by usurpations of Bishops of Rome and appellations They next endeavour to prove it by testimonies of Fathers which are of two sorts 1. wrested 2. forged In this Chapter and the next following we will examine the first sort and then we will conclude this Book with examining the last The Fathers whose testimonies they wrest are either Greek or Latin The Greek Fathers are Ignatius and Irenaeus the Latin Fathers by them alledged are Tertullian and Cyprian We will speak of the Greek Fathers and also of Tertullian in this Chapter and will answer these testimonies of Cyprian in the Chapter next following And first of Ignatius from whom they alledge the inscription of his Epistle written to the Romans which is this Ignatius to the Sanctified Church presiding in the region of the Romans thus the place is alledged by Bellarmine whereas the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is which presides in the place of the region of the Romans wherefore they render it so this is the reason Barronius ad annum 45. num 10. observes that the Roman Church and the Catholick Church were believed to be the same and therefore they translate Ignatius affirming the Church of Rome to Preside in the region of the Romans that is saith Bellarmine and Bozius Presiding in the Catholick Church But it is answered first that it was not the custom in the dayes of Ignatius to call the Roman-church the Catholick-church or where they spake of the Roman-church to mean by it the Catholick-church first because the oldest testimony we have of that kind is in the dayes of Theodosius junior Victor Uticensis and Gregorius Turonensis that is not till 300. years after Ignatius and 400. after Christ Secondly that maner of phrase had its Original from the Arians the said Gregorius Turonensis in his Book De Gloria martyrum cap. 25. brings in an Arian Prince calling the Orthodox-church the Roman-church or Orthodox-christians Romans Thirdly that maner of speaking had its Original from a politick reason and not from an Ecclesiastical In those dayes the Goths Alans and Vandals made war upon the Romans the first three were Arians the Romans Orthodox and therefore because all the Orthodox Christians partied the Romans in that war they called them all Romans their Faith the Roman Faith their Church the Roman Church as the Turks at this day call all Christians Francks or French-men Fourthly as we said they translate Ignatius falsly for his words are to the Church presiding in Loco regionis Romanorum in the place of the region of the Romans whereby it evidently appears that the meaning of Ignatius is no other then the Church presiding in the Town of Rome since none can affirm by these words he means otherwayes or that the Church of Rome presides in the whole Church since he particularizes the presidency and restricts it to a certain-place of the region of the Romans and therefore they sophisticate egregiously in translating Ignatius Presiding in the region of the Romans Since the Romans say they at that time commanded the whole world Ignatius by a Church Presiding in the region of the Romans understands a Church Presiding in the whole world whereas the words of Ignatus impart no more but a Church presiding in a certain place of the region of the Romans Which is further confirmed because we shewed before from these two Epistles of Ignatius to the Trallians and Magnesians that he acknowledged no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop but he could not be so forgetful of himself as in this Epistle to acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as Bellarmine and Bozius pretends he doth which is further confirmed by the testimony of Basilius Epists 8. where he affirms that Iconium presides in a part of Pisidia which is just such an other expression as that of Ignatius We could defend the meaning of Ignatius not to make much for them although they had translated him faithfully that is if he had said Presiding in the region of the Romans for from these words it can no more be gathered that the Bishop of Rome is oecumenick Bishop then it can prove the Bishop of Ments or the Bishop of Carthage oecumenick Bishop because they preside in the region of Carthage c. for in the dayes of Ignatius as we said none were called Romans but those who lived within the precinct or particular command of the City and this much of Ignatius Now followeth Irenaeus from whom they bring a testimony by them much magnified the passage is this speaking of the Church of Rome ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua Semper ab his qui Sunt undique conservata est ea quae ab Apostolis est traditio The substance is all Churches should accord with the Church of Rome for two reasons first because of its more powerful principality the next is because Apostolical tradition is preserved in that Church But this place makes not much for them as appears by Irenaeus scope this passage is found lib. 3. cap. 13. in which Chapter he is disputing against Hereticks which were the perfect Scriptures he willeth them for their satisfaction to consult with the ancient Churches which successively descended from the Apostles and for instance sake proponeth unto them the Church of Rome his meaning is then in those words whatever the Church of Rome at that time thought perfect Scriptures all Churches about were bound to acknowledge them for such first by reason of its more powerful principality that Church being founded by the Apostles Paul and Peter as was believed then Secondly because it hath been thought by Churches about to have purely preserved that tradition of the Canon of Scripture which it had received from the Apostles so that the meaning of Irenaeus is no other then this that all are bound to accord to that Church so long as it preserves the perfect Canon of Scripture and teaches no other Doctrine then is contained in it by this testimony of Irenaeus we are bound no more to adhere to the Church of Rome then it adhereth to the Scripture But they instance Irenaeus simply without such restrictions affirms that all should accord to the Church of Rome because it observes the apostolick tradition which is as much say they as the Church of Rome cannot make an Apostacy But it is replyed first although Irenaeus affirmed that in those times the Church of Rome preserved the pure Canon of the Scripture yet he doth not affirm that in all times coming it would do so The Church of Rome at this day observes not that Cannon of the Scripture which was observed in the dayes of Irenaeus the Council of Trent under the pain of an Anathema adds to the Canon of the Scriptures these Books commonly called Apocrypha which were rejected by the Church of Rome in the dayes of
Phocas the Emperor carried no good will to Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople he struck the Iron while it was hot after much contention pronounced in his favour The third Part entituled of an oecumenick Bishop contains the History of that interval between anno 600. and the Council of Trent It is divided in two Books in the first I insist most on those following particulars 1. What power was conferred by Phocas with that title of universal Bishop upon Bonifacus third Bishop of Rome 2. How the edict of Phocas was obâ—yed viz. resisted every where till in the end it was recalled by Pogonatus anno 680. in the sixth general Council as was shewed before 3. How during the vicissitudes of inundations of Barbarians the Bishop of Rome re-assumed that title of unâ—versal Bishop and usurped power in temporals over the Grecian Emperoâ—s as was already declared 4. How Carolus Magnus curbed him 5. How when the posterity of Carolus Magnus decayed he renewed and augmented his power by five steps as we shewed before also In the second Book those steps or increments of the Papacy between anno 600. and the â—Câ—ncel of Trent are dogmatically disputed by Scripture Fathers and it is proved by testimonies of the most learned Antiquaries of the Church of Rome that the oldest of those steps was not before anno 1000. It is true indeed that his power in temporals was attempted first by Constantine Bishop of Rome against Philippicus Emperour of Constantinople anno 720. because the said Philippicus caused pull down those Images of the Fathers of the sixth general Council placed in the Church of St. Sophia at Constantinople and a little after Gregory 2d and 3d. Bishops of Rome excommunicated Leo Isaurus and his son Copronymus for the same quarrel of Images but their insolence was compesâ—ed by Carolus Magnus as we shewed before Those four steps are 1. Election by Cardinals 2. Power of convocating general Councils constantly preâ—iding in them of confirming and infirming them 3. Power in temporals 4. In fallibility as for the last step Divinity it is disputed in the fourth Part lib. 2. The fourth and last Part of this Treatise entituled of Antichrist is divided in two Books in the first the demonstrations of Sanderus Bellarmine and Lessius three Jesuits are answered by which they endeavour to prove that the Bishop of Rome is not Antichrist 2. The Bishop of Rome is proved to be Antichrist by Scripture Fathers Popish Doctors yea by the testimonies of some Popes themselves In the second Book two marks of Antichrist are chiefly insisted upon the first is his defection 2 Thess 2. where it is proved