of Rome hold contrary to the Doctrine of the reformed Churches My Lords and Gentlemen In the last place you will find it proved by what practices the Bishop of Rome maintains himself in that prodigious greatness and his Doctrine None can but admire how he hath been so long undiscovered and how so many learned and pious men brave spirits can be so bewitched yet as to believe that communion with him is necessary unto salvation and that all who acknowledge not his power and Doctrine ought to be condemned as Hereticks But their admiration may cease since the Spirit of God affirms that the Kings of the earth shall be drunk with his abominations that is shall be void of all spiritual understanding that the glory of God may be manifested in his impervestigable wayes till at last that wicked one be consumed by the breath of his mouth that is by the sincere preaching of the Gospel The cup of iniquity of that Monster was not yet full untill he began so far to forget himself as to prefer himself to God and make publick sale of forgiveness of sins for money that is by giving pardons unto men not only for sins by-past but also to be committed afterwards giving to this Courtier the money obtained for the pardon of sins obtained in one Countrey to that of another It is reported of Alexander the sixth that when it was told him that his Son Caesar Burgia had lost a hudge sum of money at Dice he answered that his Son had lost nothing but the sins of the Germans that is the money which he had got for the sale of pardons in that Nation When his impiety came to such a height he was at last discovered by Luther a poor Frier since which time they have left no sort of cruelty and impostures unattempted to preserve their Power and their Doctrine And first for their cruelty towards those who opposed them death without torture was thought a clemency the ordinar punishment of such was burning alive and if they were so numerous that it could not be conveniently done they trained them into snares by perfidious Treaties cutting their throats when they were asleep without regard to the publick Faith given them as appears by the horrible massacre at Paris and other places of France and albeit popish Writers in those times detested that perfidious cruelty yet the Pope himself who was the Author and contriver of it made Processions of joy and Bone-â—ires at Rome for the success of it As for their impostures by which they maintain their Power and Doctrine they are so many that they are scarce numerable the main are preferring the corrupt Latine version of the Scripture to the Greek and Hebrew Fountains held authentick by the Primitive Church and the Church of Rome it self Secondly by adding Books to the Canon of the Scripture against all the current of Antiquity to authorize some of their idolatrous Tenets 3. They make the Pope the infallible Interpreter of Scripture albeit perhaps he had never read one syllable in it or at least understood nothing in it as appears of late by that passage of Innocent 10th related by Sanct Amour in his Journal who being pressed to determine a Controversie in Religion between the Jansenists and Molinists answered he was an old man and had never studied Divinity neither did it belong to his profession 4. They have corrupted all the Writings of the Ancients adding to them taking from them at their pleasure as appears by the Edition of the Fathers set forth by Manutius at the Popes command against all the Manuscript Copies and old printed Copies before anno 1564. neither are they ashamed of it avowing it in their indices expurgatorii and not content with corrupting of Antiquity they also forge not only particular testimonies of Fathers but also whole Treatices Aeneas Silvius who was afterwards Pope himself under the name of Pius 2d confessed ingenuously that no regard was held to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the Council of Nice or anno 325. and yet they produce six and thirty decretal Epistles of Popes as so many Knights of the Post to bear false witness for it in that interval acknowledged to be forged by Cusanus Contius and other great Antiquaries of the Church of Rome neither are they much regarded by Bellarmine and Barronius themselves Again the most ingenuous Doctors of the Romish Church and their greatest Antiquaries confess that nothing can be gathered from the Council of Nice for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Yea all Antiquity acknowledged only twenty Canons of the said Council of Nice Yet the Jesuits of late have found out two Arabick Editions in which fifty Canons are added to those twenty so palpably forged that he is blind who doth not see it Yea they are acknowledged for such by the most learned men of the Church of Rome The main scope of those forged Cannons is to prove several principal Tenets of the Popish Religion especially the Popes Supremacy That they are forged shall be proved part 2. lib. 1. Lastly the Bishops of Rome maintain their authority and Doctrine by false miracles Saints and Revelations but mainly by those two damned cheats implicit faith and infallibility that is they make their disciples believe that all is Gospel what the Pope affirmeth in Cathedra and that he cannot erre teaching the whole Church whâ—ch is the main cheat by which they lead innumerable souls to destruction My Lords and Gentlemen This much of the nobility utility and jucundity of the Subject which I present unto your protection in which I have shortly shadowed forth the steps of the Bishop of Rome to his present greatness and by what artifices he maintains himâ—elf in it The second thing I desired your Lordships to observe is the method I use in the discovery of this â—rand Impostor I am informed some tax me of presumption for medling with such a Subject after the Labours of so many Learned men to whose diligence nothing could be added But I answer as it were ill manners in me to tax those brave men that went before me in this Subâ—ect of omission or slackness So I am confident none will blame me with any shew of reason except first he consider what I say It is true indeed many have written before me but it is as true that some of them have written too dogmatically some too historically both which wayes are lost labour in this Subject in which all the probations are testimonies but that they can be understood without the kâ—owledge of History no man can perswade me though never so learned On the other hand History without Disputation may delight the ear as any other empty flâ—sh of Rhetorick but it will never satisfie the mind ruled by reason I strive to relate thâ— Histoâ—y of the Papacy and Popish Religion fighting with Disputation at every step neither make I use further of History then to illustrat the Dispute which
primacy to the Bishop of Rome for the same reason only viz. because it was the old imperial City And therefore it is intollerable impudence in our adversaries to object the authority of the Council of Chalcedoâ— to prove the Supremacy of Peter By which it appears the impudence of Bellarmin and Baronius who abuse their Reader with strange Sophistry and most shameless The Council of Chalcedon say they interpreted the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice to the advantage of the Bishop of Rome For immediatly after the reading of the said Canon the beginning of which was Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum the Church of Rome evermore had the primacy The Canon being thus read all the Council cryed out Perpendimus omnem primatum honorem praecipuum secundum Canones antiquae Romae Deo amantissimo Archiepiscopo conservari But it is answered first Those words of the Canon viz. the Church of Rome ever had the primacy are forged being found in no other copie but in that of Dionysius Exiguus but his authority is not sufficient to out balance all other copies of the Canons of the Council both Greek and Latin yea that copie corrected by Gregory 13 himself which wants those first words pretended by Bellarmin and Baronius in which copie and all other copies the first words of the said Canon are Antiquus mos perduret c. Let the old custom remain in Egypt Libya and Pentapolis c. Secondly although the Canon had begun so it makes not much to the purpose since it appears by the decree of the Council that the Primacy of the Church of Rome was only a Primacy of dignity for civil respects and not a Primacy of Jurisdiction by reason of the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter as appears expresly by the words of the Canon And also that the Bishop of Constantinople was ordained by the said Council equal in Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome If Bellarmin and Baronius affirm that the words of the twenty-eight Canon are mis-interpreted their mouths are stopped not only by the carriage of Lucentius and other two Legats of the Bishop of Rome but also by the carriage of Leo Bishop of Rome himself The carriage of Lucentius was this When the Fathers of the Council had subscribed the said twenty eight Canon Lucentius stood up crying foul play Some of those subscribers were compelled so to do by one indirect way or other The whole Fathers of the Council answered they had deliberatly and voluntarily subscribed Whereupon Lucentius protested against the Council as having preferred the judgement of a hundred and fifty Fathers of the Council of Constantinople before the judgement of three hundred and eighteen Fathers in the first general Council of Nice which was as much to say as he understood the meaning of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice better then those six hundred and thirty Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon representing the whole Church This carraige of Lucentius is recorded in the Council of Chalcedon Act. 16. pag. 936. 937. 938. Next that the said Council decerned against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome appears by four Epistles of Leo Bishop of Rome himself in which he thunders against the Council of Chalcedon for making the foresaid 28. Canon still ingeminating Tu es Petrus or that they had wronged the supremacy of Peter by which complaints of his it is most evident that those 630. Fathers representing the whole Church in a general Council meant nothing lesse then the supremacy of Peter in these words Tu es Petrus These four Epistles of Leo are his 52. Epistle to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople His 54. to Martianus the Emperour his 55. to Pulcheria the Empress his 62. to Maximus Bishop of Antioch in which Epistles he complains heavily that the Bishop of Constantinople was preferred to him of Alexandria Because Constantinople was the seat of the Emperor he fore-saw being a man of great Spirit and foresight that in the end for the same reason the Bishop of Constantinople would be preferred to the Bishop of Rome which accordingly fell out as shal be proved lib 4. And thus it appeareth with how little integrity our adversaries object the Council of Chalcedon to prove that Peter was the Rock meaned by our Savior in these words Tu es Petrus c. By which proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon appears also what was the opinion of the general councils of Nice and Constantinople As for the sixth general Council commonly called Trullanum celebrated under Pogonatus the Emperor Anno 680. in its 36. Canon it confirms the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon totidem verbis By which it appears what was the opinion of the Church concerning Tu es Petrus in the end of the 7. age And so we have the opinion of the first second fourth and sixth general Councils that Peter is not the Rock upon which the Church is built As for the third general council of Ephesus and the fifth of Constantinople although in express words they make not all the Patriarchs of alike Jurisdiction Yet they made Canons expresly contradicting the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and consequently contradicting also Peter to be the Rock upon which the Church is built The council of Ephesus calls Celestine Bishop Rome Fellow-Minister It were a bold thing now in any Bishop to salute the Pope so Secondly they deposed John Patriarch of Antioch before ever they acquainted Celestine Bishop of Rome as appears by the Synodical Epistle Binius Tom. 1. page 806. Thirdly they ordained that neither the Patriarch of Antioch nor any other Bishop ergo not the Bishop of Rome should take upon him to ordain Bishops in the Isle of Cyprus Binius Tom. 26. pag. 768. As for the fifth general council of Constantinople it rejudged the cause of Anthimius after he had first been judged by Aggapetus Bishop of Rome Binius in his notes upon that council Tom 2. pag 416. Secondly it condemned Vigilius Bishop of Rome and yet in the end the said Vigilius approved the said council Baronius Anno 553. Binius in the place fore-mentioned And thus ye have the opinion of the six first general councils concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome by reason of his succession to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church By which passages it appears that the sixth first general councils meaned nothing lesse then that Peter was the Rock upon which the Church was built or that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church in those words Tu es Petrus It shal likewise be proved lib. 5. That the seventh general council Anno 790. and the 8. Anno 870. had as little regard to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome The first of which condemned Pope Honorius as an Heretick and the last approved of it And thus we have the opinion of the whole Church concerning Tu en Petrus the first 900. year after Christ all which time it was no
