Jurisdiction of Peter alone over the Church Their second reason is this Because the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others besides Peter which they prove First by Scripture next by Fathers The passages of Scripture are two The first is Mat. 18. 18. Verily I say unto you Whatsoever ye shal bind on earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye loose on earth shal be loosed in heaven The second place is in Joh. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins yel retain they are retained Bellarmin answers That those two places now cited have not the same meaning with Matthew 16. 19. He grants that the difficulty is somewhat pressing of Matthew 18. 18. but there is no difficulty at all saith he in John 20. 23. which he proves by three Arguments The first is this in Matthew 16. 19. The Keyes are promised to Peter without any particular determination but in John they are determinated to the forgiveness of sins but binding and loosing may be exercised in other objects then in pronounccing men guilty of sin or absolving them from sin as in making of laws and dispensing with them But it is answered That the Fathers expounding those words What ever ye shal bind on earth c. Matthew 16. 19. referrs that place only to the binding and loosing of sin So Augustinus tractat 124. on John Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo Claves ab eo regni Coelorum accepit in Petro id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata In which words he expresly affirms That the keyes committed to Peter consisted in the binding and loosing of sin Secondly Theophylactus on Matthew 16. expresly affirms What was given to Peter in that place was given to all the Apostles John 20. He saith indeed They were promised only to Peter Matthew 16. Christ directing his speech only to Peter but they were given to all If ye ask when saith he it is answered when he said Whose soever sins ye forgive alluding to John 20. Whereas Bellarmin affirms That the power of the keyes consists also in making of Laws he saith nothing at all except he prove that Peter had more authority then the other Apostles in that particular of making Laws Bellarmins second Argument to prove the same thing is not promised to Peter Matthew 16. which is given to the other Apostles John 20. is this in Matthew it is said to Peter Whomsoever thou shalt bind c. But it is said to the other Apostles in John Whosesoever sins ye retain c. But to bind is more then to retain for to retain is to leave a man in the same condition ye find him but to bind is to impose new bonds upon him by excommunication interdicting and Law But it is answered This Argument of Bellarmins is of no moment because according to the constant phrase of Scripture Forgiving of sins and loosing of sins are all one Ergo their opposits retaining of sin binding a sinner are all one Since we bind men for their sins only it is necessar that the sin being forgiven they are loosed or else that they are still retained if they be not loosed But it is absurd to affirm that anys sins are forgiven and yet retained for Bellarmin seems to speak of that distinction viz. remission of fault and remission of punishment that is the fault may be forgiven but not the punishment But this distinction is vain and belongs nothing to this place Bellarmin seems to import that the Prerogative of Peter is to have power of remitting any of them or both of them which the other Apostles have not wherein he is topped first by Cyrillus upon Matthew 16. who attributs the full power of binding and loosing to the whole Church which he proves in that instance of the incestuous Corinthian Secondly he is topped by Aquinas affirming that every Minister binds in refusing the Sacrament of the Church to those who are unworthy and looseth when he admits them to it Thirdly the Interlinear Gloss upon Matthew 16. affirms that sins are forgiven and retained by two keyes of power and remission Bellarmins third argument proving that John 20. and Matthew 16. are not alike is this because saith he in John 20. Power of forgiving sins by the Sacrament of Baptism or Penitence is only conferred upon the Apostles which he proveth by the authority of Chrysostom and Cyrillus upon this place John 20. and also of Hieronymus Quest 9. ad Hedibia But it is answered First Those Fathers affirm indeed that Power of forgiving of sins in Baptism is given in this place but it is false which Bellarmin affirms that it is only given and no more For forgiving of sins is but the half of the Power conferred by Christ upon the Apostles in this place since retaining of sins is also given unto them Secondly Fathers referr to Baptism that loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. So Cyprianus epistle 73. where he disputs that forgiving of sins in Baptism is proper to the Pastors of the Church which he proves first by Peter who got that power Matthew 16. 19. and also by the other Apostles to whom our Savior said Whose sins ye forgive c. John 20. Yea Gaudentius in the first day of his ordination expresly affirms that the gates of the Kingdom of heaven are opened no other wayes then by Baptism and absolution and thus much of the similitude of John 20. with Matthew 16. By what we have said it appears that Bellarmin brings nothing but Sopistry to prove that the places are not alike He grants that there is great difficulty to prove the dissimilitude of Matthew 16. 19. and 18. 18. Since binding and loosing is given to all the Apostles in the last place as well as in the first to Peter and not only retaining as in John 20. which Bellarmin affirmed to be a demonstration that John 20. and Matthew 16. were not alike places viz. that retaining and forgiving was only given to all the Apostles John 20 which was not so much as binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. Nevertheless Bellarmin endeavors to prove that Matthew 16. 