Irenaeus as shall be proved in its own place by the testimonies of the most eminent Doctors of the Roman Church to omit the testimonies of almost all the Fathers by whose testimonies it shall be proved that in the dayes of Irenaeus the Churches of Rome Asia Africa Egypt c. rejected those Books canonized by the Council of Trent and therefore they must of necessity affirm that either the Modern Church of Rome or the Council of Trent excommunicates all these who accord with the Church of Rome in the Canon of the Scripture in the dayes of Irenaeus or else they have made a defection themselves from that Church which was in the dayes of Irenaeus The Council of Trent makes those Books Canonical with an Anathema to those who shall not acknowledge them for such but the Church of Rome in the dayes of Irenaeus rejected them as Apocryphal as is proved by the testimonies of Ruffinus in Symbulo apud Cyprianum and Hieronymus in his preface upon the Books of the Kings and prologo Galeato tom 3. That all other Churches accorded with the Church of Rome in that Canon of the Scriptures is proved by an induction of them all as the east Church as is testified by Melito the Church of Jerusalem as is testified by Cyril of Alexandria witnesse Athanas and Origen of France as is testified by Hilarius of Asia Concil Loadicenum of Constantinople Nazianz and Damascen These testimonies are acknowledged by Bellarmine himself for the most part lib. 1. cap. 20. de verbo Dei Secondly that Irenaeus in these words means no other according with the Church of Rome then in as far as it preserves the truth appears further not only by his keeping communion with the Bishops of the East notwithstanding of their excommunication by Victor but likewayes by his sharply rebuking of Victor taxing him of Ignorance and Arrogance for his proceeding in such a manner by which it evidently appears that neccessar communion with the Church of Rome was no article of faith in the opinion of Irenaeus much less the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and this much of Irenaeus Now we come to the Latine Fathers the first passage alledged is of Tertullianus de pudicitia where he calls Victor Bishop of Rome Bishop of Bishops But it is answered first albeit he did so it proves not Victor was oecumenick Bishop because we read that James is so called by Clement Lupus is so called by Sidonius lib. 6. epist 1. Marcus Bishop of Alexandria is called also Bishop of Bishops by Theodorus Balsamon in his answers to the Interrogations of the said Marcus but Bellarmine will not affirm that James or Lâ—pus or Marcus were oecumenick Bishops Secondly Tertullian in that place calling Victor Bishop of Bishops doth so Ironicè or in mockery as appeares by the occasion of his calling him so which was this Victor made a decree of admitting fornicators or whoremongers too easily to the communion of the Church in the opinion of Tertullian Speaking of that decree Tertullian affirms Episcopus Episcoporum nuper edidit Edictum c. The Bishop of Bishops hath now put forth an Edict and falls too immediatly and disputes against it whereby it appears that he did not acknowledge the supremacy of Victor that he is mocking him appears further by his calling that decree of Victor Edictum an edict but Emperours only set forth Edicts and so he calls Victor Bishop of Bishops in the same sence that he calls his decree an Edict which none can deny to be in mockery They alledge another passage from Tertullian in his prescript 76. against hereticks this passage is objected by Pamelius and is this If ye live in the adjacent places to Italy ye have Rome from whence we have also Authority Tertullian himself then lived in Africa whence they conclude from these words we have Authority that the Bishop of Rome had Jurisdiction in Africa in the opinion Tertullian But it is answered this place resembles very much that of Irenaeus which we now discussed his scope in these words is to arme his Readers against heresies among other prescriptions he prescribs this fore one that all should strive to inform themselves what is the Doctrine of those Churches which were founded by the Apostles and then to conform themselves to that Doctrine And first saith he If ye live in Achaia consult the Church of Corinth if ye live not far from Macedonia consult the Church of Philippi and Thessalonica if ye live in Asia consult the Church of Ephesus if ye live in the adjacent parts to Italy follow the Church of Rome from which saith he we also in Africa have our authority because it is the nearest Apostolick Church Observe he calls Apostolick Churches those who were founded by the Apostles themselves as that of Philippi Corinth Thessalonica by Paul that of Ephesus by St. John that of Rome by Peter and Paul whence it is easie to conjecture what is the meaning of Tertullian for by these words from whence we have our Authority it follows no more that the Church of Rome hath jurisdiction in Africa then it follows that the Church of Ephesus or Antiochia have jurisdiction over all Asia or that the Church of Corinth hath jurisdiction over all Achaia His meaning then assuredly is that albeit one be not under the jurisdiction of the nearest Apostolick Church yet it is the surest way to preserve your self from Heresie to follow the Faith of that Church because it is most like that those Churches who were founded by the Apostles themselves are least obnoxious to defection Secondly that Tertullian did not dream of any such thing as the infalibity of the Church of Rome or supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as a necessar article of faith appears not only by his disputing expresly against that decree of Victor Bishop of Rome which we now mentioned but also by several other passages of Tertullian in the said prescriptions and else where Beatus