Anti-Mortonus or An apology in defence of the Church of Rome. Against the grand imposture of Doctor Thomas Morton, Bishop of Durham. Whereto is added in the chapter XXXIII. An answere to his late sermon printed, and preached before His Maiesty in the cathedrall church of the same citty..

SECT. III. S. Pauls subiection to S. Peter, and his acknow∣ledgment therof.

TO proue that S. Paul belieued not the domination of S. Peter (for so you call it(d) and consequently of the Pope, or the vniuersall power of the Roman Church aboue all others, or yet the absolute continuance therof in the fayth of Christ, you spend many arguments throughout six whole Sections, from the eight to the fourteenth, all which make against your selfe.

It is frequent with you to call the supreme Ecclesiasti∣call iurisdiction of S. Peter and his successors, their dominion. If by dominion you vnderstand a dominiering power, wher∣with some temporall Princes gouerne their subiectes, S. Peter forbiddeth that to all ecclesiasticall Prelates(e), com∣manding them not to dominiere in the Clergy. But if by dominion, you vnderstand a Fatherly gouerment and iuris∣diction ouer the vniuersall Church and their infallible as∣surance in their definitions of fayth; that S. Peter and his successors haue such a power and iurisdiction, hath bene already proued, & will be more confirmed by the answere to your arguments against S. Peters supremacy out of sun∣dry passages of S. Paul to the Galathians(f). The first is, Paul some tyme after the exercise of his Apostleship, would not goe to Hierusalem to Peter, or any of the Apostles, lest he might haue seemed to haue bene authorized by them: yet three yeares after that, he taketh a iourney thither of see Peter; doubtlesse for honor sake, as one in order of Apostleship most eminent: but this be did voluntarily, in discretion, & brotherly communion; & not in subiection, as the Context sheweth. So you: but the Context sheweth no such matter, and the sacred Expositors teach directly the contrary. S. Ambrose(g): It was fit, that Paul should desire to see Peter, to whom our Sa∣uiour

had committed the charge of the Churches. S. Hierome(h): Peter was of so great authority, that Paul writeth in his epistle, Then after three yeares I came to Hierusalem to see Peter. And againe(i): He went to see him to the end he might yeild honor vnto him. Theo∣doret(k): he went to yeild vnto Peter, as to the Prince of the Apo∣stles, that honor which was fitting. And shewing that S. Paul held Peter to be the supreme iudge to whom all doubts of fayth ought to be referred, he sayth(l): Paul the preacher of truth, and the trumpet of the holy Ghost, ranne to the great Peter, for a resolution of such doubts, as rising about the obseruation of the Law, did minister occasion of strife to them that were at Antioch. Oecu∣menius(m): He went to see him, as one greater then himselfe, and stayed with him, to honor him with his presence. S. Chryso∣stome(n): He went to see him aboue others, because he was the mouth, and Prince of the Apostles, and the Head of the whole compa∣ny. and againe(o): he went to him, as to one greater then himselfe, and that, not in a vulgar manner, but (as he obserueth out of the Greeke Verbe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) to behold and admire him, as a perso∣nage of great excellency, and maiesty, as men goe to behold, and ad∣mire great and famous Cities: for which cause, and to satisfy himselfe with a perfect view of his person, and behauiour, notwithstanding his great employments, he stayed 15. dayes with him. If therfore the generall accord of sacred expositors be of weight, this 1. place of S. Paul which you produce to disproue his subiection to S. Peter, is so farre from disprouing it, that it strongly proueth it, and his owne ac∣knowledgment therof.

Againe: 14. yeares after this time (sayth S. Paul) I went vp to Hierusalem, according to reuelation to conferre with them the Ghos∣pell which I preach among the Gentils. From this place you argue(q) that S. Paul held himselfe equall in authority with S. Peter: for S. Hierome (whom you alleage out of Salmeron) sayth, it is one thing to conferre, an other thing, to learne: for among them that conferre, there is equality. What equality? of iurisdi∣ction, and power? No: (for a subiect may conferre with his Superiour, a Collegiall with his Rector) but of Doctrine, and learning only; as S. Hierome there declareth, adding, that betweene him that teacheth, and him that learneth, he that lear∣neth

