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
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
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
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
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 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
we said before in the following words he adds Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam hoc est super confessionem Christi where he interprets the Rock to be also the confession of Peter by which it appears that the sense is all one whether the Rock be called Christ or the confession of Peter Innumerable others interpret the Rock to be the Confession of Peter whose testimonies are needless to be mentioned since none can deny them As Chrysostom homil 55. upon Matthew and in other places Basililus Seleuciensis on Matthew 16. Theophalactus on the same place Epiphanius Contra Catharos Isâ—dorus Pelusiota lib. 1. Epist 235. Cyrillus lib. 4. of his Dialogues with Hermias Theodoretus lib. 2. npon the Canticles Augustinus tract 10. upon the first Epistle of John Whereby again it appears that the meaning of those Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Christ and the confession of Peter mean the same thing Since Augustinus most frequently interprets the Rock to be Christ It is needless to mention other Fathers calling the confession of Peter the Rock as Felix third Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to Zeno the Emperor concerning the deposition of Peter Bishop of Antioch of the sixth General Council of Constantinople called Trullanum of Damascenus in his Sermon upon the transfiguration of Christ of Victor Antiochenus upon Mark third and diverse others which testimonies are acknowledged by our adversaries to which they vary in their answers Pighius Hierarchiae lib. 3. cap. 5. calls those Fathers ignorants who interpret the Rock to be the confession of Peter and that they are not worthy to be answered Baronius is also totus in fermento and calls them mad men Anno 31. chap. 7. Bellarmin and Stapleton answers more modestly to the testimony of those Fathers distinguishing the Faith or Confession of Peter which they say may be considered two wayes First Absolutly and in abstracto that is not considered as in any subject Secondly as it is in the person of Peter or in concreto In the first acception they deny that those Fathers call the Faith or Confession of Peter to be the Rock in the second they affirm they do and that their meaning is no other then that Petrus creâ—ens or Peter believing is the Rock Which opinion they affirm to be all one with their own viz. that Peter is the Rock But it is replyed This gloss or distinction is far beside the meaning of those Fathers who interpret the Faith or Confession of Peter to be the Rock as thing differing from Peter himself So Chrysostom in his Homile on Matthew 55. 5. Super hanc Petram dixit non super hunc Petrum Non enim super hominem sed super fidem aedificabit Ecclesiam Which words he hath also in his Sermon upon Penticost in which he quite overthrows the distinction of Stapleton and Bellarmin averring only the confession of Peter and not at all Peter himself to be the Rock Augustin in his 13. Sermon de verb. Dom secundum Mac. hath these words I will not build my Church upon thee but thee npon me whereby he expresly denys Peter to be the Rock at all likewise Cyrillus de Trinitate lib. 4. Gregory Nyssen in his testimonies against the Jews Hilarius lib. 2. of the Trinity expresly distinguish the Rock from Peter and therefore they cannot mean that Peter is the Rock It may be also proved by reason that in the opinion of those Fathers Peter cannot be the Rock at all that is Petrus credens or Peter believing We will only mention three reasons First The Rock upon which the Church is built is perpetual because a perpetual building requires a perpetual foundation but Peter is no perpetual foundation since he dyed and was removed a little after that promise Secondly The thing which Peter confessed whether it be taken formally for the Act of Confession or objectively for the thing confessed cannot be Peter himself since both those propositions are false The Confession of Peter is Peter and the thing confessed by Peter is Peter but those Fathers in the former chapter affirm that the Rock was the thing confessed by Peter and the Fathers of this chapter that it was the confession of Peter the meaning of both Fathers is the same as we proved in Nyssenus and Augustinus Ergo neither of those Fathers whether they interpret the Rock to be the thing confessed by Peter or the confession of Beter can mean that Peter is the Rock himself Thirdly Suppose that some believed in Christ in the dayes of our Savior who never heard so much as the name of S. Peter It cannot be denyed but those persons were built upon the Rock But it cannot be affirmed that they were