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
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
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
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
added to the Creed by the Council at Trent viz. That Communion with the Church of Rome in all her Tenets is absolutely necessary to salvation Let them study this one Controversie of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and it will resolve the question for if it be founded upon Scripture and Antiquity without all question Communion with the Church of Rome is necessar unto salvation and the Religion of Protestants is a new sprung up heresie since the Bishop of Rome in Cathedra and consequently in their opinion infallible pronounceth so On the contrary if the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome be a thing unknown to Scripture and Antiquity it is as certain that the Faith of the Modern Roman Church is a new devised cheat and idolatry That this followeth of necessity appears by the confession of Bellarmine himself in two expressions in the preface of those Books of his de pontifice Romano The first we now mentioned in which he calls that Controversie of the Popes supremacy a Debâ—te de summa rei Christianae That is whether the Christian Religion can subsist or not By Christian Religion no question he means the Faith of the modern Church of Rome and consequently he grants that they who call in question the Popes supremacy they question also the whole body of the Popish Religion And consequently still he must of necessity grant that if the Popes supremacy be destitute of Scripture and Antiquity the faith of the Modern Church of Rome falls with it and proves a new devised fiction His second expression is in those similitudes he useth to illustrat his assertion viz. He compares Religion without the Popes supremacy which in his opinion is that of the Modern Church of Rome to a House without a Foundation a Body without a Head Moon-shine without the Sun And since it is notorious that a house without a Foundation cannot stand that a Body without a Head cannot live that the Moon without light of the Sun must be obscured He must of necessity grant that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome being refuted by Scripture and Antiquity the Faith and Religion of the Modern Church of Rome is warrantable by neither and consequently proves a new devised idolatrous cheat Thirdly it s a most pleasant contest what can be more pleasing then to consider the causes of any prodigious Monster how iâ— subsists and how it is destroyed how any illustrious cheat is contrived how it is maintained and how it is discovered But such a Monster such a Cheat as the Bishop of Rome none free of prejudice can behold without admiration The whole world sees a person now ignorant then flagitious not seldome both put by two or three Italians of the same mettal in the Chair of Rome which Preferment he obtains sometimes by blood sometimes by simonie sometimes by unlawful stipulations as to protect Heresie and to oppress the Catholick Faith not seldome by a paction with the Devil all which wayes of obtaining the Chair of Rome are confessed by Popish Writers such as Platina and Baronius as shall be proved in the following Dispute Which Homuncio is no sooner installed then he is metamorphosed to be direct Monarch of the whole World both in Spirituals and Temporals And first for Temporals it shall be proved in the following Dispute that he assumes to himself in his Bulls power of transferring Kingdoms at his pleasure of stirring up Subjects to Armes against their natural Princes under the pain of Excommunication It shall be proved that he makes Emperours and Kings lye prostrate till he trade upon their neck makes them stand bare-footed with their Wives and Children in frost and snow dancing attendants at his Gates and yet not not admitted entrance It shall be proved that he makes Laws in that Book entituled Sacred Ceremonies that Emperors and Kings should hold his Stirrup hold water to his Hands serve dishes at his Table carry him on their shoulders Yea it shall be proved that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome That all Kings are not only the Popes Vassals but which is more he is not oblieged by any mutual ontract to suffer them to possess their Kingdoms but during his pleasure that is he may lawfully depose them although they miscarry not in the least In which he doth tâ—em no wrong because they hold their Kingdoms â—f him not as Vassals but as depositars as when any gives to another his Cloak to keep when he re-demands it he doth him no wrong As for his power which he assumes to himself in Spirituals it cannot be repeated without horrour It shall be proved in the following Dispute that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome partly