Denmark Sweedland Geneva Zurick c. we have one common Creed and the same which Vnited all Local Churches into one Catholick Church in the Days of Old. But though we Protestants are United into one Faith yet because we are not United under one Pope no more than the Primitive Churches were Mr. Sclater leaves us Avery stout Reason If yet that be one of the True Reasons But by what we have seen of his Reasons yet we have some cause to believe he hath some other reasons that are stronger than this some Reserv'd Reasons among those which he calls Pag. 5. his Reserv'd Principles But to let Mr. Sclater go at present till we meet him again The Author of the Nubes Testium would perswade you to think that in those By-opinions wherein we differ from the Roman Church the Primitive Fathers are on their side For the clearing therefore of this Matter I shall take a very short course by giving you an Historical account of the Series of Affairs from the Primitive Ages as Controversies about these Points did happen to arise And by this account you will easily discern that our Opinions are the most Ancient and Catholick Opinions After the Catholick Faith had been onfirm'd and the Controversie with Arius determin'd at the Nicene Council about Anno 325. another Controversie arose about Primacy some Bishops of Rome pretending to Supream Authority and Universal Jurisdiction over the rest But this was clearly an Innovation for an Ancient Canon had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Can. Apostol 34. been provided which was the Churches Rule during the Reigns of Heathen Princes That the Bishops of every Country should submit to him that was their Primate and own him for their Head and do nothing of Moment without his Approbation By which Canon the Primacy was fixt in the Archbishop of every Province and all Metropolitans throughout the World stood upon the same Level and had the same Supream Authority in their Respective Jurisdictions and Countries You cannot but smile to see what a Marginal Note there is upon this Canon in Binius's Edition of it Jurisdictio Episcoporum praeterquam Romani certis finitis limitibus circumscripta est The Jurisdiction of Bishops except the Roman Bishops is Circumscribed within certain and determinate Limits But there is not the least ground or colour for that exception the continual practice of the Church in those times shews it to be a forced Interpretation of the Canon for the Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishops was limited as all the others was so that Aeneus Sylvius afterwards Pope Pius the second ingenuously confest that before the Nicene Council little respect was had to the Church of Rome Nor did the Nicene Council give the Roman Bishops any Title to their pretended Primacy For in the sixth Canon of that Council the Fathers decreed that the Ancient Customes should hold that the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. of Alexandria should have power over them who were in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis because this was likewise the custome for the Bishop of Rome Also that Antioch and other Provinces should have the same Priviledges preserv'd to their Churches Whence it appears that in those times the Jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch was limited and bounded and that to the Suburbicary Churches in Italy as Ruffinus rightly understood that Canon 2. That other Provinces had the same equal priviledges within themselves that the Roman Church had 3. That those priviledges were every where founded on ancient Customes 4. That those Customes should still continue in force But all this could not bound the Ambition of some Bishops of Rome who endeavour'd and hoped to enlarge their Jurisdiction by the great Interest they had in the now Christian Emperors who exprest much tenderness to the Church in lieu of those hardships she had endured in times of Persecution and thought it no little Piety out of Veneration to the Memories of St. Peter and St. Paul to be kind to their Successors and this was one thing that by degrees brought the Church of Rome into great request Besides Schismaticks and Hereticks who lay under Church-censures were wont to appeal to the Emperor for redress as the Donatists did to Constantine in the Pontificate of Melchiades The Emperor thinking it proper for him to commit the cognisance of Church Causes into the hands of Church-men did use to depute and delegate the Bishop of his own See with some more of the Clergy to examine the matters And as this gave encouragement to Factious men ever and anon to have recourse to the Church of Rome so it gave encouragement also to the Bishops of Rome to incroach upon the Priviledges of other Countries where such causes should regularly have been heard and determin'd in publick Synods Yet it is observable that for a long Tract of time the Bishops of Rome never attempted to execute their usurped power but still they met with great Opposition from those who asserted their own Canonical Priviledges and Rights Thus when Julius endeavoured to interpose in the case of Athanasius who had been unjustly condemned by the Oriental Bishops in the Synods of Tyre and Antioch though Julius pretended only that 't was not Canonically done but that himself and other Bishops ought to have been interessed too in an affair of that High nature yet Julius his appearing in this cause put the Oriental Bishops into a rage as you may see by his letter to them wherein he takes notice of their Passion and opposition and Council Tom. 1. pag. 391. confesses that they charged him with kindling a flame of Discord and that they were Quâ—… dicendi sunt flamina discordiae accendisse si quidem id nobis in vestris literis objicitis Jul. Ep. Verè parem eundemque honorem in omnibus Episcopatibus censetis esse neque ex magnitudine civitatum ut vos Scribitis honorem ejus rei crescere arbitramini Id. ibid. positive in their Opinion that in