Rhenanus in his Argument to the same book of Tertullian de prescrip printed at Basil anno 1521. which Rhenanus was a Popish Doctor and exquisitly versed in the Writings of the Fathers and especially of Tertullian upon whom he commented hath these expressions Tertullian saith he doth not confine the Chatholick Church to the Church of Rome he doth not esteem so highly of the Church of Rome as they do now a dayes he reckoneth her with other Churches and admonisheth his Reader to enquire as well what milk the Church of Corinth gave as that of Rome In which words he means the same very passage of Tertullian which we now explained and vindicated from the Sophistry of Pamelius at last he concludes if Tertullian were now alive and should say so much he could not escape unpunished and this much Rhenanus avouched when he had the use of his tongue but the index expurgatorius belgicus pag. 78. has gagged his mouth with a deleantur hec verba and so they are
was said to all the gates of hell shal not prevail against it and a little after the words now cited he adds another reason viz. because the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to all the Apostles as well as to Peter Bellarmin answers Origen in this place speaks allegorically otherwise he would contradict himself in his 5. homily upon â—xodus where he calls Peter a great Foundation and most solid Rock upon whom the Church is built But it is replyed there is no contradiction at all for Peter may be Magnum fundamentum solidissima Petra and yet not only the Foundation or Rock for the state of the question is not Whether Peter was the foundation and Rock upon whom the Church was built But whether he be the only Foundation and Rock upon which the Church is built Bellarmin instances secondly That this testimony of Origen consists not with the words of Christ Because they are only spoken of Peter and understood of him Ergo this testimony of Origen must needs be allegorical But it is answered Allthough the words of Christ were directed to Peter yet Origen not only affirms but proves by two unanswerable reasons that the promise was made to all as well as Peter Moses speaking of Abraham affirms he believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness and yet the Apostle Paul applyes that to all the faithful which is no Allegory but Tropology by which a general promise belonging to all is directed to one Bellarmin should take heed to reason thus The words were directed to Peter alone Ergo the promise was made to him alone For if this promise was made alone to Peter the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is quite destroyed since it was not made to the Bishops of Rome successors of Peter being only made to Peter to whom the words were directed Bellarmins third reason to prove the testimony of Origines to be allegorical is this If all the Apostles be foundations or all the faithful the whole Church would be foundation of it self since there are no other besides to be the walls and the roof But it is answered First that the Church is built upon all the faithful because it consists of them and so Lyranus on Matthew 16. affirms That the Church doth not consist in men of power and dignity either Secular or Ecclesiastick because many Bishops of Rome have been Apostats from the faith And therefore the Church consists only of the faithful Secondly the Apostles are called foundations in a peculiar manner because they founded the Church by preaching that Doctrine received from Christ and sealed it with their blood Bellarmin objects lastly ad hominâ—m that Protestants affirm that Peter cannot be the Rock because he is a meer man but saith he that reason militats against any other mans being the Rock But it is answered That Protestants deny any man to be the Rock unless Christ sustaining alone the whole burthen of the Church as the Papists do of Peter but they do not deny other men to be the Rocks in that sense mentioned to Bellarmins third reason now mentioned And thus much of Origines Another of the Fathers one of Bellarmins great confidence is Cyprianus who in his 27. Epistle after he hath mentioned how Christ said to Peter Thou art Peter c. And I will give uâ—to thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven He deduceth the Ordination of Bishops from these words and the Government of the Church Ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur Here Pamelius himself acknowledgeth that Cyprian applyeth that promise of Christ Upon this Rock I will build my Church to every Bishop and consequently when Cyprianus calls Peter the Rock he cannot mean the only Rock or that Peter is Oecumenick Bishop Pamelius answers Albeit in this place Cyprianus applyeth that promise of Christ Upon this Rock I will build my Church to all Bishops yet Epist 55. he applyeth it only to Peter But it is replyed although it be true that Cyprianus Epist 55 makes mention only of Peter yet it doth not follow he doth apply it only to Peter it is false that Cyprianus affirms epist 55. that it can be applyed to no other then Peter since himself in this place epist 27. applyeth it to every Apostle or Bishop The third Father is Augustinus Epist 165. affirming that when Christ directed those words to Peter Peter represented by Figure the whole Church which he explains further tract 124. upon John where after a long disput he concluds that the promise of Christ was made to the whole Church whereby it evidently appears that Peter in those words is not ordained Oecumenick Bishop or the only Rock In the same sense Hilarius on Psalm 67. calls all the Apostles foundations so Theodoretius and Remigius on Psalm 87. interpret those words fundamenta ejus in montibus sanctis of all the Apostles and Prophets likewise the Apostle Paul Ephes 2. 