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.

THE GRAND IMPOSTOR DISCOVERED: OR, AN HISTORICAL DISPUT, Of the Papacy and Popish Religion. (Book 2)

PART I. BOOK II. Of Bishops. (Book 2)

CHAP. I. Of the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter.

IN the former Book, were disputed the first two Questions, of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, viz. Whether Peter was, by divine right, Monarch of the Church? 2. Whether he was by divine Institution, Bishop of Rome? Now fol∣loweth the third Question, Whether the Bishop of Rome, by divine right, succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church? Bellarmine and others brag, with great confidence to prove that

he did, but their performance is very little: not so much as one of them, when it comes to the push, brings any passage of Scripture to prove it, except only Bozius, lib. 18. cap. 3. where he makes use of two places, the first is Phil. 4. 3. the words are, And I beseech thee, faithful yoke-fellow, help those women which laboured with me in the Gospel, with Clement al∣so, and with other my fellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of life. Any reasonable man would admire, by what Chymistry he can distill the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter, out of these words? He will tell you, Clement there mentioned was Bishop of Rome: Secondly, That the care of those women of Philippi belonged to him, Ergo, he was oecu∣menick Bishop; otherwayes, how could he have any medling at Philippi, which was so far distant from Rome?

Let us examine this Logick, it will recreat the Reader: First, how knows he that Clement was Bishop of Rome? He will tell you, that there was one Clement that succeeded to Peter Bishop of Rome.

But we ask him, though that were granted, what then? how knoweth he that it is the same Clement whom the Apostle mentions here? He will tell you, this Clement mentioned by the Apostle, is called by Paul his fellow-labourer; Ergo, he was a Bishop, and consequently designed at least Bishop of Rome.

But it is replyed, first, It doth not follow that Clement was a Bishop, because he is called by Paul his fellow-labourer; for that same Argument would conclude Priscilla and Aquila, a man and his wife, to be both Bishop. Rom. 16. Paul calls them his fellow-labourers.

Secondly, Salmero the Jesuite, pressed by the Madeburgen∣ses that Clement was not oecumenick Bishop, because Paul calls him fellow-labourer, Phil. 4. 3. answers, That at that time Clement was not designed Bishop of Rome; and therefore it

doth not follow: where observe how he contradicts Bozius; Bozius concludes he was oecumenick Bishop designed, because Paul calls him fellow-labourer; Salmero grants, that it follows he was not designed oecumenick Bishop, because Paul calls him fellow-labourer: Bozius reasons, he is called fellow-labourer, Ergo, he was designed oecumenick Bishop; Sal∣mero reasons, Paul calls him his fellow-labourer, Ergo, he was not designed oecumenick Bishop at that time; having no other shift to elude the Argument of the Madeburgenses.

Again, although it were granted, that Paul meant Clement Bishop of Rome, how proves he that Clement succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church? which is the Question.

He answers you, because Paul desires his yoke-fellow to assist him in the care of those women at Philippi: for what ado had Clement with women in Philippi, he being designed Bishop of Rome, except the care of the Church of Philippi had belonged unto him, and consequently he was oecumenick Bishop? But to omit the bad consequence of that Argument, he mistakes the words of Paul or their construction; Paul doth not desire his yoke-fellow to assist Clement in having a care of those women; he only desires him to have a care of those women, who la∣boured with Paul himself and with Clement in the Gospel: That this is the true meaning of the words, is granted by Popish Doctors themselves commenting upon this place, as Justinianus the Jesuite, Cardinal Cajetanus, Lyranus; yea, the French Lovaine Bible translates these words, Qui ont ••••a∣uaillé auec moy en l'Evangile auec Clement, & mes autres co••∣diuteurs.

The second place alledged by Bozius, is from 2 Pet. 1. 15. I will endeavour therefore alwayes, that ye also may be able to have remembrance of those things after my departing.

If ye ask him, how he concludes that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter from those words? He tells you, Peter

promiseth after his death, to put those to whom he wrote in re∣membrance of those things, or to have a care that they should re∣member those things.

If ye ask him, what then? he tells you, Since Peter was dead himself, he behoved to put them in remembrance by another, and that other must of necessity be one who succeeded to him in the Monarchy of the Church. Let us retex this Logick, that the Reader may laugh.

First he suppones, that Peter was to put them in remembrance by another then himself, which cannot be gathered from Peters words: he answers, Peter himself was dead; Ergo, he beh••ved to do it by another. It is replyed, Peter, while he was yet al••ve, might have a care that they should remember these things after his death: Secondly, the whole current of Popish Doctors contradicts him, affirming, that Peter promiseth to have a care by himself, and not by another, that they should remember those things, viz. From this place they prove intercession of Saints; and so according to them, the meaning of Peter is, that when he is departed, he will intercede for them. Thirdly, the true meaning of Peter is, that while he is alive, he will en∣deavour to provide them faithful Pastors, to instruct them, that they may remember those things: and therefore, his meaning is nothing less then an oecumenick Bishop: and this much of Bozius.

Bellarmine states the question very perplexedly, and so ob∣scurely, that it appears to any, he is diffident to make out what he undertakes: First, he observes four things, and then he falls a disputing.

His first observation is, That the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter, in the Monarchy of the Church, is Jure Divino; But the manner or way of succession, ratio successionis, depends upon the fact of Peter: which distinction of Bellarmins is very obscure and implicating; he explains himself, that Peter might

never have fixed his seat at Rome, and therefore it depends upon the ••act of Peter, that the Bishop of Rome succeeds to him: but he had said before, that Peter had fixed his seat at Rome, by the command of Christ: how can any make sense of those expressions? he involves himself here in many contra∣dictions; first he affirms, that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church, is Jure divino, or by institution of Christ; but that the Bishop of Rome suc∣ceeded to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church, is not Jure divino, but depends upon the fact of Peter: which is as much to say, that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is Jure divino, and yet the Bishop of Rome succeeded not Jure divino.

Secondly, he affirms, That it depended upon the fact of Peter, that he was Bishop of Rome: and yet he saith, lib. 2. Fundatur jus successionis Pontificum Romanorum, in eo, quod Petrus Romae suam sedem, jubente Domino, collocaverit, atque ibidem usque ad mortem sederit; That is, the right of the Bishop of Rom's succession is founded in this, viz. that Peter at the command of Christ, fixed his Bishoprick at Rome, and did sit Bishop there till his death. How can those two consist to∣gether? First, Peter was expresly commanded by Christ to fix his Bishoprick at Rome; Secondly, and yet notwithstanding, it was in Peters option whether he should do so or not? He might be further pressed, but it is sufficient to answer here (to omit his contradictions) that all his suppositions are false: first, it is false, that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is Jure divino, Secondly, it is false, that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter, because Peter fixed his seat at Rome, since it was proved in the former Book, that Peter was not Bishop of Rome at all. Thirdly it is most false, that Peter at the com∣mand of Christ, fixed his seat at Rome, neither doth he bring any thing to prove it, beside his own assertion: these three

places, Matth. 16. 18, and 19. and Joh. 21. 15. (though it were granted that Peter was ordained by Christ Monarch of the Church by them, which was proved false in the former Book) mentions nothing of the fixing his seat at Rome.

The second observation of Bellarmine is this, If ye absolutely ask (saith he) if the Bishop of Rome, by divine institution, be Monarch and Head of the Church? it is answered, certainly he is. Where he involves himself in another contradiction: in the former observation he affirmed, that the Bishop of Rome his succession to Peter depended upon the fact of Peter, which he granted was changable; but nothing can be by divine insti∣tution, which depends upon an uncertainty.

His third observation is very admirable, The Bishop of Rome, as the Bishop of Rome, (saith he) succeeds not to Peter Jure divino, and yet est de fide; that is, we are oblieged to be∣lieve it, as an article of Faith: which is very mysterious lan∣guage, how can we belive that by divine Faith, which is not revealed by God? he answers, We are oblieged to believe it, as well as that Paul left his Cloak and Parchments at Troas.

But it is replyed, those things are expresly mentioned in Scripture, and its very strange, that the Scripture should men∣tion the Cloak and Parchments of Paul, and not mention the Roman Bishoprick of Peter, or the Bishop of Rome's succession to Peter.

Bellarmine goes on, They are not mentioned expresly, but de∣duced by necessar consequence out of Scripture. It ye ask him from what places of Scripture? he tells you, Its a tradition Apostolick: If ye ask him how he proves that? he tells you, by Councills, Fathers, Institution of Bishops, Appellations, &c. and so he takes up the whole dispute, by producing such probati∣ons: Where the Reader may observe, that after such bragings of the succession of the Bishop of Rome Jure divino, in the Monarchie of the Church, the Mountains have brought forth a

Mouse, viz. he brings nothing but perverted Testimonies of the Ancients, falsly translated, and many of them forged, others mutilated, as shall appear in this, and the next two following Books; where also it shall be proved, by the Testimonies of those same Councells and Fathers, pre∣tended by him, that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church, is a meer fiction, not known to the Ancients of the first six Centuries: Its true indeed, that some ambitious Bishops of Rome, contending with the Bishops of Constantinople for the Primacy, (which con∣tention did begin after the Council of Chalcedon, Anno 453.) invented this fiction of the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter: But that it was a new invented fiction, appears by two reasons: The first is, because the Council of Chalcedon, Ca∣non 28, made the Bishop of Constantinople equal in Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome. Its true indeed, the said Council gave the first place in dignity to the Bishop to Rome, but it appears expresly by the words of the Canon, that it was not by any reason of succession to Peter, but only because Rome was the chief imperial City; the words in the Original are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because Rome was the imperial City: where it is to be observed, that Aetius for the Bishop of Constanti∣nople, and Paschasinus for the Bishop of Rome, had pleaded with great animosity for the Primacy before the said Council; both alledging the sixth Canon of the Council of Neice, (Paschasinus not mentioning Tu es Petrus at all) in the end, the Council having heard them both at length, pronounced in favour of the Bishop of Constantinople, interpreting the sixth Canon of the Council of Neice, as making all the Patriarchs equal in Juris∣diction with the Bishop of Rome: after which Decree of the Council, the following Bishops of Rome devised Tu es Petrus, pleading for the Primacy.

