First that the said second General Council of Constantinople ordained the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople to be equal although they gave the Bishop of Rome the first place in dignity The second thing is That the Bishop of Rome had the first place in dignity not by reason of his succession to Peter but for a civil respect viz. because Rome was the old Imperial City Paschasinus and his fellows replyed or at least Bellarmin and Baronius would have so replyed if they had been pleaders before the Council That the third Canon of the Council of Constantinople was not to be regarded because the Bishop of Rome had never approved it and therefore they urged the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice by which say they the Bishop of Alexandria had authority confirmed to him in Egypt because the Bishop of Rome had the like custom From which they argued thus That the authority of the Bishop of Rome was the cause of the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria or the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria flowed from the authority of the Bishop of Rome And since the Bishop of Alexandria was before him of Constantinople of old the said second General Council of Constantinople wronged the Bishop of Alexandria in preferring the Bishop of Constantinople to him In a word the sum of their pleading was this That by the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice the Bishop of Rome had authority over him of Alexandria And since the Bishop of Alexandria was before the Bishop of Constantinople in former times that third Act of the second General Council of Constantinople ought to be cassed and antiquitated because it contradicted the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice in preferring the Bishop of Constantinople to him of Alexandria and equalizing him to the Bishop of Rome Aetius and the Deputies of the Bishop of Constantinople duplyed First That the said Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople ought not to be recalled or at least Protestants would have so duplyed if they had been in their place First Because it was a lawful General Council And although the Bishop of Rome had not confirmed it because he had no authority above a General Council It was very unreasonable that any particular Bishop should cut and carve for his own advantage against the decree of the whole Church Secondly The said General Council of Constantinople was received and confirmed by a Synod at Rome two years after the Bishop of Rome Dammasus presiding in the said Council And therefore it was false that the Bishop of Rome never confirmed the said Council of Constantinople Thirdly the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice gave no authority to the Bishop of Rome over the Bishop of Alexandria the meaning of the Canon being only this viz. The occasion of the Canon was one Miletius troubled all Egypt by ordaining Bishops at his own hand Alexander Bishop of Alexandria complains to the Council of Nice which upon his complaint made the foresaid sixth Canon The true Gloss of which being that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the power of ordaining Bishops in Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis as he was wont Since the Bishop of Rome had the like power by custom in the places adjacent to Rome or as Ruffinus a writer who lived near these times interprets in Ecclesijs Suburbicarijs that is in Churches within a hundred miles to the walls of Rome So then the authority of the Bishop of Rome was not the cause of the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria or the Original from whence it flowed but only a pattern according to which it was framed as one common-wealth may be framed in government according to the pattern of another common-wealth without any subordination in authority They duplyed fourthly That the said General Council of Constantinople did no wrong to the Bishop of Alexandria in giving to the Bishop of Constantinople the second place in dignity which before that time belonged to the Bishop of Alexandria since the cause ceasing the effect also ceased The cause why the Bishop of Alexandria was second to the Bishop of Rome was this viz. The government of Egypt was the second government in dignity to the government of the City of Rome It was so ordained by Augustus and therefore was called Praefectura Augustalis Since it was not so now because the government of those Provinces depending on the City of Constantinople was made the second Government and preferred to that of Alexandria and made equal to the Government of those places depending upon the city of Rome therefore the said council of Constantinople did no wrong in equalizing the Bishop of Constantinople to the Bishop Rome since the civil Government was a Type of the Ecclesiastick as is confessed by Baronius himself ad Annum 39. Num. 10. That the Government and Priviledges of the City of Constantinople being made equal to those of Rome was the cause why the council of Constantinople made the Bishop of Constantinople equal in Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome is reported both by Socrates hist lib. 5. chap. 8. and Sozomenus lib. 7. chap. 9. Who both give the reason of the said third Canon in the Greek Edition but 5. or 7. in the Latine to be Because that Constantinople had not only the name of Rome with like Senat and other Magistrats but bare also the same Arms and other rights and honors which belonged to old Rome The Council of Chalcedon having considered the reasons of both parties allowed the interpretation put upon the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice by the Orators of the Bishop of Constantinople rejected that Gloss of those of the Bishop of Rome confirmed the third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople with some advantage and addition as by the 28 Canon whose words are these Definimus communi calculo sancimus quod attinct ad praerogativas honoris sanctissimae Ecclesiae hujus Constantinopoleos novae Romae Etenim Patres Sedi Antiquioris is Romae ob eam caussam quia Imperium obtineret Urbs illa merito Primatum honoris detulere Sed eadem ratione moti centum quinquaginia religiosissimi Episcopi aequalem primatum honoris assignarunt sanctissimae sedi novae Romae Recte judicantes eam Urbem quae imperio Senatu honestatur iâ—sdem privilegis fruentem cum antiqua Roma Regia etiam in Ecclesiasticis negotijs aequa cuâ— illa extollendam Sic tamen ut post eam secundum locum obtineat By which Canon two things appears First that the Bishop of Constantinople is expresly made equal in Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction with the Bishop of Rome Secondly that the Bishop of Rome hath the first place in dignity not by reason of succession to Peter but only for civil respects viz. because Rome was the old imperial City It appears also by the said Canon that the former General Councils of Nice and Constantinople gave the
added to the Creed by the Council at Trent viz. That Communion with the Church of Rome in all her Tenets is absolutely necessary to salvation Let them study this one Controversie of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and it will resolve the question for if it be founded upon Scripture and Antiquity without all question Communion with the Church of Rome is necessar unto salvation and the Religion of Protestants is a new sprung up heresie since the Bishop of Rome in Cathedra and consequently in their opinion infallible pronounceth so On the contrary if the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome be a thing unknown to Scripture and Antiquity it is as certain that the Faith of the Modern Roman Church is a new devised cheat and idolatry That this followeth of necessity appears by the confession of Bellarmine himself in two expressions in the preface of those Books of his de pontifice Romano The first we now mentioned in which he calls that Controversie of the Popes supremacy a Debâ—te de summa rei Christianae That is whether the Christian Religion can subsist or not By Christian Religion no question he means the Faith of the modern Church of Rome and consequently he grants that they who call in question the Popes supremacy they question also the whole body of the Popish Religion And consequently still he must of necessity grant that if the Popes supremacy be destitute of Scripture and Antiquity the faith of the Modern Church of Rome falls with it and proves a new devised fiction His second expression is in those similitudes he useth to illustrat his assertion viz. He compares Religion without the Popes supremacy which in his opinion is that of the Modern Church of Rome to a House without a Foundation a Body without a Head Moon-shine without the Sun And since it is notorious that a house without a Foundation cannot stand that a Body without a Head cannot live that the Moon without light of the Sun must be obscured He must of necessity grant that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome being refuted by Scripture and Antiquity the Faith and Religion of the Modern Church of Rome is warrantable by neither and consequently proves a new devised idolatrous cheat Thirdly it s a most pleasant contest what can be more pleasing then to consider the causes of any prodigious Monster how iâ— subsists and how it is destroyed how any illustrious cheat is contrived how it is maintained and how it is discovered But such a Monster such a Cheat as the Bishop of Rome none free of prejudice can behold without admiration The whole world sees a person now ignorant then flagitious not seldome both put by two or three Italians of the same mettal in the Chair of Rome which Preferment he obtains sometimes by blood sometimes by simonie sometimes by unlawful stipulations as to protect Heresie and to oppress the Catholick Faith not seldome by a paction with the Devil all which wayes of obtaining the Chair of Rome are confessed by Popish Writers such as Platina and Baronius as shall be proved in the following Dispute Which Homuncio is no sooner installed then he is metamorphosed to be direct Monarch of the whole World both in Spirituals and Temporals And first for Temporals it shall be proved in the following Dispute that he assumes to himself in his Bulls power of transferring Kingdoms at his pleasure of stirring up Subjects to Armes against their natural Princes under the pain of Excommunication It shall be proved that he makes Emperours and Kings lye prostrate till he trade upon their neck makes them stand bare-footed with their Wives and Children in frost and snow dancing attendants at his Gates and yet not not admitted entrance It shall be proved that he makes Laws in that Book entituled Sacred Ceremonies that Emperors and Kings should hold his Stirrup hold water to his Hands serve dishes at his Table carry him on their shoulders Yea it shall be proved that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome That all Kings are not only the Popes Vassals but which is more he is not oblieged by any mutual ontract to suffer them to possess their Kingdoms but during his pleasure that is he may lawfully depose them although they miscarry not in the least In which he doth tâ—em no wrong because they hold their Kingdoms â—f him not as Vassals but as depositars as when any gives to another his Cloak to keep when he re-demands it he doth him no wrong As for his power which he assumes to himself in Spirituals it cannot be repeated without horrour It shall be proved in the following Dispute that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome partly in the Canon Law partly in the Bulls of Popes themselves partly in Books printed by the Popes Authority and affirmed by his Vâ—sitors to contain nothing contrary to the Catholick Faith That the Pope has power to coyn Articles of Faith at his pleasure oblieging the whole Church under the pain of damnation although he command vice and forbid vertue Secondly although he should lead all the world to hell with him yet none should presume to disobey him Thirdly that he gives pardon for sin for money and not only of sins by-past but also of those to come that is for a little money he will give you pardon for a little time but for a round sum he will give you pardon so long as you please Fourthly it shall be proved that for money he permits men to sin that is permits Clergy-men to keep Whoores And if any keep not a Whoor he makes them pay for it in some places of Italy nevertheless because they have liberty to keep a Whoor if they please Cornelius Agrippa affirms he heard such expressions as these following in the Popes Court Habeat aut non habeat Meretricem Aureum solvat quia habet si velit That is Whether a Priest keep a Whoor or not let him pay the Tribute since he may keep one if he please for such a peece of money Fifthly he makes his decretal Epistles of equal authority with the Scripture Lastly as he intended a gigantomachy he is called in the Canon Law revised and authorised by Gregory 13. Our Lord God the Pope It is affirmed in the said Law that he has power to make injustice justice and contra that he has power to command the Angels to carry souls to Heaven at his pleasure that he has power to give liberty to men to place the departed Souls of their friends in paradise for money that by vertue of his succession to Peter he is assumed to the society of the individual Trinity he not only hears patiently but also rewards flatterers when their blasphemous Pamphlets prefer him to Christ as appears in Innocent 10. which passage shall be realated part 1. lib. 1. cap. 11 of this following Treatise My Lords and Gentlemen any would think these horrible passages incredible but have patience till
Colledge of Cardinals for election of the Pope which manner of election was utterly unknown to the Ancients the first Pope who ordained this Colledge of Cardinals was Nicolaus 2d who lived anno 1060. which manner of Election continueth unto this day The said Hildebrand becoming afterwards Pope took upon him to depose Emperors Anno 1074. he deposed Henry 4th Emperour and gave the Empire to Rodolphus because Henry would not renunce the investiture of Bishops this Hildebrand raised many broils and troubles and was believed by many learned men of the Church of Rome who lived about that time to be Antichrist his Successors especially after the times of the Jesuits still augmented that Doctrine of deposing Kings by the Pope and it is now defended not only in Books printed by the Popes Authority and by all the Canonists but also assumed by Popes unto themselves in their Bulls as appears by those Bulls of Gregory 7th against Henry 4th Emperor of Alexander 3d. against Frederick the Emperor of Boniface 8th against Philip King of France of Julius second against Lewis twelfth King of France and against the King of Navarre of Paul third against Henry 8th King of England of Pius 4th against Queen Elizabeth of Sixtus 5th against Henry 3d. and 4th Kings of France When Phocas by Edict made Bonifacius 3d. Bishop of Rome universal Bishop the thing he gave him was little better then a bare Title We have shewed two steps by which the Bishops of Rome advanced the first is his freeing himself from the election of the Emperor the second his assuming to himself power of deposing Kings and Emperors the third step after Phocas was assuming to himself authority of convocating General Councils of presiding in them of confirming and infirming them We do not read that any Pope assumed that power to himself the first nine hundered years after Christ It is evident by History that during the time of the first eight general Councils the Bishops of Rome had no such power since it appears they were all convocated by the Emperor that others beside the Bishop of Rome presided in many of them and the Emperor confirmed them all What Pope first assumed to himself that power we find not expresly before the time of Innocent 3d. in the Council of Lateran anno 1210. since which time the succeeding Popes constantly took upon them to convocat general Councils to preside in them and to confirm them The fourth step of the Bishop of Rome after Phocas is his Infallibity which was first conferred upon him by the Council of Florence anno 1439. and afterward confirmed and taught by the Jesuites and Canonists it being held as ane article of Faith in the Church of Rome that the Pope in Cathedra or teaching the whole Church cannot err yea some of them maintain as Albertus Pighius and others that the Pope cannot be an heretick which Bellarmine calls a pious opinion but your Lordships will find it proved part third lib. 2. that innumerable Popes have not only been hereticks and so declared by other Popes and general Councils but also that they have taught heresie and have been condemned by general Councils for teaching heresie as Pope Honorius was condemned by three successive general Councils the sixth seventh and eight and of late Pope Engenius by the Councills of Basill By whence it appears that this Doctrine of the Popes infallibility is not only heresie but madness fighting against common sense reason and the light of all History Any would think that the Bishop of Rome could mount no higher since already he is Monarch of the whole World both in Sprituals and Temporals We have seen him hitherto taking upon him power of deposing Kings and Emperours of transferring Kingdomes at his pleasure of coyning Articles of Faith under the notion of infallibility oblieging the whole Church yet in the last place your Lordships will find him in the fourth part of this Disput sitting in the temple of God adorned with all the marks of Antichrist intending a gigantomachy as if the intended to pull God out of the Heavens taking upon him not only to equal his decretal Epistles to holy Scripture but also to prefer them unto it in several of them decerning against the Law of God openly avowing he has power so to do injoyning it to the whole Church to be believed under pain of heresie that he hath such power Your Lordships will find that in the Canon Law he is called Dominus Deus noster Papa our Lord God the Pope that he takes upon him not only to pardon sins for money both by-past and to come but also for a peice of money to suffer the Clergy to wallow in whoredome albeit against all pure Antiquity he expresly inhibits them marriage Your Lordships will find it proved that in the said Canon Law he affirms himself by reason of his succession to Peter to be assumed to the society of the individual Trinity that for money he will command the Angels to take souls out of purgatory and place them straight in Paradise And in a word your Lordships will find him that man of sin described by the Apostle sitting in the Temple of God exalting himself above all that are called God caling himself God teaching the doctrine of devils forbidding meats forbidding marriage making the Kings of the earth drunk with his abominations corrupting all the Articles of the Christian Faith taking from them adding to them at his pleasure and as he groweth in power depravation of Religion encreaseth with it following the increments of his authority as the motion of the Sea depends upon the Moon In purer Antiquity when there was no evidence of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome at all there was no corruption in Doctrine Religion was unspotted but when the Bishop of Rome enriched by the liberality of the Emperours became proud and aimed to usurp over the Church corruption in Doctrine encreased apace with their increments of power Consult History and your Lordships will find at every step of the Popes advancement in power a depravation in Doctrine accompanying it your Lordships will likewayes find it proved part fourth lib. 2. that the Doctrine of the modern Church of Rome is nothing else but a masse of depravations corruptions heresies brought in by Bishops of Rome as they advanced in authority the Doctrine of the first six Centuries being quite extinct Notwithstanding all the braggings of our adversaries of their Antiquity your Lordships will find in the first six hundred years after Christ that the Doctrine now professed by the modern Church of Rome was altogether unknown and had not a beeing or if any of their modern Tenets were mentioned by the Writers in those times it was with detestation under the notion of Heresie and opposed by the whole Church If your Lordships think this incredible ye will find it proved part 4. lib. 2. Of this treatise by an induction of all those Tenets which the Church
Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to absolve Subjects from their Oaths of fidelity to their natural Princes to command them to fight against them and consequently to kill them that all are oblieged to acknowledge him for their natural Prince whom the Pope shal appoint It is taught also in that Church That the Pope is direct Monarch of the whole World both in Spirituals and Temporals So Bozius lib. 10. de signs Ecclesiae and Carerius de potestate Papae and all the Canonists they teach also That a Pope deposing a King without any reason but his will doth him no wrong because he takes only what is his own from him As a King doth no wrong to the Governor of a Province when he gives his government to another Subject Although the former have done no offence as is maintained by Thomas Bozius lib. 3. cap 4 de jure status Here our Romish Emissaries in Scotland endeavor to perswade their Proselytes that this doctrine of deposing Kings is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome but only of some particular Persons whom they call the Popes Flatterers But is replyed that those Gentle-men are either not well versed in their own principles or else they are like Father Cotton the Jesuite who being demanded by the Parliament of Paris If he believed that the Popes had power to depose Kings Answered He did not believe it in France but if he were at Rome he would believe it However that it is to the doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings is proved by these following reasons which will puzle those gentlemen very sore to answer The first is this innumerable Books are Printed teaching this doctrine and yet are Printed by authority and licence as containing no doctrine contrair to the true Catholick doctrine of the Church of Rome Ergo the deposing of Kings by the Pope is the true Catholick doctrine of the Church of Rome since a doctrine which is not contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Rome must of necessity be the doctrine of the Church of Rome The second reason is this All the Roman Doctors unanimously maintain except some few who dare not set out their Head that whatever the Pope and his Cardinals discern in a Conclave is of equal if not of a Superior Authority with that which is decreed in a General Council but the Conclave at Rome gives unto the Pope power of deposing Kings Ergo it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome That such power is given to the Pope by the Conclave appears by innumerable bulls as that of Gregory 7. against Henry the 4. Emperor That of Paul the third against Henry the 8. of England Of Paul the 5. against Queen Elizabeth Of Sixtus the 5. against Henry 3. and 4. Kings of France The third reason is this Every one is bound to believe that to be the true Doctrine of the Church of Rome which the Pope teacheth in Cathedra in which case they maintain he is infallible But the Pope teacheth in Cathedra that he hath power to depose Kings by his decretal bulls obliging the whole Church as is notorious in which he assums to himself that power as appears by innumerable of his Bulls especially by those now mentioned against the Emperor Kings of England France in which he expresly assumes unto himself authority of building or aedificandi of casting down or demoliendi of planting plantandi of rooting out eradicandi transferendi of transferring Kingdoms at his pleasure In some of which Bulls also he applyeth to himself those words of the Prophet Per me Reges regnant By me Kings reign which is notorious blasphemy And thus we have proved against those Gentlemen that they are mistaken in denying that is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which giveth authority unto the Pope to depose Kings They are not yet satisfied as appears by two objections made by one of those Gentlemen to my self The first was this that I could not instruct that it was the Doctrine of any General Council that the Pope hath power to depose Kings and consequently I could not make out it was the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome To which objection I answered First that I had made it out That it was the doctrine of Popes in Cathedra and consequently I had made it out that he and all other Romanists were obliged to believe it as an Article of Faith He told me plainly he did much doubt of that neither was he of that opinion That the Pope could not err in cathedra but still pressed me to prove it by the Authority of some General Council protesting he detested that doctrine as unsound I desired him to read Baronius anno 1072. and he would find that the Emperor Henry the 4. was exautorated by a Council at Rome num 16 17 18. and by another at Collen 1118. num 20. and by another at Fritislar ibid. The Gentleman answered very pertinently That these were only petty particular Councils but he desired the authority of a General Council I desired him to read Baronius ad an num 1102. num 1 2 3. and also the same Author 1116. num 5. and also anno 1119. Where he will find that doctrine to be the doctrine of General Councils especially that of Lateran anno 1116. is called a General Council by Baronius Likewise I desired him to read Bzovius anno 1245. num 4. The Council of Lions in the tombs of Councils tom 28. pag. 431. The decretals sext de sententiâ re judicata ad Apostolica where he would find that the Emperor Frederick the second was deprived or declared to be deprived and his subjects quit from their Oaths of Allegiance by Innocentius 4. in the Council of Lions I desired him also to read an Act of a General Council at Lateran under Innocent third where he would find that doctrine or that power of Deposing Kings attributed to the Pope which Act he would find in Bzovius anno 1215. Paragraph 3. in Binnius and Crab in their collection of Councils C. l 3. and in Gregorius de haeret C. excommunicamus I desired him also to read Ses 25. Canon 19. of the Council of Trent where he would find that power of the Popes so intelligibly asserted and consequentially although not expesly that it was one of the main reasons for which the Kingdom of France stood out against that Council of Trent rejecting its Authority By the said Canon any Dominus fundi is deprived of the Dominion of it if a düel be fought in it and since a King is comprehended under Dominus fundi the Council takes upon it to deprive him of a part of his Kingdom but if they have power to deprive him of a part by the same reason they take upon them power to take his whole Kingdom from him And this way I answered his first objection viz. that it could be instructed by Act of
ye hear them proved partly by the Canon Law partly by the decretals of Popes partly by Books authorized by the Popes authority partly per res judicatas or sentences passed in the Popes Court at Rome Ignorants of antiquity of which our adversaries bragg so much believe that the Bishop of Rome had such immense and unlimitated power in all Ages by reason of his succession to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church What can be more pleasing then to consider from what small beginnings at what times upon what occasions by what steps by what artifices he mounted to such a prodigious hight and by what practises he maintains himself in it all which is to the life delineated in this following Dispute and proved by uncorrupted aâ—d unanswerable testimonies of the Ancients In which also it will appear that all what our adversary pretends from antiquity to maintain the Popes Kingdom is either sophistically preverted falsly translated or cited mutilated or forged My Lords and Gentlemen Whereas they make the Bishoprick of Peter the only basis and foundation of the Popes power in the first place ye will find that the Monarchy of Peter was never dreamed of by the Ancients of the first sixth Centuries As for his particular Bishoprick of Rome although some of the Fathers affirm he was Bishop of Rome yet your Lordships will find it proved that they call Paul Bishop of Rome in the same sense and consequently they take the word Bishop in a large sense as it comprehends an Apostle and not properly for a Bishop tyed to any particular Congregation That this is their meaning will be proved by two invincible reasons the first is because these same Fathers in their Catalogues of the Bishops of Rome do not reckon Peter in that number making Linus the first Bishop of Rome Cletus the second Clement the third c. But if they had believed Peter was Bishop of Rome they would have called him the first Bishop Linus the second Cletus the third Clement the fourth c. The second reason is That it shall be proved by the testimonies of those very men who call Peter Bishop of Rome That first Linus and then Cletus were Bishops of Rome during the Life of Peter whereby it is evident that Peter was never properly Bishop of Rome but was called Bishop of Rome by those Fathers because he founded the Church of Rome joyntly with Paul In the next place your Lordships will find it proved albeit many of the Ancients unanimously affirmed that Peter was at Rome and founded the Church of Rome yet they were deceived or else the Scripture affirms falsly since it shall be proved by Scripture that Peter was elsewhere in that time in which they affirm he was at Rome yea it shall be proved by unanswerable reasons from Scripture that Peter was never at Rome and that all those Fathers who believe he was at Rome were deceived by the testimony of one Papias described by Eusebius to be a man of no spirit the Author of many fabulous Traditions and of the heresie of the Millenarii That is of those maintaining that Christ before the last day shall reign a thousand years with his Saints In the third place your Lordships will find that the Bishops of Rome before the dayes of Cyprian were poor persecuted pious Martyrs only two condemned by the whole â—hurch strove to advance that mystery of iniquity which Paul affirmed was working in his own time viz. Victor usurping authoâ—ity over the Bishops of the East anno 195. and Stephanus over the Bishops of Africa and Spain anno 250. or thereabouts Some Doctors of the Church of Rome pretends several monuments of Antiquity to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval but they shall be proved forged not only by unanswerable reasons but also by the confessions of the most learned Doctors of the Church of Rome yea of Popes themselves such as Aeneas Silvius or Pius 2. In thâ— fourth place your Lordships will find the Bishops of Rome made rich by the liberality of Constantine the Emperor and others which occasioned pride and luxury the Parents of Antichrist In the fifth place your Lordships will find the conception of this Monster growing as an Embrio by degrees in his Mothers belly the fiâ—st quarter a Bishop the second a Metropolitan the third a Patâ—iarch between the times of Cyprian and anno 604. In which interval as the riches of the Bishop of Rome increased so pride and corruptions of life grew up with them and also some corruption in Doctrine against which not only Cyprian Hieronymus Sulpitius Severus Nezianzenus Basilius Magnus and other Christian Fathers exclaimed but also Ammianus Marcellinus in the opinion of Barronâ—us a Pagan In that interval Damasus mounted to the Chair of Rome by blood of which the said Ammâ—anus Marcellinus speaking after he had related the murthers that were committed he concludes It was not to be admired they aimed at the Chair of Rome by such practices since having obtained it they were enriched by the Gifts of Matrons and other wayes equalling any King in their port of Table Cloaths Houshold-stuff Attendance and Coatches or Chariots In that interval also Vigilius Bishop of Rome as is related by Liberatus and confessed by Barronius obtained the Chair of Rome by promising to the Empress Theodora to abrogat the Council of Chalcedon to establish the Eutichian heresie in the Church which he endeavoured to do as appears by his Letters when he was Bishop of Rome written to several Courtiers in which he approved that heresie And likewayes by promising Gold to Belesarius General to the Emperour Justinian in Italy By which practices of Vigilius Silverius a pious worthy Bishop of Rome to make way for the said Vigilius was banished and murthered and yet the said Vigilius was a great ingeminator of tu es Petrus and of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome And yet Barronius is not ashamed against all the Writers of that time to praise this Monster as a Saint and yet which is admirable he confesseth the way of his entry to the Bishoprick of Rome viz. by displacing a pious Bishop he obtained the Chair by Simonie and promising to abrogat the Council oâ— Chalcedon and to establish the Eutichian heresie And this much of the conception of this Monster In the sixth place ye have his birth under Phocas who by an Edict christened him universal Bishop In which three things are observable 1 The God-father 2. The God-bairn Gift 3. The reasons wherefore it was given Phocas The God-father was the Emperour Phocas described by all Historians to be a Monster for a man who being a Centurion or Captain of a Foot-company raised a mutiny in the Army against the good Emperour Mauritius and obtained the Empire himself by murthering his Master his Empress his Children and his Friends noted by Historians to have been a perfidious perjured luxurious cruel Monster and yet he was the first
of Rome hold contrary to the Doctrine of the reformed Churches My Lords and Gentlemen In the last place you will find it proved by what practices the Bishop of Rome maintains himself in that prodigious greatness and his Doctrine None can but admire how he hath been so long undiscovered and how so many learned and pious men brave spirits can be so bewitched yet as to believe that communion with him is necessary unto salvation and that all who acknowledge not his power and Doctrine ought to be condemned as Hereticks But their admiration may cease since the Spirit of God affirms that the Kings of the earth shall be drunk with his abominations that is shall be void of all spiritual understanding that the glory of God may be manifested in his impervestigable wayes till at last that wicked one be consumed by the breath of his mouth that is by the sincere preaching of the Gospel The cup of iniquity of that Monster was not yet full untill he began so far to forget himself as to prefer himself to God and make publick sale of forgiveness of sins for money that is by giving pardons unto men not only for sins by-past but also to be committed afterwards giving to this Courtier the money obtained for the pardon of sins obtained in one Countrey to that of another It is reported of Alexander the sixth that when it was told him that his Son Caesar Burgia had lost a hudge sum of money at Dice he answered that his Son had lost nothing but the sins of the Germans that is the money which he had got for the sale of pardons in that Nation When his impiety came to such a height he was at last discovered by Luther a poor Frier since which time they have left no sort of cruelty and impostures unattempted to preserve their Power and their Doctrine And first for their cruelty towards those who opposed them death without torture was thought a clemency the ordinar punishment of such was burning alive and if they were so numerous that it could not be conveniently done they trained them into snares by perfidious Treaties cutting their throats when they were asleep without regard to the publick Faith given them as appears by the horrible massacre at Paris and other places of France and albeit popish Writers in those times detested that perfidious cruelty yet the Pope himself who was the Author and contriver of it made Processions of joy and Bone-â—ires at Rome for the success of it As for their impostures by which they maintain their Power and Doctrine they are so many that they are scarce numerable the main are preferring the corrupt Latine version of the Scripture to the Greek and Hebrew Fountains held authentick by the Primitive Church and the Church of Rome it self Secondly by adding Books to the Canon of the Scripture against all the current of Antiquity to authorize some of their idolatrous Tenets 3. They make the Pope the infallible Interpreter of Scripture albeit perhaps he had never read one syllable in it or at least understood nothing in it as appears of late by that passage of Innocent 10th related by Sanct Amour in his Journal who being pressed to determine a Controversie in Religion between the Jansenists and Molinists answered he was an old man and had never studied Divinity neither did it belong to his profession 4. They have corrupted all the Writings of the Ancients adding to them taking from them at their pleasure as appears by the Edition of the Fathers