we have shewed hitherto how Bellarmin and Sanderus have endeavored to prove that it is not inconsistent with the Church to have two heads because the one is a Primary head the other a Secundary head Panigarola lectione 6. useth a very strange argument to prove that the Church of necessity must have a visible head beside Christ Otherwise saith he It would be a monster if a visible body as the Church had only an invisible head which is Christ But it is answered First the Church will be no less a monster if it have two heads one visible another invisible Secondly Panigarola speaks blasphemy which we bind upon him by this argument First All bodies visible having an invisible head are monstrous bodies This Panigarola grants Secondly The Church is no monstrous body This he grants also how can he then deny this conclusion in Baroco Ergo The Church hath not an invisible head or Christ is not head of the Church which is right-down blasphemy Alphonsus de Castro puzled with the difficulty of two heads hath a distinction of his own of two bodies as Bellarmin made a distinction of two heads De Castro denies That body of which Christ is the head to be the same with that body which hath a visible head or Peter or the Bishop of Rome for its head He explains himself thus the Church may be called a body two ways saith he First as it is a total body Secondly as it is a Mystical body The first way is when it is considered comprehending all the Members with Christ and in that sense Christ is head of the Church In the second way it is considered as a body consisting of all the other members Christ excluded and in that acception Peter or his Successors are visible heads of the Church So the Church cannot be said to have two heads for Christ and Peter and his Successors are not heads of the same body but of diverse Christ is head of the Church as it is a total body Peter and his Successors as it is a Mysticalbody But it is answered Alphonsus de Castre as cannot be denyed was a brave learned man and stood as little awe of the Pope to speak his mind when truth required as any Doctor of that Church yet this distinction of his of a body in total and mystical is used by no body but himself it is also contrair to Scripture which in every place where the Church is called the body of Christ considers it as containing all other members Christ excluded And so the Scripture never mentions that body which de Castro calls a total body For the Scripture calling the Church the body of Christ means no other body then that which de Castro calls mystical This distinction of de Castro might be solidly refuted otherwise but it is needless to insist since it is owned by no others except by Spondanus who seems to come very near it thus The Apostle saith he Ephes 4. affirms Christ to be the head from which the whole body takes increment He observeth First that Christ is distinguished from the whole body which is the Church Ergo saith he since the Church is a whole body without Christ it must of necessity have a head beside Christ otherways it could not be a whole body since no body can be whole without a head And therefore the Church hath a visible head proportionable to it self beside Christ since it is a whole body without Christ But it is answered He is a notorious Sophister First when the Apostle Ephesians 4. opposeth the whole body to Christ under the name of body or whole body he comprehends all the other members only beside the head and not as having a head of its own As appears by the Commentaries not only of the Fathers upon that place Ephes 4. such as Chrysostom and his admirer Theophylactus and Theodoretus but also by the expositions of Justinian and Salmero two famous Jesuites upon that place Ephesians 4. All which expounding what the Apostle calls totum corpus or the whole body interpret it to be these members Quae à capite sensum accipiunt or have influence of sense or life from the head And consequently they make totum corpus the whole body to be no otherthing then all the other members the head excluded and consequently totum corpus the whole body hath not an other head beside Christ Secondly By totum corpus or whole body questionless the Apostle means the Church as it comprehends both the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant Spondanus argument if it conclude at all must of necessity conclude that the said visible head is head of the Church Triumphant and so the Bishop of Rome must be head of the Church Triumphant also which none will affirm Thirdly The ground of this distinction of Spondanus is notoriously false viz That the head would not be proportional to the body except it were visible For to omit that Christ is constantly called the Head of the Church in Scripture which should be enough to stop the mouth of Spondanus our Savior is a proportional Head to the Church because he is a man like unto us in all things except sin We will conclude this disput of Head of the Church with one Argument used by some Protestants against a Visible Head of the Church which is this If the Church had any other Head but Christ it would be called the body of the said Head but it is never called the body of any Head but of Christ Ergo It hath no other Head but Christ Bellarmin answers two wayes And first he affirms That the Church is not called the body of that visible Head because it is only Secundary and not Primary and therefore the Church is only called the body of Christ But it is replyed If there were any such thing as that secundary head the Church could with no less reason be called its body then it could be called head of the church Since the relation is reciprocal and the body is no less the body of the Head then the head is the head of the body and since the Church is no where called the body of that secundary head it is evident that the said secundary head is a fiction Bellarmin urgeth that a King is the Head of his Kingdom and the Kingdom may be called his body likewise a Viceroy may be called secundary Head of the Kingdom or Province but the Kingdom or Province cannot be called the body of a Viceroy and in like manner the Church cannot be called the body of that secundary Head the Bishop of Rome or Peter But it is replyed As the Viceroy is head of the Province so the Province may be called the body or Province of the Viceroy but since the Church cannot be called the body of that secundary head as Bellarmin confesseth it is evident there is no such secundary head at all in the Church Secondly Bellarmin grants that the Kingdom may be
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
in the Monarchie of the Church the Mountains have brought forth a Mouse viz. he brings nothing but perverted Testimonies of the Ancients falsly translated and many of them forged others mutilated as shall appear in this and the next two following Books where also it shall be proved by the Testimonies of those same Councells and Fathers pretended by him that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church is a meer fiction not known to the Ancients of the first six Centuries It s true indeed that some ambitious Bishops of Rome contending with the Bishops of Constantinople for the Primacy which contention did begin after the Council of Chalcedon Anno 453. invented this fiction of the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter But that it was a new invented fiction appears by two reasons The first is because the Council of Chalcedon Canon 28 made the Bishop of Constantinople equal in Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome It s true indeed the said Council gave the first place in dignity to the Bishop to Rome but it appears expresly by the words of the Canon that it was not by any reason of succession to Peter but only because Rome was the chief imperial City the words in the Original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Rome was the imperial City where it is to be observed that Aetius for the Bishop of Constantinople and Paschasinus for the Bishop of Rome had pleaded with great animosity for the Primacy before the said Council both alledging the sixth Canon of the Council of Neice Paschasinus not mentioning Tu es Petrus at all in the end the Council having heard them both at length pronounced in favour of the Bishop of Constantinople interpreting the sixth Canon of the Council of Neice as making all the Patriarchs equal in Jurisdiction with the Bishop of Rome after which Decree of the Council the following Bishops of Rome devised Tu es Petrus pleading for the Primacy The second reason is that in the latter end of the sixth Century Pelagius Secundus and Gregorius Primus Bishops of Rome pleaded with great animosity against a visible Head of the Church as Derogatory to Christ and Gregorius amongst other reasons useth this for one that Peter was not universal Apostle or visible head of the Church Epistola 32. but more of that hereafter Since then before the latter end of the fifth Age never any Bishop of Rome pleaded the succession by Peter unto the Monarchie of the Church and since Gregorius in the beginning of the seventh Age expresly disputed against it it is evident that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is a new devised fiction yea it shall be proved lib. 5. that the said succession to Peter was held no article of Faith in the Church of Rome before the eleventh Age and not then neither without great contention Bellarmin's fourth observation is this That the universal Bishoprick and the Bishoprick of Rome are not two Bishopricks nisi potentia and therefore they are but one Bishoprick wherein he expresly contradicts himself he said before that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church was Jure divino but as he was Bishop of Rome it was not Jure divino now he makes them one Bishoprick but how can that consist since he had made them before two whereof the one was Jure divino and the other not Secondly Bellarmine may be asked Whether the Pope be Bishop of Rome because he is universal Bishop or if he be universal Bishop because he is Bishop of Rome one of the two must of necessity follow since they are on Bishoprick in effect and distinct only potentia if he affirm he is Bishop of Rome because he is universal Bishop then it followeth that Peter had been Bishop of Rome although he had never been at Rome and consequently he was Bishop of Rome when he was Bishop of Antioch If he affirm he is universal Bishop because he is Bishop of Rome it follows he is universal Bishop because he is a particular Bishop which is against nature and reason And this much of the stating of the question Bellarmine having stated the question falls a disputing and it appears by his first Argument more distinctly what he means which Oedipus himself could not gather from his stating of the question his Argument is this One or other of necessity beloved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church Jure divino but no other but the Bishop of Rome could succeed to him Ergo the Bishop of Rome succeeded to him That one or other behoved to succeed to Peter he proves by six reasons which in effect is the sum and repetition of all those two prolix disputs of his that the Government of the Church is Jure divino Monarchicall and that Peter was the said Monarch His first reason â—s Because the Church is the end of a Bishoprick since the Church is one therefore there must be one Bishop in the Church But it is answered Christ is that one Bishop that the Church should have any other Bishop under Christ as a visible head Bellarmine suppones falsly it s a sort of disputing called Petitio principii where the thing is taken as granted which is the state of the question His second reason is That in the times of the Apostles the Church had a visible head under Christ But the Government of the Church is ever the same But it s answered it is false that in the times of the Apostles the Church had a visible head as was prolixly proved lib. 1. His third reason is of the same mettal Joh. 21. 15. Christ saith to Peter Pasce oves meas Feed my Sheep But it is answered that passage was prolixly answered before His fourth reason is by feeding of the sheep of Christ is meaned feeding of all the Sheep of Christ which none but one visible Head could do But that objection was also answered before lib. 1. His fifth reason is from 1 Cor. 12. â—1 The head cannot say unto the feet I have no need of you From which place he reasons thus The Church saith he is compared to a humane Body with a Head here the Head is brought in speaking to the Members that it cannot say I have no need oâ— you Or which is all one this Head of the Church hath need of the Members but this must be another Head then Christ because Christ hath no need of the Members But it is answered this is a flat abusing of Scripture the scope of the Apostle in that place is to show that although some in the Church have more excellent Gifts then others yet the fellowship and endeavours of those of mean Gifts is necessar for the edification of the Church which he proves by a similitude taken from a humane Body where some Members are more noble as the Head some less as the Feet And saith he as
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
is my chief aim I resemble most the way of Du Plesis whether I be a plagiarian from him let the Reader judge and also whether my method be the same wiâ—h his He was a brave man and a great Ornament to the Protestant Religion but he hath many concise thetorications to understand which much knowledge of Antiquity is requisite otherwayes these passages of his are so many aenigmata to beginners of the study of Antiquity whose utility I principally aim at in this Work that sailing about the doors in this little Barge they may learn by degrees to sail in the great Ships of others throughout the immense Ocean of Antiquity The method I use is this following if any in reason shall not think it fit after reasonable instruction of my error I shall make a recantation My Lords The whole Treatise is taken up in the examination of these three Questions the first is If Peter was ordained by our Saviour Monarch of the Church or visible Head of the Church under Himself The second is If at the command of Christ he took the charge of the Bishoprick of Rome The third is If by divine Institution the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church And whereas our adversaries of the Church of Rome endeavour to prove the affirmatives of these three questions by Antiquity that is testimonies of Councils and Fathers my scope is to disprove the said three affirmatives in the same manner and to prove that all what they pretend from Antiquity is either wrested perverted mutilated falsly translated from the Originals or forged down-right The whole Treatise is divided in four Parts the first Part is entituled of Bishops and contains the Hierarchy of the Church unto the death of Cyprian which was after the middle of the third Age In which interval I endeavour to prove there was no ordinar Office in the Church above that of a Bishop and that the Bishop of Rome was in no more Authority then any other Bishop albeit he was first Bishop in dignity because Bishop of the old Imperial City This first part is divided in two Books in the first is disputed the Monarchy of Peter by his institution prerogatives and carriage and testimonies of Fathers unto cap. 22. In the rest of that Book is disputed if ever Peter was at Rome and if he were if he was Bishop of Rome In the second Book is disputed if the Bishop of Rome was adcnowledged as successor to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church before the death of Cyprian In which Book I insist most upon these following particulars First I relate the opinion of Aerius and his followers concerning the Original Progresse and universal establishment of Episcopacy wherein a Bishop differs from a Presbyter and for what reasons Episcopacy was brought into the Church 2. I prove by the testimonies of Ignatius Dionysius and Cyprian himself that there was no Office in the Church in that interval above that of a Bishop 3. I answer several testimonies pretended by those of the Church of Rome to prove the Popes Supremacy in that interval from Actions of Popes Appellations to them and from testimonies of Greek and Latine Fathers 4. I examine several Forgeries and Corruptions of the Fathers made use of by some Roman Doctors to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that Interval The second Part is intituled of Arch-bishops in which I disput the Hierarchy of the Church from the death of Cyprian unto the beginning of the seventh Century or to anno 604. at which time the Emperor Phocas took the title of universal Bishop from Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople and bestowed it upon Bonifacius third Bishop of Rome which is an interval of 344. years It is divided in two Books the first intitulated of Metrapolitans In which I disput the Hierarchy of the Church from Cyprian anno 260. unto the Council of Chalcedon anno 453. all which time no Office was in the Church above that of a Metrapolitan insisting most upon these following particulars first of the original progresse and universal establishment of Metrapolitans wherein a Metrapolitan differ from another Bishop For what reason Metrapolians were brought into the Church What place the Bishop of Rome had amongst Metrapolitans where I prove by unanswerable testimonies of Antiquity that other Metrapolitans were of alike Jurisdiction with him and that he was only first Metrapolitan in dignity for the same reason that he was first Bishop in the interval of Bishops viz. because he was Bishop in the Chief Imperial City 2. Traceing the lives of the Bishops of Rome in that interval I disput pro and contra the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it by their actions usurpations addâ—esses made to them and Acts of general and particular Councils celebrated in each of their times 3. I examine the opinions of Greek and Latine Fathers who lived in that interval concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it 4. I examine some notable forgeries pretended by those of the Church of Rome to prove the Pops supremacy in that interval The second Book is entituled of Patriarchs containing the Hierarchy of the Church from the Council of Chalcedon anno 453. to Phocas and Bonifacius anno 604. In which Interval Patriarchs obtained the chief place of the Hierarchy insisting also upon those five particulars 1. Of the original progresse and universal establishment of Patriarchs wherein a Patriarch differs from a Metrapolitan for what reasons Patriarchs were brougâ—t in the Church what place the Bishop of Rome had amongst Patriarchs viz. all Patriarchs were alike to him in Jurisdiction Yet he was the first Patriarch in dignity for the same reason that he was first Bishop in the Interval of Bishops and first Metrapolitan in the Interval of Metrapolitans that is for civil respects and not by reason of succession to Peter in the Monarchy of the Chuâ—ch because Rome was the old imperial City of which he was Patriarch 2. Traceing the lives of the Bishops of Rome of that interval I disput their Supremacy from their Actions Usurpations Addresses made to them from general and particular Councils celebrated in their time 3. I examine the opinions of Greek and Latine Fathers who lived in that Interval concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it 4. I examine those Forgeries pretended by those of the Church of Rome to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that Interval 5. I minut that notable controversie betwixt the Bishops of Rome and â—onstâ—ntinople for the Primacy showing what was the occasion of that contest for what Primacy they strove by what reason they pleaded and who carried it in the end viz. John called Jejunator or the Faster Patriarch of Constantinople who first of all was stiled oecumenick Bâ—shop anno 580. which was continued in his successors to anno 604. at which time Phocas before whom Bonifacius third Bishop of Rome renewed the Processe knowing that
place is expresly disputing against necessar communion with the Church of Rome as shall appear part 2. lib. 1. concerâ—â—ng a certain ceremony in Baptism Likewayes Gregorius Magnus is cited by Bellarmine to prove that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church because he affirms that the care of the whole Church was committed to him in which he playes the sophister egregiously suppressing what immediately followeth viz. Petrus tamen non erat universalis Apostolus Peter was not universal Apostle nevertheless The truth is Gregorius is expresly disputing in that passage against any Monarch of the Church calling that Title sacrilegious and blasphemous and amongst other reasons he hath this for one if any had reason to be called Monarch of the Church or oecumenick Bishop it was Peter because the care of the whole Church was committed to him but notwithstanding of that he was not oecumenick Bishop or universal Bishop or Apostle Your Lordships will find many instances of that kind dispersed through the following Treatise and also their false translations yea they do not produce one testimony except either of Bishops of Rome or their flatterers which sort of testimonies are rejected by Aeneas Silvius afterwards Pope himself as meriting no credit but either it is mutilated in the foresaid manner or falsly translated or forged It may be objected secondly against me that my Stile is rude But I answer a key of Iron if it open the door with facility is to be preferred to one of Gold which doth it with difficulty The Discourse for the most part is Dogmatick in which Rhetorick is rather hurtful then profitable the strained Rhetorick of the Fathers hath set us all by the ears together Most of the shelter which our Adversaries have in the Writings of the Fathers is in their too high strained Allegories as will be proved by an induction of all those Controversies we have with the Church of Rome We will give an instance or two in this Preface of which your Lordships will find innumerable dispersed through the whole Disput especially part 4. lib. 2. where the newness of the present popish Religion is expresly disputed First to prove necessar communion with the Church of Rome or the infallibility of the particular Church of Rome Bellarmine cites Cyprian affirming that Perfidy can have no accesse to that Church which expression of his is found in an Epistle of his written to Cornelius Bishop of Rome That this is onely Rhetorick and a Complement appears by innumerable other Epistles of Cyprian in which he taxeth Stephanus Bishop of Rome and the particular Church of Rome of Ignorance Arrogancy and Patronizing of Hereticks yea it is notorious and confessed by our Adversaries that he died out of communion with the Church of Rome and yet as we said he is a Saint in the Roman Callander Secondly Bellarmine and others produce many testimonies of the Fathers to prove the Supremacy of Peter because they call him Head and Prince of the Apostles that this is only Rhetorick is notorious for two reasons first it shall be proved that these very Fathers expresly affirm and prove that Peter had no Supremacy over the Church or other Apostles but that all the Apostles were of alike Fellowship Dignity and Power with him 2. Because these very Fathers complement others also with the same title of Head and Prince as they do Paul and James yea Chrysostom then whom none calls Peter oftner Head and Prince expresly affiâ—ms Paul was in every thing equal to Peter and when he had so sayed he adds ne dicam amplius which is as much as to say that in his opinion Paul was to be preferred to Peter 3. To prove Transubstantiation they bring many testimonies of the Fathers such as these This Bread which you see is not common Bread but the Flesh of Christ this Wine which you see is not ordinar Wine but the Blood of Christ that these exâ—ressions are onely strained Allegories appears by the testimonies of the same Fathers especially of Ambrosius who speaking of the Water in Baptism useth the same phrase of speaking viz. that Water which ye behold is not ordinar Water but the Blood of Christ but our Adversaries do not affirm that the Water in Baptism is transubstantiat into the blood of Christ Another reason is unanswerable that those expressions are only Allegories viz. Those very Fathers especially Ambrosius expresly affirm that after the consecration the Bread keeps still the nature of Bread and the Wine of Wine many of which expressions are now taken out by the Iâ—dices expurgatorii in all the new printed Copies of the Fathers by the Popes authority contrary to the Faith not only of all the old Manuscripts but also of the printed Copies before anno 1564. at which time that famous Printer Manutius gelded all the Fathers which he doth not dissemble himself at the command of Paulus 4th Bishop of Rome My Lords and Gentlemen Thus I have represented unto you the excellency of the Subject of which I treat 2. What method I observe in it 3. What is my scope in it 4. How I answer as I can all what is objected against me If any have more to object I intreat them to put me to it and if I cannot convince them by an Apology I shall ingenuously confess my fault either in privat or in publick No more but wishing every one of you in your stations to be serviceable to God your King and Country and steadable to your own Families and Relations I rest according to my power ready to do you service SAMUEL COLVIL THE GRAND IMPOSTOR DISCOVERED OR AN HISTORICALL DISPVT OF THE Papacy and Popish Religion PART I. BOOK I. Of the Bishoprick of Peter CHAP. I. That the cheat of the Modern Roman Faith is discovered by these three Passages of Scripture By which they endeavor to prove the Institution of Peters Monarchy IT was proved in the Preface that the truth or falshood of the Modern Roman Faith depended upon that of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which is the true reason why the bravest spirits of both sides rush together with such animosity in this contest the one to assert it the other to assault it both parties pretending Scripture Reason Councils Fathers and each party upbraiding other with wresting of Scripture Sophistry perverting and forging testimonies of Antiquity When I considered these high and mutual reflections of those not only learned but pious men of both sides as cannot be denyed curiosity moved me to study the Contest that I might perceive if I could which Party was to blame and when I had so done I resolved to minut the Disput as a Clerk doth those pleadings before a Judge omitting Grammaticisms Criticisms and Rhetorical digressions I only mention the most substantial Arguments and answers Hinc inde doing what I could for the benefit of Persons of Honor of both Religions to whom I am many ways ingaged whose condition and abilities or leasure
