Rome and of their vowed slavish flatterers to be spoken in passion to be partial and to merit no credit Crassus second instance was that perhaps Silus did not understand what the other said This is also fitly applyed to those of the Church of Rome for knowing that those partial testimonies would not serve the turn they flye to fantastick Glosses of testimonies of the Ancients wearying themselves and their Readers by their verbosity in such Glosses though never so strained and wrested against the meaning of the Author as shall be proved to any capacity in the least measure capable of reason and in effect all the shelter they have in Antiquity is either in wilfully wresting the Fathers or else in their strained Allegories as shall be made manifest in its own place part 4. lib. 2. yea and almost through the whole Treatise The third instance of Crassus against Silus was false witnessing that this may be applyed to our Adversaries shall be proved also that is when those testimonies of Popes and their Fathers and those perverted and wrested testimonies of others will not serve the turn they use a twofold cheat in false witnessiing The first is they have corrupted by authority of the Pope all the Writings of the Ancients taking out what made against them The second cheat is by putting in and forging what in effect was never in the writings of the Ancients as shall be unanswerably proved in the following Disput yea it shall appear part 4. lib. 2. what those forged testimonies being removed the primitive Fathers in the first six Centuries after Christ prosessed no other Doctrine then the Doctrine now professed by the Protestants especially by the Church of England which is the same Religion with that of the first four-general Councils both in Doctrine and Discipline in the estimation of Gregorius Magnus Bishop of Rome of little lesse authority then the Scripture it self One thing is not to be omitted they object the Protestants speaking unreverently of Antiquity which is a notorious untruth whereas themselves when neither wresting falsly translating adding and paring and right-down forging testimonies of Antiquity will serve the turn speak most unreverently of the Ancients taxing Augustinus Hieronymus the second and fourth general Councils and consequently all the first eight general Councilsâ— since in the particulars challenged by them they all agreed of ignorance madnesse heresie forgery The third mark is universality which is all one with antiquity universality is twofold first of time that is the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome was received at all times by the Church The second is of place that is it was embraced in all places but the Antiquity of their Doctrine being related universality falls with it and likewayes visibility for if we prove that the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome in as far as it contradicts that of Protestants is devised and broached by degrees since the beginning of the seventh Century questionless it was not visible in the first six Antiquity also being refuted their fifth mark infallibility also falls with it for questionless if the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome be contrary to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church in the first six Centuries they cannot have the brow to affirm that their Modern Church of Rome is infallible since in so affirming they will declare all the Ancients that is Fathers and geneneral Councils in the first six hnndred years after Christ to be Hereticks However it is most strange impudence in them to pretend infallibility in their Church which some place in general Councils others in the Bishop of Rome in Cathedra which ever of the two they affirm they are entangled If the first in it appears that of late their general Councils hath condemned one another of Heresie as the Council of Florence the Councils of Basil and Constance and the Council of Basil that of Florence If they affirm in the last viz. that the Pope hath Infallibility in Cathedra they are also entangled for it shall be proved part 3 lib. 2. that many Popes in Cathedra have declared other Popes teaching in Cathedra to be Hereticks but none but a mad man or an Impostor will affirm that the infallibility of Popes in Cathedra can consist with such proceedings The sixth mark is Unity of which they brag very much but with as little reason as they did brag of Antiquity They reason very prettily thus We of the Church of Rome say they agree amongst our selves in all substantial points of Faith whereas they who are not of our Church do not so some of them being Calvinists some Lutherians some Anabaptists some Quakers some this some that whence it appears say they that our Church is the true Church But this sophism is very easily retorted we may as easily reason thus We whom ye call Calvinists are at unity amongst our selves in substantial points there is no discord amongst us but in these two particulars the first is anent Church-government or the Divine right of Bishops the second is in that point of defensive Armes against Kings both which differences especially the last are in a far higher strain amongst your selves as ye cannot without impudence deny But ye who are out of our Church do not agree amongst your selves some of you are Papists some Anabaptists some Quakers c. Ergo we are the true Church Secondly to omit such foolish reasoning there is not greater discord in hell then is amongst those of the Church of Rome in points most substantial and upon which as hinges the whole edifice of their Doctrine doth depend It would be prolix to enumerat all their discords we will only mention some few the rest we shall prosecute through the whole body of this Treatise And first they generally brag of the Antiquity of their Doctrine that it was from the beginning but it shall be proved by testimony of their own Doctors that most of their substantial Tenets which they hold contrary to Protestants are so many innovations such as adding of Apocrypha Books to the Scripture number of Sacraments Transubstantiation Purgatory Indulgences and all those steps of the Popes Supremacy after anno 604. Yea it shall be proved by some of their greatest Antiquaries that the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged universal Bishop by the Church in the first six Centuries and that Cyprian and Augustine and many other of the Ancients died out of communion with the Church of Rome and yet are placed in their Calanders amongst the Saints Likewayes the whole body of the Popish Religion depends upon the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome it again upon the supremacy of Peter it again upon his institution carriage and testimonies of Fathers Let us hear how they agree in those three And first his institution is founded upon three passages of Scripture Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church The second is verse 19. And I will give unto thee
not now found in the Editions of Rhenanus printed since in those places where the Pope hath jurisdiction They had reason to purge out those words from Rhenanus because the testimony of his was as a Poyniard sticking in the very bowels of that article of the Catechise of the Council of Trent viz. that there is no salvation without communion with the Church of Rome CHAP. XII Several passages objected out of Cyprian to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval vindicated from Sophistry THe last Father they make use of to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval between the times of the Apostles and the death of Cyprian is Cyprian himself There is not a Father of them all more urged to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome then Cyprian and yet it is most certain that it never had a greater enemy then he what Cyprians opinion was anent that contest appeared in the former Chapters both by his testimonies and his actions Our adversaries dispute two wayes for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome out of Cyprian first by sophistry next by forgery we will refute the first in this Chapter and prove the second in the Chapters following and that by the testimonies of the greatest Antiquaries that ever the Church of Rome produced The first testimony of Cyprian they bring is from his 42. Epistle where writing to Cornelius Bishop of Rome he hath these words Some while ago we sent some of our Colleagues to compose some differences or to reduce some schismaticks to the unity of the Chatholick Church c. and a little after But those Schismaticks set up to themselves an adulterous head against the Church from which place Bellarmine reasons thus as those Novatians set up one to be heaa of their Church or of the whole Church of the Novatians so Cornelius was head of the Catholick Church But it is answered this reasoning is very unbeseeming such a learned man as Bellarmine for the meaning of Cyprian is no other then that the Novatians set up to themselves a Bishop at Rome in opposition to Cornelius so he calls the Novatian Bishop an adulterous head contrary to Cornelius who was the true head of the particular Church at Rome because he was the true Bishop thereof and so Cyprian doth not mean any head of the whole Church but only by Head he means Bishop of the particular Church of Rome Bellarmine instances that Cyprian affirms his intention was to reconcile those Shismaticks to the Catholick Church by which he means the Church of Rome and since the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church and the Bishop of Rome head of the Church of Rome Ergo he is head of the Catholick Church But it is answered when Cyprian calls the Church of Rome the Catholick Church his meaning is a particular Church professing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and therefore they who were reconciled to the Church of Rome were reconciled to the Catholick Church also so any reconciled to a particular Church professing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church is reconciled also to the Catholick Church and yet that particular Church is not the Catholick Church That this is the meaning of Cyprian appears by the preceeding Epistle or epist 41. where speaking of some Schismaticks in the Church of Carthage he affirms they opposed themselves to the Catholick Church he means they opposed themselves to the Church of Cathage inwhich doing they opposed themselves to the Catholick Church because the Church of Cathage professed the same Doctrine with the Catholick Church in opposing or renting the Church of Carthage they rent and opposed the Catholick Church Pamelius urgeth that Cyprian affirms that those Schismaticks refused the bosome of the root and mother Church where observe saith he that Cyprian calls the Church of Rome the root and the mother of all Churches or of the Catholick Church which Epithet is given by Cyprian to the Church of Rome not only in this epistle but also in his 45. epist to Cornelius in which he gives injunctions to those he was sending to Rome to be informed concerning that schism of the Novatians that they should acknowledge and adhere to the Root and Mother of the Catholick Church But it is answered that Cyprian by Root and Mother of the Catholick Church means no other thing but the Catholick-Church it self as appears by the said 45. Epistle in which he affirms to Cornelius that hearing that there was a schism in the Church of Rome he sent Caldonius and Fornatus to be informed of the truth of the business and to adhere to neither party till they were informed which of the factions was in the right and which in the wrong and for that reason he did not direct his Letters either to Cornelius or to that Novatian Bishop but only to the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome that being informed by them they might adhere to those who held and acknowledged the Root and Mother of the Catholick Church whereby it is evident that Cyprian did not believe that Cornelius Bishop of Rome or those who adhered to him were the root and mother of the Catholick Church since he gave his messengers injunction to suspend their Judgments till they were informed who adhered to the root and mother of the Catholick Church that is who maintained the true Faith or who were members of the Catholick Church for if Cyprian had believed that Cornelius and his faction had been the root and mother of the Catholick Church he would not have injoyned his messengers to suspend their judgment till they were informed by the Presbyters and Deacons so it is evident that Cyprian by Root and Mother of the Catholick Church means the Catholick Church it self both in his 45. and 42. Epistle and in the same sense epist 43. and 44. he exhorts them to return to their mother that is to the unity of the Catholick Church The second passage of Cyprian is found in his 55. Epistle where he hath these words That the occasion of Heresies and Schismes in the Church is only this that the Priest of God is not obeyed and that it is not believed that one Priest as Judge in place of Christ for a time is in the Church This place is much urged by Pamelius in his Annotations upon the said Epistle to prove an oecumenick Bishop But it is answered Cyprian in this Letter or Epistle is inveighing against those who had set up one Fortunatus as we shewed before Bishop of Carthage in opposition to himself and his meaning is not that there should be one Bishop in the Catholick Church but only one Bishop in a particular Church or the Church of Carthage because two Bishops in one place occasions Schismes and Heresies saith Cyprian so its evident that Cyprian is pleading his own cause disputing against those who had set up a Schismatick Bishop in the Church of Carthage in opposition to himself and
Phocas the Emperor carried no good will to Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople he struck the Iron while it was hot after much contention pronounced in his favour The third Part entituled of an oecumenick Bishop contains the History of that interval between anno 600. and the Council of Trent It is divided in two Books in the first I insist most on those following particulars 1. What power was conferred by Phocas with that title of universal Bishop upon Bonifacus third Bishop of Rome 2. How the edict of Phocas was obâ—yed viz. resisted every where till in the end it was recalled by Pogonatus anno 680. in the sixth general Council as was shewed before 3. How during the vicissitudes of inundations of Barbarians the Bishop of Rome re-assumed that title of unâ—versal Bishop and usurped power in temporals over the Grecian Emperoâ—s as was already declared 4. How Carolus Magnus curbed him 5. How when the posterity of Carolus Magnus decayed he renewed and augmented his power by five steps as we shewed before also In the second Book those steps or increments of the Papacy between anno 600. and the â—Câ—ncel of Trent are dogmatically disputed by Scripture Fathers and it is proved by testimonies of the most learned Antiquaries of the Church of Rome that the oldest of those steps was not before anno 1000. It is true indeed that his power in temporals was attempted first by Constantine Bishop of Rome against Philippicus Emperour of Constantinople anno 720. because the said Philippicus caused pull down those Images of the Fathers of the sixth general Council placed in the Church of St. Sophia at Constantinople and a little after Gregory 2d and 3d. Bishops of Rome excommunicated Leo Isaurus and his son Copronymus for the same quarrel of Images but their insolence was compesâ—ed by Carolus Magnus as we shewed before Those four steps are 1. Election by Cardinals 2. Power of convocating general Councils constantly preâ—iding in them of confirming and infirming them 3. Power in temporals 4. In fallibility as for the last step Divinity it is disputed in the fourth Part lib. 2. The fourth and last Part of this Treatise entituled of Antichrist is divided in two Books in the first the demonstrations of Sanderus Bellarmine and Lessius three Jesuits are answered by which they endeavour to prove that the Bishop of Rome is not Antichrist 2. The Bishop of Rome is proved to be Antichrist by Scripture Fathers Popish Doctors yea by the testimonies of some Popes themselves In the second Book two marks of Antichrist are chiefly insisted upon the first is his defection 2 Thess 2. where it is proved that the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome is that defection mentioned by the Apostle and that in the first six Centuries there was no such thing as the modern Popish Religion which is proved by an induction of all the contraverted points we have with the Church of Rome 2. Because those of the Church of Rome ordinarily object that they have not made a defection because it cannot be instructed at what time it was made by whom and who resisted it Two things are proved in the said Book first it is proved by Reason Experience Scripture Fathers that a defection may be made and yet it may be unknown by whom it is made at what time and who first resisted it 2. It is proved by an induction that most of the most substantial Tenets of the Church of Rome such as transubstantiation number of the Sacraments communion under one kind sacrifice of the Mass imperfection of the Scripture equalling of traditions to it adding a Apocrypha Books to it rejecting the Greek and Hebrew as not being authentick as making the corrupt vulgar Latine version authentick free-will Merits justification by Works caelibat of Priests worshiping of Images invocation of Saints set Fasts Prayer for the dead Purgatory Indulgences works of super-erogation all the steps of the Popes Supremacy c. were not only not from the beginning but also it is proved for the most part by testimonies of Popish Doctors themselves at what time and by whom the said Tenets as innovations were brought in the Church The second mark of Antichrist we insist upon is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all sort of deceiving and fraud 2 Thes 2. where it is shewed by what cheats the authority of the Bishop of Rome and his Doctrine are maintained such as perverting falsly translating and corrupting by adding and paring of the indices expurgatorii all the Writings of the Ancients Suppositions Revelations Saints Miracles c. My Lords and Gentlemen Thus I have represented unto you what I perform in this great Subject and what method I observe in it By which it will appear to any reasonable man what difference there is between this method and that of others if I perform what I promise of which let the judicious Reader be judge Now followeth the third thing which I desired your Lordships to take to consideration viz. what my scope and intention is which is twofold the first is to refute those marks 〈◊〉 which those of the Church of Rome endeavour to perswade their Disciples that the said Church of Rome is the true â—hurch The first mark is a continual succession of Bishops which they take great pains to enumerat from the dayes of the Apostles unto this time In which mark shall be proved a four-fold cheat The first is they make the world beâ—ieve that all those Bishops were of a like greatness in Power and Authority whereas it is proved that in the first three Centuries or at least before the dayes of Cypâ—ian that every Bishop was of equal authority with the Bishop of Rome And that between the times of Cyprian and the Council of Chalcedon every Metropolitan and from the Council of Chalcedon to anno 604. every Patriarch were of equal jurisdiction to him And when he was made universal Bishop by Phocas little more then a bare title was bestowed on him and yet that was after revocked by the sixth general Council As for those five steps we mentioned before in which chiefly the Modern Power of the Pope consists viz. Election by Cardinals 2. Authority of convocating general Councils 3. Temporal jurisdiction 4. Infability 5. and Divinity it shall be proved as we said before by the testimonies of Popish Doctors themselves that the oldest of them had not a beeing in the tenth Age and that the said Popish Doctors acknowledging the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church nevertheless some of them doubted not to call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist by reason of these steps which they call tyrannical Antichristian usurpations The second Cheat in that mark of succession is that they make ignorants believe that all the Bishops of Rome since the times of the Apostles professed the same Doctrine which is now taught in the Church of Rome whereas it shall be proved that the Doctrine of the modern