built upon Peter since they never so much as heard of his name Bellarmin Polus and Sanderus endeavoâ— to prove by several Sophistries that the Faith or Confession of Peter cannot be the Rock upon which the Church is built because say they the house and the Foundation most be Homogeneous the Church is composed of Men but the Confession and Faith of Peter is a quality but a quality cannot be the foundation of a house consisting of Men or substances But it is answered First The Faith and confession of Peter may be considered two wayes First Formally for the quality of Faith or act of Confession Secondly Objectively for the thing confessed viz. Christ when those Fathers call the Faith or Confession of Peter the Rock they take it Objectively for the thing confessed or believed for as we said before those Fathers who call Christ the Rock and those who call the confession of Peter the Rock mean all one thing Since those who in one place call Christ the Rock in another call the confession of Peter the Rock So Nyssenus and Augustinus as we shewed before Secondly We retort the Argument reasoning ex concessis First they confess that the Foundation of the Church must be Homogeneous to the Church it self So Pighius and Bellarmin Secondly they grant that no Faith is Homogeneous to the Church So Pighius expresly affirms that Faith and the Church differunt toto genere from those premisses no Logician will deny this conclusion to follow in Camestres Ergo no Faith can be the foundation of the Church Which conclusion expresly contradicts the third Session of the Council of Trent asserting the Symbole of Faith to be the only and sure foundation upon which the Church is built and against which the gates of hell shal not prevail And this is all of any moment what they object against those Fathers affirming the Rock to he the confession of Peter CHAP. VI. Of Fathers interpreting Peter to be the Rock VVHen Bozius and others of the Doctors of the Church of Rome objected that all the Fathers Greek and Latin interpreted the Rock to be Peter Augustinus only excepted It was answered First That it was notoriously false that all the Fathers interpreted the
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
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
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
the Church of Rome since it cannot be denyed that the Bishop of Rome hath domination and as shal immediately be proved Tyranick domination And therefore all the Doctors of the Church of Rome distinguish viz. that Tyranick domination is only forbidden 1. Peter 5. they deny that the domination of an Oecumenick Bishop is Tyranical But it is replyed First that all domination is forbidden and not only Tyranical domination Secondly the domination of an Oecumenick Bishop is tyranical as it is now excercised by the Bishop of Rome Haius our Countrey-man disput lib. 1. answers that Peter 1. 5. forbidds only tyrannical domination which he proves by the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Apostle in the said place which evermore imports tyrannical domination as the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to exercise dominion lawfully But he is mistaken Both these verbs are used promiscuously in Scripture for the same both signifying lawful dominion or exercising dominion lawfully as appears by comparing Matthew 20. 25. and Mark 10. 42. where the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used speaking how the Kings of the Gentiles exercise dominion over their Subjects But Luke 22. 25. speaking of the same Lording he useth the other Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereby it appears that these two Greek verbs signify both one sort of ruling which is lawful and not the one of them used by Peter 1. 5. signifyeth tyrannical domination Since none will deny that the ruling or domination of the Kings of the Gentiles may be lawful domination Which is further confirmed because the Septuagints speaking of lawful domination in many places useth the same Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made use of by Peter 1. 5. 3. as Psalm 72. 8. and 110. 2. and Genesis 1. 28. other innumerable places might be added but these are sufficient It is answered Secondly Although it were granted that tyrannical domination were only forbidden Peter 1. 