requires rather to catch the Partridge in the nest in a compendious Treatise then to hunt her in the Woods Fields and Mountains of vast and volumnious Authors though never so learned If any affirm that I play not the Clerk faithfully in minuting this Disput let him put me to it either in privat or publick and if I do not vindicate my self let me be esteemed an Impostor and infamous for forgery and lest any think I cheat in citations I am able to justify that I make use of no passages but those which are acknowledged by both sides where the Disput is about the true meaning of the words and which not seldom falls out whether the testimony be forged or not The whole Disput consists in the examination of those three Questions 1. Whether the Apostle Peter was ordained by our Savior Visible Head of the Church under himself or subordinat Monarch of the Church 2. If at the command of Christ the said Apostle Peter fixed the seat of his particular Bishoprick at Rome 3. If the Bishop of Rome by Divine institution succeeds to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church If the affirmitives of those three questions be true without all question Communion with the Church of Rome is necessar unto Salvation and the Religion of Protestants is a new sprung-up Heresie But if any one of those three Affirmatives be false much more all three it is as certain that the Faith of the Modern Roman Church is an idolatrous and heretical novelty none can succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church if Peter was not himself Monarch of the Church Neither can the Bishop of Rome succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church albeit Peter were Monarch of the Church himself except Peter were also Bishop of Rome Again albeit Peter had been both Monarch of the Church and Bishop of Rome it doth not follow that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter by Divine institution in the Monarchy of the Church unless it be made out otherwise by Scripture or unquestionable Antiquity Calvin lib. 4. Inst cap. 6. num 8. rightly observes that Peter might have had some extraordinary priviledge in his own person to which none succeeded after him The first two questions or Bishoprick of Peter are disputed in this first Book the third question in the following Books The Monarchy of Peter or his universal Bishoprick is disputed unto chap. 22. his particular Bishoprick of Rome from thence to the end His Monarchy is disputed three ways First from his institution unto chap. 15. Secondly from his prerogatives and carriage unto chap. 19 Thirdly by testimonies of Fathers from thence to chap. 22. His institution again is asserted unto chap. 11. and assaulted from thence unto chap. 15. His institution is asserted by three testimonies of Scripture and assaulted by as many The three testimonies by which it is asserted are first Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church The second is Matthew 16. 19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon Earth shal be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon Earth shal be loosed in Heaven The third passage is John 21. 15 16 17. Feed my Lambs Feed my Sheep Those three testimonies are the main Foundation of the faith of the Roman Church If Peter be not ordained Monarch of the Church in those three testimonies he is ordained Monarch of the Church no where and if he be ordained Monarch of the Church no where the Bishop of Rome did not succeed to him in the Monarchy of the Church and if the Bishop of Rome did not succeed to him in the Monarchy of the Church the faith of the Modern Roman Church is a cheat communion with it is so far from being necessar unto Salvation that Salvation cannot consist with it we speak not of Gods secret providence ordinarily This sort of reasoning is approved by Bellarmin himself in the preface of his disput de Pont. Rom. where he calls that controversie of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome a debate de summârei Christianae that is whether Christianity can subsist or not By Christianity or Christian Faith or Christian Religion no question he means the doctrin of the Modern Church of Rome and since in that expression he grants that it cannot subsist without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome he must of necessity grant that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome having no ground in Scripture or Antiquity the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome is warrantable by neither which is further confirmed because in the same place he affirms that the Christian Faith without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Is like a house without a foundation a body without a head Moon-shine without the Sun which is as much to say as without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome the doctirne of the Modern Church of Rome is nothing at all since it is notorious that a house without a foundation a body without a head Moon-light without the Sun are things impossible Since it is so then if the Ancients Fathers and Councils did not believe that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church in those three fore-mentioned passages of Scripture questionless they did not believe the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and if they did not believe the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome it followeth of necessity that they did not believe any necessar communion with the Church of Rome notwithstanding all the braggings of our adversaries to the contrair boasting that the whole current of Antiquity is for them Whether their assertion be true or not will appear by the following enquiry viz. What were the opinions of the Ancients concerning those three passages of Scripture pretended by our adversaries for the institution of Peters Monarchy By which enquiry will appear also by infallible consequence what opinion the Ancients had of necessar communion with the Church of Rome So it may be affirmed that the examination of those three passages is a compendious disput of the whole controversies which we have with the Church of Rome CHAP. II. Tues Petrus Disputed by Scripture and Reason THe fiâ—st passage then proving the institution of Peter to be Monarch of the Church is from Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church This is the place in which our Adversaries have most confidence It may be safely said that if Peter be not ordained Monarch of the Church in those words he is no where else If any would yet have a more compendious Disput of the controversies it is to be found in this passage alone For if in the opinion of Antiquity Peter was not ordained Monarch of the Church or promised to be ordained Monarch of the Church in this passage questionless they neither believed the Supremacy of Peter nor of the Bishop of Rome nor necessar communion with
