The grand impostor discovered, or, An historical dispute of the papacy and popish religion ... divided in four parts : 1. of bishops, 2. of arch-bishops, 3. of an œcumenick bishop, 4. of Antichrist : Part I, divided in two books ... / by S.C.

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 Coun∣cil 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, om∣nes riserunt. This passage is most fitly applyed to our adver∣saries, 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 coun∣cil, but only the words of Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Bonifa∣cius, Legats to Leo Bishop of Rome, giving their votes a∣gainst 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 Pon∣tificum sunt, suas fimbrias extendentium, aut illorum qui eis adu∣labantur; 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 Su∣premacy 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 fore∣saids 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: Pas∣chasinus and his fellows pleaded the sixth canon of the Council of Nice. The words are those, Let the old custom remain in E∣gypt, 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 excepti∣on, 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 Bi∣shop of Constantinople the second place next to him, because Con∣stantinople 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 E∣gypt, 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 Alexand∣ria; or, the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria flowed from the authority of the Bishop of Rome: And since the Bi∣shop 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 Constan∣tinople 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 pre∣ferring 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 unrea∣sonable 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 Alexan∣dria; the meaning of the Canon being only this, viz. The oc∣casion of the Canon was one Miletius troubled all Egypt by ordaining Bishops at his own hand. Alexander Bishop of A∣lexandria 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 wri∣ter, who lived near these times, interprets) in Ecclesijs Suburbi∣carijs, 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 fra∣med in government according to the pattern of another com∣mon-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 dig∣nity: which before that time, belonged to the Bishop of Alex∣andria, 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 se∣cond 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 pre∣ferred to that of Alexandria, and made equal to the Govern∣ment of those places, depending upon the city of Rome; there∣fore the said council of Constantinople did no wrong in e∣qualizing 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 Con∣stantinople, being made equal to those of Rome, was the cause why the council of Constantinople made the Bishop of Con∣stantinople 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; Defini∣mus & communi calculo sancimus, quod attinct ad praerogativas honoris sanctissimae Ecclesiae hujus Constantinopoleos novae Ro∣mae, Etenim Patres, Sedi Antiquioris is Romae, ob eam caussam quia Imperium obtineret Urbs illa, merito Primatum honoris detu∣lere, Sed & eadem ratione moti, centum quinquaginia religio∣sissimi Episcopi aequalem primatum honoris assignarunt sanctissimae sedi novae Romae, Recte judicantes, eam Urbem quae imperio & Senatu honestatur: & i••sdem privilegis fruentem cum antiqua Roma & Regia; etiam in Ecclesiasticis negotijs aequa cu•• 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 Ju∣risdiction, with the Bishop of Rome. Secondly, that the Bi∣shop 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 Con∣stantinople, gave the primacy to the Bishop of Rome, for the same reason only; viz. because it was the old imperial City. And therefore it is intollerable impudence in our adversaries to object the authority of the Council of Chalcedo••; to prove the Supremacy of Peter.

By which it appears the impudence of Bellarmin, and Ba∣ronius, who abuse their Reader with strange Sophistry, and most shameless. The Council of Chalcedon, say they, inter∣preted the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, to the advan∣tage of the Bishop of Rome: For immediatly after the reading of the said Canon, the beginning of which was, Ecclesia Ro∣mana semper habuit primatum, the Church of Rome evermore had the primacy, The Canon being thus read, all the Council cryed out, Perpendimus omnem primatum & honorem praecipuum secundum Canones, antiquae Romae Deo amantissimo Archiepiscopo conservari.

But it is answered; first, Those words of the Canon, viz. the Church of Rome ever had the primacy; are forged, being found in no other copie, but in that of Dionysius Exiguus: but his authority is not sufficient to out balance all other co∣pies of the Canons of the Council, both Greek and Latin; yea, that copie corrected by Gregory 13 himself, which wants those first words pretended by Bellarmin and Baronius: in which copie and all other copies, the first words of the said Canon are, An∣tiquus mos perduret, &c. Let the old custom remain in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, &c.

Secondly, although the Canon had begun so, it makes not much to the purpose; since it appears by the decree of the Council, that the Primacy of the Church of Rome, was only a Primacy of dignity; for civil respects, and not a Primacy of Jurisdiction, by reason of the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter: as appears expresly by the words of the Canon: And also that the Bishop of Constantinople was ordained by the said Council, equal in Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome. If Bel∣larmin and Baronius affirm, that the words of the twenty-eight Canon are mis-interpreted, their mouths are stopped, not only by the carriage of Lucentius, and other two Legats of the Bishop of Rome, but also by the carriage of Leo Bishop of Rome himself.

