that he allegeth Eph. 2. 20. to prove that the rest of the Apostles were built on the foundation of them all though not equally when the Text doth not at all mention the Apostles being built on the Foundation but the Ephesian believers nor are the Ephesian believers said to be built on them unequally on Peter as the supreme on others after him but on them all without any difference and not onely on them but also on the Foundation of the Prophets Christ alone being the chief corner-stone SECT IX Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Popes Supremacy It is added thus by H. T. Object St. Cyprian de unit Eccles says The Apostles were equal in dignity And St. Hierome affirms the church was equally founded on them all lib. cont Jovin Answ They were equal in their calling to the Apostleship I grant in their power of Government and Jurisdiction I deny And the church was equally founded on them all before a Head was constituted I grant after a Head was constituted I deny and so do the Fathers St. Cyprian saying in the same place that Christ disposed the origen of unity beginning from one Peter And St. Hierome tells us He chose one of the Twelve that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away I Reply Cyprian's words in his Book de unitate Ecclesia are recited above Art 5. Sect. 6. in which he expresly saith thus Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praditi honoris potestatis sel exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur that is That verily were also all the rest of the Apostles which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning proceeds from unity that the church might be shewed to be one So that the very words are express that all the Apostles were not onely equal in their calling to the Apostleship but also in power and honour and that Peter was made a Representative of all yeâ— had no more power and honour than other Apostles and for Bishops he saith presently after Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur that is Bishoprick is but one of which wholly or entirely a part is held by each Which words plainly shew this to be his meaning 1. That the Episcopacy or charge of looking to the Church of Christ is but one and the same in all the World even as the Church Catholick is but one and the same 2. That each Bishop hath but his part none the whole none is an universal Bishop over the whole Church 3. That each Bishop who hath his part holds it in solidum that is wholely or intirely the power and charge is as much in one as another 4. That Episcopacy was first invested in Peter for all that Episcopacy might be one and undivided and the Church one so as that no Church break from another nor any Bishop be above another As for the words of Hierome lib. 1. advers Jovin they are thus At dick super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio that is But thou sayest who arguest for Marriage upon Peter a married man the church is founded although that thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and equally upon them the strength of the church is established yet therefore among twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away In which words it is manifest that he makes the other Apostles equally Foundations of the Church with Peter and to have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and terms Peter not a Head in respect of Power or Jurisdiction over the rest but in respect of Order that for want of it no occasion of Schism might be Which to have been the minde of Hierome appears fully in his Epistle to Euagrius in which he determines that in the Scripture Bishops and Elders were the same that Peter calls himself a fellow-elder and John an Elder but after one was chosen who might be set before the rest that was done for a Remedy of Schism lest each one drawing to himself the church of Christ might break it And then he makes the Church and Bishop of Rome equal with other Churches and Bishops If saith he Authority be sought the World is greater than a City Wheresoever there is any Bishop either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tanis he is of the same merit and of the same Priesthood Power of riches and humility of poverty makes a Bishop neither higher nor lower But all are Successours of the Apostles Whence these things may be inferred 1. That Bishops are not above Elders originally 2. That their superiority is by positive order 3. That the Apostles were Elders 4. That all Bishops are their Successours 5. That the Bishop of Rome is not above another Bishop 6. That the Authority of Rome is less than of the World Yet further saith H. T. Object One Body with two Heads is monstrous Answ Not if one be principal and the other subordinate or ministerial onely as in our present case so Christ is the Head of the Man and the Man of the Woman 1 Cor. 11. without any monstrosity I reply to make a thousand metaphorical subordinate ministerial Heads of the Church of Christ may be without monstrosity But to make a supreme visible Head over the whole Church ascribing to him such a power as agrees to none but Christ nor can be exercised by any but Christ for the good of his body hath monstrosity in it or rather treason against Christ But such a Head is the Pope made by H. T. therefore this conceit of him and other Papists induceth monstrosity The Minor is partly shewed before and may be fully proved by instancing in the acts of power the Pope takes to him in defining what the whole Church is to believe what is the sense of Scripture receiving Appeals from all places judging causes setting up and putting down Kings and Bishops and many more wherein he arrogateth and usurpeth that power to himself which doth onely agree to Christ and can be exercised by none but him Again saith H. T. Object St. Gregory rejects the name of Universal Arch-bishop as Antichristian lib. 7. indict 2. Epist 96. Answ He rejects it as it excludes all others from being Bishops I grant as it onely signifies one to be supreme and above all others I deny and so doth he himself saying in the same Book Epist 62. if there be any crime found in
God Acts 20. 26 27. and elsewhere Ergo. 10. If there were many Saints and Martyrs acknowledged even by the Romanists to be such who did not hold communion with the Bishop of Rome so as to own him to be supreme visible head of the whole church but did oppose him and lived and died in that opposition and yet were in the church of God then they who hold not communion with the See of Rome may be the true church of God But the antecedent is true in Cyprian Augustine and many more opposing the Bishop of Rome about rebaptization appeals from Africa keeping Easter therefore either they must be unsainted or else it must be yielded that persons who are not now in communion with the See of Rome may be true churches of God I need not insist any longer in proving the falsity of a tenet so palpably absurd and demonstrated to be so by Bishop Mortan in his Grand Imposture of the Roman Church and by others elsewhere Let 's view H. T. his proof SECT IV. The succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks required by H. T. is not necessary to the being of a true Church THat saith he is the onely true Church of God which has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time But the Church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other has had a succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time therefore the Church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other is the true church of God For proof of the major he alledgeth Isa 59. 