Colledge of Cardinals for election of the Pope which manner of election was utterly unknown to the Ancients the first Pope who ordained this Colledge of Cardinals was Nicolaus 2d who lived anno 1060. which manner of Election continueth unto this day The said Hildebrand becoming afterwards Pope took upon him to depose Emperors Anno 1074. he deposed Henry 4th Emperour and gave the Empire to Rodolphus because Henry would not renunce the investiture of Bishops this Hildebrand raised many broils and troubles and was believed by many learned men of the Church of Rome who lived about that time to be Antichrist his Successors especially after the times of the Jesuits still augmented that Doctrine of deposing Kings by the Pope and it is now defended not only in Books printed by the Popes Authority and by all the Canonists but also assumed by Popes unto themselves in their Bulls as appears by those Bulls of Gregory 7th against Henry 4th Emperor of Alexander 3d. against Frederick the Emperor of Boniface 8th against Philip King of France of Julius second against Lewis twelfth King of France and against the King of Navarre of Paul third against Henry 8th King of England of Pius 4th against Queen Elizabeth of Sixtus 5th against Henry 3d. and 4th Kings of France When Phocas by Edict made Bonifacius 3d. Bishop of Rome universal Bishop the thing he gave him was little better then a bare Title We have shewed two steps by which the Bishops of Rome advanced the first is his freeing himself from the election of the Emperor the second his assuming to himself power of deposing Kings and Emperors the third step after Phocas was assuming to himself authority of convocating General Councils of presiding in them of confirming and infirming them We do not read that any Pope assumed that power to himself the first nine hundered years after Christ It is evident by History that during the time of the first eight general Councils the Bishops of Rome had no such power since it appears they were all convocated by the Emperor that others beside the Bishop of Rome presided in many of them and the Emperor confirmed them all What Pope first assumed to himself that power we find not expresly before the time of Innocent 3d. in the Council of Lateran anno 1210. since which time the succeeding Popes constantly took upon them to convocat general Councils to preside in them and to confirm them The fourth step of the Bishop of Rome after Phocas is his Infallibity which was first conferred upon him by the Council of Florence anno 1439. and afterward confirmed and taught by the Jesuites and Canonists it being held as ane article of Faith in the Church of Rome that the Pope in Cathedra or teaching the whole Church cannot err yea some of them maintain as Albertus Pighius and others that the Pope cannot be an heretick which Bellarmine calls a pious opinion but your Lordships will find it proved part third lib. 2. that innumerable Popes have not only been hereticks and so declared by other Popes and general Councils but also that they have taught heresie and have been condemned by general Councils for teaching heresie as Pope Honorius was condemned by three successive general Councils the sixth seventh and eight and of late Pope Engenius by the Councills of Basill By whence it appears that this Doctrine of the Popes infallibility is not only heresie but madness fighting against common sense reason and the light of all History Any would think that the Bishop of Rome could mount no higher since already he is Monarch of the whole World both in Sprituals and Temporals We have seen him hitherto taking upon him power of deposing Kings and Emperours of transferring Kingdomes at his pleasure of coyning Articles of Faith under the notion of infallibility oblieging the whole Church yet in the last place your Lordships will find him in the fourth part of this Disput sitting in the temple of God adorned with all the marks of Antichrist intending a gigantomachy as if the intended to pull God out of the Heavens taking upon him not only to equal his decretal Epistles to holy Scripture but also to prefer them unto it in several of them decerning against the Law of God openly avowing he has power so to do injoyning it to the whole Church to be believed under pain of heresie that he hath such power Your Lordships will find that in the Canon Law he is called Dominus Deus noster Papa our Lord God the Pope that he takes upon him not only to pardon sins for money both by-past and to come but also for a peice of money to suffer the Clergy to wallow in whoredome albeit against all pure Antiquity he expresly inhibits them marriage Your Lordships will find it proved that in the said Canon Law he affirms himself by reason of his succession to Peter to be assumed to the society of the individual Trinity that for money he will command the Angels to take souls out of purgatory and place them straight in Paradise And in a word your Lordships will find him that man of sin described by the Apostle sitting in the Temple of God exalting himself above all that are called God caling himself God teaching the doctrine of devils forbidding meats forbidding marriage making the Kings of the earth drunk with his abominations corrupting all the Articles of the Christian Faith taking from them adding to them at his pleasure and as he groweth in power depravation of Religion encreaseth with it following the increments of his authority as the motion of the Sea depends upon the Moon In purer Antiquity when there was no evidence of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome at all there was no corruption in Doctrine Religion was unspotted but when the Bishop of Rome enriched by the liberality of the Emperours became proud and aimed to usurp over the Church corruption in Doctrine encreased apace with their increments of power Consult History and your Lordships will find at every step of the Popes advancement in power a depravation in Doctrine accompanying it your Lordships will likewayes find it proved part fourth lib. 2. that the Doctrine of the modern Church of Rome is nothing else but a masse of depravations corruptions heresies brought in by Bishops of Rome as they advanced in authority the Doctrine of the first six Centuries being quite extinct Notwithstanding all the braggings of our adversaries of their Antiquity your Lordships will find in the first six hundred years after Christ that the Doctrine now professed by the modern Church of Rome was altogether unknown and had not a beeing or if any of their modern Tenets were mentioned by the Writers in those times it was with detestation under the notion of Heresie and opposed by the whole Church If your Lordships think this incredible ye will find it proved part 4. lib. 2. Of this treatise by an induction of all those Tenets which the Church
the Church of Rome since it cannot be denyed that the Bishop of Rome hath domination and as shal immediately be proved Tyranick domination And therefore all the Doctors of the Church of Rome distinguish viz. that Tyranick domination is only forbidden 1. Peter 5. they deny that the domination of an Oecumenick Bishop is Tyranical But it is replyed First that all domination is forbidden and not only Tyranical domination Secondly the domination of an Oecumenick Bishop is tyranical as it is now excercised by the Bishop of Rome Haius our Countrey-man disput lib. 1. answers that Peter 1. 5. forbidds only tyrannical domination which he proves by the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Apostle in the said place which evermore imports tyrannical domination as the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to exercise dominion lawfully But he is mistaken Both these verbs are used promiscuously in Scripture for the same both signifying lawful dominion or exercising dominion lawfully as appears by comparing Matthew 20. 25. and Mark 10. 42. where the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used speaking how the Kings of the Gentiles exercise dominion over their Subjects But Luke 22. 25. speaking of the same Lording he useth the other Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereby it appears that these two Greek verbs signify both one sort of ruling which is lawful and not the one of them used by Peter 1. 5. signifyeth tyrannical domination Since none will deny that the ruling or domination of the Kings of the Gentiles may be lawful domination Which is further confirmed because the Septuagints speaking of lawful domination in many places useth the same Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made use of by Peter 1. 5. 3. as Psalm 72. 8. and 110. 2. and Genesis 1. 28. other innumerable places might be added but these are sufficient It is answered Secondly Although it were granted that tyrannical domination were only forbidden Peter 1. 5. yet it quite overthrowes an Oecumenick Bishop Or the domination now exercised by the Bishop of Rome then which no greater tyranny can be imagined since he takes upon himself supream dominion 1. In Spirituals 2. In Temporals 3. Over Souls departed 4. Over Angels 5. He takes upon him titles proper to God himself 6. Hears blasphemous comparisons of himself with Christ made to himself by others not only not punishing these blaspheming Parasytâ— but also hearing them patiently and rewarding them These six particulars seem incredible notwithstanding that they are the doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome and particular Church of Rome the infallibility of which Bellarmin with great animosity endeavors to demonstrate lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. cap. 4. appears by what followeth tracing these six particulars in order And first He assumes to himself Infallibility in Cathedra that is Teaching the whole Church he cannot err which is most abominable tyranny since under the pain of Heresie we are bound to believe a Pope if he shal teach Heresie They strive to elude this Because a Pope cannot teach Heresie to the whole Church Which assertion of theirs is false as appears by these following reasons First It is granted by them all that Popes may be most wicked men yea and Magicians But it is madness to affirm that men living in paction with the Devil cannot err teaching the whole Church Secondly It is evident by History and confessed by Barronius himself Anno 538. num 20. and Liberatus breviar cap. 22. that Vigilius Bishop of Rome obtained that Bishoprick from the Empress Theodora and from Belisarius General to Justinianus the Emperor by promising to the Empress to cass and abrogat the Council of Chalcedon to establish by authority the Eutychian Heresie and by promising gold to the said Belisarius and likewise that he wrote several Epistles to several persons confirming them in the Eutychian Heresie But it is impudence to deny that any entring to the Bishoprick of Rome by such means can be infallible in teaching the Church Thirdly They who affirm and teach that a Bishop of Rome is infallible in Cathedra fights against reason common sense and the light of all History by which it appears that several Popes have not only been condemned by other Popes and general Councils for Hereticks but also for teaching Heresie Of which we shal give many instances part 3. lib. 2. tedious to be inserted here we will only mention Honorius Bishop of Rome who was condemned as an Heretick by the sixth General Council act 12. 13. by the seventh General Council in the last â—ct by the eight General Council act 7. And likewise it appears by the records of the said Councils that the said Honorius was declared an Heretick by three Bishops of Rome Agatho Leo second and Adrianus second and lest they think to escape this difficulty by distinguishing as they use to do in such cases that Honorius taught Heresie as a private person and not in Cathedra It is evident by the 12. and 13. Act of the sixth Council that the said Council condemned two decretal Epistles of the said Honorius as Heretical But none will deny that Popes in their decretals teach the whole Church Alphonsus de castro lib. 1. cap. 4. page 20. concluds Calestinus Bishop of Rome taught Heresie because he had read Heretical Doctrine in an old decretal Epistle of his Likewise of late Pope John 23. was declared an Heretick by the Council of Constance and Eugenius 4. by the Council of Basil By which is sufficiently proved The tyrannical dominion of the Bishops of Rome in Spirituals since all of that Church are bound to believe that as an Article of Faith which he teacheth although he should teach Heresie call good evil and evil good As appears by that blasphemous gloss In caput quanto personam de translatione Episcopi in decretalibus Where it is affirmed that none should presume to call in question what the Pope doth Since he hath an Heavenly arbitriment can change the nature of things make Justice Injustice Injustice Justice Which if it be not tyrannical domination none is imaginable the words of the gloss are these following Papa habet coeleste arbitrium ideo naturam rerum mutare potest substantialia unius rei applicando alij de nullo posse aliquid facere sententiam quae nulla est facere aliquam in his quae vult ei esse pro ratione voluntatem nec esse qui ei dicat cur ita facis Potest enim suprajus dispensare de injustitia facere justitiam corrigendo jura mutando demum plenitudinem obtinet potestatis It shal be proved likewise part 4. lib. 1. that he gives pardons for money for sins to be committed for so many years to come And thus much of his tyrannical dominion in Spirituals which was the first particular The second particular of his tyrannical dominion is in Temporals Authority of deposing Kings is attributed unto him it is taught by the
but much depraved by the Popish Authors such as Barronius and others but if your Lordships will believe those Historians who livâ—d in the time of Carolus Magnus or the times next following who questionless are better to be believed then Barronius or any other late Popish Writer known to be abominable depravers of Antiquity by unanswerable Arguments as shall be proved in the following Treatise The story is this and two-fold In the first is related what little respect Carolus Magnus had to the spiritual authority of the Bishop of Rome and is this The quarrel of the Bishop of Rome against the Grecian Emperor of Constantinople was for Images or Image-worship Two Emperours of Constantinople Leo Isaurus and Copronymus his son had procured Image-worship to be declared Idolatry in the seventh general Council of Constantinople anno 760 consisting of 338 Bishops Stephanus Bishop of Rome procures of Irene Daughter-in-law to Copronymus Widow of Leo 4. his Son and Queen-regent of the Eastern Empire during the minority of her Son Constantinus 7th the second Council of Neice which Council declared the 7th general Council of Constantinople heretical and established Image-worship which Decree of the second Council of Neice was confirmed and renewed by several Provincial Councils in Italy under several Bishops of Rome Carolus Magnus calls a Council at Franckford anno 794. in which were present most of the Bishops of the West in number 300. at which Council were also present the Legats of Hadrianus primus Bishop of Rome to solicite the Council to establish Image-worship to condemn the 7th general Council of Constantinople as heretical to confirm the 2d Council of Neice as Orthodox and likewayes those Provincial Councils of Italy which had established Image-worship The Council of Franckford in which Carolus Magnus presided was so far from obeying the commands of Hadrianus Bishop of Rome that on the contrary it confirmed the 7th general Council of Constantinople as Orthodox condemned the 2d Council of Neice three or four Provincial Councils in Italy and three or four Bishops of Rome and amongst them Hadrianus primus himself as impious heretical Idolaters because they established Image-worship And after the Council was dissolved a Book was written at the command of Carolus Magnus which Book is yet preserved in several Bibliothecks in which at length was declared by what sophistry perverting of Scripture Image-worship was established by the said 2d Council of Nice and those other Provincial Councils of Italy Here your Lordships may observe what regard Carolus Magnus had to the spiritual Authority of the Bishop of Rome who exauctorated the Emperors of Constantinople for procuring Image-worship to be declared Idolatry and renting from them the Empire of the West conferred it upon the said Carolus Magnus and yet the said Carolus Magnus in a Council at Franckford procures the said Emperor in the East to be declared Orthodox in abolishing Image worship and condemns those very Bishops of Rome as hereticks who had deposed the Emperours of Constantinople for that reason and who for that reason had given unto himself the Empyre of the West whereby it appears that although he seemed plyable to the Bishop of Romes jurisdiction to obtain his own ends yet having obtained them he cared not much for him If Carolus Magnus acknowledged not the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome in spirituals he regarded his temporal jurisdiction far less We told before that the reason wherefore the Bishop of Rome called in the French against the Lombards was bâ—cause they demanded Tribute of him for the Territories about Rome their Title was conquest they had conquered these Lands from the Grecian Emperors And since the Bishop of Rome was ever accustomed to pay Tribute for those Lands unto the Grecian Emperor it was reasonable that themselves having conquered the Lands should also have the Tribute Whereupon the Bishop of Rome calls in the French to Italy to assist him against the Lombards And first Carolus Martellus leads an Army into Italy in favour of the Bishop of Rome next his Son Pipin whom the Bishop of Rome made King of France Lastly Carolus Magnus the Son of Pipin and Emperour of the West utterly eradicats the Kingdom of the Lombards and when he had done in a Council at Rome it is decreed first That no Bishop not the Bishop of Rome himself should be installed without investiture from the Emperor by Staff and Ring and likewayes homage more majorum which as Salvianus interprets was kissing of the Emperors foot 2. That the Emperor and his Successors should have the presentation of the Bishop of Rome and his Successors that is should have the nomination and election of the Bishops of Rome 3. The Bishop of Rome as we said called in the French against the Lombards because the said Lombards required Tribute of him for the Roman Territories Carolus Magnus having destroyed the Lombards makes the Bishop of Rome pay the same Tribute pretending the same reasons which the Lombards did viz. becausâ— the Bishops of Rome were accustomed to pay that Tribute to the Grecian Emperors to whom he had succeeded in the Dominion of the West And thus it appears what little regard Carolus Magnus had to the authority of the Bishop of Rome either spiritual or temporal The first appears the Bishop of Rome had exauctorated the Grecian Emperors for being enemies to Image-worship and for that reason gave to Carolus Magnus the Empyre of the West at least as much as in him lay Carolus Magnus takes the Empire but in the mean time in the Council of Franckford he procures those very Bishops of Rome who had bestowed upon himself the Empire to be declared Idolaters and Hereticks for establishing Image-worship and consequently for deposing the Grecian Emperors because they were against Images and for giving to himself their Empire in the West for that reason The second appears thus the Bishop of Rome calls in the French against the Lombards because they demanded Tribute of him for the Territories about Rome Carolus Magnus destroyes the Lombards and when he had done makes the Bishop of Rome pay the same Tribute to himself and hiâ— Successors and not so content ordains they should do him homage more majorum That is according to Salvianus by kissing of of his foot Tenthly your Lordships will find this Monster still so bridled untill the decay of the posterity of Carolus Magnus and then the Empire was translated to the Germans the Kingdom of France to the Family of Hugh Capet Otho primus Emperour son of Henricus Auceps the first German Emperour renewed that power of the Emperour his nomination and election of the Bishop of Rome which the former Bishops of Rome had taken from the Emperours during the decay and slouth of the posterity of Carolus Magnus but a little after that the mystery of Iniquity working foretold by Paul 2 Thess 2. the Bishops of Rome by the counsel of one Hildebrand afterwards Pope Gregory seventh ordained the
affirms also that the Apostleship was restored unto him by these words of our Savior Feed my Sheep After his answering the three-fold interrogation of Christ he had professed thrice He loved Christ by testimonies of which Fathers it appears that nothing peculiar to Peter was given in these words Feed my Sheep Since the Apostleship is common to Peter with the other Apostles And therefore Peter was not ordained Oecumenick Bishop in these words The third Sophistry of Bellarmin consists in his reasoning thus If Peter saith he had believed that these words of Christ had belonged to John as well as to himself or if our Savior had injoyned to John the feeding of his Sheep as well as unto Peter Peter would never have demanded of our Savior What John should do Neither would our Savior have answered him What is that to thee Follow thou me For Peter would have known what John should do viz. Feed Christs Sheep and our Savior would have answered him John shal feed my Sheep as thou dost But it is answered This disputation of Bellarmins is most shameless babling for that question of Peter Asking what John should do And that answer of Christ What is that to thee are not relative to these words of Christ Feed my Sheep but to these verse 18. When thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thine hands shewing to Peter what death he should die Whereupon Peter asketh Christ What John should do or what should become of him or what death he should die To which our Savior answers What is that to thee That this is the true gloss appears by the text it self by the Fathers Cyrillus Euthymius by the ordinar gloss by all the Ancient Popish Doctors upon the place As Aquinas Carthusianus Gorranus Cajetanus Toletus by late Popish Doctors as Maldonatus Barradas and Emmanuel Sa So that Bellarmins gloss is nothing els but one of his new devised fictions by which he and others of late endeavor to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome contrair to common sense Scripture and the whole current of Popish Doctors themselves who lived before these last times Fourthly Bellarmin comes on with an other of his glosses of like nature viz. seeing that it could not be denyed that other Apostles and Pastors beside Peter were injoyned to feed the Flock of Christ since it was so clearly asserted by Scripture and Fathers He invents a new distinction that they did it by the permissiom of Peter or to use his own words Quia vocantur à Peâ—ro in partem solicitudinis that is because they had a calling from Peter so to do or Were admitted by him to a part of the care But it is answered This distinction of Bellarmins hath not the least ground It is against Scripture John 20. 21. and Matthew 28. 19. as both passages are expounded by the Fathers It is contrair to Fathers as was proved by the testimonies of the Clergy of Rome of Cyrianus of Augustinus Chrysostomus and Basilius Finally it is contrair to Popish Doctors as Franciscus de Victoria who as we shewed before disputed expresly That all the Apostles had not only their Order but also their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ And reprehended the ordinar gloss for using that distinction in exposition of that place of Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae All the Apostles after the Resurrection had alike authority and power from Christ Neither can Bellarmin produce one testimony of Antiquity to maintain his gloss viz. That Peter immediatly had the power of feeding the Flock of Christ from Christ himself and the other Apostles and Pastors had it only from Peter Sanderus lib. 6. cap. 4. of his Monarchy useth another argument from those words of our Savior Peter lovest thou me more then these From which words he concluds That the Feeding of the flock of Christ was injoyned immediatly only to Peter because saith he Peter loved Christ better then the other Apostles did and therefore the â—eeding of the flock of Christ was committed to him alone as the reward of his love But it is answered First it cannot be gathered from the text that Peter loved Christ better then the other Apostles did since Christ only asked him whither he loved him better then the other Apostles did Peter answered thou knowest that I love thee but he adds not better then the other Apostles do 2. Tho it were granted as some of the Fathers maintain that Peter loved Christ better then the other Apostles did it is inconsequent for that reason to conclude that Peter had Jurisdiction over the rest for the same argument would conclude that the Apostle John had Jurisdiction over those Apostles who loved not Christ so well as himself that Stephanus a Deacon had Jurisdiction over Nicolaus and other Deacon that Peter himself had more ample Jurisdiction then Sylvester second Alexander sixth and other Monsters which were Bishops of Rome which Bellarmin will not grant readily since all Bishops of Rome are in his opinion of alike authority with Peter Lastly Turrianus lib. 2. cap. 22 in his defence against Zadeel reasons thus Let it be granted saith he that all the Apostles and all Pastors had their authority of feeding the Flock of Christâ— it doth not hinder a distinction of Order among them not though that authority be equal as they are Pastors yet it doth hinder one to be a Presbyter an other to be a Bishop above him another to be universal Bishop above all as all men qua homines or as men are equals yet some of them are Kings others subjects But it is answered It far less follows that there are several degrees of Church Orders because they are of alike authority or that because these words Feed my sheep were injoyned with alike authority to Linus and Cletus Bishops of Rome therefore the one of them was Oecumenick Bishop the other not The truth is to answer in earnest to Turrianus its false which he affirms That the equality of Authority can consist Jure Divino with Subordination of one Bishop to another All Bishops are Jure Divino of alike Authority Subordination or distinction of degrees in Bishops are Jure humano as shal be proved in the following Books We have vindicated two reasons why these words of our Sâ—vior Feed my sheep conclude not that Peter was ordained Oecumenick Bishop The first was That feeding of the sheep of Christ inferrs no dominion over them The second was because our Savior injoyned the Feeding of his sheep to others as well as to Peter which we proved by Scripture and Fathers and answered all what our Adversaries objected to the contrair Now followeth a third Reason wherefore those words of our Savior to Peter Feed my sheep doth not conclude him Oecumenick Bishop and is this because many were Christs sheep whom Peter did not feed as the Indians Ethiopians and Gentiles committed to the Apostleship of Paul yea the very Apostles themselves were the sheep of Christ and yet we
ye hear them proved partly by the Canon Law partly by the decretals of Popes partly by Books authorized by the Popes authority partly per res judicatas or sentences passed in the Popes Court at Rome Ignorants of antiquity of which our adversaries bragg so much believe that the Bishop of Rome had such immense and unlimitated power in all Ages by reason of his succession to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church What can be more pleasing then to consider from what small beginnings at what times upon what occasions by what steps by what artifices he mounted to such a prodigious hight and by what practises he maintains himself in it all which is to the life delineated in this following Dispute and proved by uncorrupted aâ—d unanswerable testimonies of the Ancients In which also it will appear that all what our adversary pretends from antiquity to maintain the Popes Kingdom is either sophistically preverted falsly translated or cited mutilated or forged My Lords and Gentlemen Whereas they make the Bishoprick of Peter the only basis and foundation of the Popes power in the first place ye will find that the Monarchy of Peter was never dreamed of by the Ancients of the first sixth Centuries As for his particular Bishoprick of Rome although some of the Fathers affirm he was Bishop of Rome yet your Lordships will find it proved that they call Paul Bishop of Rome in the same sense and consequently they take the word Bishop in a large sense as it comprehends an Apostle and not properly for a Bishop tyed to any particular Congregation That this is their meaning will be proved by two invincible reasons the first is because these same Fathers in their Catalogues of the Bishops of Rome do not reckon Peter in that number making Linus the first Bishop of Rome Cletus the second Clement the third c. But if they had believed Peter was Bishop of Rome they would have called him the first Bishop Linus the second Cletus the third Clement the fourth c. The second reason is That it shall be proved by the testimonies of those very men who call Peter Bishop of Rome That first Linus and then Cletus were Bishops of Rome during the Life of Peter whereby it is evident that Peter was never properly Bishop of Rome but was called Bishop of Rome by those Fathers because he founded the Church of Rome joyntly with Paul In the next place your Lordships will find it proved albeit many of the Ancients unanimously affirmed that Peter was at Rome and founded the Church of Rome yet they were deceived or else the Scripture affirms falsly since it shall be proved by Scripture that Peter was elsewhere in that time in which they affirm he was at Rome yea it shall be proved by unanswerable reasons from Scripture that Peter was never at Rome and that all those Fathers who believe he was at Rome were deceived by the testimony of one Papias described by Eusebius to be a man of no spirit the Author of many fabulous Traditions and of the heresie of the Millenarii That is of those maintaining that Christ before the last day shall reign a thousand years with his Saints In the third place your Lordships will find that the Bishops of Rome before the dayes of Cyprian were poor persecuted pious Martyrs only two condemned by the whole â—hurch strove to advance that mystery of iniquity which Paul affirmed was working in his own time viz. Victor usurping authoâ—ity over the Bishops of the East anno 195. and Stephanus over the Bishops of Africa and Spain anno 250. or thereabouts Some Doctors of the Church of Rome pretends several monuments of Antiquity to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval but they shall be proved forged not only by unanswerable reasons but also by the confessions of the most learned Doctors of the Church of Rome yea of Popes themselves such as Aeneas Silvius or Pius 2. In thâ— fourth place your Lordships will find the Bishops of Rome made rich by the liberality of Constantine the Emperor and others which occasioned pride and luxury the Parents of Antichrist In the fifth place your Lordships will find the conception of this Monster growing as an Embrio by degrees in his Mothers belly the fiâ—st quarter a Bishop the second a Metropolitan the third a Patâ—iarch between the times of Cyprian and anno 604. In which interval as the riches of the Bishop of Rome increased so pride and corruptions of life grew up with them and also some corruption in Doctrine against which not only Cyprian Hieronymus Sulpitius Severus Nezianzenus Basilius Magnus and other Christian Fathers exclaimed but also Ammianus Marcellinus in the opinion of Barronâ—us a Pagan In that interval Damasus mounted to the Chair of Rome by blood of which the said Ammâ—anus Marcellinus speaking after he had related the murthers that were committed he concludes It was not to be admired they aimed at the Chair of Rome by such practices since having obtained it they were enriched by the Gifts of Matrons and other wayes equalling any King in their port of Table Cloaths Houshold-stuff Attendance and Coatches or Chariots In that interval also Vigilius Bishop of Rome as is related by Liberatus and confessed by Barronius obtained the Chair of Rome by promising to the Empress Theodora to abrogat the Council of Chalcedon to establish the Eutichian heresie in the Church which he endeavoured to do as appears by his Letters when he was Bishop of Rome written to several Courtiers in which he approved that heresie And likewayes by promising Gold to Belesarius General to the Emperour Justinian in Italy By which practices of Vigilius Silverius a pious worthy Bishop of Rome to make way for the said Vigilius was banished and murthered and yet the said Vigilius was a great ingeminator of tu es Petrus and of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome And yet Barronius is not ashamed against all the Writers of that time to praise this Monster as a Saint and yet which is admirable he confesseth the way of his entry to the Bishoprick of Rome viz. by displacing a pious Bishop he obtained the Chair by Simonie and promising to abrogat the Council oâ— Chalcedon and to establish the Eutichian heresie And this much of the conception of this Monster In the sixth place ye have his birth under Phocas who by an Edict christened him universal Bishop In which three things are observable 1 The God-father 2. The God-bairn Gift 3. The reasons wherefore it was given Phocas The God-father was the Emperour Phocas described by all Historians to be a Monster for a man who being a Centurion or Captain of a Foot-company raised a mutiny in the Army against the good Emperour Mauritius and obtained the Empire himself by murthering his Master his Empress his Children and his Friends noted by Historians to have been a perfidious perjured luxurious cruel Monster and yet he was the first
