm sex or age ramble so far ? how easily will some of them prepossess and abuse him with false suggestions, and misrepresentations of the case ? how slippery therefore will the result be, and how prone he to award a wrongful sentence ?* How tedious, how expensive, how troublesome, how vexa- tious, how hazardous must this course be to all parties ? Cer- tainly causes must needs proceed slowly, and depend long ; and in the end the resolution of them mustbe very uncertain. † What temptation will it be for any one (how justly soever corrected by his immediate superiors) to complain ; hoping thereby to escape, to disguise the truth, &c. Who being condemned will not appeal to one at distance, hoping by false suggestions to delude him ? This necessarily will destroy all discipline, and induce im- punity or frustration ofjustice . ‡ Certainly much more convenient, and equal it should be, that there should be near at hand a sovereign power, fully capable, expeditely, and seasonably to compose differences, to decide causes, to resolve doubts, to settle things, without more stir and trouble .

Very equal it is that laws should rather be framed, inter- preted, and executed in every country, with accommodation to the tempers of the people, to the circumstances of things, to the civil state there, by persons acquainted with those particulars, than by strangers ignorant of them, and apt to mis- take about them. How often will the Pope be imposed upon, as he was in the case of Basilides, of whom St. Cyprian saith : " Going to Rome he deceived our colleague Stephen, being placed at distance and ignorant of the fact and concealed truth, aspiring to be un- justly restored to the bishopric from which he was justly removed."* As he was in the case of Marcellus, who gulled Pope Julius by fair professions, as St. Basil doth often complain † As he was in aiding that versatile and troublesome bishop, Eustathius of Sebastia, to the recovery of his bishopric ‡ As he was in rejecting " the man of God, and most admirable bishop, Meletius ;" § and admitting scandalous reports about him, which the same saint doth often resent, blaming sometimes the fallacious misinformation, sometimes the wilful presumption, negligence, pride of the Roman Church, in the case.|| As hewas in the case of Pelagius and Celestius, who did cajole Pope Zosimus to acquit them, to condemn Eros and Lazarus their accusers, to reprove the African bishops for pro- secuting them. Howmany proceedings we should we have like that of Pope Zosimus I. , concerning that scandalous priest, Apiarius ; whom being for grievous crimes excommunicated by his bishop, that Pope did admit to communion, and undertake to patronize, but was baffled in his enterprise. * This hath been the sense of the Fathers in the case. St. Cyprian therefore saith, that " Seeing it was a general statute among the bishops, and that it was both equal and just that every one's cause should be heard there, where the crime was committed: and that each pastor had a portion of the flock allotted to him, which he should rule and govern, being to render unto the Lord an account of his doing. "+ St. Chrysostom thought it " improper that one out of Egypt should administer justice to persons in Thrace : " ‡ ( and why not as well as one out of Italy ?) The African Synod thought " the Nicene Fathers had pro- vided most prudently and most justly, that all affairs should be finally determined there where they did arise. " § They thought " a transmarine judgment could not be firm, because the necessary persons for testimony, for the infirmity of sex or age, or for many other infirmities could not be brought thither. "|| Pope Leo himself saw how dilatory this course would be, and that " longinquity of region doth cause the examination of truth to become over dilatory. " * Pope Liberius for such reasons did request Constantius, that Athanasius's cause should be tried at Alexandria ; where-" he (saith he) that is accused, and the accusers are, and the defender of them, and so we may upon examination had agree in our sentence about them. " † Therefore divers ancient canons of Synods did prohibit, that any causes should be removed out of the bounds of pro- vinces or dioceses ; as otherwhere we shew. ‡

2. Such an authority, as this pretence claimeth, must ne- cessarily (if not withheld by continual miracle) throw the Church into sad bondage. All the world must become slaves to one city, its wealth must be derived thither, its quiet must depend on it. For it (not being restrained within any bounds ofplace or time, having no check upon it of equal or co-ordi- nate power, standing upon divine institution, and therefore immutably settled) must of its own nature become absolute, andunlimited. § Let it be however ofright limited by Divine laws , or human canons, yet will it be continually encroaching, and stretching its power, until it grows enormous, and boundless. It will not endure to be pinched by any restraint. It will draw to itself the collation ofall preferments, &c. || It will assume all things to itself ; trampling down all opposite claims of right and liberty ; so that neither pastor nor people shall enjoy or do any thing otherwise than in depen- dence on it, and at its pleasure. It will be always forging new prerogatives, * and interpreting all things in favour of them, and enacting sanctions to establish them; which none must presume to contest. It will draw to itself the disposal of all places ; the exac- tion of goods. All princes must become his ministers, and executors of his decrees. † It will mount above all law and rule ; not only challenging to be uncontrollable and unaccountable, but not enduring any reproof of its proceedings, or contradiction of its dictates : a blind faith must be yielded to all its assertions as infallibly true, and a blind obedience to all its decrees, as unquestionably holy : whosoever shall anywise cross it in word or deed, shall certainly be discountenanced, condemned, ejected from the Church ; so that the most absolute tyranny that can be imagined will ensue : all the world hath groaned and heavily complained of their exactions, particularly our poor nation; it would raise indignation in any man to read the complaints.§ This is consequent on such a pretence according to the very nature of things ; || and so in experience it hath happened. For, It is evident, that the Papacy hath devoured all the pri- vileges and rights of all orders in the Church, either granted by God, or established in the ancient canons. The royalties of Peter are become immense ; and consistently to his practice the Pope doth allow men to tell him to his face, that " all power in heaven and in earth is given unto him. " * It belongeth to him " to judge of the whole Church. " + He hath " a plenitude (as he calleth it) of power," ‡ by whichhe can infringe any law, or do anything that he pleaseth. It is the tenor of his bulls ; that " whoever rashly dareth to thwart his will, shall incur the indignation of Almighty God; and (as if that were not enough) of St. Peter and St. Paul also." "No manmust presume to tax his faults ; or to judge of his judgment. " § "It is idolatry to disobey his commands,"|| against their own sovereign lord. There are who dare in plain terms call him Omnipotent, and who ascribe infinite power to him. And that he is infallible, is the most common and plausible opinion ; so that at Rome the contrary " is erroneous. and within an inch of being heretical . " Weare now told, ** that " if the Pope should err by en- joining vices, or forbidding virtues, the Church should be bound to believe vices to be good, and virtues evil, unless it would sin against conscience." The greatest princes mnst stoop to his will ; otherwise he hathpower to cashier and depose them.

Now what greater inconvenience, what more horrible ini- quity can there be, than that all God's people (that " ree people" * who are " called to freedom") should be subject to so intolerable a yoke and miserable a slavery ? That tyranny soon had crept into the Roman Church, Socrates telleth us . † They have rendered true that definition of Scioppius. "The Church is a stall, or herd, or multitude of beasts, or asses. " They bridle us, they harness us, they spur us, they lay yokes and laws upon us. " The greatest tyranny that ever was invented in the world is the pretence of infallibility : for Dionysius and Phalaris did leave the mind free (pretending only to dispose of body and goods according to their will), but the Pope, not content to make us do and say what he pleaseth, will have us also to think so ; denouncing his imprecations and spiritual menaces if we do not.

3. Such an authority will inevitably produce a depravation of Christian doctrine, by distorting it in accommodation of it to the promoting its designs and interests. It will blend Christianity with worldly notions and policies. It certainly will introduce new doctrines, and interpret the old ones so as may serve to the advancement of the power, reputation, pomp, wealth, and pleasure of those who manage it, and of their dependants . That which is called καπηλεύειν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ· to make a trade of religion, will be the great work of the teachers of the Church . It will turn all divines into mercenary, slavish, designing flatterers . This we see come to pass, Christianity by the Papal in- fluence being from its original simplicity transformed into quite another thing than it was ; from a Divine philosophy designed to improve the reason, to moderate the passions, to correct the manners of men, to prepare men for conversation with God and angels ; modelled to a system of politic devices (of notions, of precepts, of rites) serving to exalt and enrich the Pope, with his court and adherents, clients and vassals . * What doctrine of Christian theology, as it is interpreted by their schools, hath not a direct aspect, or doth not squint that way ? especially according to the opinions passant and in vogue among them. To pass over those concerning the Pope-his universal pastorship, judgeship in controversies, power to call Councils , presidency in them, superiority over them ; right to confirm or annul them ; his infallibility ; his double sword, and do- minion (direct or indirect) over princes ; his dispensing in laws, in oaths, in vows, in matrimonial cases, with all other the monstrous prerogatives, which the sound doctors of Rome, with encouragement of that chair, do teach- What doth the doctrine concerning the exempting of the clergy from secular jurisdiction, and immunity of their goods from taxes'signify, but their entire dependence on the Pope, and their being closely tied to his interests ? What is the exemption of monastical places from the juris- diction of bishops, but listing so many soldiers and advocates to defend and advance the Papal empire ? What meaneth the doctrine concerning that middle region of souls, or cloister of purgatory, whereof the Pope holdeth the keys opening and shutting it at his pleasure, by dispen- sation of pardons and indulgences ; but that he must be master of the people's condition, and of their purse ? What meaneth the treasure of merits, and supererogatory works, whereof he is the steward, but a way of driving a trade, and drawing money from simple people to his treasury ? Whither doth the entangling of folks in perpetual vows tend, but to assure them in a slavish dependence on their interests, eternally, without evasion or remedy, except by favourable dis- pensation from the Pope ? Why is the opus operatum in sacraments taught to confer grace, but to breed a high opinion of the priest, and all he doth ? Whence did the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation (urged with so furious zeal) issue, but from design to magnify the credit of those, who by saying of a few words can make our God and Saviour ? and withal to exercise a notable instance of their power over men, in making them to renounce their reason and senses ? Whither doth tend the doctrine concerning the mass being a propitiatory sacrifice for the dead, but to engage men to leave in their wills good sums to offer in their behalf ? Why is the cup withholden from the laity, but to lay it low by so notable a distinction, in the principal mystery of our re- ligion, from the priesthood ? Why is saying private mass (or celebrating the communion in solitude) allowed, but because priests are paid for it, and live by it? At what doth the doctrine concerning the necessity of auricular confession aim, but that thereby the priests mayhave amighty awe on the consciences of all people, may dive into their secrets, may manage their lives as they please ? And what doth a like necessary particular absolution intend, but to set the priest in a lofty state of authority above the people, as a judge of his condition, and dispenser of his salva- tion? Why do they equal ecclesiastical traditions with Scripture, but that on the pretence of them they may obtrude whatever doctrines advantageous to their designs ? What drift hath the doctrine concerning the infallibility of Churches or Councils, but that when opportunity doth invite, hemay call a company of bishops together to establish what he liketh, which ever after must pass for certain truth, to be con- tradicted by none ; so enslaving the minds of all men to his dictates, which always suit to his interest ? What doth the prohibition of holy Scripture drive at, but a monopoly of knowledge to themselves, or adetaining of people in ignorance of truth and duty ; so that they must be forced to rely on them for direction, must believe all they say, and blindly submit to their dictates ; being disabled to detect their errors, or contest their opinions ? Why must the sacraments be celebrated, and public devo- tions exercised in an unknown tongue, but that thepriestsmay seem to have a peculiar interest in them, and ability for them ? Whymust the priesthood be so indispensably forbiddenmar- riage, but that it may be wholly untacked from the state, and rest addicted to him, and governable by him; that the persons and wealth of priests may be purely at his devotion ?

To what end is the clogging religion by multiplication of ceremonies and formalities, but to amuse the people, and main- tain in them a blind reverence toward the interpretation of the dark mysteries couched in them ? * and by seeming to encourage an exterior show of piety (or form of godliness) to gain reputa- tion and advantage, whereby they might oppress the interior virtue and reality ofit, as the scribes and pharisees did, although with less designs. Why is the veneration of images and relics, the credence of miracles and legends, the undertaking of pilgrimages, and voyages to Rome, and other places, more holy than ordinary ; sprinklings of holy water, consecrations of baubles (with in- numerable foppish knacks and trinkets), so cherished ; but to keep the people in a slavish credulity and dotage ; apt to be ledby them whither they please, by any sleeveless pretence ; and in the mean while to pick various gains from them by such trade? Whatdo all such things mean but obscuring the native, simplicity of Christianity, whereas it being represented intelli- gible to all men, would derogate from that high admiration, which these men pretend to from their peculiar and profound wisdom? Andwhat would men spend for these toys, if they understood they might be good Christians, and get to heaven without them ? What doth all that pomp of religion serve for, but for osten- tation of the dignity of those who administer it ? It may be pretended for the honour of religion, but it really conduceth to the glory of the priesthood; who shine in those pa- geantries. Whyismonkery(although so very different from that which was in the ancient times) so cried up as a superlative state of perfection; but that it filleth all places with swarms of lusty people, who are vowed servants to him and have little else to dobut to advance that authority, by which they subsist in that dronish way of life ? In fine, perusing the controversies of Bellarmine or any other champion of Romanism, do but consider the nature and scope of each doctrine, maintained by them ; and you may easily discern, that scarce any of them doth but tend to advance the interest of the Pope, or of his sworn vassals . Whereas, indeed, our Lord had never any such design, to set up a sort of men in such distance above their brethren ; perk over them, and suck them of their goods by tricks ; it only did charge people to allow their pastors a competent main- tenance for a sober life, with a moderate respect, as was need- ful for the common benefit of God's people, whom they were, with humility and meekness, to instruct and guide in the plain and simple way of piety. This is a grievous inconvenience, there being nothing wherein the Church is more concerned than in the preservation of its doctrine pure and incorrupt from the leaven of hurtful errors, influential on practice. 4. The errors in doctrine, and miscarriages in practice, which this authority in favour to itself would introduce, would be establishing immoveably, to the irrecoverable oppression of truth and piety ; any reformation becoming impossible, while it standeth, or so far as it shall be able to oppose and obstruct it . While particular Churches do retain their liberty, and pastors their original co-ordination in any measure, if any Church or bishop shall offer to broach any novel doctrine or practice of bad import, the others may endeavour to stop the settlement or progress of them ; each Church at least may keep itself sound from contagion. But when all Churches and bishops are reduced into subjec- tion to one head, supported by the guards of his authority, who will dare to contest, or be able to withstand, what he shall say or do ? It will then be deemed high presumption, contumacy, rebellion, to dissent from his determinations how false soever, or tax the practices countenanced by him, however irregular and culpable. He will assume to himself the privilege not to be crossed in anything ; and soon will claim " infallibility, the mother of incorrigibility." No error can be so palpable, which that authority will not protect and shroud from confutation ; no practice so enormous, which it will not palliate, and guard from reproof. There will be legions of mercenary tongues to speak, and stipendiary pens to write in defence of its doctrines and practices, so that whoever will undertake to oppose it shall be voteddown and overwhelmed with noise ; and shall incur all the discouragement, and persecution imaginable. So poor truth will be- come utterly defenceless, wretched virtue destitute of succour or patronage.

This is so in speculation, and we see it confirmed by ex- perience; for when from the influence of this power (as Pope Adrian VI. * did ingenuously confess) an apparent degeneracy in doctrine, in discipline, in practice, had seized on Christen- dom, all the world seeing it, and crying out loudly for refor- mation, yet how stiff a repugnance did the adherents to this interest make thereto ? with what industry and craft did Popes endeavour to decline all means of remedy ? What will not this party do rather than acknowledge them- selves mistaken or liable to error ? what palliations, what shifts do not they use ? what evidence of light do they not outface ?†

5. The same will induce a general corruption of manners. For the chief clergy partaking of its growth, and protected by its interest ( reciprocally supporting it, and being sheltered by it from any curb or control), will swell into great pride and haughtiness ; will be tempted to scrape and hoard up wealth by rapine, extortion, simony ; will come to enjoy ease and sloth; will be immersed in sensuality and luxury, and will consequently neglect their charge. The inferiors will become enamoured and ambitious of such dignity, and will use all means and arts to attain it. Thence emulation, discord, sycophantry will spring. Thence all ecclesiastical offices will become venal ; to be purchased by bribes, flattery, favour.-‡ The higher ranks will become fastuous, supercilious, and domineering. The lower will basely crouch, cogg- What then must the people be, the guides being such ? Were such guides like to edify the people by their doctrine ? Were they not like to damnify them by their example ? That thus it hath happened experience doth shew, and history doth abundantly testify. This was soon observed by a Paganhistorian, Am. Marcellin. by St. Basil ὄφρυς δυτική.§ What mischief this, what scandal to religion, what detriment to the Church, what ruins of souls it produceth is visible. The descriptions of Rome and of that Church by Mantuan, do in a lively manner represent the great degeneracy and cor- ruptions ofit .

