A treatise concerning the church Wherin it is shewed, by the signes, offices, and properties therof, that the Church of Rome (and consequently such particuler churches as liue in her communion) is the only true church of Christ. VVritten in Latin, by the Reuerend Father Iames Gordon Huntley of Scotland, Doctour of Diuinity, of the Society of Iesus. And translated into English by I.L. of the same Society. The third part of the second controuersy.

CHAP. VIII. Wherein the arguments of our Aduersa∣ries against the Church of Rome are confuted. (Book 8)

THese are the chiefest arguments which our Aduersaries do obiect against vs out of holy Scripture. The first. Christ is the head of the Church, the rocke & foundation, be∣sides which no man can lay any other.* 1.1 I answere that of one and the same thing there may be many heades, so that one be subiect to another. For the head of the woman is the man, the head of euery man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God, as the Apostle testifieth. And so the woman hath three heades, her Husband, Christ, and God; but each one of them is subiect vnto another. So S. Peter or the Pope of Rome is the head of the Church, but vnder Christ and subiect vnto him.* 1.2 Because Christ is the heade of S. Peter, and of the Byshop of Rome. Moreouer Christ is the head of the whole Church aswell present as to come, aswell of the old Testament as of the new▪

But S. Peter or his successor is only head of the Church in this world and of the new Testament only. Hereupon sayd Christ,* 1.3 vpon this rocke I will build my Church, that is to say, the Church of the new Testament which was then to be built.

2. Yea euen by the nature of a head we may gather very well that besides Christ, who is the head of al Churches aswell visible as inuisible, as the Apostle saith, there is also another visible head of the visible Church,* 1.4 for otherwise it were a monster, because it should be a vi∣sible body without a visible head. Yt is necessary therfore, that besides an inuisi∣ble heade which is Christ, there be also a visible heade in the visible Church, to wit S. Peters successor.

3. Furthermore the actions which Christ exerciseth in his Church are of two kindes, some are inuisible as our voca∣tion, iustification & sanctification &c. and these Christ exerciseth and doth by himselfe. Some other actions are visible, as to preach, administer Sacraments, and to gouerne visibly the Church &c. These Christ doth not exercise by himself alone, but also by visible men whi••h represent his person. Wherfore euen as Christ should not be sayd truly to baptize any

vnlesse there were some visible man who in the person of Christ should visibly ba∣ptize: neyther can he be sayd truly to go∣uerne visibly euery particuler Church vnlesse in each of them some particuler persō do visibly gouerne in Christs steed: so also neyther should Christ be sayd truly to gouerne visibly the whole Church, vnlesse there were some one who in his person might visibly gouerne the whole Church. But this person can be no other but the Byshop of Rome.

4. And that which hath byn said before of the head,* 1.5 is also to be vnder∣stood of the rocke and foundation. For Christ is indeed the chiefest foundation of all true belieuers:* 1.6 but the secondary and subordinate foundation vnto Christ is also the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, as the Apostle expressely saith to the Ephesians: and Caluin also acknow∣ledgeth it to be most true.* 1.7 But if the do∣ctrine of all the Apostles be also the foun∣dation of the Church, why should not also S. Petres doctrine be the same. For when we say that S. Peter is the founda∣tion of the Church, by S. Peter we doe vnderstand not his person only but also his doctrine preached in the Church of Rome.

5. Moreouer seing that S. Iohn in his Apocalyps sayth,* 1.8 that the Citty of God hath twelue foundations, and in them twelue names of the twelue Apostles of the lambe. VVhat mer∣uaile is it, if S. Peter the first of the Apo∣stles be called a rocke or foundation of the Citty of God.

6. And heere it is to be considered, that when the Apostle sayth that there is no other foundation besides Christ, this word (besides) hath the same signification that contrary or against hath,* 1.9 as appea∣reth by many other places of holy Scrip∣ture. For otherwise all the Apostles are called the foundations of the Church, as we haue sayd before: but they are not contrary or against Christ,* 1.10 but vnder Christ and subiect vnto him.

