Sonns of the Church of England shall fail to attain that Constantly frame their lives according to her sound and Orthodox doctrine and that is no lesse than the certain salvation of your soul I rest Sir Your most humble servant P. Samwaies ERRATA Read c. but insert what is thus marked In the Epist amused page 3. line 6. in p. 10. l. 5. from ibid. l. 25. obstinate p. 16. l. 24. Latin p. 17. l. 8. condemned p. 18. l. 5. unlimited p. 23. l. 21. of Rome p. 29. l. 10. Reply p. 37. l. 7. debeitam in marg p. 38. spec alia ibid. recesse p. 41. l. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. reasoning p. 42. l. 9. Bishops p. 45. l. 12. the ib. l. 20. Antecessores iÌ„ mar p. 48. Jacobasius ib. l. 16. vim in marg p. 51. diminish p. 52. l. 1. thought ib. l. 21. in marg ib. magnopere in mar p. 53. cred tum ib. Photius ib. l. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. Franofurdiensi iÌ„ m. p. 55 Hinemarus ib. l. 25. Pithaeus p. 56. habita in marg ib. dele ib. GermancruÌ„ Apostolici ibid. a p. 57. l. 20. Ex. 20.4 5. p. 58. l. 17 martyrib in marg p. 62. Quoniam in m. p. 63. Dominico ib. plebi ib. Chrysost p. 67. l. 8. Nyssen ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. quia in marg p. 76. duodececim in mar p. 78. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 79. l. 17. ancient p. 80. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in marg p. 83. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. sometimes p. 84. l. 26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in marg p. 87. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. any jurisdiction p. 89. lin 23. What other Errors of the Presse besides these here noted the Reader shall observe he is desired candidly to correct The Invalidity of the Church of Rome's Plea against her Apostacy Heresy Schisme as appears by a Protestants answer to certain QUAERIES c. The Romanist's Quaeries IT will not be deny'd but that the Church of Rome was once a most pure excellent flourishing and mother-Church This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by Apostacy Heresy or Schisme First Apostacy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ but the very name and title of Christianity White defence of his way P. 435. no man will say that the Church of Rome had ever such a fall or fell thus Secondly Heresy is an adhaesion to some private and singular opinion K. James in his Speech to the Par. or error in faith contrary to the generall approved Doctrine of the Church If the Church of Rome did ever adhaere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common received doctrine of the Christ a world Whitaker in his Answer to Dr. Sanders 2. demon Reynolds in his 5. Con. I pray you satisfieme these particulars viz. 1. By what Generall Councell was she ever condemned 2. Which of the Fathers ever writ against her or 3. By what Authority was she otherwise reproved For it seems to me to be a thing very incongruous that so great and glorious a Church should be condemned by every one that hath a mind to condemne her Thirdly Schisme is a departure of division from the unity of the Church whereby the bond and communion helâ— with some former Church is broken and dissolved If ever the Church of Rome divided her selfe by schisme from any other Body of faithfull christians or brake communion or went forth the society of any elder Church I pray you satissie me as to these particulars 1. Whose Company did she leave 2. From what Body did she go forth 3. Where was the true Church which she forsook For it appears a little strange to me that a Church should be accounted schismaticall when there cannot be assigned any other church different from her which from age to age since Christ his time hath continued visible from whom she departed The Protestants Answer WE deny not the honour reputation and glory that was due sometime to the Roman-Church she was as other Churches in their integrity and during her continuance in that condition we deny her no title of commendation proper for her Such was the Church of Jerusalem of which notwithstaÌ„ding you may hear the Lord making this coÌ„plaint in the holy Prophet Isaiah Isa 1.21 22. How is the faithfull Citie become an harlot it was full of judgement righteousnesse lodged in it but now murtherers Thy silven is become drosse thy wine mixed with water We charge not this whole Church to have forfeited the good opinion the world had of her in any one instance of time for we believe generally of all Churches 1 Cor. 3.9 that they were God's Husbandry and God's Building as St. Paul speaks of the Corinthian-church and that salvation was to be found in them but withall we firmly believe that there were wicked factions in the Church that embraced and taught damnable errors 1 Cor. 15.12 some we