The carriage of Lucentius was this, When the Fathers of the Council had subscribed the said twenty eight Canon, Lucentius stood up, crying, foul play: Some of those subscri∣bers were compelled so to do, by one indirect way or other: The whole Fathers of the Council answered, they had delibe∣ratly, and voluntarily subscribed. Whereupon Lucentius pro∣tested against the Council, as having preferred the judgement of a hundred and fifty Fathers of the Council of Constantinople, before the judgement of three hundred and eighteen Fathers, in the first general Council of Nice; which was as much to

say, as he understood the meaning of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, better then those six hundred and thirty Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, representing the whole Church, This carraige of Lucentius is recorded in the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon, Act. 16. pag. 936. 937. 938.

Next, that the said Council decerned against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, appears by four Epistles of Leo Bishop of Rome himself; in which he thunders against the Council of Chalcedon for making the foresaid 28. Canon; still ingemina∣ting, Tu es Petrus, or that they had wronged the supremacy of Peter; by which complaints of his it is most evident, that those 630. Fathers, representing the whole Church in a gene∣ral Council, meant nothing lesse then the supremacy of Peter, in these words, Tu es Petrus. These four Epistles of Leo are his 52. Epistle to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople; His 54. to Martianus the Emperour, his 55. to Pulcheria the Em∣press; his 62. to Maximus Bishop of Antioch; in which E∣pistles he complains heavily, that the Bishop of Constantinople was preferred to him of Alexandria. Because Constantinople was the seat of the Emperor, he fore-saw (being a man of great Spirit and foresight) that in the end, for the same reason, the Bishop of Constantinople would be preferred to the Bishop of Rome; which accordingly fell out, as shal be proved, lib 4. And thus it appeareth▪ with how little integrity our adversa∣ries object the Council of Chalcedon, to prove that Peter was the Rock, meaned by our Savior in these words, Tu es Pe∣trus, &c. By which proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon, appears also, what was the opinion of the general councils of Nice and Constantinople.

As for the sixth general Council, commonly called Trulla∣num, celebrated under Pogonatus the Emperor; Anno 680. in its 36. Canon, it confirms the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon totidem verbis; By which it appears what was the

opinion of the Church concerning Tu es Petrus, in the end of the 7. age. And so we have the opinion of the first, second, fourth, and sixth general Councils, that Peter is not the Rock upon which the Church is built.

As for the third general council of Ephesus, and the fifth of Constantinople, although in express words, they make not all the Patriarchs of alike Jurisdiction; Yet they made Canons expresly contradicting the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome; and consequently, contradicting also Peter to be the Rock upon which the Church is built. The council of Ephesus calls Celestine Bishop Rome Fellow-Minister. It were a bold thing now in any Bishop to salute the Pope so. Secondly, they deposed John Patriarch of Antioch, before ever they ac∣quainted Celestine Bishop of Rome, as appears by the Synodi∣cal Epistle, Binius Tom. 1. page 806. Thirdly, they ordained that neither the Patriarch of Antioch, nor any other Bishop (ergo not the Bishop of Rome) should take upon him to or∣dain Bishops in the Isle of Cyprus, Binius Tom. 26. pag. 768.

As for the fifth general council of Constantinople, it re∣judged the cause of Anthimius, after he had first been judged by Aggapetus Bishop of Rome; Binius in his notes upon that council, Tom 2. pag 416. Secondly, it condemned Vigilius Bishop of Rome, and yet in the end the said Vigilius approved the said council: Baronius, Anno 553. Binius in the place fore-mentioned. And thus ye have the opinion of the six first general councils, concerning the Supremacy of the Bi∣shop of Rome, by reason of his succession to Peter, in the Mo∣narchy of the Church: By which passages it appears that the sixth first general councils meaned nothing lesse, then that Peter was the Rock, upon which the Church was built; or that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church, in those words, Tu es Petrus. It shal likewise be proved, lib. 5. That the seventh general council, Anno 790. and the 8. Anno 870.

had as little regard to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. The first of which condemned Pope Honorius as an Heretick and the last approved of it.

And thus we have the opinion of the whole Church, con∣cerning Tu en Petrus, the first 900. year after Christ: all which time, it was no article of Faith, (as appears by those eight general Councils) that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church, in those words, Tu es Petrus. The truth is, it was invented, First, by Leo after the Council of Chalcedon, when the contention arose between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, for the Primacy: it was still made use of by the Bishops of Rome, after that, pleading for the Primacy; but it appears by the 3••. Epistle of Gregory, that he made use of it, only for cu••a universalis Ecclesiae, and not for Juris∣diction: for he expresly thunders against one visible head of of the Church: amongst other reasons, he hath this for one, Although Peter had the care of the whole Church, committed into him yet was he not universal Apostle. And thus we have reasoned, Tu es Petrus, from Scripture, Reason, and General Councils. Now let us hear the opinion of the Fathers.