6. This authority as it would induce corruption ofmanners, so it would perpetuate it ; and render the state of things in. corrigible. For this head of the Church, and the supporters of his authority will often need reformation, but never will endure it . That will happen of any Pope, which the Fathers of Basil complained of in Pope Eugenius . * If the Pope would (as Pope Adrian VI. ) yet he will not be able to reform ; the interests of his dependants crossing it . † If there hath happened a good Pope, who desired to reform ; yet he hath been ridiculous when he endeavoured it ; and found it impossible to reform even a few particulars in his own house, the incorrigible Roman Court. The nature and pretended foundation of this spiritual autho- rity doth encourage it with insuperable obstinacy to withstand all reformation : for whereas if any temporal power doth grow intolerable, God's Providence by wars and revolutions of state, may dispense a redress, they have prevented this by supposing that in this case God hath tied his own hands ; this authority being immoveably fixed in the same hands, from which no revolution can take it ; whence from its exorbitancies there can be no rescue or relief.

7. This authority will spoil him in whom it is seated ; corrupting his mind and manners ; rendering him a scandal to religion, and a pernicious instrument of wickedness by the influence of his example. ‡ To this an uncontrollable power (bridled with no restraint) and impunity doth naturally tend, and accordingly hath it been-§

How many notorious reprobates, monsters of wickedness have been in that see ?* If we survey the lives of the Popes, written by historians most indifferent, or (as most have been) partial in favour to them, we shall find, at first good ones, martyrs, confessors, saints-but after this exorbitant power had grown, how few good ones ? how many extremely bad? The first Popes before Constantine were holy men; the next were tolerable, while the Papacy kept within bounds of modesty ; but when they hav- ing shaked off their master, and renounced allegiance to the emperor, (i. e. after Gregory II. ) few tolerable, generally they were either rake-hells, or intolerably arrogant, insolent, turbu- lent, and ravenous. Bellarmine and Baronius do bob off this, by telling us that hence the providence of God is most apparent. † But do they call this preserving the Church; the permis. sion ofit to continue so long in such a condition, under the prevalence of such mischiefs ? when hath God deserted any people if not then, when such impiety more than pagan doth reign in it ?‡ But what in the mean time became of those souls, which by this means were ruined ; what amends for the vast damage which religion sustained ? for the introducing so pernicious customs hardly to be extirpated ?§ Towhat a pass of shameless wickedness must things have come, when such men as Alexander II. having visibly such an impure brood, should be placed in this chair ? Even after the Reformation began to curb their impudence, and render them more wary, yet had they the face to set Paul the Third there.

How unfit must such men be to be the guides of all Christendom, to breathe oracles of truth, to enact laws of sanctity ? How improper were those vessels of Satan to be organs of that " Holy Spirit of discipline, which will flee deceit, and re- move from thoughts that are without understanding, and will not abide where unrighteousness cometh in . " * It will engage the Popes to make the ecclesiastical authority an engine ofadvancing the temporal concerns of his own relations (his sons, his nephews) . What indeed is the popedom now but a ladder for a family to mount unto great estate ?† What is it, but introducing an old man into a place, by ad- vantage whereof, a family must make hay while the sun shines ?‡

8. This pretence, upon divers obvious accounts, is apt to create great mischief in the world, to the disturbance of civil societies, and destruction or debilitation of temporal authority, which is certainly God's ordinance, and necessary to the well- being of mankind, so that supposing it, we may in vain "pray for kings, and all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." § For suppose the two powers (spiritual and temporal) to be co-ordinate, and independent each of other ; then must all Christians be put into that perplexed state of repugnant and incompatible obligations ; concerning which our Lord saith, " No man can serve two masters ; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and de. spise the other. " || They will often draw several ways, and clash intheir de- signs, in their laws, in their decisions ; one willing and com- manding that, which the other disliketh and prohibiteth. It will be impossible by any certain bounds to distinguish their jurisdiction, so as to prevent contest betweenthem; all temporal matters being in some respect spiritual (as being referable to spiritual ends, and in some manner allied to religion) and all spiritual things becoming temporal, as they conduce to the secular peace and prosperity of states ; there is nothing, which each of these powers will not hook within the verge of its cog- nizance, and jurisdiction ; each will claim a right to meddle in all things ; one pretending thereby to further the good of the Church, the other to secure the interest of the state : and what end or remedy can there be of the differences hence arising ; there being no third power to arbitrate or moderate between them ? Each will prosecute its cause by its advantages ; the one by instruments of temporal power, the other by spiritual arms of censures and curses. And inwhat a case must the poor people then be ? how dis- tracted in their consciences, how divided in their affections, how discordant in their practices ? according as each pretence hath influence upon them, by its different arguments or peculiar advantages ? How canany man satisfy himself in performing or refusing obedience to either ? How many (by the intricacy of the point, and contrary pulling) will be withdrawn from yielding due compliance on the one hand or the other ? What shall a man do, while one in case of disobedience to his commands doth brandish a sword, the other thundereth out a curse against him ; one threateneth death, the other ex- cision from the Church ; both denounce damnation ? What animosities and contentions, what discomposures and confusions must this constitution of things breed in every place ? and how can " a kingdom so divided in itself stand, or not come into desolation ? " * Such an advantage infallibly will make Popes affect to in- vade the temporal power. It was the reason, which Pope Paschal alleged against Henry IV. because he did ecclesiæ regnum auferre. † It is indeed impossible, that a co-ordination of these powers should subsist, for each will be continually encroaching on the other ; each for its own defence and support will continually be struggling and clambering to get above the other : there will never be any quiet till one come to subside and truckle under the other ; whereby the sovereignty of the one or the other will be destroyed. Each of them soon will come to claim a supremacy in all causes, and the power of both swords ; and one side will carry it . It is indeed necessary, that men for a time continuing pos- sessed with a reverence to the ecclesiastical authority, as in- dependent and uncontrollable, it should at last overthrow the temporal, by reason ofits great advantages above it ; for, The spiritual power doth pretend an establishment purely divine, which cannot by any accidents undergo any change, diminutions or translation, to which temporal dominions are subject : its power therefore, being perpetual, irreversible, de- pending immediately of God, can hardly be checked, can never be conquered. * It fighteth with tongues and pens, which are the most perilous weapons . It can never be disarmed ; fighting with weapons that cannot be taken away, or deprived of their edge and vigour . It worketh by most powerful considerations upon the con- sciences and affections of men upon pain of damnation ; pro- mising heaven, and threatening hell; which upon some men have an infinite sway, upon all men a considerable influence ; and thereby will be too hard for those who only can grant tem- poral rewards, or inflict temporal punishments. It is surely a notable advantage that the Pope hath above all princes, that he commandeth not only as a prince, but as a guide ; so that whereas we are not otherwise bound to obey the commands of princes, than as they appear concordant with God's law, we must observe his commands absolutely, as being therefore law- ful, because he commandeth them, that involving his assertion of their lawfulness, to which ( without farther inquiry or scruple) we must submit our understanding, his words suffi- ciently authorizing his commands for just. We are not only obliged to obey his commands, but to embrace his doctrines. It hath continual opportunities of conversing with men; and thereby can insinuate and suggest the obligation to obey it, with greatest advantage, in secrecy, in the tenderest seasons . It claimeth a power to have its instruction admitted with assent ; and will it not instruct them for its own advantage ? All its assertions must be believed is not this an infinite advantage? By such advantages the spiritual power (if admitted for such as it pretendeth) will swallow and devour the temporal ; which will be an extreme mischief to the world. The very pretence doth immediately crop and curtail the na- tural right ofprinces, * by exempting great numbers of persons (the participants and dependants of this hierarchy) from sub- jectionto them ; by withdrawing causes from theirjurisdiction ; bycommanding in their territories, and drawing people out of them to their judicatories ; by having influence on their opi- nions ; by draining them of wealth, &c . To this discourse experience abundantly doth yield its attes- tation ; † for how often have the Popes thwarted princes in the exercise of their power; † challenging their laws and administra- tions as prejudicial to religion, as contrary to ecclesiastical liberty. Bodin (1. 9) observeth that if any prince were a heretic (that is, if the Pope could pick occasion to call him so), or a tyrantş (that is, in his opinion), or anywise scandalous, the Pope would excommunicate him ; and would not receive him to favour, but upon his acknowledging himself a feudatory to the Pope : so he drew in most kingdoms to depend on him. How often have they excommunicated them, and interdicted their people from entertaining communion with them ? Howmany commotions, conspiracies, rebellions, and insur- rections against princes have they raised in several countries ?||

How have they inveigled people from their allegiance ? How many massacres and assassinations have they caused ? How have they depressed and villified the temporal power ? Have they not assumed to themselves superiority over all princes ? The Emperor himself (the chief of Christian princes) they did call their vassal, exacting an oath from them, whereof you have a form in the canon law, and a declaration of Pope Clement V. * that it is an oath of fealty . Have they not challenged propriety in both swords, Ecce duo gladii. How many princes have they pretended to depose, and dis- possess of their authority ?† Consider the pragmatical sanctions, provisors, compositions, concordats, &c. which princes have been forced to make against them, or with them to secure their interest . Many good princes have been forced to oppose them, as Henry II. of England, King Lewis XII. of France, (that just prince, pater patriæ) perdam Babylonis nomen. ‡ How often have they used this as a pretence of raising and fomenting wars ?§ confiding in their spiritual arms ; inter- dicting princes, that would not comply with their designs for advancing the interests not only of their see, but of their private families ? Bodin|| observeth that Pope Nicholas I. was the first who excommunicated princes. Platina doth mention some before him : but it is remarkable, that although Pope Leo I. (a high- spirited Pope, Fortissimus Leo, as Liberatus calleth him) was highly provoked against Theodosius Junior ; Pope Gelasius, and divers of his predecessors and followers-Pope Gregory II. against Leo-Virgilius against Justinian, &c. yet none of them did presume to excommunicate the emperors. All these dealings are the natural result of this pretence ; and, supposing it well grounded, are capable of a plausible justification : for is it not fit (seeing one must yield) that tem- poral should yield to spiritual ? Indeed, granting the Papal supremacy in spirituals, I con- ceive the high- flying zealots of the Roman Church, who sub- ject all temporal powers to them, have great reason on their side, for co- ordinate power cannot subsist, and it would be only an eternal seminary of perpetual discords . The quarrel cannot otherwise be well composed than by wholly disclaiming the fictitious and usurped power ofthe Pope : for, Two such powers (so inconsistent and cross to each other, so apt to interfere, and consequently to breed everlasting mischiefs to mankind between them) could not be instituted byGod. Hewould not appoint two different vicegerents in his king- dom at the same time. But it is plain, that he hath instituted the civil power ; and endowed it with a sword. That princes are his lieutenants . * That in the ancient times the Popes did not claim such authority, but avowed themselves subjects to princes .

9. Consequently this pretence is apt to engage Christian princes against Christianity ; for they will not endure to be crossed, to be depressed, to be trampled on. † This Popes often have complained of; not considering it was their own insolence that caused it .

10. Whereas now Christendom is split into many parcels, subject to divers civil sovereignties, it is expedient that corre- spondently there should be distinct ecclesiastical governments, independent of each other, which may comply with the respective civil authorities in promoting the good and peace both of Church and State. ‡ It is fit, that every prince, should in all things govern all his subjects ; and none should be exempted from subordination to his authority : as philosophers and physicians of the body ; so priests and physicians of the soul ; not in exercising their function, but in taking care that they do exercise it duly for the honour of God, and in consistence with public good : otherwise many grievous inconveniences must ensue.

It is of perilous consequence, that foreigners should have authoritative influence upon the subjects of any prince ; or have a power to intermeddle in affairs . Princes have a natural right to determine with whom their subjects shall have intercourse ; which is inconsistent with a right of foreigners to govern or judge them in any case, with- out their leave. Every prince is obliged to employ the power entrusted to him, to the furtherance of God's service, and encouragement of all good works ; as a supreme power, without being liable to obstruction from any other power. It would irritate his power, if another should be beyond his coercion. It is observable, that the Pope by intermeddling in the affairs of kingdoms did so wind himself into them, as to get a pretence tobe master of each ; princes being his vassals and feudatories . * 11. Such an authority is needless and useless ; it not serving the ends which it pretendeth ; and they being better compassed without it . It pretendeth to maintain truth ; but indeed it is more apt to oppress it. Truth is rather (as St. Cyprian wisely observeth) preserved by the multitude of bishops, whereof some will be ready to relieve it, when assaulted by others . Truth cannot be supported merely by human authority ; especially that authority is to be suspected, which pretendeth dominion over our minds. What controversy, being doubtful in itself, will not after his decision continue doubtful ? his sentence may be eluded by interpretation as well as other testimonies or authorities .

The opinion of a man's great wisdom or skill may be the ground of assent, in defect of other more cogent arguments ; but authority of name or dignity is not proper to convince a man's understanding . Menobey, but not believe princes more than others, if not more learned than others . It pretendeth to maintain order : but how? by introducing slavery ; by destroying all rights ; by multiplying disorders ; by hindering order to be quietly administered in each country. It pretendeth to be the only means of unity and concord in opinion, by determining controversies : which its advocates affirm necessary. * But how can that be necessary which never was defacto ? not even in the Roman Church ? Hath the Pope affected this ? do all his followers agree in all points ; do they agree about his authority ? Do not they differ and dispute about infinity of questions ? Are all the points frivolous, about which their divines and schoolmen dispute ? Why did not the Council of Trent itself, without more ado, and keeping such a disputing, refer all to his oracular decision ? Necessary points may and will by all honest people be known and determined without him, by the clear testimony of Scripture, by consent of Fathers, by general tradition .-And other points need not to be determined. † That he may be capable of that office, he must be believed appointed by God thereto ; which is a question itself to be decided without him, to satisfaction. His power is apt no otherwise to knock down controversies, than by depressing truth ; not suffering any truth to be asserted, which doth not favour its interests . Concord was maintained, and controversies decided without them in the ancient Church ; in Synods, wherein he was not the sole judge, nor had observable influence . The Fathers did not think such authority needful, other- wise they would have made more use of it . Amore readyway to define controversies, is for every one not to prescribe to others, or to persecute : for then men would more calmly see the truth and consent . ‡

It pretendeth to maintain peace and unity. But nothing hath raised more fierce dissensions, or so many bloody wars in Christendom as it . It is apt by tyrannical administration to become intolerable, and so to break the ecclesiastical state ; to raise schisms and troubles. It is like to extinguish genuine charity, which is free and uncompelled. All the peace and charity which it endureth, is by force and compulsion, not out of choice and good affection.