requires rather to catch the Partridge in the nest in a compendious Treatise then to hunt her in the Woods Fields and Mountains of vast and volumnious Authors though never so learned If any affirm that I play not the Clerk faithfully in minuting this Disput let him put me to it either in privat or publick and if I do not vindicate my self let me be esteemed an Impostor and infamous for forgery and lest any think I cheat in citations I am able to justify that I make use of no passages but those which are acknowledged by both sides where the Disput is about the true meaning of the words and which not seldom falls out whether the testimony be forged or not The whole Disput consists in the examination of those three Questions 1. Whether the Apostle Peter was ordained by our Savior Visible Head of the Church under himself or subordinat Monarch of the Church 2. If at the command of Christ the said Apostle Peter fixed the seat of his particular Bishoprick at Rome 3. If the Bishop of Rome by Divine institution succeeds to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church If the affirmitives of those three questions be true without all question Communion with the Church of Rome is necessar unto Salvation and the Religion of Protestants is a new sprung-up Heresie But if any one of those three Affirmatives be false much more all three it is as certain that the Faith of the Modern Roman Church is an idolatrous and heretical novelty none can succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church if Peter was not himself Monarch of the Church Neither can the Bishop of Rome succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church albeit Peter were Monarch of the Church himself except Peter were also Bishop of Rome Again albeit Peter had been both Monarch of the Church and Bishop of Rome it doth not follow that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter by Divine institution in the Monarchy of the Church unless it be made out otherwise by Scripture or unquestionable Antiquity Calvin lib. 4. Inst cap. 6. num 8. rightly observes that Peter might have had some extraordinary priviledge in his own person to which none succeeded after him The first two questions or Bishoprick of Peter are disputed in this first Book the third question in the following Books The Monarchy of Peter or his universal Bishoprick is disputed unto chap. 22. his particular Bishoprick of Rome from thence to the end His Monarchy is disputed three ways First from his institution unto chap. 15. Secondly from his prerogatives and carriage unto chap. 19 Thirdly by testimonies of Fathers from thence to chap. 22. His institution again is asserted unto chap. 11. and assaulted from thence unto chap. 15. His institution is asserted by three testimonies of Scripture and assaulted by as many The three testimonies by which it is asserted are first Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church The second is Matthew 16. 19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon Earth shal be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon Earth shal be loosed in Heaven The third passage is John 21. 15 16 17. Feed my Lambs Feed my Sheep Those three testimonies are the main Foundation of the faith of the Roman Church If Peter be not ordained Monarch of the Church in those three testimonies he is ordained Monarch of the Church no where and if he be ordained Monarch of the Church no where the Bishop of Rome did not succeed to him in the Monarchy of the Church and if the Bishop of Rome did not succeed to him in the Monarchy of the Church the faith of the Modern Roman Church is a cheat communion with it is so far from being necessar unto Salvation that Salvation cannot consist with it we speak not of Gods secret providence ordinarily This sort of reasoning is approved by Bellarmin himself in the preface of his disput de Pont. Rom. where he calls that controversie of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome a debate de summârei Christianae that is whether Christianity can subsist or not By Christianity or Christian Faith or Christian Religion no question he means the doctrin of the Modern Church of Rome and since in that expression he grants that it cannot subsist without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome he must of necessity grant that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome having no ground in Scripture or Antiquity the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome is warrantable by neither which is further confirmed because in the same place he affirms that the Christian Faith without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Is like a house without a foundation a body without a head Moon-shine without the Sun which is as much to say as without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome the doctirne of the Modern Church of Rome is nothing at all since it is notorious that a house without a foundation a body without a head Moon-light without the Sun are things impossible Since it is so then if the Ancients Fathers and Councils did not believe that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church in those three fore-mentioned passages of Scripture questionless they did not believe the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and if they did not believe the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome it followeth of necessity that they did not believe any necessar communion with the Church of Rome notwithstanding all the braggings of our adversaries to the contrair boasting that the whole current of Antiquity is for them Whether their assertion be true or not will appear by the following enquiry viz. What were the opinions of the Ancients concerning those three passages of Scripture pretended by our adversaries for the institution of Peters Monarchy By which enquiry will appear also by infallible consequence what opinion the Ancients had of necessar communion with the Church of Rome So it may be affirmed that the examination of those three passages is a compendious disput of the whole controversies which we have with the Church of Rome CHAP. II. Tues Petrus Disputed by Scripture and Reason THe fiâ—st passage then proving the institution of Peter to be Monarch of the Church is from Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church This is the place in which our Adversaries have most confidence It may be safely said that if Peter be not ordained Monarch of the Church in those words he is no where else If any would yet have a more compendious Disput of the controversies it is to be found in this passage alone For if in the opinion of Antiquity Peter was not ordained Monarch of the Church or promised to be ordained Monarch of the Church in this passage questionless they neither believed the Supremacy of Peter nor of the Bishop of Rome nor necessar communion with
the Church of Rome since the last two as we said depend upon the first and therefore we will examine this passage the more acuratly First by Scripture and Reason Next because they brag so much of Antiquity by testimonies of Councils and Fathers In the last place because they brag so much of Unity by Popes and Popish Doctors Of which in Order Our Adversaries reason thus He who is the Rock upon which the Church is built is Visible head of the Church or Oecumenick Bishop But Peter is the Rock or Foundation upon which the Church is built as appears by the words of our Savior Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church Ergo Peter is Oecumenick Bishop But it is answered First It is false that the Church is built upon Peter as a Rock Secondly Although our Savior had called Peter the Rock it doth not follow that he ordained him Oecumenick Bishop as shal be proved cap. 6. That Peter is not the Rock we will disput First By Scripture and Reason Secondly by Councils and Fathers Thirdly by Popes and Popish Doctors And first by Scripture 1. Cor. 3. 11. For other Foundation can no man lay then that is laid which is Jesus Christ by which it appears that Christ is only the Rock upon which the Church is built and not deter Bellarmin answers That Christ is only the Primary Foundation but Peter is the Secondary Foundation If this were not the meaning of Paul he would contradict himself Ephes 2. 20. And are built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner stone Where saith he ye have that diâ—â—inction of Primary and Secondary Foundations Christ is called the Corner-stone or chief foundations the Prophets and Apostles are secondary foundations But it is replyed First That Bellarmin cannot apply his distinction of secondary foundation to Peter alone by this passage since the Apostle expresly affirms That all the Prophets and Apostles are Bellarmins secondary foundations and consequently they are all Oecumenick Bishops which Bellarmin will not easily grant Secondly Bellarmin would have distinguished far better foundations in proper and improper Christ is properly the foundation of the Church the Prophets and Apostles ars improperly or metonymically foundations viz. they are called foundations because they preach Christ or by reason of their Doctrine of Christ who is the true foundation So Ambrosius Primasius Anselmus Lombardus Cajetanus Lyranus and the interlinear gloss upon 1. Cor. 3. 11. Guillaudus interprets after the same manner and the great School-man Vasquez In secundam secundae Disput 210. cap. 7. hath these words Non Apostolos Prophetas intelligit sed fidem illorum ab eis scilicet praedicatam annunciatam that is He calls not the Prophets and Apostles themselves foundations but only the faith which they preach It is true that Aquinas following some of the Fathers interprets the Apostles themselves to be foundations but the meaning is all one they mean improper foundations and Thomas his gloss rejected by Vasquez himself who comments upon him as we now said Bellarmin objects Secondly Apocalyps 21. 14. And the wall of the City had twelve foundations and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb. Where saith he all the twelve Apostles are called foundations But it is answered First Although they were yet it makes not much for Bellarmins purpose for if all the twelve Apostles be secondary foundations Peters being secondary foundation doth not conclude him to be Oecumenick Bishop no more then it doth the rest Secondly It is false that the twelve Apostles are called foundations in that place John only affirms that the names of the twelve Apostles were written upon the foundation of that new Jerusalem Thirdly Although both Haimo and Lyranus interpret the Apostles to be foundations yet they give the same gloss which they gave upon 1 Cor. 3. 11. viz. Because of the Doctrine which they preach the words of Haimo are Et in ipsis fundamentis hoc est infide Patriarcharum Apostolorum nomina duodecim Apostolorum The words of Lyranus are Dicuntur autem nomina Apostolorum in ipsis fundamentis scripta quia primò publicârunt fidem Christi praedicando pro ipsa moriendo The same is the explication of Aretas upon this place of the Apocalyps viz. The Apostles are called foundations because of their preaching Christ and dying for him or the faith Stapleton answers to that place of 1 Cor. 3. 11. some other wise then Bellarmin making a distinction between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliud and alterum which cannot well be expressed in English except ye express it thus another and a different Paul saith he affirmeth that there is not another foundation but Christ but he doth not affirm that there is not a different foundation from Christ Which two he distinguisheth because Peter saith he is not another foundation from Christ differing essentially but only a different foundation that is differing accidentally Christ saith he is the principal foundation Peter is the subordinat and ministerial foundation But this subtilty of Stapleton is to no purpose First because the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another signifie sometime things which differ only accidentally as Mat. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He saw two other Brethren Mark 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His hands was made whole as the other Therefore its false that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a thing different by nature but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing differing accidentally Secondly his distinction is refuted by the very text it self for after Paul said Nemo potest aliud fundamentum ponere he adds praeter id quod positum est quod est Iesus Christus By which words he expresly excluds all other foundations beside Christ whether they differ in nature or accidentally Thirdly in what sense can Stapleton affirm that Christ and Peter are foundations in the same specifical nature differing only in accidentals as Peter and Paul two individuals For Christ is properly a foundation upon which the Edifice of the Church is built Peter is only a foundation because he laid the foundation on Christ These two foundations have nothing but the name common as Taurus the mountain Taurus the constellation and Taurus a bull Fourthly Stapleton speaks contradictions in affirming that a principal foundation and a subordinat foundation have the same specifick nature and differ only accidentally as two individuals v. g. Peter Paul which is all one as ye would say The power of a King that of his under-officer were the same the same power in nature differing only accidentally Fifthly Stapleton contradicts himself in another place for in his relections controvers 3. quest 1. art 1. conclus 3. he expresly affirms that Peter is Fundamentum primaâ—ium in suo genere quale Christus est in alio genere which is diametrally opposit to what he affirms here Here he
article of Faith as appears by those eight general Councils that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church in those words Tu es Petrus The truth is it was invented First by Leo after the Council of Chalcedon when the contention arose between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople for the Primacy it was still made use of by the Bishops of Rome after that pleading for the Primacy but it appears by the 3â— Epistle of Gregory that he made use of it only for cuâ—a universalis Ecclesiae and not for Jurisdiction for he expresly thunders against one visible head of of the Church amongst other reasons he hath this for one Although Peter had the care of the whole Church committed into him yet was he not universal Apostle And thus we have reasoned Tu es Petrus from Scripture Reason and General Councils Now let us hear the opinion of the Fathers CHAP. IV. Of the Fathâ—rs interpreting the Rock to be CHRIST THeir impudence in objecting the Fathers is yet greater All the Fathers say they interpret the Rock to be Peter Augustinus only excepted deceived by his ignorance in the Syriack tongue So objects â—ansenius Gregorious de Valentia Agricola Stapleton but most of all Bozius de signis lib. 18. cap. 1. But it is answered It is notoriously false that all the Fathers call Peter the Rock upon which the Church is built because many of the Fathers call Christ the Rock as shal be proved in this 4. chapter Others of them interpret the Rock to be the confession of Peter thou art the Son of the living God as shal be proved chap. 5. Others of them again who interpret the Rock to be Peter means nothing less then that Peter was was ordained Oecumenick Bishop by Christ in those words Tu es Petrus as shal be proved chap. 6. And first of those Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Christ Tertullianus against Martian lib. 4. cap. 13. Where telling a reason wherefore the name of Peter was changed from Simon to Peter gives this reason Quia Petra lapis erat Christus because the Rock was Christ Hilarius de Trinitate lib. 2. Unum igitur hoc est immobile fundamentum una haec est felix fidei Petra Petri ore confessa Filius Dei vivi The sum is Christ confessed by the mouth of Peter is the only Rock Ambrosius Sermon 84. Discoursing of the change of Peters name Rectè igitur qui à Petra Christo Simon nuncupatus est Petrus ut qui cum Domino fidei soeietatem habebat cum Domino haberet nominis Dominici unitatem ut sicut à Christo Christianus dicitur Ita à Petra Christo Petrus Apostolus vocaretur This testimony is very evident and jumps in every thing with the exposition of Protestants shewing that Peter is not the Rock but only Christ Peter is called Petrus Rocky from Christ Petra or the Rock Gregorius Nyssenus in the last chapter of his testimonies against the Jews Dominus est Petra fidei tanquam fundamentum ut ipse Dominus ait ad Principem Apostolorum Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam In which words Christ is expresly called the Rock upon which the Church is built Theodoretus upon Psalm 47. Petra angularis est Christus ipse Dominus beato Petro inquit Et super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portae inferi non prevalebunt adversus eam The Rock is Christ upon which the Church is built c. And the same Author on 1. Cor. cap. 3. Christus est fundamentum Christ is the Rock Gregory Bishop of Rome himself in Job lib. 13. cap. 19. in Sacro eloquio Cum singulard numero Petra nominatur quis alius quam Christus accipitur Paulo attestante qui ait Petra erat Christâ—s This testimony is evident of a Bishop of Rome himself cannonized as a Saint in the Roman Church giving a general rule of interpreting the word Rock viz. When Petra or Rock or foundation is mentioned in Scripture in the singular number none but Christ is understood Hieronymus on Matthew 7. Super hanc Petram Dominus fundavit Ecclesiam ab hac Petra Apostolus Petrus sortitus est nomen By which words it appears that Christ is the Rock from whom Peter had his name and not Peter himself which will be further cleared by the next testimony Augustinus Sermo 13. de verbis Domini secundum Mattheum Simon quippe ante vocabatur hoc autem nomen ei ut Petrus vocetur à Domino impositum est hoc ut ea figura significareâ— Ecclesiam quia enim Christus Petra Petrus populus Christianus Petra enim principale nomen est ideo Petrus à Petra non Petra à Petro quomodo non à Christiano Christus sed à Christo Christianus vocatur Who before was called Simon was after called Peter Our Savior calls him so to signifie the Church by that figure Because Christ is the Rock Peter is the Christian People c. Other testimonies might be alledged out of Augustinus but it is needless to mention them since it is confessed by our adversaries that Augustinus interprets the Rock to be Christ because he was ignorant of the Syriack tongue As if those other Fathers especially Hieronymus most skilful of the Oriental Languages were ignorant also of the Syriack tongue And thus much of those Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Christ by which it appears how impudent an assertion it was of Bozius Ianseuius De Valentie Agricola Stapleton and others affirming all the Fathers Augustinus only excepted unanimously interprets the Rock to be Peter The falshood of their assertion being discovered they fall next to Sophistry to defend their lying And first they fall upon Augustinus taxing him of ignorance of the Syriack tongue for interpreting the Rock to be Christ But it is answered First the testimonies of those other Fathers denying Peter to be the Rock especially of Hieronymus are no lesse evident then the testimonies of Augustinus But it were impudence in them to object ignorance of the Syriack tongue to Hieronymus who was known to be most skilful in it Secondly their Sophistry is very great they object ignorance to Augustinus of the Syrian tongue for denying the Rock to be Peter following the penner of Matthew in Greek whose version was followed by the whole Church as authentick defends the ignorance of supposititious Authors such as Anacletus Optatus Melevitanus Isidorus such like who interpret Cephas which signifyeth a great stone in the Syrian tongue a head to prove the supremacy of Peter because of the affinity it hath in its initial Letters with the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cephale or head So Turrianus and Baronius Anno 31. defends those ignorants viz. Because it makes for the Popes supremacy and blames Augustinus as ignorant for no other reason then because his interpretation crosseth it As for those other Fathers beside Augustinus some of them taxeth them also