5. yet it quite overthrowes an Oecumenick Bishop Or the domination now exercised by the Bishop of Rome then which no greater tyranny can be imagined since he takes upon himself supream dominion 1. In Spirituals 2. In Temporals 3. Over Souls departed 4. Over Angels 5. He takes upon him titles proper to God himself 6. Hears blasphemous comparisons of himself with Christ made to himself by others not only not punishing these blaspheming Parasytâ— but also hearing them patiently and rewarding them These six particulars seem incredible notwithstanding that they are the doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome and particular Church of Rome the infallibility of which Bellarmin with great animosity endeavors to demonstrate lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. cap. 4. appears by what followeth tracing these six particulars in order And first He assumes to himself Infallibility in Cathedra that is Teaching the whole Church he cannot err which is most abominable tyranny since under the pain of Heresie we are bound to believe a Pope if he shal teach Heresie They strive to elude this Because a Pope cannot teach Heresie to the whole Church Which assertion of theirs is false as appears by these following reasons First It is granted by them all that Popes may be most wicked men yea and Magicians But it is madness to affirm that men living in paction with the Devil cannot err teaching the whole Church Secondly It is evident by History and confessed by Barronius himself Anno 538. num 20. and Liberatus breviar cap. 22. that Vigilius Bishop of Rome obtained that Bishoprick from the Empress Theodora and from Belisarius General to Justinianus the Emperor by promising to the Empress to cass and abrogat the Council of Chalcedon to establish by authority the Eutychian Heresie and by promising gold to the said Belisarius and likewise that he wrote several Epistles to several persons confirming them in the Eutychian Heresie But it is impudence to deny that any entring to the Bishoprick of Rome by such means can be infallible in teaching the Church Thirdly They who affirm and teach that a Bishop of Rome is infallible in Cathedra fights against reason common sense and the light of all History by which it appears that several Popes have not only been condemned by other Popes and general Councils for Hereticks but also for teaching Heresie Of which we shal give many instances part 3. lib. 2. tedious to be inserted here we will only mention Honorius Bishop of Rome who was condemned as an Heretick by the sixth General Council act 12. 13. by the seventh General Council in the last â—ct by the eight General Council act 7. And likewise it appears by the records of the said Councils that the said Honorius was declared an Heretick by three Bishops of Rome Agatho Leo second and Adrianus second and lest they think to escape this difficulty by distinguishing as they use to do in such cases that Honorius taught Heresie as a private person and not in Cathedra It is evident by the 12. and 13. Act of the sixth Council that the said Council condemned two decretal Epistles of the said Honorius as Heretical But none will deny that Popes in their decretals teach the whole Church Alphonsus de castro lib. 1. cap. 4. page 20. concluds Calestinus Bishop of Rome taught Heresie because he had read Heretical Doctrine in an old decretal Epistle of his Likewise of late Pope John 23. was declared an Heretick by the Council of Constance and Eugenius 4. by the Council of Basil By which is sufficiently proved The tyrannical dominion of the Bishops of Rome in Spirituals since all of that Church are bound to believe that as an Article of Faith which he teacheth although he should teach Heresie call good evil and evil good As appears by that blasphemous gloss In caput quanto personam de translatione Episcopi in decretalibus Where it is affirmed that none should presume to call in question what the Pope doth Since he hath an Heavenly arbitriment can change the nature of things make Justice Injustice Injustice Justice Which if it be not tyrannical domination none is imaginable the words of the gloss are these following Papa habet coeleste arbitrium ideo naturam rerum mutare potest substantialia unius rei applicando alij de nullo posse aliquid facere sententiam quae nulla est facere aliquam in his quae vult ei esse pro ratione voluntatem nec esse qui ei dicat cur ita facis Potest enim suprajus dispensare de injustitia facere justitiam corrigendo jura mutando demum plenitudinem obtinet potestatis It shal be proved likewise part 4. lib. 1. that he gives pardons for money for sins to be committed for so many years to come And thus much of his tyrannical dominion in Spirituals which was the first particular The second particular of his tyrannical dominion is in Temporals Authority of deposing Kings is attributed unto him it is taught by the
Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to absolve Subjects from their Oaths of fidelity to their natural Princes to command them to fight against them and consequently to kill them that all are oblieged to acknowledge him for their natural Prince whom the Pope shal appoint It is taught also in that Church That the Pope is direct Monarch of the whole World both in Spirituals and Temporals So Bozius lib. 10. de signs Ecclesiae and Carerius de potestate Papae and all the Canonists they teach also That a Pope deposing a King without any reason but his will doth him no wrong because he takes only what is his own from him As a King doth no wrong to the Governor of a Province when he gives his government to another Subject Although the former have done no offence as is maintained by Thomas Bozius lib. 3. cap 4 de jure status Here our Romish Emissaries in Scotland endeavor to perswade their Proselytes that this doctrine of deposing Kings is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome but only of some particular Persons whom they call the Popes Flatterers But is replyed that those Gentle-men are either not well versed in their own principles or else they are like Father Cotton the Jesuite who being demanded by the Parliament of Paris If he believed that the Popes had power to depose Kings Answered He did not believe it in France but if he were at Rome he would believe it However that it is to the doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings is proved by these following reasons which will puzle those gentlemen very sore to answer The first is this innumerable Books are Printed teaching this doctrine and yet are Printed by authority and licence as containing no doctrine contrair to the true Catholick doctrine of the Church of Rome Ergo the deposing of Kings by the Pope is the true Catholick doctrine of the Church of Rome since a doctrine which is not contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Rome must of necessity be the doctrine of the Church of Rome The second reason is this All the Roman Doctors unanimously maintain except some few who dare not set out their Head that whatever the Pope and his Cardinals discern in a Conclave is of equal if not of a Superior Authority with that which is decreed in a General Council but the Conclave at Rome gives unto the Pope power of deposing Kings Ergo it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome That such power is given to the Pope by the Conclave appears by innumerable bulls as that of Gregory 7. against Henry the 4. Emperor That of Paul the third against Henry the 8. of England Of Paul the 5. against Queen Elizabeth Of Sixtus the 5. against Henry 3. and 4. Kings of France The third reason is this Every one is bound to believe that to be the true Doctrine of the Church of Rome which the Pope teacheth in Cathedra in which case they maintain he is infallible But the Pope teacheth in Cathedra that he hath power to depose Kings by his decretal bulls obliging the whole Church as is notorious in which he assums to himself that power as appears by innumerable of his Bulls especially by those now mentioned against the Emperor Kings of England France in which he expresly assumes unto himself authority of building or aedificandi of casting down or demoliendi of planting plantandi of rooting out eradicandi transferendi of transferring Kingdoms at his pleasure In some of which Bulls also he applyeth to himself those words of the Prophet Per me Reges regnant By me Kings reign which is notorious blasphemy And thus we have proved against those Gentlemen that they are mistaken in denying that is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which giveth authority unto the Pope to depose Kings They are not yet satisfied as appears by two objections made by one of those Gentlemen to my self The first was this that I could not instruct that it was the Doctrine of any General Council that the Pope hath power to depose Kings and consequently I could not make out it was the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome To which objection I answered First that I had made it out That it was the doctrine of Popes in Cathedra and consequently I had made it out that he and all other Romanists were obliged to believe it as an Article of Faith He told me plainly he did much doubt of that neither was he of that opinion That the Pope could not err in cathedra but still pressed me to prove it by the Authority of some General Council protesting he detested that doctrine as unsound I desired him to read Baronius anno 1072. and he would find that the Emperor Henry the 4. was exautorated by a Council at Rome num 16 17 18. and by another at Collen 1118. num 20. and by another at Fritislar ibid. The Gentleman answered very pertinently That these were only petty particular Councils but he desired the authority of a General Council I desired him to read Baronius ad an num 1102. num 1 2 3. and also the same Author 1116. num 5. and also anno 1119. Where he will find that doctrine to be the doctrine of General Councils especially that of Lateran anno 1116. is called a General Council by Baronius Likewise I desired him to read Bzovius anno 1245. num 4. The Council of Lions in the tombs of Councils tom 28. pag. 431. The decretals sext de sententiâ re judicata ad Apostolica where he would find that the Emperor Frederick the second was deprived or declared to be deprived and his subjects quit from their Oaths of Allegiance by Innocentius 4. in the Council