to Peter which was not promised to the other Apostles answered that Origines was speaking allegorically otherwise he contradicted himself in his 5. Homily upon Exodus where he called Peter that great Foundation which we proved to be no contradiction cap. 6. By the same argument we prove that Origines in this place is speaking allegorically otherwise he contradicts Reason Scripture Fathers and himself And likewise affirms a notorius untruth in this very place alledged And first that he contradicts Reason Scripture and Fathers in denying the keys of Heaven and the keys of Heavens to be the same we have just now proved disputing with de Castro and Fisher Secondly He contradicts himself in other places in affirming that greater power of the keys was given to Peter then to the Others or that the keys of the Heavens are more then the keys of Heaven because else-where he disputs and endeavors to prove that the power of the keys given to Peter was the very same given to the other Apostles as in his first Treatise upon Matthew mentioned before and vindicated cap. 6. Thirdly Origen is comparing the keys of Peter with these three admonitions but if he speak literally he lyeth in firming that those Admonishers had the power of the key of one Heaven given them from Christ or that what they did bind and loose on Earth should be bound and loosed in one Heaven which is promised no whereby Christ Lastly Origines is comparing in these words the power of Privat Admonishers with that of Ministers having the power of binding and loosing and after his manner falls to Allegories by this distinction of Heaven and Heavens otherwise he were not only a lyar in this place but also a contradicter of Reason Scripture and other Fathers and of himfelf in other places Bellarmin thought it a sufficient Reason to prove that Origines spake allegorically viz. otherwise he would contradict himself and yet we shewed there was no contradiction therefore he cannot in reason deny that Origines in this place speaks allegorically since otherwise he would contradict Reason Scripture all the Fathers himself in other places and also be a notorious lyar in this same alledged place We have have proved already That Matthew 16. 19. inferrs not that Peter was Oecumenick Bishop because the power of the keys was no universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church we undertook to prove it by an other reason viz. because the power of the keys was not given to Peter alone but to the other Apostles as well as to him Which we undertook to prove by two arguments First by Scripture Secondly by Fathers By Scripture we have already proved it viz. from Matthew 18. 18. and John 20. 23. vindicated from the exceptions of our adversaries alledging they were not alike places with Matthew 16. 19 It only remains now to prove by testimonies of Fathers that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others as well as to Peter those testimonies are of two sorts The first is of those affirming directly that the keys were given to others besids Peter the other sort is of those affirming it by consequence Of the first sort it is needless to mention any more then we have already mentioned in the vindication of these places Such as Hilarius lib. 6. de Trinitate and adversus Arianos Cyprianus Epistola 54. Chrysostomus de Sacerdotio lib. 3. Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 2. epist 5. Pacianus ad Sympronianum epist 1. and in his Treatise against the Novatians All which testimonies expresly affirm That the keys were given to others beside Peter Neither is it needful to set down the words since our adversaries cannot have so much impudence as to deny them To which testimonies may be added that of Hieronymus against Jovinanus Cuncti Discipuli claves Regni Coelorum accipiunt all the Disciples got the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven of Origines tract 1. in Matthew An verò soli Petro dantur claves Regni coelorum nec alius beatorum quisquam eas accepturus est Quod si dictum hoc tibi dabo claves Regni Coelorum caeteris quoque commune est cor non simul omnia communia In which words he expresly affirms That which was promised to Peter was promised also to all the Apostles as well as the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven And a little after Servator dans Spiritum Sanctum Discipulis per insufflationem ait accipite Spiritum Sanctum c. It is needless to add any more testimonies Now let us consider how our adversaries elude them And first Cardinal Pool in his defence of the Ecclesiastick Vnity lib. 2. grants those testimonies but he denys that any thing is proved by them viz. That all the Apostles had alike power with Peter in the power of the keys albeit it seems to be the meaning of those Fathers which he illustrats by the example of Moses and the 70. Elders since it is said Numbers 11. That God gave unto them a part of that Spirit which was in Moses and consequently they had the same power in substance with Moses but not in so excellent a way Maldonatus answers otherwise viz. denying That the same keys were given to Peter Matthew 16. and to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20 his reason is in the two last places no mention is made of keys at all Stapleton is more subtile for seeing that Christ saith Matthew 18. What ever ye shal bind to all the Apostles is the same with that said to Peter Matthew 16. Whatsoever thou shalt bind c. He grants that the same binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. is given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. but he affirms That the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are a thing different from either of the bindings or loosings in Relec. controvers 3 quest 1. art 1. conclus 4. Others answer Distinguishing the keys of Order and Jurisdiction they grant that the keys of Order were given to all the Apostles the keys of Jurisdiction only to Peter It is needless particularly to insist upon the refutation of those new devised Sophistries to hold up the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome they are quite and diametrally opposit to the meaning of all antiquity of which they brag so much as appears by two reasons The first is that the Fathers disput expresly that the same keys were promised to Peter Matth. 16. and to the other Apostles Mat. 18. John 20. consequently all those distinctions devised of late by the Jesuits others are nothing else but fantastick dreams and sophistical evasions And first Origines tract 1. on Matthew disputs as we said That the Church was built alike upon all the Apostles because the keys were given alike to all the Apostles by which reasoning it appears that he thought it a thing uncontroverted in his time that the keys were common to all the Apostles since he useth it as a Medium or Argument to prove That
Jurisdiction of Peter alone over the Church Their second reason is this Because the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others besides Peter which they prove First by Scripture next by Fathers The passages of Scripture are two The first is Mat. 18. 18. Verily I say unto you Whatsoever ye shal bind on earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye loose on earth shal be loosed in heaven The second place is in Joh. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins yel retain they are retained Bellarmin answers That those two places now cited have not the same meaning with Matthew 16. 19. He grants that the difficulty is somewhat pressing of Matthew 18. 18. but there is no difficulty at all saith he in John 20. 23. which he proves by three Arguments The first is this in Matthew 16. 19. The Keyes are promised to Peter without any particular determination but in John they are determinated to the forgiveness of sins but binding and loosing may be exercised in other objects then in pronounccing men guilty of sin or absolving them from sin as in making of laws and dispensing with them But it is answered That the Fathers expounding those words What ever ye shal bind on earth c. Matthew 16. 