26. Mark 14. and Luke 22. As for Bellarmins other witnesses Nicephorus and Euthymius they have it from the said supposititious Euodius This Euodius was Patriarch of Antiochia immediatly after the times of the Apostles at least called so in a large sense For it shal be proved part 2. lib. 1. that no Patriarchs were established before the Council of Chalcedon Secondly Many of the Fathers expresly affirm That it is false that Christ baptized Peter So Euthymius himself after he had recited the opinion of Euodius Eulogius in Photius Biobliothec cap. 280. Tertullianus de Baptismo cap. 12. Chrysostomus on the Acts homil 1. who all affirm That Peter and the other Apostles were baptized by John the Baptist Augustinus epist 108. disputs this question whither John or Christ baptized the Apostles He is in doubt of it but inclines most to that opinion that they were baptized by Christ Nevertheless there is no prerogative in Peter there since he speaks of the Baptism of all the Apostles as well as Peter Thirdly Although Peter had been baptized by Christ alone and not the other Apostles it doth not conclude him to be Oecumenick Bishop The second Traditional prerogative is That only Peter was ordained Bishop by Christ and the other Apostles by Peter But it is answered It is a meer fable contradicted by Chrysostomus on Matthew hom 5. Who affirms That James first obtained a Bishoprick if that be true then he was a Bishop before Peter And if before Peter then he behoved to have been made Bishop by Christ since Peter could not make James a Bishop when he was not Bishop himself Secondly It shal be proved in the last chapter of the book that neither Peter nor any of the Apostles were Bishops properly but in a large sense as Bishop comprehends Apostle Acts 1. 20. and in that sense Christ himself is called a Bishop 1. Peter 25. The third Traditional prerogative is from Acts 8. Where Peter detected Simon Magus the tradition is that after that time the same Peter extinguished him But is answered Albeit it were true that Simon Magus was killed by Peter it doth not conclude him Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin instances That Simon Magus was Prince of Hereticks whom Peter killed Ergo Peter was Oecumenick Bishop who killed him But it is answered First Bellarmins Scholars at Rome may well approve of this way of disputation but it is laught at else where Secondly that argument would conclude Paul to be Oecumenick Bishop since Cyrillus Cathes 6. Sulpitius hist Sacr. lib. 2. Ambrosius sermon 66. attribute the killing of Simon Magus joyntly to Peter and Paul Thirdly That killing of Simon Magus by Peter seems to be a fable since those who reports it contradict other in the manner Hegesipus lib. 3. cap. 2. affirms That Simon Magus made wings to himself and fell a flying Clemens lib. 6. cap. 9. affirms That he had no wings but only was carried in the Air by Devils Sulpitius calls them two Devils Some of them saith Simon Magus brake his neck in the fall at the Prayer of Peter Others that he brake only his thigh-bone Finally All this story of Peter and Simon Magus depends upon Peters being at Rome but all the Ancients testimonies who testified Peter was at Rome depends upon the authority of Papias whom Eusebius discrives to be the author of many fables as shal be shewed at large in the last chapter of this book Where also it shal be proved by unanswerable presumptions that Peter was never at Rome and that all Bellarmins proofs to the contrair are of no moment The fourth Ttraditional prerogative of Peter is That Peter by the command of Christ fixed his Bishoprick at Rome which was the imperial City Ergo Peter was Oecumenick Bishop But it is answered First it doth not follow Secondly Bellarmin cannot prove by Scripture or Antiquity That Peter fixed his Bishoprick at Rome much less at the command of Christ Bellarmin instanceth 〈◊〉 authority of Leo serâ—â—n 1. de natali Petri Pauli But it is answered First Leo doth not affirm That Peter was injoyned to his Bishoprick at Rome but only to preach the Gospel as an Apostle his words are Quum Apostoli imbuendâ—â— Evangelio mundum distributis sibi terrarum partibus suscepissent Petrus Princeps Apostolici ordinis ad arcem Romani destinatur imperij But Paul went also to Rome for that end to preach the Gospel as an Apostle But this question if Peter were at Rome and Bishop of Rome Shal be disputed in the three last chapters of this book The fifth traditional prerogative of Peter is That Christ appeared to him at the end of his life or a little before he dyed and when Peter asked him whither he was going He answered he was come again to be crucified But it is answered First it contradicts Scripture affirming Acts 3. 21. That the Heavens must contain him until the day of Judgement Secondly the author of this fable is Hegesippus fasly believed to be him who lived in the days of the Apostles as Baronius affirms anno 69. num 7. Origines hom in John 37. calls it Appocryphal And albeit it were true it doth not conclude Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop for Bellarmin himself affirms That our Savior left the Heavens and coming unto the Air appeared unto Paul Acts 9 4. and so that argument would conclude Paul Oecumenick Bishop also Where marke how he is intangled when he affirms Christ appeared to Peter in Rome to prove that Peter was at Rome when it is objected to him Acts 3. 21. That the Heavens should contain Christ till the last day and thereâ—ore contradicts Scripture He answers Christ appeared to Paul in the Air. But here to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop he affirms That our Savior after his Ascension left Heavenbut once when he appeared 〈◊〉 Peter Else he loseth time in declaiming so much upon this prerogative For he must either deny that Christ appeared to Paul out of the Heaven or else he cannot affirm without Sophistry that Christs appearing to Peter is a prerogative The sixth traditional prerogative of Peter is That only these Churches were Patriarchal seats which were founded by Peter as Rome Alexandria and Antiochia But it is a notorious untruth For not only Jerusalem and Constantinople but also many other Cities were Patriarchal seats His proofs are shameless As first the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice which mentions only these three Patriarchal seats And likewise the Council of Chalcedon Action 16. But it is answered these Councils mention only these three in these Canons cited by Bellarmin but the Council of Nice mentions Jerusalem Canon 7. under the name of Aelia As for the Council of Chalcedon it mentions other Patriarchal seats in many places as Canon 28. it mentions him of Constantinople Likewise the second General Council of Constantinople mentions at least ten Patriarchal seats in the East Secondly if ye take the word Patriarch strictly it shal be proved part
mad man or an Impostor will affirm that any Doctrine conform to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This is the Doctrine of the Church of the whole Canonists unanimously maintained by them and most of the Theologues viz. that the Pope has direct power in Temporals or is direct Monarch of the whole world Some Theologues indeed as Bellarmine and others maintain that the power of the Pope is only indirect in ordine ad spiritualia as when a King is an Heretick or otherwayes encroacheth upon the Liberties of the Church or when he assumes any thing to himself which the Pope sayes belongs to him but this Doctrine is exsibilated now at Rome as heretical and Bellarmine himself is taxed by Carerius of heresie for maintaining that the Pope hath no direct power in temporals Yea Sixtus 5th with much ado was hindered from burning these Books of Bellarmine de pontifice Romano for denying that direct power of the Pope in temporals albeit Bellarmine in the said Books gives power to the Pope indirectly or in order to spirituals to depose Kings to absolve their Subjects from all fidelity to them and that their Subjects are oblieged at the Popes command to rise up in Arms against them and consequently to kill them but Bellarmines opinion is now thought too little of the Popes power all the Theologues now are for the direct dominion of the Pope in temporals And this much of the first reason proving that this King-deposing Doctrine is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome The second reason is this That is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome what is asserted by the Pope in Cathedra or teaching the whole Church but the Pope in Cathedra assumes that power of deposing of Kings unto himself as appears by his Bulls as that of Gregory the seventh against Henry the fourth Emperor that of Alexander the third against the Emror Frederick that of Bonifacius the eighth against Philip King of France that of Paulus the third against Henry the eighth King of England that of Paulus the fourth against Queen Elizabeth that of Sixtus the fifth against Henry the third and Henry the fourth Kings of France in which Bulls they expresly affirm that Kings reign by them and that power is given them from God to establish plant build root out cast down transfer Kingdoms at their pleasure The tenors of those Bulls too prolix to be inserted here shall be particularly mentioned and set down part 4. lib. 1. And this much of the second reason that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope has power to depose Kings The third reason is this the Popes have procured that power to be conferred on them by general Councils as in the Council of Lateran under Innocent third the Act of which Council is found in Bzovius anno 1215. parag 3. and also in Binius and Crab in their Collection of Councils It is found likewayes in Baronius ad annum 1102. numb 1 2 3. and also ad annum 1116. numb 5. and also ad annum 1119. Likewayes in the Council of Trent Sess 25. Canon 19. It is ordained that the Popes have power to depose any Dominum fundi or Proprietar of any Land where a Duel is fought in which Canon power of deposing Kings tacitly and consequentially is attributed to the Pope The Council thought it not fit in express terms to affirm that the Pope had power to deprive a King of his property in that case and therefore they made the Canon in general termes comprehending a King under Dominus fundi or Proprietar in general That this is the true meaning of that Canon appears because by reason of it mainly the Kingdom of France did not acknowledge the Council of Trent And thus we have proved by three unanswerable reasons that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings to which may be added a fourth which is this which is so evident that it takes away all doubt The Pope hath innumerable times put that power in practice the first Pope we read attempted it was Pope Constantine against Philippicus Emperor of Constantinople because the said Philippicus caused pull down the Images of the Fathers of the sixth general Council commonly called Tâ—ullanum which were placed in the Temple of St. Sophia but Pope Constantine did only bark his Successors Gregory 2d and Gregory 3d. did bite for the same reason of the Images stirring up the Lombards against the Emperor and bereaved them of the Exarchat of Ravenna in which broils the Emperors Governour at Rome being killed the Bishops of Rome got the Dutchy of Rome to themselves and when the Lombards as we said before demanded that Tribute of them which they were accustomed to pay for these Territories to the Emperors of Constantinople they called in the French against the Lombards and in recompence of their services authorized their General Pipin King of France shutting up the righteous King the last of the race of the Merovingians in a Monastery and afterwards they made Carolus Magnus Son of the said Pipin Emperor of the West which Carolus Magnus made appear that although he loved the treason of those Bishops of Rome to their Masters Liâ—geâ— Lords Benefactors and Creators the Emperors of Constantinople by whose procurement they were made Universal Bishops yet he hated the Traitors as we shewed before making them his Vassals both in Spirituals and Temporals lest they should play such tricks to him and his Successors as they had done to the Emperors of Constantinople We read no more of the temporal usurpations of the Bishop of Rome before Gregory 7th when the race of Carolus Magnus being extinct the Empire was translated to the Germans What extremities the said Gregory 7th did put the Emperour Henry 4th to is notorious In sum he was forced to resign the Empire to his Son Henry 5th the Imperial Ornaments being violently plucked from him by the Bishops of Mentz and Culen his own Creatures which Son of his agreed little better with Paschalis Bishop of Rome after which time it was the continual practices of the Bishops of Rome to depose Kings and Emperors and to stir up their Subjects to Rebellion against them as appears by those passages of Alexander 3. with the Emperor Frederick of Boniface 8th with Philip. le Bell King of France of Julius 2. with the King of Navarre of Sixtus 5th with Henâ—y 3. and 4. Kings of France of Paul 3. with Henry 8. and Paul 4 with Queen Elizabeth of England The Stories of these two Henries of France is most lamentable And thus we have proved that it is both the Doctrine and the Practice of the Church of Rome that the Bishop of Rome hath power to depose Kings to absolve their Subjects from fidelity towards them to compell them to Arms against them and consequently to kill them and to acknowledge any for