know were among the Corinthians that denyed the Resurrection some among the Galatians that urged Circumcision Gal. 6.12 and if these factions had been so potent as to have excluded from their communion all that would not have approved their hereticall errors why those particular Churchs in respect of such a prevailing party might not be charg'd to have fallen by Apostacy Heresy and schisme I see no reason When therefore such opinions that were maintained before by particular men became the Sanctions and Lawes of the roman-Roman-Church as the worshipping of Images the invocation of Saints and Angells the Doctrines of justification by workes Purgatory halfe-Communion Coâ—poâ—eall-reall presence merit of good workes c. then the Church of Rome might be said to have fallen by Apostacy heresy Schisme 1. By Apostacy from the purity of that holy Doctrine which sometimes by her Bishops and Ministers she taught for Apostacy doth not imply the renouncing of the Name and Title to Christianity only nor a departing from the whole Christian faith but a withdrawing from the sincerity and soundnesse of the profession which men have formerly made it hath a latitude in it which admits of degrees one may apostatize from a portion as well as from the whole Truth 2. By heresy also hath the Church of Rome fallen if to depart from the truth of Christian Religion in points at least grating upon the foundations if not fundamentall and to maintain them pertinaciously be heresy How far the Church of Rome is involved in the guilt of the Bishop of it concerns them especially to consider who contend that he is the Head not of that particular Church only but of the whole Catholique Church but if that Church may be said to be hereticall whose Bishop is guilty of heresy it will be hard for the Romish-Church to acquit her selfe froÌ„ this charge til she can prove
Apostacy Heresy or Schisme But first not by apostacy for Apostacy is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ but the very name and title to christianity none will say the church of Rome ever fell thus But notwithstanding this the Doctor by a new definition of apostacy will prove she fell thus for saith he Apostacy doth not imply the renouncing of the name and title to Christianity only nor a departure from the whole Christian Faith but a withdrawing from the sincerity and soundnesse of the Profession which we have formerly made But the Church of Rome hath thus withdrawn ergo he proves the minor because she embraces particular Doctrines there mention'd which formerly she did not Reply The minor is deny'd and the probation concerning particular Doctrines as Worshipping of Images invocation of Saints c. is likewise deny'd because assum'd without proof and the definition he gives of Apostacy is invalid because it confounds Apostacy with heresy but the other definition is good because it clearly distinguishes them and if so then the Dâ— hath not prov'd as yet that the Church of Rome hath ever fallen by heresie This done the paper proceeds to prove that secondly the Church of Rome never fell by heresy and to effect this it puts the definition of heresy see it in the paper then it goes oâ— thus If the Church of Rome did eveâ— adhere to any singular or new opinion disagreeable to the common receiveâ— Doctrine of the Christian-world I pray satisfy me in these particulars viz. 1. By what generall Councell was she ever condemned 2. Which of the Fathers ever w 〈…〉 against her 3. By what authority was shâ— otherwise reproved Before we put the Drs. answers to these particulars we will take a view how he proves the Church of Rome to have fallen by heresy thus therefore he argues Certain Popes Bishops of the Church of Rome as Liberius Anastasius secundus and Honorius have fallen by heresie ergo the Church of Rome hath fallen by Heresie Reply The Antecedent begets a new dispute of ihe Popes infallibility ex Cathedrâ which is to be wav'd because the paper doth not meddle with it and I deny the consequence which he no wayes goes about to prove But since he cannot prove that the Church of Rome hath fallen by heresy let us see at least what he sayes to the Quaeries To the first then which demands By what generall Councell was she ever condemned he answers by the sixt Canon of the famous Councell of Nice which condemns the usurpation of unlimited power challenged by the Pope and gives like Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts Reply This unlimmited power challenged by the Pope is his supremacy alwayes held by the Church of Rome and her adhaerents to be of Divine institution and therefore onely said not prov'd in which he is stil like himself to be an Usurpation As for the sixt Canon of the Nicene Councell it is so farr from condemning or limiting the universall