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
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
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
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
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
mad man or an Impostor will affirm that any Doctrine conform to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This is the Doctrine of the Church of the whole Canonists unanimously maintained by them and most of the Theologues viz. that the Pope has direct power in Temporals or is direct Monarch of the whole world Some Theologues indeed as Bellarmine and others maintain that the power of the Pope is only indirect in ordine ad spiritualia as when a King is an Heretick or otherwayes encroacheth upon the Liberties of the Church or when he assumes any thing to himself which the Pope sayes belongs to him but this Doctrine is exsibilated now at Rome as heretical and Bellarmine himself is taxed by Carerius of heresie for maintaining that the Pope hath no direct power in temporals Yea Sixtus 5th with much ado was hindered from burning these Books of Bellarmine de pontifice Romano for denying that direct power of the Pope in temporals albeit Bellarmine in the said Books gives power to the Pope indirectly or in order to spirituals to depose Kings to absolve their Subjects from all fidelity to them and that their Subjects are oblieged at the Popes command to rise up in Arms against them and consequently to kill them but Bellarmines opinion is now thought too little of the Popes power all the Theologues now are for the direct dominion of the Pope in temporals And this much of the first reason proving that this King-deposing Doctrine is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome The second reason is this That is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome what is asserted by the Pope in Cathedra or teaching the whole Church but the Pope in Cathedra assumes that power of deposing of Kings unto himself as appears by his Bulls as that of Gregory the seventh against Henry the fourth Emperor that of Alexander the third against the Emror Frederick that of Bonifacius the eighth against Philip King of France that of Paulus the third against Henry the eighth King of England that of Paulus the fourth against Queen Elizabeth that of Sixtus the fifth against Henry the third and Henry the fourth Kings of France in which Bulls they expresly affirm that Kings reign by them and that power is given them from God to establish plant build root out cast down transfer Kingdoms at their pleasure The tenors of those Bulls too prolix to be inserted here shall be particularly mentioned and set down part 4. lib. 1. And this much of the second reason that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope has power to depose Kings The third reason is this the Popes have procured that power to be conferred on them by general Councils as in the Council of Lateran under Innocent third the Act of which Council is found in Bzovius anno 1215. parag 3. and also in Binius and Crab in their Collection of Councils It is found likewayes in Baronius ad annum 1102. numb 1 2 3. and also ad annum 1116. numb 5. and also ad annum 1119. Likewayes in the Council of Trent Sess 25. Canon 19. It is ordained that the Popes have power to depose any Dominum fundi or Proprietar of any Land where a Duel is fought in which Canon power of deposing Kings tacitly and consequentially is attributed to the Pope The Council thought it not fit in express terms to affirm that the Pope had power to deprive a King of his property in that case and therefore they made the Canon in general termes comprehending a King under Dominus fundi or Proprietar in general That this is the true meaning of that Canon appears because by reason of it mainly the Kingdom of France did not acknowledge the Council of Trent And thus we have proved by three unanswerable reasons that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings to which may be added a fourth which is this which is so evident that it takes away all doubt The Pope hath innumerable times put that power in practice the first Pope we read attempted it was Pope Constantine against Philippicus Emperor of Constantinople because the said Philippicus caused pull down the Images of the Fathers of the sixth general Council commonly called Tâ—ullanum which were placed in the Temple of St. Sophia but Pope Constantine did only bark his Successors Gregory 2d and Gregory 3d. did bite for the same reason of the Images stirring up the Lombards against the Emperor and bereaved them of the Exarchat of Ravenna in which broils the Emperors Governour at Rome being killed the Bishops of Rome got the Dutchy of Rome to themselves and when the Lombards as we said before demanded that Tribute of them which they were accustomed to pay for these Territories to the Emperors of Constantinople they called in the French against the Lombards and in recompence of their services authorized their General Pipin King of France shutting up the righteous King the last of the race of the Merovingians in a Monastery and afterwards they made Carolus Magnus Son of the said Pipin Emperor of the West which Carolus Magnus made appear that although he loved the treason of those Bishops of Rome to their Masters Liâ—geâ— Lords Benefactors and Creators the Emperors of Constantinople by whose procurement they were made Universal Bishops yet he hated the Traitors as we shewed before making them his Vassals both in Spirituals and Temporals lest they should play such tricks