A DISSERTATION Concerning the Government of the Ancient Church, BY BISHOPS, METROPOLITANS, and PATRIARCHES.  
More particularly, Concerning the ancient Power and Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome, and the Encroachments of that upon other Sees, especially the See of Constantinople.  
By WILLIAM CAVE, D. D. One of His Majesty's Chaplains in Ordinary.  
Omne genus ad Originem suam censeatur, necesse est.  Tert. de prescript. c. 20. p. 208. 
LONDON, Printed for R. Chiswel, at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Churchyard, MDCLXXXIII.   

TO THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD HENRY Lord Bishop of LONDON, One of the Lords of His Majesty's most Honourable PRIVY-COUNCIL.  
My Lord,  
IN compliance with the good old Rule of S. Ignatius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Do 
Epist. ad Philadelph. p. 30. vid. ad Trall. p. 16.  nothing without leave from the Bishop, I have taken the confidence to lay these Papers at Your Lordship's feet; being well content, they should receive from You a sentence of Life or Death; either to come abroad into open light, or be condemned to be thrown aside, if you shall judge them useless and unprofitable. For I am not so fond of my own Undertake, as to flatter myself, that any thing that I can do, will work much upon the obstinate humour of a perverse and contentious Age.  
My Lord, The Church of England is usually assaulted by two sorts of Adversaries. The one declared Enemies to the Episcopal Government, or if at any time in a good humour they allow the name, they deny the thing making the Bishop of the Primitive times no more in effect than a mere Parish-Priest. The other are great pretenders to Antiquity, and strongly enough assert the Episcopal Order, but withal would obtrude upon us a Supreme and Universal Bishop, to whom all others are to be subject and accountable, and he we may be sure is the Bishop of Rome. As for the first of these, I have not directly entered the Lists with them, though what is here said concerning the Ancient Church-Government might be enough to satisfy Men modest and unprejudiced; and more I did not think fit to add. They have been so often baffled upon that Argument, that nothing but a resolved obstinacy could make them keep a post, so utterly indefensable. But the Men of that way seem generally too overweening and opiniative, and I have no hopes of doing good upon that Man, that's wiser in his own Conceit, than seven Men that can render a Reason. Indeed the nature of my design led me more immediately to encounter with the other Party, whose cause (so far as it relates to the Subject under debate) I have examined, and brought to be tried by the Standard of Antiquity, the truest Rule to proceed by in this matter; and this managed without any needless Exasperations. For I never could think it a reasonable method of Conviction to rail at Popery, or to load the Bishop of Rome with ill Names, and spiteful Characters. The best way sure in such cases is to appeal to the judgement of the Ancients, and to inquire what power and authority was allowed him in the wiser and better Ages of Christianity. Which I hope I have done with all truth and fairness in the following Discourse.  
My Lord, Your Lordships known Zeal for the Protestant Cause, and (what next the goodness of the Divine Providence is the strongest Bulwark and Defence of it) the honour and interest of the Church of ENGLAND, might give you a just Title to this Discourse, though there were no other inducement to it. But we that are the Clergy of Your Diocese, think ourselves obliged to take all occasions of letting the World know, how much we rejoice under the happy Influences of Your Care and Conduct; how much we are beholden to that great Example of Pastoral Industry and Diligence, you daily set before us; that we have to deal with a temper so incomparably sweet and obliging, and that not only in private Converses, but in all public Cases that concern the Church under your Charge, you are pleased so freely and familiarly to consult and advise with us. 'Tis this (to mention no more) that creates in us so just a regard and veneration for Your Lordship. And I verily believe, since the Primitive Times there never was a more mutual Endearment and Correspondence. Never Bishop, that treated his Clergy with a more Paternal kindness and Condescension; never Clergy that paid a greater Reverence, and a more cheerful Obedience to their Bishop. That this Concord and Agreement may not only continue, but increase, and the happy effects of it visibly spread over your whole Diocese, and especially this great CITY, is the earnest Prayer of,  
MY LORD, Your Lordship's faithful and sincerely devoted Servant, WILLIAM CAVE.   

TO THE READER.  
AMong the several Virtues, wherewith the Religion of our Lord does at once refine and adorn Humane Nature, there are none conduce more, both to the peace of the World, and the quiet of private and particular persons, than Humility and Contentment; the laying aside the vain and fond opinion of ourselves, a lowliness of Mind to esteem others better than ourselves, in honour preferring one another; an easiness and satisfaction under that place and portion, which the Wisdom of the Divine Providence has thought fit to allot us, and a generous Contempt of those little and sordid Arts, by which Men hunt after Power and Greatness, and impatiently affect Dominion and superiority over others.  
A noble and divine temper of Mind, which our Lord has effectually recommended both by his Doctrine, and the example of his Life. He has taught us, that we should not, after the proud and hypocritical manner of the Pharisees, do our works to be 
Mat. xxiii. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12.  seen of Men, make broad our Phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of our Garments, love the uppermost Rooms at Feasts, and the chief Seats in the Synagogue, and greetings in the Markets; that we should not affect proud Titles, and the honour of a Name, to be called of Men, Rabbi, Rabbi, for that one is our Master, even Christ, and all we are Brethren, (not that our Lord here absolutely forbids all Honour and Precedence, no more than he does all Mastership and Superiority in what follows, but only an inordinate desire, a vicious and irregular inclination toward these things, and an undue and tyrannical exercise of them) that we should call no 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost. in loc.  man our Father upon Earth, that is, in the same sense, and with the same respect, wherewith we do God, for that one is our Father, which is in Heaven, neither that we be called Masters, for that one is our Master, even Christ: For that whosoever should exalt himself, shall be abased, and he that should humble himself, shall be exalted.  
And then for his own practice, how openly did he protest against seeking his own glory, or receiving honour from Men? how studiously did he stifle the fame of his own Miracles, and whatever might raise him in the esteem and value of the World. When an Appeal was made to him to judge a Cause, he rebuked the motion with a who made me a Judge, and a Ruler over you? When the Jews were resolved to have made him King, he fled from the very shadow of a Crown. When there was a strife amongst his own Apostles, which of them should be accounted the greatest, like the Kings of the Gentiles which exercised Lordship and Authority over their Subjects, he ended the Controversy with a short decision, but ye shall not be so.  
This Charge S. Peter particularly applies to the Bishops and Rulers of the Church, that they should not be Lords over God's 
1 Pet. v. 3, 5.  Heritage; that the younger should submit themselves to the elder; yea, all of them be subject one to another, and be clothed with Humility: for that God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.  
Had the excellent Rules here laid down by S. Peter, been observed by those who pretend to be his Successors, the Christian World had been free from those infinite disturbances and distractions, which the pride and ambition of the Roman Bishops have brought upon it. For certainly among all the corruptions and innovations of that Church, nothing is more palpable and notorious, than an intolerable usurpation over the Rights of their Brethren; nothing more wild and extravagant, than the challenging a Supremacy over the Christian Church, as affixed to the See of Rome, expressly contrary not only to the Scripture, the great Canon of our Faith, but to the Laws of all ancient Councils, and the practice of the Church; which however it allowed a primary honour and respect to the Roman Prelate, yet still set him out, as it did to all other Bishops, the particular extent of his Jurisdiction.  
This is that which I have endeavoured to evince in the following Discourse, wherein I have traced the Papal Authority to those proper bounds and limits, within which it was confined of old. And upon that occasion have briefly surveyed the frame and constitution of the ancient Church, and that Policy and Government, whereby it was managed in its purer and better times.  
That which gave birth to the whole Discourse, was this: I had elsewhere in relating the Acts of the second general 
Life of S. Greg. Naz. Sect. v. Num. ix.  Council, represented the third Canon of that Council, which decreed, that the Bishop of Constantinople, upon the account of its being New Rome, or the Imperial City, should have the privilege of honour next to the Bishop of Rome. A Canon which they of Rome could never pardon, as which limits the power of the Roman Prelate, and declares the foundation upon which it stands. For the illustration of this Canon, I intended in that place to have added a digression concerning the ancient Power and Precedence of the Bishops of Rome; but upon second thoughts, referred it to an Appendix at the end of the Book. But that Book swelling into too great a bulk, and this Discourse being grown beyond the proportion that was at first designed, I was over-persuaded by some Friends to venture it abroad alone. A thing which had I intended from the beginning, it had come forth, at least in some parts, more perfect than it is, and with some advantages which now it is forced to go without.  
I have wholly waved all Debates concerning the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy, and the Controversies that depend upon it, (enough has been said upon that Argument) and have chiefly insisted upon those branches of the Ecclesiastic Government, which have been less canvassed amongst us.  
For the same reason I have more lightly touched upon the Pope's Universal Supremacy, 'twas his Metropolitical and Patriarchal Power I principally designed to inquire into. I know Volumes have been written De primatu Papae, de Ecclesiis Suburbicariis, etc. and therefore I have reduced what concerns those matters into as narrow a compass as I could, and have said no more than what is necessary to clear the Argument, and express my own sense about it.  
If what is here said shall administer any light to this part of Church-antiquity, I shall be very glad; if not, I am content it should follow the fate of many much better Books to be thrown aside. 'Twas never designed to instruct the Learned, but only to form a short Scheme of the true state of things, for the benefit of those, who have not been much conversant in the Antiquities of the Church; at least to give some aid and direction to the younger sort, who first apply themselves to the study of those ancient Times. And if it may but attain this end, I shall think my Time and Pains have been well bestowed.   

THE CONTENTS.  


CHAP. I. The State of the Church-Government, and Power of the Roman Bishops till the Council of Nice.  
An Equality among the Apostles as Church Governors appointed by Christ. Peter's pretended Supremacy over the rest showed to be vain and groundless. If any such had been granted, it belonged not to the Roman Bishops. Early appearances of the Pride and Usurpation of the Bishops of that Church. Special advantages of that See to set up for Tyranny and Usurpation. The foundation of that Church by two great Apostles, Peter and Paul. Rome the Seat of the Empire. The honour and advantages of that Church thereby. The Catholic Faith long time preserved entire in the Church of Rome. It's large Revenues affording liberal Hospitality. It's sending forth Emissaries to plant Christianity in other Countries, and thereby claiming superiority over them. The pride of that Church severely censured by S. Basil. A general Scheme of the subordination in the Government of the Primitive Church, by Bishops, Archbishops, and Patriarches, and the Conformity herein to the Civil State. Episcopal Government, how it spread itself at first? Metropolitans introduced, and why? A brief account of the ancient way of Ecclesiastical Administration out of Cyprian and others, by the Bishop and his Clergy, by Provincial Synods. What things usually managed there. Foreign Churches how mutually transacting with one another. The Bishops of Rome had no more authority in this Period, than the Bishops of other greater Sees. Pope Melchiades appointed Commissioner by Constantine. Donatus appeals from his Judgement. His sentence brought under Examinations in the Synod of Arles. Page 1   

CHAP. II. The Government of the Church, and Power of the Bishops of Rome, as 'tis represented in the Canons of the Nicene Council.  
The sixth Canon of the Synod of Nice set down, with the occasion of it. Seven Observations drawn from that Canon. I. That the larger bounds of Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction were the Roman Provinces. A. Province, what. Whether the Countries in Italy so called. II. That the chief Church-Governour in every Province was the Metropolitan. The prudence and convenience of that way of Government. Patriarches proved not to be intended in the Nicene Canon. III. That the Bishop of Rome no less than the rest had his proper and limited Metropolitical power. This owned by some of the greatest Champions of Rome. IV. That the Metropolitick Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, were ever of the greatest note in the Christian Church, and of these Rome the chief. The eminency of Sees according to the greatness of the Cities wherein they were planted. This gave precedency to the Church of Rome. The three Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch ascribed to S. Peter. Blasphemous things spoken of the Pope upon that account. Primacy allowed to the See of Rome. No Supremacy belonging to it. The Christian Church then knew of no such supereininent Power. V. That the Rights of the Roman Metropolitan were not due by any Divine Constitution, but by custom and the practice of the Church. This plainly showed to be the sense of this and other following Councils. VI That the Ordination of Provincial Bishops was one of the prime Rights and Privileges of every Metropolitan within his own Jurisdiction. The fourth, sixth, and seventh Canons of this Council noted to that purpose. The same showed to be the determination of other Synods. What other Rights belonged to Metropolitans. VII. That this way of Ecclesiastic Administration was not any late novel Institution, but founded upon ancient custom and practice. What this Antiquity implies. The original of Metropolitans briefly enquired into. Several instances of this way of Government noted in the second and third Centuries. The word Metropolitan not met with till the Council of Nice. But the thing long before. The sum of the Observations upon this Canon. Page 46   

CHAP. III. The extent of the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction, considered as a Metropolitan.  
A search into the proper bounds of the Roman Bishop. His Power fourfold, Episcopal, Metropolitical, Patriarchal, Apostolical. The first not controverted; the last discharged as extravagant and groundless, and as frequently baffled, both by the Reformed, and Greek Church. L. Allatius' jeer of his Countrymen. His Metropolitical Jurisdiction considered, as concurrent with that of the Provost of Rome. That how great, and how far extending. The Suburbicary Regions, what. Sicily no part of the Urbicary Regions. The usual conformity between the extent of the Civil and Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction in those times. The power of the Roman Metropolitan confined within an hundred Miles of Rome. Rufinus his Exposition of the Suburbicary Churches. Greatly quarrelled at by the Romish Writers. His authority in other cases allowed sufficient and unquestionable. His Book approved by Pope Gelasius and others. No probability of his being mistaken in the sense of the Canon, or the extent of the Roman Metropolitanship, or the Suburbicary Churches. His Explication confirmed by most ancient Interpreters of this Canon. The Bishops of Rome and Italy distinct. The Bishop of Milan ranked with him of Rome. The objection of the Bishop of Rome's being confined to so narrow a compass, considered and answered. The Majores Dioeceses in the Epistle of the Synod of Arles, what. The bounds of the Roman Bishops showed to have been heretofore small from an ancient Notitia Episcopatuum. The fraud in the first publication of that Notitia. Morinus noted. The greatness of Rome equivalent to a large extent. Page 98   

CHAP. IV. An Enquiry into the Rise and Original of Patriarches in the Christian Church.  
An Enquiry into the Rise and Original of Patriarches in general. None before the Council of Nice. What that Council contributed to them. Civil Dioceses, when, and by whom introduced. These gave start to Primary Metropolitans. Dioceses, when first brought into the Church. The title of Patriarch borrowed from the Jews. Who their Patriarches, and whence descended. Exarches, what. The word Patriarch, when first used by Church-writers in a strict and proper sense. The Patriarches among the Montanists, who. A short Survey of the four great Patriarchates. The extent of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The Dioecesis Aegyptiaca, what. The Patriarchal Jurisdiction in what sense larger than that of the Augustal Perfect. Little gained to this Patriarchate more than a title of honour. The Patriarchate of Antioch commensurate to the Eastern Diocese. The contest about Cyprus, how determined. Palestine for some time under Antioch. The Patriarchship of Constantinople. By what degrees it arose. What privilege conferred upon it by the second general Council. The Bishops of it hence forwards exercising a kind of Patriarchal power over the Churches of the neighbouring Provinces. The Power granted to that See by the Council of Chalcedon. Its ninth, seventeenth, and eight and twentieth Canons considered to that purpose. Jurisdiction over the three Dioceses of Asiana, Pontica, and Thrace. This settled upon a full debate and discussion of the matter. This Power owned by the Synod to have been exercised of a long time before. This Grant urged against the universal Supremacy of the See of Rome. The extent of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate in after times manifested from several ancient Notitiae. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The honour confirmed to this Church by the Nicene Council. It's subjection to the See of Caesarea. When first attempting a Metropolitical Power. The contest between this Bishop, and the Bishop of Antioch, how determined in the Council of Chalcedon. When first styled Patriarch. The extent of this Patriarchate. Page 137   

CHAP. V. The bounds of the Roman Patriarchate.  
A return to the Roman Patriarchate. The limits hereof not expressly set down by the Ancients. Unjustly pretended to reach over the whole West. This granted by them of the Greek Church, and why. The Pope's Patriarchal Power disowned by the Churches of Milan, Aquileia, and Ravenna. The independency and opposition of those Churches to the Roman See, severally evinced by particular cases and instances. The Power of Metropolitans in France kept up independent from Rome. The truth of this confessed and cleared by De Marca. Other instances of preserving their Rights against the pretensions of Rome, Hincmar of Rheims, and the Synod of Metz. Two other National Churches instanced in, the African, and the Britannic Churches. The famous case of Appeals in the Church of afric. A clear account of that matter. Their public rejecting the power which the Pope challenged over those Churches. The Letters of the Council of Carthage to Pope Boniface and Celestine to that purpose. Several useful and proper Corollaries deduced from this story, for the evincing the vain pretensions of the Papal Power over those Churches. The boldness of some in denying the truth of this whole story. The state of the Britannic Church. The progress of Religion and Church-Government here till the times of Pope Gregory. The Church governed here by an Archbishop and Bishop at Austin's arrival. Their Customs wholly different from, and independent upon Rome. Their absolute refusal to own the authority of Austin or the Pope. The slaughter of the Bangor-Monks suspiciously charged upon Austin. The Pope's proper Patriarchate most probably showed to be of equal extent with the Jurisdiction of the Vicarius Urbicus. What Provinces under his Government. The Roman Synod consisting of the Bishops of those Provinces. A twofold Patriarchate of the Pope trifling and precarious. The Bishops of Rome daily amplifying their Jurisdiction. The means whereby they did this briefly intimated. Page 198   

CHAP. VI The Encroachments of the See of Rome upon other Sees, especially the See of Constantinople.  
The Roman Bishops breaking the bounds of all Laws and Canons. Their taking hold of all occasions of magnifying their own power. Instances of Julius, Damasus, Innocent, Zosimus, to this purpose. The briskness and activity of Pope Leo. His many Letters written to advance the reputation of his authority. His jealous eye upon the growing greatness of the See of Constantinople. The attempts and actings of his Legates in the Council of Chalcedon. Their mighty opposition against the passing the XXVIII. Canon of that Synod. The fraud of Paschasinus in citing the sixth Canon of Nice. Their protestation against the power granted to the Bishop of Constantinople. Pope Leo's zeal and rage against these Synodal Proceedings. Faelix his Excommunicating Acacius of Constantinople. The pretended occasion of that Sentence. The same spleen continued and carried on by Pope Gelasius. A reconciliation procured by the Emperor Justin between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople. Pope John's insulting over Epiphanius in his own Church at Constantinople. John the Second ranting Letter to Justinian. The Bishop of Constantinople assumes the title of Ecumenical Patriarch. This in what sense (probably) meant. The passionate resentment of Pope Pelagius hereat. The same zeal showed by his Successor Gregory the Great. His Letters written upon that occasion. The hard words he every where bestows upon that title. His mistake about the offer of that title to the Pope in the Chalcedon Council. The true state of that case. This title frequently given to the Constantinopolitan Bishops in the Council under Mennas, before John assumed it. Baronius' poor evasion of that matter. Gregory still continues to thunder out anathemas against this Title. All this suspected to be but noise, and the quarrel only because themselves had not the title. Phocas his Usupation of the Empire. The monstrous villainy and wickedness of that man. Pope Gregory's scandalously flattering Caresses to him and his Empress. Boniface the Third makes suit to Phocas, and procures the title of Ecumenical to be affixed to the See of Rome. The Pope's daily enlargement of their Power and Tyranny, and their advantages for so doing. The whole concluded with the Canons or DICTATES of Pope Hildebrand. Page 267     

ERRATA.  
PAge 5. line 8. read whosoever. p. 52. l. 21. r. Administration. p. 73. marg. r. iii p. 75. l. 12. r.- head. p. 110. l. 19 r. Crustuminum. p. 133. l. 15. r. larger. p. 136. l. 3. r. desire. p. 152. l. 12. after who, add are. p. 173. l. 4. r. this. p. 187. l. 22. r. them. p. 300. l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 304. l. 13. r. Isidore.   

A DISSERTATION Concerning the GOVERNMENT OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, BY Bishops, Metroplitans, and Patriarches, etc.  