and all the Apostles to teach that doctrine which he had revealed unto themselves immediatly that is as he had fed them so they should feed others beside themselves Bosius de signis comes in with a notable sophism which is this our Savior saith he saith not to Peter Feed my sheep hereafter but in the present tense Feed now my sheep But when our Savior spake these words he had no other sheep but the Apostles Ergo saith he our Savior commands Peter to feed the Apostles But it is answered we retort the argument just as we did before our Savior Matthew 28. 19. affirmeth Teach ye all Nations in the present tense but there were no other Christians to be taught then but the Apostles if Bozius subsume right Ergo the Apostles there are commanded to teach Peter which he will not easily grant It is answered Secondly there is no difficulty in the words at all the meaning of our Savior is no other then that Peter being by these words ordained an Apostle or restored to his Apostleship according to some Fathers is injoyned to put his function in practice with the first occasion in the same sense that the other Apostles Matthew 28. 19. are injoyned to go and teach all nations who were subjected to them by right of their Apostleship But in this place John 21. to affirm that the other Apostles were subjected to Peter by reason of his Apostleship is petitio principii which we affirm to be notoriously false CHAP. X. Of the Sophistry of Gregorius De Valentia and the Candide Confession of Cardinal Cusanus VVE have prolixly disputed those three passages of Scripture pretended by our Adversaries to prove that the Apostle Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church by Christ we will conclude the disput with two passages the one of Gregorius De Valentia that famous Jesuit the other of Cusanus that no less famous Cardinal The ingenuity of the last will be the more perspicuous by the impudent Sophistry of the first which is this If our Savior saith he had said to Peter I will not build the Church upon thee as upon a Rock or thou art not the Rock upon which I will build my Church or I will not give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven what thou binds on earth shal not be bound in Heaven and what thou loosest on earth shal not be loosed in Heaven Feed thou not my sheep without all question the Hereticks would conclude that our Savior did not ordain the Apostle Peter Head and Monarch of the Church and therefore since our Savior said unto Peter Thou art the Rock upon which I will build my Church I will give unto thâ—â— the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven what thou binds on earth shal be bound in Heaven and what thou loosest on earth shal be loosed in Heaven And since our Savior injoyned him to feed his sheep therefore saith he It cannot be denyed that our Savior in these three passages ordained the Apostle Peter Monarch of the Church Because if the negation of those things conclude that Peter was not ordained Head of the Church by Christ the affirmation of them concluds he was having thus reasoned he falls to the commendation of his own acumen and of his invincible Argument affirming not without laughter and astonishment of those who read him Hic nisivel conscientia reclamante vel praecipitante inscitia incogitantia nihil ab adversariis responderi posse certissimus sane sum That is I am certainly perswaded saith he That nothing can be answered to this argument by our adversaries except they be blinded either with ignorance or fight against the light of their own conscience When I read this argument of Valentia as it is related by Chameir tom 2. lib. 11. cap. 19. num 11. I believed that Chameir had mistaken him or else that there was vitium Typographi or a fault of the Printer but when I consulted Valentia himself in his Analysis lib. 7. cap. 7. and his Commentarys upon Thomas I found to my astonishment that he so played the fool and then bragged of his madness This argument of his is a most ridiculous Sophism and I cannot but admire that any learned man such as Valentia was not ashamed to make use of such an Argument much more to brag of it as invincible The ground of his argument consist in a Topick Axiom of his own divising against all the rules of Logick viz. If the negation of a certain particular conclude any thing not to be then the affirmation of the said particular coucluds the said thing to be as one would reason thus if the Apostle Peter was not a Pastor of the Church he was not Oecumenick Bishop Ergo if he was a Pastor of the Church he was Oecumenick Bishop which argument would prove any Pastor of the Church or all Pastors of the Church to be Oecumenick Bishops So this axiom of Valentia is the foundation of a Syllogism consisting of affirmatives in the second figure as one would reason thus An Oecumenick Bishop is a Doctor or Pastor of the Church Peter and Paul were Doctors and Pastors of the Church Ergo Peter and Paul were Oecumenick Bishops Who sees not this reasoning to be childish sophistry how can any learned man brag that such an argument as this is invincible It is notorious if we endeavor to reason according to that Axiom of Valentia We must either reason thus in the second figure where all the Propositions are true but the argument consequent because consisting of Affirmatives or else if we reason in the first figure the Proposition or Major is notoriously false viz. All Pastors of the Church are Oecumenick Bishops Peter and Paul are Pastors of the Church Ergo They are Oecumenick Bishops So it appears that the Axiom of Valentia is false viz. when any thing is disproved by the negation of a particular It is proved by the affirmation of it For although it follow Simon Magus was no Pastor of the Church Ergo he was not Oecumenick Bishop Yet it doth not follow Gregorius de Valentia was a Doctor or Pastor of the Church Ergo he was Oecumenick Bishop And thus we have retexed that invincible argument of Gregorius de Valentia viz. If Peter did not feed the flock of Christ and had not the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven it follows necessarily that he was not Oecumenick Bishop Ergo if he did feed the sheep of Christ and had the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven It follows that he was Oecumenick Bishop Which argument concluds alike with this If Bucephalus be not a man he cannot be a Jesuite Ergo if Luther be a man he must be a Jesuite and thus much of Valentia We have seen how our Adversaries dispute those three Foundations of the Monarchy of Peter and consequently of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome upon which the truth or falshood of the Roman faith depends since without it the faith
Church of Rome depends upon the fantastick gloss of a Jesuit contradicting all Antiquity and inconsistent with it self And first it is against Antiquity because they cannot give one instance from ancient Interpreters Councils and Fathers giving this gloss upon those words of our Savior Upon this Rock I will build my Church neither was this gloss ever heard of or so much as dreamed of before the times of the Jesuits after the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was openly assaulted Secondly this gloss is contradictory to it self By it Bellarmin intangles himself many ways and first he grants that all the Apostles were equally Rocks and Foundations with Peter if the word Foundation be taken in the first two senses But all the Fathers who expone the Apostles to be foundations and Peter among the rest did not so much as dream of any other way why Peter or they are called Foundations but only of the first two viz. in regard that they all alike founded Churches preaching that doctrine revealed unto them all alike immediatly from God and consequently foundation in Bellarmins third sense is a dream of his own by which he may well confirm his disciples he will never convert Proselytes but expose himself to the ludibrious taxings of his adversaries in making his own groundless fiction the main Basis of the supremacy of Peter consequently of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and consequently of the Religion of the Modern Church of Rome to which all must be conform under pain of damnation according to that new article coined by the Council of Trent adding to that Article of the Creed Catholick Church making it Catholick Roman Church Secondly we have shewed That this third way of Foundation is a fiction of Bellarmins not dreamed of by the Ancients which although it be sufficient to refute it yet it refutes it self by many contradictions And first of other Popish Doctors It gives unto all