that the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome is that defection mentioned by the Apostle and that in the first six Centuries there was no such thing as the modern Popish Religion which is proved by an induction of all the contraverted points we have with the Church of Rome 2. Because those of the Church of Rome ordinarily object that they have not made a defection because it cannot be instructed at what time it was made by whom and who resisted it Two things are proved in the said Book first it is proved by Reason Experience Scripture Fathers that a defection may be made and yet it may be unknown by whom it is made at what time and who first resisted it 2. It is proved by an induction that most of the most substantial Tenets of the Church of Rome such as transubstantiation number of the Sacraments communion under one kind sacrifice of the Mass imperfection of the Scripture equalling of traditions to it adding a Apocrypha Books to it rejecting the Greek and Hebrew as not being authentick as making the corrupt vulgar Latine version authentick free-will Merits justification by Works caelibat of Priests worshiping of Images invocation of Saints set Fasts Prayer for the dead Purgatory Indulgences works of super-erogation all the steps of the Popes Supremacy c. were not only not from the beginning but also it is proved for the most part by testimonies of Popish Doctors themselves at what time and by whom the said Tenets as innovations were brought in the Church The second mark of Antichrist we insist upon is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all sort of deceiving and fraud 2 Thes 2. where it is shewed by what cheats the authority of the Bishop of Rome and his Doctrine are maintained such as perverting falsly translating and corrupting by adding and paring of the indices expurgatorii all the Writings of the Ancients Suppositions Revelations Saints Miracles c. My Lords and Gentlemen Thus I have represented unto you what I perform in this great Subject and what method I observe in it By which it will appear to any reasonable man what difference there is between this method and that of others if I perform what I promise of which let the judicious Reader be judge Now followeth the third thing which I desired your Lordships to take to consideration viz. what my scope and intention is which is twofold the first is to refute those marks 〈◊〉 which those of the Church of Rome endeavour to perswade their Disciples that the said Church of Rome is the true â—hurch The first mark is a continual succession of Bishops which they take great pains to enumerat from the dayes of the Apostles unto this time In which mark shall be proved a four-fold cheat The first is they make the world beâ—ieve that all those Bishops were of a like greatness in Power and Authority whereas it is proved that in the first three Centuries or at least before the dayes of Cypâ—ian that every Bishop was of equal authority with the Bishop of Rome And that between the times of Cyprian and the Council of Chalcedon every Metropolitan and from the Council of Chalcedon to anno 604. every Patriarch were of equal jurisdiction to him And when he was made universal Bishop by Phocas little more then a bare title was bestowed on him and yet that was after revocked by the sixth general Council As for those five steps we mentioned before in which chiefly the Modern Power of the Pope consists viz. Election by Cardinals 2. Authority of convocating general Councils 3. Temporal jurisdiction 4. Infability 5. and Divinity it shall be proved as we said before by the testimonies of Popish Doctors themselves that the oldest of them had not a beeing in the tenth Age and that the said Popish Doctors acknowledging the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church nevertheless some of them doubted not to call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist by reason of these steps which they call tyrannical Antichristian usurpations The second Cheat in that mark of succession is that they make ignorants believe that all the Bishops of Rome since the times of the Apostles professed the same Doctrine which is now taught in the Church of Rome whereas it shall be proved that the Doctrine of the modern
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
affirms Peter is a subordinat and Ministerial foundation there he calls him a principal foundation here he affirms the foundation of Christ and Peter to be of the same nature ejusdem species there he affirms they are of different natures toto genere Lastly this distinction of Stapletons is against all Antiquity affirming that the meaning of the Apostle admites of no proper Foundations but Christ alone So Hieronymus Theodorâ—tos Chrysostomus Oecumenius Lyranus Solus Christus vel fides ipsius est fundamentum Christ only or the faith of Christ is the foundation And thus we have disputed by Scripture that Christ is the only Rock or Foundation and consequently Peter cannot be the Rock on which Christ promiseth to build his Church in those words Tu es Petrus c. In the next place it is proved by reason One thing cannot be signified by a name and its denominative Petra or the Rock is the name Petrus Peter or stony is the denominative from that name Ergo the Rock is not Peter Secondly Petrus is of the masculine gender and of the second person Petra or the Rock is of the feminine gender and third person Bellarmin answers Petra and Petrus are expressed in the Syrian tongue in which our Savior spoke by the same word Cephas which removes those difficulties since our Savior spoke those words in the Syrian tongue It is replyed first it is false that Cephas signifying a stone or Petram and Cephas signifying stony or Petrum are the same words in the Syrian tongue because Cephas signifying a stone is of the feminine gender as appears by the Syriack version 1 Cor. 11. Mat. 22. Mark 16. Secondly Matthew the Apostle himself questionless knew the meaning of Christ in these words as well as Bellarmin Baronius Stapleton or Sanderus but he in his Gospel expresly affirms Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram adificabo Ecclesiam meam But if Peter had been the Rock Matthew would have rendred these words of Christ Thou art the Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church Here is to be observed the impudence if not blasphemy of Petrus de Bollo a Parisian Divine in his authentick probation of the sacrifice of the Mass having these words Scimus quod interpres Matthaei Syri Graecus Latinus non fit hoc loco optimè de hac nostrae fidei parte promeritus Si enim dixisset Et tu es Petra super hanc Petramres fuisset multò clarior cum Christus qui Syriacè procul dubio loquebatur dixerit Tu es Petra super hanc Petram adificabo Ecclesiam meam We know that the Greek and Latin Interpreter of Matthew who wrote in the Syrian tongue have not deserved much of our faith for if he had rendred the words Thou art the Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church the thing had been more clear since assuredly Christ spoke in the Syrian Thou art the Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church Where he expresly affirms that Matthew the Evangelist or at least his Greek Interpreter since it is thought by some that the Gospel of Matthew was written originally in Syriack translats the word of Christ unfaithfully thus Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church whereas he should have translated them Thou art the Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church In affirming which he speaks right-down blasphemy if Matthew penned his Gospel in Greek himself and although that translation were not of Matthew himself but of some other nevertheless he condemns the whole primitive Church and the ancient Church of Rome among the rest for approving as authentick a false interpretation in so substantial a point That the Greek version Matthews Gospel was held authentick by the Primitive Church shal be demonstrated lib. 6. The third reason why Peter cannot be the Rock is this The foundation or rock upon which the Church militant and the Church triumphant are built are both one consequently Peter would be the foundation of the Church triumphant if he were the Rock upon which the Church is built And since the Bishop of Rome succeeds to Peter as they all averr the Bishop of Rome is the foundation of the Church triumphant which assertion is so absurd that no Christian ears can hear it without detestation Finally if Peter be the Rock upon which the Church is built it would follow that Peter was Oecumenick Bishop when Christ said unto him Tu es Petrus The meaning of Christ say they is Tu es Petrus or thou art the Rock and consequently thou art Oecumenick Bishop presently since our Savior doth not say unto him Tu eris Petra or thou shalt be the Rock or Oecumenick Bishop But if Peter had been the Rock or Oecumenick Bishop at that time the gates of hell would have prevailed against him which is expresly against the promise of Christ since Peter after that denied Christ thrice And thus we have disputed Tu es Petrus by reason Stapleton endeavors to prove by several reasons that Peter is the Rock which in effect are the same reasons clothed with diversity of words The sum of them is this It appears saith he by all the circumstances that