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
eidem concessum Pater enim revelavit Petro Christum esse Filium Dei vivi Filius tribuit Petro ut sit Ecclesiae Petra that is Some proper gift was given to Peter here by Christ as the Father had given unto him such a gift the Father revealed to Peter that Christ was the Son of the living God So the Son gives unto Peter to be the Rock of the Church It is answered Stapleton cites Chrysostom falsly his words in the Original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is What is it and I will give it to thee as the Father gave unto thee to know me so I will give unto thee Neither said he I will ask of my Father although it was a great ostentation of his power and the greatness of the gift ineffable Nevertheless I will give unto thee What wilt thou give pray the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven By which it appears that Stapleton plays the Sophister thrice First in making Chrysostom affirm that some proper or peculiar thing was given to Peter whereas Chrysostom mentions no such thing at all Secondly he makes Chrysostom affirm that the gift given to Peter was to be the Rock upon which the Church is built whereas Chrysostom saith no such thing affirming only that the gift given to Peter was the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven but it shal be proved by the testimony of Chrysostom himself chap. 8. That the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others as well as to Peter Thirdly he neglects the comparison which Chrysostom makes leaving out now where he added before viz. As the Father gave unto thee to know me so I give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven The reason wherefore he neglects the comparison is evident viz he was conscious that the knowledge of Christ the gift of the Father to Peter was common to all the Apostles and therefore he feared the conclusion viz. That the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven the gift given by Christ to Peter would be common to all the Apostles also And thus much of Stapletons reasons proving Peter to be the Rock Bellarmin reasons thus The pronoun hanc this is referred to the words immediatly going before Thou art Peter and therefore our Savior by this Rock means Peter But it is answered There is no necessity of referring the pronoun hanc or this to the words immediatly going before as appears by several places of Scripture as Acts 3. 15. And killed the Prince of life whom God hath raised from the dead of whom we are witnesses where those words of whom are referred to the Prince of life and not unto God who is nearest That the pronoun hunc or him or this is of necessity referred to the words fatrher off and not to the nearest appears also by Act. 2. 22. and 23. and 2. Thess 2. most clearly v. 8. And then shall that wicked one be revealed whom the Lord shall consume whose comming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders observe whose coming is referred not to the Lord which is nearest but to that wicked one further off And thus we have disputed all the reasons of any moment pretended by either party in this question it Peter was the Rock CHAP. III. Tu es Petrus Disputed by General Councils NOw let us Dispute Tu es Petrus by antiquity examining what was the meaning of the Ancients concerning these words Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church They brag much of antiquity viz. that the Council of Chalcedon and all the Fathers interpret the Rock to be Peter But it is answered They resemble Bankrupts who brag they are richest when they are poorest A passage related by Cicero lib. 2. de oratore between Silus and Crassus may be applyed to our adversaries 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 audieris quod te audisse dicis Silus tacuit omnes riserunt This passage is most fitly applyed to our adversaries bragging of the testimonies of the Ancients Councils and Fathers for they bring not one testimony but either it merits no credit or else it is wrested and misinterpreted or else it is forged as appears through the whole following Disput What was the opinion of the Council of Chalcedon the other first six general councils We will examine in this chapter the opinion of the Fathers shal be examined in the following chapters unto chap. 10. From the Council of Chalcedon they object the third action where Peter is called Petra crepido Ecclesiae the Rock upon which the Church is built But it is answered first Those are not the words of the council but only the words of Paschasinus Lucentius and Bonifacius Legats to Leo Bishop of Rome giving their votes against Dioscorus of Alexandria what regard should be had to such testimonies Aeneas Silvius afterward Pope himself under the name of Pius second will inform you comment 1. On the Council of Basil His words are Nec considerant miseri quia quae praedicant tant opere verba aut ipsorum summorum Pontificum sunt suas fimbrias extendentium aut illorum qui eis adulabantur Neither do these miserable men consider that these testimonies of which they brag so much are either of Bishops of Rome themselves enlarging their own interests or else of those who are flattering them Secondly it is very strange impudence to them to alledge the authority of the Council of Chalcedon to prove the Supremacy of Peter or of the Bishop of Rome by reason of his succession to Peter as appears by what follows Aetius Legate of the Bishop of Constantinople and the foresaids Paschasinus Lucentius and Bonifacius Deputies of the Bishop of Rome pleaded in the behalf of their Masters the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople for the primacy Paschasinus and his fellows pleaded the sixth canon of the Council of Nice The words are those Let the old custom remain in Egypt Libya Pentapolis viz. that the Bishop of Alexandria hath power in those Provinces to ordain Bishops since the Bishops of Rome hath the like custome Aetius pleaded the same Canon and likewise the fifth Canon of the said Council of Nice by which it was ordained That when a Bishop was condemned by a provincial Council there should be no further appeal unless to a General Council which exception though not mentioned in the Canon must of necessity be understood The said Aetius likewise pleaded the third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople by which it was provided That the Bishop of Rome should have the first place in dignity because Rome was the old Imperial City the Bishop of Constantinople the second place next to him because Constantinople was new Rome The force of this argument consists in two things
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
Rock was Christ The same Author lib. 2. cap. 13. of his concordance Per Petram Christum quem confessus est intelligimus by the Rock we understand Christ whom Peter confessed Pererius lib. 2. in Daniel although a Jesuit affirms Quia Christus est Petra super quam fundata est sustentatur Ecclesia ideóque nullo unquam tempore nullâque vi labefactari everti poterit quin imò nec portae inferi adversus eam praevalebunt In which words he gives a reason wherefore the gates of hell shal not prevail against the Church viz. because Christ is the Rock upon which it is built And thus much of the testimonies of those Popish Doctors interpreting the Rock to be Christ And since some of them lived very lately it is evident that the interpretation of the Rock to be Peter is but a new devised cheat Now followeth the second Class Of those Popes and Popish Doctors interpreting the Rock to be the Faith or Confession of Peter The first testimony is of Adrianus Primus who lived in the eighth Century Anno 772. or thereabouts who in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain and France recorded in the Acts of the Council of Frankfoord hath these words Super hanc Petram quam confessus es à qua vocabull sortitus es dignitatem super hanc soliditatem fidei Ecclesiam meam aedificabo By which words two things appear The first is That the Church is built in his opinion upon the Confession of Peter The second is That those who call the Rock Christ and those who call it the confession of Peter mean both one thing since he expresly affirms That the Rock is the objective Confession of Peter or that which Peter confessed viz. Christ which is all one as if he had called Christ the Rock The second testimony of Innocent third who lived Anno 1000. or thereabouts In his Epistle to the Bishop of France concerning Petrus Abeilardus which Epistle is mentioned by Otto Frisingensis lib. 1. cap 84. degestis Frederici primi-Beatus Petrus Apostolorum Princeps pro eximiâ hujus fidei confessione audire meruit Tu es inquam beatus Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Petram utique firmitatem fidei Catholicae unitatis soliditatem manifestè designans The sum of which words is that our Savior by hanc Petram or the Rock means the firmness and solidity of Peters Faith The third testimony is of Adrianus quintus Bishop of Rome who lived about 1278. in his epistle to Frederick the Emperor recorded by Radivicus Frisingensis lib. 1. cap. 3. Quem in Apostolicae Confessionis Petra non ambigimus per Dei gratiam solidatum where the Rock is expresly called the thing which Peter confessed The testimony of the fourth Bishop of Rome is of Nicolaus secundus who lived about anno 1060. His testimony is recorded by Gratianus Distinct 22. cap. 1. Romanam Ecclesiam solus ille aedificavit super Petram fidei mox nascentis erexit that is the Church was built upon the faith of Peter then budding And thus much of the testimonies of four Popes or Bishops of Rome interpreting the rock to be the faith of Peter to which may be added testimonies of the most learned Doctors of that Church as the Glossator of the Decreta distinct 19. cap. Ita Dominus Joannes de Turre Cremata lib. 2. cap. 102. 1â—2 in summa de Ecclesia Dionysius Carthusianus who lived 1460. in his Commentaries upon Matthew 16. 18. Gorranus upon the same place and also Titelemanus and Erasmus all which expresly interpret the rock to be the confession of Peter it is needless to set down their words since their testimonies are granted The third Class of Popish Doctors is of those who although Peter were granted to be the rock yet they deny him to be the only rock upon which the Church was built and who call other Apostles rocks and foundations as well as Peter The testimonies are few but the giveâ—s of them are most notable Men the most famous Doctors that ever the Church of Rome could brag of The first is the testimony of Lombardus Master of the sentences the first Founder of School-divinity among the Latins as Damascenus amongst the Grecians who interpreting those words of Psalm 87. Fundamenta ejus in montibus sanctis affirms that all the Prophets and Apostles are foundations The second testimony is of Nicolaus Cusanus that famous Cardinal whom Espenseus lib. 2. de adorat Ecclesiae and Aeneas Silvius afterward Bishop of Rome both commend as one of the ablest Divines that ever the Church of Rome produced His first testimony is 21. dist in novo 24. quest 1. Sed scimus quod Petrus nihil plus potestatis à Christo accepit aliis Apostolis but we know that Peter got no more power from Christ then the rest of the Apostles and likewise lib. 2. cap. 13. concordiâ— Catholicae where he hath this notable testimony Et quanquam Petro dictum est tu es Petrus Si Petrus per Petram lapis fundamenti Ecclesiae in elligi deberet tunc secundum S. Hieronymum ita similiter alii Apostoli fuerunt lapides Apocal. 21. In which words he expresly affirms and proves that the other Apostles were Rocks as well as Peter which he proves by the testimony of Hieronymus And thus much of that famous passage tu es Petrus of which so much noise is made now a days which although it be the principal place upon which the supremacy of Peter of the Bishop of Rome and the Faith of the Modern Church of Rome is built Yet you see what little cause they have to brag of Antiquity since none of the Ancients interpret Peter to be the Rock and also what little cause they have to brag of Unity since those who interpret Peter to be the Rock only are contradicted not only by the most learned Doctors of their own Church but also by six Popes Felix 3. Gregory 1. Adrianus 1. Nicolaus 2. Innocentus 3. Adrianus 5. And notwithstanding that their Popes are now estemed by them infallible Judges of controversies yet Pighius and Baronius who interpret the Rock to be Peter only tax all those six Popes of ignorance madness as we said before so doth Maldonatus de Valentia and other of their Doctors whose testimonies is needless to be mentioned since they cannot without impudence be denyed CHAP. VIII Of Matthew 16. 19. Of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven HItherto hath been prolixly disputed the first argument of our adversaries proving Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop viz. because as they pretend our Savior promised to build the Church upon him as a Rock verse 18. Now followeth their second argument viz because our Saviour promised to give to him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven verse 19. But it is unanimously answered by Protestants that in those words the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven our Savior doth not mean universal Jurisdiction
