which all this Babel is built that our Saviour did confer any Preeminence of Power and Authority upon Peter above the rest of the Apostles because 1. These words Upon this Rock will I build my Church cannot without blasphemy be affirmed of the Person of Peter who himself was built upon the Rock Christ and was not the Foundation but only a Workman at the Building Indeed in the Figurative Description of New Jerusalem Rev. 21.14 which John makes in his Vision he compares it to a City which had twelve Foundations upon which were written the Names of the twelve Apostles Rev. 21. So that if the Papists will needs call Peter a Foundation I hope they will take in the rest of the Apostles to be sharers with him in that Title But since the whole Description in John City and all is only Figurative and Metaphoricall the Foundation there mentioned must be like the City i. e. so called not in a Reall but only Metaphoricall Acception For to speak properly as Paul doth No other Foundation can any man lay 1 Cor. 3.11 than what is already laid and that is Eph. 2. that Jesus is the Christ And therefore when we are said to be built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles the meaning is not that we are built upon their Persons but upon their Doctrine the summe of which is contained in Peter's confession upon which Rock our Saviour hath so built his Church that the Gates or Powers of Hell however they may rage and strive to ruine it yet they shall never be able finally to prevail against it but Christ will have a Church in some place or other unto the end of the world 2. If Peter was the Rock so as all Christians even the Apostles themselves were to depend upon his guidance what a wretched and tottering condition would the Church have been in when this Rock so soon after was shaken and almost removed out of his place For within some few minutes he is rebuked by our Saviour in no milder language than this Get thee behind me Satan The Story of his denying and that with Oaths his Master is too notorious to be palliated and too sad to be insisted on Even after our Saviours Resurrection when they pretend this promise of Infallibility was inseparably annexed to him Act. 10. we find him unresolved in that part of his Commission which concerned his preaching the Gospel unto the Gentiles and therefore had the assistance of a particular Visiton more fully to inform him of it and afterwards at Antioch we read that he was of so inconstant and unequall a carriage in that great point of Christian Liberty complying herein more than he ought Gal. 2. with the Jewish rigour and austerity that Paul was forced openly to reprove him for it and so prevent the contagion of his ill example So that if he who in the Court of Rome's stile is called Prince of the Apostles in matters of so great moment was thus subject to Errour and Fallibility I wonder with what face the Pope upon the account of being Peter's Suceessour can plead any exemption 3. These words I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven do not denote any peculiar power that Peter had over the rest of the Apostles for then how came it to pass afterwards that there were so many and so fierce contentions amongst them Who should be greatest Which our Saviour at two severall times silences not by commanding them to obey Peter as their Chief but by utter prohibiting any desire of Soveraignty If they answer us as Bellarmine doth that the Apostles did not clearly understand that Peter was to be Supream Head till after our Saviour's Resurrection which by the way is nothing else but a bold playing with sacred Scripture Then I demand farther when there was a new Apostle to be chosen into the room of Judas why did not Peter by his sole Authority Act. 1. design him or at least when the multitude of Disciples for so we read that all of them were concerned in the choice had appointed two why did they not present them both unto Peter that he might choose one rather than suffer the matter to be decided by Lot sure had Peter had any paramount and extraordinary Power and withall a peculiar infallible spirit he could not have better exerted it than in that emergency For the Head of the Church in so concerning a business first to permit all the multitude to have a voice in choosing an Apostle for if our modern Arguments are good he might justly fear that they being for the greatest part unlearned would choose one like themselves and so prejudice the reputation of Apostolicall Authority and afterwards to leave the matter unto the uncertain casualty of a Lot whereas the choice seemed properly to belong to Peter's Jurisdiction this argues either that his Power or his care of the Church was very little of which last I hope the Papists do not doubt and therefore must needs deny the former For what is it else but to tempt God to have recourse unto casting of Lots when a way of choice more prudent and Infallible by referring the business to Peter's single Decision was opened for them But it seemes the Apostles understood nothing of Peter's Supremacy either then or afterwards when they went to choose Deacons which by all the Apostles Peter not being so much as particularly mentioned was committed to the Mulitude and after the choice Imposition of hands was performed not by Peter alone but as the