Christian Religion appointed Judges in the Donatists Case Melchiades Bishop of Rome being one of them But the Donatists having complained of his Judgment the Emperour commanded that their Cause should be judged again by the Synod of Arles who had power to confirm or disannul the Judgment of Melchiades and his Fellow-Judges Under that Emperour the Christian Church being delivered from Persecutions a new Order and Constitution was made over all the Roman Empire to which Sylvester Bishop of Rome was not called His Legend saith untruly that he baptized Constantine and healed him of a Leprosie but upon that groundless Fable was built the Donation of Constantine by which the Emperour is pretended to have given unto the Pope one half of his Empire The same Emperour in the year 325. assembled a General Council out of the whole Empire in which Sylvester did not preside but Hozius Bishop of Corduba in Spain of whom our Adversaries falsly say that he presided in that Council as the Pope's Legate A thing repugnant to the Testimony of Eusebius Theodoret and Sozomen and to the Acts of the Nicene Council in which Hozius signed the first without styling himself the Pope's Legat and after him Vitus and Vincentius Deputies of the Bishop of Rome To the Emperour Constantine succeeded his Son Constantius who favouring the Arrians banished Liberius Bishop of Rome and gave him five hundred Crowns to maintain him in his Exile But Liberius to be restored to his Bishoprick joyned with the Arrians and subscribed their Confession in their Assembly at Sirmium In the year 381. the Emperour Theodosius called a General Council at Constantinople to which Damasus Bishop of Rome came not nor sent any Legate to it that Council being assembled without his consent In that Council Heresies were condemned and the Order of the Patriarchs was altered without asking the Advice of Damasus Yet that Council is one of the first four Oecumenical Councils About the same time Ambrose Bishop of Milan refused to administer the Communion to the Emperour Theodosius for a Murther committed by his Guards at Thessalonica Ambrose did this without taking the Advice of Damasus Bishop of Rome his Neighbour Such an action in our dayes would be High Treason against the Pope For it is one of the Fundamental Laws of the Roman Church that Kings cannot be bound by Censures or excommunicated but by the Pope's Order That I may not gather here a greater number of Examples I have alledged before many Councils that have condemned Popes of Heresie and have forbidden them to send Legates and receive Appeals from Foreign Churches The first Bishop of Rome that I read of who took upon him to govern the Church as Successor of St. Peter was Leo the First about the year of our Lord 450. For before him the Preeminence which was claimed by the Roman Bishops was grounded only upon some mistaken or falsified Canons of Councils and those in Consideration of the dignity of the City which was the chief City of the Empire For out of the Roman Empire the Bishops of Rome claimed no Superiority Some Passages are found true or false in which the Bishops of Rome are styled the first Bishops of the whole World and Presidents over the Universal Church But the Reason of it was that the Ancients called the Roman Emperours Governours and Masters of the World and it is frequent in their Writings to call the Empire Orbis Romanus the Roman World The Truth of this is evident because the same Titles are many times given to the other Patriarchs or chief Bishops of the Roman Empire viz. To the Bishop of Constantinople to him of Antioch and to him of Alexandria who are also called the Heads and Sovereigns of all and are said to have the Care of all the Churches Thus Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration upon Athanasius saith That the Charge of the People of Alexandria was committed unto him which is as much as if one said the Government of all the World And in the same place he saith that Athanasius gave Laws unto all the World Basil saith that Meletius Bishop of Antioch Basil Ep 50. did preside over the whole Body of the Church Theodoret in his Book of Heresies in the Chapter where he speaks of Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople calls him also the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the whole habitable World Wherefore also the Patriarch of Constantinople is called the Oecumenical or Universal Bishop in the Councils of that Age. For this Rule was constituted among the Patriarchs of the Roman Empire that each of them was to take Care of all the Churches of the whole Roman Empire but that Power was never extended beyond the Limits of the Roman Empire Yea some Passages are found in which that general Dignity is attributed unto all Bishops that were eminent in Holiness as Basil saith to Ambrose Idem ep 55. that God had raised him to the Dignity of the Apostles And Sidonius calls Lupus Bishop of Troyes Sidon lib. 6. ep 1. the Bishop of Bishops and the first Prelate of all the World In those times all Bishops were called Popes For the Popes Primacy Your Grace alledgeth St. Hierom who writing to Damasus and acknowledging no other Preeminence than that of Jesus Christ said I am in Communion with thy Beatitude that is with St. Peter's Chair I see nothing there that favoureth the Popes Primacy over the