First that the said second General Council of Constantinople ordained the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople to be equal although they gave the Bishop of Rome the first place in dignity The second thing is That the Bishop of Rome had the first place in dignity not by reason of his succession to Peter but for a civil respect viz. because Rome was the old Imperial City Paschasinus and his fellows replyed or at least Bellarmin and Baronius would have so replyed if they had been pleaders before the Council That the third Canon of the Council of Constantinople was not to be regarded because the Bishop of Rome had never approved it and therefore they urged the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice by which say they the Bishop of Alexandria had authority confirmed to him in Egypt because the Bishop of Rome had the like custom From which they argued thus That the authority of the Bishop of Rome was the cause of the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria or the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria flowed from the authority of the Bishop of Rome And since the Bishop of Alexandria was before him of Constantinople of old the said second General Council of Constantinople wronged the Bishop of Alexandria in preferring the Bishop of Constantinople to him In a word the sum of their pleading was this That by the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice the Bishop of Rome had authority over him of Alexandria And since the Bishop of Alexandria was before the Bishop of Constantinople in former times that third Act of the second General Council of Constantinople ought to be cassed and antiquitated because it contradicted the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice in preferring the Bishop of Constantinople to him of Alexandria and equalizing him to the Bishop of Rome Aetius and the Deputies of the Bishop of Constantinople duplyed First That the said Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople ought not to be recalled or at least Protestants would have so duplyed if they had been in their place First Because it was a lawful General Council And although the Bishop of Rome had not confirmed it because he had no authority above a General Council It was very unreasonable that any particular Bishop should cut and carve for his own advantage against the decree of the whole Church Secondly The said General Council of Constantinople was received and confirmed by a Synod at Rome two years after the Bishop of Rome Dammasus presiding in the said Council And therefore it was false that the Bishop of Rome never confirmed the said Council of Constantinople Thirdly the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice gave no authority to the Bishop of Rome over the Bishop of Alexandria the meaning of the Canon being only this viz. The occasion of the Canon was one Miletius troubled all Egypt by ordaining Bishops at his own hand Alexander Bishop of Alexandria complains to the Council of Nice which upon his complaint made the foresaid sixth Canon The true Gloss of which being that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the power of ordaining Bishops in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis as he was wont Since the Bishop of Rome had the like power by custom in the places adjacent to Rome or as Ruffinus a writer who lived near these times interprets in Ecclesijs Suburbicarijs that is in Churches within a hundred miles to the walls of Rome So then the authority of the Bishop of Rome was not the cause of the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria or the Original from whence it flowed but only a pattern according to which it was framed as one common-wealth may be framed in government according to the pattern of another common-wealth without any subordination in authority They duplyed fourthly That the said General Council of Constantinople did no wrong to the Bishop of Alexandria in giving to the Bishop of Constantinople the second place in dignity which before that time belonged to the Bishop of Alexandria since the cause ceasing the effect also ceased The cause why the Bishop of Alexandria was second to the Bishop of Rome was this viz. The government of Egypt was the second government in dignity to the government of the City of Rome It was so ordained by Augustus and therefore was called Praefectura Augustalis Since it was not so now because the government of those Provinces depending on the City of Constantinople was made the second Government and preferred to that of Alexandria and made equal to the Government of those places depending upon the city of Rome therefore the said council of Constantinople did no wrong in equalizing the Bishop of Constantinople to the Bishop Rome since the civil Government was a Type of the Ecclesiastick as is confessed by Baronius himself ad Annum 39. Num. 10. That the Government and Priviledges of the City of Constantinople being made equal to those of Rome was the cause why the council of Constantinople made the Bishop of Constantinople equal in Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome is reported both by Socrates hist lib. 5. chap. 8. and Sozomenus lib. 7. chap. 9. Who both give the reason of the said third Canon in the Greek Edition but 5. or 7. in the Latine to be Because that Constantinople had not only the name of Rome with like Senat and other Magistrats but bare also the same Arms and other rights and honors which belonged to old Rome The Council of Chalcedon having considered the reasons of both parties allowed the interpretation put upon the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice by the Orators of the Bishop of Constantinople rejected that Gloss of those of the Bishop of Rome confirmed the third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople with some advantage and addition as by the 28 Canon whose words are these Definimus communi calculo sancimus quod attinct ad praerogativas honoris sanctissimae Ecclesiae hujus Constantinopoleos novae Romae Etenim Patres Sedi Antiquioris is Romae ob eam caussam quia Imperium obtineret Urbs illa merito Primatum honoris detulere Sed eadem ratione moti centum quinquaginia religiosissimi Episcopi aequalem primatum honoris assignarunt sanctissimae sedi novae Romae Recte judicantes eam Urbem quae imperio Senatu honestatur iâ—sdem privilegis fruentem cum antiqua Roma Regia etiam in Ecclesiasticis negotijs aequa cuâ— illa extollendam Sic tamen ut post eam secundum locum obtineat By which Canon two things appears First that the Bishop of Constantinople is expresly made equal in Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction with the Bishop of Rome Secondly that the Bishop of Rome hath the first place in dignity not by reason of succession to Peter but only for civil respects viz. because Rome was the old imperial City It appears also by the said Canon that the former General Councils of Nice and Constantinople gave the
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
Peter The other Doctors answer variously And first Carerius and Pighius following Clemens Alexandrinus mentioned by Eusebius hist lib. 1. cap. 14. affirms That it was not Peter the Apostle but an other Cephas who was reprehended by Paul But this opinion is ridiculous for Paul is comparing himself in those words to the chief of the Apostles one of which was Peter whereby it is evident that it was Peter the Apostle whom he resisted and not an other Peter and therefore this opinion is exploded by Hieronymus and other Fathers The second answer is of Gregorius de Valentia Pighius and Carerius following Chrysostomus and Hieronymus affirming That it was but a dissimulation and the reprehension proceeded from Paul by paction between him and Peter viz. That Peter the Jews arriving should leave the Gentiles that Paul might have occasion to reprehend him And consequently that the Jews might be instructed of the calling of the Gentiles by Pauls reprehension But it is answered This Argument is laught at by Augustinus as not becoming the gravity of Paul who had sworn before that he lyed not Others affirm That Peter erred not in faith so Sanderus and Stapleton but only in conversation But it is answered The less his error was by the said reprehension the less it appears he was Oecumenick Bishop for if he erred not in faith no body should have presumed to resist him as is expresly forbidden by the fore-cited Canons of the Canon Law Baronius answers That Peter erred not at all But it is false and gives the lye unto the Apostle Paul who affirms He was to be blamed Bellarmin answers another way viz. That one may reprehend another although superior in Authority if it be done with reverence as Paul did Peter here He cites Augustinus epist 19 to Hieronymus and Gregorius Magnus homil 18. on Ezekiel who expresly affirms That Peter was greater then Paul and yet he was reprehended by him But it is answered That takes not away the force of the argument First because the question is not Whether Peter was greater then Paul But whether he was Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin will not affirm That an Oecumenick Bishop may be reprehended else he will not only contradict the Canon Law as we shewed and which they make of equal authority with the Scripture but also himself lib. 4. cap 5. de Pont. Rom. where he affirms That if the Pope command Vice and forbid Vertue the Church is bound to believe that Vice is Vertue and Vertue Vice Secondly it expresly appears by the words of Paul Gal. 2. That he made himself equal to Peter as is acknowledged by the ordinar gloss Lombardus Cajetanus yea Chrysostomus after he hath gathered from the words of Paul that he was equal to Peter he adds Ne dicam amplius by which words he thinks Paul was greater then Peter Thirdly The Doctrine of Paul was preferred to that of Peter that of Peter being found dissimulation and that of Paul sincere Christian Doctrine It is needless to examine the answers of others as of Stapleton and Eckius yet we will mention two other answers The one of Aquinas the other of Cardinal Pool that of Aquinas and Eckius is almost all one viz. They grant that Peter and Paul was alike But they distinguish that Paul was equal to Peter in the execution of authority but not in authority of Government in executione Autoritatis non in autoritate regiminis But it is answered This distinction of Thomas is a plain riddle It would puzle Oedipus himself It is ordinar with Sophisters to imitate that fish called Sepia when it is caught it vomits up a black humor like ink to deceive the fishers none can conceive this distinction of Thomas without contradiction For if Paul were equal to Peter in the execution of Authority he was equal also to him in the authority of Government since the execution of Authority is the Act flowing from the other or from the Authority of Government if the same be the authority of both Peter and Paul This cantradiction is inevitable but if the Authority of Peter be greater then that of Paul he still contradicts himself in affirming Paul was equal to Peter