Presbyter are borrowed by a metaphor from the civil administration they who ruled Cities of old among the Jews and Grecians were called Presbyters and rulers of Provinces were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops Overseers as appears by 1 Maccab. 1. All other Church Ministers were called Deacons or Ministers simply In the times of the Apostles Bishops were called Presbyters and Presbyters Bishops so Tit. 1. those who are called Presbyters verse 5. are called Bishops verse 7. It appears also by Philip. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. and Acts 20. that the Rulers of Churches in one City are called Bishops in the plural number which could not be if Presbyters were not called Bishops since there could be but one Bishop in one City as all know Those also who lived at the same time with the Apostles speak after the same manner Clement Bishop of Rome mentioned by Paul and familiar with him in his Epistles directed to the Corinthians which Epistle is mentioned by Hieronymus but never seen till of late Cyrillus Patriarch of Constantinople sent it from the Bibliothick of Alexandria to King James as a precious monument of Antiquity calls the Rulers of the Church of Corinth Bishops in the plural number directing his Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of Corinth and likewayes in the body of his Epistle he calls those very persons Bishops in one place whom he calls Presbyters in another Polycarpus also directs an Epistle to the Presbyters and Deacons of Philippi and in the body of his Epistle he calls these very persons Bishops this oâ—yearpus was the disciple of John This manner of speaking continued unto the latter end of the second Age Irenaeus who lived about that time in an Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome calls the predecessors of the said Victor Presbyters ruling the Chuâ—ch of Rome Likewayes whom he calls Presbyters lib. 3. cap. 2. in the very next Chapter he calls Bishops and again lib. 4. cap. 43. he calls them Presbyters Pius also Bishop of Rome in an Epistle to Justus Bishop of Vienna speaking of the succession of Bishops in several Places calls it a succession of Presbyters Other Testimonies might be multiplied to this purpose but it is needlesse since it is confessed by Bellarmine and Petavius that in those primitive times Presbyters were called Bishops and Bishops Presbyters promiscuously Aerius who lived about the midle of the fourth Age believed for that reason that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter in those times was one and the same and that no Bishop was Jure Divino above a Presbyter which opinion Epiphanius Hereste 75. calls Furiosum dogma and for that reason ranks Aerius among Hereticks but he answers the Arguments of Aerius vere childishly in the opinion of Bellarmine himself for when Aerius objected those formentioed passages of Scripture naming many Bishops in one City Epiphanius answers the reason is Because in these times there was such penury of Presbyters that many Bishops were in one City then which answer nothing is more ridiculous However the authority of Epiphanias is of no more weight to make any Opinion Heresie then the authority of some other Fathers who declared them Hereticks who maintained the Antipodes Avertinus lib. 3. Anal. Augustinus also seems to call Aerius an Heretick but it s very like that he calls him so for some other reason then denying the divine right of Bishops other things were laid to the charge of Aerius how justly is doubted it may be also that Augustinus takes Heresie in a large sense as it comprehends Schisme for he professeth himself in that place he knoweth not what is the regular distinction of Heresie That Schismaticks were sometimes called Hereticks appears by the sixth Canon of the first Council of Constantinople which In codice canonum is 169. That Augustine called not Aerius an Heretick for denying the divine right of Bishops but only for making a separation upon that account or else for some other reason is evident because not only Augustinus himself but also many others of the most eminent Fathers seem to be of the same opinion with Aerius as Medina confesseth and although Bellarmine and Petavius reprehend Medina for so saying yet in end both are forced to acknowledge that some of those Fathers were of that opinion Likewayes many Popish Doctors came very near the opinion of Aerius all the Protestant Divines abroad for the most part are of that opinion and many learned Protestants at home as Whitaker Reynolds c. although some eminent English Divines be against it as Andrews Hall and other learned men However it is certain that none were more submissive to Episcopal Government amongst the ancient Fathers and some of the modern Doctors then those who dispute expresly against the divine right of Bishops as Augustinus quaest 101. upon 1 Tim. 3. Hilarius upon the same place and likewayes upon Ephes 4. Hieronymus in his Epistle to Euagrius and likewayes upon Tit. 1. Ambrosius as he is cited by Amalarius upon Tim. 3. Chrysostomus and his admirer Theophylactus Primasius oecumenius Sedulius upon Tit. 1. and among the late Fathers Amalarius Isidorus Rabanus Maurus amongst the Popish Divines Cusanus lib. 2. de concordia Catholica cap. 13. Contarenus and Dionysius Carthusianus on Philip. 1. Durandus in Rationali lib. 2. cap. de Sacerdotibus and likewayes upon the sentences lib. 4. dist 34. q. 5. Marsilius Patavinus dict cap. 15. Haymo on Philip. 1. Asorius the Jesute P. 2. Q. 2. cap. 16. All which Popish Doctors came very near the opinion of Aerius and yet were very submissive to Episcopal Government Whitaker a most stout defender of Aerius yet was most submissive to the Episcopal Government and many of the most eminent Divines abroad who defended the opinion of Aerius yet in their Epistles to several English Divines they exhort dissatisfied persons to submit to the Government of the Church of England which in effect is the same with that Church Government which was established by the first general Council of Neice Those who follow the opinion of Aerius affirm that the Bishop of Rome in the beginning was nothing else but the first Presbyter or first ordained Presbyter amongst the Presbyters of the Church of Rome Hilarius by many cited by the name of Ambrosius upon Eph. 4. affirms that in those primitive times a Bishop was nothing else but primus Presbyter that is Presbyter of oldest ordination and he dying the next in order coming to be first Presbyter became hoc ipso Bishop without any new ordination as appears by the the same Author 1 Tim. 3. where he expresly affirms when any is ordained Sacerdos he is ordained both Bishop and Presbyter for saith he Una est ordinatio Presbyteri Episcopi quia uterque est Sacerdos That is The ordination of a Bishop and Presbyter in one because both are Priests Whence it appears that Bellarmine is mistaken who affirms that a first Presbyter behoved to be ordained of new when he became
