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
ye hear them proved partly by the Canon Law partly by the decretals of Popes partly by Books authorized by the Popes authority partly per res judicatas or sentences passed in the Popes Court at Rome Ignorants of antiquity of which our adversaries bragg so much believe that the Bishop of Rome had such immense and unlimitated power in all Ages by reason of his succession to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church What can be more pleasing then to consider from what small beginnings at what times upon what occasions by what steps by what artifices he mounted to such a prodigious hight and by what practises he maintains himself in it all which is to the life delineated in this following Dispute and proved by uncorrupted aâ—d unanswerable testimonies of the Ancients In which also it will appear that all what our adversary pretends from antiquity to maintain the Popes Kingdom is either sophistically preverted falsly translated or cited mutilated or forged My Lords and Gentlemen Whereas they make the Bishoprick of Peter the only basis and foundation of the Popes power in the first place ye will find that the Monarchy of Peter was never dreamed of by the Ancients of the first sixth Centuries As for his particular Bishoprick of Rome although some of the Fathers affirm he was Bishop of Rome yet your Lordships will find it proved that they call Paul Bishop of Rome in the same sense and consequently they take the word Bishop in a large sense as it comprehends an Apostle and not properly for a Bishop tyed to any particular Congregation That this is their meaning will be proved by two invincible reasons the first is because these same Fathers in their Catalogues of the Bishops of Rome do not reckon Peter in that number making Linus the first Bishop of Rome Cletus the second Clement the third c. But if they had believed Peter was Bishop of Rome they would have called him the first Bishop Linus the second Cletus the third Clement the fourth c. The second reason is That it shall be proved by the testimonies of those very men who call Peter Bishop of Rome That first Linus and then Cletus were Bishops of Rome during the Life of Peter whereby it is evident that Peter was never properly Bishop of Rome but was called Bishop of Rome by those Fathers because he founded the Church of Rome joyntly with Paul In the next place your Lordships will find it proved albeit many of the Ancients unanimously affirmed that Peter was at Rome and founded the Church of Rome yet they were deceived or else the Scripture affirms falsly since it shall be proved by Scripture that Peter was elsewhere in that time in which they affirm he was at Rome yea it shall be proved by unanswerable reasons from Scripture that Peter was never at Rome and that all those Fathers who believe he was at Rome were deceived by the testimony of one Papias described by Eusebius to be a man of no spirit the Author of many fabulous Traditions and of the heresie of the Millenarii That is of those maintaining that Christ before the last day shall reign a thousand years with his Saints In the third place your Lordships will find that the Bishops of Rome before the dayes of Cyprian were poor persecuted pious Martyrs only two condemned by the whole â—hurch strove to advance that mystery of iniquity which Paul affirmed was working in his own time viz. Victor usurping authoâ—ity over the Bishops of the East anno 195. and Stephanus over the Bishops of Africa and Spain anno 250. or thereabouts Some Doctors of the Church of Rome pretends several monuments of Antiquity to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval but they shall be proved forged not only by unanswerable reasons but also by the confessions of the most learned Doctors of the Church of Rome yea of Popes themselves such as Aeneas Silvius or Pius 2. In thâ— fourth place your Lordships will find the Bishops of Rome made rich by the liberality of Constantine the Emperor and others which occasioned pride and luxury the Parents of Antichrist In the fifth place your Lordships will find the conception of this Monster growing as an Embrio by degrees in his Mothers belly the fiâ—st quarter a Bishop the second a Metropolitan the third a Patâ—iarch between the times of Cyprian and anno 604. In which interval as the riches of the Bishop of Rome increased so pride and corruptions of life grew up with them and also some corruption in Doctrine against which not only Cyprian Hieronymus Sulpitius Severus Nezianzenus Basilius Magnus and other Christian Fathers exclaimed but also Ammianus Marcellinus in the opinion of Barronâ—us a Pagan In that interval Damasus mounted to the Chair of Rome by blood of which the said Ammâ—anus Marcellinus speaking after he had related the murthers that were committed he concludes It was not to be admired they aimed at the Chair of Rome by such practices since having obtained it they were enriched by the Gifts of Matrons and other wayes equalling any King in their port of Table Cloaths Houshold-stuff Attendance and Coatches or Chariots In that interval also Vigilius Bishop of Rome as is related by Liberatus and confessed by Barronius obtained the Chair of Rome by promising to the Empress Theodora to abrogat the Council of Chalcedon to establish the Eutichian heresie in the Church which he endeavoured to do as appears by his Letters when he was Bishop of Rome written to several Courtiers in which he approved that heresie And likewayes by promising Gold to Belesarius General to the Emperour Justinian in Italy By which practices of Vigilius Silverius a pious worthy Bishop of Rome to make way for the said Vigilius was banished and murthered and yet the said Vigilius was a great ingeminator of tu es Petrus and of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome And yet Barronius is not ashamed against all the Writers of that time to praise this Monster as a Saint and yet which is admirable he confesseth the way of his entry to the Bishoprick of Rome viz. by displacing a pious Bishop he obtained the Chair by Simonie and promising to abrogat the Council oâ— Chalcedon and to establish the Eutichian heresie And this much of the conception of this Monster In the sixth place ye have his birth under Phocas who by an Edict christened him universal Bishop In which three things are observable 1 The God-father 2. The God-bairn Gift 3. The reasons wherefore it was given Phocas The God-father was the Emperour Phocas described by all Historians to be a Monster for a man who being a Centurion or Captain of a Foot-company raised a mutiny in the Army against the good Emperour Mauritius and obtained the Empire himself by murthering his Master his Empress his Children and his Friends noted by Historians to have been a perfidious perjured luxurious cruel Monster and yet he was the first
Colledge of Cardinals for election of the Pope which manner of election was utterly unknown to the Ancients the first Pope who ordained this Colledge of Cardinals was Nicolaus 2d who lived anno 1060. which manner of Election continueth unto this day The said Hildebrand becoming afterwards Pope took upon him to depose Emperors Anno 1074. he deposed Henry 4th Emperour and gave the Empire to Rodolphus because Henry would not renunce the investiture of Bishops this Hildebrand raised many broils and troubles and was believed by many learned men of the Church of Rome who lived about that time to be Antichrist his Successors especially after the times of the Jesuits still augmented that Doctrine of deposing Kings by the Pope and it is now defended not only in Books printed by the Popes Authority and by all the Canonists but also assumed by Popes unto themselves in their Bulls as appears by those Bulls of Gregory 7th against Henry 4th Emperor of Alexander 3d. against Frederick the Emperor of Boniface 8th against Philip King of France of Julius second against Lewis twelfth King of France and against the King of Navarre of Paul third against Henry 8th King of England of Pius 4th against Queen Elizabeth of Sixtus 5th against Henry 3d. and 4th Kings of France When Phocas by Edict made Bonifacius 3d. Bishop of Rome universal Bishop the thing he gave him was little better then a bare Title We have shewed two steps by which the Bishops of Rome advanced the first is his freeing himself from the election of the Emperor the second his assuming to himself power of deposing Kings and Emperors the third step after