of ignorance so Stapleton Salmero Cumerus Maldonatus Let us hear their reasons Their first is These words super hanc Petram answers to the former words Tu es Petrus But it is answered those words Super hanc Petram answer also to those words Thou art Christ the Son of the living God For there is no necessity of referring the pronoun hanc to the words immediatly going before which is proved by other passages of scripture as Asts 2. 23 where the proun hunc is referred not to God which is nearest but to Iesus of Nazareth farther off And also in this Chapter by testimonies of Fathers of more authority and lesse suspect in this particular then Stapleton and Maldonat and it shall be proved further in the following chapters not only by testimonies of most eminent Fathers and Popish Doctors but also by the testimonies of five Popes themselves Their second reason is Christ in these words gives some reward or other to Peter for his confession but it is answered Peter is rewarded when he is called Petrus from Petra or Christ the Rock Secondly when he gets the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven whence Chrysostom As the Father gave unto thee to know me so I give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven The third reason is That Christ in these words super hanc-Petram means not the principal Rock or proper viz. himself but only a Metaphorick or Ministerial Rock and consequently the Rock must be Peter But it is answered the estate of the question is whether Christ that is the principal Rock be understood by super hanc Petrum Stapleton proves not because saith he Christ is not meaned which he proves by his own naked assertion without any other reason which is a childish petitio principij However we will add a reason that his assertion is false for if a Ministerial Rock be understood in these words super hanc Petrum Stapleton is hard put to it to prove out of these words the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which is his main intention Since it shal appear cap 6. that all the Apostles are Ministerial Rocks and that by the testimonies of the Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Peter Their fourth reason is The words of our Savior are aedificabo Ecclâ—siam meam super hanc Petram Which imports as much as the Church was not already built upon that Rock but only to be built upon it afterwards and therefore our Savior by Hanc Petram cannot mean himself upon whom the Church was already built But it is answered This is nothing but sophistry because already the Church was only built upon Christ in Judeâ— But our Saviour is prophesying here that the Gopel shal be propagated throughout the whole world and the Church built upon himself It is childish reasoning to argue the Church is built upon Christ already Ergo it cannot be said it shall be built upon him in time to come it is all one as one would reason thus Matthew 1. it is affirmed He shal save his people Ergo he hath not saved them and consequently it is no less foolish to affirm the Church is already built upon Christ because he promiseth to build it upon himself in time to come Their fifth reason is Christ promiseth to build the Churh upon one or other besides himself since he cannot be said to build the Church upon himself for it is the Father qui dedit ipsum caput super omnem Ecclesiam as the Apostle affirms But it is answered That assertion of Stapletons contradicts Augustinus affirming super me ipsum filium Dei vivi aedificabo Ecclesiam Which is his gloss upon these words super hanc Petram Secondly It contradicts Bellarmin affirming in se jam aedificaverat Apostolos Discipulos multos He had already built upon himself many Apostles and Disciples Thirdly It contradicts Scripture Ephesians 4. 16. By whom all the body being coupled and knit together c. receiveth increase of the body unto the edifying of it self in love By which words compared with verse 15. follows that the Church is built upon Christ by himself Their sixth reason is If by hanc Petram be meant Christ we cannot know which is the true Church and which is the false and therefore of necessity by hanc Petram Peter must be meaned But it is answered The Fathers we now mentioned and shal mention in the following chapter knew very well how to discern the true Church by the false yet none of them do â—nterpret Peter to be the Rock upon which the Church is built especially Augustinus who disputing against the Donatists cites many passages of Scripture by which we are instructed to discern the true Church by the false and yet he never makes use of this place Tu es Petrus Which he would not have omitted if the mentioning of it had been so necessar to discern the true Church from the false or if the true Church could not be discerned from the false without it Secondly This reason is a childish if not blasphemous petitio principij As if none could show the true Church by the false except the successor of Peter upon whom in their opinion the Church is built and so that is only the true Church which acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to be head of the Church as successor to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church And thus much of those Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Christ CHAP. V. Of the Fathers expounding the Rock to be the Confession of Peter NOw followeth those Fathers expounding the Rock to be the Faith or confession of Peter which opinion though it seems to differ in words from the former yet in effect it is all one in substance with it And therefore some of those Fathers who called the Rock Christ they cal also the Rock the confession of Peter So Nyssenus c. the Fathers interpreting the Rock to be the confession of Peter are these following The Liturgy commonly called that of S. James ad confirmationem sanctae tuae Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae quam fundâsti super Petra fidei ut Portae inferni non prevaleant ei The sum of which words is that the Church is founded upon the Rock of Faith Entychianus Bishop of Rome Epist 1. Unum hot immobile fundamentum una haec felix fidei Petra Petri ore confessu Tu es inquit Christus filius Dei vivi that is This is the only happy Rock of Faith confessed by Peter Hilarius in his Books of the Trinity in many places affirms that the Church is built upon the Rock of confession or that the Rock is the confession of Peter It is needless to mention all his testimonies this one will suffice Super hanc igitur confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est The Church is built upon this Rock of confession Nyssenus in the last chapter of his testimonies against the Jews after he had first called the Rock Christ as
was said to all the gates of hell shal not prevail against it and a little after the words now cited he adds another reason viz. because the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to all the Apostles as well as to Peter Bellarmin answers Origen in this place speaks allegorically otherwise he would contradict himself in his 5. homily upon â—xodus where he calls Peter a great Foundation and most solid Rock upon whom the Church is built But it is replyed there is no contradiction at all for Peter may be Magnum fundamentum solidissima Petra and yet not only the Foundation or Rock for the state of the question is not Whether Peter was the foundation and Rock upon whom the Church was built But whether he be the only Foundation and Rock upon which the Church is built Bellarmin instances secondly That this testimony of Origen consists not with the words of Christ Because they are only spoken of Peter and understood of him Ergo this testimony of Origen must needs be allegorical But it is answered Allthough the words of Christ were directed to Peter yet Origen not only affirms but proves by two unanswerable reasons that the promise was made to all as well as Peter Moses speaking of Abraham affirms he believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness and yet the Apostle Paul applyes that to all the faithful which is no Allegory but Tropology by which a general promise belonging to all is directed to one Bellarmin should take heed to reason thus The words were directed to Peter alone Ergo the promise was made to him alone For if this promise was made alone to Peter the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is quite destroyed since it was not made to the Bishops of Rome successors of Peter being only made to Peter to whom the words were directed Bellarmins third reason to prove the testimony of Origines to be allegorical is this If all the Apostles be foundations or all the faithful the whole Church would be foundation of it self since there are no other besides to be the walls and the roof But it is answered First that the Church is built upon all the faithful because it consists of them and so Lyranus on Matthew 16. affirms That the Church doth not consist in men of power and dignity either Secular or Ecclesiastick because many Bishops of Rome have been Apostats from the faith And therefore the Church consists only of the faithful Secondly the Apostles are called foundations in a peculiar manner because they founded the Church by preaching that Doctrine received from Christ and sealed it with their blood Bellarmin objects lastly ad hominâ—m that Protestants affirm that Peter cannot be the Rock because he is a meer man but saith he that reason militats against any other mans being the Rock But it is answered That Protestants deny any man to be the Rock unless Christ sustaining alone the whole burthen of the Church as the Papists do of Peter but they do not deny other men to be the Rocks in that sense mentioned to Bellarmins third reason now mentioned And thus much of Origines Another of the Fathers one of Bellarmins great confidence is Cyprianus who in his 27. Epistle after he hath mentioned how Christ said to Peter Thou art Peter c. And I will give uâ—to thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven He deduceth the Ordination of Bishops from these words and the Government of the Church Ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur Here Pamelius himself acknowledgeth that Cyprian applyeth that promise of Christ Upon this Rock I will build my Church to every Bishop and consequently when Cyprianus calls Peter the Rock he cannot mean the only Rock or that Peter is Oecumenick Bishop Pamelius answers Albeit in this place Cyprianus applyeth that promise of Christ Upon this Rock I will build my Church to all Bishops yet Epist 55. he applyeth it only to Peter But it is replyed although it be true that Cyprianus Epist 55 makes mention only of Peter yet it doth not follow he doth apply it only to Peter it is false that Cyprianus affirms epist 55. that it can be applyed to no other then Peter since himself in this place epist 27. applyeth it to every Apostle or Bishop The third Father is Augustinus Epist 165. affirming that when Christ directed those words to Peter Peter represented by Figure the whole Church which he explains further tract 124. upon John where after a long disput he concluds that the promise of Christ was made to the whole Church whereby it evidently appears that Peter in those words is not ordained Oecumenick Bishop or the only Rock In the same sense Hilarius on Psalm 67. calls all the Apostles foundations so Theodoretius and Remigius on Psalm 87. interpret those words fundamenta ejus in montibus sanctis of all the Apostles and Prophets likewise the Apostle Paul Ephes 2. 20. calleth all the Apostles and Prophets foundations and Rocks So the Apostle John seems to call them Apocall 21. By which it is evident that those Fathers calling Peter Rock or Foundation attributs no peculiar thing to him which is not common to others and consequently they mean nothing less by such expressions then that he is Oecumenick Bishop Those testimonies so evident put Bellarmin to his wits end Let us hear and examine an admirable piece of Sophistry Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 11. De Pont. Rom. answers that all the Apostles may be called foundations three wayes The first is because they were the first who founded Churches every where The second is because the Christian Doctrine was revealed to them all by God The third way is by reason of their governing the Church they were all Heads Pastors and Rectors of the Church but in the first two wayes all the Apostles were alike with Peter Foundations and Rocks of the Church Not in the third way for although they had all Plenitudinem potestatis plenitude of power yet they had it only as Apostles and Legats Peter had that power as ordinaâ— Pastor being head of the other Apostles upon whom they depended and this was the thing promised to Peter in those words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church But it is answered Nothing can be more absurd more contradictory or more entangling then this distinction of Bellâ—rmins We said before that the truth of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome depended upon the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome it again upon the Supremacy of Peter the principal ground of which Supremacy is that promise of Christ Thou art Peter and open this Roâ—â— I will build my Church The sense of those words conferring the Supremacy upon Peter depends upon this gloss put upon those words by Bellarmin which is both against Antiquity and Reason and therefore we may conclude that the truth of the Doctrine of the Modern
Church of Rome depends upon the fantastick gloss of a Jesuit contradicting all Antiquity and inconsistent with it self And first it is against Antiquity because they cannot give one instance from ancient Interpreters Councils and Fathers giving this gloss upon those words of our Savior Upon this Rock I will build my Church neither was this gloss ever heard of or so much as dreamed of before the times of the Jesuits after the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was openly assaulted Secondly this gloss is contradictory to it self By it Bellarmin intangles himself many ways and first he grants that all the Apostles were equally Rocks and Foundations with Peter if the word Foundation be taken in the first two senses But all the Fathers who expone the Apostles to be foundations and Peter among the rest did not so much as dream of any other way why Peter or they are called Foundations but only of the first two viz. in regard that they all alike founded Churches preaching that doctrine revealed unto them all alike immediatly from God and consequently foundation in Bellarmins third sense is a dream of his own by which he may well confirm his disciples he will never convert Proselytes but expose himself to the ludibrious taxings of his adversaries in making his own groundless fiction the main Basis of the supremacy of Peter consequently of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and consequently of the Religion of the Modern Church of Rome to which all must be conform under pain of damnation according to that new article coined by the Council of Trent adding to that Article of the Creed Catholick Church making it Catholick Roman Church Secondly we have shewed That this third way of Foundation is a fiction of Bellarmins not dreamed of by the Ancients which although it be sufficient to refute it yet it refutes it self by many contradictions And first of other Popish Doctors It gives unto all the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis plenitude of power in which it contradicts the Theologick Dictionary of Altenstaing approved by authority of the Church of Rome In which Dictionar Plenitudo potestatis is defined not only to be ordinis but also Jurisdictionis conferred by Christ only upon Peter and his Successors and that now formalitâ—â— subjective it is only in the Bishop of Rome which is expresly contradicted by Bellarmin who attributs it to all the Apostles pressed by the evident testimonies of those Fathers seeing the gloss of that Dictionar to be against all Antiquity Thirdly Though Bellarmin be more sound then the gloss of that Dictionar in attributing to all the Apostles that plenitâ—de of power yet he contradicts himself in giving to Peter a greater power then they had it fleeth the edge of the quickest reason to conceive any power greater then plenitude of power and therefore it is a flat contradiction to affirme that although all the Apostles have plenitude of power yet they depend upon Peter as their head which is as much to say as all the Apostles have that power then which none can have a greater and yet Peter hath a greater power then they Lastly Bellarmin affirms that Peter hath plenitude of power as ordinar Pastor the other Apostles as extraordinar and Legats to Peter in which he intangles himself in a twofold contradiction For to omit that distinction of ordinar and extraordinar Pastor amongst the Apostles is a fiction of his own the whole stream of Antiquity avowing all the Apostles to be extraordinar Pastors Peter as well as the rest First he makes the other Apostles above Peter since extraordinar Pastors are preferred to ordinar Pastors the Apostle Paul enumerating the hierarchy of the Church Ephes 4 puts extraordinar Pastors in the first place viz. Apostâ—es Prophets and Evangelists before Pastors and Doctors and so he contradicts himself in affirming that extraordinar Pastors depend upon Peter as their head whom he maketh ordinar Pastor Secondly He contradicts himself in making the other Apostles Legats to Peter and to omit he doth so without any ground having no authority but his own assertion he intangleth himself in his reason for he hath no other reason wherefore the other Apostles are Legats to Peter but only because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle in the original imports one who is sent in commission which is all one with a Legat. But Bellarmin will not deny that Peter in that sense is a Legat also because he is an Apostle and so Peter will be Legat to Peter which is perfect none-sense and contradiction Bellarmin borrowed this distinction of ordinar and extraordinar from Sanderus that famous English Jesuit who with his Country-man Stapleton invented more new distinctions to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome then all the Doctors of the Church beside Sanderus proves Peter to be ordinar and the other Apostles to be extraordinar lib. 6. cap. 9. of his Monarchy Thus Ordinar is called so from order but in order that is first which is most ancient since nothing can be first before that which is first but Peter was the first upon whom Christ promised to build his Church and to give him the power of the keys Ergo they were given to Peter alone For albeit afterwards they were given to all the Apostles yet Christ did not revock what he had given first to Peter and the fore Peter is ordinar Pastor and the other Apostles extraordinar But it is answered This argument of Sanderus presuppons many things as granted which are either uncertain or notoriously false Secondly albeit his suppositions were true they do not conclude his assertion that Peter is ordinar Pastor having Jurisdiction over the rest as extraordinar He who would see how that Sophistry of Sanderus is retexed at large let him read Chameir tom 2. lib. 11. cap. 6. num 27. to the end of the chapter the substance of which is this First He suppons that as Ordinar which is first that extraordinar which is last But ordinar is taken among Divines speaking of Church Officers for that Office which is perpetual extraordinar for that which is for a time So in in the Old Testament Priests and Levits were ordinar Prophets extraordinar Officers and under the New Testament Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and Doctors are ordinar Officers Apostles Evangelists extraordinar Secondly Though the distinction of Sanderus in that sense of ordinar and extraordinar were granted his assertion is uncertain yea rather notoriously false he suppons that Peter first obtained the power of binding loosing and feeding the Flock of Christ but that is uncertain for these words of Christ exhibit nothing to Peter for the present but only promise to give him that power of the Keys and to build his Church upon him neither was that promise made to Peter alone but to all the Apostles as partly hath been proved already but more fully shal be proved cap. 6. and 9. and therefore the supposition of Sanderus is uncertain and false