19. referrs that place only to the binding and loosing of sin So Augustinus tractat 124. on John Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo Claves ab eo regni Coelorum accepit in Petro id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata In which words he expresly affirms That the keyes committed to Peter consisted in the binding and loosing of sin Secondly Theophylactus on Matthew 16. expresly affirms What was given to Peter in that place was given to all the Apostles John 20. He saith indeed They were promised only to Peter Matthew 16. Christ directing his speech only to Peter but they were given to all If ye ask when saith he it is answered when he said Whose soever sins ye forgive alluding to John 20. Whereas Bellarmin affirms That the power of the keyes consists also in making of Laws he saith nothing at all except he prove that Peter had more authority then the other Apostles in that particular of making Laws Bellarmins second Argument to prove the same thing is not promised to Peter Matthew 16. which is given to the other Apostles John 20. is this in Matthew it is said to Peter Whomsoever thou shalt bind c. But it is said to the other Apostles in John Whosesoever sins ye retain c. But to bind is more then to retain for to retain is to leave a man in the same condition ye find him but to bind is to impose new bonds upon him by excommunication interdicting and Law But it is answered This Argument of Bellarmins is of no moment because according to the constant phrase of Scripture Forgiving of sins and loosing of sins are all one Ergo their opposits retaining of sin binding a sinner are all one Since we bind men for their sins only it is necessar that the sin being forgiven they are loosed or else that they are still retained if they be not loosed But it is absurd to affirm that anys sins are forgiven and yet retained for Bellarmin seems to speak of that distinction viz. remission of fault and remission of punishment that is the fault may be forgiven but not the punishment But this distinction is vain and belongs nothing to this place Bellarmin seems to import that the Prerogative of Peter is to have power of remitting any of them or both of them which the other Apostles have not wherein he is topped first by Cyrillus upon Matthew 16. who attributs the full power of binding and loosing to the whole Church which he proves in that instance of the incestuous Corinthian Secondly he is topped by Aquinas affirming that every Minister binds in refusing the Sacrament of the Church to those who are unworthy and looseth when he admits them to it Thirdly the Interlinear Gloss upon Matthew 16. affirms that sins are forgiven and retained by two keyes of power and remission Bellarmins third argument proving that John 20. and Matthew 16. are not alike is this because saith he in John 20. Power of forgiving sins by the Sacrament of Baptism or Penitence is only conferred upon the Apostles which he proveth by the authority of Chrysostom and Cyrillus upon this place John 20. and also of Hieronymus Quest 9. ad Hedibia But it is answered First Those Fathers affirm indeed that Power of forgiving of sins in Baptism is given in this place but it is false which Bellarmin affirms that it is only given and no more For forgiving of sins is but the half of the Power conferred by Christ upon the Apostles in this place since retaining of sins is also given unto them Secondly Fathers referr to Baptism that loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. So Cyprianus epistle 73. where he disputs that forgiving of sins in Baptism is proper to the Pastors of the Church which he proves first by Peter who got that power Matthew 16. 19. and also by the other Apostles to whom our Savior said Whose sins ye forgive c. John 20. Yea Gaudentius in the first day of his ordination expresly affirms that the gates of the Kingdom of heaven are opened no other wayes then by Baptism and absolution and thus much of the similitude of John 20. with Matthew 16. By what we have said it appears that Bellarmin brings nothing but Sopistry to prove that the places are not alike He grants that there is great difficulty to prove the dissimilitude of Matthew 16. 19. and 18. 18. Since binding and loosing is given to all the Apostles in the last place as well as in the first to Peter and not only retaining as in John 20. which Bellarmin affirmed to be a demonstration that John 20. and Matthew 16. were not alike places viz. that retaining and forgiving was only given to all the Apostles John 20 which was not so much as binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. Nevertheless Bellarmin endeavors to prove that Matthew 16. 19. and 18. 18. are unlike places although in the last binding and loosing be given to all the Apostles as well as to Peter in the first Because that binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. is of greater authority then that given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. 18 His argument is this which I believe he understands not himself In Matthew 18. saith he Nothing is given to the Apostles at all but only it is promised to them and explained what power they should have afterward which he prove by two reasons The first is That they were not yet Priests or Pastors or Bishops when Christ made them that promise Matthew 18. 18. but only after the resurrection Secondly because those words Whomsoever ye shal bind and loose c. Matthew 18. are the paralels of those said
Church of Rome depends upon the fantastick gloss of a Jesuit contradicting all Antiquity and inconsistent with it self And first it is against Antiquity because they cannot give one instance from ancient Interpreters Councils and Fathers giving this gloss upon those words of our Savior Upon this Rock I will build my Church neither was this gloss ever heard of or so much as dreamed of before the times of the Jesuits after the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was openly assaulted Secondly this gloss is contradictory to it self By it Bellarmin intangles himself many ways and first he grants that all the Apostles were equally Rocks and Foundations with Peter if the word Foundation be taken in the first two senses But all the Fathers who expone the Apostles to be foundations and Peter among the rest did not so much as dream of any other way why Peter or they are called Foundations but only of the first two viz. in regard that they all alike founded Churches preaching that doctrine revealed unto them all alike immediatly from God and consequently foundation in Bellarmins third sense is a dream of his own by which he may well confirm his disciples he will never convert Proselytes but expose himself to the ludibrious taxings of his adversaries in making his own groundless fiction the main Basis of the supremacy of Peter consequently of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and consequently of the Religion of the Modern Church of Rome to which all must be conform under pain of damnation according to that new article coined by the Council of Trent adding to that Article of the Creed Catholick Church making it Catholick Roman Church Secondly we have shewed That this third way of Foundation is a fiction of Bellarmins not dreamed of by the Ancients which although it be sufficient to refute it yet it refutes it self by many contradictions And first of other Popish Doctors It gives unto all the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis plenitude of power in which it contradicts the Theologick Dictionary of Altenstaing approved by authority of the Church of Rome In which Dictionar Plenitudo potestatis is defined not only to be ordinis but also Jurisdictionis conferred by Christ only upon Peter and his Successors and that now formalitâ—â— subjective it is only in the Bishop of Rome which is expresly contradicted by Bellarmin who attributs it to all the Apostles pressed by the evident testimonies of those Fathers seeing the gloss of that Dictionar to be against all Antiquity Thirdly Though Bellarmin be more sound then the gloss of that Dictionar in attributing to all the Apostles that plenitâ—de of power yet he contradicts himself in giving to Peter a greater power then they had it fleeth the edge of the quickest reason to conceive any power greater then plenitude of power and therefore it is a flat contradiction to affirme that although all the Apostles have plenitude of power yet they depend upon Peter as their head which is as much to say as all the Apostles have that power then which none can have a greater and yet Peter hath a greater power then they Lastly Bellarmin affirms that Peter hath plenitude of power as ordinar Pastor the other Apostles as extraordinar and Legats to Peter in which he intangles himself in a twofold contradiction For to omit that distinction of ordinar and extraordinar Pastor amongst the Apostles is a fiction of his own the whole