The second reason is, that in the latter end of the sixth Cen∣tury, Pelagius Secundus and Gregorius Primus, Bishops of Rome, pleaded with great animosity against a visible Head of the Church, as Derogatory to Christ: and Gregorius amongst other reasons, useth this for one, that Peter was not universal Apostle, or visible head of the Church, Epistola 32. but more of that hereafter. Since then before the latter end of the fifth Age, never any Bishop of Rome pleaded the succession by Peter unto the Monarchie of the Church, and since Gregorius in the be∣ginning of the seventh Age expresly disputed against it, it is evident, that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter, is a new devised fiction: yea, it shall be proved, lib. 5. that the said succession to Peter was held no article of Faith in the Church of Rome, before the eleventh Age, and not then neither, with∣out great contention.

Bellarmin's fourth observation is this, That the universal Bishoprick, and the Bishoprick of Rome, are not two Bishop∣ricks, nisi potentia, and therefore they are but one Bishoprick: wherein he expresly contradicts himself; he said before, that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church was Jure divino, but as he was Bishop of Rome, it was not Jure divino; now he makes them one Bishoprick, but how can that consist, since he had made them before two, whereof the one was Jure divino, and the other not?

Secondly, Bellarmine may be asked, Whether the Pope be Bishop of Rome, because he is universal Bishop? or if he be universal Bishop, because he is Bishop of Rome? (one of the two must of necessity follow, since they are on Bishoprick in effect, and distinct only potentia) if he affirm he is Bishop of Rome, because he is universal Bishop; then it followeth, that Peter had been Bishop of Rome, although he had never been at Rome: and consequently, he was Bishop of Rome, when he was Bishop of Antioch. If he affirm, he is universal Bishop, be∣cause

he is Bishop of Rome, it follows, he is universal Bishop, because he is a particular Bishop, which is against nature, and reason: And this much of the stating of the question.

Bellarmine having stated the question, falls a disputing, and it appears by his first Argument more distinctly, what he means, which Oedipus himself could not gather from his stating of the question: his Argument is this, One or other of necessity beloved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church, Jure divino, but no other but the Bishop of Rome could succeed to him, Ergo, the Bishop of Rome succeeded to him. That one or other behoved to succeed to Peter, he proves by six reasons, which in effect is the sum and repetition of all those two prolix dis∣puts of his, that the Government of the Church is Jure divino Monarchicall, and that Peter was the said Monarch.

His first reason ••s, Because the Church is the end of a Bishoprick: since the Church is one, therefore there must be one Bishop in the Church.

But it is answered, Christ is that one Bishop: that the Church should have any other Bishop under Christ as a visible head, Bellarmine suppones falsly; its a sort of disputing called Petitio principii, where the thing is taken as granted, which is the state of the question.

His second reason is, That in the times of the Apostles the Church had a visible head under Christ: But the Government of the Church is ever the same.

But its answered, it is false, that in the times of the Apostles the Church had a visible head; as was prolixly, proved, lib. 1.

His third reason is of the same mettal, Joh. 21. 15. Christ saith to Peter, Pasce oves meas, Feed my Sheep.

But it is answered, that passage was prolixly answered before.

His fourth reason is, by feeding of the sheep of Christ, is meaned,

feeding of all the Sheep of Christ, which none but one visible Head could do. But that objection was also answered before, lib. 1.

His fifth reason is, from 1 Cor. 12. ••1. The head cannot say unto the feet, I have no need of you. From which place he rea∣sons thus: The Church (saith he) is compared to a humane Body with a Head, here the Head is brought in speaking to the Members, that it cannot say, I have no need o•• you▪ Or, which is all one, this Head of the Church hath need of the Members, but this must be another Head then Christ, because Christ hath no need of the Members.

But it is answered, this is a flat abusing of Scripture: the scope of the Apostle in that place is to show, that although some in the Church have more excellent Gifts then others; yet, the fellowship and endeavours of those of mean Gifts is necessar, for the edification of the Church▪ which he proves, by a similitude taken from a humane Body, where some Mem∣bers are more noble, as the Head; some less, as the Feet:

And (saith he) as he Head cannot say unto the Feet, I have no need of you, or ye are not necessary to the Body; So they of more excellent Gifts in the Church, cannot say unto those of meaner Gifts, we have no need of you, nei∣ther are ye necessary for the edification of the Church:

That this is the true exposition of this place, appears by the Interpretation of all the Ancients, as Ambrosius, Chrysostomus, Theophylactus, whose Interpretation is also followed by those two Leaders of the School-men Lombardus and Aquinas; neither did ever any Interpreter-dream to prove a visible Head out of this place, before the times of the Je∣suites, as Bellarmine, Sanderus and Turrianus. Their reason is most ridiculous, There is but one Head of the Body, (say they) to which the Church is compared; Ergo, there is but one Head in the Church. Which Argument may be retorted thus, There are but two Feet in the Body, to which the

Church is compared; Ergo, there are but two Feet in the Church, or two only in the Church, who have meaner Gifts. The Sophistry discovers it self; for according to the Interpre∣tation of the Ancients, that one Head of the Body answers to many persons in the Church, as appears by the 70. Epistle of Basilius to the Bishops of Italy and France, where he hath these words, Cum igitur non possit Caput Pedibus dicere, Non estis mihi necessarii, omnino non tolerabitis nos abdicari; Since the Head cannot say unto the Feet, ye are not necessary, ye will not suffer us to be abdicated, or cut off He repeats the same words, Epist. 77. to the Transmarine Bishops. Likewayes, Primasius, Oecumenius, and the Author of those Commen∣taries attributed to Hieronymus, compares all Bishops to that one Head of the Body, and so doth Aquinas, to which he com∣pares also the Civil Magistrates. And this much of that head, mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 21.

Bellarmin's last reason to prove, That the Government of the Church is Jure Divino Monarchical, and consequently, that one or other behoved to succeed to Peter, is taken from the High Priest in the Old Testament; under whom the Government of the Church was Monarchical, Ergo, (saith he) the Govern∣ment of the Church under the New Testament, is Jure Divino Monarchical, under one visible Head.

But it is answered, first, many things were in the Church-government in the Old Testament, which are not in that of the New; and therefore the Argument doth not follow. Secondly, Bellarmine could not have produced a sharper Sword to cut his own throat; for the High-priest in the Old Testa∣ment was a Type of Christ, and as the said High-priest gover∣ned the Church, without a visible Head under him in the Old Testament; So Christ governs the Church in the New Testament, without a visible Head under him. And this much of those reasons, by which Bellarmine endeavours to prove,

that one or other behoved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church.

In the next place he endeavours to prove, that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to him; which he doth thus: Either the Bishop of Antioch, or else the Bishop of Rome, succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church: but not the Bishop of Antioch, Ergo, the Bishop of Rome.

But it is answered, first it is false, that either the Bishop of Antioch, or the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Mo∣narchy of the Church, since we proved before, that Peter was not Monarch of the Church himself, and therefore no Bishop could succeed him in the Monarchy of the Church. Second∣ly, We proved also in the last Chapter of the first Book, that Peter was Bishop of no particular Church. Thirdly, though it were granted, that either the Bishop of Antioch, or the Bi∣shop of Rome, behoved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church, the Bishop of Antioch ought to be preferred to the Bishop of Rome; because we have Scripture expresse that Peter was at Antioch, but none at all that he was at Rome; but on the contrary, it appears by infallible presumptions from Scripture, that he was never at Rome, as was proved in the last Chapter of the former Book; where it was also proved, that the Testimonies of those Fathers, by which Peter was proved to be at Rome, were grounded on the Authority of Pappias, an Author meriting no credit, in the opinion of Eusebius.

Bellarmine in the next place endeavours to prove. That the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church, by several general Arguments; As, 1. Testimonies of general Councils. 2. Of Bishops of Rome themselves. 3. Of Greek Fathers. 4. Of Latine Fathers. 5. From Viccars. 6. From Right of Appellations. 7. From exemption from judgement. 8. From ordination of Bishops. 9. From Laws, Dispensations and Censures. 10. From Names or Titles.

In the following Books, we shall not miss one of his Argu∣ments of any moment unanswered, and not retorted. But, to avoid repetitions, we will alter his method, distinguishing the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter in several Intervals, as was shewed in the Preface of this Treatise: in this second Book, we will dispute the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter, in the Monarchy of the Church, from the dayes of the Apostles, untill the death of Cyprian; that is, untill anno, 260. or thereabout, insisting most upon these four following par∣ticulars:

First, we will dispute the occasion of the opinion of Aerius, by whom it was maintained, unto cap. 5.

In the second place we will dispute, that there was no Office in the Church during that interval, above that of a Bishop, unto cap. 9.

In the third place, we will answer what is objected for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval by our ad∣versaries, unto cap 13.

Fourthly, we will examine several forgeries, pretended by our adversaries for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval. Of which in order.

CHAP. II. The occasion of the opinion of Aerius, who were his followers, and what the Bishop of Rome was at first in their opinion?

SOme Protestants stumble at the word Hierarchy, and will needs have the word Hieredulia put in the place of it, the first word in the Original signifying Church-ruling, the last Church-ministry: However, that the Church Hie∣rarchy or Hierodulle, instituted by the Apostles, consisted of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, is denyed by none; as in civil families, some servants had titles of honour given them,

and were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, majores domus familiam ducentes, trusties, master-housholds rulers, of the family; others were called by the common name of Servants: So in the Ministry of the Church, some Ministers had titles of honour given them, and were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Overseers, Bishops; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Presbyters, Elders; all other Ministers of the Church were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Deacons, which is as much as to say, Ministers, or were called by the name of Ministers common to them all. Those titles of Bishop and Presbyter are borrowed by a metaphor from the civil admi∣nistration; they who ruled Cities of old among the Jews and Grecians were called Presbyters, and rulers of Provinces were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bishops, Overseers, as appears by 1 Maccab. 1. All other Church Ministers were called Deacons or Ministers simply.