jurisdict on justly challenged by the Bishop of Rome as it clearly asserts it to evince this we will cite the words of the Canon which the Dr. least they should discover his bold assertion untrue omitred the words are these Let the ancient custome be kept in Aegypt Lybia Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexand 〈…〉 have power over all these because the Roman-Bishop also hath such a custome these last words because the Bâ—shop of Rome c. evince the thing to be aâ— I have said for they are the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria is to have that Government to wit because as the Councell sayes it is the Bishop of Rome his custome to have it so If you say that the Popes custome is not referr'd to the Government of these Churches by the Patriarch of Alexandria but to the Government of other Churches in the West I reply that you speak against the Text because this not another thing but this here spoken off viz. That the Bishop of Alexandria have power over these Provinces this is accustomed and to whom to the Bishop of Rome it is his custome to have it so wherefore we like of it well and confirme it Out of which it is clear they do not condemne or limit his Universall jurisdiction but confirme it I know the Dr. would have the sence of the Canon to be this Let the Bishop of Alexandria governe in the places specified because the Bishop of Rome hath a custome to governe in other places to wit in the West Reply This is against the fence of the Canon for those words because the Bishop of Rome c. are the reason why the Patriarch of Alexandria is to have that Government whereas a Bishop's governing Churches in the West were no reason why the Bishop of Alexandria particularly should governe the Churches here mentioned As for the Councell of Eliberis it being but a particular one and the Quaeries demanding a generall one we need not reply unto it Nay if it be look'd into it absolutely makes for the Church of Rome the words are Placu't picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere c. 'T is resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church least that which is adored be painted on walls In which Decree these words that which is adored are manifestly against the Doctor for they suppose a due reverence constantly given to pictures and lest that things reverenced might be abus'd the Councell forbad pictures in those times of persecution to be painted on the Church-walls for fear the Infidells should deface them Now if you bring the Authority of the second generall Councell of Nice Act 7. desining that we must exhibit to Pictures contrary to what Dr. Samwaies holds Honorariam adorationens non veram â—atâ—iam An honorary adoration not true latria that is an inferiour adoration but not the supream due to Almighty God only Hethinks to evade by saying the Canons thereof were not universally received because assoon as the news of the Acts came to the ears of the Fathers assembled at Frankford they were rejected and refuted by those 300. Bishops there convened Reply It is barely said not prov'd that the Nicene Canons were not universally received but I expect proof as for the Councell of Frankford it neither rejects nor refutes the Nicene Canons but only defines that vera latria is not to be given to Images which the Councell of Nice likewise affirms If then these two Councells agree how could the Dr. truly say that the Frankford councell rejected the Nicene Thus you see that the Dr. hath not at all prov'd the church of Rome condemned by any generall Councell But since he cannot prove it by Authority he will by reason thus The want saith he of the sentence of a generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome is no Security to the Romanists
that Liberius subscrib'd not to the ArriaÌ„ Confession which St. Hierome * in Catalogo saith he did compelled indeed by Fortunatianus but yet he did it Fortunatianus in hoc habetur detestabilis quod Liberium Romanae urbis Episcopum profide ad exilium pergentemprinius sollicitavit ac fregit ad subscriptionem haeresios compuin Let her vindicate also Anastatius secundus from Nestorianisme which is charged upon him by * apud Chamier lib 3. de Canone cap. 10. Luitprandus Tieinensis Platina who saith upon the credit of common fame that he dyed a strange death either as Arrius or by a suddain stroak from the Divine hand Albo floriacensis Anastasins Bibliot hecarius Let her make an Apology for * condemnatus in sexta Synodo Honorius who was condemned by a Councell a better Apology it should be then that of Saunders who though Honorâ—us taught heresie yet denies the Roman Church to have erred with him and adds that though he might confirme heresie as a man yet he did it not as a Pope 3. The Church of Rome is guilty of Schisme