THE SECOND and THIRD TREATISES Of the First Part of Ancient CHURCH-GOVERNMENT.  
THE SECOND TREATISE Containing a Discourse of the SUCCESSION OF CLERGY.  
OXFORD, Printed in the Year MDCLXXXVIII.   

TO THE READER.  
IN the First Treatise of the First Part of Church-Government, Printed A. D. 1662., and Reprinted 1685, is contained the Succession of the Apostles to our Lord in his Pastoral Office, and the Primacy of St. Peter; then the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles; their Authority; and the Subordination to them of Presbyters,  
In this Second Treatise is discoursed, the Indeficiency of the Clergy, and of the Evangelical Doctrine delivered to them by our Lord.  
In the Third is contained the Subordination of Bishops; their several Jurisdictions; and though Primacy and Supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome.   

CORRIGENDA.  
Page 6. l. 7. ought not to do; the page should be 14.  
P. 24. l. 28. Mat. 23.2, 3.  
P. 42. l. 30. Bishop Andrews in answer.   

SUCCESSION OF CLERGY.  
§. 1 THese two things having been, as I suppose, sufficiently proved in a Treatise of Ancient Church-Government already published, First, Our Lord's deriving his Authority and Pastoral Office here on Earth upon his Apostles; and this not with an equal parity. Secondly, And again, the Apostles transferring the same Office to others: And this also, for preventing Schisms, and preserving Order and Peace in the Church, done, as before, not with an exact equality amongst all the Clergy, but with a certain preeminence and superiority of some above the rest, the Bishops above the Presbyters; and this a superiority too not only of precedence or honour (which would not have cured Schisms), but of Office and Authority.  
I now proceed to show more at large:  
That Christ hath left the same his Ministers, 1. The infallible Preservers of all necessary Faith, and the supreme Judges to be submitted-to in all spiritual doubts and controversies.  
2. These in this their Government independent-on, and not dissolvable by any external secular power.  
3. Firmly united among themselves in one external Profession, and Communion not ruinable by any intestine Division.  
§. 2 For the first of these I shall show you:  
1. That considering men's ordinary frailties and passions, there is a clear necessity of such a Judge to decide Controversies, resolve Doubts, suppress false Doctrines, etc. And  
2. That there hath always been appointed in the Church of God, besides the Rule, such a Judge, both under the Law and under the Gospel; and men never left to their own Conduct in Religion.  
§. 3 1. A necessity of such a Judge sufficiently appears from this: 1. That never any Body of Laws hath been so punctually set down, but that many doubts and questions do arise in the practice of it; a thing which experience hath verified in as many such Bodies as have been made. But  
2. Can such a Law be, yet that the Canon of Scripture is far from being such as to every part thereof, is evident from the many Controversies of Religion, that are on foot amongst those who all acknowledge the same Canon, and who must be said, at least some of them on all sides, to be both of quick capacity and sober judgmemt, and sufficient integrity: seeing that almost whole Nations have thus opposed one another, all whose capacities or integrities it were too much uncharitableness and pride to question. Here therefore whereas frequently both the contrary parties use to say the Scripture is plain on their own side, they both show that it is difficult; and whereas both also could wish an Arbiter of Controversies at least to silence their Adversary, they mutually confess One necessary for them both. And so long as sober Judgements contradict in their expositions of Scripture, though both should say, that the Scripture is clear, yet neither can say that in respect of all men it is so. And so long there is necessary another Judge besides Scripture, especially when none in Religious matters will confess that they contest about a Controtroversie which is not necessary to be decided. Indeed this happens ordinarily, that some sentences of Scripture seem plain on one side, and other sentences thereof plain on another; but since all parts of Divine truth must cohere and accord, the more plainness in this manner makes it the more difficult. And therefore, we commonly see, that in their not well-comparing of several Scriptures, but fastening their thoughts only on some parcel thereof, to which their fancy or interest specially guides them, the more ignorant are the more confident, and lest doubting, and they who have least compared things, soon decide them. And thus those who have the Scriptures the more common, and open to each man's comment (without dependence on any other Judge than themselves) run into great varieties of Opinions and Sects. 2 St. Pet. 3.16. takes notice concerning a chief part of the Scriptures, and that written purposely for instruction, St. Paul's Epistles; [but not only concerning these, but the other Scriptures too, see the end of v. 16.] that in them there were some things hard to be understood, which they that were unlearned and unstable did wrest to their own destruction. These things then of consequence, the mistaking of which tended to the Mistaker's destruction; which yet men, even in his days, mistake by being unlearned, i. e. not well taught in Christianity, which teaching they must have from their Pastors; and unstable, which must be by departing from the Doctrines received from their Pastors, as the words following v. 17. also imply. Now I see not why the same accident concerning the same Scriptures should not happen still to the illiterate and unstable, disclaiming any other Judge save these Scriptures, and conceiting that God's Written Word hath rendered his Ministers useless. This is said for the necessity of a Judge in matters of Religion, where Scriptures indeed (as St. Peter saith of them) have some difficulty. But  
3. Since Controversies may be raised and maintained by the peevishness, and perverseness, and passion of a Party, even where Scriptures are clear enough, here also no less necessary is a Judge juridically to suppress and silence those who irrationally, and many times with autocatacrisie, thus offend. But  
4. It is possible also, that some very material Controversies there may be in Religion, wherein the Scriptures have either been silent, or have not spoken to them so expressly and openly, but that they must be drawn out from thence by several deductions. Here then also some other Judge is necessary.  
§. 4 Such a Judge therefore is necessary to be. And therefore such a Judge there always hath been appointed by God to be consulted and submitted-to by his people; both before the Law Written, and under the Law Written, and under the Gospel.  
First, In the times before the Law Written, even from the very infancy of-the World, God ever had a Church, contradistinct after Adam's Fall (of whose Sons, as some were, good, so others were impious) to the rest of the world, serving God in a public external Communion, and under several other Laws besides that of Nature written in every man's Conscience, Rom. 2. 14, 15. Laws and Rules of Worship revealed and delivered by God to Adam himself at first, or to other Holy men even of the first times, and many of these Laws the same with those after ward recorded by Moses. So for the Church, we find righteous Abel serving God in a way well pleasing to him, and offering acceptable. Sacrifice, and (an early type of our Saviour.) slain and martyred by the Nead of the Race of the Church's Persecutors, out of envy to his sanctity, Heb. 11.4.— 1 Joh. 3.12.— Upon his death Seth raised in his stead a Father of the Holy Race, Gen. 5.1, 2, 3.— His Son Enos the first more eminent public Preacher of Righteousness, see 2 Pet. 2.5.— In whose time it is said, that people now began more publicly to call on the name of the Lord,— Gen. 4.26.— Enoch, the fifth from him, a Prophet, Judas 14.— and in a most singular manner pious, Gen. 5.24.— Heb. 11.5, 6.— the eighth from Enos, Noah again a famous Preacher of Righteousness, 1 Pet. 3.19.— 2 Pet. 2.5. In whose times the Members of the Church are by a special name called the Sons of God, Gen. 5.2.— From him again we find the Church continued to Abraham a Prophet, Gen. 20.7. Psal. 105.15.— In whose time also was Melchisedech the Priest of the most high God, Gen. 14.18. And to Abraham we find a Promise made by God of the neverfailing of his Seed, i. e. of the Children of his Faith and Holy Religion; i. e. of the Church. So soon as this Spiritual. Seed began to cease among the Jews, than it being continued to him still among the Gentiles. See Rom. 4.12.— 16.17 Gal. 3.7, etc. Gal. 4. Joh. 8. 39.44.— Luk. 19.9.  
§. 5 This for the old Church. Next for the old Laws, Rules, and Government under which it lived, we find early mention of several of these long before Moses his committing them to record. Of Holy Persons, Priests; Prophets, Intercessors, Gen. 14. 18.-20.7, 17. Exod. 19.22.— 24.5. Of Holy Times Gen. 2.3. Exod. 16.23. Of Holy Places, Gen. 4.12, 14, 16. 28.17-35.1.— 12. 6.-26.25 Ex. 3.5. Of Altars, Gen. 8.20. which the Patriarches built in such places where God appeared to them,— Gen. 12. 6.-26.25. Or where they made a longer abode, Gen. 12. 8.-13.4, 18. Of Sacrifice; Sacrifice of the firstlings; and of the far, Gen. 4.3, 4.  Offerings and Peace Offerings, Gen. 8.20.— Exod. 5. 1.-10.25.— The Birds in Sacrifice not divided, Gen. 15.10. as it was afterward commanded in Leu. 1.17.— Of clean and unclean Beasts, Gen. 7.2.— and of not eating the Blood, Gen. 9.4.— Of Purifyings, Cleansing, changing their Garments, etc. Gen. 2.— Of Tithes paid to the Priest,— Gen. 14.20.— Of making Vows, Gen. 28.20.— Of not matching with Unbelievers, Gen. 6.2 comp. 1.— Of the Brother's raising of Seed to his Brother, Gen. 38. 8.comp Deut. 25.5. Thus then from the beginning God had a Church, had Preachers and Priests, and certain Rules of his due Worship.  
2. In these times it seems, that the People for matter of Religion and God's Worship, were cast wholly upon the Instructions and Doctrines, Traditions and Dictates, of their Guides for knowing their duty, without any Written Records or Law of Natural Reason (which these things transcended) to examine these by: and supposing that there should have happened to have been, concerning any particular, two contrary Traditions amongst these Teachers, in all reason they ought to have followed the former and more universal. Here also we may presume, that these Fathers of the Church were then sufficiently assisted by God to deliver always to the People all truths necessary to their Salvation, since they had no other Director to repair to.  
§. 6 2. To let these obscurer times pass, and to come to those under the Law Written, (which was in all things a more express type of the Gospel). Tho this Law seems much more punctually and methodically committed to Writing, as to the Rule thereof, than the Gospel is, yet there was a Judge, and certain Courts appointed for the Exposition thereof in difficult matters. Which Office at first we find Moses, who also had continual recourse to God in his Doubts, to have executed for some time both for Religious and for Civil causes, alone; To whom (saith the Text Exod. 18.16.) the people, when they had a matter, came, and he made them know the Statutes of God and his Laws.— Afterward to ease him of this great burden, especially as to ordinary Civil matters, we find by Jethroes advice (but also God's approbation) other able men chosen out of the people, and set over Ten, Fifties, Hundreds, and Thousands, to decide the easier matters, but to bring the harder still to Moses, Exod. 18.13, etc. And he still alone to be for the People to God ward, to bring the causes unto God, teach them Ordinances, and show them the Work that they must do, Exod. 18.19, 20.— Afterward yet more to ease him in these more difficult matters, we find, by God's appointment, Seventy Elders chosen out of the former Officers and Judges, more immediately to assist him; which Seventy Elders, to enable them for this higher employment, had part of Moses his Spirit taken and put upon them; which Spirit at the first showed wonderful effects in them, and magnified them before the People; as Christ (the Prophet whom Moses resembled, Deut. 18.15.) his Spirit also did at first, when it was derived on the chief Evangelical Judges and Magistrates. (Act. 2.) See Numb. 11.14, 16, etc.  
§. 7 Thus it was ordered in the Wilderness. Again, when the People should come to the Land of Rest, here we find besides the Inferior Judges distributed in the Country (Deut. 16.18.) by God's command, a standing Court established in that City, where God settled his Sanctuary and Presence (that they also might there consult him in their difficulties; established, I say, for the Exposition of the Law in all matters too hard for the other, and we find all persons obliged under pain of Death to stand to their Decisions. See for this, Deut. 17, 8, etc.— If there arise a matter too hard for thee [i. e. the inferior Country-Judges, Deuter. 16.18.] in judgement between Blood and Blood, between Plea and Plea, or between stroke and struck [or Leper and Leper: what in these was permitted or prohibited, excusable or punishable, or in what manner punishable according to the Letter of the Law] being matters of Controversy within thy Gates [or as the Vulgar, & Judicum intra portas tuas videris verba variari] thou shalt then arise, and get thee up unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; And thou shalt come unto the Priests, the Levites, and unto the Judge [that chief Secular Magistrate or his Substitute, because the matters brought before this Court were sometimes relating to God's, sometimes to the King's Laws; Causes, some Ecclesiastical, some Civi] that shall be in those days, and they shall show thee the sentence of Judgement. And thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place shall show thee,— according to all that they inform thee. According to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee, thou shalt do, [or as the Vulgar, Quodcunque docuerint te juxta legem ejus facies], Thou shalt not decline, from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand, or to the . And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth to Minister there before the Lord, or to the Judge [as his Cause is Ecclesiastical or Civi] even that man shall die. And all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously. Thus Deuteronomy. Again in 2 Chron 19.5, 8, 10, 11. where Jehoshaphat in his Reformation, amongst many other, reduced this Law into practice; the same thing is cxpressed in these terms, First, v. 5. And he set Judges in the Land throughout all the fenced Cities of Judah, etc. answerable to Deut. 16.18. and then v. 8. Moreover in Jerusalem [the place the Lord had chosen] did Jehoshaphat set the Levites [for under Officers, and of the Priests, and of the chief of the Fathers of Israel, v. 11.] for the judgement of the Lord, and for controversies. And he charged them saying, what cause soever shall come unto you of your Brethren that dwell in their Cities between Blood and Blood, between Law and Commandment, Statutes and Judgements: ye shall even warn them, that they trespass not against the Lord, etc. And behold, Amasiah the chief Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord, [concerning his Law and Religion], and Zebadiah the Ruler of the House of Judah, for all the King's matters [concerning the King's Law and Civil Subjection]. Also the Levites shall be Officers before you, etc. See 1 Chron. 23.4.— 26.29, 30.  
§. 8 In these two places you may note; That it is not, or, not only, concerning matter of fact, as some would have it, that when doubt arose at the Country Sessions, they were to repair to this Court at Jerusalem, which fact was most easy and most fit to be judged upon the place; But concerning matter of Law or Statute, when question arose about that, between Plea and Plea, Law and Commandment, statutes and judgements, saith the Text, (see Diodate's Comment in Deut. 17. 8.)— and according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee, etc.— Again, it is not for matter of Law in such a sense as some would have it; namely, that the Litigant was to be put to death, if he obeyed not the sentence of the Judge, whensoever he judged right, and according to the Law of God. But that he judging otherwise, he was not tied to obey him, nor might be put to death for disobedience in such case For so Bishop Andrews (Tort. Torti) answers Bellarmin, urging this place; Quali Sacerdotis imperio obediendum? Ita praecedentia verba babent, imperio Sacerdotis juxta legem Dei docentis. Tum sequeris sententiam ejus; turn si superbierit etc. But who is it that shall judge when this Supreme Court, appealed to, judgeth juxta legem Dei, when not? Surely it must be the litigant, or no body, unless there can be a Supersupreme Court. But then how absurd this? for so, whenever the Litigant judgeth the Judge to have judged not according to this law, he is free from obeying his sentence, and consequently from punishment for any disobedience thereof, unless the Judge can by God's law punish him, for doing only what God's law permits him. Therefore, Quodcunque docuerint te juxta legem Dei, in the Vulgar, which the Bishop here is pleated to make use of, meaneth only this; Quodcunque doenerint te esse juxta legem Dei these being the supreme expositors of the Law to the people, as is clear from the Hebrew rendered thus; Super os legis quam docebunt te, & super judicium quod dicent tibi, facies; and from the Septuagint,— Secundum legem & secundum judicium quodcunque dixerint tibi; and the Syriack, Secundum praescriptionem legis quam tibi indicabunt; and the other famous Translations; and also from the English, according to the sentence of the Law, which [sentence] they shall teach thee:— and clear also from the context, requiring also most strict and absolute obedience. Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee to the right hand, nor to the left. He that will not hearken to the Priest, that man shall die.  
§. 9 Again, it is not only in a case of suffering, and patiently submitting to a punishment which this Court shall inflict, as some would have it, (see Chilingworth c. 5. § 109, 110.) but also of doing what it shall direct. For the words are plain, Deut. 17.9. Thou shalt observe to do all that they shall inform thee, not turning to any hand: and 2 Chron. 19.10. it is said to the Judges, Ye shall warn them that they trespass not against the Lord, which cannot be meant of punishments, but in breaking his laws. Again, it is nor meant of doing neither what this Court shall direct, that is in such things, wherein meanwhile we are not bound to think also their determination lawful, and their sentence just. As one may lawfully pay a mulct of an 100 l. wherein he is condemned by the Court, without thinking their sentence lawful; because any one, when wrong is done him, may cedere suo jure, without sinning therein. Thus Mr. Chilling worth would avoid this place urged by Mr. Knot; and in his instance indeed no more is required than he affirms; but it seemeth also an obligation to think such determination and sentence just and lawful: as in all those instances may be made appear, where the party is enjoined by this Court to perform some neglected duty to God, or his Neighbour, and not only sentenced to undergo some punishiment; as certainly all the decrees and determinations of that Court were not only about passive obedience, satisfactions, and punishments, but active too, duties, and service. Now this is certain, that none may do any thing which he doth not first think is lawful to be done, or at lest which, he doth not go so far, as to think that it is unlawful to be done: for, Conscientia erronea obligat. And next, he cannot think such thing lawful to be done, so long as he thinketh that God hath forbidden it, or commanded the contrary of it to be done. Therefore as long as he thinketh that he may lawfully do it, so long he thinks, or at least is not certain, but that it is agreeable to God's command and so long he thinks, or is not certain of, the contrary, but that the determination of this court is right, and just. But here if any one would say; That one may think a thing lawful to be done by him, because it is commanded him by those Superiors, whom God hath charged him in all things to obey, whilst meanwhile he believeth God to have commanded the contrary, and that hence only he thinketh it lawful for him to do it; not because God hath commanded it, or hath not commanded the contrary, but because God hath commanded him to obey his Superiors, though erring and decreeing a thing sometimes contrary to God's command. Let it be so: This sufficeth our purpose, so that constant obedience be allowed to these Judges, and that what they command we ought to do, not only in matters of Penalty, but of Duty. Thus Schism is excluded, thus Peace is preserved perpetually in God's Church.  
§. 10 To make things a little plainer by an instance. Suppose that a controversy arose between a bounden Servant and his Master; whether he were to obey his Master's commands in watering his  on the Sabbath day, the servant arguing from Exod. 20, 10. [in it thou shalt do no manner of work,] that this is by God prohibited. The matter upon this is brought before these Judges, and decided for the master: here the servant is bound to water the cattle of his master, and therefore bound to think it not unlawful to do, since none may do what they think must law: and if he think it not unlawful to do so, he must either now change his former opinion, and think God's law not to have prohibited it; or at least God to have bound him by another law to do some thing sometimes, he thinks, but is not certain, that God's law prohibits, namely, so often as these Judges, who are appointed God's substitutes to expound his law, do mis-intepret it. For in the judgement also of Protestants, God hath upon some suppositions, obliged us to believe, and give assent to the determinations and injunctions of an erring Guide; namely, of our Spiritual Governors, in matters Theological, where ever we ourselves doubt of the truth, and have no certain evidence of the contrary to what they enjoin us: yet in which injunctions they do grant these Governors both may, and do sometimes err. So likewise an erroneous conscience is granted, to oblige us, and that from the Divine command, who hath made it sin to do otherwise, which conscience also sometimes errs faultlesty, i. e. out of an invincible ignorance. Take therefore of the two former ways which you will, the duty of the servant rectifying his opinion, or of obeying the Judge, and acting contrary to his-opinion, (where note, that in such obeying he still follows his conscience, for he obeys here, because he first thinks that he ought to obey,) Obedience is the product; but Obedience in the former notion is an act of more humility and charity.  
§. 11 Having faid this to explain the quality of the obedience required in this place, I will set you down what Mr. Hooker hath commented upon it., (in his Preface sect. 6.) writing against Puritans, and so speaking much of subordination of private opinion to the determination of Ecclesiastical authority. God (saith he) was not ignorant that the Priests and Judges, (whose sentence in matters of controversy he ordained should stand) both might, and oftentimes would be deceived in their judgements; howbeit better it was in the eye of his understanding that sometimes an erroneous sentence definitive, should: prevail, till the same authority perceiving such oversight, might afterwards correct or reverse it, than that strifes should have respite to grow, and not come speedily unto some end. [Then answering the Objection of doing nothing against Conscience] ' Neither wish we (saith he) that men should do any thing which in their hearts they are persuaded they ought not not to do; but we say, this persuasion ought to be fully settled in their hearts, that in litigious and controverted causes of such quality [here what exceptions Mr. Hooker makes matters not, for the Text makes none] ' the Will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of Judicial and Final Decisions shall determine: yea though it seems in their private Opinion to swerve utterly from that which is right, as no doubt many times the sentence among the Jews did unto one or other party contending: and yet in this case God did then allow them to do that which in their private judgement it seemed, yea and perhaps truly seemed, that the Law did disallow. Thus Mr. Hooker. Whose last words seem to me to say, either that we are to submit our private opinion or judgement, (i. e. those reasons that we have from the thing to think the contrary) to the judgement of this Court, i. e. to another reason which we have drawn from Authority. Of which is spoken largely elsewhere, in Obligation of Judgement, § 2, etc.— Or else, that retaining still our private Opinion, yet we ought to practise contrary to what it dictates, by reason of God's commanding us absolute Obedience to this Court. Which, though it doth err sometimes, perhaps in matters less necessary, yet much oftener should we err, if not thus restrained and subjected to it.— And of two evils, or human infirmities, the lesser is to be chosen. Therefore also in Secular affairs the Soldier is punished when he doth that which is better, if he doth this against his General's Command; because indeed by such a liberty indulged, how much oftener would he do that which is worse?  
§. 12 To this place of Deuteronomy (upon which you will excuse my long stay, for the freeing it from several faulty restrictions) may be added many more Texts of the Old Testament to the same purpose. See Ezech. 44.24. where the Prophet in the end of his Prophecy describing (typically under the ancient Ceremonies) the restauration and flourishing condition of God's Church, at last amongst other recites this Law, Deut. 17. In controversy they [the Priests] shall stand in judgement; and they shall judge it according to my judgements. See Hag. 2.11.— Thus saith the Lord of Hosts: Ask now the Priests, saying; If one bear etc. According to which command the Prophet consulted them, and received an answer from them, ver. 12, 13. See Mal. 2.7. where chiding the Priests, causing many to fall in the Law, the Lord faith,— The Priest's lips shall keep knowledge, and they [the People] shall seek the Law at his mouth. For he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts; [If he therefore err, no remedy but the People must fall.] See Deut. 33.9, 10. comp. Eccl. 45.17. And see Hos. 4.4. where when God would express the extreme perverseness and obstinacy of his people, he compares them to those that contend with [and show disobedience to] their Priest. Likewise the Priest's putting difference between holy and unholy, clean and unclean, and accordingly admitting men to, or separating them from the Congregation; and in the readmission of these, exercising the Ceremonies of their Cleansings, (for which see Leu. 10.10, 11: Ezech. 44.23.— Leu. ch. 13. & 14.) are only Metaphors of the Church's Authority in Judging what is, and what is not, sin and trespass against God's Law; in Excommunicating those whose continue in sin; and in Reconciling those who are penitent. And the Observation of the Evangelist, Joh. 11.49, etc. (upon Caiaphas his saying, It was expedient, etc.) that he spoke not this of himself, but being Highpriest that year, prophesied; argues some special assistance of God attending this chief Judge of the People.  
§ 13 After these, very considerable is that Injunction of our Saviour, concerning Obedience even to the Scribes and Pharisees, because those, who for the present sat in Moses his Chair, which Chair was yet to stand a little while longer (till himself had accomplished his Sufferings, till the Consummatum est, on the Cross, and the Nailing of the Old Law thereto, Joh. 19.30. Col. 2.14. After which, at the next Pentecost was set up a new Ministry of the Gospel (Act. 2.) and a new Sanedrim, or supreme Court for deciding of Ecclesiastical Controversies, Act. 15.) Therefore our Saviour both enjoined to others, Mat. 8.4. and most punctually observed himself the Mosaical Law, all his days keeping the Ceremonies New and Old, Luk. 2.21. Mat. 3.15. Gal. 4.4. Going at the solemn Feasts to Jerusalem, frequenting the Synagogues in the Country; neither could any justly accuse him of the breach of the least tittle thereof, Joh. 8.46. And in this Chair yet standing, the Pharisees are said to sit, because several of the Priests or Levites, and Members of the Sanedrim, or chief Ecclesiastical Court of the Jews, see Joh. 12, 42, 43. and also of the Doctors and Expositors of the Law to the People in their Synagogues, were of this Sect; and their Doctrines, it seems by Mat. 23.4. were very strict and rigorous, and much otherwise than their Lives; strict, not only for I know not what Traditions of the Elders, which they themselves very scrupulously observed; but for some, at least of the more solid points of the Law, which they themselves hypocritally neglected. For our Saviour signifies there, that out of this Chair they said much that they did not, and that they laid heavy burdens on other men's shoulders, which themselves would not move with one of their fingers. In the very front of that Sermon therefore (see Mat. 23.) wherein our Lord most vehemently reprehendeth their impious lives, as if he were afraid, that from his taxing their evil Conversation men should reject their Authority and Injunctions, he premiseth these words, agreeable to those formerly mentioned Deut. 17.8, etc.— Mat. 23.2, 3. The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: but do not ye after their Works. For they say, and do not. Which place to interpret so as some do, All whatsoever that is conformable, or not contrary to the Law of Moses, i. e. All that he who hears them thinks conformable, or not contrary, etc. seemeth unreasonable, as hath been showed before, p. 8. on Deut. 17.— To which I will only here add what Bellarmin (De Verbo Dei, l. 3. c. 4.) saith on that place, as applicable to this,— Non voluit [Moses] dicere; sta judicio Sacerdotis, si docuerit te secundum legem. Tunc enim fuissent homines magis dubii & perplexi, quam antea. Nec opus fuisset ire ad Sacerdotem, si ipsi potuissent ex lege Domini per se judicare causam suam. Immo tunc non Sacerdos fuisset Judex, sed ipsi; quip qui de sententia Sacerdotis judicaturi erant.  
§. 14 Yet on the other side; since that now the Messiah, a Law-giving Prophet like Moses, of whom he gave a special charge in his Law, Deut. 18.15. that whenever he came all should hear him; was now come into the world; come with such evident testimonies, as that all not wilfully blind must needs know him; come with such Miracles, with the Testimony of the Baptist, who was generally acknowledged a Divine Prophet; with the Testimony of God himself from Heaven, reiterating Moses his words, hear ye him, Mat. 3.7.— 17.5. All which our Saviour frequently urgeth, to beget in the people faith and adherence to him, as their supreme Doctor and Guide. See especially Joh. 5. from ver. 31, to the end. Something I must confess, is here altered from the case in Deuteronomy. Neither is the Obedience and Submission to the Doctrines of those in Moses his Chair here to be so far extended, as if this Messiah advanced the Sanedrim's Authority above, or equalled it to his Own; or, as if he enjoined Obedience to these Chair-men in any thing wherein they contradicted or opposed him; or so restrained men now to their sentence, that in their doubts they might not repair from this formerly Supreme Court, now to Him, who was the Light of the World, and Truth itself. But only is to be extended thus far (which serves our turn) that he would tie the People's Duty and Obedience always to their Spiritual Guides and Superiors: In the first place to Himself, the perpetually Supreme Head of the Church, see Joh. 18.37.— Mat. 7.24. and those whom he sent; as likewise to the Baptist, the Messenger before the Messiah, as evidently sent by God. [For we must know, that all extraordinary Missions manifestly from God, as those of the Prophets, obliged both Priest and People to Obedience in what they said. As Abraham stood obliged by such a Message from God to Sacrifice his Son. And the People were reprehended by God for not heark'ning to his Prophets, whatever the Priests said to them to the contrary; the Mission always being supposed manifest.] In the next place to the Successors of Moses, so long as they were to continue in their Office, i. e. till the Consummatum est on the Cross, or descent of the Holy Ghost on our Lords new Missioner's, the Apostles) in all things, wherein he taught them not the contrary: All this in contradistinction to following their own Guidance and private Judgement against the Dictates of their Superiors and Doctors, especially when they saw their Lives scandalous. And for the better preserving of which Duty to these Superiors, it is observed, that our Saviour never said any thing against the Priests eo nomine, lest he should so have seemed to vilify the Priesthood. Dominus (said St. Cyprian long ago, Epist. 69. on Joh. 18.22.) custodiens & docens Sacerdotalem honorem servari oportere, contra Pontisicem nihil dixit. To this place of St. Matthew commanding Obedience to those in Moses his Seat, may be added our Saviour's Vindication of the Jewish Church against the Samaritan, Joh. 4.22. saying, That the Samaritans worshipped they knew not what; and that salvation was of the Jews; the meaning of which must at least extend thus far, That the true way of Salvation was taught by the Jewish Doctors. And that saying of his, Mat. 11.13. and Luk. 16.16. that the Law and the Prophets prophesied until John. And that answer in the Parable, Luk. 16.29. they have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. See likewise Rom. 9.4. Which places, if they intimate thus much, that the Doctors and public Expositors of this Law taught to the people so much truth as was necessary to their Salvation till the coming of the Baptist, and of our Saviour; I press them not so far, as that these taught no Errors. And if they taught not the former Truths, judge what a case the People were in, who had no Copy of the Law themselves, and also had such an Injunction in Deut. 17.18. upon pain of death for their presumption, v. 12,13. to obey these Law-expounders.  
§ 15 But against what hath been said are urged several things considerable. α First here is urged our Saviour's manifestly declaring elsewhere, not only against the lives, but doctrines of the Pharisees, and warning the people, or at least his disciples, to be ware of these doctrines: see Matt. 16.6. compared with 12. β declaring, that they transgressed the commandments of God by their Tradition, and that in vain they worshipped God, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matt. 15.3.9. γ Again, that they shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; or, as S. Luke hath it, (c. 11. v. 52.) that they had taken away the key of knowledge, neither going in themselves, nor suffering those that were entering, to go in. Matt. 23.13. δ That those whom they made Proselytes, they made them twofold more the chlldrens of hell than themselves. Matt. 23.15. ε And that they were blind leaders of the blind, and that if the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch. Matt 15.14. ζ And what dangerous blind leaders they were, we see, when as they taught the people that Jesus was not the Messiah, and excommunicated his followers, (Jo. 9.34,) and at last this highest Spiritual Court, or Ecclesiastical Synod, condemned this Saviour of the world to death, for a Seducer, a Blasphemer, a destroyer of the Law, and so also his Apostles after him. η To which may be added Esai. 8.20. where the Prophet directs the people immediately to the Law and Testimony.— To the Law, and to the Testimony: If they speak not according to this word, it is, because there is no light in them. All which seems inconsistible with Mat. 23.2. as it is interpreted.  
§. 16 I answer, No. 1. Because, though it cannot be denied, that some doctrine or doctrines of the Pharisees there were, that were damnable and destructive of salvation, (such was that wherein they taught the people contrary to the evidence of the Law, (Jo. 5.39, 45. etc.) that Jesus was not the Messiah,) yet our Saviour, and the Baptist, and the twelve Disciples sent abroad, in these taught the people contrary to them, whom (as we have said before) the people were bound to believe, and not them; because now the Messiah, not the Sanedrim was the Supreme Judge, (upon which the Cardinal, no enemy to the High Priests Supremacy, is facile to grant, that; Non fuit necessarium ut Pontifices Judaeorum non possent errare, quando Christus summus totius Ecclesiae Pontifex praesens aderat, & Ecclesiam per se administrabat,) which High Priest, to guard the people from this pernicious Pharisee-doctrine, sent forth not only twelve at one time, but seventy Disciples at another, and both with miracles, to publish in all the coasts of Israel the coming and the Kingdom of the Messiah, that none might plead ignorance of his coming, or be misled in these things by their former Masters, denouncing the greatest woes to them who should reject Him or His.  
Matt. 10.14, 15.— 11.21.  
§ 17 2. Because though other doctrines of these Pharisees there were, that were erroneous, as several misinterpretations of the Law, and the preferring also the observance of several Traditions of their own before some greater things of the Law, (yet so, as they taught the observance of both:) which doctrines also, I know not how far they might be damnable to themselves, who had light enough to have known the contrary, had not corrupt affections, ambition, covetousness, hypocrisy, etc. blinded their judgement; yet these errors of theirs were not damnable, i.e. such as would bring damnation to all those others who submitted to them, because that inculpable ignorance in people that neither had, nor were able to study the law themselves, and their obedience yielded in these things to none but their appointed Guides and Superiors, excused so many of them at least, as never had the opportunity from our Saviour, or his Missions to learn the contrary.  
Some of those particular Doctrines of the Pharisees in this kind, which we find our Saviour to have taxed, are these. Their tenet, Mark c. 7. v. 3. that eating with unwashen hands, or in an unwashen dish, or on an nuwashed Table, etc. which perhaps some unclean person or thing had used or touched, defileth a man, and their more scrupulously observing this (and by their example inducing others to it) than the much weightier matters of God's law: see Matt. 23.23. Mark 7.21.— That not work (though an act of mercy) among the rest, (some say) no medicinal cure (except some things that seemed more necessary, perhaps because of their profit, the watering or the saving the life of their Beast, Luk. 13.15.— 14.15.) might be done on the Sabbath day.— That one who had vowed his goods or supernecessaries to God, or to the Treasures of the Temple, (though perhaps doing this on set purpose,) was upon this free from relieving his indigent parents therewith, (the Pharisees, many of whom were Priests, perhaps eyeing also herein their own profit;) or, as others, one who had made a folemn oath, upon some offence taken, never to relieve his Parents, was obliged to keep such oath: (see Matt. 15.5.)— That in an assertory Oath the voluntary swearing of some Truth by some things more remotely sacred, as by the Temple, or Altar, was not faulty, or in promissory Oaths, was not obligatory, but the swearing by things of a higher sanctity, and more nearly consecrated to Him, as they conceived the Golden-inside of the Temple, and the Sacrifice offered to God on the Altar to be, this rendeed men accountable. See Matt. 23.16. etc. compared with Matt. 5.33. etc.— Such as these, I say, were the Pharisees erroneous Doctrines. But provided, that a subject of the Church was taught by the same Doctors all other necessary points of God's law, and walked in them with sincerity, though in these he were deceived, or also in his actions preferred some of these before greater duties, yet not so far as (by the Pharisees wicked example) to omit those greater duties; I doubt not but that such a disciple of theirs, upon a general repentance for all unknown sins, might attain Salvation.  
§. 18 3. Concerning these particular errors which our Saviour reprehended, we know not whether several of them were not the Tenants only of some of the violenter and worse, but a smaller part of that Sect, and not of the whole chair of Moses. In which chair some sat who were not Pharisees, and some Pharisees also were good men and believers in Christ: Jo. 12.42. amongst whom were Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea, (see Jo. 3.1. Mark 15 43. who, with some others, how far in several matters they might moderate and rectify the public Decisions and Doctrines, we know not. This replied in general; now to answer the texts in particular.  
§. 19 To α. Great cause to beware &c some doctrines destroying salvation, others some way vitiating their practice. But this wariness to be exercised, not by following their own judgements, and deserting that of their Churchmen, but by leaving the subordinate, where they discovered any contradiction, and adhering to their supreme Judge, I mean the Messiah. After the Mission of whom, and not before, God's Providence permitted this formerly chief Ecclesiastical Court to err so criminally as to the fundamental point of the Messiah. However, than they were still to obey these Doctors of Moses his Chair, in all their other Doctrines whatever, yet in any such wherein this new Lawgiver, or Expositor, who came with Miracles, controlled them, and taught the contrary, they were now to beware of them, and follow him.  
§. 20 To β. In observing the Traditions, such as abovementioned, though others were excused by inculpable ignorance, yet the Pharisees condition, who were in these things faultily blind, and misguided the others, might be very deplorable, and their wickedness herein render their other service of God vain, and unacceptable.  
To γ. In that damning Doctrine of theirs, opposing Christ and his Kingdom, the Followers of these Doctors are granted to miss of Heaven, as well as the Leaders. For they had another superior Leader, whom they ought to have followed.  
To δ. They made them such by their wicked example, the following of which is excepted by our Saviour, Mat. 2.2, 3. Or by their foremention'd Doctrine, contradicted by their supreme Teacher.  
To ε. Some things there are, wherein if they err, both the Leaders and Followers are wilfully blind; here both fall into the Ditch, not only of error, but of perdition. Such were the followers of the Pharisees in their opposing of the Messiah; or also those who brutishly imagined (if any did so) the Pharisees Do as well as their Doctrines safe; and that so much Righteousness only was necessary or required, not as the Pharisees taught, but as they performed. Of such error or blindness the People had sufficient Remedy provided in the Instructions received from our Lord. Again, some things there are wherein, the Followers may be unculpably, and yet the Leaders are wilfully blind; here both may be said to fall into the same Ditch, i. e. of error, but not of perdition; but for this later the Followers are safe; (of which inculpable blindness our Saviour seems to speak to the Pharisees, Joh. 9.41. If ye were blind ye should have no sin, etc.) such I conceive to be some of those errors above mentioned, p. 21.  
§ 21 To ζ, see what is said to α. To ●. The place is urged here, as if recourse ought to be made by the People to the Law and Testimony itself, in opposition to the Priests and Expositors thereof, when they expound (i. e. seem to the People to expound) it not aright. But it is only said here, that recourse ought to be made to the Law, etc. in opposition to the People's repairing to the Heathenishwizards, Pythonists, & Ventriloquists, etc. Isa. 8.20. that also worshipped other Gods, as appears by the verse precedent, [When they shall say unto you, seek unto them that have familiar Spirits and Wizards [or Conjurers that peep and that mutter] should not a people seek [rather] unto their God [consult his Oracle (which some think is meant by Testimony here) and his Prophets then] for the living [to go] to the dead [Negromancers, or Idols, or the Spirits of the Dead]. Thus v. 19 and then it follows, to the Law and to the Testimony; If they speak not according to this Wordy, etc. They, that is, the Diviners, the Pythonists, etc. mentioned before (who professed another Law, and other God than the God of Israel, see ver. 21.) not the Priests of the Lord; at whose mouth the people were to seek the Law, Mal. 2.7. and stand to their Expositions of it, Deut. 17.8. Thus much in answer to this main Objection touching the errors of the Pharisees, and of the Sanedrim; where you see we are neither reduced to this extremity, which some fall into, to say, That God having appointed to the People Teachers for Exposition of the Law, whose directions they should follow (as is showed before upon Deut. 17.8.) had left also power to the People to Judge of these their Teachers, when it was that they taught them according to the true sense of the Law, when contrary; which seems very absurd. Nor on the other, into this extremity, to say, that God commanding the people to obey their Guides, had provided them, at least in some times, none but blind ones, whom therefore they obeying must with them fall into the Ditch and perish; not obeying, must transgress God's command, which seems very impious.  
§. 22 Thus much from (p. 5.) concerning what is urged of the erring and failing of the Jewish Priesthood in our Saviour's time. But  
2. For the erring also, and falling away of the Jewish Clergy, before the coming of the Messiah, (so that the Judgement and Sentence, at least of the major part of them, could not be safely submitted to by the people) there are urged both many expressions out of the Prophets, and several instances in the Old Testament story.  
1. α. Many places in the Prophets are quoted to this purpose. As Isa. 56.10. that the Watchmen were blinded, that they were all ignorant, etc. Jer. 6.13. that from the Prophet even to the Priest every one dealt falsely, and healed the wound of the people slightly. Jer. 2.26, 27.— 23.11, etc. Ezech. 22.26. Mal. 2.8. Zeph. 3.4. That the Priest had done violence to the Law; had caused many to stumble at the Law, and had corrupted the Covenant of Levi. Likewise Ezek. 7.22, 26. 'tis foretold, that in the approaching Captivity the Law should perish from the Priest, and Counsel from the Ancients; that God would turn away his face, and strangers should pollute his secret place. And 2 Chron. 15.3.  
β. It is affirmed, that for a long season Isreal was without the true God, and without a teaching Priest, and without Law. And α 2 Chron. 36.14. that all the chief of the Priests and of the people transgressed very much after all the abominations of the Heathen. See likewise the Prediction Hos. 3.4. See also Jer. 26.11. The Priests and Prophets especially persecuting Jeremiah (in this a great Type of our Saviour), and in this persecution urging (but mistaken in it), that the Law should not perish from the Priest, etc. Add to these, Ezech. 44.10, 12, 13. where it is ordered, when God's true Worship should be restored, that the Priests that ministered before the Idols, should not afterwards come near the holy things; and 2 King. 23.9. that the Priests who had offered in the high Places should not approach God's Altar at Jerusalem; several instances likewise are produced out of the story.— γ. Aaron's making the Golden Calf, and the people's worshipping it.— δ. Vriah the Priest's building an Altar like to that at Damascus at the King's command, and Offering upon it, 2 Kin. 16.11, 16.— ●. Ahab's four hundred false Prophets to one true, 2 Kin. 22.6. and Elijah's complaint, 1 Kin. 19.10.— ζ. The Priest's Offering Sacrifice in the High Places, where was neither the Tabernacle of Moses, nor the Ark, nor the Temple, contrary to God's express command in the Law, and that upon pain of death, (see Leu. 17.4, 9 Deut, 12, 13.) and this custom used for many hundreds of years, till at last Hezechiah reform it. The shutting up the doors of God's House, putting out the Lamps, and hindering the burning of Incense, and of offering Sacrifice in the time of Ahaz. 2 Chron. 28.24.— 29.7. Again, the ceasing of God's public worship under the Babilonish Captivity. Again, the taking away the daily Sacrifice, and the setting up the abomination of desolation upon the Altar, in the time of the Maccabees by Antiochus. 1 Macchab. 1.54, 59 ϑ To all which, in the last place, may be added— the Reformations of this Church made by the Kings, and not by the Priests, after the defection of Solomon, Rehoboam, and Abijab, by Asa, and his Son Jehosaphat. After that again, of Ahaz by Hezechiah, after that, of Manasses and Amon by Josiah.  
§. 23 To make way here by certain degrees for a satisfying answer to the places objected. 1. I think none will deny, but that a true worship of God hath always been preserved upon earth in some persons or others, Laics or Clergy, or both. Jo. 4.22. Luke 16.16. Gen. 49.10, See Rom. 11.2, 5.— 9.6, 7, 29.— 3.3 Psal. 89.33. etc. See Benef. of our Saviour. H. ult.  
§. 24 2. I think it will not be pretended, or at least that it cannot be showed, that in any time mere Laics only retained this true worship without any Clergy at all orthodox; so that in such time the Catholic Church, the belief of which we profess in our Creed, consisted wholly of Laics, destitute of a Minister of Holy things, of public Liturgy, power of the Keys, administration of Sacraments, teaching God's law, ordination of Successors, in these Holy functions, etc. except perhaps these such as were vain, false, pernicious. But however else it be, yet under the times of the Law (which only are to our purpose at present) can be showed no such thing. For in the two greatest Apostasies that were in these times, that of Ahaz before Hezechias Reformation, and that of Manasses before Josiah's,— for whose enormous sins chief Judah was doomed by God to the Babilonish Captivity, irreversible either by his own or by his righteous Son Josiah's repentance and reformation; (see 2 Kings 23.26. compared with 25.— 24.3, 4.— 21.10, 11. Jer. 15, 4. 2 Chron. 35.15. etc.) yet I say in these two, the greatest Apostasies, we find that there was some Clergy still remaining orthodox. For the one see 2 Chron. 29.4, 13. where Hezechias Reformation in the very beginning of his Reign is assisted by the Priests, and these reintroduced into the Service of the Temple, out of which they had been not long before excluded by Ahaz in the latter end of his Reign. 2 Chr. 28.24. But yet for the most part of Ahaz his reign also, we find the daily Morning and Evening Sacrifice in the Temple not intermitted: see 2 Kings 16.15. In whose time also Hezethiah his Son was rightly educated and instructed in the true Religion, reforming all as soon as he came to the Crown; in whose time also were many Prophets, Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Micah, and others, who both instructed the people, and animated and confirmed the Priests in God's true worship: and the dishonourable burial of Ahaz 2 Chron. 28.17. shows neither the Nobility, nor Clergy, nor people, generally addicted to his Apostasy; whose Progenitors also Vzziah and Jotham being orthodox Princes, it is not well imaginable how so short a Reign as his, which lasted only sixteen years, could produce any general defection. But if this in others, yet especially not in the Levites and in Aaron's posterity; because these, who were selected for the sacred Ministry in the worship of the God of Israel, yet had no such privilege in the service of other Gods. For, for the worship of their Idols, the Kings as of Israel, 2 Chron. 11.15.— 13.9. so of Judah, made others Priests, who were not descended from Aaron, consecrated after the manner of the Levitical Priests, only with more Sacrifices; 2 Chr. 13.9. compared with Exod. 29.1. who are called Chemarim, 2 King. 23.5. [And Josiah put down the Chemarim, i.e. the idolatrous Priests, whom the Kings of Judah had ordained etc.] see concerning these likewise in Zeph. 1.4. and Hos. 10.5. though I deny not but that sometimes some of the Levitical Priests might fall away to idolatry, and officiate amongst these. [Yet see their constancy in the defection of jeroboam and his sons, who, it is said (2 Chr. 11.13, 14.) the Priests and the Levites, that were in all Israel, left their suburbs and their possessions, and came to Judah and Jerusalem, because Jeroboam and his Sons would not permit them to execute their office unto the Lord.] But then when any of these Priests so Apostatised, they were never afterward permitted, though penitent, to approach to God's Altar, or officiate in Holy things before the Lord, as I shall show you presently.  
§. 25 This concerning the times of Ahaz. Next, for the Apostasy of Manasses, which was far much greater yet, (see 2 Chron. 33.16.) where in the latter end of his days the true worship of God was restored, and the Priests of the Lord officiated in the Temple. See likewise 2 Chro. 34. and 35. ch. where Josiah in his Reformation, begun before by Manasses his Grandfather, had the assistance of the Priests and Levites, and amongst the rest, of the High Priest Hilkiah, who also found in the Temple the book of the Law, (probably the Original, which it was commanded that it should be put in a place made for it in the side of the Ark, Deut. 31.26. and now it was found in the cleansing of the Temple,) and communicated it to the Prince, who therefore long before this had learned God's true Service, not from the Scriptures, but from the Priests. Now none of these Priests and Levites, who assisted Josiah, did apostatise at all in the days of Manasses. For touching idolatrous Priests, King Josiah, who performed, as the last, so the exactest Reformation of any Prince of Judah, proceeded so severely against them, as to sacrifice them upon their Idol-Altars, (see 2 Kings 23.20. according to the Prophecy of him. 1 Kings 13.2.) And even touching those other Levitical Priests, who had formerly offered sacrifices in the High places, though these to the God of Israel; he would not permit them afterwards to officiate at the Lord's Altar in Jerusalem, but only indulged them their diet, with the rest of the Priests. See 2 Kings 23.7, 9 Agreeable to which is that charge in Ezek. 44.10. that those Priests, who had ministered formerly to Israel, before their idols, should not come near to do the Office of a Priest unto the Lord, nor come near to any of his Holy things, in the most Holy place, but only be Under-Ministers in the Sanctuary. Those Priests therefore that officiated in Josiah's days, had not formerly revolted in the days of Manasses. Add to this that Manasses his times were not also destitute of Prophets, sent from God to him, and his people: 2 Kings 21.10. By whom also Esaias is said (by the Jewish Tradition) to have suffered a most cruel death, sawn asunder.  
§. 26 As for the times after Josiah, before the destruction of Jeruvalem, they were not very long, not above twelve years to the first Captivity. Again, these times, though very corrupt, yet after Josiah's purging of the Land, not equalling the former Apostasy of Manasses, therefore the Captivity chief charged on his Gild. In these times some of the Princes and Great men good, as Ahikam, Jer. 26.24. a powerful man under Josiah, 2 Kin. 22.12. and Ebedmelech (Jer. 30.39.) by whom Jeremy was several times befriended, Jer. ch. 26 & 36. and Seraiah and Baruch, Jer. 51.59.— 43.6. and Daniel with his three Companions, Dan. 1.1, 6. and Mordecai, Esth. 2.6. In these times too were many Prophets, Vriah Jer. 26.21. Zephaniah, and the Priests, Jeremias and Ezechiel. And in the same times where the Idolatrous Priests are rejected by the Lord, so it is testified in ch. 44. of Ezech. who began to prophesy some few years before the last Captivity, Ezek. 1.2. of some others of the Priests, that they persevered upright, see ch. 44.15. But the Priests the Levites, the Sons of Zadock (either of Zadock mentioned 1 Kin. 2.35. & 1 Chron. 6.8. or of Sadock mentioned 1 Chron. 6.12. Grandfather to Hilkiah the High Priest in Josiah's time,) that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the Children of Israel went astray from me, they shall come near to me, to minister unto me, etc. Some Priests therefore there were through all those evil times, whom God accepted and owned. And for those others after Josiah's days, who are so oft complained on, though some of them perhaps fallen away to Idolatry, yet are they chief accused (as also the Kings) for the wickedness of their Lives, and neglect of their duty, and for Covetousness, and particularly for undertaking to foretell good things to a wicked people, instead of exhorting them to repentance; and lastly, for persecuting the true Prophets, who foretold bad things, Jer. 23.26, 27, 28, 29. Chapters. This that the Church of God, if always it had a being, had not this being, especially after the Mosaical Oeconomy, without some Orthodox Clergy concurring to the Constitution thereof, and administering holy things therein, and was never a Flock without some Pastors.  
§. 27 3. I think it cannot be showed, That the Judaical Clergy of those times was divided into two or more Sects, (unless it were in later times, the division between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and some others,) both professing the Observance of Moses his Law, and the Worship of the God of Israel; but only into two parts, one falling away from, and deserting Moses' Law, and the God of Israel. So that here the people could not be put to any doubt (how numerous soever any part happened to be at some time in comparison of the other) whom they were to obey and follow as their true Guides and Governors, where one part openly renounced the God of Israel and his Laws. But if any Division should have been amongst that Clergy, which all adher'd to the God of Israel, neither here could the people mistake their Guides; for they were always to be guided by the major part of these, especially if the High Priest also himself concurred and joined with it. And if you ask, What if that, which is now a Minor part amongst these Ecclesiastical Judges, and is condemned by the rest, in time happens to over-number the rest? I answer, That these two Parties shall always stand opposite to one another, and Truth divide itself from error, and the Innovators still either be cast out, or also go out from the others; who, as Innovators also when they first are either cast out, or do go out, are easily discerned by their paucity; though after wards such a defection may be, that they may outnumber the Catholics themselves. These two bodies then standing thus distinct, Id est verum (as Tertullian saith concerning discerning Heresies) quodcunque primum; id adulterum quod posterius. That which is the former, and was formerly also the more numerous, is the lighter; and it only, or, in any dissent, the major part thereof, is to be adhered to, and obeyed. Of which matter see more below, and Trial of Doctrines, § 32. Sectaries are either always the fewer number, or at lest the fewer at their going out; and the former body of the Orthodox and Catholic Clergy never afterwards joining with them, how numerous soever. As for the Sadduces, their Sect was as gross for their Tenants, (Mar. 12.24, 27.) so inconsiderable for number, and none, or no considerable party of the Sanedrim. Thus then, as in the Apostasy of some pant, yet there never wanted a true and Catholic Clergy to guide the people; so the people never wanted also a sufficient evidence to know what Clergy were their true Guides; which Guides once found and known, they were now to lay aside their own judgement, and follow theirs.  
§. 28 4. Besides an Orthodox part of the Clergy to guide the people in those times of the Law, God sent unto them from time to time other extraordinary Guides, the Prophets, see 2. Kin. 17.13, 14. 2 Chron. 24.19— 36.15, 16. Jer. 25.4.— 35.14, 15. Mat. 23.34. Their chief Judges, and their Priests also, being sometimes Prophets, as Deborah, Samuel, David, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Zachariah (2 Chron. 24.20.) and others. Whose Misson from God was sufficiently testified to the people, by God's giving the power of Miracles to some by fulfilling the. Predictions of others in matters of a speedy accomplishment, that so in other things they, might be credited, God suffering none of their words to fall to the ground, Deut. 18.22. Jer. 28.9. 1. Sam. 3.19.20. [God let none of his words fall to the ground, and all Israel knew that Samuel was established to be a Prophet] see 1 Kin. 17. Elijah's drought. Jer. 28.16, 16, 17. Hananiah's dying the same year. Such instances might be many. And these extraordinary Directors and Instructers of the people, were sent commonly in the most peccant times, and to the more guilty Princes both of Judah and Israel. So in Judah, Shemaiah the Prophet was sent to Rehoboam, 2 Chron. 12.5 To Jehoram, by reason of his matching with Ahab's Daughter, (much more wicked than any of his Forefathers). Eliah's Letter 2 Chron. 21.12.— besides that in those wicked times of him and his Son was Jehojada the High Priest an extraordinary person, 2 Chron. 24.15. who aftersward reformed the Church, 2 Chron. 23. To Joash, revolting after Jehoiadah's death, was sent the Prophet Zechariah, Jehoiadah's Son, 2 Chron. 24.20. To Amaziah also, when he in his later days turned aside, was, another Prophet sent, 2 Chron. 25.15. Afterward God sent Zechariah, a Prophet, for the guide of Vzziah his Son; who after Zechariah's death presuming to meddle with Holy things, was sharply rebuked, and thrust out of the Temple by the zealous Priests, 2 Chron. 26.5, 17, 20. In wicked Ahaz's time, were many Prophets sent in a time of much iniquity, Hosea, Amos, Micha, Isaiah, and others of the Minor Prophets, then or sooner. To Manasses also, and the people of his days, were Prophets sent, see 2 King. 21.10. and 2 Chron. 33.10. who spoke unto them, but they would not hearken. Lastly, in the times after Josiah, were the Prophets Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Zephaniah, and others; rising betimes, and sending his Messengers, because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling-place, as it is said 2 Chron. 36.15. And to these extraordinary Prophets, being forerunners and types of our Saviour, the great Prophet that was promised, Deut. 18.15, 18. where those who well-inclined went with great reverence to resort to hear the words of the Lord from them, denouncing God's judgements upon sin, preaching repentance, and upon it eternal redemption by the future Messiah. See Ezech. 8.1.— 33.31 Jer. 36. 2 King. 4.23.  
§ 29 5. It seems, That such constant Guides, unerring as to matter of knowledge necessary to Salvation, were requisite to those times before the Captivity, in this respect; because though the Law was written, yet there was no great plenty of the Copies, and perhaps none entire, save what were in the hands of the Priests or Levites. The Original was commanded to be put at the side of the Ark, Deut. 31.25. Out of which the Priests had a Transcript; and out of this another Copied for the King, Deut. 17.18, 19 But that such Copies were not very common, see 2 Chron. 17. 9 where the Priests and Levites, that were sent by Jehoshaphat from Jerusalem to teach in the Country, are said to have taken the Book of the Law with them; and 2 King. 22.8, 10, 11. where the Book of the Law, perhaps the Original, after Manasses his persecution, is said to have been found by chance, as it were, in the Temple, in repairing the House. Which I do not urge, as if there had been no Book of the Law at all, preserved in any hand, if this had not been found, but only to show, that it was then very scarce; for that pious King, though now in the Eighteenth year of his Reign, had not seen it before; and ill times, between Hezechiah and Josiah, could not have rendered it so rare, if the former times had abounded with Copies thereof. As for the practice enjoined Deut. 6.7, 8, 9 it was not for the entire body of the law, but only for some choice and select pieces thereof, of more general concernment, as may be perceived by the narrowness of the Tables, wherein these were to be written.  
§. 30 6. At least, there seems as much necessity of such Guides, under the writings of the Old Testament, as under those of the New; whereof as the Writings are more common, so also more plain, all those things being fulfilled and explained in the Gospel, which were shadowed only and typified in the law. 2 Cor. 7.12. etc. Now under the Gospel I shall show you by and by, that God hath left Guides unerrable for all necessary knowledge in all matters of salvation. These things therefore being first recommended to your consideration; as also this, That the Donatists long since urged some of these Objections, for the failing of the Church under the law, and that S. Austin hath answered them in defence of its not failing, see S. Austin. Epist. 48. De Vnitate Ecclesiae, cap. 12,13.— Contra Donat. post Collationem. 20. c.  
§. 31 To α. The texts urged out of the Prophets I answer; That some of them speak not of the Priests errors, at least in truths necessary, but of their viciousness; and here the people were to follow their say, not their do. Again, some, not of their false doctrines or expositions of the Law, but of their false predictions; they, some of them acting in opposition to those sent by God, Prophets as well as Priests, and being in this respect ignorant, blind, and false Guides. See Jer. 23.27, 28. etc. Again, some Prophetical only of the falling away of that Church, after the coming of the Messiah, and substitution of the Church of the Gentiles. Again, That some indeed speak of the falling away, in some times, of a great part of the Priests, if not into Heresy, yet unto Open idolatry. But yet this we say hindereth not, but that the people in all times might have some orthodox Clergy to adhere to, and this a body distinct, and easily discernible, from the party falling away, as hath been showed before in Consid. 3. p. 33. and amongst them had the High Priest for their chief Guide, who cannot be showed in any of those times to have A postatized to idolatry. And this body of Clergy that persevered orthodox, we may well imagine to nave behaved themselves, for their Courts or Sanedrim, for their Assemblies and such Divine Services, as might be performed without the Temple, in some such manner, under the persecuting Kings of Judah, as the Apostles, and their Successors did under the persecuting Emperors Lastly, that when the Prophets in some places name all the Clergy or Priests to be ignorant, blinded etc. they mean (for the reasons given above in Consid. 2. p. 28.) only many of them; All of such a place, of such a relation or sect, there; in a manner all, as is not unusual elsewhere: see Ps, 14.3. Phil. 2.21. which answer is not mine, but was given along ago by S. Austin to the Donatists urging such texts. (De unitate Ecclesiae c. 1.)— Plerumque Sermo Divinus impias turbas Ecclesiae sie redarguit tanquam omnes tales sint, & nullus bonus omnino remanserit. Ind quip admonemur in suo quodam numero eos dici omnes etc. and contra Donat. post collat. 20.— More suo Scripturalloquitur, quae sic arguit malos, tanquam omnes in eo populo mali sint, & sic consolatur bonos, tanquam omnes ibi tales sint.— In populo Corinthiorum, quod dicimus, demonstramus, ne forte arbitrentur Prophetarum tantum moris fuisse, sic arguere reprehensihiles quasiomnes in eo populo arguantur etc.  
§. 32 To β. This place is interpreted by some of the time of the Judges; and then, as is answered to α, it must be understood not of all, but of a great part of Israel, for all this time. God's true worship was preserved in Shiloh, at least where the Ark, Tabernacle, and Altar was settled, and which the piously-affected yearly frequented. See Josh. 8.1 Jud. 18.31. 1 Sam. 1.3. By others, of the times of Jeroboam. But here Israel falling away, God had still his true Church in Judah.  
§. 33 To ●. This sin of Aaron was before his being installed High Priest. In this, his and the people's defection, both Moses, than the supreme Governor in Ecclesiastical affairs, and all the Tribe of Levi, remained not only constant, but valiant and zealous Professors of the true Religion, for which God afterward chose his Tribe for the sacred, Ministry. See Exod. 32.27. Deut. 33.8, 9 Malach. 2.5, 6. Lastly, Aaron's Gild (though great) was rather in his being for fear (instead of a corrector) a complier with, than a Founder of the people's Idolatry.  
§. 34 To δ. The fact of Vrijah was but of one person, uncertain whether one of the chief Priests, or of some meaner rank, but such an one as was the King's favourite; at lest none such is found named in the roll of the High Priests. 1 Chron. 6.4. His act not consented to that we find, by any other of the Clergy. Besides, the fault seemeth not great; the King's command having some show of piety, who pretended the former Altar not large enough for the Sacrifices, and to reserve it for more special occasions: mean while continuing the daily Oblations of the usual morning and evening Sacrifice upon this new Altar, as was formerly, on the other: see 2 Kings 16.15. Add to this, that the Prophet Esaiah selecting him for a witness to his Prophecy, (Esa. 8. 2.) together with Zechariah one of the Reformers in Hezechiah's time, (2 Chron 29.13) argues him to have been no person unfound in his Religion.  
§. 35 To ●. God's true worship flourished in Judah still, after the revolt of Israel; when also the Priests and Levites revolted not with the people, but leaving their Cities and possessions, went over to Judah, and so did all the more devout among the people; (see 2 Chro. 11.13, 14.— 15.9.) which indeed rendered Judah and Benjamin much what equal to all the other Tribes. Again, in Israel, in Jezebel's persecution, were Elijah, and Michaih, and probably many more Prophets of the Lord, though concealed, and unknown to Elijah. In the 1 King. 18.3, 13. there is mention made of an hundred of these Prophets; who, and many more, might be included in the 7000 mentioned by the Lord. 1 Kin. 19.18. And these Prophets had their Colleges, and had their followers among the people, who resorted to them on new Moons and Sabbaths, to hear the law of God. For they were not called Prophets only for predidiction of things future, (see 1 Chro. 15. and 25. ch. and 1 Cor. 14. ch. but for their sequestering themselves for the studying of Divinity, and celebrating the praises of God many times with raptures and sudden inspirations, and with Music at the times of sacrificing, and other solemn meetings, (and therefore their Colleges were commonly at some High place, and for this teaching and instructing the people in the ways of God. Now we find such Schools or Colleges of these Prophets in Israel, as in Samuel's time: one at Na oath in Ramah, governed, and perhaps also first erected by Samuel, to which College David retired when he first fled from Saul, see 1 Sam. 19.18, 19, 20. another in the Hill of God, probably Gibeon, where was the great High Place, see 1 Sam. 10.5. comp. with— 13.3. So also in the days of Jezebel (though probably in her great persecution these were dispersed) one at Bethel, and another at Jericho, and another at Gilgal; governed by Elisha, see 2 King. 2.3, 5.— 6. 1.— 4.38. One of which Sons of the Prophets see sent with a Message to Ahab himself, 1 King. 20.31. and another with a Message to Jehn, who afterward slew Jezebel, 2 King. 9.1. both of them discernible who they were by their Habits, see 1 King. 20.41.— 2 King. 9.11. Pardon this digression, to show you, That God's Worship in Israel was not utterly extinct in the Reigns of those wicked Kings.  
§. 36 To ζ. It is not affirmed, That God's true Clergy, and the Church's Guides, shall err in nothing, but not in necessaries. For the Sacrificing in several High places, where God's Tabernacle was not pitched, though at first it was very strictly forbidden upon pain of death, the more to preserve God's people, in the Church's infancy, from all Idolatry, and the setting up, and serving in their necessities, consulting several Gods, or in several places varying the Rites in Worshipping the true God. Yet as it was done by the Holy Patriarches in several places before God had erected any Symbol of his presence amongst them, so after that the Ark and Tabernacle of Moses was removed from place to place, and these also severed from one another; from the time that the Ark was taken by the Philistines, and the Temple not yet built, it seems not so unexcusable a fault as some would make it, being a thing done in those days, most-what (especially for Peace-Offerings) by the Holiest of men, as Samuel and David, accepted by God, and sometimes commanded by him. See Judg. 6.26.— 13. 19— 1 Sam. 7.9.— 9.12.— 1 Sam. 16.2.— 20.6. and in some manner excused, 1 King. 3.3. and 2 Chron. 33.17. Indeed after the Temple erected, a far more heinous fault it was in the Priests of Judah; but the better sort of this Clergy was not guilty of it, as may be seen (in the forecited Text, 2 King. 23.7, 9) by the punishment that Josiah inflicted on such former Offenders. Yet in those times we find it done in Israel in cases extraordinary, by the Prophet Elijah 1 King. 18.33. and accepted by God ver. 38. and some such thing seems to be conceded to Naaman the Syrian, 2 King. 5.17, 19  
§ 37 To. η It is granted, that God's public Worship for Sacrifice, etc. in that place where only he appointed it (which Worship might not be performed elsewhere) was under the Law several times by wicked Kings prohibited, and so several times intermitted by the Priests. But notwithstanding this, the Legal Clergy still subsisted under those oppressing Kings, as the Evangelical did under the persecuting Emperors, and continued all those parts of God's Worship in more secret Assemblies, which might lawfully be exercised elsewhere as well as in the Temple.  
§. 38 To θ. The Kings of Judah, 1. Are not where said to have reformed all the Priests, or the High Priest, or not to have found him as Orthodox as themselves. 2. Are not said to have reformed the People against the Priests. 3. Are not said to have reformed the People without the Priests. 4. Are every where said to have been assisted in their Reformation by the Priest. See more of this hereafter, and before, § 24, etc. The most that Bishop Andrews saith, in answer to Bellarmin (Tort. Tort. p. 365.) saith, in behalf of these Kings, is this; That these Kings reformed citra or ante doclarationem Ecclesiae: but he saith, not contra declarationem; and to make good his citra or ante, hath only the strength of a Negative Argument,— Tortus loca aliquot apponere debuit, ubi Ecclesiae declaratio praecessit. Which argument is this: There is set down no such Declaration, therefore there was no such. An Argument of little strength always, less here, where so succinct a relation is made of so many hundred years, and chief of the actions of the Kings, not of the Church or Clergy. But yet of whom may we think did Hezekiah and Josiah, the Sons of such wicked Parents, learn the Religion to which they reformed the people, but from some of the Clergy? And is not this, enough (suppose it) for a declaratio praecessit? The King's power is more effective for a Reformation than the Priests, because his Civil Sword awes men more than the Spiritual; and therefore there King's part in it is more spoken of (especially in a story written chief of the Kings), except Jehoiada the Priest's Reformation, when the King was a Child, 2 Chron. 23. But the Kings, without Priests, in Church-matters may reform nothing, because he is to learn from the Priests God's Law, and what concerning it he is to reform. The King may command also the Priest to do his duty according to this Law; but then he must first learn from the Priest what is the Priest's duty according to that Law, i. e. he may constrain in Spiritual matters any Priest to do what the Body of the Clergy, and the Councils of the Church inform him that the Priest ought to do. And he may not constrain in Spiritual matters any Priest to do, what the said Clergy and Councils declare against. The King may re-establish the Priests in their Office, and exhort them to a faithful Administration thereof, and yet it follows not, that these formerly deserted or neglected this Office; but only that they were formerly ejected from it, and might for the future possibly neglect it; and much less doth it follow, that the King gave them any right to it, or could justly deprive them of it.  
§. 39 This to the former Arguments and instances concerning the failing of the Church-Guides. And so I have done with the Oeconomy of God's Church under the Law; where (to look back a little, before I proceed farther to the times of the Gospel): 1. I do not say, That no Written Law can be plain enough for men to learn out of it, without any authorised Expositor thereof, all Faith and Duty necessary to Salvation; or for men to incur just Damnation in not yielding Obedience to its Rules. And therefore I do not say, That an Expositor or Judge is absolutely necessary besides any such Law in this respect, though for many other respects he is, as hath been showed before. Neither do I affirm, that if God giveth us not together with his Laws some external infallible Expositor of them, he would be unjust or deficient in his Providence: For the contrary of this appears in Heathenism, where men, having no external but fallible Guides, yet having the Law of Nature, and an internal Judge and Expositor thereof, their own Conscience (which in many of those Laws erreth not, except in the most desperate and obdurate sinners, and which, whether they will or no, within gives a right sentence against them) are for offending against this Law justly condemned, see Rom. 2.14, 15. comp. 12.2. Neither do I say, that where God hath not appointed any one to seek the meaning of his Laws from another's mouth, there he may not (caeteris paribus, that is, where he thinks his own abilities as great as other men's) judge for himself; and we ought to presume, that where God hath set no such Directors over us, there his Laws are delivered with clearness enough to be understood by ourselves. But 3ly, This only I say, That those to whom God in his overflowing goodness hath besides his Laws left also Guides, and commanded them to obey these, such cannot innocently withdraw their obedience from these Guides; ought not to use their private judgement against these; are safe, if these Guides err, in following them, though not the Guides safe, in no better conducting them; and that, though in some times, these Guides, to whom God referreth us, for knowing his will, may be much more corrupt than in others; yet that these, by God's care over his people, can never so grossly err, as that their followers shall not receive from their doctrines all necessary knowledge for salvation; and that this is sufficient to tie us always to their obedence. 1. Because we cannot promise ourselves this security in following our own private judgements, which we have in following theirs, for private men are not secure upon their own judgement from falling into fundamental errors, as perhaps the Sadduces did in relinquishing the Moses-chair-men of their times. 2ly. Because if any mortal error should be supposed to have seized upon these Supreme Governors, on whom by his appointment all others depend, it is to be hoped that God will never suffer it long, but either change their opinions, or the persons. For in all extremities God sends speedy relief.  
§▪ 40 This being said from p. 4. of unfailing Guides and Judges for Spiritual matters in the times of the Law; now we come to the times of the Gospel.  
Where 1. Observe, that if in these we prove an unfailing Church-authority, to whose judgement and sentence we ought always to submit, though under the Law it were much otherwise, and though all that is said hitherto be canceled; yet this sufficiently serveth the intent of our Discourse, namely, to procure due obedience to the present Church-governors'. And indeed there want not many motives to persuade us, that though the law never had any such highly-priviledged Guides, yet the Gospel hath, and therefore that no arguments taken from the one can conclude any thing concerning the other. Because the Gospel advanceth to a much higher perfection than the Law, nay to the highest; and is to have no further Testaments or Manifestations of God's will to succeed it, as the Law and Old Testament was: (Deut. 18.15, 18, 19 Heb. 9.8, 9, 10.) Because the Minister of this is not a Servant, but the Master of the House himself; the last Legislator, the last Reformer, and Consummator of all the mysteries of Religion, who came out of his Father's bosom to reveal to men all his will, and after him to come none other: Heb. 1.2.9, 10. 1 Jo. 17, 18. Jo. 4.25 Because the Church under the Gospel hath a much nobler Priesthood founded in a Succession to this Son of God, hath a far nobler Sacrifice, a far nobler Unction of the Holy Ghost in the much more copious effusions thereof, called Spiritus veritatis, Jo. 14.17. and promised to lead them into all truth, as well as holiness. Jo. 16.13.— A far more extended and stronger Tradition in the Gospel spread over all Nations, and a far more numerous Sanedrim, if I may so call the Church's Councils, than the Law had; and higher and clearer promises made to these, of the Son of God, the Truth's perpetual presence with and assistance of them; as I shall now show you.  
§. 41 After, therefore those taken away, who sat in Moses his chair to guide the people in matters of the law, that there are others placed in Christ's Chair to guide God's people in all matters of the Gospel, whose judgement and sentence in all their decisions the subjects of the Church ought to follow and obey, appeareth 1. from many texts of Scripture.  
See first that text in the Gospel Matt. 18.15. etc. answering to that other formerly urged in the law, Deut. c. 17. v. 8. etc.— If thy brother shall trespass against thee, [i.e. either by way of personal offence, or by way of scandal, of which our Saviour had been speaking before v. 6, 7. whereby any great offence of our brother, against God, against his neighbour, or himself becomes matter of our cognisance, as fellow-members of the same Body, and who should be always so charitably affected to him, as not to suffer sin upon him, Leu. 19.17.] go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone, etc. If he will not hear thee, then take with thee two or three more, &c, [convent, and arraign him, as it were, before some neighbours.] If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it [his fault and neglect] unto the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen, and a Publican, [as a person excommunicated, and not to be a companied with. Luk. 15.2.] Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye [before whom such matters are brought] shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall [upon such offender's penitence] lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Again. I say unto you, that if two of you [any small assembly] shall agree [together] on earth, as touching any thing that they shall [resolve on and] ask [to have it ratified,] it shall be done for them of my Father. For where [any such assembly though but] two or three are gathered together in my Name, [and by my authority delegated to them, (see 1 Cor. 5.4. 2 Cor. 2.10)] there am I [whom the Father heareth always] in the midst of them.  
§ 42 In which Scriptures, 1. That by Church [Tell it unto the Church] v. 17. is to be understood Clergy, is clear from what follows v. 18. whatsoever ye shall bind etc. comp. with Mat. 16.19. Jo. 20.23. and from what follows v. 20 comp. with Mat. 28.19, 20. And 2. That here is meant the Clergy, not only that were then in being, the Apostles; but that should succeed them through all following Ages, is clear both from the same occasions of repairing to the Church's Tribunal, v. 15. occurring in all ages, and from the power of binding and losing, as necessary in one age as another, and unquestionably exercised by the Apostles Successors; concerning which matter I refer you to what is said before §. 36. n. 1, 2. and below and Church-Government part. 2. §. 27. etc. 3ly, That the Order for telling, and the Precept of hearing this Clergy, the Church of all Ages is to be understood, not only concerning some injuries, or wrongs done to us by our brother, but concerning other faults and evil manners, whereby our brother offends God and the Christian Society, whereof he is a member, appears from that expression v. 15. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother; not gained thy loss in receiving satisfaction, but gained thy Brother in procuring his reformation. Again, that is to be understood not only concerning trespass of Manners neither, but also of Doctrines and Opinions much more, as it seems deduceable from the context, v. 6, 7. mentioning scandals, of which, false doctrines and opinions are the chiefest, and as it seems clear a minori ad majus; if others, our Brother's trespasses be matter of complaint, and of the Church's cognisance, much more these; any corruption in a matter of faith being generally far more dangerous and pernicious, than a corruption in manners. See Jo. ●. 11. Gal. 5.20. evil deeds, heresies, etc. and Rom. 2.8. the contentious not obeying the truth.— 2 Pet. 3.16. Wresting Scriptures to their own destruction.— Tit. 1.11 Rom. 16.17. Act. 15.. Subverting men's souls, and deceiving the hearts of the simple.— Jud. 1. perishing in gainsaying. And our zeal to God's truth and honour being much to be preferred before that to our own wealth, honour, or security. So is it evident and put out of doubt by many other Scriptures, which may be brought in illustration of this; 1. In which Scriptures, both the members of the Church are warned to mark and avoid such false teachers and doctrines. And 2ly, The Church-governors' are authorized to judge controversies, and proceed in their censures against such teachers, and such tenants as are contrary to the Doctrines formerly delivered by our Lord and his Apostles. And 3ly. in which Scriptures also are contained several instances of such judgements and proceed.  
§. 33 See for the first Rom. 16.17. 2 Thes. 3.14: 2 Jo. 10. where we are bidden to mark, to note those that obey not, those that cause divisions, contrary to the Doctrines received from the Apostles, to avoid, not to have company with, not to salute them, i. e. to carry ourselves toward them as Heathens and Publicans here; Matt. 18.18. and to avoid such in like manner, as the Corinthians the incestuous person, (1 Cor. 5.11. compared with 7.13.) that is, by Excommunication and Church-censures. Whence also was the custom in the Primitive Church of Christians that traveled, to carry with them Letters commendatory from the Bishop of the place, that so they might be admitted to the prayers and communion in those Churches whither they went, scrupulous of joining with any Heretics,  