Text expressely saies by all the Apostles Will they tell us that this was a thing below him Act. 6. and that it did not become Peter's Authority to interesse himself in a matter of so petty concernment This plea is taken from them because we read that the Twelve and among them sure Peter was one did not think it below them and besides it will appeare a strange kind of conceated and uselesse Authority which they ascribe to Peter which in maters neither of the greatest such as was the choice of an Apostle nor of the least moment such as was the choice of a Deacon would ever so particularly exert it self that we might once take notice of his Prerogative But what kind of Equality Peter stood in to the rest of the Apostles he shewed Act. 8. in submitting to be sent with John unto Samaria to finish that worke of the Gospell which Philip had begun there for sure our Saviours Argument is Infallible Joh 15. that He who is sent is not greater then he who sends him And it would have been a strange boldnesse I believe the Pope would call it by a worse name in his Cardinalls should the Apostles have thus presumed to send their Prince had he indeed been so constituted over them Yet further when there was a Question started about the use of Jewish Ceremonies and a Synod convened about
most insisted on though to as little or if possible lesse purpose than either of the former is Joh. 21.15 17. Where our Saviour repeats no lesse then three times Peter feed my Lambes and feed my sheepe Bellarmines Comment upon these words is very admirable 1. By Feed which in the Scripture dialect signifies only to Teach and compassionatly to care for he understands to Rule and Governe as Prince because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes so rendered 2. By Lambes and Sheepe he sayes are understood Christians of all sorts and sizes Lambes signifying the weak in Faith and Sheep the Apostles and Teachers which are to other Christians as Sheep are to their Lambes i. e. the bringers of them forth in the Faith of Christ over whom Peter is here constituted Universall Bishop and none who belong to Christ as one of his sheep but must by virtue of this Commission be obedient unto Peters Rule and Direction Had Bellarmine stopped here and streined this Scripture no farther he might have had some commendation for his Wit though very little for his Honesty but when he goes on and Infers 3. That whatever here is granted to Peter was entended likewise for his Successour and 4. That the Bishop af Rome did succeed him I cannot but observe how ill an Interpreter of Scripture Prejudice and Prepossession is for who that reads this place without looking upon it through the Spectacles of the Popes Infallibility can make any other sense of it than this that Peter having denyed our Saviour thrice is here thrice minded of his Duty to humble him under the sense of his former miscarriage and to direct him that he could not better demonstrate his Love to Christ then by showing a care over his little ones which our Saviour had before enjoyned him when he said Thou being converted confirme thy Brethren which is all one with what is here commanded him Feed my Lambs and Sheep i. e. Teach Instruct Reprove exhort them and therein performe all the Acts of a Faithfull Minister as Paul to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus bids them to Feed the Church of God Act. 20.28 and Peter to the Elders of the Believing Jewes in that very place where he forbids them all manner of Soveraignty and Coercive Jurisdiction commands them to Feed the Flock of God which was among them 1 Pet. 5..2 And what the word Feed signifies God himself hath already explained when he promises by his Prophet that he would give unto his People Pastours according to his own heart who should Feed his people Jer. 3.13 with knowledge and with understanding So that the word cannot be rendred to Rule and Governe with Force and Authority and making all men submit unto his Infallible Dictates for this is that which God condemnes in the Shepheards of Israel who ruled over them with severity Ezek. 33.4 and with Rigour and Cruelty but with all gentlenesse and condescension to accommodate themselves unto the weak and infirme state of their Flockes 〈◊〉 40.11 as God describes himself He shall Feed his Flocke like a Shepheard he shall gather the Lambes with his Arme and shall gently lead those that are with Young Ezek. 34.15.16 And again I will Feed my Flock and cause them to lye down I will seek that which was lost and bring again that which was driven away and will bind up that which was broken and will strengthen that which was sicke This is the part of a good Shepheard and this is the summe of what here is enjoyned Peter After this plain and clear vindication of these Scriptures had I a mind to make my self and my Reader sport I could not find a better Subject than by enlarging and descanting upon those excellent Arguments that Bellarmine alleadges to prove 1. That Peter was Bishop of Rome and 2. That the Pope did succeed him not only into that Bishoprick but likewise into all his other more than Apostolicall Priviledges The first he proves from the dignity of that See which sayes he could no otherwise arise but because Peter was Primate there but who doth not see that the dignity of it might