Church of Rome had not a beeing the first six hundred years after Christ that it had some notable beginning about that time when Bonifacius 3d. was made first universal Bishop and encreased afterwards as the power of the Bishop of Rome encreased the one following the other as the motion of the Sea follows the Moon that many of the most substantial points of the modern Roman Faith were never generally established before the cape-stone of the Popes power was laid at the Councils of Florence and Trent at which two Councils many Tenets were established with an anathema as Articles of Faith believed to be so many paradoxes by the most learned men in the Church of Rome who lived in those times who spared not to exclaim against the fraudulent proceeding of the Pope who carried all by plurality of voices in these two Councils 1. By multitude of Italian Bishops 2. By titular Bishops that is Bishops having imaginary Titles in the East as Jerusalem Antioch c. Which Bishops he created purposely that by the number of their voices and of the Italian Bishops he might bear down in these two Councils the voices of the Bishops of Germany Spain and France The third Cheat in that mark of succession is that they make ignorants believe that all those Bishops were lawfully elected but it shall be proved in the following Disput that some were elected by Blood others by Simony others by unlawful Stipulations and Pre-contracts to establish Heresie in the Church and to condemn the Oâ—thodox Doctrine as heretical others of them by a paction with the Devil yea it shall be proved by the most eminent Antiquaries of the Church of Rome it self that since Nicolaus secundus who lived in the eleventh Century there has not been one Bishop of Rome elected according to the Law of God and Constitutions of the primitive Church and that their manner of election at this day is so detestable that none can hear of it without horror The fouâ—th Cheat in that mark of succession is this we have redacted that succession to a number of persons of unequal power contrary Doctrine unlawfully elected now rests a bare personal succession in which there is a notable Cheat also because they obtrude for the true Successor persons that are not capable by their own principles of the Function as appears by three unanswerable reasons The first is a woman was Pope for several years together and whereas Bellarmine and Baronius affirms it was a fiction it is answered since those Historians who relate it for a truth lived in tâ—ose very times in which it fell out or at least very near them and since those who call it a fable lived long after and are but of yeaster-day in respect of those who affirm it to be of a truth no judicious Reader needs to be puzled much which party to believe since those who called it a truth professed themselves to be as obedient Sons to the Church of Rome as those who call it a fable The second reason against the continuity of that personal succession is this the Chair of Rome hath been for several years empty and without a Bishop and whereas they affirm that the power then of the Bishop is in the Cardinals it shall be proved by their own Learned Antiquaries that the modern power of those Cardinals was a thing unkown to the Ancients and to be nothing else but a new devised Cheat. The third reason against that personal succession is this it is known to all who are versed in History that many Popes have been at one time and the subtillest Wits amongst them could never yet decern which was the true Successor and which not one part of the Church adhering to the one another to the other another to the third Pope As happened in the time of the Council of Constance anno 1416. at which time there were three Popes It is certain one of them could be only the true Pope and yet all of them created Cardinals some of which not only created other Popes afterwards but also became Popes themselves but those Cardinals who received orders from the false Popes are by their own Principles incapable of electing Popes much more of being Popes themselves It must of necessity follow that many Popes have been at innumerable times Bishops of Rome not lawful which quite destroyes that personal succession They are pressed with the same difficulty in the case of Simony It is granted by themselves that many Bishops of Rome have obtained that Chair by Simony It is granted also by them that those are not lawful Popes that those ordained by them are incapable of Orders It is confessed by them also that several Popes obtaining the Chair by Simony have created Cardinals which elected other Popes and some of them also became Popes themselves which quite destroyeth that uninterrupted personal succession as they cannot deny And this much of that first mark of the true Church pretended by the Romanists to prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church viz. succession of Bishops The second mark is Antiquity of which they brag very much but have very little reason Cicero lib. 2. de Orator relates a passage between Crassus that famous Orator and one Silus who accused another person before the Senate for uttering some dangerous expressions Crassus defends him thus It may be saith he that he spake these words in passion Silus granted it might be Crassus urgeth the second time It may be you understood not what he said Silus seemed not averse to that neither Crassus goeth on the third time It may be saith he that ye affirm that ye heard him utter these speeches whereas ye heard no such thing at all at which Silus was confounded and replyed nothing at all then all the company fell a laughing Those instances of Crassus against Silus may fitly be urged against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome bragging of the testimonies of Antiquity that is of Councils and Fathers His first instance was that the person accused by Silus perhaps was in passion but it is known and shall be proved that those of the Church of Rome are seconded by no testimonies of Antiquity at all but either they are of Bishops of Rome themselves or else of their flatterers But Aeneas Silvius afterwards Pope himself under the name of Pâ—us 2d in his Commentaries upon the Council of Basile hath these following expressions against such testimonies his words are Nec considerant miseri quae tantopere jactant verba aut ipsorum summorum pontificum sunt fimbrias suas extendentâ—um aut eorum qui iis adulabantur that is Neither do these miserable men consider that those testimonies of which they brag are either of Bishops of Rome themselves enlarging their own Authority or else of those who are their flatterers Now to the application Crassus reasoned that a testimony spoken in passion should not be regarded but who will deny those testimonies of Bishops of
the keys of the kingdom of heaven The third is Joh. 21. 15. 16 17. Feed my sheep feed my lambs But Cardinal Cusanus lib. 2. concord Cathol cap. 13. expresly affirmes that in all those three places nothing was given in peculiar to Peter which was not given to all the Apostles which he also proves by the testimony of Hieronymus 2. The main Basis of the Popes supremacy is in the exposition of these words Tu es Petrus viz. That Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built Pighius and Baronius and others affirm that all are ignorants hereticks mad men who acquiesced not in this exposition That Peter is the Rock But it shall be proved in the first six Chapters of the fiâ—st Book not only by innumerable testimonies of Popish Doctors but also of a great many Popes themselves that not Peter but the thing confessed by Peter is the Rock viz. Christ himself 3. Another Basis of the Popish Religion is that Peter had his jurisdiction immediatly from Christ and the other Apostles theirs from Peter Bellarmine and others affirm that if this be not granted the supremacy of Peter cannot be defended and consequently the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and the whole body of the Popish Religion falls with it But Franciscus de victoria affirmed by Canus to be the ablest Divine of Spain exsibilats this distinction of Peters immediat jurisdiction and refutes the gloss on Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae for exponing a passage in Cyprian from which they gather this distinction proving by the testimonies of Cyprian himself in that very place corrupted by the Glosse