See for the 2d. Eph. 4.4, 5, 11 etc. There is one Body, and one Spirit,— One Lord, one Faith:— When he ascended up on high he gave gifts unto men.— And he gave some Apostles etc. some Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith unto a perfect man.— That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro; and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the slight of men etc. This then is one office of the Churchmen, to edify the Church in the unity of the faith, and to keep them steady in its Doctrines, that they be not carried about, now one way, now another; and that they be not thus carried about, not only before the Gospel, or other Books of the N. Testament were written, but also after; nay also, that they be not carried about with several false glosses and misintepretations of these Writings, of which very Writings S. Peter saith, (2 Pet. 3.16.) that some wrested them to their own destruction; therefore the members of the Church to submit to their Doctrines, and to conform to their Faith, that there may be a unity therein, One Lord, one Faith, one Body, one Spirit, an unity of the Spirit kept in the bond of peace. v. 3. see Heb. 13.7, 9, 17. The like obedience commanded to be given to these Church-rulers in respect of Doctrine, and Faith.— Remember them who have the rule! over you, and who have spoken unto you the Word of God, whose faith follow.— Jesus Christ the same for ever.— Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.— Obey them etc. for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account. Account, for the Precepts they give you, and for the Doctrines they teach you. Add to these those Texts of the Apostle, charging Christians to be all of one judgement, to speak the same thing,— not to be wise in their own conceits. 1 Cor. 1.10. Rom. 12.16.— 15.5, 6. Phil. 1.27.— 3.16. where the Apostle seemeth not to mean their condescendence for opinion one to another; for which rather who shall so yield, will still be in debate; but their union in the doctrine of their Spiritual Superiors, in which he would have them all to acquiesce. See 1 Cor. 4.16, 17.— 11.1, 2. Phil. 3.17. Rom. 16.17. 2 Thes. 3.14. the succeeding Ecclesiastical Superiors being commanded still to retain and continue the doctrine of their Predecessors. 1 Tim. 1.3. 2 Tim. 1.13.— 2.2. After the forenamed mission Eph. 4.11. see 1 Cor. 14.29.32. where the Apostle amongst other things submits also the doctrines of the Prophets to the judgement of the Prophets, [let the other judge,] and 1 Tim. 4.11.— 6.3.5. and Titus 1.11. and 3.10, 11. where he gives order to the Church-governors', (Tim. and Titus,) that touching error and heresy in matter of faith, such persons (if any discovered) after due admonishment, should be withdrawn from, should be excommunicated and silenced by him; their persons rejected, c. 3. their mouths stopped. c. 1.  
§ 44 See for the 3d. Act. 15.2. etc. where a controversy rising in the Church of Antioch, by reason of some teaching there, that the Gentiles were to be circumcised, and to keep the Mosaical Law, without any such commandment from their Superiors; Act. 15.44. who were opposed by Paul and Barnabas; the Antiochians, though many amongst them having eminent gifts of the Spirit, do repair for a final decision thereof to the judgement of the Apostles at Jerusalem; where after an Assembly called, v. 6. we find a consulting and disputing on this matter (from the believing Pharisees, still zealous of their law,) and then a giving of their several votes, and a deciding of it, not from pretence of immediate inspiration, or revelation, but from arguments. 1. Of God's converting the Gentiles (showed in several instances,) and giving them the Holy Ghost (as to the Jews,) without any previous using such Jewish ceremonies: And 2ly, from the Predictions of the Prophets, concerning the calling of the Gentiles in the latter days, as a distinct people, not to be translated by circumcision &c into the Jewish Religion, but to be transplanted and counited together with the sews into the Christian. v. 7, 12, 13, 19 After this, the sending of their Constitutions to the particular Churches under this stile: It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you etc. v. 28. See again (1 Tim. 1.20. compared with 2 Tim. 2.17, 18. and 4.14, 15.) the Apostle excommunicating Hymeneas, Alexander, and others, for their false doctrines:— and see Rev. 2: 2, 14, 15, 20. the Lord Jesus commending the Angel, i.e. Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, for trying, and not tolerating or bearing with the false Apostles: and reprehending the Angels of the Churches of Thyatira and Pergamas, for the contrary; for their suffering the false Prophetess Jezabel to teach and seduce his servants, and for their tolerating the Nicolaitans, who indulged the Christian's more liberty; 2 Pet. 2.18, 19 in complying with Heathen Religions, and held it lawful to eat of their sacrifices, and to commit fornications like them, some unnatural ones also which usually accompanied Idolatry. See 1 Kings 14.24.— 15.12. 2 K. 23.7.  
§. 45 Thus have I showed you: 1. That by the Church, Mat. 18.17. which is to be complained and repaired to, in matters of trespasses unreformed, and to be heard and obeyed, upon pain of being reckoned as an Heathen and Publican, of Excommunication, and being bound both in Earth and Heaven, Mat. 18.18. that by this Church, I say, is meant the Clergy. 2. The Clergy of one Age as well as another. 3. This Clergy to be heard and obeyed, as well in matters of Theological Controversies, and of Doctrines, as in any other matters; as well in these, if not more.  
Now 4ly. That this Hearing and Obedience due to them, is not only an obligation of non-contradicting, but of assenting to such their Doctrines, and Decisions of Controversies, so far as they require assent; appears likewise from the aforenamed Texts, as likewise those following. Because these Church-Officers are called Teachers and Guides, which have reference to Truth, as well as Judges and Rulers, which have reference to Peace; and we charged to hear them, as Christ; who also have received from Christ a Spirit leading them into all Truth, and a promise that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against them, etc. Of which more anon. Again; Because they are said to be set over the Church, that there may be in it an unity of faith, Eph. 4.13. and one faith, ver. 5. and not only a bond of peace, but an unity of the spirit, and of judgement, and speaking the same thing, etc. Eph. 4.13, 3. 1 Cor. 1.10. That their Subjects may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men; not carried about with them, i.e. not believe them. Now he who by these Superiors may be restrained from believing them, is hereby enjoined to believe the contradictories of them, namely,, the Positions of the Church; and if the people are enjoined to believe this, than also their Seducers. But were the people obliged only to the obedience of noncontradiction, and not of assent toward such Superiors; then whereas some Tenants are exclusive of Salvation, and many more having dangerous effects upon the lives and manners of Christians, see Act. 15.24.— 2 Pet. 3.16. (and wherefore are the Teachers prohibited, if the Doctrines were not pernicious, and to be renounced?) Yet is there no Church-authority which can afford any remedy to this great evil. It can indeed provide for its own peace, but not its subject's safety, whilst it must tolerate the liberty of all (though destructive) opinions; and may exact no more than a non-gainsaying. Again; Because it is clear, that these Church-Guides may not only reject and excommunicate false Teachers and Seducers, but the Heretical also, when any way they come to be discovered guilty thereof; consider Tit. 3.10, 11. where observe ver. 11. that their autocatacrisie, or being condemned by their own Conscience, (though there be no endeavour, by divulging their Heresy, of infecting other men's Consciences therewith) is rendered a sufficient ground of their rejection; nor may such Heretical person be restored again to the Church's Communion upon his engaging to conceal his Heresy, but upon his quitting and renouncing it. Since then these Church-Guides have power to excommunicate Heretics, i. e. men for holding false Opinions in matters of Faith; i. e. men for their dissent, at least after some previous admonitions, and reasons sufficient to convince; or men for their obstinacy in dissent; which obstinacy is not delible but by yielding assent. This I say infers, that there is due to these Church-Guides an Obedience of Assent; or else these Guides may excommunicate one for not-performing an Obedience which is not due. (See this more largely prosecuted in Oblige. of Judgm. § 4.) And again, consider 1 Tim. 4.11.— 6.3, 5. where the Apostle writes thus to Timothy; These things command and teach,— and if any man do teach otherwise, and consenteth not to wholesome words, etc. from such withdraw thyself. Lastly, Because at least in Agendis, in all those things which by these Ecclesiastical Judges are required to be done, we must either yield the obedience of Assent, or we can yield none at all (save that called Passive Obedience, which is a submitting to the punishment appointed for disobedience); for who can oblige to do a thing, doth oblige us also to think it lawful to be done, else we may never do it. If then this Church-Authority may so far, in Agendis, determine to us what is lawful or unlawful; as, herein, to exact assent from us to her Judgement; why may it not in the like manner, in Credendis, determine to us what is true and false? Or, what reason can there be, that this should be more unerring, or more creditable, in truths practical than speculative, where both equally necessary.  
§ 46 These Scriptures already produced (from § 41.) do sufficiently show an Authority in the Clergy, under the Gospel, to Judge Controversies; and the Obedience due to their Sentence from the people. But so also in a second place, do all those Scriptures, wherein we find the promises made to these Guides of a perpetual assistance to them by the Lord Jesus and by the Holy Ghost, and of their never erring, or failing in their Judgements. Whereby we are rendered secure of their sufficient ability always in Judging, and of our own safety in following it. See Mat. 28.19, 20.— 18.20. compared with 17.18. Rev. 1.13, 16. [the perpetual assistance of our Saviour]. Joh. 14. 16, 26.— 16. 13. 1 Joh. 2.20, 27. 1 Cor. 12.7, 8. [the perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost.] Mat. 16.18, 19 Luk. 1.16. 1 Tim. 3.15. 2 Tim. 2.19. compared with 16, 17, 20 Eph. 4.13. compared with 11. [their indefectibility]. The particular contents of which Scriptures set down in the former Treatise, § 31. I forbear here to repeat; you may be pleased there to review them.  
Upon the expressions of which Scriptures it is there noted:  
1. That these promises of not failing in Truth, are made to the Church, or to Christians, not hypothetically only (as some would have it) if they shall not fail to do their duty; but absolutely, that there shall always continue a Church, or a Christianity in being, that shall not fail to hold the Truth, and do their duty.  
2. That these promises are made absolutely, not only to Christians taken in general, some or other of them; Sheep, or Shepherds; Laity, or Clergy; as some would have it: but particularly to the Clergy, the Pastors of these Sheep, and the Guides of this Church.  
3. To these, not of some of one Age, those of the First, or Third, or Fourth, or Second, as some would limit; but those of all Ages, usque ad consummationem saculi.  
§. 47 4. To these, i. e. not to some or other of them, still whom we please to adhere to; to some small number of inferior Clergy in some part or other of the world, either dispersed through several, or united in one particular Church, either departing from, or ejected by all the rest of the Clergy of the same, or of other Churches (in which a few stragglers would fain verify our Saviour's promises, when they pronounce all the rest erroneous,) but to that Clergy, which the Church ought to take for her Guide. Which Guide, when as this Spiritual Court consists not of one, but many persons, when ever there is any disagreement therein, must be the major part; and, when as there is also an established subordination of these persons and courts; must be the superior rather than the inferior persons, and the more universal and comprehensive Synods, rather than those Synods which are of a less circuit, and smaller company; otherwise any Heretic, if a Clergyman, may be entertained for a guide: and whenas our Saviour has enjoined the people to obey their guides, yet hath this people no means to know who these are, unless when all the Clergy of the Universe are of one opinion. Now he that appoints us to follow a Guide in what he shall enjoin us, and then leaves us no way (when our Guide consists not of one but many persons, and two parties of them contradict one another) to know which of them is to be our Guide; it is all one, as if he left us no Guide: And he that ties us, beside the use of our own judgement, to obey and follow some Ecclesiastical person or other only, not obliging to the most or major part, to a superior more than inferior person or Court, revolves our obedience only to our own judgement; i.e. to choose that side which we judge the rightest, as we follow the counsel of that friend, who we do think speaketh most reason, without acknowledging any obedience to his authority, and then left to this choice; what opinion can we take up so absurd, in which we cannot find some Clergyman or other for a Leader? Of these four Observations see what is more largely discoursed in Church-government, Par. 2. from §. 26. to 29.  
5ly. From the same texts another thing is clear, §. 48 That this Guiding Clergy shall for ever be unfailable or infallible, either in all truths whatever, (I mean Theological, and Spiritual, any way respecting men's salvation, which truths they shall think meet to be determined) or at least in all such truths as are absolutely necessary to salvation; else this Pillar of Truth is cracked and shivered, the Keys of Heaven Gates are lost, and the gates and power of Hell prevail, the assistance of Jesus and of the Holy Spirit ineffectual; lastly, the Church, Name and Thing, and Salvation itself perished. I mean as to this Clergy, if Truth necessary to Salvation be not to be found with them; and if the skirts of the Promise of the Holy Spirit, teaching them all things, cannot be spread so far as to secure them of being taught so much Truth as is but absolutely necessary.  
§. 49 But then 6ly, These church-guide, to avoid such ill consequences, being made the unfailing Repository of all Truth absolutely necessary to Salvation, will it not also after this be reasonably deduced, that they are so too for all other truths that are so far necessary, as that the error contrary to them some way hazards salvation, or by some consequence overthroweth any absolutely necessary truth? I say, may not this also reasonably be concluded for these Reasons? 1. Because we find no restriction of our Saviour's promise of assistance, only for these absolutely necessary fundamentals; and there must be granted need of this his assistance further, so long as there is granted further danger. 2. Because if we confine the non-failing guidance of these church-guide only to absolute necessaries, this will not extend so far as the points of the three Creeds, a very few Articles of which are by the Learned thought Truths absolutely necessary. 3. Because those of the Church-Doctors will not consent to an universal inerrability of these church-guide, but restrain it only to some truths; whereas the Scriptures make no limitation, but do it on such pretences as these. 1. Because those wherein they say these may err, are by-and unnecessary truths, to which the Church's curiosity or weakness may carry her beyond her Rule. See Bishop Laud, § 21. n. 5. 2ly. Because they are unprofitable curiosities and unnecessary subtleties, for which the Promise was not made; because Deus non abundat in superfluis. Because they are such points as may be variously held and disputed, without hurt or prejudice to faith. See Dr. Potter § 5. p. 150. etc. 3ly. So then in all dangerous points, as well as in absolutely necessary, the Divine assistance and the church-guide infallibility I hope will be still allowed. 2ly. They say, the Church errs not in absolutely Fundamentals, because the Word of God in all such points is so plainly and manifestly delivered unto Her, that it is not possible that she should universally fall from it, or teach against it. See Bishop Laud, § 21. n. 5: But then there seems also to be good reason, why other points dangerous to salvation, or undermining fundamentals, should be delivered clearly in the same Word of God; or if not clearly, there is the more reason still, that the Churches-guides should be infallibly assisted in these, which both are dangerous, and the Church's Rule (the Scriptures) in them obscure. See more of this in Ch. Government, 2. part § 32.  
7. If these church-guide have at least a Promise to be infallible in Necessaries, §. 50 this again (setting aside now those forementioned texts which enjoin it) will infer the obedience of Assent, at least to some of their decisions, namely those made in Necessaries; for who can deny assent to a granted infallible Proponent? And if assent must be granted to them in necessaries, then, as Mr. Chillingworth most acutely observed, to all that they shall judge a Necessary. [If (saith he, p. 150.) the Church be an infallible Director in Fundamentals, then must we not only learn fundamentals of Her, but also learn of Her what is fundamental, and take for fundamental which she believes to be such: In performance whereof (saith he) if I knew any one Church to be infallible, I would quickly be of that Church.] This will hold at least for so many of Christians, as will not pretend the skill themselves of separating necessaries, and not-necessaries. And these church-guide judging what is necessary, especially if they take it in such a larger sense as we have showed but now, that they have reason to presume of our Saviour's assistance therein, then perhaps so many of their decisions will receive from them the denomination of Necessary, as that we shall not think meet, whilst assenting to all these, to descent from them in the rest. But however, if we yield assent to all these, good reason there is why we should also in all the rest, (abstracting from matters of fact, and matters not Spiritual) only putting in this exception, unless any happen to be infallibly certain of the contrary to what they decide, (for whosoever is so, I grant cannot yield assent;) but how any one should be so, (debarring new revelations, and his having any Divine evidence which the church-guide have not as well as He,) I do not see; especially when also having proposed to these church-guide all the reasons and grounds of his infallible certainty, yet he hath not made them so.  
§. 51 But if any one be so infallibly certain, yet I say all the rest of Christians, who have not attained such certainty, have good reason to yield assent to these Church-Guides also in all their Decisions, even touching non-necessaries:  
1. Seeing that (if I may transfer the Apostle's argument, 1 Cor. 6. 3. from persons to things) these being set over us to regulate our Judgement in the greatest matters, how can they be conceived unfit to do it in the lesser?  
2. Seeing that by our not-yeilding assent to all their Decisions, even those also in non-necessaries, so long as they have made no distinct partition of these two, we may incur a peril of withdrawing our assent in some thing necessary; but by assenting to all, we are sure to have a right persuasion in all necessaries, wherein these Guides have a Warrant not to fail; but not so, private men undertaking to Guide themselves.  
3. Seeing that in our erring together with our Guides (who are thus also to give an account for our errors, Heb. 13.17.) so long as it is in non-necessaries, our condition is not dangerous; but on the other side there may be a great fault in us, in denying due obedience, though in small matters.  
4. Seeing that those who most vindicate the liberty of their own judgements, do, to make these Guides the more liable to fallibility in non-necessaries, plead the Scriptures to be in such points less perspicuous; but on the contrary, this imperspicuity of them in the Scriptures argues the more need in them of Guides.  
5. Seeing that private men have reason to presume, that the Judment of so many, so learned so ancient, as these Ecclesiastical Courts use to consist of, is, where not absolutely infallible, yet much to be preferred before their own, i.e. that of one single person, or of a few not so learned, not so experienced. So Children wisely follow their Parents, and Scholars their Masters, though fallible, Judgements. Or putting ourselves equal every-way, in parts, in learning, etc. to all these; yet what help or means have we, or what diligence do we use to discern Truth which these do not? Consult we former Church and Tradition? so do they: And since the Writings of the Fathers, as well as the Divine, are liable to divers constructions and misunderstandings, doubtless their exposition of these, as well as of the Scriptures, is to be preferred to private men's. Again, these present Church-Guides, in any opposition or difference from the former Church-Guides, having as high an authority as they, if we pretend to yield obedience to the one, so we must to the other. Consult we the Holy Scriptures? and what Scriptures have we, which they have not, and which we have not first from them? And what can be clear therein to us, which is not so to them? Or since no place of Scripture, though never so plain in its terms, may be so understood, as will render it contradictory to any other place, how can such a man be secure enough of his diligence and wit in making such a due collation of Scriptures, and collecting a right sense, where he findeth such a Body to oppose him?  
But perhaps these Guides, though more knowing than he, yet have not like integrity. And what misguiding passions are these subject to in judging, to which ourselves are not much more? Or what self-interest do we find in them, but only when we have a contrary ourselves? Every one imagines himself to stand in an indifferency to Opinions, when as indeed scarce any, by reason of their education, fortunes, particular dependences, and relations, is so; and meanwhile, like Icterical persons, he thinks that colour to be in those he looks upon abroad, which is only in himself. I know no greater sign of a disinterested, and an unpassionate temper of mind, than to be apt readily to submit to another's judgement; and seldom it is, but much self-conceit and spiritual pride do accompany singularity of Opinion. This have I said, to show what reasons there are for our assent to the Doctrines and Determinations of our Spiritual Guides, drawn from that measure of assistance and infallibility which our Lord hath promised them; though other Scriptures had laid on us such injunction. Of which subject see what is more largely discoursed in Obligation of Judgement, from § 5, to § 9 and Infallibility, Church Government, Par. 2. § 35. Par. 3. § 27. n. 1, etc.  
§. 52 And hitherto, from § 41, I have endeavoured to show you, in the first place from the Scripture, That there is a Judge of Controversies appointed and left under the Gospel; to all whose Decisions the Subjects of the Church ought to be obedient, and acquiesce, as there was formerly under the Law. 2. Next, The same thing is proved from the constant Practice of the Church, which we must not say to have been mistaken in the just extent of her Authority.  
1. The Church from time to time in her General Councils hath judged and decided Controversies as they arose, both in matters Practical and Speculative. In Practicals, enjoining her Subjects, upon Ecclesiastical penalties, not only not to gainsay, but also to do, them; and consequently enjoining them to assent, that such things are lawful to be done. And in Speculatives also enjoining her Subjects, not only not to gainsay her Decisions, but to profess them; and consequently enjoining them to assent, that such her Positions are true. For none may profess with his mouth, what he believes not with his heart. Nay, further enjoining her Subjects to believe them; her Language for several of her Determinations and Canons in those her Councils, which all sides allow, being such as this: In her Canons, Siquis non confitetur,— non profitetur,— non credit, (putting several of her Determinations in the Creeds). And in her Decisions,— constanter tenendum,— firma fide credendum.— Nemo salva fide dubitare debet,— and the like. If it be said, that such assent is required by the Church, or her Councils, only to some, not all their Decisions: I answer, that I contend not, that you are to yield your assent by virtue of Obedience (whatever you ought to do in prudence) where they do not require it. Only let it be granted, that it belongs to them, not you, to judge what, or how many points it is meet for them to require, and for you to give your assent. And let no such limitation as this be annexed to their Authority. That they require assent to what is true, or to what is agreeable to God's word (not in theirs, but) in his Opinion whose assent is required. For thus their Authority is annihilated to this. That they may only require me to assent to that, whatsoever I do assent to. Do what I will, or they make me.  
§. 53 Again; The Church hath from time to time in her Councils (according to the Authority given her, see before, § 43, 45.) excommunicated men for holding false and pernicious Opinions; hath Anathematised and declared Heretics, the non-confitentes, and the non-credentes in such main points as she thought necessary to be believed. Which infers, either sin in dissenting from her Judgement, and the Doctrines she defines; or that she faultily excommunicates any on this account; or that she may lawfully punish another for that which the other lawfully doth. But if there be any Church that teacheth; That every one may examine her Doctrines, and where he judgeth or thinketh these contrary to Scriptures, that there he is not obliged to yield his assent; the same Church cannot justly excommunicate such person for dissenting; i. e. for doing that which she teacheth him he may do. And then, since all that descent from the Church will pretend, that the Church-Doctrines seem to them to be contrary to the Scriptures, it follows, such Church can justly excommunicate none at all for any Heretical or false Tenent whatever. See more of this subject in Church-Government, Par ●. § 34. and Par. 3. § 29.— Obligation of Judgement, § 3, etc.  
§. 54 3. The same Obligation of Assent is proved from the practice of the Reformed Churches also, as well as others; and they as rigid in requiring it, as the rest; and particularly this our Church of England, as will easily appear to you, if you please to view the 139, 140, 4, 5, 73, 12, 36, of the Synod held under King James 1603, and the 3, 4, 5, and the Oath in the 6th Canon of the Synod under King Charles I. and what is argued from them in Church-Government, Par. 3. § 29, etc. and after all these, to view the Act of Parliament 13 Eliz. cap. 12. requiring Assent to the XXXIX Articles; and the Title also prefixed to them, which saith, That these Articles were drawn up for the avoiding of diversities of Opinions, and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion. It Subscription then to them doth not extend to Consent to the truth of them, the end is frustrated for which they were composed. Lastly, If you please to view the Complaint for this cause, of the Presbyterians in their Reasons showing necessity of Reformation, printed 1660. See Church-Government, Par. 3. § 29. against the Canons and Articles of the Church of England, as the Church of England doth for the same cause against the Canons and Articles of the Church of Rome.  
§. 55 Now from all that hath been said from § 4, and more especially from § 41, you may perceive a great difference between the Obedience which we own to Secular, and which we own to Ecclesiastical Magistrates, as to any matters which relate to the Divine Law. To the Secular Magistrate we own in these matters an active obedience with some limitation, in omnibus licitis & honestis, or the like; licitis, I mean lege divina. But if we have any doubt concerning this, we are to repair from him, not to our own judgement, but to the Spiritual Magistrates; and according as they shall declare the lawfulness or unlawfulness hereof, we are to yield, or withdraw, our active obedience to the Civil, neither can this Civil Magistrate justly punish us for not observing his Laws, when pronounced by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate opposite to the Divine. And in such case we may answer to them as the Apostles (who were then the chief Ecclesiastical Judges) twice answered to the Sanedrim, which was then exauthorized, that we ought to obey God rather than men. But to the Ecclesiastcal Magistrate, we own an obedience advanced beyond the former limitation; being not only to do what they command, if it be lawful; or subscribe or swear to what they require, if it be true; but to believe that to be lawful or unlawful, that to be truth or error, I say in these Divine matters, what they tell us is so, without repairing, concerning these, to any other Judg. We are to yield the same obedience to these Delegates of Christ our Lord touching Divine Laws, as to a Temporal Supreme Legislator concerning his own Laws, that are made in things left purely indifferent by the Divine Laws; (The Commands of which Temporal Legislators in the foresaid matters we are to obey not only when we ourselves judge that they do accord with his Laws, but also, when we doubt of the meaning of his Laws, we are to learn their true sense from him: to obey him in all his Laws, and to know from him what are his Laws.) For as he or his Delegates have authority to determine Controversies concerning the Secular Laws, to put an end to contentions; so have I showed the Church Magistrates to have, to determine Controversies concerning the Divine Laws.  
§. 56 Against this so absolute Obedience and Submission of Judgement to the Church-Governors under the Gospel, there are several Scriptures urged, and necessary to be explained before we proceed further; which Scriptures seem to licence all men, lest perhaps they should be misguided, to try, and that by the same Scriptures, their Teacher's Doctrines; that so, if not finding their Doctrine according with these Scriptures, they may so far withhold their assent to them.  
For this are urged, first, Joh. 5.39. Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they testify of me. 2ly. Act. 5. 17.1●. These [the Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word [that Paul preached to them] with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so. 3ly. 1 Cor. 10.15. I speak as to wise men, Judge ye what I say. 4ly. 1 Joh 4.1. Try the Spirits, whether they be of God. 5ly. 1 Thes. 5.21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 6ly. Gal. 1.8, 9 Though we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach any other Gospel to you, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. To which Texts is added, the utter uselessness, as to Spiritual matters, of private Judgement in such an universal submission required to a Judg.  
§. 57 In Answer to these Texts: First, it is to be noted in general; That trial of Doctrines by Scriptures, is either of the Doctrines of private Teachers, made by the Church-Governors; of which trial no question is made. Or, of the Doctrines of private Teachers made by private men: And these also they may try by the Scriptures; so that they guide themselves (lest our trial be mistaken), in the sense of these Scriptures, according to the Exposition thereof by the Church, i.e. in her General Councils, or in the most unanimous consent of those whom our Saviour, departing, left to be the Guides, of the Church, and Expositors of the Scriptures. And if thus searching, we find the Doctrines of our Teachers contrary to the Scriptures so expounded, we may and aught to withdraw our belief from them. Or this trial, 3ly, by Scriptures, is of the doctrines of the Church, i.e. of those doctrines which are delivered, not by a private Teacher, but by a general consent of the church-guide (at least the fullest that we can discover). Or by General, or other Superior, Councils; or by the Apostles; or by our Saviour himself.  
1. Now the allowance of such a trial may be understood in two senses: 1. Either in this sense; Search or try my, or our, Doctrine by the Scriptures, for you will surely find my Doctrine agreeing thereunto, if you do search right, and as you ought; and in this sense, the trial, by the Scriptures, of the Doctrines of the Church, nay of the Apostles, (S. Paul's by the Bereans,) nay of Christ himself, Whether the Old Testament, as he urged, testified of him, is both allowed, and recommended; for since there is no difference of the teaching of Christ, or of S. Paul, or of the Church, from the teaching of the Scripture, the one will never fear, but freely appeal to a trial by the other, if it be rightly made.  
§. 58 2. Or 2ly, it may be understood in this sense: Search and try my Doctrine by the Scriptures; and if you in the search do not perceive it agreeable unto them, I declare that you have no reason to believe, or that you are excusable in rejecting my Doctrine. Now in this sense our Saviour, or St. Paul, or the other Scriptures, never recommended private men's searching, or gave any such privilege to it, unless you put this clause, that they have searched aright. But if you put in this clause; then is the searcher, after his searching, not yet at liberty to disbelieve the Apostles or the Church's doctrine, till he is sure first that he hath searched aright. I say our Saviour or the Scriptures cannot recommend Searching in such a sense, or upon such conditions.  
§. 59 1. First, because such a Searcher or Tryer by the Scriptures there may be, as is prejudiced by passion, or interest, or miseducation, or as searcheth negligently, and coldly; or as hath not a sufficient capacity to understand the Scriptures he searcheth, when perhaps it is in some difficult point, wherein they are not so clear, as if he should search the text of the Old Testament in the point delivered by St. Paul, of the abrogating of Circumcision under the Gospel; neither can any body be secure of his dis-engagement from all such lets of using a right judgement in searching.  
§. 60 2. Because however the Search or the Searcher prove, there are other means and m diums, by which is proved to men the truth of such doctrines, and by which not bearing witness to a falsity, one may discover himself to have made his search of Scripture amiss, so often as he thinks it to contradict them. Such mediums are, Miracles, and other mighty operations done by the power of the Holy Ghost; upon which our Saviour (Jo. 5.36. and elsewhere,) and S. Paul, (Rom. ●5. 19. 2 Cor. 12.12. 1 Cor. 2.4. Mark 6.20.) required belief and submission to their doctrine, and universal Tradition; upon which the Church also requireth belief to the Scriptures; the same Tradition that delivered the Scriptures, delivering also such doctrines and expositions of Scriptures as are found in the Church So that a Pharisee searching and not finding in Scriptures (by reason indeed that he searched them not aright) such testimony of Jesus being the Messiah as was pretended, yet aught to have been convinced, and to have believed his doctrines from seeing his miracles; and from hence also to have blamed his faulty search. So a Berean, searching and not finding in Scripture such evidence of S. Panl's doctrine, suppose of the abrogation of the Judaical Law by Christ, as was pretended; yet aught to have believed it from the mighty works he saw done by S. Paul, or from the authority he, or the Council at Jer salem (Act. 15.) received from Jesus, working Miracles, and raised from the Dead, as universal Tradition testified. And the same may be said for the Church's Doctrines.  
And therefore as there are some Scriptures, that bid us search the Scriptures, because if we do this aright we shall never find them to disagree from the Doctrines of the Church; and because some doctrines of the Church are also in the Scripture very evident: so there are other Scriptures (if those who are so ready to search them on other, would search them also on this point,) that bids us hear the Church; because our searching of Scriptures is liable sometimes to be mistaken, and because in some things the Scriptures may seem difficult; In which case God having referred us to the judgement of those whom he hath appointed to be the expounders thereof, (Deut. 17.8, 9, 10. Matt. 18.17. Luk. 10.16.) cannot remit us again to the same Scriptures, to try whether their expositions be right. Therefore that Text Gal. 1.8, 9 is far from any such meaning; If the Church or Churchmen shall teach you any thing contrary to the Scriptures, as you understand them, let these he Anathema to you; but rather it saith this; If an Angel, or I Apostatising, (as some shall, Act. 20.30) shall teach any thing contrary to the doctrines ye have received, that is, from the Church, let him etc. which makes not against, but for the Church's Authority very much.  
§ 61 To the former Texts, then, mentioned § 56. this briefly may be returned. To the three first Texts; That a search of Scriptures concerning our Lords or his Apostles doctrines, is both allowed, and recommended, because the Scriptures, rightly understood, and these doctrines, perfectly agree. But a dissent from these doctrines, if upon a search thought to be disagreeing, which the Objectors would infer, is not allowed from the reasons formerly given. In the fourth Text, the Apostle speaks of private Spirits to be tried, whether of God, by their conformity to the common doctrines of the Scripture, and of the Church. See 1 Cor. 14.29, 32. The 5th includes a general trial, as well by the directions and expositions of the Spiritual Guides, as dictates of the Scriptures the Rule. The 6th is expounded before, If an Angel shall teach you any thing contrary to the doctrine you have received from Christ's Ministers, or from the Church confirmed with Miracles, let him be Anathema.  
§ 62 As for those things which are urged for the failing of the visible Church, or at least of the major part of the Guides and chief Professors thereof under the Gospel: As in the Scriptures die Prophecies of our Saviour; Matt. 24.11, 12.— 24.38. Luke 18.8. compared with 7. Luk. 17, 25, 26, 27, etc.— 21.35. and of the Apostles; 2 Thes. 2.3. 1 Jo. 2.18. 2 Tim. 3.1. 1 Cor. 11.19. 2 Pet. 2.1. etc. Rev. 20. c. 13.20.8, 9 and other places, speaking of the power of Antichrist, and of his sitting in the Church of God; and in the Church-story, the prevalency of Arrianism. In answer to the former, the Scriptures: It is granted, that it seems in these latter times of the world there shall be a great falling away from the faith; but that it is from Christianity itself, and from the Church; as indeed we have already seen all those flourishing Churches of Asia, and other Eastern and Southern parts, once Christian, now overrun by the Doctrine of the Great Prophet of God, as he styled himself, Mahomet; who sits and triumphs in those same places which were once the chiefest Churches of God; and the love of many to Christ waxed cold by the abounding of iniquity, and the terrible persections of the Turkish Empire, the Image of the former Persecutor, the Heathen Roman Empire, to which Imago Mahomet's doctrine hath given life and vigour; and this decession we have seen, and what more shall be seen hereafter, God knoweth. But this argues not that Truth shall fail in all or the major part of the Doctors who remain still in the Church, and profession of Christianity, but that the Church itself shall sail of having so great an extent in the world, or her Guides of being so many at some times as at others, yet at all times sufficiently apparent.  
§ 63 Again; In answer to the prevalency of Arrianism; it seems that in these later times there shall be a falling away too (within the profession of Christianity) from the faith, i.e. from that faith which is orthodox, by many dangerous Heresies and Schisms from time to time arising in the Church, whilst many formerly members of it shall separate from it, 1 Jo. 2.19. but shall always apparently be known by their departure from it; but it follows not, that any of these Sects within shall ever have so great, or so long a growth, as to be able to outnumber the Body of the Church, or the true Teachers. Concerning which, many are of opinion, that the Orthodox Communion in all times shall exceed not Infidels; but yet any other Sect (especially of one Communion as it is) professing Christianity, both for the multitude of people, and extent of several Nations. See Trial of doctrines. § 30, 31, etc. and particularly concerning Arrianism in 2. Disc. conc. the Guide in Controversy, § 26. [As for Antichrist, (the story of whom hath given occasion of a contrary fancy, especially amongst the Reformed,) I shall elsewhere, I think, sufficiently clear to you, that he shall profess an Antichristianity, and oppose the Gospel in general], or if, at some time, such Sect shall outnumber the Church itself, yet, as was said before, it shall stand in an external Communion separate from the Church, and also formerly expelled by the Church, when these did not outnumber it; and though afterwards these shall grow never so numerous, yet the remnant of Orthodox Believers, how small soever, continuing in the same body, will not cease to be truly and only Catholic without them: neither have these any right, or will be permitted, to vote in her Councils; which Councils to be truly General need to be no larger than the Church Catholic is; of which declared Heretics are no part. And thus the Church shall still be to the end of the world a City upon a Hill, and united within itself, even in its greatest persecutions conspicuous to those who sincerely bend their course to it. Again, it seems, that near the time of the world's dissolution, from this total Apostasy (through great persecutions) from the faith in some, and from the sound doctrines of the Orthodox faith in others, (because both false Religions, and such Heretical doctrines, as the Apostles speak, do all tend some way or other to viciousness of life,, to libertinism, and inducements of the flesh. See 2 Pet. 2.3, 10, 18, 19 Phil. 3.18, 19 1 Tim. 6.5. 2 Tim. 3.2, 7. etc. see Trial of Doctrines §. 32.) there shall abound very great wickedness, and much security amongst the then heavy oppressors of God's Church, much what like to the days of Noah and of Lot, when God shall come upon them unexpectedly to judgement. But this is no failing of the Church, which shall then remain an Holy City, at unity in itself: see Rev. 20.9. And if also within the Church itself the vicious shall outnumber the pious, neither is this any prejudice to the truth of the Church's doctrines, since the same thing happens less or more in all ages that the wicked herein are more than the good; as St. Austin hath taken notice and much pains to prove to the Donatists, urging some of the former texts. De unitate Ecclesiae 12. & 13. c.  
§ 64 Thus much of the first head, proposed before § 1. viz. The Clergies being delegated (by our Lord departing hence) the infallible preservers of all Truth and Necessary faith, and supreme Judges in all controversies arising therein. Now to proceed to the 2d.  
Next, this Authority (to secure it for ever from any decay or interruption thereof) is given them to the end of the world, without dependence on any save the Lord Jesus; they being Ambassadors of salvation from the King of Kings to all Nations, and so to be every where free from all violation. For which there is the greatest reason; since their constitutions are such as cannot do the least wrong, or hurt to any secular dominion, nay brings great security to it, and since this their Ministry (because without a Sword can be no Government, or Discipline) comes armed only with a Spiritual sword, and not a Temporal; and lastly, since Christianity (the Doctrine they plant) gives no man any privilege, interest, or advantage by it, in this world, or for Secular matters: but maintains every Kingdom and State in the same condition wherein it finds it; and only obligeth men to pray always for such State, (1 Tim. 2.2.) and to yield all strict obedience to it, (Rom. 13.1. 1 Pet. 2.13.); and, upon no pretence of maintaining Religion, to use, or to advise to use the material Sword, or any otherwise to defend the truth, than 1. by confessing it, [1. in practising its Precepts at all times; (among which, yet, one necessary-one is public assembling together to worship God etc.— Ecclesiacticos coetus humanis legibus interdictos ob divinum praeceptum Christiani intermittere non possunt. Grot. sum. Imp. circa sacra.)] and 2ly, by suffering for it. The Christian profession therefore never troubles the Civil peace, (which cannot be broken but by Arms); and therefore whatsoever disturbs the civil peace may be lawfully punished on any person whatsoever by the temporal Sovereign power, for it is not the Christian profession; [I say lawfully purished, unless in respect of some persons, such temporal Magistrate make over this power to another; which thing doubtless may be lawfully done, if, for example, the Prince shall not think it so decent, &c, that he should sit in Judgement, and inflict corporal punishment upon a Bishop, his Spiritual Father, by whom he is to be guided, and corrected, and (if need be) censured, and Spiritually punished, concerning greater matters see 1 Cor. 6.3. Or, That the Priest one day should summon the Civil Magistrate to his Tribunal; the next, the Magistrate Him; or upon other reasons. And perhaps, This remitting of the Trial of Clergymen, even in Civil matters, to their Spiritual Superiors; so that the Secular power only useth the Temporal sword upon them, when the other deliver them up to it, as it may preserve more reverence, in the people toward the Ministry, so may it conduce to a more severe animadversion (from such Judges, supposing the Fathers of the Church to be of that sanctity and integrity which they do profess) upon such Malefactors, than any other way could. And (whether it was upon these, or some other motives) 'tis plain, that such Concessions by several Emperors, and Princes, have been made to the Church.]  
§ 65 And the Judgement also, when such disturbance is, shall belong to his, not to the Ecclesiastical, Tribunal. So Solomon confined Ahiathar the Highpriest, (1 Kin. 2.26, 27, compared with ch. 4, v. 4.). whom, had he pleased, he might also have put to death, (see 1 King. 2.26, 27.) not for Error, but for Rebellion; not, that the King may meddle, or hath any power or Jurisdiction, in Ecclesiastical affairs, over, or in opposition to, the Priest, (to do any thing, save the assisting the Spiritual Sword with his Temporal; and the using his Civil power for the service of the Church.) See Calv. Instit. l. 4. c. 11. s. 15. (For the Priest having lawful power to excommunicate the Civil Magistrate for Heretical Opinions, How can again the Civil Magistrate have a lawful power, for the same cause, to depose the Priest?) But, over Ecclesiastical persons, meddling, without his leave, and beyond their Lord's Commission, in affairs Temporal. But then, if the Secular power, in his taking care of the Commonwealth's safety, is pleased to Decree the Church's Religious Assemblies (either for worshipping God, or composing Laws for the Church) to be Conspiracy; or make their Preaching, or coming within his Territories, Treason; only because they possibly may, (for how can any be sent by Christ, to whom this may not be objected?) not because it is proved, that they do any hurt to it; or provoked by some particular persons, who transgressing their Commission from Christ, do some acts, or hold some opinions, prejudicial to the safety thereof, should therefore condemn and execute all others of the same Order, against whom the same fault cannot be proved, and who abjure such horrid Tenants; should he interpret any their meddling with his Subjects, (whom our Saviour sends unarmed, like Lambs among Wolves), to be subverting of his State; and their Spiritual Sword inconsistent with, or frustrating his Temporal, he now usurps upon our Saviour's Authority. and they must go on, through all his Torments, by way of the Cross (which shall certainly conquer at last), not of the Sword, (with which those Ministers shall perish that take it up, Mat. 26.52. against those powers to which only it is committed, Rom▪ 13.14.) to do their Office; with that answer to him, Act. 4.19. And he must give account to the same King of Kings for killing his Subjects, in their obeying their Lords commands; who sent them to all Nations, without ask any man's leave; as they could not (in doing their duty) possibly wrong any man's right.  
§. 66 [And if any here argue; That a Spiritual Supremacy thus described, cannot consist with another Temporal; but that one will ruin the other, and probably the Ecclesiastical denouncing eternal torments, the Civil, threatening death temporal; experience is enough to confute him, which hath long showed the contrary. Those Kingdoms where these two Sceptres are set up, having flourished (I mean for any occasion of disturbance or war arising from the opposition of these two powers) in long peace and prosperity; whilst others, where one of them hath been beaten down, have either ever since been miserably afflicted with Civil Wars (I mean about Religion unsettled) or quite over-turned. 1. Partly by reason, that every one gives not the spoils of the Church's ruin'd power (I mean the judging and deciding spiritual matters) to another (the Civil Magistrate), but takes them to himself. And secondly, partly, because one main doctrine of the Spiritual power, (which hath most command over men's consciences) [Namely this, that resistance (in any things by Arms) to the Temporal power is unlawfu] is fallen together with that power. And thirdly, perhaps partly I may add, because, that where the Church-Authority is crushed, Religion and Goodness in general withers and decays; and consequently with these, Allegiance and Fidelity; That which makes good men, making good Subjects. 4ly, And again, because, That where any takes away another's right, both Divine Justice sentences him to lose his own, and his Example teaches others to invade it].  
§. 67 Hence it is, That these Substitutes of Christ (as himself being under Herod's jurisdiction, yet was hindered by no threats for exercising the commission of his Father in his Dominions, Luke 13.31, 32.) did exercise their Authority as much as ever, and that for some hundreds of years, even when all the temporal Magistrates and their Sovereigns opposed it, (for then they were sustained unarmed, against all force by the power of the King of Kings, JESUS, and so shall be, till his second coming,) in which time we find they had their Public Assemblies for God's Worship; revenged by Excommunications and Penance all disobedience; called Councils, for enacting Ecclesiastical Canons and Laws; [which therefore it is not absolutely necessary (very convenient, I grant) that the Secular power should either call, or assist; neither may he annul them, or any part thereof, if purely concerning Ecclesiastical affairs; but as a member also himself of the Church, aught to become subject unto them, and, as a Prince, to maintain them. And hence it seems to follow, That no Prince can lawfully abrogate the Authority of Patriarches (supposing it only founded on Ecclesiastical Constitutions) over those, who are the Churches, as well as His, Subjects, no more than he can any other Ecclesiastical Decrees.] Again, in which times we also find, that as fast as any suffered by persecutions, in their places they ordained others, multiplied by their slaughters; and ordained them, without any order or nomination from the civil power; who for ever, neither can himself, neither can cause them to lay hands on any, but whom they approve, nor to be partakers by this of other men's sins or errors. 1 Tim. 5.22.  
§ 68 And all this they did without the Emperor's leave, nay contrary (many times) to their Edicts. Now what Authority they had before, amidst the oppositions of Secular power, they cannot lose it, nor any part of it since, by this Powers submitting itself unto Christ's Sceptre, and to the Church. Greater than this Church-authority might be made, many ways, by Princes: by granting the Church (now) some temporal privileges; by making the Acts of the Church their Law also; and by enforcing it on all their Subjects (as well Clergy as Laiety) with corporal punishments and the temporal sword, further than the other could singly with his Spiritual; which yet (experience shows) was able alone both to preserve order and discipline amongst its Subjects. With the temporal sword, I say; which though the Clergy may not use in the behalf of Religion, yet (He that hath it committed to him Rom. 13.4.) the Civil Magistrate, as a Son of the Church, and the Servant of Christ, upon his own subjects may, and aught, to use that weapon, in maintaining of Christ's Laws, which he may in defence of his own; as who also may make Christ's Laws his own. Hence Calvin, (Instit. 4 l. 11. c. 16. sect.) speaking of the Primitive Governors of the Church;— Non improbabant (saith he) si quando suam authoritatem interponerent Principes in rebus Ecclesiasticis; modo conservando Ecclesiae ordini, non turbando; disciplinae stabiliendae, non dissolvendae, [of which, I suppose, the Spiritual Governors, not the Princes, were to judge,] hoc fieret. Nam cum Ecclesia cogendi non habet potestatem &c, Principum partes sunt legibus, edictis, judiciis, religionem sustinere. But these Princes may do only according to the Priests directions.  
Therefore all the establishing and restoring of Religion by the Kings of Judah, (from whose having power in advancing Religion 'tis strange to see, how some argue their having the sole power,) were only by, and in assistance of, the Priest, never against him, and they commanded often the Priests to perform, what the Priests together with them consented to be their duty. See 2 Chr. 29.4, 11. etc.— 17.6, 8.— 24.6.— 26.17.— 19.8, 10.— 13.9.— 34.5, 9, 14.— Ezra 1.5.— 3.2. 1 Chr. 25.1. compared with 24.31. (see Deodat.) 2 King. 23.5.— 2 Chr. 35.10, 18. And see Deut. 17.18, 19 the end of the Kings having a copy of the Law allowed him, but another end of the Priests having the custody of it, Deut. 17.9. and 2 Chr. 19.8. But no where can we find that they decided controversies against the Priests; or, that the succession of Priests maintaining a false Religion, the King against them vindicated the true; or in their stead, because erroneous, appointed, and made new Priests; because indeed the Succession of Priests never apostatised from the whole body of true Religion, nor ever shall; but should they, yet why not the Prince rather? and whom then finally is it fit to rely on for Religion? But for those parts of true Religion, wherein the Clergy was defective, (as it happened under the later Kings of Judah, and in the times of our Saviour, they were reformeable only by extraordinary Prophets sent from God; whom in all times the people lawfully consulted, and repaired to, for judgement, as they did to the Priests, (fee before) but neither people nor Princes reform Priests upon this pretence; and therefore those Texts, wherein the Prophets blame the errors of the Priests, do no way warrant the Laities reforming them, lest so the errors of the second be worse than that of the first. See this spoken of more at large before. But for a false Religion, we find this done in wicked Jeroboam; and consequently, we read of his making for his new Religion also new Priests.  
§. 69 Thus I say, the Temporal authority may much advance and further the Spiritual; but no Secular power hath the least authority in Spiritual matters to act contrary to those who are Ministers of Christ's power; and unreasonable it is to think, that he may do more against them, who is part of their flock, than the Heathen Princes might do, who had no relation; and if Christianity entering into any country changeth not any laws thereof, but confirms all obedience thereto, than neither may the civil Government admitted into Christianity abridge any of its privileges; which privileges may as well subsist with a Christian Sovereignty, as they have done with a Heathen. But if they offer any violence unto it, the Church, to whom (not to them) God hath committed his flock, may, and aught, (as it also often hath with the weapons Christ hath given her) to oppose them, and though not to fight, yet to speak, to profess, to suffer, and die, for the cause. See the opposition the Priests made to Vzziah, (generally a good Prince, 2 Chron. 26.18.) and that of Athanasius, and Alexander, Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople, to Constantine, requiring the restoring of Arius Excommunicated; and that of Ambrose to Theodosius. Neither can the Bishops at any time excuse their not governing, and defending, and patronising the flock of Christ, under pretence either of the care that Christian Princes their Sovereigns have of it, or enmity they have to it: For either these Princes second their authority, and then they have all encouragement to exercise it: or else they oppose and persecute it, and then they are to do no less than their Predecessors did in the Primitive bloody times, (taking up their Cross and following Christ and their Leaders,) which had they not done, Christianity had not descended so far as us; and if these do not the same, it cannot be propagated to posterity. See more of this subject in Church-government, part. 1.  
§. 70 Obj. But what if all, or the much greater part of the Clergy run into error, may not the Temporal Magistrate then Reform it? I answer 1. That concerning points or truths necessary to salvation, the Supposition is impossible, until our Saviour shall cancel his promise of their indefectibility in such necessaries. 2ly. That for any other Spiritual matters (wherein perhaps they may err,) yet the Temporal Magistrate may not reform: because, he that in Spiritual things is to learn of them what is truth, and what error, can never judge when they err, unless they first tell him so. What, you will say, cannot judge? when as he hath the Holy Scriptures left to demonstrate to him truth and error? I ask, were they left to him alone? or hath he any evidence therefrom, which the Clergy hath not? Or doth the Secular man study them more than they, who make this their employment and trade? Yes: but their eyes are blinded in many things with self-interest, namely in those, which some way concern their own privileges etc. 1. Then in all Doctrines no way advancing the privileges of the Church, the Prince may not swerve from its judgement. Well it were, if but so much were observed. But 2ly. For these matters of interest, it were something that were said, if where the Ecclesiastical power were interested on the one side of the controversy, the Secular power (which claims right to judge) were not as much on the other; and whatever privileges were taken from the one, were not devolved upon the other. For example: If Henry 8th. and his Lords had took the Supremacy in Church-affairs from the Pope, and not transferred on themselves, it were something (though not sufficient) that were said: but in such concernments men being equal, judge in which we have reason to expect the more integrity, that they will not claim more than their due. But 3ly. Suppose that our Saviour had granted his Church some great privileges, (as such a thing is possible); either these privileges by them must not be maintained, or such a cavil cannot be prevented. But methinks this is enough to preserve truth in their sentence, (who are most accounted men of conscience,) though in matters concerning themselves, That by a false judgement a greater interest hereafter is lost, than is for the present gained.  
§. 71 But here observe of those, who upon many suchlike pretences rob the Church of her Legislative power for Spiritual matters; that they cannot place it else where (though they try several ways); nor yet deny any such power at all, but with great absurdities, and mischief sometime or other to truth and the Christian profession. Some of them bestow it on the Civil Magistrate without limitation, so as to oblige all men, without disputing, to obey, whatever in these things he determines; as a Countryman of ours. But this is so gross a tenant, I need spend no labour to show the many horrible consequences thereof. Some again bestow it upon the same supreme Magistrate, so as to oblige men only to obey him (I mean actively) in what they think not contrary to the Divine Laws; and for other things, which they think contrary, not to resist any punishment inflicted on them for not obeying actively, i. e. in believing and practising as that Magistrate appoints. Thus G. Vossius, H. Grotius (Jus Imp. circa Sacra), and ordinarily Protestants. Vossius represents the matter briefly thus, in an Epistle inserted in Praestantium Virorum, Ep. p. 167. Synodi falli possunt, Magistratus non debet iis credere propter se; sed quia consentiunt cum Scriptures & Canonibus antiquis. Et haec [Synodus] et ille errori est obnoxius, sed hoc non impedit, quo minus & Synodi Officium sit dirigere intellectum in cognitionem veri, tum magistratus, imperare, quod rectum est & salutare.— Quodsi illa dirigit male, non ideo hic imperabit male; & si hic imperet malum, non ideo subditi parere debent in malo. Sed & Magistraetus & subditus unusquisque aget, quod sui esse officii Scriptura, & Ecclesiae Catholicae consensus, & recta ratio, persuaserit [i. e. what Scripture, Church, or Reason, seems to him to persuade]. But may the Magistrate then punish here those that disobey his commands? Yes, saith he,— Rex & illud imperare debet, quod in verbo jussit Deus, & paenarum comminatione obstringere ad illud subditor potest, nec in his imperium detrectare cuiquam licet. In his, if he means which both Prince and Subject are agreed to be God's Word, this is certain. But meanwhile, if the, Subject apprehends that contrary to God's Word, which the Magistrate saith is not, and commands as his Word, here the Subject may and aught to disobey him. And upon this the question still proceeds: How the Magistrate may justly punish the Subject for not doing a thing, where the Subject also may lawfully disobey, and not do it? One would think, either the Magistrate ought to be certain that what he commands is right before he may punish any for disobeying his command; or the Subject aught to be certain that what he commands is not right, before he may disobey it. But yet neither is the one, or the other, held any certain Judge in these matters we speak of Nor yet do these men leave any third person, that being so, may guide and regulate them. But the one lawfully commands and punishes him for that, which the other lawfully disobeys. Where in effect every one in things Spiritual is finally committed to his own Judgement; whilst they leave none at all above others, that may so decide what is contrary to God's Law, what not, as to constrain submission thereto, further than their private judgement concurs. And the only absolute obligation we have to any of their commands, is to nonresistance of the punishment. But then suppose one thinks this also; namely, that we should be bound in all cases (even where we are innocent, or also truly religious) to nonresistance, etc. to be a thing contrary to Scripture, (as there want not many of late who have been so persuaded,) than their commands will oblige such an one in no sense at all, and so indeed will be no commands as to such a person; for effectus imperii est obligatio: Lastly, the authority, these men do give to the Church, is (except that which she derives from the Civil power) only regimen suasorium, or declarativum, and so sine obligandi jure. But this is making our obedience to her (if it may be so called at all) no more than that we give to any other private man, administering, as we think, good Counsel to us; which is sufficiently confuted before. Only in all this you may observe; That whilst these wary Factors for Truth are afraid to acknowledge such an obedience enjoined to the Church, as, to believe that to be the meaning of the Divine Law, or not; to be truth, or error, that she tells them to be so, (& then much less can allow such an obedience to Secular power,) they in avoiding these two, yield this judgement of what is truth, what is not in these matters of highest concernment, to be left by God to every one; which exposeth the Christian world to far more, and grosser errors, (as daily experience thereof showeth), than would in probability either of the other: But yet this pleaseth, because thus the staters of the question make themselves also Judges. See more of this subject in Ancient Church-Government, etc.  
§ 72 Christ therefore, to avoid such confusion, hath established his Church for guiding the World for ever in his truths, upon such firm Laws, and Canonical Orders, that no Civil Authority may be admitted at any time to meddle in stating any Church-affairs against the major part of the Clergy, and its Governors. And if secular Princes anciently in a Council, even when they generally agreed in opinion with the Bishops, had in Ecclesiastical affairs no defining, but only a consenting, suffrage; how come they enabled to define any thing in these, when they are against the Bishops. See St. Ambrose his words, (l. 2. ep. 13. quoted by Dr. Field, l. 5. c. 53.) when he was cited to be judged in a matter of Faith by Valentinian the Emperor; which conclude it cannot be without usurpation of that, which no way pertaineth to them, that Princes should at all meddle with the judging of matters of Faith, neither had it been heard of: but on the contrary, that Bishops might, and had judged Emperors in matters of Faith; Quando (saith he, speaking to Valentinian) audisti (clementissime Imperator) in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicasse? Ita ergo quadam adulatione curvamur, ut sacerdotalis juris simus immemores; & quod Deus donavit mihi, hoc ipse aliis putem esse credendum? Si docendus est Episcopus a Laicis, quid sequetur? Laicus ergo disputet, & Episcopus audiat; Episcopus discat a Laico. At certe si vel Scripturarum seriem divinarum, vel vetera tempora a tractemus, Quis est qui abnuat in causa sidei, in causa inquam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis, non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare? Pater tuus [Valen. sen. Imp.] vir maturioris aevi dicebat: non est meum judicare inter Episcopos, & See the like in Athanasius (Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes) Quando unquam judicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritatem habuit? See many more like testimonies collected by Champney De Vocatione Minist. c 15. And see the Concessions of Bishop Andrews, Resp. ad Apol. p. 29, & 332. And of Calvin, no zealous Vindicator of the Church's Authority, Inst. l. 4. c. 11. § 15. And of many others cited in Church-Government, Par. 5. And see more of this matter in Church-Government, Par. 1. And if the Church (to use some of Mr. Thorndikes words) subsisted before any secular power was Christian; extended beyond the bounds of any one's Dominion, in one visible Society, with equal interest in the parts of it, through several Dominions; endowed with such power in Spiritual matters, as is set down before, what Title, but Force, can any State have, whilst this Body continues to exercise its power, not only without, but against it? Dr. Field in Answer saith, That such power belongs to the Clergy regularly; but may be devolved to Princes in cases of necessity. [In what case?] i.e. If the Clergy through malice or ignorance fail, etc. That the Prince having charge over God's people, etc. may condemn them, falling into gross errors, contrary to the common sense of Christians; or into Heresy formerly condemned (l. 5. c. 53.) formerly condemned; For, saith he, we do not attribute power to a Prince, or Civil state, to judge of things already resolved on in a general Council, [no? not if they err manifestly and intolerably?] but only to judge in those matters of faith that are resolved on, and that according to former resolutions. From which I gather, That Princes can define nothing against the Clergy, (i. e. the more considerable part thereof, else there was never any thing so absurd a Prince can propose, but that he may find, or make some of the Clergy to join with him,) but protect what is already first defined by the Clergy in a former General Council. But if so, than his power with hardly extend to the points of Reformation: since how few are those Heresies (amongst the many points of the Roman Church,) from which the Reformed have departed, which are solemnly condemned (some of them they say are defined) by General Councils? I suppose therefore we must found the Prince's Ecclesiastical authority on the other member, [if the Clergy err against the common sense of Christians,] or, as Mr. Thorndike expresseth it; when the Ecclesiastical power abolisheth any of matters already determined by our Lord, and his Apostles, (for all such are law given to the Church etc.) But, alas, who must judge, when the Ecclesiastical power abolisheth any of matters & c? for the Pastors of the Church at the same time affirm, and will die for it, that neither against the Scriptures, neither against Traditions of former Church, have the transgressed; nor do abolish, but establish, them: and as for the people, whom should they rather follow in matters of Divinity? their Pastors, or their Prince? God hath given charge to the Clergy over the flock, but where hath he committed the charge of the Clergy to the Prince? Perhaps the common sense of Christians shall judge. But are the Guides of the Church then only void of it, and that in their own faculty? Common sense of the Christian Laity, what if they differ then in their common sense, are we not then to follow the major part of them? But so also the Reformed are cast, the major part of Lay-Christians entertaining the Roman Tenants.  
Again, we have given up this right of the Church to the Prince, where now shall we stay? If one Prince may do the office of a Council, and if need be decide matters of Faith for the Clergy; why may not the next, if need be, Ordain for the Bishop, or depose that Order obstinate in error? Is this a dream? are there not also those who claim this? But then again, if where the Clergy fails the Prince may take our Saviour's Chair, and judge, then supposing the Prince also through malice or ignorance &c may fail too; (Is there not some Commonwealth, that hath been lately under God's judgements in this condition?) I would gladly know, whether an Ecclesiastical power may not review his Acts, and reform his Errors? and then, why not both reform; both, at the same time according to their differing judgements? But God is the God of order, not of such confusion. Thus much of the 2d. thing proposed before § 1. the independency of the Ministers of Christ on any Secular power. Now I shall consider the Third.  
§ 73 Next, as the Ministry of Christ is secured for the perpetual continuance of their Spiritual power, and office, against all foreign force of Seculars, (which shall often rise against it,) by their Spiritual sword, toward those Temporal Governors, who fear God; and by their fortitude, (being strengthened by Christ,) both in doing their duty, and in suffering patiently, toward Secular Governor's Infidel, or the Heretical: so is it secured for ever, for the unity of the Faith, and of the Profession of it, (Eph. 4.5, 13.) against all intestine divisions amongst the Clergy; which divisions often shall happen in it, but shall never remain of it. For it is as true, that no Heresy or Schism within, as that no Secular power without, (being only several Gates of Hell,) shall ever prevail against it.  
§ 74 To clear this point, we must know, that where ever any division happens in the Church; and that one Communion, which was at first established in a perfect not co- but sub-ordination, divides into two, and each ordain Successors to their party, one is to be counted no lawful succession. Else, since some Teachers there shall be that will differ from the rest; and in all sects we may find some Clergy or other for us to follow; the Church will have neither any such property, as unity of her faith; nor will there be any such crime as Schism from it. Therefore the Church may and aught, for the preservation of her purity, and unity, to excommunicate, exauthorize, and separate herself and her children from such as are false Teachers, and walk disorderly, that she might not be partaker of, nor countenance them in, nor encourage more to follow, their sin; according to the frequent commands of Scriptures, forequoted, see 2 Jo. 10, 11. Matt. 18.17, 1 Tim. 6.5. Tit. 3.10. 1 Cor. 5.13. 2 Tim. 2.19, 21. compared with 18.— Iniquity, i.e. errors, Gal. 1.8, 9 Rev. 2.6, 15, 16. (texts abused by some to justify a separation from the Church itself,) therefore also none can lawfully communicate both with the true and with an Heretical or Schismatical Church: who though they hold sufficient truth, yet are to be refused and avoided for the breach of unity, and that without respect to the numbers of the revolted, or to the liability of the Church, they desert, to some (nondestructive) errors. And this practice the Church hath always observed, and the persons so disauthorized by it, if afterward using their functions, were in the Primitive times esteemed guilty of sin, and sacrilege; and so those also, by them ordained. And when returning to the Catholic faith (as many Arian Bishops did) they might not officiate, till by a Declaration and reabilitation of the Church they were restored to the exercise of that authority, of which they were by her formerly deprived. For we must know, that tho according to the common Tenent of die Church (see Conc. Nice 8. Can.) none that is ordained (according to the right form of Ordination) by a Heretic, or Schismatic, may be reordained, no more than one baptised by such may be rebaptised, or the Eucharist consecrated by such reconsecrated; but when he recants his Heresy, or Schism, he being only relicensed by the Church, dischargeth his function by virtue of his formerly received Orders. Yet who so by Heresy or Schism is once deprived of the right of exercising his function, (as any one may be,) cannot confer this right on others, but that all these afterwards stand as much suspended from any execution of their offices, as himself doth. Tho I cannot say, but that the Effects of the Sacraments, and other offices of their function, as well in other things as in Baptism, (as in Marriages, in Penance, and Absolution, the Eucharist, etc.) are still valid to the simple Receiver, who is guiltless of their faults, the wickedness of the Minister (if truly ordained) not hindering the benefits to mankind, which Christ hath annexed to that Office, and which always himself (as the principal Agent) by their hands confers.  
§. 75 To distinguish then true Succession, which we are always to adhere and submit to. 1. There is no lawful Succession, where is no lawful Ordination. Nor 2ly any Ordination lawful from or done by those that are condemned, or guilty of Schism. For to those that are guilty of this, though their former Ordination, and the Character (as some call that impressed by it) is not annulled, and blotted out, (for which cause, as I said, when such persons were reconciled, and readmitted to their functions, they were not reordained,) yet all the authority and right of discharging their function is taken away by the Church, and ceaseth; and consequently then ceaseth this power of ordaining others. See Canon Apost. 67.63. Cons. Nice. can. 19.8. And the same case, I suppose, it is of those who are condemned, though not guilty, and who are excommunicated and thrust out of the Church never so unjustly; for they yet desiring the communion denied them, show their approbation so far of it, as that they may not ordain others against that, wherein they grant is preserved the unity of the Faith; though I think, that simply an unjust Excommunication never made such a manner of division in the Church; but that those, who have set up new communions, have still disallowed some Tenants or practices of the former, for which they would not, if permitted, return to communicate with her; though they seem to justify their new communion, chief upon the pretence of being cast out of the former. Now Schism (as the former times understood it) is any relinquishing, and departing, upon what pretence soever, from the former external communion of the Church, (when we cannot show that it hath departed from the former external communion of its Predecessors), where we must grant was before the unity of the faith, (because there was no Christian communion at all besides it,) and in that faith, salvation (undeniably) to be had, and its judgement in all controversies of faith, and interpretations of Scriptures, to be obeyed. Now who depart thus, are also easily discerned: 1. By the paucity of their number, if we look not at the Succession, but at the beginning of the Breach; though afterward (in some places at least) it may outnumber the Orthodox. So Arianism was easily discerned for Faction at the Council of Nice; when it was but new planted, though not at that of Syrmium or Seleucia afterward. And 2ly, By their plea, one alleging Truth only, the other also Tradition.  
§ 76 3. By the constitutions of the Church Ordinations are unlawful, not only, where not such persons, as the Canons of the Church have appointed, do ordain, (as one no Bishop); or not such a number; (as for making a Bishop, less than three, where cannot be showed an irremediable necessity, [which necessity where truly it is, and not pretended to be, if you please we will suppose Presbyters also may do the Office, or propagate the Order of Bishops; or the Christian people create all these to themselves; or in practising the duties, and retaining the faith of Christianity, be saved without such Ecclesiastical Administrations; but what will this avail those, who pretend such necessities, when they live in the middle of the bosom of the Church of God, and the original ministry thereof?] but also, wherever a greater part of the Bishops of such a Province oppose than consent to it. See Mr. Thorndikes concession, Right of the Church p. 148. 250. 147. The Reason: because Ordinations were to have been made only by the Provincial Councils, which were to be held frequently, (twice a year); in defect of these, the execution of it was committed to three, or in a case of necessity to one; but presupposing the consent, and that by letters of the rest, or the major part of them. See Conc. Nic. 4. Can. Conc. Nicen. can. 6. Apost. can. 1.36, 38. Ap. Const. l. 8. c. 27. Else the unity of the Church can no way be preserved: Therefore Novatianus ordained for Bishop of Rome by Three, was forced to yield to Cornelius Ordained by Sixteen. Again, it was cautioned, That all the Bishops of a Province might do nothing in these Ordinations without the Metropolitan's consent, Conc. Nic. Can. 4, 6. And again, these Metropolitans were subjected to a Council. And what is said here of Bishops in respect of a Provincial Council, the same may be said of all those of a Province, or also Patriarchy in respect of a General. For as in a Province disagreeing, those are only to be accounted Successions lawful, i. e. such as all are only to submit to, which the Provincial Council allows; so in greater rents of the Church, only those, which the General Council allows which disauthorizing of some if it be not allowed, there can be no Unity in the Church, nor suppression of Heresies, Schisms, etc. If it be allowed, there can never be two Successions opposing one another, both lawfully by such Clergy exercised, and submitted to by the people, after this exauthorizing one of them by a Council.  
And this is the reason, why we find the Canons of the ancient Councils, not so much busied in debating Opinions, as about settling Peace, and Unity, and perfect Subordination amongst Ecclesiastical persons; knowing, that upon this, more than evidence of Argument and Reason (which in most men is so weak and mis-leadable) depended the preservation of the Unity of the Church's Doctrines, and requiring, in any division of these Governors, Obedience still to the major and more dignified Body of them. Christ's promises of indefectability belonging to a City set on an Hill, and to a Light set on a Candlestick; that we should not leave this City so eminent, to repair to some petty Village; nor this Light that shines over the whole House, to follow a Spark, glistering for a while in some corner thereof.  
§. 77 Two great Divisions, or Separations, of external Communion there have been in Christianity, before this last made after the Christian Church was fifteen hundred years old. The Sect of the Arians; and afterward the Division of the Eastern Churches from the Latin, or Roman.  
Now for the first of these, which seemed for a time to eclipse the Church-Catholick, and to be set higher on an Hill than it; very small it was at first, when censured and condemned in a General and unanimous Council; and though afterward it grew much bigger, by being promoted by the Secular power, yet it never grew to a major part, as is showed in the Discourse Of the Guide in Controversies, Disc. 2. § 26. and the violence of it vanished in fifty years; i. e. when the Secular power failed it; and the former Church-Communion hath outlived it. And for the time also in which it most flourished, the Catholics valiantly kept both their Bishops and Communion distinct; there being two Bishops at Rome, at Constantinople, etc. one Catholich, and the other Arrian; and two external Communions; one containing that of the former times, and adhering to the General Council of Nice; the other deserting, and deserted by, the former Communion, nor admitted to any Fellowship with it, till at last many of the penitent members thereof, returned to the Catholic Communion; and the new Sect expired. See before § 62.  
§. 78 For the second, the Division of the Greek Churches from the Western; it is granted, that two Churches  may, upon several pretences moving them thereto, if such as are not determined by the Superior to them both, abstain from one another's external Communion, without incurring any such Schism, as to cease to be still, both of them, true Members of the Church-Catholick. But if one of these Churches, either desert, or be deserted by, and excluded from the Communion of, the other, for a matter once determined by an Ecclesiastical Authority, Superior to both; and such Superior Authority be embraced and adhered to by the other, rejected by it: Here the Church, that disobeys its Superior, and departs from such other Churches as are united to them, is Schismatic, and ceaseth to be any longer Catholic. If then the former, or present differences between the Roman and Greek Churches are such, as have been by former Church-Authority, superior to both, Canonically decided and determined; as suppose by the Lateran Council under Innocent III. or of that of Lions under Gregory X. or that of Florence under Eugenius IU. and the Eastern Churches disobeying these Acts, have separated from, or thereupon been rejected by, the Roman Communion, observing them: Or again, If the Greek Church have made a discession and rent from the Prime Patriarch of the Church, and the Chair of St. Peter, in denying any of those Privileges, and that Authority which rightly belongs to him over the whole Church of Christ, in order to the preserving the perpetual Peace and Unity thereof, (things which it concerns me not here to determine), the Greek Churches by this Separation from the Roman, must stand guilty of a Schism from the Catholic Church, and cease to be any true Members thereof. Neither indeed have these Churches, since this Division, like withered branches, retained any Dignity, Authority, Growth, or Extent, equal to the Roman, or such as they had formerly; this indeed happening to them from the opression of an open enemy to Christianity, but yet perhaps the same also an Instrument of God's displeasure against them.  
§. 79 Lastly, As for the latest Division of the Reforming Party in the West, much-what the same may be said of it, as was but now of the Arian. It is known, when that single person stood alone, who began it; and it spread afterward by the support of the Secular power against Church-authority; and when in its greatest growth, but an inconsiderable part in comparison of the Whole. Which also hath cast it off from her Communion, condemned it by her Councils, and permits not any of her Members to have any external Communion with it. And, though at first, by reason both of foreign Invasions from the Turk, and many Civil Wars in Christian States, it made, especially in climates more remote from the residence and superintendency of the chief Hierarchy of the Church, a very great and speedy increase; yet the vigour of its age may be thought already past, and it is a long time, that it seems to be in its Wane and decadency, expecting still, and prophesying to itself the fall of Antichrist, till itself by little and little be sunk down into its grave.  
So many parts therefore, as fall off once from their union with the main Body, can be accounted no longer any members of the Church-Catholick, nor yet lawfully continue a Church-Communion, or Succession of Clergy, among themselves; Because there can be but unum Corpus, as unus Dominus Christus, Eph. 4.5. from which Body any part separated straight withereth, and separated from the Body, is so also from the Head Christ.  
Tho all among these are not really cut off from the Head or Body, that the Church externally separates from it by her Censures. Which proceed upon these according to the outward profession, which only the Church sees, but cannot discern the inward affection and disposition, which secretly may still continue some of those to the Body whom her Censures removes from it. Such are the invincibly ignorant, or those that without malice, are involved in such Schism, especially where the fundamental Faith is not diminished by any Heresy added to Schism.  
But though this plea of Ignorance invincible do seem good and credible for many in the present Greek Churches (if these Churches may be concluded Schismatical) kept in so much slavery, illiterature, and darkness; yet it is to be feared, it will fail many in the Reformed Churches, where too much presumption of Knowledge seems to be the chief thing that hath destroyed their Obedience and Conformity to the whole.  
FINIS.   