over the Church And lest it should seem to be a wilful denyal they give these following reasons why Peter is not ordained Oecumenick Bishop in these words Or why the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven inferr no universal Jurisdiction over the Church in the person of Peter alone The first reason is this the power of the keys is only a forgiving or remitting of sins or not remitting them or a binding and loosing as appears by the testimony of Augustinus in his 52. Treatise upon John of Theophylactus on Matthew 16. 19. of Anselmus ibid. But none calls in question but binding and loosing is a different thing from the power oâ— an Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin instances lib. 1. cap. 13. de pont Rom. that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church which he proves by three arguments The first is from the Metaphor of keyes Isaiah 21. where Shebna is threatned to have the keys of the Temple taken from him to be given to Eliakim that is saith Bellarmin the government of the Temple or of the house of God But it is answered Bellarmin is greatly mistaken for according to the Hebrew Shebna was not Perfect of the Temple but only of the Kings house Bellarmin is deceived by the Latin version turning it Tabernacle whereas Aben Ezra calls it Master of the Kings house the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they call Shebna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Treasaurer or Master-houshold that is the true interpretation as appears by Kings 2. cap. 18. in which place Eliakim who succeeded to Shebna in that charge is called by the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oeconomus or Master-houshold Shebna is called there a Scribe which place he obtained after the keys of the Kings house were taken from him and given to Eliakim However it is a very bad argument of Bellarmins When Shebna had the keys of the Kings house the government of the house was taken from him when they were taken away Ergo When Peter get the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ he was made sole governor of the whole Church Bellarmin should observe that keys are given sometime by an Inferior to a Superior although that be but a new invention or ceremony yet it is an acknowledgement of authority as when a King entring a Town the keys are delivered to him But when keys are given by a Superior to an Inferior chief Jurisdiction is no wayes denoted But Bellarmin will not deny that Christ was Superior to Peter And whereas it is objected that Christ hath the key of David in the Apocalyps that is jurisdiction of the Church It is answered the case is different none calls the jurisdiction of Christ in question neither had he the keys from any greater then himself Bellarmins second argument is That the keys import binding and loosing that is inflicting of punishment and dispensing with obligations of the Law which is supream Jurisdiction over the Church And consequently Peter in these words is instituted Oecumenick Bishop But it is answered That binding and loosing import no supream Jurisdiction as appears by its being common to all the Officers of the Church as well as to Peter it consists in bidding forbidding punishing by Spiritual Censures and Relaxations from them which are common to all Church-Officers as shal immediatly be proved In the third place Bellarmin proves that our Savior promising to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven promised to him alone the government of the whole Church by the testimonies of Fathers The first testimony of Chrysostomus hom 55. on Matthew affirming that to Peter the whole world was committed and that he was made head and Pastor of the whole Church But it is answered It is false that either Chrysostomus affirms the whole world was committed to Peter or that he was head of the Church Bellarmin followeth the corrupt version of Trapezuntius in which he sophisticats manifoldly the words of Chrysostom are comparing Hieremas with Peter Quemadmodum pater Hieremam alloqueus dixit Instar colunae aneae muâ—i posui eum sed illum quidem uni genti hunc verototi orbi In these words Chrysostomus is comparing the Prophet with Peter as the Lord saith he put Hieremas as a wall of brass to one Nation viz. the Jews sc Peter was made a wall of brass to the whole world But Chrysostom speaks not a word of Hieremias being set over the Jews with Jurisdiction and consequently if the comparison hold Peter was not set over the whole world with Jurisdiction which is the first sophistry of Bellarmin following Trapezuntius in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 posâ—it eum placed him Trapezuntius renders praeposuit set him over which is not in the Appodosis of Peter The second corruption is that Trapezuntius adds of his own Cujus caput piscator homo whose head was a Fisher-man It is true indeed a little before these words Chrysostom calls Peter Pastor of the Church but that 's nothing to an Oceumenick Bishop for any Apostle may be called Pastor of the Church as shal be proved afterwards in this Book Bellarmins second testimony is of Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist 32. Where speaking of Peter he affirms the care of the whole Church was committed to him and that he was Prince of the Apostles But it is answered In what sense Gregorius affirms so shal be shewed at length hereafter where it shal be proved first that others were called Princes of the Apostles beside Peter and that the care of the whole Church was committed to others also who were not Oecumenick Bishops Secondly the impudence of Bellarmin is very great in objecting this place of Gregorius in which he is thundering with great execrations and detestation against any who taketh upon him the tittle of Oecumenick Bishop calling that tittle new Pompatick Blasphemous against the mandats of Christ the Canons of the Apostles and Constitutions of the Church And among other reasons against that title of universal Oecumenick Bishop he objects this as one If any took upon him that title Peter had reason to take it but he had not that tittle although the care of the whole Church was committed to him then this impudence of Bellarmin no greater can be imaginable Gregory expresly denyes it to follow that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop although the care of the whole Church was committed to him Bellarmin mutilats his passage and makes him conclude that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop because the care of the whole Church was committed to him He cites this part of Gregories assertion the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter but he suppresseth the other half of his assertion that Peter was not universal Apostle and most impudently fathers a contradictory conclusion upon Gregory Ergo Peter was Oecumenick Bishop And thus much of the first reason wherefore Protestants deny that the power of the keyes imports no universal
and all the Apostles to teach that doctrine which he had revealed unto themselves immediatly that is as he had fed them so they should feed others beside themselves Bosius de signis comes in with a notable sophism which is this our Savior saith he saith not to Peter Feed my sheep hereafter but in the present tense Feed now my sheep But when our Savior spake these words he had no other sheep but the Apostles Ergo saith he our Savior commands Peter to feed the Apostles But it is answered we retort the argument just as we did before our Savior Matthew 28. 19. affirmeth Teach ye all Nations in the present tense but there were no other Christians to be taught then but the Apostles if Bozius subsume right Ergo the Apostles there are commanded to teach Peter which he will not easily grant It is answered Secondly there is no difficulty in the words at all the meaning of our Savior is no other then that Peter being by these words ordained an Apostle or restored to his Apostleship according to some Fathers is injoyned to put his function in practice with the first occasion in the same sense that the other Apostles Matthew 28. 19. are injoyned to go and teach all nations who were subjected to them by right of their Apostleship But in this place John 21. to affirm that the other Apostles were subjected to Peter by reason of his Apostleship is petitio principii which we affirm to be notoriously false CHAP. X. Of the Sophistry of Gregorius De Valentia and the Candide Confession of Cardinal Cusanus VVE have prolixly disputed those three passages of Scripture pretended by our Adversaries to prove that the Apostle Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church by Christ we will conclude the disput with two passages the one of Gregorius De Valentia that famous Jesuit the other of Cusanus that no less famous Cardinal The ingenuity of the last will be the more perspicuous by the impudent Sophistry of the first which is this If our Savior saith he had said to Peter I will not build the Church upon thee as upon a Rock or thou art not the Rock upon which I will build my Church or I will not give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven what thou binds on earth shal not be bound in Heaven and what thou loosest on earth shal not be loosed in Heaven Feed thou not my sheep without all question the Hereticks would conclude that our Savior did not ordain the Apostle Peter Head and Monarch of the Church and therefore since our Savior said unto Peter Thou art the Rock upon which I will build my Church I will give unto thâ—â— the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven what thou binds on earth shal be bound in Heaven and what thou loosest on earth shal be loosed in Heaven And since our Savior injoyned him to feed his sheep therefore saith he It cannot be denyed that our Savior in these three passages ordained the Apostle Peter Monarch of the Church Because if the negation of those things conclude that Peter was not ordained Head of the Church by Christ the affirmation of them concluds he was having thus reasoned he falls to the commendation of his own acumen and of his invincible Argument affirming not without laughter and astonishment of those who read him Hic nisivel conscientia reclamante vel praecipitante inscitia incogitantia nihil ab adversariis responderi posse certissimus sane sum That is I am certainly perswaded saith he That nothing can be answered to this argument by our adversaries except they be blinded either with ignorance or fight against the light of their own conscience When I read this argument of Valentia as it is related by Chameir tom 2. lib. 11. cap. 19. num 11. I believed that Chameir had mistaken him or else that there was vitium Typographi or a fault of the Printer but when I consulted Valentia himself in his Analysis lib. 7. cap. 7. and his Commentarys upon Thomas I found to my astonishment that he so played the fool and then bragged of his madness This argument of his is a most ridiculous Sophism and I cannot but admire that any learned man such as Valentia was not ashamed to make use of such an Argument much more to brag of it as invincible The ground of his argument consist in a Topick Axiom of his own divising against all the rules of Logick viz. If the negation of a certain particular conclude any thing not to be then the affirmation of the said particular coucluds the said thing to be as one would reason thus if the Apostle Peter was not a Pastor of the Church he was not Oecumenick Bishop Ergo if he was a Pastor of the Church he was Oecumenick Bishop which argument would prove any Pastor of the Church or all Pastors of the Church to be Oecumenick Bishops So this axiom of Valentia is the foundation of a Syllogism consisting of affirmatives in the second figure as one would reason thus An Oecumenick Bishop is a Doctor or Pastor of the Church Peter and Paul were Doctors and Pastors of the Church Ergo Peter and Paul were Oecumenick Bishops Who sees not this reasoning to be childish sophistry how can any learned man brag that such an argument as this is invincible It is notorious if we endeavor to reason according to that Axiom of Valentia We must either reason thus in the second figure where all the Propositions are true but the argument consequent because consisting of Affirmatives or else if we reason in the first figure the Proposition or Major is notoriously false viz. All Pastors of the Church are Oecumenick Bishops Peter and Paul are Pastors of the Church Ergo They are Oecumenick Bishops So it appears that the Axiom of Valentia is false viz. when any thing is disproved by the negation of a particular It is proved by the affirmation of it For although it follow Simon Magus was no Pastor of the Church Ergo he was not Oecumenick Bishop Yet it doth not follow Gregorius de Valentia was a Doctor or Pastor of the Church Ergo he was Oecumenick Bishop And thus we have retexed that invincible argument of Gregorius de Valentia viz. If Peter did not feed the flock of Christ and had not the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven it follows necessarily that he was not Oecumenick Bishop Ergo if he did feed the sheep of Christ and had the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven It follows that he was Oecumenick Bishop Which argument concluds alike with this If Bucephalus be not a man he cannot be a Jesuite Ergo if Luther be a man he must be a Jesuite and thus much of Valentia We have seen how our Adversaries dispute those three Foundations of the Monarchy of Peter and consequently of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome upon which the truth or falshood of the Roman faith depends since without it the faith
of the Church of Rome as Bellarmin himself confesseth in the preface of his books de Pont. Rom. Is a Body without a head a house without a foundation Moon-shine without the Sun Which is as much to say as the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome having no ground in Scripture and Antiquity the faith of the Modern Roman Church is no faith at all What ground the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or of Peter hath in these three fore-mentioned passages of Scripture from Matthew 16. 28. Matthew 16. 19. John 21. 15 16 17. in the opinion of the Ancients We have prolixly shewed by which appears what little shelter our Adversaries have in Antiquity of which they brag so much They brag also of Unity or concord among themselves and therefore it will not be unpleasing to set down the opinion of Cardinal Cusanus as great an Antiquary as learned a man of as much Intergrity as any whomever the Church of Rome produced concerning these three foresaid passages of Scripture upon which the Roman faith is founded His words lib. 2. cap. 13. concord Cathol Are these following Nihil enim dictum est ad Petrum quod etiam alijs dictum non sit nonne sicut Petro dictum est quodcunque ligaveris ita alijs est dictum quemcunque ligaveritis Et quanquam Petro dictum est Tu es Petrus Si Petrus per Petram lapis fundamenti Ecclesiae intelligi deheret tunc secundùm S. Hieronymum ita similiter alij Apostoli fuerunt lapides Apoc. 21 Et sicut dictum est Petro Pasce Oves tamen ista Pastura est in verbo exemplo quae praecipitur alijs Apostolis ite in mundum universum c. It is Englished thus Nothing was said to Peter which was not said to the other Apostles as it was said unto Peter What ever thou shalt binde c. Was it not also said to the rest Whom soever ye shal binde c And although it was said unto Peter Thou art Peter if Peter be signified by the Rock as a stone of the foundation of the Church then according to Hieronymus the other Apostles were also foundation stones Apoc. 21. And as it was said to Peter Feed my Sheep nevertheless that feeding consists in teaching and example which is injoyned to the other Apostles also in these words Go ye teaching all Nations And thus much Cusanus in which words although a Cardinal yet he shews himself a Protestant in the exposition of these places which are the chief basis of the Modern Roman faith and he proves his exposition by Scripture and Antiquity Which is as much to say that in his opinion to wrest these three passages to prove the institution of Peter Monarch of the Church is against both Scripture and Antiquity Yea in an other place viz. dist in novo 24. quest 1. he expresly affirms That it is most certain that Peter got no more power from Christ then the other Apostles his words are Sed scimus quod Petrus nihil plus potestatis à Christo accepit alijs Apostalis and because they distinguish Equality of Order from Equality of Jurisdiction that is all the Apostles had equal power of Order but not of Jurisdiction And whereas Secondly they distinguish mediate power from immediate power behold their Unity yet in both these distinctions Franciscus de Victoria according to Canus loc theol lib. 12. cap. 1. the learnedst Divine of Spain Relect. 2. quest 2. conclus 3. 4. hath these words Potestatem Apostoli receperunt immediatè à Christo quod pro certo mihi videtur pronunciandum Haec est apertè sententia Cypriani epist de unitate Ecclesiae hoc erant caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus nec audienda est glossa dicens Hoc non intelligi de potestatis plenitudine ut patet apud Cyprianum Quod pro certo mihi videtur pronunciandum In which words he not only affirmeth That all the Apostles had their power immediately from Christ but also alike power immediatly from Christ reprehending that ordinar distinction of the Roman Church viz. That all the Apostles although they had their power immediately from Christ yet not secundum plenitudinem potestatis which he proves by that passage of Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae affirming What ever Peter was the other Apostles were the same of alike power and dignity with him And thus much of these three famous passages of Scripture Matthew 16. 18. and 19. and John 21. v. 15 16 17. all the grounds which these of the Church of Rome have to prove that the blessed Apostle Peter was ordained by our Savior visible Monarch of the Church or Head of the Church under himself CHAP. XI Of first Peter Fifth verse Vindicated ALthough Protestants be not oblieged by law of Disputation to prove a negative or that Peter was not ordained Oecumenick Bishop by Christ it being enough for them to refute these arguments of our Adversaries endeavoring to prove he was yet since the Spirit of God fore-seeing that the supremacy of Peter would be the pretended foundation of that Kingdom of Anti-Christ hath recorded several passages in Scripture expresly inhibiting and militating against that function of Visible Head and Oecumenick Bishop Therefore these passages ought not to be neglected since they are recorded in Scripture for our instruction but on the contrair diligently examined and vindicated from the perplexed sophistry of our Adversaries Their offensive sophistry in those three places which we have already disputed was very great their defensive in these three following is no less But in a fourth place claimed by both sides most admirable Our Adversaries pretended three arguments to prove the institution of Peters Monarchy of the Church First Because the Church was built upon him Secondly Because the keys of Heaven were promised to him Thirdly Because our Savior directed these words to him Feed my Sheep The Protestants disput against the supremacy of Peters institution by Christ by three arguments also The first is because all Domination is forbidden in Church-Officers The second is because there is no Head in the Church but only Christ The third is because the Apostles puts more persons then one in the first or highest place of the Hierarchy of the Church The first argument then is this All dominion is forbidden in the Church but the institutiou of Peters Monarchy of the Church or an Oecumenick Bishop inferrs domination Ergo the office of an Oecumenick Bishop is forbidden in the Church The Minor is proved by 1. Peter 5. 2. and 3. Feed the Flock of God which dependeth upon you caring for it not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind not as though ye were Lords over Gods heritage but that ye may be ensamples to the Flock Sanderus lib. 6. cap. 1. Of his Monarchy seems to deny the Major viz. That an Oecumenick Bishop inferrs domination Affirming it inferrs only Primacy but he is abandoned by all the Doctors of
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
by divine Institution Oecumenick Bishop the Church would have two heads since our adversaries maintain that an Oecumenick Bishop is head of the Church They answer to this difficulty varying one from another some one way some another some the third way others the fourth It will not be unpleasing to examine their Sophistry The first answer is of Bellarmin distinguishing The Church saith he cannot have two principal Heads nevertheless it may have two heads whereof the one is subordinat to the other In a word he answers Christ is Caput primarium Ecclesiae primary head of the Church Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome are Capita secundaria or secundary heads But this distinction of Bellarmins is both against Scripture and Antiquity It is against Scripture which calling Christ the head of the Church and the Church the body of Christ doth so by a Metaphor taken from a humane body and as a humane body cannot have two heads one subordinat to another that the similitude may hold the Church cannot have two heads Secondly this plurality of heads in the Church is against Antiquity Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. epist 36. directed to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria exclaims most bitterly against John Bishop of Constantinople taking upon him to be head of the Church under Christ neither is it of any moment what some object that Gregory doth not inveigh against the title it self of Oecumenick Bishop but only against John Patriarch of Constantinople for usuâ—ping to himself that title Head of the Church which did not belong unto him but to the Bishop of Rome as Successor to Peter We affirm this solution is Black Sophistry because Gregory disputs generally against all who presume to take upon them that title whether Bishops of Rome or not as appears by his general reason He arguments thus He is proud and arrogant and a fore-runner of Antichrist and like Lucifer exalting himself above the other Angels who takes upon him that which is proper to Christ or belongs to Christ only But he who takes upon him to be head of the Church takes that upon him which belongs only to Christ Ergo. By which reasoning of Gregorius it is evident that he disputs against all who take upon them to be secundary heads of the Church Bishop of Rome and all his reason militats no less against the Bishop of Rome then against him of Constantinople and in his 38. Epistle he ingeminats the same reason viz. That those who take upon them to be Head of the Church under Christ will not be able to hold up their face at the last day because in so doing they took upon them that title which belonged only to Christ which title also Gregory in several other of his Epistles calls new Blasphemous against the mandats of Christ Canons of the Apostles Constitutions of the Church c. Which testimonies of Gregory shal be examined hereafter and vindicated from the sophistries of Bellarmin Baronius and others This secundary head is also assaulted by Basilius in Ascetitis in the Prooem where he calls Christ the only head of the Church And thus ye have the opinion of Basilius and Gregorius both called the Great that a Secundary Head of the Church is an Antichristian fiction since they thunder so against it in the person of any one man none can be so ignorant as to think that Gregorious exclaimed against John for taking on him that title of caput primarium Ergo the thing he disputs against is that caput secundarium defended now by Bellarmin Bellarmin nevertheless disputs for that secundary head three wayes First because it is no wayes injurious to Christ Secondly because it illustrats the glory of Christ Thirdly because it is necessar to the Church Let us hear how he pleads And first how he proves it is not contumelious to Christ His argument is this Many titles of Christ are communicated to men such as Pastor Bishop Apostle Prophet Light Foundation Yea and the title of God himself and yet no injury is done to Christ when men are called Apostles Pastors Doctors and Gods c. Ergo no injury is done to Christ when a man is called Head of the Church under Him And consequently a secundary Head of the Church is no wayes contrair to Scripture But it is answered First we have warrand in Scripture for these other titles attributed to both Christ and men but we have no warrand in Scripture to call any man Head of the Church By which it appears that our Savior hath reserved that title to himself alone It is great presumption in any man to take upon him that title belonging to Christ without any warrand Secondly those other titles coÌ„municated to men which are attributed to Christ principally may be compared to those titles which are common to a King and his Subjects Some of which without any derogation to the King at all may be communicated to the Subject as Noble Rich Powerful Lord Magistrat c. But none of the Subjects can be called Kings Just so in these titles common to Christ with men no wrong is done to Christ when they are called Lights Foundations Apostles Doctors Prophets c. But the title of head of the church can no more be coÌ„munictaed to a man then the title of a King to a subject Head of the church is the Kingdom of Christ Thirdly those other titles objected by Bellarmin common to Christ other men are not properly attributed to both but properly to the one Figuratively or Metaphorically to the other So these titles which are properly attributed to Christ are attributed to men improperly and secundum homonymiam And again these titles that are proper to men are in the same manner improperly attributed to Christ But Bellarmin and his Fellows maintain that the title of Head of the Church belongs properly both to Christ and men as the title of a King properly belongs to both Now let us examine those titles objected by Bellarmin more particularly And First Pastor Apostle Bishop Prophet these titles are attributed to men without auy injury to Christ because these titles belong properly to men and from them translated to Christ and since our Savior demits himself voluntarily to these titles it is no injury to him though they be attributed to him Metaphorically and Abusively In the next place are Light and Foundation which according to an Homonymy are attributed to Christ and to men And first Light if it were attributed to them both properly the assertion of John the Apostle would be false affirming That John Baptist was not the Light but only Christ by whom it appears also that Christ was called the Light because he illuminats men are called Lights because they are illuminated So Cyrillus Thomas Aquinas and Augustinus upon the place which last affirms that the Apostle called our Savior the true Light because he was that Light which illuminats men were only called Lights because they were illuminated by him and
