that Liberius subscrib'd not to the ArriaÌ„ Confession which St. Hierome * in Catalogo saith he did compelled indeed by Fortunatianus but yet he did it Fortunatianus in hoc habetur detestabilis quod Liberium Romanae urbis Episcopum profide ad exilium pergentemprinius sollicitavit ac fregit ad subscriptionem haeresios compuin Let her vindicate also Anastatius secundus from Nestorianisme which is charged upon him by * apud Chamier lib 3. de Canone cap. 10. Luitprandus Tieinensis Platina who saith upon the credit of common fame that he dyed a strange death either as Arrius or by a suddain stroak from the Divine hand Albo floriacensis Anastasins Bibliot hecarius Let her make an Apology for * condemnatus in sexta Synodo Honorius who was condemned by a Councell a better Apology it should be then that of Saunders who though Honorâ—us taught heresie yet denies the Roman Church to have erred with him and adds that though he might confirme heresie as a man yet he did it not as a Pope 3. The Church of Rome is guilty of Schisme in that she doth not only depart from the communion of such Churches as were Orthodox in the judgement of prime and pure Antiquity but hath forced a departure of all the reformed Churches from her except they would communicate with her in her abominations Schisme is theirs who cause it when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians the Hereticks caused the Schisme a forced separation maketh not them that in such a case seperate themselves guilty of schisme such rather as teach doctrines to the Catholique faith repugnant are Schismaticks and this imputation lyeth strong upon the Church of Rome in forcing the Canons of the Trent-Councell if then it be demanded for the conviction of the Roman-church to be Schismaticall first Whose company did she leave secondly From what Body did she go forth thirdly Where was the true Church which she forsook 1. To the first question we reply that she left the company of the Orthodox when she obstinately pernsted in her false doctrines 2. She departed from their Body not by locall separation but by refusing to communicate with them that reformed themselves which particular Churches are bound to do when they cannot do it which were the best course by a generall Councell This advice God himselfe giveth unto Judah by the Prophet Hosea though the tenne Tribes should continue obstinate Though thou Israell play the Harlot Hosea 4.15 yet let not Judoh offend though there were but two Tribes in the one Kingdome and tenne in the other yet notwithstanding the paucity of the one Church and the multitude of the other comparatively they were to reforme themselves that were fewer in case the other should remain in their Idolatry 3. And if it be thirdly demanded Where was the true Church which the Roman-church forsock we reply first what we said before that the guilt of schisme may be incurred by forcing others except they will defile themselves by joyning with those that have espoused dangerous errors in their superstition and Idolatry to depart from us and then secondly it 's conspicuous enough that she left her selfe as one may say I mean that the Lattine-Church obstinate and peramtory in the perilous opinions of some of her own communion when she publikely owned those doctrines and would no longer endure them that would not comply with her therein forsook the rest of her Communion who misliked and detested the said errors in heart before they had by the concurrent assistance of Princes and Prelates opportunity to shake off the Tyrany of the Bishop of Rome whose ancient priviledge and Primacy of order were that the only quarrell we would not deny and when the good Providence of God gave a fair opportunity they openly rejected what with grief of heart they groaned under and tolerated before As for that enquiry 1. By what generall Councell 〈…〉 Fathers 3. By what other Authority hath the Church of Rome been condemned written against or reproved We answer that the present opinions and practice of the Church of Rome are dondemn'd by Generall Councells the Usurpation of unlimited Power challenged by the Pope is censured by the sixth Canon of the famous Councell of Nice which giveth like Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts the worshipping of Images censured about twenty years before the Councell of Nice by the 36 Canon of the Councell of Elâ—beris Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere c. 'T is resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church lest that which is adored be painted on walls and whatsoever may be pleaded by the authority of the second Councell of Nice in the defence of Images yet it 's evident that the Canons thereof were not universally received because as soon as the newes of the Acts thereof came to the ears of the Fathers assembled by Charles the great two years afterward at Frankford they were rejected and refuted by those three hundred Bishops there convened If it should be demanded where is the Councell that hath condemned Rome since the seperation of the Protestants it is easy to reply that the obstinacy of the Pope and his Adhaerents obstruct the application of so good a Plaister to the wounds and breakings of the Church what fruit is like to come upon such a Convention as the Pope would agree to may appear by the transactions of the Trent-Assembly but the want of the sentence of a Generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome is no security to the Romanists that their Church is a safe Communion to those that are in it