stream of Antiquity avowing all the Apostles to be extraordinar Pastors Peter as well as the rest First he makes the other Apostles above Peter since extraordinar Pastors are preferred to ordinar Pastors the Apostle Paul enumerating the hierarchy of the Church Ephes 4 puts extraordinar Pastors in the first place viz. Apostâ—es Prophets and Evangelists before Pastors and Doctors and so he contradicts himself in affirming that extraordinar Pastors depend upon Peter as their head whom he maketh ordinar Pastor Secondly He contradicts himself in making the other Apostles Legats to Peter and to omit he doth so without any ground having no authority but his own assertion he intangleth himself in his reason for he hath no other reason wherefore the other Apostles are Legats to Peter but only because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle in the original imports one who is sent in commission which is all one with a Legat. But Bellarmin will not deny that Peter in that sense is a Legat also because he is an Apostle and so Peter will be Legat to Peter which is perfect none-sense and contradiction Bellarmin borrowed this distinction of ordinar and extraordinar from Sanderus that famous English Jesuit who with his Country-man Stapleton invented more new distinctions to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome then all the Doctors of the Church beside Sanderus proves Peter to be ordinar and the other Apostles to be extraordinar lib. 6. cap. 9. of his Monarchy Thus Ordinar is called so from order but in order that is first which is most ancient since nothing can be first before that which is first but Peter was the first upon whom Christ promised to build his Church and to give him the power of the keys Ergo they were given to Peter alone For albeit afterwards they were given to all the Apostles yet Christ did not revock what he had given first to Peter and the fore Peter is ordinar Pastor and the other Apostles extraordinar But it is answered This argument of Sanderus presuppons many things as granted which are either uncertain or notoriously false Secondly albeit his suppositions were true they do not conclude his assertion that Peter is ordinar Pastor having Jurisdiction over the rest as extraordinar He who would see how that Sophistry of Sanderus is retexed at large let him read Chameir tom 2. lib. 11. cap. 6. num 27. to the end of the chapter the substance of which is this First He suppons that as Ordinar which is first that extraordinar which is last But ordinar is taken among Divines speaking of Church Officers for that Office which is perpetual extraordinar for that which is for a time So in in the Old Testament Priests and Levits were ordinar Prophets extraordinar Officers and under the New Testament Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and Doctors are ordinar Officers Apostles Evangelists extraordinar Secondly Though the distinction of Sanderus in that sense of ordinar and extraordinar were granted his assertion is uncertain yea rather notoriously false he suppons that Peter first obtained the power of binding loosing and feeding the Flock of Christ but that is uncertain for these words of Christ exhibit nothing to Peter for the present but only promise to give him that power of the Keys and to build his Church upon him neither was that promise made to Peter alone but to all the Apostles as partly hath been proved already but more fully shal be proved cap. 6. and 9. and therefore the supposition of Sanderus is uncertain and false
over the Church And lest it should seem to be a wilful denyal they give these following reasons why Peter is not ordained Oecumenick Bishop in these words Or why the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven inferr no universal Jurisdiction over the Church in the person of Peter alone The first reason is this the power of the keys is only a forgiving or remitting of sins or not remitting them or a binding and loosing as appears by the testimony of Augustinus in his 52. Treatise upon John of Theophylactus on Matthew 16. 19. of Anselmus ibid. But none calls in question but binding and loosing is a different thing from the power oâ— an Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin instances lib. 1. cap. 13. de pont Rom. that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church which he proves by three arguments The first is from the Metaphor of keyes Isaiah 21. where Shebna is threatned to have the keys of the Temple taken from him to be given to Eliakim that is saith Bellarmin the government of the Temple or of the house of God But it is answered Bellarmin is greatly mistaken for according to the Hebrew Shebna was not Perfect of the Temple but only of the Kings house Bellarmin is deceived by the Latin version turning it Tabernacle whereas Aben Ezra calls it Master of the Kings house the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they call Shebna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Treasaurer or Master-houshold that is the true interpretation as appears by Kings 2. cap. 18. in which place Eliakim who succeeded to Shebna in that charge is called by the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oeconomus or Master-houshold Shebna is called there a Scribe which place he obtained after the keys of the Kings house were taken from him and given to Eliakim However it is a very bad argument of Bellarmins When Shebna had the keys of the Kings house the government of the house was taken from him when they were taken away Ergo When Peter get the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ he was made sole governor of the whole Church Bellarmin should observe that keys are given sometime by an Inferior to a Superior although that be but a new invention or ceremony yet it is an acknowledgement of authority as when a King entring a Town the keys are delivered to him But when keys are given by a Superior to an Inferior chief Jurisdiction is no wayes denoted But Bellarmin will not deny that Christ was Superior to Peter And whereas it is objected that Christ hath the key of David in the Apocalyps that is jurisdiction of the Church It is answered the case is different none calls the jurisdiction of Christ in question neither had he the keys from any greater then himself Bellarmins second argument is That the keys import binding and loosing that is inflicting of punishment and dispensing with obligations of the Law which is supream Jurisdiction over the Church And consequently Peter in these words is instituted Oecumenick Bishop But it is answered That binding and loosing import no supream Jurisdiction as appears by its being common to all the Officers of the Church as well as to Peter it consists in bidding forbidding punishing by Spiritual Censures and Relaxations from them which are common to all Church-Officers as shal immediatly be proved In the third place Bellarmin proves that our Savior promising to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven promised to him alone the government of the whole Church by the testimonies of Fathers The first testimony of Chrysostomus hom 55. on Matthew affirming that to Peter the whole world was committed and that he was made head and Pastor of the whole Church But it is answered It is false that either Chrysostomus affirms the whole world was committed to Peter or that he was head of the Church Bellarmin followeth the corrupt version of Trapezuntius in which he sophisticats manifoldly the words of Chrysostom are comparing Hieremas with Peter Quemadmodum pater Hieremam alloqueus dixit Instar colunae aneae muâ—i posui eum sed illum quidem uni genti hunc verototi orbi In these words Chrysostomus is comparing the Prophet with Peter as the Lord saith he put Hieremas as a wall of brass to one Nation viz. the Jews sc Peter was made a wall of brass to the whole world But Chrysostom speaks not a word of Hieremias being set over the Jews with Jurisdiction and consequently if the comparison hold Peter was not set over the whole world with Jurisdiction which is the first sophistry of Bellarmin following Trapezuntius in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 posâ—it eum placed him Trapezuntius renders praeposuit set him over which is not in the Appodosis of Peter The second corruption is that Trapezuntius adds of his own Cujus caput piscator homo whose head was a Fisher-man It is true indeed a little before these words Chrysostom calls Peter Pastor of the Church but that 's nothing to an Oceumenick