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. X. Of Appellations, pretended to prove the Supremacy, of the Bi∣shop of Rome, in that interval, from the Apostles to the death of Cyprian.

TO these actions of Popes usurping Authority, in that interval, are referred several pretended Appellations, to the Bishop of Rome, by which they endeavour to prove, his Supremacy in those times: they mention di∣vers, Bellarmine makes use of three; the first is, of the Grand Heretick Marcion, who being excommunicated, for his pro∣digious opinion, by his own Father, a Bishop in Pontus, had his recourse to Hyginus, Bishop of Rome, anno, 142, as Epiphanius affirms, Heres. 42. The second is Fortunatus, and Felix, being deposed by Cyprian in Africa, about anno, 252. fled to Cornelius Bishop of Rome; as is related by Cypri∣ans Epistle, 55. The third is a little after the same time; Ba∣silides, and Martialis, being deposed by the Bishops of Spain, (as is reported by Cyprians epistle, 68.) fled to Stepahnus, Bi∣shop of Rome; of which in order, and first of Marcion.

This Marcion, was a notorious and dangerous Heretick: against whom Tertullian, and Epiphanius, most bitterly en∣veigh: he denied the verity of Christs humane nature, and the verity of his sufferings; he denyed also the resurrection of the body: he maintained, that men might be thrice bap∣tised. His Father was a Bishop or Preacher in Pontus, by whom he was excommunicated: he fled to Rome, desiring to be admitted to the communion of that Church; but he was rejected by the Clergy of Rome: he asked them a reason, they answered, they could not admitt him, without a testimonial from his Father the Bishop, who had excommunicated him, as is reported by Epiphanius. It is very strange, that Bellar∣mine

should call this an appellation, since the Clergy of Rome refused to hear him; neither did he appeal at all, as appears, both by the reason wherefore he left his own Countrey, and also by his demands at Rome.

The first is related by Epiphanius, who tells, he fled from his own Countrey, not enduring the scoffs of t••e common peo∣ple: his demands at Rome are likewayes related by Epiphanius, viz. not to take knowledge in his cause, in a second judgement, which is the demand of Appellants; but only to be admitted to the communion of that Church; which are also refused him, as is affirmed by Epiphanius.

When he was rejected at Rome, he associated himself with one Cerdon: those two hatched an opinion of three gods; the first they called the good God, which created nothing at all that is in this world; the second they called a visible god, Crea∣tor of all things; the third god was the devil, whom they made as a mid-thing, between the visible and the invisible god. Cerdon before he was acquainted with Marcion, asserted only two gods, the one author of all good things, the other of all evill things: but after his aquaintance with Marcion, they both taught these three gods: this damnable heresie, woun∣derfully increased in many places; as Italy, Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Cyprus, Persia, and other places; which caused Tertullian and Epiphanius inveigh so bitterly against it in their Books.

Bellarmine his second instance of Appellations, is of For∣tunatus and Felicissimus, the story is this; Felicissimus and Novatian were condemned at a Council of Carthage; Felicis∣simus for averring, that those who had lapsed to Idolatry, in time of persecution, should be admitted to office of the Church, after pen ance: Novation, for maintaining, that they might not be admitted to communion at all, no not after pennance: the Church of Carthage takes a midway, decerning, that af∣ter

pennance they might be admitted to communion, but not to their charge in the Church.

Felicissimus, who had fallen in Idolatry himself, and for that reason was debarred from his charge, conspires with one Privatus, who was excommunicated as well as himself: they make a faction, and sets up one Fortunatus, Bishop of Car∣thage, in oposition to Cyprian; and immediately goes to Rome, desiring of Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, to be admit∣ted to communion with that Church, desiring him to coun∣tenance their new Bishop Fortunatus. Cornelius refuses at first, to hear them; but afterwards they use Menaces; where∣upon he writes to Cyprian his intimate friend, in their favour.

It is demanded of Bellarmine, how he finds any Appel∣lation here? The cause is almost the same with that of Mar∣cion, which we now mentioned, yea, Pamelius himself in his Annotations, upon that place of Cyprian, denyes ex∣presly there was any appellations, but that these went to Rome, to complain, or to be judged, not in those things in which they had been already judged by Cyprian, but in other things.

