Synopsis papismi, that is, A generall viewe of papistry wherein the whole mysterie of iniquitie, and summe of antichristian doctrine is set downe, which is maintained this day by the Synagogue of Rome, against the Church of Christ, together with an antithesis of the true Christian faith, and an antidotum or counterpoyson out of the Scriptures, against the whore of Babylons filthy cuppe of abominations: deuided into three bookes or centuries, that is, so many hundreds of popish heresies and errors. Collected by Andrew Willet Bachelor of Diuinity.

The Protestants.

THat Peter had no such iurisdiction ouer the Apostles, as to bee called the head and Prince of them: but that to them all indifferentlie were the keyes committed, and did all faithfullie execute their Apostleship without any sub∣iection of each to other, but ioyned the right hands of fellowship together: we thus confirme it out of the holy Scripture, and necessarie arguments deriued out of the same.

1 Ephes. 2.20. Apocalips. 21.14. The Church is said to bee built vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles. Ergo no primacie of power amongst the Apostles, they all founded the Church.

Bellarmine confesseth that in respect of their doctrine, there was no difference betweene Peter and the rest,* 1.1 for they all were first planters of Churches, they all preached the Gospell by reuelation: But in respect of gouernement, they were not equall: they had chiefe authoritie commit∣ted to them as Apostles and Embassadors of Christ: But Peter, as ordinarie pastor.

Wee answere. First, by his owne confession the Apostles had chiefe au∣thoritie as Apostles, but there was no higher authoritie or power then of the Apostleship: but as they were Apostles they were equall (saith the Iesu∣ite:) Ergo there could be no superioritie, for the calling of the Apostles was the highest in the Church.

2 To preach the Gospell, and to haue iurisdiction of gouernement, do both belong to the power of the keyes: but the keyes were equallie committed to all: Ergo they had all equall power both to preach and to gouerne. That they all had the power of the keyes equallie graunted vnto them, wee haue proued before out of Matth. 18.18.

2 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, that Iames was Bishop and ordinarie pa∣stor at Ierusalem, and saith with Anselme and Thomas Aquinas, that therefore he is named first by Saint Paule, Gal. 2. Bellarm. cap. 19. Therefore at Ierusalem Pe∣ter was to giue primacie to the ordinarie pastor there.

If they answere, that Rome was then the chiefe citie, and therefore Peter be∣ing

Bishop of Rome was to haue the preeminence: To this we replie: that Ie∣rusalem was rather to be preferred in respect of place, which was chosen by the Lord himselfe, to be the chiefe citie of his Church: But Rome through the ty∣rannie and vsurpation of the Romans ouer other countries was aduanced to that dignitie, not by the election of God.

But Bellarmine answereth, that Peter was Bishop of the whole Church, and so of Ierusalem too. We answere, he now saith lesse for Peter, then if hee cal∣led him, as he was, the Apostle of the whole world: for it was more to be an A∣postle thā a Bishop. Diuers were called in the Apostles times, episcopi, ouerseers, or Bishops, that were not Apostles, as the pastors of Ephesus, Act. 20.28. Where∣fore now hee hath saide iust nothing: in seeking to aduance Peter, hee hath disgraced him, in pulling him downe from his high Apostleship, to the chaire of a Bishop.

3 Peter had no superioritie ouer Paul, for they ioyned right handes of fellowship: and this allotment was made betweene them, that Paule should bee the chiefe of the Gentiles, and Peter of the circumcision, Galath. 2.9. Ergo.

Bellarmine answereth. First, they were ioyned as fellow-laborers in the preaching of the Gospell: but Peter might for all this bee greater in the office and power of gouerning. Wee answere: yea, but the text saith, that Paule onelie was not appointed to preach to the Gentiles, but hee had the chiefe Apostleship. Now to the Apostleship belongeth, not onely the functi∣on of preaching, but the whole vse of the keyes, and power of iurisdic∣tion. Ergo: in all respects Saint Paule ouer the Gentiles had the chiefe A∣postleship.

But let any man say, that this was a humane compact amongst them∣selues, and Paul had his lotte at Peters assignement: the text sheweth, that the Lorde himselfe had made this distribution. For when they sawe, saith Saint Paul, that the Gospell ouer the vncircumcision was committed to mee, verse 7. So then the Apostles did but confirme by their consent, that distribu∣tion, which they sawe the Lord himselfe had appoynted.

