A General View of Papistry, Book 1 · Controversy 4 · Question 5

A General View of Papistry · Book 1 · Controversy 4 · Question 5

p. 120THE FIFT QVESTION CONCERNING THE primacie of the See of Rome.

THis question hath diuers partes, which must be handled in their order. First, whether the Bishop of Rome hauehave authority ouer other Bishops. Secondly, whether appeales ought to be made to Rome from other countries. Thirdly, whether the Pope be subiect to the iudgemēt of any. Fourthly, whether he may be deposed. Fiftly, what primacie he hath ouer other Churches, & how it began. Sixtly, of the titles and names giuen to the Bishops of Rome.

THE FIRST PART WHETHER THE BISHOP of Rome hath authoritie ouer other Bishops.

The Papists.

error 41 THey doubt not to say, that the Bishop of Rome hath authoritie and ought so to hauehave, to ordaine and constitute Bishops, to depriue and depose them, to restore them likewise to their former dignities, and this power hee exerciseth ouer the vniuersall Church.

The Iesuites principall & only argument is drawen from certain examples: how the Bishops of Rome hauehave in times past, constituted, deposed, and restored some Bishops in the Greeke Church, as in the patriarchal Seas of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch: Ergo, hee hath power ouer all Bishops.

We answere: First, It was not done by the absolute authority of the Roman Bishops, any such constitution, or deposition, though perhappes their consent and allowance were required, as Leo writeth thus to Martianus the Emperour, about the ordayning of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople: Satis sit, quod vestrae pietatis auxilio & mei fauoris assensu episcopatum tantae vrbis obtinuit: It is sufficient,Epistol. 54. that by your godly helpe and my fauourable assent, he hath obtained so famous a Bishoprick. Whether was greater now, the help and furtherance of the Emperor, or the base assent of Leo? Secondly, wee denie not but that the Pope sometimes, what by sufferance of others, what by his owne intrusion, hath vsurped this power ouer other Bishops: by this ought not to make a law: that which is once or twise done by a false title, cannot prooue the iustnes of the title. Thirdly, that the Bishop of Rome hath no such authoritie, it appeareth by this, that he doth not, neither of many yeares hath constituted or ordayned the patriarks of the Greeke Church: they came not vp to Rome nor yet sent thither for their palls as other Archbishops here in the West parts hauehave done, & paied full dearely for them, being made slaues to the beast of Rome.

p. 121The Protestants.

THat the Pope neither hath, nor yet ought to hauehave any such authority ouer other Bishops: but that eueryevery one in his owne precinct, and iurisdiction hath the chiefe charge: It is thus proued.

1. Peter was not chiefe, neither did exercise iurisdiction ouer the twelue: Ergo, neither the Pope ought to doe ouer other Bishops. The antecedent or first part is thus confirmed. The heauenly Hierusalem, which is the Church of God, is described Apocal. 21. not with one foundation onelyonly of Peter, but with 12. foundations after the number of the Apostles: argument. Tunstalli. To this purpose also hee alleadgeth in saying out of Hierome contra Iouinian. Fox. p. 106…All the Apostles receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen: and vponupon them all indifferently and equally, is the strength of the Church grounded and established. Fox. p. 1066.

2. Till the yeare of the Lord 340. there was no respect had to the Church of Rome, but eueryevery Church was ruled by their owne gouernment: afterward followed the Councel of Nice, wherein was decreed, that the whole Church should be deuided into foure circuites or precincts: ouer the which there were foure Metropolitanes or patriarkes set: first the Bishop of Rome: next the Bishop of Alexandria: the third was the Bishop of Antioch: the fourth the Bishop of Ierusalem: and not long after came in the Bishop of Constantinople in the roume of the B. of Antioch. All these had equall authoritie in their prouinces, and one was not to deale within anothers charge: Ergo, the Bishop of Rome had not then the iurisdiction ouer the whole Church, argument. Nili. plura Fox. p. 9.

3. We will adioyne the testimonie of the fathers of Basile, which were all of the Popish sect: what hauehave the Bishops been in our daies say they, but only shadowes? might they not hauehave been called shepheards without sheepe? what had they more then their Miters and their staffe, when they could determine nothing ouer their subiects? Verily in the primitiue Church, the Bishops had the greatest power and authoritie: but now it was come to that poynt,Fox. p. …79. col. 1. that they exceeded the common sort of priests onelyonly in their habite and reuenewes. What plainer testimonie can we hauehave, then from the papists themselues?

Augustine also agreeth to their sentence: habet omnis episcopus, saith he,De baptis. lib. 2. cap. 2. pro licē tia libertatis & potestatis suae arbitrium propriū, tanquam iudicari ab alio nō possit, quomodo nec ipse potest alium iudicare, sed expectemus vniuersi iudiciū domini nostri Iesu Christi: EueryEvery Bishop is priuiledged by his own authoritie to follow his owne iudgement, neither is subiect to the iudgement of other Bishops, as he is not to iudge them, but they all must be referred to the iudgement of Christ: See then in this place Augustine setteth Bishops in the highest roume in the Church, and sayth, they hauehave no iudge aboue them but Christ.

p. 122THE SECOND PART CONCERNING APpeales to bee made to Rome.