V. The ancients did assert to each bishop, a free, absolute, independent authority, subject to none, directed by none, accountable to none on earth, in the administration of affairs properly concerning his particular Church. This is most evident in St. Cyprian's writings ; out of which it will not be amiss to set down some passages, manifesting the sense and practice of the Church in his time, to the satis- faction of any ingenuous mind. " The bond of concord abiding, and the sacrament (or doctrine) of the Catholic Church persisting undivided, every bishop disposeth and directeth his own acts, being to render an account of his purpose to the Lord : " * this he writeth, when he was pleading the cause of Pope Cornelius against Novatian ; but then, it seemeth, not dreaming of his supre- macy over others "But we know, that some will not lay down what once they have imbibed, nor will easily change their mind ; but, the bond of peace and concord with their colleagues being pre- served, will retain some peculiar things, which have once been used by them ; in which matter neither do we force any, or give law ; when as every prelate hath in the administration of his Church the free power of his will, being to render unto the Lord an account of his acting : " † this, saith he, writing to Pope Stephanus, and in a friendly manner, " out of common respect and single love,* (not out of servile obeisance), ac- quainting him what he and his brethren in a Synod by common consent and authority had established concerning the degra- dation ofclergymen, who had been ordained by heretics, or had lapsed into schism . " For seeing it is ordained by us all, and it is likewise equal andjust, that each man's cause should be there heard where the crime is committed ; and to each pastor a portion of the flock is assigned, which each should rule and govern, being to render an account to his Lord ; those indeed over whom we preside ought not to ramble about : "† this saith he in his epistle to Pope Cornelius, upon occasion of some factious clergymen addressing themselves to him with factious sugges- tions, to gain his countenance. " These things I have briefly written back, according to our meanness, dear brother ; prescribing to none nor prejudging, that every bishop should not do what he thinks good, having a free power of his will. "‡ " In which matter our bashfulness and modesty doth not prejudge any one, so that every one may not judge as he thinketh, and act as he judgeth :§-prescribing to none, so that every bishop may not resolve what he thinks good, being to render an account to the Lord, " || &c . " It remaineth that each of us do utter his opinion about this matter, judging no man, nor removing any man, if he dissenteth from the right of communion ; for neither doth any ofus constitute himself bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror driveth his colleagues to a necessity ofobeying : whereas every bishop hath upon account of his liberty and authority his own free choice, and is no less exempted from being judged by another, than he is incapable to judge another ; but let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, and who alone hath power both to prefer us to the govern- ment of his Church, and to judge of our acting : "* these words did St. Cyprian speak as prolocutor of the great Synod of bishops at Carthage ; and what words could be more ex- press or more full in assertion of the episcopal liberties and rights against almost every branch of Romish pretences ? He disavoweth the practice of one bishop excluding another from communion for dissent in opinion about disputable points . He rejecteth the pretence that any man can have to be abishop ofbishops, or superior to all his brethren : he condemneth the imposing opinions upon bishops, and constraining them to obedience : he disclaimeth any power in one bishop to judge another ; he asserteth to each bishop a full liberty and power to manage his own concerns according to his discretion ; he affirmeth every bishop to receive his power only from Christ, and to be liable only to his judgment . We may observe that St. Augustinet in his reflections upon the passages of that Synod, doth approve, yea admire that preface, passing high commendations on the smartest passages of it which assert common liberty, professing his own confor- mity in practice to them : " In this consultation‡ (saith he) is shewed a pacific soul, overflowing with plenty of charity ; and we have therefore a free choice of inquiry granted to us by the most mild and most veracious speech of Cyprian himself, * and now if the proud and tumid minds of heretics dare to extol themselves against the holy humility of this speech - than which what can be more gentle, more humble ?"+ Would St. Augustine have swallowed those sayings, could he have so much applauded them, if he had known a just power then extant and radiant in the world, which they do impeach and subvert ? No, I trow : he did not know, nor so much as dream of any such, although the Pope was under his nose while he was discussing that point, and he could hardly talk so much of St. Cyprian without thinking of Pope Stephen. However, let any man of sense honestly read and weigh those passages, considering who did write them, to whom he writ them, upon what occasions he writ them, when he writ them; that he was a great primate of the Church, a most holy, most prudent, most humble and meek person ; that he addressed divers of them to bishops of Rome; that many of them were touching the concerns of Popes, that he writ them in times of persecution and distress, which produce the most sober and serious thoughts ; then let him if he can, conceive, that all Christian bishops were then held subject to the Pope, or owned such a power due to him as he now claimeth. We may add a contemporary testimony of the Roman clergy, addressing to St. Cyprian these words : " Although a mind well conscious to itself, and supported by the vigour of evangelical discipline, and having in heavenly doctrines be- come a true witness to itself, is wont to be content with God for its only judge ; and not to desire the praises, nor to dread the accusations of another ; yet they are worthy of double praise, who when they know they owe their consciences to God only as judge, yet desire also their actions to be approve by their brethren themselves ; the which it is no wonder that you, brother Cyprian, should do, who according to your mo- desty and natural industry would have us not so much judges as partakers of your Councils. " Then it seems the College of Cardinals, not so high in the instep as they are now, did take St. Cyprian to be free, and not accountable for his actions to any other judge but God. That this notion of liberty did continue a good time after in the Church, we may see by that canon of the Antiochene Synod ; * " ordaining that every bishop have power of his own bishopric, govern it according to the best of his care and discretion, and provide for all the country belonging to his city, so as to ordain priests and deacons, and dispose things aright." The monks of Constantinople in the Synod of Chalcedon, said thus : " We are sons of the Church, and have one father, after God, our archbishop : " they forgot their So- vereign Father the Pope. The like notion may seem to have been then in England, when the Church of Canterbury was called " the common mother of all under the disposition of its spouse Jesus Christ."‡

VI. The ancients did hold all bishops, as to their office, originally according to divine institution, or abstracting from human sanctions framed to preserve order and peace, to be equal ; § for that all are successors of the Apostles, all derive their commission and power in the same tenor from God, all of them are " ambassadors, stewards, vicars of Christ ; " en- trusted with the same divine ministeries of instructing, dis- pensing the sacraments, ruling and exercising discipline ; to which functions and privileges the least bishop hath right, and to greater the biggest cannot pretend. Onebishop might exceed another in splendour, in wealth, in reputation, in extent of jurisdiction, as one king may sur- pass another in amplitude of territory ; but as all kings, so all bishops are equal in office and essentials of power, derived fromGod. Hence they applied to them that in the Psalm,* " Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth. " This was St. Jerome's doctrine in those famous words :† " Wherever a bishop be, whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thenis, he is of the same worth, and of the same priesthood ; the force of wealth and lowness of poverty doth not render a bishop more high or more low ; for that all of them are successors of the Apostles : " to evade which plain assertion, they have forged distinctions, whereof St. Jerome surely did never think, he speaking simply concerning bishops, as they stood by divine institution, not according to human models, which gave some advantages over other. That this notion did continue long in the Church, we may see by the elegies of bishops in later Synods ; for instance, that in the Synod of Compeigne : " It is convenient all Chris- tians should know what kind of office the bishop's is-who it is plain are the Vicars of Christ, and keep the keys of the kingdom of heaven. " ‡ And that of the Synod of Melun : " And though all of us unworthy, yet are the Vicars of Christ and successors of his Apostles."§ In contemplation of which verity, St. Gregory Nazianzen observing the declension from it introduced in his times by the ambition of some prelates, did vent that famous exclamation: " Othat there were not at all any presidency, or any preference in place, and tyrannical enjoyment of prerogatives "||-which earnest wish he surely did not mean to level against the ordinance of God, but against that which lately began to be intro- duced by men : and what would the good man have wished, if he had been aware of those pretences, about which we dis- course ; which then did only begin to bud and peep up in the world? 1. Common practice is a good interpreter of common senti- ments in any case ; and it therefore sheweth that in the primi- tive Church the Pope was not deemed to have a right of uni- versal sovereignty ; for if such a thing had been instituted by God, or established by the Apostles, the Pope certainly with evident clearness would have appeared to have possessed it ; and would have sometimes (I might say frequently, yea con- tinually) have exercised it in the first ages ; which that he did not at all, we shall make, I hope, very manifest by reflecting on the chief passages occurring then ; whereof indeed there is scarce any one, which duly weighed doth not serve to overthrow the Roman pretence ; but that matter I reserve to another place ; and shall propound other considerations, declaring the sense of the Fathers ; only I shall add, that indeed 2. The state of the most primitive Church did not well admit such an universal sovereignty. For that did consist of small bodies incoherently situated and scattered about in very distant places, and consequently unfit to be modelled into one political society, or to be governed by one head. Especially considering their condition under persecution and poverty. What convenient resort for direction or justice could a few distressed Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia, Parthia, India, Meso- potamia, Syria, Armenia, Cappadocia, and other parts have to Rome ? What trouble, what burthen had it been to seek instruction, succour, decision of cases thence ? Had they been obliged or required to do so, what offences, what clamours would it have raised ; seeing that afterward, when Christendom was connected, and compacted together ; when the state of Christians was flourishing and prosperous, when passages were open, and the best of opportunities of correspondence were afforded, yet the setting out ofthese pretences did cause great oppositions and stirs; seeing the exercise of this authority, when it had obtained most vigour, did produce so many grievances, so many complaints, so many courses to check and curb it, in countries feeling the inconveniences and mischiefs springing from it ? The want of the like in the first ages is a good argument, that the cause of them had not yet sprung up; Christendom could not have been so still, if there had been then so meddlesome a body in it, as the Pope now is . The Roman clergy in their epistle to St. Cyprian told him, that " because of the difficulty of things and times, they could not constitute a bishop who might moderate things " * imme- diately belonging to them in their own precincts : how much more in that state of things would a bishop there be fit to moderate things over all the world ; when, as Rigaltius truly noteth, " the Church being then oppressed with various vexa- tions, the communication of provinces between themselves was difficult and unfrequent. " † Wherefore Bellarmine himself doth confess, that in those times, before the Nicene Synod, " the authority of the Pope was not a little hindered, so that because of continual persecu- tions he could not freely exercise it . " ‡ The Church therefore could so long subsist without the use of such authority, by the vigilance of governors over their flocks, and the friendly correspondence of neighbour Churches : and if he would let it alone, it might do so still. That could be no divine institution, which had no vigour in the first and best times ; but an innovation raised by ambition.

VII. The ancients, when occasion did require, did maintain their equality of office and authority, particularly in respect to the Romanbishops ; not only interpretatively by practice, but directly and formally in express terms asserting it. Thus when Felicissimus and his complices, being rejected by St. Cyprian, did apply themselves to Pope Cornelius for his communion and countenance, St. Cyprian affirmed that to be an irregular and unjust course ; subjoining, § " Except to a few desperate and wicked persons, the authority of the bishops constituted in Africa, who have already judged of them, do seem less ; " less, that is inferior to any other authority, par- ticularly to that of Rome, unto which they had recourse ; what other meaning could he have ? doth not his argument require this meaning ? Another instance is that of the Fathers of the Antiochene Synod* (being ninety-seven bishops), the which St. Hilary calleth " a Synod of saints congregated," (the decrees whereof the Catholic Church did admit into its code, and the canons whereof Popes have called " venerable " ), † these in their epistle to Pope Julius, complaining of his demeanour in the case of Athanasius, did flatly assert to themselves an equality with him. " They did not, " as Sozomen reciteth out of their epistle, " therefore think it equal that they should be thought inferiors, because they had not so big and numerous a Church."‡ That Pope himself testifieth the same in his epistle to them, extant in the second Apology of Athanasius : " If, ” saith he, "you do truly conceive the honour of bishops to be equal, and the same ; and yet do not, as ye write, judge of bishops accord- ing to the magnitude of cities ;" § which assertion of theirs so flatly thwarting papal supremacy he doth not at all confute, yeanot so muchas contradict ; and therefore reasonably may be interpreted to yield consent thereto ; the rule, " He that holdeth his peace seemeth to consent, " || never holding better than in this case, when his copyhold was so nearly touched ; indeed he had been very blameable to waive such an occasion of defending so important a truth ; or inletting so pestilent an error to pass without correction or reproof. After the Pope had climbed higher than at that time (upon the ladders of dissension and disorders in the Church) yet he was reproved by Euphemius, bishop of Constantinople, for preferring himself before his brethren ; as we may collect from those words of a zealous Pope, "We desire not to be placed above others (as you say) so much as to have fellowship holy and well-pleasing to God with all the faithful. " * That Pope Gregory I. did not hold himself superior to other bishops, many sayings of his do infer ; for in this he placeth the fault of the Bishop of Constantinople, which he so often and so severely reprehendeth, that he did " prefer himself before and extol himself above other bishops "† And would he directly assume that to himself, which he chargeth on another, although only following his position by consequence? And when Eulogius the bishop of Alexandria had compli- mentally said, " Sicut jussistis , As you commanded, " he doth thus express his resentment : " That word of command I desire you let me not hear ; because I know who I am, and who you are ; by place ye are my brethren, in goodness, fathers ; I did not therefore command, but what seemed profitable, I hinted to you."‡ That many such instances may not be alleged out of anti- quity, the reason is, because the ancient Popes did not under- stand this power to belong to them, and therefore gave no occasion for bishops to maintain their honour ; or were more just, prudent and modest than to take so much upon them as their successors did, upon frivolous pretences.

VIII. The style used by the primitive bishops in their applications to the Roman bishop doth signify, that they did not apprehend him their sovereign, but their equal. "Brother, Colleague, Fellow-bishop," are the terms which St. Cyprian doth use in speaking about the Roman bishops, his contemporaries, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus ; § and in his epistles to the three last of them ; nor doth he ever use any other, importing higher respect due to them ; as indeed his practice demonstrateth, he did not apprehend any other due; or that he did take them for his superiors in office. "Know now, brother, " was the compellationof Dionysius (bishop of Alexandria) to Pope Stephanus. * The Synod of Antioch, which rejected Paulus Samosatenus, inscribeth its epistle to " Dionysius (then bishop of Rome) and Maximus, and all our fellow ministers through the world. " † The old Synod of Arles directeth their epistle to " Signior Sylvester, their brother. " Athanasius saith, " These things may suffice, which have been written by our beloved and fellow-minister Damasus, bishop of great Rome. "‡ Marcellus inscribed to Pope Julius, to his " most blessed fellow- minister." § So Cyril spake of Pope CelestineI. || " Our brother and fellow- minister the bishop of Rome." So St. Basil and his fellow- bishops of the East did inscribe their epistle, " To the beloved of God and our most holy brethren and fellow-ministers the unanimous bishops through Italy and France. " ** In this style do the Fathers of Sardica salute Pope Julius ; †† those of Con- stantinople Pope Damasus ; those of Ephesus Pope Celestine I. " Our brother and fellow-minister Celestine ; " ‡‡ those of Carthage Pope Celestine I.§§ in the very same terms wherein St. Augustine doth salute Maximinus, a Donatist bishop : Signior, my beloved and most honoured brother. "|||| The oriental bishops Eustathius, Theophilus, and Silvanus did inscribe their remonstrance to Pope Liberius, " To Signior, our brother and fellow- minister Liberius . " * So John of Antioch toNestorius writeth " to my master." The Synod of Illyricum call Elpidius, " Our senior and fellow-minister. " † Inwhich instances and some others of later date wemay observe that the word Κύριος, or Dominus was then (as it is now) barely a term of civility, being then usually given to any person of quality, or to whom they would express common respect ; so that St. Chrysostom in his epistles commonly doth give it not only to meaner bishops, but even to priests ; and St. Augustine doth thus salute even Donatist bishops ; reflecting thereon thus, " Since therefore by charity I serve you in this office of writing letters to you, I do not improperly call you master, for the sake of our one true Master who has commanded us so to do. My most honored Master.-Now therefore having with me my most honoured signior and most reverend presbyter, &c.-Mymost honored master, Asyncritus the elder. "‡ Pope Celestine himself did salute the Ephesine Fathers κύριοι ἀδελφοὶ, masters, brethren. Even in the sixth Council, § Thomas,bishop ofConstantinople, did inscribe according to the old style, to PopeVitalianus, his "brother and fellow-minister . ''|| The French bishops had good reason to expostulate with Pope Nicholas I. " You may know, that we are not, as you boast and brag, your clerks ; whom, if pride would suffer, you ought to acknowledge for your brethren and fellow-bishops. " Such are the terms and titles which primitive integrity, when theymeant to speak most kindly and respectfully did allow to the Pope, being the same which all bishops did give to one another ; (as may be seen in all solemn addresses and reports concerning them :) which is an argument sufficiently plain, that bishops in those times did not take themselves to be the Pope's subjects, or his inferiors in office, but his fellows and mates co- ordinate in rank. Were not these improper terms for an ordinary gentleman, or nobleman to accost his prince in ? yet hardly is there such a distance between any prince and his peers, as there is between a modern Pope and other bishops. It would now be taken for a great arrogance and sauciness, for an underling bishop to address to the Pope in such language, or to speak of him in that manner ; which is a sign that the world is altered in its notion of him, and that he beareth a higher conceit of himself than his primitive ancestors did. Now nothing but Beatissimus Pater, " most blessed Father; " and Dominus noster Papa, " our Lord the Pope," in the highest sense will satisfy him. Now a Pope in a General Synod, in a solemn oration, could be told to his face, that " the most holy senate of cardinals had chosen a brother into a father, a colleague into a lord." * Verily so it is now, but not so anciently. In the same ancient times the style of the Roman bishops writing to other bishops was the same ; he calling them brethren and fellow-ministers. So did Cornelius write to Fabius of Antioch, " beloved brother ; " so did he call all other bishops : -- " Be it known to all our fellow-bishops and brethren. " † So Julius to the Oriental bishops, " Το our beloved brethren. " ‡ So Liberius to the Macedonian bishops, " To our beloved brethren and fellow- ministers : " § and to the Oriental bishops, " To our brethren and fellow-bishops . "|| So Damasus to the bishops of Illyricum.

So Leo himself frequently in his epistles. So Pope Celestine calleth John of Antioch, " most honoured brother ; " * to Cyril and to Nestorius himself, " beloved brother ; " † to the Fathers of Ephesus, " Signiors, brethren. " ‡ Pope Gelasius to the bishops of Dardania, "your brotherhood." St. Gregory to Cyriacus, "our brother and fellow-priest, Cyriacus."§ If it be said the Popes did write so then out of condescension , or humility and modesty ; itmay be replied, that if really there was such a difference as is now pretended, it may seem rather affectation, and indecency or mockery : for it would have more become the Pope to maintain the majesty and authority of his place, by appellations apt to cherish their reverence, than to collogue with them in terms void of reality, or signifying that equality which he did not mean. But Bellarmine hath found out one instance (which he maketh much of) of Pope Damasus, who writing (not as he allegeth, to the Fathers of Constantinople,|| but) to certain Eastern bishops, calleth them " most honoured sons . " That whole epistle I do fear to be foisted into Theodoret ; for it cometh in abruptly ; and doth not much become such a man : and if it be supposed genuine, I should suspect some corrup- tion in the place; for why, if he writ to bishops, should he use a style so unsuitable to those times and so different from that of his predecessors and successors ? why should there be such a disparity between his own style now and at other times ? for writing to the bishops of Illyricum he calleth them " be- loved brethren ; " ** why then is he so inconstant and partial, as to yield these Oriental bishops less respect ; wherefore per- haps vioì was thrust in for ἀδελφοὶ ; or perhaps the word Ἐπισκόποις was intruded, and he did write to laymen ; " those who governed the east,"†† who well might be called "most honoured sons ; " otherwise the epithet doth not seem well to suit : but, however, a simple example of arrogance or stateli- ness, (or of what shall I call it ?) is not to be set against so many modest and mannerly ones ?