Further saith the Iesuite, the diuision was not so made, but that it was lawfull for Peter also to preache to the Gentiles. Wee answeare: wee graunt it, and for Paule to preache to the Iewes, yet that distinction remayned still, that Peter was chiefe of the circumcision, Paule of the vn∣circumcision.

Againe saith hee: but Peter had the more excellent lotte, for Christ him∣selfe first preached to the Iewes. Wee answere, wee denie not, but that hee had the first lotte in order: for to the Iewes was the Gospell first of∣fered: but Paul had the larger and more glorious lotte: the Church of the Iewes, now decaying, and the Gentiles beginning to be planted in their roome. But howsoeuer it was, it cannot bee denied, but that Paule was chiefe towards

the Gentiles: And therefore the Church of Rome might with better right haue deriued their authoritie from S. Paul, then from Peter: Both of them they cannot make patrons of their See: seeing by their owne rules the Pope cannot be successor to them both.

Further, out of the same place, Galath. 2.11. an other thing commeth to bee obserued: that Peter was rebuked of Paule, and in such sort, that it appeareth there was no great inequality between them▪ for he doth it to his face openlie, before all men, and at Antioch, in Peters owne Bishopricke, as they say, can it be now thought that Paul was any thing inferior to Peter?

* 1.2Bellarmine and the Iesuits answere, that the Pope may bee rebuked of an in∣ferior, and ought to take it patiently, if it be done in zeale and loue. Aunswere: First, wee doe not simplie thus conclude, because Paul reprehended Peter, therefore he was not his superior, but because of the manner, as we shewed: it was done in such sorte, so plainely, so openly, without any submission or crauing of pardon, that there can appeare no inequalitie at all betweene them. Secondly, although they seeme heere to graunt, that the Pope may be rebuked, yet is it otherwise in their Canon lawe, which saith, that though the Pope doe leade innumerable soules to hell, no mortall man may pre∣sume to reprooue his faultes, part. 1. distin. 4. cap. Si Papa. Fulk. Annot. in Gala. 2. sect. 8.

4 Lastlie, what reason was there, why Christ should giue the supremacie to Peter ouer the rest? Christ was no acceptor of persons: if hee had bene, Iohn should haue bene preferred, whom he loued most. If deserts be weighed, I think Peter deserued no more then the rest of his fellowes: Nay I thinke the wise∣dome of the Spirit, foreseeing the questions that should afterward arise in the Church about Peter, hath so disposed, that this Apostles infirmities both in number more and weight greater then any of the rest, should be euidentlie set forth in Scripture. We will brieflie runne them ouer, not to derogate from the blessed memorie of so excellent an Apostle; but a litle to stay and bridle the preposterous zeale of our aduersaries, who doe ascribe more vnto him, then euer he would haue challenged to himselfe.

To let passe the smaller slippes and scapes of this Apostle, as his rashnesse in aduenturing beyond his strength, to walke vppon the Sea, Matth. 14. Secondlie, his vnaduised speech in the Mountaine, Math. 17. let vs make three Tabernacles: thirdlie, his ignorance, Matth. 19. In saying to Christ, how often shall I forgiue my brother? till seuen times? Fourthlie, his im∣patiencie, as in drawing out his sworde and cutting off Malchus eare. Fifthlie, his timorousnesse in flying from Christ at his apprehension. Sixt∣lie, his curiositie, Iohn 21. In asking concerning Iohn, what shall this man doe? To let passe these as common infirmities: There are fower great faultes, which Peter fell into, much amplified, and stoode vppon by the fathers.

1 He de••orted our Sauiour from his passion with these words: Master fauour thy selfe, Math. 16. and was therefore called Sathan, an aduersarie to the death of Christ, and so to the redemption of man. Augustine chargeth him with great forgetfulnes, hauing made so notable a confession of Christ before, and noteth him for some sparkes of distrust and infidelitie. Ille Petrus, qui iam eum confessus fuerat filium dei, timuit, ne sicut filius hominis moreretur, in Psal. 138. The same Peter (sayth he) which a little before had confessed him to be the Sonne of God, feared lest he should dye and perish as a man.

2 In promising rashly not to denye Christ, yea vnto death, whereas Christ had foretold him of his fall before, Augustine noteth great presumption: Petrus ex egregio praesumptore creber negator effectus. Epist. 120. cap. 14. Peter of a great presumer, is become a desperate denyer.

