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. Controversy.   

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,  
WHEN I received 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 professed 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 governed by partiality of judgement, that we may well be amazed at the great confidence of the Divines in the Church of Rome, who would fain persuade 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 Catholic 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 World's end, must have come to nothing. Upon which false suppositions they run away at all rates with many strange notions of Us, and of the Reformation, believing and giving it out, that we forsook the True Church which was entitled to God's Patronage and Guardianship, and did set up a new Religion which no good Christians ever owned; 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 endeavour to satisfy 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 show you how the Doctrines, we profess, were generally professed and owned 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 justify 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 professed and owned 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 Say out of the Ancients, as Mr. Sclater, and the Author of the Nubes Testium have endeavoured 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 prefixed 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 public 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 inquire further for your satisfaction, nor trouble yourself with Heaps of quotations out of single Authors; unless you have a mind to gratify your Curiosity, and for that you may consult Bishop Tailors Dissuasive, or Bishop Mortons' Appeal, or Bishop Ushers Answer to the Jesuits 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 Heretics for divers Ages, from Simon Magus downward to Pope Honorius, and the rest of the Monothelites, violently opposing, some the Reality of Christ's 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 mere 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 affirmed the Holy Ghost to be a Creature too: the Third at Ephesus against Nestorius for reviving the Arian Heresy: The Fourth at Chalcedon against Eutyches, who owned the Divine and Humane Nature too, yet taught that upon the Union of them, both were mixed, Absorbed 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 owned, as but one Nature (as Eutyches did) so but one Will neither.  
Now what was the business of all these zealous Fathers, but to confirm the Apostles Creed, which had been handed, down to them from the beginning? They looked upon it to contain all things necessary to be believed; they reckoned it the saving, and the Only short Rule of Faith; the Faith that is Immovable (as Ignatius the Martyr called it;) the unmovable and Irreformable Faith (as Tertullian;) the Perfect Faith, that unites all 
Ignat. Ep. ad Smyr. Tertul. de veland. verg. Iren. l. 1. c. 3.  Churches throughout the whole World into one body (as Irenaeus thought;) the Right Catholic Faith (as Athanasius and the rest of the Ancients did esteem it.) This was the reason, why they were so very industrious and careful to keep 
Super haec autem iidem in Chalcedone sancti Patres anathematizaverunt eos qui aliud Symbolum. tradiderunt aut tradunt, praeter hoc quod expositum est a trecentis decem & octo sanctis Patribus▪ & explanatum a centum quinquaginta sanctis Patribus. Justinian. in Quintae Synodi Collatine prima, Council Tom. 4. part. 2. pag. 47. Edit Bin.  the common Creed inviolable: So that, as Justinain the Emperor tells us, the Fathers of the Council at Chalcedon, anathematised all those that had delivered, or do deliver any other Symbol, besides that Creed of the Apostles, which was explained by the two first general Councils, that at Nice, of 318 Fathers; and the next at Constantinople consisting of an hundred and fifty.  
I know not what the Men of Trent thought of this heavy Anathema, when they Added to the Ancient Creed a great many New Articles of their own, as equally Necessary to Salvation. But by this, Sir, you may see that the Apostles Symbol, as it was explicated in the first General Councils, was that and that only, which the Primitive Fathers so zealously contended to maintain; which you cannot conceive, why it should have been, had not they concluded it to be a Perfect Summary. And this I note, not only to show their great and most unreasonable uncharitableness, who condemn all that stick to this Primitive Creed only: But moreover to vindicate ourselves, who own and teach the very same Articles of Faith, and necessary principles of Christianity, which was the only thing contended for by the old Catholic Fathers. Upon which account we are no more Heretics, than They were, our Creed being the very same with Theirs: So that there can be no colour of Reason for any to forsake our Communion, as if our Faith were unsound or Defective; or to be dissatisfied in their minds, as if there were any danger of their Happiness, if they be but careful to adorn this Faith with a suitable conversation.  
