by Pope Cornelius by Pope Innocent the First and others that two Bishops should preside together in one City This was condemned with good reason for this on the Churches part would be a kind of spiritual Polygamy this would render a Church a monster with two heads this would destroy the end of Episcopacy which is unity and prevention of Schisms But if Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome this irregularity was committed for the same Authority upon which Saint Peter's Episcopacy of Rome is built doth also reckon Saint Paul Bishop of the same the same Writers do make both Founders and Planters of the Roman Church and the same call both Bishops of it wherefore if Episcopacy be taken in a strict and proper sense agreeable to this Controversie that rule must needs be infringed thereby Irenaeus saith that the Roman Church was founded and constituted by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul Dionysius of Corinth calleth it the plantation of Peter and Paul Epiphanius saith that Peter and Paul were first at Rome both Apostles and Bishops so Eusebius implyeth saying that P. Alexander derived a succession in the fifth place from Peter and Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Donys Corinth apud Euseb. 2.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eus. 4.1 Wherefore both of them were Roman Bishops or neither of them In reason and rule neither of them may be called so in a strict and proper sense but in a larger and improper sense both might be so styled Indeed that Saint Paul was in some acception Bishop of Rome that is had a Supreme superintendence or inspection of it is reasonable to affirm because he did for a good time reside there and during that residence could not but have the chief place could be subject to no other He saith Saint Luke did abide two whole years in his own hired house and received all that entred in unto him preaching the Kingdom of God and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence no man forbidding him It may be enquired if Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome how he did become such did our Lord appoint him such did the Apostles all or any constitute him did the people elect him did he put himself into it of none of these things there is any appearance nor any probability Non constat SUPPOSITION IV. They affirm That Saint Peter did continue Bishop of Rome after his translation and was so at his decease AGainst which Assertions we may consider 1. Ecclesiastical Writers do affirm that Saint Peter either alone or together with Saint Paul did constitute other Bishops wherefore Saint Peter was never Bishop or did not continue Bishop there Irenaeus saith that the Apostles founding and rearing that Church delivered the Episcopal Office into the hands of Linus if so how did they retain it in their own hands or persons could they give and have Tertullian saith that Saint Peter did ordain Clement In the Apostolical Constitutions a very ancient Book and setting forth the most ancient Traditions of the Church the Apostles ordering Prayers to be made for all Bishops and naming the principal do reckon not St. Peter but Clement Let us pray for our Bishop James for our Bishop Clemens for our Bishop Evodius c. These reports are consistent and reconciled by that which the Apostolical Constitutions affirm that Linus was first ordained Bishop of the Roman Church by Paul but Clemens after the death of Linus by Peter in the second place Others between Linus and Clemens do interpose Cletus or Anacletus some taking these for one others for two persons which doth not alter the case Now hence we may infer both that Saint Peter never was Bishop and upon supposition that he was that he did not continue so For 2. If he had ever been Bishop he could not well lay down his Office or subrogate another either to preside with him or to succeed him according to the ancient Rules of Discipline and that which passed for right in the Primitive Church This practice Pope Innocent I. condemned as irregular and never known before his time We saith he in his Epistle to the Clergy and People of Constantinople never have known these things to have been adventured by our Fathers but rather to have been hindred for that none hath power given him to ordain another into the place of one living He did not it seems consider that Saint Peter had used such a power Accordingly the Synod of Antioch to secure the tradition and practice of the Church which began by some to be infringed did make this Sanction that it should not be lawfull for any Bishop to constitute another in his room to succeed him although it were at the point of death 3. But supposing Saint Peter were Bishop once yet by constituting Linus or Clemens in his place he ceased to be so and devested himself of that place for it had been a great irregularity for him to continue Bishop together with another That being in St. Cyprian's judgment the Ordination of Linus had been void and null for seeing saith