which Glosse is approved by the Church of Rome that Cyprian in these words expresly disputs against that immediat Jurisdiction of Peter and mediat of the other Apostles and affirms that all the Apostles had not only their order but also their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ 4. They prove the Supremacy of Peter by his carriage and prerogatives but Salmero the Jesuit expresly affirms that nothing can be gathered from the carriage of Peter to prove him oecumenick Bishop but much to the contrary Yea the Council of Basil it self pronounced that the Legats of the Pope had no right of presiding in general Councils because it could neither be proved by Scripture nor Antiquity that ever Peter presided in any Council or at that of Jerusalem 5. They brag much of Cyprian that he is for the Supremacy of Peter and also Augustin and other Fathers but Barronius himself confesseth that both Cyprian and Augustine died out of communion with the Church of Rome for resisting her encroaching upon the Churches of Africk that is for admitting of Appellations from Africk to Rome for doing of which Bonifacius Secundus Bishop of Rome affirms that Aurelius and Augustinus were seduced by the Devil and yet both of them are placed in the Roman Callender as Saints and notwithstanding all their braggings of Cyprian let one speak for all saith Barronius in time most ancient in learning most excellent in martyrdom most glorious for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome yet Stapleton the Jesuit expresly affirms that Cyprian in that subject utitur verbis errantium mire hereticorum causae patrocinari videtur And Bellarmine himself confesseth that we do not read that ever Cyprian was reconciled to the Church of Rome after his resisting of Stephanus the Bishop of Rome his pretending right of Appellations from Africa And this much of their concord and unity in that Cardinal question of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome which falling Bellarmine as we said grants that the whole body of the Popish Religion falls with it comparing it without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome to a house without a foundation a man when his head is stricken off to star-light without the Sun We could instance their discord in many of their most substantial Tenets what question is of greater importance then that of Transubstantion It is the general opinion of the Doctors of the Church of Rome that it was imbraced as an Article of Faith from the beginning and yet those two great Popish Doctors Scotus and Bonaventur expresly maintain that Transubstantiation was never believed as an Article of Faith before the Council of Lateran anno 1225. Yea Scotus expresly affirms were it not for the authority of that Council he would not believe it himself it hath so little ground in Scripture and Antiquity The main ground of which prodigious Article is those words of our Saviour Hoc est corpus meum and other expressions of his John 6. But it shall be proved part 4. lib. 2. by the testimonies of many Popish Doctors that nothing can be gathered from either place for proving of it It were too prolix in this Preface to mention all the contradictions of the Doctors of the Church of Rome in their most substantial Tenets Your Lordships may read them at large in the following Treatise almost through the whole body of it but most expresly part 4. lib. 2 where your Lordships will not only find Doctors contradicting Doctors but also Popes accusing Councils Councils accusing Popes Councils accusing Councils Popes in Cathedra taxing Popes in Cathedra of Heresies Madnesse Ignorance And this much of the sixth mark of the Church of Rome by which they pretend it is proved to be the true Church viz. Unity The seventh mark is Saints they object to the Protestants that they lean too much on Christ trusting nothing to their own merits which occasions so much prophanenesse amongst them but we say they the Church of Rome are adorned with innumerable Saints stirred up to holiness because works are meritorious in the sight of God quis tulerit grachos de seditione quoerentes Let us retex this mark of Saints that we may see what reason they have to brag of it And first they cannot brag of the Sanctity of their Clergy witnesse the exclamations of all Ages against the corruption of the Clergy of the Church of Rome when they got a little breathing from persecution we need not mention the complaints not only of the Ancients but also of modern Popish Doctors against the corruptions of the Clergy of Rome Cyprian began the complaint in his time when the Church was yet under persecution But when the Emperours became Christians the Clergy by their beneficence became rich Hieronymus in his time thirteen hundred years ago was so irritated by the vicious lives of the Roman Clergy that Damasus Bishop of Rome dying to whom he was Secretary he left Rome and went to Palestina to live as a Monk comparing Rome to Babylon and the seat of the Whore Ammianus Marcellinus in the opinion of Baronius a Pagan declaimed bitterly against the viciousnesse of the Roman Clergy It were tedious to mention the complaints of these of the first six Centuries against the viciousness of the Roman Clergy as of Basilius Magnus Nazianzenus Sulpitius Severus and others as the greatnesse of the Bishop
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
affirms also that the Apostleship was restored unto him by these words of our Savior Feed my Sheep After his answering the three-fold interrogation of Christ he had professed thrice He loved Christ by testimonies of which Fathers it appears that nothing peculiar to Peter was given in these words Feed my Sheep Since the Apostleship is common to Peter with the other Apostles And therefore Peter was not ordained Oecumenick Bishop in these words The third Sophistry of Bellarmin consists in his reasoning thus If Peter saith he had believed that these words of Christ had belonged to John as well as to himself or if our Savior had injoyned to John the feeding of his Sheep as well as unto Peter Peter would never have demanded of our Savior What John should do Neither would our Savior have answered him What is that to thee Follow thou me For Peter would have known what John should do viz. Feed Christs Sheep and our Savior would have answered him John shal feed my Sheep as thou dost But it is answered This disputation of Bellarmins is most shameless babling for that question of Peter Asking what John should do And that answer of Christ What is that to thee are not relative to these words of Christ Feed my Sheep but to these verse 18. When thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thine hands shewing to Peter what death he should die Whereupon Peter asketh Christ What John should do or what should become of him or what death he should die To which our Savior answers What is that to thee That this is the true gloss appears by the text it self by the Fathers Cyrillus Euthymius by the ordinar gloss by all the Ancient Popish Doctors upon the place As Aquinas Carthusianus Gorranus Cajetanus Toletus by late Popish Doctors as Maldonatus Barradas and Emmanuel Sa So that Bellarmins gloss is nothing els but one of his new devised fictions by which he and others of late endeavor to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome contrair to common sense Scripture and the whole current of Popish Doctors themselves who lived before these last times Fourthly Bellarmin comes on with an other of his glosses of like nature viz. seeing that it could not be denyed that other Apostles and Pastors beside Peter were injoyned to feed the Flock of Christ since it was so clearly asserted by Scripture and Fathers He invents a new distinction that they did it by the permissiom of Peter or to use his own words Quia vocantur à Peâ—ro in partem solicitudinis that is because they had a calling from Peter so to do or Were admitted by him to a part of the care But it is answered This distinction of Bellarmins hath not the least ground It is against Scripture John 20. 