The Papists.

SVch, say they, is the preeminēt authority of the Bishop of Rome, that appeals error 42 may be made vntounto him from all Churches in the world, and that all ought to stand to his sentence and determination. For the proofe hereof they bring no scripture, nor any sound argumēt, but stand chiefly vponupon certain odde examples of some that hauehave appealed to Rome: which we denie not to hauehave been done: but our answere more at large is this.

1. One cause of these appeales, was both for that, they which were iustly cōdemned of other Churches, found greater liberty and fauour at Rome, as Apiarius did, who being condemned in the 6. Aphricane Councel for his detestable conditions, found fauour with Zosimus Bishop of Rome, who wrote for him to the Councel to be receiued agayne. No maruayle then, if licentious fellowes, hoping to finde more fauour at Rome, did appeale thither: As also the ambition of the Bishops of Rome did somewhat helpe forward this matter, who were as ready to receiue such appeales, as others were to make them.

2. Bishop Tunstal doth answere very fully to this poynt, that, although appeales were made to Rome, yet was it not for any iurisdiction that the See had: but this was the cause, partly for that there were many deuisions and parts taking in the Oriental Churches, as also because many were infected with heresies, from the which the West & Occidētal Churches were more free, they were content to referre the cause many times to the Bishop of Rome, as being a more indifferent iudge, and not like to be partial, being no partie in the cause. Neither was their … to the Bishop of Rome singularly, but to the whole congregation of the Bishops of Italie and France, or of the whole West, as it appeareth by the epistles of Basile. Tunstal. apud Fox. 1067.

The Protestants.

That appeales ought not to be made to Rome, but that all matters and controuersies may best be ended and determined at home, where they doe arise: It is thus confirmed.

1. This matter was notably handled, anno 420. in the sixt Councel of Carthage, where Augustine was present, with Prosper and Orosius: To this Councel Pope Zozimus sent his Legate with certaine requests, of the which this was one, that it might be lawful for Bishops and priests to appeale from the sentence of their Metropolitanes, and also of the Councel to Rome: alleadging for him self a decree of the Nicene Councel. The Councel of Carthage sent forthwith to the patriarkes of Cōstantinople, Antioch & Alexandria, for a copie of the Coūcel p. 123of Nice, wherein no such Canon was found, that appeales should bee made to Rome: but the contrary: for in the sixt Canon of that Councel, it was founde how all matters, and all persons ecclesiasticall, both Bishops and others were committed to their Metropolitanes: vponupon this decree the Councel of Carthage drew out certain reasons why appeales should not be made to Rome. First, it is not otherwise to be thought, but that the grace of God is as ready at hande in one prouince as in another. Secondly, there is no neede to seeke any outlandish help: for the partie grieued may appeale to a prouinciall or generall Councel. Thirdly, it were not equall nor right to appeale from the Councel to the Bishop of Rome: for it is not like, that God will inspire his truth vntounto the Bishop, and denie it to a multitude congregated in his name.

Fourthly, no forraine or outlandish iudgement can be so vpright or iust: because the witnesses cannot be present, being hindered by infirmitie of sex, age, sicknes, by whom the truth should be discussed.

VponUpon these reasons the Councel concluded, that neither any appeales should be made to Rome: neither that Legates should be sent from Rome for deciding of matters: And this answere they made to Zozimus first, to Bonifacius and Celestinus, that in short time one succeeded another. And for all the B. of Rome his absolution, Apiarius was againe called coram, and brought to confesse his fault. Fox. p. 10. col. 2.

Now out of the Acts of this Councel, and their reasons alleadged wee conclude, that it is not fit, conuenient nor reasonable, that appeals should be made to Rome.

The Iesuite answereth, that appeales were forbidden to be made by priests to Rome, not by Bishops. This is but a vaine shift, for the reasons of the Councel are general against all appeales: And Apiarius, that appealed to Rome, was a priest, and no Bishop.

2. We can bring the decrees of a latter Councell, then this of Carthage: for in the Councell of Basile it was decreed, that no actions or controuersies should be brought from other countries to be pleaded at Rome▪ which were more then foure daies iourney distant from the said court of Rome, a few principall matters onelyonly excepted, apud Fox. p. 697.

3. This also is flatly contrary to the rule of the Apostle, that appellations should be made out of the Church a far off. Is it so, sayth hee, that there is not a wise man amongst you, no not one that can iudge amongst his brethren? 1. Cor. 6.5. Ergo, eueryevery Church hath wise men sufficient in it, whereby their controuersies may be ended.

