Church of Rome depends upon the fantastick gloss of a Jesuit contradicting all Antiquity and inconsistent with it self And first it is against Antiquity because they cannot give one instance from ancient Interpreters Councils and Fathers giving this gloss upon those words of our Savior Upon this Rock I will build my Church neither was this gloss ever heard of or so much as dreamed of before the times of the Jesuits after the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was openly assaulted Secondly this gloss is contradictory to it self By it Bellarmin intangles himself many ways and first he grants that all the Apostles were equally Rocks and Foundations with Peter if the word Foundation be taken in the first two senses But all the Fathers who expone the Apostles to be foundations and Peter among the rest did not so much as dream of any other way why Peter or they are called Foundations but only of the first two viz. in regard that they all alike founded Churches preaching that doctrine revealed unto them all alike immediatly from God and consequently foundation in Bellarmins third sense is a dream of his own by which he may well confirm his disciples he will never convert Proselytes but expose himself to the ludibrious taxings of his adversaries in making his own groundless fiction the main Basis of the supremacy of Peter consequently of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and consequently of the Religion of the Modern Church of Rome to which all must be conform under pain of damnation according to that new article coined by the Council of Trent adding to that Article of the Creed Catholick Church making it Catholick Roman Church Secondly we have shewed That this third way of Foundation is a fiction of Bellarmins not dreamed of by the Ancients which although it be sufficient to refute it yet it refutes it self by many contradictions And first of other Popish Doctors It gives unto all the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis plenitude of power in which it contradicts the Theologick Dictionary of Altenstaing approved by authority of the Church of Rome In which Dictionar Plenitudo potestatis is defined not only to be ordinis but also Jurisdictionis conferred by Christ only upon Peter and his Successors and that now formalitâ—â— subjective it is only in the Bishop of Rome which is expresly contradicted by Bellarmin who attributs it to all the Apostles pressed by the evident testimonies of those Fathers seeing the gloss of that Dictionar to be against all Antiquity Thirdly Though Bellarmin be more sound then the gloss of that Dictionar in attributing to all the Apostles that plenitâ—de of power yet he contradicts himself in giving to Peter a greater power then they had it fleeth the edge of the quickest reason to conceive any power greater then plenitude of power and therefore it is a flat contradiction to affirme that although all the Apostles have plenitude of power yet they depend upon Peter as their head which is as much to say as all the Apostles have that power then which none can have a greater and yet Peter hath a greater power then they Lastly Bellarmin affirms that Peter hath plenitude of power as ordinar Pastor the other Apostles as extraordinar and Legats to Peter in which he intangles himself in a twofold contradiction For to omit that distinction of ordinar and extraordinar Pastor amongst the Apostles is a fiction of his own the whole stream of Antiquity avowing all the Apostles to be extraordinar Pastors Peter as well as the rest First he makes the other Apostles above Peter since extraordinar Pastors are preferred to ordinar Pastors the Apostle Paul enumerating the hierarchy of the Church Ephes 4 puts extraordinar Pastors in the first place viz. Apostâ—es Prophets and Evangelists before Pastors and Doctors and so he contradicts himself in affirming that extraordinar Pastors depend upon Peter as their head whom he maketh ordinar Pastor Secondly He contradicts himself in making the other Apostles Legats to Peter and to omit he doth so without any ground having no authority but his own assertion he intangleth himself in his reason for he hath no other reason wherefore the other Apostles are Legats to Peter but only because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle in the original imports one who is sent in commission which is all one with a Legat. But Bellarmin will not deny that Peter in that sense is a Legat also because he is an Apostle and so Peter will be Legat to Peter which is perfect none-sense and contradiction Bellarmin borrowed this distinction of ordinar and extraordinar from Sanderus that famous English Jesuit who with his Country-man Stapleton invented more new distinctions to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome then all the Doctors of the Church beside Sanderus proves Peter to be ordinar and the other Apostles to be extraordinar lib. 6. cap. 9. of his Monarchy Thus Ordinar is called so from order but in order that is first which is most ancient since nothing can be first before that which is first but Peter was the first upon whom Christ promised to build his Church and to give him the power of the keys Ergo they were given to Peter alone For albeit afterwards they were given to all the Apostles yet Christ did not revock what he had given first to Peter and the fore Peter is ordinar Pastor and the other Apostles extraordinar But it is answered This argument of Sanderus presuppons many things as granted which are either uncertain or notoriously false Secondly albeit his suppositions were true they do not conclude his assertion that Peter is ordinar Pastor having Jurisdiction over the rest as extraordinar He who would see how that Sophistry of Sanderus is retexed at large let him read Chameir tom 2. lib. 11. cap. 6. num 27. to the end of the chapter the substance of which is this First He suppons that as Ordinar which is first that extraordinar which is last But ordinar is taken among Divines speaking of Church Officers for that Office which is perpetual extraordinar for that which is for a time So in in the Old Testament Priests and Levits were ordinar Prophets extraordinar Officers and under the New Testament Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and Doctors are ordinar Officers Apostles Evangelists extraordinar Secondly Though the distinction of Sanderus in that sense of ordinar and extraordinar were granted his assertion is uncertain yea rather notoriously false he suppons that Peter first obtained the power of binding loosing and feeding the Flock of Christ but that is uncertain for these words of Christ exhibit nothing to Peter for the present but only promise to give him that power of the Keys and to build his Church upon him neither was that promise made to Peter alone but to all the Apostles as partly hath been proved already but more fully shal be proved cap. 6. and 9. and therefore the supposition of Sanderus is uncertain and false
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
Emperour who made the Bishop of Rome oecumenick or universal Bishop And this much of the God-father of that Monster which is all the Jus Divinum the Bishops of Rome have for their Monarchy in the Church The next thing observable is the God-bairn gift or the title of Universal Bishop conferred by Phocas upon Bonefacius third Bishop of Rome in the beginning of the seventh Age or about anno 604. If your Lordships ask what sort of Title and Office it is Gregorius Magnus Bishop of Rome who died not two years before Bonifacius 3d was Bishop of Rome who was first made universal Bishop by Phocas And Pelagius second Bishop of Rome to hom immediatly Gregorius Magnus succeeded will inform your Lordships viz. That the Title and Office of universal Bishop were new not heard of before that time Scelerate Prophane Sacrilegious Blasphemous against the Mandates of Christ Constitutions of the Apostles Canons and Liberties of the Church Who ever took upon him that Office or Title He contaminated those very times in which he lived was that Man of Sin sitting in the Temple of God exalting himself above all that are called God So Pelagius in an Epistle to a Council at Constantinople that he was like the Devil exalting himself above the other Angels and equalling himself to God So Gregorius which expressions of Pelagius and Gregorius and many others too prolix to be inserted here are found word for word in their Epistles Those Testimonies at length ye will find in the second Book of the second Part of this following Treatise The third thing observeable by your Lordships is the reasons wherefore the Emperour Phocas bestowed that Title of oecumenick Bishop upon Bonifacius third They are mentioned by Barronius ad annum 604. and others also as Sabellicus and Platina there is not one word of Tu es Petrus or of the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter amongst them all They were all civil respects As first because the Emperour had his Title from Rome and since Rome was the old Imperial City It was reason that the Bishop of Rome should have jurisdiction over all Bishops This is the onely reason mentioned in the Edict of Phocas Others add there reasons One of which is this Mauritius the Emperour murthered by Phocas had bestowed the title of universal Bishop upon John called Jejunator Or the Faster Patriarch of Constantinople Pelagius and Gregory Bishops of Rome thunder both against the Title and the Function as we now mentioned but to no purpose John still possesseth both the Title and the Office In both which Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople succeeds which Cyriacus protected the Empress and Children of Mauritius against Phocas for which reason Phocas takes both the Title and the Office from â—yriacus and bestowed them upon Bonifacius third Bishâ—p of Rome his old friend as is confessed by Barronius Others add two other reasons the first is this Phocas having obtained the Empyre by murthering his Master Mauritius and all his race domineered with such tyrrany that he was abhorred of all fearing a revolt in the West to curry favour with Bonifacius third Bishop of Rome whose authority was very great in it he bestowed the title of universal Bishop upon him that by his moyen he might be established in his Empyre and acknowledged by the Romans The second reason related by some is that the said Bonifacius either gave or did promise to give to Phocas a hudge mass of Money and so bought the Office from him However whatever were the reasons which moved Phocas it is most certain that the Edict or Gift of Phocas is the oldest Evident and Charter that the Bishop of Rome can produce to instruct his Monarchy in the Church which will more clearly appear by what followeth Seventhly your Lordships will find that new born Monster Christned universal Bishop by the Edict of Phocas shunned every where in the East in Spain in Britain in Germany in France yea in Italy it self under the walls of Rome the whole Church refusing to obey the Edict of Phocas or to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome universal Bishop One only Parasite excepted the Bishop of Cyprus who saluted him by that name out of envy to the Bishop of Constantinople So that in the end as it was recorded by some the Bishop of Rome for very shame gave over that Title of universal Bishop The posterior Emperoures also recalled that Edict of Phocas as appears by the 36th Canon of the sixth general Council called Trullanum convocated by Pogonatus Emperour of Constantinople anno 680. By which 36th Canon of the said Council was confirmed the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon celebrated anno 450. By which the Bishop of Constantinople was made equal to the Bishop of Rome in Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction In the Eighth place your Lordships will find in the decay of the Grecian Empyre by the Inundations of barbarous Nations all enemies to the Empyre and each of them enemies to one another that the Bishops of Rome in these vicissitudes sided ever with the Conquerour being also courted by them to countenance them in the establishment of their new and unsettled conquests By which practices that Apocalyptick Monster almost blasted in the Budd and strangled in the Craddle revived again not only re-assuming the Title of universal Bishop bestowed on him by Phocas But also soaring higher taking upon him to excomunicate the Grecian Emperour to stir up the Longobards to bereave him of his possessions in Italy To destroy the Exharchat of Ravenna To bereave him of the Dutchy of Rome which the Pope got to his own share And when the Longobards demanded Tribute of him for the said Dutchy of Rome which the Bishops of Rome were acustomed to pay to the Grecian Emperours Then he called in the French by whose means he destroyed the Kingdom of the Longobards and to requite the French Services he made Pipin their General King of France shutting up the righteous King in a Monastery And also in contempt of the Grecian Emperour he made Carolus Magnus Son of the said Pipin Emperour of the West Since which time the Empyre of the West has been divided from that of the East until this day That is since the latter end of the Eighth Age or Century In the ninth place your Lordships will find a strange Catastrophy The Doctors of the Church of Rome brag much of the submissive obedience of Carolus Magnus to the power of the Bishop of Rome which in effect he seemed to do at first untill he obtained his ends but having accomplished his intentions he made it appear to posterity that both the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome was a Sword in a mad mans hand he curbed him so both in spirituals and temporals that he left him no more but the bare Title of universal Bishop but as to the power of it he made him a meer cypher as appears by what follows The History is very pleasant
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
