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.

PART I. BOOK I. Of the Bishoprick of Peter. (Book 1)

CHAP. I. That the cheat of the Modern Roman Faith is discovered by these three Passages of Scripture, By which they endeavor to prove the Institution of Peters Monarchy.

IT was proved in the Preface, that the truth or falshood of the Modern Roman Faith depended upon that of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome: which is the true reason, why the bravest spirits of both sides rush together with such ani∣mosity in this contest: the one to assert it, the other to assault it: both parties pretending Scripture, Reason, Councils, Fa∣thers;

and each party upbraiding other with wresting of Scrip∣ture, Sophistry, perverting, and forging testimonies of Anti∣quity. When I considered these high and mutual reflections of those not only learned, but pious men of both sides (as cannot be denyed) curiosity moved me to study the Contest, that I might perceive (if I could) which Party was to blame: and when I had so done, I resolved to minut the Disput, as a Clerk doth those pleadings before a Judge; omitting Gram∣maticisms, Criticisms, and Rhetorical digressions, I only mention the most substantial Arguments, and answers, Hinc inde; doing what I could for the benefit of Persons of Ho∣nor of both Religions, (to whom I am many ways ingaged) whose condition, and abilities or leasure 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 infa∣mous 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 Mo∣narch 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 Monar∣chy of the Church, albeit Peter were Monarch of the Church himself, except Peter were also Bishop of Rome. Again, al∣beit 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 unque∣stionable Antiquity. Calvin, lib. 4. Inst. cap. 6. num. 8. rightly observes, that Peter might have had some extraordi∣nary 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 dispu∣ted 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 pre∣rogatives and carriage, unto chap. 19: Thirdly, by testimo∣nies 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 te∣stimonies 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 testi∣monies 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) ordi∣narily. 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 sub∣sist or not? By Christianity, or Christian Faith, or Christian Re∣ligion, 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 with∣out 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 asser∣tion 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 Anci∣ents 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 fi••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 Supre∣macy

of Peter, nor of the Bishop of Rome, nor necessar commu∣nion with the Church of Rome; since the last two (as we said) depend upon the first: and therefore we will examine this pas∣sage the more acuratly. First, by Scripture and Reason. Next, (because they brag so much of Antiquity) by testimonies of Councils and Fathers. In the last place, (because they brag so much of Unity) by Popes, and Popish Doctors. Of which in Order.

Our Adversaries reason thus.

He who is the Rock upon which the Church is built, is Visible head of the Church, or Oecumenick Bishop. But Peter is the Rock or Foundation upon which the Church is built, as appears by the words of our Savior, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Ergo, Peter is Oecume∣nick Bishop.

But it is answered: First, It is false that the Church is built upon Peter as a Rock. Secondly, Although our Savior had called Peter the Rock, it doth not follow that he ordained him Oecumenick Bishop, as shal be proved, cap. 6.

That Peter is not the Rock, we will disput: First, By Scrip∣ture and Reason. Secondly, by Councils and Fathers. Third∣ly, by Popes and Popish Doctors. And first by Scripture, 1. Cor. 3. 11. For other Foundation can no man lay, then that is laid, which is Jesus Christ: by which it appears that Christ is only the Rock upon which the Church is built, and not deter.

Bellarmin answers, That Christ is only the Primary Foun∣dation, but Peter is the Secondary Foundation. If this were not the meaning of Paul, he would contradict himself, Ephes. 2. 20. And are built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner stone. Where, saith he, ye have that di••••inction of Primary and Secon∣dary Foundations: Christ is called the Corner-stone, or chief

foundations; the Prophets and Apostles are secondary founda∣tions.

But it is replyed: First, That Bellarmin cannot apply his di∣stinction of secondary foundation to Peter alone by this passage, since the Apostle expresly affirms, That all the Prophets and A∣postles are Bellarmins secondary foundations; and consequent∣ly, they are all Oecumenick Bishops, which Bellarmin will not easily grant.

Secondly, Bellarmin would have distinguished far better foundations in proper and improper. Christ is properly the foundation of the Church the Prophets and Apostles ars im∣properly, or metonymically foundations; viz. they are cal∣led foundations, because they preach Christ, or by reason of their Doctrine of Christ, who is the true foundation: So Ambrosius; Primasius, Anselmus, Lombardus, Cajetanus, Lyra∣nus, and the interlinear gloss upon 1. Cor. 3. 11. Guillaudus in∣terprets after the same manner, and the great School-man Vas∣quez, In secundam secundae, Disput. 210. cap. 7. hath these words, Non Apostolos & Prophetas intelligit, sed fidem illorum ab eis scilicet praedicatam & annunciatam: that is, He calls not the Prophets and Apostles themselves foundations, but only the faith which they preach. It is true that Aquinas, following some of the Fathers, interprets the Apostles themselves to be foundations; but the meaning is all one, they mean improper foundations: and Thomas his gloss rejected by Vasquez him∣self, who comments upon him as we now said.

Bellarmin objects; Secondly, Apocalyps 21. 14. And the wall of the City had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb. Where, saith he, all the twelve Apostles are called foundations.

But it is answered: First, Although they were, yet it makes not much for Bellarmins purpose: for if all the twelve Apostles be secondary foundations, Peters being secondary foundation

doth not conclude him to be Oecumenick Bishop, no more then it doth the rest.

Secondly, It is false that the twelve Apostles are called foundations in that place: John only affirms, that the names of the twelve Apostles were written upon the foundation of that new Jerusalem.

Thirdly, Although both Haimo and Lyranus interpret the Apostles to be foundations, yet they give the same gloss which they gave upon 1 Cor. 3. 11. viz. Because of the Doctrine which they preach: the words of Haimo are, Et in ipsis fun∣damentis, hoc est, infide Patriarcharum & Apostolorum nomina duodecim Apostolorum. The words of Lyranus are, Dicuntur autem nomina Apostolorum in ipsis fundamentis scripta, quia primò publicârunt fidem Christi praedicando, & pro ipsa mo∣riendo. The same is the explication of Aretas upon this place of the Apocalyps, viz. The Apostles are called foundations, because of their preaching Christ, and dying for him or the faith.

Stapleton answers to that place of 1 Cor. 3. 11. some other wise then Bellarmin, making a distinction between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, aliud and alterum; which cannot well be expressed in Eng∣lish, except ye express it thus, another and a different. Paul, saith he, affirmeth that there is not another foundation but Christ; but he doth not affirm that there is not a different foundation from Christ: Which two he distinguisheth, be∣cause Peter, saith he, is not another foundation from Christ, differing essentially; but only a different foundation, that is, differing accidentally: Christ, saith he, is the principal foun∣dation; Peter is the subordinat and ministerial foundation.

But this subtilty of Stapleton is to no purpose: First, be∣cause the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 another signifie sometime things which differ only accidentally, as Mat. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He saw two other Brethren, Mark 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. His hands was made whole as the other. Therefore its false that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

signifieth a thing different by nature; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a thing diffe∣ring accidentally.

Secondly, his distinction is refuted by the very text it self: for after Paul said, Nemo potest aliud fundamentum ponere, he adds, praeter id quod positum est, quod est Iesus Christus. By which words he expresly excluds all other foundations beside Christ, whether they differ in nature, or accidentally.

Thirdly, in what sense can Stapleton affirm, that Christ and Peter are foundations in the same specifical nature, differing only in accidentals, as Peter and Paul two individuals? For Christ is properly a foundation upon which the Edifice of the Church is built: Peter is only a foundation, because he laid the foundation on Christ. These two foundations have nothing but the name common, as Taurus the mountain, Taurus the con∣stellation, and Taurus a bull.

Fourthly, Stapleton speaks contradictions, in affirming, that a principal foundation, and a subordinat foundation have the same specifick nature, and differ only accidentally as two individuals, v. g. Peter & Paul: which is all one as ye would say, The power of a King, & that of his under-officer were the same; the same power in nature, differing only accidentally.

Fifthly, Stapleton contradicts himself in another place; for in his relections, controvers. 3. quest. 1. art. 1. conclus. 3. he expresly affirms that Peter is Fundamentum prima••ium in suo genere quale Christus est in alio genere: which is diametrally opposit to what he affirms here. Here he affirms Peter is a sub∣ordinat and Ministerial foundation, there he calls him a princi∣pal 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, Theodor••tos,

Chrysostomus, Oecumenius, Lyranus, Solus Christus, vel fides ipsius, est fundamentum, Christ only, or the faith of Christ is the foun∣dation.

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 Sy∣rian 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, Ba∣ronius, 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 Chri∣stus, 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 Sy∣rian 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 assu∣redly 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 writ∣ten originally in Syriack) translats the word of Christ unfaith∣fully 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 con∣demns the whole primitive Church, and the ancient Church of Rome among the rest, for approving as authentick, a false in∣terpretation 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 Pe∣ter would be the foundation of the Church triumphant, if he were the Rock upon which the Church is built. And since the Bi∣shop 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 pro∣mise 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 pro∣nounced him blessed. Thirdly, Christ affirmed he had that secret only by revelation from God. Lastly, Christ pronoun∣ced 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 Hila∣rius 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 da∣tum, sicut Patris quoddam donum erat eidem concessum: Pater e∣nim revelavit Petro Christum esse Filium Dei vivi; Filius tri∣buit Petro ut sit Ecclesiae Petra, that is, Some proper gift was given to Peter here by Christ, as the Father had given unto him such a gift: the Father revealed to Peter that Christ was the Son of the living God; So the Son gives unto Peter to be the Rock of the Church.

It is answered, Stapleton cites Chrysostom falsly; his words in the Original are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that is, What is it and I will give it to thee? as the Father gave unto thee to know me, so I will give unto thee. Neither said he, I will ask of my Father, although it was a great ostentation of his power, and the greatness of the gift ineffable: Nevertheless, I will give unto thee. What wilt thou give, pray? the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

By which it appears that Stapleton plays the Sophister thrice. First in making Chrysostom affirm, that some proper or pecu∣liar thing was given to Peter, whereas Chrysostom mentions no such thing at all. Secondly, he makes Chrysostom affirm, that the gift given to Peter was to be the Rock upon which the Church is built; whereas Chrysostom saith no such thing, af∣firming only that the gift given to Peter was the Keys of the

Kingdom of Heaven: but it shal be proved by the testimony of Chrysostom himself, chap. 8. That the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others as well as to Peter. Thirdly, he neglects the comparison which Chrysostom makes, (leaving out now where he added before) viz. As the Father gave unto thee to know me, so I give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, The reason wherefore he neglects the comparison, is evident, viz he was conscious, that the knowledge of Christ (the gift of the Father to Peter) was common to all the Apostles; and therefore he feared the conclusion, viz. That the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (the gift given by Christ to Peter) would be common to all the Apostles also.

And thus much of Stapletons reasons, proving Peter to be the Rock. Bellarmin reasons thus, The pronoun hanc, this, is referred to the words immediatly going before, Thou art Pe∣ter; and therefore our Savior by this Rock means Peter.

But it is answered, There is no necessity of referring the pronoun hanc, or this, to the words immediatly going before, as appears by several places of Scripture, as Acts 3. 15. And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead, of whom we are witnesses; where those words of whom, are refer∣red to the Prince of life, and not unto God who is nearest. That the pronoun hunc or him, or this, is of necessity referred to the words fatrher off and not to the nearest, appears also by Act. 2. 22. and 23. and 2. Thess. 2. most clearly v. 8. And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume, whose comming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs, and lying wonders: observe, whose coming is referred not to the Lord, which is nearest, but to that wicked one further off. And thus we have disputed all the reasons of any moment pretended by either party in this question, it Peter was the Rock?

CHAP. III. Tu es Petrus, Disputed by General Councils.

NOw let us Dispute, Tu es Petrus by antiquity, examining what was the meaning of the Ancients concerning these words, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. They brag much of antiquity, viz. that the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon and all the Fathers interpret the Rock to be Peter.

But it is answered, They resemble Bankrupts, who brag they are richest when they are poorest. A passage (related by Cicero lib. 2. de oratore) between Silus and Crassus, may be applyed to our adversaries, Fieri potest, ut quod dixit iratus dixerit. Silus annuit tum Crassus, fieri potest ut quod dixit non intelligeres: hic quoque Silus fassus est, tum Crassus fieri potest, ut non omnino audieris quod te audisse dicis: Silus tacuit, om∣nes riserunt. This passage is most fitly applyed to our adver∣saries, bragging of the testimonies of the Ancients, Councils and Fathers; for they bring not one testimony but either it merits no credit, or else it is wrested and misinterpreted, or else it is forged, as appears through the whole following Disput. What was the opinion of the Council of Chalcedon, & the other first six general councils? We will examine in this chapter: the opinion of the Fathers shal be examined in the following chapters, unto chap. 10.

From the Council of Chalcedon they object the third action, where Peter is called, Petra & crepido Ecclesiae, the Rock upon which the Church is built.

But it is answered, first, Those are not the words of the coun∣cil, but only the words of Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Bonifa∣cius, Legats to Leo Bishop of Rome, giving their votes a∣gainst Dioscorus of Alexandria: what regard should be had

to such testimonies? Aeneas Silvius (afterward Pope himself, under the name of Pius second) will inform you, comment 1. On the Council of Basil: His words are, Nec considerant miseri, quia quae praedicant tant opere verba, aut ipsorum summorum Pon∣tificum sunt, suas fimbrias extendentium, aut illorum qui eis adu∣labantur; Neither do these miserable men consider, that these testimonies of which they brag so much, are either of Bishops of Rome themselves, enlarging their own interests, or else of those who are flattering them.

Secondly, it is very strange impudence to them, to alledge the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, to prove the Su∣premacy of Peter, or of the Bishop of Rome, by reason of his succession to Peter, as appears by what follows.

Aetius Legate of the Bishop of Constantinople and the fore∣saids Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Bonifacius, Deputies of the Bishop of Rome, pleaded in the behalf of their Masters the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, for the primacy: Pas∣chasinus and his fellows pleaded the sixth canon of the Council of Nice. The words are those, Let the old custom remain in E∣gypt, Libya, Pentapolis, viz. that the Bishop of Alexandria hath power in those Provinces (to ordain Bishops) since the Bishops of Rome hath the like custome.

Aetius pleaded the same Canon, and likewise the fifth Canon of the said Council of Nice; by which it was ordained, That when a Bishop was condemned by a provincial Council, there should be no further appeal, unless to a General Council: which excepti∣on, though not mentioned in the Canon, must of necessity be understood. The said Aetius likewise pleaded the third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople; by which it was provided, That the Bishop of Rome should have the first place in dignity, because Rome was the old Imperial City; the Bi∣shop of Constantinople the second place next to him, because Con∣stantinople was new Rome. The force of this argument consists

in two things. First, that the said second General Council of Constantinople ordained the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome, and Constantinople to be equal, although they gave the Bishop of Rome the first place in dignity. The second thing is, That the Bishop of Rome had the first place in dignity, not by reason of his succession to Peter, but for a civil respect; viz. because Rome was the old Imperial City.

Paschasinus and his fellows replyed, (or at least Bellarmin, and Baronius would have so replyed, if they had been pleaders before the Council) That the third Canon of the Council of Constantinople was not to be regarded; because the Bishop of Rome had never approved it; and therefore they urged the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, by which (say they) the Bishop of Alexandria had authority confirmed to him in E∣gypt, because the Bishop of Rome had the like custom. From which they argued thus, That the authority of the Bishop of Rome was the cause of the authority of the Bishop of Alexand∣ria; or, the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria flowed from the authority of the Bishop of Rome: And since the Bi∣shop of Alexandria was before him of Constantinople, of old, the said second General Council of Constantinople wronged the Bishop of Alexandria, in preferring the Bishop of Constan∣tinople to him. In a word, the sum of their pleading was this, That, by the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, the Bishop of Rome had authority over him of Alexandria, And since the Bishop of Alexandria was before the Bishop of Constantinople in former times, that third Act of the second General Council of Constantinople ought to be cassed, and antiquitated▪ because it contradicted the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, in pre∣ferring the Bishop of Constantinople to him of Alexandria, and equalizing him to the Bishop of Rome.

Aetius, and the Deputies of the Bishop of Constantinople duplyed; First, That the said Canon of the second General

Council of Constantinople ought not to be recalled (or at least Protestants would have so duplyed, if they had been in their place;) First, Because it was a lawful General Council; And although the Bishop of Rome had not confirmed it, because he had no authority above a General Council; It was very unrea∣sonable that any particular Bishop should cut and carve for his own advantage, against the decree of the whole Church.

Secondly, The said General Council of Constantinople was received and confirmed by a Synod at Rome two years after, the Bishop of Rome Dammasus presiding in the said Council. And therefore it was false that the Bishop of Rome never confirmed the said Council of Constantinople.

Thirdly, the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice gave no authority to the Bishop of Rome over the Bishop of Alexan∣dria; the meaning of the Canon being only this, viz. The oc∣casion of the Canon was one Miletius troubled all Egypt by ordaining Bishops at his own hand. Alexander Bishop of A∣lexandria complains to the Council of Nice, which upon his complaint, made the foresaid sixth Canon. The true Gloss of which being, that the Bishop of Alexandria, should have the power of ordaining Bishops in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, as he was wont; Since the Bishop of Rome had the like power by custom, in the places adjacent to Rome; or, (as Ruffinus a wri∣ter, who lived near these times, interprets) in Ecclesijs Suburbi∣carijs, that is, in Churches within a hundred miles to the walls of Rome. So then, the authority of the Bishop of Rome was not the cause of the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria, or the Original from whence it flowed; but only a pattern, according to which it was framed: as one common-wealth may be fra∣med in government according to the pattern of another com∣mon-wealth, without any subordination in authority.

They duplyed fourthly, That the said General Council of Constantinople did no wrong to the Bishop of Alexandria, in

giving to the Bishop of Constantinople the second place in dig∣nity: which before that time, belonged to the Bishop of Alex∣andria, since the cause ceasing, the effect also ceased. The cause why the Bishop of Alexandria was second to the Bishop of Rome, was this, viz. The government of Egypt was the se∣cond government in dignity, to the government of the City of Rome: It was so ordained by Augustus, and therefore, was called Praefectura Augustalis. Since it was not so now, because the government of those Provinces depending on the City of Constantinople, was made the second Government and pre∣ferred to that of Alexandria, and made equal to the Govern∣ment of those places, depending upon the city of Rome; there∣fore the said council of Constantinople did no wrong in e∣qualizing the Bishop of Constantinople to the Bishop Rome: since the civil Government was a Type of the Ecclesiastick, as is confessed by Baronius himself, ad Annum 39. Num. 10. That the Government, and Priviledges of the City of Con∣stantinople, being made equal to those of Rome, was the cause why the council of Constantinople made the Bishop of Con∣stantinople equal in Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome: is reported both by Socrates, hist. lib. 5. chap. 8. and Sozomenus lib. 7. chap. 9. Who both give the reason of the said third Canon (in the Greek Edition, but 5. or 7. in the Latine) to be, Because that Constantinople, had not only the name of Rome, with like Senat and other Magistrats, but bare also the same Arms and other rights, and honors which belonged to old Rome.

The Council of Chalcedon having considered the reasons of both parties, allowed the interpretation put upon the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, by the Orators of the Bishop of Constantinople; rejected that Gloss of those of the Bishop of Rome; confirmed the third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople, with some advantage, and

addition, as by the 28 Canon, whose words are these; Defini∣mus & communi calculo sancimus, quod attinct ad praerogativas honoris sanctissimae Ecclesiae hujus Constantinopoleos novae Ro∣mae, Etenim Patres, Sedi Antiquioris is Romae, ob eam caussam quia Imperium obtineret Urbs illa, merito Primatum honoris detu∣lere, Sed & eadem ratione moti, centum quinquaginia religio∣sissimi Episcopi aequalem primatum honoris assignarunt sanctissimae sedi novae Romae, Recte judicantes, eam Urbem quae imperio & Senatu honestatur: & i••sdem privilegis fruentem cum antiqua Roma & Regia; etiam in Ecclesiasticis negotijs aequa cu•• illa extollendam, Sic tamen ut post eam secundum locum obtineat. By which Canon two things appears, First, that the Bishop of Constantinople is expresly made equal in Ecclesiastick Ju∣risdiction, with the Bishop of Rome. Secondly, that the Bi∣shop of Rome hath the first place in dignity, not by reason of succession to Peter; but only for civil respects; viz. because Rome was the old imperial City. It appears also by the said Canon, that the former General Councils of Nice and Con∣stantinople, gave the primacy to the Bishop of Rome, for the same reason only; viz. because it was the old imperial City. And therefore it is intollerable impudence in our adversaries to object the authority of the Council of Chalcedo••; to prove the Supremacy of Peter.

By which it appears the impudence of Bellarmin, and Ba∣ronius, who abuse their Reader with strange Sophistry, and most shameless. The Council of Chalcedon, say they, inter∣preted the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, to the advan∣tage of the Bishop of Rome: For immediatly after the reading of the said Canon, the beginning of which was, Ecclesia Ro∣mana semper habuit primatum, the Church of Rome evermore had the primacy, The Canon being thus read, all the Council cryed out, Perpendimus omnem primatum & honorem praecipuum secundum Canones, antiquae Romae Deo amantissimo Archiepiscopo conservari.

But it is answered; first, Those words of the Canon, viz. the Church of Rome ever had the primacy; are forged, being found in no other copie, but in that of Dionysius Exiguus: but his authority is not sufficient to out balance all other co∣pies of the Canons of the Council, both Greek and Latin; yea, that copie corrected by Gregory 13 himself, which wants those first words pretended by Bellarmin and Baronius: in which copie and all other copies, the first words of the said Canon are, An∣tiquus mos perduret, &c. Let the old custom remain in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, &c.

Secondly, although the Canon had begun so, it makes not much to the purpose; since it appears by the decree of the Council, that the Primacy of the Church of Rome, was only a Primacy of dignity; for civil respects, and not a Primacy of Jurisdiction, by reason of the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter: as appears expresly by the words of the Canon: And also that the Bishop of Constantinople was ordained by the said Council, equal in Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome. If Bel∣larmin and Baronius affirm, that the words of the twenty-eight Canon are mis-interpreted, their mouths are stopped, not only by the carriage of Lucentius, and other two Legats of the Bishop of Rome, but also by the carriage of Leo Bishop of Rome himself.

The carriage of Lucentius was this, When the Fathers of the Council had subscribed the said twenty eight Canon, Lucentius stood up, crying, foul play: Some of those subscri∣bers were compelled so to do, by one indirect way or other: The whole Fathers of the Council answered, they had delibe∣ratly, and voluntarily subscribed. Whereupon Lucentius pro∣tested against the Council, as having preferred the judgement of a hundred and fifty Fathers of the Council of Constantinople, before the judgement of three hundred and eighteen Fathers, in the first general Council of Nice; which was as much to

say, as he understood the meaning of the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, better then those six hundred and thirty Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, representing the whole Church, This carraige of Lucentius is recorded in the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon, Act. 16. pag. 936. 937. 938.

Next, that the said Council decerned against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, appears by four Epistles of Leo Bishop of Rome himself; in which he thunders against the Council of Chalcedon for making the foresaid 28. Canon; still ingemina∣ting, Tu es Petrus, or that they had wronged the supremacy of Peter; by which complaints of his it is most evident, that those 630. Fathers, representing the whole Church in a gene∣ral Council, meant nothing lesse then the supremacy of Peter, in these words, Tu es Petrus. These four Epistles of Leo are his 52. Epistle to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople; His 54. to Martianus the Emperour, his 55. to Pulcheria the Em∣press; his 62. to Maximus Bishop of Antioch; in which E∣pistles he complains heavily, that the Bishop of Constantinople was preferred to him of Alexandria. Because Constantinople was the seat of the Emperor, he fore-saw (being a man of great Spirit and foresight) that in the end, for the same reason, the Bishop of Constantinople would be preferred to the Bishop of Rome; which accordingly fell out, as shal be proved, lib 4. And thus it appeareth▪ with how little integrity our adversa∣ries object the Council of Chalcedon, to prove that Peter was the Rock, meaned by our Savior in these words, Tu es Pe∣trus, &c. By which proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon, appears also, what was the opinion of the general councils of Nice and Constantinople.

As for the sixth general Council, commonly called Trulla∣num, celebrated under Pogonatus the Emperor; Anno 680. in its 36. Canon, it confirms the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon totidem verbis; By which it appears what was the

opinion of the Church concerning Tu es Petrus, in the end of the 7. age. And so we have the opinion of the first, second, fourth, and sixth general Councils, that Peter is not the Rock upon which the Church is built.

As for the third general council of Ephesus, and the fifth of Constantinople, although in express words, they make not all the Patriarchs of alike Jurisdiction; Yet they made Canons expresly contradicting the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome; and consequently, contradicting also Peter to be the Rock upon which the Church is built. The council of Ephesus calls Celestine Bishop Rome Fellow-Minister. It were a bold thing now in any Bishop to salute the Pope so. Secondly, they deposed John Patriarch of Antioch, before ever they ac∣quainted Celestine Bishop of Rome, as appears by the Synodi∣cal Epistle, Binius Tom. 1. page 806. Thirdly, they ordained that neither the Patriarch of Antioch, nor any other Bishop (ergo not the Bishop of Rome) should take upon him to or∣dain Bishops in the Isle of Cyprus, Binius Tom. 26. pag. 768.

As for the fifth general council of Constantinople, it re∣judged the cause of Anthimius, after he had first been judged by Aggapetus Bishop of Rome; Binius in his notes upon that council, Tom 2. pag 416. Secondly, it condemned Vigilius Bishop of Rome, and yet in the end the said Vigilius approved the said council: Baronius, Anno 553. Binius in the place fore-mentioned. And thus ye have the opinion of the six first general councils, concerning the Supremacy of the Bi∣shop of Rome, by reason of his succession to Peter, in the Mo∣narchy of the Church: By which passages it appears that the sixth first general councils meaned nothing lesse, then that Peter was the Rock, upon which the Church was built; or that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church, in those words, Tu es Petrus. It shal likewise be proved, lib. 5. That the seventh general council, Anno 790. and the 8. Anno 870.

had as little regard to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. The first of which condemned Pope Honorius as an Heretick and the last approved of it.

And thus we have the opinion of the whole Church, con∣cerning Tu en Petrus, the first 900. year after Christ: all which time, it was no 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 3••. Epistle of Gregory, that he made use of it, only for cu••a universalis Ecclesiae, and not for Juris∣diction: 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 Fath••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 ••ansenius, Gregorious de Valen∣tia, Agricola, Stapleton; but most of all Bozius, de signis lib. 18. cap. 1.

But it is answered, It is notoriously false, that all the Fa∣thers 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 Fa∣thers interpreting the Rock to be Christ.

Tertullianus against Martian. lib. 4. cap. 13. Where, tel∣ling a reason wherefore the name of Peter was changed from Simon to Peter, gives this reason, Quia Petra & lapis erat Chri∣stus, 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 Pe∣ters 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 Prote∣stants; 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 a∣gainst the Jews, Dominus est Petra fidei: tanquam fundamen∣tum, ut ipse Dominus ait ad Principem Apostolorum. Tu es Pe∣trus, & 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 Chri∣st••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 num∣ber, none but Christ is understood.

Hieronymus on Matthew 7. Super hanc Petram Dominus fun∣davit Ecclesiam: ab hac Petra Apostolus Petrus sortitus est no∣men. 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 Mat∣theum. Simon quippe ante vocabatur, hoc autem nomen ei, ut Pe∣trus vocetur à Domino, impositum est & hoc, ut ea figura significare•• 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 te∣stimonies 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 ig∣norant of the Syriack tongue; As if those other Fathers, especi∣ally 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 an∣swered, 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. Se∣condly, 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 ini∣tial Letters, with the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 re∣ferring

the pronoun hanc, to the words immediatly going be∣fore 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 te∣stimonies 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 as∣sertion, without any other reason: which is a childish peti∣tio 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 Eccl••siam meam super hanc Petram, Which im∣ports as much, as the Church was not already built up∣on 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 Jude••; But our Sa∣viour is prophesying here, that the Gopel shal be propagated throughout the whole world, and the Church built up∣on 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 Augusti∣nus, affirming, super me ipsum filium Dei vivi aedificabo Ec∣clesiam. Which is his gloss upon these words, super hanc Petram. Secondly, It contradicts Bellarmin, affirming, in se jam aedi∣ficaverat 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 ••n∣terpret Peter to be the Rock, upon which the Church is built, especially, Augustinus, who disputing against the Dona∣tists, cites many passages of Scripture, by which we are in∣structed, 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 ne∣cessar, 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 confir∣mationem sanctae tuae Catholicae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae, quam fun∣dâsti 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 & im∣mobile fundamentum, una haec felix fidei Petra Petri ore confes∣su, Tu es, inquit Christus filius Dei vivi, that is, This is the on∣ly 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 testimo∣nies, this one will suffice, Super hanc igitur confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est, The Church is built upon this Rock of con∣fession.

Nyssenus in the last chapter of his testimonies against the Jews, after he had first called the Rock Christ, as we said be∣fore, in the following words he adds, Tu es Petrus & super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, hoc est, super confessio∣nem Christi: where he interprets the Rock to be also the con∣fession of Peter, by which it appears, that the sense is all one, whether the Rock be called Christ or the confession of Pe∣ter?

Innumerable others interpret the Rock to be the Confes∣sion of Peter, whose testimonies are needless to be mentioned, since none can deny them: As Chrysostom, homil. 55. upon Matthew, and in other places. Basililus Seleuciensis on Mat∣thew 16. Theophalactus on the same place. Epiphanius Contra Catharos, Is••dorus, Pelusiota, lib. 1. Epist. 235. Cyrillus, lib. 4. of his Dialogues, with Hermias Theodoretus, lib. 2. npon the Canticles. Augustinus, tract. 10. upon the first Epistle of John. Whereby again it appears that the meaning of those

Fathers, interpreting the Rock, to be Christ, and the confes∣sion of Peter, mean the same thing: Since Augustinus most frequently interprets the Rock to be Christ. It is needless to mention other Fathers, calling the confession of Peter the Rock, as Felix third Bishop of Rome, in his Epistle to Zeno the Emperor concerning the deposition of Peter Bishop of An∣tioch; of the sixth General Council of Constantinople, called Trullanum: of Damascenus in his Sermon upon the transfigu∣ration of Christ; of Victor Antiochenus, upon Mark third, and diverse others: which testimonies are acknowledged by our adversaries to which they vary in their answers.

Pighius Hierarchiae, lib. 3. cap. 5. calls those Fathers ig∣norants; who interpret the Rock to be the confession of Peter, and that they are not worthy to be answered: Baronius is also totus in fermento, and calls them mad men, Anno 31. chap. 7.

Bellarmin and Stapleton answers more modestly, to the testi∣mony of those Fathers, distinguishing the Faith or Confession of Peter; which they say may be considered two wayes. First, Absolutly, and in abstracto, that is, not considered as in any subject. Secondly, as it is in the person of Peter, or, in con∣creto. In the first acception; they deny that those Fathers call the Faith or Confession of Peter to be the Rock: in the second they affirm they do, and that their meaning is no other then that Petrus cre••ens, or Peter believing, is the Rock. Which opinion they affirm to be all one with their own, viz. that Peter is the Rock.

But it is replyed, This gloss or distinction is far beside the meaning of those Fathers, who interpret the Faith or Con∣fession of Peter to be the Rock, as thing differing from Peter himself. So Chrysostom in his Homile on Matthew 55. 5. Super hanc Petram dixit, & non super hunc Petrum. Non enim super hominem, sed super fidem, aedificabit Ecclesiam. Which words he hath also in his Sermon upon Penticost, in which

he quite overthrows the distinction of Stapleton and Bel∣larmin, averring only the confession of Peter, and not at all Peter himself to be the Rock.

Augustin in his 13. Sermon, de verb. Dom secundum Mac. hath these words, I will not build my Church upon thee, but thee npon me: whereby he expresly denys Peter to be the Rock at all; likewise Cyrillus de Trinitate lib. 4. Gregory, Nyssen, in his testimonies against the Jews, Hilarius lib. 2. of the Tri∣nity, expresly distinguish the Rock from Peter, and there∣fore they cannot mean that Peter is the Rock.

It may be also proved by reason, that in the opinion of those Fathers, Peter cannot be the Rock at all: that is, Pe∣trus credens, or Peter believing. We will only mention three reasons; First, The Rock upon which the Church is built is perpetual, because a perpetual building requires a perpetual foundation; but Peter is no perpetual foundation, since he dyed, and was removed a little after that promise.

Secondly, The thing which Peter confessed, whether it be taken formally for the Act of Confession, or objectively, for the thing confessed; cannot be Peter himself, since both those propositions are false. The Confession of Peter, is Peter; and the thing confessed by Peter, is Peter: but those Fathers in the former chapter affirm, that the Rock was the thing confessed by Peter and the Fathers of this chapter: that it was the con∣fession of Peter: (the meaning of both Fathers is the same, as we proved in Nyssenus, and Augustinus) Ergo neither of those Fathers, whether they interpret the Rock to be the thing confessed by Peter, or the confession of Beter, can mean that Peter is the Rock himself.