19. and 18. 18. are unlike places although in the last binding and loosing be given to all the Apostles as well as to Peter in the first Because that binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. is of greater authority then that given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. 18 His argument is this which I believe he understands not himself In Matthew 18. saith he Nothing is given to the Apostles at all but only it is promised to them and explained what power they should have afterward which he prove by two reasons The first is That they were not yet Priests or Pastors or Bishops when Christ made them that promise Matthew 18. 18. but only after the resurrection Secondly because those words Whomsoever ye shal bind and loose c. Matthew 18. are the paralels of those said
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
over the Church And lest it should seem to be a wilful denyal they give these following reasons why Peter is not ordained Oecumenick Bishop in these words Or why the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven inferr no universal Jurisdiction over the Church in the person of Peter alone The first reason is this the power of the keys is only a forgiving or remitting of sins or not remitting them or a binding and loosing as appears by the testimony of Augustinus in his 52. Treatise upon John of Theophylactus on Matthew 16. 19. of Anselmus ibid. But none calls in question but binding and loosing is a different thing from the power oâ— an Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin instances lib. 1. cap. 13. de pont Rom. that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church which he proves by three arguments The first is from the Metaphor of keyes Isaiah 21. where Shebna is threatned to have the keys of the Temple taken from him to be given to Eliakim that is saith Bellarmin the government of the Temple or of the house of God But it is answered Bellarmin is greatly mistaken for according to the Hebrew Shebna was not Perfect of the Temple but only of the Kings house Bellarmin is deceived by the Latin version turning it Tabernacle whereas Aben Ezra calls it Master of the Kings house the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they call Shebna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Treasaurer or Master-houshold that is the true interpretation as appears by Kings 2. cap. 18. in which place Eliakim who succeeded to Shebna in that charge is called by the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oeconomus or Master-houshold Shebna is called there a Scribe which place he obtained after the keys of the Kings house were taken from him and given to Eliakim However it is a very bad argument of Bellarmins When Shebna had the keys of the Kings house the government of the house was taken from him when they were taken away Ergo When Peter get the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ he was made sole governor of the whole Church Bellarmin should observe that keys are given sometime by an Inferior to a Superior although that be but a new invention or ceremony yet it is an acknowledgement of authority as when a King entring a Town the keys are delivered to him But when keys are given by a Superior to an Inferior chief Jurisdiction is no wayes denoted But Bellarmin will not deny that Christ was Superior to Peter And whereas it is objected that Christ hath the key of David in the Apocalyps that is jurisdiction of the Church It is answered the case is different none calls the jurisdiction of Christ in question neither had he the keys from any greater then himself Bellarmins second argument is That the keys import binding and loosing that is inflicting of punishment and dispensing with obligations of the Law which is supream Jurisdiction over the Church And consequently Peter in these words is instituted Oecumenick Bishop But it is answered That binding and loosing import no supream Jurisdiction as appears by its being common to all the Officers of the Church as well as to Peter it consists in bidding forbidding punishing by Spiritual Censures and Relaxations from them which are common to all Church-Officers as shal immediatly be proved In the third place Bellarmin proves that our Savior promising to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven promised to him alone the government of the whole Church by the testimonies of Fathers The first testimony of Chrysostomus hom 55. on Matthew affirming that to Peter the whole world was committed and that he was made head and Pastor of the whole Church But it is answered It is false that either Chrysostomus affirms the whole world was committed to Peter or that he was head of the Church Bellarmin followeth the corrupt version of Trapezuntius in which he sophisticats manifoldly the words of Chrysostom are comparing Hieremas with Peter Quemadmodum pater Hieremam alloqueus dixit Instar colunae aneae muâ—i posui eum sed illum quidem uni genti hunc verototi orbi In these words Chrysostomus is comparing the Prophet with Peter as the Lord saith he put Hieremas as a wall of brass to one Nation viz. the Jews sc Peter was made a wall of brass to the whole world But Chrysostom speaks not a word of Hieremias being set over the Jews with Jurisdiction and consequently if the comparison hold Peter was not set over the whole world with Jurisdiction which is the first sophistry of Bellarmin following Trapezuntius