21. 60. 1 3 11. 62. 6. Ezech. 3. 26. Dan. 7. 13 14. Matth. 28. 20. John 14 16. Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14. Answ The succession he means is expressed p. 45. to be a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith This succession may be either in the same place or some place or other indefinite and it may be said to be continued without the least interruption for the smallest space of time or so continued that in each age or century there hath been such a succession though with some intermission The succession in the profession of the same faith may be either universal in every point or limited to fundamentals The succession may be said to be continued either so conspicuously as that there is an Assembly of that people in each age which any Christians in any part of the world did or might know as they do the Commonwealth of the Venetians or Kingdom of France oâ— as heretofore the Roman Commonwealth was known or else obscurely so as to be known onely to themselves and some near neighbors The proof of this succession may be conceived to be out of History or other clear Writings Records or Monuments extant expressing persons and their faith or else it may be conjectured from some more obscure intimations This Author I conceive from many passages following understands his major here thus That is the onely true Church of God which has had in the same place a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time without interruption any notable time in any age of a number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith not onely in fundamentals but in other points also so conspicuously that all Christians did or might know it as the Roman Empire French Kingdom or Venetian Republique may be known and this to be proved out of History or other clear Writings Records or Monuments expressing the persons and their faith For such a succession this Author would have necessary to a true church which he imagines may be proved to be in the Roman church and no other But in this sense his Proposition is most false and no whit proved out of the Texts he produceth and nullifies the Roman church it self which he indeavours so much to magnifie as to make it to be the onely true church of God In opposition thereto I say 1. There may be a true church of God where there are no Bishops or Priests at all Which I prove 1. From Acts 14. 23. where it is said that Barnabas and Paul after they had gathered the churches they returned to them and ordained Elders in every Church which supposeth they were churches sometime afore they had Elders ordained for them therefore it follows there may be a true church without Bishops Priests or Elders sith those churches were such afore they had them 2. From the definition of a true church That is a true church which hath the definition of a true church H. T. confesseth often this Proposition to be true But a number of believers in Christ who have no Elders or Priests or Bishops hath the definition of a true church Ergo The minor is proved from the received definitions Bellarm. Tom. 2. Controv. l. de Eccles milit c. 1. Ecclesia est evocatio sive caetus vocatorum the church is the company of the called out and other Authors speak conformably But there may be a caâ—ling out or a company of persons called out though they have no Bishops or Priests therefore they may be a ture church of God 3. That company which hath the essential parts of a true church is a true church of God But a number of believers professing the faith of Christ hath the essential parts of a true church They are the matter of a church in that they are men the form is faith or the profession of it no other thing can be rightly assigned to be essential as constitutive of a true church their governours order special gifts and other things tending to their well-being are common accidents which may be or not be and yet the church remain a true church Therefore a number of believers professing the true faith of Christ without Bishops is a true church of God 2. It is not necessary to the being of a true church that there be a succession of Bishops distinct from Presbyters whom H. T. terms Priests For 1. There are many Fathers and popish Writers who make them but one Order at first Lumbard senâ—ent l. 4. distinct 24. Apud vcteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt The Antients took Bishops and Priests for the same therefore with them there were churches in which were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters 2. Where there were two Orders yet they were not so necessary but that the church may be without them otherwise in the vacancy of the Episcopal See which hath in Rome it self been sometimes some years together often many moneths and days the church should cease to be a true church of God for then it would follow that in such vacancies the Roman church did cease to be 3. It is not necessary to the being of a true church that there be a profession of the same faith in every point for then the Roman church should not be a true church
the Patriarchs not in presidency or if in presidency yet so as to be president suo jure by his own right as one of the Patriarchs without deputation from Rome H. T. adds The Chalcedon Council Fathers 600. Pope Leo presiding Anno Dom 451. against Eutyches But Pope Leo was president onely by his Legates and together with them Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and Juvenal of Jerusalem did preside And when the Popes Legates opposed the ascribing to the Patriarch of Constantinople equal authority and privileges with the Bishop of Rome yet the six hundred Fathers determined for the Patriarch of Constantinople But what do the Councils in these two Ages say for H. T. his Minor He brings some passages out of the Arabick Canons and the Decrees as if the Nicene Council asserted the Popes supremacy and the real presence But those Arabick canons are of no credit being but lately as they say brought by a certain Jesuit from the Patriarch of Alexandria and those variously published by Pisanus and Turrian in which are eighty canons whereas of old in the Nicene Synod there were but twenty and the Letter of the African Bishops of whom Augustin was one in the sixth Synod at Carthage written to the Pope of Rome assuring that the copies of the Nicene canons which Cecilian Bishop of Carthage brought from Nice and the copies they had from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople had not the canon about Appeals to Rome from all parts which three Bishops of Rome alleged but the true canons of the Nicene council to wit the fifth and the sixth being against the arrogated power about appeals to the Bishop of Rome in vain doth H. T. obtrude his nine and thirtieth and the threescore and fifth Can. Arab. for the Popes supremacy and prayer for the dead And for the canon that forbids Deacons to give the Eucharist Presbyters being present which he bring for the countenancing of the Sacrifice of the Mass the genuine words of the canon mention not a power in priests as he terms them to offer sacrifice which Deacons have not but a restraint of Deacons from that giving the Eucharist Presbyters being present which they might do in their absence And for the other testimonies which he fetcheth out of the Decretals for Baptisms purging away sin