for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time and such as were destructive to them that held them and yet they were not condemned by Generall Councells there having been no convenience for their meeting untill the Empire came into the Church 2. For the Fathers of the first five hundred years it is evident enough that they are against the present Church of Rome in all the Controversies disputed between the Romanists and the Protestants as might be quickly shown out of their writings were it seasonable to take the pains and then moreover to give an accompt to the third Enquiry where it is demanded By what other authority hath she been reproved We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wisdome and constant consent of the Catholique Church The Romanists Reply to the Protestants Answer Sir YOu sent me some Catholique Quaeries with as you say Doctor Samwais's Answer to which take this brief Reply The Paper which you sent takes it for granted and the Dr. denies it not that the Church of Rome was once a most pure Church and proves her continuance thus This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by
that their Church is ae sure communion to those that are in it for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time such as were destructive to those that held them and yet they were not condemned by Generall Councells there having been â—o convenience for their meeting untill the Empire came into the Church Reply We grant that the Church both can and has condemned arising heresies before there was any conveniency for a generall Councell for the Church either diffusedly or representatively that is either as she is disperst throughout the world and out of councell or as assembled in a generall Councell hath power to coÌ„demn arising heresies and her condemnation of them either way is security enough to her adherents I grant likewise that the want of the sentence of a generall Councell to condemn us were no security to us in case you could shew us otherwise condemned by the Catholique-church dispersed throughout the world but since you can neither do the one nor the other the Church of Rome and her adherents that have both for them are secure enough and you who have both against you are most insecure and I say further that seeing it hath been the custome of the Catholique-church to condemn arising heresies by general Councells ever since she hath had the conveniency of having them it is certain that the Quaerie by what generall Councell was she ever condemned is rationally put and you being not able to produce one leave it unsatisfied As to the Quaerie Which of the Fathers ever writ against her the Dr. answers that it is evident enough that the Fathers of the first five hundred years are against the present Church in all controversies disputed between the Romanists and Protestants Reply Sir We expect to see your evidence but never hope to see it produc'd As to the third By what Authority was she otherwise reprov'd the Dr. answers We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wisdome and constant consent of the Catholique Church Reply Shew that the Scriptures thus interpreted do reprove the Church of Rome for till you do so I must needs averre that the Ouaerie is unsatisfied Now let us see how the Paper sent to Dr. Samwaies proves the church of Rome not to have fallen at any time into Schisme and to do this it puts the desinition of Schisme which see in the Paper then it proceeds If ever the church of Rome c. read what is said till you come to the Quaeries and afterwards the Quaeries This done let us see how on the contrary the Dr. hath prov'd the church of Rome guilty of schisme The Church of Rome saith he c. hath departed from the communion of the Orthodox Churches Reply Assigne them good Dr. otherwise you only give us words He goes on And hath forc'd a departure c. No good Doctor you voluntarily left her communion and so made your selves Schismaticks He proceeds The schisme is theirs who cause it Let that passe He holds on When the Orthodox departed from the Arrians c. Reply Strange the Orthodox departed from the Arrians this is quite contrary to St. John 1 Jo 2.19 who speaking of certain heretiques sayes Exierunt ex nobis they went out of us or departed from us which if true and certainly what St. John saith is true and withall that the Orthodox departed from the Arrians as the Dr. sayes then it evidently followes that the Orthodox were Arrians that is heretiques and the Arrians that is heretiques Orthodox for according to St. Iohn they are heretiques that depart but according to Dr. Samwaies the Orthodox departed from the Arrians therefore the Orthodox were heretiques and if so then the Dr. at unawares hath made himselfe an Arrian for I suppose he will say he is one of the Orthodox I wonder again the Dr. did not see the manifest contradiction he run into when he said the Orthodox departed for the Orthodox are they that do not depart from the Doctrine anciently received so that to say that the Orthodox departed is to say those that did not depart did depart which is plain contradiction in terminis Now he begins to answer the Quaeries If then saith he it be demanded 1. Whose company did she leave 2. FroÌ„ what body did she go forth 3. Where was the true Church which she forsook To the first he saith we reply that she left the company of the Orthodox when she persisted in her false Doctrines Reply He does not satisfie the Quaerie at all for he tells us not what Orthodox company she left he only sayes she left the company of the Orthodox