And hence I cannot but look upon it, as a strange piece of weakness (at least) in the Divines of that party, that they are so grossly mistaken in their notion of of the Catholic Faith. For they quite overlook the Common Creed, as if that were not it, (whereas in Truth, that alone is the Catholic Faith;) and give that Title to the Trent-confession, which is the Roman Faith only; and yet whoever denieth any part of that Confession, though he owns the Apostles Symbol, must be hooted at presently as an Heretic.  
Nor can it be thought any less than strange Inconsideration in Mr. Sclater, that he should leave our Church for that of Rome, upon an Idea he hath form in his own fancy of that Church's Unity in the Faith. For is not our Church in most perfect Unity as to the Christian Faith? Were the Apostles Creed professed only in the Roman Church, we might all go thither. But is not our Faith the same with Hers, in those points wherein 'tis truly Primitive and Catholic? If Mr. Sclater can show us, wherein we contradict any of those principles of Christianity, which so many Ancient councils confirmed as the One Catholic Faith, we will not blame him for thinking, that we have broken the Unity thereof. But we are so far from offering an hundred Faiths (as he unworthily 
Page. 5.  insinuates) that we teach but One, and the same, which is Common to all the Churches in the World. Therefore his little quotations out of Ignatius, Cyprian, and the supposititious Clemens Romanus, are nothing at all to his purpose. But his Allegation out of Irenaeus (pag. 8) is grossly impertinent. For Irenaeus evidently speaks of the Apostles Creed, and of that alone. Pray consult the place, and see if Irenaeus doth not expressly and distinctly repeat the substance of that Confession, the Articles whereof we repeat daily in our Churches; and then he presently subjoins, in the very next Chapter, This Doctrine and Faith the Church keeps with all care, as if she dwelled in one House, although she be disseminated over the whole World. Her Faith is agreeable to these Doctrines, as if she had one Soul, and one and the same Heart. These Articles she doth consonantly preach, teach and deliver, as if she had but one mouth. For though there be different Languages, yet the Faith delivered is one and the same. Neither do the Churches in Germany believe or teach any other Faith, nor do those Churches in Spain, nor those in France, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Lybia, nor those in the middle parts of the World : But as the Sun is one the same in the whole World, so the Doctrine of Truth every where shines, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to the knowledge of the Truth: He adds too (which Mr. Sclater disingenuously conceals) that none of the Governors of the Church, though never such able men, do teach any other Doctrines than these (for no man is above his Master) nor doth the weakest diminish the Faith delivered: But the Creed being one and the same, the greatest man doth not add more, no doth the meanest man believe less.  
And now Sir, what is all this for the advantage of the present Roman Faith, which is superadded to the Apostles Symbol? This passage is so far from countenancing, that it utterly condemns that Addition. Or what is all this against Us, who believe & teach that very same Faith which all Christian Churches did adhere to in Irenaeus time? Or what encouragement is all this for any man to leave our Communion, as if we had violated the Unity of the Faith? The truth is, Irenaeus & the rest of the Ancients said (as we do) that Christ hath but one Catholic Church on Earth; that all Churches make up this Catholic Church; that they are all united in one by one common Faith, and that the Apostles Creed, is that one and only Faith. Now this Faith is uniformly believed by us; and therefore Mr. Sclater needed not to say (as he doth pag. 10.) What would I have once given to have found such Unity among Protestants? Let him but give us our Due, and we desire no more, and this he cannot deny without denying us our due, that in England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweedland, Geneva, Zurick, etc. we have one common Creed, and the same which United all Local Churches into one Catholic 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 Reserved Reasons, among those which he calls (Pag. 5.) his Reserved Principles.  
But to let Mr. Sclater go at present, till we meet him again. The Author of the Nubes Testium would persuade 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 Catholic Opinions.  