in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 posâ—it eum placed him Trapezuntius renders praeposuit set him over which is not in the Appodosis of Peter The second corruption is that Trapezuntius adds of his own Cujus caput piscator homo whose head was a Fisher-man It is true indeed a little before these words Chrysostom calls Peter Pastor of the Church but that 's nothing to an Oceumenick Bishop for any Apostle may be called Pastor of the Church as shal be proved afterwards in this Book Bellarmins second testimony is of Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist 32. Where speaking of Peter he affirms the care of the whole Church was committed to him and that he was Prince of the Apostles But it is answered In what sense Gregorius affirms so shal be shewed at length hereafter where it shal be proved first that others were called Princes of the Apostles beside Peter and that the care of the whole Church was committed to others also who were not Oecumenick Bishops Secondly the impudence of Bellarmin is very great in objecting this place of Gregorius in which he is thundering with great execrations and detestation against any who taketh upon him the tittle of Oecumenick Bishop calling that tittle new Pompatick Blasphemous against the mandats of Christ the Canons of the Apostles and Constitutions of the Church And among other reasons against that title of universal Oecumenick Bishop he objects this as one If any took upon him that title Peter had reason to take it but he had not that tittle although the care of the whole Church was committed to him then this impudence of Bellarmin no greater can be imaginable Gregory expresly denyes it to follow that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop although the care of the whole Church was committed to him Bellarmin mutilats his passage and makes him conclude that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop because the care of the whole Church was committed to him He cites this part of Gregories assertion the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter but he suppresseth the other half of his assertion that Peter was not universal Apostle and most impudently fathers a contradictory conclusion upon Gregory Ergo Peter was Oecumenick Bishop And thus much of the first reason wherefore Protestants deny that the power of the keyes imports no universal
to Peter Whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose Matthew 16. But in Matthew 16. nothing was exhibited to Peter but only promised Ergo in Matthew 18. nothing was exhibited to the other Apostles It is answered That Bellarmin proves nothing but what he affirmed before viz. That it was hard to shew a disparity between these two places Or that binding and loosing Matthew 16. 19. and Matthew 28. 18. for in stead of proving them different places by his sophistical contradictory babling he proves they are just the same For first he grants that nothing was exhibited in either place but only promised Secondly he grants that the words are alike Whatsoever thou shalt bind and whatsoever ye shal bind Whence he concluds that the places are not alike whereas he demonstrats they are the same It is reasoning unbeseeming so brave a man to prove places not alike by alike circumstances in both Secondly he contradicts what he said before viz. That power of Order was only given unto the other Apostles John 20. but power of Jurisdiction to Peter Matthew 16. and therefore the places were unlike that power of order was only given to the other Apostles John 20. he proved by forgiving and retaining that power of Jurisdiction was given to Peter Matthew 16. he proves by binding and loosing but here he grants that the binding and loosing given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and that given to Peter Matthew 16. are verba similia or the same words and consequently that the keys or power of Jurisdiction are given to the other Apostles as well as to Peter and consequently he proves himself a lyar in affirming that the keys given to Peter were keys of Jurisdiction but not these given to the other Apostles Alphonsus de Castro adversus haeres lib. 12. and Fisher Bishop of Rochester disputing against Luther art 25 proves that the keys given to Peter Matthew 16. and these given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. are not the same which they prove by an Achillean argument viz. it is said to Peter What ever thou bindest and loosest on Earth shal be bound and loosed in the Heavens but unto the other Apostles Matthew 18 it is only said Whomsoever ye bind or loose on Earth it shal be bound or loosed in Heaven but to bind and loose in Heaven is not the same but less then to bind and loose in the Heavens But it is answered Any intelligent person may see that those otherwise-learned men fight against their own conscience when they are driven to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome by such childish babling Since men of so great Spirits and Learning as those two were known to be could not be ignorant that this distinction of Heaven and Heavens is against Sense Scripture and Fathers First it is against sense Because none can be ignorant that Heavens in the plural number and Heaven collectively in the singular number are all one and the same thing in the ordinar phrase of speaking Who is so stupid as to deny it Secondly It is against Scripture which promiscuously useth Heaven and Heavens in the same sense so Mark 1. compared with Luk. 3. demonstrat In the first place it is said The Heavens were cloven assunder In the last the Heaven was opened and yet both the Evangelists are relating the same thing when John the Baptist baptized our Savior So Matthew 