all Bishopricks the Honour was really equal and the same and that the Honour much less the Power of a See did not increase by the greatness of Cities This was point blank to stop the growth of the Pope of Romes power as a meer Usurpation upon the Authority and Rights of other Bishops when yet all that Julius seems to have contended for was that Athanasius his case might be re-considered in a general Council wherein he himself and other Western Bishops might be concern'd But when Innocent the first made a tryal of his skill upon the African Churches by occasion as 't is thought of an Appeal made to him by Caelestius the Pelagian Heretick who had been condemn'd at home in Africa the Africans to maintain their own Priviledges and the Canons of the Catholick Church decreed at the Milevitan Council that when Presbyters Deacons Concil Milevit cap. 22. or other inferiour Clergy-men did appeal from their own Bishops some neighbouring Bishops
because he was the first Founder of the Church he was very fitly called a Rock But doth all this import that he was above all the other Apostles in Power Or that he had Supream Authority and Jurisdiction over them S. Paul speaks twice of the very chiefest Apostles and what if S. Peter was the chiefest of all Doth it follow that he was the chiefest in Authority No S. Paul's power was as great as His and therefore he saith in one place I was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. 11. 15. and in another place in nothing am I behind the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. 12. 11. So the Ancients allow'd S. Peter a preheminence of Honor but not a Supremacy of Power as 't is clear from that single passage which our Author cites out of S. Jerome and I wonder he did not better consider it As Plato was Prince of the Philosophers Pag. 34. so was Peter of the Apostles Had Plato any Authority or Jurisdiction over the Rest No all that is meant is that Plato was the most Eminent and Renowned Philosopher S. Gregory call'd Peter the chief Greg lib. 4. Ep. 38. Member of the Holy and Vniversal Church and saith he Paul Andrew and John What were They but the Heads of particular Churches If the word Head always imports Authority then had those three Apostles as much Authority over Peter as Peter had over Them. But the Truth is the Ancients ever thought all the Apostles had authority alike And so St. Cyprian for instance tells us that what Peter was that were the rest of the Apostles too endued with an equal Partnership Hoc erant utique ceteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis S. Cyprian de Vnit Eccles Ep. ad Quintum in Honour and Power And elsewhere he saith plainly that Peter whom the Lord chose first and on whom he built his Church in his dispute with Paul about Circumcision did not insolently claim or arrogantly assume any thing to himself as if he held the Primacy or ought to be obeyed rather then those Disciples who were called after him Whence it is clear that though some of the Ancients styled him the Prince and Head of the Apostles yet they did not ascribe to him any Superiour Authority or Power but onely an Honorary Precedency like that which is given to the Chair-man of a Committee who is above the rest in Eminence but in Power the same with the rest that are equally and jointly in Commission with him And thus all our Authors Collections touching St. Peter's great Characters are answer'd in short 2. Other of his Authorities are concerning those Honourable Titles which some of the Ancients gave to the Church and Bishops of Rome as that There was the most potent Principality or the Imperial Seat of the Emperor that the First Chair and the principal Church was There that it was the Head Church that the Bishop of it was a Great Pastour and the Head to whom Antiquity had Given a Preheminence of Priesthood or the Precedency before all other Bishops And what is all this and Ten times more to the Popes pretended Authority over all Churches and all Bishops and that by Divine Right too Antiquity bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome a Preheminence saith our Author out Pag. 45. of the Emperor Valentinian's Letter and who doubts it But it was nothing but a Civil Respect and an Honourable yet voluntary Deference to him because he was Bishop of the Chief City and was near the Emperor and was capable of doing the Catholick Church by his Interest in the Emperor more good Offices then other Bishops could do therefore they were willing to Complement him with great Titles and to give him the upper hand and the precedency for Order and Peace-sake To the Episcopal Chair at Old Rome because it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Calced Can. 8. the Imperial City the Fathers very fitly gave an Honourable preheminence as those 630 Fathers profest at the Council of Chalcedon But this was a Frank-gift a voluntary Act and Courtesie of the Catholick Church and from these Respectful compellations and Honorary Grants of Precedency to argue that the Bishop and See of Rome had Authority over the rest is the same thing as if you should say that because among our Magistrates the Mayor of London hath the Title of Lord therefore all other Majors and Headboroughs are under his Command Or because among our Cities London is the Chief and Head-city therefore all other Cities and Corporations are under its Jurisdiction Or because among our Peer's there is a Primier Duke or a First Earl therefore all other Peers are in subjection to him Or because amongst our Bishopricks that of Durham hath some singular Favours granted to it therefore the Prelate of that Diocess is in his Episcopal Power and Authority Superior to all the rest The Ancients did not begrudge that fair Preheminence which upon the New moduling of the Roman Empire they found it necessary for them to give to some Patriarch or other and for some special Reasons thought it best and most proper for them to give to the Patriarch of Rome but they did not give away their own Authority or that Power they had at home in respect whereof all Bishops were his Equals No saith St. Cyprian The Episcopal Authority is one and the same Episcopatus unus est cujus a Singulis in solidum pars tenetur S. Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae whereof all particular Bishops are equal and joint-possessors like joint-Heirs in Fee. And St. Austin whom our Author cites saith clearly against him that though the Bishop Pag. 41. of Rome had the Preheminence yet the Episcopal power was common to all that were of that Function and therefore Optatus call'd Pope Siricius his Fellow Socius is the word which our Author hath very ignorantly or very disingenuously rendred Contemporary but the plain meaning is our Fellow or Equal The Ancients distinguisht between Priority in point of Honour and Supremacy or Primacy in point of Jurisdiction The former they denyed not the Bishop of Rome but when once he went about to take advantage by their free concessions to incroach upon their due priviledges they resolutely opposed his Vsurpations though at the same time they gave him an Honourable deference This was the ground of that Controversie whereof I have given you a short account and for your further satisfaction you may consult the vehement Epistles of St. Cyprian to the Bishops of Rome and particularly that to Cornelius where he stoutly defends the priviledges of foreign Churches and their Right of judging matters at home against all Appeals to the Roman See and if anything be needful to be added it shall be onely what St. Cyprian said afterwards at Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopâ—… se Episcoporum constituit aut Tyrannico terrore ad
to it but out of respect to the Imperial City as the Fathers at Chalcedon plainly declared therefore they thought it reasonable that the like Honourable precedency should be granted to the Bishop of New Rome also Upon this there were strait very strong fears in Italy that in a little time the Power would go along with the Honour and that the Bishop of Constantinople would carry away that Universal Supremacy and Jurisdiction which some Bishops of Rome had hitherto contended for Now 't is very Useful and Pleasant to observe what a strange Change this presently wrought For as other Chruches had hitherto bestirred themselves against the pretences of the Church of Rome so now the very Church of Rome bestirred her self against the pretences of the Church of Constantinople and with the same Arguments Now the Note was alter'd on a sudden and even the Bishops of Rome were vehemently set against Pride and Ambition They urg'd our Saviours precepts of Humility and especially in Bishops They insisted upon the Priviledges of all Christian Churches they stood stifly for the Canons especially for those of the Nicene Council though some of their Predecessors had broken them So that could Authority alone for ever baffle the claim of Universal Pastourship 26we need use onely the Authority of Three Bishops of Rome that in their turns undertook the Quarel with the Constantinopolitans First Pope Leo engaged in it with all imaginable Zeal He wrote to Anatolius himself the then Bishop of Constantinople rebuked him for his Insolence and Ambition pleaded the Canons against him vindicated the Priviledges of all Primates told him that every Primate should keep within his own bounds without invading the Vid. Ep. Leonis ad Anatol. ad Marcian ad Pulcher. ad Syn. Chalced. ex in Binii Concil Tom. 2. Rights of others and what not He wrote likewise to Marcian the Emperor complaining heavily of Anatolius for breaking the Churches peace for violating the Decrees of the Council of Nice and the like and therefore desired the Emperor to pull his Pride down He wrote too to the Empress Pulcheria accusing Anatolius to Her also and begging her assistance against him He wrote to the very Synod at Chalcedon and told them though they cared not for it that he would not look upon their Acts as to Anatolius to be valid Besides all this he wrote also to the Bishop of Antioch desiring him likewise to be a Party and to engage the rest of the Oriental Bishops against Anatolius but I do not find that they would be concern'd because 't was onely an Honourary matter which was granted to the Constantinopolitan See being now the Imperial Seat and they could not but understand what was the bottom of Leo's grudge Above an Hundred years after this it seems a Synod at Constantinople gave John the Bishop of that place the Title of Oecumenical or Vniversal Bishop Indeed the thing was evil and it had grown to an Head by degrees like a noxious Humour that first gathers then Suppurates and at last comes to plain Impostumation And now another Pope appear'd in the Controversie Pelagius the 2d He inveigh'd bitterly against John and in a Letter to him charged him with the most severe rebukes to forbear that Rash Proud and Superstitious Title as he called it And in Vide Gregor lib. 4. Ep. 38. lib. 7. Ep. 71. item Epist Pelagii ad Synod in Binii Concil Tom 2. Par. 2. pag. 257. It. Gratian. decret Pag. 303. an Epistle to the Synod that had granted it he dealt very roundly with them condemning the Title as a Devilish Vsurpation as injurious to the Honour of all Patriarchs and to the power of all Bishops and as that which violated the Nicene Canons and would bring the Members of Christ into Slavery In which particular Pope Pelagius was too much a Prophet Pelagius dying the quarrel was left in the hands of his Successor Gregory the Great Now he tells us that this New Title which John of Constantinople had Usurped Scandaliz'd all men that all the Bishops were inraged at it and all their Greg lib. 4. Ep. 32 36 38. lib. 6. Ep. 28. Mouths were opened against it that the Vniversal Church was disquieted about it that the peace of the Church was broken and that the whole Church was rent in pieces by the Scandal it had given