Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France the Scholar of St. Polycarp though he owned the Tenour of Pope Victor yet in his own and the concurrent Judgment of the Gallicane Divines he reprehended Victor with a Holy Acrimony When several points were warmly Controverted in the Africane Church within the Compass of the Third Century the present consideration St. Cyprian the Martyr Bishop of Carthage did not wait for a decision from Rome but did refer the Questions to be discust and determined by Africane Councils When St. Cornelius his Contemporary Bishop of Rome did intermeddle in the Ecclesiastical Affairs of his Province of Carthage St. Cyprian did hotly Resent and Expostulate the Encroachment In his Epistle he terms the Bishop of Rome a Colleague a Brother I deny not but the See of Rome was in the purest Antiquity consulted with from other Churches but it was Arbitrary of Choice not necessary of Duty it was prompted by a veneration had not to the power the Authority of the Roman See but to the Piety and Literature of the Roman Prelates for the first Three Centuries most of them died Martyrs Upon this account the Patriarlts and Bishops of other Churches were frequently consulted with out of the verge of their own Jurisdictions From the See of Rome the Judgment of St. Ambrose was implored from Millaine Sometimes Convicted Condemned Delinquents in other Churches repaired to the See of Rome as Fugitives to skulk as Sophisters to delude Such were Fortunatus and Felicissimus doomed in Africa Thus when Basilides was justly Excommunicated Deposed in Spain he fled to Rome and fraudulently wrought upon the facility of Pope Stephen not reputed Infallible this being not the Divinity of that Age to bustle in the behalf of himself and Martialis alike Criminal and alike Sentenced for their re-admission This precipitate unjustifiable attempt gave great offence to the Spanish Bishops who passionately complained of it to St. Cyprian and the other Bishops of Carthage requesting their Advice who unanimously animated them to persist in their Sentence of Excommunication not to submit to Stephanus not to re-admit such Malefactors Sabinus being rightly the Successor of Basilides ejected St. Cyprian confidently determin That it could not be rescinded by Pope Stephen Sometimes Innocent persecuted Persons in other Churches made their applications to the See of Româ— But it was as to a Sanctuary for refuge not as to a Tribunal for Judicature an address to the Pope not an Appeal This was the case of St. Athanasius his Successor St. Peter of St. Chrysostome St. Flavianus and others it was a resort as to an Orthodox Prelate because of the Communion of the same Faith not as to a Supreme Judge upon a Prerogative of Power it was for advice for solace not in expectation of a final Sentence of an irrevocable Decree Aeneas Sylvius afterwards Pope Pius the Second had so much Ingenuity as to acknowledge that before the Nicene Council every Bishop lived to himself and that there was small regard had to the Church of Rome Even after the Nicene Council the Primitive Bishops of Rome for a time would not assume to themselves Would not usurp that Power of deciding important difficulties beyond the limits of their own Patriarchal Jurisdiction I shall cull out two Instances in the Causes of two Learned Renowned but Persecuted Patriarks the one of Alexandria the other of Constantinople of St. Athanasius and St. Chrysostome In the former Constantius the Arrian Emperour being exasperated against St. Athanasius Liberius Bishop of Rome cajoled him supplicated him that a Council might be assembled at Alexandria he offered in effect the same reason for appointing Alexandria in the Cause of St. Athanasius that St Cyprian did in excepting against Rome in the African concerns Where the Party impeacht the Accusers Advocates and others interested may most fitly be convened This is recited in the admirable Colloquy as the Centurist of Magdeburg stile it betwixt Constantius and Liberius Liberius alledged no decisive Jurisdiction in himself in the See of Rome The later instance is the cause of St. Chrysostome wherein Pope Innocentius the first declared a necessity of a Synodal Convention to asswage the Tempest in the Church He asserted no Papal Oecumenical Power to determine Controversies He approved the Milevitan Council which prohibited Appeals in the African Churches unless to African Councils or Primates Excommunicates Appellants to transmarine Jurisdictions About Sixteen years after the Sixth Carthaginian Council which lasted six years having regularly chalked out the gradations of Appeals in the African Church absolutely debarred any to the See of Rome I have dilated this point because the Roman Champions lay so much stress upon it and that I may not need to ventilate to sift it any more in this Tract I have not yet examined the Proofs in the supposititious Decretal Epistles of Anacletus and Zepherinus The latter derives the Power of the Apostolick See from the Apostles and their Successors The former from the Apostles by the Commandment of our Lord. Fallacies are enwrapped shrowded in generalities No injunction of Christ or any of his Apostles is