Thirdly, Suppose that some believed in Christ, in the dayes of our Savior, who never heard so much as the name of S. Pe∣ter. It cannot be denyed but those persons were built upon the Rock: But it cannot be affirmed that they were built

upon Peter, since they never so much as heard of his name.

Bellarmin, Polus, and Sanderus; endeavo•• to prove by se∣veral Sophistries, that the Faith, or Confession of Peter can∣not be the Rock upon which the Church is built; because (say they) the house and the Foundation most be Homogeneous: the Church is composed of Men, but the Confession, and Faith of Peter is a quality; but a quality cannot be the foun∣dation of a house consisting of Men: or substances.

But it is answered, First, The Faith and confession of Pe∣ter may be considered two wayes. First, Formally for the qua∣lity of Faith, or act of Confession. Secondly, Objectively, for the thing confessed, viz. Christ, when those Fathers call the Faith, or Confession of Peter the Rock, they take it Obje∣ctively for the thing confessed, or believed; for, as we said be∣fore, those Fathers who call Christ the Rock, and those who call the confession of Peter the Rock, mean all one thing; Since those who in one place call Christ the Rock, in another call the confession of Peter the Rock: So Nyssenus and Augustinus, as we shewed before.

Secondly, We retort the Argument, reasoning ex conces∣sis. First, they confess that the Foundation of the Church, must be Homogeneous to the Church it self. So Pighius and Bellarmin. Secondly, they grant that no Faith is Homogene∣ous to the Church▪ So Pighius expresly affirms that Faith and the Church, differunt toto genere: from those premisses, no Logician will deny this conclusion to follow in Camestres: Ergo, no Faith can be the foundation of the Church. Which conclusion expresly contradicts the third Session of the Coun∣cil of Trent, asserting the Symbole of Faith to be the only and sure foundation, upon which the Church is built, and against which the gates of hell shal not prevail: And this is all of any moment what they object against those Fathers, affirming the Rock to he the confession of Peter.

CHAP. VI. Of Fathers interpreting Peter to be the Rock.

VVHen Bozius, and others of the Doctors of the Church of Rome, objected that all the Fathers, Greek and Latin, interpreted the Rock to be Peter, Augustinus only excepted; It was answered, First, That it was notoriously false, that all the Fathers interpreted the Rock to be Peter: the truth of which answer we have sufficiently proved in the former chapters, viz. many of the Fathers interpreted the Rock to be Christ, chap. 4. Others of them interpreted the Rock to be the Faith and Confession of Peter, chap. 5. Neither did those Fathers, chap. 4. and chap. 5. contradict one another, we shewed before that their meaning was one; who called the Rock Christ, and the Rock, the confession of Peter.

It was answered, Secondly, That the meaning of those Fathers, calling the Rock Peter, was nothing less, then that Peter in those words of Christ, thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church, was by our Savior ordained Oecu∣menick Bishop: It is needless to set down all the testimonies of those Fathers mentioned by Bellarmin; since we grant that they call the Rock Peter. So Clemens, Tertullianus, Cypri∣anus, Athanasius, Origines, Hilarius, Ambrosius, Hierony∣mus, Nazianzenus, Chrysostomus, Psellus, Augustinus, Maxi∣mus Tautinensus, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Leo Magnus, Prosper, Andreas Cretensis, Gregorius Magnus, Theophy∣lactus. Whose testimonies you may find in Bellarmin, who objects them; we will only demonstrat in this following chapter, that those Testimonies are of no moment, neither is it their meaning or scope to prove that Peter was ordained O ecumenick Bishop; although they expresly affirm that Peter

is the Rock, upon which Christ built his Church. It is a no∣table and subtile Disput, and of great importance, since upon it depends what opinion Antiquity had of the supremacy of Peter, and consequently of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, and necessar communion with the Church of Rome▪ The reasons, wherefore those Fathers (although they call the Rock Peter) do not affirm he was ordained Oecumenick Bishop, are those following. The first is,

Those Fathers could have no other opinion of the Supre∣macy of the Bishop of Rome, or of Peter, then that of the whole Church: But the whole Church in their times was against the supremacy of Peter, or the Bishop of Rome; For it shall be proved lib. 3. that the first; second, and third Ge∣neral Councils were against the supremacy of both: and likewise the fourth and fifth General Councils, lib. fourth and the sixth, seventh, and eight General Councils lib. 5. which was hinted at above, chap. 3.

Secondly, Many of Bellarmins testimonies are forged, as shal be proved, lib. 2. and 3. As the Epistle of Clement to Iames, of Athanasius to Felix Bishop of Rome, as is acknow∣ledged by Baronius, anno 357. paragraph 66. and Biniu•• upon that Epistle tom. 1. part. 1. Concil, of Augustinus in his Sermons upon the Saints, of which we need no other proof of Forgery, then that our adversaries themselves tax Au∣gustinu•• of ignorance of the Syriack tongue, for interpreting the Rock to be Christ: unanimously confessing he denyeth the Rock to be Peter. It is needless to set down the reasons by which learned Men, both Protestants and Papists prove those Sermons de sanctis attributed to Augustinus to be suppo∣sititious.

Thirdly, Many of those Fathers who interpret the Rock to be Peter, interpret it also to be Christ, or the Confession

of Peter, as Tertullianus, Hilarius, Ambrosius, Hieronymus, Chrysos••omus, Origines, Augustinus. Neither do they contradict themselves, their meaning is all one, and it shal be immediatly shewed nothing less then the Supremacy of Peter.

Fourthly, The reasons wherefore those Fathers interpret the Rock to be Peter, inferr no wayes that he was Oecu∣menick Bishop; but on the contrair, demonstrat that he was not Oecumenick Bishop: Since in their opinion others may be called Rocks, as well as Peter, viz. Nazianzeus in his O∣ration, for moderation affirms, Petrus Petra vocatur, quia Ecclesiae fundamenta suae fidei credita habet. That is, Peter was called the Rock, because he had the foundations of the Church concredited to his Faith, Ambrosius; Sermon 47. Because he layed first the foundations of Faith amongst the nations, therefore Peter was called the Rock. Theophylactus affirms, he was cal∣led the Rock, because of his Faith and Confession that Christ was the Son of God. Epiphanius, Because he founded the Faith of our Lord, upon which the Church is built, he was made a solid Rock unto us. Haeres in Catharis. Theophanes Ceraneus, As he is cited by Salmero, tom. 4. part. 3. tract. 2. affirms, That Peter was called the Rock, because of his Confession: by which it appears that the reasons, wherefore Peter was called the Rock, are two: First, because he founded Churches. Secondly, because he confessed Christ: Neither of which inferr an Oecumenick Bishop: since no Sophister never so impudent can deny, that others as well as Peter, founded Churches and confessed Christ: neither is it of any moment what they object, that Peter was the first that founded the Church and confessed Christ: as Theophylactus seems to import; since it shal be proved afterward, that the Apostles before this confession of Peter, confessed Christ to be Son of God, Matthew 14. and John 6. or the great Prophet; see also

Luke 1. 42. and 43. and 2. 30. 31. 32. Secondly, Albeit Peter had first confessed Christ, and by that confession first founded the Church; it argues no supremacy in Peter, or Ju∣risdiction over the Church, no more then it followeth that Aristotle hath Jurisdiction over Logicians, because he taught Logick first.

Fifthly, and mainly, because those Fathers who inter∣pret Peter to be the Rock, call others beside Peter in the same sense, Rocks; whence it is evinced unanswerably, they in∣tend nothing less then the supremacy of Peter; by that gloss. It were tedious to go through them all, we will only instance some testimonies of those Fathers, of whom our adversaries do most brag, by which will appear the meaning of the rest. The first is of Origines, trastat. 1. upon Matthew, Quod si super unum illum Petrum tantum existimas aedificari totam Ec∣clesiam, quid dicturus de Joanne filio tonitrui, & Aposto∣lorum unoquoque? quin aliqui num audebimus dicere, quod adversus Petrum unum non praevaliturae sint portae inferorum, adversus autem caeteros Apostolos, ac praefectos praevaliturae sint? ac non potius in omnibus & singulis eorum de quibus dictum est, fit illud quod dictum est, & portae inferorum uon praevalebunt adversus eam; item illud, super hanc Petram aedificabo Ec∣clesiam meam. No Father is more pressed by Bellarmin, then Origen, to prove that Peter was the Rock: and here ye have not only the testimony of Origin, that the other A∣postles were Rocks as well as Peter, but also his probation of it. First, he propones and states the question, Do ye think (sayeth he) that those words of Christ, upon this Rock I will build my Church, are spoken only to Peter? you are decei∣ved, what shal we then say of John the son of thunder? So then the proposition he undertakes to prove, is, that our Savior promised to build his Church upon all the Apostles, as Rocks: which he proves by this reason, because it was said to

all, the gates of hell shal not prevail against it: and a little af∣ter the words now cited, he adds another reason, viz. because the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to all the A∣postles as well as to Peter.

Bellarmin answers, Origen in this place speaks allegorically, otherwise he would contradict himself in his 5. homily upon ••xodus; where he calls Peter a great Foundation, and most solid Rock, upon whom the Church is built.

But it is replyed, there is no contradiction at all; for Peter may be Magnum fundamentum & solidissima Petra, and yet not only the Foundation or Rock: for the state of the questi∣on is not, Whether Peter was the foundation and Rock, upon whom the Church was built? But whether he be the only Foundation and Rock upon which the Church is built?

Bellarmin instances, secondly, That this testimony of Ori∣gen consists not with the words of Christ, Because they are only spoken of Peter, and understood of him; Ergo, this testi∣mony of Origen must needs be allegorical. But it is answered, Allthough the words of Christ were directed to Peter, yet Origen not only affirms, but proves by two unanswerable rea∣sons, that the promise was made to all, as well as Peter: Mo∣ses speaking of Abraham, affirms he believed in God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness: and yet the Apostle Paul applyes that to all the faithful, which is no Allegory, but Tropology, by which a general promise belonging to all, is directed to one. Bellarmin should take heed to reason thus; The words were directed to Peter alone: Ergo, the promise was made to him alone: For if this promise was made alone to Pe∣ter, the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is quite destroyed; since it was not made to the Bishops of Rome; successors of Peter, being only made to Peter, to whom the words were di∣rected.

Bellarmins third reason to prove the testimony of Origines

to be allegorical, is this: If all the Apostles be foundations, or all the faithful, the whole Church would be foundation of it self, since there are no other besides to be the walls and the roof. But it is answered; First, that the Church is built up∣on all the faithful, because it consists of them; and so Lyra∣nus on Matthew 16. affirms, That the Church doth not consist in men of power, and dignity, either Secular, or Ecclesiastick: because many Bishops of Rome have been Apostats from the faith; And therefore the Church consists only of the faithful. Se∣condly, the Apostles are called foundations in a peculiar man∣ner; because they founded the Church by preaching that Do∣ctrine received from Christ, and sealed it with their blood.

Bellarmin objects lastly ad homin••m, that Protestants affirm that Peter cannot be the Rock, because he is a meer man: but saith he, that reason militats against any other mans being the Rock. But it is answered, That Protestants deny any man to be the Rock unless Christ, sustaining alone the whole burthen of the Church, as the Papists do of Peter: but they do not de∣ny other men to be the Rocks, in that sense mentioned to Bel∣larmins third reason now mentioned. And thus much of Ori∣gines.

Another of the Fathers, one of Bellarmins great confidence, is Cyprianus; who in his 27. Epistle, after he hath mentioned how Christ said to Peter, Thou art Peter, &c. And I will give u••to thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven. He deduceth the Ordination of Bishops from these words, and the Go∣vernment of the Church: Ut Ecclesia super Episcopos consti∣tuatur, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur. Here Pamelius himself acknowledgeth that Cyprian applyeth that promise of Christ, Upon this Rock I will build my Church, to every Bishop, and consequently when Cyprianus calls Pe∣ter the Rock; he cannot mean the only Rock, or that Peter is Oecumenick Bishop.

Pamelius answers, Albeit in this place Cyprianus applyeth that promise of Christ, Upon this Rock I will build my Church to all Bishops; yet, Epist. 55. he applyeth it only to Peter. But it is replyed, although it be true, that Cyprianus, Epist. 55: makes mention only of Peter; yet it doth not follow he doth apply it only to Peter: it is false that Cyprianus affirms, epist. 55. that it can be applyed to no other then Peter: since himself in this place, epist. 27. applyeth it to every Apostle or Bishop.

The third Father is Augustinus, Epist, 165. affirming, that when Christ directed those words to Peter, Peter represen∣ted by Figure the whole Church: which he explains further, tract. 124. upon John, where after a long disput he concluds, that the promise of Christ was made to the whole Church: whereby it evidently appears, that Peter in those words is not ordained Oecumenick Bishop, or the only Rock. In the same sense Hilarius, on Psalm 67. calls all the Apostles foun∣dations: so Theodoretius and Remigius, on Psalm 87. interpret those words, fundamenta ejus in montibus sanctis, of all the Apostles and Prophets: likewise the Apostle Paul, Ephes. 2. 20. calleth all the Apostles and Prophets foundations and Rocks. So the Apostle John seems to call them Apocall. 21. By which it is evident, that those Fathers calling Peter Rock or Foundation, attributs no peculiar thing to him; which is not common to others: and consequently they mean no∣thing less by such expressions, then that he is Oecumenick Bishop.

Those testimonies so evident, put Bellarmin to his wits end. Let us hear and examine an admirable piece of Sophistry.

Bellarmin, lib. 1. cap. 11. De Pont. Rom. answers, that all the Apostles may be called foundations three wayes. The first is, because they were the first who founded Churches every where. The second is, because the Christian Doctrine was

revealed to them all, by God. The third way is, by reason of their governing the Church, they were all Heads Pastors, and Rectors of the Church: but in the first two wayes, all the Apostles were alike with Peter, Foundations and Rocks of the Church. Not in the third way; for although they had all Plenitudinem potestatis, plenitude of power, yet they had it only as Apostles and Legats: Peter had that power as ordina•• Pastor, being head of the other Apostles upon whom they depended: and this was the thing promised to Peter, in those words, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.

But it is answered, Nothing can be more absurd, more contradictory; or more entangling, then this distinction of Bell••rmins. We said before that the truth of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome depended upon the Supremacy of the Bi∣shop of Rome, it again upon the Supremacy of Peter, the principal ground of which Supremacy, is, that promise of Christ, Thou art Peter, and open this Ro•••• I will build my Church. The sense of those words conferring the Supremacy upon Peter, depends upon this gloss, put upon those words by Bellarmin, which is both against Antiquity and Reason; and therefore we may conclude that the truth of the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome, depends upon the fantastick gloss of a Jesuit, contradicting all Antiquity, and inconsistent with it self. And first, it is against Antiquity, because they cannot give one instance from ancient Interpreters▪ Councils, and Fathers, giving this gloss upon those words of our Sa∣vior, Upon this Rock I will build my Church: neither was this gloss ever heard of, or so much as dreamed of, before the times of the Jesuits, after the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was openly assaulted. Secondly, this gloss is contra∣dictory to it self. By it Bellarmin intangles himself many ways: and first, he grants that all the Apostles were equally Rocks and Foundations with Peter, if the word Foundation be taken

in the first two senses. But all the Fathers who expone the Apostles to be foundations, and Peter among the rest, did not so much as dream of any other way, why Peter or they are called Foundations, but only of the first two, viz. in regard that they all alike founded Churches, preaching that doctrine revealed unto them all alike, immediatly from God: and con∣sequently foundation in Bellarmins third sense is a dream of his own, by which he may well confirm his disciples, he will ne∣ver convert Proselytes, but expose himself to the ludibrious taxings of his adversaries in making his own groundless fiction the main Basis of the supremacy of Peter; & consequently, of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome (and consequently of the Religion of the Modern Church of Rome: to which all must be conform, under pain of damnation, according to that new article coined by the Council of Trent: adding to that Ar∣ticle of the Creed, Catholick Church, making it Catholick Ro∣man Church.

Secondly, we have shewed, That this third way of Foun∣dation is a fiction of Bellarmins, not dreamed of by the An∣cients; which although it be sufficient to refute it, yet it refutes it self by many contradictions: And first, of other Popish Doctors: It gives unto all the Apostles plenitudinem po∣testatis, plenitude of power, in which it contradicts the Theolo∣gick Dictionary of Altenstaing approved by authority of the Church of Rome: In which Dictionar, Plenitudo potestatis, is defined not only to be ordinis, but also, Jurisdictionis, conferred by Christ only upon Peter, and his Successors: and that now formalit•••• & subjective, it is only in the Bishop of Rome: which is expresly contradicted by Bellarmin, who attributs it to all the Apostles, pressed by the evident testimonies of those Fathers, seeing the gloss of that Dictionar to be against all Antiquity.

Thirdly, Though Bellarmin be more sound then the gloss

of that Dictionar; in attributing to all the Apostles that ple∣nit••de of power; yet he contradicts himself, in giving to Pe∣ter a greater power then they had it fleeth the edge of the quickest reason, to conceive any power greater then plenitude of power: and therefore it is a flat contradiction to affirme that although all the Apostles have plenitude of power, yet they depend upon Peter, as their head: which is as much to say, as all the Apostles have that power, then which none can have a greater: and yet Peter hath a greater power then they.

Lastly, Bellarmin affirms that Peter hath plenitude of power, as ordinar Pastor; the other Apostles as extraordinar and Le∣gats to Peter: in which he intangles himself in a twofold contradiction. For to omit that distinction of ordinar and extraordinar Pastor amongst the Apostles, is a fiction of his own (the whole stream of Antiquity avowing all the A∣postles to be extraordinar Pastors, Peter as well as the rest) First, he makes the other Apostles above Peter; since extra∣ordinar Pastors are preferred to ordinar Pastors; the Apostle Paul enumerating the hierarchy of the Church, Ephes. 4 puts extraordinar Pastors in the first place, viz. Apost••es, Pro∣phets, and Evangelists, before Pastors and Doctors: and so he contradicts himself, in affirming, that extraordinar Pa∣stors depend upon Peter, as their head, whom he maketh ordi∣nar Pastor.

Secondly, He contradicts himself in making the other A∣postles Legats to Peter, and to omit, he doth so without any ground (having no authority, but his own assertion) he in∣tangleth himself in his reason: for he hath no other reason where∣fore the other Apostles are Legats to Peter: but only be∣cause the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Apostle, in the original imports one who is sent in commission: which is all one with a Legat. But Bellarmin will not deny, that Peter in that sense is a Legat also, because he is an Apostle, and so Peter will be

Legat to Peter, which is perfect none-sense, and contradiction.

Bellarmin borrowed this distinction of ordinar and extraor∣dinar from Sanderus, that famous English Jesuit (who with his Country-man Stapleton invented more new distinctions to uphold the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, then all the Doctors of the Church beside) Sanderus proves Peter to be ordinar, and the other Apostles to be extraordinar, lib. 6. cap. 9. of his Monarchy. Thus,

Ordinar is called so from order, but in order, that is first which is most ancient; since nothing can be first, before that which is first: but Peter was the first, upon whom Christ pro∣mised to build his Church; and to give him the power of the keys: Ergo, they were given to Peter alone. For albeit after∣wards they were given to all the Apostles; yet Christ did not revock what he had given first to Peter: and the fore Peter is ordinar Pastor, and the other Apostles extraordinar.

But it is answered, This argument of Sanderus presuppons many things as granted, which are either uncertain, or no∣toriously false. Secondly, albeit his suppositions were true, they do not conclude his assertion, that Peter is ordinar Pastor, having Jurisdiction over the rest, as extraordinar: He who would see how that Sophistry of Sanderus is retexed at large, let him read Chameir, tom. 2. lib. 11. cap. 6. num. 27. to the end of the chapter, the substance of which is this.

First, He suppons, that as Ordinar, which is first; that extraordinar which is last. But ordinar is taken (among Di∣vines, speaking of Church Officers) for that Office which is perpetual: extraordinar, for that which is for a time. So in in the Old Testament, Priests and Levits were ordinar, Prophets extraordinar Officers: and under the New Testament, Bi∣shops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and Doctors, are ordinar Offi∣cers; Apostles, Evangelists extraordinar.

Secondly, Though the distinction of Sanderus, in that

sense of ordinar and extraordinar were granted; his asser∣tion is uncertain, yea rather notoriously false: he suppons that Peter first obtained the power, of binding, loosing, and feeding the Flock of Christ: but that is uncertain; for these words of Christ exhibit nothing to Peter for the present, but only promise to give him that power of the Keys, and to build his Church upon him: neither was that promise made to Peter alone, but to all the Apostles; as partly hath been proved already, but more fully shal be proved, cap. 6. and 9. and therefore the supposition of Sanderus is uncertain and false.

Thirdly, Albeit his supposition were true, it is incon∣sequent, and proves nothing: for albeit our Savior had ex∣hibited first to Peter, the performance of those promises, or the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: it doth not follow that Peter was ordinar head and Pastor of the other Apostles, having Jurisdiction over them: and that they were extra∣ordinar, depending upon Peter as their head: as is declared by this similitude, a Colledge of Judges consisting of such a number, have afterwards more added to their number: it doth not follow, that those who were first constituted, are ordinar Judges, and the others extraordinar; much less, that those who were first constituted, have Jurisdiction over those who were last: which is most evident in the common wealth of the Romans, in which at first there were only four Pontifices, but that number was after doubled: at first, only a hundreth Senators under the Kings, but that number was tripled by Brutus, and augmented almost infinitly by Em∣perors. At first, there was only one Praetor, next, two, one for the City, an other for Strangers: Lastly, every Province had a Praetor. But none will deny that those Pontifices, Se∣nators, Pretors, had as much power as those who were first

constitut. And this much of those Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Peter.

CHAP. VII. Tu es Petrus, Disputed from the Testimonies of Popish Doctors and Pops themselves.

IN the former chapters we have disputed, Tu es Petrus, (the principal foundation of the supremacy of Peter, of the Bi∣shop of Rome, and Faith of the Modern Roman Church) by reason & antiquity: of which our adversaries brag so much, especially of antiquity. Now we will examine the exposition of those words, by the testimonies of Pops, and Popish Do∣ctors, interpreting that promise of Christ, Upon this Rock I will build my Church. So that by Rock is not meaned Peter at all, or at least Peter alone; by which two things will appear, that the exposition of those words, super hanc Petram appro∣ved by the Modern Church of Rome, as an article of Faith, is against all Antiquity, and a new devised cheat of late, to esta∣blish the Supremacy of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, necessar communion with that Church by an implicit faith; as articles of the Creed necessar unto Salvation, The second thing that will appear is this, they brag much of Unity and Concord a∣mong themselves; but it will appear by this chapter, that there is no greater discord in hell, then is among those of the Church of Rome, taxing one another of madness and heresie, in the interpretation of those words, Upon this Rock I will build my Church: which words are the principal, if not the only foundation of the Modern Roman Faith: and it is to be ob∣served, that those who interpret the Rock to be Peter only, and tax others of their own profession of her sie, are but of yester∣day, in comparison of the others who deny it: and since those others who deny it, are also but of yesterday, in comparison

of Antiquity; it is evident, that this interpretation of Peters alone being the Rock is a new devised cheat to establish the ty∣ranny of the Bishop of Rome, not known to the Ancients.

We shewed in the former chapters, that some of the Fathers interpreted the Rock to be Christ, cap 4. Others the faith of Pe∣ter, cap. 5. and those who interpreted the Rock to be Peter, meaned nothing less, then he was the only Rock; and in these words ordained Oecumenick Bishop. We will distinguish the testimonies of those following Pops, and Popish Doctors in three Classes accordingly: the first is, of those intepreting the Rock to be Christ. The second, of those interpreting it the confession of Peter. The third of those denying Peter to be the only Rock, of which in order.

The testimonies of the first class are those following; Grego∣rius Bishop of Rome, in Job, lib. 31. cap. 19. in sacro eloquio cum singulari numero Petra nominatur, quis alius quàm Chri∣stus accipitur? Paulo attestante, qui ait, Petra erat Christus. This testimony of a Bishop of Rome, and a Saint in the Roman Calendar is unanswerable, proving that in his time, the Rock was expounded not to be Peter, but Christ alone: which he not only affirms, but proves by this reason, viz. when ever Rock is mentioned in Scripture in the singular number, none other is to be understood but Christ: and whereas those Sophisters object, that Gregorius is not speaking of those words of Christ, Upon this Rock I will build my Church, because he proves it by the words of Paul, the Rock was Christ, who is speaking of that Rock, from which Moses made water issue. It is answered, Albeit that be true, that Paul is only speaking of that Rock yet it is false, that Gregory speaks only of that Rock: his words are, where ever in Scripture Rock is mentioned in the singular number, it signifieth none but Christ. But in these words of our Savior, Upon this Rock I will build my Church. Rock is mentioned in the singular number, Ergo, according to

Gregorius the Rock in these words is only Christ, and not Peter at all.

The second testimony is of Anselmus, who lived in the 12. Century, who writing upon these words, speaks as follo∣weth, Super hanc Petram, id est, Super me aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Quasi dicat: si•• es Petrus à me Petra, ut tamen mihi re∣servetur fundamenti dignitas. Sed tu, cui ego amatori, & con∣fessori me•• Participium mei nominis dedi, Super me fundamen∣tum mundos lapides ordinabis. This testimony is also most evident, in which Christ is expresly interpreted to be the Rock, and Peter denyed to be the Rock. All which is given to Peter, is, to build the faithful upon Christ as the Rock: viz. by preaching and sealing the Gospel with his blood as was shewed before.

Lyranus upon the same words, Et super hanc Petram, quam consessus es, id est super Christum. In which words he expresly interprets the Rock to be Christ. He lived, anno 1320. where∣by it appears it was no article of Faith in his dayes to interpret the Rock to be Peter.

The Interlinear Gloss upon Matthew 16. 18. Petram id est, Christum in quem credis: That is, by Rock is meaned Christ in whom Peter believed: but this Gloss was approved by the whole Church.

Ioannes Arboreus Theosoph. lib. 5. cap. 5. Ecclesia fundata est super Petram, & non super Petrum. The Church is built upon the Rock, and not upon Peter.

Petrus de Alliaco Cardinalis, in Recommend. sacrae Scripturae, he lived, anno 1400. his testimony in the said place is this, Non videtur quod in Petra Petrus, sed in Petra Christus sit in∣telligendus, de quo agit Apostolus, Petra autem rrat Christus. It is not like that the Church is founded upon the Rock Peter, but upon the Rock Christ, as the Rock is taken by the Apostle Paul, when he affirmeth the Rock was Christ. The same Author, lib. 2.

cap. 13. of his concordance, Per Petram Christum, quem con∣fessus est, intelligimus; by the Rock we understand Christ whom Peter confessed.

Pererius, lib. 2. in Daniel, although a Jesuit affirms, Quia Christus est Petra, super quam fundata est & sustentatur Eccle∣sia: ideóque nullo unquam tempore, nullâque vi labefacta∣ri & everti poterit: quin imò, nec portae inferi adversus eam praevalebunt. In which words he gives a reason, wherefore the gates of hell shal not prevail against the Church; viz. be∣cause Christ is the Rock upon which it is built: And thus much of the testimonies of those Popish Doctors, interpreting the Rock to be Christ. And since some of them lived very late∣ly, it is evident, that the interpretation of the Rock to be Pe∣ter, is but a new devised cheat. Now followeth the second Class.

Of those Popes and Popish Doctors interpreting the Rock to be the Faith or Confession of Peter. The first testimony is of Adrianus Primus, who lived in the eighth Century, Anno 772. or thereabouts; who in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain and France, recorded in the Acts of the Council of Frankfoord, hath these words: Super hanc Petram, quam con∣fessus es, & à qua vocabull sortitus es dignitatem, super hanc so¦liditatem fidei Ecclesiam meam aedificabo. By which words two things appear. The first is, That the Church is built in his opinion, upon the Confession of Peter. The second is, That those who call the Rock Christ, and those who call it the con∣fession of Peter, mean both one thing: since he expresly af∣firms, That the Rock is—the objective Confession of Peter, or—that which Peter confessed, viz. Christ, which is all one, as if he had called Christ the Rock.

The second testimony of Innocent third, who lived Anno 1000. or thereabouts. In his Epistle to the Bishop of France, concerning Petrus Abeilardus, which Epistle is mentioned by

Otto Frisingensis, lib. 1. cap 84. degestis Frederici primi-Beatus Petrus Apostolorum Princeps, pro eximiâ hujus fidei confessione audire meruit, Tu es, inquam, beatus Petrus, & super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam: Petram utique firmitatem fidei, & Catholicae unitatis soliditatem manifestè designans: The sum of which words is, that our Savior, by hanc Petram, or the Rock, means the firmness and solidity of Peters Faith.

The third testimony is of Adrianus quintus, Bishop of Rome, who lived about 1278. in his epistle to Frederick the Emperor, recorded by Radivicus Frisingensis, lib. 1. cap. 3. Quem in Apostolicae Confessionis Petra non ambigimus per Dei gratiam solidatum; where the Rock is expresly called the thing which Peter confessed.

The testimony of the fourth Bishop of Rome is of Nicolaus secundus, who lived about anno 1060. His testimony is re∣corded by Gratianus, Distinct. 22. cap. 1. Romanam Eccle∣siam solus ille aedificavit, & super Petram fidei mox nascentis erexit, that is, the Church was built upon the faith of Peter, then budding.

And thus much of the testimonies of four Popes or Bishops of Rome interpreting the rock to be the faith of Peter: to which may be added testimonies of the most learned Doctors of that Church, as the Glossator of the Decreta, distinct. 19. cap. Ita Dominus Joannes de Turre Cremata, lib. 2. cap. 102. & 1••2. in summa de Ecclesia. Dionysius Carthusianus, who lived 1460. in his Commentaries upon Matthew 16. 18. Gorranus upon the same place, and also Titelemanus and Eras∣mus; all which expresly interpret the rock to be the confes∣sion of Peter: it is needless to set down their words, since their testimonies are granted.

The third Class of Popish Doctors is of those, who, although Peter were granted to be the rock, yet they deny him to be the only rock, upon which the

Church was built: and who call other Apostles rocks and foundations as well as Peter. The testimonies are few, but the give••s of them are most notable Men: the most famous Doctors that ever the Church of Rome could brag of. The first is the testimony of Lombardus, Master of the sentences, the first Founder of School-divinity among the Latins, as Damascenus amongst the Grecians: who interpreting those words of Psalm 87. Fundamenta ejus in montibus sanctis, affirms, that all the Prophets and Apostles are foundations.

The second testimony is of Nicolaus Cusanus, that fa∣mous Cardinal, whom Espenseus, lib. 2. de adorat. Ecclesiae, and Aeneas Silvius afterward Bishop of Rome, both com∣mend as one of the ablest Divines that ever the Church of Rome produced. His first testimony is 21. dist. in novo 24. quest. 1. Sed scimus quod Petrus nihil plus potestatis à Christo accepit aliis Apostolis; but we know that Peter got no more power from Christ then the rest of the Apostles: and like∣wise, lib. 2. cap. 13. concordi•• Catholicae, where he hath this notable testimony, Et quanquam Petro dictum est, tu es Petrus, —Si Petrus per Petram lapis fundamenti Ecclesiae in elligi deberet, tunc secundum S. Hieronymum ita similiter alii A∣postoli fuerunt lapides; Apocal. 21. In which words he ex∣presly affirms, and proves that the other Apostles were Rocks as well as Peter, which he proves by the testimony of Hie∣ronymus.

And thus much of that famous passage, tu es Petrus, of which so much noise is made now a days: which although it be the principal place upon which the supremacy of Peter, of the Bishop of Rome, and the Faith of the Modern Church of Rome is built: Yet you see what little cause they have to brag of Antiquity; since none of the Ancients interpret Peter to be the Rock; and also what little cause they have to brag of Unity, since those who interpret Peter to be the

Rock only, are contradicted not only by the most learned Doctors of their own Church, but also by six Popes, Felix 3. Gregory 1. Adrianus 1. Nicolaus 2. Innocentus 3. Adrianus 5. And notwithstanding that their Popes are now estemed by them infallible Judges of controversies, yet Pighius and Ba∣ronius, who interpret the Rock to be Peter only, tax all those six Popes of ignorance, madness, as we said before: so doth Maldonatus de Valentia, and other of their Doctors, whose testimonies is needless to be mentioned, since they cannot without impudence be denyed.

