Church of Rome depends upon the fantastick gloss of a Jesuit contradicting all Antiquity and inconsistent with it self And first it is against Antiquity because they cannot give one instance from ancient Interpreters Councils and Fathers giving this gloss upon those words of our Savior Upon this Rock I will build my Church neither was this gloss ever heard of or so much as dreamed of before the times of the Jesuits after the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was openly assaulted Secondly this gloss is contradictory to it self By it Bellarmin intangles himself many ways and first he grants that all the Apostles were equally Rocks and Foundations with Peter if the word Foundation be taken in the first two senses But all the Fathers who expone the Apostles to be foundations and Peter among the rest did not so much as dream of any other way why Peter or they are called Foundations but only of the first two viz. in regard that they all alike founded Churches preaching that doctrine revealed unto them all alike immediatly from God and consequently foundation in Bellarmins third sense is a dream of his own by which he may well confirm his disciples he will never convert Proselytes but expose himself to the ludibrious taxings of his adversaries in making his own groundless fiction the main Basis of the supremacy of Peter consequently of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and consequently of the Religion of the Modern Church of Rome to which all must be conform under pain of damnation according to that new article coined by the Council of Trent adding to that Article of the Creed Catholick Church making it Catholick Roman Church Secondly we have shewed That this third way of Foundation is a fiction of Bellarmins not dreamed of by the Ancients which although it be sufficient to refute it yet it refutes it self by many contradictions And first of other Popish Doctors It gives unto all the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis plenitude of power in which it contradicts the Theologick Dictionary of Altenstaing approved by authority of the Church of Rome In which Dictionar Plenitudo potestatis is defined not only to be ordinis but also Jurisdictionis conferred by Christ only upon Peter and his Successors and that now formalitâ—â— subjective it is only in the Bishop of Rome which is expresly contradicted by Bellarmin who attributs it to all the Apostles pressed by the evident testimonies of those Fathers seeing the gloss of that Dictionar to be against all Antiquity Thirdly Though Bellarmin be more sound then the gloss of that Dictionar in attributing to all the Apostles that plenitâ—de of power yet he contradicts himself in giving to Peter a greater power then they had it fleeth the edge of the quickest reason to conceive any power greater then plenitude of power and therefore it is a flat contradiction to affirme that although all the Apostles have plenitude of power yet they depend upon Peter as their head which is as much to say as all the Apostles have that power then which none can have a greater and yet Peter hath a greater power then they Lastly Bellarmin affirms that Peter hath plenitude of power as ordinar Pastor the other Apostles as extraordinar and Legats to Peter in which he intangles himself in a twofold contradiction For to omit that distinction of ordinar and extraordinar Pastor amongst the Apostles is a fiction of his own the whole stream of Antiquity avowing all the Apostles to be extraordinar Pastors Peter as well as the rest First he makes the other Apostles above Peter since extraordinar Pastors are preferred to ordinar Pastors the Apostle Paul enumerating the hierarchy of the Church Ephes 4 puts extraordinar Pastors in the first place viz. Apostâ—es Prophets and Evangelists before Pastors and Doctors and so he contradicts himself in affirming that extraordinar Pastors depend upon Peter as their head whom he maketh ordinar Pastor Secondly He contradicts himself in making the other Apostles Legats to Peter and to omit he doth so without any ground having no authority but his own assertion he intangleth himself in his reason for he hath no other reason wherefore the other Apostles are Legats to Peter but only because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle in the original imports one who is sent in commission which is all one with a Legat. But Bellarmin will not deny that Peter in that sense is a Legat also because he is an Apostle and so Peter will be Legat to Peter which is perfect none-sense and contradiction Bellarmin borrowed this distinction of ordinar and extraordinar from Sanderus that famous English Jesuit who with his Country-man Stapleton invented more new distinctions to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome then all the Doctors of the Church beside Sanderus proves Peter to be ordinar and the other Apostles to be extraordinar lib. 6. cap. 9. of his Monarchy Thus Ordinar is called so from order but in order that is first which is most ancient since nothing can be first before that which is first but Peter was the first upon whom Christ promised to build his Church and to give him the power of the keys Ergo they were given to Peter alone For albeit afterwards they were given to all the Apostles yet Christ did not revock what he had given first to Peter and the fore Peter is ordinar Pastor and the other Apostles extraordinar But it is answered This argument of Sanderus presuppons many things as granted which are either uncertain or notoriously false Secondly albeit his suppositions were true they do not conclude his assertion that Peter is ordinar Pastor having Jurisdiction over the rest as extraordinar He who would see how that Sophistry of Sanderus is retexed at large let him read Chameir tom 2. lib. 11. cap. 6. num 27. to the end of the chapter the substance of which is this First He suppons that as Ordinar which is first that extraordinar which is last But ordinar is taken among Divines speaking of Church Officers for that Office which is perpetual extraordinar for that which is for a time So in in the Old Testament Priests and Levits were ordinar Prophets extraordinar Officers and under the New Testament Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and Doctors are ordinar Officers Apostles Evangelists extraordinar Secondly Though the distinction of Sanderus in that sense of ordinar and extraordinar were granted his assertion is uncertain yea rather notoriously false he suppons that Peter first obtained the power of binding loosing and feeding the Flock of Christ but that is uncertain for these words of Christ exhibit nothing to Peter for the present but only promise to give him that power of the Keys and to build his Church upon him neither was that promise made to Peter alone but to all the Apostles as partly hath been proved already but more fully shal be proved cap. 6. and 9. and therefore the supposition of Sanderus is uncertain and false
those expresly denying that Peter had any superiority above the other Apostles of which kind we alledged many In this Chapter we will vindicate the said testimonies from the exceptions of our Adversaries and because their answers to them all are almost the same with those which they make unto a certain passage of Cyprian and an other of Hieronymus we will vindicat both those passages from their sophistâ—y which are in effect two notable ones The first testimony is of Cyprianus de unitate ecclesiae Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis That is What ever Peter was the other Apostles were the same indued with alike fellowship of honour and power This is a notable passage in which Cyprianus is expresly disputing against the supremacy of Peter for first he affirms all the Apostles were the same which Peter was and least any should think that his meaning is only that they were all Apostles or fellows he adds Pari consortio they were of alike fellowship since it might be objected that inequality might be amongst those of the same fellowship and our Adversaries ordinarily distinguish between order and jurisdiction as if the other Apostles were inferiour to Peter in jurisdiction he adds they were alike fellows in honour and power that is they had all alike jurisdiction with Peter This place of Cyprian puts our Adversaries to their witts end they elude it two wayes they who have any shame by sophistry others more impudente by forgery we will examine their sophistry in this Chapter reserving their forgery untill the last Chapter of the secoâ— Book Pamelius objects that the Book of Manutius and of Cambron hath those words of Cyprian otherwayes viz. after the words of Cyprian which we cited follow those Sed primatus Petro datur ut una Ecclesia Cathedra una monstretur That is But the primacy is given to Peter that it might appear there is only one Church and one Chair But it is answered albeit it might be defended that those words make not much for the supremacy of Peter in Jurisdiction but only in dignity and order it shall be demonstrated that Manutius added those words to the text of Cyprian by the command of Cardinal Baromaeus against the Faith of all the ancient Copies of Cyprian both printed and Manuscripts lib. 2. cap. ult Agricola his glosse since it depends upon those forged words Primatus Petro datur is not worth the answering Hayus Bozius Turrianus answer thus It s true say they that the Apostles were all of a like power before Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church by Christ viz. before he said to him tu es Petrus and this is the meaning of Cyprian Bozius adds that this place of Cyprian expresly makes for the supremacy of Peter because Cyprian affirms in the same place that the equality of the Apostles was taken away by those words Pasce oves meas after which words that equality of â—ower ceased All this is sophâ—stry and first Bozius lyeth notoriously Cyprian affirmeth no such thing as that the equality of the Apostles ceased after those words Pasce oves meas since it is the mind of Cyprian that the equality of the Apostles was or consisted in feeding the flock of Christ for he expresly affirms in the same place that the equality of the Apostles was ordained after the resurrection for immediatly before 〈◊〉 words we cited he affirmeth Christus Apostolus omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuit and therefore it is false that after those words Pasce oves meas the equality of the Apostles was taken away Bellarmine useth another distinction lib. 1. cap. 12. viz. that all the Apostles had alike authority over the Church but they were not of alike authority amongst themselves This is the answer also of Costerus encherid cap. 3. But it is answered this glosse of Bellarmines is very strange first how can Peter be oecumenick Bishop if the other Apostles had alike Authority over the Church with him for the Bishop of Rome questionless will not affirm that any other Bishop has as much Authority over the Church as he hath Secondly though this distinction were granted it takes not away the force of the testimony for disparity of persons doth not infer a disparity of Authority alike in them all but only that the Authority is more eminent in dignity in some then in others Thirdly whereas Bellarmine grants that they were all alike Apostles but the function of an Apostle is the highest degree in the Church Ergo if they were equal to him in the Apostleship they were equal to him in the highest Ecclesiastical function As for that distinction of Bellarmines That that equality of the Apostles with Peter was extra radinar and not derived to their successors as the Authority of Peter who was ordinar Pastor and whose Authority was derived to his Successors we proved before that it was a fiction of Bellarmines own invention not known to the Ancients Sanderus lib. 6. cap. 4 of his Monarchy hath another distinction viz. that albeit all the Apostles were of equal Authority over Christians yet the Original of that Authority was from Peter although as to the execution it was alike in them all But it is answered first this distinction is pressed with the same difficulties with which those of Bellarmines was it is a flat contradiction to affirm any to be equal in the execution of that Authority with those from whom they have it yea Leo Bishop of Rome complained heavily that the Bishop of Constantinople was made equal to him as to the execution of it This distinction of Sanderus leans on a false foundation viz. that the rest of the Apostles had their Authority from Peter which expresly contradicts Cyprian who affirms they had it from Christ and Paul 2. Cor. 5. professeth he was an Ambassadour from Christ or in the name of Christ And Franciscus de victoria as we shewed before expresly disputs that all the Apostles had their Authority immediatly from Christ and taxeth the glosse on Cyprian making use of this dictinction of Sanderus against the mind of Cyprian However it may be granted that Peter was the first in Dignity although the other Apostles were equal to him in Authority Stapleton lib. 6. cap. 7. in principis useth a threefold distinction the first is that all the Apostles were of alike power as Apostles but not as Bishops But that distinction was exploded before cap. 16. The second distinction is quo ad amplitudinem rerum gerundarum sed non quo ad superioritatem in ordine gerendi that is in effect the same distinction with that of Bellarmine now mentioned and therefore it needs no other answer since it imports no other thing then that the equality of the Apostles power was relative to the Church but their inequality consisted in their relation to Peter His third distinction is that Peter had
called the body or Kingdom of the King but he endeavors to prove that the said secundary head reigns in the Church as a King doth in a Kingdom and therefore the Church may be called the body of the said secundary head if there were any such thing But since the Church is no where called the body of that secundary head it is evident that the said secundary head is a meer fiction Bellarmin gives a reason wherefore the Province is not called the body of the Viceroy but only of the King viz. because the Governor of a Province is not perpetual but only for a time And for the same reason the Church is not called the body of that secundary head because it is not perpetual but only for a time But this reason is frivolous because that secundary head of the Church is as perpetual as a King in a Kingdom and therefore the Church may be called as well body of that secundary head as a Kingdom is called the body of a King But since in Scripture the Church is no where called the body of that secundary Head it is evident it is a fiction viz. that secundary head which is further confirmed Bellarmin affirms also That the Province cannot be said to be the Province of the Viceroy because he is not absolute but it may be called the Province of the King because he is absoluto and depends upon none but God But that secundary head of the Church depends upon none but Christ and therefore the Church may as well be called his body and Church as a Kingdom may be called Kingdom of the King But since the Church is no where called body of that secundary head it is evident that the said secundary head is but a fiction Bellarmin pressed with those difficulties â—â—ies to another distinction viz. that the Church is called the body of Christ not in relation to Christ as head but only as â—e is referred to Christ as a great hypostasis as when Peter or Paul is lying any where we may affirm There lyes the body of Peter there lyes the body of Paul In which sense body comprehends head and all and is not considered as distinct from the Head and other members Bellarmin by this device doth not take away the difficulty for two reasons The first is although it were granted that the Church were called the body of Christ as the word Christ is a Hypostasis comprehending both heads and members in which sense the body of Peter or Paul may be called their body and not their head we say Although that were granted yet Bellarmin will not deny that the Church