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. Colvil, Samuel. 1673 Approx. 833 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 187 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A34033 Wing C5425 ESTC R5014 12633296 ocm 12633296 64826 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A34033) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 64826) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 348:13) 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. Colvil, Samuel. [64], 226, 92, [1] p. Printed by His Majesties printer for the author, Edinburgh : 1673. Dedication signed: Samuel Colvill. No more published. Errata on p. [1] at end. Reproduction of original in Edinburgh University Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Catholic Church -- Controversial literature. 2005-07 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2005-08 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-09 Jonathan Blaney Sampled and proofread 2005-09 Jonathan Blaney Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion THE GRAND IMPOSTOR DISCOVERED : OR , AN Historical DISPUTE of the Papacy and Popish Religion : 1. Demonstrating the newness of both ; 2. By what artifices they are maintained ? 3. The contradictions of the Roman Doctors in defending them : Divided in four Parts , 1. Of Bishops ; 2. Of Arch-bishops ; 3. Of an oecumenick Bishop ; 4. Of Antichrist . PART I. Divided in two Books ; In the first is examined , 1. if Peter by divine Institution was Monarch of the Church ? 2. If at the command of Christ he was Bishop of Rome ? In the second is examined , if the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged Successor to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church , before the death of Cyprim , or anno , 260 ? The Negatives of which three Questions are made out , by unanswerable monuments of Antiquity , and all what is pretended for their affirmatives , is proved to be either wrested , falsly translated , mutilated or forged . Cicero , lib. 2. de Orator . 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 audie●is quod te audisse dicis . Silus tacuit omnes riserunt . By S. C. Edinburgh , Printed by His Majesties Printers , for the Author , Anno Dom. 1673. TO HIS GRACE The DUKE of LAUDERDALE , Marquess of Marche , Earl of Lauderdail , Viscount Maitland , Lord Thirlestane , Musselburgh , and Bolton , Knight of the most Noble Order of the Garter , His Majesties High Commissioner , President of His Council , and Sole Secretary of State in His Kingdom of Scotland . May it please your Grace , THat the Christian Faith ( as it was taught by Christ and his Apostles , and confirmed by the four first General Councils ) is established by His Majesties authority ; all have reason to be thankful both to God , and to His Majesty . While we are contending for things of lesser moment at home , Religion is dangerously assaulted from abroad ; their artifices are subtile , their success is lamented . By what perswasions they endeavour to gain Proselyts ; and how they are refuted ? Your Grace will find affirmed in the Preface , and proved in the Disput following . The first part whereof I present to your Grace , it being difficult for me to publish it all at once . My Lord , some perhaps , as their motive of such an address as this , would fall a painting out the praises of your Grace , and your Ancestors in your Face ; as , that one or other of your Race , could be no more spared from the State in every age , then one of the Aeacides from the warrs of Greece : which although most true , yet I forbear , lest I should offer violence , vim facere , to your Graces Modesty , by unseasonable mentioning things which all know to be undenyable . Nevertheless , I hope your Grace will pardon me if I affirm , that it is a main encouragement of my troubling you , that your Grace is a Gentle-man of Spirit , versed in Antiquity , and able to discern if I perform any thing to the purpose , in this great subject , or process of greatest importance , that ever depended before the Tribunal of Heaven . My Lord , I have likewise privat obligations to your Grace . I had the honour to be your Condisciple , at which time it did not obscurely appear , what your Grace would prove afterwards ? Also having presented several Trifles to your Grace , at your two times being in Scotland , you seemed to accept of them , with a favourable countenance : which encouraged me to trouble your Grace afresh . A Spaniel , the more he is taken notice of , the more he troubles his Benefactors , with importunat kindness . Taking all for good coyn , whether they be in jest or in earnest . If I perform any thing in this great subject worthy of your Graces perusal , I would be infinitly proud of it : otherwise , the greatest censure I expect from your Grace , is , that either your Grace would smile at my folly , or else put me back with a gentle frown ; hoping your Grace , will pardon presumption , proceeding from simplicity and good-will . I will trouble your Grace no more , but being sorry , that I can give no greater evidence of my propension , to your Graces service , I rest as I am able , most addicted to it . Samuel Colvill . THE PREFACE , DIRECTED TO The Nobility , Gentry , and Burroughs of the Kingdom of Scotland . My Lords and Gentlemen , SInce I have contrived the following Discourse , chiefly for your use , ( not presuming to inform those of the Clergy , it being their Profession ; and therefore , having opportunity at will , to go to the woods to gather Strawberries themselves : whereas your Lordships leisure , by reason of your other weighty Employments , requires rather to have them presented in a dish ) Curiosity perhaps will move one or other of ●ou to peruse it : Which that you may do the more commodiously , it is requisite that your minds be prepared , by considering , 1. What the Subject is I present unto your protection ? 2. What I perform in it ? 3. What is my scope and intention ? 4. How I answer , as I can , to all which is objected against me ? I am not very eloquent , especially in the English Tongue ( not being much accustomed to read Books in that Language ) The Di●course for the most art , is dogmatick , and therefore Rhetorick is more hurtful th●n p●ofi●able : If I b● understood , it is sufficient , in representing shortly , what others have done prolixly ; perspicuously , what others have obscurely : And yet fully , that is , omitting nothing of moment which is pretended by either Party , in that grea● Controversie , of the S●premacy of the Bishop of Rome . And first for the Subject ; N●ne are ignorant , in what high estimation searching of Antiquity is amongst those , whose mindes are erected above the ordinar of men ? That religious enquiries of that kind , ought to be preferred to any others , who believe the immortality of the soul , none will deny . Among those again , that one Controversie of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , deservedly challengeth the first place : I presenting to your Lordships in it , the minute of a Process ( if not marred by me ) the most noble , the most profitable , and the most pleasant , which hath hitherto depended before the Tribunal of Heaven . That I affirm no Paradoxes , appears by what followeth . The Nobility of this question is celebrated by the Learned of both sides ; Est Nobilis inter primas Disputatio , the noblest of Disputes , saith Chamier : Est quaestio Prima , & familiam ducens , A prime and leading question , saith Salmasius : That is , upon it depends all the Controversies we have with the Church of Rome . Bellarmine goeth higher , calling it a debate de summa rei Christianae ; That is , Whether the Christian Religion can subsist or not ? For , in his opinion , Who calls in question the Supremacy of the B●shop of Rome , he questions the truth of the Christian Religion it self . By which expression of this Jesuit , appears the immense utility of that Controversie . If any want ability , if they have not leisure to wade thorow that profound Ocean of Antiquity , to be informed of the truth of that Article , added to the Creed by the Council at Trent , viz. That Communion with the Church of Rome in all her Tenets , is absolutely necessary to salvation : Let them study this one Controversie , of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , and it will resolve the question : for , if it be founded upon Scripture and Antiquity , without all question , Communion with the Church of Rome is necessar unto salvation , and the Religion of Protestants , is a new sprung up heresie ; since the Bishop of Rome , in Cathedra , ( and consequently in their opinion infallible ) pronounceth so . On the contrary , if the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome be a thing unknown to Scripture and Antiquity , it is as certain , that the Faith of the Modern Roman Church , is a new devised cheat and idolatry . That this followeth of necessity , appears by the confession of Bellarmine himself , in two expressions in the preface of those Books of his , de pontifice Romano : The first we now mentioned , in which he calls that Controversie of the Popes supremacy , a Deb●te de summa rei Christianae , That is , whether the Christian Religion can subsist or not ? By Christian Religion , no question , he means , the Faith of the modern Church of Rome ; and consequently he grants , that they who call in question the Popes supremacy , they question also , the whole body of the Popish Religion : And consequently still he must of necessity grant , that if the Popes supremacy be destitute of Scripture and Antiquity , the faith of the Modern Church of Rome falls with it , and proves a new devised fiction . His second expression is , in those similitudes he useth , to illustrat his assertion , viz. He compares Religion , without the Popes supremacy ( which in his opinion , is that of the Modern Church of Rome ) to a House without a Foundation , a Body without a Head , Moon-shine , without the Sun : And since it is notorious , that a house without a Foundation cannot stand , that a Body without a Head cannot live , that the Moon without light of the Sun , must be obscured ; He must of necessity grant , that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , being refuted by Scripture and Antiquity , the Faith and Religion of the Modern Church of Rome , is warrantable by neither ; and consequently , proves a new devised idolatrous cheat . Thirdly , it s a most pleasant contest ; what can be more pleasing , then to consider the causes of any prodigious Monster ? how i● subsists ? and how it is destroyed ? how any illustrious cheat is contrived ? how it is maintained ? and how it is discovered ? But such a Monster , such a Cheat as the Bishop of Rome , none free of prejudice can behold without admiration . The whole world sees a person , now ignorant , then flagitious , not seldome both , put by two or three Italians of the same mettal , in the Chair of Rome : which Preferment he obtains , sometimes by blood , sometimes by simonie , sometimes by unlawful stipulations , as to protect Heresie , and to oppress the Catholick Faith ; not seldome by a paction with the Devil ( all which wayes of obtaining the Chair of Rome , are confessed by Popish Writers , such as Platina and Baronius , as shall be proved in the following Dispute ) Which Homuncio is no sooner installed , then he is metamorphosed to be direct Monarch of the whole World , both in Spirituals and Temporals . And first for Temporals , it shall be proved in the following Dispute , that he assumes to himself in his Bulls , power of transferring Kingdoms at his pleasure , of stirring up Subjects to Armes against their natural Princes , under the pain of Excommunication . It shall be proved , that he makes Emperours and Kings lye prostrate till he trade upon their neck ; makes them stand bare-footed , with their Wives and Children , in frost and snow , dancing attendants at his Gates , and yet not not admitted entrance . It shall be proved , that he makes Laws , ( in that Book entituled , Sacred Ceremonies ) that Emperors and Kings should hold his Stirrup , hold water to his Hands , serve dishes at his Table , carry him on their shoulders : Yea it shall be proved , that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , That all Kings are not only the Popes Vassals , but which is more , he is not oblieged by any mutual ontract , to suffer them to possess their Kingdoms , but during his pleasure ; that is , he may lawfully depose them , although they miscarry not in the least : In which he doth t●em no wrong , because they hold their Kingdoms ●f him , not as Vassals , but as depositars ; as when any gives to another his Cloak to keep , when he re-demands it , he doth him no wrong . As for his power , which he assumes to himself in Spirituals , it cannot be repeated without horrour . It shall be proved in the following Dispute , that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , partly in the Canon Law , partly in the Bulls of Popes themselves , partly in Books printed by the Popes Authority , and affirmed by his V●sitors to contain nothing contrary to the Catholick Faith ; That the Pope has power to coyn Articles of Faith at his pleasure , oblieging the whole Church , under the pain of damnation , although he command vice , and forbid vertue . Secondly , although he should lead all the world to hell with him , yet none should presume to disobey him . Thirdly , that he gives pardon for sin for money ; and not only of sins by-past , but also of those to come : that is , for a little money , he will give you pardon for a little time ; but for a round sum , he will give you pardon so long as you please . Fourthly , it shall be proved , that for money , he permits men to sin ; that is , permits Clergy-men to keep Whoores : And if any keep not a Whoor , he makes them pay for it in some places of Italy nevertheless , because they have liberty to keep a Whoor , if they please . Cornelius Agrippa affirms , he heard such expressions as these following , in the Popes Court , Habeat aut non habeat Meretricem , Aureum solvat , quia habet si velit : That is , Whether a Priest keep a Whoor or not , let him pay the Tribute , since he may keep