their lawful Prince whom the Bishop of Rome shall appoint How this power of the Popes can consist with Kingly Government let the Kings of the earth themselves consider They make one objection yet that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings By the answer of which objection will appear that encrease of Popery in a Protestant State tends to the utter destruction both of King and Subject and inconsistent with both The objection is this It is not the Doctrine of the Church of France say they that the Pope has power to depose Kings being rejected both by its Doctrine and by its Practice since many of the Clergy of France hath writen against that Doctrine and Books defending that Opinion such as that of Mariana the Spanish Jesuit and others have been burnt by publick Authority But this objection is answered by a twofold distinction first of Times secondly of Causes wherefore Kings ought to be deposed As for Times when the Kings of France are low or high in the last case the Clergy of France ever partied their King against the Pope excommunicating them and deposing them as appears by the passages of Philip le Bell with â—onifacius and of Lewis 12th with Julius second Bishop of Rome In the first Case when the Kings of France are low the Clergy of France ever partied the Pope excommunicating and deposing their Kings as appears by the passages of Henry 3d. and 4th Kings of France with Sixtus 5th Bishop of Rome It is notorious that the University of Paris confirmed by a decree the Bulls of the said Sixtus 5th against the said two Henries Kings of France in which Bulls they were declared uncapable of the Crown of France all French men were absolved from alledgeance to them and the greatest part of France rose up in armes against them to dethrone them beging of the Pope that he would name them a King and they would acknowledge him for their lawful Prince And this much of the distinction of Times The second distinction is of Causes wherefore Kings should be deposed although in other causes besides Heresie the Subjects of France were not so unanimous for the Pope against their King yet in case of Heresie that is if their King were a Protestant both the Clergy and the Laity of France unanimously at the Popes command renunced alledgeance to their King And first for the Clergy in an Assembly of States or Parliament Cardinal Perron their Speaker commissionat from them as their mouth in an Oration to the third Estate affirmed That it had ever been the Doctrine of the Clergy of France that true French men ought no alledgeance to heretical Kings excommunicated and deposed by the Pope As for the Laity it is notorious that after the murther of Henry 3. they threatned to abandon Henry 4th his Successor because he was excommunicated and deposed by the Pope which forced him expecting no security otherwayes to change his Religion And thus we have proved that it is the unanimous Doctrine of the Church of Rome that Popish Subjects owe no fidelity to a Protestant King which occasioned that saying of that incomparable Bishop Mortoun viz. That a loyal popish Subject in a Protestant State was a white Ethiopian which I do not mention calling in question the Loyalty of the Romanists of this Nation or the neighbour Nations of England and Ireland many of them are known to be persons of Honour and as loyal Subjects as the King hath I only mention those things to let them see how they are abused by the Popish Emissaries of these three Nations who knowing them to be loyal Subjects to the King seing it would be a great difficulty to train them in their snares and keep them in them once catched if they told them all the verity To train them on they make them believe in the beginning that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Protestant Kings much less others but only a calumny of Protestants traducing the Popish Religion but afterwards having by degrees confirmed them in the Popish Religion they would not fail to perswade them to cut the throats of all their Countrey-men and flee like so many mad-dogs upon the Kings face to pull him from his Throne as appears by the constant practice of the Church of Rome against all Protestants in general and against Protestant Kings in particular which practice is so notorious that he who denyes it is either a mad man void of common sense or else a notorious Impostor And first that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome affirming it meritorious to destroy Protestants by open cruelty and perfidy appears by the constant carriage of the said Church towards Protestants since the Reformation What sort of cruelty or perfidy have they not attempted Death without torture was thought clemency burning of them in heaps alive in houses might be attributed to a popular fury but it is notorious that multitudes of them were burnt alive in fires of all Sexes and Qualities by the sentences of the Judges and when they could do no good by open force they destroyed them by perfidy and prostitution of the publick Faith and when they had done made publick Processions of Joy Bonefires and such like as if they had deserved Paradise by such