Presbyter are borrowed by a metaphor from the civil administration they who ruled Cities of old among the Jews and Grecians were called Presbyters and rulers of Provinces were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops Overseers as appears by 1 Maccab. 1. All other Church Ministers were called Deacons or Ministers simply In the times of the Apostles Bishops were called Presbyters and Presbyters Bishops so Tit. 1. those who are called Presbyters verse 5. are called Bishops verse 7. It appears also by Philip. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. and Acts 20. that the Rulers of Churches in one City are called Bishops in the plural number which could not be if Presbyters were not called Bishops since there could be but one Bishop in one City as all know Those also who lived at the same time with the Apostles speak after the same manner Clement Bishop of Rome mentioned by Paul and familiar with him in his Epistles directed to the Corinthians which Epistle is mentioned by Hieronymus but never seen till of late Cyrillus Patriarch of Constantinople sent it from the Bibliothick of Alexandria to King James as a precious monument of Antiquity calls the Rulers of the Church of Corinth Bishops in the plural number directing his Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of Corinth and likewayes in the body of his Epistle he calls those very persons Bishops in one place whom he calls Presbyters in another Polycarpus also directs an Epistle to the Presbyters and Deacons of Philippi and in the body of his Epistle he calls these very persons Bishops this oâ—yearpus was the disciple of John This manner of speaking continued unto the latter end of the second Age Irenaeus who lived about that time in an Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome calls the predecessors of the said Victor Presbyters ruling the Chuâ—ch of Rome Likewayes whom he calls Presbyters lib. 3. cap. 2. in the very next Chapter he calls Bishops and again lib. 4. cap. 43. he calls them Presbyters Pius also Bishop of Rome in an Epistle to Justus Bishop of Vienna speaking of the succession of Bishops in several Places calls it a succession of Presbyters Other Testimonies might be multiplied to this purpose but it is needlesse since it is confessed by Bellarmine and Petavius that in those primitive times Presbyters were called Bishops and Bishops Presbyters promiscuously Aerius who lived about the midle of the fourth Age believed for that reason that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter in those times was one and the same and that no Bishop was Jure Divino above a Presbyter which opinion Epiphanius Hereste 75. calls Furiosum dogma and for that reason ranks Aerius among Hereticks but he answers the Arguments of Aerius vere childishly in the opinion of Bellarmine himself for when Aerius objected those formentioed passages of Scripture naming many Bishops in one City Epiphanius answers the reason is Because in these times there was such penury of Presbyters that many Bishops were in one City then which answer nothing is more ridiculous However the authority of Epiphanias is of no more weight to make any Opinion Heresie then the authority of some other Fathers who declared them Hereticks who maintained the Antipodes Avertinus lib. 3. Anal. Augustinus also seems to call Aerius an Heretick but it s very like that he calls him so for some other reason then denying the divine right of Bishops other things were laid to the charge of Aerius how justly is doubted it may be also that Augustinus takes Heresie in a large sense as it comprehends Schisme for he professeth himself in that place he knoweth not what is the regular distinction of Heresie That Schismaticks were sometimes called Hereticks appears by the sixth Canon of the first Council of Constantinople which In codice canonum is 169. That Augustine called not Aerius an Heretick for denying the divine right of Bishops but only for making a separation upon that account or else for some other reason is evident because not only Augustinus himself but also many others of the most eminent Fathers seem to be of the same opinion with Aerius as Medina confesseth and although Bellarmine and Petavius reprehend Medina for so saying yet in end both are forced to acknowledge that some of those Fathers were of that opinion Likewayes many Popish Doctors came very near the opinion of Aerius all the Protestant Divines abroad for the most part are of that opinion and many learned Protestants at home as Whitaker Reynolds c. although some eminent English Divines be against it as Andrews Hall and other learned men However it is certain that none were more submissive to Episcopal Government amongst the ancient Fathers and some of the modern Doctors then those who dispute expresly against the divine right of Bishops as Augustinus quaest 101. upon 1 Tim. 3. Hilarius upon the same place and likewayes upon Ephes 4. Hieronymus in his Epistle to Euagrius and likewayes upon Tit. 1. Ambrosius as he is cited by Amalarius upon Tim. 3. Chrysostomus and his admirer Theophylactus Primasius oecumenius Sedulius upon Tit. 1. and among the late Fathers Amalarius Isidorus Rabanus Maurus amongst the Popish Divines Cusanus lib. 2. de concordia Catholica cap. 13. Contarenus and Dionysius Carthusianus on Philip. 1. Durandus in Rationali lib. 2. cap. de Sacerdotibus and likewayes upon the sentences lib. 4. dist 34. q. 5. Marsilius Patavinus dict cap. 15. Haymo on Philip. 1. Asorius the Jesute P. 2. Q. 2. cap. 16. All which Popish Doctors came very near the opinion of Aerius and yet were very submissive to Episcopal Government Whitaker a most stout defender of Aerius yet was most submissive to the Episcopal Government and many of the most eminent Divines abroad who defended the opinion of Aerius yet in their Epistles to several English Divines they exhort dissatisfied persons to submit to the Government of the Church of England which in effect is the same with that Church Government which was established by the first general Council of Neice Those who follow the opinion of Aerius affirm that the Bishop of Rome in the beginning was nothing else but the first Presbyter or first ordained Presbyter amongst the Presbyters of the Church of Rome Hilarius by many cited by the name of Ambrosius upon Eph. 4. affirms that in those primitive times a Bishop was nothing else but primus Presbyter that is Presbyter of oldest ordination and he dying the next in order coming to be first Presbyter became hoc ipso Bishop without any new ordination as appears by the the same Author 1 Tim. 3. where he expresly affirms when any is ordained Sacerdos he is ordained both Bishop and Presbyter for saith he Una est ordinatio Presbyteri Episcopi quia uterque est Sacerdos That is The ordination of a Bishop and Presbyter in one because both are Priests Whence it appears that Bellarmine is mistaken who affirms that a first Presbyter behoved to be ordained of new when he became
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
Harding disputing against Jewel art 4. brings another objection that Cyprian by one Bishop means not himself or any other particular Bishop but oecumenick their objection is founded upon the words of Cyprian who after he had affirmed that the cause of Schismes was that one Bishop was not acknowledged Judge in place of Christ in the Church he adds if according to divine precepts the whole fraternity were obedient to the said Judge no man would move any thing against the Colledge of Priests whence Horantius and Harding concludes that by whole fraternity Cyprian means the whole Church and by one Bishop one visible head of that Church But it is answered that Cyprian by whole fraternity means that multitude of which any particular Church is composed as in his 68. Epistle writing to the Bishops of Spain he desires them not to rescind the ordination of Sabinus whom they had placed in the Bishoprick of Basilides he affirms that the said Sabinus was chosen by the suffrages of the whole fraternity But Horantius and Harding will not affirm that Cyprian in this 68. Epistle means the universal Church or church of Rome by whole fraternity since it is evident by the circumstances that he means a particular Church or that Congregation which chused Sabinus for their Bishop Likewayes as we shewed before the said Sabinus was placed Bishop and maintained in his Bishoprick over the belly of Stephanus Bishop of Rome who desired them to restore Basilides and the scope of this 68. Epistle written in the Name of the Council of Carthage to the Bishops of Spain by Cyprian is to maintain Sabinus in his Bishoprick notwithstanding that Stephanus Bishop of Rome desired them to rescind the ordination of Sabinus and to replace Basilides That Cyprian by whole fraternity means a particular Church appears by innumerable Epistles of his as epist 47. in two several places and 58. in two several places likewayes and 63. in which last place he affirms when we are at Supper at our Banquet we cannot convocate the common People that we may celebrate the verity of the Sacrament in presence of the whole fraternity And thus we have shewed with what admirable Sophistry our adversaries endeavour to wrest this notable passage of Cyprian epist 55. in which we have been the more prolix because from thence they bring all which they can pretend to be of any moment to prove that Cyprian was for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome they alledge other testimonies more pungent but they shall be proved forged in the following Chapters The third testimony brought from the words of Cyprian is in the edition of Pamelius Epist 46. in which Cornelius writing to Cyprian hath these words We are not ignorant that there is but one God c. and a little after that there should be one Bishop in the Catholick Church from whence they conclude an oecumenick Bishop or the Bishop of Rome as successor to Peter Head of the Curch But it is answered Cornelius in this Epistle is informing Cyprian that some Shismaticks who had partied that Novatian Bishop set up at Rome against Cornelius desired to be re-admitted to his communion confessing their error that they had been seduced and now they are convinced that Cornelius was their true Bishop amongst other of their confessions they profess they were not ignorant that there was but one God one Christ one Holy Ghost and that there should be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church by which it is evident that by Catholick Church they mean any particular Church and here they mean the particular Church of Rome of which they acknowledge Cornelius to be that one Bishop and not that other Novation Bishop by whom they had been seduced and whom they would acknowledge no more for their Bishop since there could be but one true Bishop of that Church viz. Cornelius himself That this is the meaning of Corneliusâ— in this Epistle is further confirmed in an Epistle of his to Fabianus mentioned by Eusebius Hist lib. 6. cap. 35. in which he objects ignorance to one who knew not that there should be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church Here he means one Bishop in the particular Church of Rome For a little after in that Epistle he affirms in that same Catholick Church there were fourty six Presbyters seven Deacons and seven sub-deacons but he could not affirm that in the whole Catholick Church there were only so many Presbyters so many Deacons and so many sub-deacons whereby it is evident that by one Bishop in the Catholick Church Cornelius means there should be but one Bishop in any particular Church which is so evident that Chrystopherson in his version of Eusebius renders these words of Cornelius his Epistle to Fabian thus he was ignorant that there should be but one Bishop in hac Ecclesia Catholica in this Catholick Church viz. in this particular Church of Rome neither is there any expression more frequent in the writings of those Ancients then to to call every particular Church the Catholick Church which observeth the purity of the Catholick Faith or Church universal The fourth passage of Cyprian is in his 40. Epistle directed to the people of Carthage there is one God one Christ one Chair one Church founded upon Peter by Christs own mouth But it is answered it shall be proved in the following Chapters that those last words are forged the rest have no difficulty at all for by one Chair and one Church Cyprian understands that there should be but one Bishop in every particular Church as is evident both by the scope and words of the Epistle the scope of the Epistle is to complain upon some Schismaticks who had made a defection from himself and the Church of Carthage where amongst other reasons against their defection this is one there is but one Chair viz. there is but one Bishop in the Cburch of Carthage Cyprian himself and since none ought to be acknowledged Bishop but he they were Schismaticks in making a separation from him This reasoning of Cyprian had been most ridiculous if by one Chair he had meaned an oecumenick Bishop viz. if he had reasoned thus they are Schismaticks who made a defection from their Bishop Cyprian because there is but one oecumentick Bishop Secondly that this is the meaning of Cyprian appears by the following words where Cyprian affirms they had made to themselves another Altar intimating thereby that there is but one Altar in the Church whereby it is evident that he speaks not of the Church universalâ— but of a particular Church since none will affirm that there is but one Altar in the Catholick Church Likewiseâ— in his 65. Epistle pleading the cause of Rogatianus he affirms that they who make a defection from the Church make another Altar unto themselves but Pamelius himself in his Annotations upon that Epistle observes that Cyprian in that place is speaking only of particular Churches Thirdly that by one Chair cannot be meaned
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
was said to all the gates of hell shal not prevail against it and a little after the words now cited he adds another reason viz. because the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to all the Apostles as well as to Peter Bellarmin answers Origen in this place speaks allegorically otherwise he would contradict himself in his 5. homily upon â—xodus where he calls Peter a great Foundation and most solid Rock upon whom the Church is built But it is replyed there is no contradiction at all for Peter may be Magnum fundamentum solidissima Petra and yet not only the Foundation or Rock for the state of the question is not Whether Peter was the foundation and Rock upon whom the Church was built But whether he be the only Foundation and Rock upon which the Church is built Bellarmin instances secondly That this testimony of Origen consists not with the words of Christ Because they are only spoken of Peter and understood of him Ergo this testimony of Origen must needs be allegorical But it is answered Allthough the words of Christ were directed to Peter yet Origen not only affirms but proves by two unanswerable reasons that the promise was made to all as well as Peter Moses speaking of Abraham affirms he believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness and yet the Apostle Paul applyes that to all the faithful which is no Allegory but Tropology by which a general promise belonging to all is directed to one Bellarmin should take heed to reason thus The words were directed to Peter alone Ergo the promise was made to him alone For if this promise was made alone to Peter the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is quite destroyed since it was not made to the Bishops of Rome successors of Peter being only made to Peter to whom the words were directed Bellarmins third reason to prove the testimony of Origines to be allegorical is this If all the Apostles be foundations or all the faithful the whole Church would be foundation of it self since there are no other besides to be the walls and the roof But it is answered First that the Church is built upon all the faithful because it consists of them and so Lyranus on Matthew 16. affirms That the Church doth not consist in men of power and dignity either Secular or Ecclesiastick because many Bishops of Rome have been Apostats from the faith And therefore the Church consists only of the faithful Secondly the Apostles are called foundations in a peculiar manner because they founded the Church by preaching that Doctrine received from Christ and sealed it with their blood Bellarmin objects lastly ad hominâ—m that Protestants affirm that Peter cannot be the Rock because he is a meer man but saith he that reason militats against any other mans being the Rock But it is answered That Protestants deny any man to be the Rock unless Christ sustaining alone the whole burthen of the Church as the Papists do of Peter but they do not deny other men to be the Rocks in that sense mentioned to Bellarmins third reason now mentioned And thus much of Origines Another of the Fathers one of Bellarmins great confidence is Cyprianus who in his 27. Epistle after he hath mentioned how Christ said to Peter Thou art Peter c. And I will give uâ—to thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven He deduceth the Ordination of Bishops from these words and the Government of the Church Ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur Here Pamelius himself acknowledgeth that Cyprian applyeth that promise of Christ Upon this Rock I will build my Church to every Bishop and consequently when Cyprianus calls Peter the Rock he cannot mean the only Rock or that Peter is Oecumenick Bishop Pamelius answers Albeit in this place Cyprianus applyeth that promise of Christ Upon this Rock I will build my Church to all Bishops yet Epist 55. he applyeth it only to Peter But it is replyed although it be true that Cyprianus Epist 55 makes mention only of Peter yet it doth not follow he doth apply it only to Peter it is false that Cyprianus affirms epist 55. that it can be applyed to no other then Peter since himself in this place epist 27. applyeth it to every Apostle or Bishop The third Father is Augustinus Epist 165. affirming that when Christ directed those words to Peter Peter represented by Figure the whole Church which he explains further tract 124. upon John where after a long disput he concluds that the promise of Christ was made to the whole Church whereby it evidently appears that Peter in those words is not ordained Oecumenick Bishop or the only Rock In the same sense Hilarius on Psalm 67. calls all the Apostles foundations so Theodoretius and Remigius on Psalm 87. interpret those words fundamenta ejus in montibus sanctis of all the Apostles and Prophets likewise the Apostle Paul Ephes 2. 20. calleth all the Apostles and Prophets foundations and Rocks So the Apostle John seems to call them Apocall 21. By which it is evident that those Fathers calling Peter Rock or Foundation attributs no peculiar thing to him which is not common to others and consequently they mean nothing less by such expressions then that he is Oecumenick Bishop Those testimonies so evident put Bellarmin to his wits end Let us hear and examine an admirable piece of Sophistry Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 11. De Pont. Rom. answers that all the Apostles may be called foundations three wayes The first is because they were the first who founded Churches every where The second is because the Christian Doctrine was revealed to them all by God The third way is by reason of their governing the Church they were all Heads Pastors and Rectors of the Church but in the first two wayes all the Apostles were alike with Peter Foundations and Rocks of the Church Not in the third way for although they had all Plenitudinem potestatis plenitude of power yet they had it only as Apostles and Legats Peter had that power as ordinaâ— Pastor being head of the other Apostles upon whom they depended and this was the thing promised to Peter in those words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church But it is answered Nothing can be more absurd more contradictory or more entangling then this distinction of Bellâ—rmins We said before that the truth of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome depended upon the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome it again upon the Supremacy of Peter the principal ground of which Supremacy is that promise of Christ Thou art Peter and open this Roâ—â— I will build my Church The sense of those words conferring the Supremacy upon Peter depends upon this gloss put upon those words by Bellarmin which is both against Antiquity and Reason and therefore we may conclude that the truth of the Doctrine of the Modern
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
he Head cannot say unto the Feet I have no need of you or ye are not necessary to the Body So they of more excellent Gifts in the Church cannot say unto those of meaner Gifts we have no need of you neither are ye necessary for the edification of the Church That this is the true exposition of this place appears by the Interpretation of all the Ancients as Ambrosius Chrysostomus Theophylactus whose Interpretation is also followed by those two Leaders of the School-men Lombardus and Aquinas neither did ever any Interpreter-dream to prove a visible Head out of this place before the times of the Jesuites as Bellarmine Sanderus and Turrianus Their reason is most ridiculous There is but one Head of the Body say they to which the Church is compared Ergo there is but one Head in the Church Which Argument may be retorted thus There are but two Feet in the Body to which the Church is compared Ergo there are but two Feet in the Church or two only in the Church who have meaner Gifts The Sophistry discovers it self for according to the Interpretation of the Ancients that one Head of the Body answers to many persons in the Church as appears by the 70. Epistle of Basilius to the Bishops of Italy and France where he hath these words Cum igitur non possit Caput Pedibus dicere Non estis mihi necessarii omnino non tolerabitis nos abdicari Since the Head cannot say unto the Feet ye are not necessary ye will not suffer us to be abdicated or cut off He repeats the same words Epist 77. to the Transmarine Bishops Likewayes Primasius Oecumenius and the Author of those Commentaries attributed to Hieronymus compares all Bishops to that one Head of the Body and so doth Aquinas to which he compares also the Civil Magistrates And this much of that head mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 21. Bellarmin's last reason to prove That the Government of the Church is Jure Divino Monarchical and consequently that one or other behoved to succeed to Peter is taken from the High Priest in the Old Testament under whom the Government of the Church was Monarchical Ergo saith he the Government of the Church under the New Testament is Jure Divino Monarchical under one visible Head But it is answered first many things were in the Church-government in the Old Testament which are not in that of the New and therefore the Argument doth not follow Secondly Bellarmine could not have produced a sharper Sword to cut his own throat for the High-priest in the Old Testament was a Type of Christ and as the said High-priest governed the Church without a visible Head under him in the Old Testament So Christ governs the Church in the New Testament without a visible Head under him And this much of those reasons by which Bellarmine endeavours to prove that one or other behoved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church In the next place he endeavours to prove that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to him which he doth thus Either the Bishop of Antioch or else the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church but not the Bishop of Antioch Ergo the Bishop of Rome But it is answered first it is false that either the Bishop of Antioch or the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church since we proved before that Peter was not Monarch of the Church himself and therefore no Bishop could succeed him in the Monarchy of the Church Secondly We proved also in the last Chapter of the first Book that Peter was Bishop of no particular Church Thirdly though it were granted that either the Bishop of Antioch or the Bishop of Rome behoved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church the Bishop of Antioch ought to be preferred to the Bishop of Rome because we have Scripture expresse that Peter was at Antioch but none at all that he was at Rome but on the contrary it appears by infallible presumptions from Scripture that he was never at Rome as was proved in the last Chapter of the former Book where it was also proved that the Testimonies of those Fathers by which Peter was proved to be at Rome were grounded on the Authority of Pappias an Author meriting no credit in the opinion of Eusebius Bellarmine in the next place endeavours to prove That the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church by several general Arguments As 1. Testimonies of general Councils 2. Of Bishops of Rome themselves 3. Of Greek Fathers 4. Of Latine Fathers 5. From Viccars 6. From Right of Appellations 7. From exemption from judgement 8. From ordination of Bishops 9. From Laws Dispensations and Censures 10. From Names or Titles In the following Books we shall not miss one of his Arguments of any moment unanswered and not retorted But to avoid repetitions we will alter his method distinguishing the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter in several Intervals as was shewed in the Preface of this Treatise in this second Book we will dispute the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church from the dayes of the Apostles untill the death of Cyprian that is untill anno 260. or thereabout insisting most upon these four following particulars First we will dispute the occasion of the opinion of Aerius by whom it was maintained unto cap. 5. In the second place we will dispute that there was no Office in the Church during that interval above that of a Bishop unto cap. 9. In the third place we will answer what is objected for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval by our adversaries unto cap 13. Fourthly we will examine several forgeries pretended by our adversaries for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval Of which in order CHAP. II. The occasion of the opinion of Aerius who were his followers and what the Bishop of Rome was at first in their opinion SOme Protestants stumble at the word Hierarchy and will needs have the word Hieredulia put in the place of it the first word in the Original signifying Church-ruling the last Church-ministry However that the Church Hierarchy or Hierodulle instituted by the Apostles consisted of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons is denyed by none as in civil families some servants had titles of honour given them and were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 majores domus familiam ducentes trusties master-housholds rulers of the family others were called by the common name of Servants So in the Ministry of the Church some Ministers had titles of honour given them and were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Overseers Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters Elders all other Ministers of the Church were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deacons which is as much as to say Ministers or were called by the name of Ministers common to them all Those titles of Bishop and
Bishop according to the opinion of that Author Petavius grants that a first Presbyter became Bishop without any new formall ordination but it was requisite that he should be consecrated by a secret imposition of hands called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a mysticall imposition of hands but he brings no probation he only affirms it We read of such a secret imposition of hands not in that case but in other two the first is when Miletius troubled all Aegypt by his ordaining without authority those whom he ordained were not formally re-ordained but only consecrated by that secret imposition of hands or privat imposition of hands as witnesseth Theodoretus lib. 1. cap. 10. The other case is those who were baptized by Hereticks were not re-baptized but only anointed with the Chrisme together with that secret imposition of hands both the one and the other case is mentioned by Justinus in Respons ad Orthodox It is to be observed that although the first Presbyter was called Bishop Antonemasticè yet the other Presbyters were called Bishops and the first Presbyter sometimes Episcopus Episcoporum Bishop of Bishops so the Apostle James is called by Clement when the said James was Bishop or first Presbyter of Jerusalem whence appears the weakness of that objection of Bellarmine proving that the Bishop of Rome was reputed oecumenick Bishop because he is stiled by some Episcopus Episcoporum Bishop of Bishops CHAP. III. Conjectures of Aerians concerning the original progress and universal establishment of Episcopacy THe first step then of the Bishop of Rome in the opinion of those who follow Aerius was from a first Presbyter to a Bishop before the time that Bishops and Presbyters were distinguished all Presbyters were called Bishops but after that time no Presbyter was called Bishop as Ambrosius cited by Amalarius affirms on 1 Tim. 3. The word Bishop in greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports as much as an Overseer those who had the oversight of any charge were called by the Graecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops so we find in Xenophon Physitians called And in other Authors Moderators of Controversies and Visitors of Cities amongst the Athenians were called Bishops Rulers of Provinces or who were set over Provinces 1 Maccab. 1 are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops Yea in the glosses of the old Graecians Kings are called Bishops Hesychius amongst his glosses hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense in which they are called by Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastors of the people by which it appears if we durst affirm it that Salmasius is in a mistake affirming that Bishop is only a word of care tutelage or curatory and not a word of rule or command Bellarmine also is in a mistake who eludes that passage of Augustine a Bishop is greater then a Presbyter by consuetude affirming the meaning of Augustine to be that before the times of Christians the word Bishop was not a title of honour but by the consuetude of Christians it became to be so The time when Episcopacy did first begin is guessed to he about the latter end of the second Age when Victor was Bishop of Rome which conjecture is proved by two reasons The first is this Ambrosius on 1 Tim. 1. 3. as he is cited by Amalarius affirms That after Episcopacy was brought in Presbyters were called no more Bishops as they were before nor were Bishops called Presbyters but we read in the Epistles of Victor that Presbyters are called Bishops and Bishops Presbyters as was before-mentioned but after the time of Victor we find that neither Bishops are called Presbyters nor Presbyters Bishops whereby it is very probable that in those dayes a Bishop was distinguished from a Presbyter The second reason is this Ignatius falsly believed to be the Disciple of John lived about that time and in his Epistle to the Magnesians calls Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a new Ordination whence it appears it did begin about that time That the said Inatius lived in those dayes and consequently could not be that Ignatius who was the disciple of John appears because he mentions the heresie of Valentinus who affirmed that Christ proceeded from Siges which Heresie was never heard of till immediatly before the times of Victor and therefore the said Ignatius behoved to live after the time of Valentinus and consequently about the time of Victor To which two reasons may be added a third viz. That the said Magnesians and Tralliani were so averse from receiving of Bishops as if those Tralliani had been so called after Mr. Robert Trail that Ignatius was forced to spend much Rhetorick to perswade them to receive a Bishop but it is very unlike they would have been so refractory if Bishops had been among them from the beginning And this much of the original of Episcopacy As for the progress Bishops were not brought in in all places at one time but by degrees first at one place then at another It is very like they first began at Rome and that Victor was the first Bishop that ever was he was a very aspireing man and for his presumption was sharply rebuked by Irenaeus and bitterly mocked by Tertullian and therefore it 's very unlike such an alteration of Government could begin in any other City then Rome which was the chief Imperial City for which reason Potentior principalitas a more powerful principality was attributed to the Church of Rome by Irenaeus by reason of which saith he and also by reason that the Traditions of the Apostles were preserved more purely there it is necessary that all Churches conform themselves to that Church That Episcopacy was not established in all places at once in alike perfection is evident by three reasons The first is when Presbyters in other places had no ordination they had it still at Alexandria unto the times of Heraclas and Dionysius which was about Anno 235. as is testified by Ambrosius by some thought Hilarius on Ephes 4. and Augustinus if he be the Author on Tim. 1. 3. quaest 101. upon the Old and New Testament and Hieronymus in his Epistles to Euagrius The second reason is when Bishops only confirmed in the West Presbyters confirmed throughout all the East as is testified by Cyrillus Hierosol mitanus in his Catechise de Chrismate and Severus Alexandrius de Ritibus Baptismi The third reason is when in many places Bishops had sole ordination and sole jurisdiction in Africa they were inhibited and expresly forbidden either to ordain or to exercise jurisdiction without concurrence of Presbyters as appears by the 22. and 24. Canons of the fourth Council of Carthage When Episcopacy was universally established was as uncertain as when it first began Hieronymus affirms it was decreed through the whole world Ambrosius or Hilarius affirms it was established prospiciente concilio but none could tell as Bishop Hall objects what either the one or the other meaned but of late it is discovered that both mean the 4.