THE THIRD TREATISE OF THE FIRST PART OF ANCIENT Church-Government.  
REFLECTING On the late writings of several Learned Protestants, Bishop Bramhall, Dr. Field, Dr. Fern, Dr. Hammond, and others on this Subject.  
OXFORD, Printed in the year M.DC.LXXXVIII.   

CONTENTS.  

SVbordination of Glergy. § 1.  
Three Patriarches only at the first. § 2.  
The first of these the Bishop of Rome. § 3. 

The extent of his Patriarchate.    
The 2d. the Bishop of Alexandria. § 4.  
The 3d. the Bishop of Antioch. § 5.  
From whence their Superiority over other Bishops. § 6.  
The See of Constantinople advanced to a Patriarchate in the next place to Rome. § 7. 

The great extent of this Patriarchate in latter times.    
The See of Jerusalem raised to a Patriarchate in the 5th place. § 8.  
The authority of Patriarches, and other Ecclesiastical Governors, for the ordinations or confirmations, and for judging the causes (upon appeal) of their inferiors. § 9  
Where concerning the authority of the Council of Sardica. § 11.  
A Digression concerning the controversy between the Bishops of afric and Rome about Appeals. § 12.  
Whether transmarine Appeals in some cases very necessary. § 14.  
Those not subjected to any Patriarch for Ordination, yet subjected for decision of controversies. § 18.  
The Patriarches also subjected to the judgement of a superior Patriarch. § 20.  
The power of Jurisdiction (not only Primacy of Dignity) of the Bishop of Rome above the rest of the Patriarches and Bishops. ib.  
This power exemplified in the Primitive time to the end of the 6th age, the days of Gregory the Great. § 21 to 31. 

A Digression concerning the meaning of that ancient Canon, Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum. § 22.  
A Digression concerning the Title of Universalis Epipiscopus assumed by the Constantinopolitan, and declined by the Roman, Bishops. § 26.  
A Digression concerning the Patriarchship of Ravenna and Justiniana prima, urged by Dr. Hammond. § 30.    
The authority of this See of Rome by Protestants allowed to be the more orthodox in all other divisions that have been made from it, save only their own. § 31. n. 2.  
By the former clear allegations some other (controverted) sayings of the Fathers expounded. § 32. etc.  
The Protestants ordinary replies to the authorities above cited, to me seeming not satisfactory. § 36.  
That such power (which was anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome) was not exercised by him jointly only with a Patriarchal Council, which is by some pretended. § 37.  
That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power, established by the Ecclesiastical Canons; and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by any power secular. § 38. 

The concessions of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond in this matter. § 39  
Several pretences to weaken such Canons to me seeming invalid. § 41.    
That obedience due may not be withdrawn upon Governors undue claims. § 47.  
That Ecclesiastical Councils may change their former Ecclesiastical Laws, though Lay-Magistrates may not change them. § 48.  
That Prelates, and others, stand obliged to those Church-Canons, which in a superior Council are made with the consent of their Predecessors, till such Council shall reverse them. § 49.  
Reflections upon what hath him said.— 

That the Church of England seems obliged in as much observance to the Rome See, as the former instances have showed the Orientals to have yielded to it. § 51.  
That the Church of England seems obliged to yield the same observance to the Roman See, as other Western Provinces, upon the 6th Nicene Canon. § 52.  
That this Nation owes its Conversion chief, if not only, to the Roman See. § 53.  
And hath in ancient Councils, together with other Churches, subjected itself to that See before the Saxon conversion. § 55.  
The Britain's observation of Easter different from Rome, not agreeing with the Orientals; and no argument, that they received Christianity from thence. § 57  
That the English Nation is sufficiently tied to such subjection by the Decrees of latter Councils, wherein her Prelates have yielded their consents. § 59  
Thus the Principle, upon which some set the English Clergy and Nation free from such former obligations, hath been showed to be unsound. § 60.  
That some Rights once resigned and parted with, cannot afterward be justly resumed. § 61.      

Dr. Field, of the Church. Ep. Dedicat:  
Sing the controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many, and in matters so intricate, that few have time and leisure, fewer strength of understanding, to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out, which amongst all the Societies in the world is that blessed company of Holy ones, that Household of faith, that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the Living God, which is this pillar and ground of Truth, that so he may embrace her Communion, follow her Directions, and rest in her Judgement.  
Grot. Animadv. count. Rivet. ad Art. 7.  
Rogo eos, qui. verum amant, ut cum legent Dau. Blondelli viri diligentissimi Librum de Primatu, non inpsius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sed ipsas historias, quarum veritatem Blondellus agnoscit, animo a factionibus remoto expendant; spondeo, si id faciant, inventuros, in quo acquieescant.  
S. Austin de util. credendi, 16. c.  
Authoritate decipi miserum est, miserius non moveri; si Dei providentia non praesidet rebus humanis, nihil est de religione satagendum.— Non est desperandum ab eodem iposo Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam, qua velut, gradu incerto, innitentes attollamur in Deum. Haec autem authoritas seposita ratione (qua sincerum intelligere, ut diximus, difficillimum stultis est) dupliciter nos movet, partim miraculis, partim sequentium multitudine. & 10. c. Sed inquis, Nun erat melius rationem mihi reddere, ut quacunque ea me duceret, sine ulla sequerer temeritate? Erat fortasse: sed cum res tanta sit, ut Deus tibi ratione cognoseendus sit, omnesque putas idon●os esse percipiendis rationibus, quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana? an plures? an paucos? paucos ais, existimo. Quid caeteris ergo hominibus, qui ingenio tam sereno praediti non sunt. negandam religionem putas? [who therefore must receive this, not from Reason, but Authority.]— 12. c.— Quis mediocriter intelligens non plane viderit, stultis utilius ac salubrius esse praeceptis obtemperare sapientum, quam suo judicio vitam degere?— 13. c.— Recte igitur Catholicae disciplinae majestate institutum est, ut accedentibus ad religionem fides [i.e. adhibenda authoritati Ecclesiae] persuadeatur ante omnia. 8. c. & Si jam satis jactatus videris, sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae, quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit, & abhinc ad posteros manaturaest.— 12.— Quum de religione, id est, quum de colendo atque intelligendo Deo agitur, two minus sequendi sunt, qui nos credere vetant, rationem promptissime pollicentes.  
Rivet Apol. Discussio. p. 255.  
Nunc plane ita sentit Grotius, & multi cum ipso, non posse Protestants inter se jungi, nisi simul jungantur cum iis qui Sedi Romanae coherent, sine qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen. Ideo optat, ut ea divulsio quae evenit, & cause divulsionis, tollantur. Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum Canon's, fatente Melancthone, qui eum primatum etiam necessarium put at ad retinendam unitatem. Neque enim hoc est Ecclesiam subjicere Pontificis libidini, sed reponere ordinem sapienter insticutum.  
Bishop Bilson in perpet governm. of Christ's Church. 16. c.  
Not Antichrist, but ancient Councils, and Christian Emperors, perceiving the mighty trouble and intolerable charges, that the Bishops of every Province were put-to, by staying at Synods for the hearing and determining of all private matters and quarrels; and seeing no cause to employ the Bishops of the whole world twice every year to sit in judgement about petit and particular strifes and brabbles: as well the Prince as the Bishops, not to increase the pride of Arcbishops, but to settle an indifferent course, both for the parties and the Judges, referred (not the making of Laws and Canons, but) the execution of them already made, to the credit and conscience of the Archbishop.— To the Fathers leave an Appeal either to the Councils, or the Primate of every Nation.  
Mr. Thorndike, Epilogue 3. l. 20. c. p. 179.  
Of the Councils [he meaneth those first Councils held in the East] how many can be counted General by number of present votes? The authority of them, then, must arise from the admitting of them by the Western Churches: and this admission of them what can it be ascribed to, but the authority of the Church of Rome, eminently involved, above all the Churches of the West, in the summoning and holding of them, and by consequence in their Decrees? And indeed, in the troubles that passed between the East and the West, from the Council of Nice, though the Western Churches have acted by their Representatives, upon eminent occasions, in great Councils; yet in other occasions they may justly seem to refer themselves to that Church, as resolving to regulate themselves by the Acts of it, [and then he produceth several instances.]— Whereby (saith he) it may appear, how the Western Churches went always along with that of Rome.— Which necessarily argueth a singular preeminence in it; in regard whereof He [the Roman Bishop] is styled the Patriarch of the West, during the regular government of the Church; and being so acknowledged by K. James of Excellent memory to the Card. Perron, may justly charge them to be the cause of dividing the Church, who had rather stand divided than own him in that quality. [Afterward he saith, p. 180.] That it is unquestionable, that all causes that concern the whole Church, are to resort to the Church of Rome.— [And p. 181. asks) what pretence there could be to settle Appeals from other parts to Rome, [as such Appeals were settled in the Council of Sardica, which Council he there allows, and calls General,] rather than from Rome to other parts, had not a preeminency of Power, and not only a precedence of Rank, been acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome.   

CORRIGENDA.  
Page 29. l. 7. else he would.  
Page 55. l. 80. thro' five or six.  
Page 115. l. 3. except that of one or two of his Predecessors.   

CONCERNING ANCIENT CHURCH-GOVERNMENT.  

PART I. Of the Authority and Subordinations of Ecclesiastical Governors.  
§. 1 FOR the better Governing of the Church of Christ in Truth, Unity, Uniformity, and Peace; 
Subordination of Clergy.  and for the easier suppressing of all Errors, and Divisions; and for rendering all the Church of God, though dispersed thro' several Dominions, but one visible compacted Society; we find anciently these Subordinations of superior Clergy: 1. Presbyters. 2. Bishops. 3. Metropolitans; and (amongst Metropolitans) Primates. 4. Patriarches; and (amongst these Patriarches) a Primate.  
§ 2 Of these Patriarches, in the first General Council of Nice, held A. D. 325. there were only Three [called, 
Three Patriarches only at the first.  at the first, by the common name of Metropolitants; though with a distinct authority from the rest: Then, by the name of Primates, (2. Gen. Con. Const. can 2.5.)— (this name also being common to some others): Afterward by the name of Patriarches, (Conc. Chalc. Act. 3.— 8 Gen. Conc. can. 10). Neither was this name (though most frequently) always applied only to the Patriarches of the first Sees. But we find in the East (the Primates of Asia minor, Pontus, Thrace, and many others, to the number of nine or ten, called by Socrates, who writ in the fifth Age, Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 8.) Patriarches; (called so, as well as by the name of Primates, in respect of some other Bishops, or also Metropolitans, subject to them); yet which Patriarches had also a subordination and subjection to some of these prime, or major, Patriarches, of whom we here speak; as appears in the Church-History; and especially in Conc. Chalced. Act. and Act. 16. And we find also in the West (after A. D. 500) several Primates in France, Italy, Spain, called Patriarches; as the Primate of Aquileia, Gradus, Lions, (see Conc. Matiscon. 2. in praefat. Priscus Episcopus Patriarcha dixit, etc. See Greg. Turon. 5. hist. 10. Paul Diacon. l. 2. c. 12. Greg. Epist. l. 11. ep. 54.) yet over whom the Roman Bishop, the major Patriarch of the West, exercised a superiority and Patriarchal jurisdiction, both before and after that we read this name given to them; as will appear hereafter in this discourse, and more particularly in the matter of the Letters of Leo, and Gregory, and other Popes, written upon several occasions to divers of them. This I note to you, that the commonness of the name may not seem to infer an equality of the authority. Now to go forward.]  

