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 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
and Sovereign Judges of the Sense of it Yet the Roman Church never made any Interpretation of Scripture which was generally approved We have onely Comments of Doctors who disagree among themselves Truly the Church of Rome intends not to make Scripture plainly understood since she hides it from the People and will not have it to be read and hath forbidden the Translation of it into the vulgar Tongues What Interpretation can we expect from the Pope who boasteth that he can change the Commandments of God and saith that Scripture is subject unto him Be pleased my Lord especially to consider whether it be just and reasonable that the Pope should be Judge in his own Cause and whether the Roman Church can be the Sovereign Judge of her own Duty and whether in this Question whether the Roman Church be a Sovereign Judge in points of Faith the Roman Church her Self can be the Judge To give you some Instances of this Jesus Christ saith to St. Peter Mat. 16.18.19 and to all his Apostles Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven c. Upon which Text the Roman Prelate groundeth his Primacy In Conscience is it just that he should be acknowledged the Sovereign and infallible Judge and Interpreter of those Texts upon which he groundeth his Empire For who can doubt but that he will give Judgment on his own side as indeed by his Interpretations he hath laid up for himself greater Riches than that of the greatest Kings and hath built to himself an earthly Empire See then how he interprets that Text. Because Christ hath said Whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth the Pope pretends he may also loose those under the Earth drawing Souls out of Purgatory And whereas Jesus Christ in that Text speaks only of loosing Sinners that are bound with Ecclesiastical Censures the Pope from that Text assumes unto himself the Power of loosing Subjects from the Obedience sworn unto their Princes of dispensing with Oaths of freeing Children from the Obedience due to their Fathers and of dissolving Marriages lawfully contracted And whereas Christ gave to all his Disciples that loosing Power the Pope hath reserved unto himself many Cases in which none but himself can give Absolution Besides he so interpreteth that Text as if all that is said unto St. Peter was said unto the Pope of which yet the Scripture saith nothing and giveth to St. Peter no Successor in his Primacy or in his Apostleship Your self My Lord may judge whether the Pope who hath forbidden Marriage unto Bishops can be a good Interpreter of the words of the Apostle 1 Tim. 3.2 3. A Bishop must be the Husband of one Wife having his children subject in all gravity Whether the Pope having taken away the Cup of the Lords Supper from the Laity can be a good Interpreter of these words of Christ Drink ye all of it Whether the Pope and the Roman Church which by Canons of Councels command the Adoration of Images can be good Interpreters of the Second Commandement which forbids it Whether the Pope who makes Ordinances for publick Brothel-houses at Rome can be a good Interpreter of Gods Commandement Thou shalt not commit Adultery Whether the Pope who forbids Flesh and other Meats can be a good Interpreter of the Apostles Precept Whatsoever is set before you eat asking no question for Conscience sake Whether the Roman Church which in the Councel of Trent defineth that Coveting is no sin be a good Interpreter of the Commandement Thou shalt not covet Whether the Pope who brings into the publick Service a Language not understood by the People can be a good Interpreter of the fourteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians where it is so many times forbidden to pray and speak in the Church in an unknown Tongue Whether Pope John XXIII who denied the Immortality of the Soul and for that Crime and many more was condemned by the Councel of Constance could have been a good Interpreter of those Texts of Scripture which speak of Eternal Life For your part My Lord you take another course For without speaking of the Authority of the Roman Church which acknowledgeth no Judge but the Pope you say that you have found in the Fathers of the five first Centuries the Religion which you seem resolved to embrace Wherein you resist openly the Roman Church which admitteth not the Fathers for her Judges and condemn them very often of Errour Ignorance and Heresie Then you contradict the very Fathers who in a thousand places refuse to be believed or received for Judges and send the Reader continually to the Holy Scripture Hardly shall you find many Texts of Scripture wherein the Fathers agree about the Interpretation You may be pleased therefore to consider that you undertake a Journey in a way where you see no Light They are Greek and Latin Fathers which you never read and where you can get no Information for your Judgment A man that hath nothing else to do needs to spend ten years in study before he can get some mediocrity of knowledge in them and the words which they use are taken now in a quite different sense How can you know whether the Passages brought to you be faithfully alledged How can you know whether the Books whence they are taken be not supposititious Of which the Multitude is incredible But after all If the Verdict of the Fathers be received the Roman Church must be cast and it will appear that their Religion is but New Since the Roman Church and the Pope boast that they can alter the Commandements of God and make new Articles of Faith even in that they have a new Religion Now you may ask Who then shall be the Interpreter Who can give us the true Sense of Scripture I answer that since the Question here is of an Interpreter that cannot err and who shall always infallibly find out the true Sense there is no such in being God hath not in any place of his Word bestowed that Gift of Infallible Interpretation upon the Roman Church no more than upon the Greek or the Syrian There is no need of such an Interpreter for things necessary to Salvation are so clearly set down in Scripture that they need no Interpretation Must we have an Interpreter to know that God hath created the World that we must love God with all our heart that the Son of God is dead for us Now I say that all the Points necessary to Salvation are to be found in Scripture in terms as clear as these The Interpretations used by the Pastors of our Churches are taken from the Scripture it self so they are not the Interpreters it is God that expounds himself For Example When they expound these words This is my Body they take the Interpretation from Jesus Christ himself who saith that it is a Commemoration of him and from three Evangelists who say with one accord that Jesus Christ hath given Bread to
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