Phocas the Emperor carried no good will to Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople he struck the Iron while it was hot after much contention pronounced in his favour The third Part entituled of an oecumenick Bishop contains the History of that interval between anno 600. and the Council of Trent It is divided in two Books in the first I insist most on those following particulars 1. What power was conferred by Phocas with that title of universal Bishop upon Bonifacus third Bishop of Rome 2. How the edict of Phocas was obâ—yed viz. resisted every where till in the end it was recalled by Pogonatus anno 680. in the sixth general Council as was shewed before 3. How during the vicissitudes of inundations of Barbarians the Bishop of Rome re-assumed that title of unâ—versal Bishop and usurped power in temporals over the Grecian Emperoâ—s as was already declared 4. How Carolus Magnus curbed him 5. How when the posterity of Carolus Magnus decayed he renewed and augmented his power by five steps as we shewed before also In the second Book those steps or increments of the Papacy between anno 600. and the â—Câ—ncel of Trent are dogmatically disputed by Scripture Fathers and it is proved by testimonies of the most learned Antiquaries of the Church of Rome that the oldest of those steps was not before anno 1000. It is true indeed that his power in temporals was attempted first by Constantine Bishop of Rome against Philippicus Emperour of Constantinople anno 720. because the said Philippicus caused pull down those Images of the Fathers of the sixth general Council placed in the Church of St. Sophia at Constantinople and a little after Gregory 2d and 3d. Bishops of Rome excommunicated Leo Isaurus and his son Copronymus for the same quarrel of Images but their insolence was compesâ—ed by Carolus Magnus as we shewed before Those four steps are 1. Election by Cardinals 2. Power of convocating general Councils constantly preâ—iding in them of confirming and infirming them 3. Power in temporals 4. In fallibility as for the last step Divinity it is disputed in the fourth Part lib. 2. The fourth and last Part of this Treatise entituled of Antichrist is divided in two Books in the first the demonstrations of Sanderus Bellarmine and Lessius three Jesuits are answered by which they endeavour to prove that the Bishop of Rome is not Antichrist 2. The Bishop of Rome is proved to be Antichrist by Scripture Fathers Popish Doctors yea by the testimonies of some Popes themselves In the second Book two marks of Antichrist are chiefly insisted upon the first is his defection 2 Thess 2. where it is proved that the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome is that defection mentioned by the Apostle and that in the first six Centuries there was no such thing as the modern Popish Religion which is proved by an induction of all the contraverted points we have with the Church of Rome 2. Because those of the Church of Rome ordinarily object that they have not made a defection because it cannot be instructed at what time it was made by whom and who resisted it Two things are proved in the said Book first it is proved by Reason Experience Scripture Fathers that a defection may be made and yet it may be unknown by whom it is made at what time and who first resisted it 2. It is proved by an induction that most of the most substantial Tenets of the Church of Rome such as transubstantiation number of the Sacraments communion under one kind sacrifice of the Mass imperfection of the Scripture equalling of traditions to it adding a Apocrypha Books to it rejecting the Greek and Hebrew as not being authentick as making the corrupt vulgar Latine version authentick free-will Merits justification by Works caelibat of Priests worshiping of Images invocation of Saints set Fasts Prayer for the dead Purgatory Indulgences works of super-erogation all the steps of the Popes Supremacy c. were not only not from the beginning but also it is proved for the most part by testimonies of Popish Doctors themselves at what time and by whom the said Tenets as innovations were brought in the Church The second mark of Antichrist we insist upon is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all sort of deceiving and fraud 2 Thes 2. where it is shewed by what cheats the authority of the Bishop of Rome and his Doctrine are maintained such as perverting falsly translating and corrupting by adding and paring of the indices expurgatorii all the Writings of the Ancients Suppositions Revelations Saints Miracles c. My Lords and Gentlemen Thus I have represented unto you what I perform in this great Subject and what method I observe in it By which it will appear to any reasonable man what difference there is between this method and that of others if I perform what I promise of which let the judicious Reader be judge Now followeth the third thing which I desired your Lordships to take to consideration viz. what my scope and intention is which is twofold the first is to refute those marks 〈◊〉 which those of the Church of Rome endeavour to perswade their Disciples that the said Church of Rome is the true â—hurch The first mark is a continual succession of Bishops which they take great pains to enumerat from the dayes of the Apostles unto this time In which mark shall be proved a four-fold cheat The first is they make the world beâ—ieve that all those Bishops were of a like greatness in Power and Authority whereas it is proved that in the first three Centuries or at least before the dayes of Cypâ—ian that every Bishop was of equal authority with the Bishop of Rome And that between the times of Cyprian and the Council of Chalcedon every Metropolitan and from the Council of Chalcedon to anno 604. every Patriarch were of equal jurisdiction to him And when he was made universal Bishop by Phocas little more then a bare title was bestowed on him and yet that was after revocked by the sixth general Council As for those five steps we mentioned before in which chiefly the Modern Power of the Pope consists viz. Election by Cardinals 2. Authority of convocating general Councils 3. Temporal jurisdiction 4. Infability 5. and Divinity it shall be proved as we said before by the testimonies of Popish Doctors themselves that the oldest of them had not a beeing in the tenth Age and that the said Popish Doctors acknowledging the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church nevertheless some of them doubted not to call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist by reason of these steps which they call tyrannical Antichristian usurpations The second Cheat in that mark of succession is that they make ignorants believe that all the Bishops of Rome since the times of the Apostles professed the same Doctrine which is now taught in the Church of Rome whereas it shall be proved that the Doctrine of the modern
Church of Rome had not a beeing the first six hundred years after Christ that it had some notable beginning about that time when Bonifacius 3d. was made first universal Bishop and encreased afterwards as the power of the Bishop of Rome encreased the one following the other as the motion of the Sea follows the Moon that many of the most substantial points of the modern Roman Faith were never generally established before the cape-stone of the Popes power was laid at the Councils of Florence and Trent at which two Councils many Tenets were established with an anathema as Articles of Faith believed to be so many paradoxes by the most learned men in the Church of Rome who lived in those times who spared not to exclaim against the fraudulent proceeding of the Pope who carried all by plurality of voices in these two Councils 1. By multitude of Italian Bishops 2. By titular Bishops that is Bishops having imaginary Titles in the East as Jerusalem Antioch c. Which Bishops he created purposely that by the number of their voices and of the Italian Bishops he might bear down in these two Councils the voices of the Bishops of Germany Spain and France The third Cheat in that mark of succession is that they make ignorants believe that all those Bishops were lawfully elected but it shall be proved in the following Disput that some were elected by Blood others by Simony others by unlawful Stipulations and Pre-contracts to establish Heresie in the Church and to condemn the Oâ—thodox Doctrine as heretical others of them by a paction with the Devil yea it shall be proved by the most eminent Antiquaries of the Church of Rome it self that since Nicolaus secundus who lived in the eleventh Century there has not been one Bishop of Rome elected according to the Law of God and Constitutions of the primitive Church and that their manner of election at this day is so detestable that none can hear of it without horror The fouâ—th Cheat in that mark of succession is this we have redacted that succession to a number of persons of unequal power contrary Doctrine unlawfully elected now rests a bare personal succession in which there is a notable Cheat also because they obtrude for the true Successor persons that are not capable by their own principles of the Function as appears by three unanswerable reasons The first is a woman was Pope for several years together and whereas Bellarmine and Baronius affirms it was a fiction it is answered since those Historians who relate it for a truth lived in tâ—ose very times in which it fell out or at least very near them and since those who call it a fable lived long after and are but of yeaster-day in respect of those who affirm it to be of a truth no judicious Reader needs to be puzled much which party to believe since those who called it a truth professed themselves to be as obedient Sons to the Church of Rome as those who call it a fable The second reason against the continuity of that personal succession is this the Chair of Rome hath been for several years empty and without a Bishop and whereas they affirm that the power then of the Bishop is in the Cardinals it shall be proved by their own Learned Antiquaries that the modern power of those Cardinals was a thing unkown to the Ancients and to be nothing else but a new devised Cheat. The third reason against that personal succession is this it is known to all who are versed in History that many Popes have been at one time and the subtillest Wits amongst them could never yet decern which was the true Successor and which not one part of the Church adhering to the one another to the other another to the third Pope As happened in the time of the Council of Constance anno 1416. at which time there were three Popes It is certain one of them could be only the true Pope and yet all of them created Cardinals some of which not only created other Popes afterwards but also became Popes themselves but those Cardinals who received orders from the false Popes are by their own Principles incapable of electing Popes much more of being Popes themselves It must of necessity follow that many Popes have been at innumerable times Bishops of Rome not lawful which quite destroyes that personal succession They are pressed with the same difficulty in the case of Simony It is granted by themselves that many Bishops of Rome have obtained that Chair by Simony It is granted also by them that those are not lawful Popes that those ordained by them are incapable of Orders It is confessed by them also that several Popes obtaining the Chair by Simony have created Cardinals which elected other Popes and some of them also became Popes themselves which quite destroyeth that uninterrupted personal succession as they cannot deny And this much of that first mark of the true Church pretended by the Romanists to prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church viz. succession of Bishops The second mark is Antiquity of which they brag very much but have very little reason Cicero lib. 2. de Orator relates a passage between Crassus that famous Orator and one Silus who accused another person before the Senate for uttering some dangerous expressions Crassus defends him thus It may be saith he that he spake these words in passion Silus granted it might be Crassus urgeth the second time It may be you understood not what he said Silus seemed not averse to that neither Crassus goeth on the third time It may be saith he that ye affirm that ye heard him utter these speeches whereas ye heard no such thing at all at which Silus was confounded and replyed nothing at all then all the company fell a laughing Those instances of Crassus against Silus may fitly be urged against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome bragging of the testimonies of Antiquity that is of Councils and Fathers His first instance was that the person accused by Silus perhaps was in passion but it is known and shall be proved that those of the Church of Rome are seconded by no testimonies of Antiquity at all but either they are of Bishops of Rome themselves or else of their flatterers But Aeneas Silvius afterwards Pope himself under the name of Pâ—us 2d in his Commentaries upon the Council of Basile hath these following expressions against such testimonies his words are Nec considerant miseri quae tantopere jactant verba aut ipsorum summorum pontificum sunt fimbrias suas extendentâ—um aut eorum qui iis adulabantur that is Neither do these miserable men consider that those testimonies of which they brag are either of Bishops of Rome themselves enlarging their own Authority or else of those who are their flatterers Now to the application Crassus reasoned that a testimony spoken in passion should not be regarded but who will deny those testimonies of Bishops of
mad man or an Impostor will affirm that any Doctrine conform to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This is the Doctrine of the Church of the whole Canonists unanimously maintained by them and most of the Theologues viz. that the Pope has direct power in Temporals or is direct Monarch of the whole world Some Theologues indeed as Bellarmine and others maintain that the power of the Pope is only indirect in ordine ad spiritualia as when a King is an Heretick or otherwayes encroacheth upon the Liberties of the Church or when he assumes any thing to himself which the Pope sayes belongs to him but this Doctrine is exsibilated now at Rome as heretical and Bellarmine himself is taxed by Carerius of heresie for maintaining that the Pope hath no direct power in temporals Yea Sixtus 5th with much ado was hindered from burning these Books of Bellarmine de pontifice Romano for denying that direct power of the Pope in temporals albeit Bellarmine in the said Books gives power to the Pope indirectly or in order to spirituals to depose Kings to absolve their Subjects from all fidelity to them and that their Subjects are oblieged at the Popes command to rise up in Arms against them and consequently to kill them but Bellarmines opinion is now thought too little of the Popes power all the Theologues now are for the direct dominion of the Pope in temporals And this much of the first reason proving that this King-deposing Doctrine is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome The second reason is this That is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome what is asserted by the Pope in Cathedra or teaching the whole Church but the Pope in Cathedra assumes that power of deposing of Kings unto himself as appears by his Bulls as that of Gregory the seventh against Henry the fourth Emperor that of Alexander the third against the Emror Frederick that of Bonifacius the eighth against Philip King of France that of Paulus the third against Henry the eighth King of England that of Paulus the fourth against Queen Elizabeth that of Sixtus the fifth against Henry the third and Henry the fourth Kings of France in which Bulls they expresly affirm that Kings reign by them and that power is given them from God to establish plant build root out cast down transfer Kingdoms at their pleasure The tenors of those Bulls too prolix to be inserted here shall be particularly mentioned and set down part 4. lib. 1. And this much of the second reason that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope has power to depose Kings The third reason is this the Popes have procured that power to be conferred on them by general Councils as in the Council of Lateran under Innocent third the Act of which Council is found in Bzovius anno 1215. parag 3. and also in Binius and Crab in their Collection of Councils It is found likewayes in Baronius ad annum 1102. numb 1 2 3. and also ad annum 1116. numb 5. and also ad annum 1119. Likewayes in the Council of Trent Sess 25. Canon 19. It is ordained that the Popes have power to depose any Dominum