and the unbloody Sacrifice they are of no validity being not taken out of the acts of the Council but the compiler of the canon-law who thrust into the canon-law all sorts of Determinations whether they were chaff or wheat genuine or supposititious And yet if they were genuine they may have a sense agreeing with protestant doctrine The Decree of the first Constantinopolitan Council against Macedonius which decreed the Bishop of Constantinople to be chief next to the Bishop of Rome proves not that the Fathers then ascribed to the Bishop of Rome such a supremacy of power as now the Popes arrogate over all Bishops but the contrary For it doth make the Bishop of Constantinople a chief not under the Bishop of Rome but next him and ascribes to him honour and dignity alike with the Bishop of Rome though in order of mentioning sitting and some such like acts it prefers the bishop of Rome In the first Ephesin council if Peter were defined Head and Prince of the Apostles yet they never meant thereby superiority and power over them but priority in order and excellency in virtue The power of binding and loosing sins was not given to Peter any otherwise than to other Apostles John 20. 23. In the third action saith H. T. Pope Leo is called universal Arch-bishop And it is granted that the Council extolled Leo yet they made him not Universal Bishop over all bishops in the world but he was styled Occumenical Archbishop of old Rome not by the council but by particular men of the council which yet did give it to John of Constantinople but by none was that title then given to either in that sense in which now the Pope claims it for that very council did ascribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges or Segniories to the other Patriarchs with the bishop of Rome notwithstanding the gainsaying of the Popes Legates which determination was again confirmed in the sixth Synod at Constantinople in Trullo in the sixth Age. The sense in which the title of Oecumenical or Universal Bishop was given to any of the Patriarchs was not given to them as ascribing to them supremacy power over all bishops and churches as afterwards John of Constantinople affected the title and Boniface of Rome usurped it by the means of Phocas the Emperour but it was given to each of the Patriarchs for their eminency by reason of their great care of the churches in like manner as Paul said of himself 2 Cor. 11. 28. Upon me cometh daily the care of all the Churches which was therefore put on them because of the dignity of their cities and amplitude of the rule and dominion which was exercised there by the Emperours Lieutenants by means whereof the bishops of those cities had the advantage of intelligence and assistance in the ordering of things belonging to many churches in a large compass even as at this day a Patriarch at London hath an advantage for the ordering of things concerning the British and Irish churches the regiment of the churches in those days much following the government of the Empire as is manifest by the acts of councils and histories of those times It is granted that in the fifth age Pope Leo affected the extolling of Peter and did it too immoderately and that the phrase of Peter's doing what the Pope did was in use and this proves that then ambition had crept in among the bishops and the affecting of vain titles increased and that in respect of these things there was great corruption in the Patriarchs and other bishops which grew to an extreme height afterwards yet neither in that age nor any other was that power over the whole church which now the Popes and their flatterers challenge ascribed unto them without controul of the sounder part and is yet to this day opposed by the French popish churches and some other That which is added by H. T. of the Council of Eleberis in Spain and the second of Atles in France about Priests abstaining from their Wives or else to be degraded and that no man who was married could be made a Priest unless a conversion were promised is but of provincial Synods not general councils about a matter onely of Ecclesiastical Discipline not a point of Faith about which alone is the Question whether he can prove such a Succession as he asserts in all ages besides the Eleberin canon supposeth they had then Wives and it appears that till then they did use them and that there were married priests but many being corrupted in their opinions of Marriage by the debasing of it as carnal and extolling Virginity as meritorious began to put that yoke on
Right belonging to him 2. That such Primacy proves not any Superiority of Power above the Apostles no more than that the senior Fellow of a College is superiour in power above the rest because he is first written in the College Book or the Fore-man in a â—ury is superiour because he is first called SECT VI. The late Popes of Rome are not Successours of Peter H. T. adds What hath been said to prove St. Peter's Primacy proves also the Primacy of his Successour the Pope of Rome Answ THe proof of a Primacy is short of the proof a Supremacy which was the thing H. T. undertook there is a Primacy of order where there is not a Supremacy of power And the ancient Churches which gave the Bishop of Rome the primacy of order afore the Patriarchs of Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem and Constantinople that is to sit in a general Council highest and to have some other Privileges yet did never acknowledge the Bishop of Rome their supreme Head but resisted this claim when it began to be usurped That Primacy which was given to the Bishop of Rome was given him chiefly because of the dignity and power of the City Peter's name was after by ambitious Popes used to serve their Design in lifting up the Roman Bishop But the Ancients did look to the eminence of the City as being the Seat of the Empire in their preferring of the Roman Bishops from whence when the Seat of the Empire was translated to Constantinople the Bishop of it was made a Patriarch equal to the Bishop of Rome and for a time contended for preheminence above him It was not at first by reason of Peter's imagined Headship or any succession to him that the Bishop of Rome was preferred before other Patriarchs but by reason of the amplitude and eminency of Rome as the third Canon of the second Constantinopolitan and the eight and twentieth of Chalcedon Councils shew As for Succession to Peter it is contrary to Scripture that the Apostles should have Successours as Apostles sith they were onely to be Apostles who were Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection which neither the Roman Bishops nor any after the Age in which the Apostles lived could be That they were either fixed Bishops of certain places or did appoint any to succeed in their Apostleship is false All Apostles were by special election of Christ those that came after were by election of men and succeeded the Apostles in preaching the Gospel but not in Apostleship nor did the Apostles make Bishops of certain places their Successours but every Pastour who preached the faith aright was their Successour and so are all Gospel Preachers at this day John Calvin at Geneva did succeed Peter more truly than Pope Aldobrandin or Barberin or Ghisi or any other of the Popes for many hundred of years Till the Popes prove themselves Preachers of the Gospel as Peter was they vainly talk of Succession to him As of late they have been they have been Successours to Simon Magus rather