set forth by Manutius at the Popes command against all the Manuscript Copies and old printed Copies before anno 1564. neither are they ashamed of it avowing it in their indices expurgatorii and not content with corrupting of Antiquity they also forge not only particular testimonies of Fathers but also whole Treatices Aeneas Silvius who was afterwards Pope himself under the name of Pius 2d confessed ingenuously that no regard was held to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the Council of Nice or anno 325. and yet they produce six and thirty decretal Epistles of Popes as so many Knights of the Post to bear false witness for it in that interval acknowledged to be forged by Cusanus Contius and other great Antiquaries of the Church of Rome neither are they much regarded by Bellarmine and Barronius themselves Again the most ingenuous Doctors of the Romish Church and their greatest Antiquaries confess that nothing can be gathered from the Council of Nice for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Yea all Antiquity acknowledged only twenty Canons of the said Council of Nice Yet the Jesuits of late have found out two Arabick Editions in which fifty Canons are added to those twenty so palpably forged that he is blind who doth not see it Yea they are acknowledged for such by the most learned men of the Church of Rome The main scope of those forged Cannons is to prove several principal Tenets of the Popish Religion especially the Popes Supremacy That they are forged shall be proved part 2. lib. 1. Lastly the Bishops of Rome maintain their authority and Doctrine by false miracles Saints and Revelations but mainly by those two damned cheats implicit faith and infallibility that is they make their disciples believe that all is Gospel what the Pope affirmeth in Cathedra and that he cannot erre teaching the whole Church whâ—ch is the main cheat by which they lead innumerable souls to destruction My Lords and Gentlemen This much of the nobility utility and jucundity of the Subject which I present unto your protection in which I have shortly shadowed forth the steps of the Bishop of Rome to his present greatness and by what artifices he maintains himâ—elf in it The second thing I desired your Lordships to observe is the method I use in the discovery of this â—rand Impostor I am informed some tax me of presumption for medling with such a Subject after the Labours of so many Learned men to whose diligence nothing could be added But I answer as it were ill manners in me to tax those brave men that went before me in this Subâ—ect of omission or slackness So I am confident none will blame me with any shew of reason except first he consider what I say It is true indeed many have written before me but it is as true that some of them have written too dogmatically some too historically both which wayes are lost labour in this Subject in which all the probations are testimonies but that they can be understood without the kâ—owledge of History no man can perswade me though never so learned On the other hand History without Disputation may delight the ear as any other empty flâ—sh of Rhetorick but it will never satisfie the mind ruled by reason I strive to relate thâ— Histoâ—y of the Papacy and Popish Religion fighting with Disputation at every step neither make I use further of History then to illustrat the Dispute which
is my chief aim I resemble most the way of Du Plesis whether I be a plagiarian from him let the Reader judge and also whether my method be the same wiâ—h his He was a brave man and a great Ornament to the Protestant Religion but he hath many concise thetorications to understand which much knowledge of Antiquity is requisite otherwayes these passages of his are so many aenigmata to beginners of the study of Antiquity whose utility I principally aim at in this Work that sailing about the doors in this little Barge they may learn by degrees to sail in the great Ships of others throughout the immense Ocean of Antiquity The method I use is this following if any in reason shall not think it fit after reasonable instruction of my error I shall make a recantation My Lords The whole Treatise is taken up in the examination of these three Questions the first is If Peter was ordained by our Saviour Monarch of the Church or visible Head of the Church under Himself The second is If at the command of Christ he took the charge of the Bishoprick of Rome The third is If by divine Institution the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church And whereas our adversaries of the Church of Rome endeavour to prove the affirmatives of these three questions by Antiquity that is testimonies of Councils and Fathers my scope is to disprove the said three affirmatives in the same manner and to prove that all what they pretend from Antiquity is either wrested perverted mutilated falsly translated from the Originals or forged down-right The whole Treatise is divided in four Parts the first Part is entituled of Bishops and contains the Hierarchy of the Church unto the death of Cyprian which was after the middle of the third Age In which interval I endeavour to prove there was no ordinar Office in the Church above that of a Bishop and that the Bishop of Rome was in no more Authority then any other Bishop albeit he was first Bishop in dignity because Bishop of the old Imperial City This first part is divided in two Books in the first is disputed the Monarchy of Peter by his institution prerogatives and carriage and testimonies of Fathers unto cap. 22. In the rest of that Book is disputed if ever Peter was at Rome and if he were if he was Bishop of Rome In the second Book is disputed if the Bishop of Rome was adcnowledged as successor to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church before the death of Cyprian In which Book I insist most upon these following particulars First I relate the opinion of Aerius and his followers concerning the Original Progresse and universal establishment of Episcopacy wherein a Bishop differs from a Presbyter and for what reasons Episcopacy was brought into the Church 2. I prove by the testimonies of Ignatius Dionysius and Cyprian himself that there was no Office in the Church in that interval above that of a Bishop 3. I answer several testimonies pretended by those of the Church of Rome to prove the Popes Supremacy in that interval from Actions of Popes Appellations to them and from testimonies of Greek and Latine Fathers 4. I examine several Forgeries and Corruptions of the Fathers made use of by some Roman Doctors to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that Interval The second Part is intituled of Arch-bishops in which I disput the Hierarchy of the Church from the death of Cyprian unto the beginning of the seventh Century or to anno 604. at which time the Emperor Phocas took the title of universal Bishop from Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople and bestowed it upon Bonifacius third Bishop of Rome which is an interval of 344. years It is divided in two Books the first intitulated of Metrapolitans In which I disput the Hierarchy of the Church from Cyprian anno 260. unto the Council of Chalcedon anno 453. all which time no Office was in the Church above that of a Metrapolitan insisting most upon these following particulars first of the original progresse and universal establishment of Metrapolitans wherein a Metrapolitan differ from another Bishop For what reason Metrapolians were brought into the Church What place the Bishop of Rome had amongst Metrapolitans where I prove by unanswerable testimonies of Antiquity that other Metrapolitans were of alike Jurisdiction with him and that he was only first Metrapolitan in dignity for the same reason that he was first Bishop in the interval of Bishops viz. because he was Bishop in the Chief Imperial City 2. Traceing the lives of the Bishops of Rome in that interval I disput pro and contra the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it by their actions usurpations addâ—esses made to them and Acts of general and particular Councils celebrated in each of their times 3. I examine the opinions of Greek and Latine Fathers who lived in that interval concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it 4. I examine some notable forgeries pretended by those of the Church of Rome to prove the Pops supremacy in that interval The second Book is entituled of Patriarchs containing the Hierarchy of the Church from the Council of Chalcedon anno 453. to Phocas and Bonifacius anno 604. In which Interval Patriarchs obtained the chief place of the Hierarchy insisting also upon those five particulars 1. Of the original progresse and universal establishment of Patriarchs wherein a Patriarch differs from a Metrapolitan for what reasons Patriarchs were brougâ—t in the Church what place the Bishop of Rome had amongst Patriarchs viz. all Patriarchs were alike to him in Jurisdiction Yet he was the first Patriarch in dignity for the same reason that he was first Bishop in the Interval of Bishops and first Metrapolitan in the Interval of Metrapolitans that is for civil respects and not by reason of succession to Peter in the Monarchy of the Chuâ—ch because Rome was the old imperial City of which he was Patriarch 2. Traceing the lives of the Bishops of Rome of that interval I disput their Supremacy from their Actions Usurpations Addresses made to them from general and particular Councils celebrated in their time 3. I examine the opinions of Greek and Latine Fathers who lived in that Interval concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it 4. I examine those Forgeries pretended by those of the Church of Rome to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that Interval 5. I minut that notable controversie betwixt the Bishops of Rome and â—onstâ—ntinople for the Primacy showing what was the occasion of that contest for what Primacy they strove by what reason they pleaded and who carried it in the end viz. John called Jejunator or the Faster Patriarch of Constantinople who first of all was stiled oecumenick Bâ—shop anno 580. which was continued in his successors to anno 604. at which time Phocas before whom Bonifacius third Bishop of Rome renewed the Processe knowing that
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
Rome and of their vowed slavish flatterers to be spoken in passion to be partial and to merit no credit Crassus second instance was that perhaps Silus did not understand what the other said This is also fitly applyed to those of the Church of Rome for knowing that those partial testimonies would not serve the turn they flye to fantastick Glosses of testimonies of the Ancients wearying themselves and their Readers by their verbosity in such Glosses though never so strained and wrested against the meaning of the Author as shall be proved to any capacity in the least measure capable of reason and in effect all the shelter they have in Antiquity is either in wilfully wresting the Fathers or else in their strained Allegories as shall be made manifest in its own place part 4. lib. 2. yea and almost through the whole Treatise The third instance of Crassus against Silus was false witnessing that this may be applyed to our Adversaries shall be proved also that is when those testimonies of Popes and their Fathers and those perverted and wrested testimonies of others will not serve the turn they use a twofold cheat in false witnessiing The first is they have corrupted by authority of the Pope all the Writings of the Ancients taking out what made against them The second cheat is by putting in and forging what in effect was never in the writings of the Ancients as shall be unanswerably proved in the following Disput yea it shall appear part 4. lib. 2. what those forged testimonies being removed the primitive Fathers in the first six Centuries after Christ prosessed no other Doctrine then the Doctrine now professed by the Protestants especially by the Church of England which is the same Religion with that of the first four-general Councils both in Doctrine and Discipline in the estimation of Gregorius Magnus Bishop of Rome of little lesse authority then the Scripture it self One thing is not to be omitted they object the Protestants speaking unreverently of Antiquity which is a notorious untruth whereas themselves when neither wresting falsly translating adding and paring and right-down forging testimonies of Antiquity will serve the turn speak most unreverently of the Ancients taxing Augustinus Hieronymus the second and fourth general Councils and consequently all the first eight general Councilsâ— since in the particulars challenged by them they all agreed of ignorance madnesse heresie forgery The third mark is universality which is all one with antiquity universality is twofold first of time that is the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome was received at all times by the Church The second is of place that is it was embraced in all places but the Antiquity of their Doctrine being related universality falls with it and likewayes visibility for if we prove that the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome in as far as it contradicts that of Protestants is devised and broached by degrees since the beginning of the seventh Century questionless it was not visible in the first six Antiquity also being refuted their fifth mark infallibility also falls with it for questionless if the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome be contrary to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church in the first six Centuries they cannot have the brow to affirm that their Modern Church of Rome is infallible since in so affirming they will declare all the Ancients that is Fathers and geneneral Councils in the first six hnndred years after Christ to be Hereticks However it is most strange impudence in them to pretend infallibility in their Church which some place in general Councils others in the Bishop of Rome in Cathedra which ever of the two they affirm they are entangled If the first in it appears that of late their general Councils hath condemned one another of Heresie as the Council of Florence the Councils of Basil and Constance and the Council of Basil that of Florence If they affirm in the last viz. that the Pope hath Infallibility in Cathedra they are also entangled for it shall be proved part 3 lib. 2. that many Popes in Cathedra have declared other Popes teaching in Cathedra to be Hereticks but none but a mad man or an Impostor will affirm that the infallibility of Popes in Cathedra can consist with such proceedings The sixth mark is Unity of which they brag very much but with as little reason as they did brag of Antiquity They reason very prettily thus We of the Church of Rome say they agree amongst our selves in all substantial points of Faith whereas they who are not of our Church do not so some of them being Calvinists some Lutherians some Anabaptists some Quakers some this some that whence it appears say they that our Church is the true Church But this sophism is very easily retorted we may as easily reason thus We whom ye call Calvinists are at unity amongst our selves in substantial points there is no discord amongst us but in these two particulars the first is anent Church-government or the Divine right of Bishops the second is in that point of defensive Armes against Kings both which differences especially the last are in a far higher strain amongst your selves as ye cannot without impudence deny But ye who are out of our Church do not agree amongst your selves some of you are Papists some Anabaptists some Quakers c. Ergo we are the true Church Secondly to omit such foolish reasoning there is not greater discord in hell then is amongst those of the Church of Rome in points most substantial and upon which as hinges the whole edifice of their Doctrine doth depend It would be prolix to enumerat all their discords we will only mention some few the rest we shall prosecute through the whole body of this Treatise And first they generally brag of the Antiquity of their Doctrine that it was from the beginning but it shall be proved by testimony of their own Doctors that most of their substantial Tenets which they hold contrary to Protestants are so many innovations such as adding of Apocrypha Books to the Scripture number of Sacraments Transubstantiation Purgatory Indulgences and all those steps of the Popes Supremacy after anno 604. Yea it shall be proved by some of their greatest Antiquaries that the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged universal Bishop by the Church in the first six Centuries and that Cyprian and Augustine and many other of the Ancients died out of communion with the Church of Rome and yet are placed in their Calanders amongst the Saints Likewayes the whole body of the Popish Religion depends upon the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome it again upon the supremacy of Peter it again upon his institution carriage and testimonies of Fathers Let us hear how they agree in those three And first his institution is founded upon three passages of Scripture Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church The second is verse 19. And I will give unto thee