one if he please , for such a peece of money . Fifthly , he makes his decretal Epistles of equal authority with the Scripture . Lastly , as he intended a gigantomachy , he is called in the Canon Law , revised and authorised by Gregory , 13. Our Lord God the Pope . It is affirmed in the said Law , that he has power to make injustice justice , and contra that he has power to command the Angels to carry souls to Heaven at his pleasure ; that he has power to give liberty to men to place the departed Souls of their friends in paradise for money : that by vertue of his succession to Peter , he is assumed to the society of the individual Trinity ; he not only hears patiently , but also rewards flatterers , when their blasphemous Pamphlets prefer him to Christ ; as appears in Innocent 10. which passage shall be realated part 1. lib. 1. cap. 11 ▪ of this following Treatise . My Lords and Gentlemen , any would think these horrible passages incredible , but have patience till ye hear them proved , partly by the Canon Law , partly by the decretals of Popes , partly by Books authorized by the Popes authority , partly per res judicatas , or sentences passed in the Popes Court at Rome . Ignorants of antiquity , ( of which our adversaries bragg so much ) believe that the Bishop of Rome had such immense and unlimitated power , in all Ages , by reason of his succession to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church : What can be more pleasing , then to consider , from what small beginnings ? at what times ? upon what occasions ? by what steps ? by what artifices he mounted to such a prodigious hight ? and by what practises he maintains himself in it ? all which is to the life delineated , in this following Dispute , and proved by uncorrupted a●d unanswerable testimonies of the Ancients : In which also it will appear , that all what our adversary pretends from antiquity , to maintain the Popes Kingdom , is either sophistically preverted , falsly translated or cited , mutilated or forged . My Lords and Gentlemen , Whereas they make the Bishoprick of Peter the only basis and foundation of the Popes power , in the first place , ye will find , that the Monarchy of Peter was never dreamed of , by the Ancients of the first sixth Centuries . As for his particular Bishoprick of Rome , although some of the Fathers affirm he was Bishop of Rome , yet your Lordships will find it proved , that they call Paul Bishop of Rome in the same sense ; and consequently they take the word Bishop in a large sense , as it comprehends an Apostle , and not properly , for a Bishop tyed to any particular Congregation . That this is their meaning , will be proved by two invincible reasons ; the first is , because these same Fathers , in their Catalogues of the Bishops of Rome , do not reckon Peter in that number , making Linus the first Bishop of Rome , Cletus the second , Clement the third , &c. But if they had believed Peter was Bishop of Rome , they would have called him the first Bishop , Linus the second , Cletus the third , Clement the fourth , &c. The second reason is , That it shall be proved by the testimonies of those very men , who call Peter Bishop of Rome , That first Linus , and then Cletus , were Bishops of Rome during the Life of Peter : whereby it is evident , that Peter was never properly Bishop of Rome , but was called Bishop of Rome by those Fathers , because he founded the Church of Rome joyntly with Paul. In the next place , your Lordships will find it proved , albeit many of the Ancients unanimously affirmed , that Peter was at Rome , and founded the Church of Rome ; yet , they were deceived , or else the Scripture affirms falsly ; since it shall be proved by Scripture , that Peter was elsewhere in that time , in which they affirm he was at Rome : yea , it shall be proved by unanswerable reasons from Scripture , that Peter was never at Rome , and that all those Fathers who believe he was at Rome , were deceived by the testimony of one Papias , described by Eusebius to be a man of no spirit , the Author of many fabulous Traditions , and of the heresie of the Millenarii ; That is , of those maintaining , that Christ before the last day , shall reign a thousand years with his Saints . In the third place , your Lordships will find , that the Bishops of Rome , before the dayes of Cyprian , were poor , persecuted , pious Martyrs ; only two condemned by the whole ●hurch , strove to advance that mystery of iniquity ( which Paul affirmed was working in his own time ) viz. Victor usurping autho●ity over the Bishops of the East , anno , 195. and Stephanus over the Bishops of Africa and Spain , anno 250. or thereabouts Some Doctors of the Church of Rome , pretends several monuments of Antiquity , to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval : but they shall be proved forged , not only by unanswerable reasons , but also by the confessions of the most learned Doctors of the Church of Rome , yea of Popes themselves , such as Aeneas Silvius , or Pius 2. In th● fourth place , your Lordships will find the Bishops of Rome made rich , by the liberality of Constantine the Emperor and others ; which occasioned pride and luxury , the Parents of Antichrist . In the fifth place , your Lordships will find the conception of this Monster , growing as an Embrio by degrees in his Mothers belly ; the fi●st quarter a Bishop , the second a Metropolitan , the third a Pat●iarch , between the times of Cyprian , and anno , 604. In which interval , as the riches of the Bishop of Rome increased , so pride and corruptions of life grew up with them , and also some corruption in Doctrine : against which , not only Cyprian , Hieronymus , Sulpitius , Severus , Nezianzenus , Basilius Magnus , and other Christian Fathers exclaimed , but also Ammianus Marcellinus , in the opinion of Barron●us a Pagan . In that interval , Damasus mounted to the Chair of Rome by blood ; of which , the said Amm●anus Marcellinus speaking , after he had related the murthers that were committed , he concludes , It was not to be admired they aimed at the Chair of Rome by such practices , since having obtained it , they were enriched by the Gifts of Matrons and other wayes , equalling any King in their port of Table , Cloaths , Houshold-stuff , Attendance and Coatches , or Chariots . In that interval also , Vigilius Bishop of Rome ( as is related by Liberatus , and confessed by Barronius ) obtained the Chair of Rome by promising to the Empress Theodora , to abrogat the Council of Chalcedon , to establish the Eutichian heresie in the Church ( which he endeavoured to do , as appears by his Letters , when he was Bishop of Rome , written to several Courtiers , in which he approved that heresie ) And likewayes , by promising Gold to Belesarius , General to the Emperour Justinian , in Italy : By which practices of Vigilius , Silverius , a pious worthy Bishop of Rome , ( to make way for the said Vigilius ) was banished and murthered ; and yet the said Vigilius was a great ingeminator of tu es Petrus , and of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome . And yet Barronius is not ashamed , against all the Writers of that time , to praise this Monster as a Saint ; and yet ( which is admirable ) he confesseth the way of his entry to the Bishoprick of Rome , viz. by displacing a pious Bishop , he obtained the Chair by Simonie , and promising to abrogat the Council o● Chalcedon , and to establish the Eutichian heresie . And this much of the conception of this Monster . In the sixth place , ye have his birth under Phocas , who by an Edict , christened him universal Bishop : In which , three things are observable , 1 ▪ The God-father ; 2. The God-bairn Gift ; 3. The reasons wherefore it was given Phocas . The God-father was the Emperour Phocas , described by all Historians , to be a Monster for a man ; who being a Centurion , or Captain of a Foot-company , raised a mutiny in the Army against the good Emperour Mauritius , and obtained the Empire himself by murthering his Master , his Empress , his Children and his Friends , noted by Historians to have been a perfidious , perjured , luxurious , cruel Monster : and yet , he was the first Emperour who made the Bishop of Rome oecumenick or universal Bishop . And this much of the God-father of that Monster , which is all the Jus Divinum the Bishops of Rome have for their Monarchy in the Church . The next thing observable , is the God-bairn gift , or the title of Universal Bishop , conferred by Phocas upon Bonefacius third Bishop of Rome , in the beginning of the seventh Age , or about anno , 604. If your Lordships ask what sort of Title and Office it is ? Gregorius Magnus , Bishop of Rome ( who died not two years before Bonifacius 3d was Bishop of Rome , who was first made universal Bishop by Phocas ) And Pelagius second Bishop of Rome , ( to hom immediatly Gregorius Magnus succeeded ) will inform your Lordships , viz. That the Title , and Office of universal Bishop , were new ▪ not heard of before that time , Scelerate , Prophane , Sacrilegious , Blasphemous against the Mandates of Christ , Constitutions of the Apostles , Canons and Liberties of the Church . Who ever took upon him , that Office or Title , He contaminated those very times in which he lived , was that Man of Sin , sitting in the Temple of God , exalting himself above all that are called God ; ( So Pelagius , in an Epistle to a Council at Constantinople ) that he was like the Devil , exalting himself above the other Angels , and equalling himself to God ; ( So Gregorius ) which expressions , of Pelagius and Gregorius , and many others , ( too prolix to be inserted here ) are found word for word in their Epistles : Those Testimonies at length , ye will find in the second Book of the second Part , of this following Treatise . The third thing observeable by your Lordships is , the reasons wherefore the Emperour Phocas bestowed that Title of oecumenick Bishop upon Bonifacius third ? They are mentioned by Barronius , ad annum , 604. and others also , as Sabellicus and Platina , there is not one word of Tu es Petrus , or of the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter amongst them all ; They were all civil respects ; As first , because the Emperour had his Title from Rome , and since Rome was the old Imperial City , It was reason that the Bishop of Rome should have jurisdiction over all Bishops . This is the onely reason , mentioned in the Edict of Phocas ; Others add there reasons , One of which is this ; Mauritius the Emperour , murthered by Phocas , had bestowed the title of universal Bishop upon John , called Jejunator , Or the Faster Patriarch of Constantinople : Pelagius and Gregory Bishops of Rome , thunder both against the Title , and the Function , as we now mentioned , but to no purpose : John still possesseth both the Title and the Office. In both which , Cyriacus Patriarch of Constantinople succeeds , which Cyriacus , protected the Empress , and Children of Mauritius , against Phocas ; for which reason , Phocas takes both the Title and the Office from ●yriacus , and bestowed them upon Bonifacius third , Bish●p of Rome , his old friend , as is confessed by Barronius . Others add two other reasons , the first is this , Phocas having obtained the Empyre , by murthering his Master Mauritius , and all his race , domineered with such tyrrany , that he was abhorred of all : fearing a revolt in the West , to curry favour with Bonifacius third Bishop of Rome ( whose authority was very great in it ) he bestowed the title of universal Bishop upon him , that by his moyen , he might be established in his Empyre , and acknowledged by the Romans : The second reason related by some is , that the said Bonifacius , either gave , or did promise to give , to Phocas , a hudge mass of Money , and so bought the Office from him . However , whatever were the reasons which moved Phocas , it is most certain , that the Edict , or Gift of Phocas is the oldest Evident and Charter that the Bishop of Rome can produce , to instruct his Monarchy in the Church ; which will more clearly appear , by what followeth . Seventhly , your Lordships will find , that new born Monster , Christned universal Bishop , by the Edict of Phocas ; shunned every where , in the East , in Spain , in Britain , in Germany , in France , yea in Italy it self , under the walls of Rome , the whole Church , refusing to obey the Edict of Phocas , or to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome universal Bishop : One only Parasite excepted , the Bishop of Cyprus ; who saluted him by that name , out of envy to the Bishop of Constantinople : So that in the end , ( as it was recorded by some ) the Bishop of Rome for very shame , gave over that Title of universal Bishop . The posterior Emperoures also recalled that Edict of Phocas , as appears by the 36th . Canon of the sixth general Council , called Trullanum , convocated by Pogonatus , Emperour of Constantinople , anno , 680. By which 36th . Canon of the said Council , was confirmed the 28th . Canon of the Council of Chalcedon , celebrated anno , 450. By which , the Bishop of Constantinople , was made equal to the Bishop of Rome , in Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction . In the Eighth place , your Lordships will find , in the decay of the Grecian Empyre ( by the Inundations of barbarous Nations , all enemies to the Empyre , and each of them enemies to one another ) that the Bishops of Rome , in these vicissitudes , sided ever with the Conquerour , being also courted by them , to countenance them in the establishment of their new and unsettled conquests : By which practices , that Apocalyptick Monster , ( almost blasted in the Budd , and strangled in the Craddle ) revived again , not only re-assuming the Title of universal Bishop , bestowed on him by Phocas ; But also , soaring higher , taking upon him to excomunicate the Grecian Emperour , to stir up the Longobards , to bereave him of his possessions in Italy , To destroy the Exharchat of Ravenna , To bereave him of the Dutchy of Rome , which the Pope got to his own share : And when the Longobards demanded Tribute of him , for the said Dutchy of Rome , ( which the Bishops of Rome were acustomed to pay to the Grecian Emperours ) Then he called