than to Simon Peter SECT VII The Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not Peter's or the Popes Supremacy OF the Fathers which H. T. cites for the Popes Supremacy the first is out of Damascen a late corrupt Writer and he cites it out of Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite's tale proved to be such by Dr. John Rainold Conf. with Hart chap. 8. divis 2. and from that place in which the contrary to what it is alleged for to wit Peter's Supremacy may be evinced in that the Authour who ever he were makes the power of binding and loosing to be given to all the Apostles There saith H. T. Peter is styled the supreme and most ancient top of Divines which though it have no credit there being too much known of the forgeries and dreams in the Writings of Damascen and that countefeit Dionysius yet were it granted that Dionysius the Arcopagite should have so written as he saith he did terming Peter the supreme and most ancient top of Divines this would not infer that he was the universal Pastour of the Church with such a power of jurisdiction as this Authour asserts he had over the whole Church even the Apostles themselves For this doth not express supremacy of power but of knowledge and asserts his eminency for understanding Theology to which me thinks H. T. should not annex the supremacy of jurisdiction and power lest that some such as Aquinas Andradius or some other challenge the Popedom which is seldom conferred on any for his eminence in Divinity but rather the most learned Divines are thought unfit for the Papacy even Cicarella relates in the Life of Sixtus the fifth that Cardinal Sirlet though he were a man of great learning was rejected as not fit to be chosen Pope such as Bellarmine Tolet Baronius are not chosen to be Popes but such crafty men as Paul the third or such stout spirits as Paul the fourth or such as are great Canonists and Politicians that know the arts of the Papacy better than the Doctrine of Christ are chosen for Popes yea men so ignorant in Divinity and so unfit to take the charge of Souls have been chosen for Popes that of all the Popes for many hundreds of years past there are but a very few who had knowledge in the Mystery of the Gospel or any measure of godliness competent for a Parish Priest Yea Bellarmine lib. de notis Eccles cap. 9. is feigned to assert that there may be members of the body of Christ who are no parts of it as a living body but onely as instruments lest otherwise the Pope being proved evil should be uncapable of being Head of the Church in that he is no member of Christ's body thereby making a dead equivocal member an univocal Head of the universal Church being conscious that without that shift the Popes would all or most of them be cashiered out of the Church of Christ as not so much as parts of Christ's body much less Heads by reason of their notorious pride luxury cruelty perfidiousness covetousness blasphemy deceit and whatsoever vice might shew them to be children of the Devil Nor do the words of Irenaeus lib. 3. advers haeres cap. 3. in the second Age in which it is said All Churches round about ought to resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality and that it was the greatest and most ancient founded by Peter and Paul For whether the word convenire be to be translated resort or agree to or go together with which is somewhat uncertain it cannot be understood of all Churches round about in all parts of the World for that had been an impossible thing and contrary to the intent of Irenaeus in the same place who directs them that were in Asia to Ephesus and Smyrna for the same end but he means of the parts of the Western Empire such as Lyons was in France where he was Bishop and such parts as were nearer Rome and it
is manifest that he makes Roâ—â— no more infallible than the Church at Smyrna or Ephesus referring the Inquisitor into the tradition Apostolical to apply himself to these as well as it for information nor doth he make the resort to be to the Church of Rome always but because at that time there was a succession of men that knew the Apostles or had the Doctrine of Christ delivered from them among whom he reckons Linus as made Bishop by Peter while he lived and so no Successour to Peter but if Peter were a Bishop of Rome which Papist say but we deny there were two Bishops of Rome together yea he makes the Church of Rome to have been founded by Peter and Paul not by Peter onely by reason of which tradition though either false or uncertain he judged there was the best assurance to be had of the Apostles Doctrine about God the Creatour against Valentinus and the rather because he was acquainted with the Teachers there as he had been with Polycarpus of Smyrna who was an acquaintance of John the Evangelist for which reason he directs also to him As for the more potent Principality which Irenaus speaks of whether it be meant of the Church or the State Ecclesiastical or Civil it is uncertain if of the Civil Principality because then it was the Seat of the Empire the necessity of resort thither must be because civil affairs would enforce them to go thither upon other occasions and then they might inform themselves being there most commodiously if of Ecclesiastical Principality yet there is nothing that shews it meant of universal jurisdiction and power over all Churches but of a more powerfull Principality it had in clearing Doctrines and ordering Church-affairs in those parts by reason of the eminency of their Founders and succeeding Teachers who were in those times of great note for purity of Doctrine and constancy in the Faith for which they were Martyrs And indeed were the question now between us and any such as Valentinus or Marcion concerning the Doctrine which the Apostles taught about another God besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church of Rome had such Bishops as then they had who had acquaintance with the Apostles or received their tradition from them so near to the Apostles days as the Roman Bishops did then we should also think it meet in such a point wherein we knew they were right to refer it to them to determine But in so doing we should not acknowledg a perpetual Prerogative of infallible Supremacy over all the Churches in the World annexed to that See nor did ever Irenaeus intend it who is known to have opposed Victor Bishop of Rome when he excommunicated the Asian Bishops for varying from him in the keeping of Easter as Eusebius reports Hist Eccles lib. 5. cap. 22 23 24. The words of Origen in cap. 6. Epist ad Roman waving other Exceptions against Citations out of that Commentary as being so altered by Ruffinus that we can hardly know what is Origen's what not were they as H. T. sets them down which I cannot examine now for want of the Book yet they prove not Peter's supremacy of power over the Apostles He might have the chief charge of feeding Christ 's Sheep and the Church be founded on him yet have no jurisdiction over the Apostles and the Church be founded on the other Apostles as well as on him as hath been shewed before in this Article Sect 4. As for Cyprian's words calling Peter the Head and Root of the Church cited by H. T. as in an Epist ad Julian I finde no such Epistle in Cyprian's Works but in an Epistle ad Jubianâ—m concerning Baptism of Hereticks I finde these words about the beginning of the Epistle Nos autem qui Ecclesiae unius caput radicem tenemus that is But we who hold the Head and Root of one Church c. in which Peter is not named nor do I finde any thing that should infer that by the Head and Root of one Church he means Peter but Christ whom in his Book of the Unity of the Church he makes the onely Head of his Church and having alleged immediately before one Baptism as it is Ephes 4. 