and for that reason they were all called Secundae Sedis Episcopi or Bishops of the second Seat not some of them Bishops of the third and others of the fourth Seat because now this Bishop then another or now Bishop of this City then of another was Bishop of the second Seat according to the priority of his ordination It is to be observed that after Justinianus the priority of the first Bishops themselves or Bishops of the first Seat was made ambulatory in Africa by a Constitution of the said Justinianus except only the Bishop of Carthage who still remained fixed first Bishop whether he were of older or newer ordination because Carthage was the first City of the first Province of Africa In like manner the Bishop of Rome was the fixed first Bishop of all the world because Rome was the first City of the first Province of the world and for that reason as we said potentior principalitas or a more powerful principality was attributed to the Church of Rome by Irenaeus The Church of Rome in those dayes was of no further extent then the walls of the City as is at large demonstrated by Salmasius for the Bishop of Rome then was only a Bishop and was neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch much less an oecumenick Bishop That the Bishop of Rome was first Bishop because Rome was the first City of the Empire and for no other reason appears not only by what is said but also because for the same reason he was declared first Metropolitan by the second general Council of Constantinople and first Patriarch by the fourth general Council of Chalcedon and oecumenick Bishop by Phocas as shall be declared hereafter at large whereby it is evident That the Bishop of Rome had still the priority for civil respects and by humane ordination and not at all by divine institution or by reason of succession to Peter for in that respect the Bishop of Antioch would be preferred to the Bishop of Rome because he is Bishop of Antioch or rather founded the Church of Antioch before ever he saw Rome and whereas Petavius and others affirm that the Bishop of Rome was successor to Peter because Peter died at Rome it is frivolous 1. Because Velenus Salmasius and others prove by unanswerable reasons that Peter neither lived nor died at Rome that is was never at Rome whose reasons were summed in the former Book cap. 24. 2. Because Peter although he had been at Rome yet was never Bishop at Rome but only in a large sense viz. as Bishop comprehends the founder of any Church in which sense Paul may be called the Bishop of Corinth Thessalonica c. yet in that respect Paul is to be preferred to Peter because he not only founded the Church of Rome as all agree and not Peter as many affirm but also although he and Peter had founded the Church of Rome joyntly he is to be preferred to the Bishoprick of Rome because Rome was a City of the Gentiles expresly comprehended under the Apostolat of Paul whereas the Jews were only committed to Peter and for that reason in the Seals annexed to the Popes Bulls unto this day the Images of Paul and Peter are joyntly imprinted and that of Paul hath the right hand many admire why but the reason can be no other then what we have told viz. because although Peter and Paul are believed joyntly to have founded the Church of Rome and therefore the image of both is imprinted in the Seals yet that of Paul hath the right hand because Rome was under the Apostolat of Paul and not of Peter as we said Likewayes it is agreed by all that Paul died at Rome but not that Peter and it is thought that none of the Ancients knew where Peter died one thing is certain that Clement third Bishop of Rome speaking of the deaths of Peter and Paul to both whom he was contemporary and who was called by Paul his fellow-labourer although in his Epistle to the Corinthians he speaks more particularly of the martyrdome of Paul when and where he died and under whom yet he doth not mention the death of Peter so particularly which he would have done if Peter had died at Rome in the same day with Paul as the Romanists affirm 3. If the Bishop of Rome have any priority by reason of Peters dying at Rome the Bishop of Jerusalem is to be preferred to the Bishop of Rome because Christ died at Jerusalem yea for that reason the foresaid Clement seems to call James the Apostle thought to be the first Bishop of Jerusalem Episcopum Episcoporum or Bishop of Bishops which Epithet if any had given to the Bishop of Rome in those dayes Bellarmime and Barronius would have blacked many sheets of paper with repetitions of that Testimony ingeminating it every where as they do other testimonies of far less moment In what sense Clement calls James Bishop of Bishops shall be shewed hereafter CHAP. VI. The Testimonies of Dionysius and Ignatius against the Bishop of Romes Supremacy AENeas Silvius afterwards the Pope under the name Pius second in his 288. Epistle according to the supputation of Bellarmine affirms that before the Council of Neice little or no regaird was had to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which confirms what we said before viz. that before the times of Cyprian the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was only of Dignity but not of Jurisdiction viz. because he was Bishop of the chief Imperial City as also because he was Bishop of that particular Church commonly believed in those dayes to have been joyntly founded by those Princes of the Apostles Peter and Paul Yet notwithstanding since the Doctors of the Church of Rome endeavour to prove by Testimonies of Fathers and actions of Bishops of Rome that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged in the first three Centuries in disputing this Question we will observe this following method first we will prove by Testimonies of those Fathers who lived in that interval that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged in those dayes Secondly we will answer what is objected to the contrary from actions of Popes and from Testimonies of Fathers Lastly we will discover several forgeries pretended by our Adversary to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval We will first assault the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome by the Testimonies of two much magnified by some of that Church the first is Ignatius whom they affirm to be the Disciple oâ— St. John the second is Dionysius believed by them to be the Disciple of St. Paul and albeit we proved in another place that the pretended Ignatius was not the Disciple of John and shall prove hereafter that the pretended Dionysius was not the Disciple of Paul mentioned Acts. yet neverthelesse both the one and the other are very ancient we proved elsewhere that Ignatius lived about the time of Victor Bishop of Rome when Dionysius
lived is uncertain Ignatius in his Epâ—stle to the Trallians hath these words What is a Bishop but he who goeth beyond all command and power who commands all as far as a man can command In which words he expresly affirms that there is no Office of the Church above that of a Bishop for if a Bishop have supream command as he expresly affirms he can be commanded by no superior Church-ruler as Metropolitan Patriarch or oecumenick Bishop The Testimony of Dionysius is taken from his 8. Epistle his words are these in substance Every man should strive to live blamelesly if he do not the Priest should take a course with him if the Priest deborde he should be judged by his Bishop if the Bishop do amiss he should be judged by the successors of the Apostles if those again do amiss they should be judged by those of the same order and degree In which words he quite excludes one visible Head over all and consequently it appears that in his dayes the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not believed as an article of Faith in the Church since he affirms that many hold the chief place of the Hierarchy whereof any should be judged by the rest and not all by one visible Head or by the Bishop of Rome What he means by Successors to the Apostles whom he places above Bishops none can tell except he mean Metropolitans and Patriarchs if he do its evident he lived after the times of Cyprian because in the dayes of Cyprian and before there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop as appears first by that passage of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians now cited Secondly it appears by the Epistle of the said Ignatius written to the Magnesians in the which Epistle he comprehends all Church-rulers under Bishops and Presbyters where he affirms that Bishops have the cheif place loco Dei in place of God Presbyters have the next place concessus Apostolici loco that is they represent the Council of the Apostles the last place he gives the Deacons to whom the Ministery of Christ is committed Thirdly that no Office was in the Church above that of a Bishop before the times of Cyprian nor in his time appears by those two following most notable passages of Cyprian the one in his Books de unitate Ecclesiae lib. 4. Epist 9. the other from his Oration to the Council of Carthage of which two passages in order CHAP. VII Explication of that place of Cyprian De unitate Ecclesiae THe words of Cyprian are Unus Episcopatus est cujus à singulis pars in solidum tenetur that is There is one Bishoprick of which every Bishop hath alike full share by which passage of Cyprian it not only appears that the Bishop of Rome in his dayes was not believed to be visible Head of the Church but also that there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop since every Bishop had alike full share of that one Bishoprick which could not be if in those dayes Metropolitans had been above Bishops Patriarchs above Metropolitans and an oecumenick Bishop above all This notable passage of Cyprian puzles the Learned of the Church of Rome very sore they vary very much in their glosses upon this place of Cyprian as Rufus contra Molinaeum Fran. Agricula cap. 18. varies from him Hayus disput lib. 1. cap. 11. and Turrianus contra Zadeel lib. 1. cap. 17. 26. agree almost in one Exposition but they differ from the other two Sanderus de visib Monarch lib. 7. num 45. differs from all the former Bellarmine lib. 2. de pont Rom. cap. 16. varies from them all We will examine the exposition of Bellarmine for since they vary in their opinion about the meaning of Cyprian and since the meaning of Cyprian can be but one of necessity all their glosses must be false except one and since the gloss of Bellarmine is most approved by the Church of Rome we will examine it Bellarmine in the forecited place expones the words of Cyprian thus There is one Bishoprick saith he in the same way that the Church is one But the Church is one as many branches of the same Tree are one Tree many rivolets are one Water many beams one Light as then in branches there is an unity by reason of one Root in rivolets by reason of one Fountain c. So is the Church one and consequently the Bishoprick one in its Head and Root the Church and Bishoprick of Rome And whereas Cyprian affirms that every Bishop hath a full share of that one Bishoprick Bellarmine grants its true but by a distinction that is Though every Bishop have a full share yet he hath not an equal share nor in the same manner for Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome have that share which answers to the Head Root and Fountain but other Bishops have that share answering to the Branches Rivolets c. This gloss of Bellarmines quite destroyes the Text for Cyprian compares particular Churches to Branches Rivolets Beams that one Bishoprick he compares to an Oak to Light to a Fountain whereby it evidently appears that by that one Bishoprick he means not the Bishoprick of Rome which is a particular Bishoprick as well as the rest and not that great Bishoprick or one Bishoprick whereof every one hath a full share Secondly that by unus Episcopatus he means not the Bishoprick of Peter having authority over other Bishops is proved by his words in the same Book de unitate Ecclesiae where he affirms Whatever the other Apostles were Peter was the same that all the Apostles were equal to Peter in dignity and power whereby it appears whatever the Bishoprick of Peter was the Bishopricks of the other Apostles were equal to it and since the Bishopricks of the other Apostles were particular Bishopricks each having a full share of that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian the Bishoprick of Peter was only a particular Bishoprick and not that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian Thirdly That the Bishoprick of Rome is not that one Bishoprick appears by the express words of Cyprian in his Oration to the Council of Carthage in which as we shall prove in the next Chapter he makes any other Bishop equal in jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome Fourthly Bellarmine and Sanderus in making that one Bishoprick the Bishoprick of Peter must of necessity grant that Peter only had his Bishoprick immediatly from Christ and the other Apostles their Bishopricks from Peter since Sanderus expresly affirms that all other Bishopricks flow from the Bishoprick of Peter as all mankind had their Original from Adam But in averring the Apostles to have their Bishopricks from Peter Bellarmine contradicts first Fran. de victoria who relect 2. quaest 2. conclus 3. and 4. expresly affirms That the other Apostles received all their power both of order and jurisdiction immediatly from Christ In which words he is glossing upon that passage
not now found in the Editions of Rhenanus printed since in those places where the Pope hath jurisdiction They had reason to purge out those words from Rhenanus because the testimony of his was as a Poyniard sticking in the very bowels of that article of the Catechise of the Council of Trent viz. that there is no salvation without communion with the Church of Rome CHAP. XII Several passages objected out of Cyprian to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval vindicated from Sophistry THe last Father they make use of to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval between the times of the Apostles and the death of Cyprian is Cyprian himself There is not a Father of them all more urged to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome then Cyprian and yet it is most certain that it never had a greater enemy then he what Cyprians opinion was anent that contest appeared in the former Chapters both by his testimonies and his actions Our adversaries dispute two wayes for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome out of Cyprian first by sophistry next by forgery we will refute the first in this Chapter and prove the second in the Chapters following and that by the testimonies of the greatest Antiquaries that ever the Church of Rome produced The first testimony of Cyprian they bring is from his 42. Epistle where writing to Cornelius Bishop of Rome he hath these words Some while ago we sent some of our Colleagues to compose some differences or to reduce some schismaticks to the unity of the Chatholick Church c. and a little after But those Schismaticks set up to themselves an adulterous head against the Church from which place Bellarmine reasons thus as those Novatians set up one to be heaa of their Church or of the whole Church of the Novatians so Cornelius was head of the Catholick Church But it is answered this reasoning is very unbeseeming such a learned man as Bellarmine for the meaning of Cyprian is no other then that the Novatians set up to themselves a Bishop at Rome in opposition to Cornelius so he calls the Novatian Bishop an adulterous head contrary to Cornelius who was the true head of the particular Church at Rome because he was the true Bishop thereof and so Cyprian doth not mean any head of the whole Church but only by Head he means Bishop of the particular Church of Rome Bellarmine instances that Cyprian affirms his intention was to reconcile those Shismaticks to the Catholick Church by which he means the Church of Rome and since the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church and the Bishop of Rome head of the Church of Rome Ergo he is head of the Catholick Church But it is answered when Cyprian calls the Church of Rome the Catholick Church his meaning is a particular Church professing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and therefore they who were reconciled to the Church of Rome were reconciled to the Catholick Church also so any reconciled to a particular Church professing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church is reconciled also to the Catholick Church and yet that particular Church is not the Catholick Church That this is the meaning of Cyprian appears by the preceeding Epistle or epist 41. where speaking of some Schismaticks in the Church of Carthage he affirms they opposed themselves to the Catholick Church he means they opposed themselves to the Church of Cathage inwhich doing they opposed themselves to the Catholick Church because the Church of Cathage professed the same Doctrine with the Catholick Church in opposing or renting the Church of Carthage they rent and opposed the Catholick Church Pamelius urgeth that Cyprian affirms that those Schismaticks refused the bosome of the root and mother Church where observe saith he that Cyprian calls the Church of Rome the root and the mother of all Churches or of the Catholick Church which Epithet is given by Cyprian to the Church of Rome not only in this epistle but also in his 45. epist to Cornelius in which he gives injunctions to those he was sending to Rome to be informed concerning that schism of the Novatians that they should acknowledge and adhere to the Root and Mother of the Catholick Church But it is answered that Cyprian by Root and Mother of the Catholick Church means no other thing but the Catholick-Church it self as appears by the said 45. Epistle in which he affirms to Cornelius that hearing that there was a schism in the Church of Rome he sent Caldonius and Fornatus to be informed of the truth of the business and to adhere to neither party till they were informed which of the factions was in the right and which in the wrong and for that reason he did not direct his Letters either to Cornelius or to that Novatian Bishop but only to the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome that being informed by them they might adhere to those who held and acknowledged the Root and Mother of the Catholick Church whereby it is evident that Cyprian did not believe that Cornelius Bishop of Rome or those who adhered to him were the root and mother of the Catholick Church since he gave his messengers injunction to suspend their Judgments till they were informed who adhered to the root and mother of the Catholick Church that is who maintained the true Faith or who were members of the Catholick Church for if Cyprian had believed that Cornelius and his faction had been the root and mother of the Catholick Church he would not have injoyned his messengers to suspend their judgment till they were informed by the Presbyters and Deacons so it is evident that Cyprian by Root and Mother of the Catholick Church means the Catholick Church it self both in his 45. and 42. Epistle and in the same sense epist 43. and 44. he exhorts them to return to their mother that is to the unity of the Catholick Church The second passage of Cyprian is found in his 55. Epistle where he hath these words That the occasion of Heresies and Schismes in the Church is only this that the Priest of God is not obeyed and that it is not believed that one Priest as Judge in place of Christ for a time is in the Church This place is much urged by Pamelius in his Annotations upon the said Epistle to prove an oecumenick Bishop But it is answered Cyprian in this Letter or Epistle is inveighing against those who had set up one Fortunatus as we shewed before Bishop of Carthage in opposition to himself and his meaning is not that there should be one Bishop in the Catholick Church but only one Bishop in a particular Church or the Church of Carthage because two Bishops in one place occasions Schismes and Heresies saith Cyprian so its evident that Cyprian is pleading his own cause disputing against those who had set up a Schismatick Bishop in the Church of Carthage in opposition to himself and
THE GRAND IMPOSTOR DISCOVERED OR AN Historical DISPUTE of the Papacy and Popish Religion 1. Demonstrating the newness of both 2. By what artifices they are maintained 3. The contradictions of the Roman Doctors in defending them Divided in four Parts 1. Of Bishops 2. Of Arch-bishops 3. Of an oecumenick Bishop 4. Of Antichrist PART I. Divided in two Books In the first is examined 1. if Peter by divine Institution was Monarch of the Church 2. If at the command of Christ he was Bishop of Rome In the second is examined if the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged Successor to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church before the death of Cyprim or anno 260 The Negatives of which three Questions are made out by unanswerable monuments of Antiquity and all what is pretended for their affirmatives is proved to be either wrested falsly translated mutilated or forged Cicero lib. 2. de Orator Fieri potest ut quod dixit iratus dixerit Silus annuit tum Crassus fieri potest ut quod dixit non intelligeres hic quoque Silus fassus est tum Crassus fieri potest ut non omnino audieâ—is quod te audisse dicis Silus tacuit omnes riserunt By S. C. Edinburgh Printed by His Majesties Printers for the Author Anno Dom. 1673. TO HIS GRACE The DUKE of LAUDERDALE Marquess of Marche Earl of Lauderdail Viscount Maitland Lord Thirlestane Musselburgh and Bolton Knight of the most Noble Order of the Garter His Majesties High Commissioner President of His Council and Sole Secretary of State in His Kingdom of Scotland May it please your Grace THat the Christian Faith as it was taught by Christ and his Apostles and confirmed by the four first General Councils is established by His Majesties authority all have reason to be thankful both to God and to His Majesty While we are contending for things of lesser moment at home Religion is dangerously assaulted from abroad their artifices are subtile their success is lamented By what perswasions they endeavour to gain Proselyts and how they are refuted Your Grace will find affirmed in the Preface and proved in the Disput following The first part whereof I present to your Grace it being difficult for me to publish it all at once My Lord some perhaps as their motive of such an address as this would fall a painting out the praises of your Grace and your Ancestors in your Face as that one or other of your Race could be no more spared from the State in every age then one of the Aeacides from the warrs of Greece which although most true yet I forbear lest I should offer violence vim facere to your Graces Modesty by unseasonable mentioning things which all know to be undenyable Nevertheless I hope your Grace will pardon me if I affirm that it is a main encouragement of my troubling you that your Grace is a Gentle-man of Spirit versed in Antiquity and able to discern if I perform any thing to the purpose in this great subject or process of greatest importance that ever depended before the Tribunal of Heaven My Lord I have likewise privat obligations to your Grace I had the honour to be your Condisciple at which time it did not obscurely appear what your Grace would prove afterwards Also having presented several Trifles to your Grace at your two times being in Scotland you seemed to accept of them with a favourable countenance which encouraged me to trouble your Grace afresh A Spaniel the more he is taken notice of the more he troubles his Benefactors with importunat kindness Taking all for good coyn whether they be in jest or in earnest If I perform any thing in this great subject worthy of your Graces perusal I would be infinitly proud of it otherwise the greatest censure I expect from your Grace is that either your Grace would smile at my folly or else put me back with a gentle frown hoping your Grace will pardon presumption proceeding from simplicity and good-will I will trouble your Grace no more but being sorry that I can give no greater evidence of my propension to your Graces service I rest as I am able most addicted to it Samuel Colvill THE PREFACE DIRECTED TO The Nobility Gentry and Burroughs of the Kingdom of Scotland My Lords and Gentlemen SInce I have contrived the following Discourse chiefly for your use not presuming to inform those of the Clergy it being their Profession and therefore having opportunity at will to go to the woods to gather Strawberries themselves whereas your Lordships leisure by reason of your other weighty Employments requires rather to have them presented in a dish Curiosity perhaps will move one or other of â—ou to peruse it Which that you may do the more commodiously it is requisite that your minds be prepared by considering 1. What the Subject is I present unto your protection 2. What I perform in it 3. What is my scope and intention 4. How I answer as I can to all which is objected against me I am not very eloquent especially in the English Tongue not being much accustomed to read Books in that Language The Diâ—course for the most art is dogmatick and therefore Rhetorick is more hurtful thâ—n pâ—ofiâ—able If I bâ— understood it is sufficient in representing shortly what others have done prolixly perspicuously what others have obscurely And yet fully that is omitting nothing of moment which is pretended by either Party in that greaâ— Controversie of the Sâ—premacy of the Bishop of Rome And first for the Subject Nâ—ne are ignorant in what high estimation searching of Antiquity is amongst those whose mindes are erected above the ordinar of men That religious enquiries of that kind ought to be preferred to any others who believe the immortality of the soul none will deny Among those again that one Controversie of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome deservedly challengeth the first place I presenting to your Lordships in it the minute of a Process if not marred by me the most noble the most profitable and the most pleasant which hath hitherto depended before the Tribunal of Heaven That I affirm no Paradoxes appears by what followeth The Nobility of this question is celebrated by the Learned of both sides Est Nobilis inter primas Disputatio the noblest of Disputes saith Chamier Est quaestio Prima familiam ducens A prime and leading question saith Salmasius That is upon it depends all the Controversies we have with the Church of Rome Bellarmine goeth higher calling it a debate de summa rei Christianae That is Whether the Christian Religion can subsist or not For in his opinion Who calls in question the Supremacy of the Bâ—shop of Rome he questions the truth of the Christian Religion it self By which expression of this Jesuit appears the immense utility of that Controversie If any want ability if they have not leisure to wade thorow that profound Ocean of Antiquity to be informed of the truth of that Article
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
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
Emperour who made the Bishop of Rome oecumenick or universal Bishop And this much of the God-father of that Monster which is all the Jus Divinum the Bishops of Rome have for their Monarchy in the Church The next thing observable is the God-bairn gift or the title of Universal Bishop conferred by Phocas upon Bonefacius third Bishop of Rome in the beginning of the seventh Age or about anno 604. If your Lordships ask what sort of Title and Office it is Gregorius Magnus Bishop of Rome who died not two years before Bonifacius 3d was Bishop of Rome who was first made universal Bishop by Phocas And Pelagius second Bishop of Rome to hom immediatly Gregorius Magnus succeeded will inform your Lordships viz. That the Title and Office of universal Bishop were new not heard of before that time Scelerate Prophane Sacrilegious Blasphemous against the Mandates of Christ Constitutions of the Apostles Canons and Liberties of the Church Who ever took upon him that Office or Title He contaminated those very times in which he lived was that Man of Sin sitting in the Temple of God exalting himself above all that are called God So Pelagius in an Epistle to a Council at Constantinople that he was like the Devil exalting himself above the other Angels and equalling himself to God So Gregorius which expressions of Pelagius and Gregorius and many others too prolix to be inserted here are found word for word in their Epistles Those Testimonies at length ye will find in the second Book of the second Part of this following Treatise The third thing observeable by your Lordships is the reasons wherefore the Emperour Phocas bestowed that Title of oecumenick Bishop upon Bonifacius third They are mentioned by Barronius ad annum 604. and others also as Sabellicus and Platina there is not one word of Tu es Petrus or of the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter amongst them all They were all civil respects As first because the Emperour had his Title from Rome and since Rome was the old Imperial City It was reason that the Bishop of Rome should have jurisdiction over all Bishops This is the onely reason mentioned in the Edict of Phocas Others add there reasons One of which is this Mauritius the Emperour murthered by Phocas had bestowed the title of universal Bishop upon John called Jejunator Or the Faster Patriarch of Constantinople Pelagius and Gregory Bishops of Rome thunder both against the Title and the Function as we now mentioned but to no purpose John still possesseth both the Title and the Office In both which Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople succeeds which Cyriacus protected the Empress and Children of Mauritius against Phocas for which reason Phocas takes both the Title and the Office from â—yriacus and bestowed them upon Bonifacius third Bishâ—p of Rome his old friend as is confessed by Barronius Others add two other reasons the first is this Phocas having obtained the Empyre by murthering his Master Mauritius and all his race domineered with such tyrrany that he was abhorred of all fearing a revolt in the West to curry favour with Bonifacius third Bishop of Rome whose authority was very great in it he bestowed the title of universal Bishop upon him that by his moyen he might be established in his Empyre and acknowledged by the Romans The second reason related by some is that the said Bonifacius either gave or did promise to give to Phocas a hudge mass of Money and so bought the Office from him However whatever were the reasons which moved Phocas it is most certain that the Edict or Gift of Phocas is the oldest Evident and Charter that the Bishop of Rome can produce to instruct his Monarchy in the Church which will more clearly appear by what followeth Seventhly your Lordships will find that new born Monster Christned universal Bishop by the Edict of Phocas shunned every where in the East in Spain in Britain in Germany in France yea in Italy it self under the walls of Rome the whole Church refusing to obey the Edict of Phocas or to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome universal Bishop One only Parasite excepted the Bishop of Cyprus who saluted him by that name out of envy to the Bishop of Constantinople So that in the end as it was recorded by some the Bishop of Rome for very shame gave over that Title of universal Bishop The posterior Emperoures also recalled that Edict of Phocas as appears by the 36th Canon of the sixth general Council called Trullanum convocated by Pogonatus Emperour of Constantinople anno 680. By which 36th Canon of the said Council was confirmed the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon celebrated anno 450. By which the Bishop of Constantinople was made equal to the Bishop of Rome in Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction In the Eighth place your Lordships will find in the decay of the Grecian Empyre by the Inundations of barbarous Nations all enemies to the Empyre and each of them enemies to one another that the Bishops of Rome in these vicissitudes sided ever with the Conquerour being also courted by them to countenance them in the establishment of their new and unsettled conquests By which practices that Apocalyptick Monster almost blasted in the Budd and strangled in the Craddle revived again not only re-assuming the Title of universal Bishop bestowed on him by Phocas But also soaring higher taking upon him to excomunicate the Grecian Emperour to stir up the Longobards to bereave him of his possessions in Italy To destroy the Exharchat of Ravenna To bereave him of the Dutchy of Rome which the Pope got to his own share And when the Longobards demanded Tribute of him for the said Dutchy of Rome which the Bishops of Rome were acustomed to pay to the Grecian Emperours Then he called in the French by whose means he destroyed the Kingdom of the Longobards and to requite the French Services he made Pipin their General King of France shutting up the righteous King in a Monastery And also in contempt of the Grecian Emperour he made Carolus Magnus Son of the said Pipin Emperour of the West Since which time the Empyre of the West has been divided from that of the East until this day That is since the latter end of the Eighth Age or Century In the ninth place your Lordships will find a strange Catastrophy The Doctors of the Church of Rome brag much of the submissive obedience of Carolus Magnus to the power of the Bishop of Rome which in effect he seemed to do at first untill he obtained his ends but having accomplished his intentions he made it appear to posterity that both the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome was a Sword in a mad mans hand he curbed him so both in spirituals and temporals that he left him no more but the bare Title of universal Bishop but as to the power of it he made him a meer cypher as appears by what follows The History is very pleasant
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
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
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
Church of Rome had not a beeing the first six hundred years after Christ that it had some notable beginning about that time when Bonifacius 3d. was made first universal Bishop and encreased afterwards as the power of the Bishop of Rome encreased the one following the other as the motion of the Sea follows the Moon that many of the most substantial points of the modern Roman Faith were never generally established before the cape-stone of the Popes power was laid at the Councils of Florence and Trent at which two Councils many Tenets were established with an anathema as Articles of Faith believed to be so many paradoxes by the most learned men in the Church of Rome who lived in those times who spared not to exclaim against the fraudulent proceeding of the Pope who carried all by plurality of voices in these two Councils 1. By multitude of Italian Bishops 2. By titular Bishops that is Bishops having imaginary Titles in the East as Jerusalem Antioch c. Which Bishops he created purposely that by the number of their voices and of the Italian Bishops he might bear down in these two Councils the voices of the Bishops of Germany Spain and France The third Cheat in that mark of succession is that they make ignorants believe that all those Bishops were lawfully elected but it shall be proved in the following Disput that some were elected by Blood others by Simony others by unlawful Stipulations and Pre-contracts to establish Heresie in the Church and to condemn the Oâ—thodox Doctrine as heretical others of them by a paction with the Devil yea it shall be proved by the most eminent Antiquaries of the Church of Rome it self that since Nicolaus secundus who lived in the eleventh Century there has not been one Bishop of Rome elected according to the Law of God and Constitutions of the primitive Church and that their manner of election at this day is so detestable that none can hear of it without horror The fouâ—th Cheat in that mark of succession is this we have redacted that succession to a number of persons of unequal power contrary Doctrine unlawfully elected now rests a bare personal succession in which there is a notable Cheat also because they obtrude for the true Successor persons that are not capable by their own principles of the Function as appears by three unanswerable reasons The first is a woman was Pope for several years together and whereas Bellarmine and Baronius affirms it was a fiction it is answered since those Historians who relate it for a truth lived in tâ—ose very times in which it fell out or at least very near them and since those who call it a fable lived long after and are but of yeaster-day in respect of those who affirm it to be of a truth no judicious Reader needs to be puzled much which party to believe since those who called it a truth professed themselves to be as obedient Sons to the Church of Rome as those who call it a fable The second reason against the continuity of that personal succession is this the Chair of Rome hath been for several years empty and without a Bishop and whereas they affirm that the power then of the Bishop is in the Cardinals it shall be proved by their own Learned Antiquaries that the modern power of those Cardinals was a thing unkown to the Ancients and to be nothing else but a new devised Cheat. The third reason against that personal succession is this it is known to all who are versed in History that many Popes have been at one time and the subtillest Wits amongst them could never yet decern which was the true Successor and which not one part of the Church adhering to the one another to the other another to the third Pope As happened in the time of the Council of Constance anno 1416. at which time there were three Popes It is certain one of them could be only the true Pope and yet all of them created Cardinals some of which not only created other Popes afterwards but also became Popes themselves but those Cardinals who received orders from the false Popes are by their own Principles incapable of electing Popes much more of being Popes themselves It must of necessity follow that many Popes have been at innumerable times Bishops of Rome not lawful which quite destroyes that personal succession They are pressed with the same difficulty in the case of Simony It is granted by themselves that many Bishops of Rome have obtained that Chair by Simony It is granted also by them that those are not lawful Popes that those ordained by them are incapable of Orders It is confessed by them also that several Popes obtaining the Chair by Simony have created Cardinals which elected other Popes and some of them also became Popes themselves which quite destroyeth that uninterrupted personal succession as they cannot deny And this much of that first mark of the true Church pretended by the Romanists to prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church viz. succession of Bishops The second mark is Antiquity of which they brag very much but have very little reason Cicero lib. 2. de Orator relates a passage between Crassus that famous Orator and one Silus who accused another person before the Senate for uttering some dangerous expressions Crassus defends him thus It may be saith he that he spake these words in passion Silus granted it might be Crassus urgeth the second time It may be you understood not what he said Silus seemed not averse to that neither Crassus goeth on the third time It may be saith he that ye affirm that ye heard him utter these speeches whereas ye heard no such thing at all at which Silus was confounded and replyed nothing at all then all the company fell a laughing Those instances of Crassus against Silus may fitly be urged against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome bragging of the testimonies of Antiquity that is of Councils and Fathers His first instance was that the person accused by Silus perhaps was in passion but it is known and shall be proved that those of the Church of Rome are seconded by no testimonies of Antiquity at all but either they are of Bishops of Rome themselves or else of their flatterers But Aeneas Silvius afterwards Pope himself under the name of Pâ—us 2d in his Commentaries upon the Council of Basile hath these following expressions against such testimonies his words are Nec considerant miseri quae tantopere jactant verba aut ipsorum summorum pontificum sunt fimbrias suas extendentâ—um aut eorum qui iis adulabantur that is Neither do these miserable men consider that those testimonies of which they brag are either of Bishops of Rome themselves enlarging their own Authority or else of those who are their flatterers Now to the application Crassus reasoned that a testimony spoken in passion should not be regarded but who will deny those testimonies of Bishops of
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