fundi or Proprietar of any Land where a Duel is fought in which Canon power of deposing Kings tacitly and consequentially is attributed to the Pope The Council thought it not fit in express terms to affirm that the Pope had power to deprive a King of his property in that case and therefore they made the Canon in general termes comprehending a King under Dominus fundi or Proprietar in general That this is the true meaning of that Canon appears because by reason of it mainly the Kingdom of France did not acknowledge the Council of Trent And thus we have proved by three unanswerable reasons that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings to which may be added a fourth which is this which is so evident that it takes away all doubt The Pope hath innumerable times put that power in practice the first Pope we read attempted it was Pope Constantine against Philippicus Emperor of Constantinople because the said Philippicus caused pull down the Images of the Fathers of the sixth general Council commonly called Tâ—ullanum which were placed in the Temple of St. Sophia but Pope Constantine did only bark his Successors Gregory 2d and Gregory 3d. did bite for the same reason of the Images stirring up the Lombards against the Emperor and bereaved them of the Exarchat of Ravenna in which broils the Emperors Governour at Rome being killed the Bishops of Rome got the Dutchy of Rome to themselves and when the Lombards as we said before demanded that Tribute of them which they were accustomed to pay for these Territories to the Emperors of Constantinople they called in the French against the Lombards and in recompence of their services authorized their General Pipin King of France shutting up the righteous King the last of the race of the Merovingians in a Monastery and afterwards they made Carolus Magnus Son of the said Pipin Emperor of the West which Carolus Magnus made appear that although he loved the treason of those Bishops of Rome to their Masters Liâ—geâ— Lords Benefactors and Creators the Emperors of Constantinople by whose procurement they were made Universal Bishops yet he hated the Traitors as we shewed before making them his Vassals both in Spirituals and Temporals lest they should play such tricks to him and his Successors as they had done to the Emperors of Constantinople We read no more of the temporal usurpations of the Bishop of Rome before Gregory 7th when the race of Carolus Magnus being extinct the Empire was translated to the Germans What extremities the said Gregory 7th did put the Emperour Henry 4th to is notorious In sum he was forced to resign the Empire to his Son Henry 5th the Imperial Ornaments being violently plucked from him by the Bishops of Mentz and Culen his own Creatures which Son of his agreed little better with Paschalis Bishop of Rome after which time it was the continual practices of the Bishops of Rome to depose Kings and Emperors and to stir up their Subjects to Rebellion against them as appears by those passages of Alexander 3. with the Emperor Frederick of Boniface 8th with Philip. le Bell King of France of Julius 2. with the King of Navarre of Sixtus 5th with Henâ—y 3. and 4. Kings of France of Paul 3. with Henry 8. and Paul 4 with Queen Elizabeth of England The Stories of these two Henries of France is most lamentable And thus we have proved that it is both the Doctrine and the Practice of the Church of Rome that the Bishop of Rome hath power to depose Kings to absolve their Subjects from fidelity towards them to compell them to Arms against them and consequently to kill them and to acknowledge any for
their lawful Prince whom the Bishop of Rome shall appoint How this power of the Popes can consist with Kingly Government let the Kings of the earth themselves consider They make one objection yet that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings By the answer of which objection will appear that encrease of Popery in a Protestant State tends to the utter destruction both of King and Subject and inconsistent with both The objection is this It is not the Doctrine of the Church of France say they that the Pope has power to depose Kings being rejected both by its Doctrine and by its Practice since many of the Clergy of France hath writen against that Doctrine and Books defending that Opinion such as that of Mariana the Spanish Jesuit and others have been burnt by publick Authority But this objection is answered by a twofold distinction first of Times secondly of Causes wherefore Kings ought to be deposed As for Times when the Kings of France are low or high in the last case the Clergy of France ever partied their King against the Pope excommunicating them and deposing them as appears by the passages of Philip le Bell with â—onifacius and of Lewis 12th with Julius second Bishop of Rome In the first Case when the Kings of France are low the Clergy of France ever partied the Pope excommunicating and deposing their Kings as appears by the passages of Henry 3d. and 4th Kings of France with Sixtus 5th Bishop of Rome It is notorious that the University of Paris confirmed by a decree the Bulls of the said Sixtus 5th against the said two Henries Kings of France in which Bulls they were declared uncapable of the Crown of France all French men were absolved from alledgeance to them and the greatest part of France rose up in armes against them to dethrone them beging of the Pope that he would name them a King and they would acknowledge him for their lawful Prince And this much of the distinction of Times The second distinction is of Causes wherefore Kings should be deposed although in other causes besides Heresie the Subjects of France were not so unanimous for the Pope against their King yet in case of Heresie that is if their King were a Protestant both the Clergy and the Laity of France unanimously at the Popes command renunced alledgeance to their King And first for the Clergy in an Assembly of States or Parliament Cardinal Perron their Speaker commissionat from them as their mouth in an Oration to the third Estate affirmed That it had ever been the Doctrine of the Clergy of France that true French men ought no alledgeance to heretical Kings excommunicated and deposed by the Pope As for the Laity it is notorious that after the murther of Henry 3. they threatned to abandon Henry 4th his Successor because he was excommunicated and deposed by the Pope which forced him expecting no security otherwayes to change his Religion And thus we have proved that it is the unanimous Doctrine of the Church of Rome that Popish Subjects owe no fidelity to a Protestant King which occasioned that saying of that incomparable Bishop Mortoun viz. That a loyal popish Subject in a Protestant State was a white Ethiopian which I do not mention calling in question the Loyalty of the Romanists of this Nation or the neighbour Nations of England and Ireland many of them are known to be persons of Honour and as loyal Subjects as the King hath I only mention those things to let them see how they are abused by the Popish Emissaries of these three Nations who knowing them to be loyal Subjects to the King seing it would be a great difficulty to train them in their snares and keep them in them once catched if they told them all the verity To train them on they make them believe in the beginning that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Protestant Kings much less others but only a calumny of Protestants traducing the Popish Religion but afterwards having by degrees confirmed them in the Popish Religion they would not fail to perswade them to cut the throats of all their Countrey-men and flee like so many mad-dogs upon the Kings face to pull him from his Throne as appears by the constant practice of the Church of Rome against all Protestants in general and against Protestant Kings in particular which practice is so notorious that he who denyes it is either a mad man void of common sense or else a notorious Impostor And first that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome affirming it meritorious to destroy Protestants by open cruelty and perfidy appears by the constant carriage of the said Church towards Protestants since the Reformation What sort of cruelty or perfidy have they not attempted Death without torture was thought clemency burning of them in heaps alive in houses might be attributed to a popular fury but it is notorious that multitudes of them were burnt alive in fires of all Sexes and Qualities by the sentences of the Judges and when they could do no good by open force they destroyed them by perfidy and prostitution of the publick Faith and when they had done made publick Processions of Joy Bonefires and such like as if they had deserved Paradise by such meritorious works maintaining this maxime as unquestionable that no publick Faith should be regarded or observed towards Hereticks That this is truth appears by the proceedings of the Council of Constance with John Husse and Hierom of Prague which two were burned alive notwithstanding they had the safe conduct of the Emperor Sigismundus It appears also by those massacres of Paris and other parts of France where by the publick Faith they trained them all to one place and then perfidiously massacred them to the horror of several learned Romanists who in their Histories detest such perfidy such as Thuanus and others and when they had done tanquam re bene gesta triumpharunt they were congratulated by the Pope who caused Bonefires and publick Processions to be made at Rome for the happy success of such a glorious atchievment These things are notorious so that the Popish emissaries themselves have neither the brow to deny them nor the confidence to defend them But they use another shift viz. That the Church of Rome hath given over that practice now being resolved no more to follow those courses as they did in the beginning prompted to them by their too violent zeal But it is answered they are greatly mistaken for now in France and Germany and other places they practise not such cruelties because they dare not but where they have power and thinks they may do it without any hazard they make it appear that they believe it is a meritorious work to destroy and extirpat all Protestants by any cruelty or perfidy imaginable as appears of late not only abroad
eidem concessum Pater enim revelavit Petro Christum esse Filium Dei vivi Filius tribuit Petro ut sit Ecclesiae Petra that is Some proper gift was given to Peter here by Christ as the Father had given unto him such a gift the Father revealed to Peter that Christ was the Son of the living God So the Son gives unto Peter to be the Rock of the Church It is answered Stapleton cites Chrysostom falsly his words in the Original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is What is it and I will give it to thee as the Father gave unto thee to know me so I will give unto thee Neither said he I will ask of my Father although it was a great ostentation of his power and the greatness of the gift ineffable Nevertheless I will give unto thee What wilt thou give pray the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven By which it appears that Stapleton plays the Sophister thrice First in making Chrysostom affirm that some proper or peculiar thing was given to Peter whereas Chrysostom mentions no such thing at all Secondly he makes Chrysostom affirm that the gift given to Peter was to be the Rock upon which the Church is built whereas Chrysostom saith no such thing affirming only that the gift given to Peter was the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven but it shal be proved by the testimony of Chrysostom himself chap. 8. That the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others as well as to Peter Thirdly he neglects the comparison which Chrysostom makes leaving out now where he added before viz. As the Father gave unto thee to know me so I give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven The reason wherefore he neglects the comparison is evident viz he was conscious that the knowledge of Christ the gift of the Father to Peter was common to all the Apostles and therefore he feared the conclusion viz. That the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven the gift given by Christ to Peter would be common to all the Apostles also And thus much of Stapletons reasons proving Peter to be the Rock Bellarmin reasons thus The pronoun hanc this is referred to the words immediatly going before Thou art Peter and therefore our Savior by this Rock means Peter But it is answered There is no necessity of referring the pronoun hanc or this to the words immediatly going before as appears by several places of Scripture as Acts 3. 15. And killed the Prince of life whom God hath raised from the dead of whom we are witnesses where those words of whom are referred to the Prince of life and not unto God who is nearest That the pronoun hunc or him or this is of necessity referred to the words fatrher off and not to the nearest appears also by Act. 2. 22. and 23. and 2. Thess 2. most clearly v. 8. And then shall that wicked one be revealed whom the Lord shall consume whose comming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders observe whose coming is referred not to the Lord which is nearest but to that wicked one further off And thus we have disputed all the reasons of any moment pretended by either party in this question it Peter was the Rock CHAP. III. Tu es Petrus Disputed by General Councils NOw let us Dispute Tu es Petrus by antiquity examining what was the meaning of the Ancients concerning these words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church They brag much of antiquity viz. that the Council of Chalcedon and all the Fathers interpret the Rock to be Peter But it is answered They resemble Bankrupts who brag they are richest when they are poorest A passage related by Cicero lib. 2. de oratore between Silus and Crassus may be applyed to our adversaries Fieri potest ut quod dixit iratus dixerit Silus annuit tum Crassus fieri potest ut quod dixit non intelligeres hic quoque Silus fassus est tum Crassus fieri potest ut non omnino audieris quod te audisse dicis Silus tacuit omnes riserunt This passage is most fitly applyed to our adversaries bragging of the testimonies of the Ancients Councils and Fathers for they bring not one testimony but either it merits no credit or else it is wrested and misinterpreted or else it is forged as appears through the whole following Disput What was the opinion of the Council of Chalcedon the other first six general councils We will examine in this chapter the opinion of the Fathers shal be examined in the following chapters unto chap. 10. From the Council of Chalcedon they object the third action where Peter is called Petra crepido Ecclesiae the Rock upon which the Church is built But it is answered first Those are not the words of the council but only the words of Paschasinus Lucentius and Bonifacius Legats to Leo Bishop of Rome giving their votes against Dioscorus of Alexandria what regard should be had to such testimonies Aeneas Silvius afterward Pope himself under the name of Pius second will inform you comment 1. On the Council of Basil His words are Nec considerant miseri quia quae praedicant tant opere verba aut ipsorum summorum Pontificum sunt suas fimbrias extendentium aut illorum qui eis adulabantur Neither do these miserable men consider that these testimonies of which they brag so much are either of Bishops of Rome themselves enlarging their own interests or else of those who are flattering them Secondly it is very strange impudence to them to alledge the authority of the Council of Chalcedon to prove the Supremacy of Peter or of the Bishop of Rome by reason of his succession to Peter as appears by what follows Aetius Legate of the Bishop of Constantinople and the foresaids Paschasinus Lucentius and Bonifacius Deputies of the Bishop of Rome pleaded in the behalf of their Masters the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople for the primacy Paschasinus and his fellows pleaded the sixth canon of the Council of Nice The words are those Let the old custom remain in Egypt Libya Pentapolis viz. that the Bishop of Alexandria hath power in those Provinces to ordain Bishops since the Bishops of Rome hath the like custome Aetius pleaded the same Canon and likewise the fifth Canon of the said Council of Nice by which it was ordained That when a Bishop was condemned by a provincial Council there should be no further appeal unless to a General Council which exception though not mentioned in the Canon must of necessity be understood The said Aetius likewise pleaded the third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople by which it was provided That the Bishop of Rome should have the first place in dignity because Rome was the old Imperial City the Bishop of Constantinople the second place next to him because Constantinople was new Rome The force of this argument consists in two things