After the Catholic Faith had been onfirmed, and the Controversy with Arius determined at the Nicene Council about Anno 325. another Controversy arose about Primacy, some Bishops of Rome pretending to Supreme Authority, and Universal Jurisdiction over the rest. But this was clearly an Innovation: for an Ancient Canon had 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Can. Apostol. 34.  been provided (which was the Church's 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 fixed in the Archbishop of every Province, and all Metropolitans throughout the World, stood upon the same Level, and had the same Supreme Authority in their Respective Jurisdictions and Countries. You cannot but smile to see what a Marginal Note there is upon this Canon in Binius' 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 shows 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 Silvius (afterwards Pope Pius the second) ingenuously confessed, 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 Customs should hold; that the Bishop 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  of Alexandria should have power over them who were in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis; because this was likewise the custom for the Bishop of Rome. Also that Antioch and other Provinces should have the same Privileges preserved 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 privileges within themselves, that the Roman Church had. 3. That those privileges were every where founded on ancient Customs. 4. That those Customs should still continue in force.  
But all this could not bound the Ambition of some Bishops of Rome, who endeavoured and hoped to enlarge their Jurisdiction by the great Interest they had in the (now Christian) Emperors, who expressed 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, Schismatics and Heretics 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 Churchmen, 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 encroach upon the Privileges of other Countries, where such causes should regularly have been heard and determined in public 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 Privileges 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 'twas 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 
Qu●… 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 Bishoprics 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 Rome's power as a mere 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 reconsidered in a general Council, wherein he himself and other Western Bishops might be concerned.  
But when Innocent the first made a trial of his skill upon the African Churches, by occasion (as 'tis thought) of an Appeal made to him by Caelestius the Pelagian Heretic, who had been condemned at home in Africa; the Africans to maintain their own Privileges, and the Canons of the Catholic Church decreed at the Milevitan Council, that when Presbyters, Deacons, 
Concil. Milevit. cap. 22.  or other inferior Clergymen did appeal from their own Bishops, some neighbouring Bishops should hear the cause: and if they appealed from them too, they should not appeal, but to the African Councils, or to the Primates of their own Provinces. But whosoever should appeal beyond the Sea, should not be received 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 concerned the inferior Clergy only; 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 Celestine) 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 Emperors showed some of their Predecessors; for now instead of being the Emperor's 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 Controversy, 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 Privileges, they condescended to let the matter rest, till they could procure the most Authentic Copies of the Nicene Canons. For which purpose they dispatched 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 confirmed and enlarged the former Milevitan Decree, against any Clergy-man's appealing to the See of Rome; and to justify their Acts, they sent a Synodical Epistle to Pope Celestine; 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 only, but all Bishops also, to the Judgement of their own Metropolitans; they showed the Reasonableness of this Decree, it being impossible for any man to be tried 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 Usurpation; 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 shows on our side, that the Bishop of Rome's pretence to a Primacy over the whole Christian World is an Innovation, and encroachment upon the just Liberties and Canonical Privileges 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 Universal Pastourship of that Italian Prelate (to whose Foreign power he hath subjected himself contrary to his Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance too) citys 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. 'tis 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 called 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 another's Province, but that every Metropolitan should retain his due power, and every Province should have its Ancient Rights and Privileges preserved. Of which Decree they expressly gave Three reasons. 1. Lest the Canons of the Church should be transgressed. 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 encroachments of Pope Celestine.  
About Twenty years after this, a New Scene of Affairs appeared, which is well worth your Observation. A great Synod of 630 Fathers met at Chalcedon: and there, notwithstanding the Opposition of the Pope's Legates, they confirmed the Canons that had been made at the Council of Constantinople, and gave the Bishop of Constantinople, equal Honours and Privileges 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 Privileges 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 straight 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 'tis very Useful and Pleasant to observe what a strange Change this presently wrought. For as other churches had hitherto bestirred themselves against the pretences of the Church of Rome, so now the very Church of Rome bestirred herself against the pretences of the Church of Constantinople, and with the same Arguments. Now the Note was altered on a sudden, and even the Bishops of Rome were vehemently set against Pride and Ambition. They urged our Saviour's precepts of Humility, and especially in Bishops: They insisted upon the Privileges of all Christian Churches; they stood stiffly 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 only the Authority of Three Bishops of Rome, that in their turns undertook the Quarrel 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 Privileges 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. & add 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 Church's 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 concerned, because 'twas only 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 Ecumenical or Universal 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 appeared in the Controversy, Pelagius the 2d. He inveighed 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 Usurpation; as injurious to the Honour of all Patriarches, 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, Scandalised all men; that all the Bishops were enraged at it, and all their 
Greg lib. 4. Ep. 32, 36, 38. & lib. 6. Ep. 28.  Mouths were opened against it; that the Universal Church was disquieted about it; that the peace of the Church was broken, and that the whole Church was rend 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 only, 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, 'tis 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, than 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 Forerunner 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 swollen too High. 3. That he loaded his illgotten 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 believe, that in a very short time, it would be due to his own Successors, and would much better become them.  
