Romanism discussed, or, An answer to the nine first articles of H.T. his Manual of controversies. Whereby is manifested, that H.T. hath not (as he pretends) clearly demonstrated the truth of the Roman religion by him falsly called Catholick, by texts of holy scripture, councils of all ages, Fathers of the first five hundred years, common sense, and experience, nor fully answered the principal objections of protestants, whom he unjustly terms sectaries. By John Tombes, B.D. And commended to the world by Mr. Richard Baxter.

SECT. IX.

Cyprian, Hierome, Gregory, the councils of Constantinople, Chalcedon, Nice, are against the Popes Supremacy.

It is added thus by H. T. Object. St. Cyprian (de unit. Eccles.) says, The Apostles were equal in dignity. And St. Hierome affirms the church was equally founded on them all, lib. cont. Jovin. Answ. They were equal in their calling to the Apostleship I grant, in their power of Government and Jurisdiction I deny: And the church was equally founded on them all before a Head was constituted, I grant; after a Head was constituted, I deny, and so do the Fathers, St. Cyprian saying in the same place, that Christ disposed the origen of unity beginning from one (Peter) And St. Hierome tells us, He chose one of the Twelve, that a Head being constituted, the occa∣sion of Schism might be taken away.

I Reply, Cyprian's words in his Book de unitate Ecclesia, are recited above Art. 5. Sect. 6. in which he expresly saith thus, Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praditi & honoris & potestatis, sel exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, ut Ecclesia una monstretur: that is, That ve∣rily were also all the rest of the Apostles which Peter was, endued with equal al∣lotment of honour and power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the church might be shewed to be one. So that the very words are express, that all the Apostles were not onely equal in their calling to the Apostleship, but also in power and honour, and that Peter was made a Representative of all, ye•• had no more power and honour than other Apostles; and for Bishops he saith presently after, Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur, that is, Bishoprick is but one, of which wholly or entirely a part is held by each. Which words plainly shew this to be his meaning, 1. That the Episcopacy or charge of looking to the Church of Christ is but one and the same in all the World, even as the Church Catholick is but one and the same. 2. That each Bishop hath but his part, none the whole, none is an universal Bishop over the whole Church. 3. That each Bishop, who hath his part, holds it in solidum, that is, wholely or intirely, the power and charge is as much in one as another. 4. That Episcopacy was first invested in Peter for all, that Episcopacy might be one, and undivided, and the Church one, so as that no Church break from another, nor any Bishop be above another.

As for the words of Hierome, lib. 1. advers. Jovin. they are thus. At dick, super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia, licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos

fiat, & cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant, & ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae for∣titudo solidetur: tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur; ut capite con∣stituto schismatis tollatur occasio: that is, But thou sayest (who arguest for Marriage) upon Peter (a married man) the church is founded, although that thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles, and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens, and equally upon them the strength of the church is established: yet therefore among twelve one is chosen, that a Head being consti∣tuted the occasion of Schism might be taken away. In which words it is ma∣nifest that he makes the other Apostles equally Foundations of the Church with Peter, and to have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens, and terms Peter not a Head in respect of Power or Jurisdiction over the rest, but in re∣spect of Order, that for want of it no occasion of Schism might be. Which to have been the minde of Hierome appears fully in his Epistle to Euagrius, in which he determines that in the Scripture Bishops and Elders were the same, that Peter calls himself a fellow-elder, and John an Elder, but after one was chosen who might be set before the rest, that was done for a Remedy of Schism, lest each one drawing to himself the church of Christ might break it. And then he makes the Church and Bishop of Rome equal with other Churches and Bishops.

If, saith he, Authority be sought, the World is greater than a City. Whereso∣ever there is any Bishop either at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at Constantinople, or at Rhegium, or at Alexandria, or at Tanis, he is of the same merit, and of the same Priesthood. Power of riches, and humility of poverty, makes a Bishop nei∣ther higher nor lower. But all are Successours of the Apostles. Whence these things may be inferred, 1. That Bishops are not above Elders originally. 2. That their superiority is by positive order. 3. That the Apostles were Elders. 4. That all Bishops are their Successours. 5. That the Bishop of Rome is not above another Bishop. 6. That the Authority of Rome is less than of the World.