in the execution of authority no subordinat Magistrat can be equal in the execution of Authority to the Supreme Magistrat Eckius distinguisheth more to the purpose viz. between the Office of an Apostle in teaching and governing Paul was equal to Peter the first way and therefore he reprehended him not the second way But it is replyed first Albeit this distinction were granted it doth not take away the force of the Argument which consists in this whether Paul were greater or less then Peter it is nothing to the purpose An Oecumenick Bishop according to the Canon Law ought to be questioned by none and since Paul questioned Peters actions it is evident according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome that Peter was not Oecumenick Bishop neither is it of any moment that the Canon Law provides that a Pope may be questioned for Heresie since that sort of questioning is antiquated by the Council of Florence and the constant Practice of the Modern Church of Rome Neither was the error of Peter an Heresie but only an action of dissimulation Secondly the distinction of it self is contradictory for two reasons First because Government of the Church pertains to the office of an Apostle all the Apostles having exercised all the parts of that Government Secondly this reprehension of Paul was directly in execution of the authority of Government because Government comprehends reprehension of transgressors both in doctrine and manners or actions But in this particular the actions of Peter were reprehended by Paul Cardinal Pool a very Learned man retorts the Argument lib. 2. de unitate Ecclesiae where he affirms This reprehension of Peter by Paul concludes Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop but he tells not how Baronius it seems explains him anno 53. num 46. the argument is very pretty viz. They who followed the example of Peter Judaizing preferred it to the decree of the Council of Jerusalem Ergo they believed his authority was above that of the Council and of Paul yea Barnabas himself followed Peter before either the Council or Paul But it is answered to omit that it is not certain whether this dissimulation of Peters was before or after the Council of Jerusalem Baronius had reasoned far better thus Paul preferred the decree of the Council to the fact of Peter reprehending Peter in his face Ergo Peter was not Oecumenick Bishop For albeit those Judaizing had preferred the example of Peter to the decree of the Council it doth not follow that Peter was above a Council except they had rightly preferred the example of Peter to the decree of the Council And this much of the carriage of Peter and his Institution We have omitted hitherto nothing of moment pretended by either side assaulting or asserting the Supremacy of Peter from
therefore he behoved to be at Rome and his first reason is That the Church of Rome was ever held the first Church but there can be no other reason why it was held so but only that Peter was Bishop But it is answered first that Rome was held the first Church of old not in power but in dignity because Rome was the chief imperial City as appears expresly by the third Canon of the second general Council at Constantinople the 28. Canon of the fourth general Council of Calcedon the 36. Canon of the sixth general Council of Constantinople of which hereafter part 2 lib 1. and 2. Secondly if respect be had to other reasons besides the imperial dignity of the City it is false that Rome was held for the first Church as appears by many testimonies first Theodoretus lib. 5. cap. 9. affirms that the second general Council at Constantinople in an Epistle to Damasus Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of the West calls the Church of Jerusalem Mother of all Churches Secondly Nazianzenus epist 18. affirms that the Church of Caesaria was from the beginning and was esteemed almost the Mother of all Churches Thirdly Basilius Epist 20 to Athanasius affirms That the Church of Antioch was head of all Churches The same is affirmed by Chrysostomus in several places as in his Homile of the praises of Ignatius and in his third Homile to the people of Antioch by which testimonies it is evident that Rome was called the first Church for a civil respect only and that in other respects other Churches were preferred to it Bellarmines second Argument is this The Hereticks cannot shew saith he where Peter was Bishop after he left Antioch if he was not Bishop of Rome since they affirm he was Bishop only of a particular Church and not of the universal Church But it is answered Bellarmine may well confirm his Disciples by such reasoning but he will never convert Hereticks by it It is false which he affirms that the Protestants maintain that Peter behoved of necessity to be Bishop of one particular Church or other they deny he was Bishop of any particular Church at all as shall immediatly appear and therefore it is ridiculous in Bellarmine to conclude that Peter was Bishop of Rome because they cannot instruct where he was Bishop elsewhere when he left Antioch they ask him again how Bellarmine proves that he was Bishop of Antioch they ask him also where he was Bishop before he was Bishop of Antioch for Bellarmines Argument presuppones that Peter of necessity was still Bishop of one place or other Bellarmines third reason to prove that Peter was Bishop of Rome is taken from the testimony of Fathers affirming he was Bishop there twenty five years As for those 25. years they shall be proved false in the following Chapter In this we will answer and explain the testimonies of those Fathers affirming Peter was Bishop of Rome because in effect they are the only Basis of the Popes supremacy we will examine them more diligently and make it appear that they are so many testimonies proving Peter was never Bishop of the particular Church of Rome It is answered to those testimonies of Eusebius Optatus Ambrosius Hieronymus Sulpitius I sidorus Irenaeus Epiphanius c. affirming Peter to be Bishop of Rome that the word Bishop is taken two wayes first for a function of governing the Church in general so Peter calles Christ The Bishop of our souls epist 1. cap. 2. so an Apostleship is called Bishoprick Act. 2. Secondly Bishop is taken in a stricter sense for a certain function Ecclesiastick inferiour unto the Apostolick function so it is taken by Paul 1 Tim. cap. 3. If any desire a Bishoprick in which last sense we now take it and so answers those testimonies of Bellarmine by which he proves that Peter was Bishop of Rome that those Fathers take Bishop in the first sense and their meaning is no other then that Peter as an Apostle taught at Rome twenty five years That this is no shift or evasion is demonstrated by these three following reasons The first reason is that the Fathers reckoning the successions of the Bishops of Rome put Paul with Peter in the first place whereby it is evident that those Fathers take the word Bishop in the first sense comprehending the Apostleship since none of them nor Bellarmine himself will affirm that Paul was Bishop of Rome in the second sense That this is the truth viz. that Paul is named first Bishop of Rome with Peter appears by those following testimonies First of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. Fundantes igitur instruentes beati Apostoli Petrus Paulus Lino Episcopalum administrandae ecclesiae tradiderunt The blessed Apostles Peter and Paul when they founded the Church of Rome they made Linus Bishop The second testimony is of Epiphanius heres 27. Episcoporum in Roma successio hanc consequantiam habuit Petrus Paulus Linus Cletus The succession of the Bishops of Rome was this Peter and Paul Linus Cletus The third testimony is of Eusebiâ—◠〈…〉 3. cap. 2. post Petri Pauli Martyrium prinâ—â—◠〈…〉 Episcopatum Linus sortito capit Afterâ—◠〈…〉 Peter and Paul Linus had the Bishopricâ—◠〈…〉 Such-like other 〈…〉 epist 65. of Optatus 〈…〉 all put Peter and Paul 〈…〉 that in the Bulls of 〈…〉 are joyntly 〈…〉 hath the 〈…〉 is 〈…〉 in the first sense as it 〈◊〉 an Apostle The second reason is because Fathers enumerating the Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome do it in manner following PETER and PAVL 1. Linus 2. Cletus 3. Clemens 4. Euaristus 5. Alexander 6. Sixtus 7. Telesphorus 8. Hyginus 9. Pius 10. Anicetus 11. Soter 12. Eliutherius c. WHere they do not reckon Peter and Paul among the Bishops but only reckons the Bishops from them as their founders putting Linus as first Bishop Cletus as second Clemens as third whereas if Peter and Paul had been Bishops Linus had been second Cletus third Clemens fourth c. That they reckon them so appears by these following testimonies First of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. who calls Clement the third Bishop Sixtus the sixth Eliutherius the twelfth but if he had reckoned Peter as first Bishop then Clemens had been the fourth Sixtus the seventh Eliutherius thirteenth The second testimony is of Eusebius hist lib. 3. cap. 2. where he calls Linus fiâ—st Bishop and likewayes cap. 4. where he calls Clemens third Bishop and cap 16. where he calls Clemens third Bishop Linus first Bishop Cletus second Bishop and lib. 4. cap. 1. he calls Euaristus fourth Bishop and cap. 5. he calls Telesphorus seventh Bishop likewayes in his Chronicles he gives unto them the same order of succession anno 69. and 81. and 93. and 100. whereby by it is evident by Eusebius that Peter was not Bishop of Rome since he gives ranks to the other Bishops as if Linus had been first Bishop The third testimony is of Gregorius lib. 1. cap. 27. who reckons the order of
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
he subjoynes una quoque est Ecclesia c. there is one Church c. whereby it appears he speaks of one Bishoprick and one Church as different things He is likewayes mistaken in his other gloss for it is false which he affirms that every one is tyed alike to give an account of his administration since it is notorious that some are tyed to a stricter account then others We will close by instancing one other answer mentioned by Chamier but he doth not name the Author the said Author grants that the meaning of Cyprian is that all Bishops are alike Bishops but he distinguisheth quo ad ordinem Sacerdotalem and quo ad Jurisdictionem that is the order of all the Bishops is alike but not the Jurisdiction and therefore albeit all Bishops be equally Bishops with the Bishop of Rome yet they are not equal with him in Jurisdiction Hayus disput lib. 1. cap. 12. gives the same answer to that passage of Hieronymus Epist 85. ad Euagrium we shall discuss that distinction of Hayus in the following Book to which it properly belongs as concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the interval of Metropolitans whereas now we dispute only his Supremacy in the interval of Bishops It is sufficient for the present to answer that the said distinction between Order and Jurisdiction is contrary to the meaning of Cyprian for it shall appear in the following Chapter that any Bishop is equal in Jurisdiction with the Bishops of Rome as well as in order in the opinion of Cyprian because he affirms in his Oration to the Council of Carthage that the Bishop of Rome cannot judge another Bishop no more then he can be judged by him but if that be not an equality in Jurisdiction there is none at all CHAP. VIII Some Testimonies from Cyprians Oration in the Council of Carthage explained IN the former Chapter we observed by what sophistry our Adversaries endeavoured to pervert the meaning of Cyprian in that famous passage found in his Books de unitate Ecclesiae But in sophisticating those following testimonies of his uttered in the Council of Carthage their art is admirable From the said Oration are gathered the following Testimonies 1. Neither doth any of us constitute himself Bishop of Bishops to compell by tyrannical terror his Colleagues to necessity of obedience 2. Because every Bishop by the licence and liberty of his power hath his own proper judgement 3. He cannot be judged by another Bishop neither can he judge another Bishop 4. Let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ who alone hath power to prefer us to the Government of the Church and to judge our actions These famous testimonies of Cyprian perplexeth the learned men of the Roman Church very much neither do they agree in their answers as appears by what followeth When Luther in the conference at Lypsick objected those testimonies to Eccius against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Eccius answered that Cyprian in those words no man constitutes himself Bishop of Bishops speaks against those only who without a lawful vocation obtrudes themselves upon any Church to govern tyrannically But this answer is naught because Cyprian in those words is not speaking