However we have the Judgement of no less than Three great Popes against the Title of Universal Bishop: nor are we concerned to inquire, 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 spoke his thoughts sincerely; partly because he declared solemnly to the Emperor, that 'twas not any respect to his own cause which moved him; and partly because he used so many severe expressions to render the thing itself 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 dreamt of His, or his Successors having that Title: 'Tis not likely that he would wittingly have branded himself or his See, with so many Ugly and Infamous Characters.  
The true account of it therefore seems to be this. Some Roman Bishops longed for Superiority over the other Churches, and might Hope in time to accomplish their desires. But in Gregory's days, and somewhat before, Rome began mightily to sink, by the great Oppression of the Lombard's, and by the Translation of the Imperial Seat. Constantinople flourished at a great rate: the Court was there: the Emperor favoured it: the Patriarch of it had now gotten a very High Title; and the Bishops of Rome might fear, that Universal Authority would follow by degrees, and that their Cause was going apace. Therefore they might think it in vain for them to smother and conceal the truth any longer; & so to be Revenged upon the growing Patriarch, they speak at last their thoughts freely. In short, if these Three Bishops of Rome where sincere in what they said, their memory is the more valuable for asserting the Truth: if they looked upon any Sinister ends of their own, the Glory of Truth is the greater, for being justified even by those who were no friends to it.  
You will perhaps wonder now, how this Title should go unexpectly and so suddenly from Constantinople to Rome? For it was obtained of the Usurper Phocas by Boniface the 3 d. who was the next Successor (but one) to that Gregory, who had condemned the Title with so much bitterness. Why, thus it was in short : Phocas had barbarously Murdered his Prince, Mauritius the Emperor, and his Children. Cyriacus then Bishop of Constantinople, hated and opposed him for his execrable Villainy. Boniface of Rome presently strikes in, makes use of this Opportunity, sues for the Title of Universal Bishop, hoping now to invade the Church, by the help of a Tyrant that had invaded the State; and Phocas grants his request, partly out of Hatred to his enemy Cyriacus; partly, for fear lest Boniface should raise up some evil against him in the West; and partly too, because he saw, the Bishops of Rome, were ready to crouch and sneak to him, though a bloody Usurper, as long as they could gain any thing by their base Submission; of which he found a plain experiment in Gregory himself, who wrote a flattering Letter to him, which gins thus, Gloria in excelsis, etc. Glory to God in the highest; and so he goes on, Let the Heavens rejoice, and the 
Greg. Regist. Lib. 11. Ep. 38. aa Phocam.  Earth be glad, and let all the People that have hitherto been much afflicted, be cheerful for your kind actions. This he thought might very well Merit something at the hands of Phocas; and so Boniface obtained the Title of Universal Bishop; and that too just about the time when Mahomet stepped into Christendom; than it was that Oppression got into the Church; God punishing the Pride and Factions of Christians with Two Scourges at once, which ever since have made the Christian World to Smart severely.  