Such great and strong opposition did that Arrogant name presently meet with and yet the Title of Universal Bishop was in those a Title of Dignity onely without any Power of Universal Jurisdiction It was nothing in comparison of that which some have usurped a claim to Since And if a vain Name made such work in that Age 't is past imagination to conceive what clamours and disturbances would have been then throughout the whole Church by a Newer pretence to Universal Power and Authority a thing that is full of the most Terrible and Mischievous consequences But of all men then living none seemed to have been set more fiercely against the Title of Universal Bishop then Pope Gregory himself was Concerning whom I observe briefly Three things 1. That he declaimed against the Bishop of Constantinople as a Robber as a Wolf as an Incroacher upon the Rights of all the Bishops Lib. 7. Ep. 71. Lib. 4. Ep. 32. 38. lib. 6. Ep. 30. as the Imitator and follower of Lucifer in his Pride and as the Fore-runner of Antichrist 2. That he wrote several Letters to Mauritius the Emperor to the Bishops of Alexandria Antioch Thessalonica and divers more to strengthen his interest against the Usurping Patriarch that he might take down his greatness before it swelled too High. 3. That he loaded his ill-gotten Title with the most odious and reproachful Characters he could invent calling it a Vain Novel Profane Blasphemous Wicked Foolish Proud Presumptuous Name and I know not what besides This was the fine Livery wherewith he endeavoured to disgrace his Rival John not dreaming I belive that in a very short time it would be due to his own Successors and would much better become them However we have the Judgment of no less then Three great Popes against the Title of Vniversal Bishop nor are we concern'd to enquire whether they had not some By-ends of their own which provoked them to use these Expressions That they were unwilling any others should be Partners with them in their Authority is very reasonable for us to believe though I am apt to think that Gregory spake his thoughts sincerely partly because he declared solemnly to the Emperor that 't was not any respect to his own cause which moved him and partly because he used so many severe expressions to render the thing it self Invidious and Odious which a man so zealous for the Honour of St. Peter's Chair as Gregory was would not have done had he but dream't of His or his Successors having that Title 'T is not likely that he would wittingly have
obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit c. Cyprian de baptizand Haeret in initie the Carthaginian Council None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops or by any Tyrannical Threats compelleth his Colleagues to a necessity of Obedience in regard that every Bishop hath by vertue of his own Liberty and Authority a Power of Judgment in himself and can no more be judged by another Bishop than another Bishop can be judged by him This he spake designedly against the Bishop of Rome and if you consider the place you will find it to be such a pregnant Testimony against the pretended Supremacy of the Pope of Rome as I believe the Author of the Nubes Testium will be puzled how to answer 3. Next we are to consider those his Quotations which relate to those Applications which Foreigners were wont to make to the Roman Bishop upon special Occasions and examine whether these did import and argue that Supremacy which 't is pretended he had in the Primitive Ages 1. Then 't is true that other Bishops were anciently wont to acquaint the Bishop of Rome with the state of Church-affairs in their several Provinces especially if any new thing hapned And this was all that the Sardican Fathers meant when writing to Pope Julius who had excused himself for his absence from the Synod in regrad they had accepted his excuse they sent him an account of what they had done because they thought it most proper for the Bishops from several Provinces to relate or communicate their proceedings to the Head that Si ad Petri Apostoli sedem de singulis provinciis domini referant Sacerdotes is to St. Peter's See the sence of which place our Author hath perverted by rendring it so as if they thought it best for them to Pag. 25. have recourse to the Bishop of Rome an unjust innuendo that he was not so much their Brother as their Judge Now what can any man get by this that the Bishops in those times would not keep one another in Ignorance In order to the Peace and Unity of the Catholick Church it was absolutely necessary for them to hold a mutual brotherly correspondence And why should they pass by one that was Bishop of so eminent a City as Rome was Yet this is no argument of any Authority he had over them for he was wont to do the same thing himself as other Bishops communicated the affairs of their provinces to him so he communicated the affairs of his Province to Them too and so this is no more an argument for the Authority of the one than 't is for the Authority of all the rest 2. It is true too that the Primitive Fathers did many times consult the Opinion of the Bishop of Rome in points that were controverted and good reason they had to do so for the Church of Rome was then uncorrupt men of great Learning and Note flockt thither some out of curiosity and some upon business because Rome was the chief Seat of the Empire which is the Genuine sence of Iraenus as he is cited Pag. 22. by our Author And where was any Controversie so likely to be determin'd as at Rome But what of all this Doth it follow hence that they lookt upon the Pope as the supream Judge You know many of the Reformers did either go or send to Geneva to consult Calvin's Opinion but did any of them think they were under his Jurisdiction This is as strong an Argument on the behalf of the Presbyterians for the Supremacy of their Pope as 't is on bethe behalf of the Romanists for the supremacy of the Pope of Rome And yet we would not take