Sure and honest means for the conversion of all hereticks and wholesome advice and expedients for the reformation of the church / writ by one of the communion of the Church of Rome and translated from the French, printed at Colgn, 1682 ; with a preface by a divine of the Church of England.

CHAP. II. (Book 2)

That the Primitive Church knew not the Papacy. The Vani∣ty of some Humane Reasons, by which for want of the Scri∣ptures and the Fathers they would establish it.

LET us now see if the Primitive Church did acknowledg a power in the Church like to that of the Popes. Altho that which hath been already alledged from the Holy Fathers proves sufficiently, that they knew not the Papacy, let us however exa∣mine the thing a little more particularly. We are told then that St. Peter was Head of the Church, that he was at Rome, that he was a Bishop there, that he died there, that he resigned that Charge of Head of the Church, and of Bishop, but not that of an Apostle to a Successor; which Successor he either chose, or the Church of Rome did it after his death, by the power which he had given her; which things are all of them very difficult to prove, and certainly

very false; for a thing of this consequence ought not to be founded upon conjectures of meer probabilities, but we ought to have as cer∣tain and as exact a knowledg of it as of any other Article of our Religion. And yet we see that they who have spoken of St. Peter's coming to Rome, and of his Death there, have said it upon such mi∣serable grounds, and say so many contradictory things as well of it as of his pretended Successor, that there is nothing more uncertain in all Antiquity. But besides this, none of them ever believed, no nor so much as suspected that St. Pet••r was Head of the Universal Church. And the contradiction and little certain∣ty that is in these Authors, shews sufficiently that in the Primitive times it was not believed that this was necessary to be known; nor did they in the least suspect that ever any body would endeavour to lay upon it the foundation of that horrible Autho••ity which the Popes do Exercise.

To give you some Instances of their Contradictions, I need only to shew you that some say it was Linus who succeeded Peter; others Clement; and lastly, others say it was Anacletus; some will have it that St. Peter founded this Church, and was the first that Preached at Rome. Others maintain, namely Dorotheus, that it was Barnabas. * 1.1 Barnabas primus Romae praedicavit.

And St. Paul shews us clearly that it was he himself who founded that Church; for he complains that coming to Rome, he found that the Jews there, who had embraced Christianity, were but very lit∣tle instructed in the Doctrine of the Christian Religion. Who can believe that if St. Peter had been there, and had founded this Church, he would not have instructed them better? And what is yet more, St. Paul says expresly in another pla••e, that he would not go and preach, wh••re others had preached before him; because he would not build upon the Foundation of others. As for the man∣ner of his Death, some say he was Crucified with St. Paul; Others, that he was beheaded, and Linus the pretended successor of St. Peter, who writes the History of St. Pauls Death, says not one word of St. Peters. St. ‡ 1.2 Hierom though a Roman, and Nicolas de Lyra assures us, that he was Crucified at Hierusalem: And St. Hierom says in another place also, that his Sepulcher is in Hierusalem. Thus we see what reason they have to build an Article of Faith so mon∣strous, as the Popes Supremacy is, upon an imaginary Conjecture, that hath no Foundation that St. Peter was at Rome. But how comes it then to pass, may some say, that many of the Fathers both be∣lieved,

and said, that St. Peter was at Rome? It was, because they did not examine the thing, believing it useless; and they did not for∣see the dreadful Consequences that the Bishops of Rome would draw from it: They grounded it upon that place of St. Peters Epi∣stle, where it is said, the Church which is at Babylon, saluteth you; Interpreting Rome by Babylon, without any reason; because there were two other Babylons, the one in Mesopotamia where Bagdet is; and the other in Aegypt near Memphis, where it is certain there were many Jews who were under St. Peter's Ministry. As for the pretended combat between St. Peter and Simon Magus, the Learned acknowledg that it was but a fiction.

But put the case St. Peter had been at Rome, what advantage can the Bishops of Rome make of it? That he had left at Rome his Charge of Universal Vicar of Jesus Christ? But on what do they found this pretence? If he had done it, it would plainly have been united to his Apostleship, rather than to the quality of a Bishop; and so by consequence could not have been communicated to any other than an Apostle, and so St. James, or St. John, who continued alive long time after him, should have inherited it, and not Linus nor any o∣ther; and they would have transported it to Jerusalem, or to Ephe∣sus, which were their Churches, if the Town of Rome had not had some particular priviledges (which no man knows) that affixed this Dignity to that City, in which case one of these two Apostles ought to have come and resided there. However it is likely that St. James or St. John, who without all controversie lived a great while after him, should rather have succeeded him in this admirable Charge than a simple Priest or Bishop, as Linus. If the City of Rome pretends to derive this Prerogative from St. Peter's having been there, and Preached the Gospel, (which cannot be proved) the Church of Antioch ought to be preferred before it, for it is certain both by the Scriptures and by the Fathers, that he was there, and Preached there before it was possible for him to do it at Rome. And upon this it was that they built that Revelation of the See of Pe∣ter's being removed from Antioch to Rome, which you find in the Decrees of Gratian, in the Epistle of Pope Marcellus (a) 1.3; which Imposture they contrived, because they could find nothing in the Scripture that could favour their pretences. Besides, if St. Peter had had a Successor in this pretended Charge, how comes it to pass that the Primitive Church that compiled the Canon of Books, which ought to regulate the Faith of the Church, hath not comprehended

therein the Works of Linus, or of Clement, who wrote enough, and yet hath inserted those of St. James, and of St. John, who ought to be much inferior in Infallibility, and in Sanctity to the Vicar-General of Jesus Christ upon Earth, and who ought to have been his Subjects, and to have taken the Oath of Fidelity to him as they do at this day to his Holiness? But a man may well wonder that Cle∣ment, who according to some Writers was his Successor, and who, be he what he will, must have lived very near that time, knew no∣thing of it. 'Tis seen by his first Epistle to St. James (a) 1.4 where he terms him Bishop of Bishops; and in another place he brings in St. Peter, saying, Jacobus Episcopus acc••rcitum me inde huc Caesaream mittit. That is to say, That the Bishop James sent him into Caesarea. It is yet a little surprising that the Fath••rs of the Primitive Church who com∣posed the Canon of our Faith, that is the Creed * 1.5; should forget to place after the Catholick Church the Bishop of Rome, who is the Head of it, and without whom as they say it is like a Body with∣out a soul, or a Vessel exposed to the tempest without a Pilot. That Article doth it self sufficiently exclude all dependance upon any particular See. And the other, I believe the Communion of Saints, doth also establish Jesus Christ the only Head of the Church, and condemns its being subject to an humane Head. And St. Dionysius the Areopagite, or some other of those times who in his name com∣posed a Treatise of the Hierarchy, and says not one word of a Bi∣shop of Bishops, and Head of the Church, shews that in those times people did not believe that the Hierarchy could not subsist without him. Saint Gregory also Bishop of Rome was whol∣ly ignorant of these pretended Priviledges of his Bishoprick; for he acknowledges in his Register to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, that the Bishops of Alexandria and of Antioch, are Successors of St. Peter, and that they sit in the Chair of Peter as well as the Bishops of Rome. Nor was Irenaeus any more perswaded that the Bishops of Rome alone had this advantage, when having reproved Victor Bishop of Rome, who by a ridiculous rashness had Excommunicated for a matter of small importance all the Churches of Asia, (which was concerning the difference of the day whereon Easter was to be kept) he says to him (b) 1.6, Presbyteri Ecclesiae cui nunc praesides, Anicetum dicimus, Ejum, Hyginum, Telesphorum & Christum; neque ipsi sic observarunt, neque posteris suis sic praeceperunt.

Observe by the way the modesty of the Bishops of those times, they affected no other quality than that of Priest, as we also see in

the Gospel that Bishops are there sometimes called Priests: It was not in contempt that St. Ireneus called them so, but because that in those blessed times the Bishops were humble, and were ambitious of no other Title. But now-a-days a Priest is called, My Lord Abbot, an Abbot takes the Arms of a Bishop, a Bishop of a Cardinal, a Cardinal equals himself to Princes, and will even take the place of them. And the Bishops of Rome (who in those times were hum∣ble, and desired no other Crown than that of Martyrdom) now raise themselves above Soveraigns, Kings and Emperors, wear a Triple Crown which these Villains called Il Regno, for a mark of their Royalty, tread even Emp••rors under their feet, make them kiss their Slippers, and treat them like fools.

Cardinal Cusan confirms to us what St. Gregory said before (a) 1.7, In Cathedra Petri, says he, Patriarchae leguntur sedisse, Romanus, Alexan∣drinus, & Antiochenus, & cum illis omnes subjecti Episcopi; that is to say, We read that the three first Patriarchs who sat in the Chair of Peter, were he of Rome, he of Alexandria, and he of Antioch, and with them all the Bishops who were under them. Let a man read the Writings of Gregory, of Gelasius, and of Leo, who were all Popes, and he shall see that they all acknowledg that all good Bishops are Successors of St. Peter; and altho they sometimes failed not to demonstrate suffi∣ently their Ambition, and the desire they had to make the other Bi∣shops their subjects, yet it was not in quality of Heads of the Church, much less by vertue of any Text of Scripture. And we find not that for the first six Centuries any man dared to bring so much as one passage of Scripture to establish the Primacy of the Bishoprick of Rome, * 1.8 St. Ambrose is not at all favourable to them, when he says, Primatus Petri, Confessionis erat, non Honoris, fidei non ordinis: That the Primacy of Peter was a Primacy of Confession, and not of Honour••; of Faith, and not of place.

St. Cyprian whom we have already mention'd, says farthermore, in another place, (b) 1.9 Neque enim quisquam nostrum se Episcopum Epis∣coporum constituit ut Tyrannico t••rrore ad Obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigat, cum habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis & Potesta∣tis suae Arbitrium proprium, tanquam judicari ab alio non possit, cum nec ipse possit Alterum judicare sed expectamus Vniversi Judicium D••mini nostri Jesu Christi qui unus & solus habet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Eccle∣siae suae Gubernatione & de Ac••u nostro judicandi. There is n••ne among us who pretendeth to be a Bishop of Bishops, that by a Tyrannical power he may oblige any of his Colleagues to the necessity of being subject to him;

since that every Bishop being his own Master, and independent on any other, cannot be judged by another, nor can he judg another, but we ought all to expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who only hath the power of establishing us over his Church, and of judging of our behaviour in it. (b) 1.10 The same St. Cyprian calleth Stephen Bishop of Rome his Col∣league: Stephanum Collegam nostrum, ut & Cornelium nostrum co-Epis∣copum. And Cornelius our Fellow-Bishop. He speaks of two Bishops of Rome. And in another place he shews that he thought he had as great a share in the Government of the whole Church as the Bishop of Rome. (c) 1.11 Omnes enim, says he, de••et pro corpore totius Ecclesiae, cujus per varias quas{que} Provincias membra digesta sunt, excubare. And in ano∣ther place, (d) 1.12 Divina & Paterna Pietas in nobis Apostolatus ducatum contulit & Vicariam Domini sedem coelesti dignatione ornavit. That is to say, The Goodness of God hath conferred upon us the conduct of the Apo∣stleship; and hath adorned by his Heavenly Grace the deputed See of the Lord which we hold. And furthermore, (e) 1.13 Christus dicit ad Apostolos ac per hos ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicaria Ordinatione succedunt; Qui vos audit me audit. Jesus Christ saith to all the Apostles, and in the persons of them to all Bishops who succeed the Apostles, being their Substi∣tutes by Ordination, Whosoever heareth you, heareth me. He shews in these places, that he pretended that his Church was an Apostolick See, and that he was the Vicar of Jesus Christ as well as the other Bi∣shops (f) 1.14. In his 55 Epistle he says that a man must be a fool or a mad man to believe that the Authority of the Bishops of Africa was less than that of the Bishop of Rome, to whom abundance of profli∣gate wretches did resort that so they might avoid the giving an account of their actions to the Bishops of Africa, and the being pu∣nisht for their crimes.