easily arise from other causes as particularly from this because it was the chief seat of the Roman Empire which is the Reason assigned why the Bishop of Constantinaple was to have the second place Concil Constantinop Can. 5. because he was Bishop of New-Rome 2. He proves it because Peter died and was buried there as saith he is apparent from his Sepulchre yet to be seen As if it was not as easie for the Popes to make specious Tombs for men who never died in Rome as to Canonize and make prayers to Saints who it is to be feared have no place in Heaven His Reasons to defend the Pope's succession unto Peter are of the same nature as 1. Because Peter ought to have a Successour there being saith he as much reason for an Universall Bishop now as then Which I easily grant and return it thus But there was no Reason for an Universall Bishop then for then sure the holy men whose business it was to write all things absolutely necessary unto faith and godliness would not have omitted a matter so very important unto the peace and unity of Christians and therefore we may safely conclude there was no such Universall Bishop but admitting it were so how will it appear that the Bishop of Rome more than any other Bishop was to be his Successour Yes saith Bellarmine 2. None ever did yet pretend to be Peter 's Successour but only the Bishop of Rome and therefore undoubtedly he was the man Which is all one as if an Usurper who had gained a Crown by force and destroyed all the lawfull Heirs should say none doth now pretend to the Crown but my self and therefore undoubtedly I have a true Title I believe this is the first case wherein a confident and peremptory claim was ever thought to give a rightfull possession But I will no longer fight with a shadow or pursue an Enemy who hath a Bog for his retreat for so I account all Arguments taken from unwritten Tradition which is Bellarmine's last refuge for what can be more unreasonable than to alleadge old Stories which serve only to the advantage of the teller and therefore may justly be suspected to be forged by him and to use them as Motives to perswade us unto the belief of that which in Reason is ridiculous and in Scripture the most authentick and allowed Tradition is not so much as once mentioned The summe thereof of what I have to say is this 1. It doth not appear in any of the fore-mentioned places that Peter had any peculiar Priviledge of Infallibility or Authority granted to him above the rest of the Apostles 2. It doth much less appear that ever he was at Rome or sate as Bishop there 3. Upon supposition that the two first could be as clearly proved as
lay hid in Obscurity is cleared up and brought to Light As if a Pipe that formerly conveyed a great Quantity of Water should suddenly fail we would the a have recourse unto the Fountain to learn the true Conse of such a Stop and Intercision that if the fault was in the Pipe it might be repaited and fitted to receive the Streams of Water in the same Abundance and Purity that they issue from the Fountain so likewise ought all the Ministers of God in their Observance of Divine Commands to do that if the Truth seems wavering and uncertain in any Point Ad Originem Dominicam Evangelicam Apostolicam Traditionem we may have recourse unto the Originall to wit the Tradition of our Lord in his Gospel and by his Apostles that so the Ground of our Acting may proceed thence whence the Order and Originall of it did first arise I have at large quoted these words out of Cyprian both to shew how little the Bishop of Rome's Authority was then valued and likewise to manifest what that Holy and Learned Man thought to be the only way whereby all Controversies in Religion ought to be decided not to depend upon Uncertain Traditions which at the best are but the Inventions of Men but to have Immediate recourse unto the Scriptures and to go no further in any part of Divine Worship than as their Rule doth guid us And this Testimony of his the Papists cannot in Justice refuse since Cyprian is a Saint in their Calender and yet died without ever retracting his Judgement 3. My Third and Last Instance shall be that notable Speech of Pope Gregory about six hundred years after our Saviours time who having had great contests for Superiority with John the Patriarch of Constantinople when at sast John having the Emperour on his side did endeavour to gain the Title of Universall Bishop Greg. lib. 4. Ep. 32 33. Gregory did fiercely oppose him in it and in many of his Epistles affirms that whoever should Assume that Stile he was the Forerunner of Antichrist a Child of the Devil an Apostate from the Faith with many other sharp but true sayings to the same Purpose It pleased God that within few years after An. 606 Pope Boniface little minding the Predictions of his Predecessour did not only claim but likewise actually take to himself that Name which as a Badge of Antichrist and an Infallible Mark to know him by he hath ever since transmitted to his Successours Now I ask whether Pope Gregory was Infallible in that Opinion of his which he doth so often and so earnestly insist upon If they tell me he was then we need not dispute any farther Whether the Pope be Antichrist for we have Gregorie's own Confession that whoever would arrogate to himself the Name of Universall Bishop