affirms Peter is a subordinat and Ministerial foundation there he calls him a principal foundation here he affirms the foundation of Christ and Peter to be of the same nature ejusdem species there he affirms they are of different natures toto genere Lastly this distinction of Stapletons is against all Antiquity affirming that the meaning of the Apostle admites of no proper Foundations but Christ alone So Hieronymus Theodorâ—tos Chrysostomus Oecumenius Lyranus Solus Christus vel fides ipsius est fundamentum Christ only or the faith of Christ is the foundation And thus we have disputed by Scripture that Christ is the only Rock or Foundation and consequently Peter cannot be the Rock on which Christ promiseth to build his Church in those words Tu es Petrus c. In the next place it is proved by reason One thing cannot be signified by a name and its denominative Petra or the Rock is the name Petrus Peter or stony is the denominative from that name Ergo the Rock is not Peter Secondly Petrus is of the masculine gender and of the second person Petra or the Rock is of the feminine gender and third person Bellarmin answers Petra and Petrus are expressed in the Syrian tongue in which our Savior spoke by the same word Cephas which removes those difficulties since our Savior spoke those words in the Syrian tongue It is replyed first it is false that Cephas signifying a stone or Petram and Cephas signifying stony or Petrum are the same words in the Syrian tongue because Cephas signifying a stone is of the feminine gender as appears by the Syriack version 1 Cor. 11. Mat. 22. Mark 16. Secondly Matthew the Apostle himself questionless knew the meaning of Christ in these words as well as Bellarmin Baronius Stapleton or Sanderus but he in his Gospel expresly affirms Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram adificabo Ecclesiam meam But if Peter had been the Rock Matthew would have rendred these words of Christ Thou art the Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church Here is to be observed the impudence if not blasphemy of Petrus de Bollo a Parisian Divine in his authentick probation of the sacrifice of the Mass having these words Scimus quod interpres Matthaei Syri Graecus Latinus non fit hoc loco optimè de hac nostrae fidei parte promeritus Si enim dixisset Et tu es Petra super hanc Petramres fuisset multò clarior cum Christus qui Syriacè procul dubio loquebatur dixerit Tu es Petra super hanc Petram adificabo Ecclesiam meam We know that the Greek and Latin Interpreter of Matthew who wrote in the Syrian tongue have not deserved much of our faith for if he had rendred the words Thou art the Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church the thing had been more clear since assuredly Christ spoke in the Syrian Thou art the Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church Where he expresly affirms that Matthew the Evangelist or at least his Greek Interpreter since it is thought by some that the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in Syriack translats the word of Christ unfaithfully thus Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church whereas he should have translated them Thou art the Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church In affirming which he speaks right-down blasphemy if Matthew penned his Gospel in Greek himself and although that translation were not of Matthew himself but of some other nevertheless he condemns the whole primitive Church and the ancient Church of Rome among the rest for approving as authentick a false interpretation in so substantial a point That the Greek version Matthews Gospel was held authentick by the Primitive Church shal be demonstrated lib. 6. The third reason why Peter cannot be the Rock is this The foundation or rock upon which the Church militant and the Church triumphant are built are both one consequently Peter would be the foundation of the Church triumphant if he were the Rock upon which the Church is built And since the Bishop of Rome succeeds to Peter as they all averr the Bishop of Rome is the foundation of the Church triumphant which assertion is so absurd that no Christian ears can hear it without detestation Finally if Peter be the Rock upon which the Church is built it would follow that Peter was Oecumenick Bishop when Christ said unto him Tu es Petrus The meaning of Christ say they is Tu es Petrus or thou art the Rock and consequently thou art Oecumenick Bishop presently since our Savior doth not say unto him Tu eris Petra or thou shalt be the Rock or Oecumenick Bishop But if Peter had been the Rock or Oecumenick Bishop at that time the gates of hell would have prevailed against him which is expresly against the promise of Christ since Peter after that denied Christ thrice And thus we have disputed Tu es Petrus by reason Stapleton endeavors to prove by several reasons that Peter is the Rock which in effect are the same reasons clothed with diversity of words The sum of them is this It appears saith he by all the circumstances that some singular thing or other was given to Peter in those words for Peter answered only Thou art the Son of the living God Secondly Christ pronounced him blessed Thirdly Christ affirmed he had that secret only by revelation from God Lastly Christ pronounced those words to him as a reward Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church It is answered It was a sufficient reward for Peter that he was called Petrus from Petra the Rock which was Christ It had been too high a reward for Peter to obtain that which was proper to Christ this is the opinon of all the Fathers as Hilarius de Trinitate Petrus quia habebat societatem fidei cum Domino habuit etiam unitatem nominis Dominici ut sicut à Christo Christianus dicitur ita à Petrâ Christo Petrus Apostolus vocaretur Peter because he had society of faith with the Lord he was called Peter from Petra as a Christian is called after Christ Augustinus Sermon 13. De verbis Domini secundum Matthaeum Deinde addidit Et ego dicotibi tanquam diecret Quiae tu mihi dixisti Tu es Christus Filius Dei vivi ego dico tibi Tu es Petrus that is Thou shalt be called Peter because of thy confessing me to be the Son of God Other testimonies might be heaped but it is to no purpose Stapleton insists that it was not the name only which Peter got as a reward but some thing beside proper to himself viz. to be the Rock upon which the Church is built which he proves by the authority of Chrysostom whose words are cited by him thus Quoddam hic esse Filii donum proprium Petro datum sicut Patris quoddam donum erat
primacy to the Bishop of Rome for the same reason only viz. because it was the old imperial City And therefore it is intollerable impudence in our adversaries to object the authority of the Council of Chalcedoâ— to prove the Supremacy of Peter By which it appears the impudence of Bellarmin and Baronius who abuse their Reader with strange Sophistry and most shameless The Council of Chalcedon say they interpreted the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice to the advantage of the Bishop of Rome For immediatly after the reading of the said Canon the beginning of which was Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum the Church of Rome evermore had the primacy The Canon being thus read all the Council cryed out Perpendimus omnem primatum honorem praecipuum secundum Canones antiquae Romae Deo amantissimo Archiepiscopo conservari But it is answered first Those words of the Canon viz. the Church of Rome ever had the primacy are forged being found in no other copie but in that of Dionysius Exiguus but his authority is not sufficient to out balance all other copies of the Canons of the Council both Greek and Latin yea that copie corrected by Gregory 13 himself which wants those first words pretended by Bellarmin and Baronius in which copie and all other copies the first words of the said Canon are Antiquus mos perduret c. Let the old custom remain in Egypt Libya and Pentapolis c. Secondly although the Canon had begun so it makes not much to the purpose since it appears by the decree of the Council that the Primacy of the Church of Rome was only a Primacy of dignity for civil respects and not a Primacy of Jurisdiction by reason of the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter as appears expresly by the words of the Canon And also that the Bishop of Constantinople was ordained by the said Council equal in Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome If Bellarmin and Baronius affirm that the words of the twenty-eight Canon are mis-interpreted their mouths are stopped not only by the carriage of Lucentius and other two Legats of the Bishop of Rome but also by the carriage of Leo Bishop of Rome himself The carriage of Lucentius was this When the Fathers of the Council had subscribed the said twenty eight Canon Lucentius stood up crying foul play Some of those subscribers were compelled so to do by one indirect way or other The whole Fathers of the Council answered they had deliberatly and voluntarily subscribed Whereupon Lucentius protested against the Council as having preferred the judgement of a hundred and fifty Fathers of the Council of Constantinople before the judgement of three hundred and eighteen Fathers in the first general Council of Nice which was as much to say as he understood the meaning of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice better then those six hundred and thirty Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon representing the whole Church This carraige of Lucentius is recorded in the Council of Chalcedon Act. 16. pag. 936. 937. 938. Next that the said Council decerned against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome appears by four Epistles of Leo Bishop of Rome himself in which he thunders against the Council of Chalcedon for making the foresaid 28. Canon still ingeminating Tu es Petrus or that they had wronged the supremacy of Peter by which complaints of his it is most evident that those 630. Fathers representing the whole Church in a general Council meant nothing lesse then the supremacy of Peter in these words Tu es Petrus These four Epistles of Leo are his 52. Epistle to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople His 54. to Martianus the Emperour his 55. to Pulcheria the Empress his 62. to Maximus Bishop of Antioch in which Epistles he complains heavily that the Bishop of Constantinople was preferred to him of Alexandria Because Constantinople was the seat of the Emperor he fore-saw being a man of great Spirit and foresight that in the end for the same reason the Bishop of Constantinople would be preferred to the Bishop of Rome which accordingly fell out as shal be proved lib 4. And thus it appeareth with how little integrity our adversaries object the Council of Chalcedon to prove that Peter was the Rock meaned by our Savior in these words Tu es Petrus c. By which proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon appears also what was the opinion of the general councils of Nice and Constantinople As for the sixth general Council commonly called Trullanum celebrated under Pogonatus the Emperor Anno 680. in its 36. Canon it confirms the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon totidem verbis By which it appears what was the opinion of the Church concerning Tu es Petrus in the end of the 7. age And so we have the opinion of the first second fourth and sixth general Councils that Peter is not the Rock upon which the Church is built As for the third general council of Ephesus and the fifth of Constantinople although in express words they make not all the Patriarchs of alike Jurisdiction Yet they made Canons expresly contradicting the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and consequently contradicting also Peter to be the Rock upon which the Church is built The council of Ephesus calls Celestine Bishop Rome Fellow-Minister It were a bold thing now in any Bishop to salute the Pope so Secondly they deposed John Patriarch of Antioch before ever they acquainted Celestine Bishop of Rome as appears by the Synodical Epistle Binius Tom. 1. page 806. Thirdly they ordained that neither the Patriarch of Antioch nor any other Bishop ergo not the Bishop of Rome should take upon him to ordain Bishops in the Isle of Cyprus Binius Tom. 26. pag. 768. As for the fifth general council of Constantinople it rejudged the cause of Anthimius after he had first been judged by Aggapetus Bishop of Rome Binius in his notes upon that council Tom 2. pag 416. Secondly it condemned Vigilius Bishop of Rome and yet in the end the said Vigilius approved the said council Baronius Anno 553. Binius in the place fore-mentioned And thus ye have the opinion of the six first general councils concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome by reason of his succession to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church By which passages it appears that the sixth first general councils meaned nothing lesse then that Peter was the Rock upon which the Church was built or that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church in those words Tu es Petrus It shal likewise be proved lib. 5. That the seventh general council Anno 790. and the 8. Anno 870. had as little regard to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome The first of which condemned Pope Honorius as an Heretick and the last approved of it And thus we have the opinion of the whole Church concerning Tu en Petrus the first 900. year after Christ all which time it was no
over the Church And lest it should seem to be a wilful denyal they give these following reasons why Peter is not ordained Oecumenick Bishop in these words Or why the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven inferr no universal Jurisdiction over the Church in the person of Peter alone The first reason is this the power of the keys is only a forgiving or remitting of sins or not remitting them or a binding and loosing as appears by the testimony of Augustinus in his 52. Treatise upon John of Theophylactus on Matthew 16. 19. of Anselmus ibid. But none calls in question but binding and loosing is a different thing from the power oâ— an Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin instances lib. 1. cap. 13. de pont Rom. that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church which he proves by three arguments The first is from the Metaphor of keyes Isaiah 21. where Shebna is threatned to have the keys of the Temple taken from him to be given to Eliakim that is saith Bellarmin the government of the Temple or of the house of God But it is answered Bellarmin is greatly mistaken for according to the Hebrew Shebna was not Perfect of the Temple but only of the Kings house Bellarmin is deceived by the Latin version turning it Tabernacle whereas Aben Ezra calls it Master of the Kings house the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they call Shebna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Treasaurer or Master-houshold that is the true interpretation as appears by Kings 2. cap. 18. in which place Eliakim who succeeded to Shebna in that charge is called by the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oeconomus or Master-houshold Shebna is called there a Scribe which place he obtained after the keys of the Kings house were taken from him and given to Eliakim However it is a very bad argument of Bellarmins When Shebna had the keys of the Kings house the government of the house was taken from him when they were taken away Ergo When Peter get the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ he was made sole governor of the whole Church Bellarmin should observe that keys are given sometime by an Inferior to a Superior although that be but a new invention or ceremony yet it is an acknowledgement of authority as when a King entring a Town the keys are delivered to him But when keys are given by a Superior to an Inferior chief Jurisdiction is no wayes denoted But Bellarmin will not deny that Christ was Superior to Peter And whereas it is objected that Christ hath the key of David in the Apocalyps that is jurisdiction of the Church It is answered the case is different none calls the jurisdiction of Christ in question neither had he the keys from any greater then himself Bellarmins second argument is That the keys import binding and loosing that is inflicting of punishment and dispensing with obligations of the Law which is supream Jurisdiction over the Church And consequently Peter in these words is instituted Oecumenick Bishop But it is answered That binding and loosing import no supream Jurisdiction as appears by its being common to all the Officers of the Church as well as to Peter it consists in bidding forbidding punishing by Spiritual Censures and Relaxations from them which are common to all Church-Officers as shal immediatly be proved In the third place Bellarmin proves that our Savior promising to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven promised to him alone the government of the whole Church by the testimonies of Fathers The first testimony of Chrysostomus hom 55. on Matthew affirming that to Peter the whole world was committed and that he was made head and Pastor of the whole Church But it is answered It is false that either Chrysostomus affirms the whole world was committed to Peter or that he was head of the Church Bellarmin followeth the corrupt version of Trapezuntius in which he sophisticats manifoldly the words of Chrysostom are comparing Hieremas with Peter Quemadmodum pater Hieremam alloqueus dixit Instar colunae aneae muâ—i posui eum sed illum quidem uni genti hunc verototi orbi In these words Chrysostomus is comparing the Prophet with Peter as the Lord saith he put Hieremas as a wall of brass to one Nation viz. the Jews sc Peter was made a wall of brass to the whole world But Chrysostom speaks not a word of Hieremias being set over the Jews with Jurisdiction and consequently if the comparison hold Peter was not set over the whole world with Jurisdiction which is the first sophistry of Bellarmin following Trapezuntius in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 posâ—it eum placed him Trapezuntius renders praeposuit set him over which is not in the Appodosis of Peter The second corruption is that Trapezuntius adds of his own Cujus caput piscator homo whose head was a Fisher-man It is true indeed a little before these words Chrysostom calls Peter Pastor of the Church but that 's nothing to an Oceumenick Bishop for any Apostle may be called Pastor of the Church as shal be proved afterwards in this Book Bellarmins second testimony is of Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist 32. Where speaking of Peter he affirms the care of the whole Church was committed to him and that he was Prince of the Apostles But it is answered In what sense Gregorius affirms so shal be shewed at length hereafter where it shal be proved first that others were called Princes of the Apostles beside Peter and that the care of the whole Church was committed to others also who were not Oecumenick Bishops Secondly the impudence of Bellarmin is very great in objecting this place of Gregorius in which he is thundering with great execrations and detestation against any who taketh upon him the tittle of Oecumenick Bishop calling that tittle new Pompatick Blasphemous against the mandats of Christ the Canons of the Apostles and Constitutions of the Church And among other reasons against that title of universal Oecumenick Bishop he objects this as one If any took upon him that title Peter had reason to take it but he had not that tittle although the care of the whole Church was committed to him then this impudence of Bellarmin no greater can be imaginable Gregory expresly denyes it to follow that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop although the care of the whole Church was committed to him Bellarmin mutilats his passage and makes him conclude that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop because the care of the whole Church was committed to him He cites this part of Gregories assertion the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter but he suppresseth the other half of his assertion that Peter was not universal Apostle and most impudently fathers a contradictory conclusion upon Gregory Ergo Peter was Oecumenick Bishop And thus much of the first reason wherefore Protestants deny that the power of the keyes imports no universal