In fine, that this salutation doth not always imply superiority, we may be assured by that inscription of Alexander bishop of Thessalonica to Athanasius of Alexandria, " to my beloved son and unanimous colleague Athanasius . " * IX. The ground ofthat eminence, which the Roman bishop did obtain in the Church, so as in order to precede other bishops, doth shake this pretence. The Church of Rome was indeed allowed to be the principal Church, † as St. Cyprian calleth it ; but why? was it pre- ferred by Divine institution ? no surely, Christianity did not make laws of that nature, or constitute differences of places. Was it in regard to the succession of St. Peter ? no ; that was a slim upstart device ; that did not hold in Antioch ; nor in other apostolical Churches. But it was for a more substantial reason; the very same, on which the dignity and pre-eminency of other Churches was founded; that is, the dignity, magnitude, opulency, opportu- nity of that city in which the bishop of Rome did preside ; together with the consequent numerousness, quality, and wealth of his flock ; which gave him many great advantages above other his fellow-bishops. It was (saith Rigaltius) called by St. -Cyprian the principal Church, " because constituted in the principal city."‡ That Church in the very times of severest persecutions " by the providence of God (as Pope Cornelius said in his epistle to Fabius) had a rich and plentiful number, with a most great and innumerable people ;" § so that he reckoneth 44 presbyters, 7 deacons (in imitation of the number in the Acts), 7 sub. deacons, 42 acoluthi, 52 others of the inferior clergy, and above 1500 alms-people. || To that Church there must needs have been a great resort of Christians, going to the seat of the empire in pursuit of business ; as in proportion there was to each other metropolis ; according to that canon of the Antiochene Synod, which ordered that " the bishop of each metropolis should take care of the whole province, because all that had business did resort to the metropolis. " * That Church was most able to yield help and succour to them who needed it ; and accordingly did use to do it ; according to that of Dionysius (bishop of Corinth) in his epistle to bishop Soter of Rome : " This (saith he) is your custom from the beginning, in divers ways to do good to the brethren, and to send supplies to many Churches in every city, so refreshing the poverty of those who want-"† Whence it is no wonder that the head of that Church did get most reputation, and the privilege of precedence without competition. "To this Church (said Irenæus) it is necessary that every Church (that is, the faithful who are all about) should resort, because of its more powerful principality ; " ‡ what is meant by that resort, will be easy to him, who considereth how men here are wont to go up to London, drawn thither by interests of trade, law, &c.§ What he did understand by more powerful principality the words themselves do signify, which exactly do agree to the power and grandeur of the imperial city ; but do not well suit to the authority of a Church; especially then when no Church did appear to have either principality or puissance. And that sense may clearly be evinced by the context, wherein it doth appear that St. Irenæus doth not allege the judicial authority of the Roman Church, but its credible testimony, which thereby became more considerable, because Christians commonly had occasions ofrecourse to it. Such a reason of precedence St. Cyprian giveth in another case, || " Because (saith he) Rome for its magnitude ought to precede Carthage."

For this reason a Pagan historian did observe the Roman bishop " had a greater authority" * (that is a greater interest and reputation) than other bishops. This reason Theodoret doth assign in his epistle to Pope Leo, wherein he doth highly compliment and cajole him : " For this city (saith he) is the greatest and most splendid, and presiding over the world, and flowing with multitude of people ; and which moreover hath produced the empire now governing " † This is the sole ground upon which the greatest of all an- cient Synods, that of Chalcedon, did affirm the Papal emi- nency to be founded , for " to the throne (say they) of ancient Rome because that was the royal city, the Fathers reasonably conferred the privileges : "‡ the fountain of Papal eminency was in their judgment not to any Divine institution, not the au- thority of St. Peter deriving itself to his successors ; but the concession of the Fathers, who were moved to grant it upon account that Rome was the imperial city. To the same purpose the Empress Placidia in her epistle to Theodosius in behalf of Pope Leo saith, " It becometh us to preserve to this city (the which is mistress of all lands) a re- verence in all things . " § This reason had indeed in it much of equity, of decency, of conveniency : it was equal that he should have the preference and more than common respect, who was thence enabled and engaged to do most service to religion ; it was decent, that out of conformity to the State, and in respect to the Imperial Court and Senate, the pastor of that place should be graced with repute ; it was convenient, that he who resided in the centre of all business, and had the greatest influence upon affairs , who was the emperor's chief counsellor for direction and instrument for execution of ecclesiastical affairs, should not be put behind others. Hence did the Fathers of the second General Synod ad- vance the bishop of Constantinople " to the next privileges of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because it was new Rome," and a seat of the empire. * And the Fathers of Chalcedon assigned " equal privileges to the most holy see of new Rome, with good reason (say they) judging that the city, which was honoured with rovalty and senate, and which (otherwise) did enjoy equal privileges with the ancient royal Rome, should likewise in ecclesiastical affairs be magnified as it, being second after it . " † Indeed upon this score the Church of Constantinople is said to have aspired to the supreme principality, when it had the advantage over old Rome, the empire being extin- guished there ; and sometimes was styled " the head of all Churches."‡

It is also natural and can hardly be otherwise, but that the bishop of a chief city (finding himself to exceed in wealth, in power, in advantages of friendships, dependencies, &c. ) should not affect to raise himself above the level : it is an ambition, that easily will seize on the most moderate, and otherwise reli- gious minds. Pope Leo objected it to Anatolius, and Pope Gregory to John (from his austere life called the Faster. ) Upon the like account it was, that the bishops of other cities did mount to a pre-eminency, metropolitan, primatical, patri- archal . Thence it was that the bishop of Alexandria, before Con- stantine's time, did acquire the honour ofsecond place to Rome; because that city, being head of a most rich and populous nation, did, in magnitude and opulency (as Gregory Nazianzen saith) " approach next to Rome, so as hardly to yield the next place to it. " * Upon that account also did Antioch get the next place, as being the most large, flourishing, commanding city of the East; " the which (as Josephus saith) for bigness and for other ad- vantages had, without controversy, the third place in all the world subject to the Romans ; " † and the which St. Chrysostom calleth " the head of all cities seated in the East." ‡ over St. Basil seemeth to call the Church thereofthe principal in the world ; for " what (saith he) can be more opportune to the Churches the world than the Church of Antioch? the which, if it should happen to be reduced to concord, nothing would hinder, but that as a sound head it would supply health to the whole body." § Upon the same account the bishop of Carthage did obtain the privilege to be standing primate of his province (although other primacies there were not fixed to places, but followed seniority) , and a kind ofpatriarch over all the African provinces.

Hence did Cæsarea, as exceeding in temporal advantages, and being the political metropolis of Palestine, overtop Jeru- salem, that most ancient, noble, and venerable city, the source ofour religion. Itwas indeed the general rule and practice to conform the privileges of ecclesiastical dignity in a proportion convenient to those of the secular government, as the Synod of Antioch in express terms did ordain; the ninth canon whereof runneth thus : " The bishops in every province ought to know that the bishop presiding in the metropolis doth undertake the care of all the province, because all that have business do meet toge- ther in the metropolis ; whence it hath been ordained that he should precede in honour, and that the bishops should do nothing extraordinary without him, according to a more ancient canonholding from our Fathers," * (that is, according to the 34th canon of the Apostles) . It is true, that the Fathers do sometimes mention the Church of Romet being founded by the two great Apostles, or the succession of the Roman bishop to them in pastoral charge, as a special ornament of that Church, and a congruous ground of respect to that bishop, whereby they did honour the memory of St. Peter; but even some of those, who did acknowledge this, did not avow it as a sufficient ground of pre- eminence ; none did admit it for an argument of authoritative superiority. St. Cyprian did call the Roman See " the chair of St. Peter and the principal Church ; " ‡ yet he disclaimed any authority ofthe Roman bishops above his brethren. Firmilian did take notice, that Pope " Stephanus did glory in the place of his bishopric, and contend that he held the succession of Peter ;"§ yet did not he think himself thereby obliged to submit to his authority, or follow his judgment; but sharply did reprehend him as a favourer of heretics, an author of schisms, and one who had cut himself off from the commu- nion of his brethren. The Fathers of the Antiochene Synod " did confess, that in writings all did willingly honour the Roman Church, as having been from the beginning the school of the Apostles, and the metropolis of religion ; although yet from the East the instruc- tors of the Christian doctrine did go and reside there ; but from hence they desired not to be deemed inferiors, because they did not exceed in the greatness and numerousness oftheir Church. " * They allowed some regard (though faintly and with reser- vation) to the Roman Church, upon account of their aposto- lical foundation ; they implied a stronger ground of pretence from the grandeur of that city ; yet did not they therefore grant themselves to be inferiors, at least as to any substantial privilege, importing authority. If by divine right, upon account of his succession to St. Peter, he had such pre-eminence, why are the other causes reckoned, as if they could add anything to God's institution, or as if that did need human confirmation? The pretence to that surely was weak, which did need corroboration, and to be propped by worldly considerations . Indeed, whereas the Apostles did found many Churches, ex- ercising apostolical authority over them (eminently containing the episcopal) , why in conscience should one claim privileges on that score rather than, or above, the rest ? Why should the see of Antioch, " that most ancient and truly apostolical Church," † where the Christian name began, where St. Peter at first (as they say) did sit bishop for seven years, be postponed to Alexandria ?

Especially why should the Church of " Jerusalem, the seat of our Lord himself, the mother of all Churches, " * the fountain of Christian doctrine, the first consistory of the Apostles, ennobled by so many glorious performances (by the life, preaching, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, ascension ofour Saviour ; by the first preaching of the Apostles, the effusion of the Holy Spirit, the conversion of so many people, and consti- tution of the first Church, and celebration of the first Synods), † upon these considerations not obtain pre-eminence to other Churches, but in honour be cast behind divers others ; and as to power, be subjected to Cæsarea, the metropolis of Palestine ? The true reason of this even Baronius himself did see, and acknowledge; for " that (saith he) the ancients observed no other rule in instituting the ecclesiastical sees, than the division of provinces, and the prerogative before established by the Romans, there are very many examples."§ Of which examples, that of Rome is the most obvious and notable ; and what he so generally asserteth may be so applied thereto, as to void all other grounds of its pre-eminence.

X. The truth is, all ecclesiastical presidencies and subordinations, or dependencies of some bishops on others in administration of spiritual affairs, were introduced merely by human ordinance, and established by law or custom, upon prudential accounts, according to the exigency of things : hence the pre- rogatives of other sees did proceed ; and hereto whatever dignity, privilege, or authority the Pope with equity might at any time claim, is to be imputed. To clear which point, we will search the matter nearer the quick ; propounding some observations concerning the ancient forms of discipline, and considering whatinterest the Pope had therein. At first each Church was settled apart, under its own bishop and presbyters, so as independently and separately to manage its own concernments ; each was αὐτοκέφαλος, and αὐτόνομος, “ go- verned by its own head, and had its own laws." Every bishop, as a prince in his own Church, did act freely, according to his will and discretion, with the advice of his ecclesiastical senate, and with the consent of his people (the which he did use to consult), * without being controllable by any other, or account- able to any, further than his obligation to uphold the verity of Christian profession, and to maintain fraternal communion in charity and peace with neighbouring Churches did require ; in which regard, if he were notably peccant, he was liable to be disclaimed by them, as no good Christian, and rejected from communion, together with his Church, if it did adhere to him in his misdemeanours. This may be collected from the re- mainders of state in the times of St. Cyprian. But because little, disjointed and incoherent bodies were like dust apt to be dissipated by every wind of external assault, or intestine faction ; and peaceable union could hardly be retained without some ligature of discipline ; and Churches could not mutually support and defend each other without some method of intercourse and rule of confederacy, engaging them : † therefore for many good purposes (for upholding and advancing the common interests of Christianity, for pro tection and support of each Church from inbred disorders and dissensions ; for preserving the integrity of the faith, for securing the concord of divers Churches, for providing fit pastors to each Church, and correcting such as were scan- dalously bad* or unfaithful) it was soon found needful that divers Churches should be combined and linked together in some regular form of discipline ; † that if any Church did want abishop, the neighbour bishops might step in to approve and ordain a fit one ; that if any bishop did notoriously swerve from the Christian rule, the others might interpose to correct or void him ; that if any error or schism did peep up in any Church, the joint concurrence of divers bishops might avail to stop its progress, and to quench it ; by convenient means of instruction, reprehension, and censure ; that if any Church were oppressed by persecution, by indigency, by fac- tion ; the others might be engaged to afford effectual succour and relief: for such ends it was needful, that bishops in certain precincts should convene, with intent to deliberate and resolve about the best expedients to compass them ; and that the manner of such proceeding (to avoid uncertain distraction, con- fusion, arbitrariness, dissatisfaction and mutinous opposition), should be settled in an ordinary course ; according to rules known, and allowed by all.§ In defining such precincts it was most natural, most easy, most commodious to follow the divisions of territory, or juris- diction already established in the civil state; that the spiritual administrations being in such circumstances aptly conformed to the secular might go on more smoothly and expeditely, the wheels of one not clashing with the other ; according to the judgment of the two great Synods, that of Chalcedon, and the Trullane ; which did ordain, that " if by royal authority any city be or should hereafter be re-established, the order of the Churches shall be according to the civil and public form. "|| Whereas therefore in each nation or province subject to one political jurisdiction, there was a metropolis or head city to which the greatest resort was for dispensation of justice, and dispatch of principal affairs emergent in that province; it was also most convenient, that also the determination of ecclesias- tical matters should be affixed thereto ; especially considering that usually those places were opportunely seated ; that many persons upon other occasions did meet there; that the Churches in those cities did exceed the rest in number, in opulency, in ability and opportunity to promote the common interest in all kinds of advantages. * Moreover, because in all societies and confederacies of men for ordering public affairs (for the setting things in motion, for effectual dispatch, for preventing endless dissensions and confusions both in resolving upon and executing things), it is needful that one person should be authorized to preside among the rest, unto whom the power and care should be entrusted to convoke assemblies in fit season, to propose matters for consultation, to moderate the debates and proceedings, to declare the result, and to see that what is agreed upon may be duly executed. Such a charge then naturally would devolve itself upon the prelate of the metropolis, as being supposed constantly present on the place ; as being at home in his own seat of presidence, and receiving the rest under his wing; as incontestably surpassing others in all advantages answerable to the secular advantages of his city; for that it was unseemly and hard, if he at home should be postponed in dignity to others repairing thither ; for that also commonly he was in a manner the spiritual father of the rest (religion being first planted in great cities and thence propagated to others), so that the reverence and dependence on colonies to the mother city was due from other Churches to his see. Wherefore by consent of all Churches, grounded on such obvious reason of things, the presidency in each province was assigned to the bishop of the metropolis, who was called the first bishop, the Metropolitan, (in some places the Primate, the Archbishop, the Patriarch, the Pope) of the province. The Apostolical Canons call him the first bishop* (which sheweth the antiquity of this institution) ; the African Synodst did appoint that name to him as most modest, and calling him Primate in that sense ; other ancient Synods style him the Metropolite ; and to the Metropolites of the principal cities theygave the title of Archbishop. The Bishops of Rome and Alexandria peculiarly were called Popes ; although that name was sometimes deferred to any other bishop. During this state of things, the whole Church did consist of so manyprovinces, being αὐτοκέφαλοι, independent on each other in ecclesiastical administrations ; each reserving to itself the constitution of bishops, the convocation of Synods, the enacting of canons, the decision of causes, the definition of questions ; yet so that each province did hold peaceful and amicable correspondence with others; upon the like terms as before each παροικία, or episcopal precinct did hold intercourse with its neighbours . Andwhoever in any province did not comply with or submit to the orders and determinations resolved upon in those assem- blies, was deemed a schismatical, contentious and contumacious person ; with good reason, because he did thwart a discipline plainly conducible to public good ; because declining such judgments he plainly shewed that he would admit none (there not being any fairer way of determining things than by common advice and agreement of pastors), because he did in effect refuse all good terms of communion and peace.

Thus I conceive the Metropolitical governance was intro- duced, by human prudence following considerations of public necessity or utility. There are indeed some, who think it was instituted by the Apostles ; but their arguments do not seem convincing, and such a constitution doth not (as I take it) well suit to the state of their times, and the course they took in founding Churches .