in the Canon Law partly in the Bulls of Popes themselves partly in Books printed by the Popes Authority and affirmed by his Vâ—sitors to contain nothing contrary to the Catholick Faith That the Pope has power to coyn Articles of Faith at his pleasure oblieging the whole Church under the pain of damnation although he command vice and forbid vertue Secondly although he should lead all the world to hell with him yet none should presume to disobey him Thirdly that he gives pardon for sin for money and not only of sins by-past but also of those to come that is for a little money he will give you pardon for a little time but for a round sum he will give you pardon so long as you please Fourthly it shall be proved that for money he permits men to sin that is permits Clergy-men to keep Whoores And if any keep not a Whoor he makes them pay for it in some places of Italy nevertheless because they have liberty to keep a Whoor if they please Cornelius Agrippa affirms he heard such expressions as these following in the Popes Court Habeat aut non habeat Meretricem Aureum solvat quia habet si velit That is Whether a Priest keep a Whoor or not let him pay the Tribute since he may keep one if he please for such a peece of money Fifthly he makes his decretal Epistles of equal authority with the Scripture Lastly as he intended a gigantomachy he is called in the Canon Law revised and authorised by Gregory 13. Our Lord God the Pope It is affirmed in the said Law that he has power to make injustice justice and contra that he has power to command the Angels to carry souls to Heaven at his pleasure that he has power to give liberty to men to place the departed Souls of their friends in paradise for money that by vertue of his succession to Peter he is assumed to the society of the individual Trinity he not only hears patiently but also rewards flatterers when their blasphemous Pamphlets prefer him to Christ as appears in Innocent 10. which passage shall be realated part 1. lib. 1. cap. 11 of this following Treatise My Lords and Gentlemen any would think these horrible passages incredible but have patience till
Rock was Christ The same Author lib. 2. cap. 13. of his concordance Per Petram Christum quem confessus est intelligimus by the Rock we understand Christ whom Peter confessed Pererius lib. 2. in Daniel although a Jesuit affirms Quia Christus est Petra super quam fundata est sustentatur Ecclesia ideóque nullo unquam tempore nullâque vi labefactari everti poterit quin imò nec portae inferi adversus eam praevalebunt In which words he gives a reason wherefore the gates of hell shal not prevail against the Church viz. because Christ is the Rock upon which it is built And thus much of the testimonies of those Popish Doctors interpreting the Rock to be Christ And since some of them lived very lately it is evident that the interpretation of the Rock to be Peter is but a new devised cheat Now followeth the second Class Of those Popes and Popish Doctors interpreting the Rock to be the Faith or Confession of Peter The first testimony is of Adrianus Primus who lived in the eighth Century Anno 772. or thereabouts who in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain and France recorded in the Acts of the Council of Frankfoord hath these words Super hanc Petram quam confessus es à qua vocabull sortitus es dignitatem super hanc soliditatem fidei Ecclesiam meam aedificabo By which words two things appear The first is That the Church is built in his opinion upon the Confession of Peter The second is That those who call the Rock Christ and those who call it the confession of Peter mean both one thing since he expresly affirms That the Rock is the objective Confession of Peter or that which Peter confessed viz. Christ which is all one as if he had called Christ the Rock The second testimony of Innocent third who lived Anno 1000. or thereabouts In his Epistle to the Bishop of France concerning Petrus Abeilardus which Epistle is mentioned by Otto Frisingensis lib. 1. cap 84. degestis Frederici primi-Beatus Petrus Apostolorum Princeps pro eximiâ hujus fidei confessione audire meruit Tu es inquam beatus Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Petram utique firmitatem fidei Catholicae unitatis soliditatem manifestè designans The sum of which words is that our Savior by hanc Petram or the Rock means the firmness and solidity of Peters Faith The third testimony is of Adrianus quintus Bishop of Rome who lived about 1278. in his epistle to Frederick the Emperor recorded by Radivicus Frisingensis lib. 1. cap. 3. Quem in Apostolicae Confessionis Petra non ambigimus per Dei gratiam solidatum where the Rock is expresly called the thing which Peter confessed The testimony of the fourth Bishop of Rome is of Nicolaus secundus who lived about anno 1060. His testimony is recorded by Gratianus Distinct 22. cap. 1. Romanam Ecclesiam solus ille aedificavit super Petram fidei mox nascentis erexit that is the Church was built upon the faith of Peter then budding And thus much of the testimonies of four Popes or Bishops of Rome interpreting the rock to be the faith of Peter to which may be added testimonies of the most learned Doctors of that Church as the Glossator of the Decreta distinct 19. cap. Ita Dominus Joannes de Turre Cremata lib. 2. cap. 102. 