away any of his due Honour from him Let him cleanse his Church from those Errors and Corruptions we justly complain of let him keep within his own bounds without invading the Liberties of other Churches and the Rights of Princes let him make Rome the Seat of true Piety and Literature let him be as he should be like a right Primitive Patriarch and then he shall see whether we will not give him the same deference that the Primitive Christians did 3. It is true also that foreign Bishops were wont as occasion did require to give the Bishop of Rome an account of their Faith. But what then Did they not give the same account to the whole Church and to other Bishops as well as to the Roman It was a common Cause and every Bishop was deeply concern'd to be satisfied whether such as were of the same Order were sound in the same Catholick Faith. And therefore when they were newly Ordain'd or were at any time suspected of Errors they were oblig'd to satisfie all their Fellow-Bishops and did often give an account of their Faith under their hands for the satisfaction of the whole Church Nay 't is notorious that even the Bishops of Rome did the same thing and some of them were commanded to it in open Synods and the Learned and Moderate Archbishop of Paris Petrus de Marca ingenuously tells us That Pet. de Marca de Concord Lib. 6. Cap. 5. 't was usual in those times for a Patriarch and for the very Bishop of Rome when he was newly chosen to send Letters abroad concerning his Ordination to which was added a Profession of his Faith. So that 't is impertinent what our Author Pag. 28. alledgeth of Dionysius of Alexandria giving his Name-sake of Rome a Declaration of his Faith for if this was an argument of his subjection to the Pope it is as strong a proof that the Pope himself was in subjection to other Bishops 4. Nor is it to any more purpose what our Author has collected touching the Popes hearing of Plantiffs Causes though he seems to lay a great deal of stress upon it For what the Bishop of Rome did of this kind he did either as the Emperors Delegate or as an indifferent Referee or as a friendly Neighbour whose Mediation and intercession in foreign parts especially when other Bishops concurr'd with him as commonly they were wont might and did go a great way towards the Righting of those who were supposed to have been unjustly or hardly dealt with at home But that Applications were made to him upon this ground that he was the sole Head of the Catholick Church and so might by virtue of his unlimited Judicial power command Redresses to be made in any case upon his own hearing of it is more than our Author hath as yet proved or is able to prove with the help of all his friends And for the clearing of this I shall 1. Give our Author a General answer And then 2. Consider the particulars touching the Applications made to the Bishop of Rome by Eustathius Sebastenus by Athanasius Chrysostome and others whose cases he is pleased to instance in 1. Then in general it is certain that every mans Cause was in those times to be heard and determin'd in his own Province
branded himself or his See with so many Vgly and Infamous Characters The true account of it therefore seems to be this Some Roman Bishops longed for Superiority over the other Churches and might Hope in time to accomplish their desires But in Gregory's days and somewhat before Rome began mightily to sink by the great Oppression of the Lombards and by the Translation of the Imperial Seat. Constantinople flourisht at a great rate the Court was there the Emperor favour'd it the Patriarch of it had now gotten a very High Title and the Bishops of Rome might fear that Universal Authority would follow by degrees and that their Cause was going apace Therefore they might think it in vain for them to smother and conceal the truth any longer so to be Revenged upon the growing Patriarch they speak at last their thoughts freely In short if these Three Bishops of Rome where sincere in what they said their memory is the more valuable for asserting the Truth if they looked upon any Sinister ends of their own the Glory of Truth is the greater for being justified even by those who were no friends to it You will perhaps wonder now how this Title should go unexpectly and so suddenly from Constantinople to Rome For it was obtained of the Usurper Phocas by Boniface the 3 d. who was the next Successor but one to that Gregory who had condemned the Title with so much bitterness Why thus it was in short Phocas had barbarously Murther'd his Prince Mauritius the Emperour and his Children Cyriacus then Bishop of Constantinople hated and oppos'd him for his execrable Villany Boniface of Rome presently strikes in makes use of this Opportunity sues for the Title of Universal Bishop hoping now to invade the Church by the help of a Tyrant that had invaded the State and Phocas grants his request partly out of Hatred to his enemy Cyriacus partly for fear lest Boniface should raise up some evil against him in the West and partly too because he saw the Bishops of Rome were ready to crouch and sneak to him though a bloudy Vsurper as long as they could gain any thing by their base Submission of which he found a plain experiment in Gregory himself who wrote a flattering Letter to him which begins thus Gloria in excelsis c. Glory to God in the highest and so he goes on Let the Heavens rejoyce and the Greg. Regist Lib. 11. Ep. 38. aa Phocam Earth be glad and let all the People that have hitherto been much afflicted be chearful for your kind actions This he thought might very well Merit something at the hands of Phocas and so Boniface obtain'd the Title of Vniversal Bishop and that too just about the time when Mahomet stept into Christendom then it was that Oppression got into the Church God punishing the Pride and Factions of Christians with Two Scourges at once which ever since have made the Christian World to Smart severely By this account you may see