An aduertisement to the English seminaries, amd [sic] Iesuites shewing their loose kind of writing, and negligent handling the cause of religion, in the whole course of their workes. By Iohn Doue Doctor in Diuinity.

CHAP. 1. (Book 1)

Of the Head of the Church.

ANd that I may first with Saint Iohn the Baptist, lay the axe to the roote of the tree; because the Cardinall de∣riueth the Popes supremacy from S. Peter, let vs therefore * 1.1 examine by what right he entituleth S. Peter to that su∣premacy. * 1.2 For his supremacy being shaken, the Popes au∣thority which is grounded vpon it, cannot stand. Our Sa∣uiour vpon Saint Peter his confession, where he saith: Thou art the Christ, the Sonne of the liuing God: answered: Thou * 1.3 art Peter, and vpon this rocke will I build my Church. It is as impossible to reduce these words into a true syllogisme, or forme of argumentation, as it was for the Oracles to speake * 1.4 when the Sonne of God had enioyned them silence, or for the Aegyptians to make lice when the finger of God was a∣gainst them. Euery lawfull syllogisme must consist onely of three parts, or termes, as they call them; but here are fower, Petrus Petra, persona Petri, & structura Ecclesiae: the person of him that made the confession, his name, his confession it selfe which is called the rocke, or foundation stone; and the buil∣ding of the Church. His person, and his name, where it is said: Tues Petrus, thou art Peter: the confession or founda∣tion stone, vpon this rocke: the aedifice or building it selfe, will I build my Church. The medius terminus, or argument, whereby euery conclusion ought to be proued, must bee one and the selfe same as well in the Minor proposition as in the Maior: but here it cannot be so, for it is Petra in Ma∣iori, & Petrus in Minors, the rocke in the Maior, and Peter in the Minor, as if they should conclude in this manner: The rocke is the foundation of the Church; but the Apostle which made this confession, is Peter: therefore the Apostle which made this confession is the foundation of the Church. But this

is not in Moode and Figure, the medius terminus being not the same in both propositions. Therefore if they will cor∣rect it, and reduce it into a true forme, they must conclude in this manner: Whosoeuer is the rocke, he is the foundation of the Church. But the Apostle which made this confession (mea∣ning Peter) is the rocke: therefore the Apostle which made this confession, is the foundation of the Church. And then, besides that they do confound the confession and the confessor, S. Peters person and his doctrine, which are two seuerall and distinct things, the Minor is vntrue, and contrary to the as∣sertion of our Sauiour Christ. For he doth not say: Tues Petra, thou art the rocke; but tues Petrus, thou art Peter: nor super hunc Petrum, sed super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam; vpon this Peter, but vpon this rocke will I build my Church. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So then, where he saith THOV, he speaketh of his person; and men∣tioning PETER, he telleth what is his name; speaking of the ROCKE, he iustifieth his religion, being three seuerall points besides the aedifice and building of the Church, whereof that religion is the foundation stone.

Now before we proceed any further in this argument, let vs auoyde such exceptions as the aduersary bringeth a∣gainst the analysing of this text. First, Bellarmine obie∣cteth, * 1.5 that our Sauiour spake in the Syrian tongue, and in that language this one word CEPHAS is nomen proprium viri, & commune saxi, the proper name of a man, and a name common to all stones, as also in the Greeke tongue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth both Peter and a stone; and it is plaine in the Sy∣riac text he said: Thou art Cephas, and vpon this Cephas will I build my Church. And thereupon he concludeth, that Ce∣phas in the first place should not signifie his name, and in the second the rocke, as I deliuered in my Analysis, but in both places the rocke; so that there may be tres tantùm ter∣mini, onely three termes or parts to make a true syllogisme, and consequently that Peter is the rocke. To which I re∣ply: there can be no good argument drawne from the au∣thority