20. calleth all the Apostles and Prophets foundations and Rocks So the Apostle John seems to call them Apocall 21. By which it is evident that those Fathers calling Peter Rock or Foundation attributs no peculiar thing to him which is not common to others and consequently they mean nothing less by such expressions then that he is Oecumenick Bishop Those testimonies so evident put Bellarmin to his wits end Let us hear and examine an admirable piece of Sophistry Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 11. De Pont. Rom. answers that all the Apostles may be called foundations three wayes The first is because they were the first who founded Churches every where The second is because the Christian Doctrine was revealed to them all by God The third way is by reason of their governing the Church they were all Heads Pastors and Rectors of the Church but in the first two wayes all the Apostles were alike with Peter Foundations and Rocks of the Church Not in the third way for although they had all Plenitudinem potestatis plenitude of power yet they had it only as Apostles and Legats Peter had that power as ordinaâ— Pastor being head of the other Apostles upon whom they depended and this was the thing promised to Peter in those words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church But it is answered Nothing can be more absurd more contradictory or more entangling then this distinction of Bellâ—rmins We said before that the truth of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome depended upon the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome it again upon the Supremacy of Peter the principal ground of which Supremacy is that promise of Christ Thou art Peter and open this Roâ—â— I will build my Church The sense of those words conferring the Supremacy upon Peter depends upon this gloss put upon those words by Bellarmin which is both against Antiquity and Reason and therefore we may conclude that the truth of the Doctrine of the Modern
Church of Rome depends upon the fantastick gloss of a Jesuit contradicting all Antiquity and inconsistent with it self And first it is against Antiquity because they cannot give one instance from ancient Interpreters Councils and Fathers giving this gloss upon those words of our Savior Upon this Rock I will build my Church neither was this gloss ever heard of or so much as dreamed of before the times of the Jesuits after the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was openly assaulted Secondly this gloss is contradictory to it self By it Bellarmin intangles himself many ways and first he grants that all the Apostles were equally Rocks and Foundations with Peter if the word Foundation be taken in the first two senses But all the Fathers who expone the Apostles to be foundations and Peter among the rest did not so much as dream of any other way why Peter or they are called Foundations but only of the first two viz. in regard that they all alike founded Churches preaching that doctrine revealed unto them all alike immediatly from God and consequently foundation in Bellarmins third sense is a dream of his own by which he may well confirm his disciples he will never convert Proselytes but expose himself to the ludibrious taxings of his adversaries in making his own groundless fiction the main Basis of the supremacy of Peter consequently of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and consequently of the Religion of the Modern Church of Rome to which all must be conform under pain of damnation according to that new article coined by the Council of Trent adding to that Article of the Creed Catholick Church making it Catholick Roman Church Secondly we have shewed That this third way of Foundation is a fiction of Bellarmins not dreamed of by the Ancients which although it be sufficient to refute it yet it refutes it self by many contradictions And first of other Popish Doctors It gives unto all the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis plenitude of power in which it contradicts the Theologick Dictionary of Altenstaing approved by authority of the Church of Rome In which Dictionar Plenitudo potestatis is defined not only to be ordinis but also Jurisdictionis conferred by Christ only upon Peter and his Successors and that now formalitâ—â— subjective it is only in the Bishop of Rome which is expresly contradicted by Bellarmin who attributs it to all the Apostles pressed by the evident testimonies of those Fathers seeing the gloss of that Dictionar to be against all Antiquity Thirdly Though Bellarmin be more sound then the gloss of that Dictionar in attributing to all the Apostles that plenitâ—de of power yet he contradicts himself in giving to Peter a greater power then they had it fleeth the edge of the quickest reason to conceive any power greater then plenitude of power and therefore it is a flat contradiction to affirme that although all the Apostles have plenitude of power yet they depend upon Peter as their head which is as much to say as all the Apostles have that power then which none can have a greater and yet Peter hath a greater power then they Lastly Bellarmin affirms that Peter hath plenitude of power as ordinar Pastor the other Apostles as extraordinar and Legats to Peter in which he intangles himself in a twofold contradiction For to omit that distinction of ordinar and extraordinar Pastor amongst the Apostles is a fiction of his own the whole stream of Antiquity avowing all the Apostles to be extraordinar Pastors Peter as well as the rest First he makes the other Apostles above Peter since extraordinar Pastors are preferred to ordinar Pastors the Apostle Paul enumerating the hierarchy of the Church Ephes 4 puts extraordinar Pastors in the first place viz. Apostâ—es Prophets and Evangelists before Pastors and Doctors and so he contradicts himself in affirming that extraordinar Pastors depend