the Rise and Progress of the Popes Supremacy What an Innovation it is and how strongly it was opposed by the Catholick Church in the Primitive times for above 200 years together after it was first pretended to Before I pass from this Topick I shall lay hold on this opportunity to satisfie you touching those Allegations which the Author of the Nubes Testium hath collected to prove if he could that the Bishop of Rome has the Primacy over the whole World and that by Divine Right too and by Commission granted him by Christ himself in the Person of St. Peter Now I observe in general that this Author hath wholly omitted that Historical account which has been now given you because it evidently clears the point against him but instead of that he has pickt up some ends shreds out of some of the Ancients which may seem Specious to Ignorant people but signifies nothing with a man that is rightly acquainted with the Series of the Controversie Whereas he pretends to give us an History of the Donatists of the Gnosticks of Berengarius of the Iconoclasts c. which I shall take notice of hereafter he takes no notice at all of those Fathers and Councils in Africa and the East which resisted the first incroachments that tended to the introduction of an Usurped Supremacy He knew that such an History would burn his Fingers and therefore thought fit not so much as to touch it but throws the whole matter and that very briefly upon the Donatists as if the Pag. 22. Donatists were the onely men that denyed the Popes Supremacy and broke with him upon that account whereas indeed the Donatists were They who gave the Bishop of Rome the first unlucky occasion to claim Juridiction out of their due bounds by their Appeals at Rome and by their running from their proper Judges in Africk witness their Appeals in the Papacy of Melchiades So that it was not those Schismaticks that were the first or the onely men that opposed the Popes Usurpations but the Catholick Fathers who were forced to stand up in defence of their own just priviledges Now it is not imaginable that any of the Fathers would especially during that Controversie say any thing that might really serve to strengthen the unlawful pretences of the Bishops of Rome against themselves and therefore you may very rationally conclude that those passages which are gather'd out of the Fathers in favour of the Popes Supream Authority are forced wrested to a sence which they cannot naturally bear But to examine particulars If you please to peruse for 't is tedious to Transcribe all the Authorities this Man cites you will find that they are concerning Four things 1. Concerning those high Characters which some of the Ancients gave of S. Peter himself 2. Concerning those honourable Titles which they gave to the Bishops and See of Rome 3. Concerning those Applications which were sometimes made to the Bishops of Rome upon emergent occasions 4. Concerning the Acts of the Bishops of Rome upon such Applications And upon a full and impartial consideration of these several things you will easily find what false grounds they go upon who endeavour so eagerly from these Observations to prove the Universal supream power of the Pope especially by Divine Right 1. These Authorities are concerning the high Characters which some of the Ancients gave of S. Peter himself as that he was the Prince the Head of the Apostles and the like Now what doth this mean but that S. Peter was the most Eminent Apostle in respect of his age in respect of his zeal in respect of his couragious Professions of his Constancy and Love to his Master in respect of the Precedency he might have for Order-sake and in respect too of the Honour he had in Founding Christ's Church for the First Converts were made by his Preaching 'T was he that gather'd at once those Three thousand Souls which were call'd The Church Act. 2. 42 and
for his reprehension I referr him to that excellent Writer I shall not need to detain you with a long answer to what he saith concerning Paul Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Pag. 30. of Ancyra and the rest who were ejected as Athanasius was For their case was the same with his and several Bishops and the Bishop of Rome among others were pitcht upon by the Consent of all Parties to re handle it and impowered as Petrus de Marca doth confess to send for them to Rome for the Ibid. § 2. re-examination thereof and all this doth amount to no more than a friendly and neighbourly Reference I shall onely note that the Eastern Bishops were so far from owning any Authority in the Pope to decide the Controversie himselfe that because he presumed so much as to receive Athanasius and the rest into his Communion before the Cause had been determin'd in a Synod of Western and Eastern Bishops too they fell out with him horribly and grew out ragious as you may see in their Synodical Epistle in Binius Much like to this was the Case of St. Chrysostome which our Author doth instance in too as if St. Chrysostome being unjustly depos'd by Theophilus of Aâ—exandria had Appealed to the Bishop of Rome as the supream Judge But the vanity of all this is sufficiently proved by the ingenuous Petrus de Marca who bestowes a whole Chapter upon this case onely where he shews that St. Chrysostome De concord Lib. 7. Cap. 9. appeal'd not to the Pope but to a general Council that he wrote indeed to the Pope but not to him onely but also to the Bishops of Milan and Aquilea that the end of his writing was that the Italian Bishops would consent to the calling of a Council and would help to perswade the Emperors to call one and that nothing can be drawn from St. Chrysostome's case to prove the Popes Supremacy And the Truth is St. Chrysostome disown'd the Jurisdiction of a foreign Bishop as you may easily see by his Epistle to Pope Innocent Therefore our Author falsifies the sense of St. Chrysostome Chrys Epist ad Innocent Tom 7. pag. 154. Ed. Savil. for towards the end of that Epistle