in the French , by whose means he destroyed the Kingdom of the Longobards ; and to requite the French Services , he made Pipin their General , King of France , ( shutting up the righteous King in a Monastery ) And also , in contempt of the Grecian Emperour , he made Carolus Magnus , ( Son of the said Pipin ) Emperour of the West : Since which time , the Empyre of the West has been divided from that of the East , until this day : That is , since the latter end , of the Eighth Age or Century . In the ninth place , your Lordships will find a strange Catastrophy : The Doctors of the Church of Rome brag much of the submissive obedience of Carolus Magnus to the power of the Bishop of Rome ; which in effect he seemed to do at first , untill he obtained his ends : but having accomplished his intentions , he made it appear to posterity , that both the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome , was a Sword in a mad mans hand : he curbed him so , both in spirituals and temporals , that he left him no more , but the bare Title of universal Bishop , but as to the power of it , he made him a meer cypher , as appears by what follows . The History is very pleasant , but much depraved by the Popish Authors ▪ such as Barronius and others : but if your Lordships will believe those Historians , ( who liv●d in the time of Carolus Magnus , or the times next following , who questionless are better to be believed then Barronius , or any other late Popish Writer , known to be abominable depravers of Antiquity by unanswerable Arguments , as shall be proved in the following Treatise ) The story is this , and two-fold ; In the first is related , what little respect Carolus Magnus had to the spiritual authority of the Bishop of Rome , and is this : The quarrel of the Bishop of Rome against the Grecian Emperor of Constantinople , was for Images , or Image-worship : Two Emperours of Constantinople , Leo , Isaurus and Copronymus his son , had procured Image-worship to be declared Idolatry , in the seventh general Council of Constantinople , anno , 760 , consisting of 338 Bishops . Stephanus Bishop of Rome procures of Irene ( Daughter-in-law to Copronymus , Widow of Leo 4. his Son , and Queen-regent of the Eastern Empire , during the minority of her Son Constantinus 7th . ) the second Council of Neice , which Council declared the 7th , general Council of Constantinople heretical , and established Image-worship ; which Decree of the second Council of Neice , was confirmed and renewed by several Provincial Councils in Italy , under several Bishops of Rome . Carolus Magnus calls a Council at Franckford , anno , 794. in which were present most of the Bishops of the West , in number 300. at which Council were also present the Legats of Hadrianus primus Bishop of Rome , to solicite the Council to establish Image-worship , to condemn the 7th . general Council of Constantinople , as heretical ; to confirm the 2d . Council of Neice as Orthodox , and likewayes those Provincial Councils of Italy , which had established Image-worship . The Council of Franckford ( in which Carolus Magnus presided ) was so far from obeying the commands of Hadrianus Bishop of Rome , that on the contrary it confirmed the 7th . general Council of Constantinople as Orthodox , condemned the 2d . Council of Neice , three or four Provincial Councils in Italy , and three or four Bishops of Rome ( and amongst them , Hadrianus primus himself ) as impious , heretical Idolaters , because they established Image-worship . And after the Council was dissolved , a Book was written at the command of Carolus Magnus , ( which Book is yet preserved in several Bibliothecks ) in which at length was declared , by what sophistry , perverting of Scripture , Image-worship was established by the said 2d . Council of Nice , and those other Provincial Councils of Italy . Here your Lordships may observe , what regard Carolus Magnus had to the spiritual Authority of the Bishop of Rome , who exauctorated the Emperors of Constantinople , for procuring Image-worship to be declared Idolatry , and renting from them the Empire of the West , conferred it upon the said Carolus Magnus : and yet , the said Carolus Magnus , in a Council at Franckford , procures the said Emperor in the East to be declared Orthodox , in abolishing Image worship , and condemns those very Bishops of Rome , as hereticks , who had deposed the Emperours of Constantinople , for that reason ; and who , for that reason , had given unto himself the Empyre of the West : whereby it appears , that although he seemed plyable to the Bishop of Romes jurisdiction , to obtain his own ends , yet having obtained them , he cared not much for him . If Carolus Magnus acknowledged not the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome in spirituals , he regarded his temporal jurisdiction far less . We told before , that the reason wherefore the Bishop of Rome called in the French against the Lombards , was , b●cause they demanded Tribute of him , for the Territories about Rome ; their Title was conquest , they had conquered these Lands from the Grecian Emperors : And since the Bishop of Rome was ever accustomed to pay Tribute for those Lands unto the Grecian Emperor , it was reasonable , that themselves having conquered the Lands , should also have the Tribute . Whereupon the Bishop of Rome calls in the French to Italy , to assist him against the Lombards : And first , Carolus Martellus leads an Army into Italy , in favour of the Bishop of Rome ; next , his Son Pipin ( whom the Bishop of Rome made King of France ) Lastly , Carolus Magnus the Son of Pipin , and Emperour of the West , utterly eradicats the Kingdom of the Lombards : and when he had done , in a Council at Rome , it is decreed first , That no Bishop ( not the Bishop of Rome himself ) should be installed without investiture from the Emperor by Staff and Ring , and likewayes homage more majorum , which ( as Salvianus interprets ) was , kissing of the Emperors foot . 2. That the Emperor and his Successors , should have the presentation of the Bishop of Rome , and his Successors ; that is , should have the nomination and election of the Bishops of Rome . 3. The Bishop of Rome , as we said , called in the French against the Lombards , because the said Lombards required Tribute of him for the Roman Territories : Carolus Magnus having destroyed the Lombards , makes the Bishop of Rome pay the same Tribute , pretending the same reasons which the Lombards did , viz. becaus● the Bishops of Rome were accustomed to pay that Tribute to the Grecian Emperors , to whom he had succeeded in the Dominion of the West . And thus it appears , what little regard Carolus Magnus had to the authority of the Bishop of Rome , either spiritual or temporal ? The first appears , the Bishop of Rome had exauctorated the Grecian Emperors , for being enemies to Image-worship ; and for that reason , gave to Carolus Magnus the Empyre of the West , ( at least as much as in him lay ) Carolus Magnus takes the Empire , but in the mean time , in the Council of Franckford , he procures those very Bishops of Rome , who had bestowed upon himself the Empire , to be declared Idolaters and Hereticks , for establishing Image-worship ; and consequently , for deposing the Grecian Emperors , because they were against Images , and for giving to himself their Empire in the West for that reason . The second appears thus , the Bishop of Rome calls in the French against the Lombards , because they demanded Tribute of him , for the Territories about Rome : Carolus Magnus destroyes the Lombards , and when he had done , makes the Bishop of Rome pay the same Tribute to himself and hi● Successors ; and not so content , ordains they should do him homage , more majorum ; That is ( according to Salvianus ) by kissing of of his foot . Tenthly , your Lordships will find this Monster still so bridled , untill the decay of the posterity of Carolus Magnus ; and then the Empire was translated to the Germans , the Kingdom of France to the Family of Hugh Capet . Otho primus Emperour , son of Henricus Auceps , the first German Emperour , renewed that power of the Emperour , his nomination and election of the Bishop of Rome , which the former Bishops of Rome had taken from the Emperours , during the decay and slouth of the posterity of Carolus Magnus : but a little after that , the mystery of Iniquity working , foretold by Paul , 2 Thess . 2. the Bishops of Rome , by the counsel of one Hildebrand , afterwards Pope Gregory seventh , ordained the Colledge of Cardinals for election of the Pope ; which manner of election was utterly unknown to the Ancients , the first Pope who ordained this Colledge of Cardinals was Nicolaus 2d . who lived anno , 1060. which manner of Election continueth unto this day . The said Hildebrand , becoming afterwards Pope , took upon him to depose Emperors : Anno , 1074. he deposed Henry 4th . Emperour , and gave the Empire to Rodolphus , because Henry would not renunce the investiture of Bishops ; this Hildebrand raised many broils and troubles , and was believed by many learned men of the Church of Rome ( who lived about that time ) to be Antichrist ; his Successors especially , after the times of the Jesuits , still augmented that Doctrine , of deposing Kings by the Pope : and it is now defended , not only in Books printed by the Popes Authority , and by all the Canonists , but also assumed by Popes unto themselves in their Bulls , as appears by those Bulls of Gregory 7th . against Henry 4th . Emperor ; of Alexander 3d. against Frederick the Emperor ; of Boniface 8th . against Philip King of France ; of Julius second against Lewis twelfth King of France , and against the King of Navarre ; of Paul third against Henry 8th . King of England ; of Pius 4th . against Queen Elizabeth ; of Sixtus 5th . against Henry 3d. and 4th . Kings of France . When Phocas by Edict , made Bonifacius 3d. Bishop of Rome , universal Bishop ; the thing he gave him was little better then a bare Title . We have shewed two steps , by which the Bishops of Rome advanced ; the first is , his freeing himself from the election of the Emperor ; the second , his assuming to himself power of deposing Kings and Emperors : the third step after Phocas , was assuming to himself authority of convocating General Councils , of presiding in them , of confirming and infirming them . We do not read , that any Pope assumed that power to himself , the first nine hundered years after Christ : It is evident , by History , that during the time of the first eight general Councils , the Bishops of Rome had no such power , since it appears , they were all convocated by the Emperor , that others beside the Bishop of Rome presided in many of them , and the Emperor confirmed them all . What Pope first assumed to himself that power , we find not expresly before the time of Innocent 3d. in the Council of Lateran , anno , 1210. since which time , the succeeding Popes constantly took upon them to convocat general Councils , to preside in them , and to confirm them . The fourth step of the Bishop of Rome , after Phocas , is his ▪ Infallibity ; which was first conferred upon him , by the Council of Florence , anno , 1439. and afterward confirmed and taught by the Jesuites , and Canonists , it being held as ane article of Faith , in the Church of Rome , that the Pope in Cathedra , or teaching the whole Church , cannot err : yea , some of them maintain , ( as Albertus Pighius and others ) that the Pope cannot be an heretick , which Bellarmine calls a pious opinion : but your Lordships will find it proved , part third , lib. 2. that innumerable Popes , have not only been hereticks , and so declared by other Popes , and general Councils , but also , that they have taught heresie , and have been condemned by general Councils , for teaching heresie , as Pope Honorius was condemned by three successive general Councils , the sixth , seventh , and eight , and of late Pope Engenius by the Councills of Basill : By whence it appears , that this Doctrine of the Popes infallibility , is not only heresie , but madness , fighting against common sense , reason , and the light of all History . Any would think , that the Bishop of Rome could mount no higher , since already , he is Monarch of the whole World , both in Sprituals and Temporals . We have seen him hitherto , taking upon him power of deposing Kings , and Emperours , of transferring Kingdomes at his pleasure , of coyning Articles of Faith ( under the notion of infallibility ) oblieging the whole Church : yet in the last place , your Lordships will find him in the fourth part of this Disput , sitting in the temple of God , adorned with all the marks of Antichrist , intending a gigantomachy , as if the intended to pull God out of the Heavens , taking upon him , not only to equal his decretal Epistles to holy Scripture , but also to prefer them unto it ; in several of them , decerning against the Law of God , openly avowing , he has power so to do ; injoyning it , to the whole Church to be believed , under pain of heresie , that he hath such power . Your Lordships will find , that in the Canon Law , he is called Dominus Deus noster Papa , our Lord God the Pope : that he takes upon him , not only to pardon sins for money , both by-past , and to come , but also for a peice of money , to suffer the Clergy to wallow in whoredome ; albeit against all pure Antiquity , he expresly inhibits them marriage . Your Lordships will find it proved , that in the said Canon Law , he affirms himself , by reason of his succession to Peter , to be assumed , to the society of the individual Trinity ; that for money , he will command the Angels to take souls out of purgatory , and place them straight in Paradise : And in a word , your Lordships will find him , that man of sin described by the Apostle , sitting in the Temple of God , exalting himself above all that are called God , caling himself God , teaching the doctrine of devils , forbidding meats , forbidding marriage , making the Kings of the earth drunk with his abominations , corrupting all the Articles of the Christian Faith , taking from them , adding to them at his pleasure : and as he groweth in power , depravation of Religion encreaseth with it , following