the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis plenitude of power in which it contradicts the Theologick Dictionary of Altenstaing approved by authority of the Church of Rome In which Dictionar Plenitudo potestatis is defined not only to be ordinis but also Jurisdictionis conferred by Christ only upon Peter and his Successors and that now formalitâ—â— subjective it is only in the Bishop of Rome which is expresly contradicted by Bellarmin who attributs it to all the Apostles pressed by the evident testimonies of those Fathers seeing the gloss of that Dictionar to be against all Antiquity Thirdly Though Bellarmin be more sound then the gloss of that Dictionar in attributing to all the Apostles that plenitâ—de of power yet he contradicts himself in giving to Peter a greater power then they had it fleeth the edge of the quickest reason to conceive any power greater then plenitude of power and therefore it is a flat contradiction to affirme that although all the Apostles have plenitude of power yet they depend upon Peter as their head which is as much to say as all the Apostles have that power then which none can have a greater and yet Peter hath a greater power then they Lastly Bellarmin affirms that Peter hath plenitude of power as ordinar Pastor the other Apostles as extraordinar and Legats to Peter in which he intangles himself in a twofold contradiction For to omit that distinction of ordinar and extraordinar Pastor amongst the Apostles is a fiction of his own the whole stream of Antiquity avowing all the Apostles to be extraordinar Pastors Peter as well as the rest First he makes the other Apostles above Peter since extraordinar Pastors are preferred to ordinar Pastors the Apostle Paul enumerating the hierarchy of the Church Ephes 4 puts extraordinar Pastors in the first place viz. Apostâ—es Prophets and Evangelists before Pastors and Doctors and so he contradicts himself in affirming that extraordinar Pastors depend upon Peter as their head whom he maketh ordinar Pastor Secondly He contradicts himself in making the other Apostles Legats to Peter and to omit he doth so without any ground having no authority but his own assertion he intangleth himself in his reason for he hath no other reason wherefore the other Apostles are Legats to Peter but only because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle in the original imports one who is sent in commission which is all one with a Legat. But Bellarmin will not deny that Peter in that sense is a Legat also because he is an Apostle and so Peter will be Legat to Peter which is perfect none-sense and contradiction Bellarmin borrowed this distinction of ordinar and extraordinar from Sanderus that famous English Jesuit who with his Country-man Stapleton invented more new distinctions to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome then all the Doctors of the Church beside Sanderus proves Peter to be ordinar and the other Apostles to be extraordinar lib. 6. cap. 9. of his Monarchy Thus Ordinar is called so from order but in order that is first which is most ancient since nothing can be first before that which is first but Peter was the first upon whom Christ promised to build his Church and to give him the power of the keys Ergo they were given to Peter alone For albeit afterwards they were given to all the Apostles yet Christ did not revock what he had given first to Peter and the fore Peter is ordinar Pastor and the other Apostles extraordinar But it is answered This argument of Sanderus presuppons many things as granted which are either uncertain or notoriously false Secondly albeit his suppositions were true they do not conclude his assertion that Peter is ordinar Pastor having Jurisdiction over the rest as extraordinar He who would see how that Sophistry of Sanderus is retexed at large let him read Chameir tom 2. lib. 11. cap. 6. num 27. to the end of the chapter the substance of which is this First He suppons that as Ordinar which is first that extraordinar which is last But ordinar is taken among Divines speaking of Church Officers for that Office which is perpetual extraordinar for that which is for a time So in in the Old Testament Priests and Levits were ordinar Prophets extraordinar Officers and under the New Testament Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and Doctors are ordinar Officers Apostles Evangelists extraordinar Secondly Though the distinction of Sanderus in that sense of ordinar and extraordinar were granted his assertion is uncertain yea rather notoriously false he suppons that Peter first obtained the power of binding loosing and feeding the Flock of Christ but that is uncertain for these words of Christ exhibit nothing to Peter for the present but only promise to give him that power of the Keys and to build his Church upon him neither was that promise made to Peter alone but to all the Apostles as partly hath been proved already but more fully shal be proved cap. 6. and 9. and therefore the supposition of Sanderus is uncertain and false
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
Jurisdiction of Peter alone over the Church Their second reason is this Because the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others besides Peter which they prove First by Scripture next by Fathers The passages of Scripture are two The first is Mat. 18. 18. Verily I say unto you Whatsoever ye shal bind on earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye loose on earth shal be loosed in heaven The second place is in Joh. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins yel retain they are retained Bellarmin answers That those two places now cited have not the same meaning with Matthew 16. 19. He grants that the difficulty is somewhat pressing of Matthew 18. 18. but there is no difficulty at all saith he in John 20. 23. which he proves by three Arguments The first is this in Matthew 16. 19. The Keyes are promised to Peter without any particular determination but in John they are determinated to the forgiveness of sins but binding and loosing may be exercised in other objects then in pronounccing men guilty of sin or absolving them from sin as in making of laws and dispensing with them But it is answered That the Fathers expounding those words What ever ye shal bind on earth c. Matthew 16. 19. referrs that place only to the binding and loosing of sin So Augustinus tractat 124. on John Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo Claves ab eo regni Coelorum accepit in Petro id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata In which words he expresly affirms That the keyes committed to Peter consisted in the binding and loosing of sin Secondly Theophylactus on Matthew 16. expresly affirms What was given to Peter in that place was given to all the Apostles John 20. He saith indeed They were promised only to Peter Matthew 16. Christ directing his speech only to Peter but they were given to all If ye ask when saith he it is answered when he said Whose soever sins ye forgive alluding to John 20. Whereas Bellarmin affirms That the power of the keyes consists also in making of Laws he saith nothing at all except he prove that Peter had more authority then the other Apostles in that particular of making Laws Bellarmins second Argument to prove the same thing is not promised to Peter Matthew 16. which is given to the other Apostles John 20. is this in Matthew it is said to Peter Whomsoever thou shalt bind c. But it is said to the other Apostles in John Whosesoever sins ye retain c. But to bind is more then to retain for to retain is to leave a man in the same condition ye find him but to bind is to impose new bonds upon him by excommunication interdicting and Law But it is answered This Argument of Bellarmins is of no moment