Emperour who made the Bishop of Rome oecumenick or universal Bishop And this much of the God-father of that Monster which is all the Jus Divinum the Bishops of Rome have for their Monarchy in the Church The next thing observable is the God-bairn gift or the title of Universal Bishop conferred by Phocas upon Bonefacius third Bishop of Rome in the beginning of the seventh Age or about anno 604. If your Lordships ask what sort of Title and Office it is Gregorius Magnus Bishop of Rome who died not two years before Bonifacius 3d was Bishop of Rome who was first made universal Bishop by Phocas And Pelagius second Bishop of Rome to hom immediatly Gregorius Magnus succeeded will inform your Lordships viz. That the Title and Office of universal Bishop were new not heard of before that time Scelerate Prophane Sacrilegious Blasphemous against the Mandates of Christ Constitutions of the Apostles Canons and Liberties of the Church Who ever took upon him that Office or Title He contaminated those very times in which he lived was that Man of Sin sitting in the Temple of God exalting himself above all that are called God So Pelagius in an Epistle to a Council at Constantinople that he was like the Devil exalting himself above the other Angels and equalling himself to God So Gregorius which expressions of Pelagius and Gregorius and many others too prolix to be inserted here are found word for word in their Epistles Those Testimonies at length ye will find in the second Book of the second Part of this following Treatise The third thing observeable by your Lordships is the reasons wherefore the Emperour Phocas bestowed that Title of oecumenick Bishop upon Bonifacius third They are mentioned by Barronius ad annum 604. and others also as Sabellicus and Platina there is not one word of Tu es Petrus or of the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter amongst them all They were all civil respects As first because the Emperour had his Title from Rome and since Rome was the old Imperial City It was reason that the Bishop of Rome should have jurisdiction over all Bishops This is the onely reason mentioned in the Edict of Phocas Others add there reasons One of which is this Mauritius the Emperour murthered by Phocas had bestowed the title of universal Bishop upon John called Jejunator Or the Faster Patriarch of Constantinople Pelagius and Gregory Bishops of Rome thunder both against the Title and the Function as we now mentioned but to no purpose John still possesseth both the Title and the Office In both which Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople succeeds which Cyriacus protected the Empress and Children of Mauritius against Phocas for which reason Phocas takes both the Title and the Office from â—yriacus and bestowed them upon Bonifacius third Bishâ—p of Rome his old friend as is confessed by Barronius Others add two other reasons the first is this Phocas having obtained the Empyre by murthering his Master Mauritius and all his race domineered with such tyrrany that he was abhorred of all fearing a revolt in the West to curry favour with Bonifacius third Bishop of Rome whose authority was very great in it he bestowed the title of universal Bishop upon him that by his moyen he might be established in his Empyre and acknowledged by the Romans The second reason related by some is that the said Bonifacius either gave or did promise to give to Phocas a hudge mass of Money and so bought the Office from him However whatever were the reasons which moved Phocas it is most certain that the Edict or Gift of Phocas is the oldest Evident and Charter that the Bishop of Rome can produce to instruct his Monarchy in the Church which will more clearly appear by what followeth Seventhly your Lordships will find that new born Monster Christned universal Bishop by the Edict of Phocas shunned every where in the East in Spain in Britain in Germany in France yea in Italy it self under the walls of Rome the whole Church refusing to obey the Edict of Phocas or to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome universal Bishop One only Parasite excepted the Bishop of Cyprus who saluted him by that name out of envy to the Bishop of Constantinople So that in the end as it was recorded by some the Bishop of Rome for very shame gave over that Title of universal Bishop The posterior Emperoures also recalled that Edict of Phocas as appears by the 36th Canon of the sixth general Council called Trullanum convocated by Pogonatus Emperour of Constantinople anno 680. By which 36th Canon of the said Council was confirmed the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon celebrated anno 450. By which the Bishop of Constantinople was made equal to the Bishop of Rome in Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction In the Eighth place your Lordships will find in the decay of the Grecian Empyre by the Inundations of barbarous Nations all enemies to the Empyre and each of them enemies to one another that the Bishops of Rome in these vicissitudes sided ever with the Conquerour being also courted by them to countenance them in the establishment of their new and unsettled conquests By which practices that Apocalyptick Monster almost blasted in the Budd and strangled in the Craddle revived again not only re-assuming the Title of universal Bishop bestowed on him by Phocas But also soaring higher taking upon him to excomunicate the Grecian Emperour to stir up the Longobards to bereave him of his possessions in Italy To destroy the Exharchat of Ravenna To bereave him of the Dutchy of Rome which the Pope got to his own share And when the Longobards demanded Tribute of him for the said Dutchy of Rome which the Bishops of Rome were acustomed to pay to the Grecian Emperours Then he called in the French by whose means he destroyed the Kingdom of the Longobards and to requite the French Services he made Pipin their General King of France shutting up the righteous King in a Monastery And also in contempt of the Grecian Emperour he made Carolus Magnus Son of the said Pipin Emperour of the West Since which time the Empyre of the West has been divided from that of the East until this day That is since the latter end of the Eighth Age or Century In the ninth place your Lordships will find a strange Catastrophy The Doctors of the Church of Rome brag much of the submissive obedience of Carolus Magnus to the power of the Bishop of Rome which in effect he seemed to do at first untill he obtained his ends but having accomplished his intentions he made it appear to posterity that both the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome was a Sword in a mad mans hand he curbed him so both in spirituals and temporals that he left him no more but the bare Title of universal Bishop but as to the power of it he made him a meer cypher as appears by what follows The History is very pleasant
of Rome hold contrary to the Doctrine of the reformed Churches My Lords and Gentlemen In the last place you will find it proved by what practices the Bishop of Rome maintains himself in that prodigious greatness and his Doctrine None can but admire how he hath been so long undiscovered and how so many learned and pious men brave spirits can be so bewitched yet as to believe that communion with him is necessary unto salvation and that all who acknowledge not his power and Doctrine ought to be condemned as Hereticks But their admiration may cease since the Spirit of God affirms that the Kings of the earth shall be drunk with his abominations that is shall be void of all spiritual understanding that the glory of God may be manifested in his impervestigable wayes till at last that wicked one be consumed by the breath of his mouth that is by the sincere preaching of the Gospel The cup of iniquity of that Monster was not yet full untill he began so far to forget himself as to prefer himself to God and make publick sale of forgiveness of sins for money that is by giving pardons unto men not only for sins by-past but also to be committed afterwards giving to this Courtier the money obtained for the pardon of sins obtained in one Countrey to that of another It is reported of Alexander the sixth that when it was told him that his Son Caesar Burgia had lost a hudge sum of money at Dice he answered that his Son had lost nothing but the sins of the Germans that is the money which he had got for the sale of pardons in that Nation When his impiety came to such a height he was at last discovered by Luther a poor Frier since which time they have left no sort of cruelty and impostures unattempted to preserve their Power and their Doctrine And first for their cruelty towards those who opposed them death without torture was thought a clemency the ordinar punishment of such was burning alive and if they were so numerous that it could not be conveniently done they trained them into snares by perfidious Treaties cutting their throats when they were asleep without regard to the publick Faith given them as appears by the horrible massacre at Paris and other places of France and albeit popish Writers in those times detested that perfidious cruelty yet the Pope himself who was the Author and contriver of it made Processions of joy and Bone-â—ires at Rome for the success of it As for their impostures by which they maintain their Power and Doctrine they are so many that they are scarce numerable the main are preferring the corrupt Latine version of the Scripture to the Greek and Hebrew Fountains held authentick by the Primitive Church and the Church of Rome it self Secondly by adding Books to the Canon of the Scripture against all the current of Antiquity to authorize some of their idolatrous Tenets 3. They make the Pope the infallible Interpreter of Scripture albeit perhaps he had never read one syllable in it or at least understood nothing in it as appears of late by that passage of Innocent 10th related by Sanct Amour in his Journal who being pressed to determine a Controversie in Religion between the Jansenists and Molinists answered he was an old man and had never studied Divinity neither did it belong to his profession 4. They have corrupted all the Writings of the Ancients adding to them taking from them at their pleasure as appears by the Edition of the Fathers set forth by Manutius at the Popes command against all the Manuscript Copies and old printed Copies before anno 1564. neither are they ashamed of it avowing it in their indices expurgatorii and not content with corrupting of Antiquity they also forge not only particular testimonies of Fathers but also whole Treatices Aeneas Silvius who was afterwards Pope himself under the name of Pius 2d confessed ingenuously that no regard was held to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the Council of Nice or anno 325. and yet they produce six and thirty decretal Epistles of Popes as so many Knights of the Post to bear false witness for it in that interval acknowledged to be forged by Cusanus Contius and other great Antiquaries of the Church of Rome neither are they much regarded by Bellarmine and Barronius themselves Again the most ingenuous Doctors of the Romish Church and their greatest Antiquaries confess that nothing can be gathered from the Council of Nice for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Yea all Antiquity acknowledged only twenty Canons of the said Council of Nice Yet the Jesuits of late have found out two Arabick Editions in which fifty Canons are added to those twenty so palpably forged that he is blind who doth not see it Yea they are acknowledged for such by the most learned men of the Church of Rome The main scope of those forged Cannons is to prove several principal Tenets of the Popish Religion especially the Popes Supremacy That they are forged shall be proved part 2. lib. 1. Lastly the Bishops of Rome maintain their authority and Doctrine by false miracles Saints and Revelations but mainly by those two damned cheats implicit faith and infallibility that is they make their disciples believe that all is Gospel what the Pope affirmeth in Cathedra and that he cannot erre teaching the whole Church whâ—ch is the main cheat by which they lead innumerable souls to destruction My Lords and Gentlemen This much of the nobility utility and jucundity of the Subject which I present unto your protection in which I have shortly shadowed forth the steps of the Bishop of Rome to his present greatness and by what artifices he maintains himâ—elf in it The second thing I desired your Lordships to observe is the method I use in the discovery of this â—rand Impostor I am informed some tax me of presumption for medling with such a Subject after the Labours of so many Learned men to whose diligence nothing could be added But I answer as it were ill manners in me to tax those brave men that went before me in this Subâ—ect of omission or slackness So I am confident none will blame me with any shew of reason except first he consider what I say It is true indeed many have written before me but it is as true that some of them have written too dogmatically some too historically both which wayes are lost labour in this Subject in which all the probations are testimonies but that they can be understood without the kâ—owledge of History no man can perswade me though never so learned On the other hand History without Disputation may delight the ear as any other empty flâ—sh of Rhetorick but it will never satisfie the mind ruled by reason I strive to relate thâ— Histoâ—y of the Papacy and Popish Religion fighting with Disputation at every step neither make I use further of History then to illustrat the Dispute which
is my chief aim I resemble most the way of Du Plesis whether I be a plagiarian from him let the Reader judge and also whether my method be the same wiâ—h his He was a brave man and a great Ornament to the Protestant Religion but he hath many concise thetorications to understand which much knowledge of Antiquity is requisite otherwayes these passages of his are so many aenigmata to beginners of the study of Antiquity whose utility I principally aim at in this Work that sailing about the doors in this little Barge they may learn by degrees to sail in the great Ships of others throughout the immense Ocean of Antiquity The method I use is this following if any in reason shall not think it fit after reasonable instruction of my error I shall make a recantation My Lords The whole Treatise is taken up in the examination of these three Questions the first is If Peter was ordained by our Saviour Monarch of the Church or visible Head of the Church under Himself The second is If at the command of Christ he took the charge of the Bishoprick of Rome The third is If by divine Institution the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church And whereas our adversaries of the Church of Rome endeavour to prove the affirmatives of these three questions by Antiquity that is testimonies of Councils and Fathers my scope is to disprove the said three affirmatives in the same manner and to prove that all what they pretend from Antiquity is either wrested perverted mutilated falsly translated from the Originals or forged down-right The whole Treatise is divided in four Parts the first Part is entituled of Bishops and contains the Hierarchy of the Church unto the death of Cyprian which was after the middle of the third Age In which interval I endeavour to prove there was no ordinar Office in the Church above that of a Bishop and that the Bishop of Rome was in no more Authority then any other Bishop albeit he was first Bishop in dignity because Bishop of the old Imperial City This first part is divided in two Books in the first is disputed the Monarchy of Peter by his institution prerogatives and carriage and testimonies of Fathers unto cap. 22. In the rest of that Book is disputed if ever Peter was at Rome and if he were if he was Bishop of Rome In the second Book is disputed if the Bishop of Rome was adcnowledged as successor to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church before the death of Cyprian In which Book I insist most upon these following particulars First I relate the opinion of Aerius and his followers concerning the Original Progresse and universal establishment of Episcopacy wherein a Bishop differs from a Presbyter and for what reasons Episcopacy was brought into the Church 2. I prove by the testimonies of Ignatius Dionysius and Cyprian himself that there was no Office in the Church in that interval above that of a Bishop 3. I answer several testimonies pretended by those of the Church of Rome to prove the Popes Supremacy in that interval from Actions of Popes Appellations to them and from testimonies of Greek and Latine Fathers 4. I examine several Forgeries and Corruptions of the Fathers made use of by some Roman Doctors to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that Interval The second Part is intituled of Arch-bishops in which I disput the Hierarchy of the Church from the death of Cyprian unto the beginning of the seventh Century or to anno 604. at which time the Emperor Phocas took the title of universal Bishop from Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople and bestowed it upon Bonifacius third Bishop of Rome which is an interval of 344. years It is divided in two Books the first intitulated of Metrapolitans In which I disput the Hierarchy of the Church from Cyprian anno 260. unto the Council of Chalcedon anno 453. all which time no Office was in the Church above that of a Metrapolitan insisting most upon these following particulars first of the original progresse and universal establishment of Metrapolitans wherein a Metrapolitan differ from another Bishop For what reason Metrapolians were brought into the Church What place the Bishop of Rome had amongst Metrapolitans where I prove by unanswerable testimonies of Antiquity that other Metrapolitans were of alike Jurisdiction with him and that he was only first Metrapolitan in dignity for the same reason that he was first Bishop in the interval of Bishops viz. because he was Bishop in the Chief Imperial City 2. Traceing the lives of the Bishops of Rome in that interval I disput pro and contra the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it by their actions usurpations addâ—esses made to them and Acts of general and particular Councils celebrated in each of their times 3. I examine the opinions of Greek and Latine Fathers who lived in that interval concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it 4. I examine some notable forgeries pretended by those of the Church of Rome to prove the Pops supremacy in that interval The second Book is entituled of Patriarchs containing the Hierarchy of the Church from the Council of Chalcedon anno 453. to Phocas and Bonifacius anno 604. In which Interval Patriarchs obtained the chief place of the Hierarchy insisting also upon those five particulars 1. Of the original progresse and universal establishment of Patriarchs wherein a Patriarch differs from a Metrapolitan for what reasons Patriarchs were brougâ—t in the Church what place the Bishop of Rome had amongst Patriarchs viz. all Patriarchs were alike to him in Jurisdiction Yet he was the first Patriarch in dignity for the same reason that he was first Bishop in the Interval of Bishops and first Metrapolitan in the Interval of Metrapolitans that is for civil respects and not by reason of succession to Peter in the Monarchy of the Chuâ—ch because Rome was the old imperial City of which he was Patriarch 2. Traceing the lives of the Bishops of Rome of that interval I disput their Supremacy from their Actions Usurpations Addresses made to them from general and particular Councils celebrated in their time 3. I examine the opinions of Greek and Latine Fathers who lived in that Interval concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it 4. I examine those Forgeries pretended by those of the Church of Rome to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that Interval 5. I minut that notable controversie betwixt the Bishops of Rome and â—onstâ—ntinople for the Primacy showing what was the occasion of that contest for what Primacy they strove by what reason they pleaded and who carried it in the end viz. John called Jejunator or the Faster Patriarch of Constantinople who first of all was stiled oecumenick Bâ—shop anno 580. which was continued in his successors to anno 604. at which time Phocas before whom Bonifacius third Bishop of Rome renewed the Processe knowing that
Phocas the Emperor carried no good will to Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople he struck the Iron while it was hot after much contention pronounced in his favour The third Part entituled of an oecumenick Bishop contains the History of that interval between anno 600. and the Council of Trent It is divided in two Books in the first I insist most on those following particulars 1. What power was conferred by Phocas with that title of universal Bishop upon Bonifacus third Bishop of Rome 2. How the edict of Phocas was obâ—yed viz. resisted every where till in the end it was recalled by Pogonatus anno 680. in the sixth general Council as was shewed before 3. How during the vicissitudes of inundations of Barbarians the Bishop of Rome re-assumed that title of unâ—versal Bishop and usurped power in temporals over the Grecian Emperoâ—s as was already declared 4. How Carolus Magnus curbed him 5. How when the posterity of Carolus Magnus decayed he renewed and augmented his power by five steps as we shewed before also In the second Book those steps or increments of the Papacy between anno 600. and the â—Câ—ncel of Trent are dogmatically disputed by Scripture Fathers and it is proved by testimonies of the most learned Antiquaries of the Church of Rome that the oldest of those steps was not before anno 1000. It is true indeed that his power in temporals was attempted first by Constantine Bishop of Rome against Philippicus Emperour of Constantinople anno 720. because the said Philippicus caused pull down those Images of the Fathers of the sixth general Council placed in the Church of St. Sophia at Constantinople and a little after Gregory 2d and 3d. Bishops of Rome excommunicated Leo Isaurus and his son Copronymus for the same quarrel of Images but their insolence was compesâ—ed by Carolus Magnus as we shewed before Those four steps are 1. Election by Cardinals 2. Power of convocating general Councils constantly preâ—iding in them of confirming and infirming them 3. Power in temporals 4. In fallibility as for the last step Divinity it is disputed in the fourth Part lib. 2. The fourth and last Part of this Treatise entituled of Antichrist is divided in two Books in the first the demonstrations of Sanderus Bellarmine and Lessius three Jesuits are answered by which they endeavour to prove that the Bishop of Rome is not Antichrist 2. The Bishop of Rome is proved to be Antichrist by Scripture Fathers Popish Doctors yea by the testimonies of some Popes themselves In the second Book two marks of Antichrist are chiefly insisted upon the first is his defection 2 Thess 2. where it is proved that the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome is that defection mentioned by the Apostle and that in the first six Centuries there was no such thing as the modern Popish Religion which is proved by an induction of all the contraverted points we have with the Church of Rome 2. Because those of the Church of Rome ordinarily object that they have not made a defection because it cannot be instructed at what time it was made by whom and who resisted it Two things are proved in the said Book first it is proved by Reason Experience Scripture Fathers that a defection may be made and yet it may be unknown by whom it is made at what time and who first resisted it 2. It is proved by an induction that most of the most substantial Tenets of the Church of Rome such as transubstantiation number of the Sacraments communion under one kind sacrifice of the Mass imperfection of the Scripture equalling of traditions to it adding a Apocrypha Books to it rejecting the Greek and Hebrew as not being authentick as making the corrupt vulgar Latine version authentick free-will Merits justification by Works caelibat of Priests worshiping of Images invocation of Saints set Fasts Prayer for the dead Purgatory Indulgences works of super-erogation all the steps of the Popes Supremacy c. were not only not from the beginning but also it is proved for the most part by testimonies of Popish Doctors themselves at what time and by whom the said Tenets as innovations were brought in the Church The second mark of Antichrist we insist upon is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all sort of deceiving and fraud 2 Thes 2. where it is shewed by what cheats the authority of the Bishop of Rome and his Doctrine are maintained such as perverting falsly translating and corrupting by adding and paring of the indices expurgatorii all the Writings of the Ancients Suppositions Revelations Saints Miracles c. My Lords and Gentlemen Thus I have represented unto you what I perform in this great Subject and what method I observe in it By which it will appear to any reasonable man what difference there is between this method and that of others if I perform what I promise of which let the judicious Reader be judge Now followeth the third thing which I desired your Lordships to take to consideration viz. what my scope and intention is which is twofold the first is to refute those marks 〈◊〉 which those of the Church of Rome endeavour to perswade their Disciples that the said Church of Rome is the true â—hurch The first mark is a continual succession of Bishops which they take great pains to enumerat from the dayes of the Apostles unto this time In which mark shall be proved a four-fold cheat The first is they make the world beâ—ieve that all those Bishops were of a like greatness in Power and Authority whereas it is proved that in the first three Centuries or at least before the dayes of Cypâ—ian that every Bishop was of equal authority with the Bishop of Rome And that between the times of Cyprian and the Council of Chalcedon every Metropolitan and from the Council of Chalcedon to anno 604. every Patriarch were of equal jurisdiction to him And when he was made universal Bishop by Phocas little more then a bare title was bestowed on him and yet that was after revocked by the sixth general Council As for those five steps we mentioned before in which chiefly the Modern Power of the Pope consists viz. Election by Cardinals 2. Authority of convocating general Councils 3. Temporal jurisdiction 4. Infability 5. and Divinity it shall be proved as we said before by the testimonies of Popish Doctors themselves that the oldest of them had not a beeing in the tenth Age and that the said Popish Doctors acknowledging the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church nevertheless some of them doubted not to call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist by reason of these steps which they call tyrannical Antichristian usurpations The second Cheat in that mark of succession is that they make ignorants believe that all the Bishops of Rome since the times of the Apostles professed the same Doctrine which is now taught in the Church of Rome whereas it shall be proved that the Doctrine of the modern
Church of Rome had not a beeing the first six hundred years after Christ that it had some notable beginning about that time when Bonifacius 3d. was made first universal Bishop and encreased afterwards as the power of the Bishop of Rome encreased the one following the other as the motion of the Sea follows the Moon that many of the most substantial points of the modern Roman Faith were never generally established before the cape-stone of the Popes power was laid at the Councils of Florence and Trent at which two Councils many Tenets were established with an anathema as Articles of Faith believed to be so many paradoxes by the most learned men in the Church of Rome who lived in those times who spared not to exclaim against the fraudulent proceeding of the Pope who carried all by plurality of voices in these two Councils 1. By multitude of Italian Bishops 2. By titular Bishops that is Bishops having imaginary Titles in the East as Jerusalem Antioch c. Which Bishops he created purposely that by the number of their voices and of the Italian Bishops he might bear down in these two Councils the voices of the Bishops of Germany Spain and France The third Cheat in that mark of succession is that they make ignorants believe that all those Bishops were lawfully elected but it shall be proved in the following Disput that some were elected by Blood others by Simony others by unlawful Stipulations and Pre-contracts to establish Heresie in the Church and to condemn the Oâ—thodox Doctrine as heretical others of them by a paction with the Devil yea it shall be proved by the most eminent Antiquaries of the Church of Rome it self that since Nicolaus secundus who lived in the eleventh Century there has not been one Bishop of Rome elected according to the Law of God and Constitutions of the primitive Church and that their manner of election at this day is so detestable that none can hear of it without horror The fouâ—th Cheat in that mark of succession is this we have redacted that succession to a number of persons of unequal power contrary Doctrine unlawfully elected now rests a bare personal succession in which there is a notable Cheat also because they obtrude for the true Successor persons that are not capable by their own principles of the Function as appears by three unanswerable reasons The first is a woman was Pope for several years together and whereas Bellarmine and Baronius affirms it was a fiction it is answered since those Historians who relate it for a truth lived in tâ—ose very times in which it fell out or at least very near them and since those who call it a fable lived long after and are but of yeaster-day in respect of those who affirm it to be of a truth no judicious Reader needs to be puzled much which party to believe since those who called it a truth professed themselves to be as obedient Sons to the Church of Rome as those who call it a fable The second reason against the continuity of that personal succession is this the Chair of Rome hath been for several years empty and without a Bishop and whereas they affirm that the power then of the Bishop is in the Cardinals it shall be proved by their own Learned Antiquaries that the modern power of those Cardinals was a thing unkown to the Ancients and to be nothing else but a new devised Cheat. The third reason against that personal succession is this it is known to all who are versed in History that many Popes have been at one time and the subtillest Wits amongst them could never yet decern which was the true Successor and which not one part of the Church adhering to the one another to the other another to the third Pope As happened in the time of the Council of Constance anno 1416. at which time there were three Popes It is certain one of them could be only the true Pope and yet all of them created Cardinals some of which not only created other Popes afterwards but also became Popes themselves but those Cardinals who received orders from the false Popes are by their own Principles incapable of electing Popes much more of being Popes themselves It must of necessity follow that many Popes have been at innumerable times Bishops of Rome not lawful which quite destroyes that personal succession They are pressed with the same difficulty in the case of Simony It is granted by themselves that many Bishops of Rome have obtained that Chair by Simony It is granted also by them that those are not lawful Popes that those ordained by them are incapable of Orders It is confessed by them also that several Popes obtaining the Chair by Simony have created Cardinals which elected other Popes and some of them also became Popes themselves which quite destroyeth that uninterrupted personal succession as they cannot deny And this much of that first mark of the true Church pretended by the Romanists to prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church viz. succession of Bishops The second mark is Antiquity of which they brag very much but have very little reason Cicero lib. 2. de Orator relates a passage between Crassus that famous Orator and one Silus who accused another person before the Senate for uttering some dangerous expressions Crassus defends him thus It may be saith he that he spake these words in passion Silus granted it might be Crassus urgeth the second time It may be you understood not what he said Silus seemed not averse to that neither Crassus goeth on the third time It may be saith he that ye affirm that ye heard him utter these speeches whereas ye heard no such thing at all at which Silus was confounded and replyed nothing at all then all the company fell a laughing Those instances of Crassus against Silus may fitly be urged against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome bragging of the testimonies of Antiquity that is of Councils and Fathers His first instance was that the person accused by Silus perhaps was in passion but it is known and shall be proved that those of the Church of Rome are seconded by no testimonies of Antiquity at all but either they are of Bishops of Rome themselves or else of their flatterers But Aeneas Silvius afterwards Pope himself under the name of Pâ—us 2d in his Commentaries upon the Council of Basile hath these following expressions against such testimonies his words are Nec considerant miseri quae tantopere jactant verba aut ipsorum summorum pontificum sunt fimbrias suas extendentâ—um aut eorum qui iis adulabantur that is Neither do these miserable men consider that those testimonies of which they brag are either of Bishops of Rome themselves enlarging their own Authority or else of those who are their flatterers Now to the application Crassus reasoned that a testimony spoken in passion should not be regarded but who will deny those testimonies of Bishops of