Secondly, albeit there had been any appellations, it was op∣posed by Cyprian, for two reasons; first, because delinquents should be judged where the crime is committed where witnesses may be had against them. Secondly, because the authority of the Bi∣shops in Africa was no less, (who had already judged them) then the authority of the Bishop of Rome, to whom they had their recourse.

Bellarmine answers to both these reasons; to the first he gives a twofold answer, first, that the meaning of Cyprian is to be understood de prima instantia, that is, persons should be judged where the crime is committed, the first time only; but if they appeal, they should be judged in that place, to which they appeal. But he Sophisticates, for Cyprian is

opposing a second judgement at Rome, after they had been condemned in Carthage, as is notorious by the Hi∣story.

Bellarmine answers, Secondly, that Cyprian is against a se∣cond ••udgement or appellation, when the crime is manifest, and not when it is dubious. But it is replyed, that manifest or unmanifest crime doth not take away appellation, if the ap∣pellation be otherwayes legal, or it the Judge to whom they appeal, have jurisdiction over him, from whom they have appealed: Neither doth Cyprian distinguish▪ between mani∣fest and not manifest crimes at all. Secondly, Bellarmine contradicts himself, in affirming, that the meaning of Cypri∣an is that they may appeal to Rome, when the cause is dubi∣ous, but not when it is manifest; which distinction Bellar∣mine admits, viz. that there should be no appellation when the crime is manifest; and yet in this case of Fortunatus, and Felix, the crimes were manifest: and Bellarmine instances their appellations as legal, which is a flat contradiction: and this much of Bellarmines answer to Cyprians first reason, viz. That Crimes should be judged where they are com∣mitted.

He yet instances, that if that reason of Cyprians were va∣lid, it would cut off all appellations, for there can be no ap∣peal, if crimes be judged where they are committed, But it is replyed, that Cyprian adds, when the authority of those who have already judged them, is no less then the authority of those to whom they appeal; for immediatly after those words, crimes should be judged where they are committed, he restricts his meaning by the comparison of authority, except (saith he) the authority of the Bishops of Africa, be thought not sufficient by those profligate fellows who were judged by them.

Bellarmine instances, those words of Cyprian, are not com∣paring the authority of the Bishops of Africa, with the au∣thority of the Bishop of Rome: but only, with the cause of Fortunatus, and Felix: that is, the authority of the Bi∣shop in Africa, is sufficient to judge that case: but it is an∣swered, although that were the meaning of Cyprian, it cutts off all appellations to Rome: for if the authority of the Bi∣shops of Africa, be sufficient in that case of Fortunatus and Fe∣lix, they cannot be rejudged at Rome, in a second judge∣ment. Secondly, albeit ••yprian for modesties sake, doth not name the authority of the Church of Rome, in the com∣parison: (for he was a great respecter of Cornelius Bishop of Rome) yet, that this is his meaning, appears more evident∣ly by those speeches of his, uttered against Stephanus Bishop of Rome afterward, in an other Council of Carthage, which we mentioned in the former Chapter; where he expresly affirms, that all Bishops, are of a like jurisdiction: And this much of Bellarmine. Pamelius answers this passage of Cyprian other∣wayes, with a world of Sophistry.

And first he affirms▪ that Cyprian in those words, is not disputing against a second judgement at Rome, but against a judgement at Rome, in the case of Fortunatus, and Felix in prima instantia; and therefore he uses these words, the crime should be judged where it is committed; alluding to an Epistle Decretal of Fabianus Bishop of Rome, in which it is expresly ordained, that no Bishop should be judged at Rome, per Saltum, that is, until he be first judged, where he is ac∣cused to have transgressed. So if ye object to Pamelius, that Fortunatus and Felix, were already judged in Africa, and went to Rome to demand a second hearing: he answers, they did not demand a recognoscing of these things, for which they had been already judged; but desired of Cornelius Bishop of Rome, that he would be judge in things afterward laid to

