by usurpations of Bishops of Rome and appellations They next endeavour to prove it by testimonies of Fathers which are of two sorts 1. wrested 2. forged In this Chapter and the next following we will examine the first sort and then we will conclude this Book with examining the last The Fathers whose testimonies they wrest are either Greek or Latin The Greek Fathers are Ignatius and Irenaeus the Latin Fathers by them alledged are Tertullian and Cyprian We will speak of the Greek Fathers and also of Tertullian in this Chapter and will answer these testimonies of Cyprian in the Chapter next following And first of Ignatius from whom they alledge the inscription of his Epistle written to the Romans which is this Ignatius to the Sanctified Church presiding in the region of the Romans thus the place is alledged by Bellarmine whereas the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is which presides in the place of the region of the Romans wherefore they render it so this is the reason Barronius ad annum 45. num 10. observes that the Roman Church and the Catholick Church were believed to be the same and therefore they translate Ignatius affirming the Church of Rome to Preside in the region of the Romans that is saith Bellarmine and Bozius Presiding in the Catholick Church But it is answered first that it was not the custom in the dayes of Ignatius to call the Roman-church the Catholick-church or where they spake of the Roman-church to mean by it the Catholick-church first because the oldest testimony we have of that kind is in the dayes of Theodosius junior Victor Uticensis and Gregorius Turonensis that is not till 300. years after Ignatius and 400. after Christ Secondly that maner of phrase had its Original from the Arians the said Gregorius Turonensis in his Book De Gloria martyrum cap. 25. brings in an Arian Prince calling the Orthodox-church the Roman-church or Orthodox-christians Romans Thirdly that maner of speaking had its Original from a politick reason and not from an Ecclesiastical In those dayes the Goths Alans and Vandals made war upon the Romans the first three were Arians the Romans Orthodox and therefore because all the Orthodox Christians partied the Romans in that war they called them all Romans their Faith the Roman Faith their Church the Roman Church as the Turks at this day call all Christians Francks or French-men Fourthly as we said they translate Ignatius falsly for his words are to the Church presiding in Loco regionis Romanorum in the place of the region of the Romans whereby it evidently appears that the meaning of Ignatius is no other then the Church presiding in the Town of Rome since none can affirm by these words he means otherwayes or that the Church of Rome presides in the whole Church since he particularizes the presidency and restricts it to a certain-place of the region of the Romans and therefore they sophisticate egregiously in translating Ignatius Presiding in the region of the Romans Since the Romans say they at that time commanded the whole world Ignatius by a Church Presiding in the region of the Romans understands a Church Presiding in the whole world whereas the words of Ignatus impart no more but a Church presiding in a certain place of the region of the Romans Which is further confirmed because we shewed before from these two Epistles of Ignatius to the Trallians and Magnesians that he acknowledged no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop but he could not be so forgetful of himself as in this Epistle to acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as Bellarmine and Bozius pretends he doth which is further confirmed by the testimony of Basilius Epists 8. where he affirms that Iconium presides in a part of Pisidia which is just such an other expression as that of Ignatius We could defend the meaning of Ignatius not to make much for them although they had translated him faithfully that is if he had said Presiding in the region of the Romans for from these words it can no more be gathered that the Bishop of Rome is oecumenick Bishop then it can prove the Bishop of Ments or the Bishop of Carthage oecumenick Bishop because they preside in the region of Carthage c. for in the dayes of Ignatius as we said none were called Romans but those who lived within the precinct or particular command of the City and this much of Ignatius Now followeth Irenaeus from whom they bring a testimony by them much magnified the passage is this speaking of the Church of Rome ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua Semper ab his qui Sunt undique conservata est ea quae ab Apostolis est traditio The substance is all Churches should accord with the Church of Rome for two reasons first because of its more powerful principality the next is because Apostolical tradition is preserved in that Church But this place makes not much for them as appears by Irenaeus scope this passage is found lib. 3. cap. 13. in which Chapter he is disputing against Hereticks which were the perfect Scriptures he willeth them for their satisfaction to consult with the ancient Churches which successively descended from