is called the body of Christ sometimes as it is referred to Christ as head and therefore if there were any Secundary head the Church would be called its bodie in that respect also which since it is not it is evident that there is no such thing as a secundary head The second reason is that it is false which Bellarmin affirms that ever the Church is called the body of Christ in that sense of great hypostasis it hath neither ground in Scripture nor Antiquity it is only devised by Bellarmin himself who abuseth Scripture and a passage of Augustinus to prove it The place of Scripture is 1 Corinth 12. verse 12. Where the Apostle affirms That all the members of the bodie although they be many yet are but one bodie even so is Christ which makes nothing for him for the Apostle there means no â—uch thing as Bellarmin affirms citing Augustinus falsly to prove it Augustins words are Non dixit ita Christi idest corpus Christi vel membra Christi sea ita Christus unum Christum appellens caput corpus as he would say The Apostle called Christ which is the head of the Church and the Church which is the bodie of Christ one Christ which he had foolishly affirmed if that had been the Apostles mind that the Church is called the body of Christ as the body of Peter and Paul lying any where comprehending the head also And thus much of that famous disput oâ— the head of the Church We have seen how Bellarmin vexetâ— himself to find out distinctions to maintain that secundary head and to show why the Church is not called the Body of that secundary head But the Roman Doctors of late maintain that the Church is and may be called the body of that secundary head seeing that Bellarmins distinctions would not serve the turn CHAP. XIII Of the Hierarchy of the Church Ephesians 4. WE have prosecuted two Arguments against the institution of the Supremacy of Peter now followeth the third which is this If Peter had been ordained by our Savior Monarch of the Church then the Apostles themselves and these who lived in their times delineating the Hierarchy of the Church would have mentioned it or affirmed That the Government of the Church was monarchical under one visible head But both the Apostles themselves and those who are confessed by our adversaries to have lived in the times of the Apostles delineating the Hierarchy of the Church put ever still more persons then one of equal authority in the highest place of the Hierarchie whereby it is evident to any who is not wilfully blinde that the Government of the Church was not by Christs Institution Monarchical And first the Apostle Paul Ephes 4. enumerating the Hierarchie of the Church verse 10 11 12 13 14. hath these words He that descended is even the same that ascended far above all heavens that he might fill all things He therefore gave some to be Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers In which words ye have the Hierarchy of the Church consisting of several degrees in every degree many persons the highest degree is that of the Apostles which are also many or in the Plural number whereby it is evident that our Savior did institute no Monarchy in the Church in one single person or in Peter neither can it be affirmed That this enumeration of Church-Officers ordained by Christ is not full or is not perfect as if the Apostle had omitted some Church-Officers ordained by Christ because it appears by verse 12 13 14. That no more were necessarie for the building up of the Church or performing any duty necessar for the Churches instruction viz. for the repairing of the â—aints for the work of the Ministrie and for the edification of the bodie of Christ verse 12. Till we all meat together in the unitie of faith and that acknowledging of the Son of God unto a perfect man and unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ verse 13. That we henceforth be no more children wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine c. By those words of the Apostle it appears that no more Church Rulers are necessar eitheir for the founding of the Church or confirming it after it is built or defending it when it is
Apostles The force of the argument consists in this that since they sent him or delegated him he had none and consequently he was not Oecumenick Bishop Secondly Herod did not delegate the wise men not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between which two verbs there is great difference the first signifying a sending with authority the second many times a dimission only as appears in several Classick Authors having the same signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Homier odyss 15. and other where Their third instance is from Joshua 22. Where the people sent Phine has the High-Priest to the Reubenites and Gadites Josephus also lib. 20. cap. 7. Antiquit. relats That Ishmael the High-Priest was sent to Nero by the people of the Jews But it is answered These instances are not to the purpose And first Phinehas was not High-Priest but only the Son of Eleazar the High-Priest it is great impudence in Stapleton to affirm he was High-Priest Bellarmin calls him not High-Priest but only Priest but he reasons from him as he were High Priest As for Ishmael Bellarmin takes no heed that he was sent as a Legat as Rufinus interprets but Bellarmin will not grant that Peter was sent as a Legat neither will he grant that Ishmael being a Legat was greater then these who sent him Bellarmin useth other instances of Paul and Barnabas sent Acts 15. from the Church of Antioch to Jerusalem who were the chief Doctors of the Church Whence saith he To be sent doth not import that these who sent them were greater then they But it is answered First The question is not whether the Apostles who sent Peter were greater then he But whether he was greater then they were We do not affirm The other Apostles were greater then Peter but only since they sent him as a Legat he was not greater then the other Apostles Secondly Acts 15. the Greek verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not used by Luke but the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a honorable deduction or dimission And so Cajetanus the Cardinal and Salmero the Jesuit interpret the place Fisher Bishop of Rochester affirms That Pius second the Cardinal thinking it fit had an intention to go against the Turks in person But it is answered He had no intention to go in commission from the Cardinals but only to follow their advice Stapleton instances So did Peter go to Samaria out of his own accord not necessitated by any authority But he is refuted by the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which evermore signifies a sending with authority as appears by John 1. where it is said That the Jewes sent Priests and Levites to Jerusalem And likewise 2 Timothy 4. Tychicus was sent to Ephesus And likewise Acts 11. Barnabas was sent in all which missions the great verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used but not so Acts 10. when Paul was sent from Antioch The best solution of all is given by Renatus a Sorbonist who grants that Peter was sent by the other Apostles as Legat and less in authority then they But saith he it doth not follow he was not Oecumenick Bishop because the authority of the whole Church is more then the authority of an Oecumenick Bishop It cannot be denyed that this answer of Renatus takes away the force of the Argument But it is much doubted that this answer is owned at Rome since the doctrine of the particular Church of Rome the infallibiliy of which is defended by Bellarmin and all the Italians is that the authority of the Bishop of Rome is above a General Council which after many debates and oppositions in the Council of Constance and Basil at last was concluded in the Council of Florence whence the argument is yet in force against the doctrine of the Church of Rome although not against Renatus and others of his opinion The second argument against the Supremacy of Peter from his carriage Acts 11. 3. where he was challenged by the brethren for going in to men uncircumcised The Argument is this An Oecumenick Bishop cannot be questioned for any thing he doth but Peter was questioned Ergo He was not an Oecumenick Bishop The first proposition is proved from the Canon Law in Gratianus Distinct 40. Canon Si Papa Where it is expresly affirmed and likewise Distinct 19. and Caus 17. quaest 4. And likewise in the same distinction 19. cap. in memoriam The words are Licet vix ferendum ab illa sancta sede imponatur jugum tamen feramus pia devotione toleremus But the Gloss in the Decretals cap quantò Personam de translatione Episcopi affirms That the Bishop of Rome hath coelesle arbitrium ideo naturam rerum mutare substantialia unius rei applicando alii de nullo posse aliquid facere sententiam quae nulla est facere aliquam necesse qui ei dicat Cur ita facis poâ—se enim suprajus dispensare de injustitia facere justitiam corrigendo jura mutando demum plenitudinem obtinere potestatis By which it appears expresly that none will question an Oecumenick Bishop And Since Peter was questioned by those men it is evident they did not acknowledge him Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 16. mentions this Argument but doth not answer it but falls in a digression endeavoring to prove that Peter was not ignorant of that mystery of the calling of the Gentiles before that vision Acts 10. but he seems expresly to contradict Scripture as appears to any having the use of reason considering both that vision and also his speech meeting with Cornelius verse 34. Stapletonin Relect. Controvers 3. quaest 1. art 3. and in other places answers That it is the duty of a good Pastor to show himself ready to give an account of his actions to any who calls them in question But it is replyed Stapleton saith truth and Peter so in the same place but he takes not away the force of the Argument since in the sore-cited passages of the Canon Law it is forbidden by the Pope himself to call what he doth in question since he is bound to give an account of his actions to no power earthly either spiritual or temporal but only to God The third Argument is almost like the second but more puzling It is then from Galat. 2. 11. where the Apostle Paul affirms That in Antiochia he resisted Peter to his face for he was to be blamed which quite destroys the Supremacy of Peter in two particulars First that he was blamed and resisted Secondly That he was deservedly resisted This objection puts the Roman Doctors by the ears together how to answer it The most ingenuous among them confess that Paul in those words expresly thought himself equal to Peter otherwise he durst not have spoken them So Lombardus Cajetanus affirms That Paul in these words thought himself greater then
Peter The other Doctors answer variously And first Carerius and Pighius following Clemens Alexandrinus mentioned by Eusebius hist lib. 1. cap. 14. affirms That it was not Peter the Apostle but an other Cephas who was reprehended by Paul But this opinion is ridiculous for Paul is comparing himself in those words to the chief of the Apostles one of which was Peter whereby it is evident that it was Peter the Apostle whom he resisted and not an other Peter and therefore this opinion is exploded by Hieronymus and other Fathers The second answer is of Gregorius de Valentia Pighius and Carerius following Chrysostomus and Hieronymus affirming That it was but a dissimulation and the reprehension proceeded from Paul by paction between him and Peter viz. That Peter the Jews arriving should leave the Gentiles that Paul might have occasion to reprehend him And consequently that the Jews might be instructed of the calling of the Gentiles by Pauls reprehension But it is answered This Argument is laught at by Augustinus as not becoming the gravity of Paul who had sworn before that he lyed not Others affirm That Peter erred not in faith so Sanderus and Stapleton but only in conversation But it is answered The less his error was by the said reprehension the less it appears he was Oecumenick Bishop for if he erred not in faith no body should have presumed to resist him as is expresly forbidden by the fore-cited Canons of the Canon Law Baronius answers That Peter erred not at all But it is false and gives the lye unto the Apostle Paul who affirms He was to be blamed Bellarmin answers another way viz. That one may reprehend another although superior in Authority if it be done with reverence as Paul did Peter here He cites Augustinus epist 19 to Hieronymus and Gregorius Magnus homil 18. on Ezekiel who expresly affirms That Peter was greater then Paul and yet he was reprehended by him But it is answered That takes not away the force of the argument First because the question is not Whether Peter was greater then Paul But whether he was Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin will not affirm That an Oecumenick Bishop may be reprehended else he will not only contradict the Canon Law as we shewed and which they make of equal authority with the Scripture but also himself lib. 4. cap 5. de Pont. Rom. where he affirms That if the Pope command Vice and forbid Vertue the Church is bound to believe that Vice is Vertue and Vertue Vice Secondly it expresly appears by the words of Paul Gal. 2. That he made himself equal to Peter as is acknowledged by the ordinar gloss Lombardus Cajetanus yea Chrysostomus after he hath gathered from the words of Paul that he was equal to Peter he adds Ne dicam amplius by which words he thinks Paul was greater then Peter Thirdly The Doctrine of Paul was preferred to that of Peter that of Peter being found dissimulation and that of Paul sincere Christian Doctrine It is needless to examine the answers of others as of Stapleton and Eckius yet we will mention two other answers The one of Aquinas the other of Cardinal Pool that of Aquinas and Eckius is almost all one viz. They grant that Peter and Paul was alike But they distinguish that Paul was equal to Peter in the execution of authority but not in authority of Government in executione Autoritatis non in autoritate regiminis But it is answered This distinction of Thomas is a plain riddle It would puzle Oedipus himself It is ordinar with Sophisters to imitate that fish called Sepia when it is caught it vomits up a black humor like ink to deceive the fishers none can conceive this distinction of Thomas without contradiction For if Paul were equal to Peter in the execution of Authority he was equal also to him in the authority of Government since the execution of Authority is the Act flowing from the other or from the Authority of Government if the same be the authority of both Peter and Paul This cantradiction is inevitable but if the Authority of Peter be greater then that of Paul he still contradicts himself in affirming Paul was equal to Peter in the execution of authority no subordinat Magistrat can be equal in the execution of Authority to the Supreme Magistrat Eckius distinguisheth more to the purpose viz. between the Office of an Apostle in teaching and governing Paul was equal to Peter the first way and therefore he reprehended him not the second way But it is replyed first Albeit this distinction were granted it doth not take away the force of the Argument which consists in this whether Paul were greater or less then Peter it is nothing to the purpose An Oecumenick Bishop according to the Canon Law ought to be questioned by none and since Paul questioned Peters actions it is evident according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome that Peter was not Oecumenick Bishop neither is it of any moment that the Canon Law provides that a Pope may be questioned for Heresie since that sort of questioning is antiquated by the Council of Florence and the constant Practice of the Modern Church of Rome Neither was the error of Peter an Heresie but only an action of dissimulation Secondly the distinction of it self is contradictory for two reasons First because Government of the Church pertains to the office of an Apostle all the Apostles having exercised all the parts of that Government Secondly this reprehension of Paul was directly in execution of the authority of Government because Government comprehends reprehension of transgressors both in doctrine and manners or actions But in this particular the actions of Peter were reprehended by Paul Cardinal Pool a very Learned man retorts the Argument lib. 2. de unitate Ecclesiae where he affirms This reprehension of Peter by Paul concludes Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop but he tells not how Baronius it seems explains him anno 53. num 46. the argument is very pretty viz. They who followed the example of Peter Judaizing preferred it to the decree of the Council of Jerusalem Ergo they believed his authority was above that of the Council and of Paul yea Barnabas himself followed Peter before either the Council or Paul But it is answered to omit that it is not certain whether this dissimulation of Peters was before or after the Council of Jerusalem Baronius had reasoned far better thus Paul preferred the decree of the Council to the fact of Peter reprehending Peter in his face Ergo Peter was not Oecumenick Bishop For albeit those Judaizing had preferred the example of Peter to the decree of the Council it doth not follow that Peter was above a Council except they had rightly preferred the example of Peter to the decree of the Council And this much of the carriage of Peter and his Institution We have omitted hitherto nothing of moment pretended by either side assaulting or asserting the Supremacy of Peter from