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
over the Church And lest it should seem to be a wilful denyal they give these following reasons why Peter is not ordained Oecumenick Bishop in these words Or why the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven inferr no universal Jurisdiction over the Church in the person of Peter alone The first reason is this the power of the keys is only a forgiving or remitting of sins or not remitting them or a binding and loosing as appears by the testimony of Augustinus in his 52. Treatise upon John of Theophylactus on Matthew 16. 19. of Anselmus ibid. But none calls in question but binding and loosing is a different thing from the power oâ— an Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin instances lib. 1. cap. 13. de pont Rom. that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church which he proves by three arguments The first is from the Metaphor of keyes Isaiah 21. where Shebna is threatned to have the keys of the Temple taken from him to be given to Eliakim that is saith Bellarmin the government of the Temple or of the house of God But it is answered Bellarmin is greatly mistaken for according to the Hebrew Shebna was not Perfect of the Temple but only of the Kings house Bellarmin is deceived by the Latin version turning it Tabernacle whereas Aben Ezra calls it Master of the Kings house the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they call Shebna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Treasaurer or Master-houshold that is the true interpretation as appears by Kings 2. cap. 18. in which place Eliakim who succeeded to Shebna in that charge is called by the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oeconomus or Master-houshold Shebna is called there a Scribe which place he obtained after the keys of the Kings house were taken from him and given to Eliakim However it is a very bad argument of Bellarmins When Shebna had the keys of the Kings house the government of the house was taken from him when they were taken away Ergo When Peter get the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ he was made sole governor of the whole Church Bellarmin should observe that keys are given sometime by an Inferior to a Superior although that be but a new invention or ceremony yet it is an acknowledgement of authority as when a King entring a Town the keys are delivered to him But when keys are given by a Superior to an Inferior chief Jurisdiction is no wayes denoted But Bellarmin will not deny that Christ was Superior to Peter And whereas it is objected that Christ hath the key of David in the Apocalyps that is jurisdiction of the Church It is answered the case is different none calls the jurisdiction of Christ in question neither had he the keys from any greater then himself Bellarmins second argument is That the keys import binding and loosing that is inflicting of punishment and dispensing with obligations of the Law which is supream Jurisdiction over the Church And consequently Peter in these words is instituted Oecumenick Bishop But it is answered That binding and loosing import no supream Jurisdiction as appears by its being common to all the Officers of the Church as well as to Peter it consists in bidding forbidding punishing by Spiritual Censures and Relaxations from them which are common to all Church-Officers as shal immediatly be proved In the third place Bellarmin proves that our Savior promising to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven promised to him alone the government of the whole Church by the testimonies of Fathers The first testimony of Chrysostomus hom 55. on Matthew affirming that to Peter the whole world was committed and that he was made head and Pastor of the whole Church But it is answered It is false that either Chrysostomus affirms the whole world was committed to Peter or that he was head of the Church Bellarmin followeth the corrupt version of Trapezuntius in which he sophisticats manifoldly the words of Chrysostom are comparing Hieremas with Peter Quemadmodum pater Hieremam alloqueus dixit Instar colunae aneae muâ—i posui eum sed illum quidem uni genti hunc verototi orbi In these words Chrysostomus is comparing the Prophet with Peter as the Lord saith he put Hieremas as a wall of brass to one Nation viz. the Jews sc Peter was made a wall of brass to the whole world But Chrysostom speaks not a word of Hieremias being set over the Jews with Jurisdiction and consequently if the comparison hold Peter was not set over the whole world with Jurisdiction which is the first sophistry of Bellarmin following Trapezuntius in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 posâ—it eum placed him Trapezuntius renders praeposuit set him over which is not in the Appodosis of Peter The second corruption is that Trapezuntius adds of his own Cujus caput piscator homo whose head was a Fisher-man It is true indeed a little before these words Chrysostom calls Peter Pastor of the Church but that 's nothing to an Oceumenick Bishop for any Apostle may be called Pastor of the Church as shal be proved afterwards in this Book Bellarmins second testimony is of Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist 32. Where speaking of Peter he affirms the care of the whole Church was committed to him and that he was Prince of the Apostles But it is answered In what sense Gregorius affirms so shal be shewed at length hereafter where it shal be proved first that others were called Princes of the Apostles beside Peter and that the care of the whole Church was committed to others also who were not Oecumenick Bishops Secondly the impudence of Bellarmin is very great in objecting this place of Gregorius in which he is thundering with great execrations and detestation against any who taketh upon him the tittle of Oecumenick Bishop calling that tittle new Pompatick Blasphemous against the mandats of Christ the Canons of the Apostles and Constitutions of the Church And among other reasons against that title of universal Oecumenick Bishop he objects this as one If any took upon him that title Peter had reason to take it but he had not that tittle although the care of the whole Church was committed to him then this impudence of Bellarmin no greater can be imaginable Gregory expresly denyes it to follow that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop although the care of the whole Church was committed to him Bellarmin mutilats his passage and makes him conclude that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop because the care of the whole Church was committed to him He cites this part of Gregories assertion the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter but he suppresseth the other half of his assertion that Peter was not universal Apostle and most impudently fathers a contradictory conclusion upon Gregory Ergo Peter was Oecumenick Bishop And thus much of the first reason wherefore Protestants deny that the power of the keyes imports no universal
to Peter which was not promised to the other Apostles answered that Origines was speaking allegorically otherwise he contradicted himself in his 5. Homily upon Exodus where he called Peter that great Foundation which we proved to be no contradiction cap. 6. By the same argument we prove that Origines in this place is speaking allegorically otherwise he contradicts Reason Scripture Fathers and himself And likewise affirms a notorius untruth in this very place alledged And first that he contradicts Reason Scripture and Fathers in denying the keys of Heaven and the keys of Heavens to be the same we have just now proved disputing with de Castro and Fisher Secondly He contradicts himself in other places in affirming that greater power of the keys was given to Peter then to the Others or that the keys of the Heavens are more then the keys of Heaven because else-where he disputs and endeavors to prove that the power of the keys given to Peter was the very same given to the other Apostles as in his first Treatise upon Matthew mentioned before and vindicated cap. 6. Thirdly Origen is comparing the keys of Peter with these three admonitions but if he speak literally he lyeth in firming that those Admonishers had the power of the key of one Heaven given them from Christ or that what they did bind and loose on Earth should be bound and loosed in one Heaven which is promised no whereby Christ Lastly Origines is comparing in these words the power of Privat Admonishers with that of Ministers having the power of binding and loosing and after his manner falls to Allegories by this distinction of Heaven and Heavens otherwise he were not only a lyar in this place but also a contradicter of Reason Scripture and other Fathers and of himfelf in other places Bellarmin thought it a sufficient Reason to prove that Origines spake allegorically viz. otherwise he would contradict himself and yet we shewed there was no contradiction therefore he cannot in reason deny that Origines in this place speaks allegorically since otherwise he would contradict Reason Scripture all the Fathers himself in other places and also be a notorious lyar in this same alledged place We have have proved already That Matthew 16. 19. inferrs not that Peter was Oecumenick Bishop because the power of the keys was no universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church we undertook to prove it by an other reason viz. because the power of the keys was not given to Peter alone but to the other Apostles as well as to him Which we undertook to prove by two arguments First by Scripture Secondly by Fathers By Scripture we have already proved it viz. from Matthew 18. 18. and John 20. 23. vindicated from the exceptions of our adversaries alledging they were not alike places with Matthew 16. 19 It only remains now to prove by testimonies of Fathers that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others as well as to Peter those testimonies are of two sorts The first is of those affirming directly that the keys were given to others besids Peter the other sort is of those affirming it by consequence Of the first sort it is needless to mention any more then we have already mentioned in the vindication of these places Such as Hilarius lib. 6. de Trinitate and adversus Arianos Cyprianus Epistola 54. Chrysostomus de Sacerdotio lib. 3. Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 2. epist 5. Pacianus ad Sympronianum epist 1. and in his Treatise against the Novatians All which testimonies expresly affirm That the keys were given to others beside Peter Neither is it needful to set down the words since our adversaries cannot have so much impudence as to deny them To which testimonies may be added that of Hieronymus against Jovinanus Cuncti Discipuli claves Regni Coelorum accipiunt all the Disciples got the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven of Origines tract 1. in Matthew An verò soli Petro dantur claves Regni coelorum nec alius beatorum quisquam eas accepturus est Quod si dictum hoc tibi dabo claves Regni Coelorum caeteris quoque commune est cor non simul omnia communia In which words he expresly affirms That which was promised to Peter was promised also to all the Apostles as well as the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven And a little after Servator dans Spiritum Sanctum Discipulis per insufflationem ait accipite Spiritum Sanctum c. It is needless to add any more testimonies Now let us consider how our adversaries elude them And first Cardinal Pool in his defence of the Ecclesiastick Vnity lib. 2. grants those testimonies but he denys that any thing is proved by them viz. That all the Apostles had alike power with Peter in the power of the keys albeit it seems to be the meaning of those Fathers which he illustrats by the example of Moses and the 70. Elders since it is said Numbers 11. That God gave unto them a part of that Spirit which was in Moses and consequently they had the same power in substance with Moses but not in so excellent a way Maldonatus answers otherwise viz. denying That the same keys were given to Peter Matthew 16. and to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20 his reason is in the two last places no mention is made of keys at all Stapleton is more subtile for seeing that Christ saith Matthew 18. What ever ye shal bind to all the Apostles is the same with that said to Peter Matthew 16. Whatsoever thou shalt bind c. He grants that the same binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. is given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. but he affirms That the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are a thing different from either of the bindings or loosings in Relec. controvers 3 quest 1. art 1. conclus 4. Others answer Distinguishing the keys of Order and Jurisdiction they grant that the keys of Order were given to all the Apostles the keys of Jurisdiction only to Peter It is needless particularly to insist upon the refutation of those new devised Sophistries to hold up the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome they are quite and diametrally opposit to the meaning of all antiquity of which they brag so much as appears by two reasons The first is that the Fathers disput expresly that the same keys were promised to Peter Matth. 16. and to the other Apostles Mat. 18. John 20. consequently all those distinctions devised of late by the Jesuits others are nothing else but fantastick dreams and sophistical evasions And first Origines tract 1. on Matthew disputs as we said That the Church was built alike upon all the Apostles because the keys were given alike to all the Apostles by which reasoning it appears that he thought it a thing uncontroverted in his time that the keys were common to all the Apostles since he useth it as a Medium or Argument to prove That