over the Church And lest it should seem to be a wilful denyal they give these following reasons why Peter is not ordained Oecumenick Bishop in these words Or why the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven inferr no universal Jurisdiction over the Church in the person of Peter alone The first reason is this the power of the keys is only a forgiving or remitting of sins or not remitting them or a binding and loosing as appears by the testimony of Augustinus in his 52. Treatise upon John of Theophylactus on Matthew 16. 19. of Anselmus ibid. But none calls in question but binding and loosing is a different thing from the power oâ— an Oecumenick Bishop Bellarmin instances lib. 1. cap. 13. de pont Rom. that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church which he proves by three arguments The first is from the Metaphor of keyes Isaiah 21. where Shebna is threatned to have the keys of the Temple taken from him to be given to Eliakim that is saith Bellarmin the government of the Temple or of the house of God But it is answered Bellarmin is greatly mistaken for according to the Hebrew Shebna was not Perfect of the Temple but only of the Kings house Bellarmin is deceived by the Latin version turning it Tabernacle whereas Aben Ezra calls it Master of the Kings house the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they call Shebna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Treasaurer or Master-houshold that is the true interpretation as appears by Kings 2. cap. 18. in which place Eliakim who succeeded to Shebna in that charge is called by the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oeconomus or Master-houshold Shebna is called there a Scribe which place he obtained after the keys of the Kings house were taken from him and given to Eliakim However it is a very bad argument of Bellarmins When Shebna had the keys of the Kings house the government of the house was taken from him when they were taken away Ergo When Peter get the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ he was made sole governor of the whole Church Bellarmin should observe that keys are given sometime by an Inferior to a Superior although that be but a new invention or ceremony yet it is an acknowledgement of authority as when a King entring a Town the keys are delivered to him But when keys are given by a Superior to an Inferior chief Jurisdiction is no wayes denoted But Bellarmin will not deny that Christ was Superior to Peter And whereas it is objected that Christ hath the key of David in the Apocalyps that is jurisdiction of the Church It is answered the case is different none calls the jurisdiction of Christ in question neither had he the keys from any greater then himself Bellarmins second argument is That the keys import binding and loosing that is inflicting of punishment and dispensing with obligations of the Law which is supream Jurisdiction over the Church And consequently Peter in these words is instituted Oecumenick Bishop But it is answered That binding and loosing import no supream Jurisdiction as appears by its being common to all the Officers of the Church as well as to Peter it consists in bidding forbidding punishing by Spiritual Censures and Relaxations from them which are common to all Church-Officers as shal immediatly be proved In the third place Bellarmin proves that our Savior promising to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven promised to him alone the government of the whole Church by the testimonies of Fathers The first testimony of Chrysostomus hom 55. on Matthew affirming that to Peter the whole world was committed and that he was made head and Pastor of the whole Church But it is answered It is false that either Chrysostomus affirms the whole world was committed to Peter or that he was head of the Church Bellarmin followeth the corrupt version of Trapezuntius in which he sophisticats manifoldly the words of Chrysostom are comparing Hieremas with Peter Quemadmodum pater Hieremam alloqueus dixit Instar colunae aneae muâ—i posui eum sed illum quidem uni genti hunc verototi orbi In these words Chrysostomus is comparing the Prophet with Peter as the Lord saith he put Hieremas as a wall of brass to one Nation viz. the Jews sc Peter was made a wall of brass to the whole world But Chrysostom speaks not a word of Hieremias being set over the Jews with Jurisdiction and consequently if the comparison hold Peter was not set over the whole world with Jurisdiction which is the first sophistry of Bellarmin following Trapezuntius in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 posâ—it eum placed him Trapezuntius renders praeposuit set him over which is not in the Appodosis of Peter The second corruption is that Trapezuntius adds of his own Cujus caput piscator homo whose head was a Fisher-man It is true indeed a little before these words Chrysostom calls Peter Pastor of the Church but that 's nothing to an Oceumenick Bishop for any Apostle may be called Pastor of the Church as shal be proved afterwards in this Book Bellarmins second testimony is of Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist 32. Where speaking of Peter he affirms the care of the whole Church was committed to him and that he was Prince of the Apostles But it is answered In what sense Gregorius affirms so shal be shewed at length hereafter where it shal be proved first that others were called Princes of the Apostles beside Peter and that the care of the whole Church was committed to others also who were not Oecumenick Bishops Secondly the impudence of Bellarmin is very great in objecting this place of Gregorius in which he is thundering with great execrations and detestation against any who taketh upon him the tittle of Oecumenick Bishop calling that tittle new Pompatick Blasphemous against the mandats of Christ the Canons of the Apostles and Constitutions of the Church And among other reasons against that title of universal Oecumenick Bishop he objects this as one If any took upon him that title Peter had reason to take it but he had not that tittle although the care of the whole Church was committed to him then this impudence of Bellarmin no greater can be imaginable Gregory expresly denyes it to follow that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop although the care of the whole Church was committed to him Bellarmin mutilats his passage and makes him conclude that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop because the care of the whole Church was committed to him He cites this part of Gregories assertion the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter but he suppresseth the other half of his assertion that Peter was not universal Apostle and most impudently fathers a contradictory conclusion upon Gregory Ergo Peter was Oecumenick Bishop And thus much of the first reason wherefore Protestants deny that the power of the keyes imports no universal
Jurisdiction of Peter alone over the Church Their second reason is this Because the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others besides Peter which they prove First by Scripture next by Fathers The passages of Scripture are two The first is Mat. 18. 18. Verily I say unto you Whatsoever ye shal bind on earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye loose on earth shal be loosed in heaven The second place is in Joh. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins yel retain they are retained Bellarmin answers That those two places now cited have not the same meaning with Matthew 16. 19. He grants that the difficulty is somewhat pressing of Matthew 18. 18. but there is no difficulty at all saith he in John 20. 23. which he proves by three Arguments The first is this in Matthew 16. 19. The Keyes are promised to Peter without any particular determination but in John they are determinated to the forgiveness of sins but binding and loosing may be exercised in other objects then in pronounccing men guilty of sin or absolving them from sin as in making of laws and dispensing with them But it is answered That the Fathers expounding those words What ever ye shal bind on earth c. Matthew 16. 19. referrs that place only to the binding and loosing of sin So Augustinus tractat 124. on John Ecclesia quae fundatur in Christo Claves ab eo regni Coelorum accepit in Petro id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata In which words he expresly affirms That the keyes committed to Peter consisted in the binding and loosing of sin Secondly Theophylactus on Matthew 16. expresly affirms What was given to Peter in that place was given to all the Apostles John 20. He saith indeed They were promised only to Peter Matthew 16. Christ directing his speech only to Peter but they were given to all If ye ask when saith he it is answered when he said Whose soever sins ye forgive alluding to John 20. Whereas Bellarmin affirms That the power of the keyes consists also in making of Laws he saith nothing at all except he prove that Peter had more authority then the other Apostles in that particular of making Laws Bellarmins second Argument to prove the same thing is not promised to Peter Matthew 16. which is given to the other Apostles John 20. is this in Matthew it is said to Peter Whomsoever thou shalt bind c. But it is said to the other Apostles in John Whosesoever sins ye retain c. But to bind is more then to retain for to retain is to leave a man in the same condition ye find him but to bind is to impose new bonds upon him by excommunication interdicting and Law But it is answered This Argument of Bellarmins is of no moment because according to the constant phrase of Scripture Forgiving of sins and loosing of sins are all one Ergo their opposits retaining of sin binding a sinner are all one Since we bind men for their sins only it is necessar that the sin being forgiven they are loosed or else that they are still retained if they be not loosed But it is absurd to affirm that anys sins are forgiven and yet retained for Bellarmin seems to speak of that distinction viz. remission of fault and remission of punishment that is the fault may be forgiven but not the punishment But this distinction is vain and belongs nothing to this place Bellarmin seems to import that the Prerogative of Peter is to have power of remitting any of them or both of them which the other Apostles have not wherein he is topped first by Cyrillus upon Matthew 16. who attributs the full power of binding and loosing to the whole Church which he proves in that instance of the incestuous Corinthian Secondly he is topped by Aquinas affirming that every Minister binds in refusing the Sacrament of the Church to those who are unworthy and looseth when he admits them to it Thirdly the Interlinear Gloss upon Matthew 16. affirms that sins are forgiven and retained by two keyes of power and remission Bellarmins third argument proving that John 20. and Matthew 16. are not alike is this because saith he in John 20. Power of forgiving sins by the Sacrament of Baptism or Penitence is only conferred upon the Apostles which he proveth by the authority of Chrysostom and Cyrillus upon this place John 20. and also of Hieronymus Quest 9. ad Hedibia But it is answered First Those Fathers affirm indeed that Power of forgiving of sins in Baptism is given in this place but it is false which Bellarmin affirms that it is only given and no more For forgiving of sins is but the half of the Power conferred by Christ upon the Apostles in this place since retaining of sins is also given unto them Secondly Fathers referr to Baptism that loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. So Cyprianus epistle 73. where he disputs that forgiving of sins in Baptism is proper to the Pastors of the Church which he proves first by Peter who got that power Matthew 16. 19. and also by the other Apostles to whom our Savior said Whose sins ye forgive c. John 20. Yea Gaudentius in the first day of his ordination expresly affirms that the gates of the Kingdom of heaven are opened no other wayes then by Baptism and absolution and thus much of the similitude of John 20. with Matthew 16. By what we have said it appears that Bellarmin brings nothing but Sopistry to prove that the places are not alike He grants that there is great difficulty to prove the dissimilitude of Matthew 16. 19. and 18. 18. Since binding and loosing is given to all the Apostles in the last place as well as in the first to Peter and not only retaining as in John 20. which Bellarmin affirmed to be a demonstration that John 20. and Matthew 16. were not alike places viz. that retaining and forgiving was only given to all the Apostles John 20 which was not so much as binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. Nevertheless Bellarmin endeavors to prove that Matthew 16. 19. and 18. 18. are unlike places although in the last binding and loosing be given to all the Apostles as well as to Peter in the first Because that binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. is of greater authority then that given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. 18 His argument is this which I believe he understands not himself In Matthew 18. saith he Nothing is given to the Apostles at all but only it is promised to them and explained what power they should have afterward which he prove by two reasons The first is That they were not yet Priests or Pastors or Bishops when Christ made them that promise Matthew 18. 18. but only after the resurrection Secondly because those words Whomsoever ye shal bind and loose c. Matthew 18. are the paralels of those said