5. it is likely he meant by one Head the one Lord mentioned vers 5. as after also he mentions one Faith or else the meaning is this we have remained in the unity of the Church which is one and the Head and Root of the faithfull of which several particular Churches are members and branches Nor did he call Peter the Head and Root of the Church would it be for H. T. his purpose unless he meant it in respect of universal Jurisdiction and Supremacy over the whole Church belonging to him and his Successours Bishops of Rome which is not proved and there may be another reason given of such a Title given to Peter's person onely because of his eminent confession Matth. 16. 16. and his preaching Acts 2. 10 c. And though he term the Church of Rome Peter's Chair or rather the Bishoprick of Rome or Peter's Doctrine and teaching there yet that proves not he held the Popes Supremacy but that Peter's Doctrine was then held there Yea it is certain out of his Treatise of the Unity of the Church and his Epistle to Cornelius mentioned before and his opposition to Pope Stephanus that Cyprian did account all Bishops equal and the Bishops of Africa equal in Jurisdiction to the Roman Bishop and the Pope of Rome to be but his Collegue from whom he dissents and to whom he denied Appeals and whom he reproved of ambition and pride when he sought to impose his Judgement on others contrary to what Cyprian and a whole Synod of African Bishops besides Asiaticks held and therein opposed the Bishop of Rome And therefore it is certain that Cyprian never acknowledged the Supremacy of the Pope now asserted Of those which H. T. allegeth in the fourth Age not one of them giveth Peter that Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Apostles and Christians which the Romanists claim as belonging to the Pope over all Bishops and Churches but either a primacy of order or preheminence of gifts or zeal or esteem or use in moderating in Assemblies The words which seem to be most for it are falsly ascribed to Chrysostom For however Trapezuntius have translated them yet in the four and fiftieth Homily as it is in Eaton Print the words are not as H. T. cites them The Pastour and Head of the Church was once a poor Fisherman But on Matth. 16. 18. he hath these words And I say unto thee Thou art Peter and upon this Stone or Rock I will build my Church that is on the faith of confession or confessed There he shews that many should believe and raiseth up his minde and makes him Pastour And after on vers 19. These things he promiseth to give him to shew a Fisherman stronger than any Stone or Rock
appears from his words lib. 4. Epist 38. when he saith to John Thou desirest to tread under the name of Bishops in comparison of thy self which shew that he charged him not to have affected the Title of Universal Bishop as if he would be the onely Bishop absolutely but comparatively to himself in that sense as he which is singular in some thing is said to be alone and as he who is not what he was is said not to be and so Gregory chargeth him as if by consequence he would exclude all others and unbishop them in comparison And yet if Gregorie's words were understood to condemn no more than this that any should arrogate to himself the Title of Universal Bishop as if he were the onely Bishop and others but as his Vicars or Substitutes all that Gregory imputes to the use of that Title in this sense falls on the late Roman Bishops who deny that any Bishop hath power of Jurisdiction but from them that Bishops are not immediately by divine right but mediately from the Pope concerning which what passed in the Council of Trent may be seen in the History of Frier Paul in the seventh and eighth Book in which may be seen how stifly the Italians and Jesuits held it and the Pope eluded the Spanish Bishops Lastly that Gregory did disclain such a Supremacy as Popes now usurp is manifest from the obedience which Gregory lib. 1. Epist 32 lib. 2. Epist 61. 31. lib. 7. Epist 1. and elsewhere acknowledged he did ow to Mauritius the Emperour as his sovereign Lord and in that Epistle in which he writes to Mauritius about John's usurpation by Sabinian Pope next after him petitions that the most pious Lord Mauritius would vouchsafe to judge that very business which was in controversie between John of Constantinople and himself about the Title of universal Bishop which he denied to Joâ—n or to himself nor was Gregorie's own election to the Popedom counted valid without the confirmation of Mauritius the Emperour as by the relation of his Life in Platina appears which things are inconsistent with that Doctrine which the Papists now hold about the Popes Supremacy H. T. adds Object The first Constantinopolitan Council and the Council of Chalcedon decreed the Constantinopolitan See to be equal with that of Rome Answ In certain Privileges I grant in original Authority or Jurisdiction I deny and so doth the said Council of Chalcedon saying We throughly consider truly tâ—at all Primacy and chief Honour is to be kept for the Arch-bishop of old Rome Action 16. Nor was that Canon of the Council of Constantinople ever approved by the Pope though it owned the Church of Rome to be the See Apostolick and sought but Primacy in the second place and after it I reply 1. Though it had been gainsaid by the Bishop of Rome yet there was no reason the opposition of one Bishop should weigh down the common consent of the rest 2. It is apparant that the Popes approbation was not then judged necessary but that the Synod could determine without him 3. That Canon of the first Council of Constantinople was not gainsaid by the Pope that then was nor many years after 4. Gregory the Great esteemed the four first general Councils as the four Gospels without exempting that Canon And it is manifest that the Council gave Prerogatives of Honour to the Bishop of Constantinople next after the Roman because it was new Rome And the Council of Chalcedon expresly determined that the Bishop of Constantinople should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal Privileges with the Roman which Privileges were the same that old Rome had which could not be the first place in the Council but was Power and Jurisdiction and this they determined notwithstanding the regret of the Popes Legates who could not obtain any more than what was allotted the Bishop of Rome in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council of which H. T. saith Object The Council of Nice saith Let the ancient custome be kept in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria hath power over all these because the Bishop of Rome also hath such a custome Answ The Bishop of Rome had a custome to permit such a power to the Bishop of Alexandria the Greek Text saith Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed which argues him to be above the other I reply this Answer is frivolous or rather impudent For the same thing is allowed to the Bishop of Alexandria which was accustomed to the Bishop of Rome but that was not a power to permit any thing to the bishops of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis but to take care of the Churches therein as their Metropolitan