Phocas was assuming to himself authority of convocating General Councils of presiding in them of confirming and infirming them We do not read that any Pope assumed that power to himself the first nine hundered years after Christ It is evident by History that during the time of the first eight general Councils the Bishops of Rome had no such power since it appears they were all convocated by the Emperor that others beside the Bishop of Rome presided in many of them and the Emperor confirmed them all What Pope first assumed to himself that power we find not expresly before the time of Innocent 3d. in the Council of Lateran anno 1210. since which time the succeeding Popes constantly took upon them to convocat general Councils to preside in them and to confirm them The fourth step of the Bishop of Rome after Phocas is his Infallibity which was first conferred upon him by the Council of Florence anno 1439. and afterward confirmed and taught by the Jesuites and Canonists it being held as ane article of Faith in the Church of Rome that the Pope in Cathedra or teaching the whole Church cannot err yea some of them maintain as Albertus Pighius and others that the Pope cannot be an heretick which Bellarmine calls a pious opinion but your Lordships will find it proved part third lib. 2. that innumerable Popes have not only been hereticks and so declared by other Popes and general Councils but also that they have taught heresie and have been condemned by general Councils for teaching heresie as Pope Honorius was condemned by three successive general Councils the sixth seventh and eight and of late Pope Engenius by the Councills of Basill By whence it appears that this Doctrine of the Popes infallibility is not only heresie but madness fighting against common sense reason and the light of all History Any would think that the Bishop of Rome could mount no higher since already he is Monarch of the whole World both in Sprituals and Temporals We have seen him hitherto taking upon him power of deposing Kings and Emperours of transferring Kingdomes at his pleasure of coyning Articles of Faith under the notion of infallibility oblieging the whole Church yet in the last place your Lordships will find him in the fourth part of this Disput sitting in the temple of God adorned with all the marks of Antichrist intending a gigantomachy as if the intended to pull God out of the Heavens taking upon him not only to equal his decretal Epistles to holy Scripture but also to prefer them unto it in several of them decerning against the Law of God openly avowing he has power so to do injoyning it to the whole Church to be believed under pain of heresie that he hath such power Your Lordships will find that in the Canon Law he is called Dominus Deus noster Papa our Lord God the Pope that he takes upon him not only to pardon sins for money both by-past and to come but also for a peice of money to suffer the Clergy to wallow in whoredome albeit against all pure Antiquity he expresly inhibits them marriage Your Lordships will find it proved that in the said Canon Law he affirms himself by reason of his succession to Peter to be assumed to the society of the individual Trinity that for money he will command the Angels to take souls out of purgatory and place them straight in Paradise And in a word your Lordships will find him that man of sin described by the Apostle sitting in the Temple of God exalting himself above all that are called God caling himself God teaching the doctrine of devils forbidding meats forbidding marriage making the Kings of the earth drunk with his abominations corrupting all the Articles of the Christian Faith taking from them adding to them at his pleasure and as he groweth in power depravation of Religion encreaseth with it following the increments of his authority as the motion of the Sea depends upon the Moon In purer Antiquity when there was no evidence of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome at all there was no corruption in Doctrine Religion was unspotted but when the Bishop of Rome enriched by the liberality of the Emperours became proud and aimed to usurp over the Church corruption in Doctrine encreased apace with their increments of power Consult History and your Lordships will find at every step of the Popes advancement in power a depravation in Doctrine accompanying it your Lordships will likewayes find it proved part fourth lib. 2. that the Doctrine of the modern Church of Rome is nothing else but a masse of depravations corruptions heresies brought in by Bishops of Rome as they advanced in authority the Doctrine of the first six Centuries being quite extinct Notwithstanding all the braggings of our adversaries of their Antiquity your Lordships will find in the first six hundred years after Christ that the Doctrine now professed by the modern Church of Rome was altogether unknown and had not a beeing or if any of their modern Tenets were mentioned by the Writers in those times it was with detestation under the notion of Heresie and opposed by the whole Church If your Lordships think this incredible ye will find it proved part 4. lib. 2. Of this treatise by an induction of all those Tenets which the Church
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
lived is uncertain Ignatius in his Epâ—stle to the Trallians hath these words What is a Bishop but he who goeth beyond all command and power who commands all as far as a man can command In which words he expresly affirms that there is no Office of the Church above that of a Bishop for if a Bishop have supream command as he expresly affirms he can be commanded by no superior Church-ruler as Metropolitan Patriarch or oecumenick Bishop The Testimony of Dionysius is taken from his 8. Epistle his words are these in substance Every man should strive to live blamelesly if he do not the Priest should take a course with him if the Priest deborde he should be judged by his Bishop if the Bishop do amiss he should be judged by the successors of the Apostles if those again do amiss they should be judged by those of the same order and degree In which words he quite excludes one visible Head over all and consequently it appears that in his dayes the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not believed as an article of Faith in the Church since he affirms that many hold the chief place of the Hierarchy whereof any should be judged by the rest and not all by one visible Head or by the Bishop of Rome What he means by Successors to the Apostles whom he places above Bishops none can tell except he mean Metropolitans and Patriarchs if he do its evident he lived after the times of Cyprian because in the dayes of Cyprian and before there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop as appears first by that passage of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians now cited Secondly it appears by the Epistle of the said Ignatius written to the Magnesians in the which Epistle he comprehends all Church-rulers under Bishops and Presbyters where he affirms that Bishops have the cheif place loco Dei in place of God Presbyters have the next place concessus Apostolici loco that is they represent the Council of the Apostles the last place he gives the Deacons to whom the Ministery of Christ is committed Thirdly that no Office was in the Church above that of a Bishop before the times of Cyprian nor in his time appears by those two following most notable passages of Cyprian the one in his Books de unitate Ecclesiae lib. 4. Epist 9. the other from his Oration to the Council of Carthage of which two passages in order CHAP. VII Explication of that place of Cyprian De unitate Ecclesiae THe words of Cyprian are Unus Episcopatus est cujus à singulis pars in solidum tenetur that is There is one Bishoprick of which every Bishop hath alike full share by which passage of Cyprian it not only appears that the Bishop of Rome in his dayes was not believed to be visible Head of the Church but also that there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop since every Bishop had alike full share of that one Bishoprick which could not be if in those dayes Metropolitans had been above Bishops Patriarchs above Metropolitans and an oecumenick Bishop above all This notable passage of Cyprian puzles the Learned of the Church of Rome very sore they vary very much in their glosses upon this place of Cyprian as Rufus contra Molinaeum Fran. Agricula cap. 18. varies from him Hayus disput lib. 1. cap. 11. and Turrianus contra Zadeel lib. 1. cap. 17. 