some singular thing or other was given to Peter in those words for Peter answered only Thou art the Son of the living God Secondly Christ pronounced him blessed Thirdly Christ affirmed he had that secret only by revelation from God Lastly Christ pronounced those words to him as a reward Thou art Peter and vpon this Rock I will build my Church It is answered It was a sufficient reward for Peter that he was called Petrus from Petra the Rock which was Christ It had been too high a reward for Peter to obtain that which was proper to Christ this is the opinon of all the Fathers as Hilarius de Trinitate Petrus quia habebat societatem fidei cum Domino habuit etiam unitatem nominis Dominici ut sicut à Christo Christianus dicitur ita à Petrâ Christo Petrus Apostolus vocaretur Peter because he had society of faith with the Lord he was called Peter from Petra as a Christian is called after Christ Augustinus Sermon 13. De verbis Domini secundum Matthaeum Deinde addidit Et ego dicotibi tanquam diecret Quiae tu mihi dixisti Tu es Christus Filius Dei vivi ego dico tibi Tu es Petrus that is Thou shalt be called Peter because of thy confessing me to be the Son of God Other testimonies might be heaped but it is to no purpose Stapleton insists that it was not the name only which Peter got as a reward but some thing beside proper to himself viz. to be the Rock upon which the Church is built which he proves by the authority of Chrysostom whose words are cited by him thus Quoddam hic esse Filii donum proprium Petro datum sicut Patris quoddam donum erat
article of Faith as appears by those eight general Councils that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church in those words Tu es Petrus The truth is it was invented First by Leo after the Council of Chalcedon when the contention arose between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople for the Primacy it was still made use of by the Bishops of Rome after that pleading for the Primacy but it appears by the 3â— Epistle of Gregory that he made use of it only for cuâ—a universalis Ecclesiae and not for Jurisdiction for he expresly thunders against one visible head of of the Church amongst other reasons he hath this for one Although Peter had the care of the whole Church committed into him yet was he not universal Apostle And thus we have reasoned Tu es Petrus from Scripture Reason and General Councils Now let us hear the opinion of the Fathers CHAP. IV. Of the Fathâ—rs interpreting the Rock to be CHRIST THeir impudence in objecting the Fathers is yet greater All the Fathers say they interpret the Rock to be Peter Augustinus only excepted deceived by his ignorance in the Syriack tongue So objects â—ansenius Gregorious de Valentia Agricola Stapleton but most of all Bozius de signis lib. 18. cap. 1. But it is answered It is notoriously false that all the Fathers call Peter the Rock upon which the Church is built because many of the Fathers call Christ the Rock as shal be proved in this 4. chapter Others of them interpret the Rock to be the confession of Peter thou art the Son of the living God as shal be proved chap. 5. Others of them again who interpret the Rock to be Peter means nothing less then that Peter was was ordained Oecumenick Bishop by Christ in those words Tu es Petrus as shal be proved chap. 6. And first of those Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Christ Tertullianus against Martian lib. 4. cap. 13. Where telling a reason wherefore the name of Peter was changed from Simon to Peter gives this reason Quia Petra lapis erat Christus because the Rock was Christ Hilarius de Trinitate lib. 2. Unum igitur hoc est immobile fundamentum una haec est felix fidei Petra Petri ore confessa Filius Dei vivi The sum is Christ confessed by the mouth of Peter is the only Rock Ambrosius Sermon 84. Discoursing of the change of Peters name Rectè igitur qui à Petra Christo Simon nuncupatus est Petrus ut qui cum Domino fidei soeietatem habebat cum Domino haberet nominis Dominici unitatem ut sicut à Christo Christianus dicitur Ita à Petra Christo Petrus Apostolus vocaretur This testimony is very evident and jumps in every thing with the exposition of Protestants shewing that Peter is not the Rock but only Christ Peter is called Petrus Rocky from Christ Petra or the Rock Gregorius Nyssenus in the last chapter of his testimonies against the Jews Dominus est Petra fidei tanquam fundamentum ut ipse Dominus ait ad Principem Apostolorum Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam In which words Christ is expresly called the Rock upon which the Church is built Theodoretus upon Psalm 47. Petra angularis est Christus ipse Dominus beato Petro inquit Et super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portae inferi non prevalebunt adversus eam The Rock is Christ upon which the Church is built c. And the same Author on 1. Cor. cap. 3. Christus est fundamentum Christ is the Rock Gregory Bishop of Rome himself in Job lib. 13. cap. 19. in Sacro eloquio Cum singulard numero Petra nominatur quis alius quam Christus accipitur Paulo attestante qui ait Petra erat Christâ—s This testimony is evident of a Bishop of Rome himself cannonized as a Saint in the Roman Church giving a general rule of interpreting the word Rock viz. When Petra or Rock or foundation is mentioned in Scripture in the singular number none but Christ is understood Hieronymus on Matthew 7. Super hanc Petram Dominus fundavit Ecclesiam ab hac Petra Apostolus Petrus sortitus est nomen By which words it appears that Christ is the Rock from whom Peter had his name and not Peter himself which will be further cleared by the next testimony Augustinus Sermo 13. de verbis Domini secundum Mattheum Simon quippe ante vocabatur hoc autem nomen ei ut Petrus vocetur à Domino impositum est hoc ut ea figura significareâ— Ecclesiam quia enim Christus Petra Petrus populus Christianus Petra enim principale nomen est ideo Petrus à Petra non Petra à Petro quomodo non à Christiano Christus sed à Christo Christianus vocatur Who before was called Simon was after called Peter Our Savior calls him so to signifie the Church by that figure Because Christ is the Rock Peter is the Christian People c. Other testimonies might be alledged out of Augustinus but it is needless to mention them since it is confessed by our adversaries that Augustinus interprets the Rock to be Christ because he was ignorant of the Syriack tongue As if those other Fathers especially Hieronymus most skilful of the Oriental Languages were ignorant also of the Syriack tongue And thus much of those Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Christ by which it appears how impudent an assertion it was of Bozius Ianseuius De Valentie Agricola Stapleton and others affirming all the Fathers Augustinus only excepted unanimously interprets the Rock to be Peter The falshood of their assertion being discovered they fall next to Sophistry to defend their lying And first they fall upon Augustinus taxing him of ignorance of the Syriack tongue for interpreting the Rock to be Christ But it is answered First the testimonies of those other Fathers denying Peter to be the Rock especially of Hieronymus are no lesse evident then the testimonies of Augustinus But it were impudence in them to object ignorance of the Syriack tongue to Hieronymus who was known to be most skilful in it Secondly their Sophistry is very great they object ignorance to Augustinus of the Syrian tongue for denying the Rock to be Peter following the penner of Matthew in Greek whose version was followed by the whole Church as authentick defends the ignorance of supposititious Authors such as Anacletus Optatus Melevitanus Isidorus such like who interpret Cephas which signifyeth a great stone in the Syrian tongue a head to prove the supremacy of Peter because of the affinity it hath in its initial Letters with the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cephale or head So Turrianus and Baronius Anno 31. defends those ignorants viz. Because it makes for the Popes supremacy and blames Augustinus as ignorant for no other reason then because his interpretation crosseth it As for those other Fathers beside Augustinus some of them taxeth them also
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