the Apostles and for instance sake proponeth unto them the Church of Rome his meaning is then in those words whatever the Church of Rome at that time thought perfect Scriptures all Churches about were bound to acknowledge them for such first by reason of its more powerful principality that Church being founded by the Apostles Paul and Peter as was believed then Secondly because it hath been thought by Churches about to have purely preserved that tradition of the Canon of Scripture which it had received from the Apostles so that the meaning of Irenaeus is no other then this that all are bound to accord to that Church so long as it preserves the perfect Canon of Scripture and teaches no other Doctrine then is contained in it by this testimony of Irenaeus we are bound no more to adhere to the Church of Rome then it adhereth to the Scripture But they instance Irenaeus simply without such restrictions affirms that all should accord to the Church of Rome because it observes the apostolick tradition which is as much say they as the Church of Rome cannot make an Apostacy But it is replyed first although Irenaeus affirmed that in those times the Church of Rome preserved the pure Canon of the Scripture yet he doth not affirm that in all times coming it would do so The Church of Rome at this day observes not that Cannon of the Scripture which was observed in the dayes of Irenaeus the Council of Trent under the pain of an Anathema adds to the Canon of the Scriptures these Books commonly called Apocrypha which were rejected by the Church of Rome in the dayes of
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
feed But it is notorious that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports no dominion at all but only Ministration of food Secondly albeit there were such a Mystery in the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to signify Jurisdiction Yet it is injoyned to Peter over the Flock only and not over the Pastors which doth not conclude an Oecumenick Bishop to whom Bellarmin gives authority of feeding the Pastors as well as the Flock Bellarmins second reason by which he proves that supream authority is given to Peter by these words of our Savior Feed my Sheep is because several Fathers calls that which was injoyned to Peter in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praefecturam or A having authority over the Flock of Christ So Chrysostomus lib. 2. de Sacerdotio and Augustnius on John 21. But it is answered Chrysostom is disputing there of the Priesthood which is common to all Priests and not of an Oecumenick Bishop Neither can it be denyed that any Bishop hath that authority over his own Flock which is mentioned by Chrysostom in that place viz. Governing and Chastising which is also the meaning of Augustinus Bellarmin cites an other testimony of Gregorius de cura Pastorali where Pastors are called by him Rectors but his meaning is the same as appears by the scope of his disput needless to be inserted he is enumerating these duties belonging to a Pastor amongst which he doth not mention one peculiar to an Oecumenick Bishop and which is not common to all Pastors Bellarmin useth other reasons besides these two which in effect are the same with his first reason It is very ordinar with him to repeat the same arguments in other words to make ignorants believe that his Army is numerous The second reason wherefore our Savior in these words Feed my Sheep injoyns no universal jurisdiction over the Church is because he injoyns the same to others beside Peter Which is proved First by Scripture Secondly by Fathers The passages of Scripture are John 20. 21. where our Savior affirmeth As my Father sent me so send I you Which words are expounded by Cyrillus lib. 12. in John by Chrysostomus hom 85. upon John By Theophylactus upon this place to this purpose viz. Cyrillus affirms That all the Apostles were ordained Doctors of the whole World to inlighten not only the Jews but all the Nations of the World Chrysostomus and Theophylactus interpret these words That Christ injoyned his own work unto all the Apostles The second passage of Scripture is Matthew 28. 19. Go therefore and teach all Nations◠the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Teach imports all the authority that a Master hath over his Disciples viz. To Govern them to Chastise them and not only to teach them And consequently is of as large an extent as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed Of which Bellarmin brags so much And thus much of Scripture In the next place it is proved by Antiquity that nothing peculiar was imagined to Peter in these words Feed my Sheep The first testimony is from the third Epistle amongst these of Cyprian in which the Clergy of Rome speaks thus to the Clergy of Carthage Sed Simoni sic dicit diligis me respondit diligo Ait ei pasce oves meas Hoc verbum factum ex ipso actu quo cessit agnoscimus caeteri Discipuli similiter By which words it appears that it was the opinion of the Clergy of Rome in the days of Cyprian That the feeding of the Flock of Christ was injoyned to others viz. to all the Apostles as well as