meritorious works maintaining this maxime as unquestionable that no publick Faith should be regarded or observed towards Hereticks That this is truth appears by the proceedings of the Council of Constance with John Husse and Hierom of Prague which two were burned alive notwithstanding they had the safe conduct of the Emperor Sigismundus It appears also by those massacres of Paris and other parts of France where by the publick Faith they trained them all to one place and then perfidiously massacred them to the horror of several learned Romanists who in their Histories detest such perfidy such as Thuanus and others and when they had done tanquam re bene gesta triumpharunt they were congratulated by the Pope who caused Bonefires and publick Processions to be made at Rome for the happy success of such a glorious atchievment These things are notorious so that the Popish emissaries themselves have neither the brow to deny them nor the confidence to defend them But they use another shift viz. That the Church of Rome hath given over that practice now being resolved no more to follow those courses as they did in the beginning prompted to them by their too violent zeal But it is answered they are greatly mistaken for now in France and Germany and other places they practise not such cruelties because they dare not but where they have power and thinks they may do it without any hazard they make it appear that they believe it is a meritorious work to destroy and extirpat all Protestants by any cruelty or perfidy imaginable as appears of late not only abroad
First that the said second General Council of Constantinople ordained the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople to be equal although they gave the Bishop of Rome the first place in dignity The second thing is That the Bishop of Rome had the first place in dignity not by reason of his succession to Peter but for a civil respect viz. because Rome was the old Imperial City Paschasinus and his fellows replyed or at least Bellarmin and Baronius would have so replyed if they had been pleaders before the Council That the third Canon of the Council of Constantinople was not to be regarded because the Bishop of Rome had never approved it and therefore they urged the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice by which say they the Bishop of Alexandria had authority confirmed to him in Egypt because the Bishop of Rome had the like custom From which they argued thus That the authority of the Bishop of Rome was the cause of the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria or the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria flowed from the authority of the Bishop of Rome And since the Bishop of Alexandria was before him of Constantinople of old the said second General Council of Constantinople wronged the Bishop of Alexandria in preferring the Bishop of Constantinople to him In a word the sum of their pleading was this That by the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice the Bishop of Rome had authority over him of Alexandria And since the Bishop of Alexandria was before the Bishop of Constantinople in former times that third Act of the second General Council of Constantinople ought to be cassed and antiquitated because it contradicted the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice in preferring the Bishop of Constantinople to him of Alexandria and equalizing him to the Bishop of Rome Aetius and the Deputies of the Bishop of Constantinople duplyed First That the said Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople ought not to be recalled or at least Protestants would have so duplyed if they had been in their place First Because it was a lawful General Council And although the Bishop of Rome had not confirmed it because he had no authority above a General Council It was very unreasonable that any particular Bishop should cut and carve for his own advantage against the decree of the whole Church Secondly The said General Council of Constantinople was received and confirmed by a Synod at Rome two years after the Bishop of Rome Dammasus presiding in the said Council And therefore it was false that the Bishop of Rome never confirmed the said Council of Constantinople Thirdly the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice gave no authority to the Bishop of Rome over the Bishop of Alexandria the meaning of the Canon being only this viz. The occasion of the Canon was one Miletius troubled all Egypt by ordaining Bishops at his own hand Alexander Bishop of Alexandria complains to the Council of Nice which upon his complaint made the foresaid sixth Canon The true Gloss of which being that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the power of ordaining Bishops in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis as he was wont Since the Bishop of Rome had the like power by custom in the places adjacent to Rome or as Ruffinus a writer who lived near these times interprets in Ecclesijs Suburbicarijs that is in Churches within a hundred miles to the walls of Rome So then the authority of the Bishop of Rome was not the cause of