Rome and of their vowed slavish flatterers to be spoken in passion to be partial and to merit no credit Crassus second instance was that perhaps Silus did not understand what the other said This is also fitly applyed to those of the Church of Rome for knowing that those partial testimonies would not serve the turn they flye to fantastick Glosses of testimonies of the Ancients wearying themselves and their Readers by their verbosity in such Glosses though never so strained and wrested against the meaning of the Author as shall be proved to any capacity in the least measure capable of reason and in effect all the shelter they have in Antiquity is either in wilfully wresting the Fathers or else in their strained Allegories as shall be made manifest in its own place part 4. lib. 2. yea and almost through the whole Treatise The third instance of Crassus against Silus was false witnessing that this may be applyed to our Adversaries shall be proved also that is when those testimonies of Popes and their Fathers and those perverted and wrested testimonies of others will not serve the turn they use a twofold cheat in false witnessiing The first is they have corrupted by authority of the Pope all the Writings of the Ancients taking out what made against them The second cheat is by putting in and forging what in effect was never in the writings of the Ancients as shall be unanswerably proved in the following Disput yea it shall appear part 4. lib. 2. what those forged testimonies being removed the primitive Fathers in the first six Centuries after Christ prosessed no other Doctrine then the Doctrine now professed by the Protestants especially by the Church of England which is the same Religion with that of the first four-general Councils both in Doctrine and Discipline in the estimation of Gregorius Magnus Bishop of Rome of little lesse authority then the Scripture it self One thing is not to be omitted they object the Protestants speaking unreverently of Antiquity which is a notorious untruth whereas themselves when neither wresting falsly translating adding and paring and right-down forging testimonies of Antiquity will serve the turn speak most unreverently of the Ancients taxing Augustinus Hieronymus the second and fourth general Councils and consequently all the first eight general Councilsâ— since in the particulars challenged by them they all agreed of ignorance madnesse heresie forgery The third mark is universality which is all one with antiquity universality is twofold first of time that is the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome was received at all times by the Church The second is of place that is it was embraced in all places but the Antiquity of their Doctrine being related universality falls with it and likewayes visibility for if we prove that the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome in as far as it contradicts that of Protestants is devised and broached by degrees since the beginning of the seventh Century questionless it was not visible in the first six Antiquity also being refuted their fifth mark infallibility also falls with it for questionless if the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome be contrary to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church in the first six Centuries they cannot have the brow to affirm that their Modern Church of Rome is infallible since in so affirming they will declare all the Ancients that is Fathers and geneneral Councils in the first six hnndred years after Christ to be Hereticks However it is most strange impudence in them to pretend infallibility in their Church which some place in general Councils others in the Bishop of Rome in Cathedra which ever of the two they affirm they are entangled If the first in it appears that of late their general Councils hath condemned one another of Heresie as the Council of Florence the Councils of Basil and Constance and the Council of Basil that of Florence If they affirm in the last viz. that the Pope hath Infallibility in Cathedra they are also entangled for it shall be proved part 3 lib. 2. that many Popes in Cathedra have declared other Popes teaching in Cathedra to be Hereticks but none but a mad man or an Impostor will affirm that the infallibility of Popes in Cathedra can consist with such proceedings The sixth mark is Unity of which they brag very much but with as little reason as they did brag of Antiquity They reason very prettily thus We of the Church of Rome say they agree amongst our selves in all substantial points of Faith whereas they who are not of our Church do not so some of them being Calvinists some Lutherians some Anabaptists some Quakers some this some that whence it appears say they that our Church is the true Church But this sophism is very easily retorted we may as easily reason thus We whom ye call Calvinists are at unity amongst our selves in substantial points there is no discord amongst us but in these two particulars the first is anent Church-government or the Divine right of Bishops the second is in that point of defensive Armes against Kings both which differences especially the last are in a far higher strain amongst your selves as ye cannot without impudence deny But ye who are out of our Church do not agree amongst your selves some of you are Papists some Anabaptists some Quakers c. Ergo we are the true Church Secondly to omit such foolish reasoning there is not greater discord in hell then is amongst those of the Church of Rome in points most substantial and upon which as hinges the whole edifice of their Doctrine doth depend It would be prolix to enumerat all their discords we will only mention some few the rest we shall prosecute through the whole body of this Treatise And first they generally brag of the Antiquity of their Doctrine that it was from the beginning but it shall be proved by testimony of their own Doctors that most of their substantial Tenets which they hold contrary to Protestants are so many innovations such as adding of Apocrypha Books to the Scripture number of Sacraments Transubstantiation Purgatory Indulgences and all those steps of the Popes Supremacy after anno 604. Yea it shall be proved by some of their greatest Antiquaries that the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged universal Bishop by the Church in the first six Centuries and that Cyprian and Augustine and many other of the Ancients died out of communion with the Church of Rome and yet are placed in their Calanders amongst the Saints Likewayes the whole body of the Popish Religion depends upon the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome it again upon the supremacy of Peter it again upon his institution carriage and testimonies of Fathers Let us hear how they agree in those three And first his institution is founded upon three passages of Scripture Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church The second is verse 19. And I will give unto thee
their lawful Prince whom the Bishop of Rome shall appoint How this power of the Popes can consist with Kingly Government let the Kings of the earth themselves consider They make one objection yet that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings By the answer of which objection will appear that encrease of Popery in a Protestant State tends to the utter destruction both of King and Subject and inconsistent with both The objection is this It is not the Doctrine of the Church of France say they that the Pope has power to depose Kings being rejected both by its Doctrine and by its Practice since many of the Clergy of France hath writen against that Doctrine and Books defending that Opinion such as that of Mariana the Spanish Jesuit and others have been burnt by publick Authority But this objection is answered by a twofold distinction first of Times secondly of Causes wherefore Kings ought to be deposed As for Times when the Kings of France are low or high in the last case the Clergy of France ever partied their King against the Pope excommunicating them and deposing them as appears by the passages of Philip le Bell with â—onifacius and of Lewis 12th with Julius second Bishop of Rome In the first Case when the Kings of France are low the Clergy of France ever partied the Pope excommunicating and deposing their Kings as appears by the passages of Henry 3d. and 4th Kings of France with Sixtus 5th Bishop of Rome It is notorious that the University of Paris confirmed by a decree the Bulls of the said Sixtus 5th against the said two Henries Kings of France in which Bulls they were declared uncapable of the Crown of France all French men were absolved from alledgeance to them and the greatest part of France rose up in armes against them to dethrone them beging of the Pope that he would name them a King and they would acknowledge him for their lawful Prince And this much of the distinction of Times The second distinction is of Causes wherefore Kings should be deposed although in other causes besides Heresie the Subjects of France were not so unanimous for the Pope against their King yet in case of Heresie that is if their King were a Protestant both the Clergy and the Laity of France unanimously at the Popes command renunced alledgeance to their King And first for the Clergy in an Assembly of States or Parliament Cardinal Perron their Speaker commissionat from them as their mouth in an Oration to the third Estate affirmed That it had ever been the Doctrine of the Clergy of France that true French men ought no alledgeance to heretical Kings excommunicated and deposed by the Pope As for the Laity it is notorious that after the murther of Henry 3. they threatned to abandon Henry 4th his Successor because he was excommunicated and deposed by the Pope which forced him expecting no security otherwayes to change his Religion And thus we have proved that it is the unanimous Doctrine of the Church of Rome that Popish Subjects owe no fidelity to a Protestant King which occasioned that saying of that incomparable Bishop Mortoun viz. That a loyal popish Subject in a Protestant State was a white Ethiopian which I do not mention calling in question the Loyalty of the Romanists of this Nation or the neighbour Nations of England and Ireland many of them are known to be persons of Honour and as loyal Subjects as the King hath I only mention those things to let them see how they are abused by the Popish Emissaries of these three Nations who knowing them to be loyal Subjects to the King seing it would be a great difficulty to train them in their snares and keep them in them once catched if they told them all the verity To train them on they make them believe in the beginning that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Protestant Kings much less others but only a calumny of Protestants traducing the Popish Religion but afterwards having by degrees confirmed them in the Popish Religion they would not fail to perswade them to cut the throats of all their Countrey-men and flee like so many mad-dogs upon the Kings face to pull him from his Throne as appears by the constant practice of the Church of Rome against all Protestants in general and against Protestant Kings in particular which practice is so notorious that he who denyes it is either a mad man void of common sense or else a notorious Impostor And first that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome affirming it meritorious to destroy Protestants by open cruelty and perfidy appears by the constant carriage of the said Church towards Protestants since the Reformation What sort of cruelty or perfidy have they not attempted Death without torture was thought clemency burning of them in heaps alive in houses might be attributed to a popular fury but it is notorious that multitudes of them were burnt alive in fires of all Sexes and Qualities by the sentences of the Judges and when they could do no good by open force they destroyed them by perfidy and prostitution of the publick Faith and when they had done made publick Processions of Joy Bonefires and such like as if they had deserved Paradise by such meritorious works maintaining this maxime as unquestionable that no publick Faith should be regarded or observed towards Hereticks That this is truth appears by the proceedings of the Council of Constance with John Husse and Hierom of Prague which two were burned alive notwithstanding they had the safe conduct of the Emperor Sigismundus It appears also by those massacres of Paris and other parts of France where by the publick Faith they trained them all to one place and then perfidiously massacred them to the horror of several learned Romanists who in their Histories detest such perfidy such as Thuanus and others and when they had done tanquam re bene gesta triumpharunt they were congratulated by the Pope who caused Bonefires and publick Processions to be made at Rome for the happy success of such a glorious atchievment These things are notorious so that the Popish emissaries themselves have neither the brow to deny them nor the confidence to defend them But they use another shift viz. That the Church of Rome hath given over that practice now being resolved no more to follow those courses as they did in the beginning prompted to them by their too violent zeal But it is answered they are greatly mistaken for now in France and Germany and other places they practise not such cruelties because they dare not but where they have power and thinks they may do it without any hazard they make it appear that they believe it is a meritorious work to destroy and extirpat all Protestants by any cruelty or perfidy imaginable as appears of late not only abroad
eidem concessum Pater enim revelavit Petro Christum esse Filium Dei vivi Filius tribuit Petro ut sit Ecclesiae Petra that is Some proper gift was given to Peter here by Christ as the Father had given unto him such a gift the Father revealed to Peter that Christ was the Son of the living God So the Son gives unto Peter to be the Rock of the Church It is answered Stapleton cites Chrysostom falsly his words in the Original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is What is it and I will give it to thee as the Father gave unto thee to know me so I will give unto thee Neither said he I will ask of my Father although it was a great ostentation of his power and the greatness of the gift ineffable Nevertheless I will give unto thee What wilt thou give pray the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven By which it appears that Stapleton plays the Sophister thrice First in making Chrysostom affirm that some proper or peculiar thing was given to Peter whereas Chrysostom mentions no such thing at all Secondly he makes Chrysostom affirm that the gift given to Peter was to be the Rock upon which the Church is built whereas Chrysostom saith no such thing affirming only that the gift given to Peter was the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven but it shal be proved by the testimony of Chrysostom himself chap. 8. That the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others as well as to Peter Thirdly he neglects the comparison which Chrysostom makes leaving out now where he added before viz. As the Father gave unto thee to know me so I give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven The reason wherefore he neglects the comparison is evident viz he was conscious that the knowledge of Christ the gift of the Father to Peter was common to all the Apostles and therefore he feared the conclusion viz. That the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven the gift given by Christ to Peter would be common to all the Apostles also And thus much of Stapletons reasons proving Peter to be the Rock Bellarmin reasons thus The pronoun hanc this is referred to the words immediatly going before Thou art Peter and therefore our Savior by this Rock means Peter But it is answered There is no necessity of referring the pronoun hanc or this to the words immediatly going before as appears by several places of Scripture as Acts 3. 15. And killed the Prince of life whom God hath raised from the dead of whom we are witnesses where those words of whom are referred to the Prince of life and not unto God who is nearest That the pronoun hunc or him or this is of necessity referred to the words fatrher off and not to the nearest appears also by Act. 2. 22. and 23. and 2. Thess 2. most clearly v. 8. And then shall that wicked one be revealed whom the Lord shall consume whose comming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders observe whose coming is referred not to the Lord which is nearest but to that wicked one further off And thus we have disputed all the reasons of any moment pretended by either party in this question it Peter was the Rock CHAP. III. Tu es Petrus Disputed by General Councils NOw let us Dispute Tu es Petrus by antiquity examining what was the meaning of the Ancients concerning these words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church They brag much of antiquity viz. that the Council of Chalcedon and all the Fathers interpret the Rock to be Peter But it is answered They resemble Bankrupts who brag they are richest when they are poorest A passage related by Cicero lib. 2. de oratore between Silus and Crassus may be applyed to our adversaries Fieri potest ut quod dixit iratus dixerit Silus annuit tum Crassus fieri potest ut quod dixit non intelligeres hic quoque Silus fassus est tum Crassus fieri potest ut non omnino audieris quod te audisse dicis Silus tacuit omnes riserunt This passage is most fitly applyed to our adversaries bragging of the testimonies of the Ancients Councils and Fathers for they bring not one testimony but either it merits no credit or else it is wrested and misinterpreted or else it is forged as appears through the whole following Disput What was the opinion of the Council of Chalcedon the other first six general councils We will examine in this chapter the opinion of the Fathers shal be examined in the following chapters unto chap. 10. From the Council of Chalcedon they object the third action where Peter is called Petra crepido Ecclesiae the Rock upon which the Church is built But it is answered first Those are not the words of the council but only the words of Paschasinus Lucentius and Bonifacius Legats to Leo Bishop of Rome giving their votes against Dioscorus of Alexandria what regard should be had to such testimonies Aeneas Silvius afterward Pope himself under the name of Pius second will inform you comment 1. On the Council of Basil His words are Nec considerant miseri quia quae praedicant tant opere verba aut ipsorum summorum Pontificum sunt suas fimbrias extendentium aut illorum qui eis adulabantur Neither do these miserable men consider that these testimonies of which they brag so much are either of Bishops of Rome themselves enlarging their own interests or else of those who are flattering them Secondly it is very strange impudence to them to alledge the authority of the Council of Chalcedon to prove the Supremacy of Peter or of the Bishop of Rome by reason of his succession to Peter as appears by what follows Aetius Legate of the Bishop of Constantinople and the foresaids Paschasinus Lucentius and Bonifacius Deputies of the Bishop of Rome pleaded in the behalf of their Masters the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople for the primacy Paschasinus and his fellows pleaded the sixth canon of the Council of Nice The words are those Let the old custom remain in Egypt Libya Pentapolis viz. that the Bishop of Alexandria hath power in those Provinces to ordain Bishops since the Bishops of Rome hath the like custome Aetius pleaded the same Canon and likewise the fifth Canon of the said Council of Nice by which it was ordained That when a Bishop was condemned by a provincial Council there should be no further appeal unless to a General Council which exception though not mentioned in the Canon must of necessity be understood The said Aetius likewise pleaded the third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople by which it was provided That the Bishop of Rome should have the first place in dignity because Rome was the old Imperial City the Bishop of Constantinople the second place next to him because Constantinople was new Rome The force of this argument consists in two things
First that the said second General Council of Constantinople ordained the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople to be equal although they gave the Bishop of Rome the first place in dignity The second thing is That the Bishop of Rome had the first place in dignity not by reason of his succession to Peter but for a civil respect viz. because Rome was the old Imperial City Paschasinus and his fellows replyed or at least Bellarmin and Baronius would have so replyed if they had been pleaders before the Council That the third Canon of the Council of Constantinople was not to be regarded because the Bishop of Rome had never approved it and therefore they urged the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice by which say they the Bishop of Alexandria had authority confirmed to him in Egypt because the Bishop of Rome had the like custom From which they argued thus That the authority of the Bishop of Rome was the cause of the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria or the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria flowed from the authority of the Bishop of Rome And since the Bishop of Alexandria was before him of Constantinople of old the said second General Council of Constantinople wronged the Bishop of Alexandria in preferring the Bishop of Constantinople to him In a word the sum of their pleading was this That by the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice the Bishop of Rome had authority over him of Alexandria And since the Bishop of Alexandria was before the Bishop of Constantinople in former times that third Act of the second General Council of Constantinople ought to be cassed and antiquitated because it contradicted the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice in preferring the Bishop of Constantinople to him of Alexandria and equalizing him to the Bishop of Rome Aetius and the Deputies of the Bishop of Constantinople duplyed First That the said Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople ought not to be recalled or at least Protestants would have so duplyed if they had been in their place First Because it was a lawful General Council And although the Bishop of Rome had not confirmed it because he had no authority above a General Council It was very unreasonable that any particular Bishop should cut and carve for his own advantage against the decree of the whole Church Secondly The said General Council of Constantinople was received and confirmed by a Synod at Rome two years after the Bishop of Rome Dammasus presiding in the said Council And therefore it was false that the Bishop of Rome never confirmed the said Council of Constantinople Thirdly the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice gave no authority to the Bishop of Rome over the Bishop of Alexandria the meaning of the Canon being only this viz. The occasion of the Canon was one Miletius troubled all Egypt by ordaining Bishops at his own hand Alexander Bishop of Alexandria complains to the Council of Nice which upon his complaint made the foresaid sixth Canon The true Gloss of which being that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the power of ordaining Bishops in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis as he was wont Since the Bishop of Rome had the like power by custom in the places adjacent to Rome or as Ruffinus a writer who lived near these times interprets in Ecclesijs Suburbicarijs that is in Churches within a hundred miles to the walls of Rome So then the authority of the Bishop of Rome was not the cause of the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria or the Original from whence it flowed but only a pattern according to which it was framed as one common-wealth may be framed in government according to the pattern of another common-wealth without any subordination in authority They duplyed fourthly That the said General Council of Constantinople did no wrong to the Bishop of Alexandria in giving to the Bishop of Constantinople the second place in dignity which before that time belonged to the Bishop of Alexandria since the cause ceasing the effect also ceased The cause why the Bishop of Alexandria was second to the Bishop of Rome was this viz. The government of Egypt was the second government in dignity to the government of the City of Rome It was so ordained by Augustus and therefore was called Praefectura Augustalis Since it was not so now because the government of those Provinces depending on the City of Constantinople was made the second Government and preferred to that of Alexandria and made equal to the Government of those places depending upon the city of Rome therefore the said council of Constantinople did no wrong in equalizing the Bishop of Constantinople to the Bishop Rome since the civil Government was a Type of the Ecclesiastick as is confessed by Baronius himself ad Annum 39. Num. 10. That the Government and Priviledges of the City of Constantinople being made equal to those of Rome was the cause why the council of Constantinople made the Bishop of Constantinople equal in Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome is reported both by Socrates hist lib. 5. chap. 8. and Sozomenus lib. 7. chap. 9. Who both give the reason of the said third Canon in the Greek Edition but 5. or 7. in the Latine to be Because that Constantinople had not only the name of Rome with like Senat and other Magistrats but bare also the same Arms and other rights and honors which belonged to old Rome The Council of Chalcedon having considered the reasons of both parties allowed the interpretation put upon the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice by the Orators of the Bishop of Constantinople rejected that Gloss of those of the Bishop of Rome confirmed the third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople with some advantage and addition as by the 28 Canon whose words are these Definimus communi calculo sancimus quod attinct ad praerogativas honoris sanctissimae Ecclesiae hujus Constantinopoleos novae Romae Etenim Patres Sedi Antiquioris is Romae ob eam caussam quia Imperium obtineret Urbs illa merito Primatum honoris detulere Sed eadem ratione moti centum quinquaginia religiosissimi Episcopi aequalem primatum honoris assignarunt sanctissimae sedi novae Romae Recte judicantes eam Urbem quae imperio Senatu honestatur iâ—sdem privilegis fruentem cum antiqua Roma Regia etiam in Ecclesiasticis negotijs aequa cuâ— illa extollendam Sic tamen ut post eam secundum locum obtineat By which Canon two things appears First that the Bishop of Constantinople is expresly made equal in Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction with the Bishop of Rome Secondly that the Bishop of Rome hath the first place in dignity not by reason of succession to Peter but only for civil respects viz. because Rome was the old imperial City It appears also by the said Canon that the former General Councils of Nice and Constantinople gave the
primacy to the Bishop of Rome for the same reason only viz. because it was the old imperial City And therefore it is intollerable impudence in our adversaries to object the authority of the Council of Chalcedoâ— to prove the Supremacy of Peter By which it appears the impudence of Bellarmin and Baronius who abuse their Reader with strange Sophistry and most shameless The Council of Chalcedon say they interpreted the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice to the advantage of the Bishop of Rome For immediatly after the reading of the said Canon the beginning of which was Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum the Church of Rome evermore had the primacy The Canon being thus read all the Council cryed out Perpendimus omnem primatum honorem praecipuum secundum Canones antiquae Romae Deo amantissimo Archiepiscopo conservari But it is answered first Those words of the Canon viz. the Church of Rome ever had the primacy are forged being found in no other copie but in that of Dionysius Exiguus but his authority is not sufficient to out balance all other copies of the Canons of the Council both Greek and Latin yea that copie corrected by Gregory 13 himself which wants those first words pretended by Bellarmin and Baronius in which copie and all other copies the first words of the said Canon are Antiquus mos perduret c. Let the old custom remain in Egypt Libya and Pentapolis c. Secondly although the Canon had begun so it makes not much to the purpose since it appears by the decree of the Council that the Primacy of the Church of Rome was only a Primacy of dignity for civil respects and not a Primacy of Jurisdiction by reason of the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter as appears expresly by the words of the Canon And also that the Bishop of Constantinople was ordained by the said Council equal in Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome If Bellarmin and Baronius affirm that the words of the twenty-eight Canon are mis-interpreted their mouths are stopped not only by the carriage of Lucentius and other two Legats of the Bishop of Rome but also by the carriage of Leo Bishop of Rome himself The carriage of Lucentius was this When the Fathers of the Council had subscribed the said twenty eight Canon Lucentius stood up crying foul play Some of those subscribers were compelled so to do by one indirect way or other The whole Fathers of the Council answered they had deliberatly and voluntarily subscribed Whereupon Lucentius protested against the Council as having preferred the judgement of a hundred and fifty Fathers of the Council of Constantinople before the judgement of three hundred and eighteen Fathers in the first general Council of Nice which was as much to say as he understood the meaning of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice better then those six hundred and thirty Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon representing the whole Church This carraige of Lucentius is recorded in the Council of Chalcedon Act. 16. pag. 936. 937. 938. Next that the said Council decerned against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome appears by four Epistles of Leo Bishop of Rome himself in which he thunders against the Council of Chalcedon for making the foresaid 28. Canon still ingeminating Tu es Petrus or that they had wronged the supremacy of Peter by which complaints of his it is most evident that those 630. Fathers representing the whole Church in a general Council meant nothing lesse then the supremacy of Peter in these words Tu es Petrus These four Epistles of Leo are his 52. Epistle to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople His 54. to Martianus the Emperour his 55. to Pulcheria the Empress his 62. to Maximus Bishop of Antioch in which Epistles he complains heavily that the Bishop of Constantinople was preferred to him of Alexandria Because Constantinople was the seat of the Emperor he fore-saw being a man of great Spirit and foresight that in the end for the same reason the Bishop of Constantinople would be preferred to the Bishop of Rome which accordingly fell out as shal be proved lib 4. And thus it appeareth with how little integrity our adversaries object the Council of Chalcedon to prove that Peter was the Rock meaned by our Savior in these words Tu es Petrus c. By which proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon appears also what was the opinion of the general councils of Nice and Constantinople As for the sixth general Council commonly called Trullanum celebrated under Pogonatus the Emperor Anno 680. in its 36. Canon it confirms the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon totidem verbis By which it appears what was the opinion of the Church concerning Tu es Petrus in the end of the 7. age And so we have the opinion of the first second fourth and sixth general Councils that Peter is not the Rock upon which the Church is built As for the third general council of Ephesus and the fifth of Constantinople although in express words they make not all the Patriarchs of alike Jurisdiction Yet they made Canons expresly contradicting the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and consequently contradicting also Peter to be the Rock upon which the Church is built The council of Ephesus calls Celestine Bishop Rome Fellow-Minister It were a bold thing now in any Bishop to salute the Pope so Secondly they deposed John Patriarch of Antioch before ever they acquainted Celestine Bishop of Rome as appears by the Synodical Epistle Binius Tom. 1. page 806. Thirdly they ordained that neither the Patriarch of Antioch nor any other Bishop ergo not the Bishop of Rome should take upon him to ordain Bishops in the Isle of Cyprus Binius Tom. 26. pag. 768. As for the fifth general council of Constantinople it rejudged the cause of Anthimius after he had first been judged by Aggapetus Bishop of Rome Binius in his notes upon that council Tom 2. pag 416. Secondly it condemned Vigilius Bishop of Rome and yet in the end the said Vigilius approved the said council Baronius Anno 553. Binius in the place fore-mentioned And thus ye have the opinion of the six first general councils concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome by reason of his succession to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church By which passages it appears that the sixth first general councils meaned nothing lesse then that Peter was the Rock upon which the Church was built or that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church in those words Tu es Petrus It shal likewise be proved lib. 5. That the seventh general council Anno 790. and the 8. Anno 870. had as little regard to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome The first of which condemned Pope Honorius as an Heretick and the last approved of it And thus we have the opinion of the whole Church concerning Tu en Petrus the first 900. year after Christ all which time it was no