CHAP. I. The State of the Church-Government, and Power of the Roman Bishops till the Council of Nice.  
An Equality among the Apostles as Church Governors appointed by Christ. Peter's pretended Supremacy over the rest showed to be vain and groundless. If any such had been granted, it belonged not to the Roman Bishops. Early appearances of the Pride and Usurpation of the Bishops of that Church. Special advantages of that See to set up for Tyranny and Usurpation. The foundation of that Church by two great Apostles, Peter and Paul. Rome the Seat of the Empire. The honour and advantages of that Church thereby. The Catholic Faith long time preserved entire in the Church of Rome. It's large Revenues affording liberal Hospitality. It's sending forth Emissaries to plant Christianity in other Countries▪ and thereby claiming superiority over them. The pride of that Church severely censured by St. Basil. A general Scheme of the subordination in the Government of the Primitive Church, by Bishops, Archbishops and Patriarches, and the Conformity herein to the Civil State. Episcopal Government how it spreads itself at first? Metropolitans introduced and why. A brief account of the ancient way of Ecclesiastical Administration out of Cyprian and others, by the Bishop and his Clergy, by Provincial Synods. What things usually managed there. Foreign Churches how mutually transacting with one another. The Bishops of Rome had no more authority in this Period than the Bishops of other greater Sees. Pope Melchiades appointed Commissioner by Constantine. Donatus appeals from his Judgement. His sentence brought under Examinations in the Synod of Arles.  
I. ORDER and Government are so essentially necessary to the peace and welfare of Mankind, that no Society whether civil or sacred can subsist without it: Where there is none to command, there will be none to obey, and where every one is left to do what he please, there must be confusion and every evil work. No sooner therefore had our Blessed Saviour laid the foundation of the Christian Church, but he chose twelve, whom he named Apostles, to whose care and conduct he committed the administration of it. These he invested with equal powers, upon these he derived the same mission, which he himself had received from God, As my father sent me, so send I you. 
Joh. xx. 21.  All had the same authority to Preach, Plant, and propagate the Church, to feed and rule the flock of Christ, to go teach and baptise all Nations; the same Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to one as well as another, that whatsoever sins they should remit, they should be remitted, and whosoever sins they retain, they should be retained: The same Holy Spirit breathed upon all with a receive ye the Holy Ghost. Notwithstanding all which, it is confidently pretended on the behalf of S. Peter, that a paramount authority was conferred upon him, and that not only above, but over the rest, that he was constituted by our Lord, Prince and Head of the College; the other Apostles were indeed Shepherds of the Flock, but were themselves Christ's Sheep, and St. Peter appointed Pastor over them; with a great deal more, boldly asserted at a venture, and attempted to be made good by such warrant from Scripture, as any thing, but the necessity of maintaining a desperate cause would be ashamed to produce. And as no such charter can be produced, signed by our Saviour, so neither do we find S. Peter challenging, much less exercising any such superiority. He submitted to the Orders of the Apostolical College, and rendered himself accountable to them for his actions, styles himself no more than their Fellow-Presbyter, and cautions against Lording over God's Heritage. 
1 Pet. v. 1, 2, 3.  How openly did S. Paul assert, that he came not a whit behind 
11 Cor. xi. 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very chiefest Apostles? and that the Gospel 
Gal. two. 7.  of the Uncircumcision was committed unto him, as well as that of the Circumcision was to Peter. James and John are said to be Pillars 
— 9  as well as he; nay, the whole twelve Apostles are equally styled the twelve foundations of the 
Rev. xxi. 14.  new Jerusalem, that descended out of Heaven, and it was indifferently promised to all, that they should 
Matth. nineteen. 28.  sit upon twelve Thrones, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel. Nay, when a strife arose amongst them, which of them should be greatest in his Kingdom, our Lord on purpose to silence all such ambitious attempts for the future, plainly told them, that though the Kings of the Gentiles exercised 
Matth xx. 25, 26, 27.  Dominion over their Subjects, and they that are great exercised authority upon them: Yet ye shall not be so; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your Minister, and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your Servant.  
II. AND yet after all should it be granted, that our Lord gave S. Peter some kind of superior power over the rest, yet what is this to the Bishops of Rome? unless it could be proved, that those privileges were to be Haereditary, and were not to determine and expire with S. Peter's person. Bellarmine 
* De Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 1. Col. 5●9. c. 12. Col. 628. l. 4. c. 4. Col. 803.  pleads, that it is founded in a Right of Succession, and this Right settled jure divino, and by our Lords own Institution, who expressly commanded S. Peter to fix the Apostolical Seat at Rome. The proofs he brings to make good this command are a passage out of an Apocryphal Epistle of Pope Marcellus, long since discarded together with the rest, as the most notorious cheat and imposture that ever was put upon the Christian Church; and at best an uncertain story of our Lords appearing to Peter, and that too nothing to his purpose. And therefore not daring to trust to them, he fairly quits 
* L. 2. c. 12. l. 4. c. 4. ubi supr.  the jus divinum, and confesses that the Pontifical Succession has no foundation in Scripture: However, that 'tis not improbable, and that 'tis a thing piously to be believed; that is, perhaps it may be so, and perhaps not, we may do well to believe it, but there's no certain ground for it. An admirable foundation to build so important a claim upon, and for the sake whereof they have now for many ages created so much trouble and disturbance to the Christian World. And besides, there's a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this case lies at the bottom, it being generally taken for granted, that S. Peter was in a proper sense Bishop of Rome, which yet I believe can never be made good. That he constituted that Church, and laid down his life there for the Confirmation of it, I easily grant, but this makes him not properly Bishop of it, and consequently the Popes cannot properly be his Successors. Dye he might there, but how comes this to entitle the Bishops of Rome to the Succession? If so, then (as a Learned Man 
* Barlaam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 25. edit. Graec.  of the Greek Church long since urged in this case) because our Lord died at Jerusalem, therefore the Bishop of Jerusalem, as possessing the Seat of our great Highpriest, may claim an Universal superiority, and challenge to be as much greater than the Bishop of Rome, as Christ is than Peter. Once more, let it be supposed that this Supremacy was entailed not only upon S. Peter, but upon his Successors, how comes it to pass that it was not lodged in the See of Antioch, where they grant S. Peter resided as Bishop several years before he went to Rome, and which therefore in all reason ought to challenge a Primary title? An Objection which Bellarmin with all the subtleties of his Wit and Learning is not able to claw off. So many insuperable bars are there lying in the way to this sovereign and unaccountable authority of their Church.  
III. BUT what Power soever the Bishops of Rome may pretend to derive from S. Peter, sure I am they thus far inherit too much of his spirit and temper, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I mean, that rash and busy fervour and eagerness, so frequently noted in him by the Ancients: Forward like him to speak, run, and interpose at every turn; and forward like him too to smite with the Sword, when meeting with the least opposition. No sooner were the heats of the fifth persecution somewhat cooled, and the Church entered a little upon more calm and prosperous days, but we find Pope Victor, An. 196. picking a quarrel with some of the Eastern Churches about the time of Celebrating Easter, and though they justified themselves to the Christian World by Apostolical practice, and a constant uninterrupted observation ever since, yet because refusing to comply with the custom of the Church of Rome, he hastily threw them under Excommunication, to the great disturbance and amazement of the Christian World, for which he was severely rebuked by the wise and good men of that time, especially the mild and peaceable Irenaeus. It was not much above half an Age after this, when the practice of Baptising a new those who had been Baptised by Heretics begun mightily to prevail in some parts of the East, but especially in the African Churches. Stephen, who was then Bishop of Rome, stormed hereat, and in a great rage publicly declared, that he would hold no Communion with them; and when, according to the custom whereby Churches mutually acted in those days, they sent some Bishops to give him an account of their opinion and practice, he proudly refused 
* Firmil. Ep. ad Cypr. inter Ep. Cypr. p. 150.  either to see them, or speak with them; and not content to deprive them of the Peace and Communion of the Church, he denied them the common offices of humanity and charity, forbidding the Christians at Rome so much as to entertain them. To Cyprian he gave very hard words, calling him false Christ, false Apostle, deceitful Worker; and no better did he treat Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and the Churches of Iconium. But Cyprian (though a man otherwise of great gentleness and moderation) plainly told him, 
* Epist. 74. ad Pomp. per tot. p. 129.  that this was nothing but the effect of a proud, impertinent, imprudent, self-contradicting humour, that it proceeded from blindness and perverseness, from obstinacy and presumption, and directly tended to the Patronage and encouragement of error and Heresy. Firmilian charged 
* Epist. supr. cit. p. 143, etc.  him with inhumanity, audaciousness and insolence, with doing very unjust and unwarrantable things; that they at Rome, however vainly pretending Apostolical authority, did not themselves exactly observe primitive tradition, that he could not but disdain Stephen's open and manifest folly, who while he boasted so much of the eminency of his Episcopal place, and contended that he had the Succession of Peter, upon whom the foundations of the Church were laid, did yet hereby introduce several other rocks, and build new Churches upon them. And when not long after the controversy came to be canvased in a Synod of Eighty seven African Bishops, whom Cyprian had assembled at Carthage for that purpose, in the speech that he made at the opening of the Council, Cyprian taxed the Pride and ambition of the Bishop of Rome, telling 
* Synod. Carth. apud Cypr. p. 282.  them that they should all freely speak their minds, without judging, or Excommunicating any that were of another opinion, that none of them took upon himself to make himself Bishop of Bishops, or by a tyrannical threatening to force his Colleagues into a necessity of compliance: since every Bishop, according to the power and liberty granted to him, had his proper rule and jurisdiction, and could no more be judged by another, than he himself could judge others; that in these matters they were to expect the Judgement of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone had power both of appointing Governors over his Church, and of calling them to an account for their administration.  
IV. BY these instances (and many more no doubt, which the History of those times would have set before us, had the Church's Records come safe to us) it appears, how early the Bishops of Rome set out to usurp a Dominion over the Church, and though they generally met with opposition, yet they still went on, and vigorously improved all advantages, with what success, the Christian world has now for many ages found to their cost. And certainly never any stood fairer to start and carry on such a design. For,  
First, Their Church was not only Apostolical, but had been founded by two of the most eminent Apostles, Peter and Paul, which gave a mighty reputation to it in after Ages; the Christian world bearing an extraordinary reverence to those great names, which the Bishops of that See knew how to improve to their own advantage. For this reason Irenaeus 
* Adu. Haeres. l. 3. c. 3. p. 232.  calls the Church of Rome the greatest and most eminent Church, and most Universally known, as being founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul; and S. Augustine 
* Epist. 162. col. 728.  says, that in it there always flourished the principality of the Apostolic Chair; and Origen took a journey 
* Euseb. H. Eccl. l. 6. c. 14. p. 216.  on purpose to Rome, to gratify his curiosity with the sight of so ancient and renowned a Church. And upon this account must be discharged very many of those great things, which several of the Fathers speak so liberally concerning the Church of Rome; who thought they could never express a veneration big enough towards S. Peter, and consequently towards the place which he had honoured with his Doctrine and Residence, and watered with his Blood: which however spoken by them out of a devout intent, proved the first rounds of that Ladder, by which the Roman Bishops mounted up to a Supremacy above the rest. It happening in a few Ages that nothing was talked of at Rome, but of the Prince of the Apostles, and the authority of the Apostolic See, till almost every thing there became Apostolical, and was covered with S. Peter's name.  
Secondly, Their Church was planted in the Imperial City, a place that seemed born for Empire and Sovereignty, that had long since Conquered, and at that time Governed 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herod. Hist. l. 1. in vit. Commod. p. 32. Tibi proficiscentium major facultas fuit: primò, quia in common imperii caput undique gentium convenitur; tum, quod clementissimum principem in hac parte degentem, varia omnium desideria vel necessitates sequuntur. Symmach. l. 4. Epist. xxviii. (ad Protad.) vid. this not Lectii.  the greatest part of the World; a City that was the Centre of all Nations, and the Seat of Majesty and Magnificence, where all great affairs were transacted, and all the Scenes of glory and greatness represented in a little compass. Which could not but reflect a more than ordinary lustre upon those Bishops that sat at the upper end of the world, and make them appear considerably bigger, more conspicuous and useful than the rest of their Brethren, and by reason of the general confluence of all Nations to Rome, enable them in a little time to draw the cognizance of Ecclesiastic Causes from all parts thither. 'Twas this conveniency of Situation gave them opportunity to insinuate themselves into the favour of the Emperors, and by their power to enlarge their own Borders, yea, and to succour and relieve their Clients and Dependants, which made many to court their protection and assistance, though often with the loss of their own freedom and liberty. This was especially done after the Emperors became Christians, the Roman Church being by them enriched with vast honours and privileges, accounting that the greatness of that Church would not a little contribute to the splendour and magnificence of the Empire. And though the Imperial Seat was quickly translated to another place, yet besides that the Emperors a long time retained their affection for Rome, what the Pope lost in one sense, he gained in another, making use of the Emperor's absence to enhance his own Power and Revenue, till he was able not only to Lord it over his brethren, but over Princes themselves.  
Thirdly, The Roman Church continued for several Ages the Seat of true Apostolic Doctrine, maintaining that character that S Paul had given them, that their Faith was spoken of throughout the whole world, it being here preserved pure and uncorrupt, while a great part of the Christian world besides was over run with Error and Heresy, and torn in pieces by Schisms and Factions. This made Rome in those days (while it remained sound and Orthodox) in a manner the Standard of Catholic Communion, most other Churches veering in point of Communion, as they found the Wind blow from that Quarter, and saw how the business fared at Rome. Accordingly Theodosius in the beginning of his Reign resolving to reform the Doctrine of the Church, then miserably degenerated in the Eastern parts, commanded, 
* De fid. Cathol. C. Th. leg. 2. vid. Soz. l. 7. c. 4. p. 708.  that that Faith only should take place, that was professed by Pope Damasus, and Peter of Alexandria, that Faith and Religion which S. Peter had delivered to the Church of Rome, and which had all along till that time flourished there. This made way for Appeals, every party being desirous to gain the good will of that Church, and to have its Bishop pronounce for their cause, till from an honorary arbitration it came to be claimed as a right and due. And persons (especially those who were persecuted in their own Countries for their adherence to the Catholic Faith) were the more encouraged to repair hither, because here they were kindly treated, and hospitably entertained; a piece of charity which the Bishops of that Church by reason of their ample possessions and large endowments, were very capable to afford. For besides their standing Rents and Revenues, their gains by collections and oblations was so great, that by them alone in the time of Pope Damasus, they were enabled to live in a state and grandeur like that of Temporal Princes, if we may believe the account given by Ammianus Marcellinus; 
* Lib. 27. p. 1739.  and the story is known of Praetextatus (a zealous Gentile) designed to be Consul, who reflecting upon the plenty of that See, was wont pleasanly to tell 
* Hieron. ad Pammach. adv. error. Jo. Hierosol. p. 165.  Pope Damasus, make me but Bishop of Rome, and I will immediately become a Christian. 'Tis certain that Church could never want plentiful Incomes flowing in upon it; and as charitable it was in those days, as it was wealthy, and was not only very kind to strangers when they came thither, but was wont to transmit very liberal distributions of its charity to foreign Churches, to relieve the necessities of the Brethren that were under Persecution, and were condemned to the Mines, as Dionysius Bishop of Corinth tells us in his Letter 
* Ap. Euseb. H. E. l. 4. c. 23. p. 145.  to Soter Bishop of Rome, written about the Year CLXXIV. and that this had been the custom of that Church from the very Infancy of Christianity.  
Fourthly, The Church of Rome by the advantage of the Imperial City was capable of propagating the Christian Doctrine into several parts of the West, to send out Disciples, receive Dispatches, transmit Directions, and supply all Emergencies that might arise. Accordingly upon this foundation the Popes built and advanced a claim to Superiority and Dominion. Thus Damasus writing 
* Epist. v. Concil. Tom. two. col. 876.  to the Bishops of afric, tells them, that in all doubtful cases they ought to have recourse to him as to the head, and thence to take their determination, from whence they had received their institution and instruction in the Christian Faith. And Pope Innocent tells 
* Innoc. Epist. I. ibid. col. 1245.  Decentius Bishop of Eugubium, that all the Churches in those parts ought to take their measures from Rome, and nothing to be valid, but what's received from thence; it being evident, that no Churches had been planted in Italy, France, Spain, afric, Sicily, and the interjacent Islands by any, but such as had been Ordained by S. Peter, or his Successors. And this is the Plea we are so often urged with, whereby the Roman See challenges jurisdiction over England, its commissionating Augustine the Monk to convert the Saxons, and settle Religion in these parts. But were there no more to be offered in answer to it, this were enough, that Christianity had for several ages been planted here, before ever Austin set his foot on English ground: as perhaps we may have occasion to show afterwards. In short, though it became Churches thus planted, to bear a very grateful respect to that Mother Church, that was the instrument to convey to them the Christian faith; yet did it lay them under no obligation to subjection and servitude: however the Church of Rome has handled the matter to its own advantage, and from the lenity and tenderness of a Parent, had degenerated into the pride and cruelty of a Stepmother; and not content to exercise authority over its own Colonies, began to advance its banners over all the rest; proudly proclaiming itself the Mother and Mistress of all Churches. I observe no more, than that pride seems to be a vice more peculiar to Rome, than other places: 'twas this put the old Romans upon subduing the world; and by this the Emperors tyrannised over it for some ages, and when Rome shifted its Lords, it did not change its Taskmasters; the ambition which the Emperors laid down, the Popes took up, and prosecuted it by far worse arts and methods, than ever the Romans did of old. S. Basil more than once complains 
* Epist. 10. ad Gregor, p. 54.  of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pride of the West, and how little help was to be expected from them that neither understood the truth, nor would be content to learn it; that he was resolved to write to the Pope, to let him know that it did not become him to insult over and add to the miseries of the afflicted, nor to think pride to be honourable; a thing alone sufficient to render a man odious in the sight of God: and elsewhere he expresses 
* Ap. Baron. ad An. 372. T. 4. p. 322.  a very passionate resentment, that he hated the pride of that Church.  
V. FURNISHED with these advantages, the Roman Prelates set up for themselves, and gave not over, till they had by right and wrong spread such an Ecclesiastic Empire over the world, as would admit neither superior nor equal. In order to the discovery whereof, it will be necessary to inquire what was of old the proper jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome, before they removed those ancient Landmarks which the Fathers had set. We have elsewhere 
* Prim. Chr. Part. 1. Ch. 8. p. 227. Edit. 1. vid. Breerwoods' Quaer. 1. & Berter. Pithan. fere per tot. aliique.  observed, (what has been remarked by many, and indeed is evident to any one versed in Church-antiquity) that in the primitive times, the external Polity of the Church was conformed as near as might be to the Mode that obtained in the civil State. Now the whole Roman Empire consisted of thirteen Dioceses, (for so they began to style those large Divisions about the time of Constantine,) whereof seven in the Eastern parts, Egypt, the Orient, or East properly so called, Asiana, Pontica, Thrace, Macedonia and Dacia; and six in the West, Italy, Afric, Illyricum, France, Spain, and Britain; besides the Roman Praefecture, extending to the Provinces round about the City, which had anciently been a peculiar government, equal, yea superior in dignity to any Diocese; whereof hereafter. In each of these Dioceses were several Provinces, (118 in all) the chief City whereof in every Province, was the Metropolis, that had a kind of jurisdiction over all the rest; both title and dignity being peculiarly settled by imperial constitution. Now the civil and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, were concurrent after this manner; in every City there was a civil Judge, who presided over it, and the Towns about it; and to him answered the Bishop of that City: in every Province a Proconsul or Precedent resided at the Metropolis, governed that whole division, received appeals, and determined all important cases brought before him from the inferior Cities. Correspondent to him was the Metropolitan, or (as they after called him) the Archbishop, whose See was in the same City, who superintended the several Churches, and ordained the several Bishops within his Province. And then in every Diocese, there was a Vicarius or Lieutenant, who kept his residence in the principal City, thence dispatched the Imperial Edicts, and there heard and decided those causes, that were not finally determined by inferior Courts. And concurrent with him in Ecclesiastical matters was the Primate, or (as some of them were more eminently styled) the Patriarch, who presided over the several Metropolitans within that Diocese, appointed the conventions of his Clergy, Umpired the differences that arose between the several Bishops, and gave the last determination to all Appeals brought before him. And thus by an orderly Subordination of Deacons and Presbyters to their Bishops, of Bishops to their immediate Metropolitans, of Metropolitans to their respective Primates or Patriarches, and by a mutual correspondence between the several Primates of every Diocese, the affairs of the Christian Church were carried on with great decorum and regularity.  
VI THIS excellent Platform was not framed and set up all at once. In the more early Ages Christianity being generally first Preached and planted in the greater Cities, and the Ecclesiastical Government settled there, thence spread itself into the neighbouring Country, and persons were thence dispatched to Preach and attend the Ministeries of Religion in those rural Plantations, who yet were in all things steered and directed by the Bishop and his Ecclesiastic Senate residing in the City. As Churches multiplied, and Christianity extended itself into wider circles, it was found necessary to fix a particular Bishop almost in every City, to whom was committed the care and superintendency over all the Clergy and people there, and in all the Towns and Villages belonging to the jurisdiction of that place. But because controversies began to arise between the several Bishops (and sometimes between them and the inferior Clergy) which could not easily be determined, where every one's authority was independent, it was necessary that some one should preside over all the other Bishops of that Province, as the Proconsul did in the civil state, who might convene Synodical Assemblies, adjust the differences, and manage the Ordinations of the Provincial Bishops. And for this none could be so fit as he that resided in the Metropolis of the Province (thence called Metropolitan) partly because the Countries for the most part round about had originally derived their Christianity from thence, and 'twas but fit they should pay a peculiar respect to the Mother-church, partly because most persons had occasion to resort thither for the dispatch of business, and might with the same opportunity conveniently transact both their civil and Ecclesiastic matters, and partly because 'twas but reasonable, that the Bishop of so eminent a place should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have an honourable presidency over the rest, as the Council of Antioch particularly provides 
* Can. 9  in this case; Ordaining accordingly, that though every Bishop might Ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and manage the affairs of his own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or particular Diocese (as we now call it) yet that all the Bishops of the Province should acknowledge the Metropolitan, and attempt nothing of moment without his knowledge and consent; which they there enact, not as any Novel constitution, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they tell us, according to a most ancient Rule and Canon, that had been in force from the times of their forefathers. To the Metropolitan then upon every extraordinary occasion the Provincial Bishops addressed themselves, to him also other Metropolitans, such especially as lay nearest to him, were wont to send Letters of Communion, to testify their consent with him in the faith (a confession whereof every new Metropolitan used to send abroad upon his advancement to his See) and mutually to consult each others advice in all important cases.  
VII. THIS 'tis plain from the Writings of S. Cyprian and others, was the way of Administration during those first and most early Ages of Christianity: Private causes every Bishop judged of within his particular jurisdiction, where taking to him the assistance of his Clergy, his Presbyters and Deacons, they did Communi Consilio ponderare, 
* Cypr. Epist. xxxiii. p. 47. xxxii. p. 46.  weigh things by common advice and deliberation; where the case was of greater importance, or more general concernment, it was referred to a provincial Synod, wherein the chief Bishop of the Province presided, and directed all affairs. Here the Ordination of Bishops was usually performed, or where a Synod could not conveniently be had, by as many Bishops as could be got together, the rest 
* Vid. Cone. Nic. Can. iv.  who were absent by writing under their hands testifying their consent, and the whole either actually managed by, or at least done by the allowance and confirmation of the chief Bishop. Here also criminal Bishops were deposed, and the same way of general suffrage observed: Thus when Cornelius and his Synod at Rome 
* Cornel. Epist. ad Fab. Antioch. ap. Eus. l. 6. c. 43. p. 245.  had condemned and cast out Novatian for his Schismatical Usurpation of that See, the Bishops that were not present at the Council, did by their Letters ratify and subscribe that Decree.  
VIII. IN reference to the affairs of Churches abroad, they acted by a kind of mutual consociation, they communicated councils, interposed in differences, opposed the same common enemies, and upon all occasions afforded ready help and assistance to one another, that dilectio communis, that Cyprian so often speaks of, 
* Epist. xxix. p. 41.  the common bond of love and charity obliging them to advise together, that so by joint consultations things might be carried on to the best advantage of Ecclesiastic Administration. For they looked upon themselves, he tells us, 
* Epist. xxx. p. 42.  as members of the same Body of the Church, though stretched out into many several Provinces, and that therefore they were bound to have care one of another, and to watch over the welfare of the whole Body. Upon a Persons Election to any of the greater Sees, they were wont to send their congratulatory Letters, to give him joy of that place, to signify their concurrence with his advancement to a share of the Government of the Church, and their communion with him in the Faith. Thus Cyprian by Letters 
* Epist. Xlii p. 56.  approved Cornelius his Election to the See of Rome, which he did, he tells us according to divine tradition and Ecclesiastic institution; nay he sent to all the Bishops of his Province, requiring them by their Letters to do the like. And when Marcian Bishop of Arles was deposed for his siding with Novatian, Cyprian wrote 
* Epist. LXVii. infin.  to Pope Stephen to send him word who succeeded in that Bishopric, that so he might know to whom to direct his communicatory Letters. When any person was duly Excommunicated in on Church, he could not be admitted to Communion in another. Thus when Felicissimus, who had been Excommunicated by Cyprian and the African Synod, fled to Rome, 
* Epist. LV. p. 78.  and came thither guarded with a potent faction, he found the doors shut against him, whereof Cornelius advised Cyprian by Letters, which the good man commends as replenished with Brotherly Love, Ecclesiastic Discipline, and Episcopal censure. And when the Legates of Novatian (who had procured himself to be irregularly Ordained Bishop of Rome, for which he was Synodically condemned) came into afric, Cyprian rejected them, 
* Epist. Xli p. 55.  and utterly refused to receive them to Communion.  
In short, no sooner did any extraordinary emergency arise, but notice was presently given of it to other Churches, and advice returned what was fit to be done in those matters, and all possible assistance afforded towards the dispatching of them. In all which transactions the Bishop of Rome was no otherwise considered than (as all others were) as a Bishop of the Catholic Church, nor was his Sentence any more regarded than that of other Bishops. Donatus à casis nigris accused 
* Optat. l. 1. p. 27, etc. & Const. Epist. ad Melch. ap. Euseb. l. 10. c. 5. p. 391.  Cecilian Bishop of Carthage to Constantine the Great. The Emperor referred the case to Pope Melchiades, and three French Bishops, together with whom Assembled fifteen Bishops of Italy, who gave judgement against Donatus. Wherein as the Pope acted as the Emperor's Delegate, and had no more power than the rest of his Colleagues, so the sturdy African slighted his judgement, and appealed from it. Constantine hereupon refers the business to a Synod at Arles in France, Ann. CCCXIV. where the former sentence is again brought under examination, and this thought no injury or dishonour to the Bishop of Rome, nay, his Legates in that Council subscribed only in the fifth place, 
* Vid. Conc. Tom. 1. col. 1428.  as the subscriptions published by Sirmoud out of an Ancient Copy, stand at this day. In short, 'tis ingenuously confessed by Pope Pius the second, 
* Epist. CCLXXXii. p. 802.  than Cardinal, that before the time of the Nicene Council very little regard was had to the Church of Rome. By all which we see how the Government of the Church in those days was carried on; Bishops superintended the affairs of the Church in every City and its adjacent Territory, over them were Metropolitans and Provincial Synods, and with foreign Churches they transacted by a mutual agreement and confederation for the good of the whole, but without any coercive power over one another.   

CHAP. II. The Government of the Church, and Power of the Bishops of Rome, as 'tis represented in the Canons of the Nicene Council.  
The sixth Canon of the Synod of Nice set down, with the occasion of it. Seven Observations drawn from that Canon. I. That the larger bounds of Ecclesiastic jurisdiction were the Roman Provinces. A Province what. Whither the Countries in Italy so called. II. That the chief Church-Governour in every Province was the Metropolitan. The prudence and convenience of that way of Government. Patriarches proved not to be intended in the Nicene Canon. III. That the Bishop of Rome no less than the rest had his proper and limited Metropolitical power. This owned by some of the greatest Champions of Rome. IV. That the Metropolitick Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were ever of the greatest note in the Christian Church, and of these Rome the chief. The eminency of Sees according to the greatness of the Cities wherein they were planted. This gave precedency to the Church of Rome. The three Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch ascribed to S. Peter. Blasphemous things spoken of the Pope upon that account. Primacy allowed to the See of Rome. No Supremacy belonging to it. The Christian Church then knew of no such supereminent power. V. That the rights of the Roman Metropolitan were not due by any divine constitution, but by custom and the practice of the Church. This plainly showed to be the sense of this, and other following Councils. VI That the Ordination of Provincial Bishops was one of the prime rights and privileges of every Metropolitan within his own jurisdiction. The fourth, sixth and seventh Canons of this Council noted to that purpose. The same showed to be the determination of other Synods. What other rights belonged to Metropolitans. VII. That this way of Ecclesiastic Administration was not any late novel institution, but founded upon ancient custom and practice. What this antiquity implies. The original of Metropolitans briefly enquired into. Several instances of this way of Government noted in the second and third Centuries. The word Metropolitan not met with till the Council of Nice. But the thing long before. The Sum of the Observations upon this Canon.  
IN this condition stood things at that time when the great Council Assembled at Nice, An. CCCXXV. where what had hitherto been transacted only by custom and mutual consent, became then a Law of the Church. For Alexander the venerable Bishop of Alexandria having complained to the Synod, that the Metropolitical Rights of that See had been invaded by the irregular and ambitious attempts of Meletius, the Schismatical Bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais, who during the late persecution had amongst other crimes taken upon him to Ordain Bishops, and to confer inferior orders wherever he came, the Synod did not 
Vid. Epiph. Haeres. 68 p. 307. Sozom. l. 1. c. 24. p. 438.  only depose Meletius, and in a manner null his Ordinations, but passed among others this following Canon.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  LEt ancient customs still take place; those that are in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these; because such also is the custom of the Bishop of Rome. And accordingly in Antioch, and in other Provinces, let the privileges be preserved to the Churches. This also is altogether evident, that if any man be made a Bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, this great Synod Decrees such a one to be no Bishop. And if two or three, out of a contentious humour, shall oppose the common election duly and regularly made according to the Canon of the Church, let the majority of voices in this case prevail. 
In this Canon, which has been the subject of infinite debate and controversy, there are several things very observable to our purpose, which every impartial unprejudicate Reader will see do naturally flow from it.  
First, That the larger bounds of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction at that time were concurrent with the Roman Provinces.  
Secondly, That the chief Church Governor within every Province was the Metropolitan.  
Thirdly, That the Bishop of Rome no less than the rest had his proper and limited Metropolitical power.  
Fourthly, That the Metropolitick Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were ever of greatest note in the Christian Church, and of these Rome the chief.  
Fifthly, That the rights of the Roman Metropolitan were not due by any Divine constitution, but flowed only from Custom and the Practice of the Church.  
Sixthly, That the Ordination of Provincial Bishops was one of the prime Rights and Privileges of every Metropolitan within his own Jurisdiction.  
Seventhly, That this way of Ecclesiastic Admiration was not 
nist  any late novel institution, but was founded upon ancient custom and practice.  
All which Observations I shall briefly explain and make good.  

Territorium est universitas agrorum intra fines cujusque civitatis: quod ab eo dictum quidam aiunt quod magistratus ejus loci intra eos fines terrendi, id est, submovendi jus habet. l. 239. § 7. de verb. signific.  1. THAT the larger bounds of Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction were the Roman Provinces. Every City, besides what was within its Walls, and immediate Suburbs, had usually some adjacent Territory, whither its Government did extend, as Strabo 
* Geograph. l. 4 p. 186. vid. Plin. l. 3. c. 4. p. 39  notes of Nemausus or Nismes, a City of the Gallia Narbonensis, that it had under it twenty four Villages, all well peopled and inhabited, and so commonly in other places; and these were the Towns and Villages (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they are called in the ninth Canon of Antioch) that were under the superintendency and jurisdiction of the City-Bishop. But a Province was a Collection of many Cities, with all the Tracts and Territories belonging to them; and was greater or less according to the custom of places, or as the will of Princes had set them out.  
Augustus (as Strabo who lived about that time informs 
* Lib. 17. p. 84.  us) when he resolved to commit some parts of the Empire to the immediate care of the Senate, and to reserve the rest to himself, divided each moiety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into several Provinces, and caused a Rationarium or Book to be made of it (this he did out of the Commentaries 
* Vid. J. Front. de Colon. inter s●r. Rei Agr. à Goes. Edit. p. 141. frag. de Term. ib. p. 148.  of Balbus, whom he had appointed to measure the several parts of the Empire:) Some account of these Provinces Strabo there gives us, but a more full and particular account is given by Dion Cassius. 
* Lib. 53. in vit. August.  How these Provinces stood divided in the following Ages, especially from the times of Constantine, is distinctly and accurately set down in the Notitia Imperii, composed under the reign of the younger Theodosius.  
I observe no more than that if at Augustus his settlement (which is taken notice of, and objected by some 
* Sirmond. Censur. P. 1. c. 2. p. 10. Aleand. Refut. Conject. P. 1. c. 3. p. 25. ) the Countries in Italy were not styled Provinces, but Regions, (he divided it says Pliny 
* Lib. 3. c. 5. p. 41.  into eleven Regions; whence Italy and the Provinces, and jus Italicum, and jus Provinciale are frequently distinguished) yet this distinction held not long, nor universally, the words being promiscuously used, as is evident from the Scriptores Rei agrariae (some whereof if their Titles belly them not, lived not long after Augustus his age) where we find more than once, the Territory of the Province of 
Front. ib. p. 118. 123. & alibi.  Picenum, as well as the Region of Picenum, the Province of Apulia and Calabria 
* Ib. p. 127. , of Valeria 
‖ Ib. p. 144. , of Tuscia 
* Hyg. de limit. ib. p. 211. , and the like. And for after ages, especially from the times of Constantine, no man can doubt of it, that has but once looked either into the Justinian, or Theodosian Code.  
II. THAT the chief Church-Governour within every Province was the Metropolitan, that is, the Bishop that resided in the Metropolis, or Mother-City of the Province. For as the preventing Schism and disorder had necessitated Provincial Bishops (who being all equal had no power one over the other) to choose one common Precedent to umpire and determine differences, and manage those affairs which could not be done by every single Bishop, so reason and conveniency, the example of the civil Government, and the greatness of the place, pleaded for the Bishop of the Metropolis to be the person, who hence derived the title of Metropolitan. And this Salmasius 
* Appar. ad Primate. pap. p. 273.  himself, how ill a friend soever to the whole Episcopal Order, cannot but confess was wisely contrived, and that had but Metropolitans contained themselves within their proper bounds, there could not have heen a more useful and laudable Institution. His business was upon all important occasions synodically to summon together the Bishops of his Province, and therein to inquire into their miscarriages and misdemeanours, to judge of the contentions that arose between them, to ordain persons to vacant Bishoprics, or at least to ratify their Ordination, and to direct all transactions that were of greater and more general concernment. Therefore the Fathers of Antioch take care, that 
Can. ix.  forasmuch as all that have any business to dispatch, are forced to go to the Metropolis, therefore the Bishops in every Province should own, honour and give precedence to the Bishop that presided in the Metropolis, and attempt nothing of moment without his concurrence, and this according to a more ancient Canon derived to them from their Forefathers. By the Ancient Canon here spoken of cannot be meant this of Nice, which was but sixteen years before it, and therefore without doubt refers to the XXXIV. Canon of the Apostles, which almost in the same words commands the Bishops in every Nation to own him who is first or chief amongst them, and to esteem him as Head, and to do nothing of moment without his consent, which truly expresses the ancient practice of the Church; these Apostolic Canons being nothing else but a collection of Rules and Customs agreed upon in the first ages of Christianity. For (that I may note this by the way) 'tis vain to think, that a thing than first began to be, when we find it first mentioned or enjoined by a Synodal Decree; the Canons in such cases being very oft expressive of a more ancient practice, which they then take notice of, or enforce, only because some extraordinary accidents at that time may have given particular occasion for it. As here at Nice, in the case of the Rights of Metropolitans, which the Canon mentions and resettles, only because Meletius' usurpation had brought it into question. It had been long before an ancient custom, and having lately received some little shock, the Church no sooner had an opportunity of meeting together in a general Council, but it established these Metropolitical privileges by its Ecumenical Authority. There are, I know, and they too men of no mean name and note, both heretofore and of later times, who tell us, that this Nicene Canon is to be understood not of Metropolitans, but Patriarches: But where does the Council say, or so much as hint any such thing, the Synod both here and in all other places constantly calls them Metropolitans, and makes the bounds of their jurisdiction to be Provinces, not Dioceses. And indeed the word Diocese, as relating to this extent of Ecclesiastic Government, was not in use till above an entire age after. Nay perhaps at this time it was scarce in use for the larger division of Countries in the civil state: For it was but about this time that Constantine new modelled the Government, and brought in Dioceses as comprehending several Provinces under them.  
So that either here must be Patriarches without Dioceses, or if the Canon be meant (as some explain it) of Metropolitanis Metropolitanorum, of some prime and principal Metropolitans, that presided over the Metropolitans of the several Provinces within their jurisdiction, then 'tis plain the Synod must intend such wherever it mentions Metropolitans, for it all along speaks of them as of the same. In the fourth Canon it provides, that in every Province a Bishop Ordained shall be confirmed by the Metropolitan; which is necessarily to be restrained to proper provincial Metropolitans. In this sixth Canon it speaks more particularly, and because the Metropolitick rights had been invaded in Egypt, Ordains that the Bishop of Alexandria, no less than he of Rome, and that he of Antioch, and the Churches in all other Provinces should still enjoy their ancient privileges. Where we see it speaks of them all without any difference in this respect as provincial Churches. And thus the ancient Version of this Canon (whereof more hereafter) understood it, when it rendered it thus, in caeteris provinciis privilegia propria reserventur Metropolitanis Ecclesiis, that at Antioch, and in the other Provinces, the Metropolitan Churches should have their own privileges.  
And to put the case out of doubt what the Council meant, the Canon adds in the close, that no Bishop should be made without the consent of the Metropolitan. Nothing therefore can be more absurd, than to say, that Patriarches are meant in the former part of the Canon, and Metropolitans only in the latter, when as the Canon itself makes no difference. And indeed were that the meaning, the grave and wise Fathers of that Council took an effectual course that posterity should never understand their mind. If we look into the following Canon, that secures the rights of the Metropolitan Church of Caesarea in Palestine, and though it grants the next place of honour to the Bishop of Jerusalem, yet still it subjects him to his own Metropolitan. And I suppose it will puzzle any man to give a wise reason, why the Church of Jerusalem (for which the Christian World ever had so great and so just a veneration) should be subject to that of Caesarea, but only that Caesarea was the Metropolis of that Province, and so had been ever since the time of Vespasian, and accordingly Josephus says 
* De bell-Jud. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 854.  'twas the greatest City in the Country, and Tacitus 
* Hist. l. 2. p. 359.  calls it the head of Judaea. So miserably does Alexander Aristinus blunder in his Exposition of this Canon, when by virtue of it he makes the Bishop of Jerusalem to become a Patriarch, and yet withal to be subject to the Metropolitan of Caesarea, or, which is all one, that the Metropolitan of Caesarea should not hereby lose his ancient power and dignity. As if any Patriarch, and much more one of the five greater, could be subject to a private Metropolitan, or a Metropolitan could have his ancient rights reserved to him, when at the same time a considerable part of them are taken from him. But Patriarches were not then heard, or so much as dreamt of in the Church; nothing being truer than what Balsamon has observed 
* In Can. II. Concil. C P. p. 88  in this case, that anciently all the Metropolitans of Provinces were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolute and independent, and Ordained by none but their own Provincial Bishops.  
III. THAT the Bishop of Rome no less than the rest had his proper and limited Metropolitical Power. This is so evidently the sense of the Canon, that few, who have otherwise Will good enough, have yet the hardiness to oppose it. The Sun itself is not clearer at Noonday, than that hereby the Council designed, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the same power within his Province, that the Bishop of Rome had in his. Let the Bishop of Alexandria (says the Canon) have all his ancient and accustomed powers and privileges in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since, or forasmuch as the Bishop of Rome has the like Custom, that is, (as a learned and zealous Champion 
* L. Allat. de consens. Eccles. Orient. & Occid. l. 1. c. 12. N. 4. p. 190.  for the Pope's Supremacy does yet with great ingenuity expound it) that he and none but he should exercise Jurisdiction within his own bounds; as the Alexandrian Bishop has prescribed limits to his Diocese, so also has he of Rome: And as he of Rome manages the affairs of his own Diocese without the interposal or meddling of any other person, so we Will that he of Alexandria shall have the same power, and that none shall obstruct him in the exercise of it.  
The Canon than makes a double comparison between these two Metropolitans, the one respecting the extent of their Jurisdiction, that one was confined and limited as well as the other; the other the fullness of their power, which they might exercise within their respective limits, and that none might presume to invade or hinder it, but by the same Right by which the Roman Prelate Governed his Churches, by the same might he of Alexandria the Church's subject to him.  
One of the Greek Scholiasts 
* Alex. Arist. in loc.  Sums up the Canon into these words. Let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis: And the Roman Bishop over those places that are subject to Rome. Harmenopulus 
* Epit. Can. Sect. I. Tit. I. in Jur. Gr. Rom. p. 1.  expresses it in somewhat more general terms: Let the ancient customs of Arch-Bishops still prevail, and every one have power over his own Province. I inquire not now what were the peculiar bounds, within which the Power of the Bishops of Rome was terminated. 'Tis enough at present, that whether larger or narrower, limits he had, which he might not regularly pass, and that the Church of Rome was in those days accounted a particular Church, and as much a Member of the Church Universal, as Alexandria, Antioch, or that of any other Province.  
IV. THAT the Metropolitick Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, were ever of greatest note in the Christian Church, and of these Rome the chief. Hence they are here particularly named, while others are dismissed with an Et caetera, and Rome as the most eminent, made the Exemplar according to which the Rights of Alexandria were to be recovered and resettled. 'Twere impertinent to show that respect was always paid to places proportionable to their Temporal power and greatness; S. Cyprian 
* Epist. XLIX. p. 63.  long since told us, that the reason why Rome had the precedency of Carthage, was pro magnitudine sua, because 'twas the greater City. And 'twere as endless as 'tis needless to prove, that the places mentioned in this Canon were Capital Cities of the Empire: Rome was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Athanasius styles 
* Epist. ad solit. p. 644.  it) the Metropolis, or chief City of the Roman World, it had for several Ages been the Governing City, and was still the Seat of Empire, the greatness whereof the Geographical Poet 
* Dionys. de script. Orb. vers. 355. p. 8.  has no less briefly than Elegantly thus summed up.  