the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria or the Original from whence it flowed but only a pattern according to which it was framed as one common-wealth may be framed in government according to the pattern of another common-wealth without any subordination in authority They duplyed fourthly That the said General Council of Constantinople did no wrong to the Bishop of Alexandria in giving to the Bishop of Constantinople the second place in dignity which before that time belonged to the Bishop of Alexandria since the cause ceasing the effect also ceased The cause why the Bishop of Alexandria was second to the Bishop of Rome was this viz. The government of Egypt was the second government in dignity to the government of the City of Rome It was so ordained by Augustus and therefore was called Praefectura Augustalis Since it was not so now because the government of those Provinces depending on the City of Constantinople was made the second Government and preferred to that of Alexandria and made equal to the Government of those places depending upon the city of Rome therefore the said council of Constantinople did no wrong in equalizing the Bishop of Constantinople to the Bishop Rome since the civil Government was a Type of the Ecclesiastick as is confessed by Baronius himself ad Annum 39. Num. 10. That the Government and Priviledges of the City of Constantinople being made equal to those of Rome was the cause why the council of Constantinople made the Bishop of Constantinople equal in Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome is reported both by Socrates hist lib. 5. chap. 8. and Sozomenus lib. 7. chap. 9. Who both give the reason of the said third Canon in the Greek Edition but 5. or 7. in the Latine to be Because that Constantinople had not only the name of Rome with like Senat and other Magistrats but bare also the same Arms and other rights and honors which belonged to old Rome The Council of Chalcedon having considered the reasons of both parties allowed the interpretation put upon the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice by the Orators of the Bishop of Constantinople rejected that Gloss of those of the Bishop of Rome confirmed the third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople with some advantage and addition as by the 28 Canon whose words are these Definimus communi calculo sancimus quod attinct ad praerogativas honoris sanctissimae Ecclesiae hujus Constantinopoleos novae Romae Etenim Patres Sedi Antiquioris is Romae ob eam caussam quia Imperium obtineret Urbs illa merito Primatum honoris detulere Sed eadem ratione moti centum quinquaginia religiosissimi Episcopi aequalem primatum honoris assignarunt sanctissimae sedi novae Romae Recte judicantes eam Urbem quae imperio Senatu honestatur iâ—sdem privilegis fruentem cum antiqua Roma Regia etiam in Ecclesiasticis negotijs aequa cuâ— illa extollendam Sic tamen ut post eam secundum locum obtineat By which Canon two things appears First that the Bishop of Constantinople is expresly made equal in Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction with the Bishop of Rome Secondly that the Bishop of Rome hath the first place in dignity not by reason of succession to Peter but only for civil respects viz. because Rome was the old imperial City It appears also by the said Canon that the former General Councils of Nice and Constantinople gave the
affirms None of us makes himself Bishop of Bishops or takes upon him to compell his Colleagues by tyrannical terrors to necessity of obedience which words as Binius observes were directed against Stephanus Bishop of Rome because he had threatned the Bishops of Africa with Excommunication if they did not alter their Judgement Sanderus answers thirdly that albeit Cyprian did assert the equality of Bishops in those words yet it was only an equality according to their Order of Priesthood not according to their Jurisdiction albeit the Bishop of Rome be equal to other Bishops as he is Bishop yet he is above them in jurisdiction he gives this answer lib. 7. cap. But it is replyed this distinction is frivolous and quite contrary to the meaning of Cyprian whose intention in those words is expresly to assert the equality of Jurisdiction and since he aims at the Bishop of Rome it is evident in his opinion that any Bishop is of equal jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome How can any be so impudent to deny that Cyprian asserts equality of Jurisdiction since he expresly affirms No Bishop can judge another Bishop nor be judged by him Christ is the only judge of Bishops which in right down terms is that all Eishops are equal in Jurisdiction which none but a Sophister will deny It is needless to mention the answers of other Romanists as of Alanus Copus lib. 1. cap. 19. and Dormanus in his English Treatise against Bishop Jewel cap. 10. since they are not worth the refuting The most ingenuous answer of them all is that of Stapleton lib. 11. cap. 7. de princip fid doctrin where he affirms that Cyprian in those words to patronize his error Utitur verbis errantium and that he seems wonderfully to protect