4. Augustine also thus writeth concerning this matter, Miltiades Episcopus Romanus, non sibi vsurpauit iudicium de causa Ceciliani, sed rogatus imperator iudices misit Episcopos, qui cum eo sederent, epist. 162. Miltiades Bishop of Rome did not vsurpe or take vponupon himselfe to iudge the cause of Cecilian, but the Emperour being requested, sent other bishops, that should sit and determine the cause together with him. Out of these words first we note, that it had beene p. 124vsurpation and presumption for the Bishop of Rome to hauehave taken vponupon him the iudgement of this matter, not belonging vntounto him, vnlesse the Emperor had committed it. Secondly, that Miltiades did not suffer other Bishops to sitte with him, as Bellarmine imagineth: but, he could not otherwise choyse, for they were ioyned in commission by the Emperour, to be iudges as well as he. Thus we see what small shew or colour of title the Pope hath, to heare or receiue appeales from other countries.

THE THIRD PART, WHETHER THE Pope be subiect to the iudgement of anye.

The Papists.

error 43 THe Pope neither can nor ought to bee iudged either of the Emperour, or anie other Seculare or ecclesiasticall Magistrate, no not of any generall Councel, Bellarmin. cap. 26. Nay, hee should doe iniurie vntounto GOD, to submit himselfe to the iudgement of any, Iacobat. ex Tilhemann. de pontif. rom. err. 34.

Beside certayne blinde canons and constitutions, and a fewe examples grounded vponupon the insolent practises of Popes, they hauehave no other arguments either out of scripture, or drawen from reason, to confirme this their hideous and monstrous opinion withal.

Bellarmine reasoneth thus: the Prince is not to bee iudged by the commonwealth: but is greater then his kingdome: the Pope is the prince of the Church: Ergo

We answere: First, concerning the Princes high and Soueraigne authority we will not now dispute: we make it not infinite, the word of God must bee a rule and square both of ciuill and ecclesiasticall iudgement. Secondly, It is sufficient for vsus here to answere, that the Iesuite hath sayd nothing: for this which he assumeth for a reason, is the greatest matter in question between vsus: and so great an vntruth he hath vttered, that he is constrained to leaue scripture, and seeke helpe else-where. But he shall neuer, by any good reason, or sufficient authority prooue, that the Pope hath any such Princedome in the Church, as he would beare vsus in hand.

The Protestants.

THat the Pope as well as other ecclesiasticall persons, ought to be, and is by right subiect to the iudgement and authoritie of the Emperor, King, Prince, or other supreame magistrate, and may also by generall Councels be corrected and censured, thus it is proued.

1. Peter was iudged of Paul, Galat. 2. and of him iustly reproued: Ergo, the doings of the Pope may be iudged and censured.

Bellarmine answereth, that it was not iudicialis censurae, but fraterna correptio, it was no iudiciall censure, but a brotherly reprehension.

p. 125We replie: First, publike censure and reprehension is a part of ecclesiasticall iudgement and discipline, therefore Peter being publikely rebuked, was therby iudged also of Paul. Secondly, the question is not onelyonly concerning publike & open iudgement, but whether it be lawfull to call the Popes doings into question, & whether his decrees are absolutely to be receiued without any scāning or discussing, or making any doubt thereof: for this we hold, that it is the duety of all Christians to examine and trie the trueth of all things, which they are to receiue and beleeue, though they sit not formally and iudicially, as in consistories: to iudge their spirituall pastors: so the Beraeans iudged of the Apostles doctrine: so may the Popes decrees be examined and iudged. Thirdly, the Iesuite granteth that the Pope may be rebuked and brotherly reproued, but the Extrauagant denieth it: non est, qui audeat dicere, domine curfacis sic? none dare say vntounto him, sir why doest thou so?Fulk. 2. Gal. 2. sect. 8.Gal 2

2. EueryEvery soule must be subiect to the higher powers, Ergo, the Pope, Rom. 13.1. Bellarm. answereth, that the Apostle here speaketh of all superiours both spirituall and temporall, and therefore it cannot bee concluded, that the Pope ought to obey, but hee must bee obeyed, because hee is also a spirituall power.

We replie: Saint Paul in this place speaketh onelyonly of the ciuill Magistrate. First he calleth them foreign, Princes, which is not meant of ecclesiasticall or Church gouernors, nor so taken in any place of scripture. Secondly, they are sayd to beare the sword. Thirdly, tribute is payde to them: those thinges agree not to ecclesiasticall gouernors: so the Iesuite is answered.

THE FOVRTH PART, WHETHER THE Pope may be deposed from his papacie.

The Papists.

SOme of them holde that the Pope ought not, neither can be deposed for heresie; error 44 because it is not possible for the Pope to fall into heresie. Pighius the Iesuite confesseth this to be a probable opinion: but himselfe defendeth it not: he confesseth also the opinion of Caietanus, that the Pope may be deposed for manifest and apparant heresie. Bellarmines opinion is this: that the pope can not be deposed for any cause but heresie: and not for all heresie, but that which is manifest and apparant: Neither is he then deposed by any act of the Church, but is of himselfe deposed, and ceaseth any more to bee pope: so the Church may afterward punish him, but he is then no Pope, for as soone as he is become an hereticke, his popedome in the very Acte is gone from him, Bellarmin. cap. 30.