the Church was built upon all the Apostles as well as upon Peter Secondly That the keys were common to all the Apostles he proves by John 20 23. whereby it is evident that the said place is the same in meaning with Matthew 16. in which he flatly contradicts Bellarmin who confidently affirmed that without all doubt forgiving and retaining of sins mentioned John 20. 23. was not the same thing with binding and loosing Matthew 6. 19. Thirdly Cyprianus de Vnitate Ecclesiae expresly affirms That Christ gave alike power to all his Apostles Iohn 20. 23. in these words Accipite Spiritum Sanctum si cujus remiseritis peccata c. Receive the Holy Ghost whosesoever sins ye shal forgive they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained and since all the Apostles according to Cyprianus had alike power given them after the Resurrection of Christ by John 20. 23. without all question he believed that the same power of the keys was given to all the Apostles which was given to Peter Matthew 16. The second Reason Why those distinctions of Polus Maldonatus Stapleton and Bellarmin and others or new devised evasions is unanswerable viz. It appears by the Fathers that no greater Ecclesiastical power imaginable could be given to any then that which was given to all the Apostles in Matthew 18 and John 20. which quite destroys all those sophistical distinctions tending all to this That the power given to Peter was greater Matthew 16. 19 then that given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20. That no greater power can be imagined then that which was given to all the Apostles is proved by the testimony of Chrysostomus lib. 3. cap. 5. de Sacerdotio Where speaking of that power of the keys given to all the Apostles yea and to all Bishops he falls to an interrogative exclamation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is I pray you what greater power can be given then this But this had been a most ridiculous interrogation in Chrysostomus if either he himself or any other had believed that the power of the keys promised to Peter Matthew 16. was greater then that promised to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20. And thus much of the testimonies of those Fathers proving directly that the keyes were given to others as well as to Peter Now followeth the testimonies of Fathers proving by consequence that the keyes Matthew 16. were not peculiar to Peter out of which testimonies three arguments are deduced The first is If Peter alone had the power of the keyes promised to him Matthew 16. Then Peter would only have exercised the keyes and no other beside him in such a high-way as he did But it appears by the testimony of Gaudentius primae de ordinationis suae that all the Apostles as well as Peter practised the keys viz. in teaching baptizing censuring Yea Salmeron the Jesuit in his Commentars upon 1. of Peter 1. disput 1. expresly affirms That Peter seemed to neglect his duty in the exercise of the keyes it so little appeared by his carriage and practise that he had any Jurisdiction over the other Apostles Where observe the impudent shift of the Jesuit who being pressed by the carriage of Peter that no token of his Supremacy appeared hath nothing to answer but that it was his own neglest which if it be true was great unfaithfulness of Peter if it be false as it is it is great impudence in the Jesuit The second argument taken from the Fathers proving consequentially that the other Apostles were promised the keyes as well as Peter is taken from Augustinus who affirms That Peter represented the whole Church when Christ promised him the keyes and so by consequence in Peter the other Apostles and all Pastors of the Church had the keyes promised unto them the words of Augustinus are those following in his 124. trâ—â—â—at upon John Quando Petro dictum est tibi dabo claves regni coelorum quodcunque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in coelis universam significabat Ecclesiam And a little after Ecclesia Ergo quae fundatur in Christo claves ab co regni Coelorum accepit in Petro id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata In which words he expresly affirms That Peter was a figure of the whole Church when our Savior promised him the keyes and therefore in Peter the keyes were given to the whole Church and not to Peter alone Our adversaries pussed with this testimony of Augustinus after their accustomed manner fall to their new devised distinctions explaining how the keyes were given to Peter representing the whole Church Or how they were given to the whole Church in Peter And first Horantius lib. 6. cap. 10. Locor Cathol affirms That the keys were given to the whole Church in Peter that is saith he They were given to Peter for the good of the whole Church as when any is made King of any Nation the Kingdom or Kingly Authority is given to him for the good of the whole Nation and so Peter as Prince of the Church had the keyes given unto him for the good of the whole Church and in this manner the keyes were given to the whole Church in Peter But it is answered Horantius his Gloss is far beside the Text of Augustiuus who expresly disputs The keyes were not given to Peter alone but to the whole Church for if they were only given to Peter the whole Church would not have exercised them he disputs so tractat 50. upon John and therefore concluds that the keyes were not given alone to Peter because the whole Church exercised them as well as Peter Augustinus doth not disput for what end the keyes were given but to whom also this Gloss of Horantius expresly contradicts Augustinus Horantius affirms That the keyes in the same manner were given to the whole Church in Peter as when any is made King of a Nation the Authority of a King is given to the whole Nation that is saith he He who is made King gets that Authority for the good of the whole Nation which is a flat contradiction of Augustinus for that Nation or whole Nation cannot be said to exercise the Kingly Authority when he who is made King gets it But Augustinus expresly disputs That the whole Church exercised the keyes as well as Peter and therefore the keyes were given to the whole Church in Peter otherwise saith he The whole Church would not have exercised them tractat 50. His words are If Peter had not represented the Church our Lord had not said unto him I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven For if that only was said to Peter The Church hath no power of binding or loosing and since the Church hath that power Peter was the Sacrament or Figure of the whole Church or mistically represented the whole Church when our Savior promised to him the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and
no Council that the Pope had power to depose Kings and consequently it was not the doctrine of the Church of Rome His second objection was that notwithstanding all this it was not the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome because all the Church of France rejected it as a pernicious doctrine I answered this objection by a two-fold distinction The first of times viz. When the King of France was low and the Pope high The second distinction was of causes wherefore Kings are deposed one of which and the main one was heresie I desired him to read history and he would find that when the Kings of France were low and their Kings suspected of heresie that it was the doctrine of the whole Clergy of France that the Pope had power of deposing such Kings at such times for proving of which I desired him to read first a decree of the Sorbon printed at Paris in which they approved the bulls of Sixtus 5. excommunicating and deposing Henry 3 4. Kings of France I desired him secondly to read that speech of Cardinal Peron in the name of the Clergy of France as their Speaker in an Assembly of the Estates in which speech he openly maintains That it is the opinion of the whole Church of France and ever was that Heretical Kings that is Protestants ought to be deposed that the Pope had power to depose them and that true French-men ought them no allegiance And thus much of the Popes power in temporals by the way it shal be more largely disputed God willing part 3. lib. 2 what we have said is sufficient to prove That the Dominion of the Bishop of Rome is tyrannical and consequently according to their own confession forbidden Peter 1. 5 3. The third particular of the tyrannical Domination of the Bishop of Rome is over souls departed The fourth is over Angels Both which usurpations appear by the Bull of Clement sixth proclaiming a Jubile The words of the Bull are these Concedimus si confessus in via moriatur ut ab omnibus peccatis suis sit immunis penitus absolutus mandamus Angelis ut animam è purgatorio penitùs absolutam in Paradisi gloriam introducant And in another Bull Nolumus ut paena inferni illi infligatur concedens cruce signatis ad eorum vota tres aut quatuor animas quas volunt ex purgatorio posse eripere in which Bulls he takes upon him to command Angels and to place Souls in heaven or hell as he pleaseth The 5. particular proving the tyranny of the dominon of the Bishop of Rome is in assuming divin power to himself So Nicolaus 2. in Gratianus dist 96. Satis evidenter Where he affirms That the Pope cannot be Judged by any Secular Prince because the Pope was called God by Constantine but God cannot be judged by man Likewise Bonifacius 8. 6. decret de electione C. fundamenta affirms That S. Peter was assumed in the fellowship of the individual Trinity and consequently the Bishop of Rome hath the same priviledge as Peters Successor So Glossa extravag C. antiquae de voto Where speaking of Matrimony held by the Church of Rome to be a Sacrament of divine Institution a doubt is moved how that vow made in Matrimony can be dissolved by a Constitution of the Church Since it was made solemnly to God The Glossator answers the doubt That it cannot be made void by a meer man but only by the Pope who is not a meer man but Gods Vicar Thirdly he usurps Divinity in making the Decretal Epistles or the Canon law of equal authority with the Scripture So Gratianus distinct 19. C. in Canonicis expresly affirms so much Innumerable examples might be afforded of this kind but those are sufficient The sixth and last particular of the Tyranny of the Domination of the Bishop of Rome is his hearing patientissimis auribus without offence biasphemous titles attributed to him in Orations Books and Pamphlets printed by his Authority which is all one as he had stiled himself by those titles So by the Gloss in the Canon Law he is called our Lord God the Pope as is found in those Editions printed at Lions 1584. and at Paris 1585. 1601. 1612. All which Editions were set out after Gregory 13. had corrected the Canon Law the words are Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam Conditorem dictae decretalis non sic potuisse statuere prout statuit haereticum censeatur extravagant John 22. tit 14. de verb. sig cap. 4. c. We could produce innumerable such but it were tedious yet we cannot omit that blasphemous Pamphlet presented to Innocent the 10. who before his Popedom was called Cardinal Pamphilius The scope of which Pamphlet is to compare the Pope whom he calleth Pamphilius with Christ whom he calleth Philius To be short he preferrs the Pope to Christ in most horrible manner and yet the Pope was no wise offended at that flâ—ttery It seems he understood not what Blasphemy meant for an other time being desired to hear a Theological Controversie between the Jansenists and Molinists disputed before him that he might determin it He answer ed He was an old man it did not belong to his profession and he had never studied Divinity as is reported by S. Amour in his journal where he affirms He heard the Pope affirm so publickly And thus much of Peter 1. 5. 3. The first Argument of Protestants against Peters institution of Oecumenick Bishop we have proved two things in the vindication of that passage The first is that not only tyrannical Domination but all sort of Domination is forbidden in that place The second is although it were granted that only tyrannical Domination in Church-men were forbidden in the same place yet it quite overthrows the institution of an Oecumenick Bishop which we have proved to be most tyrannical and that by six arguments which in effect amongst Candide men are unanswerable CHAP. XII The Supremacy of Peter assaulted from Ephesians 1. 22. 4. 23. 5. 23. And Colossians 1 18. IN the former Chapter we assaulted the Institution of Peter in that Oecumenick Bishoprick by the testimony of Peter himself forbidding all sort of Lording or Domination in Church men where we also proved two things First that not only tyrannical Domination was forbidden by the Apostle in Church Rulers but all Domination Secondly although tyrannical Lording had only been forbidden nevertheless the injunction of the Apostle inhibited That Lording assumed by the Bishop of Rome now to himself proving by demonstrative arguments that the power of the Bishop of Rome now-a-dayes was not only tyrannical but blasphemous and a right-down Gigantomachy which shal more largely be proved part 4. lib. 1. In this following chapter we make use of a second argument against the institution of Peter in that universal Bishoprick by Christ viz. it appears by these Scriptures mentioned in the title That Christ is the Head of the Church and if Peter were