to Peter Whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose Matthew 16. But in Matthew 16. nothing was exhibited to Peter but only promised Ergo in Matthew 18. nothing was exhibited to the other Apostles It is answered That Bellarmin proves nothing but what he affirmed before viz. That it was hard to shew a disparity between these two places Or that binding and loosing Matthew 16. 19. and Matthew 28. 18. for in stead of proving them different places by his sophistical contradictory babling he proves they are just the same For first he grants that nothing was exhibited in either place but only promised Secondly he grants that the words are alike Whatsoever thou shalt bind and whatsoever ye shal bind Whence he concluds that the places are not alike whereas he demonstrats they are the same It is reasoning unbeseeming so brave a man to prove places not alike by alike circumstances in both Secondly he contradicts what he said before viz. That power of Order was only given unto the other Apostles John 20. but power of Jurisdiction to Peter Matthew 16. and therefore the places were unlike that power of order was only given to the other Apostles John 20. he proved by forgiving and retaining that power of Jurisdiction was given to Peter Matthew 16. he proves by binding and loosing but here he grants that the binding and loosing given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. and that given to Peter Matthew 16. are verba similia or the same words and consequently that the keys or power of Jurisdiction are given to the other Apostles as well as to Peter and consequently he proves himself a lyar in affirming that the keys given to Peter were keys of Jurisdiction but not these given to the other Apostles Alphonsus de Castro adversus haeres lib. 12. and Fisher Bishop of Rochester disputing against Luther art 25 proves that the keys given to Peter Matthew 16. and these given to the other Apostles Matthew 18. are not the same which they prove by an Achillean argument viz. it is said to Peter What ever thou bindest and loosest on Earth shal be bound and loosed in the Heavens but unto the other Apostles Matthew 18 it is only said Whomsoever ye bind or loose on Earth it shal be bound or loosed in Heaven but to bind and loose in Heaven is not the same but less then to bind and loose in the Heavens But it is answered Any intelligent person may see that those otherwise-learned men fight against their own conscience when they are driven to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome by such childish babling Since men of so great Spirits and Learning as those two were known to be could not be ignorant that this distinction of Heaven and Heavens is against Sense Scripture and Fathers First it is against sense Because none can be ignorant that Heavens in the plural number and Heaven collectively in the singular number are all one and the same thing in the ordinar phrase of speaking Who is so stupid as to deny it Secondly It is against Scripture which promiscuously useth Heaven and Heavens in the same sense so Mark 1. compared with Luk. 3. demonstrat In the first place it is said The Heavens were cloven assunder In the last the Heaven was opened and yet both the Evangelists are relating the same thing when John the Baptist baptized our Savior So Matthew 6. Christ affirmeth Lay up treasures for your selves in Heaven but Luk. 12. Make your selves treasurs in the Heavens Thirdly this distinction of Heaven and Heavens is of so little moment in the opinion of the Fathers that they express Matthew 18. in the plural number Heavens and Matthew 16. in the singular number Heaven So Hilarius lib. 6. de Trinitate affirms That all the Apostles had the keys Regni Coelorum of the Heavens he useth the same expression in his Book against the Arrians Cyprianus epist 54. affirmeth that all the Apostles had power of binding and loosing in the Heavens so doth Chrysostomus lib. 3. de Sacerdotio and Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 2. epist 5. and Augustinus against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets lib. 1. cap. 17. and Paceanus epist 1. to Sympronianus and in his book against the Novatians All which Fathers affirm that the Apostles had power of binding and loosing in Coelis in the Heavens The school-men likewise speak after the same manner as Lombardus distinct 18. of the first chapter lib. 4. and also in the same book distinct 19. and Durandus quest 1. in his Commentaries upon the said 19. distinct This is it that proved that all the Apostles had the keys not only of Heaven but of the Heavens whereby it appears by the authority of Scripture Fathers and School-men that the keys of Heaven and of Heavens are one and the same thing If any be not yet convinced it is further proved they are the same because the Fathers call the keys of Peter the keys of Heaven in the singular number So Ambrosius lib 1. de penitentia cap. 6. and Augustinus contra adversarium lib. 1. cap. 17. Ambrosius repeating the words of Christ to Peter saith Quaecunque ligaveris super Terram erunt ligata in Coelo Which is further confirmed The Fathers in the same place speaking of Christs promise to Peter call the keys promised to him both the keys of Heaven and the keys of Heavens So Ambrosius in the now cited place after the former words adds Et quaeâ—unque solveris super Terram erunt soluta in Coelis Augustinus in the fore-cited place calls the keys given to the other Apostles both the keys of Heaven and of the Heavens for after those words repeating our Saviors promise to the Apostles Quae solveritis super Terram erunt soluta in Coelis he affirms Quae ligaveritis in Terra erunt ligata in Coelo And thus we have proved that Alphonsus de Castro and Bishop Fisher are mistaken in their distinction of Heaven and Heavens by Reason Scripture and Fathers The original of this distinction they have from Origines tract 6. in Matthew where comparing the keys of Peter with those words Tell the Church and if he refuse to hear it to make satisfaction after three admonitions let him be unto thee as a publican he affirms That Peter although but one person yet had the keys of many Heavens but others or those admonishers three times although many persons yet had only the keys of one Heaven and so by the testimony of Origines Bozius lib. 18. cap. 1. de signis Ecclesie sustains that distinction of Heaven and Heavens mentioned by de Castro and Bishop Fisher But it is answered Those Doctors of the Church of Rome take great liberty to themselves in exposition of the Fathers Bellarmin as we shewed before pressed by a testimony of Origen not only affirming but also proving that these words upon this Rock I will build my Church Or that in these words nothing was promised
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
feed But it is notorious that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports no dominion at all but only Ministration of food Secondly albeit there were such a Mystery in the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to signify Jurisdiction Yet it is injoyned to Peter over the Flock only and not over the Pastors which doth not conclude an Oecumenick Bishop to whom Bellarmin gives authority of feeding the Pastors as well as the Flock Bellarmins second reason by which he proves that supream authority is given to Peter by these words of our Savior Feed my Sheep is because several Fathers calls that which was injoyned to Peter in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praefecturam or A having authority over the Flock of Christ So Chrysostomus lib. 2. de Sacerdotio and Augustnius on John 21. But it is answered Chrysostom is disputing there of the Priesthood which is common to all Priests and not of an Oecumenick Bishop Neither can it be denyed that any Bishop hath that authority over his own Flock which is mentioned by Chrysostom in that place viz. Governing and Chastising which is also the meaning of Augustinus Bellarmin cites an other testimony of Gregorius de cura Pastorali where Pastors are called by him Rectors but his meaning is the same as appears by the scope of his disput needless to be inserted he is enumerating these duties belonging to a Pastor amongst which he doth not mention one peculiar to an Oecumenick Bishop and which is not common to all Pastors Bellarmin useth other reasons besides these two which in effect are the same with his first reason It is very ordinar with him to repeat the same arguments in other words to make ignorants believe that his Army is numerous The second reason wherefore our Savior in these words Feed my Sheep injoyns no universal jurisdiction over the Church is because he injoyns the same to others beside Peter Which is proved First by Scripture Secondly by Fathers The passages of Scripture are John 20. 21. where our Savior affirmeth As my Father sent me so send I you Which words are expounded by Cyrillus lib. 12. in John by Chrysostomus hom 85. upon John By Theophylactus upon this place to this purpose viz. Cyrillus affirms That all the Apostles were ordained Doctors of the whole World to inlighten not only the Jews but all the Nations of the World Chrysostomus and Theophylactus interpret these words That Christ injoyned his own work unto all the Apostles The second passage of Scripture is Matthew 28. 