therefore are not the true Lights And since Christ is the true Light and men are not the true Lights it is evident that the title of Light is attributed to both by a Homonymy In the next place comes Foundation Prophets and Apostles are called Foundations two wayes And first Tertullianus lib. 4. cap. 39. against Marcion Chrysostomus Oecumenius Theophylactus interpret these words of Paul super fundamenta Prophetarum Apostolorum as if the Prophets and Apostles themselves were Foundations But it is certain they cannot be called so but only by reason of their Ministry that is in so far as they were Ministers of founding Churches as is confessed by Justinianus the Jesuite who affirms That the faith of the Ephesians was built upon the testimony of the Old and New Testament that is by a Metonymy but Christ is not that way called Foundation and therefore the title of Foundation is attributed by a Homonymy to Christ and the Apostles and Prophets and in that sense the Apostle Paul denyeth that there is any Foundation but Christ Others interpret the meaning of Paul calling the Apostles and Prophets Foundations to be that they preached the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament which is the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets viz. which they did lay So the interlinear and ordinar gloss following Ambrosius and Anselmus so also Lyranus Aquinas Lombardus Cajetanus Gagnaeus the Jesuite and Salmero In what ever sense Foundation be taken it is properly attributed to Christ improperly by a Homonymy to men Bellarmins last tittle is GOD Men are called Gods saith he Psalm 82. and since they are so called why may not a man be called Head of the Church But it is answered First Kings and Judges are not called Gods there but only that men judged so of them because of their flourishing estate so that Fgo dixi Dii estis are not the words of GOD but of the Psalmist himself as dâ—vers learned men gather from the text Others think that the Psalmist is speaking of the Angels However albeit the title of GOD were attributed to Kings and Judges it doth not follow that the title of Head of the Church may be attributed to men because the title of GOD is attributed to men abusively by a too high strained Metaphor But Bellarmin and his fellows endeavor to maintain that the Bishop of Rome is properly head of the Church as a King is head of his Kingdom And in this manner Bellarmin undertakes to prove that it is not injurious to Christ that any should take upon him the title of Head of the Church In the next place he goes a step higher endeavoring to prove That a visible head of the Church sets forth the glory of Christ as the glory of a King is augmented by a Victory But it is answered When a Viceroy intruds himself without a Commission upon a Province he is so far from setting forth the glory of his King that he eclipseth it by neglecting of his authority and proves a Rebel Let Bellarmin instruct if he can in what place of Scripture any hath commission to be visible head of the Church under Christ We proved in the former chapters that what he alledged in the behalf of Peter was new devised Sophistry contradicting Scripture Antiquity and of no great moment to prove the supremacy of Peter in the opinion of the most learned Antiquaries which ever the Church of Rome produced Secondly Bellarmins visible head of the Church carrys himself not like a Viceroy but like a King which must be injurious to the true Head of the Church Yea Bellarmin himself endeavors to prove that the said secondary head reigns in the Church as a King doth in a Kingdom Neither can the Bishop of Rome be said to be Viceroy to Christ otherwise in the government of the Church then a King is Viceroy to GOD in the government of a Kingdom But Kings are absolute and not Viceroys and therefore that visible head of the Church is absolute also being subordinate no otherwise to Christ then Kings are to GOD. Thirdly when a Viceroy takes upon him to go beyond his commission or to govern contrair to the law of his King he wrongs the authority of his King and no wayes sets forth his glory But Bellarmins visible and secundary head takes upon him to dispence with the Law of GOD as we shewed in the former chapter proving that he took power upon him to make Justice Injustice and Injustice Justice In the third place Bellarmin goes a step higher yet and endeavors to prove that a secundary visible head is necessar for the Church because saith he in the absence of Christ the Church cannot be contained in Vnity unless it be governed by one visible head under Christ But it is answered Stillgood that assertion of Bellarmins if not blasphemous is notoriously false viz. That the Church cannot be contained in Vnity by Christ alone unless a visible head be joyned with him Which contradicts Scripture which in every place attributes the cause of that Unity of the Church to Christ alone So John 17. That they may be one in us and Rom. 10. We many are one body in Christ and Gal. 3. Ye are all one in Christ and the reason is evident because that Unity is Spiritual Ephes 4. Studying to keep the unity of the Spirit See also 1. Corinth 12. and Philip 1. By which places it appears that the Invisible and Spiritual presence of Christ alone preserves the Church in Unity which is also granted by many famous Roman Doctors who prove the infallibility of the Church to depend upon this promise of Christ viz. That he would be present with them to the end of the World We have heard Bellarmin disputing for a visible head and proving that it is not derogatory to the honor of Christ We will now examine an argument of Sanderus that famous English Jesuite who proves that it conduceth to the glory of Christ that the Church should have a visible head because saith he More ways of Preaching that glory of Christ are by a visible head then without it But it is answered to omit the inconsequence of that argument we deny the Antecedent or distinguisheth it viz. These ways of Preaching Christ only illustrat his glory which are ordained by himself which a visible head is not Sanderus instances Rulers of particular Churches or Bishops are called Heads of their respective Churches under Christ by Gregorius Magnus and other Fathers Ergo why may there not be one visible head of all the Church under Christ But it is answered First if Sanderus had objected that argument to Gregorius Magnus himself he would have denyed it to follow for although he seems to call Bishops heads of particular Churches yet he detests an universal head as we shewed before as injurious to Christ. Secondly when Gregorius calls Bishops heads of the Church he speaks abusively and improperly and without any warrand in Scripture And thus
confirmed from onsets of the Devil or his instruments and since no visible Monarch of the Church is mentioned by the Apostle it is evident that there was no such Monarch ordained by Christ Bellarmin answers two wayes One way is that the Apostle in those words is not delineating the Hierarchy of the Church but only enumerating divers gifts of some of the Church and 1 Corinthians 12. he adds the gift of tongues But it is replyed It cannot be denyed but the Apostle is enumerating diversity of gifts since verse 7. He expresly affirms so much but it is to be added that he enumerats those gifts as they are in Officers of the Church only whence appears the dissimilitude of this place from 1 Corinth 12. In which gifts are enumerated which are not peculiar to Church Rulers but are also found in laiks Such as gifts of healing and tongues c. That this is the Apostles meaning appears by two reasons First â—he enumerats none verse 11. Who hath not a degree of ruling in the Church The second is because ver 12. 13 14 He doth not enumerat any utility redounding to the Church which is not wrought by the Ministry ver 11. He enumerats the Ministers of the Church ver 12. 13 14. He enumerats the ends wherefore these Ministers were ordained All which ends Oecumentus comprehends under one that is saith he Those degrees of Ministers enumerated verse 12. were for that end ordained that they might minister unto the Church as appears ver 12 13 14. It is to be observed that the Apostle enumerats here all Church Officers both extraordinar and ordinar The extraordinar are those who were ordained only to continue for a time Such as Apostles Evangelists Prophets Ordinar are those ordained to be of perpetual standing in the Church as Doctors and Pastors And since in all those Orders of Church Ministers there are many and not one only in each degree it is evident that one Oecumenick Bishop or a visible head of the Church is not comprehended under any of those Ministers Bellarmin puzled with this answers another way He grants that the enumeration of Church Ministers here is perfect but he denyes that an Oecumenick Bishop hath no place in that enumeration because saith he All the â—ierarchy of the Church and consequently an Oecumenick Bishop is confusâ—dly represented under the name of Pastors and Doctors But finding that Pastors and Doctors were only inferior Orders below Apostles Prophets and Evangelists He passeth from this and affirms next That an Oecumenick Bishop is comprehended under Apostles because not only here but also 1 Corinth 12. Apostles are put in the first place and therefore the chief Ecclesiastick Power was given to all the Apostles but to Peter as ordinar Pastor and therefore to have a Successor in it to the other Apostles as exraordinar and Delegats to Peter and therefore none should succeed them But it is answered we prolixly disputed this distinction of Bellarmins to be groundless contradictory and inconsistent with it self cap. 6. It is needless to repeat what we said there in this place It is sufficient here that never any ancient or Modern Interpreter before the times of the Jesuits did so much as dream that an Oecumenick Bishop was comprehended by the Apostle Ephes 4. 11. Which could be made out by an Induction of all the Commentaries of ancient and Modern Writers upon that place By which it appears that all those testimonies by which those Jesuits prove the Supremacy of Peter and consequently the verity of the Roman Faith are either in Scripture or Fathers depraved by new devised Glosses unknown to the Ancients and also their answers are of the same stuff by which they elude passages of Scripture and Antiquity destroying the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome and in it the whole edifice of the Roman Church Both their offensive and defensive arms are but devised of late since the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome was established That any may see that this Gloss of Bellarmins is a fiction of his own devising we will prove by three Arguments of three several Interpreters By which it will appear what was the opinion of the Church concerning the meaning of this passage Ephes 4. 11. since the times of the Apostles unto those dayes The first Interval is of the Primitive Church before the Council of Nice what was the opinion of that Church in that Interval appears by the testimony of the ancient Author by some believed to be Dionysius Areopagita the disciple of Paul his words epistle 8. are those Tu ergo cupiditati iracundiae rationi modum statue pro dignitate tibi verò divini Ministri his Sacerdotes Pontifices Sacerdotibus Pontificibus Apostali stoli Apostolorúmque successores Quod si quâ—s etiam in istis ab officio discedat à sanctis qui sunt ejusdem ordinis corrigetur atque ita non insultabit ordo in ordinem sed unusquisque in suo ordine ac Ministerio premanebit In which words ye have two things The first is That the chief place in the Hierarchy in the times of the Apostles was held not by one but by many viz. by all the Apostles alike neither makes he mention of Peter his having that chief power as ordinar Pastor and of the other Apostles as having it aâ— Delegats to Peter which will be further confirmed by the second thing observable in these words which is this After the Apostles were removed the chief place in the Hierarchy consisted also not in one person but in many alike viz. in Bishops who succeeded to the Apostles in the first place of the Hierarchie which also he expresly affirms to be of equal Order and Jurisdiction many and not one having Jurisdiction over all as a visible head which quite destroyes the Gloss of Bellarmin for if others succeeding to the other Apostles were in the first place of the Hierarchie which this Author flatly affirms it is false which Bellarmin affirms that all the Apostles had the chief power only during their own time not communicable to their Successors And likewise if those successors of the other Apostles were in the first place of the Hierarchy equally and alike as this Author also affirms It is false which Bellarmin affirms That the Successors of Peter the Apostle had â—he chief authority in their single persons as visible Monarchs of the Church It may be proved by the Glosses of Maximus and others that this Dionysius was not the Disciple of the Apostle Paul mentioned in the Acts because he seems to make mention of the Metropolitants above Bishops But it shal be proved lib. 2. by unanswerable testimonies That there was no Office above that of a Bishop in the Church before the latter end of the third age However albeit he be not the Disciple of Paul as some affirm he is yet he is an ancient Author and delineats the Hierarchie of the Church not to have been monarchical in his days
is notoriously false That all domination of the Kings of the Gentiles is tyrannical not only because it is affirmed in several places of Scripture That Kings rule by GOD and all powers are of GOD. But also because the Scripture commands obedience to be given unto them for that reason and also Injoyns all to pray to them but it is absurd to affirm That tyrannical government is by GODS ordination or that The Word of GOD commands obedience unto it or injoyns all to pray for it They answer It is true indeed that all the ruling of the Kings of the Gentiles is not tyrannical To affirm so it fights against history and experience but in this place our Savior forbids his Apostles To imitate the Kings of the Gentiles when they exercise Dominion unlawfully But it is replyed This is their second false supposition viz. that these words verse 26. But ye shal not be so are relative to the way of domination and not to domination it self Whereas these words are referred not to the way of domination or tyrannical domination but dominattion simply is forbidden in the Church which is proved by these following reasons The first is That domination is forbidden for which the Disciples did contend or Who should be greatest in it But it is against all sense to affirm That they contended who should be the greatest Tyrants By which it is evident that not only tyrannical domination but all sort of domination is forbidden Secondly That is forbidden which is opposit unto Ministry but all domination is opposit to Ministry as appears by Matthew 20. 28. and 26. In which place the same contention or such an other contention among the Disciples is related and for the same reasons domination is forbidden Thirdly Luke 22. 25. These who rule among the Gentils by reason of their domination are called bountiful Whereby it is evident that our Savior forbids domination simply for none are called bountiful by reason of tyrannical domination Fourthly These words Ye shal not be so or ye shal not do so or not so ye according to the constant phrase of Scripture denotat an inhibition of a thing altogether and not of it in such and such a way So Gen. 4. Cain affirms And he who meets me shal kill me the LORD answers Non sic not so the meaning is he shal not be killed at all And not that he shal not be killed after such and such a manner So Nehem. 5. 15. Nehemia complains That some of the former Governors had extorted the people and taken bread and wine and money from them and made their servants rule over them He adds I did not so his meaning is That he did not only not take bread and wine and money from them or oppressea them in such a manner but that he did not oppress them at all Likewise Psalm 1 3. it is said That the righteous man shal be like a tree bringing forth fruit seasonably c. Verse 4. it is affirmed The wicked are not so the meaning is not only that the wicked shal not prosper in that manner only but that they shal not prosper at all Likewise Matthew 19. when the Pharisees objected to Christ that Moses did command to give a bill of divorce that a man should put away his wife upon every slight occasion Our Savior answers verse 8. From the beginning it was not so In which words the meaning of our Savior is That divorces without just reason should not be given at all and not that divorces without reason may be given in some cases although not in other And thus we have proved that in Luke 22. 25. not only tyrannical domination but all domination is forbidden in the Church And consequently the supremacy of Peter is also there forbidden since a visible head of the Church cannot be without domination And whereas our Adversaries affirm that only tyrannical domination is forbidden Although it were so this place quite militats against an Oecumenick Bishop because we did demonstrate cap 11. by six unanswerable particulars or arguments that the domination of the Bishop of Rome was not only tyrannical but also blasphemous We have hitherto disputed against the supremacy of Peter from this place Luke 22. 25. Now let us examine how from the same place Bellarmin and Sanderus disput for it Their Sophistry is admirable and therefore it will not be unpleasing to examine it Their first sophistry consists in this viz. being pressed with paralell places to this that nothing can be gathered from those contentions of the Apostles for the supremacy of Peter but rather much against it Sanderus as a ground of his future sophistry makes a distinction between this place and these other paralell places which is this The Apostles saith he Contended four several times for dominion The first is after the transfiguration of Christ in the mountain Mark 9. 34. and Luke 9. 46. The second after the petition of the sons of Zebedeus or of their Mother Matthew 20. verse 20. and Mark 10. 35. The third time was when the Tribute was payed Matthew 18. 1. The last time was after the Supper Luke 22. The first three times Sanderus grants that nothing can be gathered for the supremacy of Peter because in these places only prophane domination is forbidden But in the last place Luke 22. not only prophane domination is forbidden but also Lawful domination or the supremacy of Peter is generally and confusedly if not ordained at least signified or intimated If ye ask at Sanderus What more in this last place then in the three first since in all the four places the thing for which the Apostles strove was the same and the answer of Christ unto them was the same He answers you several ways but before we examine his answers we will first show how he is mistaken in affirming the Disciples strove four times for dominion Albeit it be no great matter how many times they strove Yet it is certain that they did not strive four times but only two or at the most three times First because the Evangelists doth not mention it oftner then two times as Matth. cap. 18. 20. Mark cap. 9. 10. Luk. cap. 9. 22. Secondly it is certain that Matthew 18. Mark 9. and Luk. 9. mentions the same contention or history as appears not only by the place Capernaum mentioned Mark 9. and the paying of the Tribute was made in the same place Matthew 17. After which the contention arose Matthew 18. But also by the circumstance of the little Child mentioned Luk. 9. 47. and Mark 9. 36. Hieronymus also and Euthymius affirm That the same story is related Matthew 18. and Mark and Luk. 9. The second contention is mentioned Matthew 20. Mark 10. Luk. 22. It is very probable that the same history is related also in those three places because the answer of Christ is the same in them all but Euthymius makes Luke 22. a different contention from Matthew 20. and Mark