in that she doth not only depart from the communion of such Churches as were Orthodox in the judgement of prime and pure Antiquity but hath forced a departure of all the reformed Churches from her except they would communicate with her in her abominations Schisme is theirs who cause it when the Orthodox departed from the Arrians the Hereticks caused the Schisme a forced separation maketh not them that in such a case seperate themselves guilty of schisme such rather as teach doctrines to the Catholique faith repugnant are Schismaticks and this imputation lyeth strong upon the Church of Rome in forcing the Canons of the Trent-Councell if then it be demanded for the conviction of the Roman-church to be Schismaticall first Whose company did she leave secondly From what Body did she go forth thirdly Where was the true Church which she forsook 1. To the first question we reply that she left the company of the Orthodox when she obstinately pernsted in her false doctrines 2. She departed from their Body not by locall separation but by refusing to communicate with them that reformed themselves which particular Churches are bound to do when they cannot do it which were the best course by a generall Councell This advice God himselfe giveth unto Judah by the Prophet Hosea though the tenne Tribes should continue obstinate Though thou Israell play the Harlot Hosea 4.15 yet let not Judoh offend though there were but two Tribes in the one Kingdome and tenne in the other yet notwithstanding the paucity of the one Church and the multitude of the other comparatively they were to reforme themselves that were fewer in case the other should remain in their Idolatry 3. And if it be thirdly demanded Where was the true Church which the Roman-church forsock we reply first what we said before that the guilt of schisme may be incurred by forcing others except they will defile themselves by joyning with those that have espoused dangerous errors in their superstition and Idolatry to depart from us and then secondly it 's conspicuous enough that she left her selfe as one may say I mean that the lattine-Lattine-Church obstinate and peramtory in the perilous opinions of some of her own communion when she publikely owned those doctrines and would no longer endure them that would not comply with her therein forsook the rest of her Communion who misliked and detested the said errors in heart before they had by the concurrent assistance of Princes and Prelates opportunity to shake off the Tyrany of the Bishop of Rome whose ancient priviledge and Primacy of order were that the only quarrell we would not deny and when the good Providence of God gave a fair opportunity they openly rejected what with grief of heart they groaned under and tolerated before As for that enquiry 1. By what generall Councell 〈…〉 Fathers 3. By what other Authority hath the Church of Rome been condemned written against or reproved We answer that the present opinions and practice of the Church of Rome are dondemn'd by Generall Councells the Usurpation of unlimited Power challenged by the Pope is censured by the sixth Canon of the famous Councell of Nice which giveth like Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch within their respective limits and bounds as the Bishop of Rome did exercise within his Precincts the worshipping of Images censured about twenty years before the Councell of Nice by the 36 Canon of the Councell of Elâ—beris Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere c. 'T is resolved that Pictures should not be in the Church lest that which is adored be painted on walls and whatsoever may be pleaded by the authority of the second Councell of Nice in the defence of Images yet it 's evident that the Canons thereof were not universally received because as soon as the newes of the Acts thereof came to the ears of the Fathers assembled by Charles the great two years afterward at Frankford they were rejected and refuted by those three hundred Bishops there convened If it should be demanded where is the Councell that hath condemned Rome since the seperation of the Protestants it is easy to reply that the obstinacy of the Pope and his Adhaerents obstruct the application of so good a Plaister to the wounds and breakings of the Church what fruit is like to come upon such a Convention as the Pope would agree to may appear by the transactions of the Trent-Assembly but the want of the sentence of a Generall Councell condemning the Church of Rome is no security to the Romanists that their Church is a safe Communion to those that are in it for dangerous errors and heresies arose in the Church before Constantine's time and such as were destructive to them that held them and yet they were not condemned by Generall Councells there having been no