the increments of his authority , as the motion of the Sea , depends upon the Moon . In purer Antiquity , when there was no evidence of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome at all , there was no corruption in Doctrine , Religion was unspotted : but when the Bishop of Rome , enriched by the liberality of the Emperours , became proud , and aimed to usurp over the Church , corruption in Doctrine encreased apace , with their increments of power . Consult History , and your Lordships will find , at every step of the Popes advancement in power , a depravation in Doctrine accompanying it : your Lordships will likewayes find it proved , part fourth , lib. 2. that the Doctrine of the modern Church of Rome , is nothing else but a masse of depravations , corruptions , heresies , brought in by Bishops of Rome , as they advanced in authority , the Doctrine of the first six Centuries being quite extinct . Notwithstanding all the braggings of our adversaries , of their Antiquity , your Lordships will find , in the first six hundred years after Christ , that the Doctrine now professed by the modern Church of Rome , was altogether unknown , and had not a beeing ; or if any of their modern Tenets were mentioned by the Writers in those times , it was with detestation , under the notion of Heresie , and opposed by the whole Church . If your Lordships think this incredible , ye will find it proved , part 4. lib. 2. Of this treatise , by an induction of all those Tenets , which the Church of Rome hold contrary to the Doctrine of the reformed Churches . My Lords and Gentlemen , In the last place , you will find it proved , by what practices the Bishop of Rome maintains himself in that prodigious greatness , and his Doctrine ? None can but admire how he hath been so long undiscovered ? and how so many learned and pious men , brave spirits , can be so bewitched yet , as to believe , that communion with him , is necessary unto salvation ; and that all who acknowledge not his power and Doctrine , ought to be condemned as Hereticks . But their admiration may cease , since the Spirit of God affirms , that the Kings of the earth shall be drunk with his abominations ; that is , shall be void of all spiritual understanding , that the glory of God may be manifested in his impervestigable wayes , till at last , that wicked one be consumed by the breath of his mouth , that is , by the sincere preaching of the Gospel . The cup of iniquity of that Monster , was not yet full , untill he began so far to forget himself , as to prefer himself to God , and make publick sale of forgiveness of sins for money ; that is , by giving pardons unto men , not only for sins by-past , but also to be committed afterwards , giving to this Courtier , the money obtained for the pardon of sins obtained in one Countrey , to that of another . It is reported of Alexander the sixth , that when it was told him , that his Son Caesar Burgia had lost a hudge sum of money at Dice ; he answered , that his Son had lost nothing but the sins of the Germans ; that is , the money which he had got for the sale of pardons in that Nation . When his impiety came to such a height , he was at last discovered by Luther , a poor Frier ; since which time , they have left no sort of cruelty and impostures unattempted , to preserve their Power and their Doctrine . And first for their cruelty towards those who opposed them , death without torture was thought a clemency ; the ordinar punishment of such was , burning alive ; and if they were so numerous , that it could not be conveniently done , they trained them into snares , by perfidious Treaties , cutting their throats when they were asleep , without regard to the publick Faith given them ; as appears by the horrible massacre at Paris , and other places of France : and albeit popish Writers , in those times , detested that perfidious cruelty ; yet the Pope himself , who was the Author , and contriver of it , made Processions of joy , and Bone-●ires at Rome , for the success of it . As for their impostures , by which they maintain their Power and Doctrine , they are so many , that they are scarce numerable : the main are preferring the corrupt Latine version of the Scripture , to the Greek and Hebrew Fountains , held authentick by the Primitive Church , and the Church of Rome it self . Secondly , by adding Books to the Canon of the Scripture , against all the current of Antiquity , to authorize some of their idolatrous Tenets . 3. They make the Pope the infallible Interpreter of Scripture , albeit perhaps he had never read one syllable in it , or at least understood nothing in it ; as appears of late , by that passage of Innocent 10th . ( related by Sanct Amour , in his Journal ) who being pressed to determine a Controversie in Religion , between the Jansenists and Molinists , answered , he was an old man , and had never studied Divinity , neither did it belong to his profession . 4. They have corrupted all the Writings of the Ancients , adding to them , taking from them at their pleasure ; as appears by the Edition of the Fathers , set forth by Manutius at the Popes command , against all the Manuscript Copies , and old printed Copies , before anno , 1564. neither are they ashamed of it , avowing it in their indices expurgatorii : and not content with corrupting of Antiquity , they also forge , not only particular testimonies of Fathers , but also whole Treatices . Aeneas Silvius , who was afterwards Pope himself , under the name of Pius 2d . confessed ingenuously , that no regard was held to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , before the Council of Nice , or anno , 325. and yet they produce six and thirty decretal Epistles of Popes , as so many Knights of the Post , to bear false witness for it in that interval , acknowledged to be forged , by Cusanus , Contius , and other great Antiquaries of the Church of Rome , neither are they much regarded by Bellarmine and Barronius themselves . Again , the most ingenuous Doctors of the Romish Church , and their greatest Antiquaries confess , that nothing can be gathered from the Council of Nice , for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ; Yea , all Antiquity acknowledged only twenty Canons of the said Council of Nice : Yet the Jesuits of late , have found out two Arabick Editions , in which , fifty Canons are added to those twenty : so palpably forged , that he is blind , who doth not see it . Yea , they are acknowledged for such , by the most learned men of the Church of Rome . The main scope of those forged Cannons , is to prove several principal Tenets , of the Popish Religion , especially the Popes Supremacy , That they are forged , shall be proved , part 2. lib. 1. Lastly , the Bishops of Rome maintain their authority , and Doctrine , by false miracles , Saints and Revelations ; but mainly by those two damned cheats , implicit faith and infallibility ; that is , they make their disciples believe that all is Gospel , what the Pope affirmeth in Cathedra , and that he cannot erre teaching the whole Church : wh●ch is the main cheat by which they lead innumerable souls to destruction . My Lords and Gentlemen , This much of the nobility , utility and jucundity of the Subject which I present unto your protection ; in which , I have shortly shadowed forth the steps of the Bishop of Rome , to his present greatness , and by what artifices he maintains him●elf in it ? The second thing I desired your Lordships to observe , is the method I use in the discovery of this ●rand Impostor . I am informed , some tax me of presumption , for medling with such a Subject , after the Labours of so many Learned men , to whose diligence , nothing could be added . But I answer , as it were ill manners in me to tax those brave men that went before me in this Sub●ect , of omission or slackness ; So I am confident , none will blame me with any shew of reason , except first he consider what I say . It is true indeed , many have written before me , but it is as true , that some of them have written too dogmatically , some too historically ; both which wayes are lost labour in this Subject , in which all the probations are testimonies : but that they can be understood without the k●owledge of History , no man can perswade me , though never so learned , On the other hand , History without Disputation , may delight the ear , as any other empty fl●sh of Rhetorick , but it will never satisfie the mind ruled by reason . I strive to relate th● Histo●y of the Papacy and Popish Religion , fighting with Disputation at every step : neither make I use further of History , then to illustrat the Dispute , which is my chief aim . I resemble most , the way of Du Plesis , whether I be a plagiarian from him , let the Reader judge ; and also , whether my method be the same wi●h his . He was a brave man , and a great Ornament to the Protestant Religion ; but he hath many concise thetorications , to understand which , much knowledge of Antiquity is requisite ; otherwayes , these passages of his are so many aenigmata to beginners of the study of Antiquity , whose utility I principally aim at in this Work , that sailing about the doors in this little Barge , they may learn by degrees to sail in the great Ships of others , throughout the immense Ocean of Antiquity . The method I use , is this following ; if any in reason shall not think it fit , after reasonable instruction of my error , I shall make a recantation . My Lords , The whole Treatise is taken up in the examination of these three Questions ; the first is , If Peter was ordained by our Saviour Monarch of the Church , or visible Head of the Church under Himself ? The second is , If at the command of Christ , he took the charge of the Bishoprick of Rome ? The third is . If by divine Institution , the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church ? And whereas our adversaries of the Church of Rome , endeavour to prove the affirmatives of these three questions by Antiquity , that is , testimonies of Councils and Fathers ; my scope is , to disprove the said three affirmatives in the same manner , and to prove , that all what they pretend from Antiquity , is either wrested , perverted , mutilated , falsly translated from the Originals , or forged down-right . The whole Treatise is divided in four Parts ; the first Part is entituled , of Bishops , and contains the Hierarchy of the Church , unto the death of Cyprian , which was after the middle of the third Age : In which interval , I endeavour to prove , there was no ordinar Office in the Church , above that of a Bishop ; and that the Bishop of Rome was in no more Authority then any other Bishop albeit he was first Bishop in dignity , because Bishop of the old Imperial City . This first part is divided in two Books , in the first is disputed the Monarchy of Peter , by his institution , prerogatives and carriage , and testimonies of Fathers , unto cap. 22. In the rest of that Book is disputed , if ever Peter was at Rome ? and if he were , if he was Bishop of Rome ? In the second Book , is disputed , if the Bishop of Rome was adcnowledged , as successor to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church , before the death of Cyprian ? In which Book , I insist most upon these following particulars ; First , I relate the opinion of Aerius and his followers , concerning the Original Progresse , and universal establishment of Episcopacy ; wherein a Bishop differs from a Presbyter ? and for what reasons Episcopacy was brought into the Church ? 2. I prove by the testimonies of Ignatius , Dionysius , and Cyprian himself , that there was no Office in the Church , in that interval , above that of a Bishop . 3. I answer several testimonies , pretended by those of the Church of Rome , to prove the Popes Supremacy in that interval , from Actions of Popes , Appellations to them , and from testimonies of Greek and Latine Fathers . 4. I examine several Forgeries and Corruptions of the Fathers , made use of by some Roman Doctors , to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that Interval . The second Part is intituled , of Arch-bishops ; in which I disput the Hierarchy of the Church , from the death of Cyprian , unto the beginning of the seventh Century , or to anno , 604. at which time , the Emperor Phocas took the title of universal Bishop from Cyriacus , Patriarch of Constantinople , and bestowed it upon Bonifacius third , Bishop of Rome ; which is an interval of 344. years . It is divided in two Books , the first , intitulated , of Metrapolitans ; In which I disput , the Hierarchy of the Church , from Cyprian , anno , 260. unto the Council of Chalcedon , anno , 453. all which time , no Office was in the Church , above that of a Metrapolitan : insisting most upon these following particulars , first , of the original , progresse , and universal establishment of Metrapolitans ; wherein a Metrapolitan differ from another Bishop ? For what reason , Metrapolians were brought into the Church ? What place the Bishop of Rome had , amongst Metrapolitans ? where I prove , by unanswerable testimonies of Antiquity , that other Metrapolitans were of alike Jurisdiction with him , and that he was only , first Metrapolitan in dignity , for the same reason that he was first Bishop in the interval of Bishops , viz. because he was Bishop in the Chief Imperial City . 2. Traceing the lives of the Bishops of Rome , in that interval , I disput pro , and contra , the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it , by their actions , usurpations , add●esses made to them , and Acts of general , and particular Councils , celebrated in each of their times . 3. I examine the opinions of Greek and Latine Fathers , who lived in that interval , concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it . 