Universal Church For as I mentioned before the Bishops of Rome were held St. Peter's Successors in his Government over the Roman Church which Government they held to have been founded by St. Peter and I would not dispute about that But they were not held Successors of St. Peter's Apostleship nor of his Primacy Saying to a man I am of thy Communion is not acknowledging him Head of the Universal Church So much many be said to any Bishop that is sound in the Faith yea to any true Believer we may say that we must be of his Communion and that he that gathereth not with him is a Scatterer There were then held to be three Chairs of St. Peter one at Rome another in Alexandria another in Antioch The Bishops of these Cities styled themselves Successors of St. Peter in the Government of those Churches not in the Apostleship And there were always Piques and Quarrels between those three Sees Gregory the First Bishop of Rome in the 37 Epistle of his VI Book saith that those three Chairs are but one See upon which three Bishops are sitting and he acknowledgeth them his Equals and that it belongs not to him to command them But they that shewed to Your Grace that Authority of St. Hierom had more Wit than to shew you other Passages of his in which he debaseth very much the Bishop of Rome and giveth no good Character of the Roman Church of his Age. In his Epistle to Euagrius he saith In what part soever a man is a Bishop whether it be at Rome or at
his Disciples and from the words of Christ that he drunk the Fruit of the Vine we expound his other words this is my Bloud We expound also these words of Christ This is my Body from St. Pauls words who 1 Cor. 11. saith four times that we eat Bread in the Lords Supper and that we break Bread Certainly that Apostle giveth a clear Exposition of Christ's words This is my Body and this is my Blood saying 1 Cor. 10.16 The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ We alledge also those Texts that say that Jesus Christ is no more in this World that the Heaven doth contain him that Christ is like unto us in all things sin onely excepted and that by consequent he hath not a Body dispersed in a Million of several places at once and inclosed whole in every Crum of the Host and in every Drop of the Chalice Likewise when Jesus saith Do this in remembrance of me We expound not these words as the Councel of Trent doth which puts this Sense upon them I do constitute you to be Priests to sacrifice my Body really under the species of Bread and Wine but we bring the Interpretation which St. Paul addeth 1 Cor. 11.26 For as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lords Death Consider also that there is great Difference between a Judgment of Authority and a Judgment of Discretion With this last we judge of Meats by the Taste without giving Laws to any And it is so that not only Pastours but also every one of the People may and doth judge of the true Doctrine And it is so that St. Paul will have the Corinthians to judge of his Doctrine 1 Cor. 10.15 I speak as to wise men judge ye what I say Of that matter and of the Interpretation of Scripture I have written a Book purposely which I have dedicated to your Grace and which was presented to you by Monsieur de Cabrilles from me I asked your Grace at Liege whether you had received it Your Answer was that you knew not what was in it for you have laboured to strengthen your self with Reasons against us but would not take Notice how we answer them and have conversed much with our Adversaries but hid your self from your Servants who might have cleared your Mind about their Objections and armed you with Answers Of the Condemnation of Hereticks Your Grace saith farther that you have desired to see whether the ancient Hereticks were condemned by Persons of our Religion and whether one man be found in all Antiquity that had the same Religion as we in all Points These Condemnations of Hereticks were made by men sound in the Faith that were of the same Religion as we in all points who have condemned many Errours now received in the Roman Church The Councel of Laodicea approved by many Universal Councels which were held since rejecteth the Books of Judith Tobit Maccabees and other Apochryphal Books The Eliberin Councel held about the year of the Lord 305 hath made this Canon It is decreed that there shall be no Picture in the Church that the things that are adored or served be not painted upon Walls The Councels that have commanded the Adoration of Images are later by 4 or 5 hundred years In the first Nicen Councel the Marriage of the Pastors of the Church was approved upon the Remonstrance of Paphnutius Such is the fourth Canon of the Councel of Gangra If any makes a Difference of a married Priest as if he ought not to participate of the Oblation when he doth administer let him be Anathema This is the XXXV Canon of the Councel of Laodicea Christians must not forsake the Church of God and go to serve Angels and gather Congregations If any them be found applying himself to that secret Idolatry let him be Anathema because he hath forsaken the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God About the year of the Lord 399 a Councel was held at Carthage of which this is the 23 Canon When Service is made at the Altar the Prayer must always be address't to the Father The present Roman Church