1â—2 in summa de Ecclesia Dionysius Carthusianus who lived 1460. in his Commentaries upon Matthew 16. 18. Gorranus upon the same place and also Titelemanus and Erasmus all which expresly interpret the rock to be the confession of Peter it is needless to set down their words since their testimonies are granted The third Class of Popish Doctors is of those who although Peter were granted to be the rock yet they deny him to be the only rock upon which the Church was built and who call other Apostles rocks and foundations as well as Peter The testimonies are few but the giveâ—s of them are most notable Men the most famous Doctors that ever the Church of Rome could brag of The first is the testimony of Lombardus Master of the sentences the first Founder of School-divinity among the Latins as Damascenus amongst the Grecians who interpreting those words of Psalm 87. Fundamenta ejus in montibus sanctis affirms that all the Prophets and Apostles are foundations The second testimony is of Nicolaus Cusanus that famous Cardinal whom Espenseus lib. 2. de adorat Ecclesiae and Aeneas Silvius afterward Bishop of Rome both commend as one of the ablest Divines that ever the Church of Rome produced His first testimony is 21. dist in novo 24. quest 1. Sed scimus quod Petrus nihil plus potestatis à Christo accepit aliis Apostolis but we know that Peter got no more power from Christ then the rest of the Apostles and likewise lib. 2. cap. 13. concordiâ— Catholicae where he hath this notable testimony Et quanquam Petro dictum est tu es Petrus Si Petrus per Petram lapis fundamenti Ecclesiae in elligi deberet tunc secundum S. Hieronymum ita similiter alii Apostoli fuerunt lapides Apocal. 21. In which words he expresly affirms and proves that the other Apostles were Rocks as well as Peter which he proves by the testimony of Hieronymus And thus much of that famous passage tu es Petrus of which so much noise is made now a days which although it be the principal place upon which the supremacy of Peter of the Bishop of Rome and the Faith of the Modern Church of Rome is built Yet you see what little cause they have to brag of Antiquity since none of the Ancients interpret Peter to be the Rock and also what little cause they have to brag of Unity since those who interpret Peter to be the Rock only are contradicted not only by the most learned Doctors of their own Church but also by six Popes Felix 3. Gregory 1. Adrianus 1. Nicolaus 2. Innocentus 3. Adrianus 5. And notwithstanding that their Popes are now estemed by them infallible Judges of controversies yet Pighius and Baronius who interpret the Rock to be Peter only tax all those six Popes of ignorance madness as we said before so doth Maldonatus de Valentia and other of their Doctors whose testimonies is needless to be mentioned since they cannot without impudence be denyed CHAP. VIII Of Matthew 16. 19. Of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven HItherto hath been prolixly disputed the first argument of our adversaries proving Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop viz. because as they pretend our Savior promised to build the Church upon him as a Rock verse 18. Now followeth their second argument viz because our Saviour promised to give to him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven verse 19. But it is unanimously answered by Protestants that in those words the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven our Savior doth not mean universal Jurisdiction
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
Peter who was Bishop of the place Bellarmine answers That he did not salute John in his Epistle to the Ephesians nor James in his Epistle to the Hebrews and yet John was Bishop of Ephesus and James Bishop of Jerusalem But it is replyed this answer of Bellarmine is very childish for to omit that neither John nor James were Bishops at all but only Apostles and founders of those Churches as we said before John was not at Ephesus at that time nor stayed there and James at that time was dead neither did Paul write his Epistle to the Hebrews to the particular Church of Jerusalem but to the whole Jews Bellarmine answers secondly That Peter was not returned to Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans But it is replyed first Aquila and Priscilla were returned to Rome whom Bellarmine affirms were expelled at the same time with Peter whom Paul salutes Rom. 16. 