is my chief aim I resemble most the way of Du Plesis whether I be a plagiarian from him let the Reader judge and also whether my method be the same wiâ—h his He was a brave man and a great Ornament to the Protestant Religion but he hath many concise thetorications to understand which much knowledge of Antiquity is requisite otherwayes these passages of his are so many aenigmata to beginners of the study of Antiquity whose utility I principally aim at in this Work that sailing about the doors in this little Barge they may learn by degrees to sail in the great Ships of others throughout the immense Ocean of Antiquity The method I use is this following if any in reason shall not think it fit after reasonable instruction of my error I shall make a recantation My Lords The whole Treatise is taken up in the examination of these three Questions the first is If Peter was ordained by our Saviour Monarch of the Church or visible Head of the Church under Himself The second is If at the command of Christ he took the charge of the Bishoprick of Rome The third is If by divine Institution the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church And whereas our adversaries of the Church of Rome endeavour to prove the affirmatives of these three questions by Antiquity that is testimonies of Councils and Fathers my scope is to disprove the said three affirmatives in the same manner and to prove that all what they pretend from Antiquity is either wrested perverted mutilated falsly translated from the Originals or forged down-right The whole Treatise is divided in four Parts the first Part is entituled of Bishops and contains the Hierarchy of the Church unto the death of Cyprian which was after the middle of the third Age In which interval I endeavour to prove there was no ordinar Office in the Church above that of a Bishop and that the Bishop of Rome was in no more Authority then any other Bishop albeit he was first Bishop in dignity because Bishop of the old Imperial City This first part is divided in two Books in the first is disputed the Monarchy of Peter by his institution prerogatives and carriage and testimonies of Fathers unto cap. 22. In the rest of that Book is disputed if ever Peter was at Rome and if he were if he was Bishop of Rome In the second Book is disputed if the Bishop of Rome was adcnowledged as successor to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church before the death of Cyprian In which Book I insist most upon these following particulars First I relate the opinion of Aerius and his followers concerning the Original Progresse and universal establishment of Episcopacy wherein a Bishop differs from a Presbyter and for what reasons Episcopacy was brought into the Church 2. I prove by the testimonies of Ignatius Dionysius and Cyprian himself that there was no Office in the Church in that interval above that of a Bishop 3. I answer several testimonies pretended by those of the Church of Rome to prove the Popes Supremacy in that interval from Actions of Popes Appellations to them and from testimonies of Greek and Latine Fathers 4. I examine several Forgeries and Corruptions of the Fathers made use of by some Roman Doctors to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that Interval The second Part is intituled of Arch-bishops in which I disput the Hierarchy of the Church from the death of Cyprian unto the beginning of the seventh Century or to anno 604. at which time the Emperor Phocas took the title of universal Bishop from Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople and bestowed it upon Bonifacius third Bishop of Rome which is an interval of 344. years It is divided in two Books the first intitulated of Metrapolitans In which I disput the Hierarchy of the Church from Cyprian anno 260. unto the Council of Chalcedon anno 453. all which time no Office was in the Church above that of a Metrapolitan insisting most upon these following particulars first of the original progresse and universal establishment of Metrapolitans wherein a Metrapolitan differ from another Bishop For what reason Metrapolians were brought into the Church What place the Bishop of Rome had amongst Metrapolitans where I prove by unanswerable testimonies of Antiquity that other Metrapolitans were of alike Jurisdiction with him and that he was only first Metrapolitan in dignity for the same reason that he was first Bishop in the interval of Bishops viz. because he was Bishop in the Chief Imperial City 2. Traceing the lives of the Bishops of Rome in that interval I disput pro and contra the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it by their actions usurpations addâ—esses made to them and Acts of general and particular Councils celebrated in each of their times 3. I examine the opinions of Greek and Latine Fathers who lived in that interval concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it 4. I examine some notable forgeries pretended by those of the Church of Rome to prove the Pops supremacy in that interval The second Book is entituled of Patriarchs containing the Hierarchy of the Church from the Council of Chalcedon anno 453. to Phocas and Bonifacius anno 604. In which Interval Patriarchs obtained the chief place of the Hierarchy insisting also upon those five particulars 1. Of the original progresse and universal establishment of Patriarchs wherein a Patriarch differs from a Metrapolitan for what reasons Patriarchs were brougâ—t in the Church what place the Bishop of Rome had amongst Patriarchs viz. all Patriarchs were alike to him in Jurisdiction Yet he was the first Patriarch in dignity for the same reason that he was first Bishop in the Interval of Bishops and first Metrapolitan in the Interval of Metrapolitans that is for civil respects and not by reason of succession to Peter in the Monarchy of the Chuâ—ch because Rome was the old imperial City of which he was Patriarch 2. Traceing the lives of the Bishops of Rome of that interval I disput their Supremacy from their Actions Usurpations Addresses made to them from general and particular Councils celebrated in their time 3. I examine the opinions of Greek and Latine Fathers who lived in that Interval concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it 4. I examine those Forgeries pretended by those of the Church of Rome to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that Interval 5. I minut that notable controversie betwixt the Bishops of Rome and â—onstâ—ntinople for the Primacy showing what was the occasion of that contest for what Primacy they strove by what reason they pleaded and who carried it in the end viz. John called Jejunator or the Faster Patriarch of Constantinople who first of all was stiled oecumenick Bâ—shop anno 580. which was continued in his successors to anno 604. at which time Phocas before whom Bonifacius third Bishop of Rome renewed the Processe knowing that
Presbyter are borrowed by a metaphor from the civil administration they who ruled Cities of old among the Jews and Grecians were called Presbyters and rulers of Provinces were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops Overseers as appears by 1 Maccab. 1. All other Church Ministers were called Deacons or Ministers simply In the times of the Apostles Bishops were called Presbyters and Presbyters Bishops so Tit. 1. those who are called Presbyters verse 5. are called Bishops verse 7. It appears also by Philip. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. and Acts 20. that the Rulers of Churches in one City are called Bishops in the plural number which could not be if Presbyters were not called Bishops since there could be but one Bishop in one City as all know Those also who lived at the same time with the Apostles speak after the same manner Clement Bishop of Rome mentioned by Paul and familiar with him in his Epistles directed to the Corinthians which Epistle is mentioned by Hieronymus but never seen till of late Cyrillus Patriarch of Constantinople sent it from the Bibliothick of Alexandria to King James as a precious monument of Antiquity calls the Rulers of the Church of Corinth Bishops in the plural number directing his Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of Corinth and likewayes in the body of his Epistle he calls those very persons Bishops in one place whom he calls Presbyters in another Polycarpus also directs an Epistle to the Presbyters and Deacons of Philippi and in the body of his Epistle he calls these very persons Bishops this oâ—yearpus was the disciple of John This manner of speaking continued unto the latter end of the second Age Irenaeus who lived about that time in an Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome calls the predecessors of the said Victor Presbyters ruling the Chuâ—ch of Rome Likewayes whom he calls Presbyters lib. 3. cap. 2. in the very next Chapter he calls Bishops and again lib. 4. cap. 43. he calls them Presbyters Pius also Bishop of Rome in an Epistle to Justus Bishop of Vienna speaking of the succession of Bishops in several Places calls it a succession of Presbyters Other Testimonies might be multiplied to this purpose but it is needlesse since it is confessed by Bellarmine and Petavius that in those primitive times Presbyters were called Bishops and Bishops Presbyters promiscuously Aerius who lived about the midle of the fourth Age believed for that reason that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter in those times was one and the same and that no Bishop was Jure Divino above a Presbyter which opinion Epiphanius Hereste 75. calls Furiosum dogma and for that reason ranks Aerius among Hereticks but he answers the Arguments of Aerius vere childishly in the opinion of Bellarmine himself for when Aerius objected those formentioed passages of Scripture naming many Bishops in one City Epiphanius answers the reason is Because in these times there was such penury of Presbyters that many Bishops were in one City then which answer nothing is more ridiculous However the authority of Epiphanias is of no more weight to make any Opinion Heresie then the authority of some other Fathers who declared them Hereticks who maintained the Antipodes Avertinus lib. 3. Anal. Augustinus also seems to call Aerius an Heretick but it s very like that he calls him so for some other reason then denying the divine right of Bishops other things were laid to the charge of Aerius how justly is doubted it may be also that Augustinus takes Heresie in a large sense as it comprehends Schisme for he professeth himself in that place he knoweth not what is the regular distinction of Heresie That Schismaticks were sometimes called Hereticks appears by the sixth Canon of the first Council of Constantinople which In codice canonum is 169. That Augustine called not Aerius an Heretick for denying the divine right of Bishops but only for making a separation upon that account or else for some other reason is evident because not only Augustinus himself but also many others of the most eminent Fathers seem to be of the same opinion with Aerius as Medina confesseth and although Bellarmine and Petavius reprehend Medina for so saying yet in end both are forced to acknowledge that some of those Fathers were of that opinion Likewayes many Popish Doctors came very near the opinion of Aerius all the Protestant Divines abroad for the most part are of that opinion and many learned Protestants at home as Whitaker Reynolds c. although some eminent English Divines be against it as Andrews Hall and other learned men However it is certain that none were more submissive to Episcopal Government amongst the ancient Fathers and some of the modern Doctors then those who dispute expresly against the divine right of Bishops as Augustinus quaest 101. upon 1 Tim. 3. Hilarius upon the same place and likewayes upon Ephes 4. Hieronymus in his Epistle to Euagrius and likewayes upon Tit. 1. Ambrosius as he is cited by Amalarius upon Tim. 3. Chrysostomus and his admirer Theophylactus Primasius oecumenius Sedulius upon Tit. 1. and among the late Fathers Amalarius Isidorus Rabanus Maurus amongst the Popish Divines Cusanus lib. 2. de concordia Catholica cap. 13. Contarenus and Dionysius Carthusianus on Philip. 1. Durandus in Rationali lib. 2. cap. de Sacerdotibus and likewayes upon the sentences lib. 4. dist 34. q. 5. Marsilius Patavinus dict cap. 15. Haymo on Philip. 1. Asorius the Jesute P. 2. Q. 2. cap. 16. All which Popish Doctors came very near the opinion of Aerius and yet were very submissive to Episcopal Government Whitaker a most stout defender of Aerius yet was most submissive to the Episcopal Government and many of the most eminent Divines abroad who defended the opinion of Aerius yet in their Epistles to several English Divines they exhort dissatisfied persons to submit to the Government of the Church of England which in effect is the same with that Church Government which was established by the first general Council of Neice Those who follow the opinion of Aerius affirm that the Bishop of Rome in the beginning was nothing else but the first Presbyter or first ordained Presbyter amongst the Presbyters of the Church of Rome Hilarius by many cited by the name of Ambrosius upon Eph. 4. affirms that in those primitive times a Bishop was nothing else but primus Presbyter that is Presbyter of oldest ordination and he dying the next in order coming to be first Presbyter became hoc ipso Bishop without any new ordination as appears by the the same Author 1 Tim. 3. where he expresly affirms when any is ordained Sacerdos he is ordained both Bishop and Presbyter for saith he Una est ordinatio Presbyteri Episcopi quia uterque est Sacerdos That is The ordination of a Bishop and Presbyter in one because both are Priests Whence it appears that Bellarmine is mistaken who affirms that a first Presbyter behoved to be ordained of new when he became