was undoubtedly so but if they say he was not then their Conceit of Infallibility vanisheth as amounting to no more than this that the Pope is Infallible when he Speaks and Acts for the Advantage of his See but very Fallible when he speaks any thing though never so deliberately which in after Ages may make against it I have forebore to Urge that many of the Popes have actually fallen into Heresie as Honorius by Name who by the sixth Synod was condemned for an Heretick and his Epistles commanded to be burnt and the very express words of some of their Canons are That the Pope cannot be judged by any unless he be found to have crred from the Faith which doth suppose even in the Judgement of his own Canonists that there is a Possibility of his Erring Neither do I insist upon the Decrees of the Councels of Basil and Constance which were both assembled for the deposing of two Popes that were unduely Chosen and in them it was Enacted that A Councell was above the Pope which they strictly command all to believe as an Article of Faith Which Instances though they strike sufficiently at the Pope's Infallibility and Paramount Authority yet because the Answer of some of the most Moderate and Ingenuous Papists is that Though the Pope be not Infallible in himself yet in and with a Councell he is I shall therefore speak a little to this Conceit and then conclude I demand therefore of those who maintain the Infallibility of the Pope and a Councell conjunctim what Divine Warrant have they for such an Opinion and where hath God promised Infallible Assistance unto a Councell of the Pope's Calling For those Texts that are commonly made use of as Hear the Church and The Spirit shall lead you into all Truth and It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and to us with some few others to the same sense are as impertinently alleadged in behalf of a Councell as those fore-mentioned are in behalf of the Pope For 1. That Command Tell the Church doth not signifie an Appeal unto a Synod of Bishops â—at 18. who are all of the Pope's Creation and therefore must needs be Partiall for him but Church there signifies that particular Congregation to which we relate as Members neither do our Saviour's words concern Articles of Faith and Matters of Opinion but meerly Civil Injuries as is plain from the Context for our Saviour having commanded them to forgive one another he then goes on to tell them what course they should take in case a Brother should offend them first to reprove him privately and if that prevailed not then to take two or three as witnesses of their proceedings But if notwithstanding this the Injurious Person still continued Obstinate then to tell it Caetui or to the Congregation 1 Cor. 5. as the Apostle Paul adviseth the Corinthians that being all met together they should proceed to censure 1 Tim. 5.20 and to Timothy Them that sin rebuke before all i. e. all of that Church or Congregation to which they belong that others also may fear And this sense besides that it is the proper meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Church which often in Scripture signifies the Congregation distinct from their Officers but never the contrary it likewise fully agrees with our Saviours Scope who as the Offence ariseth would have the Remedy to arise proportionably and therefore he useth this Gradation that first one should reprove an Offending Brother then two or three then the Church or more according to what we find practised in the Church of Corinth who it seems had agreed to censure the Incestuous Person according as the Apostle had commanded them 2 Cor. 2.9 and therefore he tells them Sufficient to such a one is the Reprehension by many i. e. even by all the Members of that Christian Assembly to which he did relate and if the Offender would not hearken to them then he was to be thrown out of Communion and to be accounted as a Stranger to the Church even as an Heathen and a Publican And such Determinations of every particular Church our
it is clear they cannot yet that any of Peter's personall Priviledges should be communicated to another who will needs usurp his Name and stile himself his Successour can as little be maintained as that his power of Miracles his gift of Tongues c. should be continued which the Pope as yet doth not pretend to I conclude therefore that Bellarmine's first Plea from Scripture is so far from Demonstration that it is scarce tolerable Sophistry and so much in Answer to his first Argument Secondly Arg. 2 The second Argument in defence of the Popes Infallibility Bellar. de sâ—â—mo Pontif. l. 4 1 is taken from the Analogy and Resemblance that ought to be between the Jewish and the Christian Church For in the Jewish Church saith Bella mine there was an High Priest which was Infallible unto whom they were commanded to have recourse in all difficult Causes and to abide by his Determination as appears Deut. 17.8 14. And therefore in the Christian Church there being the same if not greater necessity because of the extent of it it follows that there must likewise be some visible Infallible Judge for the ending of Controversies which will daily arise among Christians and this can be no other than the Bishop of Rome To this Argument from Analogy I answer 1. That the similitude and resemblance between the