how Bishops should be constitute but of the power which constitute Bishops have as appears not only by those words of Cyprian we have cited but also by his words uttered after the reading of the Letters of Jubaianus in the Council The question stated in the Council was whether those who were baptised by Hereticks should be re-baptised Cyprian after the reading of those Letters and stating of the question desires every one of them to tell their opinion freely and not to remove from their communion those who were of contrary judgement to them and then he subjoyns those passages we cited in the beginning of the Chapter no man constitutes himself Bishop of Bishops c. whereby it is evident that he speaks of Bishops already constitute and not of the vocation of Bishops as Eccius affirms Sanderus lib. 6. cap. 4. of his visib Monarch answers diversly 1. that Cyprian speaks so out of humility since himself in a manner was Bishop of Bishops when he presided several times in a Council But this answer is nothing worth for Cyprian by Bishop of Bishops means one who takes upon him to compell his Colleagues to necessity of obedience as having Jurisdiction over them but none will affirm that he who presides in a Council hath that power almost 100 years after Cyprian it was ordained by the 9. Canon of the Council of Antioch that Metropolitans should do nothing without the consent of other Bishops as inferior Bishops could do nothing without them much lesse in the times of Cyprian had he who presided in a Council any Jurisdiction above his Colleagues since in his dayes there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop as is believed by many learned men and he who was Bishop primae sedis of the first seat or chief City of the Province was constant President in Provincial Councils as Cyprian because he was Bishop of Carthage neither had the President of a Council more authority over his fellow Bishops then the President of a Colledge of Judges over his fellow Judges Sanderus answers secondly that Cyprian in those words no man makes himself Bishop of Bishops c. is only speaking of those Bishops present at the Council of Carthage and means not the Bishops of Rome at all which is also the answer of Bellarmine lib. 2. cap. 16. de pont Rom. and likewayes of Pamelius in his Annotations upon the foresaid place of Cyprian But it is answered that Cyprian is speaking of all Bishops comprehending the Bishop of Rome as well as other Bishops his reasons are general as is evident by his words No man saith he makes himself Bishop of Bishops because every Bishop hath proprium arbitrium that is he hath as much authority to utter his judgement as any other and when his opinion is delivered no Bishop hath power to compell him to alter it as he cannot judge another Bishop neither can any other Bishop judge him and therefore all Bishops should expect the judgement of Christ who only can judge their actions Secondly it is false which they affirm that Cyprian in those expressions doth not mean by the Bishop of Rome for Binius tom 1. in his Annotations upon this Council of Carthage affirms that those words of Cyprian were tacitè directed against Stephanus Bishop of Rome The question agitated in the Council was Whether those who were baptized by Hereticks should be re-baptized Stephanus Bishop of Rome was for the negative Cyprian for the affirmative Stephanus as Binius relates and Cassander also consult art 37 threatned Cyprian and the Churches of Africa with Excommunication if they changed not their Opinion This Council of Carthage is called consisting of eighty seven Bishops Cyprian in his Oration to the Council
by usurpations of Bishops of Rome and appellations They next endeavour to prove it by testimonies of Fathers which are of two sorts 1. wrested 2. forged In this Chapter and the next following we will examine the first sort and then we will conclude this Book with examining the last The Fathers whose testimonies they wrest are either Greek or Latin The Greek Fathers are Ignatius and Irenaeus the Latin Fathers by them alledged are Tertullian and Cyprian We will speak of the Greek Fathers and also of Tertullian in this Chapter and will answer these testimonies of Cyprian in the Chapter next following And first of Ignatius from whom they alledge the inscription of his Epistle written to the Romans which is this Ignatius to the Sanctified Church presiding in the region of the Romans thus the place is alledged by Bellarmine whereas the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is which presides in the place of the region of the Romans wherefore they render it so this is the reason Barronius ad annum 45. num 10. observes that the Roman Church and the Catholick Church were believed to be the same and therefore they translate Ignatius affirming the Church of Rome to Preside in the region of the Romans that is saith Bellarmine and Bozius Presiding in the Catholick Church But it is answered first that it was not the custom in the dayes of Ignatius to call the Roman-church the Catholick-church or where they spake of the Roman-church to mean by it the Catholick-church first because the oldest testimony we have of that kind is in the dayes of Theodosius junior Victor Uticensis and Gregorius Turonensis that is not till 300. years after Ignatius and 400. after Christ Secondly that maner of phrase had its Original from the Arians the said Gregorius Turonensis in his Book De Gloria martyrum cap. 25. brings in an Arian Prince calling the Orthodox-church the Roman-church or Orthodox-christians Romans Thirdly that maner of speaking had its Original from a politick reason and not from an Ecclesiastical In those dayes the Goths Alans and Vandals made war upon the Romans the first three were Arians the Romans Orthodox and therefore because all the Orthodox Christians partied the Romans in that war they called them all Romans their Faith the Roman Faith their Church the Roman Church as the Turks at this day call all Christians Francks or French-men Fourthly as we said they translate Ignatius falsly for his words are to the Church presiding in Loco regionis Romanorum in the place of the region of the Romans whereby it evidently appears that the meaning of Ignatius is no other then the Church presiding in the Town of Rome since none can affirm by these words he means otherwayes or that the Church of Rome presides in the whole Church since he particularizes the presidency and restricts it to a certain-place of the region of the Romans and therefore they sophisticate egregiously in translating Ignatius Presiding in the region of the Romans Since the Romans say they at that time commanded the whole world Ignatius by a Church Presiding in the region of the Romans understands a Church Presiding in the whole world whereas the words of Ignatus impart no more but a Church presiding in a certain place of the region of the Romans Which is further confirmed because we shewed before from these two Epistles of Ignatius to the Trallians and Magnesians that he acknowledged no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop but he could not be so forgetful of himself as in this Epistle to acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as Bellarmine and Bozius pretends he doth which is further confirmed by the testimony of Basilius Epists 8. where he affirms that Iconium presides in a part of Pisidia which is just such an other expression as that of Ignatius We could defend the meaning of Ignatius not to make much for them although they had translated him faithfully that is if he had said Presiding in the region of the Romans for from these words it can no more be gathered that the Bishop of Rome is oecumenick Bishop then it can prove the Bishop of Ments or the Bishop of Carthage oecumenick Bishop because they preside in the region of Carthage c. for in the dayes of Ignatius as we said none were called Romans but those who lived within the precinct or particular command of the City and this much of Ignatius Now followeth Irenaeus from whom they bring a testimony by them much magnified the passage is this speaking of the Church of Rome ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua Semper ab his qui Sunt undique conservata est ea quae ab Apostolis est traditio The substance is all Churches should accord with the Church of Rome for two reasons first because of its more powerful principality the next is because Apostolical tradition is preserved in that Church But this place makes not much for them as appears by Irenaeus scope this passage is found lib. 3. cap. 13. in which Chapter he is disputing against Hereticks which were the perfect Scriptures he willeth them for their satisfaction to consult with the ancient Churches which successively descended from the Apostles and for instance sake proponeth unto them the Church of Rome his meaning is then in those words whatever the Church of Rome at that time thought perfect Scriptures all Churches about were bound to acknowledge them for such first by reason of its more powerful principality that Church being founded by the Apostles Paul and Peter as was believed then Secondly because it hath been thought by Churches about to have purely preserved that tradition of the Canon of Scripture which it had received from the Apostles so that the meaning of Irenaeus is no other then this that all are bound to accord to that Church so long as it preserves the perfect Canon of Scripture and teaches no other Doctrine then is contained in it by this testimony of Irenaeus we are bound no more to adhere to the Church of Rome then it adhereth to the Scripture But they instance Irenaeus simply without such restrictions affirms that all should accord to the Church of Rome because it observes the apostolick tradition which is as much say they as the Church of Rome cannot make an Apostacy But it is replyed first although Irenaeus affirmed that in those times the Church of Rome preserved the pure Canon of the Scripture yet he doth not affirm that in all times coming it would do so The Church of Rome at this day observes not that Cannon of the Scripture which was observed in the dayes of Irenaeus the Council of Trent under the pain of an Anathema adds to the Canon of the Scriptures these Books commonly called Apocrypha which were rejected by the Church of Rome in the dayes of
Irenaeus as shall be proved in its own place by the testimonies of the most eminent Doctors of the Roman Church to omit the testimonies of almost all the Fathers by whose testimonies it shall be proved that in the dayes of Irenaeus the Churches of Rome Asia Africa Egypt c. rejected those Books canonized by the Council of Trent and therefore they must of necessity affirm that either the Modern Church of Rome or the Council of Trent excommunicates all these who accord with the Church of Rome in the Canon of the Scripture in the dayes of Irenaeus or else they have made a defection themselves from that Church which was in the dayes of Irenaeus The Council of Trent makes those Books Canonical with an Anathema to those who shall not acknowledge them for such but the Church of Rome in the dayes of Irenaeus rejected them as Apocryphal as is proved by the testimonies of Ruffinus in Symbulo apud Cyprianum and Hieronymus in his preface upon the Books of the Kings and prologo Galeato tom 3. That all other Churches accorded with the Church of Rome in that Canon of the Scriptures is proved by an induction of them all as the east Church as is testified by Melito the Church of Jerusalem as is testified by Cyril of Alexandria witnesse Athanas and Origen of France as is testified by Hilarius of Asia Concil Loadicenum of Constantinople Nazianz and Damascen These testimonies are acknowledged by Bellarmine himself for the most part lib. 1. cap. 20. de verbo Dei Secondly that Irenaeus in these words means no other according with the Church of Rome then in as far as it preserves the truth appears further not only by his keeping communion with the Bishops of the East notwithstanding of their excommunication by Victor but likewayes by his sharply rebuking of Victor taxing him of Ignorance and Arrogance for his proceeding in such a manner by which it evidently appears that neccessar communion with the Church of Rome was no article of faith in the opinion of Irenaeus much less the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and this much of Irenaeus Now we come to the Latine Fathers the first passage alledged is of Tertullianus de pudicitia where he calls Victor Bishop of Rome Bishop of Bishops But it is answered first albeit he did so it proves not Victor was oecumenick Bishop because we read that James is so called by Clement Lupus is so called by Sidonius lib. 6. epist 1. Marcus Bishop of Alexandria is called also Bishop of Bishops by Theodorus