Into such a channel, through all parts of Christendom (though with some petty differences in the methods, and mea- sures of acting), had ecclesiastical administrations fallen of themselves ; plain community of reason, and imitation insen- sibly propagating that course ; and therein it ran for a good time, before it was by general consent and solemn sanction established. The whole Church then was a body consisting of several confederations of bishops, acting in behalf of their Churches, under their respective Metropolitans, who did manage the common affairs in each province ; convoking Synods at stated times and upon emergent occasions ; in them deciding causes and controversies incident, relating to faith or practice; * framing rules serviceable to common edification , and decent uniformity in God's service ; quashing heresies and schisms ; declaring truths impugned or questioned ; maintaining the harmony of communion and concord with other provinces, adjacent or remote. Such was the state of the Church, unto which the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions do refer answerable to the times in which they were framed ; and which we may discern in the practice of ancient Synods . Such it did continue, when the great Synod of Nice was celebrated, which by its authority (presumed to represent the authority of all bishops in the world, who were summoned thereto),† backed by the imperial authority and power, did confirm those orders, as they found them standing by more general custom, and received rules in most provinces ; reducing them into more uniform practice; so that what before stood upon reason, customary usage, particular consent , by so august sanction did become universal law ; and did obtain so great veneration, as by some to be conceived everlastingly and im- mutably obligatory ; according to those maxims of Pope Leo . It is here farther observable, that whereas divers provinces didhold communion and intercourse ; so that upon occasion they did (by their formed letters) render to one another an account of their proceedings, being of great moment, especially ofthose which concerned the general state of Christianity, and common faith ; calling, when need was, for assistance one of other to resolve points of faith, or to settle order and peace ; therewas in so doing a special respect given to the metropolites ofgreat cities : and to prevent dissensions, which naturally am- bitiondothprompt men to, grounded upon degrees of respect, an order was fixed among them, according to which in sub- scriptions of letters, in accidental congresses, and the like occasions, some should precede others ; (that distinction being chiefly and commonly grounded on the greatness, splendour, opulency of cities; or following the secular dignity of them:) whence Rome had the first place, Alexandria the second, Antioch the third, Jerusalem the fourth, &c. Afterward, Constantine having introduced a new partition of the empire, * whereby divers provinces were combined to- gether into one territory, under the regiment of a vicar, or a lieutenant of a Præfectus-prætorio, which territory was called a diocese ; the ecclesiastical state was adapted in conformity thereto ; new ecclesiastical systems, and a new sort of spiritual heads thence springing up ; so that in each diocese, consisting of divers provinces, an ecclesiastical exarch (otherwise some- times called a primate, sometimes a diocesan, sometimes a patriarch) was constituted, answerable to the civil exarch of a diocese ; who by such constitution did obtain a like authority over the metropolitans of provinces, as they had in their province over the bishops of cities ; so that it appertained to them to call together the Synods of the whole diocese, to preside in them, and in them to dispatch the principal affairs concerning that precinct, to ordain metropolitans, to confirm the ordinations of bishops, to decide causes and controversies between bishops upon appeal from provincial Synods. † Some conceive the Synod of Nice did establish it ; but that canhardly well be ; for that Synod was held about the time of that division (after that Constantine was settled in a peaceful enjoyment of the empire), and scarce could take notice of so fresh a change in the state ; that doth not pretend to innovate, but professeth in its sanctions specially, to regard " ancient custom, saving to the Churches their privileges, " * ofwhichthey were possessed ; that only mentioneth provinces, and repre- senteth the metropolitans in them as the chief governors ecclesiastical then being ; that constituteth a peremptory decision of weighty causes in provincial Synods, which is in- consistent with the diocesan authority; that taketh no notice of Constantinople, the principal diocese in the East, as seat of the empire; (and the Synod of Antioch, insisting in the foot- steps of the Nicene, doth touch only metropolitans, †(Can. 19.) and the Synod of Laodicea doth only suppose that order.) In fine, that Synod is not recorded by any old historian to have framed such an alteration ; which indeed was so considerable, that Eusebius who was present there could not well havepassed it over in silence .

Of this opinion was the Synod of Carthage in their epistle to Pope Celestine I., who understood no jurisdiction but that of metropolitans to be constituted in the Nicene Synod. Some think the Fathers of the second General Synod did introduce it, seeing it expedient that ecclesiastical adminis- trations should correspond to the political ; for they did inno- vate somewhat in the form of government; they do expressly use the new word diocese, according to the civil sense, as distinct from a province ; they do distinctly name the particular dioceses of the Oriental empire, as they stood in the civil establishment ; they do prescribe to the bishops in each diocese to act unitedly there, not skipping over the bounds of it ; they order a kind of appeal to the Synod of the diocese, prohibiting other appeals : the historians expressly do report of them, that they did " distinguish and distribute dioceses," that they did constitute patriarchs, that they did prohibit that any of one diocese should intrude upon another. ‡

But if we shall attently search and scan passages, we may perhaps find reason to judge, that this form did soon after the Synod of Nice creep in without any solemn appointment by spontaneous assumption and submission, accommodating things to the political course ; the great bishops (who by the ampli- fication of their city in power, wealth, and concourse of people were advanced in reputation and interest) assuming such authority to themselves ; and the lesser bishops easily com- plying : and of this we have some arguments. Cyril bishop of Jerusalem, * being deposed and extruded by Acacius metropolitan of Palestine, did appeal to a greater judicatory ; being the first (as Socrates noteth) who ever did use that course ; because, it seemeth, there was no greater in being till about that time ; which was some years before the Synod of Constantinople ; in which there is a mention " of a greater Synod of the diocese." † There was a convention ofbishops of the Pontic diocese at Tyana (distinguished from the Asian bishops) ; whereof Eusebius of Cæsarea is reckoned in the first place, as president ; in the time of Valens.‡ Nectarius bishop of Constantinople is said by the Synod of Chalcedon to have presided in the Synod of Constantinople.§ A good argument is drawn from the very canon of the Synod of Constantinople itself ;* which doth speak concerning bishops over dioceses as already constituted, or extant ; not instituting that order ofbishops, but supposing it, and together with an implicit confirmation regulating practice according to it, by prohibiting bishops to leap over the bounds of their diocese, so as to meddle in the affairs of other dioceses ; and by ordering appeals to the Synod of a diocese. Of authority gained by such assumption, and concession without law, there might be produced divers instances. As particularly that the see of Constantinople did assume to itself ordination and other acts of jurisdiction, in three dioceses, before any such power was granted to it by any Synodical decree ; the which to have done divers instances shew; some whereof are alleged in the Synod of Chalcedon; as St. Chrysostom, ofwhom it is there said, " That going into Asia he deposed fifteen bishops, and consecrated others in their room. " † He also deposed Gerontius bishop of Nicomedia, belonging to the diocese of Pontus . ‡ Whence the Fathers of Chalcedon did aver, "that theyhad in a Synod confirmed the ancient custom which the holy Church of God in Constantinople had, to ordain metropolitans in the Asian, Pontic, and Thracian dioceses ." § The which custom, (consistent with reason, and becoming the dignity of the empire, and grateful to the court) that great Synod did establish, although the Roman Church out of jea- lousy did contest and protest against it. || But the most pertinent instances are those of the Roman, Alexandrine, and Antiochene Churches having by degrees assumed to themselves such power over divers provinces ; in imitation of which Churches the other diocesan bishops may well be thought to have enlarged their jurisdiction.

This form of government is intimated in the Synod of Ephesus ; by those words in which dioceses and provinces are distinguished : " and the same shall be observed in all dioceses and all provinces everywhere . " * However, that this form of discipline was perfectly settled in the times of the fourth General Synod is evident by two notable canons thereof, wherein it is decreed, " that if any bishop have a controversy with his metropolitan of his pro- vince, he shall resort to and be judged by the exarch of the diocese, or by the see of Constantinople." † This was a great privilege conferred on the bishop of Con- stantinople, the which perhaps did ground (to be sure it did make way for) the plea of that bishop to the title of Ecume- nical Patriarch, or Universal bishop, which Pope Gregory did so exagitate ; and indeed it soundeth so fairly toward it, that the Pope hath nothing comparable to it to allege in favour of his pretences ; this being the decree of the greatest Synod that ever was held among the ancients, where all the patriarchs did concur in making these decrees, which Pope Gregory did re- verence as " one of the Gospels. "-If any ancient Synod did ever constitute any thing like to universal monarchy, it was this : wherein a final determination of greatest causes was granted to the see of Constantinople, without any exception or reservation : I mean as to semblance, and the sound of words ; for as to the true sense, I do indeed conceive that the canon did only relate to causes emergent in the eastern parts, and probably it did only respect the three dioceses (ofAsia, Pontus, and Thrace), which were immediately subjected to his patri- archal jurisdiction . Pope Nicholas I. doth very jocularly expound this canon, affirming that by the primate of the diocese is understood the Pope (diocese being put by a notable figure for dioceses), and that anappeal is to be made to the bishop of Constantinople, onlybypermission, in case the party will be content therewith.‡

Wemay note that some provincial Churches were by an- cient custom exempted from dependence on any primacy or patriarchate. Such an one the Cyprian Church was adjudged to be in the Ephesine Synod, wherein the privileges of such Churches were confirmed against the invasion of greater Churches ; and to that purpose this general law enacted : " Let the same be observed in all dioceses and provinces everywhere-that none of the bishops most beloved of God invade another province which did not formerly belong to him or his predecessors ; and if any one have invaded one, and violently seized it, that he restore it . " * Such a Church was that of Britain anciently, before Augus- tine did introduce the papal authority here, against that canon, as by divers learned pens hath been shewed. Such was the Church of Africa, as by their canons against transmarine appeals, and about all other matters doth appear. It is supposed, by some, that discipline was screwed yet one peg higher, by setting up the order of patriarchs, higher than primates, or diocesan exarchs ; but I find no ground of this supposal except in one case ; that is, of the bishop of Constanti- nople being set above the bishops of Ephesus, Cæsarea, and Heraclea, which were the primates of the three dioceses . † It is a notable fib, which Pope Nicholas II. telleth, as Gratian citeth him : " That the Church of Rome instituted all patriarchal supremacies, all metropolitan primacies, episcopal sees, all ecclesiastical orders and dignities whatsoever. " ‡ Now things standing thus in Christendom, we may, con- cerning the interest of the Roman bishop, in reference to them, observe,

1. In all these transactions about modelling the spiritual discipline, there was no canon established any peculiar juris diction to the bishop of Rome : only the

2. Synod of Nice did suppose that he by custom did enjoy some authority within certain precincts of the West, like to that which it did confirm to the bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, and the countries adjacent thereto.

3. The Synods of Constantinople did allow him honorary privileges or precedence before all other bishops, assigning the next place after him to the bishop of Constantinople. *

4. In other privileges the Synod of Chalcedon did equal the see of Constantinople to the Roman. †

5. The canons of the two first and fourth general Synods, ordering all affairs to be dispatched, and causes to be deter- mined in the metropolitan and diocesan Synods, do exclude the Roman bishop from meddling in those concerns .

6. The Popes (out of a humour natural to them, to like nothing but what they did themselves, and which served their interests) did not relish those canons, although enacted by Synods which themselves admitted for œcumenical : " That subscription of some bishops made above sixty years since as you boast, does no whit favour your persuasion : a subscription never transmitted to the knowledge of the apostolic see by your predecessors, which from its very beginning being weak, and long since ruinous, you endeavour now too late and un- profitably to revive. "‡ So doth Pope Leo I. treat the second great Synod, writing to Anatolius : and Gregory speaking of the same says, " That the Roman Church has not the acts of that Synod, nor received its canons."§

7. Wherefore in the west they did obtain no effect, so as to establish diocesan primacies there. The bishops of cities, which were heads of dioceses, either did not know of these canons (which is probable, because Rome did smother the notice of them:) or were hindered from using them ; the Pope having so winded himself in and got such hold among them, as he would not let go. *

8. It indeed turned to a great advantage of the Pope, in carrying on his encroachments, and enlarging his worldly interests, that the Western Churches did not, as the Eastern, conform themselves to the political frame in embracing dio- cesan primacies ; which would have engaged and enabled them better to protect the liberties of their Churches from papal invasions . †

9. For hence for want of a better, the Pope did claim to himself a patriarchal authority over the Western Churches, pretending a right of calling to Synods, of meddling in ordi nations, of determining causes by appeal to him; of dictating laws and rules to them, against the old rights of metropolitans, and the later constitutions for primacies. Of this we have an instance in St. Gregory ; where he, alleging an imperial constitution importing that in case a clergyman should appeal from his metropolitan, " the cause should be referred to the archbishop and patriarch of that diocese, who judging according to the canons and laws should give an end thereto ; " doth consequentially assume an appeal from a bishop to himself, adjoining, " If against these things it be said, that the bishop had neither metropolitan nor patriarch, it is to be said, that this cause was to be heard and decided by the apostolical see, which is the head of all Churches."‡

10. Having got such advantage, and as to extent stretched his authority beyond the bounds of " his sub-urbicarian pre- cincts," § he did also intend it in quality far beyond the privi- leges by any ecclesiastical law granted to patriarchs ; or claimed or exercised by any other patriarch ; till at length by degrees he had advanced it to an exorbitant omnipotency, and thereby utterly enslaved the Western Churches.

The ancient order did allow a patriarch or primate to call a Synod of the bishops in his diocese, and with them to de- termine ecclesiastical affairs by majority of suffrages ; but he doth not do so, but setting himself down in his chair with a few of his courtiers about him, doth make decrees and dictates towhich he pretendeth all must submit.

The ancient order did allow a patriarch, to ordain metropo- litans duly elected in their dioceses ; leaving bishops to be or- dained by the metropolitans in their provincial Synods ; but hewill meddle in the ordination of every bishop, suffering none to be constituted without his confirmation, for which he must soundly pay.

The ancient order did allow a patriarch, with the advice and consent of his Synod to make canons for the well order- ing his diocese; but he sendeth about his decretal letters, composed by an infallible secretary, which he pretendeth must have the force of laws, equal to the highest decrees of the whole Church .

The ancient order did suppose bishops by their ordination sufficiently obliged to render unto their patriarch due observ ance, according to the canons, he being liable to be judged in a Synod for the transgression of his duty; but he forceth all bishops to take the most slavish oaths of obedience to him that can be imagined.

The ancient order did appoint that bishops accused of offences should be judged in their provinces ; or upon appeal from them in patriarchal Synods : but he receiveth appeals at the first hand, and determineth them in his court, without calling such a Synod in an age for any such purpose.

The ancient patriarchs did order all things as became good subjects, with leave and under submission to the emperor, who as he pleased did interpose his confirmation of their sanctions: but this man pretendeth to decree what he pleaseth without the leave, and against the will of princes. Wherefore he is not a patriarch of the Western Churches (for that he acteth according to no patriarchal rule), but a cer- tain kind of Sovereign Lord, or a tyrannical oppressor of them.

11. In all the transactions for modelling the Church there never was allowed to the Pope any dominion over his fellow patriarchs, * or of those great primates who had assumed that name to themselves ; among whom indeed, for the dignity of his city, he had obtained a priority of honour or place ; but never had any power over them settled by a title of law, or by clear and uncontested practice. Insomuch, that if any of them had erred in faith, or offended in practice, it was requisite to call a general Synod to judge them; as in the cases of Athanasius, of Gregory Nazianzen and Maximus, of Theophilus and St. Chrysostom, of Nesto- rius and of Dioscorus, is evident.

12. Indeed all the oriental Churches did keep themselves pretty free from his encroachments, although, when he had swollen so big in the west, he sometime did take occasion to attempt on their liberty ; which they sometimes did warily decline, sometimes stoutly did oppose.

But as to the main, those flourishing Churchest constantly did maintain a distinct administration from the Western Churches, under their own patriarchs and Synods, not suffer- ing him to interlope in prejudice to their liberty.

They without his leave or notice did call and celebrate Synods (whereof all the first great Synods are instances) ; their ordinations were not confirmed or touched by him ; appeals were not (with public regard or allowance) thence made to him in causes great or little, but they decided them among themselves : they quashed heresies springing up among them, as the second general Synod the Macedonians, Theophilus the Origenists, &c. Little in any case had his worship to do with them or they with him, beyond what was needful to maintain general communion and correspondence with him ; which they commonly, as piety obliged, were willing to do. And sometimes, when a pert Pope, upon some incidental advantage of differences risen among them, would be more busy than they deemed convenient in tampering with their affairs, they did rap his fingers ; so Victor, so Stephanus, so Julius and Liberius of old did feel to their smart ; so afterward Damasus and other Popes in the case of Flavianus ; Innocent in the case of St. Chrysostom ; Felix and his successors in the case of Acacius did find little regard had to their interposals.

So things proceeded, till at length a final rupture was made between them, and they would not suffer him at all to meddle with their affairs.