confirmed from onsets of the Devil or his instruments and since no visible Monarch of the Church is mentioned by the Apostle it is evident that there was no such Monarch ordained by Christ Bellarmin answers two wayes One way is that the Apostle in those words is not delineating the Hierarchy of the Church but only enumerating divers gifts of some of the Church and 1 Corinthians 12. he adds the gift of tongues But it is replyed It cannot be denyed but the Apostle is enumerating diversity of gifts since verse 7. He expresly affirms so much but it is to be added that he enumerats those gifts as they are in Officers of the Church only whence appears the dissimilitude of this place from 1 Corinth 12. In which gifts are enumerated which are not peculiar to Church Rulers but are also found in laiks Such as gifts of healing and tongues c. That this is the Apostles meaning appears by two reasons First â—he enumerats none verse 11. Who hath not a degree of ruling in the Church The second is because ver 12. 13 14 He doth not enumerat any utility redounding to the Church which is not wrought by the Ministry ver 11. He enumerats the Ministers of the Church ver 12. 13 14. He enumerats the ends wherefore these Ministers were ordained All which ends Oecumentus comprehends under one that is saith he Those degrees of Ministers enumerated verse 12. were for that end ordained that they might minister unto the Church as appears ver 12 13 14. It is to be observed that the Apostle enumerats here all Church Officers both extraordinar and ordinar The extraordinar are those who were ordained only to continue for a time Such as Apostles Evangelists Prophets Ordinar are those ordained to be of perpetual standing in the Church as Doctors and Pastors And since in all those Orders of Church Ministers there are many and not one only in each degree it is evident that one Oecumenick Bishop or a visible head of the Church is not comprehended under any of those Ministers Bellarmin puzled with this answers another way He grants that the enumeration of Church Ministers here is perfect but he denyes that an Oecumenick Bishop hath no place in that enumeration because saith he All the â—ierarchy of the Church and consequently an Oecumenick Bishop is confusâ—dly represented under the name of Pastors and Doctors But finding that Pastors and Doctors were only inferior Orders below Apostles Prophets and Evangelists He passeth from this and affirms next That an Oecumenick Bishop is comprehended under Apostles because not only here but also 1 Corinth 12. Apostles are put in the first place and therefore the chief Ecclesiastick Power was given to all the Apostles but to Peter as ordinar Pastor and therefore to have a Successor in it to the other Apostles as exraordinar and Delegats to Peter and therefore none should succeed them But it is answered we prolixly disputed this distinction of Bellarmins to be groundless contradictory and inconsistent with it self cap. 6. It is needless to repeat what we said there in this place It is sufficient here that never any ancient or Modern Interpreter before the times of the Jesuits did so much as dream that an Oecumenick Bishop was comprehended by the Apostle Ephes 4. 11. Which could be made out by an Induction of all the Commentaries of ancient and Modern Writers upon that place By which it appears that all those testimonies by which those Jesuits prove the Supremacy of Peter and consequently the verity of the Roman Faith are either in Scripture or Fathers depraved by new devised Glosses unknown to the Ancients and also their answers are of the same stuff by which they elude passages of Scripture and Antiquity destroying the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome and in it the whole edifice of the Roman Church Both their offensive and defensive arms are but devised of late since the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome was established That any may see that this Gloss of Bellarmins is a fiction of his own devising we will prove by three Arguments of three several Interpreters By which it will appear what was the opinion of the Church concerning the meaning of this passage Ephes 4. 11. since the times of the Apostles unto those dayes The first Interval is of the Primitive Church before the Council of Nice what was the opinion of that Church in that Interval appears by the testimony of the ancient Author by some believed to be Dionysius Areopagita the disciple of Paul his words epistle 8. are those Tu ergo cupiditati iracundiae rationi modum statue pro dignitate tibi verò divini Ministri his Sacerdotes Pontifices Sacerdotibus Pontificibus Apostali stoli Apostolorúmque successores Quod si quâ—s etiam in istis ab officio discedat à sanctis qui sunt ejusdem ordinis corrigetur atque ita non insultabit ordo in ordinem sed unusquisque in suo ordine ac Ministerio premanebit In which words ye have two things The first is That the chief place in the Hierarchy in the times of the Apostles was held not by one but by many viz. by all the Apostles alike neither makes he mention of Peter his having that chief power as ordinar Pastor and of the other Apostles as having it aâ— Delegats to Peter which will be further confirmed by the second thing observable in these words which is this After the Apostles were removed the chief place in the Hierarchy consisted also not in one person but in many alike viz. in Bishops who succeeded to the Apostles in the first place of the Hierarchie which also he expresly affirms to be of equal Order and Jurisdiction many and not one having Jurisdiction over all as a visible head which quite destroyes the Gloss of Bellarmin for if others succeeding to the other Apostles were in the first place of the Hierarchie which this Author flatly affirms it is false which Bellarmin affirms that all the Apostles had the chief power only during their own time not communicable to their Successors And likewise if those successors of the other Apostles were in the first place of the Hierarchy equally and alike as this Author also affirms It is false which Bellarmin affirms That the Successors of Peter the Apostle had â—he chief authority in their single persons as visible Monarchs of the Church It may be proved by the Glosses of Maximus and others that this Dionysius was not the Disciple of the Apostle Paul mentioned in the Acts because he seems to make mention of the Metropolitants above Bishops But it shal be proved lib. 2. by unanswerable testimonies That there was no Office above that of a Bishop in the Church before the latter end of the third age However albeit he be not the Disciple of Paul as some affirm he is yet he is an ancient Author and delineats the Hierarchie of the Church not to have been monarchical in his days
therefore he behoved to be at Rome and his first reason is That the Church of Rome was ever held the first Church but there can be no other reason why it was held so but only that Peter was Bishop But it is answered first that Rome was held the first Church of old not in power but in dignity because Rome was the chief imperial City as appears expresly by the third Canon of the second general Council at Constantinople the 28. Canon of the fourth general Council of Calcedon the 36. Canon of the sixth general Council of Constantinople of which hereafter part 2 lib 1. and 2. Secondly if respect be had to other reasons besides the imperial dignity of the City it is false that Rome was held for the first Church as appears by many testimonies first Theodoretus lib. 5. cap. 9. affirms that the second general Council at Constantinople in an Epistle to Damasus Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of the West calls the Church of Jerusalem Mother of all Churches Secondly Nazianzenus epist 18. affirms that the Church of Caesaria was from the beginning and was esteemed almost the Mother of all Churches Thirdly Basilius Epist 20 to Athanasius affirms That the Church of Antioch was head of all Churches The same is affirmed by Chrysostomus in several places as in his Homile of the praises of Ignatius and in his third Homile to the people of Antioch by which testimonies it is evident that Rome was called the first Church for a civil respect only and that in other respects other Churches were preferred to it Bellarmines second Argument is this The Hereticks cannot shew saith he where Peter was Bishop after he left Antioch if he was not Bishop of Rome since they affirm he was Bishop only of a particular Church and not of the universal Church But it is answered Bellarmine may well confirm his Disciples by such reasoning but he will never convert Hereticks by it It is false which he affirms that the Protestants maintain that Peter behoved of necessity to be Bishop of one particular Church or other they deny he was Bishop of any particular Church at all as shall immediatly appear and therefore it is ridiculous in Bellarmine to conclude that Peter was Bishop of Rome because they cannot instruct where he was Bishop elsewhere when he left Antioch they ask him again how Bellarmine proves that he was Bishop of Antioch they ask him also where he was Bishop before he was Bishop of Antioch for Bellarmines Argument presuppones that Peter of necessity was still Bishop of one place or other Bellarmines third reason to prove that Peter was Bishop of Rome is taken from the testimony of Fathers affirming he was Bishop there twenty five years As for those 25. years they shall be proved false in the following Chapter In this we will answer and explain the testimonies of those Fathers affirming Peter was Bishop of Rome because in effect they are the only Basis of the Popes supremacy we will examine them more diligently and make it appear that they are so many testimonies proving Peter was never Bishop of the particular Church of Rome It is answered to those testimonies of Eusebius Optatus Ambrosius Hieronymus Sulpitius I sidorus Irenaeus Epiphanius c. affirming Peter to be Bishop of Rome that the word Bishop is taken two wayes first for a function of governing the Church in general so Peter calles Christ The Bishop of our souls epist 1. cap. 2. so an Apostleship is called Bishoprick Act. 2. Secondly Bishop is taken in a stricter sense for a certain function Ecclesiastick inferiour unto the Apostolick function so it is taken by Paul 1 Tim. cap. 3. If any desire a Bishoprick in which last sense we now take it and so answers those testimonies of Bellarmine by which he proves that Peter was Bishop of Rome that those Fathers take Bishop in the first sense and their meaning is no other then that Peter as an Apostle taught at Rome twenty five years That this is no shift or evasion is demonstrated by these three following reasons The first reason is that the Fathers reckoning the successions of the Bishops of Rome put Paul with Peter in the first place whereby it is evident that those Fathers take the word Bishop in the first sense comprehending the Apostleship since none of them nor Bellarmine himself will affirm that Paul was Bishop of Rome in the second sense That this is the truth viz. that Paul is named first Bishop of Rome with Peter appears by those following testimonies First of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. Fundantes igitur instruentes beati Apostoli Petrus Paulus Lino Episcopalum administrandae ecclesiae tradiderunt The blessed Apostles Peter and Paul when they founded the Church of Rome they made Linus Bishop The second testimony is of Epiphanius heres 27. Episcoporum in Roma successio hanc consequantiam habuit Petrus Paulus Linus Cletus The succession of the Bishops of Rome was this Peter and Paul Linus Cletus The third testimony is of Eusebiâ—◠〈…〉 3. cap. 2. post Petri Pauli Martyrium prinâ—â—◠〈…〉 Episcopatum Linus sortito capit Afterâ—◠〈…〉 Peter and Paul Linus had the Bishopricâ—◠〈…〉 Such-like other 〈…〉 epist 65. of Optatus 〈…〉 all put Peter and Paul 〈…〉 that in the Bulls of 〈…〉 are joyntly 〈…〉 hath the 〈…〉 is 〈…〉 in the first sense as it 〈◊〉 an Apostle The second reason is because Fathers enumerating the Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome do it in manner following PETER and PAVL 1. Linus 2. Cletus 3. Clemens 4. Euaristus 5. Alexander 6. Sixtus 7. Telesphorus 8. Hyginus 9. Pius 10. Anicetus 11. Soter 12. Eliutherius c. WHere they do not reckon Peter and Paul among the Bishops but only reckons the Bishops from them as their founders putting Linus as first Bishop Cletus as second Clemens as third whereas if Peter and Paul had been Bishops Linus had been second Cletus third Clemens fourth c. That they reckon them so appears by these following testimonies First of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. who calls Clement the third Bishop Sixtus the sixth Eliutherius the twelfth but if he had reckoned Peter as first Bishop then Clemens had been the fourth Sixtus the seventh Eliutherius thirteenth The second testimony is of Eusebius hist lib. 3. cap. 2. where he calls Linus fiâ—st Bishop and likewayes cap. 4. where he calls Clemens third Bishop and cap 16. where he calls Clemens third Bishop Linus first Bishop Cletus second Bishop and lib. 4. cap. 1. he calls Euaristus fourth Bishop and cap. 5. he calls Telesphorus seventh Bishop likewayes in his Chronicles he gives unto them the same order of succession anno 69. and 81. and 93. and 100. whereby by it is evident by Eusebius that Peter was not Bishop of Rome since he gives ranks to the other Bishops as if Linus had been first Bishop The third testimony is of Gregorius lib. 1. cap. 27. who reckons the order of
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
one Bishop of the Church universal is evident because Cathedra or Chair is not one in the whole Church since there are many Chaires in it as is affirmed by Tertullian in his prescriptions cap. 36. The last passage they object out of Cyprian is from his Epistle to Pompeius where he affirmeth no man can have God to his Father who has not the Church to his Mother Costerus the Jesuit Apolog. part 3. objects this passage of Cyprian to prove that the Church of Rome is the mother Church and likewayes to prove the Bishop of Romes supremacy But the impudence of Costerus is very great for Cyprian in that whole Epistle disputes with such vehemency and bitterness against the Church and Bishop of Rome that Pamelius wisheth it had never been written and it shall be proved in the last Chapter of this Book that the said Epistle of Cyprian to Pompeius and others also of his Epistles of the same subject are left out in some new Roman editions of Cyprians works As for the words now alledged Costerus miserably wrests them for in them he is disputing against the Church of Rome and in the very next words he accuseth Stephanus Bishop of Rome not only of Error but also of Obstinacy his dispute is this Those who are baptized by hereticks ought to be re-baptized because the Sanctification of baptisme is only to be found in the Church apud Christi sponsam solam who can beget and bring forth children unto God but they who are baptized by hereticks are not born in the Church neither can they have God to their Father who have not the Church for their Mother Ergo they ought to be re-baptized And a little after he adds how comes it then that the severe Obstinacie of our brother Stephanus Bishop of Rome is come to such an hight he means by that excommunication of himself and the Church of Carthage by Stephanus and his harsh carriage For as Cassander relates consult art 7. when Cyprian sent messengers to Stephanus he not only reâ—used them audience but also inhibited the Clergy of Rome to admit any of them to their houses By which passage of Cyprian with Stephanus it appears with what ingenuity they object the 67. Epistle of Cyprian to prove that he acknowledged the Supremacy of the said Stephanus because in it he writes to him say they to depose Marcianus Bishop of Arles in France But it appears by the words of the Epistle that Cyprian only exhorts Stephanus to admonish the Bishops of the Province to depose him not to depose him himself what was the opinion of Cyprian concerning the power of the Bishop of Rome in deposition and restition of Bishops is sufficiently manifested by his carriage in the cause of Basilides and Sabinus mentioned a little before For in his Epistle 68. he stoutly opposeth the restitution of Basilides and the deposition of Sabinus notwithstanding that Stephanus injoyned both the one and the other to the Bishops of Spain CHAP. XII Objections from forged Authors answered pretended to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the dayes of Cyprian HItherto they have endeavoured to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the death of Cyprian by wrested and misapplyed testimonies that not serving the turn they fall to forgery and that of two kinds first they bring testimonies from bastard and suppositïtious Authors Secondly from true Authors corrupted by the Popes authority or otherwayes we will discourse of the first sort in this Chapter of the second in the following In the first