After his death a Council assembled at Carthage, did ordain (g) 1.15, Vt prima sedis Episcopus non appelletur princeps Sacerdotum aut primus Sacerdos sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus: That the Bishop of the first See ought not to be called Prince or chief of the Priests, or any thing of this kind, but only the Bishop of the first See. And the Council of Nice marking out the bounds of the extent of each Patriarchal See, says thus (h) 1.16, There is an ancient custom whereby the Bishop of Alexan∣dria doth govern all the Diocesses of Egypt, of Lybia, and of Pentapo∣lis, as also it is a long time since that the Bishop of Rome hath presided over those which he now governeth, and so likewise the Bishop of Antioch. Upon which Cardinal Cusan makes this reflexion: (i) 1.17 We see, says he, h••w much the Bishop ••f Rome ha••h gotten against the Holy Constitu∣tions

by the long use of a submission, which hath been given him, and which was not due to him. (a) 1.18 This Decree of the Council of Nice was since confirmed by the Councils of Antioch, of Calcedon, and of Constantinople. Theodoret produceth a Letter of the Council of Con∣stantinople, which sufficiently shews the place which the Bishops of Rome held at that time: it begins thus (b) 1.19, To our most Reverend and dear Brethren and Colleagues, Damasus, Ambrose, Brillo, Valerian, and all the other Holy Bishops assembled together in the Great City. (c) 1.20 Euse∣bius also relates to us another Letter which the Council of Antioch assembled against the Heresie of Paulus of Samosatenus writes to the Bishop of Rome, which begins thus: To Dionysius, to Maximus, and to all those who are Ministers with us: Com-Ministris nostris, through∣out the whole world, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and all the Church under Heaven. Would a man now in good earnest in this corrupt age write thus to our Holy Father the Pope? (d) 1.21 Theodoret relates to us in his Ecclesiastical History, that the Emperour Constantius was very urgent with the Bishop of Rome, Liberius, to embrace the Commu∣nion of the other Churches, which shews that he also knew not that Rome was the Mother of the other Churches. The Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, (e) 1.22 and Theodosius, in the year 380, proposed Rome and Alexandria, for Models of the Orthodox Faith. Or∣daining that all the world should follow the Faith of Damasus Bi∣shop of Rome, and of Peter Bishop of Alexandria. And after the first Council of Constantinople, as tho they would have the Center of Christian Communion in the East only, they order without men∣tioning Rome, that all Churches should be conferred upon those who joyned in Communion with Nectarius Bishop of Laodicea, and Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus, in the Diocess of the East, with Amphi∣lochus Bishop of Iconium, &c. If the Bishops of Asia, of Cilicia, and of Mesopotamia, had believed that the Communion of the Bishop of Rome had been necessary for their Churches, they would never all have been excluded from its Communion, during 140 years, as they were, after that Victor Bishop of Rome had Excommunicated them for a Trifle; for if they had pleased they might have been reconciled to the Church of Rome by submitting to the Laws of that Bishop. (f) 1.23 St. Gregory of Nazianzen writing to the Clergy of the Church of Caesarea in Cappadocia, speaks to them thus: It is just that care should be taken of the whole Church, as of the Body of Jesus Christ, chiefly of yours which hath been from the beginning the Mother of al∣most all the Churches, which is so at this time, and is so esteemed, and to

which the whole body of the Church relates as a Circle does to the Center, round which it is formed, &c. This holy man thought not the Church of Rome was the Center of all the Churches. (a) 1.24 In the Milevi∣tan Council where St. Augustine was present, it was Ordained, That those of Africk who should Appeal to Rome should be Excommuni∣cated: These are the words: We have adjudged that all Priests, Dea∣cons, and other Inferior Ecclesiasticks who shall complain of their Bishops Administration, shall apply themselves to the Neighbouring Bishops, who by the consent of their own Bishops shall decide the Controversie between them: And if they will Appeal from their Opinions, let them not do it, but to the Councils of Africa. And if any man makes his Appeal to any place be∣yond the Seas (here Rome must be understood) let him be looked upon as an Excommunicated person by all Africa (b) 1.25. And since that time the same thing was Ordained in the Council of Africa, and this they give for their reason:

That no Council hath taken away this Authority from the African Councils, and that the Decrees of the Council of Nice have committed as well Priests, as the Bi∣shops to the direction of their Metropolitans: Most prudently and justly providing, that affairs should be determined upon the place where they had their first beginnings; and that no Province would ever want the assistance of the Holy Ghost to discern equity; that any injured person might procure a Council of his own Province, yea and appeal from that to a General one, and a man must be a fool to think that God would not rather inspire with the love and knowledg of Justice, a great number of Pre∣lates assembled in Council, than a single person be he who he will.

What stupidity and dulness is it that hinders Christians in these times from carrying it in the same manner towards Rome? (c) 1.26 And the Council of Constantinople after having limited the bounds of each Patriarchal See, says that the Affairs of every Diocess ought to be Regulated by the Synods of the Diocess, and that in Confirmation of the Fourth Canon of the Council of Nice. (d) 1.27 And in the sixth Canon it doth Enact. That if any man hath been vexed by the Bi∣shop, let him complain of this Bishop to all the other Bishops of the Province; and if these Bishops cannot determine the affair, he ought to apply himself to a greater Synod of Bishops of that Dio∣cess; whereby we see that the Bishop of Rome had in those days no Authority over other Bishops, but that every thing was then Re∣gulated by Councils and by Synods. If an Archbishop, or a Metro∣politan were accused, the Affair was determined by an Assembly of

the Synod of the Diocess; and if any man appealed from thence, it was not to the Bishop of Rome, but to a Synod composed of many Diocesses, which may be seen in the case of Bagadius Bishop of Bostra Metropolitan of Arabia, who having been Deposed by some Bishops of his Province, appealed from them, not to Rome, but to Constanti∣nople, where quickly afterwards was assembled a Synod of many of the Eastern Diocesses, at which Nectarius of Constantinople, Flavian of Antioch, and Theophilus of Alexandria, all three Patriarches assisted; and the case was determined in the year 394, and Bagadius Reestab∣lished in his place. * 1.28 It was the opinion of St. Hierom, tho a Roman, and very zealous for his own Patriarch, That if there be any question concerning Authority, that of the whole world is greater than that of one single City. For what end shall a man alledg the Customs of one only Town? Wheresoever there is a Bishop there is always the same Dignity. Neither Riches nor Poverty making them Superiors or Inferiors. They are all Succes∣sors of the Apostles. (a) 1.29 St. Chrysostom was also of this opinion when he spoke thus: If any Bishop affecteth Supremacy on Earth, he shall find confusion in Heaven. And whosoever shall be ambitious of raising himself a∣bove others, shall not be reckoned among the servants of Jesus Christ. Thus are all the Popes Inclusively Excommunicated by St. Chrysostome, since Boniface the Third; and not only by him, but by the Milevitan Council, by the Council of Sardis, the third Council of Carthage, and another Council held at Carthage at the Instance of Gregory the First, under the Emperor Maurice; all these Councils do Excom∣municate and declare him a forerunner of Antichrist, who shall call himself Universal Bishop. (b) 1.30 St. Gr••gory doth himself abominate the Pride and Impiety of our Popes of these last Ages, when he says, That whosoever shall make himself be called Vniversal Bishop, shall be the forerunner of Antichrist, because he will by his Insolence raise himself above others. (c) 1.31 And in another place speaking to Anastasius Bishop of Anti••ch, he says, That without m••ntioning the dishon••ur that the pride of such a man would do you, If a Bishop should m••ke himself be called Vni∣versal Head of the Chur••h, the whole Church must run to ruin if this Vni∣versal Head sh••uld fall. For my p••rt I pr••y God keep me from hearkening to any such fol••ies, and from b••ing capable of so gre••t •• ••anity, &c.

I should never have done, if I should pretend here to relate all the Evidences of Antiquity, which are contrary to the pretences of the Bishops of Rome for some Ages past. * 1.32 St. Austin tells us a story which I cannot l••t pass, which shews things pretty clearly: He says that Don••••us had accused Cecili••n, Arch-bishop of Carthage, of a great

Crime, and that the Emperor Constantine chose the Bishop of Rome, and several other bishops for Judges of the Affair. Donatus was con∣demned by them, and made his Appeal to the Emperor, who refer∣red the Judgment of his Appeal to Arles. At this Judgment the Bishop of Arles presided, and the Affair was by him determined in favour of Cecilian, and the Judgment given at Rome confirmed. It would be a fine thing now to see the Emperor in an Affair pur••ly Ecclesiastical, as that was, establish the Pope as his Commissary, with other Bishops, and an Appeal made from their sentence before the Emperor, and he should send the cause before another Bishop, to judge definitively of it. I know not after this what Eviden••es I further need to prove the Usurpations which the Popes have made since those times. Christians ought to die in confusion, who want Proofs for a thing as clear as the day, considering the enormi∣ty and exorbitance of the power which these people take upon them. ‡ 1.33 In St. Hilaries days they endeavoured to bring under the Bishops of France, in such sort, that St. Hilary opposed their Ambi∣tion, which made Leo have the Impudence to write of it to the Bi∣shops of the Province of Vienne. However, that did not hinder him from continually attacking him, and his successors, who found opposition enough from time to time, they always gaining the Vi∣ctory: And we have a Letter which the Churches of France and Germany wrote together in the time of King Clouis, to Anastasius the second Bishop of Rome, where we see that they were not satis∣fy'd with the Ambition of that Bishop. * 1.34 It is not, say they, without reason, that the Bishops, it being grounded upon many Authorities, affirm that the Authority of Councils is above that of a Pope. St. Paul the Apostle, who tells us, that we should be his followers, resisted Peter, the first of the Apostles, to his face, because he d••served reproof. For our parts, we understand not this new compassion which the Italian Physicians have for our M••ladies of France. They would cure our Bishops, and are themselves sick of a continued Fever: They are thems••lves blind, and yet th••y off••r us light: They forsake their own Flock, suffering it to wander, and pretend to lead our Pastors in the right way. Th••y would make us be∣lieve, that the Cure for Spiritual Diseases, that is to say, Absolution, is to be found at Rome, &c. But if the Ark of the Covenant should fall in France, it must be our Bishops, and not theirs, that must take it up again. But if they be so rash, as to pretend to touch the Ark of our Church, they only draw evil upon themselves, as well as Uzzah the Levite. Let th••m fairly unde••stand this Syl••ogism; If th••r•• be but one ••nly power in all Bishops,

it is also in one person alone: Now there is one and the same power in all Bi∣shops; therefore it resides also in one single person.

But let us here observe by the by, how much the Germans and French are degenerated from that Piety and Love for the Liberty which Jesus Christ hath acquired for his Church.