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   

Rome triumphs in th' Imperial Seat, and is  
Wealth's Storehouse, and the World's Metropolis.   
Alexandria besides the vastness of the place, numerousness of its inhabitants, the riches and plenty of its Traffic, was the Seat of the Imperial Viceroy, called the Augustal Perfect: Indeed it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
* Dion. Orat. xxxii. (ad Alex.) p. 362  the second City under the Sun, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristides 
* Orat. in Rom. p. 358. Tom. 1.  styles it, the greatest next to Rome; and thence by ancient Writers 
* Alexand. ap. Eustath. comment. in Homer. I●iad. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Stephan. in v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  emphatically called THE CITY. Antioch was frequently the Court of Emperors, constantly the residence of their Lieutenants, the most ancient, rich and populous City of the East, commonly styled Antioch the Great: Now the greatness of these places added a proportionable reputation to their several Bishops, it being but reasonable that they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as the Fathers at Antioch speak 
* Can. ix. ) precede others in honour, who presided in the most eminent and honourable Cities.  
And because Rome was confessedly the greatest and noblest City of the Empire, hence the Church there had an honorary precedency before all others, and the Bishops of it in all public meetings and consultations had the first place allowed them, and upon all occasions a mighty deference and respect paid to them, and their favour was courted, and Addresses made to them from all parts. And in this sense 'tis plain the ancients understood the honour due to the Roman Bishop. When the Council of Constantinople decrees, 
* Can. two.  that the Bishop of that City shall have the next place to him of Rome, for that Constantinople was new Rome, it sufficiently shows upon what foundation the precedency of the Roman Prelate stood. And that of Chalcedon 
* Can. xxviii.  much more expressly, that the cause why 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 8. Edit. Graec. vid. Barlaam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 26.  the Fathers gave privileges to the See of old Rome was, because that was the Imperial City. And in pursuance of these Canons (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the Emperor Justinian enacts, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 374. fac. 2. Edit. Graec.  that the Bishop of old Rome should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first of all Bishops.  
I know there are, 
‖ L. Allat. ib. c. 2. N. 6, 7, etc. p. 12, etc. Morin. exercit. Eccles. l. 1. exerc. 1. p. 9  who place the Eminency of these three great Sees upon another bottom, and tell us it was, because they were all founded by S. Peter, two of them by himself, and that of Alexandria by the Ministry of S. Mark his peculiar Disciple, sent thither by his immediate direction and authority: And the assertion further improved, that these three Cities being severally the chief Cities of the three then known parts of the World, Europe, Asia and Africa, thence it follows that the Government of these three great Churches, and in them of the whole Christian World is lodged in S. Peter's Successor, and 'tis added 
* Morin. ib. p. 8. 11. vide sis etiam Hieron. Aleand. de Region. Suburb. dissert. 11. c. 2. p. 90.  (with greater boldness shall I say, or blasphemy?) that S. Peter herein expressed a lively representation both of the Unity of the Godheads, and of the Holy Trinity, and that as 'tis but one and the same Episcopal Office that is in a Bishop, a Metropolitan, and a Patriarch, so a Trinity of Patriarches meets in the Unity of the Pope; so that in the See of the Prince of the Apostles, there is an Unity in Trinity, and a Trinity in Unity. But where Men can suffer their wits want only to sport at this rate (though 'tis gravely brought in by way of Argument, by some otherwise learned enough) 'tis no wonder, that nothing should be stuck at, true or false, that may serve their cause. But I spare any farther censure of this Author, finding by his life 
* Vit. I. Morin. p. 5. 7.  (published since the Writing of these Papers) that he repented afterwards of so hasty and inconsiderate an undertaking, and oft intended to have brought that work under a review and castigation. And indeed any Man may at first sight discern 'twas the issue of a Juvenile heat, and wanted the corrections of calmer and maturer thoughts.  
But perhaps it might prove no such easy task to make it out that S. Peter founded those three Sees, and if he did, that any such authority as is claimed, is thence derived to the See of Rome. Antioch and Alexandria did always maintain their Jurisdiction Independent, though the Popes frequently inculcated their being originally Instituted by S. Peter, as a kind of obligation to Rome, and that which reflected the greatest honour upon those Churches. And the Fathers we see found their pre-eminence upon the Glory and Majesty of their Cities, and none more expressly than that of Rome, the Bishop whereof was therefore honoured, caressed and add rest unto, because Bishop of Rome. And had he contented himself with that place and deference which the Fathers gave him, and not broken down Enclosures, and trampled over the Heads of his Brethren, we should neither have envied, nor denied it. And though perhaps it might admit some dispute, whether Rome having for so many Ages lost the honour of being the Imperial City, the Privileges conferred upon that Church, upon that account, ought not in reason to abate proportionably; yet we are willing to grant, what genuine Antiquity did allow, that the Bishop of that place containing himself within Primitive Rules and Orders, should be esteemed the most honourable among all Christian Bishops, that he should be first, but not Lord, much less Tyrant over his Brethren. The Privileges assigned him by the ancient Canons, were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (says a late learned Patriarch of Alexandria 
* Melet. Alex. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 14. ) Privileges of honour, not conveyances of a Tyrannical power to make or abrogate Laws as he pleases.  
And therefore suppose the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Primacy of the Church of Rome (mentioned in the beginning of this sixth Nicene Canon, as 'tis quoted by Paschasinus the Pope's Legate in the Council of Chalcedon) were granted, yet who knows not that there is a Primacy of Order as well as Power; a Primacy amongst equals; and such 'tis plain was that which the ancient Councils did assign him, not an Universal, Monarchical, uncontrollable Power and Supremacy over the whole Christian Church, which would have fundamentally destroyed the very design of this Nicene Canon, which makes the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, the other Provinces, independent, and as supreme within their own limits, as the Pope is in his. Is there no difference between Precedency and Supremacy, between Dignity and Dominion? Let the Roman Church be the Head of all Churches (as 'tis sometimes styled by the Ancients, and frequently challenged by the Popes) 'tis so only in an honorary sense, and in that respect other Churches, especially that of 
* Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum est caput. Lib. 1. Cod. Just. Tit. 11. l. 24.  Constantinople, have the same title given to them. Where then shall we find the Sovereign, Arbitrary, and unbounded Power of the Bishop of Rome? and where, but in the pride, ambition and Usurpation of that See? certain I am it has not the least footing in this or any other ancient Council.  
Nor can it be supposed, that had the Fathers of this venerable Synod known of any such supereminent Power of the Roman Bishop, as is now pretended to (and know it they must, if there had been any, meeting from all parts of the World) we cannot suppose, I say, they would have given the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, etc. equal Power within their respective Provinces, without inserting into the Canon a Salvo to the Supreme Rights and Prerogatives of the See of Rome, especially when we find them in the very next Canon, giving the Bishop of Jerusalem an honourable Session, but still with a Proviso to preserve the Rights of the Metropolitan of that Province.  
V. THAT the Rights of the Roman Metropolitan were not due by any Divine Constitution, but flowed only from Custom and the practice of the Church. This is here laid down as one of the main foundations upon which the whole Body of the Canon is built, the Right here conveyed not being Divine Institutions, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ancient Customs, introduced by time and use and a wise contrivance. Which is not only the case of Metropolitans in general, but is particularly applied to him of Rome, it being (says the Canon) the custom for the Bishop of Rome to have such Metropolitick Power.  
Had these good Fathers known of any peculiar Commission given by Christ to Peter, and in him to the Bishop of Rome, to be his Supreme and Universal Bishop upon Earth, to Govern his Church by a despotical unaccountable power, or that our Lord had but so much as authorized and appointed him to be Superior to all the Bishops within the Roman Province, it had been hard, not to say unjust and unreasonable in them to conceal it, and an irreparable injury to that Church, to derive its authority from any meaner original. An injury, which we cannot conceive but that the Pope's Legates, who were then in Council, must have immediately entered their Protest against. But the Christian World was as yet unacquainted with such Notions, and the Popes then either did not claim any such power, or to be sure durst not challenge it in that Assembly, where they knew it must be shamefully baffled and rejected.  
What Power soever our Lord or his Apostles conveyed to Bishops, this is certain, that all Bishops as such stand upon a common level, and that Superiority and Subordination among them is merely from humane positive Institution, borrowed from the Forms in the civil state, and with great reason brought in to comply with the conveniencies and necessities of the Church. And to this the Fathers usually refer it. Thus we see they here determined the case of Metropolitans. And in the following Canon the Bishop of Jerusalem's taking place next to his Metropolitan before all the other Bishops of that Province, is ascribed to custom, and ancient tradition. In the Council of Ephesus the Bishop of Antioch was complained of for invading the Rights of the Metropolitan of Cyprus, in deciding whereof the Fathers affirm, 
* Concil. Ephes. Can. viij.  it would be sufficient prejudice to his cause, if he had not ancient custom on his side: And having determined the case against him, decree, That every Province should enjoy those original Rights pure and inviolable, which had been derived to them by long continuance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according as the power of ancient custom had prevailed. And when some years after by reason of the Incursions of the barbarous people, the Metropolitan of Cyprus was forced to remove to Nova Justinianopolis in the Hellespont, the Fathers of the sixth Council in Trullo confirmed 
* Can. xxxix  his rights to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to ancient custom: For the Holy Fathers (say they) have determined, that Customs should be preserved in every Church.  
VI THAT the Ordination of Provincial Bishops was one of the prime Rights and Privileges of every Metropolitan within his own Jurisdiction. No Man in those days was bound to go beyond his own Metropolis, much less did they know of any obligation to seek to Rome either for Consecration, or Confirmation. And for this the Laws of the Church are as express and peremptory as words could make them. Our great Council had made Provision herein by their fourth Canon, that a Bishop should be Ordained by all the Bishops in the Province: But because pers haps business, or distance, might render that inconvenient, and sometimes impossible, they decree that it should be done by three, the rest testifying their consent in writing; and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the validity of what was done, should be from the Confirmation of the Metropolitan in every Province.  
And because the case of Meletius was then before them, and had raised a mighty noise and clamour, they again establish this matter in the close of the sixth Canon by way of recapitulation, that whoever should be made Bishop without the consent of his Metropolitan, his Ordination should be null and void, and that if any doubt and dispute arose in this case, the majority of Votes should carry it: Accordingly in their Synodical Epistle 
* Ap. Theod. l. 1. c. 6. p. 31.  to the Church of Alexandria they tell them, they had taken care about the Election of their Bishops, and that it must be with the Concurrence and Confirmation of the Bishop of Alexandria. This Constitution we find unanimously ratified by almost all following Councils; by that of Antioch 
a Can. nineteen.  most expressly, by that of Laodicea 
b Can. xii. , by that of Sardica 
c Can. vi. , by the Second 
d Can. xii.  and Fourth 
e Can. i.  Councils of Carthage, by the general Council of Chalcedon 
f Can. xxv. , who take notice of the neglect of some Metropolitans in delaying the Ordinations of their Provincial Bishop; and in the particular controversy between Anastasius of Nice, and Eunomius of Nicomedia 
g Conc. Chalced. Act. xiii. col. 715. , they all with one voice ratify the Nicene Canon.  
In all which Canons, and infinite more that might be mentioned, there is not the least intimation given of any Prerogative peculiar to the Bishop of Rome, or that he has any power to take this Right out of the hands of the respective Metropolitans. Nor is Ordination the only Privilege which the Synod of Nice vests in Metropolitans, for though they more particularly insist upon this, because Meletius had given such fresh occasion by violating the Metropolitan Rights of Alexandria, yet in the beginning of the sixth Canon they establish their Privileges in general, that they should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the ancient Powers and Privileges that belonged to their Churches in every Province.  
What these were, practice and the subsequent Canons of the Church do inform us; to take care that vacant Sees were well supplied, to call Provincial Synods, to disperse Canons there agreed on for the common good, to end controversies between their Bishops, to admonish the unruly, to censure and suspend the irreregular, to give communicatory Letters to their Provincial Bishops that were to go into foreign parts, and such like. In short, the Synod of Antioch (than which perhaps none ever made wiser and better Rules for the Government and Discipline of the Church) order 
* Can. ix.  the Bishops of every Province not only to honour their Metropolitan, but to do nothing of moment without his consent.  
Lastly, I observe hence, That this way of Ecclesiastic Administration was not any late Novel Institution, but was founded upon ancient custom and practice. 'Twas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says the Canon most expressly. How far this Antiquity does extend, it is not easy precisely to determine. Salmasius 
* De primate. c. 4. p. 57  himself grants it for an hundred years before the Synod of Nice: And we would not have thanked him for a larger concession, had the state of things before that Council been as clearly transmitted to us, as they were afterwards. Indeed the Records and Writings of those early Ages are generally lost, and the defending Christianity from the assaults of Heathens on the one side, and Heretics on the other, take up the far greatest part of those few that remain. So that little light is afforded us to discover the Originals of particular Churches, and to trace out the gradual advances of Polity and Church-Discipline. Whether the Apostles themselves fixed a Superior Bishop in every Metropolis of the civil State, as some will have it; or whether the Apostles only formed the Scheme and draught, but left it to following Ages to erect and set it up, as de Marca 
* De Concord. l. 6. c. 1. n. 9 p. 176.  thinks, I leave it to the Reader, who is curious about these matters, to weigh their arguments, and then pass his Sentence.  
To me it seems probable that it actually commenced not long after the Apostolic Age, when Sects and Schisms began to break in apace, and when the Apostles who were the supreme Governors and Moderators being removed off the Stage, and controversies multiplying between particular Bishops, it was found necessary to pitch upon one in every Province, to whom the Umpirage of cases might be referred, and by whom all common and public affairs might be directed.  
In the declining part of the second Century we find Philip styled 
* Epist. Dionys. Corinth. Episc. ap. Eus. l. 4. c. 23. p. 144.  not only Bishop of the Diocese of Gortyna, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) but also of all the rest of the Churches or Dioceses (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in Crete, among which Pinytus is reckoned Bishop of the Parochia of Gnossus. Towards the latter end of the same Century we find several Provincial Synods convened for determining the Paschal controversy 
* Euseb. H. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23. p. 190▪ : Pope Victor presided in that at Rome; in that of Palestine, Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea, and Narcissus of Jerusalem; where Narcissus is joined with Theophilus, because the Bishop of Jerusalem had ever the place of honour next to his Metropolitan of Caesarea, and this (say our Nicene Fathers) from custom and ancient tradition. Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, at the request of Victor summoned a Synod of the Bishops of Asia (i e. of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia, whereof Ephesus was the Metropolis) wherein he was precedent, who all subscribed his opinion, as he tells us in his Letter to Pope Victor. In France there was a convention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Bishops of the several gallic Dioceses, wherein Irenaeus Bishop of the Metropolis of Lions was chief Moderator. Bacchylus also Bishop of Corinth (that was a Metropolis too) held a Synod of the Bishops of Achaia (if S. Jerome 
* De Script. in Bacchyl. c. 44.  understand Eusebius aright) and in their name wrote an Epistle about this matter. This the Author of the Ancient Synodicon 
* A Papp● edit. p. 7.  calls a Provincial Synod, and expressly styles Bacchylus Archbishop of Corinth. How oft does S. Cyprian 
* Vid. Epist. Xlii p. 56. XLV. p. 59  mention his Province, and his Fellow-Bishops in it, to whom he communicated affairs of the Church, and commanded (Mandavimus is his own word) their help and assistance: and this Province no mean one neither, as extending over afric properly so called, Numidia, and the two Mauritania's.  
Nor can I see any reason with Salmasius 
* Loc. ●itat.  to understand it of the civil Province, especially when the best reason he gives, is, that the Power of Primates or Metropolitans was not yet in force, which is a plain and shameful begging of the Question. Indeed if he means it only of the Title, by which they were called, I grant that the word Metropolitan is very rarely, if perhaps at all, to be found in any Authentic Writer before the time of the Nicene Council: They were in those days styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first Bishops, and the Heads of Provinces, (as is plain from the XXXIV. Apostolic Canon) i. e they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the chief Bishops that resided in the several Metropoles, as Zonara's truly expounds that Canon. But whatever becomes of the Title, the thing itself is plain to all that are not biased by prejudice and partiality, that there was a Superior Bishop in every Province, resident at the Metropolis, who partly by himself, partly by the assistance of his Provincial Bishops meeting in Council, usually managed all the more important Church-affairs within that Province.  
The Sum in short of this great Nicene Canon amounts to this That the greater limits of Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction were concurrent with the Provinces of the Roman Empire, that the prime Governors within those bounds were the Metropolitans, and though some were more honourable than others, by reason of the eminency of their Episcopal Stations, yet that every Metropolitan had a free and independent power of Ordination, and steering the main affairs of the Church within that Province; that the Bishop of Rome had the same, and no more within the Roman Province; a Power not granted by any immediate commission, or Divine authority, but introduced for conveniency, and settled by custom and long continuance.   