the keys of the kingdom of heaven The third is Joh. 21. 15. 16 17. Feed my sheep feed my lambs But Cardinal Cusanus lib. 2. concord Cathol cap. 13. expresly affirmes that in all those three places nothing was given in peculiar to Peter which was not given to all the Apostles which he also proves by the testimony of Hieronymus 2. The main Basis of the Popes supremacy is in the exposition of these words Tu es Petrus viz. That Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built Pighius and Baronius and others affirm that all are ignorants hereticks mad men who acquiesced not in this exposition That Peter is the Rock But it shall be proved in the first six Chapters of the fiâ—st Book not only by innumerable testimonies of Popish Doctors but also of a great many Popes themselves that not Peter but the thing confessed by Peter is the Rock viz. Christ himself 3. Another Basis of the Popish Religion is that Peter had his jurisdiction immediatly from Christ and the other Apostles theirs from Peter Bellarmine and others affirm that if this be not granted the supremacy of Peter cannot be defended and consequently the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and the whole body of the Popish Religion falls with it But Franciscus de victoria affirmed by Canus to be the ablest Divine of Spain exsibilats this distinction of Peters immediat jurisdiction and refutes the gloss on Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae for exponing a passage in Cyprian from which they gather this distinction proving by the testimonies of Cyprian himself in that very place corrupted by the Glosse which Glosse is approved by the Church of Rome that Cyprian in these words expresly disputs against that immediat Jurisdiction of Peter and mediat of the other Apostles and affirms that all the Apostles had not only their order but also their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ 4. They prove the Supremacy of Peter by his carriage and prerogatives but Salmero the Jesuit expresly affirms that nothing can be gathered from the carriage of Peter to prove him oecumenick Bishop but much to the contrary Yea the Council of Basil it self pronounced that the Legats of the Pope had no right of presiding in general Councils because it could neither be proved by Scripture nor Antiquity that ever Peter presided in any Council or at that of Jerusalem 5. They brag much of Cyprian that he is for the Supremacy of Peter and also Augustin and other Fathers but Barronius himself confesseth that both Cyprian and Augustine died out of communion with the Church of Rome for resisting her encroaching upon the Churches of Africk that is for admitting of Appellations from Africk to Rome for doing of which Bonifacius Secundus Bishop of Rome affirms that Aurelius and Augustinus were seduced by the Devil and yet both of them are placed in the Roman Callender as Saints and notwithstanding all their braggings of Cyprian let one speak for all saith Barronius in time most ancient in learning most excellent in martyrdom most glorious for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome yet Stapleton the Jesuit expresly affirms that Cyprian in that subject utitur verbis errantium mire hereticorum causae patrocinari videtur And Bellarmine himself confesseth that we do not read that ever Cyprian was reconciled to the Church of Rome after his resisting of Stephanus the Bishop of Rome his pretending right of Appellations from Africa And this much of their concord and unity in that Cardinal question of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which falling Bellarmine as we said grants that the whole body of the Popish Religion falls with it comparing it without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome to a house without a foundation a man when his head is stricken off to star-light without the Sun We could instance their discord in many of their most substantial Tenets what question is of greater importance then that of Transubstantion It is the general opinion of the Doctors of the Church of Rome that it was imbraced as an Article of Faith from the beginning and yet those two great Popish Doctors Scotus and Bonaventur expresly maintain that Transubstantiation was never believed as an Article of Faith before the Council of Lateran anno 1225. Yea Scotus expresly affirms were it not for the authority of that Council he would not believe it himself it hath so little ground in Scripture and Antiquity The main ground of which prodigious Article is those words of our Saviour Hoc est corpus meum and other expressions of his John 6. But it shall be proved part 4. lib. 2. by the testimonies of many Popish Doctors that nothing can be gathered from either place for proving of it It were too prolix in this Preface to mention all the contradictions of the Doctors of the Church of Rome in their most substantial Tenets Your Lordships may read them at large in the following Treatise almost through the whole body of it but most expresly part 4. lib. 2 where your Lordships will not only find Doctors contradicting Doctors but also Popes accusing Councils Councils accusing Popes Councils accusing Councils Popes in Cathedra taxing Popes in Cathedra of Heresies Madnesse Ignorance And this much of the sixth mark of the Church of Rome by which they pretend it is proved to be the true Church viz. Unity The seventh mark is Saints they object to the Protestants that they lean too much on Christ trusting nothing to their own merits which occasions so much prophanenesse amongst them but we say they the Church of Rome are adorned with innumerable Saints stirred up to holiness because works are meritorious in the sight of God quis tulerit grachos de seditione quoerentes Let us retex this mark of Saints that we may see what reason they have to brag of it And first they cannot brag of the Sanctity of their Clergy witnesse the exclamations of all Ages against the corruption of the Clergy of the Church of Rome when they got a little breathing from persecution we need not mention the complaints not only of the Ancients but also of modern Popish Doctors against the corruptions of the Clergy of Rome Cyprian began the complaint in his time when the Church was yet under persecution But when the Emperours became Christians the Clergy by their beneficence became rich Hieronymus in his time thirteen hundred years ago was so irritated by the vicious lives of the Roman Clergy that Damasus Bishop of Rome dying to whom he was Secretary he left Rome and went to Palestina to live as a Monk comparing Rome to Babylon and the seat of the Whore Ammianus Marcellinus in the opinion of Baronius a Pagan declaimed bitterly against the viciousnesse of the Roman Clergy It were tedious to mention the complaints of these of the first six Centuries against the viciousness of the Roman Clergy as of Basilius Magnus Nazianzenus Sulpitius Severus and others as the greatnesse of the Bishop
of Rome in power encreased not only corruption in Doctrine but also in manners encreased with it And after the Bishop of Rome was made universal Bishop nothing could be added to the wickedness of the Clergy The complaints of Bernardus Picus Merandula are notorious and innumerable others The corruptions of the Clergy moved them not onely to call Rome Babylon but also consequently and not obscurely the Bishop of Rome Antichrist and yet both of them professed themselves obedient Sons to the Church of Rome In a word since the times of Cyprian no brave man lived in any Age unto this day who did not complain of the corruption of the Roman Clergy and so heir Clergy cannot be their Saints Secondly if they have little reason to brag of their Clergy they have far lesse reason to brag of the sanctity of their Popes Baronius Platina and Onuphrius ingenuously confesse that the World never produced such Monsters for murtherers Impoysoners Adulterers Symoniacks Witches yea and Hereticks who but a mad man will affirm that such persons cannot erre teaching the Church Surely Pighius was out of his witts teaching that a Pope could not be an Heretick and Bellarmine no less for calling that opinion of Pighius a pious opinion their feaver now is turned to a Phrensie the Author of that Book entituled Cardinalismo conscious to all the Caball of the Roman Clergy affirms that now they begin to teach at Rome that a Pope cannot be a reprobat which at last will turn to an Article of Faith as well as infallibility But because corruption of lives of the Clergy doth not of necessity infer a false Church We do not affirm that the wickedness of their Clergy or their Popes proves them Idolaters in Doctrine we only affirm that they have no reason to brag of either of them as Saints to prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church And although they were so it is no infallible mark for it may be affirmed that the holyest of them all comes short of Novatus Donatus and other ancient Hereticks or of Tertullian when he was a Montanist We only ask of them where those Saints are to be found of which they brag so much if they be neither their Clergy nor their Popes They will answer they mean those persons canonized by the Pope and placed in their Calander But we reply they cheat egregiously first it is reported of a certain mad-man in Athens who imagined that all the Ships which came into the Harbour were his own so they when they hear of any promises made to the Church they imagine they are all made to the modern Church of Rome and when they hear of any Saints and Martyrs they believe they all professed the Doctrine of the Church of Rome In reason they can brag of no Saints but those who lived after the beginning of the seventh Century the Saints of the first six Centuries were not of their Church at all for it shall be proved part 4. lib. 2. that the Saints Fathers and Martyrs of the first six Centuries condemn all the Tenets of the Church of Rome of any moment which they hold contrary to Protestants as heretical and are in right down terms Protestants yea it shall be proved by testimonies of their own Doctors that many of these most eminent Saints died excommunicated by the Church of Rome for resisting the pride of that Church as Saint Polycarpus and all the Bishops of Asia in the time of Victor anno 195. Saint Cyprian and all the Churches of Africk in the time of Stephanus Bishop of Rome about anno 256. Saint Aurelius and Saint Augustine and all the Bishops of Africk in the times of Sozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus Bishops of Rome in the beginning of the fifth Age. Secondly as for those Saints since the beginning of the seventh Century it is answered first that albeit the Clergy of Rome call them Saints yet they thought the said Clergy no Saints such as Saint Bernard and others who most bitterly inveigh against the corruption of the Roman Church Saint Bernard expresly calls Rome a den of theeves and Babylon mentioned by John in the Apocalyps 2. How many of these modern Saints have been proved cheats It shall be proved by testimonies of their own Doctors part 3. lib. 2. that the Pope hath no power to canonize Saints and that the most part of their Saints are vile Impostors devised by Priests to cheat the ignorant people of their money and to make them offer oblations at their shrines It were prolix in this Preface to insert the particulars but that Impostur of Saints in many examples shall be made unanswerably appear part 4. lib. 2. And this much of Saints the seventh mark of the Roman Church The last mark is Miracles the Scripture informs us that Antichrist shall deceive all the world by false miracles It shall be proved likewayes part 4. lib. 2. by the testimony of the most learned Popish Doctors that Miracles are no true marks of the true Church in these last times but rather marks of the Antichristian Church 2. It shall be proved by the testimonies of the same men that most of the late miracles pretended by the Church of Rome and the most notable ones are meet Imposturs which we shall instance in the forementioned place And whereas they object we have no miracles in our Church it is false our Doctrine was confirmed by the miracles performed by Christ and his Apostles neither need we any other miracles since we profess the same Doctrine And this much of those marks of the true Church pretended by the Mannual of Controversies to prove that the Church of Rome was such to refute which is my first scope and intention in this following Disput The second scope of the said Manual of Controversies was to perswade the Proselyts of this Nation that it was not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope had power to depose Kings either Popish or Protestant but only of some particular persons whom they called the Popes flatterers and therefore my second intention is to prove that the said Author is either ignorant in the Principles of his own Religion or else he is like Father Cotton the Jesuit who being demanded if he believed the Pope had power to depose Kings answered He did not believe it in France but if he were at Rome he would That this King-deposing doctrine is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is proved by three reasons which will puzle the said Author very sore to answer The first is this innumerable Books are printed asserting so much the names of the Authors shall be cited afterwards some of which Books are dedicated to Cardinals some to the Pope himself but those Books are authorized by those who have authority from the Pope to peruse Books before they go to the Press with an Imprimatur and a Declaration that they contain nothing contrary to the Catholick Doctrine But who but a
their lawful Prince whom the Bishop of Rome shall appoint How this power of the Popes can consist with Kingly Government let the Kings of the earth themselves consider They make one objection yet that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings By the answer of which objection will appear that encrease of Popery in a Protestant State tends to the utter destruction both of King and Subject and inconsistent with both The objection is this It is not the Doctrine of the Church of France say they that the Pope has power to depose Kings being rejected both by its Doctrine and by its Practice since many of the Clergy of France hath writen against that Doctrine and Books defending that Opinion such as that of Mariana the Spanish Jesuit and others have been burnt by publick Authority But this objection is answered by a twofold distinction first of Times secondly of Causes wherefore Kings ought to be deposed As for Times when the Kings of France are low or high in the last case the Clergy of France ever partied their King against the Pope excommunicating them and deposing them as appears by the passages of Philip le Bell with â—onifacius and of Lewis 12th with Julius second Bishop of Rome In the first Case when the Kings of France are low the Clergy of France ever partied the Pope excommunicating and deposing their Kings as appears by the passages of Henry 3d. and 4th Kings of France with Sixtus 5th Bishop of Rome It is notorious that the University of Paris confirmed by a decree the Bulls of the said Sixtus 5th against the said two Henries Kings of France in which Bulls they were declared uncapable of the Crown of France all French men were absolved from alledgeance to them and the greatest part of France rose up in armes against them to dethrone them beging of the Pope that he would name them a King and they would acknowledge him for their lawful Prince And this much of the distinction of Times The second distinction is of Causes wherefore Kings should be deposed although in other causes besides Heresie the Subjects of France were not so unanimous for the Pope against their King yet in case of Heresie that is if their King were a Protestant both the Clergy and the Laity of France unanimously at the Popes command renunced alledgeance to their King And first for the Clergy in an Assembly of States or Parliament Cardinal Perron their Speaker commissionat from them as their mouth in an Oration to the third Estate affirmed That it had ever been the Doctrine of the Clergy of France that true French men ought no alledgeance to heretical Kings excommunicated and deposed by the Pope As for the Laity it is notorious that after the murther of Henry 3. they threatned to abandon Henry 4th his Successor because he was excommunicated and deposed by the Pope which forced him expecting no security otherwayes to change his Religion And thus we have proved that it is the unanimous Doctrine of the Church of Rome that Popish Subjects owe no fidelity to a Protestant King which occasioned that saying of that incomparable Bishop Mortoun viz. That a loyal popish Subject in a Protestant State was a white Ethiopian which I do not mention calling in question the Loyalty of the Romanists of this Nation or the neighbour Nations of England and Ireland many of them are known to be persons of Honour and as loyal Subjects as the King hath I only mention those things to let them see how they are abused by the Popish Emissaries of these three Nations who knowing them to be loyal Subjects to the King seing it would be a great difficulty to train them in their snares and keep them in them once catched if they told them all the verity To train them on they make them believe in the beginning that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Protestant Kings much less others but only a calumny of Protestants traducing the Popish Religion but afterwards having by degrees confirmed them in the Popish Religion they would not fail to perswade them to cut the throats of all their Countrey-men and flee like so many mad-dogs upon the Kings face to pull him from his Throne as appears by the constant practice of the Church of Rome against all Protestants in general and against Protestant Kings in particular which practice is so notorious that he who denyes it is either a mad man void of common sense or else a notorious Impostor And first that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome affirming it meritorious to destroy Protestants by open cruelty and perfidy appears by the constant carriage of the said Church towards Protestants since the Reformation What sort of cruelty or perfidy have they not attempted Death without torture was thought clemency burning of them in heaps alive in houses might be attributed to a popular fury but it is notorious that multitudes of them were burnt alive in fires of all Sexes and Qualities by the sentences of the Judges and when they could do no good by open force they destroyed them by perfidy and prostitution of the publick Faith and when they had done made publick Processions of Joy Bonefires and such like as if they had deserved Paradise by such meritorious works maintaining this maxime as unquestionable that no publick Faith should be regarded or observed towards Hereticks That this is truth appears by the proceedings of the Council of Constance with John Husse and Hierom of Prague which two were burned alive notwithstanding they had the safe conduct of the Emperor Sigismundus It appears also by those massacres of Paris and other parts of France where by the publick Faith they trained them all to one place and then perfidiously massacred them to the horror of several learned Romanists who in their Histories detest such perfidy such as Thuanus and others and when they had done tanquam re bene gesta triumpharunt they were congratulated by the Pope who caused Bonefires and publick Processions to be made at Rome for the happy success of such a glorious atchievment These things are notorious so that the Popish emissaries themselves have neither the brow to deny them nor the confidence to defend them But they use another shift viz. That the Church of Rome hath given over that practice now being resolved no more to follow those courses as they did in the beginning prompted to them by their too violent zeal But it is answered they are greatly mistaken for now in France and Germany and other places they practise not such cruelties because they dare not but where they have power and thinks they may do it without any hazard they make it appear that they believe it is a meritorious work to destroy and extirpat all Protestants by any cruelty or perfidy imaginable as appears of late not only abroad
place is expresly disputing against necessar communion with the Church of Rome as shall appear part 2. lib. 1. concerâ—â—ng a certain ceremony in Baptism Likewayes Gregorius Magnus is cited by Bellarmine to prove that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church because he affirms that the care of the whole Church was committed to him in which he playes the sophister egregiously suppressing what immediately followeth viz. Petrus tamen non erat universalis Apostolus Peter was not universal Apostle nevertheless The truth is Gregorius is expresly disputing in that passage against any Monarch of the Church calling that Title sacrilegious and blasphemous and amongst other reasons he hath this for one if any had reason to be called Monarch of the Church or oecumenick Bishop it was Peter because the care of the whole Church was committed to him but notwithstanding of that he was not oecumenick Bishop or universal Bishop or Apostle Your Lordships will find many instances of that kind dispersed through the following Treatise and also their false translations yea they do not produce one testimony except either of Bishops of Rome or their flatterers which sort of testimonies are rejected by Aeneas Silvius afterwards Pope himself as meriting no credit but either it is mutilated in the foresaid manner or falsly translated or forged It may be objected secondly against me that my Stile is rude But I answer a key of Iron if it open the door with facility is to be preferred to one of Gold which doth it with difficulty The Discourse for the most part is Dogmatick in which Rhetorick is rather hurtful then profitable the strained Rhetorick of the Fathers hath set us all by the ears together Most of the shelter which our Adversaries have in the Writings of the Fathers is in their too high strained Allegories as will be proved by an induction of all those Controversies we have with the Church of Rome We will give an instance or two in this Preface of which your Lordships will find innumerable dispersed through the whole Disput especially part 4. lib. 2. where the newness of the present popish Religion is expresly disputed First to prove necessar communion with the Church of Rome or the infallibility of the particular Church of Rome Bellarmine cites Cyprian affirming that Perfidy can have no accesse to that Church which expression of his is found in an Epistle of his written to Cornelius Bishop of Rome That this is onely Rhetorick and a Complement appears by innumerable other Epistles of Cyprian in which he taxeth Stephanus Bishop of Rome and the particular Church of Rome of Ignorance Arrogancy and Patronizing of Hereticks yea it is notorious and confessed by our Adversaries that he died out of communion with the Church of Rome and yet as we said he is a Saint in the Roman Callander Secondly Bellarmine and others produce many testimonies of the Fathers to prove the Supremacy of Peter because they call him Head and Prince of the Apostles that this is only Rhetorick is notorious for two reasons first it shall be proved that these very Fathers expresly affirm and prove that Peter had no Supremacy over the Church or other Apostles but that all the Apostles were of alike Fellowship Dignity and Power with him 2. Because these very Fathers complement others also with the same title of Head and Prince as they do Paul and James yea Chrysostom then whom none calls Peter oftner Head and Prince expresly affiâ—ms Paul was in every thing equal to Peter and when he had so sayed he adds ne dicam amplius which is as much as to say that in his opinion Paul was to be preferred to Peter 3. To prove Transubstantiation they bring many testimonies of the Fathers such as these This Bread which you see is not common Bread but the Flesh of Christ this Wine which you see is not ordinar Wine but the Blood of Christ that these exâ—ressions are onely strained Allegories appears by the testimonies of the same Fathers especially of Ambrosius who speaking of the Water in Baptism useth the same phrase of speaking viz. that Water which ye behold is not ordinar Water but the Blood of Christ but our Adversaries do not affirm that the Water in Baptism is transubstantiat into the blood of Christ Another reason is unanswerable that those expressions are only Allegories viz. Those very Fathers especially Ambrosius expresly affirm that after the consecration the Bread keeps still the nature of Bread and the Wine of Wine many of which expressions are now taken out by the Iâ—dices expurgatorii in all the new printed Copies of the Fathers by the Popes authority contrary to the Faith not only of all the old Manuscripts but also of the printed Copies before anno 1564. at which time that famous Printer Manutius gelded all the Fathers which he doth not dissemble himself at the command of Paulus 4th Bishop of Rome My Lords and Gentlemen Thus I have represented unto you the excellency of the Subject of which I treat 2. What method I observe in it 3. What is my scope in it 4. How I answer as I can all what is objected against me If any have more to object I intreat them to put me to it and if I cannot convince them by an Apology I shall ingenuously confess my fault either in privat or in publick No more but wishing every one of you in your stations to be serviceable to God your King and Country and steadable to your own Families and Relations I rest according to my power ready to do you service SAMUEL COLVIL THE GRAND IMPOSTOR DISCOVERED OR AN HISTORICALL DISPVT OF THE Papacy and Popish Religion PART I. BOOK I. Of the Bishoprick of Peter CHAP. I. That the cheat of the Modern Roman Faith is discovered by these three Passages of Scripture By which they endeavor to prove the Institution of Peters Monarchy IT was proved in the Preface that the truth or falshood of the Modern Roman Faith depended upon that of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which is the true reason why the bravest spirits of both sides rush together with such animosity in this contest the one to assert it the other to assault it both parties pretending Scripture Reason Councils Fathers and each party upbraiding other with wresting of Scripture Sophistry perverting and forging testimonies of Antiquity When I considered these high and mutual reflections of those not only learned but pious men of both sides as cannot be denyed curiosity moved me to study the Contest that I might perceive if I could which Party was to blame and when I had so done I resolved to minut the Disput as a Clerk doth those pleadings before a Judge omitting Grammaticisms Criticisms and Rhetorical digressions I only mention the most substantial Arguments and answers Hinc inde doing what I could for the benefit of Persons of Honor of both Religions to whom I am many ways ingaged whose condition and abilities or leasure
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
the Church of Rome since the last two as we said depend upon the first and therefore we will examine this passage the more acuratly First by Scripture and Reason Next because they brag so much of Antiquity by testimonies of Councils and Fathers In the last place because they brag so much of Unity by Popes and Popish Doctors Of which in Order Our Adversaries reason thus He who is the Rock upon which the Church is built is Visible head of the Church or Oecumenick Bishop But Peter is the Rock or Foundation upon which the Church is built as appears by the words of our Savior Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church Ergo Peter is Oecumenick Bishop But it is answered First It is false that the Church is built upon Peter as a Rock Secondly Although our Savior had called Peter the Rock it doth not follow that he ordained him Oecumenick Bishop as shal be proved cap. 6. That Peter is not the Rock we will disput First By Scripture and Reason Secondly by Councils and Fathers Thirdly by Popes and Popish Doctors And first by Scripture 1. Cor. 3. 11. For other Foundation can no man lay then that is laid which is Jesus Christ by which it appears that Christ is only the Rock upon which the Church is built and not deter Bellarmin answers That Christ is only the Primary Foundation but Peter is the Secondary Foundation If this were not the meaning of Paul he would contradict himself Ephes 2. 20. And are built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner stone Where saith he ye have that diâ—â—inction of Primary and Secondary Foundations Christ is called the Corner-stone or chief foundations the Prophets and Apostles are secondary foundations But it is replyed First That Bellarmin cannot apply his distinction of secondary foundation to Peter alone by this passage since the Apostle expresly affirms That all the Prophets and Apostles are Bellarmins secondary foundations and consequently they are all Oecumenick Bishops which Bellarmin will not easily grant Secondly Bellarmin would have distinguished far better foundations in proper and improper Christ is properly the foundation of the Church the Prophets and Apostles ars improperly or metonymically foundations viz. they are called foundations because they preach Christ or by reason of their Doctrine of Christ who is the true foundation So Ambrosius Primasius Anselmus Lombardus Cajetanus Lyranus and the interlinear gloss upon 1. Cor. 3. 11. Guillaudus interprets after the same manner and the great School-man Vasquez In secundam secundae Disput 210. cap. 7. hath these words Non Apostolos Prophetas intelligit sed fidem illorum ab eis scilicet praedicatam annunciatam that is He calls not the Prophets and Apostles themselves foundations but only the faith which they preach It is true that Aquinas following some of the Fathers interprets the Apostles themselves to be foundations but the meaning is all one they mean improper foundations and Thomas his gloss rejected by Vasquez himself who comments upon him as we now said Bellarmin objects Secondly Apocalyps 21. 14. And the wall of the City had twelve foundations and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb. Where saith he all the twelve Apostles are called foundations But it is answered First Although they were yet it makes not much for Bellarmins purpose for if all the twelve Apostles be secondary foundations Peters being secondary foundation doth not conclude him to be Oecumenick Bishop no more then it doth the rest Secondly It is false that the twelve Apostles are called foundations in that place John only affirms that the names of the twelve Apostles were written upon the foundation of that new Jerusalem Thirdly Although both Haimo and Lyranus interpret the Apostles to be foundations yet they give the same gloss which they gave upon 1 Cor. 3. 11. viz. Because of the Doctrine which they preach the words of Haimo are Et in ipsis fundamentis hoc est infide Patriarcharum Apostolorum nomina duodecim Apostolorum The words of Lyranus are Dicuntur autem nomina Apostolorum in ipsis fundamentis scripta quia primò publicârunt fidem Christi praedicando pro ipsa moriendo The same is the explication of Aretas upon this place of the Apocalyps viz. The Apostles are called foundations because of their preaching Christ and dying for him or the faith Stapleton answers to that place of 1 Cor. 3. 11. some other wise then Bellarmin making a distinction between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliud and alterum which cannot well be expressed in English except ye express it thus another and a different Paul saith he affirmeth that there is not another foundation but Christ but he doth not affirm that there is not a different foundation from Christ Which two he distinguisheth because Peter saith he is not another foundation from Christ differing essentially but only a different foundation that is differing accidentally Christ saith he is the principal foundation Peter is the subordinat and ministerial foundation But this subtilty of Stapleton is to no purpose First because the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another signifie sometime things which differ only accidentally as Mat. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He saw two other Brethren Mark 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His hands was made whole as the other Therefore its false that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a thing different by nature but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing differing accidentally Secondly his distinction is refuted by the very text it self for after Paul said Nemo potest aliud fundamentum ponere he adds praeter id quod positum est quod est Iesus Christus By which words he expresly excluds all other foundations beside Christ whether they differ in nature or accidentally Thirdly in what sense can Stapleton affirm that Christ and Peter are foundations in the same specifical nature differing only in accidentals as Peter and Paul two individuals For Christ is properly a foundation upon which the Edifice of the Church is built Peter is only a foundation because he laid the foundation on Christ These two foundations have nothing but the name common as Taurus the mountain Taurus the constellation and Taurus a bull Fourthly Stapleton speaks contradictions in affirming that a principal foundation and a subordinat foundation have the same specifick nature and differ only accidentally as two individuals v. g. Peter Paul which is all one as ye would say The power of a King that of his under-officer were the same the same power in nature differing only accidentally Fifthly Stapleton contradicts himself in another place for in his relections controvers 3. quest 1. art 1. conclus 3. he expresly affirms that Peter is Fundamentum primaâ—ium in suo genere quale Christus est in alio genere which is diametrally opposit to what he affirms here Here he
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
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
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
article of Faith as appears by those eight general Councils that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church in those words Tu es Petrus The truth is it was invented First by Leo after the Council of Chalcedon when the contention arose between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople for the Primacy it was still made use of by the Bishops of Rome after that pleading for the Primacy but it appears by the 3â— Epistle of Gregory that he made use of it only for cuâ—a universalis Ecclesiae and not for Jurisdiction for he expresly thunders against one visible head of of the Church amongst other reasons he hath this for one Although Peter had the care of the whole Church committed into him yet was he not universal Apostle And thus we have reasoned Tu es Petrus from Scripture Reason and General Councils Now let us hear the opinion of the Fathers CHAP. IV. Of the Fathâ—rs interpreting the Rock to be CHRIST THeir impudence in objecting the Fathers is yet greater All the Fathers say they interpret the Rock to be Peter Augustinus only excepted deceived by his ignorance in the Syriack tongue So objects â—ansenius Gregorious de Valentia Agricola Stapleton but most of all Bozius de signis lib. 18. cap. 1. But it is answered It is notoriously false that all the Fathers call Peter the Rock upon which the Church is built because many of the Fathers call Christ the Rock as shal be proved in this 4. chapter Others of them interpret the Rock to be the confession of Peter thou art the Son of the living God as shal be proved chap. 5. Others of them again who interpret the Rock to be Peter means nothing less then that Peter was was ordained Oecumenick Bishop by Christ in those words Tu es Petrus as shal be proved chap. 6. And first of those Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Christ Tertullianus against Martian lib. 4. cap. 13. Where telling a reason wherefore the name of Peter was changed from Simon to Peter gives this reason Quia Petra lapis erat Christus because the Rock was Christ Hilarius de Trinitate lib. 2. Unum igitur hoc est immobile fundamentum una haec est felix fidei Petra Petri ore confessa Filius Dei vivi The sum is Christ confessed by the mouth of Peter is the only Rock Ambrosius Sermon 84. Discoursing of the change of Peters name Rectè igitur qui à Petra Christo Simon nuncupatus est Petrus ut qui cum Domino fidei soeietatem habebat cum Domino haberet nominis Dominici unitatem ut sicut à Christo Christianus dicitur Ita à Petra Christo Petrus Apostolus vocaretur This testimony is very evident and jumps in every thing with the exposition of Protestants shewing that Peter is not the Rock but only Christ Peter is called Petrus Rocky from Christ Petra or the Rock Gregorius Nyssenus in the last chapter of his testimonies against the Jews Dominus est Petra fidei tanquam fundamentum ut ipse Dominus ait ad Principem Apostolorum Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam In which words Christ is expresly called the Rock upon which the Church is built Theodoretus upon Psalm 47. Petra angularis est Christus ipse Dominus beato Petro inquit Et super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portae inferi non prevalebunt adversus eam The Rock is Christ upon which the Church is built c. And the same Author on 1. Cor. cap. 3. Christus est fundamentum Christ is the Rock Gregory Bishop of Rome himself in Job lib. 13. cap. 19. in Sacro eloquio Cum singulard numero Petra nominatur quis alius quam Christus accipitur Paulo attestante qui ait Petra erat Christâ—s This testimony is evident of a Bishop of Rome himself cannonized as a Saint in the Roman Church giving a general rule of interpreting the word Rock viz. When Petra or Rock or foundation is mentioned in Scripture in the singular number none but Christ is understood Hieronymus on Matthew 7. Super hanc Petram Dominus fundavit Ecclesiam ab hac Petra Apostolus Petrus sortitus est nomen By which words it appears that Christ is the Rock from whom Peter had his name and not Peter himself which will be further cleared by the next testimony Augustinus Sermo 13. de verbis Domini secundum Mattheum Simon quippe ante vocabatur hoc autem nomen ei ut Petrus vocetur à Domino impositum est hoc ut ea figura significareâ— Ecclesiam quia enim Christus Petra Petrus populus Christianus Petra enim principale nomen est ideo Petrus à Petra non Petra à Petro quomodo non à Christiano Christus sed à Christo Christianus vocatur Who before was called Simon was after called Peter Our Savior calls him so to signifie the Church by that figure Because Christ is the Rock Peter is the Christian People c. Other testimonies might be alledged out of Augustinus but it is needless to mention them since it is confessed by our adversaries that Augustinus interprets the Rock to be Christ because he was ignorant of the Syriack tongue As if those other Fathers especially Hieronymus most skilful of the Oriental Languages were ignorant also of the Syriack tongue And thus much of those Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Christ by which it appears how impudent an assertion it was of Bozius Ianseuius De Valentie Agricola Stapleton and others affirming all the Fathers Augustinus only excepted unanimously interprets the Rock to be Peter The falshood of their assertion being discovered they fall next to Sophistry to defend their lying And first they fall upon Augustinus taxing him of ignorance of the Syriack tongue for interpreting the Rock to be Christ But it is answered First the testimonies of those other Fathers denying Peter to be the Rock especially of Hieronymus are no lesse evident then the testimonies of Augustinus But it were impudence in them to object ignorance of the Syriack tongue to Hieronymus who was known to be most skilful in it Secondly their Sophistry is very great they object ignorance to Augustinus of the Syrian tongue for denying the Rock to be Peter following the penner of Matthew in Greek whose version was followed by the whole Church as authentick defends the ignorance of supposititious Authors such as Anacletus Optatus Melevitanus Isidorus such like who interpret Cephas which signifyeth a great stone in the Syrian tongue a head to prove the supremacy of Peter because of the affinity it hath in its initial Letters with the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cephale or head So Turrianus and Baronius Anno 31. defends those ignorants viz. Because it makes for the Popes supremacy and blames Augustinus as ignorant for no other reason then because his interpretation crosseth it As for those other Fathers beside Augustinus some of them taxeth them also