§ 3. n. 1. The first of these the Bishop of Rome.  The first and chief of these was the Bishop of Rome; whose Patriarchship the Bishop of Derry (Vind. Ch. Eng. c. 5. p. 62.) and Dr. Hammond (of schism, c. 3. p. 51, 52.) following Ruffinus Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 6. (one less to be credited in this matter, because by the Bishop of Rome formerly excommunicated; see Anstasius 1. ad Johan. Hierosol.) make very narrow, and much inferior to that of the two other Patriarches (whereof one had subjected unto him all Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis; and the other, all Syria, and the Oriental Churches,) allowing to the Bishop of Rome only regiones suburbicarias in the Eastern parts of Italy, and the Islands of Sicily, Sardinia, 
The extent of his Patriarchate.  and Corsica, near adjoining to it. But over these Churches that Bishop might have some more immediate superintendency, and Metropolitan- or Primatship, contradistinct to other Metropolitans, as to that of Milan, etc. (So the Primate of all England hath yet a particular superintendency over one Diocese more than over the rest; of which more particular superintendency over the regiones suburbicariae, as he was their Primate or Metropolitan, Ruffinus seems to speak; and perhaps the 6th canon of Nice [Mos antiquus perduret, in Aegypto vel Lybia & Pentapoli, ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habet potestatem; quoniam quidem & Episcopo Romano parilis mos est. Similiter autem & apud Antiochiam, caeterasque Provincias, honour suus unicuique servetur Ecclesiae.] may be thought partly to intent it, for which consider those words in that 6th Canon [caeterasque Provincias &] compared with Concilium Constantinopolitan. 2. Can.— and Conc. Ephes. 8. can. Yet do not these Canons therefore abrogate and superior rights of any Bishop, quae prius atque ab initio sub illius seu antecessorum suorum fuerit potestate (to use the phrase of the forementioned 8th Canon of Ephesus,) but confirm them, not only the Metropolitan, but also whatever Patriarchal Rights they held formerly: as appears in those first words of the 6th Nicene Canon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ of which see more below § 19 from which the Roman Primacy was both urged by Paschasius, a Legate of the See Apostolic in the 4th General Council, and also acknowledged by the Council in their Epistle to Leo. (See below § 25 n. 2.) And again on the other side, (as Bellarmin de Rom. Pontif. 2. l. 18. c. observes), the Pope's being Caput Ecclesiae universae (supposing him to be so) in some general way of superintendency, or for some particular acts and offices, (as suppose for receiving appeals, deciding controversies, between the chief Governors of the Churches admitting them to, and deposing them from, their places, obliging them pro tempore with his decrees,) hinders not, but that he may be also a Patriarch, a Metropolitan, a Bishop, in respect of some other more immediate superintendencies and offices divers from the former; which he doth actually exercise over some particular Church or Churches, but doth not so over others; or which also he cannot exercise over the whole as he doth over those particular Churches, (as, suppose, for ordaining the inferior Bishops and Presbyters, and hearing their causes, personally officiating in the Word and Sacraments, receiving and distributing the Ecclesiastical revenue thereof &c.) Nor again, e converso, (as Cardinal Perron, in answer to K. James, observes,) doth his governing only the Roman Province, as their Metropolitan; or only Italy, as their Primate, hinder, that he should govern the West also as their Patriarch. Nor again, doth his governing the West as their Patriarch) because he was Bishop of Rome, the chiefest city of the West) hinder, that he may not also, as S. Peter and S. Paul's Successor there, (to one of whom the Jew, and to the other, the Gentiles, were committed, (Gal. 2.7, 9) have some special superintendency over all the Church, Jew, and Gentile.  
I know, 
§ 3. n. 2.  it is earnestly pleaded by Bishop Bramhal Vind. 8. c. p. 251. and Rep. to S.W. 10. s. p. 69.— That, to have an universal Headship over the Church, and to have a Patriarchal authority or headship over only some part of the Church; to have a limited, jurisdiction over a certain Province, and to have an unlimited jurisdiction over the whole world.— To challenge the same thing from divine, and from humane, institution; as Patriarch, to be subject to the Canons, as Universal Head of the Church, to be above them, are contradictions. And in Schis. guarded, 4. sect. p. 304. 'tis again urged by him, that Sovereign government, and Subordinate government of the same person in the same Society, is inconsistent; where he hath also these words. When I did first apply my thoughts to a sad meditation on this subject, I confess ingeniously, that which gave me the most trouble, was to satisfy myself fully about the Pope's Patriarchate; but in conclusion, that which had been a cause of my trouble, proved a means of my final satisfaction. For seeing it is generally confessed, that the Bishop of Rome was a Patriarch, I concluded, that he could not be a Spiritual Monarch. 'tis urged likewise by Dr. Hammond, in Schis. 6. c. 2. s. — That he that supposed in (gross) to have by Succession to S. Peter that original title to all power, over all Churches, cannot be imagined to acquire it afterward (by way of retail) [i.e. by any other ways and means] over any particular Church. He that claims a reward as of his own labour and travel, must be supposed to disclaim donation, which is antecedent to, and exclusive of, the other; as the title of descent is, to that of conquest. Thus Dr. Hammond. But to these it is easily answered.  
1. To Bishop Bramhal: 
§. 3. n. 3.  That nothing consists better together than contradictories, if they be not understood secundum idem. To have a headship Universal over the whole Church, given him by God, or by the Church, (if God hath left to it the disposal thereof) for some things, and to have a headship Patriarchal only over some part of the Church given by the same authority; or the first given by God, the second by the Church, i. e. the first by divine, the second by humane, institution, for some other things, contradict not. To have an unlimited power (if he means for place) for some things, and limited (for place) for other things, contradict not: To hold the same power or authority both by divine and humane institution, or title, or laws, (which are all one,) contradicts not; unless this term [only] be added. One may hold the same thing both from the donation of our Saviour, and from the donation of the Church too, and from the donation of the Prince too, quantum in illis est, which is only a consenting to Christ's donation, if they acknowledge it. Neither will these latter donations be needless, or useless, ad homines, though the former donation be good; if the former be at any time questioned, as many good titles have been. Again, it doth not contradict, that one as Patriarch be subject to some thing, to which, in another consideration, i.e. as head of the Church, he is not subject; for the respect is changed. Christ the same person as Man was subject to laws, to which as God he was not. So Sovereign government and Subordinate government of the same person in the same Society are consistent. The government of a city is subordinate to the office of a Prince in the same civil society; yet may the Prince, that rules over all the Kingdom, be governor also of some particular city thereof, (if so he pleaseth for his more security,) and may execute in that city all those under-offices himself which his Substitutes do in the rest, or also formerly did there, by his authority. A Rectorship of a Parish is subordinate to that of a Bishop in the same Ecclesiastical society, and yet the Bishop may also be the Parson of some Parish within his Diocese, and officiate therein, as is usual in some poorer Bishoprics. One may be made by the King governor of a whole Province, in respect of some command which he hath over it all; and may be made by the same King, or by any other, to whom the King hath given the bestowing of such a dignity, governor also only of one city in that Province; in respect of some other offices, divers from the former, which he may exercise over that town, and not likewise over the Province. Thus much to Bishop Bramhal. Only I must tell you, that he may put his propositions in such a sense, as they shall point-blank contradict: but then he will not be able to show, that, in such a sense, the Roman Church affirms them.  
2. To Dr. Hammond, I answer, That no man can acquire the possession of a thing anew, which he already possesseth, but he may acquire a new title or right to what he already rightly possesseth, i. e. he may do something upon which another law, which now doth not, shall give him right to the same thing, supposing that his present right faileth, or is questioned. Neither needeth he, when such titles are questioned, adhere to one, and renounce the other, but may successively plead both; one after another. Indeed when these two titles are in several persons, one voids the other, the former the latter; because the same thing cannot, at the same time, be possessed by several persons, (as Dr. Hammond rightly argues in Rep. to Cath. Gent. 6. cap. 1. s.) but seems to me to apply it amiss to two titles remaining in the same person, that the one of these will spoil the plea of the other. So one may receive a possession from a Prince by free donation; and afterward, fearing some cavil at this title, may acquire another right to the same thing by purchase; either from the same Prince, or from any other person of his Subjects, who pretends to have the just disposal thereof. And this person may afterward plead, as he seethe cause, either of these titles, the donation from the Prince, or purchase from the Subject; which Subject whether he had a right power to dispose of such a thing, or no, yet the purchaser's plea is good against him, and against all those who are bound by his act, so that they cannot resume such possession from him. So, to come nearer our business; Suppose a donation by our Saviour of such a Supremacy for ever over the whole Church, and so over Britain, to S. Peter's Successor; and suppose a donation (quo jure I need no here inquire) by the Church, of the same Supremacy to the Patriarch of the West over all the West, and so over Britain: and suppose 3ly, a donation or consent by the inhabitants of Great Britain of the same Supremacy over them to the first author of their conversion: I say here, the same person being S. Peter's Successor, and Patriarch of the West, and converter of England, may challenge such Supremacy over it, by which of these titles he pleaseth; they being obliged to all; to our Saviour's Act, of whom they are subjects, to the Act of the Church, (whereof the are a part,) and to their own. But when these three titles are pretended by three several persons, but one of them can stand in force; Or, if any one will say, that possession can never relate save only to one single title; yet if this be granted, that there may be several titles inherent in the same person, of which the one failing the possession may still justly relate to another; And will come to one, namely this; That no other can dispossess this person, unless he first prove (not only one, but) all his titles faulty. Thus much that a Primatship, a Patriarchiship, and an Universal Headship may be well consistent in one person. This rub being removed, now to go on.  
But though the forenamed Writers much straiten the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction, 
§ 3. n. 4.  and make his Primateship, and Patriarchship both one; yet Balsamon (in his Explication of the Nicene Canons), and Nilus (in his Book against the Primacy), not great Friends to the Greatness of Rome, looking upon that authority which he always exercised over the other Metropolitans of the West (of which more hereafter), besides that which he had over his own more particular Suburbican Diocese, do enlarge this his Patriarchship to all the West; Quoniam & Romanus Episcopus praeest Occidentalibus Provinciis, (saith Balsamon.) Balsamon and Nilus interpret the words of the Nicene Decree (saith Dr. Field, l. 5. c. 31.) that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have the charge of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, and the Confirming of the Metropolitans in those parts; because the Bishop of Rome, who hath care of the West, Confirmeth the Metropolitans of the West. And, before these, Zomaras a Greek Writer likewise, (on Conc. Sard. can. 5.) granteth the more Westernly of the Eastern Provinces at that time to have belonged to the Roman Church. To the Roman Church (saith he) were the subject all the Western Churches, namely, those of Macedonia, Thessalia, Illyricum, Epirus, which were afterward subjected to the Church of Constantinople. And likewise Dr. Field, being pressed with many instances (not denyable) concerning the Bishop of Rome's authority most anciently exercised over the Bishops, not only, of Spain, France, afric, etc. in the West; but also, of some parts of Greece, Thebes, Thessalonica, Corinth, etc. in the East; whereby they endeavoured to prove his Universal [Vicaria] Headship over all the Church; is glad to plead; That the Roman Bishop used such authority, not as Head of all the Church, but as Patriarch of the West; embracing Balsamon's opinion; and proving, out of Cusanus, that such places, as are urged by the Romanists, do belong to the Roman Patriarchship. (Which Patriarchship the other Doctors labouring to straiten, how they will avoid another Universal Super-intendentship of the same Bishop, urged by the Roman party, I see not). See Field l. 5. c. 37. p. 551. c. 38. p. 560. c. 39 p. 570. and p. 568. where he hath these words: Appeals, of ancient time wont to be made out of France to Rome, no way prove the Bishop of Rome to be Universal Bishop; unless we will acknowledge every one of the Patriarches to have been so too: it being lawful to appeal unto them out of any, the remotest, Provinces subject to them. And c. 38. p. 560. where Dr. Field confesseth, that Leo (who lived in the time of the fourth General Council) constituted Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica his Vicegerent for the parts thereabouts, as others his Predecessors had done former Bishops of that Church; which, (saith he) causing great resort thither upon divers occasions, may be thought to have been the reason, why the Council of Sardica (Can 20.) provideth, that the Clergymen of other Churches shall not make too long stay at Thessalonica [this Council of Sardica was about twenty years after that of Nice.] So the same Leo made Potentius the Bishop his Vicegerent, in the parts of Africa; Hormisda Bishop of Rome about ann. 500 Salustius Bishop of Hispalis, in Baetica and Lusitania; and Gregory, Virgilius Bishop of Arles, in the Regions of France: all these places being within the compass of the Patriarchship of Rome. And the same may be said of the Bishop of Justiniana prima; who was appointed the Bishop of Rome's Vicegerent in those parts, upon signification of the Emperor's will and desire that it should be so. Thus he. To this I will add, the testimony of Innocent I. Bishop of Rome in St. Austin's time, who (Epist. 1. Decentio Episcopo Eugubino) prescribing some Roman Orders to be observed in the Western Churches, there gives a more particular reason of their obedience, to observe the Rules and Customs of the Roman See; namely, their conversion to Christianity by it; Quis enim nesciat (saith he) aut non advertat id, quod a Principe Apostolorum Petro Romanae ecclesiae traditum est, ac nunc usque custoditur, ab omnibus debere servari, etc.— praesertim, cum sit manifestum, in omnem Italiam, Gallias, Hispanias, Aphricam, atque Siciliam, insulasque interiacentes, nullum instituisse Ecclesias, nisi eos, quos venerabilis Apostolus Petrus, aut ejus successores constituerunt sacerdotes, etc. And afterward he saith, Quibus [i.e. Decentius his proposals] idcirco respondimus, non quod te aliqua ignorare credamus, sed ut majori authoritate vel tuos instituas, vel, si qui a Romanae ecclesiae institutionibus errand, aut commoneas, aut indicare [i. e. to the Bishop of Rome] none differas, ut scire valeamus, qui sint, qui aut novitates inducunt, aut alterius ecclesiae, quam Romanae, existimant consuetudinem esse servandam. The sufficiency of the reason given here I will not now dispute; but this appears, that over all those Churches he then exercised some authority. And see below (§ 23. and elsewhere) many instances of the Roman Bishops authority exercised over the Bishops of France, of Spain, and other Western Provinces, before the sitting of the first Council of Nice; to all which therefore, and not only to the regiones suburbicariae, must the 6th Nicene Canon [Mos antiquus perduret] be extended.  
§ 4 Thus much of the first Patriarch, The second was the Bishop of Alexandria; 
The second, the Bishop of Alexandria.  containing under his Patriarchship, all the Archbishops and Bishops of Egypt and Lybia.  
§ 5 The third, of Antioch; containing under him all the Archbishops and Bishops of the East; 
The third, the Bishop of Antioch.  and amongst the rest, the Bishop of Jerusalem, whose Metropolitan, as also of all Palestine, was the Bishop of Caesarea: But he subject to the Antiochian Patriarch. See Hierom's Epistle to Pammachius against John Bishop of Jerusalem,— Ni fallor hoc ibi [i. e. in Concilio Niceno] ut Palestinae Metropolis Caesarea sit; & totius Orientis Antiochia. Aut igitur ad Caesariensem Archiepiscopum referre debueras, cui, spreta communione tua, communicare nos noveras; aut si procul expetendum judicium erat, Antiochiam potius literae dirigendae.  
§ 6 And these three Bishops had a superiority to the rest, from most ancient custom and tradition, 
From whence their superiority over other Bishops.  which was rather confirmed, than given, to them in the Nicene Council, as appears by those words in the 6th Canon thereof, [Mos antiquus perduret;] and by those in the 7th (concerning some Honour also allowed to the Bishop of Jerusalem, yet [manente Metropolitanae civitatis dignitate]— Quoniam mos antiquus obtinuit & vetusta traditio. Such expressions we find also in Conc. Antioch. can. 9 [secundum antiquam a patribus nostris regulam constitutam;] and in Conc. Ephes. can. 8. [singulis Provinciis pura & inviolata, quae jam inde ab initio habent, jura serventur]; wherein the Councils show themselves very zealous for preserving all ancient customs and privileges. So St. Ignatius the Martyr, living presently after the Apostles times, in his Epistle to the Romans, styles himself the Pastor of the Church in Syria; because that whole Region belonged also in those times to the Metropolis of Antioch, as Dr. Hammond observes out of him (Sch. p. 50.) And this superiority over the rest these three Metropolitans had, as was anciently conjectured, from St. Peter (who was first, or Primate of the Apostles) his being Bishop of Rome; and formerly of Antioch; and his having also (by his Disciple Mark, sent thither) a more particular relation to the Church of Alexandria. These therefore were called Apostolicae sedes which title was also sometimes anciently communicated to some other Churches besides these, where any of the Apostles had for any long time made their residence, as to Ephesus, to Jerusalem, etc.): but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Roman See, the last and most eminent Seat of the two greatest Apostles, 
Vid. Bell. de Roman. Pont. l. 3. c. 2. l. 2. c. 27.  St. Peter and St. Paul (not disputing here what subordination there was between these two, whose Government the Divine Wisdom thought meet to conclude in one and the same Succession) is so styled. Which place, from this rather, than from the secular eminency and power of that City, or from any other cause whatever, (if we may judge by the suffrages of Antiquity), had the Honour and Primacy above all other Churches. The secular eminency of that City was the reason indeed mentioned by the Bishops in Conc. Chalc. (Act. 16. propter imperium civitatis illius]) because they endeavoured the advancement of the Constantinopolitan Bishop (the Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, being condemned by that Council as a Defender of Eutyches) to the same privileges with the Roman (in the second place) upon the like grounds: But a reason disclaimed by Leo, the then Bishop of Rome, and by his Legates; and a reason also omitted and left out by themselves, when they writ to Leo for his confirmation of their Canons; who there give another reason of his Primacy, viz. his Successorship in St. Peter's chair, as appears below, § 25. n. 2. [See also Syricius (Bishop of Rome A.D. 389.) his Epistle ad Episcopum Tarraconensem, a city in Spain:— Nobis major cunctis Christianae religionis zelus incumbit. Portamus onera omnium, qui gravantur: Quinimo haec portat in nobis Beatus Apostolus Petrus, qui nos in omnibus (ut confidimus) administrationis suae protegit, & tuetur, haeredes. See Leo, serm. 1. de natali Apostolorum, thus speaking to Rome:— Per sacram Beati Petri sedem, caput Orbis effecta, latius praesides religione divina, quam dominatione terrena. And his Epist. 58. to Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, and Ep. 66. to the Bishops of Chalced. Conc. in answer to the Letter sent from them; where he hath these words: Nihil Alexandrinae sedi ejus pereat dignitatis, quam per Sanctum Marcum Evangelistam B. Petri Discipulum meruit. Antiochena quoque Ecclesia, in qua primum praedicante Apostolo Petro Christianum nomen exortum est, in paternae [i.e. Patrum Concilii Niceni] constitutionis ordine perseveret etc. and Ep. ad Marcinamum Augustum, he saith:— Habeat Constantinopolitana civitas gloriam suam.— Alia tamen ratio est rerum saecularium, alia divinarum— c. And, in conc. Chalced. 16. sess. see the answer of the Roman Legates:— Contradictio nostra his gestis inhaereat, ut noverimus quid Apostolico viro Vniversalis Ecclesiae Papae deferre valeamus. And see the confessions of the Council of Chalcedon itself, in Act. 2.— Petrus per Leonem locutus est; and in their Epistle to Leo, set down below, § 25. n. 2. which clearly shows them not to have held the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome to have sprung only from the Secular greatness of the city, but also from the Succession of S. Peter. I have stayed the longer upon this, because of that passage in Dr. Hammond Schism. 5. c. 4. s. See the words of Anacletus, Ep. 3. (if those Epistles he his) in Dr. Field (5. l. 31. c. p. 515.) to the same purpose as Leo's.— See Cyprian (Ep. 55. ad Cornelium, Bishop of Rome, de Fortunato & Faelicissimo Haereticis.) Insuper navigare audent & ad Petri cathedram, atque ad Ecclesiam principalem.— And Ep. 52. Antoniano's. Cum Fabiani locus, id est, cum locus Petri— vacaret; factus est Cornelius Episcopus i. e. of Rome after Fabianus.— Irenaeus, who lived in the 2d. Age, (3. l. 3. c.) Maximae, & antiquissime, & omnibus cognitae, a gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro & Paulo fundatae & constitutae, Ecclesiae, eam, quam habet ab Apostolis, traditionem, & annunciatam hominibus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum usque ad nos pervenientem, indicantes, confundimus omnes eos, qui per sui placentiam &c, praeterquam oportet, colligunt.— Hosius, in the Council of Sardica, can. 3. concerning Appeals to the Bishop of Rome, proposing thus:— Si vobis placet, S. Petri Apostoli memoriam honoremus, ut scribatur Julio Romano Episcopo etc.— Hieron. Ep. to Damasus, concerning the word Hypostasis, whether he might admit it;— Ideo mihi cathedram Petri, & fidem Apostolico ore laudatam censui consulendam.— Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum servatur authoritas, [alias, haereditas.]— Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens, Beatitudinis tuae i. e. cathedrae Petri communione consocior; super illam Petram adificatam Ecclesiam scio. And in another Ep. ad eundem.— Si quis cathedrae Petri jungitur meus est. Greg. l. 4. Ep. 36. Quod mox idem decessor meus ut agnovit, directis literis, ex authoritate S. Petri Apostoli, ejusdem Synodi acta cassavit. And l. 6. Ep. 37. Eulogio Episcopo Alex.— Quis nesciat sanctam Ecclesiam in Apostolorum Principis soliditate firmatam etc.— Cum multi sint Apostoli, pro ipso tamen principatu sola Apostolorum Principis sedes in authoritate convaluit, quae in tribus locis unius est. Ipse enim sublimavit sedem, in qua etiam quiescere & praesentem vitam finire dignatus est. Ipse decoravit sedem, in qua Evangelistam discipulum misit. Ipse firmavit sedem, in qua septem annis, quamvis discessurus, sedit. Cum ergo unius atque una sit sedes, cui ex authoritate divina tres nunc Episcopi president, quicquid ego de vobis boni audio, hoc mihi imputo. Concil. Gen. 8. at Constantinople, can. 21.— Quisquis autem tale facinus contra sedem Petri Principis Apostolorum ausus fuerit intentare etc. By these passages you see he Primacy and Privileges (whatever they were) of the Roman Bishop, anciently imputed to his Succession in the See of S. Peter and S. Paul, and not (or not chief, or only) to the Secular eminency of Rome.]  
But a chief reason also of the so high advancement of these three cities above all the rest, (notwithstanding that there were some other Apostolical Seats, Jerusalem, Ephesus, preferable before Alexandria, and many other cities more dignified, as was urged by the Roman Bishops against that clause in Conc. Chalced. [propter imperium civitatis Romae] than either Alexandria, or Antioch,] seems to be, because these cities, in the beginning and first spreading of Christianity in those several quarters of the world, the East, the West, and the South, were replenished with a much greater number of Christians than others, and were the Mother-churches of all the rest. These three cities, as Dr. Hammond notes, (Schism. 3. c. p. 58.) having the honour to disperse Christianity in a most eminent manner to other cities and nations. For the Churches of Asia were converted by Emissaries from Antioch, (Act. 13.2, 4.) and those of Egypt &c, from Alexandria; and the Western, from Rome. Concerning which, see the testimony of Innocentius the first, Pope, A. D. 408. in his Epistle to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium, quoted before 3. §. Tho I do not deny, that Alexandria in Egypt, having been the Seat of the Successors of Ptolemy, and Antioch in Asia of the Successors of Seleucus; and, under the Romans, being the place of Residence of those their Governors, who were set over the adjacent Provinces; this might somewhat advance the propagation of Christianity more from these cities of so great resort, than from others.  
§ 7 In the 2d. General Council, 
The See of Constantinople advanced to a Patriarchate, in the next place to Rome.  A. D. 381. Constantinople, being now made great, by the Seat of the Empire translated thither, its Bishop was advanced into a fourth Patriarch; and that in the second place next to Rome; which thing was also confirmed in the 4. Gen. Conc. Chalced granting him (Act. 16.) aequa senioris regiae Romae privilegia, i.e. (as they there, and in their Letter to Leo (Act. 3) explain themselves,) to exercise, in such a sense, as the 2d. General Council had decreed before them, a Patriarchal authority; in ordaining the Metropolitans of certain Provinces, and the Bishops also in some others; as also to have the last place of Appeal (Can. 9) in respect of those parts of the Church, with this salvo annexed in behalf of the Roman Bishop; omnem quidem primatum, & honorem praecipuum (secundum Canon's) Antiquae Romae Archiepiscopo conservari; and (as it is said in the 2d. General Council 5th Can. to which former Canon they refer)— Constantinopolitanae Civitatis Episcopum habere oportere primatus honorem post Romanum Episcopum, propter quod sit Nova Roma. though this priority of the Bishop of Constantinople to Alexandria and Antioch was in this Council of Chalcedon much opposed in the behalf of those two Sees (Dioscorus then Bishop of Alexandria being excluded from this Council for Heresy, and so at this time uncapable of pleading for himself) by Leo the then Bishop of Rome. And it seems, that the former 5th Canon (but now recited) made by the Bishops in that part of the 2d. General Council which was assembled at Constantinople, as also the three other Canons there preceding it (which were recited in Concil. Chalced. Act. 16.) were either unknown, or not at all regarded, by the other part of the 2d. General Council, the Western Bishops, who were assembled shortly after that time at Rome. For thus saith Leo of these Canons or Acts, in Ep. to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople,— Nunquam a praedecessoribus tuis ad Apostolicae Sedis transmissa notitiam; and thus his Legates in Conc. Chalced. 16. Act.— Quae in Synodicis Canonibus non habentur. Neither indeed was any such Canon mentioned by the Constantinopolitan Bishops of the 2d. General Council, when they writ to Damasus concerning its Acts. (See 1. conc. Constantinop.) Nor was this foresaid 5th Canon, (when most opportunely it might) but only the Nicene 6th Canon pleaded by S. Chrysostom against Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, offering to judge and depose him. Wherefore Baronius conceives it to be made only by a part of that Council, after Timotheus the Bishop of Alexandria was departed thence. But, however, this Patriarch was, not long after that contention of Leo's, rather by their not contradiction, than approbation), indulged that honour also by the Roman Bishops themselves, (doubtless as conceiving it no abridgement of their own authority,) some Metropolitans being taken from the other Patriarchates, 
The great extent of this Patriarchate in latter times.  and subjected to it. The great extent of which Patriarchy (in latter times especially) if you be curious to know, see Dr. Field 3. l. 1. c. where he assigns, for one reason of such an enlargement of its jurisdiction, the conversion of sundry nations and people to the Christian faith by that Bishop's Suffragans, and Ministers.  
§. 8 Again, in the 5th Gen. Council, above A. D. 550. the Bishop of Jerusalem, out in honour to the Holy City, 
The See of Jerusalem raised to a Patriarchate in the 5th place.  was made the 5th Patriarch; (after some honour and respects beyond other Bishop's first given (or rather wished) to him by the Nicene Council; see 7. Canon.) some Bishops both from that of Alexandria and Antioch being translated to his Jurisdiction.  
§. 9 Amost these  Dignities Ecclesiastical, the Metropolitans were to ordain or confirm the Bishops of their Province, 
The authority of Patriarches, and other Ecclesiastical Governors, for the ordinations, or confirmations, and for judging the causes (upon appeal) of their inferiors.  and the Patriarch was to ordain or confirm the Metropolitans subject unto him, either by imposition of hands, or by mission of the Pall. [See Concil. Chalced. 27. c. and 16. Action: where, advancing the Constantinopolitan Bishop to Patriarchal authority, in the second place to Rome, they conclude, oportere & ipsum potestatem habere ordinare Metropolitanos, etc. & ut penes eum sit, hunc, qui electus est, confirmare, repudiareve. See 8. Gen. Conc. Constant. 17. c.— See Dr. Field 5. l. 31. c. p. 518.— Patriarches were, by the order of the 8. General Council Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans, subject unto them, either by imposition of hands, or giving the Pall.— And 5. l. 37. c. p. 551. Without the Patriarch's assent none of the Metropolitans subject unto them might be ordained. And— What the bring (saith he) proves nothing that we ever doubted of. For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of confirming the Metropolitans within the precinct of his own Patriarchship, as likewise every other Patriarch had: and that therefore, he might send the Pall to sundry parts of Greece, France, and Spain, (as Bellarmin allegeth,) being all within the compass of his Patriarchship.— See Bishop Bramhal, (vindic. 9 c. p. 257. etc. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province, the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate. And afterwards: Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority? in ordaining their Metropolitans, (for with inferior Bishops they might not meddle,) or confirming them, in imposing of hands, or giving the Pall, in convocating Patriarchal Synods, and presiding in them, &c,— when Metropolitical Synods did not suffice to determine some emergent differences or difficulties. Thus he. Neither might any Metropolitan upon any cause separate himself from the communion of his Patriarch, before the examination and sentence of a Council first passed in his behalf. See 8. General Council, 10. c. whose words are,— Nullus Clericus ante diligentem examinationem & Synodicam sententiam a communione proprii Patriarchae se separet, licet criminalem quamlibet causam ejus se nosse praetendat; nec recuset nomen ipsius referre inter divina mysteria. Idem statuimus de Episcopis erga proprios Metropolitas; similiter & de Metropolitis circa Patriarcham suum.— Qui vero contra fecerit, ab omni Sacerdotali operatione & honore decidat. Ante Synodicam sententiam, i. e. of a Council superior to the Metropolitan: for the lower cannot judge the higher, no, not tho assembled together in a council, See Dr. Field l. 5. c. 39 p. 567.) as an Episcopal Synod cannot judge the Metropolitan.] And the firmlier to bind and confine the inferior, to the judgement of the superior, orders of the Clergy, the Church made frequent Canons against their starting aside by appeals to the judgement of Seculars, whether of others, or also of the Emperor himself. See Concil. Antiochen. 11. c. 12. c.— Concil. Sardica. 8. c. Concil. Chalced. 9 c. Si Clericus adversus Clericum habeat negotium, non relinquat suum Episcopum, & ad saecularia judicia non concurrat etc.— Conc. Melevitanum 19 c. Placuit, ut quicunque ab Imperatore cognitionem judiciorum publicorum [i.e. Ecclesiasticorum] petierit, honore proprio privetur, etc. And see Conc. Generale 8. c. 17. & 21. This for Patriarches superiority over, and their cotfirmation of, Metropolitans.  
Next, amongst the Patriarches themselves; § 10 it seems the lower received no ordination from the higher. But yet some confirmation, or approbation, they seem ordinarily to have had from their Superiors, or at least from the Roman Patriarch, by those words of Leo, (Ep. 54. ad Martianum, the then Emperor,) concerning Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople. Satis est, quod praedicto vestrae pietatis auxilio, & mei favoris assensu, Episcopatum tantae Vrbis obtinuit. And,— custodire debuit, ut quod nostro beneficio noscitur consecutus, nullius pravitatis cupiditate turbaret. Nos enim vestrae fidei, & interventionis habentes intuitum, cum secundum suae consecrationis authores ejus initia titubarent, benigniores circa ipsum, quam justiores, esse voluimus; quo perturbationes omnes, quae operante Diabolo fuerunt excitatae, adhibitis remediis leniremus. Thus discourseth the Pope to the Emperor, conscious of all those proceed, concerning his establishing of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch: and by the suit made to the Pope, concerning the settlement of Flavianus in the Patriarchy of Antioch; of which see Theodoret, hist. Eccles. 5. l. 23. c. Likewise concerning the confirming of superior Patriarches by the inferior, that is true, which Dr. Field (5. l. 37. c. p. 551.) saith, in answer to such places urged by Bellarmin, That the manner was, that the Patriarches should (upon notice given of their due Ordination, and Synodal letters, containing a profession of their Faith) mutually give assent one to another. Therefore Cyprian, Antoniano Ep. 52. speaks thus concerning the legitimate election of Cornelius Bishop of Rome, whom Novatianus endeavoured to supplant. Factus est Cornelius Episcopus, cum Fabiani locus vacaret, quo [loco] occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrûm consensione firmato, quisquis jam Episcopus [Romae] fieri voluerit, foris fiat necesse est etc. But that which Dr. Field adds there, viz. That the confirming of the great Bishops of the world pertained not otherwise to the Bishop of Rome, than the right of confirming Him pertained unto Them, cannot justly be defended, even from his own concessions elsewhere, 5. l. 34. c. p. 528. etc. of which see more below § 24.) For no other Bishop could be a lawful Patriarch, without the approbation of the Bishop of Rome, the prime Patriarch: whose withdrawing his communion from any was withdrawing the communion of the whole Church, which hath always continued united to this Apostolic chair; and yet the Bishop of Rome was lawfully such without the approbation of every other Patriarch, so long as his election is not disallowed by the conjunct Hierarchy, or the whole representative of the Church gathered togegether in a Council, as it happened in the Council of Constance. He may have an authority over other Bishops or Patriarches single, which none of them singly hath over him: and yet all of them conjoined may have the same authority over Him, as he hath over any of them single; one singulis major, may be minor universis. Of which see more below, § 22. n. 2. and in 2. Part. § 20.  