contradicts that Canon for in their Service they have Prayers addrest unto Saints This is the 25 Canon of the same Councel In the Divine Service let nothing be offered but the Body and Blood of the Lord that is Bread and Wine mingled with Water The 16 Canon of the IV Councel of Carthage absolutely forbids swearing by the Creatures To this the Catechism of the Councel of Trent is contrary which approveth swearing by Relicks The 10 Canon of that Councel of Carthage saith Mulier baptizare non presumat Let not a Woman presume to baptize The Practise of the Roman Church is contrary to that The Milenitan Councel where St. Austin was present and of which he hath made the Canons forbids Appeals from Africk to Rome in these Words It is declared That if the Priests or other Clerks in such Causes as they shall have shall complain of the Judgment of their Bishops the Bishops shall hear them But he that will appeal beyond the Seas let him not be admitted to the Communion by any living in Africk In the VI Councel of Carthage there is a long Epstle of the Councel to Celestin Bishop of Rome who by a new Usurpation would draw to himself the Appeals of the Bishops of Africk whereby the Fathers of the Councel beseech him to receive no more Appeals from their Countrey forbidding him to send any more of his Legats or to use any more forged Canons to raise his Dignity and bring Worldly Pride into the Church of Christ Therefore Baronius and Bellarmin and Cotton Jesuits condemn that Councel In the Councel of Chalcedon held in the Year of the Lord 451 the Legats of the Bishop of Rome pretending to the Primacy and bringing forth a forged Canon of Nicea laboured to hinder the Bishop of Constantinople from being equal with the Bishop of Rome against which the Councel made this Canon The Fathers with good reason have given Prerogatives to the See of Antient Rome because she was the Imperial City And the hundred and fifty Bishops of the first Councel of Constantinople moved with the like consideration have attributed to the most holy See of New Rome which is Constantinople equal Priviledges judging with good reason that the City honoured with the Empire and the Senate and which hath the same Prerogatives as the Antient Rome Imperial ought to be magnified as much as Rome it self in Ecclesiastical things The Popes of our time and their Advocates condemn that Council not only because it equalleth the Bishop of Constantinople with that of Rome but chiefly because it groundeth the preeminence of the Bishop of Rome upon the Dignity of the City because Rome is the Capital City of the Empire and not
Agobio whether at Constantinople or Regio they have the same Dignity and Authority Power and Wealth or Meanness and Poverty do not make one greater or lower than another By their Place they are all Successors of the Apostles And because some alledged the Example of the Roman Church for preferring the Deacon before the Priest he answereth Why doest thou alledge to me the Custom of one City shewing that that was not to be a Rule to the Universal Church His Custom is to call Rome Babylon and the Harlot and to exhort devout Persons to come out of her And in his Preface upon the Book of Didymus of the Holy Ghost he speaks thus When I was in Babylon and was an Inhabitant of the Harlot clad in Purple and lived after the Laws of the Roman Citizens I would prate somewhat about the Holy Ghost and dedicate my Work to the Bishop of the City But behold that Pot which is seen in Jeremiah after the Staff on the North-side begins to boyl and the Senate of the Pharisees begins to cry out meaning by the Senate of the Pharisees the Ecclesiastical Roman Senate And in the Epistle to Marcella under the name of Paula and Eustochium exhorting Marcella to come out of Rome and to retire to Bethlehem I esteem saith he that this place of Bethlehem is holier than the Tarpeian Rock meaning the Roman Capitol which having so often been struck with Lightning from Heaven sheweth that it is displeasing unto God Read St. Johns Revelation and see what is foretold of the Hatlot clad with Purple and of the Blasphemy written on her forehead and of the seven Mountains and of the many Waters fly from her my People and be not Partaker of her Sins least you receive of her Plagues It is fallen it is fallen c. But being gone from Rome into Syria and living there in perpetual Quarrels with the Clergy of that Country he was constrained to have Recourse unto his old Master Damasus for he had been his Secretary and to write to him those kind Letters which you alledge After Hierom you bring St. Austin in these words Shall we doubt whether we must rest in the Churches Lap which by Succession hath always had Sovereign Authority in the Apostolick Chair That Passage is found in the Book de utilitate credendi in the 17 Chapter but otherwise set down than Your Grace alledgeth Disputing against the Manicheans with whom Scripture had no Authority he useth humane and probable Proofs to exhort men to embrace the Christian Religion He saith then We seeing such a great Assistance of God and so great Proficiency Improvement advance shall we doubt to enter into the Lap of that Church not the Roman but Catholick Church which even to the Confession of Mankind from the Apostolick See by the Successions of Bishops while the Hereticks in vain barked about her c. hath