Irenaeus as shall be proved in its own place by the testimonies of the most eminent Doctors of the Roman Church to omit the testimonies of almost all the Fathers by whose testimonies it shall be proved that in the dayes of Irenaeus the Churches of Rome Asia Africa Egypt c. rejected those Books canonized by the Council of Trent and therefore they must of necessity affirm that either the Modern Church of Rome or the Council of Trent excommunicates all these who accord with the Church of Rome in the Canon of the Scripture in the dayes of Irenaeus or else they have made a defection themselves from that Church which was in the dayes of Irenaeus The Council of Trent makes those Books Canonical with an Anathema to those who shall not acknowledge them for such but the Church of Rome in the dayes of Irenaeus rejected them as Apocryphal as is proved by the testimonies of Ruffinus in Symbulo apud Cyprianum and Hieronymus in his preface upon the Books of the Kings and prologo Galeato tom 3. That all other Churches accorded with the Church of Rome in that Canon of the Scriptures is proved by an induction of them all as the east Church as is testified by Melito the Church of Jerusalem as is testified by Cyril of Alexandria witnesse Athanas and Origen of France as is testified by Hilarius of Asia Concil Loadicenum of Constantinople Nazianz and Damascen These testimonies are acknowledged by Bellarmine himself for the most part lib. 1. cap. 20. de verbo Dei Secondly that Irenaeus in these words means no other according with the Church of Rome then in as far as it preserves the truth appears further not only by his keeping communion with the Bishops of the East notwithstanding of their excommunication by Victor but likewayes by his sharply rebuking of Victor taxing him of Ignorance and Arrogance for his proceeding in such a manner by which it evidently appears that neccessar communion with the Church of Rome was no article of faith in the opinion of Irenaeus much less the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and this much of Irenaeus Now we come to the Latine Fathers the first passage alledged is of Tertullianus de pudicitia where he calls Victor Bishop of Rome Bishop of Bishops But it is answered first albeit he did so it proves not Victor was oecumenick Bishop because we read that James is so called by Clement Lupus is so called by Sidonius lib. 6. epist 1. Marcus Bishop of Alexandria is called also Bishop of Bishops by Theodorus Balsamon in his answers to the Interrogations of the said Marcus but Bellarmine will not affirm that James or Lâ—pus or Marcus were oecumenick Bishops Secondly Tertullian in that place calling Victor Bishop of Bishops doth so Ironicè or in mockery as appeares by the occasion of his calling him so which was this Victor made a decree of admitting fornicators or whoremongers too easily to the communion of the Church in the opinion of Tertullian Speaking of that decree Tertullian affirms Episcopus Episcoporum nuper edidit Edictum c. The Bishop of Bishops hath now put forth an Edict and falls too immediatly and disputes against it whereby it appears that he did not acknowledge the supremacy of Victor that he is mocking him appears further by his calling that decree of Victor Edictum an edict but Emperours only set forth Edicts and so he calls Victor Bishop of Bishops in the same sence that he calls his decree an Edict which none can deny to be in mockery They alledge another passage from Tertullian in his prescript 76. against hereticks this passage is objected by Pamelius and is this If ye live in the adjacent places to Italy ye have Rome from whence we have also Authority Tertullian himself then lived in Africa whence they conclude from these words we have Authority that the Bishop of Rome had Jurisdiction in Africa in the opinion Tertullian But it is answered this place resembles very much that of Irenaeus which we now discussed his scope in these words is to arme his Readers against heresies among other prescriptions he prescribs this fore one that all should strive to inform themselves what is the Doctrine of those Churches which were founded by the Apostles and then to conform themselves to that Doctrine And first saith he If ye live in Achaia consult the Church of Corinth if ye live not far from Macedonia consult the Church of Philippi and Thessalonica if ye live in Asia consult the Church of Ephesus if ye live in the adjacent parts to Italy follow the Church of Rome from which saith he we also in Africa have our authority because it is the nearest Apostolick Church Observe he calls Apostolick Churches those who were founded by the Apostles themselves as that of Philippi Corinth Thessalonica by Paul that of Ephesus by St. John that of Rome by Peter and Paul whence it is easie to conjecture what is the meaning of Tertullian for by these words from whence we have our Authority it follows no more that the Church of Rome hath jurisdiction in Africa then it follows that the Church of Ephesus or Antiochia have jurisdiction over all Asia or that the Church of Corinth hath jurisdiction over all Achaia His meaning then assuredly is that albeit one be not under the jurisdiction of the nearest Apostolick Church yet it is the surest way to preserve your self from Heresie to follow the Faith of that Church because it is most like that those Churches who were founded by the Apostles themselves are least obnoxious to defection Secondly that Tertullian did not dream of any such thing as the infalibity of the Church of Rome or supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as a necessar article of faith appears not only by his disputing expresly against that decree of Victor Bishop of Rome which we now mentioned but also by several other passages of Tertullian in the said prescriptions and else where Beatus Rhenanus in his Argument to the same book of Tertullian de prescrip printed at Basil anno 1521. which Rhenanus was a Popish Doctor and exquisitly versed in the Writings of the Fathers and especially of Tertullian upon whom he commented hath these expressions Tertullian saith he doth not confine the Chatholick Church to the Church of Rome he doth not esteem so highly of the Church of Rome as they do now a dayes he reckoneth her with other Churches and admonisheth his Reader to enquire as well what milk the Church of Corinth gave as that of Rome In which words he means the same very passage of Tertullian which we now explained and vindicated from the Sophistry of Pamelius at last he concludes if Tertullian were now alive and should say so much he could not escape unpunished and this much Rhenanus avouched when he had the use of his tongue but the index expurgatorius belgicus pag. 78. has gagged his mouth with a deleantur hec verba and so they are
THE GRAND IMPOSTOR DISCOVERED OR AN Historical DISPUTE of the Papacy and Popish Religion 1. Demonstrating the newness of both 2. By what artifices they are maintained 3. The contradictions of the Roman Doctors in defending them Divided in four Parts 1. Of Bishops 2. Of Arch-bishops 3. Of an oecumenick Bishop 4. Of Antichrist PART I. Divided in two Books In the first is examined 1. if Peter by divine Institution was Monarch of the Church 2. If at the command of Christ he was Bishop of Rome In the second is examined if the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged Successor to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church before the death of Cyprim or anno 260 The Negatives of which three Questions are made out by unanswerable monuments of Antiquity and all what is pretended for their affirmatives is proved to be either wrested falsly translated mutilated or forged Cicero lib. 2. de Orator Fieri potest ut quod dixit iratus dixerit Silus annuit tum Crassus fieri potest ut quod dixit non intelligeres hic quoque Silus fassus est tum Crassus fieri potest ut non omnino audieâ—is quod te audisse dicis Silus tacuit omnes riserunt By S. C. Edinburgh Printed by His Majesties Printers for the Author Anno Dom. 1673. TO HIS GRACE The DUKE of LAUDERDALE Marquess of Marche Earl of Lauderdail Viscount Maitland Lord Thirlestane Musselburgh and Bolton Knight of the most Noble Order of the Garter His Majesties High Commissioner President of His Council and Sole Secretary of State in His Kingdom of Scotland May it please your Grace THat the Christian Faith as it was taught by Christ and his Apostles and confirmed by the four first General Councils is established by His Majesties authority all have reason to be thankful both to God and to His Majesty While we are contending for things of lesser moment at home Religion is dangerously assaulted from abroad their artifices are subtile their success is lamented By what perswasions they endeavour to gain Proselyts and how they are refuted Your Grace will find affirmed in the Preface and proved in the Disput following The first part whereof I present to your Grace it being difficult for me to publish it all at once My Lord some perhaps as their motive of such an address as this would fall a painting out the praises of your Grace and your Ancestors in your Face as that one or other of your Race could be no more spared from the State in every age then one of the Aeacides from the warrs of Greece which although most true yet I forbear lest I should offer violence vim facere to your Graces Modesty by unseasonable mentioning things which all know to be undenyable Nevertheless I hope your Grace will pardon me if I affirm that it is a main encouragement of my troubling you that your Grace is a Gentle-man of Spirit versed in Antiquity and able to discern if I perform any thing to the purpose in this great subject or process of greatest importance that ever depended before the Tribunal of Heaven My Lord I have likewise privat obligations to your Grace I had the honour to be your Condisciple at which time it did not obscurely appear what your Grace would prove afterwards Also having presented several Trifles to your Grace at your two times being in Scotland you seemed to accept of them with a favourable countenance which encouraged me to trouble your Grace afresh A Spaniel the more he is taken notice of the more he troubles his Benefactors with importunat kindness Taking all for good coyn whether they be in jest or in earnest If I perform any thing in this great subject worthy of your Graces perusal I would be infinitly proud of it otherwise the greatest censure I expect from your Grace is that either your Grace would smile at my folly or else put me back with a gentle frown hoping your Grace will pardon presumption proceeding from simplicity and good-will I will trouble your Grace no more but being sorry that I can give no greater evidence of my propension to your Graces service I rest as I am able most addicted to it Samuel Colvill THE PREFACE DIRECTED TO The Nobility Gentry and Burroughs of the Kingdom of Scotland My Lords and Gentlemen SInce I have contrived the following Discourse chiefly for your use not presuming to inform those of the Clergy it being their Profession and therefore having opportunity at will to go to the woods to gather Strawberries themselves whereas your Lordships leisure by reason of your other weighty Employments requires rather to have them presented in a dish Curiosity perhaps will move one or other of â—ou to peruse it Which that you may do the more commodiously it is requisite that your minds be prepared by considering 1. What the Subject is I present unto your protection 2. What I perform in it 3. What is my scope and intention 4. How I answer as I can to all which is objected against me I am not very eloquent especially in the English Tongue not being much accustomed to read Books in that Language The Diâ—course for the most art is dogmatick and therefore Rhetorick is more hurtful thâ—n pâ—ofiâ—able If I bâ— understood it is sufficient in representing shortly what others have done prolixly perspicuously what others have obscurely And yet fully that is omitting nothing of moment which is pretended by either Party in that greaâ— Controversie of the Sâ—premacy of the Bishop of Rome And first for the Subject Nâ—ne are ignorant in what high estimation searching of Antiquity is amongst those whose mindes are erected above the ordinar of men That religious enquiries of that kind ought to be preferred to any others who believe the immortality of the soul none will deny Among those again that one Controversie of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome deservedly challengeth the first place I presenting to your Lordships in it the minute of a Process if not marred by me the most noble the most profitable and the most pleasant which hath hitherto depended before the Tribunal of Heaven That I affirm no Paradoxes appears by what followeth The Nobility of this question is celebrated by the Learned of both sides Est Nobilis inter primas Disputatio the noblest of Disputes saith Chamier Est quaestio Prima familiam ducens A prime and leading question saith Salmasius That is upon it depends all the Controversies we have with the Church of Rome Bellarmine goeth higher calling it a debate de summa rei Christianae That is Whether the Christian Religion can subsist or not For in his opinion Who calls in question the Supremacy of the Bâ—shop of Rome he questions the truth of the Christian Religion it self By which expression of this Jesuit appears the immense utility of that Controversie If any want ability if they have not leisure to wade thorow that profound Ocean of Antiquity to be informed of the truth of that Article