because according to the constant phrase of Scripture Forgiving of sins and loosing of sins are all one Ergo their opposits retaining of sin binding a sinner are all one Since we bind men for their sins only it is necessar that the sin being forgiven they are loosed or else that they are still retained if they be not loosed But it is absurd to affirm that anys sins are forgiven and yet retained for Bellarmin seems to speak of that distinction viz. remission of fault and remission of punishment that is the fault may be forgiven but not the punishment But this distinction is vain and belongs nothing to this place Bellarmin seems to import that the Prerogative of Peter is to have power of remitting any of them or both of them which the other Apostles have not wherein he is topped first by Cyrillus upon Matthew 16. who attributs the full power of binding and loosing to the whole Church which he proves in that instance of the incestuous Corinthian Secondly he is topped by Aquinas affirming that every Minister binds in refusing the Sacrament of the Church to those who are unworthy and looseth when he admits them to it Thirdly the Interlinear Gloss upon Matthew 16. affirms that sins are forgiven and retained by two keyes of power and remission Bellarmins third argument proving that John 20. and Matthew 16. are not alike is this because saith he in John 20. Power of forgiving sins by the Sacrament of Baptism or Penitence is only conferred upon the Apostles which he proveth by the authority of Chrysostom and Cyrillus upon this place John 20. and also of Hieronymus Quest 9. ad Hedibia But it is answered First Those Fathers affirm indeed that Power of forgiving of sins in Baptism is given in this place but it is false which Bellarmin affirms that it is only given and no more For forgiving of sins is but the half of the Power conferred by Christ upon the Apostles in this place since retaining of sins is also given unto them Secondly Fathers referr to Baptism that loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. So Cyprianus epistle 73. where he disputs that forgiving of sins in Baptism is proper to the Pastors of the Church which he proves first by Peter who got that power Matthew 16. 19. and also by the other Apostles to whom our Savior said Whose sins ye forgive c. John 20. Yea Gaudentius in the first day of his ordination expresly affirms that the gates of the Kingdom of heaven are opened no other wayes then by Baptism and absolution and thus much of the similitude of John 20. with Matthew 16. By what we have said it appears that Bellarmin brings nothing but Sopistry to prove that the places are not alike He grants that there is great difficulty to prove the dissimilitude of Matthew 16. 19. and 18. 18. Since binding and loosing is given to all the Apostles in the last place as well as in the first to Peter and not only retaining as in John 20. which Bellarmin affirmed to be a demonstration that John 20. and Matthew 16. were not alike places viz. that retaining and forgiving was only given to all the Apostles John 20 which was not so much as binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. Nevertheless Bellarmin endeavors to prove that Matthew 16. 19. and 18. 18. are unlike places although in the last binding and loosing be given to all the Apostles as well as to Peter in the first Because that binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. is of greater authority then that given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. 18 His argument is this which I believe he understands not himself In Matthew 18. saith he Nothing is given to the Apostles at all but only it is promised to them and explained what power they should have afterward which he prove by two reasons The first is That they were not yet Priests or Pastors or Bishops when Christ made them that promise Matthew 18. 18. but only after the resurrection Secondly because those words Whomsoever ye shal bind and loose c. Matthew 18. are the paralels of those said
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
of the Church of Rome as Bellarmin himself confesseth in the preface of his books de Pont. Rom. Is a Body without a head a house without a foundation Moon-shine without the Sun Which is as much to say as the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome having no ground in Scripture and Antiquity the faith of the Modern Roman Church is no faith at all What ground the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or of Peter hath in these three fore-mentioned passages of Scripture from Matthew 16. 28. Matthew 16. 19. John 21. 15 16 17. in the opinion of the Ancients We have prolixly shewed by which appears what little shelter our Adversaries have in Antiquity of which they brag so much They brag also of Unity or concord among themselves and therefore it will not be unpleasing to set down the opinion of Cardinal Cusanus as great an Antiquary as learned a man of as much Intergrity as any whomever the Church of Rome produced concerning these three foresaid passages of Scripture upon which the Roman faith is founded His words lib. 2. cap. 13. concord Cathol Are these following Nihil enim dictum est ad Petrum quod etiam alijs dictum non sit nonne sicut Petro dictum est quodcunque ligaveris ita alijs est dictum quemcunque ligaveritis Et quanquam Petro dictum est Tu es Petrus Si Petrus per Petram lapis fundamenti Ecclesiae intelligi deheret tunc secundùm S. Hieronymum ita similiter alij Apostoli fuerunt lapides Apoc. 21 Et sicut dictum est Petro Pasce Oves tamen ista Pastura est in verbo exemplo quae praecipitur alijs Apostolis ite in mundum universum c. It is Englished thus Nothing was said to Peter which was not said to the other Apostles as it was said unto Peter What ever thou shalt binde c. Was it not also said to the rest Whom soever ye shal binde c And although it was said unto Peter Thou art Peter if Peter be signified by the Rock as a stone of the foundation of the Church then according to Hieronymus the other Apostles were also foundation stones Apoc. 21. And as it was said to Peter Feed my Sheep nevertheless that feeding consists in teaching and example which is injoyned to the other Apostles also in these words Go ye teaching all Nations And thus much Cusanus in which words although a Cardinal yet he shews himself a Protestant in the exposition of these places which are the chief basis of the Modern Roman faith and he proves his exposition by Scripture and Antiquity Which is as much to say that in his opinion to wrest these three passages to prove the institution of Peter Monarch of the Church is against both Scripture and Antiquity Yea in an other place viz. dist in novo 24. quest 1. he expresly affirms That it is most certain that Peter got no more power from Christ then the other Apostles his words are Sed scimus quod Petrus nihil plus potestatis à Christo accepit alijs Apostalis and because they distinguish Equality of Order from Equality of Jurisdiction that is all the Apostles had equal power of Order but not of Jurisdiction And whereas Secondly they distinguish mediate power from immediate power behold their Unity yet in both these distinctions Franciscus de Victoria according to Canus loc theol lib. 12. cap. 1. the learnedst Divine of Spain Relect. 2. quest 2. conclus 3. 