of ignorance so Stapleton Salmero Cumerus Maldonatus Let us hear their reasons Their first is These words super hanc Petram answers to the former words Tu es Petrus But it is answered those words Super hanc Petram answer also to those words Thou art Christ the Son of the living God For there is no necessity of referring the pronoun hanc to the words immediatly going before which is proved by other passages of scripture as Asts 2. 23 where the proun hunc is referred not to God which is nearest but to Iesus of Nazareth farther off And also in this Chapter by testimonies of Fathers of more authority and lesse suspect in this particular then Stapleton and Maldonat and it shall be proved further in the following chapters not only by testimonies of most eminent Fathers and Popish Doctors but also by the testimonies of five Popes themselves Their second reason is Christ in these words gives some reward or other to Peter for his confession but it is answered Peter is rewarded when he is called Petrus from Petra or Christ the Rock Secondly when he gets the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven whence Chrysostom As the Father gave unto thee to know me so I give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven The third reason is That Christ in these words super hanc-Petram means not the principal Rock or proper viz. himself but only a Metaphorick or Ministerial Rock and consequently the Rock must be Peter But it is answered the estate of the question is whether Christ that is the principal Rock be understood by super hanc Petrum Stapleton proves not because saith he Christ is not meaned which he proves by his own naked assertion without any other reason which is a childish petitio principij However we will add a reason that his assertion is false for if a Ministerial Rock be understood in these words super hanc Petrum Stapleton is hard put to it to prove out of these words the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which is his main intention Since it shal appear cap 6. that all the Apostles are Ministerial Rocks and that by the testimonies of the Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Peter Their fourth reason is The words of our Savior are aedificabo Ecclâ—siam meam super hanc Petram Which imports as much as the Church was not already built upon that Rock but only to be built upon it afterwards and therefore our Savior by Hanc Petram cannot mean himself upon whom the Church was already built But it is answered This is nothing but sophistry because already the Church was only built upon Christ in Judeâ— But our Saviour is prophesying here that the Gopel shal be propagated throughout the whole world and the Church built upon himself It is childish reasoning to argue the Church is built upon Christ already Ergo it cannot be said it shall be built upon him in time to come it is all one as one would reason thus Matthew 1. it is affirmed He shal save his people Ergo he hath not saved them and consequently it is no less foolish to affirm the Church is already built upon Christ because he promiseth to build it upon himself in time to come Their fifth reason is Christ promiseth to build the Churh upon one or other besides himself since he cannot be said to build the Church upon himself for it is the Father qui dedit ipsum caput super omnem Ecclesiam as the Apostle affirms But it is answered That assertion of Stapletons contradicts Augustinus affirming super me ipsum filium Dei vivi aedificabo Ecclesiam Which is his gloss upon these words super hanc Petram Secondly It contradicts Bellarmin affirming in se jam aedificaverat Apostolos Discipulos multos He had already built upon himself many Apostles and Disciples Thirdly It contradicts Scripture Ephesians 4. 16. By whom all the body being coupled and knit together c. receiveth increase of the body unto the edifying of it self in love By which words compared with verse 15. follows that the Church is built upon Christ by himself Their sixth reason is If by hanc Petram be meant Christ we cannot know which is the true Church and which is the false and therefore of necessity by hanc Petram Peter must be meaned But it is answered The Fathers we now mentioned and shal mention in the following chapter knew very well how to discern the true Church by the false yet none of them do â—nterpret Peter to be the Rock upon which the Church is built especially Augustinus who disputing against the Donatists cites many passages of Scripture by which we are instructed to discern the true Church by the false and yet he never makes use of this place Tu es Petrus Which he would not have omitted if the mentioning of it had been so necessar to discern the true Church from the false or if the true Church could not be discerned from the false without it Secondly This reason is a childish if not blasphemous petitio principij As if none could show the true Church by the false except the successor of Peter upon whom in their opinion the Church is built and so that is only the true Church which acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to be head of the Church as successor to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church And thus much of those Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Christ CHAP. V. Of the Fathers expounding the Rock to be the Confession of Peter NOw followeth those Fathers expounding the Rock to be the Faith or confession of Peter which opinion though it seems to differ in words from the former yet in effect it is all one in substance with it And therefore some of those Fathers who called the Rock Christ they cal also the Rock the confession of Peter So Nyssenus c. the Fathers interpreting the Rock to be the confession of Peter are these following The Liturgy commonly called that of S. James ad confirmationem sanctae tuae Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae quam fundâsti super Petra fidei ut Portae inferni non prevaleant ei The sum of which words is that the Church is founded upon the Rock of Faith Entychianus Bishop of Rome Epist 1. Unum hot immobile fundamentum una haec felix fidei Petra Petri ore confessu Tu es inquit Christus filius Dei vivi that is This is the only happy Rock of Faith confessed by Peter Hilarius in his Books of the Trinity in many places affirms that the Church is built upon the Rock of confession or that the Rock is the confession of Peter It is needless to mention all his testimonies this one will suffice Super hanc igitur confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est The Church is built upon this Rock of confession Nyssenus in the last chapter of his testimonies against the Jews after he had first called the Rock Christ as
Rock to be Peter the truth of which answer we have sufficiently proved in the former chapters viz. many of the Fathers interpreted the Rock to be Christ chap. 4. Others of them interpreted the Rock to be the Faith and Confession of Peter chap. 5. Neither did those Fathers chap. 4. and chap. 5. contradict one another we shewed before that their meaning was one who called the Rock Christ and the Rock the confession of Peter It was answered Secondly That the meaning of those Fathers calling the Rock Peter was nothing less then that Peter in those words of Christ thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church was by our Savior ordained Oecumenick Bishop It is needless to set down all the testimonies of those Fathers mentioned by Bellarmin since we grant that they call the Rock Peter So Clemens Tertullianus Cyprianus Athanasius Origines Hilarius Ambrosius Hieronymus Nazianzenus Chrysostomus Psellus Augustinus Maximus Tautinensus Cyrillus Alexandrinus Leo Magnus Prosper Andreas Cretensis Gregorius Magnus Theophylactus Whose testimonies you may find in Bellarmin who objects them we will only demonstrat in this following chapter that those Testimonies are of no moment neither is it their meaning or scope to prove that Peter was ordained O ecumenick Bishop although they expresly affirm that Peter is the Rock upon which Christ built his Church It is a notable and subtile Disput and of great importance since upon it depends what opinion Antiquity had of the supremacy of Peter and consequently of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and necessar communion with the Church of Rome The reasons wherefore those Fathers although they call the Rock Peter do not affirm he was ordained Oecumenick Bishop are those following The first is Those Fathers could have no other opinion of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or of Peter then that of the whole Church But the whole Church in their times was against the supremacy of Peter or the Bishop of Rome For it shall be proved lib. 3. that the first second and third General Councils were against the supremacy of both and likewise the fourth and fifth General Councils lib. fourth and the sixth seventh and eight General Councils lib. 5. which was hinted at above chap. 3. Secondly Many of Bellarmins testimonies are forged as shal be proved lib. 2. and 3. As the Epistle of Clement to Iames of Athanasius to Felix Bishop of Rome as is acknowledged by Baronius anno 357. paragraph 66. and Biniuâ— upon that Epistle tom 1. part 1. Concil of Augustinus in his Sermons upon the Saints of which we need no other proof of Forgery then that our adversaries themselves tax Augustinuâ— of ignorance of the Syriack tongue for interpreting the Rock to be Christ unanimously confessing he denyeth the Rock to be Peter It is needless to set down the reasons by which learned Men both Protestants and Papists prove those Sermons de sanctis attributed to Augustinus to be supposititious Thirdly Many of those Fathers who interpret the Rock to be Peter interpret it also to be Christ or the Confession of Peter as Tertullianus Hilarius Ambrosius Hieronymus Chrysosâ—omus Origines Augustinus Neither do they contradict themselves their meaning is all one and it shal be immediatly shewed nothing less then the Supremacy of Peter Fourthly The reasons wherefore those Fathers interpret the Rock to be Peter inferr no wayes that he was Oecumenick Bishop but on the contrair demonstrat that he was not Oecumenick Bishop Since in their opinion others may be called Rocks as well as Peter viz. Nazianzeus in his Oration for moderation affirms Petrus Petra vocatur quia Ecclesiae fundamenta suae fidei credita habet That is Peter was called the Rock because he had the foundations of the Church concredited to his Faith Ambrosius Sermon 47. Because he layed first the foundations of Faith amongst the nations therefore Peter was called the Rock Theophylactus affirms he was called the Rock because of his Faith and Confession that Christ was the Son of God Epiphanius Because he founded the Faith of our Lord upon which the Church is built he was made a solid Rock unto us Haeres in Catharis Theophanes Ceraneus As he is cited by Salmero tom 4. part 3. tract 2. affirms That Peter was called the Rock because of his Confession by which it appears that the reasons wherefore Peter was called the Rock are two First because he founded Churches Secondly because he confessed Christ Neither of which inferr an Oecumenick Bishop since no Sophister never so impudent can deny that others as well as Peter founded Churches and confessed Christ neither is it of any moment what they object that Peter was the first that founded the Church and confessed Christ as Theophylactus seems to import since it shal be proved afterward that the Apostles before this confession of Peter confessed Christ to be Son of God Matthew 14. and John 6. or the great Prophet see also Luke 1. 42. and 43. and 2. 30. 31. 32. Secondly Albeit Peter had first confessed Christ and by that confession first founded the Church it argues no supremacy in Peter or Jurisdiction over the Church no more then it followeth that Aristotle hath Jurisdiction over Logicians because he taught Logick first Fifthly and mainly because those Fathers who interpret Peter to be the Rock call others beside Peter in the same sense Rocks whence it is evinced unanswerably they intend nothing less then the supremacy of Peter by that gloss It were tedious to go through them all we will only instance some testimonies of those Fathers of whom our adversaries do most brag by which will appear the meaning of the rest The first is of Origines trastat 1. upon Matthew Quod si super unum illum Petrum tantum existimas aedificari totam Ecclesiam quid dicturus de Joanne filio tonitrui Apostolorum unoquoque quin aliqui num audebimus dicere quod adversus Petrum unum non praevaliturae sint portae inferorum adversus autem caeteros Apostolos ac praefectos praevaliturae sint ac non potius in omnibus singulis eorum de quibus dictum est fit illud quod dictum est portae inferorum uon praevalebunt adversus eam item illud super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam No Father is more pressed by Bellarmin then Origen to prove that Peter was the Rock and here ye have not only the testimony of Origin that the other Apostles were Rocks as well as Peter but also his probation of it First he propones and states the question Do ye think sayeth he that those words of Christ upon this Rock I will build my Church are spoken only to Peter you are deceived what shal we then say of John the son of thunder So then the proposition he undertakes to prove is that our Savior promised to build his Church upon all the Apostles as Rocks which he proves by this reason because it
Thirdly Albeit his supposition were true it is inconsequent and proves nothing for albeit our Savior had exhibited first to Peter the performance of those promises or the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven it doth not follow that Peter was ordinar head and Pastor of the other Apostles having Jurisdiction over them and that they were extraordinar depending upon Peter as their head as is declared by this similitude a Colledge of Judges consisting of such a number have afterwards more added to their number it doth not follow that those who were first constituted are ordinar Judges and the others extraordinar much less that those who were first constituted have Jurisdiction over those who were last which is most evident in the common wealth of the Romans in which at first there were only four Pontifices but that number was after doubled at first only a hundreth Senators under the Kings but that number was tripled by Brutus and augmented almost infinitly by Emperors At first there was only one Praetor next two one for the City an other for Strangers Lastly every Province had a Praetor But none will deny that those Pontifices Senators Pretors had as much power as those who were first constitut And this much of those Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Peter CHAP. VII Tu es Petrus Disputed from the Testimonies of Popish Doctors and Pops themselves IN the former chapters we have disputed Tu es Petrus the principal foundation of the supremacy of Peter of the Bishop of Rome and Faith of the Modern Roman Church by reason antiquity of which our adversaries brag so much especially of antiquity Now we will examine the exposition of those words by the testimonies of Pops and Popish Doctors interpreting that promise of Christ Upon this Rock I will build my Church So that by Rock is not meaned Peter at all or at least Peter alone by which two things will appear that the exposition of those words super hanc Petram approved by the Modern Church of Rome as an article of Faith is against all Antiquity and a new devised cheat of late to establish the Supremacy of Peter the Bishop of Rome necessar communion with that Church by an implicit faith as articles of the Creed necessar unto Salvation The second thing that will appear is this they brag much of Unity and Concord among themselves but it will appear by this chapter that there is no greater discord in hell then is among those of the Church of Rome taxing one another of madness and heresie in the interpretation of those words Upon this Rock I will build my Church which words are the principal if not the only foundation of the Modern Roman Faith and it is to be observed that those who interpret the Rock to be Peter only and tax others of their own profession of her sie are but of yesterday in comparison of the others who deny it and since those others who deny it are also but of yesterday in comparison of Antiquity it is evident that this interpretation of Peters alone being the Rock is a new devised cheat to establish the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome not known to the Ancients We shewed in the former chapters that some of the Fathers interpreted the Rock to be Christ cap 4. Others the faith of Peter cap. 5. and those who interpreted the Rock to be Peter meaned nothing less then he was the only Rock and in these words ordained Oecumenick Bishop We will distinguish the testimonies of those following Pops and Popish Doctors in three Classes accordingly the first is of those intepreting the Rock to be Christ The second of those interpreting it the confession of Peter The third of those denying Peter to be the only Rock of which in order The testimonies of the first class are those following Gregorius Bishop of Rome in Job lib. 31. cap. 19. in sacro eloquio cum singulari numero Petra nominatur quis alius quà m Christus accipitur Paulo attestante qui ait Petra erat Christus This testimony of a Bishop of Rome and a Saint in the Roman Calendar is unanswerable proving that in his time the Rock was expounded not to be Peter but Christ alone which he not only affirms but proves by this reason viz. when ever Rock is mentioned in Scripture in the singular number none other is to be understood but Christ and whereas those Sophisters object that Gregorius is not speaking of those words of Christ Upon this Rock I will build my Church because he proves it by the words of Paul the Rock was Christ who is speaking of that Rock from which Moses made water issue It is answered Albeit that be true that Paul is only speaking of that Rock yet it is false that Gregory speaks only of that Rock his words are where ever in Scripture Rock is mentioned in the singular number it signifieth none but Christ But in these words of our Savior Upon this Rock I will build my Church Rock is mentioned in the singular number Ergo according to Gregorius the Rock in these words is only Christ and not Peter at all The second testimony is of Anselmus who lived in the 12. Century who writing upon these words speaks as followeth Super hanc Petram id est Super me aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Quasi dicat si◠es Petrus à me Petra ut tamen mihi reservetur fundamenti dignitas Sed tu cui ego amatori confessori me◠Participium mei nominis dedi Super me fundamentum mundos lapides ordinabis This testimony is also most evident in which Christ is expresly interpreted to be the Rock and Peter denyed to be the Rock All which is given to Peter is to build the faithful upon Christ as the Rock viz. by preaching and sealing the Gospel with his blood as was shewed before Lyranus upon the same words Et super hanc Petram quam consessus es id est super Christum In which words he expresly interprets the Rock to be Christ He lived anno 1320. whereby it appears it was no article of Faith in his dayes to interpret the Rock to be Peter The Interlinear Gloss upon Matthew 16. 18. Petram id est Christum in quem credis That is by Rock is meaned Christ in whom Peter believed but this Gloss was approved by the whole Church Ioannes Arboreus Theosoph lib. 5. cap. 5. Ecclesia fundata est super Petram non super Petrum The Church is built upon the Rock and not upon Peter Petrus de Alliaco Cardinalis in Recommend sacrae Scripturae he lived anno 1400. his testimony in the said place is this Non videtur quod in Petra Petrus sed in Petra Christus sit intelligendus de quo agit Apostolus Petra autem rrat Christus It is not like that the Church is founded upon the Rock Peter but upon the Rock Christ as the Rock is taken by the Apostle Paul when he affirmeth the
Rock was Christ The same Author lib. 2. cap. 13. of his concordance Per Petram Christum quem confessus est intelligimus by the Rock we understand Christ whom Peter confessed Pererius lib. 2. in Daniel although a Jesuit affirms Quia Christus est Petra super quam fundata est sustentatur Ecclesia ideóque nullo unquam tempore nullâque vi labefactari everti poterit quin imò nec portae inferi adversus eam praevalebunt In which words he gives a reason wherefore the gates of hell shal not prevail against the Church viz. because Christ is the Rock upon which it is built And thus much of the testimonies of those Popish Doctors interpreting the Rock to be Christ And since some of them lived very lately it is evident that the interpretation of the Rock to be Peter is but a new devised cheat Now followeth the second Class Of those Popes and Popish Doctors interpreting the Rock to be the Faith or Confession of Peter The first testimony is of Adrianus Primus who lived in the eighth Century Anno 772. or thereabouts who in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain and France recorded in the Acts of the Council of Frankfoord hath these words Super hanc Petram quam confessus es à qua vocabull sortitus es dignitatem super hanc soliditatem fidei Ecclesiam meam aedificabo By which words two things appear The first is That the Church is built in his opinion upon the Confession of Peter The second is That those who call the Rock Christ and those who call it the confession of Peter mean both one thing since he expresly affirms That the Rock is the objective Confession of Peter or that which Peter confessed viz. Christ which is all one as if he had called Christ the Rock The second testimony of Innocent third who lived Anno 1000. or thereabouts In his Epistle to the Bishop of France concerning Petrus Abeilardus which Epistle is mentioned by Otto Frisingensis lib. 1. cap 84. degestis Frederici primi-Beatus Petrus Apostolorum Princeps pro eximiâ hujus fidei confessione audire meruit Tu es inquam beatus Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Petram utique firmitatem fidei Catholicae unitatis soliditatem manifestè designans The sum of which words is that our Savior by hanc Petram or the Rock means the firmness and solidity of Peters Faith The third testimony is of Adrianus quintus Bishop of Rome who lived about 1278. in his epistle to Frederick the Emperor recorded by Radivicus Frisingensis lib. 1. cap. 3. Quem in Apostolicae Confessionis Petra non ambigimus per Dei gratiam solidatum where the Rock is expresly called the thing which Peter confessed The testimony of the fourth Bishop of Rome is of Nicolaus secundus who lived about anno 1060. His testimony is recorded by Gratianus Distinct 22. cap. 1. Romanam Ecclesiam solus ille aedificavit super Petram fidei mox nascentis erexit that is the Church was built upon the faith of Peter then budding And thus much of the testimonies of four Popes or Bishops of Rome interpreting the rock to be the faith of Peter to which may be added testimonies of the most learned Doctors of that Church as the Glossator of the Decreta distinct 19. cap. Ita Dominus Joannes de Turre Cremata lib. 2. cap. 102. 1â—2 in summa de Ecclesia Dionysius Carthusianus who lived 1460. in his Commentaries upon Matthew 16. 18. Gorranus upon the same place and also Titelemanus and Erasmus all which expresly interpret the rock to be the confession of Peter it is needless to set down their words since their testimonies are granted The third Class of Popish Doctors is of those who although Peter were granted to be the rock yet they deny him to be the only rock upon which the Church was built and who call other Apostles rocks and foundations as well as Peter The testimonies are few but the giveâ—s of them are most notable Men the most famous Doctors that ever the Church of Rome could brag of The first is the testimony of Lombardus Master of the sentences the first Founder of School-divinity among the Latins as Damascenus amongst the Grecians who interpreting those words of Psalm 87. Fundamenta ejus in montibus sanctis affirms that all the Prophets and Apostles are foundations The second testimony is of Nicolaus Cusanus that famous Cardinal whom Espenseus lib. 2. de adorat Ecclesiae and Aeneas Silvius afterward Bishop of Rome both commend as one of the ablest Divines that ever the Church of Rome produced His first testimony is 21. dist in novo 24. quest 1. Sed scimus quod Petrus nihil plus potestatis à Christo accepit aliis Apostolis but we know that Peter got no more power from Christ then the rest of the Apostles and likewise lib. 2. cap. 13. concordiâ— Catholicae where he hath this notable testimony Et quanquam Petro dictum est tu es Petrus Si Petrus per Petram lapis fundamenti Ecclesiae in elligi deberet tunc secundum S. Hieronymum ita similiter alii Apostoli fuerunt lapides Apocal. 21. In which words he expresly affirms and proves that the other Apostles were Rocks as well as Peter which he proves by the testimony of Hieronymus And thus much of that famous passage tu es Petrus of which so much noise is made now a days which although it be the principal place upon which the supremacy of Peter of the Bishop of Rome and the Faith of the Modern Church of Rome is built Yet you see what little cause they have to brag of Antiquity since none of the Ancients interpret Peter to be the Rock and also what little cause they have to brag of Unity since those who interpret Peter to be the Rock only are contradicted not only by the most learned Doctors of their own Church but also by six Popes Felix 3. Gregory 1. Adrianus 1. Nicolaus 2. Innocentus 3. Adrianus 5. And notwithstanding that their Popes are now estemed by them infallible Judges of controversies yet Pighius and Baronius who interpret the Rock to be Peter only tax all those six Popes of ignorance madness as we said before so doth Maldonatus de Valentia and other of their Doctors whose testimonies is needless to be mentioned since they cannot without impudence be denyed CHAP. VIII Of Matthew 16. 19. Of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven HItherto hath been prolixly disputed the first argument of our adversaries proving Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop viz. because as they pretend our Savior promised to build the Church upon him as a Rock verse 18. Now followeth their second argument viz because our Saviour promised to give to him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven verse 19. But it is unanimously answered by Protestants that in those words the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven our Savior doth not mean universal Jurisdiction
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
to Peter Whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose Matthew 16. But in Matthew 16. nothing was exhibited to Peter but only promised Ergo in Matthew 18. nothing was exhibited to the other Apostles It is answered That Bellarmin proves nothing but what he affirmed before viz. That it was hard to shew a disparity between these two places Or that binding and loosing Matthew 16. 19. and Matthew 28. 18. for in stead of proving them different places by his sophistical contradictory babling he proves they are just the same For first he grants that nothing was exhibited in either place but only promised Secondly he grants that the words are alike Whatsoever thou shalt bind and whatsoever ye shal bind Whence he concluds that the places are not alike whereas he demonstrats they are the same It is reasoning unbeseeming so brave a man to prove places not alike by alike circumstances in both Secondly he contradicts what he said before viz. That power of Order was only given unto the other Apostles John 20. but power of Jurisdiction to Peter Matthew 16. and therefore the places were unlike that power of order was only given to the other Apostles John 20. he proved by forgiving and retaining that power of Jurisdiction was given to Peter Matthew 16. he proves by binding and loosing but here he grants that the binding and loosing given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and that given to Peter Matthew 16. are verba similia or the same words and consequently that the keys or power of Jurisdiction are given to the other Apostles as well as to Peter and consequently he proves himself a lyar in affirming that the keys given to Peter were keys of Jurisdiction but not these given to the other Apostles Alphonsus de Castro adversus haeres lib. 12. and Fisher Bishop of Rochester disputing against Luther art 25 proves that the keys given to Peter Matthew 16. and these given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. are not the same which they prove by an Achillean argument viz. it is said to Peter What ever thou bindest and loosest on Earth shal be bound and loosed in the Heavens but unto the other Apostles Matthew 18 it is only said Whomsoever ye bind or loose on Earth it shal be bound or loosed in Heaven but to bind and loose in Heaven is not the same but less then to bind and loose in the Heavens But it is answered Any intelligent person may see that those otherwise-learned men fight against their own conscience when they are driven to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome by such childish babling Since men of so great Spirits and Learning as those two were known to be could not be ignorant that this distinction of Heaven and Heavens is against Sense Scripture and Fathers First it is against sense Because none can be ignorant that Heavens in the plural number and Heaven collectively in the singular number are all one and the same thing in the ordinar phrase of speaking Who is so stupid as to deny it Secondly It is against Scripture which promiscuously useth Heaven and Heavens in the same sense so Mark 1. compared with Luk. 3. demonstrat In the first place it is said The Heavens were cloven assunder In the last the Heaven was opened and yet both the Evangelists are relating the same thing when John the Baptist baptized our Savior So Matthew 6. Christ affirmeth Lay up treasures for your selves in Heaven but Luk. 12. Make your selves treasurs in the Heavens Thirdly this distinction of Heaven and Heavens is of so little moment in the opinion of the Fathers that they express Matthew 18. in the plural number Heavens and Matthew 16. in the singular number Heaven So Hilarius lib. 6. de Trinitate affirms That all the Apostles had the keys Regni Coelorum of the Heavens he useth the same expression in his Book against the Arrians Cyprianus epist 54. affirmeth that all the Apostles had power of binding and loosing in the Heavens so doth Chrysostomus lib. 3. de Sacerdotio and Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 2. epist 5. and Augustinus against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets lib. 1. cap. 17. and Paceanus epist 1. to Sympronianus and in his book against the Novatians All which Fathers affirm that the Apostles had power of binding and loosing in Coelis in the Heavens The school-men likewise speak after the same manner as Lombardus distinct 18. of the first chapter lib. 4. and also in the same book distinct 19. and Durandus quest 1. in his Commentaries upon the said 19. distinct This is it that proved that all the Apostles had the keys not only of Heaven but of the Heavens whereby it appears by the authority of Scripture Fathers and School-men that the keys of Heaven and of Heavens are one and the same thing If any be not yet convinced it is further proved they are the same because the Fathers call the keys of Peter the keys of Heaven in the singular number So Ambrosius lib 1. de penitentia cap. 6. and Augustinus contra adversarium lib. 1. cap. 17. Ambrosius repeating the words of Christ to Peter saith Quaecunque ligaveris super Terram erunt ligata in Coelo Which is further confirmed The Fathers in the same place speaking of Christs promise to Peter call the keys promised to him both the keys of Heaven and the keys of Heavens So Ambrosius in the now cited place after the former words adds Et quaeâ—unque solveris super Terram erunt soluta in Coelis Augustinus in the fore-cited place calls the keys given to the other Apostles both the keys of Heaven and of the Heavens for after those words repeating our Saviors promise to the Apostles Quae solveritis super Terram erunt soluta in Coelis he affirms Quae ligaveritis in Terra erunt ligata in Coelo And thus we have proved that Alphonsus de Castro and Bishop Fisher are mistaken in their distinction of Heaven and Heavens by Reason Scripture and Fathers The original of this distinction they have from Origines tract 6. in Matthew where comparing the keys of Peter with those words Tell the Church and if he refuse to hear it to make satisfaction after three admonitions let him be unto thee as a publican he affirms That Peter although but one person yet had the keys of many Heavens but others or those admonishers three times although many persons yet had only the keys of one Heaven and so by the testimony of Origines Bozius lib. 18. cap. 1. de signis Ecclesie sustains that distinction of Heaven and Heavens mentioned by de Castro and Bishop Fisher But it is answered Those Doctors of the Church of Rome take great liberty to themselves in exposition of the Fathers Bellarmin as we shewed before pressed by a testimony of Origen not only affirming but also proving that these words upon this Rock I will build my Church Or that in these words nothing was promised
to Peter which was not promised to the other Apostles answered that Origines was speaking allegorically otherwise he contradicted himself in his 5. Homily upon Exodus where he called Peter that great Foundation which we proved to be no contradiction cap. 6. By the same argument we prove that Origines in this place is speaking allegorically otherwise he contradicts Reason Scripture Fathers and himself And likewise affirms a notorius untruth in this very place alledged And first that he contradicts Reason Scripture and Fathers in denying the keys of Heaven and the keys of Heavens to be the same we have just now proved disputing with de Castro and Fisher Secondly He contradicts himself in other places in affirming that greater power of the keys was given to Peter then to the Others or that the keys of the Heavens are more then the keys of Heaven because else-where he disputs and endeavors to prove that the power of the keys given to Peter was the very same given to the other Apostles as in his first Treatise upon Matthew mentioned before and vindicated cap. 6. Thirdly Origen is comparing the keys of Peter with these three admonitions but if he speak literally he lyeth in firming that those Admonishers had the power of the key of one Heaven given them from Christ or that what they did bind and loose on Earth should be bound and loosed in one Heaven which is promised no whereby Christ Lastly Origines is comparing in these words the power of Privat Admonishers with that of Ministers having the power of binding and loosing and after his manner falls to Allegories by this distinction of Heaven and Heavens otherwise he were not only a lyar in this place but also a contradicter of Reason Scripture and other Fathers and of himfelf in other places Bellarmin thought it a sufficient Reason to prove that Origines spake allegorically viz. otherwise he would contradict himself and yet we shewed there was no contradiction therefore he cannot in reason deny that Origines in this place speaks allegorically since otherwise he would contradict Reason Scripture all the Fathers himself in other places and also be a notorious lyar in this same alledged place We have have proved already That Matthew 16. 19. inferrs not that Peter was Oecumenick Bishop because the power of the keys was no universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church we undertook to prove it by an other reason viz. because the power of the keys was not given to Peter alone but to the other Apostles as well as to him Which we undertook to prove by two arguments First by Scripture Secondly by Fathers By Scripture we have already proved it viz. from Matthew 18. 18. and John 20. 23. vindicated from the exceptions of our adversaries alledging they were not alike places with Matthew 16. 19 It only remains now to prove by testimonies of Fathers that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others as well as to Peter those testimonies are of two sorts The first is of those affirming directly that the keys were given to others besids Peter the other sort is of those affirming it by consequence Of the first sort it is needless to mention any more then we have already mentioned in the vindication of these places Such as Hilarius lib. 6. de Trinitate and adversus Arianos Cyprianus Epistola 54. Chrysostomus de Sacerdotio lib. 3. Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 2. epist 5. Pacianus ad Sympronianum epist 1. and in his Treatise against the Novatians All which testimonies expresly affirm That the keys were given to others beside Peter Neither is it needful to set down the words since our adversaries cannot have so much impudence as to deny them To which testimonies may be added that of Hieronymus against Jovinanus Cuncti Discipuli claves Regni Coelorum accipiunt all the Disciples got the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven of Origines tract 1. in Matthew An verò soli Petro dantur claves Regni coelorum nec alius beatorum quisquam eas accepturus est Quod si dictum hoc tibi dabo claves Regni Coelorum caeteris quoque commune est cor non simul omnia communia In which words he expresly affirms That which was promised to Peter was promised also to all the Apostles as well as the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven And a little after Servator dans Spiritum Sanctum Discipulis per insufflationem ait accipite Spiritum Sanctum c. It is needless to add any more testimonies Now let us consider how our adversaries elude them And first Cardinal Pool in his defence of the Ecclesiastick Vnity lib. 2. grants those testimonies but he denys that any thing is proved by them viz. That all the Apostles had alike power with Peter in the power of the keys albeit it seems to be the meaning of those Fathers which he illustrats by the example of Moses and the 70. Elders since it is said Numbers 11. That God gave unto them a part of that Spirit which was in Moses and consequently they had the same power in substance with Moses but not in so excellent a way Maldonatus answers otherwise viz. denying That the same keys were given to Peter Matthew 16. and to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20 his reason is in the two last places no mention is made of keys at all Stapleton is more subtile for seeing that Christ saith Matthew 18. What ever ye shal bind to all the Apostles is the same with that said to Peter Matthew 16. Whatsoever thou shalt bind c. He grants that the same binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. is given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. but he affirms That the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are a thing different from either of the bindings or loosings in Relec. controvers 3 quest 1. art 1. conclus 4. Others answer Distinguishing the keys of Order and Jurisdiction they grant that the keys of Order were given to all the Apostles the keys of Jurisdiction only to Peter It is needless particularly to insist upon the refutation of those new devised Sophistries to hold up the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome they are quite and diametrally opposit to the meaning of all antiquity of which they brag so much as appears by two reasons The first is that the Fathers disput expresly that the same keys were promised to Peter Matth. 16. and to the other Apostles Mat. 18. John 20. consequently all those distinctions devised of late by the Jesuits others are nothing else but fantastick dreams and sophistical evasions And first Origines tract 1. on Matthew disputs as we said That the Church was built alike upon all the Apostles because the keys were given alike to all the Apostles by which reasoning it appears that he thought it a thing uncontroverted in his time that the keys were common to all the Apostles since he useth it as a Medium or Argument to prove That