19. Go therefore and teach all Nations◠the Greek verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Teach imports all the authority that a Master hath over his Disciples viz. To Govern them to Chastise them and not only to teach them And consequently is of as large an extent as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Feed Of which Bellarmin brags so much And thus much of Scripture In the next place it is proved by Antiquity that nothing peculiar was imagined to Peter in these words Feed my Sheep The first testimony is from the third Epistle amongst these of Cyprian in which the Clergy of Rome speaks thus to the Clergy of Carthage Sed Simoni sic dicit diligis me respondit diligo Ait ei pasce oves meas Hoc verbum factum ex ipso actu quo cessit agnoscimus caeteri Discipuli similiter By which words it appears that it was the opinion of the Clergy of Rome in the days of Cyprian That the feeding of the Flock of Christ was injoyned to others viz. to all the Apostles as well as to Peter Cyprianus himself de Vnitate Ecclesiae They are all Pastors but the Flock is one which all the Apostles feed with one consent and a little before immediatly after he had cited these words of our Savior Feed my Sheep he subjoyns That Christ gave to all the Apostles alike power after his Resurrection Augustinus tract 123. upon John Chrysostomus de Sacerdotio lib. 2. Basilius cap. 22. of the Constitution of Monks all expresly affirm That the feeding of the Flock of Christ was committed to all Pastors and Bishops by our Savior in these words It is needless to set down the words of these Fathers since these testimonies are granted by our Adversaries who notwithstanding of them endeavor so to prove that these words of our Savior were in a peculiar manner directed to Peter So Bellarmin and Sanderus they reason thus First Bellarmin takes much pains to prove that our Savior directed his speech only to Peter which none denys Quid tum postea He instances that the rest are excluded by these words of our Savior Lovest thou me more then those By the three-fold reiteration of that question by these words of our Savior when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and by these words of Peter verse 21. Lord what shal this man do And of the answer of Christ What is that to thee Follow thou me But say they Peter would never have asked what John should do If Christ had said to John Feed my Sheep neither would the Lord have answered What is that to thee Follow thou me but he would have answered He shal feed my sheep as thou shalt But it is answered All this reasoning is nothing else but a rible rable of sophistry First Bellarmin sophisticats in stateing of the question as if Protestants denyed that these words of our Savior were directed to Peter alone And therefore he proves by all those circumstances foresaid that our Savior spoke only to Peter which none denys The thing which is denyed is the consequence or it doth not follow That the feeding of the Flock of Christ was only committed to Peter because the words of our Savior were only directed to him no more then it followeth That Adam and Eve should only increase and multiply because God directed his speech to them only Secondly Bellarmin doth not consider for what reason our Savior directed his speech to Peter only in these words Feed my Sheep It was not because it was his intention to give to Peter Jurisdiction over the whole Church but for other two reasons The First is because Peter had thrice denyed him so Cyrillus in John lib. 12. cap. 64. who affirms so much And likewise Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 1. epist 103. and also epist 356. and Nazianzenus in his Oration in Sancta Lumina hath these words Christ admitted Peter an Apostle again and healed his threefold denying of him by a threefold interrogation to which Peter made a threefold confession by which words an other reason appears wherefore our Savior directed his speech to Peter alone viz. To restore him to his Apostleship which he had lost by denying Christ Cyrillus in the foresaid place affirms Although all the Disciples were sore afraid and ran away when Christ was apprehended yet the crime of Peter was greatest because he denyed him thrice in so short a time where he
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
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
of the Church of Rome as Bellarmin himself confesseth in the preface of his books de Pont. Rom. Is a Body without a head a house without a foundation Moon-shine without the Sun Which is as much to say as the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome having no ground in Scripture and Antiquity the faith of the Modern Roman Church is no faith at all What ground the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome or of Peter hath in these three fore-mentioned passages of Scripture from Matthew 16. 28. Matthew 16. 19. John 21. 15 16 17. in the opinion of the Ancients We have prolixly shewed by which appears what little shelter our Adversaries have in Antiquity of which they brag so much They brag also of Unity or concord among themselves and therefore it will not be unpleasing to set down the opinion of Cardinal Cusanus as great an Antiquary as learned a man of as much Intergrity as any whomever the Church of Rome produced concerning these three foresaid passages of Scripture upon which the Roman faith is founded His words lib. 2. cap. 13. concord Cathol Are these following Nihil enim dictum est ad Petrum quod etiam alijs dictum non sit nonne sicut Petro dictum est quodcunque ligaveris ita alijs est dictum quemcunque ligaveritis Et quanquam Petro dictum est Tu es Petrus Si Petrus per Petram lapis fundamenti Ecclesiae intelligi deheret tunc secundùm S. Hieronymum ita similiter alij Apostoli fuerunt lapides Apoc. 21 Et sicut dictum est Petro Pasce Oves tamen ista Pastura est in verbo exemplo quae praecipitur alijs Apostolis ite in mundum universum c. It is Englished thus Nothing was said to Peter which was not said to the other Apostles as it was said unto Peter What ever thou shalt binde c. Was it not also said to the rest Whom soever ye shal binde c And although it was said unto Peter Thou art Peter if Peter be signified by the Rock as a stone of the foundation of the Church then according to Hieronymus the other Apostles were also foundation stones Apoc. 21. And as it was said to Peter Feed my Sheep nevertheless that feeding consists in teaching and example which is injoyned to the other Apostles also in these words Go ye teaching all Nations And thus much Cusanus in which words although a Cardinal yet he shews himself a Protestant in the exposition of these places which are the chief basis of the Modern Roman faith and he proves his exposition by Scripture and Antiquity Which is as much to say that in his opinion to wrest these three passages to prove the institution of Peter Monarch of the Church is against both Scripture and Antiquity Yea in an other place viz. dist in novo 24. quest 1. he expresly affirms That it is most certain that Peter got no more power from Christ then the other Apostles his words are Sed scimus quod Petrus nihil plus potestatis à Christo accepit alijs Apostalis and because they distinguish Equality of Order from Equality of Jurisdiction that is all the Apostles had equal power of Order but not of Jurisdiction And whereas Secondly they distinguish mediate power from immediate power behold their Unity yet in both these distinctions Franciscus de Victoria according to Canus loc theol lib. 12. cap. 1. the learnedst Divine of Spain Relect. 2. quest 2. conclus 3. 4. hath these words Potestatem Apostoli receperunt immediatè à Christo quod pro certo mihi videtur pronunciandum Haec est apertè sententia Cypriani epist de unitate Ecclesiae hoc erant caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus nec audienda est glossa dicens Hoc non intelligi de potestatis plenitudine ut patet apud Cyprianum Quod pro certo mihi videtur pronunciandum In which words he not only affirmeth That all the Apostles had their power immediately from Christ but also alike power immediatly from Christ reprehending that ordinar distinction of the Roman Church viz. That all the Apostles although they had their power immediately from Christ yet not secundum plenitudinem potestatis which he proves by that passage of Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae affirming What ever Peter was the other Apostles were the same of alike power and dignity with him And thus much of these three famous passages of Scripture Matthew 16. 18. and 19. and John 21. v. 15 16 17. all the grounds which these of the Church of Rome have to prove that the blessed Apostle Peter was ordained by our Savior visible Monarch of the Church or Head of the Church under himself CHAP. XI Of first Peter Fifth verse Vindicated ALthough Protestants be not oblieged by law of Disputation to prove a negative or that Peter was not ordained Oecumenick Bishop by Christ it being enough for them to refute these arguments of our Adversaries endeavoring to prove he was yet since the Spirit of God fore-seeing that the supremacy of Peter would be the pretended foundation of that Kingdom of Anti-Christ hath recorded several passages in Scripture expresly inhibiting and militating against that function of Visible Head and Oecumenick Bishop Therefore these passages ought not to be neglected since they are recorded in Scripture for our instruction but on the contrair diligently examined and vindicated from the perplexed sophistry of our Adversaries Their offensive sophistry in those three places which we have already disputed was very great their defensive in these three following is no less But in a fourth place claimed by both sides most admirable Our Adversaries pretended three arguments to prove the institution of Peters Monarchy of the Church First Because the Church was built upon him Secondly Because the keys of Heaven were promised to him Thirdly Because our Savior directed these words to him Feed my Sheep The Protestants disput against the supremacy of Peters institution by Christ by three arguments also The first is because all Domination is forbidden in Church-Officers The second is because there is no Head in the Church but only Christ The third is because the Apostles puts more persons then one in the first or highest place of the Hierarchy of the Church The first argument then is this All dominion is forbidden in the Church but the institutiou of Peters Monarchy of the Church or an Oecumenick Bishop inferrs domination Ergo the office of an Oecumenick Bishop is forbidden in the Church The Minor is proved by 1. Peter 5. 2. and 3. Feed the Flock of God which dependeth upon you caring for it not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind not as though ye were Lords over Gods heritage but that ye may be ensamples to the Flock Sanderus lib. 6. cap. 1. Of his Monarchy seems to deny the Major viz. That an Oecumenick Bishop inferrs domination Affirming it inferrs only Primacy but he is abandoned by all the Doctors of