because she persisted in her false doctrines but this is still to leave the Quaerie unsatisfied and according to his accustomed manner to assert things without proof I confesse if we would grant what he saith without proof he would need no more and might lawfully proclaim his victory To the second he replies That she departed from their body that is from the body of the Orthodox not by locall separation but by refusing to communicate with them that reformed themselves Reply You are still like your selfe that is constant in affirming without proof as for what you say of locall separation 't is frivolous to mention it since none was urged in the paper and as for the reformation we call it deformation till you evidence the contrary The text brought out of the Prophet Hosea is impertinent and so deserves no reply and as impertinent is the text which at the beginning of his answer he brings out of the Prophet Isaiah concerning the Church of Jerusalem which only proves that there were many in her who were fallen into sin but what is this to the church of Romes falling into heresie for it is one thing to fall into sin another to fall into heresie and we deny not but many of the church of Rome fall into sin That instance likewise of the church of Corinth is to as little purpose objected against us for it only proves that some not all did erre concerning the resurrection He may if he please but it is to as little purpose argue thus Other particular Churches as the Eastern have fallen into heresie therefore the Church of Rome at least may fall therefore for ought we know hath fallen I deny the consequence for it was only said to St. Peter and his Successors and the Church of which they were to be Pastours Thou art Peter or as the Syriack hath it Thou art a Rock and upon this rock will I build my Church and the gatos of hell shall not prevail against it To the third Which was the true Church which she forsook he sayes We reply what we said before that the guilt of schisme may be incur'd by forcing others Reply This is no answer for you do not tell us what true church she forsook and whereas you mention again her forcing you I reply as before that you
at this day maintaine against the Catholicks all the world over out of their own Communion Is it not evident by St. Cyprian 63. Epist that the people received the Cup (z) Quorum quidem vel ignorantèr vel simplicitèr in calice Domino sanctificando plaebi administrando non hoc faciunt quod Iesus Christu◠Dominus Deus noster sacrificii hujus Author Doctor fecit docuit religiosum paritèr necestarium duxi de hoc ad vos literas facere Cipt. Ep. 63. ad Coecilum Because some either out of Ignorance or Simplicity doe not that in consecrating the Eucharisticall Cup and administring it to the people mark no halfe communion served the people in that holy Bishops dayes which Jesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Teacher of this sacrifice did and taught therefore I accounted it both a matter of religion and necessity to write to them concerning this businesse And is it not as clear by St. Aug. that the opinion of Trans-substantiation was not own'd in his dayes heare him speaking against the corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament now so shamefully defended by the Romanists in his Exposition of the 98. Psal for in treating of Christs words in the 6. Cap. of St. John and the mistake of such as tooke his Speech as the Trent-faith now doth he saith expounding Christs words in his own Person that spake them (a) Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum non hoc Corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis bibituri illum fanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi spiritualter intellectū vivificabit vos etsi necesse est illnd visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi Aug. in Ps 98 pag. 1105. edit froben Understand spiritually that which I have spoken unto you you are not to eat the Body which you see nor to drink that Blood which they will shed who will crucifie me I have commended a certaine Sacrament unto you being spiritually understood it will quicken you though it be necessary that it be visibly celebrated yet it is behovefull that it be invisibly conceived Doth not St. Ambrose as plainly teach that what mutation is wrought by consecration is mysticall and not such as the Romanists fancy grosse and corpoporeall when speaking of the operative vertue of Christs words he saith (b) Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini lesu ut inciperent esse quae nō erant quātò magis operatorius est ut fint quae crant in aliud cōmutentur Ambr. l. 4. de Sacr. c. 4. If therefore there be so great efficacie in the speech of the Lord Jesus that those things which were not by vertue thereof should begin to be how much more effectuall is it to cause the things that were to be and yet to be changed into somewhat else id est to continue naturally what they were before the consecration and yet also after the consecration Mystically and Sacramentally to become the body and blood of Christ which place in St. Ambrose was so distastefull to those of the new faith in the Romish-communion that whereas some of them beat their brains in finding away how to make the Bread and Wire in the Sacrament like the beast in the Revelation * Revel 17.8 that was and is not and yet is others as the late reverend Primate of Ireland observ'd in his ans to the Jesuits challenge p. 14. tooke a ready course to untye the Gordian knot by paring cleane away in their Roman Edition followed