26. agree almost in one Exposition but they differ from the other two Sanderus de visib Monarch lib. 7. num 45. differs from all the former Bellarmine lib. 2. de pont Rom. cap. 16. varies from them all We will examine the exposition of Bellarmine for since they vary in their opinion about the meaning of Cyprian and since the meaning of Cyprian can be but one of necessity all their glosses must be false except one and since the gloss of Bellarmine is most approved by the Church of Rome we will examine it Bellarmine in the forecited place expones the words of Cyprian thus There is one Bishoprick saith he in the same way that the Church is one But the Church is one as many branches of the same Tree are one Tree many rivolets are one Water many beams one Light as then in branches there is an unity by reason of one Root in rivolets by reason of one Fountain c. So is the Church one and consequently the Bishoprick one in its Head and Root the Church and Bishoprick of Rome And whereas Cyprian affirms that every Bishop hath a full share of that one Bishoprick Bellarmine grants its true but by a distinction that is Though every Bishop have a full share yet he hath not an equal share nor in the same manner for Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome have that share which answers to the Head Root and Fountain but other Bishops have that share answering to the Branches Rivolets c. This gloss of Bellarmines quite destroyes the Text for Cyprian compares particular Churches to Branches Rivolets Beams that one Bishoprick he compares to an Oak to Light to a Fountain whereby it evidently appears that by that one Bishoprick he means not the Bishoprick of Rome which is a particular Bishoprick as well as the rest and not that great Bishoprick or one Bishoprick whereof every one hath a full share Secondly that by unus Episcopatus he means not the Bishoprick of Peter having authority over other Bishops is proved by his words in the same Book de unitate Ecclesiae where he affirms Whatever the other Apostles were Peter was the same that all the Apostles were equal to Peter in dignity and power whereby it appears whatever the Bishoprick of Peter was the Bishopricks of the other Apostles were equal to it and since the Bishopricks of the other Apostles were particular Bishopricks each having a full share of that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian the Bishoprick of Peter was only a particular Bishoprick and not that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian Thirdly That the Bishoprick of Rome is not that one Bishoprick appears by the express words of Cyprian in his Oration to the Council of Carthage in which as we shall prove in the next Chapter he makes any other Bishop equal in jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome Fourthly Bellarmine and Sanderus in making that one Bishoprick the Bishoprick of Peter must of necessity grant that Peter only had his Bishoprick immediatly from Christ and the other Apostles their Bishopricks from Peter since Sanderus expresly affirms that all other Bishopricks flow from the Bishoprick of Peter as all mankind had their Original from Adam But in averring the Apostles to have their Bishopricks from Peter Bellarmine contradicts first Fran. de victoria who relect 2. quaest 2. conclus 3. and 4. expresly affirms That the other Apostles received all their power both of order and jurisdiction immediatly from Christ In which words he is glossing upon that passage
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
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
Jurisdiction of Peter alone over the Church Their second reason is this Because the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others besides Peter which they prove First by Scripture next by Fathers The passages of Scripture are two The first is Mat. 18. 18. Verily I say unto you Whatsoever ye shal bind on earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye loose on earth shal be loosed in heaven The second place is in Joh. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins yel retain they are retained Bellarmin answers That those two places now cited have not the same meaning with Matthew 16. 19. He grants that the difficulty is somewhat pressing of Matthew 18. 18. but there is no difficulty at all saith he in John 20. 23. which he proves by three Arguments The first is this in Matthew 16. 19. The Keyes are promised to Peter without any particular determination but in John they are determinated to the forgiveness of sins but binding and loosing may be exercised in other objects then in pronounccing men guilty of sin or absolving them from sin as in making of laws and dispensing with them But it is answered That the Fathers expounding those words What ever ye shal bind on earth c. Matthew 16. 19. referrs that place only to the binding and loosing of sin So Augustinus tractat 124. on John Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo Claves ab eo regni Coelorum accepit in Petro id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata In which words he expresly affirms That the keyes committed to Peter consisted in the binding and loosing of sin Secondly Theophylactus on Matthew 16. expresly affirms What was given to Peter in that place was given to all the Apostles John 20. He saith indeed They were promised only to Peter Matthew 16. Christ directing his speech only to Peter but they were given to all If ye ask when saith he it is answered when he said Whose soever sins ye forgive alluding to John 20. Whereas Bellarmin affirms That the power of the keyes consists also in making of Laws he saith nothing at all except he prove that Peter had more authority then the other Apostles in that particular of making Laws Bellarmins second Argument to prove the same thing is not promised to Peter Matthew 16. which is given to the other Apostles John 20. is this in Matthew it is said to Peter Whomsoever thou shalt bind c. But it is said to the other Apostles in John Whosesoever sins ye retain c. But to bind is more then to retain for to retain is to leave a man in the same condition ye find him but to bind is to impose new bonds upon him by excommunication interdicting and Law But it is answered This Argument of Bellarmins is of no moment because according to the constant phrase of Scripture Forgiving of sins and loosing of sins are all one Ergo their opposits retaining of sin binding a sinner are all one Since we bind men for their sins only it is necessar that the sin being forgiven they are loosed or else that they are still retained if they be not loosed But it is absurd to affirm that anys sins are forgiven and yet retained for Bellarmin seems to speak of that distinction viz. remission of fault and remission of punishment that is the fault may be forgiven but not the punishment But this distinction is vain and belongs nothing to this place Bellarmin seems to import that the Prerogative of Peter is to have power of remitting any of them or both of them which the other Apostles have not wherein he is topped first by Cyrillus upon Matthew 16. who attributs the full power of binding and loosing to the whole Church which he proves in that instance of the incestuous Corinthian Secondly he is topped by Aquinas affirming that every Minister binds in refusing the Sacrament of the Church to those who are unworthy and looseth when he admits them to it Thirdly the Interlinear Gloss upon Matthew 16. affirms that sins are forgiven and retained by two keyes of power and remission Bellarmins third argument proving that John 20. and Matthew 16. are not alike is this because saith he in John 20. Power of forgiving sins by the Sacrament of Baptism or Penitence is only conferred upon the Apostles which he proveth by the authority of Chrysostom and Cyrillus upon this place John 20. and also of Hieronymus Quest 9. ad Hedibia But it is answered First Those Fathers affirm indeed that Power of forgiving of sins in Baptism is given in this place but it is false which Bellarmin affirms that it is only given and no more For forgiving of sins is but the half of the Power conferred by Christ upon the Apostles in this place since retaining of sins is also given unto them Secondly Fathers referr to Baptism that loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. So Cyprianus epistle 73. where he disputs that forgiving of sins in Baptism is proper to the Pastors of the Church which he proves first by Peter who got that power Matthew 16. 