convenience for their meeting untill the Empire came into the Church 2. For the Fathers of the first five hundred years it is evident enough that they are against the present Church of Rome in all the Controversies disputed between the Romanists and the Protestants as might be quickly shown out of their writings were it seasonable to take the pains and then moreover to give an accompt to the third Enquiry where it is demanded By what other authority hath she been reproved We desire no more ample Authority than the Scriptures interpreted by the wisdome and constant consent of the Catholique Church The Romanists Reply to the Protestants Answer Sir YOu sent me some Catholique Quaeries with as you say Doctor Samwais's Answer to which take this brief Reply The Paper which you sent takes it for granted and the Dr. denies it not that the Church of Rome was once a most pure Church and proves her continuance thus This Church could not cease to be such but she must fall either by
Apostle we recount not to staine the glory of his memory but only to shew that he was not priviledged to become an unshaken Rock such as on whom the Church might be secured Antiquity did not by Christs expression understand the Person of Peter only to be meant when he said Upon this Rock I will build my Church but some first by the name of Roek understood every beleever as Origen Greg. Nyssen St. Ambrose and Aquinas himselfe following Origen as the learned (e) Exercitat 15 ad Annal. Baron P. 39. Casaubon observeth Secondly Others conceive that by Rock our Lord understood the faith of St. Peter so (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys upon this Rock id est the faith of this confession so (g) Super hanc confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est mox haec sides Ecclesiae fundamentum est Hilary lib. 6. de Trinit The building of the Church is upon this Rock of his confession and afterward this faith is the foundation of the Church and St. August most clearly in his 10. Tractâ—t on the first Epistle of St. * Quid est super bane Pewam aedificabo ecclesiam meam super hanc fidem super id quod dictum est Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi super hanc Pettam inquit sundabo Ecclesiam meam John What is on this Rock I will build my Church but upon his faith upon that which hath been spoaken Thou art Christ the Sonn of the living God upon this Rock saith he I will build my Church Thirdly Some by Rock understood Peter but with no Prerogative to his person above the rest of the Apostles except of his age in which respect St. Hierome * Cur non Johannes electus est virgo aetati delatuÌ„ est qua Petrus senior erat Hieron adv Iovin lib 1. thinks him to be made the Prolocutor and prompenesse of answering Christs demands We deny not that the Fathers ascribe unto Peter this pious heat especially observable in him upon severall occasions more then in the rest of the disciples Peter (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 5. p. 199. edit savil saith St. Chrysost fervid in all things or upon all occasions and full of freedome in speaking or rather of charit y then free dome of speech whilest others hold their peace cometh to the Master and saith c. Vpon this accompt the Ancients give unto Peter a dignity peculiar amongst the rest of the Apostles not a princely power over them (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence Eusebius lib. 2. c. 14. calls him for his excellency the Prolocutor of all the rest Thus much and no more did the Fathers grant unto Peter when the Latins call him principem and the Greek's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince and leader of the Apostles St. Hierom's testimony is evident for this when he prayseth St. John so highly making him the beloved disciple because he was a virgin and Superior to St. Peter because whereas Peter was an Apostle and John an Apostle the one a married man the other a virgin Peter was only an Apostle John an Apostle an Evangelist and a Prophet 'T is true he objected before the preeminence of St. Peter above the rest but answereth the objection by granting no more to St. Peter then we acknowledge to be given him by Antiquity which was not a Soveraign Monarchicall Authority over them but a praesidency among them Hear St. Hierom's words lib. 1. adv Jovin If (k) Si virgo non fuit Iohannes cur caeteris Apostolis plus amatus sit dicis super Petrum fundatur ecclesia licet id ipfuÌ„ in alio loco super emnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant ex acquo super cos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen proptere à inter duodecem unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio Hieron adv Iovin lib. 1. St. John were not a virgin why was he more beloved then the rest but you say