The grand impostor discovered, or, An historical dispute of the papacy and popish religion ... divided in four parts : 1. of bishops, 2. of arch-bishops, 3. of an œcumenick bishop, 4. of Antichrist : Part I, divided in two books ... / by S.C.

CHAP. XIX. Testimonies of Fathers examined, seeming to prove the au∣thority of Peter over the Church.

HItherto our adversaries have disputed the supremacy of Peter from his institution, prerogatives and carriage, now they endeavour, to prove it by testimonies of Fathers, from which they muster up an army of Testimonies, in number 24. which Bellarmine affirms to be the Oracles of the 24 Elders in the Revelation, and that nothing can be answered to those testimonies, except that answer of Luther and Calvin to the testimonies of Leo, (viz.) that they were men, and consequently might erre: but it will appear, by the Protestants answers, that these testimonies are not so invincible. All those testimonies may be reduced to two general Classes; the first is, in which Peter is compared with the whole Church; the second, wherein he is compared with the other Apostles: the first Classe again is subdivided in several sorts, according to the diversity of attributes given to Peter.

The first kind, are those testimonies wherein Christ saith to Peter, upon this Rock, &c. feed my Sheep, I will give to thee the Keys, &c. which is the third time that Bellarmine hath repeated them; and therefore it is sufficient to answer, as before, that nothing was given peculiar to Peter; as was not only asserted by those Fathers mentioned by Bellar∣mine, as Origen and others, but likewayes proved by them.

The second sort are of those Fathers affirming, that the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter, which he proves by the testimonies of Chrysostomus, in his his 55. Homile upon Matthew, where Peter is called Pastor Ecclesiae, Pastor of the

Church: and likewayes of Maximus sermon 3. de Apostolis, of Gregorius, lib. 4. epist. 32. who both affirm, that the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter.

But it is answered, so was it to all the Apostles in those words, Go and teach all Nations, Matth. 28. 2. Chrysostomus in many places affirms, that Paul had a care of the whole World, that he had Orbis praefecturam, Homilia 22. in 1. Cor. And likewayes, that all the Apostles had the care of the whole Church, Hom. 87. upon John: he likewayes affirms, that Timothy governed the whole World, Hom. 1. to the people of Antioch; and likewayes that Timothy took upon him praefecturam totius orbis, Orat. 6. against the Jews: whereby it appears, that by Peters having care of the whole Church, he is not proved to be oecumenick Bishop, since others had the same care of the whole Church. Neverthelesse, Bellarmine useth two cheats, the first is in citing Chrysostomus, calling Peter Pastor of the whole Church, whereas the Greek imports only he erected his mind, and made him Pastor: his second cheat is; in citing Gregorius, as if his meaning were, that Peter was oecumenick Bishop, because the care of the whole Church was committed to him; whereas it is notorious, that Gregorius in those words, is disputing against an oecumenick Bishop; amongst other reasons he brings for one, although the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter, yet he was not universal Apostle; which last words Bellarmine frau∣dulently supresseth.

The third rank of testimonies are those, calling Peter head of the Church: as of Chrysostomus, Hom. 55. on Matth. of Cyprianus ad Jubaianum; of Augustine, sermon 125. de tem∣pore; of Hugo Ethereanus, lib. 3. against the Grecians.

But it is answered, first, that those testimonies prove nothing: as for Cyprianus, he is not speaking of Peter at all; his words are only Ecclesiae unius caput, & radicem tenemus;

that is, we abide in the unity of the Church, which is one, and head of the faithful: But of this testimony, more hereafter: It is sufficient to tell for the present, that Pamelius (who useth to catch the least advantages for the supremacy of Peter) in his Annotations upon those words of Cyprian, mentions nothing to that purpose; as for Chrysostomus, he calls not Peter head of the Church at all; it is only Trapizuntius who translates him unfaithfully: as for Augustinus, those books de tempore, no learned man will affirm to be his, for two reasons, the first is, because he calls Peter the foundation, not only of the Church, but also of the Faith, which is far from Augustinus mind, who interprets the Rock or Founda∣tion, not to be Peter, at all; for which Bellarmine and others tax him of ignorance, as we said before. The second reason is, because he calls Peters denying of Christ, Exiguum peccatum, a small sin, but non aggravates it more then Augu∣stinus: as for Hugo Ethereanus, he lived but of late in the twelfth Age, according to Bellarmine, but in the fifteenth according to others; and therefore, his testimony can no more be regarded by the Protestants, then the testimony of Luther and Calvin by Bellarmine.

Secondly, albeit Peter were proved to be head of the Church by those testimonies, it doth not prove that he was oecume∣nick Bishop; because others beside Peter, are also called heads of the Church by the Fathers; Martyrius is called Praeses and head of the Church, epist. 1. incert. Patriarch, in corpore juris graeco Romani. Athanasius is called head of all men, by Basilius, epist. 52. Paul is called head of nations, by Gregorius, 1. in his fourth book upon Kings 1. James and John are likewise called heads by Chrysostomus, in his 26. Ho∣mile upon the Acts: yea, all Pastors and Doctors are called heads by Gregorius second Bishop of Rome, in his Epistle to ••ermanus of Constantinople, in the second Synod of Neice. By which

testimonies it appears, that the words Caput or head infers not an oecumenick Bishop, but either a primacy of order, or rather eminency in gifts; and so it is taken by Paul, 1 Cor. 12.

The fourth rank of testimonies are those, stiling Peter Bishop of the Christians, Christianorum Pontifex primus: for which, Bellarmine produceth Eusebius in his Chron, anno. 44.

But it is answered, first, that there are no such words in the Greek text of Eusebius, restored by Scaliger. Second∣ly, although it were proved by Eusebius, it doth not conclude that Peter was oecumenick Bishop, because it appears that Cyprianus (epist. 69.) when he was demanded to have him Martyred, was called Episcopus Christianorum, Bishop of the Christians; but (saith Bellarmine) Peter was called by Eusebius, first Bishop of the Christians; but not so Cy∣prianus. But, (say the protestants) the word First, im∣ports only a priority of order, dignity or time, and not of jurisdiction; many of the Fathers gave to Peter that title of First, or primus, because they 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 Pe∣ter and his successors, called the Chair of the whole Church, which infers, that according to Optatus, Peter was oecume∣nick Bishop.

But it is answered, that Optatus in those words, is dis∣puting against the Donatists, who had set up a Bishop of

their own faction at Rome, in opposition to the true Bi∣shop:

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 con∣stitute another Chair, much lesse ye ought to set an∣other Bishop in that Chair, in opposition to the succes∣sors 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 con∣stituted 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, Ser∣mon 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 A∣postles 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, al∣though 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, Apsto∣latus principatum cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum? Who is ignorant, that the principality ••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 pre∣ferred 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 Thesau∣rus 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 Opus∣culo, 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 Bernar∣dus 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 testi∣monies which they so magnify, are either (ipsorum sum∣morum, Pontificum Fimbrias suas extendentium) Are either of Popes themselves enlarging their authority, or else of their flatterers.

Bellarmines eleventh testimony, is taken from Eusebi∣us Caesariensis, lib. 2. hist. cap. 14. who affirms, Peter is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is, Not Captain of the Mili∣tia 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 ge∣nerous and valiant Captain, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and consequently, Bellarmine triumphs before the Victory, since that testi∣mony 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 Supre∣macy of Peter over the Church, which was the first Classe.