6. Christ affirmeth Lay up treasures for your selves in Heaven but Luk. 12. Make your selves treasurs in the Heavens Thirdly this distinction of Heaven and Heavens is of so little moment in the opinion of the Fathers that they express Matthew 18. in the plural number Heavens and Matthew 16. in the singular number Heaven So Hilarius lib. 6. de Trinitate affirms That all the Apostles had the keys Regni Coelorum of the Heavens he useth the same expression in his Book against the Arrians Cyprianus epist 54. affirmeth that all the Apostles had power of binding and loosing in the Heavens so doth Chrysostomus lib. 3. de Sacerdotio and Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 2. epist 5. and Augustinus against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets lib. 1. cap. 17. and Paceanus epist 1. to Sympronianus and in his book against the Novatians All which Fathers affirm that the Apostles had power of binding and loosing in Coelis in the Heavens The school-men likewise speak after the same manner as Lombardus distinct 18. of the first chapter lib. 4. and also in the same book distinct 19. and Durandus quest 1. in his Commentaries upon the said 19. distinct This is it that proved that all the Apostles had the keys not only of Heaven but of the Heavens whereby it appears by the authority of Scripture Fathers and School-men that the keys of Heaven and of Heavens are one and the same thing If any be not yet convinced it is further proved they are the same because the Fathers call the keys of Peter the keys of Heaven in the singular number So Ambrosius lib 1. de penitentia cap. 6. and Augustinus contra adversarium lib. 1. cap. 17. Ambrosius repeating the words of Christ to Peter saith Quaecunque ligaveris super Terram erunt ligata in Coelo Which is further confirmed The Fathers in the same place speaking of Christs promise to Peter call the keys promised to him both the keys of Heaven and the keys of Heavens So Ambrosius in the now cited place after the former words adds Et quaeâ—unque solveris super Terram erunt soluta in Coelis Augustinus in the fore-cited place calls the keys given to the other Apostles both the keys of Heaven and of the Heavens for after those words repeating our Saviors promise to the Apostles Quae solveritis super Terram erunt soluta in Coelis he affirms Quae ligaveritis in Terra erunt ligata in Coelo And thus we have proved that Alphonsus de Castro and Bishop Fisher are mistaken in their distinction of Heaven and Heavens by Reason Scripture and Fathers The original of this distinction they have from Origines tract 6. in Matthew where comparing the keys of Peter with those words Tell the Church and if he refuse to hear it to make satisfaction after three admonitions let him be unto thee as a publican he affirms That Peter although but one person yet had the keys of many Heavens but others or those admonishers three times although many persons yet had only the keys of one Heaven and so by the testimony of Origines Bozius lib. 18. cap. 1. de signis Ecclesie sustains that distinction of Heaven and Heavens mentioned by de Castro and Bishop Fisher But it is answered Those Doctors of the Church of Rome take great liberty to themselves in exposition of the Fathers Bellarmin as we shewed before pressed by a testimony of Origen not only affirming but also proving that these words upon this Rock I will build my Church Or that in these words nothing was promised
to Peter which was not promised to the other Apostles answered that Origines was speaking allegorically otherwise he contradicted himself in his 5. Homily upon Exodus where he called Peter that great Foundation which we proved to be no contradiction cap. 6. By the same argument we prove that Origines in this place is speaking allegorically otherwise he contradicts Reason Scripture Fathers and himself And likewise affirms a notorius untruth in this very place alledged And first that he contradicts Reason Scripture and Fathers in denying the keys of Heaven and the keys of Heavens to be the same we have just now proved disputing with de Castro and Fisher Secondly He contradicts himself in other places in affirming that greater power of the keys was given to Peter then to the Others or that the keys of the Heavens are more then the keys of Heaven because else-where he disputs and endeavors to prove that the power of the keys given to Peter was the very same given to the other Apostles as in his first Treatise upon Matthew mentioned before and vindicated cap. 6. Thirdly Origen is comparing the keys of Peter with these three admonitions but if he speak literally he lyeth in firming that those Admonishers had the power of the key of one Heaven given them from Christ or that what they did bind and loose on Earth should be bound and loosed in one Heaven which is promised no whereby Christ Lastly Origines is comparing in these words the power of Privat Admonishers with that of Ministers having the power of binding and loosing and after his manner falls to Allegories by this distinction of Heaven and Heavens otherwise he were not only a lyar in this place but also a contradicter of Reason Scripture and other Fathers and of himfelf in other places Bellarmin thought it a sufficient Reason to prove that Origines spake allegorically viz. otherwise he would contradict himself and yet we shewed there was no contradiction therefore he cannot in reason deny that Origines in this place speaks allegorically since otherwise he would contradict Reason Scripture all the Fathers himself in other places and also be a notorious lyar in this same alledged place We have have proved already That Matthew 16. 