the Church was built upon all the Apostles as well as upon Peter Secondly That the keys were common to all the Apostles he proves by John 20 23. whereby it is evident that the said place is the same in meaning with Matthew 16. in which he flatly contradicts Bellarmin who confidently affirmed that without all doubt forgiving and retaining of sins mentioned John 20. 23. was not the same thing with binding and loosing Matthew 6. 19. Thirdly Cyprianus de Vnitate Ecclesiae expresly affirms That Christ gave alike power to all his Apostles Iohn 20. 23. in these words Accipite Spiritum Sanctum si cujus remiseritis peccata c. Receive the Holy Ghost whosesoever sins ye shal forgive they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained and since all the Apostles according to Cyprianus had alike power given them after the Resurrection of Christ by John 20. 23. without all question he believed that the same power of the keys was given to all the Apostles which was given to Peter Matthew 16. The second Reason Why those distinctions of Polus Maldonatus Stapleton and Bellarmin and others or new devised evasions is unanswerable viz. It appears by the Fathers that no greater Ecclesiastical power imaginable could be given to any then that which was given to all the Apostles in Matthew 18 and John 20. which quite destroys all those sophistical distinctions tending all to this That the power given to Peter was greater Matthew 16. 19 then that given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20. That no greater power can be imagined then that which was given to all the Apostles is proved by the testimony of Chrysostomus lib. 3. cap. 5. de Sacerdotio Where speaking of that power of the keys given to all the Apostles yea and to all Bishops he falls to an interrogative exclamation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is I pray you what greater power can be given then this But this had been a most ridiculous interrogation in Chrysostomus if either he himself or any other had believed that the power of the keys promised to Peter Matthew 16. was greater then that promised to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20. And thus much of the testimonies of those Fathers proving directly that the keyes were given to others as well as to Peter Now followeth the testimonies of Fathers proving by consequence that the keyes Matthew 16. were not peculiar to Peter out of which testimonies three arguments are deduced The first is If Peter alone had the power of the keyes promised to him Matthew 16. Then Peter would only have exercised the keyes and no other beside him in such a high-way as he did But it appears by the testimony of Gaudentius primae de ordinationis suae that all the Apostles as well as Peter practised the keys viz. in teaching baptizing censuring Yea Salmeron the Jesuit in his Commentars upon 1. of Peter 1. disput 1. expresly affirms That Peter seemed to neglect his duty in the exercise of the keyes it so little appeared by his carriage and practise that he had any Jurisdiction over the other Apostles Where observe the impudent shift of the Jesuit who being pressed by the carriage of Peter that no token of his Supremacy appeared hath nothing to answer but that it was his own neglest which if it be true was great unfaithfulness of Peter if it be false as it is it is great impudence in the Jesuit The second argument taken from the Fathers proving consequentially that the other Apostles were promised the keyes as well as Peter is taken from Augustinus who affirms That Peter represented the whole Church when Christ promised him the keyes and so by consequence in Peter the other Apostles and all Pastors of the Church had the keyes promised unto them the words of Augustinus are those following in his 124. trâ—â—â—at upon John Quando Petro dictum est tibi dabo claves regni coelorum quodcunque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in coelis universam significabat Ecclesiam And a little after Ecclesia Ergo quae fundatur in Christo claves ab co regni Coelorum accepit in Petro id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata In which words he expresly affirms That Peter was a figure of the whole Church when our Savior promised him the keyes and therefore in Peter the keyes were given to the whole Church and not to Peter alone Our adversaries pussed with this testimony of Augustinus after their accustomed manner fall to their new devised distinctions explaining how the keyes were given to Peter representing the whole Church Or how they were given to the whole Church in Peter And first Horantius lib. 6. cap. 10. Locor Cathol affirms That the keys were given to the whole Church in Peter that is saith he They were given to Peter for the good of the whole Church as when any is made King of any Nation the Kingdom or Kingly Authority is given to him for the good of the whole Nation and so Peter as Prince of the Church had the keyes given unto him for the good of the whole Church and in this manner the keyes were given to the whole Church in Peter But it is answered Horantius his Gloss is far beside the Text of Augustiuus who expresly disputs The keyes were not given to Peter alone but to the whole Church for if they were only given to Peter the whole Church would not have exercised them he disputs so tractat 50. upon John and therefore concluds that the keyes were not given alone to Peter because the whole Church exercised them as well as Peter Augustinus doth not disput for what end the keyes were given but to whom also this Gloss of Horantius expresly contradicts Augustinus Horantius affirms That the keyes in the same manner were given to the whole Church in Peter as when any is made King of a Nation the Authority of a King is given to the whole Nation that is saith he He who is made King gets that Authority for the good of the whole Nation which is a flat contradiction of Augustinus for that Nation or whole Nation cannot be said to exercise the Kingly Authority when he who is made King gets it But Augustinus expresly disputs That the whole Church exercised the keyes as well as Peter and therefore the keyes were given to the whole Church in Peter otherwise saith he The whole Church would not have exercised them tractat 50. His words are If Peter had not represented the Church our Lord had not said unto him I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven For if that only was said to Peter The Church hath no power of binding or loosing and since the Church hath that power Peter was the Sacrament or Figure of the whole Church or mistically represented the whole Church when our Savior promised to him the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and
that is the sum of the disput of Augustinus tractat 50. For satisfaction of the Reader we will set down his words which are these Nam si in Petro non esset Ecclesiae Sacramentum non ei diceret Dominus tibi dabo claves regni coelorum quaecunque solveris in terra soluta erunt in coelo quaecunque ligaveris in terra ligata erant in coelr Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est non facit hoc Ecclesia Si autem in Ecclesia fit ut quae in terra ligantur in coelo ligentur quae soluuntur in terra soluantur in coelo quia cum excommunicat Ecclesia in coelo ligatur excommunicatus cum reconciliatur ab Ecclesia in coelo soluitur excommunicatus si hoc Ergo in Ecclesia fit Petrus quando claves accepit Ecclesiam sanstam significavit By which it appears that he expresly disputs that Peter had not the keyes given to him alone because the whole Church used them as well as he and thence concluds that he represented the whole Church when our Savior promised to him the keyes and therefore it is false which Horantius affirms That the whole Church got the keyes in Peter as Germany gets the Empire when any is made Emperor of Germany Since all Germany doth not exercise the Imperial Authority as the whole Church doth that of the Keyes Bellarmin glosseth otherwise upon Augustinus he affirms Peter may be said two wayes to represent the Church First historically as when any represents that which is done by another by that which is really done by himself and so saith he Abraham having two sons Isaac and Ishmael represented God who was to have two peoples The second way of Bellarmins representing is called by him Parabolick viz. when any thing is represented by a probable fiction not really done So our Savior preaching the Gospel is signified by a sower of good seed He applyeth that Peter signified the Church the first way so that he truly principally and immediately got the keyes and in getting them signified the whole Church which was to get them afterwards in its own proper way But it is answered It is very ordinar with Bellarmin to spin out subtilties nothing to the purpose to delude bis readers when he is pusâ—ed it were prolix to retex his sophistry in this particular we only answer that Peter represented the Church in none of those wayes mentioned by Bellarmin but in a third viz. As when a Society alike interessed in any priviledge hath that priviledge given to them all when it is given to any one of them in which case every one of that Society hath the benefit of that priviledge as well and equally with him to whom it was given in all their names Bellarmin objects That it is not the meaning of Augustinus that Peter got the keyes in the name of the rest as their Legat or Vicar Ergo it is his meaning that Peter got them as their Moderator or Prince as when any thing is given to a King it may be said to be given to the whole Kingdom because it is given for the publick utility of all But it is answered It is true which Bellarmin affirms that Peter did not get the keyes as a Legat or Vicar gets any thing in the name of his King for so Peter had gotten nothing to himself no more then an Ambassador representing his King marrying a wife to his King or in his Kings Name but it doth not follow that Peter got the keyes as Monarch of the Church or as the Church got them in Peter as a Kingdom gets any thing given to their King because it is notoriously false since the Church according to Augustinus had the power of the keyes as well as Peter but a Kingdom hath not the use or property of that which is given unto their King and therefore we affirm That Bellarmins enumeration is still insufficient for Peter got the keyes neither as Vicar of the Church nor a Moderator or Prince of the Church but as one of the Society of the Pastors and Apostles of the Church as if our Savior had said to Peter I give unto thee the power of the keyes and in thee to all Pastors to be alike exercised by thee and them Bellarmin instances that Augustinus affirms that the Church was signified by Peter Propter eum quem gerebat Primatum that is Because of the Primacy he had in the Church But it is answered That Augustinus by Primacy means no other thing then Apostleship that is Augustinus affirms Peter had a Primacy in the Church because he was an Apostle in the Church as he explains himself in many places as in his last Treatise upon John he affirms that Peter signified the whole Church because of the Primacy of his Apostleship propter Apostolatus Primatum he hath the like words in his 23. Sermon upon the words of Christ and likewise upon Psalm 108. and especially lib. 2. of Baptism against the Donatists he hath these words Quis nes cit illam Apostolatus Principatum cuilibet Episcopatui preferendum Who knows not that the Primacy of an Apostleship is to be preferred to any Bishoprick by which it is most evident that the meaning of Augustinus affirming Peter had a Supremacy in the Church is no other then that he was an Apostle of the Church Especially since Augustinus disputed that the keyes were not given to Peter alone but also to the whole Church But Bellarmin instances it is true That the whole Church had the use of the keyes as well as Peter but by the gift of Peter who distributed them to other Pastors according to his pleasure himself only having them immediately from Christ as when a King having his power immediately from God communicats his Jurisdiction to inferior Magistrats in giving them particular charges of exercising Jurisdiction But it is answered This Gloss of Bellarmins is against all Antiquity innumerable testimonies of Fathers might be produced that the other Apostles had the keyes given them as well as Peter but Bellarmin cannot produce one testimony to prove that the meaning of those Fathers is That the keyes were immediately given to Peter and by his communication distributed to the rest Nothing such appears out of Augustinus but the contrair Cyprianus expresly affirms That all the Apostles were of alike power with Peter And Francisus de Victoria a great Popish Doctor the most learned Divine that ever Spain produced as he is called by Canus loc Theol lib. 12. cap. 1. Relect 2. quest 2. conclus 3. and 4. Commenting upon that place of Cyprian de unita Eccles expresly affirms That all the Apostles received all the power both of Order and Jurisdiction immediatly from Christ and inveighs against the ordinar Gloss upon that place for distinguishing between Order and Jurisdiction that is for affirming That all the Apostles had their Orders immediately from Christ but not their Jurisdiction or the power of
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
therefore are not the true Lights And since Christ is the true Light and men are not the true Lights it is evident that the title of Light is attributed to both by a Homonymy In the next place comes Foundation Prophets and Apostles are called Foundations two wayes And first Tertullianus lib. 4. cap. 39. against Marcion Chrysostomus Oecumenius Theophylactus interpret these words of Paul super fundamenta Prophetarum Apostolorum as if the Prophets and Apostles themselves were Foundations But it is certain they cannot be called so but only by reason of their Ministry that is in so far as they were Ministers of founding Churches as is confessed by Justinianus the Jesuite who affirms That the faith of the Ephesians was built upon the testimony of the Old and New Testament that is by a Metonymy but Christ is not that way called Foundation and therefore the title of Foundation is attributed by a Homonymy to Christ and the Apostles and Prophets and in that sense the Apostle Paul denyeth that there is any Foundation but Christ Others interpret the meaning of Paul calling the Apostles and Prophets Foundations to be that they preached the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament which is the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets viz. which they did lay So the interlinear and ordinar gloss following Ambrosius and Anselmus so also Lyranus Aquinas Lombardus Cajetanus Gagnaeus the Jesuite and Salmero In what ever sense Foundation be taken it is properly attributed to Christ improperly by a Homonymy to men Bellarmins last tittle is GOD Men are called Gods saith he Psalm 82. and since they are so called why may not a man be called Head of the Church But it is answered First Kings and Judges are not called Gods there but only that men judged so of them because of their flourishing estate so that Fgo dixi Dii estis are not the words of GOD but of the Psalmist himself as dâ—vers learned men gather from the text Others think that the Psalmist is speaking of the Angels However albeit the title of GOD were attributed to Kings and Judges it doth not follow that the title of Head of the Church may be attributed to men because the title of GOD is attributed to men abusively by a too high strained Metaphor But Bellarmin and his fellows endeavor to maintain that the Bishop of Rome is properly head of the Church as a King is head of his Kingdom And in this manner Bellarmin undertakes to prove that it is not injurious to Christ that any should take upon him the title of Head of the Church In the next place he goes a step higher endeavoring to prove That a visible head of the Church sets forth the glory of Christ as the glory of a King is augmented by a Victory But it is answered When a Viceroy intruds himself without a Commission upon a Province he is so far from setting forth the glory of his King that he eclipseth it by neglecting of his authority and proves a Rebel Let Bellarmin instruct if he can in what place of Scripture any hath commission to be visible head of the Church under Christ We proved in the former chapters that what he alledged in the behalf of Peter was new devised Sophistry contradicting Scripture Antiquity and of no great moment to prove the supremacy of Peter in the opinion of the most learned Antiquaries which ever the Church of Rome produced Secondly Bellarmins visible head of the Church carrys himself not like a Viceroy but like a King which must be injurious to the true Head of the Church Yea Bellarmin himself endeavors to prove that the said secondary head reigns in the Church as a King doth in a Kingdom Neither can the Bishop of Rome be said to be Viceroy to Christ otherwise in the government of the Church then a King is Viceroy to GOD in the government of a Kingdom But Kings are absolute and not Viceroys and therefore that visible head of the Church is absolute also being subordinate no otherwise to Christ then Kings are to GOD. Thirdly when a Viceroy takes upon him to go beyond his commission or to govern contrair to the law of his King he wrongs the authority of his King and no wayes sets forth his glory But Bellarmins visible and secundary head takes upon him to dispence with the Law of GOD as we shewed in the former chapter proving that he took power upon him to make Justice Injustice and Injustice Justice In the third place Bellarmin goes a step higher yet and endeavors to prove that a secundary visible head is necessar for the Church because saith he in the absence of Christ the Church cannot be contained in Vnity unless it be governed by one visible head under Christ But it is answered Stillgood that assertion of Bellarmins if not blasphemous is notoriously false viz. That the Church cannot be contained in Vnity by Christ alone unless a visible head be joyned with him Which contradicts Scripture which in every place attributes the cause of that Unity of the Church to Christ alone So John 17. That they may be one in us and Rom. 10. We many are one body in Christ and Gal. 3. Ye are all one in Christ and the reason is evident because that Unity is Spiritual Ephes 4. Studying to keep the unity of the Spirit See also 1. Corinth 12. and Philip 1. By which places it appears that the Invisible and Spiritual presence of Christ alone preserves the Church in Unity which is also granted by many famous Roman Doctors who prove the infallibility of the Church to depend upon this promise of Christ viz. That he would be present with them to the end of the World We have heard Bellarmin disputing for a visible head and proving that it is not derogatory to the honor of Christ We will now examine an argument of Sanderus that famous English Jesuite who proves that it conduceth to the glory of Christ that the Church should have a visible head because saith he More ways of Preaching that glory of Christ are by a visible head then without it But it is answered to omit the inconsequence of that argument we deny the Antecedent or distinguisheth it viz. These ways of Preaching Christ only illustrat his glory which are ordained by himself which a visible head is not Sanderus instances Rulers of particular Churches or Bishops are called Heads of their respective Churches under Christ by Gregorius Magnus and other Fathers Ergo why may there not be one visible head of all the Church under Christ But it is answered First if Sanderus had objected that argument to Gregorius Magnus himself he would have denyed it to follow for although he seems to call Bishops heads of particular Churches yet he detests an universal head as we shewed before as injurious to Christ. Secondly when Gregorius calls Bishops heads of the Church he speaks abusively and improperly and without any warrand in Scripture And thus