CHAP. VIII. Of Matthew 16. 19. Of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

HItherto hath been prolixly disputed, the first argu∣ment of our adversaries, proving Peter to be Oecu∣menick Bishop: viz. because (as they pretend) our Savior promised to build the Church upon him as a Rock, verse 18. Now followeth their second argument, viz because our Saviour promised to give to him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, verse 19. But it is unanimously answe∣red by Protestants, that in those words, the Keys of the King∣dom of Heaven, our Savior doth not mean universal Juris∣diction over the Church: And lest it should seem to be a wilful denyal, they give these following reasons, why Peter is not ordained Oecumenick Bishop in these words? Or why the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, inferr no universal Ju∣risdiction over the Church in the person of Peter alone? The first reason is this, the power of the keys is only a forgiving or remitting of sins, or not remitting them: or a binding and loosing, as appears by the testimony of Augustinus in his 52. Treatise upon John; of Theophylactus on Matthew 16. 19.

of Anselmus, ibid. But none calls in question, but binding and loosing, is a different thing from the power o•• an Oecumenick Bishop.

Bellarmin instances, lib. 1. cap. 13. de pont. Rom. that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, is universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church: which he proves by three arguments. The first is, from the Metaphor of keyes, Isaiah 21. where Shebna is threatned to have the keys of the Temple taken from him, to be given to Eliakim: that is, saith Bellarmin, the government of the Temple, or of the house of God.

But it is answered, Bellarmin is greatly mistaken; for, according to the Hebrew, Shebna was not Perfect of the Temple, but only of the Kings house; Bellarmin is deceived by the Latin version, turning it Tabernacle, whereas Aben Ezra calls it, Master of the Kings house, the Septuagints, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and they call Shebna, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Treasaurer, or Master-houshold: that is the true interpretation, as appears by Kings 2. cap. 18. in which place Eliakim (who succeeded to Shebna in that charge) is called by the Septuagints, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, oeconomus, or Master-houshold; Shebna is called there a Scribe; which place he obtained after the keys of the Kings house were taken from him, and given to Eliakim. However it is a very bad argument of Bellarmins, When Shebna had the keys of the Kings house, the government of the house was taken from him, when they were taken away: Ergo, When Peter get the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from Christ, he was made sole governor of the whole Church. Bellarmin should observe, that keys are given sometime by an Inferior to a Superior▪ & although that be but a new invention or ceremony, yet it is an acknowledgement of authority; as when a King entring a Town, the keys are delivered to him: But when keys are given by a Superior to an Inferior, chief Jurisdiction is no wayes denoted. But Bellarmin will not deny that Christ

was Superior to Peter: And whereas it is objected, that Christ hath the key of David in the Apocalyps, that is juris∣diction of the Church. It is answered, the case is diffe∣rent: none calls the jurisdiction of Christ in question, neither had he the keys from any greater then himself.

Bellarmins second argument is, That the keys import binding and loosing: that is, inflicting of punishment, and dispensing with obligations of the Law; which is supream Jurisdiction over the Church: And conse∣quently, Peter in these words is instituted Oecumenick Bishop.

But it is answered, That binding and loosing import no supream Jurisdiction, as appears by its being common to all the Officers of the Church as well as to Peter: it consists in bidding, forbidding, punishing by Spiritual Censures, and Relaxations from them; which are common to all Church-Officers, as shal immediatly be proved.

In the third place, Bellarmin proves that our Savior, pro∣mising to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, promi∣sed to him alone the government of the whole Church, by the testimonies of Fathers. The first testimony of Chry∣sostomus, hom. 55. on Matthew, affirming, that to Peter the whole world was committed, and that he was made head and Pastor of the whole Church.

But it is answered, It is false, that either Chrysostomus affirms, the whole world was committed to Peter, or, that he was head of the Church: Bellarmin followeth the corrupt version of Trapezuntius, in which he sophisticats manifoldly: the words of Chrysostom are (comparing Hieremas with Peter) Quemadmodum pater Hieremam alloqueus dixit: Instar colunae aneae, & mu••i posui eum: sed illum quidem uni genti: hunc verototi orbi: In these words Chrysostomus is comparing the Prophet with Peter, as the Lord (saith he) put Hieremas as

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

a wall of brass to one Nation, viz. the Jews: sc Peter was made a wall of brass to the whole world. But Chrysostom speaks not a word of Hieremias being set over the Jews with Jurisdiction; and consequently, if the comparison hold, Peter was not set over the whole world with Jurisdiction: which is the first sophistry of Bellarmin, following Trapezuntius, in stead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pos••it eum, placed him. Trapezuntius; renders praepo∣suit, set him over, which is not in the Appodosis of Peter. The second corruption is, that Trapezuntius adds of his own, Cujus caput piscator homo, whose head was a Fisher-man: It is true indeed, a little before these words, Chrysostom calls Peter Pa∣stor of the Church; but that's nothing to an Oceumenick Bi∣shop: for any Apostle may be called Pastor of the Church, as shal be proved afterwards in this Book.

Bellarmins second testimony is of Gregorius Magnus, lib. 4. Epist. 32. Where speaking of Peter he affirms, the care of the whole Church was committed to him; and that he was Prince of the Apostles. But it is answered, In what sense Gregorius affirms, so shal be shewed at length hereafter; where it shal be proved first, that others were called Princes of the Apostles beside Peter: and that the care of the whole Church was committed to others also who were not Oecumenick Bi∣shops.

Secondly, the impudence of Bellarmin is very great, in ob∣jecting this place of Gregorius, in which he is thundering with great execrations, and detestation against any, who taketh upon him the tittle of Oecumenick Bishop; calling that tittle new, Pompatick, Blasphemous against the mandats of Christ, the Ca∣nons of the Apostles, and Constitutions of the Church: And among other reasons against that title of universal Oecumenick Bishop, he objects this as one: If any took upon him that title, Peter had reason to take it: but he had not that tittle, although the care of the whole Church was committed to him: then this impu∣dence

of Bellarmin no greater can be imaginable: Gregory ex∣presly denyes it to follow, that Peter was universal Apostle, or Bishop, although the care of the whole Church was committed to him: Bellarmin mutilats his passage, and makes him conclude, that Peter was universal Apostle or Bishop, because the care of the whole Church was committed to him. He cites this part of Gre∣gories assertion, the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter: but he suppresseth the other half of his assertion; that Peter was not universal Apostle, and most impudently fathers a contradictory conclusion upon Gregory; Ergo, Peter was Oecu∣menick Bishop. And thus much of the first reason, wherefore Protestants deny, that the power of the keyes imports no uni∣versal Jurisdiction of Peter alone over the Church.

Their second reason is this, Because the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to others besides Peter, which they prove; First by Scripture, next by Fathers. The passages of Scripture are two. The first is, Mat. 18. 18. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shal bind on earth, shal be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye loose on earth, shal be loosed in heaven. The se∣cond place is in Joh. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are re∣mitted unto them, and whose soever sins yel retain, they are retained.

Bellarmin answers, That those two places now cited have not the same meaning with Matthew 16. 19. He grants that the difficulty is somewhat pressing of Matthew 18. 18. but there is no difficulty at all (saith he) in John 20. 23. which he proves by three Arguments. The first is this in Matthew 16. 19. The Keyes are promised to Peter without any particular determination; but in John, they are determinated to the forgive∣ness of sins: but binding and loosing may be exercised in other ob∣jects, then in pronounccing men guilty of sin, or absolving them from sin, as in making of laws, and dispensing with them.

But it is answered, That the Fathers expounding those words, What ever ye shal bind on earth, &c. Matthew 16. 19.

referrs that place only to the binding and loosing of sin. So Augustinus, tractat. 124. on John. Ecclesia, quae fundatur in Christo, Claves ab eo regni Coelorum accepit in Petro, id est, pote∣statem ligandi, solvendique peccata. In which words he ex∣presly affirms, That the keyes committed to Peter, consisted in the binding and loosing of sin.

Secondly Theophylactus on Matthew 16. expresly affirms, What was given to Peter in that place, was given to all the Apo∣stles, John 20. He saith indeed, They were promised only to Peter, Matthew 16. (Christ directing his speech only to Peter) but they were given to all: If ye ask when? (saith he) it is answered, when he said, Whose soever sins ye forgive, alluding to John 20.

Whereas Bellarmin, affirms, That the power of the keyes consists also in making of Laws, he saith nothing at all, except he prove that Peter had more authority then the other Apostles in that particular of making Laws.

Bellarmins second Argument, to prove the same thing is not promised to Peter, Matthew 16. which is given to the other A∣postles, John 20. is this, in Matthew it is said to Peter, Whomsoever thou shalt bind, &c. But it is said to the other A∣postles in John, Whosesoever sins ye retain, &c. But to bind, is more then to retain; for, to retain, is to leave a man in the same condition ye find him; but to bind, is to impose new bonds upon him by excommunication, interdicting, and Law.

But it is answered, This Argument of Bellarmins is of no moment: because, according to the constant phrase of Scrip∣ture, Forgiving of sins, and loosing of sins are all one; Ergo, their opposits, retaining of sin, binding a sinner are all one. Since we bind men for their sins only, it is necessar, that the sin being forgiven, they are loosed: or else that they are still retained if they be not loosed. But it is absurd to affirm that anys sins are forgiven, and yet retained: for Bellarmin seems to speak

of that distinction, viz. remission of fault, and remission of punishment, that is, the fault may be forgiven, but not the pu∣nishment: But this distinction is vain, and belongs nothing to this place. Bellarmin seems to import, that the Prerogative of Peter is, to have power of remitting any of them, or both of them, which the other Apostles have not: wherein he is topped first by Cyrillus, upon Matthew 16. who attributs the full power of binding and loosing to the whole Church: which he proves in that instance of the incestuous Corinthian. Secondly, he is topped by Aquinas, affirming that every Minister binds in re∣fusing the Sacrament of the Church to those who are unworthy, and looseth, when he admits them to it. Thirdly, the Interlinear Gloss upon Matthew 16. affirms that sins are forgiven and re∣tained by two keyes of power and remission.

Bellarmins third argument, proving that John 20. and Mat∣thew 16. are not alike, is this; because, saith he, in John 20. Po∣wer of forgiving sins, by the Sacrament of Baptism or Penitence is only conferred upon the Apostles: which he proveth by the au∣thority of Chrysostom, and Cyrillus upon this place, John 20. and also of Hieronymus, Quest. 9. ad Hedibia.

But it is answered, First, Those Fathers affirm indeed, that Power of forgiving of sins in Baptism is given in this place: but it is false which Bellarmin affirms, that it is only given and no more. For forgiving of sins is but the half of the Power con∣ferred by Christ upon the Apostles in this place; since retain∣ing of sins is also given unto them. Secondly, Fathers referr to Baptism that loosing given to Peter, Matthew 16. So Cypri∣anus, epistle 73. where he disputs, that forgiving of sins in Bap∣tism is proper to the Pastors of the Church: which he proves; first, by Peter who got that power, Matthew, 16. 19. and also by the other Apostles, to whom our Savior said, Whose sins ye forgive, &c. John 20. Yea Gaudentius, in the first day of his ordination, expresly affirms, that the gates of the Kingdom of

heaven are opened no other wayes, then by Baptism and absolution: and thus much of the similitude of John 20. with Matthew 16. By what we have said, it appears that Bellarmin brings nothing but Sopistry to prove that the places are not alike.

He grants that there is great difficulty to prove the dissimili∣tude of Matthew 16. 19. and 18. 18. Since binding and loosing is given to all the Apostles in the last place as well as in the first to Peter; and not only retaining, as in John 20. which Bellarmin affirmed to be a demonstration, that John 20. and Matthew 16. were not alike places, viz. that retaining and forgiving was only given to all the Apostles, John 20 which was not so much as binding and loosing given to Peter, Matthew 16. Ne∣vertheless, Bellarmin endeavors to prove that, Matthew 16. 19. and 18. 18. are unlike places: although in the last binding and loosing be given to all the Apostles as well as to Peter in the first: Because that binding and loosing given to Peter, Matthew 16. is of greater authority, then that given to the other Apo∣stles, Matthew 18. 18 His argument is this, which I believe he understands not himself.

In Matthew 18. (saith he) Nothing is given to the Apo∣stles at all, but only it is promised to them, and explained what power they should have afterward? which he prove; by two reasons. The first is, That they were not yet Priests or Pastors, or Bishops, when Christ made them that promise, Matthew 18. 18. but only after the resurrection. Secondly, because those words, Whomsoever ye shal bind and loose, &c. Matthew 18. are the paralels of those said to Peter, Whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose, Matthew 16. But in Matthew 16. nothing was exhibi∣ted 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, Mat∣thew

16. 19. and Matthew 28. 18. for in stead of proving them different places, by his sophistical contradictory bab∣ling, he proves they are just the same: For first he grants, that nothing was exhibited in either place, but only promised. Se∣condly, 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 Juris∣diction 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 loos∣ing 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 consci∣ence, 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? Second∣ly, 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 singu∣lar number Heaven. So Hilarius, lib. 6. de Trinitate affirms, That all the Apostles had the keys Regni Coelorum of the Hea∣vens: 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 bin∣ding and loosing in Coelis, in the Heavens. The school-men

likewise speak after the same manner, as Lombardus, di∣stinct. 18. of the first chapter, lib. 4. and also in the same book, distinct. 19. and Durandus, quest. 1. in his Commen∣taries 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 quae••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 Ca∣stro, 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 di∣stinction 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 Ori∣gen, 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 al∣legorically, 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 no∣torius 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: o∣therwise he were not only a lyar in this place, but also a con∣tradicter of Reason, Scripture, and other Fathers, and of him∣felf 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 con∣tradict 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. be∣cause 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 ex∣ceptions 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 Hea∣ven were given to others, as well as to Peter: those testimo∣nies 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 Trea∣tise against the Novatians. All which testimonies expresly af∣firm, That the keys were given to others beside Peter: Neither is it needful to set down the words, since our adversaries can∣not have so much impudence as to deny them: To which testimonies may be added, that of Hieronymus against Jovina∣nus, 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 coe∣lorum, 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 testimo∣nies. 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 a∣like power with Peter, in the power of the keys, albeit it seems to be the meaning of those Fathers: which he illustrats by the ex∣ample of Moses, and the 70. Elders: since it is said, Num∣bers 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, Mat∣thew 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 loos∣ings, in Relec. controvers. 3▪ quest. 1. art. 1. conclus. 4.

Others answer, Distinguishing the keys of Order and Juris∣diction, 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 ap∣pears 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. & consequent∣ly, 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 the Church was built upon all the Apostles, as well as upon Peter.

Secondly, That the keys were common to all the Apostles, he proves by John 20, 23. whereby it is evident, that the said place is the same in meaning with Matthew 16. in which he flatly contradicts Bellarmin, who confidently affirmed, that

without all doubt, forgiving and retaining of sins, mentio∣ned, John 20. 23. was not the same thing with binding and loosing, Matthew▪ 6. 19.

Thirdly, Cyprianus de Vnitate Ecclesiae, expresly affirms, That Christ gave alike power to all his Apostles, Iohn 20. 23. in these words; Accipite Spiritum Sanctum, si cujus remiseritis peccata, &c. Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins ye shal for∣give, they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye re∣tain, they are retained: and since all the Apostles (according to Cyprianus) had alike power given them after the Resurrection of Christ, by John 20. 23. without all question, he believed that the same power of the keys, was given to all the Apostles, which was given to Peter, Matthew 16.

The second Reason, Why those distinctions of Polus, Maldonatus, Stapleton, and Bellarmin, and others; or new de∣vised evasions is unanswerable: viz. It appears by the Fa∣thers, that no greater Ecclesiastical power imaginable, could be given to any, then that which was given to all the Apostles, in Matthew 18, and John 20. which quite destroys all those sophistical distinctions, tending all to this: That the power given to Peter, was greater, Matthew 16. 19 then that gi∣ven to the other Apostles, Matthew 18. and John 20. That no greater power can be imagined, then that which was given to all the Apostles, is proved by the testimony of Chrysostomus, lib. 3. cap. 5. de Sacerdotio: Where speaking of that power of the keys given to all the Apostles, yea, and to all Bishops, he falls to an interrogative exclamation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? That is, I pray you, what greater power can be given then this? But this had been a most ridiculous interrogation in Chrysostomus, if either he himself, or any other had belie∣ved that the power of the keys, promised to Peter, Matthew 16. was greater then that promised to the other Apostles, Mat∣thew 18. and John 20. And thus much of the testimonies of

those Fathers proving directly, that the keyes were given to others, as well as to Peter.

Now followeth the testimonies of Fathers, proving by consequence, that the keyes, Matthew 16. were not peculiar to Peter; out of which testimonies, three arguments are dedu∣ced. The first is, If Peter alone had the power of the keyes promised to him, Matthew 16. Then Peter would only have exercised the keyes, and no other beside him, in such a high∣way as he did: But it appears by the testimony of Gauden∣tius, primae de ordinationis suae, that all the Apostles as well as Pe∣ter practised, the keys, viz. in teaching, baptizing, & censuring. Yea, Salmeron the Jesuit, in his Commentars upon 1. of Peter 1. disput. 1. expresly affirms, That Peter seemed to neglect his duty in the exercise of the keyes, it so little appeared by his car∣riage and practise, that he had any Jurisdiction over the other A∣postles. Where observe the impudent shift of the Jesuit, who being pressed by the carriage of Peter, that no token of his Supremacy appeared, hath nothing to answer; but that it was his own neglest: which if it be true, was great unfaithful∣ness of Peter: if it be false, (as it is,) it is great impudence in the Jesuit.

The second argument taken from the Fathers, proving con∣sequentially that the other Apostles were promised the keyes, as well as Peter, is taken from Augustinus, who affirms, That Pe∣ter represented the whole Church when Christ promised him the keyes: and so by consequence, in Peter, the other Apostles and all Pastors of the Church had the keyes promised unto them: the words of Augustinus are those following in his 124. tr••••••at. upon John, Quando Petro dictum est, tibi dabo claves regni coelorum, & quodcunque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum & in coelis, universam significabat Ecclesiam. And a little after, Ecclesia, Ergo, quae fundatur in Christo, claves ab co regni Coelorum accepit in Petro, id est, potestatem ligandi, solven∣dique

peccata. In which words he expresly affirms, That Pe∣ter was a figure of the whole Church, when our Savior promised him the keyes: and therefore in Peter the keyes were given to the whole Church, and not to Peter alone.

Our adversaries pussed with this testimony of Augustinus, after their accustomed manner, fall to their new devised distin∣ctions, explaining how the keyes were given to Peter, represen∣ting the whole Church? Or how they were given to the whole Church in Peter? And first Horantius, lib. 6. cap. 10. Locor. Cathol. affirms, That the keys were given to the whole Church in Peter; that is saith he, They were given to Peter for the good of the whole Church, as when any is made King of any Nation, the Kingdom or Kingly Authority is given to him for the good of the whole Nation: and so Peter, as Prince of the Church, had the keyes given unto him for the good of the whole Church: and in this manner, the keyes were given to the whole Church in Peter. But it is answered, Horantius his Gloss is far beside the Text of Augustiuus; who expresly disputs, The keyes were not given to Peter alone, but to the whole Church: for if they were only given to Peter, the whole Church would not have exercised them: he disputs so, tractat. 50. upon John, and therefore concluds, that the keyes were not given alone to Peter, because the whole Church exercised them as well as Peter: Augustinus doth not disput for what end the keyes were given? but to whom also this Gloss of Ho∣rantius expresly contradicts Augustinus Horantius affirms, That the keyes in the same manner were given to the whole Church in Peter, as when any is made King of a Nation, the Au∣thority of a King is given to the whole Nation: that is, saith he, He who is made King gets that Authority for the good of the whole Nation: which is a flat contradiction of Augustinus, for that Nation, or whole Nation cannot be said to exercise the King∣ly Authority, when he who is made King gets it: But Augu∣stinus

expresly disputs, That the whole Church exercised the keyes as well as Peter: and therefore the keyes were given to the whole Church in Peter: otherwise, saith he, The whole Church would not have exercised them, tractat. 50. His words are, If Peter had not represented the Church, our Lord had not said unto him, I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven. For if that only was said to Peter, The Church hath no power of binding or loosing, and since the Church hath that power, Peter was the Sacrament or Figure of the whole Church, or mistically represented the whole Church, when our Savior promi∣sed to him the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and that is the sum of the disput of Augustinus, tractat. 50. For satisfaction of the Reader we will set down his words which are these, Nam si in Petro non esset Ecclesiae Sacramentum, non ei diceret Domi∣nus, tibi dabo claves regni coelorum, & quaecunque solveris in terra, soluta erunt in coelo: & quaecunque ligaveris in terra, liga∣ta erant & in coelr. Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non facit hoc Ecclesia: Si autem & in Ecclesia fit, ut quae in terra ligantur, in coelo ligentur, & quae soluuntur in terra, soluantur in coelo, quia cum excommunicat Ecclesia, in coelo ligatur excommunicatus: cum re∣conciliatur ab Ecclesia, in coelo soluitur excommunicatus: si hoc, Ergo, in Ecclesia fit. Petrus quando claves accepit, Ecclesiam san∣stam significavit. By which it appears, that he expresly dis∣puts that Peter had not the keyes given to him alone, because the whole Church used them as well as he: and thence con∣cluds, that he represented the whole Church, when our Sa∣vior promised to him the keyes: and therefore it is false which Horantius affirms, That the whole Church got the keyes in Peter, as Germany gets the Empire, when any is made Emperor of Ger∣many: Since all Germany doth not exercise the Imperial Au∣thority as the whole Church doth that of the Keyes.

Bellarmin glosseth otherwise upon Augustinus, he affirms, Peter may be said two wayes to represent the Church. First,

historically, as when any represents that which is done by ano∣ther, by that which is really done by himself: and so, saith he, Abraham having two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, represented God, who was to have two peoples. The second way of Bellarmins representing, is called by him Parabolick, viz. when any thing is represented by a probable fiction, not really done: So our Savior preaching the Gospel, is signified by a sower of good seed. He applyeth that Peter signified the Church the first way: so that he truly, principally, and immediately got the keyes; and in getting them, signified the whole Church: which was to get them afterwards in its own proper way.

But it is answered, It is very ordinar with Bellarmin to spin out subtilties nothing to the purpose to delude bis readers, when he is pus••ed: it were prolix to retex his sophistry in this particular: we only answer, that Peter represented the Church in none of those wayes mentioned by Bellarmin, but in a third, viz. As when a Society alike interessed in any priviledge, hath that priviledge given to them all, when it is given to any one of them: in which case, every one of that Society hath the benefit of that priviledge as well, and equally with him, to whom it was given in all their names.

Bellarmin objects, That it is not the meaning of Augustinus, that Peter got the keyes in the name of the rest as their Legat, or Vicar: Ergo, it is his meaning, that Peter got them as their Moderator, or Prince: as when any thing is given to a King, it may be said to be given to the whole Kingdom, because it is given for the publick utility of all.

But it is answered, It is true which Bellarmin affirms, that Peter did not get the keyes as a Legat, or Vicar gets any thing in the name of his King: for so Peter had gotten nothing to him∣self, no more then an Ambassador representing his King, mar∣rying a wife to his King or in his Kings Name: but it doth not follow that Peter got the keyes as Monarch of the Church, or

as the Church got them in Peter, as a Kingdom gets any thing given to their King: because it is notoriously false, since the Church, according to Augustinus, had the power of the keyes, as well as Peter: but a Kingdom hath not the use or property of that which is given unto their King: and therefore we af∣firm, That Bellarmins enumeration is still insufficient; for Peter got the keyes neither as Vicar of the Church, nor a Mo∣derator or Prince of the Church, but as one of the Society of the Pastors and Apostles of the Church, as if our Savior had said to Peter, I give unto thee the power of the keyes, and in thee to all Pastors, to be alike exercised by thee and them.

Bellarmin instances that Augustinus affirms, that the Church was signified by Peter, Propter eum quem gerebat Primatum, that is, Because of the Primacy he had in the Church.

But it is answered, That Augustinus by Primacy means no other thing then Apostleship, that is, Augustinus affirms, Peter had a Primacy in the Church, because he was an Apostle in the Church: as he explains himself in many places, as in his last Treatise upon John, he affirms that Peter signified the whole Church, because of the Primacy of his Apostleship; propter Apo∣stolatus Primatum: he hath the like words in his 23. Sermon upon the words of Christ, and likewise upon Psalm 108. and especially, lib. 2. of Baptism against the Donatists, he hath these words, Quis nes cit illam Apostolatus Principatum, cuilibet Episco∣patui preferendum? Who knows not that the Primacy of an A∣postleship is to be preferred to any Bishoprick? by which it is most evident, that the meaning of Augustinus, affirming, Peter had a Supremacy in the Church, is no other, then that he was an A∣postle of the Church. Especially since Augustinus disputed, that the keyes were not given to Peter alone, but also to the whole Church.

But Bellarmin instances, it is true, That the whole Church had the use of the keyes, as well as Peter, but by the gift of Peter,

who distributed them to other Pastors, according to his pleasure: himself only having them immediately from Christ; as when a King, having his power immediately from God, communicats his Jurisdiction to inferior Magistrats, in giving them particu∣lar charges of exercising Jurisdiction.

But it is answered, This Gloss of Bellarmins is against all Antiquity: innumerable testimonies of Fathers might be pro∣duced, that the other Apostles had the keyes given them as well as Peter: but Bellarmin cannot produce one testimony to prove that the meaning of those Fathers is, That the keyes were immediately given to Peter, and by his communication distributed to the rest. Nothing such appears out of Augustinus, but the contrair. Cyprianus expresly affirms, That all the Apostles were of alike power with Peter. And Francisus de Victoria, a great Popish Doctor, the most learned Divine that ever Spain pro∣duced as he is called by Canus, loc. Theol, lib. 12. cap. 1. Re∣lect. 2. quest. 2. conclus. 3. and 4. Commenting upon that place of Cyprian de unita. Eccles. expresly affirms, That all the Apostles received all the power both of Order, and Jurisdicti∣on immediatly from Christ: and inveighs against the ordinar Gloss upon that place, for distinguishing between Order and Jurisdiction: that is for affirming, That all the Apostles had their Orders immediately from Christ, but not their Jurisdi∣ction, or the power of the keyes: which he affirms to be farr from the meaning of Cyprian.

The third argument of Fathers, proving by consequence, that the keyes were given to others also beside Peter, is, because Peter spoke in the name of the rest, or answered the question of our Savior for them all: Anselmus on Matthew 16. hath these words, Notandum est, quod haec potestas, non solum Petro data est: sed sicut Petrus, unus pro omnibus respondit, sic in Petro omnibus hanc potestatem dedit: It is to be observed, that this po∣wer of the keyes was not only given to Peter, but as Peter alone

answered for them all, so in Peter he gave that power unto them all.

Bellarmin answers, That Peter answered for all as their Prince, Head, and Mouth, not as one commissionat from them to an∣swer in all their names: in which case, he would have known what they were to answer to our Saviors question? asking them what he was? But Peter did not know what the other Apostles would answer to that question of our Savior; and therefore he answered as their Prince and Head.

But it is replyed, We grant that Peter was not commissionat from the rest to answer for them; but we deny it to follow, that he answered as their Prince and Head: there is amids, viz. he answered as one of their number, as when any is riding out the way, he meets with a number of people, asks of them the right way, or some other question: one more ready then the rest answers first. It is notorious he had no commission from the rest to answer; and yet it doth not follow, that he is Head or Prince of the rest: by which it appears, that this reasoning of Bellarmins is nothing else but Sophistry: and whereas Bellar∣min affirms, That Peter answered only for himself, and not for the rest, because he knew not what they would answer; It is fri∣volous, because it was sufficient, that Peter knew what they ought to have answered, if they answered aright: Bellarmin urgeth, a reward is given to Peter in these words for his an∣swer; but since the others did not answer at all, but only him∣self▪ without commission from the rest; It follows of necessity, that the reward, viz. the keyes were given to Peter alone, and not to the rest; especially, since our Savior affirms, That it was revealed by God only to Peter, that Christ was the Son of God.

But it is replyed, The words of our Savior are, That the said mystery was revealed to Peter by God only: but it doth not follow, That it was revealed to Peter only: that is uncertain,

yea, rather notoriously false: Since Peter, John ••. 69. in the name of all the rest, hath these words, And we believe, and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God: by which it appears, that the other disciples knew that mystery as well as Peter, since Peter expresly affirms in that place, They all be∣lieved it.

Bellarmin instances, how know we that Peter spake for the rest, and not for himself alone? since it cannot be gathered from the Text. But it is answered first, How knoweth Bellar∣min that Peter answered for himself and not for the rest? Since no such thing can be gathered from the Text. It is answered, Secondly, That it is evident from the Text, that Peter answe∣red for the rest: because Christ asked not the question of Peter alone▪ but of them all: he asketh whom they thought he was: and since Peter immediately answered (being more ready then the rest, as Chrysostom affirms) it is evident, that Peter answered in the name of them all.

Franciscus Agricola, besides those reasons of Bellarmin, adds others to prove, that Peter answered for himself alone, and not for the rest: His first reason is this, Because he answered not for Judas, since Judas believed no such thing as Christ was the Son of God; Ergo, he answered not for them all. But it is an∣swered, It doth not follow. He answered not for them all, Be∣cause Judas believed not: because, John 6. 69. Agricola will not deny that Peter answered for them all; and yet, the not believing of Judas might as well militat against his answering for them all, John 6. as Matthew 16. Peter answered, What they all ought to have believed: and in so doing, answe∣red for all, albeit they did not all believe.

Another of Agricola his reasons not mentioned by Bellarmin is this, Our Savior pronounced only Peter blessed, and not the other Apostles: Ergo, Peter answered only for himself; and not for all: otherwise our Savior would have called them all blessed.

But it is answered, Our Savior called only Peter blessed, be∣cause Peter only answered: and so in pronouncing him blessed, He called them all blessed, because he answered in the name of them all. So, Hilarius, de Vinctat. 6. alluding to this place, saith O ye holy and blessed men, who procured the keys ••o the Kingdom of Heaven••, by the merit of your Faith: In which words he applyeth that blessing of Christ to all alike.

Agricola hath three other Reasons, Proving that Peter an∣swered only for himself, and not for all; but they are the same with those of Bellarmin, which we answered already: and thus much of the keys, Matthew 16. 19. which is the second argument pretended by the Romish Doctors, for pro∣ving that Peter was instituted Oecumenick Bishop by Christ.

CHAP. IX. Of Iohn 21. 15, 16, 17. Or feed my Sheep.

THe third argument, proving that our Savior ordained Peter Monarch of the Church, is taken from the words of our Savior, John 21. 15, 16, 17. where thrice our Savior commands him to feed his Sheep, viz. to feed his Lambs, verse 15. his Sheep, verse 16, 17.

But it is answered, That argument is inconsequent; for al∣though our Savior injoyned the feeding of his Sheep to Peter, it doth not follow that he ordained him Oecumenick Bishop: for three reasons The first is, because feeding of Christs Sheep is not to command Christians, nor to exercise dominion over them, as a Monarch: Since the Apostle Peter himself, in his first Epistle, cap. 5. verse 3. expresly forbids dominion to those to whom the feeding of Christs Flock was injoyned, verse 2.

Bellarmin, lib. 1. cap. 15. de Pont. Rom. endeavors to prove, that in the word Feeding, supream Jurisdiction over the whole Church is committed to Peter by several reasons. The first is, that it comprehends all the duty of a Pastor: which consists not only in Ministring Food, but also in Governing and Cha∣stising: As appears by our Savior using the Greek verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies to feed by commanding, in which sense, Kings are called by Homer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pastors of the people.

But it is answered, Bellarmin subtilty in such Grammati∣cisms hath no ground: Our Savior in the same place, useth the Greek verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as well as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: both which, not only the Syrian Interpreters, but also the Latin renders the same way, viz. to feed. But it is notorious that the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, imports no dominion at all; but only Ministration of food. Secondly, albeit there were such a Mystery in the Greek verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as to signify Jurisdiction; Yet it is injoyned to Pe∣ter, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Praefectu∣ram, 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 Priest∣hood, which is common to all Priests, and not of an Oecume∣nick 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 Pa∣stors 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 Sa∣vior affirmeth, As my Father sent me, so send I you: Which words are expounded by Cyrillus, lib. 12. in John, by Chry∣sostomus, hom. 85. upon John, By Theophylactus upon this place to this purpose: viz. Cyrillus affirms, That all the A∣postles were ordained Doctors of the whole World, to inlighten not only the Jews, but all the Nations of the World. Chryso∣stomus 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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? respon∣dit, 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 Cler∣gy 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 Pa∣stors, 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 Resur∣rection.