over the Church And lest it should seem to be a wilful denyal they give these following reasons why Peter is not ordained Oecumenick Bishop in these words Or why the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven inferr no universal Jurisdiction over the Church in the person of Peter alone The first reason is this the power of the keys is only a forgiving or remitting of sins or not remitting them or a binding and loosing as appears by the testimony of Augustinus in his 52. Treatise upon John of Theophylactus on Matthew 16. 19. of Anselmus ibid. But none calls in question but binding and loosing is a different thing from the power oâ— an Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin instances lib. 1. cap. 13. de pont Rom. that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church which he proves by three arguments The first is from the Metaphor of keyes Isaiah 21. where Shebna is threatned to have the keys of the Temple taken from him to be given to Eliakim that is saith Bellarmin the government of the Temple or of the house of God But it is answered Bellarmin is greatly mistaken for according to the Hebrew Shebna was not Perfect of the Temple but only of the Kings house Bellarmin is deceived by the Latin version turning it Tabernacle whereas Aben Ezra calls it Master of the Kings house the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they call Shebna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Treasaurer or Master-houshold that is the true interpretation as appears by Kings 2. cap. 18. in which place Eliakim who succeeded to Shebna in that charge is called by the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oeconomus or Master-houshold Shebna is called there a Scribe which place he obtained after the keys of the Kings house were taken from him and given to Eliakim However it is a very bad argument of Bellarmins When Shebna had the keys of the Kings house the government of the house was taken from him when they were taken away Ergo When Peter get the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ he was made sole governor of the whole Church Bellarmin should observe that keys are given sometime by an Inferior to a Superior although that be but a new invention or ceremony yet it is an acknowledgement of authority as when a King entring a Town the keys are delivered to him But when keys are given by a Superior to an Inferior chief Jurisdiction is no wayes denoted But Bellarmin will not deny that Christ was Superior to Peter And whereas it is objected that Christ hath the key of David in the Apocalyps that is jurisdiction of the Church It is answered the case is different none calls the jurisdiction of Christ in question neither had he the keys from any greater then himself Bellarmins second argument is That the keys import binding and loosing that is inflicting of punishment and dispensing with obligations of the Law which is supream Jurisdiction over the Church And consequently Peter in these words is instituted Oecumenick Bishop But it is answered That binding and loosing import no supream Jurisdiction as appears by its being common to all the Officers of the Church as well as to Peter it consists in bidding forbidding punishing by Spiritual Censures and Relaxations from them which are common to all Church-Officers as shal immediatly be proved In the third place Bellarmin proves that our Savior promising to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven promised to him alone the government of the whole Church by the testimonies of Fathers The first testimony of Chrysostomus hom 55. on Matthew affirming that to Peter the whole world was committed and that he was made head and Pastor of the whole Church But it is answered It is false that either Chrysostomus affirms the whole world was committed to Peter or that he was head of the Church Bellarmin followeth the corrupt version of Trapezuntius in which he sophisticats manifoldly the words of Chrysostom are comparing Hieremas with Peter Quemadmodum pater Hieremam alloqueus dixit Instar colunae aneae muâ—i posui eum sed illum quidem uni genti hunc verototi orbi In these words Chrysostomus is comparing the Prophet with Peter as the Lord saith he put Hieremas as a wall of brass to one Nation viz. the Jews sc Peter was made a wall of brass to the whole world But Chrysostom speaks not a word of Hieremias being set over the Jews with Jurisdiction and consequently if the comparison hold Peter was not set over the whole world with Jurisdiction which is the first sophistry of Bellarmin following Trapezuntius in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 posâ—it eum placed him Trapezuntius renders praeposuit set him over which is not in the Appodosis of Peter The second corruption is that Trapezuntius adds of his own Cujus caput piscator homo whose head was a Fisher-man It is true indeed a little before these words Chrysostom calls Peter Pastor of the Church but that 's nothing to an Oceumenick Bishop for any Apostle may be called Pastor of the Church as shal be proved afterwards in this Book Bellarmins second testimony is of Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist 32. Where speaking of Peter he affirms the care of the whole Church was committed to him and that he was Prince of the Apostles But it is answered In what sense Gregorius affirms so shal be shewed at length hereafter where it shal be proved first that others were called Princes of the Apostles beside Peter and that the care of the whole Church was committed to others also who were not Oecumenick Bishops Secondly the impudence of Bellarmin is very great in objecting this place of Gregorius in which he is thundering with great execrations and detestation against any who taketh upon him the tittle of Oecumenick Bishop calling that tittle new Pompatick Blasphemous against the mandats of Christ the Canons of the Apostles and Constitutions of the Church And among other reasons against that title of universal Oecumenick Bishop he objects this as one If any took upon him that title Peter had reason to take it but he had not that tittle although the care of the whole Church was committed to him then this impudence of Bellarmin no greater can be imaginable Gregory expresly denyes it to follow that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop although the care of the whole Church was committed to him Bellarmin mutilats his passage and makes him conclude that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop because the care of the whole Church was committed to him He cites this part of Gregories assertion the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter but he suppresseth the other half of his assertion that Peter was not universal Apostle and most impudently fathers a contradictory conclusion upon Gregory Ergo Peter was Oecumenick Bishop And thus much of the first reason wherefore Protestants deny that the power of the keyes imports no universal
the Church was built upon all the Apostles as well as upon Peter Secondly That the keys were common to all the Apostles he proves by John 20 23. whereby it is evident that the said place is the same in meaning with Matthew 16. in which he flatly contradicts Bellarmin who confidently affirmed that without all doubt forgiving and retaining of sins mentioned John 20. 23. was not the same thing with binding and loosing Matthew 6. 19. Thirdly Cyprianus de Vnitate Ecclesiae expresly affirms That Christ gave alike power to all his Apostles Iohn 20. 23. in these words Accipite Spiritum Sanctum si cujus remiseritis peccata c. Receive the Holy Ghost whosesoever sins ye shal forgive they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained and since all the Apostles according to Cyprianus had alike power given them after the Resurrection of Christ by John 20. 23. without all question he believed that the same power of the keys was given to all the Apostles which was given to Peter Matthew 16. The second Reason Why those distinctions of Polus Maldonatus Stapleton and Bellarmin and others or new devised evasions is unanswerable viz. It appears by the Fathers that no greater Ecclesiastical power imaginable could be given to any then that which was given to all the Apostles in Matthew 18 and John 20. which quite destroys all those sophistical distinctions tending all to this That the power given to Peter was greater Matthew 16. 19 then that given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20. That no greater power can be imagined then that which was given to all the Apostles is proved by the testimony of Chrysostomus lib. 3. cap. 5. de Sacerdotio Where speaking of that power of the keys given to all the Apostles yea and to all Bishops he falls to an interrogative exclamation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is I pray you what greater power can be given then this But this had been a most ridiculous interrogation in Chrysostomus if either he himself or any other had believed that the power of the keys promised to Peter Matthew 16. was greater then that promised to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20. And thus much of the testimonies of those Fathers proving directly that the keyes were given to others as well as to Peter Now followeth the testimonies of Fathers proving by consequence that the keyes Matthew 16. were not peculiar to Peter out of which testimonies three arguments are deduced The first is If Peter alone had the power of the keyes promised to him Matthew 16. Then Peter would only have exercised the keyes and no other beside him in such a high-way as he did But it appears by the testimony of Gaudentius primae de ordinationis suae that all the Apostles as well as Peter practised the keys viz. in teaching baptizing censuring Yea Salmeron the Jesuit in his Commentars upon 1. of Peter 1. disput 1. expresly affirms That Peter seemed to neglect his duty in the exercise of the keyes it so little appeared by his carriage and practise that he had any Jurisdiction over the other Apostles Where observe the impudent shift of the Jesuit who being pressed by the carriage of Peter that no token of his Supremacy appeared hath nothing to answer but that it was his own neglest which if it be true was great unfaithfulness of Peter if it be false as it is it is great impudence in the Jesuit The second argument taken from the Fathers proving consequentially that the other Apostles were promised the keyes as well as Peter is taken from Augustinus who affirms That Peter represented the whole Church when Christ promised him the keyes and so by consequence in Peter the other Apostles and all Pastors of the Church had the keyes promised unto them the words of Augustinus are those following in his 124. trâ—â—â—at upon John Quando Petro dictum est tibi dabo claves regni coelorum quodcunque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in coelis universam significabat Ecclesiam And a little after Ecclesia Ergo quae fundatur in Christo claves ab co regni Coelorum accepit in Petro id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata In which words he expresly affirms That Peter was a figure of the whole Church when our Savior promised him the keyes and therefore in Peter the keyes were given to the whole Church and not to Peter alone Our adversaries pussed with this testimony of Augustinus after their accustomed manner fall to their new devised distinctions explaining how the keyes were given to Peter representing the whole Church Or how they were given to the whole Church in Peter And first Horantius lib. 6. cap. 10. Locor Cathol affirms That the keys were given to the whole Church in Peter that is saith he They were given to Peter for the good of the whole Church as when any is made King of any Nation the Kingdom or Kingly Authority is given to him for the good of the whole Nation and so Peter as Prince of the Church had the keyes given unto him for the good of the whole Church and in this manner the keyes were given to the whole Church in Peter But it is answered Horantius his Gloss is far beside the Text of Augustiuus who expresly disputs The keyes were not given to Peter alone but to the whole Church for if they were only given to Peter the whole Church would not have exercised them he disputs so tractat 50. upon John and therefore concluds that the keyes were not given alone to Peter because the whole Church exercised them as well as Peter Augustinus doth not disput for what end the keyes were given but to whom also this Gloss of Horantius expresly contradicts Augustinus Horantius affirms That the keyes in the same manner were given to the whole Church in Peter as when any is made King of a Nation the Authority of a King is given to the whole Nation that is saith he He who is made King gets that Authority for the good of the whole Nation which is a flat contradiction of Augustinus for that Nation or whole Nation cannot be said to exercise the Kingly Authority when he who is made King gets it But Augustinus expresly disputs That the whole Church exercised the keyes as well as Peter and therefore the keyes were given to the whole Church in Peter otherwise saith he The whole Church would not have exercised them tractat 50. His words are If Peter had not represented the Church our Lord had not said unto him I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven For if that only was said to Peter The Church hath no power of binding or loosing and since the Church hath that power Peter was the Sacrament or Figure of the whole Church or mistically represented the whole Church when our Savior promised to him the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and
feed But it is notorious that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports no dominion at all but only Ministration of food Secondly albeit there were such a Mystery in the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to signify Jurisdiction Yet it is injoyned to Peter over the Flock only and not over the Pastors which doth not conclude an Oecumenick Bishop to whom Bellarmin gives authority of feeding the Pastors as well as the Flock Bellarmins second reason by which he proves that supream authority is given to Peter by these words of our Savior Feed my Sheep is because several Fathers calls that which was injoyned to Peter in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praefecturam or A having authority over the Flock of Christ So Chrysostomus lib. 2. de Sacerdotio and Augustnius on John 21. But it is answered Chrysostom is disputing there of the Priesthood which is common to all Priests and not of an Oecumenick Bishop Neither can it be denyed that any Bishop hath that authority over his own Flock which is mentioned by Chrysostom in that place viz. Governing and Chastising which is also the meaning of Augustinus Bellarmin cites an other testimony of Gregorius de cura Pastorali where Pastors are called by him Rectors but his meaning is the same as appears by the scope of his disput needless to be inserted he is enumerating these duties belonging to a Pastor amongst which he doth not mention one peculiar to an Oecumenick Bishop and which is not common to all Pastors Bellarmin useth other reasons besides these two which in effect are the same with his first reason It is very ordinar with him to repeat the same arguments in other words to make ignorants believe that his Army is numerous The second reason wherefore our Savior in these words Feed my Sheep injoyns no universal jurisdiction over the Church is because he injoyns the same to others beside Peter Which is proved First by Scripture Secondly by Fathers The passages of Scripture are John 20. 21. where our Savior affirmeth As my Father sent me so send I you Which words are expounded by Cyrillus lib. 12. in John by Chrysostomus hom 85. upon John By Theophylactus upon this place to this purpose viz. Cyrillus affirms That all the Apostles were ordained Doctors of the whole World to inlighten not only the Jews but all the Nations of the World Chrysostomus and Theophylactus interpret these words That Christ injoyned his own work unto all the Apostles The second passage of Scripture is Matthew 28. 19. Go therefore and teach all Nations◠the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Teach imports all the authority that a Master hath over his Disciples viz. To Govern them to Chastise them and not only to teach them And consequently is of as large an extent as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed Of which Bellarmin brags so much And thus much of Scripture In the next place it is proved by Antiquity that nothing peculiar was imagined to Peter in these words Feed my Sheep The first testimony is from the third Epistle amongst these of Cyprian in which the Clergy of Rome speaks thus to the Clergy of Carthage Sed Simoni sic dicit diligis me respondit diligo Ait ei pasce oves meas Hoc verbum factum ex ipso actu quo cessit agnoscimus caeteri Discipuli similiter By which words it appears that it was the opinion of the Clergy of Rome in the days of Cyprian That the feeding of the Flock of Christ was injoyned to others viz. to all the Apostles as well as to Peter Cyprianus himself de Vnitate Ecclesiae They are all Pastors but the Flock is one which all the Apostles feed with one consent and a little before immediatly after he had cited these words of our Savior Feed my Sheep he subjoyns That Christ gave to all the Apostles alike power after his Resurrection Augustinus tract 123. upon John Chrysostomus de Sacerdotio lib. 2. Basilius cap. 22. of the Constitution of Monks all expresly affirm That the feeding of the Flock of Christ was committed to all Pastors and Bishops by our Savior in these words It is needless to set down the words of these Fathers since these testimonies are granted by our Adversaries who notwithstanding of them endeavor so to prove that these words of our Savior were in a peculiar manner directed to Peter So Bellarmin and Sanderus they reason thus First Bellarmin takes much pains to prove that our Savior directed his speech only to Peter which none denys Quid tum postea He instances that the rest are excluded by these words of our Savior Lovest thou me more then those By the three-fold reiteration of that question by these words of our Savior when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and by these words of Peter verse 21. Lord what shal this man do And of the answer of Christ What is that to thee Follow thou me But say they Peter would never have asked what John should do If Christ had said to John Feed my Sheep neither would the Lord have answered What is that to thee Follow thou me but he would have answered He shal feed my sheep as thou shalt But it is answered All this reasoning is nothing else but a rible rable of sophistry First Bellarmin sophisticats in stateing of the question as if Protestants denyed that these words of our Savior were directed to Peter alone And therefore he proves by all those circumstances foresaid that our Savior spoke only to Peter which none denys The thing which is denyed is the consequence or it doth not follow That the feeding of the Flock of Christ was only committed to Peter because the words of our Savior were only directed to him no more then it followeth That Adam and Eve should only increase and multiply because God directed his speech to them only Secondly Bellarmin doth not consider for what reason our Savior directed his speech to Peter only in these words Feed my Sheep It was not because it was his intention to give to Peter Jurisdiction over the whole Church but for other two reasons The First is because Peter had thrice denyed him so Cyrillus in John lib. 12. cap. 64. who affirms so much And likewise Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 1. epist 103. and also epist 356. and Nazianzenus in his Oration in Sancta Lumina hath these words Christ admitted Peter an Apostle again and healed his threefold denying of him by a threefold interrogation to which Peter made a threefold confession by which words an other reason appears wherefore our Savior directed his speech to Peter alone viz. To restore him to his Apostleship which he had lost by denying Christ Cyrillus in the foresaid place affirms Although all the Disciples were sore afraid and ran away when Christ was apprehended yet the crime of Peter was greatest because he denyed him thrice in so short a time where he
Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to absolve Subjects from their Oaths of fidelity to their natural Princes to command them to fight against them and consequently to kill them that all are oblieged to acknowledge him for their natural Prince whom the Pope shal appoint It is taught also in that Church That the Pope is direct Monarch of the whole World both in Spirituals and Temporals So Bozius lib. 10. de signs Ecclesiae and Carerius de potestate Papae and all the Canonists they teach also That a Pope deposing a King without any reason but his will doth him no wrong because he takes only what is his own from him As a King doth no wrong to the Governor of a Province when he gives his government to another Subject Although the former have done no offence as is maintained by Thomas Bozius lib. 3. cap 4 de jure status Here our Romish Emissaries in Scotland endeavor to perswade their Proselytes that this doctrine of deposing Kings is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome but only of some particular Persons whom they call the Popes Flatterers But is replyed that those Gentle-men are either not well versed in their own principles or else they are like Father Cotton the Jesuite who being demanded by the Parliament of Paris If he believed that the Popes had power to depose Kings Answered He did not believe it in France but if he were at Rome he would believe it However that it is to the doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings is proved by these following reasons which will puzle those gentlemen very sore to answer The first is this innumerable Books are Printed teaching this doctrine and yet are Printed by authority and licence as containing no doctrine contrair to the true Catholick doctrine of the Church of Rome Ergo the deposing of Kings by the Pope is the true Catholick doctrine of the Church of Rome since a doctrine which is not contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Rome must of necessity be the doctrine of the Church of Rome The second reason is this All the Roman Doctors unanimously maintain except some few who dare not set out their Head that whatever the Pope and his Cardinals discern in a Conclave is of equal if not of a Superior Authority with that which is decreed in a General Council but the Conclave at Rome gives unto the Pope power of deposing Kings Ergo it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome That such power is given to the Pope by the Conclave appears by innumerable bulls as that of Gregory 7. against Henry the 4. Emperor That of Paul the third against Henry the 8. of England Of Paul the 5. against Queen Elizabeth Of Sixtus the 5. against Henry 3. and 4. Kings of France The third reason is this Every one is bound to believe that to be the true Doctrine of the Church of Rome which the Pope teacheth in Cathedra in which case they maintain he is infallible But the Pope teacheth in Cathedra that he hath power to depose Kings by his decretal bulls obliging the whole Church as is notorious in which he assums to himself that power as appears by innumerable of his Bulls especially by those now mentioned against the Emperor Kings of England France in which he expresly assumes unto himself authority of building or aedificandi of casting down or demoliendi of planting plantandi of rooting out eradicandi transferendi of transferring Kingdoms at his pleasure In some of which Bulls also he applyeth to himself those words of the Prophet Per me Reges regnant By me Kings reign which is notorious blasphemy And thus we have proved against those Gentlemen that they are mistaken in denying that is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which giveth authority unto the Pope to depose Kings They are not yet satisfied as appears by two objections made by one of those Gentlemen to my self The first was this that I could not instruct that it was the Doctrine of any General Council that the Pope hath power to depose Kings and consequently I could not make out it was the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome To which objection I answered First that I had made it out That it was the doctrine of Popes in Cathedra and consequently I had made it out that he and all other Romanists were obliged to believe it as an Article of Faith He told me plainly he did much doubt of that neither was he of that opinion That the Pope could not err in cathedra but still pressed me to prove it by the Authority of some General Council protesting he detested that doctrine as unsound I desired him to read Baronius anno 1072. and he would find that the Emperor Henry the 4. was exautorated by a Council at Rome num 16 17 18. and by another at Collen 1118. num 20. and by another at Fritislar ibid. The Gentleman answered very pertinently That these were only petty particular Councils but he desired the authority of a General Council I desired him to read Baronius ad an num 1102. num 1 2 3. and also the same Author 1116. num 5. and also anno 1119. Where he will find that doctrine to be the doctrine of General Councils especially that of Lateran anno 1116. is called a General Council by Baronius Likewise I desired him to read Bzovius anno 1245. num 4. The Council of Lions in the tombs of Councils tom 28. pag. 431. The decretals sext de sententiâ re judicata ad Apostolica where he would find that the Emperor Frederick the second was deprived or declared to be deprived and his subjects quit from their Oaths of Allegiance by Innocentius 4. in the Council of Lions I desired him also to read an Act of a General Council at Lateran under Innocent third where he would find that doctrine or that power of Deposing Kings attributed to the Pope which Act he would find in Bzovius anno 1215. Paragraph 3. in Binnius and Crab in their collection of Councils C. l 3. and in Gregorius de haeret C. excommunicamus I desired him also to read Ses 25. Canon 19. of the Council of Trent where he would find that power of the Popes so intelligibly asserted and consequentially although not expesly that it was one of the main reasons for which the Kingdom of France stood out against that Council of Trent rejecting its Authority By the said Canon any Dominus fundi is deprived of the Dominion of it if a düel be fought in it and since a King is comprehended under Dominus fundi the Council takes upon it to deprive him of a part of his Kingdom but if they have power to deprive him of a part by the same reason they take upon them power to take his whole Kingdom from him And this way I answered his first objection viz. that it could be instructed by Act of
no Council that the Pope had power to depose Kings and consequently it was not the doctrine of the Church of Rome His second objection was that notwithstanding all this it was not the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome because all the Church of France rejected it as a pernicious doctrine I answered this objection by a two-fold distinction The first of times viz. When the King of France was low and the Pope high The second distinction was of causes wherefore Kings are deposed one of which and the main one was heresie I desired him to read history and he would find that when the Kings of France were low and their Kings suspected of heresie that it was the doctrine of the whole Clergy of France that the Pope had power of deposing such Kings at such times for proving of which I desired him to read first a decree of the Sorbon printed at Paris in which they approved the bulls of Sixtus 5. excommunicating and deposing Henry 3 4. Kings of France I desired him secondly to read that speech of Cardinal Peron in the name of the Clergy of France as their Speaker in an Assembly of the Estates in which speech he openly maintains That it is the opinion of the whole Church of France and ever was that Heretical Kings that is Protestants ought to be deposed that the Pope had power to depose them and that true French-men ought them no allegiance And thus much of the Popes power in temporals by the way it shal be more largely disputed God willing part 3. lib. 2 what we have said is sufficient to prove That the Dominion of the Bishop of Rome is tyrannical and consequently according to their own confession forbidden Peter 1. 5 3. The third particular of the tyrannical Domination of the Bishop of Rome is over souls departed The fourth is over Angels Both which usurpations appear by the Bull of Clement sixth proclaiming a Jubile The words of the Bull are these Concedimus si confessus in via moriatur ut ab omnibus peccatis suis sit immunis penitus absolutus mandamus Angelis ut animam è purgatorio penitùs absolutam in Paradisi gloriam introducant And in another Bull Nolumus ut paena inferni illi infligatur concedens cruce signatis ad eorum vota tres aut quatuor animas quas volunt ex purgatorio posse eripere in which Bulls he takes upon him to command Angels and to place Souls in heaven or hell as he pleaseth The 5. particular proving the tyranny of the dominon of the Bishop of Rome is in assuming divin power to himself So Nicolaus 2. in Gratianus dist 96. Satis evidenter Where he affirms That the Pope cannot be Judged by any Secular Prince because the Pope was called God by Constantine but God cannot be judged by man Likewise Bonifacius 8. 6. decret de electione C. fundamenta affirms That S. Peter was assumed in the fellowship of the individual Trinity and consequently the Bishop of Rome hath the same priviledge as Peters Successor So Glossa extravag C. antiquae de voto Where speaking of Matrimony held by the Church of Rome to be a Sacrament of divine Institution a doubt is moved how that vow made in Matrimony can be dissolved by a Constitution of the Church Since it was made solemnly to God The Glossator answers the doubt That it cannot be made void by a meer man but only by the Pope who is not a meer man but Gods Vicar Thirdly he usurps Divinity in making the Decretal Epistles or the Canon law of equal authority with the Scripture So Gratianus distinct 19. C. in Canonicis expresly affirms so much Innumerable examples might be afforded of this kind but those are sufficient The sixth and last particular of the Tyranny of the Domination of the Bishop of Rome is his hearing patientissimis auribus without offence biasphemous titles attributed to him in Orations Books and Pamphlets printed by his Authority which is all one as he had stiled himself by those titles So by the Gloss in the Canon Law he is called our Lord God the Pope as is found in those Editions printed at Lions 1584. and at Paris 1585. 1601. 1612. All which Editions were set out after Gregory 13. had corrected the Canon Law the words are Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam Conditorem dictae decretalis non sic potuisse statuere prout statuit haereticum censeatur extravagant John 22. tit 14. de verb. sig cap. 4. c. We could produce innumerable such but it were tedious yet we cannot omit that blasphemous Pamphlet presented to Innocent the 10. who before his Popedom was called Cardinal Pamphilius The scope of which Pamphlet is to compare the Pope whom he calleth Pamphilius with Christ whom he calleth Philius To be short he preferrs the Pope to Christ in most horrible manner and yet the Pope was no wise offended at that flâ—ttery It seems he understood not what Blasphemy meant for an other time being desired to hear a Theological Controversie between the Jansenists and Molinists disputed before him that he might determin it He answer ed He was an old man it did not belong to his profession and he had never studied Divinity as is reported by S. Amour in his journal where he affirms He heard the Pope affirm so publickly And thus much of Peter 1. 5. 3. The first Argument of Protestants against Peters institution of Oecumenick Bishop we have proved two things in the vindication of that passage The first is that not only tyrannical Domination but all sort of Domination is forbidden in that place The second is although it were granted that only tyrannical Domination in Church-men were forbidden in the same place yet it quite overthrows the institution of an Oecumenick Bishop which we have proved to be most tyrannical and that by six arguments which in effect amongst Candide men are unanswerable CHAP. XII The Supremacy of Peter assaulted from Ephesians 1. 22. 4. 23. 5. 23. And Colossians 1 18. IN the former Chapter we assaulted the Institution of Peter in that Oecumenick Bishoprick by the testimony of Peter himself forbidding all sort of Lording or Domination in Church men where we also proved two things First that not only tyrannical Domination was forbidden by the Apostle in Church Rulers but all Domination Secondly although tyrannical Lording had only been forbidden nevertheless the injunction of the Apostle inhibited That Lording assumed by the Bishop of Rome now to himself proving by demonstrative arguments that the power of the Bishop of Rome now-a-dayes was not only tyrannical but blasphemous and a right-down Gigantomachy which shal more largely be proved part 4. lib. 1. In this following chapter we make use of a second argument against the institution of Peter in that universal Bishoprick by Christ viz. it appears by these Scriptures mentioned in the title That Christ is the Head of the Church and if Peter were