he speaks not to Innocent onely but to other Bishops of Italy too calling them his most honoured and Religious Lords and that which he desires of them all is that they would write to Theophilus and the rest to convince them and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. let them know that such irregular proceedings as had been carried on by a Party against Chrysostom when he was absent and did not decline a fair Tryal ought to be lookt upon as null and void as indeed they were in their own nature and that such men ought to suffer according to the Ecclesiastical Laws To which he adds a further request that Innocent and the rest of his brother-Bishops would own him for a Brother that he might receive communicatory Letters from them and have their love and the love of all others as formerly he had And what is all this to the supream and sole Jurisdiction of the Pope over all other Bishops Suppose some eminent Divine of a Protestant Church abroad in Denmark or elsewhere should now be in St. Chrysostome's hard case and should send to my Lord of Canterbury and the rest of the English Bishops to declare their minds against the uncanonical Actions of his enemies and to tell them that such proceedings were not binding and that they would be pleased till his cause was duely tryed to let him continue in their good esteem and to look upon him as a Brother and vouchsafe him their love and communion would this argue that our Arch-bishop and his Suffragons are the supream Heads of the Catholick Church 4. By all this you may see that those Applications which were upon occasion made to the Bishop of Rome by foreign Bishops are no good argument to prove that his unlimitted power over all Churches which is now contended for Let us now consider the last point whether any such thing can be concluded from those Acts which did sometimes follow after such Applications For the Author of Nubes Testium doth Appropriate divers acts to the Bishop of Rome for which his Collections cannot bear him out As 1. The sole power of deposing other Prelates that which was anciently the proper business of Synods as Petrus de Marca abundantly shews and which he confesses was not obtained by the Pope till about Eight hundred years ago As for Nestorius whom this Author doth instance De Concord l. 7. Cap. 1 § 7. in he was Deposed by the Ephesine Council nor was the Pope concern'd in it more than any other Bishop Because he was such a notorious and obstinate Heretick all the Bishops of the Catholick Church were engaged in a common cause against him St. Cyril of Alexandria would have Excommunicated him before as he signified in his Epistle to Pope Caelestine who in his Answer to Cyril concurr'd with him and consented to it as any other Bishop might have done He did not delegate any power which St. Cyril had not of himself so making him his Substitute as this Author is please to Romance but onely went hand in hand with him joining the Authority of the Roman See with his And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. Caelestine ad Cyril when the Ephesine Council deposed Nestorius it was the Authority of the Church-Canons they went upon and tho' they took notice of Pope Caelestine's Letter to them it was only in commendation of him that they might extol him for his Readiness in that matter as they said in their Synodical Epistle to the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian Nay tho' Caelestine had censur'd Nestorius before that Council met yet he did it in a Synod at Rome with the consent and joint-concurrence of a great many Bishops more so that in all that affair the Pope used no more Authority than other Bishops did 2. Besides this our Author appropriates to the Pope the power of restoring Bishops that had been outed of their Bishopricks and so he pretends that he restored Eustathius Athanasius and the rest But as for Eustathius he was restored by the Synod at Tyana and that at the instance not of the Pope onely but a great many other Bishops in Italy France Africk Sicily and Illyricum nay at the instance of the Emperor himself for he went to that Synod with Letters from all these as 't is acknowledged 'T is true the Western Bishops concurr'd and gave occasion to the rest to do so too for which St. Basil blames them But if the Pope had the sole power in his hand why did Eustathius go to any other What need had he to give himself so much trouble having once made a friend of the Pope And as for Athanasius and the other Eastern Bishops who our Author saith Pag. 30 31. were restored to their Sees by Pope
Julius it is evident by the whole story and honestly confest by Petrus de Marca that De Concord Lib. 7. C. 3. 7. their Restitution was decreed by the Sardican Council and was actually procured and effected by the Emperors command 'T is true Pope Julius receiv'd those Bishops into his Communion because he believ'd they were unjustly depos'd by the Arian Faction 'T is true too that he wrote into the East for the restitution of those Bishops but 't is as true that he pretended not to any power of doing this himself but that those great men ought not to be ejected without the knowledge and consent of himself and other Bishops of the East and West This Petrus de Marca proves undeniably and Ibid. Cap. 4. quarrels with Baronius Bellarmine and Perron for wresting the sense of Julius his Epistle to their own Opinion just as our Author hath done And as touching Sozomen's words which our Author quotes that Learned Writer shews in the same place how they are abused and that they are to be understood not as if the restitution of those Bishops was effected directly or by vertue of Julius his supream Jurisdiction but by Consequence onely that is Julius his Example and Intercession had such an Influence upon other Bishops and the Emperors that it become the means and occasion of the Restitution of Athanasius and his injured Brethren And now what is all this to prove the