of the Syriac text, not onely because of the ambi∣guity of the word, which maketh the matter doubtfull, ac∣cording to the grammaticall construction, and very vncer∣taine; but also because that text is disalowed by the Church of Rome: whereas the Latine text, out of which I made this Analysis maketh for me, and is vpon paine of anathe∣ma to be receiued as authenticall; and so I touch him to the quicke, and slay him with his owne sword. As Cephas ac∣cording to Grammer signifieth both the name of a man, & a stone, yet in this place it cannot signifie both of them; be∣cause it is otherwise in the Greeke, which is the originall, & without exception, and in the vulgar Latinetranslation, which do make that very plaine, where the first Cephas is Peter, and the second a stone: and so that which is, or might seeme to be ambiguous, and yeeld matter of controuersie in the Syriac, is cleared in these editions, and all ambi∣guity is taken away, there is no starting-hole left for the Sophister to cauell vpon. Concerning the Syriac text Bel∣larmine maketh doubt, where he writeth thus: De testamen∣to * 1.6 nouo maior est dubitatio, Of the whole edition of the Syriac new testament, there is a greater doubt, whether it were written in that tongue by the Authors themselues or no? Againe, hee deliuereth his owne iudgement in these words: Quod si e∣ditio Syriaca aetate horū patrum posterior est, vt ego quidem mi∣hi certè persuadeo, non potest eius authoritas tanta esse vt cum e∣ditione Graecâ aut Latinâ meritò comparari possit, vt interim il∣lud non omittam, quod non desunt etiam quaedam in eâ editione quae viris doctis & pijs non admodum placeant. If the Syriac edition be of lesse antiquity then these Fathers (meaning Cle∣mens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, & others of whom there he spake) as I certainly perswade my selfe it is, it cannot be any way of equall authority, with the Greeke and La∣tine; besides, that many things are found in that edition distasting to men, both godly and learned. Againe, Valde probabile est Euangelium Matthaei, & epistolam Sancti Pauli ad Hebraeos Syriacà linguà scripta esse: There is great probability onely that

S. Matthew his Gospel, and S. Paule his Epistle to the Hebrews were written in the Syrian tongue. There he doth not take it as a cleare case that S. Matthew his Gospell was written in Syriac by himselfe, but onely he leaueth it as a probable coniecture. But the Greeke he will haue to be without ex∣ception: Constat nouum testamentum Graecè scriptum ab ipsis * 1.7 Apostolis vel Euangelistis, quorum nomina in titulis singulorum librorum vel epistolarum praefiguntur, exceptis duntaxat euange∣lio Matthaei & Marci, et Epistola ad Hebraeos. It is manifest that the new testament was written in Greeke by those Apostles or Euangelists whose names are praefixed to euery booke or Epi∣stle, excepting the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Marke, & the Epistle to the Hebrews. But Athanasius existimat ab Apostolo Iacobo Matthaei euangeliū in Graecam linguam esse translatū; alij verò Iohāni Apostolo; at alij ipsi Matthaeo eam translationē attri∣buunt: sed cuiuscun{que} sit, it a recepta est ab Ecclesiâ illa trāslatio, acsi eâ linguâ scriptū fuisset euangeliū Mathaei. Athanasius thin∣keth S. Matthews Gospel was translated into Greeke by S. Iames the Apostle, others by S. Iohn the Apostle, others by S. Matthew himselfe; but by whomsoeuer it was translated, the Greeke trans∣lation is so approued by the Church, as if it had bene originally written in that tongue. Againe: Ita{que} Graeca editio noui testa∣menti vniuersa Apostolos & Euangelistas authores habet: There∣fore all the Greeke edition was set forth by the Apostles and E∣uangelists, And as for the vulgar Latine edition it is by the Councell of Trent imposed vpon all Romish Catholickes * 1.8 vpon paine of excommunication, to be receiued as authen∣ticall, and without exception. Therefore according to the rules of their Catholicke religion, I argue against the Ca∣tholickes more safely and firmly out of the Greeke and Latine which are plaine, and of whose authority they make no question, then Bellarmine doth against vs out of the Syriac, which is both ambiguous, and of no authority in the Church to build vpon. So then, for asmuch as by the decree of that Councell, nothing can be held for truth in the Syriac which is repugnant to the Latine, but the Latine

maketh for vs; I conclude that my Analysis of the text, is without exception, let him refute it if he can.

Now this being the question, whether the Church be founded vpon the person, or vpō the doctrine of Saint Pe∣ter? If they say, vpon his person: I reply: the Church was from the beginning of the world, and it stood as firme as now it doth, before the conuersion of S. Peter. When S. Peter was not, the Church was one and the same which now it is, and it could not stand without a foundation. But the faith which he professed, was more ancient then himselfe, euen from the beginning common to the whole Church; so that the Church might well be builded vpon that faith, though not vpon Saint Peter, nor vpon the person of any sinfull man. And therefore our Sauiour saith: he will build his Church, that is the members of the Church vnder the Gospell, which make but vnam Ecclesiam aggregatam, one Church ioyntly with that which was vnder the time of na∣ture, and the time of the law, vpon the same foundation, be∣ing all stones of the same building. But Bellarmine alled∣geth out of Saint Chrysostome Hom. 55. in Matth. Where he * 1.9 saith: Tues Petrus, & super te aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, Thou art Peter, and vpon thee will I build my Church. And Hom. 4. in Esaiae cap. 6. Quid autem Petrus ille basis Ecclesiae? What shall we say of Peter the foundation of the Church? As if Saint Chrysostome did not acknowledge the doctrine, but the per∣son, not the confession, but the confessor himselfe, to be the foundation of the Church. To the first place I answer: I haue examined, but finde no such place in that Homily, but that which is contrary to it. But supposing that to be true, which he hath so faisified, I answer to it, as likewise to the secōd place which is rightly by him produced, that it is but the fallacy of aequiuocatiō. For he alledgeth that out of Chrysostome, as a speech proper, which is but metonymically vnderstood. It is a figure called Metonomia causae. So A∣bram speaketh to the rich man: They haue Moses and the * 1.10 Prophets; meaning not the men themselues which were