4. hath these words Potestatem Apostoli receperunt immediatè à Christo quod pro certo mihi videtur pronunciandum Haec est apertè sententia Cypriani epist de unitate Ecclesiae hoc erant caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus nec audienda est glossa dicens Hoc non intelligi de potestatis plenitudine ut patet apud Cyprianum Quod pro certo mihi videtur pronunciandum In which words he not only affirmeth That all the Apostles had their power immediately from Christ but also alike power immediatly from Christ reprehending that ordinar distinction of the Roman Church viz. That all the Apostles although they had their power immediately from Christ yet not secundum plenitudinem potestatis which he proves by that passage of Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae affirming What ever Peter was the other Apostles were the same of alike power and dignity with him And thus much of these three famous passages of Scripture Matthew 16. 18. and 19. and John 21. v. 15 16 17. all the grounds which these of the Church of Rome have to prove that the blessed Apostle Peter was ordained by our Savior visible Monarch of the Church or Head of the Church under himself CHAP. XI Of first Peter Fifth verse Vindicated ALthough Protestants be not oblieged by law of Disputation to prove a negative or that Peter was not ordained Oecumenick Bishop by Christ it being enough for them to refute these arguments of our Adversaries endeavoring to prove he was yet since the Spirit of God fore-seeing that the supremacy of Peter would be the pretended foundation of that Kingdom of Anti-Christ hath recorded several passages in Scripture expresly inhibiting and militating against that function of Visible Head and Oecumenick Bishop Therefore these passages ought not to be neglected since they are recorded in Scripture for our instruction but on the contrair diligently examined and vindicated from the perplexed sophistry of our Adversaries Their offensive sophistry in those three places which we have already disputed was very great their defensive in these three following is no less But in a fourth place claimed by both sides most admirable Our Adversaries pretended three arguments to prove the institution of Peters Monarchy of the Church First Because the Church was built upon him Secondly Because the keys of Heaven were promised to him Thirdly Because our Savior directed these words to him Feed my Sheep The Protestants disput against the supremacy of Peters institution by Christ by three arguments also The first is because all Domination is forbidden in Church-Officers The second is because there is no Head in the Church but only Christ The third is because the Apostles puts more persons then one in the first or highest place of the Hierarchy of the Church The first argument then is this All dominion is forbidden in the Church but the institutiou of Peters Monarchy of the Church or an Oecumenick Bishop inferrs domination Ergo the office of an Oecumenick Bishop is forbidden in the Church The Minor is proved by 1. Peter 5. 2. and 3. Feed the Flock of God which dependeth upon you caring for it not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind not as though ye were Lords over Gods heritage but that ye may be ensamples to the Flock Sanderus lib. 6. cap. 1. Of his Monarchy seems to deny the Major viz. That an Oecumenick Bishop inferrs domination Affirming it inferrs only Primacy but he is abandoned by all the Doctors of
the Church of Rome since it cannot be denyed that the Bishop of Rome hath domination and as shal immediately be proved Tyranick domination And therefore all the Doctors of the Church of Rome distinguish viz. that Tyranick domination is only forbidden 1. Peter 5. they deny that the domination of an Oecumenick Bishop is Tyranical But it is replyed First that all domination is forbidden and not only Tyranical domination Secondly the domination of an Oecumenick Bishop is tyranical as it is now excercised by the Bishop of Rome Haius our Countrey-man disput lib. 1. answers that Peter 1. 5. forbidds only tyrannical domination which he proves by the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Apostle in the said place which evermore imports tyrannical domination as the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to exercise dominion lawfully But he is mistaken Both these verbs are used promiscuously in Scripture for the same both signifying lawful dominion or exercising dominion lawfully as appears by comparing Matthew 20. 25. and Mark 10. 42. where the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used speaking how the Kings of the Gentiles exercise dominion over their Subjects But Luke 22. 25. speaking of the same Lording he useth the other Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereby it appears that these two Greek verbs signify both one sort of ruling which is lawful and not the one of them used by Peter 1. 5. signifyeth tyrannical domination Since none will deny that the ruling or domination of the Kings of the Gentiles may be lawful domination Which is further confirmed because the Septuagints speaking of lawful domination in many places useth the same Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made use of by Peter 1. 5. 3. as Psalm 72. 8. and 110. 2. and Genesis 1. 28. other innumerable places might be added but these are sufficient It is answered Secondly Although it were granted that tyrannical domination were only forbidden Peter 1. 5. yet it quite overthrowes an Oecumenick Bishop Or the domination now exercised by the Bishop of Rome then which no greater tyranny can be imagined since he takes upon himself supream dominion 1. In Spirituals 2. In Temporals 3. Over Souls departed 4. Over Angels 5. He takes upon him titles proper to God himself 6. Hears blasphemous comparisons of himself with Christ made to himself by others not only not punishing these blaspheming Parasytâ— but also hearing them patiently and rewarding them These six particulars seem incredible notwithstanding that they are the doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome and particular Church of Rome the infallibility of which Bellarmin with great animosity endeavors to demonstrate lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. cap. 4. appears by what followeth tracing these six particulars in order And first He assumes to himself Infallibility in Cathedra that is Teaching the whole Church he cannot err which is most abominable tyranny since under the pain of Heresie we are bound to believe a Pope if he shal teach Heresie They strive to elude this Because a Pope cannot teach Heresie to the whole Church Which assertion of theirs is false as appears by these following reasons First It is granted by them all that Popes may be most wicked men yea and Magicians But it is madness to affirm that men living in paction with the Devil cannot err teaching the whole Church Secondly It is evident by History and confessed by Barronius himself Anno 538. num 20. and Liberatus breviar cap. 22. that Vigilius Bishop of Rome obtained that Bishoprick from the Empress Theodora and from Belisarius General to Justinianus the Emperor by promising to the Empress to cass and abrogat the Council of Chalcedon to establish by authority the Eutychian Heresie and by promising gold to the said Belisarius and likewise that he wrote several Epistles to several persons confirming them in the Eutychian Heresie But it is impudence to deny that any entring to the Bishoprick of Rome by such means can be infallible in teaching the Church Thirdly They who affirm and teach that a Bishop of Rome is infallible in Cathedra fights against reason common sense and the light of all History by which it appears that several Popes have not only been condemned by other Popes and general Councils for Hereticks but also for teaching Heresie Of which we shal give many instances part 3. lib. 2. tedious to be inserted here we will only mention Honorius Bishop of Rome who was condemned as an Heretick by the sixth General Council act 12. 