to him and his Successors as they had done to the Emperors of Constantinople We read no more of the temporal usurpations of the Bishop of Rome before Gregory 7th when the race of Carolus Magnus being extinct the Empire was translated to the Germans What extremities the said Gregory 7th did put the Emperour Henry 4th to is notorious In sum he was forced to resign the Empire to his Son Henry 5th the Imperial Ornaments being violently plucked from him by the Bishops of Mentz and Culen his own Creatures which Son of his agreed little better with Paschalis Bishop of Rome after which time it was the continual practices of the Bishops of Rome to depose Kings and Emperors and to stir up their Subjects to Rebellion against them as appears by those passages of Alexander 3. with the Emperor Frederick of Boniface 8th with Philip. le Bell King of France of Julius 2. with the King of Navarre of Sixtus 5th with Henâ—y 3. and 4. Kings of France of Paul 3. with Henry 8. and Paul 4 with Queen Elizabeth of England The Stories of these two Henries of France is most lamentable And thus we have proved that it is both the Doctrine and the Practice of the Church of Rome that the Bishop of Rome hath power to depose Kings to absolve their Subjects from fidelity towards them to compell them to Arms against them and consequently to kill them and to acknowledge any for
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
that is the sum of the disput of Augustinus tractat 50. For satisfaction of the Reader we will set down his words which are these Nam si in Petro non esset Ecclesiae Sacramentum non ei diceret Dominus tibi dabo claves regni coelorum quaecunque solveris in terra soluta erunt in coelo quaecunque ligaveris in terra ligata erant in coelr Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est non facit hoc Ecclesia Si autem in Ecclesia fit ut quae in terra ligantur in coelo ligentur quae soluuntur in terra soluantur in coelo quia cum excommunicat Ecclesia in coelo ligatur excommunicatus cum reconciliatur ab Ecclesia in coelo soluitur excommunicatus si hoc Ergo in Ecclesia fit Petrus quando claves accepit Ecclesiam sanstam significavit By which it appears that he expresly disputs that Peter had not the keyes given to him alone because the whole Church used them as well as he and thence concluds that he represented the whole Church when our Savior promised to him the keyes and therefore it is false which Horantius affirms That the whole Church got the keyes in Peter as Germany gets the Empire when any is made Emperor of Germany Since all Germany doth not exercise the Imperial Authority as the whole Church doth that of the Keyes Bellarmin glosseth otherwise upon Augustinus he affirms Peter may be said two wayes to represent the Church First historically as when any represents that which is done by another by that which is really done by himself and so saith he Abraham having two sons Isaac and Ishmael represented God who was to have two peoples The second way of Bellarmins representing is called by him Parabolick viz. when any thing is represented by a probable fiction not really done So our Savior preaching the Gospel is signified by a sower of good seed He applyeth that Peter signified the Church the first way so that he truly principally and immediately got the keyes and in getting them signified the whole Church which was to get them afterwards in its own proper way But it is answered It is very ordinar with Bellarmin to spin out subtilties nothing to the purpose to delude bis readers when he is pusâ—ed it were prolix to retex his sophistry in this particular we only answer that Peter represented the Church in none of those wayes mentioned by Bellarmin but in a third viz. As when a Society alike interessed in any priviledge hath that priviledge given to them all when it is given to any one of them in which case every one of that Society hath the benefit of that priviledge as well and equally with him to whom it was given in all their names Bellarmin objects That it is not the meaning of Augustinus that Peter got the keyes in the name of the rest as their Legat or Vicar Ergo it is his meaning that Peter got them as their Moderator or Prince as when any thing is given to a King it may be said to be given to the whole Kingdom because it is given for the publick utility of all But it is answered It is true which Bellarmin affirms that Peter did not get the keyes as a Legat or Vicar gets any thing in the name of his King for so Peter had gotten nothing to himself no more then an Ambassador representing his King marrying a wife to his King or in his Kings Name but it doth not follow that Peter got the keyes as Monarch of the Church or as the Church got them in Peter as a Kingdom gets any thing given to their King because it is notoriously false since the Church according to Augustinus had the power of the keyes as well as Peter but a Kingdom hath not the use or property of that which is given unto their King and therefore we affirm That Bellarmins enumeration is still insufficient for Peter got the keyes neither as Vicar of the Church nor a Moderator or Prince of the Church but as one of the Society of the Pastors and Apostles of the Church as if our Savior had said to Peter I give unto thee the power of the keyes and in thee to all Pastors to be alike exercised by thee and them Bellarmin instances that Augustinus affirms that the Church was signified by Peter Propter eum quem gerebat Primatum that is Because of the Primacy he had in the Church But it is answered That Augustinus by Primacy means no other thing