the keyes which he affirms to be farr from the meaning of Cyprian The third argument of Fathers proving by consequence that the keyes were given to others also beside Peter is because Peter spoke in the name of the rest or answered the question of our Savior for them all Anselmus on Matthew 16. hath these words Notandum est quod haec potestas non solum Petro data est sed sicut Petrus unus pro omnibus respondit sic in Petro omnibus hanc potestatem dedit It is to be observed that this power of the keyes was not only given to Peter but as Peter alone answered for them all so in Peter he gave that power unto them all Bellarmin answers That Peter answered for all as their Prince Head and Mouth not as one commissionat from them to answer in all their names in which case he would have known what they were to answer to our Saviors question asking them what he was But Peter did not know what the other Apostles would answer to that question of our Savior and therefore he answered as their Prince and Head But it is replyed We grant that Peter was not commissionat from the rest to answer for them but we deny it to follow that he answered as their Prince and Head there is amids viz. he answered as one of their number as when any is riding out the way he meets with a number of people asks of them the right way or some other question one more ready then the rest answers first It is notorious he had no commission from the rest to answer and yet it doth not follow that he is Head or Prince of the rest by which it appears that this reasoning of Bellarmins is nothing else but Sophistry and whereas Bellarmin affirms That Peter answered only for himself and not for the rest because he knew not what they would answer It is frivolous because it was sufficient that Peter knew what they ought to have answered if they answered aright Bellarmin urgeth a reward is given to Peter in these words for his answer but since the others did not answer at all but only himself without commission from the rest It follows of necessity that the reward viz. the keyes were given to Peter alone and not to the rest especially since our Savior affirms That it was revealed by God only to Peter that Christ was the Son of God But it is replyed The words of our Savior are That the said mystery was revealed to Peter by God only but it doth not follow That it was revealed to Peter only that is uncertain yea rather notoriously false Since Peter John â— 69. in the name of all the rest hath these words And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ the Son of the living God by which it appears that the other disciples knew that mystery as well as Peter since Peter expresly affirms in that place They all believed it Bellarmin instances how know we that Peter spake for the rest and not for himself alone since it cannot be gathered from the Text. But it is answered first How knoweth Bellarmin that Peter answered for himself and not for the rest Since no such thing can be gathered from the Text. It is answered Secondly That it is evident from the Text that Peter answered for the rest because Christ asked not the question of Peter alone but of them all he asketh whom they thought he was and since Peter immediately answered being more ready then the rest as Chrysostom affirms it is evident that Peter answered in the name of them all Franciscus Agricola besides those reasons of Bellarmin adds others to prove that Peter answered for himself alone and not for the rest His first reason is this Because he answered not for Judas since Judas believed no such thing as Christ was the Son of God Ergo he answered not for them all But it is answered It doth not follow He answered not for them all Because Judas believed not because John 6. 69. Agricola will not deny that Peter answered for them all and yet the not believing of Judas might as well militat against his answering for them all John 6. as Matthew 16. Peter answered What they all ought to have believed and in so doing answered for all albeit they did not all believe Another of Agricola his reasons not mentioned by Bellarmin is this Our Savior pronounced only Peter blessed and not the other Apostles Ergo Peter answered only for himself and not for all otherwise our Savior would have called them all blessed But it is answered Our Savior called only Peter blessed because Peter only answered and so in pronouncing him blessed He called them all blessed because he answered in the name of them all So Hilarius de Vinctat 6. alluding to this place saith O ye holy and blessed men who procured the keys â—o the Kingdom of Heavenâ— by the merit of your Faith In which words he applyeth that blessing of Christ to all alike Agricola hath three other Reasons Proving that Peter answered only for himself and not for all but they are the same with those of Bellarmin which we answered already and thus much of the keys Matthew 16. 19. which is the second argument pretended by the Romish Doctors for proving that Peter was instituted Oecumenick Bishop by Christ CHAP. IX Of Iohn 21. 15 16 17. Or feed my Sheep THe third argument proving that our Savior ordained Peter Monarch of the Church is taken from the words of our Savior John 21. 15 16 17. where thrice our Savior commands him to feed his Sheep viz. to feed his Lambs verse 15. his Sheep verse 16 17. But it is answered That argument is inconsequent for although our Savior injoyned the feeding of his Sheep to Peter it doth not follow that he ordained him Oecumenick Bishop for three reasons The first is because feeding of Christs Sheep is not to command Christians nor to exercise dominion over them as a Monarch Since the Apostle Peter himself in his first Epistle cap. 5. verse 3. expresly forbids dominion to those to whom the feeding of Christs Flock was injoyned verse 2. Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 15. de Pont. Rom. endeavors to prove that in the word Feeding supream Jurisdiction over the whole Church is committed to Peter by several reasons The first is that it comprehends all the duty of a Pastor which consists not only in Ministring Food but also in Governing and Chastising As appears by our Savior using the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to feed by commanding in which sense Kings are called by Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastors of the people But it is answered Bellarmin subtilty in such Grammaticisms hath no ground Our Savior in the same place useth the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which not only the Syrian Interpreters but also the Latin renders the same way viz. to
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
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
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
no Council that the Pope had power to depose Kings and consequently it was not the doctrine of the Church of Rome His second objection was that notwithstanding all this it was not the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome because all the Church of France rejected it as a pernicious doctrine I answered this objection by a two-fold distinction The first of times viz. When the King of France was low and the Pope high The second distinction was of causes wherefore Kings are deposed one of which and the main one was heresie I desired him to read history and he would find that when the Kings of France were low and their Kings suspected of heresie that it was the doctrine of the whole Clergy of France that the Pope had power of deposing such Kings at such times for proving of which I desired him to read first a decree of the Sorbon printed at Paris in which they approved the bulls of Sixtus 5. excommunicating and deposing Henry 3 4. Kings of France I desired him secondly to read that speech of Cardinal Peron in the name of the Clergy of France as their Speaker in an Assembly of the Estates in which speech he openly maintains That it is the opinion of the whole Church of France and ever was that Heretical Kings that is Protestants ought to be deposed that the Pope had power to depose them and that true French-men ought them no allegiance And thus much of the Popes power in temporals by the way it shal be more largely disputed God willing part 3. lib. 2 what we have said is sufficient to prove That the Dominion of the Bishop of Rome is tyrannical and consequently according to their own confession forbidden Peter 1. 5 3. The third particular of the tyrannical Domination of the Bishop of Rome is over souls departed The fourth is over Angels Both which usurpations appear by the Bull of Clement sixth proclaiming a Jubile The words of the Bull are these Concedimus si confessus in via moriatur ut ab omnibus peccatis suis sit immunis penitus absolutus mandamus Angelis ut animam è purgatorio penitùs absolutam in Paradisi gloriam introducant And in another Bull Nolumus ut paena inferni illi infligatur concedens cruce signatis ad eorum vota tres aut quatuor animas quas volunt ex purgatorio posse eripere in which Bulls he takes upon him to command Angels and to place Souls in heaven or hell as he pleaseth The 5. particular proving the tyranny of the dominon of the Bishop of Rome is in assuming divin power to himself So Nicolaus 2. in Gratianus dist 96. Satis evidenter Where he affirms That the Pope cannot be Judged by any Secular Prince because the Pope was called God by Constantine but God cannot be judged by man Likewise Bonifacius 8. 6. decret de electione C. fundamenta affirms That S. Peter was assumed in the fellowship of the individual Trinity and consequently the Bishop of Rome hath the same priviledge as Peters Successor So Glossa extravag C. antiquae de voto Where speaking of Matrimony held by the Church of Rome to be a Sacrament of divine Institution a doubt is moved how that vow made in Matrimony can be dissolved by a Constitution of the Church Since it was made solemnly to God The Glossator answers the doubt That it cannot be made void by a meer man but only by the Pope who is not a meer man but Gods Vicar Thirdly he usurps Divinity in making the Decretal Epistles or the Canon law of equal authority with the Scripture So Gratianus distinct 19. C. in Canonicis expresly affirms so much Innumerable examples might be afforded of this kind but those are sufficient The sixth and last particular of the Tyranny of the Domination of the Bishop of Rome is his hearing patientissimis auribus without offence biasphemous titles attributed to him in Orations Books and Pamphlets printed by his Authority which is all one as he had stiled himself by those titles So by the Gloss in the Canon Law he is called our Lord God the Pope as is found in those Editions printed at Lions 1584. and at Paris 1585. 1601. 1612. All which Editions were set out after Gregory 13. had corrected the Canon Law the words are Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam Conditorem dictae decretalis non sic potuisse statuere prout statuit haereticum censeatur extravagant John 22. tit 14. de verb. sig cap. 4. c. We could produce innumerable such but it were tedious yet we cannot omit that blasphemous Pamphlet presented to Innocent the 10. who before his Popedom was called Cardinal Pamphilius The scope of which Pamphlet is to compare the Pope whom he calleth Pamphilius with Christ whom he calleth Philius To be short he preferrs the Pope to Christ in most horrible manner and yet the Pope was no wise offended at that flâ—ttery It seems he understood not what Blasphemy meant for an other time being desired to hear a Theological Controversie between the Jansenists and Molinists disputed before him that he might determin it He answer ed He was an old man it did not belong to his profession and he had never studied Divinity as is reported by S. Amour in his journal where he affirms He heard the Pope affirm so publickly And thus much of Peter 1. 5. 3. The first Argument of Protestants against Peters institution of Oecumenick Bishop we have proved two things in the vindication of that passage The first is that not only tyrannical Domination but all sort of Domination is forbidden in that place The second is although it were granted that only tyrannical Domination in Church-men were forbidden in the same place yet it quite overthrows the institution of an Oecumenick Bishop which we have proved to be most tyrannical and that by six arguments which in effect amongst Candide men are unanswerable CHAP. XII The Supremacy of Peter assaulted from Ephesians 1. 22. 4. 23. 5. 23. And Colossians 1 18. IN the former Chapter we assaulted the Institution of Peter in that Oecumenick Bishoprick by the testimony of Peter himself forbidding all sort of Lording or Domination in Church men where we also proved two things First that not only tyrannical Domination was forbidden by the Apostle in Church Rulers but all Domination Secondly although tyrannical Lording had only been forbidden nevertheless the injunction of the Apostle inhibited That Lording assumed by the Bishop of Rome now to himself proving by demonstrative arguments that the power of the Bishop of Rome now-a-dayes was not only tyrannical but blasphemous and a right-down Gigantomachy which shal more largely be proved part 4. lib. 1. In this following chapter we make use of a second argument against the institution of Peter in that universal Bishoprick by Christ viz. it appears by these Scriptures mentioned in the title That Christ is the Head of the Church and if Peter were
by divine Institution Oecumenick Bishop the Church would have two heads since our adversaries maintain that an Oecumenick Bishop is head of the Church They answer to this difficulty varying one from another some one way some another some the third way others the fourth It will not be unpleasing to examine their Sophistry The first answer is of Bellarmin distinguishing The Church saith he cannot have two principal Heads nevertheless it may have two heads whereof the one is subordinat to the other In a word he answers Christ is Caput primarium Ecclesiae primary head of the Church Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome are Capita secundaria or secundary heads But this distinction of Bellarmins is both against Scripture and Antiquity It is against Scripture which calling Christ the head of the Church and the Church the body of Christ doth so by a Metaphor taken from a humane body and as a humane body cannot have two heads one subordinat to another that the similitude may hold the Church cannot have two heads Secondly this plurality of heads in the Church is against Antiquity Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. epist 36. directed to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria exclaims most bitterly against John Bishop of Constantinople taking upon him to be head of the Church under Christ neither is it of any moment what some object that Gregory doth not inveigh against the title it self of Oecumenick Bishop but only against John Patriarch of Constantinople for usuâ—ping to himself that title Head of the Church which did not belong unto him but to the Bishop of Rome as Successor to Peter We affirm this solution is Black Sophistry because Gregory disputs generally against all who presume to take upon them that title whether Bishops of Rome or not as appears by his general reason He arguments thus He is proud and arrogant and a fore-runner of Antichrist and like Lucifer exalting himself above the other Angels who takes upon him that which is proper to Christ or belongs to Christ only But he who takes upon him to be head of the Church takes that upon him which belongs only to Christ Ergo. By which reasoning of Gregorius it is evident that he disputs against all who take upon them to be secundary heads of the Church Bishop of Rome and all his reason militats no less against the Bishop of Rome then against him of Constantinople and in his 38. Epistle he ingeminats the same reason viz. That those who take upon them to be Head of the Church under Christ will not be able to hold up their face at the last day because in so doing they took upon them that title which belonged only to Christ which title also Gregory in several other of his Epistles calls new Blasphemous against the mandats of Christ Canons of the Apostles Constitutions of the Church c. Which testimonies of Gregory shal be examined hereafter and vindicated from the sophistries of Bellarmin Baronius and others This secundary head is also assaulted by Basilius in Ascetitis in the Prooem where he calls Christ the only head of the Church And thus ye have the opinion of Basilius and Gregorius both called the Great that a Secundary Head of the Church is an Antichristian fiction since they thunder so against it in the person of any one man none can be so ignorant as to think that Gregorious exclaimed against John for taking on him that title of caput primarium Ergo the thing he disputs against is that caput secundarium defended now by Bellarmin Bellarmin nevertheless disputs for that secundary head three wayes First because it is no wayes injurious to Christ Secondly because it illustrats the glory of Christ Thirdly because it is necessar to the Church Let us hear how he pleads And first how he proves it is not contumelious to Christ His argument is this Many titles of Christ are communicated to men such as Pastor Bishop Apostle Prophet Light Foundation Yea and the title of God himself and yet no injury is done to Christ when men are called Apostles Pastors Doctors and Gods c. Ergo no injury is done to Christ when a man is called Head of the Church under Him And consequently a secundary Head of the Church is no wayes contrair to Scripture But it is answered First we have warrand in Scripture for these other titles attributed to both Christ and men but we have no warrand in Scripture to call any man Head of the Church By which it appears that our Savior hath reserved that title to himself alone It is great presumption in any man to take upon him that title belonging to Christ without any warrand Secondly those other titles coÌ„municated to men which are attributed to Christ principally may be compared to those titles which are common to a King and his Subjects Some of which without any derogation to the King at all may be communicated to the Subject as Noble Rich Powerful Lord Magistrat c. But none of the Subjects can be called Kings Just so in these titles common to Christ with men no wrong is done to Christ when they are called Lights Foundations Apostles Doctors Prophets c. But the title of head of the church can no more be coÌ„munictaed to a man then the title of a King to a subject Head of the church is the Kingdom of Christ Thirdly those other titles objected by Bellarmin common to Christ other men are not properly attributed to both but properly to the one Figuratively or Metaphorically to the other So these titles which are properly attributed to Christ are attributed to men improperly and secundum homonymiam And again these titles that are proper to men are in the same manner improperly attributed to Christ But Bellarmin and his Fellows maintain that the title of Head of the Church belongs properly both to Christ and men as the title of a King properly belongs to both Now let us examine those titles objected by Bellarmin more particularly And First Pastor Apostle Bishop Prophet these titles are attributed to men without auy injury to Christ because these titles belong properly to men and from them translated to Christ and since our Savior demits himself voluntarily to these titles it is no injury to him though they be attributed to him Metaphorically and Abusively In the next place are Light and Foundation which according to an Homonymy are attributed to Christ and to men And first Light if it were attributed to them both properly the assertion of John the Apostle would be false affirming That John Baptist was not the Light but only Christ by whom it appears also that Christ was called the Light because he illuminats men are called Lights because they are illuminated So Cyrillus Thomas Aquinas and Augustinus upon the place which last affirms that the Apostle called our Savior the true Light because he was that Light which illuminats men were only called Lights because they were illuminated by him and
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
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
confirmed from onsets of the Devil or his instruments and since no visible Monarch of the Church is mentioned by the Apostle it is evident that there was no such Monarch ordained by Christ Bellarmin answers two wayes One way is that the Apostle in those words is not delineating the Hierarchy of the Church but only enumerating divers gifts of some of the Church and 1 Corinthians 12. he adds the gift of tongues But it is replyed It cannot be denyed but the Apostle is enumerating diversity of gifts since verse 7. He expresly affirms so much but it is to be added that he enumerats those gifts as they are in Officers of the Church only whence appears the dissimilitude of this place from 1 Corinth 12. In which gifts are enumerated which are not peculiar to Church Rulers but are also found in laiks Such as gifts of healing and tongues c. That this is the Apostles meaning appears by two reasons First â—he enumerats none verse 11. Who hath not a degree of ruling in the Church The second is because ver 12. 13 14 He doth not enumerat any utility redounding to the Church which is not wrought by the Ministry ver 11. He enumerats the Ministers of the Church ver 12. 13 14. He enumerats the ends wherefore these Ministers were ordained All which ends Oecumentus comprehends under one that is saith he Those degrees of Ministers enumerated verse 12. were for that end ordained that they might minister unto the Church as appears ver 12 13 14. It is to be observed that the Apostle enumerats here all Church Officers both extraordinar and ordinar The extraordinar are those who were ordained only to continue for a time Such as Apostles Evangelists Prophets Ordinar are those ordained to be of perpetual standing in the Church as Doctors and Pastors And since in all those Orders of Church Ministers there are many and not one only in each degree it is evident that one Oecumenick Bishop or a visible head of the Church is not comprehended under any of those Ministers Bellarmin puzled with this answers another way He grants that the enumeration of Church Ministers here is perfect but he denyes that an Oecumenick Bishop hath no place in that enumeration because saith he All the â—ierarchy of the Church and consequently an Oecumenick Bishop is confusâ—dly represented under the name of Pastors and Doctors But finding that Pastors and Doctors were only inferior Orders below Apostles Prophets and Evangelists He passeth from this and affirms next That an Oecumenick Bishop is comprehended under Apostles because not only here but also 1 Corinth 12. Apostles are put in the first place and therefore the chief Ecclesiastick Power was given to all the Apostles but to Peter as ordinar Pastor and therefore to have a Successor in it to the other Apostles as exraordinar and Delegats to Peter and therefore none should succeed them But it is answered we prolixly disputed this distinction of Bellarmins to be groundless contradictory and inconsistent with it self cap. 6. It is needless to repeat what we said there in this place It is sufficient here that never any ancient or Modern Interpreter before the times of the Jesuits did so much as dream that an Oecumenick Bishop was comprehended by the Apostle Ephes 4. 11. Which could be made out by an Induction of all the Commentaries of ancient and Modern Writers upon that place By which it appears that all those testimonies by which those Jesuits prove the Supremacy of Peter and consequently the verity of the Roman Faith are either in Scripture or Fathers depraved by new devised Glosses unknown to the Ancients and also their answers are of the same stuff by which they elude passages of Scripture and Antiquity destroying the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome and in it the whole edifice of the Roman Church Both their offensive and defensive arms are but devised of late since the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome was established That any may see that this Gloss of Bellarmins is a fiction of his own devising we will prove by three Arguments of three several Interpreters By which it will appear what was the opinion of the Church concerning the meaning of this passage Ephes 4. 11. since the times of the Apostles unto those dayes The first Interval is of the Primitive Church before the Council of Nice what was the opinion of that Church in that Interval appears by the testimony of the ancient Author by some believed to be Dionysius Areopagita the disciple of Paul his words epistle 8. are those Tu ergo cupiditati iracundiae rationi modum statue pro dignitate tibi verò divini Ministri his Sacerdotes Pontifices Sacerdotibus Pontificibus Apostali stoli Apostolorúmque successores Quod si quâ—s etiam in istis ab officio discedat à sanctis qui sunt ejusdem ordinis corrigetur atque ita non insultabit ordo in ordinem sed unusquisque in suo ordine ac Ministerio premanebit In which words ye have two things The first is That the chief place in the Hierarchy in the times of the Apostles was held not by one but by many viz. by all the Apostles alike neither makes he mention of Peter his having that chief power as ordinar Pastor and of the other Apostles as having it aâ— Delegats to Peter which will be further confirmed by the second thing observable in these words which is this After the Apostles were removed the chief place in the Hierarchy consisted also not in one person but in many alike viz. in Bishops who succeeded to the Apostles in the first place of the Hierarchie which also he expresly affirms to be of equal Order and Jurisdiction many and not one having Jurisdiction over all as a visible head which quite destroyes the Gloss of Bellarmin for if others succeeding to the other Apostles were in the first place of the Hierarchie which this Author flatly affirms it is false which Bellarmin affirms that all the Apostles had the chief power only during their own time not communicable to their Successors And likewise if those successors of the other Apostles were in the first place of the Hierarchy equally and alike as this Author also affirms It is false which Bellarmin affirms That the Successors of Peter the Apostle had â—he chief authority in their single persons as visible Monarchs of the Church It may be proved by the Glosses of Maximus and others that this Dionysius was not the Disciple of the Apostle Paul mentioned in the Acts because he seems to make mention of the Metropolitants above Bishops But it shal be proved lib. 2. by unanswerable testimonies That there was no Office above that of a Bishop in the Church before the latter end of the third age However albeit he be not the Disciple of Paul as some affirm he is yet he is an ancient Author and delineats the Hierarchie of the Church not to have been monarchical in his days
The second testimony is of Ambrosius who lâ—ved in that interval between the Council of Nice and anno 604. at which time Bonifacius third was made first of all the Bishops of Rome universal Bishop by an Edict of the Emperor Phocas The words of Ambrosius are Apostoli sunt Episcopi nam in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt quia primus sacerdos est hoc est Princeps Sacerdotum Propheta Evangelista ad caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in Ministerio fidelium In which words he is shewing what Church-Rulers in his own time were answerable to or represented these mentioned by Paul Ehes 4. 11. And he affirms That Bishops succeeded to the Apostles in the first place of the Hierarchie Apostoli sunt Episcopi saith he in which words he expresly affirms That the chief place in the Hierarchie in his own time which was the latter end of the 4. Age was in many and not in one viz. in Bishops who answered to the Apostles And consequently he contradicts this gloss of Bellarmin who affirms that the Successors of Peter and not of the other Apostles only succeeded in the first place of Hierarchie as Monarchs of the Church One Tenebrio or an other whose name I have forgot and also where I read it intends to prove by these words of Ambrosius an Oecumenick Bishop because Ambrosius makes mention of these words of Primus Socerdos and Princeps Sacerdotum that is of first Priest and Prince of Priests But any if not altogether stupid or else intending to deceive may perceive that it is far from the meaning of Ambrosius his words are Bishops succeed to the Apostles or answer to the Apostles mentioned by Paul Ephes 4. 11 because a Bishop is first Priest and Prince of Priests by which iâ— appears that he is comparing Bishops with inferior Priests or Presbyters and not Bishops with Bishops Which is further confirmed because not only Hieronymus contemporarie with Ambrosius and other Fathers but also Ambrosius himself calls all Bishops Summos Sacerdotis or chief Priest and of alike Jurisdiction So Anacletus epist. 2. Tertullianus de Baptism cap. 17. Hieronymus contra Luciferianos and in his Epistle to Evagrius Gaudentius in tractu de Prim. die suae ordinat Eusebius Emissenus in Homil. Augustinus epist 36. which is of Paulinus to Romanianus Ambrosius himself lib. 3. cap. 1. de Sacramentis and also epist 5. 34. Other innumerable testimonies could be produced proving all Bishops alike are Summi Pontifices or Sacerdotes and consequently that the first place of the Hierarchie is in many alike and not in one single person as in the Bishop of Rome or successor of Peter The third testimony is of Anselmus who lived in the 11. age who explaining what Church-Rulers were answerable to these mentioned by Paul Ephes 4. 11 In which he numbers the Apostle Pettr Andrew c. To which now-adays saith he Answers Primats and Patriarchs or Arch-Bishops which quite destroys the gloss of Bellarmin since he makes many in the first place of the Hierarchie and doth not dream that the other Apostles were delegats to Peter and had the first place in the Hierarchie for that reason not communicable to their successors And thus we have proved that the first place of the Hierarchie Jur. divino was not in one single person which we have demonstrated by Scripture and Antiquity And consequently that Peter was not ordained by our Savior Monarch of the Church which was our third argument These of the Church of Rome answers the testimonies of these Fathers calling All Bishops alike or all Bishops High-Priests by distinguishing equality in that of Order and that of Jurisdiction In the first sense they grant all Bishops are alike but not in the last We proved before and shal prove hereafter that distinction is frivolous for the present it will be sufficient to refute that distinction of Order and Jurisdiction by the testimony of an Author in great esteem in the Church of Rome and believed by them to be the Disciple of the Apostle Paul viz. Dionysius Arcopagita whom we now mentioned epist 8. hath these words If any do amiss he is to be censured by the Priests If the Priest go astray he is to be ordered by the Bishop If the Bishop debord he should be judged by those who succeeded to the Apostles but if those debord they ought be judged by those of the same Order Observe he puts many in the same order of alike Jurisdiction In the first place of the Hierarchie which quite destroys that distinction of Order and Jurisdiction CHAP. XIV Of Luke 22. 25. Compared with Matthew 20. 25 26. And Matthew 18. And Luke and Mark 9. HItherto hath been disputed the institution of Peters supremacy pro and contra it hath been defended by these three famous passages of Scripture Matthew 16. 18. Matthew 16. 19. and John 21. 15. 16 17. It hath been brangled by other three Peter 1. 5. 3. Ephes 1. 22. and from Ephes 4. 11. Before we proceed to dispute the supremacy of Peter by his cariage We will first explain a passage of Scripture claimed by both that is the Romanists by it endeavor to establish the supremacy of Peter The Protestants by the same place endeavor to overthrow it the place is Luke 22 24 25 26. where after Supper a strife arose among the Disciples who should be greatest Verse 24 Our Savior answers That the Kings of the Gentiles rule over them and for that reason are called bountiful verse 25 But saith he Ye shal not be so but let the greatest among you be as the least and the chiefest as he that serveth Verse 26. Let us examine First how the one side endeavor to assault the supremacy of Peter by these words In the next place shal be disputed how the other side by the same words assert it The one or other side must of necessity prove the Sophister let us examine which And the Reader may judge which side hath the better The Protestants urge this place against the supremacy of Peter in the same manner as they did that passage of 1. Peter 5. 3. disputed and vindicated before cap. 11. viz. ruling or domination is forbidden in the Church in this place Luke 22. 25. which cannot consist with an Oecumenick Bishop which our Adversaries grant to have the right of domination in the Church Bellarmin and Sanderus answer in this place Tyrannical domination is only forbidden and not all domination their reason is because domination and ruling like that of the Kings of the Gentiles is only forbidden and not all domination But it is replyed That this answer is grounded upon two false suppositions The first is That all domination of the Kings of the Gentiles is tyrannical The second is that these words verse 26. But ye shal not be so have relation to the way of domination and not to domination it self The first supposition is false As is proved thus First It
10. because in Luk. 22. no mention is made of the petition of the Sons of Zebedeus or their Mother as Mark 10. and Matthew 20. So at the most the Apostles strove only three times for dominion if not two times only But let it be granted to Sanderus that they strove four times We ask him what more can be gathered for the supremacy of Peter from Luk. 22. then from the other three places siince is all four they strove for the same thing viz. dominion And our Savior disswades them from such striving for the same reasons in the first three places or at least in some of them for which he diswades them Luk. 22. Sanderus answers and also Bellarmin First that Luk. 22. Our Savior affirms Let the greatest among you be as the least but Matthew 20. 26. he only affirmeth Whosoever will be great among you let him be your servant The difference is Greatest Luk. 22. imports a superiority which Great Matthew 20. doth not import But it is answered They bable for it appears expresly by the words that the meaning of our Savior in both places is the same As for the objection it is of no moment for great among you and greatest among you is the same thing Great among you is an Hebraism for the superlative of the Latins and Grecians which superlative the Oriental tongues have not and so great and greatest are the same thing Matthew and Mark retain the Hebraism but Luke expresseth it in the comparative degree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas Matthew and Mark have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is what Matthew and Mark calls great in the positive degree Luke calls more great in the comparative degree whereas the expressions of both are equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 greatest among you in the superlative degree For its certain at least that the meaning of great in Matthew and Mark and of greatest in Luke 22. is the same because the Syrian Interpreter renders them both by one word Likewise that great in Matthew and Mark is the same with greatest in Luke appears because great in Matthew and Mark is comparative for immediately after these words follow He who should be first among you Whereby it is evident that great is all one with greatest Since first is relative to among you consequently all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanderus urgeth secondly that in Matthew and Mark our Savior affirms He who will be great among you but in Luke He who is greatest among you whereby it is evident that one already is greatest among them Where he observes a twofold difference First by reason of the Greek Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ever denotats a single person Secondly by reason of the substantive verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est is which denotats one who now is greatest among you But it is answered to omit the substantive verb is not mentioned in Luke at all who affirms only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanderus and Bellarmin argue from the Latin Version both the articles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the substantive verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are mentioned Luk 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Sanderus grants one is not made least in that place Bellarmin urgeth anoâ—her difference as Luk 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word signifieth a Prince or Captain a single person commanding over many But is answered Nothing can be gathered from that word because Acts 15. 22. and Heb. 13. 16. 17. many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaders are not only said to be in the Church but also in the same Particular Church Sanderus yet instances that Matthew 20. 16. It is affirmed He who would be great among you let him be your servant But Luk. 22. 26. He who is greatest among you let him be as he that serveth He imagins some great mystery between these two expresions let him be a servant and let him be as a servant By which subtilty of his any may see what poor shifts they make to prove the Supremacy of Peter and consequently the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and also the Religion of the Modern Church of Rome For none but a brazen faced Sophister can observe any difference in those words of our Savior Matthew 20. Let him be a servant and Luk 22. Let him be as a servant neither of the Phrases are proper as if our Savior had said in either place Let him be properly a servant in both places the speech is Metaphâ—rical which Masters of Rethorick descrive to be a Similitude contractâ—d to one word or Metaphora est ad unum verbum contracta similitudâ— the difference between a metaphor and a similitude is that a metaphor contracts the similitude to one word v. g. when we call a subtile witty man like a Fox it is a similitude formally expressed but when we call him a Fox it is a metaphor and so it may be concluded that both those speeches may be called as well similituds as metaphors That is a similitude is a metaphor inlarged by the particles as or like And a metaphor is a similitude contracted taking away those particles as when we say in the similitude a subtile man is like a Fox we say in the metaphor He is a Fox The meaning is the same in both expressions now to apply Let him serve or be a servant Matthew 20. is the metaphor or the similitude contracted but in Luke 22. Let him be as a servant is the similitude or metaphor inlarged and the meaning in both is one viz. The only way to be great in the Kingdom of Heaven is to carry themselves humbly and like servants And therefore Sanderus is endeavoring to make ropes in the sand seeking any mystical difference between Let him be a servant Matthew 20. and let him be aâ— a servant Luke 22. Sanderus urgeth still that Luke 22. one must be greatest already amongst them since our Savior instructs him how to carry himself in that station viz. as a servant But it is answered This objection is of like stuff with the former for if it were of any force it would conclude that one also were least among them already that is below all the rest which Sanderus will not readily grant because Luke It is said He that is least among you shal be great cap. 9. 48. The truth is the speech of our Savior in both these places is indefinit not mentioning any one in particular either as greatest or least The true meaning of his words are He who is most submissive among you be who he will one or other deserves the greatest respect and for that reason will be greatest in the sight of God or in the Kingdom of heaven In the last place Bellarmin and Sanderus both set on with an admirable Sophism they differ in words yet object the same in substance Sanderus propones it thus Immediatly after our Savior had uttred these words Let him
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
but questionless what they spake was the Gospel The fourteenth Prerogative is from Acts 3. 6. Where Peter cured the lame man If ye ask what Prerogative is here since Paul and other Apostles did equivalent miracles They answer It was the first miracle the Apostles did after Christs Ascension But it is replyed What although it were It doth not conclude Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop Secondly if it be not false it is uncertain for we read in the second chapter that the Apostles did many miracles which probably was before that time The fifteenth Prerogative is from Asts 5. Where Peter killed with a word Annanias and Sapphira But it is answered Paul Acts 13. struck Elimas the sorcerer with blindness with a word only or in as miraculous a manner The sixteenth Prerogative is from Acts 9. 32. And it came to pass as Peter walked throughout all quarters he came also to the Saints that dwelt at Lydda If ye ask what they mean They will tell you that Peter did the office of a General in an Army But it is false that Peter walked through the Saints visiting them otherwise then Paul did Acts. 18. The seventeenth Prerogative is from Acts 10 where Peter preached first to the Gentiles being commanded so to do in that vision But it is answered Although Peter had first preached unto the Gentiles it doth not conclude him Oecumenick Bishop Secondly if not false it is at least not certain because Philip his preaching at Samaria and his baptising of the Eunuch are both mentioned by Luke before that vision of Peter concerning Cornelius The eighteenth Prerogative is from Acts 12. Where it is affirmed That the Church made continual intercession for Peter when he was imprisoned But it is answered None but a Sophister would object that to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin instances That they prayed not for James and Stephen But it is answered That 's far worse Logick to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop Secondly it is impious in Bellarmin to affirm That the Church did not pray for Stephen and James although it be not mentioned he cares not what he bable because all he spoke was received as Gospel by his disciples at Rome The nineteenth Prerogative is from Acts 15. where Peter first speaks and all the rest followed his opinion But it is answered first That Luke mentions that there was great debate amongst them before Peter spake and therefore it is uncertain that Peter spake first Secondly whereas they call that speaking of Peters a pronouncing of the sentence It is notoriously false for Lyranus himself affirms it was pronounced by James verse 19. as it was indeed The reason they give is Because James was Bishop of the place Thirdly Cardinal Cart husianus upon Acts 15. expresly affirms That James presided in the Council which quite destroys the Supremacy of Peter for an Oecumenick Bishop who hath the only right of presiding in Councils either by himself when he is present or else by his Legats when he is absent Fourthly in the Council of Basil the Fathers of that Council denyed that the Legats of the Bishop of Rome should preside in that Council because they never did read that Peter did preside in any Council Turre-Cremata lib. 3. cap. 24. Summae de Eccles affirms the same and for that reason Paul Galat. 2. preferrs James to Peter whence appears that it is false that Peter presided in that Council and albeit he had presided it doth not conclude him Oecumenick Bishop for it shal be proved part 2. and part 3. that in the Council of Nice and other General Councils that those who presided in them were not Oecumenick Bishops The twenty Prerogative and last Scriptural is from Gala. 1. where Paul affirms That after three years he went up to Jerusalem to see Peter But it is answered All who were visited by Paul were not Oecumenick Bishops and here Bellarmin miserably sophisticats in the Fathers And first he cites Chrysostomus affirming that the reason was because Peter was greater then himself But it is answered That Chrysostomus words are elder then himself for so he explains greater then himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this is Chrysostom's meaning is evident because in the same place he affirms That Paul went to see Peter not that he needed any thing from him being equal to him He affirms also I say no more which is as much as in his opinion Paul was to be preferred to Peter In like manner he sophisticats in Hieronymus whom he brings in affirming the reason of that visit was because Peter was the first Apostle But it is answered The meaning of Hieronymus is the same with that of Chrysostomus by first Apostle he means either in age or dignity not in Jurisdiction because he expresly affirms in the same place That Paul came to see Peter non discendi studio qui ipse eundem praedication is haberet Autorem sed honoris priori Apostolo deferendi thas is not to learn any thing from him but to do him honor as the strst Apostle Augustinus expresly calls it a faternal visit and so doth Tertullianus Lombardus also affirms The end of Paul visit was to shew Peter that he was his Coapostolus or fellow Apostle with him not to learn any thing from him Aquinas the other great Master of the School-men affirms the same paraphrasing upon the words of Paul he saith Non ut discerem ab eo sed ut visuarem eum not to learn from him but to see him And thus we have waded through that immense Ocean of that disput of Bellarmins concerning the Scriptural Prerogatives of Peter in which we have omitted nothing of moment or what is worth the answering Bellarmin alledgeth some testimonies of Fathers shewing to favor as he cites them some of these Prerogatives of Peter but he basely sophisticats as we have given a Specimen in the chief of them whose testimonies we have vindicated He deludes his Reader in this viz. because those Fathers acknowledge some of those Prerogatives therefore by Sophistry he would perswade his Reader that Peter was Oecumenick Bishop in their opinion which was very far from their mind as partly we have shewed in the former chapters and partly shall shew in the following CHAP. XVII Of the Prerogatives of Peter by Tradition IN the former Chapter we have disputed the Scriptural Prerogatives of Peter twenty in number now followeth Prerogatives of Peter by tradition which are eighth in number The first is that Euodius and some other affirm That Peter only of all the Apostles was baptized by the hands of Christ But it is answered first That Euodius testimony is not much to be regarded Baronius himself thinks it not to be written by Euodius because the author of it affirms That Steven was martyred seven years after the death of Christ Secondly he saith The house in which our Savior celebrated the Supper was in the house of John the Apostle which directly contradicts Matthew