Bishop for any Apostle may be called Pastor of the Church as shal be proved afterwards in this Book Bellarmins second testimony is of Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist 32. Where speaking of Peter he affirms the care of the whole Church was committed to him and that he was Prince of the Apostles But it is answered In what sense Gregorius affirms so shal be shewed at length hereafter where it shal be proved first that others were called Princes of the Apostles beside Peter and that the care of the whole Church was committed to others also who were not Oecumenick Bishops Secondly the impudence of Bellarmin is very great in objecting this place of Gregorius in which he is thundering with great execrations and detestation against any who taketh upon him the tittle of Oecumenick Bishop calling that tittle new Pompatick Blasphemous against the mandats of Christ the Canons of the Apostles and Constitutions of the Church And among other reasons against that title of universal Oecumenick Bishop he objects this as one If any took upon him that title Peter had reason to take it but he had not that tittle although the care of the whole Church was committed to him then this impudence of Bellarmin no greater can be imaginable Gregory expresly denyes it to follow that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop although the care of the whole Church was committed to him Bellarmin mutilats his passage and makes him conclude that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop because the care of the whole Church was committed to him He cites this part of Gregories assertion the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter but he suppresseth the other half of his assertion that Peter was not universal Apostle and most impudently fathers a contradictory conclusion upon Gregory Ergo Peter was Oecumenick Bishop And thus much of the first reason wherefore Protestants deny that the power of the keyes imports no universal
to Peter Whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose Matthew 16. But in Matthew 16. nothing was exhibited to Peter but only promised Ergo in Matthew 18. nothing was exhibited to the other Apostles It is answered That Bellarmin proves nothing but what he affirmed before viz. That it was hard to shew a disparity between these two places Or that binding and loosing Matthew 16. 19. and Matthew 28. 18. for in stead of proving them different places by his sophistical contradictory babling he proves they are just the same For first he grants that nothing was exhibited in either place but only promised Secondly he grants that the words are alike Whatsoever thou shalt bind and whatsoever ye shal bind Whence he concluds that the places are not alike whereas he demonstrats they are the same It is reasoning unbeseeming so brave a man to prove places not alike by alike circumstances in both Secondly he contradicts what he said before viz. That power of Order was only given unto the other Apostles John 20. but power of Jurisdiction to Peter Matthew 16. and therefore the places were unlike that power of order was only given to the other Apostles John 20. he proved by forgiving and retaining that power of Jurisdiction was given to Peter Matthew 16. he proves by binding and loosing but here he grants that the binding and loosing given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and that given to Peter Matthew 16. are verba similia or the same words and consequently that the keys or power of Jurisdiction are given to the other Apostles as well as to Peter and consequently he proves himself a lyar in affirming that the keys given to Peter were keys of Jurisdiction but not these given to the other Apostles Alphonsus de Castro adversus haeres lib. 12. and Fisher Bishop of Rochester disputing against Luther art 25 proves that the keys given to Peter Matthew 16. and these given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. are not the same which they prove by an Achillean argument viz. it is said to Peter What ever thou bindest and loosest on Earth shal be bound and loosed in the Heavens but unto the other Apostles Matthew 18 it is only said Whomsoever ye bind or loose on Earth it shal be bound or loosed in Heaven but to bind and loose in Heaven is not the same but less then to bind and loose in the Heavens But it is answered Any intelligent person may see that those otherwise-learned men fight against their own conscience when they are driven to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome by such childish babling Since men of so great Spirits and Learning as those two were known to be could not be ignorant that this distinction of Heaven and Heavens is against Sense Scripture and Fathers First it is against sense Because none can be ignorant that Heavens in the plural number and Heaven collectively in the singular number are all one and the same thing in the ordinar phrase of speaking Who is so stupid as to deny it Secondly It is against Scripture which promiscuously useth Heaven and Heavens in the same sense so Mark 1. compared with Luk. 3. demonstrat In the first place it is said The Heavens were cloven assunder In the last the Heaven was opened and yet both the Evangelists are relating the same thing when John the Baptist baptized our Savior So Matthew 6. Christ affirmeth Lay up treasures for your selves in Heaven but Luk. 12. Make your selves treasurs in the Heavens Thirdly this distinction of Heaven and Heavens is of so little moment in the opinion of the Fathers that they express Matthew 18. in the plural number Heavens and Matthew 16. in the singular number Heaven So Hilarius lib. 6. de Trinitate affirms That all the Apostles had the keys Regni Coelorum of the Heavens he useth the same expression in his Book against the Arrians Cyprianus epist 54. affirmeth that all the Apostles had power of binding and loosing in the Heavens so doth Chrysostomus lib. 3. de Sacerdotio and Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 2. epist 5. and Augustinus against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets lib. 1. cap. 17. and Paceanus epist 1. to Sympronianus and in his book against the Novatians All which Fathers affirm that the Apostles had power of binding and loosing in Coelis in the Heavens The school-men likewise speak after the same manner as Lombardus distinct 18. of the first chapter lib. 4. and also in the same book distinct 19. and Durandus quest 1. in his Commentaries upon the said 19. distinct This is it that proved that all the Apostles had the keys not only of Heaven but of the Heavens whereby it appears by the authority of Scripture Fathers and School-men that the keys of Heaven and of Heavens are one and the same thing If any be not yet convinced it is further proved they are the same because the Fathers call the keys of Peter the keys of Heaven in the singular number So Ambrosius lib 1. de penitentia cap. 6. and Augustinus contra adversarium lib. 1. cap. 17. Ambrosius repeating the words of Christ to Peter saith Quaecunque ligaveris super Terram erunt ligata in Coelo Which is further confirmed The Fathers in the same place speaking of Christs promise to Peter call the keys promised to him both the keys of Heaven and the keys of Heavens So Ambrosius in the now cited place after the former words adds Et quaeâ—unque solveris super Terram erunt soluta in Coelis Augustinus in the fore-cited place calls the keys given to the other Apostles both the keys of Heaven and of the Heavens for after those words repeating our Saviors promise to the Apostles Quae solveritis super Terram erunt soluta in Coelis he affirms Quae ligaveritis in Terra erunt ligata in Coelo And thus we have proved that Alphonsus de Castro and Bishop Fisher are mistaken in their distinction of Heaven and Heavens by Reason Scripture and Fathers The original of this distinction they have from Origines tract 6. in Matthew where comparing the keys of Peter with those words Tell the Church and if he refuse to hear it to make satisfaction after three admonitions let him be unto thee as a publican he affirms That Peter although but one person yet had the keys of many Heavens but others or those admonishers three times although many persons yet had only the keys of one Heaven and so by the testimony of Origines Bozius lib. 18. cap. 1. de signis Ecclesie sustains that distinction of Heaven and Heavens mentioned by de Castro and Bishop Fisher But it is answered Those Doctors of the Church of Rome take great liberty to themselves in exposition of the Fathers Bellarmin as we shewed before pressed by a testimony of Origen not only affirming but also proving that these words upon this Rock I will build my Church Or that in these words nothing was promised