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
fervor of his minde and love to Christ But inconsequent to prove him Oecumenick Bishop Christs appearing to Paul after his Ascension was a prerogative nothing inferior Peter is no more concluded Oecumenick Bishop by this prerogative then the other Apostles by the miracles wrought by them The fourth prerogative is from Matthew 16. 16. viz. That the Mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ was first revealed to Peter before it was revealed to any of the rest But it is answered Although it were granted as in effect many Fathers believe that it is true it is inconsequent to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop Secondly it is notoriously false and presuppons that the Patriarchs Prophets and Saints of the Old Testament were ignorant of the Mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ If they instance they knew only in general That the Messias would be the second Person of the Trinity Incarnas and born of a Virgin but not in particular that Christ was the Messias It is replyed that John the Baptist before ever Peter knew Christ professed that Jesus of Nazareth in particular the supposed Son of Joseph and Son of Mary was the Son of GOD and the Savior of the World foretold by the Prophets Nathanael also professed so much It is a most simple evasion of Bellarmins That these confessed Christ to be the Son of GOD in that manner as all the Saints are called Sons of GOD or by Adoption since John the Baptist expresly testifies that Christ was the Messias foretold by the Prophets Also that the same was revealed to Simeon Luke 2. none without impudence can deny Nathanael also John 1. not only calls Christ the Son of GOD but also the King of Israel and Augustin tract 7. in John affirms that the confession of Nathanael and that of Peter were the same The fifth prerogative is Matthew 16. 18. The gates of hell shal not overcome it It is answered we shewed before the exposition of this place viz. That the gates of hell should not overcome the Church They alledge here a great prerogative for say they the rest of the Apostles had not this promise for the gates of hell prevailed against the Churches founded by the other â—pestles since the Church of Jerusalem founded by James and also the Churches founded by the other Apostles are decayed But it is answered This prerogative is grounded upon a false supposition viz. that our Savior meaned by the Church of Rome the Church founded by Peter of which he did not dream for we shewed before that the Rock upon which the Church is built was only Christ and that these Fathers who interpreted the Rock to be the confession of Peter or Peter himself meaned all one thing with those who interpreted the Rock to be Christ as is evident in Augustinus who in one place interprets the Rock to be Christ In an other the confession of Peter In a third Peter himself However they intangle themselves pitifully in expounding the Rock both to be Peter and the seat of Peter which are different things and it shal also be proved in the last chapter of this book that Rome was not the seat of Peter more then of Paul And therefore they absurdly interpret the Rock to be the Church of Rome The sixth prerogative Matthew 17. Christ commanded tribute to be payed for him and Peter whence some Fathers gather that the Apostles themselves knew the supremacy of Peter So Hieronymus on Matthew 18. as he is cited by Bellarmin But it is answered Although some Fathers were of that opinion that the Apostles knew by that tribute paying that Peter would be preferred to them all the opinion of those Fathers is notoriously false for the strife of the sons of Zebedens was after the tribute paying But they never would have demanded to be preferred to the rest if they had known that Peter was preferred already Yea also that contention of all the Apostles for the primacy was after that tribute paying But they had been mad-men to have contended for the thing Peter had already As for Hieronymus Bellarmin cites him unfaithfully he on Matthew 18. expresly affirms That these were in an error who collected the supremacy of Peter 〈◊〉 that tribute paying Bellarmin hath an other shift that the error mentioned by Hieronymus consisted in this That they believed by that tribute paying that Peter would be a temporal Prince or Monarch But it is replyed though that fiction were granted they are also in an error who believe that the Bishop of Rome is a temporal monarch But they affirm that Peter was the same which the Bishop of Rome is but that he holds himself as a temporal Monarch and teacheth it in Cathedra we shewed before cap 11. However it is a very strange consequence Peter payed tribute Ergo he was Monarch of the Church since the Bishops of Rome as shal be proved part 3. lib. 1. refuse to pay tribute Because they pretend they are Monarchs of the Church It is notorious also that all the Apostles viritim payed tribute as well as Peter Bellarmin and others instance with great pompe that some mystery lurks in this that our Savior commanded tribute to be payed for him and Peter viz. That the heads of the families only payed tribute and consequently that Christ was head of the family and Peter secondary head under him But it is replyed That argument would conclude that all the Church Militant payed only tribute to their Oecumenick Bishop or that the said tribute was payed for all the Church Militant which cannot be mentioned without laughter However they go on in sophistry and proves by the testimony of Hieronymus that only the heads of families payed tribute Quid tum postea It doth not follow That the head of the Church Militant payed tribute for all the Members of it Secondly it is impudent sophistry to pretend the authority of Hieronymus His words are Post Augustum Caesarem Judaea facta est tributaria omnes censi capite ferebantur It is stupendious sophistry since no learned man can be so ignorant to affirme that Hieronymus in these words mentions That heads of the families only payed tribute since it appears to all who are not utterly ignorant of the Latin tongue that census capite imports as much as Viritim that is Every person payed tribute or every head for himself and not only heads of families It is demanded then What was the meaning of our Savior in that paying of tribute for Peter and himself Chrysostomus hom 59. on Matthew thinks this was the reason Because both our Savior and Peter were first born But the holy Father is in a great mistake for two reasons The first is Because that tribute was not the tribute of the first born which was payed only once in a life time but an annual tribute which was payed every year Secondly Peter was not first born but Andrew his brother Jansenius a Learned and Ingenuous Papist Concord
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
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
believed that he was first ordained Apostle so Cyprianus c. The fifth rank of testimonies are those affirming that there is Una Cathedra c. one Chair of Peter which was placed at Rome in which Chair Unity was preserved by all neither did the rest of the Apostles constitute any other Chairs against that one Chair in which Peter sat first To whom succeeded Linus c. Optatus lib. 2. against Parmenianus in which words saith Bellarmine ye have the Chair of Peter and his successors called the Chair of the whole Church which infers that according to Optatus Peter was oecumenick Bishop But it is answered that Optatus in those words is disputing against the Donatists who had set up a Bishop of their own faction at Rome in opposition to the true Bishop Which Optatus reprehends Because saith he there is but one Chair at Rome founded by Peter in which first himself sat and then his successors in which place viz. Rome none of the other Apostles did constitute another Chair much lesse ye ought to set another Bishop in that Chair in opposition to the successors of Peter That this is his meaning viz. that he speaks of the particular Church of Rome and not of the universal Church is evident because otherwayes it were notoriously false which he affirms that no Chair was constituted by the other Apostles For James did constitute a Church at Jerusalem and John at Ephesus c. The sixth rank are the testimonies affirming Peter to be Magister Ecclesiae a Master of the Church likewayes that the Church is called Eclesia Petri Ambrosius Sermon 11. It is answered first that not only Erasmus but also Costerus a stiff maintainer of the Pope denyes Ambrosius to be the Author of those Sermons 2. Although he were it imports not much for calling Peter a Master of the Church he calls him no other thing then an Apostle For all Apostles governed the whole Church or were Pastors of the whole Church as we said before 3. Whereas we said another calleth the Church the Church of Peter he speaks very improperly such kind of speaking is not found in Scripture or in Fathers perhaps his meaning is that it is the Church of Peter because it was the Church in which Peter taught and in that sense it may be called the Church of Paul also or of any other of the Apostles although properly the Church is only the Church of Christ and of none other The seventh rank is of testimonies preferring the Chair of Peter to-other Chairs Augustinus de Baptismo lib. 2. It is answered Augustins words are Quis nescit Apstolatus principatum cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum Who is ignorant that the principality â—o the Apostleship is to be preferred to any Bishoprick In which words it cannot be conjectured what Bellarmine can gatherfor the Supremacy of Peter Augustine in these words is comparing Cyprian with Peter in one respect he prefers Peter to Cyprian because saith he the principality of the Apostleship is to be preferred to any Bishoprick or Peter because an Apostle is to be preferred to Cyprian who is only a Bishop But in the words following he saith Albeit their Chairs be unequal yet the glory of both the Martyrs is the same in which words he seems in a manner equal to Peter Eighthly Bellarmine cites a testimony from the Thesaurus of Cyrullus for the Supremacy of Peter viz. That Christ got the Scepter of the Church of the Gentiles from God which he gave unto Peter and unto his successors only and unto none other But it is answered that the testimony is suppositious and forged being not found at all in any Edition of that Book It is only mentioned by Thomas Aquinas in Opusculo contra Graecos in his little Book he wrote against the Graecians and some think he forged it but Thomas was a most holy man and it is more like he was abused by some others Ninthly Bellarmine cites some testimonies from Bernardus and others who lived after the sixth Century but those testimonies especially of the Latines who lived at that time cannot be regarded because they lived after that time in which Bonifacius 3. was ordained oecumenick Bishop by Phocas Such testimonies for the Supremacy of Peter can have no more force then the testimonies of Bellarmine or Barronius or any other Doctor of the Church of Rome Tenthly he cites the testimonies of Leo and the other Bishops of Rome but neither can those be regarded because they lived after the time in which the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople contended for the primacy If Bellarmine will not believe the Protestants that those testimonies are of no moment let him consider what is said by Aeneas Sylvius sometimes Pope himself who in his first Comen upon the Councill of Basil hath these words Those miserable men are not aware that those testimonies which they so magnify are either ipsorum summorum Pontificum Fimbrias suas extendentium Are either of Popes themselves enlarging their authority or else of their flatterers Bellarmines eleventh testimony is taken from Eusebius Caesariensis lib. 2. hist cap. 14. who affirms Peter is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Captain of the Militia of God In which testimony he triumphs as if he had found out the whole businesse What else saith he can be the meaning of Eusebius then that Peter is head of the Church Militant But it is answered first that Bellarmine following the version of Christopherson cites Eusebius fraudulently whose words are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Not Captain of the Militia of God simply But as one of the Captains of the Militia of God Secondly Isidorus Pelustota lib. 3. epist 25. gives the same Epithet to Paul calling him a most generous and valiant Captain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently Bellarmine triumphs before the Victory since that testimony of Eusebius concludes Peter no more to be oecumenick Bishop then that of Isidorus Paul And this much of those testimonies cited by Bellarmine for proving the Supremacy of Peter over the Church which was the first Classe CHAP. XX. Testimonies of Fathers proving the Authority of Peter over the Apostles THe second Classe of testimonies consists of those proving the Supremacy of Peter over the Apostles for which Bellarmine cites Cyprian epist 71. but he sets not down the words of Cyprian but only summs them thus When Paul reprehended Peter Peter did not answer I have the primacy ye most obey me and not I you Ergo saith Bellarmine according to Cyprian Peter had the primacy over Paul But it is answered that this Logick is very strange because Cyprian affirms that Peter did not say unto Paul I have the primacy Ergo according to Cyprian Peter had the Supremacy It would seem rather by these words that Cyprian thought Peter had not the Supremacy The words of Cyprian which Bellarmine suppresseth are Nec Petrus vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut
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
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
Canon of the first Council of Neice Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria in his Books de originibus newly published in Arabick and Latine by Seldenus testifies that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria did take the power of ordination from the Presbyters there who before that time had the power of ordaining their Bishop And since Eutychius affirms that the said Alexander was present at the Council of Neice without all question he inhibited Presbyters to ordain the Bishop of Alexandria by authority of the said 4. Canon of the Council of Neice neither could any authority except that of a general Council establish any thing universally neither was there any general Council before that of Neice CAP. IV. Wherein a Bishop differs from a Presbyter Conjectures of Aerians wherefore Episcopacy was brought in the Church AFter Episcopacy was established a Bishop differs from a Presbyter by ordination whence nothing is more frequent with Augustinus Hieronymus Ambrosius Chrysostomus and other Fathers then that a Bishop differs from a Presbyter by ordination which is all the Argument that Bellarmine and others produce to prove that the forsaid Fathers were for the divine right of Bishops But since those Fathers expresly dispute against the divine right of Bishops since they tell a reason wherefore Episcopacy was brought in since they tell the time when albeit obscurely it is evident that those Fathers speaks so according to the consuetude of their own times that is Bishops have ordination and Presbyters have it not not by divine right but only by consuetude yea Hieronymus upon Titus after he hath disputed most vehemently against the divine right of Bishops concludes his dispute with these words Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores That is Bishops should know that they are greater then Presbyters more by consuetude then divine right which passage is so evident that not only Medina but also Alphonsus de Castro Albertus Pighius Petavius yea Bellarmine and Bishop Hall are forced to confesse that Hieronymus was against the divine right of Bishops which last calls him a waspish man and that he was irritated by John Bishop of Jerusalem The reasons wherefore Episcopacy was brought in are three according to those Fathers the first reason is of Ambrosius or according to some Hilarius upon Ephes 4. who after he had told that in the primitive times a Bishop was no other then a first Presbyter or the Presbyter of oldest ordination in any City he subjoynes that Bishops were after that time not by succession but by election because the first Presbyter was many times unworthy and therefore not the first but the most worthy was chosen bishop The second reason is of Ambrosius as he is cited by Amalarius upon 1 Tim 3. viz because â—resbyters in following times had not such eminent gifts as those who lived in the primitive times therefore it was not fit that the Church should be governed alike by them all any more therefore the most eminent in gifts of the number of