to Peter Cyprianus himself de Vnitate Ecclesiae They are all Pastors but the Flock is one which all the Apostles feed with one consent and a little before immediatly after he had cited these words of our Savior Feed my Sheep he subjoyns That Christ gave to all the Apostles alike power after his Resurrection Augustinus tract 123. upon John Chrysostomus de Sacerdotio lib. 2. Basilius cap. 22. of the Constitution of Monks all expresly affirm That the feeding of the Flock of Christ was committed to all Pastors and Bishops by our Savior in these words It is needless to set down the words of these Fathers since these testimonies are granted by our Adversaries who notwithstanding of them endeavor so to prove that these words of our Savior were in a peculiar manner directed to Peter So Bellarmin and Sanderus they reason thus First Bellarmin takes much pains to prove that our Savior directed his speech only to Peter which none denys Quid tum postea He instances that the rest are excluded by these words of our Savior Lovest thou me more then those By the three-fold reiteration of that question by these words of our Savior when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and by these words of Peter verse 21. Lord what shal this man do And of the answer of Christ What is that to thee Follow thou me But say they Peter would never have asked what John should do If Christ had said to John Feed my Sheep neither would the Lord have answered What is that to thee Follow thou me but he would have answered He shal feed my sheep as thou shalt But it is answered All this reasoning is nothing else but a rible rable of sophistry First Bellarmin sophisticats in stateing of the question as if Protestants denyed that these words of our Savior were directed to Peter alone And therefore he proves by all those circumstances foresaid that our Savior spoke only to Peter which none denys The thing which is denyed is the consequence or it doth not follow That the feeding of the Flock of Christ was only committed to Peter because the words of our Savior were only directed to him no more then it followeth That Adam and Eve should only increase and multiply because God directed his speech to them only Secondly Bellarmin doth not consider for what reason our Savior directed his speech to Peter only in these words Feed my Sheep It was not because it was his intention to give to Peter Jurisdiction over the whole Church but for other two reasons The First is because Peter had thrice denyed him so Cyrillus in John lib. 12. cap. 64. who affirms so much And likewise Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 1. epist 103. and also epist 356. and Nazianzenus in his Oration in Sancta Lumina hath these words Christ admitted Peter an Apostle again and healed his threefold denying of him by a threefold interrogation to which Peter made a threefold confession by which words an other reason appears wherefore our Savior directed his speech to Peter alone viz. To restore him to his Apostleship which he had lost by denying Christ Cyrillus in the foresaid place affirms Although all the Disciples were sore afraid and ran away when Christ was apprehended yet the crime of Peter was greatest because he denyed him thrice in so short a time where he
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
ye hear them proved partly by the Canon Law partly by the decretals of Popes partly by Books authorized by the Popes authority partly per res judicatas or sentences passed in the Popes Court at Rome Ignorants of antiquity of which our adversaries bragg so much believe that the Bishop of Rome had such immense and unlimitated power in all Ages by reason of his succession to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church What can be more pleasing then to consider from what small beginnings at what times upon what occasions by what steps by what artifices he mounted to such a prodigious hight and by what practises he maintains himself in it all which is to the life delineated in this following Dispute and proved by uncorrupted aâ—d unanswerable testimonies of the Ancients In which also it will appear that all what our adversary pretends from antiquity to maintain the Popes Kingdom is either sophistically preverted falsly translated or cited mutilated or forged My Lords and Gentlemen Whereas they make the Bishoprick of Peter the only basis and foundation of the Popes power in the first place ye will find that the Monarchy of Peter was never dreamed of by the Ancients of the first sixth Centuries As for his particular Bishoprick of Rome although some of the Fathers affirm he was Bishop of Rome yet your Lordships will find it proved that they call Paul Bishop of Rome in the same sense and consequently they take the word Bishop in a large sense as it comprehends an Apostle and not properly for a Bishop tyed to any particular Congregation That this is their meaning will be proved by two invincible reasons the first is because these same Fathers in their Catalogues of the Bishops of Rome do not reckon Peter in that number making Linus the first Bishop of Rome Cletus the second Clement