Phocas the Emperor carried no good will to Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople he struck the Iron while it was hot after much contention pronounced in his favour The third Part entituled of an oecumenick Bishop contains the History of that interval between anno 600. and the Council of Trent It is divided in two Books in the first I insist most on those following particulars 1. What power was conferred by Phocas with that title of universal Bishop upon Bonifacus third Bishop of Rome 2. How the edict of Phocas was obâ—yed viz. resisted every where till in the end it was recalled by Pogonatus anno 680. in the sixth general Council as was shewed before 3. How during the vicissitudes of inundations of Barbarians the Bishop of Rome re-assumed that title of unâ—versal Bishop and usurped power in temporals over the Grecian Emperoâ—s as was already declared 4. How Carolus Magnus curbed him 5. How when the posterity of Carolus Magnus decayed he renewed and augmented his power by five steps as we shewed before also In the second Book those steps or increments of the Papacy between anno 600. and the â—Câ—ncel of Trent are dogmatically disputed by Scripture Fathers and it is proved by testimonies of the most learned Antiquaries of the Church of Rome that the oldest of those steps was not before anno 1000. It is true indeed that his power in temporals was attempted first by Constantine Bishop of Rome against Philippicus Emperour of Constantinople anno 720. because the said Philippicus caused pull down those Images of the Fathers of the sixth general Council placed in the Church of St. Sophia at Constantinople and a little after Gregory 2d and 3d. Bishops of Rome excommunicated Leo Isaurus and his son Copronymus for the same quarrel of Images but their insolence was compesâ—ed by Carolus Magnus as we shewed before Those four steps are 1. Election by Cardinals 2. Power of convocating general Councils constantly preâ—iding in them of confirming and infirming them 3. Power in temporals 4. In fallibility as for the last step Divinity it is disputed in the fourth Part lib. 2. The fourth and last Part of this Treatise entituled of Antichrist is divided in two Books in the first the demonstrations of Sanderus Bellarmine and Lessius three Jesuits are answered by which they endeavour to prove that the Bishop of Rome is not Antichrist 2. The Bishop of Rome is proved to be Antichrist by Scripture Fathers Popish Doctors yea by the testimonies of some Popes themselves In the second Book two marks of Antichrist are chiefly insisted upon the first is his defection 2 Thess 2. where it is proved that the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome is that defection mentioned by the Apostle and that in the first six Centuries there was no such thing as the modern Popish Religion which is proved by an induction of all the contraverted points we have with the Church of Rome 2. Because those of the Church of Rome ordinarily object that they have not made a defection because it cannot be instructed at what time it was made by whom and who resisted it Two things are proved in the said Book first it is proved by Reason Experience Scripture Fathers that a defection may be made and yet it may be unknown by whom it is made at what time and who first resisted it 2. It is proved by an induction that most of the most substantial Tenets of the Church of Rome such as transubstantiation number of the Sacraments communion under one kind sacrifice of the Mass imperfection of the Scripture equalling of traditions to it adding a Apocrypha Books to it rejecting the Greek and Hebrew as not being authentick as making the corrupt vulgar Latine version authentick free-will Merits justification by Works caelibat of Priests worshiping of Images invocation of Saints set Fasts Prayer for the dead Purgatory Indulgences works of super-erogation all the steps of the Popes Supremacy c. were not only not from the beginning but also it is proved for the most part by testimonies of Popish Doctors themselves at what time and by whom the said Tenets as innovations were brought in the Church The second mark of Antichrist we insist upon is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all sort of deceiving and fraud 2 Thes 2. where it is shewed by what cheats the authority of the Bishop of Rome and his Doctrine are maintained such as perverting falsly translating and corrupting by adding and paring of the indices expurgatorii all the Writings of the Ancients Suppositions Revelations Saints Miracles c. My Lords and Gentlemen Thus I have represented unto you what I perform in this great Subject and what method I observe in it By which it will appear to any reasonable man what difference there is between this method and that of others if I perform what I promise of which let the judicious Reader be judge Now followeth the third thing which I desired your Lordships to take to consideration viz. what my scope and intention is which is twofold the first is to refute those marks 〈◊〉 which those of the Church of Rome endeavour to perswade their Disciples that the said Church of Rome is the true â—hurch The first mark is a continual succession of Bishops which they take great pains to enumerat from the dayes of the Apostles unto this time In which mark shall be proved a four-fold cheat The first is they make the world beâ—ieve that all those Bishops were of a like greatness in Power and Authority whereas it is proved that in the first three Centuries or at least before the dayes of Cypâ—ian that every Bishop was of equal authority with the Bishop of Rome And that between the times of Cyprian and the Council of Chalcedon every Metropolitan and from the Council of Chalcedon to anno 604. every Patriarch were of equal jurisdiction to him And when he was made universal Bishop by Phocas little more then a bare title was bestowed on him and yet that was after revocked by the sixth general Council As for those five steps we mentioned before in which chiefly the Modern Power of the Pope consists viz. Election by Cardinals 2. Authority of convocating general Councils 3. Temporal jurisdiction 4. Infability 5. and Divinity it shall be proved as we said before by the testimonies of Popish Doctors themselves that the oldest of them had not a beeing in the tenth Age and that the said Popish Doctors acknowledging the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church nevertheless some of them doubted not to call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist by reason of these steps which they call tyrannical Antichristian usurpations The second Cheat in that mark of succession is that they make ignorants believe that all the Bishops of Rome since the times of the Apostles professed the same Doctrine which is now taught in the Church of Rome whereas it shall be proved that the Doctrine of the modern
Jurisdiction of Peter alone over the Church Their second reason is this Because the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others besides Peter which they prove First by Scripture next by Fathers The passages of Scripture are two The first is Mat. 18. 18. Verily I say unto you Whatsoever ye shal bind on earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye loose on earth shal be loosed in heaven The second place is in Joh. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins yel retain they are retained Bellarmin answers That those two places now cited have not the same meaning with Matthew 16. 19. He grants that the difficulty is somewhat pressing of Matthew 18. 18. but there is no difficulty at all saith he in John 20. 23. which he proves by three Arguments The first is this in Matthew 16. 19. The Keyes are promised to Peter without any particular determination but in John they are determinated to the forgiveness of sins but binding and loosing may be exercised in other objects then in pronounccing men guilty of sin or absolving them from sin as in making of laws and dispensing with them But it is answered That the Fathers expounding those words What ever ye shal bind on earth c. Matthew 16. 19. referrs that place only to the binding and loosing of sin So Augustinus tractat 124. on John Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo Claves ab eo regni Coelorum accepit in Petro id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata In which words he expresly affirms That the keyes committed to Peter consisted in the binding and loosing of sin Secondly Theophylactus on Matthew 16. expresly affirms What was given to Peter in that place was given to all the Apostles John 20. He saith indeed They were promised only to Peter Matthew 16. Christ directing his speech only to Peter but they were given to all If ye ask when saith he it is answered when he said Whose soever sins ye forgive alluding to John 20. Whereas Bellarmin affirms That the power of the keyes consists also in making of Laws he saith nothing at all except he prove that Peter had more authority then the other Apostles in that particular of making Laws Bellarmins second Argument to prove the same thing is not promised to Peter Matthew 16. which is given to the other Apostles John 20. is this in Matthew it is said to Peter Whomsoever thou shalt bind c. But it is said to the other Apostles in John Whosesoever sins ye retain c. But to bind is more then to retain for to retain is to leave a man in the same condition ye find him but to bind is to impose new bonds upon him by excommunication interdicting and Law But it is answered This Argument of Bellarmins is of no moment because according to the constant phrase of Scripture Forgiving of sins and loosing of sins are all one Ergo their opposits retaining of sin binding a sinner are all one Since we bind men for their sins only it is necessar that the sin being forgiven they are loosed or else that they are still retained if they be not loosed But it is absurd to affirm that anys sins are forgiven and yet retained for Bellarmin seems to speak of that distinction viz. remission of fault and remission of punishment that is the fault may be forgiven but not the punishment But this distinction is vain and belongs nothing to this place Bellarmin seems to import that the Prerogative of Peter is to have power of remitting any of them or both of them which the other Apostles have not wherein he is topped first by Cyrillus upon Matthew 16. who attributs the full power of binding and loosing to the whole Church which he proves in that instance of the incestuous Corinthian Secondly he is topped by Aquinas affirming that every Minister binds in refusing the Sacrament of the Church to those who are unworthy and looseth when he admits them to it Thirdly the Interlinear Gloss upon Matthew 16. affirms that sins are forgiven and retained by two keyes of power and remission Bellarmins third argument proving that John 20. and Matthew 16. are not alike is this because saith he in John 20. Power of forgiving sins by the Sacrament of Baptism or Penitence is only conferred upon the Apostles which he proveth by the authority of Chrysostom and Cyrillus upon this place John 20. and also of Hieronymus Quest 9. ad Hedibia But it is answered First Those Fathers affirm indeed that Power of forgiving of sins in Baptism is given in this place but it is false which Bellarmin affirms that it is only given and no more For forgiving of sins is but the half of the Power conferred by Christ upon the Apostles in this place since retaining of sins is also given unto them Secondly Fathers referr to Baptism that loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. So Cyprianus epistle 73. where he disputs that forgiving of sins in Baptism is proper to the Pastors of the Church which he proves first by Peter who got that power Matthew 16. 19. and also by the other Apostles to whom our Savior said Whose sins ye forgive c. John 20. Yea Gaudentius in the first day of his ordination expresly affirms that the gates of the Kingdom of heaven are opened no other wayes then by Baptism and absolution and thus much of the similitude of John 20. with Matthew 16. By what we have said it appears that Bellarmin brings nothing but Sopistry to prove that the places are not alike He grants that there is great difficulty to prove the dissimilitude of Matthew 16. 19. and 18. 18. Since binding and loosing is given to all the Apostles in the last place as well as in the first to Peter and not only retaining as in John 20. which Bellarmin affirmed to be a demonstration that John 20. and Matthew 16. were not alike places viz. that retaining and forgiving was only given to all the Apostles John 20 which was not so much as binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. Nevertheless Bellarmin endeavors to prove that Matthew 16. 19. and 18. 18. are unlike places although in the last binding and loosing be given to all the Apostles as well as to Peter in the first Because that binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. is of greater authority then that given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. 18 His argument is this which I believe he understands not himself In Matthew 18. saith he Nothing is given to the Apostles at all but only it is promised to them and explained what power they should have afterward which he prove by two reasons The first is That they were not yet Priests or Pastors or Bishops when Christ made them that promise Matthew 18. 18. but only after the resurrection Secondly because those words Whomsoever ye shal bind and loose c. Matthew 18. are the paralels of those said
to Peter Whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose Matthew 16. But in Matthew 16. nothing was exhibited to Peter but only promised Ergo in Matthew 18. nothing was exhibited to the other Apostles It is answered That Bellarmin proves nothing but what he affirmed before viz. That it was hard to shew a disparity between these two places Or that binding and loosing Matthew 16. 19. and Matthew 28. 18. for in stead of proving them different places by his sophistical contradictory babling he proves they are just the same For first he grants that nothing was exhibited in either place but only promised Secondly he grants that the words are alike Whatsoever thou shalt bind and whatsoever ye shal bind Whence he concluds that the places are not alike whereas he demonstrats they are the same It is reasoning unbeseeming so brave a man to prove places not alike by alike circumstances in both Secondly he contradicts what he said before viz. That power of Order was only given unto the other Apostles John 20. but power of Jurisdiction to Peter Matthew 16. and therefore the places were unlike that power of order was only given to the other Apostles John 20. he proved by forgiving and retaining that power of Jurisdiction was given to Peter Matthew 16. he proves by binding and loosing but here he grants that the binding and loosing given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and that given to Peter Matthew 16. are verba similia or the same words and consequently that the keys or power of Jurisdiction are given to the other Apostles as well as to Peter and consequently he proves himself a lyar in affirming that the keys given to Peter were keys of Jurisdiction but not these given to the other Apostles Alphonsus de Castro adversus haeres lib. 12. and Fisher Bishop of Rochester disputing against Luther art 25 proves that the keys given to Peter Matthew 16. and these given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. are not the same which they prove by an Achillean argument viz. it is said to Peter What ever thou bindest and loosest on Earth shal be bound and loosed in the Heavens but unto the other Apostles Matthew 18 it is only said Whomsoever ye bind or loose on Earth it shal be bound or loosed in Heaven but to bind and loose in Heaven is not the same but less then to bind and loose in the Heavens But it is answered Any intelligent person may see that those otherwise-learned men fight against their own conscience when they are driven to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome by such childish babling Since men of so great Spirits and Learning as those two were known to be could not be ignorant that this distinction of Heaven and Heavens is against Sense Scripture and Fathers First it is against sense Because none can be ignorant that Heavens in the plural number and Heaven collectively in the singular number are all one and the same thing in the ordinar phrase of speaking Who is so stupid as to deny it Secondly It is against Scripture which promiscuously useth Heaven and Heavens in the same sense so Mark 1. compared with Luk. 3. demonstrat In the first place it is said The Heavens were cloven assunder In the last the Heaven was opened and yet both the Evangelists are relating the same thing when John the Baptist baptized our Savior So Matthew 6. Christ affirmeth Lay up treasures for your selves in Heaven but Luk. 12. Make your selves treasurs in the Heavens Thirdly this distinction of Heaven and Heavens is of so little moment in the opinion of the Fathers that they express Matthew 18. in the plural number Heavens and Matthew 16. in the singular number