of ignorance so Stapleton Salmero Cumerus Maldonatus Let us hear their reasons Their first is These words super hanc Petram answers to the former words Tu es Petrus But it is answered those words Super hanc Petram answer also to those words Thou art Christ the Son of the living God For there is no necessity of referring the pronoun hanc to the words immediatly going before which is proved by other passages of scripture as Asts 2. 23 where the proun hunc is referred not to God which is nearest but to Iesus of Nazareth farther off And also in this Chapter by testimonies of Fathers of more authority and lesse suspect in this particular then Stapleton and Maldonat and it shall be proved further in the following chapters not only by testimonies of most eminent Fathers and Popish Doctors but also by the testimonies of five Popes themselves Their second reason is Christ in these words gives some reward or other to Peter for his confession but it is answered Peter is rewarded when he is called Petrus from Petra or Christ the Rock Secondly when he gets the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven whence Chrysostom As the Father gave unto thee to know me so I give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven The third reason is That Christ in these words super hanc-Petram means not the principal Rock or proper viz. himself but only a Metaphorick or Ministerial Rock and consequently the Rock must be Peter But it is answered the estate of the question is whether Christ that is the principal Rock be understood by super hanc Petrum Stapleton proves not because saith he Christ is not meaned which he proves by his own naked assertion without any other reason which is a childish petitio principij However we will add a reason that his assertion is false for if a Ministerial Rock be understood in these words super hanc Petrum Stapleton is hard put to it to prove out of these words the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which is his main intention Since it shal appear cap 6. that all the Apostles are Ministerial Rocks and that by the testimonies of the Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Peter Their fourth reason is The words of our Savior are aedificabo Ecclâ—siam meam super hanc Petram Which imports as much as the Church was not already built upon that Rock but only to be built upon it afterwards and therefore our Savior by Hanc Petram cannot mean himself upon whom the Church was already built But it is answered This is nothing but sophistry because already the Church was only built upon Christ in Judeâ— But our Saviour is prophesying here that the Gopel shal be propagated throughout the whole world and the Church built upon himself It is childish reasoning to argue the Church is built upon Christ already Ergo it cannot be said it shall be built upon him in time to come it is all one as one would reason thus Matthew 1. it is affirmed He shal save his people Ergo he hath not saved them and consequently it is no less foolish to affirm the Church is already built upon Christ because he promiseth to build it upon himself in time to come Their fifth reason is Christ promiseth to build the Churh upon one or other besides himself since he cannot be said to build the Church upon himself for it is the Father qui dedit ipsum caput super omnem Ecclesiam as the Apostle affirms But it is answered That assertion of Stapletons contradicts Augustinus affirming super me ipsum filium Dei vivi aedificabo Ecclesiam Which is his gloss upon these words super hanc Petram Secondly It contradicts Bellarmin affirming in se jam aedificaverat Apostolos Discipulos multos He had already built upon himself many Apostles and Disciples Thirdly It contradicts Scripture Ephesians 4. 16. By whom all the body being coupled and knit together c. receiveth increase of the body unto the edifying of it self in love By which words compared with verse 15. follows that the Church is built upon Christ by himself Their sixth reason is If by hanc Petram be meant Christ we cannot know which is the true Church and which is the false and therefore of necessity by hanc Petram Peter must be meaned But it is answered The Fathers we now mentioned and shal mention in the following chapter knew very well how to discern the true Church by the false yet none of them do â—nterpret Peter to be the Rock upon which the Church is built especially Augustinus who disputing against the Donatists cites many passages of Scripture by which we are instructed to discern the true Church by the false and yet he never makes use of this place Tu es Petrus Which he would not have omitted if the mentioning of it had been so necessar to discern the true Church from the false or if the true Church could not be discerned from the false without it Secondly This reason is a childish if not blasphemous petitio principij As if none could show the true Church by the false except the successor of Peter upon whom in their opinion the Church is built and so that is only the true Church which acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to be head of the Church as successor to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church And thus much of those Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Christ CHAP. V. Of the Fathers expounding the Rock to be the Confession of Peter NOw followeth those Fathers expounding the Rock to be the Faith or confession of Peter which opinion though it seems to differ in words from the former yet in effect it is all one in substance with it And therefore some of those Fathers who called the Rock Christ they cal also the Rock the confession of Peter So Nyssenus c. the Fathers interpreting the Rock to be the confession of Peter are these following The Liturgy commonly called that of S. James ad confirmationem sanctae tuae Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae quam fundâsti super Petra fidei ut Portae inferni non prevaleant ei The sum of which words is that the Church is founded upon the Rock of Faith Entychianus Bishop of Rome Epist 1. Unum hot immobile fundamentum una haec felix fidei Petra Petri ore confessu Tu es inquit Christus filius Dei vivi that is This is the only happy Rock of Faith confessed by Peter Hilarius in his Books of the Trinity in many places affirms that the Church is built upon the Rock of confession or that the Rock is the confession of Peter It is needless to mention all his testimonies this one will suffice Super hanc igitur confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est The Church is built upon this Rock of confession Nyssenus in the last chapter of his testimonies against the Jews after he had first called the Rock Christ as
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 that the Pope hath power to absolve Subjects from their Oaths of fidelity to their natural Princes to command them to fight against them and consequently to kill them that all are oblieged to acknowledge him for their natural Prince whom the Pope shal appoint It is taught also in that Church That the Pope is direct Monarch of the whole World both in Spirituals and Temporals So Bozius lib. 10. de signs Ecclesiae and Carerius de potestate Papae and all the Canonists they teach also That a Pope deposing a King without any reason but his will doth him no wrong because he takes only what is his own from him As a King doth no wrong to the Governor of a Province when he gives his government to another Subject Although the former have done no offence as is maintained by Thomas Bozius lib. 3. cap 4 de jure status Here our Romish Emissaries in Scotland endeavor to perswade their Proselytes that this doctrine of deposing Kings is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome but only of some particular Persons whom they call the Popes Flatterers But is replyed that those Gentle-men are either not well versed in their own principles or else they are like Father Cotton the Jesuite who being demanded by the Parliament of Paris If he believed that the Popes had power to depose Kings Answered He did not believe it in France but if he were at Rome he would believe it However that it is to the doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings is proved by these following reasons which will puzle those gentlemen very sore to answer The first is this innumerable Books are Printed teaching this doctrine and yet are Printed by authority and licence as containing no doctrine contrair to the true Catholick doctrine of the Church of Rome Ergo the deposing of Kings by the Pope is the true Catholick doctrine of the Church of Rome since a doctrine which is not contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Rome must of necessity be the doctrine of the Church of Rome The second reason is this All the Roman Doctors unanimously maintain except some few who dare not set out their Head that whatever the Pope and his Cardinals discern in a Conclave is of equal if not of a Superior Authority with that which is decreed in a General Council but the Conclave at Rome gives unto the Pope power of deposing Kings Ergo it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome That such power is given to the Pope by the Conclave appears by innumerable bulls as that of Gregory 7. against Henry the 4. Emperor That of Paul the third against Henry the 8. of England Of Paul the 5. against Queen Elizabeth Of Sixtus the 5. against Henry 3. and 4. Kings of France The third reason is this Every one is bound to believe that to be the true Doctrine of the Church of Rome which the Pope teacheth in Cathedra in which case they maintain he is infallible But the Pope teacheth in Cathedra that he hath power to depose Kings by his decretal bulls obliging the whole Church as is notorious in which he assums to himself that power as appears by innumerable of his Bulls especially by those now mentioned against the Emperor Kings of England France in which he expresly assumes unto himself authority of building or aedificandi of casting down or demoliendi of planting plantandi of rooting out eradicandi transferendi of transferring Kingdoms at his pleasure In some of which Bulls also he applyeth to himself those words of the Prophet Per me Reges regnant By me Kings reign which is notorious blasphemy And thus we have proved against those Gentlemen that they are mistaken in denying that is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which giveth authority unto the Pope to depose Kings They are not yet satisfied as appears by two objections made by one of those Gentlemen to my self The first was this that I could not instruct that it was the Doctrine of any General Council that the Pope hath power to depose Kings and consequently I could not make out it was the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome To which objection I answered First that I had made it out That it was the doctrine of Popes in Cathedra and consequently I had made it out that he and all other Romanists were obliged to believe it as an Article of Faith He told me plainly he did much doubt of that neither was he of that opinion That the Pope could not err in cathedra but still pressed me to prove it by the Authority of some General Council protesting he detested that doctrine as unsound I desired him to read Baronius anno 1072. and he would find that the Emperor Henry the 4. was exautorated by a Council at Rome num 16 17 18. and by another at Collen 1118. num 20. and by another at Fritislar ibid. The Gentleman answered very pertinently That these were only petty particular Councils but he desired the authority of a General Council I desired him to read Baronius ad an num 1102. num 1 2 3. and also the same Author 1116. num 5. and also anno 1119. Where he will find that doctrine to be the doctrine of General Councils especially that of Lateran anno 1116. is called a General Council by Baronius Likewise I desired him to read Bzovius anno 1245. num 4. The Council of Lions in the tombs of Councils tom 28. pag. 431. The decretals sext de sententiâ re judicata ad Apostolica where he would find that the Emperor Frederick the second was deprived or declared to be deprived and his subjects quit from their Oaths of Allegiance by Innocentius 4. in the Council of Lions I desired him also to read an Act of a General Council at Lateran under Innocent third where he would find that doctrine or that power of Deposing Kings attributed to the Pope which Act he would find in Bzovius anno 1215. Paragraph 3. in Binnius and Crab in their collection of Councils C. l 3. and in Gregorius de haeret C. excommunicamus I desired him also to read Ses 25. Canon 19. of the Council of Trent where he would find that power of the Popes so intelligibly asserted and consequentially although not expesly that it was one of the main reasons for which the Kingdom of France stood out against that Council of Trent rejecting its Authority By the said Canon any Dominus fundi is deprived of the Dominion of it if a düel be fought in it and since a King is comprehended under Dominus fundi the Council takes upon it to deprive him of a part of his Kingdom but if they have power to deprive him of a part by the same reason they take upon them power to take his whole Kingdom from him And this way I answered his first objection viz. that it could be instructed by Act of
Harding disputing against Jewel art 4. brings another objection that Cyprian by one Bishop means not himself or any other particular Bishop but oecumenick their objection is founded upon the words of Cyprian who after he had affirmed that the cause of Schismes was that one Bishop was not acknowledged Judge in place of Christ in the Church he adds if according to divine precepts the whole fraternity were obedient to the said Judge no man would move any thing against the Colledge of Priests whence Horantius and Harding concludes that by whole fraternity Cyprian means the whole Church and by one Bishop one visible head of that Church But it is answered that Cyprian by whole fraternity means that multitude of which any particular Church is composed as in his 68. Epistle writing to the Bishops of Spain he desires them not to rescind the ordination of Sabinus whom they had placed in the Bishoprick of Basilides he affirms that the said Sabinus was chosen by the suffrages of the whole fraternity But Horantius and Harding will not affirm that Cyprian in this 68. Epistle means the universal Church or church of Rome by whole fraternity since it is evident by the circumstances that he means a particular Church or that Congregation which chused Sabinus for their Bishop Likewayes as we shewed before the said Sabinus was placed Bishop and maintained in his Bishoprick over the belly of Stephanus Bishop of Rome who desired them to restore Basilides and the scope of this 68. Epistle written in the Name of the Council of Carthage to the Bishops of Spain by Cyprian is to maintain Sabinus in his Bishoprick notwithstanding that Stephanus Bishop of Rome desired them to rescind the ordination of Sabinus and to replace Basilides That Cyprian by whole fraternity means a particular Church appears by innumerable Epistles of his as epist 47. in two several places and 58. in two several places likewayes and 63. in which last place he affirms when we are at Supper at our Banquet we cannot convocate the common People that we may celebrate the verity of the Sacrament in presence of the whole fraternity And thus we have shewed with what admirable Sophistry our adversaries endeavour to wrest this notable passage of Cyprian epist 55. in which we have been the more prolix because from thence they bring all which they can pretend to be of any moment to prove that Cyprian was for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome they alledge other testimonies more pungent but they shall be proved forged in the following Chapters The third testimony brought from the words of Cyprian is in the edition of Pamelius Epist 46. in which Cornelius writing to Cyprian hath these words We are not ignorant that there is but one God c. and a little after that there should be one Bishop in the Catholick Church from whence they conclude an oecumenick Bishop or the Bishop of Rome as successor to Peter Head of the Curch But it is answered Cornelius in this Epistle is informing Cyprian that some Shismaticks who had partied that Novatian Bishop set up at Rome against Cornelius desired to be re-admitted to his communion confessing their error that they had been seduced and now they are convinced that Cornelius was their true Bishop amongst other of their confessions they profess they were not ignorant that there was but one God one Christ one Holy Ghost and that there should be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church by which it is evident that by Catholick Church they mean any particular Church and here they mean the particular Church of Rome of which they acknowledge Cornelius to be that one Bishop and not that other Novation Bishop by whom they had been seduced and whom they would acknowledge no more for their Bishop since there could be but one true Bishop of that Church viz. Cornelius himself That this is the meaning of Corneliusâ— in this Epistle is further confirmed in an Epistle of his to Fabianus mentioned by Eusebius Hist lib. 6. cap. 35. in which he objects ignorance to one who knew not that there should be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church Here he means one Bishop in the particular Church of Rome For a little after in that Epistle he affirms in that same Catholick Church there were fourty six Presbyters seven Deacons and seven sub-deacons but he could not affirm that in the whole Catholick Church there were only so many Presbyters so many Deacons and so many sub-deacons whereby it is evident that by one Bishop in the Catholick Church Cornelius means there should be but one Bishop in any particular Church which is so evident that Chrystopherson in his version of Eusebius renders these words of Cornelius his Epistle to Fabian thus he was ignorant that there should be but one Bishop in hac Ecclesia Catholica in this Catholick Church viz. in this particular Church of Rome neither is there any expression more frequent in the writings of those Ancients then to to call every particular Church the Catholick Church which observeth the purity of the Catholick Faith or Church universal The fourth passage of Cyprian is in his 40. Epistle directed to the people of Carthage there is one God one Christ one Chair one Church founded upon Peter by Christs own mouth But it is answered it shall be proved in the following Chapters that those last words are forged the rest have no difficulty at all for by one Chair and one Church Cyprian understands that there should be but one Bishop in every particular Church as is evident both by the scope and words of the Epistle the scope of the Epistle is to complain upon some Schismaticks who had made a defection from himself and the Church of Carthage where amongst other reasons against their defection this is one there is but one Chair viz. there is but one Bishop in the Cburch of Carthage Cyprian himself and since none ought to be acknowledged Bishop but he they were Schismaticks in making a separation from him This reasoning of Cyprian had been most ridiculous if by one Chair he had meaned an oecumenick Bishop viz. if he had reasoned thus they are Schismaticks who made a defection from their Bishop Cyprian because there is but one oecumentick Bishop Secondly that this is the meaning of Cyprian appears by the following words where Cyprian affirms they had made to themselves another Altar intimating thereby that there is but one Altar in the Church whereby it is evident that he speaks not of the Church universalâ— but of a particular Church since none will affirm that there is but one Altar in the Catholick Church Likewiseâ— in his 65. Epistle pleading the cause of Rogatianus he affirms that they who make a defection from the Church make another Altar unto themselves but Pamelius himself in his Annotations upon that Epistle observes that Cyprian in that place is speaking only of particular Churches Thirdly that by one Chair cannot be meaned