By this account you may see the Rise and Progress of the Pope's Supremacy: What an Innovation it is, and how strongly it was opposed by the Catholic Church in the Primitive times for above 200 years together after it was first pretended to: Before I pass from this Topick, I shall lay hold on this opportunity to satisfy you touching those Allegations, which the Author of the Nubes Testium hath collected, to prove (if he could) that the Bishop of Rome has the Primacy over the whole World, and that by Divine Right too, and by Commission granted him by Christ himself in the Person of St. Peter. Now I observe in general, that this Author hath wholly omitted that Historical account which has been now given you, because it evidently clears the point against him; but instead of that, he has picked up some ends & shreds out of some of the Ancients, which may seem Specious to Ignorant people; but signifies nothing with a man that is rightly acquainted with the Series of the Controversy. Whereas he pretends to give us an History of the Donatists, of the Gnostics, of Berengarius, of the Iconoclasts, etc. (which I shall take notice of hereafter.) he takes no notice at all of those Fathers and Councils in Africa, and the East, which resisted the first encroachments that tended to the introduction of an Usurped Supremacy. He knew, that such an History would burn his Fingers, and therefore thought fit, not so much as to touch it; but throws the whole matter, and that very briefly, upon the Donatists; as if the 
Pag. 22.  Donatists were the only men that denied the Pope's Supremacy, and broke with him upon that account: whereas indeed the Donatists were They, who gave the Bishop of Rome the first unlucky occasion to claim Juridiction out of their due bounds, by their Appeals at Rome, and by their running from their proper Judges in afric; witness their Appeals in the Papacy of Melchiades. So that it was not those Schismatics, that were the first or the only men that opposed the Pope's Usurpations, but the Catholic Fathers, who were forced to stand up in defence of their own just privileges.  
Now it is not imaginable, that any of the Fathers would (especially during that Controversy) say any thing that might really serve to strengthen the unlawful pretences of the Bishops of Rome, against themselves: and therefore you may very rationally conclude, that those passages which are gathered out of the Fathers in favour of the Pope's Supreme Authority, are forced & wrested to a sense which they cannot naturally bear. But to examine particulars:  
If you please to peruse (for 'tis tedious to Transcribe) all the Authorities this Man citys, you will find that they are concerning Four things: 1. Concerning those high Characters which some of the Ancients gave of S. Peter himself. 2. Concerning those honourable Titles which they gave to the Bishops and See of Rome 3. Concerning those Applications which were sometimes made to the Bishops of Rome upon emergent occasions. 4. Concerning the Acts of the Bishops of Rome upon such Applications. And upon a full and impartial consideration of these several things, you will easily find, what false grounds they go upon, who endeavour so eagerly from these Observations to prove the Universal supreme power of the Pope, especially by Divine Right.  
1. These Authorities are concerning the high Characters, which some of the Ancients gave of S. Peter himself; as that he was the Prince, the Head of the Apostles, and the like. Now what doth this mean, but that S. Peter was the most Eminent Apostle, in respect of his age, in respect of his zeal, in respect of his courageous Professions of his Constancy and Love to his Master, in respect of the Precedency he might have for Order-sake, and in respect too of the Honour he had in Founding Christ's Church; for the First Converts were made by his Preaching, 'Twas he that gathered at once those Three thousand Souls, which were called, The Church, Act. 2. 42; and because he was the first Founder of the Church, he was very fitly called a Rock; But doth all this import, that he was above all the other Apostles in Power? Or that he had Supreme 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 allowed S. Peter a pre-eminence of Honour, but not a Supremacy of Power; as 'tis clear from that single passage which our Author citys 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 called Peter the chief 
Greg: lib. 4. Ep. 38.  Member of the Holy and Universal 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 aught to be obeyed rather than 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 Superior Authority or Power, but only an Honorary Precedency, like that which is given to the Chairman 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 Author's Collections touching St. Peter's great Characters, are answered 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 Pastor, and the Head, to whom Antiquity had Given a Pre-eminence of Priesthood (or, the Precedency before all other Bishops.) And what is all this, and Ten times more, to the Pope's pretended Authority over all Churches, and all Bishops, and that by Divine Right too? Antiquity bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome a Pre-eminence, 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 Catholic Church (by his Interest in the Emperor) more good Offices, than other Bishops could do; therefore they were willing to Compliment 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 pre-eminence, as those 630 Fathers professed at the Council of Chalcedon; But this was a Frank-gift, a voluntary Act, and Courtesy of the Catholic 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 Peers there is a Premier Duke, or a First Earl, therefore all other Peers are in subjection to him: Or, because amongst our Bishoprics that of Durham hath some singular Favours granted to it, therefore the Prelate of that Diocese is in his Episcopal Power and Authority Superior to all the rest. The Ancients did not begrudge that fair Pre-eminence, 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 citys) saith clearly against him, that though the Bishop 