3. but it is incredible that Peter who was Bishop of the place would not have returned with the first Secondly Paul among the causes of his thanksgiving for the Faith of the Romans cap. 1. 8. and other praises cap. 16. or of his own prayers cap. 16. 10. makes no mention of Peter at all yet constantly in his Epistles he useth to mention the Ministers of the Churches to which they are directed whether they be present or not as appears by 1. Corinth cap. 16. 15. Ephes 6. 21. Phil. 2. 19. Col. 4. 9. 12. c. The fifth reason that Peter was never at Rome is it is known that Paul wrote several Epistles from Rome in the time of Nero in whose time Bellarmine affirms that Peter was at Rome in which Epistles he makes frequent mention of others of lesser note and yet he makes no mention of Peter at all as Col. 4. 11. and 2. Timothy 4. 16. Bellarmine answers first that a negative testimony proves nothing it doth not follow Peter was not at Rome because Paul makes no mention of him But it is replyed it is not only a negative testimony which is the ground of the Argument but an Argument à minore ad majus Paul makes mention of others of lesser note much more he would have made mention of Peter if he had been at Rome 2. There are two sorts of negative testimonies the first is purely negative the second is privative when nothing is testified when it should have been testified this last sort of negative Argument is most efficacious as is acknowledged by Medina upon Thomas part 83. quaest 1. art 3. Neither can it be denyed that this is good reasoning There was but one World created That only the second person of the Trinity assumed flesh because the Scripture makes no mention that more Worlds were created or that the other persons of the Trinity were incarnate But this Argument is taken from a privative testimony viz. Paul could not without just reprehension make no mention of Peter if Peter had been at Rome at that time as appears by Colos 4. 10 11. where Paul affirms that Marcus Justus and Aristarchus were all the Jews which were his work-fellows in the Gospel But if Peter had been at Rome Paul had spoken untruly in excluding him from being one of his work-fellows which he restricts to the following three for if Peter had been at Rome Paul would never have affirmed that those three were the only work-fellows he had at Rome Again 2 Tim. 4. 10 11. he affirms that all his fellows had forsaken him except Luke who only was with him but if Peter had been at Rome he would never have forsaken Paul nor had it been true which Paul affirmed that none were with him but Luke Those passages puzleth Bellarmine very sore as appears by his perplexed answer he gives to that passage of Colos 4. that Paul speaks only of his domesticks which is a most miserable effugium for to omit that Paul keeped not such a port as to have so many domesticks he expresly calls those three persons Aristarchus Marcus Justus all the fellow-labourers in the Gospel he had at Rome Secondly Bellarmine answers to 2 Tim. 4. 16. That Paul speaks there of those who might have been intercessors for him to Nero which is a very simple evasion he hath no ground at all for it and it is clear against the meaning of Paul who speaks of those who should have corroborated him or confirmed him as appears from verse 17. where he affirms that God was with him and strengthened him only except Luke verse 11. But if Peter had been at Rome he would not have neglected such a duty to Paul Thirdly Bellarmine answers That perhaps Peter was elsewhere when Paul wrote those Epistles from Rome which is as much to say that Peter was Bishop of Rome and yet was never at Rome when the Scripture makes mention of the Teachers of that Church that Paul could never find him at Rome albeit Dionysius praised by Bellarmine affirms cap. 3. that he was at Rome the same time with Paul and died with him in one day And this much of those reasons proving that Peter was never at Rome although they be not demonstrative yet they are very perswasive Velenus in a Treatise purposly writen of that subject adds many more but these are sufficient in this Compend In the next place we will alledge some unanswerable reasons proving that although Peter had been at Rome yet he was never Bishop of Rome The first is this the Office of an Apostle and a Bishop in the strict sense are inconsistent in one person a Bishop is restricted to a certain Charge but an Apostle by institution is bound to have no certain Charge as appears by those words of Christ Go unto the whole World by which words they are expresly commanded not to tye themselves to any particular place or at least it is permitted them not to tye themselves to a particular place but if they had been Bishops they were of necessity tyed to a particular Charge If any of the Apostles had been Bishops Paul had as much reason to be called so as any