the third c. But if they had believed Peter was Bishop of Rome they would have called him the first Bishop Linus the second Cletus the third Clement the fourth c. The second reason is That it shall be proved by the testimonies of those very men who call Peter Bishop of Rome That first Linus and then Cletus were Bishops of Rome during the Life of Peter whereby it is evident that Peter was never properly Bishop of Rome but was called Bishop of Rome by those Fathers because he founded the Church of Rome joyntly with Paul In the next place your Lordships will find it proved albeit many of the Ancients unanimously affirmed that Peter was at Rome and founded the Church of Rome yet they were deceived or else the Scripture affirms falsly since it shall be proved by Scripture that Peter was elsewhere in that time in which they affirm he was at Rome yea it shall be proved by unanswerable reasons from Scripture that Peter was never at Rome and that all those Fathers who believe he was at Rome were deceived by the testimony of one Papias described by Eusebius to be a man of no spirit the Author of many fabulous Traditions and of the heresie of the Millenarii That is of those maintaining that Christ before the last day shall reign a thousand years with his Saints In the third place your Lordships will find that the Bishops of Rome before the dayes of Cyprian were poor persecuted pious Martyrs only two condemned by the whole â—hurch strove to advance that mystery of iniquity which Paul affirmed was working in his own time viz. Victor usurping authoâ—ity over the Bishops of the East anno 195. and Stephanus over the Bishops of Africa and Spain anno 250. or thereabouts Some Doctors of the Church of Rome pretends several monuments of Antiquity to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval but they shall be proved forged not only by unanswerable reasons but also by the confessions of the most learned Doctors of the Church of Rome yea of Popes themselves such as Aeneas Silvius or Pius 2. In thâ— fourth place your Lordships will find the Bishops of Rome made rich by the liberality of Constantine the Emperor and others which occasioned pride and luxury the Parents of Antichrist In the fifth place your Lordships will find the conception of this Monster growing as an Embrio by degrees in his Mothers belly the fiâ—st quarter a Bishop the second a Metropolitan the third a Patâ—iarch between the times of Cyprian and anno 604. In which interval as the riches of the Bishop of Rome increased so pride and corruptions of life grew up with them and also some corruption in Doctrine against which not only Cyprian Hieronymus Sulpitius Severus Nezianzenus Basilius Magnus and other Christian Fathers exclaimed but also Ammianus Marcellinus in the opinion of Barronâ—us a Pagan In that interval Damasus mounted to the Chair of Rome by blood of which the said Ammâ—anus Marcellinus speaking after he had related the murthers that were committed he concludes It was not to be admired they aimed at the Chair of Rome by such practices since having obtained it they were enriched by the Gifts of Matrons and other wayes equalling any King in their port of Table Cloaths Houshold-stuff Attendance and Coatches or Chariots In that interval also Vigilius Bishop of Rome as is related by Liberatus and confessed by Barronius obtained the Chair of Rome by promising to the Empress Theodora to abrogat the Council of Chalcedon to establish the Eutichian heresie in the Church which he endeavoured to do as appears by his Letters when he was Bishop of Rome written to several Courtiers in which he approved that heresie And likewayes by promising Gold to Belesarius General to the Emperour Justinian in Italy By which practices of Vigilius Silverius a pious worthy Bishop of Rome to make way for the said Vigilius was banished and murthered and yet the said Vigilius was a great ingeminator of tu es Petrus and of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome And yet Barronius is not ashamed against all the Writers of that time to praise this Monster as a Saint and yet which is admirable he confesseth the way of his entry to the Bishoprick of Rome viz. by displacing a pious Bishop he obtained the Chair by Simonie and promising to abrogat the Council oâ— Chalcedon and to establish the Eutichian heresie And this much of the conception of this Monster In the sixth place ye have his birth under Phocas who by an Edict christened him universal Bishop In which three things are observable 1 The God-father 2. The God-bairn Gift 3. The reasons wherefore it was given Phocas The God-father was the Emperour Phocas described by all Historians to be a Monster for a man who being a Centurion or Captain of a Foot-company raised a mutiny in the Army against the good Emperour Mauritius and obtained the Empire himself by murthering his Master his Empress his Children and his Friends noted by Historians to have been a perfidious perjured luxurious cruel Monster and yet he was the first