Yet further saith H. T. Object. One Body with two Heads is monstrous. Answ. Not if one be principal, and the other subordinate or ministerial onely, as in our present case: so Christ is the Head of the Man, and the Man of the Woman, 1 Cor. 11. without any monstrosity.

I reply, to make a thousand metaphorical subordinate ministerial Heads of the Church of Christ may be without monstrosity. But to make a supreme visible Head over the whole Church, ascribing to him such a power as agrees to none but Christ, nor can be exercised by any but Christ for the good of his body, hath monstrosity in it, or rather treason against Christ. But such a Head is the Pope made by H. T. therefore this conceit of him and other Pa∣pists induceth monstrosity. The Minor is partly shewed before, and may be fully proved by instancing in the acts of power the Pope takes to him, in defi∣ning what the whole Church is to believe, what is the sense of Scripture, re∣ceiving Appeals from all places, judging causes, setting up and putting down Kings and Bishops, and many more, wherein he arrogateth and usurpeth that power to himself, which doth onely agree to Christ, and can be exercised by none but him.

Again saith H. T. Object. St. Gregory rejects the name of Universal Arch-bishop as Antichristian, lib. 7. indict. 2. Epist. 96. Answ. He rejects it

as it excludes all others from being Bishops, I grant; as it onely signifies one to be supreme and above all others, I deny, and so doth he himself, saying in the same Book (Epist 62.) if there be any crime found in Bishops, I know no Bishop but is subject to the See Apostolick. And lib 4. Indict. 13. Epist. 32. The care and principality of the church hath been committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of the Apostles St. Peter, yet is not he called Universal Apostle, as if there were no other Apostles but he. You see in what sense he rejects the word (Uni∣versal.)

I reply, Gregory not onely rejected the Title of Universal Arch-bishop or Patriarch, but also rejected it as proud, wicked, perverse, profane, blasphemous, aud the Usurper of it as a Fore-runner of Antichrist, and not onely as not agreeing to the Bishop of Constantinople, but also as not agreeing to him or any of his Predecessours, lib. 6. Epist. 24. & lib. 4. Epist. 32. & 36. None of my Predecessours consented to use this profane name of Universal Bishop: none of my Predecessours ever took upon him this name of singularity, neither con∣sented to use it. We (the Bishops of Rome) do not seek nor yet accept this glo∣rious Title being offered unto us. Nor in the sense onely as H. T. denies it due to the Pope, as if it excluded all others from being Bishops, but even in the sense in which the Pope now usurps it. For, 1. He rejects it in the sense in which John of Constantinople did affect it. But he did not affect it as there∣by assuming to himself to be the onely Bishop, but the supreme, which ap∣pears, 1. In that a Synod of the Greek Bishops did agree to give it him, Habita Synodo seipsum Patriarcham universalem creasset, that is, Holding a Synod he had created himself universal Patriarch, Platina in the Life of Pope Gregory. But doubtless the Synod would not give him the Title as importing him the onely Bishop, for then they should have unbishopt themselves, which neither he nor they did. 2. Gregory when he chargeth him with his arroga∣ting that Title to himself tells John himself, lib. 4. Epist 38. that he sought this Title that he might seem to be under none, and he alone before all, that be endeavoured that by the appellation of universal Bishop he might put under him∣self all the members of Christ, that he desired to be called in the World not onely the Father, but also the general Father, that he desired by that word of elation to put himself before Bishops, and to hold them under him, which shews he af∣fected not to be accounted the onely Bishop, but the supreme. 3. He affected no more than what after Boniface the third of Rome obtained of Phocas, as appears by the words of Platina in the Life of Boniface the third, who speaks thus. Boniface the third a Roman by countrey obtained from Phocas the Em∣perour, yet with great contention, that the See of blessed Peter the Apostle, which is the Head of all churches should be both so called and accounted by all: which place indeed the Church of Constantinople endeavoured to challenge to it, sometimes evil Princes favouring, and affirming that in that place should be the first See where the Head of the Empire was. And Baronius Annal. Eccles. at the year 606. relates the Decree of Phocas thus, that the Roman Bishop alone should be called oecumenical or universal, but not the Constantinopolitan. And Bellarmine lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 31. saith, They would equal the See of Constantinople to the Roman, and make it universal, speaking of the Greeks in the business of John of Constantinople; whence it may be plainly gathered, that the thing which the Patriarchs of Constantinople affected, was