other of the Apostles but we never read that Paul was Bishop of any particular Church except only Irenaeus and some others affirm that he and Peter were conjunct Bishops of Rome but that quite destroyes Peters Bishoprick of Rome as we said before since the word Bishop is taken in a large sense as they must of necessity confesse since Bellarmine will not affirm that Paul was Bishop of Rome in a proper sense The second reason is this they confesse that Peter was very oft absent from Rome and very long Cartesius affirms that he was 18. years absent Onuphrius 7 Bellarmine 5 but if he had been Bishop of Rome he woul not have been so long from his Charge They affirm indeed that he was hindered but to omit that he was not hindered so long how comes it that in his absence he wrote no Epistles to his Charge at Rome
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
not now found in the Editions of Rhenanus printed since in those places where the Pope hath jurisdiction They had reason to purge out those words from Rhenanus because the testimony of his was as a Poyniard sticking in the very bowels of that article of the Catechise of the Council of Trent viz. that there is no salvation without communion with the Church of Rome CHAP. XII Several passages objected out of Cyprian to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval vindicated from Sophistry THe last Father they make use of to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval between the times of the Apostles and the death of Cyprian is Cyprian himself There is not a Father of them all more urged to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome then Cyprian and yet it is most certain that it never had a greater enemy then he what Cyprians opinion was anent that contest appeared in the former Chapters both by his testimonies and his actions Our adversaries dispute two wayes for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome out of Cyprian first by sophistry next by forgery we will refute the first in this Chapter and prove the second in the Chapters following and that by the testimonies of the greatest Antiquaries that ever the Church of Rome produced The first testimony of Cyprian they bring is from his 42. Epistle where writing to Cornelius Bishop of Rome he hath these words Some while ago we sent some of our Colleagues to compose some differences or to reduce some schismaticks to the unity of the Chatholick Church c. and a little after But those Schismaticks set up to themselves an adulterous head against the Church from which place Bellarmine reasons thus as those Novatians set up one to be heaa of their Church or of the whole Church of the Novatians so Cornelius was head of the Catholick Church But it is answered this reasoning is very unbeseeming such a learned man as Bellarmine for the meaning of Cyprian is no other then that the Novatians set up to themselves a Bishop at Rome in opposition to Cornelius so he calls the Novatian Bishop an adulterous head contrary to Cornelius who was the true head of the particular Church at Rome because he was the true Bishop thereof and so Cyprian doth not mean any head of the whole Church but only by Head he means Bishop of the particular Church of Rome Bellarmine instances that Cyprian affirms his intention was to reconcile those Shismaticks to the Catholick Church by which he means the Church of Rome and since the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church and the Bishop of Rome head of the Church of Rome Ergo he is head of the Catholick Church But it is answered when Cyprian calls the Church of Rome the Catholick Church his meaning is a particular Church professing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and therefore they who were reconciled to the Church of Rome were reconciled to the Catholick Church also so any reconciled to a particular Church professing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church is reconciled also to the Catholick Church and yet that particular Church is not the Catholick Church That this is the meaning of Cyprian appears by the preceeding Epistle or epist 41. where speaking of some Schismaticks in the Church of Carthage he affirms they opposed themselves to the Catholick Church he means they opposed themselves to the Church of Cathage inwhich doing they opposed themselves to the Catholick Church because the Church of Cathage professed the same Doctrine with the Catholick Church in opposing or renting the Church of Carthage they rent and opposed the Catholick Church Pamelius urgeth that Cyprian affirms that those Schismaticks refused the bosome of the root and mother Church where observe saith he that Cyprian calls the Church of Rome the root and the mother of all Churches or of the Catholick Church which Epithet is given by Cyprian to the Church of Rome not only in this epistle but