Balsamon in his answers to the Interrogations of the said Marcus but Bellarmine will not affirm that James or Lâ—pus or Marcus were oecumenick Bishops Secondly Tertullian in that place calling Victor Bishop of Bishops doth so Ironicè or in mockery as appeares by the occasion of his calling him so which was this Victor made a decree of admitting fornicators or whoremongers too easily to the communion of the Church in the opinion of Tertullian Speaking of that decree Tertullian affirms Episcopus Episcoporum nuper edidit Edictum c. The Bishop of Bishops hath now put forth an Edict and falls too immediatly and disputes against it whereby it appears that he did not acknowledge the supremacy of Victor that he is mocking him appears further by his calling that decree of Victor Edictum an edict but Emperours only set forth Edicts and so he calls Victor Bishop of Bishops in the same sence that he calls his decree an Edict which none can deny to be in mockery They alledge another passage from Tertullian in his prescript 76. against hereticks this passage is objected by Pamelius and is this If ye live in the adjacent places to Italy ye have Rome from whence we have also Authority Tertullian himself then lived in Africa whence they conclude from these words we have Authority that the Bishop of Rome had Jurisdiction in Africa in the opinion Tertullian But it is answered this place resembles very much that of Irenaeus which we now discussed his scope in these words is to arme his Readers against heresies among other prescriptions he prescribs this fore one that all should strive to inform themselves what is the Doctrine of those Churches which were founded by the Apostles and then to conform themselves to that Doctrine And first saith he If ye live in Achaia consult the Church of Corinth if ye live not far from Macedonia consult the Church of Philippi and Thessalonica if ye live in Asia consult the Church of Ephesus if ye live in the adjacent parts to Italy follow the Church of Rome from which saith he we also in Africa have our authority because it is the nearest Apostolick Church Observe he calls Apostolick Churches those who were founded by the Apostles themselves as that of Philippi Corinth Thessalonica by Paul that of Ephesus by St. John that of Rome by Peter and Paul whence it is easie to conjecture what is the meaning of Tertullian for by these words from whence we have our Authority it follows no more that the Church of Rome hath jurisdiction in Africa then it follows that the Church of Ephesus or Antiochia have jurisdiction over all Asia or that the Church of Corinth hath jurisdiction over all Achaia His meaning then assuredly is that albeit one be not under the jurisdiction of the nearest Apostolick Church yet it is the surest way to preserve your self from Heresie to follow the Faith of that Church because it is most like that those Churches who were founded by the Apostles themselves are least obnoxious to defection Secondly that Tertullian did not dream of any such thing as the infalibity of the Church of Rome or supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as a necessar article of faith appears not only by his disputing expresly against that decree of Victor Bishop of Rome which we now mentioned but also by several other passages of Tertullian in the said prescriptions and else where Beatus Rhenanus in his Argument to the same book of Tertullian de prescrip printed at Basil anno 1521. which Rhenanus was a Popish Doctor and exquisitly versed in the Writings of the Fathers and especially of Tertullian upon whom he commented hath these expressions Tertullian saith he doth not confine the Chatholick Church to the Church of Rome he doth not esteem so highly of the Church of Rome as they do now a dayes he reckoneth her with other Churches and admonisheth his Reader to enquire as well what milk the Church of Corinth gave as that of Rome In which words he means the same very passage of Tertullian which we now explained and vindicated from the Sophistry of Pamelius at last he concludes if Tertullian were now alive and should say so much he could not escape unpunished and this much Rhenanus avouched when he had the use of his tongue but the index expurgatorius belgicus pag. 78. has gagged his mouth with a deleantur hec verba and so they are
added to the Creed by the Council at Trent viz. That Communion with the Church of Rome in all her Tenets is absolutely necessary to salvation Let them study this one Controversie of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and it will resolve the question for if it be founded upon Scripture and Antiquity without all question Communion with the Church of Rome is necessar unto salvation and the Religion of Protestants is a new sprung up heresie since the Bishop of Rome in Cathedra and consequently in their opinion infallible pronounceth so On the contrary if the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome be a thing unknown to Scripture and Antiquity it is as certain that the Faith of the Modern Roman Church is a new devised cheat and idolatry That this followeth of necessity appears by the confession of Bellarmine himself in two expressions in the preface of those Books of his de pontifice Romano The first we now mentioned in which he calls that Controversie of the Popes supremacy a Debâ—te de summa rei Christianae That is whether the Christian Religion can subsist or not By Christian Religion no question he means the Faith of the modern Church of Rome and consequently he grants that they who call in question the Popes supremacy they question also the whole body of the Popish Religion And consequently still he must of necessity grant that if the Popes supremacy be destitute of Scripture and Antiquity the faith of the Modern Church of Rome falls with it and proves a new devised fiction His second expression is in those similitudes he useth to illustrat his assertion viz. He compares Religion without the Popes supremacy which in his opinion is that of the Modern Church of Rome to a House without a Foundation a Body without a Head Moon-shine without the Sun And since it is notorious that a house without a Foundation cannot stand that a Body without a Head cannot live that the Moon without light of the Sun must be obscured He must of necessity grant that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome being refuted by Scripture and Antiquity the Faith and Religion of the Modern Church of Rome is warrantable by neither and consequently proves a new devised idolatrous cheat Thirdly it s a most pleasant contest what can be more pleasing then to consider the causes of any prodigious Monster how iâ— subsists and how it is destroyed how any illustrious cheat is contrived how it is maintained and how it is discovered But such a Monster such a Cheat as the Bishop of Rome none free of prejudice can behold without admiration The whole world sees a person now ignorant then flagitious not seldome both put by two or three Italians of the same mettal in the Chair of Rome which Preferment he obtains sometimes by blood sometimes by simonie sometimes by unlawful stipulations as to protect Heresie and to oppress the Catholick Faith not seldome by a paction with the Devil all which wayes of obtaining the Chair of Rome are confessed by Popish Writers such as Platina and Baronius as shall be proved in the following Dispute Which Homuncio is no sooner installed then he is metamorphosed to be direct Monarch of the whole World both in Spirituals and Temporals And first for Temporals it shall be proved in the following Dispute that he assumes to himself in his Bulls power of transferring Kingdoms at his pleasure of stirring up Subjects to Armes against their natural Princes under the pain of Excommunication It shall be proved that he makes Emperours and Kings lye prostrate till he trade upon their neck makes them stand bare-footed with their Wives and Children in frost and snow dancing attendants at his Gates and yet not not admitted entrance It shall be proved that he makes Laws in that Book entituled Sacred Ceremonies that Emperors and Kings should hold his Stirrup hold water to his Hands serve dishes at his Table carry him on their shoulders Yea it shall be proved that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome That all Kings are not only the Popes Vassals but which is more he is not oblieged by any mutual ontract to suffer them to possess their Kingdoms but during his pleasure that is he may lawfully depose them although they miscarry not in the least In which he doth tâ—em no wrong because they hold their Kingdoms â—f him not as Vassals but as depositars as when any gives to another his Cloak to keep when he re-demands it he doth him no wrong As for his power which he assumes to himself in Spirituals it cannot be repeated without horrour It shall be proved in the following Dispute that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome partly in the Canon Law partly in the Bulls of Popes themselves partly in Books printed by the Popes Authority and affirmed by his Vâ—sitors to contain nothing contrary to the Catholick Faith That the Pope has power to coyn Articles of Faith at his pleasure oblieging the whole Church under the pain of damnation although he command vice and forbid vertue Secondly although he should lead all the world to hell with him yet none should presume to disobey him Thirdly that he gives pardon for sin for money and not only of sins by-past but also of those to come that is for a little money he will give you pardon for a little time but for a round sum he will give you pardon so long as you please Fourthly it shall be proved that for money he permits men to sin that is permits Clergy-men to keep Whoores And if any keep not a Whoor he makes them pay for it in some places of Italy nevertheless because they have liberty to keep a Whoor if they please Cornelius Agrippa affirms he heard such expressions as these following in the Popes Court Habeat aut non habeat Meretricem Aureum solvat quia habet si velit That is Whether a Priest keep a Whoor or not let him pay the Tribute since he may keep one if he please for such a peece of money Fifthly he makes his decretal Epistles of equal authority with the Scripture Lastly as he intended a gigantomachy he is called in the Canon Law revised and authorised by Gregory 13. Our Lord God the Pope It is affirmed in the said Law that he has power to make injustice justice and contra that he has power to command the Angels to carry souls to Heaven at his pleasure that he has power to give liberty to men to place the departed Souls of their friends in paradise for money that by vertue of his succession to Peter he is assumed to the society of the individual Trinity he not only hears patiently but also rewards flatterers when their blasphemous Pamphlets prefer him to Christ as appears in Innocent 10. which passage shall be realated part 1. lib. 1. cap. 11 of this following Treatise My Lords and Gentlemen any would think these horrible passages incredible but have patience till