not to be accounted the onely Bishop, so as that none but he should be account∣ed a bishop, but that he should be the Head or Supreme of all Bishops by reason of the Seat of the Empire there, and that this Gregory disclaimed as proud. 4. That was affected by John, which he and Cyriacus his Successour used for twenty years, but neither of them used it so by word or deed, as to exclude others from being Bishops as well as themselves (for in John's own writing to them extant in the body of the Romam Greek Law, he terms them fellow-ser∣vants, Metropolitans, and Bishops, to whom he writes, and others in their Writings to the Patriarch of Constantinople, when they term him oecumenical Arch-bishop, yet style themselves Bishops and fellow-priests) but they would be accounted supreme or prime Bishops of the whole Church, so as to be under none, but above all.

2. It is proved that Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop in the sense of the supreme Bishop, in that he, Regist. lib. 11. Epist. 54. resolves thus If any man accuse a Bishop for whatsoever cause, let the cause b•• judged by his Metropolitan. If any man gainsay the Metropolitan's judgement, let it be re∣ferred to the Arch-bishop and Patriarch of that Diocese, and let him end it accord∣ing to the Canons and Laws. And for what he addeth, that if a Bishop have no Metropolitan nor Patriarch at all, then is his cause to be heard and determined by the See Apostolick, which is the Head of all Churches, it is added beyond the Canons of Councils and Laws of Emperours, and though it prove that he claimed a reference of causes in difference between Bishops within his Patri∣archate, yet not where there were other Patriarchs to which the Bishops were subject, much less through the whole World. And that he termeth the See of Rome the Head of all Chuches, doth not prove a Supremacy of Government by any institution of Christ, but a preheminence of order and some Ecclesia∣stical Privileges, by reason of that Cities being the Seat of the Empire. And hereby is understood what H. T. cites out of the seventh Book Epist. 62. of Greg. Epistles, Indict. 2. that it is not meant of all Bishops universally, but of the Bishops within that Patriarchate, but this was in case of fault onely; for it follows, But when no fault requires it, all according to reason of humility are equals: So that Gregory doth not by that speech shew that he had an uni∣versal supreme Jurisdiction and power over all Churches, so as that they were subject to his commands and deteminations in points of faith, but that he ac∣counted the African Churches subject to his reproof, as he had a common care of the Church every where, in which Gregory himself and all other Bishops and Churches are subject to any Bishop wheresoever. Certainly Gregory had most absurdly argued against the arrogance of John of Constantinople, calling the Title of universal Bishop new, profane, proud, blasphemous, foolish, per∣verse, and him a Fore-runner of Antichrist whosoever should use it, if he had imagined it belonged to himself, or any Bishop of Rome.

And for what H. T. allegeth, that John claimed to be universal Bishop, as excluding all others, it is but an absurdity which Gregory pressed him with, as following upon it, not acknowledged by John, but rather denied, as when we urge men with absurdities following their tenets which they do not own; and how he urgeth, it appears from his words, lib. 4. Epist. 38. when he saith to John, Thou desirest to tread under the name of Bishops in comparison of thy self, which shew that he charged him not to have affected the Title of Universal

Bishop, as if he would be the onely Bishop absolutely, but comparatively to himself, in that sense as he which is singular in some thing is said to be alone, and as he who is not what he was, is said not to be; and so Gregory chargeth him as if by consequence he would exclude all others, and unbishop them in comparison. And yet if Gregorie's words were understood to condemn no more than this, that any should arrogate to himself the Title of Universal Bi∣shop, as if he were the onely Bishop and others but as his Vicars or Sub∣stitutes, all that Gregory imputes to the use of that Title in this sense falls on the late Roman Bishops, who deny that any Bishop hath power of Juris∣diction but from them, that Bishops are not immediately by divine right, but mediately from the Pope, concerning which what passed in the Council of Trent may be seen in the History of Frier Paul in the seventh and eighth Book, in which may be seen how stifly the Italians and Jesuits held it, and the Pope eluded the Spanish Bishops.