It is certain, that Bishops were always equal in the first Ages of the Church: It was some time after the Death of St. Cyprian, before they thought of establishing in every Province one Bishop above the rest: They thought it would be advantagious for removing the dis∣order that sprung up sometimes among them for concurrence and presidency. He resided in the Capital City, and was called the Metropolitan. At first he had no Authority over the others, but on∣ly the place; but afterwards they conferred upon them the power of consecrating Bishops of the Province, because they dwelt in the Capital Ciiy, where every body came about their Affairs. And it is from thence that Bishops became subject to their Metropolitans, and have been distinguished from them by the Ordination which they receive from them. These Metropolitans were called in the West Arch-bishops; After this there was given them the power of calling Provincial Synods, who for that Reason were assembled al∣ways in the Capital City. That was brought in at first only as a Custom, and because it looked as though the state of the Civil Go∣vernment did require it. But at length this Custom was con∣firmed by the Decrees of the Council of Nice, and became a Law. After that, for the maintenance of Unity among the Churches of divers Provinces, it was further thought requisite to establish Ex∣archs, or Primates over these Arch-bishops, according to the Idea of the Civil Government. These Primates were the Bishops of the chief City of some great Province, or of a Diocess that compre∣hended many Provinces. At first they acknowledged no Superior, but by little and little, they of Constantinople, of Antioch, of Alex∣andria, and lastly, he of Rome, did first attempt their Rights; and after came the Council of Calcedon, who established over these Me∣tropolitans four Patriarchs, of Rome, of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of Constantinople, to whom afterwards he of Jerusalem was also add∣ed, for the Honour of that City; but he lasted not long. The two principal were he of Rome, and he of Constantinople, because those were two Seats of the Empire, and at last they took upon them the Quality of Oecumenical Bishops against all Reason, Divine, or Humane, and against the Decrees of many Councils. Since those times every thing hath gone worse and worse.

It is no hard matter to prove, that the Presidence of the Bishop of Rome was purely in consideration of the Dignity of that City: † 1.35 The Second Canon of the Council of Constantinople shews it suffici∣ently; where it is said, That the Bishops who are established over a Diocess, shall not go beyond the bounds which have been set them; but that the Bishop of Constantinople shall have the Honour of the Primacy, after the Bishop of Rome, and not before him, because that City is not so ancient as that of Rome. After the same manner the 9th Canon of the Council of Antioch ordains, That the Bishops of great Cities shall have the pre-eminence, because all men of business repair to the Capital City. † 1.36 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

* 1.37 And the Council of Calcedon, in its 16th Act, gives no other Reason for the City of Rome's having the first place. The Fathers, says this Council, have also given these Priviledges to the See of Old Rome, by reason of the Empire of that City, &c. And for this very reason they have given the same priviledges to the most Holy See of New Rome, judging very rati••nally, that a City honoured by the Sena••e and the Empire, ought to enjoy the same priviledges as the Ancient Rome, and have the same pre-eminence in Eccl••siastical Affairs, and be the second after her. ‡ 1.38 And the Council of Turin, in its first Chapter, hath these words, That Bishop who can prove that his City is the Capital of the wh••le Province, let him have the honour of the Primacy, and the Faculty of conferring Or∣ders upon others. And we must not judge of this matter by what we now see: For Example, That Paris and London, which are the Capital Cities of two great States, have not the Primacy over the other Bishops of these Kingdoms: for besides that they here re∣ceived the Christian Faith later than the others did; the Court of Rome, and its Favourers, have managed this very politickly, not suffering that any great City shoul•• have this Honour, lest the Bi∣shop of it should become their Rival, and should cast off their yoke; as we see, they had all the difficulty in the World, to subdue the great City of Milan: ‖ 1.39 For in the year 1059. Nicholas the Second, having sent thither Peter Damien, Bishop of Ostia, to make them lay aside the Ambr••sian Service, and take up the Roman; both the Cler∣gy and People answered vigorously, That they had never been sub∣ject to the Roman Laws, and that the Bishop of Rome had nothing to do to meddle with what concerned them: That it would be a thing unworthy of their Church, which had been always free, to become subject, by their own cowardize, to another Church; and

that if they did it, it would bring an eternal shame upon them. It is true, the Cardinal did corrupt the Arch-bishop, who received the Roman Service; but the Clergy and the People soon shook off the Yoke, till Gregory the Seventh's time, who by cunning practices, and by cruelty, oppressed them. * 1.40 In the same manner, at Toledo, the Popes were forced to shed a great deal of blood, before they could compel that Town to receive the Roman Service; and at last, to appease the People, they were forced to allow, that they should retain the Gallican Service in Six Parishes of the City of Toledo. Ra∣venna also resisted for some time couragiously, because they had ta∣sted somewhat of their Spiritual, as well as of their Temporal Do∣minion. We see it by the 54th Epistle of Adrian, Ad Carolum Mag∣num de Leone Episcopo Ravennate qui non vult Obedire Adriano. His Pre∣decessor Sergius had done the same thing, and so did John, his Suc∣cessor, and many others. See Cardinal D' Ailly, in his book of the Reformation. Guicciardin also confirms it: The Church of Ravenna, says he, disputed with Rome for the Primacy, because the Seat of Religion hath been accustomed to follow the Power of the Empire and its Arms; which, by the way, also proves the Usurpations of the Bi∣shops of Rome. Durand also tells us, That Charlemayne was intreat∣ed by the Pope Adrian, to abolish the Ambrosian Service throughout all Germany and France, and that he found great resistance, as against an unheard of Tyranny. The Emperor, says he, did compel all the Ec∣clesiasticks, both by Threats and Punishments, to burn the Books of the Am∣brosian Service. He could not force the Men of Milan to it, who yet kept it near 300. years. And we see in the 6th Chapter of the Capitularies of Charlemayne, that this Emperour made this Ordi∣nance in the Year 806, that the Service should be sung in Churches, according to the Use and Custom of the Roman Church. These Villains, who owe so much to this Emperour, make but very little acknowledgment, and have shewed but small consideration to his descendants.

I do not think it necessary to prove, that the Bishops of Rome presided in the Councils, no more than other Bishops; that it was the Emperours who called the Councils, that were to approve, and make them to be observed. There is no man but knows that our Kings have assembled many, and have presided in them, even when the Bishop of Rome hath had a Deputy, or Legate present. We have a remarkable Example in the History of the Gallican Councils, which it were to be wished, that our great King would follow; * 1.41 that is, of

the Council of Leptine, assembled in the Name of Carloman, Duke and Prince of the Francks, under Chilperie the third. First of all, you there see that it was Carloman who presided, though the Bishop of Rome had his Deputy there present. See how he there speaks: In the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, I Carloman, Duke and Prince of the Francks, in the Year from the Incarnation 742, the Second of the Ca∣lends of May, have assembled a Council, by the advice of the Servants of God, and the Lords of our Court, that is to say, Boniface, and Burchard, Bishops, with their Clergy, to advise concerning means whereby the Law of God, and the Ecclesiastical Religion, which is fallen to decay in these latter Ages, may be re-established, and how Christian People may attain to the Sal∣vation of their Souls, and not be destroyed by the deceits of false Teachers.

This is a true Idea of the present State of the Church; but with this difference, that the disorder is now much greater; and would it would please God to touch the heart of some great Prince in our days, to do as Carloman did. Under the same King Chilperie, Pepin, who was yet only Duke of the Francks, called also another Council at Soissons, where he also presided: The Preface begins thus, I Pepin: And at the end it is said, Whosoever shall contradict these Decrees, Esta∣blished by 23. Bishops, and other Servants of God, by and with the consent of Prince Pepin, and of the Lords of France, shall be judged either by the Prince, or by the Bishops: And the Council is signed, Pepin. The Bi∣shop of Rome is no more mentioned in all this, than the Mufti, though they were already arrived to a great height, because it was near two hundred years since they had been declared Heads of the Church by the Emperor Phocas. The first who took upon him this Quality, was one B••niface the third, who for having protected Phocas, who had killed the Emperor Maurice, to settle himself in his place, was by him, in recompence, honoured with the Title of Universal Bishop. Many Authors do relate the History of it, but one only shall suffice, who is Beda, ‖ 1.42 who reports, Phocam Imperatorem rogante Bonifacio se∣cundo, Gregorii M••gni Successore statuisse sedem Romanae, & Apostolicae Ecclesiae Caput esse Omnium Ecclesiarum, quia Constantinopolitana Pri∣mam se Omnium Eccl••si••rum scribebat. And since that time they are become the Vicars General of Jesus Christ upon Earth, because they are the worthy Successors of Simon Magus, who as St. Epipha∣nius reports, ‡ 1.43 pretended to be the Vicar of Christ. And the Di∣vine Power, for the Government of the Church. Being thus far ad∣vanced, no man need wonder that they govern the Church so well: for as Tacitus observes ‖ 1.44 Ne•••• ••nquam Imperium flagitio quaesitum bonis

Artibus Exercuit. Since this Consecration of Phocas, they have al∣ways had the Wind in their Stern, and Fortune hath by little and little greatly advanced them: They were never at a loss to find peo∣ple who would assist them to get a share in the Plunder. Prima Prin∣cipatus initia, Ardua ubi sis ingressus, adesse Studia & Ministros. And I may say that which the same Tacitus says in an other place, with re∣spect to the Ancient Grandeur of Rome, That Fortune prepared them in many places of the World means and occasions of establish∣ing their Empire: ‖ 1.45 Struebat jam Fortuna in diversa parte Terrarum, ini∣tia causus{que} Imperio, (Papatui.) It is now not very long since that the Emperors did elect and depose the Popes: They made use of them in their Affairs; in Embassies; they punished them when they had committed any Crime, and sometimes even with Death. Theodorie, King of Italy, for Example, sent John, Bishop of Rome, in an Em∣bassy to the Emperor Justinian; and having afterwards re-called him, he put him to death in Prison. * 1.46 Belisarius, Lieutenant of the Emperor Justinian, in the year 538, drove away Silverius, Bi∣shop of Rome, and put Vigil in his place, whom he afterwards drew through the Town with a Rope about his Neck, as Platina ‖ 1.47 relates. In the year 654, the Emperor Constantine bound the Pope Martin in Chains, and sent him away in Exile to Chersona, where he died. In the year 963, the Emperor Otbo deposed Pope John the 12th. In the the year 1007, Henry the Second deposed Three Popes, Benet the Ninth, Sylvester the Third, and Gregory the Sixth. We see by the Authentick of Justinian, that the Popes paid to the Emperors, as to their Soveraigns, Twenty Pounds of Gold for their Investiture ‡ 1.48 And Pope Adrian himself, and also Leo the Eighth, do confess, that the Emperor Charlemayne had the Authority of Electing Popes ‖ 1.49.

Why is it not so now? It is because the Popes have by a thousand Cheats ruined the Roman Emperors, and are become more mighty then they, as well by the desolation of the Empire, which they have rent in pieces, as by the Conquests which they have made in Italy, and by the Usurpations which they yet make upon what re∣mains to the Emperor, in debauching part of his Subjects, who swear Fidelity and Obedience to them, even against the Emperor himself, and by holding in Captivity their Consciences, by means of the Monks, to make them do what they please in favour of the Pope; not to mention how they drain his Country, as well as others, trafficking with Princes and their Subjects, in almost the same man∣ner as is usual with some people of the Ind••es, to whom they give

Pins, and pieces of Glass for their Pearls and Gold. After this manner they draw to them all our Substance; and we are, at least, as simple as these poor people.