21. and Matthew 28. 19. as both passages are expounded by the Fathers It is contrair to Fathers as was proved by the testimonies of the Clergy of Rome of Cyrianus of Augustinus Chrysostomus and Basilius Finally it is contrair to Popish Doctors as Franciscus de Victoria who as we shewed before disputed expresly That all the Apostles had not only their Order but also their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ And reprehended the ordinar gloss for using that distinction in exposition of that place of Cyprian de Vnitate Ecclesiae All the Apostles after the Resurrection had alike authority and power from Christ Neither can Bellarmin produce one testimony of Antiquity to maintain his gloss viz. That Peter immediatly had the power of feeding the Flock of Christ from Christ himself and the other Apostles and Pastors had it only from Peter Sanderus lib. 6. cap. 4. of his Monarchy useth another argument from those words of our Savior Peter lovest thou me more then these From which words he concluds That the Feeding of the flock of Christ was injoyned immediatly only to Peter because saith he Peter loved Christ better then the other Apostles did and therefore the â—eeding of the flock of Christ was committed to him alone as the reward of his love But it is answered First it cannot be gathered from the text that Peter loved Christ better then the other Apostles did since Christ only asked him whither he loved him better then the other Apostles did Peter answered thou knowest that I love thee but he adds not better then the other Apostles do 2. Tho it were granted as some of the Fathers maintain that Peter loved Christ better then the other Apostles did it is inconsequent for that reason to conclude that Peter had Jurisdiction over the rest for the same argument would conclude that the Apostle John had Jurisdiction over those Apostles who loved not Christ so well as himself that Stephanus a Deacon had Jurisdiction over Nicolaus and other Deacon that Peter himself had more ample Jurisdiction then Sylvester second Alexander sixth and other Monsters which were Bishops of Rome which Bellarmin will not grant readily since all Bishops of Rome are in his opinion of alike authority with Peter Lastly Turrianus lib. 2. cap. 22 in his defence against Zadeel reasons thus Let it be granted saith he that all the Apostles and all Pastors had their authority of feeding the Flock of Christâ— it doth not hinder a distinction of Order among them not though that authority be equal as they are Pastors yet it doth hinder one to be a Presbyter an other to be a Bishop above him another to be universal Bishop above all as all men qua homines or as men are equals yet some of them are Kings others subjects But it is answered It far less follows that there are several degrees of Church Orders because they are of alike authority or that because these words Feed my sheep were injoyned with alike authority to Linus and Cletus Bishops of Rome therefore the one of them was Oecumenick Bishop the other not The truth is to answer in earnest to Turrianus its false which he affirms That the equality of Authority can consist Jure Divino with Subordination of one Bishop to another All Bishops are Jure Divino of alike Authority Subordination or distinction of degrees in Bishops are Jure humano as shal be proved in the following Books We have vindicated two reasons why these words of our Sâ—vior Feed my sheep conclude not that Peter was ordained Oecumenick Bishop The first was That feeding of the sheep of Christ inferrs no dominion over them The second was because our Savior injoyned the Feeding of his sheep to others as well as to Peter which we proved by Scripture and Fathers and answered all what our Adversaries objected to the contrair Now followeth a third Reason wherefore those words of our Savior to Peter Feed my sheep doth not conclude him Oecumenick Bishop and is this because many were Christs sheep whom Peter did not feed as the Indians Ethiopians and Gentiles committed to the Apostleship of Paul yea the very Apostles themselves were the sheep of Christ and yet we
the Church of Rome since it cannot be denyed that the Bishop of Rome hath domination and as shal immediately be proved Tyranick domination And therefore all the Doctors of the Church of Rome distinguish viz. that Tyranick domination is only forbidden 1. Peter 5. they deny that the domination of an Oecumenick Bishop is Tyranical But it is replyed First that all domination is forbidden and not only Tyranical domination Secondly the domination of an Oecumenick Bishop is tyranical as it is now excercised by the Bishop of Rome Haius our Countrey-man disput lib. 1. answers that Peter 1. 5. forbidds only tyrannical domination which he proves by the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Apostle in the said place which evermore imports tyrannical domination as the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to exercise dominion lawfully But he is mistaken Both these verbs are used promiscuously in Scripture for the same both signifying lawful dominion or exercising dominion lawfully as appears by comparing Matthew 20. 25. and Mark 10. 42. where the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used speaking how the Kings of the Gentiles exercise dominion over their Subjects But Luke 22. 25. speaking of the same Lording he useth the other Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereby it appears that these two Greek verbs signify both one sort of ruling which is lawful and not the one of them used by Peter 1. 5. signifyeth tyrannical domination Since none will deny that the ruling or domination of the Kings of the Gentiles may be lawful domination Which is further confirmed because the Septuagints speaking of lawful domination in many places useth the same Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made use of by Peter 1. 5. 3. as Psalm 72. 8. and 110. 2. and Genesis 1. 28. other innumerable places might be added but these are sufficient It is answered Secondly Although it were granted that tyrannical domination were only forbidden Peter 1. 5. yet it quite overthrowes an Oecumenick Bishop Or the domination now exercised by the Bishop of Rome then which no greater tyranny can be imagined since he takes upon himself supream dominion 1. In Spirituals 2. In Temporals 3. Over Souls departed 4. Over Angels 5. He takes upon him titles proper to God himself 6. Hears blasphemous comparisons of himself with Christ made to himself by others not only not punishing these blaspheming Parasytâ— but also hearing them patiently and rewarding them These six particulars seem incredible notwithstanding that they are the doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome and particular Church of Rome the infallibility of which Bellarmin with great animosity endeavors to demonstrate lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. cap. 4. appears by what followeth tracing these six particulars in order And first He assumes to himself Infallibility in Cathedra that is Teaching the whole Church he cannot err which is most abominable tyranny since under the pain of Heresie we are bound to believe a Pope if he shal teach Heresie They strive to elude this Because a Pope cannot teach Heresie to the whole Church Which assertion