sole supream Authority of the Bishop of Rome Especially since Athanasius himself acknowledg'd that he was restored by the suffrage of no less than Three hundred forty and four Bishops Sir if you think I have been too prolix upon this Theme I must intreat you to consider that it is one of the most Principal of those points which are in Controversie between Us and the present Roman Church and a point of great consequence I hope that by what has been Written you will be able rightly to understand those passages which the Author of the Nubes Testium hath collected upon this Head and before I pass on to the the next point I shall take notice but of Four passages more 1. He saith the General Council of Chalcedon own'd the supream Authority of the Pag. 44. Pope inasmuch as the chief accusation against Dioscorus was that contrary to the Tradition and Practice of the Church he had presumed to call a Council without the consent of the Bishop of Rome as appears from the words of Lucentius Legate from the See Apostolick Act. 1. But this he falsisies wretchedly For the Crimes alledged against Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria were that he was a Favourer of the Heretick Eutyches and was guilty of Outrages and bloodshed This made the great Outcry in the Council that he should be turned out of it Indeed Lucentius the Popes Legate pleaded that Dioscorus had called a Synod without the Popes Authority But this allegation was not admitted nor taken notice of by the Council they required Lucentius to shew wherein Dioscorus had offended And when Lucentius persisted in his allegation the Fathers reprehended him for accusing him and so Dioscorus was commanded to keep his place which he did till he was cast out for other reasons If you consult the first action of the Chalcedon-Council you will find what I say to be True and by that you may judge whether they lookt upon Lucentius his allegation to have been any Crime in Dioscorus as this Author would make you believe 2. He tells us that the Monks of Syria called Hormisda the Pope the Head of all And can we believe that those men who were then persecuted by the Eutychians neglected by the Emperor would apply themselves to Hormisda without complementing him with an Honourable Title Yet that Title imports no more but that he was one of the principal Bishops of the Catholick Church and such Titles were usually given to any very Eminent Bishope specially if he was a Patriarch For so St. Basil himself said of Athanasius the Patriarch Basil Ep. 52. of Alexandria that he had the care of all the Churches and that he thought it most convenient for them to fly to him as the Head of them all and to make use of him as their Counsellor as their Captain and Prince in the government of their affairs What a noise should we have about our ears had St. Basil said so much of the Patriarch of Rome And yet St. Basil did not mean that Athanasius was the supream Vniversal Pastor 3. He saith that the first Council at Constantinople desir'd their Decrees to be confirm'd by Pope Damasus especially as to the deposing of Timotheus an Apollinarist But this doth not appear for all that the Council required of him was that he being absent from the Council would concur with them in the condemnation of the Heretick Now this was no argument of Damasus his Supremacy For all Bishops were bound to do the same thing all of them were ingaged against an Heretick as in a common Cause and as against a common Enemy Thus Novatian was excommunicated by several Synods in Rome Italy and Africa nay by all the Bishops over the World as Petrus de Marca doth confess out of St. Cyprian And the reason given is this because all the De Concord Lib. 7. C. 2. Bishops were but one body an Order of men that were Vnited together so that if an Heretical Bishop arose in any Province all the Bishops were presently to lend their help and assistance against him And besides it is notorious that by the Canons of the Catholick Church no Bishop was to receive any man into his Communion that had been justly Excommunicated by another So that when the Council of Constantinople requir'd Damasus for that is the word to concur with them against Timotheus they onely requir'd him to observe the Laws and Practice of the whole Catholick Church It was no token of his Jurisdiction over them but of his fraternal Communion and Vnity with them 4. Last of all our Author produces the definition of the Florentine Council that the Holy Apostolick See and Bishop of Rome has the Primacy over the whole World c. But surely a man that entitles his book A Collection of the Primitive Fathers should have left out this Council which was not Three hundred years ago far from a Council of Primitive men And as for those Fathers if they must be called so every one knows that there were not Thirty Greek Bishops among them nor were the Latines any other than such as were packt and shuffled together to play the Popes Game for him Nor was the Popes Primacy debated at all among the Legates No the great business was about the manner of the Procession of the Holy Ghost And when some of the Greeks were perswaded at last to subscribe to that Article the poor Greek Emperor being wearied out by delayes subscribed the Doctrines of Purgatory of the Popes Primacy c. himself not so much as imparting the matter to the Greek Legates This was the fine Council of Fathers whose definition our Author reckons among the rest though perhaps with a design to make up that by Tale which was wanting in Weight I say no more of that Council because you may see enough to invalidate the Authority of it by that account which our Learned Dr. Stilling-fleet has given out of Sguropulus in his defence of the Greek Church But having said thus much concerning this Contro-sie I shall the next time endeavour to satisfie you in that point concerning Images and Image-worship about which the next great Controversie was in the Ancient Church FINIS