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
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
THE ANTIQUITY OF THE Protestant Religion WITH AN ANSWER TO Mr. Sclater's REASONS AND THE COLLECTIONS Made by the Author of the Pamphlet ENTITLED NUBES TESTIUM In a Letter to a Person of Quality The First Part. LONDON Printed for Ben. Griffin and are to be sold by Randal Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1687. IMPRIMATUR Hen. Maurice Rmo P. D. Wilhelmo Archiepiscopo Cant. à Sacris Dec. 13. 1686. ERRATA PAge 15. l. 6. for Aeneus read Aeneas in the Margint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 22. l. 14. f. Canon r. Canons p. 31. l. 20. f. where r. were p. 41. l. 7. f. moduling r. modelling p. 59. l. 11. f. Contro-sie r. Controversie THE ANTIQUITY OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGION With an Answer to Mr. Sclaters Reasons and the Collections made by the Author of the Pamphlet entitled Nubes Testium SIR VVHEN I receiv'd your Letter I did at first a little wonder that such a knowing person should desire me to give a plain and particular proof of that Point which we Protestants do stand upon that our Religion was Anciently and Generally profest in the Christian World before the Reformation For the matter seems so clear to those who converse with Books and will not suffer themselves to be govern'd by partiality of judgment that we may well be amazed at the great confidence of the Divines in the Church of Rome who would fain perswade you to believe the contrary whether out of a design or by means of their violent Passions and prejudices I will not say It is indeed taken for granted by people on that side that at the Reformation their Church was the only Catholick Church in the World and that their Faith was undoubtedly True and Primitive in all its particulars because otherwise the Church as they conceive must have failed and the Promises of God touching his preserving and assisting his Church to the Worlds end must have come to nothing Upon which false suppositions they run away at all rates with many strange notions of Vs and of the Reformation believing and giving it out that we forsook the True Church which was entitled to Gods Patronage and Guardianship and did set up a new Religion which no good Christians ever own'd and therefore that we must needs be in a miserable and lost condition Seeing then the difference between us is so wide either They or We must necessarily be under a very great mistake And therefore in compliance with your commands I shall indeavour to satisfie you that the mistake lies not on our side especially since the Author of the Nubes Testium and Mr. Sclater in his Consensus veterum have taken so much pains to possess the World with a Notion to the contrary In the prosecution of this matter I shall 1. First take as short and as particular a view as I can of the State of Christianity from the Primitive times to the Reformation and shew you how the Doctrines we profess were generally profest and own'd from Age to Age in those Churches which are nearer home 2. That at the Reformation and before the Faith of those Churches which are more Remote and distant from Us was the same with Ours in most of those material points which lie now under debate And when these Two things are cleared several inferences will easily follow which will abundantly serve to justifie Our Reformation and to discharge the Protestant Religion from those Imputations which are commonly but unjustly cast upon it 1. First let us look into the condition of Religion from the Primitive Ages to the time of the Reformation and see if those Doctrines which we Protestants profess were not profest and own'd from Age to Age before ever the Name of Protestant became a characteristical note of Distinction And for the clearing of this I think it too tedious to gather up Sentences and ends of Sayings out of the Ancients as Mr. Sclater and the Author of the Nubes Testium have endeavour'd to do For they know well that we have a Catalogus Testium to which their Nubes is but as it were of a Hands breadth And besides the latter of these doth ingenuously confess That many things in the Ancient Fathers are Obscure that their Preface pag. 3. Names have been prefixt to Books of which they were never the Authors and that additions have been made to some of their writings besides the divers mistakes of Transcribers in the publishing of their Works The most effectual way therefore will be to observe the Doctrines of the Ancients in their Disputations and Controversies with the Adversaries of the Truth and that either when they purposely wrote against some known Error and generally used the same arguments as so many Received Principles or when they met together in Councils to settle matters by publick Canons and Definitions These observations will more readily and more certainly help us to understand the sense of the Ancient Church than our having recourse to this or that passage in particular Authors So that if it be made appear that our Religion is agreeable to that which the Ancients did in their Disputations and Assemblies maintain as the Primitive