THE GRAND IMPOSTOR DISCOVERED OR AN Historical DISPUTE of the Papacy and Popish Religion 1. Demonstrating the newness of both 2. By what artifices they are maintained 3. The contradictions of the Roman Doctors in defending them Divided in four Parts 1. Of Bishops 2. Of Arch-bishops 3. Of an oecumenick Bishop 4. Of Antichrist PART I. Divided in two Books In the first is examined 1. if Peter by divine Institution was Monarch of the Church 2. If at the command of Christ he was Bishop of Rome In the second is examined if the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged Successor to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church before the death of Cyprim or anno 260 The Negatives of which three Questions are made out by unanswerable monuments of Antiquity and all what is pretended for their affirmatives is proved to be either wrested falsly translated mutilated or forged Cicero lib. 2. de Orator Fieri potest ut quod dixit iratus dixerit Silus annuit tum Crassus fieri potest ut quod dixit non intelligeres hic quoque Silus fassus est tum Crassus fieri potest ut non omnino audieâ—is quod te audisse dicis Silus tacuit omnes riserunt By S. C. Edinburgh Printed by His Majesties Printers for the Author Anno Dom. 1673. TO HIS GRACE The DUKE of LAUDERDALE Marquess of Marche Earl of Lauderdail Viscount Maitland Lord Thirlestane Musselburgh and Bolton Knight of the most Noble Order of the Garter His Majesties High Commissioner President of His Council and Sole Secretary of State in His Kingdom of Scotland May it please your Grace THat the Christian Faith as it was taught by Christ and his Apostles and confirmed by the four first General Councils is established by His Majesties authority all have reason to be thankful both to God and to His Majesty While we are contending for things of lesser moment at home Religion is dangerously assaulted from abroad their artifices are subtile their success is lamented By what perswasions they endeavour to gain Proselyts and how they are refuted Your Grace will find affirmed in the Preface and proved in the Disput following The first part whereof I present to your Grace it being difficult for me to publish it all at once My Lord some perhaps as their motive of such an address as this would fall a painting out the praises of your Grace and your Ancestors in your Face as that one or other of your Race could be no more spared from the State in every age then one of the Aeacides from the warrs of Greece which although most true yet I forbear lest I should offer violence vim facere to your Graces Modesty by unseasonable mentioning things which all know to be undenyable Nevertheless I hope your Grace will pardon me if I affirm that it is a main encouragement of my troubling you that your Grace is a Gentle-man of Spirit versed in Antiquity and able to discern if I perform any thing to the purpose in this great subject or process of greatest importance that ever depended before the Tribunal of Heaven My Lord I have likewise privat obligations to your Grace I had the honour to be your Condisciple at which time it did not obscurely appear what your Grace would prove afterwards Also having presented several Trifles to your Grace at your two times being in Scotland you seemed to accept of them with a favourable countenance which encouraged me to trouble your Grace afresh A Spaniel the more he is taken notice of the more he troubles his Benefactors with importunat kindness Taking all for good coyn whether they be in jest or in earnest If I perform any thing in this great subject worthy of your Graces perusal I would be infinitly proud of it otherwise the greatest censure I expect from your Grace is that either your Grace would smile at my folly or else put me back with a gentle frown hoping your Grace will pardon presumption proceeding from simplicity and good-will I will trouble your Grace no more but being sorry that I can give no greater evidence of my propension to your Graces service I rest as I am able most addicted to it Samuel Colvill THE PREFACE DIRECTED TO The Nobility Gentry and Burroughs of the Kingdom of Scotland My Lords and Gentlemen SInce I have contrived the following Discourse chiefly for your use not presuming to inform those of the Clergy it being their Profession and therefore having opportunity at will to go to the woods to gather Strawberries themselves whereas your Lordships leisure by reason of your other weighty Employments requires rather to have them presented in a dish Curiosity perhaps will move one or other of â—ou to peruse it Which that you may do the more commodiously it is requisite that your minds be prepared by considering 1. What the Subject is I present unto your protection 2. What I perform in it 3. What is my scope and intention 4. How I answer as I can to all which is objected against me I am not very eloquent especially in the English Tongue not being much accustomed to read Books in that Language The Diâ—course for the most art is dogmatick and therefore Rhetorick is more hurtful thâ—n pâ—ofiâ—able If I bâ— understood it is sufficient in representing shortly what others have done prolixly perspicuously what others have obscurely And yet fully that is omitting nothing of moment which is pretended by either Party in that greaâ— Controversie of the Sâ—premacy of the Bishop of Rome And first for the Subject Nâ—ne are ignorant in what high estimation searching of Antiquity is amongst those whose mindes are erected above the ordinar of men That religious enquiries of that kind ought to be preferred to any others who believe the immortality of the soul none will deny Among those again that one Controversie of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome deservedly challengeth the first place I presenting to your Lordships in it the minute of a Process if not marred by me the most noble the most profitable and the most pleasant which hath hitherto depended before the Tribunal of Heaven That I affirm no Paradoxes appears by what followeth The Nobility of this question is celebrated by the Learned of both sides Est Nobilis inter primas Disputatio the noblest of Disputes saith Chamier Est quaestio Prima familiam ducens A prime and leading question saith Salmasius That is upon it depends all the Controversies we have with the Church of Rome Bellarmine goeth higher calling it a debate de summa rei Christianae That is Whether the Christian Religion can subsist or not For in his opinion Who calls in question the Supremacy of the Bâ—shop of Rome he questions the truth of the Christian Religion it self By which expression of this Jesuit appears the immense utility of that Controversie If any want ability if they have not leisure to wade thorow that profound Ocean of Antiquity to be informed of the truth of that Article
of Rome hold contrary to the Doctrine of the reformed Churches My Lords and Gentlemen In the last place you will find it proved by what practices the Bishop of Rome maintains himself in that prodigious greatness and his Doctrine None can but admire how he hath been so long undiscovered and how so many learned and pious men brave spirits can be so bewitched yet as to believe that communion with him is necessary unto salvation and that all who acknowledge not his power and Doctrine ought to be condemned as Hereticks But their admiration may cease since the Spirit of God affirms that the Kings of the earth shall be drunk with his abominations that is shall be void of all spiritual understanding that the glory of God may be manifested in his impervestigable wayes till at last that wicked one be consumed by the breath of his mouth that is by the sincere preaching of the Gospel The cup of iniquity of that Monster was not yet full untill he began so far to forget himself as to prefer himself to God and make publick sale of forgiveness of sins for money that is by giving pardons unto men not only for sins by-past but also to be committed afterwards giving to this Courtier the money obtained for the pardon of sins obtained in one Countrey to that of another It is reported of Alexander the sixth that when it was told him that his Son Caesar Burgia had lost a hudge sum of money at Dice he answered that his Son had lost nothing but the sins of the Germans that is the money which he had got for the sale of pardons in that Nation When his impiety came to such a height he was at last discovered by Luther a poor Frier since which time they have left no sort of cruelty and impostures unattempted to preserve their Power and their Doctrine And first for their cruelty towards those who opposed them death without torture was thought a clemency the ordinar punishment of such was burning alive and if they were so numerous that it could not be conveniently done they trained them into snares by perfidious Treaties cutting their throats when they were asleep without regard to the publick Faith given them as appears by the horrible massacre at Paris and other places of France and albeit popish Writers in those times detested that perfidious cruelty yet the Pope himself who was the Author and contriver of it made Processions of joy and Bone-â—ires at Rome for the success of it As for their impostures by which they maintain their Power and Doctrine they are so many that they are scarce numerable the main are preferring the corrupt Latine version of the Scripture to the Greek and Hebrew Fountains held authentick by the Primitive Church and the Church of Rome it self Secondly by adding Books to the Canon of the Scripture against all the current of Antiquity to authorize some of their idolatrous Tenets 3. They make the Pope the infallible Interpreter of Scripture albeit perhaps he had never read one syllable in it or at least understood nothing in it as appears of late by that passage of Innocent 10th related by Sanct Amour in his Journal who being pressed to determine a Controversie in Religion between the Jansenists and Molinists answered he was an old man and had never studied Divinity neither did it belong to his profession 4. They have corrupted all the Writings of the Ancients adding to them taking from them at their pleasure as appears by the Edition of the Fathers set forth by Manutius at the Popes command against all the Manuscript Copies and old printed Copies before anno 1564. neither are they ashamed of it avowing it in their indices expurgatorii and not content with corrupting of Antiquity they also forge not only particular testimonies of Fathers but also whole Treatices Aeneas Silvius who was afterwards Pope himself under the name of Pius 2d confessed ingenuously that no regard was held to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome before the Council of Nice or anno 325. and yet they produce six and thirty decretal Epistles of Popes as so many Knights of the Post to bear false witness for it in that interval acknowledged to be forged by Cusanus Contius and other great Antiquaries of the Church of Rome neither are they much regarded by Bellarmine and Barronius themselves Again the most ingenuous Doctors of the Romish Church and their greatest Antiquaries confess that nothing can be gathered from the Council of Nice for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Yea all Antiquity acknowledged only twenty Canons of the said Council of Nice Yet the Jesuits of late have found out two Arabick Editions in which fifty Canons are added to those twenty so palpably forged that he is blind who doth not see it Yea they are acknowledged for such by the most learned men of the Church of Rome The main scope of those forged Cannons is to prove several principal Tenets of the Popish Religion especially the Popes Supremacy That they are forged shall be proved part 2. lib. 1. Lastly the Bishops of Rome maintain their authority and Doctrine by false miracles Saints and Revelations but mainly by those two damned cheats implicit faith and infallibility that is they make their disciples believe that all is Gospel what the Pope affirmeth in Cathedra and that he cannot erre teaching the whole Church whâ—ch is the main cheat by which they lead innumerable souls to destruction My Lords and Gentlemen This much of the nobility utility and jucundity of the Subject which I present unto your protection in which I have shortly shadowed forth the steps of the Bishop of Rome to his present greatness and by what artifices he maintains himâ—elf in it The second thing I desired your Lordships to observe is the method I use in the discovery of this â—rand Impostor I am informed some tax me of presumption for medling with such a Subject after the Labours of so many Learned men to whose diligence nothing could be added But I answer as it were ill manners in me to tax those brave men that went before me in this Subâ—ect of omission or slackness So I am confident none will blame me with any shew of reason except first he consider what I say It is true indeed many have written before me but it is as true that some of them have written too dogmatically some too historically both which wayes are lost labour in this Subject in which all the probations are testimonies but that they can be understood without the kâ—owledge of History no man can perswade me though never so learned On the other hand History without Disputation may delight the ear as any other empty flâ—sh of Rhetorick but it will never satisfie the mind ruled by reason I strive to relate thâ— Histoâ—y of the Papacy and Popish Religion fighting with Disputation at every step neither make I use further of History then to illustrat the Dispute which
Church of Rome had not a beeing the first six hundred years after Christ that it had some notable beginning about that time when Bonifacius 3d. was made first universal Bishop and encreased afterwards as the power of the Bishop of Rome encreased the one following the other as the motion of the Sea follows the Moon that many of the most substantial points of the modern Roman Faith were never generally established before the cape-stone of the Popes power was laid at the Councils of Florence and Trent at which two Councils many Tenets were established with an anathema as Articles of Faith believed to be so many paradoxes by the most learned men in the Church of Rome who lived in those times who spared not to exclaim against the fraudulent proceeding of the Pope who carried all by plurality of voices in these two Councils 1. By multitude of Italian Bishops 2. By titular Bishops that is Bishops having imaginary Titles in the East as Jerusalem Antioch c. Which Bishops he created purposely that by the number of their voices and of the Italian Bishops he might bear down in these two Councils the voices of the Bishops of Germany Spain and France The third Cheat in that mark of succession is that they make ignorants believe that all those Bishops were lawfully elected but it shall be proved in the following Disput that some were elected by Blood others by Simony others by unlawful Stipulations and Pre-contracts to establish Heresie in the Church and to condemn the Oâ—thodox Doctrine as heretical others of them by a paction with the Devil yea it shall be proved by the most eminent Antiquaries of the Church of Rome it self that since Nicolaus secundus who lived in the eleventh Century there has not been one Bishop of Rome elected according to the Law of God and Constitutions of the primitive Church and that their manner of election at this day is so detestable that none can hear of it without horror The fouâ—th Cheat in that mark of succession is this we have redacted that succession to a number of persons of unequal power contrary Doctrine unlawfully elected now rests a bare personal succession in which there is a notable Cheat also because they obtrude for the true Successor persons that are not capable by their own principles of the Function as appears by three unanswerable reasons The first is a woman was Pope for several years together and whereas Bellarmine and Baronius affirms it was a fiction it is answered since those Historians who relate it for a truth lived in tâ—ose very times in which it fell out or at least very near them and since those who call it a fable lived long after and are but of yeaster-day in respect of those who affirm it to be of a truth no judicious Reader needs to be puzled much which party to believe since those who called it a truth professed themselves to be as obedient Sons to the Church of Rome as those who call it a fable The second reason against the continuity of that personal succession is this the Chair of Rome hath been for several years empty and without a Bishop and whereas they affirm that the power then of the Bishop is in the Cardinals it shall be proved by their own Learned Antiquaries that the modern power of those Cardinals was a thing unkown to the Ancients and to be nothing else but a new devised Cheat. The third reason against that personal succession is this it is known to all who are versed in History that many Popes have been at one time and the subtillest Wits amongst them could never yet decern which was the true Successor and which not one part of the Church adhering to the one another to the other another to the third Pope As happened in the time of the Council of Constance anno 1416. at which time there were three Popes It is certain one of them could be only the true Pope and yet all of them created Cardinals some of which not only created other Popes afterwards but also became Popes themselves but those Cardinals who received orders from the false Popes are by their own Principles incapable of electing Popes much more of being Popes themselves It must of necessity follow that many Popes have been at innumerable times Bishops of Rome not lawful which quite destroyes that personal succession They are pressed with the same difficulty in the case of Simony It is granted by themselves that many Bishops of Rome have obtained that Chair by Simony It is granted also by them that those are not lawful Popes that those ordained by them are incapable of Orders It is confessed by them also that several Popes obtaining the Chair by Simony have created Cardinals which elected other Popes and some of them also became Popes themselves which quite destroyeth that uninterrupted personal succession as they cannot deny And this much of that first mark of the true Church pretended by the Romanists to prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church viz. succession of Bishops The second mark is Antiquity of which they brag very much but have very little reason Cicero lib. 2. de Orator relates a passage between Crassus that famous Orator and one Silus who accused another person before the Senate for uttering some dangerous expressions Crassus defends him thus It may be saith he that he spake these words in passion Silus granted it might be Crassus urgeth the second time It may be you understood not what he said Silus seemed not averse to that neither Crassus goeth on the third time It may be saith he that ye affirm that ye heard him utter these speeches whereas ye heard no such thing at all at which Silus was confounded and replyed nothing at all then all the company fell a laughing Those instances of Crassus against Silus may fitly be urged against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome bragging of the testimonies of Antiquity that is of Councils and Fathers His first instance was that the person accused by Silus perhaps was in passion but it is known and shall be proved that those of the Church of Rome are seconded by no testimonies of Antiquity at all but either they are of Bishops of Rome themselves or else of their flatterers But Aeneas Silvius afterwards Pope himself under the name of Pâ—us 2d in his Commentaries upon the Council of Basile hath these following expressions against such testimonies his words are Nec considerant miseri quae tantopere jactant verba aut ipsorum summorum pontificum sunt fimbrias suas extendentâ—um aut eorum qui iis adulabantur that is Neither do these miserable men consider that those testimonies of which they brag are either of Bishops of Rome themselves enlarging their own Authority or else of those who are their flatterers Now to the application Crassus reasoned that a testimony spoken in passion should not be regarded but who will deny those testimonies of Bishops of