arrived at the height of Authority that is to be the establisht Religion In this Passage St. Austin neither mentioneth nor appears to have thought of the Roman Church And although the Chair of Rome had been named in it yet this would avail nothing for the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the Universal Church For the Primacy of the Apostolick Chairs is attributed by the Ancients no less to the Church of Alexandria of Antioch of Jerusalem c. than to the Church of Rome Sozomen speaks thus of the Council of Nice Soz. hist lib. 1. c. 16. There met among the Bishops that held Apostolick Sees Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem Eustathius Bishop of Antioch upon the River Orontes and Alexander near the Mareotid Marshes And again idem 4.24 of the Ephesine Council Cyrillus Prelate of the Apostolick See meaning Jerusalem Ruffinus in the second Book chap. 21. In Alexandria Timothy in Jerusalem John restored the Apostolick Sees Theodoret in the fifth Book of his History chap. 9. calls Antioch the most ancient Church and wholly Apostolick St. Austin in his 162 Epistle speaks of the Apostolick Sees in the plural saying that Cecilian might have reserved his Cause to the Judgment of the Apostolick Sees We have alledged Basil before saying that St. Ambrose Bishop of Milan had the Apostolick Preheminence and Hierom saying that all Bishops are Successors of the Apostles Sidonius in the first Epistle of the 6. Book saith that Lupus Bishop of Troyes had already set nine times five years in the Apostolick See They do then abuse your Grace that make you believe that Austin speaks only of the Apostolick See of the Roman Bishop seeing that the Primacy of the Apostolick See belonged to so many other Bishops And though in that place St. Austin had spoken of the Bishop of Rome only he had not thereby excluded the other Bishops from the same Dignity He that saith the King of France enjoyeth the Royal Preeminence doth not thereby deny to the Kings of England and Spain their Authority in their own Countries Here it is observable that St. Austin was never subject to the Bishop of Rome that he never took an Oath of Fidelity to him that when he was admitted Bishop he took no Letters of Investiture from him and paid him no Annates for his Entry He was one of those that made the Canons of the Milevitan Council which forbad the Appeals from Africa to Rome and one of those that made that Remonstrance to Celestin Bishop of Rome that he should for the time to come abstain from sending Legats into Africa and medling with their Businesses and using Supposititious Canons to advance his Authority The Bishops of Africa were of the same Faith with the Bishop of Rome and spake to him in respectful Terms because of the Dignity of the Imperial City and because they believed that St. Peter died at Rome and had founded that Chair among many others But if the Bishops of Rome had taken upon them the Title of God and boasted that they could not err if they had taken upon them to canonize Saints to give Indulgences to draw Souls out of Purgatory to alter the Commandments of God and to add unto the Creed those African Bishops would have bestowed their Censures upon him as freely as they did upon any other who fell into Heresie Of the Sacrifice of the Mass For the Sacrifice of the Mass Your Grace alledgeth two Passages out of St. Austin The one saith That the Catholick Faith suffers not that the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of the Lord be offered for those that are not baptized In the other speaking of his dead Mother he saith that the Sacrifice of our Ransom was offered for her when her Body was upon the Brink of the Grave There is nothing more easie than to deceive one that will be deceived and hath no Knowledge in the Fathers St. Austin declareth his Mind upon this point very often and tells us that the Eucharist is called the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because it
alledged to your Grace the Pride of the Bishop of Rome who began then to lift up himself is censured And though you had proved that the Western have always acknowledged the Pope as Head of the Church it availeth nothing unless it be proved also that his Primacy then consisted in doing those things which he doth now Did he then boast that he could not err Did he vaunt himself as Sovereign Judge of the Sense and Interpretation of Scripture Did he give Indulgences Did he draw Souls out of Purgatory Did he give and take away Kingdom Did he call himself God Did he boast that he hath Power to add unto the Creed For in vain do we dispute about Titles when the things are different I would also beseech you Grace to see whether you be not abused for indeed many Passages in the Fathers are found which say that the Bishop of Rome is Successor to St. Peter But they speak of the Succession in the Charge of Bishop of the City of Rome not in the Apostleship or in the Primacy over the Universal Church And it is very remarkable that all the Examples of the Popes Authority brought out of Antiquity are within the Limits of the Roman Empire And that it cannot be found for above a thousand years after our Saviours time that the Bishops of Rome did intermeddle with the Affairs of Churches without the Roman Empire as of the Persian Armenian and Indian Churches In all that time he