§ 11. n. 2.  Likewise, Appeals were permitted from inferior Ecclesiastical, to superior, Judges and Courts; but not of all causes and persons whatever to the supremest Court; lest so should be no end of contentions. So the inferior Clergy in their differences might appeal from their Bishop to their Metropolitan and his Council, Provincial, or National, who were finally to determine such controversies; and such persons to acquiesce in them. Again; Bishops might appeal from their Metropolitan, or from any inferior Courts, to their Patriarch, and his Council; whose final decision, in ordinary contests, they were to rest in; and who, from the remotest of his Provinces, upon appeal, might either bring the cause to be heard by himself, if the moment of the business so required; or send e latere suo presbyteros, (to use the expression of the 7th can. of Sardic. Conc.) or depute some other Bishops of that, or some other neighbouring, Province, to hear the matter, where it was acted: Or lastly, command the Appellant to acquiesce in the former sentence given. See for both these, the Appeals of inferior Clergy, and also of Bishops, Conc. Chalced. can. 9 (compared with Conc. Nic. 6 can. and Conc. Const. 1. can. 5.)— Si Clericus adversus Clericum habet negotium,— agitetur apud proprium Episcopum.— Si Clericus adversus suum vel alium Episcopum habeat causam, apud audientiam Synodi Provinciae conqueratur. Si vero contra ipsius Provinciae Metropolitanum Episcopum Episcopus sive Clericus habeat controversiam, pergant ad ipsius Diocesis (a word in those times of larger extent than that of Province; one Diocese containing in it many Provinces) Primates, aut certe ad Constantinopolitanae regiae civitatis sedem.— Ad Constant. sedem; because by the Eastern Bishops both in this, and in the second General Council, the second Dignity amongst the Patriarches, or Primates, after Rome, was conferred on him; and therefore by this Canon we may gather, That the same repair, as was in such causes permitted to be made in the East to the Constantinopolitan, might as Canonically be made in the West to the Roman, Patriarch. For whatever privilege the Constantinopolitan Bishop had, the Roman had in the first place. See Conc Sard. can. 3, 4, 7, 17. Can. 3. (proposed by Hosius, President formerly in the Nicene Council,) Simo in aliqua Provincia aliquis Episcopus contra fratrem suum Episcopum litem habuerit, unus de duobus ex alia Provincia advocet Episcopum cognitorem. Quod si aliquis Episcopus judicatus fuerit in [aliqua] alia causa, & putat se bonam causam habere, ut iterum Concilium renovetur, si vobis placet S. Petri Apostoli memoriam honoremus, ut scribatur ab his qui causam examinarunt, Julio Romano Episcopo: & si judicaverit renovandum esse, judicium renovetur; & det Judices. Si autem probaverit talem causam esse, ut non refricentur ea, quae acta sunt, quae decreverit confirmata erunt; si hoc omnibus placet: Synodus respondit, Placet.— Can. 4. Cum aliquis Episcopus depositus fuerit eorum Episcoporum judicio, qui in vicinis locis commorantur, & proclamaverit; agendum sibi negotium in urbe Roma, alter Episcopus in ejus Cathedra, post appellationem [i. e. to Rome] ejus qui videtur esse depositus, omnino non ordinetur, nisi causa fuerit in judicio Episcopi Romani determinata.— Can. 7. Si Episcopus accusatus fuerit,— congregati Episcopi regionis ipsius judicaverint; & de gradu suo eum dejecerint, si appellaverit; qui dejectus est, & confugerit ad Episcopum Romanae Ecclesiae, & voluerit se audiri, [which was the course which Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, had take just before this Council, though the no Bishops of the Western Patriarchy, who also were members of this Council,] si justum putaverit, [i.e. Romanus Episcopus,] ut renovetur judicium vel discussionis examen, scribere dignetur his Episcopis, qui in finitima & propinqua Provincia sunt, ut ipsi diligenter requirant, & juxta fidem veritatis definiant. Quod si is, qui rogat causam suam iterum audiri, deprecatione sua moverit Episcopum Romanum, ut e latere suo Presbyterum mittat, fit in potesta●e Episcopi [i.e. Romani] quid velit, & quid aestimet. Et si decreverit mittendos esse, qui praesentes cum Episcopis judicent, habentes ejus authoritatem a quo destinati sunt, erit in suo arbitrio. Si vero crediderit Episcopos sufficere, [i.e. without his Legates,] ut negotio terminum imponant, faciet, quod sapientissimo consilio judicaverit. Can. 17. Si Episcopus forte iracundus (quod esse non debet) cito & aspere commoveatur adversus Presbyterum sive Diaconum suum, & exterminari eum de Ecclesia voluerit; providendum est, ne innocens damnetur, aut perdat communionem, & ideo habeat potestatem is, qui abjectus est, ut Episcopos finitimos interpellet, & causa ejus audiatur, ac diligentius tractetur, quia non oportet ei negare audientiam roganti, etc.  
Thus (probably with some eye to the Justification of Julius his proceeding, concerning Athanasius, 
§ 11. n. 2.  which were reproached by the oriental Arian party) this great Council assembled about twenty years after the Nicene, and establishing the Decrees thereof; having the same Precedent, or chief Prolocutor, in it, with the Council of Nice, (Hosius Bishop of Corduba) and several other Bishops of the Nicene Council, and men eminent in sanctity, (to omit Athanasius), Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem, Paphnutius, Serapion, Spiridion, and other: called Ecumenical by Socrates, l. 2. c. 17. both the Emperors concurring in the calling thereof: and it being subscribed, though not by the Arrian party (a few in comparison, bearing the proportion of 76 to about 300; who seeing, they should be over-voted, departed from the Council), yet by the Orthodox Oriental, as well as Western, Bishops, namely, by Athanasius, by Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem, and by the Bishops of Palestine, (who mostpart adhered to and the Athanasius, and the Nicene Decrees), by Diodorus Bishop of Asia minor, etc. (see the Council).  
Notwithstanding all which, some have endeavoured to disauthorize the Canons thereof, as giving the Roman Bishop too great an authority. See Spalatensis l. 4. c. 8. n. 34. where against these Canons he urgeth: α. That, in corpore antiquo Canonum universalis Ecclesiae, quo Oriens semper usus est, nullus Sardicenfis Canon locum habuit: β That Patres Africani Canoni Sardicensi nihil deferre voluerunt, ubi enim cognoverunt Canonem non esse Nicaenum, illum contempserunt. That Zosimus, si Sardicenses tunc Canones fuissent alicujus authoritatis, non eum dixisset esse Nicaenum; sed id quod erat aperte dixisset, esse Canonem Sardicensem & servandum. γ Lastly, that Photius, about Anno D. 860 express negavit Nicolao Papae Canonem Sardicensem 13 'em ejus ordinationi objicienti se Sardicense Concilium, aut alia Pontificum decreta, habere vel recipere. But in answer to these. To α I oppose,  
1. What Cardinal Perron replied long since to Causaubon, 1. l. 53. c.— That the leaving these Canons out of the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae universalis is against the Faith of all the Greek Canonists, Photius, Zonaras, Balsamon, Harmenopulus, and against the Greek impressions even of Basil, Wirtenberg, and other Protestant towns; and, in sum, against the verity of all the Greek Codes, as well Printed, as Manuscripts, of all the Libraries, Occidental, and Oriental. Thus Perron.  
2. What just cause can be alleged for the rejection of these Canons? Spalatensis allegeth this, (ibid.) quia Sardicae factum est schisma. But this Schism and departure being made by an inconsiderable party, (these some 76, and the other some 300, with the prime Patriarch joined with them, and some eminent Oriental Bishops amongst them,) lest they should be overpowred; how could they do more to disauthorize these Canons, by being divided from the Council, than they could have done, by residing in it, and voting against them? But the dissenting votes of so few in the council surely could not weaken its acts; which receive force, not from all, (for what acts almost have such universal consent?) but from the much major part thereof. But if these Canons, without the concurrence of those persons, were invalid; so was also the Anti- Arrian Creed of this Council, and their sentence in the behalf of Athanasius. And indeed hence, where there is any Schism by some part, no act of the Church can thenceforward be valid. For example: What act of the Church Catholic could be valid at that time against the Arians, if these of Sardica were not?  
3. Let it be granted, that these Canons, rejected at first by these Schismatics, were afterward for some time, in the East, omitted by the Catholics in their collections of the Church's Canons; yet it seems sufficient, that the Oriental Church of latter times, when the Arians were crushed, acknowledged them, as well as the West; which we find done by the Council, Constantinopolitan. in Trullo. Can. 2. Obsignamus reliquos omnes Canon's, qui a sanctis nostris Patribus &c expositi sunt,— similiter & ab eis qui Sardicae convenerunt.  
4. For the equity of these Canons, if we consider any obligation which they lay upon these Western parts of the Church, in respect of the Bishop of Rome, it is no greater than the acknowledged-General Council of Chalcedon layeth on the East, in respect of the Bishop of Constantinople, Can. 9  
5. However it be; the acts of such a Council, wherein the Western Bishops are conceded to have unanimously agreed, are obligatory to the West; and particularly to afric, from whence were present therein 35 Bishops consenting thereto; and no dislike thereof afterwards professed by the African Church of that present time. Nay Gratus, Primate of Carthage, who was present in this Council, quoteth the authority thereof in 1. Conc. Carthag. 5. Can.— Mamini in sanctissimo Concilio Sardicensi statutum— c: But had its Canons been disallowed by the African Church, his quoting them would have prejudiced his matter. Therefore To β I say; neither were these Canons opposed by the African Council (which contested with Zosimus about them) above 60 years after, as known to them to be Sardican Canons, but only because they were utterly ignorant thereof. for 'tis clear by S. Austin's words, contra Crescon. 3. l. 34 c. and Ep. 163. ad Eleusium, that he, who may be presumed as knowing as any other of that Synod, knew of no Sardican Decrees at all, save those made by the separated Arians, I know not where, and called by them Sardican Canons; of which he came to have notice only casually from the Donatists; and, perusing the Book they shown him, found them to be made by the Arians; because (saith he) legi Athanasium & Julium illo Conc. Sardicensi fuisse improbatos. (Ep. 163.) But it had been some advantage to his matter then in hand, had he produced any true and Orthodox Council of Sardica, opposite to this, who defended Athanasius; but of this he is silent. Neither will this altogether seem so strange, when as in another matter we find him confessing himself ignorant also of a Canon of Nice, that There may not be two Bishops resident of the same place at once. See Austin Epist. 110. Quod Concilio Nicaeno prohibitum fuisse nesciebam, nec ipse [Valerius, the former Bishop of Hippo] sciebat. Neither did Zosimus, in all probability, know these Canons, which he urged to the Africans as the Nicene, to have been the Canons of Sardica; for else we would have pressed them for such, being thus as obligatory to the Africans, as if they had been the Nicene. To ● Photius, a single person his rejecting these Canons, when opposite to him, in a matter so nearly concerning himself, 200 years after the Eastern Council in Trullo had acknowledged them amongst the rest, is to be looked on as a piece of passion: and his own putting these Canons also amongst the rest in his Nomocanon, (see Balsam. in Nomocan. Photiis) is a sufficient self-condemnation.  
Thus much for vindicating the authority of this Council. Of which thus Mr. Thorndike. Epilog. 3. l. 20. c. p. 181.— This difference came afterward to be tried by a General Council at Sardica, etc. For surely the Council of Sardica was intended for a General Council, as the Emperor Justinian reckons it, being summoned by both the Emperor Constantius and Constance out of the whole Empire. [and] when the breach fell out, and the Eastern Bishops withdrew themselves to Phillopopolis, the whole power, in point of right, aught, I conceive, to remain on that side which was not the cause of the breach. But the Success sufficiently showeth, that it did not so prevail, [was not obeyed, and submitted to by all, as a General Council,] for many a Council [which followed after this about the Arian opinions,] might have been spared. The sovereign regard of peace in the Church suffered not those, that were in the right, to insist upon the acts of it, as I suppose. In the mean time the Canons thereof, whereby Appeals to the Pope in the causes of Bishops are settled, whether for the West, which it represented, or for the whole [Church] which it had right to conclude, [those Bishops that voted in it] not having caused the breach,) shall I conceive [them] to be forged, because they are so aspersed? they having been acknowledged by Justinian, translated by Dionys. Exiguus, added by the Eastern Church to their Canon-law? Or, shall I not ask [rather], what pretence there could be [in these Canons] to settle Appeals from other parts to Rome, rather than from Rome to other parts, had not a preeminence of power, and not only a precedence of rank, been acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome? Thus Mr. Thorndike candidly of this Famous Council.  
§ 12 The 7th and 17th Canons of this Council above recited, the Bishop of Rome urged, 
A Digression concerning the controversy between the Bishops of afric and Rome about Appeals.  by mistake, to the 6th Carthaginian Council, contesting with him about Appeals, for Canons of Nice. By mistake, I say: For these two Canons are found verbatim the same, with those, which the Pope sent to the African Bishops; as appears by their Epistle to Boniface, wherein the Canons are set down: And the 17th Canon, it seems, was understood (I say not whether rightly) by the Bishop of Rome in such a sense; as that it established his, as well as the finitimi Episcopi's, receiving the appeals of Presbyters. which appears, by his pressing that canon to them; by his admitting the appeals of Apiarius only a Presbyter, the occasion of this controversy; and by the African Bishops opposing him in their Epistle to Celestine,, as well concerning Presbyters as Bishops appeals to Rome. These canons of Sardica (as I have showed out of S. Austin) 'tis probable that the African Bishops had not seen, though they had the consent also of their predecessors; there being no less than 35 Bishops from afric in that council, (Athan. Apol. 2.) and therefore, upon their not finding them amongst the Nicene, as was pretended, nor knowing them to be of the orthodox council of Sardica, they request; That neither the appeals of Presbyters, nor yet of Bishops, might thenceforth be admitted, from thence, by the Roman Bishop, but that their causes might finally be decided by their Metropolitan, or a Provincial Council, defending themselves with the 5th and 6th canons of the Nicene Council: Their words are these.— Impendio deprecamur &c, ne a nobis excommunicatos in communionem ultra velitis accipere; quia hoc etiam Nicaeno Concilio definitum facile advertet Venerabilitas tua. Nam etsi de inferioribus clericis vel laicis videtur ibi praecaveri, quanto magis de Episcopis voluit observari, ne in sua provincia communione suspensi a tua sanctitate vel festinato, vel praepropere, vel indebite videantur communioni restitui? Decreta Nicaena [can. 4.6.] sieve inferioris gradus clericos, sive ipsos Episcopos, suis Metropolitanis apertissime commiserunt.— Maxim quia unicuique concessum est, si judicio offensus sit cognitorum (i.e. of the judges of his cause) ad concilia suae Provinciae, vel etiam universale, provocare. Their reasons are,— Vnicuique Provinciae gratiam Spiritus sancti non defuturam etc.— nisi forte quisquam est qui credat, uni cuilibet posse Deum nostrum examinis inspirare justitiam, & innumerabilibus congregatis in Concilium sacerdotibus denegare. Therefore they desire him, that neither their causes might be judged, by himself at Rome; for Quomodo ipsum transmarinum judicium ratum erit, ad quod testium necessariae personae vel propter sexus, vel propter senectutis, infirmitatem &c, adduci non poterunt? nor by his Legates a latere in afric; for hoc nulla invenimus Patrum synodo constitutum.— and nulla Patrum definitione hoc Ecclesiae derogatum est Africanae. much less; that he would send executores Clericos quibusque petentibus,— ne fumosum typhum saeculi in Ecclesiam Christi— videamur introducere. 
insr. § 25. n. 1.  Executores &c, who by the Secular power, the Emperor's officers there, forced, if need were, the observation of the Bishop of Rome's decrees. See (Aust. Ep. 261.) the complaint S. Austin makes to the Pope of Antonius his threats. From which proceed, they complain in their letter to Bonifacius, that they had suffered much formerly, and more than the Canons he urged, should they be found in the Nicen Council, did impose upon them. And the same dislike of Appeal to Rome may be found, before these times, in S. Cyprian, (Ep. 55. to Cornelius' Bishop of Rome) at least in reference to those particular persons, Fortunatus and Felicissimus, notoriously guilty, and most justly condemned by a Council in afric; where he pleads thus: Nam cum statutum sit omnibus nobis, & aequum sit pariter, ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum, & singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit adscripta, quam regat, rationem sui actus Domino redditurus: oportet utique eos, quibus praesumus, non circumcursare, sed agere illic causam suam, ubi & accusatores habere & testes sui criminis possint; nisi si paucis desperatis & perditis, minor videtur esse authoritas Episcoporum in Africa constitutorum.  
§ 13 Thus have I given you a brief account of this difference between Rome and afric. Meanwhile 'tis plain; that then Appeals were ordinarily made from afric to the Bishop of Rome, and his decrees submitted to, and executed there, and this not only before, but presently after, this contest. See below 23 §. and Leo's 85 Ep. ad Episcopos Africanos. where he writes thus concerning Lupicinus, an ejected African Bishop, appealing to him. Causam quoque Lupicini Episcopi illic jubemus audiri. Cui multum & saepius postulanti communionem hac ratione reddidimus: quoniam cum ad nostrum judicium provocasset immerito eum, pendente negotio, a communione videbamus fuisse suspensum. In which Epistle also he saith; Quod nunc utcunque patimur esse veniale, inultum postmodum esse non poterit, si quisquam id, quod omnino interdiximus, usurpare praesumpserit. Manifest also, that they did at that time what he appointed concerning Apiarius: and promised observance of the two Canons, till the return of the copy of the Nicene canons out of the East; and, after this return, some expressions in their letter they let fall, as if they would not offer to throw off altogether his interest in their affairs. Impendio deprecamur, ut deinceps ad vestras aures hinc venientes, non facilius admittatis. [Upon which words Spalatensis comments thus. (4. l. 8. c. 32. n.) Rogant, ut Episcopi non tam facile audiantur, [i.e. a Roman Pontifice,] nisi videlicet notoria & manifesta adsit suspicio in propriae Provinciae Episcopis omnibus, aut maxima eorum parte. For he grants there, ubi gravis & notoria est suspicio erga proprios & primarios Judices, Ep scopos reos potuisse ad aliena [or extera] judicia, praesertim vero ad sedes Apostolicas recurrere. and quotes for it S. Austin Ep. 162. in Caetilians case.]— And voluit observari [i.e. the Council of Nice,] ne in sua Provincia communione suspensi, a tua sanctitate vel festinato, vel prapropere, vel ind●bite, videantur communioni restitui. And the 22. canon of the Milevitan Council, held by them about the time of this contest, prohibits transmarine Appeals only to the inferior Clergy: Placuit, ut Presbyteri, Diaconi, vel caeteri inferiores Clerici, in causis, quas habuerint &c non provocent, nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum etc.  
§ 14 Again: Notwithstanding what hath been said by the Africans in this matter, 
Whether transmarine Appeals in some cases very necessary,  yet here may be made still a Quaere; Whether, in a controversy between Bishops and their Metropolitan; and much more in controversies between Metropolitans, or Primates; or also Patriarches themselves, such transmarine Appeals were not necessary, and were, at all, or at least justly, by the African Bishops, in anysuch cases, opposed. For the mere proving of an opposition engageth us no more to the opinion of one side than of the other; neither may we argue the Bishop of Rome unjustly claimed it, because they opposed it; no more than that they unjustly opposed it, because he claimed it. As for the 5th Nicene Canon urged by them, themselves grant it, and it is manifest to any Reader, to speak in express terms only of inferior Clergy; and in their application of it to Bishops, they qualify it with a— ne festinato, ne praepropere. For the common practice of former times, in Athanasius, &c, shows, that the Roman Bishop was not prohibited by these Canons to admit into his communion any Bishop, excommunicated by his Province, if he found him wrongfully Suspended; and therefore 'tis true also, that the 6th canon, Episcopos suis Metropolitanis apertissime commisit, but not in every case unappealably to Superiors, as appears by the African Bishop's qualification in that Epistle. Ne festinato, ne praepropere, quoted before. As for the several Reasons they give, to these it may be replied on the other side: That the Patriarch, though he were neither more prudent, nor better informed from others in difficult matters, nor more assisted from Heaven, (yet 'tis probable, that such might, as having a more choice election, both be more knowing, and, according to the eminency of his place, assisted, both with a wiser Council, and a greater portion of God's Spirit,) yet must he needs be a less partial Judge in such matters; because not so nearly interessed, in the cause, nor in the persons, as the Metropolitan often must be; or also other Bishops, who live upon the place, and are subject to his power. That the Provincial Councils, which they mention, though their judgement were never so entire, were not always to be had, and were much seldomer assembled than the Canons appoint; much rarer yet Councils universal: neither of them (by reason of the great trouble) fit, upon every such difference, to be called. And hence fails that Apology, which Dr. Field (5. l. 39 c. p. 563.) makes for the Africans in these words. The Africans, though within the Patriarchship of Rome, disliked the Appeals of Bishops to Rome; because they might have right against their Metropolitans in a general Synod of afric, wherein the Primate sat as Precedent: for otherwise Bishops wronged by their Metropolitans might by the canons appeal to their own Patriarch. Thus far he. Therefore the Africans, denying this, went against the canons. That the canons of the Council of Sardica, which the African Bishops (then) knew not of, were sufficient to warrant his receiving of such appeals; and if any former African decrees be pleaded against him, much more may these of Sardica, for him. That many cases are not matter of fact, where witnesses are necessary, but questions de jure, where the fact is confessed; and that in such, no more plea can be made to have them tried at home, than the Mosaical Legalists of Antioch could justly have demanded not to have this matter arbitrated at Jerusalem; or Arius of Alexandria, at Nice. That for the conveniency of hearing witnesses, where necessary in such appeals, it was ordered indeed anciently, that, whensoever it could safely be done, such causes should be arbitrated in the same, or some adjoining Provinces; by some Judges, either sent thither, or there delegated by the Patriarch, (of which the 7th canon of Sardica seems to take special care,) in the nonobservance of which canons some Roman Bishops perhaps may have been culpable, and caused great affliction to their subjects: but yet, that other exigencies might occur, (every cause not being fit to be decided by delegates,) which required the trial to be at the Patriarchal residency, to which the trouble of witnesses must give place; which trials at Rome are also allowed by the Council, (see Conc. Sard. can. 4.) And this grave Assembly, we have no reason to think, but that they weighed the troubles of such appeals, as well as the Africans afterward, or we now; but thought fit to admit smaller inconveniences, to avoid greater mischiefs; namely, in the intervals of Councils, schisms and divisions between Provincial, and between National, Churches, by the Church her having thus so many Supremes, terminating all Spiritual causes within themselves, as there were Provinces or countries, Christian. See Dr. Field, allowing such appeals, (below, §. 20.) and especially S. Austin, Ep. 162. where he justifies the appeal of Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage, wronged by a Council of 70. Bishops held in afric, whereof was Precedent the Primate of Numidia, whose power and authority Dr. Hammond equals to that of Patriarches, (Schism 3. c. p. 58.) to a transmarine judgement, (though Donatus his party much crying out against such appeals, and though it was in a matter merely of fact; namely, whether Caecilian was ordained by some, who were traditores sacrorum Codicum igni, in time of persecution,) because such judgement was dis-engaged in the quarrel. His words are,— Sibi [i.e. Caeciliano] videbat apud Ecclesiam transmarinam, a privatis inimicitiis & ab utraque parte dissensionis alienam, incorruptum & integrum examen suae causae remanere.— And again, Qui [i.e. Caecilianus] posset non curare conspirantem multitudinem inimicorum, [i.e. in afric,] cum se videret & Romanae Ecclesiae, in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit Principatus, & caeteris terris— per communicatorias literas esse conjunctum, ubi paratus esset causam suam dicere: (for all Churches had power to clear and examine his cause, in respect of entertaining communion with him, and sending their communicatory letters etc. though all Churches had not such power, in respect of righting him against his adversaries, but only his superior Patriarch): Again,— An fort non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus cum Collegis transmarinis Episcopis illud sibi usurpare judicium, quod ab Afris septuaginta, ubi Primas [Numidiae] Tigisitanus praesedit, fuerat terminatum? Quid, quod nec usurpavit? Rogatus quip Imperator Judices misit Episcopos, qui cum eo sederent, & de tota illa causa, quod justum videretur, statuerent. This transmarine judgement here you see S. Austin justifies, notwithstanding the Donatists might have used the foresaid (§. 12.) plea of the African Fathers of the 6th Council, and of Cyprian; especially in the trial of a matter of fact.  
§. 15 [But concerning this foreign judgement of Caecilians cause, before I leave it, I must not conceal to you, what Calvin (Instit. l. 4. c. 7. s. 10.) relates thereof, in prejudice of the Pope's authority: objecting there; That Caecilian had his cause tried indeed by the Bishop of Rome; but, by him only as the Emperor's Delegate; and not by him singly, but with other special Delegates joined with him; that, from this judgement, an appeal being made by Caecilians adversaries, than the Emperor Constantine, so great an honourer of the Church's privileges, appointed the Bishop of Arles in France; Qui sedet Judex (saith he) ut post Roman. Pontificem, quod visum fuerit, pronunciet. And again, an appeal being made from him also, ('tis further urged), That the Emperor judged the cause, after all, himself. For answer to which, I refer you to the relation of this story by St. Augustin, against the Donatists, Epist. 162. where you will find those Assessors to be joined by the Emperor to the Bishop of Rome, ad preces Donatistarum; who well knew Melchiades much favouring Caecilians cause. (You may see Constantine's Letter to Melchiades, and Marcus, one of his Assessors, in Eus. l. 1. c. 5.) The Donatists, here cast, pretending some new evidence, requested of the Emperor yet another hearing of their cause; upon which,— dedit Ille (saith St. Austin) aliud Arelatense judicium, aliorum scil. Episcoporum [this was the Council of Arles, assembled in Constantine's time, of which see more below § 23. n. 7. consisting of two hundred Bishops, as Baronius conjectures out of St. Austin, which Council included, with more added to them, Caecilians former Judges] none quia jam necesse erat; sed eorum perversitatibus cedens, & omni modo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere.— Afterward they importunately appealing also from this Council to the Emperor's own judgement; He, very earnest by any means to quell this growing division in the African Churches, cessit eyes (saith St. Austin) ut de illa causa post Episcopos judicaret, a sanctis Antistitibus postea veniam petiturus: dum tamen illi quod ulterius dicerent non haberent, si ejus sententiae non obtemporarent. See likewise Dr. Fields concessions (l. 5. c. 53. p. 682.) concerning this business, both that the cause was judged by a Synod at Arles; and that the Emperor's hearing the cause after them was irregular. After this you may review what truth there is in the objection of Calvin.]  
§ 16 Excuse this digression which I have made from § 12. concerning the difference between the African and Roman Bishop, arising from these Canons of Sardica there urged. Against which Canons whereas it is pretended; 1. That they authorise the Roman Bishop only to judge such causes by his Deputies upon the place, often said by Dr. Field; see in him p. 530. 2. That the 9th Canon of Chalcedon, a Council following this, in ordering the Appeal ad Constantinopolitanae regiae civitatis sedem ut eorum ibi negotium terminetur, contains something contrary to them. The first appears not true; by can. 4. Sard.— [& proclamaverit (i. e. Episcopus depositus) agendum sibi negotium in urbe Roma— & nisi causa fuerit in judicio Episcopi Romani determinata]: By the privilege granted to the Constantinopolitan, and inferior Patriarch to the Roman, Con. Chal. c. 9 [ut eorum ibi negotium terminetur]: By the ordinary practice of the Roman Bishops in those early times; thence therefore is the African Expostulation with him, [Quomodo judicium transmarinum ratum erit, ad quod testium necessariae personae etc. adduci non possunt?] And the like you may see urged by Cyprian, see Field p. 563. Lastly, by Dr. Field's confession (l. 5. c. 34. p. 531.) That the Pope with his Western Bishops might examine and judge, at Rome, the differences between two Patriarches; or between a Patriarch and his Bishops; as 'tis clear he did, a little before the Sardican Council, judge at Rome the cause of Athanasius); how much more then, the differences, when of moment, of the Subjects of his own Patriarchy? To the second, 'tis confessed, That that Canon, in respect of some parts, namely of the East; and of some differences, namely of Bishops there, with their Metropolitans; doth restrain those of Sardica: But first, The African Controversy was before the Council of Chalcedon. Again, for the West at least, it must be granted, that those Canons stand good still, and are not weakened, but strengthened rather, and imitated by Chalcedon; which Council thought fit, in this Canon, to give that authority which Sardica conferred on the Roman, to a Seat inferior to the Roman; much more therefore may the Roman See, if the Constantinopolitan, have such privileges. But lastly, we know also, that in this point of the Bishop of Constantinople's Dignity and Power, the Eastern Bishops of that Council were opposed by the Bishop of Rome and his Legates.  
§. 17 After these Sardican Decrees, concerning these Appeals from inferior to superior Ecclesiastical Judges, see the eighth General Council, can. 26. (against which Council, though the Grecians, in Conc. Florent. sess. 6. oppose the Decrees of another following it, yet it is not contradicted in this I quote out of it, by that, or any other later Council).—  qui se laesum arbitrabitur a proprio Episcopo possit Metropolitanum appellare, qui datis dimissoriis ad se causam advocet. Liceat tamen Episcopis provocare ad Patriarcham, si crediderint se injustitiam pati a Metropolitano, a quo litibus finis imponatur. After which Canon, I will set you down that passage of the English Bishops, upon their relinquishing the See of Rome, (in their Book of the Institution of a Christian man, in Sacr. of Orders, quoted by Dr. Hammond, Schism c. 5. and much relied on by King James in Apol. pro juramento fidel. p. 124.) that you may see whether things were well-considered by them.— It was (say they) many hundred years before the Bishop of Rome could acquire any power of a Primate over any other Bishops, which were not within his Province in Italy. And the Bishops of Rome do now transgress their own profession made in their Creation. For all the Bishops of Rome, always when they be consecrated and made Bishops of that See, do make a solemn profession and vow, that they shall inviolably observe all the Ordinances made in the Eight first General Councils; among which it is especially provided, that all causes shall be determined within the Province where they begun, and that by the Bishops of the same Province: which absolutely excludes all Papal (i. e. foreign) power out of these Realms. Now the Canons the Bishops refer to, are— Conc. Nic. c. 6. 1 Conc. Const. c. 2, 3. and Conc. Milevit. c. 22. which Canons, how little they make for their purpose, see below § 19, etc. and before, § 14. But the Pope making solemn vow to observe Conc. 8. can. 26. as well as these, did he vow contradictions? or, if these contradicting, doth not, in Ecclesiastical constitutions, the later stand in force? Again; for not appealing of all persons in every cause to the supreme Ecclesiastical Court, see Conc. Milev. whereof St. Austin was a member, Can. 22. Placuit, ut Presbyteri, Diaconi, vel caeteri inferiores Clerici, in causis quas habuerint, si de judiciis Episcoporum questi fuerint, vicini Episcopi eos audiant, & inter eos quicquid est, finiant adhibiti ab eis ex consensu Episcoporum suorum. Quod si & ab eis provocandum putaverint, non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad Primates Provinciarum suarum. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverint appellandum, a nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipiantur. But note here, that this Canon was made only concerning inferior Clergy, not Bishops (though some mistakingly urge it against any appeals whatever;) and (as Bellarmin saith) was ratified by Innocentius Bishop of Rome, quoting his Epistle (among St. Austin's the 93.) though indeed that Epistle confirms nothing else save their Decrees against Pelagius. But however, this is a thing, it seems by Bellarmin, that the Pope will not oppose. See about this non-appealing, Dr. Field l. 5. c. 39 p. 562. where he brings in also further, to confirm this, the Imperial Constitution Justin. Novelae Const. 123. c. 22. Lastly, see Bell. (de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 24.) confessing a restraint of some appeals, not allowed to be made to the Patriarch; where he saith, Quaestio de Apellationibus ad Romanum Pontificem non est de appellationibus Presbyterorum & minorum Clericorum, sed de appellationibus Episcoporum, etc. Therefore in that 'foremention'd contention between Zosimus Bishop of Rome and the African Bishops, met in the 6th Council of Caerthage, about the appeal made to Rome of one Apiarius an African Presbyter, who had a controversy only with his Bishop, the deciding of which by Canons is referred to the Metropolitan and his Council, or to the Episcopi finitimi, (Conc. Sard. can. 17.) it may be made a question, whether the Pope was not mistaken in it, (if he contended not only for appeal of Bishops having controversy with their Metropolitans, but also countenanced that of Apiarius); considering what was delivered in the Canon's , § 18 
Those not subjected to any Patriarch for Ordination, yet subjected for decision of Controversies,  and what is also conceded by the Cardinal.  
As for those Churches, who were under no Patriarch, i. e. in respect of their Metropolitan's receiving his Ordination from any Patriarch; as Cyprus is conceived by some to be, from Conc Ephes. can. 8. and Conc. Const. in Trullo, can. 39 (If these Canons do not prohibit rather the Patriarch of Antioch from hindering the Metropolitans of Cyprus to ordain other Bishops without his concurrence or consent, as the [Rem novam] in the beginning of the 8th Canon of Ephesus, and other expressions, seem to import. see below § 19) Yet 1. They were not free and exempt from all foreign judgements, when any differences and contentions arose in any such Churches; but to them, or at least the principal of them, were (when questioned) to give account of their Orthodox Faith and Canonical Obedience; if they meant, to retain any Communion with the rest of the Church Catholic, and to receive communicatory Letters as testimonials thereof. See for this St. Aug. Epist. 162. where he hath discoursed it at large. 2. Neither were they free from the jurisdiction of some Patriarch, or other, so far as the Canons of any General Council subjected them thereto. For example; That 7th Canon of Sardica [Si Episcopus etc.] being delivered indefinitely, obliged the Cyprian Bishops as much as any other. For the Law of a Legislator, who hath power to oblige all, obligeth all, if none be therein excepted. Now General Councils have just authority of decreeing a subordination, as they please, of Ecclesiastical Persons and Courts, for the unity and peace of the Church; or else their common practice hath mistaken the right. The same may be said of the obligation of the 9th Canon of Chalcedon, etc. According to which Canons, since experience hath showed, and you may see it in Dr. Fields concessions, that many of those, whom the Protestants make independent Primates (as those of Carthage, Milan, etc.) have yielded to the Patriarchal jurisdiction; the practice of these Primates (if allowed by them) infers the duty of the rest: if disallowed, they must charge such Primates, not to have known or maintained their own privileges. But 3ly, such non-subordinate Churches can plead no more privilege, than absolute Patriarches have, being, if equal to, yet not advanced above, these. But amongst Patriarches themselves, in matters of difference and appeal, the inferior were liable to the judgement of the superior Patriarches (as shall be showed presently) therefore must the Cyprians, or other, be the like; there being the same reason of all, the preserving of the unity and communion of the whole Church Catholic, in which one Church is not more concerned than others. Therefore Dr. Field (l. 5. c. 30. p. 513. where, in answer to Bellarmin's pretending a Monarchical Government of the Church as necessary, he goes to show how her unity might well be, and was anciently, preserved without it, by several subordinations which were in the Church) discourseth thus: If a Synod consisted of the Metropolitans and Bishops of one Kingdom or State only, the chief Primate was Moderator: If, of many [Kingdoms], one of the Patriarches and chief Bishops of the whole world [was Moderator]: every Church being subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches, and incorporate into the Unity of it. 3ly, The actions of a whole Patriarchship were subject to a Synod Ecumenical. And l. 5. c. 39 p. 563. he quotes, the Emperor's Decree (Novel. 123. c. 22.) that Bishops being at variance were finally to stand to, and not to contradict, their own Patriarch's judgement. And Gregory's (l. 11. ep. 54.) addition to it; That if there be no Patriarch, than the matter must be ended by the Apostolic See, the Head of all Churches.— And accordingly we find in the Patriarchal Councils of the West, all the Western Churches whatever (I dispute not here, whether subject, or no, to the Patriarch) assembling in them, and subject to the prevailing Votes and Decrees.  
§ 19 [Against what is said above, is much urged, by the Reformed, the second and third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople. 
Every Province not supreme, for finally determining the differences arising therein.  The words are these; Episcopi, qui extra Dioecesim sunt, ad Ecclesias, quae extra terminos earum sunt, non accedant; neque confundant & permisceant Ecclesias. Alexandria quidem Episcopi solius Orientis [Aegypti saith another Translation] curam gerant, servatis honoribus Primatus ecclesiae Antiochenae, qui in regulis Nicaenae Synodi continentur. Sed & Asianae Dioecesis Episcopi ea quae sunt in Asia, & quae ad Asianam tantummodo Diaecesis habeant curam. Thraciae vero etc. And c. 3. Non invitati Episcopi ultra Dioecesim accedere non debent super ordinandis aliquibus, vel quibuscunque disponendis Ecclesiasticis causis. Manifestum namque est, quod per singulas quasque Provincias Provincialis Synodus administrare & gubernare omnia debeat; secundum ea quae sunt in Nicaea definita.— 5. c. Veruntamen [as it is in one Translation] Constantinopolitanus Episcopus habeat honoris primatum post Romanum Episcopum etc. The title to which Canons, being all joined into one, in one Translation is, De ordine singularum Dioeceseon; & de privilegiis, quae Aegyptiis, Antiochenis, Constantinopolitanisque debentur. These Canons are urged to prove; That all Provinces are for power absolute, and supreme: That every cause and controversy between any persons should be determined finally within the Provinces, where the matters did lie; and that by the Bishops of the same Provinces, from whom might be no further appeal: and, That no Bishop should exercise any power out of his own Diocese, or Province; and consequently, neither the Roman Bishop, out of his Province in Italy. And, because here follows some preeminence granted to the Constantinopolitan Bishop post Romanum, that this may not be thought to contradict what goes before, they say, that this preeminence of the Constantinopolitan Bishop is dignitatis only, not potestatis. To all which I answer,  
1. That these Canons are capable of another interpretation; namely, That neither Patriarch, nor Primate, or Metropolitan, should meddle in the affairs of any other Patriarchy, or Province coordinate, and over which he had no Jurisdiction in such affairs; i e. over which, neither by ancient custom, nor constitutions of Councils, he could claim any such Superiority. (See the limitation, Concil. Ephes. c. 8.— Quae non prius, atque ab initio etc. and Can. Apostol. 36. Quae illi nullo jure subjectae sunt; a clause clause still retained in these canons, to preserve the prerogatives Patriarchal.) Not those of Alexandria with the affairs of Antioch, [solius Aegypti curam gerant, servatis honoribus Ecclesiae Antiochenae,] without encroaching upon them; or the Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch meddling with the Ordination of Bishops in the Provinces subjected to them. Nor those of Asia with those of Thrace; to whom Thrace owed no subjection. Again, That in every Province the Provincial Synod be the supreme and last Court, above any other authority in that Province; and exclusively to the judgements of the Bishops of any neighbouring Provinces, which are only coordinate with it. See them below, § 28. called by Gregory, Episcopi alieni Concilii; and §. 26. this interpretation further confirmed.  
2. That their interpretation of these canons cannot be true: 1. Neither in this; that they would make every Province independent, and supreme; because both the Bishop of Alexandria, and of Antioch, which are here mentioned, had more than one Province subjected unto them, (yet all called their Diocese or Province, taken in a larger sense); and the Bishop of Constantinople, who is not mentioned or limited in the 2d. Canon (Conc. Constantinop.) as others, had several of the Provinces here-named, as Pontus, Asia, Thrace, subjected to him, and that by this very Council. For which see Conc. Chalced. Act. 16.— Centum & quinquaginta Deo amantissimi Episcopi [i.e. the Fathers of this Constantipolitan Counci] rationabiliter judicantes &c Vrbem [Constant.] in Ecclesiasticis (sicut illa [Roma]) majestatem habere negotiis,— & his, qui de Ponto sunt, & de Asia & Thracia dioecesibus, Metropolitanos ordinari a praedictae Constant. Sedis sanctissima Ecclesia; where these Fathers expound what was meant here by Episcopi Thraciae gubernent quae Thraciae, in the words following: namely, ut unusquisque Metropolita praefatarum Dioecesium— ordinet suae regionis Episcopos, sicut divinis Canonibus [i.e. the canons of Nice, and these of Constantinople] est praeceptum. Thus are Pontus and Asia &c subjected to the See of Constantinople, though not for the ordaining of their Bishops, yet for the ordinations of their Metropolitans, and also for Appeals: as may be seen in their 9th. and 16th. canons, which seems to be the meaning of that Majestas in Ecclesiasticis negotiis, which they gave him post Romam. And all this they do, after these very canons were first recited in the Council;— definitionem sanctissimorum Patrum sequentes ubique, & regulam, & ea quae nunc relecta sunt [i. e. these canons] centum & quinquaginta Episcoporum etc. Which to confirm to you yet farther, see the Subscriptions of those Bishops of Asia, and Pontus, &c, of one,— Ego gratum habeo sub sede Constantinopolit. esse, quoniam & ipse ordinavit; of another, secundum sententiam Patrum 150 voluntate propria subscripsi. Therefore the Primacy post Romanam, granted by Const. Concil. Constantinopol. to the Bishop thereof, was not dignitatis only, but potestatis, (and therefore much more the Primacy of Rome,) as the Chalcedon Fathers expound these canons. But, if we say, that they misunderstood, yet than they have at least sufficiently reversed them, and nulled their force, because they, coming after the other, have made a contrary decree, which at least in matters of Ecclesiastical constitution, annuleth the former. 2. Neither is their interpretation true in this, viz. That Provincial Councils may finally determine all causes thereof, exclusively to all others whatsoever: for so they would not be subject to Patriarchal, nor Universal Councils; nor would any appeals from them at all be lawful; contrary, to what is said but now, (Con. Chalc. 9 c. see likewise the can. of Sardica.) and to the known common practice of Antiquity; (of which hereafter follow many instances.) and also in the 8th. canon of this very Council which they urge, (as it is extant in Balsamon,) examinations of matters are remitted from Provincial Councils to a greater Synod of the Diocese. Quod si evenerit, ut Provinciales Episcopi, crimina, quae Episcopo intentata sunt, corrigere non possunt, [placuit &c] tunc ipsos [accusatores] accedere ad majorem Synodum Dioecesis illius etc.  
3. It may be answered; Whatever these canons mean, that, one part of this Council sitting at Constantinople, the other at Rome, they received no confirmation from those at Rome: (See, for this, what is said before, § 7.) And it is observable, that though there is mention made in them of Antioch and Alexandria, yet is there none made of the limitations of the Roman, or the Western, Dioceses; no, nor yet of limiting the Constantinopolitan Bishops, whom they ordered to be the second to Rome: for we read not in them, Constantinopolitanae Dioecesis Episcopi, ea quae ad Constantinopolitanam tantummodo Dioecesim pertinent, gubernent.  
Lastly, Patriarches themselves, 
§. 20. n. 1. The Patriarches also subjected to the judgement of a superior Patriarch.  and those who had complaints against them, (according to Dr. Fields concessions, 5. l. 39 c. and 34. c. p. 530.) might appeal to, and were to be judged by, those of their own rank, in order before them, assisted by inferior Bishops. And the Bishop of Rome, (saith he p. 568.) as first in order amongst the Patriarches, assisted with his own Bishops, and the Bishops of him that is thought faulty, [though these latter I do not always find necessary, 
The power of Jurisdiction (not only primacy of Dignity) of the Bishop of Rome above the rest of the Patriarches and Bishops.  or present at such judgements, as appears in the instances here following] might judge any of the other Patriarches; and such as had complaints against them might fly to him, and the Synods of Bishop's subject to him; and the Patriarches themselves, in their distresses, might fly to him and such Synods for relief and help. Tho (saith he) of himself alone he had no power to do any thing. And (5. l. 52. c. p. 668.) when (saith he) there groweth a difference between the Patriarches of one See, and another; or between any of the Patriarches, and the Metropolitans and Bishops subject to them; the superior Patriarch (not of himself alone, but with his Metropolitans, and such particular Bishops as are interested) may judge and determine the differences between them. And (5. l. 34. c. p. 531.) — He assents to the saying of Gelasius Bishop of Rome, urged by Bellarmin: That no other particular Church or See may judge the Church of Rome; seeing every other See is inferior to it. Thus Herald Whose Concessions if it may be thought that they are too free, and too indulgent to the Church of Rome; and therefore that the testimonies of this single person ought not to be so much pressed, as I have, and shall press them in this discourse; I first advertise you, that they are such as seem forced from him most-what in his answers to the authorities out of the Primitive times, collected by Bellarmin: and then I desire, that, any perusing the same authorities, would try, if himself can shape any less-yeilding answer that may be satisfactory, (except this; the utter rejecting and renouncing all such Authorities which, prudent men see, would give too much advantage to the Roman cause,) and I am content that Dr. Fields concessions, and whatever is built thereon in this discourse, be cancelled, and nullified. But, in some manner to second Dr. Fields judgement and relation of this matter, I will add to it several concessions of the Archbishop of Spalleto, a copious writer also on this subject; who of the ancient privileges of Patriarches, and, amongst them, especially of the Roman, speaks thus. 3. l. 10. c. 26. n. Sicut Metropolitanus Episcopus suffraganeos suos errantes corripere & corrigere debet & emendare, ita si Metropolitanus erret sive in moribus, sive in judiciis & acts suis, ne etiam in hoc Synodus semper cum incommodo conveniat, a Patriarchis voluit Ecclesiastica consuetudo & lex Metropolitanos emendari; nisi tam gravis sit causa & publica, praesertim fidei, ut totius regionis Synodus, sive & Oecumenica debeat convenire; [of which cause surely the Patriarch is to judge, since he only, not they, hath the authority of convocating such Council.] Ita in Concil. Chalced. cap. 9 statutum est, ut si adversus Provinicae Metropolitanum Episcopus vel Clericus habeat querelam, petat Primàtem Dioeceseos, aut sedem Regiae Vrbis Constantinopolitanae, & apud ipsam judicetur. Et in octava Synodo Generali Canon expressus ponitur de Potestate Patriarcharum & Metropolitanorum sub his verbis, Haec sancta & magna Synodus tam in seniori & nova Roma, quam in sede Alexandria &c priscam consuetudinem decernit in omnibus conservari, it a ut eorum Praesules [the Patriarches] universorum Metropolitanorum, qui ab ipsis promoventur, (sive per manus impositionem, sive per Pallii dationem) Episcopalis Dignitatis firmitatem accipiant, habeant potestatem; viz. ad convocandum eos urgente necessitate ad Synodalem conventum, vel etiam ad coercendum illos & corrigendum, cum fama eos super quibusdam delictis forsan accusavenit. So 4. l. 4. c. 5. n. of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch he saith: Jam introductam consuetudinem ut causae Ecclesiasticae totius Orientis, quae in propriis Provinciis terminari vix possent, ad Sedem Constantinopolitanam deferrentur, Concilium hoc Chalcedonense bis confirmavit. And 9 c. 1. n. of the Roman Patriarch thus.— Quia Patriarchae (ut disserui 3. l. 10. c.) alia Privilegia habent in quibus superant Metropolitanos, habebit etiam Romanus Pontifex omnia Patriarchalia Privilegia; Palli●m sibi subjectis Metropolitanis illud petentibus concedere &c eosdem a lege Divina vel sacris Canonibus deviantes corripere, & in officio continere; controversias inter eosdem exortas componere, causasque eorundem interdum [i. e. in causis gravioribus] audire & decidere; totius Patriarchatus Concilia convocare.— Romanum tamen Patriarcham adhuc in quibusdam peculiari quadam ratione supra omnes etiam Patriarchas excellere jam ostendo. He goes on there 14. n.— Ex loco sui primi Patriarchatus sacrorum Canonum primus habebatur, & praecipuus observator, custos, ac vindex; quos si alicubi violari cognosceret, acer monitor insurgebat. [He seems loath to say, judex, though he hath said it before.]— 15. n. Secundum Privilegium Episcopi Romani fuit, ut ad ipsum quicunque Episcopi cujuscunque Provinciae & Regionis [not only of his Patriarchy] qui se ab Episcopis propriae Provinciae gravari sentirent, in judiciis Ecclesiasticis, tanquam ad sacram anchoram, confugerent; apud ipsum innocentiam suam probaturi: [he seems loath to say, that they repaired to him to have their causes heard and judged by him, and to have restitution to their places from him; though nothing is more clear than this, in Athanasius his, and many other cases instanced-in below: but presently he confesseth,]— Romani Pontifices de facto eos sedibus suis restituebant, & ab objectis criminibus tanquam si essent supremi judices absolvebant; and this so anciently as Cyprian's time, and before the first General Council of Nice.]— 16. n.— Romanus Pontifex propter summam ipsius existimationem, commune quasi vinculum & nodus erat praecipuus Catholicae communionis in tota Ecclesia.— Catholicae communionis dux & arbiter, ut cui ipse suam communionem vel daret, vel adimeret, caeterae quoque Ecclesiae omnes ordinarie darent pariter, vel adimerent. (So elsewhere he saith, (8. c. 2. n.) Communio cum Ecclesia Romana maximi semper facta est in Ecclesia totius Imperii Romani universali.) Propter summam ipsius existimationem, saith he; but he mentions not the cause which the Ancients give, because it was Prima Sedes Apostolica, & Cathedra Petri & Pauli; for if he were so then [Dux &c,] for this reason, so he ought to be to all Christians still.— 17. n. Quartum fuit Privilegium, ut nihil grave in Ecclesia universali, nisi consulto prius Romano Pontifice, statueretur, aut tractaretur; cujus etiam in his non modo Consilium, sed consensus quoque enixe requireretur. [He joins.] Ita tamen ut absolute necessarius non esset; neque si abessent, Definitiones cassaret, aut impediret. But this is contrary to the ancient Church-Canon, Sine Romano Pontifice etc. see below 21. §. and how else will he void the Heretical acts of the 2d. Ephesine Council?— Lastly, 12. c. 5. n. thus he speaks of the Legates of the Roman Bishops. Medio tempore [in which time he reckons Leo Magnus to be, and might-truly have gone higher had he pleased, but Leo was before the 4th General Council] Romani Pontifices coeperunt aut extraordinarios Legatos a latere suo in alienas Provincias mittere, aut ordinarios in ipsis Provinciis habere, alicui ex illius Provinciae Episcopis suas vices committentes, & utrosque cum potestate jndiciaria & non sine jurisdictione. Eorum totum munus hoe medio tempore fuit rebus fidei in illa Provincia superintendere, & observare, ne quid ipsa fides detrimenti patiatur; Canonum observationi invigilare, & corrigenda corrigere, & reformare; & judicia, quae putabantur Romam esse deferenda, leviora absolvere, graviora Domino Papae refer. Thus Herald  
And indeed, 
§ 20. n 2.  frequent examples there are of the Bishop of Rome's using a judicial authority, in some matters, over the chiefest members of the Universal Church. Frequent examples of wronged both Bishops and Patriarches, appealing and repairing unto him for redress, even in early times when his power is said to have been so great. Which redress he afforded them; By summoning their adversaries also, though under another Patriarchat, to appear before him: By examining their cause, and declaring them innocent by and with his own Patriarchal Council, or with so many Bishops as could well be convened, if the cause were of moment: By allowing and retaining them in his communion: By declaring the proceed and acts of their adversaries (when discovered by him to be against the former Ecclesiastical Canons) null and void. Whilst He, as the prime Bishop of the world, seemed to have a superintendency in the interval of General Councils, for the observation of the Ecclesiastical Canons established by former Synods, not only (if we may judge by the practice of those ancient and holy Bishops of Rome) over his own Patriarchat, but over the whole Church; of which see more § 21. and 25. etc. by writing to other Patriarches and Synods, to do the same, and to permit them quietly to enjoy their Dignities; by pronouncing the sentence of Excommunication upon refractory offenders, though it were those of the highest Dignity: see below § 23. n. 5, 6. § 25, etc.  
And lastly, if the greatness of the cause, and of the opposition, and their non-acquiescence, in his judgement, so required, by calling other Bishops of what Dignity soever before him, and his Council, or by citing a General Council for their relief. See Dr. Field (l. 5. c. 35. p. 536, 538.) Now why such repair was made to him, and such primacy and power given him, beyond all other Bishops, by ancient Church-custom and Canons; whether from the Dignity of the imperial City, where he was Bishop; or whether from St. Peter and St. Paul's last residence in this their most eminent seat, and Martyrdom there, leaving the Regiment of the Church of God, which they both finally exercised in this place, in that Bishop's hands when they died; (for some reason there must be, that Antiquity so specially applied Sedes Apostolica (when-as many others were so too) to that See beyond all others; and that the Appealants, and others, made their honourable addresses to it, not as Sedes Imperialis (for such addresses to Rome ceased not to be still, when the Emperor's chief residence was in the East), but as Sedes Apostolica); or whether for both these (for both these are compatible enough) it little concerns me to examine. Only, de facto such honour and respect to be given him is most evident. So those famous Worthies of the Church (amongst others), Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, Paulus and Chrysostom Bishops of Constantinople, and Theodoret (a Bishop in Syria) when oppressed at home, appealed to the Bishop of Rome with his Western Synods, (see Field, l. 5. c. 39 p. 570.) In which Appeals, what the Pope's power in those times was accounted to be, and what interest his Authority challenged in respect of the Eastern parts of the Church, I think you will remain partly well satisfied (notwithstanding the great contests in this matter), if you please to read these quotations, which, travelling thro' by five or six of the first Ages, with some trouble to myself, I have transcribed, to save your pains; lest perhaps you should not have the opportunity, or the leisure, or (at least) the curiosity, to seek them in their several Authors. Wherein yet, I could wish, if you seriously seek satisfaction in this matter, you would review them, I being forced, for avoiding further tediousness, to omit many circumstances.  
§. 21 See the testimony of the Ecclesiastical Historians: The seventh Chapter of the third Book of Sozomen, 
This power exemplified in the primitive times, to the end of the 6 Age, the days of Gregory the Great, extending to § 36.  who lived in the fifth Age, contemporary to St. Leo; where, concerning Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, and Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria, their repair to the Bishop of Rome, Julius; he saith: Come, propter Sedis dignitatem, cura omnium ad ips●m spectaret, singulis suam Ecclesiam restituit; scripsitque ad Episcopos Orientis eosque incusavit, etc.— deditque mandatum ut quidam illorum, omnium nomine, ad diem constit●tum, accederent.— Quinetiam minatus est se de reliquo non passurum, etc. The 11th Chapter of the second Book of Socrates, where he saith; Julius Bishop of Rome sent Letters to the Oriental Bishops, etc. quoniam Ecclesia Romana privilegium praeter caeteras obtinebat; and that Paulus and Athanasius, ad suas ipsorum Ecclesiās redibant literis Jul●● confisi: concerning which privilege we have less reason to rely on the judgement of those Arrian Bishops, opposing and scoffing at them, than on the orthodox Paulus and Athanasius, acknowledging and seeking relief from them. See the second Apology of Athanasius against the Arrians; wherein he saith: Judicatum est non semel secundum nos, sed saepius ac saepius: primum quidem in nostra Provincia etc.— Secundo Romae: nobis, caeterisque adversariis Eusebii, ad ejus criminosas literas in judicio comparentibus. Fuere autem in eo consensu plures quam 50 Episcopi; the Pope with 50 of his Western Bishops hearing his cause. The Epistle of Julius to the Oriental Bishops assembled at Antioch, written before the Council of Sardica (and so before the 7th Canon thereof was composed) and published by Athanasius, in that his second Apology, wherein are such passages as these unto them,— Quum iidem illi [those scent from the Eastern Bishosp] authores mihi fuerunt, ut vos convocarem, certe id a vobis aegre ferri non debuit, sed potius alacriter ad citationem occurrere.— Curio igitur & in primis de Alexandrina civitate nihil nobis scribere voluistis? An ignari estis, hanc consuetudinem esse, ut primum nobis scribatur, ut hinc, quod justum est, definiri possit? qua propter si istic hujusmodi suspicio in Episcopum concepta fuerat, id huc ad nostram Ecclesiam referri oportuit.— Quae accepimus a Beato Petro Apostolo, ea vobis significo.— And the same thing which Julius mentions here [An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse, etc. and before it, Oportuit secundum Canonem & non isto modo judicium fieri, etc.] is also found urged by Innocentius (amongst S. Austin's Epistles, Ep. 91.) Quod illi [i. e. Patres] non humana sed divina decrevere sententia, ut quicquid de disjunctis remotisque Provinciis ageretur, non prius ducerent finiendum, nisi ad hujus sedis notitiam perveniret, ubi tot a hujus authoritate justa quae fuerit, pronunciatio firmaretur; indeque sumerent caeterae Ecclesiae velut de natali suo fonte etc. and mentioned in Socrates l. 2. c. 13. Canonibus nimirum jubentibus, proeter Romanum nihil decerni Pontificem, and in Sozomen, l. 3. c. 9  
[Concerning which Canon, much stood upon, 
§ 22. n 1. A Digression concerning the meaning of that ancient Canon; Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum.  give me leave to dilate a little, before I produce any more Authorities. Nothing (say some) (of great consequence for the Unity and Communion of the Church, or also which should universally oblige) to be concluded without him; that is, without his knowledge, or without ask his consent. So Calvin, Instit. l. 4. c. 7. s. 8. ut absent Romano Episcopo universale de religiose decretum non fiat, siquidem interesse non recuset. The same saith Dr. Field, p. 651. No; not only so: for this, as Bellarmin replies, will signify no more privilege to this See, than any other Patriarch had; and why canonically and singularly is that granted to one, which is common to all?  
In the second place therefore; Nothing to be concluded by Councils without him, i. e. without his giving his consent: For in this sense, and not only in the former, Julius and the Roman Bishops urged it; and, that anciently it was taken in this sense, is showed by the frequent Appeals of Bishops and Patriarches to the Bishop of Rome (not so to others) for redress from the Decrees of Councils; and those Councils, some of them, in some sense General (as the second Ephesin Council) General, for the meeting, but not for the vote; since neither the Roman Patriarch, nor his Legates, nor the Western Bishops did vote with them, when they thought themselves injured thereby. So Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople (see Leo Epist. 23. ad Theodosium,— Quia & nostri fideliter reclamarunt, & eisdem libellum appellationis Flavianus Episcopus dedit. And Conc. Chalced. Act. 3.) and Theodoret appealed to him from the second Ephesin Council, which sided with Eutyches. So Athanasius, and Paulus, and Chrysostom, from several, and numerous, Eastern Councils. Without his giving his consent then, nothing of moment stood firm,  
But thirdly, Without his giving his consent indeed, but so amply understood, as that this his consent involve also that of all the Western Bishops of his Patriarchy (few of which, excepting the Pope's Legates, could be personally present at those remote Councils of the East): or of so many of them, as he could conveniently call to Council (against whom it was presumed he would do nothing, as a person standing wholly singular, and universally dissented from); for, these making so considerable a part of the Church, and as it seems by that passage in the Epistle of the Eastern Bishops to Julius (Sozomen l. 3. c. 7.) esteemed more numerous than the East; it was most unreasonable, that any thing of moment, and worthy the cognizance of a General Council (amongst which this was one, removing Bishops of note from their Seats, or from the Communion of the Church, which might cause great Schisms) should stand in force without their approbation: And upon this that Canon of Chalcedon, advancing the Bishop of Constantinople (so much urged) justly could have no force, till afterward it was condescended to by the Bishops of Rome; because as not he, so neither the Western Bishops allowed it. Neither upon this could the fifth Constantinopolitan Council be justly called General, no more than the 2d Ephesin Council (which being never confirmed, was never accounted such), when-as neither the Bishop of Rome, nor his Legates, nor his Western Bishops, would be present therein (upon a difference between them and the Orientals: not the fide, wherein both sides agreed, but de personis; Theodorus, Theodoret, and Iba,) until it was afterward confirmed also by the Pope and his Western Party, not long after the ending thereof (because they found it not so injurious to the Council of Chalcedon as was at first feared): in like manner as the first Constantinopolitan Council, where none of the West was present, was counted the 2d. General Council from such a post-confirmation of the West. See what is said below, § 25, n. 3. and § 26.— But perhaps we may ascend yet a step higher.  
4. Nothing to be concluded by General Councils without his giving his single personal consent, 
§ 22. n. 2.  though both Western and Eastern Churches were all united in their vote, (yet I think it cannot be showed, that the Roman Bishop ever opposed such an universal Vote, where his Western Bishops were joined with the East against him,) by reason of the dignity and primacy of his See. For so it was thought fit to be ordered by ancient Canons concerning Metropolitans, in respect of their particular Provinces; that nothing may be done without them: (see Conc. Antioch. can. 9 and Apostol. Can. 35. etc.) and the reason given;— Sic enim unanimitas erit: and so 'tis ordered concerning Princes and their Parliaments, for the more peaceable government of States; and why may not this Canon have the same meaning for St. Peter's chair, in respect of General Councils? Especially since it is not denied; That as they can conclude nothing without him; so neither might He, without Them, (i.e. in the time of their sitting, or assembly,) do any thing which was obligatory to the whole Church. He may indeed in the interval of Councils take care of the due observance of former Ecclesiastical Canons, and, perhaps also, for the present peace of the Church, (see § 18. and below, § 34.) decide dubious matters, upon appeals made to him for the peace of the Church, till such Council meet: for 'tis both necessary in general, that some standing supreme Tribunal there be, where, in the vacancies of General Synods, Suits should be finally terminated; and also the practice of Appeals from all parts of the Church, for matters of moment, to Rome, do show his in particular to be that Tribunal. So Metropolitans also do act single, when their Provincial Councils are not convened, who in time of those Councils may act nothing without their concurrence. But yet when a General Council sits, it may upon mature deliberation reverse any thing he hath done without it; correct any error he hath committed; neither do his laws prescribe to it. To which purpose hear what S. Austin saith, Epistle 162. in a judgement given against the Donatists, before the Nicen Council, by the Roman and some other Bishops.— Ecee putemus illos Episcopos, qui Romae judicarunt, non bonos judices fuisse; restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae universae Concilium [Nicaenum,] ubi etiam cum ipsis Judicibus causa possit agitari; & si male judicare convicti essent, eorum sententiae solverentur. Solverentur, therefore till such Council such sentence was obliging. The issue therefore of such mutually limited power is only this, (which can neither damage the Church's doctrine, nor discipline); That where both (the Council, and this prime Patriarch) agree not, no new law, no change can be made; but all things must remain in statu quo prius, which state of things is no way alterable by the Bishop of Rome: for this Canon, if it give him a negative power against what is to be established, it doth not so for what hath been established, as well by the former Bishops of Rome, as former Councils. See the concession of Zosimns to this purpose, (apud Gratianum. 25. q. contra statuta.)— Contra statuta Patrum condere aliquid vel mutare, nec hujus quidem Sedis potest authoritas. Apud nos enim inconvulsis radicibus vivit antiquitas, cui decreta Patrum sanxere reverentiam. Which former Synods, if he shall happen to trespass against, and incur the guilt of heresy, upon evidence of the fact, he is condemnable and deposable by the Council: of which see more 2. part. §. 20. So we find a Pope, Honorius, condemned of heresy, as a Monothelite, by the 6th General Council. but this was done by the Pope, as well as the Council. Hear, what a Bishop of Rome, Adrian the 2d. saith concerning this matter, (in the 8th General Council. Act. 7.) Romanum Pontificem de omnium Ecclesiarum Praesulibus judicasse legimus; de eo vero quenquam judicasse non legimus. Licet enim Honorio ab Orientalibus post mortem anathema sit dictum, sciendum tamen est [quod] qui fuerat super haeresi accusatus, propter quam solum licitum est minoribus majorum suorum motibus resistere, vel pravos suos sensus libere respuere; quamvis & ibi nec Patriarcharum nec caeterorum Antistitum cuipiam de eo, quamlibet fas fuerit proferre sententiam, nisi ejusdem primae Sedis Pontificis consensus proecessisset. and what that Council saith, Can. 21.— Sed ne alium quenquam conscriptiones contra Sanctissimum Papam senioris Romae ac verba complicare, vel componere liceat &c, quod & nuper Photius [Patriarch of Constantinople, whom this Council deposed] fecit, & multo ante Dioscorus, [Patriarch of Alexandria.] Quisquis autem tale facinus contra Sedem Petri Principis Apostolorum ausus fuerit intentare, aequalem & eandem, quam Illi, condemnationem [i.e. deposition] recipiat. Porro si Synodus Vniversalis fuerit congregata; & facta fuerit etiam de Sancta Romanorum Ecclesia quaevis ambiguitas aut controversia, oportet venerabiliter, & cum convenienti reverentia de proposita quaestione sciscitari & solutionem accipere, aut proficere, aut profectum facere, non tamen audacter sententiam dicere contra summos Senioris Romae Pontifices. Thus that Council in opposition to Photius his former violences toward the Roman See; and thus much of that old Canon, mentioned in the Epistle of Julius to the Orientals, assembled at Antioch. Who since they made an Arrian Creed contrary to the Nicene, and condemned Athanasius, and some other Orthodox Bishops, which things were done, if not by the major party, yet by the prevailing; it is as reasonable to affirm, That the same persons only, that did these things, writ that Letter to Julius, so invective against the authority of the Roman See, and not the major part; whom Spalatensis, to add the more authority to this Letter, contends to have been Catholic. (See his 3. l. 8. c. 3. n. etc. 4. l. 8. c. 11. n. &c.) However it is clear, that Julius his proceed are justified against them, both by the Occidental Orthodox Bishops, and by Athanasius, and other orthodox Bishops of the East, and by the Council of Sardica, and by the Ecclesiastical Historians. See Sozomen, 3. l. 7. c. and 9 c. where the same persons that writ to Julius, (the Historian saith,) contra Concilii Nicaeni decreta res gesserunt, and were accused by Julius, (9 c.) quod clam contra fidem Concilii Nicaeni novas res moliti fuerunt. See Socrates 2. l. 7. c. their changing the Nicene Creed. Thus much concerning the meaning of the ancient Canon. Now to go on.]  
See (in Athanas. Apol. 2. and Socrates 2. l. 19 c. and Epiphan. Haer. 68) Valens and Vrsatius, 
§ 23. n. 1.  two Bishops, one in Mysia, the other in Pannonia, both very gracious with the Emperor Constantius, and leaders of the Arrian faction, (upon repentance of their error, and also calumnies against Athanasius) repairing to Rome, and delivering to Julius, libellum poenitentiae, and begging pardon and reconciliation, though afterward they relapsed.  
See the 3d, 4th, and 7th Canons of the Council of Sardica, set down before, § 11. (in which great Council are reckoned by Athanasius, one present in it, (in 2. Apolog.) some Bishop's present from our Britanny, [Episcopi Hispaniarum, Galliarum, Britanniarum, etc.] Neither is this any wonder; since they were also at Conc. Arelat. 11 years before that of Nice, see Hammond schism. p. 110.) which canons seem to confirm appeals to the Bishop of Rome, and to authorise him to hear and decide the causes (by himself or his Legates) of those Bishops also, who were not under his Patriarchy. For it is not limited to the Western Patriarchy, but generally proposed, [Si in aliqua Provincia Episcopus etc.] Can. 3. and the motive proposed by Hosius, formerly Precedent of Nice, is general, not more concerning one part of the Church than another, [the honouring of S. Peter's memory,] and these canons were made by that Council not long after Athanasius (a Bishop not subject to the Roman Patriarchy, but himself a Patriarch) his appeal to Rome, and the judgement of his cause (by witnesses brought out of the East, and his adversaries counter-plea) there: which judgement and sentence as the Eastern Bishops at Antioch much slighted and undervalved, so this Sardican Council approved▪ and if these canons respected all in general, then, since the Bishops of our Britanny also were there, this was their act, as well as of the rest, and obliged Britanny to the same subordinations with the rest.  
See the Epistle of St. Basil (Epist. 52.) to Athanasius, 
§ 23. n. 2.  about the suppression of Arrianism in the East; wherein he saith,— Visum est consentaneum scribere ad Episcopum Romanum, ut videat res nostras, & decreti sui judicium interponat.— authoritatem tribuat delectis viris. — qui acta Ariminensis Concilii secum ferant, ad ea rescindenda, quae illic violenter acta sunt, etc.— See the two Epistles of St. Hierom to Damasus Bishop of Rome, desiring to know, what he should hold concerning the word Hypostasis, applied to the Three Persons of the Trinity; and with whom communicate in the East,— wherein thus he; Quoniam vetusto Oriens inter se populorum furore collisus, etc. ideo mihi Cathedram Petri, & Rom. 1.8. sidem Apostolico ore laudatam censui consulendam.— Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum servatur haereditas.— Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens, Beatitudini tuae, id est, Cathedrae Petri communione consocior: super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio.— Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit profanus est,— etc.— Ideo hic colleg as tuos Aegyptios Confessores sequor [communicating with them]— Non novi Vitalem: Meletium respuo: ignoro Paulinum. [There being much division and distraction in the Church of Antioch (under which St. Hierom lived) between Meletius, and Paulinus (successively Bishops thereof), and Vitalis a Presbyter].— Cui apud Antiochiam debeam communicare, significes.— decernite, si placet, obsecro: non timebo tres Hypostases dicere, si jubetis.— And in the second Epistle; In tres partes scissa Ecclesia ad se rapere me festinat.— Ego interim clamito; si quis Cathedrae Petri jungitur, meus est. Meletius, Vitalis, atque Paulinus [every one of them, though of several tenants] tibi haerere se dicunt: possum credere, si unus [only one of them] hoc assereret; nunc vero aut duo, aut omnes mentiuntur. Idcirco obtestor, ut mihi literis tuis, apud quem in Syria debeam communicare, significes. Thus S. Hierom. To which Bellarmin adds Erasmus (a moderate man) his comment upon it;— videri sibi Hieronymum his verbis asserere, omnes Ecclesias subjectas esse Apostolicae Sedi▪ At lest it seems, in times of schisms and divisions, this Father thought it (for the season mentioned) the safest way to adhere to the Rom. See: yet speaks he not of the B. of Rome as judging singly, whom he thought liable to Heresy [saying, in catalogo Scriptorum, some such thing of Liberius subscribing Arrianism (though indeed much apology may be made for Liberius in this matter, yet not such as can free him from all fault, he subscribing only, and that when he was tired out with banishment and other cruelties, the Sirmian Creed, which only omitted Consubstantialis, see Part 2. § 41.)] but of him joined with his Council, or with his Western Bishops. Therefore he saith, apud vos solos etc.— and— Decernite, si placet, obsequor, etc. Therefore the more strict vindicators of the Roman inerrability in matters of Faith, take not the Bishop thereof singly and unsynodically, as his private judgement may inform, or passions incline him, especially upon some violence and terrors used (as in Liberius it was); but, as assisted with his Council, he weigheth, judgeth, and defineth such matters (see Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2, 3, 4.) in a time when a General Council is not, nor cannot so conveniently be had. In which intervals, it may be presumed, Christ is not wanting to the supremest Guide of the Church, using what helps he hath at hand; considering what he saith, Mat. 18.19, 20. And Dr. Field, in answer to these places of Hierom (p. 547.) goes thus far: Thirdly, we say, it is more than probable, that the whole Western Church shall never lose or forsake the true profession, (and therefore he may truly be judged a profane person that eateth the Paschal Lamb out of the Communion of the same); though sometimes the Bishop of Rome in person be an Heretic, other of his Colleagues continuing faithful. But then; I ask, according to this, when-as not none at all, or a few, but most, of his Western Colleagues are joined with the Bishop of Rome (in which Communion, no instance in Antiquity can show him to have been Heretical), and only a few in the West divided from him, which will seem safest (to those who will be guided by authority) in St. Hierom's opinion, to adhere to Cathedra Petri, or the Cathedra elsewhere opposing it? As for what is urged (by Dr. Field, ibid.) out of St. Hierom (Epist. ad Evagrium) to counterbalance these, of a depraved custom in Rome; when-as this was no way patronised by any Episcopal Constitution; and of his holding Presbyters and Bishops, and again Bishops of Alexandria, and Tanais, ejusdem meriti & sacerdotit; when-as he meaneth ratione ordinis, not jurisdictionis; or jure divino, not ecclesiastico; for so he saith in the same Epistle; Quod postea unus electus est, qui caeteris praeponeretur, in schismatum remedium factum est. Factum est, i. e. by the Apostles, or the Councils; which sufficiently justifies his allowance of, and submission to, Patriarchal authority. These places seem to me of no force to null, or to qualify, his former expressions to Damasus. See Optatus, who disputes thus (l. 2.) against the schismatical Donatist Bishops; Videndum est, qui & ubi prior Cathedrâ sederet,— Negare non potes scire te in Vrbe Roma Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse collatam,— in qua una Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur, ne caeteri Apostoli singulas [Cathedras] sibi quisque defenderent, ut jam schismaticus & peccator esset, qui contra singularem Cathedram (i e. Petri) alteram collocaret. Ergo Cathedra unica sedit prior Petrus, cui successit Linus, Lino Clemens, etc. Damasus, Damaso Siricius, hodie qui noster est socius Cum quo nobis totus orbis, commercio formatarum, in una communionis societate concordant. Vestrae Cathedrae vos originem reddite.— Sed & habere vos in urbe Roma, partem aliquam dicitis,— Quid est hoc quod pars vestra in urbe Roma Episcopum civem habere non potuit?— Vnde est quod claves regni vobis usurpare contenditis, qui contra Cathedram Petri vestris praesumptionibus & audaciis sacrilegio militatis?— Probatum est nos esse in Ecclesia sancta Catholica; apud quos & symbolum Trinitatis est, & per Cathedram Petri, quae nostra est, & caeteras dotes apud nos, esse etiam Sacerdotium, etc. [I hope none will say, that Optatus argues thus, because St. Peter's Chair happened in his times to be orthodox, but because he took it for granted, that it must be orthodox (and so all the Churches joined to it) because St. Peter's Chair].  
See Damasus Epist. 5. ad Africanos, 
§ 23. n. 3. — Instituta esse majorum, ut cuncta, quae possit aliquam recipere dubitationem ad nos quasi ad caput, ut semper fuit consuetudo, defer non dubitetis. Of whom thus Spalatensis, l. 7. c. 5. n. 23. Ex non Apocryphis Damasum primum observo, qui talis sui privilegii metionem fecit, ipsum vero ad sola majorum instituta refert. See the Epistle of Siricius Bishop of Rome, A. D. 389, to the Metropolitan Bishop of Tarracon in Spain, c. 15. Explicuimus ut arbitror (Frater charissime) universa quae digesta sunt in querelam; & ad singulas causas, de quibus ad Romanam Ecclesiam, utpote ad caput sui corporis, retulisti, sufficientia (quatuor opinor) responsa reddidimus. Nunc fraternitatis tuae animum ad servandos canon's & tenenda decretalia constituta magis ac magis invitamus, ut haec in omnium coepiscoporum nostrorum perf●rri facias notionem,— ad universos Carthaginenses, atque Baeticos, Lusitanoes, atque Gallicos, etc. See the Epistle of Zosimus (a Bishop of Rome in St. Austin's time) ad Episc. Salonit. where prohibiting the admitting of Monks, and also Laics, immediately to be Bishops, without their passing thro', and continuance for some time in, inferior Ecclesiastical Functions, he saith;— Hoc autem speeialiter, & sub Praedecessoribus nostris, & nuper a nobis interdictum constat, literis ad Gallias Hispaniasque transmissis.— Ad te potissimum scripta direximus, quae in omnium fratrum & Coepiscoporum nostrorum facies ire notitiam.— Sciet, quisquis hoc, postposita Patrum & Apostolicae Sedis authoritate, neglexerit, a nobis districtius vindicandum etc.  
See the Epistles of the African Bishops, 
§ 23. n. 4.  (in the 5th Carthaginian, and in the Milevitan, Councils, held there against P●lagianism, amongst whom was S. Austin) sent to Pope Innocent I; and his Answers to them, (being amongst S. Austin's Epistles, the 90, 91, 92, 93.) where the 92. the African Bishops begin thus.— Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuae munere in Sede Apostolica collocavit, talemque in nostris temporibus praestitit, ut etc. and see the close thereof. And (in Epistle 90.)— Hoc itaque gestum, Domine Frater Sancte, charitati tuae intimandum duximus, ut statutis nostroe mediocritatis etiam Apostolicae Sedis adhibeatur authoritas. And S. Austin (Retract. 2. l. 49. c.) speaketh of the same business in this language:— Postea quam Pelagiana haeresis cum suis authoribus ab Episcopis Ecclesiae Romanoe, prius Innocentio, deinde Zosimo (cooperantibus Conciliorum Africanorum literis) convicta atque damnata est, scripsi etc. And Possidonius, S. Austin's Collegiate, (in vita August. 18. c. thus.— Et cum iidem (Pelagiani] perversi Sedi Apostolicae, per suam ambitionem, eandem perfidiam persuadere conabantur; instantissime etiam Conciliis Africanis sanctorum Episcoporum gestum est; ut So Papae urbis Romae, & prius venerabili Innocentio, & postea sancto Zosimo ejus successori, persuaderetur; quod illa Secta Catholica fide & abominanda & damnanda fuisset. At illi tantae Sedis Antistites suis diversis temporibus eosdem notantes, atque a membris Ecclesiae [i. e. Catholicae] praecidentes datis literis ad Africanas Orientis & Occidentis Ecclesias, eos anathematizandos & devitandos ab omnibus Catholicis censuerunt. Et hoc tale de illis Ecclesiae Dei Catholicae probatum judi●ium [where he seems to call the Pope's judgement the Catholical] etiam p●issimus Imperator Honorius audience & sequens, suis eos legibus damnatos & inter haereticos habere debere constituit. And see the Bishop of Rome's answers, wherein he vindicates the universal authority of that See; something of which is quoted before, § 21.  
After which judgement in afric, both Pelagius, and Caelestius (his chief disciple) made their appeals to Rome, to Zosimus the Successor of this Innocentius, under such forms as these: Si forte quispiam ignorantiae error obrepserit, vestra sententia corrigatur,— and,— Emendari cupimus a te, qui Petri & fidem & sedem tenes: and were (upon a false relation of their tenants) favoured there, to the great offence of the African Bishops, but afterward also condemned by that See; and their condemnation published from thence to all Churches. See for what is said the authorities in S. Austin, and others, quoted by Baronius, A.D. 418. See S. Austin contra Julianum, 1. l. 2. c. where, urging against Julian the testimonies of the Occidental Fathers for Original sin, he saith thus:— An ideo contemnendos putas, quia Occidentalis Ecclesiae sunt omnes.— Puto tibi eam partem orbis sufficere debere, in qua primum Apostolorum suorum voluit Dominus gloriosissimo Martyrio coronare. Cui Ecclesiae praesidentem beatum Innocentium si audire voluisses, jam tunc periculosam juventutem tuam Pelagianis laqueis exuisses. Quid enim potuit vir ille Sanctus Africanis respondere Conciliis, nisi quod antiquitus Apostolica Sedes & Romana cum caeteris tenet perseveranter Ecclesia?— Non est ergo cur provoces ad Orientis Antistites etc. See S. Austin's Epistle 261. written to Celestine, Bishop of Rome, in his old age; as appears in the end of the Epistle, [si meam senectutem fueris consolatus,] and probably after the contest of the African Council about Appeals, that Council being held 419. and Celestine made Bishop of Rome 423. who outlived S. Austin, who died, 430. Ludou. de Angelis, lib. 4. c. 6. It was written concerning one Antonius, for whom S. Austin had procured the Bishopric of Fussala, a place formerly in his own Diocese: but being very remote from Hippo he obtained, that a new Bishopric might be erected there; which Antonius, for some miscarriage, being by the neighbouring Bishops of Numidia removed from that Bishopric, yet not utterly degraded, had appealed to the Bishop of Rome, and had much threatened by this Bishop's power, to procure a restorement to his place. In this Epistle, thus S. Austin beseecheth the Pope.— Collabora obsecro nobiscum: & jube tibi quae decreta sunt omnia recitari.— Existat exemplo, ipsa Apostolica Ecclesia judicante, vel aliorum judicia firmante, quosdam pro culpis nec Episcopali spoliatos honore, neque relictos omnimodo impunitos. Quia ergo etc. subveni hominibus opem tuam in Christi mesericordia poscentibus: non sinas ista fieri [i.e. Antonius to be restored by force] obsecro te per Christi sanguinem, per Apostoli Petri memoriam, qui Christianorum praepositos Populorum monuit, ne violenter dominentur inter Fratres etc. This he saith against the Executores Clericos of the Roman See, many times using unjust violence; but we see he declines not the Bishop of Rome's judgement, but hopes to have it favourable to his cause.— See likewise his Epistle 157. to Optatus: wherein he mentions a legation imposed upon him and some other Bishops, for some Ecclesiastical affair, to Caesarea in Mauritania.— Quo nos (saith he) injuncta nobis a venerabili Papa Zosimo Apostolicae Sedis Episcopo, Ecclesiastica necessitas traxerat. Of which also thus Possidonius Vit. Aug. 14. c.— In Coesarinsem Mauritaniae Civitatem venire venerabilis mentoriae Augustinum cum aliis Episcopis, Sedis Apostolicae literae compulerunt, ad terminandas viz. aliquas Ecclesiae necessitates, &c, [which shows what authority the Roman Bishop used over the African in this Father's time;] where S. Austin did many good offices for that Province, and had successful disputes with Emeritus, the Bishop of that city. (See Possid. vit. Aug. 14. c. Aug. de gest. cum Emerit.)  
See the Epistle of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, 
§ 23. n. 5.  to Celestin Bishop of Rome, wherein he saith, concerning Nestorius' Bishop of Constantinople, before condemned by any General Council. At quamvis res ita habeat, non prius tamen illius communionem confidenter disserere ausi fuimus, quam haec ipsa pietati tuae indicaremus. Digneris proinde quid hic sentias declarare, quo liquide nobis constet, communicare ne nos cum illo oporteat; an vero libere eidem denunciare, neminem cum illo communicare, qui ejusmodi erroneam doctrinam fovet & praedicat. Again, see the great authority, that Celestin Bishop of Rome, used against the same Nestorius, which authority was approved and submitted-to by Cyril, and the Alexandrian and also the Ephesine (the 3d. General) Council. Thus Celestin writeth in his Epistle to Cyril: Nostrae Sedis authoritate ascita, nostraque vice & loco, cum potestate, usus, ejusmodi sententia exequeris, nempe ut nisi decem dierum intervallo ab hujus nostroe admonitionis die numerandorum, nefariam doctrinam suam conceptis verbis anathematizet &c, illico Sanctitas tua illi Ecclesioe prospiciat. Thus Celestin to Nestorius:— Post unam & alteram admonitionem &c, nisi nunc tandem quae perverse docuisti per te corrigantur, in posterum & a nostro consortio & ab omnium Christianorum coetu alienum te fore nihil quicquam dubites.— Upon this, thus Cyril, and his Alexandrian Council, to Nestorius.— Quod sane, nisi juxta tempus in literis Celestini sacratissimi reverendissimique Romanorum Episcopi expressum, praestiteris; certo scias nullam tibi deinceps cum Episcopis & Sacerdotibus Dei consuetudinem, nullum sermonem, nullum denique inter eos locum futurum esse.— All which proceed see approved in the Acts of the Ephesine Council, Tom. 2. c. 5. and then see the sentence of the Council against Nestorius, running thus: Per sacros Canon's, sanctissimique Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopi Celestini Patris nostri literas, lachrymis suffusi & pene inviti, ad lugubrem hanc sententiam urgemur. See the like things related by Evagrius, 1. l. 4. c.  
See the Epistle of S. Chrysostom, 
§ 23. n. 6.  Bishop of Constantinople, (in banishment, being deposed by a Synod held there,) appealing to Innocentius Bishop of Rome, and sending to him some of his Bishops, wherein he bespeaks him thus:— Quamobrem ne confusio haec omnem, quae sub coelo est, nationem invadat, obsecro ut scribas; quod haec tam inique facta (& absentibus nobis, & non declinantibus judicium) non habeant robur, sicut neque natura sua habent: illi autem, qui adeo impune egisse deprehensi sunt, poenae Ecclesiasticarum legum subjaceant. Upon which suit the Bishop of Rome called a Synod of his Bishops, and pronounced the proceed of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, to be against the canons, and void. (See Field, p. 536. and Epist. Innocent, apud Binnium.) And is said, by Baronius, A.D. 407. (who quotes for it many authors, Gennadius, Nicephorus, Glycas; to which may be added, Georgius, Patriarch of Alexandria, in the Edit. Savil. of Chrysostom, 8. Tom. p. 248.) after he heard of Chrysostom's death in banishment, to have excommunicated both Arcadius, the Eastern Emperor, and Eudoxia, and Theophilus, his chief oppressors. But this fact is denied by Dr. Field upon the silence of Historians more ancient. In Innocentius' letter to Arcadius we find these words: Itaque ego minimus & peccator, cui thronus magni Petri Apostoli creditus est, segrego, & rejicio te, & illam, a perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri. Episcopumetiam omnem, aut Clericum ordinis sanctae Christi Ecclesiae, qui administrare aut exhibere ea vobis ausus fuerit, ab ea hora, qua praesentes vinculi mei legeritis literas, dignitate sua excidisse decerno, etc. The truth of this Epistle I decide not; but 'tis certain, that S. Ambrose, before this, excommunicated the Emperor, his Father: and if Arcadius his violences to holy Chrysostom his Bishop deserved the like Ecclesiastical censure, I know not who, after Chrysostom's death, could inflict it more properly than the first See. which also was defended in it by Honorius brother to Arcadius, and Emperor in the West. See, the Epistle of Theodoret, a Syrian Bishop, appealing from the 2d. Ephesine Council (by which he was (in absence) condemned and deposed as a Nestorian) to Leo Bishop of Rome, whom he sues to in these terms:— post tot sudores & labores, ne in jus quidem vocatus sum condemnatus.— Ego autem Apostolicae vestrae Sedis expecto sententiam, & supplico & obsecro vestram sanctitatem, ut mihi opem ferat, justum vestrum & rectum appellanti judicium, & jubeat ad vos accurrere, [for the Emperor had confined him to Cyrus the place of his Bishopric,] & ostendere meam doctrinam vestigia Apostolica sequentem. And his Epistle to Renatus, one of the Bishop of Rome's Legates in the 2d. Ephesine Council:— Te precor, ut sanctissimo Archiepiscopo Leoni persuadeas, ut Apostolica utatur authoritate, jubeatque ad vestrurn Concilium adire. Tenet enim sancta ista Sedes gubernacula regendarum cuncti orbis Ecclesiarum.— Habet enim sanctissima Romana Sedes omnem per orbem Ecclesiarum principatum, cum multis aliis de causis, tum maxim, quod haereticae labis immunis permansit, [this was long after the times of Liberius; by which it appears, Antiquity imputed no Arrianism to this See,] & Apostolicam gratiam immaculatam servavit. Whose cause Pope Leo accordingly judged, and cleared him: and afterward, the General Council of Chalcedon, after due examination (some there also opposing Theodoret) did the like. (After examination) I say; (For the Pope's, and his assistant Bishop's sentence, it seems, was not accounted so authentic, and unrepealable, that a General Council might not review, examine, and, if seeming to them erroneous, reverse it;) upon which judgement of the Council (concurring with his) Leo thus answers Theodoret.— Quae nostro prius ministerio Dominus desinierat, universae fraternitatis [i. e. of the Council] irrefragabili firmavit assensu; ut vere a se prodiisse ostenderet, quod prius a prima omnium Sede firmatum, totius Christiani orbis judicium recepisset; ut, in hoc quoque capiti membra concordent.— Nam, ne aliarum Sedium ad cam, quam caeteris omnibus Dominus statuit praesidere, consensus videretur assentatio, inventi prius sunt, qui de judiciis nostris ambigerent etc. See Socrates Eccles. Hist. 50 l. 15. c. where he speaks thus concerning the reconciling of Flavianus, Patriarch of Antioch, to the Roman See. Theophilus [i. e. the Patriarch of Alexandria] odio in illum [i.e. Flavianum] restincto, Isidorum Presbyterum misit, uti Damasi [Siricii it should be, saith Baronius] animum in Flavianum exulceratum mitigaret, doceretque in usu Ecclesiae esse, si propter populi concordiam peccatum a Flaviano commissum remitteret. Quocirca communione Flaviano ad hunc modum reddita [therefore he had been formerly by the Roman Bishop excommunicated] populus Antiochenus ad concordiam reducitur, [therefore formerly in the want of that communion they had refused some obedience and submission to him.] After these clear evidences of the Roman Bishops power, now to look a little back into the former ages; wherein, by reason of the persecutions by heathen Princes, the Church's discipline was not altogether so perfectly form.  
See Athanasius de sententia Dionysii Alexandrini; 