Phocas the Emperor carried no good will to Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople he struck the Iron while it was hot after much contention pronounced in his favour The third Part entituled of an oecumenick Bishop contains the History of that interval between anno 600. and the Council of Trent It is divided in two Books in the first I insist most on those following particulars 1. What power was conferred by Phocas with that title of universal Bishop upon Bonifacus third Bishop of Rome 2. How the edict of Phocas was obâ—yed viz. resisted every where till in the end it was recalled by Pogonatus anno 680. in the sixth general Council as was shewed before 3. How during the vicissitudes of inundations of Barbarians the Bishop of Rome re-assumed that title of unâ—versal Bishop and usurped power in temporals over the Grecian Emperoâ—s as was already declared 4. How Carolus Magnus curbed him 5. How when the posterity of Carolus Magnus decayed he renewed and augmented his power by five steps as we shewed before also In the second Book those steps or increments of the Papacy between anno 600. and the â—Câ—ncel of Trent are dogmatically disputed by Scripture Fathers and it is proved by testimonies of the most learned Antiquaries of the Church of Rome that the oldest of those steps was not before anno 1000. It is true indeed that his power in temporals was attempted first by Constantine Bishop of Rome against Philippicus Emperour of Constantinople anno 720. because the said Philippicus caused pull down those Images of the Fathers of the sixth general Council placed in the Church of St. Sophia at Constantinople and a little after Gregory 2d and 3d. Bishops of Rome excommunicated Leo Isaurus and his son Copronymus for the same quarrel of Images but their insolence was compesâ—ed by Carolus Magnus as we shewed before Those four steps are 1. Election by Cardinals 2. Power of convocating general Councils constantly preâ—iding in them of confirming and infirming them 3. Power in temporals 4. In fallibility as for the last step Divinity it is disputed in the fourth Part lib. 2. The fourth and last Part of this Treatise entituled of Antichrist is divided in two Books in the first the demonstrations of Sanderus Bellarmine and Lessius three Jesuits are answered by which they endeavour to prove that the Bishop of Rome is not Antichrist 2. The Bishop of Rome is proved to be Antichrist by Scripture Fathers Popish Doctors yea by the testimonies of some Popes themselves In the second Book two marks of Antichrist are chiefly insisted upon the first is his defection 2 Thess 2. where it is proved that the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome is that defection mentioned by the Apostle and that in the first six Centuries there was no such thing as the modern Popish Religion which is proved by an induction of all the contraverted points we have with the Church of Rome 2. Because those of the Church of Rome ordinarily object that they have not made a defection because it cannot be instructed at what time it was made by whom and who resisted it Two things are proved in the said Book first it is proved by Reason Experience Scripture Fathers that a defection may be made and yet it may be unknown by whom it is made at what time and who first resisted it 2. It is proved by an induction that most of the most substantial Tenets of the Church of Rome such as transubstantiation number of the Sacraments communion under one kind sacrifice of the Mass imperfection of the Scripture equalling of traditions to it adding a Apocrypha Books to it rejecting the Greek and Hebrew as not being authentick as making the corrupt vulgar Latine version authentick free-will Merits justification by Works caelibat of Priests worshiping of Images invocation of Saints set Fasts Prayer for the dead Purgatory Indulgences works of super-erogation all the steps of the Popes Supremacy c. were not only not from the beginning but also it is proved for the most part by testimonies of Popish Doctors themselves at what time and by whom the said Tenets as innovations were brought in the Church The second mark of Antichrist we insist upon is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all sort of deceiving and fraud 2 Thes 2. where it is shewed by what cheats the authority of the Bishop of Rome and his Doctrine are maintained such as perverting falsly translating and corrupting by adding and paring of the indices expurgatorii all the Writings of the Ancients Suppositions Revelations Saints Miracles c. My Lords and Gentlemen Thus I have represented unto you what I perform in this great Subject and what method I observe in it By which it will appear to any reasonable man what difference there is between this method and that of others if I perform what I promise of which let the judicious Reader be judge Now followeth the third thing which I desired your Lordships to take to consideration viz. what my scope and intention is which is twofold the first is to refute those marks 〈◊〉 which those of the Church of Rome endeavour to perswade their Disciples that the said Church of Rome is the true â—hurch The first mark is a continual succession of Bishops which they take great pains to enumerat from the dayes