He reasoneth thus: A manifest hereticke is not so much as a member of the Church, much lesse can he be pope, who they say is the heade of the Church, and therefore in such a case the pope is deposed without anie sentence: and if p. 129afterward the Church proceede against him, they doe not iudge the Pope▪ for he had lost his papacie before.

We answer: First, if a manifest hereticke be actually deposed, it is by the secret iudgement and sentence of God: for by no other authority can he be deposed as they hold: but before God manifest heresie, and close and secret heresie is all one: therefore the Pope is also actually deposed for secret heresie, and not onelyonly for manifest: and so some of the papists think, as Iohann. de Turre veniata. Secondly, what call you manifest heresie? or how is hee knowen to bee a manifest hereticke? Can hee bee an heretick before hee bee conuinced? shall iudgement passe against him vncondemned? A murtherer is a dead man by lawe, yet hee liueth till iudgement passe vponupon him: so is the Pope beeing an heretick, yet Pope, till he be iudicially proceeded against; as a murtherer dead by right is in act yet liuing, till by law he is depriued of his life. An heretick, sayth Saint Paul, after two or three admonitions auoyd: that is, saith the Iesuite, he is now excommunicate before the sentence of the iudge. Be it so, but hee must first be admonished, and if he still continue obstinate, then he is a manifest heretike: so before the Pope can be knowen to be a manifest heretick, he must be found obstinate, he cannot be obstinate, vnlesse he refuse to be admonished, if he be admonished, then is he iudged. Thirdly, an heretick ceaseth not to bee a priest, (as they speake) no not after heresie is knowen, for manifest heretickes may baptize. The Donatists in Augustines time were manifest hereticks, and yet the Church did not baptize againe after them: If a manifest heretick cease not to be a priest, neither ceaseth he to be Pope; there is like reason of both: for if an heretick, because he is not a member of the Church, can not be a Pope, neither also can he retayne the priesthood.

Lastly, who seeth not what bare and friuolous shifts those are? one saith, the Church may iudge the Pope,Caietan. not as he is Pope, but in respect of his person: an other sayth, that they may iudge the man which was Pope, but hee is then no Pope, because his heresie tooke from him the papacie. Why masters what iugling is here? is the Pope one thing and the Popes person an other? By the same reason you may say, that the Pope neither eateth, nor drinketh, nor sleepeth, nor dieth, and so make a god of him, because it is the popes person that doth all this, and not the Pope.

And by this shift you make no difference betweene an heretick Bishop, o… heretick priest, and heretick Pope: for by the same reason, none of them all shall be subiect to the iudgement of the Church: for we may say, that a manifest heretick, whether Bishop or priest, hath lost by that very act of falling into heresie, his priesthood and Bishoprick, and then is neither Bishop nor priest. And so you may conclude altogether: that neither Pope, Bishop nor piest can bee deposed from heresie.

The Protestants.

WE doubt not to say, that the Pope both lawfully hath been depriued somtime by the Emperour, somtime by generall Councels, not onelyonly for hesie, p. 127but for other notable crimes, and may still bee proceeded agaynst by the same right, as well as any other Bishop or Prelate.

1 Diuers examples wee are able to bring forth, how the Pope hath been deposed for other crimes, beside heresie. Pope Iohn the 13. was deposed in a generall Councel by the consent of Otho the Emperour, for other matter beside heresie: as that he ordayned Deacons in a stable, that he committed incest with two of his sisters, that playing at dice, he called to the diuell for helpe, that he defloured virgins, that he lay with Stephana his fathers concubine, likewise with Ramera and Anna, and her Neece: for these beastlie parts and such like, he was deposed: there was no heresie obiected agaynst him. And thinke you not he was worthily vnpoped? yet the Papists thinke no: for they admit no cause of depriuation but heresie. This deuillish Pope, through the harlots of Rome (for he was well beloued of them) recouered his Popedome agayne; but at the length the Lord himselfe displaced him: for in the tenth yeere of his Popedome, being founde without the citie with an other mans wife, hee was so wounded of her husbande, that within eight dayes after hee dyed, Fox. pag. 159.

Boniface the 7. tooke Pope Iohn the 15. who was made Pope a little before, and hee expelled, yet recouering the Papacie by force, hee tooke him, put out his eyes, and threwe him in prison where he was famished: Likewise was Iohn the 18. serued by Gregorie the 5. his eyes were thrust out first,Fox. p. 160. and he afterward slayne. I meruaile how our Catholikes can excuse these furious outrages of their ghostly fathers of Rome!