also in his 45. epist to Cornelius in which he gives injunctions to those he was sending to Rome to be informed concerning that schism of the Novatians that they should acknowledge and adhere to the Root and Mother of the Catholick Church But it is answered that Cyprian by Root and Mother of the Catholick Church means no other thing but the Catholick-Church it self as appears by the said 45. Epistle in which he affirms to Cornelius that hearing that there was a schism in the Church of Rome he sent Caldonius and Fornatus to be informed of the truth of the business and to adhere to neither party till they were informed which of the factions was in the right and which in the wrong and for that reason he did not direct his Letters either to Cornelius or to that Novatian Bishop but only to the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome that being informed by them they might adhere to those who held and acknowledged the Root and Mother of the Catholick Church whereby it is evident that Cyprian did not believe that Cornelius Bishop of Rome or those who adhered to him were the root and mother of the Catholick Church since he gave his messengers injunction to suspend their Judgments till they were informed who adhered to the root and mother of the Catholick Church that is who maintained the true Faith or who were members of the Catholick Church for if Cyprian had believed that Cornelius and his faction had been the root and mother of the Catholick Church he would not have injoyned his messengers to suspend their judgment till they were informed by the Presbyters and Deacons so it is evident that Cyprian by Root and Mother of the Catholick Church means the Catholick Church it self both in his 45. and 42. Epistle and in the same sense epist 43. and 44. he exhorts them to return to their mother that is to the unity of the Catholick Church The second passage of Cyprian is found in his 55. Epistle where he hath these words That the occasion of Heresies and Schismes in the Church is only this that the Priest of God is not obeyed and that it is not believed that one Priest as Judge in place of Christ for a time is in the Church This place is much urged by Pamelius in his Annotations upon the said Epistle to prove an oecumenick Bishop But it is answered Cyprian in this Letter or Epistle is inveighing against those who had set up one Fortunatus as we shewed before Bishop of Carthage in opposition to himself and his meaning is not that there should be one Bishop in the Catholick Church but only one Bishop in a particular Church or the Church of Carthage because two Bishops in one place occasions Schismes and Heresies saith Cyprian so its evident that Cyprian is pleading his own cause disputing against those who had set up a Schismatick Bishop in the Church of Carthage in opposition to himself and
Harding disputing against Jewel art 4. brings another objection that Cyprian by one Bishop means not himself or any other particular Bishop but oecumenick their objection is founded upon the words of Cyprian who after he had affirmed that the cause of Schismes was that one Bishop was not acknowledged Judge in place of Christ in the Church he adds if according to divine precepts the whole fraternity were obedient to the said Judge no man would move any thing against the Colledge of Priests whence Horantius and Harding concludes that by whole fraternity Cyprian means the whole Church and by one Bishop one visible head of that Church But it is answered that Cyprian by whole fraternity means that multitude of which any particular Church is composed as in his 68. Epistle writing to the Bishops of Spain he desires them not to rescind the ordination of Sabinus whom they had placed in the Bishoprick of Basilides he affirms that the said Sabinus was chosen by the suffrages of the whole fraternity But Horantius and Harding will not affirm that Cyprian in this 68. Epistle means the universal Church or church of Rome by whole fraternity since it is evident by the circumstances that he means a particular Church or that Congregation which chused Sabinus for their Bishop Likewayes as we shewed before the said Sabinus was placed Bishop and maintained in his Bishoprick over the belly of Stephanus Bishop of Rome who desired them to restore Basilides and the scope of this 68. Epistle written in the Name of the Council of Carthage to the Bishops of Spain by Cyprian is to maintain Sabinus in his Bishoprick notwithstanding that Stephanus Bishop of Rome desired them to rescind the ordination of Sabinus and to replace Basilides That Cyprian by whole fraternity means a particular Church appears by innumerable Epistles of his as epist 47. in two several places and 58. in two several places likewayes and 63. in which last place he affirms when we are at Supper at our Banquet we cannot convocate the common People that