7. Finally yf we examine more ex∣actely the true sense of those wordes of S. Paul to the Corinthians,* 1.11 yt will appeare ma∣nifestly that our aduersaries wrest the said wordes of the Apostle to a contrary sense and meaning. For the Apostle doth not speake of the foundatiō of the whole buylding of the Church of Christ wherof only is our present Cōtrouersy:* 1.12 but of the foundatiō of particuler & priuate actions of euery true belieuer. For S. Paul mani∣festely writeth, that he layd that founda∣tiō

wherof he speaketh, & that euery one buyldeth his owne proper worke vpon this foundation. But there is a great dif∣ference among these foundations: because heere Christ himselfe is he who made & ordayned S. Peter to be a foun••ation.* 1.13 I say vnto thee, saith Christ to S. Peter, that thou art Cephas: there S. Paul is he who lōg after laid that ••oundation wherof he speaketh, as a wise worke-mayster, saith he, haue I layed the foundation.* 1.14 Heere Christ himselfe is he who buildeth, Vpon this rocke, saith our lord, I will buyld. There euery priuate man is he who buyldeth, but let euery one looke saith the Apostle, ••ow he buildeth theron; heere the Church is that which is built theron,* 1.15 I will build, saith our Lord, my Church. There the worke of euery priuate man is that which is built theron. If any mans worke a∣bide, saith the Apostle, that which he built therupon shall receaue reward.* 1.16 S. Paul therfore speaketh of the foundatiō of good workes which belong vnto iustice and life euer∣lasting wherof as we haue said Christ is the only foundation.* 1.17 We treate here of the foun∣dation of the outward and visible gouer∣nement of the Church and doctrine of sound faith. Now S. Peter & his successors were such a foundation. Wher••ore that which our Aduersaries alleadge out of S.

Paul, doth nothing concerne this our pre∣se••t ••i••putation.

8. The second argument. S. Peter de∣nyed Christ th••ice,* 1.18 ther••ore he could not be the re••ke, against whome the gates of hell should neuer preuayle. I answere that when S. Peter denyed Christ, he was not as then the foundation of the Church. For promise was made vnto him only, Matth. 16. I will build &c. I will gi••e thee &c. speaking alwaies in the future tense: but afterward Ioan 21. the authority was actually giuen which was b••f••re promi∣sed vn••o him,* 1.19 and that after that denyall of S. Peter as also after the resurrection of Christ, feede my lambes, saith Christ, f••ede my she••pe.

9. The third argument. After that the foresayd authority was giuen Ioan. 21. S. Peter was reprehended by S. Paul Gal. 2. I answere that as witnesseth Tertullian the Marcionists obiected this very same place a∣gainst Catholikes,* 1.20 vnto whome Tertul∣lian answereth in these words, Indeed, saith he, it was a vice or fault of his conuersation, and not of his preaching.* 1.21 And he answered very well; for S. Peter might peraduenture thē haue synned, but he could not erre in fayth, because he knew very well that the Moysaicall Law was not necessary to salua∣tion

for the Gentills, neyther did he euer teach the same to be necessary. Yea when there arose any controuersy about this matter, he manifestly taught that t••e Gen∣tills were not obliged by it, as may be seen in the Acts of the Apostles. Wherfore if S. Peter offēded in any thing, it was a synne of his conuersation and not of his preaching & doctrine, wherof we now only dispute,* 1.22 albeit there are many who thinke that S. Peter did not offende at all in any respect, of whom see Bellarmine,* 1.23 and Ba∣ronius.

10. The fourth argument. S. Paul re∣prehended those that said they belonged to S. Peter.* 1.24 I answere that those men deui∣ded Christ from S. Peter and S. Paul, and they opposed them against Christ as e∣qualls vnto him, making them as it were so many Christs:* 1.25 The which S. Paul de∣clareth in these wordes, Is Christ deuided? Moreouer they attributed to S. Peter and S. Paul the internall and inuisible giftes of the holy Ghost,* 1.26 and the effect of the Sa∣crament, yea and our redemption also, no otherwise then they did vnto Christ. Hence are those wordes of S. Paul in the same place, why? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

11▪ But we teach that the Pope of

Rome is inferior and not equall vnto Christ: wherupon he is also called the Vi∣car of Christ, as subiect vnto him, and not deuided from him. Moreouer we teach that the Pope doth not giue the inward and spirituall gyftes of Fayth, Hope, and Charity, but he is only the ••icar of Christ in the doctrine of fayth and exteriour gouer∣nement of the Church.

12. The f••rst argument. The Apostle to the Corinthians and Ephesians doth re∣count diuers offices of the Church,* 1.27 and yet he sayth nothing of S. Peter. I answe∣re, first,* 1.28 that it is not necessary that the A∣postle make any mention of S. Peter in eue∣ry place, for it is sufficient that in some one place or other he hath euidently de∣clared that S. Peter was a chiefe member of the Church the which he did when he said, that he came to Hierusalem to see S. Peter,* 1.29 and tarryed with him fifteene dayes.