19. and also by the other Apostles to whom our Savior said Whose sins ye forgive c. John 20. Yea Gaudentius in the first day of his ordination expresly affirms that the gates of the Kingdom of heaven are opened no other wayes then by Baptism and absolution and thus much of the similitude of John 20. with Matthew 16. By what we have said it appears that Bellarmin brings nothing but Sopistry to prove that the places are not alike He grants that there is great difficulty to prove the dissimilitude of Matthew 16. 19. and 18. 18. Since binding and loosing is given to all the Apostles in the last place as well as in the first to Peter and not only retaining as in John 20. which Bellarmin affirmed to be a demonstration that John 20. and Matthew 16. were not alike places viz. that retaining and forgiving was only given to all the Apostles John 20 which was not so much as binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. Nevertheless Bellarmin endeavors to prove that Matthew 16. 19. and 18. 18. are unlike places although in the last binding and loosing be given to all the Apostles as well as to Peter in the first Because that binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. is of greater authority then that given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. 18 His argument is this which I believe he understands not himself In Matthew 18. saith he Nothing is given to the Apostles at all but only it is promised to them and explained what power they should have afterward which he prove by two reasons The first is That they were not yet Priests or Pastors or Bishops when Christ made them that promise Matthew 18. 18. but only after the resurrection Secondly because those words Whomsoever ye shal bind and loose c. Matthew 18. are the paralels of those said
affirms also that the Apostleship was restored unto him by these words of our Savior Feed my Sheep After his answering the three-fold interrogation of Christ he had professed thrice He loved Christ by testimonies of which Fathers it appears that nothing peculiar to Peter was given in these words Feed my Sheep Since the Apostleship is common to Peter with the other Apostles And therefore Peter was not ordained Oecumenick Bishop in these words The third Sophistry of Bellarmin consists in his reasoning thus If Peter saith he had believed that these words of Christ had belonged to John as well as to himself or if our Savior had injoyned to John the feeding of his Sheep as well as unto Peter Peter would never have demanded of our Savior What John should do Neither would our Savior have answered him What is that to thee Follow thou me For Peter would have known what John should do viz. Feed Christs Sheep and our Savior would have answered him John shal feed my Sheep as thou dost But it is answered This disputation of Bellarmins is most shameless babling for that question of Peter Asking what John should do And that answer of Christ What is that to thee are not relative to these words of Christ Feed my Sheep but to these verse 18. When thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thine hands shewing to Peter what death he should die Whereupon Peter asketh Christ What John should do or what should become of him or what death he should die To which our Savior answers What is that to thee That this is the true gloss appears by the text it self by the Fathers Cyrillus Euthymius by the ordinar gloss by all the Ancient Popish Doctors upon the place As Aquinas Carthusianus Gorranus Cajetanus Toletus by late Popish Doctors as Maldonatus Barradas and Emmanuel Sa So that Bellarmins gloss is nothing els but one of his new devised fictions by which he and others of late endeavor to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome contrair to common sense Scripture and the whole current of Popish Doctors themselves who lived before these last times Fourthly Bellarmin comes on with an other of his glosses of like nature viz. seeing that it could not be denyed that other Apostles and Pastors beside Peter were injoyned to feed the Flock of Christ since it was so clearly asserted by Scripture and Fathers He invents a new distinction that they did it by the permissiom of Peter or to use his own words Quia vocantur à Peâ—ro in partem solicitudinis that is because they had a calling from Peter so to do or Were admitted by him to a part of the care But it is answered This distinction of Bellarmins hath not the least ground It is against Scripture John 20. 21. and Matthew 28. 19. as both passages are expounded by the Fathers It is contrair to Fathers as was proved by the testimonies of the Clergy of Rome of Cyrianus of Augustinus Chrysostomus and Basilius Finally it is contrair to Popish Doctors as Franciscus de Victoria who as we shewed before disputed expresly That all the Apostles had not only their Order but also their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ And reprehended the ordinar gloss for using that distinction in exposition of that place of Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae All the Apostles after the Resurrection had alike authority and power from Christ Neither can Bellarmin produce one testimony of Antiquity to maintain his gloss viz. That Peter immediatly had the power of feeding the Flock of Christ from Christ himself and the other Apostles and Pastors had it only from Peter Sanderus lib. 6. cap. 4. of his Monarchy useth another argument from those words of our Savior Peter lovest thou me more then these From which words he concluds That the Feeding of the flock of Christ was injoyned immediatly only to Peter because saith he Peter loved Christ better then the other Apostles did and therefore the â—eeding of the flock of Christ was committed to him alone as the reward of his love But it is answered First it cannot be gathered from the text that Peter loved Christ better then the other Apostles did since Christ only asked him whither he loved him better then the other Apostles did Peter answered thou knowest that I love thee but he adds not better then the other Apostles do 2. Tho it were granted as some of the Fathers maintain that Peter loved Christ better then the other Apostles did it is inconsequent for that reason to conclude that Peter had Jurisdiction over the rest for the same argument would conclude that the Apostle John had Jurisdiction over those Apostles who loved not Christ so well as himself that Stephanus a Deacon had Jurisdiction over Nicolaus and other Deacon that Peter himself had more ample Jurisdiction then Sylvester second Alexander sixth and other Monsters which were Bishops of Rome which Bellarmin will not grant readily since all Bishops of Rome are in his opinion of alike authority with Peter Lastly Turrianus lib. 2. cap. 22 in his defence against Zadeel reasons thus Let it be granted saith he that all the Apostles and all Pastors had their authority of feeding the Flock of Christâ— it doth not hinder a distinction of Order among them not though that authority be equal as they are Pastors yet it doth hinder one to be a Presbyter an other to be a Bishop above him another to be universal Bishop above all as all men qua homines or as men are equals yet some of them are Kings others subjects But it is answered It far less follows that there are several degrees of Church Orders because they are of alike authority or that because these words Feed my sheep were injoyned with alike authority to Linus and Cletus Bishops of Rome therefore the one of them was Oecumenick Bishop the other not The truth is to answer in earnest to Turrianus its false which he affirms That the equality of Authority can consist Jure Divino with Subordination of one Bishop to another All Bishops are Jure Divino of alike Authority Subordination or distinction of degrees in Bishops are Jure humano as shal be proved in the following Books We have vindicated two reasons why these words of our Sâ—vior Feed my sheep conclude not that Peter was ordained Oecumenick Bishop The first was That feeding of the sheep of Christ inferrs no dominion over them The second was because our Savior injoyned the Feeding of his sheep to others as well as to Peter which we proved by Scripture and Fathers and answered all what our Adversaries objected to the contrair Now followeth a third Reason wherefore those words of our Savior to Peter Feed my sheep doth not conclude him Oecumenick Bishop and is this because many were Christs sheep whom Peter did not feed as the Indians Ethiopians and Gentiles committed to the Apostleship of Paul yea the very Apostles themselves were the sheep of Christ and yet we
Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to absolve Subjects from their Oaths of fidelity to their natural Princes to command them to fight against them and consequently to kill them that all are oblieged to acknowledge him for their natural Prince whom the Pope shal appoint It is taught also in that Church That the Pope is direct Monarch of the whole World both in Spirituals and Temporals So Bozius lib. 10. de signs Ecclesiae and Carerius de potestate Papae and all the Canonists they teach also That a Pope deposing a King without any reason but his will doth him no wrong because he takes only what is his own from him As a King doth no wrong to the Governor of a Province when he gives his government to another Subject Although the former have done no offence as is maintained by Thomas Bozius lib. 3. cap 4 de jure status Here our Romish Emissaries in Scotland endeavor to perswade their Proselytes that this doctrine of deposing Kings is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome but only of some particular Persons whom they call the Popes Flatterers But is replyed that those Gentle-men are either not well versed in their own principles or else they are like Father Cotton the Jesuite who being demanded by the Parliament of Paris If he believed that the Popes had power to depose Kings Answered He did not believe it in France but if he were at Rome he would believe it However that it is to the doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings is proved by these following reasons which will puzle those gentlemen very sore to answer The first is this innumerable Books are Printed teaching this doctrine and yet are Printed by authority and licence as containing no doctrine contrair to the true Catholick doctrine of the Church of Rome Ergo the deposing of Kings by the Pope is the true Catholick doctrine of the Church of Rome since a doctrine which is not contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Rome must of necessity be the doctrine of the Church of Rome The second reason is this All the Roman Doctors unanimously maintain except some few who dare not set out their Head that whatever the Pope and his Cardinals discern in a Conclave is of equal if not of a Superior Authority with that which is decreed in a General Council but the Conclave at Rome gives unto the Pope power of deposing Kings Ergo it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome That such power is given to the Pope by the Conclave appears by innumerable bulls as that of Gregory 7. against Henry the 4. Emperor That of Paul the third against Henry the 8. of England Of Paul the 5. against Queen Elizabeth Of Sixtus the 5. against Henry 3. and 4. Kings of France The third reason is this Every one is bound to believe that to be the true Doctrine of the Church of Rome which the Pope teacheth in Cathedra in which case they maintain he is infallible But the Pope teacheth in Cathedra that he hath power to depose Kings by his decretal bulls obliging the whole Church as is notorious in which he assums to himself that power as appears by innumerable of his Bulls especially by those now mentioned against the Emperor Kings of England France in which he expresly assumes unto himself authority of building or aedificandi of casting down or demoliendi of planting plantandi of rooting out eradicandi transferendi of transferring Kingdoms at his pleasure In some of which Bulls also he applyeth to himself those words of the Prophet Per me Reges regnant By me Kings reign which is notorious blasphemy And thus we have proved against those Gentlemen that they are mistaken in denying that is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which giveth authority unto the Pope to depose Kings They are not yet satisfied as appears by two objections made by one of those Gentlemen to my self The first was this that I could not instruct that it was the Doctrine of any General Council that the Pope hath power to depose Kings and consequently I could not make out it was the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome To which objection I answered First that I had made it out That it was the doctrine of Popes in Cathedra and consequently I had made it out that he and all other Romanists were obliged to believe it as an Article of Faith He told me plainly he did much doubt of that neither was he of that opinion That the Pope could not err in cathedra but still pressed me to prove it by the Authority of some General Council protesting he detested that doctrine as unsound I desired him to read Baronius anno 1072. and he would find that the Emperor Henry the 4. was exautorated by a Council at Rome num 16 17 18. and by another at Collen 1118. num 20. and by another at Fritislar ibid. The Gentleman answered very pertinently That these were only petty particular Councils but he desired the authority of a General Council I desired him to read Baronius ad an num 1102. num 1 2 3. and also the same Author 1116. num 5. and also anno 1119. Where he will find that doctrine to be the doctrine of General Councils especially that of Lateran anno 1116. is called a General Council by Baronius Likewise I desired him to read Bzovius anno 1245. num 4. The Council of Lions in the tombs of Councils tom 28. pag. 431. The decretals sext de sententiâ re judicata ad Apostolica where he would find that the Emperor Frederick the second was deprived or declared to be deprived and his subjects quit from their Oaths of Allegiance by Innocentius 4. in the Council of Lions I desired him also to read an Act of a General Council at Lateran under Innocent third where he would find that doctrine or that power of Deposing Kings attributed to the Pope which Act he would find in Bzovius anno 1215. Paragraph 3. in Binnius and Crab in their collection of Councils C. l 3. and in Gregorius de haeret C. excommunicamus I desired him also to read Ses 25. Canon 19. of the Council of Trent where he would find that power of the Popes so intelligibly asserted and consequentially although not expesly that it was one of the main reasons for which the Kingdom of France stood out against that Council of Trent rejecting its Authority By the said Canon any Dominus fundi is deprived of the Dominion of it if a düel be fought in it and since a King is comprehended under Dominus fundi the Council takes upon it to deprive him of a part of his Kingdom but if they have power to deprive him of a part by the same reason they take upon them power to take his whole Kingdom from him And this way I answered his first objection viz. that it could be instructed by Act of
therefore are not the true Lights And since Christ is the true Light and men are not the true Lights it is evident that the title of Light is attributed to both by a Homonymy In the next place comes Foundation Prophets and Apostles are called Foundations two wayes And first Tertullianus lib. 4. cap. 39. against Marcion Chrysostomus Oecumenius Theophylactus interpret these words of Paul super fundamenta Prophetarum Apostolorum as if the Prophets and Apostles themselves were Foundations But it is certain they cannot be called so but only by reason of their Ministry that is in so far as they were Ministers of founding Churches as is confessed by Justinianus the Jesuite who affirms That the faith of the Ephesians was built upon the testimony of the Old and New Testament that is by a Metonymy but Christ is not that way called Foundation and therefore the title of Foundation is attributed by a Homonymy to Christ and the Apostles and Prophets and in that sense the Apostle Paul denyeth that there is any Foundation but Christ Others interpret the meaning of Paul calling the Apostles and Prophets Foundations to be that they preached the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament which is the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets viz. which they did lay So the interlinear and ordinar gloss following Ambrosius and Anselmus so also Lyranus Aquinas Lombardus Cajetanus Gagnaeus the Jesuite and Salmero In what ever sense Foundation be taken it is properly attributed to Christ improperly by a Homonymy to men Bellarmins last tittle is GOD Men are called Gods saith he Psalm 82. and since they are so called why may not a man be called