upon Peter as their head whom he maketh ordinar Pastor Secondly He contradicts himself in making the other Apostles Legats to Peter and to omit he doth so without any ground having no authority but his own assertion he intangleth himself in his reason for he hath no other reason wherefore the other Apostles are Legats to Peter but only because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle in the original imports one who is sent in commission which is all one with a Legat. But Bellarmin will not deny that Peter in that sense is a Legat also because he is an Apostle and so Peter will be Legat to Peter which is perfect none-sense and contradiction Bellarmin borrowed this distinction of ordinar and extraordinar from Sanderus that famous English Jesuit who with his Country-man Stapleton invented more new distinctions to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome then all the Doctors of the Church beside Sanderus proves Peter to be ordinar and the other Apostles to be extraordinar lib. 6. cap. 9. of his Monarchy Thus Ordinar is called so from order but in order that is first which is most ancient since nothing can be first before that which is first but Peter was the first upon whom Christ promised to build his Church and to give him the power of the keys Ergo they were given to Peter alone For albeit afterwards they were given to all the Apostles yet Christ did not revock what he had given first to Peter and the fore Peter is ordinar Pastor and the other Apostles extraordinar But it is answered This argument of Sanderus presuppons many things as granted which are either uncertain or notoriously false Secondly albeit his suppositions were true they do not conclude his assertion that Peter is ordinar Pastor having Jurisdiction over the rest as extraordinar He who would see how that Sophistry of Sanderus is retexed at large let him read Chameir tom 2. lib. 11. cap. 6. num 27. to the end of the chapter the substance of which is this First He suppons that as Ordinar which is first that extraordinar which is last But ordinar is taken among Divines speaking of Church Officers for that Office which is perpetual extraordinar for that which is for a time So in in the Old Testament Priests and Levits were ordinar Prophets extraordinar Officers and under the New Testament Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and Doctors are ordinar Officers Apostles Evangelists extraordinar Secondly Though the distinction of Sanderus in that sense of ordinar and extraordinar were granted his assertion is uncertain yea rather notoriously false he suppons that Peter first obtained the power of binding loosing and feeding the Flock of Christ but that is uncertain for these words of Christ exhibit nothing to Peter for the present but only promise to give him that power of the Keys and to build his Church upon him neither was that promise made to Peter alone but to all the Apostles as partly hath been proved already but more fully shal be proved cap. 6. and 9. and therefore the supposition of Sanderus is uncertain and false
10. because in Luk. 22. no mention is made of the petition of the Sons of Zebedeus or their Mother as Mark 10. and Matthew 20. So at the most the Apostles strove only three times for dominion if not two times only But let it be granted to Sanderus that they strove four times We ask him what more can be gathered for the supremacy of Peter from Luk. 22. then from the other three places siince is all four they strove for the same thing viz. dominion And our Savior disswades them from such striving for the same reasons in the first three places or at least in some of them for which he diswades them Luk. 22. Sanderus answers and also Bellarmin First that Luk. 22. Our Savior affirms Let the greatest among you be as the least but Matthew 20. 26. he only affirmeth Whosoever will be great among you let him be your servant The difference is Greatest Luk. 22. imports a superiority which Great Matthew 20. doth not import But it is answered They bable for it appears expresly by the words that the meaning of our Savior in both places is the same As for the objection it is of no moment for great among you and greatest among you is the same thing Great among you is an Hebraism for the superlative of the Latins and Grecians which superlative the Oriental tongues have not and so great and greatest are the same thing Matthew and Mark retain the Hebraism but Luke expresseth it in the comparative degree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas Matthew and Mark have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is what Matthew and Mark calls great in the positive degree Luke calls more great in the comparative degree whereas the expressions of both are equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 greatest among you in the superlative degree For its certain at least that the meaning of great in Matthew and Mark and of greatest in Luke 22. is the same because the Syrian Interpreter renders them both by one word Likewise that great in Matthew and Mark is the same with greatest in Luke appears because great in Matthew and Mark is comparative for immediately after these words follow He who should be first among you Whereby it is evident that great is all one with greatest Since first is relative to among you consequently all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanderus urgeth secondly that in Matthew and Mark our Savior affirms He who will be great among you but in Luke He who is greatest among you whereby it is evident that one already is greatest among them Where he observes a twofold difference First by reason of the Greek Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ever denotats a single person Secondly by reason of the substantive verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est is which denotats one who now is greatest among you But it is answered to omit the substantive verb is not mentioned in Luke at all who affirms only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanderus and Bellarmin argue from the Latin Version both the articles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the substantive verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are mentioned Luk 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Sanderus grants one is not made least in that place Bellarmin urgeth anoâ—her difference as Luk 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word signifieth a Prince or Captain a single person commanding over many But is answered Nothing can be gathered from that word because Acts 15. 