Before I proceed any further I shall briefly draw some corol- laries from this historical account which I have given of the original and growth of Metropolitical, Primatical and Patri- archal jurisdiction.

1. Patriarchs are an human institution.

2. As they were erected by the power and prudence of men, so they may be dissolved by the same.

3. They were erected by the leave and confirmation of princes ; and by the same they may be dejected, if great reason do appear.

4. The patriarchate of the Pope beyond his own province or diocese doth not subsist upon any canon of a general Synod.

5. He can therefore claim no such power otherwise than upon his invasion or assumption.

6. The primates and metropolitans of the Western Church cannot be supposed otherwise than by force or out of fear to have submitted to such an authority as he doth usurp .

7. It is not really a patriarchal power (like to that which was granted by the canons and princes), but another sort of power which the Pope doth exercise.

8. The most rightful patriarch, holding false doctrine, or imposing unjust laws, or tyrannically abusing his power, may, and ought to be rejected from communion.

9. Such a patriarch is to be judged by a free Synod, if it maybe had.

10. If such a Synod cannot be had by consent of princes, each Church may free itself from the mischiefs induced by his perverse doctrine or practice.

11. No ecclesiastical power can interpose in the manage- ment of any affairs within the territory of any prince without his concession.

12. By the laws of God, and according to ancient practice, princes may model the bounds of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, 'erect bishoprics, enlarge, diminish, or transfer them as they please.

13. Wherefore each prince (having supreme power in his owndominions, and equal to what the emperor had in his)may exclude any foreign prelate fromjurisdiction in his territories.

14. It is expedient for peace and public good that he should do thus.

15. Such prelate, according to the rules of Christianity, ought to be content with his doing so.

16. Any prelate, exercising power in the dominion of an prince, is eatenus, his subject ; as the Popes and all bishops were to the Roman emperors . 17. Those joints of ecclesiastical discipline, established in the Roman empire by the confirmation of emperors, were (as to necessary continuance) dissolved by the dissolution of the Roman empire.

18. The power of the Pope in the territories of any prince did subsist by his authority and favour.

19. By the same reason, as princes have curbed the exorbi- tancy of Papal power in some cases (of entertaining legates, making appeals, disposing of benefices, &c.) by the same they might exclude it.

20. The practice of Christianity doth not depend upon the subsistence of such a form instituted by man.

Having shewed at large that this universal sovereignty and jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over the Christian Church hath no real foundation either in Scripture or elsewhere, it will be requisite to shew by what ways and means so groundless a claim and pretence should gain belief and submission to it, from so considerable a part of Christendom ; and that from so very slender roots (from slight beginnings and the slimmest prétences one can well imagine)* this bulk of exorbitant power did grow, the vastest that ever man on earth did attain, or did ever aim at, will be the less wonderful, if we do consider the many causes which did concur and contribute thereto ; some whereof are proposed in the following observations .

1. Eminency of any kind (in wealth, in honour, in reputa- tion, in might, in place, or mere order of dignity), doth easily pass into advantages of real power and command over those who are inferior in those respects, and have any dealings or common transactions with such superiors. For to persons endowed with such eminency by voluntary deference the conduct of affairs is wont to be allowed ; none presuming to stand in competition with them, every one rather yielding place to them than to their equals. The same conduct of things, upon the same accounts, and by reason of their possession, doth continue fast in their hands, so long as they do retain such advantages. Then from a custom of managing things doth spring up an opinion or a pretence of right thereto ; they are apt to assume a title, and others ready to allow it.

Men naturally do admire such things, and so are apt to defer extraordinary respect to the possessors of them. Advantages of wealth and might are not only instruments to attain, but incentives spurring men to affect the getting authority over their poorer and weaker neighbours : for men will not be content with bare eminency, but will desire real power and sway, so as to obtain their wills over others, and not to be crossed by any. Pope Leo had no reason to wonder that Anatolius bishop of Constantinople, was not content with dry honour. *(Men are apt to think their honour is precarious, and standeth on an uncertain foundation, if it be not supported with real power; and therefore they will not be satisfied to let their advantages lie dead, which are so easily improvable to power, by inveigling some, and scaring and constraining others to bear their yoke ; and they are able to benefit and gratify some, and thereby render them willing to submit, those after- wards become serviceable to bring others under, who are dis- affected or refractory.) So the bishops of Constantinople and of Jerusalem, at first hadonly privileges of honour ; but afterward they soon hooked inpower. Now the Roman bishops from the beginning were eminent above all other bishops in all kinds of advantages. He was seated in the imperial city, the place of general resort, thence obvious to all eyes, and his name sounding in all mouths. He had a most numerous, opulent, splendid flock and clergy. He had the greatest income (from liberal ob- lations) to dispose of. He lived in greatest state and lustre. Hehad opportunities to assist others in their business, and to relieve them in their wants. He necessarily thence did ob- tain great respect and veneration. Hence in all common affairs the conduct and presidence were naturally devolved on him, without contest. No wonder then, that after some time the Pope did arrive to some pitch of authority over poor Christians, especially those who lay nearest to him, improving his eminency into power, and his pastoral charge into a kind of empire ; accord- ing to that observation of Socrates, that " long before his time the Roman episcopacy had advanced itself beyond the priest- hood into a potency."* And the like he observeth to have happened in the Church of Alexandria, † upon the like grounds, or by imitation of such apattern.

2. Any small power is apt to grow and spread itself: a spark of it soon will expand itself into a flame : it is very like to " the grain of mustard- seed, which indeed is the least of all seeds ; but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. " " Encroaching (as Plutarch saith) is an innate disease of potentacies ." § Whoever hath any pit- tance of it, will be improving his stock, having tasted the sweetness of having his will (which extremely gratifieth the nature of man), he will not be satisfied without having more; he will take himself to be straitened by any bonds, and will strive to free himself of all restraints . Any pretence will serve to ground attempts of enlarging power, and none will be baulked. For power is bold, enter- prising, restless : it always watcheth, or often findeth, " never passeth opportunities of dilating itself. '" || Every accession doth beget further advantages to amplify it ; as its stock groweth, so it with ease proportionably doth increase : being ever out at use. As it groweth, so its strength to maintain and enlarge itselfdoth grow; ** it gaining more wealth, more friends, more associates, and dependants. None can resist or obstruct its growth without danger and manifold disadvantages, for as its adherents are deemed loyal and faithful , so its opposers are branded with the imputations of rebellion, contumacy, disloyalty : and not succeeding in their resistance they will be undone. None ever doth enterprise more than to stop its career, so that it seldom loseth by opposition, and it ever gaineth by composition. If it be checked at one time, or in one place, it will, like the sea, at another season, in another point, break in. If it is sometimes overthrown in a battle, it is seldom conquered in the war. It is always on its march forward, and gaineth ground, for one encroachment doth countenance the next, and is alleged for a precedent to authorise or justify it. It seldom moveth backward : for every successor thinketh he may justly enjoy what his predecessor did gain, or which is transmitted into his possession, so that there hardly can ever be any restitution of ill-gottenpower. Thus have many absolute kingdoms grown: the first chief was a leader of volunteers ; from thence he grew to be a prince with stated privileges ; after he became a monarch invested with high prerogatives : in fine he creepeth forward to be a grand seignior usurping absolute dominion so did Augustus Cæsar first only assume the style of prince of the senate, de- meaning himself modestly as such, but he soon drew to him- self the administration of all things, and upon that foundation his successors very suddenly did erect a boundless power. If yon trace the footsteps of most empires to the beginning, you may perceive the like. So the Pope when he had got a little power, continually did swell it. The puny pretence of the succeeding St. Peter, and the name ofthe apostolical see ; the precedence by reason of the imperial city ; the honorary privileges allowed him by Councils; the authority deferred to him by one Synod of revising the causes of bishops ; the countenance given to him in repressing some heresies, he did improve to constitute himself sovereign lord of the Church.

3. Spiritual power especially is of a growing nature, and more especially that which deriveth from Divine institution : for it hath a great awe upon the hearts and consciences of men; which engageth them to a firm and constant adherence. It useth the most subtle arms, which it hath always ready, which needeth no time or cost to furnish, which cannot be extorted from its hand, so that it can never be disarmed. And its weapons make strong impression, because it proposeth the most effectual encouragements to its abettors, and discourage- ments to its adversaries : alluring the one with promises of God's favour and eternal happiness, terrifying the other with menaces of vengeance from heaven and endless misery, the which do ever quell religious, superstitious, weak people, and often daunt men of knowledge and courage. It is presumed unchangeable and unextinguishable by any humanpower, and thence is not (as all other power) subject to revolutions . Hence like Achilles it is hardly vincible, be- cause almost immortal. If it be sometime rebuffed or impaired; it soon will recover greater strength and vigour. The Popes derive their authority from Divine institution ; and their weapons are always sentences of Scripture; * they pretend to dispense remission of sins, and promise heaven to their abettors. They excommunicate, curse, and damn the opposers of their designs . They pretend they never can lose any power that ever did belong to their see : they are always stiff, and they never recede or give back . " The privileges of the Roman Church can sustain no detriment. " †

4. Power is easily attained and augmented upon occasion of dissensions . Each faction usually doth make itself a head, the chief in strength and reputation which it can find inclinable to favour it ; and that head it will strive to magnify, that he may be the abler to promote its cause ; and if the cause doth prosper he is rewarded with accession of privileges and authority : especially those who were oppressed, and find relief by his means, do become zealously active for his aggrandisement. Thus usually in civil broils the captain of the prevalent party groweth aprince, or is crowned with great privileges, (as Cæsar, Octavian, Cromwell, &c. ) So upon occasion of the Arian faction, and the oppression of Athanasius, Marcellus, Paulus and other bishops, the Pope who by their application to him had occasion to head the catholic party did grow in power ; for thereupon the Sardican Synod did decree to him that privilege, which he infinitely enhanced, and which became the main engine of rearing himself sohigh . Andby his interposal in the dissensions raised by the Nes- torians, the Pelagians, the Eutychians, the Acatians, the Monothelites, the Image-worshippers, and Image-breakers, &c. his authority was advanced ; for he, adhering in those causes to the prevailing party, was by them extolled, obtaining both reputation and sway.!

5. All power is attendedby dependencies ofpersons sheltered under it, and by it enjoying subordinate advantages ; the which proportionably do grow by its increase. Such persons, therefore, will ever be inciting the chief and patron to amplify his power, and in aiding him to compass it, they will be very industriously, resolutely and steadily active ; their own interest moving them thereto. Wherefore their mouths will ever be open in crying him up, their heads will be busy in contriving ways to farther his in- terests, their care and pains will be employed in accomplishing his designs ; they with their utmost strength will contend in his defence against all oppositions. Thus the Roman clergy first, then the bishops of Italy, then all the clergy of the West became engaged to support, to fortify, to enlarge the Papal authority ; they all sharing with him indomination over the laity; and enjoying wealth, credit, support, privileges and immunities thereby. Some of them especially were ever putting him on higher pretences, and fur- theringhimby all means in his acquist and maintenance ofthem.

6. Hence if a potentate himself should have no ambition, nor much ability to improve his power ; yet it would of itself grow ; he need only be passive therein ; the interest of his partisans would effect it; so that often power doth no less thrive under sluggish aud weak potentates, especially if they are void of goodness, than under the most active and able. Let the ministers alone to drive on their interests .

7. Even persons otherwise just and good do seldom scruple to augment their power by undue encroachment, or at least to uphold the usurpations of their foregoers ; for even such are apt to favour their own pretences, and afraid of incurring censure and blame, ifthey should part with any thing left them by their predecessors. They apprehend themselves to owe a dearness to their place, engaging them to tender its own weal and prosperity, in promoting which they suppose themselves not to act for their own private interest ; and that it is not out of ambition or avarice, but out of a regard to the grandeur of their office that they stickle and bustle ; and that in so doing they imitate St. Paul who did " magnify his office." They are encouraged hereto by the applause of men, especially of those who are allied with them in interest, and who converse with them ; who take it for a maxim boni principis est ampliare imperium : the extenders of empire are admired and com- mended however they do it, although with cruel wars, or by any unjust means.

Hence usually the worthiest men in the world's eye are greatest enlargers ofpower; and such men, bringing appearances of virtue, ability, reputation to aid their endeavonrs, do most easily compass designs of this nature, finding less obstruction to their attempts ; for men are not so apt to suspect their in- tegrity, or to charge them with ambition and avarice ; and the few who discern their aims and consequences of things, are overborne by the number of those, who are favourably conceited and inclined toward them. Thus Julius I. , Damasus I., Innocent I., Gregory I. , and the like Popes, whom history representeth as laudable persons, didyet confer to the advancement of Papal grandeur. But they who did most advance that interest, as Pope Leo. I. , Gelasius I. , Pope Nicholas I., Pope Gregory VII. , in the esteem of true zealots pass for the best Popes. Hence the dis- tinction between a good man, a good prince, a good Pope. *

8. Men of an inferior condition are apt to express themselves highly in commendation of those who are in a superior rank, especially upon occasion of address and intercourse ; which commendations are liable to be interpreted for acknowledg- ments or attestations of right, and thence do sometimes prove means of creating it. Of the generality of men it is truly said, that it " doth fondly serve fame, and is stonn'd with titles and images ; "† readily ascribing to superiors whatever they claim, without scanning the grounds of their title. Simple and weak men out of abjectedness or fear are wont to crouch, and submit to any thing upon any terms . Wise men do not love brangling, nor will expose their quiet and safety without great reason ; thence being inclinable to comply with greater persons. Bad men out of design to procure advantages or impunity are prone to flatter and gloze with them. Good men out of due reverence to them, and in hope of fair usage from them, are ready to compliment them, or treat them with the most respectful terms . Those who are obliged to them will not spare to extol them ; paying the easy return of good words for good deeds. Thus all men conspire to exalt power; the which snatcheth all good words as true, and construeth them to the mostfavour- able sense ; and allegeth them as verdicts and arguments of unquestionable right. So are the compliments or terms of respect used by Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret, and divers others towards Popes, drawn into argument for Papal autho- rity ; when as the actions of such Fathers, and their discourses upon other occasions do manifest their serious judgment to have been directly contrary to his pretences : wherefore the emperor of Constantinople in the Florentine Synod had good reason to decline such sayings for arguments; for " If (saith he) any of the saints doth in an epistle honour the Pope, shall he take that as importing privileges ? " *

9. Good men commonly (out of charitable simplicity, meek- ness , modesty and humility, love of peace, and averseness from contention) are apt to yield to the encroachments of those who anywise do excel them ; and when such men do yield, others are ready to follow their example. Bad men have little in- terest to resist, and no heart to stand for public good ; but rather strike in presently, taking advantage by their com- pliance to drive a good market for themselves. Hence so many of all sorts in all times did comply with Popes, or did not obstruct them ; suffering them without great obstacle to raise their power.

10. If in such cases a few wise men do apprehend the con- sequences of things, yet they can do little to prevent them. They seldom have the courage with sufficient zeal to bustle against encroachments ; fearing to be overborne by its stream, to lose their labour, and vainly to suffer by it. If they offer at resistance, it is usually faint and moderate : whereas power. doth act vigorously, and push itself forward with mighty vio- lence ; so that it is not only difficult to check it, but dangerous to oppose it .

Ambiguity of words (as it causeth many debates, so) yield- eth much advantage to the foundation and amplification of power : for whatever is said of it, will be interpreted in favour of it, and will afford colour to its pretences. † Words inno- cently or carelessly used are by interpretation extended to sig- nify great matters, or what you please. For instance, The word bishop may import any kind of superintendency or inspection ; hence St. Peter came to be reckoned bishop of Rome, because in virtue of his apostolical office he had inspec- tion over that Church founded by him, and might exercise some episcopal acts . The word head* doth signify any kind of eminency, the word prince any priority, the word to preside any kind of su- periority or pre- eminence ; hence some Fathers attributing those names to St. Peter, they are interpreted to have thought him sovereign in power over the Apostles. And because some did give like terms to the Pope, they infer his superiority in power over all bishops, notwithstanding such Fathers did ex- press a contrary judgment. The word successor may import any derivation of power; hence because St. Peter is said to have founded the Church of Rome, and to have ordained the first bishop there, the Pope is called his successor . The word authority doth often import any kind of influence upon the opinions or actions of men (grounded upon eminence of place, worth, reputation, or any such advantage). Hence because the Pope of old sometimes was desired to interpose his authority, they will understand him to have had right to command or judge in such cases ; although authority is some- times opposed to command, as where Livy saith, that " Evander did hold those places by authority rather than by command;" and Tacitus of the German princes, saith, " They are heard rather according to their authority of persuading, than power of commanding." " The word judge (saith Canus) is fre- quently used to signify no more than I do think or conceive ; "† whereby he doth excuse divers Popes from having decreed a notable error (for Alexander III. says ofthem, " that they judged that after a matrimony contracted, not consummated ; another may be valid, that being dissolved.") Yet if the Pope is said to have judged so or so in any case, it is alleged for a certain argument of proper jurisdiction.