of the Apostles unto this time In which mark shall be proved a four-fold cheat The first is they make the world beâ—ieve that all those Bishops were of a like greatness in Power and Authority whereas it is proved that in the first three Centuries or at least before the dayes of Cypâ—ian that every Bishop was of equal authority with the Bishop of Rome And that between the times of Cyprian and the Council of Chalcedon every Metropolitan and from the Council of Chalcedon to anno 604. every Patriarch were of equal jurisdiction to him And when he was made universal Bishop by Phocas little more then a bare title was bestowed on him and yet that was after revocked by the sixth general Council As for those five steps we mentioned before in which chiefly the Modern Power of the Pope consists viz. Election by Cardinals 2. Authority of convocating general Councils 3. Temporal jurisdiction 4. Infability 5. and Divinity it shall be proved as we said before by the testimonies of Popish Doctors themselves that the oldest of them had not a beeing in the tenth Age and that the said Popish Doctors acknowledging the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church nevertheless some of them doubted not to call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist by reason of these steps which they call tyrannical Antichristian usurpations The second Cheat in that mark of succession is that they make ignorants believe that all the Bishops of Rome since the times of the Apostles professed the same Doctrine which is now taught in the Church of Rome whereas it shall be proved that the Doctrine of the modern
the keys of the kingdom of heaven The third is Joh. 21. 15. 16 17. Feed my sheep feed my lambs But Cardinal Cusanus lib. 2. concord Cathol cap. 13. expresly affirmes that in all those three places nothing was given in peculiar to Peter which was not given to all the Apostles which he also proves by the testimony of Hieronymus 2. The main Basis of the Popes supremacy is in the exposition of these words Tu es Petrus viz. That Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built Pighius and Baronius and others affirm that all are ignorants hereticks mad men who acquiesced not in this exposition That Peter is the Rock But it shall be proved in the first six Chapters of the fiâ—st Book not only by innumerable testimonies of Popish Doctors but also of a great many Popes themselves that not Peter but the thing confessed by Peter is the Rock viz. Christ himself 3. Another Basis of the Popish Religion is that Peter had his jurisdiction immediatly from Christ and the other Apostles theirs from Peter Bellarmine and others affirm that if this be not granted the supremacy of Peter cannot be defended and consequently the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and the whole body of the Popish Religion falls with it But Franciscus de victoria affirmed by Canus to be the ablest Divine of Spain exsibilats this distinction of Peters immediat jurisdiction and refutes the gloss on Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae for exponing a passage in Cyprian from which they gather this distinction proving by the testimonies of Cyprian himself in that very place corrupted by the Glosse which Glosse is approved by the Church of Rome that Cyprian in these words expresly disputs against that immediat Jurisdiction of Peter and mediat of the other Apostles and affirms that all the Apostles had not only their order but also their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ 4. They prove the Supremacy of Peter by his carriage and prerogatives but Salmero the Jesuit expresly affirms that nothing can be gathered from the carriage of Peter to prove him oecumenick Bishop but much to the contrary Yea the Council of Basil it self pronounced that the Legats of the Pope had no right of presiding in general Councils because it could neither be proved by Scripture nor Antiquity that ever Peter presided in any Council or at that of Jerusalem 5. They brag much of Cyprian that he is for the Supremacy of Peter and also Augustin and other Fathers but Barronius himself confesseth that both Cyprian and Augustine died out of communion with the Church of Rome for resisting her encroaching upon the Churches of Africk that is for admitting of Appellations from Africk to Rome for doing of which Bonifacius Secundus Bishop of Rome affirms that Aurelius and Augustinus were seduced by the Devil and yet both of them are placed in the Roman Callender as Saints and notwithstanding all their braggings of Cyprian let one speak for all saith Barronius in time most ancient in learning most excellent in martyrdom most glorious for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome yet Stapleton the Jesuit expresly affirms that Cyprian in that subject utitur verbis errantium mire hereticorum causae patrocinari videtur And Bellarmine himself confesseth that we do not read that ever Cyprian was reconciled to the Church of Rome after his resisting of Stephanus the Bishop of Rome his pretending right of Appellations from Africa And this much of their concord and unity in that