recited for the Papal final deciding of difficult Controversies De non existentibus de non apparentibus eadem est ratio What is not apparent may rationally be rejected as not existent After these false varnishes of Antiquity H. T. having marshalled the specious Pictures of a Gallery rather than the vigorous Forces of a Camp or the Arguments of the School he insults before he vanquishes or indeed encounters marches in Triumph like the Roman Emperour with his Army having collected Cockleshels not conquered any Enemies He quits the Field in this quarrel with a flaunting Trophee of Victory These were all Popes of Rome but no true Protestants I hope This Sarcasme is more imbitter'd with Gall than seasoned with Salt The Name of Protestants took its Rise in the year 1529 from the protestation of Six Princes and 14 Principal Cities of Germany an appeal from the Decree of the Diet to Caesar and to a future General Council or National of Germany and to all Judges not suspected These Protestants did and those who are so called do still own the Tenets in Religion of the Popes recited in this Third Century H.T. Catholick Professors to the year 300. Simplicius Callepodius Abdon Sennen Pammachius Tyburtius Valerianus Marcellinus Dorotheus Gordianus Pudentiana Triphon Elaesius Maximianus Clemens Barbara Agatha Apollonia Cyprianus Hippolytus Gregorius Thaumauturgus Laurentius Tharsus Cecilia Victorius Nemesius Olympius Adrianus Georgius Pantaleon Agens Barlain Jereon with his Companions Cosmas Damianus Mauritius with the Theban Legion c. W.T. This Muster of Names is no Hostile Battalia unless against your selves We assert a real affinity Doctrinal and Practical with these Saints and Martyrs whereas you degenerate from the Purity the Loyalty of their Principles The Theban Legion that brings up the Rear was not
exception when that proof which is falsely produced is truly retorted We willingly submit to the Test of these recited Bishops of Rome who lived Saints and most of them dyed Martyrs whose Doctrine we own and embrace as true and orthodox whose practice Humane Infirmities excepted we estimate as meet patterns to be imitated whereas both have been notoriously scandalously receded from by pretended Successors in the See of Rome for at least eleven Centuries last past H.T. In this first Age or Century after Jesus Christ we find the Primacy in St. Peter as is manifest by the said Council in the Acts where after a serious debate whether the Jewish Ceremonies ought to be imposed on the Gentiles St. Peter defined in the negative Acts 15. 7 8 9 10. W.T. St. Peter declared v. 14. but defined not He spake not first authoritatively to lead nor last juridically to ratifie Not first untruly alledged by Bellarmine there had been much disputing before v. 7. much arguing among the Judges according to the ordinary gloss Not last this priviledge this preheminence appertained to St. James as Bishop of Jerusalem Therefore he speaks last It is the Reason offered by St. Chrysostome and St. Theophilact St. Peter had a special occasion of an Historical Narrative touching the Gentile Conversion as also St. Paul and St. Barnabas had but neither did pronounce Juridical Sentence No mean Romanists had so much ingenuity as to acknowledge that all the rest of Apostles even St. Peter not excepted did vail to the Jurisdiction of St. James whilst he presided at Jerusalem H. T. St. James who was Bishop of the place seconding by his Sentence what Peter had decreed all the Multitude saith Jerome held their Peace and into his Peters Sentence James the Apostle and all the Priests did pass together Ep. 89. to August c. 2. Peter saith he in the same place was Prince and Author of the Decree W.T. It was St. Peters preparatory Sentence or Opinion but St. James ultimate Decree final Determination assisted with the rest of the Apostles So Gaudentius hath exactly exprest it The Testimony of St. Jerome recited consists in two phrases The one is St. James and the rest passing into the Sentence of Peter Which imports no more but that what was asserted by St. Peter was approved by St. James and the rest The Nicene Council did assent to the Opinion acquiesce in the Judgment of the Famous Paphnutius yet did he not preside in that Council The second quoted expression of St. Jerome is that St. Peter was Prince and Author of the Decree This denotes a precedence of time in uttering his Opinion before those recounted afterwards not a preheminence of place of office above them in establishing that Opinion This is not inconsistent with the significancy of Prince in Cicero's stile That it cannot be understood in a notion of dignity of Principality is evident in the Constitution or Decree its self pronounced by St. James which contained some Subjects not mentioned by St. Peter To abstain from pollutions of Idols and from Fornication and from things Strangled and from Blood H.T. That St. Peter translated his Chair from Antioch to Rome is proved First Because he remained not always at Antioch as all that Church acknowledgeth nor did she challenge the first Chair in any General Council as appears in the Councils Secondly By the Decrees of Councils Popes and other Fathers giving the Primacy