Heaven So Hilarius lib. 6. de Trinitate affirms That all the Apostles had the keys Regni Coelorum of the Heavens he useth the same expression in his Book against the Arrians Cyprianus epist 54. affirmeth that all the Apostles had power of binding and loosing in the Heavens so doth Chrysostomus lib. 3. de Sacerdotio and Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 2. epist 5. and Augustinus against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets lib. 1. cap. 17. and Paceanus epist 1. to Sympronianus and in his book against the Novatians All which Fathers affirm that the Apostles had power of binding and loosing in Coelis in the Heavens The school-men likewise speak after the same manner as Lombardus distinct 18. of the first chapter lib. 4. and also in the same book distinct 19. and Durandus quest 1. in his Commentaries upon the said 19. distinct This is it that proved that all the Apostles had the keys not only of Heaven but of the Heavens whereby it appears by the authority of Scripture Fathers and School-men that the keys of Heaven and of Heavens are one and the same thing If any be not yet convinced it is further proved they are the same because the Fathers call the keys of Peter the keys of Heaven in the singular number So Ambrosius lib 1. de penitentia cap. 6. and Augustinus contra adversarium lib. 1. cap. 17. Ambrosius repeating the words of Christ to Peter saith Quaecunque ligaveris super Terram erunt ligata in Coelo Which is further confirmed The Fathers in the same place speaking of Christs promise to Peter call the keys promised to him both the keys of Heaven and the keys of Heavens So Ambrosius in the now cited place after the former words adds Et quaeâ—unque solveris super Terram erunt soluta in Coelis Augustinus in the fore-cited place calls the keys given to the other Apostles both the keys of Heaven and of the Heavens for after those words repeating our Saviors promise to the Apostles Quae solveritis super Terram erunt soluta in Coelis he affirms Quae ligaveritis in Terra erunt ligata in Coelo And thus we have proved that Alphonsus de Castro and Bishop Fisher are mistaken in their distinction of Heaven and Heavens by Reason Scripture and Fathers The original of this distinction they have from Origines tract 6. in Matthew where comparing the keys of Peter with those words Tell the Church and if he refuse to hear it to make satisfaction after three admonitions let him be unto thee as a publican he affirms That Peter although but one person yet had the keys of many Heavens but others or those admonishers three times although many persons yet had only the keys of one Heaven and so by the testimony of Origines Bozius lib. 18. cap. 1. de signis Ecclesie sustains that distinction of Heaven and Heavens mentioned by de Castro and Bishop Fisher But it is answered Those Doctors of the Church of Rome take great liberty to themselves in exposition of the Fathers Bellarmin as we shewed before pressed by a testimony of Origen not only affirming but also proving that these words upon this Rock I will build my Church Or that in these words nothing was promised
feed But it is notorious that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports no dominion at all but only Ministration of food Secondly albeit there were such a Mystery in the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to signify Jurisdiction Yet it is injoyned to Peter over the Flock only and not over the Pastors which doth not conclude an Oecumenick Bishop to whom Bellarmin gives authority of feeding the Pastors as well as the Flock Bellarmins second reason by which he proves that supream authority is given to Peter by these words of our Savior Feed my Sheep is because several Fathers calls that which was injoyned to Peter in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praefecturam or A having authority over the Flock of Christ So Chrysostomus lib. 2. de Sacerdotio and Augustnius on John 21. But it is answered Chrysostom is disputing there of the Priesthood which is common to all Priests and not of an Oecumenick Bishop Neither can it be denyed that any Bishop hath that authority over his own Flock which is mentioned by Chrysostom in that place viz. Governing and Chastising which is also the meaning of Augustinus Bellarmin cites an other testimony of Gregorius de cura Pastorali where Pastors are called by him Rectors but his meaning is the same as appears by the scope of his disput needless to be inserted he is enumerating these duties belonging to a Pastor amongst which he doth not mention one peculiar to an Oecumenick Bishop and which is not common to all Pastors Bellarmin useth other reasons besides these two which in effect are the same with his first reason It is very ordinar with him to repeat the same arguments in other words to make ignorants believe that his Army is numerous The second reason wherefore our Savior in these words Feed my Sheep injoyns no universal jurisdiction over the Church is because he injoyns the same to others beside Peter Which is proved First by Scripture Secondly by Fathers The passages of Scripture are John 20. 21. where our Savior affirmeth As my Father sent me so send I you Which words are expounded by Cyrillus lib. 12. in John by Chrysostomus hom 85. upon John By Theophylactus upon this place to this purpose viz. Cyrillus affirms That all the Apostles were ordained Doctors of the whole World to inlighten not only the Jews but all the Nations of the World Chrysostomus and Theophylactus interpret these words That Christ injoyned his own work unto all the Apostles The second passage of Scripture is Matthew 28. 19. Go therefore and teach all Nations◠the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Teach imports all the authority that a Master hath over his Disciples viz. To Govern them to Chastise them and not only to teach them And consequently is of as large an extent as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed Of which Bellarmin brags so much And thus much of Scripture In the next place it is proved by Antiquity that nothing peculiar was imagined to Peter in these words Feed my Sheep The first testimony is from the third Epistle amongst these of Cyprian in which the Clergy of Rome speaks thus to the Clergy of Carthage Sed Simoni sic dicit diligis me respondit diligo Ait ei pasce oves meas Hoc verbum factum ex ipso actu quo cessit agnoscimus caeteri Discipuli similiter By which words it appears that it was the opinion of the Clergy of Rome in the days of Cyprian That the feeding of the Flock of Christ was injoyned to others viz. to all the Apostles as well as to Peter Cyprianus himself de Vnitate Ecclesiae They are all Pastors but the Flock is one which all the Apostles feed with one consent and a little before immediatly after he had cited these words of our Savior Feed my Sheep he subjoyns That Christ gave to all the Apostles alike power after his Resurrection Augustinus tract 123. upon John Chrysostomus de Sacerdotio lib. 2. Basilius cap. 22. of the Constitution of Monks all expresly affirm That the feeding of the Flock of Christ was committed to all Pastors and Bishops by our Savior in these words It is needless to set down the words of these Fathers since these testimonies are granted by our Adversaries who notwithstanding of them endeavor so to prove that these words of our Savior were in a peculiar manner directed to Peter So Bellarmin and Sanderus they reason thus First Bellarmin takes much pains to prove that our Savior directed his speech only to Peter which none denys Quid tum postea He instances that the rest are excluded by these words of our Savior Lovest thou me more then those By the three-fold reiteration of that question by these words of our Savior when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and by these words of Peter verse 21. Lord what shal this man do And of the answer of Christ What is that to thee Follow thou me But say they Peter would never have asked what John should do If Christ had said to John Feed my Sheep neither would the Lord have answered What is that to thee Follow thou me but he would have answered He shal feed my sheep as thou shalt But it is answered All this reasoning is nothing else but a rible rable of sophistry First Bellarmin sophisticats in stateing of the question as if Protestants denyed that these words of our Savior were directed to Peter alone And therefore he proves by all those circumstances foresaid that our Savior spoke only to Peter which none denys The thing which is denyed is the consequence or it doth not follow That the feeding of the Flock of Christ was only committed to Peter because the words of our Savior were only directed to him no more then it followeth That Adam and Eve should only increase and multiply because God directed his speech to them only Secondly Bellarmin doth not consider for what reason our Savior directed his speech to Peter only in these words Feed my Sheep It was not because it was his intention to give to Peter Jurisdiction over the whole Church but for other two reasons The First is because Peter had thrice denyed him so Cyrillus in John lib. 12. cap. 64. who affirms so much And likewise Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 1. epist 103. and also epist 356. and Nazianzenus in his Oration in Sancta Lumina hath these words Christ admitted Peter an Apostle again and healed his threefold denying of him by a threefold interrogation to which Peter made a threefold confession by which words an other reason appears wherefore our Savior directed his speech to Peter alone viz. To restore him to his Apostleship which he had lost by denying Christ Cyrillus in the foresaid place affirms Although all the Disciples were sore afraid and ran away when Christ was apprehended yet the crime of Peter was greatest because he denyed him thrice in so short a time where he
affirms also that the Apostleship was restored unto him by these words of our Savior Feed my Sheep After his answering the three-fold interrogation of Christ he had professed thrice He loved Christ by testimonies of which Fathers it appears that nothing peculiar to Peter was given in these words Feed my Sheep Since the Apostleship is common to Peter with the other Apostles And therefore Peter was not ordained Oecumenick Bishop in these words The third Sophistry of Bellarmin consists in his reasoning thus If Peter saith he had believed that these words of Christ had belonged to John as well as to himself or if our Savior had injoyned to John the feeding of his Sheep as well as unto Peter Peter would never have demanded of our Savior What John should do Neither would our Savior have answered him What is that to thee Follow thou me For Peter would have known what John should do viz. Feed Christs Sheep and our Savior would have answered him John shal feed my Sheep as thou dost But it is answered This disputation of Bellarmins is most shameless babling for that question of Peter Asking what John should do And that answer of Christ What is that to thee are not relative to these words of Christ Feed my Sheep but to these verse 18. When thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thine hands shewing to Peter what death he should die Whereupon Peter asketh Christ What John should do or what should become of him or what death he should die To which our Savior answers What is that to thee That this is the true gloss appears by the text it self by the Fathers Cyrillus Euthymius by the ordinar gloss by all the Ancient Popish Doctors upon the place As Aquinas Carthusianus Gorranus Cajetanus Toletus by late Popish Doctors as Maldonatus Barradas and Emmanuel Sa So that Bellarmins gloss is nothing els but one of his new devised fictions by which he and others of late endeavor to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome contrair to common sense Scripture and the whole current of Popish Doctors themselves who lived before these last times Fourthly Bellarmin comes on with an other of his glosses of like nature viz. seeing that it could not be denyed that other Apostles and Pastors beside Peter were injoyned to feed the Flock of Christ since it was so clearly asserted by Scripture and Fathers He invents a new distinction that they did it by the permissiom of Peter or to use his own words Quia vocantur à Peâ—ro in partem solicitudinis that is because they had a calling from Peter so to do or Were admitted by him to a part of the care But it is answered This distinction of Bellarmins hath not the least ground It is against Scripture John 20. 21. and Matthew 28. 19. as both passages are expounded by the Fathers It is contrair to Fathers as was proved by the testimonies of the Clergy of Rome of Cyrianus of Augustinus Chrysostomus and Basilius Finally it is contrair to Popish Doctors as Franciscus de Victoria who as we shewed before disputed expresly That all the Apostles had not only their Order but also their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ And reprehended the ordinar gloss for using that distinction in exposition of that place of Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae All the Apostles after the Resurrection had alike authority and power from Christ Neither can Bellarmin produce one testimony of Antiquity to maintain his gloss viz. That Peter immediatly had the power of feeding the Flock of Christ from Christ himself and the other Apostles and Pastors had it only from Peter Sanderus lib. 6. cap. 4. of his Monarchy useth another argument from those words of our Savior Peter lovest thou me more then these From which words he concluds That the Feeding of the flock of Christ was injoyned immediatly only to Peter because saith he Peter loved Christ better then the other Apostles did and therefore the â—eeding of the flock of Christ was committed to him alone as the reward of his love But it is answered First it cannot be gathered from the text that Peter loved Christ better then the other Apostles did since Christ only asked him whither he loved him better then the other Apostles did Peter answered thou knowest that I love thee but he adds not better then the other Apostles do 2. Tho it were granted as some of the Fathers maintain that Peter loved Christ better then the other Apostles did it is inconsequent for that reason to conclude that Peter had Jurisdiction over the rest for the same argument would conclude that the Apostle John had Jurisdiction over those Apostles who loved not Christ so well as himself that Stephanus a Deacon had Jurisdiction over Nicolaus and other Deacon that Peter himself had more ample Jurisdiction then Sylvester second Alexander sixth and other Monsters which were Bishops of Rome which Bellarmin will not grant readily since all Bishops of Rome are in his opinion of alike authority with Peter Lastly Turrianus lib. 2. cap. 22 in his defence against Zadeel reasons thus Let it be granted saith he that all the Apostles and all Pastors had their authority of feeding the Flock of Christâ— it doth not hinder a distinction of Order among them not though that authority be equal as they are Pastors yet it doth hinder one to be a Presbyter an other to be a Bishop above him another to be universal Bishop above all as all men qua homines or as men are equals yet some of them are Kings others subjects But it is answered It far less follows that there are several degrees of Church Orders because they are of alike authority or that because these words Feed my sheep were injoyned with alike authority to Linus and Cletus Bishops of Rome therefore the one of them was Oecumenick Bishop the other not The truth is to answer in earnest to Turrianus its false which he affirms That the equality of Authority can consist Jure Divino with Subordination of one Bishop to another All Bishops are Jure Divino of alike Authority Subordination or distinction of degrees in Bishops are Jure humano as shal be proved in the following Books We have vindicated two reasons why these words of our Sâ—vior Feed my sheep conclude not that Peter was ordained Oecumenick Bishop The first was That feeding of the sheep of Christ inferrs no dominion over them The second was because our Savior injoyned the Feeding of his sheep to others as well as to Peter which we proved by Scripture and Fathers and answered all what our Adversaries objected to the contrair Now followeth a third Reason wherefore those words of our Savior to Peter Feed my sheep doth not conclude him Oecumenick Bishop and is this because many were Christs sheep whom Peter did not feed as the Indians Ethiopians and Gentiles committed to the Apostleship of Paul yea the very Apostles themselves were the sheep of Christ and yet we