Augustinus, tract. 123. upon John, Chrysostomus, de Sacer∣dotio, 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 Ad∣versaries; 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 Sa∣vior 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? Fol∣low 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 state∣ing of the question: as if Protestants denyed, that these words of our Savior were directed to Peter alone: And there∣fore 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 fore∣said 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. Af∣ter 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 Sa∣vior, 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 Bellar∣mins 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 Scrip∣ture, 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 Pe••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 Fa∣thers: It is contrair to Fathers, as was proved by the testimo∣nies of the Clergy of Rome, of Cyrianus, of Augustinus, Chry∣sostomus and Basilius. Finally, it is contrair to Popish Doctors, as Franciscus de Victoria, who (as we shewed before) dispu∣ted expresly, That all the Apostles had not only their Order, but also their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ: And re∣prehended the ordinar gloss, for using that distinction, in ex∣position 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 imme∣diatly 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 ar∣gument, 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 ••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 A∣postle John had Jurisdiction over those Apostles, who loved not Christ so well as himself: that Stephanus a Deacon had Ju∣risdiction 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 Za∣deel, reasons thus; Let it be granted (saith he) that all the Apostles, and all Pastors had their authority of feeding the Flock of Christ•• 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 authori∣ty, or that because these words, Feed my sheep, were injoy∣ned 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 S••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, be∣cause our Savior injoyned the Feeding of his sheep to others, as well as to Peter: which we proved by Scripture, and Fa∣thers, 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 con∣clude 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 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 A∣post••es also: he endeavors to prove it two wayes. First, rea∣soning 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 accor∣ding 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 them∣selves.

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 Bel∣larmin of his subtile distinction now? Secondly, all Antiqui∣ty 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. Chrysosto∣mus on John, Homily 87. Ambrosius, or the Author of those sermons attributed to him, Sermon 46. It is needless to men∣tion 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, quàm oves appellaverit? quod qui fecerit, videat etiam atque etiam, ne doctis hominibus risum praebeat; where he ex∣presly 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 she••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 Bel∣larmin, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but also by the Greek article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which article•• and Pro∣noun 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 in∣stance overthrows the sophistry of Bellarmin and Turrianus. These propositions are indefinit: if universal, they were noto∣riously false; and yet they have both the Articles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the pronoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

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 A∣postles, 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 compre∣hended; 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 be∣fore these Sheep and Lambs, are meant others besides the A∣postles, 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: Its false, that no Sheep are commended to Peter, or that some cer∣tain 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, Ma∣thew 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 con∣sequently 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, and all the Apostles, to teach that doctrine which he had revealed unto themselves im∣mediatly: 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 Mo∣narch of the Church by Christ: we will conclude the disput with two passages, the one of Gregorius De Valentia, that fa∣mous Jesuit: the other of Cusanus, that no less famous Cardi∣nal. 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 que∣stion, 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 th•••• 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 Sa∣vior in these three passages, ordained the Apostle Peter Mo∣narch 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, & inco∣gitantia, nihil ab adversariis responderi posse, certissimus sa∣ne 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 Typo∣graphi, or a fault of the Printer: but when I consulted Valen∣tia 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 in∣vincible.

The ground of his argument consist in a Topick Axiom of his own divising against all the rules of Logick: viz. If the ne∣gation 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 axi∣om of Valentia is the foundation of a Syllogism consisting of af∣firmatives 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 invinci∣ble? 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 notorious∣ly 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 Gre∣gorius de Valentia, viz. If Peter did not feed the flock of Christ, and had not the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, it follows ne∣cessarily 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 Bi∣shop 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, quem∣cunque ligaveritis? Et quanquam Petro dictum est, Tu es Petrus. Si Petrus per Petram lapis fundamenti Ecclesiae in∣telligi 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 univer∣sum, &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 Na∣tions. And thus much Cusanus, in which words although a Car∣dinal, 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 where∣as, 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 rece∣perunt immediatè à Christo, quod pro certo mihi videtur pro∣nunciandum. Haec est apertè sententia Cypriani, epist. de uni∣tate Ecclesiae: hoc erant caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus, nec au∣dienda est glossa, dicens, Hoc non intelligi de potestatis pleni∣tudine, ut patet apud Cyprianum. Quod pro certo mihi vi∣detur pronunciandum: In which words, he not only af∣firmeth, That all the Apostles had their power immediately from Christ: but also, alike power immediatly from Christ: repre∣hending that ordinar distinction of the Roman Church, viz.

That all the Apostles although they had their power imme∣diately from Christ, yet not secundum plenitudinem potestatis, which he proves by that passage of Cyprian, de unitate Eccle∣siae, 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 A∣postle 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 Dis∣putation, to prove a negative: or that Peter was not ordained Oecumenick Bishop by Christ (it being e∣nough 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 Oecu∣menick Bishop. Therefore these passages ought not to be neglected (since they are recorded in Scripture for our in∣struction) but on the contrair, diligently examined, and vin∣dicated, 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 con∣straint; 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 imme∣diately 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, used by the Apostle in the said place, which evermore imports tyrannical domi∣nation, as the verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies to exercise dominion lawfully.

But he is mistaken: Both these verbs are used promi∣scuously in Scripture for the same: both signifying lawful do∣minion, or exercising dominion lawfully, as appears by com∣paring, Matthew 20. 25. and Mark 10. 42. where the verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Whereby it appears that these two Greek verbs sig∣nify both one sort of ruling which is lawful: and not the one of them used by Peter, 1. 5. signifyeth tyrannical domina∣tion: 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made use of by Peter, 1. 5. 3. as Psalm 72. 8. and 110. 2. and Genesis 1. 28. other innumerable pla∣ces 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, su∣pream 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 Parasyt••, 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 Em∣press 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 Euty∣chian 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 in∣serted 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 ••ct. by the eight General Council, act. 7. And like∣wise 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 con∣demned two decretal Epistles of the said Honorius, as Hereti∣cal. 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; po∣test 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 fa∣cere

justitiam, corrigendo jura, & mutando: demum plenitudi∣nem 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 domi∣nion in Spirituals, which was the first particular.

The second particular of his tyrannical dominion, is in Tem∣porals. Authority of deposing Kings, is attributed unto him, it is taught by the Church of Rome, that the Pope hath power to absolve Subjects from their Oaths of fidelity to their natu∣ral Princes; to command them to fight against them, and con∣sequently to kill them: that all are oblieged to acknow∣ledge him for their natural Prince whom the Pope shal appoint. It is taught also in that Church, That the Pope is direct Mo∣narch of the whole World, both in Spirituals and Temporals. So Bozius, lib. 10. de signs Ecclesiae, and Carerius de potestate Papae, and all the Canonists they teach also, That a Pope depo∣sing a King without any reason, but his will, doth him no wrong, because he takes only what is his own from him: As a King doth no wrong to the Governor of a Province, when he gives his government to another Subject. Although the former have done no offence, as is maintained by Thomas Bozius, lib. 3. cap 4: de jure status.

Here our Romish Emissaries in Scotland endeavor to perswade their Proselytes that this doctrine of deposing Kings, is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome, but only of some particular Persons, whom they call the Popes Flat∣terers.

But is replyed, that those Gentle-men are either not well versed in their own principles, or else they are like Father Cotton the Jesuite, who being demanded by the Parliament of Paris, If he believed that the Popes had power to depose Kings? Answered, He did not believe it in France, but if he were at Rome, he would believe it. However that it is to the doctrine of

the Church of Rome▪ that the Pope hath power to depose Kings; is proved by these following reasons, which will puzle those gentlemen very sore to answer. The first is this, innumerable Books are Printed teaching this doctrine, and yet are Printed by authority and licence, as containing no doctrine, contrair to the true Catholick doctrine of the Church of Rome. Ergo, the de∣posing of Kings by the Pope is the true Catholick doctrine of the Church of Rome: since a doctrine which is not contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, must of necessity be the doctrine of the Church of Rome.

The second reason is this, All the Roman Doctors unani∣mously maintain, (except some few who dare not set out their Head) that whatever the Pope and his Cardinals discern in a Conclave, is of equal (if not of a Superior) Authority, with that which is decreed in a General Council; but the Conclave at Rome gives unto the Pope power of deposing Kings: Ergo, it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. That such power is given to the Pope by the Conclave, appears by innumerable bulls, as that of Gregory 7. against Henry the 4. Emperor. That of Paul the third, against Henry the 8. of England. Of Paul the 5. against Queen Elizabeth. Of Sixtus the 5. against Hen∣ry 3. and 4. Kings of France.

The third reason is this, Every one is bound to believe that to be the true Doctrine of the Church of Rome, which the Pope teacheth in Cathedra, in which case they maintain he is infallible; But the Pope teacheth in Cathedra, that he hath power to depose Kings by his decretal bulls, obliging the whole Church (as is no∣torious) in which he assums to himself that power, as appears by innumerable of his Bulls, especially by those now mentioned a∣gainst the Emperor, Kings of England & France: in which, he ex∣presly assumes unto himself authority of building, or aedificandi; of casting down, or demoliendi; of planting, plantandi; of roo∣ting out, eradicandi, transferendi, of transferring, Kingdoms at

his pleasure. In some of which Bulls also, he applyeth to him∣self those words of the Prophet, Per me Reges regnant, By me Kings reign: which is notorious blasphemy. And thus we have proved, against those Gentlemen, that they are mistaken, in denying that is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, which giveth authority unto the Pope, to depose Kings.

They are not yet satisfied, as appears by two objections, made by one of those Gentlemen to my self: The first was this, that I could not instruct, that it was the Doctrine of any General Council, that the Pope hath power to depose Kings: and consequently I could not make out, it was the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome. To which objection I answered First, that I had made it out, That it was the doctrine of Popes in Cathedra, and consequently I had made it out, that he and all other Romanists, were obliged to believe it as an Article of Faith. He told me plainly, he did much doubt of that, neither was he of that opinion, That the Pope could not err in cathedra, but still pressed me to prove it by the Authority of some Ge∣neral Council; protesting he detested that doctrine as un∣sound. I desired him to read Baronius, anno 1072. and he would find, that the Emperor, Henry the 4. was exautorated by a Council at Rome, num. 16, 17, 18. and by another at Collen, 1118. num. 20. and by another at Fritislar, ibid.

The Gentleman answered very pertinently, That these were only petty particular Councils: but he desired the autho∣rity of a General Council. I desired him to read Baronius, ad▪ an. num 1102. num. 1, 2, 3. and also the same Author, 1116. num. 5. and also anno 1119. Where he will find that doctrine to be the doctrine of General Councils, especially, that of Late∣ran, anno 1116. is called a General Council by Baronius. Like∣wise I desired him to read Bzovius, anno 1245. num. 4. The Council of Lions, in the tombs of Councils, tom. 28. pag. 431. The decretals sext de sententiâ & re judicata (ad Apostolica;

where he would find, that the Emperor Frederick the second was deprived, or declared to be deprived, and his subjects quit from their Oaths of Allegiance by Innocentius 4. in the Coun∣cil of Lions. I desired him also to read an Act of a General Council at Lateran, under Innocent third, where he would find that doctrine, or that power of Deposing Kings, attri∣buted to the Pope: which Act he would find in Bzovius, anno 1215. Paragraph 3. in Binnius and Crab in their collection of Councils, C. l 3. and in Gregorius, de haeret. C. excommunicamus.

I desired him also to read, Ses. 25. Canon 19. of the Coun∣cil of Trent, where he would find that power of the Popes so intelligibly asserted, and consequentially (although not expes∣ly) that it was one of the main reasons for which the Kingdom of France stood out against that Council of Trent; rejecting its Authority. By the said Canon, any Dominus fundi is depri∣ved of the Dominion of it, if a düel be fought in it: and since a King is comprehended under Dominus fundi, the Council takes upon it, to deprive him of a part of his Kingdom: but if they have power to deprive him of a part, by the same reason, they take upon them power to take his whole Kingdom from him. And this way I answered his first objection, viz. that it could be instructed by Act of no Council, that the Pope had power to depose Kings, and consequently it was not the doctrine of the Church of Rome.

His second objection was, that notwithstanding all this, it was not the doctrine of the whole Church of Rome, because all the Church of France rejected it as a pernicious doctrine.

I answered this objection by a two-fold distinction. The first of times, viz. When the King of France was low, and the Pope high. The second distinction was of causes, wherefore Kings are deposed? one of which, and the main one was here∣sie. I desired him to read history, and he would find, that when▪ the Kings of France were low, and their Kings suspected of

heresie, that it was the doctrine of the whole Clergy of France, that the Pope had power of deposing such Kings at such times: for proving of which, I desired him to read first a decree of the Sorbon, printed at Paris, in which they approved the bulls of Sixtus 5. excommunicating and deposing Henry 3 & 4. Kings of France. I desired him secondly to read that speech of Cardi∣nal Peron, in the name of the Clergy of France, as their Speaker in an Assembly of the Estates: in which speech, he openly main∣tains, That it is the opinion of the whole Church of France, and ever was, that Heretical Kings (that is Protestants) ought to be deposed: that the Pope had power to depose them: and that true French-men ought them no allegiance. And thus much of the Popes power in temporals by the way: it shal be more large∣ly disputed (God willing) part. 3. lib. 2 what we have said is sufficient to prove, That the Dominion of the Bishop of Rome is tyrannical, and consequently, according to their own confessi∣on forbidden, Peter 1. 5, 3.

The third particular of the tyrannical Domination of the Bi∣shop of Rome, is over souls departed.

The fourth is over Angels. Both which usurpations ap∣pear by the Bull of Clement sixth proclaiming a Jubile, The words of the Bull are these, Concedimus, si confessus in via moriatur, ut ab omnibus peccatis suis sit immunis penitus & ab∣solutus: & mandamus Angelis, ut animam è purgatorio penitùs absolutam, in Paradisi gloriam introducant. And in another Bull, Nolumus ut paena inferni illi infligatur, concedens cruce signatis, ad eorum vota tres aut quatuor animas, quas volunt ex purgatorio posse eripere: in which Bulls he takes upon him to command Angels, and to place Souls in heaven or hell as he pleaseth.

The 5. particular, proving the tyranny of the dominon of the Bishop of Rome, is, in assuming divin power to himself: So Nicolaus 2. in Gratianus dist. 96. (Satis evidenter. Where

he affirms, That the Pope cannot be Judged by any Secular Prince, because the Pope was called God by Constantine, but God cannot be judged by man. Likewise, Bonifacius, 8. 6. decret. de electio∣ne C. fundamenta, affirms, That S. Peter was assumed in the fel∣lowship of the individual Trinity: and consequently, the Bishop of Rome hath the same priviledge, as Peters Successor. So Glossa extravag. C. antiquae de voto. Where speaking of Matrimony held by the Church of Rome, to be a Sacrament of divine Insti∣tution; a doubt is moved, how that vow made in Matrimony, can be dissolved by a Constitution of the Church? Since it was made solemnly to God. The Glossator answers the doubt, That it cannot be made void by a meer man: but only by the Pope, who is not a meer man, but Gods Vicar. Thirdly, he usurps Divinity in making the Decretal Epistles, or the Canon law of equal authority with the Scripture. So Gratianus, distinct. 19. C. in Canonicis expresly affirms so much. Innumerable examples might be afforded of this kind, but those are sufficient.

The sixth and last particular of the Tyranny of the Domina∣tion of the Bishop of Rome is, his hearing, patientissimis au∣ribus, without offence, biasphemous titles attributed to him in Orations, Books, and Pamphlets printed by his Authority: which is all one, as he had stiled himself by those titles. So by the Gloss in the Canon Law, he is called our Lord God the Pope, as is found in those Editions printed at Lions 1584. and at Paris 1585. 1601. 1612. All which Editions were set out after Gregory 13. had corrected the Canon Law: the words are, Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam, Conditorem dictae decretalis, non sic potuisse statuere, prout statuit, haereticum cen∣seatur; extravagant, John 22. tit. 14. de verb. sig. cap. 4. &c. We could produce innumerable such, but it were tedious; yet we cannot omit that blasphemous Pamphlet, presented to In∣nocent the 10. who before his Popedom was called Cardinal Pamphilius. The scope of which Pamphlet is to compare the

Pope, whom he calleth Pamphilius, with Christ, whom he cal∣leth Philius. To be short, he preferrs the Pope to Christ in most horrible manner: and yet the Pope was no wise offended at that fl••ttery: It seems, he understood not what Blasphemy meant; for an other time being desired to hear a Theological Controversie between the Jansenists, and Molinists disputed before him, that he might determin it▪ He answer ed, He was an old man, it did not belong to his profession, and he had never studied Divinity, as is reported by S. Amour in his journal, where he affirms, He heard the Pope affirm so publickly. And thus much of Peter 1. 5. 3. The first Argument of Protestants against Peters institution of Oecumenick Bishop, we have pro∣ved two things in the vindication of that passage. The first is, that not only tyrannical Domination, but all sort of Domination is forbidden in that place. The second is, although it were gran∣ted, that only tyrannical Domination in Church-men were for∣bidden in the same place: yet it quite overthrows the institution of an Oecumenick Bishop, which we have proved to be most tyrannical, and that by six arguments, which in effect, amongst Candide men are unanswerable.

CHAP. XII. The Supremacy of Peter assaulted, from Ephesians 1. 22. & 4. 23. & 5. 23. And Colossians 1 18.

IN the former Chapter we assaulted the Institution of Peter in that Oecumenick Bishoprick, by the testimony of Peter himself, forbidding all sort of Lording or Domination in Church men: where we also proved two things. First, that not only tyrannical Domination was forbidden by the Apostle in Church Rulers, but all Domination. Secondly, although ty∣rannical Lording had only been forbidden; nevertheless the

injunction of the Apostle inhibited, That Lording assumed by the Bishop of Rome now to himself: proving by demonstrative ar∣guments, that the power of the Bishop of Rome now-a-dayes, was not only tyrannical, but blasphemous, and a right-down Giganto∣machy: which shal more largely be proved, part. 4. lib. 1. In this following chapter, we make use of a second argument a∣gainst the institution of Peter in that universal Bishoprick by Christ: viz. it appears by these Scriptures mentioned in the title. That Christ is the Head of the Church: and if Peter were by divine Institution Oecumenick Bishop, the Church would have two heads, since our adversaries maintain, that an Oecu∣menick 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 a∣gainst 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 Constan∣tinople, for usu••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 So∣phistry, because Gregory disputs generally against all who pre∣sume 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 dis∣puts 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 Constanti∣nople: 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 belong∣ed 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 Asceti∣tis in the Prooem, where he calls Christ the only head of the Church. And thus ye have the opinion of Basilius, and Gre∣gorius, both called the Great, that a Secundary Head of the Church, is an Antichristian fiction, since they thunder so a∣gainst 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 contu∣melious to Christ? His argument is this, Many titles of Christ are communicated to men, such as Pastor, Bishop, Apostle, Pro∣phet, Light, Foundation: Yea, and the title of God himself; and yet no injury is done to Christ, when men are called A∣postles, 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 cōmunicated to men, which are attributed to Christ principally, may be compared to those titles, which are common to a King, and his Sub∣jects: 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 cōmunictaed to a man, then the title of a King to a subject. Head of the church is the King∣dom

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 transla∣ted to Christ: and since our Savior demits himself voluntarily, to these titles, it is no injury to him, though they be attri∣buted to him, Metaphorically and Abusively.

In the next place, are Light and Foundation, which ac∣cording to an Homonymy are attributed to Christ and to men. And first, Light, if it were attributed to them both proper∣ly, 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, be∣cause he illuminats; men are called Lights because they are il∣luminated. 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 illumi∣nats: men were only called Lights, because they were illumina∣ted by him, and therefore are not the true Lights: And since Christ is the true Light, and men are not the true Lights; it is evident, that the title of Light is attributed to both by a Homonymy.

In the next place comes Foundation, Prophets and Apostles

are called Foundations two wayes. And first, Tertullianus, lib. 4. cap. 39. against Marcion, Chrysostomus, Oecumenius, Theophylactus, interpret these words of Paul, super fundamen∣ta Prophetarum & Apostolorum, as if the Prophets and Apostles themselves were Foundations: But it is certain they cannot be called so, but only by reason of their Ministry: that is, in so far as they were Ministers of founding Churches, as is con∣fessed by Justinianus the Jesuite, who affirms, That the faith of the Ephesians was built upon the testimony of the Old and New Testament, that is by a Metonymy; but Christ is not that way called Foundation: and therefore the title of Foundation is attributed by a Homonymy to Christ, and the Apostles and Pro∣phets; and in that sense the Apostle Paul denyeth that there is any Foundation but Christ.

Others interpret the meaning of Paul, calling the Apostles and Prophets, Foundations to be that they preached the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament, which is the founda∣tion of the Apostles and Prophets; viz. which they did lay. So the interlinear and ordinar gloss, following Ambrosius, and Anselmus: so also Lyranus, Aquinas, Lombardus, Cajetanus, Gagnaeus the Jesuite, and Salmero. In what ever sense Foundation be taken, it is properly attributed to Christ, im∣properly by a Homonymy to men.

Bellarmins last tittle is GOD: Men are called Gods, saith he, Psalm 82. and since they are so called, why may not a man be called Head of the Church?

But it is answered: First, Kings and Judges are not called Gods there, but only that men judged so of them, because of their flourishing estate: so that, Fgo dixi, Dii estis, are not the words of GOD, but of the Psalmist himself, as d••vers learned men gather from the text. Others think that the Psalmist is speaking of the Angels. However, albeit the title of GOD were attributed to Kings and Judges; it doth not follow, that the

title of Head of the Church, may be attributed to men: be∣cause the title of GOD is attributed to men abusively, by a too high strained Metaphor: But Bellarmin and his fellows endeavor to maintain that the Bishop of Rome is properly head of the Church, as a King is head of his Kingdom: And in this manner Bellarmin undertakes to prove, that it is not injurious to Christ, that any should take upon him the title of Head of the Church.

In the next place, he goes a step higher, endeavoring to prove, That a visible head of the Church, sets forth the glory of Christ, as the glory of a King is augmented by a Victory.

But it is answered, When a Viceroy intruds himself without a Commission upon a Province; he is so far from setting forth the glory of his King, that he eclipseth it, by neglecting of his authority, and proves a Rebel. Let Bellarmin instruct if he can, in what place of Scripture, any hath commission to be visible head of the Church under Christ? We proved in the former chapters, that what he alledged in the behalf of Peter, was new devised Sophistry, contradicting Scripture, Antiqui∣ty, and of no great moment, to prove the supremacy of Peter, in the opinion of the most learned Antiquaries, which ever the Church of Rome produced. Secondly, Bellarmins visible head of the Church, carrys himself not like a Viceroy, but like a King, which must be injurious to the true Head of the Church: Yea, Bellarmin himself endeavors to prove, that the said secondary head reigns in the Church, as a King doth in a Kingdom: Neither can the Bishop of Rome be said to be Vice∣roy to Christ, otherwise in the government of the Church, then a King is Viceroy to GOD, in the government of a King∣dom. But Kings are absolute, and not Viceroys, and there∣fore that visible head of the Church is absolute also, being subordinate no otherwise to Christ, then Kings are to GOD. Thirdly, when a Viceroy takes upon him to go beyond his

commission, or to govern contrair to the law of his King, he wrongs the authority of his King, and no wayes sets forth his glory. But Bellarmins visible and secundary head takes upon him, to dispence with the Law of GOD (as we shewed in the former chapter) proving that he took power upon him, to make Justice Injustice, and Injustice Justice.

In the third place, Bellarmin goes a step higher yet, and endeavors to prove that a secundary visible head is necessar for the Church: because, saith he, in the absence of Christ, the Church cannot be contained in Vnity, unless it be governed by one visible head under Christ.

But it is answered, Stillgood: that assertion of Bellarmins, if not blasphemous, is notoriously false: viz. That the Church cannot be contained in Vnity by Christ alone, unless a visible head be joyned with him: Which contradicts Scripture, which in every place attributes the cause of that Unity, of the Church to Christ alone: So John 17. That they may be one in us, and Rom. 10. We many are one body in Christ: and Gal. 3. Ye are all one in Christ; and the reason is evident, because that Unity is Spiritual, Ephes. 4. Studying to keep the unity of the Spirit; See also 1. Corinth. 12. and Philip 1. By which places it appears, that the Invisible and Spiritual presence of Christ alone, preserves the Church in Unity, which is also granted by many & famous Roman Doctors, who prove the in∣fallibility of the Church, to depend upon this promise of Christ, viz. That he would be present with them to the end of the World.

We have heard Bellarmin disputing for a visible head, and proving that it is not derogatory to the honor of Christ: We will now examine an argument of Sanderus, that famous English Jesuite, who proves, that it conduceth to the glory of Christ, that the Church should have a visible head: because, saith he, More ways of Preaching that glory of Christ, are by a

visible head then without it. But it is answered, (to omit the inconsequence of that argument) we deny the Antece∣dent, or distinguisheth it, viz. These ways of Preaching Christ, only illustrat his glory which are ordained by himself: which a visible head is not. Sanderus instances, Rulers of particular Churches, or Bishops, are called Heads of their respective Churches under Christ, by Gregorius Magnus and other Fa∣thers: Ergo, why may there not be one visible head of all the Church under Christ? But it is answered, First, if San∣derus had objected that argument to Gregorius Magnus him∣self, he would have denyed it to follow: for although he seems to call Bishops heads of particular Churches, yet he detests an universal head (as we shewed before) as injurious to Christ. Secondly, when Gregorius calls Bishops heads of the Church, he speaks abusively and improperly, and without any warrand in Scripture.

And thus we have shewed hitherto, how Bellarmin and San∣derus have endeavored to prove, that it is not inconsistent with the Church, to have two heads: because, the one is a Prima∣ry head, the other a Secundary head. Panigarola, lectione 6. useth a very strange argument, to prove, that the Church of necessity, must have a visible head beside Christ: Otherwise, saith he, It would be a monster, if a visible body as the Church had only an invisible head, which is Christ. But it is answered: First, the Church will be no less a monster, if it have two heads; one visible, another invisible. Secondly, Pa∣nigarola speaks blasphemy, which we bind upon him by this argument: First, All bodies visible, having an invisible head are monstrous bodies. This Panigarola grants. Secondly, The Church is no monstrous body. This he grants also: how can he then deny this conclusion in Baroco: Ergo, The Church hath not an invisible head, or Christ is not head of the Church, which is right-down blasphemy.

Alphonsus de Castro, puzled with the difficulty of two heads, hath a distinction of his own, of two bodies: as Bellar∣min made a distinction of two heads. De Castro, denies That body of which Christ is the head, to be the same with that body which hath a visible head, or Peter, or the Bishop of Rome for its head. He explains himself thus, the Church may be cal∣led a body two ways, saith he. First, as it is a total body. Se∣condly, as it is a Mystical body. The first way is, when it is considered, comprehending all the Members with Christ: and in that sense, Christ is head of the Church. In the second way it is considered, as a body consisting of all the other members (Christ excluded) and in that acception, Peter or his Succes∣sors, are visible heads of the Church: So the Church cannot be said to have two heads; for Christ, and Peter and his Suc∣cessors, are not heads of the same body, but of diverse. Christ is head of the Church, as it is a total body, Peter, and his Suc∣cessors as it is a Mysticalbody.

But it is answered, Alphonsus de Castre (as cannot be denyed) was a brave learned man, and stood as little awe of the Pope, to speak his mind when truth required, as any Doctor of that Church: yet this distinction of his of a body in total, and my∣stical, is used by no body but himself: it is also contrair to Scripture, which in every place, where the Church is called the body of Christ, considers it, as containing all other members, Christ excluded: And so the Scripture never mentions that bo∣dy, which de Castro calls a total body. For the Scripture, calling the Church the body of Christ, means no other body, then that which de Castro calls mystical. This distinction of de Castro might be solidly refuted otherwise; but it is needless to insist, since it is owned by no others, except by Spondanus, who seems to come very near it thus.

The Apostle saith he, Ephes. 4. affirms Christ to be the head from which the whole body takes increment. He observeth,

First, that Christ is distinguished from the whole body, which is the Church: Ergo, saith he, since the Church is a whole body without Christ, it must of necessity have a head beside Christ, otherways it could not be a whole body, since no body can be whole without a head. And therefore the Church hath a visible head, proportionable to it self beside Christ, since it is a whole body without Christ.

But it is answered, He is a notorious Sophister: First, when the Apostle, Ephesians 4. opposeth the whole body to Christ, under the name of body, or whole body, he comprehends all the other members only, beside the head, and not as having a head of its own: As appears by the Commentaries not only of the Fa∣thers upon that place, Ephes. 4. such as Chrysostom, and his admirer Theophylactus, and Theodoretus, but also by the expositions of Justinian and Salmero two famous Jesuites, upon that place, Ephesians 4. All which, expounding what the Apostle calls, totum corpus, or, the whole body, interpret it to be these members, Quae à capite sensum accipiunt, or, have influence of sense, or life from the head: And consequently, they make totum corpus, the whole body, to be no otherthing, then all the other members, the head excluded: and conse∣quently, totum corpus, the whole body, hath not an other head beside Christ.

Secondly, By totum corpus, or whole body, questionless the Apostle means the Church, as it comprehends both the Church Militant, and the Church Triumphant. Spondanus argument, if it conclude at all, must of necessity conclude, that the said visible head is head of the Church Triumphant: and so the Bishop of Rome, must be head of the Church Triumphant also which none will affirm.

Thirdly, The ground of this distinction of Spondanus, is no∣toriously false, viz, That the head would not be proportional to the body, except it were visible. For to omit that Christ is

constantly called the Head of the Church in Scripture, which should be enough to stop the mouth of Spondanus; our Savior is a proportional Head to the Church, because, he is a man like unto us in all things, except sin.

We will conclude this disput of Head of the Church with one Argument, used by some Protestants against a Visible Head of the Church; which is this, If the Church had any other Head but Christ, it would be called the body of the said Head: but it is never called the body of any Head, but of Christ: Ergo, It hath no other Head but Christ.

Bellarmin answers two wayes: And first he affirms, That the Church is not called the body of that visible Head, because it is only Secundary, and not Primary: and therefore, the Church is only called the body of Christ.

But it is replyed, If there were any such thing, as that se∣cundary head, the Church could with no less reason be called its body, then it could be called head of the church. Since the relation is reciprocal, and the body is no less the body of the Head, then the head is the head of the body: and since the Church is no where called the body of that secundary head, it is evident, that the said secundary head is a fiction.

Bellarmin urgeth, that a King is the Head of his Kingdom, and the Kingdom may be called his body: likewise, a Viceroy may be called secundary Head of the Kingdom or Province: but the Kingdom or Province, cannot be called the body of a Viceroy, and in like manner, the Church cannot be called the body of that secundary Head, the Bishop of Rome, or Peter.

But it is replyed, As the Viceroy is head of the Province, so the Province may be called the body or Province of the Viceroy: but since the Church cannot be called the body of that secundary head, as Bellarmin confesseth, it is evident, there is no such secundary head at all in the Church.

Secondly, Bellarmin grants, that the Kingdom may be called

the body or Kingdom of the King: but he endeavors to prove, that the said secundary head reigns in the Church, as a King doth in a Kingdom: and therefore the Church may be called the bo∣dy of the said secundary head, if there were any such thing. But since the Church is no where called the body of that secun∣dary head, it is evident, that the said secundary head is a meer fiction. Bellarmin gives a reason, wherefore the Province is not called the body of the Viceroy? but only of the King, viz. because the Governor of a Province is not perpetual, but only for a time. And for the same reason, the Church is not called the body of that secundary head, because it is not perpetual, but only for a time. But this reason is frivolous, because, that se∣cundary head of the Church is as perpetual, as a King in a King∣dom: and therefore the Church may be called as well body of that secundary head, as a Kingdom is called the body of a King. But since in Scripture, the Church is no where called the body of that secundary Head; it is evident, it is a fiction, viz. that secundary head, which is further confirmed. Bellarmin affirms also, That the Province cannot be said to be the Province of the Viceroy, because he is not absolute: but it may be called the Province of the King, because he is absoluto, and depends upon none but God. But that secundary head of the Church de∣pends upon none but Christ: and therefore the Church may as well be called his body, and Church, as a Kingdom may be cal∣led Kingdom of the King. But since the Church is no where cal∣led body of that secundary head, it is evident, that the said se∣cundary head is but a fiction.

Bellarmin pressed with those difficulties, ••••ies to another di∣stinction, viz. that the Church is called the body of Christ, not in relation to Christ, as head, but only as ••e is referred to Christ, as a great hypostasis: as when Peter or Paul is lying a∣ny where, we may affirm, There lyes the body of Peter▪ there lyes the body of Paul. In which sense, body comprehends head

and all, and is not considered, as distinct from the Head and other members.

Bellarmin, by this device doth not take away the difficulty, for two reasons. The first is, although it were granted that the Church were called the body of Christ, as the word Christ is a Hypostasis, comprehending both heads and members: in which sense, the body of Peter, or Paul may be called their body, and not their head;—we say, Although that were granted, yet Bellarmin will not deny, that the Church is called the body of Christ, sometimes, as it is referred to Christ as head: and therefore, if there were any Secundary head, the Church would be called its bodie in that respect also: which since it is not, it is evident, that there is no such thing as a secundary head.