Jewish and the Christian Church doth not consist in having the same outward Oeconomy and Forms of Administration as in a visible High-Priest with other Rites and Ordinances answerable to such a Visibility but in the spirituall and inward performance of what heretofore was materially and outwardly represented He 's 9.10 So that the Jewish Sacrifices did not import that they should alwayes be continued but as the Apostle tells us they were to last only untill that great Sacrifice was offered of which all the others were only faint and weak Preludiums The like is declared concerning their meats and drinks their washings and bodily purifications Heb. 7.18 with other carnall and on side Ordinances which were only imposed untill the time of Reformation and after that were not that we read of to be continued with new names and under another form but utterly to be abolished Heb. 7.18 because of their weakness and unprofitableness The like the Apostle observes concerning the High Priest into whose room our Saviour succeeded who is called a Priest for ever after another order than that of Aaron even after the order of Melchisedeck who can supply all defects of his Church without appointing a visible Head in his place by his own immediate Energy since he lives for ever Heb. 7.25 to make intercession for them So that if any upon earth now will pretend to bear the same place in the Christian Church that Aaron did in the Jewish he must be able to shew the same divine warrant for as the Apostle observes Heb. 5.4 5. No man takes this honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron so also Christ did not glorify himself to be an High Prist but he that said to him thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee Let then the Pope of Rome but deale above-board and show us some such plaine place of Scripture which doth Authorize his plea and then let them be Anathema that will not submit unto his Dictates but since this is not so much as once offered we cannot be faithfull to the Honour and Prerogative of out Great and only High Priest if we doe not looke upon this pretended Vicar of his as a bold and unwarrantable Intruder But 2. It doth not appear that the High Priest among the Jews was at all Infallible nor doth the place alleadged evince so much Deut. 17.11 for there Moses speaks not of Religious but of civil causes and commands that the Parties litigant should do according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee so that the High Priests were not to pronounce according to Tradition or private fancy but according to the Law of God which whoso consulted might speak Infallibly not as if the High Priest meerly by vertue of his Office and Place was more priviledged from Errour than the common Jew but because God did give his Law for an Infallible Rule and in all parts that concerned his own Worship had made it so plain and particulat that unless they would they could not mistake it But for want of taking heed to it we find that in David's time both himself and all the Priests did Erre in conceiving that the Arke might be carried upon a Cart which was expressely commanded to be carried upon the Priests shoulders whereupon when God smote Uzzah Numb 4. David acknowledged that a breach was made upon them 2 Chron 15.13 because they sought him not in the due order Besides in the generall Apostacy of the people which the Prophets so sadly complain of and so much enveigh against we have no reason to imagine 2 Reg 16.10 that the High Priest continued stedfast in Religion since in all probability Uriah the Priest whom Ahaz employed in building an Idolatrous Altar was the Chief Priest at that time and not only a partaker in but a promoter of that wicked King's abominations We read likewise that none were more fierce against Jeremy and other of Gods Prophets than the Priests and to put the matter out of Dispute we have it plainly told us that there was for many ages none in that Church that could Infallibly guid them so the Psalmist Psal 74.9 We see not our Signs there is no more any Prophets neither is among us any that knoweth how long And in Ezra we find that the Tirshatha or Governour as some think Nebemiah Ezra 2.63 commanded that they should not eat of the most holy things till there stood up a Priest with Urim and Thummim who was to enquire of the Lord in difficult cases according to the command given to Joshua Numb 25.21 that he should consult with Eleazar the Priest who was to ask counsell for him according to the judgement of Urim which in Ezra's time was utterly ceased and we do not read that ever it revived again Just as much Infallibility therefore as the High Priest and Sanhedrim had in our Saviours time when they put him to death I am content to allow unto the Pope and a Councell of his calling and more than that this Argument from Analogy will not amount to For if they were so fatally deceived in so important and evident a truth who had as Bellarmine supposeth a clear promise of being Infallibly assisted how much more liable to Errour is the Bishop of Rome who hath no promise nor pretence of Plea but only an usurped and unjust possession Since then 1. the High Priest of the Jewes was only a Type of Christ and did not figure any other person in the Christian Church who was to bear a Resemblance to