who is greatest be as a Servant He proposeth an example of himself to be followed by that person who is greatest in these words For I my self am as a servant in the mids of you that is saith Sanderus Since I who am greatest of you all and primary head of the Church carrieth my self like a Servant he who is head of the Church under me and greatest among you should follow my example other-wise saith he The words of our Savior would not cohere with the words going before which they do by reason of the illative particle For verse 27. But it is answered We have proved already that the speech of our Savior was directed to them all and therefore it coheres well enough when he proposeth his own example as a reason of his former exhortation to them His meaning is I who am greatest among you am as a Servant in the mids of you And therefore any who would be really above the rest in esteem of God let him follow my example by carrying himself humbly Bellarmin proposeth this Argument in another manner and in effect surpasseth Sanderus both in Sophistry and Impudence He reasons thus lib. 1. cap. 9. De Pont. Rom. Christ saith he affirms That he was a Servant in the miâ—st of them Luke 22. But John 13. he affirms The Disciples spake truth when they called him Lord and Master The scope of our Savior in these words then Luke 22. is to ordain one greatest amongst them or to exhort him who is ordained already greatest to follow his example both in greatness and humility as if he had said My will is that one of you should be head over the rest as my Vicar and that he shal carry himself humbly as I do viz. as a Servant to the rest But it is answered That Bellarmin sophisticats two wayes First he suppons falsly that this exhortation of our Savior and the reason of it from his own example was directed to one in particular whereas it is directed to all the Apostles and therefore his first sophistry is in the persons exhorted His second sophistry is in the thing exhorted viz. to follow his own example Bellarmin mentions two things in which they are injoyned to follow the example of Christ First his greatness Secondly his humble carriage in the opinion of Bellarmin Our Savior exhorts them to follow his example in both to prove which he brings in that passage of John 13. impertinently having nothing to do with this passage Luke 22. By which it appears that our Savior exhorts them only to humility or to follow the example of his humility and not of his greatness as is evident by the words uttered by him as his reason For I am as a servant in the mids of you The Sophism of Bellarmin redacted to a form is this I am head of you all and carrieth my self humbly follow my example Ergo saith Bellarmin He exhorts one to be head of the rest as himself was and to carry himself humbly as himself did whereas our Savior desires them all indefinitly not one in particular to follow his example in humble carriage not in Domination which he expresly forbids verse 26. That this gloss of Bellarmins is a new devised fiction amongst the rest to uphold the Supremacy of Peter against all Antiquity we could further prove by many Fathers On these words we will mention one testimony by which it appears that in the opinion of Antiquity the words of our Savior were spoken indefinitly to all and not to one in particular Secondly that he exhorts them only to follow his example in humble carriage and not in Domination This passage is of Theophylactus upon those words Cum igitur ego qui ab angelica rationali natura adorâ—r in medio vestri ministro quo pacto vos aequum est magnificè de vobis sentire Primatum ambire By which words it appears First that his speech is directed to them all Secondly that he exhorts them only to follow his example in humility we could also instance other testimonies but it is needless Hitherto in this Book we have disputed the Supremacy of Peter pro and contra viz. we have examined all what is alledged of any moment either for the institution or against the institution of Peter in that function of Oecumenick Bishop Both the one side and the other bring several Arguments which we have omitted but they are of no moment in comparison of those we have examined being in effect nothing else but Corrolaries of the former or else some places of Scripture mis-interpreted sophisticated wrested by the late Jesuits against the stream of antiquity Analogy of Scripture it self Neither are they taken for the most part from the Institution of Peter as the former but from his carriage and Prerogatives as they call them And lest any should think that we omitted them as if they were unanswerable we will in those following Chapters anatomize all of them which are not meerly ridiculous CHAP. XV. of the Prerogatives of Peter in general BEllarmin lib. 1. cap. 17. De Pont. Rom. having disputed the Institution of Peter or the promise of it from Mat. 16. 18 19. and John 21. 15 16 17. that is from the Rock from the Keyes and from the feeding of the sheep of Christ promiseth next to prove it by Prerogatives which is a very uncertain way of probation except he explain it what Prerogatives were They must of necessity belong either to the person of Peter or to the function of Oecumenick Bishop if they belong only to his person they are nothing to the purpose Since many have personal Prerogatives as well as Peter the Prerogatives of Paul are nothing inferior to those of Peter And since they do not conclude Paul to be Oecumenick Bishop no more do these Prerogatives of Peter conclude him to be Oecumenick Bishop What more glorious Prerogatives can any have then those of Paul He was brought up in all sorts of learning and of a Persecutor was miraculously converted to Christ Act. 9 only called a chosen vessel ibid. To him only Christ appeared after his ascension ibid. Rapt up to the third Heaven 2 Cor. 12. labored more then all the other Apostles 1 Cor. 15. Rebuked Peter as a dissembler in his face Gal. 2. gave a man over to Sathan 1 Cor. 5. was first sent by the Spirit to preach unto the Gentiles Acts 13. healed the sick only with his handkerchief Acts 19. Struck Elimas with blindness ibid. converted the Proconsul ibid while he was yet alive himself his Epistles were cited as Canonick Scripture and that by Peter himself 2 Peter 3. The name of Christians had its first original from the Preaching of Paul So Chrysostomus as he is cited by Photius Bibliothec. cap. 270. In a word Chrysostomus himself Homily 77. de poenitent c. magnifieth so those Prerogatives of Paul as if no mortal man were capable of greater and since these Prerogatives of
fervor of his minde and love to Christ But inconsequent to prove him Oecumenick Bishop Christs appearing to Paul after his Ascension was a prerogative nothing inferior Peter is no more concluded Oecumenick Bishop by this prerogative then the other Apostles by the miracles wrought by them The fourth prerogative is from Matthew 16. 16. viz. That the Mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ was first revealed to Peter before it was revealed to any of the rest But it is answered Although it were granted as in effect many Fathers believe that it is true it is inconsequent to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop Secondly it is notoriously false and presuppons that the Patriarchs Prophets and Saints of the Old Testament were ignorant of the Mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ If they instance they knew only in general That the Messias would be the second Person of the Trinity Incarnas and born of a Virgin but not in particular that Christ was the Messias It is replyed that John the Baptist before ever Peter knew Christ professed that Jesus of Nazareth in particular the supposed Son of Joseph and Son of Mary was the Son of GOD and the Savior of the World foretold by the Prophets Nathanael also professed so much It is a most simple evasion of Bellarmins That these confessed Christ to be the Son of GOD in that manner as all the Saints are called Sons of GOD or by Adoption since John the Baptist expresly testifies that Christ was the Messias foretold by the Prophets Also that the same was revealed to Simeon Luke 2. none without impudence can deny Nathanael also John 1. not only calls Christ the Son of GOD but also the King of Israel and Augustin tract 7. in John affirms that the confession of Nathanael and that of Peter were the same The fifth prerogative is Matthew 16. 18. The gates of hell shal not overcome it It is answered we shewed before the exposition of this place viz. That the gates of hell should not overcome the Church They alledge here a great prerogative for say they the rest of the Apostles had not this promise for the gates of hell prevailed against the Churches founded by the other â—pestles since the Church of Jerusalem founded by James and also the Churches founded by the other Apostles are decayed But it is answered This prerogative is grounded upon a false supposition viz. that our Savior meaned by the Church of Rome the Church founded by Peter of which he did not dream for we shewed before that the Rock upon which the Church is built was only Christ and that these Fathers who interpreted the Rock to be the confession of Peter or Peter himself meaned all one thing with those who interpreted the Rock to be Christ as is evident in Augustinus who in one place interprets the Rock to be Christ In an other the confession of Peter In a third Peter himself However they intangle themselves pitifully in expounding the Rock both to be Peter and the seat of Peter which are different things and it shal also be proved in the last chapter of this book that Rome was not the seat of Peter more then of Paul And therefore they absurdly interpret the Rock to be the Church of Rome The sixth prerogative Matthew 17. Christ commanded tribute to be payed for him and Peter whence some Fathers gather that the Apostles themselves knew the supremacy of Peter So Hieronymus on Matthew 18. as he is cited by Bellarmin But it is answered Although some Fathers were of that opinion that the Apostles knew by that tribute paying that Peter would be preferred to them all the opinion of those Fathers is notoriously false for the strife of the sons of Zebedens was after the tribute paying But they never would have demanded to be preferred to the rest if they had known that Peter was preferred already Yea also that contention of all the Apostles for the primacy was after that tribute paying But they had been mad-men to have contended for the thing Peter had already As for Hieronymus Bellarmin cites him unfaithfully he on Matthew 18. expresly affirms That these were in an error who collected the supremacy of Peter 〈◊〉 that tribute paying Bellarmin hath an other shift that the error mentioned by Hieronymus consisted in this That they believed by that tribute paying that Peter would be a temporal Prince or Monarch But it is replyed though that fiction were granted they are also in an error who believe that the Bishop of Rome is a temporal monarch But they affirm that Peter was the same which the Bishop of Rome is but that he holds himself as a temporal Monarch and teacheth it in Cathedra we shewed before cap 11. However it is a very strange consequence Peter payed tribute Ergo he was Monarch of the Church since the Bishops of Rome as shal be proved part 3. lib. 1. refuse to pay tribute Because they pretend they are Monarchs of the Church It is notorious also that all the Apostles viritim payed tribute as well as Peter Bellarmin and others instance with great pompe that some mystery lurks in this that our Savior commanded tribute to be payed for him and Peter viz. That the heads of the families only payed tribute and consequently that Christ was head of the family and Peter secondary head under him But it is replyed That argument would conclude that all the Church Militant payed only tribute to their Oecumenick Bishop or that the said tribute was payed for all the Church Militant which cannot be mentioned without laughter However they go on in sophistry and proves by the testimony of Hieronymus that only the heads of families payed tribute Quid tum postea It doth not follow That the head of the Church Militant payed tribute for all the Members of it Secondly it is impudent sophistry to pretend the authority of Hieronymus His words are Post Augustum Caesarem Judaea facta est tributaria omnes censi capite ferebantur It is stupendious sophistry since no learned man can be so ignorant to affirme that Hieronymus in these words mentions That heads of the families only payed tribute since it appears to all who are not utterly ignorant of the Latin tongue that census capite imports as much as Viritim that is Every person payed tribute or every head for himself and not only heads of families It is demanded then What was the meaning of our Savior in that paying of tribute for Peter and himself Chrysostomus hom 59. on Matthew thinks this was the reason Because both our Savior and Peter were first born But the holy Father is in a great mistake for two reasons The first is Because that tribute was not the tribute of the first born which was payed only once in a life time but an annual tribute which was payed every year Secondly Peter was not first born but Andrew his brother Jansenius a Learned and Ingenuous Papist Concord
69. affirms the reason was Because Peter and Christ was then together alone He is not so subtile as Bellarmin to gather any supremacy of Peter from those words The truth is both Peter and our Savior dwelt at Capernaum as may be gathered from Matthew 9. 1. Mark 2. 1. Luke 4. 31. 38. And it is very like that our Savior was then in the house of Peter to which he went out of the Synagogue Luke 4. 38. and being Peters Guest and Master also payed for him ye may see by hunting this prerogative how they scrape Sophistry out of the fire to prove the supremacy of Peter The seventh prerogative is two miracles in fishing Luke 5. 3. and John 21. 6. If ye demand what can be gathered from these miracles They tell you Christ taught in Peters ship and Peters ship was the Church and since Peter was head of his own ship he was also head of the Church But it is answered How know they that the ship was Peters Salmero the Jesuit doubts he was so rich And so that argument falls a will except they prove that the ship was Peters It is admirable to consider how Bellarmin plungeth himself in Sophistry distilling the supremacy of Peter from the lymbick of his brains by wilde allegories that the Readeâ— may laugh It will not be amiss to anatomize his Dispute First He affirms these two miracles of Fishing both signify the Church that of Luke 5. the Church Militant because it was before the Resurrection that of John 21. the Church Triumphant because it was after the Resurrection He adds an other reason in the first Fishing our Savior bidâ— them only make ready their nets for the fishing In the second he injoyns them to cast out the net upon their right hand Who doubts but the Church Militant is signified by the first Fishing Because in it both good and bad are received what ever side of the ship the net be cast from And who can call it in question that the second fishing signifies the Church Triumphant In which only the good are comprehended since the Apostles are injoyned To cast out the net on the right side of the ship still good but better followeth In the first fishing the nets do break denotating the Schisms and Heresies of the Church Militant In the second the nets did not breaâ— at all which signifyeth The Vnity of the Church Triumphant Learned subtility follows In the first fishing the number of the fish is not determinated which were catched signifying or fulfilling that passage of the Psalm I spake and they were multiplyed without number which is a clear demonstration That the Church Militant is represented by that fishing But in the second fishing the caught fish were precisely 153. By which it is no less evident that in it The Church Triumphant is represented Lastly If any obstinat Heretick be not convinced by these former reasons that in these two fishings the Church Militant and Triumphant are represented they cannot but be convinced by this following reason viz. In the first fishing the fish were taken in the ship Luke 5. But in the second John 21. The fish were not taken in the ship but drawn a shore in the net The first signifying The fluctuating of the Church Militant receiving indifferently all The second The stability of the Church Triumphant receiving none but the Elect. Upon those irrefragable principles Bellarmin demonstrats the supremacy of Peter thus Since saith he Both these fishings represent the Church and Peter is the chief Fisher of them both Who but an Heretick will deny that Peter is head of the Church And as if there were no more to prove but that Peter was the Master-Fisher he falls to the proving of it First Our Savior seeing more ships on the shore entred that of Peters and not the rest Secondly He bade Peter lanch out and make ready the nets Thirdly He said to Peter Fear not after this thou shalt be a Fisher of men and thus way he proves Peter to be Master Fisher in the first Fishing That he was also in the second he proves First because Peter affirmed he was going a fishing and the rest said they would go with him Secondly Peter drew the net to the land It is needless to spend time in refuting has quisquilias any who would see Bellarmin and his fellows are exsibilated by Chamier let him read tom 1. lib. 11. cap. 17. from the beginning to num 10. The eight prerogative is taken from Luke 22. 32. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not therefore when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren If ye aske them What prerogative is here They tell you first that these words were spoken to Peter immediatly after our Savior had conferred the supremacy upon him In the former contention verse 26. confusedly and generally not naming him But now in these words he designs in particular Peter to be that person whom he called greatest amongst them verse 26. But it is replyed It was proved false cap. 14. that any person was ordained greatest among them Luke 22. 26. Secondly They build on this because Peter is injoyned by Christ to confirm his brethren therein But it is answered Confirming of brethren inferrs not an Oecumenick Bishop because Paul and Barnabas confirmed brethren Acts 14. 22. So Judas and Silas Acts 15. 32. Innumerable other particulars but it is needless to mention them might be produced And whereas they urge that the word confirm imports authority It is answered Sometime it doth but not supream authority however in this place it imports no authority at all but only good example So Theophylactus Twenim Petre conversus bonum exemplum sies poenitentiae omnibus nullúsque eorum qui in me credunt desperabit in te respiciens Where observe he makes that confirming nothing but by good example he shal confirm his brethren for in these words our Savior is meaning the Apostacy of Peter in his thrice denying him and so Theophylactus comments upon the place viz. that Peter shal confirm his Brethren by keeping them from despair of forgiveness although their sins were never so great since Christ pardoned him after so great a sin as denying him thrice This exposition of Theophylactus is the same with that of Ambrosius and Euthymius and Maldonat the Jesuit who upon this place hath these words Ambrosij Theophylacti Euthymij interpretatio mihi non displicet qui conversum exponunt â—peccato quo Christum negavit acta poenitentia quasi aliis de suó vulnere fecerit medicinam In which words the Jesuit expresly aquiesceth in the exposition of these Fathers Whence appears the notable sophistry of Bellarmin lib. 4. cap. 3. de pont Rom. who interprets these words of our Savior Therefore when thou art converted confirm thy brethren thus The sense saith he of these words is not that Peter repenting him of his sin or converted should confirm the Apostles by his example but this Thou whose faith
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
arroganter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere c. That is Peter being reprehended by Paul did not take any thing to himself insolently or arrogantly as to say he had the primacy from which words of Cyprian it followes rather that if Peter had said to Paul he had the primacy he had been arrogant and insolent and consequently it appears rather that Cyprian in these words denyeth Peter to have the Supremacy It seems Pamelius understands him so for he answers in his Annotations upon that place this very passage of Cyprian as an objection against the Supremacy of Peter In the next place Bellarmine brings a number of very specious testimonies to prove the Supremacy of Peter over the other Apostles as that Basilius affirms he was preferred to the other Apostles Nazianzenus That the other Apostles were inferiour to him Epiphanius that he was Captain of the Apostles Cyrillus Hierosolym that he was prince of the Apostles Cyrillus Allexand That he was Prince and head of the rest Theophyl Prince of the disciples Oecumenius he obtained the precedency of the other Apostles Hieronymus he was chosen head of the twelve that occasion of Schisme might be removed The Author of the question upon the Old and New Testament placed amongst the works of Augustinus he was made their head that he might be Pastor of the flock of Christ Those testimonies in effect at the first veiw seem to be of moment but well considered do not prove at all that Peter had any jurisdiction over the other Apostles or that he was their oecumenick Bishop for two very relevant reasons The first is because those very Epithets are given by the Fathers yea by Paul himself to other Apostles beside Peter But since those Appellations doth not prove those other Apostles oecumenick Bishops no more can they prove Peter to be such That those Titles were given to others beside Peter is proved by those following testimonies Paul in the Galatians calls James and John Pillars as well as Peter whereby it appears he makes them equal with Peter Eusebius Emissenus Homilia in Natal Petri â—auli calls Paul and Andrew Princes of the Apostles Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 1. hist calls James Prince of the Apostles Chrysostom in Galat. 2. calls Paul Prince of the Apostles Prudentius calls Peter and Paul Princes of the Apostles Lastly those very Fathers who give those elegies to Peter affirm that the Church was built on all the Apostles as well as Peter and some of them expresly gives the chief of them as head or Caput to others beside Peter as Basilius which we mentioned before The second reason wherefore those titles of head or Prince prove not any jurisdiction of Peter over the other Apostles is very relevant and is this viz. the principals of the Fathers expresly affirm that Peter had no jurisdiction over the other Apostles Origenes the Apostles were Kings and Christ not Peter King of Kings Cyprianus de unitate ecclesiae Christ after his resurrection gave a like power unto all the Apostles and a little after what ever Peter was the other Apostles were the same and had equal fellowship with him both in honour and power Chrysostomus in Galat. 2. Paul needed not the testimony of Peter he was equal to him in honour I will say no more whereby it is evident in his opinion Paul was more honourable then Peter Likewayes Hom. 66. in Matth. None goeth before Paul neither doth any doubt of it Hieronymus Galat. 2. paraphrasing on Pauls words saith I am nothing inferiour to Peter we are both placed in the ministry by the same person viz. Christ Likewayes lib. 1. against Jovinian the Church is founded upon all the Apostles equally all of them got the keys of the Kingdom of heaven alike Augustinus epist 86. Peter and the other disciples lived in concord together where observe Peter is called condisciple with the rest Gregorius first Bishop of Rome himself disputing against an oecumenick Bishop lib. 4. epist 32. amongst the other reasons brings this for one although the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter yet Peter was not oecumenick or universal Apostle Other testimonies might be heaped to this purpose as of Ambrosius in 1 Cor. 11. and Gal. 2. and likewayes of Primasius Theophylactus and the ordinar Glosse who all of them affirm the same upon Gal. 2. And thus it is proved by two unanswerable reasons that by those titles of Head and Prince Peter is not oecumenick Bishop Of that title of head we spake before that it was given unto others as well as unto Peter and now have proved the same of the title of Prince If ye ask then what is the meaning of those expressions of the Fathers calling Peter Prince and Head of the Church or Apostles It is answered the word Head or Prince may import a threefold Primacy 1. of Jurisdiction and in that sense none but Christ is called head or prince of the Church 2. A primacy of Order without Jurisdiction as when any of the same Colledge chooseth one to be their Head as Deacons choosing an Arch-deacon who hath only primacy of Order and not of Jurisdiction 3. A primacy of gifts or graces so the title head is taken 1 Cor. 12. so also Paul and James c. are called heads and Princes of the Apostles by the Fathers as we said before because they had eminent gifts So â—omer and Virgilius are called Princes of the Poets Cicero and Demosthenes Coriphaei oratorum and Plato and Aristotle Philosophorum principes So Nicodemus was called Prince of the Jews by Cyrillus and Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna Prince of Asia by Hieronymus The meaning of the Fathers then giving to Peter those titles of head or prince is not of the first sort of primacy as was demonstrated but only of the second and third sort of primacy that is by reason of his eminent gifts in which others also excelled as Paul and John but especially and cheifly because he was eldest Apostle and first called to that function some think Andrew was called before him but however Peter had the priority of dignity in what sense it imports not much so it was not priority of Jurisdiction which that it was not was now proved by uuanswerable testimonies of the Fathers CHAP. XXI Some testimonies of Fathers disproving the supremacy of Peter vindicated IN the former Chapters were answered those testimonies of Fathers alleged by Bellarmine to prove the supremacy of Peter over the Church cap. 19. and over the other Apostles cap. 20. in answering which testimonies we proved by opposing testimonies to testimonies that the meaning of those Fathers was nothing lesse then that Peter was Monarch of the Church which we proved by two sort of testimonies first by those in which the same things were said of others beside Peter by which they endeavoured to prove his supremacy such as head of the Church prince of the Apostles c. The second sort was of