of theirs is false as appears by these following reasons First It is granted by them all that Popes may be most wicked men yea and Magicians But it is madness to affirm that men living in paction with the Devil cannot err teaching the whole Church Secondly It is evident by History and confessed by Barronius himself Anno 538. num 20. and Liberatus breviar cap. 22. that Vigilius Bishop of Rome obtained that Bishoprick from the Empress Theodora and from Belisarius General to Justinianus the Emperor by promising to the Empress to cass and abrogat the Council of Chalcedon to establish by authority the Eutychian Heresie and by promising gold to the said Belisarius and likewise that he wrote several Epistles to several persons confirming them in the Eutychian Heresie But it is impudence to deny that any entring to the Bishoprick of Rome by such means can be infallible in teaching the Church Thirdly They who affirm and teach that a Bishop of Rome is infallible in Cathedra fights against reason common sense and the light of all History by which it appears that several Popes have not only been condemned by other Popes and general Councils for Hereticks but also for teaching Heresie Of which we shal give many instances part 3. lib. 2. tedious to be inserted here we will only mention Honorius Bishop of Rome who was condemned as an Heretick by the sixth General Council act 12. 13. by the seventh General Council in the last â—ct by the eight General Council act 7. And likewise it appears by the records of the said Councils that the said Honorius was declared an Heretick by three Bishops of Rome Agatho Leo second and Adrianus second and lest they think to escape this difficulty by distinguishing as they use to do in such cases that Honorius taught Heresie as a private person and not in Cathedra It is evident by the 12. and 13. Act of the sixth Council that the said Council condemned two decretal Epistles of the said Honorius as Heretical But none will deny that Popes in their decretals teach the whole Church Alphonsus de castro lib. 1. cap. 4. page 20. concluds Calestinus Bishop of Rome taught Heresie because he had read Heretical Doctrine in an old decretal Epistle of his Likewise of late Pope John 23. was declared an Heretick by the Council of Constance and Eugenius 4. by the Council of Basil By which is sufficiently proved The tyrannical dominion of the Bishops of Rome in Spirituals since all of that Church are bound to believe that as an Article of Faith which he teacheth although he should teach Heresie call good evil and evil good As appears by that blasphemous gloss In caput quanto personam de translatione Episcopi in decretalibus Where it is affirmed that none should presume to call in question what the Pope doth Since he hath an Heavenly arbitriment can change the nature of things make Justice Injustice Injustice Justice Which if it be not tyrannical domination none is imaginable the words of the gloss are these following Papa habet coeleste arbitrium ideo naturam rerum mutare potest substantialia unius rei applicando alij de nullo posse aliquid facere sententiam quae nulla est facere aliquam in his quae vult ei esse pro ratione voluntatem nec esse qui ei dicat cur ita facis Potest enim suprajus dispensare de injustitia facere justitiam corrigendo jura mutando demum plenitudinem obtinet potestatis It shal be proved likewise part 4. lib. 1. that he gives pardons for money for sins to be committed for so many years to come And thus much of his tyrannical dominion in Spirituals which was the first particular The second particular of his tyrannical dominion is in Temporals Authority of deposing Kings is attributed unto him it is taught by the
confirmed from onsets of the Devil or his instruments and since no visible Monarch of the Church is mentioned by the Apostle it is evident that there was no such Monarch ordained by Christ Bellarmin answers two wayes One way is that the Apostle in those words is not delineating the Hierarchy of the Church but only enumerating divers gifts of some of the Church and 1 Corinthians 12. he adds the gift of tongues But it is replyed It cannot be denyed but the Apostle is enumerating diversity of gifts since verse 7. He expresly affirms so much but it is to be added that he enumerats those gifts as they are in Officers of the Church only whence appears the dissimilitude of this place from 1 Corinth 12. In which gifts are enumerated which are not peculiar to Church Rulers but are also found in laiks Such as gifts of healing and tongues c. That this is the Apostles meaning appears by two reasons First â—he enumerats none verse 11. Who hath not a degree of ruling in the Church The second is because ver 12. 13 14 He doth not enumerat any utility redounding to the Church which is not wrought by the Ministry ver 11. He enumerats the Ministers of the Church ver 12. 13 14. He enumerats the ends wherefore these Ministers were ordained All which ends Oecumentus comprehends under one that is saith he Those degrees of Ministers enumerated verse 12. were for that end ordained that they might minister unto the Church as appears ver 12 13 14. It is to be observed that the Apostle enumerats here all Church Officers both extraordinar and ordinar The extraordinar are those who were ordained only to continue for a time Such as Apostles Evangelists Prophets Ordinar are those ordained to be of perpetual standing in the Church as Doctors and Pastors And since in all those Orders of Church Ministers there are many and not one only in each degree it is evident that one Oecumenick Bishop or a visible head of the Church is not comprehended under any of those Ministers Bellarmin puzled with this answers another way He grants that the enumeration of Church Ministers here is perfect but he denyes that an Oecumenick Bishop hath no place in that enumeration because saith he All the â—ierarchy of the Church and consequently an Oecumenick Bishop is confusâ—dly represented under the name of Pastors and Doctors But finding that Pastors and Doctors were only inferior Orders below Apostles Prophets and Evangelists He passeth from this and affirms next That an Oecumenick Bishop is comprehended under Apostles because not only here but also 1 Corinth 12. Apostles are put in the first place and therefore the chief Ecclesiastick Power was given to all the Apostles but to Peter as ordinar Pastor and therefore to have a Successor in it to the other Apostles as exraordinar and Delegats to Peter and therefore none should succeed them But it is answered we prolixly disputed this distinction of Bellarmins to be groundless contradictory and inconsistent with it self cap. 6. It is needless to repeat what we said there in this place It is sufficient here that never any ancient or Modern Interpreter before the times of the Jesuits did so much as dream that an Oecumenick Bishop was comprehended by the Apostle Ephes 4. 11. Which could be made out by an Induction of all the Commentaries of ancient and Modern Writers upon that place By which it appears that all those testimonies by which those Jesuits prove the Supremacy of Peter and consequently the verity of the Roman Faith are either in Scripture or Fathers depraved by new devised Glosses unknown to the Ancients and also their answers are of the same stuff by which they elude passages of Scripture and Antiquity destroying the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome and in it the whole edifice of the Roman Church Both their offensive and defensive arms are but devised of late since the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome was established That any may see that this Gloss of Bellarmins is a fiction of his own devising we will prove by three Arguments of three several Interpreters By which it will appear what was the opinion of the Church concerning the meaning of this passage Ephes 4. 