the Church was built upon all the Apostles as well as upon Peter Secondly That the keys were common to all the Apostles he proves by John 20 23. whereby it is evident that the said place is the same in meaning with Matthew 16. in which he flatly contradicts Bellarmin who confidently affirmed that without all doubt forgiving and retaining of sins mentioned John 20. 23. was not the same thing with binding and loosing Matthew 6. 19. Thirdly Cyprianus de Vnitate Ecclesiae expresly affirms That Christ gave alike power to all his Apostles Iohn 20. 23. in these words Accipite Spiritum Sanctum si cujus remiseritis peccata c. Receive the Holy Ghost whosesoever sins ye shal forgive they are remitted unto them and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained and since all the Apostles according to Cyprianus had alike power given them after the Resurrection of Christ by John 20. 23. without all question he believed that the same power of the keys was given to all the Apostles which was given to Peter Matthew 16. The second Reason Why those distinctions of Polus Maldonatus Stapleton and Bellarmin and others or new devised evasions is unanswerable viz. It appears by the Fathers that no greater Ecclesiastical power imaginable could be given to any then that which was given to all the Apostles in Matthew 18 and John 20. which quite destroys all those sophistical distinctions tending all to this That the power given to Peter was greater Matthew 16. 19 then that given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20. That no greater power can be imagined then that which was given to all the Apostles is proved by the testimony of Chrysostomus lib. 3. cap. 5. de Sacerdotio Where speaking of that power of the keys given to all the Apostles yea and to all Bishops he falls to an interrogative exclamation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is I pray you what greater power can be given then this But this had been a most ridiculous interrogation in Chrysostomus if either he himself or any other had believed that the power of the keys promised to Peter Matthew 16. was greater then that promised to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20. And thus much of the testimonies of those Fathers proving directly that the keyes were given to others as well as to Peter Now followeth the testimonies of Fathers proving by consequence that the keyes Matthew 16. were not peculiar to Peter out of which testimonies three arguments are deduced The first is If Peter alone had the power of the keyes promised to him Matthew 16. Then Peter would only have exercised the keyes and no other beside him in such a high-way as he did But it appears by the testimony of Gaudentius primae de ordinationis suae that all the Apostles as well as Peter practised the keys viz. in teaching baptizing censuring Yea Salmeron the Jesuit in his Commentars upon 1. of Peter 1. disput 1. expresly affirms That Peter seemed to neglect his duty in the exercise of the keyes it so little appeared by his carriage and practise that he had any Jurisdiction over the other Apostles Where observe the impudent shift of the Jesuit who being pressed by the carriage of Peter that no token of his Supremacy appeared hath nothing to answer but that it was his own neglest which if it be true was great unfaithfulness of Peter if it be false as it is it is great impudence in the Jesuit The second argument taken from the Fathers proving consequentially that the other Apostles were promised the keyes as well as Peter is taken from Augustinus who affirms That Peter represented the whole Church when Christ promised him the keyes and so by consequence in Peter the other Apostles and all Pastors of the Church had the keyes promised unto them the words of Augustinus are those following in his 124. trâ—â—â—at upon John Quando Petro dictum est tibi dabo claves regni coelorum quodcunque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in coelis universam significabat Ecclesiam And a little after Ecclesia Ergo quae fundatur in Christo claves ab co regni Coelorum accepit in Petro id est potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata In which words he expresly affirms That Peter was a figure of the whole Church when our Savior promised him the keyes and therefore in Peter the keyes were given to the whole Church and not to Peter alone Our adversaries pussed with this testimony of Augustinus after their accustomed manner fall to their new devised distinctions explaining how the keyes were given to Peter representing the whole Church Or how they were given to the whole Church in Peter And first Horantius lib. 6. cap. 10. Locor Cathol affirms That the keys were given to the whole Church in Peter that is saith he They were given to Peter for the good of the whole Church as when any is made King of any Nation the Kingdom or Kingly Authority is given to him for the good of the whole Nation and so Peter as Prince of the Church had the keyes given unto him for the good of the whole Church and in this manner the keyes were given to the whole Church in Peter But it is answered Horantius his Gloss is far beside the Text of Augustiuus who expresly disputs The keyes were not given to Peter alone but to the whole Church for if they were only given to Peter the whole Church would not have exercised them he disputs so tractat 50. upon John and therefore concluds that the keyes were not given alone to Peter because the whole Church exercised them as well as Peter Augustinus doth not disput for what end the keyes were given but to whom also this Gloss of Horantius expresly contradicts Augustinus Horantius affirms That the keyes in the same manner were given to the whole Church in Peter as when any is made King of a Nation the Authority of a King is given to the whole Nation that is saith he He who is made King gets that Authority for the good of the whole Nation which is a flat contradiction of Augustinus for that Nation or whole Nation cannot be said to exercise the Kingly Authority when he who is made King gets it But Augustinus expresly disputs That the whole Church exercised the keyes as well as Peter and therefore the keyes were given to the whole Church in Peter otherwise saith he The whole Church would not have exercised them tractat 50. His words are If Peter had not represented the Church our Lord had not said unto him I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven For if that only was said to Peter The Church hath no power of binding or loosing and since the Church hath that power Peter was the Sacrament or Figure of the whole Church or mistically represented the whole Church when our Savior promised to him the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and
and all the Apostles to teach that doctrine which he had revealed unto themselves immediatly that is as he had fed them so they should feed others beside themselves Bosius de signis comes in with a notable sophism which is this our Savior saith he saith not to Peter Feed my sheep hereafter but in the present tense Feed now my sheep But when our Savior spake these words he had no other sheep but the Apostles Ergo saith he our Savior commands Peter to feed the Apostles But it is answered we retort the argument just as we did before our Savior Matthew 28. 19. affirmeth Teach ye all Nations in the present tense but there were no other Christians to be taught then but the Apostles if Bozius subsume right Ergo the Apostles there are commanded to teach Peter which he will not easily grant It is answered Secondly there is no difficulty in the words at all the meaning of our Savior is no other then that Peter being by these words ordained an Apostle or restored to his Apostleship according to some Fathers is injoyned to put his function in practice with the first occasion in the same sense that the other Apostles Matthew 28. 19. are injoyned to go and teach all nations who were subjected to them by right of their Apostleship But in this place John 21. to affirm that the other Apostles were subjected to Peter by reason of his Apostleship is petitio principii which we affirm to be notoriously false CHAP. X. Of the Sophistry of Gregorius De Valentia and the Candide Confession of Cardinal Cusanus VVE have prolixly disputed those three passages of Scripture pretended by our Adversaries to prove that the Apostle Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church by Christ we will conclude the disput with two passages the one of Gregorius De Valentia that famous Jesuit the other of Cusanus that no less famous Cardinal The ingenuity of the last will be the more perspicuous by the impudent Sophistry of the first which is this If our Savior saith he had said to Peter I will not build the Church upon thee as upon a Rock or thou art not the Rock upon which I will build my Church or I will not give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven what thou binds on earth shal not be bound in Heaven and what thou loosest on earth shal not be loosed in Heaven Feed thou not my sheep without all question the Hereticks would conclude that our Savior did not ordain the Apostle Peter Head and Monarch of the Church and therefore since our Savior said unto Peter Thou art the Rock upon which I will build my Church I will give unto thâ—â— the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven what thou binds on earth shal be bound in Heaven and what thou loosest on earth shal be loosed in Heaven And since our Savior injoyned him to feed his sheep therefore saith he It cannot be denyed that our Savior in these three passages ordained the Apostle Peter Monarch of the Church Because if the negation of those things conclude that Peter was not ordained Head of the Church by Christ the affirmation of them concluds he was having thus reasoned he falls to the commendation of his own acumen and of his invincible Argument affirming not without laughter and astonishment of those who read him Hic nisivel conscientia reclamante vel praecipitante inscitia incogitantia nihil ab adversariis responderi posse certissimus sane sum That is I am certainly perswaded saith he That nothing can be answered to this argument by our adversaries except they be blinded either with ignorance or fight against the light of their own conscience When I read this argument of Valentia as it is related by Chameir tom 2. lib. 11. cap. 19. num 11. I believed that Chameir had mistaken him or else that there was vitium Typographi or a fault of the Printer but when I consulted Valentia himself in his Analysis lib. 7. cap. 7. and his Commentarys upon Thomas I found to my astonishment that he so played the fool and then bragged of his madness This argument of his is a most ridiculous Sophism and I cannot but admire that any learned man such as Valentia was not ashamed to make use of such an Argument much more to brag of it as invincible The ground of his argument consist in a Topick Axiom of his own divising against all the rules of Logick