that H. Martyr there cannot after the first be any second whoever is after one who ought to be sole Bishop he is not now second but none Upon this ground when the Emperour Constantius would have procured Felix to sit Bishop of Rome together with Pope Liberius at his return from Banishment after his complyance with the Arians the people of Rome would not admit it exclaiming One God one Christ one Bishop and whereas Felix soon after that dyed the Historian remarketh it as a special providence of God that Peter's Throne might not suffer infamy being governed under two Prelates he never considered that Saint Peter and Saint Paul Saint Peter and Linus had thus governed that same Church Upon this account St. Austin being assumed by Valerius with him to be Bishop of Hippo did afterward discern and acknowledge his errour In fine to obviate this practice so many Canons of Councils both general and particular were made which we before did mention 4. In sum when Saint Peter did ordain others as story doth accord in affirming either he did retain the Episcopacy and then beside need reason and rule there were concurrently divers Bishops of Rome at one time or he did quite relinquish and finally divorce himself from the Office so that he did not dye Bishop of Rome the which overturneth the main ground of the Romish pretence Or will they say that Saint Peter having laid aside the Office for a time did afterward before his death resume it then what became of Linus of Cletus of Clemens were they dispossessed of their place or deposed from their function would Saint Peter succeed them in it this in Bellarmine's own judgment had been plainly intolerable 5. To avoid all which difficulties in the case and
Discipline should never insist upon the duty of Obedience to the Pope or charge those Schismaticks with their rebellion against him or alledge his Authority against them If we consider that the Pope was Bishop of the Imperial City the Metropolis of the World that he thence was most eminent in rank did abound in wealth did live in great splendour and reputation had many dependences and great opportunities to gratify and relieve many of the Clergy that of the Fathers whose Volumes we have all well affected towards him divers were personally obliged to him for his support in their distress as Athanasius Chrysostome Theodoret or as to their Patrons and Benefactours as St. Hierome divers could not but highly respect him as Patron of the cause wherein they were engaged as Basil Gregory Nazianzene Hilary Gregory Nyssene Ambrose Austin some were his partizans in a common quarrel as Cyril divers of them lived in places and times wherein he had got much sway as all the Western Bishops that he had then improved his Authority much beyond the old limits that all the Bishops of the Western or Latine Churches had a peculiar dependence on him especially after that by advantage of his Station by favour of the Court by colour of the Sardican Canons by voluntary deferences and submissions by several tricks he had wound himself to meddle in most of their chief Affairs that hence divers Bishops were tempted to admire to court to flatter him that divers aspiring Popes were apt to encourage the commenders of their Authority which they themselves were apt to magnifie and inculcate considering I say such things it is a wonder that in so many voluminous discourses so little should be said favouring this pretence so nothing that proveth it so much that crosseth it so much indeed as I hope to shew that quite overthroweth it If it be asked how we can prove this I answer that beside who carefully peruseth those old Books will easily see it we are beholden to our Adversaries for proving it to us when they least intended us such a favour for that no clear and cogent passages for proof of this pretence can be thence fetched is sufficiently evident from the very allegations which after their most diligent raking in old Books they produce the which are so few and fall so very short of their purpose that without much stretching they signifie nothing 28. It is monstrous that in the Code of the Catholick Church consisting of the decrees of so many Synods concerning Ecclesiastical order and discipline there should not be one Canon directly declaring his Authority nor any mention made of him except thrice accidentally once upon occasion of declaring the Authority of the Alexandrine Bishop the other upon occasion of assigning to the Bishop of Constantinople the second place of honour and equal privileges with him If it be objected that these discourses are negative and therefore of small force I answer that therefore they are most proper to assert such a negative proposition for how can we otherwise better shew a thing not to be than by shewing it to have no footstep there where it is supposed to stand how can we more clearly argue a matter of right to want proof than by declaring it not to be extant in the Laws grounding such right not taught by the Masters who profess to