the Church was built upon all the Apostles as well as upon Peter Secondly That the keys were common to all the Apostles he proves by John 20 23. whereby it is evident that the said place is the same in meaning with Matthew 16. in which he flatly contradicts Bellarmin who confidently affirmed that without all doubt forgiving and retaining of sins mentioned John 20. 23. was not the same thing with binding and loosing Matthew 6. 19. Thirdly Cyprianus de Vnitate Ecclesiae expresly affirms That Christ gave alike power to all his Apostles Iohn 20. 23. in these words Accipite Spiritum Sanctum si cujus remiseritis peccata c. Receive the Holy Ghost whosesoever sins ye shal forgive they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained and since all the Apostles according to Cyprianus had alike power given them after the Resurrection of Christ by John 20. 23. without all question he believed that the same power of the keys was given to all the Apostles which was given to Peter Matthew 16. The second Reason Why those distinctions of Polus Maldonatus Stapleton and Bellarmin and others or new devised evasions is unanswerable viz. It appears by the Fathers that no greater Ecclesiastical power imaginable could be given to any then that which was given to all the Apostles in Matthew 18 and John 20. which quite destroys all those sophistical distinctions tending all to this That the power given to Peter was greater Matthew 16. 19 then that given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20. That no greater power can be imagined then that which was given to all the Apostles is proved by the testimony of Chrysostomus lib. 3. cap. 5. de Sacerdotio Where speaking of that power of the keys given to all the Apostles yea and to all Bishops he falls to an interrogative exclamation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is I pray you what greater power can be given then this But this had been a most ridiculous interrogation in Chrysostomus if either he himself or any other had believed that the power of the keys promised to Peter Matthew 16. was greater then that promised to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20. And thus much of the testimonies of those Fathers proving directly that the keyes were given to others as well as to Peter Now followeth the testimonies of Fathers proving by consequence that the keyes Matthew 16. were not peculiar to Peter out of which testimonies three arguments are deduced The first is If Peter alone had the power of the keyes promised to him Matthew 16. Then Peter would only have exercised the keyes and no other beside him in such a high-way as he did But it appears by the testimony of Gaudentius primae de ordinationis suae that all the Apostles as well as Peter practised the keys viz. in teaching baptizing censuring Yea Salmeron the Jesuit in his Commentars upon 1. of Peter 1. disput 1. expresly affirms That Peter seemed to neglect his duty in the exercise of the keyes it so little appeared by his carriage and practise that he had any Jurisdiction over the other Apostles Where observe the impudent shift of the Jesuit who being pressed by the carriage of Peter that no token of his Supremacy appeared hath nothing to answer but that it was his own neglest which if it be true was great unfaithfulness of Peter if it be false as it is it is great impudence in the Jesuit The second argument taken from the Fathers proving consequentially that the other Apostles were promised the keyes as well as Peter is taken from Augustinus who affirms That Peter represented the whole Church when Christ promised him the keyes and so by consequence in Peter the other Apostles and all Pastors of the Church had the keyes promised unto them the words of Augustinus are those following in his 124. trâ—â—â—at upon John Quando Petro dictum est tibi dabo claves regni coelorum quodcunque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in coelis universam significabat Ecclesiam And a little after Ecclesia Ergo quae fundatur in Christo claves ab co regni Coelorum accepit in Petro id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata In which words he expresly affirms That Peter was a figure of the whole Church when our Savior promised him the keyes and therefore in Peter the keyes were given to the whole Church and not to Peter alone Our adversaries pussed with this testimony of Augustinus after their accustomed manner fall to their new devised distinctions explaining how the keyes were given to Peter representing the whole Church Or how they were given to the whole Church in Peter And first Horantius lib. 6. cap. 10. Locor Cathol affirms That the keys were given to the whole Church in Peter that is saith he They were given to Peter for the good of the whole Church as when any is made King of any Nation the Kingdom or Kingly Authority is given to him for the good of the whole Nation and so Peter as Prince of the Church had the keyes given unto him for the good of the whole Church and in this manner the keyes were given to the whole Church in Peter But it is answered Horantius his Gloss is far beside the Text of Augustiuus who expresly disputs The keyes were not given to Peter alone but to the whole Church for if they were only given to Peter the whole Church would not have exercised them he disputs so tractat 50. upon John and therefore concluds that the keyes were not given alone to Peter because the whole Church exercised them as well as Peter Augustinus doth not disput for what end the keyes were given but to whom also this Gloss of Horantius expresly contradicts Augustinus Horantius affirms That the keyes in the same manner were given to the whole Church in Peter as when any is made King of a Nation the Authority of a King is given to the whole Nation that is saith he He who is made King gets that Authority for the good of the whole Nation which is a flat contradiction of Augustinus for that Nation or whole Nation cannot be said to exercise the Kingly Authority when he who is made King gets it But Augustinus expresly disputs That the whole Church exercised the keyes as well as Peter and therefore the keyes were given to the whole Church in Peter otherwise saith he The whole Church would not have exercised them tractat 50. His words are If Peter had not represented the Church our Lord had not said unto him I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven For if that only was said to Peter The Church hath no power of binding or loosing and since the Church hath that power Peter was the Sacrament or Figure of the whole Church or mistically represented the whole Church when our Savior promised to him the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and
cannot be deficient when thou fees others vacillating convert thy self to them and confirm them They object many things here as that Theophylactus affirmeth That Peter after his repentance shal recover Primatum omnium and Praefecturam orbis that Ambrosius affirms Petrus Ecclesiae praeponitur postquaem tentatus à Diabolo est Augustinus also calls Peter Rectorem Ecclesiae cui claves Regni Coelorum creditae sunt But these objections are of no moment And first that Theophylactus affirms that Peter recovered the Primacy above all it is nothing For first the meaning is no other then that he hath a chief place in the Church in dignity not in Jurisdiction and it shal be proved cap. 19. 20. that not only the other Apostles are called Principes Primates but also Praefecti orbis and Rectores Ecclesiae The ninth Prerogative of Peter is that our Savior first of all appeared to him after his resurrection But it is answered first although it were true it is of no moment to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop Secondly it is notoriously false because he appeared to Mary Magdalene before ever he appeared to Peter Mark 16. 