therefore are not the true Lights And since Christ is the true Light and men are not the true Lights it is evident that the title of Light is attributed to both by a Homonymy In the next place comes Foundation Prophets and Apostles are called Foundations two wayes And first Tertullianus lib. 4. cap. 39. against Marcion Chrysostomus Oecumenius Theophylactus interpret these words of Paul super fundamenta Prophetarum Apostolorum as if the Prophets and Apostles themselves were Foundations But it is certain they cannot be called so but only by reason of their Ministry that is in so far as they were Ministers of founding Churches as is confessed by Justinianus the Jesuite who affirms That the faith of the Ephesians was built upon the testimony of the Old and New Testament that is by a Metonymy but Christ is not that way called Foundation and therefore the title of Foundation is attributed by a Homonymy to Christ and the Apostles and Prophets and in that sense the Apostle Paul denyeth that there is any Foundation but Christ Others interpret the meaning of Paul calling the Apostles and Prophets Foundations to be that they preached the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament which is the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets viz. which they did lay So the interlinear and ordinar gloss following Ambrosius and Anselmus so also Lyranus Aquinas Lombardus Cajetanus Gagnaeus the Jesuite and Salmero In what ever sense Foundation be taken it is properly attributed to Christ improperly by a Homonymy to men Bellarmins last tittle is GOD Men are called Gods saith he Psalm 82. and since they are so called why may not a man be called Head of the Church But it is answered First Kings and Judges are not called Gods there but only that men judged so of them because of their flourishing estate so that Fgo dixi Dii estis are not the words of GOD but of the Psalmist himself as dâ—vers learned men gather from the text Others think that the Psalmist is speaking of the Angels However albeit the title of GOD were attributed to Kings and Judges it doth not follow that the title of Head of the Church may be attributed to men because the title of GOD is attributed to men abusively by a too high strained Metaphor But Bellarmin and his fellows endeavor to maintain that the Bishop of Rome is properly head of the Church as a King is head of his Kingdom And in this manner Bellarmin undertakes to prove that it is not injurious to Christ that any should take upon him the title of Head of the Church In the next place he goes a step higher endeavoring to prove That a visible head of the Church sets forth the glory of Christ as the glory of a King is augmented by a Victory But it is answered When a Viceroy intruds himself without a Commission upon a Province he is so far from setting forth the glory of his King that he eclipseth it by neglecting of his authority and proves a Rebel Let Bellarmin instruct if he can in what place of Scripture any hath commission to be visible head of the Church under Christ We proved in the former chapters that what he alledged in the behalf of Peter was new devised Sophistry contradicting Scripture Antiquity and of no great moment to prove the supremacy of Peter in the opinion of the most learned Antiquaries which ever the Church of Rome produced Secondly Bellarmins visible head of the Church carrys himself not like a Viceroy but like a King which must be injurious to the true Head of the Church Yea Bellarmin himself endeavors to prove that the said secondary head reigns in the Church as a King doth in a Kingdom Neither can the Bishop of Rome be said to be Viceroy to Christ otherwise in the government of the Church then a King is Viceroy to GOD in the government of a Kingdom But Kings are absolute and not Viceroys and therefore that visible head of the Church is absolute also being subordinate no otherwise to Christ then Kings are to GOD. Thirdly when a Viceroy takes upon him to go beyond his commission or to govern contrair to the law of his King he wrongs the authority of his King and no wayes sets forth his glory But Bellarmins visible and secundary head takes upon him to dispence with the Law of GOD as we shewed in the former chapter proving that he took power upon him to make Justice Injustice and Injustice Justice In the third place Bellarmin goes a step higher yet and endeavors to prove that a secundary visible head is necessar for the Church because saith he in the absence of Christ the Church cannot be contained in Vnity unless it be governed by one visible head under Christ But it is answered Stillgood that assertion of Bellarmins if not blasphemous is notoriously false viz. That the Church cannot be contained in Vnity by Christ alone unless a visible head be joyned with him Which contradicts Scripture which in every place attributes the cause of that Unity of the Church to Christ alone So John 17. That they may be one in us and Rom. 10. We many are one body in Christ and Gal. 3. Ye are all one in Christ and the reason is evident because that Unity is Spiritual Ephes 4. Studying to keep the unity of the Spirit See also 1. Corinth 12. and Philip 1. By which places it appears that the Invisible and Spiritual presence of Christ alone preserves the Church in Unity which is also granted by many famous Roman Doctors who prove the infallibility of the Church to depend upon this promise of Christ viz. That he would be present with them to the end of the World We have heard Bellarmin disputing for a visible head and proving that it is not derogatory to the honor of Christ We will now examine an argument of Sanderus that famous English Jesuite who proves that it conduceth to the glory of Christ that the Church should have a visible head because saith he More ways of Preaching that glory of Christ are by a visible head then without it But it is answered to omit the inconsequence of that argument we deny the Antecedent or distinguisheth it viz. These ways of Preaching Christ only illustrat his glory which are ordained by himself which a visible head is not Sanderus instances Rulers of particular Churches or Bishops are called Heads of their respective Churches under Christ by Gregorius Magnus and other Fathers Ergo why may there not be one visible head of all the Church under Christ But it is answered First if Sanderus had objected that argument to Gregorius Magnus himself he would have denyed it to follow for although he seems to call Bishops heads of particular Churches yet he detests an universal head as we shewed before as injurious to Christ. Secondly when Gregorius calls Bishops heads of the Church he speaks abusively and improperly and without any warrand in Scripture And thus
69. affirms the reason was Because Peter and Christ was then together alone He is not so subtile as Bellarmin to gather any supremacy of Peter from those words The truth is both Peter and our Savior dwelt at Capernaum as may be gathered from Matthew 9. 1. Mark 2. 1. Luke 4. 31. 38. And it is very like that our Savior was then in the house of Peter to which he went out of the Synagogue Luke 4. 38. and being Peters Guest and Master also payed for him ye may see by hunting this prerogative how they scrape Sophistry out of the fire to prove the supremacy of Peter The seventh prerogative is two miracles in fishing Luke 5. 3. and John 21. 6. If ye demand what can be gathered from these miracles They tell you Christ taught in Peters ship and Peters ship was the Church and since Peter was head of his own ship he was also head of the Church But it is answered How know they that the ship was Peters Salmero the Jesuit doubts he was so rich And so that argument falls a will except they prove that the ship was Peters It is admirable to consider how Bellarmin plungeth himself in Sophistry distilling the supremacy of Peter from the lymbick of his brains by wilde allegories that the Readeâ— may laugh It will not be amiss to anatomize his Dispute First He affirms these two miracles of Fishing both signify the Church that of Luke 5. the Church Militant because it was before the Resurrection that of John 21. the Church Triumphant because it was after the Resurrection He adds an other reason in the first Fishing our Savior bidâ— them only make ready their nets for the fishing In the second he injoyns them to cast out the net upon their right hand Who doubts but the Church Militant is signified by the first Fishing Because in it both good and bad are received what ever side of the ship the net be cast from And who can call it in question that the second fishing signifies the Church Triumphant In which only the good are comprehended since the Apostles are injoyned To cast out the net on the right side of the ship still good but better followeth In the first fishing the nets do break denotating the Schisms and Heresies of the Church Militant In the second the nets did not breaâ— at all which signifyeth The Vnity of the Church Triumphant Learned subtility follows In the first fishing the number of the fish is not determinated which were catched signifying or fulfilling that passage of the Psalm I spake and they were multiplyed without number which is a clear demonstration That the Church Militant is represented by that fishing But in the second fishing the caught fish were precisely 153. By which it is no less evident that in it The Church Triumphant is represented Lastly If any obstinat Heretick be not convinced by these former reasons that in these two fishings the Church Militant and Triumphant are represented they cannot but be convinced by this following reason viz. In the first fishing the fish were taken in the ship Luke 5. But in the second John 21. The fish were not taken in the ship but drawn a shore in the net The first signifying The fluctuating of the Church Militant receiving indifferently all The second The stability of the Church Triumphant receiving none but the Elect. Upon those irrefragable principles Bellarmin demonstrats the supremacy of Peter thus Since saith he Both these fishings represent the Church and Peter is the chief Fisher of them both Who but an Heretick will deny that Peter is head of the Church And as if there were no more to prove but that Peter was the Master-Fisher he falls to the proving of it First Our Savior seeing more ships on the shore entred that of Peters and not the rest Secondly He bade Peter lanch out and make ready the nets Thirdly He said to Peter Fear not after this thou shalt be a Fisher of men and thus way he proves Peter to be Master Fisher in the first Fishing That he was also in the second he proves First because Peter affirmed he was going a fishing and the rest said they would go with him Secondly Peter drew the net to the land It is needless to spend time in refuting has quisquilias any who would see Bellarmin and his fellows are exsibilated by Chamier let him read tom 1. lib. 11. cap. 17. from the beginning to num 10. The eight prerogative is taken from Luke 22. 32. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not therefore when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren If ye aske them What prerogative is here They tell you first that these words were spoken to Peter immediatly after our Savior had conferred the supremacy upon him In the former contention verse 26. confusedly and generally not naming him But now in these words he designs in particular Peter to be that person whom he called greatest amongst them verse 26. But it is replyed It was proved false cap. 14. that any person was ordained greatest among them Luke 22. 26. Secondly They build on this because Peter is injoyned by Christ to confirm his brethren therein But it is answered Confirming of brethren inferrs not an Oecumenick Bishop because Paul and Barnabas confirmed brethren Acts 14. 22. So Judas and Silas Acts 15. 32. Innumerable other particulars but it is needless to mention them might be produced And whereas they urge that the word confirm imports authority It is answered Sometime it doth but not supream authority however in this place it imports no authority at all but only good example So Theophylactus Twenim Petre conversus bonum exemplum sies poenitentiae omnibus nullúsque eorum qui in me credunt desperabit in te respiciens Where observe he makes that confirming nothing but by good example he shal confirm his brethren for in these words our Savior is meaning the Apostacy of Peter in his thrice denying him and so Theophylactus comments upon the place viz. that Peter shal confirm his Brethren by keeping them from despair of forgiveness although their sins were never so great since Christ pardoned him after so great a sin as denying him thrice This exposition of Theophylactus is the same with that of Ambrosius and Euthymius and Maldonat the Jesuit who upon this place hath these words Ambrosij Theophylacti Euthymij interpretatio mihi non displicet qui conversum exponunt â—peccato quo Christum negavit acta poenitentia quasi aliis de suó vulnere fecerit medicinam In which words the Jesuit expresly aquiesceth in the exposition of these Fathers Whence appears the notable sophistry of Bellarmin lib. 4. cap. 3. de pont Rom. who interprets these words of our Savior Therefore when thou art converted confirm thy brethren thus The sense saith he of these words is not that Peter repenting him of his sin or converted should confirm the Apostles by his example but this Thou whose faith
cannot be deficient when thou fees others vacillating convert thy self to them and confirm them They object many things here as that Theophylactus affirmeth That Peter after his repentance shal recover Primatum omnium and Praefecturam orbis that Ambrosius affirms Petrus Ecclesiae praeponitur postquaem tentatus à Diabolo est Augustinus also calls Peter Rectorem Ecclesiae cui claves Regni Coelorum creditae sunt But these objections are of no moment And first that Theophylactus affirms that Peter recovered the Primacy above all it is nothing For first the meaning is no other then that he hath a chief place in the Church in dignity not in Jurisdiction and it shal be proved cap. 19. 20. that not only the other Apostles are called Principes Primates but also Praefecti orbis and Rectores Ecclesiae The ninth Prerogative of Peter is that our Savior first of all appeared to him after his resurrection But it is answered first although it were true it is of no moment to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop Secondly it is notoriously false because he appeared to Mary Magdalene before ever he appeared to Peter Mark 16. 19. before ever he appeared to his own mother or to any of the Apostles If Bellarmin answer That Mary Magdalen was only a woman It is replyed It concluds Women had the Primacy over the Apostles if the Argument were of any force Secondly it is very probable that our Savior appeared to these two disciples going to Emmaus before he appeared to any of the Apostles for when they came back to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together then they affirmed that the Lord was risen indeed had appeared to Simon which is all that Bellarmin alledgeth to prove that Christ first appeared to Peter except that of 1 Corinth 15. He appeared unto Cephas and after that unto the eleven however albeit it be very probable that our Savior appeared to Peter before ever he appeared unto the other Apostles yet it concludes no more that Peter had Primacy over the the other Apostles then that those two Disciples going to Emmaus had primacy over them since he appeared unto them as well as unto Peter before ever he appeared to the other Apostles The tenth Prerogative is taken from John 13. when our Savior washing the Apostles feet did first wash those of Peter It is answered first Although it were true it is of no moment to prove Peter Oecumenick bishop Secondly it is only a conjecture of some Fathers that Peters feet were first washed it cannot begathered from the text at all Augustinus is of that opinion indeed and so is Nonnus in his Poetical paraphrase but other Fathers are against it as Chrysostomus Theophylactus Bellarmin urgeth here that those Fathers affirm That Judas only had his feet washed before Peter but what then Bellarmins reason is very bad concluding from that washing Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop since Judas was washed before him he instances Judas was a Traitor and none of the other Apostles would have suffered our Savior to wash their feet before these of Peters but only Judas But it is replyed First if there had been any my stery of Primacy in that washing of feet our Savior would never have washed the feet of Judas before those of Peter Secondly not only Origines and Ambrosius affirm That he washed the feet of other Apostles before those of Peter besides Judas but also Popish Doctors affirm the same as Aquinas Lyranus and Salmero the Jesuit The eleventh Prerogative is from John 21. 18. where our Savior saith to Peter But when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thine hands and another shal gird thee If ye demand what Prerogative is here They answer that in those words Christ shows to Peter what death he should die viz. That he should be crucified as himself was But it is answered First although it were true it doth not conclude Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop Secondly that our Savior foretold to Peter a violent death in those words is more then probable but that he foretold the death of the cross can no wayes be gathered from the words And whereas they insist upon stretching forth of hands it is of no moment since those words do not conclude stretching forth of hands upon the cross necessarily since ones hands are stretched out when they are bound which sort of stretching our Savior questionless means by as appears by these words When thou wast young thou girdedst thy self but when thou shalt be old thou shâ—lt streâ—ch forth thy hands and another shal gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldest not The Syrian Interpreter Alius cinget lumbos tuos shall gird thy loins Interlinear Gloss cinget vinoulis shal gird thy loins Lyranus convinced that stretching of hands was by Cords and not by Nails affirms That Peter was crucified being bound by cords upon the cross which is a very ridiculous fancy however that by stretching of hands is not meant crucifying but only binding appears by the following words and lead thee whither thou wouldest not It is notorious that they use not to lead one who is crucified already any where The twelfth Prerogative is from Acts 1. 15. And in those dayes Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples Here they gather great things First that Peter convocated the rest of the Apostles Ergo he was Oecumenick Bishop But first it is inconsequent although he had gathered them in one it doth not follow that he did so by authoriâ—y but only by advice and counsel Secondly it is notoriously false that Luke in that place affirms any such thing as that the Apostles were convocated by Peter The second thing they gather that Peter having proposed that one should be chosen in the place of Judas they all obeyed his command But it is answered Peter only uttered his opinion as any one of them might have done that such a thing was necessary and they followed his opinion It is ridiculous to collect â—â—om thence any authority of Peter over the rest Salmero the Jesuit collects that Peter represented Christ because Luke affirms He stood up in the midst of them But it is answered It follows likewise that the little child Mat. 18. and the man with the withered hand Mark 3. and Paul Ast. 27. Were visible heads of the Church That standing in the mids imports no authority of it self but rather a Ministrie appears by Luke 22. 27. where our Savior affirms He was in the mids of them as a servant The thirteenth Prerogative is from Acts 2. where after the Apostles had received the Holy-Ghost Peter first of all did promulgat the Gospel But it is answered First although it were true it is inconsequent to prove Peter visible head of the Church as is notorious Secondly it is false or at least not certain that Peter preached the Gospel first for Luke affirms Before that time the Apostles spake with tongues to the admiration of all the hearers
26. Mark 14. and Luke 22. As for Bellarmins other witnesses Nicephorus and Euthymius they have it from the said supposititious Euodius This Euodius was Patriarch of Antiochia immediatly after the times of the Apostles at least called so in a large sense For it shal be proved part 2. lib. 1. that no Patriarchs were established before the Council of Chalcedon Secondly Many of the Fathers expresly affirm That it is false that Christ baptized Peter So Euthymius himself after he had recited the opinion of Euodius Eulogius in Photius Biobliothec cap. 280. Tertullianus de Baptismo cap. 12. Chrysostomus on the Acts homil 1. who all affirm That Peter and the other Apostles were baptized by John the Baptist Augustinus epist 108. disputs this question whither John or Christ baptized the Apostles He is in doubt of it but inclines most to that opinion that they were baptized by Christ Nevertheless there is no prerogative in Peter there since he speaks of the Baptism of all the Apostles as well as Peter Thirdly Although Peter had been baptized by Christ alone and not the other Apostles it doth not conclude him to be Oecumenick Bishop The second Traditional prerogative is That only Peter was ordained Bishop by Christ and the other Apostles by Peter But it is answered It is a meer fable contradicted by Chrysostomus on Matthew hom 5. Who affirms That James first obtained a Bishoprick if that be true then he was a Bishop before Peter And if before Peter then he behoved to have been made Bishop by Christ since Peter could not make James a Bishop when he was not Bishop himself Secondly It shal be proved in the last chapter of the book that neither Peter nor any of the Apostles were Bishops properly but in a large sense as Bishop comprehends Apostle Acts 1. 20. and in that sense Christ himself is called a Bishop 1. Peter 25. The third Traditional prerogative is from Acts 8. Where Peter detected Simon Magus the tradition is that after that time the same Peter extinguished him But is answered Albeit it were true that Simon Magus was killed by Peter it doth not conclude him Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin instances That Simon Magus was Prince of Hereticks whom Peter killed Ergo Peter was Oecumenick Bishop who killed him But it is answered First Bellarmins Scholars at Rome may well approve of this way of disputation but it is laught at else where Secondly that argument would conclude Paul to be Oecumenick Bishop since Cyrillus Cathes 6. Sulpitius hist Sacr. lib. 2. Ambrosius sermon 66. attribute the killing of Simon Magus joyntly to Peter and Paul Thirdly That killing of Simon Magus by Peter seems to be a fable since those who reports it contradict other in the manner Hegesipus lib. 3. cap. 2. affirms That Simon Magus made wings to himself and fell a flying Clemens lib. 6. cap. 9. affirms That he had no wings but only was carried in the Air by Devils Sulpitius calls them two Devils Some of them saith Simon Magus brake his neck in the fall at the Prayer of Peter Others that he brake only his thigh-bone Finally All this story of Peter and Simon Magus depends upon Peters being at Rome but all the Ancients testimonies who testified Peter was at Rome depends upon the authority of Papias whom Eusebius discrives to be the author of many fables as shal be shewed at large in the last chapter of this book Where also it shal be proved by unanswerable presumptions that Peter was never at Rome and that all Bellarmins proofs to the contrair are of no moment The fourth Ttraditional prerogative of Peter is That Peter by the command of Christ fixed his Bishoprick at Rome which was the imperial City Ergo Peter was Oecumenick Bishop But it is answered First it doth not follow Secondly Bellarmin cannot prove by Scripture or Antiquity That Peter fixed his Bishoprick at Rome much less at the command of Christ Bellarmin instanceth 〈◊〉 authority of Leo serâ—â—n 1. de natali Petri Pauli But it is answered First Leo doth not affirm That Peter was injoyned to his Bishoprick at Rome but only to preach the Gospel as an Apostle his words are Quum Apostoli imbuendâ—â— Evangelio mundum distributis sibi terrarum partibus suscepissent Petrus Princeps Apostolici ordinis ad arcem Romani destinatur imperij But Paul went also to Rome for that end to preach the Gospel as an Apostle But this question if Peter were at Rome and Bishop of Rome Shal be disputed in the three last chapters of this book The fifth traditional prerogative of Peter is That Christ appeared to him at the end of his life or a little before he dyed and when Peter asked him whither he was going He answered he was come again to be crucified But it is answered First it contradicts Scripture affirming Acts 3. 21. That the Heavens must contain him until the day of Judgement Secondly the author of this fable is Hegesippus fasly believed to be him who lived in the days of the Apostles as Baronius affirms anno 69. num 7. Origines hom in John 37. calls it Appocryphal And albeit it were true it doth not conclude Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop for Bellarmin himself affirms That our Savior left the Heavens and coming unto the Air appeared unto Paul Acts 9 4. and so that argument would conclude Paul Oecumenick Bishop also Where marke how he is intangled when he affirms Christ appeared to Peter in Rome to prove that Peter was at Rome when it is objected to him Acts 3. 21. That the Heavens should contain Christ till the last day and thereâ—ore contradicts Scripture He answers Christ appeared to Paul in the Air. But here to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop he affirms That our Savior after his Ascension left Heavenbut once when he appeared 〈◊〉 Peter Else he loseth time in declaiming so much upon this prerogative For he must either deny that Christ appeared to Paul out of the Heaven or else he cannot affirm without Sophistry that Christs appearing to Peter is a prerogative The sixth traditional prerogative of Peter is That only these Churches were Patriarchal seats which were founded by Peter as Rome Alexandria and Antiochia But it is a notorious untruth For not only Jerusalem and Constantinople but also many other Cities were Patriarchal seats His proofs are shameless As first the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice which mentions only these three Patriarchal seats And likewise the Council of Chalcedon Action 16. But it is answered these Councils mention only these three in these Canons cited by Bellarmin but the Council of Nice mentions Jerusalem Canon 7. under the name of Aelia As for the Council of Chalcedon it mentions other Patriarchal seats in many places as Canon 28. it mentions him of Constantinople Likewise the second General Council of Constantinople mentions at least ten Patriarchal seats in the East Secondly if ye take the word Patriarch strictly it shal be proved part