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
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
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
2. lib. 2. that there was no Patriarch before the Council of Chalcedon established by Law And therefore it is false which Bellarmin affirms That these three were ever held Patriarchal seatsonly because they were founded by Peter as shal be proved at large part 2. lib. 2. Thirdly It is false which he affirms viz. That those Churches were called Patriarchal because they were founded by Peter since it is notorious that the dignity of Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs depended upon civil respects and not upon their Apostolick founders For first the Bishop of Rome had the first place because he was Bishop of the Old imperial City he of Constantinople the second because he was Bishop of New Rome as appears by the third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople by the 28. Canon of the fourth General Council of Chalcedon by the 36 Canon of the fifth General Council of Constantinople As for the other Patriarchs Baronius himself ad annum 39. num 10. hath these words Majores in instituendis sedibus Ecclesiarum non aliam misse rationem quà m secundum provinciarum divisionem praerogativas à Romanis antea stabilitas quam plurima sunt exempla And a little after he affirms That the Patriarch of Alexandria was preferred to him of Antioch because Aegypt was praefectura Augustalis And not Antioch which was only a proconsulat of Syria And for that reason also It was preferred to Jerusalem because Jerusalem was under the said proconsulat But if Bellarmins prerogative of Peter hold good Antioch would be preferred to Constantinople because it was founded by the Apostle Peter and also to Alexandria because it was only founded by Mark. But more of this part 2. lib. 2. The seventh traditional prerogative is The feast of the chair of Peter viz. that there was a Festival day observed in the Church of the institution of Peter in his Bishoprick ever since his time But it is answered First Bellarmin is very wary in this objection in speaking of the Feast of Peters chair in general not nameing which chair in particular Better hold his peace for this feast was in remembrance of Peters Bishoprick of Antioch and not of Rome If this argument have any force it proves the Bishop of Antioch Oecumenick Bishop and not the Bishop of Rome Secondly It is notoriously false That this feast was observed by the whole Church Bellarmins proofs are Augustinus Sermon 15. de Sanctis which book is proved by Erasmus to be forged How ever it is of no moment whether it be forged or not Thirdly Baronius himself speaking of Feasts in honor of their Founders or of Feasts observed by Churches for that Reason affirms speaking of the Church of Rome That the feast of the foundation of that Church was late and according to the example of some Oriental Churches The last prerogative of Peter is That in old Epistles called Literae Formatae after these words In the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost the name of Peter was inserted If ye answer that it is but a late invention Bellarmin will produce an Epistle of Atticus Bishop of Constantinople But it is replyed Several makes mention of these Literae called Formatae but of that sort as they are mentioned by Bellarmin where the name of Peter is placed next after the Trinity in such Letters ye have no example of old but oâ— late in the collections of the decretals and Canon Law Ye find only two of them in Gratianus distinct 73. The first dated 1002. The second 1315. Ye find other of them in Ivo derect part 6. cap. 134. and 135. As for that epistle of Atticus any may see it forgâ—d However it is of no moment whether it be forged or not He that would see the proofs of its Forgery let him read Chameir upon this prerogative However these formatae literae were conceived thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which three letters signify Father Son and Holy Ghost Then was written 〈◊〉 the initial letter of Peter next the first letter of his name who wrote the letter Secondly The second letter of his name to whom it was written Thirdly The third letter of his name who carried the letter Fourthly The fourth letter of the name of the City from which it was written c. All these ceremonies were used to preveen miscarrying or forging of letters And thus we have purged that Augiae Stabulum of that disput of Bellarmins concerning the prerogatives of Peter And consequently answered all what is objected by Bellarmin in this argument of prerogatives for the supremacy of Peter which is the fourth general argument proving him Oecumenick Bishop alledged by our adversaries CHAP. XVIII Several Arguments from the Carriage of Peter disproving his Supremacy OUr Adversaries in the three preceeding chapters endeavored by all the Art they could to prove the supremacy of Peter by his prerogatives most of which were in his carriage In this chapter we will shortly minute some arguments from the carriage of Peter that he could not be Monarch of the Church ordained by Christ And it is very strange that our adversaries should have endeavored to prove the supremacy of Peter by his carriage since Salmero the Jesuit in his Commentaries upon the First of Peter ingenuously confesseth nothing can be gathered from his carriage to prove his supremacy And consequently he acknowledgeth all these arguments proving his supremacy from his carriage to be nothing else but sophisms That the arguments from his carriage disproving his supremacy are no sophisms appears by what followeth we will only mention three The first is this it appears by Acts 8. 14 That Peter and John were delegated by the Apostles who were in Jerusalem to preach the Gospel in Samaria but an Oecumenick Bishop cannot be delegated as is notorious Who would take upon them to send the Bishop of Rome in commission now-a-days They answer to this argument variously Panigarolla discept 6. answers That it was by Peters own procurement that he was sent by the other Apostles but he only guesseth his answer hath no warrand in the text and by such answers as his any passage of Scripture albeit never so evident may be eluded Bellarmin Stapleton Sanderus Salmero and Baronius anno 35. num 9. affirms That it is not inconsistent with Equals to be sent from their Equals They give many instanâ—es The first is That GOD the Father sent Christ and both sent the Holy Ghost but that instance is ridiculous not being a Mission of like Nature with that of Peter from the other Apostles Likewise the Father Son and Holy Ghost is from Equals but that Mission of Peter was from those as the Roman Doctors maintain under his own authority They instance secondly Herod sent the wise men to Bethlehem but he had no authority over them But it is answered First That the wise men had no authority over Herod the state of the question is Whether Peter had authority over the other
believed that he was first ordained Apostle so Cyprianus c. The fifth rank of testimonies are those affirming that there is Una Cathedra c. one Chair of Peter which was placed at Rome in which Chair Unity was preserved by all neither did the rest of the Apostles constitute any other Chairs against that one Chair in which Peter sat first To whom succeeded Linus c. Optatus lib. 2. against Parmenianus in which words saith Bellarmine ye have the Chair of Peter and his successors called the Chair of the whole Church which infers that according to Optatus Peter was oecumenick Bishop But it is answered that Optatus in those words is disputing against the Donatists who had set up a Bishop of their own faction at Rome in opposition to the true Bishop Which Optatus reprehends Because saith he there is but one Chair at Rome founded by Peter in which first himself sat and then his successors in which place viz. Rome none of the other Apostles did constitute another Chair much lesse ye ought to set another Bishop in that Chair in opposition to the successors of Peter That this is his meaning viz. that he speaks of the particular Church of Rome and not of the universal Church is evident because otherwayes it were notoriously false which he affirms that no Chair was constituted by the other Apostles For James did constitute a Church at Jerusalem and John at Ephesus c. The sixth rank are the testimonies affirming Peter to be Magister Ecclesiae a Master of the Church likewayes that the Church is called Eclesia Petri Ambrosius Sermon 11. It is answered first that not only Erasmus but also Costerus a stiff maintainer of the Pope denyes Ambrosius