19. inferrs not that Peter was Oecumenick Bishop because the power of the keys was no universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church we undertook to prove it by an other reason viz. because the power of the keys was not given to Peter alone but to the other Apostles as well as to him Which we undertook to prove by two arguments First by Scripture Secondly by Fathers By Scripture we have already proved it viz. from Matthew 18. 18. and John 20. 23. vindicated from the exceptions of our adversaries alledging they were not alike places with Matthew 16. 19 It only remains now to prove by testimonies of Fathers that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others as well as to Peter those testimonies are of two sorts The first is of those affirming directly that the keys were given to others besids Peter the other sort is of those affirming it by consequence Of the first sort it is needless to mention any more then we have already mentioned in the vindication of these places Such as Hilarius lib. 6. de Trinitate and adversus Arianos Cyprianus Epistola 54. Chrysostomus de Sacerdotio lib. 3. Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 2. epist 5. Pacianus ad Sympronianum epist 1. and in his Treatise against the Novatians All which testimonies expresly affirm That the keys were given to others beside Peter Neither is it needful to set down the words since our adversaries cannot have so much impudence as to deny them To which testimonies may be added that of Hieronymus against Jovinanus Cuncti Discipuli claves Regni Coelorum accipiunt all the Disciples got the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven of Origines tract 1. in Matthew An verò soli Petro dantur claves Regni coelorum nec alius beatorum quisquam eas accepturus est Quod si dictum hoc tibi dabo claves Regni Coelorum caeteris quoque commune est cor non simul omnia communia In which words he expresly affirms That which was promised to Peter was promised also to all the Apostles as well as the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven And a little after Servator dans Spiritum Sanctum Discipulis per insufflationem ait accipite Spiritum Sanctum c. It is needless to add any more testimonies Now let us consider how our adversaries elude them And first Cardinal Pool in his defence of the Ecclesiastick Vnity lib. 2. grants those testimonies but he denys that any thing is proved by them viz. That all the Apostles had alike power with Peter in the power of the keys albeit it seems to be the meaning of those Fathers which he illustrats by the example of Moses and the 70. Elders since it is said Numbers 11. That God gave unto them a part of that Spirit which was in Moses and consequently they had the same power in substance with Moses but not in so excellent a way Maldonatus answers otherwise viz. denying That the same keys were given to Peter Matthew 16. and to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20 his reason is in the two last places no mention is made of keys at all Stapleton is more subtile for seeing that Christ saith Matthew 18. What ever ye shal bind to all the Apostles is the same with that said to Peter Matthew 16. Whatsoever thou shalt bind c. He grants that the same binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. is given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. but he affirms That the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are a thing different from either of the bindings or loosings in Relec. controvers 3 quest 1. art 1. conclus 4. Others answer Distinguishing the keys of Order and Jurisdiction they grant that the keys of Order were given to all the Apostles the keys of Jurisdiction only to Peter It is needless particularly to insist upon the refutation of those new devised Sophistries to hold up the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome they are quite and diametrally opposit to the meaning of all antiquity of which they brag so much as appears by two reasons The first is that the Fathers disput expresly that the same keys were promised to Peter Matth. 16. and to the other Apostles Mat. 18. John 20. consequently all those distinctions devised of late by the Jesuits others are nothing else but fantastick dreams and sophistical evasions And first Origines tract 1. on Matthew disputs as we said That the Church was built alike upon all the Apostles because the keys were given alike to all the Apostles by which reasoning it appears that he thought it a thing uncontroverted in his time that the keys were common to all the Apostles since he useth it as a Medium or Argument to prove That
the Church was built upon all the Apostles as well as upon Peter Secondly That the keys were common to all the Apostles he proves by John 20 23. whereby it is evident that the said place is the same in meaning with Matthew 16. in which he flatly contradicts Bellarmin who confidently affirmed that without all doubt forgiving and retaining of sins mentioned John 20. 23. was not the same thing with binding and loosing Matthew 6. 19. Thirdly Cyprianus de Vnitate Ecclesiae expresly affirms That Christ gave alike power to all his Apostles Iohn 20. 23. in these words Accipite Spiritum Sanctum si cujus remiseritis peccata c. Receive the Holy Ghost whosesoever sins ye shal forgive they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained and since all the Apostles according to Cyprianus had alike power given them after the Resurrection of Christ by John 20. 