that the Church was founded on Peter though that be elsewhere laid on all the Apostles and all of them receive the Keyes of the Kingdome of heaven and though the strength of the Church be equally grounded on them all yet not withstanding one is chosen among the Twelve that an Head being appointed the occasion of schisme might be removed Where St. Hierome by the name of Head meant not to ascribe a Soveraigne power to Peter over all the rest for all St. Peters power is comprised in the Keyes and in the building of the Church upon him but you see that all the Apostles in St. Hieroms judgement receive the Key 's and the Church is built upon them all equally wherefore in Hieroms opinion though Peter had a pre-eminency among the Apostles he had not a Soveraignty above them To conclude fourthly and lastly Some of the Fathers by Rock understood Christ himselfe So (l) Tu es Petrus super hane Petram quam confessus es super hanc Petram quaÌ„ cognovistidicens Tu es filius Dei vivi aedificabo EcclesiaÌ„ meam 1. super meipsuÌ„ filiuÌ„ Dei vivi aedificabo Ecclesiam meaÌ„ St. Augustine in his thirteenth Sermon on the words of our Lord. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock which thou hast confessed upon this Rock which thou understoodest when thou saidest Thou art Christ the Son of the living God will I build my Church id est upon my selfe the Son of the living God will I build my Church upon me will I build thee not me upon thee And this Sense 't is probable that Christ made evident to the Apostles by pointing demonstratively to himselfe when he pronounc'd the pronoune This as he may be supposed to have done when he said * Iohn 2.19 Dissolve this Temple Neither do these four severall Interpretations differ in the substance of the sense but only in the manner of expression for as if a devout man should say God cured me or the Physitian cured me or Rhubarb cured me he would by these severall expressions speak after the accustomed manner of speech retaining still one meaning that he was cured by God as the first efficient by the Physitian as the second and subordinate by the Rhubarb as by the instrument so the Fathers as the learned Exercitator on Baronius noteth when they say sometimes that the Church is built upon Christ sometimes on Peter sometimes on every believer and upon the faith or consession of faith made by Peter agree very well in the substance of the same sense though they use severall ways of declaring it Which is doubtlesse the reason why one and the same Augustine other whiles expoundeth Christ words after one of the forementioned senses and otherwhiles after another for in his Retractat lib. 1. c. 21. he saith that he had sometimes by Rock understood Peter but afterwards most frequently Christ whom Peter confessed for Christ is the
first and chief efficient cause of the holy and spirituall building of his Church Peter by his endeavours whil'st he lâ—ved and by his doctrine since his death together with the rest of the Apostles though chief among them in the sense of the Ancients but not Moderne church of Rome a secondary or subord note efficient faith the instrumentall cause of this Glorious Edifice and the faithfull the materiall of the Temple of God When therefore this Replyer would play the Critick upon Peters name in the Syriack language which imports a rock he follows indeed his Masters Baronius and Bellarmine but to little purpose Peter (m) non est à Petra Petrus sed ipse est Petra is not saith Baronius derived from Petra a rock but he himselfe is a rock But what would the Replyer get hereby first he would fecretly disparage the Greek copies of the Gospel as if they did not conveniently expresse the importance of Christs words secondly directly oppose the Authority of St. Augustine (n) Petrus a Petrâl quemadmodum a Christo Christianes vocatur Aug deverb Dom. Ser. 13. lib. Retract 1. c. 21. who saith Peter was called from a rocke as a Christian is called from Christ and thirdly teach us what small skil he hath in the Analogy of Grammar for grant Christ and Peter too to be called a Rock the word rock shall be praedicated of them both univocally equivocally or denominativel as the Logicians speak The first kind of praedication cannot be admitted true of Christ and Peter without blasphemy for if Christ and Peter be named a roek un vocally then the same definition must agree to the rock Christ the Son of God and to the rock Simon son of Jonas Now Christ is a rock because he giveth life comfort and protection to his Church against all dangers ghostly and bodily which none can do but God If Simon be such a rock it follows he must be God also which is such a blasphemy that I hope this Replyer trembleth to be guilty off It follows therefore that Peter be a rock equivocally or by