2. lib. 2. that there was no Patriarch before the Council of Chalcedon established by Law And therefore it is false which Bellarmin affirms That these three were ever held Patriarchal seatsonly because they were founded by Peter as shal be proved at large part 2. lib. 2. Thirdly It is false which he affirms viz. That those Churches were called Patriarchal because they were founded by Peter since it is notorious that the dignity of Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs depended upon civil respects and not upon their Apostolick founders For first the Bishop of Rome had the first place because he was Bishop of the Old imperial City he of Constantinople the second because he was Bishop of New Rome as appears by the third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople by the 28. Canon of the fourth General Council of Chalcedon by the 36 Canon of the fifth General Council of Constantinople As for the other Patriarchs Baronius himself ad annum 39. num 10. hath these words Majores in instituendis sedibus Ecclesiarum non aliam misse rationem quà m secundum provinciarum divisionem praerogativas à Romanis antea stabilitas quam plurima sunt exempla And a little after he affirms That the Patriarch of Alexandria was preferred to him of Antioch because Aegypt was praefectura Augustalis And not Antioch which was only a proconsulat of Syria And for that reason also It was preferred to Jerusalem because Jerusalem was under the said proconsulat But if Bellarmins prerogative of Peter hold good Antioch would be preferred to Constantinople because it was founded by the Apostle Peter and also to Alexandria because it was only founded by Mark. But more of this part 2. lib. 2. The seventh traditional prerogative is The feast of the chair of Peter viz. that there was a Festival day observed in the Church of the institution of Peter in his Bishoprick ever since his time But it is answered First Bellarmin is very wary in this objection in speaking of the Feast of Peters chair in general not nameing which chair in particular Better hold his peace for this feast was in remembrance of Peters Bishoprick of Antioch and not of Rome If this argument have any force it proves the Bishop of Antioch Oecumenick Bishop and not the Bishop of Rome Secondly It is notoriously false That this feast was observed by the whole Church Bellarmins proofs are Augustinus Sermon 15. de Sanctis which book is proved by Erasmus to be forged How ever it is of no moment whether it be forged or not Thirdly Baronius himself speaking of Feasts in honor of their Founders or of Feasts observed by Churches for that Reason affirms speaking of the Church of Rome That the feast of the foundation of that Church was late and according to the example of some Oriental Churches The last prerogative of Peter is That in old Epistles called Literae Formatae after these words In the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost the name of Peter was inserted If ye answer that it is but a late invention Bellarmin will produce an Epistle of Atticus Bishop of Constantinople But it is replyed Several makes mention of these Literae called Formatae but of that sort as they are mentioned by Bellarmin where the name of Peter is placed next after the Trinity in such Letters ye have no example of old but oâ— late in the collections of the decretals and Canon Law Ye find only two of them in Gratianus distinct 73. The first dated 1002. The second 1315. Ye find other of them in Ivo derect part 6. cap. 134. and 135. As for that epistle of Atticus any may see it forgâ—d However it is of no moment whether it be forged or not He that would see the proofs of its Forgery let him read Chameir upon this prerogative However these formatae literae were conceived thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which three letters signify Father Son and Holy Ghost Then was written 〈◊〉 the initial letter of Peter next the first letter of his name who wrote the letter Secondly The second letter of his name to whom it was written Thirdly The third letter of his name who carried the letter Fourthly The fourth letter of the name of the City from which it was written c. All these ceremonies were used to preveen miscarrying or forging of letters And thus we have purged that Augiae Stabulum of that disput of Bellarmins concerning the prerogatives of Peter And consequently answered all what is objected by Bellarmin in this argument of prerogatives for the supremacy of Peter which is the fourth general argument proving him Oecumenick Bishop alledged by our adversaries CHAP. XVIII Several Arguments from the Carriage of Peter disproving his Supremacy OUr Adversaries in the three preceeding chapters endeavored by all the Art they could to prove the supremacy of Peter by his prerogatives most of which were in his carriage In this chapter we will shortly minute some arguments from the carriage of Peter that he could not be Monarch of the Church ordained by Christ And it is very strange that our adversaries should have endeavored to prove the supremacy of Peter by his carriage since Salmero the Jesuit in his Commentaries upon the First of Peter ingenuously confesseth nothing can be gathered from his carriage to prove his supremacy And consequently he acknowledgeth all these arguments proving his supremacy from his carriage to be nothing else but sophisms That the arguments from his carriage disproving his supremacy are no sophisms appears by what followeth we will only mention three The first is this it appears by Acts 8. 14 That Peter and John were delegated by the Apostles who were in Jerusalem to preach the Gospel in Samaria but an Oecumenick Bishop cannot be delegated as is notorious Who would take upon them to send the Bishop of Rome in commission now-a-days They answer to this argument variously Panigarolla discept 6. answers That it was by Peters own procurement that he was sent by the other Apostles but he only guesseth his answer hath no warrand in the text and by such answers as his any passage of Scripture albeit never so evident may be eluded Bellarmin Stapleton Sanderus Salmero and Baronius anno 35. num 9. affirms That it is not inconsistent with Equals to be sent from their Equals They give many instanâ—es The first is That GOD the Father sent Christ and both sent the Holy Ghost but that instance is ridiculous not being a Mission of like Nature with that of Peter from the other Apostles Likewise the Father Son and Holy Ghost is from Equals but that Mission of Peter was from those as the Roman Doctors maintain under his own authority They instance secondly Herod sent the wise men to Bethlehem but he had no authority over them But it is answered First That the wise men had no authority over Herod the state of the question is Whether Peter had authority over the other
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
his Institution Prerogatives and Carriage It remains only now to disput the Supremacy of Peter pro and contra by testimonies of Fathers And first we will examin the testimonies of Bellarmin cap. 19. 20. where he useth many repetitions according to his custom of testimonies disputed already In the next place we will examine testimonies of Fathers pretended by Protestants cap. 21. and with them absolve this disput of the Supremacy of Peter CHAP. XIX Testimonies of Fathers examined seeming to prove the authority of Peter over the Church HItherto our adversaries have disputed the supremacy of Peter from his institution prerogatives and carriage now they endeavour to prove it by testimonies of Fathers from which they muster up an army of Testimonies in number 24. which Bellarmine affirms to be the Oracles of the 24 Elders in the Revelation and that nothing can be answered to those testimonies except that answer of Luther and Calvin to the testimonies of Leo viz. that they were men and consequently might erre but it will appear by the Protestants answers that these testimonies are not so invincible All those testimonies may be reduced to two general Classes the first is in which Peter is compared with the whole Church the second wherein he is compared with the other Apostles the first Classe again is subdivided in several sorts according to the diversity of attributes given to Peter The first kind are those testimonies wherein Christ saith to Peter upon this Rock c. feed my Sheep I will give to thee the Keys c. which is the third time that Bellarmine hath repeated them and therefore it is sufficient to answer as before that nothing was given peculiar to Peter as was not only asserted by those Fathers mentioned by Bellarmine as Origen and others but likewayes proved by them The second sort are of those Fathers affirming that the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter which he proves by the testimonies of Chrysostomus in his his 55. Homile upon Matthew where Peter is called Pastor Ecclesiae Pastor of the Church and likewayes of Maximus sermon 3. de Apostolis of Gregorius lib. 4. epist 32. who both affirm that the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter But it is answered so was it to all the Apostles in those words Go and teach all Nations Matth. 28. 2. Chrysostomus in many places affirms that Paul had a care of the whole World that he had Orbis praefecturam Homilia 22. in 1. Cor. And likewayes that all the Apostles had the care of the whole Church Hom. 87. upon John he likewayes affirms that Timothy governed the whole World Hom. 1. to the people of Antioch and likewayes that Timothy took upon him praefecturam totius orbis Orat. 6. against the Jews whereby it appears that by Peters having care of the whole Church he is not proved to be oecumenick Bishop since others had the same care of the whole Church Neverthelesse Bellarmine useth two cheats the first is in citing Chrysostomus calling Peter Pastor of the whole Church whereas the Greek imports only he erected his mind and made him Pastor his second cheat is in citing Gregorius as if his meaning were that Peter was oecumenick Bishop because the care of the whole Church was committed to him whereas it is notorious that Gregorius in those words is disputing against an oecumenick Bishop amongst other reasons he brings for one although the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter yet he was not universal Apostle which last words Bellarmine fraudulently supresseth The third rank of testimonies are those calling Peter head of the Church as of Chrysostomus Hom. 55. on Matth. of Cyprianus ad Jubaianum of Augustine sermon 125. de tempore of Hugo Ethereanus lib. 3. against the Grecians But it is answered first that those testimonies prove nothing as for Cyprianus he is not speaking of Peter at all his words are only Ecclesiae unius caput radicem tenemus that is we abide in the unity of the Church which is one and head of the faithful But of this testimony more hereafter It is sufficient to tell for the present that Pamelius who useth to catch the least advantages for the supremacy of Peter in his Annotations upon those words of Cyprian mentions nothing to that purpose as for Chrysostomus he calls not Peter head of the Church at all it is only Trapizuntius who translates him unfaithfully as for Augustinus those books de tempore no learned man will affirm to be his for two reasons the first is because he calls Peter the foundation not only of the Church but also of the Faith which is far from Augustinus mind who interprets the Rock or Foundation not to be Peter at all for which Bellarmine and others tax him of ignorance as we said before The second reason is because he calls Peters denying of Christ Exiguum peccatum a small sin but non aggravates it more then Augustinus as for Hugo Ethereanus he lived but of late in the twelfth Age according to Bellarmine but in the fifteenth according to others and therefore his testimony can no more be regarded by the Protestants then the testimony of Luther and Calvin by Bellarmine Secondly albeit Peter were proved to be head of the Church by those testimonies it doth not prove that he was oecumenick Bishop because others beside Peter are also called heads of the Church by the Fathers Martyrius is called Praeses and head of the Church epist 1. incert Patriarch in corpore juris graeco Romani Athanasius is called head of all men by Basilius epist 52. Paul is called head of nations by Gregorius 1. in his fourth book upon Kings 1. James and John are likewise called heads by Chrysostomus in his 26. Homile upon the Acts yea all Pastors and Doctors are called heads by Gregorius second Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to â—ermanus of Constantinople in the second Synod of Neice By which testimonies it appears that the words Caput or head infers not an oecumenick Bishop but either a primacy of order or rather eminency in gifts and so it is taken by Paul 1 Cor. 12. The fourth rank of testimonies are those stiling Peter Bishop of the Christians Christianorum Pontifex primus for which Bellarmine produceth Eusebius in his Chron anno 44. But it is answered first that there are no such words in the Greek text of Eusebius restored by Scaliger Secondly although it were proved by Eusebius it doth not conclude that Peter was oecumenick Bishop because it appears that Cyprianus epist 69. when he was demanded to have him Martyred was called Episcopus Christianorum Bishop of the Christians but saith Bellarmine Peter was called by Eusebius first Bishop of the Christians but not so Cyprianus But say the protestants the word First imports only a priority of order dignity or time and not of jurisdiction many of the Fathers gave to Peter that title of First or primus because they
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
arroganter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere c. That is Peter being reprehended by Paul did not take any thing to himself insolently or arrogantly as to say he had the primacy from which words of Cyprian it followes rather that if Peter had said to Paul he had the primacy he had been arrogant and insolent and consequently it appears rather that Cyprian in these words denyeth Peter to have the Supremacy It seems Pamelius understands him so for he answers in his Annotations upon that place this very passage of Cyprian as an objection against the Supremacy of Peter In the next place Bellarmine brings a number of very specious testimonies to prove the Supremacy of Peter over the other Apostles as that Basilius affirms he was preferred to the other Apostles Nazianzenus That the other Apostles were inferiour to him Epiphanius that he was Captain of the Apostles Cyrillus Hierosolym that he was prince of the Apostles Cyrillus Allexand That he was Prince and head of the rest Theophyl Prince of the disciples Oecumenius he obtained the precedency of the other Apostles Hieronymus he was chosen head of the twelve that occasion of Schisme might be removed The Author of the question upon the Old and New Testament placed amongst the works of Augustinus he was made their head that he might be Pastor of the flock of Christ Those testimonies in effect at the first veiw seem to be of moment but well considered do not prove at all that Peter had any jurisdiction over the other Apostles or that he was their oecumenick Bishop for two very relevant reasons The first is because those very Epithets are given by the Fathers yea by Paul himself to other Apostles beside Peter But since those Appellations doth not prove those other Apostles oecumenick Bishops no more can they prove Peter to be such That those Titles were given to others beside Peter is proved by those following testimonies Paul in the Galatians calls James and John Pillars as well as Peter whereby it appears he makes them equal with Peter Eusebius Emissenus Homilia in Natal Petri â—auli calls Paul and Andrew Princes of the Apostles Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 1. hist calls James Prince of the Apostles Chrysostom in Galat. 2. calls Paul Prince of the Apostles Prudentius calls Peter and Paul Princes of the Apostles Lastly those very Fathers who give those elegies to Peter affirm that the Church was built on all the Apostles as well as Peter and some of them expresly gives the chief of them as head or Caput to others beside Peter as Basilius which we mentioned before The second reason wherefore those titles of head or Prince prove not any jurisdiction of Peter over the other Apostles is very relevant and is this viz. the principals of the Fathers expresly affirm that Peter had no jurisdiction over the other Apostles Origenes the Apostles were Kings and Christ not Peter King of Kings Cyprianus de unitate ecclesiae Christ after his resurrection gave a like power unto all the Apostles and a little after what ever Peter was the other Apostles were the same and had equal fellowship with him both in honour and power Chrysostomus in Galat. 2. Paul needed not the testimony of Peter he was equal to him in honour I will say no more whereby it is evident in his opinion Paul was more honourable then Peter Likewayes Hom. 66. in Matth. None goeth before Paul neither doth any doubt of it Hieronymus Galat. 2. paraphrasing on Pauls words saith I am nothing inferiour to Peter we are both placed in the ministry by the same person viz. Christ Likewayes lib. 1. against Jovinian the Church is founded upon all the Apostles equally all of them got the keys of the Kingdom of heaven alike Augustinus epist 86. Peter and the other disciples lived in concord together where observe Peter is called condisciple with the rest Gregorius first Bishop of Rome himself disputing against an oecumenick Bishop lib. 4. epist 32. amongst the other reasons brings this for one although the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter yet Peter was not oecumenick or universal Apostle Other testimonies might be heaped to this purpose as of Ambrosius in 1 Cor. 11. and Gal. 2. and likewayes of Primasius Theophylactus and the ordinar Glosse who all of them affirm the same upon Gal. 2. And thus it is proved by two unanswerable reasons that by those titles of Head and Prince Peter is not oecumenick Bishop Of that title of head we spake before that it was given unto others as well as unto Peter and now have proved the same of the title of Prince If ye ask then what is the meaning of those expressions of the Fathers calling Peter Prince and Head of the Church or Apostles It is answered the word Head or Prince may import a threefold Primacy 1. of Jurisdiction and in that sense none but Christ is called head or prince of the Church 2. A primacy of Order without Jurisdiction as when any of the same Colledge chooseth one to be their Head as Deacons choosing an Arch-deacon who hath only primacy of Order and not of Jurisdiction 3. A primacy of gifts or graces so the title head is taken 1 Cor. 12. so also Paul and James c. are called heads and Princes of the Apostles by the Fathers as we said before because they had eminent gifts So â—omer and Virgilius are called Princes of the Poets Cicero and Demosthenes Coriphaei oratorum and Plato and Aristotle Philosophorum principes So Nicodemus was called Prince of the Jews by Cyrillus and Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna Prince of Asia by Hieronymus The meaning of the Fathers then giving to Peter those titles of head or prince is not of the first sort of primacy as was demonstrated but only of the second and third sort of primacy that is by reason of his eminent gifts in which others also excelled as Paul and John but especially and cheifly because he was eldest Apostle and first called to that function some think Andrew was called before him but however Peter had the priority of dignity in what sense it imports not much so it was not priority of Jurisdiction which that it was not was now proved by uuanswerable testimonies of the Fathers CHAP. XXI Some testimonies of Fathers disproving the supremacy of Peter vindicated IN the former Chapters were answered those testimonies of Fathers alleged by Bellarmine to prove the supremacy of Peter over the Church cap. 19. and over the other Apostles cap. 20. in answering which testimonies we proved by opposing testimonies to testimonies that the meaning of those Fathers was nothing lesse then that Peter was Monarch of the Church which we proved by two sort of testimonies first by those in which the same things were said of others beside Peter by which they endeavoured to prove his supremacy such as head of the Church prince of the Apostles c. The second sort was of
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
power of Government above the other Apostles but according to the execution of that Power all the Apostles were alike with him But that distinction is likewayes contradictiory as we shewed before and this much of Cyprian The second testimony is of Hieronymus lib. 1. in Jovinianum Vt dicis super Petrum sundatur ecclesis licet id ipsum alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur but you affirm that the Church is founded upon Peter although the same be done in another place upon all the Apostles viz. that the Church is builded upon them all alike which glosse of Hieronymus quite destroyes that argument of Peters Supremacy viz. that he was the only Rock among all the Apostles upon which the Church was builded Bellarmine answers that Hieronymus explains himself in the same place where he affirms one was chosen among the twelve that a head being constitute occasion of Schism might be taken away c. But it is replyed Cardinal Causanus sees no such gloss in these words of Hieronymus as we shewed before cap. 10. where he affirms that nothing peculiar was promised to Peter in these words tues Petrus and proves it by this testimony of Hieronymus that the Church was builded alike upon all the Apostles and in what sence Peter is called head by Hieronymus was shewed before cap. 20. for it is certain that Hieronymus by calling Peter head of the twelve doth not mean Peter had jurisdiction over the rest otherwayes he would expresly contradict himself in this same place he calls him heaa therefore in the same sense that others are called heads which we mentioned cap. 20. But Bellarmine instances that he was made head of the twelve that schisme might be takan away But it is replyed that was before they were sent by Christ to preach the Gospel but Cyprian and Hieronymus seems to be of that opinion that Peter was head of the twelve as the Apostles were a private Company or Congregation but after the resurrection that authority ceased when our Saviour commissionated them all alike to preach the Gospel through the world with equal authority And this much of that famous Dispute of the supremacy of Peter in which we have fished all what is of any moment from that immense Ocean of Antiquity either to assault it or assert it by which it appears to any indifferent Reader upon what a weak foundation the Faith of the Modern Church of Rome is built viz. the supremacy of Peter or that Peter was oecumenick Bishop which was a concert that the Ancients did not dream of before the fifth Age after the Council of Chalcedon when that contention arose between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople for the primacy Before the time of Leo first the Bishops of Rome and Leo himself pleaded a priority in dignity by Acts of Councils but succumbing in that Leo was the first that devised tues Petrus for the primacy his successours still argumenting the force of that Argument and used it afterwards for universal jurisdiction whereas at first it was objected only for cura universalis ecclesiae Now having absolved that dispute of Peters Monarchy we will examine his Bishoprick of Rome which is the second part of the Bishoprick of Peter CHAP. XXII Bellarmines Argument answered Proving that Peter was aâ— Rome HItherto hath been disputed Whether Peter was instituted oecumenick Bishop by Christ which was the first assertion or ground on which the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is founded Now followeth the second which according to Bellarmine lib. 2. de pont Rom. is that Peter at the command of Christ fixed his seat at Rome and did sit there as Bishop unto his death Here ariseth a two-fold question first Whether Peter was at Rome next Whether he was Bishop of Rome if he was never at Rome it is certain he was never Bishop of Rome and albeit he had been at Rome it doth not follow he was Bishop of Rome it was commonly believed that Peter was at Rome and Bishop of Rome before the time of Marcilius Patavinus who lived in the 14. Age and wrote a Book intituled Defensor â—acis in which he maintains Peter was never at Rome nor Bishop of Rome and proves that all the Ancients were deceived who affirmed either the one or the other his reasons shall be mentioned in the following Chapters in this are answered the reasons of Bellarmine proving the first that he was at Rome The assertion of Bellarmine was that Peter was Bishop of Rome by ordination of Christ to prove which he brings nothing but falls to prove that Peter was first at Rome and next that he was Bishop of Rome and instead of Christs institution he brings nothing but conjectures of the Ancients to prove that Peter was at Rome and perverted testimonies to prove that he was Bishop of Rome It was shâ—wed before that all the Faith and Doctrine of the modern Church of Rome depended upon the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which supremacy consisted in three assertions first that Peter was oecumenick Bishop by divine institution which makes nothing for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome without the other two viz. that Peter by divine institution was Bishop of Rome and that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter by divine institution in the Monarchy of the Church any of those two being brangled the whole foundation of the modern Roman Religion is quite destroyed Bellarmine to prove both the one and the other after he had undertaken to prove them by divine institution brings nothing but conjectures involved with contradictions and consequently the whole Edifice of the Church of Rome is builded upon such conjectures The succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter shall be disputed in the following Books in this Chapter are answered those reasons proving that Peter was at Rome in the next shall be answered those reasons proving Peter was Bishop of Rome and then we will conclude this Book with those reasons of Marcilius Petavinus and Ulrichus Velenus proving that Peter was neither at Rome nor Bishop of Rome Bellarmines first reason to prove that Peter was at Rome is from 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church which is at Babylon salutes you c. This was the Church saith Bellarmine in which Peter remained when he wrote this Epistle viz. Babylon which in the Scripture many times signifies Rome and therefore Peter by Babylon means Rome and consequently Peter was at Rome But it is answered albeit in the Apocalyps which is a mystical Prophesie Rome be meant by Babylon yet we do not find in Scripture in any Epistle that Rome was called Babylon it would be a ridiculous expression to conclude an Epistle written at Rome from Babylon The Apostle Paul in all his Epistles written at Rome never concludes from Babylon but from Rome and therefore Peter in this Epistle understands not Rome but Babylon It is to be observed there
were two Cities called Babylon the first Babylon in Assyria which was the head of the Babylonish Empire the other Babylon was in Egypt and afterwards was called Cayre Peter by Babylon means either the one or the other more probably the first because it appears by History that many Jews remained there and Peter was the Apostle of the Jews as Paul was of the Gentiles Bellarmine objects that Irenaeus Justinus and Tertullianus expone that Babylon mentioned by Peter to be Rome But it is answered those Fathers follow the authority of Papias believed to be the Disciple of John as Bellarmine affirms he was followed by Irenaeus who in Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 39. affirms that the said Papias and Polycarpus were auditors of the Apostle John but Eusebius in the said place confutes that opinion by the authority of Papias himself who denyed that ever he had seen the Apostles with his eyes Eusebius adds that he was a man of no spirit and the Author not only of the Millinarii but also of other fabulous traditions and so in the opinion of Eusebius the authority of Papias is not much to be regarded And since the whole foundation of the Church of Rome depends upon the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and since the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome depends upon Peters being at Rome and since Peters being at Rome depends upon the testimonies of some Fathers following the Authority of Papias it may be concluded without sophistry that the whole Doctrine of the Church of Rome depends upon the said Papias what sort of man he was we have now shewed from Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 39. Bellarmines second Argument to prove that Peter was at Rome is this There were Christians at Rome before ever Paul came to Rome Ergo Peter was at Rome and here he endeavours to prove by many testimonies that Peter was the first that preached the Gospel at Rome but to no purpose since those testimonies are of no more force to prove that Peter was at Rome then those he alledged in the former Argument That they are false appears by Orosius lib. 7. cap. 4. who affirms that Christians were at Rome in the time of Tiberius but Peter came not to Rome till after the death of Tiberius that is the second year of Claudius as Bellarmine himself confesseth Bellarmine answers That Orosius doth not affirm that Christians were at Rome in the time of Tiberius but only that the Senate of Rome made a decree that they should not come to Rome which is the true meaning of Orosius But it is replyed Orosius expresly affirms that Tiberius made a motion to the Senat of Rome that Christ should be acknowledged as a God but the Senat refusing set forth an Edict that Christians should be exterminated or extruded the City of Rome which imports that Christians were at Rome which is confirmed by Eusebius in his Chronicles an 38. who saith the Senat eliminated Christians from the City but eliminating is properly to put them out that were in already Likewayes both Eusebius in the said place and Tertullianus Apol. cap. 5. affirm that Tiberius threatned death to the Accusers of Christians at Rome whereby it evidently appears that Christians were at Rome Likewayes Platina in the life of Christ affirms expresly that the Senate ordained Christians to be put forth of the City likewayes Clement in his first book of Recognitions affirms that Barnabas was at Rome in the time of Tiberius Bellarmine answers to this last objection That those Books of Clement are Apocryphal But it is replyed when they setch testimonies from this Book to prove any o◠their Tenets they call it authentick So Coccius and others 〈◊〉 when they are pressed with testimonies from it they call it Apocryphal Bellarmines third reason to prove that Peter was at Rome is That several of the Fathers affirm that Mark wrote his Evangel at Rome as he heard Peter preach it there But it is answered that all this depends upon the Authority of Papias neither do they agree amongst themselves in the relation for Hieronymus following the authority of Papias whom Eusebius called an Impostor as we said before affirms that Mark wrote the said Evangel when Peter was alive and that the said Mark died the eigth year of Nero but Irenaeus affirms lib. 3. cap. 1. that Mark wrote his Evangel after the death of Peter and Paul Bellarmines fourth reason to prove that Peter was at Rome is that his Sepulchre is at Rome which he proves by the testimony of many Fathers But it is answered they were all deceived by Papias Secondly those Fathers who affirm that Peter dyed at Rome relate some circumstances of his death which seem incredible as first they affirm that Peter and Paul died in one day but that seems incredible because Paul came to Rome about the third and fourth year of Nero he professeth that he was then old They likewayes affirm that he died the fourteenth year of Nero and so he lived ten years after he called himself old But this seems not to consist with that assertion of his dying in one day with Peter for it is scarce credible that Peter could be alive ten years after Paul called himself an old man since Paul was very young when he was converted but it appears by John 21. 18. that Peter was an old man before Paul was converted that is when Christ was alive but Paul was not converted untill a year after the death of Christ and therefore it seems incredible that Peter could live ten years after Paul called himself an old man The second incredible circumstance is that they affirm that Peter a little before his death having an intention to leave Rome Christ appeared to him in the Port of the City and desired him to return but the Scripture affirms that the Heavens shall contain Christ untill the last day and Peter himself affirms that Christ shall not descend from Heaven till then And whereas Bellarmine objects that Christ appeared to Paul in the air he speaks so without any ground because Act. 9. it is only affirmed that a great light shined round about Paul and that he heard a voice but the Scripture there doth not affirm that Christ was in the air Paul might have seen Christ as Stephen did in heaven himself being upon earth Act. 7. 55. And those are the reasons by which Bellarmine proves Peter was at Rome which all are founded upon conjectures And since the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is founded upon the supremacy of Peter and that Peter was at Rome and since Peters being at Rome is founded upon contradictory conjectures as partly we have shewed and partly shall shew hereafter minuting the reasons of Velenus by consequence the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is founded upon contradictory conjectures CHAP. XXIII Bellarmines reasons proving that Peter was Bishop of Rome answered IN the next place Bellarmine endeavours to prove that Peter was Bishop of Rome and
therefore he behoved to be at Rome and his first reason is That the Church of Rome was ever held the first Church but there can be no other reason why it was held so but only that Peter was Bishop But it is answered first that Rome was held the first Church of old not in power but in dignity because Rome was the chief imperial City as appears expresly by the third Canon of the second general Council at Constantinople the 28. Canon of the fourth general Council of Calcedon the 36. Canon of the sixth general Council of Constantinople of which hereafter part 2 lib 1. and 2. Secondly if respect be had to other reasons besides the imperial dignity of the City it is false that Rome was held for the first Church as appears by many testimonies first Theodoretus lib. 5. cap. 9. affirms that the second general Council at Constantinople in an Epistle to Damasus Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of the West calls the Church of Jerusalem Mother of all Churches Secondly Nazianzenus epist 18. affirms that the Church of Caesaria was from the beginning and was esteemed almost the Mother of all Churches Thirdly Basilius Epist 20 to Athanasius affirms That the Church of Antioch was head of all Churches The same is affirmed by Chrysostomus in several places as in his Homile of the praises of Ignatius and in his third Homile to the people of Antioch by which testimonies it is evident that Rome was called the first Church for a civil respect only and that in other respects other Churches were preferred to it Bellarmines second Argument is this The Hereticks cannot shew saith he where Peter was Bishop after he left Antioch if he was not Bishop of Rome since they affirm he was Bishop only of a particular Church and not of the universal Church But it is answered Bellarmine may well confirm his Disciples by such reasoning but he will never convert Hereticks by it It is false which he affirms that the Protestants maintain that Peter behoved of necessity to be Bishop of one particular Church or other they deny he was Bishop of any particular Church at all as shall immediatly appear and therefore it is ridiculous in Bellarmine to conclude that Peter was Bishop of Rome because they cannot instruct where he was Bishop elsewhere when he left Antioch they ask him again how Bellarmine proves that he was Bishop of Antioch they ask him also where he was Bishop before he was Bishop of Antioch for Bellarmines Argument presuppones that Peter of necessity was still Bishop of one place or other Bellarmines third reason to prove that Peter was Bishop of Rome is taken from the testimony of Fathers affirming he was Bishop there twenty five years As for those 25. years they shall be proved false in the following Chapter In this we will answer and explain the testimonies of those Fathers affirming Peter was Bishop of Rome because in effect they are the only Basis of the Popes supremacy we will examine them more diligently and make it appear that they are so many testimonies proving Peter was never Bishop of the particular Church of Rome It is answered to those testimonies of Eusebius Optatus Ambrosius Hieronymus Sulpitius I sidorus Irenaeus Epiphanius c. affirming Peter to be Bishop of Rome that the word Bishop is taken two wayes first for a function of governing the Church in general so Peter calles Christ The Bishop of our souls epist 1. cap. 2. so an Apostleship is called Bishoprick Act. 2. Secondly Bishop is taken in a stricter sense for a certain function Ecclesiastick inferiour unto the Apostolick function so it is taken by Paul 1 Tim. cap. 3. If any desire a Bishoprick in which last sense we now take it and so answers those testimonies of Bellarmine by which he proves that Peter was Bishop of Rome that those Fathers take Bishop in the first sense and their meaning is no other then that Peter as an Apostle taught at Rome twenty five years That this is no shift or evasion is demonstrated by these three following reasons The first reason is that the Fathers reckoning the successions of the Bishops of Rome put Paul with Peter in the first place whereby it is evident that those Fathers take the word Bishop in the first sense comprehending the Apostleship since none of them nor Bellarmine himself will affirm that Paul was Bishop of Rome in the second sense That this is the truth viz. that Paul is named first Bishop of Rome with Peter appears by those following testimonies First of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. Fundantes igitur instruentes beati Apostoli Petrus Paulus Lino Episcopalum administrandae ecclesiae tradiderunt The blessed Apostles Peter and Paul when they founded the Church of Rome they made Linus Bishop The second testimony is of Epiphanius heres 27. Episcoporum in Roma successio hanc consequantiam habuit Petrus Paulus Linus Cletus The succession of the Bishops of Rome was this Peter and Paul Linus Cletus The third testimony is of Eusebiâ—◠〈…〉 3. cap. 2. post Petri Pauli Martyrium prinâ—â—◠〈…〉 Episcopatum Linus sortito capit Afterâ—◠〈…〉 Peter and Paul Linus had the Bishopricâ—◠〈…〉 Such-like other 〈…〉 epist 65. of Optatus 〈…〉 all put Peter and Paul 〈…〉 that in the Bulls of 〈…〉 are joyntly 〈…〉 hath the 〈…〉 is 〈…〉 in the first sense as it 〈◊〉 an Apostle The second reason is because Fathers enumerating the Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome do it in manner following PETER and PAVL 1. Linus 2. Cletus 3. Clemens 4. Euaristus 5. Alexander 6. Sixtus 7. Telesphorus 8. Hyginus 9. Pius 10. Anicetus 11. Soter 12. Eliutherius c. WHere they do not reckon Peter and Paul among the Bishops but only reckons the Bishops from them as their founders putting Linus as first Bishop Cletus as second Clemens as third whereas if Peter and Paul had been Bishops Linus had been second Cletus third Clemens fourth c. That they reckon them so appears by these following testimonies First of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. who calls Clement the third Bishop Sixtus the sixth Eliutherius the twelfth but if he had reckoned Peter as first Bishop then Clemens had been the fourth Sixtus the seventh Eliutherius thirteenth The second testimony is of Eusebius hist lib. 3. cap. 2. where he calls Linus fiâ—st Bishop and likewayes cap. 4. where he calls Clemens third Bishop and cap 16. where he calls Clemens third Bishop Linus first Bishop Cletus second Bishop and lib. 4. cap. 1. he calls Euaristus fourth Bishop and cap. 5. he calls Telesphorus seventh Bishop likewayes in his Chronicles he gives unto them the same order of succession anno 69. and 81. and 93. and 100. whereby by it is evident by Eusebius that Peter was not Bishop of Rome since he gives ranks to the other Bishops as if Linus had been first Bishop The third testimony is of Gregorius lib. 1. cap. 27. who reckons the order of