place they pretend the decretal Epistles of several Bishops of Rome who lived in that interval and after unto the beginning of the fourth Age. But it is answered all those decretals are forged attributed to Popes before the dayes of Syrictus Bishop of Rome who lived about anno 380. the reasons follow First Dionysius Exiguus a diligent Compilator of all the decretals of Popes in one volumne begins this work with the decretals of the said Syritius not mentioning the decretal Epistles of any Popes before him whereby it evidently appears that there was no such decretalls in his time or in the sixth Century whereby also it is evident that they have been forged since that time Secondly those decretalls are mentioned by non of the Ancients most exact enquirers after antiquity such as Eusebius Hieronymus Gennadius and Pope Damasus who lived himself in the time of Hieronymus and to whom Hieronymus was Secretar but all those Authors made exact enquiry after the actions of Bishops of Rome before the Council of Neice and yet not one of them maketh mention of those decretals which are at least thirty Thirdly the stiles of men are almost as different as their faces but it appears to any Judicious Reader that all those Epistles were penned by one man having the same stile but they are attributed to Bishops of Rome of divers Ages whereof the last lived three hundred year after the first Fourthly the Latine Tongue before the Council of Neice was in great purity and the Bishops of Rome of those dayes known to be most powerful in it but the stile of those decretals is most barbarous Turrianus objects who wrote a defence of those Epistles that those Bishops of Rome used a humble stile in imitation of Paul who shunned the words of humane wisdom But it is answered that although Paul did forbid affected eloquence yet he did not prescrive solicismes and barbarity which both are frequent in those Epistles And first for Solicismes Enaristus epist 2. Episcopi sunt obediendi non detrahendi Telesphorus in his Epistle hath these words Patres omnes sunt venerandi non insidiandi such like expressions are found every where As for barbarismes you have everywhere such expressions as those folowing Rigorosus tortor dependere obtemperantiam agere indisciplinate jurgialiter stare paternas doctrinas injuriare cuncta charitative peragere Fifthly Isidorus Mercator who lived in the seventh Age challenged by Barronius ad annum 336. num 80. and 60. as a great forger of monuments of Antiquity he lived in the 7. Age at which time there was great debate between the Greek and the Latin Church the Greek Church refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome albeit Phocas in the beginning of that Age had taken the title of oecumenick Bishop from Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople and bestowed it upon Bonifacius Bishop of Rome yet notwithstanding the Bishop of Constantinople still keeped the stile of oecumenick Bishop and would not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome The said Isidorus Mercator as Barronius relates forged several monuments of Antiquity to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and he is commonly thought to be the forger of those decretalls for three reasons first as we said he is detected of several other forgeries secondly because it appears by their stile they are all written by one man thirdly because the stile is barbarous and exactly agreeing
with the stile of that Age in which Isidorus lived Sixthly it is demonstrat those Epistles are forged not only by the stile but by the matter contained in them It were prolix to mention all we will only note some few sufficiently demonstrating those decretals to be forged First some of them are directed to those who were dead long before as that Epistle of Clement to James in which he writes to him of the death of Peter and Paul but James was dead in the seventh year of Nero as is testified by Eusebius Hegesippus and Hieronymus but Peter and Paul died not till seven years after viz. the fourteenth year of Nero. 2. Anterius in his decretal makes mention of Eusebius Bishop of Alexandria and Felix Bishop of Ephesus but Anterus lived in the beginning of the third Century almost a whole Age before them both 3. Fabianus in his Epistle makes mention of the coming of Novatus to Italy but Cyprian lib. 1. epist 3. affirms that Fabianus came to Italy in the time of Cornelius who lived at another time 4. Marcellus writes a threatning Letter to Maxentius pressing him with the Authority of Clement Bishop of Rome but Maxentius both a Pagan and a Tyrant cared nothing for Clement at all 5. Zephyrinus in his Epistle to the Egyptians affirms that it was against the constitutions of Emperours that Clergy men should be called before the Judge Secular the same is affirmed by Eusebius in his Decretal to the same Aegyptians But in those dayes viz. In the third Century the Emperours were all Pagans and it is ridiculous to affirm that they made such Edicts in favour of Christians who were cruel persecuters of the Christians 6. It s known that many ceremonies came by degrees in the Church and that there were very few ceremonies in the Church the time of those Bishop of Rome but those decretalâ—Epistles makes no mention of the grievous persecutions of the Church in those dayes no not one of them but on the contrary makes mention of the Church as it were in pomp making mention of all those ceremonies as holy vessels of the habit of the Clergy of the Mass of Archbishops Metropolitans Patriarchs none of which things were in the Church in those dayes those Cannons commonly called Apostolick mention indeed Primats but albeit they contain many profitable things yet many learned men among the Papists themselves maintain that they were not made by the Apostles but collected from Cannons of the Council of Antioch and other posterior Councils See Salmasius and Photius Bibliothick cap. 113. We might alledge several other reasons to prove those Epistles forged as their absurd interpetation of Scripture some of them maintaining community of wives c. But those reasons are sufficient since Bellarmine and Barronius seems not to care much for them since Contius Professour at Bruges maintains them to be forged since Aeneas Silvius epist 301. according to Bellarmines supputation 288. expresly affirms that before the Council of Niece there are no Monuments for the Popes Supremacy which he would never have affirmed if he had not believed those Epistles had been forged which ingeminate everywhere the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and yet the said Aeneas Silvius was afterwards Pope himself under the name of Pius second Whence we conclude that those Epistles were unknown to the Ancients And whereas Turrianus objects that Isidorus mentioneth them It is answered he is charged for forging them He objects secondly that Ruffinus turned those three Epistles of Clement but it is answered those Epistles of Clement are very old indeed but they do not prove the Antiquity of the rest The stile of these three Epistles of Clement is different from the stile of those others and although Ruffinus turned them from Greek to Latine it doth not prove they are Authentick He tuâ—ned also his Books of Recognitions which are esteemed Apocryphal by Gratianus Bellarmine and other Doctors of the Church of Rome And this much of those decretal Epistles they alledge testimonies from several other forged Authors in that interval to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval as Abdias Bishop of Babylon is cited by Dorman to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Linus is cited by Coccius for the same reason Clement by Harding viz. his books of recognition Dyonisius Areopagita de divinis nominibus is several times cited by Coccius in Thesauro for the same end but all these Authors or those books now mentioned of those Authors are rejected by Bellarmine or Barronius or Possevinus or Cajetanus or Grocinus or Sixtus Senensis and other lights of the Church of Rome and therefore it is needless to insist upon the disproving them we will only answer one passage falsly attributed to Eusebius or to Hieronymus in his additions to Eusebius and it is this Bellarmine to prove that the Bishop of Rome hath a legislative power and Posnan also thes 131. alledge a passage of Eusebius viz. that lent fast of 40 dayes was instituted by Telesphorus Bishop of Rome who lived in the second Age and this is his first instance But it is answered that Scaliger in his edition of Eusebius demonstrats those cannot be the words of Eusebius because lib. 5. cap. 17. he expresly affirms that Montanus the heretick was the first that prescribed set fasts Secondly because cap. 34. of the same Book Eusebius affirms from Irenaeus that in the time of Victor Bishop of Rome who lived after Telesphorus that the fast of lent was not observed one way some observing one day some two some more c. Bellarmines second instance is that the said Eusebius affirms that the mystery or celebration of the Mystery of the resurrection of the Lords day was first ordained by Pius Bishop of Rome and universally observed in the west But it is answered that Eusebius cap. 22. of the said Book expresly affirms the contrary viz. that it was ordained by the decrees of several Councels neither was it ever generally observed before the Council of Neice whereby it is evident that both the one and the other passage is fraudulently inserted in the works of Eusebius otherwayes Eusebius would contradict himself CHAP. XIV Of the corruptions of Cyprian THere is not a Father of them all of whom they bragg more then of Cyprian to prove the supremacy of the Bishop Rome and yet there is not a Father of them all of which they have lesse reason to bragg as we shewedbefore Barronius tom 1. pag. 129. Let one speak for all saith he in time more ancient in learning more excellent in honour of Martyrdom far exceeding the rest of the Fathers viz. Cyprian and then he cites this following passages out of Cyprian de unitate ecclesiae cap. 3. To Peter our Lord after his resurrection saith feed my sheep and buildeth his Church upon him alone 2. And although after his resurrection he gave alike power to all yet to manifest unity he constitute one Chair
the keys of the kingdom of heaven The third is Joh. 21. 15. 16 17. Feed my sheep feed my lambs But Cardinal Cusanus lib. 2. concord Cathol cap. 13. expresly affirmes that in all those three places nothing was given in peculiar to Peter which was not given to all the Apostles which he also proves by the testimony of Hieronymus 2. The main Basis of the Popes supremacy is in the exposition of these words Tu es Petrus viz. That Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built Pighius and Baronius and others affirm that all are ignorants hereticks mad men who acquiesced not in this exposition That Peter is the Rock But it shall be proved in the first six Chapters of the fiâ—st Book not only by innumerable testimonies of Popish Doctors but also of a great many Popes themselves that not Peter but the thing confessed by Peter is the Rock viz. Christ himself 3. Another Basis of the Popish Religion is that Peter had his jurisdiction immediatly from Christ and the other Apostles theirs from Peter Bellarmine and others affirm that if this be not granted the supremacy of Peter cannot be defended and consequently the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and the whole body of the Popish Religion falls with it But Franciscus de victoria affirmed by Canus to be the ablest Divine of Spain exsibilats this distinction of Peters immediat jurisdiction and refutes the gloss on Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae for exponing a passage in Cyprian from which they gather this distinction proving by the testimonies of Cyprian himself in that very place corrupted by the Glosse which Glosse is approved by the Church of Rome that Cyprian in these words expresly disputs against that immediat Jurisdiction of Peter and mediat of the other Apostles and affirms that all the Apostles had not only their order but also their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ 4. They prove the Supremacy of Peter by his carriage and prerogatives but Salmero the Jesuit expresly affirms that nothing can be gathered from the carriage of Peter to prove him oecumenick Bishop but much to the contrary Yea the Council of Basil it self pronounced that the Legats of the Pope had no right of presiding in general Councils because it could neither be proved by Scripture nor Antiquity that ever Peter presided in any Council or at that of Jerusalem 5. They brag much of Cyprian that he is for the Supremacy of Peter and also Augustin and other Fathers but Barronius himself confesseth that both Cyprian and Augustine died out of communion with the Church of Rome for resisting her encroaching upon the Churches of Africk that is for admitting of Appellations from Africk to Rome for doing of which Bonifacius Secundus Bishop of Rome affirms that Aurelius and Augustinus were seduced by the Devil and yet both of them are placed in the Roman Callender as Saints and notwithstanding all their braggings of Cyprian let one speak for all saith Barronius in time most ancient in learning most excellent in martyrdom most glorious for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome yet Stapleton the Jesuit expresly affirms that Cyprian in that subject utitur verbis errantium mire hereticorum causae patrocinari videtur And Bellarmine himself confesseth that we do not read that ever Cyprian was reconciled to the Church of Rome after his resisting of Stephanus the Bishop of Rome his pretending right of Appellations from Africa And this much of their concord and unity in that Cardinal question of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which falling Bellarmine as we said grants that the whole body of the Popish Religion falls with it comparing it without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome to a house without a foundation a man when his head is stricken off to star-light without the Sun We could instance their discord in many of their most substantial Tenets what question is of greater importance then that of Transubstantion It is the general opinion of the Doctors of the Church of Rome that it was imbraced as an Article of Faith from the beginning and yet those two great Popish Doctors Scotus and Bonaventur expresly maintain that Transubstantiation was never believed as an Article of Faith before the Council of Lateran anno 1225. Yea Scotus expresly affirms were it not for the authority of that Council he would not believe it himself it hath so little ground in Scripture and Antiquity The main ground of which prodigious Article is those words of our Saviour Hoc est corpus meum and other expressions of his John 6. But it shall be proved part 4. lib. 2. by the testimonies of many Popish Doctors that nothing can be gathered from either place for proving of it It were too prolix in this Preface to mention all the contradictions of the Doctors of the Church of Rome in their most substantial Tenets Your Lordships may read them at large in the following Treatise almost through the whole body of it but most expresly part 4. lib. 2 where your Lordships will not only find Doctors contradicting Doctors but also Popes accusing Councils Councils accusing Popes Councils accusing Councils Popes in Cathedra taxing Popes in Cathedra of Heresies Madnesse Ignorance And this much of the sixth mark of the Church of Rome by which they pretend it is proved to be the true Church viz. Unity The seventh mark is Saints they object to the Protestants that they lean too much on Christ trusting nothing to their own merits which occasions so much prophanenesse amongst them but we say they the Church of Rome are adorned with innumerable Saints stirred up to holiness because works are meritorious in the sight of God quis tulerit grachos de seditione quoerentes Let us retex this mark of Saints that we may see what reason they have to brag of it And first they cannot brag of the Sanctity of their Clergy witnesse the exclamations of all Ages against the corruption of the Clergy of the Church of Rome when they got a little breathing from persecution we need not mention the complaints not only of the Ancients but also of modern Popish Doctors against the corruptions of the Clergy of Rome Cyprian began the complaint in his time when the Church was yet under persecution But when the Emperours became Christians the Clergy by their beneficence became rich Hieronymus in his time thirteen hundred years ago was so irritated by the vicious lives of the Roman Clergy that Damasus Bishop of Rome dying to whom he was Secretary he left Rome and went to Palestina to live as a Monk comparing Rome to Babylon and the seat of the Whore Ammianus Marcellinus in the opinion of Baronius a Pagan declaimed bitterly against the viciousnesse of the Roman Clergy It were tedious to mention the complaints of these of the first six Centuries against the viciousness of the Roman Clergy as of Basilius Magnus Nazianzenus Sulpitius Severus and others as the greatnesse of the Bishop