13. by the seventh General Council in the last â—ct by the eight General Council act 7. And likewise it appears by the records of the said Councils that the said Honorius was declared an Heretick by three Bishops of Rome Agatho Leo second and Adrianus second and lest they think to escape this difficulty by distinguishing as they use to do in such cases that Honorius taught Heresie as a private person and not in Cathedra It is evident by the 12. and 13. Act of the sixth Council that the said Council condemned two decretal Epistles of the said Honorius as Heretical But none will deny that Popes in their decretals teach the whole Church Alphonsus de castro lib. 1. cap. 4. page 20. concluds Calestinus Bishop of Rome taught Heresie because he had read Heretical Doctrine in an old decretal Epistle of his Likewise of late Pope John 23. was declared an Heretick by the Council of Constance and Eugenius 4. by the Council of Basil By which is sufficiently proved The tyrannical dominion of the Bishops of Rome in Spirituals since all of that Church are bound to believe that as an Article of Faith which he teacheth although he should teach Heresie call good evil and evil good As appears by that blasphemous gloss In caput quanto personam de translatione Episcopi in decretalibus Where it is affirmed that none should presume to call in question what the Pope doth Since he hath an Heavenly arbitriment can change the nature of things make Justice Injustice Injustice Justice Which if it be not tyrannical domination none is imaginable the words of the gloss are these following Papa habet coeleste arbitrium ideo naturam rerum mutare potest substantialia unius rei applicando alij de nullo posse aliquid facere sententiam quae nulla est facere aliquam in his quae vult ei esse pro ratione voluntatem nec esse qui ei dicat cur ita facis Potest enim suprajus dispensare de injustitia facere justitiam corrigendo jura mutando demum plenitudinem obtinet potestatis It shal be proved likewise part 4. lib. 1. that he gives pardons for money for sins to be committed for so many years to come And thus much of his tyrannical dominion in Spirituals which was the first particular The second particular of his tyrannical dominion is in Temporals Authority of deposing Kings is attributed unto him it is taught by the
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
we have shewed hitherto how Bellarmin and Sanderus have endeavored to prove that it is not inconsistent with the Church to have two heads because the one is a Primary head the other a Secundary head Panigarola lectione 6. useth a very strange argument to prove that the Church of necessity must have a visible head beside Christ Otherwise saith he It would be a monster if a visible body as the Church had only an invisible head which is Christ But it is answered First the Church will be no less a monster if it have two heads one visible another invisible Secondly Panigarola speaks blasphemy which we bind upon him by this argument First All bodies visible having an invisible head are monstrous bodies This Panigarola grants Secondly The Church is no monstrous body This he grants also how can he then deny this conclusion in Baroco Ergo The Church hath not an invisible head or Christ is not head of the Church which is right-down blasphemy Alphonsus de Castro puzled with the difficulty of two heads hath a distinction of his own of two bodies as Bellarmin made a distinction of two heads De Castro denies That body of which Christ is the head to be the same with that body which hath a visible head or Peter or the Bishop of Rome for its head He explains himself thus the Church may be called a body two ways saith he First as it is a total body Secondly as it is a Mystical body The first way is when it is considered comprehending all the Members with Christ and in that sense Christ is head of the Church In the second way it is considered as a body consisting of all the other members Christ excluded and in that acception Peter or his Successors are visible heads of the Church So the Church cannot be said to have two heads for Christ and Peter and his Successors are not heads of the same body but of diverse Christ is head of the Church as it is a total body Peter and his Successors as it is a Mysticalbody But it is answered Alphonsus de Castre as cannot be denyed was a brave learned man and stood as little awe of the Pope to speak his mind when truth required as any Doctor of that Church yet this distinction of his of a body in total and mystical is used by no body but himself it is also contrair to Scripture which in every place where the Church is called the body of Christ considers it as containing all other members Christ excluded And so the Scripture never mentions that body which de Castro calls a total body For the Scripture calling the Church the body of Christ means no other body then that which de Castro calls mystical This distinction of de Castro might be solidly refuted otherwise but it is needless to insist since it is owned by no others except by Spondanus who seems to come very near it thus The Apostle saith he Ephes 4. affirms Christ to be the head from which the whole body takes increment He observeth First that Christ is distinguished from the whole body which is the Church Ergo saith he since the Church is a whole body without Christ it must of necessity have a head beside Christ otherways it could not be a whole body since no body can be whole without a head And therefore the Church hath a visible head proportionable to it self beside Christ since it is a whole body without Christ But it is answered He is a notorious Sophister First when the Apostle Ephesians 4. opposeth the whole body to Christ under the name of body or whole body he comprehends all the other members only beside the head and not as having a head of its own As appears by the Commentaries not only of the Fathers upon that place Ephes 4. such as Chrysostom and his admirer Theophylactus and Theodoretus but also by the expositions of Justinian and Salmero two famous Jesuites upon that place Ephesians 4. All which expounding what the Apostle calls totum corpus or the whole body interpret it to be these members Quae à capite sensum accipiunt or have influence of sense or life from the head And consequently they make totum corpus the whole body to be no otherthing then all the other members the head excluded and consequently totum corpus the whole body hath not an other head beside Christ Secondly By totum corpus or whole body questionless the Apostle means the Church as it comprehends both the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant Spondanus argument if it conclude at all must of necessity conclude that the said visible head is head of the Church Triumphant and so the Bishop of Rome must be head of the Church Triumphant also which none will affirm Thirdly The ground of this distinction of Spondanus is notoriously false viz That the head would not be proportional to the body except it were visible For to omit that Christ is constantly called the Head of the Church in Scripture which should be enough to stop the mouth of Spondanus our Savior is a proportional Head to the Church because he is a man like unto us in all things except sin We will conclude this disput of Head of the Church with one Argument used by some Protestants against a Visible Head of the Church which is this If the Church had any other Head but Christ it would be called the body of the said Head but it is never called the body of any Head but of Christ Ergo It hath no other Head but Christ Bellarmin answers two wayes And first he affirms That the Church is not called the body of that visible Head because it is only Secundary and not Primary and therefore the Church is only called the body of Christ But it is replyed If there were any such thing as that secundary head the Church could with no less reason be called its body then it could be called head of the church Since the relation is reciprocal and the body is no less the body of the Head then the head is the head of the body and since the Church is no where called the body of that secundary head it is evident that the said secundary head is a fiction Bellarmin urgeth that a King is the Head of his Kingdom and the Kingdom may be called his body likewise a Viceroy may be called secundary Head of the Kingdom or Province but the Kingdom or Province cannot be called the body of a Viceroy and in like manner the Church cannot be called the body of that secundary Head the Bishop of Rome or Peter But it is replyed As the Viceroy is head of the Province so the Province may be called the body or Province of the Viceroy but since the Church cannot be called the body of that secundary head as Bellarmin confesseth it is evident there is no such secundary head at all in the Church Secondly Bellarmin grants that the Kingdom may be
of Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae which we now mentioned Whatever Peter was the other Apostles were the same of alike dignity and power with him Secondly Bellarmine contradicts himself because he affirms That all the Apostles were made Bishops immediatly by Christ and had their jurisdiction immediatly from him lib. 4. cap. 23. de pont Rom. and whereas the Church of Rome doth distinguish that although the other Apostles had their Bishopricks immediatly from Christ yet they had them not secundum plenitudinem potestatis as Peter had his Bishoprick immediatly from Christ Fran. de victoria exsibilats that distinction as contrary to the mind of Cyprian asserting an absolute equality of jurisdiction of all the Apostles with Peter Fran. de victor ibid. And thus we have proved that Bellarmine is a bad interpreter of Cyprian in affirming that Cyprian by unus Episcopatus means the Bishoprick of Peter or his Successor the Bishop of Rome Now let us examine how Bellarmine comments upon those words of Cyprian Cujus pars á singulis in solidum tenetur That is of which Bishoprick every Bishop hath a full share Bellarmine grants that every Bishop hath a full share but denyes they have an equal share or in the same manner he compares that one Bishoprick to a dissimilar body v. g. to a Tree he compares the Bishoprick of Peter to the Root other Bishopricks to the Branches for as the Root although it be a part of the Tree as are the Branches yet it sustains and rules the Branches and therefore although the Branches have a part of the Tree in solidum yet are they not an equal part of the Tree neither are they a part of the Tree in that manner as the root is The Root is a part sustaining the Branches the Branches again are parts sustained and governed by the Root So saith Bellarmine The Bishoprick of Peter and his Successors is a part of that one Bishoprick answering to the Root other Bishopricks are parts answering to the Branches ruled and sustained by the Bishoprick of Peter But it is answered Bellarmine in this glosse intangles himself first in absurdities next in contradictions and first he intangles himself in absurdities because Cyprian expresly compares that one Bishoprick to an Oak a Fountain a Light which are all similar and homogeneous bodies of which every every part hath the name and nature of the whole every part of an Oak is Oak every part of a Fountain of water is water c. and therefore Bellarmine is absurd in affirming that Cyprian compares that one Bishoprick to a dissimilar and heterogenious body the Sophistry of Bellarmine consists in this what Cyprian calls Robur or an Oak Bellarmine calls it Arbor or a Tree the difference is this any tree may be considered two wayes first as it is an organick body consisting of Root and Branches which are dissimilar organick parts Secondly as it is an homogenius body as an Oak all the parts of which are Oak both Root and Branches although the Root be not the Branches and so Bellarmine egregiously sophisticats in making Cyprian compare that one Bishoprick to a Tree as it is an organick body whereas Cyprian compares it to an Oak as it is a similar body Secondly the Whole cannot be the same with any one Part nor any one part the whole Cyprian maketh that one Bishoprick the whole and every particular Bishoprick a part But Bellarmine makes the Bishoprick of Peter and his successors the whole or that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian he likewayes makes it a part in shewing in what manner comparatively with others it hath a share of that one Bishoprick which is the whole according to his own confession and likewayes a part according to his own confession which is a manifest contradiction Thirdly he adds contradiction to contradiction for in explaining the way how every Bishoprick hath a share of that one Bishoprick he grants that every part hath a full share but not an equal share which is a flat contradiction since all full shares are equal shares neither can any full share be more or lesse then an other full share It is true indeed that one Bishoprick may be greater in riches splendor c. then an other Bishoprick but they are all alike Bishopricks Riches and Poverty hinders not the Episcopal Dignity and Jurisdiction as is affirmed by Hieronymus in his Epistle to Euagrius where he affirms that the meanest Bishop is equally a Bishop with the Bishop of Rome or Constantinople which equality of Bishops is in essentialls for the superiority of an Archbishop above a Bishop is in accidentals and was a non-ens in the dayes of Cyprian and therefore he speaks absolutely without restriction of the equality of Bishops And thus we have shewed with what admirable Sophistry Bellarmine endeavours to wrest the meaning of Cyprian with whose Testimony Rayinundus Rufus is so pressed disputing against Molinaeus that he taxeth the saying of Cyprian as erronious because saith he Ulpianus affirms that two persons cannot have dominion in solidum of one thing and therefore Cyprian is in an error in affirming that every Bishop hath a part of that one Bishoprick in solidum But it is answered Rufus is in a mistake both in the These and in the Hypothese he is mistaken in the These because the Lawyers maintain that more persons may have dominion in solidum of one thing as of via aquae ductus or any Comunality as pasturage c. Secondly he is mistaken in the Hypothese for Cyprian is not speaking of the dominion of things he is only comparing that one Bishoprick toti similari vel universali the part of which wholes equally participate their name and definition as all men do the humane nature and all Kings are equally Kings so saith Cyprian all Bishops are equally Bishops Turrianus in his defence against Zadeel lib. 1. cap. 17. grants that Cyprian compares that one Bishoprick to a similar body but yet he affirms that Cyprian is not to be understood literally otherwayes he cannot be defended from error because saith he if every Bishop have a part in solidum of that one Bishoprick he hath that whole one Bishoprick but he is mistaken in confounding similar with dissimilar bodyes for one having the branch of a tree hath not all the tree yet every drop of water hath both the name and definition of the whole Fountain or is called water and is water as well as the whole water of the Fountain Secondly Turrianus to shun this pretended absurdity interprets that one Bishoprick of Cyprian to be the Church likewayes he interprets those words whereof every one hath a full share to be that every one is bound alike to give an account of his administration but he is mistaken in both those glosses he is mistaken in the first because Cyprian expresly distinguisheth that one Bishoprick from the Church for immediatly after those words unus Episcopatus est c. there is one Bishoprick c.