Church of Rome depends upon the fantastick gloss of a Jesuit contradicting all Antiquity and inconsistent with it self And first it is against Antiquity because they cannot give one instance from ancient Interpreters Councils and Fathers giving this gloss upon those words of our Savior Upon this Rock I will build my Church neither was this gloss ever heard of or so much as dreamed of before the times of the Jesuits after the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was openly assaulted Secondly this gloss is contradictory to it self By it Bellarmin intangles himself many ways and first he grants that all the Apostles were equally Rocks and Foundations with Peter if the word Foundation be taken in the first two senses But all the Fathers who expone the Apostles to be foundations and Peter among the rest did not so much as dream of any other way why Peter or they are called Foundations but only of the first two viz. in regard that they all alike founded Churches preaching that doctrine revealed unto them all alike immediatly from God and consequently foundation in Bellarmins third sense is a dream of his own by which he may well confirm his disciples he will never convert Proselytes but expose himself to the ludibrious taxings of his adversaries in making his own groundless fiction the main Basis of the supremacy of Peter consequently of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and consequently of the Religion of the Modern Church of Rome to which all must be conform under pain of damnation according to that new article coined by the Council of Trent adding to that Article of the Creed Catholick Church making it Catholick Roman Church Secondly we have shewed That this third way of Foundation is a fiction of Bellarmins not dreamed of by the Ancients which although it be sufficient to refute it yet it refutes it self by many contradictions And first of other Popish Doctors It gives unto all the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis plenitude of power in which it contradicts the Theologick Dictionary of Altenstaing approved by authority of the Church of Rome In which Dictionar Plenitudo potestatis is defined not only to be ordinis but also Jurisdictionis conferred by Christ only upon Peter and his Successors and that now formalitâ—â— subjective it is only in the Bishop of Rome which is expresly contradicted by Bellarmin who attributs it to all the Apostles pressed by the evident testimonies of those Fathers seeing the gloss of that Dictionar to be against all Antiquity Thirdly Though Bellarmin be more sound then the gloss of that Dictionar in attributing to all the Apostles that plenitâ—de of power yet he contradicts himself in giving to Peter a greater power then they had it fleeth the edge of the quickest reason to conceive any power greater then plenitude of power and therefore it is a flat contradiction to affirme that although all the Apostles have plenitude of power yet they depend upon Peter as their head which is as much to say as all the Apostles have that power then which none can have a greater and yet Peter hath a greater power then they Lastly Bellarmin affirms that Peter hath plenitude of power as ordinar Pastor the other Apostles as extraordinar and Legats to Peter in which he intangles himself in a twofold contradiction For to omit that distinction of ordinar and extraordinar Pastor amongst the Apostles is a fiction of his own the whole stream of Antiquity avowing all the Apostles to be extraordinar Pastors Peter as well as the rest First he makes the other Apostles above Peter since extraordinar Pastors are preferred to ordinar Pastors the Apostle Paul enumerating the hierarchy of the Church Ephes 4 puts extraordinar Pastors in the first place viz. Apostâ—es Prophets and Evangelists before Pastors and Doctors and so he contradicts himself in affirming that extraordinar Pastors depend upon Peter as their head whom he maketh ordinar Pastor Secondly He contradicts himself in making the other Apostles Legats to Peter and to omit he doth so without any ground having no authority but his own assertion he intangleth himself in his reason for he hath no other reason wherefore the other Apostles are Legats to Peter but only because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle in the original imports one who is sent in commission which is all one with a Legat. But Bellarmin will not deny that Peter in that sense is a Legat also because he is an Apostle and so Peter will be Legat to Peter which is perfect none-sense and contradiction Bellarmin borrowed this distinction of ordinar and extraordinar from Sanderus that famous English Jesuit who with his Country-man Stapleton invented more new distinctions to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome then all the Doctors of the Church beside Sanderus proves Peter to be ordinar and the other Apostles to be extraordinar lib. 6. cap. 9. of his Monarchy Thus Ordinar is called so from order but in order that is first which is most ancient since nothing can be first before that which is first but Peter was the first upon whom Christ promised to build his Church and to give him the power of the keys Ergo they were given to Peter alone For albeit afterwards they were given to all the Apostles yet Christ did not revock what he had given first to Peter and the fore Peter is ordinar Pastor and the other Apostles extraordinar But it is answered This argument of Sanderus presuppons many things as granted which are either uncertain or notoriously false Secondly albeit his suppositions were true they do not conclude his assertion that Peter is ordinar Pastor having Jurisdiction over the rest as extraordinar He who would see how that Sophistry of Sanderus is retexed at large let him read Chameir tom 2. lib. 11. cap. 6. num 27. to the end of the chapter the substance of which is this First He suppons that as Ordinar which is first that extraordinar which is last But ordinar is taken among Divines speaking of Church Officers for that Office which is perpetual extraordinar for that which is for a time So in in the Old Testament Priests and Levits were ordinar Prophets extraordinar Officers and under the New Testament Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and Doctors are ordinar Officers Apostles Evangelists extraordinar Secondly Though the distinction of Sanderus in that sense of ordinar and extraordinar were granted his assertion is uncertain yea rather notoriously false he suppons that Peter first obtained the power of binding loosing and feeding the Flock of Christ but that is uncertain for these words of Christ exhibit nothing to Peter for the present but only promise to give him that power of the Keys and to build his Church upon him neither was that promise made to Peter alone but to all the Apostles as partly hath been proved already but more fully shal be proved cap. 6. and 9. and therefore the supposition of Sanderus is uncertain and false
confirmed from onsets of the Devil or his instruments and since no visible Monarch of the Church is mentioned by the Apostle it is evident that there was no such Monarch ordained by Christ Bellarmin answers two wayes One way is that the Apostle in those words is not delineating the Hierarchy of the Church but only enumerating divers gifts of some of the Church and 1 Corinthians 12. he adds the gift of tongues But it is replyed It cannot be denyed but the Apostle is enumerating diversity of gifts since verse 7. He expresly affirms so much but it is to be added that he enumerats those gifts as they are in Officers of the Church only whence appears the dissimilitude of this place from 1 Corinth 12. In which gifts are enumerated which are not peculiar to Church Rulers but are also found in laiks Such as gifts of healing and tongues c. That this is the Apostles meaning appears by two reasons First â—he enumerats none verse 11. Who hath not a degree of ruling in the Church The second is because ver 12. 13 14 He doth not enumerat any utility redounding to the Church which is not wrought by the Ministry ver 11. He enumerats the Ministers of the Church ver 12. 13 14. He enumerats the ends wherefore these Ministers were ordained All which ends Oecumentus comprehends under one that is saith he Those degrees of Ministers enumerated verse 12. were for that end ordained that they might minister unto the Church as appears ver 12 13 14. It is to be observed that the Apostle enumerats here all Church Officers both extraordinar and ordinar The extraordinar are those who were ordained only to continue for a time Such as Apostles Evangelists Prophets Ordinar are those ordained to be of perpetual standing in the Church as Doctors and Pastors And since in all those Orders of Church Ministers there are many and not one only in each degree it is evident that one Oecumenick Bishop or a visible head of the Church is not comprehended under any of those Ministers Bellarmin puzled with this answers another way He grants that the enumeration of Church Ministers here is perfect but he denyes that an Oecumenick Bishop hath no place in that enumeration because saith he All the â—ierarchy of the Church and consequently an Oecumenick Bishop is confusâ—dly represented under the name of Pastors and Doctors But finding that Pastors and Doctors were only inferior Orders below Apostles Prophets and Evangelists He passeth from this and affirms next That an Oecumenick Bishop is comprehended under Apostles because not only here but also 1 Corinth 12. Apostles are put in the first place and therefore the chief Ecclesiastick Power was given to all the Apostles but to Peter as ordinar Pastor and therefore to have a Successor in it to the other Apostles as exraordinar and Delegats to Peter and therefore none should succeed them But it is answered we prolixly disputed this distinction of Bellarmins to be groundless contradictory and inconsistent with it self cap. 6. It is needless to repeat what we said there in this place It is sufficient here that never any ancient or Modern Interpreter before the times of the Jesuits did so much as dream that an Oecumenick Bishop was comprehended by the Apostle Ephes 4. 11. Which could be made out by an Induction of all the Commentaries of ancient and Modern Writers upon that place By which it appears that all those testimonies by which those Jesuits prove the Supremacy of Peter and consequently the verity of the Roman Faith are either in Scripture or Fathers depraved by new devised Glosses unknown to the Ancients and also their answers are of the same stuff by which they elude passages of Scripture and Antiquity destroying the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome and in it the whole edifice of the Roman Church Both their offensive and defensive arms are but devised of late since the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome was established That any may see that this Gloss of Bellarmins is a fiction of his own devising we will prove by three Arguments of three several Interpreters By which it will appear what was the opinion of the Church concerning the meaning of this passage Ephes 4. 11. since the times of the Apostles unto those dayes The first Interval is of the Primitive Church before the Council of Nice what was the opinion of that Church in that Interval appears by the testimony of the ancient Author by some believed to be Dionysius Areopagita the disciple of Paul his words epistle 8. are those Tu ergo cupiditati iracundiae rationi modum statue pro dignitate tibi verò divini Ministri his Sacerdotes Pontifices Sacerdotibus Pontificibus Apostali stoli Apostolorúmque successores Quod si quâ—s etiam in istis ab officio discedat à sanctis qui sunt ejusdem ordinis corrigetur atque ita non insultabit ordo in ordinem sed unusquisque in suo ordine ac Ministerio premanebit In which words ye have two things The first is That the chief place in the Hierarchy in the times of the Apostles was held not by one but by many viz. by all the Apostles alike neither makes he mention of Peter his having that chief power as ordinar Pastor and of the other Apostles as having it aâ— Delegats to Peter which will be further confirmed by the second thing observable in these words which is this After the Apostles were removed the chief place in the Hierarchy consisted also not in one person but in many alike viz. in Bishops who succeeded to the Apostles in the first place of the Hierarchie which also he expresly affirms to be of equal Order and Jurisdiction many and not one having Jurisdiction over all as a visible head which quite destroyes the Gloss of Bellarmin for if others succeeding to the other Apostles were in the first place of the Hierarchie which this Author flatly affirms it is false which Bellarmin affirms that all the Apostles had the chief power only during their own time not communicable to their Successors And likewise if those successors of the other Apostles were in the first place of the Hierarchy equally and alike as this Author also affirms It is false which Bellarmin affirms That the Successors of Peter the Apostle had â—he chief authority in their single persons as visible Monarchs of the Church It may be proved by the Glosses of Maximus and others that this Dionysius was not the Disciple of the Apostle Paul mentioned in the Acts because he seems to make mention of the Metropolitants above Bishops But it shal be proved lib. 2. by unanswerable testimonies That there was no Office above that of a Bishop in the Church before the latter end of the third age However albeit he be not the Disciple of Paul as some affirm he is yet he is an ancient Author and delineats the Hierarchie of the Church not to have been monarchical in his days