instruct in such things not testifyed in records concerning the exercise of it such arguments indeed in such cases are not merely negative but rather privative proving things not to be because not affirmed there where in reason they ought to be affirmed standing therefore upon positive Suppositions that Holy Scripture that general tradition are not imperfect and lame toward their design that ancient Writers were competently intelligent faithfull diligent that all of them could not conspire in perpetual silence about things of which they had often fair occasion and great reason to speak In fine such considerations however they may be deluded by Sophistical Wits will yet bear great sway and often will amount near to the force of demonstration with men of honest prudence However we shall proceed to other discourses more direct and positive against the Popish Doctrine II. Secondly we shall shew that this pretence upon several accounts is contrary to the Doctrine of Holy Scripture 1. This pretence doth thwart the Holy Scripture by assigning to another the prerogatives and peculiar Titles appropriated therein to our Lord. The Scripture asserteth him to be our onely Sovereign Lord and King To us saith it there is one Lord and One King shall be King over them who shall reign over the house of David for ever and of his Kingdom there shall be no end who is the onely Potentate the King of Kings and Lord of Lords the One Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy The Scripture speaketh of one Arch-Pastour and great Shepherd of the Sheep exclusively to any other for I will said God in the Prophet set up one Shepherd over them and he shall feed the Sheep and There saith our Lord himself shall be one Fold and one Shepherd who that shall be he expresseth adding I am the good Shepherd the good Shepherd giveth his life for the Sheep by Pope Boniface his good leave who maketh Saint Peter or himself this Shepherd The Scripture telleth us that we have one High-Priest of our Profession answerable to that one in the Jewish Church his Type The Scripture informeth us that there is but one Supreme Doctour Guide Father of Christians prohibiting us to acknowledge any other for such Ye are all Brethren and call ye not any one Father upon Earth for one is your Father even he that is in Heaven Neither be ye called Masters for one is your Master even Christ. Good Pope Gregory not the seventh of that name did take this for a good argument for What therefore dearest Brother said he to John of Constantinople wilt thou say in that terrible trial of the Judge who is coming who dost affect to be called not onely Father but General Father in the World The Scripture representeth the Church as a building whereof Christ himself is the chief Corner-stone as a Family whereof he being the Pater-familias as all others are fellow-servants as one Body having one Head whom God hath given to be Head over all things to the Church which is his Body He is the One Spouse of the Church which title one would think he might leave peculiar to our Lord there being no Vice-husbands yet hath he been bold even to claim that as may be seen in the Constit. of Pope Greg. X. in one of their General Synods It seemeth therefore a Sacrilegious arrogance derrogating from our Lord's Honour for any man to assume or admit those Titles of Sovereign of the Church Head of the Church our Lord Arch-Pastour Highest-Priest Chief Doctour Master Father Judge of Christians upon what
14. Can. 4. If any shall deny that contrition confession and satisfaction is required to the entire and perfect remission of sin Et qui Hierosolymam proficiscuntur ad Christianam gentem defendendam tyrannidem infidelium debellandum efficaciter auxilium praebuerint quorum peccatorum remissionem concedimus Conc. Lat. 1. Can. 11. And whoever go to Jerusalem and powerfully afford help to defend Christian people and to subdue the tyranny of Infidels to them we grant forgiveness of their sins Rom. 13.1 Tit. 3.1 1 Pet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. Si omnis vestra si quis tentat excipere conatur decipere Bern. Ep. 42. Lex Canonica simpliciter eos eximit Bell. de Cler. cap. 1. Sanè quia Laici quidam Ecclesiasticaâ— personas ipsos etiam Episcopos suo judicio stare compellunt eos qui de caetero id praesumpserint à communione fidelium decernimus segregandos Conc. Lat. III. Can. 14. Con. Lat. II. Can. 15. Steph. VI. Ep. 1. Tom. 1. p. 130. Nichol. 1. Ep. 8. Tom. 6. p. 513. Tertull. Opt. Cyrill c. alibi Greg. Ep. 2.62 Agatho c. 2 Thess. 