13. Furthermore in these very places he manifestly maketh mention of S. Peter. For euery where he putteth the Apostles in the first place, and all Christians knew well inough, that S. Peter was chiefe of all the Apostles, according to that of S. Matthew, the first Simon who was called Peter. Heerupon saith S. Augustin: who knoweth not tha••

S. Peter was the chiefe of the Apostles?

14. Finally the Apostle himselfe doth not indeed speake in these places of the ordinary Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy, but of those extraordinary giftes which were giuen to the members of the primitiue Church. For the recounteth there also the Euangelists, Prophets, the grace of doyng cures or helpes, kindes of tongues &c. which are cer∣taynely extrordinary gyftes: as S. Chryso∣stome, Theophilactus, Oecumemus, and others expounding these wordes of the Apostle, haue well noted.

15. The sixt argument. Many of the Byshops of Rome were wicked bad men, and giuen to many kindes of synnes, as all euen Catholike writers do testify. As therfore they haue grieuously erred in manners, so they might also erre in faith and doctrine.* 1.30 I answere that this was in tymes past the argument of the Donatists agaynst Catholikes, wherunto S. Augustine hath often answered. For there is a great difference betwixt their conuersation and doctrine, because an error committed in our manner of conuersation only hurteth him which erreth, but an error in do∣ctrine is also hurtfull to many others, yea euen to the whole Church of God. Hence proceeded that admonition of Christ:

all thinges therefore, whatsoeuer they shall say to you, obserue yee, and doe yee: but according to their workes do ye not. Caluin also refuteth this ar∣gumēt of our Aduersaries more at length as the foolish inuention or dreame of the Anabaptistes: for he knew very well that among his Ministers there were many most wicked vngodly men. Wherfore it is very strange that his followers will repeate and inculcate this argument so often.

16. Our Aduersaries haue many other arguments besides these which need no confutation: for they are not taken out of the word of God, but all do rely and are grounded vpon lyes and meere fables forged by auncient Heretickes, or Schismatickes, or at the leaste by such as were no fauourits nor welwillers to the Church of Rome,* 1.31 the which Doctor Sāders and Cardinall Baronius prosecute particu∣lerly throughout all ages. Wherfore that saying of the Apostle doth very well a∣gree to our Aduersaries. And from the truth certes they will auerse their hearing, and to fables they will be conuerted.

17. We will heere alledge one most certaine example of those Slaunders the which our Aduersaries cast against the Church of Rome.* 1.32 And that we may also

omit that Caluin in few wordes hath no lesse then fiue manifest lyes of one only Byshop of Rome, Iohn 22. as Bellarmine clearly proueth; the same Caluin truly hath forged three most famous and mar∣kable lyes against the whole Church of Rome: for he saith,* 1.33 that these are the three principle articles of that Diuinity which is taught by the Byshops and Car∣dinalls of Rome. First, that there is no God. The second, that all thinges which are written & taught concerning Christ, are lyes and fables. The third, that there is no lyse after this.

18. But that one answere which S. Augustine gaue the Donatists slaundering wrongfully Catholikes in tymes past, may suffice to confute all these reproachfull and iniurious lyes of our present Aduer∣saries. Let vs not heare, saith he, what this or that man saith, but what our Lord saith: let vs not heere, this say I, thus sayest thou, but thus saith our Lord, and what the holy Scriptures say vnto vs concerning the Church.

19. Moreouer that which in general the same holy Father in another place saith against the lyes of the Donatists,* 1.34 may now very well be applyed in this manner to the Roman Church. I know, saith he, what is written in the holy and Canonicall Scrip∣tures concerning the Church of Rome and the saith

therof, I know not what you say of her Apostacy or falling from her fayth. Truly as we do reade in bookes, the which you also do honour & reuerēce, of the Roman Church and faith therof, so also reade you vnto vs out of bookes the which we also do ho∣nour and reuerence, how she forsooke and lost her faith. Doth it please you that we should belieue e∣uery slaunderous reproach of men vpon what occa∣sion soeuer it was vttered and obiected against the Roman Church, the which the holy Ghost hath both deliuered & cōmēded vnto vs by his holy Scriptures, this indeed is pleasing to you, but whom also it should more iustly please, you see well inough; but you being ouercome by obstinacy will not yield to the truth. And a little after. Lo h••ere the Roman Church, with whome I communicate,* 1.35 where I reade thee her name, there finde thou me her faultes, if thou canst,* 1.36 but if thou cryest, and rehearsest them from some other place, we following the voyce of our Pa∣stour euidently declared vnto vs by the mouth of the Apostle S. Paul, do not admit, belieue, or heare your wordes.* 1.37 My sheepe, saith our heauenly Pastour, heare my voice and follow me. His testimony of the Roman Church is not obscure, but very cleare and manifest. VVhosoeuer will not go a stray or wan∣der from his flock,* 1.38 let him heare him, let him fol∣low him. Hitherto S. Augustine.

