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. IX. Of the contest between Victor Bishop of Rome, and the Bishops of the East.

WE have in the former Chapters proved, by the testi∣monies of the Ancients, that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not believed as an Article of Faith, in the dayes of Cyprian, nor any time before unto the dayes of the Apostles. We have also shewed, with what per∣plexed sophistry our Adversaries endeavour to elude the force of those testimonies. In the following Chapters, we will examine what is objected by our Adversaries, to prove the su∣premacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval. If it had been an Article of Faith in the Church, that the Bishop of Rome was ordained by Peter, to succeed to himself in that Function of oecumenick Bishop, or that the Bishop of Rome did succeed to Peter in that Function, the evidence of that suc∣cession had been greater, in these primitive times, then it was afterwards: but contrarily, we find the nearer we come to the Apostles times, the less evidence we find, for the suprema∣cy of the Bishop of Rome: whereby it appears, that the supre∣macy of the Bishop of Rome, by reason of his succession to Peter, is but a fiction: neither was it ever urged, as to juris∣diction, till after the Council of Chalcedon, as shall appear in the following Books, and the more the times were remote, that opinion of the succession to Peter increased the more.

That there was no great evidence before the Council of Neice, of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, is acknow∣ledged

by Aeneas Silvius, Pope himself, in his 288. Epistle, and yet he was the greatest Antiquary of his time: the truth of his assertion will appear by our Answers to that which they object, which are so many testimonies against themselves.

To prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval, they object nothing (beside what we shall prove forged by testimony of their own Doctors) before the latter end of the second Age, or beginning of the third; and then their objections are of two sorts, first actions of Popes; secondly, tectimonies of Popes and Fathers. What regaird should be had to the actions and testimonies of Popes, appears by the Commentaries which Pope Aeneas Silvius, or Pius second, wrote upon the Councel of Basile; his words are these, Ne•• considerant miseri quia quae praedicant tantopere verba, aut ipsorum sumorum pontificum sunt, simbrias suas extendentium, aut illorum qui••eis adulabantur: that is, neither do those mise∣rable men consider, these testimonies they magnifie so much are either of Popes themselves, inlarging their own interests, or of their Fathers. We will first treat of the actions of Popes, and next examine their testimonies.

Before the time of Victor Bishop of Rome, there is no Mo∣nument of antiquity for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome besides some forgeries, acknowledged by the most eminent Doctors of that Church, and proved to be forgeries by un∣answerable reasons, as shall appear afterwards in the last Chapters of this Book. The said Victor, about anno, 195. had a difference with the Bishops of Asia, about the ob∣servation of Easter, or Pasch; the Churches of Asia, pre∣tending a tradition from the Apostle of St. John, observed Easter, according to the manner of the Jews eating their Passover, and for that reason, were called quartadecemani. The Churches of the West observed it, as it is now in the Church of Rome: they object here, that Victor excommunicated

the Bishops of the East for not observing Easter, after the Roman and western fashion: Ergo, say they, the Bishop of Rome in those dayes, was oecumenick Bishop; otherwayes, he would not have taken upon him, to exercise Jurisdiction in so remote parts as in Asia.

But it is answered, usurpation is no title of authority, and by this very action of Victor, it appears, that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, or necessar communion with the Church of Rome, was not believed in those dayes: as appears by two reasons;

The first is, the opposition made by the Churches of Asia to that excommunication of Victor: but it is altogether im∣possible that they would have mis-regarded it; if the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, or necessar communion with the particular Church of Rome, under the pain of damnation, had been an Article of Faith in those dayes, as it is now. That those Bishops in the East slighted the excommunication of Victor, appears by Eusebius, hist. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 23. and 24. who relates, and brings in Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus in Asia, pleading their Cause, in an Epistle, written by the consent of them all; that they had the same tradition, of observing Easter, from the Apostle John: that it was practised by Philip the Apostle, Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna, and Martyr disciple of John the Apostle; and by the other Bishops, and Martyrs, as Thraseas, and Sagonius, that they had con∣firmed their own way, of observing Easter, in the council of all the Bishops of Asia: and for those reasons, they were not moved, with the terrors of that excommunication, pronunced against them by Victor: but it is very unlike they would have so contemned it, if they had believed the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome: If there was any such thing, as the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome: their opposition demon∣strats, that either they were ignorant of it, or els wilfully

opposed it; they could not be ignorant, for who dare affirm, that the Apostles John and Philip, and Polycarpus the Dis∣ciple of John, could be ignorant of so necessar a point of Salvation? if there had been any such thing. Neither can it be affirmed, that they wilfully opposed it, for it is a thing incredible that so many holy men Saints and Martyrs (confessed to be such by the modern Church of Rome it self) would die out of the communion of the Church of Rome, and in so doing, condemn themselves eternally: for Bellarmine him∣self, de pont. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 19. affirms, that it is not found, that ever Victor recalled his excommunication. And since these holy men, neither could be ignorant, that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was an article of Faith (if it had been in these dayes) neither would they have opposed it, and con∣temned Victors excommunication, if they had known it; it is evinced, that in these dayes, there was no such article of Faith, as the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, or necessar communion with the Church of Rome: yea, notwithstanding of the excommunication of Victor, the whole Churches of the East, before the Council of Neice, observed Easter in their own fashion: but it were too hard to affirm, that they were all damned; which must of necessity be affirmed, if the su∣premacy of the Bishop of Rome, had been an article of Faith in those dayes: and this much of opposition from the East, to that decree of Victor.