§ 23. n. 7.  where he relates how Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria (living above fifty years before the Nicene Council) was accused by some of Pentapolis, as erroneous in the Doctrine of the Trinity, to Dionysius the then Bishop of Rome; and thereupon writ an Apology to purge himself,— Quidam ex Ecclesia recte quidem sentientes, sed tamen ignari etc. Romam ascenderunt, ibique eum apud Dionysium ejusdem nominis Romanum Praesulem accusaverunt. Re comperta Alexandrinus postulavit a Romano Praesule, ut objecta sibi indicaret,— [&] non rixandi animo, sed sui purgandi, Apologiam scripsit. Here it seems A. D. 266. (long before the cause of Athanasius his) addresses were made by the Alexandrians to the Roman Bishop. See St. Cyprian, contemporary to Dionysius, to procure the deposing of Marcianus Metropolitan Bishop of Arles in France, because he sided with Novatian; writes thus to Stephen Bishop of Rome about it;— Dirigantur in Provinciam & ad plebem Arelatae consistentem a te literae, quibus abstento Marciano, alius in locum ej●s substituatur. Where Dr. Field (l. 5 c. 37.) grams, Cyprian rather writ to him to do this, than did it himself, because the Roman Bishop was Patriarch of the West. And it appears from his 68th Epistle, that, in his time two Bishops of Spain, Basilides, and Martialis, ejected for giving their consent to some Idolatry, appealed to the Bishop of Rome, to restore them to their Dignities.— Romam pergens [i. e. Basilides] Stephanum collegam nostrum, long positum, & gestae rei, ac tacitae veritatis ignarum, fefellit; ut exambiret reponi se  in Episcopatum, de quo fuerat juste depositus. In which Epistle he censures Stephen indeed, but not for receiving Basilides his appeal, or hearing his cause, but for judging it amiss: yet some way excuseth him also, as misinformed,— Neque enim tam culpandus est ille (saith he) evi negligenter obreptum est; quam hic execrandus, qui fraudulenter obrepsit. But had Stephen had no just authority to judge this matter, or reponere Basilidem in Episcopatum; St. Cyprian would not have accused him of negligence; i. e. in believing, without seeking better information, what Basilides or his friends said; but of usurpation, and intrusion, and tyranny, in judging in matters no way belonging to him: But he, allowing the Western Patriarches authority over the Gallican Bishops, (as appears in the last instance) could not rationally deny him the same over the Spanish. Therefore that which this Father saith before, that Basilides his appeal and Stephen's sentence, ordinationem jure perfect am rescindere non potuit, is to be understood with reference to the justness of the cause, not of the authority. (For one may rightly be accused of injustice, either who doth a thing, and hath no just power to do it; or who hath a just power to do a thing, and hath no just cause.) And therefore the Spanish ought to seek a reversion of such sentence, by presenting to their Patriarch perfecter informations. Else surely his sentence, who is granted to have the supreme authority to judge, is to stand; and he must give account thereof to God.  
And yet higher; before Cyprian's time (about A.D. 200) we find (in Eus. Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 22, etc.) that, in a controversy about the celebration of Easter (whether on the Lord's day, or on the same day with the Jews) after many Provincial Councils (in a peaceful time of the whole Christian Church) called in several Countries, as well of the East (as Egypt, Palestine,) as of the West, who all agreed with the Roman Bishop, excepting Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, and the Bishops of Asia minor, who (assembled in Council, as the rest) resolved to continue their custom of keeping it the same day with the Jews; and in a Letter to Rome signified so much. We find, I say, that Victor, than Bishop of Rome, either intended, or also executed, an Excommunication upon Polycrates and his party, as pertinaciously retaining a Mosaical ceremony, which might be an introduction to more. Executed an excommunication; not negative (as Dr. Field would have it, p. 558.) by withdrawing his own communion from them; but privative and authoritative, by rejecting, and debarring, them from communion of the whole Catholic Church; (though indeed debarring them from the Roman communion, debars them also from all others, that communicate with the Roman; for those who may not communicate with an Heretic, neither may communicate with any others, who by communicating with such Heretic, make themselves partakers of his sin). This seems to me clear, by the words of Eusebius. Victor— totius Asiae Ecclesias a communionis societate abscindere nititur, tanquam in haeresin declinantes, & literas mittit, quibus omnes simul (absque discretione) ab Ecclesiastico faedere segregaret.— Extant Episcoporum literae, quibus asperius objurgant Victorem, velut inutiliter ecclesiae commodis consulentem. [Ecclesiae, i. e. universalis]. And of Iraeneus, who, amongst the rest, reprehended him,— quod non recte fecerit abscindens a corporis [i. e. Christi, not Romanae Ecclesiae] unitate tot & tantas Ecclesias Dei. And by Polycrates his Letter (Euseb. l. 5. c. 22.) to the Church of Rome; wherein it appears, both that he assembled his Asian Bishops at the Bishop of Rome's intimation; and that some censure had been threatened him from thence, upon nonconformity; to which he answers, That it were better to obey God than men. His words are, Sexaginta & quinque ●nnos aetatis gerens,— non perturbabor ex his, quae ad terrorem proferuntur; quia & majores mei dixerunt: Obtemperare oportet Deo magis quam hominibus. As for Irenaeus, or other Bishops, reprehending this fact or purpose of Victors, it was not because he usurped or exercised an authority of Excommunication over the Asiaticks, not belonging to him; but that he used such authority upon no just, or sufficient, cause: namely, upon such a declination from Apostolical tradition (vel per negligentiam, vel per imperitiam) in so small a matter; some compliance with the Jews, to gain them, partly excusing such a practice. Thus a Prince, who hath lawful power to inflict punishments upon his subjects when delinquent, is reprehensible when punishing the innocent. To this of Victor, I may add another Excommunication, not long after this, by Stephen Bishop of Rome; either inflicted, or at least threatened, to some of the Asian Churches in Cyprian's time, that held the necessity or Rebaptisation upon the Baptism of Heretics. Concerning which, see Euseb. Eccl. Hist l. 4. c. 4.6. See St. Austin's Epistle 162) the great care and superintendence which Melchiades (Bishop of Rome before Sylvester in Constantine's time) used over the African Churches in the Schism of Donatus;— Qualis (saith he) ipsius Melchiadis ultima est p●rlata s●ntentia [i. e. in judging the cause of Donatus] qua neque collegas [i. e. the African Bishops] in quibus nihil constiterat, de coll●gio suo [from his Communion] ausus est removere; & Donato solo, quem totius mali principem invenerat, maxim culpato, sanitatis recuperandae optionem liberam caeteris fecit; par● tus communicatorias litteras mittere etiam iis, quos a Majorino [a Donatist Bishop] ordinatos esse constaret; ita, ut quibuscunque in locis [in afric] d●o essent Episcopi (quos diss●nsio geminasset) eum confirmari vellet, qui fuisset ordinatus prior etc. alteri autem eorum plebs alia regenda provideretur. O filium Christianae pacis! & patrem Christianae plebis! Thus St. Austin of Melchiades Bishop of Rome his ordering the African affairs. See the Council of Arles (called by Constantine before Nice; see in Euseb. l. 10. c. 5. his Epistle summoning the Bishop of Syracuse to it), in which were some Bishops from England (see Bishop of Derry Vind c. 5. p. 98. Hammond Sch s. c. 6. p. 110.) sending their Decrees to Sylvester then Bishop of Rome, and in their first Canon thus bespeaking him; Quae decrevimus, significamus, etc.— De observatione Paschae Domini, ut uno die & tempore per omnem orbem observetur; & juxta consuetudinem literas ad omnes tu dirigas. Now to go on in the occurrences of the fifth Age.  
See the Epistles of Leo (Bishop of Rome before, and in the time of, the fourth General Council) the 53d. Epistle to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople; 
§ 23. n. 8.  the 54th to the Emperor Marcianus; the 55th to the Empress Pulcheria; wherein he vindicates the derivation of his authority, not from the Imperial City, but the Apostles; and concerning that Act of the Bishops in Conc. Chalc. advancing the Bishop of Constantinople above the second Patriarch, of Alexandria (which he judged contrary to the Nicene Canons), he saith, (Epistle to Pulcheria) Consensiones vero Episcoporum sanctorum Canonum aepud Nicaenum conditorum regulis repugnantes, unita nobiscum vestrae fidei pietate, in irritum mittimus, &, per authoritatem Beati Petri Apostoli, generali prorsus definitione cassemus, etc. His Epistle 84. to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica:— Sicut Praedecessores mei Praedecessoribus tuis, ita etiam ego dilectioni tuae, priorum secutus exemplum, vices mei moderaminis delegavi; ut curam, quam universis Ecclestis principaliter ex divina institutione debemus, adjuv●res, & long●nquis ab Apostolica Sede provinciis, praesentiam quodammodo nostrae visitationis impenderes, [see below § 25. n. 13. where the same things are said of the Bishop of Constantinople, as here of Thessalonica:] promptum tibi agnoscere, quid vel tuo studio componeres, vel nostro judicio reservares. And, in the close of the Epistle,— Magna dispositione provisum est, ne omnes sibi omnia vendicarent; sed essent in singulis Provinciis singuli, quorum inter Fratres haberetur prima sententia, [Metropolitans,] & rursus quidam in majoribus urbibus constituti solicitudinem susciperent ampliorem, [Primats, or those amongst them deputed by the Patriarch,] per quos ad unam Petri Sedem universalis Ecclesiae cura conflueret, & nihil unquam a Capite suo dissideret. This is spoken of the Church Universal. To which may be added that expression of his quoted before, §. 6. Caput orbis effecta latius praesides religione divina, [now], quam dominatione terrena [formerly.] Seconded by Prosper, 2. l. de vocatione Gentium.— Roma per Sacerdotii Principatum amplior facta est arce Religionis, quam solio Potestatis: and (lib. de Ingratis.)  
Sedes Roma Petri, quae Pastoralis honoris  
Facta Caput mundo; quicquid non possidet armis,  
Relligione tenet, etc.—  
To the latter of these places Dr. Field (5l. 34. c. p. 529. etc.) answers.— That more were subject to it than ever were under the Roman Empire, as it had a presidency (amongst them) of Order and Honour, not of Supreme power. To the other he saith:— The care of the Universal Church is to be understood only in respect of things concerning the common faith, and general state of the Church; or of the principal, most eminent, and highest parts and members of the same: [Be it so; for of such only we speak:] none of which things might be proceeded-in without the Bishop of Rome, and his colleagues.— So a little before, p. 528. he saith:— All things generally concerning the whole Church were, either to take beginning, or (at the least) to seek confirmation from the Roman Bishops, before they were generally imposed and prescribed. But Quaere, whether, if this Bishop denied his consent, the rest might proceed no further without it; and whether, if he refused to confirm such acts, they might not be at all imposed; and whether, as the eminentest persons in their differences might be judged by Him, so they were bound to submit to his (as to their Superiors) judgement? Else, if he mean only, that they were first to ask his consent, or judgement; but upon a denial or a displeasing sentence, might proceed to establish things against it; how consists this with that conclusion,— ut nihil unquam a capite suo dissideret? To search a little further, to see if the Dr. speaks plainer. Below, in the p. 530. he saith:— In cases which concerned the principal Patriarches, whether they were differences between them, and their Bishops; or between themselves; the chief See, as the principal part of the whole Church, might interpose itself:— So as other Patriarches likewise of the higher thrones might interpose themselves in matters concerning Patriarches of the lower thrones.— But I ask; How interpose? by judging and determining the causes of their inferiors? by excommunicating, and deposing &c the persons obnoxious noxious and criminal? But then the Presidency of Rome will be a presidency of Power over the rest of the Church, and not of Honour only. And must not he mean some such thing by interpose, since in his instances there, this interposing proves to be judging, excommunicating, deposing, & c? and so he grants, that the ordering and settling of things of the Church of Antioch, the 3d. See, did pertain to the Patriarch of Alexandria, the 2d. See; and he goeth on, and saith: That the Bishops of inferior thrones might not judge the superior; and therefore, That John of Antioch of the 3d. See is reprehended (Act. Conc. Ephes.) for judging Cyril Bishop of the 2d. See: and Dioscor●s, Bishop of the 2d. See, is condemned in the Council of Chalcedon (in their Ep. add Martian. Imp. and ad Leonem Act. 3.) for this thing, among others, That he presumed to judge the first See, [i. e. the Bishop thereof, Leo. Where note, That both John's and Dioscorus his judging was excommunicating their superior Bishops, and done not singly, but with their Council of Bishops. And again observe, That had the Eastern Bishops at Antioch judged or excommunicated Julius the Bishop of Rome, who communicated with Athanasius, they might justly have incurred the like censure. Neither could they justly say so, as they do, in their Epistle to Him, (inter decreta Julii, if it be not forged,) contraria celebrabimus, & vobiscum deinceps nec congregari, nec vobis obedire— volumus, sed per nos quicquid melius elegerimus agere conabimur; nor urge the 5. Can. of Nice against him, supposing his a superior Court.] He proceeds; That no other particular Church or See may judge the Church of Rome, seeing every other See is inferior to it, but that the See of Rome, i. e. the Bishops of Rome, and the Bishops of the West, may judge and examine the differences, &c, but neither so peremptorily nor finally, but that such judgement may be reviewed, and reexamined, and reversed, in a General Council. Let this be agreed-to: but I ask; Is it no power that this See hath over the rest, because this power is subordinated to a General Council? But if it be granted to have the supremest power next to that of a General Council, then when no General Council is in being, is it not actually pro tempore the supremest? and do not its determinations stand good, and oblige, till a General Council be assembled? Else, what will this mean which the Dr. saith; The first See must judge and examine the differences of all others, (but none it,) if, it judging and examining, none are bound to submit or obey? And from this, [namely, that the first may judge i. e. excommunicate (for this is the thing which is meant by judging, above in the case of John Antioch. and Dioscorus Alexand.) inferior thrones, not they it,] it will appear, that the excommunications of the first See are either authoritative and privative in respect of other Sees, i. e. rejecting them from the communion of the Church Catholic; or, if they are negative only, i. e. withdrawing herself only from the communion of others, (of which two sorts of excommunication see Dr. Field, 5. l. 38. c. p. 558. Bishop of Derry's vindicat. 8. c.) that no other Church may use a negative excommunication towards the first See, i.e. may not withdraw themselves from the communion thereof; but only it may do so toward others. For some excommunication is granted here to die first See toward others, which others have not towards it. I ask therefore, John Antoch. excommunicating the second See, and Dioscorus Alexand. excommunicating the first, (disallowed by two General Councils,) was it negative, only, by way of Christian caution; or privative, and authoritative, by way of Jurisdiction? Take which you will, yet 'tis clear, both by the Councils, and Dr. Field's, concession; that in such manner, the second or third See might not excommunicate the first; and that in such manner, the first might excommunicate the second or third. But indeed, it is manifest, That the excommunication both of John and Dioscorus was authoritative; neither would they have presumed singly to have done it, but as having a party of a Council of other Bishops, who were not subject to them, joined with them. Yet thus also were they, by the Ecumenical Synods, censured, for making themselves heads of a Council against their Superiors, the second and first See. And as manifest it is, that the Bishop of Rome's censures were authoritative; many times deposing, as well as excommunicating, Bishops not under the jurisdiction of his Patriarchy: as also John Antioch: deposed Cyril Alexand. As for Dr. Fields very cautiously every where joining the Western Bishops with the Bishops of the first See, in his exercising such judgement over other Sees; he must either mean the Bishops of his ordinary Council, and such others, as (according to the exigent) he can conveniently advise with which may be conceded to Dr. Field: or he must mean all the Bishops of the West assembled in a Patriarchal Council. But if so; their ordinary practice anciently in judging such appeals and causes, shows it was otherwise; and reason tells us it could not be thus, unless so great a body could be so often convened, as such appeals were necessary to be terminated. Thus much of Dr. Field's answers. Now to go on in our quotations out of Leo.]  
See his Epistle to Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria. 
§25. n. 1. — Quod a Patribus nostris propensiore cura novimus esse servatum, a vobis quoque volumus custodiri, ut non passim diebus omnibus Sacerdotalis ordinatio cel●bretur, sed— mane ipso die Dominico.  in omnibus observantia nostra concordet, illud quoque volumus custodiri; ut cum solennior sestivitas Conventum populi numerosioris indixerit,— sacrificii oblatio indubitanter iteretur. Epistle 46. to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, written to him about receiving some Bishops and others in the East, followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus, upon their penitence, to the peace of the Church.— Licet sperem dilectionem tuam ad omne opus bonum esse devotam; ut tamen efficacior tua fieri possit industria, necessarium & congruum fuit, fratres meos Lucentium Episcopum, & Basilium Presbyterum (ut promisimus) destinare, quibus tua dilectio societur; ut nihil in his, quae ad Vniversalis Ecclesiae statum pertinent, aut dubie agatur, aut segniter; cum residentibus vobis, quibus executionem nostrae dispositionis injunximus, ea possint agi cuncta moderation etc.— De his autem qui in hac causa gravius peccavere,— si forte resipiscunt,— horum satisfactio— maturioribus Apostolicae Sedis Conciliis reservetur; ut examinatis omnibus &c, quid constitui debeat, aestimetur. And afterward,— Si de aliquibus amplius fuerit deliberandum, celeriter ad nos relatio dirigatur, ut, pertractata qualitate causarum, nostra, quid observari debeat, solicitudo constituat. And see the Rescript of the Emperor Valentinian the Third, (quoted by Baron. Anno 445. inter Novel. Theod. tit. 24.) in the time of Leo, a little before the Council of Chalcedon, sent to Aelius his Vicegerent in France, about quieting the difference between the Archbishops of Arles and Vienna, after that the cause, upon appeal, had been decided by Leo against Arles. Wherein the Emperor hath these words: Cum Sedis Apostolicae primatum, S. Petri m●ritum,— sacra etiam Synodi firmarit authoritas, ne quid praeter authoritatem Sedis illius inlicitum praesumptio attentare nitatur; hinc enim demum Ecclesiarum pax ubique servabitur, si Rectorem suum agnoscat Vniversitas. Haec cum hactenus inviolabiliter fuerint constituta; Hilarius— contumaci ausu etc.— His talibus— per ordinem religiosi viri urbis Papae cognitione discussis, certa in eundem Hilarium— lata sententia est. Et erat ipsa quidem sententia per Gallias, etiam sine Imperiali sanctione valitura.— Sed nostram quoque praeceptionem haec ratio provocavit, ne ulterius— cuiquam Ecclesiasticis rebus arma miscere [as it seems Hilarius, or some in his behalf, had done,] aut Praeceptis Romani Pontificis liceat obviare.— Omnibus pro lege sit, quicquid sanxerit Apos●olicae Sedis authoritas: ita ut quisquis Episcoporum, ad judicium Romani Antistitis evocatus, venire neglexerit, per Moderatorem ejusdem Provinciae adesse cogatur; per omnia servatis, quae Divi Parents nostri Romanae Ecclesiae detulerunt.— And the like orders had been made by Emperors formerly, it seems, by that rigorous power used in afric by the executors of the Bishop of Rome's orders there, of which (as you have read before § 12.) the African Bishops so much complained.  
See the Epistle of the 4th. G. Council at Chalcedon (the most numerous, 
§25. n. 2.  I think, of any Council which the Church hath had) to the same Leo Bishop of Rome, in which are these expressions.— Quam [fidem] velut auro textam seriem ex veste Christi & praecepto Legislatoris venientem usque ad nos ipse [Leo] servasti, vocis Beati Petri omnibus constitutus Interpres, ejus fidei beatificationem super omnes adducens.— Quibus [i. e. Episcopis congregates in Concilio] Tutor quidem, sicut membris caput, praeeras, in his, qui tuum tenebant ordinem, benevolentiam praeferens, etc.— In vineam irruens [i. e. Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, a supporter of Eutyches] quam optime repperit plantatam, evertit— & post haec omnia insuper & contra ipsum, cui vineae custodia a Salvatore commissa est, extendit insaniam, id est contra tuam quoque Apostolicam sanctitatem; & excommunicatione meditatus est contra te, qui corpus Ecclesiae unire festinas.— Haec [i.e. the Honours they conferred on the See of Constantinople] velut a tua sanctitate fuerint inchoata,— roboravimus, praesumentes; dum noverimus, quia quicquid rectitudinis a filiis fit [alluding to themselves] ad Patres recurrit [alluding to Leo] facientes hoc proprium sibi [i. e. appropriating their Child's actions to themselves]. Rogamus igitur, & tuis decretis nostrum honora judicium; & sicut nos cupidi in bonis adjecimus consonantiam, sic & summitas tua filiis (quod decet) adimpleat. Sic enim & pii Principes [the Emperor etc. very desirous of the advancement of the See Constantinopolitan●] complacebunt [will be well pleased] qui, tanquam legem, tuae sanctitatis judicium firmaverunt; & Constantinopolitanae sedes suscipiet praemium, quae omne semper studium vobis, ad causam pietatis explevit, etc.— Eutychen pro impietate damnatum suae tyrannidis decretis innoxium statuit [i.e. Dioscorus, who by a party in the second Ephesine Council restored Eutyches, who was a Constantinopolitan Presbyter, and an Archimandrita, Abbot of the Monks there, to his former degree and dignities] & dignitatem, quae a vestra illi oblata fuerat sanctitate, (quip ut ab eo, qui hac gratia fuerit indignus) ille restituit]. Where know; that Eutyches, deposed by Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople in a Synod there, appealed (or pretended it) to the Bishop of Rome; to whom also the Emperor sent Letters in his behalf; which Bishop of Rome also, after the business known, ratified his deposition. Concerning which appeal of this Presbyter (where it appears, that, in matters of Faith, and of great consequence, the causes of Presbyters and inferior Clergy might be brought to the examination and sentence of the chief Patriarch) Leo having (by a miscarriage) received as yet no Letters from the Bishop of Constantinople, writes thus unto him; Epist. 8.— Accepimus lib●llum Eutychetis Presbyteri, qui se queritur— immerito communione privatum, maxim cum— libellum appellationis suae se ass●rat obtulisse; nec tamen fuisse susceptum:— Quibus rebus intercedentibus, necdum agnoscimus, qua justa a communione Ecclesiae fuerit separatus. Sed respicientes ad causam, facti tui nosse volumus rationem, & usque ad nostram notitiam cuncta deferri; quoniam nos nihil possumus, incognitis rebus, in cujusquam partis praejudicium definire, priusquam universa, quae gesta sunt, veraciter audiamus]. Thus Leo to the Bishop of Constantinople. To return to the Epistle of Conc. Chalc. In the same 'tis said,— Episcopis v●tam finientibus, multae turbae nascuntur absque rectore etc. [therefore they say they gave some power to the Constantinopolitan Bishop for the ordering and settling them].— Quod nec vestram latuit sanctitatem, quum maxime propter Ephesios, unde quidam vobis saepius importuni fuerunt. Leo therefore exercised some authority over the Church of Ephesus. Again; Considentes, quia, lucente apud vos Apostolico radio, & usque ad Constantinopolitanorum Ecclesiam, consuete gubernando, illum spargentes, hunc saepius expanditis, eo quod absque invidia consueveritis virorum bonorum participatione ditare domesticos. Where they say, the Roman Bishop dilated his beams to the governing of the Church of Constantinople. And see their Epistle likewise to the Emperor;— Velut signaculum sacrae doctrinae, Concilii hujus a vobis [the Emperor]. congregati predicationem, Petri sedis authoritate, roborantes. But yet, though thus courted by them, in his answer to that Council, Epist. 59 he approved not the preferment of the Bishop of Constantinople before Alexandria.— Quantumlibet extortis assentationibus sese instruat vanitatis elatio [i. e. of the Constantinopolitan Bishop] & appetitus suos Conciliorum aestimet nomine roborandos, infirmum atque irritum erit quicquid a praedictorum Patrum [i. e. Nicene] canonibus discreparit. Quorum regulis Apostolica sedes, quam reverenter utatur scriptorum meorum, etc. poterit sanctitas vestra lectione cognoscere; & me, auxiliante Domino, & catholicae fidei, & paternarum traditionum esse custodem.  
See Evagrius Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 18, 20, 21. 
§25. n. 3.  And the Epistle of Felix Bishop of Rome A. D. 484, to Acatius Bishop of Constantinople; where we find Felix appealed, and complain'd-to, by John the wronged Bishop of Alexandria; and (being assisted with a Council of Forty-two Western Bishops) excommunicating Peter, who then unjustly possessed the Patriarchy of Alexandria; as being an Eutychian also, and not submitting to the Council of Chalcedon (see Evagrius l. 3. c. 21.) and excommunicating Acatius also, Bishop of Constanstinople (after he had first cited him to Rome, and also written to the Emperor Zeno, to compel him to appear, upon the complaints of John Alexand. rationem de rebus, quas Johannes ei objectasset, redditurus, as Evagrius hath it) for his communicating with Peter a condemned Heretic, and many other crimes. See his Epistle; at the end of which the form of his Condemnation runs thus: Sacerdotali honore & communione Catholica [not only Romana] nec non etiam a fidelium numero segregatus sublatum tibi nomen & munus ministerii sacerdotalis agnosce: sancti Spiritus judicio, & Apostolica, per nos, authoritate damnatus. Which proceeding of Felix being much disliked by some in the East, because a Synod was not specially summoned for the purpose, especially seeing he was Bishop of the Princely City; see Gelasius, the successor to Felix, A. D. 494. his vindication of this act of the Apostolic See without a Council (at least an Oecumenial one) in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae, an Eastern Province not far from Constantinople: which Epistle is worth the reading, over, the rather, because some places being urged out of it by Bellarmin, Dr. Field, in his answer to them, hath these words: Truly there cannot be any better proof against the pretended Supremacy of the Popes, than this Epistle. In this Epistle than Gelasius pleads thus:— Sabellium damnavit Synodus: nec fuit necesse, ut ejus sectatores postea damnarentur, singulas viritim Synodos celebrari: sed, pro tenore constitutionis antiquae, cunctos qui vel pravitatis illius, vel communionis, extitere participes, universalis Ecclesia [i e. in a Council] dixit esse refutandos.— Considimus, quod nullus jam veraciter Christianus ignoret, uniuscujusque Synodi constitutum (quod universalis Ecclesiae probavit assensus) nullam magis exequi sedem prae ceteris oportere, quam primam, quae & unamquamque Synodum sua authoritate confirmat, & continuata moderatione custodit; pro suo scil. Principatu, quem Beatus Petrus Apostolus Domini voce perceptum [I suppose it should be percepit] Ecclesia nihilominus subsequens & tenuit semper & tenebit. Haec [i. e. Sedes Apostolica] dumb Acacium certis comperisset indiciis a veritate Apostolica deviasse, diutius ista non credens, quip quem noverat executorem saepe necessariae dispensationis suae [i. e. Sedis Apostolicae] per triennium fere monere non destitit, etc. cur tanto tempore, dum ista gererentur— non ad sedem Apostolicam, a qua sibi curam illarum regionum noverat delegatum, refer curavit [i. e. Acatius]?— Tandem aliquando missis literis profitetur [Acatius] see Alexandrino Petro, quem, expetita Apostolicae sedis authoritate, executor ipse quoque damnaverat, absque sedis Apostolicae notitia, communione permixtum. Beati autem Petri sedes, ne per Acacium in Petri consortiurn duceretur, ipsum quoque a sua communione submovit, & multis modis transgressorum a sua societate fecit alienum.— Quo tenore Timotheus etiam atque ipse Alexandrinus Petrus, qui secundam sedem tenuisse videbuntur, non repetita Synodo, tantummodo sedis, Apostolicae, ipso quoque Acacio postulante, vel exequente, probantur esse damnati.— Nec plane tacemus, quod euncta per mundum novit Ecclesia, quoniam quorumlibet sententiis ligata Pontificum sedes B. Petri Apostoli jus habeat resolvendi; utpote quae de omni Ecclesia fas habeat judicandi, neque cuiquam de ejus liceat judicare judicio: siquidem ad Illam de qualibet mundi parte canones appellare [aliquem] voluerunt, ab illa autem nemo sit appellare permissus.— Sed nec illa praeterimus, quod Apostolicae sedi frequenter datum [or dictum] est, ut more majorum, etiam sine ulla Synodo precedente & solvendi, quod Synodus inique damnaverat, & damnandi, nulla existente Synodo, quos oportuit, habuerit potestatem. Sanctae memoriae nihilo minus Johannem Constantinopolitanum [i. e. Chrysostomum] Synodus etiam Catholicorum Praesulum certe damnaverat, quem simili modo sedes Apostolica etiam sola, quia non consensit, absolvit. Itemque S. Flavianum Pontificem Graecorum congregatione damnatum pari tenore, quoniam sola Apostolica sedes non consensit, absolvit, potius quam, qui illic receptus fuerat. Dioscorum secundae Sedis praesulem sua authoritate damnavit; & impiam Synodum [i.e. sec. Ephes.] none consentiendo summovit sola: & authoritate, ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret, sola decrevit.— Ponamus tamen, etiam si nulla Synodus praecessisset, cujus Apost. sedes recte fieret executrix, cum quibus erat de Acacio Synodus ineunda? Nunquid cum his, qui jam participes tenebantur Acacii, & per Orientem totum (Catholicis sacerdotibus [such he calls those who adhered to the Council of Chalcedon] violenter exclusis, & per exilia diversa relegatis) socii evidenter existentes communionis externae [i. e. extra Ecclesiam Catholicam] prius se ad haec consortia transferrent, quam sedis Apostolicae scita consulerent?— Concilio nec opus erat post primam Synodum, nec talibus habere licebat.— Quae congregatio facta Pontificum [i.e. in Italia Occidentalium] non contra Chalcedonensem, non tanquam nova Synodus contra veterem primamque, convenit; sed potius secundum tenorem veteris constituti, particeps Apostolica executionis effecta est; ut satis appareat, Ecclesiam Catholicam, sedemque Apostolicam, quia alibi jam omnino non posset, ubi potuit & cum quibus potuit, nihil penitus omisisse, quod ad fraternum pertineret pro intemerata fide & sincera communione tractatum.—]— In this Epistle (amongst others) two things must not be passed by unobserved: 1. One; That he contends, he ought not to call to a Council Bishops condemned by, and professedly opposing, a former General Council; which being granted, Councils may be rightly called General, when they consist not of all, but only of all Catholic Churches. 2. The other; That in the final sentencing and determining of greater persons and causes in the Eastern Church, the Bishop of Constantinople was employed only from him, and as his Delegate.— See the Epistle of Pelagius the 2d. (Bishop of Rome A.D. 580.)— Vniversis Episcopis, qui illicita vocatione Johannis Constantinopolitaniss Episcopi, ad Constantinopolim convenerunt. Wherein he vindicates the authority of the Roman See against John, assembling a Council there without his consent and leave: and calling himself Universal Bishop (seeking to exalt himself above Rome, probably from the supreme dignity and great flourishing of that Imperial City in those time; in which times also the poor City of Rome laboured under great afflictions and desolations by the Goths, Longobards, etc. [whereof Gregory writing to the Empress (4. l. Ep. 34.) saith, Viginti autem jam & septem annos ducimus, quod in hac urbe inter Longobardorum gladios vivimus,] and from the Emperor Mauritius his countenancing him in it. Out of which Epistle some words are quoted by S. Gregory his Successor, (4. l. Ep. 36.)  
§ 26 Now in the forenamed Epistle of Pelagius, as he hath these passages: Vniversalitatis quoque nomen, 
A Digression concerning the title of Universalis Episcopus assumed by the Constantinopolitan and declined by the Roman, Bishops.  quod sibi illicite usurpavit, [i.e. Joannes Constant.] nolite attendere etc. Nullus enim Patriarcharum hoc tam profano vocabulo unquam utatur; quia si summus Patriarcha [though it were the Patriarch of Rome] Vniversalis dicitur, Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur. Sed absit hoc, absit, etc.— Jactantiam tantam sumpsit [i. e. Jonannes Constant.] ita ut universa sibi tentet ascribere, & omnia quae soli uni capiti coherent, (videlicet Christo,) per electionem Pompatici sermonis [i.e. Universalis] ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare.— Si enim dici hoc licenter permittitur, honour Patriarcharum omnium negatur; & fortasse is in errore perit, qui Vniversalis dicitur, & nullus jam Episcopus in statu veritatis invenitur. I say, as he hath these passages, for which he is quoted by the Reformed, as making much against the power, which the Bishops of the Roman See claim; so hath he other (as it were an Antidote) in the very same Epistle, wherein he establisheth clearly that authority of the Roman Bishop, which they oppose. Whence it follows; either that these places are urged by the Reformed in a mistaken fence, or that he palpably contradicts, himself, and that with the same breath, as it were. Thus therefore saith he in the same Epistle:— Relatum est ergo ad Apostolicam Sedem Johannem— vos ex hac sua praesumptione ad Synodum convocare Generalem; cum Generalium Synodorum convocandi authoritas Apostolicae Sedi B. Petri singulari privilegio sit tradita, & nulla unquam Synodus rata legatur, quae Apostolica authoritate non fuit fulta. Quapropter quicquid in praedicto vestro Conventiculo— statuistis, ex authoritate. S. Petri Apostolorum Principis & Domini Salavatoris voce, qua B. Petro potestatem ligandi atque solvendi ipse Salvator dedit, quae etiam potestas in Successoribus ejus indubitanter transivit, Praecipio, omnia quae ibi statuisti, & vana, & cassata esse.— Multis denuo Apostolicis, & Canonicis, atque Ecclesiasticis instruimur regulis, non debere absque sententia Romani Pontificis Concilia celebrari.— Orate Fratres, ut honor Ecclesiasticus nostris diebus non evacuetur; nec unquam Romana Sedes, quod (instituente Domino) Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum, Privilegiis suis usquam careat, aut exspolietur.— Haec (Fratres) valde cavenda sunt, & praecepta Domini, atque sanctae Sedis Apostolicae, quae vice Domini Salvatoris legatione fungitur, monita fideliter amplectenda & peragenda. Lastly, being consulted by them concerning the subordinate judgements of the Church, he writes thus:— Non oportet ut degradetur, vel dehonoretur unaquaeque Provincia, sed apud semetipsam habeat judices [i. e. for its judges] Sacerdotes & Episcopos singulos, viz. juxta ordines suos; & quicunque causam habuerit a suis judicibus judicetur, & non ab alienis; id est, a suae justis judicibus Provinciae, & non ab exteris; nisi (ut jam praelibatum est) a judicandis fuerit appellatum. Si vero— inter ipsius Provinciae Episcopos discrepare coeperit ratio &c, ad majorem tunc Sedem referantur. [As to the Constantinopolitan or Antioch.] Et si illae facile & just non discernuntur, [i.e. which is the major Sedes in respect of that Province,] ubi fuerit Synodus regulariter congregata, Canonice & just judicentur. Majores vero & difficiles quaestiones (ut sancta Synodus statuit, & beata consuetudo exigit) ad Sedem Apostolicam semper referantur. Whereby you see, that the first See of Rome interessed herself not in all, but the highest and difficultest matters of controversy, where former judgements were ununanimous, or were appealed from. Likewise, by the former passages 'tis plain, that Pelagius challengeth that Supremacy to the Roman See, which is denied by Protestants; and alloweth the term of Summus Patriarcha, as Summus implies some power and jurisdiction over all the rest, whereby they become subordinate; but not of Vniversalis Patriarcha, as Vniversalis implies, that there can be none besides, (for that only is universale, extra quod nihil) and is a term whereby all the rest are degraded. And in this fence also afterward Gregory, Pelagius his Successor, arguing against the same John Constant. took the same word, when he saith, Ep. 34. Constant. Augustae.— Despectis omnibus praedictus Frater & Coepiscopus meus, solus conatur appellari Episcopus. (See the same again Ep. 38. Johanni Episcopo Constant.) And Ep. 32.— Vniversa Ecclesia cum statu suo corruit, quando is, qui appellatur Vniversalis, cadit.— But neither Gregory nor Pelagius denied it (at least as applied to the Roman Bishop) in that sense, in which the Reformed urge it; i.e. as it implies a Supreme power in some one Bishop over all the rest; and as it intimates, not, praeter quem nemo sit, but, qui, remanentibus partibus integris, ipse caeteris superemineat, (as Baronius hath it). Since in the same place, where they deny the one, as it were with the same breath they maintain the other; and since in that sense this Title was sometimes given to the Roman Bishops, though Pelagius and Gregory do not like the name, because so easily interpretable in a sense not justifiable; or rather jealous that the Constantinopolitan Bishop, as presiding in the Imperial City, in using that word, unjustly sought to undermine them in their Primacy, (at least for the Eastern parts of the Church); they extend the sense of the word to its whole latitude, and further than, in all probability, he meant it, to make it be the sooner laid aside. But not long after, within two or three years of Gregory's death, by the Emperor Phocas (offended with Cyriacus the then Patriarch of Constantinople) as this title was taken from the Constantinopolitan, so was it inoffensively applied to the Roman, See: (Yet without the attribution or access of any authority to that See, which cannot be showed to have been formerly practised by it,) as also this title had been aforetime in the Council of Chalcedon given that Bishop, without any contradiction of those Fathers. See Concil. Chalced. Act. 3. Thus much concerning the Title of Oecumenicus, or Vniversalis.  
§. 27 In the last place; for the anciently-great authority of the Roman Bishop, see the Epistles of Gregory the Great: who, though with Pelagius his Predecessors he much disrellished the name of Universal Bishop or Pastor, yet it appears out of these, that he both claimed and exercised such an universal superiority and jurisdiction over other both Bishops and Patriarches, as the Reformed will by no means approve and (as we may gather by his words, 4. l. 37. Ep.) thought a vindication of his just authority well consistent with true humility. There he saith;— Dum Praedicator egregius dicat, Ministerium meum honorificabo, (Rom. 11.13.) qui rursus alias dicens,— facti sumus parvuli in medio vestrum, (1 Thes. 2.7.) exemplum proculdubio nobis se sequentibus ostendit; ut & humilitatem teneamus in ment, & tamen ordinis nostri dignitatem servemus in honore: quatenus nec in nobis humilitas timida, nec erectio sit superba. This premised, see what follows in the same Epistle:— Johannes Constantinopolitanus in Constantinopolitana urbe— Synodum secit, in qua se Vniversalem appellare conatus est; quod mox idem Decessor meus [i.e. Pelagius] ut agnovit, directis literis, ex authoritate Sancti Petri Apostoli, ejusdem Synodi acta cassavit.— Cujus ego quoque sententiam sequens, similia praedicto consacerdoti nostro scripta transmisi. And 2. l. 10. Indict. 37. Ep. Episcopo Salonitano, [an African Bishop:]— Quod autem vos fatemini Ecclesiasticos ordines ignoran non posse— valde contristor, quia cum rerum ordinem scitis, in me (quod pejus est) sciendo deliquistis. Postquam enim ad Beatitudinem vestram, & Decessoris mei & mea, in causa Honorati Archidiaconi, scripta directa sunt, tunc contempta utriusque sententia, praefatus Honoratus proprio gradu privatus est. [Whose cause, though only an Archdeacon, upon appeal Gregory having heard, cleared him, and ordered him to be restored to his place.] Quod si quilibet ex quatuor Patriarchis fecisset, sine gravissimo scandalo, tanta contumacia transire nullo modo potuisset. Tamen postquam fraternitas vestra ad suum ordinem rediit, nec ego meae, nec decessoris met injuriae memor sum [By which it seems Gregory's orders at last were obeyed.] And 2. l. Indict. 11. Ep. 32. to the same Archdeacon Honoratus, he writes thus.— A cunctis tibi objectis capitulis te plenius absolventes, in tui te ordinis gradu sine aliqua volumus alteratione permanere, ut nihil tibi penitus mota a praefato viro [i.e. Episcopo Salonitano] quaestio qualibet occasione praejudicet.— 11. l. Ep. 42. Episcopo Panormitano, [in Sicily.]— Illud autem admonemus, ut Apostolicae Sedis reverentia nullius praesumptione turbetur; tunc enim status membrorum integer manet, si caput fidei [this must needs be Apostolicam sedem] nulla pulset injuria, & canonum manet incolumis authoritas.— l. 7. epist. 64. Episcopo Syracusano— Nam quod se dicit [i.e. Primas Byzancenus, an African Primate, of whom Gregory saith a little before, that in quodam crimine accusatum, piissimus Imperator eum, juxta statuta canonica, per nos voluit judicari] Sedi Apostolicae subjici; si qua culpa in Episcopis invenitur, nescio quis ei Episcopus subjectus non sit; cum vero culpa non exigit, omnes secundum rationem humilitatis aequales sunt.  
[Nescio quis ei Episcopus subjectus non sit: i. e. saith Dr. Field [l. 5. c. 34. p. 534.) of those Bishops only within his own Patriarchship, § 28 alleging Gregory Epist. 54, 11; where Gregory quotes, and seems to acquiesce in, the the Emperor Justinian's Constitution, Novel. 123. c. 22. Si autem & a Clerico aut Laico quocunque aditio contra Episcopum fiat, propter quamlibet causam, apud sanctissimum ejus Metropolitanum secundum sanctas regulas & nostras leges causa judicetur. Et si quis judicatis contradixerit ad beatissimum Archiepiscopum & Patriarcham referatur causa, & Ille secundum canon's & leges huic praebeat finem, [I may add out of the Nou. itself], nulla parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente. Whence, thus much is yielded to Dr. Field; That the Bishops of his own Patriarchy have some subjection to the Bishop of Rome, and his Courts, as he bears the Office of a Patriarch over them, which others of another Patriarchate have not. And therefore we see his Letters, most frequently directed to the Bishops, and negotiating the affairs Ecclesiastical, within this Circuit; which Bishops (as the Doctor rightly notes) he calls Episcopos suos l. 4. c. 34. To the Empress [sed ut Episcopi mei me despiciant, etc. id peccatis meis deputo.] But yet this I suppose is yielded by the Doctor (see before § 20.) that both the Bishops of other Patriarchies, and the Patriarches themselves, in some cases also (but not in all wherein the rest) were subjected to the judgement and sentence of the first See. And in such sense might he say; Nescio quis Episcopus etc. As for the place of Gregory and the Imperial Constitution urged:  
First, concerning Gregory observe, that he writ this to the Emperor's Perfect, in the behalf of one Stephanus a Bishop, qui invitus ad judicium trahebatur; & qui ab Episcopis alieni Concilii [i. e. who were not his proper Superiors, but of a distinct Province from him] quos hab bat suspectos, judicabatur. In his behalf therefore Gregory quotes this Imperial Constitution; where Patriarcha prabeat finem is opposed by Gregory (as likewise by Justinian) to Episcopi alieni Concilii, or also to any Civil Judges meddling therein: who (according to Novel. 123. c. 21.) might not hear Ecclesiastical Causes at all. [the words are these, Si autem Ecclesiastica causa est, nullam communionem habeant judices civiles circa talem examinationem, sed sanctissim●s Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat. To which effect see the Constitution quoted in the beginning of Gregory's Epistle [Si quis contra aliquem Clericum, etc.] After which Constitution urged, Gregory goes on thus; Contra haec si dictum fuerit, quia nec Metropol tanum habuit, nec Patriarcham [take Patriarch here in what sense you please] dicendum est, quia a S●de Apostolica, quae omnium Ecclesiarum caput est, [this is his reason for it] causa haec audienda ac dirimenda fuerat, sicut & praedictus Episcopus petiisse dignoscitur, qui Episcopos alieni Concilii judices habuit omnino suspectos.  
Secondly, For the Imperial Constitutions of Justinian, they, so far as they concern Ecclesiastical matters, are only Ratifications of the Church's Canons, and no way opposite to them; who every where commands proceed and judgements to be made secundum sacras regulas, and in the beginning of his Codex, to show his submission in these things to the Church (tit. 1. l. 8.) writes thus to the Pope in particular; Nec enim patiemur quicquid, quod ad Ecclesiarum statum pertinet, quamvis manifestum & indubitatum sit quod movetur, ut non etiam vestrae innotescat sanctitati, quae caput est omnium sanctarum Ecclesiarum. To whom also when the Emperor sent his Creed, Agapetus the Pope answered Firmamus, etc. non quia La●cis authoritatem praedicationis admittimus, sed quia studium fidei vestrae patrum nostrorum regulis conveniens confirmamus atque roboramus. (Agapet. Ep. 6.) Now if you examine those Constitutions (Novel. 123. c. 22.) they are only these: That two Bishops, ejusdem Concilii, under the same Metropolitan, being at variance, are referred to the judgement of their Metropolitan and the Council Provincial. If this refused; then to that of the Patriarcha Dioeceseos illius, nulla parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente. The same course is appointed, if a Clergyman have any thing against his Bishop; or Bishop, or inferior Clergyman, against his Metropolitan: But in the differences between a Bishop and his Patriarch, or also between two Patriarches, he ordereth nothing. Now what thing is there, in all this, prejudicial to the formerly-asserted authority of the Roman Bishop? For (1.) by these within the compass of his own Patriarchate he is the supreme and final Judge, upon all Appeals, as well of other Clergy, as of Bishops; and (2.) so is he also of all other Bishops and Metropolitans, whosoever are not subjected to any other Patriarch; and (3.) also in other Patriarchates, where greater contests happen between them and their Bishops, or with one another; here also he interests his power (see before § 20. and 26.) for any thing in these Imperial decrees expressed to the contrary. Nay further, (4.) he, as Caput omnium sanctarum Ecclesiarum (to use Justinian's stile) where he judgeth other Patriarches to neglect their duty, or sees them overborne in heresy, or other matters of great concernment, for the peace and safety of the Church; he, I say, as appears by many instances above, hath exercised authority also over the inferior Clergy of other Patriarchates. as he did in the degradation of Eutyches a Constantinopolitan Prerbyter, (see before § 25. n. 2.) an act approved by the same Council of Chalcedon, that in their 9th. Canon referred the final decision of the ordinary controversies of any Province to their own Bishops, or Patriarch.  
§. 29 Pardon this Digression: Now to go on with the observations out of Gregory's writings.] 5. l. 24. Ep. where the Bishop of Ravenna telling S. Gregory, that some said he had no Canonical authority to judge the difference between the said Bishop of Ravenna, and a certain Abbot who had appealed to Gregory: he saith,— Nunquid non ipse nosti, quia in causa, quae a Johanne Presbytero contra Johannem Constantinopolitanum fratrem & coepiscopum nostrum orta est, secundum Canones ad Sedem Apostolicam recurrit, & nostra est sententia definita. Si ergo de illa Civitate, ubi Princeps est, [i. e. Constantinople, where the Emperor then resided] ad nostram causa cognitionem deducta est, quanto magis negotium quod contra nos est [done within our own Patriarchat against our authority,] hic est, veritate cognita, terminàndum.—  
See Ep. 63. to the same Sicilian Bishop: where answering to some objecting, Quomodo Ecclesiam Constantinopolitanam disposuit comprimere [i.e. Gregory,] qui ejus consuetudines [i.e. in ordinatione Missae] per omnia sequitur? he, denying that the Church of Rome followed the customs of the Greeks, replies thus:— Vnde habent [i.e. Graeci] ergo hodie, ut Subdiaconi lineis in tunicis procedant, nisi quia hoc a Matre sua Romana Ecclesia perceperunt? And,— Nam de Constantinopolitana Ecclesia, quod dicunt; Quis eam dubitet Sedi Apostolicae esse subie●●am, quod & Lominus piissimus Imperator; & frater noster Eusebius [I conceive it should be Cyriacus, who, at the first especially, was very compliant with Rome, see Greg. Ep. 6. l. 31. Ep. & 28. Ep.) for there was no Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople in Gregory's time,] ejusdem Civitatis Episcopus, assidue profitentur. And see (10. l. 31. Epistle) the form of submission (taken by Gregory's Substitutes) of those who returned to the unity of the Church, from the Schism which maintained the tria Capitula of the Council of Chalcedon, which were condemned in the 5th General Council. which submission was,— Promitto tibi, & per te Sancto Petro Apostolorum Principi, atque ejus Vicario, Beatissimo Gregorio,— semper me in unitate Sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae, & communione Romani Pontificis per omnia permansurum.—  
§ 30 
A Digression concerning the Patriarchship of Raverna and Justiniana 1a urged by Dr. Hammond.  And because Dr. Hammond (schism 6. c. p. 115. and 5. c. 8. §.) quotes, and much stands upon, the Patriarchship of Ravenna erected to this dignity (as he saith) by the Emperor Valentinian, and of Justiniana 1a, and of Carthage erected by the Emperor Justinian; the one being his native soil, the other recovered by him from the Vandals; erected, as utterly independent on the Roman Patriarch, (though Dr. Field grants all these places to have been contained under his Patriarchy, 38. c. p. 560.) and this without any contradiction from the said Patriarch; upon which instances chief he there builds this position, [That it is, and hath always been in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes, within their Dominions to erect, or translate Patriarchates]: I will also set you down some passages in these Epistles of Gregory, (one who lived after, and not long after, these Emperors,) which show these Primats to have had still dependence (as others) on the Roman See; and, either not to have had conferred on them at all, or at least not to have enjoyed, with that Church's consent, those privileges he pretends, 1. For the Bishop of Ravenna, see Gregory's Epistle (2. l. 54. Ep.) to John 3d. Bishop of Ravenna, (the same that, as Dr. Hammond saith (Answ. to S. disarmed, p. 156.) stood much upon his special rights in opposition to the Roman See,) where, Gregory reprehending him for an unseasonable using of the Pall, hath these words:— Quod bene hanc consuetudinem generalis Ecclesiae [contrary to what he used] noveritis, vestris nobis manifestissime significastis Epistolis; quibus Praeceptum beatae memoriae Decessoris nostri Johannis Papae nobis subditis, transmisistis annexum, continens omnes consuetudines ex privilegio Praedecessorum nostrorum concessas vobis Ecclesiaeque vestrae, debere servari. [The Privileges of Ravenna therefore, whatever they were, are, in this contest, pretended by the Bishop thereof, to be received (not from the Emperor, or not from him singly, but) from the See Apostolic, contrary to what Dr. Hammond affirms, p. 156. and this only is pleaded by John Bishop of Ravenna; That the privileges granted to his See by former Roman Bishops could not be annulled by Gregory the present. But such privileges were denied by Gregory to have been formerly conceded to Him by his Predecessors; hence he proceeds thus afterward, in the same Epistle.— Aut mos omnium Metropolitanorum est a sua fraternitate servandus; aut si tuae Ecclesiae aliquid specialiter dicis esse concessum praeceptumve a prioribus Romanae Vrbis Pontificibus; quod haec Ravennati Ecclesiae sint concessa, a vobis oportet ostendi.— And to the same Bishop about another thing amiss, (4. l. 1. Ep.) he writes in this stile:— Proinde Fraternitas tua hoc, quolibet in loco factum sit, emendare festinet; quia ego nullo modo patiar, ut loca sacra per Clericorum ambitum destruantur. Vos itaque ita agite, ut mihi hac de re correctam causam sub celeritate nuntietis.— See 5. l. 8. Ep. his sending the Pall to Maximinianus Bishop of Ravenna, and confirming his privileges. In which Epistle, urged by S. W. Dr. Hammond (Answ. to Schism disarmed, p. 151.) will have these words [omnia Privilegia quae tuae pridem concessa esse constat Ecclesiae, nostra authoritate firmamus, & illibata decernimus permanere] well to consist with the independency of that Church, for such privileges, on the See of Rome; and with the Emperor's conferring these privileges to all succession, without any joint authority of the Pope; and, bringing in [provocatus antiquae consuetudinis ordine] without mentioning the words immediately before, [Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia atque antiquae consuetudinis ordine provocatus,] he makes these words refer not to the Popes, but to the Emperor's former grant. But meanwhile judge you, if the Emperor might of his own accord erect Patriarchies, or confer such privileges without the Bishop of Rome's authority; whether [authoritate nostra firmamus, & illibata decernimus &c, and Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia] be not, not only needless, but also ridiculous. But if the Patriarch of the West's [authoritate nostra firmamus] was necessary to what the Emperor did, then are all such instances rendered useless to the Doctor, who can show no such [firmamus] to the late erected Patriarchates. And, were not such testimonies extant, yet the rescript of the same Emperor Valentinian (quoted before p 86.) seems a sufficient proof, that no such privileges, as were prejudicial to the Roman See, were granted by him. 2. For the Bishop of Justiniana 1a; that he continued to receive the Pall, as other Primats, from the Bishop of Rome; and that he had locum Apostolicae Sedis, not the place of a, but of the, Apostolic See; namely, as the Pope's standing delegate for those parts subordinate to him; (the phrase being frequently used in this, but I think never in the other, sense): lastly, that the Bishop of Rome deputed the judgement of causes to him, and, for some misbehaviour in his place, passed Ecclesiastical censures upon him; I say for these things see 4. l. Indict. 13. Ep. 15. Johanni Episcopo 1 ae Justinianae newly elected:— Pallium vero ex more transmisimus, & vices vos Apostolicae Sedis agere, iterata innovatione, decernimus. Iterata innovatione; which argues the first concession, that he should have locum Apostolicae Sedis, was from the Roman Bishop; which Baronius (Anno 535.) saith, Justinian, with much importunity, obtained of Vigilius: after Agapetus his Predecessor had made a demur to grant it, as being a thing too prejudicial to his Neighbour-Metropolitans. And see 10. l. 5. Indict. 34. Ep. where he refers the cause of Paulus Bishop of Dyaclina to the examination of the Bishop of Justiniana 1a. And see 2. l. Indict. 11. Ep. 6. to the same Bishop, where reprehending him for a singular act of injustice, he saith,— Quod vero ad praesens attinet, cassatis prius atque ad nihilum redactis praedictae sententiae tuae decretis; ex Beati Apostolorum Principis authoritate decernimus, triginta dierum spatio sacra te communione privatum, ab omnipotenti Deo nostro tanti excessus veniam cum summa poenitentia ac lachrymis exorare.— Quod si &c—; contumaciam fraternitatis tuae cognoscas adjuvante Deo severius puniendam.— After these see Justinianan's Constitution itself, (Novel. 131. cap. 3.) which runs thus.— Per tempus autem Beatissimum 1 ae Justinianae Archiepiscopum habere semper sub sua jurisdictione Episcopos Provinciarum Daciae etc.— & in subjectis sibi Provinciis locum obtinere Sedis Apostolicae Romae, secundum ea quae definita sunt a sanctissimo Papa Vigilio.— Which last words, how reasonably Dr. Hammond (Reply to Cath. Gentl. p. 96.) interprets, that Vigilius defined, that the Bishop of Justin. 1a should be, for ever after, an absolute and free Patriarch, independent on the Bishop of Rome, or why the Emperor should require such a definition from Vigilius, who (as the Doctor holds) had no right to hinder it, I leave to your judgement, after that you have well considered what is here alleged. And see likewise this confessed by Dr Field, 5. l. 38. c. p. 561. The same may be said of the Bishop of Justiniana the first; who was appointed the Bishop of Rome's Vicegerent in those parts, upon signification of the Emperor's will and desire that it should be so. Thus he. And hence was this power conferred upon him finally to determine causes, namely as the Pope's Delegate for that purpose; and this exclusively, not to Rome, but to other Metropolitans within those Provinces newly subjected to him; from whom to him, not so from him to them, might be Appeals. 3. As for the third Primate, of Carthage, he is pretended only to be admitted to the like privileges with Justiniana 1a.  
Thus have I set you down (to save you the pains, 
§ 31. n. 1.  or to prevent the usual neglect, of searching them in the Authors) some of the most notable passages for the first 600 years, (wherein you may find Calvin's confession (Instit. 4. l. 7. c.) true, nullum fuisse tempus, quo non Romana Sedes imperium in alias Ecclesias appetiv. rit, but, I add more, obtinuerit, too,) showing (as I think) several ways, not only the honour and dignity, before, but the authority and power of the Roman See, over, other Churches, not only those under its Patriarchy, but the Eastern also: the Eastern, not only single, but joined in Councils; power, not only which Roman Bishops claimed, but which Councils allowed, testified, confirmed, and established; and the greatest Bishops in the world repaired to for justice; the most of those Roman Bishops, whose authorities I have cited, being eminent for sanctity, and having the same title and reputation of Saints, as the other ancient Fathers: and the two last of them being quoted by Protestants, as inveighers against an Universal Bishop as a forerunner of Antichrist, (that you may fee how much authority even the most moderate have assumed). and all these transactions being before the times of the Emperor Phocas; who by some Reformed (see Dr. Hammond, reply to Cathol. Gentl. 3. c. 4. s. 14. n.) is said to have laid the first foundations of the modern Roman Greatness, in declaring him Episcopum Oecumenicum & Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, (though indeed Phocas his act was only (in a quarrel of his against Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople) adjudging the stile of Oecumenicus, before much disputed between those two Bishops, as you have seen, not fit to be used by the Bishop of Constantinople, and due only to the Bishop of Rome). and that Paulus Diaconus (de gestis Romanorum, 18. l. quoted by Dr. Hammond) meant no more; see what the same Paulus saith (de gestis Longobardorum 4 l. 37. c.): and being of those ages, wherein Dr. Field, thro' his 5th book, denies to have been any Roman Supremacy of power. If it be said that the Roman Bishops, out of whose writings many of these authorities are produced, then claimed what others denied; I think some other quotations (intermingled) out of those who were no Roman Bishops will show this to be untrue.  
Besides, 
§. 31. n. 2. In the chief causes of all other divisions from the Roman Church (excepting that of the late Reformation) the Roman Church (in the judgement of the Reformed) the more Orthodox.  my chief intention here was not to declare, quo jure such jurisdiction was either claimed, or yielded to; but that de facto that power was so long ago assumed, which being now challenged, is by our men denied; and (I may add) assumed with good success to the Church of God during those first Ages. The Bishops of Rome having patronised no Heresies at all, as all the other Patriarches, at some time or other, did. Such were in the See of Constantinople, Macedonius, Nestorius, Sergius, Arch-heretics: in Alexandria, Dioscorus, the grand Patron of the Eutychians: in Antioch, Paulus Samosatenus, the Father of the Paulianists, etc. All which Heresies, and several other, which took root in the East, were suppressed, and the Unity and Uniformity of the Church's Doctrine and Discipline preserved, by the overruling power, the threats, the censures, of this See; as any, not over-partial, Reader of the Ecclesiastical History, will easily discern. And perhaps I may venture a little further; That to this day, in the chief point and occasion of breach, for which any other Church besides the Reformed, stands divided from the Roman Communion, the Reformed do justify the Roman tenant against those Churches. The chief matter of the division of the Greek Church from the Roman was besides that of the Bishop of Constantinople's using the stile of Occumenicus, and the procession of the Holy Ghost; as appears by the disputation in the Council of Florence (where both Churches (the Eastern now falling into some distress) hearty sought for an accord) almost wholly spent about this point. Now in this article the Reformed do side with the Roman Church; and, so far also as we allow of any superiority, we adjudge the prime place not to the Constantinopolitan, but the Roman Patriarch. The chief Doctrine, for which the other Orientals (as the Assyrian Churches, the Jacobites, Armenians, Cophti, Aethiopians, Maronites, etc. of which see Field l. 3. c. 1, etc.) stand separate from Rome, whilst their public Service and Liturgies much-what accord with the Greek, or Roman, is either Nestorianism, or Eutychianism, or Monothelitism, imputed unto them; in which also the Reformed adhere, against them, to the Roman judgement. The like may be said in the ancienter controversies of the Roman Church with the Asian Churches, about Easter; and with the African, and some of the Asian, about Rebaptisation. Thus in the main causes of differences with the Eastern Churches, the Reformed will grant, Rome to have continued orthodox, and that had the other been bound effectually to have received their laws in these controversies from her, they had been better guided; or at least, that, for those 600 years, she happily moderated the great Questions of the Church by her supereminent authority. But if it be said again; That the Bishops of Rome now claim much more power, than the instances above show them anciently to have used; I desire to know first, before this be examined, whether we will grant them so much; for whilst we complain, that they now a-days claim more than is due to them, is it not so, that we deny them not the more, but all? And have they done well, who have used the Bishops so, who have used Kings so, upon pretence of their exercising an illegal power?  
§ 32 And now by what hath passed, we may the better judge of the meaning (notwithstanding whatever other glosses are made upon them) of those places of the ancient Fathers, 
By the instances above, judgement may be made of the sense of many other (controverted) Sayings of the Fathers.  which are quoted before § 6. To which I will here add that which follows, in Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 3. who speaks there, how Heretics may be easily confounded by the unity of the Tradition of Apostolical Doctrine.— Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam [i. e. a duobus Apostolis Petro & Paulo Romae fundatam] propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles; in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique fideles, conservata est ea, quae ab Apostolis est traditio. In qua, i. e. in union & adhaesione ad quam, Apostolical Tradition is more certainly preserved in all other Churches. Let therefore [potentiorem principalitatem] (if so you can make any sense) be referred (as it is by the Reformed) to the Roman Empire, not Church; yet the certain conservation of Tradition Apostolical, which is the Father's reason of other Churches repairing and conforming to this, that cannot be applied but only to the Church, not as seated in the Imperial City, but as founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul. Of which Church Tertullian (de prescript. Haereticorum) also saith,— Ista quam faelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt. And, after him, thus Cyprian in his Ep. 45. to Cornelius' Bishop of Rome (not to urge any of those passages in his Book de Vnit. Eccl. Cath. which perhaps seem capable of the exposition which the Reformed give them)— Nos singulis navigantibus [i.e. from Africa into Italy] rationem reddentes, scimus nos hortatos eos esse, ut Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem & matricem [i.e. Ecclesiam Romanam] agnoscerent & tenerent.— And afterward, — Ne in urbe [in Rome] schisma factum, animos absentium [i.e. of those in afric] incerta opinione confunderet [which party they should adhere to] placuit, ut per Episcopos istic positos [African Bishop's residing at Rome] literae fierent] to the African Provinces] ut te, universi collegae nostri, & communicationem tuam, id est, Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter, ac charitatem, probarent firmiter ac tenerent. And Epist. 52. Antoniano's Fratri [a Bishop not communicating with Novatianus]— Scripsisti etiam ut exemplum earundum literarum ad Cornelium [the Bishop of Rome] Collegam nostrum transmitterem, ut depositum omni solicitudine jam sciret te secum, hoc est, cum Catholica Ecclesia, communicare. (The like expressions to which we find in Ambrose, Orat. in satire. where he saith of his Brother Satyrus, about to receive the Communion, that percunctatus est Episcopum, si cum Episcopis Catholicis, hoc est, si cum Romana Ecclesia, conveniret)— And thus Cyprian again, in his Epist. 55. ad Cornelium de Fortunato & Faelicissimo haereticis [who condemned in afric, appealed to Rome.] Post ista adhuc insuper navigare audent; & ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, a schismaticis [Fortunato etc.] literas far; nec cogitare eos [i. e. tales] esse Romanos (quorum fides, Apostolo praedicante, laudata est) ad quos persidia habere non possit accessum. Add to these, in the 46th Epistle, the confession of those who returned to Cornelius from the Schism of Novatianus, made in this form;— Nos Cornelium Episcopum sanctissimae Catholicae Ecclesiae, electum— a Christo Domino nostro scimus, etc. concluding, Nec enim ignoramus unum Deum esse, unum Christum, unum Spiritum Sanctum, unum Episcopum in Catholica Ecclesia esse debere. Vnum, i. e. I suppose unum supereminent in power to the rest, the better to preserve the Church's Unity.  
§ 33 Lastly; The passages of those Ancients who were in some difference with the Bishop of Rome, which upbraid him for challenging such power, seem to me good arguments, that such power and authority, over other Churches and Bishops, was then so early assumed by him. So Tertullian (the Pudicitia c. 21.) living in the beginning of the third Age, when now a Montanist, and rigidly opposing the Absolution, and restitution to the Church, of lapsed Christians, though penitents (which thing was practised by the Bishop of Rome), mentions there in Irony his Titles of Pontifex Maximus, and Episcopus Episcoporum; and thus expostulates with him,— Vnde hoc jus Ecclesiae [i. e. of absolving such sinners] usurpas? Si quia dixerit Petro Dominus; super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam: Tibi dedi claves regni Coelorum; vel quaecunque alligaveris etc. Qualis es! evertens atque commutans manifestam Domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem etc. [But note, that Tertullian here in the Protestants judgement errs, absolution of sinners penitent being not personal to Peter, or the Apostles, but common, not only to the Roman Bishop, but all the successive Clergy, for ever.]— So Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea Cappadociae in his Epistle to St. Cyprian (the 75th amongst Cyprian's) when very passionate in the matter of Rebaptising those formerly Baptised only by Heretics, and (as it seems by Eus. Ec. H. l. 7. c. 4.) either punished or threatened with Excommunication by Stephen Bishop of Rome for it, and also being his opposite in the controversy about Easter, thus inveighs against him;— Ego in hac parte juste indignor— quod qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriatur & se successionem Petri tenere contendit, super quem fundamenta Ecclesiae collocata sunt, multas alias Petras inducat, & Ecclesiarum multarum nova aedificia constituat, dum esse illic [i.e. Heretical Churches] baptisma sua authoritate defendit— Stephanus, qui per successionem Cathedram Petri habere se praedicat, nullo adversus haereticos zelo exeitatur etc. [i.e. in disallowing and nulling their Baptism]— Eos autem qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus observare, quae sint ab origine tradita; & frustra Apostolorum authoritatem praetendere, scire quis etiam inde potest etc.— where he blames their keeping of Easter differently from others in the Asian Churches.— Qui gloriatur, qui praedicat, qui praetendit: therefore such titles, and such gloriation there was; and such authority challenged by the Roman Bishops (which he calls in that Epistle [ruptio pacis]) long before the Nicen Council; and the judgements, and the pretended Apostolical traditions of these Bishops, though by these mistaken men censured and opposed, yet by the orthodox followed and embraced.  
§ 34 As for the two places urged out of S. Cyprian against the acknowledgement of any such power or superiority of one Bishop over another; and consequently of the Bishop of Rome; the one out of the Council of Carthage (in his works,) wherein, being Precedent, he saith,— Neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adigit; quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis & potestatis suae arbitrium proprium; tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nec ipse potest judicare. Sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus & solus habet Potestatem— de actu nostro judicandi.— And the other, in the close of his and the Councils Epistle to Stephen, (Epistle 72.) where he saith:— Haec ad conscientiam tuam Frater Charissime [i.e. Stephano]— pertulimus; credentes etiam tibi, pro religionis tuae & fidei veritate, placere, quae & religiosa pariter & vera sunt. Caeterum scimus quosdam, quod semel imbiberint, nolle disponere, nec proposstum s●um facile mutare; sed salvo inter collegas pacis & concordiae vinculo, quaedam propria retinere. Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus; cum habeat in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium iberum unusquisque Praepositus [or Bishop,] rationem actus sui Domino redditurus.— In the first of these places, the Father speaks of all Bishops having their free votes in the Council; none lording it over the rest, nor they to give account of such vote, save to God alone. This seems clear from the words immediately preceding:— Superest ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus proferamus, neminem judicantes etc. [which words they are pleased not to mention with the rest.] In the second, he only saith of himself and the Council, That they did not vim facere, nor legem dare cuiquam Collegarum. By which colleagues, he means not Stephen the Bishop of Rome, or any foreign, but only some African, Bishops: who, having no such former custom of rebaptising any, dissented from that Council's judgement; as may be collected both from the words preceding here— credimus tibi placere, and from the former Epistle 71. to Quintus, where he saith, Nescio qua praesumptione ducuntur quidam de collegis nostris, ut putent eos qui apud haereticos tincti sunt, quando ad nos venerint baptizari non oportere, [this being spoken of his colleagues] Et qui hoc illis patrocinium de authoritate sua praestat, cedit illis & consentit &c. [this being spoken of Stephen, who countenanced his African colleagues.] But be these colleagues whom they please; of them I ask, Were they subordinate and subject to this Council, or not? If they were; then [legem non damus] must not be made equivalent to [non licet dare.] And, in doubtful matters (as this must needs be on Cyprian's side, going against the former general practice of the Church except that of his Predecessors) 'tis many times great prudence legem non dare, where there is a legislative power: or if they were not subordinate; then indeed, non licuit legem illis dare. But this rule [non licet etc.] cannot be extended to other Governors, where there is a subordination of others to them. Now, as there are Bishops and Councils coequal, who therefore may not give the law to one another, (as the Bishop of one Diocese, or one Provincial Council, cannot regulate another); so there are Bishops and Councils superior to others: as above an ordinary Bishop, are Metropolitans, Primats, Patriarches: above Councils Provincial, are Patria chal, General. Therefore either S. Cyprian's words must not be so far extended, as to assert, That no one Bishop nor Council hath any power over another, but all Bishops left to their supreme liberty, only rationem reddituri Domino of their actions, (contrary to the universal practice of the Church; such superior Councils ordinarily censuring, and also anathematising Bishops); or, in the judgement of the Reformed, who also maintain such subordinations, S. Cyprian must be in an error. Now, in the vacancy of any General or Patriarchal Council, the Patriarch, at least for his own Patriarchat, (as Cyprian was within the Roman Patriarchat,) is the supreme Judge, and therefore Cyprian not exempt from all subjection or subordination to Him. See for this Dr. Fields concessions, (before § 18.) Supreme judge; for the executing of the former Ecclesiastical Canons, and preserving of the doctrines formerly established, and determined by Councils. Supreme Judge thus, over Provincial, not only Bishops but Councils, for from these may be made appeals to him; and a confirmation of their decrees is fought for from him. See that of Milevis and of Carthage in S. Austin's time, (before, § 23. n. 4.) neither ought they to promulgate any doctrine not formerly determined by former Councils against his approbation and consent. See before, § 22. (Therefore Cyprian might not make a contrary Decree to the Western Patriarch, so as to necessitate those under his Primacy to the obedience thereof, as neither he did.) But how far on the other side they stand obliged to conform to the judgement of him, or also of his Provincial Council, when defining any such new point against theirs, (the case here between Stephen and Cyprian,) I determine not: Especially considering the liberty Cyprian took to descent from Stephen, and considering, what Bellarmin (the Council 2. l. 5. c.) and before him S. Austin, grants, that by such dissent he ceased not to be a good Catholic; and considering also the liberty S. Ambrose took, at least, in a ritual, of practising contrary to the custom of the Roman Church. See de Sacram. l. 3. c. 1. Non ignoramus quod Ecclesia Romana hanc consuetudinem [i.e. de lotione Pedum] none habeat, cujus typum in omnibus sequimur & formam.— In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam, [in omnibus; that is, which I can reasonably assent to,] sedtamen & nos homines sensum habemus: Ideo quod alibi rectius servatur, & nos recte custodiamus, ipsum sequimur Apostolum Petrum etc. But neither is Cyprian's authority, whatever he did in this matter, nor any decree of an African Council (as Dr. Hammond Schism 6. c. p. 128. urgeth a canon of an African Council in Anastasius his time, A.D. 401. (the 71. in Balsamon, the 35. in Crab and Binnius,) which imports thus much; That laws made at Rome do not take away the liberty of another National Church to make contrary laws thereunto;) a sufficient argument clearly to decide this point; namely, that the African Churches, being subject, to this Patriarch, might promulgate a Doctrine contrary to his judgement. For there is no more reason we should justify Cyprian's, or an African Council's, authority against the Bishop of Rome and his Council, than this Bishop's and his Councils, against theirs; where if Cyprian for his person were a Martyr for Christ, so was Stephen too. Especially, when we find Cyprian so much erring in the matter of this controversy, whilst he saith, (Epist. 74.) Pompeio— Qui [Stephanus] haereticorum causam contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur,— And when we consider the modest and safe grounds Stephen went upon [Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est] having the former custom of the Church on his side, to which St. Cyprian pleads, Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris; and (Epist. 71. Quinto Fratri), Non est consuetudine perscribendum, sed ratione vincendum. Whereas, in this contest, it had been an happy thing for the Church, and had saved St. Austin many sheets against the Donatists, had he and his Council acquiesced in the judgement of their Patriarch. Thus much to those places objected out of Cyprian.  
§ 35 As for that pretended Canon of the African Council, I find the passages in Binnius (with whom the Dr. saith Balsamon agrees in setting down this Canon, but indeed there is some difference, and Balsamon's Translation hardly intelligible) otherwise then the Doctor (in his Reply to Schism Disarmed p. 209.) relates them.) The business there consulted upon, was about the readmission of the recanting Donatists, not only to the Unity of the Catholic Church, but also to the former Dignities, which such had held in the Church: concerning this a Council had been held already in Italy by Anastasius and his Bishops; wherein it was decreed, that such Donatists should not be admitted to their former honours and places; and a Letter was to this purpose sent to the Africans by Anastasius. Concerning which Letter, first this Council saith, Recitatis epistolis beatissimi Fratris & consacerdoti nostri Anastasii, quibus nos paternae & fraternae charitatis solicitudine & sinceritate adhortatus est, ut &c— Gratias agimus Domino nostro, quod illi optimo ac san●●o Ant●stiti suo tam piam curam pro membris Christi (q●amvis in div●rsitate terrarum, sed in una compage corporis, con tutas) inspirare dignatus est. Then in Can. 33. they say, onsideratis omnibus etc. eligim●s cum memoratis hominibus [the Donatists] leniter & pacifice agere, upon this reason; that so they might reduce, together with them, many others seduced by them. Lastly, in c. 35. which is the Canon urged, they say; Itaque placuit ut literae mittantur ad fratres & co●p scopos nostros [i. e. those of the Council which Anastasius had held in Italy] & maxim ad sedem Apostol●cam, in qua praesidet memoratus venerabilis Frater & Collega noster Anastasius, quo noverit habere Aphricam magnam nec ssitatem, ut ex ipsis Donatistis, quicunque transire voluerint etc. in suis honoribus suscipiantur, si hoc paci Christianae prod●sse visum fuerit; i. e. (as they explain themselves afterwards in the same Canon) that such Clerks of the Donatists should be admitted to their former Dignities, upon whose reconcilement depended the gaining and reduction of a multitude also of other Souls, who were their followers. This than they were to write to the Pope and the Bishops of the Italian Council; that such Donatist-leaders might be readmitted not only into the Church's bosom, but to their former places. They go on: Non ut Concilium▪ quod in transmarinis partibus de hac refactum est [who had decreed the contrary] dissolvatur; sed ut illud maneat [the Council stand good] cirea eos, qui sic transire ad Catholicam volunt, ut nulla per eos unitatis compensatio procuretur (i. e. who do not procure the uniting of many others) per quos autem— adjuvari manifestis fraternarum animarum [of those under the Donatist Clergy's Spiritual Conduct] lucris Catholica unitas visa fuerit, non eis obsit, quod contra honores eorum— in transmarino Concilio statutum est. Then, contracting what is formerly said, they conclude thus; id est, ut ordinati in parte Donati, si ad Catholicam correcti transire voluerint, non suscipiantur in honoribus suis, secundum transmarinum Concilium; exceptis his, per quos Catholicae unitati consuletur. Now some difference there is, between their writing to the Pope, and the Bishops of the former Council; ne obsit, for some; and maneat for the rest; and their decreeing against the Pope and that Council, ne obfuerit for any. Now this close is thus Englished by the Doctor our of Balsamon; That they that have been Ordained on the part of the Donatists, shall not be proceeded with according to the transmarine Synod, but shall the rather be received, as those that take care for the Catholic Unity. How well, I leave to your judgement.  
§. 36 
The Protestants ordinary Replies to these, to me seeming not satisfactory.  Now to these several instances, which I have drawn out of the primitive times, the answers which are usually made by some (for you must expect, that nothing is said by any side, which is not replied to by the other) are such as these; That such places, as speak of the Primacy and Principality of the Roman Bishop, speak only of that of Order and Dignity, not of Power or Authority;— Apostolicae Cathedrae Principatus; i. e. say they, quoad dignitatem, non quoad potestatem,— Rector domus Dei;— Ecclesiae Catholicoe, or universalis Episcopus; i.e. say they, Vnus erectoribus domus Dei; unus ex Episcopis, etc.— That such places as mention appeals to the Bishop of Rome, speak of them as made to him, non ut ad Judicem, sed ut ad ejusdem fidei fautorem, ut ejusdem fidei professores in communionem suam admitteret,— non ob aliquam jurisdicendi authoritatem, sed ob amicam communionis ejusdem societatem. That the like addresses were made to other Patriarches and Bishops for their communion and assistance, as to him; and that his Letters were requested, and, in behalf of sufferers, directed to all parts of Chcistianity; not by virtue of any authority he had to correct, but by reason of the power he had (from the reverence they gave to the dignity of his place) every where to persuade. That such places of Fathers, or Councils, as affirm, that no public affairs of the Church may be transacted without the Bishop of Rome, are not appropriate therefore only to him; but verified as much of the rest of the Patriarches, as of him. That those places which mention his censuring, excommunicating, deposing Clergy, that were not under his own Patriarchy, speak not of any authoritative or privative excommunication (to use the Bishop of Derry's expression, Vind. c. 8.) by way of jurisdiction, excluding such from the communion of Christ; but only of a negative, in the way of Christian discretion, by withdrawing him, or his, from communion with them; for fear of infection, for declaring his non-currence with, or countenancing of, their fault, etc. There being great difference (as Dr. Field observes p. 558.) between excommunication properly so named, or authoritatively forbidding all men to communicate with such and such; and the rejecting only of them from our communion and fellowship. [And I also confess and grant, such negations of communicating with others anciently used: and amongst rest used also by the Bishop of Rome, who often prohibited his Legates and others from communicating with some other Bishop (as with the Bishop of Constantinople, when he used the stile of Vniversalis,) or from going to, and being present at, their celebration of Divine Service; when he did not excommunicate the other, nay when also he admitted the ministers of the other, and those who communicated with the other, to come to his communion and celebration of Divine Service. See Gregory (6. l. 31. Ep. to Eulogius and Anastasius) indulging this to those, who were sent from Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople to him. But that all the Bishop's excommunications of those without his Patriarchy were only such, this is the thing denied.]— That the like may be said of his confirming or restoring his fellow-Bishops; that it was done, not by way of forensical justice, but fraternal approbation: and that all other Patriarches used excommunicating, deposing, acquitting, and restoring, in the same manner, allowing or withdrawing their communion from their fellow-Bishops, as they saw fit; and that they confirmed the Roman Bishop by their communicatory letters, as he them. [Which things, how well they agree with the above said forms of such Ecclesiastical censures, and with other practices of the Roman Bishops towards others, much differing from the practices of other Patriarches either towards him, or towards others; how well they agree with the addresses made from both Church-governors and Councils, upon differences and contentions in the Church, to Rome; addresses not used in the same manner to the other Patriarches, (yet would have been done equally to them also, had all Patriarches been esteemed in their power equal); especially how they agree with what is said § 24. and § 18. upon reviewing the instances I have given, I leave to your judgement.]— That the places, which speak of his judging causes, and inflicting such Ecclesiastical censures &c, speak not of him singly, but as joined with his Western Bishops; they meaning, by this, not some of his Western Bishops only, (whose assistance the Roman Bishop ordinarily useth in all his judgements,) but his whole Patriarchal Council.— That those places, which do argue, joining-with the Roman, to be joinning with the Catholic, communion, (see before § 23. n. 2. and n. 3. and § 32. as it must needs be, that, if God hath appointed any person or Council as a supreme Guide, whom the rest ought to obey, such members, as do not obey, cannot be Catholic,) are spoken only with respect to such a Roman Bishop at such a time, who, in their opinion, held the true Profession; and not, that all the Roman Bishops at any time have, or shall, hold it; those, who made these expressions, accounting the Roman Bishop orthodox and catholic, because he then was of such a faith as they approved; not the faith orthodox and catholic, because it was the faith of the Roman Bishop, or which he approved. So Spalatensis, in answer to the places produced out of S. Hierom. in 23. §. saith, (4. l. 10. c. 23. n.) Quod Hieronymus Damaso, hoc est Petri cathedrae, consociari velit, significat privilegium illius Cathedrae adhuc Hieronymi tempore vigens circa fidei puritatem: and 88 n.— Quasi dicat: quia nunc [not perpetuo] in terris video Apostolicam doctrinam Romae maxime puram conservari, ideo in his dissensionibus volo tibi adhaerere. [Which answer circularly makes him to judge first in what Church the true doctrine is, who is to seek what Church to adhere to, to be guided by it to the true doctrine. Whereas those, who submitted to the Roman, as the most orthodox, gathered it to be orthodox, as being S. Peter's Seat, and the prime Apostolical See.] That most of these testimonies and examples are not alleged out of the first and purest times; non esse ex prima antiquitate, sed post Nicaenam Synodum; cum schismata & partium studia in Christianos valere coeperunt. Yet then; that as their pride claimed much, (as they claimed indeed great authority from the beginning,) so were they by the resoluteness of their fellow-Bishops as much opposed; and what they decreed, seldom executed. And lastly, That much more dominion over the Church of God, than is showed here to have been then practised, is now assumed, (but what is this to the vindicator only of their ancient practice?) and, That were it not assumed, yet many and unsufferable are the inconveniences of so remote a Judge of Appeals. (But see concerning this what is said before, §. 14.) To such exceptions as these, I will trouble you with no reply: If you do not find the former passages (reviewed) sufficiently to justify themselves against these limitations and restrictions, and to vindicate much more authority to the Apostolical See than is here confessed, 
§. 37. Such power anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome, not only exercised jointly with a Patriarchal Council, (which is by some pretended.)  for me you may admit them for good answers.  
Hitherto I have been showing you the subordinations of Clergy, for regular Ordinations; for settling doctrine and discipline in the Church; and for deciding differences; and amongst these, (from § 11.) the great power given to Patriarches; and amongst and above them (from § 21.) more particularly, the power and preeminence the Roman See hath anciently challenged, or others yielded to it. In the next place observe; That the exercise of this power anciently lay not in the Roman Bishop, or other Patriarches, only as joined with, or Precedent in, a Patriarchal Synod; nor in Primates and Metropolitans, only as Precedent in a Provincial; (a refuge, which many willingly fly to, in their defence of a dissimilitude of the present, to the ancient Government of the Church by them;) but in them, as using only their private council, or the assistance of such neighbouring Bishops, as could without much trouble be convened: Of which I shall give you an account out of Bishop Bramhal, and Dr. Field, who have made it up to my hand.  
Thus then Dr. Field, (5. l. 30. c. p. 513.)— Provincial Councils were by ancient canons of the Church to be holden in every Province twice every year. It is very necessary (say the Fathers of the Council of Nice) that there should be a Synod twice in the year in every Province; that all the Bishops of the Province meeting together may in common think upon those things that are doubtful and questionable.— For the dispatch of Ecclesiastical business, and the determining of matters in controversy, we think it were fit (say the Fathers in the Council of Antioch) that in every Province Synods of Bishops should be assembled twice every year. [To the same effect he quotes Conc. Chalced. 18. c. see likewise Canon. Apostol. 38.]— But in process of time, when the Governors of the Church could not conveniently assemble in Synods twice a year, the Fathers of the Sixth General Council decreed, (Can. 8.) that yet in any case there should be a Synod of Bishops once every year for Ecclesiastical questions. Likewise the Seventh General Council (can. 6.) decreeth in this sort:— Whereas the Canon willeth judicial inquisition to be made twice every year by the assembly of Bishops in every Province; and yet for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods, the Fathers of the 6th General Council decreed it should be once in the year, and then things amiss to be redressed, we renew this latter canon.— But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy meetings, we shall find that they met not so often, and therefore the Council of Basil appointeth Episcopal Synods to be held once every year, and Provincial at lest once in three years, [and so doth Conc. Trident. 24. sess. 2. cap. pro moderandis moribus, corrigendis excessibus, controversiis componends, etc.] which accordingly were kept every third year by Carlo Borrhomeo, Metropolitan of Milan. And so in time, causes growing many, and the difficulties intolerable, in coming together, and in staying to hear these causes thus multiplied and increased, (which he confesseth before to be just considerations,) it was thought fit to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans, and such like Ecclesiastical Judges, limited and directed by canons and Imperial laws; than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces, and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides. Thus Dr. Field.  
And much what to the same purpose Bishop Bramhal, (Vindic. p. 257.) What power a Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province by the Canon-law, the same and no other had the Patriarch over the Metropolitans, and Bishops of sundry Provinces, within his own Patriarchate: But a Metropolitan anciently could do nothing out of his own [particular] Diocese, without the concurrence of the major part of the Bishops of his Province; nor the Patriarch in like manner without the advice and consent of his Metropolitans and Bishops. Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority?— In convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them; in pronouncing sentence according to plurality of voices, when Metropolitan Synods did not suffice to determine some emergent difficulties or differences.— I confess, that by reason of the great difficulty and charge of convocating so many Bishops, and keeping them so long together, until all causes were heard and determined; and by reason of those inconveniences which did fall upon their Churches in their absence, Provincial Councils were first reduced from twice, to once, in the year; and afterwards to once in three years. And in process of time the hearing of Appeals, and suchlike causes, and the execution of the canons in that behalf, were referred to Metropolitans, until the Papacy swallowed up all the authority of Patriarches, Metropolitans, and Bishops]. Thus the Bishop. Now concerning what they have said, note  
1. That tho Provincial Councils in some ages and places were more frequently assembled; in the time of whole sitting, as the assembled could do nothing without their Primate or Metropolitan, so neither he without them; yet in the intervals of such Synods (which intervals were too long, to leave all matters of controversy whatever, till then, in suspense; and happened many times also anciently to be longer than the canons permitted) the Metropolitans authority was not void; but they, limited and directed by the former decrees of such Synods, were trusted with the execution thereof, and with the doing of many things, especially in ordinary causes, by themselves alone; but so, as their acts of justice might upon complaint be reviewed in the sitting of the next Council, and, if disliked, repealed.  
2. That, though Metropolitan Synods in some times were not unfrequent; yet Patriarchal Synods were never, nor never well could be, so; nor find we any set times appointed for calling them, as for calling the other; so that, as 'tis plain by many former instances, that the Patriarch ordinarily did, so 'tis all reason that he should, decide some appeals without them: though in some cases extraordinary, and of great consequence, such Councils also were assembled.  
3. Since, where they speak of the Metropolitans judging matters alone, to have been a practice only of latter times; yet they allow this to be done upon very rational grounds: observe, that there were the same rational grounds of doing it anciently: and again, that the practice, they justify for Metropolitans in latter times, they have much more reason to allow to Patriarches in all times; because the greater the Councils are, with the more trouble are they convened. and lastly, that the reformed Metropolitans themselves, who blame the Bishop of Rome's managing Ecclesiastical affairs by himself alone, i. e. without a Patriarchal Synod; yet themselves think it reasonable to do the same thing, themselves alone, i. e. without their Provincial Synod; authorising their High-commission Court, and blaming his Consistory. Now what is allowed to Patriarchal proceed, without Councils, in respect of appeals from their several Provinces; the same it is, that, in the differences and contests of Patriarches themselves, and of other greater Bishops, (since it is meet for preserving the Church's peace and unity, that some person, or assembly, should have the authority to decide these; and since it is unreasonable, and for the great trouble thereof not feisible, that a General Council, or also Patriarchal, in all such differences, should be assembled); the same (I say) it is, that, by ancient custom and Ecclesiastical canons, hath been conferred on the Bishop of Rome with his Council, (though granted liable to error); He being more eminently honourable than the rest, by reason, of the larger extent of his Patriarchy; of the great power and ancient renown of that City, which in Spiritual matters he governed; but especially, of the two greatest Apostles, Peter and Paul, there ending their days in the government of that See, and leaving him there the Successor of their power. Yet is this office of supreme judicature so committed unto him, that his judgements only stand in force till such a meeting; and may be reviewed, and, where contrary to former canons, reversed, by it; concerning which see the saying of S. Austin, quoted before, § 22.— Restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesie universae Concilium etc. and the saying of Zosimus, quoted §. 22. n. 2. and the Epistle of Gelasius, quoted § 25. n. 3. and what is said § 22. Now, all Metropolitan and Patriarchal authority in the intervals of Councils being limited to the execution of Conciliary Laws and Canons, or, at least, to the acting nothing against them, if the question be asked, who shall judge whether so they do? I answer, none but a superior Council; till which their judgement stands good. For (as I have largely showed elsewhere) if Litigants once may judge of this, when their Judges judge rightly, and not against the laws, and accordingly may yield or subtract their obedience; such obedience is arbitrary. In civil Courts, Princes, or their Ministers, are obliged to judge according to, or not against, the laws of the Kingdom; may the litigant therefore reject their judgement, when it seems to him contrary to these laws? I believe not.  