CHAP. III. The extent of the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction, considered as a Metropolitan.  
A Search into the proper bounds of the Roman Bishop. His Power fourfold, Episcopal, Metropolitical, Patriarchal, Apostolical. The First not controverted. The last discharged as extravagant and groundless, and as frequently baffled, both by the Reformed, and Greek Church. L. Allatius' Jeer of his Countrymen. His Metropolitical Jurisdiction considered as concurrent with that of the Provost of Rome. That how great, and how far extending. The Suburbicary Regions what. Sicily no part of the Urbicary Regions. The usual conformity between the extent of the Civil and Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction in those times. The Power of the Roman Metropolitan confined within an Hundred Miles of Rome. Rufinus his Exposition of the Suburbicary Churches. Greatly quarrelled at by the Romish Writers. His authority in other cases allowed sufficient and unquestionable. His Book approved by Pope Gelasius and others. No probability of his being mistaken in the sense of the Canon, or the extent of the Roman Metropolitanship, or the Suburbicary Churches. His Explication confirmed by most ancient Interpreters of this Canon. The Bishops of Rome and Italy distinct. The Bishop of Milan ranked with him of Rome. The objection of the Bishop of Rome's being confined to so narrow a compass, considered and answered. The Majores Dioeceses in the Epistle of the Synod of Arles what. The bounds of the Roman Bishops showed to have been heretofore small from an ancient Notitia Episcopatuum. The fraud in the first publication of that Notitia. Morinus noted. The greatness of Rome equivalent to a large extent.  
I. THUS far then we have gained; that the Bishop of Rome as well as the rest was bounded within his Metropolitical Province; the Council supposing this as the ground of its constitution, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have jurisdiction over all within his Province, as the Bishop of Rome had in his. 'Tis true, the Council does not assign the proper limits of the Roman Metropolitanship, as it does that of Alexandria, there being a more particular reason why it should specify the latter, that being the Subject under debate, and the main, if not only occasion of the Canon; we must therefore search it out some other way. And here we are told 
* L. Allat. ib. c. 8. n. 1. p. 158. Filesac. de S. Episc. auctor. c. 9 §. 3. p. 225.  of a threefold power vested in the Pope; Episcopal, Patriarchal, and Apostolical; or as others 
* Bellarm. de R. Pont. l. 2. c. 18. col. 659 Aleand. de reg. suburb. Part. II. c. 4. p. 142. Sirmond. Censur. P. II. c. 5. p. 76.  distinguish a little more accurately, he may be considered under a fourfold capacity, as a Bishop, as a Metropolitan, as a Patriarch, and lastly as Pope, or as he is the Vicar of Christ, and Head of the Universal Church. In which capacity he is not only more honourable than all other Bishops and Patriarches, but has full authority over them, to consecrate, confirm, or depose them, yea when he pleases, to suppress old, and to erect new Episcopal Sees. Hereby (they tell us) he is constituted Judge over all Churches in the World, and may at pleasure visit, govern, and give Laws to them. For the First of these, as he is a private Bishop, we have no controversy with him: And for the last, his Supreme and Apostolical power over the whole Christian Church; 'tis so wild and extravagant a claim, so groundless and precarious, so utter a stranger to Scripture and Primitive Antiquity, that it's needless to take pains in the refuting of it. Nay, the Popes themselves how desirous soever to amplify their own Power, have not yet dared to challenge it where they knew it would be disputed or denied. In the discourse that past between Constantius and Pope Liberius about the condemnation of Athanasius, the Emperor asked him, 
* Ap. Theod. l. 2. c. 16. p. 94.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what great part of the World are you, that you only should take his part? and that (as he urges a little before) when the whole World had past Sentence upon him. The proper answer to which (had Liberius known of any such power) had been this. I only am entrusted by Christ with Supreme Authority over the whole Church, and I having acquitted him, 'tis no matter though the whole World besides has condemned him. And so no doubt he would have answered, had he been aware of any such Prerogative affixed to his See. But Popes had not then set this claim on foot, nor 'tis like dreamt of it, nor if they had, was the World as yet disposed to receive it. Something we said to this before, when we considered the Bishop of Rome as standing uppermost among the Metropolitans mentioned in the Nicene Canon. To add more, were a vain, and impertinent loss of time; especially after so much as has been said upon this Argument, both by the Writers of the Greek Church, (Alexius Aristinus, Zonar as, Balsamon, Matthaeus Blastares, Pet. Antiochenus, Macarius Ancyranus, Demetrius Chomatenus, Barlaam, Nilus Thessalonicensis, Nicetus Seidus, Nilus Doxopatrius, Geo. Coressius, Gabriel Philadelphensis, Maximus Margunius, Meletius Alexandrinus, etc. whom Leo Allatius 
* Ib. 16 n. 2. col. 240.  in a scornful insultation over the deplorable state of his own Country is pleased to style Graecanica ingenia, the Wits of Greece) and by them of the Reformed Religion, and by some too of their own Church, by whom all pleas and pretences to this power have been so often and so shamefully baffled, that a man would wonder if at this time of the day they should be again rallied, and brought into open Field. It remains then that we consider him in his Metropolitical, and Patriarchal capacity.  
II. AND first we shall inquire what were the bounds of his Metropolitical Power.  
And the best measures we can take in this matter, will be to inquire into the extent of the civil Jurisdiction of the Provost of Rome, with which that that of the Roman Prelate must run parallel, no man can doubt, that considers the course of things in those times, when in this respect the Church and the State went so fairly hand in hand. A thing not only affirmed by Protestants, but granted by the most Learned and zealous Writers of the Church of Rome. Let us therefore consider first how the case stood in the civil State.  
The Perfect of Rome was an Officer of great Antiquity, instituted in the very infancy of that state, while governed by Kings, but being only of a pro tempore-use, was never made fixed and ordinary till Augustus, who being much engaged in foreign Wars, appointed a Magistrate, who might in the interim supply his room, manage his affairs, and administer Justice at home. His public appearances were very pompous and stately, and he had several great Officers under him, as may be seen in the Notitia Imperii. The greatest persons in the City were not exempt from his power, for calling five persons of the Senatorian Order to his assistance, he might try and pass Sentence upon the Head of a Senator himself. His Government extended not only to Rome, but to an hundred miles round about it, where the limits of his jurisdiction ceased, as is expressly said in a Rescript 
a Ap. Vlp. de office praef. urb. l. 1. ff. §. 4. Lib. 1. Tit. 12. & collat. Ll. Mosac. Tit. 14. de plag.  of the Emperor Severus. Ditioni suae non solum Roma commissa (quamvis in illa contineantur universa) verum etiam intra Centesimum Miliarium potestatem te protendere, antiqua jura voluerunt, as his Patent runs in 
b Form. Lib. 5. p. 207  Cassiodore.  
Within this compass were several Countries, which partly from their lying round about, partly from their subjection to, and dependence upon the praefecture of Rome, were usually styled Urbicariae 
c L. 3. C. Th. Lib. 9 Tit. 30. l. 3. Lib. 11. Tit. 3. l. 9 Tit. 16. ib.  and Suburbicariae 
d L. 9 C. Th. Lib. 11. Tit. 1. l. 12. Tit. 16. ib. l. 12. Tit. 28. , and Suburbanae Regiones 
e L. 13. C. Th. Lib. 9 Tit. 1. , sometimes also Regiones solitae 
f Vlp. ubi supr. §. 13. , the Countries within which the Governor of Rome was wont to exercise his solemn jurisdiction, and Vicinae Regiones 
g L. 4. C. Th. Lib. 14. Tit. 10. , Countries that lie next to the City. And these I doubt not are those Four Regions mentioned in a Law 
h L. 1 C. Th. Lib. 14. Tit. 6.  of Constantine M. directed to Orfitus Praefect of the City.  
III. THIS circumference Salmasius conceives 
* Epist. ad Amic. p. 4. Euchar. P. 1. c. 1. p. 7. P. 11. c. 1. p. 249.  (though herein stiffly opposed by his Learned Antagonist) to be the Romana regio, mentioned in an old Inscription at Nola, and by the Historian (as he corrects 
* Euchar. ib. p. 11. & not. Salm. in vit. Probi.  him out of an ancient Manuscript) in the Life of Probus, where 'tis opposed to Verona, Benacum, and other Regions of Italy; and that this was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Region of the Romans, spoken of by Ignatius in the front of his Epistle to that Church. What these Four Regions were, mentioned in the Law of Constantine, is not agreed by those that have searched furthest into this matter. Gothofred 
* Conjectur. de region. suburb. c. 5. p. 27. 30, 31. & come. ad C. Th. Lib. 14. Tit. 6. l. 1.  makes them to have been Tuscia Suburbicaria (another part of it being called Annonaria) Picenum Suburbicarium (to distinguish it from the Annonarium) and of these there is no doubt: The other Two he makes to be Latium Vetus, and Latium Novum, lying South of Rome, and extending as far as Sinuessa upon the River Safo, which divided between Latium and Campania. Salmasius 
* Epist. cit. p. 23, 24. Eucharist. 1. c. 5. p. 170. 186, etc.  will have the Latium Vetus and Novum to have been but one and the same, and which was afterwards called Campania Latina, and to fill up the number, substitutes the Province of Valeria, so called from the Valerian way, that lay through it. Another French Lawyer, 
* Io Lechasser. observat. de Eccles. Suburb. p. 4, 5.  who takes upon him in less than half a sheet of Paper (which he published on purpose) to state the controversy, will have five of the Eleven Regions (into which Pliny tells us Augustus the Emperor divided Italy) to belong to this, viz. the First, Fourth, Fifth, six and Seventh, as those that lay next the City, and were bounded with the Rivers Tifernus and Silarus on the East, and Marca and Constantinum on the West. But herein he offers no other evidence than his own conjecture. Sirmondus 
* Censur. Conject. l. 1. c. 4. p. 23. Advent. P. 1. c. 3. p. 31.  (and others after him) extends the number of the Suburbicary Countries to Ten, which he makes the same with the Ten Provinces, that were under the Vicarius Urbicus, and to have thence taken their denomination.  
But there are two things amongst many others that lie strongly in prejudice of that opinion, and with me turn the Scales. First, That some of these Ten Provinces, especially the Three Islands of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica lay too remote to come under the notion of Suburbicary Regions: For Urbicarium, and Suburbicarium, Suburbanum, and Suburbicum all importing the same thing (as the Learned Jerom Aleander 
* Refut Conject. P. 1 c. 3. p. 26.  readily grants) must necessarily imply their lying within some tolerable neighbourhood to the City. Secondly, That Sicily, one of the Ten Provinces belonging to the Vicarius Urbicus, is most expressly distinguished 
* Lib. 11. C. Th. Tit. 16. l. 9 p. 120.  from the Urbicary Regions, and as equally as 'tis from Italy, strictly so called, that is, the Seven Provinces that constituted the Italic Diocese. A case so clear, that Sirmond 
* Censur. ubi supr. c. 6. p. 38. vid. Advent. ib. p. 36.  though he endeavours to say something to it, yet 'tis so thin and trifling, that it rather shows he had a good mind to answer it, than that his answer would ever hold water. Others 
* Aleand. ubi supr. c. 2. p. 23.  are willing to suggest, as if in that Law of Constantius, Illyricum ought to be read instead of Sicily: but this is thrown in only as a conjecture, and that too against all reason, Illyricum belonging at that time to another jurisdiction. For by the famous distribution 
* Vid. Zosim. Hist. l. 2. p. 688.  which Constantine the Great made of the Parts and Offices of the Empire, Illyricum was under a Praetorian Perfect of its own, and so I suppose continued all the time of Constantius (in the latter part of whose Reign this Law was made) though afterwards a great part of it was laid to the command of the Praetorian Perfect of Italy. But Morinus 
* Exercit. Eccles. l. 1. c. 30. p. 243.  like a young and daring Champion that was resolved to do the work, is for quite dashing it out of the Body of the Law, as a word contrary to the usage of that time. All which shuffling Artifices are a shrewd sign it was a bad cause they had to manage.  
In short, though men of Learning may by tricks and subtlety entangle and perplex an argument (as they have done in this controversy) yet two things are plain beyond all just exception. First, that the Jurisdiction of the City-Praefect reached an Hundred miles about Rome. Secondly, that the Urbicary and Suburbicary Regions lay chiefly, and in all likelihood, entirely within that compass, and derived that title from their vicinity to the City, and their immediate dependence upon the Government of its Provost. And I cannot but a little wonder that Sirmond, who more than once grants 
* Cens. c. 1. p. 9 Adu. c. 1. p. 7.  the Praefect of Rome to have had jurisdiction within an Hundred miles, should yet as often deny 
* Cens. p. 12. Propemp. l. 1. c. 7. p. 87. , that he had any Provinces under his Government, as if there had been no Provinces within that compass, when they are expressly called the Suburbanae Provinciae in the Theodosian Code 
* Lib. 9 Tit. 1. l. 13. , and the ordinary Judges in those parts commanded to return all greater causes to the Tribunal of the City-Praefect, and this in contradistinction to the course of other Provinces, which were to be accountable to the Praetorian Praefect.  
IV. HAVING thus found out the Jurisdiction of the Roman Praefect, it should one would think be no hard matter to discover that of the Bishop of Rome, there being so known a correspondence between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Government of those days. And though this did not always, nor Universally take place (and how should it, when time, and the Will of Princes made such alterations in the bounds of places and Provinces?) yet did it generally obtain. A thing introduced at first for greater conveniency, founded upon long custom, and settled by several Laws and Canons of the Church, insomuch that if a change or alteration had been, or should hereafter be made by imperial authority in any City, that then the Order of Episcopal Sees should follow the civil and Political forms, as is expressly provided by two general Councils, the one of Chalcedon 
* Conc. Chalc can. 17. , the other of Constantinople 
* Conc. C. P. in Trull. c. 38. . Nor can any reason be given, why the Bishop of Alexandria should exercise a Pastoral Authority over Three such large Provinces, as Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, but only because they were under the civil Government of the Praefectus Augustalis, the Imperial Viceroy, who kept his residence in that City. The Jurisdiction then of the Bishop of Rome being of equal circumference with that of the Roman Provost, must extend to all the City-Provinces, that lay within an Hundred miles round about it.  
Accordingly we find that when great disturbances were made in the Church of Rome by the Manichees, and other Heretics and Schismatics, Valentinian the Third writes 
* L. 62. C. Th'▪ Lib. 16. Tit. 5.  to Faustus' Praefect of Rome to expel them all out of the City; but especially to proceed against those who separated themselves from the Communion of the venerable Pope, and whose Schism did infect the people; commanding him, that if upon warning given they should not within Twenty days reconcile themselves, he should banish them One hundred miles out of the City; that so they might be punished with their self-chosen solitude and separation. The Emperor thinking it but just, that they who had voluntarily rejected, should be themselves cast out of the bounds of his Jurisdiction, that they who had perverted many in the Capital City, should not be left within any part of his Diocese to infect the people. And this was done in compliance with the course observed in civil cases, where notorious malefactors were so used. Thus Symmachus 
* Prosp. de promise. div. P. iii prom. 38. p. 60.  the Gentile was for his insolence banished an Hundred miles out of Rome. And some Ages before that, Severus having cashiered the Soldiers that murdered the Emperor Pertinax, banished 
* Herodian. Hist. l. 2. p. 97.  them, and charged them at the peril of their Heads not to come within an Hundred miles of Rome, that is, within the limits of the City-Praefecture. And more plainly yet, in the case of Ursicinus, who had raised infinite stirs at Rome about the choice of Pope Damasus, and had set up himself as Competitor in that Election, for which he had been banished into France, Valentinian the Elder afterwards (as appears by his Rescript 
* Ext. ap. Baron. ad Ann. 371. vid. item Rescr. ad Maxim. V. V. ibid.  directed to Ampelius the City-Provost) gave him and his companions leave to return into Italy, provided they came not to Rome, nor any place within the Suburbicary Regions, that is, within the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop.  
But Rufinus has put the case beyond all question, who in his short paraphrase (for for a translation we may be sure he never intended it) of the sixth Nicene Canon, tells 
* H. Eccl. l. 1. c. 6.  us, that according to ancient custom, as he of Alexandria had in Egypt, so the Bishop of Rome had the care and charge of the Suburbicary Churches. The Champions of the Roman Church finding themselves sorely pinched with this authority, have no other way to relieve themselves but to throw it quite off their Necks, and to fall foul upon Rufinus, loading him with all the hard Names and Characters of reproach, charging him with malice, falsehood, ignorance, want of learning, and indeed what not. But the World is not now to be taught that Rufinus was a Man of parts and learning, witness the reputation which his Works had of old, and still have to this day. Pope Gelasius with his Synod of seventy Bishops allowed 
* Distinct. xv. c. 3. Sancta Romana. p. m. 34.  them (the case only of freewill excepted:) And among the rest his Ecclesiastical History, wherein this very Nicene Canon is extant, and gives him too the title of a Religious Man into the bargain. So that Rufinus his Exposition has the Pope's own approbation on its side. And surely if ever his judgement be infallible, it is, when he has his Council about him to advise and assist him. And though perhaps that Gelasian Synod, if searched into, may not be of that authentic credit, as to lay any considerable stress upon it, yet however it stands good against them, that own its authority, and thereby approve its determination. And though it had not given this testimony to Rufinus, yet there wants not other evidence that the thing was so. Accordingly Hincmar of Rheims, speaking of this very Book of Rufinus whence this passage is taken, assures us 
* Adu. Hincm. Laud. cap. 21. p. 100 , it was one of those that were received in the Catalogue of the Apostolic See. Nay, his Ecclesiastical History obtained such credit, that it was wont solemnly to be appealed 
* Vid. Conc. Nic. II. Act. 1 Con. T. seven. Col. 80. 85. vid. Cyril. Epist. ad PP. Afric. Conc. T. 2. col. 1143.  to by Fathers and Councils in some of the most weighty and important cases of the Church.  
V. NOR is there any shadow of probability, that he should be mistaken either in the sense of the Nicene Canon, or in the Province of the Bishop of Rome. He was himself an Italian, born not above Twenty years after the Synod of Nice, Baptised, and perhaps born at Aquileia, a famous City of Friuli, (honoured heretofore with the residence of Augustus and some other Emperors, and made afterwards a Metropolis, and the Seat of the Praetorian Perfect) and himself a Presbyter of that Church: He had been frequently conversant at Rome, had travelled over most parts of the Christian World, and had conversed with persons of the greatest note and eminency in every place. In all which respects he could no more mistake the jurisdiction of the See of Rome, than we can suppose, that a Prebend of York born and bred in the Church of England, should be ignorant how far the Province of Canterbury does extend. Nor can there be the least reason to imagine, either that by Suburbicary Churches Rufinus should mean any other, than what lay within those Provinces, that were universally known by that title, or that he should dare so openly, and in the face of the World to shut up the Bishop of Rome within those Suburbicary Regions, had not his power at the time of the Nicene Council (whose Canon he must in all reason be supposed to explain as things stood at the time of that Synod) been notoriously known to have been confined within those limits.  
But what need we take pains to vindicate the credit of our witness? he stands not alone in this matter, his testimony being sufficiently justified by concurrent evidence. The ancient Version of the Nicene Canons (published by Sirmond 
* Censur. P. two. c. 4. p. 68  out of the Records of the Vatican, and another exactly agreeing with it by Mons. Justell, from a very ancient Manuscript) the Author whereof was perhaps not much later than Rufinus, renders it by Suburbicaria loca, the Suburbicary places; the three Arabic Versions, the Alexandrian, that of the Melchites, and the Paraphrase of Joseph the Egyptian, all express it to the same effect, that he should have power over his Countries and Provinces, and what ever lay next to him: Alex. Aristenus, and Sim. Logotheta, two Greek Canonists, and a third ancient Epitomiser of the Canons, mentioned by Leo Allatius 
* De Eccl. Occid. & Or. consens. l. 1. c. 12. S. 4. p. 191. , by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the places and Provinces that lay under Rome, i. e. the Suburbicary Countries.  
Nor will it a little contribute to the further clearing of this matter, to observe, that as the civil Government of the Roman Provost is distinguished from that of Italy in the Writings of those times, so is this of the Roman Prelate: and this distinction very ancient. When Paul of Samosata Bishop of Antioch refused to give Domnus possession of that Church, an appeal was made to the Emperor Aurelian, who referred the Decision of the case to the Bishops of Italy and of Rome, as Eusebius 
* H. E. l. 7. c. 30. p. 282.  tells us: and in the title of the Letter written by the Sardican Synod to the Church of Alexandria, 'tis said, 
* Ap. Athan. Apol. II. p. 588. vid. ad solitar. p. 640.  that the Bishops Assembled from Rome and Italy, i. e. Italy taken in its strict and peculiar notion, as 'tis there distingusht from Campania, Calabria, etc. Thence Milan as being Head of the Italic Diocese, is in an Ecclesiastic sense called 
* Ap. Ath. ib. p. 643.  the Metropolis of Italy, and Dionysius Bishop of that Church styled 
* Ap. Theod. H. Eccl. l. 2. c. 15. p. 91.  Bishop of the Metropolis of Italy, and Sulpitius Severus speaking of Priscilian and his company coming into Italy, says 
* Sac. Hist. l. 2. p. 169.  they addressed themselves to Damasus Bishop of Rome, and Ambrose of Milan, as Bishops that had the greatest authority in those days. And in this respect in the civil sense Berterius 
* Pithan. P. 1. c. 3. p. 26.  truly makes Rome to be the Metropolis of the Suburbicary Regions, as Milan was of the rest of Italy.  
VI BUT it seems no small prejudice to the great men of that Church, that so venerable a person as the Bishop of Rome should be penned up within such narrow limits, much inferior to many others, especially him of Alexandria or Antioch. But besides that the Eastern Dioceses (as some think) were generally larger than those of the West, the Ecclesiastic Provinces (as we noted before) were restrained to the form of the civil constitution, and were more or fewer, as it happened in the political Distribution: Wherein if the Roman Bishop had not so large an extent as some others, yet was it made up in the number, and frequency of Episcopal Sees, beyond what was in all those times in other places of the like extent. And therefore when the Synod at Arles in their Letter 
* Ext. Conc. T. 1. col. 1429.  to Pope Sylvester, say that he did majores Dioeceses tenere (a passage frequently quoted by the Writers of the Roman Church) possess greater Dioceses; besides, that the place as Salmasius 
* De Primate. c. Vlt. p. 390.  observes is very corrupt, and affords no currant sense, 'tis plain that the word Diocese there cannot be understood of Patriarchal Dioceses (Constantine not having yet made the division of the Empire, nor Dioceses come up in a civil, much less in an Ecclesiastical sense) and must therefore be meant of single Bishoprics, in the modern use of the word, and which was not unusual in those days, as is evident from the Code of the African Church, and the conference between the Catholics and Donatists at Carthage, where nothing is more common and obvious than this usage of the word Diocese, for a single Episcopal See; the places 
* Vid. Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric. Can. 53. 56. 71. 93. 98. 99 117. 118. 119 123. & in collat. Carthag. passim.  are too numerous to be reckoned up. And thus also. Pope Leo uses 
* Epist. LXXXVii. c. 2. p. 158.  the word in the case of Restitutus an African Bishop.  
VII. AND indeed that the bounds of the Church of Rome for several Ages after the Nicene Council were much narrower than some others, appears from an old Greek Notitia Episcopatuum, wherein the five Patriarchates are distinctly reckoned up, with all the Provinces and Bishoprics contained under them. Where under him of Rome, are set down no more than six Provinces (whereof the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Province of Urbicary Rome is the first) containing not above One hundred and eight Episcopal Sees. A number far inferior to the rest, especially the Patriarch of Constantinople, who had subject to him XXXiii Provinces, and in them CCCLXXXiX Bishoprics, besides some others then newly added to him. This Notitia had been heretofore published by Carolus a S. Paulo in his Geographia Sacra, but when he came to that part of it that concerns the Diocese of Rome, he quite leaps over it, pretending the Manuscript Copy to be imperfect, and that the words were so corrupted, that scarce any one remained entire; leaving somewhat more than a bare suspicion, that he himself, or some before him had purposely razed the Manuscript, lest the nakedness of the Country, the thinness and smallness of the Roman Diocese in comparison of others, should be discovered. But to their great confusion it has been lately published 
* A D. Bevereg. inter Annot. ad Can. XXXVi. Conc. Vi. in Trull. p. 135.  entire and perfect out of the Oxford Library, where the account that we have given is plain and notorious. All which considered, with how little reason and pretence to truth does Morinus 
* Exerc. Eccl. l. 1. exercit. XXX. p. 250.  appeal to the Ecclesiastic Notitia's, even such as were made long after the times of Constantine, to prove the amplitude of the Roman Province, as to the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. But to return, there can be no reason to expect, that the Ecclesiastic limits in those days should be longer than those of the State, which were the standard and measure, by which the others were ordinarily regulated. Nor is the greatness of any Jurisdiction so much to be measured by the largeness of its extent, as by the honour and authority of the place, where 'tis exercised; as that of the Lord Mayor of London, though reaching no further than the Liberties of the City, (which take not in half the Suburbs) is yet a more honourable authority, than that of a Sheriff of the largest County in England. In this regard the Bishop of Rome had though a shorter cut, a better and more noble Jurisdiction, than any other Prelate in the World besides; Rome being the Seat of Majesty and Power, the residence of the Emperors, the highest Court of Justice, the place to which all parts paid either homage, or at least respect and veneration, honoured with the Title of ROME THE GREAT, the Provost whereof was reckoned next 
* 
— Adoratum populo caput, & crept ingens Sejamis: deinde ex facie toto or be secunda, etc. Juvenal. satire. x. vers. 62. orbe etc.] quia praefectus Vrbi fuit venerabilis, secundus à Caesare Tiberio. Vet. Scholiast. ibid.  
— erubuit tanto spoliare ministro  
Imperium fortuna tuum: stat proxima cervix  
Ponderis immensi—  P. Stat. Sylu. l. 1. c. 4. vers. 5. de Rub. Gallico. P. V. 
Vid. Gothofred. conjectur. dissert. I. c. 1. II. c. 5. & J. Dartis. de Reg. Suburb. Part. I. c. 16. p. 147.   in honour to the Emperor, and upon all occasions went equal in dignity to the Praetorian Perfect, who yet commanded ten times as many Provinces: He had the precedence 
a L 3. C. Lib. 1. Tit. 28. Symmach. l. 10. Epist. 36. p. 503.  of all the great Officers of Rome, and to him belonged Civilium rerum summa, 
b Id. ib. Epist. 30. p 459.  the management of all civil affairs. Hence the Title given to Sylvester, is that of Bishop of the Imperial City 
c Ap. Eus. de Vis. C. l. 3. c. 7. p. 487. Can. 28.  and the Council of Chalcedon tells us, that the Fathers therefore gave a Prerogative to the See of Rome, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because that was the Governing and Imperial City; and Constantius the Emperor though he had already condemned and deposed Athanasius, did yet to put the better colour upon it, desires to have it ratified by the authority enjoyed by the Bishops of the eternal City, as the Heathen Historian 
* A. Marcell. Hist. l 15. p. m. 1454.  has remarked. And thus much may serve for the Metropolitical bounds of the Roman Prelate.   