namely to look to the Ordination of bishops and composing of Differences And the meaning is that each of those bishops of Rome Alexandria and Antioch should according to the custome of the bishop of Rome in his look to the ordering of the Churches each in his Province as Ruffinus expresseth the Canon and the Arrbick and other Interpreters and Paschasinus the Popes Legate in the Council of Chalcedon alleged it thus that the Bishop of Alexendria should have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power over all because so it was accustomed to the Bishop of Rome Which cannot be meant of all simply For then it should have been thus meant the bishop of Alexandria is to have power of all because the bishop of Rome hath power of all and so the bishop of Alexandria should be supreme bishop as the Pope and so in stead of one visible supreme Head there should be more which Romanists brook not but it must be meant of equal power and charge given to the bishop of Alexandria in his Province with that which by custome the Roman had in his And for the inference from the words Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed that it argues him to be above the other it is vain it proving onely the bishop of Rome's power to have been the Pattern of the bishop of Alexandria his power but not greater yea it proves an equality between them sith it ascribes the same to the one which was accustomed to the other SECT X. Of the Emperour's calling Councils Pope Joan Papists killing Princes excommunicate not keeping Faith with Hereticks H. T. proceeds Obj. The Emperors heretofore called and presided in General Councils Answ They called them instrumentally I grant by way of spiritual Jurisdiction I deny And they presided also in them for peace and ornament true for definition or judgement it is most false that always was reserved to the Popes I will not sit among them as Emperour saith Constantine in his Epistle to Pope Leo about the sixth Geâ—â—ral Council I will not speak imperiously with them but 〈◊〉 one of them and what the Fathers shall ordain I will execute Emperours subscribed Councils 〈…〉 consâ—itution but execution God saith Constantine to the Nicene Council hath made you Priests and given you
framed But James who spake after was he according to whose sentence the decree was framed entirely however Peter began before so that by this reason James had the primacy and not Peter A like in consequent is this Peter remained not always at Antioch as all that Church acknowledgeth nor did she ever challenge the first chair in any general Council as appears in the Councils ergo Peter translated his chair from Antioch to Rome risum teneat is araici As if Peter did always remain at Rome or that because we read not of Antioch's challenge therefore it was not made or as if the not challenging the first chair were because of Peters translation of his chair from thence to Rome whereas the very decree of the Chalcedon Council Can. 28. gives Rome the first chair because of the dignity of the City not by reason of Peters supremacy or translation of his chair from Antioch to Rome of the same sort of inconsequence is the next The Council of Sardis Sardica in Illyria Anno Domini 400. Western Fathers 300. Estern 76. decreed that in cases of Bishops for honour of St. Peters memory it should be lawful to appeal from whatsoever Bishop to the Bishop of Rome Can. 3. therefore the primacy was in Peter and after him in the Bishop of Rome For 1. This Council whatever it were was not in the first or second ages 2. Nor was it reckoned no not by the Roman Church of old among Oâ—cumenical Councils much less by the Greeks who refused to be present as Socrates relates l. 2. c. 16. unless Athanaâ—ius were removed for not yielding whereto the Bishops of the East met by themselves at Philippi in Thracia and made decrees apart saith Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. yea however in the late edition of the Councils at Paris corrupt devices are used to gain the credit of a general Council to it and for some advantage to the Papacy to make its Canons of authority yet H. T. makes it to have had but seventy six Eastern Fathers when there were three hundred Western and the ignorance of any general Councils establishing appeals from Africa to Rome in the sixth Council of Carthage shews that it was not taken for an Oâ—cumenical Council 3. Nor doth the Canon it self decree as H. T. sets down that the Bishop of Rome should have power to receive appeals and to judge the cause but in case of the deposition of a Bishop they permit the Bishop of Rome to deliberate whether the judgement should be renewed and then consider whether he should send some from his side who might be present at the renewed cognizance of it and if it should seem meet also appoint judges out of a neighbouring Province none of which give the Bishop of Rome a judiciary power but onely a Directory Nor was this to be extended to any other than those of the western countreys the Africans and Greeks ever rejecting it 4. The very canon it self expresseth the reason of it not any divine appointment or ancient use the Council of Nice having to the contrary Can. 5. determined that such controversies should be ended in a provincial Council but it was then proposed first by Hosius for honour of St. Peter's memory and the last determination of the cause to be by a Council Can. 13. 14. No betis that which H. T. adds The Council of Chalcedon Anno 451. said All primary and chief honour according to the Canons was to be kept for the Archbishop of old Rome therefore this is good evidence that in the first Age the primacy was in Peter and the Pope For neither doth that Council held in the fifth Age mention what honour or primacy the Bishop of Rome had in the two first Ages nor doth it ascribe to the Bishop of Rome any superiority but doth expresly in that very Canon ascribe to the other Patriarchs equality with the Roman Bishop in power however he were first in order and this was determined notwithstanding the reluctancy of the Popes Legates The rest is as vain Pope Antherus Anno 238. said Peter was changed from Antioch to Rome Gregory in the sixth Age said he knew no Bishop but is subject to the See of Rome Epist 62. Ergo Peter and the Pope had the supreme Headship over the whole Church in the first Age. As if the counterfeit writing of a Pope in the third Age or the saying of a Pope in the sixth Age of what was then in use though not true sith the Greek Bishops to his knowledge were not subject without telling them by what means it was so were a sufficient proof either of right or possession in the first Age of so great a power as the Bishop of Rome now claims What he adds that the falsely so called Canons of the Apostles define that if any Bishop or Priest the oblation H. T. â—oysts in the word Mass being made shall not communicate he should be excommunicate as giving suspition of him who hath sacrificed that he hath not rightly offered Can. 9. approved in the sixth general Synod therefore the Apostles professed a sacrifice properly so called propitiatory for quick and dead in the Mass is as frivolous For neither were those canons made by the Apostles as many things in them shew and if they were private Masses used by Papists should be condemned nor doth it follow there is mention of a Sacrifice and Offering therefore in the Mass was Christ offered as a propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called