20. Finally it is heere diligently to be noted, that our Aduersaries neuer durst be so bould as to affirme so strange and ab∣surd

things of the Church of Rome, so auncient in it selfe, and so commended by all the auncient holy Fathers, yea and by the Apostle S. Paul himselfe, but that they falsely perswade themselues that she hath lost and forsaken the true doctrine of Christ.* 1.39 Heerupon they say that Rome is Babylon, and they are not ashamed to af∣firme the Pope to be Antichrist. But if it were once proued manifestly, that the Roman Church teacheth nothing which is not very agreable to the word of God, all our Aduersaries weapons against the Church of Rome will easily be blunted and ouerthrowne, and also they wilbe forced to confesse with Caluin,* 1.40 that the breach from this Church, is the denyall of God and Christ, or that there cannot be imagined any fault more heynous. But this God willing shalbe more eui∣dently hereafter declared in euery Con∣trouersy.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Cor. 11. v. 3
• * 1.2

  Ad Ephe••▪ 1. v. 22.
• * 1.3

  Matth. 15. v. 18.
• * 1.4

  Ad Ephes. 1. v. 22.
• * 1.5

  1. Cor. 3. v. 11.
• * 1.6

  E••hes. 1. v. 20.
• * 1.7

  Calu. ibi••. & l••. Inst. cap. 7. s••ct. 2.
• * 1.8

  ••pocal. ••1. v. 14.
• * 1.9

  •• Cor. 3. v. ••1.
• * 1.10

  Supra cap. 35. §. 2. Contr. 1.
• * 1.11

  1. Cor. 3. v. ••••.
• * 1.12

  ••. Cor. 3. v. ••••.
• * 1.13

  Matth. 1•• v. 18.
• * 1.14

  1. Cor. 3▪ v. 10.
• * 1.15

  Matth. 1••. v. 18.
• * 1.16

  1. Cor. 3.••.14.
• * 1.17

  §. 3. hui•••• cap.
• * 1.18

  Ioan. ••8. v. 25.
• * 1.19

  Ioan. 21. v. 15.
• * 1.20

  Tertull. l. 5. contra. Marci. c. 7.
• * 1.21

  Tertull. de prase. aduersus Haret. c. ••j. in fine.
• * 1.22

  Act. 15. v. 10. & 11.
• * 1.23

  Bell. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. vl••••••in fine.
• * 1.24

  Bar••n▪ Tom. 1. an. 51. & 52. & seq. 1. Cor. 1. v. 13▪
• * 1.25

  1 Cor. 1. v. 13.
• * 1.26

  1. Cor. 1. v. 13▪
• * 1.27

  2. Cor. 1. v. 18.
• * 1.28

  Ephes. 4. v. 11.
• * 1.29

  Gal. 1. v. ••••.
• * 1.30

  S. Aug. Tom. 2. Epist. 165. ad Gener. & Tom 7. contra li∣te•• as Peril. Donatist. lib. 2. c. 5. 6 & 53▪
• * 1.31

  Sander. l. 7. ••itato. Baron. in omnibus 12. Tom. 2. Tim. 4. v. 4.
• * 1.32

  Calu. l. 4. Inst. c. 7. sect. 18.
• * 1.33

  Bellarm. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 14. ••um a∣agit de 36. Papa. Caluin lib. 4. Inst. c. 7 sect. 27. S. Aug. Tom. 7. de vnitate Eccles. c. 2. & 3▪
• * 1.34

  S. Aug. Tom. 7. d•• vnitate Eccles. c▪ 12.
• * 1.35

  Rom. 1. v. 17.
• * 1.36

  Rom. 1. v. 8.
• * 1.37

  Ioan. 10. v. 7.
• * 1.38

  Rom. 1. v. 7. & 8.
• * 1.39

  Rom. 1. v. 7. & 8.
• * 1.40

  Calu. l. 4▪ Inst. cap. ••. sect. 10. in fine.