to the Roman Church W.T. It is a loose Illogical Inference St. Peter remained not always at Antioch therefore he translated his Chair to Rome He might exercise his Apostolical Function in both Churches and yet possibly discharge a distinct Episcopal Office in neither During his absence from Antioch he was at Jerusalem at Alexandria at Babylon He spent some years at Pontus Galatia Cappadocia but it cannot be thence concluded nor is it asserted that he fixed a Pontifical Chair in either As to the succession of St. Peter Antioch had at least as much right to challenge the first Chair in a General Council as Rome St. Paul was at Rome at Corinth at Athens at Ephesus at Philippi He was an Apostle in each place properly a Bishop in neither As to your second allegation of the Decrees of Councils Popes Fathers giving Primacy to the Roman Church This is specious pompous in appearance but is not solid vigorous in force Latet dolus in generalibus A Generality is the fittest Dress and Vail for a Fallacy As for the first Chair in a General Council the point of Primacy specified no Antient General or National or Provincial Council hath assigned it to the Pope I confess the Laterane Council under Leo the 10th hath so establisht it but that was in the year 1516. The Councils of Constance and Basil allow it not As for the pretended Decrees of Popes in their own concern of Power and Grandeur they are of little validity By the Canon Law the Pope cannot be Judge in his own Cause It were irrational and presumptuous to exact it The first Chair in General Councils hath been sometimes arbitrarily granted to the Pope in the Primitive Church and sometimes to other Patriarchs That there hath been no ancient concession no constant uninterrupted Prescription for it appears in the Records of the first Council of Nice the Sardian Council the first and second Constantinopolitan the first and second Ephesine Whenever the Pope had the prime Chair in any General Council anciently it was only Honorary for Session for Distinction not Authoritative for Jurisdiction H.T. The Council of Sardis Anno Dom. 400 Western Fathers 300. East 76. decreed That in cases of Bishops for the honour of St. Peters memory it should be Lawful to appeal from whatsoever other Bishop to the Bishop of Rome Can. 3. W.T. I offer several exceptions for the empairing the validity of this Testimony First I deny this to be a General Council If it were it ought to be sorted the second General Council next to the Nicene before the first Constantinopolitan You alledge the consluence of 300 Western 76 Eastern Fathers If it had been so it had been a great disproportion betwixt the Eastern and Western Prelates and a grand advantage to promote the Papal Dignity There is a mixture of Truth and Falshood in the citation of this Authority Omnis fabuld fundatur in Historia An Oecumenical Council it was in the intention the design of the Emperor but not in the execution the management of the Council In the one respect it hath been anciently called a General in the other a Particular Council Both the Eastern and Western Fathers were Summoned by Imperial Edict in Obedience whereto both repaired to Sardis But they consulted nor convened not together upon a difference touching St. Athanasius and Paulus The Eastern receded from Sardis and held a Council apart at Philippi in Thracia The Western Prelates that remained apart at Sardis could not constitute
they are not recorded not insisted not reflected on by any of the Fathers for 800 years after Christ. They were first brought upon the Stage by Isidore a Collector of Councils and pretended Decretal Epistles in the beginning of the Ninth Century inserted in the Roman Code first countenanced by Pope Leo the Fourth on the midst of that Century prescribed as Authentick to the British Bishops and afterwards within Ten years by his next but one immediately Successor Pope Nicholas the Eighteenth Authoritatively recommended to the Gallicane Bishops The Papal usurpt Jurisdiction in that Age wanted such adulterate stamps to pass for currant Coyne Not one of these Decretal Epistles was received recited in the Universal Code the Primitive Venerable Rule consisting of the Canons of the Councils Four whereof were General as to the Convention the rest were General in point of Estimate and Approbation That Isidore from whom these Decretal Epistles take their Rise their Original for Extraction was not Isidore Pelusiot most illustrious for Piety and Antiquity not Isidore Hispalensis the Noted Famous Bishop of Siville in Spain Scholar to St. Gregory But a later notorious infamous Isidore Mercator who made Religion his Merchandize Antiquity his disguise to act the Gibeonites who vented Novel Impostures for Ancient Decrees This is not the Impeachment only of Protestants Baronius ascribes to him some of the Decretal Epistles Turrianus a hasty Zelâ—â— of the School of Ignatius assay'd to vindicate ineffeâ—â—â—y the integrity of the Decretal Epistles Others of the same Society but of a higher Rank of more piercing judgments Bellarmine Baronius Cusanus would not adventure to be Advocates for such egregious frauds As for Bellarmine I shall not insist upon his acknowledgment