but questionless what they spake was the Gospel The fourteenth Prerogative is from Acts 3. 6. Where Peter cured the lame man If ye ask what Prerogative is here since Paul and other Apostles did equivalent miracles They answer It was the first miracle the Apostles did after Christs Ascension But it is replyed What although it were It doth not conclude Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop Secondly if it be not false it is uncertain for we read in the second chapter that the Apostles did many miracles which probably was before that time The fifteenth Prerogative is from Asts 5. Where Peter killed with a word Annanias and Sapphira But it is answered Paul Acts 13. struck Elimas the sorcerer with blindness with a word only or in as miraculous a manner The sixteenth Prerogative is from Acts 9. 32. And it came to pass as Peter walked throughout all quarters he came also to the Saints that dwelt at Lydda If ye ask what they mean They will tell you that Peter did the office of a General in an Army But it is false that Peter walked through the Saints visiting them otherwise then Paul did Acts. 18. The seventeenth Prerogative is from Acts 10 where Peter preached first to the Gentiles being commanded so to do in that vision But it is answered Although Peter had first preached unto the Gentiles it doth not conclude him Oecumenick Bishop Secondly if not false it is at least not certain because Philip his preaching at Samaria and his baptising of the Eunuch are both mentioned by Luke before that vision of Peter concerning Cornelius The eighteenth Prerogative is from Acts 12. Where it is affirmed That the Church made continual intercession for Peter when he was imprisoned But it is answered None but a Sophister would object that to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin instances That they prayed not for James and Stephen But it is answered That 's far worse Logick to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop Secondly it is impious in Bellarmin to affirm That the Church did not pray for Stephen and James although it be not mentioned he cares not what he bable because all he spoke was received as Gospel by his disciples at Rome The nineteenth Prerogative is from Acts 15. where Peter first speaks and all the rest followed his opinion But it is answered first That Luke mentions that there was great debate amongst them before Peter spake and therefore it is uncertain that Peter spake first Secondly whereas they call that speaking of Peters a pronouncing of the sentence It is notoriously false for Lyranus himself affirms it was pronounced by James verse 19. as it was indeed The reason they give is Because James was Bishop of the place Thirdly Cardinal Cart husianus upon Acts 15. expresly affirms That James presided in the Council which quite destroys the Supremacy of Peter for an Oecumenick Bishop who hath the only right of presiding in Councils either by himself when he is present or else by his Legats when he is absent Fourthly in the Council of Basil the Fathers of that Council denyed that the Legats of the Bishop of Rome should preside in that Council because they never did read that Peter did preside in any Council Turre-Cremata lib. 3. cap. 24. Summae de Eccles affirms the same and for that reason Paul Galat. 2. preferrs James to Peter whence appears that it is false that Peter presided in that Council and albeit he had presided it doth not conclude him Oecumenick Bishop for it shal be proved part 2. and part 3. that in the Council of Nice and other General Councils that those who presided in them were not Oecumenick Bishops The twenty Prerogative and last Scriptural is from Gala. 1. where Paul affirms That after three years he went up to Jerusalem to see Peter But it is answered All who were visited by Paul were not Oecumenick Bishops and here Bellarmin miserably sophisticats in the Fathers And first he cites Chrysostomus affirming that the reason was because Peter was greater then himself But it is answered That Chrysostomus words are elder then himself for so he explains greater then himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this is Chrysostom's meaning is evident because in the same place he affirms That Paul went to see Peter not that he needed any thing from him being equal to him He affirms also I say no more which is as much as in his opinion Paul was to be preferred to Peter In like manner he sophisticats in Hieronymus whom he brings in affirming the reason of that visit was because Peter was the first Apostle But it is answered The meaning of Hieronymus is the same with that of Chrysostomus by first Apostle he means either in age or dignity not in Jurisdiction because he expresly affirms in the same place That Paul came to see Peter non discendi studio qui ipse eundem praedication is haberet Autorem sed honoris priori Apostolo deferendi thas is not to learn any thing from him but to do him honor as the strst Apostle Augustinus expresly calls it a faternal visit and so doth Tertullianus Lombardus also affirms The end of Paul visit was to shew Peter that he was his Coapostolus or fellow Apostle with him not to learn any thing from him Aquinas the other great Master of the School-men affirms the same paraphrasing upon the words of Paul he saith Non ut discerem ab eo sed ut visuarem eum not to learn from him but to see him And thus we have waded through that immense Ocean of that disput of Bellarmins concerning the Scriptural Prerogatives of Peter in which we have omitted nothing of moment or what is worth the answering Bellarmin alledgeth some testimonies of Fathers shewing to favor as he cites them some of these Prerogatives of Peter but he basely sophisticats as we have given a Specimen in the chief of them whose testimonies we have vindicated He deludes his Reader in this viz. because those Fathers acknowledge some of those Prerogatives therefore by Sophistry he would perswade his Reader that Peter was Oecumenick Bishop in their opinion which was very far from their mind as partly we have shewed in the former chapters and partly shall shew in the following CHAP. XVII Of the Prerogatives of Peter by Tradition IN the former Chapter we have disputed the Scriptural Prerogatives of Peter twenty in number now followeth Prerogatives of Peter by tradition which are eighth in number The first is that Euodius and some other affirm That Peter only of all the Apostles was baptized by the hands of Christ But it is answered first That Euodius testimony is not much to be regarded Baronius himself thinks it not to be written by Euodius because the author of it affirms That Steven was martyred seven years after the death of Christ Secondly he saith The house in which our Savior celebrated the Supper was in the house of John the Apostle which directly contradicts Matthew
for what ado had Clement with women in Philippi he being designed Bishop of Rome except the care of the Church of Philippi had belonged unto him and consequently he was oecumenick Bishop But to omit the bad consequence of that Argument he mistakes the words of Paul or their construction Paul doth not desire his yoke-fellow to assist Clement in having a care of those women he only desires him to have a care of those women who laboured with Paul himself and with Clement in the Gospel That this is the true meaning of the words is granted by Popish Doctors themselves commenting upon this place as Justinianus the Jesuite Cardinal Cajetanus Lyranus yea the French Lovaine Bible translates these words Qui ont â—â—auaillé auec moy en l'Evangile auec Clement mes autres coâ—diuteurs The second place alledged by Bozius is from 2 Pet. 1. 15. I will endeavour therefore alwayes that ye also may be able to have remembrance of those things after my departing If ye ask him how he concludes that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter from those words He tells you Peter promiseth after his death to put those to whom he wrote in remembrance of those things or to have a care that they should remember those things If ye ask him what then he tells you Since Peter was dead himself he behoved to put them in remembrance by another and that other must of necessity be one who succeeded to him in the Monarchy of the Church Let us retex this Logick that the Reader may laugh First he suppones that Peter was to put them in remembrance by another then himself which cannot be gathered from Peters words he answers Peter himself was dead Ergo he behâ—ved to do it by another It is replyed Peter while he was yet alâ—ve might have a care that they should remember these things after his death Secondly the whole current of Popish Doctors contradicts him affirming that Peter promiseth to have a care by himself and not by another that they should remember those things viz. From this place they prove intercession of Saints and so according to them the meaning of Peter is that when he is departed he will intercede for them Thirdly the true meaning of Peter is that while he is alive he will endeavour to provide them faithful Pastors to instruct them that they may remember those things and therefore his meaning is nothing less then an oecumenick Bishop and this much of Bozius Bellarmine states the question very perplexedly and so obscurely that it appears to any he is diffident to make out what he undertakes First he observes four things and then he falls a disputing His first observation is That the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church is Jure Divino But the manner or way of succession ratio successionis depends upon the fact of Peter which distinction of Bellarmins is very obscure and implicating he explains himself that Peter might never have fixed his seat at Rome and therefore it depends upon the â—â—act of Peter that the Bishop of Rome succeeds to him but he had said before that Peter had fixed his seat at Rome by the command of Christ how can any make sense of those expressions he involves himself here in many contradictions first he affirms that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church is Jure divino or by institution of Christ but that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church is not Jure divino but depends upon the fact of Peter which is as much to say that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is Jure divino and yet the Bishop of Rome succeeded not Jure divino Secondly he affirms That it depended upon the fact of Peter that he was Bishop of Rome and yet he saith lib. 2. Fundatur jus successionis Pontificum Romanorum in eo quod Petrus Romae suam sedem jubente Domino collocaverit atque ibidem usque ad mortem sederit That is the right of the Bishop of Rom's succession is founded in this viz. that Peter at the command of Christ fixed his Bishoprick at Rome and did sit Bishop there till his death How can those two consist together First Peter was expresly commanded by Christ to fix his Bishoprick at Rome Secondly and yet notwithstanding it was in Peters option whether he should do so or not He might be further pressed but it is sufficient to answer here to omit his contradictions that all his suppositions are false first it is false that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is Jure divino Secondly it is false that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter because Peter fixed his seat at Rome since it was proved in the former Book that Peter was not Bishop of Rome at all Thirdly it is most false that Peter at the command of Christ fixed his seat at Rome neither doth he bring any thing to prove it beside his own assertion these three places Matth. 16. 18 and 19. and Joh. 21. 15. though it were granted that Peter was ordained by Christ Monarch of the Church by them which was proved false in the former Book mentions nothing of the fixing his seat at Rome The second observation of Bellarmine is this If ye absolutely ask saith he if the Bishop of Rome by divine institution be Monarch and Head of the Church it is answered certainly he is Where he involves himself in another contradiction in the former observation he affirmed that the Bishop of Rome his succession to Peter depended upon the fact of Peter which he granted was changable but nothing can be by divine institution which depends upon an uncertainty His third observation is very admirable The Bishop of Rome as the Bishop of Rome saith he succeeds not to Peter Jure divino and yet est de fide that is we are oblieged to believe it as an article of Faith which is very mysterious language how can we belive that by divine Faith which is not revealed by God he answers We are oblieged to believe it as well as that Paul left his Cloak and Parchments at Troas But it is replyed those things are expresly mentioned in Scripture and it s very strange that the Scripture should mention the Cloak and Parchments of Paul and not mention the Roman Bishoprick of Peter or the Bishop of Rome's succession to Peter Bellarmine goes on They are not mentioned expresly but deduced by necessar consequence out of Scripture It ye ask him from what places of Scripture he tells you It s a tradition Apostolick If ye ask him how he proves that he tells you by Councills Fathers Institution of Bishops Appellations c. and so he takes up the whole dispute by producing such probations Where the Reader may observe that after such bragings of the succession of the Bishop of Rome Jure divino