§ 38. That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power established by Ecclesiastical Canon: and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by the power Secular.  Thus much having been said of the authority and jurisdiction given, by Ecclesiastical constitutions and ancient customs and practice, to some Ecclesiastical persons above others; and amongst them, supereminently above all the rest, to the Roman Bishop; and given to these persons, not only as joined with Councils, but as single Magistrates, in the vacancy thereof; in the next place, these Propositions also I think must necessarily be granted. First; That whatever authority is thus settled upon any persons by the canons and customs of the Church, concerning the managing of affairs not civil, but merely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, cannot be annulled, and dissolved, nor cannot be conferred, contrary to the Church's constitutions, on any other person, by any Secular power; neither by Heathen and unbelieving Princes, who were enemies to the Church; nor by Christian much less: because these are in Spiritual matters Sons and Subjects of the Church, and now obliged to obey her laws; neither by the one, who so might easily hinder the propagation of Christianity; nor by the other, who, if happening at any time to be Heretical or Schismatical, might easily hinder the profession of the Orthodox faith, or disturb the Church's peace. Thus Grotius, a great Lawyer, (in Rivet. Apol. discuss. p. 70.) Imperatorum & Regum aliquod esse officium etiam circa res Ecclesiae, in confesso est. At non tale, quale in saeculi negotiis. Ad tutandoes, non ad violandos Canon's jus hoc comparatum est. Nam cum Principes filii sint Ecclesiae, non debent vi in matrem uti. Omne corpus sociale jus habet quaedam constituendi, quibus membra obligentur; hoc jus etiam Ecclesiae competere apparet Act. 15.28. Heb. 13.17. where he quotes Facundus saying of Martianus: Cognovit ille quibus in causis uteretur Principis potestate, & in quibus exhiberet obedientiam Christiani.— And— Obedite Praepositis, etiam Regibus dictum.— See this discoursed more largely in Success. Clerg. § 64, 65. 2. And further; That it is Schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power so established, and never since by the same Ecclesiastical laws reversed. I say here, concerning matters Ecclesiastical, not Civil; therefore, let that Proposition of Dr. Hammond (schism 6. c. p. 129.) for me stand good, [That a Law, though made by a General Council, and with the consent of all Christian Princes, [i. e. of that time,] yet, if it have respect to a civil right, may in this or that Nation be repealed, [i. e. by that Prince's Successors]; provided only, That the ordaining or confirming of inferior Governors and Officers of the Church; the assembling of Synods; and decision of controversies of Religion; the ordering Church-service and discipline; the Ecclesiastical censures upon delinquents, and the like, for preventing or suppressing of Heresy, Schism, and Faction; and for preserving the Church in unity of doctrine and practice: Provided (I say) that such things be not reckoned amongst civil rights; as they may not be; because all these were things used by the Church under the heathen Emperors, even against their frequent Edicts: yet could they not have been lawfully so used, if any of these had encroached on civil rights; in any of which civil rights, the heathen Prince might claim as much lawful power to prohibit them, as the Christian can. And because all these were continued to be used by the Church also under Christian Emperors, without ask their leave to decree such things, or subjecting them to their authority, or depending on their consent, (only with humbly desiring their assistance, yet so as, without, it, resolved to proceed in the execution thereof as under Heathen; as clearly appeared under the the Arian Emperors;) yet which thing she could not lawfully have done, were any of these entrenching upon another's right. For example; the 6th Canon of Nice, and 5. Can. of Constant. Council, would have been an usurpation of an unjust authority, if the subordination of Episcopal Sees, and erecting of Patriarches had belonged to the Prince. Upon the same grounds let also those instances (collected by Bishop Bramhal, Vindic. 7. c.) of several Princes and States, on many occasions opposing the Pope's authority, stand good and be justified, so far as he doth not show these Secular powers to have opposed him in any right belonging to him, by Church-canons, in Ecclesiastical matters. But if in any of those examples, they are also found to oppose him in these, the proving of such facts to have been done, justifies not their lawfulness to be done. Tho also he confesseth, that this fact of Hen. 8. in abolishing the usurped (as he calls it) jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions, he cannot fellow abroad. See what he saith, Vindic. 7. c. p. 184.. Neither do such facts, as he urgeth to be done abroad, hinder such Princes for living still in the external communion with the Church of Rome; which facts he urgeth as a defence of the Reformed's necessary relinquishing this communion. Again, I said, That no such Spiritual authority can he conferred, or translated to others, contrary to such Church Canons, etc. Else, whenever it is not contrary to these Canons, I grant that Inferior Councils, or Church-governors, or also Secular powers with their consent, may change and alter many things, both in respect of Ecclesiastical persons and affairs: therefore many cases concerning the Kings of England, with such consent of inferior Councils or Church-governors, erecting or translating Bishoprics, etc. (instanced in by D. Hammond or Bishop Bramhall) are justifiable, where any wore not contrary to the Laws of the Church, i. e. of superior Councils: but in any other examples, where such Laws are transgressed, either by the Prince, or also by their particular Clergy, the proving such facts to have been done, justifies not their lawfulness to be done, though such acts were done without any express or present control. Things being thus explained, I say, (to give a particular instance of the former proposition), No Prince or Emperor, Heathen or Christian, etc. can, for his own Dominions, dissolve or abrogate the authority, concerning Ecclesiastical affairs, of those Patriarches or Primates constituted (or confirmed) in the 6th Canon of the Council of Nice, (the Church not commanding obedience to Patriarches at random, or to such as the Secular Prince should set over us; but also nominating and constituting, from time to time, the Sees, which had or should have such preeminence), if these be since by no other General Council reversed: nor can any, who by that Canon is subjected (for instance) to the Patriarch of Alexandria, deny obedience in such Ecclesiastical matters to him without Schism; though his Secular Prince should command the contrary, or subject him to another.  
And if these things here said be true, then also so far as the Bishop of Rome's Authority is found to be confirmed, in matters Spiritual, by the Church's Canons, and ancient custom, over any Churches Provincial or National, it will be Schism for any such Christian Prince or People to oppose it; so long, till the like Council reverseth it. Hence; to those three pretended rights of the Roman Bishop over the Church of England, whereby Schism is said to be incurred, mentioned by Dr. Hammond (see Schism p. 138.) namely, his right 1. As Saint Peter's Successor; or 2. By conversion of the Nation to Christianity; or 3. By the voluntary concession of Kings; I suppose I may add a 4th, with his good leave; namely, his right by ancient Constitutions and Canons of the Church; and may rightly affirm, that if any such right could be proved, the English Clergy must be Schismatics in opposing it, though all the other pretences be overthrown: For such a sort of Schism Dr. Hammond mentions p. 66. It may be observed indeed in our writers: That they freely determine; 1. That the Secular Prince hath a just external authority in Ecclesiastical affairs committed to him by God to enforce the execution of the Church's Canons upon all, as well Clergy as Laity, within his Dominions (a thing denied by none). 2. Again; That the Secular Prince hath no internal Ecclesiastical authority delegated to him by God, as to Administer the Sacraments, to Absolve, Excommunicate, etc. 3. Again, That the Secular Prince hath no just authority to determine any thing concerning Divine Truths; or perhaps other Ecclesiastical affairs without the Clergy's help and assistances. But whether such Ecclesiastical Determinations, or Laws, are obligatory when the Prince makes these, being assisted only with some small portion of the Clergy, and opposed by the rest; or also by a superior Council, or Court Ecclesiastical: Or, whether the Prince, against these, provided that he have some lesser number of Clergy on his side, may reverse former Canons, or enact new, to oblige the Clergy and Laity under his Dominion: This they seem to me not freely to speak to; most what to pass over, and some of our later Writers, when they are forced upon it, rather to deny it. And indeed neither is there any thing in the Oath of the King's Supremacy (except it be in that general clause [I will defend all Jurisdictions, etc.] granted), nor in the 37 Article of the Church of England (which treats of the King's power in Ecclesiasticals) that may seem to affirm or determine it. For whereas the Oath in general makes the King only supreme Governor in Ecclesiasticals, he may be so for some thing, and yet not for every thing (not therefore the supreme decider of all Divinity controversies). And whereas the 34th Article expounds the Supremacy thus, [That he is to rule all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal; and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers]. All this he may do, and yet be tied in all things to the Laws of the Church; and to leave to the Church's sole judgement who are evil-doers, or Heretical persons, etc. when any controversy ariseth in Divine matters, about the lawfulness of some Practice, or truth of some Tenet.  
§. 39 Now let us search therefore, how far the concessions of Bishop Bramhall and Dr. Hammond may extend to the confirmation of the foresaid assertions. 
The Concessions of B. Bramhall und of Dr. Hammond, in this matter.  The Bishop (Vindic. c. 8. p. 232.) hath this proposition (indeed with application thereof to the Pope, as guilty therein), To rebel against the Catholic Church, and its representative a General Council, which is the last visible Judge of controversies, and the supreme Ecclesiastical Court, either is gross Schism; or there is no such thing as Schismatical pravity in the world. To rebel against such a Council; i. e. against the constitutions thereof in affairs merely Spiritual; therefore if their Canons establish such and such Patriarchates, to rebel against these will be Schism. So (p. 269.) he saith, In cases that are indeed Spiritual, or merely Ecclesiastical (such as concern the Doctrine of Faith, or Administration of the Sacraments, or the Ordaining or Degrading of Ecclesiastical persons [I add, or those mentioned but now § 38. which relate not to the Civil State, but merely to the well governance of the Church] Sovereign Prince's have (and have only) an Architectonical power, to see that Clergymen do their duties [i. e. according to such Church-decrees]. Else, had Princes in such matters a negative or destructive power, this would be the right of Heathen Potentates also; and the primitive Church guilty of Rebellion in disobeying, in these things, their strictest prohibitions. Again (p. 257.) he saith; Thus neither the Papal power, which we have cashiered, nor any part of it, was ever given to any Patriarch by the ancient Canons; and by consequence the separation is not Schismatical. Therefore it seems it had been Schismatical, had such power been given him by the Canons.  
§ 40 Now to view Dr. Hammond, & (c. 3. p. 54.) he saith, It is manifest, that as the several Bishops had Praefecture over their several Churches, and over the Presbyters, Deacons, and People, under them; such as could not be cast off by any, without the guilt and brand of Schism; so the Bishops themselves of the ordinary inferior Cities, were (for the preserving of unity, and many other good uses) subjected to the higher power of Archbishops, or Metropolitans. Nay, we must yet ascend one degree higher, from this of Archbishops or Metropolitans, to that supreme, of Primates or Patriarches; the division of which is thus cleared, etc.— And (p. 60.) The uppermost of the standing powers in the Church, are Archbishops, Primates, and Patriarches, to whom the Bishops themselves are appointed in many things to be subject; and this power [I add, and the particular Sees to whom it shall belong, and subjection defined and asserted by the ancient Canons; and most ancient (even immemorial Apostolical) tradition and custom is avouched for it [I add, especially for the eminency of the Roman See] as may appear, Conc. Nicaen. Can. 4, 6.— Conc. Antioch. c. 9 c. 20.— Conc. Chalc. c. 19 etc. After all which, p. 66. of the same Chapter (the Title of which is, Of the several sorts of Schism) he concludes, That there may be a disobedience and irregularity, and so a Schism, even in the Bishops, in respect of their Metropolitans, and of the Authority which these have by Canon and primitive custom over them. Which was therefore to be added to the several species of Schism set down in the former Chapters. Where, though the Doctor is pleased not to name particularly Patriarches, yet the quotation p. 54. [We must yet ascend etc.] and p. 60. shows you, that he, upon the same reason of Church-Canons and primitive Custom, doth and must hold, that there may be a Schism also in the Metropolitans (and consequently in all those under the Metropolitans) in respect of their Patriarch. The uniting, as of several Dioceses in one Metropolitan, and of several Provinces and Metropolitans in one Primate, so of many Nations and Primates in one Patriarch, exceedingly conducing to the peaceable government and cohesion of the Church Catholic, and suppression of Heresies and Schisms, oftener National, than Diocesan only, or Provincial. Quae vero est causa (saith Grotius in his first Reply upon Rivet. ad Art. 7.) cur, qui opinionibus dissident inter Catholicos, maneant in eodem corpore, non rupta communione; contra, qui inter Protestants dissident idem facere nequeant, utcunque multa de dilectione fraterna loquantur? Hoc qui recte expender it inveniet, quanta sit vis Primatus. Which Primacy St. Hierom observes, even amongst the Apostles themselves (adversus Jovinianum l. 1. c. 14.) Super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia; licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat; & cuncti claves regnorum Coeli accipiant, & ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur: tamen, propterea, inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut capite constituto, schismatum tollatur occasio. Capite, that is, not only in dignity, but also in some authority; else can such Head not remedy Schisms. Patriarches therefore, as well as Metropolitans, much conducing to the removing of Schisms, and preserving the Church's unity, I suppose, whatever the Prince or Emperor should attempt against such Metropolitan or Patriarch, either to oppose him in the managing of those spiritual matters, and to deny him to exercise (either by himself or his Ministers) his jurisdiction in any Province which is by Church Canons subjected unto him, or to depose him from his See, or to transfer his authority and jurisdiction on some other, whom he more approves of (as if Valentinian, much affected to the Arrians, should have transferred St. Ambrose his Archiepiscopal jurisdiction upon Auxentius, an Arrian Bishop, whom he much affected; as his Mother Justina, I think, actually did, wanting only possession of the Church; which Ambrose, assisted also by the people, stoutly resisted) yet still▪ according to Dr. Hammond's judgement, as long as the Canons of the Church remain the same, it would be Schism in any to disobey such Metropolitan (or to side with the Prince), and Schism in the Prince himself as well as in the rest. Again,— S. W. replying thus upon these words of his (Schis. p. 125.) [the Canons of Councils have mostly been set out, and received their authority by the Emperors]; That never was it heard, that an Emperor claimed a negative Voice in making a Canon of a Council valid, which concerned matters purely spiritual; nay, not disaccepted them decreed unanimously by the Fathers, but all the world looked upon him as an unjust and tyrannical Encroacher. To this Dr. Hammond (Ans. to Schism Disarmed p. 203.) speaks thus; For the appendage etc. I need not reply; having never pretended, or seemed to pretend, what he chargeth on me concerning the Emperor's negative Voice in the Council: what I pretended I spoke out in plain words [that the Canons have been mostly set out, and received their authority, by the Emperors, (and this receiving their authority is (I suppose) in order to their powerful reception in their Dominions) and this he acknowledgeth— and so we are Friends. Thus Dr. Hammond. Now all that which S. W. there acknowledgeth, is, That the supreme Secular power is obliged to see, that the Church's Decrees be received, and put in execution. By Dr. Hammond's consent then, a negative Voice the Prince hath not, to reverse or contrary the Church's Canons in spiritual matters; only he thus may be said to give authority to them (methinks the phrase is very improper, and liable to be mistaken) to see them in his Dominions to be put in execution. Note, that what is said here of the Secular Prince, is also to be said of any particular Clergy, in respect of superior Councils. Again, that what is said of the Prince or Clergy of the same Age, wherein such Canons are enacted, is to be said of their successors, till the same authority which imposeth, abrogate such Canons. (As in Civil Governments the same Laws which bind the Parents, bind the Children, without the Legislative power's ask their consent).  
§ 41 Many, I find, are the shifts to get lose from these Canons, and such links of Church-relations; 
Several pretences to weaken such Canons (to me seeming) vain.  many the pretences to null their force; but to me seeming invalid and vain.— Grotius (Disc. Riu. Apol. p. 69.) bringing forth against Rivet the testimony of Blondel, [non negari a Protestantibus dignitatem Sedis Apostolicae Romanae; neque primatum ejus super Ecclesias vicinas; imo aliquatenus super omnes; sed referri hoc ab iis ad jus Ecclesiasticum]. Rivet (Grot. disc. dialies.) thus replies to it;— Ad jus Ecclesiasticum; Hoc est, ad institutum humanum: Quo postea abusi sunt Episcopi Romani ad Monarchiam stabiliendam. Itaque quod ab hominibus initio concessum, cum ad jus Dei evertendum postea fuerit conversum, merito possessoribus injustis denegatur. (See the same plea in Bishop Bramhall, Vindic. p. 252. etc.) That Institutum Ecclesiasticum is jus humanum: True. And that it may be taken away: True. By the Church, that conferred it; i. e. by another General Council, but not by Laics, or some few ecclesiastics. and may be denied injustis possessoribus. True; so much as they possess unjustly; i. e. contrary to Canon.  
§ 42 Those pleas also, which Bishop Bramhall (Vind. c. 9) makes in answer to that objection, [That the English have cast off Canonical obedience, I seem to me very infirm: As this, (p. 257.) Since the division of Britain from the Empire, no Canons are, or ever were, of force with us, further than they were received, and by their incorporation became Britannic Laws. True; as to any Secular coactive power in the execution of them, which is derived only from the Prince. Like unto which is that passage, p. 268. We draw, or derive, from the Crown, liberty and power to exercise actually and lawfully upon the subjects of the Crown, that habitual jurisdiction which we receive at our Ordination. And that in Reply to B. Chalced. c. 7. p 291. That Ecclesiastical persons, in excommunicating and absolving, are the King's substitutes; i e. (as he expounds himself afterward) by the King's application of the matter; namely, his Subjects, to receive their absolution from such Ecclesiastical persons. No more true, than that any King's Subjects may not lawfully receive Baptism, or turn Christian, without his Licence. Some or other Clergy may and aught to do these things, both Preach, Baptise, Absolve, and Excommunicate, in any Prince's Dominions, as their duty shall require, though the Prince gainsaying. Of many Clergy capable to do it, that one of them, not another, shall be nominated and admitted to do it, may belong to Princes. Are then the Canons and Constitutions or the Church, made in her representative (a General Council) not obligatory to the several members of the Church, (I mean, as to the extent of Ecclesiastical Censures upon Delinquents,) save where their temporal Sovereign first admits them? What if these be Heathen? What if Heretic? Again, if the actual exercise of their Office he held from the Crown; then have they no authority over any Nation or Province, if the Secular power deny it them: And what Secular power denied it not in the primitive times? Or is this a privilege of Christian Princes only over God's Clergy, not of Heathen? Do Christ's Ministers gain this by converting Kings to the Faith, that they lose their former power over their Subjects? But what if such Christian Prince prove Heretical or Schismatical? What if he silence or banish the Orthodox, are they to obey Him now rather than God? Is their Commission from Christ, to go and teach all, and consequently that, Nation, upon such a Prince's Edict voided, or lying dormant? And may they now forbear speaking the things which they have heard? We cannot but speak (said the Apostle, when the Magistrate silenced them) Act. 4.20. The same thing may be said of the unlawfulness of Princes prohibiting any authorized for this purpose by the supreme Magistrates of the Church-Catholick, from entering their Dominions (except those who are known to be sent on secular designs). So (suppose in a State overrun with Arrianism or Socinianism) an Heretical Prince cannot justly forbid the entrance of Patriarchal Missions to reduce him and his Subjects to Truth. And again, an Orthodox Prince cannot reasonably exclude such Missions, who consent with him in judgement, and whose intendments are spiritual.— As this also, p. 256. The King and the whole Body of the Kingdom, by their Legislative power substracting their obedience from a just Patriarchal power, and erecting a new Patriarchate within their own Dominions, it is a sufficient warrant to all English men, to suspend their obedience to the one, and apply themselves to the other. May then Princes and States, in Ecclesiastical affairs, make Laws contrary to those of the Church? Or, have they a Legislative power in Spirituals, contrary to General Councils? I had thought their power had in these things been only Architectonical; to see things done according to the Church-Decrees. And may they nominate Patriarches contrary to those the Church elects? Or may some small part of the Clergy do these things against all the rest of their Body? Or, the Prince, or that particular Clergy erring in thus doing, are the people obliged to, or excused in following, them in their error?— As this, p. 254. The sentence of the Law, and the notoreity of the fact are sufficient [i. e. for inferiors to deny their obedience to Superiors] the sentence of the Judge [i. e. of a General Council] is not necessary. We know who have lately made use of such principles, of Inferiors judging of the evidence of laws, and facts, to the confusion and destruction of a most flourishing temporal Kingdom. Are inferiors then not liable to be mistaken, and plead clear sentence of law, and notoreity of fact, where others as judicious think there is no such matter? But whither tends this? That if we find the Patriarch clearly usurping some power the Church canons have not given him, we are thenceforth free from yielding any obedience also to that authority which the Canon hath given him. Apply this to a temporal Governor, and it seems an unreasonable consequence. and we are convinced in it by the example of many Nations, who having made resistance to their Patriareh in some injunctions, conceived by them not Canonical, yet continue still their obedience in the rest. Consider the late contest of the State of Venice, and the present opposals both of France and Spain in some matters (See Vind. 7. c.) How can the Bishop then reasonably make use of those examples, wherein (Vindic. 7. c.) he hath copiously showed other Princes, casting off the Pope's usurpations and oppressions, to have retained still submission to his Supremacy, to prove or countenance, that Hen. 8. might lawfully cast off, both those, and also his Supremacy? Especially since it cannot be showed, but that it is absolutely in his power, who hath the sword, to cast off only so much as he pleaseth, and retain the rest. Unless the sword in England cannot divide usurpations and lawful rights, as beyond the Seas now it doth, and did here before Hen. 8. but must necessarily cut off both at once.— As this (p. 253) When a Steward chosen in trust by his fellow-servants, violates his trust, and usurps a dominion &c, it is not want of duty, but fidelity, [for such servants] to subtract their obedience from him.— But what, when most of the servants say, he doth no such thing in those matters, wherein the rest accuse him; and therefore continue their obedience to him? and also the Master of the house, for the peace of his family, hath ordered, that the rest in all differences shall be swayed with the votes of the major part? shall not this small part, in departing from the whole, and rejecting their governor, and setting up another Steward of their own, or every one assuming to be his own Master, be held guilty of making a division in the family?— So (p. 129. and p. 134.) Many extortions and rapines, and violations of rights, both Civil and Ecclesiastical, committed by such Patriarches,— are urged: But will these things, done contrary to the Canon, make a rejection of Canonical obedience to such authority lawful? Is it a good argument, against a King; He hath been tyrannous, or done many things against law, therefore depose him and his succession, or hereafter yield him no obedience, where due by the laws? Or, against Bishops; They have usurped some unjust power, or, otherways much violated their function; therefore root out Episcopacy, and yield no more, though never so Canonical, obedience unto them? Thus, as we have measured to others, it hath been meted to us again. But, if it be meant, That obedience, such as is Canonical, to Patriarches, infers the violation of any civil rights; the contrary I think is showed elsewhere (in Authority of Clergy derived▪ from Christ,) more at large, whither I remit you. though perhaps this may be enough to answer it, That General Councils, who made the Canons, were of the contrary opinion to him. Nay, if it should be said, that such preeminences, as, not the Canon, but only some of the Roman writers, more obsequious to the Papacy, give to the Bishop of Rome, are injurious to Civil rights: yet the Bishop himself, after some vehemency against them, seems to wipe off this aspersion in saying thus. (Vindic. 8. c. p. 243.) The best is; that they, who give these exorbitant privileges to Popes, do it with so many cautions and reservations, that they [such privileges as they give him] signify nothing, and may be taken away with as much ease, as they are given.— Which afterward he shows in the particulars of his Infallibility, and his temporal power. Did Pope's practice therefore only what these writ, much wrong could not be done.— Again, in his Replication to Bishop of Chalced. p. 230. 'tis urged, — That to whom a Kingdom is granted, all necessary Power is granted, without which a Kingdom cannot be governed: and (p. 238.) that had the Britannic Churches been subjected to the Bishop of Rome by General Councils, yet it had been lawful for the King and Church of England to subtract their obedience from the Bishop of Rome, and to have erected a new Primate at home amongst themselves, upon the great mutation of the state of the Empire, and great variation of affairs since those times.— For to persist (saith he, p. 241.) in an old observation, when the grounds of it are quite changed; and the end, for which the observation was made, calleth upon us for an alteration; is not obedience, but obstinacy. And, (p. 243.) We pursue the same ends with them, [i. e. General Councils]— that is, the conforming of the one regiment [i. e. the Ecclesiastical] to the other, [i. e. the Civil.] Thus he; for Princes taking away the Bish. of Rome's authority, (supposing General Councils had conferred any upon him) Yet, p. 293. speaking of that clause in the oath of Supremacy, [that no foreign Prelates ought to have any jurisdiction within this realm,] he saith, A General Council is neither included here, nor intended.) To which 'tis easily answered; That there is no Church-canon detracting, from Princes, any of that power, without which a Kingdom is not governable; that the division of one Empire into many Dominions, doth not necessarily require any alteration of the Oeconomy of the Church, as appears in those States, which conforming to these Canons, still subsist and flourish, without any disturbance of the civil peace. (But Quaere, whether the throwing-off these Canons, hath not been the destruction of a Kingdom; whose ruin took its beginning from divisions in Religion.)— That the Church's end in constituting, I say not of Metropolitans or Primats, but of superior Patriarches above them, and of an Ecclesiastical Supreme, (to whom, from several countries, might be the last appeal of greater controversies in Religion) was not the conforming of the Ecclesiastical government to the Civil, (which end the Bishop pleads,) but the conserving of the Church, though sojourning under never so many temporal Sceptres, still as one body and government united in itself, free from being divided and cantonized. Which end is frustrated, if so many Princes as there are, there become so many independent Ecclesiastical Supremes. Nay, but rather, the more the Civil Governments are multiplied, the more need there is in the Church of but one, or a few, Supremes. That there may not be so many modes or sects in Christianity, as there are Princes. So Vindic. p, 145. Many inconveniences by foreign jurisdiction are urged: That (as the Bishops of Rome exercised it) it was destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiastical discipline, which [discipline] in part is to preserve public peace and tranquillity, to retain subjects in due obedience, and to oblige people to do their duties more conscientiously.— (See likewise p. 146.) To the actual exercise of the foreign jurisdiction of Patriarches I have nothing to say: as one Patriarch may use it culpably, so the next may use it justly. But the foreignness of the jurisdiction is no way guilty of the things here objected. Nay, where are these ends of discipline more failed, than where this Patriarchal jurisdiction hath been banished? Do not we see in other Kingdoms, not deserting the Patriarch, the things , both Royalty and Episcopacy, peace in the State, and in the Church of such countries, better preserved? What former Prince, or Clergy, of this Kingdom, under the Patriarch's obedience, (take him with all his faults,) have suffered more, than these in our days have done, since that yoke broken? What subject, trained up in his Principles, hath been so disobedient? But 2ly; Is any one free from a Law or Canon, to eject it, when he can give some reason that it is inconvenient? Or, did not the wisdom of those, who established such Canons, and such subordination to Patriarches, see their jurisdiction (for example, in respect of afric) to be foreign, and weigh the inconveniences thereof, as well as we now do? but they weighed these together with the benefits, serving for preserving unity; for doing more entire justice being less engaged; for deciding controversies more truly, being persons of more eminent wisdom, enabled with a more selected Council, etc. (See before, §. 14.) And now have other Nations lost their reason, who, notwithstanding the foreignness of the jurisdiction, in obedience to the Church-canons, submit to this power? But what if a Patriarch should change the Bible into an Alcoran, (as he urgeth elsewhere, Reply to Bishop of Chalced.)" should, in Spiritual matters misguide us? I answer, when you can find any to obey, who may not be faulty in his government, leave the Patriarch, and go to him. Are we more secure, then, under the Supremacy of a Secular power? or of some other Archbishop? What if the Secular power throw down Bishops, destroy the public Liturgies, silence the orthodox Ministry, & c? And what if the Archbishop change the Bible? or will we be our own Supreams, and blot out the name of Canonical obedience?  
§ 43 In the next place Dr. Hammond's plea (Schism 6. c. p. 115.) seems to me not true, nor his proofs and instances sufficient, and the assertion in the consequences thereof dangerous to the government and unity of the Church Catholic: where he saith, That it is, and hath always been, in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes, within their Dominions, to erect Patriarchates, or to translate them from one city to another. And therefore (saith he) whatever title is supposable to be acquired by the Pope in this Island, upon the first plantation of the Gospel here, [whatever: I will therefore suppose his title to have been from ancient Church-canon and custom, whereby he hath been confirmed Patriarch of the Western Provinces; I say, not that such a thing was, now, but suppose such a thing were,] this cannot so oblige the Kings of England ever since, but that they may freely remove that power from Rome to Canterbury, and subject all the Christians of this Island to the Spiritual power of that Archbishop or Primate, independently from any foreign Bishop.— I say, this Thesis seems to me very untrue; if he mean, That Princes may do any such thing by their own just power, without the authoritative concurrence of the Church, or contrary to her former Canons and ancient Customs, (as his instancing in Ravenna and Justiniana prima, and Carthage, and Grado, formerly under the jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch, imply, that he means thus); For example: I say, it is not lawful, supposing ancient Canons or immemorial custom (to use his own word) of the Church, had made the Roman Bishop Patriarch of the West, or of France, for the King of France either with or without the consent of his own particular Clergy within his Dominions, to erect a new Patriarchate, or elect another Patriarch. This I think is plain from the Discourse and the Concessions preceding. And he seems to say the like himself (Answer to Schism Disarmed, p. 164.) A power Princes have to erect Metropoles; but if it be exercised so as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church, this certainly is an abuse. Thus he. But how it coheres with what else is said there, I see not. But if secular Princes have such power to set up Patriarches within their own Dominions, I ask, whether General Councils have not also the same; and that within the same Dominions of Secular Princes? Will he deny this power to Councils, or at least their power to do it within the Secular Prince's Dominions? But then the Church hath no power to do it at all. For where are the Church's Subjects, for whom she makes Laws, as she thinks fit, but under the government of some or orther Secular Power? But the contrary of these things is most evident; and many are her canons to this purpose. The Council of Chalcedon, the same, upon two Canons of which Balsamon found'st, and by which the Doctor proves, this authority of Princes to make Patriarches, did erect Constantinople into a Patriarchy next to Rome (which also was done before by Conc. Constant. 1. but not confirmed by the Roman and Occidental Bishops): and this not only to an empty Dignity, or precedency in place, but to a real jurisdiction over some of the Emperor's Provinces, to receiving and judging appeals, etc. see Conc. Chalc. Act. 16. and Can. 9 and 16. And when the Bishop of Rome much opposed this Act of the Council, the Emperor then making Constantinople the Seat of his Empire, and much desiring the advancement of its Bishop, yet appeared not at all in this promoting of him, nor claimed any such right as due to him; though this happened long after Valentinian is pretended to have advanced Ravenna to a Patriarchship, and independency on Rome. Nor the Council, in their Letter to Leo (see Act. 3.) pleaded any such power as belonging to the Emperor at all (but to themselves) only they say, Nos carantes tam piissimos & Christi amicos Imperatores, qui super hoc delectantur, quam clarissimum senatum, etc. and sic enim & pii Principes complacebunt, etc. This power than cannot with any modesty be denied to Councils. If both of them then have this power, and that in the same place (as I have showed it must be) what if they disagree? Suppose the one gives Rome jurisdiction over Ravenna, the other exempts it, and makes Ravenna supreme for itself; who must be obeyed? If the Prince may reverse what the Council hath done, than their Canons in these Spiritual matters are subordinate to his Edicts; then [Sedes Romana in omnibus & per omnia prima] (Conc. Chalc. Act. 16.) holds no longer than during the Emperor's pleasure. Then why so much courting Leo's consent for a thing in the Emperor's gift? Or doth Dr. Hammond here mean only a power in Princes to make some inferior Patriarches, subordinate not only in Dignity, but Jurisdiction to these supreme ones (as the name of Patriarches in some times hath been communicated to inferior Bishops): But then this Thesis of his, if true, will serve little to his purposes, as long as he leaves his Patriarches under the yoke of a superior? You see how I cast about, and yet cannot set these things straight. The Doctor's proofs for what he saith are these:  
§. 44 The Emperor Justinian's erecting Justiniana Prima into a Patriarchate, with independency on Rome, and afterward Carthage to the like privileges: And, the Emperor Valentinian's constituting Ravenna an independent and Patriarchal Seat. To which instances, see what I have said before in this Discourse, § 30. and what authority the Western Patriarch exercised over the Doctor's Patriarches, both after Justinian's days, and before; which argues either them not made Patriarches in such an independency on any superior, as the Doctor imagines; or the Emperor's act disobeyed by the Western Patriarch, as contrary to the Canons. As for the reason he gives, to secure the lawfulness thereof (Answ. to Schism Disarmed p. 112.) (because never checked at, nor noted as an entrenchment on the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome (that we discern, or is pretended) either by any Council, or by any Bishops of the Church then living:) It seems many ways insufficient; because, if there be a Canon prohibiting it, hence it will become unlawful: and many things may be unlawfully done, and yet not actually questioned and condemned: And again, may be condemned; and yet not this condemnation recorded: Yet is there record enough of the condemning of any such Supremacy in those Bishoprics, in the authority we find used over them still by the Roman Patriarch. Next, he urgeth the 12th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, as intimating, that this Prince's making Patriarches was a frequent (I suppose he means, and allowed of by the Church) usage in the East, at that time. And after this, the 17th Canon Conc. Chalc. and Can. 38. Conc. Constant. in Trullo. Which Canons (he saith Schis. p. 119.) do more expressly attribute this power to the Prince; or yield it to be a power belonging to the Prince. But being a little exagitated for this by the Replier; especially when Balsamon (whose judgement the Doctor much followeth) saith, the Church by these Canons conferred this power on the Prince; he (in his Answer to him p. 174) saith thus: Whether it were from God immediately conferred on them, and independantly from the Church; or whether the Church, in any notion, were the medium that God used now under the Gospel to confer it on them, truly I neither then was, nor now am, inclined, either to inquire, or take upon me to determine. Now to see what may be deduced from them, in this matter of no small moment, I will transcribe you these three Canons.— Conc. Chalc. can. 12. Pervenit ad nos, quod quidam, praeter Ecclesiasticos ordines, affectantes potentiam per pragmaticam sacram [i. e. by an Imperial Constitution] unam Provinciam in duas dividant, ita ut ex hoc inveniantur duo Metropolitani Episcopi in eadem, una, esse Provincia. Statuit ergo sancta Synodus deinceps nihil tale attentari a quolibet Episeopo. Eos vero qui tale aliquid attentaverint, de proprio gradu cadere. Si quae vero antea civitates per pragmaticum [alias, literis Imperialibus] Imperialem Metropolitani nominis honore decoratae sunt, nomine solo perfruantur: & qui Ecclesiam ejus [Civitatis] regit Episcopus [i. e. nomine solo Metropolitani perfruatur,] [Salvis scilicet verae Metropoli privilegiis suis]. Privilegio Metropolitano Episcopo jure proprio reservato.— Can. 17. [Statutum est, or decrevimus, alias singularem Ecclesiasticarum rusticas Parochias] Per singulas▪ Ecclesias rusticanas Parochias sive possessiones manere immobiles apud eos Episcopos, qui eas retinent, etc.— Si vero quaelibet Civitas per authoritatem Imperialem renovata est, aut si renovetur in posterum, civilibus & publicis ordinationibus etiam Ecclesiasticarum Parochianarum sequatur ordinatio.— In another Copy; Si qua vero civitas potestate Imperiali novata est [i. e. noviter constructa] aut si protinus innovetur, civiles dispositiones & publicas Ecclesiarum quoque Parochiarum ordines subsequantur.— Conc. Constant. in Trullo, can. 38.— Canonem, qui a Patribus factus est [referring to this Canon Conc. Chalc.] Nos quoque observamus, qui sic edicit: Si qua civitas a regia potestate innovata est vel innovabitur, civilem ac publicam formam Ecclesiasticarum quoque rerum ordo consequatur. In the first of these, Conc. Chalc. c. 12. there is the Emperor by his Letters making another City (upon the ambition and solicitation of the Bishop thereof) Metropolitan in a Province, wherein there was a Metropolitan already; but this fact of the Emperors disallowed by the Council, as a thing against Canon, (which Canon was, as the Doctor acknowledges, That there should be but one Metropolitan of one Province) and ordered, that, for the future, whatever Bishop sought such a thing should be degraded; and for what was already past, that the City and Bishop should enjoy the Title of Metropolitan, but none of the Privileges; but that these be still retained to the former Metropolitan. When-as the Doctor pretends, it was the Prince's right, both to confer the Title and the Privileges of Metropolitan on what City he pleased. One would think then, according to this the Doctor saith, That the Council, if the Bishop were faulty and offended against the Canon, in soliciting such a thing, should punish him only; another person, whom they approved, being substituted in his place to enjoy the rights, which the Prince had conferred upon it; and not, that they should by their authority (as if these things were in their disposal, not in the Prince's) continue the Title only, and reverse the Privileges, and fix them to their former possessors. The Bishop might have been punished, and yet not the Emperor's act rescinded by them, as to the new Metropolitans power or privileges; as it is plain, it was. Yet Dr. Hammond makes use of this Canon (by showing such things were then done by Princes) to prove, that suppose the Bishop of Rome were Patriarch of France, yet the King of France might lawfully make the Bishop of Paris Patriarch, and confer the Pope's privileges on him. This S. W. (replying upon his Treatise of Schism) wonders at; and the Doctor endeavours to clear all, in following Balsamon's judgement, and distinguishing between the Prince's erecting such a Metropolitanship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of his own motion, when (he saith) it stands good: Or upon base solicitation, when the Council (it seems) may reverse it. But I ask; when such a thing is done of his own inclination, stands it good, if against the Canon [that there should be but one Metropolitan in one Province]? if so, what means he to say (Answ. p. 164.) A Prince's power to erect Metropoles, if exercised so by him, as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church, this certainly is an abuse. And again (p. 165.) ' Such power stands valid to all effects, if duly exercised by him, without wrong to any, [i. e. other Metropolitan.] As for that which is urged from the Canon of a Council held under Alexius Comnenus, an Eastern Emperor after 1080, what is established by such a Synod, not General, is too weak to overthrow any former rights of the Church. Neither is Balsamon's (a later Greek Writer's) authority much to be stood upon in this controversy. Neither speaks he home in this point, whether the Patriarch is to admit what the Emperor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after he hath represented to the Emperor, that it is against the Canons. Thus much of the 12th Canon. In the 17th Canon, and the 38th in Trullo: Here is only (upon the Emperor's building a new City, (or perhaps upon his transferring the Civil right and privileges of having the seats of Judicature, etc. from one City in a Province unto another), and upon this subjecting some other inferior Cities or Towns (called Parochia's) when being the jurisdiction of an ordinary Bishop, (see Hammond Schism p. 57) unto it); the subjecting also of the Bishops of those Parochiae under that City, to the Bishop of that City. Where note, First, that these Canons speak only of the subjecting of Parochial Bishops to new Metropolitans, where new Cities are builded; and not of altering any thing in the jurisdiction of old; which the 12th Canon of the same Council so expressly opposeth. Secondly, Only of subjecting Parochial Bishops to new Metropolitans; not of subjecting Metropolitans to new Patriarches, nor yet to new Primates. For 'tis most clear, that this very Council, that made this Canon, never dreamt of any power the Emperor had to erect a new Patriarch (as I have showed before § 43.) and much less Leo the Bishop of Rome, who confirmed these Canons; yet vehemently opposed the Council seeking to erect Constantinople into a Patriarchy; much more would he have opposed the Emperor. Thirdly, Whatever privilege the Emperor here receives; methinks their ordering that such a thing should be done [subsequatur] is far from sounding, that they yielded such a thing to belong to the Emperor by right, as Dr. Hammond expounds it (Schis. p. 119.) But then, if the Emperor hold such privilege from the Church, the Church, when they please, may resume this power; for so himself argues, concerning any privileges which Secular Princes have formerly conceded to the Bishop of Rome; and then hear, what the 21th Canon of the 8th General Council saith (if we will trust later Councils, not far distant in time, better to understand the concessions of former), Definimus neminem prorsus mundi potentium quenquam eorum, qui Patriarchalibus sedibus praesunt, inhonorare, aut movere a proprio throno tentare. Sed omni reverentia & honore dignos judicare, praecipue quidem sanctissimum Papam senioris Romae, etc.  
§ 45 As for the things mentioned afterward by the Doctor, (p. 120, etc.) the power of changing the seat of a Bishop, or dividing one Province into many; as likewise, the presenting of particular persons to several Dignities in the Church, which also private Patrons do, without claiming any superiority in Church-matters, (some of which seem of small consequence as to Ecclesiastical affairs): Yet are not these things justly transacted by the Prince's sole Authority, without the approbation first of Church-Governors: But the same things may be acted by the Church alone, the Prince gainsaying; if he be either Heathen or Heretic, (which also shows his power when orthodox, in the regiment of the Church, to be only executive and dependent on the Ecclesiastical Magistrate's). No persons are, or at least ought to be put into any Church-dignities, without the authoritative consent and concurrence of the Clergy; who, if they reject such persons (though presented by Princes) as unorthodox, or otherwise unfit, they cannot be invested in such Offices Hear what the 8th General Council saith of this matter, Can. 22. Sancta & universalis Synodus definite, neminem Laicorum principum vel potentum semet inserere electioni vel promotioni Patriarchae, vel Metropolitae, aut cujuslibet Episcopi, ne videlicet, etc. Praesertim cum nullam in talibus potestatem quenquam potestativorum vel caeterorum Laicorum habere conveniat.— Quisquis autem saecularium principum & potentum vel alterius dignitatis Laicae adversus communionem ac consentaneam atque Canonicam electionem Ecclesiastici ordinis agere tentaverit, Anathema sit. The transplanting of Bishoprics, and division of Provinces, probably was never ordered by Princes; but either first proposed, or assented-to, by the Clergy (see that instance of Anselm, Hammond of Schis. p. 122.) or upon some more general grant, indulgently made to some pious Princes from the chief powers of the Church. Tho Historians commonly in relation of such facts, mention only the King's power, as by whose more apparent and effectual authority such things are put in execution: in which things negative arguments [that such persons, as are not mentioned, did not concur; especially when they are mentioned to concur in some other acts of the same nature] are very fallacious. But imagine we once the power of erecting Patriarchies and Primacies, and by consequence of the bestowing and transferring the several privileges thereof, solely cast into the hands of a Secular Prince, and then this Prince not orthodox (a supposition possible); and what confusion and mischief must it needs produce in such a body as the Church; strictly tied in Canonical obedidience to such Superiors, and submitting to their judgement, and decisions, in spiritual matters; by which the King may sway the controversies in Religion, within his own Dominions, what way he pleaseth; unless we will imagine, there shall be no ecclesiastics at all of his own persuasions, whom he may surrogate into the places of those who gainsay. Such were the times of Constantius. And by such violent and uncanonical expulsion and intrusion of Prelates, the face of Religion was seen changed and rechanged so often here in England within a few years (according to the fancies of the present Prince), as if there were in her no certain form of truth. And the same thing we have seen done before our eyes in our own days: The removing, inducting, deposing, promoting Ecclesiastical persons, as the Secular power pleaseth; being also a changing of the Church's Doctrine as it pleaseth. Thus much to what Dr. Hammond hath said, Schis. p. 120, etc.  
§. 46 Lastly, (Schis. p. 125.) he makes three instances; in the fact of the Kings of Judah; in the fact of St. Paul; and in the fact of the Christian Emperors; tending to this purpose, that their authority is supreme in Ecclesiastical causes, as well as Civil, and therefore may erect Patriarchies. His words there are: The authority of Kings is supreme in all sorts of causes, even those of the Church, as well as Civil,— as appears among the Jewish Kings in Scripture: David ordering the courses of the Priests: Solomon consecrating the Temple: Hezekiah (2 Chron. 29.— 2 King. 18.) and Josiah (2 King. 22.) ordering many things belonging to it. And so St. Paul appealed from the judgement of the chief Priests, to the Tribunal of Caesar. So in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the whole third Book is made up of Justinian's (i. e. the Emperor's) constitutions, De Episcopis, Clericis & Sacris. And the Canons of Councils have (mostly) been set out (and received their authority) by the Emperors.  
Concerning the first instance here, of the Kings of the Jews; I must remind you of what Dr. Hammond hath conceded, set down before, §. 40. That Kings are so Supremes in Ecclesiastical matters, that they have no negative voice in the decrees of Councils; so that David, Hezekiah, &c, if we speak only of their Kingly, not of a Prophetical, power, did (nor could lawfully do) nothing of all that they did about the Priests, or the Temple, contrary to the orders and rules of the Priests: but only according to these, in which they had always the Priest, not opposing but, concurring with them in all their new models or reformations, (as is showed elsewhere in Authority of Clergy derived from Christ, p. 47.) though the King, as the chief Executioner (and perhaps first motioner also) of such designs, is singly named. But if Dr. Hammond calling to the Prince more authority than this, for some Ecclesiastical matters; namely, those of external order, (as he calls them, Answ. to Schis. disar. p. 187, and 195.) and urgeth (Schis. p. 124.) a saying of Constantine's to that purpose; (Euseb. de vita Constant. 4. l. 24. c.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which he translates, Ye are Bishops of the Church, for those things which are celebrated within it; but, for external things, I am constituted Bishop by God. As if Princes may govern and administer these, without, or against, the judgement of the clergy: then I demand; Whether erecting Patriarchates, subordination of Bishops, Metropolitans, Primates, &c, ordering of their Councils how often to be kept, by whom called, directing of Appeals, Fasts, Festivals, &c, be reckoned by him such things of external order? If they be; then General Councils in ordering these things, (for example, the Nicene Council in composing their 6th Canon,) either were only the Prince's deputies and instruments, and all such canons were void without his ratification; or else they usurped an authority not belonging unto them: for their canons we find full of such orders. But if they be not; then Dr. Hammond's external orders will be nothing to the matter he is discoursing of. As for the words of Constantine; it seems plain to me by the chapter preceding, that he speaks here of his playing the Bishop over those persons who were without the Church; both gentes subjectas Romano imperio, & legiones; quibus (saith Eusebius by the Emperor's injunctions) Idololatriae fores clausae erant; repressumque quodvis idolis sacrificandi genus &c, over which persons the Bishops of the Church had no authority; and I conceive the words ought to be rendered thus. Ye are Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for or amongst those, [persons] I say; S. W. saith [affairs] which are within the Church, but I am Bishop for the persons or affairs without the Church. But the Doctor's translation seems forced, both to the words, and to the context: in which I appeal to any, that will take the pains to consider the words, and to view the place. Besides that, I see not how the Emperor can call the prohibition of sacrificing to Idols, the observing of the Lord's day, &c, things of external order, as the Doctor will have them.—  
Concerning the second; S. Paul's appeal from the the Highpriest and the Sanedrim to Caesar, (by which the Doctor seems to justify such Supremacy of the Prince above the clergy, that from the highest court of ecclesiastics, in matters Ecclesiastical, appeals may be made to him, and to him, though an infidel,) I demand, Whether the H. Priest and Sanedrim were the highest Ecclesiastical Court, or Council, by God at that time appointed for deciding the controversies of Religion, (such as S. Paul's is by him supposed to be) or no. If it were; then ought the controversy at Antioch to have been brought before them, and not before the Council of the Apostles: If it were not; then the Doctor's instance fits not his purpose. But, the Apostle here accused of sedition, and, before any judgement given, laid wait for to be killed by his very Judges, who justified him, in some part, for his religion, [the tenant of the resurrection,] appeals to the Sovereign power for his necessary protection, from the violence of those, who, in Spiritual matters, had no reason to judge him. As for any appeal, in these matters, from the highest Ecclesiastical court to secular Princes, it hath been often prohibited to the clergy in several Councils, (see before, §. 9) and is so, as I conceive, by S. Paul (1 Cor. 6.1, 6.) to unbelieving Princes, such as Caesar was.  
To the third, the Emperor's constitutions, such as are in matters purely Ecclesiastical, 'tis sufficient to say, that such never were contrary to any laws of the Church; or when they were so, were so often void, in Dr. Hammond's judgement; who grants the Emperor to have no negative voice in Councils, i.e. to annul any of their constitutions; but surely he annuls them, who lawfully enacts contrary. Such therefore were his Ecclesiastical constitutions, (so far as lawful,) as that the clergy consented to, or at least dissented not from, them. Which shows the legislative power primarily in them, not in him. For there cannot be two Lawgivers in the same matters, over the same persons, both whom they shall be obliged to obey, unless they can obey contradictions. Therefore if the Emperor in these Church-matters have no negative voice in respect of the decrees of Councils, they must needs have a negative voice in respect of the decrees of Emperors; and so how much of his laws they disallow, or deny, is canceled. As for the other expression, [that Canons of Councils mostly receive their authority by Emperors,] see before, § 40. how S.W. hath caused the Doctor to explain himself, in his answer to Schism disarmed.  
§ 47 Thus much from § 38. concerning that proposition, [That whatever Authority the Church Canons and Customs have given to any Ecclesiastical person, 
That obedience due may not be withheld upon Governors undue claims.  cannot be annulled, etc. by Seculars; and, That it is Schism to oppose any authority so established]. Next; This proposition also I think undeniable: That none may subtract obedience from any in matters, where it is due, because such person requires also obedience in matters, where it is not due: But, that whilst the one is opposed, the other ought to be yielded. Therefore should the Patriarch make a breach upon the Civil rights of Princes, or their Subjects, these may not hence invade his Ecclesiastical: And if the Priest (Patriarch, or Bishop) would in some things act the Prince, therefore may not the Prince justly take upon him to act the Priest; or to alter any thing of that Spiritual Hierarchy established by Christ, or by the Church; much to the good, but nothing at all to the damage, of Temporal States. If any thing happen to be unjustly demanded, it excuseth us not from paying justs debts. The Office must not be violated for the fault of the Person. Neither can never so many examples, brought for such things, done by Princes, § 48 
That Ecclesiastical Councils may change their former Eccl. Laws, though Lay-Magistrates may not.  be a sufficient warrant to any Prince, to do the like; much less, to advance beyond such patterns, and do something more. See before § 42.  
After these, a third proposition must also be granted: That though Seculars, Princes or others, cannot; yet Councils may, change some former Ecclesiastical Laws and Customs; and when they do so, are to be obeyed in their change. Therefore the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the Nicene Council, and [Jura, quae jam inde ab initio habent, serventur]; and [nullus invadat Provinciam, quae non prius atque ab initio sub illius fuerat potestate] in the Ephesine Council (frequently pressed by Dr. Hammond, see Sch. p. 61, 65, 100) so far as these refer not to Apostolical traditions, but Ecclesiastical constitutions, must be understood to oblige all the Church's subjects only so long, till the Church shall think fit to change any thing in them. Nor did they hinder, but that afterward she advanced (the Roman Church at last yielding also her consent) the See of Constantinople (contrary to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) both before Alexandria and Antioch, into a Supremacy, the next to Rome. In whose power it is (as in Secular Lawgivers) to alter her Laws at pleasure. Nor can any G. Council decree, that no General Council after them (in matters of humane institution) shall change their Decrees. § 49 Nor can any particular Church claim that liberty unto them by any former Canons, 
That Prelates, and others, stand obliged to those Church-Canons, which in a superior Council are made with the consent of their Predecessors, till such Councils shall reverse them.  of which by later Canons (made by the same authority) they receive a restraint.  
The truth of this fourth proposition also I think ought not to be doubted of; That where the Bishops or Metropolitans (suppose subjected to no Patriarch) yet are present in Councils presided in by one, or more Patriarches, and do consent to the Decrees thereof; such Provinces, and the Prelates thereof, stand obliged to those Decrees; and cannot afterward at pleasure reverse them, and restore to themselves their former liberty. Else Metropolitans, who are under no Patriarch, will be liable to the Decrees of no Councils at all; no not of such, wherein they appear, wherein they vote, wherein they oblige themselves. But, supposing, they are as free as Patriarches themselves; yet where in Councils many Patriarches meet, the vote of the major part obligeth all. (Review what is said before § 18.)  
§ 50 Now to make some Reflections (if you have not made them already) upon what hath been discoursed here, 
Reflections on what hath been said.  in relation to the Church of England.  
§ 51 1. It cannot reasonably be denied, that (supposing she had not received her Conversion from the See of Rome, 
That the Church of England seems obliged in as much observance to the Roman See, as the former instances have showed the Orientals to have yielded to it.  nor the Nicene or other Canons had constituted the Bishop of this City sole Patriarch of the West (of which thing review what is said before § 3.) yet) she is bound to render so much not only honour, but submission also, to that See (for what cause soever it was, that such was given to that last Seat of the two great Apostles Peter and Paul, as it hath been showed by the instances made above, in those primitive times,) that the whole Church of God, the Oriental Churches and Bishops, the Patriarches themselves, and even Cyprus (so much pleaded; concerning which review § 18.) have rendered unto him, in appeals, decision of controversies, approbation of Prelates, Ecclesiastical censures, etc. For example: If the rule (spoken of § 22.) [praeter, or sine, Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum] have any obligation upon the Oriental, the same it will have upon the English, Bishops, or Synods. And the same power the Roman Bishop hath of receiving or hearing Appeals (suppose from Alexandria, as in Athanasius his cause; review § 21.) the same he hath in those from England: For what exemptions can England plead, more than Alexandria?  
§ 52 2. Yet farther, There seems to be the same ground of her submission to him as Patriarch (however this submission be founded) as of other Western Provinces, 
That the Church of England seems obliged to yield the same observance to the Roman See, as other Western Provinces, upon the 6th Nicene Canon.  her Neighbours; who still continue obedience to that See. And the Mos antiquus obtineat, seems to put all the Occidental coast of the world, who ever were then already, or whoever thenceforward should be, converted, under his jurisdiction, (see § 3). In which Canon, as not Britain, so no other Western Province, is particularly named; though it appears, from some instances above, that before Nice, both Spain, and France, and afric were Christian, and subject to the Roman See, (see § 6.) And then was the British Nation also already Christian; three of its Bishops being present at the Council of Arles in France, ten years before this of Nice, (see Hamm. Sch. p. 110.), and many suffering Martyrdom here in Dioclesian's days; amongst the rest, the famous St. Alban. And the Arms of Lichfield, representing many mangled Bodies, are said to be born in remembrance of the many Christians, who in that persecution suffered there. Christian yet higher; before Tertullian's and Origen's time, who testify so much of it, (Orig. in Ezech. Hom. 4. Quando terra Britanniae ante adventum Christi in unius Dei consensit religionem? Quando terra Maurorum? etc. Nunc vero, propter Ecclesias, quae mundi limites tenent, universa terra cum laetitia clamat ad Dominum Israel. Tertull. adv. Judaeos', c. 7. Cui [Christo] crediderunt,— jam Getulorum varietates & Maurorum multi fines, Hispaniarum omnes termini, & Galliarum diversae nationes, & Brittannorum inaccessa Romanis loca, Christo vero subd ta; see also his Apologet.) Christian in the days of Eleutherius Bishop of Rome, A. D. 183. saith Venerable Bede, Hist. Ang. l. 1. c. 4. At which time, (Christianity, by the late favourable Edicts of Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius, enjoying much tranquillity), one Lucius or Lever Maur, a King of some part of Britain, bearing some affection to the Religion or Christians, from their good conversation which recommended it, and also for the miracles which confirmed it, is said to have sent two learned men, Elvanus Avalonius [or of Glastenbury], and Medvinus de Belga [or of Wells], to the Bishop of Rome, to desire from him, some holy men to instruct him in Religion; and some Roman Imperial Laws to direct him in his Civil Government: Which Bishop sent to him Fugatius and Damianus, by whom this King, and his Queen, and many others, were converted to the Faith, and received Baptism etc. Where, his having already with him men learned in the Scriptures, (see Spelm. Apparat. p. 12.) and yet sending for others from the Roman Bishop; and his sending to the Bishop of Rome so remote, when as there were then many Christian Bishops in France, and particularly the famous Irenaeus Bishop at Lions, at that very time, (methinks) show plainly, that the Britain's had learned already, that there was some preeminence and authority attributed to him, superior to the rest of the Occidental Prelates. as likewise doth the title of that Bishop's letter to Lucius, (but it is much doubted whether this letter be authentic); Scripsit Dominus Elentherius Papa Lucio Regi Britanniae, ad correctionem Regis, & Procerum regni Britanniae; others read it, ad petitionem. In which letter, whereas it is urged (see Hammond Schis. p. 109. and Bramh. vindic. p. 155.) that he calls the King vicarium Dei in regno suo; 'tis to be observed, that he styles the King so, before he was Christian; and seems to urge it in respect of civil laws; which laws the King desiring that they would send unto him from Rome, the Bishop adviseth him with his Council rather to take them out of the Bible, the law of God, whose Vicar he is, than out of the Roman or Caesar's laws. But let it be granted in Ecclesiastical matters also that he is Vicarius Dei, that is, in promulgating the Ecclesiastical laws, and enforcing them upon his subjects, with the denouncing of temporal punishments; but not in making them; for this the Bishop of Rome cannot alienate from Synods to Princes. Christian, yet higher, in the days of Tiberius: Interea glaciali frigore rigenti Insulae [Britannicae] verus ille Sol universo orbi praefulgidum sui lumen ostendens, radios suos primum indulget, id est, praecepta sua, Christus. Tempore (ut scimus) summo [extremo] Tiberii Caesaris; quo [tempore] absque ullo impedimento, ejus propagabatur religio, indicta (Senatu nolente) a Principe morte delatoribus militum ejusdem; [Christianorum,] alluding to Hegesippus his story of Tiberius.] Thus saith Gildas, a Britain, who writ in the end of the 5th age; and therefore why may not mos antiquus, concerning the presidency of the Roman See over the West, be meant of this, as well as the other anciently-Christian Provinces there? But when ever Britain first became Christian, though such were after the passing of that canon of Nice, yet many converted since the last conversion of the Saxons here in England (as the Germans, and some other Northern nations, some of them converted by the English) have also come under the jurisdiction of that See upon the same account; namely of this Bishops having committed to him the primacy over the whole Church, or at least the Patriarchate of the whole West. And therefore Austin the Monk required subjection to this Bishop, not only of the Saxons, as converted by him; but also of the Britain's, who were Christian before: subjection, not upon this title of conversion, but from the submission which was thought otherwise due to this prime Apostolic See. [The judgement and actions of which holy man (by this Nation to be had in eternal veneration) ought not so easily to be condemned or slighted; since he was blessed here with such success, and honoured by God with so many miracles. Of which miracles of his, and his companions, Gregory, who sent him, overjoyed, writes thus to the Patriarch of Alexandria, Ep. 7. l. Indict. 1.30. Ep.— Jam nunc de ejus [Augustini] salute & opere ad nos scripta pervenerunt; quia tantis miraculis vel ipse, vel hi qui cum eo transmissi sunt, in gente eadem coruscant, ut Apostolorum virtutes in signis, quae exhibent, imitari videantur.— And to Austin, thus in another Epistle, (9 l. 58. Ep.) exhorting him to the preservation of his humility in receiving so high favours.— Scio quod potens Deus per dilectionem tuam in Gente, quam eligi voluit, magna miracula ostendit; unde necesse est, ut de eodem dono caelesti, & timendo gaudeas, & gaudendo pertimescas, etc.]  
§. 53 But if it be replied, that many of the Western Nations were originally converted by that See, (and therefore may seem anciently to have had a nearer relation to, or dependence on, it:) but not so this Island; yet  