4. I examine some notable forgeries , pretended by those of the Church of Rome , to prove the Pops supremacy in that interval . The second Book is entituled , of Patriarchs , containing the Hierarchy of the Church , from the Council of Chalcedon , anno , 453. to Phocas and Bonifacius , anno , 604. In which Interval , Patriarchs obtained the chief place of the Hierarchy ; insisting also upon those five particulars ; 1. Of the original , progresse , and universal establishment of Patriarchs , wherein a Patriarch differs from a Metrapolitan ? for what reasons Patriarchs were broug●t in the Church ? what place the Bishop of Rome had amongst Patriarchs ? viz. all Patriarchs were alike to him in Jurisdiction : Yet he was the first Patriarch in dignity , for the same reason that he was first Bishop in the Interval of Bishops , and first Metrapolitan in the Interval of Metrapolitans , that is for civil respects ( and not by reason of succession to Peter in the Monarchy of the Chu●ch ; ) because Rome was the old imperial City , of which he was Patriarch . 2. Traceing the lives of the Bishops of Rome , of that interval , I disput their Supremacy from their Actions , Usurpations , Addresses made to them , from general and particular Councils , celebrated in their time . 3. I examine the opinions of Greek and Latine Fathers , who lived in that Interval , concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in it . 4. I examine those Forgeries , pretended by those of the Church of Rome , to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that Interval . 5. I minut that notable controversie , betwixt the Bishops of Rome and ●onst●ntinople for the Primacy : showing what was the occasion of that contest ? for what Primacy they strove ? by what reason they pleaded ? and who carried it in the end ? viz. John ( called Jejunator , or the Faster ) Patriarch of Constantinople , who first of all was stiled oecumenick B●shop , anno , 580. which was continued in his successors to anno , 604. at which time , Phocas ( before whom Bonifacius third Bishop of Rome renewed the Processe , knowing that Phocas the Emperor , carried no good will to Cyriacus , Patriarch of Constantinople ; he struck the Iron while it was hot ) after much contention , pronounced in his favour . The third Part , entituled , of an oecumenick Bishop , contains the History of that interval , between anno , 600. and the Council of Trent . It is divided in two Books , in the first , I insist most on those following particulars , 1. What power was conferred by Phocas , with that title of universal Bishop , upon Bonifacus third Bishop of Rome ? 2. How the edict of Phocas was ob●yed ? viz. resisted every where , till in the end it was recalled by Pogonatus , anno , 680. in the sixth general Council , as was shewed before . 3. How during the vicissitudes of inundations of Barbarians , the Bishop of Rome re-assumed that title of un●versal Bishop , and usurped power in temporals over the Grecian Empero●s , as was already declared . 4. How Carolus Magnus curbed him . 5. How , when the posterity of Carolus Magnus decayed , he renewed and augmented his power by five steps , as we shewed before also . In the second Book , those steps or increments of the Papacy , between anno , 600. and the ●C●ncel of Trent , are dogmatically disputed , by Scripture , Fathers , and it is proved , by testimonies of the most learned Antiquaries of the Church of Rome , that the oldest of those steps , was not before anno , 1000. It is true indeed , that his power in temporals , was attempted first by Constantine Bishop of Rome , against Philippicus Emperour of Constantinople , anno , 720. because the said Philippicus caused pull down those Images of the Fathers of the sixth general Council , placed in the Church of St. Sophia , at Constantinople : and a little after , Gregory 2d . and 3d. Bishops of Rome , excommunicated Leo Isaurus , and his son Copronymus , for the same quarrel of Images ; but their insolence was compes●ed by Carolus Magnus , as we shewed before . Those four steps are , 1. Election by Cardinals . 2. Power of convocating general Councils , constantly pre●iding in them , of confirming and infirming them , 3. Power in temporals , 4. In fallibility : as for the last step Divinity , it is disputed in the fourth Part , lib. 2. The fourth and last Part of this Treatise , ( entituled , of Antichrist ) is divided in two Books ; in the first , the demonstrations of Sanderus , Bellarmine , and Lessius , ( three Jesuits ) are answered , by which they endeavour to prove , that the Bishop of Rome is not Antichrist . 2. The Bishop of Rome is proved to be Antichrist by Scripture , Fathers , Popish Doctors , yea , by the testimonies of some Popes themselves . In the second Book , two marks of Antichrist are chiefly insisted upon , the first is , his defection , 2 Thess . 2. where it is proved , that the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome is that defection ▪ mentioned by the Apostle , and that in the first six Centuries there was no such thing , as the modern Popish Religion ; which is proved , by an induction of all the contraverted points we have with the Church of Rome . 2. Because those of the Church of Rome ordinarily object , that they have not made a defection , because it cannot be instructed at what time it was made ? by whom ? and who resisted it ? Two things are proved in the said Book ; first , it is proved by Reason , Experience , Scripture , Fathers , that a defection may be made , and yet it may be unknown by whom it is made ? at what time ? and who first resisted it ? 2. It is proved by an induction , that most of the most substantial Tenets of the Church of Rome ( such as transubstantiation , number of the Sacraments , communion under one kind , sacrifice of the Mass , imperfection of the Scripture , equalling of traditions to it , adding a Apocrypha Books to it , rejecting the Greek and Hebrew as not being authentick , as making the corrupt vulgar Latine version authentick , free-will Merits , justification by Works , caelibat of Priests , worshiping of Images , invocation of Saints , set Fasts , Prayer for the dead , Purgatory , Indulgences , works of super-erogation , all the steps of the Popes Supremacy , &c. ) were not only not from the beginning , but also it is proved for the most part ( by testimonies of Popish Doctors themselves ) at what time ? and by whom ? the said Tenets , as innovations , were brought in the Church . The second mark of Antichrist we insist upon is , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , all sort of deceiving and fraud , 2 Thes . 2. where it is shewed , by what cheats the authority of the Bishop of Rome and his Doctrine are maintained ; such as perverting , falsly translating and corrupting ( by adding and paring of the indices expurgatorii ) all the Writings of the Ancients , Suppositions , Revelations , Saints , Miracles , &c. My Lords and Gentlemen , Thus I have represented unto you , what I perform in this great Subject , and what method I observe in it : By which it will appear to any reasonable man , what difference there is between this method , and that of others , if I perform what I promise ; of which , let the judicious Reader be judge . Now followeth the third thing , which I desired your Lordships to take to consideration , viz. what my scope and intention is ? which is twofold , the first is , to refute those marks , 〈◊〉 which those of the Church of Rome endeavour to perswade their Disciples , that the said Church of Rome is the true ●hurch . The first mark is , a continual succession of Bishops ; which they take great pains to enumerat , from the dayes of the Apostles , unto this time : In which mark shall be proved a four-fold cheat ; The first is , they make the world be●ieve , that all those Bishops were of a like greatness in Power and Authority ; whereas it is proved , that in the first three Centuries , or at least before the dayes of Cyp●ian , that every Bishop was of equal authority with the Bishop of Rome : And that between the times of Cyprian , and the Council of Chalcedon , every Metropolitan , and from the Council of Chalcedon to anno , 604. every Patriarch were of equal jurisdiction to him : And when he was made universal Bishop by Phocas , little more then a bare title was bestowed on him , and yet that was after revocked , by the sixth general Council . As for those five steps we mentioned before ( in which chiefly the Modern Power of the Pope consists ) viz. Election by Cardinals ; 2. Authority of convocating general Councils ; 3. Temporal jurisdiction ; 4. Infability ; 5. and Divinity , it shall be proved ( as we said before ) by the testimonies of Popish Doctors themselves , that the oldest of them , had not a beeing in the tenth Age : and that the said Popish Doctors , acknowledging the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church , nevertheless , some of them doubted not to call the Bishop of Rome Antichrist , by reason of these steps , which they call tyrannical Antichristian usurpations . The second Cheat , in that mark of succession is , that they make ignorants believe , that all the Bishops of Rome , since the times of the Apostles , professed the same Doctrine which is now taught in the Church of Rome : whereas it shall be proved , that the Doctrine of the modern Church of Rome had not a beeing the first six hundred years after Christ ; that it had some notable beginning , about that time when Bonifacius 3d. was made first universal Bishop , and encreased afterwards , as the power of the Bishop of Rome encreased , the one following the other , as the motion of the Sea follows the Moon ; that many of the most substantial points of the modern Roman Faith , were never generally established , before the cape-stone of the Popes power was laid at the Councils of Florence and Trent , at which two Councils , many Tenets were established , with an anathema , as Articles of Faith , believed to be so many paradoxes by the most learned men in the Church of Rome , who lived in those times , who spared not to exclaim against the fraudulent proceeding of the Pope , who carried all by plurality of voices in these two Councils : 1. By multitude of Italian Bishops ; 2. By titular Bishops , that is , Bishops having imaginary Titles in the East , as Jerusalem , Antioch , &c. Which Bishops he created purposely , that by the number of their voices , and of the Italian Bishops , he might bear down in these two Councils , the voices of the Bishops of Germany , Spain and France . The third Cheat in that mark of succession is , that they make ignorants believe , that all those Bishops ; were lawfully elected : but it shall be proved in the following Disput , that some were elected by Blood , others by Simony , others by unlawful Stipulations , and Pre-contracts to establish Heresie in the Church , and to condemn the O●thodox Doctrine as heretical ; others of them by a paction with the Devil ; yea , it shall be proved , by the most eminent Antiquaries of the Church of Rome it self , that since Nicolaus secundus , who lived in the eleventh Century , there has not been one Bishop of Rome elected according to the Law of God , and Constitutions of the primitive Church : and that their manner of election , at this day , is so detestable , that none can hear of it without horror . The fou●th Cheat in that mark of succession is this , we have redacted that succession to a number of persons , of unequal power , contrary Doctrine , unlawfully elected ; now rests a bare personal succession , in which there is a notable Cheat also ; because they obtrude for the true Successor , persons ▪ that are not capable , by their own principles , of the Function ; as appears by three unanswerable reasons : The first is , a woman was Pope for several years together ; and whereas Bellarmine and Baronius , affirms , it was a fiction ; it is answered , since those Historians who relate it for a truth , lived in t●ose very times , in which it fell out , or at least , very near them ; and since those who call it a fable , lived long after , and are but of yeaster-day , in respect of those who affirm it to be of a truth , no judicious Reader needs to be puzled much , which party to believe ; since those who called it a truth , professed themselves to be as obedient Sons to the Church of Rome , as those who call it a fable . The second reason , against the continuity of that personal succession , is this ; the Chair of Rome hath been for several years empty , and without a Bishop : and whereas they affirm , that the power then of the Bishop , is in the Cardinals ; it shall be proved , by their own Learned Antiquaries , that the modern power of those Cardinals , was a thing unkown to the Ancients ; and to be nothing else , but a new devised Cheat. The third reason , against that personal succession ; is this , it is known to all who are versed in History , that many Popes have been at one time , and the subtillest Wits amongst them could never yet decern , which was the true Successor ? and which not ? one part of the Church adhering to the one , another to the other , another to the third Pope : As happened in the time of the Council of Constance , anno , 1416. at which time there were three Popes . It is certain , one of them could be only the true Pope , and yet all of them created Cardinals ; some of which not only created other Popes afterwards , but also became Popes themselves : but those Cardinals , who received orders from the false Popes , are by their own Principles , incapable of electing Popes , much more of being Popes themselves . It must of necessity follow , that many Popes have been at innumerable times , Bishops of Rome not lawful ; which quite destroyes that personal succession . They are pressed with the same difficulty in the case of Simony ; It is granted by themselves , that many Bishops of Rome have obtained that Chair by Simony : It is granted also by them , that those are not lawful Popes , that those ordained by them are incapable of Orders . It is confessed by them also , that several Popes obtaining the Chair by Simony , have created Cardinals which elected other Popes , and some of them also became Popes themselves ; which quite destroyeth that uninterrupted personal succession , as they cannot deny . And this much of that first mark of the true Church , pretended by the Romanists , to prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church , viz. succession of Bishops . The second mark is Antiquity , of which they brag very much , but have very little reason . Cicero , lib. 2. de Orator . relates a passage between Crassus , that famous Orator , and one Silus , who accused another