confirmed from onsets of the Devil or his instruments and since no visible Monarch of the Church is mentioned by the Apostle it is evident that there was no such Monarch ordained by Christ Bellarmin answers two wayes One way is that the Apostle in those words is not delineating the Hierarchy of the Church but only enumerating divers gifts of some of the Church and 1 Corinthians 12. he adds the gift of tongues But it is replyed It cannot be denyed but the Apostle is enumerating diversity of gifts since verse 7. He expresly affirms so much but it is to be added that he enumerats those gifts as they are in Officers of the Church only whence appears the dissimilitude of this place from 1 Corinth 12. In which gifts are enumerated which are not peculiar to Church Rulers but are also found in laiks Such as gifts of healing and tongues c. That this is the Apostles meaning appears by two reasons First â—he enumerats none verse 11. Who hath not a degree of ruling in the Church The second is because ver 12. 13 14 He doth not enumerat any utility redounding to the Church which is not wrought by the Ministry ver 11. He enumerats the Ministers of the Church ver 12. 13 14. He enumerats the ends wherefore these Ministers were ordained All which ends Oecumentus comprehends under one that is saith he Those degrees of Ministers enumerated verse 12. were for that end ordained that they might minister unto the Church as appears ver 12 13 14. It is to be observed that the Apostle enumerats here all Church Officers both extraordinar and ordinar The extraordinar are those who were ordained only to continue for a time Such as Apostles Evangelists Prophets Ordinar are those ordained to be of perpetual standing in the Church as Doctors and Pastors And since in all those Orders of Church Ministers there are many and not one only in each degree it is evident that one Oecumenick Bishop or a visible head of the Church is not comprehended under any of those Ministers Bellarmin puzled with this answers another way He grants that the enumeration of Church Ministers here is perfect but he denyes that an Oecumenick Bishop hath no place in that enumeration because saith he All the â—ierarchy of the Church and consequently an Oecumenick Bishop is confusâ—dly represented under the name of Pastors and Doctors But finding that Pastors and Doctors were only inferior Orders below Apostles Prophets and Evangelists He passeth from this and affirms next That an Oecumenick Bishop is comprehended under Apostles because not only here but also 1 Corinth 12. Apostles are put in the first place and therefore the chief Ecclesiastick Power was given to all the Apostles but to Peter as ordinar Pastor and therefore to have a Successor in it to the other Apostles as exraordinar and Delegats to Peter and therefore none should succeed them But it is answered we prolixly disputed this distinction of Bellarmins to be groundless contradictory and inconsistent with it self cap. 6. It is needless to repeat what we said there in this place It is sufficient here that never any ancient or Modern Interpreter before the times of the Jesuits did so much as dream that an Oecumenick Bishop was comprehended by the Apostle Ephes 4. 11. Which could be made out by an Induction of all the Commentaries of ancient and Modern Writers upon that place By which it appears that all those testimonies by which those Jesuits prove the Supremacy of Peter and consequently the verity of the Roman Faith are either in Scripture or Fathers depraved by new devised Glosses unknown to the Ancients and also their answers are of the same stuff by which they elude passages of Scripture and Antiquity destroying the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome and in it the whole edifice of the Roman Church Both their offensive and defensive arms are but devised of late since the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome was established That any may see that this Gloss of Bellarmins is a fiction of his own devising we will prove by three Arguments of three several Interpreters By which it will appear what was the opinion of the Church concerning the meaning of this passage Ephes 4. 11. since the times of the Apostles unto those dayes The first Interval is of the Primitive Church before the Council of Nice what was the opinion of that Church in that Interval appears by the testimony of the ancient Author by some believed to be Dionysius Areopagita the disciple of Paul his words epistle 8. are those Tu ergo cupiditati iracundiae rationi modum statue pro dignitate tibi verò divini Ministri his Sacerdotes Pontifices Sacerdotibus Pontificibus Apostali stoli Apostolorúmque successores Quod si quâ—s etiam in istis ab officio discedat à sanctis qui sunt ejusdem ordinis corrigetur atque ita non insultabit ordo in ordinem sed unusquisque in suo ordine ac Ministerio premanebit In which words ye have two things The first is That the chief place in the Hierarchy in the times of the Apostles was held not by one but by many viz. by all the Apostles alike neither makes he mention of Peter his having that chief power as ordinar Pastor and of the other Apostles as having it aâ— Delegats to Peter which will be further confirmed by the second thing observable in these words which is this After the Apostles were removed the chief place in the Hierarchy consisted also not in one person but in many alike viz. in Bishops who succeeded to the Apostles in the first place of the Hierarchie which also he expresly affirms to be of equal Order and Jurisdiction many and not one having Jurisdiction over all as a visible head which quite destroyes the Gloss of Bellarmin for if others succeeding to the other Apostles were in the first place of the Hierarchie which this Author flatly affirms it is false which Bellarmin affirms that all the Apostles had the chief power only during their own time not communicable to their Successors And likewise if those successors of the other Apostles were in the first place of the Hierarchy equally and alike as this Author also affirms It is false which Bellarmin affirms That the Successors of Peter the Apostle had â—he chief authority in their single persons as visible Monarchs of the Church It may be proved by the Glosses of Maximus and others that this Dionysius was not the Disciple of the Apostle Paul mentioned in the Acts because he seems to make mention of the Metropolitants above Bishops But it shal be proved lib. 2. by unanswerable testimonies That there was no Office above that of a Bishop in the Church before the latter end of the third age However albeit he be not the Disciple of Paul as some affirm he is yet he is an ancient Author and delineats the Hierarchie of the Church not to have been monarchical in his days
Paul do not conclude him Oecunick Bishop how can those Prerogatives of Peter conclude him to be so And lest any should think that the reason is because the Prerogatives of Peter were greater then these of Paul hear Ambrosius or if ye please Maximus Sermon 66. who having declaimed on the Prerogatives of Peter and Paul concludes in those words Ergo beati Petrus Paulus eminent inter universos Apostolos peculiari quadam praerogativa praecellunt verum interipsos quis cui proponatur incertum est The sum of which is That the prerogatives of both are so great that none can tell which of them is to be preferred viz. Peter or Paul If this doth not satisfie the Reader that the Prerogatives of Paul were as great as these of Peter let him hear Chrysostom Hom. 66. where he affirms expresly That none doubted of this viz. that none of the Apostles went before Paul and also on Galat. 2. he affirms Paulus non egebat voce Petri nec eo opus habebat sed honore par erat illi nihil hic dicam amplius By these last words it is evident to any intelligent Reader that in his opinion Paul was to be preferred to Peter We have spoken already of personal Prerogatives that they can be no argument to prove the Supremacy of Peter since in the opinion of the Ancients the Prerogatives of Paul were equal to those of Peter as expresly is affirmed by them and also Superior to those of Peter as may be gathered not obscurely from their words albeit out of modesty they affirm it not expresly Prerogatives then concluding Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop must of necessity be prerogatives inseparable from that function And in that case the pretended successors of Peter or the Bishops of Rome must also have those Prerogatives that they have none but a mad man will affirm since among these Prerogatives are numbred walking upon the water and such like which would puzle the Bishops of Rome now to do In a word among all those prerogatives of Peter there is not one that concludes him more Oecumenick Bishop then they do him Emperor of Rome which none but a Sophister will deny There is not one of them which is not either notoriously false or notoriously impertinent or else refuted already For ye must understand amongst the Prerogatives of Peter they not only reckon up what they have said already as Tu es Petrus sibi dabo claves pasce oves meas but also those very things which they disput after they have disputed his Prerogatives tempting the Readers patience with repetitions of the same things Any who will take the pains to anatomize those Volumns of Controversies set forth by Bellarmin they will find them to be nothing else but a Rible Rable of contradictory Sophistry impertinent Rhetorications and oratorial digressions tedious repetitions of the same things ad nauseam usque wrested mutilated falsly interpreted and forged Testimonies of the Ancients to deceive his Reader confirm ignorants in the Romish idolatry thinking to deterr his learned Adversaries from discovering his weakness by his prolixity In which Artifices Baronius is nothing inferior to him being the most shameless corrupter of Antiquity which the world hath hitherto produced as appears by those exercitations of Causabon others upon him One thing is to be observed in him Bellarmin Pâ—tavius and some others that when they are most destitute of reason they brag most and when they cannot answer an Argument in reason they fall a scolding taxing learned men yea of their own side of ignorance madness and heresie for refusing to acknowledge fantastick fictions devised by themselves as irrefragable principles Their Sophistry is very great in this following disput of the Prerogatives of Peter in which Bellarmin and Baronius clash together in things of greatest importance The truth is there is not any thing worth the answering in all this prolix disput of prerogatives Nevertheless lest any should think I omitted their arguments because they are unanswerable I will trace the method of Bellarmin answering his arguments so that any indifferent man may be convinced of the truth And if any be not satisfied let him read Chamier Whitaker and others who prosecute that dispute to the full The Popish Authors enumerate not the prerogatives after the same manner some reckoning fewer then others Bellarmin enumerats all these which any of them mentions in number 28. the first 20. they endeavor to prove by Scripture the other 8. by Tradition We will dispute the first 20. in the following 16. chapter and the other 8. chapter 17. Of which in order CHAP XVI Of the Scriptural Prerogatives of Peter THe Scriptural Prerogatives of Peter as we said are twenty the truth is they are not worth the refuting but lest our Adversaries brag that we omitted them because they could not be answered I intreat the Reader to have patience till I pass through that Augiae Stabulum viz. that disput of Bellarmin concerning the prerogatives of Peter Where ye shal find First That though they were all true and proved yet those fore-mentioned prerogatives of Paul are nothing inferior to them Secondly It will appear that there is not one of them but it is either impertinent and nothing to the purpose or else notoriously false But now have at them The first prerogative is That our Savior changed the name of Peter from Simon to Peter John 1. Tu es Simon filius Jonae tu vocaberis Cephas Thou art Simon the son of Jonas thou shalt be called Cephas But it is answered it proves nothing First many had new names given them and yet were not Oecumenick Bishops Yea other Apostles also as Paul was once called Saul also the sons of Zebedeus James and John had the names of Boanerges given unto them Bellarmin instanceth many ways vexing himself and his Reader so do Stapleton Toletus but nothing to the purpose wearying both themselves and their Readers with extravagant phantasies falling again upon Tu es Petrus which we disputed to the full before The second prerogative is this When the names of the Apostles are enumerated Peter is still named first as Matthew 10. Mark 3. Luke 6. Acts 1 Mark 5. and other places But it is answered It is notoriously false as appears by 1. Corinth 3. and 9. Galat. 2. Mark 16. John 1. In all which places other Apostles are named before Peter And although it were true that Peter was ever named first it concludes no primacy of Jurisdiction but only of order which may be among those of equal authority As in a Colledge of Judges the name of the eldest Judge or President is the first in the Nomenclature or Catalogue The third prerogative is from Matthew 14. 29. That Peter only walked upon the waters with our Savior As also that John 21. 7. That Peter did leap in the Sea for haste to be at Christ But it is answered This is a great prerogative in Peter indeed shewing only the