power of Government above the other Apostles but according to the execution of that Power all the Apostles were alike with him But that distinction is likewayes contradictiory as we shewed before and this much of Cyprian The second testimony is of Hieronymus lib. 1. in Jovinianum Vt dicis super Petrum sundatur ecclesis licet id ipsum alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur but you affirm that the Church is founded upon Peter although the same be done in another place upon all the Apostles viz. that the Church is builded upon them all alike which glosse of Hieronymus quite destroyes that argument of Peters Supremacy viz. that he was the only Rock among all the Apostles upon which the Church was builded Bellarmine answers that Hieronymus explains himself in the same place where he affirms one was chosen among the twelve that a head being constitute occasion of Schism might be taken away c. But it is replyed Cardinal Causanus sees no such gloss in these words of Hieronymus as we shewed before cap. 10. where he affirms that nothing peculiar was promised to Peter in these words tues Petrus and proves it by this testimony of Hieronymus that the Church was builded alike upon all the Apostles and in what sence Peter is called head by Hieronymus was shewed before cap. 20. for it is certain that Hieronymus by calling Peter head of the twelve doth not mean Peter had jurisdiction over the rest otherwayes he would expresly contradict himself in this same place he calls him heaa therefore in the same sense that others are called heads which we mentioned cap. 20. But Bellarmine instances that he was made head of the twelve that schisme might be takan away But it is replyed that was before they were sent by Christ to preach the Gospel but Cyprian and Hieronymus seems to be of that opinion that Peter was head of the twelve as the Apostles were a private Company or Congregation but after the resurrection that authority ceased when our Saviour commissionated them all alike to preach the Gospel through the world with equal authority And this much of that famous Dispute of the supremacy of Peter in which we have fished all what is of any moment from that immense Ocean of Antiquity either to assault it or assert it by which it appears to any indifferent Reader upon what a weak foundation the Faith of the Modern Church of Rome is built viz. the supremacy of Peter or that Peter was oecumenick Bishop which was a concert that the Ancients did not dream of before the fifth Age after the Council of Chalcedon when that contention arose between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople for the primacy Before the time of Leo first the Bishops of Rome and Leo himself pleaded a priority in dignity by Acts of Councils but succumbing in that Leo was the first that devised tues Petrus for the primacy his successours still argumenting the force of that Argument and used it afterwards for universal jurisdiction whereas at first it was objected only for cura universalis ecclesiae Now having absolved that dispute of Peters Monarchy we will examine his Bishoprick of Rome which is the second part of the Bishoprick of Peter CHAP. XXII Bellarmines Argument answered Proving that Peter was aâ— Rome HItherto hath been disputed Whether Peter was instituted oecumenick Bishop by Christ which was the first assertion or ground on which the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is founded Now followeth the second which according to Bellarmine lib. 2. de pont Rom. is that Peter at the command of Christ fixed his seat at Rome and did sit there as Bishop unto his death Here ariseth a two-fold question first Whether Peter was at Rome next Whether he was Bishop of Rome if he was never at Rome it is certain he was never Bishop of Rome and albeit he had been at Rome it doth not follow he was Bishop of Rome it was commonly believed that Peter was at Rome and Bishop of Rome before the time of Marcilius Patavinus who lived in the 14. Age and wrote a Book intituled Defensor â—acis in which he maintains Peter was never at Rome nor Bishop of Rome and proves that all the Ancients were deceived who affirmed either the one or the other his reasons shall be mentioned in the following Chapters in this are answered the reasons of Bellarmine proving the first that he was at Rome The assertion of Bellarmine was that Peter was Bishop of Rome by ordination of Christ to prove which he brings nothing but falls to prove that Peter was first at Rome and next that he was Bishop of Rome and instead of Christs institution he brings nothing but conjectures of the Ancients to prove that Peter was at Rome and perverted testimonies to prove that he was Bishop of Rome It was shâ—wed before that all the Faith and Doctrine of the modern Church of Rome depended upon the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which supremacy consisted in three assertions first that Peter was oecumenick Bishop by divine institution which makes nothing for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome without the other two viz. that Peter by divine institution was Bishop of Rome and that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter by divine institution in the Monarchy of the Church any of those two being brangled the whole foundation of the modern Roman Religion is quite destroyed Bellarmine to prove both the one and the other after he had undertaken to prove them by divine institution brings nothing but conjectures involved with contradictions and consequently the whole Edifice of the Church of Rome is builded upon such conjectures The succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter shall be disputed in the following Books in this Chapter are answered those reasons proving that Peter was at Rome in the next shall be answered those reasons proving Peter was Bishop of Rome and then we will conclude this Book with those reasons of Marcilius Petavinus and Ulrichus Velenus proving that Peter was neither at Rome nor Bishop of Rome Bellarmines first reason to prove that Peter was at Rome is from 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church which is at Babylon salutes you c. This was the Church saith Bellarmine in which Peter remained when he wrote this Epistle viz. Babylon which in the Scripture many times signifies Rome and therefore Peter by Babylon means Rome and consequently Peter was at Rome But it is answered albeit in the Apocalyps which is a mystical Prophesie Rome be meant by Babylon yet we do not find in Scripture in any Epistle that Rome was called Babylon it would be a ridiculous expression to conclude an Epistle written at Rome from Babylon The Apostle Paul in all his Epistles written at Rome never concludes from Babylon but from Rome and therefore Peter in this Epistle understands not Rome but Babylon It is to be observed there
therefore he behoved to be at Rome and his first reason is That the Church of Rome was ever held the first Church but there can be no other reason why it was held so but only that Peter was Bishop But it is answered first that Rome was held the first Church of old not in power but in dignity because Rome was the chief imperial City as appears expresly by the third Canon of the second general Council at Constantinople the 28. Canon of the fourth general Council of Calcedon the 36. Canon of the sixth general Council of Constantinople of which hereafter part 2 lib 1. and 2. Secondly if respect be had to other reasons besides the imperial dignity of the City it is false that Rome was held for the first Church as appears by many testimonies first Theodoretus lib. 5. cap. 9. affirms that the second general Council at Constantinople in an Epistle to Damasus Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of the West calls the Church of Jerusalem Mother of all Churches Secondly Nazianzenus epist 18. affirms that the Church of Caesaria was from the beginning and was esteemed almost the Mother of all Churches Thirdly Basilius Epist 20 to Athanasius affirms That the Church of Antioch was head of all Churches The same is affirmed by Chrysostomus in several places as in his Homile of the praises of Ignatius and in his third Homile to the people of Antioch by which testimonies it is evident that Rome was called the first Church for a civil respect only and that in other respects other Churches were preferred to it Bellarmines second Argument is this The Hereticks cannot shew saith he where Peter was Bishop after he left Antioch if he was not Bishop of Rome since they affirm he was Bishop only of a particular Church and not of the universal Church But it is answered Bellarmine may well confirm his Disciples by such reasoning but he will never convert Hereticks by it It is false which he affirms that the Protestants maintain that Peter behoved of necessity to be Bishop of one particular Church or other they deny he was Bishop of any particular Church at all as shall immediatly appear and therefore it is ridiculous in Bellarmine to conclude that Peter was Bishop of Rome because they cannot instruct where he was Bishop elsewhere when he left Antioch they ask him again how Bellarmine proves that he was Bishop of Antioch they ask him also where he was Bishop before he was Bishop of Antioch for Bellarmines Argument presuppones that Peter of necessity was still Bishop of one place or other Bellarmines third reason to prove that Peter was Bishop of Rome is taken from the testimony of Fathers affirming he was Bishop there twenty five years As for those 25. years they shall be proved false in the following Chapter In this we will answer and explain the testimonies of those Fathers affirming Peter was Bishop of Rome because in effect they are the only Basis of the Popes supremacy we will examine them more diligently and make it appear that they are so many testimonies proving Peter was never Bishop of the particular Church of Rome It is answered to those testimonies of Eusebius Optatus Ambrosius Hieronymus Sulpitius I sidorus Irenaeus Epiphanius c. affirming Peter to be Bishop of Rome that the word Bishop is taken two wayes first for a function of governing the Church in general so Peter calles Christ The Bishop of our souls epist 1. cap. 2. so an Apostleship is called Bishoprick Act. 2. Secondly Bishop is taken in a stricter sense for a certain function Ecclesiastick inferiour unto the Apostolick function so it is taken by Paul 1 Tim. cap. 3. If any desire a Bishoprick in which last sense we now take it and so answers those testimonies of Bellarmine by which he proves that Peter was Bishop of Rome that those Fathers take Bishop in the first sense and their meaning is no other then that Peter as an Apostle taught at Rome twenty five years That this is no shift or evasion is demonstrated by these three following reasons The first reason is that the Fathers reckoning the successions of the Bishops of Rome put Paul with Peter in the first place whereby it is evident that those Fathers take the word Bishop in the first sense comprehending the Apostleship since none of them nor Bellarmine himself will affirm that Paul was Bishop of Rome in the second sense That this is the truth viz. that Paul is named first Bishop of Rome with Peter appears by those following testimonies First of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. Fundantes igitur instruentes beati Apostoli Petrus Paulus Lino Episcopalum administrandae ecclesiae tradiderunt The blessed Apostles Peter and Paul when they founded the Church of Rome they made Linus Bishop The second testimony is of Epiphanius heres 27. Episcoporum in Roma successio hanc consequantiam habuit Petrus Paulus Linus Cletus The succession of the Bishops of Rome was this Peter and Paul Linus Cletus The third testimony is of Eusebiâ—◠〈…〉 3. cap. 2. post Petri Pauli Martyrium prinâ—â—◠〈…〉 Episcopatum Linus sortito capit Afterâ—◠〈…〉 Peter and Paul Linus had the Bishopricâ—◠〈…〉 Such-like other 〈…〉 epist 65. of Optatus 〈…〉 all put Peter and Paul 〈…〉 that in the Bulls of 〈…〉 are joyntly 〈…〉 hath the 〈…〉 is 〈…〉 in the first sense as it 〈◊〉 an Apostle The second reason is because Fathers enumerating the Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome do it in manner following PETER and PAVL 1. Linus 2. Cletus 3. Clemens 4. Euaristus 5. Alexander 6. Sixtus 7. Telesphorus 8. Hyginus 9. Pius 10. Anicetus 11. Soter 12. Eliutherius c. WHere they do not reckon Peter and Paul among the Bishops but only reckons the Bishops from them as their founders putting Linus as first Bishop Cletus as second Clemens as third whereas if Peter and Paul had been Bishops Linus had been second Cletus third Clemens fourth c. That they reckon them so appears by these following testimonies First of Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. who calls Clement the third Bishop Sixtus the sixth Eliutherius the twelfth but if he had reckoned Peter as first Bishop then Clemens had been the fourth Sixtus the seventh Eliutherius thirteenth The second testimony is of Eusebius hist lib. 3. cap. 2. where he calls Linus fiâ—st Bishop and likewayes cap. 4. where he calls Clemens third Bishop and cap 16. where he calls Clemens third Bishop Linus first Bishop Cletus second Bishop and lib. 4. cap. 1. he calls Euaristus fourth Bishop and cap. 5. he calls Telesphorus seventh Bishop likewayes in his Chronicles he gives unto them the same order of succession anno 69. and 81. and 93. and 100. whereby by it is evident by Eusebius that Peter was not Bishop of Rome since he gives ranks to the other Bishops as if Linus had been first Bishop The third testimony is of Gregorius lib. 1. cap. 27. who reckons the order of
for what ado had Clement with women in Philippi he being designed Bishop of Rome except the care of the Church of Philippi had belonged unto him and consequently he was oecumenick Bishop But to omit the bad consequence of that Argument he mistakes the words of Paul or their construction Paul doth not desire his yoke-fellow to assist Clement in having a care of those women he only desires him to have a care of those women who laboured with Paul himself and with Clement in the Gospel That this is the true meaning of the words is granted by Popish Doctors themselves commenting upon this place as Justinianus the Jesuite Cardinal Cajetanus Lyranus yea the French Lovaine Bible translates these words Qui ont â—â—auaillé auec moy en l'Evangile auec Clement mes autres coâ—diuteurs The second place alledged by Bozius is from 2 Pet. 1. 15. I will endeavour therefore alwayes that ye also may be able to have remembrance of those things after my departing If ye ask him how he concludes that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter from those words He tells you Peter promiseth after his death to put those to whom he wrote in remembrance of those things or to have a care that they should remember those things If ye ask him what then he tells you Since Peter was dead himself he behoved to put them in remembrance by another and that other must of necessity be one who succeeded to him in the Monarchy of the Church Let us retex this Logick that the Reader may laugh First he suppones that Peter was to put them in remembrance by another then himself which cannot be gathered from Peters words he answers Peter himself was dead Ergo he behâ—ved to do it by another It is replyed Peter while he was yet alâ—ve might have a care that they should remember these things after his death Secondly the whole current of Popish Doctors contradicts him affirming that Peter promiseth to have a care by himself and not by another that they should remember those things viz. From this place they prove intercession of Saints and so according to them the meaning of Peter is that when he is departed he will intercede for them Thirdly the true meaning of Peter is that while he is alive he will endeavour to provide them faithful Pastors to instruct them that they may remember those things and therefore his meaning is nothing less then an oecumenick Bishop and this much of Bozius Bellarmine states the question very perplexedly and so obscurely that it appears to any he is diffident to make out what he undertakes First he observes four things and then he falls a disputing His first observation is That the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church is Jure Divino But the manner or way of succession ratio successionis depends upon the fact of Peter which distinction of Bellarmins is very obscure and implicating he explains himself that Peter might never have fixed his seat at Rome and therefore it depends upon the â—act of Peter that the Bishop of Rome succeeds to him but he had said before that Peter had fixed his seat at Rome by the command of Christ how can any make sense of those expressions he involves himself here in many contradictions first he affirms that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church is Jure divino or by institution of Christ but that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church is not Jure divino but depends upon the fact of Peter which is as much to say that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is Jure divino and yet the Bishop of Rome succeeded not Jure divino Secondly he affirms That it depended upon the fact of Peter that he was Bishop of Rome and yet he saith lib. 2. Fundatur jus successionis Pontificum Romanorum in eo quod Petrus Romae suam sedem jubente Domino collocaverit atque ibidem usque ad mortem sederit That is the right of the Bishop of Rom's succession is founded in this viz. that Peter at the command of Christ fixed his Bishoprick at Rome and did sit Bishop there till his death How can those two consist together First Peter was expresly commanded by Christ to fix his Bishoprick at Rome Secondly and yet notwithstanding it was in Peters option whether he should do so or not He might be further pressed but it is sufficient to answer here to omit his contradictions that all his suppositions are false first it is false that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is Jure divino Secondly it is false that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter because Peter fixed his seat at Rome since it was proved in the former Book that Peter was not Bishop of Rome at all Thirdly it is most false that Peter at the command of Christ fixed his seat at Rome neither doth he bring any thing to prove it beside his own assertion these three places Matth. 16. 18 and 19. and Joh. 21. 15. though it were granted that Peter was ordained by Christ Monarch of the Church by them which was proved false in the former Book mentions nothing of the fixing his seat at Rome The second observation of Bellarmine is this If ye absolutely ask saith he if the Bishop of Rome by divine institution be Monarch and Head of the Church it is answered certainly he is Where he involves himself in another contradiction in the former observation he affirmed that the Bishop of Rome his succession to Peter depended upon the fact of Peter which he granted was changable but nothing can be by divine institution which depends upon an uncertainty His third observation is very admirable The Bishop of Rome as the Bishop of Rome saith he succeeds not to Peter Jure divino and yet est de fide that is we are oblieged to believe it as an article of Faith which is very mysterious language how can we belive that by divine Faith which is not revealed by God he answers We are oblieged to believe it as well as that Paul left his Cloak and Parchments at Troas But it is replyed those things are expresly mentioned in Scripture and it s very strange that the Scripture should mention the Cloak and Parchments of Paul and not mention the Roman Bishoprick of Peter or the Bishop of Rome's succession to Peter Bellarmine goes on They are not mentioned expresly but deduced by necessar consequence out of Scripture It ye ask him from what places of Scripture he tells you It s a tradition Apostolick If ye ask him how he proves that he tells you by Councills Fathers Institution of Bishops Appellations c. and so he takes up the whole dispute by producing such probations Where the Reader may observe that after such bragings of the succession of the Bishop of Rome Jure divino
he Head cannot say unto the Feet I have no need of you or ye are not necessary to the Body So they of more excellent Gifts in the Church cannot say unto those of meaner Gifts we have no need of you neither are ye necessary for the edification of the Church That this is the true exposition of this place appears by the Interpretation of all the Ancients as Ambrosius Chrysostomus Theophylactus whose Interpretation is also followed by those two Leaders of the School-men Lombardus and Aquinas neither did ever any Interpreter-dream to prove a visible Head out of this place before the times of the Jesuites as Bellarmine Sanderus and Turrianus Their reason is most ridiculous There is but one Head of the Body say they to which the Church is compared Ergo there is but one Head in the Church Which Argument may be retorted thus There are but two Feet in the Body to which the Church is compared Ergo there are but two Feet in the Church or two only in the Church who have meaner Gifts The Sophistry discovers it self for according to the Interpretation of the Ancients that one Head of the Body answers to many persons in the Church as appears by the 70. Epistle of Basilius to the Bishops of Italy and France where he hath these words Cum igitur non possit Caput Pedibus dicere Non estis mihi necessarii omnino non tolerabitis nos abdicari Since the Head cannot say unto the Feet ye are not necessary ye will not suffer us to be abdicated or cut off He repeats the same words Epist 77. to the Transmarine Bishops Likewayes Primasius Oecumenius and the Author of those Commentaries attributed to Hieronymus compares all Bishops to that one Head of the Body and so doth Aquinas to which he compares also the Civil Magistrates And this much of that head mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 21. Bellarmin's last reason to prove That the Government of the Church is Jure Divino Monarchical and consequently that one or other behoved to succeed to Peter is taken from the High Priest in the Old Testament under whom the Government of the Church was Monarchical Ergo saith he the Government of the Church under the New Testament is Jure Divino Monarchical under one visible Head But it is answered first many things were in the Church-government in the Old Testament which are not in that of the New and therefore the Argument doth not follow Secondly Bellarmine could not have produced a sharper Sword to cut his own throat for the High-priest in the Old Testament was a Type of Christ and as the said High-priest governed the Church without a visible Head under him in the Old Testament So Christ governs the Church in the New Testament without a visible Head under him And this much of those reasons by which Bellarmine endeavours to prove that one or other behoved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church In the next place he endeavours to prove that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to him which he doth thus Either the Bishop of Antioch or else the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church but not the Bishop of Antioch Ergo the Bishop of Rome But it is answered first it is false that either the Bishop of Antioch or the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church since we proved before that Peter was not Monarch of the Church himself and therefore no Bishop could succeed him in the Monarchy of the Church Secondly We proved also in the last Chapter of the first Book that Peter was Bishop of no particular Church Thirdly though it were granted that either the Bishop of Antioch or the Bishop of Rome behoved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church the Bishop of Antioch ought to be preferred to the Bishop of Rome because we have Scripture expresse that Peter was at Antioch but none at all that he was at Rome but on the contrary it appears by infallible presumptions from Scripture that he was never at Rome as was proved in the last Chapter of the former Book where it was also proved that the Testimonies of those Fathers by which Peter was proved to be at Rome were grounded on the Authority of Pappias an Author meriting no credit in the opinion of Eusebius Bellarmine in the next place endeavours to prove That the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church by several general Arguments As 1. Testimonies of general Councils 2. Of Bishops of Rome themselves 3. Of Greek Fathers 4. Of Latine Fathers 5. From Viccars 6. From Right of Appellations 7. From exemption from judgement 8. From ordination of Bishops 9. From Laws Dispensations and Censures 10. From Names or Titles In the following Books we shall not miss one of his Arguments of any moment unanswered and not retorted But to avoid repetitions we will alter his method distinguishing the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter in several Intervals as was shewed in the Preface of this Treatise in this second Book we will dispute the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church from the dayes of the Apostles untill the death of Cyprian that is untill anno 260. or thereabout insisting most upon these four following particulars First we will dispute the occasion of the opinion of Aerius by whom it was maintained unto cap. 5. In the second place we will dispute that there was no Office in the Church during that interval above that of a Bishop unto cap. 9. In the third place we will answer what is objected for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval by our adversaries unto cap 13. Fourthly we will examine several forgeries pretended by our adversaries for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval Of which in order CHAP. II. The occasion of the opinion of Aerius who were his followers and what the Bishop of Rome was at first in their opinion SOme Protestants stumble at the word Hierarchy and will needs have the word Hieredulia put in the place of it the first word in the Original signifying Church-ruling the last Church-ministry However that the Church Hierarchy or Hierodulle instituted by the Apostles consisted of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons is denyed by none as in civil families some servants had titles of honour given them and were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 majores domus familiam ducentes trusties master-housholds rulers of the family others were called by the common name of Servants So in the Ministry of the Church some Ministers had titles of honour given them and were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Overseers Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters Elders all other Ministers of the Church were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deacons which is as much as to say Ministers or were called by the name of Ministers common to them all Those titles of Bishop and