Head of the Church But it is answered First Kings and Judges are not called Gods there but only that men judged so of them because of their flourishing estate so that Fgo dixi Dii estis are not the words of GOD but of the Psalmist himself as dâ—vers learned men gather from the text Others think that the Psalmist is speaking of the Angels However albeit the title of GOD were attributed to Kings and Judges it doth not follow that the title of Head of the Church may be attributed to men because the title of GOD is attributed to men abusively by a too high strained Metaphor But Bellarmin and his fellows endeavor to maintain that the Bishop of Rome is properly head of the Church as a King is head of his Kingdom And in this manner Bellarmin undertakes to prove that it is not injurious to Christ that any should take upon him the title of Head of the Church In the next place he goes a step higher endeavoring to prove That a visible head of the Church sets forth the glory of Christ as the glory of a King is augmented by a Victory But it is answered When a Viceroy intruds himself without a Commission upon a Province he is so far from setting forth the glory of his King that he eclipseth it by neglecting of his authority and proves a Rebel Let Bellarmin instruct if he can in what place of Scripture any hath commission to be visible head of the Church under Christ We proved in the former chapters that what he alledged in the behalf of Peter was new devised Sophistry contradicting Scripture Antiquity and of no great moment to prove the supremacy of Peter in the opinion of the most learned Antiquaries which ever the Church of Rome produced Secondly Bellarmins visible head of the Church carrys himself not like a Viceroy but like a King which must be injurious to the true Head of the Church Yea Bellarmin himself endeavors to prove that the said secondary head reigns in the Church as a King doth in a Kingdom Neither can the Bishop of Rome be said to be Viceroy to Christ otherwise in the government of the Church then a King is Viceroy to GOD in the government of a Kingdom But Kings are absolute and not Viceroys and therefore that visible head of the Church is absolute also being subordinate no otherwise to Christ then Kings are to GOD. Thirdly when a Viceroy takes upon him to go beyond his commission or to govern contrair to the law of his King he wrongs the authority of his King and no wayes sets forth his glory But Bellarmins visible and secundary head takes upon him to dispence with the Law of GOD as we shewed in the former chapter proving that he took power upon him to make Justice Injustice and Injustice Justice In the third place Bellarmin goes a step higher yet and endeavors to prove that a secundary visible head is necessar for the Church because saith he in the absence of Christ the Church cannot be contained in Vnity unless it be governed by one visible head under Christ But it is answered Stillgood that assertion of Bellarmins if not blasphemous is notoriously false viz. That the Church cannot be contained in Vnity by Christ alone unless a visible head be joyned with him Which contradicts Scripture which in every place attributes the cause of that Unity of the Church to Christ alone So John 17. That they may be one in us and Rom. 10. We many are one body in Christ and Gal. 3. Ye are all one in Christ and the reason is evident because that Unity is Spiritual Ephes 4. Studying to keep the unity of the Spirit See also 1. Corinth 12. and Philip 1. By which places it appears that the Invisible and Spiritual presence of Christ alone preserves the Church in Unity which is also granted by many famous Roman Doctors who prove the infallibility of the Church to depend upon this promise of Christ viz. That he would be present with them to the end of the World We have heard Bellarmin disputing for a visible head and proving that it is not derogatory to the honor of Christ We will now examine an argument of Sanderus that famous English Jesuite who proves that it conduceth to the glory of Christ that the Church should have a visible head because saith he More ways of Preaching that glory of Christ are by a visible head then without it But it is answered to omit the inconsequence of that argument we deny the Antecedent or distinguisheth it viz. These ways of Preaching Christ only illustrat his glory which are ordained by himself which a visible head is not Sanderus instances Rulers of particular Churches or Bishops are called Heads of their respective Churches under Christ by Gregorius Magnus and other Fathers Ergo why may there not be one visible head of all the Church under Christ But it is answered First if Sanderus had objected that argument to Gregorius Magnus himself he would have denyed it to follow for although he seems to call Bishops heads of particular Churches yet he detests an universal head as we shewed before as injurious to Christ. Secondly when Gregorius calls Bishops heads of the Church he speaks abusively and improperly and without any warrand in Scripture And thus
those expresly denying that Peter had any superiority above the other Apostles of which kind we alledged many In this Chapter we will vindicate the said testimonies from the exceptions of our Adversaries and because their answers to them all are almost the same with those which they make unto a certain passage of Cyprian and an other of Hieronymus we will vindicat both those passages from their sophistâ—y which are in effect two notable ones The first testimony is of Cyprianus de unitate ecclesiae Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis That is What ever Peter was the other Apostles were the same indued with alike fellowship of honour and power This is a notable passage in which Cyprianus is expresly disputing against the supremacy of Peter for first he affirms all the Apostles were the same which Peter was and least any should think that his meaning is only that they were all Apostles or fellows he adds Pari consortio they were of alike fellowship since it might be objected that inequality might be amongst those of the same fellowship and our Adversaries ordinarily distinguish between order and jurisdiction as if the other Apostles were inferiour to Peter in jurisdiction he adds they were alike fellows in honour and power that is they had all alike jurisdiction with Peter This place of Cyprian puts our Adversaries to their witts end they elude it two wayes they who have any shame by sophistry others more impudente by forgery we will examine their sophistry in this Chapter reserving their forgery untill the last Chapter of the secoâ— Book Pamelius objects that the Book of Manutius and of Cambron hath those words of Cyprian otherwayes viz. after the words of Cyprian which we cited follow those Sed primatus Petro datur ut una Ecclesia Cathedra una monstretur That is But the primacy is given to Peter that it might appear there is only one Church and one Chair But it is answered albeit it might be defended that those words make not much for the supremacy of Peter in Jurisdiction but only in dignity and order it shall be demonstrated that Manutius added those words to the text of Cyprian by the command of Cardinal Baromaeus against the Faith of all the ancient Copies of Cyprian both printed and Manuscripts lib. 2. cap. ult Agricola his glosse since it depends upon those forged words Primatus Petro datur is not worth the answering Hayus Bozius Turrianus answer thus It s true say they that the Apostles were all of a like power before Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church by Christ viz. before he said to him tu es Petrus and this is the meaning of Cyprian Bozius adds that this place of Cyprian expresly makes for the supremacy of Peter because Cyprian affirms in the same place that the equality of the Apostles was taken away by those words Pasce oves meas after which words that equality of â—ower ceased All this is sophâ—stry and first Bozius lyeth notoriously Cyprian affirmeth no such thing as that the equality of the Apostles ceased after those words Pasce oves meas since it is the mind of Cyprian that the equality of the Apostles was or consisted in feeding the flock of Christ for he expresly affirms in the same place that the equality of the Apostles was ordained after the resurrection for immediatly before 〈◊〉 words we cited he affirmeth Christus Apostolus omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuit and therefore it is false that after