22. and Heb. 13. 16. 17. many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaders are not only said to be in the Church but also in the same Particular Church Sanderus yet instances that Matthew 20. 16. It is affirmed He who would be great among you let him be your servant But Luk. 22. 26. He who is greatest among you let him be as he that serveth He imagins some great mystery between these two expresions let him be a servant and let him be as a servant By which subtilty of his any may see what poor shifts they make to prove the Supremacy of Peter and consequently the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and also the Religion of the Modern Church of Rome For none but a brazen faced Sophister can observe any difference in those words of our Savior Matthew 20. Let him be a servant and Luk 22. Let him be as a servant neither of the Phrases are proper as if our Savior had said in either place Let him be properly a servant in both places the speech is Metaphâ—rical which Masters of Rethorick descrive to be a Similitude contractâ—d to one word or Metaphora est ad unum verbum contracta similitudâ— the difference between a metaphor and a similitude is that a metaphor contracts the similitude to one word v. g. when we call a subtile witty man like a Fox it is a similitude formally expressed but when we call him a Fox it is a metaphor and so it may be concluded that both those speeches may be called as well similituds as metaphors That is a similitude is a metaphor inlarged by the particles as or like And a metaphor is a similitude contracted taking away those particles as when we say in the similitude a subtile man is like a Fox we say in the metaphor He is a Fox The meaning is the same in both expressions now to apply Let him serve or be a servant Matthew 20. is the metaphor or the similitude contracted but in Luke 22. Let him be as a servant is the similitude or metaphor inlarged and the meaning in both is one viz. The only way to be great in the Kingdom of Heaven is to carry themselves humbly and like servants And therefore Sanderus is endeavoring to make ropes in the sand seeking any mystical difference between Let him be a servant Matthew 20. and let him be aâ— a servant Luke 22. Sanderus urgeth still that Luke 22. one must be greatest already amongst them since our Savior instructs him how to carry himself in that station viz. as a servant But it is answered This objection is of like stuff with the former for if it were of any force it would conclude that one also were least among them already that is below all the rest which Sanderus will not readily grant because Luke It is said He that is least among you shal be great cap. 9. 48. The truth is the speech of our Savior in both these places is indefinit not mentioning any one in particular either as greatest or least The true meaning of his words are He who is most submissive among you be who he will one or other deserves the greatest respect and for that reason will be greatest in the sight of God or in the Kingdom of heaven In the last place Bellarmin and Sanderus both set on with an admirable Sophism they differ in words yet object the same in substance Sanderus propones it thus Immediatly after our Savior had uttred these words Let him
who is greatest be as a Servant He proposeth an example of himself to be followed by that person who is greatest in these words For I my self am as a servant in the mids of you that is saith Sanderus Since I who am greatest of you all and primary head of the Church carrieth my self like a Servant he who is head of the Church under me and greatest among you should follow my example other-wise saith he The words of our Savior would not cohere with the words going before which they do by reason of the illative particle For verse 27. But it is answered We have proved already that the speech of our Savior was directed to them all and therefore it coheres well enough when he proposeth his own example as a reason of his former exhortation to them His meaning is I who am greatest among you am as a Servant in the mids of you And therefore any who would be really above the rest in esteem of God let him follow my example by carrying himself humbly Bellarmin proposeth this Argument in another manner and in effect surpasseth Sanderus both in Sophistry and Impudence He reasons thus lib. 1. cap. 9. De Pont. Rom. Christ saith he affirms That he was a Servant in the miâ—st of them Luke 22. But John 13. he affirms The Disciples spake truth when they called him Lord and Master The scope of our Savior in these words then Luke 22. is to ordain one greatest amongst them or to exhort him who is ordained already greatest to follow his example both in greatness and humility as if he had said My will is that one of you should be head over the rest as my Vicar and that he shal carry himself humbly as I do viz. as a Servant to the rest But it is answered That Bellarmin sophisticats two wayes First he suppons falsly that this exhortation of our Savior and the reason of it from his own example was