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
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
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
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
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.