2.4 Christus beato aeternae vitae Clavigero terreni simul coelestis Imperii jura commisit P. Nich. II. apud Grat. dist 22. cap. 1. Greg. VII Ep. 8.21 Caus. 15. qu. 6. cap. 3. Seculi potestates si fideles sunt Deus Ecclesiae Sacerdotibus voluit esse subjectas Imperatores Christiani subdere debent executiones suas Ecclesiasticis praesulibus non praeferre P. Joh. VIII apud Grat. dist 96. cap. 11. Nos sanctorum Praedecessorum nostrorum Statuta tenentes eos qui excommunicatis Fidelitate aut Sacramento constricti sunt Apostolicâ auctoritate à Sacramento absolvimus nè eis Fidelitatem observent omnibus modis prohibemus quousque ipsi ad satisfactionem veniant Greg. VII in Syn. Rom. Grat. Caus. 15. qu. 6. cap. 4. Fidelitatem enim quam Christiano Principi jurârunt Deo ejúsque Sanctis adversanti eorum praecepta calcanti nullà cohibentur auctoritate persolvere P. Urb. II. apud Grat. Caus. 15. qu. 6. cap. 5. Ezek. 13.3 c. Sâ—quis autem libros ipsos integros cum suis partibus prout in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt in veteri vulgata Latina Editione habentur pro Sacris Canonicis non susceperit anathema sit Conc. Trid. Sess. 4. But if any shall not receive for Sacred and Canonical those whole Books with the parts of them according as they have been wont to be read in the Catholick Church and are had in the old vulgar Latin Edition let him be Anathema nec non traditiones ipsas continuâ successione in Ecclesia Catholica conservatas pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit veneratur Syn. Trid. Sess. 4. Caeremonias item adhibuit ut mysticas benedictiones lumina thymiamata vestes aliáque id genus multaex Apostolica disciplina traditione Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. cap. 5.11 de sacrif Miss 2 Tim. 3.15 Rom. 15.4 1 Cor. 9.10.10.11 2 Pet. 1.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 Psal. 119. Hier. ad Laet. Epitaph Paul Vit. Hilar Chrys. in Colos. Or. 9. Aug. Serm. 55. de temp N. P. Pius IV. did authorize certain rules for prohibition and permission of books in which it is permitted to Bishops to grant a faculty of reading the Scriptures translated but to this rule there is added an observation that this power was taken from Bishops by command of the Roman Vniversal Inquisition Ind. Lib. prohib à Clem. VIII 2 Tim. 3.17 1 Cor. 14.14 Ex hac Pauli doctrina habetur quòd melius est ad Ecclesiae aedificationem orationes publicas quae audiente populo dicuntur dici linguâ communi Clericis populo quà m dici Latiné Cajet in 1 Cor. 14. aut linguâ tantum vulgari Missam celebrari debere anathema sit Sess. 22. Can. 9. A quo tanquam Capite omnis in subjecta membra potestâ—s authoritas derivetur P. Pius II. in Bull. Retract Definimus Romanum Pontificem verum Christi Vicarium totiúsqùe Ecclesiae caput Defin. Syn. Flor. Matt. 19.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 9.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 7.35 Vid. Tom. 7. Conc. p. 465. Syn. Trid. Sess. 24. de matr Can. 9. Matt. 5.32.19.7 1 Cor. 7.10 Contracta quoque matrimonia ab hujusmodi personis disjungi Conc. Lat. I. cap. 21. Lat. II. Trid. Sess. 24. Can. 9. Si quis dixerit matrimonium ratum non consummatum per solennem religionis professionem alterius conjugum non dirimi anathema sit Sess. 24. Can. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matt. 26.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 6.53 Non obstante Conc. Const. Sess. 13. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 8. Can. 3. Sess. 21. cap. 4. Can. 3. †This P. Leo I. condemneth De Quadr. Serm. 4. p. 38. Sanguinem redemptionis nostrae haurire declinant P. Gelasius calleth the division of the Sacrament a grand Sacrilege Gratian. in De Consecr dist 2. cap. 12. Conc. Trid. Sess. 21. Can. 3. Sess. 13. Can. 3. Joh. 6.54 Si quis dixerit tantum in usu c. Trid. Conc. Sess. 13. cap. 8. Can. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.26 Theod. Gelas. Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis vini anathema sit Trid. Conc. de Euch. Sess. 13. Can. 2. Si quis dixerit Missas in quibus sacerdos solus sacramentaliter communicat illicitas esse anathema sit Sess. 22. de sacr Miss Can. 8. Sess. 13. Can. 8. 2 Cor. 5.6 Act. 2.33 Col. 3.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 10.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 3.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 2.17 Heb. 9.26.10.10 12 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 2.8 9. Tit. 3.5 Rom. 3.24 Luk. 17.10 Sess. 6. de Justif Can. 32. Orbis terraâ—um Apostatavit sola remansit Donati Communio Aug. de Vnit. 12. 1 Joh. 4.1 Jer. 29.8 Luk. 11.13 Jam. 1.5 1 Joh. 2.27 Heb. 8.11 Rom. 8.9 Act. 5.32 Aug. Doctr. Christ. Ep. ad Jen. Si Sacramenta essent pauciora magna impietas fuisset superstitio c. Bell. de Sacr. 2.25 If the Sacraments were fewer there would have been great impiety and superstition c. Profiteor quoque septem esse propriè verè Sacramenta Bulla Pii IV. Si quis dixerit esse plura vel pauciora quà m septem anathema sit Syn. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 1. Haec verò nostra continent gratiam ipsam dignè suscipientibus conferunt P. Eug. in Instr. Arm. Si quis dixerit per ipsa novae legis Sacramenta ex opere operato non conferri gratiam anathema sit Ibid. Can. 8. Si quis dixerit matrimonium non esse verè ac propriè unum ex septem legis Evangelicae Sacramentis à Christo Domino institutum neque gratiam conferre anathema sit Sess. 24. Can. 1. Sess. 24.