directed to one in particular whereas it is directed to all the Apostles and therefore his first sophistry is in the persons exhorted His second sophistry is in the thing exhorted viz. to follow his own example Bellarmin mentions two things in which they are injoyned to follow the example of Christ First his greatness Secondly his humble carriage in the opinion of Bellarmin Our Savior exhorts them to follow his example in both to prove which he brings in that passage of John 13. impertinently having nothing to do with this passage Luke 22. By which it appears that our Savior exhorts them only to humility or to follow the example of his humility and not of his greatness as is evident by the words uttered by him as his reason For I am as a servant in the mids of you The Sophism of Bellarmin redacted to a form is this I am head of you all and carrieth my self humbly follow my example Ergo saith Bellarmin He exhorts one to be head of the rest as himself was and to carry himself humbly as himself did whereas our Savior desires them all indefinitly not one in particular to follow his example in humble carriage not in Domination which he expresly forbids verse 26. That this gloss of Bellarmins is a new devised fiction amongst the rest to uphold the Supremacy of Peter against all Antiquity we could further prove by many Fathers On these words we will mention one testimony by which it appears that in the opinion of Antiquity the words of our Savior were spoken indefinitly to all and not to one in particular Secondly that he exhorts them only to follow his example in humble carriage and not in Domination This passage is of Theophylactus upon those words Cum igitur ego qui ab angelica rationali natura adorâ—r in medio vestri ministro quo pacto vos aequum est magnificè de vobis sentire Primatum ambire By which words it appears First that his speech is directed to them all Secondly that he exhorts them only to follow his example in humility we could also instance other testimonies but it is needless Hitherto in this Book we have disputed the Supremacy of Peter pro and contra viz. we have examined all what is alledged of any moment either for the institution or against the institution of Peter in that function of Oecumenick Bishop Both the one side and the other bring several Arguments which we have omitted but they are of no moment in comparison of those we have examined being in effect nothing else but Corrolaries of the former or else some places of Scripture mis-interpreted sophisticated wrested by the late Jesuits against the stream of antiquity Analogy of Scripture it self Neither are they taken for the most part from the Institution of Peter as the former but from his carriage and Prerogatives as they call them And lest any should think that we omitted them as if they were unanswerable we will in those following Chapters anatomize all of them which are not meerly ridiculous CHAP. XV. of the Prerogatives of Peter in general BEllarmin lib. 1. cap. 17. De Pont. Rom. having disputed the Institution of Peter or the promise of it from Mat. 16. 18 19. and John 21. 15 16 17. that is from the Rock from the Keyes and from the feeding of the sheep of Christ promiseth next to prove it by Prerogatives which is a very uncertain way of probation except he explain it what Prerogatives were They must of necessity belong either to the person of Peter or to the function of Oecumenick Bishop if they belong only to his person they are nothing to the purpose Since many have personal Prerogatives as well as Peter the Prerogatives of Paul are nothing inferior to those of Peter And since they do not conclude Paul to be Oecumenick Bishop no more do these Prerogatives of Peter conclude him to be Oecumenick Bishop What more glorious Prerogatives can any have then those of Paul He was brought up in all sorts of learning and of a Persecutor was miraculously converted to Christ Act. 9 only called a chosen vessel ibid. To him only Christ appeared after his ascension ibid. Rapt up to the third Heaven 2 Cor. 12. labored more then all the other Apostles 1 Cor. 15. Rebuked Peter as a dissembler in his face Gal. 2. gave a man over to Sathan 1 Cor. 5. was first sent by the Spirit to preach unto the Gentiles Acts 13. healed the sick only with his handkerchief Acts 19. Struck Elimas with blindness ibid. converted the Proconsul ibid while he was yet alive himself his Epistles were cited as Canonick Scripture and that by Peter himself 2 Peter 3. The name of Christians had its first original from the Preaching of Paul So Chrysostomus as he is cited by Photius Bibliothec. cap. 270. In a word Chrysostomus himself Homily 77. de poenitent c. magnifieth so those Prerogatives of Paul as if no mortal man were capable of greater and since these Prerogatives of
and disposed by his authority the source or fountain of the same beginning of one 3. The rest of the Apostles were that Peter was in equal fellowship of honour and power but the beginning cometh of unity the primacy is given to Peter that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be one and one Chair 4. He that withstandeth and resisteth the Church he that forsaketh Peters Chair upon which the Church is built doth he trust that he is in the Church In these words observe that all the sentences written within a parenthesis are forged and not to be found in the old Manuscripts of Cyprian or in the old printed copies of Cyprian the reason wherefore the said sentences are added to the words of Cyprian is evident because they make Cyprian expresly dispute for the supremacy of Peter but take them away the supremacy of Peter is quite destroyed as may appear to any who will read over these words and omit those forged passages written within a parenthesis If ye demand how those passages came to be added to Cyprians text It is answered