the keys of the kingdom of heaven The third is Joh. 21. 15. 16 17. Feed my sheep feed my lambs But Cardinal Cusanus lib. 2. concord Cathol cap. 13. expresly affirmes that in all those three places nothing was given in peculiar to Peter which was not given to all the Apostles which he also proves by the testimony of Hieronymus 2. The main Basis of the Popes supremacy is in the exposition of these words Tu es Petrus viz. That Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built Pighius and Baronius and others affirm that all are ignorants hereticks mad men who acquiesced not in this exposition That Peter is the Rock But it shall be proved in the first six Chapters of the fiâ—st Book not only by innumerable testimonies of Popish Doctors but also of a great many Popes themselves that not Peter but the thing confessed by Peter is the Rock viz. Christ himself 3. Another Basis of the Popish Religion is that Peter had his jurisdiction immediatly from Christ and the other Apostles theirs from Peter Bellarmine and others affirm that if this be not granted the supremacy of Peter cannot be defended and consequently the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and the whole body of the Popish Religion falls with it But Franciscus de victoria affirmed by Canus to be the ablest Divine of Spain exsibilats this distinction of Peters immediat jurisdiction and refutes the gloss on Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae for exponing a passage in Cyprian from which they gather this distinction proving by the testimonies of Cyprian himself in that very place corrupted by the Glosse which Glosse is approved by the Church of Rome that Cyprian in these words expresly disputs against that immediat Jurisdiction of Peter and mediat of the other Apostles and affirms that all the Apostles had not only their order but also their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ 4. They prove the Supremacy of Peter by his carriage and prerogatives but Salmero the Jesuit expresly affirms that nothing can be gathered from the carriage of Peter to prove him oecumenick Bishop but much to the contrary Yea the Council of Basil it self pronounced that the Legats of the Pope had no right of presiding in general Councils because it could neither be proved by Scripture nor Antiquity that ever Peter presided in any Council or at that of Jerusalem 5. They brag much of Cyprian that he is for the Supremacy of Peter and also Augustin and other Fathers but Barronius himself confesseth that both Cyprian and Augustine died out of communion with the Church of Rome for resisting her encroaching upon the Churches of Africk that is for admitting of Appellations from Africk to Rome for doing of which Bonifacius Secundus Bishop of Rome affirms that Aurelius and Augustinus were seduced by the Devil and yet both of them are placed in the Roman Callender as Saints and notwithstanding all their braggings of Cyprian let one speak for all saith Barronius in time most ancient in learning most excellent in martyrdom most glorious for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome yet Stapleton the Jesuit expresly affirms that Cyprian in that subject utitur verbis errantium mire hereticorum causae patrocinari videtur And Bellarmine himself confesseth that we do not read that ever Cyprian was reconciled to the Church of Rome after his resisting of Stephanus the Bishop of Rome his pretending right of Appellations from Africa And this much of their concord and unity in that Cardinal question of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which falling Bellarmine as we said grants that the whole body of the Popish Religion falls with it comparing it without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome to a house without a foundation a man when his head is stricken off to star-light without the Sun We could instance their discord in many of their most substantial Tenets what question is of greater importance then that of Transubstantion It is the general opinion of the Doctors of the Church of Rome that it was imbraced as an Article of Faith from the beginning and yet those two great Popish Doctors Scotus and Bonaventur expresly maintain that Transubstantiation was never believed as an Article of Faith before the Council of Lateran anno 1225. Yea Scotus expresly affirms were it not for the authority of that Council he would not believe it himself it hath so little ground in Scripture and Antiquity The main ground of which prodigious Article is those words of our Saviour Hoc est corpus meum and other expressions of his John 6. But it shall be proved part 4. lib. 2. by the testimonies of many Popish Doctors that nothing can be gathered from either place for proving of it It were too prolix in this Preface to mention all the contradictions of the Doctors of the Church of Rome in their most substantial Tenets Your Lordships may read them at large in the following Treatise almost through the whole body of it but most expresly part 4. lib. 2 where your Lordships will not only find Doctors contradicting Doctors but also Popes accusing Councils Councils accusing Popes Councils accusing Councils Popes in Cathedra taxing Popes in Cathedra of Heresies Madnesse Ignorance And this much of the sixth mark of the Church of Rome by which they pretend it is proved to be the true Church viz. Unity The seventh mark is Saints they object to the Protestants that they lean too much on Christ trusting nothing to their own merits which occasions so much prophanenesse amongst them but we say they the Church of Rome are adorned with innumerable Saints stirred up to holiness because works are meritorious in the sight of God quis tulerit grachos de seditione quoerentes Let us retex this mark of Saints that we may see what reason they have to brag of it And first they cannot brag of the Sanctity of their Clergy witnesse the exclamations of all Ages against the corruption of the Clergy of the Church of Rome when they got a little breathing from persecution we need not mention the complaints not only of the Ancients but also of modern Popish Doctors against the corruptions of the Clergy of Rome Cyprian began the complaint in his time when the Church was yet under persecution But when the Emperours became Christians the Clergy by their beneficence became rich Hieronymus in his time thirteen hundred years ago was so irritated by the vicious lives of the Roman Clergy that Damasus Bishop of Rome dying to whom he was Secretary he left Rome and went to Palestina to live as a Monk comparing Rome to Babylon and the seat of the Whore Ammianus Marcellinus in the opinion of Baronius a Pagan declaimed bitterly against the viciousnesse of the Roman Clergy It were tedious to mention the complaints of these of the first six Centuries against the viciousness of the Roman Clergy as of Basilius Magnus Nazianzenus Sulpitius Severus and others as the greatnesse of the Bishop
of Rome in power encreased not only corruption in Doctrine but also in manners encreased with it And after the Bishop of Rome was made universal Bishop nothing could be added to the wickedness of the Clergy The complaints of Bernardus Picus Merandula are notorious and innumerable others The corruptions of the Clergy moved them not onely to call Rome Babylon but also consequently and not obscurely the Bishop of Rome Antichrist and yet both of them professed themselves obedient Sons to the Church of Rome In a word since the times of Cyprian no brave man lived in any Age unto this day who did not complain of the corruption of the Roman Clergy and so heir Clergy cannot be their Saints Secondly if they have little reason to brag of their Clergy they have far lesse reason to brag of the sanctity of their Popes Baronius Platina and Onuphrius ingenuously confesse that the World never produced such Monsters for murtherers Impoysoners Adulterers Symoniacks Witches yea and Hereticks who but a mad man will affirm that such persons cannot erre teaching the Church Surely Pighius was out of his witts teaching that a Pope could not be an Heretick and Bellarmine no less for calling that opinion of Pighius a pious opinion their feaver now is turned to a Phrensie the Author of that Book entituled Cardinalismo conscious to all the Caball of the Roman Clergy affirms that now they begin to teach at Rome that a Pope cannot be a reprobat which at last will turn to an Article of Faith as well as infallibility But because corruption of lives of the Clergy doth not of necessity infer a false Church We do not affirm that the wickedness of their Clergy or their Popes proves them Idolaters in Doctrine we only affirm that they have no reason to brag of either of them as Saints to prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church And although they were so it is no infallible mark for it may be affirmed that the holyest of them all comes short of Novatus Donatus and other ancient Hereticks or of Tertullian when he was a Montanist We only ask of them where those Saints are to be found of which they brag so much if they be neither their Clergy nor their Popes They will answer they mean those persons canonized by the Pope and placed in their Calander But we reply they cheat egregiously first it is reported of a certain mad-man in Athens who imagined that all the Ships which came into the Harbour were his own so they when they hear of any promises made to the Church they imagine they are all made to the modern Church of Rome and when they hear of any Saints and Martyrs they believe they all professed the Doctrine of the Church of Rome In reason they can brag of no Saints but those who lived after the beginning of the seventh Century the Saints of the first six Centuries were not of their Church at all for it shall be proved part 4. lib. 2. that the Saints Fathers and Martyrs of the first six Centuries condemn all the Tenets of the Church of Rome of any moment which they hold contrary to Protestants as heretical and are in right down terms Protestants yea it shall be proved by testimonies of their own Doctors that many of these most eminent Saints died excommunicated by the Church of Rome for resisting the pride of that Church as Saint Polycarpus and all the Bishops of Asia in the time of Victor anno 195. Saint Cyprian and all the Churches of Africk in the time of Stephanus Bishop of Rome about anno 256. Saint Aurelius and Saint Augustine and all the Bishops of Africk in the times of Sozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus Bishops of Rome in the beginning of the fifth Age. Secondly as for those Saints since the beginning of the seventh Century it is answered first that albeit the Clergy of Rome call them Saints yet they thought the said Clergy no Saints such as Saint Bernard and others who most bitterly inveigh against the corruption of the Roman Church Saint Bernard expresly calls Rome a den of theeves and Babylon mentioned by John in the Apocalyps 2. How many of these modern Saints have been proved cheats It shall be proved by testimonies of their own Doctors part 3. lib. 2. that the Pope hath no power to canonize Saints and that the most part of their Saints are vile Impostors devised by Priests to cheat the ignorant people of their money and to make them offer oblations at their shrines It were prolix in this Preface to insert the particulars but that Impostur of Saints in many examples shall be made unanswerably appear part 4. lib. 2. And this much of Saints the seventh mark of the Roman Church The last mark is Miracles the Scripture informs us that Antichrist shall deceive all the world by false miracles It shall be proved likewayes part 4. lib. 2. by the testimony of the most learned Popish Doctors that Miracles are no true marks of the true Church in these last times but rather marks of the Antichristian Church 2. It shall be proved by the testimonies of the same men that most of the late miracles pretended by the Church of Rome and the most notable ones are meet Imposturs which we shall instance in the forementioned place And whereas they object we have no miracles in our Church it is false our Doctrine was confirmed by the miracles performed by Christ and his Apostles neither need we any other miracles since we profess the same Doctrine And this much of those marks of the true Church pretended by the Mannual of Controversies to prove that the Church of Rome was such to refute which is my first scope and intention in this following Disput The second scope of the said Manual of Controversies was to perswade the Proselyts of this Nation that it was not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope had power to depose Kings either Popish or Protestant but only of some particular persons whom they called the Popes flatterers and therefore my second intention is to prove that the said Author is either ignorant in the Principles of his own Religion or else he is like Father Cotton the Jesuit who being demanded if he believed the Pope had power to depose Kings answered He did not believe it in France but if he were at Rome he would That this King-deposing doctrine is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is proved by three reasons which will puzle the said Author very sore to answer The first is this innumerable Books are printed asserting so much the names of the Authors shall be cited afterwards some of which Books are dedicated to Cardinals some to the Pope himself but those Books are authorized by those who have authority from the Pope to peruse Books before they go to the Press with an Imprimatur and a Declaration that they contain nothing contrary to the Catholick Doctrine But who but a
mad man or an Impostor will affirm that any Doctrine conform to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This is the Doctrine of the Church of the whole Canonists unanimously maintained by them and most of the Theologues viz. that the Pope has direct power in Temporals or is direct Monarch of the whole world Some Theologues indeed as Bellarmine and others maintain that the power of the Pope is only indirect in ordine ad spiritualia as when a King is an Heretick or otherwayes encroacheth upon the Liberties of the Church or when he assumes any thing to himself which the Pope sayes belongs to him but this Doctrine is exsibilated now at Rome as heretical and Bellarmine himself is taxed by Carerius of heresie for maintaining that the Pope hath no direct power in temporals Yea Sixtus 5th with much ado was hindered from burning these Books of Bellarmine de pontifice Romano for denying that direct power of the Pope in temporals albeit Bellarmine in the said Books gives power to the Pope indirectly or in order to spirituals to depose Kings to absolve their Subjects from all fidelity to them and that their Subjects are oblieged at the Popes command to rise up in Arms against them and consequently to kill them but Bellarmines opinion is now thought too little of the Popes power all the Theologues now are for the direct dominion of the Pope in temporals And this much of the first reason proving that this King-deposing Doctrine is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome The second reason is this That is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome what is asserted by the Pope in Cathedra or teaching the whole Church but the Pope in Cathedra assumes that power of deposing of Kings unto himself as appears by his Bulls as that of Gregory the seventh against Henry the fourth Emperor that of Alexander the third against the Emror Frederick that of Bonifacius the eighth against Philip King of France that of Paulus the third against Henry the eighth King of England that of Paulus the fourth against Queen Elizabeth that of Sixtus the fifth against Henry the third and Henry the fourth Kings of France in which Bulls they expresly affirm that Kings reign by them and that power is given them from God to establish plant build root out cast down transfer Kingdoms at their pleasure The tenors of those Bulls too prolix to be inserted here shall be particularly mentioned and set down part 4. lib. 1. And this much of the second reason that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope has power to depose Kings The third reason is this the Popes have procured that power to be conferred on them by general Councils as in the Council of Lateran under Innocent third the Act of which Council is found in Bzovius anno 1215. parag 3. and also in Binius and Crab in their Collection of Councils It is found likewayes in Baronius ad annum 1102. numb 1 2 3. and also ad annum 1116. numb 5. and also ad annum 1119. Likewayes in the Council of Trent Sess 25. Canon 19. It is ordained that the Popes have power to depose any Dominum fundi or Proprietar of any Land where a Duel is fought in which Canon power of deposing Kings tacitly and consequentially is attributed to the Pope The Council thought it not fit in express terms to affirm that the Pope had power to deprive a King of his property in that case and therefore they made the Canon in general termes comprehending a King under Dominus fundi or Proprietar in general That this is the true meaning of that Canon appears because by reason of it mainly the Kingdom of France did not acknowledge the Council of Trent And thus we have proved by three unanswerable reasons that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings to which may be added a fourth which is this which is so evident that it takes away all doubt The Pope hath innumerable times put that power in practice the first Pope we read attempted it was Pope Constantine against Philippicus Emperor of Constantinople because the said Philippicus caused pull down the Images of the Fathers of the sixth general Council commonly called Tâ—ullanum which were placed in the Temple of St. Sophia but Pope Constantine did only bark his Successors Gregory 2d and Gregory 3d. did bite for the same reason of the Images stirring up the Lombards against the Emperor and bereaved them of the Exarchat of Ravenna in which broils the Emperors Governour at Rome being killed the Bishops of Rome got the Dutchy of Rome to themselves and when the Lombards as we said before demanded that Tribute of them which they were accustomed to pay for these Territories to the Emperors of Constantinople they called in the French against the Lombards and in recompence of their services authorized their General Pipin King of France shutting up the righteous King the last of the race of the Merovingians in a Monastery and afterwards they made Carolus Magnus Son of the said Pipin Emperor of the West which Carolus Magnus made appear that although he loved the treason of those Bishops of Rome to their Masters Liâ—geâ— Lords Benefactors and Creators the Emperors of Constantinople by whose procurement they were made Universal Bishops yet he hated the Traitors as we shewed before making them his Vassals both in Spirituals and Temporals lest they should play such tricks to him and his Successors as they had done to the Emperors of Constantinople We read no more of the temporal usurpations of the Bishop of Rome before Gregory 7th when the race of Carolus Magnus being extinct the Empire was translated to the Germans What extremities the said Gregory 7th did put the Emperour Henry 4th to is notorious In sum he was forced to resign the Empire to his Son Henry 5th the Imperial Ornaments being violently plucked from him by the Bishops of Mentz and Culen his own Creatures which Son of his agreed little better with Paschalis Bishop of Rome after which time it was the continual practices of the Bishops of Rome to depose Kings and Emperors and to stir up their Subjects to Rebellion against them as appears by those passages of Alexander 3. with the Emperor Frederick of Boniface 8th with Philip. le Bell King of France of Julius 2. with the King of Navarre of Sixtus 5th with Henâ—y 3. and 4. Kings of France of Paul 3. with Henry 8. and Paul 4 with Queen Elizabeth of England The Stories of these two Henries of France is most lamentable And thus we have proved that it is both the Doctrine and the Practice of the Church of Rome that the Bishop of Rome hath power to depose Kings to absolve their Subjects from fidelity towards them to compell them to Arms against them and consequently to kill them and to acknowledge any for
requires rather to catch the Partridge in the nest in a compendious Treatise then to hunt her in the Woods Fields and Mountains of vast and volumnious Authors though never so learned If any affirm that I play not the Clerk faithfully in minuting this Disput let him put me to it either in privat or publick and if I do not vindicate my self let me be esteemed an Impostor and infamous for forgery and lest any think I cheat in citations I am able to justify that I make use of no passages but those which are acknowledged by both sides where the Disput is about the true meaning of the words and which not seldom falls out whether the testimony be forged or not The whole Disput consists in the examination of those three Questions 1. Whether the Apostle Peter was ordained by our Savior Visible Head of the Church under himself or subordinat Monarch of the Church 2. If at the command of Christ the said Apostle Peter fixed the seat of his particular Bishoprick at Rome 3. If the Bishop of Rome by Divine institution succeeds to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church If the affirmitives of those three questions be true without all question Communion with the Church of Rome is necessar unto Salvation and the Religion of Protestants is a new sprung-up Heresie But if any one of those three Affirmatives be false much more all three it is as certain that the Faith of the Modern Roman Church is an idolatrous and heretical novelty none can succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church if Peter was not himself Monarch of the Church Neither can the Bishop of Rome succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church albeit Peter were Monarch of the Church himself except Peter were also Bishop of Rome Again albeit Peter had been both Monarch of the Church and Bishop of Rome it doth not follow that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter by Divine institution in the Monarchy of the Church unless it be made out otherwise by Scripture or unquestionable Antiquity Calvin lib. 4. Inst cap. 6. num 8. rightly observes that Peter might have had some extraordinary priviledge in his own person to which none succeeded after him The first two questions or Bishoprick of Peter are disputed in this first Book the third question in the following Books The Monarchy of Peter or his universal Bishoprick is disputed unto chap. 22. his particular Bishoprick of Rome from thence to the end His Monarchy is disputed three ways First from his institution unto chap. 15. Secondly from his prerogatives and carriage unto chap. 19 Thirdly by testimonies of Fathers from thence to chap. 22. His institution again is asserted unto chap. 11. and assaulted from thence unto chap. 15. His institution is asserted by three testimonies of Scripture and assaulted by as many The three testimonies by which it is asserted are first Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church The second is Matthew 16. 19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon Earth shal be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon Earth shal be loosed in Heaven The third passage is John 21. 