never gave them any Laws he never received any Appeal from them And that you may see what was the Face of the ancient Church in that Point I will lay down before your Grace some Examples according to the Order of the Ages For the first Age we find that St. Peter writ his last Epistle being near his Death as he saith himself in the first Chapter and then or never it was time for him to say now my Death is at Hand but I leave you for my Successor the Bishop of Rome to whom I will have the Universal Church be subject but of that he saith nothing nor takes any of those Titles upon him which the Pope now attributes unto himself St. Peter being dead if there had been any Question about choosing a Head for the Universal Church in his Room no Doubt but that some Apostle as St. James or St. John must have succeeded him for St. John outlived St. Peter about thirty years but no such thing was done In the same Age lived Dionysius Areopagite to whom are ascribed by them of the Roman Church the Books of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Reason required that he should speak of the Sovereign Hierarch who now is called the Pope Yet he speaks never a word of him he describeth all the Ecclesiastical Offices and Degrees making no Mention of the Head of the Church for he did not acknowledge any We find by the Ecclesiastical History that in that Age and long after the Bishop of Rome was elected by the Suffrages of the Clegy of that Diocesan Church with the Consent of their People An evident Proof that they believed not in those days that the Bishop of Rome was Head of the Universal Church For had he been so the Universal Church must have contributed to his Election the People of Rome having no right to give a Head to the Church of all the World That Age did swarm with Heresies which the Bishop of Rome did not condemn nor had any Cognisance of them None that we read of were condemned by any Council for not obeying the Bishop of Rome and refusing to be judged by him Our Adversaries themselves do not alledge any thing from the Roman Church of that Age but only some false decretal Epistles of the Popes which Baronius and Bellarmine and Binnius and many others acknowledge to be forged In the second Century our Adversaries find nothing for the Popes Primacy Only towards the end of that Age upon the Question about the Day of the Celebration of Easter Victor Bishop of Rome separated himself from the Communion of diverse of the Oriental Churches because they precisely observed the 14th day of the Moon of March for the day of Easter For which Action Victor was sharply taken up by other Bishops and particularly by Irenaeus as Eusebius witnesseth in the V Book and 25 Chapter of his History The third Age affords us many Examples to the contrary In the year of our Lord 217 Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage assembled a Council in Africa in which it was resolved and defined that the Baptism of Hereticks was no Baptism This was against the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and whether of the two was in the Right it is not material It is enough that thereby it appeareth that the Church of Africa was not then subject to that of Rome In the year of our Lord 256 Cyprian Successor of Agrippinus began to defend his Predecessors Doctrine There being then a Discord between Cornelius Bishop of Rome and one Novatianus whereby the Church of Rome was in Trouble Cyprian sent two Legats to Rome to compose the Difference thereby taking as much Authority over the Church of Rome as the Church of Rome use to exercise in the like Cases In all his Epistles to Cornelius he giveth him no other Title but that of Brother and acknowledgeth him not for his Superiour The Contention about rebaptizing of Hereticks grew hot between him and Stephen Bishop of Rome even to down-right ill Words In the Epistle to Pompeius which is the 74 Cyprian calls Stephen the Champion of Hereticks proud ignorant imprudent an Enemy to Christians preferring Falshood before Truth and Anti-Christ before Christ Moreover he assembled a Council of 87 African Bishops who condemned Stephen Bishop of Rome and his Doctrine and that in Terms worse than Cyprian had given him About the same time St. Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia a man of great Authority also bitterly reviled Stephen From these things it sufficiently appears that these Bishops were far from thinking themselves subject to the Bishop of Rome In that Age our Adversaries find nothing for the Pope's Primacy no Appeals to him from Churches either far or near no Laws given to the Universal Church onely some forged Decretal Epistles of the Bishops of Rome of those times are produced whose falshood is acknowledged by the most Learned of the Roman Writers In those Epistles the Pope is made to speak as a Master having power over all the Emperours and Bishops of the World Whereas the Bishops of Rome then confined the exercise of their Power to their own Diocess not presuming to give Laws to any other Churches much less to their Temporal Governours Of those three first Ages Pope Pius the Second in his Epistle to Martin Mayer which is the 188. speaks thus Every one then lived for himself and little Reverence was deferred to the Roman Church In the year of our Lord 312. the Emperour Constantine being converted to the