19. before ever he appeared to his own mother or to any of the Apostles If Bellarmin answer That Mary Magdalen was only a woman It is replyed It concluds Women had the Primacy over the Apostles if the Argument were of any force Secondly it is very probable that our Savior appeared to these two disciples going to Emmaus before he appeared to any of the Apostles for when they came back to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together then they affirmed that the Lord was risen indeed had appeared to Simon which is all that Bellarmin alledgeth to prove that Christ first appeared to Peter except that of 1 Corinth 15. He appeared unto Cephas and after that unto the eleven however albeit it be very probable that our Savior appeared to Peter before ever he appeared unto the other Apostles yet it concludes no more that Peter had Primacy over the the other Apostles then that those two Disciples going to Emmaus had primacy over them since he appeared unto them as well as unto Peter before ever he appeared to the other Apostles The tenth Prerogative is taken from John 13. when our Savior washing the Apostles feet did first wash those of Peter It is answered first Although it were true it is of no moment to prove Peter Oecumenick bishop Secondly it is only a conjecture of some Fathers that Peters feet were first washed it cannot begathered from the text at all Augustinus is of that opinion indeed and so is Nonnus in his Poetical paraphrase but other Fathers are against it as Chrysostomus Theophylactus Bellarmin urgeth here that those Fathers affirm That Judas only had his feet washed before Peter but what then Bellarmins reason is very bad concluding from that washing Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop since Judas was washed before him he instances Judas was a Traitor and none of the other Apostles would have suffered our Savior to wash their feet before these of Peters but only Judas But it is replyed First if there had been any my stery of Primacy in that washing of feet our Savior would never have washed the feet of Judas before those of Peter Secondly not only Origines and Ambrosius affirm That he washed the feet of other Apostles before those of Peter besides Judas but also Popish Doctors affirm the same as Aquinas Lyranus and Salmero the Jesuit The eleventh Prerogative is from John 21. 18. where our Savior saith to Peter But when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thine hands and another shal gird thee If ye demand what Prerogative is here They answer that in those words Christ shows to Peter what death he should die viz. That he should be crucified as himself was But it is answered First although it were true it doth not conclude Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop Secondly that our Savior foretold to Peter a violent death in those words is more then probable but that he foretold the death of the cross can no wayes be gathered from the words And whereas they insist upon stretching forth of hands it is of no moment since those words do not conclude stretching forth of hands upon the cross necessarily since ones hands are stretched out when they are bound which sort of stretching our Savior questionless means by as appears by these words When thou wast young thou girdedst thy self but when thou shalt be old thou shâ—lt streâ—ch forth thy hands and another shal gird thee and lead thee whither thou wouldest not The Syrian Interpreter Alius cinget lumbos tuos shall gird thy loins Interlinear Gloss cinget vinoulis shal gird thy loins Lyranus convinced that stretching of hands was by Cords and not by Nails affirms That Peter was crucified being bound by cords upon the cross which is a very ridiculous fancy however that by stretching of hands is not meant crucifying but only binding appears by the following words and lead thee whither thou wouldest not It is notorious that they use not to lead one who is crucified already any where The twelfth Prerogative is from Acts 1. 15. And in those dayes Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples Here they gather great things First that Peter convocated the rest of the Apostles Ergo he was Oecumenick Bishop But first it is inconsequent although he had gathered them in one it doth not follow that he did so by authoriâ—y but only by advice and counsel Secondly it is notoriously false that Luke in that place affirms any such thing as that the Apostles were convocated by Peter The second thing they gather that Peter having proposed that one should be chosen in the place of Judas they all obeyed his command But it is answered Peter only uttered his opinion as any one of them might have done that such a thing was necessary and they followed his opinion It is ridiculous to collect â—â—om thence any authority of Peter over the rest Salmero the Jesuit collects that Peter represented Christ because Luke affirms He stood up in the midst of them But it is answered It follows likewise that the little child Mat. 18. and the man with the withered hand Mark 3. and Paul Ast. 27. Were visible heads of the Church That standing in the mids imports no authority of it self but rather a Ministrie appears by Luke 22. 27. where our Savior affirms He was in the mids of them as a servant The thirteenth Prerogative is from Acts 2. where after the Apostles had received the Holy-Ghost Peter first of all did promulgat the Gospel But it is answered First although it were true it is inconsequent to prove Peter visible head of the Church as is notorious Secondly it is false or at least not certain that Peter preached the Gospel first for Luke affirms Before that time the Apostles spake with tongues to the admiration of all the hearers
Peter The other Doctors answer variously And first Carerius and Pighius following Clemens Alexandrinus mentioned by Eusebius hist lib. 1. cap. 14. affirms That it was not Peter the Apostle but an other Cephas who was reprehended by Paul But this opinion is ridiculous for Paul is comparing himself in those words to the chief of the Apostles one of which was Peter whereby it is evident that it was Peter the Apostle whom he resisted and not an other Peter and therefore this opinion is exploded by Hieronymus and other Fathers The second answer is of Gregorius de Valentia Pighius and Carerius following Chrysostomus and Hieronymus affirming That it was but a dissimulation and the reprehension proceeded from Paul by paction between him and Peter viz. That Peter the Jews arriving should leave the Gentiles that Paul might have occasion to reprehend him And consequently that the Jews might be instructed of the calling of the Gentiles by Pauls reprehension But it is answered This Argument is laught at by Augustinus as not becoming the gravity of Paul who had sworn before that he lyed not Others affirm That Peter erred not in faith so Sanderus and Stapleton but only in conversation But it is answered The less his error was by the said reprehension the less it appears he was Oecumenick Bishop for if he erred not in faith no body should have presumed to resist him as is expresly forbidden by the fore-cited Canons of the Canon Law Baronius answers That Peter erred not at all But it is false and gives the lye unto the Apostle Paul who affirms He was to be blamed Bellarmin answers another way viz. That one may reprehend another although superior in Authority if it be done with reverence as Paul did Peter here He cites Augustinus epist 19 to Hieronymus and Gregorius Magnus homil 18. on Ezekiel who expresly affirms That Peter was greater then Paul and yet he was reprehended by him But it is answered That takes not away the force of the argument First because the question is not Whether Peter was greater then Paul But whether he was Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin will not affirm That an Oecumenick Bishop may be reprehended else he will not only contradict the Canon Law as we shewed and which they make of equal authority with the Scripture but also himself lib. 4. cap 5. de Pont. Rom. where he affirms That if the Pope command Vice and forbid Vertue the Church is bound to believe that Vice is Vertue and Vertue Vice Secondly it expresly appears by the words of Paul Gal. 2. That he made himself equal to Peter as is acknowledged by the ordinar gloss Lombardus Cajetanus yea Chrysostomus after he hath gathered from the words of Paul that he was equal to Peter he adds Ne dicam amplius by which words he thinks Paul was greater then Peter Thirdly The Doctrine of Paul was preferred to that of Peter that of Peter being found dissimulation and that of Paul sincere Christian Doctrine It is needless to examine the answers of others as of Stapleton and Eckius yet we will mention two other answers The one of Aquinas the other of Cardinal Pool that of Aquinas and Eckius is almost all one viz. They grant that Peter and Paul was alike But they distinguish that Paul was equal