those words Pasce oves meas the equality of the Apostles was taken away Bellarmine useth another distinction lib. 1. cap. 12. viz. that all the Apostles had alike authority over the Church but they were not of alike authority amongst themselves This is the answer also of Costerus encherid cap. 3. But it is answered this glosse of Bellarmines is very strange first how can Peter be oecumenick Bishop if the other Apostles had alike Authority over the Church with him for the Bishop of Rome questionless will not affirm that any other Bishop has as much Authority over the Church as he hath Secondly though this distinction were granted it takes not away the force of the testimony for disparity of persons doth not infer a disparity of Authority alike in them all but only that the Authority is more eminent in dignity in some then in others Thirdly whereas Bellarmine grants that they were all alike Apostles but the function of an Apostle is the highest degree in the Church Ergo if they were equal to him in the Apostleship they were equal to him in the highest Ecclesiastical function As for that distinction of Bellarmines That that equality of the Apostles with Peter was extra radinar and not derived to their successors as the Authority of Peter who was ordinar Pastor and whose Authority was derived to his Successors we proved before that it was a fiction of Bellarmines own invention not known to the Ancients Sanderus lib. 6. cap. 4 of his Monarchy hath another distinction viz. that albeit all the Apostles were of equal Authority over Christians yet the Original of that Authority was from Peter although as to the execution it was alike in them all But it is answered first this distinction is pressed with the same difficulties with which those of Bellarmines was it is a flat contradiction to affirm any to be equal in the execution of that Authority with those from whom they have it yea Leo Bishop of Rome complained heavily that the Bishop of Constantinople was made equal to him as to the execution of it This distinction of Sanderus leans on a false foundation viz. that the rest of the Apostles had their Authority from Peter which expresly contradicts Cyprian who affirms they had it from Christ and Paul 2. Cor. 5. professeth he was an Ambassadour from Christ or in the name of Christ And Franciscus de victoria as we shewed before expresly disputs that all the Apostles had their Authority immediatly from Christ and taxeth the glosse on Cyprian making use of this dictinction of Sanderus against the mind of Cyprian However it may be granted that Peter was the first in Dignity although the other Apostles were equal to him in Authority Stapleton lib. 6. cap. 7. in principis useth a threefold distinction the first is that all the Apostles were of alike power as Apostles but not as Bishops But that distinction was exploded before cap. 16. The second distinction is quo ad amplitudinem rerum gerundarum sed non quo ad superioritatem in ordine gerendi that is in effect the same distinction with that of Bellarmine now mentioned and therefore it needs no other answer since it imports no other thing then that the equality of the Apostles power was relative to the Church but their inequality consisted in their relation to Peter His third distinction is that Peter had
and disposed by his authority the source or fountain of the same beginning of one 3. The rest of the Apostles were that Peter was in equal fellowship of honour and power but the beginning cometh of unity the primacy is given to Peter that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be one and one Chair 4. He that withstandeth and resisteth the Church he that forsaketh Peters Chair upon which the Church is built doth he trust that he is in the Church In these words observe that all the sentences written within a parenthesis are forged and not to be found in the old Manuscripts of Cyprian or in the old printed copies of Cyprian the reason wherefore the said sentences are added to the words of Cyprian is evident because they make Cyprian expresly dispute for the supremacy of Peter but take them away the supremacy of Peter is quite destroyed as may appear to any who will read over these words and omit those forged passages written within a parenthesis If ye demand how those passages came to be added to Cyprians text It is answered that Pius fourth Bishop of Rome called Manutius the famous Printer to Rome to reprint the Fathers he appointed also four Cardinals to see the work done among the rest Cardinal Barromaeus had singular care of Cyprian Manutius himself in his preface of a certain Book to Pius fourth declareth that it was the purpose of the Pope to have them so corrected that there should remain no spot which might infect the minds of the simple with the shew of false Doctrine How they corrected other Fathers shall be declared in the following Books how they corrected Cyprian appears by those words we have now et down which are marked with Parenthesis which being added perverts the whole meaning of Cyprian neither were they content by adding to Cyprian to prevert his meaning other passages of Cyprian which could not be mended by additions or be made to speak for them by inserting sentences unless they made Cyprian speak manifest contradictions those other passages I say they razed quite out of Cyprian in the said Roman Edition of Manutius anno 1564. in which Edition they razed out Eleven or Twelve entire Epistles as 1. 2. 3. 15. 21. 22. 71. 73. 74. 75. 83. 84. 85. 86. It were too prolix to declare for what reasons they razed out all those Epistles the sum is all of them were no great friends to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome nor to the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome anent the perfection of the Scripture We will cite a passage or two out of the 74. and 75. Epistle which will evidently make known wherefore they razed those Epistles surely there must be some great reason since Pamelius himself wisheth those Epistles had never been written What the reason is appears thus The 74. Epistle was written to Pompeius against the Epistle of Stephanus in which ye have these words Stephanus Haereticorum causum contra christianos contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur and a little after Reus in uno videtur reus in omnibus That is Stephanus Bishop of Rome defends the cause of hereticks against the Church who is guilty in one thing he seems to be guilty of all The 75. Epistle was written by Firmilianus to Cyprian in which ye have these words Non intelligit obfuscari à se c. that is Stephanus Bishop of Rome understands not that the truth of the christian Rock is obfuscated by him and in a manner abolished The words of which two Epistles are very prejudicial to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome those Epistles are every where filled with such expressions too prolix to be answered here but these we have mentioned are sufficient to declare what the opinion of Cyprian was concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome In the said 74. Epistle in several places he calls the said Stephanus ignorant arrogant c. insolent impertinent c. in the 75. Epistle Stephanus is called wicked insolent a deserter and betrayer of the truth Likewayes what a friend Cyprian was to the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome appears by the said 74. Epistle where tradition without warrand of Scripture is called by him Vetustas Erroris antiquity of Error and affirms that all is to be rejected for such which is not found in Scripture so it concern matters of Faith whereby it appears that Cyprian incurres the Anathema of the council of Trent And this we have shewed how they have corrupted Cyprian as well in adding to him to make him speak what he thought not and when that would not serve the turn except they made him speak contradictions they therefore also cutted out his tongue what reason they had so to do we have given some instances many such other might be given but it would be prolix and these are sufficient Now let us hear how they defend those Impostures and first for the razing out of those Epistles Gretserus answers Pamelius restored them in his edition of Cyprian But it is replyed that this is as much as to say that by the testimony of Pamelius Pope Pius Fourth and those four Cardinals whom he appointed to correct the works of Cyprian are notorius impostors It is a new sort of reasoning that they did no wrong in