he Head cannot say unto the Feet I have no need of you or ye are not necessary to the Body So they of more excellent Gifts in the Church cannot say unto those of meaner Gifts we have no need of you neither are ye necessary for the edification of the Church That this is the true exposition of this place appears by the Interpretation of all the Ancients as Ambrosius Chrysostomus Theophylactus whose Interpretation is also followed by those two Leaders of the School-men Lombardus and Aquinas neither did ever any Interpreter-dream to prove a visible Head out of this place before the times of the Jesuites as Bellarmine Sanderus and Turrianus Their reason is most ridiculous There is but one Head of the Body say they to which the Church is compared Ergo there is but one Head in the Church Which Argument may be retorted thus There are but two Feet in the Body to which the Church is compared Ergo there are but two Feet in the Church or two only in the Church who have meaner Gifts The Sophistry discovers it self for according to the Interpretation of the Ancients that one Head of the Body answers to many persons in the Church as appears by the 70. Epistle of Basilius to the Bishops of Italy and France where he hath these words Cum igitur non possit Caput Pedibus dicere Non estis mihi necessarii omnino non tolerabitis nos abdicari Since the Head cannot say unto the Feet ye are not necessary ye will not suffer us to be abdicated or cut off He repeats the same words Epist 77. to the Transmarine Bishops Likewayes Primasius Oecumenius and the Author of those Commentaries attributed to Hieronymus compares all Bishops to that one Head of the Body and so doth Aquinas to which he compares also the Civil Magistrates And this much of that head mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 21. Bellarmin's last reason to prove That the Government of the Church is Jure Divino Monarchical and consequently that one or other behoved to succeed to Peter is taken from the High Priest in the Old Testament under whom the Government of the Church was Monarchical Ergo saith he the Government of the Church under the New Testament is Jure Divino Monarchical under one visible Head But it is answered first many things were in the Church-government in the Old Testament which are not in that of the New and therefore the Argument doth not follow Secondly Bellarmine could not have produced a sharper Sword to cut his own throat for the High-priest in the Old Testament was a Type of Christ and as the said High-priest governed the Church without a visible Head under him in the Old Testament So Christ governs the Church in the New Testament without a visible Head under him And this much of those reasons by which Bellarmine endeavours to prove that one or other behoved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church In the next place he endeavours to prove that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to him which he doth thus Either the Bishop of Antioch or else the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church but not the Bishop of Antioch Ergo the Bishop of Rome But it is answered first it is false that either the Bishop of Antioch or the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church since we proved before that Peter was not Monarch of the Church himself and therefore no Bishop could succeed him in the Monarchy of the Church Secondly We proved also in the last Chapter of the first Book that Peter was Bishop of no particular Church Thirdly though it were granted that either the Bishop of Antioch or the Bishop of Rome behoved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church the Bishop of Antioch ought to be preferred to the Bishop of Rome because we have Scripture expresse that Peter was at Antioch but none at all that he was at Rome but on the contrary it appears by infallible presumptions from Scripture that he was never at Rome as was proved in the last Chapter of the former Book where it was also proved that the Testimonies of those Fathers by which Peter was proved to be at Rome were grounded on the Authority of Pappias an Author meriting no credit in the opinion of Eusebius Bellarmine in the next place endeavours to prove That the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church by several general Arguments As 1. Testimonies of general Councils 2. Of Bishops of Rome themselves 3. Of Greek Fathers 4. Of Latine Fathers 5. From Viccars 6. From Right of Appellations 7. From exemption from judgement 8. From ordination of Bishops 9. From Laws Dispensations and Censures 10. From Names or Titles In the following Books we shall not miss one of his Arguments of any moment unanswered and not retorted But to avoid repetitions we will alter his method distinguishing the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter in several Intervals as was shewed in the Preface of this Treatise in this second Book we will dispute the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church from the dayes of the Apostles untill the death of Cyprian that is untill anno 260. or thereabout insisting most upon these four following particulars First we will dispute the occasion of the opinion of Aerius by whom it was maintained unto cap. 5. In the second place we will dispute that there was no Office in the Church during that interval above that of a Bishop unto cap. 9. In the third place we will answer what is objected for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval by our adversaries unto cap 13. Fourthly we will examine several forgeries pretended by our adversaries for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval Of which in order CHAP. II. The occasion of the opinion of Aerius who were his followers and what the Bishop of Rome was at first in their opinion SOme Protestants stumble at the word Hierarchy and will needs have the word Hieredulia put in the place of it the first word in the Original signifying Church-ruling the last Church-ministry However that the Church Hierarchy or Hierodulle instituted by the Apostles consisted of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons is denyed by none as in civil families some servants had titles of honour given them and were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 majores domus familiam ducentes trusties master-housholds rulers of the family others were called by the common name of Servants So in the Ministry of the Church some Ministers had titles of honour given them and were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Overseers Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters Elders all other Ministers of the Church were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deacons which is as much as to say Ministers or were called by the name of Ministers common to them all Those titles of Bishop and
Canon of the first Council of Neice Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria in his Books de originibus newly published in Arabick and Latine by Seldenus testifies that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria did take the power of ordination from the Presbyters there who before that time had the power of ordaining their Bishop And since Eutychius affirms that the said Alexander was present at the Council of Neice without all question he inhibited Presbyters to ordain the Bishop of Alexandria by authority of the said 4. Canon of the Council of Neice neither could any authority except that of a general Council establish any thing universally neither was there any general Council before that of Neice CAP. IV. Wherein a Bishop differs from a Presbyter Conjectures of Aerians wherefore Episcopacy was brought in the Church AFter Episcopacy was established a Bishop differs from a Presbyter by ordination whence nothing is more frequent with Augustinus Hieronymus Ambrosius Chrysostomus and other Fathers then that a Bishop differs from a Presbyter by ordination which is all the Argument that Bellarmine and others produce to prove that the forsaid Fathers were for the divine right of Bishops But since those Fathers expresly dispute against the divine right of Bishops since they tell a reason wherefore Episcopacy was brought in since they tell the time when albeit obscurely it is evident that those Fathers speaks so according to the consuetude of their own times that is Bishops have ordination and Presbyters have it not not by divine right but only by consuetude yea Hieronymus upon Titus after he hath disputed most vehemently against the divine right of Bishops concludes his dispute with these words Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores That is Bishops should know that they are greater then Presbyters more by consuetude then divine right which passage is so evident that not only Medina but also Alphonsus de Castro Albertus Pighius Petavius yea Bellarmine and Bishop Hall are forced to confesse that Hieronymus was against the divine right of Bishops which last calls him a waspish man and that he was irritated by John Bishop of Jerusalem The reasons wherefore Episcopacy was brought in are three according to those Fathers the first reason is of Ambrosius or according to some Hilarius upon Ephes 4. who after he had told that in the primitive times a Bishop was no other then a first Presbyter or the Presbyter of oldest ordination in any City he subjoynes that Bishops were after that time not by succession but by election because the first Presbyter was many times unworthy and therefore not the first but the most worthy was chosen bishop The second reason is of Ambrosius as he is cited by Amalarius upon 1 Tim 3. viz because â—resbyters in following times had not such eminent gifts as those who lived in the primitive times therefore it was not fit that the Church should be governed alike by them all any more therefore the most eminent in gifts of the number of Presbyters was chosen Bishop differing from the other Presbyters by Ordination and he who was so chosen was no more called Presbyter but Bishop and the other Presbyters were no more called Bishops but only Presbyters the third reason is of Hieronymus upon Tit. 1. who affirms Bishops were brought in to take away Schisms such as when one said he was of Paul another he was of Cephas another he was of Apollos Petavins hierarchiae lib. 1. cap. 10. num 8. and in other places accknowledgeth that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter concurred in one Person in some Cities in the times of the Apostles but he endeavours to prove by this passage of Hieronymus that custome was changed in the times of the Apostles themselves viz. when that Schisme was among the Corinthians one saying he was of Paul another he was of Cephas c. Bellarmine and Bishop Hall by the same passage endeavour to bind contradictions upon Hieronymus because he assiâ—ms on Tit. 1. that according to Paul a Bishop and a Presbyter is all one and in the same place he affirms that according to Paul they were made different a long time before viz. when that Schisme was among the Corinthians which Schisme was before Paul wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians which first Epistle was written long before the Epistle to Titus But it is answered it is very strange that any eminent person as Bishop Hall should own such a Protervum Sophisma and therefore to return the sharp edge of the Weapon whereas they strike only with the blunt it is reasoned thus Hieronymus affirmeth according to Paul Tit. 1. The Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter is one and the same Ergo it cannot be the meaning of Hieron mus that they were made different precisely at that time when that Schisme was among the Corinthians since he could not be ignorant that Schisme fell out long before Paul wrote his Epistle to Titus the intention then of Hieronymus is not to tell precisely the time when but only the cause why â— Bishop was made different from a Presbyter viz. Schisme such as that among the Corinthians not that very Schisme among the Corinthians which maner of speaking is not only frequent but also elegant as can be made out both by Scripture and prophane Authors if it were needful or any versed in either had the Brow to deny it CHAP. V. What primacy the Bishop of Rome had before other Bishops before the times of Cyprian ANd this much of the original progress and universal establishment of Episcopacy of the difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop and for what reasons Bishops were brought in Now it is requisite to declare what Primacy was due to the Bishop of Rome during that time when no Office was in the Church above that of a Bishop viz before the time of Cyprian who lived about Anno 250. or 60. that is seventy or eighty years before the Council of Neice During then that interval we find two sort of priorities among Bishops neither of which imported any authority or jurisdiction of one Bishop above another they imported only a priority of precedency or place The first was priority of Age that is he who was first ordained Bishop had the place of him who was ordained after him and in that respect the primacy of Bishops was ambulatory in every Province except the Bishop of the first City of the Province where the Roman Governour remained and that Bishop had the place of all the Bishops of the Province although later ordained then any of them and was called Primae Sedis Episcopus or Bishop of the first Seat which was the other sort of priority among Bishops In a word then the Bishop of the first City of the Province had a fixed priority Bishops of the other Cities had an ambulatory priority that is now one now another according to the time of their ordination