of this spurious Off spring though attested by some credible Witnesses because not apparent in the printed Edition of his Lectures at Rome I still find extant in the Edition of Sartorius at Ingolst that some Errors are crept into these Epistles neither dare I assert them to be undoubted Baronius did less mince who profest that he demonstrated that in many respects they are suspected Cusanus is yet more clear and positive in his Confession That they betray themselves Thus have I declared the invalidity of the forgery of the pretended Ancient Decretal Epistles in general As for those distinctly cited by H. T. for the Third Century Besides the exceptions common to others they most of them are of points Ritual not Doctrinal touching the Shadow the Ceremony not the Body the Substance of Religion As they are Subjects of little Importance so of less difference betwixt the Church of England and the Church of Rome and therefore are strangely alledged for the Conviction or Confutation of any intelligent Adversaries There are but three Decrees of Popes produced in this Century of any material controversal moment The one is a determination in point of Fact the other 〈◊〉 point of Right and Prerogative The matter of Fact is the Testimony of Anicetus that James was made Bishop of Jerusalem by Peter James and John Whereas more solemn credible Records of Antiquity without Corruption testifie that James among all the Apostles first obtained the Episcopal Throne and that from Christ himself If this be a true Narrative of Anicetus why does Bellarmine Jo. de Turrecremata and others the Learnedst Sticklers for the Church of Rome not adhere to it Who derive the Episcopal preheminence of St. James at Jerusalem entirely from St. Peter Were this a true Genuine Epistle of Anicetus were this an Authentick Evidence yet this would but sort and rank Peter with James and John which will not cotten with the Pâ—pal singular Exaltment To palliate to cloak rather than to vindicate the Testimony of Anicetus Anaclotus is cited Ep. 2. dist 25. dignum patellâ operculum one Imposture brought for Security for another That this Epistle of Anacletus is supposititious among many Arguments I shall select two In point of Chronology Clemens is mentioned in this Epistle as Predecessor to Anacletus whereas if Ireneus Tertullian Eusebius Epiphanius and others of the Primitive Worthies of the Church may be credited Clemens was his Successor I shall not need to insist upon Modern Evidences for this Rank since it is acknowledged by Bellarmine 2. In point of Theology That Epistle relates that the Seventy Disciples were Elected by the Apostles whereas Anacletus was a better Divine a better Textuary than to be ignorant of the Record of St. Luke 10. 1. that the Lord appointed those Disciples They had their Mission their Commission from him The two other Decretal Epistles of material difference of Anacletus and Zepherinus alledged of the same importance are of the same of no credit concerning the Decision of grand of difficult Causes by the Apostolick See Neither is Extant in the entire Universal Code forementioned approved ratified by the Great General Council of Chalcedon even in the first Canon of it in the year 451 nor in the Translation of it out of Greek to Latin by Dionysius Exiguus a Roman Abbot devoted to the Roman Interest in the year 325 nor yet in the Breviaion of Ferrandus as he titles it in the year 530. There could be no such Decree de jure in point of Right there was no such de facto in point of Fact Not of Right because it had been lyable to two Brands in the School Divinity an Usurpt Judgment not warranted by due Authority extended beyond the bounds of the Roman Patriarchal Sphere the utmost pale of its Jurisdiction in the Primitive Church It had been also destitute of Equity the byass of Laws to which they are to be bended saith Cicero It had been an unsupportable molestation of Expence and Travel which the Primitive Church did prudentially prevent in several Councils even in the first General Council of Nice That there was no such Decree in point of Fact is more than probably evinced by the Historical Transactions in the purest Antiquity In the Ancient Contests in point of Appeal betwixt the Roman and African Churches no such Decree was produced pretended which had not been waved had there been any testimony to have been tendred St. John the Evangelist being at Ephesus did not suspend the doom of the Niâ—olaitans or Cerinthians in expectation of the Dictate or Sentence of the See of Rome St. Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna the Disciple of St. John in the Testimony of St. Jerome contended with Anicetus Bishop of Rome touching the observation of Easter and would not submit to his Judgment Both resolutely persisted in their different Opinions without prescription to or condemnation of each other Such was the true Candour of that Anicetus falsly produced in point of Dominion or Domination rather of the Roman Prelacy Which being violently pursued by Pope Victor in the track of the same Controversie his Sanction was rejected though abetted by a Roman Synod his Excommunication disregarded by Polycrates and other Asiatick Bishops St.