The second Argument taken from the action of Victor, against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, is the opposi∣tion that it had from the West; although the whole Bishops of the West were of the same opinion with Victor, anent the observation of Easter; yet they absolutely condemned his way of proceeding. For, as Eusebius relates, Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 24. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, in the name of the whole Churches of France, in an Epistle to the said Victor,

(recorded by Eus••ebius, ibid.) expostulates most bitterly with Victor, not obscurely taxing him of ignorance, and arrogance, for his precipitated proceeding, objecting to him, the ex∣ample of his predecessors, Bishops of Rome, as Pius, Teles∣phorus, Anicetus, &c. who all of them keeped communion with the Bishops of the East, notwithstanding their observa∣tion of Easter, otherwayes then it was observed at Rome: yea, the same Bishops of the West, still keeped communion with the Bishops of the East, notwithstanding their excommuni∣cation by Victor: but they would never have done so, if the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, had been believed in those dayes, or if necessar communion with the Church of Rome, had in those times been an article of Faith.

Sanderus, lib. 7. of his visib. Monarch. and with him Bellarmine, prove the supremacy of Victor in this action by a notable cheat, the more opposition it had (saith Sanderus) the authority of Victor was the more conspicuous; because the Council of Neice declared in favour of Victor, against all his opposers; in decerning that Easter should be observed according to the decree of Victor.

But it is answered, that the Council did so, not for the authority of Victor, but only because they thought that opinion to be right: it was professed by all the Churches of the West, and by Irenaeus: but Sanderus will not affirm, that the Council of Neice followed the authority of Irenaeus. Secondly, albeit the Council had followed the authority of Victor, or perswaded by his authority, had made that decree; it doth not follow, that Victor had any jurisdiction over the Council, or the whole Church: Paphnutius made a mo∣tion in the Council of Neice, in the defence of married Priests, the Council all followed his opinion, as Socrates relates, lib. 1. cap. 8. of his history of the Church; and yet the said Paph∣nutius had no supremacy over the Council.

Sanderus instances, that the Council of Neice, in a Letter to the Church of Alexandria (mentioned by Theodoretus) affirms, that all the Brethren of the East are resolved to follow the Church of Rome, us (the Council) and you of Alexandria, in the observation of Easter: where Sanderus and Bellarmine espy out two things for their advantage; the first is, follow, the second is, that Romans is put in the first place before us (the Council) whereby they prove the authority of the Bishop of Rome, above the Council, because Romans is put before the Council, or us, and also because the Brethren of the East are said to follow the Romans.

But it is answered, albeit Romans were put before us, or the Council, it doth not follow, that the Church of Rome hath any authority over the Council: being first mentioned in an Epistle, doth not import a jurisdiction above another: Constantine in an Epistle (mentioned by Theodoretus, lib. 1. cap. 10.) writing of the same business, enumerating a number of Churches, with which these Churches of the East were resolved in time coming, to observe Easter; placeth Spain before France, but it doth not follow, that the Church of Spain had any authority over the Church of France.

Secondly, Bellarmine and Sanderus, following the version of Christhofersone, translates Theodoretus falsly, his words in the Original are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; That is, So that all the Brethren of the East, who dissented from the Romans and you, and all those who observed Easter from the beginning, are resolved hereafter to observe it with you. The sophistry of Sanderus and Bellarmine appears in this, in stead of these words, are resolved hereafter to observe Easter with you, which is the Original, they trans∣late, they are resolved hereafter to follow the Roman,

the Council and you, putting in follow for with you. Se∣condly, in putting in the Romans and the Council, which is not in the Original: which words us or the Council, they insert to prove the authority of the Church of Rome above the Council, Romans being placed by them before the Council. And this much of that contest of Victor, with the Bishops of Asia, which they produce to prove the supremacy of the Bi∣shop of Rome, whereas in effect, it hath disproved it.

Such an other business as this, is that contest of Stephanus, Bishop of Rome, with Cyprian, and the Churches of Africa, about the rebaptising of those who were baptised by Here∣ticks: which they instance also to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, before the Council of Neice. But since we shewed, that the excommunication of Stephanus was not re∣gairded, that Saint Augustine praised the opposition of Cyprian to it, and recommended these expressions of Cyprian, against the usurpation of Stephanus to the whole Church, since 87 Bishops in that Council of Carthage, condemned the pro∣ceedings of Stephanus, since Cyprian, dying excommunicated, was reputed nevertheless a Saint by Augustine, and other Fa∣thers, and by the ancient Church of Rome, and also so reputed by the Modern Church of Rome: that Excommunication of Cyprian by Stephanus is so far from proving, that the supre∣macy of the Bishop of Rome was an Article of Faith in those dayes, that it demonstrates invincibly the contrary.