without any Liberty given him to appeal to any foreign Bishop whatsoever as to a superiour Judge This is proved already by the foregoing Historical account but for your further satisfaction I shall referr you to the Learned Writer Petrus de Marca himself whose observations had our Author read and considered he would hardly have collected any thing of this nature unless he had designed to abuse and impose upon his Readers Ignorance For that Learned Writer doth of set purpose prove these Seven things which utterly over-throw what the Author of the Nubes Testium drives at 1. That all Causes Ecclesiastical were anciently determined by Definitive and Decretory sentences in Provincial Synods De Concord Lib. 7. Cap. 1. 2 c. as the supream Authority 2. That when an Ecclesiastical person thought himself wronged by a Povincial Synod though he had no power of Appealing from it yet he might use his endeavours to get the actions of the Synod review'd For that great man doth excellently distinguish between an Appeal and a Review An Appeal saith he is when a Cause is entirely removed to the Cognisance of a superior Judge but a Review is when the Judgment of a Cause is left to the same Court to be re-heard and re-considered some other Judges being joined with those who before past the Definitive sentence for the reversing of it in case upon a review there appeared new and sufficient reasons for it 3. That in order to such a review Applications were wont to be made to the Emperor himself until the time of the Sardican Synod which was about Twenty years after that at Nice 4. That though the Sardican Synod allowed Applications to be made to the Bishop of Rome out of respect as I suppose to the Emperors quiet and to save him a great deal of trouble and vexation yet they gave him no power to decide or hear the Cause himself but onely that power of ordering a review which the Emperors had 5. That the Synod which granted the Pope this power consisted but of Eighty Western Bishops 6. That even this little power thus freely given by those few men was not grounded upon any right the Bishop of Rome had to it either from Scripture or Canon or so much as Custome but a thing of Courtesie onely and therefore it was put to the Vote in that Synod by Hosius and Gaudentius If it please you if it seem Can. 3. 1 Synod Sardic good unto you let us grant unto the Bishop of Rome out of respect to St. Peter 's Memory c. 7. That these Canons of the Sardican Synod were not receiv'd in the Oriental Churches which still stood stifly to it that neither the Bishop of Rome nor any other Bishops of the West had any thing to do with the proceedings in the East so as to over-rule those Determinations which were made in Provincial Synods These things are so strongly and evidently proved by Petrus de Marca himself that every man of sense must rest satisfied in the ingenuous account he has given touching this point And therefore though our Author pretends by his Collections to prove that in those ancient Times the Bishop of Rome had an unlimited power over Synods so that he could rescind their actions Authoritatively and as a supream Judge yet what he saith is nothing but Banter 2. As for those particular cases which he hath instanced in if you consider them rightly you may easily discover the fallacy For what if Eustathius Sebastenus Ad Annum 365. 3 applyed himself to Pope Liberius Doth this argue that he lookt upon him as the supream Judge No surely for it is notorious and Spondanus himself doth acknowledge it that he applyed himself also to several other Bishops in Italy France Africk Sicily and Illyricum and that with Letters from all these he addrest himself to the Synod at Tyana for his restitution to his Bishoprick So that according to this rate a great many other Bishops were supream Heads of the Church as well as the Bishop of Rome As to the case of Athanasius what if he applyed himself to Pope Julius when he had been unjustly cast out of his Bishoprick by his enemies at the Tyrian Synod Our Author doth acknowledge out of Sozomen that Julius sent for Athanasius to Rome because 't was not safe for him to continue in Egypt and cannot you invite any distressed man to your House for protection but presently you must be his Judge Again what if Julius did afterwards cite him and his Adversaries to appear at Rome This is no argument that he was by his Place and Office supream over all but that he was onely an indifferent Referee in that particular Cause For Petrus de Marca himself doth tell us that the Oriental Bishops who had deposed Athanasius did by joint Consent refer the reviewing of the whole matter to the Bishop of Rome and yet not to him onely but to a Synod of Western Bishops together with him and that Pope Julius called a Synod at the request of those who were Legates from the Oriental Bishops So that all this was nothing but an Arbitration nor was the Pope sole Arbitrator neither but a great many other Bishops too were desired to be Vmpires with him because it was unreasonable that so great a man as Athanasius Bishop of so eminent a See as Alexandria was should be deprived of his rights by a Factious party after a clandestine manner For the removing of this Scandal the whole business was by Mutual Agreement left to the consideration of a Synod at Rome which argues not at all that the Pope or They had an inherent Authority to Judge in that case no more than it argues that every select number of Referees and Arbitrators in London have the decretive power of my Lord Chancellor in Westminster-hall I shall onely add that our Author hath perverted the sense of Pope Julius in translating his Epistle For whereas he renders it thus Are you ignorant that according to the receiv'd Custome you ought first to have writ to us that hence what was just might have been determin'd it ought to be translated according to the importance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the words in the Greek Copy thus Are you ignorant that this is the Custome first to write to us that so afterwards things which are just may be determin'd Whence it appears that all the right which the Bishop of Rome claimed to the Complement of an Epistle was grounded upon meer Custome and that the consideration of Athanasius his case did belong not to him onely but to other Bishops also that Right might be done him not hence or from Rome but afterwards by the concurrence and common Suffrage of all And therefore Petrus de Marca reprehends Cardinal Perron for abusing Pope Julius and for perverting and wresting his sense after the same fallacious manner as our Author has done And De concord Lib. 7. C. 4. § 8.
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
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