denomination from the true rock and let him take which sense he will the same definition by the Lawes of Logick shal not be assign'd to Christ and Simon because there will be a vast difference between the Rock Christ and the rock Simon By reason of the severall Genius's of the Syriack and Greek tongues as Causaubon hath noted Simon may in the one language be called a Rock equivocally and in the other a rock by denomination because in Syriack the name of Peter is written with the same letters that the word is that signifies a rock Cepha denoteth both but in Greek with others which is required in denominations as (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Simplicius in Categ apud Casaub Smiplicius hath observed out of Aristotle Whether therefore in Syriack from Cepha Peter be also called Cepha or from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the difference will consist only in the form of words but not in the importance of the sense we are not afraid to call Peter a rock or a foundation the Scripture giveth this Appellation to all the Apostles Ephe 2.20 Rev 21.14 and why should we deny it unto him whose name challengeth it by particular praerogative The question is in what sense he is so called We see evidently by the Testimony of the Fathers that Antiquity thought him not a Foundation or Rock in the sense that the Patrons of the Popes omnipotency assert as if the whole Church were bottomed upon him and his Successors and the whole world become his Diocesse as Hart affirmed in his conference with Reynolds pag. 459 neither did they think that by these Titles given to Peter the Pope might lay claime not only to a Primacy of Order amongst the rest of the Patriarchs but a Lordly Soveraignty over all Christian people throughout the whole world Whereas now it is too manifest that all this contention is raised not so much for Peters honour as the Popes ambitious designes whom it would better become to imitate Peters true humility who would not endure Cornelius a Centurion to lye prostrate before him Acts 10.26 then assume his false titles false I say in respect of the sense now imposed on them whereby he may tread on the necks of Princes But what though the Pope succeeded St. Peter at Rome did not a Bishop succeed him also at Antioch might not this Successor clayme as much priviledge at the one See as the Roman Usurper doth at the other T is evident enough that Peter had no Successor in the Apostolicall dignity and (p) Contrvers 2. q. 3. a. 3. Stapleton teacheth that the Apostleship ceased when the Apostles dyed and yet though this were something currant doctrine at Rome (q) Annotat in Cyor. excus Rom. 1563. Bellarmine took courage to affirme that because some have given the name of Apostleship to the Popes office therefore the Pope succeedeth after a sort in the Apostleship viz in the charge of the whole world But Eusebius lib. 3. c. 17. mentioneth St. John after St. Peters decease to have discharged his Apostolick Office by constituting Churches and ordaining Bishops whereas he assigneth no imployment to the Bishop of Rome but the administration of his own Diocesse Certainly if the first Bishops of Rome had succeeded St. Peter in such a Superiority as the Romanists now contend for not only all other Bishops but St. John himself also must have acknowledged the Pope to have been his Diocesan which were to submit the supream dignity of the Apostolick Authority instituted imediatly by Christ to the limited jurisdiction of a particular See for such was the Bishop of Romes circumscription as we have shewn afore out of Clemens his constitutions That the purer ages of the Church had no such opinion of the Popes universall jurisdiction is manifest by the eight Canon of the famous Councell of Ephesus framed for the vindicating of the Bishops of Cyprus their exemption from the incroachment of the Patriarch of Antioch who claimed Authority over them in the consecration of their Metropolitan For when Reginus Bishop of Constantia Zenon Bishop of Curiun and Euagrius Bishop of Sela all within the limits of Cyprus made their complaint that the Patriarch of Antioch would subject their Island to himselfe attempting to draw to him the power of Ordinations amongst them contrary to the ancient Customes the Canons of the Apostles the decrees of the Nicene Councell upon the hearing of their cause they framed a Canon the last of the eight recited by Justellus wherein they exempt the Cypriots from the usurpation they complained of and moreover without the least reservation oâ— priviledge to the Bishop of Rome iâ— in this behalfe adde (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the same course be observed in other Diocesses in all Provinces every where that none of the boly Bishops seize upon another