Apostles The force of the argument consists in this that since they sent him or delegated him he had none and consequently he was not Oecumenick Bishop Secondly Herod did not delegate the wise men not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between which two verbs there is great difference the first signifying a sending with authority the second many times a dimission only as appears in several Classick Authors having the same signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Homier odyss 15. and other where Their third instance is from Joshua 22. Where the people sent Phine has the High-Priest to the Reubenites and Gadites Josephus also lib. 20. cap. 7. Antiquit. relats That Ishmael the High-Priest was sent to Nero by the people of the Jews But it is answered These instances are not to the purpose And first Phinehas was not High-Priest but only the Son of Eleazar the High-Priest it is great impudence in Stapleton to affirm he was High-Priest Bellarmin calls him not High-Priest but only Priest but he reasons from him as he were High Priest As for Ishmael Bellarmin takes no heed that he was sent as a Legat as Rufinus interprets but Bellarmin will not grant that Peter was sent as a Legat neither will he grant that Ishmael being a Legat was greater then these who sent him Bellarmin useth other instances of Paul and Barnabas sent Acts 15. from the Church of Antioch to Jerusalem who were the chief Doctors of the Church Whence saith he To be sent doth not import that these who sent them were greater then they But it is answered First The question is not whether the Apostles who sent Peter were greater then he But whether he was greater then they were We do not affirm The other Apostles were greater then Peter but only since they sent him as a Legat he was not greater then the other Apostles Secondly Acts 15. the Greek verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not used by Luke but the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a honorable deduction or dimission And so Cajetanus the Cardinal and Salmero the Jesuit interpret the place Fisher Bishop of Rochester affirms That Pius second the Cardinal thinking it fit had an intention to go against the Turks in person But it is answered He had no intention to go in commission from the Cardinals but only to follow their advice Stapleton instances So did Peter go to Samaria out of his own accord not necessitated by any authority But he is refuted by the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which evermore signifies a sending with authority as appears by John 1. where it is said That the Jewes sent Priests and Levites to Jerusalem And likewise 2 Timothy 4. Tychicus was sent to Ephesus And likewise Acts 11. Barnabas was sent in all which missions the great verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used but not so Acts 10. when Paul was sent from Antioch The best solution of all is given by Renatus a Sorbonist who grants that Peter was sent by the other Apostles as Legat and less in authority then they But saith he it doth not follow he was not Oecumenick Bishop because the authority of the whole Church is more then the authority of an Oecumenick Bishop It cannot be denyed that this answer of Renatus takes away the force of the Argument But it is much doubted that this answer is owned at Rome since the doctrine of the particular Church of Rome the infallibiliy of which is defended by Bellarmin and all the Italians is that the authority of the Bishop of Rome is above a General Council which after many debates and oppositions in the Council of Constance and Basil at last was concluded in the Council of Florence whence the argument is yet in force against the doctrine of the Church of Rome although not against Renatus and others of his opinion The second argument against the Supremacy of Peter from his carriage Acts 11. 3. where he was challenged by the brethren for going in to men uncircumcised The Argument is this An Oecumenick Bishop cannot be questioned for any thing he doth but Peter was questioned Ergo He was not an Oecumenick Bishop The first proposition is proved from the Canon Law in Gratianus Distinct 40. Canon Si Papa Where it is expresly affirmed and likewise Distinct 19. and Caus 17. quaest 4. And likewise in the same distinction 19. cap. in memoriam The words are Licet vix ferendum ab illa sancta sede imponatur jugum tamen feramus pia devotione toleremus But the Gloss in the Decretals cap quantò Personam de translatione Episcopi affirms That the Bishop of Rome hath coelesle arbitrium ideo naturam rerum mutare substantialia unius rei applicando alii de nullo posse aliquid facere sententiam quae nulla est facere aliquam necesse qui ei dicat Cur ita facis poâ—se enim suprajus dispensare de injustitia facere justitiam corrigendo jura mutando demum plenitudinem obtinere potestatis By which it appears expresly that none will question an Oecumenick Bishop And Since Peter was questioned by those men it is evident they did not acknowledge him Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 16. mentions this Argument but doth not answer it but falls in a digression endeavoring to prove that Peter was not ignorant of that mystery of the calling of the Gentiles before that vision Acts 10. but he seems expresly to contradict Scripture as appears to any having the use of reason considering both that vision and also his speech meeting with Cornelius verse 34. Stapletonin Relect. Controvers 3. quaest 1. art 3. and in other places answers That it is the duty of a good Pastor to show himself ready to give an account of his actions to any who calls them in question But it is replyed Stapleton saith truth and Peter so in the same place but he takes not away the force of the Argument since in the sore-cited passages of the Canon Law it is forbidden by the Pope himself to call what he doth in question since he is bound to give an account of his actions to no power earthly either spiritual or temporal but only to God The third Argument is almost like the second but more puzling It is then from Galat. 2. 11. where the Apostle Paul affirms That in Antiochia he resisted Peter to his face for he was to be blamed which quite destroys the Supremacy of Peter in two particulars First that he was blamed and resisted Secondly That he was deservedly resisted This objection puts the Roman Doctors by the ears together how to answer it The most ingenuous among them confess that Paul in those words expresly thought himself equal to Peter otherwise he durst not have spoken them So Lombardus Cajetanus affirms That Paul in these words thought himself greater then
Peter The other Doctors answer variously And first Carerius and Pighius following Clemens Alexandrinus mentioned by Eusebius hist lib. 1. cap. 14. affirms That it was not Peter the Apostle but an other Cephas who was reprehended by Paul But this opinion is ridiculous for Paul is comparing himself in those words to the chief of the Apostles one of which was Peter whereby it is evident that it was Peter the Apostle whom he resisted and not an other Peter and therefore this opinion is exploded by Hieronymus and other Fathers The second answer is of Gregorius de Valentia Pighius and Carerius following Chrysostomus and Hieronymus affirming That it was but a dissimulation and the reprehension proceeded from Paul by paction between him and Peter viz. That Peter the Jews arriving should leave the Gentiles that Paul might have occasion to reprehend him And consequently that the Jews might be instructed of the calling of the Gentiles by Pauls reprehension But it is answered This Argument is laught at by Augustinus as not becoming the gravity of Paul who had sworn before that he lyed not Others affirm That Peter erred not in faith so Sanderus and Stapleton but only in conversation But it is answered The less his error was by the said reprehension the less it appears he was Oecumenick Bishop for if he erred not in faith no body should have presumed to resist him as is expresly forbidden by the fore-cited Canons of the Canon Law Baronius answers That Peter erred not at all But it is false and gives the lye unto the Apostle Paul who affirms He was to be blamed Bellarmin answers another way viz. That one may reprehend another although superior in Authority if it be done with reverence as Paul did Peter here He cites Augustinus epist 19 to Hieronymus and Gregorius Magnus homil 18. on Ezekiel who expresly affirms That Peter was greater then Paul and yet he was reprehended by him But it is answered That takes not away the force of the argument First because the question is not Whether Peter was greater then Paul But whether he was Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin will not affirm That an Oecumenick Bishop may be reprehended else he will not only contradict the Canon Law as we shewed and which they make of equal authority with the Scripture but also himself lib. 4. cap 5. de Pont. Rom. where he affirms That if the Pope command Vice and forbid Vertue the Church is bound to believe that Vice is Vertue and Vertue Vice Secondly it expresly appears by the words of Paul Gal. 2. That he made himself equal to Peter as is acknowledged by the ordinar gloss Lombardus Cajetanus yea Chrysostomus after he hath gathered from the words of Paul that he was equal to Peter he adds Ne dicam amplius by which words he thinks Paul was greater then Peter Thirdly The Doctrine of Paul was preferred to that of Peter that of Peter being found dissimulation and that of Paul sincere Christian Doctrine It is needless to examine the answers of others as of Stapleton and Eckius yet we will mention two other answers The one of Aquinas the other of Cardinal Pool that of Aquinas and Eckius is almost all one viz. They grant that Peter and Paul was alike But they distinguish that Paul was equal to Peter in the execution of authority but not in authority of Government in executione Autoritatis non in autoritate regiminis But it is answered This distinction of Thomas is a plain riddle It would puzle Oedipus himself It is ordinar with Sophisters to imitate that fish called Sepia when it is caught it vomits up a black humor like ink to deceive the fishers none can conceive this distinction of Thomas without contradiction For if Paul were equal to Peter in the execution of Authority he was equal also to him in the authority of Government since the execution of Authority is the Act flowing from the other or from the Authority of Government if the same be the authority of both Peter and Paul This cantradiction is inevitable but if the Authority of Peter be greater then that of Paul he still contradicts himself in affirming Paul was equal to Peter in the execution of authority no subordinat Magistrat can be equal in the execution of Authority to the Supreme Magistrat Eckius distinguisheth more to the purpose viz. between the Office of an Apostle in teaching and governing Paul was equal to Peter the first way and therefore he reprehended him not the second way But it is replyed first Albeit this distinction were granted it doth not take away the force of the Argument which consists in this whether Paul were greater or less then Peter it is nothing to the purpose An Oecumenick Bishop according to the Canon Law ought to be questioned by none and since Paul questioned Peters actions it is evident according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome that Peter was not Oecumenick Bishop neither is it of any moment that the Canon Law provides that a Pope may be questioned for Heresie since that sort of questioning is antiquated by the Council of Florence and the constant Practice of the Modern Church of Rome Neither was the error of Peter an Heresie but only an action of dissimulation Secondly the distinction of it self is contradictory for two reasons First because Government of the Church pertains to the office of an Apostle all the Apostles having exercised all the parts of that Government Secondly this reprehension of Paul was directly in execution of the authority of Government because Government comprehends reprehension of transgressors both in doctrine and manners or actions But in this particular the actions of Peter were reprehended by Paul Cardinal Pool a very Learned man retorts the Argument lib. 2. de unitate Ecclesiae where he affirms This reprehension of Peter by Paul concludes Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop but he tells not how Baronius it seems explains him anno 53. num 46. the argument is very pretty viz. They who followed the example of Peter Judaizing preferred it to the decree of the Council of Jerusalem Ergo they believed his authority was above that of the Council and of Paul yea Barnabas himself followed Peter before either the Council or Paul But it is answered to omit that it is not certain whether this dissimulation of Peters was before or after the Council of Jerusalem Baronius had reasoned far better thus Paul preferred the decree of the Council to the fact of Peter reprehending Peter in his face Ergo Peter was not Oecumenick Bishop For albeit those Judaizing had preferred the example of Peter to the decree of the Council it doth not follow that Peter was above a Council except they had rightly preferred the example of Peter to the decree of the Council And this much of the carriage of Peter and his Institution We have omitted hitherto nothing of moment pretended by either side assaulting or asserting the Supremacy of Peter from
believed that he was first ordained Apostle so Cyprianus c. The fifth rank of testimonies are those affirming that there is Una Cathedra c. one Chair of Peter which was placed at Rome in which Chair Unity was preserved by all neither did the rest of the Apostles constitute any other Chairs against that one Chair in which Peter sat first To whom succeeded Linus c. Optatus lib. 2. against Parmenianus in which words saith Bellarmine ye have the Chair of Peter and his successors called the Chair of the whole Church which infers that according to Optatus Peter was oecumenick Bishop But it is answered that Optatus in those words is disputing against the Donatists who had set up a Bishop of their own faction at Rome in opposition to the true Bishop Which Optatus reprehends Because saith he there is but one Chair at Rome founded by Peter in which first himself sat and then his successors in which place viz. Rome none of the other Apostles did constitute another Chair much lesse ye ought to set another Bishop in that Chair in opposition to the successors of Peter That this is his meaning viz. that he speaks of the particular Church of Rome and not of the universal Church is evident because otherwayes it were notoriously false which he affirms that no Chair was constituted by the other Apostles For James did constitute a Church at Jerusalem and John at Ephesus c. The sixth rank are the testimonies affirming Peter to be Magister Ecclesiae a Master of the Church likewayes that the Church is called Eclesia Petri Ambrosius Sermon 11. It is answered first that not only Erasmus but also Costerus a stiff maintainer of the Pope denyes Ambrosius to be the Author of those Sermons 2. Although he were it imports not much for calling Peter a Master of the Church he calls him no other thing then an Apostle For all Apostles governed the whole Church or were Pastors of the whole Church as we said before 3. Whereas we said another calleth the Church the Church of Peter he speaks very improperly such kind of speaking is not found in Scripture or in Fathers perhaps his meaning is that it is the Church of Peter because it was the Church in which Peter taught and in that sense it may be called the Church of Paul also or of any other of the Apostles although properly the Church is only the Church of Christ and of none other The seventh rank is of testimonies preferring the Chair of Peter to-other Chairs Augustinus de Baptismo lib. 2. It is answered Augustins words are Quis nescit Apstolatus principatum cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum Who is ignorant that the principality â—o the Apostleship is to be preferred to any Bishoprick In which words it cannot be conjectured what Bellarmine can gatherfor the Supremacy of Peter Augustine in these words is comparing Cyprian with Peter in one respect he prefers Peter to Cyprian because saith he the principality of the Apostleship is to be preferred to any Bishoprick or Peter because an Apostle is to be preferred to Cyprian who is only a Bishop But in the words following he saith Albeit their Chairs be unequal yet the glory of both the Martyrs is the same in which words he seems in a manner equal to Peter Eighthly Bellarmine cites a testimony from the Thesaurus of Cyrullus for the Supremacy of Peter viz. That Christ got the Scepter of the Church of the Gentiles from God which he gave unto Peter and unto his successors only and unto none other But it is answered that the testimony is suppositious and forged being not found at all in any Edition of that Book It is only mentioned by Thomas Aquinas in Opusculo contra Graecos in his little Book he wrote against the Graecians and some think he forged it but Thomas was a most holy man and it is more like he was abused by some others Ninthly Bellarmine cites some testimonies from Bernardus and others who lived after the sixth Century but those testimonies especially of the Latines who lived at that time cannot be regarded because they lived after that time in which Bonifacius 3. was ordained oecumenick Bishop by Phocas Such testimonies for the Supremacy of Peter can have no more force then the testimonies of Bellarmine or Barronius or any other Doctor of the Church of Rome Tenthly he cites the testimonies of Leo and the other Bishops of Rome but neither can those be regarded because they lived after the time in which the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople contended for the primacy If Bellarmine will not believe the Protestants that those testimonies are of no moment let him consider what is said by Aeneas Sylvius sometimes Pope himself who in his first Comen upon the Councill of Basil hath these words Those miserable men are not aware that those testimonies which they so magnify are either ipsorum summorum Pontificum Fimbrias suas extendentium Are either of Popes themselves enlarging their authority or else of their flatterers Bellarmines eleventh testimony is taken from Eusebius Caesariensis lib. 2. hist cap. 14. who affirms Peter is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Captain of the Militia of God In which testimony he triumphs as if he had found out the whole businesse What else saith he can be the meaning of Eusebius then that Peter is head of the Church Militant But it is answered first that Bellarmine following the version of Christopherson cites Eusebius fraudulently whose words are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Not Captain of the Militia of God simply But as one of the Captains of the Militia of God Secondly Isidorus Pelustota lib. 3. epist 25. gives the same Epithet to Paul calling him a most generous and valiant Captain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently Bellarmine triumphs before the Victory since that testimony of Eusebius concludes Peter no more to be oecumenick Bishop then that of Isidorus Paul And this much of those testimonies cited by Bellarmine for proving the Supremacy of Peter over the Church which was the first Classe CHAP. XX. Testimonies of Fathers proving the Authority of Peter over the Apostles THe second Classe of testimonies consists of those proving the Supremacy of Peter over the Apostles for which Bellarmine cites Cyprian epist 71. but he sets not down the words of Cyprian but only summs them thus When Paul reprehended Peter Peter did not answer I have the primacy ye most obey me and not I you Ergo saith Bellarmine according to Cyprian Peter had the primacy over Paul But it is answered that this Logick is very strange because Cyprian affirms that Peter did not say unto Paul I have the primacy Ergo according to Cyprian Peter had the Supremacy It would seem rather by these words that Cyprian thought Peter had not the Supremacy The words of Cyprian which Bellarmine suppresseth are Nec Petrus vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut
those expresly denying that Peter had any superiority above the other Apostles of which kind we alledged many In this Chapter we will vindicate the said testimonies from the exceptions of our Adversaries and because their answers to them all are almost the same with those which they make unto a certain passage of Cyprian and an other of Hieronymus we will vindicat both those passages from their sophistâ—y which are in effect two notable ones The first testimony is of Cyprianus de unitate ecclesiae Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis That is What ever Peter was the other Apostles were the same indued with alike fellowship of honour and power This is a notable passage in which Cyprianus is expresly disputing against the supremacy of Peter for first he affirms all the Apostles were the same which Peter was and least any should think that his meaning is only that they were all Apostles or fellows he adds Pari consortio they were of alike fellowship since it might be objected that inequality might be amongst those of the same fellowship and our Adversaries ordinarily distinguish between order and jurisdiction as if the other Apostles were inferiour to Peter in jurisdiction he adds they were alike fellows in honour and power that is they had all alike jurisdiction with Peter This place of Cyprian puts our Adversaries to their witts end they elude it two wayes they who have any shame by sophistry others more impudente by forgery we will examine their sophistry in this Chapter reserving their forgery untill the last Chapter of the secoâ— Book Pamelius objects that the Book of Manutius and of Cambron hath those words of Cyprian otherwayes viz. after the words of Cyprian which we cited follow those Sed primatus Petro datur ut una Ecclesia Cathedra una monstretur That is But the primacy is given to Peter that it might appear there is only one Church and one Chair But it is answered albeit it might be defended that those words make not much for the supremacy of Peter in Jurisdiction but only in dignity and order it shall be demonstrated that Manutius added those words to the text of Cyprian by the command of Cardinal Baromaeus against the Faith of all the ancient Copies of Cyprian both printed and Manuscripts lib. 2. cap. ult Agricola his glosse since it depends upon those forged words Primatus Petro datur is not worth the answering Hayus Bozius Turrianus answer thus It s true say they that the Apostles were all of a like power before Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church by Christ viz. before he said to him tu es Petrus and this is the meaning of Cyprian Bozius adds that this place of Cyprian expresly makes for the supremacy of Peter because Cyprian affirms in the same place that the equality of the Apostles was taken away by those words Pasce oves meas after which words that equality of â—ower ceased All this is sophâ—stry and first Bozius lyeth notoriously Cyprian affirmeth no such thing as that the equality of the Apostles ceased after those words Pasce oves meas since it is the mind of Cyprian that the equality of the Apostles was or consisted in feeding the flock of Christ for he expresly affirms in the same place that the equality of the Apostles was ordained after the resurrection for immediatly before 〈◊〉 words we cited he affirmeth Christus Apostolus omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuit and therefore it is false that after those words Pasce oves meas the equality of the Apostles was taken away Bellarmine useth another distinction lib. 1. cap. 12. viz. that all the Apostles had alike authority over the Church but they were not of alike authority amongst themselves This is the answer also of Costerus encherid cap. 3. But it is answered this glosse of Bellarmines is very strange first how can Peter be oecumenick Bishop if the other Apostles had alike Authority over the Church with him for the Bishop of Rome questionless will not affirm that any other Bishop has as much Authority over the Church as he hath Secondly though this distinction were granted it takes not away the force of the testimony for disparity of persons doth not infer a disparity of Authority alike in them all but only that the Authority is more eminent in dignity in some then in others Thirdly whereas Bellarmine grants that they were all alike Apostles but the function of an Apostle is the highest degree in the Church Ergo if they were equal to him in the Apostleship they were equal to him in the highest Ecclesiastical function As for that distinction of Bellarmines That that equality of the Apostles with Peter was extra radinar and not derived to their successors as the Authority of Peter who was ordinar Pastor and whose Authority was derived to his Successors we proved before that it was a fiction of Bellarmines own invention not known to the Ancients Sanderus lib. 6. cap. 4 of his Monarchy hath another distinction viz. that albeit all the Apostles were of equal Authority over Christians yet the Original of that Authority was from Peter although as to the execution it was alike in them all But it is answered first this distinction is pressed with the same difficulties with which those of Bellarmines was it is a flat contradiction to affirm any to be equal in the execution of that Authority with those from whom they have it yea Leo Bishop of Rome complained heavily that the Bishop of Constantinople was made equal to him as to the execution of it This distinction of Sanderus leans on a false foundation viz. that the rest of the Apostles had their Authority from Peter which expresly contradicts Cyprian who affirms they had it from Christ and Paul 2. Cor. 5. professeth he was an Ambassadour from Christ or in the name of Christ And Franciscus de victoria as we shewed before expresly disputs that all the Apostles had their Authority immediatly from Christ and taxeth the glosse on Cyprian making use of this dictinction of Sanderus against the mind of Cyprian However it may be granted that Peter was the first in Dignity although the other Apostles were equal to him in Authority Stapleton lib. 6. cap. 7. in principis useth a threefold distinction the first is that all the Apostles were of alike power as Apostles but not as Bishops But that distinction was exploded before cap. 16. The second distinction is quo ad amplitudinem rerum gerundarum sed non quo ad superioritatem in ordine gerendi that is in effect the same distinction with that of Bellarmine now mentioned and therefore it needs no other answer since it imports no other thing then that the equality of the Apostles power was relative to the Church but their inequality consisted in their relation to Peter His third distinction is that Peter had
were two Cities called Babylon the first Babylon in Assyria which was the head of the Babylonish Empire the other Babylon was in Egypt and afterwards was called Cayre Peter by Babylon means either the one or the other more probably the first because it appears by History that many Jews remained there and Peter was the Apostle of the Jews as Paul was of the Gentiles Bellarmine objects that Irenaeus Justinus and Tertullianus expone that Babylon mentioned by Peter to be Rome But it is answered those Fathers follow the authority of Papias believed to be the Disciple of John as Bellarmine affirms he was followed by Irenaeus who in Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 39. affirms that the said Papias and Polycarpus were auditors of the Apostle John but Eusebius in the said place confutes that opinion by the authority of Papias himself who denyed that ever he had seen the Apostles with his eyes Eusebius adds that he was a man of no spirit and the Author not only of the Millinarii but also of other fabulous traditions and so in the opinion of Eusebius the authority of Papias is not much to be regarded And since the whole foundation of the Church of Rome depends upon the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and since the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome depends upon Peters being at Rome and since Peters being at Rome depends upon the testimonies of some Fathers following the Authority of Papias it may be concluded without sophistry that the whole Doctrine of the Church of Rome depends upon the said Papias what sort of man he was we have now shewed from Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 39. Bellarmines second Argument to prove that Peter was at Rome is this There were Christians at Rome before ever Paul came to Rome Ergo Peter was at Rome and here he endeavours to prove by many testimonies that Peter was the first that preached the Gospel at Rome but to no purpose since those testimonies are of no more force to prove that Peter was at Rome then those he alledged in the former Argument That they are false appears by Orosius lib. 7. cap. 4. who affirms that Christians were at Rome in the time of Tiberius but Peter came not to Rome till after the death of Tiberius that is the second year of Claudius as Bellarmine himself confesseth Bellarmine answers That Orosius doth not affirm that Christians were at Rome in the time of Tiberius but only that the Senate of Rome made a decree that they should not come to Rome which is the true meaning of Orosius But it is replyed Orosius expresly affirms that Tiberius made a motion to the Senat of Rome that Christ should be acknowledged as a God but the Senat refusing set forth an Edict that Christians should be exterminated or extruded the City of Rome which imports that Christians were at Rome which is confirmed by Eusebius in his Chronicles an 38. who saith the Senat eliminated Christians from the City but eliminating is properly to put them out that were in already Likewayes both Eusebius in the said place and Tertullianus Apol. cap. 5. affirm that Tiberius threatned death to the Accusers of Christians at Rome whereby it evidently appears that Christians were at Rome Likewayes Platina in the life of Christ affirms expresly that the Senate ordained Christians to be put forth of the City likewayes Clement in his first book of Recognitions affirms that Barnabas was at Rome in the time of Tiberius Bellarmine answers to this last objection That those Books of Clement are Apocryphal But it is replyed when they setch testimonies from this Book to prove any o◠their Tenets they call it authentick So Coccius and others 〈◊〉 when they are pressed with testimonies from it they call it Apocryphal Bellarmines third reason to prove that Peter was at Rome is That several of the Fathers affirm that Mark wrote his Evangel at Rome as he heard Peter preach it there But it is answered that all this depends upon the Authority of Papias neither do they agree amongst themselves in the relation for Hieronymus following the authority of Papias whom Eusebius called an Impostor as we said before affirms that Mark wrote the said Evangel when Peter was alive and that the said Mark died the eigth year of Nero but Irenaeus affirms lib. 3. cap. 1. that Mark wrote his Evangel after the death of Peter and Paul Bellarmines fourth reason to prove that Peter was at Rome is that his Sepulchre is at Rome which he proves by the testimony of many Fathers But it is answered they were all deceived by Papias Secondly those Fathers who affirm that Peter dyed at Rome relate some circumstances of his death which seem incredible as first they affirm that Peter and Paul died in one day but that seems incredible because Paul came to Rome about the third and fourth year of Nero he professeth that he was then old They likewayes affirm that he died the fourteenth year of Nero and so he lived ten years after he called himself old But this seems not to consist with that assertion of his dying in one day with Peter for it is scarce credible that Peter could be alive ten years after Paul called himself an old man since Paul was very young when he was converted but it appears by John 21. 18. that Peter was an old man before Paul was converted that is when Christ was alive but Paul was not converted untill a year after the death of Christ and therefore it seems incredible that Peter could live ten years after Paul called himself an old man The second incredible circumstance is that they affirm that Peter a little before his death having an intention to leave Rome Christ appeared to him in the Port of the City and desired him to return but the Scripture affirms that the Heavens shall contain Christ untill the last day and Peter himself affirms that Christ shall not descend from Heaven till then And whereas Bellarmine objects that Christ appeared to Paul in the air he speaks so without any ground because Act. 9. it is only affirmed that a great light shined round about Paul and that he heard a voice but the Scripture there doth not affirm that Christ was in the air Paul might have seen Christ as Stephen did in heaven himself being upon earth Act. 7. 55. And those are the reasons by which Bellarmine proves Peter was at Rome which all are founded upon conjectures And since the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is founded upon the supremacy of Peter and that Peter was at Rome and since Peters being at Rome is founded upon contradictory conjectures as partly we have shewed and partly shall shew hereafter minuting the reasons of Velenus by consequence the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is founded upon contradictory conjectures CHAP. XXIII Bellarmines reasons proving that Peter was Bishop of Rome answered IN the next place Bellarmine endeavours to prove that Peter was Bishop of Rome and