that Pius fourth Bishop of Rome called Manutius the famous Printer to Rome to reprint the Fathers he appointed also four Cardinals to see the work done among the rest Cardinal Barromaeus had singular care of Cyprian Manutius himself in his preface of a certain Book to Pius fourth declareth that it was the purpose of the Pope to have them so corrected that there should remain no spot which might infect the minds of the simple with the shew of false Doctrine How they corrected other Fathers shall be declared in the following Books how they corrected Cyprian appears by those words we have now et down which are marked with Parenthesis which being added perverts the whole meaning of Cyprian neither were they content by adding to Cyprian to prevert his meaning other passages of Cyprian which could not be mended by additions or be made to speak for them by inserting sentences unless they made Cyprian speak manifest contradictions those other passages I say they razed quite out of Cyprian in the said Roman Edition of Manutius anno 1564. in which Edition they razed out Eleven or Twelve entire Epistles as 1. 2. 3. 15. 21. 22. 71. 73. 74. 75. 83. 84. 85. 86. It were too prolix to declare for what reasons they razed out all those Epistles the sum is all of them were no great friends to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome nor to the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome anent the perfection of the Scripture We will cite a passage or two out of the 74. and 75. Epistle which will evidently make known wherefore they razed those Epistles surely there must be some great reason since Pamelius himself wisheth those Epistles had never been written What the reason is appears thus The 74. Epistle was written to Pompeius against the Epistle of Stephanus in which ye have these words Stephanus Haereticorum causum contra christianos contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur and a little after Reus in uno videtur reus in omnibus That is Stephanus Bishop of Rome defends the cause of hereticks against the Church who is guilty in one thing he seems to be guilty of all The 75. Epistle was written by Firmilianus to Cyprian in which ye have these words Non intelligit obfuscari à se c. that is Stephanus Bishop of Rome understands not that the truth of the christian Rock is obfuscated by him and in a manner abolished The words of which two Epistles are very prejudicial to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome those Epistles are every where filled with such expressions too prolix to be answered here but these we have mentioned are sufficient to declare what the opinion of Cyprian was concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome In the said 74. Epistle in several places he calls the said Stephanus ignorant arrogant c. insolent impertinent c. in the 75. Epistle Stephanus is called wicked insolent a deserter and betrayer of the truth Likewayes what a friend Cyprian was to the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome appears by the said 74. Epistle where tradition without warrand of Scripture is called by him Vetustas Erroris antiquity of Error and affirms that all is to be rejected for such which is not found in Scripture so it concern matters of Faith whereby it appears that Cyprian incurres the Anathema of the council of Trent And this we have shewed how they have corrupted Cyprian as well in adding to him to make him speak what he thought not and when that would not serve the turn except they made him speak contradictions they therefore also cutted out his tongue what reason they had so to do we have given some instances many such other might be given but it would be prolix and these are sufficient Now let us hear how they defend those Impostures and first for the razing out of those Epistles Gretserus answers Pamelius restored them in his edition of Cyprian But it is replyed that this is as much as to say that by the testimony of Pamelius Pope Pius Fourth and those four Cardinals whom he appointed to correct the works of Cyprian are notorius impostors It is a new sort of reasoning that they did no wrong in razing out those Epistles of Cyprian because Pamelius restored them Secondly they defend those additions by an old copy of the Abbey of Cambron 2. By a coppy fetched out of Bavaria 3. And by an other old coppy of Cardinal Hosius and so Gretserus the Jesuit defends the last three additions But it is answered that the first addition upon him alone is the most important of all intimating that upon Peter alone the Church was built which is the main Basis of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome but Gretserus the Jesuit who defends this corruption of Cyprian doth not affirm that those words upon him alone are found in any of these three Copies he only affirms that the second addition one Chair and the third the Primacy is given to Peter are found in those old Copies Secondly it is replyed that that Copy of Cardinal Hosius is only mentioned but it was never yet seen If Hosius had any such Copy how comes he left not such a Monument of antiquity to Posterity As for the other two copies of Cambron and Bavaria it is a ridiculous business to object their Authority against the Authority not only of all the printed Copies of Cyprian before that of Manutius but also against all the Manuscripts of Cyprian found in the most famous Bibliothicks of Christendom and the Vatican it self and whereas Gretserus affirms that perhaps the Wicklephian Hereticks corrupted all those Ancient Manuscripts it is a ridiculous objection how could those Hereticks get access to the Libraries of all Princes Universities and the Popes own Library to corrupt the works of Cyprian without