Some body in Tacitus complains, That the Money went out of Rome for Diamonds; and that ••trangers and Enemies made advan∣tage by it: ‡ 1.50 Pecuniae nostrae lapidum causa ad Exteras & Hostiles Gentes transeunt. We have now so much more reason to make this Com∣plaint, as Diamonds are better worth than Bulls and Dispensations of our Most Holy Father the Pope.

Bonif••ce the Third, as I have already said, having been made Uni∣versal Head of the Church by Phocas, this power increased prodigi∣ously in a little time: † 1.51 This good Pope presently called together some Ecclesiasticks of his Faction, in a Synod, who confirmed to him the Title of Head of the Church. After him, his Successors, taking advantage of the weakness of the Greek Emperors, and of the distractions of Italy, they established and augmented their Au∣thority more and more; and the Exarchat of Ravenna, having been ruined by the Lombards, the Spiritual Power of that City fell as a prey into the hands of the Bishops of Rome, who, seeing none in Italy but the Lombards, who could disturb him, plaid a cunning trick to draw to them out of France, Pepin, Son of Charles Martel; it was by sending him Letters brought from Heaven to the Holy Father, which promised Pepin an assured Victory over the Lombards. Pepin gave credit to this Letter, came and defeated the Lombards; pursu∣ant to which, His Holiness, Pope Zachary, the worthy Successor of Boniface the Third, very honestly dispenced with Pepin's Oath of Al∣legiance, which he owed to King Chilperic, and crowned him King of France; and at the same time dispenced with all the French for their Obedience due to their lawful Prince. Pepin then in acknow∣ledgment of this, gave them the Exarchat of Ravenna, with many Cities and Priviledges, reserving to himself only the Soveraignty, and the Right of Electing Popes, which, as History testifieth, his Successors enjoyed long after him.

Nor had any of their Bishops any need of Bulls, or to pay Tri∣bute to the Popes, being elected by the Clergy and the People, inve∣sted by the Prince, who alone assembled * 1.52 Councils, and made Regu∣lations in Ecclesiastical things. And when the Popes encroached farther than they had to do, we see that the Churches of Germany, and of France, had yet courage enough to oppose their Enterprises. And we find that in the year 991. the Counc•••• assembled at Reimes

under Hugh Capet, deposed one Arnoulph, Arch-bishop of Rheimes, in spite of the Pope; and when he complained of it, they asked him for what ••eason they should prefer his Apostleship before others? ‖ 1.53 Vt sciamus & intelligamus cur inter caeteros Apostolatum vestrum praeferre debeamus. And in the 28th Chapter of the same Council, What would Laws signifie, if all were to be governed by one Man's Humour?

In the greatest prosperity of Rome, when it was the Seat of the Empire, and Bishops were men of Merit, the Gelasiuses, the Grego∣ries, and the Leoes, the Afr••cans would not give them the Priviledge of Appeals; how much less ought we to do it now? Compare our times with theirs. It is true, that notwithstanding the Protesta∣tions which were every where made against the Ambition of the Bi∣shops of Rome, yet they still gained ground; and at length, having gotten, either by some trick, or by open violence, not only the Exar∣chat of Ravenna, but Benevento, and Ferrara, and what they call the Pa∣trimony of St. Peter, having made themselves absolute Masters of the Town of Rome, they were no longer afraid to declare open War a∣gainst the Emperours. And this it was which made Guicciardin say in two places, Jam ita se gerunt ut Authoritatis ponti••iciae videatur Leges dare potius quam accipere Terrorem armo••um Coelestium in res caducas vertunt. Tandem non erga Deum & Homines Charitas, sed Exercitus, sed bella in Christianos horum Curae & Ludicra; jam per multos annos beliorum Autho∣res, incendiorum Faces, &c. Now they behave themselves as though it were a part of the Popes Authority to give Laws, not to receive them. They turn the Terror of Heavenly Weapons on Worldly Affairs; now not love to God and Man, but Armies and Wars a∣gainst Christians, are their care and sport. For many years they have been Authors of Wars, &c.

‖ 1.54 Aventin gives us an account of a Letter which the Emp••ror Bar∣berossa wrote in the year 1150. to the Princes of Germany, which saith expresly, That the Popes being increased in Wealth and Digni∣ty, by means of him and his Predecessors, apply themselves with all diligence to dethrone Kings and Princes, and cannot suffer an Equal: That they were busied both Night and Day, not so much to destroy him, as the Sacred Empire. After they had oppressed the Head of it, they affect not only Domination, but Divinity it self, and will not be feared and adored less than God: And that the Christian Religi∣on hath no greater Enemies than they.

But he who of all the Popes gave the most mortal blow to the Church, and to the Authority of Christian Princes, was Gregory the Seventh, and that by three Devilish means: First of all by Depo∣sing the Emperor Henry the Fourth, which caused the ruin of the Western Empire; for since that time it hath been torn into many little States, and weak Principalities, which the Popes have play∣ed with at their pleasure, as well in Germ••ny, as in Italy. Only our Country of France hath maintained it self against all their endea∣vours, without being divided, and hath still kept some small Re∣mains of Liberty, which they daily attempt to rob us of. The se∣cond device was to engage Princes, and great men, and those who were very rich, in the Croisadoes and Expeditions of the Holy Land, and to make them take the Cross; which besides the vast Treasures which the Popes got by it, augmented greatly their Authority; for from hence they invented Indulgences, from whence the Court of Rome hath drawn unspeakable Advantages as well in Riches, as in Authority. The third was by introducing neatly under the pretence of ignorance, and the weakness of Princes, the use of Cardinals of divers Nations, in the Election of the Pope; for by this these Nations are for the Spiritual ••art become subject to the See of Rome, the Clergy and people of R••me, as well as the Empe∣rors, have lost the Right of Electing the Bishop. All these States have thought that the Bishop of Rome was greater than another Bishop, and that they had great Interest in his Election; and the Popes have gotten many Creatures in all these States. It is true, that at this time they are almost all Italians, because they have of late so well bridled all these Countries by the Infinite number of their Monks, and by many other Inventions that they now fear not their casting off the yoke.

After that Henry the Fourth had been Deposed, and the Right of Investing Bishops taken from him, the Successors of this Gregory pretended that the Ecclesiasticks were exempt from all Jurisdiction and power of ••ecular Princes, even in Civil Affairs. And besides that, that the Bishop of Rome could D••pose Kings, if they did not submit to all his Orders; and to fortifie this, came forth the Decre∣tals of many Popes, of which these people at last made so good use to compose their Bull de Caena Domini, and the Directory of the Inquisitors.

But, say they, all this does not hinder the Bishop of Rome from being Head of the Church, for we see that the Laws and

Rules, and Roman Discipline, have been followed by the other Churches. It is true, that in the West, as there was no other Patriarchal See, and as in most places thee Christian Faith had been received by means of the Roman Chur••h, the wo••ld had a great respect for it; and be••ides, it was by reason of the Dignity of this City. As in France we always consult the Sorbonne at Paris concern∣ing matters of Religion; not that for this reason the other Uni∣versities or Churches depend upon it. But it is false, that all Chri∣stians, or the greatest part of them have received the Rules and Discipline of Rome. The Greek Churches never owned them, nor any of those who are in Asia, or in Africa, as the Armenian, the Ethiopian and others. And what we have already alledged from many of the Fathers and Councils, from the Gallican Church▪ from the Churches of Ravenna, Milan and Toledo, who with so much difficulty received the Roman Office, even in the Eleventh Century, shews sufficiently that they had no dependance on the Bishop of Rome. I could bring a thousand other proofs did I not fear being too tedious to the Reader. * 1.55 Aventin relates that Gregory the Se∣cond sent one Winefred towards the Countries lying upon the Rhine to reform the Churches there, and to set them on the Roman bot∣tom; but that they vigorously opposed him and many Bishops, called him the Author of Lyes, and corrupter of the Christian Faith. † 1.56 In the first Tome of the Councils we have a Letter of Damasus Bishop of Rome, to Hierome a Priest, where we find these words, which do sufficiently confute the pretences of our people: I intreat, Brother, thy charity to send us the Greek Psalter, with the Notes by which they sing them. These are the words, Peto charitatem tuam ut Graecorum Psallentiam ad nos dirigere tua Fraternitas delectetur. For, adds he, we are so simple that upon Festival days we do nothing but read a Chapter in the Epistles, or in the Gospel, and we have no custom of singing Psalms, nor is the Grace and Glory of Hymns to be found in our mouths. Observe these words, Charitas tua, and Fraternitas tua, from a Bi∣shop of Rome to a Priest, and how far they were from endeavour∣ing to make other Churches subject to their Laws, since that on the contrary they did correct their own faults by the good exam∣ple of others. ‖ 1.57 We find also at the end of St. Gregory's Works, that about the year 593, he sent a Monk called Austin into England, who passing through France, was surprized to see there another manner of Divine Service than he had seen in Italy, with Cere∣monies quite different; that when he wrote to Gregory, he asked

him how it came to pass that since there was but one Faith, the customs of Churches were so different, and that the custom and manner of Masses was not the same at Rome as in France? To which St. Gregory answered, You know, Brother, what is the custom of the Roman Church, wherein you have been educated. But my opinion is, that if you find any thing, be it in the Roman Church, or the Gallican, or in any other which may be more agreeable to God, you should pr••f••r it; for we ought not to love the things for the places, but the places for the good things we find in them.

* 1.58 There are some people also who would make an advantage of this that the Church of Rome is by the Fathers called the Aposto∣lick See. In truth as the Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses, as our Sa∣viour says, so do the Bishops of Rome also ••it upon the Seat of the Apostles. But it is certain, that the other Bishops who teach the Doctrine of the Apostles, and imitate their example, are more A∣postolick than they. You must know that all the Churches founded by the Apostles were honoured with this Title, and particularly famous and Metropolitan Cities, which were looked upon as the Mothers of other Churches, tho sometimes they had embraced Christianity after others that were less considerable, because there Resided the Civil, which drew after it the Eccl••siastical Jurisdicti∣on. And because there were many in the East where Christians were far more numerous than on this side, none of those Churches ever raised it self above the others; but in the West there being but one, which was the Roman, and no other having been since erect∣ed, tho the Germans, Spaniards, French, and oth••r Nations have embraced the Christian Religion since those times, yet Rome alone hath had this Glorious Title, and the others have had great respect for it, without any manner of d••pendance on it however at the beginning, as hath already been shewed. But that hindereth not but that other Orthodox Church••s may also have it; consult Ter∣tullian, (a) 1.59 he says that all Churches that follow the Faith of the Apostles, are Apostolick. And Pope Pelagius confirms the same thing, (b) 1.60 Whensoever, says he, there ariseth any question in peoples minds con∣cerning an Vniversal Synod, let those who love their own Salvation, consult the Apostolick Sees, that they may learn the reason of what they understand not. (c) 1.61 And St. Austin speaking of Cecilian Bishop of Carthage, con∣demned by the Donaetists, before whom he refused to answer, says that he might reserve the whole cognizance of the thing to the judgment of his other fellow Bishops, chiefly those of Apostolick

Sees. We have seen already that the Council of Rheimes assembled under Hugh Capet, says that the Apostleship of the Bishop of Rome is not to be pr••ferred before that of other Bishops, and so his See is no more Apostolick. (d) 1.62 Apol••inaris gives this account of the Apostleship to Fontelus Bishop of Vaison; and says also, that the Bishop Tricassin lived forty years in an Apostolick See. (e) 1.63 Gr••gory of Tours calleth the Church of Bourdeaux an Apostolick See. The Council of Antioch assembled against Paulus Samosatensis calleth the Church of Antioch the Church Catholick. We have, say they, been obliged to give unto the Catholick Church another Bishop in the room of this Heretick. (f) 1.64 Nevertheless this Catholick Church was not subject to the Bishop of Rome no more than Cecilian Bishop of Car∣thage, of whom the Emperor Constantine also said, that he presided over the Church Catholick (g) 1.65.