succession of the Bishops of Rome as Linus were first Bishop and not Peter for he calls Clement the third Bishop of Rome but if he had included Peter in the Catalogue of the Bishops Clement had been the fourth Bishop in his Calculation Some Romanists answer that those testimonies do not prove Linus was first Bishop Cletus second Clemens third absolutely but only that the meaning of those Fathers is that Linus was the first Bishop after Peter Cletus the second Clemens the third which is as much as if those Fathers had said Peter was first Linus second Cletus third Clemens fourth But it is replyed that is but a shift or evasion because it appears to any who is versed in Eusebius that when he speaks so First Bishop after such an one Iâ— that one in his opinion be a Bishop himself he includes him in the number and makes him first Bishop as appears by his Catalogue of the Bishops of Alexandria where he calls Cerdo the third Bishop after Anianus but he calls Anianus first Bishop lib. 12. cap. 3. So cap. 16. he reckons Anianus first Abilius second Cerdo third whereby it is evident that when he speaks so viz. third Bishop after such an one That he evermore includes that one in the number when he thinks he is a Bishop as is evident by his reckoning of the Bishops of Alexandria Cerdo saith he was third after Anianus That is Anianus was first Abilius second Cerdo third But in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome when he calls Linus the first after Peter Cletus the second Clemens the third he includes not Peter in the Catalogue but reckons them as Peter were not Bishop at all other wayes he would call Peter first Bishop of Rome as he did Anianus first Bishop of Alexandria The third reason proving those Fathers calling Peter Bishop of Rome takes the word Bishop largely and not strictly and properly is unanswerable because it appears by their own testimonies and likewayes of other Fathers that Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome when Peter was alive whereby it is evident that Peter was called Bishop of Rome only because he and Paul founded that Church in the opinion of those Fathers for Peter could not be Bishop of Rome properly if Linus was Bishop of Rome when Peter was alive but that Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome when Paul was alive is proved by these following testimonies The first testimony is of Tertullianus lib. de praescrip cap. 32. according to the distinction of Pamelius where he affirms that Polycarpus was ordained Bishop of Smyrna by John the Apostle and in the same manner Clemens was ordained Bishop of Rome by Peter but it is notorious that John was alive when he ordained Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna neither was John Bishop of Smyrna himself therefore it follows that Clemens being ordained Bishop of Rome by Peter that he was Bishop of Rome when Peter was alive since Polycarpus was Bishop of Smyrna when John was alive The second testimony is of Irenaeus and is this in Eusebius lib. 5 hist cap. 6. where Eusebius brings in Irenaeus speaking thus The blessed Apostles Paul and Peter founding the Church of Rome gave unto Linus the Bishoprick of the Administration of the Church whereby it is notorious that the function of Peter and Paul was different from the function of Bishop in the strict and proper sense and likewayes it is evident by the word that while they were alive they did put Linus in the actual possession of the Bishoprick of Rome Bellarmine answers that Peter did put Linus and Cletus in the Church of Rome when he was alive not as Bishops but as Coadjutors unto him especially Peter being oftimes called elsewhere by his Apostolick sunction But he intangles himself foully first he makes Peter sufficient to govern the whole Church as elsewhere he affirmeth and yet in this answer he makes him insufficient to govern the Church of Rome without a Coadjutor 2. Irenaeus affirms that Paul ordained Linus Bishop of Rome as well as Peter and if Linus had been Coadjutor to those who ordained him he would have been Coadjutor to Paul as well as to Peter and consequently Paul was also Bishop of Rome 3. Irenaeus expresly distinguisheth the Office of an Apostle from that of a Bishop in these words for he affirmeth Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome and gave the Bishoprick thereof to Linus So Epiphanius heraesie 27. affirms that the Office of an Apostle was not tyed to one place and therefore in their absence Rome could not be without a Bishop The third Testimony is of Ruffinus in his preface to those Books of Recognitions attributed to Clement his words are these Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome before Clement but while Peter was alive to wit that they might be Bishops and himself might fulfill the office of an Apostle in which words Ruffinus expresly calls Linus and Cletus Bishops of Rome having a distinct Office from that of Peter whereby it evidently appears that Peter was not Bishop of Rome in the strict sense mentioned before which is further confirmed by the next following words of Ruffinus wherein he affirms that Zacheus was in the same manner ordained by Peter Bishop at Caesaria as Linus and Cletus were at Rome But Bellarmine will not affirm that Peter was Bishop of Caesaria and Zachaeus his Coadjutor and although this testimony of Ruffinus doth not convince Barronius yet Onufrius Sanderus Feuardentius confesse ingenuously that it can hardly be shunned Barrontus gives no regard to the testimony of Ruffinus because he interprets that sixth Canon of the Council of Neice against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome but since Ruffinus lived very near that time and since he is seconded by all the ancient Interpreters as shall appear in the following Book who all interpret that Act against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as well as he though in a different manner his authority is more to be regarded then that of Bellarmine or Barronius devising a new interpretation of the said Act 1300. years after the date of it against the currant of all Antiquity as shall be shewed lib. 2. cap. CHAP. XXIV Presumptions that Peter was never at Rome and demonstrations that he was never Bishop of Rome IN the two preceding Chapters has been answered those reasons alledged by Bellarmine to prove that Peter was at Rome and Bishop of Rome by which it appears upon what weak reasons the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is built and which is quite destroyed if neither of these be true The weaknesse of Bellarmines grounds will further appear in this present Chapter in which are mentioned some strong presumptions that Peter was never at Rome and invincible demonstrations that Peter was never Bishop of Rome if the word Bishop be taken in the proper and strict sense which we mentioned before That Peter was never at Rome may be perswaded by the following reasons First those
Presbyter are borrowed by a metaphor from the civil administration they who ruled Cities of old among the Jews and Grecians were called Presbyters and rulers of Provinces were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops Overseers as appears by 1 Maccab. 1. All other Church Ministers were called Deacons or Ministers simply In the times of the Apostles Bishops were called Presbyters and Presbyters Bishops so Tit. 1. those who are called Presbyters verse 5. are called Bishops verse 7. It appears also by Philip. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. and Acts 20. that the Rulers of Churches in one City are called Bishops in the plural number which could not be if Presbyters were not called Bishops since there could be but one Bishop in one City as all know Those also who lived at the same time with the Apostles speak after the same manner Clement Bishop of Rome mentioned by Paul and familiar with him in his Epistles directed to the Corinthians which Epistle is mentioned by Hieronymus but never seen till of late Cyrillus Patriarch of Constantinople sent it from the Bibliothick of Alexandria to King James as a precious monument of Antiquity calls the Rulers of the Church of Corinth Bishops in the plural number directing his Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of Corinth and likewayes in the body of his Epistle he calls those very persons Bishops in one place whom he calls Presbyters in another Polycarpus also directs an Epistle to the Presbyters and Deacons of Philippi and in the body of his Epistle he calls these very persons Bishops this oâ—yearpus was the disciple of John This manner of speaking continued unto the latter end of the second Age Irenaeus who lived about that time in an Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome calls the predecessors of the said Victor Presbyters ruling the Chuâ—ch of Rome Likewayes whom he calls Presbyters lib. 3. cap. 2. in the very next Chapter he calls Bishops and again lib. 4. cap. 43. he calls them Presbyters Pius also Bishop of Rome in an Epistle to Justus Bishop of Vienna speaking of the succession of Bishops in several Places calls it a succession of Presbyters Other Testimonies might be multiplied to this purpose but it is needlesse since it is confessed by Bellarmine and Petavius that in those primitive times Presbyters were called Bishops and Bishops Presbyters promiscuously Aerius who lived about the midle of the fourth Age believed for that reason that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter in those times was one and the same and that no Bishop was Jure Divino above a Presbyter which opinion Epiphanius Hereste 75. calls Furiosum dogma and for that reason ranks Aerius among Hereticks but he answers the Arguments of Aerius vere childishly in the opinion of Bellarmine himself for when Aerius objected those formentioed passages of Scripture naming many Bishops in one City Epiphanius answers the reason is Because in these times there was such penury of Presbyters that many Bishops were in one City then which answer nothing is more ridiculous However the authority of Epiphanias is of no more weight to make any Opinion Heresie then the authority of some other Fathers who declared them Hereticks who maintained the Antipodes Avertinus lib. 3. Anal. Augustinus also seems to call Aerius an Heretick but it s very like that he calls him so for some other reason then denying the divine right of Bishops other things were laid to the charge of Aerius how justly is doubted it may be also that Augustinus takes Heresie in a large sense as it comprehends Schisme for he professeth himself in that place he knoweth not what is the regular distinction of Heresie That Schismaticks were sometimes called Hereticks appears by the sixth Canon of the first Council of Constantinople which In codice canonum is 169. That Augustine called not Aerius an Heretick for denying the divine right of Bishops but only for making a separation upon that account or else for some other reason is evident because not only Augustinus himself but also many others of the most eminent Fathers seem to be of the same opinion with Aerius as Medina confesseth and although Bellarmine and Petavius reprehend Medina for so saying yet in end both are forced to acknowledge that some of those Fathers were of that opinion Likewayes many Popish Doctors came very near the opinion of Aerius all the Protestant Divines abroad for the most part are of that opinion and many learned Protestants at home as Whitaker Reynolds c. although some eminent English Divines be against it as Andrews Hall and other learned men However it is certain that none were more submissive to Episcopal Government amongst the ancient Fathers and some of the modern Doctors then those who dispute expresly against the divine right of Bishops as Augustinus quaest 101. upon 1 Tim. 3. Hilarius upon the same place and likewayes upon Ephes 4. Hieronymus in his Epistle to Euagrius and likewayes upon Tit. 1. Ambrosius as he is cited by Amalarius upon Tim. 3. Chrysostomus and his admirer Theophylactus Primasius oecumenius Sedulius upon Tit. 1. and among the late Fathers Amalarius Isidorus Rabanus Maurus amongst the Popish Divines Cusanus lib. 2. de concordia Catholica cap. 13. Contarenus and Dionysius Carthusianus on Philip. 1. Durandus in Rationali lib. 2. cap. de Sacerdotibus and likewayes upon the sentences lib. 4. dist 34. q. 5. Marsilius Patavinus dict cap. 15. Haymo on Philip. 1. Asorius the Jesute P. 2. Q. 2. cap. 16. All which Popish Doctors came very near the opinion of Aerius and yet were very submissive to Episcopal Government Whitaker a most stout defender of Aerius yet was most submissive to the Episcopal Government and many of the most eminent Divines abroad who defended the opinion of Aerius yet in their Epistles to several English Divines they exhort dissatisfied persons to submit to the Government of the Church of England which in effect is the same with that Church Government which was established by the first general Council of Neice Those who follow the opinion of Aerius affirm that the Bishop of Rome in the beginning was nothing else but the first Presbyter or first ordained Presbyter amongst the Presbyters of the Church of Rome Hilarius by many cited by the name of Ambrosius upon Eph. 4. affirms that in those primitive times a Bishop was nothing else but primus Presbyter that is Presbyter of oldest ordination and he dying the next in order coming to be first Presbyter became hoc ipso Bishop without any new ordination as appears by the the same Author 1 Tim. 3. where he expresly affirms when any is ordained Sacerdos he is ordained both Bishop and Presbyter for saith he Una est ordinatio Presbyteri Episcopi quia uterque est Sacerdos That is The ordination of a Bishop and Presbyter in one because both are Priests Whence it appears that Bellarmine is mistaken who affirms that a first Presbyter behoved to be ordained of new when he became
Canon of the first Council of Neice Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria in his Books de originibus newly published in Arabick and Latine by Seldenus testifies that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria did take the power of ordination from the Presbyters there who before that time had the power of ordaining their Bishop And since Eutychius affirms that the said Alexander was present at the Council of Neice without all question he inhibited Presbyters to ordain the Bishop of Alexandria by authority of the said 4. Canon of the Council of Neice neither could any authority except that of a general Council establish any thing universally neither was there any general Council before that of Neice CAP. IV. Wherein a Bishop differs from a Presbyter Conjectures of Aerians wherefore Episcopacy was brought in the Church AFter Episcopacy was established a Bishop differs from a Presbyter by ordination whence nothing is more frequent with Augustinus Hieronymus Ambrosius Chrysostomus and other Fathers then that a Bishop differs from a Presbyter by ordination which is all the Argument that Bellarmine and others produce to prove that the forsaid Fathers were for the divine right of Bishops But since those Fathers expresly dispute against the divine right of Bishops since they tell a reason wherefore Episcopacy was brought in since they tell the time when albeit obscurely it is evident that those Fathers speaks so according to the consuetude of their own times that is Bishops have ordination and Presbyters have it not not by divine right but only by consuetude yea Hieronymus upon Titus after he hath disputed most vehemently against the divine right of Bishops concludes his dispute with these words Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores That is Bishops should know that they are greater then Presbyters more by consuetude then divine right which passage is so evident that not only Medina but also Alphonsus de Castro Albertus Pighius Petavius yea Bellarmine and Bishop Hall are forced to confesse that Hieronymus was against the divine right of Bishops which last calls him a waspish man and that he was irritated by John Bishop of Jerusalem The reasons wherefore Episcopacy was brought in are three according to those Fathers the first reason is of Ambrosius or according to some Hilarius upon Ephes 4. who after he had told that in the primitive times a Bishop was no other then a first Presbyter or the Presbyter of oldest ordination in any City he subjoynes that Bishops were after that time not by succession but by election because the first Presbyter was many times unworthy and therefore not the first but the most worthy was chosen bishop The second reason is of Ambrosius as he is cited by Amalarius upon 1 Tim 3. viz because â—resbyters in following times had not such eminent gifts as those who lived in the primitive times therefore it was not fit that the Church should be governed alike by them all any more therefore the most eminent in gifts of the number of Presbyters was chosen Bishop differing from the other Presbyters by Ordination and he who was so chosen was no more called Presbyter but Bishop and the other Presbyters were no more called Bishops but only Presbyters the third reason is of Hieronymus upon Tit. 1. who affirms Bishops were brought in to take away Schisms such as when one said he was of Paul another he was of Cephas another he was of Apollos Petavins hierarchiae lib. 1. cap. 10. num 8. and in other places accknowledgeth that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter concurred in one Person in some Cities in the times of the Apostles but he endeavours to prove by this passage of Hieronymus that custome was changed in the times of the Apostles themselves viz. when that Schisme was among the Corinthians one saying he was of Paul another he was of Cephas c. Bellarmine and Bishop Hall by the same passage endeavour to bind contradictions upon Hieronymus because he assiâ—ms on Tit. 1. that according to Paul a Bishop and a Presbyter is all one and in the same place he affirms that according to Paul they were made different a long time before viz. when that Schisme was among the Corinthians which Schisme was before Paul wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians which first Epistle was written long before the Epistle to Titus But it is answered it is very strange that any eminent person as Bishop Hall should own such a Protervum Sophisma and therefore to return the sharp edge of the Weapon whereas they strike only with the blunt it is reasoned thus Hieronymus affirmeth according to Paul Tit. 1. The Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter is one and the same Ergo it cannot be the meaning of Hieron mus that they were made different precisely at that time when that Schisme was among the Corinthians since he could not be ignorant that Schisme fell out long before Paul wrote his Epistle to Titus the intention then of Hieronymus is not to tell precisely the time when but only the cause why â— Bishop was made different from a Presbyter viz. Schisme such as that among the Corinthians not that very Schisme among the Corinthians which maner of speaking is not only frequent but also elegant as can be made out both by Scripture and prophane Authors if it were needful or any versed in either had the Brow to deny it CHAP. V. What primacy the Bishop of Rome had before other Bishops before the times of Cyprian ANd this much of the original progress and universal establishment of Episcopacy of the difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop and for what reasons Bishops were brought in Now it is requisite to declare what Primacy was due to the Bishop of Rome during that time when no Office was in the Church above that of a Bishop viz before the time of Cyprian who lived about Anno 250. or 60. that is seventy or eighty years before the Council of Neice During then that interval we find two sort of priorities among Bishops neither of which imported any authority or jurisdiction of one Bishop above another they imported only a priority of precedency or place The first was priority of Age that is he who was first ordained Bishop had the place of him who was ordained after him and in that respect the primacy of Bishops was ambulatory in every Province except the Bishop of the first City of the Province where the Roman Governour remained and that Bishop had the place of all the Bishops of the Province although later ordained then any of them and was called Primae Sedis Episcopus or Bishop of the first Seat which was the other sort of priority among Bishops In a word then the Bishop of the first City of the Province had a fixed priority Bishops of the other Cities had an ambulatory priority that is now one now another according to the time of their ordination
he subjoynes una quoque est Ecclesia c. there is one Church c. whereby it appears he speaks of one Bishoprick and one Church as different things He is likewayes mistaken in his other gloss for it is false which he affirms that every one is tyed alike to give an account of his administration since it is notorious that some are tyed to a stricter account then others We will close by instancing one other answer mentioned by Chamier but he doth not name the Author the said Author grants that the meaning of Cyprian is that all Bishops are alike Bishops but he distinguisheth quo ad ordinem Sacerdotalem and quo ad Jurisdictionem that is the order of all the Bishops is alike but not the Jurisdiction and therefore albeit all Bishops be equally Bishops with the Bishop of Rome yet they are not equal with him in Jurisdiction Hayus disput lib. 1. cap. 12. gives the same answer to that passage of Hieronymus Epist 85. ad Euagrium we shall discuss that distinction of Hayus in the following Book to which it properly belongs as concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the interval of Metropolitans whereas now we dispute only his Supremacy in the interval of Bishops It is sufficient for the present to answer that the said distinction between Order and Jurisdiction is contrary to the meaning of Cyprian for it shall appear in the following Chapter that any Bishop is equal in Jurisdiction with the Bishops of Rome as well as in order in the opinion of Cyprian because he affirms in his Oration to the Council of Carthage that the Bishop of Rome cannot judge another Bishop no more then he can be judged by him but if that be not an equality in Jurisdiction there is none at all CHAP. VIII Some Testimonies from Cyprians Oration in the Council of Carthage explained IN the former Chapter we observed by what sophistry our Adversaries endeavoured to pervert the meaning of Cyprian in that famous passage found in his Books de unitate Ecclesiae But in sophisticating those following testimonies of his uttered in the Council of Carthage their art is admirable From the said Oration are gathered the following Testimonies 1. Neither doth any of us constitute himself Bishop of Bishops to compell by tyrannical terror his Colleagues to necessity of obedience 2. Because every Bishop by the licence and liberty of his power hath his own proper judgement 3. He cannot be judged by another Bishop neither can he judge another Bishop 4. Let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ who alone hath power to prefer us to the Government of the Church and to judge our actions These famous testimonies of Cyprian perplexeth the learned men of the Roman Church very much neither do they agree in their answers as appears by what followeth When Luther in the conference at Lypsick objected those testimonies to Eccius against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Eccius answered that Cyprian in those words no man constitutes himself Bishop of Bishops speaks against those only who without a lawful vocation obtrudes themselves upon any Church to govern tyrannically But this answer is naught because Cyprian in those words is not speaking how Bishops should be constitute but of the power which constitute Bishops have as appears not only by those words of Cyprian we have cited but also by his words uttered after the reading of the Letters of Jubaianus in the Council The question stated in the Council was whether those who were baptised by Hereticks should be re-baptised Cyprian after the reading of those Letters and stating of the question desires every one of them to tell their opinion freely and not to remove from their communion those who were of contrary judgement to them and then he subjoyns those passages we cited in the beginning of the Chapter no man constitutes himself Bishop of Bishops c. whereby it is evident that he speaks of Bishops already constitute and not of the vocation of Bishops as Eccius affirms Sanderus lib. 6. cap. 4. of his visib Monarch answers diversly 1. that Cyprian speaks so out of humility since himself in a manner was Bishop of Bishops when he presided several times in a Council But this answer is nothing worth for Cyprian by Bishop of Bishops means one who takes upon him to compell his Colleagues to necessity of obedience as having Jurisdiction over them but none will affirm that he who presides in a Council hath that power almost 100 years after Cyprian it was ordained by the 9. Canon of the Council of Antioch that Metropolitans should do nothing without the consent of other Bishops as inferior Bishops could do nothing without them much lesse in the times of Cyprian had he who presided in a Council any Jurisdiction above his Colleagues since in his dayes there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop as is believed by many learned men and he who was Bishop primae sedis of the first seat or chief City of the Province was constant President in Provincial Councils as Cyprian because he was Bishop of Carthage neither had the President of a Council more authority over his fellow Bishops then the President of a Colledge of Judges over his fellow Judges Sanderus answers secondly that Cyprian in those words no man makes himself Bishop of Bishops c. is only speaking of those Bishops present at the Council of Carthage and means not the Bishops of Rome at all which is also the answer of Bellarmine lib. 2. cap. 16. de pont Rom. and likewayes of Pamelius in his Annotations upon the foresaid place of Cyprian But it is answered that Cyprian is speaking of all Bishops comprehending the Bishop of Rome as well as other Bishops his reasons are general as is evident by his words No man saith he makes himself Bishop of Bishops because every Bishop hath proprium arbitrium that is he hath as much authority to utter his judgement as any other and when his opinion is delivered no Bishop hath power to compell him to alter it as he cannot judge another Bishop neither can any other Bishop judge him and therefore all Bishops should expect the judgement of Christ who only can judge their actions Secondly it is false which they affirm that Cyprian in those expressions doth not mean by the Bishop of Rome for Binius tom 1. in his Annotations upon this Council of Carthage affirms that those words of Cyprian were tacitè directed against Stephanus Bishop of Rome The question agitated in the Council was Whether those who were baptized by Hereticks should be re-baptized Stephanus Bishop of Rome was for the negative Cyprian for the affirmative Stephanus as Binius relates and Cassander also consult art 37 threatned Cyprian and the Churches of Africa with Excommunication if they changed not their Opinion This Council of Carthage is called consisting of eighty seven Bishops Cyprian in his Oration to the Council
affirms None of us makes himself Bishop of Bishops or takes upon him to compell his Colleagues by tyrannical terrors to necessity of obedience which words as Binius observes were directed against Stephanus Bishop of Rome because he had threatned the Bishops of Africa with Excommunication if they did not alter their Judgement Sanderus answers thirdly that albeit Cyprian did assert the equality of Bishops in those words yet it was only an equality according to their Order of Priesthood not according to their Jurisdiction albeit the Bishop of Rome be equal to other Bishops as he is Bishop yet he is above them in jurisdiction he gives this answer lib. 7. cap. But it is replyed this distinction is frivolous and quite contrary to the meaning of Cyprian whose intention in those words is expresly to assert the equality of Jurisdiction and since he aims at the Bishop of Rome it is evident in his opinion that any Bishop is of equal jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome How can any be so impudent to deny that Cyprian asserts equality of Jurisdiction since he expresly affirms No Bishop can judge another Bishop nor be judged by him Christ is the only judge of Bishops which in right down terms is that all Eishops are equal in Jurisdiction which none but a Sophister will deny It is needless to mention the answers of other Romanists as of Alanus Copus lib. 1. cap. 19. and Dormanus in his English Treatise against Bishop Jewel cap. 10. since they are not worth the refuting The most ingenuous answer of them all is that of Stapleton lib. 11. cap. 7. de princip fid doctrin where he affirms that Cyprian in those words to patronize his error Utitur verbis errantium and that he seems wonderfully to protect Hereticks he means Protestants against the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome he calls those expressions O Cyprian pernicious if they be not defended by a commodious Exposition But it is answered the authority of St. Augustine is of more moment then the authority of Stapleton who not only commends those expressions of Cyprian but also recommends them to the whole Church to be taken notice of as so many Oracles and that in moe places then one as lib. 2. cap. 2. lib. 3. cap. 3. lib. 6. cap. 7. against the Donatists Further that Stephanus Bishop of Rome himself understood those words of Cyprian as the Protestants do against the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome appears by his excommunicating Cyprian as Cassander relates consult art 7. neither read we ever of his reconciliation as is confessed by Bellarmine lib. 2. de con cap. 5. Neither is it of any moment what they object that in that question of re-baptizing those who were baptized by Hereticks the affirmative maintained by Cyprian was wrong and the negative maintained by Stephanus was right for the state of the question with the Church of Rome in this particular is Whether Cyprian was for or against the Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome or whether he did right in opposing the usurpation of Stephanus It seems he did for two reasons first because those expressions of his were recommended by St. Augustine to the whole Church next because notwithstanding of his dying excommunicate by Stephanus he was held ever since those times to be a Saint and a Martyr by the Church of Rome it self as he is at this day whereby it appears that the ancient Church of Rome immediatly after the times of Cyprian had not much regard to the authority of Stephanus his excommunicating Cyprian The truth is Cyprian in that conflict with Stephanus was a good Patron of an evil cause and Stephanus was a bad Patron of an good Cause Cyprian was wrong in maintaining re-baptization of those who were baptized by Hereticks but he defended it rightly Stephanus who maintained the contrary opinion was right but maintained it badly that is by usurpation arrogancy and presumption CHAP. IX Of the contest between Victor Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of the East WE have in the former Chapters proved by the testimonies of the Ancients that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not believed as an Article of Faith in the dayes of Cyprian nor any time before unto the dayes of the Apostles We have also shewed with what perplexed sophistry our Adversaries endeavour to elude the force of those testimonies In the following Chapters we will examine what is objected by our Adversaries to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval If it had been an Article of Faith in the Church that the Bishop of Rome was ordained by Peter to succeed to himself in that Function of oecumenick Bishop or that the Bishop of Rome did succeed to Peter in that Function the evidence of that succession had been greater in these primitive times then it was afterwards but contrarily we find the nearer we come to the Apostles times the less evidence we find for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome whereby it appears that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome by reason of his succession to Peter is but a fiction neither was it ever urged as to jurisdiction till after the Council of Chalcedon as shall appear in the following Books and the more the times were remote that opinion of the succession to Peter increased the more That there was no great evidence before the Council of Neice of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is acknowledged by Aeneas Silvius Pope himself in his 288. Epistle and yet he was the greatest Antiquary of his time the truth of his assertion will appear by our Answers to that which they object which are so many testimonies against themselves To prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval they object nothing beside what we shall prove forged by testimony of their own Doctors before the latter end of the second Age or beginning of the third and then their objections are of two sorts first actions of Popes secondly tectimonies of Popes and Fathers What regaird should be had to the actions and testimonies of Popes appears by the Commentaries which Pope Aeneas Silvius or Pius second wrote upon the Councel of Basile his words are these Neâ— considerant miseri quia quae praedicant tantopere verba aut ipsorum sumorum pontificum sunt simbrias suas extendentium aut illorum quiâ—eis adulabantur that is neither do those miserable men consider these testimonies they magnifie so much are either of Popes themselves inlarging their own interests or of their Fathers We will first treat of the actions of Popes and next examine their testimonies Before the time of Victor Bishop of Rome there is no Monument of antiquity for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome besides some forgeries acknowledged by the most eminent Doctors of that Church and proved to be forgeries by unanswerable reasons as shall appear afterwards in the last Chapters of this Book The said Victor about anno 195. had a
