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. 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, and dis∣posed by his authority the source or fountain of the same, beginning of one.

3. The rest of the Apostles were, that Peter was; in equal fellowship of honour and power: but the beginning cometh of unity (the primacy is given to Peter) that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be one, and (one Chair.)

4. He that withstandeth and resisteth the Church, (he that forsaketh Peters Chair, upon which the Church is built;) doth he trust that he is in the Church?

In these words observe, that all the sentences written with∣in a parenthesis, are forged, and not to be found in the old Manuscripts of Cyprian, or in the old printed copies of Cy∣prian; the reason wherefore the said sentences are added to the words of Cyprian is evident, because they make Cy∣prian expresly dispute for the supremacy of Peter, but take them away, the supremacy of Peter is quite destroyed; as may appear to any who will read over these words, and omit those forged passages, written within a parenthesis.

If ye demand how those passages came to be added to Cyprians text? It is answered, that Pius fourth Bishop of Rome, called Manutius the famous Printer to Rome, to reprint the Fathers; he appointed also four Cardinals, to see the work done, among the rest, Cardinal Barromaeus had singular care of Cyprian: Manutius himself, in his preface of a certain Book to Pius fourth, declareth, that it was the purpose of the Pope, to have them so corrected; that there should remain no spot, which might infect the minds of the simple, with the shew of false Doctrine: How they corrected other Fathers, shall be declared in the following Books? how they corrected Cyprian, appears by those words we have now et down, which are marked with Parenthesis, which being

added, perverts the whole meaning of Cyprian: neither were they content, by adding to Cyprian, to prevert his meaning: other passages of Cyprian, which could not be mended by additions, or be made to speak for them, by inserting sen∣tences, unless they made Cyprian speak manifest contradicti∣ons; those other passages (I say) they razed quite out of Cyprian, in the said Roman Edition of Manutius, anno, 1564. in which Edition, they razed out Eleven or Twelve entire Epistles, as 1. 2. 3. 15. 21. 22. 71. 73. 74. 75. 83. 84. 85. 86. It were too prolix to declare, for what reasons they razed out all those Epistles the sum is, all of them were no great friends to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, nor to the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome, anent the perfection of the Scripture. We will cite a passage or two, out of the 74. and 75. Epistle, which will evidently make known, where∣fore they razed those Epistles: surely there must be some great reason, since Pamelius himself wisheth, those Epistles had never been written: What the reason is, appears thus? The 74. Epistle was written to Pompeius, against the Epistle of Stephanus, in which ye have these words, Stepha∣nus Haereticorum, causum contra christianos & contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur; and a little after, Reus in uno, videtur, reus in omnibus: That is, Stephanus Bishop of Rome, de∣fends the cause of hereticks against the Church; who is guil∣ty in one thing, he seems to be guilty of all. The 75. Epistle, was written by Firmilianus to Cyprian; in which ye have these words, Non intelligit obfuscari à se, &c. that is, Stephanus Bishop of Rome understands not, that the truth of the christian Rock is obfuscated by him, and in a manner abolished. The words of which two Epistles, are very preju∣dicial to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome: those Epistles are every where filled with such expressions, too pro∣lix

to be answered here; but these we have mentioned, are sufficient to declare, what the opinion of Cyprian was, con∣cerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, or of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. In the said 74. Epistle, in several places he calls the said Stephanus ignorant, arro∣gant, &c. insolent, impertinent, &c. in the 75. Epistle, Stephanus is called wicked, insolent, a deserter and betrayer of the truth: Likewayes, what a friend Cyprian was, to the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome? appears by the said 74. Epistle; where tradition without warrand of Scripture, is cal∣led by him Vetustas Erroris, antiquity of Error, and affirms, that all is to be rejected for such, which is not found in Scripture: so it concern matters of Faith: whereby it appears, that Cyprian incurres the Anathema of the council of Trent. And this we have shewed how they have corrupted Cyprian, as well in adding to him, to make him speak what he thought not; and when that would not serve the turn, except they made him speak contradictions, they therefore also cutted out his tongue: what reason they had so to do, we have given some instances; many such other might be given, but it would be prolix, and these are sufficient. Now let us hear, how they defend those Impostures, and first, for the razing out of those Epistles, Gretserus answers, Pamelius restor∣ed them in his edition of Cyprian. But it is replyed, that this is as much as to say, that by the testimony of Pamelius, Pope Pius Fourth, and those four Cardinals, whom he ap∣pointed to correct the works of Cyprian, are notorius im∣postors: It is a new sort of reasoning, that they did no wrong, in razing out those Epistles of Cyprian, because Pamelius re∣stored them.