CHAP. IU. An Enquiry into the Rise and Original of Patriarches in the Christian Church.  
An Enquiry into the Rise and Original of Patriarches in general. None before the Council of Nice. What that Council contributed to them. Civil Dioceses when, and by whom introduced. These gave start to Primary Metropolitans. Dioceses, when first brought into the Church. The title of Patriarch borrowed from the Jews. Who their Patriarches, and whence descended. Exarches what. The word Patriarch when first used by Church-writers in a strict and proper sense. The Patriarches among the Montanists, who. A short Survey of the four great Patriarchates. The extent of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The Dioecesis Aegyptiaca, what. The Patriarchal Jurisdiction in what sense larger than that of the Augustal Perfect. Little gained to this Patriarchate more than a title of honour. The Patriarchate of Antioch commensurate to the Eastern Diocese. The contest about Cyprus how determined? Palestine for some time under Antioch. The Patriarchship of Constantinople. By what degrees it rose. What privilege conferred upon it by the second general Council. The Bishops henceforwards exercising a kind of Patriarchal power over the Churches of the neighbouring Provinces. The Power granted to that See by the Council of Chalcedon. It's ninth, seventeenth and eight and twentyeth Canons considered to that purpose. Jurisdiction over the three Dioceses of Asiana, Pontica, and Thrace. This settled upon a full debate and discussion of the matter. This Power owned by the Synod to have been exercised of a long time before. This grant urged against the universal Supremacy of the See of Rome. The extent of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate in after times manifested from several ancient Notitiae. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The honour confirmed to this Church by the Nicene Council. It's subjection to the See of Caesarea. When first attempting a Metropolitical Power. The contest between this Bishop, and the Bishop of Antioch How determined in the Council of Chalcedon. When first styled Patriarch. The extent of this Patriarchate.  
I. PROCEED we in the second place to consider him as a Patriarch, the highest Degree of Ecclesiastic Government which the Church ever owned. And in order to the better clearing the whole matter, it will be of some advantage, and perhaps not unpleasant to the Reader, to inquire briefly into the rise and original of Patriarches in general, and then survey each particular Patriarchate. The rise of Patriarches is but obscurely delivered in the Records of the Church, the thing not being particularly and by name taken notice of, till like a River that has run a great way, and gathered many tributary rivulets, it had swelled itself into a considerable stream.  
That there were none at the time of the Nicene Council we showed before, the chief Church-governors then being the Metropolitans, some of which soon after set up for more room, and began to enlarge the bounds of their Jurisdiction. And two things there were greatly contributed to that attempt. First, The mighty reputation which the Synod of Nice had given to Metropolitans, and especially to the particular Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. This inspired them with an ambitious affectation of extending their Superiority and Jurisdiction, and prepared the way among their Brethren, for the easier reception of it. Socrates' observed, 
* L. 7. c. xi. p. 347.  that long before his time (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must reach as far as the Council of Nice at least) the Bishop of Rome (as he also of Alexandria) had gone beyond the bounds of his place, and had aspired 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a Power and Dominion over his Brethren. A remark so very clear and plain (especially as to the Bishop of Rome) that nothing is more obvious in the whole History of the Church.  
The Synod of Nice was beholden by all with a just regard and veneration, and its Decrees received as Oracles from Heaven, and the Christian World finding what particular care it had taken of those three great Sees, were the more ready to submit and strike Sail to their Usurpations. Hence the following Popes, but especially Leo the First, do upon all occasions magnify the Nicene Canons, and amplify their meaning beyond what was at first intended by them. Secondly, The late division of the Empire, and the alteration of it from that form, whereinto it had been cast, first by Augustus, and afterwards by the Emperor Hadrian, new modelled by Constantine the Great much about the time of the Nicene Council, gave a singular advantage and opportunity to promote and further this design.  
II. FOR Constantine introduced four Praetorian Praefectures, each Praefecture containing several Dioceses (XIII. in all) and each Diocese comprehending several Provinces, the Vicar or civil Lieutenant residing in the Metropolis of every Diocese, and presiding over all the Provinces within that division. And how easy was it, the World being so prepared and disposed, and the Church so readily embracing the forms of the civil state, for the chief Metropolitan of every Diocese to set up for himself. The dignity of the City where he resided, and the resort of people thither for the dispatch of business made him at first be esteemed and honoured as the First Bishop of the Diocese, and this in a little time brought on the privilege of Ordaining the Metropolitans of the several Provinces, and to be entrusted with almost the same powers over Metropolitans, which they had over Provincial Bishops.  
And no doubt it made persons more willing to comply with such a Model, that having frequent occasion of repairing to the Metropolis, (as is intimated in the ninth Canon of Antioch) they might with the greater conveniency dispatch their civil and Ecclesiastical affairs both at once. It served not a little to help on this business, that the second general Council gave the Bishop of Constantinople the next place of honour to him of Rome upon the account of its being the Imperial City; which gave no small encouragement to the Bishops of all Diocesan Metropoles to attempt the extending their Superiority equal to that of the Imperial Governor that kept his residence in that City. But that which puts the case past dispute is▪ that that Council took in the form of civil Dioceses into the Church, at least, approved what was already taken in: for so they provide 
* Concil. C. P. Can. 11.  that Bishops should not go beyond the Diocese to meddle in Churches that were without their bounds.  
Socrates 
* L. 5. c. 8. p. 275.  giving an account of this Canon, says expressly, that the Fathers of the Synod having made division of the Provinces, constituted Patriarches. And though perhaps by Patriarches Socrates means no more than those Pro tempore Commissioners who were within such and such places appointed to judge who should be received to Catholic Communion (as we have elsewhere 
* Life of Greg. Nazianz. Sect. v. Num. 8.  observed) yet very plain it is, that the Council there intends Diocese properly, and in an Ecclesiastic sense, and therefore opposes it to Province, ordaining that Bishops should not ordinarily go out of the Diocese to celebrate Ordinations, or any other Church-offices; and that the Canon concerning Dioceses being observed, the Synod in every Province should manage the affairs of it according to the Nicene constitution. And in the sixth Canon they speak yet more expressly, that if any take upon him to accuse a Bishop, he shall first exhibit and prosecute his charge before the Provincial Synod; and in case they cannot end it, that then the accusers shall apply themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the greater Synod of the Bishops of that Diocese, who shall be assembled for that purpose. And if any slighting the Bishops of the Diocese, shall sue to the Emperor, or the secular Tribunals, or to a general Council, he shall not in any wise be admitted to exhibit an accusation, but be rejected as a Violator of the Canons, and a disturber of Ecclesiastic Order. And to name no more in a case so evident, Pope Innocent 
* Epist. xviii. non long abinit▪  in a Letter written about the year CCCCVIII. says of the Church of Antioch, that its authority reached not over a single Province, but over a Diocese; though withal he falsely makes it to have been so settled by the Synod of Nice. Nay long before all this we meet with Ecclesiastic Dioceses in this sense. For by a Law 
* Lib. 16. C. Th. Tit. 2 l. 23.  of the Emperor Gratian bearing date May the XVII. Ann. CCCLXXVI. it is provided, that the same customs that were in use in civil Judicatures, should obtain in Church matters, and the final decision and determination of Ecclesiastic causes should be made in their proper places, and by the Synod of every Diocese. And this course the Emperor insinuates, as that which was not then first introduced.  
III. FROM all this it appears that according to the Political constitution, Diocesan or, as 'twas after called Patriarchal, Jurisdiction was brought into the Church, and that accordingly the Bishops of some of those Cities, who had hitherto been but Metropolitans, advanced into the Title and Dignity of Primates (which was the word that generally obtained in the Western parts, the word Patriarch being late, and little used in the Western Church) extending their superintendency commensurate to the Jurisdiction of the Vicar of the Diocese. And because some of these Metropoles were Cities of far greater eminency and account than others, as Rome, Alexandria, &c therefore the Bishops of them were (in the East especially) honoured with the Title of Patriarches, differing at first from other Primates not so much in power, as in dignity and honour, they were diversorum nominum, sed ejusdem officii, as Gratian 
* Distinct. xcix. p. 302.  notes. That this Title of Patriarch was borrowed from the Jews, there can be no doubt. Upon the final destruction of their Church and State, they were dispersed into several Countries, especially in the Eastern parts, where not being capable of continuing their Levitical Polity, exactly according to the Mosaic Institution, they constituted some persons to exercise the chief authority among that people, who kept their residence in some of the greater Cities, as at Babylon, Alexandria, Tiberias, and afterwards probably at Jerusalem. The persons thus made choice of, are thought to have been of the Tribe of Judah, and more particularly to have descended from the Line of David. Epiphanius 
* Haeres. 30. p. 60.  seems to make them (at least them of Tiberias) to have been the Posterity of Gamaliel, the great Counsellor spoken of in the Acts. But Theodorit 
* Dial. 1. Tom. iv. p. 22.  has a more peculiar fancy, that they were the descendants of Herod the Great, who was by his Father's side an Ascalonite, by his Mothers an idumaean. But however descended, they were entrusted with the chief Power and Government over the Jews within their particular Jurisdictions. These are they who so often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Heads of the Exiles, and otherwhiles Princes, and frequently Patriarches (though besides these Supreme, it seems probable from some of the Imperial Laws, that they had an inferior sort of Patriarches, who were but just Superior to their Presbyters, or Elders) of these Jewish Patriarches there is frequent mention both in Jewish 
a Seder Olam, R. Abraham, R. Dau. Ganz. in Zemach, David. Benjamin in itin. etc. , and Christian 
b Epiph. Haeres. xxx. ubi supra. Cyril. Catech. xii. p. 261. Hieron. Comm. in Esa. c. 3. p. 18. & alibi. Chrysost. adv. Jud. l. 4. p. 448. & de hisce intelligendus est locus in Epistola Hadriani ap. Vopisc. in Saturnino p. 960.  writers, and especially in the Theodosian 
c Lib. 16. Tit. viij. de Judaeis. l. 1. 2. 8. 11. 13, 14, 15. 17. 22. 29.  Code: Whence also 'tis evident that this Office and Title ceased, or rather was abolished by the Imperial Authority not long before the year 
d Vid. C. Th. ubi supr. l. 29. & Theod. loc. supr. citat.  CCCCXXIX. in the time of the younger Theodosius. But though it be plain whence this Title was derived, yet when it first sprung up in the Christian Church, it is hard to say. In the Canons 
* Can. ix. & xvii.  of the Chalcedon Council he is called Exarch of the Diocese, and any Bishop or Clergyman that has a controversy with his own Metropolitan, is allowed to appeal to him (the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indifferently notes any chief Person in place or power, and the sense or it is to be determined according to the circumstances of the case: Thus the Canons mention both Exarch 
* Con. Sard. Can. vi.  of the Province, and Exarch of the Diocese, the First denoting a Metropolitan, the Second a Patriarch) But in the Acts 
* Conc. Chal. Act. two. col. 338. Tom. 4.  of that Council we are told of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most holy Patriarches of every Diocese; and in the several Libels 
* Ib. Act. iii col. 395.  exhibited against Dioscurus, Pope Leo is entitled Patriarch of Great Rome. And that this Title was not then newly taken up we are assured from the Letters 
* Ext. ibid. col. 57  of Theodosius and his Empress Placidia, about calling the third general Council, holden at Ephesus Ann. CCCCXXXI. in both which Leo is styled the most Reverend Patriarch. This is the first time that I remember to have met with a Patriarch strictly so called, unless we will understand the passage of Socrates I mentioned concerning Patriarches in a proper sense.  
IV. INDEED the Montanists or Cataphrygians, who started up under the Reign of the Emperor Antoninus, had their Patriarches. They had three Orders 
* Hieron. Epist. ad Marcellam. p. 28 T. 2. Habent primos de Pepusa Phrygiae Patriarchas. Secundos, quos, etc.  of Church-Officers, Patriarches, Cenones and Bishops. But besides that they were an odd and absurd Sect, whom the Catholic Church always disowned, 'tis not easy to guests what they meant by Patriarches, whom they plainly make distinct from Bishops. They were it seems their prime Ecclesiastic Governors, the chief whereof resided probably at Pepuza in Phrygia, which they Fantastically called 
* Vid. Apollon. ap. Euseb. l. 5. c. 18. p. 184. etc. 16. p. 180.  Jerusalem, affirming it to be the New Jerusalem, that came down out of Heaven, and this 'tis like in imitation of the Jewish Highpriest; for from the Judaical constitution they borrowed many of their Devices, and perhaps might borrow the very name as well as thing from them, the prime Churchofficer among the Jews after the Destruction of the Temple, and the Abrogation of that Polity, being styled Patriarch, as we noted before. But it may be doubted, whether the Montanists had those three Orders from the beginning of their Sect, it being taken notice of by none Elder than S. Jerome, nor that I know of, mentioned by any other ancient Writer after him. However 'tis certain, that in the common use of the word, it occurrs not till the time of Pope Leo, and the Ephesine and Chalcedon Councils. After that the Title became fixed, and nothing more common than the word Patriarch, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patriarchal Sees in the writings of the Church. What and how many these particular Sees were, we are told by the sixth Council in Trullo 
* Can. xxxv. , where they are particularly enumerated, and their order and precedency adjusted in this manner, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. From hence then we descend to survey these particular Patriarchates; not designing to meddle with Secondary and later Patriarchates, such as that of Aquileia, Grado, Russia, the Patriarches of the Maronites, Jacobites, Armenians, the Catholic or Patriarch of Bagdad or Mauzel and the like. Our business now is with the five ancient, and eminent Patriarchships, and though first in order, we shall reserve that of Rome to be treated of in the last place, intending to discourse more fully concerning it.  
V. WE begin with the Patriarch of Alexandria (for I shall take them in order, as I conceive they grew up in time) who seems to have gained little by his new Patriarchship besides the honour of the Title, whether we consider him in point of precedency, in point of power, or in the extent of his Jurisdiction; nay in some respects he was a loser rather than a gainer by it. In point of precedency, he was before the second Metropolitan in the whole Christian World, whereas now he was thrust down into the third place. In point of power he was before this change sole Metropolitan of those parts, and the Ordination of his suffragan Bishops entirely belonged to him, or depended upon his consent and confirmation, which now according to the constitution of Church-Policy must be devolved upon the several Metropolitans under him: Nor was he much advanced in the extent of his Jurisdiction.  
'Tis true the Dioecesis Aegyptiaca consisted of six large Provinces, all under the Government of the Augustal Praefect, who constantly resided at Alexandria (and consequently in Spirituals belonged to the Patriarch of that place:) These in the Notitia Imperii 
* Ca 116. fol. 76. ubi vid. comment. Panciroll.  we find thus reckoned up; Libya Superior, Libya Inferior, Thebais, Aegyptus, Arcadia, Augustanica. Whereas in the Nicene Canon the Alexandrian Metropolitanship is said to extend but over three, Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis. But when it is considered, that Thebais, Arcadia and Augustanica, were of old parts of, and lay hid under the more general name of Egypt, and that Pentapolis was the same with the Upper Libya, the account will be much the same.  
We find in the Council of Nice 
* Gel. Cyz. H. Conc. Nic. l. 2. c. 32. p. 268.  that the Bishop of Alexandria was appointed to give an account of those Synodal transactions to the Churches throughout all Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, and the neighbouring Countries as far as the Provinces of India. Where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whole Egypt (in opposition to the other two which were but single Provinces) takes in Egypt strictly so called, Thebais, Arcadia and Augustanica; and by the neighbouring Regions that lay as far as India, are doubtless meant the Frontier Countries that bordered upon the Roman Provinces, and were perhaps confederate with the Empire, and wherein 'tis like the Bishops of Alexandria had propagated Christianity (as we know Athanasius did in India) whose Churches therefore owned a dependence upon the See of Alexandria. And in this respect I grant the Bishop had somewhat a larger Jurisdiction than the Augustal Praefect, though otherwise they were the same.  
Upon the erection of this See into a Patriarchate, several Metropolitans start up: Ten of the Metropolitans of his Diocese, the Emperor Theodosius 
* Conc. Chalc. Act. I. p. 100 T. iv.  commanded Dioscorus to bring along with him to the Council of Ephesus. How many more he had is not certain. Nilus' Doxopatrius in his Notitia 
* Ap. L. Allat. de cons. Eccl. Or. & Occid. l. 1. c. 9 n. 2. p. 167.  says there were thirteen; the old Greek Notitia we mentioned before 
a Chap. 2. Num. 7.  reckons ten Provinces, and in them ninety nine Bishoprics, which surely argues that a miserable desolation had laid waste those Countries, and reduced the number of Episcopal Sees. Seeing before the time of the Nicene Council there met in Synod near an Hundred 
* Vid. Alexand. Epist. Encycl. ap. Socr. l. 1. c. 6. p. 11.  Bishops out of Egypt and Libya, whom Alexander had summoned to the condemnation of Arius. And that so many there were, Athanasius expressly 
* Apol. II. p. 611. vid. p. 560.  tells us more than once. And how greatly Bishoprics were multiplied afterwards, the Reader who is versed in these matters needs not be told.  
VI THE See of Antioch always took place next that of Alexandria, being ever accounted the prime City of the East. Like the rest it arose by degrees into a Patriarchate, First getting an honorary, than an authoritative Superiority over that Diocese. During the Session of the Second general Council, the Bishops not only of that Province, but of the Eastern Diocese met together to Ordain Flavianus Bishop of Antioch, whose Act herein was ratified by the Vote of that Council, as the remaining part of the Synod, meeting again the next year, tell 
* Ap. Theod. l. 5. c. 9 p. 211.  Pope Damasus in their Letter to him.  
About this time, or rather sometime before, I guess the Bishop of Antioch had set up for a Patriarchal power, and had begun to enlarge his Jurisdiction from a Province to a Diocese. Now the Eastern Diocese 
* Not. Imp. Orient. c. 104 fol. 71.  under the care of the Comes Orientis contained fifteen Provinces, the Three Palestine's, Phoenicia, Syria, Cyprus, Phoenicia Libani, Euphratensis, Syria Salutaris, Osrhoëna, Mesopotamia, Cilicia Secunda, Isauria and Arabia; Cyprus indeed stood out, and would not submit to the See of Antioch, and though the Bishop stickled hard to bring them under, yet the Cyprian Bishops stoutly maintained their ancient rights. The case was canvased and debated at large in the Council of Ephesus 
* Act. seven. col. 787. etc. Tom. iii , and upon hearing the whole matter, the Council adjudged it for the Cyprian Churches, that they should still enjoy their ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their liberties independent upon the See of Antioch, and passed a particular Canon in favour of them. And so they continued for many Ages: And therefore in the old Notitia 
* Vbi supr. p. 147.  Cyprus is not placed under any of the Patriarchates, but is noted to be a Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having Jurisdiction within itself.  
But the rest of the Provinces for any thing that appears, submitted, and the Bishop of Jerusalem with his Metropolitan of Caesarea, were both for some time under the See of Antioch. And this renders S. Jerom's meaning plain enough in that known passage 
* Hier. ad Pammach. Tom. 2. p. 178 , when he tells John Bishop of Jerusalem, who in the controversy between him and Epiphanius had appealed to Theophilus of Alexandria, that if he would have appealed, it should have been either to him of Caesarea, who was his Metropolitan, or to the Bishop of Antioch as Metropolitan of the whole East, that is, of the Eastern Diocese. But when he says, this course was settled by the Synod of Nice, 'tis plain 'twas his mistake. And indeed his own Ni fallor shows he was not very confident and peremptory in the case.  
The account of this Patriarchate, as delivered by 
* Ap. L. Allat. l. 1. c. 9 n. 1. col. 165.  Nilus Doxopatrius (with whom in the main concur many other ancient Notitiae 
* Ap. Guil. Tyr. l. 23 Mirae. notit. Episc. etc. ) stands thus. Immediately subject to the Patriarch were VIII. Metropolitans, who had no suffragan Bishops under them, and VIII. or as others reckon, XII. Archbishoprics: Besides which he had XIII. Metropolitick Sees; Tyre containing under it XIII. Bishoprics; Tarsus VI; Edessa XI. or as others X; Apamea VII; Hierapolis XI, the Latin Notitiae reckon but VIII; Bostra XIX, or XX; Azarbus IX. Seleucia in Isauria XXIV; Damascus XI; Amida VIII, or as the Latins VII; Sergiopolis V, but by some one less; Daras X, the Latin Notitiae call it Theodosiopolis, and allow but VII. Episcopal Sees; and lastly Emesa containing VI This was the state of that once venerable Patriarchate.  
VII. THE next that succeeds is the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which though starting later in time, soon got beyond the other two. The Bishop of Byzantium or Constantinople had for several Ages been only a private Bishop, Subject to the Metropolitan of Heraclea, which anciently had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Procopius 
* De aedific. Justin. Lib. 4 c. 9 p. 87. vid. Chron. Alex. ad An. Const. XXV. p. 666.  tells us) the Primacy of all the Cities of that Country; in acknowledgement of which subjection the Bishops of Heraclea had ever the privilege to Ordain the Patriarch of Constantinople. But no sooner was that City made the Seat of the Empire, but great things were spoken of it, 'twas styled the Governing City, the Metropolis of the whole World 
a Chrysost. Homil. iv. de verb. Esai. T. 2. p. 865. , a great City (says Nazianzen 
b Orat. xxvii. p. 472.  in one of his Sermons to the people of that place) and the very next to Rome, nay not at all yielding the Primacy to it, it being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first and chiefest City of the Empire. And now the Bishop of Constantinople began to appear considerable in the World, and both Church and State conspired to render him great and powerful.  
The Fathers of the second general Council holden in that City, considering that Constantinople was new Rome, conferred 
* Can. iii  upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the privilege of honour and respect next to the Bishop of Rome. This at one lift set him over the Heads of the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. Accordingly in the preceding Canon of that Council, and in a Law 
* C. Th. Lib. 16. Tit. 1. l. 3.  of Theodosius conform thereto concerning the bounds of Dioceses, and Catholic Communion, he is set before both the Bishops of those Sees; and if the subscriptions to this Synod be of any credit, we find Nectarius subscribing first to the Decrees of the Council. And when the Acts of the clancular Synod at Ephesus were read in the Chalcedon Council 
* Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. col. 116. , and it was found that the Bishop of Constantinople was therein put in the fifth place, the Bishops presently raised a clamour, why had he not his proper place, why was he thrust down into the fifth place; whereupon Paschasinus the Pope's Legate declared that he held Anatolius of Constantinople in the first place: which Diogenes of Cyzicum affirmed was according to the constitutions of the Fathers. But to return to what we were upon. Though this Canon of Constantinople gave the Bishop no direct power, yet it gave him so mighty a value and reputation, that he wanted not opportunities enough to carve for himself. He was soon courted on all hands, his mediation requested, and his interposal desired for the ending differences, and where Provincial Bishops could not agree about the Election of their Metropolitans, the case was very often referred to him, and he performed the Ordination.  
This in time begat a right, at least a claim, over the Churches in those Countries that lay next him, especially the Dioceses of Asiana, Pontica and Thrace, in which 'tis plain he exercised a Patriarchal power. Thus to omit other instances, S. Chrysostom Synodically heard the cause of Antoninus Bishop of Ephesus (the Metropolis of the Asian Diocese) and afterwards went himself in person thither, where he convened a Synod of LXX. Bishops of those parts, heard the cause over again, gave judgement upon it, and ordained a Metropolitan in that City. He likewise deposed Gerontius Bishop of Nicomedia, which lay in the Diocese of Pontica, and some others, and filled up their Sees; whereof we have elsewhere given an account at large. And this very instance we find produced and pleaded in the Chalcedon Synod 
* Act. xi. col. 669.  to prove the rights of the Constantinopolitan See over those Churches. I know the validity of these good man's proceedings in this matter is disputed by some, and was of old put among the Articles exhibited against him to the Synod at the Oak. But no doubt can be made, but Chrysostom thought he had sufficient authority and right to do it, and would not have attempted it, had it not been warranted by the practice of his predecessors.  
In the mean time I cannot but smile at the grave fancy of a Learned Man 
* Morin. l. 1. Exercit. xiv. p. 102. , who without the least shadow of any other warrant than his own conjecture, will have Chrysostom to have acted herein as the Pope's Legate, and to have done all this by virtue of his absolute and supreme authority. So quicksighted and acute are men to discern what never was, and so willing to believe, what 'tis their interest should be true.  
VIII. BUT to proceed with our Patriarch of Constantinople, he held on much at this rate till the general Council at Chalcedon holden there Ann. CCCCLI. when what he had hitherto holden by custom, Canonical authority made his right. By their ninth Canon they provide, that if any Bishop or Clergyman have a controversy with his own Metropolitan, it shall be at his liberty to appeal either to the Exarch, that is, Primate of the Diocese, or to the See of Constantinople, where his cause shall be heard. A Canon that invested him with a vast power, putting him into a capacity of receiving and determing final appeals from all those parts. The same they again ratify by their seventeenth Canon, and by their twenty-eight make a more particular provision for him. First, they profess in general altogether to follow the Decrees of the Holy Fathers, than they recognize the third Canon of the second general Council (which was then read before them) and Decree the same Privileges, and upon the same account, as that had done to the Church of Constantinople. Forasmuch (say they) as the reason why the Fathers conferred such Privileges upon the See of Old Rome, was, that it was the Imperial City. And upon the same consideration the Bishops 
Impp. THEODOSIUS & Honorius AA. Philippo PF. P. Illyrici.  of that second general Council gave 
Omni innovatione C●ssante, vetustatem & Canon's. pristinos Ecclesiasticos, qui nunc usque tenuerunt, per omnes Illyrici provincias, servari praecipimus: Tum, si quid dubietatis emerserit, id oporteat, non absque scientia Viri Reverendissimi Sacrosanctae legis Antistitis Vrbis Constantinopolitanae (QUAE ROMAE VETERIS PRAEROGATIVA LAETATUR) conventui Sacerdotali Sanctoque judicio reservari. Dat. Prid. Jul. Eustathio & Agricola COSS. [421]  equal Privileges to the See of New Rome; rightly judging (as the Canon goes on) that the City which was honoured with the Empire, and the Senate, and enjoyed equal Privileges with old Imperial Rome, should also in Ecclesiastical matters have the same honour with it, only coming after it in the second place.  
And because the Bishop of Constantinople had hitherto had no certain Diocese, nor any place wherein to exercise Jurisdiction, but what he held precariously, and as it were by courtesy, in the latter part of the Canon they fix his bounds, giving him power over the three Dioceses of Pontica, Asiana and Thrace, that the Metropolitans of all those places, and all the Bishops of the Barbarous Countries belonging to those Dioceses, should be bound to come, and receive their Ordination from the Bishop of Constantinople.  
And now he looked like Bishop of the Imperial City, being invested with so ample and extensive a Jurisdiction. For the three Dioceses of Asiana, Pontica and Thrace were great and large. The First 
* Vid. notit; Imp. c. 122. fol. 78.  containing eight Provinces (viz. Pamphylia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Lycaonia, Pisidia, Phrygia Pacatiand, and Phrygia Salutaris, both which were anciently comprehended under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or greater Phrygia, as it stood opposed to the lesser, that lay upon the Hellespont:) the Second 
* Ib. c. 126. fol. 79.  eleven (Bythinia, Galalatia, Paphlagonia, Honorias, Galatia Salutaris, Cappadocia Prima, Cappadocia Secunda, Hellenopontus, Pontus Polemoniacus, Armenia Prima, Armenia Secunda:) the third 
* Ib. c. 132. fol. 82.  six (Europa, Thracia, Haemimontus, Rhodopa, Maesia Secunda, Scythia.) The Pope's Legates were infinitely enraged at this Canon, and the Powers and Privileges hereby given to the See of Constantinople, and used all possible arts to overthrow it, but all in vain, it passed clearly, and was subscribed by all the Bishops then present in the Synod, amounting to a very great number, whose subscriptions are still extant 
* Act. xuj. col. 798, etc. Tit. iv.  in the Acts of the Council. After a full discussion of the whole matter, that no pretence of force or fraud might be objected, as many of the Bishops of Asiana and Pontica as were then in the Synod were desired to declare whether they had freely submitted to this constitution. Who accordingly stood up, and one after another did most solemnly protest that they had voluntarily and unconstrainedly assented to, and subscribed the Canon, and that nothing was more acceptable to them. And many of them expressly declared they did it for this reason, because not only themselves, but their Predecessors had been Ordained by the Bishops of Constantinople, and that the See of Constantinople had these rights 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from Canons and precedent customs.  
So that it's more than probable that the Bishop of Constantinople had exercised this power within those Dioceses almost ever since the time of, and by virtue of the third Canon of the second general Council. And 'tis observable what Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, a City of the greater Phrygia, tells the Synod upon this occasion, that he had been at Rome, and there in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople that were with him had read the Canon (I suppose he means that of the second general Council) to the Pope, who approved and received it, (which I the rather take notice of because not only modern Writers, but Gregory the Great 
* Lib. 6. Indict. xv. Epist. 31. col. 614.  so confidently affirms, that the Church of Rome neither had Copies, nor did admit the Acts and Canons of that Council.) And whereas Eusebius of Ancyra scrupled to subscribe, yet he confessed, that he himself had been Ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople, that he had ever declined Ordaining Provincial Bishops, and had done it only by direction of the Bishop of Constantinople. And after Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia told the Synod, that they were of Archbishop Anatolius his side, and did decree the same thing. The Judges hereupon having weighed all that had passed, declared, that in the first place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that precedency and singular honour should according to the Canons be paid to the Archbishop of Old Rome; and that withal the Archbishop of the Imperial City of Constantinople, being New Rome, aught to enjoy the same Privileges of honour, and to have besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, power of himself, and by his own authority to Ordain the Metropolitans within the Dioceses of Asiana, Pontica and Thrace; the Election being first duly made within every Province, and that then it shall be at the choice of the Archbishop of Constantinople, whether the Metropolitan Elect shall come to him for his Consecration, or whether by his permission it shall be done at home by the Provincial Bishops; and that this shall no ways prejudice the Rights of Metropolitans and Provincial Bishops in Ordaining private and particular Bishops, wherein the Archbishop of Constantinople shall not interpose. Whereupon all with one voice cried out, 'twas a righteous Sentence, that they were all of that mind, that this just judgement pleased them all, that the things that had been established should take place, and that every thing had been done decently and in order. In conclusion, they wrote a Synodical Letter 
* Ext. ib. col. 833. vid. ib. col. 838. A.  to Pope Leo, acquainting him with what had passed, and upon what grounds they had done it, and desiring his concurrence in it. And we may observe they tell him, that in settling this power upon the See of Constantinople, they did but confirm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the custom which that Church had of a long time obtained over those three Dioceses. Which puts it past all peradventure what we noted before, that from the very time of the second general Council, the Constantinopolitan Bishops had exercised a kind of Patriarchal Jurisdiction over those Churches, though never till now settled by Canon.  
IX. AND now let the Reader impartially reflect upon the whole affair, and when he has considered what this wise and great Council expressly affirm, that the Privileges which the Fathers gave to the See of Rome were merely upon the account of its being the Imperial City, and that for the very same reason they gave equal Privileges to the See of Constantinople, only reserving a honorary precedence to him of Rome; let him tell me, whether it can be supposed, they could or would have said and done this, had they known, or but so much as dreamt of any supreme authority, which Christ had immediately given the Bishops of Rome over the whole Church of God. Nor was this the only Council that thus honoured the Constantinopolitan See; somewhat more than two Ages after met the sixth general Council in the Trullus, or great Arch'd-hall or Secretarium of the Palace, who confirmed 
* Can. xxxvi▪  what both the former Councils, that of Constantinople, and the other of Chalcedon, had done in this matter, and assigned each Patriarch his proper place.  
X. WHAT additions, or alterations after Ages made in the See of Constantinople, the Reader may perceive somewhat by perusing the following accounts. In the Greek Notitia published 
* Inter Annot. D. Bevereg. ubi supr.  not long since out of the Bodleian Library, composed in the Reign of the Emperor Leo the Wise, about the year DCCCXCI. this Patriarchate had under it XXXIII. Metropolitans, who had under them CCCLXXV. Episcopal Sees, besides XLI. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or independent Archbishoprics, subject to no Metropolitan. Leunclavius 
* Jur. Gr. Rom. l. 2. p. 88  presents us with another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or disposition of the Churches of this Patriarchate made by this same Emperor, wherein are set down LXXXI. Metropolitans, containing under them DLXXIV. Suffragan Sees, and XXXIX. Archbishoprics. But surely this list is either greatly interpolated, or must be of a later date than it pretends to, being so different from the other both in the number, and the names of places, and not very consistent with itself. For whereas it reckons up LXXXI. yet when it comes to set down each Metropolitan with his particular Suffragans, it gives but an account of LVII. of the number. But however this be, within an Age or two after, partly by the addition of new Provinces, partly by erecting new Metropoles, it was enlarged For in the Notitia, or discourse concerning the five Patriarchal Sees written by Nilus Doxopatrius the Archimandrite, Ann. MXLIII. the account stands thus. 
* Ext. ap. L. Allat. loc. cit. c. 24. col. 411, etc.  Metropolitans LXV. under the Bishoprics DCXL. Archbishoprics without Suffragans, and immediately subject to the Patriarch XXXIV. Ann. MCCLXXXIII. Andronicus Palaeologus entered upon the Empire: He published an order 
* Ext. ad calc. Codin. cle offic. CP. p. 117.  according to which the Metropolitans were to take place, wherein they are reckoned up to the number of an Hundred and nine. And in another, agreed upon by the Emperor and the Patriarch, put out by Leunclavius 
* Ib. l. 3. p. 244. , but without any date either of time or persons, are mentioned LXXX. Metropolitical Sees, Archiepiscopal XXXIX. And thus much for the Patriarchship of Constantinople.  
XI. THE fourth that remains is the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the last in time, and least in circuit. For several Ages the Bishop of Jerusalem was no more than a private Prelate, subject to the Metropolitan of Caesarea. For so the Notitia published by William Archbishop of Tyre informs 
* Ad colc. lib. 23. Histor. suae p. 1015.  us, that according to ancient tradition, and Records of good authority in those parts, the Church of Jerusalem had no Bishop under it, nor enjoyed any, or very little prerogative till the Reign of Justinian, and the times of the fifth general Council; though always out of reverence to the place, custom and ancient tradition (as the Fathers of Nice inform 
* Can. seven.  us) had allowed him a peculiar honour, and therefore those Fathers decree him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consequence of honour, that is, that he should have respect and precedence before all the Bishops of that Province next to his own Metropolitan.  
And indeed whatever they of the Church of Rome may talk of the merit of S. Peter, as the foundation of the supereminent authority of that Church, surely if any Church might have pleaded merit, one might have thought it should have been that of Jerusalem, which for so many Ages had been the Metropolis of the Jewish Nation, the Seat of their Kings, adorned with a most magnificent Temple, and all the Solemnities of Divine Worship; the place where our Blessed Saviour spent the greatest part of his public Ministry, where he Preached so many Sermons, wrought so many Miracles, where he suffered, died, and rose again, and whence he ascended into Heaven, where the Apostolical College was kept for some years, and all affairs of the Church transacted there; where S. James the Brother of our Lord was made (and that say some of the ancients by our Lords own hands) the first Christian Bishop of that See; the place where the first Church was planted, and from whence Christianity was propagated into all other parts of the World. This was the true Mother Church, and if merit might have challenged Primacy and Power, it had more to say for itself, than all other Churches in the World besides. But Caesarea happening to be the Metropolis of that Province, and the Seat of the Roman Governor, carried away the Superiority, and so Jerusalem though it had an honorary respect, continued a private See, subject to the Metropolitan of Caesarea, as he for some time was to the Patriarch of Antioch.  
But after that the Empire was become Christian, and that Constantine the Great, and his Mother Helena, and some following Emperors began to reflect some peculiar favours upon that place, and had graced it with stately and magnificent buildings, and other marks of honour; and after that the Devotion of Christians began to pay an extraordinary respect to the places of our Lord's Crucifixion, Sepulchre, and Resurrection, the Bishops of that Church looked upon themselves as hardly dealt with to be cooped up within so narrow a compass, and to be subjected to another jurisdiction, and therefore resolved to throw off the yoke, and to get what power they could into their own hands.  
The first that grasped at the Metrpolitick Rights was S. Cyrill, who disputed the case with Acacius Bishop of Caesarea, for which Acacius deposed him, and persecuted him both in the Synod at Seleucia, and in that which followed at Constantinople about the latter end of Constantius his Reign. What immediately followed in this controversy, is uncertain, the History of the Church being silent in that matter. In the Council of Ephesus, Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem laid claim to the Metropolitical Jurisdiction of that Province, and sought to have it confirmed by a Decree of that Synod. But cyril of Alexandria Precedent of the Council, opposed and hindered it. After this a high contest arose between him and Maximus Bishop of Antioch, who challenged Jerusalem and Palestine as within his Diocese. The case was brought before the Chalcedon Council 
* Act. seven. col. 614. etc. , where it was debated, and at last by compromise between the two contending parties brought to this issue, that the Bishop of Antioch should retain the two Phoenicia's and Arabia (which it seems were also in dispute) and the See of Jerusalem should have the three Palestine Provinces for the bounds of his Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction. This was assented to, and ratified by the Decree of the Council.  
And now the Bishop of Jerusalem had his peculiar Diocese, though of no very great extent, allotted him, and the tables were turned, and Caesarea itself subjected to him, and the fifth and last place among the Patriarches assigned to him; as appears from the constitution of the sixth general Council. And because Jerusalem lay in the borders both of the Antiochain, and Alexandrian Patriarchates, therefore to make up its jurisdiction, we are told 
* Guilielm. Tyr. loc. citat.  that something was taken out of each, the Metropolitick Sees of Rabath and Berytus, from him of Alexandria, as Caesarea and Scythopolis from him of Antioch. And that as a badge of his ancient subjection, the Metropolitan of Caesarea still had the honour 
* Nil. Doxopatr. ap. L. Allat. ubi supr. c. 9 n. 5. col. 196.  to Ordain the Patriarch of Jerusalem, as upon the fame account he of Heraclea had to Consecrate the Patriarch of Constantinople. And in this Patriarchal capacity we find the Bishop of Jerusalem subscribing in all Councils, and upon occasions summoning the Bishops of his Patriarchate. Thus Ann. DXVIII. we find John Bishop of Jerusalem with his Synod of the Bishops of the three Palaestines sending a Letter 
* Ext. conc. T. v. col. 188.  to John Patriarch of Constantinople. And when the Council at Constantinople under Mennas had condemned Anthimus, Severus, and the rest of the Acephali Ann. DXXXVI. Peter Patriarch of Jerusalem (as he is all along called in the Acts 
* Ext. ibid. col. 276. etc.  of his Council) summoned a Patriarchal Synod of all the Bishops of the three Palestine Provinces, who confirmed what had been done in the Council at Constantinople. And thenceforwards the Patriarchate of Jerusalem runs smooth and currant through the History of the Church. As to what Bishops and Metropolitans he had under him, the old Notitiae 
* Ap. Guil. Tyr. ibid. & Miraeum notit. Episc. p. 48.  give us this account. The Patriarch himself had immediately under him XXV. Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nilus Doxopatrius 
* Vbi supra.  calls them, Independent Bishoprics, because subject to no other Metropolitan; besides which he had four Metropolitans: The Metropolitan of Caesarea, who had twenty Bishops under him; he of Scythopolis or Basan, who had nine; Rabath Moabitis, or as Doxopatrius has it, Petra, who had twelve, and Berytus, who had XXXV. which by the Authors we have cited are particularly reckoned up.   