person before the Senate , for uttering some dangerous expressions ; Crassus defends him thus , It may be , saith he , that he spake these words in passion ; Silus granted it might be : Crassus urgeth the second time , It may be you understood not what he said ; Silus seemed not averse to that neither : Crassus goeth on the third time , It may be , saith he , that ye affirm , that ye heard him utter these speeches , whereas ye heard no such thing at all : at which Silus was confounded , and replyed nothing at all , then all the company fell a laughing . Those instances of Crassus against Silus , may fitly be urged against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome , bragging of the testimonies of Antiquity , that is , of Councils and Fathers . His first instance was , that the person accused by Silus , perhaps was in passion , but it is known , and shall be proved , that those of the Church of Rome are seconded by no testimonies of Antiquity at all , but either they are of Bishops of Rome themselves , or else of their flatterers . But Aeneas Silvius ( afterwards Pope himself , under the name of P●us 2d . ) in his Commentaries upon the Council of Basile , hath these following expressions against such testimonies ; his words are , Nec considerant miseri quae tantopere jactant verba , aut ipsorum summorum pontificum sunt fimbrias suas extendent●um , aut eorum qui iis adulabantur ; that is , Neither do these miserable men consider , that those testimonies of which they brag , are either of Bishops of Rome themselves , enlarging their own Authority ; or else of those who are their flatterers . Now to the application ; Crassus reasoned , that a testimony spoken in passion , should not be regarded ; but who will deny those testimonies of Bishops of Rome , and of their vowed slavish flatterers , to be spoken in passion , to be partial , and to merit no credit ? Crassus second instance was , that perhaps Silus did not understand what the other said : This is also fitly applyed to those of the Church of Rome ; for , knowing that those partial testimonies would not serve the turn , they flye to fantastick Glosses of testimonies of the Ancients , wearying themselves and their Readers , by their verbosity , in such Glosses , though never so strained and wrested against the meaning of the Author , as shall be proved to any capacity , in the least measure capable of reason : and in effect , all the shelter they have in Antiquity , is either in wilfully wresting the Fathers , or else in their strained Allegories , as shall be made manifest in its own place , part . 4. lib. 2. yea , and almost through the whole Treatise . The third instance of Crassus ; against Silus , was false witnessing : that this may be applyed , to our Adversaries , shall be proved also ; that is , when those testimonies of Popes and their Fathers , and those perverted and wrested testimonies of others , will not serve the turn , they use a twofold cheat , in false witnessiing ; The first is , they have corrupted , by authority of the Pope , all the Writings of the Ancients , taking out what made against them . The second cheat is , by putting in , and forging , what in effect , was never in the writings of the Ancients , as shall be unanswerably proved in the following Disput : yea , it shall appear , part . 4. lib. 2. what those forged testimonies being removed , the primitive Fathers , in the first six Centuries after Christ , prosessed no other Doctrine , then the Doctrine now professed by the Protestants , especially by the Church of England ; which is the same Religion , with that of the first four-general Councils , both in Doctrine and Discipline , in the estimation of Gregorius Magnus Bishop of Rome , of little lesse authority then the Scripture it self . One thing is not to be omitted , they object the Protestants speaking unreverently of Antiquity , which is a notorious untruth , whereas themselves ( when neither wresting falsly , translating , adding and paring , and right-down forging testimonies of Antiquity will serve the turn ) speak most unreverently of the Ancients , taxing Augustinus , Hieronymus , the second and fourth general Councils , and consequently , all the first eight general Councils● ( since in the particulars challenged by them , they all agreed ) of ignorance , madnesse ▪ heresie , forgery . The third mark is universality ; which is all one with antiquity : universality is twofold , first of time , that is , the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome was received at all times by the Church . The second is , of place , that is , it was embraced in all places : but the Antiquity of their Doctrine being related , universality falls with it , and likewayes visibility ; for if we prove , that the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome ( in as far as it contradicts that of Protestants ) is devised , and broached by degrees , since the beginning of the seventh Century ; questionless , it was not visible in the first six . Antiquity also , being refuted , their fifth mark , infallibility also falls with it : for questionless , if the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome , be contrary to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church in the first six Centuries , they cannot have the brow to affirm , that their Modern Church of Rome is infallible , since in so affirming , they will declare all the Ancients , that is , Fathers and geneneral Councils , in the first six hnndred years after Christ , to be Hereticks . However , it is most strange impudence in them to pretend infallibility in their Church , which some place in general Councils , others in the Bishop of Rome , in Cathedra : which ever of the two they affirm , they are entangled . If the first ? in it appears that of late , their general Councils hath condemned one another of Heresie , as the Council of Florence , the Councils of Basil and Constance ; and the Council of Basil , that of Florence : If they affirm in the last ? ( viz. that the Pope hath Infallibility in Cathedra ) they are also entangled , for it shall be proved ▪ part . 3 lib. 2. that many Popes in Cathedra have declared other Popes teaching in Cathedra to be Hereticks : but none but a mad man , or an Impostor will affirm , that the infallibility of Popes in Cathedra , can consist with such proceedings . The sixth mark is Unity , of which they brag very much , but with as little reason , as they did brag of Antiquity . They reason very prettily thus : We of the Church of Rome ( say they ) agree amongst our selves , in all substantial points of Faith : whereas they who are not of our Church , do not so ; some of them being Calvinists , some Lutherians , some Anabaptists , some Quakers , some this , some that : whence it appears ( say they ) that our Church is the true Church . But this sophism is very easily retorted : we may as easily reason thus ; We , whom ye call Calvinists , are at unity amongst our selves , in substantial points , ( there is no discord amongst us , but in these two particulars , the first is , anent Church-government , or the Divine right of Bishops ; the second is in that point , of defensive Armes against Kings ; both which differences , especially the last , are in a far higher strain amongst your selves , as ye cannot without impudence deny ) But ye who are out of our Church , do not agree amongst your selves , some of you are Papists , some Anabaptists , some Quakers , &c. Ergo , we are the true Church . Secondly , to omit such foolish reasoning , there is not greater discord in hell , then is amongst those of the Church of Rome , in points most substantial , and upon which , as hinges , the whole edifice of their Doctrine doth depend . It would be prolix to enumerat all their discords ; we will only mention some few , the rest we shall prosecute through the whole body of this Treatise : And first , they generally brag of the Antiquity of their Doctrine , that it was from the beginning : but it shall be proved , by testimony of their own Doctors , that most of their substantial Tenets , which they hold contrary to Protestants , are so many innovations ; such as adding of Apocrypha Books to the Scripture , number of Sacraments , Transubstantiation , Purgatory , Indulgences , and all those steps of the Popes Supremacy , after anno , 604. Yea , it shall be proved by some of their greatest Antiquaries , that the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged universal Bishop by the Church , in the first six Centuries ; and that Cyprian and Augustine , and many other of the Ancients , died out of communion with the Church of Rome , and yet are placed in their Calanders amongst the Saints . Likewayes , the whole body of the Popish Religion depends upon the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , it again upon the supremacy of Peter , it again upon his institution , carriage and testimonies of Fathers . Let us hear how they agree in those three . And first , his institution is founded upon three passages of Scripture , Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter , and upon this Rock will I build my Church . The second is , verse 19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven . The third is , Joh. 21. 15. 16 , 17. Feed my sheep , feed my lambs . But Cardinal Cusanus , lib. 2. concord . Cathol . cap. 13. expresly affirmes , that in all those three places , nothing was given in peculiar to Peter , which was not given to all the Apostles , which he also proves by the testimony of Hieronymus . 2. The main Basis of the Popes supremacy , is in the exposition of these words , Tu es Petrus , viz. That Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built . Pighius and Baronius and others affirm , that all are ignorants , hereticks , mad men , who acquiesced not in this exposition , That Peter is the Rock : But it shall be proved , in the first six Chapters of the fi●st Book , not only by innumerable testimonies of Popish Doctors , but also of a great many Popes themselves , that not Peter , but the thing confessed by Peter is the Rock , viz. Christ himself . 3. Another Basis of the Popish Religion is , that Peter had his jurisdiction immediatly from Christ , and the other Apostles theirs from Peter ( Bellarmine and others affirm , that if this be not granted , the supremacy of Peter cannot be defended , and consequently the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , and the whole body of the Popish Religion falls with it ) But Franciscus de victoria ( affirmed by Canus to be the ablest Divine of Spain ) exsibilats this distinction of Peters immediat jurisdiction , and refutes the gloss on Cyprian , de unitate Ecclesiae , for exponing a passage in Cyprian , from which they gather this distinction , proving by the testimonies of Cyprian himself ( in that very place corrupted by the Glosse , which Glosse is approved by the Church of Rome ) that Cyprian in these words , expresly disputs against that immediat Jurisdiction of Peter , and mediat of the other Apostles ; and affirms , that all the Apostles had , not only their order , but also their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ . 4. They prove the Supremacy of Peter , by his carriage and prerogatives : but Salmero the Jesuit , expresly affirms , that nothing can be gathered from the carriage of Peter , to prove him oecumenick Bishop , but much to the contrary ; Yea , the Council of Basil it self pronounced , that the Legats of the Pope had no right of presiding in general Councils , because it could neither be proved by Scripture , nor Antiquity , that ever Peter presided in any Council ; or at that of Jerusalem . 5. They brag much of Cyprian , that he is for the Supremacy of Peter , and also Augustin and other Fathers : but Barronius himself confesseth , that both Cyprian , and Augustine , died out of communion with the Church of Rome , for resisting her encroaching upon the Churches of Africk , that is , for admitting of Appellations , from Africk to Rome : for doing of which , Bonifacius Secundus Bishop of Rome affirms , that Aurelius , and Augustinus were seduced by the Devil , and yet both of them are placed in the Roman Callender as Saints : and notwithstanding all their braggings of Cyprian , ( let one speak for all saith Barronius , in time most ancient , in learning most excellent , in martyrdom most glorious , for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ) yet Stapleton the Jesuit , expresly affirms , that Cyprian in that subject , utitur verbis errantium , & mire hereticorum causae patrocinari videtur . And Bellarmine himself confesseth , that we do not read , that ever Cyprian was reconciled to the Church of Rome , after his resisting of Stephanus the Bishop of Rome , his pretending right of Appellations from Africa . And this much of their concord , and unity , in that Cardinal question , of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome : which falling , Bellarmine ( as we said ) grants , that the whole body of the Popish Religion falls with it , comparing it , without the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , to a house without a foundation ; a man when his head is stricken off , to star-light without the Sun. We could instance their discord , in many of their most substantial Tenets ; what question is of greater importance , then that of Transubstantion ? It is the general opinion of the Doctors of the Church of Rome , that it was imbraced as an Article of Faith from the beginning ; and yet those two great Popish Doctors , Scotus and Bonaventur , expresly maintain , that Transubstantiation was never believed as an Article of Faith , before the Council of Lateran , anno , 1225. Yea , Scotus expresly affirms , were it not for the authority of that Council , he would not believe it himself , it hath so little ground in Scripture , and Antiquity . The main ground of which prodigious Article , is those words of our Saviour , Hoc est corpus meum , and other expressions of his , John 6. But it shall be proved , part 4. lib. 2. by the testimonies of many Popish Doctors , that nothing can be gathered from either place , for proving of it . It were too prolix in this Preface , to mention all the contradictions of the Doctors of the Church of Rome , in their most substantial Tenets : Your Lordships may read them at large , in the following Treatise , almost through the whole body of it , but most expresly , part . 