of Lions I desired him also to read an Act of a General Council at Lateran under Innocent third where he would find that doctrine or that power of Deposing Kings attributed to the Pope which Act he would find in Bzovius anno 1215. Paragraph 3. in Binnius and Crab in their collection of Councils C. l 3. and in Gregorius de haeret C. excommunicamus I desired him also to read Ses 25. Canon 19. of the Council of Trent where he would find that power of the Popes so intelligibly asserted and consequentially although not expesly that it was one of the main reasons for which the Kingdom of France stood out against that Council of Trent rejecting its Authority By the said Canon any Dominus fundi is deprived of the Dominion of it if a düel be fought in it and since a King is comprehended under Dominus fundi the Council takes upon it to deprive him of a part of his Kingdom but if they have power to deprive him of a part by the same reason they take upon them power to take his whole Kingdom from him And this way I answered his first objection viz. that it could be instructed by Act of
therefore are not the true Lights And since Christ is the true Light and men are not the true Lights it is evident that the title of Light is attributed to both by a Homonymy In the next place comes Foundation Prophets and Apostles are called Foundations two wayes And first Tertullianus lib. 4. cap. 39. against Marcion Chrysostomus Oecumenius Theophylactus interpret these words of Paul super fundamenta Prophetarum Apostolorum as if the Prophets and Apostles themselves were Foundations But it is certain they cannot be called so but only by reason of their Ministry that is in so far as they were Ministers of founding Churches as is confessed by Justinianus the Jesuite who affirms That the faith of the Ephesians was built upon the testimony of the Old and New Testament that is by a Metonymy but Christ is not that way called Foundation and therefore the title of Foundation is attributed by a Homonymy to Christ and the Apostles and Prophets and in that sense the Apostle Paul denyeth that there is any Foundation but Christ Others interpret the meaning of Paul calling the Apostles and Prophets Foundations to be that they preached the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament which is the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets viz. which they did lay So the interlinear and ordinar gloss following Ambrosius and Anselmus so also Lyranus Aquinas Lombardus Cajetanus Gagnaeus the Jesuite and Salmero In what ever sense Foundation be taken it is properly attributed to Christ improperly by a Homonymy to men Bellarmins last tittle is GOD Men are called Gods saith he Psalm 82. and since they are so called why may not a man be called Head of the Church But it is answered First Kings and Judges are not called Gods there but only that men judged so of them because of their flourishing estate so that Fgo dixi Dii estis are not the words of GOD but of the Psalmist himself as dâ—vers learned men gather from the text Others think that the Psalmist is speaking of the Angels However albeit the title of GOD were attributed to Kings and Judges it doth not follow that the title of Head of the Church may be attributed to men because the title of GOD is attributed to men abusively by a too high strained Metaphor But Bellarmin and his fellows endeavor to maintain that the Bishop of Rome is properly head of the Church as a King is head of his Kingdom And in this manner Bellarmin undertakes to prove that it is not injurious to Christ that any should take upon him the title of Head of the Church In the next place he goes a step higher endeavoring to prove That a visible head of the Church sets forth the glory of Christ as the glory of a King is augmented by a Victory But it is answered When a Viceroy intruds himself without a Commission upon a Province he is so far from setting forth the glory of his King that he eclipseth it by neglecting of his authority and proves a Rebel Let Bellarmin instruct if he can in what place of Scripture any hath commission to be visible head of the Church under Christ We proved in the former chapters that what he alledged in the behalf of Peter was new devised Sophistry contradicting Scripture Antiquity and of no great moment to prove the supremacy of Peter in the opinion of the most learned Antiquaries which ever the Church of Rome produced Secondly Bellarmins visible head of the Church carrys himself not like a Viceroy but like a King which must be injurious to the true Head of the Church Yea Bellarmin himself endeavors to prove that the said secondary head reigns in the Church as a King doth in a Kingdom Neither can the Bishop of Rome be said to be Viceroy to Christ otherwise in the government of the Church then a King is Viceroy to GOD in the government of a Kingdom But Kings are absolute and not Viceroys and therefore that