3 The third great sinne was committed by Peter in denying of Christ, and that thrice, yea with an oath, at the instance of a mayden, and in a very short while, before the cocke crewe twise, Mark. 14.72. The Iesuite answereth, that this was no hinderance to Peters primacie, but a furtherance and a confirma∣tion of it. But whether it were a let to his primacie or not, let all men iudge, seeing it had been sufficient to haue hindered his saluation and destroyed his faith, without the great mercie of God.

Let vs heare Augustines iudgement of Peters fall. Some man may excuse Pe∣ter, and say, that he did nothing, but as Christ forewarned him. What then (sayth he) if Peter therefore did not amisse, because his fall was foretold by Christ: Re∣ctè etiam fecit Iudas, qui tradidit dominum, quia & hoc praedixerat dominus:* 1.3 then Iudas did well too (sayth he) in betraying of Christ, for this also Christ shewed afore? But some agayne may say: he denyed not Christ, for hee sayd hee knewe not the man: Quasi vero (sayth he) qui hominem Christum negat,* 1.4 non Christum neget: as though hee that denyeth the man Christ, doth not flatly denye Christ. Christ also taketh away all doubts (saith he) when he thus said to Peter, the cock shall not crowe till thou hast denyed me thrice: he sayth not, till thou hast de∣nyed the man, but me. Agayne, Ipse potius redarguit defensores suos: Peter him∣selfe doth confute his maintayners and defenders: Agnouit planè peccatum su∣um infirmitas Petri: Peters owne conscience gaue him, that hee had sinned, for he went out and wept bitterly. But if by this meanes his primacie was confir∣med, he had occasion to reioyce, and not to weepe: Yea he wept bitterly, his sinne was very great: how then dare one of your sect say with a blasphemous mouth, Petrus non fidem Christi, sed Christum salua fide negauit:* 1.5 Peter denyed not the faith of Christ, but his faith remayning safe and sound he denyed Christ? The ancient writers durst not so extenuate Peters fall, no nor Peter himselfe, that wept full sore, as these men presume to doe.

4 The last fault noted in Peter was that, for the which he is reproued of Paul Act. 2. Tush (saith Bellarmine) it was a very small and light offence. Yea, was it so smal a fault to constrayne the Gentiles to doe like the Iewes? for this was the poynt, as S. Paul writeth, Galath. 2.14. And Augustine saith, Petrus non obiurga∣tus

a Paulo fuit, quòd seruabat consuetudinem Iudaeorum, in qua natus & educatus fuit, sed quòd eam gentibus imponere volebat. Exposit. ad Galat. Peter was not re∣buked of Paule, because hee kept the custome of the Iewes, wherein hee was brought vp, but because he would lay it vpon the Gentiles. Was this leuissimum peccatum, a small transgression? S. Paule should greatly haue been to blame, for rebuking Peter openly, and so plainly for so small an offence, and should haue done agaynst his owne rule, Galath. 6.1. But Peter did it of a good mind (sayth Bellarmine.* 1.6) Yea did? then he was worthie to be excused, not worthie of blame, as S. Paule writeth. He might also doe it ignorantly and vnwittingly (saith hee.) How can that be? seeing he was one that made the decree, Act. 15: That no yoke should be layd vpon the Gentiles: other then there expressed, and now contra∣rie to that decree, hee constrayneth the Gentiles, Iudaizare, to play the Iewes. These things doe not hang together.

I will now conclude out of Augustine, as hee alleageth out of Cyprian: Nec Petrus, cum secum Paulus de circumcisione disceptaret, postmodum vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter, vt diceret se primatum tenere, De baptis. 2.2. Howsoeuer it was, Peter, when Paule reasoned thus with him, did not stand vpon his pan∣tofles, & chalenge any primacie to himselfe. But it is very like, if there had been any such primacie in Peter of power and iurisdiction, (a primacie of order wee graunt, as Cyprian in that place calleth Peter, primum, the first) that this sharpe reprehension of Paul should either haue been spared, or els not done in that ve∣hement manner.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Bellarm. cap. 11.
• * 1.2

  Cap. 15.
• * 1.3

  Exposit. in Psal. 140.
• * 1.4

  Tractat. in Iohann. 66.
• * 1.5

  Copus. vide Iuell. p. 665 defens. apol.
• * 1.6

  Bellarm. cap. 28.