sith it might be termed as it is in many of the Ancients an eucharistical or commemorative Sacrifice not a propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called This H. T. in the two first Ages brings for the proof of his Minor let us go on to view his catalogue in the next Age. He sets down fifteen Bishops of Rome whereof the last Pope Marcellinus was condemned in a Council at Sinuessa if there were such a Council for his Idolatry confesseth no Councils in the second and third Ages yet claims a Succession of Popes Martyrs and Confessors sufficient for his purposes and then sets down Decrees of eight Popes in their Epistles which have been long since proved counterfeit by Dr. John Rainold confer with Hart chap. 8. divis 3. in which the Forger tells us that Pope Anacletus decreed Anno Dom. 101. that Priests when they sacrifice to our Lord must not do it alone which is against private Masses and proves not a propitiatory sacrifice properly so called in the Mass that the Apostles so appointed and the Roman Church holds if so then the Roman Church which now holds private Masses holds not the same tenet it did then if more difficult questions shall arise let them be referr'd to the Apostolick See of Rome which is H. T. his Addition for so the Apostles have ordained by the commandment of our Lord no where extant nor any way probable that Pope Alexander decreed that Bread onely and Wine mingled with Water should be
men which occasioned in after ages the intolerable tyranny of denying Marriage to priests against Gods allowance and the practice of former ages The catholick professours he mentions to the year 500. were many of the Greek and other churches who though they held communion with the bishop of Rome in opposing the Heresies then risen yet did neither acknowledge the Popes supremacy now challenged nor held the Doctrine the Romanists now teach in opposition to Protestants As for the Nations converted Scots French the Martyrs of Africa which he mentions it is not shewed that either they were converted by any from Rome or acknowledged subjection to him as the supreme oecumenical bishop or held what the Romanists now hold against Protestants And thus have I shewed the insufficiency for the proof of his Minor of the catalogue of H. T. of the first five hundred years within which he included his Demonstration which were better than the later though not without their corruptions I proceed to view what he saith of the sixth and other ages following SECT IX The defect of H. T. his Catalogue for proof of his Succession in the sixth seventh eighth ninth tenth Ages is shewed H. T. in his catalogue from the year of Christ 500. reckons up thirteen chief Pastors one general Council the second Constantinopolitan Pope Vigilius prefiding Fathers 165. An. Dom 553. against Anthimius and Theodore but Bellarmine himself confesseth lib. 1. de concil c. 19. that Eutychius of Constantinople was President there though Vigilius Bishop of Rome was then at Constantinople As for that which Bellarmine cites out of Zonaras in the life of Justinian he cites it maimedly For Zonaras said not that onely Vigilius was Prince of the Bishops who were present but with him Eutychius of Constantinople and Apollinaris of Alexandria What H. T. mentions of the definitions of the council is nothing against the protestants nor for the Papacy That which he allegeth out of the third council of Carthage is disorderly placed in the sixth age it being held as is said in the year 397. and is of doubtfull credit sith it mentions Pope Boniface as then living though he sat not according to Onuphrius till the year 419. but it matters not what it was sith it was but a provincial Synod and of the canons cited by H. T. the first is onely about a point not of Faith concerning the celebrating the Mass Fasting the other which terms the Apocryphal books as canonical may be expounded according to Hierom's distinction that they are canonical to form manners not to inform faith Yet this may be observed by the way that the six and twentieth Canon of the third Council of Carthage which was authorized by the sixth general council holden at Constantinople in Trullo as it is alleged by Gratian in the Decrees dist 99. de primatibus and by Pope Pelagius approved denies to any the title of Chief Priest or Prince of Priests but alows onely this Title Bishop of the first See whereupon the Gloss saith that even the Bishop of Rome was not to be called the Universal Bishop The determination of the Council of Mileris about Childrens Baptism is disorderly placed in the sixth age being said to be held in the year 402. and being no general council about a point not gainsaid by most protestants is impertinent to prove a succession of assertors of the Roman Doctrine opposite to the protestants That which he allegeth out of the Caesar Augustan Council which decreed that Virgins should not be vailed till after forty years probation makes against the Papists who in the Trent council allow it sooner and practise the vasting of them afore they are twenty years old That which he adds of Pope John the first his Decree that Mass ought not to be celebrated but in places consecrated to our Lord unless great necessity should enforce it because it is written See thou offer not thy holocausts in every place which the Lord thy God hath chosen Deut. 12. shews the Popes ignorance or Judaism who applies this to the Mass which was meant of Jewish sacrificing in the Levitical Law and makes the Mass to be an offering of an holocaust and every place consecrated by a bishop the place that God chooseth and also the vanity of this Scribler who puts in his catalogue such an impertinent testimony to prove a succession of the assertors of the Roman faith which I scarce think any sober papist would make any part of his faith against protestants nor do I think the papists in England would be content to be tied to that Law In that which he adds of Catholick Professors to the year 600. he doth not shew that they acknowledged the bishop of Rome's supremacy or the now Roman faith Yea Columbanus in this age and after Aidanus Colmannus and others lived and died in opposition to the Romans about Easter That Austin the Monk converted England is onely true of some part of it and it is true also that he did in many things pervert them and it is said he was an instigator of the murder of many British Christians better than himself but that either he or Pope Gregory that sent him held the same supremacy of the pope which now popes claim or the now Roman faith opposite to the protestants cannot be shewed On the contrary it is manifest enough that Gregory the great refused the Title of Universal Bishop as profane and sacrilegious and accounted the assumer of it to be a fore-runner of Antichrist lib 4. epist 32 34 36 38 39. lib. 6. epist 30. he allowed not Worship of Images in his Epistle to Serenus bishop of Marseiles he allowed priests wives nor did tie men to follow the order of the Roman church which shews the popes then not to have been altogether so bad as in the next age In which and throughout the rest of his Catalogue he can hardly shew a Pope that lived either the life of a Christian or did the Office of a pastour of the church of God if any sure not many but in stead of Christian pastours a generation of men of an ambitious and luxurious spirit contending with Emperours and Bishops for worldly greatness persecuting godly Christians living in pomp riot and all kinde of wickedness are set down as chief pastours of the universal church In the seventh age he reckons up nineteen Popes whom he terms chief Pastors of them the second is Boniface the third who obtained of Phocas the Emperor who by treason had gotten the Empire slaying his Lord Mauritius and his children the title of universal Bishop detested before by Gregory the great as profane and sacrilegious and Honorius the first is the fifth condemned in the third Constantinopolitan Council in which H. T. saith there were Fathers two hundred eighty nine Pope Agatho presiding Anno Domini 680. against the Monothelites and that in it were condemned Sergius Paulus Petrus Cyrus and Theodore who most impiously taught but one