to Peter in the execution of authority but not in authority of Government in executione Autoritatis non in autoritate regiminis But it is answered This distinction of Thomas is a plain riddle It would puzle Oedipus himself It is ordinar with Sophisters to imitate that fish called Sepia when it is caught it vomits up a black humor like ink to deceive the fishers none can conceive this distinction of Thomas without contradiction For if Paul were equal to Peter in the execution of Authority he was equal also to him in the authority of Government since the execution of Authority is the Act flowing from the other or from the Authority of Government if the same be the authority of both Peter and Paul This cantradiction is inevitable but if the Authority of Peter be greater then that of Paul he still contradicts himself in affirming Paul was equal to Peter in the execution of authority no subordinat Magistrat can be equal in the execution of Authority to the Supreme Magistrat Eckius distinguisheth more to the purpose viz. between the Office of an Apostle in teaching and governing Paul was equal to Peter the first way and therefore he reprehended him not the second way But it is replyed first Albeit this distinction were granted it doth not take away the force of the Argument which consists in this whether Paul were greater or less then Peter it is nothing to the purpose An Oecumenick Bishop according to the Canon Law ought to be questioned by none and since Paul questioned Peters actions it is evident according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome that Peter was not Oecumenick Bishop neither is it of any moment that the Canon Law provides that a Pope may be questioned for Heresie since that sort of questioning is antiquated by the Council of Florence and the constant Practice of the Modern Church of Rome Neither was the error of Peter an Heresie but only an action of dissimulation Secondly the distinction of it self is contradictory for two reasons First because Government of the Church pertains to the office of an Apostle all the Apostles having exercised all the parts of that Government Secondly this reprehension of Paul was directly in execution of the authority of Government because Government comprehends reprehension of transgressors both in doctrine and manners or actions But in this particular the actions of Peter were reprehended by Paul Cardinal Pool a very Learned man retorts the Argument lib. 2. de unitate Ecclesiae where he affirms This reprehension of Peter by Paul concludes Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop but he tells not how Baronius it seems explains him anno 53. num 46. the argument is very pretty viz. They who followed the example of Peter Judaizing preferred it to the decree of the Council of Jerusalem Ergo they believed his authority was above that of the Council and of Paul yea Barnabas himself followed Peter before either the Council or Paul But it is answered to omit that it is not certain whether this dissimulation of Peters was before or after the Council of Jerusalem Baronius had reasoned far better thus Paul preferred the decree of the Council to the fact of Peter reprehending Peter in his face Ergo Peter was not Oecumenick Bishop For albeit those Judaizing had preferred the example of Peter to the decree of the Council it doth not follow that Peter was above a Council except they had rightly preferred the example of Peter to the decree of the Council And this much of the carriage of Peter and his Institution We have omitted hitherto nothing of moment pretended by either side assaulting or asserting the Supremacy of Peter from
Peter who was Bishop of the place Bellarmine answers That he did not salute John in his Epistle to the Ephesians nor James in his Epistle to the Hebrews and yet John was Bishop of Ephesus and James Bishop of Jerusalem But it is replyed this answer of Bellarmine is very childish for to omit that neither John nor James were Bishops at all but only Apostles and founders of those Churches as we said before John was not at Ephesus at that time nor stayed there and James at that time was dead neither did Paul write his Epistle to the Hebrews to the particular Church of Jerusalem but to the whole Jews Bellarmine answers secondly That Peter was not returned to Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans But it is replyed first Aquila and Priscilla were returned to Rome whom Bellarmine affirms were expelled at the same time with Peter whom Paul salutes Rom. 16. 3. but it is incredible that Peter who was Bishop of the place would not have returned with the first Secondly Paul among the causes of his thanksgiving for the Faith of the Romans cap. 1. 8. and other praises cap. 16. or of his own prayers cap. 16. 10. makes no mention of Peter at all yet constantly in his Epistles he useth to mention the Ministers of the Churches to which they are directed whether they be present or not as appears by 1. Corinth cap. 16. 15. Ephes 6. 21. Phil. 2. 19. Col. 4. 9. 12. c. The fifth reason that Peter was never at Rome is it is known that Paul wrote several Epistles from Rome in the time of Nero in whose time Bellarmine affirms that Peter was at Rome in which Epistles he makes frequent mention of others of lesser note and yet he makes no mention of Peter at all as Col. 4. 11. and 2. Timothy 4. 16. Bellarmine answers first that a negative testimony proves nothing it doth not follow Peter was not at Rome because Paul makes no mention of him But it is replyed it is not only a negative testimony which is the ground of the Argument but an Argument à minore ad majus Paul makes mention of others of lesser note much more he would have made mention of Peter if he had been at Rome 2. There are two sorts of negative testimonies the first is purely negative the second is privative when nothing is testified when it should have been testified this last sort of negative Argument is most efficacious as is acknowledged by Medina upon Thomas part 83. quaest 1. art 3. Neither can it be denyed that this is good reasoning There was but one World created That only the second person of the Trinity assumed flesh because the Scripture makes no mention that more Worlds were created or that the other persons of the Trinity were incarnate But this Argument is taken from a privative testimony viz. Paul could not without just reprehension make no mention of Peter if Peter had been at Rome at that time as appears by Colos 4. 10 11. where Paul affirms that Marcus Justus and Aristarchus were all the Jews which were his work-fellows in the Gospel But if Peter had been at Rome Paul had spoken untruly in excluding him from being one of his work-fellows which he restricts to the following three for if Peter had been at Rome Paul would never have affirmed that those three were the only work-fellows he had at Rome Again 2 Tim. 4. 10 11. he affirms that all his fellows had forsaken him except Luke who only was with him but if Peter had been at Rome he would never have forsaken Paul nor had it been true which Paul affirmed that none were with him but Luke Those passages puzleth Bellarmine very sore as appears by his perplexed answer he gives to that passage of Colos 4. that Paul speaks only of his domesticks which is a most miserable effugium for to omit that Paul keeped not such a port as to have so many domesticks he expresly calls those three persons Aristarchus Marcus Justus all the fellow-labourers in the Gospel he had at Rome Secondly Bellarmine answers to 2 Tim. 4. 