Faith you need not enquire further for your satisfaction nor trouble your self with Heaps of quotations out of single Authors unless you have a mind to gratifie your Curiosity and for that you may consult Bishop Taylors Disswasive or Bishop Mortons Appeal or Bishop Vshers Answer to the Jesuites challenge which the Writers in this Age would do well to try if they can Answer But to go to our business It is notorious that the first great Controversies in the Church were about the Common Doctrines of Christianity a great many Hereticks for divers Ages from Simon Magus downward to Pope Honorius and the rest of the Monothelites violently opposing some the Reality of Christs Humane Nature some his Divinity some the Distinction between his two Natures some the Divinity of the Holy Ghost as a distinct Person from the Father and the Son and the like general Principles which the Christian Church held Against these Seducers not only Books were written by the Primitive Fathers severally but divers Councils were called the first a Local Synod at Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus who taught that our Saviour was a meer Man. After this Six general Councils met The First at Nice against Arius for asserting that Christ Jesus was a Creature The Second at Constantinople against the Eunomians and Sabellians and the rest that affirm'd the Holy Ghost to be a Creature too the Third at Ephesus against Nestorius for reviving the Arian Heresie The Fourth at Chalcedon against Eutyches who own'd the Divine and Humane Nature too yet taught that upon the Vnion of them both were mixt Absorpt and Transubstantiated into One The Fifth at Constantinople again to stifle a fresh the Nestorian Blasphemy and the Sixth there also against Pope Honorius and his Associates who own'd as but one Nature as Eutyches did so but
one Will neither Now what was the business of all these zealous Fathers but to confirm the Apostles Creed which had been handed down to them from the beginning They look't upon it to contain all things necessary to be believed they reckoned it the saving and the Only short Rule of Faith the Faith that is Immovable as Ignatius the Martyr call'd it the unmovable and Irreformable Faith as Tertullian the Perfect Faith that unites all Ignat. Ep. ad Smyr Tertul. de veland verg Iren. l. 1. c. 3. Churches throughout the whole World into one body as Irenaeus thought the Right Catholick Faith as Athanasius and the rest of the Ancients did esteem it This was the reason why they were so very industrious and careful to keep Super haec autem iidem in Chalcedone sancti Patres anathematizaverunt eos qui aliud Symbolum tradiderunt aut tradunt praeter hoc quod expositum est a trecentis decem octo sanctis Patribus explanatum a centum quinquaginta sanctis Patribus Justinian in Quintae Synodi Collat. prima Concil Tom. 4. part 2. pag. 47. Edit Bin. the common Creed inviolable So that as Justinain the Emperor tells us the Fathers of the Council at Chalcedon anathematiz'd all those that had delivered or do deliver any other Symbol besides that Creed of the Apostles which was explained by the two first general Councils that at Nice of 318 Fathers and the next at Constantinople consisting of an hundred and fifty I know not what the Men of Trent thought of this heavy Anathema when they Added to the Ancient Creed a great many New Articles of their own as equally Necessary to Salvation But by this Sir you may see that the Apostles Symbol as it was explicated in the first General Councils was that and that only which the Primitive Fathers so zealously contended to maintain which you cannot conceive why it should have been had not they concluded it to be a Perfect Summary And this I note not only to shew their great and most unreasonable uncharitableness who condemn all that stick to this Primitive Creed only But moreover to vindicate our selves who own and teach the very same Articles of Faith and necessary principles of Christianity which was the only thing contended for by the old Catholick Fathers Upon which account we are no more Hereticks than They were our Creed being the very same with Theirs So that there can be no colour of Reason for any to forsake our Communion as if our Faith were unsound or Defective or to be dissatisfied in their minds as if there were any danger of their Happiness if they be but careful to adorn this Faith with a sutable conversation And hence I cannot but look upon it as a strange piece of weakness at least in the Divines of that party that they are so grosly mistaken in their notion of of the Catholick Faith. For they quite over-look the Common Creed as if that were not it whereas in Truth that alone is the Catholick Faith and give that Title to the Trent-confession which is the Roman Faith only and yet whoever denieth any part of that Confession though he owns the Apostles Symbol must be hooted at presently as an Heretick Nor can it be thought any less than strange Inconsideration in Mr. Sclater that he should leave our Church for that of Rome upon an Idea he hath formed in his own fancy of that Churches Vnity in the Faith. For is not our Church in most perfect Vnity