then Apostleship that is Augustinus affirms Peter had a Primacy in the Church because he was an Apostle in the Church as he explains himself in many places as in his last Treatise upon John he affirms that Peter signified the whole Church because of the Primacy of his Apostleship propter Apostolatus Primatum he hath the like words in his 23. Sermon upon the words of Christ and likewise upon Psalm 108. and especially lib. 2. of Baptism against the Donatists he hath these words Quis nes cit illam Apostolatus Principatum cuilibet Episcopatui preferendum Who knows not that the Primacy of an Apostleship is to be preferred to any Bishoprick by which it is most evident that the meaning of Augustinus affirming Peter had a Supremacy in the Church is no other then that he was an Apostle of the Church Especially since Augustinus disputed that the keyes were not given to Peter alone but also to the whole Church But Bellarmin instances it is true That the whole Church had the use of the keyes as well as Peter but by the gift of Peter who distributed them to other Pastors according to his pleasure himself only having them immediately from Christ as when a King having his power immediately from God communicats his Jurisdiction to inferior Magistrats in giving them particular charges of exercising Jurisdiction But it is answered This Gloss of Bellarmins is against all Antiquity innumerable testimonies of Fathers might be produced that the other Apostles had the keyes given them as well as Peter but Bellarmin cannot produce one testimony to prove that the meaning of those Fathers is That the keyes were immediately given to Peter and by his communication distributed to the rest Nothing such appears out of Augustinus but the contrair Cyprianus expresly affirms That all the Apostles were of alike power with Peter And Francisus de Victoria a great Popish Doctor the most learned Divine that ever Spain produced as he is called by Canus loc Theol lib. 12. cap. 1. Relect 2. quest 2. conclus 3. and 4. Commenting upon that place of Cyprian de unita Eccles expresly affirms That all the Apostles received all the power both of Order and Jurisdiction immediatly from Christ and inveighs against the ordinar Gloss upon that place for distinguishing between Order and Jurisdiction that is for affirming That all the Apostles had their Orders immediately from Christ but not their Jurisdiction or the power of
by divine Institution Oecumenick Bishop the Church would have two heads since our adversaries maintain that an Oecumenick Bishop is head of the Church They answer to this difficulty varying one from another some one way some another some the third way others the fourth It will not be unpleasing to examine their Sophistry The first answer is of Bellarmin distinguishing The Church saith he cannot have two principal Heads nevertheless it may have two heads whereof the one is subordinat to the other In a word he answers Christ is Caput primarium Ecclesiae primary head of the Church Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome are Capita secundaria or secundary heads But this distinction of Bellarmins is both against Scripture and Antiquity It is against Scripture which calling Christ the head of the Church and the Church the body of Christ doth so by a Metaphor taken from a humane body and as a humane body cannot have two heads one subordinat to another that the similitude may hold the Church cannot have two heads Secondly this plurality of heads in the Church is against Antiquity Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. epist 36. directed to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria exclaims most bitterly against John Bishop of Constantinople taking upon him to be head of the Church under Christ neither is it of any moment what some object that Gregory doth not inveigh against the title it self of Oecumenick Bishop but only against John Patriarch of Constantinople for usuâ—ping to himself that title Head of the Church which did not belong unto him but to the Bishop of Rome as Successor to Peter We affirm this solution is Black Sophistry because Gregory disputs generally against all who presume to take upon them that title whether Bishops of Rome or not as appears by his general reason He arguments thus He is proud and arrogant and a fore-runner of Antichrist and like Lucifer exalting himself above the other Angels who takes upon him that which is proper to Christ or belongs to Christ only But he who takes upon him to be head of the Church takes that upon him which belongs only to Christ Ergo. By which reasoning of Gregorius it is evident that he disputs against all who take upon them to be secundary heads of the Church Bishop of Rome and all his reason militats no less against the Bishop of Rome then against him of Constantinople and in his 38. Epistle he ingeminats the same reason viz. That those who take upon them to be Head of the Church under Christ will not be able to hold up their face at the last day because in so doing they took upon them that title which belonged only to Christ which title also Gregory in several other of his Epistles calls new Blasphemous against the mandats of Christ Canons of the Apostles Constitutions of the Church c. Which testimonies of Gregory shal be examined hereafter and vindicated from the sophistries of Bellarmin Baronius and others This secundary head is also assaulted by Basilius in Ascetitis in the Prooem where he calls Christ the only head of the Church And thus ye have the opinion of Basilius and Gregorius both called the Great that a Secundary Head