16. That Paul speaks there of those who might have been intercessors for him to Nero which is a very simple evasion he hath no ground at all for it and it is clear against the meaning of Paul who speaks of those who should have corroborated him or confirmed him as appears from verse 17. where he affirms that God was with him and strengthened him only except Luke verse 11. But if Peter had been at Rome he would not have neglected such a duty to Paul Thirdly Bellarmine answers That perhaps Peter was elsewhere when Paul wrote those Epistles from Rome which is as much to say that Peter was Bishop of Rome and yet was never at Rome when the Scripture makes mention of the Teachers of that Church that Paul could never find him at Rome albeit Dionysius praised by Bellarmine affirms cap. 3. that he was at Rome the same time with Paul and died with him in one day And this much of those reasons proving that Peter was never at Rome although they be not demonstrative yet they are very perswasive Velenus in a Treatise purposly writen of that subject adds many more but these are sufficient in this Compend In the next place we will alledge some unanswerable reasons proving that although Peter had been at Rome yet he was never Bishop of Rome The first is this the Office of an Apostle and a Bishop in the strict sense are inconsistent in one person a Bishop is restricted to a certain Charge but an Apostle by institution is bound to have no certain Charge as appears by those words of Christ Go unto the whole World by which words they are expresly commanded not to tye themselves to any particular place or at least it is permitted them not to tye themselves to a particular place but if they had been Bishops they were of necessity tyed to a particular Charge If any of the Apostles had been Bishops Paul had as much reason to be called so as any other of the Apostles but we never read that Paul was Bishop of any particular Church except only Irenaeus and some others affirm that he and Peter were conjunct Bishops of Rome but that quite destroyes Peters Bishoprick of Rome as we said before since the word Bishop is taken in a large sense as they must of necessity confesse since Bellarmine will not affirm that Paul was Bishop of Rome in a proper sense The second reason is this they confesse that Peter was very oft absent from Rome and very long Cartesius affirms that he was 18. years absent Onuphrius 7 Bellarmine 5 but if he had been Bishop of Rome he woul not have been so long from his Charge They affirm indeed that he was hindered but to omit that he was not hindered so long how comes it that in his absence he wrote no Epistles to his Charge at Rome
of Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae which we now mentioned Whatever Peter was the other Apostles were the same of alike dignity and power with him Secondly Bellarmine contradicts himself because he affirms That all the Apostles were made Bishops immediatly by Christ and had their jurisdiction immediatly from him lib. 4. cap. 23. de pont Rom. and whereas the Church of Rome doth distinguish that although the other Apostles had their Bishopricks immediatly from Christ yet they had them not secundum plenitudinem potestatis as Peter had his Bishoprick immediatly from Christ Fran. de victoria exsibilats that distinction as contrary to the mind of Cyprian asserting an absolute equality of jurisdiction of all the Apostles with Peter Fran. de victor ibid. And thus we have proved that Bellarmine is a bad interpreter of Cyprian in affirming that Cyprian by unus Episcopatus means the Bishoprick of Peter or his Successor the Bishop of Rome Now let us examine how Bellarmine comments upon those words of Cyprian Cujus pars á singulis in solidum tenetur That is of which Bishoprick every Bishop hath a full share Bellarmine grants that every Bishop hath a full share but denyes they have an equal share or in the same manner he compares that one Bishoprick to a dissimilar body v. g. to a Tree he compares the Bishoprick of Peter to the Root other Bishopricks to the Branches for as the Root although it be a part of the Tree as are the Branches yet it sustains and rules the Branches and therefore although the Branches have a part of the Tree in solidum yet are they not an equal part of the Tree neither are they a part of the Tree in that manner as the root is The Root is a part sustaining the Branches the Branches again are parts sustained and governed by the Root So saith Bellarmine The Bishoprick of Peter and his Successors is a part of that one Bishoprick answering to the Root other Bishopricks are parts answering to the Branches ruled and sustained by the Bishoprick of Peter But it is answered Bellarmine in this glosse intangles himself first in absurdities next in contradictions and first he intangles himself in absurdities because Cyprian expresly compares that one Bishoprick to an Oak a Fountain a Light which are all similar and homogeneous bodies of which every every part hath the name and nature of the whole every part of an Oak is Oak every part of a Fountain of water is water c. and therefore Bellarmine is absurd in affirming that Cyprian compares that one Bishoprick to a dissimilar and heterogenious body the Sophistry of Bellarmine consists in this what Cyprian calls Robur or an Oak Bellarmine calls it Arbor or a Tree the difference is this any tree may be considered two wayes first as it is an organick body consisting of Root and Branches which are dissimilar organick parts Secondly as it is an homogenius body as an Oak all the parts of which are Oak both Root and Branches although the Root be not the Branches and so Bellarmine egregiously sophisticats in making Cyprian compare that one Bishoprick to a Tree as it is an organick body whereas Cyprian compares it to an Oak as it is a similar body Secondly the Whole cannot be the same with any one Part nor any one part the whole Cyprian maketh that one Bishoprick the whole and every particular Bishoprick a part But Bellarmine makes the Bishoprick of Peter and his successors the whole or that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian he likewayes makes it a part in shewing in what manner comparatively with others it hath a share of that one Bishoprick which is the whole according to his own confession and likewayes a part according to his own confession which is a manifest contradiction Thirdly he adds contradiction to contradiction for in explaining the way how every Bishoprick hath a share of that one Bishoprick he grants that every part hath a full share but not an equal share which is a flat contradiction since all full shares are equal shares neither can any full share be more or lesse then an other full share It is true indeed that one Bishoprick may be greater in riches splendor c. then an other Bishoprick but they are all alike Bishopricks Riches and Poverty hinders not the Episcopal Dignity and Jurisdiction as is affirmed by Hieronymus in his Epistle to Euagrius where he affirms that the meanest Bishop is equally a Bishop with the Bishop of Rome or Constantinople which equality of Bishops is in essentialls for the superiority of an Archbishop above a Bishop is in accidentals and was a non-ens in the dayes of Cyprian and therefore he speaks absolutely without restriction of the equality of Bishops And thus we have shewed with what admirable Sophistry Bellarmine endeavours to wrest the meaning of Cyprian with whose Testimony Rayinundus Rufus is so pressed disputing against Molinaeus that he taxeth the saying of Cyprian as erronious because saith he Ulpianus affirms that two persons cannot have dominion in solidum of one thing and therefore Cyprian is in an error in affirming that every Bishop hath a part of that one Bishoprick in solidum But it is answered Rufus is in a mistake both in the These and in the Hypothese he is mistaken in the These because the Lawyers maintain that more persons may have dominion in solidum of one thing as of via aquae ductus or any Comunality as pasturage c. Secondly he is mistaken in the Hypothese for Cyprian is not speaking of the dominion of things he is only comparing that one Bishoprick toti similari vel universali the part of which wholes equally participate their name and definition as all men do the humane nature and all Kings are equally Kings so saith Cyprian all Bishops are equally Bishops Turrianus in his defence against Zadeel lib. 1. cap. 17. grants that Cyprian compares that one Bishoprick to a similar body but yet he affirms that Cyprian is not to be understood literally otherwayes he cannot be defended from error because saith he if every Bishop have a part in solidum of that one Bishoprick he hath that whole one Bishoprick but he is mistaken in confounding similar with dissimilar bodyes for one having the branch of a tree hath not all the tree yet every drop of water hath both the name and definition of the whole Fountain or is called water and is water as well as the whole water of the Fountain Secondly Turrianus to shun this pretended absurdity interprets that one Bishoprick of Cyprian to be the Church likewayes he interprets those words whereof every one hath a full share to be that every one is bound alike to give an account of his administration but he is mistaken in both those glosses he is mistaken in the first because Cyprian expresly distinguisheth that one Bishoprick from the Church for immediatly after those words unus Episcopatus est c. there is one Bishoprick c.