(h) 1.66 As for the quality of Bishop of Bishops, which the Popes take upon themselves, and which the Fathers have sometimes given to the Bishops of Rome, it is like that of King of Kings, in regard of those who had Kings under them. The Metropolitans who were the first Bishops were thus called. Chrysostome is called Father of the Fathers, and Teacher of the whole World by the Emperors Theodo∣sius. (i) 1.67 And Sydonius calls Lupus Tricassin Bishop of Trequier, Fa∣ther of Fathers, and Bishop of Bishops. He also calls one Graecus Massiliensis Bishop of Marseilles by the same name, and gives also the Title of Soveraign Pontife, even to those sort of Bishops, and to Aegrotius Bishop of Sens, and to Fontelus Bishop of Vaison. * 1.68 He says in another place, that Evatrix King of the Goths having subdued all Aquitain, killed all the Soveraign Pontifes that were there, and that there were no other Bishops establi••hed in their stead. k 1.69 The same Author calls also Mamereus Bishop of Vienne Soveraign Pontife. (l) 1.70 And there also speaking of Lupus Bishop of Trequier, he says, he is the fir••t Bishop of the Habitable Earth. This same Sydonius having been chosen by the Clergy of Bourges, to Elect, and in the presence of the Archbishop of Sens to establish a Bishop at Bourges; says, You have gi••en me this Commission to Elect a Bishop in the presence of our most Holy Father the Pope, a man m••st worthy of the Soveraign Priesthood. Praesente sacro sancto Papa Pontificatu summo Dignissimo. So he calls Aegrotius Bishop of Sens, and not the Pope of Rome. (m) 1.71 We see also that St. Ignatius acknowledges no Dignity above that of a Bi∣shop. Honour the Bishop as being the chief Priest, wh•• beareth the Image of God. (n) 1.72 And Pope L••o acknowledgeth that above a Bishop there

is no other degree. The Poet Fortunatus gives St. Germain Bishop of Paris, the Title of High Priest (o) 1.73.

Pontifici summo nos commendare Precamur, Regibus & Dominis forte salutis opus.

As for the word Pope which these people have affected to distin∣guish themselves by from other Bishops; it is like the word Legate or Nuncio, which they give to their Embassadors and Envoys in∣stead of using the ordinary Terms; these are singular marks of vanity and pride, which however have their effect on silly people, who imagin by these words that the Pope is a man of a quite dif∣ferent kind from others. You must know that this word in its Ori∣ginal signifies no other thing than a Priest or Bishop; and that it was common heretofore to all people of this Character, and even now at this day they are so called in Greece, and also in Germany, and the Motto of the Duke of Brunswick, who stiled himself Gottes, friend; and Paepsten fiend, signifies no less that he was an enemy to Priests than to Popes. We see in the Life of St. Cyprian, writ∣ten by Pontianus a Deacon, that he is there called Pope. (p) 1.74 And in the Epistle of the Roman Clergy to St. Cyprian, there are these words, Cypriano Papae, to Pope Cyprian; and at length, We desire thee most H••ly and most Glorious Pope. And in the Epistle of Calerin, which is the 89th. in Cyprian, The most Holy Pope Cyprian. And Ischy∣ras writing to Athanasius, says thus, Beato Papae Athanasios: To the blessed Pope Athanasius, Greeting. I need not bring any more proofs, since Baronius himself doth acknowledg and attest that this name (q) 1.75 had been common to all Bishops until the year 1070, that Gregory the Seventh, that Able Pope whom we have already mentioned, forbad it to be given to any other Bishop than he of Rome.

As for the Cardinals who are in no other See than that of Rome, they in my opinion give so little advantage to it above the Sees of other Bishops, speaking like a Christian, that they do abase and make it infinitely less than others. For what are these people? They are worldly men, Epicures, people of pride, vanity and prodigi∣ous expence; there are but few of them who devour less than Three hundred thousand Livres (r) 1.76 a year after an Infamous man∣ner; and it was not without reason that the Emperor Sigismond re∣presented to the Council of Constance, that they were good for no∣thing

in the Church, and their Dignity ought to be supprest. And of latter days even in the Council of Trent there were men bold enough to propose the abolishment of this Dignity, or else to re∣duce them to their first Functions of Curates. As also the Gallican Church demanded in its Remonstrances to the Council of Constance, Domini Cardinales: My Lords, the Cardinals, say they, are Curates of the Parish Churches of Rome, and in this respect are they called Cardinals; that is to say, th•• chief of Principals (s) 1.77. And according to this Insti∣tution their chief duty is and ought to be to hear Conf••ssions, Preach and Baptise. Besides there were many other Churches who as well as Rome had such like Priests as the Cardinals. We see it by a Brief of the Gallican Chur••h under Charles the Fifth (t) 1.78, It is not only Rome, says this Brief, which hath Cardinals, but there are many other Churches who have them, as that of Ravenna, and who call them Cardinals who have the chief Employments in the Church. And so it was in many other Churches, Kingdoms and Provinces. And the Cardinals were in those times under the Bishops, as may be seen by the (u) 1.79 Chroni∣cle of the Abby of St. Jean de Vignes at Soissons, where Theobald Bi∣shop of Soissons is brought in speaking of the Curate of St. John de Vignes, and says, Presbiter vero Cardinalis, ipsius ejusdem loci, mihi de more & Archidiacono de Cura Parochianorum reddat rationem. That is to say, That the Cardinal-Priest of this Parish ought according to the custom to give an account of his Parishioners to me, and to the Arch-Deacon. The same Author called Le Gris, a Canon Regular of St. Augustin, says, That there were Twelve Curates at Soissons, who time out of mind had been called Cardinals; and it was the same thing in many other places of France. And we read in Pasquier that in a Council held at Metz under Charlemagne, it was ordained, (x) 1.80 Vt Titulos Cardinales in Vrbibus vel Suburbiis constitutos honestissime & Canonice retractatione or∣dinent & disponant * 1.81. That the Bishops should ordain and dispose the Title of Cardinals Honestly, and Canonically, in Cities and Suburbs.

If this name and dignity be to be esteemed so highly in the Church, it would be very easie to make as many as one would in France without the Bishop of Rome his consent, since that ev••ry Bi∣shop hath the power of making them, and without being Reor∣dained there is no Priest who doth now officiate, who may not be a Cardinal when you please. Thus this signifies nothing, no more than the other things which have been already confuted, to prove that the Popes Authority is Divine, since the S••ripture and the whole Primitive Church are against it.

But I must here also answer one Humane Reason which they make use of to throw dust in our eyes;* 1.82 they take it from an Au∣thor whom they esteem as much as St. Paul, nay more, for they pretend that without him we should fail in many Articles of our Faith; this is Aristotle. I scarce believe so much can be said of St. Paul, who wrote the clearest of all the Apostles. Senza Aristotele noi mancarono di molti Articoli di Fide, * 1.83 says Cardinal Palavicini. Bellar∣mine also, another Cardinal and a Jesuit, doth object to us that Ari∣stotle demonstrated Monarchy to be the most excellent of all Govern∣ments, and by consequence God would have his Church so govern∣ed, and that this Monarchy belongs to the Pope. It is certain that the Spiritual Government of the Church is Monarchical. It is Jesus Christ who governs it, a Monarch all-wise, and Almighty; but the external Government of the visible and Universal Church cannot be so; and their principle it self is contested by the greatest part of Politicians. Aristotle himself, their Apostle, says in some places, that a mixed or compounded Government, be it Aristocratical, or De∣mocratical, is better: ‡ 1.84 Quae ex Pluribus constat Respublica melior est. And tho a Kingdom may be very well governed by one single per∣son; yet it doth not follow that this one person can as well govern all the States and Kingdoms of the World. And he says in another place. ‖ 1.85 Huc enim sunt omnia reducenda ut ii ••ui in Imperio sunt, non Ty∣rannum sed patrem Familias agere videantur, & rem non quasi Dominus sed quasi Procurator & Praefectus administrare, nec quod nimium est sectari. Do the Popes govern after this manner? Reason and Experience both convince us of the contrary. We see by History, that the Empires of the World, when they were of too great an extent, could not subsist, and have been torn in pieces; and we have the example of some wise Emperors who made Decrees to hinder the enlargement of their Empire, as Augustus made one,* 1.86 De Coercendo intra limites Im∣perio. It is a Proverb, That he who takes too much into his arms, can't hug it close. And this is so much the truer in Ecclesiastical Government, which cannot inflict Corporal punishments upon Delinquents; for St. Paul says expresly, that the Arms of the Evangelick Ministry are not according to the Flesh. And the Fathers as well as the Coun∣cils do teach us, that the Arms of a Bishop ought to be Prayers and Tears. The example which they bring of one single Bishop, who by Divine Institution governs a Diocess, or of a Curate who governs one Church only, can signifie to them nothing at all; b••cause first of all there is a Divine Institution for that, but none for this.

Besides, a man may easily manage a Boat upon a little River, who knows not how alone to manage a great Vessel upon the Ocean, much less a Fleet of Ships. And the Example of a Bishop or Cu∣rate makes against them, for they are not Soveraigns, the one pre∣sides only among the other Priests, and the other in a Parish.

I foresee that it will be said, that though this Authority of the Pope was not Instituted by Jesus Christ, that the Church for the first five Centuries knew it not, that it hath been since opposed from time to time by many people, perhaps of a turbulent or dis∣contented mind; yet it must be believed that the Church which did establish it since, did it for good Reasons; that Jesus Christ and his Apostles have not so precisely Regulated every thing that concerns the Discipline of the Church, but that she may according to her own Prudence alter some things according to the times and places; or as others say, that every time hath its customs; or as Cardinal Palavicini, ‡ 1.87 Altri tempi, Altri costumi: That the Church was at that time in its Infancy, and that the mature age to which it is now arrived, is not to be governed as its tender Infancy. I acknow∣ledg that the Church may sometimes vary in its Discipline, and in its policy without any great crime; but this must be always by a principle of charity; and according to the Fathers, Quod prop∣ter charitatem fit, non debet contra Charitatem militare. That which is done by a Principle of Charity, ought not to militate against Charity. It must tend to Edification; the Church ought to do nothing against the Commandments of God. Now I have shewn that the Papacy is against the Maxims of the Gospel, and is altogether con∣trary to the Genius of Christianity, and more contrary than light is to darkness.

* 1.88Furthermore, it is not true that the Church hath established the Papacy, only some few Councils held in Italy about two or three hundred years since, or thereabouts; as that at Florence, La∣teran, Bolonia and Trent. But we speak not of these dark Ages; for those with whom I dispute, believe that the Church hath established this power in the Sixth or Seventh Century.