The second reason is, that it is false which Bellarmin affirms, that ever the Church is called the body of Christ, in that sense of great hypostasis: it hath neither ground in Scripture, nor Antiquity: it is only devised by Bellarmin himself, who abu∣seth Scripture, and a passage of Augustinus to prove it. The place of Scripture is 1 Corinth. 12. verse 12. Where the A∣postle affirms, That all the members of the bodie, although they be many, yet are but one bodie, even so is Christ: which makes nothing for him; for the Apostle there means no ••uch thing, as Bellarmin affirms, citing Augustinus falsly to prove it. Au∣gustins words are, Non dixit ita & Christi, idest, corpus Chri∣sti, vel membra Christi: sea ita & Christus unum Christum ap∣pellens caput & corpus, as he would say, The Apostle called Christ, which is the head of the Church, and the Church, which is the bodie of Christ, one Christ: which he had foolishly affir∣med, if that had been the Apostles mind, that the Church is called the body of Christ, as the body of Peter and Paul lying any where, comprehending the head also. And thus much of that famous disput o•• the head of the Church. We have seen how Bellarmin vexet•• himself to find out distinctions to maintain

that secundary head, and to show why the Church is not cal∣led the Body of that secundary head? But the Roman Doctors of late maintain, that the Church is, and may be called the bo∣dy of that secundary head, seeing that Bellarmins distinctions would not serve the turn.

CHAP. XIII. Of the Hierarchy of the Church, Ephesians 4.

WE have prosecuted two Arguments against the in∣stitution of the Supremacy of Peter: now follo∣weth the third, which is this, If Peter had been ordained by our Savior Monarch of the Church, then the Apo∣stles themselves, and these who lived in their times, delineating the Hierarchy of the Church, would have mentioned it, or affir∣med, That the Government of the Church was monarchical, un∣der one visible head. But both the Apostles themselves, and those who are confessed by our adversaries, to have lived in the times of the Apostles, delineating the Hierarchy of the Church, put e∣ver still more persons then one of equal authority in the highest place of the Hierarchie: whereby it is evident to any, who is not wilfully blinde, that the Government of the Church was not by Christs Institution Monarchical.

And first, the Apostle Paul, Ephes. 4. enumerating the Hie∣rarchie of the Church, verse 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. hath these words, He that descended, is even the same that ascended, far a∣bove all heavens, that he might fill all things. He therefore gave some to be Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers. In which words ye have the Hierarchy of the Church, consisting of several degrees, in eve∣ry degree many persons: the highest degree, is that of the

Apostles: which are also many, or in the Plural number, where∣by it is evident, that our Savior did institute no Monarchy in the Church, in one single person, or in Peter: neither can it be affirmed, That this enumeration of Church-Officers, ordai∣ned by Christ, is not full, or is not perfect; as if the Apostle had omitted some Church-Officers, ordained by Christ: be∣cause it appears by verse 12, 13, & 14. That no more were ne∣cessarie for the building up of the Church, or performing any du∣ty necessar for the Churches instruction: viz. for the repairing of the ••aints, for the work of the Ministrie, and for the edification of the bodie of Christ, verse 12. Till we all meat together (in the unitie of faith, and that acknowledging of the Son of God) unto a perfect man, and unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ, verse 13. That we henceforth be no more children, wa∣vering, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, &c.

By those words of the Apostle it appears, that no more Church Rulers are necessar eitheir for the founding of the Church: or confirming it after it is built, or defending it when it is confirmed from onsets of the Devil, or his instruments: and since no visible Monarch of the Church is mentioned by the A∣postle, it is evident, that there was no such Monarch ordai∣ned by Christ.

Bellarmin answers two wayes. One way is, that the Apostle in those words, is not delineating the Hierarchy of the Church: but only enumerating divers gifts of some of the Church, and 1 Corinthians 12. he adds the gift of tongues.

But it is replyed, It cannot be denyed, but the Apostle is enumerating diversity of gifts; since verse 7. He expresly af∣firms so much, but it is to be added, that he enumerats those gifts, as they are in Officers of the Church only▪ whence appears the dissimilitude of this place from 1 Corinth. 12. In which gifts are enumerated, which are not peculiar to Church Rulers, but are also found in laiks: Such as gifts of healing, and

tongues, &c. That this is the Apostles meaning, appears by two reasons. First ••he enumerats none, verse 11. Who hath not a degree of ruling in the Church. The second is, because ver. 12. 13, 14▪ He doth not enumerat any utility redounding to the Church, which is not wrought by the Ministry, ver. 11. He enumerats the Ministers of the Church, ver. 12. 13, & 14. He enumerats the ends wherefore these Ministers were ordained: All which ends, Oecumentus comprehends under one, that is, saith he, Those degrees of Ministers enumerated, verse 12. were for that end ordained, that they might minister unto the Church, as appears, ver. 12, 13, & 14.

It is to be observed, that the Apostle enumerats here all Church Officers▪ both extraordinar and ordinar. The extra∣ordinar are those who were ordained only to continue for a time: Such as Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets. Ordinar, are those ordained to be of perpetual standing in the Church: as Doctors, and Pastors. And since in all those Orders of Church Mini∣sters there are many, and not one only in each degree: it is evi∣dent, that one Oecumenick Bishop, or a visible head of the Church, is not comprehended under any of those Ministers.

Bellarmin puzled with this answers another way. He grants, that the enumeration of Church Ministers here is per∣fect: but he denyes that an Oecumenick Bishop hath no place in that enumeration: because, saith he, All the ••ierarchy of the Church▪ and consequently an Oecumenick Bishop, is confus••dly represented under the name of Pastors and Doctors: But finding that Pastors and Doctors were only inferior Orders, below, A∣postles, Prophets and Evangelists. He passeth from this, and affirms next, That an Oecumenick Bishop is comprehended un∣der Apostles: because, not only here, but also 1 Corinth 12. Apostles are put in the first place: and therefore the chief Ec∣clesiastick Power was given to all the Apostles; but to Peter, as ordinar Pastor: and therefore to have a Successor in it, to the

other Apostles, as exraordinar and Delegats to Peter: and therefore none should succeed them.

But it is answered, we prolixly disputed this distinction of Bellarmins to be groundless, contradictory and inconsistent with it self, cap. 6. It is needless to repeat what we said there in this place. It is sufficient here, that never any ancient or Mo∣dern Interpreter before the times of the Jesuits, did so much as dream, that an Oecumenick Bishop was comprehended by the Apostle, Ephes. 4. 11. Which could be made out by an Induction of all the Commentaries, of ancient and Modern Writers upon that place. By which it appears, that all those testimonies by which those Jesuits prove the Supremacy of Peter, (and consequently the verity of the Roman Faith,) are either in Scripture or Fathers, depraved by new devised Glosses unknown to the Ancients: and also their answers, are of the same stuff, by which they elude passages of Scripture and Antiquity, destroying the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome, and in it the whole edifice of the Roman Church. Both their offensive and defensive arms, are but devised of late, since the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome was established.

That any may see, that this Gloss of Bellarmins, is a fiction of his own devising, we will prove by three Arguments, of three several Interpreters. By which it will appear, what was the opinion of the Church, concerning the meaning of this pas∣sage, Ephes 4. 11. since the times of the Apostles unto those dayes?

The first Interval is of the Primitive Church, before the Council of Nice, what was the opinion of that Church in that Interval? appears by the testimony of the ancient Author (by some believed to be Dionysius Areopagita, the disciple of Paul) his words, epistle 8. are those: Tu ergo cupiditati, ira∣cundiae, rationi modum statue pro dignitate: tibi verò divini Mi∣nistri: his Sacerdotes: Pontifices Sacerdotibus: Pontificibus Apo∣stali

stoli, Apostolorúmque successores. Quod si qu••s etiam in istis ab officio discedat, à sanctis qui sunt ejusdem ordinis corrigetur: at∣que ita non insultabit ordo in ordinem: sed unusquisque in suo or∣dine, ac Ministerio premanebit. In which words ye have two things. The first is, That the chief place in the Hierarchy, in the times of the Apostles, was held not by one, but by many, viz. by all the Apostles alike: neither makes he mention of Peter, his having that chief power, as ordinar Pastor, and of the other Apostles, as having it a•• Delegats to Peter: which will be fur∣ther confirmed by the second thing observable in these words, which is this: After the Apostles were removed, the chief place in the Hierarchy consisted also not in one person, but in many alike, viz. in Bishops, who succeeded to the Apostles in the first place of the Hierarchie: which also he expresly affirms to be of equal Order and Jurisdiction: many and not one having Jurisdiction over all, as a visible head: which quite destroyes the Gloss of Bellarmin, for if others succeeding to the other Apostles, were in the first place of the Hierarchie (which this Author flatly affirms) it is false which Bellarmin affirms, that all the Apostles had the chief power, only during their own time, not communicable to their Successors. And likewise, if those suc∣cessors of the other Apostles, were in the first place of the Hie∣rarchy, equally and alike, (as this Author also affirms) It is false, which Bellarmin affirms, That the Successors of Peter the Apostle, had ••he chief authority in their single persons, as visible Monarchs of the Church. It may be proved by the Glosses of Maximus, and others, that this Dionysius was not the Dis∣ciple of the Apostle Paul, mentioned in the Acts, because, he seems to make mention of the Metropolitants, above Bishops. But it shal be proved, lib. 2. by unanswerable testimonies, That there was no Office above that of a Bishop in the Church, before the latter end of the third age. However, albeit he be not the Disciple of Paul, (as some affirm he is) yet he is an ancient

Author, and delineats, the Hierarchie of the Church, not to have been monarchical in his days.

The second testimony, is of Ambrosius, who l••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 E∣piscopi, 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 suc∣ceeded 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 Sa∣cerdotum, 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 i•• appears, that he is comparing Bishops with inferior Priests or Presbyters, and not Bishops with Bishops. Which is further confirmed, be∣cause

not only Hieronymus (contemporarie with Ambrosius) and other Fathers, but also Ambrosius himself, calls all Bishops, Summos Sacerdotis, or chief Priest, and of alike Juris∣diction: 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: Eu∣sebius, 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 num∣bers 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 Fa∣thers, calling; All Bishops alike, or all Bishops High-Priests, by distinguishing equality in that of Order, and that of Jurisdicti∣on. 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 censu∣red 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 pas∣sage of Scripture claimed by both: that is, the Romanists by it endeavor to establish the supremacy of Peter The Prote∣stants 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 So∣phister, 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 do∣mination 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 supposi∣tion is false: As is proved thus.

First, It is notoriously false, That all domination of the Kings of the Gentiles is tyrannical; not only, because it is af∣firmed in several places of Scripture, That Kings rule by GOD, and all powers are of GOD. But also, because the Scripture commands obedience to be given unto them, for that reason: and also, Injoyns all to pray to them: but it is absurd, to af∣firm, That tyrannical government is by GODS ordination, or that, The Word of GOD commands obedience unto it, or injoyns all to pray for it.

They answer, It is true indeed, that all the ruling of the Kings of the Gentiles is not tyrannical. To affirm so, it fights against history, and experience; but in this place, our Savior forbids his Apostles, To imitate the Kings of the Gentiles, when they exercise Dominion unlawfully.

But it is replyed, This is their second false supposition, viz. that these words, verse 26. But ye shal not be so, are relative to the way of domination, and not to domination it self. Where∣as these words, are referred not to the way of domination, or tyrannical domination: but dominattion simply is forbidden in the Church, which is proved by these following reasons.

The first is, That domination is forbidden, for which the Disciples did contend, or, Who should be greatest in it? But it is against all sense to affirm, That they contended who should be the greatest Tyrants? By which it is evident, that not only tyrannical domination, but all sort of domination is forbidden.

Secondly, That is forbidden, which is opposit unto Mi∣nistry, but all domination is opposit to Ministry, as ap∣pears by Matthew 20. 28. and 26. In which place the same contention, or such an other contention, among the Disciples is related; and for the same reasons, domination is forbidden.

Thirdly, Luke 22. 25. These who rule among the Gentils, by reason of their domination, are called bountiful. Whereby it is evident that our Savior, forbids domination simply: for none are called bountiful, by reason of tyrannical domination.

Fourthly, These words, Ye shal not be so, or, ye shal not do so, or, not so ye, according to the constant phrase of Scripture, denotat an inhibition of a thing altogether, and not of it in such and such a way. So Gen. 4. Cain affirms, And he who meets me, shal kill me: the LORD answers, Non sic, not so: the meaning is, he shal not be killed at all: And not that he shal not be killed after such and such a manner. So Nehem. 5. 15. Ne∣hemia

complains, That some of the former Governors had ex∣torted the people, and taken bread, and wine, and money from them; and made their servants rule over them. He adds, I did not so, his meaning is, That he did not only not take bread, and wine, and money from them, or oppressea them in such a manner: but that he did not oppress them at all. Likewise, Psalm 1 3. it is said, That the righteous man shal be like a tree bringing forth fruit seasonably, &c. Verse 4. it is affirmed, The wicked are not so, the meaning is, not only, that the wicked shal not prosper in that manner only: but that they shal not prosper at all. Likewise, Matthew 19. when the Pharisees ob∣jected to Christ, that Moses did command to give a bill of di∣vorce, that a man should put away his wife upon every slight oc∣casion. Our Savior answers, verse 8. From the beginning it was not so. In which words, the meaning of our Savior is, That divorces without just reason, should not be given at all, and not that divorces without reason may be given, in some cases, although not in other. And thus we have proved, that in Luke 22. 25. not only tyrannical domination, but all domination is forbidden in the Church. And consequently, the supremacy of Peter is also there forbidden: since a visible head of the Church cannot be without domination. And where∣as our Adversaries affirm, that only tyrannical domination is forbidden: Although it were so, this place quite militats a∣gainst an Oecumenick Bishop; because we did demonstrate cap 11. by six unanswerable particulars or arguments, that the domination of the Bishop of Rome: was not only tyrannical, but also blasphemous.

We have hitherto disputed against the supremacy of Peter, from this place, Luke 22. 25. Now let us examine, how from the same place, Bellarmin and Sanderus disput for it? Their Sophistry is admirable, and therefore it will not be unpleasing to examine it. Their first sophistry consists in this, viz. be∣ing

pressed with paralell places to this, that nothing can be gathered from those contentions of the Apostles, for the su∣premacy of Peter, but rather much against it. Sanderus as a ground of his future sophistry, makes a distinction between this place, and these other paralell places, which is this. The Apostles, saith he, Contended four several times for dominion. The first is, after the transfiguration of Christ in the moun∣tain, Mark. 9. 34. and Luke 9. 46. The second, after the petition of the sons of Zebedeus, or of their Mother, Matthew 20. verse 20. and Mark. 10. 35. The third time was, when the Tribute was payed, Matthew. 18. 1. The last time was, after the Supper, Luke 22. The first three times, Sanderus grants that nothing can be gathered, for the supremacy of Peter: be∣cause in these places, only prophane domination is forbidden. But in the last place, Luke 22. not only prophane domination is forbidden: but also, Lawful domination, or the supremacy of Peter is generally and confusedly, if not ordained, at least signi∣fied, or intimated. If ye ask at Sanderus, What more in this last place, then in the three first, since in all the four places, the thing for which the Apostles strove, was the same: and the answer of Christ unto them was the same? He answers you, several ways, but before we examine his answers, we will first show how he is mistaken, in affirming the Disciples strove four times for dominion. Albeit it be no great matter how many times they strove? Yet, it is certain, that they did not strive four times, but only two, or at the most three times. First, be∣cause the Evangelists doth not mention it oftner then two times, as Matth. cap. 18. & 20. Mark. cap. 9. 10. Luk. cap. 9. 22. Se∣condly, it is certain that Matthew 18. Mark. 9. and Luk. 9. mentions the same contention or history, as appears, not only by the place Capernaum mentioned, Mark. 9. and the paying of the Tribute, was made in the same place, Matthew 17. After which the contention arose, Matthew 18. But also, by

the circumstance of the little Child, mentioned Luk. 9. 47. and Mark 9. 36. Hieronymus also, and Euthymius, affirm, That the same story is related, Matthew 18. and Mark and Luk. 9. The second contention is mentioned, Matthew 20. Mark 10. & Luk. 22. It is very probable, that the same history is related also in those three places; because the answer of Christ is the same in them all: but Euthymius makes Luke 22. a dif∣ferent contention from Matthew 20. and Mark 10. because in Luk. 22. no mention is made of the petition of the Sons of Ze∣bedeus, or their Mother, as Mark 10. and Matthew 20. So at the most, the Apostles strove only three times for dominion, if not two times only. But let it be granted to Sanderus, that they strove four times: We ask him, what more can be gathered for the supremacy of Peter, from Luk. 22. then from the other three places? siince is all four they strove for the same thing, viz. dominion. And our Savior disswades them from such striving, for the same reasons, in the first three places, (or at least in some of them) for which he diswades them, Luk. 22.

Sanderus answers, and also Bellarmin: First, that Luk. 22. Our Savior affirms, Let the greatest among you be as the least; but Matthew 20. 26. he only affirmeth, Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your servant. The difference is, Greatest, Luk. 22. imports a superiority, which Great, Matthew 20. doth not import.

But it is answered, They bable, for it appears expresly by the words, that the meaning of our Savior in both places is the same. As for the objection, it is of no moment, for great a∣mong you, and greatest among you, is the same thing: Great a∣mong you is an Hebraism, for the superlative of the Latins and Grecians, which superlative, the Oriental tongues have not; and so great and greatest are the same thing, Matthew and Mark retain the Hebraism, but Luke expresseth it in the com∣parative degree 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereas Matthew and Mark have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

that is, what Matthew and Mark calls great in the positive degree, Luke calls more great, in the comparative degree: where∣as the expressions of both are equivalent to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, greatest among you, in the superlative degree. For its certain, at least, that the meaning of great in Matthew and Mark, and of greatest in Luke 22. is the same: because the Syrian Interpreter, ren∣ders them both by one word. Likewise, that great in Matthew and Mark, is the same with greatest in Luke, appears, because great in Matthew and Mark is comparative, for immediately, after these words follow, He who should be first among you. Whereby it is evident, that great is all one with greatest. Since first is relative to among you; & consequently all one, with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Sanderus urgeth secondly, that in Matthew and Mark, our Savior affirms, He who will be great among you, but in Luke, He who is greatest among you, whereby it is evident, that one already is greatest among them. Where he observes a twofold difference. First, by reason of the Greek Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. which ever denotats a single person: Secondly, by reason of the substantive verb. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, est, is, which denotats one who now is greatest among you.

But it is answered, to omit the substantive verb, is not mentioned in Luke at all, who affirms only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: (Sanderus and Bellarmin argue from the Latin Ver∣sion) both the articles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the substantive verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are mentioned, Luk 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But Sanderus grants one is not made least in that place.

Bellarmin urgeth ano••her difference, as Luk 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which word signifieth a Prince or Captain, a single person comman∣ding over many: But is answered, Nothing can be gathered from that word, because, Acts 15. 22. and Heb. 13. 16. 17. many 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, leaders are not only said to be in the Church, but also in the same Particular Church.

Sanderus yet instances that, Matthew 20. 16. It is affir∣med,

He who would be great among you, let him be your servant. But Luk. 22. 26. He who is greatest among you, let him be as he that serveth. He imagins some great mystery between these two expresions, let him be a servant, and let him be as a servant: By which subtilty of his, any may see what poor shifts they make to prove the Supremacy of Peter, and consequently the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, and also the Religion of the Modern Church of Rome: For none but a brazen faced Sophister, can observe any difference in those words of our Savior, Matthew 20. Let him be a servant, and Luk 22. Let him be as a servant: neither of the Phrases are proper, as if our Savior had said in either place, Let him be properly a servant, in both places the speech is Metaph••rical, which Masters of Rethorick descrive, to be a Similitude contract••d to one word, or, Metaphora est ad unum verbum contracta similitud••, the difference between a metaphor, and a similitude is, that a metaphor contracts the similitude to one word, v. g. when we call a subtile witty man like a Fox: it is a similitude formally ex∣pressed: but when we call him a Fox, it is a metaphor: and so it may be concluded, that both those speeches may be called as well similituds, as metaphors. That is, a similitude is a meta∣phor inlarged by the particles as, or like. And a metaphor is a similitude contracted, taking away those particles as: when we say in the similitude, a subtile man is like a Fox: we say in the metaphor, He is a Fox. The meaning is the same in both ex∣pressions: now to apply, Let him serve, or be a servant, Mat∣thew 20. is the metaphor or the similitude contracted: but in Luke 22. Let him be as a servant, is the similitude or metaphor inlarged, and the meaning in both is one, viz. The only way to be great in the Kingdom of Heaven, is to carry themselves humbly and like servants: And therefore, Sanderus is endeavoring to make ropes in the sand, seeking any mystical difference be∣tween, Let him be a servant, Matthew 20. and let him be a•• a servant, Luke 22.

Sanderus urgeth still, that Luke 22. one must be greatest al∣ready amongst them, since our Savior instructs him, how to carry himself in that station, viz. as a servant.

But it is answered, This objection is of like stuff with the former, for if it were of any force, it would conclude that one also were least among them already: that is below all the rest; which Sanderus will not readily grant: because, Luke, It is said, He that is least among you, shal be great, cap. 9. 48. The truth is, the speech of our Savior in both these places is inde∣finit, not mentioning any one in particular, either as greatest or least. The true meaning of his words are, He who is most submissive among you, be who he will, one or other? deserves the greatest respect, and for that reason will be greatest in the sight of God, or in the Kingdom of heaven.

In the last place, Bellarmin, and Sanderus both set on with an admirable Sophism, they differ in words, yet object the same in substance. Sanderus propones it thus.

Immediatly after our Savior had uttred these words, Let him who is greatest, be as a Servant. He proposeth an example of himself to be followed: by that person who is greatest, in these words, For I my self am as a servant in the mids of you; that is, saith Sanderus, Since I who am greatest of you all, and pri∣mary head of the Church, carrieth my self like a Servant, he who is head of the Church under me, and greatest among you, should follow my example: other-wise, saith he, The words of our Savior would not cohere with the words going before: which they do by reason of the illative particle. For, verse 27.

But it is answered, We have proved already, that the speech of our Savior was directed to them all: and therefore it co∣heres well enough when he proposeth his own example as a rea∣son of his former exhortation to them. His meaning is, I who am greatest among you, am as a Servant in the mids of you; And therefore, any who would be really above the rest in

esteem of God, let him follow my example, by carrying him∣self humbly.

Bellarmin proposeth this Argument in another manner, and in effect surpasseth Sanderus both in Sophistry and Impudence. He reasons thus, lib. 1. cap. 9. De Pont. Rom. Christ saith he, affirms, That he was a Servant in the mi••st of them, Luke 22. But John 13. he affirms, The Disciples spake truth, when they called him Lord and Master. The scope of our Savior in these words then, Luke 22. is to ordain one greatest amongst them, or to exhort him, who is ordained already greatest to follow his example, both in greatness and humility: as if he had said, My will is, that one of you should be head over the rest as my Vicar, and that he shal carry himself humbly, as I do, viz. as a Servant to the rest.

But it is answered, That Bellarmin sophisticats two wayes. First, he suppons falsly, that this exhortation of our Savior, and the reason of it from his own example was directed to one in particular: whereas it is directed to all the Apostles, and therefore, his first sophistry is in the persons exhorted.

His second sophistry is in the thing exhorted, viz. to fol∣low his own example. Bellarmin mentions two things in which they are injoyned to follow the example of Christ. First, his greatness. Secondly, his humble carriage in the opinion of Bellarmin. Our Savior exhorts them to follow his example in both, to prove which he brings in that passage of John 13. im∣pertinently, having nothing to do with this passage, Luke 22. By which it appears, that our Savior exhorts them only to humility, or to follow the example of his humility, and not of his greatness, as is evident by the words uttered by him, as his reason, For, I am as a servant in the mids of you. The So∣phism of Bellarmin redacted to a form is this, I am head of you all, and carrieth my self humbly, follow my example: Ergo saith Bellarmin, He exhorts one to be head of the rest, as

himself was; and to carry himself humbly as himself did, whereas our Savior desires them all indefinitly (not one in par∣ticular) to follow his example in humble carriage: not in Do∣mination, which he expresly forbids, verse 26.

That this gloss of Bellarmins is a new devised fiction amongst the rest, to uphold the Supremacy of Peter against all Antiqui∣ty, we could further prove by many Fathers. On these words we will mention one testimony; by which it appears, that in the opinion of Antiquity, the words of our Savior were spoken indefinitly to all, and not to one in particular. Se∣condly, that he exhorts them only to follow his example, in humble carriage, and not in Domination. This passage is of Theophylactus, upon those words, Cum igitur ego, qui ab an∣gelica & rationali natura ador••r, in medio vestri ministro, quo pacto vos aequum est, magnificè de vobis sentire, & Primatum ambire? By which words it appears, First, that his speech is directed to them all. Secondly, that he exhorts them only to follow his example in humility: we could also instance other testimonies, but it is needless.

Hitherto, in this Book we have disputed the Supremacy of Peter, pro and contra, viz. we have examined all what is alledged of any moment, either for the institution, or against the institu∣tion of Peter in that function of Oecumenick Bishop. Both the one side, and the other bring several Arguments, which we have omitted; but they are of no moment in comparison of those we have examined, being in effect nothing else but Cor∣rolaries of the former, or else some places of Scripture mis-in∣terpreted, sophisticated, & wrested by the late Jesuits against the stream of antiquity, & Analogy of Scripture it self. Neither are they taken for the most part from the Institution of Peter (as the former) but from his carriage and Prerogatives (as they call them.) And lest any should think, that we omitted them, as if they were unanswerable, we will in those following

Chapters anatomize all of them which are not meerly ridicu∣lous.

CHAP. XV. of the Prerogatives of Peter in general.

BEllarmin, lib. 1. cap. 17. De Pont. Rom. having dispu∣ted the Institution of Peter, or the promise of it, from Mat. 16. 18, 19. and John 21. 15, 16, 17. that is, from the Rock, from the Keyes, and from the feeding of the sheep of Christ; promiseth next to prove it by Prerogatives, which is a very uncertain way of probation, except he explain it, what Prerogatives were? They must of necessity, belong either to the person of Peter, or to the function of Oecumenick Bishop: if they belong only to his person, they are nothing to the pur∣pose. Since many have personal Prerogatives, as well as Peter, the Prerogatives of Paul are nothing inferior to those of Peter: And since they do not conclude Paul to be Oecumenick Bishop, no more do these Prerogatives of Peter conclude him to be Oecu∣menick Bishop. What more glorious Prerogatives can any have then those of Paul? He was brought up in all sorts of learning, and of a Persecutor was miraculously converted to Christ, Act. 9 only called a chosen vessel, ibid. To him only Christ appeared after his ascension, ibid. Rapt up to the third Heaven, 2 Cor. 12. labored more then all the other Apostles, 1 Cor. 15. Re∣buked Peter as a dissembler in his face, Gal. 2. gave a man over to Sathan, 1 Cor. 5. was first sent by the Spirit to preach un∣to the Gentiles, Acts 13. healed the sick only with his handker∣chief, Acts 19. Struck Elimas with blindness, ibid. conver∣ted the Proconsul, ibid: while he was yet alive himself, his Epistles were cited as Canonick Scripture, and that by Peter himself: 2 Peter 3. The name of Christians had its first ori∣ginal from the Preaching of Paul. So Chrysostomus, as he is

cited by Photius Bibliothec. cap. 270. In a word, Chrysostomus himself, Homily 77. de poenitent. &c. magnifieth so those Pre∣rogatives of Paul, as if no mortal man were capable of greater: and since these Prerogatives of Paul do not conclude him Oecu∣nick Bishop; how can those Prerogatives of Peter conclude him to be so? And lest any should think that the reason is, because the Prerogatives of Peter were greater then these of Paul: hear Ambrosius, or if ye please Maximus, Sermon 66. who having declaimed on the Prerogatives of Peter, and Paul, concludes in those words, Ergo▪ beati Petrus & Paulus, eminent inter uni∣versos Apostolos, & peculiari quadam praerogativa praecellunt, verum interipsos, quis cui proponatur incertum est? The sum of which is, That the prerogatives of both are so great, that none can tell which of them is to be preferred, viz. Peter or Paul? If this doth not satisfie the Reader, that the Prerogatives of Paul were as great, as these of Peter; let him hear Chrysostom, Hom. 66. where he affirms expresly, That none doubted of this, viz. that none of the Apostles went before Paul: and also on Galat. 2. he affirms, Paulus non egebat voce Petri, nec eo opus habebat: sed honore par erat illi; nihil hic dicam amplius. By these last words, it is evident to any intelligent Reader, that in his opi∣nion, Paul was to be preferred to Peter.

We have spoken already of personal Prerogatives, that they can be no argument to prove the Supremacy of Peter, since in the opinion of the Ancients, the Prerogatives of Paul were e∣qual to those of Peter, as expresly is affirmed by them: and also Superior to those of Peter, as may be gathered, not ob∣scurely from their words: albeit out of modesty they affirm it not expresly. Prerogatives then concluding Peter to be Oe∣cumenick Bishop, must of necessity be prerogatives inseparable from that function. And in that case, the pretended successors of Peter, or the Bishops of Rome must also have those Prero∣gatives: that they have, none but a mad man will affirm; since

among these Prerogatives are numbred walking upon the water, and such like, which would puzle the Bishops of Rome now to do. In a word, among all those prerogatives of Peter, there is not one that concludes him more Oecumenick Bishop, then they do him Emperor of Rome, which none but a Sophister will deny. There is not one of them which is not either notoriously false, or notoriously impertinent, or else refuted already. For ye must un∣derstand amongst the Prerogatives of Peter, they not only reckon up what they have said already, as, Tu es Petrus, sibi dabo claves, pasce oves meas: but also those very things which they disput, after they have disputed his Prerogatives, temp∣ting the Readers patience with repetitions of the same things. Any who will take the pains to anatomize those Volumns of Controversies set forth by Bellarmin, they will find them to be nothing else, but a Rible Rable of contradictory Sophistry, im∣pertinent Rhetorications, and oratorial digressions, tedious repeti∣tions of the same things ad nauseam usque; wrested, mutilated, falsly interpreted, and forged Testimonies of the Ancients, to de∣ceive his Reader, confirm ignorants in the Romish idolatry; thinking to deterr his learned Adversaries from discovering his weakness by his prolixity. In which Artifices, Baronius is nothing inferior to him, being the most shameless corrupter of Antiquity, which the world hath hitherto produced: as appears by those exercitations of Causabon, & others upon him. One thing is to be observed in him, Bellarmin, P••tavius, and some others; that when they are most destitute of reason, they brag most: and when they cannot answer an Argument in rea∣son, they fall a scolding; taxing learned men, yea, of their own side, of ignorance, madness, and heresie, for refusing to acknowledge fantastick fictions, devised by themselves, as irre∣fragable principles.

Their Sophistry is very great in this following disput of the Prerogatives of Peter: in which Bellarmin, and Baronius

clash together in things of greatest importance. The truth is, there is not any thing worth the answering in all this prolix di∣sput of prerogatives; Nevertheless, lest any should think I omitted their arguments, because they are unanswerable, I will trace the method of Bellarmin, answering his arguments, so that any indifferent man may be convinced of the truth. And if any be not satisfied, let him read Chamier, Whitaker, and o∣thers, who prosecute that dispute to the full. The Popish Au∣thors enumerate not the prerogatives after the same manner: some reckoning fewer then others. Bellarmin enumerats all these which any of them mentions, in number 28. the first 20. they endeavor to prove by Scripture, the other 8. by Tradi∣tion. We will dispute the first 20. in the following 16. chap∣ter, and the other 8. chapter 17. Of which in order.

CHAP XVI. Of the Scriptural Prerogatives of Peter.

THe Scriptural Prerogatives of Peter, as we said, are twenty, the truth is, they are not worth the refu∣ting: but lest our Adversaries brag that we omit∣ted them, because they could not be answered, I intreat the Reader to have patience, till I pass through that Augiae Stabulum, viz. that disput of Bellarmin, concerning the prerogatives of Peter. Where ye shal find, First, That though they were all true, and proved, yet those fore-mentio∣ned prerogatives of Paul, are nothing inferior to them. Se∣condly, It will appear that there is not one of them, but it is either impertinent, and nothing to the purpose; or else, noto∣riously false. But now have at them.

The first prerogative is, That our Savior changed the name of Peter, from Simon to Peter, John 1. Tu es Simon. filius Jonae,

tu vocaberis Cephas: Thou art Simon the son of Jonas, thou shalt be called Cephas. But it is answered, it proves nothing: First, many had new names given them, and yet were not Oecu∣menick Bishops: Yea, other Apostles also, as Paul, was once called Saul; also the sons of Zebedeus, James and John, had the names of Boanerges given unto them.

Bellarmin instanceth many ways, vexing himself and his Reader; so do Stapleton & Toletus, but nothing to the purpose: wearying both themselves and their Readers, with extrava∣gant phantasies, falling again upon Tu es Petrus, which we disputed to the full before.