is the lesser; to wit, in knowledge. And therfore I grant that S. Paul went not to learne of S. Peter: he had learned his Ghospell by reuelation immediatly from Iesus Christ, the same Maister that taught S. Peter. Nor did he receaue from S. Peter, or the other Apostles power, or authority to preach: for that likewise he had immediatly from Christ: & in this sense he sayth(*): The Apostles added nothing to me. Neuer∣thelesse because he had not conuersed with Christ in mor∣tall flesh, nor learned his Doctrine from the other Apo∣stles, which had bene instructed by him before his death, lest the Gentils, to whom he preached, being incensed a∣gainst him by false Apostles, might haue any doubt of the truth of his Doctrine, or of his Commission to preach; for their satisfaction, and that his preaching might not be in vaine, and without profit to the hearers, he went to Hie∣rusalem, and conferred his Ghospell with the chiefe Apo∣stles, to the end that the Gentils might be certified of the truth of his Doctrine, knowing it to haue their approba∣tion, and to be the same, that they preached.

But you that borow your argument from Salmeron(r), why do you conceale what followeth in his Comment? If (sayth he) it was needfull for so great an Apostle of Christ, to con∣ferre his Ghospell with the Apostles, and Peter; how much more ne∣cessary was it, that Luther and Caluin should haue brought theirs, to be conferred with the See Apostolike? With what pillars of the Church did they conferre it, as Paul did? or with what Miracle did they proue it? they that could neuer persuade themselues so much, as to come to the See Apostolike, and Roman Church the mother of all Churches to conferre; nor to the Oecumenicall Councell (of Trent) that was gathered for their soules health sake, that was free, and open to them, that did courteously intreat them, and with a safe conduct inuite them to come. So Salmeron; whose words you thought best not to mention, both because they shew your Doctrine to be destitute of lawfull authority, and also because they refute the fabulous report which you(s) make out of Thuanus your historian, that, diuers Protestants came to the Councell, and desired of the Popes Legates liberty to dispute, but could not be ad∣mitted: for Samleron was present at the Councell, as one of

the Popes Diuines, who therfore knew what passed in the Councell better then Thuanus. And to Salmerons testi∣mony, I adde your owne confessions in the late Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of Scotland against the pretended Ge∣nerall assembly holden at Glascow(t) ; and in your Apology of the Church of England, which also expresseth the reasons why you refused to come, set downe in your owne words, and refelled by Doctor Harding, in his Confutation of the same Apology(u).

How far therfore you are from the Doctrine & exam∣ple of S. Paul in this point, not only Salmeron, but Vene∣rable Bede and S. Anselme(x) haue declared out of S. Au∣gustine, whose words both they and Salmeron set downe to this purpose. If the Apostle Paul himselfe (sayth S. Augu∣stine)(y) being called from Heauen, after the Ascension of our Lord, had not found the Apostles liuing, that by communicating and conferring his Ghospell with thew, he might shew himselfe to be of the same society, the Church would giue no credit at all vnto him. But when they knew that he preached the same Doctrine which they did, that he liued in communion and vnity with them, and did worke Mi∣racles as they did (our Lord therby commending him) he deserued so great authority, that his words at this day are heard in the Church, euen as if Christ were heard to speake in him, as he most truly said. With these Fathers accordeth S. Hierome(z) defining that, Paul had not had security of preaching the Ghospell, if it had not bene approued by Peters sentence, and the rest that were with him. So S. Hierome, whose testimony with the rest shew how beg∣garly a cause you haue, since those very Scriptures which you produce in defence therof, are so many verdicts a∣gainst you.

A third text of S. Paul(*) you set downe thus: I am no∣thing inferior vnto the Chiefe of the Apostles. But I cannot com∣mend your translation: for none but Peter is Chiefe of the Apostles, to whom therfore S. Paul compares not himselfe in the singular number, as you here, and els where (falsifiing his words make him to say) but to the Chiefe Apostles in the plurall number, and yet not that, in authority and iurisdi∣ction, (of which he speaketh not) but in the dignity of an

Apostle, in his great labors, in his Miracles, in his reuela∣tions, in his dangers and iourneys vndertaken for the prea∣ching of Christ, as the Context before and after sheweth, & S. Ambrose, Theodoret, S. Anselme, S. Thomas Aquinas and other expositors declare(a).