In the Councel of Brixia, Gregorie the 7. was deposed, not for heresie, but for other abominable vices: as maintayning of periurie and murthers: for following Diuinations & Dreames, Sorcerie & Necromancie, Fox. p. 181. Pope Iohn the 23. deposed in the Councel of Constance: Eugenius in the Councel at Basile: yet neither of them for heresie. And yet our aduersaries would still make vsus beleeue, that Popes cannot be deposed for any crime but heresie.

2 We can hauehave no better argument, then from our aduersaries themselues. It is a sport to see what diuers opinions they hold, and doe runne as it were in a maze, not knowing which way to get out. Pighius thinketh, that the Pope cannot possiblie fall into heresie, and therefore for no cause may bee deposed: Some other thinke that the Pope for secret and close heresie is actually deposed of GOD, and may also bee deposed and iudged of the Church: thus holdeth Iohann. de turre cremat. Caietanus is of opinion, that for manifest and open heresie the Pope is both alreadie by right deposed, and may also actually be deposed of the Church: But Bellarmine confuteth all these. There is a fourth opinion most grosse: that the Pope neither for secret nor open heresie, is either alreadie of right deposed, or may be actually depriued of the Church. Lastly commeth in the nice and daintie Iesuite with his quirkes and quiddities, who sayth, that the Pope in case of manifest heresie, ceaseth to bee Pope, and is euen now deposed: and if after the Church proceede agaynst him, they iudge not the p. 128Pope, for now hee is no Pope: Which opinion how absurd it is, I hauehave declared before.

THE FIFT PART CONCERNING THE ORIGInall and beginning of the primacie of Rome.

The Papists.

THey doe boldly affirme without any ground, that the primacie of that See error 45 hath his beginning from no other but Christ: they are the Iesuites owne words: Romani pontificis ecclesiasticum principatum, authore Christo, principium accepisse: that the princely dignitie of the Bishop of Rome, acknowledgeth no other author or beginner thereof, but Christ, Bellarm. cap. 7. lib. 2.

1 They would build the primacie of the Romane Church vponupon certaine places of scripture: as Math. 16. Thou art Peter, and vponupon this rocke will I build my Church. Luk. 22. I hauehave prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith should not faile. Iohn 21. Christ sayd to Peter, feede my sheepe: Ergo, Peter and Peters successors hauehave their primacie from Christ, Bellarm.

To these places Tunstal and Stokeslie two Popish Bishops, yet in this poynt holding the truth, did properly make answere in their Epistle sent to Cardinall Poole.

To the first: They affirme out of the ancient expositors, that it is ment of the faith which was then first confessed by the mouth of Peter, and not of Peters person. Further, confirming out of S. Paul, that neither Peter, nor no creature beside, could bee the foundation of the Church: for no other foundation can any man lay (sayth the Apostle) besides that which is layd, Iesus Christ, 1. Cor. 3.

To the second they answere: that Christ speaketh onelyonly of the fall of Peter, which hee knewe in his godlie prescience, giuing an inkling vntounto him, that after his fall hee should bee conuerted and strengthen his brethren: for if it were ment also of Peters successors, they must first faile in faith, and after confirme their brethren.

To the third: The whole flock of Christ was not committed to Peter to feede: for he himselfe testifieth the contrarie, exhorting all Pastors to feede the flocke of Christ,…. Pet. 5. which was giuen them in charge by Christ, as it followeth in that place: when the chiefe shepheard shall appeare, ye shall receiue the incorruptible Crowne of eternall glorie: He calleth not himselfe the chiefe shepheard, but onelyonly Christ. It is euident therefore (say they) that your 3. scriptures ment nothing lesse, then such a primacie ouer all, Fox. pag. 1067.

2 There can bee no time assigned since Christ (say they) when this primacie should begin, nor no author named that brought it in: Ergo, it must needes bee attributed to Christ, he must of necessitie bee found the author thereof.

p. 129We answere: the time may bee assigned, the authors named, when, and by whom this pretensed and vsurped authoritie was brought in, as euen now wee will shewe.

The Protestants.

THat the vsurped iurisdiction of Rome tooke not the beginning from Christ, nor his Apostles, neither was heard of for many yeres after: we thus are able to proue it.

1 Before the Nicene Councel, which first deuided the regiment of the Church into foure Patriarchal seates: Rome had small or no preeminence. So Aeneas Syluius witnesseth, who afterward was Pope of Rome, and called Pius the 2. Ante Nicenum concilium sibi quisque viuebat, & ad Romanam ecclesiam paruus habebatur respectus, Epist. 301. Before the Nicene Councel, eueryevery Bishop liued to himselfe, there was no great respect had to the Church of Rome. What more euident testimonie can wee hauehave then of a Pope himselfe? Yet the Iesuite sayth, that it is false in part, which hee writeth. He is somewhat mannerly, in making him but halfe a lyer: yet I wonder that he will confesse any vntruth at all in his ghostly fathers words, Bellarm. cap. 17. lib. 2.