viz. If the negation of a certain particular conclude any thing not to be then the affirmation of the said particular coucluds the said thing to be as one would reason thus if the Apostle Peter was not a Pastor of the Church he was not Oecumenick Bishop Ergo if he was a Pastor of the Church he was Oecumenick Bishop which argument would prove any Pastor of the Church or all Pastors of the Church to be Oecumenick Bishops So this axiom of Valentia is the foundation of a Syllogism consisting of affirmatives in the second figure as one would reason thus An Oecumenick Bishop is a Doctor or Pastor of the Church Peter and Paul were Doctors and Pastors of the Church Ergo Peter and Paul were Oecumenick Bishops Who sees not this reasoning to be childish sophistry how can any learned man brag that such an argument as this is invincible It is notorious if we endeavor to reason according to that Axiom of Valentia We must either reason thus in the second figure where all the Propositions are true but the argument consequent because consisting of Affirmatives or else if we reason in the first figure the Proposition or Major is notoriously false viz. All Pastors of the Church are Oecumenick Bishops Peter and Paul are Pastors of the Church Ergo They are Oecumenick Bishops So it appears that the Axiom of Valentia is false viz. when any thing is disproved by the negation of a particular It is proved by the affirmation of it For although it follow Simon Magus was no Pastor of the Church Ergo he was not Oecumenick Bishop Yet it doth not follow Gregorius de Valentia was a Doctor or Pastor of the Church Ergo he was Oecumenick Bishop And thus we have retexed that invincible argument of Gregorius de Valentia viz. If Peter did not feed the flock of Christ and had not the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven it follows necessarily that he was not Oecumenick Bishop Ergo if he did feed the sheep of Christ and had the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven It follows that he was Oecumenick Bishop Which argument concluds alike with this If Bucephalus be not a man he cannot be a Jesuite Ergo if Luther be a man he must be a Jesuite and thus much of Valentia We have seen how our Adversaries dispute those three Foundations of the Monarchy of Peter and consequently of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome upon which the truth or falshood of the Roman faith depends since without it the faith
arroganter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere c. That is Peter being reprehended by Paul did not take any thing to himself insolently or arrogantly as to say he had the primacy from which words of Cyprian it followes rather that if Peter had said to Paul he had the primacy he had been arrogant and insolent and consequently it appears rather that Cyprian in these words denyeth Peter to have the Supremacy It seems Pamelius understands him so for he answers in his Annotations upon that place this very passage of Cyprian as an objection against the Supremacy of Peter In the next place Bellarmine brings a number of very specious testimonies to prove the Supremacy of Peter over the other Apostles as that Basilius affirms he was preferred to the other Apostles Nazianzenus That the other Apostles were inferiour to him Epiphanius that he was Captain of the Apostles Cyrillus Hierosolym that he was prince of the Apostles Cyrillus Allexand That he was Prince and head of the rest Theophyl Prince of the disciples Oecumenius he obtained the precedency of the other Apostles Hieronymus he was chosen head of the twelve that occasion of Schisme might be removed The Author of the question upon the Old and New Testament placed amongst the works of Augustinus he was made their head that he might be Pastor of the flock of Christ Those testimonies in effect at the first veiw seem to be of moment but well considered do not prove at all that Peter had any jurisdiction over the other Apostles or that he was their oecumenick Bishop for two very relevant reasons The first is because those very Epithets are given by the Fathers yea by Paul himself to other Apostles beside Peter But since those Appellations doth not prove those other Apostles oecumenick Bishops no more can they prove Peter to be such That those Titles were given to others beside Peter is proved by those following testimonies Paul in the Galatians calls James and John Pillars as well as Peter whereby it appears he makes them equal with Peter Eusebius Emissenus Homilia in Natal Petri â—auli calls Paul and Andrew Princes of the Apostles Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 1. hist calls James Prince of the Apostles Chrysostom in Galat. 2. calls Paul Prince of the Apostles Prudentius calls Peter and Paul Princes of the Apostles Lastly those very Fathers who give those elegies to Peter affirm that the Church was built on all the Apostles as well as Peter and some of them expresly gives the chief of them as head or Caput to others beside Peter as Basilius which we mentioned before The second reason wherefore those titles of head or Prince prove not any jurisdiction of Peter over the other Apostles is very relevant and is this viz. the principals of the Fathers expresly affirm that Peter had no jurisdiction over the other Apostles Origenes the Apostles were Kings and Christ not Peter King of Kings Cyprianus de unitate ecclesiae Christ after his resurrection gave a like power unto all the Apostles and a little after what ever Peter was the other Apostles were the same and had equal fellowship with him both in honour and power Chrysostomus in Galat. 2. Paul needed not the testimony of Peter he was equal to him in honour I will say no more whereby it is evident in his opinion Paul was more honourable then Peter Likewayes Hom. 66. in Matth. None goeth before Paul neither doth any doubt of it Hieronymus Galat. 2. paraphrasing on Pauls words saith I am nothing inferiour to Peter we are both placed in the ministry by the same person viz. Christ Likewayes lib. 1. against Jovinian the Church is founded upon all the Apostles equally all of them got the keys of the Kingdom of heaven alike Augustinus epist 86. Peter and the other disciples lived in concord together where observe Peter is called condisciple with the rest Gregorius first Bishop of Rome himself disputing against an oecumenick Bishop lib. 4. epist 32. amongst the other reasons brings this for one although the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter yet Peter was not oecumenick or universal Apostle Other testimonies might be heaped to this purpose as of Ambrosius in 1 Cor. 11. and Gal. 2. and likewayes of Primasius Theophylactus and the ordinar Glosse who all of them affirm the same upon Gal. 2. And thus it is proved by two unanswerable reasons that by those titles of Head and Prince Peter is not oecumenick Bishop Of that title of head we spake before that it was given unto others as well as unto Peter and now have proved the same of the title of Prince If ye ask then what is the meaning of those expressions of the Fathers calling Peter Prince and Head of the Church or Apostles It is answered the word Head or Prince may import a threefold Primacy 1. of Jurisdiction and in that sense none but Christ is called head or prince of the Church 2. A primacy of Order without Jurisdiction as when any of the same Colledge chooseth one to be their Head as Deacons choosing an Arch-deacon who hath only primacy of Order and not of Jurisdiction 3. A primacy of gifts or graces so the title head is taken 1 Cor. 12. so also Paul and James c. are called heads and Princes of the Apostles by the Fathers as we said before because they had eminent gifts So â—omer and Virgilius are called Princes of the Poets Cicero and Demosthenes Coriphaei oratorum and Plato and Aristotle Philosophorum principes So Nicodemus was called Prince of the Jews by Cyrillus and Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna Prince of Asia by Hieronymus The meaning of the Fathers then giving to Peter those titles of head or prince is not of the first sort of primacy as was demonstrated but only of the second and third sort of primacy that is by reason of his eminent gifts in which others also excelled as Paul and John but especially and cheifly because he was eldest Apostle and first called to that function some think Andrew was called before him but however Peter had the priority of dignity in what sense it imports not much so it was not priority of Jurisdiction which that it was not was now proved by uuanswerable testimonies of the Fathers CHAP. XXI Some testimonies of Fathers disproving the supremacy of Peter vindicated IN the former Chapters were answered those testimonies of Fathers alleged by Bellarmine to prove the supremacy of Peter over the Church cap. 19. and over the other Apostles cap. 20. in answering which testimonies we proved by opposing testimonies to testimonies that the meaning of those Fathers was nothing lesse then that Peter was Monarch of the Church which we proved by two sort of testimonies first by those in which the same things were said of others beside Peter by which they endeavoured to prove his supremacy such as head of the Church prince of the Apostles c. The second sort was 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 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
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
to Peter which was not promised to the other Apostles answered that Origines was speaking allegorically otherwise he contradicted himself in his 5. Homily upon Exodus where he called Peter that great Foundation which we proved to be no contradiction cap. 6. By the same argument we prove that Origines in this place is speaking allegorically otherwise he contradicts Reason Scripture Fathers and himself And likewise affirms a notorius untruth in this very place alledged And first that he contradicts Reason Scripture and Fathers in denying the keys of Heaven and the keys of Heavens to be the same we have just now proved disputing with de Castro and Fisher Secondly He contradicts himself in other places in affirming that greater power of the keys was given to Peter then to the Others or that the keys of the Heavens are more then the keys of Heaven because else-where he disputs and endeavors to prove that the power of the keys given to Peter was the very same given to the other Apostles as in his first Treatise upon Matthew mentioned before and vindicated cap. 6. Thirdly Origen is comparing the keys of Peter with these three admonitions but if he speak literally he lyeth in firming that those Admonishers had the power of the key of one Heaven given them from Christ or that what they did bind and loose on Earth should be bound and loosed in one Heaven which is promised no whereby Christ Lastly Origines is comparing in these words the power of Privat Admonishers with that of Ministers having the power of binding and loosing and after his manner falls to Allegories by this distinction of Heaven and Heavens otherwise he were not only a lyar in this place but also a contradicter of Reason Scripture and other Fathers and of himfelf in other places Bellarmin thought it a sufficient Reason to prove that Origines spake allegorically viz. otherwise he would contradict himself and yet we shewed there was no contradiction therefore he cannot in reason deny that Origines in this place speaks allegorically since otherwise he would contradict Reason Scripture all the Fathers himself in other places and also be a notorious lyar in this same alledged place We have have proved already That Matthew 16. 19. inferrs not that Peter was Oecumenick Bishop because the power of the keys was no universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church we undertook to prove it by an other reason viz. because the power of the keys was not given to Peter alone but to the other Apostles as well as to him Which we undertook to prove by two arguments First by Scripture Secondly by Fathers By Scripture we have already proved it viz. from Matthew 18. 18. and John 20. 23. vindicated from the exceptions of our adversaries alledging they were not alike places with Matthew 16. 19 It only remains now to prove by testimonies of Fathers that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others as well as to Peter those testimonies are of two sorts The first is of those affirming directly that the keys were given to others besids Peter the other sort is of those affirming it by consequence Of the first sort it is needless to mention any more then we have already mentioned in the vindication of these places Such as Hilarius lib. 6. de Trinitate and adversus Arianos Cyprianus Epistola 54. Chrysostomus de Sacerdotio lib. 3. Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 2. epist 5. Pacianus ad Sympronianum epist 1. and in his Treatise against the Novatians All which testimonies expresly affirm That the keys were given to others beside Peter Neither is it needful to set down the words since our adversaries cannot have so much impudence as to deny them To which testimonies may be added that of Hieronymus against Jovinanus Cuncti Discipuli claves Regni Coelorum accipiunt all the Disciples got the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven of Origines tract 1. in Matthew An verò soli Petro dantur claves Regni coelorum nec alius beatorum quisquam eas accepturus est Quod si dictum hoc tibi dabo claves Regni Coelorum caeteris quoque commune est cor non simul omnia communia In which words he expresly affirms That which was promised to Peter was promised also to all the Apostles as well as the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven And a little after Servator dans Spiritum Sanctum Discipulis per insufflationem ait accipite Spiritum Sanctum c. It is needless to add any more testimonies Now let us consider how our adversaries elude them And first Cardinal Pool in his defence of the Ecclesiastick Vnity lib. 2. grants those testimonies but he denys that any thing is proved by them viz. That all the Apostles had alike power with Peter in the power of the keys albeit it seems to be the meaning of those Fathers which he illustrats by the example of Moses and the 70. Elders since it is said Numbers 11. That God gave unto them a part of that Spirit which was in Moses and consequently they had the same power in substance with Moses but not in so excellent a way Maldonatus answers otherwise viz. denying That the same keys were given to Peter Matthew 16. and to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and John 20 his reason is in the two last places no mention is made of keys at all Stapleton is more subtile for seeing that Christ saith Matthew 18. What ever ye shal bind to all the Apostles is the same with that said to Peter Matthew 16. Whatsoever thou shalt bind c. He grants that the same binding and loosing given to Peter Matthew 16. is given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. but he affirms That the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are a thing different from either of the bindings or loosings in Relec. controvers 3 quest 1. art 1. conclus 4. Others answer Distinguishing the keys of Order and Jurisdiction they grant that the keys of Order were given to all the Apostles the keys of Jurisdiction only to Peter It is needless particularly to insist upon the refutation of those new devised Sophistries to hold up the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome they are quite and diametrally opposit to the meaning of all antiquity of which they brag so much as appears by two reasons The first is that the Fathers disput expresly that the same keys were promised to Peter Matth. 16. and to the other Apostles Mat. 18. John 20. consequently all those distinctions devised of late by the Jesuits others are nothing else but fantastick dreams and sophistical evasions And first Origines tract 1. on Matthew disputs as we said That the Church was built alike upon all the Apostles because the keys were given alike to all the Apostles by which reasoning it appears that he thought it a thing uncontroverted in his time that the keys were common to all the Apostles since he useth it as a Medium or Argument to prove That
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
the keyes which he affirms to be farr from the meaning of Cyprian The third argument of Fathers proving by consequence that the keyes were given to others also beside Peter is because Peter spoke in the name of the rest or answered the question of our Savior for them all Anselmus on Matthew 16. hath these words Notandum est quod haec potestas non solum Petro data est sed sicut Petrus unus pro omnibus respondit sic in Petro omnibus hanc potestatem dedit It is to be observed that this power of the keyes was not only given to Peter but as Peter alone answered for them all so in Peter he gave that power unto them all Bellarmin answers That Peter answered for all as their Prince Head and Mouth not as one commissionat from them to answer in all their names in which case he would have known what they were to answer to our Saviors question asking them what he was But Peter did not know what the other Apostles would answer to that question of our Savior and therefore he answered as their Prince and Head But it is replyed We grant that Peter was not commissionat from the rest to answer for them but we deny it to follow that he answered as their Prince and Head there is amids viz. he answered as one of their number as when any is riding out the way he meets with a number of people asks of them the right way or some other question one more ready then the rest answers first It is notorious he had no commission from the rest to answer and yet it doth not follow that he is Head or Prince of the rest by which it appears that this reasoning of Bellarmins is nothing else but Sophistry and whereas Bellarmin affirms That Peter answered only for himself and not for the rest because he knew not what they would answer It is frivolous because it was sufficient that Peter knew what they ought to have answered if they answered aright Bellarmin urgeth a reward is given to Peter in these words for his answer but since the others did not answer at all but only himself without commission from the rest It follows of necessity that the reward viz. the keyes were given to Peter alone and not to the rest especially since our Savior affirms That it was revealed by God only to Peter that Christ was the Son of God But it is replyed The words of our Savior are That the said mystery was revealed to Peter by God only but it doth not follow That it was revealed to Peter only that is uncertain yea rather notoriously false Since Peter John â— 69. in the name of all the rest hath these words And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ the Son of the living God by which it appears that the other disciples knew that mystery as well as Peter since Peter expresly affirms in that place They all believed it Bellarmin instances how know we that Peter spake for the rest and not for himself alone since it cannot be gathered from the Text. But it is answered first How knoweth Bellarmin that Peter answered for himself and not for the rest Since no such thing can be gathered from the Text. It is answered Secondly That it is evident from the Text that Peter answered for the rest because Christ asked not the question of Peter alone but of them all he asketh whom they thought he was and since Peter immediately answered being more ready then the rest as Chrysostom affirms it is evident that Peter answered in the name of them all Franciscus Agricola besides those reasons of Bellarmin adds others to prove that Peter answered for himself alone and not for the rest His first reason is this Because he answered not for Judas since Judas believed no such thing as Christ was the Son of God Ergo he answered not for them all But it is answered It doth not follow He answered not for them all Because Judas believed not because John 6. 69. Agricola will not deny that Peter answered for them all and yet the not believing of Judas might as well militat against his answering for them all John 6. as Matthew 16. Peter answered What they all ought to have believed and in so doing answered for all albeit they did not all believe Another of Agricola his reasons not mentioned by Bellarmin is this Our Savior pronounced only Peter blessed and not the other Apostles Ergo Peter answered only for himself and not for all otherwise our Savior would have called them all blessed But it is answered Our Savior called only Peter blessed because Peter only answered and so in pronouncing him blessed He called them all blessed because he answered in the name of them all So Hilarius de Vinctat 6. alluding to this place saith O ye holy and blessed men who procured the keys â—o the Kingdom of Heavenâ— by the merit of your Faith In which words he applyeth that blessing of Christ to all alike Agricola hath three other Reasons Proving that Peter answered only for himself and not for all but they are the same with those of Bellarmin which we answered already and thus much of the keys Matthew 16. 19. which is the second argument pretended by the Romish Doctors for proving that Peter was instituted Oecumenick Bishop by Christ CHAP. IX Of Iohn 21. 15 16 17. Or feed my Sheep THe third argument proving that our Savior ordained Peter Monarch of the Church is taken from the words of our Savior John 21. 15 16 17. where thrice our Savior commands him to feed his Sheep viz. to feed his Lambs verse 15. his Sheep verse 16 17. But it is answered That argument is inconsequent for although our Savior injoyned the feeding of his Sheep to Peter it doth not follow that he ordained him Oecumenick Bishop for three reasons The first is because feeding of Christs Sheep is not to command Christians nor to exercise dominion over them as a Monarch Since the Apostle Peter himself in his first Epistle cap. 5. verse 3. expresly forbids dominion to those to whom the feeding of Christs Flock was injoyned verse 2. Bellarmin lib. 1. cap. 15. de Pont. Rom. endeavors to prove that in the word Feeding supream Jurisdiction over the whole Church is committed to Peter by several reasons The first is that it comprehends all the duty of a Pastor which consists not only in Ministring Food but also in Governing and Chastising As appears by our Savior using the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to feed by commanding in which sense Kings are called by Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastors of the people But it is answered Bellarmin subtilty in such Grammaticisms hath no ground Our Savior in the same place useth the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which not only the Syrian Interpreters but also the Latin renders the same way viz. to
we have shewed hitherto how Bellarmin and Sanderus have endeavored to prove that it is not inconsistent with the Church to have two heads because the one is a Primary head the other a Secundary head Panigarola lectione 6. useth a very strange argument to prove that the Church of necessity must have a visible head beside Christ Otherwise saith he It would be a monster if a visible body as the Church had only an invisible head which is Christ But it is answered First the Church will be no less a monster if it have two heads one visible another invisible Secondly Panigarola speaks blasphemy which we bind upon him by this argument First All bodies visible having an invisible head are monstrous bodies This Panigarola grants Secondly The Church is no monstrous body This he grants also how can he then deny this conclusion in Baroco Ergo The Church hath not an invisible head or Christ is not head of the Church which is right-down blasphemy Alphonsus de Castro puzled with the difficulty of two heads hath a distinction of his own of two bodies as Bellarmin made a distinction of two heads De Castro denies That body of which Christ is the head to be the same with that body which hath a visible head or Peter or the Bishop of Rome for its head He explains himself thus the Church may be called a body two ways saith he First as it is a total body Secondly as it is a Mystical body The first way is when it is considered comprehending all the Members with Christ and in that sense Christ is head of the Church In the second way it is considered as a body consisting of all the other members Christ excluded and in that acception Peter or his Successors are visible heads of the Church So the Church cannot be said to have two heads for Christ and Peter and his Successors are not heads of the same body but of diverse Christ is head of the Church as it is a total body Peter and his Successors as it is a Mysticalbody But it is answered Alphonsus de Castre as cannot be denyed was a brave learned man and stood as little awe of the Pope to speak his mind when truth required as any Doctor of that Church yet this distinction of his of a body in total and mystical is used by no body but himself it is also contrair to Scripture which in every place where the Church is called the body of Christ considers it as containing all other members Christ excluded And so the Scripture never mentions that body which de Castro calls a