The second prerogative is this, When the names of the A∣postles are enumerated, Peter is still named first, as Matthew 10. Mark 3. Luke 6. Acts 1 Mark 5. and other places.

But it is answered, It is notoriously false, as appears by 1. Corinth. 3. and 9. Galat. 2. Mark 16. John 1. In all which places, other Apostles are named before Peter: And although it were true, that Peter was ever named first, it concludes no primacy of Jurisdiction, but only of order, which may be a∣mong those of equal authority. As in a Colledge of Judges, the name of the eldest Judge, or President, is the first in the Nomenclature or Catalogue.

The third prerogative is from Matthew 14. 29. That Pe∣ter only walked upon the waters with our Savior: As also, that John 21. 7. That Peter did leap in the Sea for haste to be at Christ.

But it is answered, This is a great prerogative in Peter, in∣deed, shewing only the fervor of his minde, and love to Christ; But inconsequent, to prove him Oecumenick Bishop. Christs appearing to Paul after his Ascension, was a prerogative no∣thing inferior: Peter is no more concluded Oecumenick Bishop, by this prerogative, then the other Apostles by the miracles wrought by them.

The fourth prerogative is from Matthew 16. 16. viz. That the Mystery of the Trinity, and Incarnation of Christ, was first revealed to Peter, before it was revealed to any of the rest.

But it is answered, Although it were granted, as in effect many Fathers believe that it is true; it is inconsequent to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop. Secondly, it is notoriously false, and presuppons that the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Saints of the Old Testament, were ignorant of the Mystery of the Tri∣nity and Incarnation of Christ. If they instance, they knew only in general, That the Messias would be the second Person of the Trinity, Incarnas, and born of a Virgin; but not in particular, that Christ was the Messias. It is replyed that John the Baptist, before ever Peter knew Christ, professed that Jesus of Nazareth, in particular, the supposed Son of Joseph and Son of Mary, was the Son of GOD, and the Savior of the World, foretold by the Prophets. Nathanael also professed so much. It is a most simple evasion of Bellarmins, That these confessed Christ to be the Son of GOD, in that manner, as all the Saints are called Sons of GOD, or by Adoption: since John the Baptist expresly testifies that Christ was the Messias foretold by the Prophets. Also, that the same was revealed to Simeon, Luke 2. none without impudence can deny Nathanael also, John 1. not only calls Christ the Son of GOD, but also the King of Israel: and Augustin, tract. 7. in John, affirms, that the confession of Nathanael, and that of Peter were the same.

The fifth prerogative, is Matthew 16. 18. The gates of hell shal not overcome it. It is answered, we shewed before the expo∣sition of this place, viz. That the gates of hell should not over∣come the Church. They alledge here a great prerogative, for, say they, the rest of the Apostles had not this promise, for the gates of hell prevailed against the Churches founded by the other ••pestles; since the Church of Jerusalem founded by James,

and also the Churches founded by the other Apostles are de∣cayed. But it is answered, This prerogative is grounded upon a false supposition; viz. that our Savior meaned by the Church of Rome, the Church founded by Peter, of which he did not dream: for we shewed before, that the Rock upon which the Church is built, was only Christ: and that these Fathers who interpreted the Rock to be the confession of Peter, or Pe∣ter himself, meaned all one thing with those who interpreted the Rock to be Christ; as is evident in Augustinus, who in one place interprets the Rock to be Christ. In an other the confes∣sion of Peter. In a third, Peter himself. However, they in∣tangle themselves pitifully, in expounding the Rock both to be Peter, and the seat of Peter: which are different things, and it shal also be proved in the last chapter of this book, that Rome was not the seat of Peter, more then of Paul. And therefore they absurdly interpret, the Rock to be the Church of Rome.

The sixth prerogative, Matthew 17. Christ commanded tri∣bute to be payed for him and Peter: whence some Fathers ga∣ther, that the Apostles themselves knew the supremacy of Pe∣ter. So Hieronymus on Matthew 18. as he is cited by Bellar∣min.

But it is answered, Although some Fathers were of that o∣pinion, that the Apostles knew by that tribute paying, that Peter would be preferred to them all: the opinion of those Fathers is notoriously false; for the strife of the sons of Zebe∣dens was after the tribute paying. But they never would have demanded to be preferred to the rest, if they had known that Peter was preferred already: Yea, also that contention of all the Apostles for the primacy, was after that tribute paying. But they had been mad-men to have contended for the thing Peter had already. As for Hieronymus, Bellarmin cites him unfaithfully, he on Matthew 18. expresly affirms, That these were in an error who collected the supremacy of Peter 〈◊〉〈◊〉

that tribute paying: Bellarmin hath an other shift, that the er∣ror mentioned by Hieronymus, consisted in this, That they believed by that tribute paying, that Peter would be a temporal Prince or Monarch. But it is replyed, though that fiction were granted, they are also in an error, who believe that the Bi∣shop of Rome is a temporal monarch. But they affirm, that Pe∣ter was the same which the Bishop of Rome is: but that he holds himself as a temporal Monarch, and teacheth it in Cathe∣dra, we shewed before, cap 11. However it is a very strange consequence, Peter payed tribute; Ergo, he was Monarch of the Church, since the Bishops of Rome (as shal be proved, part 3. lib. 1.) refuse to pay tribute, Because they pretend they are Monarchs of the Church. It is notorious also, that all the Apostles, viritim, payed tribute as well as Peter.

Bellarmin and others instance with great pompe, that some mystery lurks in this, that our Savior commanded tribute to be payed for him and Peter: viz. That the heads of the families only payed tribute, and consequently, that Christ was head of the family, and Peter secondary head under him.

But it is replyed, That argument would conclude, that all the Church Militant payed only tribute to their Oecumenick Bi∣shop; or that the said tribute was payed for all the Church Mi∣litant: which cannot be mentioned without laughter. How∣ever, they go on in sophistry, and proves by the testimony of Hieronymus, that only the heads of families payed tribute: Quid tum postea? It doth not follow, That the head of the Church Militant payed tribute for all the Members of it. Se∣condly, it is impudent sophistry, to pretend the authority of Hieronymus. His words are, Post Augustum Caesarem, Judaea facta est tributaria, & omnes censi capite ferebantur. It is stu∣pendious sophistry (since no learned man can be so ignorant) to affirme, that Hieronymus in these words, mentions, That heads of the families only payed tribute: since it appears to

all, who are not utterly ignorant of the Latin tongue, that census capite, imports as much as Viritim, that is, Every person payed tribute, or every head for himself, and not only heads of families.

It is demanded then, What was the meaning of our Savior, in that paying of tribute for Peter and himself? Chrysostomus, hom. 59. on Matthew, thinks this was the reason, Because both our Savior and Peter were first born. But the holy Father is in a great mistake, for two reasons. The first is, Because that tri∣bute was not the tribute of the first born, (which was payed only once in a life time) but an annual tribute, which was payed every year. Secondly, Peter was not first born, but Andrew his brother.

Jansenius, a Learned and Ingenuous Papist, Concord. 69. affirms, the reason was, Because Peter and Christ was then to∣gether alone. He is not so subtile as Bellarmin, to gather any su∣premacy of Peter, from those words: The truth is, both Pe∣ter and our Savior dwelt at Capernaum, as may be gathered from Matthew 9. 1. Mark 2. 1. Luke 4. 31. 38. And it is very like that our Savior was then in the house of Peter, to which he went out of the Synagogue, Luke 4. 38. and being Peters Guest, and Master also, payed for him; ye may see by hun∣ting this prerogative, how they scrape Sophistry out of the fire, to prove the supremacy of Peter.

The seventh prerogative, is, two miracles in fishing, Luke 5. 3. and John 21. 6. If ye demand, what can be gathered from these miracles? They tell you, Christ taught in Peters ship, and Peters ship was the Church; and since Peter was head of his own ship, he was also head of the Church.

But it is answered, How know they that the ship was Pe∣ters? Salmero the Jesuit doubts he was so rich. And so that argument falls a will, except they prove that the ship was Peters. It is admirable to consider how Bellarmin plungeth

himself in Sophistry; distilling the supremacy of Peter from the lymbick of his brains by wilde allegories; that the Reade•• may laugh. It will not be amiss to anatomize his Dispute.

First, He affirms, these two miracles of Fishing, both sig∣nify the Church: that of Luke 5. the Church Militant, be∣cause it was before the Resurrection: that of John 21. the Church Triumphant, because it was after the Resurrection. He adds an other reason, in the first Fishing, our Savior bid•• them only make ready their nets for the fishing. In the second, he injoyns them, to cast out the net upon their right hand. Who doubts but the Church Militant is signified by the first Fishing? Because in it both good and bad are received; what ever side of the ship the net be cast from. And who can call it in question, that the second fishing signifies the Church Tri∣umphant? In which only the good are comprehended, since the Apostles are injoyned, To cast out the net on the right side of the ship: still good, but better followeth. In the first fishing, the nets do break, denotating the Schisms and Here∣sies of the Church Militant. In the second, the nets did not brea•• at all, which signifyeth, The Vnity of the Church Trium∣phant. Learned subtility follows, In the first fishing, the number of the fish is not determinated which were catched, signifying, or fulfilling that passage of the Psalm, I spake and they were multiplyed without number; which is a clear demonstration, That the Church Militant is represented by that fishing. But in the second fishing, the caught fish were precisely 153. By which it is no less evident, that in it, The Church Triumphant is represented. Lastly, If any obstinat Heretick be not con∣vinced by these former reasons, that in these two fishings, the Church Militant and Triumphant are represented, they can∣not but be convinced, by this following reason. viz. In the first fishing, the fish were taken in the ship, Luke 5. But in the se∣cond, John 21. The fish were not taken in the ship, but drawn a

shore in the net. The first signifying, The fluctuating of the Church Militant, receiving indifferently all. The second, The stability of the Church Triumphant, receiving none but the Elect.

Upon those irrefragable principles, Bellarmin demonstrats the supremacy of Peter thus. Since, saith he, Both these fish∣ings represent the Church, and Peter is the chief Fisher of them both: Who but an Heretick will deny, that Peter is head of the Church? And as if there were no more to prove, but that Pe∣ter was the Master-Fisher; he falls to the proving of it. First, Our Savior seeing more ships on the shore, entred that of Peters, and not the rest. Secondly, He bade Peter lanch out, and make ready the nets. Thirdly, He said to Peter, Fear not, after this thou shalt be a Fisher of men; and thus way he proves Peter to be Master Fisher in the first Fishing. That he was also in the second he proves: First, because Peter affirmed, he was go∣ing a fishing, and the rest said, they would go with him. Se∣condly, Peter drew the net to the land. It is needless to spend time in refuting has quisquilias: any who would see Bellarmin and his fellows are exsibilated by Chamier, let him read tom. 1. lib. 11. cap. 17. from the beginning to num. 10.

The eight prerogative is taken from Luke 22. 32. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not: therefore when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. If ye aske them, What prerogative is here? They tell you first, that these words were spoken to Peter immediatly after our Savior had confer∣red the supremacy upon him: In the former contention, verse 26. confusedly and generally, not naming him. But now, in these words, he designs in particular, Peter to be that person whom he called greatest amongst them, verse 26.

But it is replyed, It was proved false, cap. 14. that any per∣son was ordained greatest among them, Luke 22. 26.

Secondly, They build on this, because Peter is injoyned

by Christ to confirm his brethren therein. But it is answered, Confirming of brethren inferrs not an Oecumenick Bishop: be∣cause Paul and Barnabas, confirmed brethren, Acts 14. 22. So Judas and Silas, Acts 15. 32. Innumerable other particulars (but it is needless to mention them) might be produced. And whereas they urge, that the word confirm imports authority. It is answered, Sometime it doth, but not supream authority; however in this place it imports no authority at all, but only good example: So Theophylactus, Twenim, Petre, conversus bonum exemplum sies poenitentiae omnibus: nullúsque eorum qui in me credunt, desperabit, in te respiciens. Where observe, he makes that confirming, nothing but by good example, he shal confirm his brethren; for in these words, our Savior is meaning the Apostacy of Peter in his thrice denying him: and so Theo∣phylactus comments upon the place, viz. that Peter shal con∣firm his Brethren, by keeping them from despair of forgiveness, al∣though their sins were never so great; since Christ pardoned him, after so great a sin as denying him thrice: This exposition of Theophylactus is the same with that of Ambrosius, and Euthy∣mius and Maldonat the Jesuit, who upon this place hath these words, Ambrosij, Theophylacti, & Euthymij interpretatio mihi non displicet, qui conversum exponunt ••peccato, quo Christum ne∣gavit, acta poenitentia, quasi aliis de suó vulnere fecerit medici∣nam. In which words the Jesuit expresly aquiesceth in the exposition of these Fathers Whence appears the notable so∣phistry of Bellarmin, lib. 4. cap. 3. de pont. Rom. who inter∣prets these words of our Savior, Therefore when thou art con∣verted, confirm thy brethren thus. The sense, saith he, of these words, is not that Peter repenting him of his sin, or converted, should confirm the Apostles by his example: but this, Thou whose faith cannot be deficient, when thou fees others vacillating, con∣vert thy self to them, and confirm them.

They object many things here, as that Theophylactus affir∣meth,

That Peter after his repentance shal recover Primatum omnium, and Praefecturam orbis: that Ambrosius affirms, Pe∣trus Ecclesiae praeponitur postquaem tentatus à Diabolo est. Augu∣stinus also calls Peter Rectorem Ecclesiae, cui claves Regni Coelo∣rum creditae sunt. But these objections are of no moment. And first, that Theophylactus affirms that Peter recovered the Pri∣macy above all, it is nothing. For first, the meaning is no other, then that he hath a chief place in the Church in dignity, not in Ju∣risdiction: and it shal be proved, cap. 19. & 20. that not on∣ly the other Apostles are called Principes Primates, but also Praefecti orbis, and Rectores Ecclesiae.

The ninth Prerogative of Peter is, that our Savior first of all appeared to him after his resurrection: But it is answered, first, although it were true, it is of no moment to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop. Secondly, it is notoriously false, because he appeared to Mary Magdalene, before ever he appeared to Peter, Mark 16. 19. before ever he appeared to his own mo∣ther, or to any of the Apostles. If Bellarmin answer, That Ma∣ry Magdalen was only a woman: It is replyed, It concluds, Wo∣men had the Primacy over the Apostles, if the Argument were of any force. Secondly, it is very probable, that our Savior appeared to these two disciples, going to Emmaus, before he appeared to any of the Apostles: for when they came back to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, then they affirmed, that the Lord was risen indeed, & had appeared to Si∣mon: which is all that Bellarmin alledgeth to prove that Christ first appeared to Peter, except that of 1 Corinth. 15. He appea∣red unto Cephas, and after that unto the eleven: however, al∣beit it be very probable that our Savior appeared to Peter, be∣fore ever he appeared unto the other Apostles: yet it concludes no more that Peter had Primacy over the the other Apostles, then that those two Disciples going to Emmaus, had primacy over them, since he appeared unto them, as well as unto Peter, be∣fore ever he appeared to the other Apostles.

The tenth Prerogative is taken from John 13. when our Sa∣vior washing the Apostles feet, did first wash those of Peter. It is answered first, Although it were true, it is of no moment to prove Peter Oecumenick bishop. Secondly, it is only a con∣jecture of some Fathers, that Peters feet were first washed: it cannot begathered from the text at all. Augustinus is of that opinion indeed, and so is Nonnus in his Poetical paraphrase: but other Fathers are against it, as Chrysostomus, Theophylactus. Bellarmin urgeth here, that those Fathers affirm, That Judas only had his feet washed before Peter: but what then? Bellarmins reason is very bad, concluding from that washing, Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop, since Judas was washed before him: he instances Judas was a Traitor, and none of the other Apostles would have suffered our Savior to wash their feet before these of Peters, but only Judas. But it is replyed, First, if there had been any my stery of Primacy in that washing of feet, our Sa∣vior would never have washed the feet of Judas before those of Peter. Secondly, not only Origines and Ambrosius affirm, That he washed the feet of other Apostles▪ before those of Peter, (besides Judas) but also Popish Doctors affirm the same, as Aqui∣nas, Lyranus, and Salmero the Jesuit.

The eleventh Prerogative is from John 21. 18. where our Savior saith to Peter, But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thine hands, and another shal gird thee. If ye de∣mand what Prerogative is here? They answer that in those words, Christ shows to Peter what death he should die, viz. That he should be crucified as himself was. But it is answered, First, although it were true, it doth not conclude Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop. Secondly, that our Savior foretold to Peter a violent death in those words is more then probable▪ but that he foretold the death of the cross, can no wayes be ga∣thered from the words. And whereas they insist upon stretch∣ing forth of hands, it is of no moment; since those words do

not conclude stretching forth of hands upon the cross necessarily, since ones hands are stretched out when they are bound: which sort of stretching, our Savior questionless means by, as appears by these words, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thy self, but when thou shalt be old, thou sh••lt stre••ch forth thy hands, and an∣other shal gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldest not. The Syrian Interpreter, Alius cinget lumbos tuos shall gird thy loins. Interlinear Gloss, cinget vinoulis, shal gird thy loins. Lyranus (convinced that stretching of hands was by Cords, and not by Nails) affirms, That Peter was crucified, being bound by cords upon the cross: which is a very ridiculous fancy: however, that by stretching of hands, is not meant crucifying, but only binding, appears by the following words; and lead thee whi∣ther thou wouldest not. It is notorious, that they use not to lead one who is crucified already any where.

The twelfth Prerogative is from Acts 1. 15. And in those dayes Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples. Here they ga∣ther great things. First, that Peter convocated the rest of the A∣postles; Ergo he was Oecumenick Bishop. But first, it is in∣consequent; although he had gathered them in one, it doth not follow, that he did so by authori••y, but only by advice and counsel. Secondly, it is notoriously false, that Luke in that place affirms any such thing as that the Apostles were convoca∣ted by Peter.

The second thing they gather, that Peter having proposed, that one should be chosen in the place of Judas, they all obeyed his command. But it is answered, Peter only uttered his opinion, (as any one of them might have done) that such a thing was necessary, and they followed his opinion. It is ridiculous to collect ••••om thence any authority of Peter over the rest.

Salmero the Jesuit collects, that Peter represented Christ, be∣cause Luke affirms, He stood up in the midst of them. But it is answered, It follows likewise, that the little child, Mat. 18.

and the man with the withered hand, Mark 3. and Paul, Ast. 27. Were visible heads of the Church. That standing in the mids, imports no authority of it self, but rather a Ministrie, appears by Luke 22. 27. where our Savior affirms, He was in the mids of them as a servant.

The thirteenth Prerogative, is, from Acts 2. where after the Apostles had received the Holy-Ghost, Peter first of all, did promulgat the Gospel. But it is answered, First, although it were true, it is inconsequent to prove Peter visible head of the Church, as is notorious. Secondly, it is false, or at least not certain, that Peter preached the Gospel first: for Luke affirms, Before that time, the Apostles spake with tongues to the admi∣ration of all the hearers, but questionless, what they spake was the Gospel.

The fourteenth Prerogative, is, from Acts 3. 6. Where Pe∣ter cured the lame man. If ye ask, what Prerogative is here, since Paul and other Apostles did equivalent miracles? They answer, It was the first miracle the Apostles did after Christs A∣scension.

But it is replyed, What although it were? It doth not con∣clude Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop. Secondly, if it be not false, it is uncertain, for we read in the second chapter, that the Apostles did many miracles, which probably was before that time.

The fifteenth Prerogative, is, from Asts 5. Where Peter killed with a word Annanias and Sapphira. But it is answered, Paul, Acts 13. struck Elimas the sorcerer with blindness with a word only, or in as miraculous a manner.

The sixteenth Prerogative, is, from Acts 9. 32. And it came to pass, as Peter walked throughout all quarters, he came also to the Saints that dwelt at Lydda. If ye ask what they mean▪ They will tell you, that Peter did the office of a General in an Army. But it is false, that Peter walked through the Saints,

visiting them otherwise, then Paul did, Acts. 18.

The seventeenth Prerogative is from Acts 10 where Peter prea∣ched first to the Gentiles, being commanded so to do in that vision. But it is answered, Although Peter had first preached unto the Gentiles: it doth not conclude him Oecumenick Bishop. Se∣condly, if not false, it is at least not certain, because Philip his preaching at Samaria, and his baptising of the Eunuch are both mentioned by Luke, before that vision of Peter concerning Cor∣nelius.

The eighteenth Prerogative, is, from Acts 12. Where it is affirmed, That the Church made continual intercession for Pe∣ter, when he was imprisoned. But it is answered, None but a Sophister, would object that to prove Peter Oecumenick Bi∣shop. Bellarmin instances. That they prayed not for James, and Stephen: But it is answered, Thats far worse Logick to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop. Secondly, it is impious in Bellarmin to affirm, That the Church did not pray for Stephen and James: although it be not mentioned, he cares not what he bable, because all he spoke, was received as Gospel by his disciples at Rome.

The nineteenth Prerogative is▪ from Acts 15. where Peter first speaks, and all the rest followed his opinion.

But it is answered first, That Luke mentions, that there was great debate amongst them before Peter spake: and therefore it is uncertain, that Peter spake first. Secondly, whereas they call that speaking of Peters, a pronouncing of the sentence. It is notoriously false, for Lyranus himself affirms▪ it was pro∣nounced by James, verse 19. as it was indeed. The reason they give is, Because James was Bishop of the place. Thirdly, Cardinal Cart husianus, upon Acts 15. expresly affirms, That James pre∣sided in the Council, which quite destroys the Supremacy of Peter for an Oecumenick Bishop, who hath the only right of presiding in Councils, either by himself, when he is present, or else by his

Legats, when he is absent. Fourthly, in the Council of Basil, the Fathers of that Council denyed, that the Legats of the Bishop of Rome should preside in that Council, because they never did read, that Peter did preside in any Council. Turre-Cremata, lib. 3. cap. 24. Summae de Eccles. affirms the same: and for that reason Paul, Galat. 2. preferrs James to Peter; whence appears that it is false, that Peter presided in that Council, and albeit he had presided, it doth not conclude him Oecumenick Bishop: for it shal be proved, part. 2. and part 3. that in the Council of Nice, and other General Councils, that those who presided in them were not Oecumenick Bishops.

The twenty Prerogative, and last Scriptural is, from Gala. 1. where Paul affirms, That after three years, he went up to Je∣rusalem to see Peter. But it is answered, All who were visited by Paul, were not Oecumenick Bishops: and here Bellarmin miserably sophisticats in the Fathers. And first, he cites Chry∣sostomus, affirming that the reason was, because Peter was greater then himself. But it is answered, That Chrysostomus words are elder then himself: for so he explains, greater then himself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that this is Chrysostom's mean∣ing is evident, because in the same place he affirms, That Paul went to see Peter, not that he needed any thing from him, being equal to him. He affirms also, I say no more, which is as much as in his opinion, Paul was to be preferred to Peter. In like man∣ner, he sophisticats in Hieronymus, whom he brings in affir∣ming the reason of that visit, was, because, Peter was the first A∣postle. But it is answered, The meaning of Hieronymus is the same with that of Chrysostomus by first Apostle, he means either in age, or dignity, not in Jurisdiction, because he expresly af∣firms in the same place, That Paul came to see Peter, non dis∣cendi studio, qui & ipse eundem praedication is haberet Autorem, sed honoris priori Apostolo deferendi, thas is not to learn any thing from him, but to do him honor as the strst Apostle. Augustinus

expresly calls it a faternal visit, and so doth Tertullianus. Lombardus also affirms, The end of Paul visit, was to shew Peter that he was his Coapostolus, or fellow Apostle with him, not to learn any thing from him. Aquinas, the other great Master of the School-men, affirms the same, paraphrasing upon the words of Paul, he saith, Non ut discerem ab eo, sed ut visuarem eum, not to learn from him, but to see him.

And thus we have waded through that immense Ocean of that disput of Bellarmins, concerning the Scriptural Preroga∣tives of Peter, in which we have omitted nothing of moment, or what is worth the answering. Bellarmin alledgeth some testi∣monies of Fathers, shewing to favor (as he cites them) some of these Prerogatives of Peter: but he basely sophisticats, as we have given a Specimen in the chief of them, whose testimo∣nies we have vindicated. He deludes his Reader in this, viz. because those Fathers acknowledge some of those Preroga∣tives, therefore by Sophistry, he would perswade his Reader that Peter was Oecumenick Bishop in their opinion, which was very far from their mind, as partly we have shewed in the former chapters, and partly shall shew in the following.

CHAP. XVII. Of the Prerogatives of Peter by Tradition.

IN the former Chapter, we have disputed the Scriptural Prerogatives of Peter, twenty in number: now followeth Prerogatives of Peter by tradition, which are eighth in number. The first is, that Euodius, and some other affirm, That Peter only of all the Apostles was baptized by the hands of Christ.

But it is answered first, That Euodius testimony is not much to be regarded, Baronius himself thinks it not to be written

by Euodius, because the author of it affirms, That Steven was martyred seven years after the death of Christ. Secondly, he saith, The house in which our Savior celebrated the Supper, was in the house of John the Apostle, which directly contra∣dicts, Matthew 26. Mark 14. and Luke 22. As for Bellarmins other witnesses, Nicephorus and Euthymius, they have it from the said supposititious Euodius: This Euodius was Patriarch of Antiochia, immediatly after the times of the Apostles, at least called so, in a large sense; For it shal be proved, part. 2. lib. 1. that no Patriarchs were established before the Council of Chalcedon.

Secondly, Many of the Fathers expresly affirm, That it is false, that Christ baptized Peter. So Euthymius himself (after he had recited the opinion of Euodius) Eulogius in Photius, Biobliothec. cap. 280. Tertullianus, de Baptismo, cap. 12. Chry∣sostomus on the Acts, homil. 1. who all affirm, That Peter and the other Apostles were baptized by John the Baptist; Augu∣stinus, epist. 108. disputs this question, whither John or Christ baptized the Apostles? He is in doubt of it, but inclines most to that opinion, that they were baptized by Christ. Ne∣vertheless, there is no prerogative in Peter there, since he speaks of the Baptism of all the Apostles as well as Peter.

Thirdly, Although Peter had been baptized by Christ alone and not the other Apostles, it doth not conclude him to be Oecumenick Bishop.

The second Traditional prerogative, is, That only Peter was ordained Bishop by Christ, and the other Apostles by Peter

But it is answered, It is a meer fable, contradicted by Chry∣sostomus on Matthew, hom. 5. Who affirms, That James first obtained a Bishoprick: if that be true, then he was a Bishop before Peter; And if before Peter, then he behoved to have been made Bishop by Christ, since Peter could not make James a Bishop, when he was not Bishop himself.

Secondly, It shal be proved in the last chapter of the book, that neither Peter, nor any of the Apostles were Bishops pro∣perly: but in a large sense, as Bishop comprehends Apostle, Acts 1. 20. and in that sense, Christ himself is called a Bishop, 1. Peter 25.

The third Traditional prerogative, is, from Acts 8. Where Peter detected Simon Magus; the tradition is, that after that time, the same Peter extinguished him.

But is answered, Albeit it were true, that Simon Magus was killed by Peter, it doth not conclude him Oecumenick Bishop. Bellarmin instances, That Simon Magus was Prince of He∣reticks, whom Peter killed: Ergo, Peter was Oecumenick Bishop who killed him. But it is answered: First, Bellarmins Scholars at Rome, may well approve of this way of disputa∣tion, but it is laught at else where. Secondly, that argu∣ment would conclude Paul to be Oecumenick Bishop, since Cy∣rillus, Cathes. 6. Sulpitius, hist. Sacr. lib. 2. Ambrosius ser∣mon. 66. attribute the killing of Simon Magus joyntly to Peter and Paul.

Thirdly, That killing of Simon Magus by Peter, seems to be a fable, since those who reports it contradict other in the manner. Hegesipus, lib. 3. cap. 2. affirms, That Simon Ma∣gus made wings to himself, and fell a flying: Clemens, lib. 6. cap. 9. affirms, That he had no wings, but only was carried in the Air by Devils: Sulpitius calls them two Devils. Some of them, saith, Simon Magus, brake his neck in the fall, at the Prayer of Peter: Others that he brake only his thigh-bone.

Finally, All this story of Peter and Simon Magus, depends upon Peters being at Rome; but all the Ancients testimonies, who testified Peter was at Rome, depends upon the authority of Papias, whom Eusebius discrives to be the author of many fables, as shal be shewed at large, in the last chapter of this book. Where also it shal be proved, by unanswerable pre∣sumptions,

that Peter was never at Rome: and that all Bellar∣mins proofs to the contrair, are of no moment.

The fourth Ttraditional prerogative of Peter, is, That Pe∣ter by the command of Christ. fixed his Bishoprick at Rome, which was the imperial City: Ergo, Peter was Oecumenick Bishop. But it is answered: First, it doth not follow: Second∣ly, Bellarmin cannot prove by Scripture or Antiquity, That Peter fixed his Bishoprick at Rome much less at the command of Christ, Bellarmin instanceth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 authority of Leo, ser••••n. 1. de natali Petri & Pauli. But it is answered; First, Leo doth not affirm, That Peter was injoyned to his Bishoprick at Rome, but only to preach the Gospel as an Apostle, his words are, Quum Apostoli imbuend•••• Evangelio mundum, distributis sibi ter∣rarum partibus, suscepissent, Petrus, Princeps Apostolici ordi∣nis ad arcem Romani destinatur imperij. But Paul went also to Rome, for that end to preach the Gospel as an Apostle. But this question, if Peter were at Rome, and Bishop of Rome? Shal be disputed in the three last chapters of this book.

The fifth traditional prerogative of Peter, is, That Christ appeared to him at the end of his life, or a little before he dyed: and when Peter asked him, whither he was going? He answe∣red, he was come again to be crucified.

But it is answered: First, it contradicts Scripture, affir∣ming, Acts 3. 21. That the Heavens must contain him until the day of Judgement. Secondly, the author of this fable is Hegesippus, fasly believed to be him, who lived in the days of the Apostles; as Baronius affirms, anno 69. num. 7. Origines hom. in John 37. calls it Appocryphal. And albeit it were true, it doth not conclude Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop: for Bel∣larmin himself affirms, That our Savior left the Heavens, and coming unto the Air, appeared unto Paul, Acts 9 4. and so that argument would conclude Paul Oecumenick Bishop also. Where marke, how he is intangled, when he affirms, Christ

appeared to Peter in Rome, to prove that Peter was at Rome; when it is objected to him, Acts 3. 21. That the Heavens should contain Christ till the last day, and there••ore contradicts Scrip∣ture, He answers, Christ appeared to Paul in the Air. But here to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop, he affirms, That our Savior after his Ascension, left Heavenbut once, when he appeared 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Peter: Else he loseth time in declaiming so much upon this prerogative. For he must either deny that Christ appeared to Paul out of the Heaven: or else he cannot affirm, without So∣phistry, that Christs appearing to Peter is a prerogative.

The sixth traditional prerogative of Peter, is, That only these Churches were Patriarchal seats, which were founded by Peter, as Rome, Alexandria, and Antiochia.

But it is a notorious untruth, For not only Jerusalem and Constantinople, but also many other Cities were Patriarchal seats: His proofs are shameless. As first, the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, which mentions only these three Patriarchal seats; And likewise, the Council of Chalcedon, Action 16. But it is answered, these Councils mention only these three, in these Canons cited by Bellarmin: but the Council of Nice mentions Jerusalem, Canon 7. under the name of Aelia. As for the Council of Chalcedon, it mentions other Patriarchal seats, in many places, as Canon 28. it mentions him of Constantinople. Likewise, the second General Council of Constantinople men∣tions at least ten Patriarchal seats in the East. Secondly, if ye take the word Patriarch strictly, it shal be proved, part. 2. lib. 2. that there was no Patriarch before the Council of Chal∣cedon, established by Law. And therefore, it is false which Bellarmin affirms, That these three were ever held Patriar∣chal seatsonly, because they were founded by Peter; as shal be proved at large, part. 2. lib. 2. Thirdly, It is false which he af∣firms, viz. That those Churches were called Patriarchal, be∣cause 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 Bi∣shop 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, quàm secundum provinciarum divi∣sionem, & praerogativas à Romanis antea stabilitas, quam plu∣rima sunt exempla. And a little after, he affirms, That the Pa∣triarch 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, be∣cause 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 obser∣ved 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 Rea∣son, 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 in∣serted. If ye answer, that it is but a late invention, Bellar∣min will produce an Epistle of Atticus Bishop of Constanti∣nople But it is replyed, Several makes mention of these Literae called Formatae; but of that sort as they are mentioned by Bel∣larmin, where the name of Peter is placed next after the Trinity; in such Letters, ye have no example of old, but o•• 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 forg••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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which three letters signi∣fy Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; Then was written 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the ini∣tial 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 let∣ters. 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 Bellar∣min in this argument of prerogatives, for the supremacy of Peter, which is the fourth general argument, proving him Oecu∣menick Bishop alledged by our adversaries.