11. since the times of the Apostles unto those dayes The first Interval is of the Primitive Church before the Council of Nice what was the opinion of that Church in that Interval appears by the testimony of the ancient Author by some believed to be Dionysius Areopagita the disciple of Paul his words epistle 8. are those Tu ergo cupiditati iracundiae rationi modum statue pro dignitate tibi verò divini Ministri his Sacerdotes Pontifices Sacerdotibus Pontificibus Apostali stoli Apostolorúmque successores Quod si quâ—s etiam in istis ab officio discedat à sanctis qui sunt ejusdem ordinis corrigetur atque ita non insultabit ordo in ordinem sed unusquisque in suo ordine ac Ministerio premanebit In which words ye have two things The first is That the chief place in the Hierarchy in the times of the Apostles was held not by one but by many viz. by all the Apostles alike neither makes he mention of Peter his having that chief power as ordinar Pastor and of the other Apostles as having it aâ— Delegats to Peter which will be further confirmed by the second thing observable in these words which is this After the Apostles were removed the chief place in the Hierarchy consisted also not in one person but in many alike viz. in Bishops who succeeded to the Apostles in the first place of the Hierarchie which also he expresly affirms to be of equal Order and Jurisdiction many and not one having Jurisdiction over all as a visible head which quite destroyes the Gloss of Bellarmin for if others succeeding to the other Apostles were in the first place of the Hierarchie which this Author flatly affirms it is false which Bellarmin affirms that all the Apostles had the chief power only during their own time not communicable to their Successors And likewise if those successors of the other Apostles were in the first place of the Hierarchy equally and alike as this Author also affirms It is false which Bellarmin affirms That the Successors of Peter the Apostle had â—he chief authority in their single persons as visible Monarchs of the Church It may be proved by the Glosses of Maximus and others that this Dionysius was not the Disciple of the Apostle Paul mentioned in the Acts because he seems to make mention of the Metropolitants above Bishops But it shal be proved lib. 2. by unanswerable testimonies That there was no Office above that of a Bishop in the Church before the latter end of the third age However albeit he be not the Disciple of Paul as some affirm he is yet he is an ancient Author and delineats the Hierarchie of the Church not to have been monarchical in his days
The second testimony is of Ambrosius who lâ—ved in that interval between the Council of Nice and anno 604. at which time Bonifacius third was made first of all the Bishops of Rome universal Bishop by an Edict of the Emperor Phocas The words of Ambrosius are Apostoli sunt Episcopi nam in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt quia primus sacerdos est hoc est Princeps Sacerdotum Propheta Evangelista ad caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in Ministerio fidelium In which words he is shewing what Church-Rulers in his own time were answerable to or represented these mentioned by Paul Ehes 4. 11. And he affirms That Bishops succeeded to the Apostles in the first place of the Hierarchie Apostoli sunt Episcopi saith he in which words he expresly affirms That the chief place in the Hierarchie in his own time which was the latter end of the 4. Age was in many and not in one viz. in Bishops who answered to the Apostles And consequently he contradicts this gloss of Bellarmin who affirms that the Successors of Peter and not of the other Apostles only succeeded in the first place of Hierarchie as Monarchs of the Church One Tenebrio or an other whose name I have forgot and also where I read it intends to prove by these words of Ambrosius an Oecumenick Bishop because Ambrosius makes mention of these words of Primus Socerdos and Princeps Sacerdotum that is of first Priest and Prince of Priests But any if not altogether stupid or else intending to deceive may perceive that it is far from the meaning of Ambrosius his words are Bishops succeed to the Apostles or answer to the Apostles mentioned by Paul Ephes 4. 11 because a Bishop is first Priest and Prince of Priests by which iâ— appears that he is comparing Bishops with inferior Priests or Presbyters and not Bishops with Bishops Which is further confirmed because not only Hieronymus contemporarie with Ambrosius and other Fathers but also Ambrosius himself calls all Bishops Summos Sacerdotis or chief Priest and of alike Jurisdiction So Anacletus epist. 2. Tertullianus de Baptism cap. 17. Hieronymus contra Luciferianos and in his Epistle to Evagrius Gaudentius in tractu de Prim. die suae ordinat Eusebius Emissenus in Homil. Augustinus epist 36. which is of Paulinus to Romanianus Ambrosius himself lib. 3. cap. 1. de Sacramentis and also epist 5. 34. Other innumerable testimonies could be produced proving all Bishops alike are Summi Pontifices or Sacerdotes and consequently that the first place of the Hierarchie is in many alike and not in one single person as in the Bishop of Rome or successor of Peter The third testimony is of Anselmus who lived in the 11. age who explaining what Church-Rulers were answerable to these mentioned by Paul Ephes 4. 11 In which he numbers the Apostle Pettr Andrew c. To which now-adays saith he Answers Primats and Patriarchs or Arch-Bishops which quite destroys the gloss of Bellarmin since he makes many in the first place of the Hierarchie and doth not dream that the other Apostles were delegats to Peter and had the first place in the Hierarchie for that reason not communicable to their successors And thus we have proved that the first place of the Hierarchie Jur. divino was not in one single person which we have demonstrated by Scripture and Antiquity And consequently that Peter was not ordained by our Savior Monarch of the Church which was our third argument These of the Church of Rome answers the testimonies of these Fathers calling All Bishops alike or all Bishops High-Priests by distinguishing equality in that of Order and that of Jurisdiction In the first sense they grant all Bishops are alike but not in the last We proved before and shal prove hereafter that distinction is frivolous for the present it will be sufficient to refute that distinction of Order and Jurisdiction by the testimony of an Author in great esteem in the Church of Rome and believed by them to be the Disciple of the Apostle Paul viz. Dionysius Arcopagita whom we now mentioned epist 8. hath these words If any do amiss he is to be censured by the Priests If the Priest go astray he is to be ordered by the Bishop If the Bishop debord he should be judged by those who succeeded to the Apostles but if those debord they ought be judged by those of the same Order Observe he puts many in the same order of alike Jurisdiction In the first place of the Hierarchie which quite destroys that distinction of Order and Jurisdiction CHAP. XIV Of Luke 22. 25. Compared with Matthew 20. 25 26. And Matthew 18. And Luke and Mark 9. HItherto hath been disputed the institution of Peters supremacy pro and contra it hath been defended by these three famous passages of Scripture Matthew 16. 18. Matthew 16. 19. and John 21. 15. 16 17. It hath been brangled by other three Peter 1. 5. 3. Ephes 1. 22. and from Ephes 4. 