Emperour who made the Bishop of Rome oecumenick or universal Bishop And this much of the God-father of that Monster which is all the Jus Divinum the Bishops of Rome have for their Monarchy in the Church The next thing observable is the God-bairn gift or the title of Universal Bishop conferred by Phocas upon Bonefacius third Bishop of Rome in the beginning of the seventh Age or about anno 604. If your Lordships ask what sort of Title and Office it is Gregorius Magnus Bishop of Rome who died not two years before Bonifacius 3d was Bishop of Rome who was first made universal Bishop by Phocas And Pelagius second Bishop of Rome to hom immediatly Gregorius Magnus succeeded will inform your Lordships viz. That the Title and Office of universal Bishop were new not heard of before that time Scelerate Prophane Sacrilegious Blasphemous against the Mandates of Christ Constitutions of the Apostles Canons and Liberties of the Church Who ever took upon him that Office or Title He contaminated those very times in which he lived was that Man of Sin sitting in the Temple of God exalting himself above all that are called God So Pelagius in an Epistle to a Council at Constantinople that he was like the Devil exalting himself above the other Angels and equalling himself to God So Gregorius which expressions of Pelagius and Gregorius and many others too prolix to be inserted here are found word for word in their Epistles Those Testimonies at length ye will find in the second Book of the second Part of this following Treatise The third thing observeable by your Lordships is the reasons wherefore the Emperour Phocas bestowed that Title of oecumenick Bishop upon Bonifacius third They are mentioned by Barronius ad annum 604. and others also as Sabellicus and Platina there is not one word of Tu es Petrus or of the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter amongst them all They were all civil respects As first because the Emperour had his Title from Rome and since Rome was the old Imperial City It was reason that the Bishop of Rome should have jurisdiction over all Bishops This is the onely reason mentioned in the Edict of Phocas Others add there reasons One of which is this Mauritius the Emperour murthered by Phocas had bestowed the title of universal Bishop upon John called Jejunator Or the Faster Patriarch of Constantinople Pelagius and Gregory Bishops of Rome thunder both against the Title and the Function as we now mentioned but to no purpose John still possesseth both the Title and the Office In both which Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople succeeds which Cyriacus protected the Empress and Children of Mauritius against Phocas for which reason Phocas takes both the Title and the Office from â—yriacus and bestowed them upon Bonifacius third Bishâ—p of Rome his old friend as is confessed by Barronius Others add two other reasons the first is this Phocas having obtained the Empyre by murthering his Master Mauritius and all his race domineered with such tyrrany that he was abhorred of all fearing a revolt in the West to curry favour with Bonifacius third Bishop of Rome whose authority was very great in it he bestowed the title of universal Bishop upon him that by his moyen he might be established in his Empyre and acknowledged by the Romans The second reason related by some is that the said Bonifacius either gave or did promise to give to Phocas a hudge mass of Money and so bought the Office from him However whatever were the reasons which moved Phocas it is most certain that the Edict or Gift of Phocas is the oldest Evident and Charter that the Bishop of Rome can produce to instruct his Monarchy in the Church which will more clearly appear by what followeth Seventhly your Lordships will find that new born Monster Christned universal Bishop by the Edict of Phocas shunned every where in the East in Spain in Britain in Germany in France yea in Italy it self under the walls of Rome the whole Church refusing to obey the Edict of Phocas or to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome universal Bishop One only Parasite excepted the Bishop of Cyprus who saluted him by that name out of envy to the Bishop of Constantinople So that in the end as it was recorded by some the Bishop of Rome for very shame gave over that Title of universal Bishop The posterior Emperoures also recalled that Edict of Phocas as appears by the 36th Canon of the sixth general Council called Trullanum convocated by Pogonatus Emperour of Constantinople anno 680. By which 36th Canon of the said Council was confirmed the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon celebrated anno 450. By which the Bishop of Constantinople was made equal to the Bishop of Rome in Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction In the Eighth place your Lordships will find in the decay of the Grecian Empyre by the Inundations of barbarous Nations all enemies to the Empyre and each of them enemies to one another that the Bishops of Rome in these vicissitudes sided ever with the Conquerour being also courted by them to countenance them in the establishment of their new and unsettled conquests By which practices that Apocalyptick Monster almost blasted in the Budd and strangled in the Craddle revived again not only re-assuming the Title of universal Bishop bestowed on him by Phocas But also soaring higher taking upon him to excomunicate the Grecian Emperour to stir up the Longobards to bereave him of his possessions in Italy To destroy the Exharchat of Ravenna To bereave him of the Dutchy of Rome which the Pope got to his own share And when the Longobards demanded Tribute of him for the said Dutchy of Rome which the Bishops of Rome were acustomed to pay to the Grecian Emperours Then he called in the French by whose means he destroyed the Kingdom of the Longobards and to requite the French Services he made Pipin their General King of France shutting up the righteous King in a Monastery And also in contempt of the Grecian Emperour he made Carolus Magnus Son of the said Pipin Emperour of the West Since which time the Empyre of the West has been divided from that of the East until this day That is since the latter end of the Eighth Age or Century In the ninth place your Lordships will find a strange Catastrophy The Doctors of the Church of Rome brag much of the submissive obedience of Carolus Magnus to the power of the Bishop of Rome which in effect he seemed to do at first untill he obtained his ends but having accomplished his intentions he made it appear to posterity that both the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome was a Sword in a mad mans hand he curbed him so both in spirituals and temporals that he left him no more but the bare Title of universal Bishop but as to the power of it he made him a meer cypher as appears by what follows The History is very pleasant
over the Church And lest it should seem to be a wilful denyal they give these following reasons why Peter is not ordained Oecumenick Bishop in these words Or why the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven inferr no universal Jurisdiction over the Church in the person of Peter alone The first reason is this the power of the keys is only a forgiving or remitting of sins or not remitting them or a binding and loosing as appears by the testimony of Augustinus in his 52. Treatise upon John of Theophylactus on Matthew 16. 19. of Anselmus ibid. But none calls in question but binding and loosing is a different thing from the power oâ— an Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin instances lib. 1. cap. 13. de pont Rom. that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church which he proves by three arguments The first is from the Metaphor of keyes Isaiah 21. where Shebna is threatned to have the keys of the Temple taken from him to be given to Eliakim that is saith Bellarmin the government of the Temple or of the house of God But it is answered Bellarmin is greatly mistaken for according to the Hebrew Shebna was not Perfect of the Temple but only of the Kings house Bellarmin is deceived by the Latin version turning it Tabernacle whereas Aben Ezra calls it Master of the Kings house the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they call Shebna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Treasaurer or Master-houshold that is the true interpretation as appears by Kings 2. cap. 18. in which place Eliakim who succeeded to Shebna in that charge is called by the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oeconomus or Master-houshold Shebna is called there a Scribe which place he obtained after the keys of the Kings house were taken from him and given to Eliakim However it is a very bad argument of Bellarmins When Shebna had the keys of the Kings house the government of the house was taken from him when they were taken away Ergo When Peter get the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ he was made sole governor of the whole Church Bellarmin should observe that keys are given sometime by an Inferior to a Superior although that be but a new invention or ceremony yet it is an acknowledgement of authority as when a King entring a Town the keys are delivered to him But when keys are given by a Superior to an Inferior chief Jurisdiction is no wayes denoted But Bellarmin will not deny that Christ was Superior to Peter And whereas it is objected that Christ hath the key of David in the Apocalyps that is jurisdiction of the Church It is answered the case is different none calls the jurisdiction of Christ in question neither had he the keys from any greater then himself Bellarmins second argument is That the keys import binding and loosing that is inflicting of punishment and dispensing with obligations of the Law which is supream Jurisdiction over the Church And consequently Peter in these words is instituted Oecumenick Bishop But it is answered That binding and loosing import no supream Jurisdiction as appears by its being common to all the Officers of the Church as well as to Peter it consists in bidding forbidding punishing by Spiritual Censures and Relaxations from them which are common to all Church-Officers as shal immediatly be proved In the third place Bellarmin proves that our Savior promising to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven promised to him alone the government of the whole Church by the testimonies of Fathers The first testimony of Chrysostomus hom 55. on Matthew affirming that to Peter the whole world was committed and that he was made head and Pastor of the whole Church But it is answered It is false that either Chrysostomus affirms the whole world was committed to Peter or that he was head of the Church Bellarmin followeth the corrupt version of Trapezuntius in which he sophisticats manifoldly the words of Chrysostom are comparing Hieremas with Peter Quemadmodum pater Hieremam alloqueus dixit Instar colunae aneae muâ—i posui eum sed illum quidem uni genti hunc verototi orbi In these words Chrysostomus is comparing the Prophet with Peter as the Lord saith he put Hieremas as a wall of brass to one Nation viz. the Jews sc Peter was made a wall of brass to the whole world But Chrysostom speaks not a word of Hieremias being set over the Jews with Jurisdiction and consequently if the comparison hold Peter was not set over the whole world with Jurisdiction which is the first sophistry of Bellarmin following Trapezuntius in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 posâ—it eum placed him Trapezuntius renders praeposuit set him over which is not in the Appodosis of Peter The second corruption is that Trapezuntius adds of his own Cujus caput piscator homo whose head was a Fisher-man It is true indeed a little before these words Chrysostom calls Peter Pastor of the Church but that 's nothing to an Oceumenick Bishop for any Apostle may be called Pastor of the Church as shal be proved afterwards in this Book Bellarmins second testimony is of Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist 32. Where speaking of Peter he affirms the care of the whole Church was committed to him and that he was Prince of the Apostles But it is answered In what sense Gregorius affirms so shal be shewed at length hereafter where it shal be proved first that others were called Princes of the Apostles beside Peter and that the care of the whole Church was committed to others also who were not Oecumenick Bishops Secondly the impudence of Bellarmin is very great in objecting this place of Gregorius in which he is thundering with great execrations and detestation against any who taketh upon him the tittle of Oecumenick Bishop calling that tittle new Pompatick Blasphemous against the mandats of Christ the Canons of the Apostles and Constitutions of the Church And among other reasons against that title of universal Oecumenick Bishop he objects this as one If any took upon him that title Peter had reason to take it but he had not that tittle although the care of the whole Church was committed to him then this impudence of Bellarmin no greater can be imaginable Gregory expresly denyes it to follow that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop although the care of the whole Church was committed to him Bellarmin mutilats his passage and makes him conclude that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop because the care of the whole Church was committed to him He cites this part of Gregories assertion the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter but he suppresseth the other half of his assertion that Peter was not universal Apostle and most impudently fathers a contradictory conclusion upon Gregory Ergo Peter was Oecumenick Bishop And thus much of the first reason wherefore Protestants deny that the power of the keyes imports no universal