Presbyters was chosen Bishop differing from the other Presbyters by Ordination and he who was so chosen was no more called Presbyter but Bishop and the other Presbyters were no more called Bishops but only Presbyters the third reason is of Hieronymus upon Tit. 1. who affirms Bishops were brought in to take away Schisms such as when one said he was of Paul another he was of Cephas another he was of Apollos Petavins hierarchiae lib. 1. cap. 10. num 8. and in other places accknowledgeth that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter concurred in one Person in some Cities in the times of the Apostles but he endeavours to prove by this passage of Hieronymus that custome was changed in the times of the Apostles themselves viz. when that Schisme was among the Corinthians one saying he was of Paul another he was of Cephas c. Bellarmine and Bishop Hall by the same passage endeavour to bind contradictions upon Hieronymus because he assiâ—ms on Tit. 1. that according to Paul a Bishop and a Presbyter is all one and in the same place he affirms that according to Paul they were made different a long time before viz. when that Schisme was among the Corinthians which Schisme was before Paul wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians which first Epistle was written long before the Epistle to Titus But it is answered it is very strange that any eminent person as Bishop Hall should own such a Protervum Sophisma and therefore to return the sharp edge of the Weapon whereas they strike only with the blunt it is reasoned thus Hieronymus affirmeth according to Paul Tit. 1. The Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter is one and the same Ergo it cannot be the meaning of Hieron mus that they were made different precisely at that time when that Schisme was among the Corinthians since he could not be ignorant that Schisme fell out long before Paul wrote his Epistle to Titus the intention then of Hieronymus is not to tell precisely the time when but only the cause why â— Bishop was made different from a Presbyter viz. Schisme such as that among the Corinthians not that very Schisme among the Corinthians which maner of speaking is not only frequent but also elegant as can be made out both by Scripture and prophane Authors if it were needful or any versed in either had the Brow to deny it CHAP. V. What primacy the Bishop of Rome had before other Bishops before the times of Cyprian ANd this much of the original progress and universal establishment of Episcopacy of the difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop and for what reasons Bishops were brought in Now it is requisite to declare what Primacy was due to the Bishop of Rome during that time when no Office was in the Church above that of a Bishop viz before the time of Cyprian who lived about Anno 250. or 60. that is seventy or eighty years before the Council of Neice During then that interval we find two sort of priorities among Bishops neither of which imported any authority or jurisdiction of one Bishop above another they imported only a priority of precedency or place The first was priority of Age that is he who was first ordained Bishop had the place of him who was ordained after him and in that respect the primacy of Bishops was ambulatory in every Province except the Bishop of the first City of the Province where the Roman Governour remained and that Bishop had the place of all the Bishops of the Province although later ordained then any of them and was called Primae Sedis Episcopus or Bishop of the first Seat which was the other sort of priority among Bishops In a word then the Bishop of the first City of the Province had a fixed priority Bishops of the other Cities had an ambulatory priority that is now one now another according to the time of their ordination
affirms None of us makes himself Bishop of Bishops or takes upon him to compell his Colleagues by tyrannical terrors to necessity of obedience which words as Binius observes were directed against Stephanus Bishop of Rome because he had threatned the Bishops of Africa with Excommunication if they did not alter their Judgement Sanderus answers thirdly that albeit Cyprian did assert the equality of Bishops in those words yet it was only an equality according to their Order of Priesthood not according to their Jurisdiction albeit the Bishop of Rome be equal to other Bishops as he is Bishop yet he is above them in jurisdiction he gives this answer lib. 7. cap. But it is replyed this distinction is frivolous and quite contrary to the meaning of Cyprian whose intention in those words is expresly to assert the equality of Jurisdiction and since he aims at the Bishop of Rome it is evident in his opinion that any Bishop is of equal jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome How can any be so impudent to deny that Cyprian asserts equality of Jurisdiction since he expresly affirms No Bishop can judge another Bishop nor be judged by him Christ is the only judge of Bishops which in right down terms is that all Eishops are equal in Jurisdiction which none but a Sophister will deny It is needless to mention the answers of other Romanists as of Alanus Copus lib. 1. cap. 19. and Dormanus in his English Treatise against Bishop Jewel cap. 10. since they are not worth the refuting The most ingenuous answer of them all is that of Stapleton lib. 11. cap. 7. de princip fid doctrin where he affirms that Cyprian in those words to patronize his error Utitur verbis errantium and that he seems wonderfully to protect Hereticks he means Protestants against the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome he calls those expressions O Cyprian pernicious if they be not defended by a commodious Exposition But it is answered the authority of St. Augustine is of more moment then the authority of Stapleton who not only commends those expressions of Cyprian but also recommends them to the whole Church to be taken notice of as so many Oracles and that in moe places then one as lib. 2. cap. 2. lib. 3. cap. 3. lib. 6. cap. 7. against the Donatists Further that Stephanus Bishop of Rome himself understood those words of Cyprian as the Protestants do against the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome appears by his excommunicating Cyprian as Cassander relates consult art 7. neither read we ever of his reconciliation as is confessed by Bellarmine lib. 2. de con cap. 5. Neither is it of any moment what they object that in that question of re-baptizing those who were baptized by Hereticks the affirmative maintained by Cyprian was wrong and the negative maintained by Stephanus was right for the state of the question with the Church of Rome in this particular is Whether Cyprian was for or against the Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome or whether he did right in opposing the usurpation of Stephanus It seems he did for two reasons first because those expressions of his were recommended by St. Augustine to the whole Church next because notwithstanding of his dying excommunicate by Stephanus he was held ever since those times to be a Saint and a Martyr by the Church of Rome it self as he is at this day whereby it appears that the ancient Church of Rome immediatly after the times of Cyprian had not much regard to the authority of Stephanus his excommunicating Cyprian The truth is Cyprian in that conflict with Stephanus was a good Patron of an evil cause and Stephanus was a bad Patron of an good Cause Cyprian was wrong in maintaining re-baptization of those who were baptized by Hereticks but he defended it rightly Stephanus who maintained the contrary opinion was right but maintained it badly that is by usurpation arrogancy and presumption CHAP. IX Of the contest between Victor Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of the East WE have in the former Chapters proved by the testimonies of the Ancients that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not believed as an Article of Faith in the dayes of Cyprian nor any time before unto the dayes of the Apostles We have also shewed with what perplexed sophistry our Adversaries endeavour to elude the force of those testimonies In the following Chapters we will examine what is objected by our Adversaries to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval If it had been an Article of Faith in the Church that the Bishop of Rome was ordained by Peter to succeed to himself in that Function of oecumenick Bishop or that the Bishop of Rome did succeed to Peter in that Function the evidence of that succession had been greater in these primitive times then it was afterwards but contrarily we find the nearer we come to the Apostles times the less evidence we find for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome whereby it appears that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome by reason of his succession to Peter is but a fiction neither was it ever urged as to jurisdiction till after the Council of Chalcedon as shall appear in the following Books and the more the times were remote that opinion of the succession to Peter increased the more That there was no great evidence before the Council of Neice of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is acknowledged by Aeneas Silvius Pope himself in his 288. Epistle and yet he was the greatest Antiquary of his time the truth of his assertion will appear by our Answers to that which they object which are so many testimonies against themselves To prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval they object nothing beside what we shall prove forged by testimony of their own Doctors before the latter end of the second Age or beginning of the third and then their objections are of two sorts first actions of Popes secondly tectimonies of Popes and Fathers What regaird should be had to the actions and testimonies of Popes appears by the Commentaries which Pope Aeneas Silvius or Pius second wrote upon the Councel of Basile his words are these Neâ— considerant miseri quia quae praedicant tantopere verba aut ipsorum sumorum pontificum sunt simbrias suas extendentium aut illorum quiâ—eis adulabantur that is neither do those miserable men consider these testimonies they magnifie so much are either of Popes themselves inlarging their own interests or of their Fathers We will first treat of the actions of Popes and next examine their testimonies Before the time of Victor Bishop of Rome there is no Monument of antiquity for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome besides some forgeries acknowledged by the most eminent Doctors of that Church and proved to be forgeries by unanswerable reasons as shall appear afterwards in the last Chapters of this Book The said Victor about anno 195. had a
difference with the Bishops of Asia about the observation of Easter or Pasch the Churches of Asia pretending a tradition from the Apostle of St. John observed Easter according to the manner of the Jews eating their Passover and for that reason were called quartadecemani The Churches of the West observed it as it is now in the Church of Rome they object here that Victor excommunicated the Bishops of the East for not observing Easter after the Roman and western fashion Ergo say they the Bishop of Rome in those dayes was oecumenick Bishop otherwayes he would not have taken upon him to exercise Jurisdiction in so remote parts as in Asia But it is answered usurpation is no title of authority and by this very action of Victor it appears that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or necessar communion with the Church of Rome was not believed in those dayes as appears by two reasons The first is the opposition made by the Churches of Asia to that excommunication of Victor but it is altogether impossible that they would have mis-regarded it if the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or necessar communion with the particular Church of Rome under the pain of damnation had been an Article of Faith in those dayes as it is now That those Bishops in the East slighted the excommunication of Victor appears by Eusebius hist Eccles lib. 5. cap. 23. and 24. who relates and brings in Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus in Asia pleading their Cause in an Epistle written by the consent of them all that they had the same tradition of observing Easter from the Apostle John that it was practised by Philip the Apostle Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr disciple of John the Apostle and by the other Bishops and Martyrs as Thraseas and Sagonius that they had confirmed their own way of observing Easter in the council of all the Bishops of Asia and for those reasons they were not moved with the terrors of that excommunication pronunced against them by Victor but it is very unlike they would have so contemned it if they had believed the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome If there was any such thing as the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome their opposition demonstrats that either they were ignorant of it or els wilfully opposed it they could not be ignorant for who dare affirm that the Apostles John and Philip and Polycarpus the Disciple of John could be ignorant of so necessar a point of Salvation if there had been any such thing Neither can it be affirmed that they wilfully opposed it for it is a thing incredible that so many holy men Saints and Martyrs confessed to be such by the modern Church of Rome it self would die out of the communion of the Church of Rome and in so doing condemn themselves eternally for Bellarmine himself de pont Rom. lib. 2. cap. 19. affirms that it is not found that ever Victor recalled his excommunication And since these holy men neither could be ignorant that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was an article of Faith if it had been in these dayes neither would they have opposed it and contemned Victors excommunication if they had known it it is evinced that in these dayes there was no such article of Faith as the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or necessar communion with the Church of Rome yea notwithstanding of the excommunication of Victor the whole Churches of the East before the Council of Neice observed Easter in their own fashion but it were too hard to affirm that they were all damned which must of necessity be affirmed if the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome had been an article of Faith in those dayes and this much of opposition from the East to that decree of Victor The second Argument taken from the action of Victor against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is the opposition that it had from the West although the whole Bishops of the West were of the same opinion with Victor anent the observation of Easter yet they absolutely condemned his way of proceeding For as Eusebius relates Hist Eccles lib. 5. cap. 24. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in the name of the whole Churches of France in an Epistle to the said Victor recorded by Eusâ—ebius ibid. expostulates most bitterly with Victor not obscurely taxing him of ignorance and arrogance for his precipitated proceeding objecting to him the example of his predecessors Bishops of Rome as Pius Telesphorus Anicetus c. who all of them keeped communion with the Bishops of the East notwithstanding their observation of Easter otherwayes then it was observed at Rome yea the same Bishops of the West still keeped communion with the Bishops of the East notwithstanding their excommunication by Victor but they would never have done so if the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome had been believed in those dayes or if necessar communion with the Church of Rome had in those times been an article of Faith Sanderus lib. 7. of his visib Monarch and with him Bellarmine prove the supremacy of Victor in this action by a notable cheat the more opposition it had saith Sanderus the authority of Victor was the more conspicuous because the Council of Neice declared in favour of Victor against all his opposers in decerning that Easter should be observed according to the decree of Victor But it is answered that the Council did so not for the authority of Victor but only because they thought that opinion to be right it was professed by all the Churches of the West and by Irenaeus but Sanderus will not affirm that the Council of Neice followed the authority of Irenaeus Secondly albeit the Council had followed the authority of Victor or perswaded by his authority had made that decree it doth not follow that Victor had any jurisdiction over the Council or the whole Church Paphnutius made a motion in the Council of Neice in the defence of married Priests the Council all followed his opinion as Socrates relates lib. 1. cap. 8. of his history of the Church and yet the said Paphnutius had no supremacy over the Council Sanderus instances that the Council of Neice in a Letter to the Church of Alexandria mentioned by Theodoretus affirms that all the Brethren of the East are resolved to follow the Church of Rome us the Council and you of Alexandria in the observation of Easter where Sanderus and Bellarmine espy out two things for their advantage the first is follow the second is that Romans is put in the first place before us the Council whereby they prove the authority of the Bishop of Rome above the Council because Romans is put before the Council or us and also because the Brethren of the East are said to follow the Romans But it is answered albeit Romans were put before us or the Council it doth not follow that the Church of Rome hath any authority over the Council being first mentioned in an Epistle doth not
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
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