Cardinal question of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which falling Bellarmine as we said grants that the whole body of the Popish Religion falls with it comparing it without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome to a house without a foundation a man when his head is stricken off to star-light without the Sun We could instance their discord in many of their most substantial Tenets what question is of greater importance then that of Transubstantion It is the general opinion of the Doctors of the Church of Rome that it was imbraced as an Article of Faith from the beginning and yet those two great Popish Doctors Scotus and Bonaventur expresly maintain that Transubstantiation was never believed as an Article of Faith before the Council of Lateran anno 1225. Yea Scotus expresly affirms were it not for the authority of that Council he would not believe it himself it hath so little ground in Scripture and Antiquity The main ground of which prodigious Article is those words of our Saviour Hoc est corpus meum and other expressions of his John 6. But it shall be proved part 4. lib. 2. by the testimonies of many Popish Doctors that nothing can be gathered from either place for proving of it It were too prolix in this Preface to mention all the contradictions of the Doctors of the Church of Rome in their most substantial Tenets Your Lordships may read them at large in the following Treatise almost through the whole body of it but most expresly part 4. lib. 2 where your Lordships will not only find Doctors contradicting Doctors but also Popes accusing Councils Councils accusing Popes Councils accusing Councils Popes in Cathedra taxing Popes in Cathedra of Heresies Madnesse Ignorance And this much of the sixth mark of the Church of Rome by which they pretend it is proved to be the true Church viz. Unity The seventh mark is Saints they object to the Protestants that they lean too much on Christ trusting nothing to their own merits which occasions so much prophanenesse amongst them but we say they the Church of Rome are adorned with innumerable Saints stirred up to holiness because works are meritorious in the sight of God quis tulerit grachos de seditione quoerentes Let us retex this mark of Saints that we may see what reason they have to brag of it And first they cannot brag of the Sanctity of their Clergy witnesse the exclamations of all Ages against the corruption of the Clergy of the Church of Rome when they got a little breathing from persecution we need not mention the complaints not only of the Ancients but also of modern Popish Doctors against the corruptions of the Clergy of Rome Cyprian began the complaint in his time when the Church was yet under persecution But when the Emperours became Christians the Clergy by their beneficence became rich Hieronymus in his time thirteen hundred years ago was so irritated by the vicious lives of the Roman Clergy that Damasus Bishop of Rome dying to whom he was Secretary he left Rome and went to Palestina to live as a Monk comparing Rome to Babylon and the seat of the Whore Ammianus Marcellinus in the opinion of Baronius a Pagan declaimed bitterly against the viciousnesse of the Roman Clergy It were tedious to mention the complaints of these of the first six Centuries against the viciousness of the Roman Clergy as of Basilius Magnus Nazianzenus Sulpitius Severus and others as the greatnesse of the Bishop
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
Paul do not conclude him Oecunick Bishop how can those Prerogatives of Peter conclude him to be so And lest any should think that the reason is because the Prerogatives of Peter were greater then these of Paul hear Ambrosius or if ye please Maximus Sermon 66. who having declaimed on the Prerogatives of Peter and Paul concludes in those words Ergo beati Petrus Paulus eminent inter universos Apostolos peculiari quadam praerogativa praecellunt verum interipsos quis cui proponatur incertum est The sum of which is That the prerogatives of both are so great that none can tell which of them is to be preferred viz. Peter or Paul If this doth not satisfie the Reader that the Prerogatives of Paul were as great as these of Peter let him hear Chrysostom Hom. 66. where he affirms expresly That none doubted of this viz. that none of the Apostles went before Paul and also on Galat. 