15 16 17. Feed my Lambs Feed my Sheep Those three testimonies are the main Foundation of the faith of the Roman Church If Peter be not ordained Monarch of the Church in those three testimonies he is ordained Monarch of the Church no where and if he be ordained Monarch of the Church no where the Bishop of Rome did not succeed to him in the Monarchy of the Church and if the Bishop of Rome did not succeed to him in the Monarchy of the Church the faith of the Modern Roman Church is a cheat communion with it is so far from being necessar unto Salvation that Salvation cannot consist with it we speak not of Gods secret providence ordinarily This sort of reasoning is approved by Bellarmin himself in the preface of his disput de Pont. Rom. where he calls that controversie of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome a debate de summârei Christianae that is whether Christianity can subsist or not By Christianity or Christian Faith or Christian Religion no question he means the doctrin of the Modern Church of Rome and since in that expression he grants that it cannot subsist without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome he must of necessity grant that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome having no ground in Scripture or Antiquity the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome is warrantable by neither which is further confirmed because in the same place he affirms that the Christian Faith without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Is like a house without a foundation a body without a head Moon-shine without the Sun which is as much to say as without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome the doctirne of the Modern Church of Rome is nothing at all since it is notorious that a house without a foundation a body without a head Moon-light without the Sun are things impossible Since it is so then if the Ancients Fathers and Councils did not believe that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church in those three fore-mentioned passages of Scripture questionless they did not believe the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and if they did not believe the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome it followeth of necessity that they did not believe any necessar communion with the Church of Rome notwithstanding all the braggings of our adversaries to the contrair boasting that the whole current of Antiquity is for them Whether their assertion be true or not will appear by the following enquiry viz. What were the opinions of the Ancients concerning those three passages of Scripture pretended by our adversaries for the institution of Peters Monarchy By which enquiry will appear also by infallible consequence what opinion the Ancients had of necessar communion with the Church of Rome So it may be affirmed that the examination of those three passages is a compendious disput of the whole controversies which we have with the Church of Rome CHAP. II. Tues Petrus Disputed by Scripture and Reason THe fiâ—st passage then proving the institution of Peter to be Monarch of the Church is from Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church This is the place in which our Adversaries have most confidence It may be safely said that if Peter be not ordained Monarch of the Church in those words he is no where else If any would yet have a more compendious Disput of the controversies it is to be found in this passage alone For if in the opinion of Antiquity Peter was not ordained Monarch of the Church or promised to be ordained Monarch of the Church in this passage questionless they neither believed the Supremacy of Peter nor of the Bishop of Rome nor necessar communion with
the Church of Rome since the last two as we said depend upon the first and therefore we will examine this passage the more acuratly First by Scripture and Reason Next because they brag so much of Antiquity by testimonies of Councils and Fathers In the last place because they brag so much of Unity by Popes and Popish Doctors Of which in Order Our Adversaries reason thus He who is the Rock upon which the Church is built is Visible head of the Church or Oecumenick Bishop But Peter is the Rock or Foundation upon which the Church is built as appears by the words of our Savior Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church Ergo Peter is Oecumenick Bishop But it is answered First It is false that the Church is built upon Peter as a Rock Secondly Although our Savior had called Peter the Rock it doth not follow that he ordained him Oecumenick Bishop as shal be proved cap. 6. That Peter is not the Rock we will disput First By Scripture and Reason Secondly by Councils and Fathers Thirdly by Popes and Popish Doctors And first by Scripture 1. Cor. 3. 11. For other Foundation can no man lay then that is laid which is Jesus Christ by which it appears that Christ is only the Rock upon which the Church is built and not deter Bellarmin answers That Christ is only the Primary Foundation but Peter is the Secondary Foundation If this were not the meaning of Paul he would contradict himself Ephes 2. 20. And are built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner stone Where saith he ye have that diâ—â—inction of Primary and Secondary Foundations Christ is called the Corner-stone or chief foundations the Prophets and Apostles are secondary foundations But it is replyed First That Bellarmin cannot apply his distinction of secondary foundation to Peter alone by this passage since the Apostle expresly affirms That all the Prophets and Apostles are Bellarmins secondary foundations and consequently they are all Oecumenick Bishops which Bellarmin will not easily grant Secondly Bellarmin would have distinguished far better foundations in proper and improper Christ is properly the foundation of the Church the Prophets and Apostles ars improperly or metonymically foundations viz. they are called foundations because they preach Christ or by reason of their Doctrine of Christ who is the true foundation So Ambrosius Primasius Anselmus Lombardus Cajetanus Lyranus and the interlinear gloss upon 1. Cor. 3. 11. Guillaudus interprets after the same manner and the great School-man Vasquez In secundam secundae Disput 210. cap. 7. hath these words Non Apostolos Prophetas intelligit sed fidem illorum ab eis scilicet praedicatam annunciatam that is He calls not the Prophets and Apostles themselves foundations but only the faith which they preach It is true that Aquinas following some of the Fathers interprets the Apostles themselves to be foundations but the meaning is all one they mean improper foundations and Thomas his gloss rejected by Vasquez himself who comments upon him as we now said Bellarmin objects Secondly Apocalyps 21. 14. And the wall of the City had twelve foundations and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb. Where saith he all the twelve Apostles are called foundations But it is answered First Although they were yet it makes not much for Bellarmins purpose for if all the twelve Apostles be secondary foundations Peters being secondary foundation doth not conclude him to be Oecumenick Bishop no more then it doth the rest Secondly It is false that the twelve Apostles are called foundations in that place John only affirms that the names of the twelve Apostles were written upon the foundation of that new Jerusalem Thirdly Although both Haimo and Lyranus interpret the Apostles to be foundations yet they give the same gloss which they gave upon 1 Cor. 3. 11. viz. Because of the Doctrine which they preach the words of Haimo are Et in ipsis fundamentis hoc est infide Patriarcharum Apostolorum nomina duodecim Apostolorum The words of Lyranus are Dicuntur autem nomina Apostolorum in ipsis fundamentis scripta quia primò publicârunt fidem Christi praedicando pro ipsa moriendo The same is the explication of Aretas upon this place of the Apocalyps viz. The Apostles are called foundations because of their preaching Christ and dying for him or the faith Stapleton answers to that place of 1 Cor. 3. 11. some other wise then Bellarmin making a distinction between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliud and alterum which cannot well be expressed in English except ye express it thus another and a different Paul saith he affirmeth that there is not another foundation but Christ but he doth not affirm that there is not a different foundation from Christ Which two he distinguisheth because Peter saith he is not another foundation from Christ differing essentially but only a different foundation that is differing accidentally Christ saith he is the principal foundation Peter is the subordinat and ministerial foundation But this subtilty of Stapleton is to no purpose First because the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another signifie sometime things which differ only accidentally as Mat. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He saw two other Brethren Mark 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His hands was made whole as the other Therefore its false that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a thing different by nature but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing differing accidentally Secondly his distinction is refuted by the very text it self for after Paul said Nemo potest aliud fundamentum ponere he adds praeter id quod positum est quod est Iesus Christus By which words he expresly excluds all other foundations beside Christ whether they differ in nature or accidentally Thirdly in what sense can Stapleton affirm that Christ and Peter are foundations in the same specifical nature differing only in accidentals as Peter and Paul two individuals For Christ is properly a foundation upon which the Edifice of the Church is built Peter is only a foundation because he laid the foundation on Christ These two foundations have nothing but the name common as Taurus the mountain Taurus the constellation and Taurus a bull Fourthly Stapleton speaks contradictions in affirming that a principal foundation and a subordinat foundation have the same specifick nature and differ only accidentally as two individuals v. g. Peter Paul which is all one as ye would say The power of a King that of his under-officer were the same the same power in nature differing only accidentally Fifthly Stapleton contradicts himself in another place for in his relections controvers 3. quest 1. art 1. conclus 3. he expresly affirms that Peter is Fundamentum primaâ—ium in suo genere quale Christus est in alio genere which is diametrally opposit to what he affirms here Here he
Thirdly Albeit his supposition were true it is inconsequent and proves nothing for albeit our Savior had exhibited first to Peter the performance of those promises or the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven it doth not follow that Peter was ordinar head and Pastor of the other Apostles having Jurisdiction over them and that they were extraordinar depending upon Peter as their head as is declared by this similitude a Colledge of Judges consisting of such a number have afterwards more added to their number it doth not follow that those who were first constituted are ordinar Judges and the others extraordinar much less that those who were first constituted have Jurisdiction over those who were last which is most evident in the common wealth of the Romans in which at first there were only four Pontifices but that number was after doubled at first only a hundreth Senators under the Kings but that number was tripled by Brutus and augmented almost infinitly by Emperors At first there was only one Praetor next two one for the City an other for Strangers Lastly every Province had a Praetor But none will deny that those Pontifices Senators Pretors had as much power as those who were first constitut And this much of those Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Peter CHAP. VII Tu es Petrus Disputed from the Testimonies of Popish Doctors and Pops themselves IN the former chapters we have disputed Tu es Petrus the principal foundation of the supremacy of Peter of the Bishop of Rome and Faith of the Modern Roman Church by reason antiquity of which our adversaries brag so much especially of antiquity Now we will examine the exposition of those words by the testimonies of Pops and Popish Doctors interpreting that promise of Christ Upon this Rock I will build my Church So that by Rock is not meaned Peter at all or at least Peter alone by which two things will appear that the exposition of those words super hanc Petram approved by the Modern Church of Rome as an article of Faith is against all Antiquity and a new devised cheat of late to establish the Supremacy of Peter the Bishop of Rome necessar communion with that Church by an implicit faith as articles of the Creed necessar unto Salvation The second thing that will appear is this they brag much of Unity and Concord among themselves but it will appear by this chapter that there is no greater discord in hell then is among those of the Church of Rome taxing one another of madness and heresie in the interpretation of those words Upon this Rock I will build my Church which words are the principal if not the only foundation of the Modern Roman Faith and it is to be observed that those who interpret the Rock to be Peter only and tax others of their own profession of her sie are but of yesterday in comparison of the others who deny it and since those others who deny it are also but of yesterday in comparison of Antiquity it is evident that this interpretation of Peters alone being the Rock is a new devised cheat to establish the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome not known to the Ancients We shewed in the former chapters that some of the Fathers interpreted the Rock to be Christ cap 4. Others the faith of Peter cap. 5. and those who interpreted the Rock to be Peter meaned nothing less then he was the only Rock and in these words ordained Oecumenick Bishop We will distinguish the testimonies of those following Pops and Popish Doctors in three Classes accordingly the first is of those intepreting the Rock to be Christ The second of those interpreting it the confession of Peter The third of those denying Peter to be the only Rock of which in order The testimonies of the first class are those following Gregorius Bishop of Rome in Job lib. 31. cap. 19. in sacro eloquio cum singulari numero Petra nominatur quis alius quà m Christus accipitur Paulo attestante qui ait Petra erat Christus This testimony of a Bishop of Rome and a Saint in the Roman Calendar is unanswerable proving that in his time the Rock was expounded not to be Peter but Christ alone which he not only affirms but proves by this reason viz. when ever Rock is mentioned in Scripture in the singular number none other is to be understood but Christ and whereas those Sophisters object that Gregorius is not speaking of those words of Christ Upon this Rock I will build my Church because he proves it by the words of Paul the Rock was Christ who is speaking of that Rock from which Moses made water issue It is answered Albeit that be true that Paul is only speaking of that Rock yet it is false that Gregory speaks only of that Rock his words are where ever in Scripture Rock is mentioned in the singular number it signifieth none but Christ But in these words of our Savior Upon this Rock I will build my Church Rock is mentioned in the singular number Ergo according to Gregorius the Rock in these words is only Christ and not Peter at all The second testimony is of Anselmus who lived in the 12. Century who writing upon these words speaks as followeth Super hanc Petram id est Super me aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Quasi dicat si◠es Petrus à me Petra ut tamen mihi reservetur fundamenti dignitas Sed tu cui ego amatori confessori me◠Participium mei nominis dedi Super me fundamentum mundos lapides ordinabis This testimony is also most evident in which Christ is expresly interpreted to be the Rock and Peter denyed to be the Rock All which is given to Peter is to build the faithful upon Christ as the Rock viz. by preaching and sealing the Gospel with his blood as was shewed before Lyranus upon the same words Et super hanc Petram quam consessus es id est super Christum In which words he expresly interprets the Rock to be Christ He lived anno 1320. whereby it appears it was no article of Faith in his dayes to interpret the Rock to be Peter The Interlinear Gloss upon Matthew 16. 18. Petram id est Christum in quem credis That is by Rock is meaned Christ in whom Peter believed but this Gloss was approved by the whole Church Ioannes Arboreus Theosoph lib. 5. cap. 5. Ecclesia fundata est super Petram non super Petrum The Church is built upon the Rock and not upon Peter Petrus de Alliaco Cardinalis in Recommend sacrae Scripturae he lived anno 1400. his testimony in the said place is this Non videtur quod in Petra Petrus sed in Petra Christus sit intelligendus de quo agit Apostolus Petra autem rrat Christus It is not like that the Church is founded upon the Rock Peter but upon the Rock Christ as the Rock is taken by the Apostle Paul when he affirmeth the
that is the sum of the disput of Augustinus tractat 50. For satisfaction of the Reader we will set down his words which are these Nam si in Petro non esset Ecclesiae Sacramentum non ei diceret Dominus tibi dabo claves regni coelorum quaecunque solveris in terra soluta erunt in coelo quaecunque ligaveris in terra ligata erant in coelr Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est non facit hoc Ecclesia Si autem in Ecclesia fit ut quae in terra ligantur in coelo ligentur quae soluuntur in terra soluantur in coelo quia cum excommunicat Ecclesia in coelo ligatur excommunicatus cum reconciliatur ab Ecclesia in coelo soluitur excommunicatus si hoc Ergo in Ecclesia fit Petrus quando claves accepit Ecclesiam sanstam significavit By which it appears that he expresly disputs that Peter had not the keyes given to him alone because the whole Church used them as well as he and thence concluds that he represented the whole Church when our Savior promised to him the keyes and therefore it is false which Horantius affirms That the whole Church got the keyes in Peter as Germany gets the Empire when any is made Emperor of Germany Since all Germany doth not exercise the Imperial Authority as the whole Church doth that of the Keyes Bellarmin glosseth otherwise upon Augustinus he affirms Peter may be said two wayes to represent the Church First historically as when any represents that which is done by another by that which is really done by himself and so saith he Abraham having two sons Isaac and Ishmael represented God who was to have two peoples The second way of Bellarmins representing is called by him Parabolick viz. when any thing is represented by a probable fiction not really done So our Savior preaching the Gospel is signified by a sower of good seed He applyeth that Peter signified the Church the first way so that he truly principally and immediately got the keyes and in getting them signified the whole Church which was to get them afterwards in its own proper way But it is answered It is very ordinar with Bellarmin to spin out subtilties nothing to the purpose to delude bis readers when he is pusâ—ed it were prolix to retex his sophistry in this particular we only answer that Peter represented the Church in none of those wayes mentioned by Bellarmin but in a third viz. As when a Society alike interessed in any priviledge hath that priviledge given to them all when it is given to any one of them in which case every one of that Society hath the benefit of that priviledge as well and equally with him to whom it was given in all their names Bellarmin objects That it is not the meaning of Augustinus that Peter got the keyes in the name of the rest as their Legat or Vicar Ergo it is his meaning that Peter got them as their Moderator or Prince as when any thing is given to a King it may be said to be given to the whole Kingdom because it is given for the publick utility of all But it is answered It is true which Bellarmin affirms that Peter did not get the keyes as a Legat or Vicar gets any thing in the name of his King for so Peter had gotten nothing to himself no more then an Ambassador representing his King marrying a wife to his King or in his Kings Name but it doth not follow that Peter got the keyes as Monarch of the Church or as the Church got them in Peter as a Kingdom gets any thing given to their King because it is notoriously false since the Church according to Augustinus had the power of the keyes as well as Peter but a Kingdom hath not the use or property of that which is given unto their King and therefore we affirm That Bellarmins enumeration is still insufficient for Peter got the keyes neither as Vicar of the Church nor a Moderator or Prince of the Church but as one of the Society of the Pastors and Apostles of the Church as if our Savior had said to Peter I give unto thee the power of the keyes and in thee to all Pastors to be alike exercised by thee and them Bellarmin instances that Augustinus affirms that the Church was signified by Peter Propter eum quem gerebat Primatum that is Because of the Primacy he had in the Church But it is answered That Augustinus by Primacy means no other thing then Apostleship that is Augustinus affirms Peter had a Primacy in the Church because he was an Apostle in the Church as he explains himself in many places as in his last Treatise upon John he affirms that Peter signified the whole Church because of the Primacy of his Apostleship propter Apostolatus Primatum he hath the like words in his 23. Sermon upon the words of Christ and likewise upon Psalm 108. and especially lib. 2. of Baptism against the Donatists he hath these words Quis nes cit illam Apostolatus Principatum cuilibet Episcopatui preferendum Who knows not that the Primacy of an Apostleship is to be preferred to any Bishoprick by which it is most evident that the meaning of Augustinus affirming Peter had a Supremacy in the Church is no other then that he was an Apostle of the Church Especially since Augustinus disputed that the keyes were not given to Peter alone but also to the whole Church But Bellarmin instances it is true That the whole Church had the use of the keyes as well as Peter but by the gift of Peter who distributed them to other Pastors according to his pleasure himself only having them immediately from Christ as when a King having his power immediately from God communicats his Jurisdiction to inferior Magistrats in giving them particular charges of exercising Jurisdiction But it is answered This Gloss of Bellarmins is against all Antiquity innumerable testimonies of Fathers might be produced that the other Apostles had the keyes given them as well as Peter but Bellarmin cannot produce one testimony to prove that the meaning of those Fathers is That the keyes were immediately given to Peter and by his communication distributed to the rest Nothing such appears out of Augustinus but the contrair Cyprianus expresly affirms That all the Apostles were of alike power with Peter And Francisus de Victoria a great Popish Doctor the most learned Divine that ever Spain produced as he is called by Canus loc Theol lib. 12. cap. 1. Relect 2. quest 2. conclus 3. and 4. Commenting upon that place of Cyprian de unita Eccles expresly affirms That all the Apostles received all the power both of Order and Jurisdiction immediatly from Christ and inveighs against the ordinar Gloss upon that place for distinguishing between Order and Jurisdiction that is for affirming That all the Apostles had their Orders immediately from Christ but not their Jurisdiction or the power of