lived is uncertain Ignatius in his Epâ—stle to the Trallians hath these words What is a Bishop but he who goeth beyond all command and power who commands all as far as a man can command In which words he expresly affirms that there is no Office of the Church above that of a Bishop for if a Bishop have supream command as he expresly affirms he can be commanded by no superior Church-ruler as Metropolitan Patriarch or oecumenick Bishop The Testimony of Dionysius is taken from his 8. Epistle his words are these in substance Every man should strive to live blamelesly if he do not the Priest should take a course with him if the Priest deborde he should be judged by his Bishop if the Bishop do amiss he should be judged by the successors of the Apostles if those again do amiss they should be judged by those of the same order and degree In which words he quite excludes one visible Head over all and consequently it appears that in his dayes the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not believed as an article of Faith in the Church since he affirms that many hold the chief place of the Hierarchy whereof any should be judged by the rest and not all by one visible Head or by the Bishop of Rome What he means by Successors to the Apostles whom he places above Bishops none can tell except he mean Metropolitans and Patriarchs if he do its evident he lived after the times of Cyprian because in the dayes of Cyprian and before there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop as appears first by that passage of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians now cited Secondly it appears by the Epistle of the said Ignatius written to the Magnesians in the which Epistle he comprehends all Church-rulers under Bishops and Presbyters where he affirms that Bishops have the cheif place loco Dei in place of God Presbyters have the next place concessus Apostolici loco that is they represent the Council of the Apostles the last place he gives the Deacons to whom the Ministery of Christ is committed Thirdly that no Office was in the Church above that of a Bishop before the times of Cyprian nor in his time appears by those two following most notable passages of Cyprian the one in his Books de unitate Ecclesiae lib. 4. Epist 9. the other from his Oration to the Council of Carthage of which two passages in order CHAP. VII Explication of that place of Cyprian De unitate Ecclesiae THe words of Cyprian are Unus Episcopatus est cujus à singulis pars in solidum tenetur that is There is one Bishoprick of which every Bishop hath alike full share by which passage of Cyprian it not only appears that the Bishop of Rome in his dayes was not believed to be visible Head of the Church but also that there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop since every Bishop had alike full share of that one Bishoprick which could not be if in those dayes Metropolitans had been above Bishops Patriarchs above Metropolitans and an oecumenick Bishop above all This notable passage of Cyprian puzles the Learned of the Church of Rome very sore they vary very much in their glosses upon this place of Cyprian as Rufus contra Molinaeum Fran. Agricula cap. 18. varies from him Hayus disput lib. 1. cap. 11. and Turrianus contra Zadeel lib. 1. cap. 17. 26. agree almost in one Exposition but they differ from the other two Sanderus de visib Monarch lib. 7. num 45. differs from all the former Bellarmine lib. 2. de pont Rom. cap. 16. varies from them all We will examine the exposition of Bellarmine for since they vary in their opinion about the meaning of Cyprian and since the meaning of Cyprian can be but one of necessity all their glosses must be false except one and since the gloss of Bellarmine is most approved by the Church of Rome we will examine it Bellarmine in the forecited place expones the words of Cyprian thus There is one Bishoprick saith he in the same way that the Church is one But the Church is one as many branches of the same Tree are one Tree many rivolets are one Water many beams one Light as then in branches there is an unity by reason of one Root in rivolets by reason of one Fountain c. So is the Church one and consequently the Bishoprick one in its Head and Root the Church and Bishoprick of Rome And whereas Cyprian affirms that every Bishop hath a full share of that one Bishoprick Bellarmine grants its true but by a distinction that is Though every Bishop have a full share yet he hath not an equal share nor in the same manner for Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome have that share which answers to the Head Root and Fountain but other Bishops have that share answering to the Branches Rivolets c. This gloss of Bellarmines quite destroyes the Text for Cyprian compares particular Churches to Branches Rivolets Beams that one Bishoprick he compares to an Oak to Light to a Fountain whereby it evidently appears that by that one Bishoprick he means not the Bishoprick of Rome which is a particular Bishoprick as well as the rest and not that great Bishoprick or one Bishoprick whereof every one hath a full share Secondly that by unus Episcopatus he means not the Bishoprick of Peter having authority over other Bishops is proved by his words in the same Book de unitate Ecclesiae where he affirms Whatever the other Apostles were Peter was the same that all the Apostles were equal to Peter in dignity and power whereby it appears whatever the Bishoprick of Peter was the Bishopricks of the other Apostles were equal to it and since the Bishopricks of the other Apostles were particular Bishopricks each having a full share of that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian the Bishoprick of Peter was only a particular Bishoprick and not that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian Thirdly That the Bishoprick of Rome is not that one Bishoprick appears by the express words of Cyprian in his Oration to the Council of Carthage in which as we shall prove in the next Chapter he makes any other Bishop equal in jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome Fourthly Bellarmine and Sanderus in making that one Bishoprick the Bishoprick of Peter must of necessity grant that Peter only had his Bishoprick immediatly from Christ and the other Apostles their Bishopricks from Peter since Sanderus expresly affirms that all other Bishopricks flow from the Bishoprick of Peter as all mankind had their Original from Adam But in averring the Apostles to have their Bishopricks from Peter Bellarmine contradicts first Fran. de victoria who relect 2. quaest 2. conclus 3. and 4. expresly affirms That the other Apostles received all their power both of order and jurisdiction immediatly from Christ In which words he is glossing upon that passage
not now found in the Editions of Rhenanus printed since in those places where the Pope hath jurisdiction They had reason to purge out those words from Rhenanus because the testimony of his was as a Poyniard sticking in the very bowels of that article of the Catechise of the Council of Trent viz. that there is no salvation without communion with the Church of Rome CHAP. XII Several passages objected out of Cyprian to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval vindicated from Sophistry THe last Father they make use of to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval between the times of the Apostles and the death of Cyprian is Cyprian himself There is not a Father of them all more urged to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome then Cyprian and yet it is most certain that it never had a greater enemy then he what Cyprians opinion was anent that contest appeared in the former Chapters both by his testimonies and his actions Our adversaries dispute two wayes for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome out of Cyprian first by sophistry next by forgery we will refute the first in this Chapter and prove the second in the Chapters following and that by the testimonies of the greatest Antiquaries that ever the Church of Rome produced The first testimony of Cyprian they bring is from his 42. Epistle where writing to Cornelius Bishop of Rome he hath these words Some while ago we sent some of our Colleagues to compose some differences or to reduce some schismaticks to the unity of the Chatholick Church c. and a little after But those Schismaticks set up to themselves an adulterous head against the Church from which place Bellarmine reasons thus as those Novatians set up one to be heaa of their Church or of the whole Church of the Novatians so Cornelius was head of the Catholick Church But it is answered this reasoning is very unbeseeming such a learned man as Bellarmine for the meaning of Cyprian is no other then that the Novatians set up to themselves a Bishop at Rome in opposition to Cornelius so he calls the Novatian Bishop an adulterous head contrary to Cornelius who was the true head of the particular Church at Rome because he was the true Bishop thereof and so Cyprian doth not mean any head of the whole Church but only by Head he means Bishop of the particular Church of Rome Bellarmine instances that Cyprian affirms his intention was to reconcile those Shismaticks to the Catholick Church by which he means the Church of Rome and since the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church and the Bishop of Rome head of the Church of Rome Ergo he is head of the Catholick Church But it is answered when Cyprian calls the Church of Rome the Catholick Church his meaning is a particular Church professing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and therefore they who were reconciled to the Church of Rome were reconciled to the Catholick Church also so any reconciled to a particular Church professing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church is reconciled also to the Catholick Church and yet that particular Church is not the Catholick Church That this is the meaning of Cyprian appears by the preceeding Epistle or epist 41. where speaking of some Schismaticks in the Church of Carthage he affirms they opposed themselves to the Catholick Church he means they opposed themselves to the Church of Cathage inwhich doing they opposed themselves to the Catholick Church because the Church of Cathage professed the same Doctrine with the Catholick Church in opposing or renting the Church of Carthage they rent and opposed the Catholick Church Pamelius urgeth that Cyprian affirms that those Schismaticks refused the bosome of the root and mother Church where observe saith he that Cyprian calls the Church of Rome the root and the mother of all Churches or of the Catholick Church which Epithet is given by Cyprian to the Church of Rome not only in this epistle but also in his 45. epist to Cornelius in which he gives injunctions to those he was sending to Rome to be informed concerning that schism of the Novatians that they should acknowledge and adhere to the Root and Mother of the Catholick Church But it is answered that Cyprian by Root and Mother of the Catholick Church means no other thing but the Catholick-Church it self as appears by the said 45. Epistle in which he affirms to Cornelius that hearing that there was a schism in the Church of Rome he sent Caldonius and Fornatus to be informed of the truth of the business and to adhere to neither party till they were informed which of the factions was in the right and which in the wrong and for that reason he did not direct his Letters either to Cornelius or to that Novatian Bishop but only to the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome that being informed by them they might adhere to those who held and acknowledged the Root and Mother of the Catholick Church whereby it is evident that Cyprian did not believe that Cornelius Bishop of Rome or those who adhered to him were the root and mother of the Catholick Church since he gave his messengers injunction to suspend their Judgments till they were informed who adhered to the root and mother of the Catholick Church that is who maintained the true Faith or who were members of the Catholick Church for if Cyprian had believed that Cornelius and his faction had been the root and mother of the Catholick Church he would not have injoyned his messengers to suspend their judgment till they were informed by the Presbyters and Deacons so it is evident that Cyprian by Root and Mother of the Catholick Church means the Catholick Church it self both in his 45. and 42. Epistle and in the same sense epist 43. and 44. he exhorts them to return to their mother that is to the unity of the Catholick Church The second passage of Cyprian is found in his 55. Epistle where he hath these words That the occasion of Heresies and Schismes in the Church is only this that the Priest of God is not obeyed and that it is not believed that one Priest as Judge in place of Christ for a time is in the Church This place is much urged by Pamelius in his Annotations upon the said Epistle to prove an oecumenick Bishop But it is answered Cyprian in this Letter or Epistle is inveighing against those who had set up one Fortunatus as we shewed before Bishop of Carthage in opposition to himself and his meaning is not that there should be one Bishop in the Catholick Church but only one Bishop in a particular Church or the Church of Carthage because two Bishops in one place occasions Schismes and Heresies saith Cyprian so its evident that Cyprian is pleading his own cause disputing against those who had set up a Schismatick Bishop in the Church of Carthage in opposition to himself and
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
no Council that the Pope had power to depose Kings and consequently it was not the doctrine of the Church of Rome His second objection was that notwithstanding all this it was not the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome because all the Church of France rejected it as a pernicious doctrine I answered this objection by a two-fold distinction The first of times viz. When the King of France was low and the Pope high The second distinction was of causes wherefore Kings are deposed one of which and the main one was heresie I desired him to read history and he would find that when the Kings of France were low and their Kings suspected of heresie that it was the doctrine of the whole Clergy of France that the Pope had power of deposing such Kings at such times for proving of which I desired him to read first a decree of the Sorbon printed at Paris in which they approved the bulls of Sixtus 5. excommunicating and deposing Henry 3 4. Kings of France I desired him secondly to read that speech of Cardinal Peron in the name of the Clergy of France as their Speaker in an Assembly of the Estates in which speech he openly maintains That it is the opinion of the whole Church of France and ever was that Heretical Kings that is Protestants ought to be deposed that the Pope had power to depose them and that true French-men ought them no allegiance And thus much of the Popes power in temporals by the way it shal be more largely disputed God willing part 3. lib. 2 what we have said is sufficient to prove That the Dominion of the Bishop of Rome is tyrannical and consequently according to their own confession forbidden Peter 1. 5 3. The third particular of the tyrannical Domination of the Bishop of Rome is over souls departed The fourth is over Angels Both which usurpations appear by the Bull of Clement sixth proclaiming a Jubile The words of the Bull are these Concedimus si confessus in via moriatur ut ab omnibus peccatis suis sit immunis penitus absolutus mandamus Angelis ut animam è purgatorio penitùs absolutam in Paradisi gloriam introducant And in another Bull Nolumus ut paena inferni illi infligatur concedens cruce signatis ad eorum vota tres aut quatuor animas quas volunt ex purgatorio posse eripere in which Bulls he takes upon him to command Angels and to place Souls in heaven or hell as he pleaseth The 5. particular proving the tyranny of the dominon of the Bishop of Rome is in assuming divin power to himself So Nicolaus 2. in Gratianus dist 96. Satis evidenter Where he affirms That the Pope cannot be Judged by any Secular Prince because the Pope was called God by Constantine but God cannot be judged by man Likewise Bonifacius 8. 6. decret de electione C. fundamenta affirms That S. Peter was assumed in the fellowship of the individual Trinity and consequently the Bishop of Rome hath the same priviledge as Peters Successor So Glossa extravag C. antiquae de voto Where speaking of Matrimony held by the Church of Rome to be a Sacrament of divine Institution a doubt is moved how that vow made in Matrimony can be dissolved by a Constitution of the Church Since it was made solemnly to God The Glossator answers the doubt That it cannot be made void by a meer man but only by the Pope who is not a meer man but Gods Vicar Thirdly he usurps Divinity in making the Decretal Epistles or the Canon law of equal authority with the Scripture So Gratianus distinct 19. C. in Canonicis expresly affirms so much Innumerable examples might be afforded of this kind but those are sufficient The sixth and last particular of the Tyranny of the Domination of the Bishop of Rome is his hearing patientissimis auribus without offence biasphemous titles attributed to him in Orations Books and Pamphlets printed by his Authority which is all one as he had stiled himself by those titles So by the Gloss in the Canon Law he is called our Lord God the Pope as is found in those Editions printed at Lions 1584. and at Paris 1585. 1601. 1612. All which Editions were set out after Gregory 13. had corrected the Canon Law the words are Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam Conditorem dictae decretalis non sic potuisse statuere prout statuit haereticum censeatur extravagant John 22. tit 14. de verb. sig cap. 4. c. We could produce innumerable such but it were tedious yet we cannot omit that blasphemous Pamphlet presented to Innocent the 10. who before his Popedom was called Cardinal Pamphilius The scope of which Pamphlet is to compare the Pope whom he calleth Pamphilius with Christ whom he calleth Philius To be short he preferrs the Pope to Christ in most horrible manner and yet the Pope was no wise offended at that flâ—ttery It seems he understood not what Blasphemy meant for an other time being desired to hear a Theological Controversie between the Jansenists and Molinists disputed before him that he might determin it He answer ed He was an old man it did not belong to his profession and he had never studied Divinity as is reported by S. Amour in his journal where he affirms He heard the Pope affirm so publickly And thus much of Peter 1. 5. 3. The first Argument of Protestants against Peters institution of Oecumenick Bishop we have proved two things in the vindication of that passage The first is that not only tyrannical Domination but all sort of Domination is forbidden in that place The second is although it were granted that only tyrannical Domination in Church-men were forbidden in the same place yet it quite overthrows the institution of an Oecumenick Bishop which we have proved to be most tyrannical and that by six arguments which in effect amongst Candide men are unanswerable CHAP. XII The Supremacy of Peter assaulted from Ephesians 1. 22. 4. 23. 5. 23. And Colossians 1 18. IN the former Chapter we assaulted the Institution of Peter in that Oecumenick Bishoprick by the testimony of Peter himself forbidding all sort of Lording or Domination in Church men where we also proved two things First that not only tyrannical Domination was forbidden by the Apostle in Church Rulers but all Domination Secondly although tyrannical Lording had only been forbidden nevertheless the injunction of the Apostle inhibited That Lording assumed by the Bishop of Rome now to himself proving by demonstrative arguments that the power of the Bishop of Rome now-a-dayes was not only tyrannical but blasphemous and a right-down Gigantomachy which shal more largely be proved part 4. lib. 1. In this following chapter we make use of a second argument against the institution of Peter in that universal Bishoprick by Christ viz. it appears by these Scriptures mentioned in the title That Christ is the Head of the Church and if Peter were