lived is uncertain Ignatius in his Epâ—stle to the Trallians hath these words What is a Bishop but he who goeth beyond all command and power who commands all as far as a man can command In which words he expresly affirms that there is no Office of the Church above that of a Bishop for if a Bishop have supream command as he expresly affirms he can be commanded by no superior Church-ruler as Metropolitan Patriarch or oecumenick Bishop The Testimony of Dionysius is taken from his 8. Epistle his words are these in substance Every man should strive to live blamelesly if he do not the Priest should take a course with him if the Priest deborde he should be judged by his Bishop if the Bishop do amiss he should be judged by the successors of the Apostles if those again do amiss they should be judged by those of the same order and degree In which words he quite excludes one visible Head over all and consequently it appears that in his dayes the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not believed as an article of Faith in the Church since he affirms that many hold the chief place of the Hierarchy whereof any should be judged by the rest and not all by one visible Head or by the Bishop of Rome What he means by Successors to the Apostles whom he places above Bishops none can tell except he mean Metropolitans and Patriarchs if he do its evident he lived after the times of Cyprian because in the dayes of Cyprian and before there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop as appears first by that passage of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians now cited Secondly it appears by the Epistle of the said Ignatius written to the Magnesians in the which Epistle he comprehends all Church-rulers under Bishops and Presbyters where he affirms that Bishops have the cheif place loco Dei in place of God Presbyters have the next place concessus Apostolici loco that is they represent the Council of the Apostles the last place he gives the Deacons to whom the Ministery of Christ is committed Thirdly that no Office was in the Church above that of a Bishop before the times of Cyprian nor in his time appears by those two following most notable passages of Cyprian the one in his Books de unitate Ecclesiae lib. 4. Epist 9. the other from his Oration to the Council of Carthage of which two passages in order CHAP. VII Explication of that place of Cyprian De unitate Ecclesiae THe words of Cyprian are Unus Episcopatus est cujus à singulis pars in solidum tenetur that is There is one Bishoprick of which every Bishop hath alike full share by which passage of Cyprian it not only appears that the Bishop of Rome in his dayes was not believed to be visible Head of the Church but also that there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop since every Bishop had alike full share of that one Bishoprick which could not be if in those dayes Metropolitans had been above Bishops Patriarchs above Metropolitans and an oecumenick Bishop above all This notable passage of Cyprian puzles the Learned of the Church of Rome very sore they vary very much in their glosses upon this place of Cyprian as Rufus contra Molinaeum Fran. Agricula cap. 18. varies from him Hayus disput lib. 1. cap. 11. and Turrianus contra Zadeel lib. 1. cap. 17. 26. agree almost in one Exposition but they differ from the other two Sanderus de visib Monarch lib. 7. num 45. differs from all the former Bellarmine lib. 2. de pont Rom. cap. 16. varies from them all We will examine the exposition of Bellarmine for since they vary in their opinion about the meaning of Cyprian and since the meaning of Cyprian can be but one of necessity all their glosses must be false except one and since the gloss of Bellarmine is most approved by the Church of Rome we will examine it Bellarmine in the forecited place expones the words of Cyprian thus There is one Bishoprick saith he in the same way that the Church is one But the Church is one as many branches of the same Tree are one Tree many rivolets are one Water many beams one Light as then in branches there is an unity by reason of one Root in rivolets by reason of one Fountain c. So is the Church one and consequently the Bishoprick one in its Head and Root the Church and Bishoprick of Rome And whereas Cyprian affirms that every Bishop hath a full share of that one Bishoprick Bellarmine grants its true but by a distinction that is Though every Bishop have a full share yet he hath not an equal share nor in the same manner for Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome have that share which answers to the Head Root and Fountain but other Bishops have that share answering to the Branches Rivolets c. This gloss of Bellarmines quite destroyes the Text for Cyprian compares particular Churches to Branches Rivolets Beams that one Bishoprick he compares to an Oak to Light to a Fountain whereby it evidently appears that by that one Bishoprick he means not the Bishoprick of Rome which is a particular Bishoprick as well as the rest and not that great Bishoprick or one Bishoprick whereof every one hath a full share Secondly that by unus Episcopatus he means not the Bishoprick of Peter having authority over other Bishops is proved by his words in the same Book de unitate Ecclesiae where he affirms Whatever the other Apostles were Peter was the same that all the Apostles were equal to Peter in dignity and power whereby it appears whatever the Bishoprick of Peter was the Bishopricks of the other Apostles were equal to it and since the Bishopricks of the other Apostles were particular Bishopricks each having a full share of that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian the Bishoprick of Peter was only a particular Bishoprick and not that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian Thirdly That the Bishoprick of Rome is not that one Bishoprick appears by the express words of Cyprian in his Oration to the Council of Carthage in which as we shall prove in the next Chapter he makes any other Bishop equal in jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome Fourthly Bellarmine and Sanderus in making that one Bishoprick the Bishoprick of Peter must of necessity grant that Peter only had his Bishoprick immediatly from Christ and the other Apostles their Bishopricks from Peter since Sanderus expresly affirms that all other Bishopricks flow from the Bishoprick of Peter as all mankind had their Original from Adam But in averring the Apostles to have their Bishopricks from Peter Bellarmine contradicts first Fran. de victoria who relect 2. quaest 2. conclus 3. and 4. expresly affirms That the other Apostles received all their power both of order and jurisdiction immediatly from Christ In which words he is glossing upon that passage
Harding disputing against Jewel art 4. brings another objection that Cyprian by one Bishop means not himself or any other particular Bishop but oecumenick their objection is founded upon the words of Cyprian who after he had affirmed that the cause of Schismes was that one Bishop was not acknowledged Judge in place of Christ in the Church he adds if according to divine precepts the whole fraternity were obedient to the said Judge no man would move any thing against the Colledge of Priests whence Horantius and Harding concludes that by whole fraternity Cyprian means the whole Church and by one Bishop one visible head of that Church But it is answered that Cyprian by whole fraternity means that multitude of which any particular Church is composed as in his 68. Epistle writing to the Bishops of Spain he desires them not to rescind the ordination of Sabinus whom they had placed in the Bishoprick of Basilides he affirms that the said Sabinus was chosen by the suffrages of the whole fraternity But Horantius and Harding will not affirm that Cyprian in this 68. Epistle means the universal Church or church of Rome by whole fraternity since it is evident by the circumstances that he means a particular Church or that Congregation which chused Sabinus for their Bishop Likewayes as we shewed before the said Sabinus was placed Bishop and maintained in his Bishoprick over the belly of Stephanus Bishop of Rome who desired them to restore Basilides and the scope of this 68. Epistle written in the Name of the Council of Carthage to the Bishops of Spain by Cyprian is to maintain Sabinus in his Bishoprick notwithstanding that Stephanus Bishop of Rome desired them to rescind the ordination of Sabinus and to replace Basilides That Cyprian by whole fraternity means a particular Church appears by innumerable Epistles of his as epist 47. in two several places and 58. in two several places likewayes and 63. in which last place he affirms when we are at Supper at our Banquet we cannot convocate the common People that we may celebrate the verity of the Sacrament in presence of the whole fraternity And thus we have shewed with what admirable Sophistry our adversaries endeavour to wrest this notable passage of Cyprian epist 55. in which we have been the more prolix because from thence they bring all which they can pretend to be of any moment to prove that Cyprian was for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome they alledge other testimonies more pungent but they shall be proved forged in the following Chapters The third testimony brought from the words of Cyprian is in the edition of Pamelius Epist 46. in which Cornelius writing to Cyprian hath these words We are not ignorant that there is but one God c. and a little after that there should be one Bishop in the Catholick Church from whence they conclude an oecumenick Bishop or the Bishop of Rome as successor to Peter Head of the Curch But it is answered Cornelius in this Epistle is informing Cyprian that some Shismaticks who had partied that Novatian Bishop set up at Rome against Cornelius desired to be re-admitted to his communion confessing their error that they had been seduced and now they are convinced that Cornelius was their true Bishop amongst other of their confessions they profess they were not ignorant that there was but one God one Christ one Holy Ghost and that there should be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church by which it is evident that by Catholick Church they mean any particular Church and here they mean the particular Church of Rome of which they acknowledge Cornelius to be that one Bishop and not that other Novation Bishop by whom they had been seduced and whom they would acknowledge no more for their Bishop since there could be but one true Bishop of that Church viz. Cornelius himself That this is the meaning of Corneliusâ— in this Epistle is further confirmed in an Epistle of his to Fabianus mentioned by Eusebius Hist lib. 6. cap. 35. in which he objects ignorance to one who knew not that there should be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church Here he means one Bishop in the particular Church of Rome For a little after in that Epistle he affirms in that same Catholick Church there were fourty six Presbyters seven Deacons and seven sub-deacons but he could not affirm that in the whole Catholick Church there were only so many Presbyters so many Deacons and so many sub-deacons whereby it is evident that by one Bishop in the Catholick Church Cornelius means there should be but one Bishop in any particular Church which is so evident that Chrystopherson in his version of Eusebius renders these words of Cornelius his Epistle to Fabian thus he was ignorant that there should be but one Bishop in hac Ecclesia Catholica in this Catholick Church viz. in this particular Church of Rome neither is there any expression more frequent in the writings of those Ancients then to to call every particular Church the Catholick Church which observeth the purity of the Catholick Faith or Church universal The fourth passage of Cyprian is in his 40. Epistle directed to the people of Carthage there is one God one Christ one Chair one Church founded upon Peter by Christs own mouth But it is answered it shall be proved in the following Chapters that those last words are forged the rest have no difficulty at all for by one Chair and one Church Cyprian understands that there should be but one Bishop in every particular Church as is evident both by the scope and words of the Epistle the scope of the Epistle is to complain upon some Schismaticks who had made a defection from himself and the Church of Carthage where amongst other reasons against their defection this is one there is but one Chair viz. there is but one Bishop in the Cburch of Carthage Cyprian himself and since none ought to be acknowledged Bishop but he they were Schismaticks in making a separation from him This reasoning of Cyprian had been most ridiculous if by one Chair he had meaned an oecumenick Bishop viz. if he had reasoned thus they are Schismaticks who made a defection from their Bishop Cyprian because there is but one oecumentick Bishop Secondly that this is the meaning of Cyprian appears by the following words where Cyprian affirms they had made to themselves another Altar intimating thereby that there is but one Altar in the Church whereby it is evident that he speaks not of the Church universalâ— but of a particular Church since none will affirm that there is but one Altar in the Catholick Church Likewiseâ— in his 65. Epistle pleading the cause of Rogatianus he affirms that they who make a defection from the Church make another Altar unto themselves but Pamelius himself in his Annotations upon that Epistle observes that Cyprian in that place is speaking only of particular Churches Thirdly that by one Chair cannot be meaned