dead, but their bookes which were extant. So Saint Paul * 1.11 teacheth that we are built vpon the foundation of the Pro∣phets and Apostles, that is: vpon the faith which is taught in the Propheticall and Apostolicall writings; so that there is but one faith, one ground or foundation, vpon which the old Church from the beginning, and the new Church vnder the Gospell are builded vpon: these two be∣ing but one, as before I haue deliuered. And that the mea∣ning of Saint Chrysostome is metonimicall, and not proper, * 1.12 it appeareth by his owne exposition of himselfe, where he saith in the same Homily, contrary to that which Bellarmine hath alledged: super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, id est, fidem & confessionem, I will build my Church vpon this rocke, that is, vpon this faith and confession which thou hast made. And it is iustified to be a true exposition by the consent of other Fathers, as of Saint Hilary, which saith: super hanc confessio∣nis * 1.13 Petram aedificatio Ecclesiae est, vpon this rocke of confession, is the Church founded. And of Cyrillus, which saith: Petram opinor nihil aliud quàm inconoussam & firmissimam discipulifidē vocauit, He called the faith of S. Peter arocke, because it was stedfast as a rocke that cannot be moued.

And by the way to preuent that which may in subtilty, but not in sincerity be obiected against vs; that the foun∣dation must be answerable to the building, but we which are builded vpon that foundation, are all liuing stones, and * 1.14 we come to him which is also a liuing stone, disallowed of men, which is Iesus Christ; as the building is personall, so there must be a personall foundation, the persons of men are these liuing stones: I answer, the onely true and pro∣per foundation of the Church is Christ, as the Apostle teacheth: No other foundation can any man lay, then that which * 1.15 is already layed, which is Iesus Christ. I will therefore ex∣plaine the meaning of Saint Chrysostome, Saint Hillary, and Saint Cyril, in what sort faith may be verified to be the foun∣dation of the Church; and yet with a due reseruation of that prerogatiue which belongeth to our Sauiour Christ,

and which Saint Paul ascribeth to him; and so I will recon∣cile * 1.16 Luther which saith, faith is the rocke, vnto Caluin which affirmeth, that this rocke is Iesus Christ. As a gold ring of very small weight, hauing a precious stone in it of great value, may be iustly estimated at an high price; not for the due value of the gold it selfe, but for the worth of the precious stone which is set in it, it may be said to be worth an hundred pounds; so faith is said to saue, though salua∣tion belong to Iesus Christ; and to be the foundation of the Church, though Christ be properly that foundation, because he is the obiect of our faith: and our Sauiour Christ and faith are so inseparably ioyned together, that they can∣not be diuided one from the other, or conceiued one with∣out the other. Thus haue I briefly declared how the Church is not founded vpon S. Peter: But suppose it could be proued, how can it be deriued from him to the Pope? The office of Apostleship was personall, and died with S. Peters person. The Apostles were equall in authority. It was said to them all: Go and preach, as well as to Peter. * 1.17 That which was said seuerally to Peter: To thee will I giue the keyes, was said ioyntly to all the Apostles; Whose sinnes * 1.18 ye remit, they shall be remitted. And this confession of Peter was made in the name of them all: so saith Theophilact, and * 1.19 Saint Ambrose. But if it were granted that Saint Peter was aboue all the rest of the Apostles, this giueth no prehemi∣nence to the Pope being no Apostle. For Apostleship con∣sisteth in these things; They were immediatly called of God; they saw our Sauiour in the flesh; they could giue the holy Ghost by imposition of hands; the Spirit of God did so direct them, that in their writings they could not erre: which things belonged personally vnto them, but are not left hereditary to the succeeding ages. The foundati∣on being thus shaken, the building falleth of it selfe.

That I may come nearer to the man of Rome, to dis∣cusse this question, whether there ought to be one head ministeriall of the Church vniuersall militant vpon the