That this Nation chief (if not only) owes its conversion to the Roman See. 1.  3. This title of Conversion seems not wanting (so much as is pretended) for the plea of the Roman Jurisdiction. For 1. for all the rest of this Nation, except the ancient Britain's, namely for the Saxons, and those other invaders, who followed them, this title is not disputed. so that, what was Pope Innocent's pretence (see before, § 3.) concerning other parts of the West, may be Gregory's, and his Successor's, concerning the chief body of this Kingdom, (supposing that the Church's customs or canons did entitle any authority upon this ground): and for whom the Roman See hath performed the same maternal and fundative offices as for the rest of the West; it seems not unreasonable, that they should return her the same duty, as do the rest. To that objection of Dr. Hammond (Schism p. 114.) in behalf of these Saxons liberty; That S. Paul's and his Substiture's converts, yet were not all subjected to one and the same See; it is granted to him, That conversion doth not of itself necessarily induce subjection to the converter, or to his See: but nevertheless 'tis as true, That the Church (upon whose customs and canons such subjection is pleaded) in her appointing some chief and Patriarchal Sees, for the preserving by such subordinations unity and peace amongst her several members, hath used this of conversion, as a chief motive (though not this always, or the only, motive) to subject several Churches rather to such a Mother-church, than to another. See before, § 6.)  
This for the Saxons, 
§. 54. n. 1.2.  and others, whose race most-what we English are. But then for the Britain's also, it seems, That though their conversion might have its first beginning in Tiberius his reign, or very early; yet it was for the most part of it wrought in latter times by several degrees, after their subjection to the Roman Empire, either by Christians, who flowed in hither from Rome, and Italy, and other Provinces nearer hand, (especially in times of persecution,) with the Roman Officers and Lieutenants, (some of which before, were favourers, and after Constantine's time, were also professors of Christianity, as amongst the rest Theodosius, who was Valentinian's Lieutenant here, before Emperor): or by several Missions from the Pope of Rome made either to plant and propagate Christianity in these Islands of Britain and Ireland, or to reform it.  
Such was that Legation of Fugatius, and Damianus, 
§ 54. n. 2.  mentioned before, § 52. and such that, afterward, of S. Germanus a French Bishop, famous for learning and sanctity, about A. D. 430. whom (as Prosper, a French Bishop, who lived also in those times, relateth) Pope Celestin, hearing that Pelagianism had gotten some footing in this Island, sent hither for the suppression thereof. Prosper's words are in Chronico;— Pelagianus, Severiani Pelagiani Episcopi filius, Ecclesias Britanniae dogmatis sui insimulatione corrupit; sed, ad actionem Palladii Diaconi, Papa Caelestinus Germanum Altisiodorensem Episcopum vice sua mittit, ut deturbatis Haereticis Britannos ad Catholicam fidem dirigat. Vice sua, as his Legate; as if the care of such reformation did some way especially concern the Pope; ad actionem Palladii, at the suit and request of Palladius, a zealous opposer of, and writer also against, Pelagianisme. In this Legation, another holy French Bishop, Lupus, is mentioned also to have accompanied Germanus into Britanny; of which two Bishops Bede indeed (Hist. 1. l. 17. c.) delivers the story thus: That, upon the request of the Britain Clergy (so unwilling to receive Pelagianism, as unable sufficiently to confute it) these two Bishops were sent hither by a Council in France. But, what Bede saith, being taken out of Constantius, one who writ at a greater distance from Germanus his times than Prosper did, is liable to the more doubt. and 2ly, this may well consist with what Prosper saith; since all those Occidental Synods had a subjection to the Western Patriarch, and might receive directions from him. The same Prosper saith, that the forementioned Palladius was, by the same authority, and care of the same Pope Celestine, ordained Bishop, and sent into the more Northern parts of this Island, to the Scots.— Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a Papa Celestino Palladius, & primus Episcopus mittitur. See the same in Bede, 1. l. 13. c.  
Besides these Germanus and Palladius, Bede and others make mention of Ninyus a Britain, who finished his studies at Rome, and was made Bishop, and sent from thence, not long after the other, for the conversion of the Picts, a Nation lying between the Scots and Britan's. Episcopus Reverendissimus, & Sanctissimus vir, de natione Britonum, qui erat Romae, regulariter fidem & mysteria veritatis edoctus, saith Bede, Hist. 3. l. 4. c.— Quem, audience Romanus Pontifex quosdam in occiduis Britanniae partibus necdum fidem Christi suscepisse, ad Episcopatus gradum consecravit, & praemissae genti, data benedictione, Apostolum destinavit. (v. Broughton's Monasticon Briton. 7. c. and Capgrave Catal. Sanctorum.) Likewise Patricius, who finished the conversion of the Irish begun by Palladius, is said to have received his education, and learned his Divinity from Germanus, and Lupus; and going to Rome, and there made Bishop, accepisse ab Apostolica Sede ad ejus Gentis conversionem Apostolatum. (V. Baron, A.D. 431. Sigebert Chronol. and Sir H. Spelman A.D. 449. who out of Matt. Westmon. saith, both of Palladius and Patricius, ad Britanniam pervenisse missos a Papa Celestino, ibique praedicasse verbum Dei.) Dubritius also, the first Archbishop of Caerleon that we know of, (to which Archbishop only the British clergy, in their conference with Augustin, acknowledged their subjection,) was another Disciple of S. Germanus; and by him, and Lupus, with the consent of the King, and a Synod of the Clergy, consecrated Bishop, and possessed of this Archbishopric. See Spelman A. D. 512. and Apparat. p. 25. and in the same manner did this British Archbishop receive his Commission from Germanus, sent by the Roman See, as the English Bishops from Augustin; by the persuasion of which English or Saxon Bishops also, afterwards both the Scots, and some at least of the Britain's, about A. D. 700, were reduced from those errors, whereof Augustin had taxed them, and conformed to the Customs of the Church Catholic. V Bede Hist. l. 5. c. 16, 19, 22. Several of which English Clergy also in those days travelled to Rome, the more perfectly to learn the Laws and Customs of the Apostolic See; or also there to receive their Ordination. and St. Wilfrid, among the rest, went thither three several times, and sat there also in a Synod, and being twice ejected out of his Bishopric, twice had his cause heard there, and was twice restored by the Pope's Letters. See these things in Bede's Hist. l. 5. c. 20, 21. l. 5. c. 12. l. 3. c. 4, 7, 29. l. 4. c. 1. These particulars I have set down, to show the care, interest, authority, esteem, which the Roman Bishops had in these two Western Islands in all those ancient times, wherein History gives posterity some light to know, what was done in them.]  
But next; however these things be: Yet supposing only than the subjection of the Saxons, 
§54. n. 3.  and the English Clergy (upon this title of Conversion), to the Roman See, it seems the Britain's, for the present, can claim no liberty from the same subjection; because those in Wales being subject to the Bishop of Carleon, or afterward to St. David's; and St. David's being subject to Canterbury; [I suppose this Canonically done; of which see Sir Hen. Spelman's Appar. p. 26. that it was ordered so by a Council at Rheims, and by the Pope; to both which were made Addresses about it. As for the Bribery that is by some supposed in it; I see no reason why it should not be judged an uncharitable suspicion, being a thing every where imputable, when rich and poor contend;] subjected also at that time, when Canterbury was professedly subject to Rome, in the Reign of K. Hen. I. Hence it follows, I say, that these Britain's must needs be subjects also to that See, to which must Canterbury is subject; and that Church, hath which any Jurisdiction over Canterbury, will also have the same over St. David's; (suppose in Appeals, or the like). And again, those Britain's who were out of Wales, dispersed among the Saxons, becoming subjects to the Saxon Bishops there, who were the Pope's subjects, must also be subject to the Pope.  
Yet fourthly; 
§ 55. n. 1. And hath in ancient Councils, together with other Churches, subjected itself to that See before the Saxon Conversion.  If the Britain's were not converted by that See, it may be showed, that they had submitted themselves, and joined with the rest of Christianity in those Conciliary acts, which had given some supremacy of Jurisdiction, to the See of Rome, (amongst others) over them. For we find some of the Britain Bishops present, as at the Council of Ariminum; where, as Severus (Hist. l. 2.) and Spelman (Appar. p. 24.) say, three of them, being poor, were maintained on the Emperor's charge; so, before this, at the Council of Sardica (assembled some twenty years after that of Nice) as Athanasius, who was also present there, himself witnesseth (see before § 23. n. 1.) and therefore may the Canons of that Council be presumed, amongst the rest, to be ratified by them, or at least, being passed by the major part of that Occidental Council, to oblige them. Now what honour these Canons give to the Roman Bishop, how they constitute him supreme in Appeals, see before § 11.  
[Against this (urged by S. W.) Bishop Bramhall (Rep. to S.W. § 4. p. 24.) replies; 1. That it doth not appear, 
§55. n. 2.  that the British Bishops did assent to that Canon. 2. That the Council of Sardica was not G. Council after all the Eastern Bishops were departed, as they were before the making of that Canon. 3. That the Canons of the Council of Sardica were never received in England, or incorporated into the English Laws; and that without such incorporation, they did not bind English Subjects. 4. Lastly, That this Canon was contradicted by the great General Council of Chalcedon. To which I answer: That this Council at least was a full and complete Occidental Council. That Canons passed by the most part of such a Council, are obliging to the rest contradicting, whether Persons, Churches, or Christian States. That where no contradiction of any person, Church, or State appears, they are presumed to assent, (in justification of which, see a more large discourse in Par. 2. § 4. and 24.) That if the Canons of Councils only receive force in a Christian State by being incorporated into their Laws, then by being expunged again at pleasure out of these, they lose their force: And then where is the Church's authority in her Decrees, which are valid only till any particular State pleaseth to eject them? That thus he will find, either not all Canons, which he grants obliging, incorporated into the English Laws, (I mean those before the Reformation), or more; namely, those of Councils held since the first four, or seven or eight, Ecumenical ones. Lastly, that the Council of Chalcedon nowhere contradicts or reverseth this Canon, for the Western Provinces at least, but rather establishes it, in giving the Patriarch of Constantinople like privilege in the East; even the Cypriots not being exempted therefrom. (See before § 11.)  
From this Council, 
§ 55. n. 3.  twenty years after Nice, let us ascend to the Council of Arles in France, convocated by Constantine the Emperor ten years before that of Nice, (of which see before, § 23. n. 7.) and in this also we find the presence and subscription of Britain Bishops (see Hammond, Schis. p. 110. Bramh. Vind. p. 98.) of which Bishops, thus Sir Hen. Spelm. A. D. 314. Aderant e Britannia celebriores (ut videtur) tres Episcopi (surely in Dignity much preceding, and much ancienter than the Bishop of Carleon] nempe Eboracensis, Londoniensis, & de civitate Coloniae Londinensium (quae alias dicitur Camelodunum) una cum Sacerdote Presbytero, & Diacono, qui & canon's assensu suo approbabant, & in Britannia redeuntes, secum deferebant observandos. Now, there you may review the first Canon thereof, settling the matter of Easter to be kept through all Churches on the same day; and the divulgation of this thro' all Churches committed to the Bishop of Rome, secundum consuetudinem.  
Therefore the speech of the Abbot of Bangor (urged by Dr. Hammond Schis. p. 111. 
§56 n. 1.  and B. Bramhall Vindic. p. 103.) that he knew no obedience due to him, whom they called the Pope, but the obedience of Love. where B. Bramhall saith; Observe what strangers the Britain's were to the Papacy, that man whom they call the Pope; seems (if perhaps authentic) full of ignorance; who, after all that power exercised by this man called the Pope over the whole Church of God, especially over the Western Provinces, and so much respect returned him from them, as is set down above in this discourse (for I have made scarce any quotation but before, or in, this Abbot's time), after the presence of the Britain Bishops at so many famous Councils, after so many holy Bishops sent for the conversion of these Islands by the Bishop of Rome's delegation, should be such a stranger to his Person, or Authority, or his Titles (the like Titles to which given him in this Abbot's, see given him in Cyprian's, time, § 33.) after A. D. 600. Where also you may observe; That the Irish Bishops yielded all obedience to this Roman Bishop at this very time, when the British thus denied it; as appears, both in that they are said by Bede (the South Irish at least) to have returned very early to a right observation of Easter, ad admonitionem Apostolicae Sedis Antistitis (Hist. l. 3. c. 3.) And also in that about this time they sent Letters to St. Gregory, then Bishop of Rome, to know, after what manner they ought to receive into the Church such as were converted from Nestorianism; to whom he sends his orders concerning it, directed Quirino Episcopo & caeteris Episcopis in Hibernia Catholicis, Epist. 61. of l. 9  
And as for this plea, 
§ 56. n. 2.  of the Brittain's subjection only to the Archbishop of Caerleon, you may note; That the first Archbishop of this City, that is known or spoken of, is Dubricius; who, after much service done by him against Pelagianism, was consecrated Archbishop by Germanus and Lupus, sent from Rome, as is said above § 54. n. 2. the third or fourth from whom possessed that Chair when Austin came. Meanwhile, before Austin's coming, the Britain's had other Bishop's preeminent to Caerleon, a Bishop of York (the chief Bishop of the whole Nation, as that City than was the principal City, the Roman Praetorium being there. See Spelm. Appar. p. 22.) a Bishop of London, and of some other places, who were present at the Council of Arles, where is no mention of Carleon's Bishop; of which Bishops, Todiacus Archbishop of York, and Theonus Bishop of London, being persecuted by the Saxons, fled into Wales with their Clergy, A. D. 586. Within eleven years after whose flight thither, Augustin came into England, and upon it their persecution in part ceased. Now there being no mention of any opposition made, by any of these Bishops or their Clergy (which in eleven years' space could not all be deceased) to Augustin, but only by the Welsh under Caerleon, it is probable, that they conformed to the rest of the West, in such submission to its Patriarch, as was due to him by the Canons of those Councils, which their predecessors had allowed; and was rendered to him by their neighbour-Prelacy of Ireland (see Greg. l. 9 Ep. 61.); as likewise, that they celebrated Easter according to those Conciliary Canons, and the Roman manner; and lastly, that, returning into some of those parts of Britain from whence they fled, 
§ 57 n. 1. The Brittain's observation of Easter different from Rome not agreeing with the Orientals; and no argument, that they received Christianity from thence.  they aided Augustin in the conversion of the Saxons.  
2. That Argument, [That the Britain's were not formerly converted by any sent from Rome, but rather by Joseph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes, or some other Eastern Doctors, because their observation of Easter was contrary to the usage received at Rome, (see Ham. Sch. p. 113. Bramh. Vind. p. 104.)] seems of no force. 1. Because the observation of the Orientals (those of Asia minor only excepted) was the same with the Roman (see Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 5, c. 21.); and it is to be presumed, Joseph, or Simon, had they founded this Church, did celebrate this Feast on no other day than Peter, and James, and Paul, did. But 2ly, Tho the Brittain's observation, when Austin the Monk came hither, was found contrary to the Roman; yet so it was also contrary to the Quartodecimans of Asia. For the Britain's observed it on the Lord's day only, as well as the Romanists; only their Lord's day was that which happened from the 14th day of the Moon in March inclusively, to the 20th day; but the Lord's day of the Romanists was from the 15th to the 21th, [the 14th day, though it were also the Lord's day, being avoided, because it was the Judaical observation]; or indeed rather, because (as Ceolfrid the Abbot discourseth it at large to Naitan, King of the Picts, in Bede, l. 5. c. 22.) with the Jews also the first day of the Paschal Feasts, or of unleavened Bread, was not the 14th but the 15th day of the Moon, to which 15th day (as in all other Festivals) the even preceding, wherein the Paschal Lamb was eaten, is reckoned to belong as the beginning thereof (and not to the 14th); therefore this Even also began the use of Bread unlevened, Exod. 12.18. So that the Britain's kept it a week sometimes before the Romanists, namely, when the Lords day fell on the 14th. Of this thus Bede, (Hist. 3. l. 4. c.) Quem tamen [diem Paschatis] none semper Luna 14 ma cum Judaeis, ut quidam rebantur, sed in die quidem Dominica; alia tamen, quam decebat, hebdomada, celebrabant. and so he saith, (hist. 3. l. 25. c.) that Oswy King of Northumberland (observing the Britain and Scotch mode] broke up his Fast, and solemnised the Feast, when the Queen with Prince Alkfrid continued their Fast, and kept that day their Palm-Sunday. Therefore to Colman, in a dispute before these Princes, urging (as the Asian Churches had done) the practice of S. John the Evangelist, desiring in their variance from the Western Churches, to adhere to those in the East; Wilfrid returns this answer: That the Scots and Britain's neither followed the example of S. John, [i. e. according to the Asian Churches,] nor S. Peter, [according to the West,] nor did their celebration of Easter agree either with the [Judaical] Law, or the Gospel; because they kept not Easter but on a Sunday. See Bede, ib.  
This Error perhaps was propagated to the Britain's (not long before) from the Scots. 
§57. n. 2.  Or both Britain's and Scots might incur at first a mistake therein, from the rudeness and ignorance of those times, overrun with civil wars, (which Bede also hinteth, Hist. 3. l. 4. c.— Sciebant enim resurrectionem Dominicam prima Sabbati esse celebrandam: sed ut Barbari & rustici, quando eadem prima Sabbathi venerit, minime didicerunt. Or it might arise (as Bede ib. 3. c. saith it did) from some of their Doctor's misunderstanding the Egyptian computation or Cycle of Anatolius. Whose writings also Colman, the Scotch Bishop, urgeth in their defence in the disputation had before K. Oswi about this matter; and Wilfrid there also shows them to be orthodox, and mistaken. v. Bed. 3. l. 25. c. But upon what ground, or in what time soever this erroneous custom began here, (since we find those Bishops, which were sent from Rome (see before, § 54. n. 2.) from time to time so welcomly entertained, and so readily submitted to, by these two Islands, and in particular find S. Germanus, who came hither two several times, solemnly keeping his Easter here with the Britain clergy, (see Bede, 1. l. 20. c.)) it follows; either that their observation of Easter was then altogether catholic; or that, if it was otherwise, yet by reason that the difference happeneth not every year, but only then, when the Lord's day chanceth to be on the 14th of the Moon, i.e. only once in many years, it was then by these Bishops not taken notice of, till the coming hither of Augustin; who first appears about A.D. 604 to have observed, and endeavoured to have reform it, in the Western Church of Britain. and afterward his Successors, and others, well-instructed in the Church's practice, to have endeavoured the same in the North and in the Scots. concerning which controversy letters being sent to Rome to consult the Pope, several answers also were directed from thence to the Scots condemning their practice. v. Bede 2. l. 19 c. Yet was it, still, retained for some time both by them, and the Britain's; till, after a fuller conviction, about A.D. 700, or not long after, both were at last reduced to the Catholic observance, (See Bede 5. l. 16, 19, 22, c.) as the South- Irish were, by the Pope's admonition long before. Bede 3. l. 3. c. Meanwhile many Saints and holy men there were, who so observed it, as their Ancestors had misled them, in this observation also being much more tolerable than the 14 many. Neither doth it seem any great fault in them, but only in those of later times, in whom obstinacy after due information of the Church's decrees made it so.]  
3. After this decree of the Church Catholic, 
§ 57 n. 3.  whenever manifested to them, it cannot be denied, that the Britain's became now schismatical; as offending both against the canon of Arles, mentioned before, (where were present some of their own Bishops,) and afterward against that of Nice. This business being one of the two causes of the meeting of that famous Council; and being by them unanimously settled all the world over. Whose words are these, in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria. Socrat. Hist. 1. l. 6. c.— Quod autem ad omnium consensum de sacratissimo festo Paschatis celebrando attinet, scitote, quod controversia de re suscepta prudenter & commode sedata est; ita ut omnes Fratres, qui Orientem incolunt, jam Romanos, nos, & omnes vos sunt consentientibus animis in eodem celebrando deinceps sedulo secuturi. And hence it was, that in those later times, when the Church's orders were well known here in England, the Ordinations by the British or Scotch Bishops were accounted unlawful; and several of the Saxon Kings, to preserve themselves from the Schism, sent their clergy, to be consecrated Bishops, into France, (amongst whom S. Wilfrid was one), and to be consecrated Archbishop, to Rome. See Bede Hist. 3. l. 17. c. 28, 29. c.— 4. l. 1, 2. c. and elsewhere. Where also S. Chad, the holy Bishop of Lichfield having been consecrated (in the vacancy of the See of Canterbury, and some other orthodox Sees) by three Bishops, two of which were Britain's, and unconformable to the Church, (though the third, Wini, Bishop of Winchester, was ordained in France, and orthodox, (Bede 3. l. 7. c.) Theodore, the next Archbishop of Canterbury, is said Ceaddam arguisse, non fuisse eum rite consecratum,— & Ordinationem ejus denue Catholica ratione consummasse. And the same was observed also in the Ordination of Presbyters. v. Bed. 4. l. 2. c.  
4. Lastly, 
§ 57 n. 4.  It seemeth also clear enough, that they followed not the practice of their Forefathers herein; both from the presence of the former Britain Bishops in the Council of Arles, which determined this matter, (of whom see what Sir H. Spelman saith above, § 55. n. 3.) and also from Constantine's letter, Socrat. Hist. 1. l. 6. c. to persuade the Asian Churches to uniformity with the rest of the world. In which he writes thus.— Quoniam modus ille eximius decorusque esset servandus, quem omnes Ecclesiae totius orbis parts, vel ad occidentem, vel ad meridiem, vel ad septentriones, incolentes, servant, ac nonnullae quoque quae in locis ad orientem spectantibus habitant. But lest you may think [omnes Ecclesiae & c] may admit some small exception of the Church of Pritanny, afterwards he names it in particular, (which thing he might also experimentally know, from some part of his education there.) In me recepi &c, ut quod in urbe Roma, in Italia, in Africa, in toto Aegypto, Hispania, Gallia, & Britannia, &c,— una & consentiente sententia conservatur &c. unless we will say the Scotch and Welsh Bishops anciently to have observed Easter in this fashion, whilst the rest of the British Bishops, viz. York, London, &c, kept it in the Roman manner. Add to this what Bede saith of the origin of this Error in the Scotch Nation, (and the same may be presumed in the British,) (Hist. 2. l. 19 c.)— Nuperrime temporibus illis hanc apud eos haeresim exortam, & non totam eorum gentem, sed quosdam ex iis, hac fuisse implicitos. Which Honorius, and other Roman Bishops, with their letters (see Bede ib) endeavoured as soon as might be to suppress. And judge you by these things, how justifiable those proceed of the Britain Clergy or Councils of that time mentioned (Bram. vind. p. 104.) were in opposition to Augustin the Monk; who only required of them in this thing to follow the tradition of the Church; and objected against them,— quod in multis Romanae consuetudini immo universalis Ecclesiae contraria gererent; & quod suas traditiones universis, quae per orbem sibi invicem concordant, Ecclesiis praeferrent. All which was true, and the proponent also confirmed this truth before them with a miracle, restoring his sight to a blind man. See Sr. H. Spelm. A.D. 601.  
§ 58 Now if it be here wondered at, (see Bishop Bramhal's vindic. p. 97.) that in the Britain's ancient subjection to the Roman Patriarch there should appear no more footsteps of any acknowledgement thereof; no such intercourse of Epistles between him and British Prelates, in a nation so anciently Christian, as those of other Western Provinces: The reason thereof seems to be; because Christian Religion, though early planted here, yet made little growth, lighting in a soil then very rude and barbarous, and being miserably oppressed and disturbed, from its very first appearance, with wars foreign and civil; the lately subdued natives either taking up arms against the Romans, to shake off their new yoke; or, when the more civilised part submitted thereto, invaded by their Northern and Western neighbours, the Picts, and Scots, and the Irish; and their former conquerors the Romans, by reason, of civil divisions between the Emperors themselves, and afterward of the frequent inroads into the Empire of barbarous Nations, no way able to protect or secure them. Lastly, (upon their calling in other foreign auxiliaries, the potent Saxons), forced to combat also with those whom they brought-in for their aid for almost two hundred years, till at last they became their slaves. Thus did this poor Nation live in much distress (see Gildas, and S. H. Spelman in his Apparat. p. 12.) even from Constantine's time, when Christianity elsewhere enjoyed some rest, until the settlement of the Saxons, and their conversion to Christ. Which also may be the reason, that for the first 600 years, in those, elsewhere so learned and nourishing times, there are not extant, or at least not divulged, the works of any one Britain writer (born and residing here) in theological matters, excepting Gildas; nor so much as the names known to posterity of the chief British Bishops who lived in these times, save of a very few, (see Spelm. apparat. 22. p.) who for the 300 years between Constantine's days and the coming of Austin, mentions some three or four Bishops of York the prime Seat, and as many of London; and the first known Bishop of Caerleon, after A.D. 500  
§ 59 5. But, let these obligations aforesaid go for none at all; and let not the Britain only, but the Saxon also, 
That the English nation is sufficiently tied to such subjection by the Decrees of latter Councils, wherein her Prelates have yielded their consent.  be originally free from any subjection due to the Roman Patriarch, both in, and after, the days of Archbishop Augustin. Yet by the 3d. and 4th. Propositions made before, (§ 48. and 49.) such liberty can be no way pretended, (see Hammond schis. p. 65. 100 Bramh. vindic. p. 96.) if frequent canons of latter Councils, especially, wherein the English Bishops have been present, and given their suffrage, have restrained it. Now how many Councils are there since 600 or 700 years after Christ, (as the 8. General Council, the Lateran, Constance, Basil, Florentine, &c,) whereof the English Bishops were either members, or at least in absence accepted their Acts; which have confirmed to the Bishop of Rome those jurisdictions over the whole Church, (excepting the Question of his Superiority to General Councils,) or at least over the Western part thereof, (conformed-to likewise by the ordinary practice of the English Prelates,) which the present Reformation denies him? See the 8th and 15th Session of Concil. Constantiense (much urged by Protestants, as no flatterer of the Pope, and wherein, the Council voting by Nations, the English were one of the four,) condemning, against Wickliff and Huss, such Propositions as these. Sess. 8.— Papa non est immediatus Vicarius Christi & Apostolorum.— Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Romanae non habet primatum super alias Ecclesias particulares.— Sess. 15.— Petrus non fuit, neque est Caput Ecelesiae sanctae Catholicae.— Papae praefectio & institutio a Casaris potentia emanavit.— Papa non est manifestus & verus Successor Apostolorum— Principis Petri, si vivit moribus contrariis Petro.— Non est scintilla apparentiae, quod oporteat esse unum Caput in Spiritualibus regens Ecclesiam, quod [caput] semper cum ipsa militanti Ecclesia conservetur, & conservatur.— Now these canons of a Council, supposed not General, but Patriarchal only, are obligatory, at least, to the members thereof, and consequently (by what is said § 40.) to their posterity, until a Council of equal authority reverse them.  
6. Whereas Dr. Hammond thinks to free Prince and People, § 60 Laity and Clergy, from any submission that former canons may require, 
That the principle, upon which Dr. Hammond sets the English clergy & nation free from such former obligations, hath been showed to be erroneous.  or from any concessions that the clergy, or the former, or also the present, Prince, hath made to the Bishop of Rome, or to any other Patriarch, upon this ground which he builds much upon; [That it is in the power of Christian Princes, within their Dominions, to erect or translate Patriarchates.] For thus he saith, (Schis. p. 115.)— To put this whole matter out of controversy; it is, and hath always been in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes, within their Dominions, to erect Patriarchates, or to translate them, etc.— And (p. 132.)—" Upon that one ground laid in the former chapter, the power of Kings in general, and particularly ad hunc actum, to remove Patriarchates, whatever can be pretended against the lawfulness of the Reformation in these Kingdoms, will easily be answered.— And (p. 137.)—" The whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry, Whether at that time of the Reign of Hen. 8. the Bishop of Rome had any real authority here, which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other.— And (p. 138.)— The 3d. will appear to have received its determination also by the absoluteness of the power of our Princes,— and by the rights of Kings, to remove, or erect, Patriarchates.— And (p. 140)—" If the Pope held his Supremacy here in England by the Title of Regal concession, [as Dr. Hammond holds he did, see p. 138. 142.] then he may dispose it from him to some other, as freely as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chancellor etc. And (p. 142.)— Thus certainly the King, being the fountain of all power and authority, as he is free to communicate this power to one, so is he equally free to recall and communicate it to another.— And this takes-off all obligation of obedience in the Bishops to the Pope at the first minute that he is by the King divested of that power.— Which freedom from that obedience immediately clears the whole business of Schism, as that is a departure from the obedience of a lawful Superior.— Thus Herald Now I say, whereas he builds so much on this ground, to remove thereby all difficulties and objections; I think, I have above (by the first Proposition §. 38. and by answering his proofs thereof, §. 43, and also by so many contrary examples brought in the former part of this Discourse) sufficiently shown it to fail him, and to be untrue. Only here observe one thing concerning this right of Princes; That the Doctor [it being much pressed by S. W. (upon the Doctors quoting some Church-canons for it, of which review § 44.) That if Princes had any such right, they had it not as their proper right, independent on the Church, or her canons,] in his answer to this (p. 174.) seems somewhat uncertain and wavering, by what Title Princes hold it. His words there are. I, that meant not to dispute of such mysteries of State, desirous to unite the Civil and Ecclesiastical power, and not to sow seeds of jealousies and dissensions betwixt them, finding the same thing assumed by Kings as their right, and yielded them by the Church to be enjoyed by them, thought I might hence conclude this to be unquestionably their due; but whether it were from God immediately conferred on them, and independently from the Church, or whether the Church in any notion were the medium that God used, now under the Gospel, to confer it on them; truly I neither then was, nor now am, inclined either to inquire, or to take upon me to determine.— And afterward.— If it were not formerly the Prince's right, but the Church's, then sure it is become so by that donation. Now than if Princes should happen to hold this right only from the voluntary concessions of the Church or Councils, or particularly from the clause of one canon passed in the Council of Chalcedon, (upon which canon the Doctor (Schis. p. 120) confesseth, Balsamon, a great stickler for Regal authority, to found it,) than I leave to their consideration, whether the same reason he pleads (upon the instance of former Kings of England conceding Supremacy to the Pope) for Princes reversing the donation of their right when they please, may not be returned him for the Church or her representative, the Council. For if the Prince cannot give his right away, but so that he may recall and resume it, so neither can the Church. And then, after so many canons in, and since, Chalcedon, reserving to such particular nominated Patriarches their privileges, (the Church of England according with the rest,) and extending this their jurisdiction over some Prince's subjects at least, who have the same power and rights as the Kings of England; and expressly prohibiting Princes to remove Patriarches, (8. Gen. Counc. can. 21.) where will his plea be?  
§ 61 Yet farther; (but, in what I shall say now, I will not be too peremptory, 
That some rights once resigned, and parted with, cannot afterwards be justly resumed. ) suppose the erecting and translating Patriarchates to be the Prince's right; and that originally: yet it may be such a right, as once parted with, cannot be resumed by the former owner. For such rights there are, as, once passed away, are not to be retracted; and such as we may alienate not only from ourselves, but from our successors, if such be the purpose of our donation. And why this right may not be numbered amongst such, I yet seek a reason. If it be said; the King cannot divest himself of such a right, without which his Regal power (which he intends to keep to him and his successors entire) cannot subsist, I willingly grant it. But the Regal power may well subsist, without the right of constituting or translating Patriarches. For the Regal power is entire in a Prince not Christian; yet such Prince hath no power to erect or remove those Patriarches, who have a Spiritual Supremacy over his, so many as are Christian, Subjects. Again; the Prince, when Christian, as now, being a Son of the Church, must also be subject to some Patriarch, i. e. supreme Church-power (giving to him Ecclesiastical Laws, and (if need be) inflicting Ecclesiastical censures, etc.) or other; and so must also his successor, if Christian. Neither doth his power to choose or appoint the person bearing such Office, any way lessen such submission, so far as it is due; neither doth it impose any more submission upon his successor, than is due. Why therefore this may not be a right alienable and partable with, I see not. When-as the King's electing a Spiritual Supreme to be over him, seems not to be like the choosing of a Chancellor, or other Officers to serve under him (as the Doctor compares it, Sch. p. 140.) but, rather like the people's electing a Temporal Soveveraign. Now such people, in electing such a Temporal Prince, transfer not their dominion and power (which every single person had before over himself) upon him, or submit their obedience to him, durante beneplacito, or quamdiu se bene gesserit; bene, i. e. in their judgement (for so, who obeyeth only so long as he pleaseth, needs to obey only what he pleaseth; for so soon as any thing displeaseth, he may change his Governors. So, to make instance in the matter in hand, if Ambrose upon just cause exercise some Ecclesiastical censure upon Theodosius, Theodosius may presently remove Ambrose his Metropolitan power to another); but we tie them to Allegiance; and tell them of their former right now given away, and bind the Children and Successors to the act of their Forefathers.  
Thus much of the Authority and Subordinations of the several Ecclesiastical Persons and Orders. In the next Part, I will proceed to show you the Authority and Subordinations of these, as they are united in several Bodies of Councils.   
FINIS.