Secondly, they defend those additions by an old copy of the Abbey of Cambron: 2. By a coppy fetched out of Bavaria; 3. And by an other old coppy of Cardinal Hosius; and so Gret∣serus

the Jesuit defends the last three additions. But it is answered, that the first addition upon him alone, is the most important of all; intimating, that upon Peter alone the Church was built, which is the main Basis of the Suprema∣cy of the Bishop of Rome: but Gretserus the Jesuit, who defends this corruption of Cyprian, doth not affirm, that those words upon him alone are found in any of these three Copies, he only affirms, that the second addition one Chair, and the third, the Primacy is given to Peter, are found in those old Copies.

Secondly, it is replyed, that that Copy of Cardinal Ho∣sius is only mentioned, but it was never yet seen: If Hosi∣us had any such Copy, how comes he left not such a Mo∣nument of antiquity to Posterity? As for the other two co∣pies, of Cambron and Bavaria, it is a ridiculous business, to object their Authority, against the Authority, not only of all the printed Copies of Cyprian, before that of Manu∣tius, but also against all the Manuscripts of Cyprian, found in the most famous Bibliothicks of Christendom, and the Va∣tican it self: and whereas Gretserus affirms, that perhaps the Wicklephian Hereticks, corrupted all those Ancient Manu∣scripts, it is a ridiculous objection: how could those He∣reticks get access to the Libraries of all Princes, Univer∣sities and the Popes own Library, to corrupt the works of Cy∣prian, without being perceived? It is far more like, that the Monks of Cambron and Bavaria, corrupted those two copies, (If the Jesuits have not forged those two copies also) since there are innumerable proofs and testimonies, (as shall be proved in the following Books,) Yea, and of Barro∣nius himself; that the Monks of several Monastries have corrupted and forged innumerable passages of Antiquity, especially in the seventh Age, when the contest was hot,

with the Grecians about the Supremacy. The truth is, it is believed, that there are no such Copies at all, as that of Cambron and Bavaria, and that those Cardinals, appoint∣ed by Pius fourth, to oversee the Edition of Manutius, added those words of themselves, which is very like for two rea∣sons; First, because it is known, that the Indices expurgato∣rii, have added sentences, and razed out sentences at their plea∣sure in many Antient Copies, without the pretext of any other Copy. Secondly, their impudence was as great, in razing out of those twelve Epistles of Cyprian, as if they had added those four passages. And since they openly did the first, it is very probable, yea more then probable, they did the last.

We have shewed, how Gretserus defends the first three additions. The Fourth is, he that forsaketh Peters Chair, upon which the Church is built, it seems that either those three Copies of Gretserus hath not these words, or else if they have, Pamelius doth not much regard their Authority, who in his Edition of Cyprian, hath left them out. It is to be observ∣ed, that the second and third Addition are of no such moment, as the first, and this fourth, and the razing out of these twelve Epistles of Cyprian. Gretserus defends only the second and the third; the First he meddleth not with at all; to the Fourth he answereth, that Pamelius hath left it out, and therefore it was not added fraudently: But we answer, as we did before, that Pamelius in leav∣ing out those words, declares those four Cardinal Impostors, who were appointed by Pius the fourth, to oversee the Edi∣tion of Manutius; whose Copy is followed in the reprinted works of Cyprian at Rome, Paris, Antwerp, &c.

And thus we have minuted, all which is of any moment alledged, pro and con, for the Supremacy of the Bishop

of Rome, before the death of Cyprian: where we have proved, by the testimonies of Ignatius, Dionysius and Cy∣prian himself, that there was no Office in the Church, above that of a Bishop, in that whole Interval: Bellarmine braggs much, that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter, in the Monarchy of the Church, was an article of Faith in all Ages, since the dayes of the Apostles. But since we find no monuments in that interval, next the Ages of the Apostles, that there was any such Article of Faith, but on the contrary, since we have produced testimonies, and invincible ones, that there was no such Article of Faith, it is evident, that the said succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church, is a meer cheat: For if there had been any such thing, the Churches of the East, and West, in the times of Victor, and the Churches of Africa, in the times of Stephanus, would ne∣ver have neglected the excommunication of Victor and Stephanus, and died unreconciled to the Church of Rome: Neither would the middle Church of Rome, have placed them in the Catalogue of Saints and Martyres, if it had been believed as an Article of Faith, that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter Jure divino in the Monarchy of the Church, as is believed now in the Modern Roman Church, as an ar∣ticle of Faith necessar to Salvation.

And thus we have concluded the first Part of the grand Impostor, and have proved by Testimonies of Antiquity, (notwithstanding all the bragging of our Adversaries, that all Antiquity is for them) That the Antients, Councills, and Fathers, believed neither the Suprema∣cy of Peter, nor that Peter was Bishop of Rome, nor that the Bishop of Rome succeded to him, in the Monarchy of

the Church; and consequently, did not believe any ne∣cessar communion with the Church of Rome: To prove which, they bring nothing from Antiquity of the first three Centuries, which is not perverted, mutilated, fal∣sly translated or forged. In the Second Part shall be proved, they have as little shelter for their Tenets, from the death of Cyprian, 260. to 604. when Bonifacius the third was made oecumenick Bishop, by Phocas.

FINIS. Partis primae.