CHAP. XVIII. Several Arguments from the Carriage of Peter, disproving his Supremacy.

OUr Adversaries in the three preceeding chapters, en∣deavored 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 Pe∣ter 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 argu∣ments from his carriage, disproving his supremacy, are no so∣phisms, 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, can∣not 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 on∣ly guesseth, his answer hath no warrand in the text, and by such answers as his, any passage of Scripture, albeit never so evi∣dent, may be eluded.

Bellarmin, Stapleton, Sanderus, Salmero, and Baronius, anno 35. num. 9. affirms, That it is not inconsistent with E∣quals, to be sent from their Equals. They give many instan∣••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 Ro∣man Doctors maintain) under his own authority.

They instance, secondly, Herod sent the wise men to Beth∣lehem; 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 Apostles? The force of the argument consists in this, that since they sent him, or delegated him, he had none: and conse∣quently, he was not Oecumenick Bishop. Secondly, Herod did not delegate the wise men, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, between which two verbs there is great difference; the first signifying a sending with authority: the second many times a dimission only; as appears in several Classick Authors, having the same sig∣nification with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Homier odyss. 15. and other where.

Their third instance, is from Joshua 22. Where the people sent Phine has the High-Priest to the Reubenites and Gadites: Josephus also, lib. 20. cap. 7. Antiquit. relats, That Ishmael the High-Priest was sent to Nero, by the people of the Jews:

But it is answered, These instances are not to the purpose: And first, Phinehas was not High-Priest, but only the Son of

Eleazar the High-Priest; & it is great impudence in Stapleton to affirm, he was High-Priest: Bellarmin calls him not High-Priest, but only Priest; but he reasons from him, as he were High Priest. As for Ishmael, Bellarmin takes no heed that he was sent as a Legat, (as Rufinus interprets) but Bellarmin will not grant that Peter was sent as a Legat; neither will he grant that Ishmael being a Legat, was greater then these who sent him: Bellarmin useth other instances of Paul and Barnabas, sent, Acts 15. from the Church of Antioch to Jerusalem, who were the chief Doctors of the Church. Whence, saith he, To be sent doth not import, that these who sent them were greater then they.

But it is answered: First, The question is not, whether the Apostles who sent Peter, were greater then he? But whether he was greater then they were? We do not affirm, The other Apostles were greater then Peter, but only since they sent him as a Legat, he was not greater then the other Apostles. Se∣condly, Acts 15. the Greek verbs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are not used by Luke, but the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which signifies a hono∣rable deduction, or dimission: And so Cajetanus the Cardinal, and Salmero the Jesuit, interpret the place.

Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, affirms, That Pius second (the Cardinal thinking it fit) had an intention to go against the Turks in person.

But it is answered, He had no intention to go in commission from the Cardinals, but only to follow their advice.

Stapleton instances, So did Peter go to Samaria out of his own accord, not necessitated by any authority. But he is refuted by the Greek verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which evermore signifies a sending with authority, as appears by John 1. where it is said, That the Jewes sent Priests and Levites to Jerusalem. And likewise, 2 Timothy 4. Tychicus was sent to Ephesus. And likewise, Acts 11. Barnabas was sent: in all which missions, the great verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used, but not so, Acts 10. when Paul was sent from Antioch.

The best solution of all is given by Renatus a Sorbonist, who grants, that Peter was sent by the other Apostles, as Le∣gat, and less in authority then they. But (saith he) it doth not follow he was not Oecumenick Bishop; because the authority of the whole Church, is more then the authority of an Oecumenick Bishop. It cannot be denyed, that this answer of Renatus takes away the force of the Argument. But it is much doubted, that this answer is owned at Rome: since the doctrine of the particu∣lar Church of Rome (the infallibiliy of which is defended by Bellarmin and all the Italians) is, that the authority of the Bishop of Rome is above a General Council: which after many debates and oppositions in the Council of Constance, and Basil, at last was concluded in the Council of Florence: whence the argu∣ment is yet in force against the doctrine of the Church of Rome, although not against Renatus, and others of his opinion.

The second argument against the Supremacy of Peter, from his carriage, Acts 11. 3. where he was challenged by the bre∣thren for going in to men uncircumcised. The Argument is this, An Oecumenick Bishop cannot be questioned for any thing he doth; but Peter was questioned: Ergo, He was not an Oecume∣nick Bishop. The first proposition is proved from the Canon Law, in Gratianus, Distinct. 40. Canon Si Papa. Where it is expresly affirmed, and likewise, Distinct. 19. and Caus. 17. quaest. 4. And likewise in the same distinction, 19. cap. in me∣moriam. The words are, Licet vix ferendum ab illa sancta sede imponatur jugum, tamen feramus, & pia devotione toleremus, But the Gloss in the Decretals, cap, quantò Personam de trans∣latione Episcopi, affirms, That the Bishop of Rome hath coelesle arbitrium, & ideo naturam rerum mutare▪ substantialia unius rei applicando alii, & de nullo posse aliquid facere, & sententiam quae nulla est, facere aliquam: necesse qui ei dicat, Cur ita facis? po••se enim suprajus dispensare, & de injustitia facere justitiam, corrigendo jura, & mutando: demum plenitudinem obtinere po∣testatis,

By which it appears expresly, that none will question an Oecumenick Bishop. And Since Peter was questioned by those men, it is evident, they did not acknowledge him Oecu∣menick Bishop.

Bellarmin, lib. 1. cap. 16. mentions this Argument, but doth not answer it, but falls in a digression, endeavoring to prove, that Peter was not ignorant of that mystery, of the calling of the Gentiles before that vision, Acts 10. but he seems expres∣ly to contradict Scripture, as appears to any having the use of reason, considering both that vision, and also his speech mee∣ting with Cornelius, verse 34.

Stapletonin Relect. Controvers. 3. quaest. 1. art. 3. and in o∣ther places answers, That it is the duty of a good Pastor to show himself ready, to give an account of his actions, to any who calls them in question.

But it is replyed, Stapleton saith truth, and Peter so in the same place: but he takes not away the force of the Argument, since in the sore-cited passages of the Canon Law, it is forbid∣den by the Pope himself, to call what he doth in question, since he is bound to give an account of his actions to no power earthly, either spiritual or temporal, but only to God.

The third Argument is almost like the second, but more puzling, It is then from Galat. 2. 11. where the Apostle Paul affirms, That in Antiochia he resisted Peter to his face, for he was to be blamed; which quite destroys the Supremacy of Peter in two particulars: First, that he was blamed and resisted. Second∣ly, That he was deservedly resisted. This objection puts the Ro∣man Doctors by the ears together how to answer it? The most ingenuous among them confess, that Paul in those words ex∣presly thought himself equal to Peter; otherwise, he durst not have spoken them. So Lombardus. Cajetanus affirms, That Paul in these words, thought himself greater then Peter. The other Doctors answer variously.

And first, Carerius and Pighius, following Clemens Alex∣andrinus, mentioned by Eusebius, hist. lib. 1. cap. 14. affirms, That it was not Peter the Apostle, but an other Cephas, who was reprehended by Paul. But this opinion is ridiculous; for Paul is comparing himself in those words, to the chief of the Apostles, one of which was Peter: whereby it is evident, that it was Pe∣ter the Apostle whom he resisted, and not an other Peter; and therefore this opinion is exploded by Hieronymus, and other Fathers.

The second answer, is of Gregorius de Valentia, Pighius, and Carerius, following Chrysostomus, and Hieronymus, affir∣ming, That it was but a dissimulation, and the reprehension pro∣ceeded from Paul, by paction between him and Peter: viz. That Peter (the Jews arriving) should leave the Gentiles, that Paul might have occasion to reprehend him: And consequently, that the Jews might be instructed of the calling of the Gentiles by Pauls reprehension.

But it is answered, This Argument is laught at by Augu∣stinus, as not becoming the gravity of Paul, who had sworn before, that he lyed not.

Others affirm, That Peter erred not in faith, (so Sanderus, and Stapleton) but only in conversation.

But it is answered, The less his error was by the said repre∣hension, the less it appears he was Oecumenick Bishop: for if he erred not in faith, no body should have presumed to resist him, as is expresly forbidden, by the fore-cited Canons of the Canon Law.

Baronius answers, That Peter erred not at all▪ But it is false, and gives the lye unto the Apostle Paul, who affirms, He was to be blamed.

Bellarmin answers another way, viz. That one may repre∣hend another, although superior in Authority, if it be done with reverence, as Paul did Peter here. He cites Augustinus, epist. 19

to Hieronymus, and Gregorius Magnus, homil. 18. on Ezekiel, who expresly affirms, That Peter was greater then Paul, and yet he was reprehended by him.

But it is answered, That takes not away the force of the argument: First, because the question is not, Whether Peter was greater then Paul? But whether he was Oecumenick Bi∣shop? Bellarmin will not affirm, That an Oecumenick Bishop may be reprehended; else he will not only contradict the Canon Law, (as we shewed, and which they make of equal authority with the Scripture) but also himself, lib. 4. cap 5. de Pont. Rom. where he affirms, That if the Pope command Vice, and forbid Vertue, the Church is bound to believe that Vice is Vertue, and Vertue Vice. Secondly, it expresly appears by the words of Paul, Gal. 2. That he made himself equal to Peter, as is ac∣knowledged by the ordinar gloss, Lombardus, Cajetanus: yea, Chrysostomus; after he hath gathered from the words of Paul, that he was equal to Peter; he adds, Ne dicam amplius, by which words, he thinks Paul was greater then Peter. Thirdly, The Doctrine of Paul was preferred to that of Peter, that of Peter being found dissimulation, and that of Paul sincere Chri∣stian Doctrine.

It is needless to examine the answers of others, as of Stap∣leton and Eckius, yet we will mention two other answers. The one of Aquinas, the other of Cardinal Pool; that of Aquinas, and Eckius is almost all one, viz. They grant that Peter and Paul was alike. But they distinguish, that Paul was equal to Peter in the execution of authority, but not in authority of Go∣vernment, in executione Autoritatis, non in autoritate regiminis.

But it is answered, This distinction of Thomas is a plain riddle: It would puzle Oedipus himself. It is ordinar with So∣phisters to imitate that fish, called Sepia: when it is caught, it vomits up a black humor like ink, to deceive the fishers: none can conceive this distinction of Thomas without contradiction.

For if Paul were equal to Peter in the execution of Authority: he was equal also to him in the authority of Government; since the execution of Authority is the Act flowing from the other, or from the Authority of Government: if the same be the authority of both Peter and Paul? This cantradiction is inevi∣table, but if the Authority of Peter be greater then that of Paul, he still contradicts himself, in affirming Paul was equal to Peter in the execution of authority, no subordinat Ma∣gistrat can be equal in the execution of Authority to the Su∣preme Magistrat.

Eckius distinguisheth more to the purpose, viz. between the Office of an Apostle in teaching and governing. Paul was equal to Peter the first way, and therefore, he reprehended him, not the second way.

But it is replyed first, Albeit this distinction were granted, it doth not take away the force of the Argument: which con∣sists in this, whether Paul were greater or less then Peter? it is nothing to the purpose? An Oecumenick Bishop, according to the Canon Law, ought to be questioned by none: and since Paul questioned Peters actions, it is evident according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, that Peter was not Oecume∣nick Bishop: neither is it of any moment, that the Canon Law provides, that a Pope may be questioned for Heresie: since that sort of questioning is antiquated by the Council of Florence, and the constant Practice of the Modern Church of Rome. Neither was the error of Peter an Heresie, but only an action of dissimulation.

Secondly, the distinction of it self is contradictory for two reasons. First, because Government of the Church pertains to the office of an Apostle, all the Apostles having exercised all the parts of that Government. Secondly, this reprehension of Paul was directly in execution of the authority of Government, because Government comprehends reprehension of transgres∣sors,

both in doctrine and manners, or actions. But in this particular, the actions of Peter were reprehended by Paul.

Cardinal Pool, a very Learned man, retorts the Argument, lib. 2. de unitate Ecclesiae, where he affirms, This reprehension of Peter by Paul, concludes Peter to be Oecumenick Bishop: but he tells not how? Baronius (it seems) explains him, anno 53. num. 46. the argument is very pretty, viz. They who followed the example of Peter Judaizing, preferred it to the decree of the Council of Jerusalem. Ergo, they believed his authority was above that of the Council, and of Paul; yea Barnabas himself followed Peter before either the Council or Paul.

But it is answered (to omit that it is not certain, whether this dissimulation of Peters was before or after the Council of Jerusalem) Baronius had reasoned far better thus, Paul prefer∣red the decree of the Council to the fact of Peter, reprehending Peter in his face, Ergo; Peter was not Oecumenick Bishop. For albeit those Judaizing had preferred the example of Peter to the decree of the Council: it doth not follow, that Peter was above a Council, except they had rightly preferred the example of Peter to the decree of the Council. And this much of the car∣riage of Peter, and his Institution. We have omitted hitherto nothing of moment, pretended by either side, assaulting, or asserting the Supremacy of Peter from his Institution, Prero∣gatives and Carriage. It remains only now to disput the Su∣premacy of Peter, pro and contra, by testimonies of Fathers. And first▪ we will examin the testimonies of Bellarmin, cap. 19. & 20. where he useth many repetitions, (according to his cu∣stom) of testimonies disputed already. In the next place we will examine testimonies of Fathers pretended by Protestants, cap. 21. and with them absolve this disput of the Supremacy of Peter.

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.

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 an∣swer; 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 ar∣roganter assumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere, &c.

That is, Peter being reprehended by Paul, did not take any thing to himself insolently or arrogantly, as to say, he had the primacy; from which words of Cyprian, it followes rather, that if Peter had said to Paul, he had the primacy, he had been arrogant and insolent; and conse∣quently it appears rather that Cyprian, in these words, de∣nyeth Peter to have the Supremacy: It seems Pamelius un∣derstands him so, for he answers (in his Annotations upon

that place) this very passage of Cyprian, as an objection against the Supremacy of Peter.

In the next place, Bellarmine brings a number of very spe∣cious testimonies, to prove the Supremacy of Peter over the other Apostles, as that Basilius affirms, he was prefer∣red to the other Apostles; Nazianzenus, That the other Apost∣les were inferiour to him; Epiphanius, that he was Captain of the Apostles; Cyrillus Hierosolym, that he was prince of the Apostles; Cyrillus, Allexand. That he was Prince and head of the rest; Theophyl. Prince of the disciples; Oe∣cumenius, he obtained the precedency of the other Apostles; Hie∣ronymus, he was chosen head of the twelve, that occasion of Schisme might be removed: The Author of the question upon the Old and New Testament, placed amongst the works of Augustinus, he was made their head, that he might be Pastor of the flock of Christ.

Those testimonies in effect, at the first veiw, seem to be of moment, but well considered do not prove at all, that Peter had any jurisdiction over the other Apostles; or that he was their oecumenick Bishop, for two very relevant reasons. The first is, because those very Epithets are given by the Fathers, yea by Paul himself to other Apostles, beside Peter. But since those Appellations doth not prove those other Apostles oecumenick Bishops; no more can they prove Peter to be such. That those Titles were given to others beside Peter, is proved by those following testimonies.

Paul in the Galatians, calls James and John Pillars, as well as Peter; whereby it appears, he makes them equal with Peter: Eusebius Emissenus, Homilia in Natal. Petri & ••auli, calls Paul and Andrew Princes of the Apostles. Ruf∣finus, lib. 2. cap. 1. hist. calls James Prince of the Apostles. Chrysostom in Galat. 2. calls Paul, Prince of the Apostles Prudentius calls Peter and Paul Princes of the Apostles. Last∣ly,

those very Fathers who give those elegies to Peter; af∣firm, that the Church was built on all the Apostles, as well as Peter; and some of them expresly gives the chief of them (as head) (or Caput) to others beside Peter, as Basilius, which we mentioned before.

The second reason wherefore those titles (of head, or Prince) prove not any jurisdiction of Peter over the other Apostles, is very relevant, and is this (viz.) the princi∣pals of the Fathers expresly affirm, that Peter had no juris∣diction over the other Apostles. Origenes, the Apostles were Kings, and Christ, (not Peter) King of Kings. Cyprianus de unitate ecclesiae, Christ after his resurrection, gave a like power unto all the Apostles: and a little after, what ever Peter was, the other Apostles were the same, and had equal fellowship with him, both in honour and power: Chrysostomus, in Galat. 2. Paul needed not the testimony of Peter; he was equal to him in honour, I will say no more whereby it is evident, in his opinion, Paul was more honourable then Peter. Likewayes, Hom. 66. in Matth. None goeth before Paul, neither doth any doubt of it. Hieronymus, Galat. 2. para∣phrasing on Pauls words, saith, I am nothing inferiour to Peter, we are both placed in the ministry by the same per∣son, (viz.) Christ. Likewayes, lib. 1. against Jovinian, the Church is founded upon all the Apostles equally, all of them got the keys of the Kingdom of heaven alike. Augustinus, epist. 86. Peter and the other disciples lived in concord together; where observe, Peter is called condisciple with the rest. Gregorius first Bishop of Rome, himself disputing against an oecumenick Bishop, lib. 4. epist. 32. amongst the other reasons, brings this for one, although the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter, yet Peter was not oecu∣menick or universal Apostle. Other testimonies might be

heaped to this purpose, as of Ambrosius, in 1 Cor. 11. and Gal. 2. and likewayes of Primasius, Theophylactus, and the ordinar Glosse, who all of them affirm the same upon Gal. 2.

And thus it is proved by two unanswerable reasons, that by those titles of Head and Prince, Peter is not oecumenick Bi∣shop. Of that title of head, we spake before, that it was gi∣ven unto others, as well as unto Peter, and now have proved the same of the title of Prince. If ye ask then, what is the meaning of those expressions of the Fathers, calling Peter Prince and Head of the Church or Apostles? It is answered, the word Head or Prince may import a threefold Primacy, 1. of Jurisdiction, and in that sense, none but Christ is called head or prince of the Church. 2. A primacy of Order with∣out Jurisdiction, as when any of the same Colledge chooseth one to be their Head, as Deacons choosing an Arch-deacon, who hath only primacy of Order, and not of Jurisdiction 3. A primacy of gifts or graces; so the title head is taken 1 Cor. 12. so also Paul and James, &c. are called heads and Princes of the Apostles by the Fathers, as we said before, because they had eminent gifts. So ••omer and Virgilius are called Princes of the Poets; Cicero and Demosthenes, Coriphaei oratorum; and Plato and Aristotle, Philosophorum principes. So Nicodemus was called Prince of the Jews, by Cyrillus and Polycarpus. Bishop of Smyrna, Prince of Asia by Hieronymus. The meaning of the Fathers then, giving to Peter those titles of head, or prince, is not of the first sort of primacy, as was demonstrated; but only of the second and third sort of pri∣macy, that is, by reason of his eminent gifts, in which others also excelled, as Paul and John, but especially and cheifly because he was eldest Apostle, and first called to that function: some think Andrew was called before him, but however, Peter had the priority of dignity; in what sense,

it imports not much, so it was not priority of Jurisdiction: which that it was not, was now proved by uuanswerable testimonies of the Fathers.

CHAP. XXI. Some testimonies of Fathers, disproving the supremacy of Peter vindicated.

IN the former Chapters were answered, those testimonies of Fathers alleged by Bellarmine, to prove the supre∣macy of Peter over the Church, cap. 19. and over the other Apostles, cap. 20. in answering which testimonies, we proved, by opposing testimonies to testimonies, that the meaning of those Fathers was nothing lesse, then that Peter was Monarch of the Church, which we proved by two sort of testimonies; first, by those in which the same things were said of others beside Peter, by which they endeavoured to prove his supremacy, such as head of the Church, prince of the Apostles, &c. The second sort was of those, expresly denying that Peter had any superiority above the other Apostles, of which kind we alledged many. In this Chap∣ter, we will vindicate the said testimonies from the ex∣ceptions of our Adversaries; and because their answers to them all, are almost the same with those which they make unto a certain passage of Cyprian, and an other of Hieronymus, we will vindicat both those passages from their sophist••y, which are in effect two notable ones.

The first testimony is of Cyprianus, de unitate ecclesiae, Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli, quod Petrus, pari consortio praediti, & honoris, & potestatis: That is, What ever Peter was, the other Apostles were the same, indued with alike fel∣lowship of honour and power.

This is a notable passage, in which Cyprianus is expresly disputing against the supremacy of Peter; for first, he affirms, all the Apostles were the same, which Peter was, and least any should think that his meaning is only, that they were all Apostles or fellows, he adds, Pari consortio, they were of alike fellowship, since it might be objected, that in∣equality might be amongst those of the same fellowship; and our Adversaries ordinarily distinguish between order and juris∣diction, as if the other Apostles were inferiour to Peter in jurisdiction, he adds, they were alike fellows in honour and power; that is, they had all alike jurisdiction with Peter. This place of Cyprian puts our Adversaries to their witts end; they elude it two wayes, they who have any shame by sophistry, others more impudente by forgery; we will examine their sophistry in this Chapter, reserving their forgery untill the last Chapter of the seco•• Book.

Pamelius objects, that the Book of Manutius, and of Cam∣bron hath those words of Cyprian otherwayes, viz. after the words of Cyprian, which we cited, follow those, Sed primatus Petro datur, ut una Ecclesia, & Cathedra una monstretur: That is, But the primacy is given to Peter, that it might appear there is only one Church, and one Chair.

But it is answered, albeit it might be defended, that those words make not much for the supremacy of Peter in Jurisdiction, but only in dignity and order, it shall be de∣monstrated, that Manutius added those words to the text of Cyprian, by the command of Cardinal Baromaeus, against the Faith of all the ancient Copies of Cyprian, both printed and Manuscripts, lib. 2. cap. ult.

Agricola his glosse, since it depends upon those forged words, Primatus Petro datur, is not worth the answering: Hayus, Bozius, Turrianus answer thus:

Its true (say they) that the

Apostles were all of a like power before Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church by Christ, viz. before he said to him, tu es Petrus, and this is the meaning of Cyprian; Bozius adds, that this place of Cyprian expresly makes for the supre∣macy of Peter, because Cyprian affirms in the same place, that the equality of the Apostles was taken away by those words, Pasce oves meas; after which words that equality of ••ower ceased.

All this is soph••stry, and first Bozius lyeth notoriously; Cyprian affirmeth no such thing, as that the equality of the Apostles ceased after those words, Pasce oves meas, since it is the mind of Cyprian, that the equality of the Apostles was, or consisted in feeding the flock of Christ; for he expresly affirms in the same place, that the equality of the Apostles was ordained after the resurrection; for immediatly before 〈◊〉〈◊〉 words we cited, he affirmeth, Christus Apostolus omni∣bus, post resurrectionem suam, parem potestatem tribuit: and therefore, it is false that after those words, Pasce oves meas, the equality of the Apostles was taken away. Bellarmine useth another distinction, lib. 1. cap. 12. viz. that all the Apostles had alike authority over the Church; but they were not of alike authority amongst themselves. This is the answer also of Costerus, encherid, cap. 3.

But it is answered, this glosse of Bellarmines is very strange; first, how can Peter be oecumenick Bishop, if the other Apostles had alike Authority over the Church with him? for, the Bishop of Rome questionless will not affirm, that any other Bishop has as much Authority over the Church, as he hath. Secondly, though this distinction were granted, it takes not away the force of the testimony, for disparity of per∣sons, doth not infer a disparity of Authority alike in them all, but only that the Authority is more eminent in dignity in some, then in others. Thirdly, whereas Bellarmine grants,

that they were all alike Apostles, but the function of an Apostle is the highest degree in the Church; Ergo, if they were equal to him in the Apostleship, they were equal to him in the highest Ecclesiastical function. As for that distinction of Bellarmines, That that equality of the Apostles with Peter was extra radinar, and not derived to their successors as the Au∣thority of Peter, who was ordinar Pastor, and whose Authority was derived to his Successors; we proved before, that it was a ficti∣on of Bellarmines own invention, not known to the Ancients.

Sanderus, lib. 6. cap. 4, of his Monarchy, hath another distinction, viz. that albeit all the Apostles were of equal Authority over Christians, yet the Original of that Authori∣ty was from Peter, although as to the execution, it was alike in them all.

But it is answered first, this distinction is pressed with the same difficulties, with which those of Bellarmines was; it is a flat contradiction, to affirm any to be equal in the execution of that Authority, with those from whom they have it: yea Leo Bishop of Rome complained heavily, that the Bishop of Con∣stantinople was made equal to him as to the execution of it. This distinction of Sanderus leans on a false foundation, viz. that the rest of the Apostles had their Authority from Peter: which expresly contradicts Cyprian, who affirms, they had it from Christ, and Paul, 2. Cor. 5. professeth, he was an Ambassadour from Christ, or in the name of Christ. And Franciscus de victo∣ria (as we shewed before) expresly disputs, that all the Apostles had their Authority immediatly from Christ; and tax∣eth the glosse on Cyprian, making use of this dictinction of Sanderus, against the mind of Cyprian: However, it may be granted, that Peter was the first in Dignity, although the other Apostles were equal to him in Authority.

Stapleton, lib. 6. cap. 7. in principis, useth a threefold di∣stinction, the first is, that all the Apostles were of alike pow∣er

as Apostles, but not as Bishops; But that distinction was exploded before, cap. 16. The second distinction is, quo ad amplitudinem, rerum gerundarum, sed non quo ad superiorita∣tem in ordine gerendi: that is in effect the same distinction with that of Bellarmine, now mentioned, and therefore it needs no other answer, since it imports no other thing, then that the equality of the Apostles power was relative to the Church, but their inequality consisted in their relation to Peter. His third distinction is, that Peter had power of Go∣vernment above the other Apostles: but according to the execution of that Power, all the Apostles were alike with him: But that distinction, is likewayes contradictio∣ry, as we shewed before, and this much of Cyprian.

The second testimony, is of Hieronymus, lib. 1. in Jo∣vinianum, Vt dicis, super Petrum sundatur ecclesis: licet id ip∣sum alio loco, super omnes Apostolos fiat, & ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur: but you affirm, that the Church is founded upon Peter, although the same be done in another place upon all the Apostles, viz. that the Church is builded upon them all alike; which glosse of Hieronymus, quite de∣stroyes that argument of Peters Supremacy, viz. that he was the only Rock among all the Apostles, upon which the Church was builded.

Bellarmine answers, that Hieronymus explains himself in the same place, where he affirms, one was chosen among the twelve; that a head being constitute, occasion of Schism might be taken away, &c.

But it is replyed, Cardinal Causanus sees no such gloss in these words of Hieronymus, as we shewed before, cap. 10. where he affirms, that nothing peculiar was promised to Pe∣ter, in these words tues Petrus, and proves it by this testi∣mony of Hieronymus, that the Church was builded alike upon all the Apostles, and in what sence Peter is called head by

Hieronymus, was shewed before, cap. 20. for it is certain, that Hieronymus, by calling Peter head of the twelve, doth not mean Peter had jurisdiction over the rest; otherwayes he would expresly contradict himself, in this same place; he calls him heaa therefore in the same sense, that others are called heads, which we mentioned, cap. 20.

But Bellarmine instances, that he was made head of the twelve, that schisme might be takan away. But it is replyed, that was before they were sent by Christ to preach the Gospel: but Cyprian and Hieronymus seems to be of that opinion, that Peter was head of the twelve, as the Apostles were a private Company or Congregation; but after the resurrection, that authority ceased, when our Saviour commissionated them all alike to preach the Gospel through the world with equal au∣thority.

And this much of that famous Dispute of the supremacy of Peter, in which we have fished all what is of any moment from that immense Ocean of Antiquity, either to assault it, or assert it; by which it appears, to any indifferent Reader, upon what a weak foundation the Faith of the Modern Church of Rome is built, viz. the supremacy of Peter, or that Peter was oecume∣nick Bishop: which was a concert that the Ancients did not dream of, before the fifth Age after the Council of Chalcedon, when that contention arose between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople for the primacy. Before the time of Leo first, the Bishops of Rome and Leo himself pleaded a priority in dig∣nity by Acts of Councils, but succumbing in that, Leo was the first that devised tues Petrus for the primacy, his successours still argumenting the force of that Argument, and used it after∣wards for universal jurisdiction; whereas at first, it was objected only for cura universalis ecclesiae. Now having absolved that dispute of Peters Monarchy, we will examine his Bishoprick of Rome, which is the second part of the Bishoprick of Peter.

CHAP. XXII. Bellarmines Argument answered, Proving that Peter was a•• Rome.

HItherto hath been disputed, Whether Peter was in∣stituted oecumenick Bishop by Christ, which was the first assertion or ground, on which the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is founded: Now followeth the second, which according to Bellarmine, lib. 2. de pont. Rom. is, that Peter at the command of Christ fixed his seat at Rome, and did sit there as Bishop unto his death. Here ariseth a two-fold question, first, Whether Peter was at Rome? next, Whether he was Bishop of Rome? if he was never at Rome, it is certain he was never Bishop of Rome; and albeit he had been at Rome, it doth not follow he was Bishop of Rome: it was commonly believed, that Peter was at Rome, and Bishop of Rome, before the time of Marcilius Patavinus, who lived in the 14. Age, and wrote a Book, intituled, Defensor ••acis, in which he maintains Peter was never at Rome, nor Bishop of Rome, and proves, that all the Ancients were deceived, who affirmed either the one or the other: his reasons shall be mentioned in the following Chapters; in this are answered the reasons of Bellarmine, proving the first, that he was at Rome.

The assertion of Bellarmine was, that Peter was Bishop of Rome by ordination of Christ; to prove which, he brings nothing, but falls to prove that Peter was first at Rome, and next that he was Bishop of Rome, and instead of Christs in∣stitution, he brings nothing but conjectures of the Ancients, to prove that Peter was at Rome, and perverted testimonies to prove that he was Bishop of Rome. It was sh••wed before, that all the Faith and Doctrine of the modern Church of Rome, depended upon the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome,

which supremacy consisted in three assertions; first, that Peter was oecumenick Bishop by divine institution, which makes nothing for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, without the other two, viz. that Peter by divine institution was Bishop of Rome, and that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter by divine institution in the Monarchy of the Church; any of those two being brangled, the whole foundation of the modern Roman Religion is quite destroyed. Bellarmine, to prove both the one and the other (after he had undertaken to prove them by divine institution) brings nothing but con∣jectures involved with contradictions, and consequently the whole Edifice of the Church of Rome is builded upon such conjectures. The succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter, shall be disputed in the following Books: in this Chapter are answered those reasons, proving that Peter was at Rome; in the next shall be answered, those reasons proving Peter was Bishop of Rome, and then we will conclude this Book with those reasons of Marcilius Petavinus and Ulrichus Velenus, proving that Peter, was neither at Rome, nor Bishop of Rome.

Bellarmines first reason to prove that Peter was at Rome, is from 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church which is at Babylon salutes you, &c. This was the Church (saith Bellarmine) in which Peter remained when he wrote this Epistle, viz. Babylon, which in the Scripture many times signifies Rome; and therefore Pe∣ter by Babylon means Rome, and consequently Peter was at Rome.

But it is answered, albeit in the Apocalyps, which is a my∣stical Prophesie, Rome be meant by Babylon, yet we do not find in Scripture in any Epistle, that Rome was called Babylon: it would be a ridiculous expression to conclude an Epistle written at Rome from Babylon. The Apostle Paul in all his Epistles written at Rome, never concludes from Babylon, but

from Rome, and therefore Peter in this Epistle understands not Rome, but Babylon. It is to be observed, there were two Cities called Babylon; the first Babylon in Assyria, which was the head of the Babylonish Empire; the other Babylon was in Egypt, and afterwards was called Cayre: Peter by Babylon means either the one or the other, more probably the first, because it appears by History, that many Jews remained there, and Peter was the Apostle of the Jews, as Paul was of the Gentiles.

Bellarmine objects, that Irenaeus, Justinus and Tertullianus, expone that Babylon mentioned by Peter to be Rome.

But it is answered, those Fathers follow the authority of Papias, believed to be the Disciple of John, as Bellarmine affirms, he was followed by Irenaeus, who in Eusebius, lib. 3. cap. 39. affirms, that the said Papias and Polycarpus were au∣ditors of the Apostle John; but Eusebius in the said place confutes that opinion, by the authority of Papias himself, who denyed that ever he had seen the Apostles with his eyes; Eusebius adds, that he was a man of no spirit and the Author not only of the Millinarii, but also of other fabulous tradi∣tions: and so in the opinion of Eusebius, the authority of Papias is not much to be regarded. And since the whole foundation of the Church of Rome, depends upon the supre∣macy of the Bishop of Rome; and since the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, depends upon Peters being at Rome; and since Peters being at Rome, depends upon the testimonies of some Fathers, following the Authority of Papias; it may be concluded without sophistry, that the whole Doctrine of the Church of Rome depends upon the said Papias: what sort of man he was, we have now shewed from Eusebius, lib. 3. cap. 39.

