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
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
for his reprehension I referr him to that excellent Writer I shall not need to detain you with a long answer to what he saith concerning Paul Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Pag. 30. of Ancyra and the rest who were ejected as Athanasius was For their case was the same with his and several Bishops and the Bishop of Rome among others were pitcht upon by the Consent of all Parties to re handle it and impowered as Petrus de Marca doth confess to send for them to Rome for the Ibid. § 2. re-examination thereof and all this doth amount to no more than a friendly and neighbourly Reference I shall onely note that the Eastern Bishops were so far from owning any Authority in the Pope to decide the Controversie himselfe that because he presumed so much as to receive Athanasius and the rest into his Communion before the Cause had been determin'd in a Synod of Western and Eastern Bishops too they fell out with him horribly and grew out ragious as you may see in their Synodical Epistle in Binius Much like to this was the Case of St. Chrysostome which our Author doth instance in too as if St. Chrysostome being unjustly depos'd by Theophilus of Aâ—exandria had Appealed to the Bishop of Rome as the supream Judge But the vanity of all this is sufficiently proved by the ingenuous Petrus de Marca who bestowes a whole Chapter upon this case onely where he shews that St. Chrysostome De concord Lib. 7. Cap. 9. appeal'd not to the Pope but to a general Council that he wrote indeed to the Pope but not to him onely but also to the Bishops of Milan and Aquilea that the end of his writing was that the Italian Bishops would consent to the calling of a Council and would help to perswade the Emperors to call one and that nothing can be drawn from St. Chrysostome's case to prove the Popes Supremacy And the Truth is St. Chrysostome disown'd the Jurisdiction of a foreign Bishop as you may easily see by his Epistle to Pope Innocent Therefore our Author falsifies the sense of St. Chrysostome Chrys Epist ad Innocent Tom 7. pag. 154. Ed. Savil. for towards the end of that Epistle he speaks not to Innocent onely but to other Bishops of Italy too calling them his most honoured and Religious Lords and that which he desires of them all is that they would write to Theophilus and the rest to convince them and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. let them know that such irregular proceedings as had been carried on by a Party against Chrysostom when he was absent and did not decline a fair Tryal ought to be lookt upon as null and void as indeed they were in their own nature and that such men ought to suffer according to the Ecclesiastical Laws To which he adds a further request that Innocent and the rest of his brother-Bishops would own him for a Brother that he might receive communicatory Letters from them and have their love and the love of all others as formerly he had And what is all this to the supream and sole Jurisdiction of the Pope over all other Bishops Suppose some eminent Divine of a Protestant Church abroad in Denmark or elsewhere should now be in St. Chrysostome's hard case and should send to my Lord of Canterbury and the rest of the English Bishops to declare their minds against the uncanonical Actions of his enemies and to tell them that such proceedings were not binding and that they would be pleased till his cause was duely tryed to let him continue in their good esteem and to look upon him as a Brother and vouchsafe him their love and communion would this argue that our Arch-bishop and his Suffragons are the supream Heads of the Catholick Church 4. By all this you may see that those Applications which were upon occasion made to the Bishop of Rome by foreign Bishops are no good argument to prove that his unlimitted power over all Churches which is now contended for Let us now consider the last point whether any such thing can be concluded from those Acts which did sometimes follow after such Applications For the Author of Nubes Testium doth Appropriate divers acts to the Bishop of Rome for which his Collections cannot bear him out As 1. The sole power of deposing other Prelates that which was anciently the proper business of Synods as Petrus de Marca abundantly shews and which he confesses was not obtained by the Pope till about Eight hundred years ago As for Nestorius whom this Author doth instance De Concord l. 7. Cap. 1 § 7. in he was Deposed by the Ephesine Council nor was the Pope concern'd in it more than any other Bishop Because he was such a notorious and obstinate Heretick all the Bishops of the Catholick Church were engaged in a common cause against him St. Cyril of Alexandria would have Excommunicated him before as he signified in his Epistle to Pope Caelestine who in his Answer to Cyril concurr'd with him and consented to it as any other Bishop might have done He did not delegate any power which St. Cyril had not of himself so making him his Substitute as this Author is please to Romance but onely went hand in hand with him joining the Authority of the Roman See with his And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. Caelestine ad Cyril when the Ephesine Council deposed Nestorius it was the Authority of the Church-Canons they went upon and tho' they took notice of Pope Caelestine's Letter to them it was only in commendation of him that they might extol him for his Readiness in that matter as they said in their Synodical Epistle to the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian Nay tho' Caelestine had censur'd Nestorius before that Council met yet he did it in a Synod at Rome with the consent and joint-concurrence of a great many Bishops more so that in all that affair the Pope used no more Authority than other Bishops did 2. Besides this our Author appropriates to the Pope the power of restoring Bishops that had been outed of their Bishopricks and so he pretends that he restored Eustathius Athanasius and the rest But as for Eustathius he was restored by the Synod at Tyana and that at the instance not of the Pope onely but a great many other Bishops in Italy France Africk Sicily and Illyricum nay at the instance of the Emperor himself for he went to that Synod with Letters from all these as 't is acknowledged 'T is true the Western Bishops concurr'd and gave occasion to the rest to do so too for which St. Basil blames them But if the Pope had the sole power in his hand why did Eustathius go to any other What need had he to give himself so much trouble having once made a friend of the Pope And as for Athanasius and the other Eastern Bishops who our Author saith Pag. 30 31. were restored to their Sees by Pope
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
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.