as to the Christian Faith Were the Apostles Creed profest only in the Roman Church we might all go thither But is not our Faith the same with Hers in those points wherein 't is truly Primitive and Catholick If Mr. Sclater can shew us wherein we contradict any of those principles of Christianity which so many Ancient councils confirm'd as the One Catholick Faith we will not blame him for thinking that we have broken the Unity thereof But we are so far from offering an hundred Faiths as he unworthily Page 5. insinuates that we teach but One and the same which is Common to all the Churches in the World. Therefore his little quotations out of Ignatius Cyprian and the supposititious Clemens Romanus are nothing at all to his purpose But his Allegation out of Irenaeus pag. 8 is grosly impertinent For Irenaeus evidently speaks of the Apostles Creed and of that alone Pray consult the place and see if Irenaeus doth not expresly and distinctly repeat the substance of that Confession the Articles whereof we repeat daily in our Churches and then he presently subjoyns in the very next Chapter This Doctrine and Faith the Church keeps with all care as if she dwelt in one House although she be disseminated over the whole World. Her Faith is agreeable to these Doctrines as if she had one Soul and one and the same Heart These Articles she doth consonantly preach teach and deliver as if she had but one mouth For though there be different Languages yet the Faith delivered is one and the same Neither do the Churches in Germany believe or teach any other Faith nor do those Churches in Spain nor those in France nor those in the East nor those in Egypt nor those in Lybia nor those in the middle parts of the World But as the Sun is one the same in the whole World so the Doctrine of Truth every where shines and enlightens all men that are willing to come to the knowledge of the Truth He adds too which Mr. Sclater disingenuously conceals that none of the Governours of the Church though never such able men do teach any other Doctrines than these for no man is above his Master nor doth the weakest diminish the Faith delivered But the Creed being one and the same the greatest man doth not add more no doth the meanest man believe less And now Sir what is all this for the advantage of the present Roman Faith which is superadded to the Apostles Symbol This passage is so far from countenancing that it utterly condemns that Addition Or what is all this against Vs who believe teach that very same Faith which all Christian Churches did adhere to in Irenaeus time Or what encouragement is all this for any man to leave our Communion as if we had violated the Vnity of the Faith The truth is Irenaeus the rest of the Ancients said as we do that Christ hath but one Catholick Church on Earth that all Churches make up this Catholick Church that they are all united in one by one common Faith and that the Apostles Creed is that one and only Faith. Now this Faith is uniformly believed by us and therefore Mr. Sclater needed not to say as he doth pag. 10. What would I have once given to have found such Vnity among Protestants Let him but give us our Due and we desire no more and this he cannot deny without denying us our due that in England Scotland
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
should hear the cause and if they appealed from them too they should not appeal but to the African Councils or to the Primates of their own Provinces But whosoever should appeal beyond the Sea should not be receiv'd into Communion by any in Africa Which decree though it speaks particularly of Presbyters and Deacons yet it reacheth Bishops also as is clear from the 31. Canon of the Carthaginian Council Three years after this that the same thing against Appeals beyond the Sea had been often decreed concerning Bishops too And this cuts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. Carth. 5. 31. off the common subterfuge of the Romanists who are wont to pretend that the Milevitan Canon concern'd the inferiour Clergy onely as if the Pope had not power of Jurisdiction over Presbyters and Deacons too if he had any over Bishops especially if he hath it as they say by Divine Right Notwithstanding all this the Successors of Innocent Zozimus Boniface and Caelestine pretended still successively to this claim of Jurisdiction in the African Churches whereby you may see what an ill use they made of that favour which the Emperours shew'd some of their Predecessors for now instead of being the Emperors Delegates or their Neighbours friendly Arbitrators they pretended to be the most rightful Judges of foreign causes During the time of the Three forementioned Popes the great case about Appeals to Rome was depending in Africa and for the determining of the Controversie the Carthaginian Council was called consisting of 217 Fathers whereof St. Austin was one Anno 419. The Pope grounded his claim of Jurisdiction upon a pretended Canon of the Nicene Council to which the Africans answered They knew nothing of any such Canon nor could find any thing to that effect in those Copies they had of the Acts of that Council But being not willing