being perceived It is far more like that the Monks of Cambron and Bavaria corrupted those two copies If the Jesuits have not forged those two copies also since there are innumerable proofs and testimonies as shall be proved in the following Books Yea and of Barronius himself that the Monks of several Monastries have corrupted and forged innumerable passages of Antiquity especially in the seventh Age when the contest was hot with the Grecians about the Supremacy The truth is it is believed that there are no such Copies at all as that of Cambron and Bavaria and that those Cardinals appointed by Pius fourth to oversee the Edition of Manutius added those words of themselves which is very like for two reasons First because it is known that the Indices expurgatorii have added sentences and razed out sentences at their pleasure in many Antient Copies without the pretext of any other Copy Secondly their impudence was as great in razing out of those twelve Epistles of Cyprian as if they had added those four passages And since they openly did the first it is very probable yea more then probable they did the last We have shewed how Gretserus defends the first three additions The Fourth is he that forsaketh Peters Chair upon which the Church is built it seems that either those three Copies of Gretserus hath not these words or else if they have Pamelius doth not much regard their Authority who in his Edition of Cyprian hath left them out It is to be observed that the second and third Addition are of no such moment as the first and this fourth and the razing out of these twelve Epistles of Cyprian Gretserus defends only the second and the third the First he meddleth not with at all to the Fourth he answereth that Pamelius hath left it out and therefore it was not added fraudently But we answer as we did before that Pamelius in leaving out those words declares those four Cardinal Impostors who were appointed by Pius the fourth to oversee the Edition of Manutius whose Copy is followed in the reprinted works of Cyprian at Rome Paris Antwerp c. And thus we have minuted all which is of any moment alledged pro and con for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the death of Cyprian where we have proved by the testimonies of Ignatius Dionysius and Cyprian himself that there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop in that whole Interval Bellarmine braggs much that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church was an article of Faith in all Ages since the dayes of the Apostles But since we find no monuments in that interval next the Ages of the Apostles that there was any such Article of Faith but on the contrary since we have produced testimonies and invincible ones that there was no such Article of Faith it is evident that the said succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church is a meer cheat For if there had been any such thing the Churches of the East and West in the times of Victor and the Churches of Africa in the times of Stephanus would never have neglected the excommunication of Victor and Stephanus and died unreconciled to the Church of Rome Neither would the middle Church of Rome have placed them in the Catalogue of Saints and Martyres if it had been believed as an Article of Faith that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter Jure divino in the Monarchy of the Church as is believed now in the Modern Roman Church as an article of Faith necessar to Salvation And thus we have concluded the first Part of the grand Impostor and have proved by Testimonies of Antiquity notwithstanding all the bragging of our Adversaries that all Antiquity is for them That the Antients Councills and Fathers believed neither the Supremacy of Peter nor that Peter was Bishop of Rome nor that the Bishop of Rome succeded to him in the Monarchy of the Church and consequently did not believe any necessar communion with the Church of Rome To prove which they bring nothing from Antiquity of the first three Centuries which is not perverted mutilated falsly translated or forged In the Second Part shall be proved they have as little shelter for their Tenets from the death of Cyprian 260. to 604. when Bonifacius the third was made oecumenick Bishop by Phocas FINIS Partis primae Errata of the PREFACE Page 9. line 17. for given Phocas read given by Phocas p. 10 l. 3. for hom r. whom p. 10. l. 29. for add there reasons r. add other reasons p. 13. l. 27. for Stephanus r. Adrianus p. 23. l. 32. for Du plesis r. Du plessis p. 28r l. 20. for lib. 2. r. lib. r. p. 29. l. 27. for suppositious r. supposititious p. 36. l. 3. for related r. resuted p. 34. l. 7. for Testimonies of antiquity at all r. Testimonies of antiquity of any moment Errata lib. 1. Page 17. line 28. for antiquitated r. antiquated p. 22. l. 23. for lib. 4. r. part 2. lib. 2. p. 23. l. 32. for lib. 5. r. part 3. lib. 2. p. 23. l. 32. for Hom 55. 5. r. Hom 5. 5. p. 36. l. 13. for lib. 3. r. part 2. lib. 1. p. 36. l. 15. for lib 4. r. part 2. lib. 2. p. 36. l. 16 for lib. 5. r. part 3. lib. 2. p. 39. l. 17. for of Peter r. to Peter p. 40. l. 22. for confidence r. confidents p. 49. l. 7. for mundos r. multos p. 55 l. 30. for colunas r. columnas p. 56. l. 17. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 70. l. â—5 for but to whom also r. but to whom also p. 77. l. 4. for Hilarius de viâ—ctad r. Hilarius de trinitat p. 101. l. 21. for Paul 5. r. Paul 4. Page 189. line 22. for were proved to be head r. be called head p. 19â— l. 16. for Cyrullus r. Cyrillus p. 199. l. 8. for our adversaries r. whereas our adversaries p. 200. l. 16. for Apostolus r. Apostolis after page 171 Immediatly followeth 187. which is a mistake in the Press nothing is wanting Errata lib. 2. Page 8. l. 12. for lib 5. r. part 3. lib 1. p. 16. l. 5. for distinction r. definition p. 86. l. 2. for constitute one Chair r. constitute one Chair p. 87. l. 22. for causum r. causam