Pag. 41.  of Rome had the Pre-eminence, yet the Episcopal power was common to all that were of that Function: and therefore Optatus called Pope Siricius his Fellow; Socius, is the word (which our Author hath very ignorantly, or very disingenuously rendered, Contemporary; but the plain meaning is) our Fellow, or Equal. The Ancients distinguished between Priority in point of Honour, and Supremacy or Primacy in point of Jurisdiction. The former they denied not the Bishop of Rome; but when once he went about to take advantage by their free concessions, to encroach upon their due privileges, they resolutely opposed his Usurpations, though at the same time they gave him an Honourable deference. This was the ground of that Controversy 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 privileges 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 only what St. Cyprian said afterwards at 
Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcop●… se Episcoporum constituit, aut Tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit, etc. 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 virtue of his own Liberty and Authority, a Power of Judgement in himself, and can no more be judged by another Bishop, than another Bishop can be judged by him. This he spoke 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 puzzled 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 'tis pretended he had in the Primitive Ages. 1. Then 'tis 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 happened. 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 proceed to the Head, that 
Si ad Petri Apostoli sedem, de singulis provinciis domini referant Sacerdotes.  is, to St. Peter's See (the sense of which place our Author hath perverted by rendering 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 Catholic 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 'tis 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 flocked thither, some out of curiosity, and some upon business; because, Rome was the chief Seat of the Empire (which is the Genuine sense of Iraenus, as he is cited 
Pag. 22.  by our Author) And where was any Controversy so likely to be determined, as at Rome? But what of all this? Doth it follow hence, that they looked upon the Pope as the supreme 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 'tis 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 concerned to be satisfied, whether such as were of the same Order, were sound in the same Catholic Faith. And therefore when they were newly Ordained, or were at any time suspected of Errors, they were obliged to satisfy all their Fellow-Bishops, and did often give an account of their Faith, under their hands for the satisfaction of the whole Church. Nay 'tis 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.  'twas 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 'tis impertinent what our Author 
Pag. 28.  allegeth, of Dionysius of Alexandria giving his Namesake 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 Pope's hearing of Plaintiffs 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 concurred 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 Catholic 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, chrysostom, and others, whose cases he is pleased to instance in.  
1. Then in general, it is certain that every man's Cause was in those times to be heard and determined in his own Province, without any Liberty given him to appeal to any foreign Bishop whatsoever, as to a superior Judge. This is proved already by the foregoing Historical account: but for your further satisfaction I shall refer 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 overthrow 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, etc.  as the supreme 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 reviewed. 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 Judgement of a Cause is left to the same Court to be re-heard and reconsidered, 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 Emperor's 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 only 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 Custom, but a thing of Courtesy only; 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, etc. 7. That these Canons of the Sardican Synod were not received in the Oriental Churches, which still stood stiffly to it, that neither the Bishop of Rome. nor any other Bishops of the West had any thing to do with the proceed in the East, so as to overrule 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 supreme 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▪  applied himself to Pope Liberius? Doth this argue that he looked upon him as the supreme Judge? No surely; for it is notorious, and Spondanus himself doth acknowledge it, that he applied himself also to several other Bishops in Italy, France, afric, Sicily, and Illyricum, and that with Letters from all these he addressed himself to the Synod at Tyana, for his restitution to his Bishopric: So that according to this rate, a great many other Bishops were supreme Heads of the Church, as well as the Bishop of Rome.  