earth or no? Bellarmine to proue the affirmatiue part, argu∣eth * 1.20 out of Aristotle in this manner: A Monarchy is the best, & most absolute state of gouernment: therefore the gouernment of the vniuersal Church ought to be monarchicall. I answer: It is a fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi, in so much as Aristotle his Antecedent, and Bellarmine his Consequent, are not vn∣derstood, Ad idem, secundum idem, &c. A Monarchy is the best state of ciuill gouernment, and for one country, but not of Ecclesiastical gouernment, nor for the whole world. No one secular Prince is sufficient to gouerne a world, nei∣ther if any one man could be supposed sufficient, could it stand with iustice that one should gouerne a world; because no man can attaine to be such a Monarke, but by oppres∣sion, and violent inchroching vpon the dominions of o∣ther Princes. Againe, a Monarchy is the best state of ciuill gouernment of one country; but the Ecclesiasticall gouern∣ment cannot simply be so, but onely when the Church so gouerned is in such a country as is subiect to one secular Prince, and not in an Aristocraticall, or Democraticall state: because the Ministers of the Church must be subor∣dinate to the supreme secular magistrates, and the Ecclesi∣asticall gouernment of the Church must be subordinate and answerable to the ciuill gouernment of the country where that Church is. Againe, as one man cannot gouerne the ciuill state of the world: so much lesse can one man be head of the whole Church; all authority both ciuill and Ec∣clesiasticall being deriued from our Sauiour Christ, which is both the head of the Church, and the Prince of the Kings * 1.21 of the earth, and all power is giuen to him from God his Father both in heauen and earth. Our Sauiour Christ is considered two manner of wayes: as he is God, so is hee the King of the whole world by the right of his creation: as he is the Redeemer, so is he the Head of the vniuersall Church by right of his redemption: as he is God, he hath his Vicegerents ouer the world, and they be his secular Magistrates. Ego dixi, vos dij estis, I haue said ye are Gods. But * 1.22

as hee is the head of the Church he hath no Copartener nor Vicegerent: no copartener, for so he were an vnper∣fect mediator: no vicegerent among men, for no man is a∣ble to supply his place in that behalfe, which I proue by this argument: The office and worke of his mediation pro∣ceedeth from his two natures, God and Man, which con∣curre in one action of the same person; so that he which supplyeth his office, must be of an infinite power, which is not to be found in any man besides himselfe. Now lest it should be obiected that he hath said of Ministers also: Ego dixi, vos dij estis, I haue said ye are Gods, as well as of Princes, * 1.23 and therfore it should be concluded that they are his vice∣gerents for the Church, as Princes for the common wealth: I answer, the argument doth not hold. For as both Princes & Ministers haue their authority deriued from him, so af∣ter a different manner; Princes as vicegerents: Ministers onely as actiue instruments. For the keyes of the Church being in number but two: the one of the Word & Sacra∣ments, the other of Gouernment: In the opening and shutting with these keyes which is the execution it selfe, are to be considered two things, the actiue instrument, and the principall agent. The Ministers are onely the actiue in∣struments, to preach to the outward eares of men, when God alone giueth the gift of Faith, & conuerteth the heart inwardly as the principall agent: they conferre the out∣ward elements only in the ministration of the Sacraments: hee alone sealeth remission of sinnes, and giueth inward graces: they lay hands vpon men to ordeine them Mini∣sters, which is the outward calling: he doth call them in∣wardly, and make them able by giuing them his holy Spi∣rit: they testifie and pronounce before the congregation in iure fori, that wicked men are excommunicated out of the Church; but God onely ratifieth it in iure poli, and cut∣teth them off from being members of Christ, and shutteth the kingdome of heauen against them. From the Head to all the members must be such an influence as possible can∣not

be from any sinfull man, as I haue deliuered in my former Treatise. Thus you see how idly and weakly the Popes supremacy is by them defended. And therefore vn∣lesse stronger arguments be alledged, and more substan∣tially proued, they cannot iustly blame vs for withdrawing our neckes out of the obedience to the sea of Rome.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Mat. 3. 10.
• * 1.2

  Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.3

  Mat. 16. 18.
• * 1.4

  Caesar. Bar. in apparat. 13. Exod. 8. 19.
• * 1.5

  De Rom. Pontifice. l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.6

  De verbo Dei. l. 2. c. 4.
• * 1.7

  De verbo Dei, lib. 2. cap. 7.
• * 1.8

  Concil. Trid. Sess. 3.
• * 1.9

  De Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10.
• * 1.10

  Luk. 16. 29.
• * 1.11

  Eph. 2. 20.
• * 1.12

  Chryss. hons. 55. in Mat.
• * 1.13

  Lib. 6. de Trinit. Lib. 4. de Trini•…•…
• * 1.14

  1 Pet. 2. 5.
• * 1.15

  1. Cor. 3. 11.
• * 1.16

  Luther l. de potestate Pope. Caluin In∣stit. li. 4. c. 6. sect. 6.
• * 1.17

  Math. 28. Mat. 16.
• * 1.18

  Ioh. 20. 23.
• * 1.19

  Theoph. in Mat. 16. Ambrose in Psal. 38.
• * 1.20

  De Rom. Pontifice. l. 1. c. 9.
• * 1.21

  Eph. 1. 22. Apoc. 1. 5. Ma. 28. 18.
• * 1.22

  Psal. 81. 6.
• * 1.23

  Ioh. 10. 34.