Secondly, in the Councel of Nice there was no primacie of power giuen to Rome ouer the whole Church: but the other Patriarkes of Alexandria, Antioch, Ierusalem, were priuiledged in like manner in their confines, as the Bishop of Rome was in his: They had all equall authoritie giuen them in their owne prouinces: Sic Tonstall. Stokesli. ad Poolum.

Thirdly, afterward there was a certayne primacie of order graunted vntounto the Patriarke of Rome aboue other Patriarkes; as to hauehave the first place, to sit first, to giuegive his sentence first. One cause hereof was, for that Rome was then the Emperiall and chiefe citie in all the world: this reason was rendered in the Councel of Chalcedon. Can. 28. An other cause thereof,Fox. pag. 9. was the ample priuiledges and immunities, which the Emperours endued it withall, as Constantine the great: and Gratianus the Emperour made a lawe, that all men should reteyne that religion, which Damasus of Rome, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria did hold.

A third cause was, the vnquiet estate of the Greeke Church, who often voluntarily referred their matters to the Bishop of Rome, as being lesse partiall and a more indifferent Iudge, they themselues being diuided and rent into sects. And hereupon, and other like causes it came about,Fox. p. 18. that the Bishop of Rome a little stepped aboue his fellowe Patriarkes, but yet had no such preeminent authoritie, as to commaund them.

Fourthly, the Pope of Rome being thus tickled with vayne glorie, because they were reuerenced of other Churches, many matters were committed vntounto them, and their consent required vntounto the decrees of Councels, when they were p. 130absent. Hereupon they laboured eueryevery day more and more to aduance that See, taking eueryevery small occasion that might helpe forward their ambicious desire, till Anno. 606. or somewhat after, Boniface the 3. obtayned of wicked Phocas the Emperour (who murthered his master the Emperour Mauritius and his children, to come to the Empire, and was after slaine himselfe of Heraclius that succeeded him) of him, I say, Boniface for himselfe and his successors obtayned, to bee called vniuersall Bishops ouer the whole Church:Fox. p. 120. and the See of Rome to hauehave the preeminence aboue all other Churches in the world.

Afterward in Pope Zacharie his time, the proude and insolent iurisdiction of Rome was established by Pipinus King of France, who aspired to the Crowne, and obtayned it by the sayd Popes meanes, first deposing Childericus the rightfull King, and dispensing with the oath, which the French men had made before to Childericus, Calum. Institut. 4. cap. 7. sect. 17.

Thus then it sufficiently appeareth, that the primacie of Rome, which it now vniustly challengeth ouer other Churches, is not of any such antiquitie, as they would beare the world in hand, neither that it had the beginning from Christ: but both the time when, and the authors by whom it began, may bee easily assigned.

2 Wee neede no better argument, to proue that the primacie of Rome hath not his originall from Christ, then the Iesuites owne confession. First, he sayth, that it doth not depend of Christs institution, but, ex Petri facto, of Peters fact, that the Bishop of Rome should bee rather Peters successor, then the Bishop of Antioch, or any other: It is not, iure diuino, saith he, by Gods lawe: neither is it, ex prima institutione pontificatus, quae in Euangelio legitur, of the first institution whereof wee reade in the Gospell. And agayne, Romanum pontificem succedere Petro, non habetur expresse in scripturis: It is not expressely set downe in scripture, that the Bishop of Rome should succeede Peter: but it is grounded onelyonly vponupon the tradition of Peter. Nay, he saith further, that Peter needed not to hauehave chosen any particular place for succession, and he might as well hauehave chosen Antioch as Rome: Ergo, neither is the succession of Rome grounded vponupon scripture, neither any commandement of Christ: for then Peter could not hauehave had free choyse to appoynt his successor where he would himselfe, as the Iesuite saith, if he had had any especiall direction or commaundement from Christ. So then, marke I pray you, they cannot proue out of scripture, that the Bishop of Rome ought to succeede Peter in the chiefe Bishopricke, but onelyonly that Peter had the chiefe Bishopricke committed to him and his successors in generall, whosoeuer they should appoynt: Ergo, the Bishops of Rome by their owne confession, can alleadge no scripture, institution, or commandement of Christ, for the primacie of the Church to bee annexed to the See of Rome: and yet agaynst their knowledge they will alleadge scripture to colour the matter withall, Bellarm. lib. 2. de pontif. ca. 17.

3 Augustine saith: Secundum honorum vocabula, quae iam ecclesiae vsus obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio maior est. The office of a Bishop is aboue the office p. 131of a Priest, according to the names of honour, which the Church by custome hath obtayned. If then the difference of those two offices, both named in scripture, did arise rather and spring of the custome of the Church, which thought it good to distinguish them for auoyding of schisme, and is not grounded vponupon the authoritie of scripture: much lesse can the Pope (whose neither name, nor office is expressed in scripture) fetch from thence any shew of proofe, for his vsurped primacie.