Hereticks he means Protestants against the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome he calls those expressions O Cyprian pernicious if they be not defended by a commodious Exposition But it is answered the authority of St. Augustine is of more moment then the authority of Stapleton who not only commends those expressions of Cyprian but also recommends them to the whole Church to be taken notice of as so many Oracles and that in moe places then one as lib. 2. cap. 2. lib. 3. cap. 3. lib. 6. cap. 7. against the Donatists Further that Stephanus Bishop of Rome himself understood those words of Cyprian as the Protestants do against the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome appears by his excommunicating Cyprian as Cassander relates consult art 7. neither read we ever of his reconciliation as is confessed by Bellarmine lib. 2. de con cap. 5. Neither is it of any moment what they object that in that question of re-baptizing those who were baptized by Hereticks the affirmative maintained by Cyprian was wrong and the negative maintained by Stephanus was right for the state of the question with the Church of Rome in this particular is Whether Cyprian was for or against the Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome or whether he did right in opposing the usurpation of Stephanus It seems he did for two reasons first because those expressions of his were recommended by St. Augustine to the whole Church next because notwithstanding of his dying excommunicate by Stephanus he was held ever since those times to be a Saint and a Martyr by the Church of Rome it self as he is at this day whereby it appears that the ancient Church of Rome immediatly after the times of Cyprian had not much regard to the authority of Stephanus his excommunicating Cyprian The truth is Cyprian in that conflict with Stephanus was a good Patron of an evil cause and Stephanus was a bad Patron of an good Cause Cyprian was wrong in maintaining re-baptization of those who were baptized by Hereticks but he defended it rightly Stephanus who maintained the contrary opinion was right but maintained it badly that is by usurpation arrogancy and presumption CHAP. IX Of the contest between Victor Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of the East WE have in the former Chapters proved by the testimonies of the Ancients that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not believed as an Article of Faith in the dayes of Cyprian nor any time before unto the dayes of the Apostles We have also shewed with what perplexed sophistry our Adversaries endeavour to elude the force of those testimonies In the following Chapters we will examine what is objected by our Adversaries to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval If it had been an Article of Faith in the Church that the Bishop of Rome was ordained by Peter to succeed to himself in that Function of oecumenick Bishop or that the Bishop of Rome did succeed to Peter in that Function the evidence of that succession had been greater in these primitive times then it was afterwards but contrarily we find the nearer we come to the Apostles times the less evidence we find for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome whereby it appears that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome by reason of his succession to Peter is but a fiction neither was it ever urged as to jurisdiction till after the Council of Chalcedon as shall appear in the following Books and the more the times were remote that opinion of the succession to Peter increased the more That there was no great evidence before the Council of Neice of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is acknowledged by Aeneas Silvius Pope himself in his 288. Epistle and yet he was the greatest Antiquary of his time the truth of his assertion will appear by our Answers to that which they object which are so many testimonies against themselves To prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval they object nothing beside what we shall prove forged by testimony of their own Doctors before the latter end of the second Age or beginning of the third and then their objections are of two sorts first actions of Popes secondly tectimonies of Popes and Fathers What regaird should be had to the actions and testimonies of Popes appears by the Commentaries which Pope Aeneas Silvius or Pius second wrote upon the Councel of Basile his words are these Neâ— considerant miseri quia quae praedicant tantopere verba aut ipsorum sumorum pontificum sunt simbrias suas extendentium aut illorum quiâ—eis adulabantur that is neither do those miserable men consider these testimonies they magnifie so much are either of Popes themselves inlarging their own interests or of their Fathers We will first treat of the actions of Popes and next examine their testimonies Before the time of Victor Bishop of Rome there is no Monument of antiquity for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome besides some forgeries acknowledged by the most eminent Doctors of that Church and proved to be forgeries by unanswerable reasons as shall appear afterwards in the last Chapters of this Book The said Victor about anno 195. had a
