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
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