of the Church is an Antichristian fiction since they thunder so against it in the person of any one man none can be so ignorant as to think that Gregorious exclaimed against John for taking on him that title of caput primarium Ergo the thing he disputs against is that caput secundarium defended now by Bellarmin Bellarmin nevertheless disputs for that secundary head three wayes First because it is no wayes injurious to Christ Secondly because it illustrats the glory of Christ Thirdly because it is necessar to the Church Let us hear how he pleads And first how he proves it is not contumelious to Christ His argument is this Many titles of Christ are communicated to men such as Pastor Bishop Apostle Prophet Light Foundation Yea and the title of God himself and yet no injury is done to Christ when men are called Apostles Pastors Doctors and Gods c. Ergo no injury is done to Christ when a man is called Head of the Church under Him And consequently a secundary Head of the Church is no wayes contrair to Scripture But it is answered First we have warrand in Scripture for these other titles attributed to both Christ and men but we have no warrand in Scripture to call any man Head of the Church By which it appears that our Savior hath reserved that title to himself alone It is great presumption in any man to take upon him that title belonging to Christ without any warrand Secondly those other titles coÌ„municated to men which are attributed to Christ principally may be compared to those titles which are common to a King and his Subjects Some of which without any derogation to the King at all may be communicated to the Subject as Noble Rich Powerful Lord Magistrat c. But none of the Subjects can be called Kings Just so in these titles common to Christ with men no wrong is done to Christ when they are called Lights Foundations Apostles Doctors Prophets c. But the title of head of the church can no more be coÌ„munictaed to a man then the title of a King to a subject Head of the church is the Kingdom of Christ Thirdly those other titles objected by Bellarmin common to Christ other men are not properly attributed to both but properly to the one Figuratively or Metaphorically to the other So these titles which are properly attributed to Christ are attributed to men improperly and secundum homonymiam And again these titles that are proper to men are in the same manner improperly attributed to Christ But Bellarmin and his Fellows maintain that the title of Head of the Church belongs properly both to Christ and men as the title of a King properly belongs to both Now let us examine those titles objected by Bellarmin more particularly And First Pastor Apostle Bishop Prophet these titles are attributed to men without auy injury to Christ because these titles belong properly to men and from them translated to Christ and since our Savior demits himself voluntarily to these titles it is no injury to him though they be attributed to him Metaphorically and Abusively In the next place are Light and Foundation which according to an Homonymy are attributed to Christ and to men And first Light if it were attributed to them both properly the assertion of John the Apostle would be false affirming That John Baptist was not the Light but only Christ by whom it appears also that Christ was called the Light because he illuminats men are called Lights because they are illuminated So Cyrillus Thomas Aquinas and Augustinus upon the place which last affirms that the Apostle called our Savior the true Light because he was that Light which illuminats men were only called Lights because they were illuminated by him and
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
we have shewed hitherto how Bellarmin and Sanderus have endeavored to prove that it is not inconsistent with the Church to have two heads because the one is a Primary head the other a Secundary head Panigarola lectione 6. useth a very strange argument to prove that the Church of necessity must have a visible head beside Christ Otherwise saith he It would be a monster if a visible body as the Church had only an invisible head which is Christ But it is answered First the Church will be no less a monster if it have two heads one visible another invisible Secondly Panigarola speaks blasphemy which we bind upon him by this argument First All bodies visible having an invisible head are monstrous bodies This Panigarola grants Secondly The Church is no monstrous body This he grants also how can he then deny this conclusion in Baroco Ergo The Church hath not an invisible head or Christ is not head of the Church which is right-down blasphemy Alphonsus de Castro puzled with the difficulty of two heads hath a distinction of his own of two bodies as Bellarmin made a distinction of two heads De Castro denies That body of which Christ is the head to be the same with that body which hath a visible head or Peter or the Bishop of Rome for its head He explains himself thus the Church may be called a body two ways saith he First as it is a total body Secondly as it is a Mystical body The first way is when it is considered comprehending all the Members with Christ and in that sense Christ is head of the Church In the second way it is considered as a body consisting of all the other members Christ excluded and in that acception Peter or his Successors are visible heads of the Church So the Church cannot be said to have two heads for Christ and Peter and his Successors are not heads of the same body but of diverse Christ is head of the Church as it is a total body Peter and his Successors