no Council that the Pope had power to depose Kings and consequently it was not the doctrine of the Church of Rome His second objection was that notwithstanding all this it was not the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome because all the Church of France rejected it as a pernicious doctrine I answered this objection by a two-fold distinction The first of times viz. When the King of France was low and the Pope high The second distinction was of causes wherefore Kings are deposed one of which and the main one was heresie I desired him to read history and he would find that when the Kings of France were low and their Kings suspected of heresie that it was the doctrine of the whole Clergy of France that the Pope had power of deposing such Kings at such times for proving of which I desired him to read first a decree of the Sorbon printed at Paris in which they approved the bulls of Sixtus 5. excommunicating and deposing Henry 3 4. Kings of France I desired him secondly to read that speech of Cardinal Peron in the name of the Clergy of France as their Speaker in an Assembly of the Estates in which speech he openly maintains That it is the opinion of the whole Church of France and ever was that Heretical Kings that is Protestants ought to be deposed that the Pope had power to depose them and that true French-men ought them no allegiance And thus much of the Popes power in temporals by the way it shal be more largely disputed God willing part 3. lib. 2 what we have said is sufficient to prove That the Dominion of the Bishop of Rome is tyrannical and consequently according to their own confession forbidden Peter 1. 5 3. The third particular of the tyrannical Domination of the Bishop of Rome is over souls departed The fourth is over Angels Both which usurpations appear by the Bull of Clement sixth proclaiming a Jubile The words of the Bull are these Concedimus si confessus in via moriatur ut ab omnibus peccatis suis sit immunis penitus absolutus mandamus Angelis ut animam è purgatorio penitùs absolutam in Paradisi gloriam introducant And in another Bull Nolumus ut paena inferni illi infligatur concedens cruce signatis ad eorum vota tres aut quatuor animas quas volunt ex purgatorio posse eripere in which Bulls he takes upon him to command Angels and to place Souls in heaven or hell as he pleaseth The 5. particular proving the tyranny of the dominon of the Bishop of Rome is in assuming divin power to himself So Nicolaus 2. in Gratianus dist 96. Satis evidenter Where he affirms That the Pope cannot be Judged by any Secular Prince because the Pope was called God by Constantine but God cannot be judged by man Likewise Bonifacius 8. 6. decret de electione C. fundamenta affirms That S. Peter was assumed in the fellowship of the individual Trinity and consequently the Bishop of Rome hath the same priviledge as Peters Successor So Glossa extravag C. antiquae de voto Where speaking of Matrimony held by the Church of Rome to be a Sacrament of divine Institution a doubt is moved how that vow made in Matrimony can be dissolved by a Constitution of the Church Since it was made solemnly to God The Glossator answers the doubt That it cannot be made void by a meer man but only by the Pope who is not a meer man but Gods Vicar Thirdly he usurps Divinity in making the Decretal Epistles or the Canon law of equal authority with the Scripture So Gratianus distinct 19. C. in Canonicis expresly affirms so much Innumerable examples might be afforded of this kind but those are sufficient The sixth and last particular of the Tyranny of the Domination of the Bishop of Rome is his hearing patientissimis auribus without offence biasphemous titles attributed to him in Orations Books and Pamphlets printed by his Authority which is all one as he had stiled himself by those titles So by the Gloss in the Canon Law he is called our Lord God the Pope as is found in those Editions printed at Lions 1584. and at Paris 1585. 1601. 1612. All which Editions were set out after Gregory 13. had corrected the Canon Law the words are Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam Conditorem dictae decretalis non sic potuisse statuere prout statuit haereticum censeatur extravagant John 22. tit 14. de verb. sig cap. 4. c. We could produce innumerable such but it were tedious yet we cannot omit that blasphemous Pamphlet presented to Innocent the 10. who before his Popedom was called Cardinal Pamphilius The scope of which Pamphlet is to compare the Pope whom he calleth Pamphilius with Christ whom he calleth Philius To be short he preferrs the Pope to Christ in most horrible manner and yet the Pope was no wise offended at that flâ—ttery It seems he understood not what Blasphemy meant for an other time being desired to hear a Theological Controversie between the Jansenists and Molinists disputed before him that he might determin it He answer ed He was an old man it did not belong to his profession and he had never studied Divinity as is reported by S. Amour in his journal where he affirms He heard the Pope affirm so publickly And thus much of Peter 1. 