succession of the Bishops of Rome as Linus were first Bishop and not Peter for he calls Clement the third Bishop of Rome but if he had included Peter in the Catalogue of the Bishops Clement had been the fourth Bishop in his Calculation Some Romanists answer that those testimonies do not prove Linus was first Bishop Cletus second Clemens third absolutely but only that the meaning of those Fathers is that Linus was the first Bishop after Peter Cletus the second Clemens the third which is as much as if those Fathers had said Peter was first Linus second Cletus third Clemens fourth But it is replyed that is but a shift or evasion because it appears to any who is versed in Eusebius that when he speaks so First Bishop after such an one Iâ— that one in his opinion be a Bishop himself he includes him in the number and makes him first Bishop as appears by his Catalogue of the Bishops of Alexandria where he calls Cerdo the third Bishop after Anianus but he calls Anianus first Bishop lib. 12. cap. 3. So cap. 16. he reckons Anianus first Abilius second Cerdo third whereby it is evident that when he speaks so viz. third Bishop after such an one That he evermore includes that one in the number when he thinks he is a Bishop as is evident by his reckoning of the Bishops of Alexandria Cerdo saith he was third after Anianus That is Anianus was first Abilius second Cerdo third But in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome when he calls Linus the first after Peter Cletus the second Clemens the third he includes not Peter in the Catalogue but reckons them as Peter were not Bishop at all other wayes he would call Peter first Bishop of Rome as he did Anianus first Bishop of Alexandria The third reason proving those Fathers calling Peter Bishop of Rome takes the word Bishop largely and not strictly and properly is unanswerable because it appears by their own testimonies and likewayes of other Fathers that Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome when Peter was alive whereby it is evident that Peter was called Bishop of Rome only because he and Paul founded that Church in the opinion of those Fathers for Peter could not be Bishop of Rome properly if Linus was Bishop of Rome when Peter was alive but that Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome when Paul was alive is proved by these following testimonies The first testimony is of Tertullianus lib. de praescrip cap. 32. according to the distinction of Pamelius where he affirms that Polycarpus was ordained Bishop of Smyrna by John the Apostle and in the same manner Clemens was ordained Bishop of Rome by Peter but it is notorious that John was alive when he ordained Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna neither was John Bishop of Smyrna himself therefore it follows that Clemens being ordained Bishop of Rome by Peter that he was Bishop of Rome when Peter was alive since Polycarpus was Bishop of Smyrna when John was alive The second testimony is of Irenaeus and is this in Eusebius lib. 5 hist cap. 6. where Eusebius brings in Irenaeus speaking thus The blessed Apostles Paul and Peter founding the Church of Rome gave unto Linus the Bishoprick of the Administration of the Church whereby it is notorious that the function of Peter and Paul was different from the function of Bishop in the strict and proper sense and likewayes it is evident by the word that while they were alive they did put Linus in the actual possession of the Bishoprick of Rome Bellarmine answers that Peter did put Linus and Cletus in the Church of Rome when he was alive not as Bishops but as Coadjutors unto him especially Peter being oftimes called elsewhere by his Apostolick sunction But he intangles himself foully first he makes Peter sufficient to govern the whole Church as elsewhere he affirmeth and yet in this answer he makes him insufficient to govern the Church of Rome without a Coadjutor 2. Irenaeus affirms that Paul ordained Linus Bishop of Rome as well as Peter and if Linus had been Coadjutor to those who ordained him he would have been Coadjutor to Paul as well as to Peter and consequently Paul was also Bishop of Rome 3. Irenaeus expresly distinguisheth the Office of an Apostle from that of a Bishop in these words for he affirmeth Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome and gave the Bishoprick thereof to Linus So Epiphanius heraesie 27. affirms that the Office of an Apostle was not tyed to one place and therefore in their absence Rome could not be without a Bishop The third Testimony is of Ruffinus in his preface to those Books of Recognitions attributed to Clement his words are these Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome before Clement but while Peter was alive to wit that they might be Bishops and himself might fulfill the office of an Apostle in which words Ruffinus expresly calls Linus and Cletus Bishops of Rome having a distinct Office from that of Peter whereby it evidently appears that Peter was not Bishop of Rome in the strict sense mentioned before which is further confirmed by the next following words of Ruffinus wherein he affirms that Zacheus was in the same manner ordained by Peter Bishop at Caesaria as Linus and Cletus were at Rome But Bellarmine will not affirm that Peter was Bishop of Caesaria and Zachaeus his Coadjutor and although this testimony of Ruffinus doth not convince Barronius yet Onufrius Sanderus Feuardentius confesse ingenuously that it can hardly be shunned Barrontus gives no regard to the testimony of Ruffinus because he interprets that sixth Canon of the Council of Neice against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome but since Ruffinus lived very near that time and since he is seconded by all the ancient Interpreters as shall appear in the following Book who all interpret that Act against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as well as he though in a different manner his authority is more to be regarded then that of Bellarmine or Barronius devising a new interpretation of the said Act 1300. years after the date of it against the currant of all Antiquity as shall be shewed lib. 2. cap. CHAP. XXIV Presumptions that Peter was never at Rome and demonstrations that he was never Bishop of Rome IN the two preceding Chapters has been answered those reasons alledged by Bellarmine to prove that Peter was at Rome and Bishop of Rome by which it appears upon what weak reasons the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is built and which is quite destroyed if neither of these be true The weaknesse of Bellarmines grounds will further appear in this present Chapter in which are mentioned some strong presumptions that Peter was never at Rome and invincible demonstrations that Peter was never Bishop of Rome if the word Bishop be taken in the proper and strict sense which we mentioned before That Peter was never at Rome may be perswaded by the following reasons First those
Fathers affirming Peter was at Rome agree all that he was twenty five years Bishop there and yet some of them affirms that he came to Rome in the second year of Claudius so Hieronymus in Catalog some of them in the fourth year of Claudius so Fasciculus temporum following Marianus Scotus Beda also on Acts 13. affirms the same and also Waldensis tom 1. lib. 1. cap. 7. some of them aâ—ffims that he came to Rome anno 13. of Claudius so the Book called Passionale de vitis sanctorum some of them that he came not to Rome untill a little before his death so Origines tom 3. ingeues which behoved to be in the latter end of Nero Damasus also in Pontificali affirms he came to Rome under Nero Thomas Aquinas in Gallat 2. lect 1. affirms he came to Rome in the 14 year after Pauls conversion which was 18 years after the passion of Christ who suffered in the 18. year of Tiberius who reigned twenty two years Caligula almost four therefore according to Thomas Peter came to Rome in the sixth or seventh year of Claudius but many of those foresaid Authors affirm that Peter did sit 25 years at Rome which is a manifest contradiction since they all agree almost that he died in the last year of Nero. Bellarmine answers It s certain that Christ died and yet learned men vary about the time But it is replyed that the certainty of Christs death is had from Scripture and not from those who vary about the time of it but the certainty of Peters being at Rome is had no where but from those who vary about the time of his coming there and since they contradict other in the last they merit no credit in the first Bellarmine answers secondly that no approved Authors varies in the time but only some bastard Authors such as Fasciculus temporum c. But it is replyed that Bellarmine will not affirm that Origines Marianus Scotes Beda Damasus are bastard Authors but it is proved that all those vary The second perswasion that Peter was never at Rome is this they who affirm Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius so Hieronymus Eusebius and others affirm it was to defeat Simon Magus who died in the last year of Nero that is twenty five years after the second year of Claudius and for whose death Peter also himself was put to death by Nero but since Peter went a purpose to Rome to destroy Simon Magus it is a thing incredible that he could not do it in lesse then twenty five years yea Bellarmine himself affirms that Peter after he had stayed seven years at Rome came back to Jerusalem but this is more incredible that Peter would go to Rome to overcome Simon Magus stay there seven years and come back without doing any thing and suffer Simon Magus to live eighteen years after The third reason why Peter was not at Rome is this they who so affirm maintain also that Peter went to Antioch five years after the passion of Christ was seven years Bishop there and then went to Rome where he was Bishop twenty five years but it appears by Galat. 1. and 2. Acts 12. and 15. that Peter for the most part was at Jerusalem at least to the eighteenth year after Christs passion but according to the Calculation of those Authors Peter had been seven years at Rome in the eighteenth year of Christs passion and consequently he could not be at Rome and at the Council of Jerusalem in the eighteenth year after Christs passion Bellarmine answers that Peter in the seventh year of his Bishoprick was expelled Rome because Acts 18. it is mentioned that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome and came back to Jerusalem that year of the Council from whence he returned back to Rome and died there But it is replyed he involves himself in a world of absurdities first in affirming Peter was expelled Rome by Claudius when he made that Edict against the Jews because if Peter had been expelled by that Edict it behoved of necessity to be some considerable time before the Council of Jerusalem since Peter being expelled by that Edict was present at the Council of Jerusalem but Paul and Barnabas as is affirmed by Luke after that Council stayed some time at Antiochia and then Paul journyed to Syria and Cilicia then he came to Derbas and Lystra after that having gone thorow Phrygia Galatia Mycia he came to Troat and thence to Macedonia where he was imprisoned at Philippi Thence passing thorow Amphipolis and Apolonâ—a he came to Thessalonica from thence to Berea from thence to Athens Acts 15. 16. and 17. After all those journeys he arived at Corinth where he did find Aquila and Priscilla who were now come out of Italy by reason of that Edict of Claudius whence it appears that Bellarmine affirms falsly that Peter was expelled Rome by reason of that Edict of Claudius since when Paul found Priscilla and Aquila at Corinth it behoved to be some years after Peter was expelled Rome considering Peters journey from Rome to Jerusalem before the Council Pauls tedious journeys after the Council before he met with Priscilla and Aquila who were new come out of Rome by reason of that Edict of Claudius or as the Syrian Interpreter were expelled Rome at the same time by that Edict of Claudius So it is impossible that Peter so long time before could have been expelled by the same Edict Secondly Bellarmine himself confesseth lib. 2. cap 6. de pont Rom. that Peter had left a dangerous example to posterity if he had retained two Bishopricks at one time But it s no less pernitious example to leave their particular Charge as Bellarmine affirms Peter did neither is it of any moment to affirm that he was forced to leave it by that Edict of Claudius since Peter should rather have suffered then obeyed that Edict Secondly because as Bellarmine affirms when he was Bishop of Antiochia he wandered up and down leaving his Charge Thirdly it seems very absurd which Bellarmine affirms that Peter in one year was Bishop of Antioch imprisoned at Jerusalem and Bishop of Rome Fourthly if Peter had been Bishop of Rome in the time of the Council of Jerusalem he would not at that very Council made that paction with Paul taking upon himself to be Apostle of the Jewes and leaving it to Paul to be Apostle of the Gentiles among which his own Bishoprick of Rome was Fifthly it is not credible that Peter should have been fourteen years at the time of the Council at Jerusalem partly Bishop of Antioch partly of Rome 2 Church for the most part of Gentiles and yet to compell the said Gentiles to judaize as Peter did The fourth reason that Peter was never at Rome is this that Paul in his Epistle to the Romans salutes many cap. 16. but he makes no mention of Peter at all but it is incredible he would have saluted so many and ommitted the salutation of
Peter who was Bishop of the place Bellarmine answers That he did not salute John in his Epistle to the Ephesians nor James in his Epistle to the Hebrews and yet John was Bishop of Ephesus and James Bishop of Jerusalem But it is replyed this answer of Bellarmine is very childish for to omit that neither John nor James were Bishops at all but only Apostles and founders of those Churches as we said before John was not at Ephesus at that time nor stayed there and James at that time was dead neither did Paul write his Epistle to the Hebrews to the particular Church of Jerusalem but to the whole Jews Bellarmine answers secondly That Peter was not returned to Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans But it is replyed first Aquila and Priscilla were returned to Rome whom Bellarmine affirms were expelled at the same time with Peter whom Paul salutes Rom. 16. 3. but it is incredible that Peter who was Bishop of the place would not have returned with the first Secondly Paul among the causes of his thanksgiving for the Faith of the Romans cap. 1. 8. and other praises cap. 16. or of his own prayers cap. 16. 10. makes no mention of Peter at all yet constantly in his Epistles he useth to mention the Ministers of the Churches to which they are directed whether they be present or not as appears by 1. Corinth cap. 16. 15. Ephes 6. 21. Phil. 2. 19. Col. 4. 9. 12. c. The fifth reason that Peter was never at Rome is it is known that Paul wrote several Epistles from Rome in the time of Nero in whose time Bellarmine affirms that Peter was at Rome in which Epistles he makes frequent mention of others of lesser note and yet he makes no mention of Peter at all as Col. 4. 11. and 2. Timothy 4. 16. Bellarmine answers first that a negative testimony proves nothing it doth not follow Peter was not at Rome because Paul makes no mention of him But it is replyed it is not only a negative testimony which is the ground of the Argument but an Argument à minore ad majus Paul makes mention of others of lesser note much more he would have made mention of Peter if he had been at Rome 2. There are two sorts of negative testimonies the first is purely negative the second is privative when nothing is testified when it should have been testified this last sort of negative Argument is most efficacious as is acknowledged by Medina upon Thomas part 83. quaest 1. art 3. Neither can it be denyed that this is good reasoning There was but one World created That only the second person of the Trinity assumed flesh because the Scripture makes no mention that more Worlds were created or that the other persons of the Trinity were incarnate But this Argument is taken from a privative testimony viz. Paul could not without just reprehension make no mention of Peter if Peter had been at Rome at that time as appears by Colos 4. 10 11. where Paul affirms that Marcus Justus and Aristarchus were all the Jews which were his work-fellows in the Gospel But if Peter had been at Rome Paul had spoken untruly in excluding him from being one of his work-fellows which he restricts to the following three for if Peter had been at Rome Paul would never have affirmed that those three were the only work-fellows he had at Rome Again 2 Tim. 4. 10 11. he affirms that all his fellows had forsaken him except Luke who only was with him but if Peter had been at Rome he would never have forsaken Paul nor had it been true which Paul affirmed that none were with him but Luke Those passages puzleth Bellarmine very sore as appears by his perplexed answer he gives to that passage of Colos 4. that Paul speaks only of his domesticks which is a most miserable effugium for to omit that Paul keeped not such a port as to have so many domesticks he expresly calls those three persons Aristarchus Marcus Justus all the fellow-labourers in the Gospel he had at Rome Secondly Bellarmine answers to 2 Tim. 4. 16. That Paul speaks there of those who might have been intercessors for him to Nero which is a very simple evasion he hath no ground at all for it and it is clear against the meaning of Paul who speaks of those who should have corroborated him or confirmed him as appears from verse 17. where he affirms that God was with him and strengthened him only except Luke verse 11. But if Peter had been at Rome he would not have neglected such a duty to Paul Thirdly Bellarmine answers That perhaps Peter was elsewhere when Paul wrote those Epistles from Rome which is as much to say that Peter was Bishop of Rome and yet was never at Rome when the Scripture makes mention of the Teachers of that Church that Paul could never find him at Rome albeit Dionysius praised by Bellarmine affirms cap. 3. that he was at Rome the same time with Paul and died with him in one day And this much of those reasons proving that Peter was never at Rome although they be not demonstrative yet they are very perswasive Velenus in a Treatise purposly writen of that subject adds many more but these are sufficient in this Compend In the next place we will alledge some unanswerable reasons proving that although Peter had been at Rome yet he was never Bishop of Rome The first is this the Office of an Apostle and a Bishop in the strict sense are inconsistent in one person a Bishop is restricted to a certain Charge but an Apostle by institution is bound to have no certain Charge as appears by those words of Christ Go unto the whole World by which words they are expresly commanded not to tye themselves to any particular place or at least it is permitted them not to tye themselves to a particular place but if they had been Bishops they were of necessity tyed to a particular Charge If any of the Apostles had been Bishops Paul had as much reason to be called so as any other of the Apostles but we never read that Paul was Bishop of any particular Church except only Irenaeus and some others affirm that he and Peter were conjunct Bishops of Rome but that quite destroyes Peters Bishoprick of Rome as we said before since the word Bishop is taken in a large sense as they must of necessity confesse since Bellarmine will not affirm that Paul was Bishop of Rome in a proper sense The second reason is this they confesse that Peter was very oft absent from Rome and very long Cartesius affirms that he was 18. years absent Onuphrius 7 Bellarmine 5 but if he had been Bishop of Rome he woul not have been so long from his Charge They affirm indeed that he was hindered but to omit that he was not hindered so long how comes it that in his absence he wrote no Epistles to his Charge at Rome
since he wrote to the Jews And whereas they affirm that he was at Rome when he wrote to the Jews it is frivolous first because we shewed before that his being at Rome at that time depended upon the authority of Papias the author of many fabulous traditions as was proved by the testimony of Eusebius Secondly albeit he had been at Rome when he wrote those Epistles to the Jews he had much more reason to write to the Romans his own â—harge in so long an absence and since he did not it is evident he was never Bishop of Rome The third reason is they give Peter three Bishopricks all at one time at least some of them who affirm Peter was Bishop of Rome They all grant that Peter was first Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome except only Onuphrius who affirms that he was first Bishop of Rome and next of Antioch so he had two Bishopricks Nicephorus lib. 14. cap. 39. affirms that Anterius Bishop of Rome wrote that Peter transferred his seat from Rome to Alexandria by which contradictions it appears they have no ground at all that Peter was Bishop of Rome if it had been true what needed them have their recourse to such contradictions The fourth reason is Bellarmine affirms lib. de pont Rom. that all the right of the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is founded upon the command of Christ by which Peter went to Rome and fixed his seat there But all those almost who testifie Peter was at Rome affirm that the occasion of his going thither was to defeat Simon Magus neither do they mention any command of Christ at all as the cause of Peters going thither The fifth reason is that Peter and Paul made a paction that Peter should be Apostle of the Jews Paul of the Gentiles but if Peter had been Bishop of Rome that paction had been violated Bellarmine answers Peters principal charge was the Jews and Pauls the Gentiles But it is replyed if Peter had been Bishop of Rome his chief Charge had been the Gentiles or else he fixed his Chair where his chief Charge was not both which are alike absurd The sixth reason is that Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome when Peter was alive whereby it is demonstrated that Peter was not Bishop of Rome That those were Bishops when Peter was alive was proved in the former Chapter and likewayes the evasion of Bellarmine to this objection in the same place was refuted Finally as we shewed in the former Chapter they who affirm Peter was Bishop of Rome affirm also Paul was conjunct with him whereby it evidently appears that they take the word Bishop in a large sense since they make Paul his conjunct and doth not reckon him in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome as we shewed in the former Chapter Aud thus we have compendiously examined those two famous questions first Whether Peter by divine institution was Monarch of the Church Second Whether by the command of Christ he was Bishop of Rome It was proved in the Preface that the whole Doctrine of the Church of Rome was founded upon the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome consisted in this that he succeeded to Peter by divine institution in the Monarchy of the Church which succession again depended upon two assertions first That Peter was Monarch of the Church by divine institution 2. That he was Bishop of Rome any of which being proven false the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is a cheat and consequently also the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome depending upon it as Moon-shine upon the Sun as is professed by Bellarmine in the Preface of his Books de pont Rom. FINIS Libri primi THE GRAND IMPOSTOR DISCOVERED OR AN HISTORICAL DISPUT Of the Papacy and Popish Religion PART I. BOOK II. Of Bishops CHAP. I. Of the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter IN the former Book were disputed the first two Questions of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome viz. Whether Peter was by divine right Monarch of the Church 2. Whether he was by divine Institution Bishop of Rome Now followeth the third Question Whether the Bishop of Rome by divine right succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church Bellarmine and others brag with great confidence to prove that he did but their performance is very little not so much as one of them when it comes to the push brings any passage of Scripture to prove it except only Bozius lib. 18. cap. 3. where he makes use of two places the first is Phil. 4. 3. the words are And I beseech thee faithful yoke-fellow help those women which laboured with me in the Gospel with Clement also and with other my fellow-labourers whose names are in the book of life Any reasonable man would admire by what Chymistry he can distill the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter out of these words He will tell you Clement there mentioned was Bishop of Rome Secondly That the care of those women of Philippi belonged to him Ergo he was oecumenick Bishop otherwayes how could he have any medling at Philippi which was so far distant from Rome Let us examine this Logick it will recreat the Reader First how knows he that Clement was Bishop of Rome He will tell you that there was one Clement that succeeded to Peter Bishop of Rome But we ask him though that were granted what then how knoweth he that it is the same Clement whom the Apostle mentions here He will tell you this Clement mentioned by the Apostle is called by Paul his fellow-labourer Ergo he was a Bishop and consequently designed at least Bishop of Rome But it is replyed first It doth not follow that Clement was a Bishop because he is called by Paul his fellow-labourer for that same Argument would conclude Priscilla and Aquila a man and his wife to be both Bishop Rom. 16. Paul calls them his fellow-labourers Secondly Salmero the Jesuite pressed by the Madeburgenses that Clement was not oecumenick Bishop because Paul calls him fellow-labourer Phil. 4. 3. answers That at that time Clement was not designed Bishop of Rome and therefore it doth not follow where observe how he contradicts Bozius Bozius concludes he was oecumenick Bishop designed because Paul calls him fellow-labourer Salmero grants that it follows he was not designed oecumenick Bishop because Paul calls him fellow-labourer Bozius reasons he is called fellow-labourer Ergo he was designed oecumenick Bishop Salmero reasons Paul calls him his fellow-labourer Ergo he was not designed oecumenick Bishop at that time having no other shift to elude the Argument of the Madeburgenses Again although it were granted that Paul meant Clement Bishop of Rome how proves he that Clement succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church which is the Question He answers you because Paul desires his yoke-fellow to assist him in the care of those women at Philippi
for what ado had Clement with women in Philippi he being designed Bishop of Rome except the care of the Church of Philippi had belonged unto him and consequently he was oecumenick Bishop But to omit the bad consequence of that Argument he mistakes the words of Paul or their construction Paul doth not desire his yoke-fellow to assist Clement in having a care of those women he only desires him to have a care of those women who laboured with Paul himself and with Clement in the Gospel That this is the true meaning of the words is granted by Popish Doctors themselves commenting upon this place as Justinianus the Jesuite Cardinal Cajetanus Lyranus yea the French Lovaine Bible translates these words Qui ont â—â—auaillé auec moy en l'Evangile auec Clement mes autres coâ—diuteurs The second place alledged by Bozius is from 2 Pet. 1. 15. I will endeavour therefore alwayes that ye also may be able to have remembrance of those things after my departing If ye ask him how he concludes that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter from those words He tells you Peter promiseth after his death to put those to whom he wrote in remembrance of those things or to have a care that they should remember those things If ye ask him what then he tells you Since Peter was dead himself he behoved to put them in remembrance by another and that other must of necessity be one who succeeded to him in the Monarchy of the Church Let us retex this Logick that the Reader may laugh First he suppones that Peter was to put them in remembrance by another then himself which cannot be gathered from Peters words he answers Peter himself was dead Ergo he behâ—ved to do it by another It is replyed Peter while he was yet alâ—ve might have a care that they should remember these things after his death Secondly the whole current of Popish Doctors contradicts him affirming that Peter promiseth to have a care by himself and not by another that they should remember those things viz. From this place they prove intercession of Saints and so according to them the meaning of Peter is that when he is departed he will intercede for them Thirdly the true meaning of Peter is that while he is alive he will endeavour to provide them faithful Pastors to instruct them that they may remember those things and therefore his meaning is nothing less then an oecumenick Bishop and this much of Bozius Bellarmine states the question very perplexedly and so obscurely that it appears to any he is diffident to make out what he undertakes First he observes four things and then he falls a disputing His first observation is That the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church is Jure Divino But the manner or way of succession ratio successionis depends upon the fact of Peter which distinction of Bellarmins is very obscure and implicating he explains himself that Peter might never have fixed his seat at Rome and therefore it depends upon the â—act of Peter that the Bishop of Rome succeeds to him but he had said before that Peter had fixed his seat at Rome by the command of Christ how can any make sense of those expressions he involves himself here in many contradictions first he affirms that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church is Jure divino or by institution of Christ but that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church is not Jure divino but depends upon the fact of Peter which is as much to say that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is Jure divino and yet the Bishop of Rome succeeded not Jure divino Secondly he affirms That it depended upon the fact of Peter that he was Bishop of Rome and yet he saith lib. 2. Fundatur jus successionis Pontificum Romanorum in eo quod Petrus Romae suam sedem jubente Domino collocaverit atque ibidem usque ad mortem sederit That is the right of the Bishop of Rom's succession is founded in this viz. that Peter at the command of Christ fixed his Bishoprick at Rome and did sit Bishop there till his death How can those two consist together First Peter was expresly commanded by Christ to fix his Bishoprick at Rome Secondly and yet notwithstanding it was in Peters option whether he should do so or not He might be further pressed but it is sufficient to answer here to omit his contradictions that all his suppositions are false first it is false that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is Jure divino Secondly it is false that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter because Peter fixed his seat at Rome since it was proved in the former Book that Peter was not Bishop of Rome at all Thirdly it is most false that Peter at the command of Christ fixed his seat at Rome neither doth he bring any thing to prove it beside his own assertion these three places Matth. 16. 18 and 19. and Joh. 21. 15. though it were granted that Peter was ordained by Christ Monarch of the Church by them which was proved false in the former Book mentions nothing of the fixing his seat at Rome The second observation of Bellarmine is this If ye absolutely ask saith he if the Bishop of Rome by divine institution be Monarch and Head of the Church it is answered certainly he is Where he involves himself in another contradiction in the former observation he affirmed that the Bishop of Rome his succession to Peter depended upon the fact of Peter which he granted was changable but nothing can be by divine institution which depends upon an uncertainty His third observation is very admirable The Bishop of Rome as the Bishop of Rome saith he succeeds not to Peter Jure divino and yet est de fide that is we are oblieged to believe it as an article of Faith which is very mysterious language how can we belive that by divine Faith which is not revealed by God he answers We are oblieged to believe it as well as that Paul left his Cloak and Parchments at Troas But it is replyed those things are expresly mentioned in Scripture and it s very strange that the Scripture should mention the Cloak and Parchments of Paul and not mention the Roman Bishoprick of Peter or the Bishop of Rome's succession to Peter Bellarmine goes on They are not mentioned expresly but deduced by necessar consequence out of Scripture It ye ask him from what places of Scripture he tells you It s a tradition Apostolick If ye ask him how he proves that he tells you by Councills Fathers Institution of Bishops Appellations c. and so he takes up the whole dispute by producing such probations Where the Reader may observe that after such bragings of the succession of the Bishop of Rome Jure divino
in the Monarchie of the Church the Mountains have brought forth a Mouse viz. he brings nothing but perverted Testimonies of the Ancients falsly translated and many of them forged others mutilated as shall appear in this and the next two following Books where also it shall be proved by the Testimonies of those same Councells and Fathers pretended by him that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church is a meer fiction not known to the Ancients of the first six Centuries It s true indeed that some ambitious Bishops of Rome contending with the Bishops of Constantinople for the Primacy which contention did begin after the Council of Chalcedon Anno 453. invented this fiction of the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter But that it was a new invented fiction appears by two reasons The first is because the Council of Chalcedon Canon 28 made the Bishop of Constantinople equal in Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome It s true indeed the said Council gave the first place in dignity to the Bishop to Rome but it appears expresly by the words of the Canon that it was not by any reason of succession to Peter but only because Rome was the chief imperial City the words in the Original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Rome was the imperial City where it is to be observed that Aetius for the Bishop of Constantinople and Paschasinus for the Bishop of Rome had pleaded with great animosity for the Primacy before the said Council both alledging the sixth Canon of the Council of Neice Paschasinus not mentioning Tu es Petrus at all in the end the Council having heard them both at length pronounced in favour of the Bishop of Constantinople interpreting the sixth Canon of the Council of Neice as making all the Patriarchs equal in Jurisdiction with the Bishop of Rome after which Decree of the Council the following Bishops of Rome devised Tu es Petrus pleading for the Primacy The second reason is that in the latter end of the sixth Century Pelagius Secundus and Gregorius Primus Bishops of Rome pleaded with great animosity against a visible Head of the Church as Derogatory to Christ and Gregorius amongst other reasons useth this for one that Peter was not universal Apostle or visible head of the Church Epistola 32. but more of that hereafter Since then before the latter end of the fifth Age never any Bishop of Rome pleaded the succession by Peter unto the Monarchie of the Church and since Gregorius in the beginning of the seventh Age expresly disputed against it it is evident that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is a new devised fiction yea it shall be proved lib. 5. that the said succession to Peter was held no article of Faith in the Church of Rome before the eleventh Age and not then neither without great contention Bellarmin's fourth observation is this That the universal Bishoprick and the Bishoprick of Rome are not two Bishopricks nisi potentia and therefore they are but one Bishoprick wherein he expresly contradicts himself he said before that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church was Jure divino but as he was Bishop of Rome it was not Jure divino now he makes them one Bishoprick but how can that consist since he had made them before two whereof the one was Jure divino and the other not Secondly Bellarmine may be asked Whether the Pope be Bishop of Rome because he is universal Bishop or if he be universal Bishop because he is Bishop of Rome one of the two must of necessity follow since they are on Bishoprick in effect and distinct only potentia if he affirm he is Bishop of Rome because he is universal Bishop then it followeth that Peter had been Bishop of Rome although he had never been at Rome and consequently he was Bishop of Rome when he was Bishop of Antioch If he affirm he is universal Bishop because he is Bishop of Rome it follows he is universal Bishop because he is a particular Bishop which is against nature and reason And this much of the stating of the question Bellarmine having stated the question falls a disputing and it appears by his first Argument more distinctly what he means which Oedipus himself could not gather from his stating of the question his Argument is this One or other of necessity beloved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church Jure divino but no other but the Bishop of Rome could succeed to him Ergo the Bishop of Rome succeeded to him That one or other behoved to succeed to Peter he proves by six reasons which in effect is the sum and repetition of all those two prolix disputs of his that the Government of the Church is Jure divino Monarchicall and that Peter was the said Monarch His first reason â—s Because the Church is the end of a Bishoprick since the Church is one therefore there must be one Bishop in the Church But it is answered Christ is that one Bishop that the Church should have any other Bishop under Christ as a visible head Bellarmine suppones falsly it s a sort of disputing called Petitio principii where the thing is taken as granted which is the state of the question His second reason is That in the times of the Apostles the Church had a visible head under Christ But the Government of the Church is ever the same But it s answered it is false that in the times of the Apostles the Church had a visible head as was prolixly proved lib. 1. His third reason is of the same mettal Joh. 21. 15. Christ saith to Peter Pasce oves meas Feed my Sheep But it is answered that passage was prolixly answered before His fourth reason is by feeding of the sheep of Christ is meaned feeding of all the Sheep of Christ which none but one visible Head could do But that objection was also answered before lib. 1. His fifth reason is from 1 Cor. 12. â—1 The head cannot say unto the feet I have no need of you From which place he reasons thus The Church saith he is compared to a humane Body with a Head here the Head is brought in speaking to the Members that it cannot say I have no need oâ— you Or which is all one this Head of the Church hath need of the Members but this must be another Head then Christ because Christ hath no need of the Members But it is answered this is a flat abusing of Scripture the scope of the Apostle in that place is to show that although some in the Church have more excellent Gifts then others yet the fellowship and endeavours of those of mean Gifts is necessar for the edification of the Church which he proves by a similitude taken from a humane Body where some Members are more noble as the Head some less as the Feet And saith he as
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.