difference with the Bishops of Asia about the observation of Easter or Pasch the Churches of Asia pretending a tradition from the Apostle of St. John observed Easter according to the manner of the Jews eating their Passover and for that reason were called quartadecemani The Churches of the West observed it as it is now in the Church of Rome they object here that Victor excommunicated the Bishops of the East for not observing Easter after the Roman and western fashion Ergo say they the Bishop of Rome in those dayes was oecumenick Bishop otherwayes he would not have taken upon him to exercise Jurisdiction in so remote parts as in Asia But it is answered usurpation is no title of authority and by this very action of Victor it appears that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or necessar communion with the Church of Rome was not believed in those dayes as appears by two reasons The first is the opposition made by the Churches of Asia to that excommunication of Victor but it is altogether impossible that they would have mis-regarded it if the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or necessar communion with the particular Church of Rome under the pain of damnation had been an Article of Faith in those dayes as it is now That those Bishops in the East slighted the excommunication of Victor appears by Eusebius hist Eccles lib. 5. cap. 23. and 24. who relates and brings in Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus in Asia pleading their Cause in an Epistle written by the consent of them all that they had the same tradition of observing Easter from the Apostle John that it was practised by Philip the Apostle Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr disciple of John the Apostle and by the other Bishops and Martyrs as Thraseas and Sagonius that they had confirmed their own way of observing Easter in the council of all the Bishops of Asia and for those reasons they were not moved with the terrors of that excommunication pronunced against them by Victor but it is very unlike they would have so contemned it if they had believed the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome If there was any such thing as the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome their opposition demonstrats that either they were ignorant of it or els wilfully opposed it they could not be ignorant for who dare affirm that the Apostles John and Philip and Polycarpus the Disciple of John could be ignorant of so necessar a point of Salvation if there had been any such thing Neither can it be affirmed that they wilfully opposed it for it is a thing incredible that so many holy men Saints and Martyrs confessed to be such by the modern Church of Rome it self would die out of the communion of the Church of Rome and in so doing condemn themselves eternally for Bellarmine himself de pont Rom. lib. 2. cap. 19. affirms that it is not found that ever Victor recalled his excommunication And since these holy men neither could be ignorant that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was an article of Faith if it had been in these dayes neither would they have opposed it and contemned Victors excommunication if they had known it it is evinced that in these dayes there was no such article of Faith as the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or necessar communion with the Church of Rome yea notwithstanding of the excommunication of Victor the whole Churches of the East before the Council of Neice observed Easter in their own fashion but it were too hard to affirm that they were all damned which must of necessity be affirmed if the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome had been an article of Faith in those dayes and this much of opposition from the East to that decree of Victor The second Argument taken from the action of Victor against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is the opposition that it had from the West although the whole Bishops of the West were of the same opinion with Victor anent the observation of Easter yet they absolutely condemned his way of proceeding For as Eusebius relates Hist Eccles lib. 5. cap. 24. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in the name of the whole Churches of France in an Epistle to the said Victor recorded by Eusâ—ebius ibid. expostulates most bitterly with Victor not obscurely taxing him of ignorance and arrogance for his precipitated proceeding objecting to him the example of his predecessors Bishops of Rome as Pius Telesphorus Anicetus c. who all of them keeped communion with the Bishops of the East notwithstanding their observation of Easter otherwayes then it was observed at Rome yea the same Bishops of the West still keeped communion with the Bishops of the East notwithstanding their excommunication by Victor but they would never have done so if the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome had been believed in those dayes or if necessar communion with the Church of Rome had in those times been an article of Faith Sanderus lib. 7. of his visib Monarch and with him Bellarmine prove the supremacy of Victor in this action by a notable cheat the more opposition it had saith Sanderus the authority of Victor was the more conspicuous because the Council of Neice declared in favour of Victor against all his opposers in decerning that Easter should be observed according to the decree of Victor But it is answered that the Council did so not for the authority of Victor but only because they thought that opinion to be right it was professed by all the Churches of the West and by Irenaeus but Sanderus will not affirm that the Council of Neice followed the authority of Irenaeus Secondly albeit the Council had followed the authority of Victor or perswaded by his authority had made that decree it doth not follow that Victor had any jurisdiction over the Council or the whole Church Paphnutius made a motion in the Council of Neice in the defence of married Priests the Council all followed his opinion as Socrates relates lib. 1. cap. 8. of his history of the Church and yet the said Paphnutius had no supremacy over the Council Sanderus instances that the Council of Neice in a Letter to the Church of Alexandria mentioned by Theodoretus affirms that all the Brethren of the East are resolved to follow the Church of Rome us the Council and you of Alexandria in the observation of Easter where Sanderus and Bellarmine espy out two things for their advantage the first is follow the second is that Romans is put in the first place before us the Council whereby they prove the authority of the Bishop of Rome above the Council because Romans is put before the Council or us and also because the Brethren of the East are said to follow the Romans But it is answered albeit Romans were put before us or the Council it doth not follow that the Church of Rome hath any authority over the Council being first mentioned in an Epistle doth not
import a jurisdiction above another Constantine in an Epistle mentioned by Theodoretus lib. 1. cap. 10. writing of the same business enumerating a number of Churches with which these Churches of the East were resolved in time coming to observe Easter placeth Spain before France but it doth not follow that the Church of Spain had any authority over the Church of France Secondly Bellarmine and Sanderus following the version of Christhofersone translates Theodoretus falsly his words in the Original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is So that all the Brethren of the East who dissented from the Romans and you and all those who observed Easter from the beginning are resolved hereafter to observe it with you The sophistry of Sanderus and Bellarmine appears in this in stead of these words are resolved hereafter to observe Easter with you which is the Original they translate they are resolved hereafter to follow the Roman the Council and you putting in follow for with you Secondly in putting in the Romans and the Council which is not in the Original which words us or the Council they insert to prove the authority of the Church of Rome above the Council Romans being placed by them before the Council And this much of that contest of Victor with the Bishops of Asia which they produce to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome whereas in effect it hath disproved it Such an other business as this is that contest of Stephanus Bishop of Rome with Cyprian and the Churches of Africa about the rebaptising of those who were baptised by Hereticks which they instance also to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the Council of Neice But since we shewed that the excommunication of Stephanus was not regairded that Saint Augustine praised the opposition of Cyprian to it and recommended these expressions of Cyprian against the usurpation of Stephanus to the whole Church since 87 Bishops in that Council of Carthage condemned the proceedings of Stephanus since Cyprian dying excommunicated was reputed nevertheless a Saint by Augustine and other Fathers and by the ancient Church of Rome and also so reputed by the Modern Church of Rome that Excommunication of Cyprian by Stephanus is so far from proving that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was an Article of Faith in those dayes that it demonstrates invincibly the contrary CHAP. X. Of Appellations pretended to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval from the Apostles to the death of Cyprian TO these actions of Popes usurping Authority in that interval are referred several pretended Appellations to the Bishop of Rome by which they endeavour to prove his Supremacy in those times they mention divers Bellarmine makes use of three the first is of the Grand Heretick Marcion who being excommunicated for his prodigious opinion by his own Father a Bishop in Pontus had his recourse to Hyginus Bishop of Rome anno 142 as Epiphanius affirms Heres 42. The second is Fortunatus and Felix being deposed by Cyprian in Africa about anno 252. fled to Cornelius Bishop of Rome as is related by Cyprians Epistle 55. The third is a little after the same time Basilides and Martialis being deposed by the Bishops of Spain as is reported by Cyprians epistle 68. fled to Stepahnus Bishop of Rome of which in order and first of Marcion This Marcion was a notorious and dangerous Heretick against whom Tertullian and Epiphanius most bitterly enveigh he denied the verity of Christs humane nature and the verity of his sufferings he denyed also the resurrection of the body he maintained that men might be thrice baptised His Father was a Bishop or Preacher in Pontus by whom he was excommunicated he fled to Rome desiring to be admitted to the communion of that Church but he was rejected by the Clergy of Rome he asked them a reason they answered they could not admitt him without a testimonial from his Father the Bishop who had excommunicated him as is reported by Epiphanius It is very strange that Bellarmine should call this an appellation since the Clergy of Rome refused to hear him neither did he appeal at all as appears both by the reason wherefore he left his own Countrey and also by his demands at Rome The first is related by Epiphanius who tells he fled from his own Countrey not enduring the scoffs of tâ—e common people his demands at Rome are likewayes related by Epiphanius viz. not to take knowledge in his cause in a second judgement which is the demand of Appellants but only to be admitted to the communion of that Church which are also refused him as is affirmed by Epiphanius When he was rejected at Rome he associated himself with one Cerdon those two hatched an opinion of three gods the first they called the good God which created nothing at all that is in this world the second they called a visible god Creator of all things the third god was the devil whom they made as a mid-thing between the visible and the invisible god Cerdon before he was acquainted with Marcion asserted only two gods the one author of all good things the other of all evill things but after his aquaintance with Marcion they both taught these three gods this damnable heresie wounderfully increased in many places as Italy Egypt Palestine Arabia Syria Cyprus Persia and other places which caused Tertullian and Epiphanius inveigh so bitterly against it in their Books Bellarmine his second instance of Appellations is of Fortunatus and Felicissimus the story is this Felicissimus and Novatian were condemned at a Council of Carthage Felicissimus for averring that those who had lapsed to Idolatry in time of persecution should be admitted to office of the Church after pen ance Novation for maintaining that they might not be admitted to communion at all no not after pennance the Church of Carthage takes a midway decerning that after pennance they might be admitted to communion but not to their charge in the Church Felicissimus who had fallen in Idolatry himself and for that reason was debarred from his charge conspires with one Privatus who was excommunicated as well as himself they make a faction and sets up one Fortunatus Bishop of Carthage in oposition to Cyprian and immediately goes to Rome desiring of Cornelius Bishop of Rome to be admitted to communion with that Church desiring him to countenance their new Bishop Fortunatus Cornelius refuses at first to hear them but afterwards they use Menaces whereupon he writes to Cyprian his intimate friend in their favour It is demanded of Bellarmine how he finds any Appellation here The cause is almost the same with that of Marcion which we now mentioned yea Pamelius himself in his Annotations upon that place of Cyprian denyes expresly there was any appellations but that these went to Rome to complain or to be judged not in those things in which they had been already judged by Cyprian but in other things Secondly albeit there had been any
appellations it was opposed by Cyprian for two reasons first because delinquents should be judged where the crime is committed where witnesses may be had against them Secondly because the authority of the Bishops in Africa was no less who had already judged them then the authority of the Bishop of Rome to whom they had their recourse Bellarmine answers to both these reasons to the first he gives a twofold answer first that the meaning of Cyprian is to be understood de prima instantia that is persons should be judged where the crime is committed the first time only but if they appeal they should be judged in that place to which they appeal But he Sophisticates for Cyprian is opposing a second judgement at Rome after they had been condemned in Carthage as is notorious by the History Bellarmine answers Secondly that Cyprian is against a second â—udgement or appellation when the crime is manifest and not when it is dubious But it is replyed that manifest or unmanifest crime doth not take away appellation if the appellation be otherwayes legal or it the Judge to whom they appeal have jurisdiction over him from whom they have appealed Neither doth Cyprian distinguish between manifest and not manifest crimes at all Secondly Bellarmine contradicts himself in affirming that the meaning of Cyprian is that they may appeal to Rome when the cause is dubious but not when it is manifest which distinction Bellarmine admits viz. that there should be no appellation when the crime is manifest and yet in this case of Fortunatus and Felix the crimes were manifest and Bellarmine instances their appellations as legal which is a flat contradiction and this much of Bellarmines answer to Cyprians first reason viz. That Crimes should be judged where they are committed He yet instances that if that reason of Cyprians were valid it would cut off all appellations for there can be no appeal if crimes be judged where they are committed But it is replyed that Cyprian adds when the authority of those who have already judged them is no less then the authority of those to whom they appeal for immediatly after those words crimes should be judged where they are committed he restricts his meaning by the comparison of authority except saith he the authority of the Bishops of Africa be thought not sufficient by those profligate fellows who were judged by them Bellarmine instances those words of Cyprian are not comparing the authority of the Bishops of Africa with the authority of the Bishop of Rome but only with the cause of Fortunatus and Felix that is the authority of the Bishop in Africa is sufficient to judge that case but it is answered although that were the meaning of Cyprian it cutts off all appellations to Rome for if the authority of the Bishops of Africa be sufficient in that case of Fortunatus and Felix they cannot be rejudged at Rome in a second judgement Secondly albeit â—yprian for modesties sake doth not name the authority of the Church of Rome in the comparison for he was a great respecter of Cornelius Bishop of Rome yet that this is his meaning appears more evidently by those speeches of his uttered against Stephanus Bishop of Rome afterward in an other Council of Carthage which we mentioned in the former Chapter where he expresly affirms that all Bishops are of a like jurisdiction And this much of Bellarmine Pamelius answers this passage of Cyprian otherwayes with a world of Sophistry And first he affirms that Cyprian in those words is not disputing against a second judgement at Rome but against a judgement at Rome in the case of Fortunatus and Felix in prima instantia and therefore he uses these words the crime should be judged where it is committed alluding to an Epistle Decretal of Fabianus Bishop of Rome in which it is expresly ordained that no Bishop should be judged at Rome per Saltum that is until he be first judged where he is accused to have transgressed So if ye object to Pamelius that Fortunatus and Felix were already judged in Africa and went to Rome to demand a second hearing he answers they did not demand a recognoscing of these things for which they had been already judged but desired of Cornelius Bishop of Rome that he would be judge in things afterward laid to their charge by the Bishops of Africa which were not yet judged by them But it is replyed it is false that Pamelius affirms for it appears expresly â—y Cyprians Letter that he disputes against a second judgment at Rome and not a judgement in Prima instantia whereas Pamelius affirms that new crimes were intended which had not been yet judged it is his bare assertion neither brings he any proof of it for if any such thing had been a judgement in prima instantia could not have been with any shadow of justice countenanced at Rome neither could Felicissimus be so ignorant as to expect any redress that way the Scope of Felicissimus complaint was that he and Fortunatus might be restored because the judgement of the African Bishops passed against them was unjust Pamelius instances secondly that it was a first judgement or in prima instantia which Felicissimus demanded at Rome or else it was an appellation seing there can be no mids but there is no mention made of appellation at all by Cyprian Ergo it was a judgement in prima instantia which they demanded at Rome and for which Cyprian so much expostulats with Cornelius and inveighs against them It is answered first how this passage of Cyprian puzles them appears by their contradictions in their glosses Bellarmine instances this particular of Felicissimus as an appellation to prove the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the Bishops in Africa Pamelius flatly denys that Felicissimus appealed at all which is a flat contradiction of Bellarmine he takes this course perceiving that if this particular of Felicissimus were an appellation Cyprian must of necessity be against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome since he expresly disputs that Felicissimus cannot be judged at Rome and consequently Pamelius confesseth that Bellarmines evasions are nothing to the purpose It is answered secondly whereas Pamelius disputes Felicissimus did not appeal Ergo he demanded a judgement in prima instantia it doth not follow because there is a mids Felicissimus did make no appeal when he came out of Africa neither desired he a second judgment at Rome as it had been a formal appeal out only desired the assistance of Cornelius that by his moyen he might have some redress that this is no evasion appears by two unanswerable reasons the first is this Cyprian in his 55. Epistle affirms that they had solicited the Bishops in Africa before ever they had solicited the Bishop of Rome making the same complaints but none will affirm that they appealed to those Bishops of Africa after they had been condemned by the Council of Carthage over which the Bishops of Africa had no
authority in which doing they followed the example of Privatus who after he was condemned both in the Council of Africa and at Rome by Cornelius himself yet he desired a second judgement in another Council in Africa whereby it is evident that a second â—udgement in those dayes did not infer of necessity a formal appellation since there could be no appellation from a Synod to its self neither will Bellarmine affirm that Privatus appealed from Cornelius to a Council in Africa The second reason proving a mids between an Appeal and a judgement in prima instantia is this we have proved that Felicissimus did not demand a judgement in prima instantia from Cornelius Bishop of Rome but neither did he appeal unto him for an Appealer is held Pro non judicato or not guilty till the appeal be discussed but so was not Felicissimus for all held him guilty in Africa and refused communion with him neither did Cornelius admitt him to his communion at Rome after he was condemned by the Council of Carthage neither did Cornelius judge in his cause at all but only wrote unto Cyprian to deal favourably with him Since then Cyprian disputed so vehemently that Cornelius should not medle in that case of Felicissimus after the determination of the Council of Carthage much more he would have opposed the authority of Cornelius if there had been any formal appellation and all what Bellarmine and Pamelius alledge to the contrary is proved sophistry the one contradicting the other and this much of Fortunatus and Fellicissimus The third example of Appellations in this interval before the Council of Neice instanced by Bellarmine is this Cornelius Bishop of Rome dying Lucius succeeds but he not living long Stephanus succeeds in whose time the Bishops of Spain excommunicat Basilides a Bishop and likewayes one Martialis for falling in Idolatry or sacrificing to Idols in the time of persecution for fear of torture or death Basilides becomes penitent demands absolution which they grant him but withal they refuse to restore him to his Bishoprick in which they put another called Sabinus Basilides and Martialis have their recourse to Stephanus Bishop of Rome he takes not so much notice of Martialis but he writes to the Bishops of Spain to restore Basilides to his place they consult the Bishops of Africa who meeting in a Council about the business the Bishops of Africa send their opinion in an Epistle which in the edition of Turnebius is Epist 35. in that of Pamelius 68. of Cyprian in which Epistle Cyprian inveighs against Basilides as an Impostor taxeth Stephanus of credulity in giving ear to Basilides and concludes that the cesire of Stephanus should not be obeyed since Sabinus was legally put in the place of Basilides and therefore they ought to maintain him in that Bishoprick Here Bellarmine is demanded what he sees in this History making for the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the Bishops of Spain or for proving that Basilides appealed formally It would seem that Basilides appealed not since he was held pro judicato excommunicated deposed and another put in his Bishoprick which could not have been done if Appeals to Rome had been believed obligatory in those dayes Secondly Cyprian and the Council of Africa advise the Bishops of Spain not to obey the desire of Stephanus in rescinding the ordination of Sabinus affirmed by them to be legal Jure ordinata but if Basilides had appealed the ordination of Sabinus had not been lawful whereby it is evident that no appeals to Rome were approved in those dayes albeit Basilides had appealed Bellarmine answers that Basilides did appeal because he had his recourse to Stephanus and complained But it is replyed first that was no appeal because he made no intimation of it to the Bishops of Spain before he went to Rome Secondly because his going to Rome did not hinder or suspend the execution of the sentence passed against him as appears by the placing of Sabinus in his Bishoprick in the interim Thirdly when he came to Rome he brought no probations with him but only as Cyprian affirms Stephanum longe positum rei gestae ignarum fefellit that is he deceived Stephanus Bishop of Rome altogether ignorant of the business Lastly if Basilides had appealed the Bishops of Spain had been cited to plead the cause at Rome which they were not whereby it is evident there was no appeal Secondly to prove the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome Bellarmine alledgeth that Stephanus commanded the Bishops of Spain to repone Basilides and rescind that ordination they had made in favour of Sabinus But it is answered to omit we shewed it was no formal sentence of Stephanus but only an advice Bellarmine â—orgets the other half of the tale quite destroying the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as first that the Bishops of Spain before they gave an answer to Stephanus consulted with the Bishops of Africa whereby it is evident they acknowledged not the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome Secondly the Bishops of Africa meeting in a Council advises them not to obey the desire of Stephanus in rescinding their ordination of Sabinus because it was Rite peracta or legal and consequently Stephanus had no authority to command them Thirdly because the Bishops of Spain did not obey the desire of Stephanus at least it is not found in any monument of Antiquity that ever Basilides was restored Bellarmine instances that Stephanus would never have taken it upon him to cognosce in the cause of Basilides if it had not belonged to him But it is answered first he did not cognosce formally in it at all as we shewed Secondly albeit he had it was only an usurpation which is no title of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome We do not affirm that Stephanus had not so much arrogancy since he declared he had as appears by his proceeding with the Churches of Africa mentioned in the former Chapter we only affirm that he did not cognosce formally in this case of Basilides but only delt by way of perswasion and although he had done so it is no Argument for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as an Article of Faith in those dayes since it was every-where opposed as we proved by that passage of Victor with the oriental Bishops and of Stephanus with Cyprian and this of Stephanus with the Bishops of Spain by which passages it appears that the decrees of the Bishop of Rome were opposed in all the East in France in Africa in Spain that is almost by the whole Church And this much of appellations to Rome before the dayes of Cyprian CHAP. XI The testimonies of Ignatius Irenaeus and Tertullian objected to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the times of Cyprian examined IN the two former Chapters we answered all what the Learned Romanists could pretend to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the midle of the third Century
one Bishop of the Church universal is evident because Cathedra or Chair is not one in the whole Church since there are many Chaires in it as is affirmed by Tertullian in his prescriptions cap. 36. The last passage they object out of Cyprian is from his Epistle to Pompeius where he affirmeth no man can have God to his Father who has not the Church to his Mother Costerus the Jesuit Apolog. part 3. objects this passage of Cyprian to prove that the Church of Rome is the mother Church and likewayes to prove the Bishop of Romes supremacy But the impudence of Costerus is very great for Cyprian in that whole Epistle disputes with such vehemency and bitterness against the Church and Bishop of Rome that Pamelius wisheth it had never been written and it shall be proved in the last Chapter of this Book that the said Epistle of Cyprian to Pompeius and others also of his Epistles of the same subject are left out in some new Roman editions of Cyprians works As for the words now alledged Costerus miserably wrests them for in them he is disputing against the Church of Rome and in the very next words he accuseth Stephanus Bishop of Rome not only of Error but also of Obstinacy his dispute is this Those who are baptized by hereticks ought to be re-baptized because the Sanctification of baptisme is only to be found in the Church apud Christi sponsam solam who can beget and bring forth children unto God but they who are baptized by hereticks are not born in the Church neither can they have God to their Father who have not the Church for their Mother Ergo they ought to be re-baptized And a little after he adds how comes it then that the severe Obstinacie of our brother Stephanus Bishop of Rome is come to such an hight he means by that excommunication of himself and the Church of Carthage by Stephanus and his harsh carriage For as Cassander relates consult art 7. when Cyprian sent messengers to Stephanus he not only reâ—used them audience but also inhibited the Clergy of Rome to admit any of them to their houses By which passage of Cyprian with Stephanus it appears with what ingenuity they object the 67. Epistle of Cyprian to prove that he acknowledged the Supremacy of the said Stephanus because in it he writes to him say they to depose Marcianus Bishop of Arles in France But it appears by the words of the Epistle that Cyprian only exhorts Stephanus to admonish the Bishops of the Province to depose him not to depose him himself what was the opinion of Cyprian concerning the power of the Bishop of Rome in deposition and restition of Bishops is sufficiently manifested by his carriage in the cause of Basilides and Sabinus mentioned a little before For in his Epistle 68. he stoutly opposeth the restitution of Basilides and the deposition of Sabinus notwithstanding that Stephanus injoyned both the one and the other to the Bishops of Spain CHAP. XII Objections from forged Authors answered pretended to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the dayes of Cyprian HItherto they have endeavoured to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the death of Cyprian by wrested and misapplyed testimonies that not serving the turn they fall to forgery and that of two kinds first they bring testimonies from bastard and suppositïtious Authors Secondly from true Authors corrupted by the Popes authority or otherwayes we will discourse of the first sort in this Chapter of the second in the following In the first place they pretend the decretal Epistles of several Bishops of Rome who lived in that interval and after unto the beginning of the fourth Age. But it is answered all those decretals are forged attributed to Popes before the dayes of Syrictus Bishop of Rome who lived about anno 380. the reasons follow First Dionysius Exiguus a diligent Compilator of all the decretals of Popes in one volumne begins this work with the decretals of the said Syritius not mentioning the decretal Epistles of any Popes before him whereby it evidently appears that there was no such decretalls in his time or in the sixth Century whereby also it is evident that they have been forged since that time Secondly those decretalls are mentioned by non of the Ancients most exact enquirers after antiquity such as Eusebius Hieronymus Gennadius and Pope Damasus who lived himself in the time of Hieronymus and to whom Hieronymus was Secretar but all those Authors made exact enquiry after the actions of Bishops of Rome before the Council of Neice and yet not one of them maketh mention of those decretals which are at least thirty Thirdly the stiles of men are almost as different as their faces but it appears to any Judicious Reader that all those Epistles were penned by one man having the same stile but they are attributed to Bishops of Rome of divers Ages whereof the last lived three hundred year after the first Fourthly the Latine Tongue before the Council of Neice was in great purity and the Bishops of Rome of those dayes known to be most powerful in it but the stile of those decretals is most barbarous Turrianus objects who wrote a defence of those Epistles that those Bishops of Rome used a humble stile in imitation of Paul who shunned the words of humane wisdom But it is answered that although Paul did forbid affected eloquence yet he did not prescrive solicismes and barbarity which both are frequent in those Epistles And first for Solicismes Enaristus epist 2. Episcopi sunt obediendi non detrahendi Telesphorus in his Epistle hath these words Patres omnes sunt venerandi non insidiandi such like expressions are found every where As for barbarismes you have everywhere such expressions as those folowing Rigorosus tortor dependere obtemperantiam agere indisciplinate jurgialiter stare paternas doctrinas injuriare cuncta charitative peragere Fifthly Isidorus Mercator who lived in the seventh Age challenged by Barronius ad annum 336. num 80. and 60. as a great forger of monuments of Antiquity he lived in the 7. Age at which time there was great debate between the Greek and the Latin Church the Greek Church refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome albeit Phocas in the beginning of that Age had taken the title of oecumenick Bishop from Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople and bestowed it upon Bonifacius Bishop of Rome yet notwithstanding the Bishop of Constantinople still keeped the stile of oecumenick Bishop and would not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome The said Isidorus Mercator as Barronius relates forged several monuments of Antiquity to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and he is commonly thought to be the forger of those decretalls for three reasons first as we said he is detected of several other forgeries secondly because it appears by their stile they are all written by one man thirdly because the stile is barbarous and exactly agreeing