no Council that the Pope had power to depose Kings and consequently it was not the doctrine of the Church of Rome His second objection was that notwithstanding all this it was not the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome because all the Church of France rejected it as a pernicious doctrine I answered this objection by a two-fold distinction The first of times viz. When the King of France was low and the Pope high The second distinction was of causes wherefore Kings are deposed one of which and the main one was heresie I desired him to read history and he would find that when the Kings of France were low and their Kings suspected of heresie that it was the doctrine of the whole Clergy of France that the Pope had power of deposing such Kings at such times for proving of which I desired him to read first a decree of the Sorbon printed at Paris in which they approved the bulls of Sixtus 5. excommunicating and deposing Henry 3 4. Kings of France I desired him secondly to read that speech of Cardinal Peron in the name of the Clergy of France as their Speaker in an Assembly of the Estates in which speech he openly maintains That it is the opinion of the whole Church of France and ever was that Heretical Kings that is Protestants ought to be deposed that the Pope had power to depose them and that true French-men ought them no allegiance And thus much of the Popes power in temporals by the way it shal be more largely disputed God willing part 3. lib. 2 what we have said is sufficient to prove That the Dominion of the Bishop of Rome is tyrannical and consequently according to their own confession forbidden Peter 1. 5 3. The third particular of the tyrannical Domination of the Bishop of Rome is over souls departed The fourth is over Angels Both which usurpations appear by the Bull of Clement sixth proclaiming a Jubile The words of the Bull are these Concedimus si confessus in via moriatur ut ab omnibus peccatis suis sit immunis penitus absolutus mandamus Angelis ut animam è purgatorio penitùs absolutam in Paradisi gloriam introducant And in another Bull Nolumus ut paena inferni illi infligatur concedens cruce signatis ad eorum vota tres aut quatuor animas quas volunt ex purgatorio posse eripere in which Bulls he takes upon him to command Angels and to place Souls in heaven or hell as he pleaseth The 5. particular proving the tyranny of the dominon of the Bishop of Rome is in assuming divin power to himself So Nicolaus 2. in Gratianus dist 96. Satis evidenter Where he affirms That the Pope cannot be Judged by any Secular Prince because the Pope was called God by Constantine but God cannot be judged by man Likewise Bonifacius 8. 6. decret de electione C. fundamenta affirms That S. Peter was assumed in the fellowship of the individual Trinity and consequently the Bishop of Rome hath the same priviledge as Peters Successor So Glossa extravag C. antiquae de voto Where speaking of Matrimony held by the Church of Rome to be a Sacrament of divine Institution a doubt is moved how that vow made in Matrimony can be dissolved by a Constitution of the Church Since it was made solemnly to God The Glossator answers the doubt That it cannot be made void by a meer man but only by the Pope who is not a meer man but Gods Vicar Thirdly he usurps Divinity in making the Decretal Epistles or the Canon law of equal authority with the Scripture So Gratianus distinct 19. C. in Canonicis expresly affirms so much Innumerable examples might be afforded of this kind but those are sufficient The sixth and last particular of the Tyranny of the Domination of the Bishop of Rome is his hearing patientissimis auribus without offence biasphemous titles attributed to him in Orations Books and Pamphlets printed by his Authority which is all one as he had stiled himself by those titles So by the Gloss in the Canon Law he is called our Lord God the Pope as is found in those Editions printed at Lions 1584. and at Paris 1585. 1601. 1612. All which Editions were set out after Gregory 13. had corrected the Canon Law the words are Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam Conditorem dictae decretalis non sic potuisse statuere prout statuit haereticum censeatur extravagant John 22. tit 14. de verb. sig cap. 4. c. We could produce innumerable such but it were tedious yet we cannot omit that blasphemous Pamphlet presented to Innocent the 10. who before his Popedom was called Cardinal Pamphilius The scope of which Pamphlet is to compare the Pope whom he calleth Pamphilius with Christ whom he calleth Philius To be short he preferrs the Pope to Christ in most horrible manner and yet the Pope was no wise offended at that flâ—ttery It seems he understood not what Blasphemy meant for an other time being desired to hear a Theological Controversie between the Jansenists and Molinists disputed before him that he might determin it He answer ed He was an old man it did not belong to his profession and he had never studied Divinity as is reported by S. Amour in his journal where he affirms He heard the Pope affirm so publickly And thus much of Peter 1. 5. 3. The first Argument of Protestants against Peters institution of Oecumenick Bishop we have proved two things in the vindication of that passage The first is that not only tyrannical Domination but all sort of Domination is forbidden in that place The second is although it were granted that only tyrannical Domination in Church-men were forbidden in the same place yet it quite overthrows the institution of an Oecumenick Bishop which we have proved to be most tyrannical and that by six arguments which in effect amongst Candide men are unanswerable CHAP. XII The Supremacy of Peter assaulted from Ephesians 1. 22. 4. 23. 5. 23. And Colossians 1 18. IN the former Chapter we assaulted the Institution of Peter in that Oecumenick Bishoprick by the testimony of Peter himself forbidding all sort of Lording or Domination in Church men where we also proved two things First that not only tyrannical Domination was forbidden by the Apostle in Church Rulers but all Domination Secondly although tyrannical Lording had only been forbidden nevertheless the injunction of the Apostle inhibited That Lording assumed by the Bishop of Rome now to himself proving by demonstrative arguments that the power of the Bishop of Rome now-a-dayes was not only tyrannical but blasphemous and a right-down Gigantomachy which shal more largely be proved part 4. lib. 1. In this following chapter we make use of a second argument against the institution of Peter in that universal Bishoprick by Christ viz. it appears by these Scriptures mentioned in the title That Christ is the Head of the Church and if Peter were
therefore are not the true Lights And since Christ is the true Light and men are not the true Lights it is evident that the title of Light is attributed to both by a Homonymy In the next place comes Foundation Prophets and Apostles are called Foundations two wayes And first Tertullianus lib. 4. cap. 39. against Marcion Chrysostomus Oecumenius Theophylactus interpret these words of Paul super fundamenta Prophetarum Apostolorum as if the Prophets and Apostles themselves were Foundations But it is certain they cannot be called so but only by reason of their Ministry that is in so far as they were Ministers of founding Churches as is confessed by Justinianus the Jesuite who affirms That the faith of the Ephesians was built upon the testimony of the Old and New Testament that is by a Metonymy but Christ is not that way called Foundation and therefore the title of Foundation is attributed by a Homonymy to Christ and the Apostles and Prophets and in that sense the Apostle Paul denyeth that there is any Foundation but Christ Others interpret the meaning of Paul calling the Apostles and Prophets Foundations to be that they preached the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament which is the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets viz. which they did lay So the interlinear and ordinar gloss following Ambrosius and Anselmus so also Lyranus Aquinas Lombardus Cajetanus Gagnaeus the Jesuite and Salmero In what ever sense Foundation be taken it is properly attributed to Christ improperly by a Homonymy to men Bellarmins last tittle is GOD Men are called Gods saith he Psalm 82. and since they are so called why may not a man be called Head of the Church But it is answered First Kings and Judges are not called Gods there but only that men judged so of them because of their flourishing estate so that Fgo dixi Dii estis are not the words of GOD but of the Psalmist himself as dâ—vers learned men gather from the text Others think that the Psalmist is speaking of the Angels However albeit the title of GOD were attributed to Kings and Judges it doth not follow that the title of Head of the Church may be attributed to men because the title of GOD is attributed to men abusively by a too high strained Metaphor But Bellarmin and his fellows endeavor to maintain that the Bishop of Rome is properly head of the Church as a King is head of his Kingdom And in this manner Bellarmin undertakes to prove that it is not injurious to Christ that any should take upon him the title of Head of the Church In the next place he goes a step higher endeavoring to prove That a visible head of the Church sets forth the glory of Christ as the glory of a King is augmented by a Victory But it is answered When a Viceroy intruds himself without a Commission upon a Province he is so far from setting forth the glory of his King that he eclipseth it by neglecting of his authority and proves a Rebel Let Bellarmin instruct if he can in what place of Scripture any hath commission to be visible head of the Church under Christ We proved in the former chapters that what he alledged in the behalf of Peter was new devised Sophistry contradicting Scripture Antiquity and of no great moment to prove the supremacy of Peter in the opinion of the most learned Antiquaries which ever the Church of Rome produced Secondly Bellarmins visible head of the Church carrys himself not like a Viceroy but like a King which must be injurious to the true Head of the Church Yea Bellarmin himself endeavors to prove that the said secondary head reigns in the Church as a King doth in a Kingdom Neither can the Bishop of Rome be said to be Viceroy to Christ otherwise in the government of the Church then a King is Viceroy to GOD in the government of a Kingdom But Kings are absolute and not Viceroys and therefore that visible head of the Church is absolute also being subordinate no otherwise to Christ then Kings are to GOD. Thirdly when a Viceroy takes upon him to go beyond his commission or to govern contrair to the law of his King he wrongs the authority of his King and no wayes sets forth his glory But Bellarmins visible and secundary head takes upon him to dispence with the Law of GOD as we shewed in the former chapter proving that he took power upon him to make Justice Injustice and Injustice Justice In the third place Bellarmin goes a step higher yet and endeavors to prove that a secundary visible head is necessar for the Church because saith he in the absence of Christ the Church cannot be contained in Vnity unless it be governed by one visible head under Christ But it is answered Stillgood that assertion of Bellarmins if not blasphemous is notoriously false viz. That the Church cannot be contained in Vnity by Christ alone unless a visible head be joyned with him Which contradicts Scripture which in every place attributes the cause of that Unity of the Church to Christ alone So John 17. That they may be one in us and Rom. 10. We many are one body in Christ and Gal. 3. Ye are all one in Christ and the reason is evident because that Unity is Spiritual Ephes 4. Studying to keep the unity of the Spirit See also 1. Corinth 12. and Philip 1. By which places it appears that the Invisible and Spiritual presence of Christ alone preserves the Church in Unity which is also granted by many famous Roman Doctors who prove the infallibility of the Church to depend upon this promise of Christ viz. That he would be present with them to the end of the World We have heard Bellarmin disputing for a visible head and proving that it is not derogatory to the honor of Christ We will now examine an argument of Sanderus that famous English Jesuite who proves that it conduceth to the glory of Christ that the Church should have a visible head because saith he More ways of Preaching that glory of Christ are by a visible head then without it But it is answered to omit the inconsequence of that argument we deny the Antecedent or distinguisheth it viz. These ways of Preaching Christ only illustrat his glory which are ordained by himself which a visible head is not Sanderus instances Rulers of particular Churches or Bishops are called Heads of their respective Churches under Christ by Gregorius Magnus and other Fathers Ergo why may there not be one visible head of all the Church under Christ But it is answered First if Sanderus had objected that argument to Gregorius Magnus himself he would have denyed it to follow for although he seems to call Bishops heads of particular Churches yet he detests an universal head as we shewed before as injurious to Christ. Secondly when Gregorius calls Bishops heads of the Church he speaks abusively and improperly and without any warrand in Scripture And thus
believed that he was first ordained Apostle so Cyprianus c. The fifth rank of testimonies are those affirming that there is Una Cathedra c. one Chair of Peter which was placed at Rome in which Chair Unity was preserved by all neither did the rest of the Apostles constitute any other Chairs against that one Chair in which Peter sat first To whom succeeded Linus c. Optatus lib. 2. against Parmenianus in which words saith Bellarmine ye have the Chair of Peter and his successors called the Chair of the whole Church which infers that according to Optatus Peter was oecumenick Bishop But it is answered that Optatus in those words is disputing against the Donatists who had set up a Bishop of their own faction at Rome in opposition to the true Bishop Which Optatus reprehends Because saith he there is but one Chair at Rome founded by Peter in which first himself sat and then his successors in which place viz. Rome none of the other Apostles did constitute another Chair much lesse ye ought to set another Bishop in that Chair in opposition to the successors of Peter That this is his meaning viz. that he speaks of the particular Church of Rome and not of the universal Church is evident because otherwayes it were notoriously false which he affirms that no Chair was constituted by the other Apostles For James did constitute a Church at Jerusalem and John at Ephesus c. The sixth rank are the testimonies affirming Peter to be Magister Ecclesiae a Master of the Church likewayes that the Church is called Eclesia Petri Ambrosius Sermon 11. It is answered first that not only Erasmus but also Costerus a stiff maintainer of the Pope denyes Ambrosius to be the Author of those Sermons 2. Although he were it imports not much for calling Peter a Master of the Church he calls him no other thing then an Apostle For all Apostles governed the whole Church or were Pastors of the whole Church as we said before 3. Whereas we said another calleth the Church the Church of Peter he speaks very improperly such kind of speaking is not found in Scripture or in Fathers perhaps his meaning is that it is the Church of Peter because it was the Church in which Peter taught and in that sense it may be called the Church of Paul also or of any other of the Apostles although properly the Church is only the Church of Christ and of none other The seventh rank is of testimonies preferring the Chair of Peter to-other Chairs Augustinus de Baptismo lib. 2. It is answered Augustins words are Quis nescit Apstolatus principatum cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum Who is ignorant that the principality â—o the Apostleship is to be preferred to any Bishoprick In which words it cannot be conjectured what Bellarmine can gatherfor the Supremacy of Peter Augustine in these words is comparing Cyprian with Peter in one respect he prefers Peter to Cyprian because saith he the principality of the Apostleship is to be preferred to any Bishoprick or Peter because an Apostle is to be preferred to Cyprian who is only a Bishop But in the words following he saith Albeit their Chairs be unequal yet the glory of both the Martyrs is the same in which words he seems in a manner equal to Peter Eighthly Bellarmine cites a testimony from the Thesaurus of Cyrullus for the Supremacy of Peter viz. That Christ got the Scepter of the Church of the Gentiles from God which he gave unto Peter and unto his successors only and unto none other But it is answered that the testimony is suppositious and forged being not found at all in any Edition of that Book It is only mentioned by Thomas Aquinas in Opusculo contra Graecos in his little Book he wrote against the Graecians and some think he forged it but Thomas was a most holy man and it is more like he was abused by some others Ninthly Bellarmine cites some testimonies from Bernardus and others who lived after the sixth Century but those testimonies especially of the Latines who lived at that time cannot be regarded because they lived after that time in which Bonifacius 3. was ordained oecumenick Bishop by Phocas Such testimonies for the Supremacy of Peter can have no more force then the testimonies of Bellarmine or Barronius or any other Doctor of the Church of Rome Tenthly he cites the testimonies of Leo and the other Bishops of Rome but neither can those be regarded because they lived after the time in which the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople contended for the primacy If Bellarmine will not believe the Protestants that those testimonies are of no moment let him consider what is said by Aeneas Sylvius sometimes Pope himself who in his first Comen upon the Councill of Basil hath these words Those miserable men are not aware that those testimonies which they so magnify are either ipsorum summorum Pontificum Fimbrias suas extendentium Are either of Popes themselves enlarging their authority or else of their flatterers Bellarmines eleventh testimony is taken from Eusebius Caesariensis lib. 2. hist cap. 14. who affirms Peter is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Captain of the Militia of God In which testimony he triumphs as if he had found out the whole businesse What else saith he can be the meaning of Eusebius then that Peter is head of the Church Militant But it is answered first that Bellarmine following the version of Christopherson cites Eusebius fraudulently whose words are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Not Captain of the Militia of God simply But as one of the Captains of the Militia of God Secondly Isidorus Pelustota lib. 3. epist 25. gives the same Epithet to Paul calling him a most generous and valiant Captain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently Bellarmine triumphs before the Victory since that testimony of Eusebius concludes Peter no more to be oecumenick Bishop then that of Isidorus Paul And this much of those testimonies cited by Bellarmine for proving the Supremacy of Peter over the Church which was the first Classe CHAP. XX. Testimonies of Fathers proving the Authority of Peter over the Apostles THe second Classe of testimonies consists of those proving the Supremacy of Peter over the Apostles for which Bellarmine cites Cyprian epist 71. but he sets not down the words of Cyprian but only summs them thus When Paul reprehended Peter Peter did not answer I have the primacy ye most obey me and not I you Ergo saith Bellarmine according to Cyprian Peter had the primacy over Paul But it is answered that this Logick is very strange because Cyprian affirms that Peter did not say unto Paul I have the primacy Ergo according to Cyprian Peter had the Supremacy It would seem rather by these words that Cyprian thought Peter had not the Supremacy The words of Cyprian which Bellarmine suppresseth are Nec Petrus vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut
in the Monarchie of the Church the Mountains have brought forth a Mouse viz. he brings nothing but perverted Testimonies of the Ancients falsly translated and many of them forged others mutilated as shall appear in this and the next two following Books where also it shall be proved by the Testimonies of those same Councells and Fathers pretended by him that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church is a meer fiction not known to the Ancients of the first six Centuries It s true indeed that some ambitious Bishops of Rome contending with the Bishops of Constantinople for the Primacy which contention did begin after the Council of Chalcedon Anno 453. invented this fiction of the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter But that it was a new invented fiction appears by two reasons The first is because the Council of Chalcedon Canon 28 made the Bishop of Constantinople equal in Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome It s true indeed the said Council gave the first place in dignity to the Bishop to Rome but it appears expresly by the words of the Canon that it was not by any reason of succession to Peter but only because Rome was the chief imperial City the words in the Original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because Rome was the imperial City where it is to be observed that Aetius for the Bishop of Constantinople and Paschasinus for the Bishop of Rome had pleaded with great animosity for the Primacy before the said Council both alledging the sixth Canon of the Council of Neice Paschasinus not mentioning Tu es Petrus at all in the end the Council having heard them both at length pronounced in favour of the Bishop of Constantinople interpreting the sixth Canon of the Council of Neice as making all the Patriarchs equal in Jurisdiction with the Bishop of Rome after which Decree of the Council the following Bishops of Rome devised Tu es Petrus pleading for the Primacy The second reason is that in the latter end of the sixth Century Pelagius Secundus and Gregorius Primus Bishops of Rome pleaded with great animosity against a visible Head of the Church as Derogatory to Christ and Gregorius amongst other reasons useth this for one that Peter was not universal Apostle or visible head of the Church Epistola 32. but more of that hereafter Since then before the latter end of the fifth Age never any Bishop of Rome pleaded the succession by Peter unto the Monarchie of the Church and since Gregorius in the beginning of the seventh Age expresly disputed against it it is evident that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is a new devised fiction yea it shall be proved lib. 5. that the said succession to Peter was held no article of Faith in the Church of Rome before the eleventh Age and not then neither without great contention Bellarmin's fourth observation is this That the universal Bishoprick and the Bishoprick of Rome are not two Bishopricks nisi potentia and therefore they are but one Bishoprick wherein he expresly contradicts himself he said before that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church was Jure divino but as he was Bishop of Rome it was not Jure divino now he makes them one Bishoprick but how can that consist since he had made them before two whereof the one was Jure divino and the other not Secondly Bellarmine may be asked Whether the Pope be Bishop of Rome because he is universal Bishop or if he be universal Bishop because he is Bishop of Rome one of the two must of necessity follow since they are on Bishoprick in effect and distinct only potentia if he affirm he is Bishop of Rome because he is universal Bishop then it followeth that Peter had been Bishop of Rome although he had never been at Rome and consequently he was Bishop of Rome when he was Bishop of Antioch If he affirm he is universal Bishop because he is Bishop of Rome it follows he is universal Bishop because he is a particular Bishop which is against nature and reason And this much of the stating of the question Bellarmine having stated the question falls a disputing and it appears by his first Argument more distinctly what he means which Oedipus himself could not gather from his stating of the question his Argument is this One or other of necessity beloved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church Jure divino but no other but the Bishop of Rome could succeed to him Ergo the Bishop of Rome succeeded to him That one or other behoved to succeed to Peter he proves by six reasons which in effect is the sum and repetition of all those two prolix disputs of his that the Government of the Church is Jure divino Monarchicall and that Peter was the said Monarch His first reason â—s Because the Church is the end of a Bishoprick since the Church is one therefore there must be one Bishop in the Church But it is answered Christ is that one Bishop that the Church should have any other Bishop under Christ as a visible head Bellarmine suppones falsly it s a sort of disputing called Petitio principii where the thing is taken as granted which is the state of the question His second reason is That in the times of the Apostles the Church had a visible head under Christ But the Government of the Church is ever the same But it s answered it is false that in the times of the Apostles the Church had a visible head as was prolixly proved lib. 1. His third reason is of the same mettal Joh. 21. 15. Christ saith to Peter Pasce oves meas Feed my Sheep But it is answered that passage was prolixly answered before His fourth reason is by feeding of the sheep of Christ is meaned feeding of all the Sheep of Christ which none but one visible Head could do But that objection was also answered before lib. 1. His fifth reason is from 1 Cor. 12. â—1 The head cannot say unto the feet I have no need of you From which place he reasons thus The Church saith he is compared to a humane Body with a Head here the Head is brought in speaking to the Members that it cannot say I have no need oâ— you Or which is all one this Head of the Church hath need of the Members but this must be another Head then Christ because Christ hath no need of the Members But it is answered this is a flat abusing of Scripture the scope of the Apostle in that place is to show that although some in the Church have more excellent Gifts then others yet the fellowship and endeavours of those of mean Gifts is necessar for the edification of the Church which he proves by a similitude taken from a humane Body where some Members are more noble as the Head some less as the Feet And saith he as
he Head cannot say unto the Feet I have no need of you or ye are not necessary to the Body So they of more excellent Gifts in the Church cannot say unto those of meaner Gifts we have no need of you neither are ye necessary for the edification of the Church That this is the true exposition of this place appears by the Interpretation of all the Ancients as Ambrosius Chrysostomus Theophylactus whose Interpretation is also followed by those two Leaders of the School-men Lombardus and Aquinas neither did ever any Interpreter-dream to prove a visible Head out of this place before the times of the Jesuites as Bellarmine Sanderus and Turrianus Their reason is most ridiculous There is but one Head of the Body say they to which the Church is compared Ergo there is but one Head in the Church Which Argument may be retorted thus There are but two Feet in the Body to which the Church is compared Ergo there are but two Feet in the Church or two only in the Church who have meaner Gifts The Sophistry discovers it self for according to the Interpretation of the Ancients that one Head of the Body answers to many persons in the Church as appears by the 70. Epistle of Basilius to the Bishops of Italy and France where he hath these words Cum igitur non possit Caput Pedibus dicere Non estis mihi necessarii omnino non tolerabitis nos abdicari Since the Head cannot say unto the Feet ye are not necessary ye will not suffer us to be abdicated or cut off He repeats the same words Epist 77. to the Transmarine Bishops Likewayes Primasius Oecumenius and the Author of those Commentaries attributed to Hieronymus compares all Bishops to that one Head of the Body and so doth Aquinas to which he compares also the Civil Magistrates And this much of that head mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 21. Bellarmin's last reason to prove That the Government of the Church is Jure Divino Monarchical and consequently that one or other behoved to succeed to Peter is taken from the High Priest in the Old Testament under whom the Government of the Church was Monarchical Ergo saith he the Government of the Church under the New Testament is Jure Divino Monarchical under one visible Head But it is answered first many things were in the Church-government in the Old Testament which are not in that of the New and therefore the Argument doth not follow Secondly Bellarmine could not have produced a sharper Sword to cut his own throat for the High-priest in the Old Testament was a Type of Christ and as the said High-priest governed the Church without a visible Head under him in the Old Testament So Christ governs the Church in the New Testament without a visible Head under him And this much of those reasons by which Bellarmine endeavours to prove that one or other behoved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church In the next place he endeavours to prove that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to him which he doth thus Either the Bishop of Antioch or else the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church but not the Bishop of Antioch Ergo the Bishop of Rome But it is answered first it is false that either the Bishop of Antioch or the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church since we proved before that Peter was not Monarch of the Church himself and therefore no Bishop could succeed him in the Monarchy of the Church Secondly We proved also in the last Chapter of the first Book that Peter was Bishop of no particular Church Thirdly though it were granted that either the Bishop of Antioch or the Bishop of Rome behoved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church the Bishop of Antioch ought to be preferred to the Bishop of Rome because we have Scripture expresse that Peter was at Antioch but none at all that he was at Rome but on the contrary it appears by infallible presumptions from Scripture that he was never at Rome as was proved in the last Chapter of the former Book where it was also proved that the Testimonies of those Fathers by which Peter was proved to be at Rome were grounded on the Authority of Pappias an Author meriting no credit in the opinion of Eusebius Bellarmine in the next place endeavours to prove That the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church by several general Arguments As 1. Testimonies of general Councils 2. Of Bishops of Rome themselves 3. Of Greek Fathers 4. Of Latine Fathers 5. From Viccars 6. From Right of Appellations 7. From exemption from judgement 8. From ordination of Bishops 9. From Laws Dispensations and Censures 10. From Names or Titles In the following Books we shall not miss one of his Arguments of any moment unanswered and not retorted But to avoid repetitions we will alter his method distinguishing the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter in several Intervals as was shewed in the Preface of this Treatise in this second Book we will dispute the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church from the dayes of the Apostles untill the death of Cyprian that is untill anno 260. or thereabout insisting most upon these four following particulars First we will dispute the occasion of the opinion of Aerius by whom it was maintained unto cap. 5. In the second place we will dispute that there was no Office in the Church during that interval above that of a Bishop unto cap. 9. In the third place we will answer what is objected for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval by our adversaries unto cap 13. Fourthly we will examine several forgeries pretended by our adversaries for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval Of which in order CHAP. II. The occasion of the opinion of Aerius who were his followers and what the Bishop of Rome was at first in their opinion SOme Protestants stumble at the word Hierarchy and will needs have the word Hieredulia put in the place of it the first word in the Original signifying Church-ruling the last Church-ministry However that the Church Hierarchy or Hierodulle instituted by the Apostles consisted of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons is denyed by none as in civil families some servants had titles of honour given them and were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 majores domus familiam ducentes trusties master-housholds rulers of the family others were called by the common name of Servants So in the Ministry of the Church some Ministers had titles of honour given them and were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Overseers Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters Elders all other Ministers of the Church were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deacons which is as much as to say Ministers or were called by the name of Ministers common to them all Those titles of Bishop and
lived is uncertain Ignatius in his Epâ—stle to the Trallians hath these words What is a Bishop but he who goeth beyond all command and power who commands all as far as a man can command In which words he expresly affirms that there is no Office of the Church above that of a Bishop for if a Bishop have supream command as he expresly affirms he can be commanded by no superior Church-ruler as Metropolitan Patriarch or oecumenick Bishop The Testimony of Dionysius is taken from his 8. Epistle his words are these in substance Every man should strive to live blamelesly if he do not the Priest should take a course with him if the Priest deborde he should be judged by his Bishop if the Bishop do amiss he should be judged by the successors of the Apostles if those again do amiss they should be judged by those of the same order and degree In which words he quite excludes one visible Head over all and consequently it appears that in his dayes the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not believed as an article of Faith in the Church since he affirms that many hold the chief place of the Hierarchy whereof any should be judged by the rest and not all by one visible Head or by the Bishop of Rome What he means by Successors to the Apostles whom he places above Bishops none can tell except he mean Metropolitans and Patriarchs if he do its evident he lived after the times of Cyprian because in the dayes of Cyprian and before there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop as appears first by that passage of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians now cited Secondly it appears by the Epistle of the said Ignatius written to the Magnesians in the which Epistle he comprehends all Church-rulers under Bishops and Presbyters where he affirms that Bishops have the cheif place loco Dei in place of God Presbyters have the next place concessus Apostolici loco that is they represent the Council of the Apostles the last place he gives the Deacons to whom the Ministery of Christ is committed Thirdly that no Office was in the Church above that of a Bishop before the times of Cyprian nor in his time appears by those two following most notable passages of Cyprian the one in his Books de unitate Ecclesiae lib. 4. Epist 9. the other from his Oration to the Council of Carthage of which two passages in order CHAP. VII Explication of that place of Cyprian De unitate Ecclesiae THe words of Cyprian are Unus Episcopatus est cujus à singulis pars in solidum tenetur that is There is one Bishoprick of which every Bishop hath alike full share by which passage of Cyprian it not only appears that the Bishop of Rome in his dayes was not believed to be visible Head of the Church but also that there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop since every Bishop had alike full share of that one Bishoprick which could not be if in those dayes Metropolitans had been above Bishops Patriarchs above Metropolitans and an oecumenick Bishop above all This notable passage of Cyprian puzles the Learned of the Church of Rome very sore they vary very much in their glosses upon this place of Cyprian as Rufus contra Molinaeum Fran. Agricula cap. 18. varies from him Hayus disput lib. 1. cap. 11. and Turrianus contra Zadeel lib. 1. cap. 17. 26. agree almost in one Exposition but they differ from the other two Sanderus de visib Monarch lib. 7. num 45. differs from all the former Bellarmine lib. 2. de pont Rom. cap. 16. varies from them all We will examine the exposition of Bellarmine for since they vary in their opinion about the meaning of Cyprian and since the meaning of Cyprian can be but one of necessity all their glosses must be false except one and since the gloss of Bellarmine is most approved by the Church of Rome we will examine it Bellarmine in the forecited place expones the words of Cyprian thus There is one Bishoprick saith he in the same way that the Church is one But the Church is one as many branches of the same Tree are one Tree many rivolets are one Water many beams one Light as then in branches there is an unity by reason of one Root in rivolets by reason of one Fountain c. So is the Church one and consequently the Bishoprick one in its Head and Root the Church and Bishoprick of Rome And whereas Cyprian affirms that every Bishop hath a full share of that one Bishoprick Bellarmine grants its true but by a distinction that is Though every Bishop have a full share yet he hath not an equal share nor in the same manner for Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome have that share which answers to the Head Root and Fountain but other Bishops have that share answering to the Branches Rivolets c. This gloss of Bellarmines quite destroyes the Text for Cyprian compares particular Churches to Branches Rivolets Beams that one Bishoprick he compares to an Oak to Light to a Fountain whereby it evidently appears that by that one Bishoprick he means not the Bishoprick of Rome which is a particular Bishoprick as well as the rest and not that great Bishoprick or one Bishoprick whereof every one hath a full share Secondly that by unus Episcopatus he means not the Bishoprick of Peter having authority over other Bishops is proved by his words in the same Book de unitate Ecclesiae where he affirms Whatever the other Apostles were Peter was the same that all the Apostles were equal to Peter in dignity and power whereby it appears whatever the Bishoprick of Peter was the Bishopricks of the other Apostles were equal to it and since the Bishopricks of the other Apostles were particular Bishopricks each having a full share of that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian the Bishoprick of Peter was only a particular Bishoprick and not that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian Thirdly That the Bishoprick of Rome is not that one Bishoprick appears by the express words of Cyprian in his Oration to the Council of Carthage in which as we shall prove in the next Chapter he makes any other Bishop equal in jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome Fourthly Bellarmine and Sanderus in making that one Bishoprick the Bishoprick of Peter must of necessity grant that Peter only had his Bishoprick immediatly from Christ and the other Apostles their Bishopricks from Peter since Sanderus expresly affirms that all other Bishopricks flow from the Bishoprick of Peter as all mankind had their Original from Adam But in averring the Apostles to have their Bishopricks from Peter Bellarmine contradicts first Fran. de victoria who relect 2. quaest 2. conclus 3. and 4. expresly affirms That the other Apostles received all their power both of order and jurisdiction immediatly from Christ In which words he is glossing upon that passage