THE SIXT PART OF THIS QVESTION, CONCERning the proud names and vayne glorious titles of the Pope.

The Papists.

BEllarmine setteth downe to the number of fifteene glorious names which error 46 hauehave been of old giuen (as he saith) to the Bishop of Rome, whereby his primacie ouer other Bishops is notoriously knowne: but the principall are these: He is called the Pope and chiefe Father, the prince of Priests, or high Bishop, the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Church, the Prelate of the Apostolike See, vniuersall Bishop. These sixe names or titles they doe appropriate to the See of Rome, Bellarm. de Roman. pontif. lib. 2. cap. 31.

The Protestants.

WE will shewe by Gods grace, that these sixe seuerall titles and names aforesayd, are either such, as ought not in their sense to be attributed to any Bishop, nor any mortall man▪ or els were common in ancient times as well to other Bishops, as to him of Rome.

1 For the first name of Pope, it is deriued from the Greeke word foreign, which in the Syracusane language, is as much as, Father: which name was indifferently giuen to other Bishops, which were famous in the Church for their vertue and learning: As Cypriane, Epiphanius, Athanasius, were called Papae, Popes:Fox. pag. 8. Augustine saluteth Aurelius President of the 6. Councel of Carthage, by the name of Pope, Epistol. 77.

Likewise, those two epithetes of the Pope, as to bee called, Beatissim. & sanctissim. pater: most holy and blessed father, were vsed in the stile of other Bisshops: Prosper, in his Epistle to Augustine, twise calleth him Dominum beatissimum papam, Lord, most blessed Pope, Tom. 7. Hierome calleth Epiphanius, Beatum papam, blessed Pope, Ad Eustach. Fabiol.

Augustine writing to Petrus the Presbyter, or Priest, being no Bishop, yet thus saluteth him: Ad sanctitatem tuam scripsit, he hath written to your holines.De origine anim. 2.1. De origine anim. lib. 1. cap. 2. Nay, in his booke dedicated to Renatus a lay man, neither Priest nor Bishop, thus he writeth, Hinc angor, quòd sanctitati tuae▪ minus quàm vellem cognitus sum: This grieueth me, that I am not so well knowne to your holines as I desire. If p. 132then these titles of holinesse and blessednesse were not onelyonly giuen to Bishops, but Priests also, yea vntounto lay men of vertuous and holy life; what colour or shewe of reason can our aduersaries hauehave, to make them proper to the Bishop of Rome?

2 The second name is prince of Priests, or high and chiefe Bishop: which title, if it be taken for a chiefe power, dominion, and soueraigntie, is proper only to Christ the chiefe shepheard, 1. Pet. 5.4. and cannot in that sense agree to any man. If it bee vsed onelyonly as a title of excellencie and commendation, so was it in times past ascribed to other excellent and famous Bishops, as Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 26. calleth Athanasius, Pontificem maximum, chiefe Bishop: yea it was in common giuen to all Bishops: as Anacletus Bishop of Rome in his second Epistle writeth thus: Summi sacerdotes, id est, Episcopi, a deo iudicandi sunt: The high Priests, that is, Bishops (saith he) are to bee iudged of God. If it be taken further for the excellencie of the ministerie of the Gospell, and the worthie calling of Christians, in this sense the title of summum sacerdotium, of the high Priesthood, is attributed to all ministers Ecclesiasticall, both Bishops and others:Fox pag. 12 Col. 1.Col 1 so Fabianus Bishop of Rome vseth this name. Yea, the holy Apostle calleth all the people of God foreign, a princely, royall, or chiefe priesthood: Ergo, the Bishop of Rome hath no especiall or proper interest in this name.

3 The third name is, to bee called the Vicar of Christ vponupon earth. Where we are to vnderstand, that in respect of the spirituall regiment and kingdome of Christ, he needeth no Vicegerent vponupon earth: for, I am with you (saith he) to the end of the world: he himselfe is alway present in power, and needeth not in that respect, that any man should supplie his roume. Petrus scriba martyr. Fox. pag. 906. If we doe take it for a word of office and publike administration, so the Magistrate may bee called the Vicar of Christ, in gouerning the people according to the word of God: In which sense Eleutherius Bishop of Rome, writing to Lucius King of the Britaines, calleth him the Vicar of Christ, and therfore in his owne kingdome had power out of the word of God to establish lawes,Fox. p. 107. for the gouernment of the people. So all Bishops, Pastors and Ministers in ancient time were called the Vicars of Christ, in preaching, praying, binding and loosing in the name and power of Christ.Quaest. ex …uo que 127. So Augustine saith, or whose worke els it is, that, Omnis antistes est Christi vicarius: EueryEvery pastor and prelate (and not the Pope onelyonly) is the Vicar of Christ. And this is confessed by our Rhemists, annot. in 2. Cor. 5.18. that the Bishops and priests of the Church are for Christ, and as his ministers,Quaes…. 106 that is, his Vicars. Nay, Augustine maketh yet a more generall vse of this word: he saith, that, Homo imperium Dei habens, quasi vicarius eius est: That man by creation being made Lord of the creatures, doth therein represent God, and is as his Vicar vponupon earth. So then, all ministers are the Vicars of Christ; the ciuill Magistrate likewise, in some good sense, may bee so called: yea in respect of the creatures, man generallie is vponupon earth in Gods steade: Ergo, this name cannot be appropriate to the Pope of Rome.