4. lib. 2 where your Lordships will not only find Doctors contradicting Doctors , but also Popes accusing Councils , Councils accusing Popes , Councils accusing Councils , Popes in Cathedra , taxing Popes in Cathedra , of Heresies , Madnesse , Ignorance . And this much of the sixth mark of the Church of Rome , by which they pretend it is proved , to be the true Church , viz. Unity . The seventh mark is Saints ; they object to the Protestants , that they lean too much on Christ , trusting nothing to their own merits ; which occasions so much prophanenesse amongst them : but we ( say they ) the Church of Rome , are adorned with innumerable Saints , stirred up to holiness , because works are meritorious in the sight of God : quis tulerit grachos , de seditione quoerentes ? Let us retex this mark of Saints , that we may see what reason they have to brag of it : And first , they cannot brag of the Sanctity of their Clergy ; witnesse the exclamations of all Ages , against the corruption of the Clergy of the Church of Rome , when they got a little breathing from persecution ; we need not mention the complaints , not only of the Ancients , but also of modern Popish Doctors , against the corruptions of the Clergy of Rome . Cyprian began the complaint in his time , when the Church was yet under persecution : But when the Emperours became Christians , the Clergy , by their beneficence , became rich . Hieronymus in his time , thirteen hundred years ago , was so irritated by the vicious lives of the Roman Clergy , that ( Damasus Bishop of Rome dying , to whom he was Secretary ) he left Rome , and went to Palestina , to live as a Monk , comparing Rome to Babylon , and the seat of the Whore. Ammianus Marcellinus , ( in the opinion of Baronius a Pagan ) declaimed bitterly against the viciousnesse of the Roman Clergy : It were tedious to mention , the complaints of these of the first six Centuries , against the viciousness of the Roman Clergy , as of Basilius Magnus , Nazianzenus , Sulpitius , Severus and others : as the greatnesse of the Bishop of Rome in power encreased , not only corruption in Doctrine , but also in manners , encreased with it ; And after the Bishop of Rome was made universal Bishop , nothing could be added to the wickedness of the Clergy . The complaints of Bernardus , Picus , Merandula , are notorious , and innumerable others . The corruptions of the Clergy moved them , not onely to call Rome Babylon , but also consequently , and not obscurely , the Bishop of Rome Antichrist : and yet both of them professed themselves , obedient Sons to the Church of Rome . In a word , since the times of Cyprian , no brave man lived in any Age unto this day , who did not complain of the corruption of the Roman Clergy : and so heir Clergy cannot be their Saints . Secondly , if they have little reason to brag of their Clergy , they have far lesse reason , to brag of the sanctity of their Popes : Baronius , Platina , and Onuphrius , ingenuously confesse , that the World never produced such Monsters for murtherers , Impoysoners , Adulterers , Symoniacks , Witches , yea , and Hereticks : who but a mad man will affirm , that such persons cannot erre teaching the Church ? Surely Pighius was out of his witts , teaching that a Pope could not be an Heretick ; and Bellarmine no less , for calling that opinion of Pighius , a pious opinion : their feaver now is turned to a Phrensie ; the Author of that Book entituled Cardinalismo ( conscious to all the Caball of the Roman Clergy ) affirms , that now they begin to teach at Rome , that a Pope cannot be a reprobat ; which at last will turn to an Article of Faith , as well as infallibility . But because corruption of lives of the Clergy , doth not of necessity infer a false Church : We do not affirm , that the wickedness of their Clergy , or their Popes , proves them Idolaters in Doctrine ; we only affirm , that they have no reason to brag of either of them , as Saints , to prove the Church of Rome to be the true Church . And although they were so , it is no infallible mark ; for it may be affirmed , that the holyest of them all comes short of Novatus , Donatus , and other ancient Hereticks , or of Tertullian ; when he was a Montanist . We only ask of them , where those Saints are to be found , of which they brag so much , if they be neither their Clergy , nor their Popes ? They will answer , they mean those persons canonized by the Pope , and placed in their Calander . But we reply , they cheat egregiously ; first , it is reported of a certain mad-man in Athens , who imagined , that all the Ships which came into the Harbour were his own ; so they , when they hear of any promises made to the Church , they imagine , they are all made to the modern Church of Rome , and when they hear of any Saints and Martyrs , they believe , they all professed the Doctrine of the Church of Rome . In reason they can brag of no Saints , but those who lived after the beginning of the seventh Century , the Saints of the first six Centuries were not of their Church at all : for , it shall be proved , part 4. lib. 2. that the Saints , Fathers and Martyrs of the first six Centuries condemn all the Tenets of the Church of Rome , ( of any moment which they hold contrary to Protestants ) as heretical , and are in right down terms Protestants : yea , it shall be proved , by testimonies of their own Doctors , that many of these most eminent Saints , died excommunicated by the Church of Rome , for resisting the pride of that Church ; as Saint Polycarpus , and all the Bishops of Asia in the time of Victor , anno , 195. Saint Cyprian , and all the Churches of Africk in the time of Stephanus Bishop of Rome , about anno , 256. Saint Aurelius and Saint Augustine , and all the Bishops of Africk , in the times of Sozimus , Bonifacius and Celestinus Bishops of Rome , in the beginning of the fifth Age. Secondly , as for those Saints , since the beginning of the seventh Century , it is answered first , that albeit the Clergy of Rome call them Saints , yet they thought the said Clergy no Saints ; such as Saint Bernard and others , who most bitterly inveigh against the corruption of the Roman Church ; Saint Bernard expresly calls Rome a den of theeves , and Babylon , mentioned by John in the Apocalyps . 2. How many of these modern Saints have been proved cheats ? It shall be proved , by testimonies of their own Doctors , part 3. lib. 2. that the Pope hath no power to canonize Saints , and that the most part of their Saints are vile Impostors , devised by Priests to cheat the ignorant people of their money , and to make them offer oblations at their shrines . It were prolix in this Preface to insert the particulars , but that Impostur of Saints , in many examples , shall be made unanswerably appear , part 4. lib. 2. And this much of Saints , the seventh mark of the Roman Church . The last mark is Miracles ; the Scripture informs us , that Antichrist shall deceive all the world by false miracles : It shall be proved likewayes , part 4. lib. 2. by the testimony of the most learned Popish Doctors , that Miracles are no true marks of the true Church in these last times , but rather marks of the Antichristian Church . 2. It shall be proved by the testimonies of the same men , that most of the late miracles pretended by the Church of Rome , and the most notable ones , are meet Imposturs , which we shall instance in the forementioned place , And whereas they object , we have no miracles in our Church , it is false , our Doctrine was confirmed , by the miracles performed , by Christ and his Apostles ; neither need we any other miracles , since we profess the same Doctrine . And this much of those marks of the true Church , pretended by the Mannual of Controversies to prove , that the Church of Rome was such ; to refute which , is my first scope and intention in this following Disput . The second scope of the said Manual of Controversies was , to perswade the Proselyts of this Nation , that it was not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , that the Pope had power to depose Kings , either Popish or Protestant ; but only of some particular persons , whom they called the Popes flatterers : and therefore , my second intention is to prove , that the said Author is either ignorant in the Principles of his own Religion , or else he is like Father Cotton the Jesuit , who being demanded , if he believed the Pope had power to depose Kings ? answered , He did not believe it in France , but if he were at Rome he would . That this King-deposing doctrine , is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , is proved by three reasons , which will puzle the said Author very sore to answer . The first is this , innumerable Books are printed , asserting so much ( the names of the Authors shall be cited afterwards ) some of which Books are dedicated to Cardinals , some to the Pope himself ; but those Books are authorized ( by those who have authority from the Pope to peruse Books before they go to the Press ) with an Imprimatur and a Declaration , that they contain nothing contrary to the Catholick Doctrine : But , who but a mad man , or an Impostor , will affirm , that any Doctrine conform to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome ? This is the Doctrine of the Church of the whole Canonists , unanimously maintained by them , and most of the Theologues , viz. that the Pope has direct power in Temporals , or is direct Monarch of the whole world . Some Theologues indeed , as Bellarmine and others , maintain , that the power of the Pope is only indirect , in ordine ad spiritualia ; as when a King is an Heretick , or otherwayes encroacheth upon the Liberties of the Church ; or when he assumes any thing to himself which the Pope sayes belongs to him : but this Doctrine is exsibilated now at Rome , as heretical ; and Bellarmine himself is taxed by Carerius of heresie , for maintaining , that the Pope hath no direct power in temporals . Yea , Sixtus 5th with much ado , was hindered from burning these Books of Bellarmine de pontifice Romano , for denying that direct power of the Pope in temporals ; albeit Bellarmine in the said Books gives power to the Pope indirectly , or in order to spirituals , to depose Kings , to absolve their Subjects from all fidelity to them , and that their Subjects are oblieged at the Popes command , to rise up in Arms against them , and consequently to kill them : but Bellarmines opinion is now thought too little , of the Popes power ; all the Theologues now , are for the direct dominion of the Pope in temporals . And this much of the first reason , proving , that this King-deposing Doctrine is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome . The second reason is this , That is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , what is asserted by the Pope in Cathedra , or teaching the whole Church : but the Pope in Cathedra , assumes that power of deposing of Kings unto himself , as appears by his Bulls ; as that of Gregory the seventh , against Henry the fourth Emperor ; that of Alexander the third , against the Emror Frederick : that of Bonifacius the eighth , against Philip King of France : that of Paulus the third , against Henry the eighth King of England : that of Paulus the fourth , against Queen Elizabeth : that of Sixtus the fifth , against Henry the third and Henry the fourth Kings of France ; in which Bulls they expresly affirm , that Kings reign by them , and that power is given them from God to establish , plant , build , root out , cast down , transfer Kingdoms at their pleasure . The tenors of those Bulls , ( too prolix to be inserted here ) shall be particularly mentioned and set down , part 4. lib. 1. And this much of the second reason , that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , that the Pope has power to depose Kings . The third reason is this ; the Popes have procured that power to be conferred on them , by general Councils : as in the Council of Lateran , under Innocent third ; the Act of which Council , is found in Bzovius , anno , 1215. parag . 3. and also in Binius and Crab , in their Collection of Councils . It is found likewayes in Baronius ad annum , 1102. numb . 1 , 2 , 3. and also ad annum , 1116. numb . 5. and also ad annum , 1119. Likewayes in the Council of Trent , Sess . 25. Canon . 