as it is a Mysticalbody But it is answered Alphonsus de Castre as cannot be denyed was a brave learned man and stood as little awe of the Pope to speak his mind when truth required as any Doctor of that Church yet this distinction of his of a body in total and mystical is used by no body but himself it is also contrair to Scripture which in every place where the Church is called the body of Christ considers it as containing all other members Christ excluded And so the Scripture never mentions that body which de Castro calls a total body For the Scripture calling the Church the body of Christ means no other body then that which de Castro calls mystical This distinction of de Castro might be solidly refuted otherwise but it is needless to insist since it is owned by no others except by Spondanus who seems to come very near it thus The Apostle saith he Ephes 4. affirms Christ to be the head from which the whole body takes increment He observeth First that Christ is distinguished from the whole body which is the Church Ergo saith he since the Church is a whole body without Christ it must of necessity have a head beside Christ otherways it could not be a whole body since no body can be whole without a head And therefore the Church hath a visible head proportionable to it self beside Christ since it is a whole body without Christ But it is answered He is a notorious Sophister First when the Apostle Ephesians 4. opposeth the whole body to Christ under the name of body or whole body he comprehends all the other members only beside the head and not as having a head of its own As appears by the Commentaries not only of the Fathers upon that place Ephes 4. such as Chrysostom and his admirer Theophylactus and Theodoretus but also by the expositions of Justinian and Salmero two famous Jesuites upon that place Ephesians 4. All which expounding what the Apostle calls totum corpus or the whole body interpret it to be these members Quae à capite sensum accipiunt or have influence of sense or life from the head And consequently they make totum corpus the whole body to be no otherthing then all the other members the head excluded and consequently totum corpus the whole body hath not an other head beside Christ Secondly By totum corpus or whole body questionless the Apostle means the Church as it comprehends both the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant Spondanus argument if it conclude at all must of necessity conclude that the said visible head is head of the Church Triumphant and so the Bishop of Rome must be head of the Church Triumphant also which none will affirm Thirdly The ground of this distinction of Spondanus is notoriously false viz That the head would not be proportional to the body except it were visible For to omit that Christ is constantly called the Head of the Church in Scripture which should be enough to stop the mouth of Spondanus our Savior is a proportional Head to the Church because he is a man like unto us in all things except sin We will conclude this disput of Head of the Church with one Argument used by some Protestants against a Visible Head of the Church which is this If the Church had any other Head but Christ it would be called the body of the said Head but it is never called the body of any Head but of Christ Ergo It hath no other Head but Christ Bellarmin answers two wayes And first he affirms That the Church is not called the body of that visible Head because it is only Secundary and not Primary and therefore the Church is only called the body of Christ But it is replyed If there were any such thing as that secundary head the Church could with no less reason be called its body then it could be called head of the church Since the relation is reciprocal and the body is no less the body of the Head then the head is the head of the body and since the Church is no where called the body of that secundary head it is evident that the said secundary head is a fiction Bellarmin urgeth that a King is the Head of his Kingdom and the Kingdom may be called his body likewise a Viceroy may be called secundary Head of the Kingdom or Province but the Kingdom or Province cannot be called the body of a Viceroy and in like manner the Church cannot be called the body of that secundary Head the Bishop of Rome or Peter But it is replyed As the Viceroy is head of the Province so the Province may be called the body or Province of the Viceroy but since the Church cannot be called the body of that secundary head as Bellarmin confesseth it is evident there is no such secundary head at all in the Church Secondly Bellarmin grants that the Kingdom may be
called the body or Kingdom of the King but he endeavors to prove that the said secundary head reigns in the Church as a King doth in a Kingdom and therefore the Church may be called the body of the said secundary head if there were any such thing But since the Church is no where called the body of that secundary head it is evident that the said secundary head is a meer fiction Bellarmin gives a reason wherefore the Province is not called the body of the Viceroy but only of the King viz. because the Governor of a Province is not perpetual but only for a time And for the same reason the Church is not called the body of that secundary head because it is not perpetual but only for a time But this reason is frivolous because that secundary head of the Church is as perpetual as a King in a Kingdom and therefore the Church may be called as well body of that secundary head as a Kingdom is called the body of a King But since in Scripture the Church is