But you vrge the testimonies of Fathers.(b) vpon this text of S. Paul: And first that S. Ambrose saith(c), Paul was no lesse in dignity, then Peter. You falsity. S. Ambrose there compares not Paul with Peter in particular, but speaking of him and the rest in generall sayth, that, albeit he were called to the Apostleship after them all, yet in the dignity and function of an Apostle, in preaching and in working of miracles he was not inferior to them. And to shew how imposterously you bring this his testimony against S. Peters primacy, he addeth, that, Though Andrew followed our Sauiour, before Peter, yet Andrew receaued not the primacy, but Peter.

2. You obiect(d) S. Maximus, saying: Whether Paul or Peter is to be preferred, is vncertaine. Here againe you falsify. For, to insinuat that S. Maximus preferred Paul before Pe∣ter, you peruert the order of his words, placing Peter after Paul, which S. Maximus doth not, but contrarily Paul after Peter. Againe he compares them not in authority, but only in sanctity of life, and merits. Howbeit (sayth he) all the most blessed Apostles obtaine equall grace of sanctity in the sight of God, yet I know not how Peter and Paul by a peculiar prerogatiue of fayth in our Sauiour, surpasse the rest &c. But which of the two is to be pre∣ferred, is vncertaine, for I thinke them to be equall in merits, because they are equall in their death. You make no mention of merits to persuade your reader that S. Maximus compares them in authority, and so much the more you are to be blamed, because in that very place, he sayth, that, Paul hath the key of knowledge to preach and teach, but Peter the key of power; which is to say, that Paul excelled in knowledge, but Peter in au∣thority. And therfore els where he sayth;(e) Peter was of so great merit in the sight of our Lord, that after the rowing of a small boat, the gouerment of the whole Church was committed to him: and that(f) As Christ was a Rock, so be made Peter a Rock, and built his Church vpon him, and gaue him charge of feeding his sheep, and

lambes, which out of his mercy he had redeemed. Wherfore, as cer∣taine as it is, that S. Maximus held S. Paul to be a member of Christs Church, and one of the sheepe which he redee∣med: so certaine it is, that he held him subiect to S. Peter, as to his Head and Pastor.

3. You obiect(g) out of S. Chrysostome: Paul (that I say no more) was equall to Peter. You still falsify. S. Chryso∣stome sayth: Paul was equall to Peter in honor, to wit, of an Apo∣stle, for of that he speaketh: you leaue out, in honor, to inferre that he equaleth Paul with Peter in authority and iurisdi∣ction; which cannot be excused from imposture: for one thing it is to be equall with Peter in the honor of Apostle∣ship (in which all the Apostles were equall vnto him) and another, to be equall to him in authority, which none of the Apostles were. Among the most blessed Apostles (sayth S. Leo(h) in the likenesse of honor, there was difference of power: and though the election of them all were a like, yet it was granted to one, that be should surpasse the rest: from whence as from a patterne, hath proceeded the distinction of Bishops. The same is declared by S. Maximus(i), yea, and by S. Chrysostome himselfe, in this very place which you obiect, saying(k): Paul went to Peter, as to one greater, and elder then himselfe: And,(l) he went to see him, because he was the mouth, and Prince of the Apostles, and head of the whole company. These testimonies as they demonstrate Chrysostome to haue belieued that S. Peter surpassed Paul in authority; so they conuince you of imposture in putting on him the contrary.

4. You attribute(n) to S. Hierome(o) these words: The titles of these two Apostles are equall: they are Chiefes of the Church. But S. Hierome vpon that Psalme hath no such words, nor maketh any comparison between Peter and Paul, nor any mention at all of them.

5. You obiect(p) out of S. Basils epistles (but at ran∣dome naming none in particular) that, S. Peter and Paul are Pillars of the Church. And what of that? As among many great, one may be greater then another; so of two Pillars, one may be higher then another. By those 7. Pillars men∣tioned in the Prouerbes(q), some of the Expositors vnder∣stand

the 7. Sacraments, which yet are not all equall: for Baptisme exceedeth the rest in necessity, and the Eucharist in Excellency. Others vnderstand the Doctors of the Church, whom Daniel compareth to starres(r) which yet (witnesse S. Paul(s) are vnequall in their light. And here∣by is shewed the futility of your argument, that S. Paul held Iames and Iohn to be equall in iurisdiction with Peter, because speaking of them three, he cals them all, Pillars.