CHAP. V. The bounds of the Roman Patriarchate.  
A return to the Roman Patriarchate. The limits hereof not expressly set down by the ancients. Unjustly pretended to reach over the whole West. This granted by them of the Greek Church, and why. The Pope's Patriarchal Power disowned by the Churches of Milan, Aquileia and Ravenna. The independency and opposition of those Churches to the Roman See, severally evinced by particular cases and instances. The Power of Metropolitans in France kept up independent from Rome. The truth of this confessed and cleared by De Marca. Other instances of preserving their Rights against the pretensions of Rome; Hincmar of Rheims, and the Synod of Metz. Two other National Churches instanced in: the African, and the Britannic Churches. The famous case of Appeals in the Church of afric. A clear account of that matter. Their public rejecting the power which the Pope challenged over those Churches. The Letters of the Council of Carthage to Pope Boniface, and Celestine to that purpose. Several useful and proper Corollaries deduced from this story for the evincing the vain pretensions of the Papal Power over those Churches. The boldness of some in denying the truth of this whole story. The state of the Britannic Church. The Progress of Religion and Church-Government here till the times of Pope Gregory. The Church Governed by an Archbishop and Bishop at Austin's arrival. Their customs wholly different from, and independent upon Rome. Their absolute refusal to own the authority of Austin or the Pope. The slaughter of the Bangor-Monks suspiciously charged upon Austin. The Pope's proper Patriarchate most probably showed to be of equal extent with the Jurisdiction of the Vicarius Urbicus. What Provinces under his Government. The Roman Synod consisting of the Bishops of those Provinces. A twofold Patriarchate of the Pope trifling and precarious. The Bishops of Rome daily amplifying their Jurisdiction. The means whereby they did this briefly intimated.  
I. HAVING thus dispatched the other Patriarches, we return to him of Rome, ever allowed to be the first, and most honourable of the number. What his Patriarchal bounds were, the Records of the Church have not so particularly set out, as they have done the rest. And here the Champions of that Church when they find themselves pressed upon, and that the Pope's Universal and Apostolical Power is a Post not to be defended, presently retreat to his Patriarchate, which with great confidence they extend over the whole Western World, being content with half, when they cannot have all. And to this prodigious Latitude some 
* Sirmond. Censur. de Eccl. Suburb. c. 4. p. 69. Advent. P. TWO c. 1. p. 63.  of them stretch the Suburbicary Churches, (as if the whole Western Empire had been nothing but the Suburbs of Rome) and in this sense they tell us Rufinus meant the Canon of Nice, and this upon no wiser reason than (what is as trifling and precarious as the other) that the whole West was the Special Diocese of the Bishop of Rome. But this looks rather like Fancy and Romance, than that grave and sober arguing that becomes those great Names that use it. Omitting therefore this extravagant notion of Suburbicary Churches, come we to the thing itself.  
And herein it must be granted, they have the later Greeks, Zonaras, Balsamon, Barlaam, Nilus, etc. on their side, who very liberally give him all the Western Provinces, and that too by virtue of the sixth Canon of Nice. A concession which they make not so much out of any kindness to the Church of Rome, as partly out of a design to magnify the power and greatness of their own Patriarch of Constantinople, who was to share equal privileges with him of Rome; partly because they were willing to keep the Pope within any bounds, whose restless ambition they saw carrying all before it, and therefore cared not to throw him the West for his portion, for which they had no care or concernment what became of it, being mainly intent upon preserving their Jurisdiction at home. And here I cannot but by the way remark the indiscreet and injudicious Zeal of a very Learned man 
* Ph. Berter. Pithan. Diatrib. II. c. 3. p. 170. 171. , who confidently asserts, that in the expedition of the Franks for the recovery of the Holy Land, God by a peculiar providence let the Eastern Parts be subdued by the Western Armies; that so those famous Patriarchal Sees might learn to strike Sail to the See of Rome, and own the greatness and dignity of that Church. Besides, 'tis to be considered, that in this concession the Greeks took their measures of things from the state of the Church as it was in their time, when the Pope had in a manner entirely subdued the Western Provinces to the See of Rome. But in the better and more early Ages the case was otherwise.  
And indeed that the Pope's Patriarchal Jurisdiction was far enough from extending over the whole West, there can be no better evidence, than that there was scarce any Western Church in those days, that did not upon occasion oppose the power, and remonstrate against the Usurpations of the See of Rome. In Italy we need go no further than to those Churches that lay next it, I mean the great Churches of Milan, Aquileia, and Ravenna.  
II. HOW great Milan was, and of how great reputation the Bishop of it, so that he stood upon a level with him of Rome, we briefly noted before; it being next Rome, the largest, richest, most plentiful, and populous City of the West, as Procopius 
* Goth. lib. 2. c. 7. p. 406.  tells us. S. Ambrose his Election and Ordination to that See was made purely by the Provincial Bishops, and at the command of the Emperor, without the least notice taken of the Roman Bishop. A case so clear, that De Marca 
* DeConcord. l. 6. c. 4. n. 7. 8 p. 188. vid. n. 6.  fairly gives up the cause, and confesses that in those times and for some Ages after, the Pope had nothing to do in the Ordination of the Metropolitan of Milan: Nay, that this was the case of all Metropolitans out of the Pope's Jurisdiction in Italy, where the Bishops of every Province constantly Ordained their own Metropolitans without any authority; or so much as consent had from the Bishop of Rome. But then not being able to shift off the evidence of truth, and yet willing withal to serve his cause, he does in order to that design, distinguish the Roman Patriarchate into ordinary, over a great part of Italy, and extraordinary, over the whole West. A distinction wholly precarious, and which is worse, false.  
And indeed what kind of Patriarchate that must be, that could consist without right of Ordaining Metropolitans, the first and most inseparable branch of Patriarchal Power, would have become a person of his, I say not ingenuity, but wisdom and learning to have considered. As for Milan, the Metropolitick Rights of that Church, he confesses, continued independent at least till the year DLU. And indeed 'tis plain from the Epistle 
* Ext. Conc. T. v. col. 805.  of Pope Pelagius; who confesses that the Bishops of Milan did not use to come to Rome, but they and the Bishops of Aquileia Ordained each other: and when he was not able to reduce them by other means, he endeavoured to bring them in by the help of the secular Arm, as appears from his Letter 
* Epist. v. ib. col. 794.  to Narses the Emperor's Lieutenant to that purpose. And afterwards upon a difference that happened, Milan withdrew itself from the Communion of the Church of Rome for Two hundred years 
* Plat. in vit. Steph. ix. p. 172.  together. And though with others it was brought at last under the common yoke, yet upon every little occasion it reasserted its original liberty. Thus when Ann. MLIX. great disturbances arose in that Church 
* P. Dam. Act. Mediol. à seipso conscript. ext. ap. Baron. T. xi. p. 265. & Jo. Monach. de ult. P. Dam. c. 16. , Pope Nicolaus the Second sent Peter Damian as his Legate to interpose. This made it worse, the common outcry presently was, That the Ambrosian Church ought not be subject to the Laws of Rome, and that the Pope had no power of Judging, or ordering matters in that See; that it would be a great indignity, if that Church which under their Ancestors had been always free, should now to their extreme reproach (which God forbid) become subject to another Church. The clamour increased, and the people grew into an higher ferment, the Bells are rung, the Episcopal Palace beset, the Legate threatened with Death, who getting into the Pulpit, and having in a short speech set forth the Pope's and S. Peter's power, and wheedled the people with some popular insinuations, reduced things to a better order.  
III. THE Church of Aquileia was much at the same pass with that of Milan, the Bishops whereof mutually Ordained one another, without so much as ask the Pope leave. And though Pelagius 
* Epist. supr. laud col. 815.  would insinuate, that this was done only to save the trouble and charge of a journey to Rome, yet De Marca 
* Loc. supra citat.  honestly confesses the true reason was, that Milan being the Head of the Italic Diocese, the Ordaining the Metropolitan of Aquileia belonged to him as Primate; and the Ordaining the Primate of Milan belonged to him of Aquileia, as being the first Metropolitan of the Diocese of Italy.  
Upon this account, and that of the tria capitula, this Church held no correspondence with that of Rome for above an Hundred years, and when Gregory the Great having got the Emperor on his side, attempted by force and armed violence to bring them to answer their stubbornness at Rome, the Bishop of Aquileia with his Provincial Synod met, and wrote an humble remonstrance 
* Ext. ap. Baror. An. 590. n. xxxviii. Tom. 8.  to the Emperor Mauricius, wherein they set forth the true state of their case, and the unjust and violent proceedings of the Pope, and plainly tell him that they had at the time of their Ordination given caution in writing to their Metropolitan, which they never had, nor would violate, and that unless his Majesty was pleased to remove this compulsion, their Successors would not be suffered to come to Aquileia for Ordination, but would be forced to fly to the Archbishops of France, as being next at hand, and receive it there. The Emperor was satisfied with their Addresses, and wrote 
* Ext. ib. n. XLiii.  to the Pope (Baronius calls them imperious Letters, written more Tyrannico, like a Tyrant) commanding him to surcease the Prosecution, and to create those Bishops no farther trouble, till the affairs of Italy were quieted, and things might more calmly be enquired into. Baronius is strangely angry at this Letter, even to the height of rudeness and passion, especially towards so good an Emperor, that he should take upon him arroganti fastu, with so much pride and arrogancy not to beseech, but to command the Pope, which he again says was done not like an Emperor, but a Tyrant. But the Istrian and Ligurian Bishops, little regarded how it thundered at Rome. Nay, to make the balance hang more even, they had some time since advanced their Metropolitan to the title and honour of a Patriarch, which Baronius 
* Tom. 7. p. 568.  himself grants was done while Paulinus was Metropolitan of Aquileia about the year DLXX. An honour a long time resident at Aquileia, then translated to Grado, and at last fixed at Venice. Though withal Aquileia having recovered its broken fortunes, resumed the style and dignity of a Patriarch, an honour which it retains to this day.  
IV. LET us next view the Church of Ravenna, and see whether that was any more conformable to Rome than the rest. Ravenna had for some time, especially from the days of Honorius, been the Seat of the Roman Emperors; and in the declining times of the Empire, the Exarches of Italy, who governed in chief under the Emperor, constantly resided there, while Rome was under the command of a petty Duke: Swelled with so much honour and advantage, the Bishops of Ravenna for some Ages disputed place with them of Rome, the Exarches taking all occasions to curb and repress the Pope. Ann. DCXLIX. Maurus, sometimes Steward of that Church 
* Hieron. Rub. Hist. Ravennat. l. 4. ad Ann. DCXLiX. p. 203. 205. 206. vid. Bar. ad Ann. 669. n. two. three T. 8. , entered upon the Archiepiscopal See of Ravenna. A man as my Author grants, wise, and of a shrewd sharp Wit. He without taking any notice of Rome, was Consecrated by three Bishops of his own Province, Ordained his own Provincial Bishops, and was so far from seeking any Confirmation from the Pope, that he received his Pall from the Emperor. This gave infinite distaste to Pope Martin, and 'tis like to his Successor Eugenius, who sat but one year. But Pope Vitalian who succeeded, would not so put it up, but summons Maurus to appear, and answer his contempt at Rome, but he slighted the Summons, for which the Pope Excommunicated him, and he in requital did the like to the Pope, nay upon his Deathbed obliged his Clergy never to submit themselves to the Bishop of Rome. Reparatus his Successor trod in the same steps, and procured the Emperor's Rescript to free that Church from any subjection to the Roman See. Ann. DCCVIII. 
* Baron. cod. An n. two. iii iv. Rub. ibid. p. 213. 214.  Felix of Ravenna was content to receive his Ordination at the hands of the Pope, but when he came thither, an Oath of Allegiance and Fidelity was required of him to the See of Rome. This he utterly denied, a confession of his Faith he offered, but homage he would not pay, nor engage to send money to Rome. Nor more he did, but home he goes, where his people gave him little thanks for what he had done, and both agreed to defend their liberty; but it cost the old man dear, and them too for that attempt. For Justinian Rhinotmetes the Emperor (who favoured the Pope) being made acquainted with what was done at Ravenna; a Fleet is sent under the command of Theodorus Patricius, the City besieged, and taken, several of prime quality lost their lives and fortunes, and the poor Archbishop had his eyes put out, and was banished into Pontus, where he remained, till the severity of Discipline had taught him better manners.  
The same courage in asserting the privileges of their Church against the Papal encroachments was afterwards shown by John, and Guibert Successors in that See, as were it necessary, might be particularly related. But the case is too evident to be denied, and the argument thence too strong to be evaded, how little those times understood of any Patriarchal Jurisdiction which the Pope had over all Italy, much less over the whole West.  
V. IF we look into France, we shall find them careful to secure the Rights of Metropolitans, and the privileges of Provincial Bishops, without being obliged to fetch them from Rome. The second Council of Arles Ann. CCCCLII. decree 
* Can. v. Conc. T. 4. col. 1012. , that no Bishop shall be Ordained without his own Metropolitan, and three of the Provincial Bishops, the rest testifying their consent by Letter. The second of Orleans holden Ann. DXXXIII. renew 
* Can. seven. ib. col. 1781.  the ancient form and manner of Ordaining Metropolitans, that it shall be done by the Bishops of the Province, which shows how little they depended upon any foreign power in this matter.  
But it's needless to insist upon this point, which the Learned De Marca 
* De Concord. l. 6. c. 3. per tot. c. 4. n. 3. 4.  has so fully cleared and vindicated, as a fundamental part of the liberties of the Gallican Church, and has deduced it through the several Ages and Dynasties of their Kings. I shall only remark, that when Hincmar Archbishop of Rheims had deposed Rothald Bishop of Suessons for great misdemeanours, Rothald appealed to Rome, and Pope Nicolaus espoused his cause, wrote sharply to Hincmar, and cited him to appear, and answer what he had done at Rome. But Hincmar would not stir, but published a large Apologetic 
* Ext. ap. Bar. ad Ann. 865. T. 10. n. XXXV. etc.  to the Pope, wherein he justifies his Act, and though he gives good words, and great deference to the See Apostolic, yet stoutly contends, that he ought to be content with a general care and inspection, and not interrupt the ordinary Rights of Metropolitans, and that 'twas infinitely reasonable, that the criminal should be referred to the judgement of his own Province.  
Two years before this, viz. Ann. DCCCLXIII. a French Synod met at Metz 
* Annal. incert. auct. ad Ann. 863. inter script. coetan. a Pith. edit. p. 62.  about the Marriage of King Lotharius, wherein they determined contrary to the liking of the Papal Legates. However they sent Letters with the reasons of their proceedings by Guntharius Archbishop of Colen, and Theatgaud of Triers to Pope Nicolaus. The Pope upon their arrival called a Synod, wherein he Excommunicated the Synod of Metz, and deposed the two Archbishops that were sent with the Letters, and published 
* Ext. loc. cit.  a manifesto of what he had done. To this the Bishops returned an answer, wherein having represented the personal affronts, and ill usage they had met with from him, they tell him Chap. IU. that as for his froward, unjust, and unreasonable sentence, contrary to all Canons, they did not own it, yea as being illegal and unwarrantable, they together with the rest of their Brethren slighted and despised it, and utterly renounced Communion with him, contenting themselves with the Communion and fellowship of the whole Church, over which he had so proudly exalted himself, and from which through his pride and contempt he had separated himself. And whereas he had styled them his Clerks, they bid him take notice they were none of his Clerks, but persons, whom, if his pride would have suffered him, he ought to have owned and treated as his Brethren and fellow Bishops, with much more there spoken with a just, but smart resentment.  
And now can any man believe, the Pope should have met with such treatment upon all occasions, and that from the wisest, gravest, most learned, and eminent persons in their several Ages, had his title to the Jurisdiction of the West been so clear and unquestionable, as some men seem to represent it. The same might be showed in other Countries, and he must be a great stranger to Church-History, that can be at a loss for instances of this nature. I shall therefore instance only in two more (and with them dispatch this argument) the African and the Britannic Churches.  
VI I choose to instance in the Churches of afric, because so confidently challenged by them of Rome at every turn, and because they were under the civil Jurisdiction of the Praetorian Praefect of Italy. And here omitting infinite arguments that offer themselves, I shall insist only upon the famous case of Appeals, commenced under Pope Zosimus, Ann. CCCCXVIII. and not ended till some years after, which will furnish us with a plain and uncontrollable evidence, how little authority more than what was honorary, the See of Rome in those days had over those Churches.  
The case, as briefly as it can well be summed up, stands thus, 
* Epist Syu. Afric. ad Bonifac. Concil. T. two. col. 1670. item ad Coelest. ib. col. 1674. Concil. Carth. vi. col. 1589. Cod. Can. Eccles. Afric. in init.  Apiarius a Presbyter of Sicca in afric had been deposed by his Diocesan Urbanus for very notorious and scandalous offences, and the sentence ratified by a Provincial Council. Hopeless of any relief at home, over he flies to Rome, tells his tale to Pope Zosimus, who restores him to Communion, espouses his cause, and sends him back with Faustinus an Italian Bishop, and two Roman Presbyters into afric, to see him resettled in his former place. When they arrived in afric, they found a Council of African Bishops to the number of CCXVII. sitting at Carthage, to whom they delivered their message partly by word of mouth, partly by writing. But the writing being demanded, a memorial was produced containing instructions from Pope Zosimus what they should insist upon; it consisted of four Heads. First, concerning the Appeals of Bishops to the See of Rome. Secondly, against the busy resorting of Bishops to Court. Thirdly, concerning the handling the causes of Presbyters and Deacons by the neighbouring Bishops, where they were unjustly Excommunicated by their own. Fourthly, concerning the Excommunicating Bishop Urban (who had deposed Apiarius) or at least his appearing at Rome, unless he corrected what he had done amiss. But the main thing insisted on was that of Appeals, and the Pope's sending Legates thither to hear causes, and this too challenged by Zosimus in his memorial by virtue of a Canon of the Council of Nice, giving leave to Bishops accused or condemned to appeal to Rome, and power to the Pope to hear and determine those Appeals, either immediately by himself, or by Commishoners which he should send to that purpose.  
The African Fathers were infinitely surprised to hear such a power claimed, and more to hear it claimed as due by a Canon of Nice. They had searched into the Canons of that Council, which they found to be but twenty, and not one of that number to this purpose. While these things were debating, Zosimus dies, and Boniface succeeds, and the case is again canvased, and the result of the consultation was, that for the present things should rest upon that bottom, whereon the Pope's memorial had placed them, till they could send to the three great Churches of Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria for authentic Copies of the Nicene Canons, to adjust and decide this matter. They wrote likewise to Pope Boniface by his Legates (who then returned) acquainting him with the state of the case, and what was done in it, and withal tell him, that if it were as those pretended Canons claimed, the issue would be intolerable to them: But they hoped it would be found otherwise, no such thing appearing in their Copies of that Council. However they had sent to the Eastern Churches for such as were most authentic, and entreated him also to do the like.  
VII. SOME years passed in this matter, at length the Messengers that had been sent into the East returned, and brought Letters 
* Ext. ubi supr. col. 1143.  from Cyril of Alexandria, and Atticus of Constantinople, importing that they had sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most true and exact Copies of the authentic Synod of Nice, preserved in the Archives of their Churches, Copies of which they had also sent to Pope Boniface. Hereupon a full Council of African Bishops is convened, to which Pope Celestine (for Boniface was lately dead) dispatched Faustinus as his Legate. And now the case of Apiarius is again brought under examination, and found worse than it was before, the farther they raked into it, the more foul and offensive did it appear to them, till the conviction of his conscience, though sore against his Will, forced him to confess all, and save them the trouble of any farther Scrutiny.  
And now this cause being over, and the pretence of Appeals overthrown by the authentic Copies of the Canons of Nice, nothing remained but to write to Celestine, which they did in a quick and smart strain, Wherein they first give him an account of the case of Apiarius, and how troublesome and injurious his Legate Faustinus had been to the whole Synod, in asserting the privileges of the Church of Rome, and by virtue thereof challenging that Apiarius should be readmitted to communion, because his Holiness (believing his Appeal, which yet could not be made good) had restored him to communion, a thing which he ought in no wise to have done. Next they proceed earnestly to beseech him, that henceforth he would not so easily give ear to those that came from hence, nor admit any to communion, whom they had excommunicated, which he might easily perceive was prohibited by the Council of Nice, which if it has taken so much care about the Inferior Clergy, how much more did it intend it in the case of Bishops, that where any are suspended from communion within their own Province, his Holiness should not rashly and unduly readmit them, that he should, as became him, reject the unwarrantable repairing of Presbyters and others of the Inferior Clergy, there being no Canon of any Council that has deprived the African Church of this Right, and that the Decrees of Nice have most plainly committed both the Inferior Clergy, and the Bishops themselves to their own Metropolitans; having most wisely and justly provided, that all affairs shall be determined in the very places where they arise, and that the Grace of the Holy Spirit will not be wanting to every Province, whereby equity may be prudently discerned, and constantly maintained by the Ministers of Christ, especially since every man has liberty, if he be offended with the determination of his Judges, to appeal to a Provincial, or if need be, to a general Council: Unless perhaps any one can think, that God should enable single persons to examine the Justice of a cause, and deny it to a vast number of Bishops Assembled in Council. Or, how shall a Judgement then made beyond Sea be valid, whereto the persons that are necessary to give in evidence, either through the infirmity of their Sex, or Age, and many other impediments that will intervene, cannot be brought? For that any Commissioners should be sent hither by your Holiness, we do not find Ordained by the Fathers in any Synod. For as to what you long since sent us by Faustinus as part of the Nicene Council, in the true and authentic Copies of that Council (which we received from Cyril of Alexandria, and Atticus of Constantinople, and which we sent to your Predecessor Boniface) we could find no such matter. In conclusion, they advise him, that he should not upon the request of any man, send any of his Clerks thither to execute his sentence, nor grant such leave to any, lest they should seem to introduce the smoky pride of the World into the Church of Christ, which holds forth the light of simplicity, and the brightness of humility to all them that are desirous to see God: That as to Faustinus, they are confident, that Brotherly love continuing through the goodness and moderation of his Holiness, Africa shall no longer be troubled with him. Such was their Letter to the Pope, a Letter not fuller fraught with true matters of fact, than fortified with clearness and strength of reason.  
VIII. FROM this naked and unartificial representation of the case, its plain; First, That whatever power the ●●shop of Rome claimed in afric, was even by his own tacit confession, founded upon the Canons of the Church. Zosimus did not pretend a Commission from Christ, or a Delegation from S. Peter, but only a Canon of Nice to justify his proceedings.  
Secondly, That the Canons of the Church give the Bishop of Rome no power over foreign Churches, either to receive their excommunicated Members, to hear and decide their causes, or to restore them to communion, or to send Legates and Commissioners with authority to determine the cause at home; for this, say the African Fathers, nullâ invenimus patrum Synodo constitutum.  
Thirdly, That Zosimus was guilty of a notorious forgery and imposture in falsifying the Nicene Canons, pretending a Canon of Sardica to be a Canon of Nice, and as such endeavouring to impose it, and his own power by it upon the African Churches. Can it be supposed, that Zosimus should be ignorant what and how many the Nicene Canons were? the Pope's Legates were present, and as we are often told, presided in that Synod, brought the Decrees home with them (as all other great Churches did) where they were no doubt carefully preserved among the Records of that Church, and the frequent occasions of those times, made them be daily looked into. Was not the Pope, think we, able to distinguish between Nice and Sardica, between an Ecumenical Council, and a Synod only of Western Bishops, called in another Emperor's Reign above Twenty years after. No, no, it was not a sin of ignorance, but the Pope knew well enough which Council would best serve his turn, that the World had a just and a mighty veneration for that of Nice, and that his design would be easily swallowed, if he could gild it over with the reputation and authority of that Synod. It was obvious to except against Sardica, that it was but a particular Council, and that the Canon it made for Appeals to Rome was only a Provisionary Decree, when the injured person was not like to meet with Justice at home, but the whole Mass of Bishops was corrupted, and set against him, as was the case of Athanasius and two or three more in respect of the Arians, who were the occasion, and for whose sakes that Canon was made. But that of Nice was universal, and unexceptionable, and which he hoped would pass without control. But the African Bishops according to the humour of that Nation were of too honest and blunt a temper to be cajoled by the arts of Rome. They required to have the matter brought to the test, and to be Judged by the Original Canons, and so the fraud was discovered, and brought to light in the eye of the World.  
Fourthly, That the Church of afric, and accordingly every National Church, has an inhaerent power of determining all causes that arise within itself: That this Right is founded both upon most evident reason, (nothing being fitter than that controversies should be ended in the places where they began, where there are all advantages of bringing matters to a more speedy and equal trial) and upon the wisdom and justice of the Divine providence, which would not let his assistance be wanting in one place more than another, and especially there where doing right to truth did more immediately make it necessary; and that 'twas as probable two or three hundred should sift out truth as a single person. That the Nicene Synod had made this the Right of the African no less than other Churches, and they did not understand how they had forfeited it, or that any Council had taken it from them.  
Fifthly, That it was not lawful for any person, accused or proceeded against in afric, to appeal to Transmarine Churches, no not to the See of Rome. This they tell Celestine most expressly, and call them improba refugia, wicked and unwarrantable refuges. Against this they had particularly provided in the Council at Milevis 
* Conc. Mil. two. Can. xxii. T. 2. col. 1542.  not long before this contest arose, that if any Clergyman had a controversy with his Bishop, the neighbouring Bishops should hear and determine it. But if there were any occasion of appealing, they should appeal no further than to an African Council, or to the Primates of those Provinces. And that if any should resolve to appeal to any Transmarine Judgement, no man in afric should admit them to communion. The Canon 'tis true expresses only the Appeals of Presbyters, Deacons, and the Inferior Clergy; but as the Fathers in their Letters to Celestine argue strongly, if this care be taken about the Inferior Clergy, how much more ought it to be observed by Bishops.  
Sixthly, That the power which the Bishop of Rome sought to establish over other Churches, evidently made way to bring pride, and tyranny, and a secular ambition into the Church of God, and that if this course were followed, it would let in force, and domination, and a scornful trampling over the Heads of our Brethren, and perhaps the calling in the secular arm to remove the opposition it would meet with; Principles and Practices infinitely contrary to the mild and humble Spirit of the Gospel.  
And now let the Reader Judge what power the Pope had over the African Churches, so solemnly denied, so stiffly opposed, not by two or three, but by two or three hundred Bishops, twice met in Council upon this occasion, and their judgement herein not precipitated, but past upon most mature and deliberate debate and consultation, and after that the cause had been depending for five or six years together. The truth is, so great a shock is this to the Papal power, that the Advocates of that Church know not which way to decline it. At last stands up one, 
* M. A. Capell. de Apellat. Eccl. Afric. c. 4. p. 118.  who not being able to untie, resolved to cut the knot, directly charging both the Acts of the Council, and the Epistles to Boniface and Celestine, without any warrant from Antiquity, to be forged and supposititious. But the best of it is, the Writers in this Cause that came after him, had not the hardiness to venture in his bottom. Nor have any of the many Publishers of the Councils since that time stigmatised them with the least suspicion of being spurious, nor taken any notice of the trifling exceptions he makes against them.  
IX. FROM afric let us Sail into Britain, and see how things stood in our own Country, the first Nation of the whole Western World that received the Christian Faith; it being planted here (as Gildas, an Author of untainted credit, and no inconsiderable antiquity, informs us, and he speaks it too with great assurance) 
* Gild. de Excid. Brit. non long ab init.  Tempore summo Tiberii Caesaris, in the latter time of Tiberius his Reign, which admit to have been the very last year of his Life (he died March the XVI. Ann. Chr. XXXVII.) it was five or six years before 'tis pretended S. Peter ever came at, or founded any Church at Rome. Christianity though struggling with great difficulties, and but lukewarmly entertained by some, yet as Gildas assures us, made shift to keep up its head in the following Ages, as is evident from some passes in Origen, Tertullian, and others, and from the known story of King Lucius (Lever Maur as the Britain's call him, the great Brightness) the first Christian King. But this we have particularly noted elsewhere 
* Antiq. Apost. Life of S. Paul. §. x. n. 7. Introd. to the Apostolici. n. 8. 9 . Religion being settled, that Church Government grew up here as in other Countries, by Bishops and then Metropolitans, or Superior Bishops, there can be no just cause to doubt.  
At the Council of Arles Ann. CCCXIV. we find three British Bishops among others subscribing the Decrees of that Synod, Eborius of York, Restitutus of London (the same perhaps that subscribed the determination made by the Sardican Synod) Adelfius de civitate Coloniae Londinensium, with Sacerdos a Priest, and Arminius a Deacon. After the Empire had submitted to Christianity, we cannot question but that Religion prospered greatly in this Island, and that Constantine who made it his business to advance it in all places, would much more give it the highest encouragement in that place, to which he owed both his first breath and Empire.  
What progress it made afterwards, I may not stand nicely to inquire; 'tis certain it flourished here under the Roman Government till the Declension of the Empire, when that guard and protection being withdrawn, the Country became a prey to the neighbour- Picts and Scots, as not long after to the Saxons, a Warlike but Pagan Nation, whom the Britain's had called in to their Assistance, who drove the remainder of the Britain's, and with them Religion into the Mountains, where yet it throve under the greatest hardships.  
Things continued thus, when Ann. DXCVI Pope Gregory the Great scent Austin the Monk to convert these Saxons, who after his first expedition being at Arles consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury, applied himself more closely to this errand than he had done before. He found Paganism covering the greatest parts of the Island, but withal a considerable Church among the Britain's; seven Bishops 
* Bed. l. 2. c. 2. p. 111. vid. Galfr. Monomuth. l. 11. c. 12. Girald. Cambr. itin. Cambr. l. 2. c. 1. p. 856. & not. D. powel. ibid.  they had as Bede informs us; A number says Bale 
* De Script. Cent. i n. 70. p. 64. , conformed to the seven Churches of Asia; their Sees were Hereford, Tavensis or Landaff, Lhan-Padern-Vaur, Bangor, Elviensis or S. Asaph, Worcester and Morganensis, supposed by many to be Glamorgan, but that being the same with Landaff, R. Hoveden 
* Annal. Par. Post. sub Joann. R. fol. 454.  reckons Chester in the room of it, or as Bishop Usher 
* De Primord. Eccl. Brit. c. 5. p. 91.  thinks not improbable, it might be Caer-Guby or Holy-head in the Isle of Anglesey. These seven were under the superintendency of a Metropolitan, whose Archiepiscopal See had been formerly at Caer-leon upon Uske (the famous River Isca) in Monmouthshire, but some years before Augustine's arrival had been translated to Menevia or S. david's (so called from the Bishop that translated it) in Pembrookshire, though for some time after retaining the Title of Archbishop of Caer-Leon. And to him were the Welsh Bishops subject, and by him Ordained, as he by them, until the time of King Henry the First. Besides these Episcopal Sees, the Britain's had Colleges or Seminaries, and in them vast numbers of Christian Monks, who dwelled especially at Bangor under the care and superintendency of Abbot Dinooth. But that which spoiled all was, that this Church had Rites and Usages 
* Bed. ubi supr. p. 110.  vastly different from them of Rome, both in the Observation of Easter, the Administration of Baptism, and many other Customs. A most infallible Argument, that the Britannic Church had no dependence upon, had held no communication with the Church of Rome. Their celebration of Easter after the manner of the ancient Asiatic Churches, clearly showing that they had originally derived their Religion from those Eastern parts. To reduce therefore this Church into subjection to Rome, was a great part of Augustine's work.  
In order whereunto by the help of King Ethelbert, he procured a conference with them at a place upon the Borders of Worcester-shire, called from this occasion Augustins' Oak. Austin used all his arts to prevail upon them, persuaded, entreated, threatened, but in vain. After a long disputation they declared they preferred their own ancient Traditions and Customs, from which they might not depart without leave and liberty from their own Church. Nay, if the British fragment produced by one of our great Antiquaries 
* Spelm. Conc. Brit. An. 601. T. 1. p. 108.  be of any credit, Abbot. Dinoth plainly told him with a Be it known to you, and without doubt, That they owed no more to the Pope of Rome, than to every godly Christian, uzi. the obedience of Love and Brotherly assistance, other than this he knew none due to him, whom they called Pope, and who claimed to be owned and styled Father of Fathers; that for themselves they were under the Government of the Bishop of Caer-Leon upon Uske, who under God was to oversee and guide them▪ Austin saw 'twas to no purpose at present to treat further, and so reserved himself for another conference. A second therefore and a more general meeting is propounded and agreed to, whereto came the seven British Bishops, and many other persons of Learning, especially of the College of Bangor. Austin as before pressed them to a compliance with the Roman and Apostolic Church. But they, offended with his proud and contemptuous treatment of them, never so much as rising out of his Chair, at their coming to salute him, told him plainly, they would do nothing of what he demanded, nor would they own him for Archbishop; prudently arguing among themselves, If he would not now vouchsafe so much as to rise up to us, how much more when we have submitted to him, will he despise and scorn us. Austin finding no good was to be done upon them, parted from them with this passionate farewell, That since they would not have peace with their Brethren, they should have war from their Enemies, and for as much as they refused to preach the way of life to the English, they should be punished with death by their hands. And his word it seems was made good: For soon after Ethelfrid King of Northumberland, at the instigation (as is said) of Ethelbert King of Kent, marched with a powerful Army to Caer-Leon, and made great havoc and destruction, and among the rest slew Twelve hundred of the innocent Monks of Bangor, who were come along with their Army, by fasting and prayer to intercede with Heaven for its prosperous success. That Austin was the first spring of this fatal Tragedy, moving Ethelbert, as he did Ethelfrid, there are not only strong suspicions, but the thing is expressly affirmed by several Historians of no inconsiderable credit and antiquity. 'Tis true Bede says this happened not till after Augustine's Death. But besides the inconsistency in point of Chronology, 'tis suspicious that passage was foisted into Bede, it being wanting in the ancient Saxon Translation of King Alfred, done within CL. years after Bedes Death. Nay, though we should grant the slaughter to have happened after the death of Austin, yet who knows not but he might easily lay the design with Ethelbert, though himself lived not to see the Execution. And the proud and haughty spirit of the man gives but too much encouragement to the suspicion. What became of the British Churches after this, I am not concerned to relate. 'Tis enough to my purpose, that from the very originals of this Church it was independent upon Rome, and that for Six hundred years together; nor could be brought to strike Sail, till Fire and Sword (the most powerful Arguments of the Papal cause) had converted, that is, in effect ruined and destroyed it.  
X. FROM the whole of what has been said, laid together, the impartial Reader will easily make this conclusion, how vain and frivolous the pretences are to the Pope's Patriarchal Authority over the whole West, when there's scarce any one Western Church that did not in those times stoutly appear against the encroachments of Rome. But you'll say, where then shall we find the Roman Patriarchate? certainly within much narrower limits.  
And here nothing can offer itself with so much rational probability, as that his Patriarchal Jurisdiction was concurrent with that of the Vicarius Urbicus, or the Lieutenant of Rome, as his Metropolitical was with that of the Praefectus Urbis, or City-Provost. Now the Vicarius Urbicus had ten Provinces 
* Notit. imper. c. 48. fol. 149.  under his Government, four Consular, viz. Campania, Tuscia, and Umbria, Picenum Suburbicarium (the Suburbicary as well as other Provinces being in some cases 
* Vid Zosim. Hist. l. 2. p. 688. , especially that of Tribute, under the Inspection of the Praetorian Praefect, and his Lieutenant) Sicilia; Two Correctorial, Apulia with Calabria, and Lucania Brutiorum; Four Praesidial, Samnium, Sardinia, Corsica, and Valeria. This was the Urbicary Diocese, distinct from the Italic Diocese, the Metropolis whereof was Milan.  
Within these bounds the Bishops of Rome, especially after the times of the Nicene Council took upon them to exercise Jurisdiction, to call Synods, Ordain Metropolitans, and dispatch other Church-afairs. Hence they had their usual Synod, which was a kind of Council in ordinary to the Bishop of Rome, and met upon all important occasions. Such was the Synod of Pope Damasus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Bishops that Assembled with him at Rome, mentioned by Athanasius 
* Epist ad Afric. in init. , as convened about his Cause. Such that of the Bishop's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in those parts, spoken of by Pope Julius 
* Ep. ad Orient. ap. Athan. Apol. two. p. 580. , as concurring with him in his Letter to the Eastern Bishops. The old Roman notitia (produced by Baronius 
* Ad. Ann. 1057. Tom. xi. p. 243.  out of the Records of the Vatican, but of an Age much later than the times we write of) tells us this Synod consisted of LXX. Bishops. And much about that number, we find them in the Acts of Councils, as in the Synod under Pope Gelasius 
a Concil. T. iv. col. 1260. , and in that under Symmachus 
b Ibid. col. 1312. . Thus we find Pope Leo 
c Ep. iv. c. 7. p. 101.  requiring the Bishops of Sicily to send three of their number every year upon Michaelmus-day to meet the Roman Synod, fraterno concilio soc●andi. And the Synod of Sardica 
* Ext. Ep. ap. Hilar. in fragm. col. 407.  sending their Decrees to Pope Julius, desire him to communicate them to the Bishops in Sicily, Sardinia and Italy, (i. e. that part of Italy that lay within the Urbicary Diocese) that none of them might receive communicatory Letters from any that had been deposed in that Council. And this was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the multitude of Bishops wherewith Pope Leo was encompassed, and whom by virtue of the power and pre-eminence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of his own proper place and Jurisdidiction he had convened out of many Cities in Italy, as the Empress Galla Placidia speaks in her Letter 
* Conc. T. 4. col. 53.  to Theodosius. Not but that sometimes here (as in other places)▪ we find foreign Bishop's convening in Synods, with those under the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop, especially upon some extraordinary emergencies: But then this was only in a Brotherly way, and at the invitation of the chief Bishop of those parts, and not that they were under his charge and government. He had no direct and immediate influence over any but those who lay within the bounds, over which the civil Governors who resided at Rome, extended their authority, and who no doubt fell in the willinglier with his Jurisdiction, for the conveniency of their being aided and assisted by the Church of Rome.  
By all which we see, that no sooner were Dioceses divided and settled by the civil constitution, but the Roman Bishop began to extend his Jurisdiction commensurate to the Urbicary Diocese, within which his Metropolitical was at last swallowed up. This the Learned Archbishop of Paris 
* De Concord l. 1. c. 7. §. 6. p. 26.  readily grants, and thinks is intimated in the ancient Version of the Nicene Canon, which we mentioned before, where the Bishop of Rome is said to have Principality over the Suburbicary places, and all the Province; the first denoting the Government of the Provost, the latter that of the Vicarius, or Lieutenant of Rome, and consequently the one represents the Pope's Metropolitical, the other his Patriarchal Jurisdiction. 'Tis true he often tells us of a twofold Patriarchate the Pope had, ordinary, and extraordinary, the one reaching to the Urbicary Diocese, the other over the whole West. But with how little reason and pretence of truth we noted before.  
We grant the Pope had always great honour given him by all, and more by the Western Churches, but authoritative power he had not but over his own special Diocese, nor does S. Basil's styling him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief of the Western Bishops, imply any more than dignity and precedence; or the Empires being divided into East and West, and in allusion thereto the Churches being sometimes distinguished into Eastern and Western make any more for his Western Patriarchate, than it did for the Bishop of Constantinoples' being Patriarch over the whole East. Arguments which I should be ashamed to mention, but that they are produced by such great Names, and are indeed the best they have in this matter. I grant that according to the ambitious humour of that Church they were always attempting to enlarge their Borders, and to propagate their power beyond its just limits: and partly by recommending persons to be Bishops in foreign Churches, and thence proceeding to impose them, partly by interposing in Ordinations, and exacting an Oath of Obedience to the See of Rome from the persons Consecrated, partly by challenging the immediate decision of Episcopal Causes, and a power to confirm, translate, excommunicate, depose, or restore all delinquent Bishops, partly by drawing Appeals to Rome, and taking the determination of matters from the cognizance of their proper Judges, and arrogating the sole privilege of judging and condemning Heresies, partly by claiming to preside in all Councils, and if disobliged, withholding their assent to the Decrees of Synods, partly by sending their Legates into foreign Countries to hear and decide cases, and take up controversies, by taking off, and engaging brisk and active Bishops by honorary Employments, by sending Commissions to the Bishops of the greater Sees, and lodging certain powers in their hands to act as their Vicars within their several Provinces, that so they might seem to derive their authority from the Roman See, as they did at Thessalonica, Corinth, Justiniana Prima, Arles, etc. partly by giving all imaginable encouragement to persons, whether of the Clergy or Laity to send to Rome for the resolution of difficult and important cases, and partly by dispatching Missionaries to convert Pagan Countries; by these and infinite other the like Arts and Methods, they grew in time though not till some Ages, to challenge and exercise a power over all the Churches of the West. But from the beginning it was not so. The sum then of all that has been discoursed hitherto is this; that as 'twas the Dignity of the City of Rome gave the Bishops of that place pre-eminence above all other Primates or Patriarches, so 'twas the division of the Empire made by Constantine, exalted his power from that of a Metropolitan to a Patriarch, and enlarged it to an equal extent with the Diocese of the Lieutenant of Rome; within which Bounds they pretty well contained themselves till their pride and ambition began more openly to break out, and to disturb the peace and order of the Church.   