total body For the Scripture calling the Church the body of Christ means no other body then that which de Castro calls mystical This distinction of de Castro might be solidly refuted otherwise but it is needless to insist since it is owned by no others except by Spondanus who seems to come very near it thus The Apostle saith he Ephes 4. affirms Christ to be the head from which the whole body takes increment He observeth First that Christ is distinguished from the whole body which is the Church Ergo saith he since the Church is a whole body without Christ it must of necessity have a head beside Christ otherways it could not be a whole body since no body can be whole without a head And therefore the Church hath a visible head proportionable to it self beside Christ since it is a whole body without Christ But it is answered He is a notorious Sophister First when the Apostle Ephesians 4. opposeth the whole body to Christ under the name of body or whole body he comprehends all the other members only beside the head and not as having a head of its own As appears by the Commentaries not only of the Fathers upon that place Ephes 4. such as Chrysostom and his admirer Theophylactus and Theodoretus but also by the expositions of Justinian and Salmero two famous Jesuites upon that place Ephesians 4. All which expounding what the Apostle calls totum corpus or the whole body interpret it to be these members Quae à capite sensum accipiunt or have influence of sense or life from the head And consequently they make totum corpus the whole body to be no otherthing then all the other members the head excluded and consequently totum corpus the whole body hath not an other head beside Christ Secondly By totum corpus or whole body questionless the Apostle means the Church as it comprehends both the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant Spondanus argument if it conclude at all must of necessity conclude that the said visible head is head of the Church Triumphant and so the Bishop of Rome must be head of the Church Triumphant also which none will affirm Thirdly The ground of this distinction of Spondanus is notoriously false viz That the head would not be proportional to the body except it were visible For to omit that Christ is constantly called the Head of the Church in Scripture which should be enough to stop the mouth of Spondanus our Savior is a proportional Head to the Church because he is a man like unto us in all things except sin We will conclude this disput of Head of the Church with one Argument used by some Protestants against a Visible Head of the Church which is this If the Church had any other Head but Christ it would be called the body of the said Head but it is never called the body of any Head but of Christ Ergo It hath no other Head but Christ Bellarmin answers two wayes And first he affirms That the Church is not called the body of that visible Head because it is only Secundary and not Primary and therefore the Church is only called the body of Christ But it is replyed If there were any such thing as that secundary head the Church could with no less reason be called its body then it could be called head of the church Since the relation is reciprocal and the body is no less the body of the Head then the head is the head of the body and since the Church is no where called the body of that secundary head it is evident that the said secundary head is a fiction Bellarmin urgeth that a King is the Head of his Kingdom and the Kingdom may be called his body likewise a Viceroy may be called secundary Head of the Kingdom or Province but the Kingdom or Province cannot be called the body of a Viceroy and in like manner the Church cannot be called the body of that secundary Head the Bishop of Rome or Peter But it is replyed As the Viceroy is head of the Province so the Province may be called the body or Province of the Viceroy but since the Church cannot be called the body of that secundary head as Bellarmin confesseth it is evident there is no such secundary head at all in the Church Secondly Bellarmin grants that the Kingdom may be
added to the Creed by the Council at Trent viz. That Communion with the Church of Rome in all her Tenets is absolutely necessary to salvation Let them study this one Controversie of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and it will resolve the question for if it be founded upon Scripture and Antiquity without all question Communion with the Church of Rome is necessar unto salvation and the Religion of Protestants is a new sprung up heresie since the Bishop of Rome in Cathedra and consequently in their opinion infallible pronounceth so On the contrary if the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome be a thing unknown to Scripture and Antiquity it is as certain that the Faith of the Modern Roman Church is a new devised cheat and idolatry That this followeth of necessity appears by the confession of Bellarmine himself in two expressions in the preface of those Books of his de pontifice Romano The first we now mentioned in which he calls that Controversie of the Popes supremacy a Debâ—te de summa rei Christianae That is whether the Christian Religion can subsist or not By Christian Religion no question he means the Faith of the modern Church of Rome and consequently he grants that they who call in question the Popes supremacy they question also the whole body of the Popish Religion And consequently still he must of necessity grant that if the Popes supremacy be destitute of Scripture and Antiquity the faith of the Modern Church of Rome falls with it and proves a new devised fiction His second expression is in those similitudes he useth to illustrat his assertion viz. He compares Religion without the Popes supremacy which in his opinion is that of the Modern Church of Rome to a House without a Foundation a Body without a Head Moon-shine without the Sun And since it is notorious that a house without a Foundation cannot stand that a Body without a Head cannot live that the Moon without light of the Sun must be obscured He must of necessity grant that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome being refuted by Scripture and Antiquity the Faith and Religion of the Modern Church of Rome is warrantable by neither and consequently proves a new devised idolatrous cheat Thirdly it s a most pleasant contest what can be more pleasing then to consider the causes of any prodigious Monster how iâ— subsists and how it is destroyed how any illustrious cheat is contrived how it is maintained and how it is discovered But such a Monster such a Cheat as the Bishop of Rome none free of prejudice can behold without admiration The whole world sees a person now ignorant then flagitious not seldome both put by two or three Italians of the same mettal in the Chair of Rome which Preferment he obtains sometimes by blood sometimes by simonie sometimes by unlawful stipulations as to protect Heresie and to oppress the Catholick Faith not seldome by a paction with the Devil all which wayes of obtaining the Chair of Rome are confessed by Popish Writers such as Platina and Baronius as shall be proved in the following Dispute Which Homuncio is no sooner installed then he is metamorphosed to be direct Monarch of the whole World both in Spirituals and Temporals And first for Temporals it shall be proved in the following Dispute that he assumes to himself in his Bulls power of transferring Kingdoms at his pleasure of stirring up Subjects to Armes against their natural Princes under the pain of Excommunication It shall be proved that he makes Emperours and Kings lye prostrate till he trade upon their neck makes them stand bare-footed with their Wives and Children in frost and snow dancing attendants at his Gates and yet not not admitted entrance It shall be proved that he makes Laws in that Book entituled Sacred Ceremonies that Emperors and Kings should hold his Stirrup hold water to his Hands serve dishes at his Table carry him on their shoulders Yea it shall be proved that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome That all Kings are not only the Popes Vassals but which is more he is not oblieged by any mutual ontract to suffer them to possess their Kingdoms but during his pleasure that is he may lawfully depose them although they miscarry not in the least In which he doth tâ—em no wrong because they hold their Kingdoms â—f him not as Vassals but as depositars as when any gives to another his Cloak to keep when he re-demands it he doth him no wrong As for his power which he assumes to himself in Spirituals it cannot be repeated without horrour It shall be proved in the following Dispute that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome partly in the Canon Law partly in the Bulls of Popes themselves partly in Books printed by the Popes Authority and affirmed by his Vâ—sitors to contain nothing contrary to the Catholick Faith That the Pope has power to coyn Articles of Faith at his pleasure oblieging the whole Church under the pain of damnation although he command vice and forbid vertue Secondly although he should lead all the world to hell with him yet none should presume to disobey him Thirdly that he gives pardon for sin for money and not only of sins by-past but also of those to come that is for a little money he will give you pardon for a little time but for a round sum he will give you pardon so long as you please Fourthly it shall be proved that for money he permits men to sin that is permits Clergy-men to keep Whoores And if any keep not a Whoor he makes them pay for it in some places of Italy nevertheless because they have liberty to keep a Whoor if they please Cornelius Agrippa affirms he heard such expressions as these following in the Popes Court Habeat aut non habeat Meretricem Aureum solvat quia habet si velit That is Whether a Priest keep a Whoor or not let him pay the Tribute since he may keep one if he please for such a peece of money Fifthly he makes his decretal Epistles of equal authority with the Scripture Lastly as he intended a gigantomachy he is called in the Canon Law revised and authorised by Gregory 13. Our Lord God the Pope It is affirmed in the said Law that he has power to make injustice justice and contra that he has power to command the Angels to carry souls to Heaven at his pleasure that he has power to give liberty to men to place the departed Souls of their friends in paradise for money that by vertue of his succession to Peter he is assumed to the society of the individual Trinity he not only hears patiently but also rewards flatterers when their blasphemous Pamphlets prefer him to Christ as appears in Innocent 10. which passage shall be realated part 1. lib. 1. cap. 11 of this following Treatise My Lords and Gentlemen any would think these horrible passages incredible but have patience till