In the times of the Apostles, Bishops were called Presbyters, and Presbyters Bishops; so Tit. 1. those who are called Pres∣byters, verse 5. are called Bishops, verse 7. It appears also by Philip. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. and Acts 20. that the Rulers of Churches in one City are called Bishops in the plural number; which could not be, if Presbyters were not called Bishops, since there could be but one Bishop in one City, as all know. Those also who lived at the same time with the Apostles, speak after the same manner: Clement Bishop of Rome, men∣tioned by Paul, and familiar with him in his Epistles directed to the Corinthians (which Epistle is mentioned by Hieronymus, but never seen, till of late Cyrillus, Patriarch of Constantino∣ple, sent it from the Bibliothick of Alexandria to King James, as a precious monument of Antiquity) calls the Rulers of the Church of Corinth Bishops in the plural number, directing his Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of Corinth: and likewayes in the body of his Epistle, he calls those very persons Bishops in one place, whom he calls Presbyters in another. Polycarpus also directs an Epistle to the Presbyters and Deacons of Philippi,

and in the body of his Epistle he calls these very persons Bishops: this o••yearpus was the disciple of John.

This manner of speaking continued unto the latter end of the second Age▪ Irenaeus, who lived about that time, in an Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome, calls the predecessors of the said Victor, Presbyters, ruling the Chu••ch of Rome: Likewayes, whom he calls Presbyters, lib. 3. cap. 2. in the very next Chapter he calls Bishops; and again, lib. 4. cap. 43. he calls them Presbyters. Pius also Bishop of Rome, in an Epistle to Justus Bishop of Vienna, speaking of the succession of Bishops in several Places, calls it a succession of Presbyters. Other Testi∣monies might be multiplied to this purpose, but it is needlesse, since it is confessed by Bellarmine and Petavius, that in those primitive times, Presbyters were called Bishops, and Bishops Presbyters promiscuously.

Aerius, who lived about the midle of the fourth Age, be∣lieved for that reason, that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter in those times was one and the same; and that no Bishop was Jure Divino, above a Presbyter: which opinion Epiphanius, Hereste 75. calls Furiosum dogma, and for that reason, ranks Aerius among Hereticks: but he answers the Arguments of Aerius vere childishly, in the opinion of Bellarmine himself; for when Aerius objected those formentio∣ed passages of Scripture, naming many Bishops in one City, Epiphanius answers, the reason is, Because in these times there was such penury of Presbyters, that many Bishops were in one City: then which answer, nothing is more ridicu∣lous. However, the authority of Epiphanias is of no more weight to make any Opinion Heresie, then the authority of some other Fathers, who declared them Hereticks who maintained the Antipodes, Avertinus, lib. 3. Anal. Augustinus also seems to call Aerius an Heretick; but its very like, that he calls him so for some other reason, then denying the divine

right of Bishops: other things were laid to the charge of Aerius (how justly is doubted) it may be also that Augustinus takes Heresie in a large sense as it comprehends Schisme: for he professeth himself in that place, he knoweth not what is the regular distinction of Heresie. That Schismaticks were some∣times called Hereticks, appears by the sixth Canon of the first Council of Constantinople, which, In codice canonum, is 169.

That Augustine called not Aerius an Heretick, for denying the divine right of Bishops, but only for making a separation upon that account, or else for some other reason, is evident; because, not only Augustinus himself, but also many others of the most eminent Fathers, seem to be of the same opinion with Aerius, as Medina confesseth; and although Bellarmine and Peta∣vius reprehend Medina for so saying, yet in end, both are forced to acknowledge, that some of those Fathers were of that opini∣on. Likewayes, many Popish Doctors came very near the opi∣nion of Aerius; all the Protestant Divines abroad, for the most part, are of that opinion; and many learned Protestants at home, as Whitaker, Reynolds, &c. although some eminent English Divines be against it, as Andrews, Hall, and other learned men. However, it is certain, that none were more submissive to Episcopal Government amongst the ancient Fathers, and some of the modern Doctors, then those who dispute expresly against the divine right of Bishops; as Au∣gustinus quaest. 101. upon 1 Tim. 3. Hilarius upon the same place, and likewayes upon Ephes. 4. Hieronymus in his Epistle to Euagrius, and likewayes upon Tit. 1. Ambrosius (as he is cited by Amalarius) upon Tim. 3. Chrysostomus and his ad∣mirer Theophylactus, Primasius oecumenius Sedulius upon Tit. 1. and among the late Fathers, Amalarius, Isidorus, Rabanus Mau∣rus; amongst the Popish Divines, Cusanus, lib. 2. de concordia Catholica, cap. 13. Contarenus and Dionysius, Carthusianus on Philip. 1. Durandus in Rationali, lib. 2. cap. de Sacerdotibus,

and likewayes upon the sentences, lib. 4. dist. 34. q. 5. Mar∣silius Patavinus, dict. cap. 15. Haymo on Philip. 1. Asorius the Jesute, P. 2. Q. 2. cap. 16. All which Popish Doctors came very near the opinion of Aerius, and yet were very sub∣missive to Episcopal Government: Whitaker, a most stout defender of Aerius, yet was most submissive to the Episcopal Government; and many of the most eminent Divines abroad, who defended the opinion of Aerius, yet in their Epistles to several English Divines, they exhort dissatisfied persons, to submit to the Government of the Church of England: which in effect is, the same with that Church Government which was established by the first general Council of Neice.

Those who follow the opinion of Aerius, affirm, that the Bishop of Rome, in the beginning, was nothing else but the first Presbyter, or first ordained Presbyter, amongst the Pres∣byters of the Church of Rome: Hilarius by many cited by the name of Ambrosius) upon Eph. 4. affirms, that in those primitive times, a Bishop was nothing else but primus Presbyter, that is, Presbyter of oldest ordination, and he dying, the next in order coming to be first Presbyter, became hoc ipso Bishop, without any new ordination; as appears by the the same Author, 1 Tim. 3. where he expresly affirms, when any is ordained Sacerdos, he is ordained both Bishop and Presbyter; for, saith he, Una est ordinatio Presbyteri & Episcopi, quia uterque est Sacerdos. That is, The ordination of a Bishop and Presbyter in one, because both are Priests: Whence it appears that Bel∣larmine is mistaken, who affirms, that a first Presbyter be∣hoved to be ordained of new, when he became Bishop, ac∣cording to the opinion of that Author: Petavius grants, that a first Presbyter became Bishop, without any new formall or∣dination, but it was requisite that he should be consecrated by a secret imposition of hands, called by him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, a mysticall imposition of hands; but he brings no probation,

he only affirms, it. We read of such a secret imposition of hands, not in that case, but in other two: the first, is, when Miletius troubled all Aegypt by his ordaining without au∣thority, those whom he ordained were not formally re-ordain∣ed, but only consecrated by that secret imposition of hands, or privat imposition of hands, as witnesseth Theodoretus, lib. 1. cap. 10. The other case is, those who were baptized by Hereticks, were not re-baptized, but only anointed with the Chrisme, together with that secret imposition of hands: both the one and the other case is mentioned by Justinus, in Res∣pons, ad Orthodox. It is to be observed, that although the first Presbyter was called Bishop, Antonemasticè, yet the other Presbyters were called Bishops; and the first Presbyter sometimes Episcopus Episcoporum, Bishop of Bishops; so the Apostle James is called by Clement, when the said James was Bishop or first Presbyter of Jerusalem: whence appears, the weakness of that objection of Bellarmine, proving that the Bishop of Rome was reputed oecumenick Bishop, because he is stiled by some, Episcopus Episcoporum, Bishop of Bishops.

CHAP. III. Conjectures of Aerians, concerning the original, progress, and universal establishment of Episcopacy.

THe first step then of the Bishop of Rome (in the opinion of those who follow Aerius) was from a first Pres∣byter to a Bishop, before the time that Bishops and Presbyters were distinguished, all Presbyters were called Bishops, but after that time, no Presbyter was called Bishop, as Ambrosius (cited by Amalarius) affirms, on 1 Tim. 3. The word Bishop in greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, imports as much as an Overseer; those who had the oversight of any charge were called by the Graecians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bishops; so we find in Xenophon Physitians

called. And in other Authors Moderators of Controversies, and Visitors of Cities amongst the Athenians, were called Bishops. Rulers of Provinces, or who were set over Provinces, 1 Maccab. 1, are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bishops. Yea, in the glosses of the old Graeci∣ans, Kings are called Bishops: Hesychius amongst his glosses hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the same sense in which they are called by Homer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pastors of the people; by which it appears (if we durst affirm it) that Salmasius is in a mistake, affirming that Bishop is only a word of care, tutelage, or curatory, and not a word of rule or command: Bellarmine also is in a mistake, who eludes that passage of Augustine, a Bishop is greater then a Presbyter by consuetude; affirming the meaning of Augustine to be, that before the times of Christians, the word Bishop was not a title of honour, but by the consuetude of Christians, it became to be so.