the Church of Rome since it cannot be denyed that the Bishop of Rome hath domination and as shal immediately be proved Tyranick domination And therefore all the Doctors of the Church of Rome distinguish viz. that Tyranick domination is only forbidden 1. Peter 5. they deny that the domination of an Oecumenick Bishop is Tyranical But it is replyed First that all domination is forbidden and not only Tyranical domination Secondly the domination of an Oecumenick Bishop is tyranical as it is now excercised by the Bishop of Rome Haius our Countrey-man disput lib. 1. answers that Peter 1. 5. forbidds only tyrannical domination which he proves by the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Apostle in the said place which evermore imports tyrannical domination as the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to exercise dominion lawfully But he is mistaken Both these verbs are used promiscuously in Scripture for the same both signifying lawful dominion or exercising dominion lawfully as appears by comparing Matthew 20. 25. and Mark 10. 42. where the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used speaking how the Kings of the Gentiles exercise dominion over their Subjects But Luke 22. 25. speaking of the same Lording he useth the other Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereby it appears that these two Greek verbs signify both one sort of ruling which is lawful and not the one of them used by Peter 1. 5. signifyeth tyrannical domination Since none will deny that the ruling or domination of the Kings of the Gentiles may be lawful domination Which is further confirmed because the Septuagints speaking of lawful domination in many places useth the same Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made use of by Peter 1. 5. 3. as Psalm 72. 8. and 110. 2. and Genesis 1. 28. other innumerable places might be added but these are sufficient It is answered Secondly Although it were granted that tyrannical domination were only forbidden Peter 1. 5. yet it quite overthrowes an Oecumenick Bishop Or the domination now exercised by the Bishop of Rome then which no greater tyranny can be imagined since he takes upon himself supream dominion 1. In Spirituals 2. In Temporals 3. Over Souls departed 4. Over Angels 5. He takes upon him titles proper to God himself 6. Hears blasphemous comparisons of himself with Christ made to himself by others not only not punishing these blaspheming Parasytâ— but also hearing them patiently and rewarding them These six particulars seem incredible notwithstanding that they are the doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome and particular Church of Rome the infallibility of which Bellarmin with great animosity endeavors to demonstrate lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. cap. 4. appears by what followeth tracing these six particulars in order And first He assumes to himself Infallibility in Cathedra that is Teaching the whole Church he cannot err which is most abominable tyranny since under the pain of Heresie we are bound to believe a Pope if he shal teach Heresie They strive to elude this Because a Pope cannot teach Heresie to the whole Church Which assertion of theirs is false as appears by these following reasons First It is granted by them all that Popes may be most wicked men yea and Magicians But it is madness to affirm that men living in paction with the Devil cannot err teaching the whole Church Secondly It is evident by History and confessed by Barronius himself Anno 538. num 20. and Liberatus breviar cap. 22. that Vigilius Bishop of Rome obtained that Bishoprick from the Empress Theodora and from Belisarius General to Justinianus the Emperor by promising to the Empress to cass and abrogat the Council of Chalcedon to establish by authority the Eutychian Heresie and by promising gold to the said Belisarius and likewise that he wrote several Epistles to several persons confirming them in the Eutychian Heresie But it is impudence to deny that any entring to the Bishoprick of Rome by such means can be infallible in teaching the Church Thirdly They who affirm and teach that a Bishop of Rome is infallible in Cathedra fights against reason common sense and the light of all History by which it appears that several Popes have not only been condemned by other Popes and general Councils for Hereticks but also for teaching Heresie Of which we shal give many instances part 3. lib. 2. tedious to be inserted here we will only mention Honorius Bishop of Rome who was condemned as an Heretick by the sixth General Council act 12. 13. by the seventh General Council in the last â—ct by the eight General Council act 7. And likewise it appears by the records of the said Councils that the said Honorius was declared an Heretick by three Bishops of Rome Agatho Leo second and Adrianus second and lest they think to escape this difficulty by distinguishing as they use to do in such cases that Honorius taught Heresie as a private person and not in Cathedra It is evident by the 12. and 13. Act of the sixth Council that the said Council condemned two decretal Epistles of the said Honorius as Heretical But none will deny that Popes in their decretals teach the whole Church Alphonsus de castro lib. 1. cap. 4. page 20. concluds Calestinus Bishop of Rome taught Heresie because he had read Heretical Doctrine in an old decretal Epistle of his Likewise of late Pope John 23. was declared an Heretick by the Council of Constance and Eugenius 4. by the Council of Basil By which is sufficiently proved The tyrannical dominion of the Bishops of Rome in Spirituals since all of that Church are bound to believe that as an Article of Faith which he teacheth although he should teach Heresie call good evil and evil good As appears by that blasphemous gloss In caput quanto personam de translatione Episcopi in decretalibus Where it is affirmed that none should presume to call in question what the Pope doth Since he hath an Heavenly arbitriment can change the nature of things make Justice Injustice Injustice Justice Which if it be not tyrannical domination none is imaginable the words of the gloss are these following Papa habet coeleste arbitrium ideo naturam rerum mutare potest substantialia unius rei applicando alij de nullo posse aliquid facere sententiam quae nulla est facere aliquam in his quae vult ei esse pro ratione voluntatem nec esse qui ei dicat cur ita facis Potest enim suprajus dispensare de injustitia facere justitiam corrigendo jura mutando demum plenitudinem obtinet potestatis It shal be proved likewise part 4. lib. 1. that he gives pardons for money for sins to be committed for so many years to come And thus much of his tyrannical dominion in Spirituals which was the first particular The second particular of his tyrannical dominion is in Temporals Authority of deposing Kings is attributed unto him it is taught by the
cannot be deficient when thou fees others vacillating convert thy self to them and confirm them They object many things here as that Theophylactus affirmeth That Peter after his repentance shal recover Primatum omnium and Praefecturam orbis that Ambrosius affirms Petrus Ecclesiae praeponitur postquaem tentatus à Diabolo est Augustinus also calls Peter Rectorem Ecclesiae cui claves Regni Coelorum creditae sunt But these objections are of no moment And first that Theophylactus affirms that Peter recovered the Primacy above all it is nothing For first the meaning is no other then that he hath a chief place in the Church in dignity not in Jurisdiction and it shal be proved cap. 19. 20. that not only the other Apostles are called Principes Primates but also Praefecti orbis and Rectores Ecclesiae The ninth Prerogative of Peter is that our Savior first of all appeared to him after his resurrection But it is answered first although it were true it is of no moment to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop Secondly it is notoriously false because he appeared to Mary Magdalene before ever he appeared to Peter Mark 16. 19. before ever he appeared to his own mother or to any of the Apostles If Bellarmin answer That Mary Magdalen was only a woman It is replyed It concluds Women had the Primacy over the Apostles if the Argument were of any force Secondly it is very probable that our Savior appeared to these two disciples going to Emmaus before he appeared to any of the Apostles for when they came back to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together then they affirmed that the Lord was risen indeed had appeared to Simon which is all that Bellarmin alledgeth to prove that Christ first appeared to Peter except that of 1 Corinth 15. He appeared unto Cephas and after that unto the eleven however albeit it be very probable that our Savior appeared to Peter before ever he appeared unto the other Apostles yet it concludes no more that Peter had Primacy over the the other Apostles then that those two Disciples going to Emmaus had primacy over them since he appeared unto them as well as unto Peter before ever he appeared to the other Apostles The tenth Prerogative is taken from John 13. when our Savior washing the Apostles feet did first wash those of Peter It is answered first Although it were true it is of no moment to prove Peter Oecumenick bishop Secondly it is only a conjecture of some Fathers that Peters feet were first washed it cannot begathered from the text at all Augustinus is of that opinion indeed and so is Nonnus in his Poetical paraphrase but other Fathers are against it as Chrysostomus Theophylactus Bellarmin urgeth here that those Fathers affirm That Judas only had his feet washed before Peter but what then Bellarmins reason is very bad concluding from that washing Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop since Judas was washed before him he instances Judas was a Traitor and none of the other Apostles would have suffered our Savior to wash their feet before these of Peters but only Judas But it is replyed First if there had been any my stery of Primacy in that washing of feet our Savior would never have washed the feet of Judas before those of Peter Secondly not only Origines and Ambrosius affirm That he washed the feet of other Apostles before those of Peter besides Judas but also Popish Doctors affirm the same as Aquinas Lyranus and Salmero the Jesuit The eleventh Prerogative is from John 21. 18. where our Savior saith to Peter But when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thine hands and another shal gird thee If ye demand what Prerogative is here They answer that in those words Christ shows to Peter what death he should die viz. That he should be crucified as himself was But it is answered First although it were true it doth not conclude Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop Secondly that our Savior foretold to Peter a violent death in those words is more then probable but that he foretold the death of the cross can no wayes be gathered from the words And whereas they insist upon stretching forth of hands it is of no moment since those words do not conclude stretching forth of hands upon the cross necessarily since ones hands are stretched out when they are bound which sort of stretching our Savior questionless means by as appears by these words When thou wast young thou girdedst thy self but when thou shalt be old thou shâ—lt streâ—ch forth thy hands and another shal gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldest not The Syrian Interpreter Alius cinget lumbos tuos shall gird thy loins Interlinear Gloss cinget vinoulis shal gird thy loins Lyranus convinced that stretching of hands was by Cords and not by Nails affirms That Peter was crucified being bound by cords upon the cross which is a very ridiculous fancy however that by stretching of hands is not meant crucifying but only binding appears by the following words and lead thee whither thou wouldest not It is notorious that they use not to lead one who is crucified already any where The twelfth Prerogative is from Acts 1. 15. And in those dayes Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples Here they gather great things First that Peter convocated the rest of the Apostles Ergo he was Oecumenick Bishop But first it is inconsequent although he had gathered them in one it doth not follow that he did so by authoriâ—y but only by advice and counsel Secondly it is notoriously false that Luke in that place affirms any such thing as that the Apostles were convocated by Peter The second thing they gather that Peter having proposed that one should be chosen in the place of Judas they all obeyed his command But it is answered Peter only uttered his opinion as any one of them might have done that such a thing was necessary and they followed his opinion It is ridiculous to collect â—â—om thence any authority of Peter over the rest Salmero the Jesuit collects that Peter represented Christ because Luke affirms He stood up in the midst of them But it is answered It follows likewise that the little child Mat. 18. and the man with the withered hand Mark 3. and Paul Ast. 27. Were visible heads of the Church That standing in the mids imports no authority of it self but rather a Ministrie appears by Luke 22. 27. where our Savior affirms He was in the mids of them as a servant The thirteenth Prerogative is from Acts 2. where after the Apostles had received the Holy-Ghost Peter first of all did promulgat the Gospel But it is answered First although it were true it is inconsequent to prove Peter visible head of the Church as is notorious Secondly it is false or at least not certain that Peter preached the Gospel first for Luke affirms Before that time the Apostles spake with tongues to the admiration of all the hearers