23. without all question he believed that the same power of the keys was given to all the Apostles which was given to Peter Matthew 16. The second Reason Why those distinctions of Polus Maldonatus Stapleton and Bellarmin and others or new devised evasions is unanswerable viz. It appears by the Fathers that no greater Ecclesiastical power imaginable could be given to any then that which was given to all the Apostles in Matthew 18 and John 20. which quite destroys all those sophistical distinctions tending all to this That the power given to Peter was greater Matthew 16. 19 then that given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20. That no greater power can be imagined then that which was given to all the Apostles is proved by the testimony of Chrysostomus lib. 3. cap. 5. de Sacerdotio Where speaking of that power of the keys given to all the Apostles yea and to all Bishops he falls to an interrogative exclamation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is I pray you what greater power can be given then this But this had been a most ridiculous interrogation in Chrysostomus if either he himself or any other had believed that the power of the keys promised to Peter Matthew 16. was greater then that promised to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20. And thus much of the testimonies of those Fathers proving directly that the keyes were given to others as well as to Peter Now followeth the testimonies of Fathers proving by consequence that the keyes Matthew 16. were not peculiar to Peter out of which testimonies three arguments are deduced The first is If Peter alone had the power of the keyes promised to him Matthew 16. Then Peter would only have exercised the keyes and no other beside him in such a high-way as he did But it appears by the testimony of Gaudentius primae de ordinationis suae that all the Apostles as well as Peter practised the keys viz. in teaching baptizing censuring Yea Salmeron the Jesuit in his Commentars upon 1. of Peter 1. disput 1. expresly affirms That Peter seemed to neglect his duty in the exercise of the keyes it so little appeared by his carriage and practise that he had any Jurisdiction over the other Apostles Where observe the impudent shift of the Jesuit who being pressed by the carriage of Peter that no token of his Supremacy appeared hath nothing to answer but that it was his own neglest which if it be true was great unfaithfulness of Peter if it be false as it is it is great impudence in the Jesuit The second argument taken from the Fathers proving consequentially that the other Apostles were promised the keyes as well as Peter is taken from Augustinus who affirms That Peter represented the whole Church when Christ promised him the keyes and so by consequence in Peter the other Apostles and all Pastors of the Church had the keyes promised unto them the words of Augustinus are those following in his 124. trâ—â—â—at upon John Quando Petro dictum est tibi dabo claves regni coelorum quodcunque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in coelis universam significabat Ecclesiam And a little after Ecclesia Ergo quae fundatur in Christo claves ab co regni Coelorum accepit in Petro id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata In which words he expresly affirms That Peter was a figure of the whole Church when our Savior promised him the keyes and therefore in Peter the keyes were given to the whole Church and not to Peter alone Our adversaries pussed with this testimony of Augustinus after their accustomed manner fall to their new devised distinctions explaining how the keyes were given to Peter representing the whole Church Or how they were given to the whole Church in Peter And first Horantius lib. 6. cap. 10. Locor Cathol affirms That the keys were given to the whole Church in Peter that is saith he They were given to Peter for the good of the whole Church as when any is made King of any Nation the Kingdom or Kingly Authority is given to him for the good of the whole Nation and so Peter as Prince of the Church had the keyes given unto him for the good of the whole Church and in this manner the keyes were given to the whole Church in Peter But it is answered Horantius his Gloss is far beside the Text of Augustiuus who expresly disputs The keyes were not given to Peter alone but to the whole Church for if they were only given to Peter the whole Church would not have exercised them he disputs so tractat 50. upon John and therefore concluds that the keyes were not given alone to Peter because the whole Church exercised them as well as Peter Augustinus doth not disput for what end the keyes were given but to whom also this Gloss of Horantius expresly contradicts Augustinus Horantius affirms That the keyes in the same manner were given to the whole Church in Peter as when any is made King of a Nation the Authority of a King is given to the whole Nation that is saith he He who is made King gets that Authority for the good of the whole Nation which is a flat contradiction of Augustinus for that Nation or whole Nation cannot be said to exercise the Kingly Authority when he who is made King gets it But Augustinus expresly disputs That the whole Church exercised the keyes as well as Peter and therefore the keyes were given to the whole Church in Peter otherwise saith he The whole Church would not have exercised them tractat 50. His words are If Peter had not represented the Church our Lord had not said unto him I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven For if that only was said to Peter The Church hath no power of binding or loosing and since the Church hath that power Peter was the Sacrament or Figure of the whole Church or mistically represented the whole Church when our Savior promised to him the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and
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