no where called the body of that secundary Head it is evident it is a fiction viz. that secundary head which is further confirmed Bellarmin affirms also That the Province cannot be said to be the Province of the Viceroy because he is not absolute but it may be called the Province of the King because he is absoluto and depends upon none but God But that secundary head of the Church depends upon none but Christ and therefore the Church may as well be called his body and Church as a Kingdom may be called Kingdom of the King But since the Church is no where called body of that secundary head it is evident that the said secundary head is but a fiction Bellarmin pressed with those difficulties â—â—ies to another distinction viz. that the Church is called the body of Christ not in relation to Christ as head but only as â—e is referred to Christ as a great hypostasis as when Peter or Paul is lying any where we may affirm There lyes the body of Peter there lyes the body of Paul In which sense body comprehends head and all and is not considered as distinct from the Head and other members Bellarmin by this device doth not take away the difficulty for two reasons The first is although it were granted that the Church were called the body of Christ as the word Christ is a Hypostasis comprehending both heads and members in which sense the body of Peter or Paul may be called their body and not their head we say Although that were granted yet Bellarmin will not deny that the Church is called the body of Christ sometimes as it is referred to Christ as head and therefore if there were any Secundary head the Church would be called its bodie in that respect also which since it is not it is evident that there is no such thing as a secundary head The second reason is that it is false which Bellarmin affirms that ever the Church is called the body of Christ in that sense of great hypostasis it hath neither ground in Scripture nor Antiquity it is only devised by Bellarmin himself who abuseth Scripture and a passage of Augustinus to prove it The place of Scripture is 1 Corinth 12. verse 12. Where the Apostle affirms That all the members of the bodie although they be many yet are but one bodie even so is Christ which makes nothing for him for the Apostle there means no â—uch thing as Bellarmin affirms citing Augustinus falsly to prove it Augustins words are Non dixit ita Christi idest corpus Christi vel membra Christi sea ita Christus unum Christum appellens caput corpus as he would say The Apostle called Christ which is the head of the Church and the Church which is the bodie of Christ one Christ which he had foolishly affirmed if that had been the Apostles mind that the Church is called the body of Christ as the body of Peter and Paul lying any where comprehending the head also And thus much of that famous disput oâ— the head of the Church We have seen how Bellarmin vexetâ— himself to find out distinctions to maintain that secundary head and to show why the Church is not called the Body of that secundary head But the Roman Doctors of late maintain that the Church is and may be called the body of that secundary head seeing that Bellarmins distinctions would not serve the turn CHAP. XIII Of the Hierarchy of the Church Ephesians 4. WE have prosecuted two Arguments against the institution of the Supremacy of Peter now followeth the third which is this If Peter had been ordained by our Savior Monarch of the Church then the Apostles themselves and these who lived in their times delineating the Hierarchy of the Church would have mentioned it or affirmed That the Government of the Church was monarchical under one visible head But both the Apostles themselves and those who are confessed by our adversaries to have lived in the times of the Apostles delineating the Hierarchy of the Church put ever still more persons then one of equal authority in the highest place of the Hierarchie whereby it is evident to any who is not wilfully blinde that the Government of the Church was not by Christs Institution Monarchical And first the Apostle Paul Ephes 4. enumerating the Hierarchie of the Church verse 10 11 12 13 14. hath these words He that descended is even the same that ascended far above all heavens that he might fill all things He therefore gave some to be Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers In which words ye have the Hierarchy of the Church consisting of several degrees in every degree many persons the highest degree is that of the Apostles which are also many or in the Plural number whereby it is evident that our Savior did institute no Monarchy in the Church in one single person or in Peter neither can it be affirmed That this enumeration of Church-Officers ordained by Christ is not full or is not perfect as if the Apostle had omitted some Church-Officers ordained by Christ because it appears by verse 12 13 14. That no more were necessarie for the building up of the Church or performing any duty necessar for the Churches instruction viz. for the repairing of the â—aints for the work of the Ministrie and for the edification of the bodie of Christ verse 12. Till we all meat together in the unitie of faith and that acknowledging of the Son of God unto a perfect man and unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ verse 13. That we henceforth be no more children wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine c. By those words of the Apostle it appears that no more Church Rulers are necessar eitheir for the founding of the Church or confirming it after it is built or defending it when it is