‡ 1.89 In this respect the Cardinal Cusan mistakes himself, when he says, P••patus est de jure Positivo; The Papacy is of Positive Right: For the Church hath not established it in any Council, unless you call that Rabble of Ecclesiasticks and Seculars the Church, who as∣sembled themselves together at the desire of Boniface the Third, to confirm upon him the Title of Universal Bishop, which he got by

the Parricide Phocas, for the assistance he had given him. He himself acknowledgeth, that this Authority came to them, * 1.90 ex usu & Con∣suetudine Subjectionalis Obedientiae. And he maintains with good rea∣son in another place, Si per possibile Treverinus Archiepiscopus per Ec∣clesiam Congregatam pro Praeside & Capite Eligeretur, Ille proprie plus Suc∣cessor esset Beati Petri in Principatu quam Romanus Episcopus: That if it were possible that the Arch Bishop of Treves could be chosen Head of the Church by a General Council, he would be a more lawful Successor of St. Peter than the Bishop of Rome; which shews, that in his time no Council had declared the Bishop of Rome as such. Besides, these words, if it were possible, shew, that he belioved not that the Church could dispose of such a thing. † 1.91 Gerson was also of this Opinion; for he acknowledgeth very ingeniously, that the Papal Authority cannot be conferred by the Church: Papalis Authoritas si non a Deo esset immediate instituta, a tota Ecclesia institui non poterat: If the Papal Autho∣rity were not from God immediately, it could not be instituted by the whole Church.

And though it were true, that the Church had established it, as Pope Innocent the Third pretends, when he says, Ecclesia non nupsit vacua, sed Dotem mihi tribuit abs{que} pretio preti••sam, spiritualium plenitudi∣nem & latitudinem temporalium; illius me constituit vicarium qui habet in vestimento suo scriptum, Rex Regum & Dominus Dominantium: The Church hath not married me without a Fortune; but hath given me the invaluable dowry of God, the fulness of Spirituals, and the latitude of Temporals; hath made me the Vicar of him who hath written on his garment, King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Although that, I say, were true, it would not be less necessary to abolish this power, which is the cause of so many disorders, be∣cause the Church in those days might have created it for the good of the Church, as she then thought: And having found out that it is to her ruine, she ought to destroy it; for the Chair of Peter is for the Church, and not the Church for the Chair of Peter: Petri Ca∣thedra propter Ecclesiam, non Ecclesia propter Petri Cathedram. Quod prop∣ter Charitatem fit, non debet contra Charitatem Militare. And since that our Faith, according to Thomas Aquinas, ought to be founded upon the Word of God only, and not upon the Eshablishments of the Church, as he says, * 1.92 Fides nostra innititur Revelationibus Prophetis & Apostolis Factis; Ecclesia non statuit nisi de non necessariis ad Salu∣tem; According to this Truth, we are not obliged to believe the Ex∣travagant

of Pope Boniface, who says, That it is necessary to Salvati∣on to submit to the Pope. And if the Church, according to these People, dared to change the Aristocratical Government, instituted by Jesus Christ, under which the Kingdom of God spread it self so far, Piety flourished, Idolatry was confounded; shall it not be allowable for the Church, and for Princes, who are its natural Pro∣tectors, to redeem it out of that Slavery into which the Enemy of Mankind hath reduced it, to its first Purity and Simplicity? Methinks if Men had any sense of Religion, they ought to sigh continually, for the deplorable condition of the Church, and of the Greeks and Protestants, whom we have cast headlong into the Evil they now la∣bour under.

Some people will have it, That because the Greek Patriarchs a∣mong themselves hold that Place which the Council of Nice, and the Emperor Constantine gave to all Patriarchs, he of Rome, who had the first Place, ought still to keep it; and as in Place he was the first Bishop, and the only Patriarch in the West, he ought still to en∣joy these Prerogatives. But first of all, none of the Greek Patri∣archs, unless it were that John of Constantinople against whom St. Gregory wrote so vehemently, ever pretended to bear Rule o∣ver the other Bishops, nor over the Church, much less over Chri∣stian Princes, as the Popes do; and the Patriarch of Rome for above Three Hundred Years after his Institution, never attempted it.

Secondly, The Place which the Bishop of Rome held, was Prop∣ter Principalitatem Vrbis, in regard of the Dignity of the City, which now hath no weight at all, Rome being no longer the Seat of the Empire, but the Sink and Common-shore of all filthy Iniquity, a Den of Thieves, and a Nest of Satan, Nido di Satanazzo, and the very Habitation of Sloth, Laziness and Beggary. Paris, or London, do at this time deserve this Honour a thousand times better. Be∣sides, it was in a time when there were but very few Christians in the West; These great States were not yet converted to the Faith: France, Germany, Poland, part of Spain, and all the Northern Coun∣tries, knew not what Christianity was; so that one Patriarch might more easily have the inspection of this small number of Christians who resorted also to Rome for their civil Affairs, as to the capital Ci∣ty, where the Emperor resided. How are they now able to govern all the Churches, they who cannot govern that at Rome, and, which is worse, that trouble not their Heads about it? Add to this a

fourth Reason, which is, That in those days they were not Temporal Princes, as they are become since; and had not innumerable Legi∣ons of Monks and Beneficiaries at their command, as now they have, which renders this Power the most formidable of any upon Earth a∣mong the Catholicks.

If because Rome had heretofore the first Place for the Spirituality before other Cities, she should pretend still to have it, it will thence follow, that she hath it for the Temporality over these same Cities, since the Spiritual Authority of this City, as I have already proved, was founded upon the Temporal and Civil, which she enjoyed as the Seat of the Empire; and so in pretending to the Regency of Religion in France, Flanders, and other Catholick Countries, they pretend also to have a Right of treating these States as they please; and they have effectually made them their Subjects and Tributaries, even to the disposing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Crowns of Kings, as their fancy leads them.

There are others who believe they have hit on the right, when they say, that the Pope is Primus inter Pares, and that so he is the first of all Bishops. But I ask by what Authority? It is true, he was so among the Patriarchs, whilst that Rome, as I have said already, was the Seat of the Empire; but now I maintain, that he is Vltimus inter Pares, and unworthy of the Name of either Priest or Bishop, be∣ing the Tyrant of the Church, and of Christian Princes, and a Temporal Prince himself. Were he not a Temporal Prince, all he could lawfully pretend to, would be to be the first Bishop of Italy.

I know it will be said, That I ask too much to obtain any thing; and I know that it will be neither better nor worse; but I will dis∣charge my mind, and tell the Truth. God Almighty may raise up Princes when he pleases, who may restore that happy Equality a∣mong the Bishops, under which the Church was heretofore so flou∣rishing, and Christianity made so great Progress; which would also re-establish Peace among all Christians, much better than the Equali∣ty of Turkish Politicks, of which they say, Ittichat Khoga Kopatmas: Equality produceth no Wars: They mean, the Equality of Poverty; that is to say, that great men are not to be suffered in a Nation; and that being all miserable, they would make no commotions: Whereas the Equality which I speak of, would produce not only a firm and la∣sting Peace, but also the abundance of all Spiritual and Temporal Goods.

There are also some People who pretended, that if we acknowledg a necessity of having Arch-bishops and Primates, who take their Places above Bishops instituted by Jesus Christ, tho the Dignity of Arch-bishops or Primates is not so; in like manner, for Orders sake we may have a Pope. That might pass, if the Popes did not pretend to be of another Order; if they exercised no Authority over their fellow-brethren; if they were not Temporal and Mighty Princes; if the Clergy did not absolutely depend upon them; if they had nothing but a Pre-eminence of Place over the other Bishops in Assem∣blies and in Councils; if there were One of them in every Christi∣an State, who should solicite the Prince for the assembling of Provin∣cial Synods every year, to whom he should be subject, as the other Bishops, and should entertain Communion with the other Patriarchs, or Catholick Popes, and with whom he should keep Correspon∣dence, that they might altogether, by the Consent of their Respe∣ctive Princes, cause General Councils to be assembled, when they should be necessary, which should be held sometimes in one State, and sometimes in another, and wherein should preside men of the greatest Understanding, and the greatest Merit, without exception of Persons; or else every Patriarch in his turn.

Thus was the Church anciently governed without Tyranny; by this means did Religion spread it self abroad with great success in all Countries, and not by a pretended Bishop, who is a Worldly Prince, and hath ruined the Church. We see, that heretofore, a∣mong the Pagans, Kings have been Sacrificers and Ministers of Re∣ligion. Amongst the Jews also, at the beginning, we find, that the Heads of Families, who were Soveraigns, did take upon them the offering of Sacrifices, and performed Divine Service; but be∣fore these latter times, which is the Sink of all Ages, it was never seen, that Priests plaid the Princes, and that People who ought to employ themselves only in Prayers, and Sacrifices, and whom Jesus Christ, and all the most pure Canons of the Church, do forbid to meddle in Secular Affairs, should compare themselves with, and raise themselves above Kings.

Is it not a comely sight to behold a Temporal Prince wearing Three Crowns one above the other, sitting in a throne covered with Gold and precious Stones, having the Arms both of Sea and Land, many Attendants following him, who are equal to other Princes: Such a Prince as this, I say, to be the Vicar of Jesus Christ! He is then a Carnal Messias, and such a one as the Jews do at this day

look for: He is then a King of Concupiscence and of Iniquity. If it be so, the Jews had reason to accuse him for endeavouring to supplant Caesar; the Romans would have been in the right to put him to Death; and so he would not have been the Redeemer of Mankind.

This Pretension of the Popes, as we see, is a horrible Blasphemy, and which yields the Cause over to the Jews against us, and tends to justifie every thing they did against our Lord Jesus, and utterly to overturn Christianity. The pretence also which they have, that Ecclesiasticks ought not to be subject to their Natural Prince, and are freed from Obedience to him by Jesus Christ; This is to renew against our great Saviour the impious Accusation which the Jews brought against him, That he would have made himself a King, and perswaded others to Rebellion.

There are others who pretend that the evil is not so great that there is a Pope, as that General Councils are no more assembled; and so they say, that we should rather speak of assembling a Coun∣cil, than talk of exterminating the Papacy; because they think that a Council would limit the Pope, and hold the Reins shorter over him: But this Papacy subsisting, how shall a General Council be called, but that they'le have a hand in't? And if they have, what will this Council tend to? The End of it will be like that of Trent, sad and miserable. And put the case there might be found a Prince zealous, strong, and prudent enough to cause a General Council to be assembled by an agreement of other Christian Princes, in spight of the Pope; what would this Council do against the Pope, who would have all the Bishops for him, both by the Oath which they have taken to him, and by Twenty Millions of Revenue which he hath, and which he would employ to corrupt all the World? What would you do with the Monks, who would be all for him, it being their Interest to maintain the Authority and Infal∣libility of the Pope, because the Priviledges which he hath given to many of them, which are as ancient as their first Institution, are not confirmed by any Lawful Council, and so are null? And how long should the good condition of this Prince's Affairs last, or his good Correspondence with other Princes, to make the Laws of this Council be obeyed; and that the Pope, who will be all, or nothing, shall not hinder the Execution of his Decrees, and continue his Ty∣ranny? And how will you in the mean time keep the Papacy with its hands tied, and what will this signifie? It is certainly better to

cast off the Yoke all at once, than to let it continue without being sure that it shall do no more mischief. Tutius est perire non posse quam juxta periculum non periisse, says a certain Author.