11. Before we proceed to dispute the supremacy of Peter by his cariage We will first explain a passage of Scripture claimed by both that is the Romanists by it endeavor to establish the supremacy of Peter The Protestants by the same place endeavor to overthrow it the place is Luke 22 24 25 26. where after Supper a strife arose among the Disciples who should be greatest Verse 24 Our Savior answers That the Kings of the Gentiles rule over them and for that reason are called bountiful verse 25 But saith he Ye shal not be so but let the greatest among you be as the least and the chiefest as he that serveth Verse 26. Let us examine First how the one side endeavor to assault the supremacy of Peter by these words In the next place shal be disputed how the other side by the same words assert it The one or other side must of necessity prove the Sophister let us examine which And the Reader may judge which side hath the better The Protestants urge this place against the supremacy of Peter in the same manner as they did that passage of 1. Peter 5. 3. disputed and vindicated before cap. 11. viz. ruling or domination is forbidden in the Church in this place Luke 22. 25. which cannot consist with an Oecumenick Bishop which our Adversaries grant to have the right of domination in the Church Bellarmin and Sanderus answer in this place Tyrannical domination is only forbidden and not all domination their reason is because domination and ruling like that of the Kings of the Gentiles is only forbidden and not all domination But it is replyed That this answer is grounded upon two false suppositions The first is That all domination of the Kings of the Gentiles is tyrannical The second is that these words verse 26. But ye shal not be so have relation to the way of domination and not to domination it self The first supposition is false As is proved thus First It
his Institution Prerogatives and Carriage It remains only now to disput the Supremacy of Peter pro and contra by testimonies of Fathers And first we will examin the testimonies of Bellarmin cap. 19. 20. where he useth many repetitions according to his custom of testimonies disputed already In the next place we will examine testimonies of Fathers pretended by Protestants cap. 21. and with them absolve this disput of the Supremacy of Peter CHAP. XIX Testimonies of Fathers examined seeming to prove the authority of Peter over the Church HItherto our adversaries have disputed the supremacy of Peter from his institution prerogatives and carriage now they endeavour to prove it by testimonies of Fathers from which they muster up an army of Testimonies in number 24. which Bellarmine affirms to be the Oracles of the 24 Elders in the Revelation and that nothing can be answered to those testimonies except that answer of Luther and Calvin to the testimonies of Leo viz. that they were men and consequently might erre but it will appear by the Protestants answers that these testimonies are not so invincible All those testimonies may be reduced to two general Classes the first is in which Peter is compared with the whole Church the second wherein he is compared with the other Apostles the first Classe again is subdivided in several sorts according to the diversity of attributes given to Peter The first kind are those testimonies wherein Christ saith to Peter upon this Rock c. feed my Sheep I will give to thee the Keys c. which is the third time that Bellarmine hath repeated them and therefore it is sufficient to answer as before that nothing was given peculiar to Peter as was not only asserted by those Fathers mentioned by Bellarmine as Origen and others but likewayes proved by them The second sort are of those Fathers affirming that the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter which he proves by the testimonies of Chrysostomus in his his 55. Homile upon Matthew where Peter is called Pastor Ecclesiae Pastor of the Church and likewayes of Maximus sermon 3. de Apostolis of Gregorius lib. 4. epist 32. who both affirm that the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter But it is answered so was it to all the Apostles in those words Go and teach all Nations Matth. 28. 2. Chrysostomus in many places affirms that Paul had a care of the whole World that he had Orbis praefecturam Homilia 22. in 1. Cor. And likewayes that all the Apostles had the care of the whole Church Hom. 87. upon John he likewayes affirms that Timothy governed the whole World Hom. 1. to the people of Antioch and likewayes that Timothy took upon him praefecturam totius orbis Orat. 6. against the Jews whereby it appears that by Peters having care of the whole Church he is not proved to be oecumenick Bishop since others had the same care of the whole Church Neverthelesse Bellarmine useth two cheats the first is in citing Chrysostomus calling Peter Pastor of the whole Church whereas the Greek imports only he erected his mind and made him Pastor his second cheat is in citing Gregorius as if his meaning were that Peter was oecumenick Bishop because the care of the whole Church was committed to him whereas it is notorious that Gregorius in those words is disputing against an oecumenick Bishop amongst other reasons he brings for one although the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter yet he was not universal Apostle which last words Bellarmine fraudulently supresseth The third rank of testimonies are those calling Peter head of the Church as of Chrysostomus Hom. 55. on Matth. of Cyprianus ad Jubaianum of Augustine sermon 125. de tempore of Hugo Ethereanus lib. 3. against the Grecians But it is answered first that those testimonies prove nothing as for Cyprianus he is not speaking of Peter at all his words are only Ecclesiae unius caput radicem tenemus that is we abide in the unity of the Church which is one and head of the faithful But of this testimony more hereafter It is sufficient to tell for the present that Pamelius who useth to catch the least advantages for the supremacy of Peter in his Annotations upon those words of Cyprian mentions nothing to that purpose as for Chrysostomus he calls not Peter head of the Church at all it is only Trapizuntius who translates him unfaithfully as for Augustinus those books de tempore no learned man will affirm to be his for two reasons the first is because he calls Peter the foundation not only of the Church but also of the Faith which is far from Augustinus mind who interprets the Rock or Foundation not to be Peter at all for which Bellarmine and others tax him of ignorance as we said before The second reason is because he calls Peters denying of Christ Exiguum peccatum a small sin but non aggravates it more then Augustinus as for Hugo Ethereanus he lived but of late in the twelfth Age according to Bellarmine but in the fifteenth according to others and therefore his testimony can no more be regarded by the Protestants then the testimony of Luther and Calvin by Bellarmine Secondly albeit Peter were proved to be head of the Church by those testimonies it doth not prove that he was oecumenick Bishop because others beside Peter are also called heads of the Church by the Fathers Martyrius is called Praeses and head of the Church epist 1. incert Patriarch in corpore juris graeco Romani Athanasius is called head of all men by Basilius epist 52. Paul is called head of nations by Gregorius 1. in his fourth book upon Kings 1. James and John are likewise called heads by Chrysostomus in his 26. Homile upon the Acts yea all Pastors and Doctors are called heads by Gregorius second Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to â—ermanus of Constantinople in the second Synod of Neice By which testimonies it appears that the words Caput or head infers not an oecumenick Bishop but either a primacy of order or rather eminency in gifts and so it is taken by Paul 1 Cor. 12. The fourth rank of testimonies are those stiling Peter Bishop of the Christians Christianorum Pontifex primus for which Bellarmine produceth Eusebius in his Chron anno 44. But it is answered first that there are no such words in the Greek text of Eusebius restored by Scaliger Secondly although it were proved by Eusebius it doth not conclude that Peter was oecumenick Bishop because it appears that Cyprianus epist 69. when he was demanded to have him Martyred was called Episcopus Christianorum Bishop of the Christians but saith Bellarmine Peter was called by Eusebius first Bishop of the Christians but not so Cyprianus But say the protestants the word First imports only a priority of order dignity or time and not of jurisdiction many of the Fathers gave to Peter that title of First or primus because they