ye hear them proved partly by the Canon Law partly by the decretals of Popes partly by Books authorized by the Popes authority partly per res judicatas or sentences passed in the Popes Court at Rome Ignorants of antiquity of which our adversaries bragg so much believe that the Bishop of Rome had such immense and unlimitated power in all Ages by reason of his succession to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church What can be more pleasing then to consider from what small beginnings at what times upon what occasions by what steps by what artifices he mounted to such a prodigious hight and by what practises he maintains himself in it all which is to the life delineated in this following Dispute and proved by uncorrupted aâ—d unanswerable testimonies of the Ancients In which also it will appear that all what our adversary pretends from antiquity to maintain the Popes Kingdom is either sophistically preverted falsly translated or cited mutilated or forged My Lords and Gentlemen Whereas they make the Bishoprick of Peter the only basis and foundation of the Popes power in the first place ye will find that the Monarchy of Peter was never dreamed of by the Ancients of the first sixth Centuries As for his particular Bishoprick of Rome although some of the Fathers affirm he was Bishop of Rome yet your Lordships will find it proved that they call Paul Bishop of Rome in the same sense and consequently they take the word Bishop in a large sense as it comprehends an Apostle and not properly for a Bishop tyed to any particular Congregation That this is their meaning will be proved by two invincible reasons the first is because these same Fathers in their Catalogues of the Bishops of Rome do not reckon Peter in that number making Linus the first Bishop of Rome Cletus the second Clement the third c. But if they had believed Peter was Bishop of Rome they would have called him the first Bishop Linus the second Cletus the third Clement the fourth c. The second reason is That it shall be proved by the testimonies of those very men who call Peter Bishop of Rome That first Linus and then Cletus were Bishops of Rome during the Life of Peter whereby it is evident that Peter was never properly Bishop of Rome but was called Bishop of Rome by those Fathers because he founded the Church of Rome joyntly with Paul In the next place your Lordships will find it proved albeit many of the Ancients unanimously affirmed that Peter was at Rome and founded the Church of Rome yet they were deceived or else the Scripture affirms falsly since it shall be proved by Scripture that Peter was elsewhere in that time in which they affirm he was at Rome yea it shall be proved by unanswerable reasons from Scripture that Peter was never at Rome and that all those Fathers who believe he was at Rome were deceived by the testimony of one Papias described by Eusebius to be a man of no spirit the Author of many fabulous Traditions and of the heresie of the Millenarii That is of those maintaining that Christ before the last day shall reign a thousand years with his Saints In the third place your Lordships will find that the Bishops of Rome before the dayes of Cyprian were poor persecuted pious Martyrs only two condemned by the whole â—hurch strove to advance that mystery of iniquity which Paul affirmed was working in his own time viz. Victor usurping authoâ—ity over the Bishops of the East anno 195. and Stephanus over the Bishops of Africa and Spain anno 250. or thereabouts Some Doctors of the Church of Rome pretends several monuments of Antiquity to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval but they shall be proved forged not only by unanswerable reasons but also by the confessions of the most learned Doctors of the Church of Rome yea of Popes themselves such as Aeneas Silvius or Pius 2. In thâ— fourth place your Lordships will find the Bishops of Rome made rich by the liberality of Constantine the Emperor and others which occasioned pride and luxury the Parents of Antichrist In the fifth place your Lordships will find the conception of this Monster growing as an Embrio by degrees in his Mothers belly the fiâ—st quarter a Bishop the second a Metropolitan the third a Patâ—iarch between the times of Cyprian and anno 604. In which interval as the riches of the Bishop of Rome increased so pride and corruptions of life grew up with them and also some corruption in Doctrine against which not only Cyprian Hieronymus Sulpitius Severus Nezianzenus Basilius Magnus and other Christian Fathers exclaimed but also Ammianus Marcellinus in the opinion of Barronâ—us a Pagan In that interval Damasus mounted to the Chair of Rome by blood of which the said Ammâ—anus Marcellinus speaking after he had related the murthers that were committed he concludes It was not to be admired they aimed at the Chair of Rome by such practices since having obtained it they were enriched by the Gifts of Matrons and other wayes equalling any King in their port of Table Cloaths Houshold-stuff Attendance and Coatches or Chariots In that interval also Vigilius Bishop of Rome as is related by Liberatus and confessed by Barronius obtained the Chair of Rome by promising to the Empress Theodora to abrogat the Council of Chalcedon to establish the Eutichian heresie in the Church which he endeavoured to do as appears by his Letters when he was Bishop of Rome written to several Courtiers in which he approved that heresie And likewayes by promising Gold to Belesarius General to the Emperour Justinian in Italy By which practices of Vigilius Silverius a pious worthy Bishop of Rome to make way for the said Vigilius was banished and murthered and yet the said Vigilius was a great ingeminator of tu es Petrus and of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome And yet Barronius is not ashamed against all the Writers of that time to praise this Monster as a Saint and yet which is admirable he confesseth the way of his entry to the Bishoprick of Rome viz. by displacing a pious Bishop he obtained the Chair by Simonie and promising to abrogat the Council oâ— Chalcedon and to establish the Eutichian heresie And this much of the conception of this Monster In the sixth place ye have his birth under Phocas who by an Edict christened him universal Bishop In which three things are observable 1 The God-father 2. The God-bairn Gift 3. The reasons wherefore it was given Phocas The God-father was the Emperour Phocas described by all Historians to be a Monster for a man who being a Centurion or Captain of a Foot-company raised a mutiny in the Army against the good Emperour Mauritius and obtained the Empire himself by murthering his Master his Empress his Children and his Friends noted by Historians to have been a perfidious perjured luxurious cruel Monster and yet he was the first
Rock to be Peter the truth of which answer we have sufficiently proved in the former chapters viz. many of the Fathers interpreted the Rock to be Christ chap. 4. Others of them interpreted the Rock to be the Faith and Confession of Peter chap. 5. Neither did those Fathers chap. 4. and chap. 5. contradict one another we shewed before that their meaning was one who called the Rock Christ and the Rock the confession of Peter It was answered Secondly That the meaning of those Fathers calling the Rock Peter was nothing less then that Peter in those words of Christ thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church was by our Savior ordained Oecumenick Bishop It is needless to set down all the testimonies of those Fathers mentioned by Bellarmin since we grant that they call the Rock Peter So Clemens Tertullianus Cyprianus Athanasius Origines Hilarius Ambrosius Hieronymus Nazianzenus Chrysostomus Psellus Augustinus Maximus Tautinensus Cyrillus Alexandrinus Leo Magnus Prosper Andreas Cretensis Gregorius Magnus Theophylactus Whose testimonies you may find in Bellarmin who objects them we will only demonstrat in this following chapter that those Testimonies are of no moment neither is it their meaning or scope to prove that Peter was ordained O ecumenick Bishop although they expresly affirm that Peter is the Rock upon which Christ built his Church It is a notable and subtile Disput and of great importance since upon it depends what opinion Antiquity had of the supremacy of Peter and consequently of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and necessar communion with the Church of Rome The reasons wherefore those Fathers although they call the Rock Peter do not affirm he was ordained Oecumenick Bishop are those following The first is Those Fathers could have no other opinion of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or of Peter then that of the whole Church But the whole Church in their times was against the supremacy of Peter or the Bishop of Rome For it shall be proved lib. 3. that the first second and third General Councils were against the supremacy of both and likewise the fourth and fifth General Councils lib. fourth and the sixth seventh and eight General Councils lib. 5. which was hinted at above chap. 3. Secondly Many of Bellarmins testimonies are forged as shal be proved lib. 2. and 3. As the Epistle of Clement to Iames of Athanasius to Felix Bishop of Rome as is acknowledged by Baronius anno 357. paragraph 66. and Biniuâ— upon that Epistle tom 1. part 1. Concil of Augustinus in his Sermons upon the Saints of which we need no other proof of Forgery then that our adversaries themselves tax Augustinuâ— of ignorance of the Syriack tongue for interpreting the Rock to be Christ unanimously confessing he denyeth the Rock to be Peter It is needless to set down the reasons by which learned Men both Protestants and Papists prove those Sermons de sanctis attributed to Augustinus to be supposititious Thirdly Many of those Fathers who interpret the Rock to be Peter interpret it also to be Christ or the Confession of Peter as Tertullianus Hilarius Ambrosius Hieronymus Chrysosâ—omus Origines Augustinus Neither do they contradict themselves their meaning is all one and it shal be immediatly shewed nothing less then the Supremacy of Peter Fourthly The reasons wherefore those Fathers interpret the Rock to be Peter inferr no wayes that he was Oecumenick Bishop but on the contrair demonstrat that he was not Oecumenick Bishop Since in their opinion others may be called Rocks as well as Peter viz. Nazianzeus in his Oration for moderation affirms Petrus Petra vocatur quia Ecclesiae fundamenta suae fidei credita habet That is Peter was called the Rock because he had the foundations of the Church concredited to his Faith Ambrosius Sermon 47. Because he layed first the foundations of Faith amongst the nations therefore Peter was called the Rock Theophylactus affirms he was called the Rock because of his Faith and Confession that Christ was the Son of God Epiphanius Because he founded the Faith of our Lord upon which the Church is built he was made a solid Rock unto us Haeres in Catharis Theophanes Ceraneus As he is cited by Salmero tom 4. part 3. tract 2. affirms That Peter was called the Rock because of his Confession by which it appears that the reasons wherefore Peter was called the Rock are two First because he founded Churches Secondly because he confessed Christ Neither of which inferr an Oecumenick Bishop since no Sophister never so impudent can deny that others as well as Peter founded Churches and confessed Christ neither is it of any moment what they object that Peter was the first that founded the Church and confessed Christ as Theophylactus seems to import since it shal be proved afterward that the Apostles before this confession of Peter confessed Christ to be Son of God Matthew 14. and John 6. or the great Prophet see also Luke 1. 42. and 43. and 2. 30. 31. 32. Secondly Albeit Peter had first confessed Christ and by that confession first founded the Church it argues no supremacy in Peter or Jurisdiction over the Church no more then it followeth that Aristotle hath Jurisdiction over Logicians because he taught Logick first Fifthly and mainly because those Fathers who interpret Peter to be the Rock call others beside Peter in the same sense Rocks whence it is evinced unanswerably they intend nothing less then the supremacy of Peter by that gloss It were tedious to go through them all we will only instance some testimonies of those Fathers of whom our adversaries do most brag by which will appear the meaning of the rest The first is of Origines trastat 1. upon Matthew Quod si super unum illum Petrum tantum existimas aedificari totam Ecclesiam quid dicturus de Joanne filio tonitrui Apostolorum unoquoque quin aliqui num audebimus dicere quod adversus Petrum unum non praevaliturae sint portae inferorum adversus autem caeteros Apostolos ac praefectos praevaliturae sint ac non potius in omnibus singulis eorum de quibus dictum est fit illud quod dictum est portae inferorum uon praevalebunt adversus eam item illud super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam No Father is more pressed by Bellarmin then Origen to prove that Peter was the Rock and here ye have not only the testimony of Origin that the other Apostles were Rocks as well as Peter but also his probation of it First he propones and states the question Do ye think sayeth he that those words of Christ upon this Rock I will build my Church are spoken only to Peter you are deceived what shal we then say of John the son of thunder So then the proposition he undertakes to prove is that our Savior promised to build his Church upon all the Apostles as Rocks which he proves by this reason because it
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