visible head of the Church is absolute also being subordinate no otherwise to Christ then Kings are to GOD. Thirdly when a Viceroy takes upon him to go beyond his commission or to govern contrair to the law of his King he wrongs the authority of his King and no wayes sets forth his glory But Bellarmins visible and secundary head takes upon him to dispence with the Law of GOD as we shewed in the former chapter proving that he took power upon him to make Justice Injustice and Injustice Justice In the third place Bellarmin goes a step higher yet and endeavors to prove that a secundary visible head is necessar for the Church because saith he in the absence of Christ the Church cannot be contained in Vnity unless it be governed by one visible head under Christ But it is answered Stillgood that assertion of Bellarmins if not blasphemous is notoriously false viz. That the Church cannot be contained in Vnity by Christ alone unless a visible head be joyned with him Which contradicts Scripture which in every place attributes the cause of that Unity of the Church to Christ alone So John 17. That they may be one in us and Rom. 10. We many are one body in Christ and Gal. 3. Ye are all one in Christ and the reason is evident because that Unity is Spiritual Ephes 4. Studying to keep the unity of the Spirit See also 1. Corinth 12. and Philip 1. By which places it appears that the Invisible and Spiritual presence of Christ alone preserves the Church in Unity which is also granted by many famous Roman Doctors who prove the infallibility of the Church to depend upon this promise of Christ viz. That he would be present with them to the end of the World We have heard Bellarmin disputing for a visible head and proving that it is not derogatory to the honor of Christ We will now examine an argument of Sanderus that famous English Jesuite who proves that it conduceth to the glory of Christ that the Church should have a visible head because saith he More ways of Preaching that glory of Christ are by a visible head then without it But it is answered to omit the inconsequence of that argument we deny the Antecedent or distinguisheth it viz. These ways of Preaching Christ only illustrat his glory which are ordained by himself which a visible head is not Sanderus instances Rulers of particular Churches or Bishops are called Heads of their respective Churches under Christ by Gregorius Magnus and other Fathers Ergo why may there not be one visible head of all the Church under Christ But it is answered First if Sanderus had objected that argument to Gregorius Magnus himself he would have denyed it to follow for although he seems to call Bishops heads of particular Churches yet he detests an universal head as we shewed before as injurious to Christ. Secondly when Gregorius calls Bishops heads of the Church he speaks abusively and improperly and without any warrand in Scripture And thus
called the body or Kingdom of the King but he endeavors to prove that the said secundary head reigns in the Church as a King doth in a Kingdom and therefore the Church may be called the body of the said secundary head if there were any such thing But since the Church is no where called the body of that secundary head it is evident that the said secundary head is a meer fiction Bellarmin gives a reason wherefore the Province is not called the body of the Viceroy but only of the King viz. because the Governor of a Province is not perpetual but only for a time And for the same reason the Church is not called the body of that secundary head because it is not perpetual but only for a time But this reason is frivolous because that secundary head of the Church is as perpetual as a King in a Kingdom and therefore the Church may be called as well body of that secundary head as a Kingdom is called the body of a King But since in Scripture the Church is no where called the body of that secundary Head it is evident it is a fiction viz. that secundary head which is further confirmed Bellarmin affirms also That the Province cannot be said to be the Province of the Viceroy because he is not absolute but it may be called the Province of the King because he is absoluto and depends upon none but God But that secundary head of the Church depends upon none but Christ and therefore the Church may as well be called his body and Church as a Kingdom may be called Kingdom of the King But since the Church is no where called body of that secundary head it is evident that the said secundary head is but a fiction Bellarmin pressed with those difficulties â—â—ies to another distinction viz. that the Church is called the body of Christ not in relation to Christ as head but only as â—e is referred to Christ as a great hypostasis as when Peter or Paul is lying any where we may affirm There lyes the body of Peter there lyes the body of Paul In which sense body comprehends head and all and is not considered as