Bellarmines second Argument, to prove that Peter was at Rome, is this, There were Christians at Rome, before ever Paul came to Rome, Ergo Peter was at Rome: and here he endea∣vours

to prove by many testimonies, that Peter was the first that preached the Gospel at Rome, but to no purpose, since those testimonies are of no more force to prove that Peter was at Rome, then those he alledged in the former Argument. That they are false, appears by Orosius, lib. 7. cap. 4. who affirms, that Christians were at Rome in the time of Tiberius, but Peter came not to Rome, till after the death of Tiberius, that is, the second year of Claudius, as Bellarmine himself con∣fesseth.

Bellarmine answers, That Orosius doth not affirm, that Chri∣stians were at Rome in the time of Tiberius, but only that the Senate of Rome made a decree, that they should not come to Rome; which is the true meaning of Orosius.

But it is replyed, Orosius expresly affirms, that Tiberius made a motion to the Senat of Rome, that Christ should be acknow∣ledged as a God; but the Senat refusing, set forth an Edict, that Christians should be exterminated or extruded the City of Rome, which imports that Christians were at Rome; which is confirmed by Eusebius, in his Chronicles, an. 38. who saith, the Senat eliminated Christians from the City; but eliminat∣ing is properly to put them out, that were in already. Like∣wayes, both Eusebius in the said place, and Tertullianus, Apol. cap. 5. affirm, that Tiberius threatned death to the Accusers of Christians at Rome, whereby it evidently appears that Chri∣stians were at Rome. Likewayes, Platina in the life of Christ, affirms expresly, that the Senate ordained Christians to be put forth of the City: likewayes, Clement in his first book of Recognitions, affirms, that Barnabas was at Rome in the time of Tiberius.

Bellarmine answers to this last objection, That those Books of Clement are Apocryphal. But it is replyed, when they setch testimonies from this Book to prove any o•• their Tenets, they call it authentick; So Coccius and others, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 when

they are pressed with testimonies from it, they call it Apo∣cryphal.

Bellarmines third reason, to prove that Peter was at Rome, is, That several of the Fathers affirm, that Mark wrote his Evan∣gel at Rome, as he heard Peter preach it there.

But it is answered, that all this depends upon the Autho∣rity of Papias, neither do they agree amongst themselves in the relation; for, Hieronymus following the authority of Pa∣pias, whom Eusebius called an Impostor (as we said before) affirms, that Mark wrote the said Evangel when Peter was alive, and that the said Mark died the eigth year of Nero: but Irenaeus affirms, lib. 3. cap. 1. that Mark wrote his Evangel, after the death of Peter and Paul.

Bellarmines fourth reason, to prove that Peter was at Rome is, that his Sepulchre is at Rome, which he proves by the te∣stimony of many Fathers. But it is answered, they were all deceived by Papias; Secondly, those Fathers who affirm, that Peter dyed at Rome, relate some circumstances of his death, which seem incredible; as first, they affirm, that Peter and Paul died in one day; but that seems incredible, because Paul came to Rome about the third and fourth year of Nero, he pro∣fesseth that he was then old: They likewayes affirm, that he died the fourteenth year of Nero, and so he lived ten years after he called himself old: But this seems not to consist with that assertion, of his dying in one day with Peter; for, it is scarce credible, that Peter could be alive ten years after Paul called himself an old man, since Paul was very young when he was converted; but it appears by John 21. 18. that Peter was an old man before Paul was converted, that is, when Christ was alive; but Paul was not converted untill a year after the death of Christ, and therefore it seems incredible, that Peter could live ten years after Paul called himself an old man. The second incredible circumstance is, that they affirm, that Peter a

little before his death, having an intention to leave Rome, Christ appeared to him in the Port of the City, and desired him to return: but the Scripture affirms, that the Heavens shall con∣tain Christ untill the last day; and Peter himself affirms, that Christ shall not descend from Heaven till then. And whereas Bellarmine objects, that Christ appeared to Paul in the air, he speaks so without any ground, because Act. 9. it is only af∣firmed, that a great light shined round about Paul, and that he heard a voice; but the Scripture there doth not affirm, that Christ was in the air; Paul might have seen Christ as Stephen did, in heaven, himself being upon earth, Act. 7. 55. And those are the reasons by which Bellarmine proves Peter was at Rome, which all are founded upon conjectures. And since the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is founded upon the supre∣macy of Peter, and that Peter was at Rome; and since Peters being at Rome is founded upon contradictory conjectures (as partly we have shewed, and partly shall shew hereafter, mi∣nuting the reasons of Velenus) by consequence, the supre∣macy of the Bishop of Rome is founded upon contradictory conjectures.

CHAP. XXIII. Bellarmines reasons proving, that Peter was Bishop of Rome, answered.

IN the next place, Bellarmine endeavours to prove, that Peter was Bishop of Rome, and therefore he behoved to be at Rome: and his first reason is, That the Church of Rome was ever held the first Church, but there can be no other reason why it was held so, but only that Peter was Bishop.

But it is answered, first, that Rome was held the first Church of old, not in power, but in dignity, because Rome was the chief imperial City, as appears expresly by the third

Canon of the second general Council at Constantinople, the 28. Canon of the fourth general Council of Calcedon, the 36. Canon of the sixth general Council of Constantinople, of which hereafter, part. 2 lib 1. and 2. Secondly, if respect be had to other reasons, besides the imperial dignity of the City, it is false that Rome was held for the first Church, as appears by many testimonies, first, Theodoretus, lib. 5. cap. 9. affirms, that the second general Council at Constantinople, in an Epistle to Damasus Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of the West, calls the Church of Jerusalem, Mother of all Churches. Secondly, Nazianzenus, epist. 18. affirms, that the Church of Caesaria was from the beginning: and was esteemed almost the Mother of all Churches. Thirdly, Basilius, Epist. 20, to Athanasius, affirms, That the Church of Antioch was head of all Churches. The same is affirmed by Chrysostomus in several places, as in his Homile of the praises of Ignatius, and in his third Homile to the people of Antioch: by which testimonies it is evident, that Rome was called the first Church for a civil respect only, and that in other respects, other Churches were preferred to it.

Bellarmines second Argument is this, The Hereticks cannot shew (saith he) where Peter was Bishop after he left Antioch, if he was not Bishop of Rome, since they affirm he was Bishop only of a particular Church, and not of the universal Church.

But it is answered, Bellarmine may well confirm his Dis∣ciples by such reasoning, but he will never convert Hereticks by it: It is false which he affirms, that the Protestants maintain that Peter behoved of necessity to be Bishop of one particular Church or other; they deny he was Bishop of any particular Church at all, as shall immediatly appear; and therefore, it is ridiculous in Bellarmine to conclude, that Peter was Bishop of Rome, because they cannot instruct where he was Bishop elsewhere, when he left Antioch: they ask

him again, how Bellarmine proves that he was Bishop of Antioch? they ask him also, where he was Bishop before he was Bishop of Antioch? for Bellarmines Argument presuppones, that Peter of necessity, was still Bishop of one place or other.

Bellarmines third reason, to prove that Peter was Bishop of Rome, is taken from the testimony of Fathers, affirming, he was Bishop there twenty five years: As for those 25. years, they shall be proved false in the following Chapter: In this we will answer and explain the testimonies of those Fathers, affirming Peter was Bishop of Rome; because in effect they are the only Basis of the Popes supremacy, we will examine them more diligently, and make it appear, that they are so many testimonies, proving Peter was never Bishop of the particular Church of Rome.

It is answered, to those testimonies of Eusebius, Optatus, Am∣brosius, Hieronymus, Sulpitius, I sidorus, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, &c. affirming Peter to be Bishop of Rome, that the word Bishop is taken two wayes; first, for a function of governing the Church in general, so Peter calles Christ The Bishop of our souls, epist. 1. cap. 2. so an Apostleship is called Bishoprick, Act. 2. Secondly, Bishop is taken in a stricter sense, for a certain function Ecclesiastick, inferiour unto the Apostolick function; so it is taken by Paul, 1 Tim. cap. 3. If any desire a Bishoprick: in which last sense we now take it, and so answers those testimonies of Bellarmine, by which he proves that Peter was Bishop of Rome, that those Fathers take Bishop in the first sense, and their meaning is no other then that Peter as an Apostle, taught at Rome twenty five years. That this is no shift or evasion, is demonstrated by these three following reasons.

The first reason is, that the Fathers reckoning the suc∣cessions of the Bishops of Rome, put Paul with Peter in the

first place, whereby it is evident, that those Fathers take the word Bishop in the first sense, comprehending the Apostle∣ship; since none of them, nor Bellarmine himself, will affirm, that Paul was Bishop of Rome in the second sense. That this is the truth, viz. that Paul is named first Bishop of Rome with Peter, appears by those following testimonies.

First of Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 3. Fundantes igitur & instru∣entes beati Apostoli (Petrus & Paulus) Lino Episcopalum administrandae ecclesiae tradiderunt: The blessed Apostles (Peter and Paul) when they founded the Church of Rome, they made Linus Bishop.

The second testimony is of Epiphanius, heres. 27. Episco∣porum in Roma successio hanc consequantiam habuit Petrus & Paulus, Linus, Cletus: The succession of the Bishops of Rome was this, Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus.

The third testimony is of Eusebi•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 3. cap. 2. post Petri & Pauli Martyrium prin•••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 Episco∣patum Linus sortito capit: After•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 Peter and Paul, Linus had the Bishopric•••• 〈…〉〈…〉

Such-like other 〈…〉〈…〉 epist. 65. of Optatus, 〈…〉〈…〉 all put Peter and Paul 〈…〉〈…〉 that in the Bulls of 〈…〉〈…〉 are joyntly 〈…〉〈…〉 hath the 〈…〉〈…〉 is, 〈…〉〈…〉 in the first sense, as it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 an Apostle.

The second reason is, because Fathers enumerating the Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome, do it in manner fol∣lowing.

PETER and PAVL.

• 1. Linus.
• 2. Cletus.
• 3. Clemens.
• 4. Euaristus.
• 5. Alexander.
• 6. Sixtus.
• 7. Telesphorus.
• 8. Hyginus.
• 9. Pius.
• 10. Anicetus.
• 11. Soter.
• 12. Eliutherius, &c.

WHere they do not reckon Peter and Paul among the Bishops, but only reckons the Bishops from them as their founders, putting Linus as first Bi∣shop, Cletus as second, Clemens as third; whereas if Peter and Paul had been Bishops, Linus had been second, Cletus third, Clemens fourth, &c. That they reckon them so, appears by these following testimonies, First of Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 3. who calls Clement the third Bishop, Sixtus the sixth. Eliutherius the twelfth: but if he had reckon∣ed Peter as first Bishop, then Clemens had been the fourth, Sixtus the seventh, Eliutherius thirteenth.

The second testimony is of Eusebius, hist. lib. 3. cap. 2. where he calls Linus fi••st Bishop; and likewayes, cap. 4. where he calls Clemens third Bishop; and cap 16. where he calls Clemens third Bishop, Linus first Bishop, Cletus se∣cond Bishop; and lib. 4. cap. 1. he calls Euaristus fourth Bi∣shop, and cap. 5. he calls Telesphorus seventh Bishop: like∣wayes in his Chronicles, he gives unto them the same order of succession, anno. 69. and 81. and 93. and 100. where∣by

by it is evident by Eusebius, that Peter was not Bishop of Rome, since he gives ranks to the other Bishops, as if Linus had been first Bishop.

The third testimony is of Gregorius, lib. 1. cap. 27. who reckons the order of succession of the Bishops of Rome, as Linus were first Bishop, and not Peter; for he calls Clement the third Bishop of Rome; but if he had included Peter in the Catalogue of the Bishops, Clement had been the fourth Bishop in his Calculation.

Some Romanists answer, that those testimonies do not prove Linus was first Bishop, Cletus second, Clemens third, absolutely, but only that the meaning of those Fathers is, that Linus was the first Bishop after Peter, Cletus the se∣cond, Clemens the third; which is as much as if those Fa∣thers had said, Peter was first, Linus second, Cletus third, Clemens fourth.

But it is replyed, that is but a shift or evasion, because it appears to any who is versed in Eusebius, that when he speaks so, First Bishop after such an one, I•• that one in his opinion be a Bishop himself, he includes him in the number, and makes him first Bishop, as appears by his Catalogue of the Bishops of Alexandria, where he calls Cerdo the third Bishop after Anianus, but he calls Anianus first Bishop, lib. 12. cap. 3. So, cap. 16. he reckons Anianus first, Abili∣us second, Cerdo third; whereby it is evident, that when he speaks so, viz. third Bishop after such an one, That he evermore includes that one in the number, when he thinks he is a Bishop, as is evident by his reckoning of the Bishops of Alexandria, Cerdo (saith he) was third after Anianus; That is, Anianus was first, Abilius second, Cerdo third: But in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome, when he calls Linus the first after Peter, Cletus the second, Clemens the third, he includes not Peter in the Catalogue, but reckons them as

Peter were not Bishop at all, other wayes he would call Pe∣ter first Bishop of Rome, as he did Anianus first Bishop of Alexandria.

The third reason proving those Fathers calling Peter Bishop of Rome, takes the word Bishop largely, and not strictly, and properly is unanswerable, because it appears by their own testimonies, and likewayes of other Fathers, that Linus and Cletus, were Bishops of Rome when Peter was alive; where∣by it is evident, that Peter was called Bishop of Rome, only because he and Paul founded that Church (in the opinion of those Fathers) for Peter could not be Bishop of Rome pro∣perly, if Linus was Bishop of Rome when Peter was alive: but that Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome when Paul was alive, is proved by these following testi∣monies.

The first testimony is of Tertullianus, lib. de praescrip. cap. 32. (according to the distinction of Pamelius) where he affirms, that Polycarpus was ordained Bishop of Smyrna by John the Apostle, and in the same manner, Clemens was ordained Bishop of Rome by Peter: but it is notorious, that John was alive when he ordained Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna, neither was John Bishop of Smyrna himself; therefore it follows, that Clemens being ordained Bishop of Rome by Peter, that he was Bishop of Rome when Peter was alive, since Polycarpus was Bishop of Smyrna when John was alive.

The second testimony is of Irenaeus, and is this, in Euse∣bius, lib. 5 hist. cap. 6. where Eusebius brings in Irenaeus speaking thus, The blessed Apostles [Paul and Peter] found∣ing the Church of Rome, gave unto Linus the Bishoprick of the Administration of the Church: whereby it is notorious, that the function of Peter and Paul was different from the function of Bishop (in the strict and proper sense) and likewayes, it

is evident by the word, that while they were alive, they did put Linus in the actual possession of the Bishoprick of Rome.

Bellarmine answers, that Peter did put Linus and Cletus in the Church of Rome, when he was alive, not as Bishops, but as Coadjutors unto him, especially Peter being oftimes called elsewhere by his Apostolick sunction: But he intangles himself foully; first, he makes Peter sufficient to go∣vern the whole Church, as elsewhere he affirmeth, and yet in this answer, he makes him insufficient to govern the Church of Rome without a Coadjutor. 2. Irenaeus affirms, that Paul ordained Linus Bishop of Rome, as well as Peter; and if Li∣nus had been Coadjutor to those who ordained him, he would have been Coadjutor to Paul as well as to Peter, and conse∣quently, Paul was also Bishop of Rome. 3. Irenaeus ex∣presly distinguisheth the Office of an Apostle from that of a Bishop, in these words, for he affirmeth, Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome, and gave the Bishoprick thereof to Linus: So Epiphanius, heraesie 27. affirms, that the Office of an Apostle was not tyed to one place, and therefore in their absence, Rome could not be without a Bi∣shop.

The third Testimony is of Ruffinus, in his preface to those Books of Recognitions attributed to Clement; his words are these, Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome, before Clement, but while Peter was alive, to wit, that they might be Bishops, and himself might fulfill the office of an Apostle: in which words, Ruffinus expresly calls Linus and Cletus Bishops of Rome, having a distinct Office from that of Peter; where∣by it evidently appears, that Peter was not Bishop of Rome in the strict sense mentioned before; which is further confirmed by the next following words of Ruffinus, wherein he affirms, that Zacheus was in the same manner ordained by Peter Bishop

at Caesaria, as Linus and Cletus were at Rome. But Bellarmine will not affirm, that Peter was Bishop of Caesaria, and Zachaeus his Coadjutor; and although this testimony of Ruffinus doth not convince Barronius, yet Onufrius, Sanderus, Feuardentius, confesse ingenuously, that it can hardly be shunned. Bar∣rontus gives no regard to the testimony of Ruffinus, because he interprets that sixth Canon of the Council of Neice against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome; but since Ruffinus lived very near that time, and since he is seconded by all the ancient Interpreters: as shall appear in the following Book, who all interpret that Act against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, as well as he, though in a different manner) his authority is more to be regarded then that of Bellarmine, or Barronius, devising a new interpretation of the said Act 1300. years after the date of it, against the currant of all Antiquity, as shall be shewed, lib. 2. cap.

CHAP. XXIV. Presumptions that Peter was never at Rome, and demonstra∣tions that he was never Bishop of Rome.

IN the two preceding Chapters has been answered those reasons alledged by Bellarmine, to prove that Peter was at Rome, and Bishop of Rome; by which it appears, upon what weak reasons the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is built, and which is quite destroyed, if neither of these be true: The weaknesse of Bellarmines grounds will further ap∣pear, in this present Chapter, in which are mentioned some strong presumptions, that Peter was never at Rome, and invincible demonstrations that Peter was never Bishop of Rome, if the word Bishop be taken in the proper and strict sense which we mentioned before. That Peter was never at Rome, may be perswaded by the following reasons,

First, those Fathers affirming Peter was at Rome, agree all that he was twenty five years Bishop there; and yet, some of them affirms, that he came to Rome in the second year of Claudius, so Hieronymus, in Catalog some of them in the fourth year of Claudius, so Fasciculus temporum, following Marianus, Scotus: Beda also on Acts 13. affirms the same; and also Waldensis, tom. 1. lib. 1. cap. 7. some of them a••ffims that he came to Rome, anno 13. of Claudius so the Book called Passionale de vitis sanctorum: some of them that he came not to Rome untill a little before his death, so Origines, tom. 3. ingeues. which behoved to be in the latter end of Nero; Damasus also, in Pontificali affirms, he came to Rome under Nero: Thomas Aquinas, in Gallat. 2. lect. 1. affirms, he came to Rome in the 14, year after Pauls conversion, which was 18 years after the passion of Christ, who suffered in the 18. year of Tiberius, who reigned twenty two years: Caligula almost four; therefore, according to Thomas, Peter came to Rome in the sixth or seventh year of Claudius; but many of those foresaid Authors affirm, that Peter did sit 25 years at Rome, which is a manifest contradiction since, they all agree almost, that he died in the last year of Nero.

Bellarmine answers, Its certain that Christ died, and yet learned men vary about the time. But it is replyed, that the certainty of Christs death is had from Scripture, and not from those who vary about the time of it; but the certainty of Peters being at Rome is had no where, but from those who vary about the time of his coming there; and since they contradict other in the last, they merit no credit in the first.

Bellarmine answers, secondly, that no approved Authors varies in the time, but only some bastard Authors such, as Fasci∣culus temporum &c. But it is replyed, that Bellarmine will not affirm, that Origines, Marianus, Scotes, Beda, Da∣masus, are bastard Authors; but it is proved that all those vary.

The second perswasion that Peter was never at Rome is this, they who affirm, Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius; so Hieronymus, Eusebius and others affirm, it was to defeat Simon Magus, who died in the last year of Nero, that is, twenty five years after the second year of Claudius, and for whose death, Peter also himself was put to death by Nero: but since Peter went a purpose to Rome to destroy Simon Magus, it is a thing incredible, that he could not do it in lesse then twenty five years; yea, Bellarmine himself affirms; that Peter after he had stayed seven years at Rome came back to Jerusalem: but this is more incredible, that Peter would go to Rome to overcome Simon Magus, stay there seven years, and come back without doing any thing, and suffer Simon Magus to live eighteen years af∣ter.

The third reason why Peter was not at Rome, is this, they who so affirm, maintain also, that Peter went to Antioch five years after the passion of Christ, was seven years Bishop there, and then went to Rome, where he was Bishop twen∣ty five years: but it appears by Galat. 1. and 2. Acts 12. and 15. that Peter for the most part was at Jerusa∣lem, at least to the eighteenth year after Christs passion; but according to the Calculation of those Authors, Peter had been seven years at Rome, in the eighteenth year of Christs passion, and consequently, he could not be at Rome, and at the Council of Jerusalem, in the eighteenth year after Christs passion.

Bellarmine answers, that Peter in the seventh year of his Bishoprick was expelled Rome, because Acts 18. it is men∣tioned, that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome, and came back to Jerusalem that year of the Council, from whence he returned back to Rome and died there.

But it is replyed, he involves himself in a world of ab∣surdities; first, in affirming Peter was expelled Rome by

Claudius, when he made that Edict against the Jews; be∣cause if Peter had been expelled by that Edict, it behoved of necessity to be some considerable time before the Coun∣cil of Jerusalem, since Peter being expelled by that Edict, was present at the Council of Jerusalem; but Paul and Bar∣nabas (as is affirmed by Luke) after that Council, stay∣ed some time at Antiochia, and then Paul journyed to Sy∣ria and Cilicia, then he came to Derbas and Lystra; after that, having gone thorow Phrygia, Galatia, Mycia, he came to Troat, and thence to Macedonia, where he was imprisoned at Philippi; Thence passing thorow Amphipo∣lis and Apolon••a, he came to Thessalonica, from thence to Berea, from thence to Athens, Acts 15. 16. and 17. After all those journeys, he arived at Corinth, where he did find Aquila and Priscilla, who were now come out of Italy, by reason of that Edict of Claudius; whence it ap∣pears, that Bellarmine affirms falsly, that Peter was expel∣led Rome by reason of that Edict of Claudius, since when Paul found Priscilla and Aquila at Corinth, it behoved to be some years after Peter was expelled Rome, considering Pe∣ters journey from Rome to Jerusalem before the Council, Pauls tedious journeys after the Council, before he met with Priscilla and Aquila, who were new come out of Rome by reason of that Edict of Claudius (or as the Syrian Interpreter) were expelled Rome at the same time, by that Edict of Claudius: So it is impossible, that Peter so long time before could have been expelled by the same Edict.

Secondly, Bellarmine himself confesseth, lib. 2. cap 6. de pont. Rom., that Peter had left a dangerous example to posterity, if he had retained two Bishopricks at one time. But its no less pernitious example to leave their particular Charge, as Bellarmine affirms, Peter did; neither is it of any mo∣ment to affirm, that he was forced to leave it by that Edict of Claudius, since Peter should rather have suffered, then

obeyed that Edict: Secondly, because as Bellarmine affirms, when he was Bishop of Antiochia, he wandered up and down, leaving his Charge. Thirdly, it seems very ab∣surd which Bellarmine affirms, that Peter in one year was Bishop of Antioch, imprisoned at Jerusalem, and Bishop of Rome.

Fourthly, if Peter had been Bishop of Rome, in the time of the Council of Jerusalem, he would not at that very Coun∣cil, made that paction with Paul; taking upon himself to be Apostle of the Jewes, and leaving it to Paul to be Apostle of the Gentiles, among which his own Bishoprick of Rome was.

Fifthly, it is not credible, that Peter should have been fourteen years (at the time of the Council at Jerusalem) partly Bishop of Antioch, partly of Rome, 2 Church for the most part of Gentiles, and yet to compell the said Gentiles to judaize as Peter did.

The fourth reason that Peter was never at Rome, is this, that Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, salutes many, cap. 16. but he makes no mention of Peter at all; but it is in∣credible he would have saluted so many, and ommit∣ted the salutation of Peter, who was Bishop of the place.

Bellarmine answers, That he did not salute John in his Epistle to the Ephesians, nor James in his Epistle to the He∣brews; and yet John was Bishop of Ephesus, and James Bishop of Jerusalem.

But it is replyed, this answer of Bellarmine is very chil∣dish, for to omit that neither John nor James were Bishops at all, but only Apostles and founders of those Churches, as we said before, John was not at Ephesus at that time, nor stayed there, and James at that time was dead; neither did Paul write his Epistle to the Hebrews, to the particular Church of Jerusalem, but to the whole Jews.

Bellarmine answers, secondly, That Peter was not return∣ed to Rome, when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans. But it is replyed, first, Aquila and Priscilla were returned to

Rome, whom Bellarmine affirms were expelled at the same time with Peter, whom Paul salutes, Rom. 16. 3. but it is incredible, that Peter who was Bishop of the place, would not have returned with the first. Secondly, Paul among the causes of his thanksgiving for the Faith of the Romans, cap. 1. 8. and other praises; cap. 16. or of his own prayers, cap. 16. 10. makes no mention of Peter at all; yet constantly in his Epistles, he useth to mention the Ministers of the Churches to which they are directed, whether they be present or not, as appears by 1. Corinth. cap. 16. 15. Ephes. 6. 21. Phil. 2. 19. Col. 4. 9. 12. &c.

The fifth reason that Peter was never at Rome is, it is known that Paul wrote several Epistles from Rome, in the time of Ne∣ro, in whose time Bellarmine affirms, that Peter was at Rome; in which Epistles, he makes frequent mention of others of lesser note; and yet he makes no mention of Peter at all, as Col. 4. 11. and 2. Timothy, 4. 16.

Bellarmine answers, first, that a negative testimony proves nothing; it doth not follow Peter was not at Rome, because Paul makes no mention of him.

But it is replyed, it is not only a negative testimony, which is the ground of the Argument; but an Argument à minore ad majus; Paul makes mention of others of lesser note: much more he would have made mention of Peter, if he had been at Rome. 2. There are two sorts of negative testimonies, the first, is, purely negative; the second is privative, when nothing is te∣stified when it should have been testified: this last sort of ne∣gative Argument is most efficacious; as is acknowledged by Medina upon Thomas, part. 83. quaest. 1. art. 3. Neither can it be denyed that this is good reasoning, There was but one World created, That only the second person of the Trinity assumed flesh, because the Scripture makes no mention, that more Worlds were created, or that the other persons of the Trinity were incarnate. But this Argument is taken from a

privative testimony, viz. Paul could not, without just repre∣hension, make no mention of Peter, if Peter had been at Rome at that time, as appears by Colos. 4. 10, 11. where Paul affirms, that Marcus, Justus and Aristarchus, were all the Jews which were his work-fellows in the Gospel: But if Peter had been at Rome, Paul had spoken untruly in excluding him from being one of his work-fellows, which he restricts to the fol∣lowing three: for, if Peter had been at Rome, Paul would ne∣ver have affirmed, that those three were the only work-fellows he had at Rome. Again, 2 Tim. 4. 10, 11. he affirms, that all his fellows had forsaken him, except Luke, who only was with him: but if Peter had been at Rome, he would never have forsaken Paul, nor had it been true which Paul affirmed, that none were with him but Luke.

Those passages puzleth Bellarmine very sore, as appears by his perplexed answer he gives to that passage of Colos. 4. that Paul speaks only of his domesticks, which is a most miserable effugium: for to omit that Paul keeped not such a port, as to have so many domesticks, he expresly calls those three persons, Aristarchus, Marcus, Justus, all the fellow-labourers in the Gospel he had at Rome.

Secondly, Bellarmine answers to 2 Tim. 4. 16. That Paul speaks there of those who might have been intercessors for him to Nero; which is a very simple evasion, he hath no ground at all for it; and it is clear against the meaning of Paul who speaks of those who should have corroborated him, or confirmed him, as appears from verse 17. where he affirms, that God was with him and strengthened him only, except Luke, verse 11. But if Peter had been at Rome, he would not have neglected such a duty to Paul.

Thirdly, Bellarmine answers, That perhaps Peter was elsewhere when Paul wrote those Epistles from Rome; which is as much to say, that Peter was Bishop of Rome, and yet

was never at Rome, when the Scripture makes mention of the Teachers of that Church, that Paul could never find him at Rome, albeit Dionysius, praised by Bellarmine, affirms, cap. 3. that he was at Rome the same time with Paul, and died with him in one day. And this much of those reasons, proving that Peter was never at Rome; although they be not demonstrative, yet they are very perswasive. Velenus in a Treatise purposly writen of that subject, adds many more, but these are sufficient in this Compend.

In the next place, we will alledge some unanswerable reasons, proving that although Peter had been at Rome, yet he was never Bishop of Rome. The first is this, the Office of an Apostle and a Bishop (in the strict sense) are incon∣sistent in one person; a Bishop is restricted to a certain Charge, but an Apostle by institution is bound to have no certain Charge, as appears by those words of Christ, Go unto the whole World, by which words they are expresly commanded not to tye themselves to any particular place, or at least, it is per∣mitted them not to tye themselves to a particular place: but if they had been Bishops, they were of necessity tyed to a par∣ticular Charge. If any of the Apostles had been Bishops, Paul had as much reason to be called so, as any other of the Apostles; but we never read, that Paul was Bishop of any particular Church, except only Irenaeus and some others affirm, that he and Peter were conjunct Bishops of Rome: but that quite destroyes Peters Bishoprick of Rome, as we said before, since the word Bishop is taken in a large sense, as they must of necessity confesse, since Bellarmine will not affirm, that Paul was Bishop of Rome, in a proper sense.

The second reason is this, they confesse that Peter was very oft absent from Rome, and very long; Cartesius affirms, that he was 18. years absent; Onuphrius 7, Bellarmine 5, but if he had been Bishop of Rome, he woul not have been so long from his Charge. They affirm indeed, that he was hindered;

but to omit that he was not hindered so long, how comes it, that in his absence he wrote no Epistles to his Charge at Rome, since he wrote to the Jews? And whereas they affirm, that he was at Rome when he wrote to the Jews, it is frivolous, first, because we shewed before, that his being at Rome at that time, depended upon the authority of Papias, the author of many fabulous traditions, as was proved by the testimony of Eusebius. Secondly, albeit he had been at Rome when he wrote those Epistles to the Jews, he had much more reason to write to the Romans his own▪ ••harge, in so long an absence; and since he did not, it is evident he was never Bishop of Rome.

The third reason is, they give Peter three Bishopricks all at one time (at least, some of them, who affirm Peter was Bishop of Rome) They all grant, that Peter was first Bishop of Antioch, before he was Bishop of Rome, except only Onuphrius, who affirms, that he was first Bishop of Rome, and next of Antioch, so he had two Bishopricks. Nicephorus, lib. 14. cap. 39. affirms, that Anterius Bishop of Rome wrote, that Peter transferred his seat from Rome to Alexandria: by which contradictions, it appears they have no ground at all that Peter was Bishop of Rome; if it had been true, what needed them have their recourse to such contradictions?

The fourth reason is, Bellarmine affirms, lib. de pont. Rom. that all the right of the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is founded upon the command of Christ, by which Peter went to Rome and fixed his seat there. But all those almost who testifie Peter was at Rome, affirm, that the occasion of his going thither was to defeat Simon Magus, neither do they mention any command of Christ at all, as the cause of Peters going thither.

The fifth reason is, that Peter and Paul made a paction, that Peter should be Apostle of the Jews, Paul of the Gentiles; but if Peter had been Bishop of Rome, that paction had been violated. Bellarmine answers, Peters principal charge was

the Jews, and Pauls the Gentiles: But it is replyed, if Peter had been Bishop of Rome, his chief Charge had been the Gen∣tiles, or else he fixed his Chair where his chief Charge was not; both which are alike absurd.

The sixth reason is, that Linus and Cletus were Bishops of Rome when Peter was alive; whereby it is demonstrated, that Peter was not Bishop of Rome. That those were Bishops when Peter was alive, was proved in the former Chapter, and like∣wayes the evasion of Bellarmine to this objection in the same place was refuted.

Finally, as we shewed in the former Chapter, they who affirm Peter was Bishop of Rome, affirm also Paul was conjunct with him: whereby it evidently appears, that they take the word Bishop in a large sense, since they make Paul his conjunct, and doth not reckon him in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome, as we shewed in the former Chapter.

Aud thus we have compendiously examined those two fa∣mous questions, first, Whether Peter, by divine institution, was Monarch of the Church? Second. Whether by the command of Christ, he was Bishop of Rome. It was proved in the Pre∣face, that the whole Doctrine of the Church of Rome, was founded upon the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome; that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome consisted in this, that he succeeded to Peter, by divine institution, in the Monarchy of the Church: which succession again, depended upon two as∣sertions, first, That Peter was Monarch of the Church, by divine institution; 2. That he was Bishop of Rome: any of which being proven false, the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome is a cheat, and consequently also, the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome depending upon it, as Moon-shine upon the Sun, as is professed by Bellarmine in the Preface of his Books, de pont. Rom.

FINIS Libri primi.