Bishop according to the opinion of that Author Petavius grants that a first Presbyter became Bishop without any new formall ordination but it was requisite that he should be consecrated by a secret imposition of hands called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a mysticall imposition of hands but he brings no probation he only affirms it We read of such a secret imposition of hands not in that case but in other two the first is when Miletius troubled all Aegypt by his ordaining without authority those whom he ordained were not formally re-ordained but only consecrated by that secret imposition of hands or privat imposition of hands as witnesseth Theodoretus lib. 1. cap. 10. The other case is those who were baptized by Hereticks were not re-baptized but only anointed with the Chrisme together with that secret imposition of hands both the one and the other case is mentioned by Justinus in Respons ad Orthodox It is to be observed that although the first Presbyter was called Bishop Antonemasticè yet the other Presbyters were called Bishops and the first Presbyter sometimes Episcopus Episcoporum Bishop of Bishops so the Apostle James is called by Clement when the said James was Bishop or first Presbyter of Jerusalem whence appears the weakness of that objection of Bellarmine proving that the Bishop of Rome was reputed oecumenick Bishop because he is stiled by some Episcopus Episcoporum Bishop of Bishops CHAP. III. Conjectures of Aerians concerning the original progress and universal establishment of Episcopacy THe first step then of the Bishop of Rome in the opinion of those who follow Aerius was from a first Presbyter to a Bishop before the time that Bishops and Presbyters were distinguished all Presbyters were called Bishops but after that time no Presbyter was called Bishop as Ambrosius cited by Amalarius affirms on 1 Tim. 3. The word Bishop in greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports as much as an Overseer those who had the oversight of any charge were called by the Graecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops so we find in Xenophon Physitians called And in other Authors Moderators of Controversies and Visitors of Cities amongst the Athenians were called Bishops Rulers of Provinces or who were set over Provinces 1 Maccab. 1 are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops Yea in the glosses of the old Graecians Kings are called Bishops Hesychius amongst his glosses hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense in which they are called by Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastors of the people by which it appears if we durst affirm it that Salmasius is in a mistake affirming that Bishop is only a word of care tutelage or curatory and not a word of rule or command Bellarmine also is in a mistake who eludes that passage of Augustine a Bishop is greater then a Presbyter by consuetude affirming the meaning of Augustine to be that before the times of Christians the word Bishop was not a title of honour but by the consuetude of Christians it became to be so The time when Episcopacy did first begin is guessed to he about the latter end of the second Age when Victor was Bishop of Rome which conjecture is proved by two reasons The first is this Ambrosius on 1 Tim. 1. 3. as he is cited by Amalarius affirms That after Episcopacy was brought in Presbyters were called no more Bishops as they were before nor were Bishops called Presbyters but we read in the Epistles of Victor that Presbyters are called Bishops and Bishops Presbyters as was before-mentioned but after the time of Victor we find that neither Bishops are called Presbyters nor Presbyters Bishops whereby it is very probable that in those dayes a Bishop was distinguished from a Presbyter The second reason is this Ignatius falsly believed to be the Disciple of John lived about that time and in his Epistle to the Magnesians calls Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a new Ordination whence it appears it did begin about that time That the said Inatius lived in those dayes and consequently could not be that Ignatius who was the disciple of John appears because he mentions the heresie of Valentinus who affirmed that Christ proceeded from Siges which Heresie was never heard of till immediatly before the times of Victor and therefore the said Ignatius behoved to live after the time of Valentinus and consequently about the time of Victor To which two reasons may be added a third viz. That the said Magnesians and Tralliani were so averse from receiving of Bishops as if those Tralliani had been so called after Mr. Robert Trail that Ignatius was forced to spend much Rhetorick to perswade them to receive a Bishop but it is very unlike they would have been so refractory if Bishops had been among them from the beginning And this much of the original of Episcopacy As for the progress Bishops were not brought in in all places at one time but by degrees first at one place then at another It is very like they first began at Rome and that Victor was the first Bishop that ever was he was a very aspireing man and for his presumption was sharply rebuked by Irenaeus and bitterly mocked by Tertullian and therefore it 's very unlike such an alteration of Government could begin in any other City then Rome which was the chief Imperial City for which reason Potentior principalitas a more powerful principality was attributed to the Church of Rome by Irenaeus by reason of which saith he and also by reason that the Traditions of the Apostles were preserved more purely there it is necessary that all Churches conform themselves to that Church That Episcopacy was not established in all places at once in alike perfection is evident by three reasons The first is when Presbyters in other places had no ordination they had it still at Alexandria unto the times of Heraclas and Dionysius which was about Anno 235. as is testified by Ambrosius by some thought Hilarius on Ephes 4. and Augustinus if he be the Author on Tim. 1. 3. quaest 101. upon the Old and New Testament and Hieronymus in his Epistles to Euagrius The second reason is when Bishops only confirmed in the West Presbyters confirmed throughout all the East as is testified by Cyrillus Hierosol mitanus in his Catechise de Chrismate and Severus Alexandrius de Ritibus Baptismi The third reason is when in many places Bishops had sole ordination and sole jurisdiction in Africa they were inhibited and expresly forbidden either to ordain or to exercise jurisdiction without concurrence of Presbyters as appears by the 22. and 24. Canons of the fourth Council of Carthage When Episcopacy was universally established was as uncertain as when it first began Hieronymus affirms it was decreed through the whole world Ambrosius or Hilarius affirms it was established prospiciente concilio but none could tell as Bishop Hall objects what either the one or the other meaned but of late it is discovered that both mean the 4.
not now found in the Editions of Rhenanus printed since in those places where the Pope hath jurisdiction They had reason to purge out those words from Rhenanus because the testimony of his was as a Poyniard sticking in the very bowels of that article of the Catechise of the Council of Trent viz. that there is no salvation without communion with the Church of Rome CHAP. XII Several passages objected out of Cyprian to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval vindicated from Sophistry THe last Father they make use of to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval between the times of the Apostles and the death of Cyprian is Cyprian himself There is not a Father of them all more urged to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome then Cyprian and yet it is most certain that it never had a greater enemy then he what Cyprians opinion was anent that contest appeared in the former Chapters both by his testimonies and his actions Our adversaries dispute two wayes for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome out of Cyprian first by sophistry next by forgery we will refute the first in this Chapter and prove the second in the Chapters following and that by the testimonies of the greatest Antiquaries that ever the Church of Rome produced The first testimony of Cyprian they bring is from his 42. Epistle where writing to Cornelius Bishop of Rome he hath these words Some while ago we sent some of our Colleagues to compose some differences or to reduce some schismaticks to the unity of the Chatholick Church c. and a little after But those Schismaticks set up to themselves an adulterous head against the Church from which place Bellarmine reasons thus as those Novatians set up one to be heaa of their Church or of the whole Church of the Novatians so Cornelius was head of the Catholick Church But it is answered this reasoning is very unbeseeming such a learned man as Bellarmine for the meaning of Cyprian is no other then that the Novatians set up to themselves a Bishop at Rome in opposition to Cornelius so he calls the Novatian Bishop an adulterous head contrary to Cornelius who was the true head of the particular Church at Rome because he was the true Bishop thereof and so Cyprian doth not mean any head of the whole Church but only by Head he means Bishop of the particular Church of Rome Bellarmine instances that Cyprian affirms his intention was to reconcile those Shismaticks to the Catholick Church by which he means the Church of Rome and since the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church and the Bishop of Rome head of the Church of Rome Ergo he is head of the Catholick Church But it is answered when Cyprian calls the Church of Rome the Catholick Church his meaning is a particular Church professing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and therefore they who were reconciled to the Church of Rome were reconciled to the Catholick Church also so any reconciled to a particular Church professing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church is reconciled also to the Catholick Church and yet that particular Church is not the Catholick Church That this is the meaning of Cyprian appears by the preceeding Epistle or epist 41. where speaking of some Schismaticks in the Church of Carthage he affirms they opposed themselves to the Catholick Church he means they opposed themselves to the Church of Cathage inwhich doing they opposed themselves to the Catholick Church because the Church of Cathage professed the same Doctrine with the Catholick Church in opposing or renting the Church of Carthage they rent and opposed the Catholick Church Pamelius urgeth that Cyprian affirms that those Schismaticks refused the bosome of the root and mother Church where observe saith he that Cyprian calls the Church of Rome the root and the mother of all Churches or of the Catholick Church which Epithet is given by Cyprian to the Church of Rome not only in this epistle but also in his 45. epist to Cornelius in which he gives injunctions to those he was sending to Rome to be informed concerning that schism of the Novatians that they should acknowledge and adhere to the Root and Mother of the Catholick Church But it is answered that Cyprian by Root and Mother of the Catholick Church means no other thing but the Catholick-Church it self as appears by the said 45. Epistle in which he affirms to Cornelius that hearing that there was a schism in the Church of Rome he sent Caldonius and Fornatus to be informed of the truth of the business and to adhere to neither party till they were informed which of the factions was in the right and which in the wrong and for that reason he did not direct his Letters either to Cornelius or to that Novatian Bishop but only to the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome that being informed by them they might adhere to those who held and acknowledged the Root and Mother of the Catholick Church whereby it is evident that Cyprian did not believe that Cornelius Bishop of Rome or those who adhered to him were the root and mother of the Catholick Church since he gave his messengers injunction to suspend their Judgments till they were informed who adhered to the root and mother of the Catholick Church that is who maintained the true Faith or who were members of the Catholick Church for if Cyprian had believed that Cornelius and his faction had been the root and mother of the Catholick Church he would not have injoyned his messengers to suspend their judgment till they were informed by the Presbyters and Deacons so it is evident that Cyprian by Root and Mother of the Catholick Church means the Catholick Church it self both in his 45. and 42. Epistle and in the same sense epist 43. and 44. he exhorts them to return to their mother that is to the unity of the Catholick Church The second passage of Cyprian is found in his 55. Epistle where he hath these words That the occasion of Heresies and Schismes in the Church is only this that the Priest of God is not obeyed and that it is not believed that one Priest as Judge in place of Christ for a time is in the Church This place is much urged by Pamelius in his Annotations upon the said Epistle to prove an oecumenick Bishop But it is answered Cyprian in this Letter or Epistle is inveighing against those who had set up one Fortunatus as we shewed before Bishop of Carthage in opposition to himself and his meaning is not that there should be one Bishop in the Catholick Church but only one Bishop in a particular Church or the Church of Carthage because two Bishops in one place occasions Schismes and Heresies saith Cyprian so its evident that Cyprian is pleading his own cause disputing against those who had set up a Schismatick Bishop in the Church of Carthage in opposition to himself and
Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to absolve Subjects from their Oaths of fidelity to their natural Princes to command them to fight against them and consequently to kill them that all are oblieged to acknowledge him for their natural Prince whom the Pope shal appoint It is taught also in that Church That the Pope is direct Monarch of the whole World both in Spirituals and Temporals So Bozius lib. 10. de signs Ecclesiae and Carerius de potestate Papae and all the Canonists they teach also That a Pope deposing a King without any reason but his will doth him no wrong because he takes only what is his own from him As a King doth no wrong to the Governor of a Province when he gives his government to another Subject Although the former have done no offence as is maintained by Thomas Bozius lib. 3. cap 4 de jure status Here our Romish Emissaries in Scotland endeavor to perswade their Proselytes that this doctrine of deposing Kings is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome but only of some particular Persons whom they call the Popes Flatterers But is replyed that those Gentle-men are either not well versed in their own principles or else they are like Father Cotton the Jesuite who being demanded by the Parliament of Paris If he believed that the Popes had power to depose Kings Answered He did not believe it in France but if he were at Rome he would believe it However that it is to the doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings is proved by these following reasons which will puzle those gentlemen very sore to answer The first is this innumerable Books are Printed teaching this doctrine and yet are Printed by authority and licence as containing no doctrine contrair to the true Catholick doctrine of the Church of Rome Ergo the deposing of Kings by the Pope is the true Catholick doctrine of the Church of Rome since a doctrine which is not contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Rome must of necessity be the doctrine of the Church of Rome The second reason is this All the Roman Doctors unanimously maintain except some few who dare not set out their Head that whatever the Pope and his Cardinals discern in a Conclave is of equal if not of a Superior Authority with that which is decreed in a General Council but the Conclave at Rome gives unto the Pope power of deposing Kings Ergo it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome That such power is given to the Pope by the Conclave appears by innumerable bulls as that of Gregory 7. against Henry the 4. Emperor That of Paul the third against Henry the 8. of England Of Paul the 5. against Queen Elizabeth Of Sixtus the 5. against Henry 3. and 4. Kings of France The third reason is this Every one is bound to believe that to be the true Doctrine of the Church of Rome which the Pope teacheth in Cathedra in which case they maintain he is infallible But the Pope teacheth in Cathedra that he hath power to depose Kings by his decretal bulls obliging the whole Church as is notorious in which he assums to himself that power as appears by innumerable of his Bulls especially by those now mentioned against the Emperor Kings of England France in which he expresly assumes unto himself authority of building or aedificandi of casting down or demoliendi of planting plantandi of rooting out eradicandi transferendi of transferring Kingdoms at his pleasure In some of which Bulls also he applyeth to himself those words of the Prophet Per me Reges regnant By me Kings reign which is notorious blasphemy And thus we have proved against those Gentlemen that they are mistaken in denying that is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which giveth authority unto the Pope to depose Kings They are not yet satisfied as appears by two objections made by one of those Gentlemen to my self The first was this that I could not instruct that it was the Doctrine of any General Council that the Pope hath power to depose Kings and consequently I could not make out it was the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome To which objection I answered First that I had made it out That it was the doctrine of Popes in Cathedra and consequently I had made it out that he and all other Romanists were obliged to believe it as an Article of Faith He told me plainly he did much doubt of that neither was he of that opinion That the Pope could not err in cathedra but still pressed me to prove it by the Authority of some General Council protesting he detested that doctrine as unsound I desired him to read Baronius anno 1072. and he would find that the Emperor Henry the 4. was exautorated by a Council at Rome num 16 17 18. and by another at Collen 1118. num 20. and by another at Fritislar ibid. The Gentleman answered very pertinently That these were only petty particular Councils but he desired the authority of a General Council I desired him to read Baronius ad an num 1102. num 1 2 3. and also the same Author 1116. num 5. and also anno 1119. Where he will find that doctrine to be the doctrine of General Councils especially that of Lateran anno 1116. is called a General Council by Baronius Likewise I desired him to read Bzovius anno 1245. num 4. The Council of Lions in the tombs of Councils tom 28. pag. 431. The decretals sext de sententiâ re judicata ad Apostolica where he would find that the Emperor Frederick the second was deprived or declared to be deprived and his subjects quit from their Oaths of Allegiance by Innocentius 4. in the Council of Lions I desired him also to read an Act of a General Council at Lateran under Innocent third where he would find that doctrine or that power of Deposing Kings attributed to the Pope which Act he would find in Bzovius anno 1215. Paragraph 3. in Binnius and Crab in their collection of Councils C. l 3. and in Gregorius de haeret C. excommunicamus I desired him also to read Ses 25. Canon 19. of the Council of Trent where he would find that power of the Popes so intelligibly asserted and consequentially although not expesly that it was one of the main reasons for which the Kingdom of France stood out against that Council of Trent rejecting its Authority By the said Canon any Dominus fundi is deprived of the Dominion of it if a düel be fought in it and since a King is comprehended under Dominus fundi the Council takes upon it to deprive him of a part of his Kingdom but if they have power to deprive him of a part by the same reason they take upon them power to take his whole Kingdom from him And this way I answered his first objection viz. that it could be instructed by Act of
no Council that the Pope had power to depose Kings and consequently it was not the doctrine of the Church of Rome His second objection was that notwithstanding all this it was not the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome because all the Church of France rejected it as a pernicious doctrine I answered this objection by a two-fold distinction The first of times viz. When the King of France was low and the Pope high The second distinction was of causes wherefore Kings are deposed one of which and the main one was heresie I desired him to read history and he would find that when the Kings of France were low and their Kings suspected of heresie that it was the doctrine of the whole Clergy of France that the Pope had power of deposing such Kings at such times for proving of which I desired him to read first a decree of the Sorbon printed at Paris in which they approved the bulls of Sixtus 5. excommunicating and deposing Henry 3 4. Kings of France I desired him secondly to read that speech of Cardinal Peron in the name of the Clergy of France as their Speaker in an Assembly of the Estates in which speech he openly maintains That it is the opinion of the whole Church of France and ever was that Heretical Kings that is Protestants ought to be deposed that the Pope had power to depose them and that true French-men ought them no allegiance And thus much of the Popes power in temporals by the way it shal be more largely disputed God willing part 3. lib. 2 what we have said is sufficient to prove That the Dominion of the Bishop of Rome is tyrannical and consequently according to their own confession forbidden Peter 1. 5 3. The third particular of the tyrannical Domination of the Bishop of Rome is over souls departed The fourth is over Angels Both which usurpations appear by the Bull of Clement sixth proclaiming a Jubile The words of the Bull are these Concedimus si confessus in via moriatur ut ab omnibus peccatis suis sit immunis penitus absolutus mandamus Angelis ut animam è purgatorio penitùs absolutam in Paradisi gloriam introducant And in another Bull Nolumus ut paena inferni illi infligatur concedens cruce signatis ad eorum vota tres aut quatuor animas quas volunt ex purgatorio posse eripere in which Bulls he takes upon him to command Angels and to place Souls in heaven or hell as he pleaseth The 5. particular proving the tyranny of the dominon of the Bishop of Rome is in assuming divin power to himself So Nicolaus 2. in Gratianus dist 96. Satis evidenter Where he affirms That the Pope cannot be Judged by any Secular Prince because the Pope was called God by Constantine but God cannot be judged by man Likewise Bonifacius 8. 6. decret de electione C. fundamenta affirms That S. Peter was assumed in the fellowship of the individual Trinity and consequently the Bishop of Rome hath the same priviledge as Peters Successor So Glossa extravag C. antiquae de voto Where speaking of Matrimony held by the Church of Rome to be a Sacrament of divine Institution a doubt is moved how that vow made in Matrimony can be dissolved by a Constitution of the Church Since it was made solemnly to God The Glossator answers the doubt That it cannot be made void by a meer man but only by the Pope who is not a meer man but Gods Vicar Thirdly he usurps Divinity in making the Decretal Epistles or the Canon law of equal authority with the Scripture So Gratianus distinct 19. C. in Canonicis expresly affirms so much Innumerable examples might be afforded of this kind but those are sufficient The sixth and last particular of the Tyranny of the Domination of the Bishop of Rome is his hearing patientissimis auribus without offence biasphemous titles attributed to him in Orations Books and Pamphlets printed by his Authority which is all one as he had stiled himself by those titles So by the Gloss in the Canon Law he is called our Lord God the Pope as is found in those Editions printed at Lions 1584. and at Paris 1585. 1601. 1612. All which Editions were set out after Gregory 13. had corrected the Canon Law the words are Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam Conditorem dictae decretalis non sic potuisse statuere prout statuit haereticum censeatur extravagant John 22. tit 14. de verb. sig cap. 4. c. We could produce innumerable such but it were tedious yet we cannot omit that blasphemous Pamphlet presented to Innocent the 10. who before his Popedom was called Cardinal Pamphilius The scope of which Pamphlet is to compare the Pope whom he calleth Pamphilius with Christ whom he calleth Philius To be short he preferrs the Pope to Christ in most horrible manner and yet the Pope was no wise offended at that flâ—ttery It seems he understood not what Blasphemy meant for an other time being desired to hear a Theological Controversie between the Jansenists and Molinists disputed before him that he might determin it He answer ed He was an old man it did not belong to his profession and he had never studied Divinity as is reported by S. Amour in his journal where he affirms He heard the Pope affirm so publickly And thus much of Peter 1. 5. 3. The first Argument of Protestants against Peters institution of Oecumenick Bishop we have proved two things in the vindication of that passage The first is that not only tyrannical Domination but all sort of Domination is forbidden in that place The second is although it were granted that only tyrannical Domination in Church-men were forbidden in the same place yet it quite overthrows the institution of an Oecumenick Bishop which we have proved to be most tyrannical and that by six arguments which in effect amongst Candide men are unanswerable CHAP. XII The Supremacy of Peter assaulted from Ephesians 1. 22. 4. 23. 5. 23. And Colossians 1 18. IN the former Chapter we assaulted the Institution of Peter in that Oecumenick Bishoprick by the testimony of Peter himself forbidding all sort of Lording or Domination in Church men where we also proved two things First that not only tyrannical Domination was forbidden by the Apostle in Church Rulers but all Domination Secondly although tyrannical Lording had only been forbidden nevertheless the injunction of the Apostle inhibited That Lording assumed by the Bishop of Rome now to himself proving by demonstrative arguments that the power of the Bishop of Rome now-a-dayes was not only tyrannical but blasphemous and a right-down Gigantomachy which shal more largely be proved part 4. lib. 1. In this following chapter we make use of a second argument against the institution of Peter in that universal Bishoprick by Christ viz. it appears by these Scriptures mentioned in the title That Christ is the Head of the Church and if Peter were