The time when Episcopacy did first begin, is guessed to he about the latter end of the second Age, when Victor was Bi∣shop of Rome: which conjecture is proved by two reasons: The first is this, Ambrosius on 1 Tim. 1. 3. (as he is cited by Amalarius) affirms, That after Episcopacy was brought in, Presbyters were called no more Bishops as they were before, nor were Bishops called Presbyters: but we read in the Epistles of Victor, that Presbyters are called Bishops, and Bishops Presbyters, as was before-mentioned; but after the time of Victor we find, that neither Bishops are called Presbyters, nor Presbyters Bishops: whereby it is very probable, that in those dayes a Bishop was distinguished from a Presbyter. The second rea∣son is this, Ignatius (falsly believed to be the Disciple of John) lived about that time, and in his Epistle to the Magne∣sians, calls Episcopacy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a new Ordination, whence it appears, it did begin about that time. That the said Ina∣tius lived in those dayes (and consequently could not be that Ignatius who was the disciple of John) appears, because he

mentions the heresie of Valentinus, who affirmed, that Christ proceeded from Siges; which Heresie was never heard of, till immediatly before the times of Victor; and therefore the said Ignatius behoved to live after the time of Valentinus, and con∣sequently about the time of Victor. To which two reasons, may be added a third, (viz.) That the said Magnesians and Tralliani were so averse from receiving of Bishops, (as if those Tralliani had been so called after Mr. Robert Trail) that Igna∣tius was forced to spend much Rhetorick, to perswade them to receive a Bishop: but it is very unlike they would have been so refractory, if Bishops had been among them from the beginning: And this much of the original of Episcopacy.

As for the progress; Bishops were not brought in, in all places at one time, but by degrees, first at one place, then at another: It is very like they first began at Rome, and that Victor was the first Bishop that ever was; he was a very aspire∣ing man, and for his presumption, was sharply rebuked by Ire∣naeus, and bitterly mocked by Tertullian: and therefore, it's very unlike such an alteration of Government could begin in any other City then Rome, which was the chief Imperial City: for which reason, Potentior principalitas, a more power∣ful principality was attributed to the Church of Rome by Ire∣naeus, by reason of which (saith he) and also by reason that the Traditions of the Apostles were preserved more purely there, it is necessary that all Churches conform themselves to that Church.

That Episcopacy was not established in all places at once, in alike perfection, is evident by three reasons. The first is, when Presbyters in other places had no ordination, they had it still at Alexandria unto the times of Heraclas and Dionysius, which was about Anno 235. as is testified by Ambrosius (by some thought Hilarius) on Ephes. 4. and Augustinus (if he be the Author) on Tim. 1. 3. quaest. 101. upon the Old and

New Testament, and Hieronymus in his Epistles to Euagrius. The second reason is, when Bishops only confirmed in the West, Presbyters confirmed throughout all the East, as is testified by Cyrillus Hierosol mitanus, in his Catechise de Chris∣mate, and Severus Alexandrius, de Ritibus Baptismi. The third reason is, when in many places Bishops had sole ordina∣tion and sole jurisdiction, in Africa they were inhibited, and expresly forbidden, either to ordain or to exercise jurisdiction, without concurrence of Presbyters; as appears by the 22. and 24. Canons of the fourth Council of Carthage.

When Episcopacy was universally established, was as uncer∣tain, as when it first began. Hieronymus affirms, it was decreed through the whole world; Ambrosius or Hilarius affirms, it was established prospiciente concilio; but none could tell, as Bishop Hall objects, what either the one or the other meaned? but of late it is discovered, that both mean the 4. Canon of the first Council of Neice. Eutychius Patriarch of Alexan∣dria, 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 Presby∣ters 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 Coun∣cil, establish any thing universally; neither was there any ge∣neral 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 fre∣quent with Augustinus, Hieronymus, Ambrosius, Chry∣sostomus, and other Fathers, then that a Bishop differs from a Pres∣byter 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, Hierony∣mus 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 Am∣brosius (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 ordina∣tion 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 ••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 Pres∣byter 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 assi••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 be∣fore, (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 Proter∣vum Sophisma; and therefore, to return the sharp edge of the Weapon, whereas they strike only with the blunt, it is rea∣soned 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 in∣tention then of Hieronymus is, not to tell precisely the time when? but only the cause why? •• Bishop was made different from a Presbyter, (viz.) Schisme, such as that among the Corin∣thians, 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, be∣fore 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) be∣fore 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 juris∣diction 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 pri∣macy of Bishops was ambulatory in every Province; except the Bishop of the first City of the Province, where the Ro∣man 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, ac∣cording to the time of their ordination: 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 am∣bulatory 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 principa∣lity 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 pre∣ferred 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 compre∣hends 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 compre∣hended 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. Like∣wayes, 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 Corin∣thians, 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 Testi∣mony, ingeminating it every where, as they do other testi∣monies 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 Juris∣diction, 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 o•• 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 Dis∣ciple 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 lived, is un∣certain? Ignatius in his Ep••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 com∣manded by no superior Church-ruler, as Metropolitan, Patri∣arch, 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 Supre∣macy 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 Magne∣sians, 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 Dea∣cons, 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 Bi∣shop 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 Moli∣naeum, 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 ex∣amine 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 Bi∣shoprick 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 Bi∣shops 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 Bi∣shoprick of Peter, having authority over other Bishops, is prov∣ed 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 Bishop∣ricks, 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 Bi∣shoprick, appears by the express words of Cyprian, in his Ora∣tion to the Council of Carthage; in which (as we shall prove in the next Chapter) he makes any other Bishop equal in ju∣risdiction 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 Bi∣shoprick of Peter, as all mankind had their Original from Adam. But, in averring the Apostles to have their Bishop∣ricks from Peter, Bellarmine contradicts first Fran. de victo∣ria, who, relect. 2. quaest. 2. conclus. 3. and 4. expresly af∣firms, 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 of Cyprian, de unitate Ecclesiae, which we now mentioned, Whatever Peter was, the other Apostles were the same, of alike dignity and power with him. Secondly, Bellarmine contradicts himself, because he affirms, That all the Apostles were made Bishops immediatly by Christ, and had their jurisdiction immediatly from him, lib. 4.

cap. 23. de pont. Rom. and whereas the Church of Rome doth distinguish, that although the other Apostles had their Bi∣shopricks immediatly from Christ, yet they had them not secundum plenitudinem potestatis, as Peter had his Bishoprick immediatly from Christ: Fran. de victoria exsibilats that di∣stinction, as contrary to the mind of Cyprian, asserting an ab∣solute equality of jurisdiction of all the Apostles with Peter, Fran. de victor. ibid. And thus we have proved, that Bellar∣mine is a bad interpreter of Cyprian, in affirming, that Cyprian by unus Episcopatus means, the Bishoprick of Peter, or his Suc∣cessor the Bishop of Rome.

Now let us examine, how Bellarmine comments upon those words of Cyprian, Cujus pars á singulis in solidum tenetur? That is, of which Bishoprick, every Bishop hath a full share: Bellarmine grants, that every Bishop hath a full share, but de∣nyes they have an equal share, or in the same manner; he com∣pares that one Bishoprick to a dissimilar body, v. g. to a Tree, he compares the Bishoprick of Peter to the Root, other Bishop∣ricks to the Branches; for as the Root, although it be a part of the Tree, as are the Branches, yet it sustains and rules the Branches; and therefore, although the Branches have a part of the Tree in solidum, yet are they not an equal part of the Tree; neither are they a part of the Tree, in that manner as the root is. The Root is a part sustaining the Branches, the Branches again are parts sustained and governed by the Root; So saith Bellarmine, The Bishoprick of Peter and his Succes∣sors is a part of that one Bishoprick answering to the Root, other Bishopricks are parts answering to the Branches, ruled and su∣stained by the Bishoprick of Peter.

But it is answered, Bellarmine in this glosse, intangles him∣self, first in absurdities, next in contradictions; and first, he intangles himself in absurdities, because Cyprian expresly compares that one Bishoprick to an Oak, a Fountain, a Light, which are all similar and homogeneous bodies; of which, every

every part hath the name and nature of the whole; every part of an Oak is Oak, every part of a Fountain of water, is water, &c. and therefore, Bellarmine is absurd in affirming, that Cyprian compares that one Bishoprick to a dissimilar and heterogenious body; the Sophistry of Bellarmine consists in this, what Cyprian calls Robur or an Oak, Bellarmine calls it Arbor, or a Tree; the difference is this, any tree may be considered two wayes, first, as it is an organick body consisting of Root and Branches which are dissimilar, organick parts: Secondly, as it is an homogenius body, as an Oak, all the parts of which are Oak, both Root and Branches, although the Root, be not the Branches; and so Bellarmine egre∣giously sophisticats, in making Cyprian compare that one Bishoprick to a Tree, as it is an organick body; whereas Cyprian compares it to an Oak, as it is a similar body.

Secondly, the Whole cannot be the same with any one Part; nor any one part the whole: Cyprian maketh that one Bi∣shoprick the whole, and every particular Bishoprick a part. But Bellarmine makes the Bishoprick of Peter, and his suc∣cessors the whole, or that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian; he likewayes makes it a part, in shewing, in what manner, comparatively with others, it hath a share of that one Bishop∣rick, which is the whole, according to his own confession; and likewayes a part, according to his own confession, which is a manifest contradiction.

Thirdly, he adds contradiction to contradiction; for in explaining the way how every Bishoprick hath a share of that one Bishoprick, he grants that every part, hath a full share, but not an equal share; which is a flat contradiction, since all full shares are equal shares, neither can any full share be more or lesse then an other full share. It is true indeed, that one Bishoprick, may be greater in riches, splendor, &c. then an other Bishoprick; but they are all alike Bishopricks: Riches, and Poverty hinders not the Episcopal Dignity

and Jurisdiction, as is affirmed by Hieronymus, in his Epistle to Euagrius; where he affirms, that the meanest Bishop, is equally a Bishop with the Bishop of Rome, or Constantinople, which equality of Bishops is in essentialls; for the superiority of an Archbishop, above a Bishop, is in accidentals, and was a non-ens in the dayes of Cyprian; and therefore, he speaks absolutely, without restriction, of the equality of Bishops. And thus we have shewed, with what admirable Sophistry, Bellarmine endeavours to wrest the meaning of Cyprian; with whose Testimony Rayinundus Rufus is so pressed, disputing against Molinaeus, that he taxeth the saying of Cyprian as erronious: because, saith he, Ulpianus affirms, that two persons, cannot have dominion in solidum of one thing; and therefore Cyprian is in an error in affirming, that every Bishop hath a part of that one Bishoprick in solidum.