cannot be deficient when thou fees others vacillating convert thy self to them and confirm them They object many things here as that Theophylactus affirmeth That Peter after his repentance shal recover Primatum omnium and Praefecturam orbis that Ambrosius affirms Petrus Ecclesiae praeponitur postquaem tentatus à Diabolo est Augustinus also calls Peter Rectorem Ecclesiae cui claves Regni Coelorum creditae sunt But these objections are of no moment And first that Theophylactus affirms that Peter recovered the Primacy above all it is nothing For first the meaning is no other then that he hath a chief place in the Church in dignity not in Jurisdiction and it shal be proved cap. 19. 20. that not only the other Apostles are called Principes Primates but also Praefecti orbis and Rectores Ecclesiae The ninth Prerogative of Peter is that our Savior first of all appeared to him after his resurrection But it is answered first although it were true it is of no moment to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop Secondly it is notoriously false because he appeared to Mary Magdalene before ever he appeared to Peter Mark 16. 19. before ever he appeared to his own mother or to any of the Apostles If Bellarmin answer That Mary Magdalen was only a woman It is replyed It concluds Women had the Primacy over the Apostles if the Argument were of any force Secondly it is very probable that our Savior appeared to these two disciples going to Emmaus before he appeared to any of the Apostles for when they came back to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together then they affirmed that the Lord was risen indeed had appeared to Simon which is all that Bellarmin alledgeth to prove that Christ first appeared to Peter except that of 1 Corinth 15. He appeared unto Cephas and after that unto the eleven however albeit it be very probable that our Savior appeared to Peter before ever he appeared unto the other Apostles yet it concludes no more that Peter had Primacy over the the other Apostles then that those two Disciples going to Emmaus had primacy over them since he appeared unto them as well as unto Peter before ever he appeared to the other Apostles The tenth Prerogative is taken from John 13. when our Savior washing the Apostles feet did first wash those of Peter It is answered first Although it were true it is of no moment to prove Peter Oecumenick bishop Secondly it is only a conjecture of some Fathers that Peters feet were first washed it cannot begathered from the text at all Augustinus is of that opinion indeed and so is Nonnus in his Poetical paraphrase but other Fathers are against it as Chrysostomus Theophylactus Bellarmin urgeth here that those Fathers affirm That Judas only had his feet washed before Peter but what then Bellarmins reason is very bad concluding from that washing Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop since Judas was washed before him he instances Judas was a Traitor and none of the other Apostles would have suffered our Savior to wash their feet before these of Peters but only Judas But it is replyed First if there had been any my stery of Primacy in that washing of feet our Savior would never have washed the feet of Judas before those of Peter Secondly not only Origines and Ambrosius affirm That he washed the feet of other Apostles before those of Peter besides Judas but also Popish Doctors affirm the same as Aquinas Lyranus and Salmero the Jesuit The eleventh Prerogative is from John 21. 18. where our Savior saith to Peter But when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thine hands and another shal gird thee If ye demand what Prerogative is here They answer that in those words Christ shows to Peter what death he should die viz. That he should be crucified as himself was But it is answered First although it were true it doth not conclude Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop Secondly that our Savior foretold to Peter a violent death in those words is more then probable but that he foretold the death of the cross can no wayes be gathered from the words And whereas they insist upon stretching forth of hands it is of no moment since those words do not conclude stretching forth of hands upon the cross necessarily since ones hands are stretched out when they are bound which sort of stretching our Savior questionless means by as appears by these words When thou wast young thou girdedst thy self but when thou shalt be old thou shâ—lt streâ—ch forth thy hands and another shal gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldest not The Syrian Interpreter Alius cinget lumbos tuos shall gird thy loins Interlinear Gloss cinget vinoulis shal gird thy loins Lyranus convinced that stretching of hands was by Cords and not by Nails affirms That Peter was crucified being bound by cords upon the cross which is a very ridiculous fancy however that by stretching of hands is not meant crucifying but only binding appears by the following words and lead thee whither thou wouldest not It is notorious that they use not to lead one who is crucified already any where The twelfth Prerogative is from Acts 1. 15. And in those dayes Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples Here they gather great things First that Peter convocated the rest of the Apostles Ergo he was Oecumenick Bishop But first it is inconsequent although he had gathered them in one it doth not follow that he did so by authoriâ—y but only by advice and counsel Secondly it is notoriously false that Luke in that place affirms any such thing as that the Apostles were convocated by Peter The second thing they gather that Peter having proposed that one should be chosen in the place of Judas they all obeyed his command But it is answered Peter only uttered his opinion as any one of them might have done that such a thing was necessary and they followed his opinion It is ridiculous to collect â—â—om thence any authority of Peter over the rest Salmero the Jesuit collects that Peter represented Christ because Luke affirms He stood up in the midst of them But it is answered It follows likewise that the little child Mat. 18. and the man with the withered hand Mark 3. and Paul Ast. 27. Were visible heads of the Church That standing in the mids imports no authority of it self but rather a Ministrie appears by Luke 22. 27. where our Savior affirms He was in the mids of them as a servant The thirteenth Prerogative is from Acts 2. where after the Apostles had received the Holy-Ghost Peter first of all did promulgat the Gospel But it is answered First although it were true it is inconsequent to prove Peter visible head of the Church as is notorious Secondly it is false or at least not certain that Peter preached the Gospel first for Luke affirms Before that time the Apostles spake with tongues to the admiration of all the hearers
2. lib. 2. that there was no Patriarch before the Council of Chalcedon established by Law And therefore it is false which Bellarmin affirms That these three were ever held Patriarchal seatsonly because they were founded by Peter as shal be proved at large part 2. lib. 2. Thirdly It is false which he affirms viz. That those Churches were called Patriarchal because they were founded by Peter since it is notorious that the dignity of Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs depended upon civil respects and not upon their Apostolick founders For first the Bishop of Rome had the first place because he was Bishop of the Old imperial City he of Constantinople the second because he was Bishop of New Rome as appears by the third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople by the 28. Canon of the fourth General Council of Chalcedon by the 36 Canon of the fifth General Council of Constantinople As for the other Patriarchs Baronius himself ad annum 39. num 10. hath these words Majores in instituendis sedibus Ecclesiarum non aliam misse rationem quà m secundum provinciarum divisionem praerogativas à Romanis antea stabilitas quam plurima sunt exempla And a little after he affirms That the Patriarch of Alexandria was preferred to him of Antioch because Aegypt was praefectura Augustalis And not Antioch which was only a proconsulat of Syria And for that reason also It was preferred to Jerusalem because Jerusalem was under the said proconsulat But if Bellarmins prerogative of Peter hold good Antioch would be preferred to Constantinople because it was founded by the Apostle Peter and also to Alexandria because it was only founded by Mark. But more of this part 2. lib. 2. The seventh traditional prerogative is The feast of the chair of Peter viz. that there was a Festival day observed in the Church of the institution of Peter in his Bishoprick ever since his time But it is answered First Bellarmin is very wary in this objection in speaking of the Feast of Peters chair in general not nameing which chair in particular Better hold his peace for this feast was in remembrance of Peters Bishoprick of Antioch and not of Rome If this argument have any force it proves the Bishop of Antioch Oecumenick Bishop and not the Bishop of Rome Secondly It is notoriously false That this feast was observed by the whole Church Bellarmins proofs are Augustinus Sermon 15. de Sanctis which book is proved by Erasmus to be forged How ever it is of no moment whether it be forged or not Thirdly Baronius himself speaking of Feasts in honor of their Founders or of Feasts observed by Churches for that Reason affirms speaking of the Church of Rome That the feast of the foundation of that Church was late and according to the example of some Oriental Churches The last prerogative of Peter is That in old Epistles called Literae Formatae after these words In the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost the name of Peter was inserted If ye answer that it is but a late invention Bellarmin will produce an Epistle of Atticus Bishop of Constantinople But it is replyed Several makes mention of these Literae called Formatae but of that sort as they are mentioned by Bellarmin where the name of Peter is placed next after the Trinity in such Letters ye have no example of old but oâ— late in the collections of the decretals and Canon Law Ye find only two of them in Gratianus distinct 73. The first dated 1002. The second 1315. Ye find other of them in Ivo derect part 6. cap. 134. and 135. As for that epistle of Atticus any may see it forgâ—d However it is of no moment whether it be forged or not He that would see the proofs of its Forgery let him read Chameir upon this prerogative However these formatae literae were conceived thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which three letters signify Father Son and Holy Ghost Then was written 〈◊〉 the initial letter of Peter next the first letter of his name who wrote the letter Secondly The second letter of his name to whom it was written Thirdly The third letter of his name who carried the letter Fourthly The fourth letter of the name of the City from which it was written c. All these ceremonies were used to preveen miscarrying or forging of letters And thus we have purged that Augiae Stabulum of that disput of Bellarmins concerning the prerogatives of Peter And consequently answered all what is objected by Bellarmin in this argument of prerogatives for the supremacy of Peter which is the fourth general argument proving him Oecumenick Bishop alledged by our adversaries CHAP. XVIII Several Arguments from the Carriage of Peter disproving his Supremacy OUr Adversaries in the three preceeding chapters endeavored by all the Art they could to prove the supremacy of Peter by his prerogatives most of which were in his carriage In this chapter we will shortly minute some arguments from the carriage of Peter that he could not be Monarch of the Church ordained by Christ And it is very strange that our adversaries should have endeavored to prove the supremacy of Peter by his carriage since Salmero the Jesuit in his Commentaries upon the First of Peter ingenuously confesseth nothing can be gathered from his carriage to prove his supremacy And consequently he acknowledgeth all these arguments proving his supremacy from his carriage to be nothing else but sophisms That the arguments from his carriage disproving his supremacy are no sophisms appears by what followeth we will only mention three The first is this it appears by Acts 8. 14 That Peter and John were delegated by the Apostles who were in Jerusalem to preach the Gospel in Samaria but an Oecumenick Bishop cannot be delegated as is notorious Who would take upon them to send the Bishop of Rome in commission now-a-days They answer to this argument variously Panigarolla discept 6. answers That it was by Peters own procurement that he was sent by the other Apostles but he only guesseth his answer hath no warrand in the text and by such answers as his any passage of Scripture albeit never so evident may be eluded Bellarmin Stapleton Sanderus Salmero and Baronius anno 35. num 9. affirms That it is not inconsistent with Equals to be sent from their Equals They give many instanâ—es The first is That GOD the Father sent Christ and both sent the Holy Ghost but that instance is ridiculous not being a Mission of like Nature with that of Peter from the other Apostles Likewise the Father Son and Holy Ghost is from Equals but that Mission of Peter was from those as the Roman Doctors maintain under his own authority They instance secondly Herod sent the wise men to Bethlehem but he had no authority over them But it is answered First That the wise men had no authority over Herod the state of the question is Whether Peter had authority over the other
power of Government above the other Apostles but according to the execution of that Power all the Apostles were alike with him But that distinction is likewayes contradictiory as we shewed before and this much of Cyprian The second testimony is of Hieronymus lib. 1. in Jovinianum Vt dicis super Petrum sundatur ecclesis licet id ipsum alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur but you affirm that the Church is founded upon Peter although the same be done in another place upon all the Apostles viz. that the Church is builded upon them all alike which glosse of Hieronymus quite destroyes that argument of Peters Supremacy viz. that he was the only Rock among all the Apostles upon which the Church was builded Bellarmine answers that Hieronymus explains himself in the same place where he affirms one was chosen among the twelve that a head being constitute occasion of Schism might be taken away c. But it is replyed Cardinal Causanus sees no such gloss in these words of Hieronymus as we shewed before cap. 10. where he affirms that nothing peculiar was promised to Peter in these words tues Petrus and proves it by this testimony of Hieronymus that the Church was builded alike upon all the Apostles and in what sence Peter is called head by Hieronymus was shewed before cap. 20. for it is certain that Hieronymus by calling Peter head of the twelve doth not mean Peter had jurisdiction over the rest otherwayes he would expresly contradict himself in this same place he calls him heaa therefore in the same sense that others are called heads which we mentioned cap. 20. But Bellarmine instances that he was made head of the twelve that schisme might be takan away But it is replyed that was before they were sent by Christ to preach the Gospel but Cyprian and Hieronymus seems to be of that opinion that Peter was head of the twelve as the Apostles were a private Company or Congregation but after the resurrection that authority ceased when our Saviour commissionated them all alike to preach the Gospel through the world with equal authority And this much of that famous Dispute of the supremacy of Peter in which we have fished all what is of any moment from that immense Ocean of Antiquity either to assault it or assert it by which it appears to any indifferent Reader upon what a weak foundation the Faith of the Modern Church of Rome is built viz. the supremacy of Peter or that Peter was oecumenick Bishop which was a concert that the Ancients did not dream of before the fifth Age after the Council of Chalcedon when that contention arose between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople for the primacy Before the time of Leo first the Bishops of Rome and Leo himself pleaded a priority in dignity by Acts of Councils but succumbing in that Leo was the first that devised tues Petrus for the primacy his successours still argumenting the force of that Argument and used it afterwards for universal jurisdiction whereas at first it was objected only for cura universalis ecclesiae Now having absolved that dispute of Peters Monarchy we will examine his Bishoprick of Rome which is the second part of the Bishoprick of Peter CHAP. XXII Bellarmines Argument answered Proving that Peter was aâ— Rome HItherto hath been disputed Whether Peter was instituted oecumenick Bishop by Christ which was the first assertion or ground on which the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is founded Now followeth the second which according to Bellarmine lib. 2. de pont Rom. is that Peter at the command of Christ fixed his seat at Rome and did sit there as Bishop unto his death Here ariseth a two-fold question first Whether Peter was at Rome next Whether he was Bishop of Rome if he was never at Rome it is certain he was never Bishop of Rome and albeit he had been at Rome it doth not follow he was Bishop of Rome it was commonly believed that Peter was at Rome and Bishop of Rome before the time of Marcilius Patavinus who lived in the 14. Age and wrote a Book intituled Defensor â—acis in which he maintains Peter was never at Rome nor Bishop of Rome and proves that all the Ancients were deceived who affirmed either the one or the other his reasons shall be mentioned in the following Chapters in this are answered the reasons of Bellarmine proving the first that he was at Rome The assertion of Bellarmine was that Peter was Bishop of Rome by ordination of Christ to prove which he brings nothing but falls to prove that Peter was first at Rome and next that he was Bishop of Rome and instead of Christs institution he brings nothing but conjectures of the Ancients to prove that Peter was at Rome and perverted testimonies to prove that he was Bishop of Rome It was shâ—wed before that all the Faith and Doctrine of the modern Church of Rome depended upon the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which supremacy consisted in three assertions first that Peter was oecumenick Bishop by divine institution which makes nothing for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome without the other two viz. that Peter by divine institution was Bishop of Rome and that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter by divine institution in the Monarchy of the Church any of those two being brangled the whole foundation of the modern Roman Religion is quite destroyed Bellarmine to prove both the one and the other after he had undertaken to prove them by divine institution brings nothing but conjectures involved with contradictions and consequently the whole Edifice of the Church of Rome is builded upon such conjectures The succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter shall be disputed in the following Books in this Chapter are answered those reasons proving that Peter was at Rome in the next shall be answered those reasons proving Peter was Bishop of Rome and then we will conclude this Book with those reasons of Marcilius Petavinus and Ulrichus Velenus proving that Peter was neither at Rome nor Bishop of Rome Bellarmines first reason to prove that Peter was at Rome is from 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church which is at Babylon salutes you c. This was the Church saith Bellarmine in which Peter remained when he wrote this Epistle viz. Babylon which in the Scripture many times signifies Rome and therefore Peter by Babylon means Rome and consequently Peter was at Rome But it is answered albeit in the Apocalyps which is a mystical Prophesie Rome be meant by Babylon yet we do not find in Scripture in any Epistle that Rome was called Babylon it would be a ridiculous expression to conclude an Epistle written at Rome from Babylon The Apostle Paul in all his Epistles written at Rome never concludes from Babylon but from Rome and therefore Peter in this Epistle understands not Rome but Babylon It is to be observed there