we may celebrate the verity of the Sacrament in presence of the whole fraternity And thus we have shewed with what admirable Sophistry our adversaries endeavour to wrest this notable passage of Cyprian epist 55. in which we have been the more prolix because from thence they bring all which they can pretend to be of any moment to prove that Cyprian was for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome they alledge other testimonies more pungent but they shall be proved forged in the following Chapters The third testimony brought from the words of Cyprian is in the edition of Pamelius Epist 46. in which Cornelius writing to Cyprian hath these words We are not ignorant that there is but one God c. and a little after that there should be one Bishop in the Catholick Church from whence they conclude an oecumenick Bishop or the Bishop of Rome as successor to Peter Head of the Curch But it is answered Cornelius in this Epistle is informing Cyprian that some Shismaticks who had partied that Novatian Bishop set up at Rome against Cornelius desired to be re-admitted to his communion confessing their error that they had been seduced and now they are convinced that Cornelius was their true Bishop amongst other of their confessions they profess they were not ignorant that there was but one God one Christ one Holy Ghost and that there should be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church by which it is evident that by Catholick Church they mean any particular Church and here they mean the particular Church of Rome of which they acknowledge Cornelius to be that one Bishop and not that other Novation Bishop by whom they had been seduced and whom they would acknowledge no more for their Bishop since there could be but one true Bishop of that Church viz. Cornelius himself That this is the meaning of Corneliusâ— in this Epistle is further confirmed in an Epistle of his to Fabianus mentioned by Eusebius Hist lib. 6. cap. 35. in which he objects ignorance to one who knew not that there should be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church Here he means one Bishop in the particular Church of Rome For a little after in that Epistle he affirms in that same Catholick Church there were fourty six Presbyters seven Deacons and seven sub-deacons but he could not affirm that in the whole Catholick Church there were only so many Presbyters so many Deacons and so many sub-deacons whereby it is evident that by one Bishop in the Catholick Church Cornelius means there should be but one Bishop in any particular Church which is so evident that Chrystopherson in his version of Eusebius renders these words of Cornelius his Epistle to Fabian thus he was ignorant that there should be but one Bishop in hac Ecclesia Catholica in this Catholick Church viz. in this particular Church of Rome neither is there any expression more frequent in the writings of those Ancients then to to call every particular Church the Catholick Church which observeth the purity of the Catholick Faith or Church universal The fourth passage of Cyprian is in his 40. Epistle directed to the people of Carthage there is one God one Christ one Chair one Church founded upon Peter by Christs own mouth But it is answered it shall be proved in the following Chapters that those last words are forged the rest have no difficulty at all for by one Chair and one Church Cyprian understands that there should be but one Bishop in every particular Church as is evident both by the scope and words of the Epistle the scope of the Epistle is to complain upon some Schismaticks who had made a defection from himself and the Church of Carthage where amongst other reasons against their defection this is one there is but one Chair viz. there is but one Bishop in the Cburch of Carthage Cyprian himself and since none ought to be acknowledged Bishop but he they were Schismaticks in making a separation from him This reasoning of Cyprian had been most ridiculous if by one Chair he had meaned an oecumenick Bishop viz. if he had reasoned thus they are Schismaticks who made a defection from their Bishop Cyprian because there is but one oecumentick Bishop Secondly that this is the meaning of Cyprian appears by the following words where Cyprian affirms they had made to themselves another Altar intimating thereby that there is but one Altar in the Church whereby it is evident that he speaks not of the Church universalâ— but of a particular Church since none will affirm that there is but one Altar in the Catholick Church Likewiseâ— in his 65. Epistle pleading the cause of Rogatianus he affirms that they who make a defection from the Church make another Altar unto themselves but Pamelius himself in his Annotations upon that Epistle observes that Cyprian in that place is speaking only of particular Churches Thirdly that by one Chair cannot be meaned