But it is answered, Rufus is in a mistake, both in the These and in the Hypothese; he is mistaken in the These, because the Lawyers maintain, that more persons may have dominion in solidum of one thing, as of via aquae ductus, or any Comu∣nality, as pasturage, &c. Secondly, he is mistaken in the Hypothese: for Cyprian is not speaking of the dominion of things; he is only comparing that one Bishoprick, toti simila∣ri vel universali, the part of which wholes equally participate their name, and definition, as all men do the humane nature, and all Kings are equally Kings: so saith Cyprian, all Bishops are equally Bishops.

Turrianus in his defence against Zadeel lib. 1. cap. 17. grants, that Cyprian compares that one Bishoprick to a similar body, but yet he affirms, that Cyprian is not to be understood literally; otherwayes he cannot be defended from error: be∣cause, saith he, if every Bishop have a part in solidum of that one Bishoprick, he hath that whole one Bishoprick: but he is mistaken, in confounding similar with dissimilar bodyes; for, one having the branch of a tree, hath not all the tree: yet

every drop of water hath both the name and definition of the whole Fountain, or is called water, and is water as well as the whole water of the Fountain. Secondly, Turrianus, to shun this pretended absurdity, interprets that one Bishoprick of Cyprian to be the Church; likewayes, he interprets those words, whereof every one hath a full share, to be, that every one is bound alike to give an account of his administration: but he is mistaken in both those glosses; he is mistaken in the first, because Cyprian expresly distinguisheth, that one Bi∣shoprick from the Church; for immediatly after those words, unus Episcopatus est, &c. there is one Bishoprick, &c. 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 there∣fore, 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 testi∣monies 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 ne∣cessity 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 learn∣ed 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 him∣self 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 Here∣ticks, 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 di∣versly, 1. that Cyprian speaks so out of humility, since him∣self 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 Cy∣prian, 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 Pro∣vincial 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 like∣wayes 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 Bi∣shop hath proprium arbitrium, that is, he hath as much autho∣rity 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, Bi∣nius, tom. 1. in his Annotations upon this Council of Car∣thage 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 cal∣led, consisting of eighty seven Bishops; Cyprian in his Oration to the Council, affirms, None of us makes himself Bishop of Bishops, or takes upon him to compell his Colleagues, by tyranni∣cal terrors to necessity of obedience; which words, as Binius observes, were directed against Stephanus Bishop of Rome; because he had threatned the Bishops of Africa with Excom∣munication, if they did not alter their Judgement.

Sanderus answers thirdly, that albeit Cyprian did assert the equality of Bishops in those words: yet, it was only an equa∣lity according to their Order of Priesthood, not according to their Jurisdiction: albeit the Bishop of Rome be equal to other Bishops, as he is Bishop, yet he is above them in jurisdiction; he gives this answer, lib. 7. cap. But it is replyed, this distin∣ction is frivolous, and quite contrary to the meaning of Cy∣prian, whose intention in those words, is expresly to assert the equality of Jurisdiction: and since he aims at the Bishop of Rome, it is evident in his opinion, that any Bishop is of equal jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome. How can any be so im∣pudent to deny, that Cyprian asserts equality of Jurisdiction? since he expresly affirms, No Bishop can judge another Bishop, nor be judged by him; Christ is the only judge of Bishops; which in right down terms is, that all Eishops are equal in Ju∣risdiction, which none but a Sophister will deny.

It is needless to mention the answers of other Romanists, as of Alanus Copus, lib. 1. cap. 19. and Dormanus in his Eng∣lish Treatise against Bishop Jewel, cap. 10. since they are not worth the refuting. The most ingenuous answer of them all, is that of Stapleton, lib. 11. cap. 7. de princip. fid. doctrin. where he affirms, that Cyprian in those words, to patronize his error, Utitur verbis errantium, and that he seems wonder∣fully to protect Hereticks (he means Protestants) against the

Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome: he calls those expressions O Cyprian pernicious, if they be not defended by a commo∣dious Exposition.

But it is answered, the authority of St. Augustine is of more moment, then the authority of Stapleton, who not only com∣mends those expressions of Cyprian, but also recommends them to the whole Church, to be taken notice of as so many Oracles, and that in moe places then one, as lib. 2. cap. 2. lib. 3. cap. 3. lib. 6. cap. 7. against the Donatists. Further, that Stephanus Bishop of Rome himself, understood those words of Cyprian as the Protestants do, against the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, appears by his excommunicating Cyprian, as Cassander relates, consult. art. 7. neither read we ever of his reconciliation, as is confessed by Bellarmine, lib. 2. de con. cap. 5. Neither is it of any moment, what they object, that in that question of re-baptizing those who were baptized by Here∣ticks, the affirmative maintained by Cyprian was wrong, and the negative maintained by Stephanus was right: for, the state of the question with the Church of Rome in this particular, is, Whether Cyprian was for or against the Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome? or, whether he did right in opposing the usurpation of Stephanus? It seems he did, for two reasons, first, because those expressions of his were recommended by St. Augustine to the whole Church: next, because notwithstand∣ing of his dying excommunicate by Stephanus, he was held ever since those times to be a Saint and a Martyr, by the Church of Rome it self, as he is at this day: whereby it ap∣pears, that the ancient Church of Rome, immediatly after the times of Cyprian, had not much regard to the authority of Stephanus his excommunicating Cyprian. The truth is, Cy∣prian in that conflict with Stephanus, was a good Patron of an evil cause; and Stephanus was a bad Patron of an good Cause: Cyprian was wrong, in maintaining re-baptization of those

who were baptized by Hereticks, but he defended it rightly: Stephanus, who maintained the contrary opinion, was right, but maintained it badly, that is, by usurpation, arrogancy and presumption.

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.

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.

CHAP. XI. The testimonies of Ignatius, Irenaeus and Tertullian, object∣ed to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, before the times of Cyprian, examined.

IN the two former Chapters, we answered all what the Learned Romanists could pretend, to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, before the midle of the third Cen∣tury, by usurpations of Bishops of Rome and appellations: They next endeavour to prove it by testimonies of Fathers, which are of two sorts; 1. wrested; 2. forged. In this Chapter and the next following, we will examine the first sort; and then we will conclude this Book, with examining the last. The Fathers, whose testimonies they wrest, are either Greek, or Latin: The Greek Fathers are Ignatius, and Irenaeus; the Latin Fathers, by them alledged are, Tertullian, and Cyprian: We will speak of the Greek Fa∣thers, and also of Tertullian in this Chapter, and will an∣swer these testimonies of Cyprian in the Chapter next fol∣lowing. And first of Ignatius, from whom they alledge the inscription of his Epistle written to the Romans, which is this, Ignatius to the Sanctified Church presiding in the re∣gion of the Romans; thus the place is alledged by Bellarmine, whereas the Greek hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, which presides in the place of the region of the Ro∣mans: wherefore they render it so? this is the reason; Bar∣ronius ad annum. 45. num. 10. observes, that the Roman Church, and the Catholick Church were believed to be the same; and therefore, they translate Ignatius, affirm∣ing the Church of Rome, to Preside in the region of the Ro∣mans, that is (saith Bellarmine and Bozius) Presiding in the Catholick Church.

But it is answered, first, that it was not the custom, in the dayes of Ignatius, to call the Roman-church, the Catholick-church: or where they spake of the Roman-church, to mean by it the Catholick-church: first, because the oldest testimo∣ny we have of that kind, is in the dayes of Theodosius junior, Victor Uticensis, and Gregorius Turonensis: that is, not till 300. years after Ignatius; and 400. after Christ. Secondly, that maner of phrase had its Original from the Arians; the said Gregorius Turonensis, in his Book, De Gloria martyrum, cap. 25. brings in an Arian Prince, calling the Orthodox-church, the Roman-church: or Orthodox-christians, Romans. Thirdly, that maner of speaking had its Original, from a politick reason; and not from an Ecclesiastical: In those dayes the Goths, Alans, and Vandals made war upon the Ro∣mans; the first three were Arians, the Romans Orthodox: and therefore, because all the Orthodox Christians partied the Romans in that war, they called them all Romans; their Faith, the Roman Faith; their Church the Roman Church: as the Turks at this day, call all Christians Francks, or French-men. Fourthly, as we said, they translate Ignatius falsly; for his words are, to the Church presiding in Loco, regionis Romanorum, in the place of the region of the Romans: whereby it evidently appears, that the meaning of Ignatius is no other, then the Church presiding in the Town of Rome; since none can affirm by these words, he means otherwayes, or that the Church of Rome presides in the whole Church; since he particularizes the presidency, and restricts it to a certain-place, of the region of the Romans: and therefore, they sophisticate egregiously, in translating Ignatius, Pre∣siding in the region of the Romans. Since the Romans (say they) at that time commanded the whole world, Ignatius by a Church Presiding in the region of the Romans, under∣stands a Church Presiding in the whole world: whereas the

words of Ignatus impart no more, but a Church presiding in a certain place, of the region of the Romans, Which is further confirmed, because we shewed before, from these two E∣pistles of Ignatius to the Trallians, and Magnesians, that he acknowledged no Office in the Church, above that of a Bi∣shop: but he could not be so forgetful of himself, as in this Epistle, to acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, as Bellarmine and Bozius pretends he doth; which is further confirmed, by the testimony of Basilius Epists 8. where he affirms, that Iconium presides in a part of Pisi∣dia, which is just such an other expression as that of Ignatius.