to be the Author of those Sermons 2. Although he were it imports not much for calling Peter a Master of the Church he calls him no other thing then an Apostle For all Apostles governed the whole Church or were Pastors of the whole Church as we said before 3. Whereas we said another calleth the Church the Church of Peter he speaks very improperly such kind of speaking is not found in Scripture or in Fathers perhaps his meaning is that it is the Church of Peter because it was the Church in which Peter taught and in that sense it may be called the Church of Paul also or of any other of the Apostles although properly the Church is only the Church of Christ and of none other The seventh rank is of testimonies preferring the Chair of Peter to-other Chairs Augustinus de Baptismo lib. 2. It is answered Augustins words are Quis nescit Apstolatus principatum cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum Who is ignorant that the principality â—o the Apostleship is to be preferred to any Bishoprick In which words it cannot be conjectured what Bellarmine can gatherfor the Supremacy of Peter Augustine in these words is comparing Cyprian with Peter in one respect he prefers Peter to Cyprian because saith he the principality of the Apostleship is to be preferred to any Bishoprick or Peter because an Apostle is to be preferred to Cyprian who is only a Bishop But in the words following he saith Albeit their Chairs be unequal yet the glory of both the Martyrs is the same in which words he seems in a manner equal to Peter Eighthly Bellarmine cites a testimony from the Thesaurus of Cyrullus for the Supremacy of Peter viz. That Christ got the Scepter of the Church of the Gentiles from God which he gave unto Peter and unto his successors only and unto none other But it is answered that the testimony is suppositious and forged being not found at all in any Edition of that Book It is only mentioned by Thomas Aquinas in Opusculo contra Graecos in his little Book he wrote against the Graecians and some think he forged it but Thomas was a most holy man and it is more like he was abused by some others Ninthly Bellarmine cites some testimonies from Bernardus and others who lived after the sixth Century but those testimonies especially of the Latines who lived at that time cannot be regarded because they lived after that time in which Bonifacius 3. was ordained oecumenick Bishop by Phocas Such testimonies for the Supremacy of Peter can have no more force then the testimonies of Bellarmine or Barronius or any other Doctor of the Church of Rome Tenthly he cites the testimonies of Leo and the other Bishops of Rome but neither can those be regarded because they lived after the time in which the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople contended for the primacy If Bellarmine will not believe the Protestants that those testimonies are of no moment let him consider what is said by Aeneas Sylvius sometimes Pope himself who in his first Comen upon the Councill of Basil hath these words Those miserable men are not aware that those testimonies which they so magnify are either ipsorum summorum Pontificum Fimbrias suas extendentium Are either of Popes themselves enlarging their authority or else of their flatterers Bellarmines eleventh testimony is taken from Eusebius Caesariensis lib. 2. hist cap. 14. who affirms Peter is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Captain of the Militia of God In which testimony he triumphs as if he had found out the whole businesse What else saith he can be the meaning of Eusebius then that Peter is head of the Church Militant But it is answered first that Bellarmine following the version of Christopherson cites Eusebius fraudulently whose words are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Not Captain of the Militia of God simply But as one of the Captains of the Militia of God Secondly Isidorus Pelustota lib. 3. epist 25. gives the same Epithet to Paul calling him a most generous and valiant Captain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently Bellarmine triumphs before the Victory since that testimony of Eusebius concludes Peter no more to be oecumenick Bishop then that of Isidorus Paul And this much of those testimonies cited by Bellarmine for proving the Supremacy of Peter over the Church which was the first Classe CHAP. XX. Testimonies of Fathers proving the Authority of Peter over the Apostles THe second Classe of testimonies consists of those proving the Supremacy of Peter over the Apostles for which Bellarmine cites Cyprian epist 71. but he sets not down the words of Cyprian but only summs them thus When Paul reprehended Peter Peter did not answer I have the primacy ye most obey me and not I you Ergo saith Bellarmine according to Cyprian Peter had the primacy over Paul But it is answered that this Logick is very strange because Cyprian affirms that Peter did not say unto Paul I have the primacy Ergo according to Cyprian Peter had the Supremacy It would seem rather by these words that Cyprian thought Peter had not the Supremacy The words of Cyprian which Bellarmine suppresseth are Nec Petrus vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut
with the stile of that Age in which Isidorus lived Sixthly it is demonstrat those Epistles are forged not only by the stile but by the matter contained in them It were prolix to mention all we will only note some few sufficiently demonstrating those decretals to be forged First some of them are directed to those who were dead long before as that Epistle of Clement to James in which he writes to him of the death of Peter and Paul but James was dead in the seventh year of Nero as is testified by Eusebius Hegesippus and Hieronymus but Peter and Paul died not till seven years after viz. the fourteenth year of Nero. 2. Anterius in his decretal makes mention of Eusebius Bishop of Alexandria and Felix Bishop of Ephesus but Anterus lived in the beginning of the third Century almost a whole Age before them both 3. Fabianus in his Epistle makes mention of the coming of Novatus to Italy but Cyprian lib. 1. epist 3. affirms that Fabianus came to Italy in the time of Cornelius who lived at another time 4. Marcellus writes a threatning Letter to Maxentius pressing him with the Authority of Clement Bishop of Rome but Maxentius both a Pagan and a Tyrant cared nothing for Clement at all 5. Zephyrinus in his Epistle to the Egyptians affirms that it was against the constitutions of Emperours that Clergy men should be called before the Judge Secular the same is affirmed by Eusebius in his Decretal to the same Aegyptians But in those dayes viz. In the third Century the Emperours were all Pagans and it is ridiculous to affirm that they made such Edicts in favour of Christians who were cruel persecuters of the Christians 6. It s known that many ceremonies came by degrees in the Church and that there were very few ceremonies in the Church the time of those Bishop of Rome but those decretalâ—Epistles makes no mention of the grievous persecutions of the Church in those dayes no not one of them but on the contrary makes mention of the Church as it were in pomp making mention of all those ceremonies as holy vessels of the habit of the Clergy of the Mass of Archbishops Metropolitans Patriarchs none of which things were in the Church in those dayes those Cannons commonly called Apostolick mention indeed Primats but albeit they contain many profitable things yet many learned men among the Papists themselves maintain that they were not made by the Apostles but collected from Cannons of the Council of Antioch and other posterior Councils See Salmasius and Photius Bibliothick cap. 113. We might alledge several other reasons to prove those Epistles forged as their absurd interpetation of Scripture some of them maintaining community of wives c. But those reasons are sufficient since Bellarmine and Barronius seems not to care much for them since Contius Professour at Bruges maintains them to be forged since Aeneas Silvius epist 301. according to Bellarmines supputation 288. expresly affirms that before the Council of Niece there are no Monuments for the Popes Supremacy which he would never have affirmed if he had not believed those Epistles had been forged which ingeminate everywhere the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and yet the said Aeneas Silvius was afterwards Pope himself under the name of Pius second Whence we conclude that those Epistles were unknown to the Ancients And whereas Turrianus objects that Isidorus mentioneth them It is answered he is charged for forging them He objects secondly that Ruffinus turned those three Epistles of Clement but it is answered those Epistles of Clement are very old indeed but they do not prove the Antiquity of the rest The stile of these three Epistles of Clement is different from the stile of those others and although Ruffinus turned them from Greek to Latine it doth not prove they are Authentick He tuâ—ned also his Books of Recognitions which are esteemed Apocryphal by Gratianus Bellarmine and other Doctors of the Church of Rome And this much of those decretal Epistles they alledge testimonies from several other forged Authors in that interval to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval as Abdias Bishop of Babylon is cited