Bishops I know no Bishop but is subject to the See Apostolick And lib 4. Indict 13. Epist 32. The care and principality of the church hath been committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of the Apostles St. Peter yet is not he called Universal Apostle as if there were no other Apostles but he You see in what sense he rejects the word Universal I reply Gregory not onely rejected the Title of Universal Arch-bishop or Patriarch but also rejected it as proud wicked perverse profane blasphemous aud the Usurper of it as a Fore-runner of Antichrist and not onely as not agreeing to the Bishop of Constantinople but also as not agreeing to him or any of his Predecessours lib. 6. Epist 24. lib. 4. Epist 32. 36. None of my Predecessours consented to use this profane name of Universal Bishop none of my Predecessours ever took upon him this name of singularity neither consented to use it We the Bishops of Rome do not seek nor yet accept this glorious Title being offered unto us Nor in the sense onely as H. T. denies it due to the Pope as if it excluded all others from being Bishops but even in the sense in which the Pope now usurps it For 1. He rejects it in the sense in which John of Constantinople did affect it But he did not affect it as thereby assuming to himself to be the onely Bishop but the supreme which appears 1. In that a Synod of the Greek Bishops did agree to give it him Habita Synodo seipsum Patriarcham universalem creasset that is Holding a Synod he had created himself universal Patriarch Platina in the Life of Pope Gregory But doubtless the Synod would not give him the Title as importing him the onely Bishop for then they should have unbishopt themselves which neither he nor they did 2. Gregory when he chargeth him with his arrogating that Title to himself tells John himself lib. 4. Epist 38. that he sought this Title that he might seem to be under none and he alone before all that be endeavoured that by the appellation of universal Bishop he might put under himself all the members of Christ that he desired to be called in the World not onely the Father but also the general Father that he desired by that word of elation to put himself before Bishops and to hold them under him which shews he affected not to be accounted the onely Bishop but the supreme 3. He affected no more than what after Boniface the third of Rome obtained of Phocas as appears by the words of Platina in the Life of Boniface the third who speaks thus Boniface the third a Roman by countrey obtained from Phocas the Emperour yet with great contention that the See of blessed Peter the Apostle which is the Head of all churches should be both so called and accounted by all which place indeed the Church of Constantinople endeavoured to challenge to it sometimes evil Princes favouring and affirming that in that place should be the first See where the Head of the Empire was And Baronius Annal. Eccles at the year 606. relates the Decree of Phocas thus that the Roman Bishop alone should be called oecumenical or universal but not the Constantinopolitan And Bellarmine lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 31. saith They would equal the See of Constantinople to the Roman and make it universal speaking of the Greeks in the business of John of Constantinople whence it may be plainly gathered that the thing which the Patriarchs of Constantinople affected was not to be accounted the onely Bishop so as that none but he should be accounted a bishop but that he should be the Head or Supreme of all Bishops by reason of the Seat of the Empire there and that this Gregory disclaimed as proud 4. That was affected by John which he and Cyriacus his Successour used for twenty years but neither of them used it so by word or deed as to exclude others from being Bishops as well as themselves for in John's own writing to them extant in the body of the Romam Greek Law he terms them fellow-servants Metropolitans and Bishops to whom he writes and others in their Writings to the Patriarch of Constantinople when they term him oecumenical Arch-bishop yet style themselves Bishops and fellow-priests but they would be accounted supreme or prime Bishops of the whole Church so as to be under none but above all 2. It is proved that Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop in the sense of the supreme Bishop in that he Regist lib. 11. Epist 54. resolves thus If any man accuse a Bishop for whatsoever cause let the cause bâ— judged by his Metropolitan If any man gainsay the Metropolitan's judgement let it be referred to the Arch-bishop and Patriarch of that Diocese and let him end it according to the Canons and Laws And for what he addeth that if a Bishop have no Metropolitan nor Patriarch at all then is his cause to be heard and determined by the See Apostolick which is the Head of all Churches it is added beyond the Canons of Councils and Laws of Emperours and though it prove that he claimed a reference of causes in difference between Bishops within his Patriarchate yet not where there were other Patriarchs to which the Bishops were subject much less through the whole World And that he termeth the See of Rome the Head of all Chuches doth not prove a Supremacy of Government by any institution of Christ but a preheminence of order and some Ecclesiastical Privileges by reason of that Cities being the Seat of the Empire And hereby is understood what H. T. cites out of the seventh Book Epist 62. of Greg. Epistles Indict 2. that it is not meant of all Bishops universally but of the Bishops within that Patriarchate but this was in case of fault onely for it follows But when no fault requires it all according to reason of humility are equals So that Gregory doth not by that speech shew that he had an universal supreme Jurisdiction and power over all Churches so as that they were subject to his commands and deteminations in points of faith but that he accounted the African Churches subject to his reproof as he had a common care of the Church every where in which Gregory himself and all other Bishops and Churches are subject to any Bishop wheresoever Certainly Gregory had most absurdly argued against the arrogance of John of Constantinople calling the Title of universal Bishop new profane proud blasphemous foolish perverse and him a Fore-runner of Antichrist whosoever should use it if he had imagined it belonged to himself or any Bishop of Rome And for what H. T. allegeth that John claimed to be universal Bishop as excluding all others it is but an absurdity which Gregory pressed him with as following upon it not acknowledged by John but rather denied as when we urge men with absurdities following their tenets which they do not own and how he urgeth it