5. 3. The first Argument of Protestants against Peters institution of Oecumenick Bishop we have proved two things in the vindication of that passage The first is that not only tyrannical Domination but all sort of Domination is forbidden in that place The second is although it were granted that only tyrannical Domination in Church-men were forbidden in the same place yet it quite overthrows the institution of an Oecumenick Bishop which we have proved to be most tyrannical and that by six arguments which in effect amongst Candide men are unanswerable CHAP. XII The Supremacy of Peter assaulted from Ephesians 1. 22. 4. 23. 5. 23. And Colossians 1 18. IN the former Chapter we assaulted the Institution of Peter in that Oecumenick Bishoprick by the testimony of Peter himself forbidding all sort of Lording or Domination in Church men where we also proved two things First that not only tyrannical Domination was forbidden by the Apostle in Church Rulers but all Domination Secondly although tyrannical Lording had only been forbidden nevertheless the injunction of the Apostle inhibited That Lording assumed by the Bishop of Rome now to himself proving by demonstrative arguments that the power of the Bishop of Rome now-a-dayes was not only tyrannical but blasphemous and a right-down Gigantomachy which shal more largely be proved part 4. lib. 1. In this following chapter we make use of a second argument against the institution of Peter in that universal Bishoprick by Christ viz. it appears by these Scriptures mentioned in the title That Christ is the Head of the Church and if Peter were
appellations it was opposed by Cyprian for two reasons first because delinquents should be judged where the crime is committed where witnesses may be had against them Secondly because the authority of the Bishops in Africa was no less who had already judged them then the authority of the Bishop of Rome to whom they had their recourse Bellarmine answers to both these reasons to the first he gives a twofold answer first that the meaning of Cyprian is to be understood de prima instantia that is persons should be judged where the crime is committed the first time only but if they appeal they should be judged in that place to which they appeal But he Sophisticates for Cyprian is opposing a second judgement at Rome after they had been condemned in Carthage as is notorious by the History Bellarmine answers Secondly that Cyprian is against a second â—udgement or appellation when the crime is manifest and not when it is dubious But it is replyed that manifest or unmanifest crime doth not take away appellation if the appellation be otherwayes legal or it the Judge to whom they appeal have jurisdiction over him from whom they have appealed Neither doth Cyprian distinguish between manifest and not manifest crimes at all Secondly Bellarmine contradicts himself in affirming that the meaning of Cyprian is that they may appeal to Rome when the cause is dubious but not when it is manifest which distinction Bellarmine admits viz. that there should be no appellation when the crime is manifest and yet in this case of Fortunatus and Felix the crimes were manifest and Bellarmine instances their appellations as legal which is a flat contradiction and this much of Bellarmines answer to Cyprians first reason viz. That Crimes should be judged where they are committed He yet instances that if that reason of Cyprians were valid it would cut off all appellations for there can be no appeal if crimes be judged where they are committed But it is replyed that Cyprian adds when the authority of those who have already judged them is no less then the authority of those to whom they appeal for immediatly after those words crimes should be judged where they are committed he restricts his meaning by the comparison of authority except saith he the authority of the Bishops of Africa be thought not sufficient by those profligate fellows who were judged by them Bellarmine instances those words of Cyprian are not comparing the authority of the Bishops of Africa with the authority of the Bishop of Rome but only with the cause of Fortunatus and Felix that is the authority of the Bishop in Africa is sufficient to judge that case but it is answered although that were the meaning of Cyprian it cutts off all appellations to Rome for if the authority of the Bishops of Africa be sufficient in that case of Fortunatus and Felix they cannot be rejudged at Rome in a second judgement Secondly albeit â—yprian for modesties sake doth not name the authority of the Church of Rome in the comparison for he was a great respecter of Cornelius Bishop of Rome yet that this is his meaning appears more evidently by those speeches of his uttered against Stephanus Bishop of Rome afterward in an other Council of Carthage which we mentioned in the former Chapter where he expresly affirms that all Bishops are of a like jurisdiction And this much of Bellarmine Pamelius answers this passage of Cyprian otherwayes with a world of Sophistry And first he affirms that Cyprian in those words is not disputing against a second