also in that of Paris Anno 1603. those words that so much troubled them and letting the rest run smoothly after this manner * Quantò magis operatorius est ut quae erant in aliud commutentur how much more is the speech of the Lord powerfull to make that those things which were should be changed into another thing To this purpose also speaks St. Cyprian in the fore-cited Epistle (c) Invenimus calicem mix tū suiffe quem Dominus obtulit vinū suisse quod fanguinem fnum dixit Cyp. Epist 65. we find that the Cup was mixed the epistle was wri◠against the Aquarii that celebrated the Eucharist with water alone which the Lord offered and that it was Wine which he called his Blood St. Iraeneus lived not farre from the Apostolicke times and he clearly asserteth the substance of bread to continue in the Eucharist after the consecration for thus he writeth concerning that Mysterie (d) Quemadmodum qui est â terrâ panis percipiens vocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenâ coelesti sic corpora nostra spercipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia spem resurrectionis habentia Iren Lib. 4. C. 34. As the Earthly bread by the institution or command of God is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things an Earthly and an Heavenly so our Bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible having hope of the Resurrection When therefore we meet with expression in the Fathers that seem to imply a Trans-substantiation they are nothing but a Catachresis an abuse of words or hyperbolicall elevations familiar to all sorts of Writers not unusuall among the Ancients when they speak of the other Sacrament of Baptisme as hath been largely prov'd by the late learned and Reverend Bishop of Duresme If Justin and Iraeneus say of the Eucharist that it is no longer after the consecration common bread St. Chrissest and Greg Nussen say also of Baptisme Non est aqua communis it is not common water and Cyril of Alexandria expresly useth the word trans-elementated by the efficacy of the spirit the sensible water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is changed into another element It appears hence that the Fathers condemned the present judgement of the roman-Roman-Church as to the above-named controversies between the Catholiques of the Reformed Churches and the Papists in the Roman separation who divided themselves from the Communion of the Primitive profession before the Protestants departed from them or rather were forced and driven from them As to my assertion schisme is theirs who cause it he thinkes to say only let that passe a valid confutation and excepts against my instance when I say when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians the heretiques made the schism◠This is contrary as he pretends to 1 Jo 2.19 who speaking of certain he retiques saith exierunt a nobis whic◠if true saith he then the Orthodox w 〈…〉 the Arrtans and Heretiques and t◠Arrians and the Heretiques were Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This acute Replyer is able to peirce the eye◠of a Jackdaw as infallibly as any on◠I ever heard of as if departure it sel◠did imply a crime without reference to the Society which a man leaveth b◠his departure Is departure from the blessed
Disciples of Christ St. Johâ— and the rest of the holy Apostles all oâ— with departure from the impure frateâ—nity of prophane and ungodly meâ— that pervert the truth and bring in 〈…〉 the Church damnable heresies Is one and the same thing to depart froâ— Moses and Aaron and to withdraw oâ— selves from Corah Dathan and the râ— of their Complices Is it not the eâ—presse admonition of God to his people to come out of Babylon Rev 18.4 * St. Paul exhorts us all to such an apostacy that reclaims us from out iniquity Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart froÌ„ iniquity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Did Jeremy depart from the wicked Israelites under the guilt of schisme if he had God would not have confirmed him in his separation saying Let them returne to thee but returne not thou to them It was not then the sin of the Orthodox to depart from the Arrians when if not the whole world as St. Hierome speaketh yet the whole face of the visible Church groaned under that burden and admired it selfe to have become Arrian 'T is true as Theodoret observeth the Arrians termed the Orthodox the authors fall division but how justly such as â—an judge may easily discerne When therefore the Replyer wonders that the Doctor did not see his contradiction in saying the Orthodox did depart the Doctor wonders that the Replyer should not see his own tergiversation trifling in finding a contradiction that none but himselfe can espy That the Drthodox should depart from the true Church were a contradiction indeed because the true Church consists of those that are such howbeit that the Orthodox should depart from the Synagogue of Satan is as far from being a contradiction as Rome present is different from Rome professing the purity of the Primitive faith and that is far enough to be sure 'T is evident the Replyer had little to say but was forced to cavill when he pretends that the Text produced out of Hosea 4.15 was impertinent For what could more directly prove our warrant for reforming our selves then to shew that it was Gods expresse command to Judah so to do when Israel did refuse it If Judah was forbidden to go to Bethaven that is Bethel the place of Jeroboams idolatry why should not England thinke her selfe engaged to depart from Rome infected with the