by usurpations of Bishops of Rome and appellations They next endeavour to prove it by testimonies of Fathers which are of two sorts 1. wrested 2. forged In this Chapter and the next following we will examine the first sort and then we will conclude this Book with examining the last The Fathers whose testimonies they wrest are either Greek or Latin The Greek Fathers are Ignatius and Irenaeus the Latin Fathers by them alledged are Tertullian and Cyprian We will speak of the Greek Fathers and also of Tertullian in this Chapter and will answer these testimonies of Cyprian in the Chapter next following And first of Ignatius from whom they alledge the inscription of his Epistle written to the Romans which is this Ignatius to the Sanctified Church presiding in the region of the Romans thus the place is alledged by Bellarmine whereas the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is which presides in the place of the region of the Romans wherefore they render it so this is the reason Barronius ad annum 45. num 10. observes that the Roman Church and the Catholick Church were believed to be the same and therefore they translate Ignatius affirming the Church of Rome to Preside in the region of the Romans that is saith Bellarmine and Bozius Presiding in the Catholick Church But it is answered first that it was not the custom in the dayes of Ignatius to call the Roman-church the Catholick-church or where they spake of the Roman-church to mean by it the Catholick-church first because the oldest testimony we have of that kind is in the dayes of Theodosius junior Victor Uticensis and Gregorius Turonensis that is not till 300. years after Ignatius and 400. after Christ Secondly that maner of phrase had its Original from the Arians the said Gregorius Turonensis in his Book De Gloria martyrum cap. 25. brings in an Arian Prince calling the Orthodox-church the Roman-church or Orthodox-christians Romans Thirdly that maner of speaking had its Original from a politick reason and not from an Ecclesiastical In those dayes the Goths Alans and Vandals made war upon the Romans the first three were Arians the Romans Orthodox and therefore because all the Orthodox Christians partied the Romans in that war they called them all Romans their Faith the Roman Faith their Church the Roman Church as the Turks at this day call all Christians Francks or French-men Fourthly as we said they translate Ignatius falsly for his words are to the Church presiding in Loco regionis Romanorum in the place of the region of the Romans whereby it evidently appears that the meaning of Ignatius is no other then the Church presiding in the Town of Rome since none can affirm by these words he means otherwayes or that the Church of Rome presides in the whole Church since he particularizes the presidency and restricts it to a certain-place of the region of the Romans and therefore they sophisticate egregiously in translating Ignatius Presiding in the region of the Romans Since the Romans say they at that time commanded the whole world Ignatius by a Church Presiding in the region of the Romans understands a Church Presiding in the whole world whereas the words of Ignatus impart no more but a Church presiding in a certain place of the region of the Romans Which is further confirmed because we shewed before from these two Epistles of Ignatius to the Trallians and Magnesians that he acknowledged no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop but he could not be so forgetful of himself as in this Epistle to acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as Bellarmine and Bozius pretends he doth which is further confirmed by the testimony of Basilius Epists 8. where he affirms that Iconium presides in a part of Pisidia which is just such an other expression as that of Ignatius We could defend the meaning of Ignatius not to make much for them although they had translated him faithfully that is if he had said Presiding in the region of the Romans for from these words it can no more be gathered that the Bishop of Rome is oecumenick Bishop then it can prove the Bishop of Ments or the Bishop of Carthage oecumenick Bishop because they preside in the region of Carthage c. for in the dayes of Ignatius as we said none were called Romans but those who lived within the precinct or particular command of the City and this much of Ignatius Now followeth Irenaeus from whom they bring a testimony by them much magnified the passage is this speaking of the Church of Rome ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua Semper ab his qui Sunt undique conservata est ea quae ab Apostolis est traditio The substance is all Churches should accord with the Church of Rome for two reasons first because of its more powerful principality the next is because Apostolical tradition is preserved in that Church But this place makes not much for them as appears by Irenaeus scope this passage is found lib. 3. cap. 13. in which Chapter he is disputing against Hereticks which were the perfect Scriptures he willeth them for their satisfaction to consult with the ancient Churches which successively descended from the Apostles and for instance sake proponeth unto them the Church of Rome his meaning is then in those words whatever the Church of Rome at that time thought perfect Scriptures all Churches about were bound to acknowledge them for such first by reason of its more powerful principality that Church being founded by the Apostles Paul and Peter as was believed then Secondly because it hath been thought by Churches about to have purely preserved that tradition of the Canon of Scripture which it had received from the Apostles so that the meaning of Irenaeus is no other then this that all are bound to accord to that Church so long as it preserves the perfect Canon of Scripture and teaches no other Doctrine then is contained in it by this testimony of Irenaeus we are bound no more to adhere to the Church of Rome then it adhereth to the Scripture But they instance Irenaeus simply without such restrictions affirms that all should accord to the Church of Rome because it observes the apostolick tradition which is as much say they as the Church of Rome cannot make an Apostacy But it is replyed first although Irenaeus affirmed that in those times the Church of Rome preserved the pure Canon of the Scripture yet he doth not affirm that in all times coming it would do so The Church of Rome at this day observes not that Cannon of the Scripture which was observed in the dayes of Irenaeus the Council of Trent under the pain of an Anathema adds to the Canon of the Scriptures these Books commonly called Apocrypha which were rejected by the Church of Rome in the dayes of