judgement at Rome but against a judgement at Rome in the case of Fortunatus and Felix in prima instantia and therefore he uses these words the crime should be judged where it is committed alluding to an Epistle Decretal of Fabianus Bishop of Rome in which it is expresly ordained that no Bishop should be judged at Rome per Saltum that is until he be first judged where he is accused to have transgressed So if ye object to Pamelius that Fortunatus and Felix were already judged in Africa and went to Rome to demand a second hearing he answers they did not demand a recognoscing of these things for which they had been already judged but desired of Cornelius Bishop of Rome that he would be judge in things afterward laid to their charge by the Bishops of Africa which were not yet judged by them But it is replyed it is false that Pamelius affirms for it appears expresly â—y Cyprians Letter that he disputes against a second judgment at Rome and not a judgement in Prima instantia whereas Pamelius affirms that new crimes were intended which had not been yet judged it is his bare assertion neither brings he any proof of it for if any such thing had been a judgement in prima instantia could not have been with any shadow of justice countenanced at Rome neither could Felicissimus be so ignorant as to expect any redress that way the Scope of Felicissimus complaint was that he and Fortunatus might be restored because the judgement of the African Bishops passed against them was unjust Pamelius instances secondly that it was a first judgement or in prima instantia which Felicissimus demanded at Rome or else it was an appellation seing there can be no mids but there is no mention made of appellation at all by Cyprian Ergo it was a judgement in prima instantia which they demanded at Rome and for which Cyprian so much expostulats with Cornelius and inveighs against them It is answered first how this passage of Cyprian puzles them appears by their contradictions in their glosses Bellarmine instances this particular of Felicissimus as an appellation to prove the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the Bishops in Africa Pamelius flatly denys that Felicissimus appealed at all which is a flat contradiction of Bellarmine he takes this course perceiving that if this particular of Felicissimus were an appellation Cyprian must of necessity be against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome since he expresly disputs that Felicissimus cannot be judged at Rome and consequently Pamelius confesseth that Bellarmines evasions are nothing to the purpose It is answered secondly whereas Pamelius disputes Felicissimus did not appeal Ergo he demanded a judgement in prima instantia it doth not follow because there is a mids Felicissimus did make no appeal when he came out of Africa neither desired he a second judgment at Rome as it had been a formal appeal out only desired the assistance of Cornelius that by his moyen he might have some redress that this is no evasion appears by two unanswerable reasons the first is this Cyprian in his 55. Epistle affirms that they had solicited the Bishops in Africa before ever they had solicited the Bishop of Rome making the same complaints but none will affirm that they appealed to those Bishops of Africa after they had been condemned by the Council of Carthage over which the Bishops of Africa had no
authority in which doing they followed the example of Privatus who after he was condemned both in the Council of Africa and at Rome by Cornelius himself yet he desired a second judgement in another Council in Africa whereby it is evident that a second â—udgement in those dayes did not infer of necessity a formal appellation since there could be no appellation from a Synod to its self neither will Bellarmine affirm that Privatus appealed from Cornelius to a Council in Africa The second reason proving a mids between an Appeal and a judgement in prima instantia is this we have proved that Felicissimus did not demand a judgement in prima instantia from Cornelius Bishop of Rome but neither did he appeal unto him for an Appealer is held Pro non judicato or not guilty till the appeal be discussed but so was not Felicissimus for all held him guilty in Africa and refused communion with him neither did Cornelius admitt him to his communion at Rome after he was condemned by the Council of Carthage neither did Cornelius judge in his cause at all but only wrote unto Cyprian to deal favourably with him Since then Cyprian disputed so vehemently that Cornelius should not medle in that case of Felicissimus after the determination of the Council of Carthage much more he would have opposed the authority of Cornelius if there had been any formal appellation and all what Bellarmine and Pamelius alledge to the contrary is proved sophistry the one contradicting the other and this much of Fortunatus and Fellicissimus The third example of Appellations in this interval before the Council of Neice instanced by Bellarmine is this Cornelius Bishop of Rome dying Lucius succeeds but he not living long Stephanus succeeds in whose time the Bishops of Spain excommunicat