were two Cities called Babylon the first Babylon in Assyria which was the head of the Babylonish Empire the other Babylon was in Egypt and afterwards was called Cayre Peter by Babylon means either the one or the other more probably the first because it appears by History that many Jews remained there and Peter was the Apostle of the Jews as Paul was of the Gentiles Bellarmine objects that Irenaeus Justinus and Tertullianus expone that Babylon mentioned by Peter to be Rome But it is answered those Fathers follow the authority of Papias believed to be the Disciple of John as Bellarmine affirms he was followed by Irenaeus who in Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 39. affirms that the said Papias and Polycarpus were auditors of the Apostle John but Eusebius in the said place confutes that opinion by the authority of Papias himself who denyed that ever he had seen the Apostles with his eyes Eusebius adds that he was a man of no spirit and the Author not only of the Millinarii but also of other fabulous traditions and so in the opinion of Eusebius the authority of Papias is not much to be regarded And since the whole foundation of the Church of Rome depends upon the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and since the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome depends upon Peters being at Rome and since Peters being at Rome depends upon the testimonies of some Fathers following the Authority of Papias it may be concluded without sophistry that the whole Doctrine of the Church of Rome depends upon the said Papias what sort of man he was we have now shewed from Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 39. Bellarmines second Argument to prove that Peter was at Rome is this There were Christians at Rome before ever Paul came to Rome Ergo Peter was at Rome and here he endeavours to prove by many testimonies that Peter was the first that preached the Gospel at Rome but to no purpose since those testimonies are of no more force to prove that Peter was at Rome then those he alledged in the former Argument That they are false appears by Orosius lib. 7. cap. 4. who affirms that Christians were at Rome in the time of Tiberius but Peter came not to Rome till after the death of Tiberius that is the second year of Claudius as Bellarmine himself confesseth Bellarmine answers That Orosius doth not affirm that Christians were at Rome in the time of Tiberius but only that the Senate of Rome made a decree that they should not come to Rome which is the true meaning of Orosius But it is replyed Orosius expresly affirms that Tiberius made a motion to the Senat of Rome that Christ should be acknowledged as a God but the Senat refusing set forth an Edict that Christians should be exterminated or extruded the City of Rome which imports that Christians were at Rome which is confirmed by Eusebius in his Chronicles an 38. who saith the Senat eliminated Christians from the City but eliminating is properly to put them out that were in already Likewayes both Eusebius in the said place and Tertullianus Apol. cap. 5. affirm that Tiberius threatned death to the Accusers of Christians at Rome whereby it evidently appears that Christians were at Rome Likewayes Platina in the life of Christ affirms expresly that the Senate ordained Christians to be put forth of the City likewayes Clement in his first book of Recognitions affirms that Barnabas was at Rome in the time of Tiberius Bellarmine answers to this last objection That those Books of Clement are Apocryphal But it is replyed when they setch testimonies from this Book to prove any o◠their Tenets they call it authentick So Coccius and others 〈◊〉 when they are pressed with testimonies from it they call it Apocryphal Bellarmines third reason to prove that Peter was at Rome is That several of the Fathers affirm that Mark wrote his Evangel at Rome as he heard Peter preach it there But it is answered that all this depends upon the Authority of Papias neither do they agree amongst themselves in the relation for Hieronymus following the authority of Papias whom Eusebius called an Impostor as we said before affirms that Mark wrote the said Evangel when Peter was alive and that the said Mark died the eigth year of Nero but Irenaeus affirms lib. 3. cap. 1. that Mark wrote his Evangel after the death of Peter and Paul Bellarmines fourth reason to prove that Peter was at Rome is that his Sepulchre is at Rome which he proves by the testimony of many Fathers But it is answered they were all deceived by Papias Secondly those Fathers who affirm that Peter dyed at Rome relate some circumstances of his death which seem incredible as first they affirm that Peter and Paul died in one day but that seems incredible because Paul came to Rome about the third and fourth year of Nero he professeth that he was then old They likewayes affirm that he died the fourteenth year of Nero and so he lived ten years after he called himself old But this seems not to consist with that assertion of his dying in one day with Peter for it is scarce credible that Peter could be alive ten years after Paul called himself an old man since Paul was very young when he was converted but it appears by John 21. 18. that Peter was an old man before Paul was converted that is when Christ was alive but Paul was not converted untill a year after the death of Christ and therefore it seems incredible that Peter could live ten years after Paul called himself an old man The second incredible circumstance is that they affirm that Peter a little before his death having an intention to leave Rome Christ appeared to him in the Port of the City and desired him to return but the Scripture affirms that the Heavens shall contain Christ untill the last day and Peter himself affirms that Christ shall not descend from Heaven till then And whereas Bellarmine objects that Christ appeared to Paul in the air he speaks so without any ground because Act. 9. it is only affirmed that a great light shined round about Paul and that he heard a voice but the Scripture there doth not affirm that Christ was in the air Paul might have seen Christ as Stephen did in heaven himself being upon earth Act. 7. 55. And those are the reasons by which Bellarmine proves Peter was at Rome which all are founded upon conjectures And since the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is founded upon the supremacy of Peter and that Peter was at Rome and since Peters being at Rome is founded upon contradictory conjectures as partly we have shewed and partly shall shew hereafter minuting the reasons of Velenus by consequence the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is founded upon contradictory conjectures CHAP. XXIII Bellarmines reasons proving that Peter was Bishop of Rome answered IN the next place Bellarmine endeavours to prove that Peter was Bishop of Rome and
import a jurisdiction above another Constantine in an Epistle mentioned by Theodoretus lib. 1. cap. 10. writing of the same business enumerating a number of Churches with which these Churches of the East were resolved in time coming to observe Easter placeth Spain before France but it doth not follow that the Church of Spain had any authority over the Church of France Secondly Bellarmine and Sanderus following the version of Christhofersone translates Theodoretus falsly his words in the Original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is So that all the Brethren of the East who dissented from the Romans and you and all those who observed Easter from the beginning are resolved hereafter to observe it with you The sophistry of Sanderus and Bellarmine appears in this in stead of these words are resolved hereafter to observe Easter with you which is the Original they translate they are resolved hereafter to follow the Roman the Council and you putting in follow for with you Secondly in putting in the Romans and the Council which is not in the Original which words us or the Council they insert to prove the authority of the Church of Rome above the Council Romans being placed by them before the Council And this much of that contest of Victor with the Bishops of Asia which they produce to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome whereas in effect it hath disproved it Such an other business as this is that contest of Stephanus Bishop of Rome with Cyprian and the Churches of Africa about the rebaptising of those who were baptised by Hereticks which they instance also to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the Council of Neice But since we shewed that the excommunication of Stephanus was not regairded that Saint Augustine praised the opposition of Cyprian to it and recommended these expressions of Cyprian against the usurpation of Stephanus to the whole Church since 87 Bishops in that Council of Carthage condemned the proceedings of Stephanus since Cyprian dying excommunicated was reputed nevertheless a Saint by Augustine and other Fathers and by the ancient Church of Rome and also so reputed by the Modern Church of Rome that Excommunication of Cyprian by Stephanus is so far from proving that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was an Article of Faith in those dayes that it demonstrates invincibly the contrary CHAP. X. Of Appellations pretended to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval from the Apostles to the death of Cyprian TO these actions of Popes usurping Authority in that interval are referred several pretended Appellations to the Bishop of Rome by which they endeavour to prove his Supremacy in those times they mention divers Bellarmine makes use of three the first is of the Grand Heretick Marcion who being excommunicated for his prodigious opinion by his own Father a Bishop in Pontus had his recourse to Hyginus Bishop of Rome anno 142 as Epiphanius affirms Heres 42. The second is Fortunatus and Felix being deposed by Cyprian in Africa about anno 252. fled to Cornelius Bishop of Rome as is related by Cyprians Epistle 55. The third is a little after the same time Basilides and Martialis being deposed by the Bishops of Spain as is reported by Cyprians epistle 68. fled to Stepahnus Bishop of Rome of which in order and first of Marcion This Marcion was a notorious and dangerous Heretick against whom Tertullian and Epiphanius most bitterly enveigh he denied the verity of Christs humane nature and the verity of his sufferings he denyed also the resurrection of the body he maintained that men might be thrice baptised His Father was a Bishop or Preacher in Pontus by whom he was excommunicated he fled to Rome desiring to be admitted to the communion of that Church but he was rejected by the Clergy of Rome he asked them a reason they answered they could not admitt him without a testimonial from his Father the Bishop who had excommunicated him as is reported by Epiphanius It is very strange that Bellarmine should call this an appellation since the Clergy of Rome refused to hear him neither did he appeal at all as appears both by the reason wherefore he left his own Countrey and also by his demands at Rome The first is related by Epiphanius who tells he fled from his own Countrey not enduring the scoffs of tâ—e common people his demands at Rome are likewayes related by Epiphanius viz. not to take knowledge in his cause in a second judgement which is the demand of Appellants but only to be admitted to the communion of that Church which are also refused him as is affirmed by Epiphanius When he was rejected at Rome he associated himself with one Cerdon those two hatched an opinion of three gods the first they called the good God which created nothing at all that is in this world the second they called a visible god Creator of all things the third god was the devil whom they made as a mid-thing between the visible and the invisible god Cerdon before he was acquainted with Marcion asserted only two gods the one author of all good things the other of all evill things but after his aquaintance with Marcion they both taught these three gods this damnable heresie wounderfully increased in many places as Italy Egypt Palestine Arabia Syria Cyprus Persia and other places which caused Tertullian and Epiphanius inveigh so bitterly against it in their Books Bellarmine his second instance of Appellations is of Fortunatus and Felicissimus the story is this Felicissimus and Novatian were condemned at a Council of Carthage Felicissimus for averring that those who had lapsed to Idolatry in time of persecution should be admitted to office of the Church after pen ance Novation for maintaining that they might not be admitted to communion at all no not after pennance the Church of Carthage takes a midway decerning that after pennance they might be admitted to communion but not to their charge in the Church Felicissimus who had fallen in Idolatry himself and for that reason was debarred from his charge conspires with one Privatus who was excommunicated as well as himself they make a faction and sets up one Fortunatus Bishop of Carthage in oposition to Cyprian and immediately goes to Rome desiring of Cornelius Bishop of Rome to be admitted to communion with that Church desiring him to countenance their new Bishop Fortunatus Cornelius refuses at first to hear them but afterwards they use Menaces whereupon he writes to Cyprian his intimate friend in their favour It is demanded of Bellarmine how he finds any Appellation here The cause is almost the same with that of Marcion which we now mentioned yea Pamelius himself in his Annotations upon that place of Cyprian denyes expresly there was any appellations but that these went to Rome to complain or to be judged not in those things in which they had been already judged by Cyprian but in other things Secondly albeit there had been any