As to the case of Athanasius, what if he applied himself to Pope Julius, when he had been unjustly cast out of his Bishopric by his enemies at the Tyrian Synod? Our Author doth acknowledge out of Sozomen, that Julius sent for Athanasius to Rome, because 'twas 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 supreme over all, but that he was only 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 only, 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 umpires 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 only 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 received Custom, you ought first to have writ to us, that hence what was just might have been determined; it ought to be translated according to the importance 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of the words in the Greek Copy, thus; Are you ignorant that this is the Custom, first to write to us, that so afterwards things which are just may be determined. Whence it appears, that all the right which the Bishop of Rome claimed to the Compliment of an Epistle, was grounded upon mere Custom; and that the consideration of Athanasius his case did belong not to him only, 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.  for his reprehension I refer 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 pitched 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 only note, that the Eastern Bishops were so far from owning any Authority in the Pope to decide the Controversy himself, that because he presumed so much as to receive Athanasius, and the rest into his Communion, before the Cause had been determined 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. chrysostom, which our Author doth instance in too, as if St. chrysostom, being unjustly deposed by Theophilus of A●exandria, had Appealed to the Bishop of Rome, as the supreme Judge. But the vanity of all this is sufficiently proved by the ingenuous Petrus de Marca, who bestows a whole Chapter upon this case only; where he shows, that St. chrysostom 
De concord. Lib. 7. Cap. 9  appealed, not to the Pope, but to a general Council; that he wrote indeed to the Pope, but not to him only, 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 persuade the Emperors to call one, and that nothing can be drawn from St. Chrysostome's case to prove the Pope's Supremacy. And the Truth is, St. chrysostom disowned 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. chrysostom; 
Chrys. Epist. ad Innocent. Tom 7. pag. 154. Ed. Savil.  for towards the end of that Epistle he speaks, not to Innocent only, 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 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  let them know that such irregular proceed as had been carried on by a Party against Chrysostom, when he was absent, and did not decline a fair Trial, aught to be looked 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 supreme 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 proceed were not binding, and that they would be pleased, till his cause was duly tried, 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 Archbishop and his Suffragons, are the supreme Heads of the Catholic 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 unlimited 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 shows, 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 concerned in it more than any other Bishop. Because he was such a notorious and obstinate Heretic, all the Bishops of the Catholic 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 Celestine, who in his Answer to Cyril concurred 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 only went hand in hand with him, joining the Authority of the Roman See with his. And 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ep. Celestine 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' Celestine had censured 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 Bishoprics; 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 only, but a great many other Bishops in Italy, France, afric, Sicily, and Illyricum; nay, at the instance of the Emperor himself; for he went to that Synod with Letters from all these, as 'tis acknowledged. 'Tis true, the Western Bishops concurred, 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 Julius, it is evident by the whole story, and honestly confessed 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 Emperor's command. 'Tis true, Pope Julius received those Bishops into his Communion, because he believed they were unjustly deposed by the Arian Faction. 'Tis true too, that he wrote into the East for the restitution of those Bishops: but 'tis 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 shows 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 virtue of Julius his supreme Jurisdiction, but by Consequence only; 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 supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome? Especially since Athanasius himself acknowledged, 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 entreat you to consider that it is one of the most Principal of those points which are in Controversy 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 owned the supreme 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 Apostolic, Act. 1. But this he falsifies wretchedly. For the Crimes alleged against Dioscorus, (Bishop of Alexandria) were, that he was a Favourer of the Heretic 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 Pope's Legate) pleaded, that Dioscorus had called a Synod without the Pope's Authority. But this allegation was not admitted, nor taken notice of by the Council; they required Lucentius to show, 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 looked 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 Catholic 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 supreme Universal Pastor.  
3. He saith, that the first Council at Constantinople desired their Decrees to be confirmed 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 Heretic. Now this was no argument of Damasus his Supremacy: For all Bishops were bound to do the same thing: all of them were engaged against an Heretic, 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 United 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 Catholic 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 required Damasus (for that is the word) to concur with them against Timotheus, they only required him to observe the Laws and Practice of the whole Catholic Church. It was no token of his Jurisdiction over them, but of his fraternal Communion and Unity with them.  
4. Last of all, our Author produces the definition of the Florentine Council, that the Holy Apostolic See, and Bishop of Rome has the Primacy over the whole World, etc. 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 packed and shuffled together, to play the Pope's Game for him. Nor was the Pope's 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 persuaded at last to subscribe to that Article, the poor Greek Emperor being wearied out by delays, subscribed the Doctrines of Purgatory, of the Pope's Primacy, etc. 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 satisfy you in that point concerning Images and Image-worship, about which the next great Controversy was in the Ancient Church.  
FINIS.