Basilides a Bishop and likewayes one Martialis for falling in Idolatry or sacrificing to Idols in the time of persecution for fear of torture or death Basilides becomes penitent demands absolution which they grant him but withal they refuse to restore him to his Bishoprick in which they put another called Sabinus Basilides and Martialis have their recourse to Stephanus Bishop of Rome he takes not so much notice of Martialis but he writes to the Bishops of Spain to restore Basilides to his place they consult the Bishops of Africa who meeting in a Council about the business the Bishops of Africa send their opinion in an Epistle which in the edition of Turnebius is Epist 35. in that of Pamelius 68. of Cyprian in which Epistle Cyprian inveighs against Basilides as an Impostor taxeth Stephanus of credulity in giving ear to Basilides and concludes that the cesire of Stephanus should not be obeyed since Sabinus was legally put in the place of Basilides and therefore they ought to maintain him in that Bishoprick Here Bellarmine is demanded what he sees in this History making for the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the Bishops of Spain or for proving that Basilides appealed formally It would seem that Basilides appealed not since he was held pro judicato excommunicated deposed and another put in his Bishoprick which could not have been done if Appeals to Rome had been believed obligatory in those dayes Secondly Cyprian and the Council of Africa advise the Bishops of Spain not to obey the desire of Stephanus in rescinding the ordination of Sabinus affirmed by them to be legal Jure ordinata but if Basilides had appealed the ordination of Sabinus had not been lawful whereby it is evident that no appeals to Rome were approved in those dayes albeit Basilides had appealed Bellarmine answers that Basilides did appeal because he had his recourse to Stephanus and complained But it is replyed first that was no appeal because he made no intimation of it to the Bishops of Spain before he went to Rome Secondly because his going to Rome did not hinder or suspend the execution of the sentence passed against him as appears by the placing of Sabinus in his Bishoprick in the interim Thirdly when he came to Rome he brought no probations with him but only as Cyprian affirms Stephanum longe positum rei gestae ignarum fefellit that is he deceived Stephanus Bishop of Rome altogether ignorant of the business Lastly if Basilides had appealed the Bishops of Spain had been cited to plead the cause at Rome which they were not whereby it is evident there was no appeal Secondly to prove the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome Bellarmine alledgeth that Stephanus commanded the Bishops of Spain to repone Basilides and rescind that ordination they had made in favour of Sabinus But it is answered to omit we shewed it was no formal sentence of Stephanus but only an advice Bellarmine â—orgets the other half of the tale quite destroying the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as first that the Bishops of Spain before they gave an answer to Stephanus consulted with the Bishops of Africa whereby it is evident they acknowledged not the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome Secondly the Bishops of Africa meeting in a Council advises them not to obey the desire of Stephanus in rescinding their ordination of Sabinus because it was Rite peracta or legal and consequently Stephanus had no authority to command them Thirdly because the Bishops of Spain did not obey the desire of Stephanus at least it is not found in any monument of Antiquity that ever Basilides was restored Bellarmine instances that Stephanus would never have taken it upon him to cognosce in the cause of Basilides if it had not belonged to him But it is answered first he did not cognosce formally in it at all as we shewed Secondly albeit he had it was only an usurpation which is no title of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome We do not affirm that Stephanus had not so much arrogancy since he declared he had as appears by his proceeding with the Churches of Africa mentioned in the former Chapter we only affirm that he did not cognosce formally in this case of Basilides but only delt by way of perswasion and although he had done so it is no Argument for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as an Article of Faith in those dayes since it was every-where opposed as we proved by that passage of Victor with the oriental Bishops and of Stephanus with Cyprian and this of Stephanus with the Bishops of Spain by which passages it appears that the decrees of the Bishop of Rome were opposed in all the East in France in Africa in Spain that is almost by the whole Church And this much of appellations to Rome before the dayes of Cyprian CHAP. XI The testimonies of Ignatius Irenaeus and Tertullian objected to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the times of Cyprian examined IN the two former Chapters we answered all what the Learned Romanists could pretend to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the midle of the third Century