We have the sad Example of the Councils of Trent and Constance; from that of Trent we could not hope for any great matters; but e∣ven that of Constance, which seemed well inclined to a Reformation, as well as that of Basil, found such horrible resistance in the Court of Rome, and among the Ecclesiasticks, that it never could re-esta∣blish the ancient Discipline. And that shews us, that we must wholly eradicate this Papacy, and that it is not enough to assemble a free Oecumenical Council, but that it must be some powerful, zealous, and resolute Prince, who fears nothing but God, and not the Court of Rome, who must begin, continue, and vigorously end the thing, without hearkening to pretended moderate Councils, which tend only to the Churches ruin. The Proverb here signifies nothing, That it is better to preserve the Commonwealth as it is, than to have none at all: For I maintain that here is no Common∣wealth, but a perfect Anarchy; and that the Church, instead of be∣ing governed, is devoured by a Faction of Villains, who eat the peo∣ple of God like bread.

But say they, you speak of abolishing the Primacy in the Church; and nevertheless there is no Society, no Families, no Colledge but hath it: Without it these Societies cannot subsist. It is not so much the Primacy which I condemn, as the Tyranny which hath been joined to it. The Primacy of Place might yet be suffered, although Jesus Christ hath not instituted it in the Church; but that of Pope, is a Primacy of Jurisdiction, to which the Universal Church, and the whole World is subject, as they pretend. I condemn the Pri∣macy of a Bishop who is a Worldly Prince, who hath more than Twenty Millions of Rev••nue; this Primacy, which is the Cause of all the Disorders of the Church; Whereas the end and ordinary use of Lawful Primacies, is to maintain good Order in all Societies. And I wish nothing more, than to see re-established in the Church that Primacy which Jesus Christ hath there instituted; (viz.) that of Councils, and that they should be often assembled, as they were in the Primitive Church; for it is the want of these Councils which hath undone the Church. We see in the Preface of the Eleventh Council of Toledo, that the Fathers say, That having wanted the Light of Councils for the space of Ten Years, the whole World went astray, and the Church fell into disorder and confusion. How

much more reason have we now to complain of that, we who for above these Hundred Years have seen none, and which is more, can never hope to see a Lawful one, whilst the Papacy shall subsist? Sub∣stracta Luce Conciliorum integro decennie, Matrem Omnium Errorum igno∣rantiam, otiosas Mentes occupasse, adeo ut Babylonicae Confusionis olla suc∣censa purpuratae Meretricis incrementa Sacerdotes sequerentur, quia Ecclesia∣stici Convenius non aderat Disciplina, nec erat qui Errantium Corrigeret partes, cum Sermo Divinus haberetur Extorris.

Is not this the cause of so many Superstitions, of so many Here∣sies, Schisms, and Licentiousness, which we see in the Clergy? Is it not a ridiculous thing, that no more Councils shall be called, whilst we see the Monks, both Capucins, Carthusians and Jesuits often assem∣ble their Congregations for the augmentation of their Societies? It is no wonder if the Church daily runs to ruin, whilst these Societies fortifie themselves. Is it not clear as the day, that if Pro∣vincial Synods were called every year, National every three or four years, as heretofore they were under our great Kings; and Oecume∣nical Councils, at least, once in Ten years, that Remedies would be found out for the Calamities of the Church? Might not a Patriarch in every State, aided by the Secular Power, excute the Decrees of the Church with more facility, less jealousie, and more security for Re∣ligion and for the State, than a forreign Ambitious, and potent Prince, who resolves to take no care for Religion, but to model eve∣ry thing to his own Interest? If this Patriarch should neglect his Duty, or carry it like a Master, should not the Prince chastise him, nor depose him? Experience shews us, that the Church never flou∣rished but when she was Aristocratically governed, and when there was no other Primacy in the Universal Church than that of Coun∣cils, and all Primates and Patriarchs were subject to them: But since the Patriarch of Rome hath had the sole disposing of Reli∣gion in the West, we have seen nothing but Confusion, Anarchy, Schism, Heresies, Impiety, Atheism, Cruelty and Barbarity. Ipsa Ecclesia Vnus est Princeps, & Vnitati fidelium, non singulis haec Jurisdi∣ctio a Domino conceditur, &c. Quia Vnitas Ecclesiae multo major est at{que} perfectior, quam Vnitas Vnius Regis aut Imperatoris terreni.

Thus did the Holy Council of Basil answer the false Reasons of Pope Eugenius his Orators, who pretended, That the Unity of the Church was preserved much better by a Pope than by the Council.

There are others who would have the Pope's Authority confin'd within the bounds which the Councils of Constance and of Basil had marked out for it; but they never understood the Moral Impossibili∣ty that there is, not only of making the Popes consent to it; but suppose they were constrained to consent to these Rules for a season, to make them observe them always, or for any long time. And Experience confirms what I say, with reference even to these Coun∣cils which have put no stop at all to their career; for they live in contempt as well of these as of all other Lawful Councils. Have not they called others in Italy, who have destroyed whatever these had established, even to treat with the Name of Heresie this Holy Doctrine of the Superiority of the Council? Have not the Popes been sufficiently Sacrilegious to raze out of the Roman Edition of General Councils, the Council of Basil from among the Oecumeni∣cal Councils? It is then impossible, that with the Impiety and Am∣bition wherewith the Court of Rome is wholly made up, and with the enormous power which the Popes at this time have, which e∣quals that of the greatest Kings, that they should be reduced to sub∣mit themselves to the Council of Constance. And even that would signifie nothing; for this Council gives them too much Authority; It gives them the power which belongs to the Emperors, of assem∣bling General Councils, of presiding in them, and concluding, and of executing the Canons of Councils, in regard of particular Churches, and even of making Decrees, during the Inter∣vals of Synods, and of being judged only by a General Coun∣cil.

They ought then to be deprived of this temporal power, the Car∣dinals to be abolished, and the Monks to be Enfranchised, and Re∣leased from the rash Vows they have made to the Popes; the dis∣posing of the Palls of Archbishops ought to be taken from him, and the faculty of Investing Bishops, and of dispencing with them for holding so many Benefices; with all the other Simonical Traf∣fick which will still renders him the Tyrant of the Church, the Ma∣ster of all States, and the Devil the possessor of many souls. It is much more easie to restore all at once the ancient Discipline. I pro∣mote a Paradox, but my reason is, that there will never be a good change, but it must happen after some strangely surprizing, or if I may so say, some violent manner, such violence as forces its way into the Kingdom of Heaven. Whilest we stand upon treating, the Popes shall maintain themselves always with the times, either by

Intriegues, or by some Devilish inventions, the most zealous shall grow cold upon the business, Ministers shall be corrupted either by money, or by Cardinals Caps, the Prince shall have other affairs found him to look after, or shall be killed by the hand of some Monk or other: All the Jesuits and the Monks shall be everlast∣ingly for the Papacy, whatever shew they at this time make. Ger∣son somewhere says that there will never be a Reformation if some zealous and resolute Pope doth not procure it by assembling a Gene∣ral Council. For my part, I say, that if God doth not inspire some great Prince to do it, I say that a Reformation will come as soon by means of the Devil as the Pope. First of all, the Court of Rome professeth an abhorrence of calling General Councils. Concilio sem∣per aborrito da Pontefici, says Palavicini: Besides that, they have estab∣lished this fundamental Maxim, That the Pope cannot divest himself of the least tittle of his Authority, no not for the salvation of the whole world; for the Pope, say they, is not the Master but only the Guardian of this Authority. Nay, they go so far as to maintain that the Church would commit Simony should she desire to divest the Pope of this Authority, or of his profits, for the Salvation of Souls. Primato Apostolico, di cui non era Signiore, ma custode, says Cardinal Pa∣lavicini, that he is not the Lord or Patron, but only the Guardian of the Apostolick Primacy. And in another place he says these words: Non Essendo egli arbitro e padrone della sua Maggoranza consti∣tuta da Christo, e pero non potendo farle alcun prejudicio. * 1.93 He can do no wrong to his Authority constituted by Jesus Christ, because he is not the Patron and disposer of it. And again, Far una specie di Si∣monia vendendo al Papa la recuperatione dell' anime a prezzo d' entrate e di giuridizzioni ritolte della chieza. It would be a kind of Simony to sell the Redemption of Souls to the Pope at the price either of Estates, or Jurisdictions taken from the Church. If a Pope would really Reform the Church, the Court of Rome would murther him. But as Peter of Blois says, this is the Chair of Pestilence, wherein peo∣ple of the greatest merit are presently corrupted. They no sooner ascend this proud Throne, but straightways they forget they are men, and are by a just judgment of God struck with stupidity. We have the example of one Aeneas Silvius, who in the Council of Ba∣sil was so zealous for the truth, and maintained so well the Interest of the Church against the Popes Tyranny; and nevertheless so soon as he was Elected Pope, he maintained that the Council was inferi∣or to the Pope, and Excommunicated those who believed the con∣trary.

This Angel was no sooner raised to this mighty grandeur, but like Lucifer he became a Devil. Aristotle says in one place, that it sometimes falls out that a man loseth the habit of vertue by one only act of enormous wickedness; that there are men qui uno actu feritatis humanitatem exuunt, who lay aside all humanity all at once by one act of barbarousness and inhumanity. This befalls the Popes so soon as they are elected; they were sometime honest men before, but the Miter being fixed upon their head, they make themselves he adored by this Sirname of Most Holy, Collo pronome di sanctissimo, says Cardinal Palavicini; they are no more men, but the voice of God and not of men, as was said of Herod. Sixtus Quintus, who had been a Keeper of Swine, when he became Pope, Excommunicated King Henry the Fourth (of France.) This it was that made Marcel∣linus the Second say, that he believed not that a Pope could be saved; and Pius Quintus, that when he was a Monk he had pretty good hopes of his Salvation; that being a Cardinal he began much to fear it; but when he was Pope he absolutely despaired of it. St. Hierom speaks of a certain young Consul at Rome who said, Facite me Vrbis Romanae Episcopum & ero protinus Christianus, Make me Bishop of Rome, and I will be a Chri∣stian presently. We may say the contrary of those who for this long time have been made Bishops of Rome, That as soon as they have been so, they have ceased being Christians. The reason of that is not only this Tyranny which they exercise in the Church, and over the world in contempt of Jesus Christ, and of his Gospel, but also this Temporal greatness to which they are raised all at once, which turns their brain. We scarce see a man of a thousand Livres a year, whose reason is not blinded by his Estate, and he shall be puffed up with pride, even tho he were born to it; and we see but few rich men who are not insupportable either for their vanity, or for their vices; but few Princes who have any Religion, and in whom power hath not corrupted and defaced all the Idea's of Vertue and of Vice. How then shall a poor fellow behave himself, who is raised all at a clap to so high a Dignity that Emperors kiss his Slippers; and who so soon as he is chosen, is adored like God, even upon the Altars? This it is that brings down the curse of God upon all the Popes; and to speak of a good Pope, is like talk∣ing of a good Devil. Observe this present Pope, who is a man the best inclined that we have had a long time; to what excess of pride is he arrived against our [French] King, whom he hath threatned to Excommunicate; tho St. Augustin, whose Disciple they say he is,

teacheth, that no Prince nor his people are ever to be Excommuni∣cated. * 1.94 Multitudo non est Excommunicanda, nec Princeps populi, says he, Vbi parabola zizaniorum evolvitur.

But how, say they, will you be a Catholick without a Pope? Let there be one in Gods name, but let him be of the order of Si∣mon P••ter, and not of Simon Magus, a Pope who makes no Traffick of the Graces of the Holy Ghost, and of Holy things, and who is not a Prince of this world; let him be a Pope who raiseth not himself above other Popes, that is to say, other Bishops, to give them Laws; let him be subject to his Prince; let him be subject as well to National as General Councils, and not turn all Religion to his particular profit; but to wish always to have such Popes as for these seven or eight hundred years have wasted the Church, a man must have no true Idea of Christianity; nay, he must have even lost the Idea of good and evil.