2. he affirms Paulus non egebat voce Petri nec eo opus habebat sed honore par erat illi nihil hic dicam amplius By these last words it is evident to any intelligent Reader that in his opinion Paul was to be preferred to Peter We have spoken already of personal Prerogatives that they can be no argument to prove the Supremacy of Peter since in the opinion of the Ancients the Prerogatives of Paul were equal to those of Peter as expresly is affirmed by them and also Superior to those of Peter as may be gathered not obscurely from their words albeit out of modesty they affirm it not expresly Prerogatives then concluding Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop must of necessity be prerogatives inseparable from that function And in that case the pretended successors of Peter or the Bishops of Rome must also have those Prerogatives that they have none but a mad man will affirm since among these Prerogatives are numbred walking upon the water and such like which would puzle the Bishops of Rome now to do In a word among all those prerogatives of Peter there is not one that concludes him more Oecumenick Bishop then they do him Emperor of Rome which none but a Sophister will deny There is not one of them which is not either notoriously false or notoriously impertinent or else refuted already For ye must understand amongst the Prerogatives of Peter they not only reckon up what they have said already as Tu es Petrus sibi dabo claves pasce oves meas but also those very things which they disput after they have disputed his Prerogatives tempting the Readers patience with repetitions of the same things Any who will take the pains to anatomize those Volumns of Controversies set forth by Bellarmin they will find them to be nothing else but a Rible Rable of contradictory Sophistry impertinent Rhetorications and oratorial digressions tedious repetitions of the same things ad nauseam usque wrested mutilated falsly interpreted and forged Testimonies of the Ancients to deceive his Reader confirm ignorants in the Romish idolatry thinking to deterr his learned Adversaries from discovering his weakness by his prolixity In which Artifices Baronius is nothing inferior to him being the most shameless corrupter of Antiquity which the world hath hitherto produced as appears by those exercitations of Causabon others upon him One thing is to be observed in him Bellarmin Pâ—tavius and some others that when they are most destitute of reason they brag most and when they cannot answer an Argument in reason they fall a scolding taxing learned men yea of their own side of ignorance madness and heresie for refusing to acknowledge fantastick fictions devised by themselves as irrefragable principles Their Sophistry is very great in this following disput of the Prerogatives of Peter in which Bellarmin and Baronius clash together in things of greatest importance The truth is there is not any thing worth the answering in all this prolix disput of prerogatives Nevertheless lest any should think I omitted their arguments because they are unanswerable I will trace the method of Bellarmin answering his arguments so that any indifferent man may be convinced of the truth And if any be not satisfied let him read Chamier Whitaker and others who prosecute that dispute to the full The Popish Authors enumerate not the prerogatives after the same manner some reckoning fewer then others Bellarmin enumerats all these which any of them mentions in number 28. the first 20. they endeavor to prove by Scripture the other 8. by Tradition We will dispute the first 20. in the following 16. chapter and the other 8. chapter 17. Of which in order CHAP XVI Of the Scriptural Prerogatives of Peter THe Scriptural Prerogatives of Peter as we said are twenty the truth is they are not worth the refuting but lest our Adversaries brag that we omitted them because they could not be answered I intreat the Reader to have patience till I pass through that Augiae Stabulum viz. that disput of Bellarmin concerning the prerogatives of Peter Where ye shal find First That though they were all true and proved yet those fore-mentioned prerogatives of Paul are nothing inferior to them Secondly It will appear that there is not one of them but it is either impertinent and nothing to the purpose or else notoriously false But now have at them The first prerogative is That our Savior changed the name of Peter from Simon to Peter John 1. Tu es Simon filius Jonae tu vocaberis Cephas Thou art Simon the son of Jonas thou shalt be called Cephas But it is answered it proves nothing First many had new names given them and yet were not Oecumenick Bishops Yea other Apostles also as Paul was once called Saul also the sons of Zebedeus James and John had the names of Boanerges given unto them Bellarmin instanceth many ways vexing himself and his Reader so do Stapleton Toletus but nothing to the purpose wearying both themselves and their Readers with extravagant phantasies falling again upon Tu es Petrus which we disputed to the full before The second prerogative is this When the names of the Apostles are enumerated Peter is still named first as Matthew 10. Mark 3. Luke 6. Acts 1 Mark 5. and other places But it is answered It is notoriously false as appears by 1. Corinth 3. and 9. Galat. 2. Mark 16. John 1. In all which places other Apostles are named before Peter And although it were true that Peter was ever named first it concludes no primacy of Jurisdiction but only of order which may be among those of equal authority As in a Colledge of Judges the name of the eldest Judge or President is the first in the Nomenclature or Catalogue The third prerogative is from Matthew 14. 29. That Peter only walked upon the waters with our Savior As also that John 21. 7. That Peter did leap in the Sea for haste to be at Christ But it is answered This is a great prerogative in Peter indeed shewing only the