We could defend the meaning of Ignatius, not to make much for them, although they had translated him faith∣fully; that is, if he had said Presiding in the region of the Romans: for, from these words it can no more be gathered, that the Bishop of Rome is oecumenick Bishop, then it can prove the Bishop of Ments, or the Bishop of Carthage, oecu∣menick Bishop; because they preside in the region of Carthage, &c. for in the dayes of Ignatius, as we said, none were called Romans, but those who lived within the precinct, or particular command of the City: and this much of Ig∣natius.

Now followeth Irenaeus, from whom they bring a testimony by them much magnified; the passage is this, speaking of the Church of Rome, ad hanc enim ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique, fideles, in qua Semper ab his qui Sunt undique conservata est ea, quae ab Apostolis est tra∣ditio. The substance is, all Churches should accord with the Church of Rome, for two reasons, first, because of its more powerful principality; the next is, because Apostolical tradition is preserved in that Church. But this place makes not much for them, as appears by Irenaeus scope; this passage is found,

lib. 3. cap. 13. in which Chapter he is disputing against Hereticks; which were the perfect Scriptures? he willeth them for their satisfaction, to consult with the ancient Churches, which successively descended from the Apostles: and for instance sake, proponeth unto them the Church of Rome; his meaning is then, in those words, whatever the Church of Rome at that time thought perfect Scriptures, all Churches about were bound to acknowledge them for such; first, by reason of its more powerful principality, that Church being founded by the Apostles Paul and Peter (as was believed then) Secondly, because it hath been thought by Churches about to have purely preserved that tradition of the Canon of Scrip∣ture, which it had received from the Apostles: so that the meaning of Irenaeus is no other then this, that all are bound to accord to that Church, so long as it preserves the perfect Canon of Scripture, and teaches no other Doctrine then is con∣tained in it, by this testimony of Irenaeus, we are bound no more to adhere to the Church of Rome, then it adhereth to the Scripture.

But they instance, Irenaeus simply, without such restrictions, affirms, that all should accord to the Church of Rome, because it ob∣serves the apostolick tradition; which is as much, say they, as the Church of Rome cannot make an Apostacy. But it is re∣plyed, first, although Irenaeus affirmed, that in those times, the Church of Rome preserved the pure Canon of the Scripture; yet, he doth not affirm, that in all times coming it would do so. The Church of Rome at this day, observes not that Cannon of the Scripture, which was observed in the dayes of Irenaeus; the Council of Trent, under the pain of an Ana∣thema adds to the Canon of the Scriptures, these Books com∣monly called Apocrypha, which were rejected by the Church of Rome, in the dayes of Irenaeus, as shall be proved in its own place, by the testimonies of the most eminent Doctors

of the Roman Church; to omit the testimonies of almost all the Fathers, by whose testimonies it shall be proved, that in the dayes of Irenaeus, the Churches of Rome, Asia, A∣frica, Egypt, &c. rejected those Books canonized by the Council of Trent: and therefore, they must of necessity affirm, that either the Modern Church of Rome, or the Coun∣cil of Trent, excommunicates all these, who accord with the Church of Rome, in the Canon of the Scripture, in the dayes of Irenaeus: or else they have made a defection them∣selves, from that Church, which was in the dayes of Irenae∣us: The Council of Trent makes those Books Canonical, with an Anathema to those who shall not acknowledge them for such, but the Church of Rome, in the dayes of Irenae∣us, rejected them as Apocryphal, as is proved by the testimo∣nies of Ruffinus in Symbulo apud Cyprianum, and Hieronymus in his preface upon the Books of the Kings, and prologo Galeato, tom. 3. That all other Churches accorded with the Church of Rome, in that Canon of the Scriptures, is proved by an induction of them all: as the east Church, as is testified by Melito, the Church of Jerusalem; as is testified by Cyril, of Alexandria, witnesse Athanas and Origen, of France; as is testified by Hilarius, of Asia, Concil. Loadicenum, of Constantinople; Nazianz, and Damascen. These testimo∣nies are acknowledged by Bellarmine himself for the most part, lib. 1. cap. 20. de verbo Dei.

Secondly, that Irenaeus in these words, means no other according with the Church of Rome, then in as far as it pre∣serves the truth, appears further, not only by his keeping communion with the Bishops of the East, notwithstanding of their excommunication by Victor; but likewayes by his sharply rebuking of Victor, taxing him of Ignorance, and Arrogance, for his proceeding in such a manner: by which it evidently appears, that neccessar communion with the

Church of Rome was no article of faith in the opinion of Irenaeus, much less the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, and this much of Irenaeus.

Now we come to the Latine Fathers; the first passage al∣ledged is of Tertullianus de pudicitia, where he calls Victor Bishop of Rome, Bishop of Bishops: But it is answered, first, albeit he did so, it proves not Victor was oecumenick Bishop; because we read that James is so called by Clement, Lupus is so called by Sidonius, lib. 6. epist. 1. Marcus Bishop of Alexandria, is called also Bishop of Bishops, by Theodorus Bal∣samon, in his answers to the Interrogations of the said Marcus: but Bellarmine will not affirm, that James, or L••pus, or Marcus were oecumenick Bishops.

Secondly, Tertullian in that place; calling Victor Bishop of Bishops, doth so Ironicè or in mockery, as appeares by the oc∣casion of his calling him so, which was this: Victor made a decree of admitting fornicators or whoremongers too easily to the communion of the Church, in the opinion of Tertulli∣an. Speaking of that decree, Tertullian affirms, Episcopus E∣piscoporum nuper edidit Edictum, &c. The Bishop of Bi∣shops hath now put forth an Edict, and falls too immediatly and disputes against it: whereby it appears, that he did not ac∣knowledge the supremacy of Victor: that he is mocking him, appears further, by his calling that decree of Victor, Edictum, an edict, but Emperours only set forth Edicts, and so he calls Victor Bishop of Bishops, in the same sence that he calls his decree an Edict, which none can deny to be in mockery.

They alledge another passage from Tertullian in his pre∣script. 76. against hereticks; this passage is objected by Pa∣melius, and is this, If ye live in the adjacent places to Italy, ye have Rome, from whence we have also Authority. Tertul∣lian himself then lived in Africa, whence they conclude

from these words we have Authority, that the Bishop of Rome had Jurisdiction in Africa in the opinion Tertullian. But it is answered, this place resembles very much that of Irenaeus, which we now discussed; his scope in these words, is to arme his Readers against heresies; among other prescriptions, he pre∣scribs this fore one, that all should strive to inform them∣selves what is the Doctrine of those Churches which were founded by the Apostles, and then to conform themselves to that Doctrine. And first, saith he, If ye live in Achaia consult the Church of Corinth; if ye live not far from Macedonia, consult the Church of Philippi, and Thessa∣lonica; if ye live in Asia, consult the Church of Ephesus; if ye live in the adjacent parts to Italy, follow the Church of Rome; from which (saith he) we also in Africa have our authority, because it is the nearest Apostolick Church. Observe, he calls Apostolick Churches those who were founded by the Apostles themselves, as that of Philippi, Corinth, Thessalonica by Paul, that of Ephesus by St. John, that of Rome by Peter and Paul: whence it is easie to conjecture, what is the meaning of Tertullian: for by these words, from whence we have our Authori∣ty, it follows no more, that the Church of Rome hath jurisdiction in Africa, then it follows, that the Church of Ephesus, or Antiochia have jurisdiction over all Asia; or, that the Church of Corinth hath jurisdiction over all Achaia. His meaning then assuredly is, that albeit one be not under the jurisdiction of the nearest Apostolick Church; yet it is the surest way, to preserve your self from Heresie, to follow the Faith of that Church, because it is most like, that those Churches, who were founded by the Apostles themselves, are least obnoxious to de∣fection.

Secondly, that Tertullian did not dream of any such thing as the infalibity of the Church of Rome, or supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, as a necessar article of faith, appears, not only by his disputing expresly against that decree of Victor, Bishop of Rome, which we now mentioned; but also, by several other passages of Tertullian, in the said prescriptions, and else where. Beatus Rhenanus in his Argument to the same book of Tertullian, de prescrip, printed at Basil, anno. 1521. (which Rhenanus was a Popish Doctor, and exquisitly versed in the Writings of the Fathers, and especially of Ter∣tullian, upon whom he commented) hath these expressions; Tertullian, (saith he) doth not confine the Chatholick Church to the Church of Rome, he doth not esteem so highly of the Church of Rome, as they do now a dayes; he reckoneth her with other Churches, and admonisheth his Reader to en∣quire, as well what milk the Church of Corinth gave, as that of Rome: In which words, he means the same very passage of Tertullian which we now explained, and vindicated from the Sophistry of Pamelius: at last he concludes, if Tertullian were now alive, and should say so much, he could not escape un∣punished; and this much Rhenanus avouched, when he had the use of his tongue: but the index, expurgatorius belgicus, pag. 78. has gagged his mouth with a deleantur hec verba, and so they are not now found in the Editions of Rhenanus, printed since in those places, where the Pope hath jurisdiction. They had reason to purge out those words from Rhenanus, because the testimony of his was as a Poyniard, sticking in the very bowels of that article of the Catechise of the Council of Trent, viz. that there is no salvation without communion with the Church of Rome

CHAP. XII. Several passages objected out of Cyprian, to prove the supre∣macy of the Bishop of Rome, in that interval; vindicated from Sophistry.

THe last Father they make use of, to prove the supre∣macy of the Bishop of Rome, in that interval, be∣tween the times of the Apostles, and the death of Cyprian, is Cyprian himself. There is not a Father of them all more urged, to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, then Cyprian; and yet it is most certain, that it never had a great∣er enemy then he: what Cyprians opinion was anent that con∣test, appeared in the former Chapters, both by his testimo∣nies, and his actions: Our adversaries dispute two wayes for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, out of Cyprian: first by sophistry, next by forgery: we will refute the first in this Chapter, and prove the second in the Chapters fol∣lowing; and that by the testimonies of the greatest Anti∣quaries, that ever the Church of Rome produced.