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
those expresly denying that Peter had any superiority above the other Apostles of which kind we alledged many In this Chapter we will vindicate the said testimonies from the exceptions of our Adversaries and because their answers to them all are almost the same with those which they make unto a certain passage of Cyprian and an other of Hieronymus we will vindicat both those passages from their sophistâ—y which are in effect two notable ones The first testimony is of Cyprianus de unitate ecclesiae Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis That is What ever Peter was the other Apostles were the same indued with alike fellowship of honour and power This is a notable passage in which Cyprianus is expresly disputing against the supremacy of Peter for first he affirms all the Apostles were the same which Peter was and least any should think that his meaning is only that they were all Apostles or fellows he adds Pari consortio they were of alike fellowship since it might be objected that inequality might be amongst those of the same fellowship and our Adversaries ordinarily distinguish between order and jurisdiction as if the other Apostles were inferiour to Peter in jurisdiction he adds they were alike fellows in honour and power that is they had all alike jurisdiction with Peter This place of Cyprian puts our Adversaries to their witts end they elude it two wayes they who have any shame by sophistry others more impudente by forgery we will examine their sophistry in this Chapter reserving their forgery untill the last Chapter of the secoâ— Book Pamelius objects that the Book of Manutius and of Cambron hath those words of Cyprian otherwayes viz. after the words of Cyprian which we cited follow those Sed primatus Petro datur ut una Ecclesia Cathedra una monstretur That is But the primacy is given to Peter that it might appear there is only one Church and one Chair But it is answered albeit it might be defended that those words make not much for the supremacy of Peter in Jurisdiction but only in dignity and order it shall be demonstrated that Manutius added those words to the text of Cyprian by the command of Cardinal Baromaeus against the Faith of all the ancient Copies of Cyprian both printed and Manuscripts lib. 2. cap. ult Agricola his glosse since it depends upon those forged words Primatus Petro datur is not worth the answering Hayus Bozius Turrianus answer thus It s true say they that the Apostles were all of a like power before Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church by Christ viz. before he said to him tu es Petrus and this is the meaning of Cyprian Bozius adds that this place of Cyprian expresly makes for the supremacy of Peter because Cyprian affirms in the same place that the equality of the Apostles was taken away by those words Pasce oves meas after which words that equality of â—ower ceased All this is sophâ—stry and first Bozius lyeth notoriously Cyprian affirmeth no such thing as that the equality of the Apostles ceased after those words Pasce oves meas since it is the mind of Cyprian that the equality of the Apostles was or consisted in feeding the flock of Christ for he expresly affirms in the same place that the equality of the Apostles was ordained after the resurrection for immediatly before 〈◊〉 words we cited he affirmeth Christus Apostolus omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuit and therefore it is false that after those words Pasce oves meas the equality of the Apostles was taken away Bellarmine useth another distinction lib. 1. cap. 12. viz. that all the Apostles had alike authority over the Church but they were not of alike authority amongst themselves This is the answer also of Costerus encherid cap. 3. But it is answered this glosse of Bellarmines is very strange first how can Peter be oecumenick Bishop if the other Apostles had alike Authority over the Church with him for the Bishop of Rome questionless will not affirm that any other Bishop has as much Authority over the Church as he hath Secondly though this distinction were granted it takes not away the force of the testimony for disparity of persons doth not infer a disparity of Authority alike in them all but only that the Authority is more eminent in dignity in some then in others Thirdly whereas Bellarmine grants that they were all alike Apostles but the function of an Apostle is the highest degree in the Church Ergo if they were equal to him in the Apostleship they were equal to him in the highest Ecclesiastical function As for that distinction of Bellarmines That that equality of the Apostles with Peter was extra radinar and not derived to their successors as the Authority of Peter who was ordinar Pastor and whose Authority was derived to his Successors we proved before that it was a fiction of Bellarmines own invention not known to the Ancients Sanderus lib. 6. cap. 4 of his Monarchy hath another distinction viz. that albeit all the Apostles were of equal Authority over Christians yet the Original of that Authority was from Peter although as to the execution it was alike in them all But it is answered first this distinction is pressed with the same difficulties with which those of Bellarmines was it is a flat contradiction to affirm any to be equal in the execution of that Authority with those from whom they have it yea Leo Bishop of Rome complained heavily that the Bishop of Constantinople was made equal to him as to the execution of it This distinction of Sanderus leans on a false foundation viz. that the rest of the Apostles had their Authority from Peter which expresly contradicts Cyprian who affirms they had it from Christ and Paul 2. Cor. 5. professeth he was an Ambassadour from Christ or in the name of Christ And Franciscus de victoria as we shewed before expresly disputs that all the Apostles had their Authority immediatly from Christ and taxeth the glosse on Cyprian making use of this dictinction of Sanderus against the mind of Cyprian However it may be granted that Peter was the first in Dignity although the other Apostles were equal to him in Authority Stapleton lib. 6. cap. 7. in principis useth a threefold distinction the first is that all the Apostles were of alike power as Apostles but not as Bishops But that distinction was exploded before cap. 16. The second distinction is quo ad amplitudinem rerum gerundarum sed non quo ad superioritatem in ordine gerendi that is in effect the same distinction with that of Bellarmine now mentioned and therefore it needs no other answer since it imports no other thing then that the equality of the Apostles power was relative to the Church but their inequality consisted in their relation to Peter His third distinction is that Peter had