by Dorman to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Linus is cited by Coccius for the same reason Clement by Harding viz. his books of recognition Dyonisius Areopagita de divinis nominibus is several times cited by Coccius in Thesauro for the same end but all these Authors or those books now mentioned of those Authors are rejected by Bellarmine or Barronius or Possevinus or Cajetanus or Grocinus or Sixtus Senensis and other lights of the Church of Rome and therefore it is needless to insist upon the disproving them we will only answer one passage falsly attributed to Eusebius or to Hieronymus in his additions to Eusebius and it is this Bellarmine to prove that the Bishop of Rome hath a legislative power and Posnan also thes 131. alledge a passage of Eusebius viz. that lent fast of 40 dayes was instituted by Telesphorus Bishop of Rome who lived in the second Age and this is his first instance But it is answered that Scaliger in his edition of Eusebius demonstrats those cannot be the words of Eusebius because lib. 5. cap. 17. he expresly affirms that Montanus the heretick was the first that prescribed set fasts Secondly because cap. 34. of the same Book Eusebius affirms from Irenaeus that in the time of Victor Bishop of Rome who lived after Telesphorus that the fast of lent was not observed one way some observing one day some two some more c. Bellarmines second instance is that the said Eusebius affirms that the mystery or celebration of the Mystery of the resurrection of the Lords day was first ordained by Pius Bishop of Rome and universally observed in the west But it is answered that Eusebius cap. 22. of the said Book expresly affirms the contrary viz. that it was ordained by the decrees of several Councels neither was it ever generally observed before the Council of Neice whereby it is evident that both the one and the other passage is fraudulently inserted in the works of Eusebius otherwayes Eusebius would contradict himself CHAP. XIV Of the corruptions of Cyprian THere is not a Father of them all of whom they bragg more then of Cyprian to prove the supremacy of the Bishop Rome and yet there is not a Father of them all of which they have lesse reason to bragg as we shewedbefore Barronius tom 1. pag. 129. Let one speak for all saith he in time more ancient in learning more excellent in honour of Martyrdom far exceeding the rest of the Fathers viz. Cyprian and then he cites this following passages out of Cyprian de unitate ecclesiae cap. 3. To Peter our Lord after his resurrection saith feed my sheep and buildeth his Church upon him alone 2. And although after his resurrection he gave alike power to all yet to manifest unity he constitute one Chair
do not read in Scripture or in writings of the Ancients that ever Peter did instruct correct or send any of the other Apostles or that he had any way dominion over them Bellarmin steps in endeavoring to prove that Peter was injoyned by these words Feed my sheep to feed the other Apostâ—es also he endeavors to prove it two wayes First reasoning from words next by arguments He reasons from words two wayes First by a distinction of sheep from lambs he reasons thus our Savior saith to Peter twice Feed my lambs and once Feed my sheep But saith he By twice naming of lambs he means two peoples Jewes and Gentiles by sheep he means Pastors or the Apostles themselves And so according to this witty Gloss Peter is commanded to feed the postles also But if ye object to him That the Greek Text marrs all his subtilty because it hath twice Feed my sheep and but once Feed my lambs He cuts that knot by telling you that the Greek Text is corrupt which is as much as to say That the Greek copies approved by the Ancients as shal be proved lib. 6. is corrupt and that the Latin version in which there is not so much as one sound line is pure and that to maintain a fantastick ridiculous groundless Gloss of a Jesuit against Scripture against Antiquity and an object of laughter to the most Learned of the Roman Church themselves And first It is against Scripture who in that sort of speech takes evermore sheep and lambs indifferently for the same thing Matthew 10. 16. It is said Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves Luke cap. 10. verse 3. speaking of the same Mission saith Go your wayes Behold I send you forth as lambs amongst wolves The Syrian Interpreter in both these places calls the Apostles Lambs amongst Wolves yea our Savior Acts 8. 32. is compared both to a sheep and a lamb from Isai 53. 7. as to one thing He was led like a sheep to the slaughter or like a lamb dumb before his shearer What thinks Bellarmin of his subtile distinction now Secondly all Antiquity upon the said passage of John 21. 15 16 17. interprets lambs and sheep to be one thing So Augustinus tractat 123. upon John Cyrillus upon John lib. 12. cap. 64. Chrysostomus on John Homily 87. Ambrosius or the Author of those sermons attributed to him Sermon 46. It is needless to mention other Fathers Thirdly Bellarmin exposes himself to the laughter of his own fellow Jesuits as appears by two testimonies The first is of Maldonat the Jesuit upon John 21. Where he hath those words Agnos esse eos qui in grege id est in Ecclesia Christi essent dubium non est nec subtiliter disputandum cur agnos potius quà m oves appellaverit quod qui fecerit videat etiam atque etiam ne doctis hominibus risum praebeat where he expresly affirms Those who make such distinctions as Bellarmin between lambs aud sheep exposeth themselves to the laughter of learned men The second testimony is of Jansenius in his Concordance It is needless to set down his testimony the substance of it is That there is no my stery at all that Christ now saith Feed my sheâ—p then feed my lambs The Evangelist only changeth the terms or words signifying the same thing Elegantiae causâ for elegancy or ornatness Bellarmins second reason from words is from those words of our Savior My sheep my lambs All the Apostles saith Bellarmin are the sheep of Christ Ergo Peter is commanded to feed them all by those words Feed my sheep since none are excepted and therefore the indefinit Precept Feed my sheep is equivalent to this universal Precept Feed all my sheep Which Turrianus confirms not only by the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also by the Greek article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which articleâ— and Pronoun evermore maketh an indefinit universal But it is answered This argument of Bellarmins is of like solidity with the former First it is against Scripture to call an indefinit proposition universal as Acts 2. 17. And your sons and your daughters shal prophesy and your young men shal see visions and your old men shal dream dreams This one instance overthrows the sophistry of Bellarmin and Turrianus These propositions are indefinit if universal they were notoriously false and yet they have both the Articles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Albeit all the Apostles be the Sheep of Christ yet some of Christs Sheep are only fed by himself immediately such as the Apostles others are fed by those whom Christ appoints and those are only the Sheep our Savior means in these words Feed my Sheep viz. all others besides the Apostles which are alike fed by all the Apostles In the next place Bellarmin from his sophistry in words falls to his sophistry in arguments His first argument is this These words Feed my Sheep are all one as if our Savior had said Rule my Sheep-fold or Flock but the Sheep-fold of Christ is only one in which the Apostles are also comprehended Ergo our Savior in these words injoyns Peter to feed the Apostles also The sophistry of this reason appears by the parallel of these words Matthew 28. 19. Go ye teaching all Nations which questionless is to teach the Sheep-fold of Christ which is but one And since Bellarmin will not deny that Peter is one of that Sheep-fold Ergo according to Bellarmins Logick all the Apostles are injoyned in these words to teach Peter or to feed Peter which Bellarmin will not deny to be a great paradox The sophistry of this sort of reasoning is all one with that making pasce oves meas an universal Precept which is only indefinit There is a great difference also between unum Ovile and universum Ovile Vnum Ovile is recommended to every Bishop but not universum Ovile in a word as we said before these Sheep and Lambs are meant others besides the Apostles and not the Apostles themselves Bellarmins second sophistry is this Our Savior in these words commends unto Peter either all his Sheep or none of them or some certain indefinit Sheep or indefinitly Sheep It s false that no Sheep are commended to Peter or that some certain Sheep are commended to Peter or indefinit Sheep are commended to Peter Ergo All the Sheep are commended to Peter and consequently the Apostles themselves But it is answered First we retort the sophistry Mathew 28. 19. our Savior injoyns all the Apostles to teach either some certain person or no persons or indefinit persons or all persons But the first three are absurd if Bellarmins Logick hold Ergo they are commanded to teach all persons and consequently Peter himself which Bellarmin will not deny to be a great Paradox Secondly ommitting these foolries we affirm That our Savior in those words injoynes Peter