I knew a Prince in Germany, who was one of the most Catholick Princes in the world, who had abjured Heresie, and was really converted, having not done it for any carnal advantage, like many base people, who we see infect instead of edifying the Church. This most Catholick Prince abhorred the Papacy, and could not endure the Books of our Writers, when there was any thing in them fa∣vourable to the Popes Authority. Those who were a little acquain∣ted with the late Duke of Hanouer, know whether I speak truth or no. We know that Charles the Sixth, by the advice of the Divines of the Faculty at Paris, made no difficulty of withdrawing himself and all his Subjects from the Communion of the Pope, which last∣ed during the Pontificat of John the 23d. of Benedict the 13th. and Gregory the 12th. and even to give encouragement to all other Prin∣ces to do as he had done; and he had much less cause to do it than we have at this time. You see his reasons in the Letters of the University of Paris in Theodore a Nyem, which were, that they would not consent that the disorders of the Church should be regulated by a free Council, and that they would not submit themselves to the Decisions of the Church. Are not we now again just in the same condition since the Councils of Constance and of Basil? For those which have been Assembled since, deserve not the name of Coun∣cils, because there was no liberty in them, and every thing was there done by the Inspiration, not of God, but the Popes. France did but half free it self from this yoke, for quickly after we suffer∣ed our selves to be drawn in, and have been like to have been un∣done many a time since by it,

Nor do I make any great account of the Conduct of the Veneti∣ans, which is so highly commended, who after having known the nature of the Papacy, and the Genius of this power, have but half freed themselves from this slavery, nay less than half. They have behaved themselves in this according to their ordinary custom, following moderate Councils, where excess was not to be feared, and where it could not be committed: Consilia media & quod inter ancipitia deterrimum est, nec ausi sunt satis, nec providerunt. For they have still this Viper in their bosom, which they stupifie as much as they can; but he may some time or other revive and devour them. They have every day a thousand difficulties with these cunning Ro∣mans, who will be always spying out occasions to destroy them, and to reduce them absolutely under their yoke. They should re∣nounce perfectly and for ••ver all dependance upon this See, and thus shall they be better able to regulate their Clergy, which is as licentious as that of Rome, which they dare not reform, because it would be to be feared that to maintain themselves in this Roman Libertinism they should give assistance to the Pope to oppress the Republick, that they might always enjoy the full liberty of the children of the See of Rome: Vulgo dissoluta gratior est quam Tempe∣rata vita & vivere ut quis{que} velit permisit, quoniam sic magna erit tali Rei∣publicoe faventium Magnitudo. * 1.95 Et hoc Humanitas vocabatur ac ne pars servitutis esset, &c.

Will any man still say, Ought we not to be of the Roman Church? People are not contented with being in the Catholick and Aposto∣lick Church, if they are not in the Roman; they seem desirous of having a share in the Abominations of this City, and of this Court; but the Romans are not at all desirous to be of the Gallican Church. I would fain know for what reason we should be rather of the Roman Church than the Romans of the Gallican Church. Rome is not as heretofore, it was the Seat of the Empire, and tho it were, we hold no longer of the Empire, and it is a contradiction for a man to be in the Catholick Church, in the Gallican, and in the Ro∣man Churches both together; for the first is the General, and the other two are particulars. You may always have Communion with all the Romans who live in the fear of God, with the Pope of Rome himself if he be a Christian; but not to depend upon him, nor up∣on Rome. You shall be as the Christians of the Primitive Church were for more than six hundred years. You shall pay no more Annates, you shall buy no more Bulls, nor Dispensations. You shall be much

more Catholick than before, for then you may hold Communion with the Greeks and Protestants, by drawing them home to the Faith of the Church, whereas the See of Rome is at this time a wall of Separation between them and us.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Dorot. Tyren∣sis in Synopsi.
• ‡ 1.2

  Hierom in Matth. cap. 23. lib. 4.

  Lyran in 1 Petri.
• (a) 1.3

  Caus. 84. q. 5. Can. ro∣gamus.
• (a) 1.4

  Clem Epis. 1. Fratri Do∣mini Episcopo Episcoporum, &c.
• * 1.5

  Lib. 1. Re∣cognitionum ubi Petrus.
• (b) 1.6

  Iren. apud Eusebium, lib. 5. cap. 26, & 27.
• (a) 1.7

  Cusan lib. 1. cap. 14.
• * 1.8

  Amb. de In∣carnatione c. 14.
• (b) 1.9

  Cyprian in Conc. Carth. sive de Sent. Episcoporum.
• (b) 1.10

  Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 21.
• (c) 1.11

  Id. Ep. 30.
• (d) 1.12

  Idem de Aleatoribus.
• (e) 1.13

  Idem ad Puppienum. Ep. 66.
• (f) 1.14

  Idem in Epist. 55.
• (g) 1.15

  In Conc. Africano, Art. 6.
• (h) 1.16

  Concil. ••icen. Can. 6.
• (i) 1.17

  Cusan de Co••cord. Ca∣tho••icâ, lib. 2. c. 12.
• (a) 1.18

  Concil. Antioch. c. 13. Concil. Calce∣don, Act. 16. Concil. Con∣stant. c. 1.
• (b) 1.19

  Theodor. lib. 5. c. 9.
• (c) 1.20

  Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 7. cap 30.
• (d) 1.21

  Theod l. 2. cap. 16.
• (e) 1.22

  Cod. The∣od. l. 16. tit. 1. cap. 2.
• (f) 1.23

  Greg Na∣zianz Ep. 22.
• (a) 1.24

  Concil. Milevitan, cap. 22.
• (b) 1.25

  Concil. Africanum. cap. 105.
• (c) 1.26

  Concil. Constant. c. 2. Can. 6.
• (d) 1.27

  Concil. Nicen, can. 4.
• * 1.28

  Hierom in Epist. ad Eva∣grius.
• (a) 1.29

  St. Chrys. Hom. 43. in Matth.
• (b) 1.30

  Greg lib. 6. Ep. ad Maurit. Imperat.
• (c) 1.31

  Idem lib. 6. Ep. 24. ad Anastasium Antiochen.
• * 1.32

  St. Aug. in li cont. Donat. post Collat. c. 33.
• ‡ 1.33

  Leo in E∣pist. 89. ad E∣pisc. Viennen∣sis Provinciae•• contra Hilari∣um.
• * 1.34

  Epistola E∣piscoporum Germaniae & Galliae, contra Anastas. secun∣dum, sub Clo∣doveo Magno, apud Aventi∣num in Colle∣ctaneis.
• † 1.35

  Concil Con∣stant. Can. 2.
• † 1.36

  Conc. Antio. Can. 9.
• * 1.37

  Concil. Cal∣cedon, Act 16.
• ‡ 1.38

  Conc. Turin, c. ••.
• ‖ 1.39

  Sigon. lib. 9. de Regno Ita∣liae. Petrus Da∣mianus, in E∣pist. ad Hilde∣brandum.
• * 1.40

  Vasaeus in Chronico Hisp Anno Christi 717, Rodericus Arch. Tolet. lib. 6. cap. 25, & 26.
• * 1.41

  Historia Con∣cil. Gallic. Concil. Lepti∣nense ad An∣num 748, in Praefat.
• ‖ 1.42

  Beda in Tra∣ctatu de sex aetatibus mundi.
• ‡ 1.43

  Epiphanius haeres 20.
• ‖ 1.44

  Tacitus.
• ‖ 1.45

  Tacitus.
• * 1.46

  Platina, Si∣gebert.
• ‖ 1.47

  Platina.
• ‡ 1.48

  Authent. Ju∣stinian, 123. cap. 3.
• ‖ 1.49

  Distinct. 63. Can. in Sinodo.
• ‡ 1.50

  Tacitus.
• † 1.51

  Sigebert in Chronico.
• * 1.52

  Capitula Ca∣roli Magni Ludovi. Lo∣tharii, &c.
• ‖ 1.53

  Concil. Rhem. anno 991. c. 26. & cap. 28.
• ‖ 1.54

  Aventin. in Boi. Hist.
• * 1.55

  Avent. Anno 723.
• † 1.56

  1 Tom. Con∣ciliorum.
• ‖ 1.57

  At the end of St. Grego∣ries Works.
• * 1.58

  See Aposto∣lick.
• (a) 1.59

  Tertul. de praescripti; cap. 20.
• (b) 1.60

  Pelag. ad Valer. in Col∣lect. Rom. part 1. p. 227.
• (c) 1.61

  St. Aug. Epist. 162.
• (d) 1.62

  Apollin. lib. 7. Epist. 4. Sidon. Apollin. lib. 6.
• (e) 1.63

  Greg. Hist. l 4. cap. 26.
• (f) 1.64

  Euseb. Hist. lib. 7. cap. 30.
• (g) 1.65

  Euseb. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 7.
• (h) 1.66

  Bishop of Bishops.
• (i) 1.67

  Niceph. lib. 4. cap. 43. Sy∣don. Apollin. lib. 6. Epist. 2. Soveraign Pontife.
• * 1.68

  Sydon. Apol. lib. 7. Epist. 2, & 4.
• k 1.69

  Idem lib. 5. Epist. 6.
• (l) 1.70

  Lib. 4. Ep. 11. & lib. 6. Epist. 4.
• (m) 1.71

  Ignatius ad Smirnens.
• (n) 1.72

  Leo Epist. 87. ad Afric.
• (o) 1.73

  Fortun. lib. 11. Ep. 13.
• (p) 1.74

  Epist. Cler. Rom. ad Cypr. de Lapsu. 15.
• (q) 1.75

  Baron. Martyr. Janu∣arii.
• (r) 1.76

  These are French Livres that are worth 20 En∣glish pence a pie••e, 25000 l.
• (s) 1.77

  Cardinals in other pla∣ces besides Rome.
• (t) 1.78

  Apostoli dati. Cardina∣libus per Na∣tionem Galli∣canam, sub Ca∣rolo Quinto.
• (u) 1.79

  The Chro. of the Abby of St. Jean de Vignes at Soissons.
• (x) 1.80

  Pasquiet, lib. 4. cap. 3.
• * 1.81

  Art. 54.
• * 1.82

  A humane Reason for the Papacy.
• * 1.83

  Palavic. lib. 8. cap. 19.
• ‡ 1.84

  Aristot. lib. 2. Pol. cap. 4.
• ‖ 1.85

  Idem lib. 5. Pol. cap. 11▪
• * 1.86

  Tacitus.
• ‡ 1.87

  Palav. lib. 23. cap. 10.
• * 1.88

  The Church hath not esta∣blisht the Pa∣pacy.

  The Papacy never did any good in the world.
• ‡ 1.89

  Cusan de concor. Ca∣thol. lib. 2. cap. 14.
• * 1.90

  Cusan lib. 2. c. 13. & 34.
• † 1.91

  Gerson de potestate Ec∣clesiastic.
• * 1.92

  Tho. Aquin. summa, part. 1. quaest. 1. Art. 8, & 10.
• * 1.93

  Palav. lib. 3. cap. 12.
• * 1.94

  Aug. apud Gloss. Ordin.
• * 1.95

  Arist. lib. 6. cap. 4.