same crime An evasion was but necessary when the Replyer saw the proceeding of our Church so fairly justified by this Scripture and therefore the text he pretends concerns not thâ— cause But if to say that a text alledged be impertinent is a sufficient Reply surely to say that such a Reply signifies nothing but the disability of the Replyer to make a better answer is a sufficient Rejoynder As to the other text out of Isa 1.21.22 the Replyer supposeth that also to be of little force because it proves he saith that the Church of Jerusalem fell into sin but what 's that to the Church of Romes falling into heresy And is not Heresie a sin Sir Replyer If Jerusalem might and did fall into sin you must shew her exemption from that sin or else why she might not fall as well into that as other sins I see no reason Did not Aaron so far comply with the idolatry of the Israelites as to make the Golden-calfe Let Moncaeus purge him as he can in his book called Aaron purgatus Moses I am sure chargeth him when he thus bespeaketh him What did this people unto thee that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them Exo 32.21 and he supposeth him to have offended when he saith that at that time he prayed for him Indeed as Moses affirmeth the Lord was very angry with Aaron to have destroyed him and he useth to be angry with no man to his destruction but for sin Deut 9.20 Wherefore the Jewish Church might sin and that not only against the Second Table of the Law by morall impurities but against the first also by profane impieties by worshiping of Images by erroneous miscarriages in the Duties of Gods worship which they heretically held to be lawfull as the present Church of Rome now doth or else they would never have done what was so clearly and frequently forbidden unto them And that Jerusalem thus fell in the time of the Prophet Isaiah the Replyer might have learned from the first words of his Prophecy for the word of the Lord came unto him in the time of Ahaz his reigne and Ahaz liking an Alpar at Damascus sent the patterne of it tâ— Urian the Priest who buâ—lt it accordingly 2. Kings 16.10.11 Which was a direct violation of Gods institution Thus it is evident that the High priest himselfe erred in administring his Office And why the Church of Rome may not erre aswell as the Church of Jerusalem a better reason must bee assigned then this Replyer hath given before we believe her peculiar priviledge This Replyer hath the confidence to say that the instance of the Corinthians erring in the doctrine of the resurrection is to litle purpose because some not all did erre in that Church But he conceals the force of my argueing from the supposition of the establishment of that error by a prevailing party for in case that should have been done by the Bishop of that City and a prevalent faction in that Church it is evident that the Church of Corinth in respect of such a combination might have been said properly enough to have fallen by heresy But grant the worst of other Churches yet Rome is secured It was said saith the Replyer only to Peter and his successors and the Church whereof they were to be Pastors thou art Peter c. What was said to Peter we know but what was said to his pretended successors at Rome and the Church whereof they were to bee Pastors we know not St. Mathew teacheth us not Upon this rock I will build my Church concernes Rome no more then another particular Church especially if St. Peter did found it and build it up by his doctrine for though he suffered Martyrdome at Rome yet his teaching might have as much influence on other Churches as his blood had at Rome But super hanc Petram and any other advantage that the Replyer contends for out of the Syriack translation will stand him in little stead to prove the infallibility of the Church of Rome For should Christ call Peter a rock and in allusion to his name adde upon this rock I will build c. all this would no more conclude that the Pope could not erre did he succeed St. Peter by a better title then he can make good then it did secure St. Peter from diverting Christ from his passion whilst this confession that he made of Christ was warme from his mouth and afterwards from denying of Christ with perjury when he was under the temptation of fear to be apprehended as a malefactor should he have confessed him Which failings of the blessed
first and chief efficient cause of the holy and spirituall building of his Church Peter by his endeavours whil'st he lâ—ved and by his doctrine since his death together with the rest of the Apostles though chief among them in the sense of the Ancients but not Moderne church of Rome a secondary or subord note efficient faith the instrumentall cause of this Glorious Edifice and the faithfull the materiall of the Temple of God When therefore this Replyer would play the Critick upon Peters name in the Syriack language which imports a rock he follows indeed his Masters Baronius and Bellarmine but to little purpose Peter (m) non est à Petra Petrus sed ipse est Petra is not saith Baronius derived from Petra a rock but he himselfe is a rock But what would the Replyer get hereby first he would fecretly disparage the Greek copies of the Gospel as if they did not conveniently expresse the importance of Christs words secondly directly oppose the Authority of St. Augustine (n) Petrus a Petrâl quemadmodum a Christo Christianes vocatur Aug deverb Dom. Ser. 13. lib. Retract 1. c. 21. who saith Peter was called from a rocke as a Christian is called from Christ and thirdly teach us what small skil he