6. You obiect(t) out of Casaubon, that, Eucherius cal∣leth Peter and Paul, Two Princes of the Christians. But S. Hie∣rome(u) calleth all Bishops, Princes of the Church, and yet all Bishops are not equall in iurisdiction: for Bishops are sub∣iect to Archbishops, Archbishops to Patriarkes; Patriarkes to the Pope; and so was Paul, to Peter. But let Eutherius speake for himselfe: Christ (sayth he)(x) first committed to Pe∣ter his lambes, and then his sheep; because he made him not only a Pastor, but Pastor of Pastors. Peter therfore feedeth the Lambes. & the sheep: he feedeth the yong ones and the Dammes: he gouerneth the subiects and the Prelates, and is therfore Pastor of all: for besyde lam∣bes, and sheep, there is nothing in the Church. So Eucherius, shew∣ing how Casaubon and you abuse him: and that if Paul be a sheep of Christs flock, he is subiect to Peters pastotall au∣thority.

A fourth text of Scripture you obiect,(z) which are those words of S. Paul: They saw, that the Ghospell of the vncircumci∣sion was committed to me, as the Ghospell of the circumcision vnto Pe∣ter. Your glosse is, that the ordinary ministration of these two Apostles was distinct, Peter hauing for his Diocesse, the Iewes; and Paul the Gentiles, which was of infinit extent larger. But by the like argument you might inferre that S. Paul by calling Christ, The minister of Circumcision,(a) and himselfe, Doctor of the Gentiles,(b) signified that himselfe had a distinct ordinary ministration from Christ, & a Dioces of farre larger extent, then his. Wherfore this clause implyes not any diuision of the au∣thority of their ordinary Ministery; nor yet, that the Dio∣cesse of Peter was confined to the Iewes, or of Paul to the Gentiles; for both of them preached to Iewes & Gentiles. It cōtaines nothing els, but a speciall testimony of the bles∣sing

of God vpon S. Peter, to persuade the Iewes, and v∣pon S. Paul to persuade the Gentiles: and yet not so, but that all the other Apostles had likewise authority to preach vnto them both.

But you oppose(c), that S. Ambrose(d) from hence cellecteth two different Primacies, the one of Peter, and the other of Paul. S. Ambroses words are: As Paul receaued a primacy of founding Churches among the Gentiles; so Peter had the primacy of founding the Church; a dignity farre greater, then to preach and found Churches among the Gentils, and that implieth the sub∣iection of S. Paul, and all other Prelates of the Church vn∣to him.

2. You say:(e) Chrysostome argueth from these words of S. Paul, that both he and Peter had the same dignity: and, Oecumenius wisheth his reader to obserue, that Paul herein equalled himselfe to Peter. I answeare: The false Apostles excepted against S. Pauls Doctrine, and authority to preach, because he had not conuersed with Christ, nor bin trayned vp in his schole before his passion, as the other Apostles had; and by that meanes seduced some of the Galathians, as it appeares out of the first Chapter of his epistle to them. Wherfore in the second Chapter he certifies them, that he went to Hierusa∣lem, to conferre his Ghospell with the chiefe knowne A∣postles, and was receaued by them into their society, as being an Apostle no lesse then they were, and one that had learned his Doctrine by reuelation, and receaued his au∣thority to preach from the same mayster, that taught and authorized them. And herein only S. Chrysostome and Oecumenius say, that S. Paul is equall to the rest, & com∣pares himselfe to Peter the chiefest of them: for (sayth Oe∣cumenius)(f) though he speake this of Peter praedicationis causa, to authorize his owne Doctrine (with the Galathians) yet he respecteth and honoreth Peter farre aboue himselfe, that is to say, as, Head of the Apostles (for so he had called him a little before:) and,(g) As one, to whom the gouerment of the Disciples was committed, and that had power to command them all. And how cold S. Chrysostome meane any other thing, he that said;(h) Paul went to Peter as to one greater then himselfe; as to

the mouth and Prince of the Apostles, and Head of the whole company: that, in matters belonging to authority Paul giues the primacy to Pe∣ter(i): that Peter surpassed the rest of the Apostles in authority by many degrees:(k) that he was chiefe of the Apostles, & had the whole world subiect to him:(l) that, Christ deliuered to him the gouermēt of the Church throughout the whole world,(m) & the charge of fee∣ding those sheep, which he had redeemed with his bloud(n).