their charge by the Bishops of Africa, which were not yet judged by them. But it is replyed, it is false, that Pamelius affirms, for it appears expresly ••y Cyprians Letter, that he disputes against a second judgment at Rome, and not a judge∣ment in Prima instantia; whereas Pamelius affirms, that new crimes were intended, which had not been yet judged: it is his bare assertion, neither brings he any proof of it; for if any such thing had been, a judgement in prima instantia could not have been with any shadow of justice countenanced at Rome: neither could Felicissimus be so ignorant, as to expect any redress that way; the Scope of Felicissimus complaint was, that he and Fortunatus might be restored, because the judgement of the African Bishops passed against them was unjust.

Pamelius instances secondly, that it was a first judgement or in prima instantia, which Felicissimus demanded at Rome, or else it was an appellation; seing there can be no mids, but there is no mention made of appellation at all by Cyprian, Ergo, it was a judgement in prima instantia which they demanded at Rome; and for which Cyprian so much expostu∣lats with Cornelius, and inveighs against them.

It is answered first, how this passage of Cyprian puzles them, appears by their contradictions in their glosses: Bel∣larmine instances this particular of Felicissimus, as an appella∣tion, to prove the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, over the Bishops in Africa: Pamelius flatly denys, that Feli∣cissimus appealed at all; which is a flat contradiction of Bellarmine: he takes this course, perceiving, that if this particular of Felicissimus were an appellation, Cyprian must of necessity be against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome; since he expresly disputs, that Felicissimus cannot be judged at Rome, and consequently Pamelius confesseth, that Bel∣larmines evasions are nothing to the purpose.

It is answered, secondly, (whereas Pamelius disputes Felicissimus did not appeal, Ergo he demanded a judgement in prima instantia) it doth not follow, because there is a mids: Felicissimus did make no appeal, when he came out of Africa, neither desired he a second judgment at Rome, as it had been a formal appeal: out only desired, the assistance of Cornelius, that by his moyen he might have some re∣dress: that this is no evasion, appears by two unanswerable reasons; the first is this,

Cyprian in his 55. Epistle affirms, that they had solicited the Bishops in Africa, before ever they had solicited the Bishop of Rome, making the same complaints: but none will affirm, that they appealed to those Bishops of Africa, after they had been condemned by the Council of Carthage, over which the Bishops of Africa had no authority; in which doing they followed the example of Privatus, who after he was condemned both in the Council of Africa and at Rome by Cornelius himself, yet he desired a second judge∣ment, in another Council in Africa, whereby it is evident, that a second ••udgement in those dayes, did not infer of ne∣cessity, a formal appellation, since there could be no ap∣pellation from a Synod to its self: neither will Bellarmine af∣firm, that Privatus appealed from Cornelius to a Council in Africa.

The second reason proving a mids between an Appeal and a judgement in prima instantia, is this: we have proved, that Felicissimus did not demand a judgement in prima instantia from Cornelius Bishop of Rome; but neither did he appeal unto him for an Appealer is held Pro non judicato or not guilty, till the appeal be discussed; but so was not Felicissimus, for all held him guilty in Africa, and refused communion with him: neither did Cornelius admitt him to his communion at Rome, after he was condemned by the Council of Carthage: neither

did Cornelius judge in his cause at all, but only wrote unto Cyprian to deal favourably with him. Since then, Cyprian disputed so vehemently, that Cornelius should not medle in that case of Felicissimus, after the determination of the Council of Carthage; much more he would have opposed the authority of Cornelius, if there had been any formal ap∣pellation: and all what Bellarmine and Pamelius alledge to the contrary, is proved sophistry, the one contradicting the other, and this much of Fortunatus and Fellicissimus.