p. 1334 It is also too huge a name for the Pope or any mortall man to beare, to be called the head of the vniuersall Church: this is a name only due vntounto Christ, neither doe the scriptures acknowledge any other head, but him, Ephes. 1.22.4.15. But (say they) wee doe not make the Pope such an head, as Christ is, but only a ministeriall head ouer the militant Church vponupon earth.

We answere: First, Ergo, the Pope by your owne confession is not head of the vniuersall Church, whereof the triumphant Church in heauen is a part. Secondly, the Rhemists confesse that the Church in no sense can bee called the bodie of the Pope: Ergo, the Pope cannot be any wayes the head of the vniuersall Church, Annot. in 1. Ephes. 22. Thirdly, the Fathers of Basile vsed this argument: The head of the bodie being dead, the whole bodie also dyeth; but the whole Church doth not perish with the Pope: Ergo, he is not properly the head of the Church, Fox pag. 675.

If it shall bee further obiected, that the Bishop of Rome hath been called in times past, caput Episcoporum, the head of all other Bishops: we answere, that it was but a title of excellencie and commendation, not of dominion and power: as London is called the head or chiefe citie of England, yet are not other cities of the land subiect vntounto it, or vnderunder the iurisdiction thereof. But we shall hauehave occasion more fully to discusse this matter afterward.

5 They would hauehave the Pope called the Prelate of the Apostolike See: the Rhemists say further, that the Papall dignitie is a continuall Apostleship, Annot. 4. Ephes. sect. 4.

We answere: First, if they call those Churches Apostolicall, whose first founders were the Apostles, then the See of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, are as well Apostolicall as Rome: and this the Iesuite denyeth not, Lib. 2. de pontific. cap. 31. Secondly, those Churches are Apostolicall, which hold the Apostolike faith: so is not the See of Rome Apostolicall, being departed and gone backe from the ancient Catholike faith: but those Churches where the Gospell of Iesus Christ is truely preached, are indeede Apostolike. Thirdly, how can the Pope be an Apostle, or hauehave Apostolike authoritie, seeing hee preacheth not at all, much lesse to the whole world, wherein consisted the office of an Apostle? Neither can he shewe his immediate calling from Christ, as all the Apostles could: for seeing he challengeth the Apostolike office by tradition from S. Peter, and not by commandement from Christ; he can in no wise be counted an Apostle, or his office an Apostleship: for the Apostles ordayned onelyonly Euangelists and Pastors, they had not authoritie to consecrate and constitute new Apostles. Our aduersaries for this their Apostleship, can finde nothing in scripture, nor for a thousand yeeres after Christ in the ancient writers, Fulk. annot. in Ephes. 4. sect. 4.

6 Concerning the title of vniuersall Bishop, it was thus decreed in the sixt Councel of Carthage, as it is alleadged by Gratian: Distinct. 99Vniuersalis autem nec Romanus pontifex appelletur: No not the Bishop of Rome is to be called vniuersall. p. 134In Gregorie the first his time, Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople, obtayned of the Emperour Mauritius to be called vniuersall Patriarke: but Gregorie would not agree thereunto, calling him the forerunner of Antichrist, that would challenge so proude a name.

Bellarmine and other of that sect doe answere, that Gregorie found fault with this title,Lib. 2 de pont. ca. 31. because Iohn of Constantinople would hauehave been Bishop alone, and none other to bee beside him, but all other onelyonly to bee his deputies and vicars.

To this wee replie: First, Iohn did onelyonly challenge a superioritie ouer other Bishops, not to be Bishop alone, for this had been a thing impossible. Secondly, if Iohn had sought any such thing, it is not like that the Chalcedone Councel and the Emperour would hauehave yeelded to so vnreasonable a matter as they did. Thirdly, Eulogius Patriarke of Alexandria doth call the sayd Gregorie vniuersall Pope, which name he vtterly refuseth: and yet Eulogius had no such meaning to make him Bishop or Patriarke alone, but onelyonly to giuegive him a preeminence aboue the rest.Fox. pag. 13 This modest and humble Bishop of Rome Gregorie, in stead of the title, Vniuersall, brought it into the Popes stile to be called Seruus seruorum dei, seruant to Gods seruants: Ergo, wee conclude with Gregorie, that this title. Vniuersall, is an Antichristian name, and that it hath misliked the ancient Bishops of Rome themselues, and how other Patriarkes and Bisshops hauehave challenged that ambitious name and title, as well as the Popes of Rome.