by divine Institution Oecumenick Bishop the Church would have two heads since our adversaries maintain that an Oecumenick Bishop is head of the Church They answer to this difficulty varying one from another some one way some another some the third way others the fourth It will not be unpleasing to examine their Sophistry The first answer is of Bellarmin distinguishing The Church saith he cannot have two principal Heads nevertheless it may have two heads whereof the one is subordinat to the other In a word he answers Christ is Caput primarium Ecclesiae primary head of the Church Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome are Capita secundaria or secundary heads But this distinction of Bellarmins is both against Scripture and Antiquity It is against Scripture which calling Christ the head of the Church and the Church the body of Christ doth so by a Metaphor taken from a humane body and as a humane body cannot have two heads one subordinat to another that the similitude may hold the Church cannot have two heads Secondly this plurality of heads in the Church is against Antiquity Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. epist 36. directed to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria exclaims most bitterly against John Bishop of Constantinople taking upon him to be head of the Church under Christ neither is it of any moment what some object that Gregory doth not inveigh against the title it self of Oecumenick Bishop but only against John Patriarch of Constantinople for usuâ—ping to himself that title Head of the Church which did not belong unto him but to the Bishop of Rome as Successor to Peter We affirm this solution is Black Sophistry because Gregory disputs generally against all who presume to take upon them that title whether Bishops of Rome or not as appears by his general reason He arguments thus He is proud and arrogant and a fore-runner of Antichrist and like Lucifer exalting himself above the other Angels who takes upon him that which is proper to Christ or belongs to Christ only But he who takes upon him to be head of the Church takes that upon him which belongs only to Christ Ergo. By which reasoning of Gregorius it is evident that he disputs against all who take upon them to be secundary heads of the Church Bishop of Rome and all his reason militats no less against the Bishop of Rome then against him of Constantinople and in his 38. Epistle he ingeminats the same reason viz. That those who take upon them to be Head of the Church under Christ will not be able to hold up their face at the last day because in so doing they took upon them that title which belonged only to Christ which title also Gregory in several other of his Epistles calls new Blasphemous against the mandats of Christ Canons of the Apostles Constitutions of the Church c. Which testimonies of Gregory shal be examined hereafter and vindicated from the sophistries of Bellarmin Baronius and others This secundary head is also assaulted by Basilius in Ascetitis in the Prooem where he calls Christ the only head of the Church And thus ye have the opinion of Basilius and Gregorius both called the Great that a Secundary Head of the Church is an Antichristian fiction since they thunder so against it in the person of any one man none can be so ignorant as to think that Gregorious exclaimed against John for taking on him that title of caput primarium Ergo the thing he disputs against is that caput secundarium defended now by Bellarmin Bellarmin nevertheless disputs for that secundary head three wayes First because it is no wayes injurious to Christ Secondly because it illustrats the glory of Christ Thirdly because it is necessar to the Church Let us hear how he pleads And first how he proves it is not contumelious to Christ His argument is this Many titles of Christ are communicated to men such as Pastor Bishop Apostle Prophet Light Foundation Yea and the title of God himself and yet no injury is done to Christ when men are called Apostles Pastors Doctors and Gods c. Ergo no injury is done to Christ when a man is called Head of the Church under Him And consequently a secundary Head of the Church is no wayes contrair to Scripture But it is answered First we have warrand in Scripture for these other titles attributed to both Christ and men but we have no warrand in Scripture to call any man Head of the Church By which it appears that our Savior hath reserved that title to himself alone It is great presumption in any man to take upon him that title belonging to Christ without any warrand Secondly those other titles coÌ„municated to men which are attributed to Christ principally may be compared to those titles which are common to a King and his Subjects Some of which without any derogation to the King at all may be communicated to the Subject as Noble Rich Powerful Lord Magistrat c. But none of the Subjects can be called Kings Just so in these titles common to Christ with men no wrong is done to Christ when they are called Lights Foundations Apostles Doctors Prophets c. But the title of head of the church can no more be coÌ„munictaed to a man then the title of a King to a subject Head of the church is the Kingdom of Christ Thirdly those other titles objected by Bellarmin common to Christ other men are not properly attributed to both but properly to the one Figuratively or Metaphorically to the other So these titles which are properly attributed to Christ are attributed to men improperly and secundum homonymiam And again these titles that are proper to men are in the same manner improperly attributed to Christ But Bellarmin and his Fellows maintain that the title of Head of the Church belongs properly both to Christ and men as the title of a King properly belongs to both Now let us examine those titles objected by Bellarmin more particularly And First Pastor Apostle Bishop Prophet these titles are attributed to men without auy injury to Christ because these titles belong properly to men and from them translated to Christ and since our Savior demits himself voluntarily to these titles it is no injury to him though they be attributed to him Metaphorically and Abusively In the next place are Light and Foundation which according to an Homonymy are attributed to Christ and to men And first Light if it were attributed to them both properly the assertion of John the Apostle would be false affirming That John Baptist was not the Light but only Christ by whom it appears also that Christ was called the Light because he illuminats men are called Lights because they are illuminated So Cyrillus Thomas Aquinas and Augustinus upon the place which last affirms that the Apostle called our Savior the true Light because he was that Light which illuminats men were only called Lights because they were illuminated by him and
The second testimony is of Ambrosius who lâ—ved in that interval between the Council of Nice and anno 604. at which time Bonifacius third was made first of all the Bishops of Rome universal Bishop by an Edict of the Emperor Phocas The words of Ambrosius are Apostoli sunt Episcopi nam in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt quia primus sacerdos est hoc est Princeps Sacerdotum Propheta Evangelista ad caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in Ministerio fidelium In which words he is shewing what Church-Rulers in his own time were answerable to or represented these mentioned by Paul Ehes 4. 11. And he affirms That Bishops succeeded to the Apostles in the first place of the Hierarchie Apostoli sunt Episcopi saith he in which words he expresly affirms That the chief place in the Hierarchie in his own time which was the latter end of the 4. Age was in many and not in one viz. in Bishops who answered to the Apostles And consequently he contradicts this gloss of Bellarmin who affirms that the Successors of Peter and not of the other Apostles only succeeded in the first place of Hierarchie as Monarchs of the Church One Tenebrio or an other whose name I have forgot and also where I read it intends to prove by these words of Ambrosius an Oecumenick Bishop because Ambrosius makes mention of these words of Primus Socerdos and Princeps Sacerdotum that is of first Priest and Prince of Priests But any if not altogether stupid or else intending to deceive may perceive that it is far from the meaning of Ambrosius his words are Bishops succeed to the Apostles or answer to the Apostles mentioned by Paul Ephes 4. 11 because a Bishop is first Priest and Prince of Priests by which iâ— appears that he is comparing Bishops with inferior Priests or Presbyters and not Bishops with Bishops Which is further confirmed because not only Hieronymus contemporarie with Ambrosius and other Fathers but also Ambrosius himself calls all Bishops Summos Sacerdotis or chief Priest and of alike Jurisdiction So Anacletus epist. 2. Tertullianus de Baptism cap. 17. Hieronymus contra Luciferianos and in his Epistle to Evagrius Gaudentius in tractu de Prim. die suae ordinat Eusebius Emissenus in Homil. Augustinus epist 36. which is of Paulinus to Romanianus Ambrosius himself lib. 3. cap. 1. de Sacramentis and also epist 5. 34. Other innumerable testimonies could be produced proving all Bishops alike are Summi Pontifices or Sacerdotes and consequently that the first place of the Hierarchie is in many alike and not in one single person as in the Bishop of Rome or successor of Peter The third testimony is of Anselmus who lived in the 11. age who explaining what Church-Rulers were answerable to these mentioned by Paul Ephes 4. 11 In which he numbers the Apostle Pettr Andrew c. To which now-adays saith he Answers Primats and Patriarchs or Arch-Bishops which quite destroys the gloss of Bellarmin since he makes many in the first place of the Hierarchie and doth not dream that the other Apostles were delegats to Peter and had the first place in the Hierarchie for that reason not communicable to their successors And thus we have proved that the first place of the Hierarchie Jur. divino was not in one single person which we have demonstrated by Scripture and Antiquity And consequently that Peter was not ordained by our Savior Monarch of the Church which was our third argument These of the Church of Rome answers the testimonies of these Fathers calling All Bishops alike or all Bishops High-Priests by distinguishing equality in that of Order and that of Jurisdiction In the first sense they grant all Bishops are alike but not in the last We proved before and shal prove hereafter that distinction is frivolous for the present it will be sufficient to refute that distinction of Order and Jurisdiction by the testimony of an Author in great esteem in the Church of Rome and believed by them to be the Disciple of the Apostle Paul viz. Dionysius Arcopagita whom we now mentioned epist 8. hath these words If any do amiss he is to be censured by the Priests If the Priest go astray he is to be ordered by the Bishop If the Bishop debord he should be judged by those who succeeded to the Apostles but if those debord they ought be judged by those of the same Order Observe he puts many in the same order of alike Jurisdiction In the first place of the Hierarchie which quite destroys that distinction of Order and Jurisdiction CHAP. XIV Of Luke 22. 25. Compared with Matthew 20. 25 26. And Matthew 18. And Luke and Mark 9. HItherto hath been disputed the institution of Peters supremacy pro and contra it hath been defended by these three famous passages of Scripture Matthew 16. 18. Matthew 16. 19. and John 21. 15. 16 17. It hath been brangled by other three Peter 1. 5. 3. Ephes 1. 22. and from Ephes 4. 11. Before we proceed to dispute the supremacy of Peter by his cariage We will first explain a passage of Scripture claimed by both that is the Romanists by it endeavor to establish the supremacy of Peter The Protestants by the same place endeavor to overthrow it the place is Luke 22 24 25 26. where after Supper a strife arose among the Disciples who should be greatest Verse 24 Our Savior answers That the Kings of the Gentiles rule over them and for that reason are called bountiful verse 25 But saith he Ye shal not be so but let the greatest among you be as the least and the chiefest as he that serveth Verse 26. Let us examine First how the one side endeavor to assault the supremacy of Peter by these words In the next place shal be disputed how the other side by the same words assert it The one or other side must of necessity prove the Sophister let us examine which And the Reader may judge which side hath the better The Protestants urge this place against the supremacy of Peter in the same manner as they did that passage of 1. Peter 5. 3. disputed and vindicated before cap. 11. viz. ruling or domination is forbidden in the Church in this place Luke 22. 25. which cannot consist with an Oecumenick Bishop which our Adversaries grant to have the right of domination in the Church Bellarmin and Sanderus answer in this place Tyrannical domination is only forbidden and not all domination their reason is because domination and ruling like that of the Kings of the Gentiles is only forbidden and not all domination But it is replyed That this answer is grounded upon two false suppositions The first is That all domination of the Kings of the Gentiles is tyrannical The second is that these words verse 26. But ye shal not be so have relation to the way of domination and not to domination it self The first supposition is false As is proved thus First It