Lastly, that Gregory did disclain such a Supremacy as Popes now usurp is manifest from the obedience which Gregory, lib. 1. Epist. 32 lib. 2. Epist. 61. 31. lib. 7. Epist. 1. and elsewhere acknowledged, he did ow to Mauritius the Empe∣rour as his sovereign Lord, and in that Epistle in which he writes to Mauritius about John's usurpation by Sabinian Pope next after him petitions that the most pious Lord Mauritius would vouchsafe to judge that very business which was in controversie between John of Constantinople and himself about the Title of universal Bishop, which he denied to Jo••n or to himself: nor was Gregorie's own election to the Popedom counted valid without the confirma∣tion of Mauritius the Emperour, as by the relation of his Life in Platina ap∣pears: which things are inconsistent with that Doctrine which the Papists now hold about the Popes Supremacy.

H. T. adds. Object. The first Constantinopolitan Council and the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon decreed the Constantinopolitan See to be equal with that of Rome. Answ. In certain Privileges I grant, in original Authority or Juris∣diction I deny, and so doth the said Council of Chalcedon, saying, We throughly consider truly, t••at all Primacy and chief Honour is to be kept for the Arch-bi∣shop of old Rome, Action 16. Nor was that Canon of the Council of Con∣stantinople ever approved by the Pope, though it owned the Church of Rome to be the See Apostolick, and sought but Primacy in the second place and after it.

I reply, 1. Though it had been gainsaid by the Bishop of Rome, yet there was no reason the opposition of one Bishop should weigh down the com∣mon consent of the rest. 2. It is apparant that the Popes approbation was not then judged necessary, but that the Synod could determine without him. 3. That Canon of the first Council of Constantinople was not gainsaid by the Pope that then was, nor many years after. 4. Gregory the Great esteemed the four first general Councils as the four Gospels without exempting that Ca∣non. And it is manifest that the Council gave Prerogatives of Honour to the Bishop of Constantinople next after the Roman, because it was new Rome. And the Council of Chalcedon expresly determined that the Bishop of Con∣stantinople should have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 equal Privileges with the Roman, which Privileges were the same that old Rome had, which could not be the first place in the Council, but was Power and Jurisdiction, and this they determined

notwithstanding the regret of the Popes Legates, who could not obtain any more than what was allotted the Bishop of Rome in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council, of which H. T. saith.

Object. The Council of Nice saith, Let the ancient custome be kept in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria hath power over all these, because the Bishop of Rome also hath such a custome. Answ. The Bishop of Rome had a custome to permit such a power to the Bishop of Alexandria; the Greek Text saith, Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed, which argues him to be above the other.

I reply, this Answer is frivolous, or rather impudent. For the same thing is allowed to the Bishop of Alexandria, which was accustomed to the Bishop of Rome, but that was not a power to permit any thing to the bishops of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, but to take care of the Churches therein as their Metro∣politan, namely, to look to the Ordination of bishops and composing of Dif∣ferences. And the meaning is, that each of those bishops of Rome, Alexan∣dria, and Antioch, should, according to the custome of the bishop of Rome in his, look to the ordering of the Churches each in his Province, as Ruffinus expres∣seth the Canon, and the Arrbick and other Interpreters, and Paschasinus the Popes Legate in the Council of Chalcedon alleged it thus, that the Bishop of Alexendria should have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 power over all, because so it was accustomed to the Bishop of Rome. Which cannot be meant of all simply; For then it should have been thus meant, the bishop of Alexandria is to have power of all, because the bishop of Rome hath power of all, and so the bishop of Alexandria should be supreme bishop as the Pope, and so in stead of one visible supreme Head there should be more, which Romanists brook not, but it must be meant of equal power and charge given to the bishop of Alexandria in his Province with that which by custome the Roman had in his. And for the inference from the words [Because to the Bishop of Rome also this is accustomed] that it argues him to be above the other, it is vain, it proving onely the bishop of Rome's power to have been the Pattern of the bishop of Alexandria his power, but not greater, yea, it proves an equality between them, sith it ascribes the same to the one which was accustomed to the other.