razing out those Epistles of Cyprian because Pamelius restored them Secondly they defend those additions by an old copy of the Abbey of Cambron 2. By a coppy fetched out of Bavaria 3. And by an other old coppy of Cardinal Hosius and so Gretserus the Jesuit defends the last three additions But it is answered that the first addition upon him alone is the most important of all intimating that upon Peter alone the Church was built which is the main Basis of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome but Gretserus the Jesuit who defends this corruption of Cyprian doth not affirm that those words upon him alone are found in any of these three Copies he only affirms that the second addition one Chair and the third the Primacy is given to Peter are found in those old Copies Secondly it is replyed that that Copy of Cardinal Hosius is only mentioned but it was never yet seen If Hosius had any such Copy how comes he left not such a Monument of antiquity to Posterity As for the other two copies of Cambron and Bavaria it is a ridiculous business to object their Authority against the Authority not only of all the printed Copies of Cyprian before that of Manutius but also against all the Manuscripts of Cyprian found in the most famous Bibliothicks of Christendom and the Vatican it self and whereas Gretserus affirms that perhaps the Wicklephian Hereticks corrupted all those Ancient Manuscripts it is a ridiculous objection how could those Hereticks get access to the Libraries of all Princes Universities and the Popes own Library to corrupt the works of Cyprian without
the Church of Rome since it cannot be denyed that the Bishop of Rome hath domination and as shal immediately be proved Tyranick domination And therefore all the Doctors of the Church of Rome distinguish viz. that Tyranick domination is only forbidden 1. Peter 5. they deny that the domination of an Oecumenick Bishop is Tyranical But it is replyed First that all domination is forbidden and not only Tyranical domination Secondly the domination of an Oecumenick Bishop is tyranical as it is now excercised by the Bishop of Rome Haius our Countrey-man disput lib. 1. answers that Peter 1. 5. forbidds only tyrannical domination which he proves by the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Apostle in the said place which evermore imports tyrannical domination as the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to exercise dominion lawfully But he is mistaken Both these verbs are used promiscuously in Scripture for the same both signifying lawful dominion or exercising dominion lawfully as appears by comparing Matthew 20. 25. and Mark 10. 42. where the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used speaking how the Kings of the Gentiles exercise dominion over their Subjects But Luke 22. 25. speaking of the same Lording he useth the other Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereby it appears that these two Greek verbs signify both one sort of ruling which is lawful and not the one of them used by Peter 1. 5. signifyeth tyrannical domination Since none will deny that the ruling or domination of the Kings of the Gentiles may be lawful domination Which is further confirmed because the Septuagints speaking of lawful domination in many places useth the same Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made use of by Peter 1. 5. 3. as Psalm 72. 8. and 110. 2. and Genesis 1. 28. other innumerable places might be added but these are sufficient It is answered Secondly Although it were granted that tyrannical domination were only forbidden Peter 1. 5. yet it quite overthrowes an Oecumenick Bishop Or the domination now exercised by the Bishop of Rome then which no greater tyranny can be imagined since he takes upon himself supream dominion 1. In Spirituals 2. In Temporals 3. Over Souls departed 4. Over Angels 5. He takes upon him titles proper to God himself 6. Hears blasphemous comparisons of himself with Christ made to himself by others not only not punishing these blaspheming Parasytâ— but also hearing them patiently and rewarding them These six particulars seem incredible notwithstanding that they are the doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome and particular Church of Rome the infallibility of which Bellarmin with great animosity endeavors to demonstrate lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. cap. 4. appears by what followeth tracing these six particulars in order And first He assumes to himself Infallibility in Cathedra that is Teaching the whole Church he cannot err which is most abominable tyranny since under the pain of Heresie we are bound to believe a Pope if he shal teach Heresie They strive to elude this Because a Pope cannot teach Heresie to the whole Church Which assertion of theirs is false as appears by these following reasons First It is granted by them all that Popes may be most wicked men yea and Magicians But it is madness to affirm that men living in paction with the Devil cannot err teaching the whole Church Secondly It is evident by History and confessed by Barronius himself Anno 538. num 20. and Liberatus breviar cap. 22. that Vigilius Bishop of Rome obtained that Bishoprick from the Empress Theodora and from Belisarius General to Justinianus the Emperor by promising to the Empress to cass and abrogat the Council of Chalcedon to establish by authority the Eutychian Heresie and by promising gold to the said Belisarius and likewise that he wrote several Epistles to several persons confirming them in the Eutychian Heresie But it is impudence to deny that any entring to the Bishoprick of Rome by such means can be infallible in teaching the Church Thirdly They who affirm and teach that a Bishop of Rome is infallible in Cathedra fights against reason common sense and the light of all History by which it appears that several Popes have not only been condemned by other Popes and general Councils for Hereticks but also for teaching Heresie Of which we shal give many instances part 3. lib. 2. tedious to be inserted here we will only mention Honorius Bishop of Rome who was condemned as an Heretick by the sixth General Council act 12. 13. by the seventh General Council in the last â—ct by the eight General Council act 7. And likewise it appears by the records of the said Councils that the said Honorius was declared an Heretick by three Bishops of Rome Agatho Leo second and Adrianus second and lest they think to escape this difficulty by distinguishing as they use to do in such cases that Honorius taught Heresie as a private person and not in Cathedra It is evident by the 12. and 13. Act of the sixth Council that the said Council condemned two decretal Epistles of the said Honorius as Heretical But none will deny that Popes in their decretals teach the whole Church Alphonsus de castro lib. 1. cap. 4. page 20. concluds Calestinus Bishop of Rome taught Heresie because he had read Heretical Doctrine in an old decretal Epistle of his Likewise of late Pope John 23. was declared an Heretick by the Council of Constance and Eugenius 4. by the Council of Basil By which is sufficiently proved The tyrannical dominion of the Bishops of Rome in Spirituals since all of that Church are bound to believe that as an Article of Faith which he teacheth although he should teach Heresie call good evil and evil good As appears by that blasphemous gloss In caput quanto personam de translatione Episcopi in decretalibus Where it is affirmed that none should presume to call in question what the Pope doth Since he hath an Heavenly arbitriment can change the nature of things make Justice Injustice Injustice Justice Which if it be not tyrannical domination none is imaginable the words of the gloss are these following Papa habet coeleste arbitrium ideo naturam rerum mutare potest substantialia unius rei applicando alij de nullo posse aliquid facere sententiam quae nulla est facere aliquam in his quae vult ei esse pro ratione voluntatem nec esse qui ei dicat cur ita facis Potest enim suprajus dispensare de injustitia facere justitiam corrigendo jura mutando demum plenitudinem obtinet potestatis It shal be proved likewise part 4. lib. 1. that he gives pardons for money for sins to be committed for so many years to come And thus much of his tyrannical dominion in Spirituals which was the first particular The second particular of his tyrannical dominion is in Temporals Authority of deposing Kings is attributed unto him it is taught by the