distinct from the Head and other members Bellarmin by this device doth not take away the difficulty for two reasons The first is although it were granted that the Church were called the body of Christ as the word Christ is a Hypostasis comprehending both heads and members in which sense the body of Peter or Paul may be called their body and not their head we say Although that were granted yet Bellarmin will not deny that the Church is called the body of Christ sometimes as it is referred to Christ as head and therefore if there were any Secundary head the Church would be called its bodie in that respect also which since it is not it is evident that there is no such thing as a secundary head The second reason is that it is false which Bellarmin affirms that ever the Church is called the body of Christ in that sense of great hypostasis it hath neither ground in Scripture nor Antiquity it is only devised by Bellarmin himself who abuseth Scripture and a passage of Augustinus to prove it The place of Scripture is 1 Corinth 12. verse 12. Where the Apostle affirms That all the members of the bodie although they be many yet are but one bodie even so is Christ which makes nothing for him for the Apostle there means no â—uch thing as Bellarmin affirms citing Augustinus falsly to prove it Augustins words are Non dixit ita Christi idest corpus Christi vel membra Christi sea ita Christus unum Christum appellens caput corpus as he would say The Apostle called Christ which is the head of the Church and the Church which is the bodie of Christ one Christ which he had foolishly affirmed if that had been the Apostles mind that the Church is called the body of Christ as the body of Peter and Paul lying any where comprehending the head also And thus much of that famous disput oâ— the head of the Church We have seen how Bellarmin vexetâ— himself to find out distinctions to maintain that secundary head and to show why the Church is not called the Body of that secundary head But the Roman Doctors of late maintain that the Church is and may be called the body of that secundary head seeing that Bellarmins distinctions would not serve the turn CHAP. XIII Of the Hierarchy of the Church Ephesians 4. WE have prosecuted two Arguments against the institution of the Supremacy of Peter now followeth the third which is this If Peter had been ordained by our Savior Monarch of the Church then the Apostles themselves and these who lived in their times delineating the Hierarchy of the Church would have mentioned it or affirmed That the Government of the Church was monarchical under one visible head But both the Apostles themselves and those who are confessed by our adversaries to have lived in the times of the Apostles delineating the Hierarchy of the Church put ever still more persons then one of equal authority in the highest place of the Hierarchie whereby it is evident to any who is not wilfully blinde that the Government of the Church was not by Christs Institution Monarchical And first the Apostle Paul Ephes 4. enumerating the Hierarchie of the Church verse 10 11 12 13 14. hath these words He that descended is even the same that ascended far above all heavens that he might fill all things He therefore gave some to be Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers In which words ye have the Hierarchy of the Church consisting of several degrees in every degree many persons the highest degree is that of the Apostles which are also many or in the Plural number whereby it is evident that our Savior did institute no Monarchy in the Church in one single person or in Peter neither can it be affirmed That this enumeration of Church-Officers ordained by Christ is not full or is not perfect as if the Apostle had omitted some Church-Officers ordained by Christ because it appears by verse 12 13 14. That no more were necessarie for the building up of the Church or performing any duty necessar for the Churches instruction viz. for the repairing of the â—aints for the work of the Ministrie and for the edification of the bodie of Christ verse 12. Till we all meat together in the unitie of faith and that acknowledging of the Son of God unto a perfect man and unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ verse 13. That we henceforth be no more children wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine c. By those words of the Apostle it appears that no more Church Rulers are necessar eitheir for the founding of the Church or confirming it after it is built or defending it when it is
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
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
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
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
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
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
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