The first testimony of Cyprian, they bring is, from his 42. Epistle, where writing to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, he hath these words, Some while ago, we sent some of our Colleagues to compose some differences, or to reduce some schismaticks to the unity of the Chatholick Church, &c. and a little after But those Schismaticks set up to themselves an adulterous head against the Church; from which place, Bellarmine reasons thus, as those Novatians set up one to be heaa of their Church, or of the whole Church of the Novatians; so Cornelius was head of the Catholick Church.

But it is answered, this reasoning is very unbeseeming such a learned man as Bellarmine: for the meaning of Cyprian is no other, then that the Novatians set up to themselves a

Bishop at Rome, in opposition to Cornelius; so he calls the Novatian Bishop, an adulterous head, contrary to Cornelius, who was the true head of the particular Church at Rome, be∣cause he was the true Bishop thereof: and so Cyprian doth not mean any head of the whole Church, but only by Head, he means Bishop of the particular Church of Rome.

Bellarmine instances, that Cyprian affirms, his intention was to reconcile those Shismaticks to the Catholick Church; by which he means the Church of Rome, and since the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church, and the Bishop of Rome head of the Church of Rome, Ergo, he is head of the Catholick Church.

But it is answered when Cyprian calls the Church of Rome the Catholick Church, his meaning is a particular Church professing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church; and therefore, they who were reconciled to the Church of Rome, were reconciled to the Catholick Church also: so any reconciled to a particular Church, professing the Doct∣rine of the Catholick Church, is reconciled also to the Catho∣lick Church, and yet that particular Church is not the Catholick Church. That this is the meaning of Cyprian, appears, by the preceeding Epistle, or epist. 41. where speaking of some Schis∣maticks in the Church of Carthage, he affirms they opposed themselves to the Catholick Church: he means, they opposed themselves to the Church of Cathage, inwhich doing, they opposed themselves to the Catholick Church; because the Church of Cathage, professed the same Doctrine, with the Catholick Church, in opposing or renting the Church of Carthage, they rent and opposed the Catholick Church.

Pamelius, urgeth, that Cyprian affirms, that those Schismaticks refused the bosome of the root and mother Church: where observe, saith he, that Cyprian calls the

Church of Rome, the root and the mother of all Churches, or of the Catholick Church, which Epithet is given by Cyprian to the Church of Rome, not only in this epistle, but also in his 45. epist to Cornelius: in which he gives injunctions to those he was sending to Rome, (to be informed concerning that schism of the Novatians) that they should acknowledge and adhere to the Root and Mother of the Catholick Church.

But it is answered, that Cyprian by Root and Mother of the Catholick Church, means no other thing, but the Catho∣lick-Church it self, as appears by the said 45. Epistle; in which he affirms to Cornelius, that hearing that there was a schism in the Church of Rome, he sent Caldonius and For∣natus, to be informed of the truth of the business, and to adhere to neither party, till they were informed which of the factions was in the right? and which in the wrong? and for that reason, he did not direct his Letters, either to Cornelius, or to that Novatian Bishop; but only to the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome, that being informed by them, they might adhere to those, who held and acknowledged the Root and Mother of the Catholick Church: whereby it is evident, that Cyprian did not believe, that Cornelius Bishop of Rome, or those who adhered to him, were the root and mother of the Catholick Church, since he gave his messengers injunction, to suspend their Judgments, till they were informed, who adhered to the root and mother of the Catholick Church, that is, who maintained the true Faith, or who were members of the Catholick Church, for if Cyprian had believed, that Cornelius and his faction, had been the root and mother of the Catholick Church, he would not have injoyned his messengers to suspend their judgment, till they were informed by the Presbyters and Deacons: so it is evident, that Cyprian by Root and Mother of the Catholick Church, means the Catholick Church it self, both in his 45. and 42. Epistle; and in the same sense,

epist. 43. and 44. he exhorts them to return to their mother, that is, to the unity of the Catholick Church.

The second passage of Cyprian is found in his 55. Epistle, where he hath these words, That the occasion of Heresies and Schismes in the Church is only this, that the Priest of God is not obeyed, and that it is not believed, that one Priest, as Judge in place of Christ for a time, is in the Church. This place is much urged by Pamelius, in his Annotations upon the said Epistle, to prove an oecumenick Bishop.

But it is answered, Cyprian in this Letter or Epistle, is in∣veighing against those, who had set up one Fortunatus (as we shewed before) Bishop of Carthage, in opposition to himself: and his meaning is not, that there should be one Bishop in the Catholick Church, but only one Bishop in a particular Church, or the Church of Carthage: because two Bishops, in one place, occasions Schismes, and Heresies, saith Cy∣prian: so its evident, that Cyprian is pleading his own cause, disputing against those who had set up a Schisma∣tick Bishop, in the Church of Carthage, in opposition to himself, and then went to Rome, and calumniated him to Cornelius: it had been impertinent in Cyprian, in this questi∣on, to bring in mention of an oecumenick Bishop; the whole dispute of Cyprian consists in these two Sylogismes, the first is, who rise up in opposition to their lawful Bishop; will assuredly be punished by God.

But those men, Fortunatus and Felicissimus, rise up against their lawful Bishop.

Ergo, God will assuredly punish them.

The second Sylogisme is this, who are the occa••ion of Here∣sies and Schismes, will be punished:

But who rise against their lawful Bishop, are the occasion of Heresies, and Schismes.

Ergo, &c.

By which disputations of Cyprians, it is evident, that by one Bishop he doth not mean an oecumenick Bishop, but any Bishop of a particular charge; because if by one Bishop he had meaned, an oecumenick Bishop, the minor of his first Sylogisme is notoriously false: ••or, Fortunatus and Felicissimus, did not rise up against an oecumenick Bishop, but only against Cy∣prian, Bishop of Carthage.

But Pamelius instances, first, that Cyprian cites several testimonies of Scripture, in this dispute, which did quadrate only to the high Priest of the Jewes: And therefore, those words of Cyprian are more fitly to be understood of an oecume∣nick Bishop. But it is answered, Pamelius playes the Sophister three wayes: First, it is false, that these passages cited by Cyprian, are only applyable to the high Priest of the Jewes; first, he cites those words of Moses, Deutr. 17. what ever man, who out of Pride, shall not hearken to the Priest and Judge who shall be in those dayes, that man shall die. But that Moses is not speaking here of the High Priest, but of any Priest, a very child may perceive, who reads that Chapter of Deuteronomie, or the 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. verses of it.

Secondly, Pamelius Sophisticates, in omitting those passages cited by Cyprian, which cannot be applyed to the High Priest onely: as that of Matth. 8. 4. Go shew thy self unto the Priests, and that of Luke, 10. 16. he that heareth you heareth me, &c.

Thirdly, Pamelius Sophisticates egregiously, in conclud∣ing Cyprian to mean in those words, an oecumenick Bishop, by reason of his citation of those testimonies of Scripture: for Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus, and in another Epistle to Florentius, cites all those very places, which he cites in this 55. Epistle to Cornelius, to prove that none should oppose their Bishop: But Pamelius himself, in his Annotations upon

both those Epistles, confesseth, that neither in the one nor the other, Cyprian speaks of an oecumenick Bishop: in the one, he speaks of Rogatianus, in the other, he speaks of himself, as he doth in this 55. Epistle.

Pamelius objects, Secondly, that Cyprian here speaks of a Bishop who is Judge in place of Christ. But it is answer∣ed, Cyprian in those words, means not an oecumenick Bi∣shop, but any Bishop whatsoever, as is evident, by these following reasons: First, he gives Colleagues to that Bishop whom he affirmeth to be Judge in place of Christ, and that in the same Epistle, his words are, no man after divine judge∣ment, suffrages of the people, consent of his fellow Bishops, would make himself Judge, not now of his Bishop, but of God.

Secondly, because epist. 69. to Florentius, Cyprian calls himself a judge constitute by God for a time.

Thirdly, it is no marvel, that Cyprian calls any Bishop, judge in place of Christ, since Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians, gives the same Eipthet to Deacons: he exhorts the said Trallians, to reverence their Deacons as Christ, whose place they hold.

Pamelius objects, thirdly, that Cyprian affirms, that the cause of schisme and heresies is, that one Bishop is not constitute in the Church, and affirms that Cyprian by one Bishop ever means oecumenick Bishop, as appears by his epist. 48. to Cor∣nelius, and by his Book de unitate ecclesiae: But it is answered, that it is false, which Pamelius affirms, for in those places mentioned by him, there is no such thing to be found in Cyprian, that by one Bishop he means an oecumenick Bishop. Secondly, it is false which he affirms, that Cyprian in every place by one Bishop, means an oecumenick Bishop; for in his Epistle to Pupianus, he hath these very words which he hath in this 55. Epistle, viz. that the cause of Heresies and Schisms

is, that one Bishop presiding in the Church, is contemned by the proud presumption of some: and yet Pamelius himself, in his Annotations upon the place, confesseth, that Cyprian by one Bishop means any Bishop whatsoever, and not an oecumenick Bi∣shop.

Pamelius objects fourthly, that Cyprian in his 55. Epistle, cannot mean himself alone, because he affirms, if that one Bishop were acknowledged, no man would move any thing against the Colledge of Priests; because it doth not follow, that they who move any thing against Cyprian, oppose all other Bishops: But it is answered, Cyprian meaning is, that in opposing himself, they opposed the Colledge of Bishops which had ordained him Bishop of Carthage: as is evident likewayes, by the next following words, which we cited before, viz. no man can make himself judge of his Bishop, after the suffrages of the people, and the consent of his fellow Bishops: whereby it is evident, that the meaning of Cyprian is, that who opposed him, opposed the Colledge of Bishops, who had ordained him.