by divine Institution Oecumenick Bishop the Church would have two heads since our adversaries maintain that an Oecumenick Bishop is head of the Church They answer to this difficulty varying one from another some one way some another some the third way others the fourth It will not be unpleasing to examine their Sophistry The first answer is of Bellarmin distinguishing The Church saith he cannot have two principal Heads nevertheless it may have two heads whereof the one is subordinat to the other In a word he answers Christ is Caput primarium Ecclesiae primary head of the Church Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome are Capita secundaria or secundary heads But this distinction of Bellarmins is both against Scripture and Antiquity It is against Scripture which calling Christ the head of the Church and the Church the body of Christ doth so by a Metaphor taken from a humane body and as a humane body cannot have two heads one subordinat to another that the similitude may hold the Church cannot have two heads Secondly this plurality of heads in the Church is against Antiquity Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. epist 36. directed to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria exclaims most bitterly against John Bishop of Constantinople taking upon him to be head of the Church under Christ neither is it of any moment what some object that Gregory doth not inveigh against the title it self of Oecumenick Bishop but only against John Patriarch of Constantinople for usuâ—ping to himself that title Head of the Church which did not belong unto him but to the Bishop of Rome as Successor to Peter We affirm this solution is Black Sophistry because Gregory disputs generally against all who presume to take upon them that title whether Bishops of Rome or not as appears by his general reason He arguments thus He is proud and arrogant and a fore-runner of Antichrist and like Lucifer exalting himself above the other Angels who takes upon him that which is proper to Christ or belongs to Christ only But he who takes upon him to be head of the Church takes that upon him which belongs only to Christ Ergo. By which reasoning of Gregorius it is evident that he disputs against all who take upon them to be secundary heads of the Church Bishop of Rome and all his reason militats no less against the Bishop of Rome then against him of Constantinople and in his 38. Epistle he ingeminats the same reason viz. That those who take upon them to be Head of the Church under Christ will not be able to hold up their face at the last day because in so doing they took upon them that title which belonged only to Christ which title also Gregory in several other of his Epistles calls new Blasphemous against the mandats of Christ Canons of the Apostles Constitutions of the Church c. Which testimonies of Gregory shal be examined hereafter and vindicated from the sophistries of Bellarmin Baronius and others This secundary head is also assaulted by Basilius in Ascetitis in the Prooem where he calls Christ the only head of the Church And thus ye have the opinion of Basilius and Gregorius both called the Great that a Secundary Head of the Church is an Antichristian fiction since they thunder so against it in the person of any one man none can be so ignorant as to think that Gregorious exclaimed against John for taking on him that title of caput primarium Ergo the thing he disputs against is that caput secundarium defended now by Bellarmin Bellarmin nevertheless disputs for that secundary head three wayes First because it is no wayes injurious to Christ Secondly because it illustrats the glory of Christ Thirdly because it is necessar to the Church Let us hear how he pleads And first how he proves it is not contumelious to Christ His argument is this Many titles of Christ are communicated to men such as Pastor Bishop Apostle Prophet Light Foundation Yea and the title of God himself and yet no injury is done to Christ when men are called Apostles Pastors Doctors and Gods c. Ergo no injury is done to Christ when a man is called Head of the Church under Him And consequently a secundary Head of the Church is no wayes contrair to Scripture But it is answered First we have warrand in Scripture for these other titles attributed to both Christ and men but we have no warrand in Scripture to call any man Head of the Church By which it appears that our Savior hath reserved that title to himself alone It is great presumption in any man to take upon him that title belonging to Christ without any warrand Secondly those other titles coÌ„municated to men which are attributed to Christ principally may be compared to those titles which are common to a King and his Subjects Some of which without any derogation to the King at all may be communicated to the Subject as Noble Rich Powerful Lord Magistrat c. But none of the Subjects can be called Kings Just so in these titles common to Christ with men no wrong is done to Christ when they are called Lights Foundations Apostles Doctors Prophets c. But the title of head of the church can no more be coÌ„munictaed to a man then the title of a King to a subject Head of the church is the Kingdom of Christ Thirdly those other titles objected by Bellarmin common to Christ other men are not properly attributed to both but properly to the one Figuratively or Metaphorically to the other So these titles which are properly attributed to Christ are attributed to men improperly and secundum homonymiam And again these titles that are proper to men are in the same manner improperly attributed to Christ But Bellarmin and his Fellows maintain that the title of Head of the Church belongs properly both to Christ and men as the title of a King properly belongs to both Now let us examine those titles objected by Bellarmin more particularly And First Pastor Apostle Bishop Prophet these titles are attributed to men without auy injury to Christ because these titles belong properly to men and from them translated to Christ and since our Savior demits himself voluntarily to these titles it is no injury to him though they be attributed to him Metaphorically and Abusively In the next place are Light and Foundation which according to an Homonymy are attributed to Christ and to men And first Light if it were attributed to them both properly the assertion of John the Apostle would be false affirming That John Baptist was not the Light but only Christ by whom it appears also that Christ was called the Light because he illuminats men are called Lights because they are illuminated So Cyrillus Thomas Aquinas and Augustinus upon the place which last affirms that the Apostle called our Savior the true Light because he was that Light which illuminats men were only called Lights because they were illuminated by him and
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
called the body or Kingdom of the King but he endeavors to prove that the said secundary head reigns in the Church as a King doth in a Kingdom and therefore the Church may be called the body of the said secundary head if there were any such thing But since the Church is no where called the body of that secundary head it is evident that the said secundary head is a meer fiction Bellarmin gives a reason wherefore the Province is not called the body of the Viceroy but only of the King viz. because the Governor of a Province is not perpetual but only for a time And for the same reason the Church is not called the body of that secundary head because it is not perpetual but only for a time But this reason is frivolous because that secundary head of the Church is as perpetual as a King in a Kingdom and therefore the Church may be called as well body of that secundary head as a Kingdom is called the body of a King But since in Scripture the Church is no where called the body of that secundary Head it is evident it is a fiction viz. that secundary head which is further confirmed Bellarmin affirms also That the Province cannot be said to be the Province of the Viceroy because he is not absolute but it may be called the Province of the King because he is absoluto and depends upon none but God But that secundary head of the Church depends upon none but Christ and therefore the Church may as well be called his body and Church as a Kingdom may be called Kingdom of the King But since the Church is no where called body of that secundary head it is evident that the said secundary head is but a fiction Bellarmin pressed with those difficulties â—â—ies to another distinction viz. that the Church is called the body of Christ not in relation to Christ as head but only as â—e is referred to Christ as a great hypostasis as when Peter or Paul is lying any where we may affirm There lyes the body of Peter there lyes the body of Paul In which sense body comprehends head and all and is not considered as distinct from the Head and other members Bellarmin by this device doth not take away the difficulty for two reasons The first is although it were granted that the Church were called the body of Christ as the word Christ is a Hypostasis comprehending both heads and members in which sense the body of Peter or Paul may be called their body and not their head we say Although that were granted yet Bellarmin will not deny that the Church is called the body of Christ sometimes as it is referred to Christ as head and therefore if there were any Secundary head the Church would be called its bodie in that respect also which since it is not it is evident that there is no such thing as a secundary head The second reason is that it is false which Bellarmin affirms that ever the Church is called the body of Christ in that sense of great hypostasis it hath neither ground in Scripture nor Antiquity it is only devised by Bellarmin himself who abuseth Scripture and a passage of Augustinus to prove it The place of Scripture is 1 Corinth 12. verse 12. Where the Apostle affirms That all the members of the bodie although they be many yet are but one bodie even so is Christ which makes nothing for him for the Apostle there means no â—uch thing as Bellarmin affirms citing Augustinus falsly to prove it Augustins words are Non dixit ita Christi idest corpus Christi vel membra Christi sea ita Christus unum Christum appellens caput corpus as he would say The Apostle called Christ which is the head of the Church and the Church which is the bodie of Christ one Christ which he had foolishly affirmed if that had been the Apostles mind that the Church is called the body of Christ as the body of Peter and Paul lying any where comprehending the head also And thus much of that famous disput oâ— the head of the Church We have seen how Bellarmin vexetâ— himself to find out distinctions to maintain that secundary head and to show why the Church is not called the Body of that secundary head But the Roman Doctors of late maintain that the Church is and may be called the body of that secundary head seeing that Bellarmins distinctions would not serve the turn CHAP. XIII Of the Hierarchy of the Church Ephesians 4. WE have prosecuted two Arguments against the institution of the Supremacy of Peter now followeth the third which is this If Peter had been ordained by our Savior Monarch of the Church then the Apostles themselves and these who lived in their times delineating the Hierarchy of the Church would have mentioned it or affirmed That the Government of the Church was monarchical under one visible head But both the Apostles themselves and those who are confessed by our adversaries to have lived in the times of the Apostles delineating the Hierarchy of the Church put ever still more persons then one of equal authority in the highest place of the Hierarchie whereby it is evident to any who is not wilfully blinde that the Government of the Church was not by Christs Institution Monarchical And first the Apostle Paul Ephes 4. enumerating the Hierarchie of the Church verse 10 11 12 13 14. hath these words He that descended is even the same that ascended far above all heavens that he might fill all things He therefore gave some to be Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers In which words ye have the Hierarchy of the Church consisting of several degrees in every degree many persons the highest degree is that of the Apostles which are also many or in the Plural number whereby it is evident that our Savior did institute no Monarchy in the Church in one single person or in Peter neither can it be affirmed That this enumeration of Church-Officers ordained by Christ is not full or is not perfect as if the Apostle had omitted some Church-Officers ordained by Christ because it appears by verse 12 13 14. That no more were necessarie for the building up of the Church or performing any duty necessar for the Churches instruction viz. for the repairing of the â—aints for the work of the Ministrie and for the edification of the bodie of Christ verse 12. Till we all meat together in the unitie of faith and that acknowledging of the Son of God unto a perfect man and unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ verse 13. That we henceforth be no more children wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine c. By those words of the Apostle it appears that no more Church Rulers are necessar eitheir for the founding of the Church or confirming it after it is built or defending it when it is
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