11. There is a strange enchantment in words ; which being (although with no great colour of reason) assumed, do work on the fancies of men, especially of the weaker sort. Of these power doth ever arrogate to itself such as are most operative, by their force sustaining and extending itself. So divers prevalent factions did assume to themselves the name of Catholic ; and the Roman Church particularly hath appropriated that word to itself, even so as to commit a bull, implying Rome and the universe to be the same place ; and the perpetual canting of this term hath been one of its most effectual charms to weak people. " I am a Catholic, that is, an universal, therefore all I hold is true," this is their great argument. The words successor of Peter, apostolic see, prima sedes , have been strongly urged for arguments of Papal authority ; the which have beyond their true force (for indeed they signify nothing) had a strange efficacy upon men of understanding and wisdom.

12. The Pope's power was much amplified by the impor- tunity of persons condemned or extruded from their places, whether upon just accounts, or wrongfully and by faction : for they finding no other more hopeful place of refuge and redress, did often apply to him : for what will not men do, whither will not they go in straits ?* Thus did Marcion go to Rome, and sue for admission to communion there. † So Fortunatus and Felicissimus in St. Cyprian, being condemned in Africa did fly to Rome for shelter, of which absurdity St. Cyprian doth so complain.‡ So likewise Martianus and Basilides, in St. Cyprian, being outed of their sees for having lapsed from the Christian pro- fession did fly to Stephen for succour to be restored. So Maximus (the Cynic) went to Rome, to get a confirmation of his election at Constantinople. So Marcellus, being rejected for heterodoxy, went thither to get attestation to his ortho- doxy (of which St. Basil complaineth.) So Apiarius, being condemned in Africa for his crimes, did appeal to Rome. And on the other side, Athanasius being with great partiality condemned by the Synod of Tyre, Paulus, and other bishops being extruded from their sees for orthodoxy ; * St. Chry sostom being condemned and expelled by Theophilus and his complices ; Flavianus being deposed by Dioscorus, and the Ephesine Synod; Theodoret being condemned by the same,- did cry out for help to Rome. Chelidonius, bishop of Resanon, being deposed by Hilarius of Arles (for crimes), did fly to Pope Leo. Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople, being extruded from his see by Photius, did complain to the Pope. †

13. All princes are forward to heap honour on the bishop of their imperial city ; it seeming a disgrace to themselves, that so near a relation be an inferior to any other : who is as it were their spiritual pastor, who is usually by their special favour advanced. The city itself and the court will be restless in assisting him to climb. Thus did the bishop of Constantinople arise to that high pitch of honour, and to be second patriarch, who at first was a mean suffragan to the bishop of Heraclea : this by the Synods of Constantinople and Chalcedon is assigned for the reason of his advancement. And how ready the emperors were to pro- mote the dignity of that bishop, we see by many of their edicts to that purpose, as particularly that of Leo. ‡ So, for the honour of their city, the emperors usually did favour the Pope, assisting him in the furtherance of his de- signs, and extending his privileges by their edicts at home, and letters to the eastern emperors, recommending their affairs . So in the Synod of Chalcedon we have the letters of Valen- tinian, together with those of Placidia and of Eudoxia the empresses, to Theodosius in behalf of Pope Leo, for retrac- tation of the Ephesine Synod ; wherein they do express them- selves engaged to maintain the honour of the Roman see : " Seeing that (saith Placidia, mother of Theodosius) it be- cometh us in all things to preserve the honour and dignity of this chief city, which is the mistress of all others . " § So Pope Nicholas confesseth, that the emperors had " extolled the Roman see with divers privileges, had enriched it with gifts, had enlarged it with benefits (or benefices) , " &c. *

14. The Popes had the advantage of being ready at hand to suggest what they pleased to the court, and thereby to pro- cure his edicts (directed or dictated by themselves) in their favour, for extending their power, or repressing any opposi- tion made to their encroachments. Baronius observeth that the bishops of Constantinople did use this advantage for their ends ; for thus he reflecteth on the edict of the Emperor Leo in favour of that see : " These things Leo ; but questionless conceived in the words of Aca- cius, swelling with pride. " † And no less unquestionably did the Popes conceive words for the emperor in countenance of their authority. Such was that edict of Valentinian in favour of Leo‡ against Hilarius bishop of Arles, § (in an unjust cause as Binius confesseth), who contested his authority to undo what was done in a Gallican Synod. Andwe may thank Baronius himself for this observation, " By this, reader, thou understandest, that when the emperors ordained laws concerning religion, they did it by transcribing and enacting the laws of the Church, upon the admonition of the holy bishops requiring them to do their duty." || It was a notable edict, which Pope Hilarius allegeth, " It was also decreed by the laws of Christian princes that whatsoever the bishop of the apostolic see should upon examination pronounce concerning Churches and their governors, &c. should with reverence be received and strictly observed," &c . Such edicts by crafty suggestions being at opportune times from easy and unwary princes procured, did hold, not being easily reversed ; and the power which the Pope once had obtained by them, he would never part with ; * fortifying it by higher pretences of divine immutable right. The Emperor Gratian,† having gotten the world under him, did order the Churches to those who would communicate with Pope Damasus. This and the like countenances did bring credit and authority to the Roman See.

15. It is therefore no wonder that Popes being seated in the metropolis of the western empire (the head of all the Roman State) should find interest sufficient to make themselves by degrees what they would be ; for they not only surpassing the provincial bishops in wealth and repute, but having power in court, who dared to pull a feather with them, or to withstand their encroachments ? What wise man would not rather bear much, than contest upon such disadvantages, and without pro- bable grounds of success ?

16. Princes who favoured them with such concessions and abetted their undertakings, did not foresee what such increase of power in time would arise to ; or suspect the prejudice thence done to imperial authority. They little thought that in virtue thereof Popes would check and mate princes ; or would claim superiority over them ; for the Popes at that time did behave and express themselves with modesty and respect to emperors.

17. Power once rooted doth find seasons and favourable junctures for its growth ; the which it will be intent to em- brace. The confusions of things, the eruptions of barbarians, the straits of emperors, the contentions of princes, &c. did all turn to account for him ; and in confusion of things he did snatch what he could to himself. The declination and infirmity of the Roman empire gave him opportunity to strengthen his interests, either by closing with it, so as to gain somewhat by its concession ; or by opposing it, so as to head a faction against it. As he often had opportunity to promote the designs of emperors and princes, so those did return to him increase of authority; so they trucked and bartered together. For when princes were in straits or did need assistance ( from his reputation at home) to the furtherance of their designs, or support of their interest in Italy, they were content to honour him and grant what he desired: as in the case of Acacius, which had caused so long a breach, the emperor to engage Pope Hormisdas, did consent to his will. And at the Florentine Synod, the em- peror did bow to the Pope's terms, in hopes to get his assist- ance against the Turks . When the Eastern emperors, by his means chiefly, were driven out of Italy, he snatched a good part of it to himself, and set up for a temporal prince. * Whenprinces did clash, he by yielding countenance to one side, would be sure to make a good market for himself: for this pretended successor to the fisherman, was really skilled to angle in troubled waters. They have been the incendiaries of Christendom, the kindlers and fomenters of war. Andwould often stir up wars, and inclining to the stronger part, would share with the con- queror : as whenhe stirred up Charles against the Lombards. They would, upon spiritual pretence, be interposing in all affairs .+ He did oblige princes by abetting their cause when it was unjust or weak, his spiritual authority satisfying their con- science : whence he was sure to receive good acknowledg- ment and recompense. As when he did allow Pepin's usur- pation.‡ He pretended to dispose of kingdoms, and to constitute princes, reserving obeisance to himself. Gregory VII. granted to Robert Guislard Naples and Sicily beneficiario jure.§ Innocent II. gave to Roger the title of king.|| There is scarce any kingdom in Europe which he hath not claimed the sovereignty ofby some pretence or other. Princes sometime for quiet sake have desired the Pope's consent and allowance of things appertaining of right to themselves, whence the Pope took advantage to claim an original right of disposing such things. The proceeding of the Pope upon occasions of wars is remarkable; when he did enter league with a prince to side with him in a war against another, he did covenant to prose- cute the enemy with spiritual arms (that is, with excommunications and interdicts), engaging his confederates to use temporal arms. So making ecclesiastical censures tools of interest. When princes were in difficulties (by the mutinous disposi- tion of princes, the emulation of antagonists), he would, as served his interest, interpose, hooking in some advantage to himself. In the tumults against our king John, he struck in, and would have drawn the kingdom to himself. He would watch opportunity to quarrel with princes, upon pretence they did entrench on his spiritual power : as about the point of the investiture ofbishops, and receiving homage from them.

Gregory VII. did excommunicate Henry III. (A. D.1076) . Calixtus II. did excommunicate Henry IV. (A. D. 1120) . Adrian IV. did excommunicate Frederick (A. D. 1160). Celestinus III . did excommunicate Henry V. (A. D. 1195). Innocent III. did excommunicate Otho (A. D. 1219) . Honorius III. and Gregory IX. Frederick II. (A. D.1220). Innocent IV in the Lugd.Conc. (1245) .

18. The ignorance of times did him great service ; for then all the little learning which was, being in his clients and fac- tors, they could instil what they pleased into the credulous people. Then his dictates would pass for infallible oracles, and his decrees for inviolable laws : whence his veneration was exceedingly increased.

19. He was forward to support factious churchmen against princes, * upon pretence of spiritual interest and liberty. And usually by his importunity and arts getting the better in such contests, he thereby did much strengthen his authority.

20. He making himself the head of all the clergy, and car- rying himself as its protector and patron, did engage thereby innumerable most able heads, tongues and pens ; whowere de- voted to maintain whatever he did, and had little else to do.

21. So great a party he cherished with exorbitant liberties, suffering none to rule over them or touch them beside himself.

22. He did found divers militias and bands of spiritual janissaries, to be combatants for his interests ; who, depending immediately upon him, subsisting by his charters, enjoying exemptions by his authority from other jurisdictions, being sworn to a special obeisance of him, were entirely at his devo tion, readywith all their might to advance his interests, and to maintain all the pretences of their patron and benefactor . These had great sway among the people, upon account of their religious guises and pretences to extraordinary heights of sanctimony, austerity, contempt of the world. And learning being mostly confined to them, they were the chief teachers and guides of Christendom ; so that no wonder, if he did chal- lenge and could maintain any thing by their influence. They did cry up his power as superior to all others. They did attribute to him titles strangely high, Vice- God, Spouse of the Church, &c. , strange attributes of omnipotency, infallibi- lity, &c .

23. Whereas wealth is a great sinew of power, he did invent divers ways of drawing great store thereof to himself. * Byhowmany tricks did he proll money from all parts of Christendom ? as by Dispensations for marriage within degrees prohibited, or at uncanonical times ; for vows and oaths ; for observance of fasts and abstinences ; for pluralities and incompatible benefices, non-residencies, &c. Indulgences, and pardons, and freeing souls from the pains ofpurgatory. Reservations, and provisions of benefices, not bestowed gratis. † Consecrated presents ; Agnus Dei's, swords, roses, &c . ‡ Confirmation ofbishops ;§ sending palls . Appeals to his court. Tributes of Peter-pence,|| annates, tithes, introduced upon occasion ofholy wars, and continued. Playing fast and loose, tying knots, and undoing them for gain. Sending legates to drain places ofmoney. Commutations of penance for money. Inviting to pilgrimage at Rome. Hooking in legacies. What amass of treasure did all this come to ? what a trade did he drive ?

24. He did indeed easily, by the help of his mercenary divines, transform most points of divinity, in accommodation to his interests of power, reputation and gain.

25. Any pretence, how slender soever, will in time get some validity ; being fortified by the consent of divers authors, anda current of suitable practice. Any story, serving the designs of a party, will get credit by being often told, especially by writers bearing a semblance of gravity ; whereof divers will never be wanting to abet a flou- rishing party.

26. The histories of some ages were composed only by the Pope's clients, friars and monks, and such people ; which therefore are partial to him, addicted to his interests, and under awe of him. For a long time none dared open his mouth to question any of his pretences, or reprehend his practices, without being called heretic, and treated as such.

27. Whereas the Pope had two sorts of opposites to subdue, temporal princes and bishops ; his business being to overtop princes, and to enslave all bishops ; or to invade and usurp the rights of both ; he used the help of each to compass his designs on the other ; by the authority of princes oppressing bishops, and by the assistance of bishops mating princes.

28. When any body would not do as he would have them, he did incessantly clamour or whine, that St. Peter was injured. *

29. The forgery of the Decretal Epistles (wherein the ancient Popes are made expressly to speak and act according to some of his highest pretences, devised long after their times, and which they never thought of, good men) did hugely conduce to his purpose ; authorising his encroachments by the suffrage of ancient doctrine and practice : a great part of his canon law is extracted out of these, and grounded on them. The donation of Constantine, fictitious acts of Councils, and the like counterfeit stuff did help thereto ; the which were soon embraced, as we see in Pope Gregory II. As also legends, fables of miracles, and all such "deceivableness of unrighteousness. " †

30. Popes were so cunning as to form grants, and impute that to privileges derived from them, which princes did enjoy by right or custom.

31. Synods of bishops called by him at opportune seasons, consisting of his votaries or slaves. None dared therein to whisper anything to the prejudice of his authority. He carried whatever he pleased to propose, without check or contradiction. Who dared to question anything done by such numbers of pastors styling themselves the representative of Christendom ? *

32. The having hampered all the clergy with strict oaths of universal obedience to him (beginning about the times of Pope Gregory VII. ) did greatly assure his power.

33. Whenintolerable oppressions and exactions did constrain princes to struggle with him, if he could not utterly prevail, things were brought to composition ; whereby he was to be sure for that time a gainer, and gained establishment in some points, leaving the rest to be got afterward in more favourable junctures. Witness the concordats between Henry II. and P. Alexander III . A.D. 1172 ; Edward III. and P. Gregory XI. A.D. 1373 ; Henry V. and P. Martin V. A.D.- 1418 .

34. When princes were fain to curb their exorbitancies by Pragmatical Sanctions, they were restless till they had got those sanctions revoked. And when they found weak princes, or any prince in circumstances advantaging their design, they did obtain their end. So Pope Leo X. got Louis XII. to repeal the Pragmatical Sanctions of his ancestors.

35. The power he did assume to absolve menfrom oaths and vows, to dispense with prohibited marriages, &c . did not only bringmuch grist to his mill ; but did enable him highly to oblige divers persons (especially great ones) to himself. For to himthey owed the quiet of their conscience from scruples. To him they owed the satisfaction of their desires, and legiti- mation of their issue, and title to their possessions .

36. So the device of indulgences did greatly raise the vene- ration of him ; for who would not adore him, that could loose his bands, and free his soul from long and grievous pains ?

VII. The next supposition is this, That in fact the Roman bishops continually from St. Peter's time have enjoyed and exercised this sovereign power. This is a question of fact which will best be decided by a particular consideration of the several branches of sovereign power, that so we may examine the more distinctly whether in all ages the Popes have enjoyed and exercised them, or not. And if we survey the particular branches of sovereignty, we shall find that the Pope hath nojust title to them, in reason, by valid law, or according to ancient practice ; whence each of them doth yield a good argument against his pretences .

I. If the Pope were sovereign of the Church, he would have power to convocate its supreme Councils and judicatories ; and would constantly have exercised it . This power therefore the Pope doth claim ; and indeed did pretend to it a long time since, before they could obtain to exercise it : " It is manifestly apparent (saith P. Leo X. with approbation of his Lateran Synod*) that the Roman bishop for the time being (as who hath authority over all Councils) hath alone the full right and power of indicting, translating, and dissolving Councils : " and, long before him, " To the apostolical authority (saith Pope Adrian I.t) by our Lord's command, and by the merits of St. Peter, and by the decrees of the holy canons and of the venerable Fathers, a right and special power of convocating Synods hath manywise been com- mitted ;" and, yet before him, " The authority (saith P. Pelagius II . ‡) of convocating Synods hath been delivered to the apostolical see by the singular privilege of St. Peter ."