3. You obiect(o) S. Gregory, saying: Paul was made the Head of Nations, and obtayned the principality of the whole Church. S. Paul (I grant) obtayned the principality of the whole Church, as the rest of the Apostles did, because they were all Princes ouer the whole Church, as S. Hierome and others collect out of those words of the Psalme,(p) Thou shalt make them Princes ouer all the earth. And this is the principality which S. Chrysostome declared S. Paul to haue,(q) when he said; all preaching, the affayres of the world, all mysteries▪ and all dispensations were committed to him. But this argueth not that the Princedome and authority of S. Paul or the other Apostles was independant, and without sub∣ordination to S. Peter: for (as S. Hierome(r) obserueth) The Church hath Bishops insteed of the Apostles, and as their Suc∣cessors in their Episcopall authority; which therfore in that respect are Peers and Princes of the Church, yet not without due subordination: for all Bishops are subiect to the Pope: and so were Paul and the other Apostles to Peter. And this S. Gregory himselfe (to shew your imposture in obiecting him for the contrary) declareth saying:(s) Peter the Apostle is the chiefe member of the holy and vniuersall Church: Paul, Andrew, Iohn, what are they, but Heads of seuerall flocks?

Notes

• (d)

  Pag. 57.
• (e)

  1. Pet. 5.3.
• (f)

  Pag. 58. & seqq.
• (g)

  In eum lo∣cum.
• (h)

  Ep. 89. quae est 11. inter epist. August.
• (i)

  In c. 1. ad Gal.
• (k)

  In cap. 1. ad Gal.
• (l)

  In ep. ad Leon.
• (m)

  In cap. 1. ad Gal.
• (n)

  Hom. 87. in Ioan.
• (o)

  In c. 1. ad Gal.
• (q)

  Pag. 5••.
• (*)

  Gal. 2.6.
• (r)

  In Ep. ad Gal. Disput. ••2.
• (s)

  Pag. 404.
• (t)

  Pag. 13.
• (u)

  Part. ad Chap. 7. fol. 293. & seqq.
• (x)

  In cap. 2. ad Gal.
• (y)

  L. 28. con∣tra Paust. c. 4.
• (z)

  Epist. 89. quae est 10. inter epist. August.
• (*)

  2. Cor. 12.11.
• (a)

  In eum lo∣cum.
• (b)

  Pag. 60. fin.
• (c)

  In 1. Cor. c. 12.
• (d)

  Pag. 60. fin.
• (e)

  Hom. 3. in Nat. Apost. Pet. & Paul.
• (f)

  Hom. 1. de eisdem.
• (g)

  Pag. 60. fin.
• (h)

  Ep. 48;
• (i)

  Serm. vlt. de Apost. Pet. & Paul.
• (k)

  In ep. ad Gal. 1.18.
• (l)

  Hom. 87. Ioan.
• (n)

  Pag. 60. fin.
• (o)

  In Psal. 44.
• (p)

  Pag. 61. init.
• (q)

  Prou. 9.1.
• (r)

  Dan. 13.3▪
• (s)

  1. Cor. 15.42.
• (t)

  Pag. 61. init.
• (u)

  In Psal. 44.
• (x)

  In vigil. S. Pet.
• (z)

  Pag. 59.
• (a)

  Rom. 15.8.
• (b)

  1. Tim. 2.7
• (c)

  Pag. 59.
• (d)

  In Gal. 2••
• (e)

  Pag. 59.
• (f)

  In cap. 2, ad Gal.
• (g)

  Ad c. 1. Act.
• (h)

  In c. 2. ad Gal. & hom. 87, in Ioan.
• (i)

  Hom. 35. in c. 14.1. ad Cor.
• (k)

  L. 2. de Sa∣••ord.
• (l)

  Orat. 5. ad∣uers. Iudaeot.
• (m)

  Hom 80. ad Antioch.
• (n)

  L. 2. de Sa∣cord.
• (o)

  Pag. 61.
• (p)

  Psal. 44.17.
• (q)

  Hom. 18. in epist. ad Rom
• (r)

  In psal. 44.
• (s)

  L. 4. ep. 38.