hath in the Analogy of Grammar for grant Christ and Peter too to be called a Rock the word rock shall be praedicated of them both univocally equivocally or denominativel as the Logicians speak The first kind of praedication cannot be admitted true of Christ and Peter without blasphemy for if Christ and Peter be named a roek un vocally then the same definition must agree to the rock Christ the Son of God and to the rock Simon son of Jonas Now Christ is a rock because he giveth life comfort and protection to his Church against all dangers ghostly and bodily which none can do but God If Simon be such a rock it follows he must be God also which is such a blasphemy that I hope this Replyer trembleth to be guilty off It follows therefore that Peter be a rock equivocally or by denomination from the true rock and let him take which sense he will the same definition by the Lawes of Logick shal not be assign'd to Christ and Simon because there will be a vast difference between the Rock Christ and the rock Simon By reason of the severall Genius's of the Syriack and Greek tongues as Causaubon hath noted Simon may in the one language be called a Rock equivocally and in the other a rock by denomination because in Syriack the name of Peter is written with the same letters that the word is that signifies a rock Cepha denoteth both but in Greek with others which is required in denominations as (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Simplicius in Categ apud Casaub Smiplicius hath observed out of Aristotle Whether therefore in Syriack from Cepha Peter be also called Cepha or from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the difference will consist only in the form of words but not in the importance of the sense we are not afraid to call Peter a rock or a foundation the Scripture giveth this Appellation to all the Apostles Ephe 2.20 Rev 21.14 and why should we deny it unto him whose name challengeth it by particular praerogative The question is in what sense he is so called We see evidently by the Testimony of the Fathers that Antiquity thought him not a Foundation or Rock in the sense that the Patrons of the Popes omnipotency assert as if the whole Church were bottomed upon him and his Successors and the whole world become his Diocesse as Hart affirmed in his conference with Reynolds pag. 459 neither did they think that by these Titles given to Peter the Pope might lay claime not only to a Primacy of Order amongst the rest of the Patriarchs but a Lordly Soveraignty over all Christian people throughout the whole world Whereas now it is too manifest that all this contention is raised not so much for Peters honour as the Popes ambitious designes whom it would better become to imitate Peters true humility who would not endure Cornelius a Centurion to lye prostrate before him Acts 10.26 then assume his false titles false I say in respect of the sense now imposed on them whereby he may tread on the necks of Princes But what though the Pope succeeded St. Peter at Rome did not a Bishop succeed him also at Antioch might not this Successor clayme as much priviledge at the one See as the Roman Usurper doth at the other T is evident enough that Peter had no Successor in the Apostolicall dignity and (p) Contrvers 2. q. 3. a. 3. Stapleton teacheth that the Apostleship ceased when the Apostles dyed and yet though this were something currant doctrine at Rome (q) Annotat in Cyor. excus Rom. 1563. Bellarmine took courage to affirme that because some have given the name of Apostleship to the Popes office therefore the Pope succeedeth after a sort in the Apostleship viz in the charge of the whole world But Eusebius lib. 3. c. 17. mentioneth St. John after St. Peters decease to have discharged his Apostolick Office by constituting Churches and ordaining Bishops whereas he assigneth no imployment to the Bishop of Rome but the administration of his own Diocesse Certainly if the first Bishops of Rome had succeeded St. Peter in such a Superiority as the Romanists now contend for not only all other Bishops but St. John himself also must have acknowledged the Pope to have been his Diocesan which were to submit the supream dignity of the Apostolick Authority instituted imediatly by Christ to the limited jurisdiction of a particular See for such was the Bishop of Romes circumscription as we have shewn afore out of Clemens his constitutions That the purer ages of the Church had no such opinion of the Popes universall jurisdiction is manifest by the eight Canon of the famous Councell of Ephesus framed for the vindicating of the Bishops of Cyprus their exemption from the incroachment of the Patriarch of Antioch who claimed Authority over them in the consecration of their Metropolitan For when Reginus Bishop of Constantia Zenon Bishop of Curiun and Euagrius Bishop of Sela all within the limits of Cyprus made their complaint that the Patriarch of Antioch would subject their Island to himselfe attempting to draw to him the power of Ordinations amongst them contrary to the ancient Customes the Canons of the Apostles the decrees of the Nicene Councell upon the hearing of their cause they framed a Canon the last of the eight recited by Justellus wherein they exempt the Cypriots from the usurpation they complained of and moreover without the least reservation oâ— priviledge to the Bishop of Rome iâ— in this behalfe adde (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the same course be observed in other Diocesses in all Provinces every where that none of the boly Bishops seize upon another