But it is manifest, that the Pope cannot pretend to this power by virtue of any old ecclesiastical canon ; none such being extant or produced by him: nor can he allege any ancient custom; there having been no General Synod before Constantine: and as to the practice from that time, it is very clear, that for some ages the Popes did not assume or exercise such a power, and that it was not taken for their due. Nothing can be more evident, and it were extreme impudence to deny that the emperors at their pleasure, and by their authority did congregate all the first General Synods ; for so the oldest his- torians in most express terms do report, so those princes in their edicts did aver, so the Synods themselves did declare. The most just and pious emperors, who did bear greatest love to the clergy, and had much respect for the Pope, did call them without scruple ; it was deemed their right to do it, none did remonstrate against their practice, the Fathers in each Synod did refer thereto, with allowance, and commonly with applause ; Popes themselves did not contest their right, yea commonly did petition them to exercise it . These things are so clear and so obvious, that it is almost vain to prove them ; I shall therefore but touch them. In general, Socrates doth thus attest to the ancient practice : "We (saith he) do continually include the emperors in our history, because upon them, ever since they became Christians, ecclesiastical affairs have depended, and the greatest Synods havebeen and are made by their appointment : " * and Justinian in his prefatory type to the fifth General Council beginneth thus : " It hath been ever the care of pious and orthodox emperors by the assembling of the most religious bishops to cut off heresies, as they did spring up, and by the right faith sincerely preached to keep the holy Church ofGod in peace : " + and to do this was so proper to the emperors, that when Ruffin did affirm St. Hilary to have been excommunicated in a Synod, St. Jerome to confute him, did ask ; "

Tell me, what emperor did command this Synod to be congregated : " ‡ implying it to be illegal or impossible that a Synod should be congregatedwithout the imperial command. Particularly, Eusebius saith of the first Christian emperor, that " as a common bishop appointed by God he did summon Synods of God's ministers ;"§ so did he command a great number of bishops to meet at Arles, (for decision of the Donatists' cause) ;* so did he also command the bishops from all quarters to meet at Tyre for examination of the affairs con- cerning Athanasius ; and that he did convocate the great Synod ofNice (the first and most renowned of all General Synods) all the historians do agree, † he did himself affirm, the Fathers thereof in their Synodical remonstrances did avow ; as we shall hereafter, in remarking on the passages of that Synod, shew. The same course did his son Constantius follow, without impediment ; for although he was a favourer of the Arian party, yet did the Catholic bishops readily at his call assemble in the great Synods of Sardica, ‡ ofArimnium, § ofSeleucia,|| of Sirmium, of Milan, ** &c . which he out of a great zeal to compose dissensions among the bishops did convocate. After him the Emperor Valentinian, understanding of dis- sensions about divine matters, to compose them, did indict a Synod in Illyricum. †† Awhile after, for settlement of the Christian state (which had been greatly disturbed by the persecution of Julian and of Valens, and by divers factions, ) Theodosius I. did " command (saith Theodoret) the bishops of his empire to be assembled together at Constantinople ; " ‡‡ the which meeting accordingly did make the second General Synod; in the congregation of which the Pope had so little to do, that Baronius saith, it was celebrated against his will.§§

Afterwards, when Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, affecting to seem wiser than others in explaining the mystery of Christ's incarnation, had raised a jangle to the disturbance ofthe Church, for removing it, the Emperor Theodosius II. did " by his edict command the bishops to meet at Ephesus ; " * who there did celebrate the third General Council : in the beginning of each action it is affirmed, that the Synod was " convocated by the imperial decree ; " † the Synod itself doth often profess it ; the Pope's own legate doth acknowledge it ; and so doth Cyril the president thereof. ‡ The same Emperor, uponoccasion of Eutyches being con- demned at Constantinople, and the stirs thence arising, did indict the second General Synod of Ephesus, (which proved abortive by the miscarriages of Dioscorus, bishop ofAlexandria) as appeareth by his imperial letters to Dioscorus, and the other bishops, summoning them to that Synod :-" We have decreed that the most holy bishops meeting together," &c. After the same manner the other most reverend bishops were written to, to come to the Synod. And as Pope Leo doth confess ; calling it, " the council of bishops which you (Theodosius) commanded to be held at Ephesus. "|| The next General Synod of Chalcedon was convocated by the authority of the Emperor Marcian ; as is expressed in the beginning of each action, as the emperor declareth, as the Synod itself in the front of its definition doth avow ; "theholy, great and œcumenical Synod, gathered together by the grace ofGod and the command of our most dread Emperors, &c. has determined as follows . " * The fifth General Synod† was also congregated by the authority of Justinian I. and the emperor's letter authorizing it , beginneth (as we saw before) with an assertion (backed with a particular enumeration) that all former great Synods were called by the same power : the Fathers themselves do say, that they " had come together according to the will of God, and the command of the most pious emperor. "§ So little had the Pope to do in it, that, as Baronius himself telleth us, it was congregated against his will, or with his resistance. || The sixth General Synod at Constantinople was also indicted by the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus ; as doth appear by his letters, as is intimated at the entrance of each action, as the Synod doth acknowledge, as Pope Leo II. (in whose time it was concluded) doth affirm. The Synod in its definition, as also in its epistle to Pope Agatho doth inscribe itself " The holy and œcumenical Synod, congregated by the grace ofGod, and the altogether religious sanction of the most pious, and most faithful great emperor Constantine ; " ¶ and, in their definition they say, " By this doctrine of peace dictated by God, our most gracious emperor through the Divine wisdom being guided, as a defender of the true faith, and an enemy to the false, having gathered us together in this holy and œcu- menical Synod, has united the whole frame of the Church, " **

&c. In its acclamatory oration to the Emperor it saith, Ταῖς θειοτάταις ὑμῶν προστάξεσιν εἴκοντες ὅτε τῆς πρεσβυτά- της καὶ ᾿Αποστολικῆς ἀκροπόλεως ἀρχιερατικώτατος πρόεδροςκαὶ ἡμεῖς ἐλάχιστοι, &c. Act. 18. p. 271. " We all acquiescing in your most sacred commands ; both the most holy president of (Rome) the most ancient and apostolical city, and we the least,"* &c. These are all the great Synods, which posterity with clear consent did admit as General ; for the next two have been disclaimed by great Churches (the seventh by most of the Western Churches, the eighth by the Eastern),† so that even divers Popes after them did not reckon them for General Councils ; and all the rest have been only assemblies of Western bishops, celebrated after the breach between the Oriental and Occidental Churches . Yet even that second Synod of Nice, which is called the seventh Synod, doth avow itself to have " convened by the emperor's command ; "‡ and in the front of each action, as also of their Synodical definition, the same style is retained . Hitherto it is evident, that all General Synods were convo- cated by the imperial authority, and about this matter divers things are observable. It is observable in how peremptory a manner the emperors did require the bishops to convene at the time and place ap- pointed by them. Constantine in his letter indieting the Synod of Tyre hath these words : " If any one presuming to violate our command and sense," &c.§ Theodosius II. summoneth the bishops to the Ephesine Synod in these terms : " We taking a great deal of care about these things will not suffer any one if he be absent to go un- punished ; nor shall he find excuse either with God or us, who presently without delay does not by the time set, appear in the place appointed. " * In like terms did he call them to the second Ephesine Synod : " If any one shall choose to neglect meeting in a Synod, so necessary and grateful to God, and by the set time do not with all diligence appear in the place appointed, he shall find no excuse, " &c . † Marcian thus indicteth the Synod of Nice (after by him translated to Chalcedon) : " It properly seemeth good to our clemency that an holy Synod meet in the city of Nice, in the province of Bithynia. "‡ Again we may observe, that in the imperial edicts or epistles whereby Councils effectually were convened, there is nothing signified concerning the Popes having any authority to call them ; it is not as by licence from the Pope's holiness, but in their own name and authority they act : which were very strange if the Popes had any plea then commonly approved for snch a power. As commonly emperors did call Synods by the suggestion of other bishops, § so again, there be divers instances of Popes applying themselves to the emperors with petitions to indict Synods ; wherein sometimes they prevailed, sometimes they were disappointed : so Pope Liberius did request of Constan- tius to indict a Synod for deciding the cause of Athanasius : " Ecclesiastical judgments (said he, as Theodoret reports) should be made with great equity ; wherefore if it please your piety, command ajudicatory to be constituted ;"* and in his epistle to Hosius, produced by Baronius, he saith, " Many bishops out of Italy met together, who together with me had beseeched the most religious emperor, that he would com- mand, as he had thought fit, the Council of Aquileia to meet."+ So Pope Damasus, having a desire that a General Synod should be celebrated in Italy for repressing heresies and fac- tions then in the Church, did obtain the imperial letters for that purpose directed to the Eastern bishops ; as they in their epistle to the Western bishops do intimate : "But because expressing a brotherly affection toward us, ye have called us as your own members by the most pious emperor's letters to that Synod which by the will of God you are gathering at Rome." It is a wonder that Bellarmine should have the confidence to allege this passage for himself. § So again Pope Innocent I. being desirous to restore St. Chrysostom, " did (as Sozomen telleth us) send five bishops and two priests of the Roman Church to Honorius and to Arcadius the emperor, requesting a Synod, with the time and the place thereof, "|| in which attempt he suffered a repulse ; for the courtiers ofArcadius did repel those agents, "as troubling another government, which was beyond their bounds, " or wherein the Pope had nothing to do, that they knew of. So also Pope Leo I. (whom no Pope could well exceed in zeal to maintain the privileges, and advance the eminence of his see) did in these terms request Theodosius to indict a Synod : "Whence if your piety shall vouchsafe consent to our suggestion and supplication, that you would command an episcopal Council to be held in Italy ; soon, God aiding, may all scandals be cut off. " * Upon this occasion the emperor did appoint a Council (not in Italy, according to the Pope's desire, but) at Ephesus ; the which not succeeding well, Pope Leo again did address to Theodosius in these words : "All the Churches of our parts, all bishops with groans and tears do supplicate your grace, that you would command a General Synod to be celebrated within Italy ; " † to which request (although backed with the desire of the Western emperor), Theodosius would by no means consent ; for, as Leontius reporteth, " when Valentinian, being importuned by Pope Leo, did write to Theodosius II. that he would procure another Synod to be held for examining whether Dioscorus had judged rightly or no, Theodosius did write back to him saying, I shall make no other Synod."‡ The same Pope did again of the same emperor petition for a Synod to examine the cause of Anatolius, bishop of Con- stantinople: " Let your clemency (saith he) be pleased to grant an universal Council to be held in Italy; as with me the Synod, which for this cause did meet at Rome, doth request :" Thus did that Pope continually harp upon one string to get a General Synod to be celebrated at his own doors; but never could obtain his purpose, the emperor being stiff in refusing it . The same Pope, with better success, (as to the thing, § though not as to the place) did request of the emperor Marcian a Synod; for he (concurring in opinion that it was needful) " did (saith Liberatus) at the petition of the Pope and the Roman princes command a General Council to be congre- gated at Nice. " * Now if the Pope had himself a known right to convocate Synods, what needed all this application, or this supplication to the emperors? would not the Pope have endeavoured to exer- cise his authority ? would he not have clamoured or whined at any interruption thereof? would so spiritful and sturdy a Pope as Leot have begged that to be done by another, which hehad authority to do of himself, when he did apprehend so great necessity for it, and was so much provoked thereto ? would he not at least have remonstrated against the injury therein done to him by Theodosius ? All that this daring Pope could adventure at, was to wind in a pretence that the Synod of Chalcedon was congregated by his consent ; for " it hath been the pleasure (of whom I pray ?) that a General Council should be congregated, both by the command of the Christian princes, and with the consent of the apostolic see,"‡ saith he very cunningly : yet not so cunningly, but that any otherbishop might have said the same for his see. This power indeed upon manyjust accounts peculiarly doth belong to princes; it suiteth to the dignity of their state, it appertaineth to their duty, they are most able to discharge it . They are the guardians of public tranquillity, which constantly is endangered, which commonly is violated by dissensions in religious matters ; (whence we must pray for them, that by their care " we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godli- ness and honesty,") § they alone can authorize their subjects to take such journeys, or to meet in such assemblies ; they alone can well cause the expenses needful for holding Synods to be exacted and defrayed ; they alone can protect them, can main- tain order and peace in them, can procure observance to their determinations ; they alone have a sword to constrain resty and refractory persons (and in no cases are men so apt to be such as in debates about these matters) to convene, to confer peaceably, to agree to observe what is settled: they " as nurs- ing Fathers of the Church, as ministers of God's kingdom, as encouragers of all good works ; "* as the stewards of God, entrusted with the great talents of power, dignity, wealth, enabling them to serve God, are obliged to cause bishops in such cases to perform their duty ; according to the example of good princes in holy Scripture, who are commended for pro- ceedings of this nature, for so king Josiah did convocate a General Synod of the Church in his time, “ then (saith the text) the king sent and gathered together all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem ; in this Synod he presided, standing in his place, and making a covenant before the Lord; its resolu- tions he confirmed, causing all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to that covenant ; and he took care of their execution, making all present in Israel effectually to serve the Lord their God. " + So also did king Hezekiah " gather the priests and Levites together," did warn, did command them to do their duty, and reform things in the Church : " My sons (said he) benot now negligent, for the Lord hath chosen you to stand before him, to serve him, and that you should minister unto him, and burn incense"§ Beside them none other can have reasonable pretence to such apower, or can well be deemed able to manage it ; so great an authority cannot be exercised upon the subjects of any prince without eclipsing his majesty, infringing his natural right, and endangering his state. He that at his pleasure can summon all Christian pastors, and make them trot about, and hold them when he will, is in effect emperor, or in a fair way to make himself so . It is not fit therefore that any other per- son should have all the governors of the Church at his beck, so as to draw them from remote places whither he pleaseth; to put them on long and chargeable journeys ; to detain them from their charge ; to set them on what deliberations and de- bates he thinketh good. It is not reasonable that any one without the leave of princes should authorize so great conven- tions ofmen, having such interest and sway; it is not safe that any one should have such dependencies on him, by which he may be tempted to clash with princes, and withdraw his subjects from their due obedience. Neither can any success be well expected from the use of such authority by any, who hath not power by which he can force bishops to convene, to resolve, to obey; whence we see that Constantine, who was a prince so gentle and friendly to the clergy, was put to threaten those bishops, who would absent themselves from the Synod indicted by him at Tyre ; and Theodosius (also " avery mild and religious prince, ")* did the like in his summoning the two Ephesine Synods. We likewise may observe, that when " the Pope and Western bishops, in a Synodical epistle, did invite those of the East to a great Synod indicted at Rome, these did refuse the journey, alleging that it would be to no good purpose ; " ‡ so also when the Western bishops did call those of the East, for resolving the difference between Flavia- nus and Paulinus, both pretending to be bishops of Antioch, what effect had their summons ? and so will they always or often be ready to say, who are called at the pleasure of those who want force to constrain them; so that such authority in unarmed hands (and God keep arms out of a Pope's hands) will be only a source of discords . Either the Pope is a subject, as he was in the first times, and thenit were too great a presumption for him to claim such a power over his fellow subjects in prejudice to his sovereign ; (nor indeed did he presume so far, until he had in a manner shaken off subjection to the Emperor) or he is not a subject ; and then it is not reasonable that he should have such power in the territories of another prince.

The whole business of General Synods, was an expedient for peace, contrived by Emperors, and so to be regulated by their order. Hence evenin times and places where the Pope was most reverenced, yet princes were jealous of suffering the Pope to exercise such a power over the bishops their subjects ;§ and to obviate it, did command all bishops not to stir out of their territories without licence ; particularly our own nation, in the Council at Clarendon, where it was decreed "that they should not go out of the kingdom without the king's leave. " * To some things above said, a passage may be objected which occurreth in the acclamation of the sixth Synod to the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus ; wherein it is said, that Constantine and Sylvester did collect the Synod of Nice, Theodosius I. and Damasus (together with Gregory and Nec- tarius) the Synod of Constantinople ; Theodosius II. with Celestine and Cyril the Ephesine Synod, and so of the rest :† to which I answer, that the Fathers mean only for the honour of those prelates to signify, that they in their places and ways did concur and co- operate to the celebration of those Synods; otherwise we might as to matter of fact and history contest the accurateness of their relation ; and it is observable, that they join other great bishops then flourishing, with the Popes; so that if their suffrage prove anything, it proveth more than our adversaries would have, viz. that all great bishops and patri- archs have a power or right to convocate Synods. As for passages alleged by our adversaries, that no Synod could be called, or ecclesiastical law enacted, without consent of the Pope, they are no wise pertinent to this question ; for we do not deny that the Pope had a right to sit in every General Synod ; and every other patriarch at least had noless ; as all reason and practice do shew ; and as they of the seventh Synod do suppose,† arguing the Synod of Constantinople, which condemned the worship of images, to be no General Council, " because it had not the Pope's co-operation, nor the consent of the Eastern patriarchs."§ Syncellus the patriarch of Jerusalem's legate in the eighth Synod, says, " For this reason did the Holy Spirit set up patriarchs in the world, that they might suppress scandals arising in the Church of God : " * and Photius is in the same Synodtold, " that the judgment passed against him was most equal and impartial, as proceeding not from one but all the four patriarchs. " † That a General Synod doth not need a Pope to call it, or preside in it, appeareth by what the Synods of Pisa and Constance define, for provision in time of schisms.