CHAP. VI The Encroachments of the See of Rome upon other Sees, especially the See of Constantinople.  
The Roman Bishops breaking the bounds of all Laws and Canons. Their taking hold of all occasions of magnifying their own power. Instances of Julius, Damasus, Innocent, Zosimus to this purpose. The briskness and activity of Pope Leo. His many Letters written to advance the reputation of his authority. His jealous eye upon the growing greatness of the See of Constantinople. The attempts and actings of his Legates in the Council of Chalcedon. Their mighty opposition against the passing the XXVIII. Canon of that Synod. The fraud of Paschasinus in citing the sixth Canon of Nice. Their protestation against the power granted to the Bishop of Constantinople. Pope Leo's zeal and rage against these Synodal proceedings. Faelix his Excommunicating Acacius of Constantinople. The pretended occasion of that Sentence. The same spleen continued and carried on by Pope Gelasius. A reconciliation procured by the Emperor Justin between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople. Pope John's insulting over Epiphanius in his own Church at Constantinople. John the Seconds raving Letter to Justinian. The Bishop of Constantinople assumes the Title of Ecumenical Patriarch. This in what sense (probably) meant. The passionate resentment of Pope Pelagius hereat. The same zeal showed by his Successor Gregory the Great. His Letters written upon that occasion. The hard words he every where bestows upon that Title. His mistake about the offer of that Title to the Pope in the Chalcedon Council. The true state of that case. This Title frequently given to the Constantinopolitan Bishops in the Council under Menans, before John assumed it. Baronius' poor evasion of that matter. Gregory still continues to thunder out anathemas against this Title. All this suspected to be but noise, and the quarrel only because themselves had not the Title. Phocas his Usurpation of the Empire. The monstrous villainy and wickedness of that Man. Pope Gregory's scandalously flattering Caresses to him and his Empress. Boniface the Third makes suit to Phocas, and procures the Title of Ecumenical to be affixed to the See of Rome. The Pope's daily enlargement of their Power and Tyranny, and their advantages for so doing. The whole concluded with the Canons or DICTATES of Pope Hildebrand.  
I. THOUGH Custom and the Canons of the Church had set out the Bishop of Rome his proper Portion in the Ecclesiastic Government, yet how hard is it for covetousness and ambition to keep within any bounds? A spirit of pride still fermented in that See, that made them restless, till they had thrown down all enclosures, and that their Sheaf alone (as it was in Joseph's Vision) arose and stood upright, and the Sheaves of their Brethren stood round about, and did obeisance to it. In the discovery whereof we shall only remark the more general attempts they made concerning it. And first nothing made more way to their Usurped Dominion, than the magnifying their own power, and the privileges of their Church upon all occasions.  
II. TO begin no earlier than Pope Julius; in his Letters to the Bishops of Antioch, to make them more willing to submit their Cause to be tried at Rome, he had it seems highly extolled the greatness of that Church, and the dignity and authority of his See, as appears by the sum of their answer 
* Ap. Sozom. l. 3. c. 8. p. 508. ap. Alban. Apol. II. p. 579. , and his rejoinder to their Letter. Not long after Pope Damasus writing also to the Eastern Bishops, commends 
* Theod. H. E l. 5. c. 10. p. 212.  them that they had yielded due reverence to the Apostolic See: And though this was spoken with modesty enough (awed hereinto perhaps by the Synod at Rome, in whose Name he wrote) yet in his Epistle 
* Dam. Epist. v. Conc. T. 2. col. 876.  to them of Numidia, and in general to all Catholic Bishops (if that Epistle be genuine) he speaks out, telling them that according to ancient institutions, they did well in all doubtful cases to have recourse to him as to the head, and that this was founded upon Custom and Ecclesiastic Canons; concluding his long Epistle thus, All which Decretals, and the constitutions of all my Predecessors, which have been published concerning Ecclesiastical Orders and Canonical Discipline, we command to be observed by you, and all Bishops and Priests, so that whoever shall offend against them, shall not be received to pardon, the Cause properly respecting us, who ought to steer the Government of the Church. This was most Pontifically spoken, and boldly ventured at, especially if we consider how little the African Bishops regarded the authority of the Roman Church, when the case of Appeals arose a few years after, as we have already seen at large. Siricius came next to Damasus, and he in his Letter 
* Epist. 1. c. 15. ib. col. 1022.  to Himerius of Taragon in Spain, magnifies the Roman Church as the Head of that Body, and bids him convey those Rules he had sent to all the Bishops in that and the neighbour Countries, it not being fit that any Bishop should be ignorant of the constitutions of the Apostolic See. Innocent the First, more than once and again styles 
* Vid. Innoc. Epist. 21. 24. 25. Conc. T. 2.  the Church of Rome the Fountain and Head of all Churches, and this built upon ancient Canons; and yet perhaps meant no more, than that it was the principal and most eminent Church of the Christian World: An honour, which upon several accounts intimated before, Antiquity freely bestowed upon it. Zosunus in a Letter to the Council of Carthage (produced by Baronius 
* Ad An. 418. Tom. 5.  out of a Vatican Copy) makes a mighty flourish with the unlimited power of S. Peter, that he had the care not only of the Roman, but of all Churches, ratified by the Rules of the Church, and the tradition of the Fathers, that both by Divine and Humane Laws this Power descended upon the Bishop of that See, whose sentence none might presume to reverse.  
III. LEO the Great entered that See about the year CCCCXL. A Man of somewhat a brisker and more active temper, than those that had been before him, and one that studied by all imaginable methods to enlarge his Jurisdiction, and being a Man of Parts and Eloquence, did amplify and insinuate his power with more advantage. He tells 
* Epist. 87. c. 1. p. 157.  the Mauritanian Bishops, That he would dispense with the Election of those Bishops, who had been immediately taken out of the Laity, so they had no other irregularity to attend them, not intending to prejudice the commands of the Apostolic See, and the Decrees of his Predecessors; and that what he passed by at present, should not hereafter go without its censure and punishment, if any one should dare to attempt, what he had thus absolutely forbidden. And elsewhere 
* Epost. 84. c. 11. p. 155.  that Bishops and Metropolitans were therefore constituted, that by them the care of the Universal Church might be brought to the one See of S. Peter, and that there might be no disagreement between the Head and the Members. And in a Sermon upon the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul, in a profound admiration he breaks out 
* Serm. 1. in Natal. App. c. 1. p. 79.  into this Rhetorical Address. These (says he) are the Men that have advanced thee to this honour, that thou art become a holy Nation, a peculiar People, a Royal and Priestly City, that being by the Holy See of S. Peter made Head of the World, thou mightest govern farther by means of a Divine Religion, than by worldly power. For although enlarged by many victories, thou hast extended the Bounds of thy Empire both by Sea and Land, yet is it far less which thou hast conquered by force of Arms, than that which thou hast gained by the peace of the Church.  
IU. BUT Leo was a Man not only for speaking, but for action. He saw the Emperors and the Eastern Bishops were resolved to advance the See of Constantinople, that it might bear some proportion to the Imperial Court, and that the Synod of Constantinople had already adjudged it the place of honour next to Rome; that therefore it concerned him to bestir himself to stifle all attempts that way, well knowing that the glory of that would eclipse his lustre, and cramp those designs of superiority and dominion, which the Bishops of Rome were continually driving on over the Church of Christ. A general Council was now called to meet at Chalcedon, Ann. CCCCLI. wherein were present no less than Six hundred and thirty Bishops: Hither Pope Leo sent his Legates, furnished with peremptory instructions (which they afterwards read openly in the Synod) to keep a quick eye upon all motions that way, and with all possible resolution to suppress them. At the opening of the Council, the Legates cunningly slipped in a clause, telling 
* Conc. Chalc. Act. I. Conc. T. 4. col 93.  the Fathers, that they had such and such things in command from the most Blessed and Apostolical Bishop of the City of Rome, which was the Head of all Churches: Which either was not heeded by that Synod, or passed by in the sense before declared, as allowing it an honorary pre-eminence above the rest.  
In the fifth Session of that Council 
* Act. v. col. 555. etc.  the Papal Legates moved that the Epistle of Leo about the condemnation of Nestorius might be inserted into the very definition of the Council against that Heresy. Craftily foreseeing what a mighty reputation it would give the Pope in the eye of the World, and to what vast advantage it might be stretched afterwards. But the Council stiffly opposed the motion, and said, they freely owned the Letter and were ready to subscribe it, but would not make it part of the definition. The Legates were angry, demanded the Letter back again, and threatened to be gone, and to have a Synod at Rome. And when the Emperor intimated some such thing, the Bishops cried out, they were for the definition as it was, and they that did not like it, nor would subscribe it, might if they please get them gone to Rome. After this, all things went on smoothly till they came to frame the Canons, among which one was 
* Ibid. Act. xuj. col. 810. , that the Bishop of Constantinople should enjoy equal Privileges with the Bishop of Rome; and then the Legates could hold no longer, plainly telling them, that this was a violation of the constitution of the great Synod of Nice, and that their Commission obliged them by all ways to preserve the Papal dignity, and to reject the designs of any, who relying upon the greatness of their Cities, should attempt any thing to the contrary.  
To prove that this was contrary to the Nicene Decrees, they produced the Sixth and Seventh Canons of that Council, beginning thus as Paschasinus repeated them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. The Church of Rome ever had the Primacy. Let Egypt therefore have this privilege, that the Bishop of Alexandria have power, etc. where instead of the first words of that Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let ancient Customs still take place, the Legate shuffled in this sentence as more to his purpose, the Church of Rome ever had the Primacy. And admitting here that this was only the Title to that Canon in the Roman Copy, yet 'tis somewhat more than suspicious, that Paschasinus intended it should be understood as part of the Canon itself. Which if so, there could not be a bolder piece of forgery and imposture. But the Fathers were not to be so imposed upon. Aetius archdeacon of Constantinople produced a Copy from among the Records of that Church, which he delivered to Constantine the Secretary, who read it according to the genuine words of the Canon, without any such addition, Let ancient Customs still take place, etc. and in confirmation of that were next read the second and third Canons of the second general Council at Constantinople. And because the Legate had objected that the Canon had been procured by fraud, the Judges required the Bishops concerned to declare their minds, who all readily declared the contrary. The case having been thus fully debated, and nothing material being alleged against it, the Canon passed by the unanimous suffrage of the Fathers, the Roman Legates only entering their protestation, and resolving to acquaint the Pope with what was done, that so he might judge both of the injury done to his own See, and the violence offered to the Canons.  
V. NO sooner did the news of what had passed in the Synod arrive at Rome, but Pope Leo stormed to purpose, wrote 
* Epist. 53. c. 2. p. 130.  to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, charging him with pride and ambition, with invasion of the Rights of others, with irreverence towards the Nicene Canons, contrary to which he had exalted himself above the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. He dispatched 
* Epist. 54. 55. 61. 62. 105.  Letters also to the Emperor Marcianus, to his Lady the Empress Pulcheria, and to Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, and the rest of the Fathers of the Synod, all to the same effect, complaining of the pride of Anatolius, and the irregular proceedings of the Council, that the privileges of Churches were destroyed, the bounds of Metropolitans invaded, many depressed to make way for one, venerable Decrees made void, and ancient Orders trodden in the dirt. That whatever Rules were made contrary to the Canons of Nice were null, that the care and inspection of these things was committed to him, a duty which he could not neglect without being guilty of unfaithfulness to his trust, that therefore by the authority of S. Peter he repealed and made void what ever any Council had agreed upon, repugnant to the Nicene Canons, yea, though done by many more in number than were in that venerable Synod, declaring that no regard or reverence was to be paid to their constitutions. In all which though nothing appear above ground but a mighty zeal for the honour of the Nicene Canons, yet 'tis plain enough 'twas his own ambition, his envy and emulation that lay at the bottom. And indeed, neither Leo, nor any of the Bishops of that See could ever pardon the Chalcedon Synod, not only for making the Bishop of Constantinople equal to him of Rome, but for placing the Primacy of the Roman Church, not in any Divine Right, but only in Rome's having been the Seat of the Empire.  
VI HENCEFORWARD they beheld the Bishops of that place with an evil Eye, as competitors with them in the Government of the Church, and the likeliest persons to give check to their extravagant designs, and therefore laid hold upon all occasions to weaken their interest, and to vent their spleen against their persons. And it was not long after, that a fit occasion presented itself.  
John the Tabennosiot 
* Evagr. H. E. l. 3. c. 11. 12. etc. p. 343 & seq. vid. Gest. de nom. Acacii. Conc. T. 4. col. 1081 Gelas. Epist. 13. ad Epp. Dard. ib. 1199. & Tom. de Anath. vincul. ib. col. 1227.  had by gifts and bribes (enabled thereto by being Steward and Treasurer of that Church) procured himself to be made Bishop of Alexandria, expressly contrary to his Oath lately made to the Emperor Zeno, that he would never attempt that See. For which he caused him to be expelled, and Peter Mongus, who had been heretofore consecrated to that place to be restored. Peter was a Patron of the Eutychian Heresy, but which at first he craftily dissembled, insinuating himself into the favour and friendship of Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, who constantly held Communion with him. But was so far from siding with him in any Heretical Sentiments, that no sooner did he hear 
* Evagr. ib. c. 16. p. 347.  that Peter had publicly Anathematised the Chalcedon Council, but he dispatched Messengers to Alexandria to know the truth of things, before whose Eyes Peter cast a mist, having formed a judicial Process about that matter, and brought in persons to depose that he had done no such thing. Nay, he himself wrote 
* Ext. Epist. ib. c. 17.  to Acacius, assuring him, that the charge was false, and that he had, and did confirm and embrace the Council of Chalcedon; though all this was pretence and elaborate hypocrisy. John driven out from Alexandria, flies to Rome, giving out himself to be a Martyr for the Cause of Pope Leo, and the Faith of the Chalcedon Synod.  
Welcome he was to Pope Simplicius, who wrote to the Emperor in his behalf; but dying not long after his arrival, his Successor Faelix readily espoused the quarrel, and after some preparatory messages and citations (wherein he required of the Emperor Zeno, that Acacius might be sent to Rome, there to answer what John of Alexandria laid to his charge) taking advantage of two Synods at Rome, held one soon after the other, twice excommunicated and deposed Acacius, for communicating with him of Alexandria. Letter after Letter he wrote both to the Emperor, and the Clergy and People of Constantinople, that the Sentence against Acacius might be owned and put into execution, who yet continued in his See till his death, without any great regard to the Sentence from Rome, which he so far slighted 
* Basil. Cil. H. Eccl. ap. Niceph. l. 16. c. 17. p. 683. , that to be even with him, he struck the Pope's name out of the Diptyches, to show the World he renounced all communion with him. This so much the more enraged his enemies at Rome, who all his life long pelted him with continual clamours and threatenings. Nay, Faelix and his Successors persecuted his very memory, denouncing censures against any that should mention his name with respect and honour. And I cannot but observe that in the Edict 
* Ext. in calc. Gest. de nom. Acac. ubi supr. col. 1083.  that was passed against him at Rome, mention is made of nothing but contumacy against the Pope's Admonitions, the ill usage and imprisonment of his Legates, and the affront therein offered to his person, and in the Excommunicatory Letter sent to Acacius 
Faelic. Epist. vi. ib. col. 1073.  himself, though favouring of Heretics was the great and indeed only thing pretended abroad, yet the very first thing wherewith he charges him, is contempt of the Nicene Council, and invading the Rights of other men's Provinces. It seems though he was loath to speak out, it was the Decree of the late Synod of Chalcedon still stuck in his stomach, by which the Constantinopolitan Patriarch had been advanced to so much power in the East, and made equal to him of Rome.  
And indeed Gelasius, who came after Faelix, says 
* Tom. de Anath. ubi supr.  plainly, that the Apostolic See never approved that part of the Chalcedon Canons, that it had given no power to treat about it, and by its Legates had protested against it, and thence most infallibly infers, that therefore it was of no authority or value; and accordingly Peter of Alexandria, which was the second See (i. e. according to the constitution of the Nicene Canon) could not be duly absolved by any other power than that of the first See, i. e. his own; accounting that of Constantinople (as he elsewhere 
* Ad Epp. Dard. ib. col. 1207.  asserts) not to be reckoned so much as among Metropolitan Sees: And as he argues in his Epistle 
* Epist. viij. ib. col. 1182.  to the Emperor Anastasius, if Christians be obliged in general to submit to their Regular Bishops, how much more should submission be made to the Bishop of that See, to whom both God and the subsequent piety of the Church have always given the pre-eminence above all Bishops; and so he goes on, according to the custom of the men, to speak big words of the authority and privileges of the Apostolic See.  
VII. SEVERAL years this breach that had been made remained, till Justin, a Man of very mean Originals, having by no good arts gained the Empire, thought it his interest to oblige and unite all parties. And first he begins to court the Pope, to whom he wrote 
* Inter Epist. Hormisd. Conc. T. 4. col. 1469. , giving him an account of his advancement to the Empire, and begging his prayers to God to confirm and establish it. This Hormisda in his answer calls a paying the first fruits of his Empire due to S. Peter. Hereupon reconciliation is offered, and John Bishop of Constantinople writes to him to that purpose, which he at length consents to upon this condition, that the name of Acacius might be stricken out of the Diptyches; which at last is done, and that of the Pope again put in, and so a Peace is pieced up, and the Catholic Faith professed on both sides, according to the Decrees of the four general Councils. And though Epiphanius, who succeeded John in the See of Constantinople, maintained the same correspondence, yet when ever it came to any important instance, the Pope could not forget his proud domineering temper over the Bishops of that Church. Which sufficiently appeared about this very time, when John the first, Hermisda's Successor, being by Theodorick King of the Goths sent Ambassador to Constantinople, with this message to the Emperor Justin, either that he should restore to the Arians their Churches in the East, or expect that the Catholics in Italy should have the same measures, he departed from Rome with weeping eyes and a sad heart, being grieved not more to be made the bearer of a message, so contrary to his judgement, than to be put upon an employment that seemed a diminution to the Papal dignity; he being (as Marcellinus 
* Chron. Indict. 3. Philox. & Prob. Coss. p. 61.  observes) the only Pope that had ever been commanded out of the City upon any such Errand. However arriving at the Imperial City, he resolved to keep up his Port, entered with great state, and being invited 
* Niceph. H. E. l. 17. c. 9 p. 746.  to sit upon a Seat even with that of Epiphanius Bishop of that Church, he refused, telling them he would maintain the Prerogative of the Apostolic See, not giving over, till a more eminent Throne was purposely placed for him above that of the Bishop of Constantinople. As if it had not been enough to reproach and vilify him at a distance, unless contrary to all Laws and Canons, and to the Rules of modesty, civility and reason, he also trampled upon him in his own Church. Nay, Anastasius 
* In vit. Joan. 1▪ Conc. T. 4. col. 1601.  adds, that the Emperor in honour to God came before him, and prostrated himself upon the ground to adore and worship him.  
Pope John the second, about ten years after writing 
* Epist. 2. ibid. col. 1745.  to Justinian (though there want not very learned men, who question the credit of that Epistle) talks stylo Romano, just after the rate of his Predecessors; he tells the Emperor, 'twas his singular honour and commendation, that he preserved a reverence for the Roman See, that he submitted all things to it, and reduced them to the unity of it, a Right justified by S. Peter's authority, conveyed to him by that authentic deed of gift, Feed my sheep; that both the Canons of the Fathers, and the Edicts of Princes, and his Majesties own professions declared it to be truly the head of all Churches. Where yet (as in infinite other expressions of that nature in the Pontifical Epistles) he warily keeps himself within general terms, capable of a gentler or a brisker interpretation, as it stood with their interest to improve.  
VIII. WEARIED out with continual provocations, oppositions and affronts from Rome, the Patriarches of Constantinople began to think upon some way, by which they might be better enabled to bear up against them. To this end, John who from his extraordinary abstinence was Surnamed Nesteutes or the Faster, being then Bishop of that See in a Synod convened there Ann. DLXXXIX. about the Cause of Gregory Bishop of Antioch, procured the Title of Ecumenical or Universal Bishop to be conferred upon him; with respect probably, to that Cities being the head Seat of the Empire, which was usually styled Orbis Romanus, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Universe, or whole World, and it could not be therefore thought extravagant, if the Bishop of it did assume a proportionable Title of honour, nothing appearing that hereby he laid claim to any extraordinary Jurisdiction.  
Nor indeed is it reasonable to conceive, that the Eastern Patriarches (who as Evagrius, who was advocate for Gregory in that Synod, tells us 
* H. Eccl. l. 6. c. 7. p. 450. ) were all either by themselves or their Legates present in this Council, together with very many Metropolitans, should at one cast throw up their own power and authority, and give John an absolute Empire and Dominion over them; and therefore can be supposed to grant no more, than that he being the Imperial Patriarch should alone enjoy that honourable Title above the rest. Besides that every Bishop as such, is in a sense entrusted with the care and solicitude of the Universal Church, and though for conveniency limited to a particular charge, may yet act for the good of the whole. Upon this ground it was, that in the ancient Church, so long as Order and Regular Discipline was observed, Bishops were wont upon occasion not only to communicate their Councils, but to exercise their power and functions beyond the bounds of their particular Diocese, and we frequently find Titles and Characters given to particular Bishops (especially those of Patriarchal Sees) equivalent to that of Universal Bishop: I cannot but mention that passage of Theodorit, who speaking of Nestorius his being made Bishop of Constantinople, says 
* Haeret. fab. l. 4. c. 12. T. 4. p. 245. , that he was entrusted with the Presidency of the Catholic Church of the Orthodox there, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was nothing less than that of the whole World. A passage which perhaps might the more encourage and invite John at this time to assume the Title.  
IX. BUT in what sense soever intended, it sounded high▪ but especially made a loud noise at Rome, where they were strangely surprised to find themselves outshot in their own Bow; for though they had all along driven on the design with might and main, yet they had hitherto abstained from the Title. Pelagius, who at this time sat in that Chair, was extremely nettled at it, and immediately dispatched Letters 
* Pelag. Epist. viij. Conc. T. 5. col. 949.  to John and the Bishops of his Synod, wherein he rants against this pride and folly, talks high of the invalidity of all Conciliary Acts without his consent and approbation, charges them, though summoned by their Patriarch, not to appear at any Synod, without authority first had from the Apostolic See, threatens John with excommunication, if he did not presently recant his error, and lay aside his unjustly usurped Title of Universal Bishop; affirming that none of the Patriarches might use that Profane Title, and that if any one of them were styled Ecumenical, the Title of Patriarch would be taken from the rest, a piece of insolence which ought to be far from all true Christians; with a great deal more to the same effect.  
I know the last publishers of the Councils make this Epistle to be spurious, a false piece of Ware patched up in Insidore Mercators' shop. But however that be, plain it is from S. Gregory 
* Lib. 4. Indict. 13. Epist. 36. col. 549. vid. etiam Epist. 38. ibid. , (who sent Copies of them to the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria) that Pelagius did write such Letters, wherein by the authority of S. Peter he rescinded the Acts of that Synod, propter nephandum elationis vocabulum, for the sake of that proud and ungodly Title, prohibiting his Archdeacon then at Constantinople, so much as to be present at prayers with the Patriarch of that place.  
X. GREGORY the Great succeeded Pelagius, whose Apocrisiarius, or Agent he had been at Constantinople when the thing was done. A man of good learning, and greater piety, and of somewhat a more meek and peaceable temper, than most of those that had gone before him, which perhaps he owed in a great measure, to those sad calamitous times, he so oft complains of, wherein he lived: And yet as tender in this point as his Predecessors. John of Constantinople had lately sent him an account 
* Lib. ●▪ pissed 39▪ 555.  of the proceedings in the case of John Presbyter of Chalcedon, wherein he took occasion to style himself Ecumenical Patriarch almost in every sentence. This touched Pope Gregory to the quick, and as he had an excellent talon at writing Letters, he presently sends to Mauritius the Emperor, to the Empress Constantina, to the Patriarches of Alexandria and Antioch, to John himself, and to Sabinian his own Deacon then residing at Constantinople.  
In all which he strains all the Nerves of his Rhetoric to load the case with the heaviest Aggravations, complaining 
* Ib. Epist. 32.  that by the contrivance of this proud and pompous Title, the peace of the Church, the holy Laws, and venerable Synods, yea and the commands of our Lord Jesus himself (who by that Instrument, Tu es Petrus, etc. had committed the care of the whole Church to Peter, Prince of the Apostles) were disturbed and shattered; that it better became Bishops of this time rather to lie upon the ground, and to mourn in Sackcloth and Ashes, than to affect names of Vanity, and to glory in new and profane Titles, a piece of Pride and Blasphemy, injurious to all other Bishops, yea to the whole Church, and which it became the Emperor to restrain: 
* Epist. 33.  that by this new Arrogancy and Presumption he had lift up himself above all his Brethren, and by his Pride had shown, that the times of Antichrist were at hand; that he wondered the Emperor should write to him to be at peace with the Bishop of Constantinople, chiding 
* Epist. 39  Sabinian his Deacon for not preventing the Emperor's Commands being sent to him. To Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, and Anastasius of Antioch (whom elsewhere 
* Lib 6. Ind. 15. Epist. 37.  he tickles with their three Sees being the only three Apostolical Sees founded by S. Peter Prince of the Apostles, and that they mutually reflected Honour upon each other) he represents, 
* Lib. 4. Epist. 36.  how great a diminution this was to their Dignity, that they should therefore give none this Title, for that so much undue Honour as they gave to another, so much they took away of what was due to themselves; that this fond attempt was the invention of him, who goes about as a roaring Lion, seeking whom he may devour, and a forerunner of him, who is King over all the Children of Pride. He tells John 
* Epist. 38.  himself, and that as he pretends with tears in his Eyes, that unless he quitted this proud foolish Title, he must proceed further with him, and that if his profane and ungodly humour could not be cured by gentler methods, it must be lanced by Canonical severity; that by this perverse▪ Title he had imitated the Devil, and had made himself like to Lucifer Son of the Morning, who said, I will ascend above the heights of the Clouds, I will exalt my Throne above the Stars of God; telling us, that by Clouds and Stars we are to understand Bishops, who water by their Preaching, and shine by the light of their Conversation, whom while he despised and trod upon, and proudly lift up himself above them, what did he but aspire above the height of the Clouds, and exalt his Throne above the Stars of Heaven; that such proud Attempts had been always far from him or his Predecessors, who had refused the Title of Universal Bishop, when for the honour of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles, the venerable Council of Chalcedon offered it to them.  
XI. IN which last passage (inculcated by him at every turn, no less 
* Epist. 32, 36, 38. lib. 7. Epist. 30.  than four or five several times) I cannot but remark either his Carelessness, or Insincerity; Carelessness, in taking such an important passage upon trust; or Insincerity, if knowing it to be otherwise, to lay so much stress upon so false and sandy a foundation. For the truth is, neither were his Predecessors so modest, that I know of, as to refuse such a Title, neither did the Synod of Chalcedon ever offer it to them. There being nothing in all the Acts of that Council that looks this way more than this, that four persons that came from Alexandria with Articles against Dioscorus their Bishop, exhibited their several Libels of Accusation, which they had presented to Pope Leo (who had beforehand espoused the quarrel) with this inscription, To Leo the most holy and religious Ecumenical Archbishop and Patriarch of Great Rome. These Libels the Papal Legates desired might be inserted into the Acts of the Council; which was done accordingly (as is usual in all judiciary Proceedings) for no other reason (as the Synod itself tells 
* Conc. Chalc. Act. III. col. 419. Conc. T. 4.  us) but this, that remaining there, they might thence be again rehearsed in Council, when Dioscorus himself should appear, and come to make his defence.  
This is the true state of the case, and now let the Reader judge, whether the Council offered the Pope this Title, when they were so far from approving it, that they did not so much as once take notice of it. I do not deny, but that the Pope's Legates might have an eye that way, and design to have that Title remain among the Records of the Council (as they were watchful Stewards to improve all advantages for their Master;) and therefore we find them sometimes subscribing 
* Ib. Act. vi. col. 579.  themselves Vice-gerents of Leo of Rome, Bishop of the universal Church, which yet elsewhere 
* Act. xuj. col. 818.  they thus explain, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Apostolical and chief Bishop of the whole Church. But however they intended it, certain it is for any thing that appears to the contrary, that the Fathers themselves never dreamt of any such matter, and accordingly when they came 
* Act. iv. col. 472. etc.  singly to declare their Judgements about the Epistle of Pope Leo, they style him only Pope, or Archbishop of Rome, nor do his Legates there give him any other Title. And in their Synodal Epistle 
* Ext. ib. col. 834.  to him, they superscribe it only, To the most holy and blessed Archbishop of Rome. Binius 
* Not. in loc. col. 997.  indeed will have the word Ecumenical to have been in the Inscription, and that it was maliciously struck out by some Transcriber, because (says he) in the body of the Epistle the Fathers own Leo to be the Head of the Universal Church, and the Father of all Bishops. When as the Letter has not one word to that purpose, more than this, That as the Head presides over the Members, so did Leo over the Bishops in that Synod; which can import no more than his presiding by his Legates (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in his qui tuas vices gerebant, as the last publishers of the Councils truly correct the Translation) in that Council.  
But suppose the Pope had had this Title conferred upon him, (as Gregory untruly affirms) 'twas no more than what was frequently given to the Patriarch of Constantinople, as, to omit other instances, is evident from the Council holden there Ann. DXXXVI. under Mennas, and another under John 18 years before, where John and Mennas, successively Bishops of that See, have both in the Acts of those Councils, and in Libels of Address from whole Synods, the Title of Ecumenical Patriarch near twenty times bestowed upon them. And this was several years before it was assumed by that Patriarch John whom we mentioned before.  
And 'tis methinks a sorry evasion of Baronius 
* Ad An. 518. T. 7. p. 5. , and his Footman Binius 
‖ Not. in Conc. sub Menna. Conc. T. v. col. 274.  (though 'tis that which they always have at hand, when an Argument pinches, which they know not how to decline) that this Title was foisted into the Acts of the Council by some later Greeks. And yet they produce no authority, no nor shadow of pretence from any ancient Copy that ever it was otherwise. And what if the Church of Rome did receive the Acts of that Council, and yet make no such clamours and loud outcry against it? Perhaps it did not entirely admit the Acts of that Synod under John of Constantinople Ann. DXVIII. Binius himself says, they were but Magna ex parte recepta, in a great measure received by the Church of Rome. And who knows whether this Title might not be some part of what was rejected. But if not, perhaps the Popes might slight it as a Title only accidentally given, not claimed as due. Whereas Pelagius and Gregory rant so much against the other John, because he assumed it in opposition to Rome, and had it by a solemn Synodical Act conferred upon him. I observe no more concerning this, than that Leo Allatius 
* De Consens. Eccl. Or. & Occ. l. 1. c. 19 n. 7. col. 289.  (who is not wont to neglect the least hint that may serve his cause) speaking of this passage, barely takes notice of Baronius' inference, without the least sign of his approving it. But to return.  
XII. WHILE Gregory was venting these passionate Resentments, John the Patriarch dies. But the quarrel died not with him, Cyriacus, who came after him, keeping up the Title. This put the Pope's passion into a fresh ferment, and now all the hard things are said over again, and Cyriacus 
* Lib. 6. Epist. 4. (( vid. l. xi. Epist. 47. al. 45.  is warned to lay aside the scandal of that ungodly Title, that had given so much offence; and that 
* Ib. Ep. 24.  he would hold no communion with him till he had renounced that proud and superstitious word, which was the invention of the Devil, and laid 
* Epist. 28.  a foundation for Antichrist to take possession, nay peremptorily affirms 
* Ib. Ep. 30.  with an Ego autem fidenter dico, that whoever either styles himself, or desires to be styled by others, Universal Bishop, is by that very Pride of his a forerunner of Antichrist. And when he understood that John Bishop of Thessalonica, Urbicius of Dyrrachium, John of Corinth, and several others, were summoned to a Synod at Constantinople, not knowing whether a Snake might not lie hid in the Grass, he writes 
* Lib. 7. Epist. 70.  to them, giving them an account of the rise and progress of that proud and pestiferous Title, (as he calls it) cautioning them not only not to use it themselves, but not to consent to it in others, nor by any overt Act to approve or own it; and if any thing should be craftily started in the Synod in favour of it, he adjures them by all that is sacred, that none of them would suffer themselves to be wrought upon by any Arts of Flattery and Insinuation, of Rewards or Punishments to assent to it, but stoutly oppose themselves against it, and courageously drive out the Wolf that was breaking into the Fold.  
XIII. HE that shall view these passages, and look no farther than the outside of things, will be apt to think, surely S. Gregory was the most selfdenying man in the World, and that he and his Successors would sooner burn at a Stake, than touch this Title. And yet notwithstanding all these passionate outcries, 'tis shrewdly suspicious, that they were levelled not so much against the Title itself, as the person that bore it. We have taken notice all along what an inveterate Pique the Bishops of Rome had against those of Constantinople, ever since the Emperors and Councils had made them equal to them, and this now added to all the rest, seemed to exalt Constantinople infinitely above S. Peter's See.  
Had this Title been Synodically conferred upon the Pope, we had heard none of this noise and clamour; but for him to be passed by, and his Enemy the Patriarch of Constantinople to be crowned with this Title of Honour, 'twas this dropped the Gall into his Ink. And therefore in the midst of all this Humility he ceased not to challenge a kind of Supremacy over that Bishop: Who doubts (says he 
* Lib. 7. Epist. 64. ) but that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See, a thing which both the Emperor, and Eusebius the Bishop of it, daily own. But this 'tis plain is there spoken in the case of Rites and Ceremonies, wherein it seems all Churches must take their Measures from Rome; unless with Spalleto 
* De Rep. Eccl. l. 4. c. 4, n. 28. p. 582.  we understand it of a subjection in point of Order and Dignity, that Rome was the first See, and Constantinople the second.  
The truth is, to me the passage seems suspected, and that Constantinople is there thrust in for some other place; and the rather, because there was no Eusebius at that time Bishop of that See, nor for a long time either before or after. However, Gregory had all his Eyes about him, that no disadvantage might surprise him; and therefore in his Letter to the Bishops of Greece (mentioned before) that were going to the Synod at Constantinople, he tells them, that although nothing should be attempted for the confirmation of the Universal Title, yet they should be infinitely careful, that nothing should be done there to the prejudice of any place or person: which though couched in general terms, yet whoever understands the state of those Times, and the Pope's admirable tenderness in those Matters, will easily see, that he means himself. And indeed, that the Bishops of Rome looked upon the Title of Ecumenical Bishop to be foul and abominable only till they could get it into their own hands, is evident, in that Gregory had scarce been 12 Months cold in his Grave, when Pope Boniface the Third got that Title taken from Constantinople, and affixed to the See of Rome; the manner whereof we shall a little more particularly relate.  
XIV. MAURICIUS the Emperor had in his Army a Centurion called Phocas, one whose deformed looks were the Index of a more brutish and misshapen Mind. He was 
* Cedrens▪ compend. Hist. p. 404.  angry, fierce, bloody, ill-natured, debauched, and unmeasurably given to Wine and Women; so bad, that when a devout Monk 
* Cedrens. ib. p. 407. vid. Anastas. Sinait. Quaest. xuj. p. 182.  of that time oft expostulated with God in Prayer, why he had made him Emperor, he was answered by a voice from Heaven, Because I could not find a worse. This Man taking the opportunity of the Soldiers mutinying, murdered the Emperor, and possessed his Throne, which he filled with Blood, and the most savage Barbarities. Ten of the Imperial Family 
* Vid. Niceph. l. 18. c. 41, 55.  he put to death, and so far let lose the Reins to fierceness and cruelty, that he had it in design, to cut off all those, whom Nobility, or Wisdom, or any generous or honourable Actions had advanced above the common Rank. And yet as bad as this lewd Villain was, scarce was he warm in the Throne when he received Addresses from Pope Gregory, who complemented the Tyrant, and that too in Scripture-phrase, at such a rate, that I know not how to reconcile it with the honesty of a good Man. His Letter 
* L. xi. Epist. xxxvi. Indict. vi. col. 793.  begins with a Glory be to God on high, who, according as it is written, changes Times, and transfers Kingdoms, who gives every one to understand so much, when he says by his Prophet, the most High ruleth in the Kingdom of Men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.  
The whole Letter is much of the same strain, representing the happy advantages the World would reap under the benign influences of his Government. And in another 
* Ib. Ep. xliii. col. 796.  written not long after he tells him, what infinite Praise and Thanks they owed to Almighty God, who had taken off the sad and heavy Yoke, and had restored times of Liberty under the conduct of his Imperial Grace and Piety. He wrote 
* Ib. Ep. xliv.  likewise to the Empress Leontia (one who is said to have been not one jot better than her Husband) with flattering Caresses; and under abundance of good words, courts her kindness and patronage to the Church of S. Peter, which he fails not to back with, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock, etc. To thee I will give the Keys, etc.  
XV. NOT long after Gregory dies, and Sabinian, who succeeded, living not full six Months, Boniface the Third of that name takes the Chair. He had very lately been Apocrisiarius, or the Pope's Legate at Constantinople, where he wanted not opportunities to insinuate himself into the favour of Phocas, and the Courtiers. And now he thought it a fit time to put in for what the Popes notwithstanding all the pretences of Self-denial, so much desired, the Title of Universal Bishop, and the rather because Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople, was at this time under disfavour at Court. From the very first entrance upon the Papacy he dealt 
* Sabell. Ennead. viij. l. 6. col. 528. Plat. in vit. Bonif. iii p. 85. Naucher. vol. two. Gener. xxi. p. 754. Adonis. Martyrol. pride. Id. Novembr.  with Phocas about this matter, and at length gained the point, though not without some considerable difficulty and opposition, aegre nec sine multa contentione, as my Authors have it.  
At last out comes an Edict from Phocas, commanding, that the Church of Rome should be styled and esteemed the Head of all Churches, and the Pope Universal Bishop. A rare Charter sure, not founded upon the Canons of the Church, but upon an Imperial Edict, and this Edict too granted by the vilest and the worst of Men. But so they had it, no matter how they came by it. And now that Title that had so lately been new, vain, proud, foolish, profane, wicked, hypocritical, presumptuous, perverse, blasphemous, devilish, and Antichristian, became in a moment not only warrantable, but holy and laudable, being sanctified by the Apostolic See.  
XVI. FROM henceforth the Church of Rome sat as Queen, and governed in a manner without control. For the Empire being broken in the West by the eruptions of the Lombard's into Italy, and its Power declining in the East by the successful invasions of the Saracens, the Emperors were but little at leisure to support and buoy up the Honour of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate. Advantages which the Popes knew well enough how to improve. And indeed every Age made new Additions to the height of the Papal Throne, and the Pride of that Church increasing proportionably to its Power and Grandeur, hectored the World into submission to the See of Rome, which as imperiously imposed its Commands and Principles upon other Churches, as Tyrants do Laws upon conquered Countries. Witness (for a concluding instance) those extravagant Canons 
* Ext. inter Epist. Greg. seven. ad calc. Ep. lv. Conc. T. 10. col. 110. & ap. Baron. ad ann. 1076. p. 479.  or Articles, (DICTATES he calls them) which Pope Gregory the Seventh published about the year MLXXU. I know Monsieur Launoy 
‖ Epist. Part. vi. Epist. 13. (add Ant. Faur.)  has attempted to show that these Dictates concerning the Prerogative of the See Apostolic were not framed by Gregory the Seventh. Whether his Reasons be conclusive, I am not now at leisure to inquire. Sure I am they are without any scruple owned for his by Baronius, and generally by all the Writers of that Church: And Launoy himself is forced to grant, that several of them are agreeable enough to the Humour, Pretensions, and Decrees of that Pope. They run thus.  