Fifthly, Pamelius objects, that Cyprian after those words of one Bishop, makes mention de servo praeposito, or a servant preferred, or set over the rest, and immediately after he makes mention of Peter. But it is answered none, can understand wherein the force of this objection consists; for Cyprian after he had affirmed, that it was no marvel they had deserted that one servant who was preferred to the rest, since the Disciples left Christ himself: and then our Saviour asked the Apostles, if they would also leave him? then Peter (upon whom the Church was built by our Lord) answered for them all, Lord, whether or to whom shall we go? Whereas Pamelius urgeth, that by servus praepositus is meaned Peter, it can be no wayes gathered out of the words of Cypria; his scope in those words is only to shew, that it was no marvel that those Schismaticks abandoned

him their Bishop, who was that servant set over them, since Christs disciples abandoned him. That Peter was only that servus praepositus, cannot be gathered out of the words of Cy∣prian: for, that the Church was built upon Peter, and that Peter answered in the name of the Church, it makes nothing for the supremacy of Peter, as we proved before by the testi∣mony of Cyprian himself; who in his books de unitate ecclesiae affirms, whatever Peter was, the other Apostles were the same, equal to him in dignity and power: However, that building of the Cchurch upon Peter, hath nothing ado with that servus prae∣positus mentioned by Cyprian; for as we said, Cyprian means only any Bishop, and in particular himself by that Servant.

Horantius, loc. chathol. lib. 6. cap. 10. and Harding, disput∣ing against Jewel, art. 4. brings another objection, that Cyprian by one Bishop means not himself, or any other parti∣cular Bishop, but oecumenick: their objection is founded upon the words of Cyprian, who after he had affirmed, that the cause of Schismes was, that one Bishop was not acknowledged Judge in place of Christ in the Church; he adds, if according to divine precepts, the whole fraternity were obedient to the said Judge, no man would move any thing against the Colledge of Priests; whence Horantius and Harding concludes, that by whole fraternity Cyprian means the whole Church, and by one Bishop one visible head of that Church.

But it is answered, that Cyprian, by whole fraternity, means that multitude of which any particular Church is composed: as in his 68. Epistle, writing to the Bishops of Spain, he de∣sires them not to rescind the ordination of Sabinus, whom they had placed in the Bishoprick of Basilides, he affirms, that the said Sabinus was chosen, by the suffrages of the whole fraternity: But Horantius and Harding will not affirm, that Cyprian in this 68. Epistle, means the universal Church, or church of Rome by whole fraternity; since it is evident by

the circumstances, that he means a particular Church, or that Congregation which chused Sabinus for their Bishop. Like∣wayes, as we shewed before, the said Sabinus was placed Bishop, and maintained in his Bishoprick over the belly of Stephanus, Bishop of Rome; who desired them to restore Basilides; and the scope of this 68. Epistle written in the Name of the Council of Carthage, to the Bishops of Spain by Cyprian, is to maintain Sabinus in his Bishoprick, notwith∣standing that Stephanus Bishop of Rome, desired them to re∣scind the ordination of Sabinus, and to replace Basilides: That Cyprian by whole fraternity means a particular Church, ap∣pears by innumerable Epistles of his, as epist. 47. in two se∣veral places, and 58. in two several places; likewayes, and 63. in which last place, he affirms, when we are at Supper at our Banquet, we cannot convocate the common People, that we may celebrate the verity of the Sacrament, in presence of the whole fraternity. And thus we have shewed, with what admirable Sophistry, our adversaries endeavour to wrest this notable passage of Cyprian, epist. 55. in which we have been the more prolix, because from thence, they bring all which they can pretend to be of any moment, to prove that Cyprian was for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome: they alledge other testimonies, more pungent, but they shall be proved forged▪ in the following Chapters.

The third testimony brought from the words of Cypri∣an, is in the edition of Pamelius, Epist. 46. in which Cornelius writing to Cyprian, hath these words; We are not ignorant that there is but one God, &c. and a little af∣ter, that there should be one Bishop in the Catholick Church; from whence they conclude an oecumenick Bishop or the Bishop of Rome, as successor to Peter Head of the Curch. But it is answered, Cornelius in this Epistle, is informing Cyprian, that some Shismaticks (who had par∣tied

that Novatian Bishop set up at Rome against Cornelius) desired to be re-admitted to his communion, confessing their error, that they had been seduced, and now they are convinced, that Cornelius was their true Bishop: amongst other of their confessions, they profess they were not ignorant, that there was but one God, one Christ, one Holy Ghost, and that there should be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church; by which it is evident, that by Ca∣tholick Church they mean any particular Church, and here they mean the particular Church of Rome; of which they acknowledge Cornelius, to be that one Bishop, and not that other Novation Bishop by whom they had been seduced, and whom they would acknowledge no more for their Bishop, since there could be but one true Bishop of that Church, viz. Cornelius himself. That this is the meaning of Corneli∣us••, in this Epistle, is further confirmed, in an Epistle of his to Fabianus, (mentioned by Eusebius, Hist. lib. 6. cap. 35.) in which he objects ignorance to one, who knew not, that there should be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church; Here he means one Bishop in the particular Church of Rome. For a little after, in that Epistle, he affirms, in that same Catholick Church there were fourty six Pres∣byters, seven Deacons and seven sub-deacons; but he could not affirm, that in the whole Catholick Church, there were only so many Presbyters, so many Deacons, and so ma∣ny sub-deacons: whereby it is evident, that by one Bi∣shop, in the Catholick Church, Cornelius, means, there should be but one Bishop in any particular Church; which is so evident, that Chrystopherson, in his version of Euse∣bius, renders these words of Cornelius, his Epistle to Fa∣bian, thus; he was ignorant that there should be but one Bi∣shop (in hac Ecclesia Catholica) in this Catholick Church, viz. in this particular Church of Rome: neither is there any ex∣pression,

more frequent in the writings of those Ancients then to to call every particular Church, the Catholick Church, which observeth the purity of the Catholick Faith, or Church universal.

The fourth passage of Cyprian, is in his 40. Epistle, directed to the people of Carthage, there is one God, one Christ, one Chair, one Church founded upon Peter, by Christs own mouth. But it is answered, it shall be proved in the fol∣lowing Chapters, that those last words are forged; the rest have no difficulty at all: for by one Chair and one Church, Cyprian understands that there should be but one Bishop in every particular Church; as is evident both by the scope and words of the Epistle: the scope of the Epistle is, to com∣plain upon some Schismaticks, who had made a defection from himself, and the Church of Carthage; where amongst other reasons, against their defection, this is one; there is but one Chair, viz. there is but one Bishop in the Cburch of Carthage, Cyprian himself: and since none ought to be acknowledged Bishop but he, they were Schismaticks in making a separation from him. This reasoning of Cypri∣an, had been most ridiculous, if by one Chair he had meaned an oecumenick Bishop, viz. if he had reasoned thus; they are Schismaticks, who made a defection from their Bishop Cyprian; because there is but one oecu∣mentick Bishop.

Secondly, that this is the meaning of Cyprian, appears by the following words, where Cyprian affirms, they had made to themselves another Altar, intimating thereby, that there is but one Altar in the Church: whereby it is evi∣dent, that he speaks not of the Church universal••, but of a particular Church, since none will affirm, that there is but one Altar in the Catholick Church▪ Likewise•• in his 65. Epistle, pleading the cause of Rogatianus, he af∣firms,

that they who make a defection from the Church, make another Altar unto themselves: but Pamelius him∣self, in his Annotations upon that Epistle, observes, that Cyprian in that place, is speaking only of parti∣cular Churches.

Thirdly, that by one Chair cannot be meaned 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 su∣premacy. But the impudence of Costerus is very great, for Cyprian in that whole Epistle, disputes with such vehe∣mency, 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 al∣so 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-baptiz∣ed, 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-bap∣tized. 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 re∣lates, consult. art. 7. when Cyprian sent messengers to Ste∣phanus, he not only re••used them audience, but also in∣hibited the Clergy of Rome, to admit any of them to their houses.

By which passage of Cyprian with Stephanus it ap∣pears, 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, him∣self: 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 be∣fore. For in his Epistle 68. he stoutly opposeth, the re∣stitution of Basilides, and the deposition of Sabinus; not∣withstanding, 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 supre∣macy 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, cor∣rupted by the Popes authority or otherwayes: we will dis∣course 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 de∣cretal Epistles of any Popes before him: whereby it evident∣ly 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 al∣though Paul did forbid affected eloquence, yet he did not pre∣scrive 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 barba∣rismes, you have everywhere, such expressions as those folow∣ing, Rigorosus tortor, dependere obtemperantiam: agere indis∣ciplinate; 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, not∣withstanding, 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 on∣ly by the stile, but by the matter contained in them: It were prolix to mention all; we will only note some few, suffi∣ciently demonstrating those decretals to be forged. First, some of them are directed to those who were dead long be∣fore; 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 Alexan∣dria, 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 Autho∣rity of Clement Bishop of Rome: but Maxentius both a Pa∣gan, and a Tyrant, cared nothing for Clement at all. 5. Ze∣phyrinus 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 Eu∣sebius,

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. Its known, that many ceremonies came by degrees in the Church, and that there were very few ceremo∣nies in the Church, the time of those Bishop of Rome: but those decretal••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 An∣tioch, 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 Ae∣neas Silvius (epist. 301. according to Bellarmines supputati∣on, 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 Sil∣vius, was afterwards Pope himself, under the name of Pius

second. Whence we conclude, that those Epistles were un∣known 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 al∣though Ruffinus, turned them from Greek to Latine, it doth not prove, they are Authentick. He tu••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 in∣terval, 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 legis∣lative power, and Posnan also, thes. 131. alledge a passage of Eu∣sebius, viz. that lent fast of 40 dayes was instituted by Telespho∣rus 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 Eusebi∣us;

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 con∣trary, 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 him∣self.

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.