affirms None of us makes himself Bishop of Bishops or takes upon him to compell his Colleagues by tyrannical terrors to necessity of obedience which words as Binius observes were directed against Stephanus Bishop of Rome because he had threatned the Bishops of Africa with Excommunication if they did not alter their Judgement Sanderus answers thirdly that albeit Cyprian did assert the equality of Bishops in those words yet it was only an equality according to their Order of Priesthood not according to their Jurisdiction albeit the Bishop of Rome be equal to other Bishops as he is Bishop yet he is above them in jurisdiction he gives this answer lib. 7. cap. But it is replyed this distinction is frivolous and quite contrary to the meaning of Cyprian whose intention in those words is expresly to assert the equality of Jurisdiction and since he aims at the Bishop of Rome it is evident in his opinion that any Bishop is of equal jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome How can any be so impudent to deny that Cyprian asserts equality of Jurisdiction since he expresly affirms No Bishop can judge another Bishop nor be judged by him Christ is the only judge of Bishops which in right down terms is that all Eishops are equal in Jurisdiction which none but a Sophister will deny It is needless to mention the answers of other Romanists as of Alanus Copus lib. 1. cap. 19. and Dormanus in his English Treatise against Bishop Jewel cap. 10. since they are not worth the refuting The most ingenuous answer of them all is that of Stapleton lib. 11. cap. 7. de princip fid doctrin where he affirms that Cyprian in those words to patronize his error Utitur verbis errantium and that he seems wonderfully to protect Hereticks he means Protestants against the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome he calls those expressions O Cyprian pernicious if they be not defended by a commodious Exposition But it is answered the authority of St. Augustine is of more moment then the authority of Stapleton who not only commends those expressions of Cyprian but also recommends them to the whole Church to be taken notice of as so many Oracles and that in moe places then one as lib. 2. cap. 2. lib. 3. cap. 3. lib. 6. cap. 7. against the Donatists Further that Stephanus Bishop of Rome himself understood those words of Cyprian as the Protestants do against the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome appears by his excommunicating Cyprian as Cassander relates consult art 7. neither read we ever of his reconciliation as is confessed by Bellarmine lib. 2. de con cap. 5. Neither is it of any moment what they object that in that question of re-baptizing those who were baptized by Hereticks the affirmative maintained by Cyprian was wrong and the negative maintained by Stephanus was right for the state of the question with the Church of Rome in this particular is Whether Cyprian was for or against the Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome or whether he did right in opposing the usurpation of Stephanus It seems he did for two reasons first because those expressions of his were recommended by St. Augustine to the whole Church next because notwithstanding of his dying excommunicate by Stephanus he was held ever since those times to be a Saint and a Martyr by the Church of Rome it self as he is at this day whereby it appears that the ancient Church of Rome immediatly after the times of Cyprian had not much regard to the authority of Stephanus his excommunicating Cyprian The truth is Cyprian in that conflict with Stephanus was a good Patron of an evil cause and Stephanus was a bad Patron of an good Cause Cyprian was wrong in maintaining re-baptization of those who were baptized by Hereticks but he defended it rightly Stephanus who maintained the contrary opinion was right but maintained it badly that is by usurpation arrogancy and presumption CHAP. IX Of the contest between Victor Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of the East WE have in the former Chapters proved by the testimonies of the Ancients that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not believed as an Article of Faith in the dayes of Cyprian nor any time before unto the dayes of the Apostles We have also shewed with what perplexed sophistry our Adversaries endeavour to elude the force of those testimonies In the following Chapters we will examine what is objected by our Adversaries to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval If it had been an Article of Faith in the Church that the Bishop of Rome was ordained by Peter to succeed to himself in that Function of oecumenick Bishop or that the Bishop of Rome did succeed to Peter in that Function the evidence of that succession had been greater in these primitive times then it was afterwards but contrarily we find the nearer we come to the Apostles times the less evidence we find for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome whereby it appears that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome by reason of his succession to Peter is but a fiction neither was it ever urged as to jurisdiction till after the Council of Chalcedon as shall appear in the following Books and the more the times were remote that opinion of the succession to Peter increased the more That there was no great evidence before the Council of Neice of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is acknowledged by Aeneas Silvius Pope himself in his 288. Epistle and yet he was the greatest Antiquary of his time the truth of his assertion will appear by our Answers to that which they object which are so many testimonies against themselves To prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval they object nothing beside what we shall prove forged by testimony of their own Doctors before the latter end of the second Age or beginning of the third and then their objections are of two sorts first actions of Popes secondly tectimonies of Popes and Fathers What regaird should be had to the actions and testimonies of Popes appears by the Commentaries which Pope Aeneas Silvius or Pius second wrote upon the Councel of Basile his words are these Neâ— considerant miseri quia quae praedicant tantopere verba aut ipsorum sumorum pontificum sunt simbrias suas extendentium aut illorum quiâ—eis adulabantur that is neither do those miserable men consider these testimonies they magnifie so much are either of Popes themselves inlarging their own interests or of their Fathers We will first treat of the actions of Popes and next examine their testimonies Before the time of Victor Bishop of Rome there is no Monument of antiquity for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome besides some forgeries acknowledged by the most eminent Doctors of that Church and proved to be forgeries by unanswerable reasons as shall appear afterwards in the last Chapters of this Book The said Victor about anno 195. had a
by usurpations of Bishops of Rome and appellations They next endeavour to prove it by testimonies of Fathers which are of two sorts 1. wrested 2. forged In this Chapter and the next following we will examine the first sort and then we will conclude this Book with examining the last The Fathers whose testimonies they wrest are either Greek or Latin The Greek Fathers are Ignatius and Irenaeus the Latin Fathers by them alledged are Tertullian and Cyprian We will speak of the Greek Fathers and also of Tertullian in this Chapter and will answer these testimonies of Cyprian in the Chapter next following And first of Ignatius from whom they alledge the inscription of his Epistle written to the Romans which is this Ignatius to the Sanctified Church presiding in the region of the Romans thus the place is alledged by Bellarmine whereas the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is which presides in the place of the region of the Romans wherefore they render it so this is the reason Barronius ad annum 45. num 10. observes that the Roman Church and the Catholick Church were believed to be the same and therefore they translate Ignatius affirming the Church of Rome to Preside in the region of the Romans that is saith Bellarmine and Bozius Presiding in the Catholick Church But it is answered first that it was not the custom in the dayes of Ignatius to call the Roman-church the Catholick-church or where they spake of the Roman-church to mean by it the Catholick-church first because the oldest testimony we have of that kind is in the dayes of Theodosius junior Victor Uticensis and Gregorius Turonensis that is not till 300. years after Ignatius and 400. after Christ Secondly that maner of phrase had its Original from the Arians the said Gregorius Turonensis in his Book De Gloria martyrum cap. 25. brings in an Arian Prince calling the Orthodox-church the Roman-church or Orthodox-christians Romans Thirdly that maner of speaking had its Original from a politick reason and not from an Ecclesiastical In those dayes the Goths Alans and Vandals made war upon the Romans the first three were Arians the Romans Orthodox and therefore because all the Orthodox Christians partied the Romans in that war they called them all Romans their Faith the Roman Faith their Church the Roman Church as the Turks at this day call all Christians Francks or French-men Fourthly as we said they translate Ignatius falsly for his words are to the Church presiding in Loco regionis Romanorum in the place of the region of the Romans whereby it evidently appears that the meaning of Ignatius is no other then the Church presiding in the Town of Rome since none can affirm by these words he means otherwayes or that the Church of Rome presides in the whole Church since he particularizes the presidency and restricts it to a certain-place of the region of the Romans and therefore they sophisticate egregiously in translating Ignatius Presiding in the region of the Romans Since the Romans say they at that time commanded the whole world Ignatius by a Church Presiding in the region of the Romans understands a Church Presiding in the whole world whereas the words of Ignatus impart no more but a Church presiding in a certain place of the region of the Romans Which is further confirmed because we shewed before from these two Epistles of Ignatius to the Trallians and Magnesians that he acknowledged no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop but he could not be so forgetful of himself as in this Epistle to acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as Bellarmine and Bozius pretends he doth which is further confirmed by the testimony of Basilius Epists 8. where he affirms that Iconium presides in a part of Pisidia which is just such an other expression as that of Ignatius We could defend the meaning of Ignatius not to make much for them although they had translated him faithfully that is if he had said Presiding in the region of the Romans for from these words it can no more be gathered that the Bishop of Rome is oecumenick Bishop then it can prove the Bishop of Ments or the Bishop of Carthage oecumenick Bishop because they preside in the region of Carthage c. for in the dayes of Ignatius as we said none were called Romans but those who lived within the precinct or particular command of the City and this much of Ignatius Now followeth Irenaeus from whom they bring a testimony by them much magnified the passage is this speaking of the Church of Rome ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua Semper ab his qui Sunt undique conservata est ea quae ab Apostolis est traditio The substance is all Churches should accord with the Church of Rome for two reasons first because of its more powerful principality the next is because Apostolical tradition is preserved in that Church But this place makes not much for them as appears by Irenaeus scope this passage is found lib. 3. cap. 13. in which Chapter he is disputing against Hereticks which were the perfect Scriptures he willeth them for their satisfaction to consult with the ancient Churches which successively descended from the Apostles and for instance sake proponeth unto them the Church of Rome his meaning is then in those words whatever the Church of Rome at that time thought perfect Scriptures all Churches about were bound to acknowledge them for such first by reason of its more powerful principality that Church being founded by the Apostles Paul and Peter as was believed then Secondly because it hath been thought by Churches about to have purely preserved that tradition of the Canon of Scripture which it had received from the Apostles so that the meaning of Irenaeus is no other then this that all are bound to accord to that Church so long as it preserves the perfect Canon of Scripture and teaches no other Doctrine then is contained in it by this testimony of Irenaeus we are bound no more to adhere to the Church of Rome then it adhereth to the Scripture But they instance Irenaeus simply without such restrictions affirms that all should accord to the Church of Rome because it observes the apostolick tradition which is as much say they as the Church of Rome cannot make an Apostacy But it is replyed first although Irenaeus affirmed that in those times the Church of Rome preserved the pure Canon of the Scripture yet he doth not affirm that in all times coming it would do so The Church of Rome at this day observes not that Cannon of the Scripture which was observed in the dayes of Irenaeus the Council of Trent under the pain of an Anathema adds to the Canon of the Scriptures these Books commonly called Apocrypha which were rejected by the Church of Rome in the dayes of
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
their lawful Prince whom the Bishop of Rome shall appoint How this power of the Popes can consist with Kingly Government let the Kings of the earth themselves consider They make one objection yet that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Kings By the answer of which objection will appear that encrease of Popery in a Protestant State tends to the utter destruction both of King and Subject and inconsistent with both The objection is this It is not the Doctrine of the Church of France say they that the Pope has power to depose Kings being rejected both by its Doctrine and by its Practice since many of the Clergy of France hath writen against that Doctrine and Books defending that Opinion such as that of Mariana the Spanish Jesuit and others have been burnt by publick Authority But this objection is answered by a twofold distinction first of Times secondly of Causes wherefore Kings ought to be deposed As for Times when the Kings of France are low or high in the last case the Clergy of France ever partied their King against the Pope excommunicating them and deposing them as appears by the passages of Philip le Bell with â—onifacius and of Lewis 12th with Julius second Bishop of Rome In the first Case when the Kings of France are low the Clergy of France ever partied the Pope excommunicating and deposing their Kings as appears by the passages of Henry 3d. and 4th Kings of France with Sixtus 5th Bishop of Rome It is notorious that the University of Paris confirmed by a decree the Bulls of the said Sixtus 5th against the said two Henries Kings of France in which Bulls they were declared uncapable of the Crown of France all French men were absolved from alledgeance to them and the greatest part of France rose up in armes against them to dethrone them beging of the Pope that he would name them a King and they would acknowledge him for their lawful Prince And this much of the distinction of Times The second distinction is of Causes wherefore Kings should be deposed although in other causes besides Heresie the Subjects of France were not so unanimous for the Pope against their King yet in case of Heresie that is if their King were a Protestant both the Clergy and the Laity of France unanimously at the Popes command renunced alledgeance to their King And first for the Clergy in an Assembly of States or Parliament Cardinal Perron their Speaker commissionat from them as their mouth in an Oration to the third Estate affirmed That it had ever been the Doctrine of the Clergy of France that true French men ought no alledgeance to heretical Kings excommunicated and deposed by the Pope As for the Laity it is notorious that after the murther of Henry 3. they threatned to abandon Henry 4th his Successor because he was excommunicated and deposed by the Pope which forced him expecting no security otherwayes to change his Religion And thus we have proved that it is the unanimous Doctrine of the Church of Rome that Popish Subjects owe no fidelity to a Protestant King which occasioned that saying of that incomparable Bishop Mortoun viz. That a loyal popish Subject in a Protestant State was a white Ethiopian which I do not mention calling in question the Loyalty of the Romanists of this Nation or the neighbour Nations of England and Ireland many of them are known to be persons of Honour and as loyal Subjects as the King hath I only mention those things to let them see how they are abused by the Popish Emissaries of these three Nations who knowing them to be loyal Subjects to the King seing it would be a great difficulty to train them in their snares and keep them in them once catched if they told them all the verity To train them on they make them believe in the beginning that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Pope hath power to depose Protestant Kings much less others but only a calumny of Protestants traducing the Popish Religion but afterwards having by degrees confirmed them in the Popish Religion they would not fail to perswade them to cut the throats of all their Countrey-men and flee like so many mad-dogs upon the Kings face to pull him from his Throne as appears by the constant practice of the Church of Rome against all Protestants in general and against Protestant Kings in particular which practice is so notorious that he who denyes it is either a mad man void of common sense or else a notorious Impostor And first that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome affirming it meritorious to destroy Protestants by open cruelty and perfidy appears by the constant carriage of the said Church towards Protestants since the Reformation What sort of cruelty or perfidy have they not attempted Death without torture was thought clemency burning of them in heaps alive in houses might be attributed to a popular fury but it is notorious that multitudes of them were burnt alive in fires of all Sexes and Qualities by the sentences of the Judges and when they could do no good by open force they destroyed them by perfidy and prostitution of the publick Faith and when they had done made publick Processions of Joy Bonefires and such like as if they had deserved Paradise by such meritorious works maintaining this maxime as unquestionable that no publick Faith should be regarded or observed towards Hereticks That this is truth appears by the proceedings of the Council of Constance with John Husse and Hierom of Prague which two were burned alive notwithstanding they had the safe conduct of the Emperor Sigismundus It appears also by those massacres of Paris and other parts of France where by the publick Faith they trained them all to one place and then perfidiously massacred them to the horror of several learned Romanists who in their Histories detest such perfidy such as Thuanus and others and when they had done tanquam re bene gesta triumpharunt they were congratulated by the Pope who caused Bonefires and publick Processions to be made at Rome for the happy success of such a glorious atchievment These things are notorious so that the Popish emissaries themselves have neither the brow to deny them nor the confidence to defend them But they use another shift viz. That the Church of Rome hath given over that practice now being resolved no more to follow those courses as they did in the beginning prompted to them by their too violent zeal But it is answered they are greatly mistaken for now in France and Germany and other places they practise not such cruelties because they dare not but where they have power and thinks they may do it without any hazard they make it appear that they believe it is a meritorious work to destroy and extirpat all Protestants by any cruelty or perfidy imaginable as appears of late not only abroad
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