1. That the Church of Rome is founded by our Lord alone.  
2. That the Bishop of Rome only can be truly styled Universal Bishop.  
3. That he alone has power to depose or reconcile Bishops.  
4. That his Legate, though of an inferior Degree, is above all Bishops in Council, and may pronounce sentence of Deposition against them.  
5. That the Pope may depose absent Bishops.  
6. That where any are excommunicated by him, we may not, among other things, so much as abide in the same House with them.  
7. That he only may, according to the necessity of Times, make new Laws, constitute new Churches, turn a Canonry into an Abbey, and on the contrary divide a rich Bishopric, and unite such as are poor.  
8. That it is lawful only for him to use the Imperial Ornaments.  
9 That all Princes shall kiss none but the Pope's Feet.  
10. That his Name alone shall be recited in Churches.  
11. That there is but one only name in the World [that is, that of Pope.]  
12. That it is in his power to depose Emperors.  
13. That in case of necessity he may translate Bishops from one See to another.  
14. That wheresoever he please, he may ordain a Clerk to any Church.  
15. That whoever is ordained by him, may have the Government of any other Church, but may not bear Arms, nor may receive a superior Degree from any Bishop.  
16. That no Council ought to be called General without his Command.  
17. That no Chapter nor Book shall be accounted Canonical without his authority.  
18. That no Man may reverse Sentence passed by him, and he only may reverse all others.  
19 That he ought not to be judged by any.  
20. That none presume to condemn any person that appeals to the Apostolic See.  
21. That the weightier Causes of every Church ought to be referred to that See.  
22. That the Church of Rome never erred, nor, as the Scripture testifies, shall ever err.  
23. That the Bishop of Rome, if Canonically ordained, is by the merits of S. Peter undoubtedly made holy, as S. Ennodius Bishop of Pavia bears witness, favoured herein by many of the holy Fathers, as is contained in the Decrees of the blessed Pope Symmachus.  
24. That by his leave and command Subjects may accuse [their Superiors.]  
25. That without any Synod he may depose and reconcile Bishops.  
26. That no Man shall be accounted Catholic, that agrees not with the Church of Rome.  
27. That it is in his power to absolve the Subjects of unjust Governors from their Fealty and Allegiance.   
These were Maxims with a witness, delivered like a true DICTATOR and Head of the Church. And it showed, the World was sunk into a prodigious Degeneracy, when a Man durst but so much as think of obtruding such Principles upon the Consciences of Men, and imposing them upon the belief of Mankind.   
The END.   

Books Printed for, and Sold by RICHARD CHISWELL.  

FOLIO.  
SPeed's Maps and Geography of Great Britain and Ireland, and of Foreign Parts.  
Dr. Cave's Lives of the Primitive Fathers, in 2. Vol.  
Dr. Cary's Chronological Account of Ancient Time.  
Wanley's Wonders of the little World, or Hist. of Man.  
Sir Tho. Herbert`s Travels into Persia, etc.  
Holyoak's large Dictionary, Latin and English.  
Sir Rich. Baker's Chronicle of England.  
Wilson's Complete Christian Dictionary.  
B. Wilkin's real Character, or Philosophical Language.  
Pharmacopoeia Regalis Collegii Medicorum Londinensis.  
Judge Jones' Reports in Common Law.  
Cave Tabulae Ecclesiasticorum Scriptorum.  
Hobbs' Leviathan.  
Lord Bacon's Advancement of Learning.  
Sir Will. Dugdale's Baronage of England in two Vol.  
Hooker ' Ecclesiastical Polity.  
Winch's Book of Entries.  
Isaac Ambrose's Works.  
Guillim's Display of Heraldry with large Additions.  
Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation of the Church of England, in 2. Vol.  
Dr. Burnet's Account of the Confessions and Prayers of the Murderers of Esquire Thynn.  
Burlace's History of the Irish Rebellion.  
Herodoti Historia Gr. Lat. cum variis Lect.  
Rushworth's Historical Collections the 2d. Part in 2. vol.  
Rushworth's Large account of the Trial of the Earl of Strafford, with all the circumstances relating thereunto.  
Bishop Sanderson's Sermons, with his Life.  
Fowlis' History of Romish Conspir. Treas. and Usurpat.  
Dalton's Office of Sheriffs with Additions.  
Dalton's Office of a Justice of Peace with additions.  
Keeble's Collection of Statutes.  
Lord Cook's Reports in English.  
Sir Walter Raleighs History of the World.  
Edmund's on Caesar's Commentaries.  
Sir John Davis' Reports.  
Judge Yelverton's Reports.  
The Laws of this Realm concerning Jesuits, Seminary Priests, Recusants, the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance explained by divers Judgements, and resolutions of the Judges; with other Observations thereupon, by Will. Cawley Esq;.  
William's impartial consideration of the Speeches of the five Jesuits executed for Treason. 1680.  
Josephus' Antiquities and Wars of the Jews with Fig.   

QVARTO.  
DR. Littleton's Dictionary, Latin and English.  
Bishop Nicholson on the Church Catechism.  
The Complete Clerk: Precedents of all sorts.  
History of the late Wars of New England.  
Dr. Outram de Sacrificiis.  
Bishop Tailor's Dissuasive from Popery.  
Spanhemii Dubia Evangelica, 2 Vol.  
Dr. Gibbs' Sermons.  
Parkeri Disputationes de Deo.  
History of the future state of Europe.  
Dr. Fowler's Defence of the Design of Christianity, against John Bunnyan.  
Dr. Sherlock's Visitation Sermon at Warrington.  
Dr. West's Assize Sermon at Dorchester 1671.  
Lord Hollis' Relation of the Unjust Accusation of certain French Gentlemen charged with a Robbery 167●.  
The Magistrate's Authority asserted, in a Sermon, By James Paston.  
Cole's Latin and English Dictionary.  
Mr. James Brome's two Fast-Sermons.  
Dr. Jane's Fast Sermon before the Commons. 1679.  
Mr. John Jame's Visitation Sermon April. 9 1671.  
Mr. John Cave's Fast-Sermon on 30. of Jan. 1679.  
Mr. John Cave's Assize Sermon at Leicester July 31. 1679.  
Dr. Parker's Demonstration of the Divine Authority of the Law of Nature and the Christian Religion.  
Mr. William's Sermon before the Lord Mayor. 1679.  
Mr. William's History of the Powder Treason, with a vindication of the proceedings relating thereunto, from the Exceptions made against it by the Catholic Apologist and others; and a Parallel betwixt that and the present Popish Plot.  
Speculum Baxterianum, or Baxter against Baxter.  
Mr. Hook's new Philosophical Collections.  
Dr. Burnet's Relation of the Massacre of the Protestants in France.  
Dr. Burnet's Conversion and Persecutions of Eve Cohan a Jewess of Quality lately Baptised Christian.  
Dr. Burnet's Letter written upon Discov. of the late Popish Plot.  
Dr. Burnet's Impiety of Popery being a second Letter written on the same occasion.  
Dr. Burnet's Sermon before the Lord Mayor upon the Fast for the Fire, 1680.  
Dr. Burnet's Fast Serm. before the House of Com. Dec. 22. 80.  
Dr. Burnet's Sermon on the 30. of January 1681.  
Dr. Burnet's Sermon at the Election of the L. Mayor. 1681.  
Dr. Burnet's Sermon at the Funeral of Mr. Houblon. 1682.  
Dr. Burnet's Answer to the Animadversions on his History of the Rights of Princes, 1682.  
Dr. Burnet's Decree made at Rome 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists. Published by Dr. Burnet, with a Preface.  
Dr. Burnet's A Letter giving a Relation of the present state of the difference between the French King and the Court of Rome.  
Bibliotheca Norfolciana, sive Catalogus Lib. Manuscript. & impress. in omni Arte & Lingua, quos Hen. Dux Norfolciae Regiae Societati Londinensi pro scientia naturali promovenda donavit.   

OCTAVO.  
ELborow's Rationale upon the English Service.  
Bishop Wilkin's Natural Religion.  
Hardcastles Christian Geography and Arithmetic.  
Dr. Ashton's Apology for the Honours and Revenues of the Clergy.  
Lord Hollis' Vindication of the Judicature of the House of Peers in the case of Skinner.  
Lord Hollis' Jurisdiction of the H. of Peers in case of Appeals.  
Lord Hollis' Jurisdiction of the H. of Peers in case of Impositions.  
Lord Hollis' Letters about the Bishop's Votes in Capital Cases.  
Duporti Versio Psalmorum Graeca.  
Dr. Grew's Idea of Philological History continued on Roots.  
Spaniara's Conspiracy against the State of Venice.  
Dr. Brown's Religio Medici: with Digbies Observations.  
Dr. Salmon upon the London Dispensatory.  
Brinsley's Posing of the Accidence.  
Several Tracts of Mr. Hales of Eton.  
Bishop Sanderson's Life.  
Dr. Tillo●son's Rule of Faith.  
Dr. Simpson's Chemical Anatomy of the Yorkshire Spaws; with a Discourse of the Original of Hot Springs and other Fountains.  
Dr. Simpson's Hydrological Essays, with an Account of the Alum works at Whitby, and some Observations about the Jaundice. 1s. 6d.  
Dr. Cox's Discourse of the Interest of the Patient, in reference to Physic and Physicians.  
Organon Salutis: or an Instrument to cleanse the Stomach. With divers new Experiments of the Virtue of Tabaco and Coffee: with a Preface of Sir Hen. Blunt.  
Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity, in three Parts.  
A Discourse of the Nature, Ends, and difference of the two Covenants, 1672. 2s.  
Ignatius Fuller's Sermons of Peace and Holiness. 1s. 6d.  
A free Conference touching the present State of England, at home and abroad, in order to the designs of France. 1s.  
Mystery of Jesuitism, Third and Fourth Parts.  
Doctor Sanway's Unreasonableness of the Romanists.  
Record of Urines.  
Doctor Ashton's Cases of Scandal and Persecution.  
Cole's Latin and English Dictionary.  
The Trials of the Regicides in 1660.  
Certain genuine Remains of the Lord Bacon in Arguments Civil, Moral, Natural, etc. with a large account of all his Works, by Dr. Tho. Tennison.  
Dr. Puller's Discourse of the Moderation of the Church of England.  
Dr. Saywel's Original of all the Plots in Christendom.  
Sir John Munsons' Discourse of Supreme Power and Common Right.  
Dr. Henry Bagshaw's Discourses on select Texts.  
Mr. Seller's Remarks relating to the State of the Church in the three first Centuries.  
The Country man's Physician; for the use of such as live far from Cities or Market Towns.  
Dr. Burnet's account of the Life and Death of the Earl of Rochester.  
Dr. Burnet's Vindic. of the Ordinations of the Church of Engl.  
Dr. Burnet's History of the Rights of Princes in the Disposing of Ecclesiastical Benefices and Church Lands.  
— Life of God in the Soul of man.  
Markam's Perfect Horseman.  
Dr. Sherlock's Practical Disc. of Religious Assemblies.  
Dr. Sherlock's Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation.  
Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the defence of Dr. Stillingfleet in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Job about Catholic Communion.  
The History of the House of Estee, the Family of the Duchess of York, Octavo.  
Sir Rob. Filmer's Patriarcha, or Natural Power of Kings.  
Mr. John Cave's Gospel to the Romans.  
Dr. Outrams 20. Serm. preached on several occasions.  
Dr. Salmon's new London Dispensatory.  
Lawrence's interest of Ireland in its trade and wealth stated.   

DVODECIMO.  
HOdder's Arithmetic.  
Gro●ius de Veritate Religionis Christianae.  
Bishop Hacket's Christian Consolations.  
The Mother's Blessing.  
A Help to Discourse.  
New-englands' Psalms.  
An Apology for a Treatise of Human Reason, written by M. Clifford Esq;.  
The Queen-like Closet, both parts.   

VICESIMO QVARTO.  
VAlentine's Devotions.  
Guide to Heaven.  
Pharmacopoeia Collegii Londinensis reformata.   

Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell.  
AN Historical Relation of the Island of CEYLON in the East Indies: Together with an Account of the detaining in Captivity the Author, and divers other Englishmen now living there, and of the Author's miraculous Escape: Illustrated with fifteen Copper Figures, and an exact Map of the Island. By Capt. Robert Knox, a Captive there near 20 years, Fol.  
Mr. Camfield's two Discourses of Episcopal Confirmation, Octavo.  
Bishop Wilkin's Fifteen Sermons never before extant.  
Mr. John Cave's two Sermons of the duty and benefit of submission to the Will of God in Afflictions, Quar.  
Dr. Crawford's serious expostulation with the whigs in Scotland, Quarto.  
A Letter giving a Relation of the present state of the Difference between the French King and the Court of Rome; to which is added, The Pope's Brief to the Assembly of the Clergy, and their Protestation. Published by Dr. Burnet.  
Alphonsus Borellus de motu Animalium, in 2 Vol. Quarto.  
Dr. Salmon's Doron Medicum, or supplement to his new London Dispensatory, Octavo.  
Sir James Turner's Pallas Armata, or Military Essays of the Ancient, Grecian, Roman and Modern Art of War, Fol.  
Mr. Tanner's Primordia: or the Rise and Growth of the first Church of God described, Octavo.  
A Letter writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of France to the Protestants, inviting them to return to their Communion; together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction. Translated into English and Examined by Dr. Gilb. Burnet, Octavo.  
Dr. Cave's Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church by Bishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarches: more particularly concerning the ancient Power and Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome, and the encroachments of that upon other Sees, especially Constantinople, Octavo.  
Dr. Cave's His History of the Lives, Acts, Death, and Writings of the most eminent Fathers of the Church that flourished in the fourth Century: (being a Second Volume) wherein amongst other things is an Account of Arianism, and all other Sects. of that Age. With an Introduction containing an Historical account of the state of Paganism under the First Christian Emperors, Folio.   

Books in the Press.  
DOctor John Lightfoot's Works in English, Fol.  
Mr. Selden's Janus Anglorum Englished, with Notes: To which is added his Epinomis, concerning the Ancient Government and Laws of this Kingdom, never before extant. Also two other Treatises written by the same Author: One of the Original of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Testaments; the other of the Disposition or Administration of Intestates Goods: now the first time Published, Fol.  
Mezeray's History of France rendered into English, Fol. Gul. Ten▪ Rhyne Med. Doct Dissertat. de Arthritide, Mantyssa Schematica, & de Acupunctura. Item Orationes tres de Chemiae ac Botaniae Antiquitate & Dignitate. De▪ Physiognomia & de Monstris. Cum Figuris & Authoris notis illustratae, Octavo.  
D. Spenceri Dissertationes de Ratione Rituum Judaicorum, etc. Fol.