of Rome in power encreased not only corruption in Doctrine but also in manners encreased with it And after the Bishop of Rome was made universal Bishop nothing could be added to the wickedness of the Clergy The complaints of Bernardus Picus Merandula are notorious and innumerable others The corruptions of the Clergy moved them not onely to call Rome Babylon but also consequently and not obscurely the Bishop of Rome Antichrist and yet both of them professed themselves obedient Sons to the Church of Rome In a word since the times of Cyprian no brave man lived in any Age unto this day who did not complain of the corruption of the Roman Clergy and so heir Clergy cannot be their Saints Secondly if they have little reason to brag of their Clergy they have far lesse reason to brag of the sanctity of their Popes Baronius Platina and Onuphrius ingenuously confesse that the World never produced such Monsters for murtherers Impoysoners Adulterers Symoniacks Witches yea and Hereticks who but a mad man will affirm that such persons cannot erre teaching the Church Surely Pighius was out of his witts teaching that a Pope could not be an Heretick and Bellarmine no less for calling that opinion of Pighius a pious opinion their feaver now is turned to a Phrensie the Author of that Book entituled Cardinalismo conscious to all the Caball of the Roman Clergy affirms that now they begin to teach at Rome that a Pope cannot be a reprobat which at last will turn to an Article of Faith as well as infallibility But because corruption of lives of the Clergy doth not of necessity infer a false Church We do not affirm that the wickedness of their Clergy or their Popes proves them Idolaters in Doctrine we only affirm that they have no reason to brag of either of them as Saints to prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church And although they were so it is no infallible mark for it may be affirmed that the holyest of them all comes short of Novatus Donatus and other ancient Hereticks or of Tertullian when he was a Montanist We only ask of them where those Saints are to be found of which they brag so much if they be neither their Clergy nor their Popes They will answer they mean those persons canonized by the Pope and placed in their Calander But we reply they cheat egregiously first it is reported of a certain mad-man in Athens who imagined that all the Ships which came into the Harbour were his own so they when they hear of any promises made to the Church they imagine they are all made to the modern Church of Rome and when they hear of any Saints and Martyrs they believe they all professed the Doctrine of the Church of Rome In reason they can brag of no Saints but those who lived after the beginning of the seventh Century the Saints of the first six Centuries were not of their Church at all for it shall be proved part 4. lib. 2. that the Saints Fathers and Martyrs of the first six Centuries condemn all the Tenets of the Church of Rome of any moment which they hold contrary to Protestants as heretical and are in right down terms Protestants yea it shall be proved by testimonies of their own Doctors that many of these most eminent Saints died excommunicated by the Church of Rome for resisting the pride of that Church as Saint Polycarpus and all the Bishops of Asia in the time of Victor anno 195. Saint Cyprian and all the Churches of Africk in the time of Stephanus Bishop of Rome about anno 256. Saint Aurelius and Saint Augustine and all the Bishops of Africk in the times of Sozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus Bishops of Rome in the beginning of the fifth Age. Secondly as for those Saints since the beginning of the seventh Century it is answered first that albeit the Clergy of Rome call them Saints yet they thought the said Clergy no Saints such as Saint Bernard and others who most bitterly inveigh against the corruption of the Roman Church Saint Bernard expresly calls Rome a den of theeves and Babylon mentioned by John in the Apocalyps 2. How many of these modern Saints have been proved cheats It shall be proved by testimonies of their own Doctors part 3. lib. 2. that the Pope hath no power to canonize Saints and that the most part of their Saints are vile Impostors devised by Priests to cheat the ignorant people of their money and to make them offer oblations at their shrines It were prolix in this Preface to insert the particulars but that Impostur of Saints in many examples shall be made unanswerably appear part 4. lib. 2. And this much of Saints the seventh mark of the Roman Church The last mark is Miracles the Scripture informs us that Antichrist shall deceive all the world by false miracles It shall be proved likewayes part 4. lib. 2. by the testimony of the most learned Popish Doctors that Miracles are no true marks of the true Church in these last times but rather marks of the Antichristian Church 2. It shall be proved by the testimonies of the same men that most of the late miracles pretended by the Church of Rome and the most notable ones are meet Imposturs which we shall instance in the forementioned place And whereas they object we have no miracles in our Church it is false our Doctrine was confirmed by the miracles performed by Christ and his Apostles neither need we any other miracles since we profess the same Doctrine And this much of those marks of the true Church pretended by the Mannual of Controversies to prove that the Church of Rome was such to refute which is my first scope and intention in this following Disput The second scope of the said Manual of Controversies was to perswade the Proselyts of this Nation that it was not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope had power to depose Kings either Popish or Protestant but only of some particular persons whom they called the Popes flatterers and therefore my second intention is to prove that the said Author is either ignorant in the Principles of his own Religion or else he is like Father Cotton the Jesuit who being demanded if he believed the Pope had power to depose Kings answered He did not believe it in France but if he were at Rome he would That this King-deposing doctrine is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is proved by three reasons which will puzle the said Author very sore to answer The first is this innumerable Books are printed asserting so much the names of the Authors shall be cited afterwards some of which Books are dedicated to Cardinals some to the Pope himself but those Books are authorized by those who have authority from the Pope to peruse Books before they go to the Press with an Imprimatur and a Declaration that they contain nothing contrary to the Catholick Doctrine But who but a
and for that reason they were all called Secundae Sedis Episcopi or Bishops of the second Seat not some of them Bishops of the third and others of the fourth Seat because now this Bishop then another or now Bishop of this City then of another was Bishop of the second Seat according to the priority of his ordination It is to be observed that after Justinianus the priority of the first Bishops themselves or Bishops of the first Seat was made ambulatory in Africa by a Constitution of the said Justinianus except only the Bishop of Carthage who still remained fixed first Bishop whether he were of older or newer ordination because Carthage was the first City of the first Province of Africa In like manner the Bishop of Rome was the fixed first Bishop of all the world because Rome was the first City of the first Province of the world and for that reason as we said potentior principalitas or a more powerful principality was attributed to the Church of Rome by Irenaeus The Church of Rome in those dayes was of no further extent then the walls of the City as is at large demonstrated by Salmasius for the Bishop of Rome then was only a Bishop and was neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch much less an oecumenick Bishop That the Bishop of Rome was first Bishop because Rome was the first City of the Empire and for no other reason appears not only by what is said but also because for the same reason he was declared first Metropolitan by the second general Council of Constantinople and first Patriarch by the fourth general Council of Chalcedon and oecumenick Bishop by Phocas as shall be declared hereafter at large whereby it is evident That the Bishop of Rome had still the priority for civil respects and by humane ordination and not at all by divine institution or by reason of succession to Peter for in that respect the Bishop of Antioch would be preferred to the Bishop of Rome because he is Bishop of Antioch or rather founded the Church of Antioch before ever he saw Rome and whereas Petavius and others affirm that the Bishop of Rome was successor to Peter because Peter died at Rome it is frivolous 1. Because Velenus Salmasius and others prove by unanswerable reasons that Peter neither lived nor died at Rome that is was never at Rome whose reasons were summed in the former Book cap. 24. 2. Because Peter although he had been at Rome yet was never Bishop at Rome but only in a large sense viz. as Bishop comprehends the founder of any Church in which sense Paul may be called the Bishop of Corinth Thessalonica c. yet in that respect Paul is to be preferred to Peter because he not only founded the Church of Rome as all agree and not Peter as many affirm but also although he and Peter had founded the Church of Rome joyntly he is to be preferred to the Bishoprick of Rome because Rome was a City of the Gentiles expresly comprehended under the Apostolat of Paul whereas the Jews were only committed to Peter and for that reason in the Seals annexed to the Popes Bulls unto this day the Images of Paul and Peter are joyntly imprinted and that of Paul hath the right hand many admire why but the reason can be no other then what we have told viz. because although Peter and Paul are believed joyntly to have founded the Church of Rome and therefore the image of both is imprinted in the Seals yet that of Paul hath the right hand because Rome was under the Apostolat of Paul and not of Peter as we said Likewayes it is agreed by all that Paul died at Rome but not that Peter and it is thought that none of the Ancients knew where Peter died one thing is certain that Clement third Bishop of Rome speaking of the deaths of Peter and Paul to both whom he was contemporary and who was called by Paul his fellow-labourer although in his Epistle to the Corinthians he speaks more particularly of the martyrdome of Paul when and where he died and under whom yet he doth not mention the death of Peter so particularly which he would have done if Peter had died at Rome in the same day with Paul as the Romanists affirm 3. If the Bishop of Rome have any priority by reason of Peters dying at Rome the Bishop of Jerusalem is to be preferred to the Bishop of Rome because Christ died at Jerusalem yea for that reason the foresaid Clement seems to call James the Apostle thought to be the first Bishop of Jerusalem Episcopum Episcoporum or Bishop of Bishops which Epithet if any had given to the Bishop of Rome in those dayes Bellarmime and Barronius would have blacked many sheets of paper with repetitions of that Testimony ingeminating it every where as they do other testimonies of far less moment In what sense Clement calls James Bishop of Bishops shall be shewed hereafter CHAP. VI. The Testimonies of Dionysius and Ignatius against the Bishop of Romes Supremacy AENeas Silvius afterwards the Pope under the name Pius second in his 288. Epistle according to the supputation of Bellarmine affirms that before the Council of Neice little or no regaird was had to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which confirms what we said before viz. that before the times of Cyprian the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was only of Dignity but not of Jurisdiction viz. because he was Bishop of the chief Imperial City as also because he was Bishop of that particular Church commonly believed in those dayes to have been joyntly founded by those Princes of the Apostles Peter and Paul Yet notwithstanding since the Doctors of the Church of Rome endeavour to prove by Testimonies of Fathers and actions of Bishops of Rome that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged in the first three Centuries in disputing this Question we will observe this following method first we will prove by Testimonies of those Fathers who lived in that interval that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged in those dayes Secondly we will answer what is objected to the contrary from actions of Popes and from Testimonies of Fathers Lastly we will discover several forgeries pretended by our Adversary to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval We will first assault the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome by the Testimonies of two much magnified by some of that Church the first is Ignatius whom they affirm to be the Disciple oâ— St. John the second is Dionysius believed by them to be the Disciple of St. Paul and albeit we proved in another place that the pretended Ignatius was not the Disciple of John and shall prove hereafter that the pretended Dionysius was not the Disciple of Paul mentioned Acts. yet neverthelesse both the one and the other are very ancient we proved elsewhere that Ignatius lived about the time of Victor Bishop of Rome when Dionysius