either to make a Rupture in the Church or to lose their own Priviledges they condescended to let the matter rest till they could procure the most Authentick Copies of the Nicene Canons For which purpose they dispatcht away Messengers to Constantinople to Antioch and to Alexandria supposing it impossible for them to miss of the True Copies in those Churches No sooner did they receive those Copies but presently they found how they had been imposed upon by the Bishops of Rome for their whole pretence was a Forgery Whereupon they confirm'd and inlarged the former Milevitan Decree against any Clergy-man's appealing to the See of Rome and to justifie their Acts they sent a Synodical Epistle to Pope Caelestine wherein they call those Appeals Improba Refugia Wicked Refuges they pleaded That no Councils had ever taken away the Ancient Rights of the African Churches but that the Council at Nice had left not Presbyters onely but all Bishops also to the Judgment of their own Metropolitans they shew'd the Reasonableness of this Decree it being impossible for any man to be tryed so fairly as at home where every man was known and Witnesses were ready at hand For all this they referred themselves to the Nicene Canons the True Copies whereof they had now received and in the End they chid his Holiness for his Vsurpation earnestly Ne fumosum typhum Seculi in Ecclesiam Christi videamur in ducere Vide Concil Carthagin Can. 31. Epist Synodicam in fine Canonum Concil Tom. 1. pag. 757. exhorted him neither to encourage such Appellants to him nor to send any Legates abroad in such cases lest it should be a means of bringing as they call it the swelling Pride of the World into the Church of Christ This manifestly shews on our side that the Bishop of Romes pretence to a Primacy over the whole Christian World is an Innovation and incroachment upon the just Liberties and Canonical Priviledges of all other Churches And before I go on I cannot but note it as great Weakness and Ignorance for I am loath to call it a Fraud in Mr. Sclater who to support the Vniversal Pastourship of that Italian Prelate to whose Foreign power he hath subjected himself contrary to his Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance too cites the Canon of the Nicene Council and for the Authority of them sends us to a pretended Epistle of Athanasius ad Marcum You may Pag. 12. observe that the Author of the Nubes Testium was Wiser than to quote either those Canons or that Epistle because there is no Canon to that purpose among the Acts of the Nicene Fathers nor was ever such a Canon pretended but what was Forged and Supposititious And as for the Epistle ad Marcum which goes under the name of Athanasius the Learned men in the Church of Rome have been ashamed long ago to own its Authority knowing it to be a Spurious piece Baronius and Possevine both reject that E-Epistle and so doth Bellarmine and the Abbreviator of Baronius Henricus Spondanus Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. Lib. 2. c. 25. Spondan ad Anno. 325. Num. 42. rejects the Epistle and Canons both though Mr. Slater is pleased to lay such stress upon them T is pity that when he had thoughts of writing his Reasons he did not consult some knowing Friend what Authors he should use and what Books were Genuine and what Spurious for when he quoted that Epistle ad Marcum and call'd it Athanasius his he might as well have quoted the Narrative of Titus Oates and called it the History of Titus Livius But to go on to our Business Soon after these transactions in Africa a General Can. 8. Council of 200 Fathers was held at Ephesus and there it was decreed again That no Bishop should invade anothers Province but that every Metropolitan should retain his due power and every Province should have its Ancient Rights and Priviledges preserved Of which Decree they expresly gave Three reasons 1. Lest the Canons of the Church should be transgrest 2. Lest the Churches of Christ should unawares lose their Liberty 3. Lest the Pride of Secular Power should be brought into the Church which was the very Reason and Expression the Africans had used a little before against the incroachments of Pope Caelestine About Twenty years after this a New Scene of Affairs appear'd which is well worth your Observation A great Synod of 630 Fathers met at Chalcedon and there notwithstanding the Opposition of the Popes Legates they confirm'd the Canons that had been made at the Council of Constantinople and gave the Bishop of Constantinople equal Honours and Priviledges with the Bishop of Rome meaning not any Supremacy of Power or Jurisdiction but Vide Con. Constantinop Can. 2 3. Item Concil Chalced Can. 28. an Honourable Precedency for Order sake The Reason of this was because the Imperial Seat was now removed to Constantinople It was called New Rome and enjoyed the same civil Priviledges that the Old did and because an Honourable Precedency had been given to the Bishop of Old Rome not upon any pretence of a Divine right he had
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
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
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