he subjoynes una quoque est Ecclesia c. there is one Church c. whereby it appears he speaks of one Bishoprick and one Church as different things He is likewayes mistaken in his other gloss for it is false which he affirms that every one is tyed alike to give an account of his administration since it is notorious that some are tyed to a stricter account then others We will close by instancing one other answer mentioned by Chamier but he doth not name the Author the said Author grants that the meaning of Cyprian is that all Bishops are alike Bishops but he distinguisheth quo ad ordinem Sacerdotalem and quo ad Jurisdictionem that is the order of all the Bishops is alike but not the Jurisdiction and therefore albeit all Bishops be equally Bishops with the Bishop of Rome yet they are not equal with him in Jurisdiction Hayus disput lib. 1. cap. 12. gives the same answer to that passage of Hieronymus Epist 85. ad Euagrium we shall discuss that distinction of Hayus in the following Book to which it properly belongs as concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the interval of Metropolitans whereas now we dispute only his Supremacy in the interval of Bishops It is sufficient for the present to answer that the said distinction between Order and Jurisdiction is contrary to the meaning of Cyprian for it shall appear in the following Chapter that any Bishop is equal in Jurisdiction with the Bishops of Rome as well as in order in the opinion of Cyprian because he affirms in his Oration to the Council of Carthage that the Bishop of Rome cannot judge another Bishop no more then he can be judged by him but if that be not an equality in Jurisdiction there is none at all CHAP. VIII Some Testimonies from Cyprians Oration in the Council of Carthage explained IN the former Chapter we observed by what sophistry our Adversaries endeavoured to pervert the meaning of Cyprian in that famous passage found in his Books de unitate Ecclesiae But in sophisticating those following testimonies of his uttered in the Council of Carthage their art is admirable From the said Oration are gathered the following Testimonies 1. Neither doth any of us constitute himself Bishop of Bishops to compell by tyrannical terror his Colleagues to necessity of obedience 2. Because every Bishop by the licence and liberty of his power hath his own proper judgement 3. He cannot be judged by another Bishop neither can he judge another Bishop 4. Let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ who alone hath power to prefer us to the Government of the Church and to judge our actions These famous testimonies of Cyprian perplexeth the learned men of the Roman Church very much neither do they agree in their answers as appears by what followeth When Luther in the conference at Lypsick objected those testimonies to Eccius against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Eccius answered that Cyprian in those words no man constitutes himself Bishop of Bishops speaks against those only who without a lawful vocation obtrudes themselves upon any Church to govern tyrannically But this answer is naught because Cyprian in those words is not speaking how Bishops should be constitute but of the power which constitute Bishops have as appears not only by those words of Cyprian we have cited but also by his words uttered after the reading of the Letters of Jubaianus in the Council The question stated in the Council was whether those who were baptised by Hereticks should be re-baptised Cyprian after the reading of those Letters and stating of the question desires every one of them to tell their opinion freely and not to remove from their communion those who were of contrary judgement to them and then he subjoyns those passages we cited in the beginning of the Chapter no man constitutes himself Bishop of Bishops c. whereby it is evident that he speaks of Bishops already constitute and not of the vocation of Bishops as Eccius affirms Sanderus lib. 6. cap. 4. of his visib Monarch answers diversly 1. that Cyprian speaks so out of humility since himself in a manner was Bishop of Bishops when he presided several times in a Council But this answer is nothing worth for Cyprian by Bishop of Bishops means one who takes upon him to compell his Colleagues to necessity of obedience as having Jurisdiction over them but none will affirm that he who presides in a Council hath that power almost 100 years after Cyprian it was ordained by the 9. Canon of the Council of Antioch that Metropolitans should do nothing without the consent of other Bishops as inferior Bishops could do nothing without them much lesse in the times of Cyprian had he who presided in a Council any Jurisdiction above his Colleagues since in his dayes there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop as is believed by many learned men and he who was Bishop primae sedis of the first seat or chief City of the Province was constant President in Provincial Councils as Cyprian because he was Bishop of Carthage neither had the President of a Council more authority over his fellow Bishops then the President of a Colledge of Judges over his fellow Judges Sanderus answers secondly that Cyprian in those words no man makes himself Bishop of Bishops c. is only speaking of those Bishops present at the Council of Carthage and means not the Bishops of Rome at all which is also the answer of Bellarmine lib. 2. cap. 16. de pont Rom. and likewayes of Pamelius in his Annotations upon the foresaid place of Cyprian But it is answered that Cyprian is speaking of all Bishops comprehending the Bishop of Rome as well as other Bishops his reasons are general as is evident by his words No man saith he makes himself Bishop of Bishops because every Bishop hath proprium arbitrium that is he hath as much authority to utter his judgement as any other and when his opinion is delivered no Bishop hath power to compell him to alter it as he cannot judge another Bishop neither can any other Bishop judge him and therefore all Bishops should expect the judgement of Christ who only can judge their actions Secondly it is false which they affirm that Cyprian in those expressions doth not mean by the Bishop of Rome for Binius tom 1. in his Annotations upon this Council of Carthage affirms that those words of Cyprian were tacitè directed against Stephanus Bishop of Rome The question agitated in the Council was Whether those who were baptized by Hereticks should be re-baptized Stephanus Bishop of Rome was for the negative Cyprian for the affirmative Stephanus as Binius relates and Cassander also consult art 37 threatned Cyprian and the Churches of Africa with Excommunication if they changed not their Opinion This Council of Carthage is called consisting of eighty seven Bishops Cyprian in his Oration to the Council
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
appellations it was opposed by Cyprian for two reasons first because delinquents should be judged where the crime is committed where witnesses may be had against them Secondly because the authority of the Bishops in Africa was no less who had already judged them then the authority of the Bishop of Rome to whom they had their recourse Bellarmine answers to both these reasons to the first he gives a twofold answer first that the meaning of Cyprian is to be understood de prima instantia that is persons should be judged where the crime is committed the first time only but if they appeal they should be judged in that place to which they appeal But he Sophisticates for Cyprian is opposing a second judgement at Rome after they had been condemned in Carthage as is notorious by the History Bellarmine answers Secondly that Cyprian is against a second â—udgement or appellation when the crime is manifest and not when it is dubious But it is replyed that manifest or unmanifest crime doth not take away appellation if the appellation be otherwayes legal or it the Judge to whom they appeal have jurisdiction over him from whom they have appealed Neither doth Cyprian distinguish between manifest and not manifest crimes at all Secondly Bellarmine contradicts himself in affirming that the meaning of Cyprian is that they may appeal to Rome when the cause is dubious but not when it is manifest which distinction Bellarmine admits viz. that there should be no appellation when the crime is manifest and yet in this case of Fortunatus and Felix the crimes were manifest and Bellarmine instances their appellations as legal which is a flat contradiction and this much of Bellarmines answer to Cyprians first reason viz. That Crimes should be judged where they are committed He yet instances that if that reason of Cyprians were valid it would cut off all appellations for there can be no appeal if crimes be judged where they are committed But it is replyed that Cyprian adds when the authority of those who have already judged them is no less then the authority of those to whom they appeal for immediatly after those words crimes should be judged where they are committed he restricts his meaning by the comparison of authority except saith he the authority of the Bishops of Africa be thought not sufficient by those profligate fellows who were judged by them Bellarmine instances those words of Cyprian are not comparing the authority of the Bishops of Africa with the authority of the Bishop of Rome but only with the cause of Fortunatus and Felix that is the authority of the Bishop in Africa is sufficient to judge that case but it is answered although that were the meaning of Cyprian it cutts off all appellations to Rome for if the authority of the Bishops of Africa be sufficient in that case of Fortunatus and Felix they cannot be rejudged at Rome in a second judgement Secondly albeit â—yprian for modesties sake doth not name the authority of the Church of Rome in the comparison for he was a great respecter of Cornelius Bishop of Rome yet that this is his meaning appears more evidently by those speeches of his uttered against Stephanus Bishop of Rome afterward in an other Council of Carthage which we mentioned in the former Chapter where he expresly affirms that all Bishops are of a like jurisdiction And this much of Bellarmine Pamelius answers this passage of Cyprian otherwayes with a world of Sophistry And first he affirms that Cyprian in those words is not disputing against a second judgement at Rome but against a judgement at Rome in the case of Fortunatus and Felix in prima instantia and therefore he uses these words the crime should be judged where it is committed alluding to an Epistle Decretal of Fabianus Bishop of Rome in which it is expresly ordained that no Bishop should be judged at Rome per Saltum that is until he be first judged where he is accused to have transgressed So if ye object to Pamelius that Fortunatus and Felix were already judged in Africa and went to Rome to demand a second hearing he answers they did not demand a recognoscing of these things for which they had been already judged but desired of Cornelius Bishop of Rome that he would be judge in things afterward laid to their charge by the Bishops of Africa which were not yet judged by them But it is replyed it is false that Pamelius affirms for it appears expresly â—y Cyprians Letter that he disputes against a second judgment at Rome and not a judgement in Prima instantia whereas Pamelius affirms that new crimes were intended which had not been yet judged it is his bare assertion neither brings he any proof of it for if any such thing had been a judgement in prima instantia could not have been with any shadow of justice countenanced at Rome neither could Felicissimus be so ignorant as to expect any redress that way the Scope of Felicissimus complaint was that he and Fortunatus might be restored because the judgement of the African Bishops passed against them was unjust Pamelius instances secondly that it was a first judgement or in prima instantia which Felicissimus demanded at Rome or else it was an appellation seing there can be no mids but there is no mention made of appellation at all by Cyprian Ergo it was a judgement in prima instantia which they demanded at Rome and for which Cyprian so much expostulats with Cornelius and inveighs against them It is answered first how this passage of Cyprian puzles them appears by their contradictions in their glosses Bellarmine instances this particular of Felicissimus as an appellation to prove the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the Bishops in Africa Pamelius flatly denys that Felicissimus appealed at all which is a flat contradiction of Bellarmine he takes this course perceiving that if this particular of Felicissimus were an appellation Cyprian must of necessity be against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome since he expresly disputs that Felicissimus cannot be judged at Rome and consequently Pamelius confesseth that Bellarmines evasions are nothing to the purpose It is answered secondly whereas Pamelius disputes Felicissimus did not appeal Ergo he demanded a judgement in prima instantia it doth not follow because there is a mids Felicissimus did make no appeal when he came out of Africa neither desired he a second judgment at Rome as it had been a formal appeal out only desired the assistance of Cornelius that by his moyen he might have some redress that this is no evasion appears by two unanswerable reasons the first is this Cyprian in his 55. Epistle affirms that they had solicited the Bishops in Africa before ever they had solicited the Bishop of Rome making the same complaints but none will affirm that they appealed to those Bishops of Africa after they had been condemned by the Council of Carthage over which the Bishops of Africa had no
authority in which doing they followed the example of Privatus who after he was condemned both in the Council of Africa and at Rome by Cornelius himself yet he desired a second judgement in another Council in Africa whereby it is evident that a second â—udgement in those dayes did not infer of necessity a formal appellation since there could be no appellation from a Synod to its self neither will Bellarmine affirm that Privatus appealed from Cornelius to a Council in Africa The second reason proving a mids between an Appeal and a judgement in prima instantia is this we have proved that Felicissimus did not demand a judgement in prima instantia from Cornelius Bishop of Rome but neither did he appeal unto him for an Appealer is held Pro non judicato or not guilty till the appeal be discussed but so was not Felicissimus for all held him guilty in Africa and refused communion with him neither did Cornelius admitt him to his communion at Rome after he was condemned by the Council of Carthage neither did Cornelius judge in his cause at all but only wrote unto Cyprian to deal favourably with him Since then Cyprian disputed so vehemently that Cornelius should not medle in that case of Felicissimus after the determination of the Council of Carthage much more he would have opposed the authority of Cornelius if there had been any formal appellation and all what Bellarmine and Pamelius alledge to the contrary is proved sophistry the one contradicting the other and this much of Fortunatus and Fellicissimus The third example of Appellations in this interval before the Council of Neice instanced by Bellarmine is this Cornelius Bishop of Rome dying Lucius succeeds but he not living long Stephanus succeeds in whose time the Bishops of Spain excommunicat Basilides a Bishop and likewayes one Martialis for falling in Idolatry or sacrificing to Idols in the time of persecution for fear of torture or death Basilides becomes penitent demands absolution which they grant him but withal they refuse to restore him to his Bishoprick in which they put another called Sabinus Basilides and Martialis have their recourse to Stephanus Bishop of Rome he takes not so much notice of Martialis but he writes to the Bishops of Spain to restore Basilides to his place they consult the Bishops of Africa who meeting in a Council about the business the Bishops of Africa send their opinion in an Epistle which in the edition of Turnebius is Epist 35. in that of Pamelius 68. of Cyprian in which Epistle Cyprian inveighs against Basilides as an Impostor taxeth Stephanus of credulity in giving ear to Basilides and concludes that the cesire of Stephanus should not be obeyed since Sabinus was legally put in the place of Basilides and therefore they ought to maintain him in that Bishoprick Here Bellarmine is demanded what he sees in this History making for the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the Bishops of Spain or for proving that Basilides appealed formally It would seem that Basilides appealed not since he was held pro judicato excommunicated deposed and another put in his Bishoprick which could not have been done if Appeals to Rome had been believed obligatory in those dayes Secondly Cyprian and the Council of Africa advise the Bishops of Spain not to obey the desire of Stephanus in rescinding the ordination of Sabinus affirmed by them to be legal Jure ordinata but if Basilides had appealed the ordination of Sabinus had not been lawful whereby it is evident that no appeals to Rome were approved in those dayes albeit Basilides had appealed Bellarmine answers that Basilides did appeal because he had his recourse to Stephanus and complained But it is replyed first that was no appeal because he made no intimation of it to the Bishops of Spain before he went to Rome Secondly because his going to Rome did not hinder or suspend the execution of the sentence passed against him as appears by the placing of Sabinus in his Bishoprick in the interim Thirdly when he came to Rome he brought no probations with him but only as Cyprian affirms Stephanum longe positum rei gestae ignarum fefellit that is he deceived Stephanus Bishop of Rome altogether ignorant of the business Lastly if Basilides had appealed the Bishops of Spain had been cited to plead the cause at Rome which they were not whereby it is evident there was no appeal Secondly to prove the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome Bellarmine alledgeth that Stephanus commanded the Bishops of Spain to repone Basilides and rescind that ordination they had made in favour of Sabinus But it is answered to omit we shewed it was no formal sentence of Stephanus but only an advice Bellarmine â—orgets the other half of the tale quite destroying the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as first that the Bishops of Spain before they gave an answer to Stephanus consulted with the Bishops of Africa whereby it is evident they acknowledged not the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome Secondly the Bishops of Africa meeting in a Council advises them not to obey the desire of Stephanus in rescinding their ordination of Sabinus because it was Rite peracta or legal and consequently Stephanus had no authority to command them Thirdly because the Bishops of Spain did not obey the desire of Stephanus at least it is not found in any monument of Antiquity that ever Basilides was restored Bellarmine instances that Stephanus would never have taken it upon him to cognosce in the cause of Basilides if it had not belonged to him But it is answered first he did not cognosce formally in it at all as we shewed Secondly albeit he had it was only an usurpation which is no title of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome We do not affirm that Stephanus had not so much arrogancy since he declared he had as appears by his proceeding with the Churches of Africa mentioned in the former Chapter we only affirm that he did not cognosce formally in this case of Basilides but only delt by way of perswasion and although he had done so it is no Argument for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as an Article of Faith in those dayes since it was every-where opposed as we proved by that passage of Victor with the oriental Bishops and of Stephanus with Cyprian and this of Stephanus with the Bishops of Spain by which passages it appears that the decrees of the Bishop of Rome were opposed in all the East in France in Africa in Spain that is almost by the whole Church And this much of appellations to Rome before the dayes of Cyprian CHAP. XI The testimonies of Ignatius Irenaeus and Tertullian objected to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the times of Cyprian examined IN the two former Chapters we answered all what the Learned Romanists could pretend to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the midle of the third Century
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
then went to Rome and calumniated him to Cornelius it had been impertinent in Cyprian in this question to bring in mention of an oecumenick Bishop the whole dispute of Cyprian consists in these two Sylogismes the first is who rise up in opposition to their lawful Bishop will assuredly be punished by God But those men Fortunatus and Felicissimus rise up against their lawful Bishop Ergo God will assuredly punish them The second Sylogisme is this who are the occaâ—ion of Heresies and Schismes will be punished But who rise against their lawful Bishop are the occasion of Heresies and Schismes Ergo c. By which disputations of Cyprians it is evident that by one Bishop he doth not mean an oecumenick Bishop but any Bishop of a particular charge because if by one Bishop he had meaned an oecumenick Bishop the minor of his first Sylogisme is notoriously false â—or Fortunatus and Felicissimus did not rise up against an oecumenick Bishop but only against Cyprian Bishop of Carthage But Pamelius instances first that Cyprian cites several testimonies of Scripture in this dispute which did quadrate only to the high Priest of the Jewes And therefore those words of Cyprian are more fitly to be understood of an oecumenick Bishop But it is answered Pamelius playes the Sophister three wayes First it is false that these passages cited by Cyprian are only applyable to the high Priest of the Jewes first he cites those words of Moses Deutr. 17. what ever man who out of Pride shall not hearken to the Priest and Judge who shall be in those dayes that man shall die But that Moses is not speaking here of the High Priest but of any Priest a very child may perceive who reads that Chapter of Deuteronomie or the 8 9 10 11 12. verses of it Secondly Pamelius Sophisticates in omitting those passages cited by Cyprian which cannot be applyed to the High Priest onely as that of Matth. 8. 4. Go shew thy self unto the Priests and that of Luke 10. 16. he that heareth you heareth me c. Thirdly Pamelius Sophisticates egregiously in concluding Cyprian to mean in those words an oecumenick Bishop by reason of his citation of those testimonies of Scripture for Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus and in another Epistle to Florentius cites all those very places which he cites in this 55. Epistle to Cornelius to prove that none should oppose their Bishop But Pamelius himself in his Annotations upon both those Epistles confesseth that neither in the one nor the other Cyprian speaks of an oecumenick Bishop in the one he speaks of Rogatianus in the other he speaks of himself as he doth in this 55. Epistle Pamelius objects Secondly that Cyprian here speaks of a Bishop who is Judge in place of Christ But it is answered Cyprian in those words means not an oecumenick Bishop but any Bishop whatsoever as is evident by these following reasons First he gives Colleagues to that Bishop whom he affirmeth to be Judge in place of Christ and that in the same Epistle his words are no man after divine judgement suffrages of the people consent of his fellow Bishops would make himself Judge not now of his Bishop but of God Secondly because epist 69. to Florentius Cyprian calls himself a judge constitute by God for a time Thirdly it is no marvel that Cyprian calls any Bishop judge in place of Christ since Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians gives the same Eipthet to Deacons he exhorts the said Trallians to reverence their Deacons as Christ whose place they hold Pamelius objects thirdly that Cyprian affirms that the cause of schisme and heresies is that one Bishop is not constitute in the Church and affirms that Cyprian by one Bishop ever means oecumenick Bishop as appears by his epist 48. to Cornelius and by his Book de unitate ecclesiae But it is answered that it is false which Pamelius affirms for in those places mentioned by him there is no such thing to be found in Cyprian that by one Bishop he means an oecumenick Bishop Secondly it is false which he affirms that Cyprian in every place by one Bishop means an oecumenick Bishop for in his Epistle to Pupianus he hath these very words which he hath in this 55. Epistle viz. that the cause of Heresies and Schisms is that one Bishop presiding in the Church is contemned by the proud presumption of some and yet Pamelius himself in his Annotations upon the place confesseth that Cyprian by one Bishop means any Bishop whatsoever and not an oecumenick Bishop Pamelius objects fourthly that Cyprian in his 55. Epistle cannot mean himself alone because he affirms if that one Bishop were acknowledged no man would move any thing against the Colledge of Priests because it doth not follow that they who move any thing against Cyprian oppose all other Bishops But it is answered Cyprian meaning is that in opposing himself they opposed the Colledge of Bishops which had ordained him Bishop of Carthage as is evident likewayes by the next following words which we cited before viz. no man can make himself judge of his Bishop after the suffrages of the people and the consent of his fellow Bishops whereby it is evident that the meaning of Cyprian is that who opposed him opposed the Colledge of Bishops who had ordained him Fifthly Pamelius objects that Cyprian after those words of one Bishop makes mention de servo praeposito or a servant preferred or set over the rest and immediately after he makes mention of Peter But it is answered none can understand wherein the force of this objection consists for Cyprian after he had affirmed that it was no marvel they had deserted that one servant who was preferred to the rest since the Disciples left Christ himself and then our Saviour asked the Apostles if they would also leave him then Peter upon whom the Church was built by our Lord answered for them all Lord whether or to whom shall we go Whereas Pamelius urgeth that by servus praepositus is meaned Peter it can be no wayes gathered out of the words of Cypria his scope in those words is only to shew that it was no marvel that those Schismaticks abandoned him their Bishop who was that servant set over them since Christs disciples abandoned him That Peter was only that servus praepositus cannot be gathered out of the words of Cyprian for that the Church was built upon Peter and that Peter answered in the name of the Church it makes nothing for the supremacy of Peter as we proved before by the testimony of Cyprian himself who in his books de unitate ecclesiae affirms whatever Peter was the other Apostles were the same equal to him in dignity and power However that building of the Cchurch upon Peter hath nothing ado with that servus praepositus mentioned by Cyprian for as we said Cyprian means only any Bishop and in particular himself by that Servant Horantius loc chathol lib. 6. cap. 10. and
one Bishop of the Church universal is evident because Cathedra or Chair is not one in the whole Church since there are many Chaires in it as is affirmed by Tertullian in his prescriptions cap. 36. The last passage they object out of Cyprian is from his Epistle to Pompeius where he affirmeth no man can have God to his Father who has not the Church to his Mother Costerus the Jesuit Apolog. part 3. objects this passage of Cyprian to prove that the Church of Rome is the mother Church and likewayes to prove the Bishop of Romes supremacy But the impudence of Costerus is very great for Cyprian in that whole Epistle disputes with such vehemency and bitterness against the Church and Bishop of Rome that Pamelius wisheth it had never been written and it shall be proved in the last Chapter of this Book that the said Epistle of Cyprian to Pompeius and others also of his Epistles of the same subject are left out in some new Roman editions of Cyprians works As for the words now alledged Costerus miserably wrests them for in them he is disputing against the Church of Rome and in the very next words he accuseth Stephanus Bishop of Rome not only of Error but also of Obstinacy his dispute is this Those who are baptized by hereticks ought to be re-baptized because the Sanctification of baptisme is only to be found in the Church apud Christi sponsam solam who can beget and bring forth children unto God but they who are baptized by hereticks are not born in the Church neither can they have God to their Father who have not the Church for their Mother Ergo they ought to be re-baptized And a little after he adds how comes it then that the severe Obstinacie of our brother Stephanus Bishop of Rome is come to such an hight he means by that excommunication of himself and the Church of Carthage by Stephanus and his harsh carriage For as Cassander relates consult art 7. when Cyprian sent messengers to Stephanus he not only reâ—used them audience but also inhibited the Clergy of Rome to admit any of them to their houses By which passage of Cyprian with Stephanus it appears with what ingenuity they object the 67. Epistle of Cyprian to prove that he acknowledged the Supremacy of the said Stephanus because in it he writes to him say they to depose Marcianus Bishop of Arles in France But it appears by the words of the Epistle that Cyprian only exhorts Stephanus to admonish the Bishops of the Province to depose him not to depose him himself what was the opinion of Cyprian concerning the power of the Bishop of Rome in deposition and restition of Bishops is sufficiently manifested by his carriage in the cause of Basilides and Sabinus mentioned a little before For in his Epistle 68. he stoutly opposeth the restitution of Basilides and the deposition of Sabinus notwithstanding that Stephanus injoyned both the one and the other to the Bishops of Spain CHAP. XII Objections from forged Authors answered pretended to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the dayes of Cyprian HItherto they have endeavoured to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the death of Cyprian by wrested and misapplyed testimonies that not serving the turn they fall to forgery and that of two kinds first they bring testimonies from bastard and suppositïtious Authors Secondly from true Authors corrupted by the Popes authority or otherwayes we will discourse of the first sort in this Chapter of the second in the following In the first place they pretend the decretal Epistles of several Bishops of Rome who lived in that interval and after unto the beginning of the fourth Age. But it is answered all those decretals are forged attributed to Popes before the dayes of Syrictus Bishop of Rome who lived about anno 380. the reasons follow First Dionysius Exiguus a diligent Compilator of all the decretals of Popes in one volumne begins this work with the decretals of the said Syritius not mentioning the decretal Epistles of any Popes before him whereby it evidently appears that there was no such decretalls in his time or in the sixth Century whereby also it is evident that they have been forged since that time Secondly those decretalls are mentioned by non of the Ancients most exact enquirers after antiquity such as Eusebius Hieronymus Gennadius and Pope Damasus who lived himself in the time of Hieronymus and to whom Hieronymus was Secretar but all those Authors made exact enquiry after the actions of Bishops of Rome before the Council of Neice and yet not one of them maketh mention of those decretals which are at least thirty Thirdly the stiles of men are almost as different as their faces but it appears to any Judicious Reader that all those Epistles were penned by one man having the same stile but they are attributed to Bishops of Rome of divers Ages whereof the last lived three hundred year after the first Fourthly the Latine Tongue before the Council of Neice was in great purity and the Bishops of Rome of those dayes known to be most powerful in it but the stile of those decretals is most barbarous Turrianus objects who wrote a defence of those Epistles that those Bishops of Rome used a humble stile in imitation of Paul who shunned the words of humane wisdom But it is answered that although Paul did forbid affected eloquence yet he did not prescrive solicismes and barbarity which both are frequent in those Epistles And first for Solicismes Enaristus epist 2. Episcopi sunt obediendi non detrahendi Telesphorus in his Epistle hath these words Patres omnes sunt venerandi non insidiandi such like expressions are found every where As for barbarismes you have everywhere such expressions as those folowing Rigorosus tortor dependere obtemperantiam agere indisciplinate jurgialiter stare paternas doctrinas injuriare cuncta charitative peragere Fifthly Isidorus Mercator who lived in the seventh Age challenged by Barronius ad annum 336. num 80. and 60. as a great forger of monuments of Antiquity he lived in the 7. Age at which time there was great debate between the Greek and the Latin Church the Greek Church refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome albeit Phocas in the beginning of that Age had taken the title of oecumenick Bishop from Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople and bestowed it upon Bonifacius Bishop of Rome yet notwithstanding the Bishop of Constantinople still keeped the stile of oecumenick Bishop and would not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome The said Isidorus Mercator as Barronius relates forged several monuments of Antiquity to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and he is commonly thought to be the forger of those decretalls for three reasons first as we said he is detected of several other forgeries secondly because it appears by their stile they are all written by one man thirdly because the stile is barbarous and exactly agreeing
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
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