with the stile of that Age in which Isidorus lived Sixthly it is demonstrat those Epistles are forged not only by the stile but by the matter contained in them It were prolix to mention all we will only note some few sufficiently demonstrating those decretals to be forged First some of them are directed to those who were dead long before as that Epistle of Clement to James in which he writes to him of the death of Peter and Paul but James was dead in the seventh year of Nero as is testified by Eusebius Hegesippus and Hieronymus but Peter and Paul died not till seven years after viz. the fourteenth year of Nero. 2. Anterius in his decretal makes mention of Eusebius Bishop of Alexandria and Felix Bishop of Ephesus but Anterus lived in the beginning of the third Century almost a whole Age before them both 3. Fabianus in his Epistle makes mention of the coming of Novatus to Italy but Cyprian lib. 1. epist 3. affirms that Fabianus came to Italy in the time of Cornelius who lived at another time 4. Marcellus writes a threatning Letter to Maxentius pressing him with the Authority of Clement Bishop of Rome but Maxentius both a Pagan and a Tyrant cared nothing for Clement at all 5. Zephyrinus in his Epistle to the Egyptians affirms that it was against the constitutions of Emperours that Clergy men should be called before the Judge Secular the same is affirmed by Eusebius in his Decretal to the same Aegyptians But in those dayes viz. In the third Century the Emperours were all Pagans and it is ridiculous to affirm that they made such Edicts in favour of Christians who were cruel persecuters of the Christians 6. It s known that many ceremonies came by degrees in the Church and that there were very few ceremonies in the Church the time of those Bishop of Rome but those decretalâ—Epistles makes no mention of the grievous persecutions of the Church in those dayes no not one of them but on the contrary makes mention of the Church as it were in pomp making mention of all those ceremonies as holy vessels of the habit of the Clergy of the Mass of Archbishops Metropolitans Patriarchs none of which things were in the Church in those dayes those Cannons commonly called Apostolick mention indeed Primats but albeit they contain many profitable things yet many learned men among the Papists themselves maintain that they were not made by the Apostles but collected from Cannons of the Council of Antioch and other posterior Councils See Salmasius and Photius Bibliothick cap. 113. We might alledge several other reasons to prove those Epistles forged as their absurd interpetation of Scripture some of them maintaining community of wives c. But those reasons are sufficient since Bellarmine and Barronius seems not to care much for them since Contius Professour at Bruges maintains them to be forged since Aeneas Silvius epist 301. according to Bellarmines supputation 288. expresly affirms that before the Council of Niece there are no Monuments for the Popes Supremacy which he would never have affirmed if he had not believed those Epistles had been forged which ingeminate everywhere the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and yet the said Aeneas Silvius was afterwards Pope himself under the name of Pius second Whence we conclude that those Epistles were unknown to the Ancients And whereas Turrianus objects that Isidorus mentioneth them It is answered he is charged for forging them He objects secondly that Ruffinus turned those three Epistles of Clement but it is answered those Epistles of Clement are very old indeed but they do not prove the Antiquity of the rest The stile of these three Epistles of Clement is different from the stile of those others and although Ruffinus turned them from Greek to Latine it doth not prove they are Authentick He tuâ—ned also his Books of Recognitions which are esteemed Apocryphal by Gratianus Bellarmine and other Doctors of the Church of Rome And this much of those decretal Epistles they alledge testimonies from several other forged Authors in that interval to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval as Abdias Bishop of Babylon is cited by Dorman to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Linus is cited by Coccius for the same reason Clement by Harding viz. his books of recognition Dyonisius Areopagita de divinis nominibus is several times cited by Coccius in Thesauro for the same end but all these Authors or those books now mentioned of those Authors are rejected by Bellarmine or Barronius or Possevinus or Cajetanus or Grocinus or Sixtus Senensis and other lights of the Church of Rome and therefore it is needless to insist upon the disproving them we will only answer one passage falsly attributed to Eusebius or to Hieronymus in his additions to Eusebius and it is this Bellarmine to prove that the Bishop of Rome hath a legislative power and Posnan also thes 131. alledge a passage of Eusebius viz. that lent fast of 40 dayes was instituted by Telesphorus Bishop of Rome who lived in the second Age and this is his first instance But it is answered that Scaliger in his edition of Eusebius demonstrats those cannot be the words of Eusebius because lib. 5. cap. 17. he expresly affirms that Montanus the heretick was the first that prescribed set fasts Secondly because cap. 34. of the same Book Eusebius affirms from Irenaeus that in the time of Victor Bishop of Rome who lived after Telesphorus that the fast of lent was not observed one way some observing one day some two some more c. Bellarmines second instance is that the said Eusebius affirms that the mystery or celebration of the Mystery of the resurrection of the Lords day was first ordained by Pius Bishop of Rome and universally observed in the west But it is answered that Eusebius cap. 22. of the said Book expresly affirms the contrary viz. that it was ordained by the decrees of several Councels neither was it ever generally observed before the Council of Neice whereby it is evident that both the one and the other passage is fraudulently inserted in the works of Eusebius otherwayes Eusebius would contradict himself CHAP. XIV Of the corruptions of Cyprian THere is not a Father of them all of whom they bragg more then of Cyprian to prove the supremacy of the Bishop Rome and yet there is not a Father of them all of which they have lesse reason to bragg as we shewedbefore Barronius tom 1. pag. 129. Let one speak for all saith he in time more ancient in learning more excellent in honour of Martyrdom far exceeding the rest of the Fathers viz. Cyprian and then he cites this following passages out of Cyprian de unitate ecclesiae cap. 3. To Peter our Lord after his resurrection saith feed my sheep and buildeth his Church upon him alone 2. And although after his resurrection he gave alike power to all yet to manifest unity he constitute one Chair
and disposed by his authority the source or fountain of the same beginning of one 3. The rest of the Apostles were that Peter was in equal fellowship of honour and power but the beginning cometh of unity the primacy is given to Peter that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be one and one Chair 4. He that withstandeth and resisteth the Church he that forsaketh Peters Chair upon which the Church is built doth he trust that he is in the Church In these words observe that all the sentences written within a parenthesis are forged and not to be found in the old Manuscripts of Cyprian or in the old printed copies of Cyprian the reason wherefore the said sentences are added to the words of Cyprian is evident because they make Cyprian expresly dispute for the supremacy of Peter but take them away the supremacy of Peter is quite destroyed as may appear to any who will read over these words and omit those forged passages written within a parenthesis If ye demand how those passages came to be added to Cyprians text It is answered that Pius fourth Bishop of Rome called Manutius the famous Printer to Rome to reprint the Fathers he appointed also four Cardinals to see the work done among the rest Cardinal Barromaeus had singular care of Cyprian Manutius himself in his preface of a certain Book to Pius fourth declareth that it was the purpose of the Pope to have them so corrected that there should remain no spot which might infect the minds of the simple with the shew of false Doctrine How they corrected other Fathers shall be declared in the following Books how they corrected Cyprian appears by those words we have now et down which are marked with Parenthesis which being added perverts the whole meaning of Cyprian neither were they content by adding to Cyprian to prevert his meaning other passages of Cyprian which could not be mended by additions or be made to speak for them by inserting sentences unless they made Cyprian speak manifest contradictions those other passages I say they razed quite out of Cyprian in the said Roman Edition of Manutius anno 1564. in which Edition they razed out Eleven or Twelve entire Epistles as 1. 2. 3. 15. 21. 22. 71. 73. 74. 75. 83. 84. 85. 86. It were too prolix to declare for what reasons they razed out all those Epistles the sum is all of them were no great friends to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome nor to the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome anent the perfection of the Scripture We will cite a passage or two out of the 74. and 75. Epistle which will evidently make known wherefore they razed those Epistles surely there must be some great reason since Pamelius himself wisheth those Epistles had never been written What the reason is appears thus The 74. Epistle was written to Pompeius against the Epistle of Stephanus in which ye have these words Stephanus Haereticorum causum contra christianos contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur and a little after Reus in uno videtur reus in omnibus That is Stephanus Bishop of Rome defends the cause of hereticks against the Church who is guilty in one thing he seems to be guilty of all The 75. Epistle was written by Firmilianus to Cyprian in which ye have these words Non intelligit obfuscari à se c. that is Stephanus Bishop of Rome understands not that the truth of the christian Rock is obfuscated by him and in a manner abolished The words of which two Epistles are very prejudicial to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome those Epistles are every where filled with such expressions too prolix to be answered here but these we have mentioned are sufficient to declare what the opinion of Cyprian was concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome In the said 74. Epistle in several places he calls the said Stephanus ignorant arrogant c. insolent impertinent c. in the 75. Epistle Stephanus is called wicked insolent a deserter and betrayer of the truth Likewayes what a friend Cyprian was to the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome appears by the said 74. Epistle where tradition without warrand of Scripture is called by him Vetustas Erroris antiquity of Error and affirms that all is to be rejected for such which is not found in Scripture so it concern matters of Faith whereby it appears that Cyprian incurres the Anathema of the council of Trent And this we have shewed how they have corrupted Cyprian as well in adding to him to make him speak what he thought not and when that would not serve the turn except they made him speak contradictions they therefore also cutted out his tongue what reason they had so to do we have given some instances many such other might be given but it would be prolix and these are sufficient Now let us hear how they defend those Impostures and first for the razing out of those Epistles Gretserus answers Pamelius restored them in his edition of Cyprian But it is replyed that this is as much as to say that by the testimony of Pamelius Pope Pius Fourth and those four Cardinals whom he appointed to correct the works of Cyprian are notorius impostors It is a new sort of reasoning that they did no wrong in razing out those Epistles of Cyprian because Pamelius restored them Secondly they defend those additions by an old copy of the Abbey of Cambron 2. By a coppy fetched out of Bavaria 3. And by an other old coppy of Cardinal Hosius and so Gretserus the Jesuit defends the last three additions But it is answered that the first addition upon him alone is the most important of all intimating that upon Peter alone the Church was built which is the main Basis of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome but Gretserus the Jesuit who defends this corruption of Cyprian doth not affirm that those words upon him alone are found in any of these three Copies he only affirms that the second addition one Chair and the third the Primacy is given to Peter are found in those old Copies Secondly it is replyed that that Copy of Cardinal Hosius is only mentioned but it was never yet seen If Hosius had any such Copy how comes he left not such a Monument of antiquity to Posterity As for the other two copies of Cambron and Bavaria it is a ridiculous business to object their Authority against the Authority not only of all the printed Copies of Cyprian before that of Manutius but also against all the Manuscripts of Cyprian found in the most famous Bibliothicks of Christendom and the Vatican it self and whereas Gretserus affirms that perhaps the Wicklephian Hereticks corrupted all those Ancient Manuscripts it is a ridiculous objection how could those Hereticks get access to the Libraries of all Princes Universities and the Popes own Library to corrupt the works of Cyprian without
being perceived It is far more like that the Monks of Cambron and Bavaria corrupted those two copies If the Jesuits have not forged those two copies also since there are innumerable proofs and testimonies as shall be proved in the following Books Yea and of Barronius himself that the Monks of several Monastries have corrupted and forged innumerable passages of Antiquity especially in the seventh Age when the contest was hot with the Grecians about the Supremacy The truth is it is believed that there are no such Copies at all as that of Cambron and Bavaria and that those Cardinals appointed by Pius fourth to oversee the Edition of Manutius added those words of themselves which is very like for two reasons First because it is known that the Indices expurgatorii have added sentences and razed out sentences at their pleasure in many Antient Copies without the pretext of any other Copy Secondly their impudence was as great in razing out of those twelve Epistles of Cyprian as if they had added those four passages And since they openly did the first it is very probable yea more then probable they did the last We have shewed how Gretserus defends the first three additions The Fourth is he that forsaketh Peters Chair upon which the Church is built it seems that either those three Copies of Gretserus hath not these words or else if they have Pamelius doth not much regard their Authority who in his Edition of Cyprian hath left them out It is to be observed that the second and third Addition are of no such moment as the first and this fourth and the razing out of these twelve Epistles of Cyprian Gretserus defends only the second and the third the First he meddleth not with at all to the Fourth he answereth that Pamelius hath left it out and therefore it was not added fraudently But we answer as we did before that Pamelius in leaving out those words declares those four Cardinal Impostors who were appointed by Pius the fourth to oversee the Edition of Manutius whose Copy is followed in the reprinted works of Cyprian at Rome Paris Antwerp c. And thus we have minuted all which is of any moment alledged pro and con for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the death of Cyprian where we have proved by the testimonies of Ignatius Dionysius and Cyprian himself that there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop in that whole Interval Bellarmine braggs much that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church was an article of Faith in all Ages since the dayes of the Apostles But since we find no monuments in that interval next the Ages of the Apostles that there was any such Article of Faith but on the contrary since we have produced testimonies and invincible ones that there was no such Article of Faith it is evident that the said succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church is a meer cheat For if there had been any such thing the Churches of the East and West in the times of Victor and the Churches of Africa in the times of Stephanus would never have neglected the excommunication of Victor and Stephanus and died unreconciled to the Church of Rome Neither would the middle Church of Rome have placed them in the Catalogue of Saints and Martyres if it had been believed as an Article of Faith that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter Jure divino in the Monarchy of the Church as is believed now in the Modern Roman Church as an article of Faith necessar to Salvation And thus we have concluded the first Part of the grand Impostor and have proved by Testimonies of Antiquity notwithstanding all the bragging of our Adversaries that all Antiquity is for them That the Antients Councills and Fathers believed neither the Supremacy of Peter nor that Peter was Bishop of Rome nor that the Bishop of Rome succeded to him in the Monarchy of the Church and consequently did not believe any necessar communion with the Church of Rome To prove which they bring nothing from Antiquity of the first three Centuries which is not perverted mutilated falsly translated or forged In the Second Part shall be proved they have as little shelter for their Tenets from the death of Cyprian 260. to 604. when Bonifacius the third was made oecumenick Bishop by Phocas FINIS Partis primae Errata of the PREFACE Page 9. line 17. for given Phocas read given by Phocas p. 10 l. 3. for hom r. whom p. 10. l. 29. for add there reasons r. add other reasons p. 13. l. 27. for Stephanus r. Adrianus p. 23. l. 32. for Du plesis r. Du plessis p. 28r l. 20. for lib. 2. r. lib. r. p. 29. l. 27. for suppositious r. supposititious p. 36. l. 3. for related r. resuted p. 34. l. 7. for Testimonies of antiquity at all r. Testimonies of antiquity of any moment Errata lib. 1. Page 17. line 28. for antiquitated r. antiquated p. 22. l. 23. for lib. 4. r. part 2. lib. 2. p. 23. l. 32. for lib. 5. r. part 3. lib. 2. p. 23. l. 32. for Hom 55. 5. r. Hom 5. 5. p. 36. l. 13. for lib. 3. r. part 2. lib. 1. p. 36. l. 15. for lib 4. r. part 2. lib. 2. p. 36. l. 16 for lib. 5. r. part 3. lib. 2. p. 39. l. 17. for of Peter r. to Peter p. 40. l. 22. for confidence r. confidents p. 49. l. 7. for mundos r. multos p. 55 l. 30. for colunas r. columnas p. 56. l. 17. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 70. l. â—5 for but to whom also r. but to whom also p. 77. l. 4. for Hilarius de viâ—ctad r. Hilarius de trinitat p. 101. l. 21. for Paul 5. r. Paul 4. Page 189. line 22. for were proved to be head r. be called head p. 19â— l. 16. for Cyrullus r. Cyrillus p. 199. l. 8. for our adversaries r. whereas our adversaries p. 200. l. 16. for Apostolus r. Apostolis after page 171 Immediatly followeth 187. which is a mistake in the Press nothing is wanting Errata lib. 2. Page 8. l. 12. for lib 5. r. part 3. lib 1. p. 16. l. 5. for distinction r. definition p. 86. l. 2. for constitute one Chair r. constitute one Chair p. 87. l. 22. for causum r. causam