The third example of Appellations (in this interval before the Council of Neice) instanced by Bellarmine, is this, Cor∣nelius Bishop of Rome dying, Lucius succeeds; but he not liv∣ing long, Stephanus succeeds, in whose time the Bishops of Spain excommunicat Basilides a Bishop, and likewayes one Martialis, for falling in Idolatry, or sacrificing to Idols, in the time of persecution, for fear of torture, or death: Basilides becomes penitent, demands absolution, which they grant him; but withal, they refuse to restore him to his Bishoprick, in which they put another called Sabinus. Basilides and Martialis have their recourse to Stephanus Bishop of Rome; he takes not so much notice of Martialis, but he writes to the Bishops of Spain to restore Basilides to his place: they consult the Bishops of Africa, who meeting in a Council about the business, the Bi∣shops of Africa send their opinion in an Epistle (which in the edition of Turnebius is Epist. 35. in that of Pamelius, 68. of Cyprian) in which Epistle, Cyprian inveighs against Basilides as an Impostor, taxeth Stephanus of credulity, in giving ear to Basilides, and concludes, that the cesire of Stephanus should not be obeyed, since Sabinus was legally put in the place of Ba∣silides, and therefore they ought to maintain him in that Bi∣shoprick.

Here Bellarmine is demanded, what he sees in this History making for the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the

Bishops of Spain? or for proving that Basilides appealed for∣mally? It would seem, that Basilides appealed not, since he was held pro judicato▪ excommunicated, deposed, and another put in his Bishoprick; which could not have been done, if Appeals to Rome had been believed obligatory in those dayes. Se∣condly, Cyprian and the Council of Africa advise the Bishops of Spain, not to obey the desire of Stephanus in rescinding the ordination of Sabinus, affirmed by them to be legal (Jure ordinata) but if Basilides had appealed, the ordination of Sabinus had not been lawful; whereby it is evident, that no appeals to Rome were approved in those dayes, albeit Ba∣silides had appealed.

Bellarmine answers, that Basilides did appeal, because he had his recourse to Stephanus, and complained: But it is replyed, first, that was no appeal, because he made no intimation of it to the Bishops of Spain, before he went to Rome. Secondly, because his going to Rome, did not hinder or suspend the execution of the sentence passed against him, as appears by the placing of Sabinus in his Bishoprick in the interim. Thirdly, when he came to Rome, he brought no probations with him, but only as Cyprian affirms, Stephanum longe positum & rei gestae ignarum fefellit; that is, he deceived Stephanus Bishop of Rome, altogether ignorant of the business. Lastly, if Basi∣lides had appealed, the Bishops of Spain had been cited to plead the cause at Rome, which they were not, whereby it is evident there was no appeal.

Secondly, to prove the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, Bellarmine alledgeth, that Stephanus commanded the Bishops of Spain to repone Basilides, and rescind that ordination they had made in favour of Sabinus. But it is answered (to omit, we shewed it was no formal sentence of Stephanus, but only an advice) Bellarmine ••orgets the other half of the tale, quite destroying the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome; as first, that

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

the Bishops of Spain (before they gave an answer to Stephanus) consulted with the Bishops of Africa, whereby it is evident, they acknowledged not the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome. Secondly, the Bishops of Africa, meeting in a Council, advises them not to obey the desire of Stephanus, in rescinding their ordination of Sabinus, because it was Rite peracta, or legal, and consequently Stephanus had no authority to command them. Thirdly, because the Bishops of Spain did not obey the desire of Stephanus, at least it is not found in any monument of Antiquity, that ever Basilides was restored.

Bellarmine instances, that Stephanus would never have taken it upon him, to cognosce in the cause of Basilides, if it had not belonged to him: But it is answered, first, he did not cognosce formally in it at all, as we shewed. Secondly, albeit he had, it was only an usurpation, which is no title of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. We do not affirm that Stephanus had not so much arrogancy, since he declared he had, as appears by his proceeding with the Churches of Africa, mentioned in the former Chapter: we only affirm, that he did not cognosce formally in this case of Basilides, but only delt by way of perswasion: and although he had done so, it is no Argument for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, as an Article of Faith in those dayes; since it was every∣where opposed, as we proved by that passage of Victor, with the oriental Bishops, and of Stephanus with Cyprian, and this of Ste∣phanus with the Bishops of Spain: by which passages it appears, that the decrees of the Bishop of Rome were opposed in all the East, in France, in Africa, in Spain, that is, almost by the whole Church. And this much of appellations to Rome, before the dayes of Cyprian.