19. It is ordained , that the Popes have power to depose any Dominum fundi , or Proprietar of any Land where a Duel is fought ; in which Canon , power of deposing Kings tacitly , and consequentially is attributed to the Pope . The Council thought it not fit , in express terms , to affirm , that the Pope had power to deprive a King of his property in that case ; and therefore , they made the Canon in general termes , comprehending a King under Dominus fundi , or Proprietar in general . That this is the true meaning of that Canon , appears , because by reason of it mainly , the Kingdom of France did not acknowledge the Council of Trent . And thus we have proved , by three unanswerable reasons , that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , that the Pope hath power to depose Kings ; to which may be added a fourth , which is this , which is so evident , that it takes away all doubt . The Pope hath innumerable times put that power in practice : the first Pope we read attempted it , was Pope Constantine against Philippicus Emperor of Constantinople , because the said Philippicus caused pull down the Images of the Fathers of the sixth general Council , ( commonly called T●ullanum ) which were placed in the Temple of St. Sophia : but Pope Constantine did only bark , his Successors Gregory 2d . and Gregory 3d. did bite , for the same reason of the Images , stirring up the Lombards against the Emperor , and bereaved them of the Exarchat of Ravenna ; in which broils , the Emperors Governour at Rome being killed , the Bishops of Rome got the Dutchy of Rome to themselves : and when the Lombards ( as we said before ) demanded that Tribute of them which they were accustomed to pay , for these Territories , to the Emperors of Constantinople ; they called in the French , against the Lombards , and in recompence of their services , authorized their General Pipin , King of France , ( shutting up the righteous King , the last of the race of the Merovingians , in a Monastery ) and afterwards they made Carolus Magnus , Son of the said Pipin , Emperor of the West ; which Carolus Magnus made appear , that although he loved the treason of those Bishops of Rome to their Masters , Li●ge● Lords , Benefactors and Creators , the Emperors of Constantinople , ( by whose procurement they were made Universal Bishops ) yet he hated the Traitors , as we shewed before , making them his Vassals , both in Spirituals and Temporals , lest they should play such tricks to him and his Successors , as they had done to the Emperors of Constantinople . We read no more of the temporal usurpations of the Bishop of Rome , before Gregory 7th , when ( the race of Carolus Magnus being extinct ) the Empire was translated to the Germans . What extremities the said Gregory 7th . did put the Emperour Henry 4th . to , is notorious . In sum , he was forced to resign the Empire to his Son Henry 5th . ( the Imperial Ornaments being violently plucked from him by the Bishops of Mentz and Culen , his own Creatures ) which Son of his agreed little better with Paschalis Bishop of Rome : after which time , it was the continual practices of the Bishops of Rome , to depose Kings and Emperors , and to stir up their Subjects to Rebellion against them ; as appears by those passages of Alexander , 3. with the Emperor Frederick ; of Boniface 8th . with Philip. le Bell , King of France : of Julius 2. with the King of Navarre : of Sixtus 5th . with Hen●y 3. and 4. Kings of France : of Paul 3. with Henry 8. and Paul 4 with Queen Elizabeth of England . The Stories of these two Henries of France is most lamentable . And thus we have proved , that it is both the Doctrine and the Practice of the Church of Rome , that the Bishop of Rome hath power to depose Kings , to absolve their Subjects from fidelity towards them , to compell them to Arms against them , and consequently to kill them , and to acknowledge any for their lawful Prince , whom the Bishop of Rome shall appoint : How this power of the Popes can consist with Kingly Government , let the Kings of the earth themselves consider . They make one objection yet , that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , that the Pope hath power to depose Kings . By the answer of which objection will appear , that encrease of Popery in a Protestant State , tends to the utter destruction both of King and Subject , and inconsistent with both . The objection is this . It is not the Doctrine of the Church of France , say they , that the Pope has power to depose Kings , being rejected both by its Doctrine , and by its Practice ; since many of the Clergy of France , hath writen against that Doctrine , and Books defending that Opinion , ( such as that of Mariana the Spanish Jesuit , and others ) have been burnt by publick Authority . But this objection is answered by a twofold distinction ; first of Times , secondly of Causes wherefore Kings ought to be deposed ? As for Times when the Kings of France are low , or high , in the last case , the Clergy of France , ever partied their King against the Pope , excommunicating them , and deposing them : as appears , by the passages of Philip le Bell , with ●onifacius ; and of Lewis 12th . with Julius second Bishop of Rome . In the first Case , when the Kings of France are low , the Clergy of France , ever partied the Pope , excommunicating and deposing their Kings ; as appears , by the passages of Henry 3d. and 4th . Kings of France , with Sixtus 5th . Bishop of Rome . It is notorious , that the University of Paris , confirmed by a decree , the Bulls of the said Sixtus 5th . against the said two Henries Kings of France ; in which Bulls they were declared uncapable of the Crown of France , all French men were absolved from alledgeance to them , and the greatest part of France rose up in armes against them , to dethrone them , beging of the Pope , that he would name them a King , and they would acknowledge him for their lawful Prince . And this much of the distinction of Times . The second distinction is of Causes , wherefore Kings should be deposed ? although in other causes ( besides Heresie ) the Subjects of France were not so unanimous for the Pope against their King ; yet in case of Heresie , that is , if their King were a Protestant , both the Clergy and the Laity of France , unanimously at the Popes command , renunced alledgeance to their King : And first for the Clergy , in an Assembly of States or Parliament , Cardinal Perron , their Speaker commissionat from them as their mouth , in an Oration to the third Estate , affirmed , That it had ever been the Doctrine of the Clergy of France , that true French men ought no alledgeance to heretical Kings , excommunicated and deposed by the Pope . As for the Laity , it is notorious , that after the murther of Henry 3. they threatned to abandon Henry 4th his Successor , because he was excommunicated and deposed by the Pope ; which forced him ( expecting no security otherwayes ) to change his Religion . And thus we have proved , that it is the unanimous Doctrine of the Church of Rome , that Popish Subjects owe no fidelity to a Protestant King ; which occasioned that saying of that incomparable Bishop Mortoun , viz. That a loyal popish Subject in a Protestant State , was a white Ethiopian : which I do not mention , calling in question the Loyalty of the Romanists of this Nation , or the neighbour Nations of England and Ireland ; many of them are known to be persons of Honour , and as loyal Subjects as the King hath : I only mention those things , to let them see how they are abused by the Popish Emissaries of these three Nations , who knowing them to be loyal Subjects to the King , seing it would be a great difficulty to train them in their snares , and keep them in them once catched , if they told them all the verity . To train them on , they make them believe in the beginning , that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , that the Pope hath power to depose Protestant Kings , ( much less others ) but only a calumny of Protestants , traducing the Popish Religion : but afterwards , having by degrees confirmed them in the Popish Religion , they would not fail to perswade them , to cut the throats of all their Countrey-men , and flee like so many mad-dogs upon the Kings face , to pull him from his Throne ; as appears by the constant practice of the Church of Rome against all Protestants in general , and against Protestant Kings in particular : which practice is so notorious , that he who denyes it , is either a mad man , void of common sense , or else a notorious Impostor . And first , that it is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , affirming it meritorious , to destroy Protestants by open cruelty and perfidy . ▪ appears by the constant carriage of the said Church towards Protestants , since the Reformation : What sort of cruelty or perfidy have they not attempted ? Death without torture was thought clemency ; burning of them in heaps alive in houses , might be attributed to a popular fury , but it is notorious , that multitudes of them were burnt alive in fires , of all Sexes and Qualities , by the sentences of the Judges ; and when they could do no good by open force , they destroyed them by perfidy , and prostitution of the publick Faith , and when they had done , made publick Processions of Joy , Bonefires , and such like , as if they had deserved Paradise by such meritorious works ; maintaining this maxime as unquestionable , that no publick Faith should be regarded or observed towards Hereticks . That this is truth , appears by the proceedings of the Council of Constance , with John Husse , and Hierom of Prague , which two were burned alive , notwithstanding they had the safe conduct of the Emperor Sigismundus . It appears also , by those massacres of Paris , and other parts of France , where , by the publick Faith , they trained them all to one place , and then perfidiously massacred them , to the horror of several learned Romanists , who in their Histories , detest such perfidy , such as Thuanus and others : and when they had done , tanquam re bene gesta triumpharunt , they were congratulated by the Pope ; who caused Bonefires and publick Processions to be made at Rome , for the happy success of such a glorious atchievment . These things are notorious , so that the Popish emissaries themselves , have neither the brow to deny them , nor the confidence to defend them : But they use another shift , viz. That the Church of Rome hath given over that practice now , being resolved no more to follow those courses , as they did in the beginning , prompted to them , by their too violent zeal . But it is answered , they are greatly mistaken , for now in France , and Germany , and other places , they practise not such cruelties , because they dare not , but where they have power , and thinks they may do it without any hazard ; they make it appear , that they believe , it is a meritorious work , to destroy and extirpat all Protestants , by any cruelty , or perfidy imaginable : as appears of late , not only abroad , by the proceeding of the Duke of Savoy , at the Popes Instigation , against these of the Vallies of Piemont , by which innumerable persons , were destroyed by such cruelty and perfidy , as the like hath not been recorded in any History , which are dicribed at large , in a great Volum , published by an eye witnesse of them : But also at home ; what cruelties were exercised in Ireland , none needs to be informed ? And this much of the Inclinations of the Church of Rome , to Protestants in general . What good-will they have to Protestant Kings , they are blind who sees not ? All Protestants are excommunicate at their Jubilees ; but it is a meritorious work , to kill an excommunicated person , though he be a King ; when Henry the 3d. and Henry the 4th . Kings of France , were excommunicated by the Pope Sixtus 5th . the first of them was murthered by a Monk , for which , Bonefires were made in Paris , ( that of the Popes Nuntio being so great , that it endangered the neighbours● houses ) mutual congratulations passed between those of the League , and the Consistory at Rome . Pope Sixtus the 5th . triumphs in the Consistory ; as appears by his speech published by the means of Mr. Warmingtoun , Chaplian to Cardinal ●●llen an English Cardinal . The friends and relations of the murtherer of the King , are enriched by contributions , the Effigy of the Assassin was carried in processions , and with much ado , his Canonization for a Saint was stopped at Rome ; that is , many strove to have him enrolled , as a deserving person , that he might be after Canonized in due time : Who seeth not , that all this was done , to encourage all to kill any King excommunicated and deposed by the Pope ; and in particular , Henry 4th . King of France , successor to Henry 3d. Neither did the event , deceive their expectation , for a little after , one Chastel intending to murther him , wounded him in his own Chamber in the mouth , there being none in the Room beside , but onely an other Nobleman ; which he performed so subtilly , that neither the King , nor the Nobleman perceived him in the Action : till at last the Noble man , for his own vindication , catched him by the arm , affirming , that either he or himself had wounded the King , and it was fit , they were both arrested , till it were known , which of them two it was ? There were other innumerable attempts of assassines prompt in by the Jesuits , upon the life of the said Henry 4th . which were so thick , that they could not all misca●ry , and so at last , hewas stobbed in the heart in his Coach by Ravillac . That this was not unpleasant to the Pope , appears , because a little after , the arrest of the Parliament of Paris against ●hastel ( who attempting to murther the King , wounded him ) was publickly censured at Rome , as unjust . And this much of France ; we have many examples at home , that the Bigots of the Popish Religion , think it a meritorious work , ( encouraged by their Confessors ) to attempt upon the lives of Protestant Princes , excommunicated and deposed by the Pope : We have many instances in Queen Elizabeth , who all her life-time was vexed by the doubled and re-doubled attempts to murder her ; and when the malefactors were apprehended , they were so far from acknowledging their fault , that they gloried in it , professing it was no sin , but meritorious , to kill an excommunicated Tyrant , neither were they oblieged to acknowledge , for their lawful Prince , those who were excommunicated by the Pope . King James also was very near having a share in those popish Practices , in the Powder-plot , if it had not been discovered by a miraculous providence : Valentia and other Jesuits abroad , were not ashamed ( tacitly and consequentially ) to defend it ; that is , they maintained openly in their Writings , that those who violat the Oath of Supremacy and Alledgeance , were not perjured , because that Oath was never obligatory . Our present Emissaries perswades their Proselyts , that the said Powder-plot was but a fiction , devised by Secretary Cecil , to make the popish Religion odious ; by which it appears , of what mettal those men are . And this much of my second scope , viz. to prove in this work , that it was the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , that the Pope had power to depose Kings , and popish Subjects ought no alledgeance to a Protestant Prince ; and that encrease of Popery could not consist in a Protestant State , with the safety of either King or Subject : and who affirm the contrary , are either deceivers themselves , or deceived by others . My Lords and Gentlemen , I have represented unto your Lordships , the excellency of the Subject which I present unto you , what method I observe in it ? what is my scope in it ? now it remains to show unto your Lordships , how I answer , as I can , to what is objected against me ? And first , some perhaps will affirm that I am malus Patronus bonae Causae , or that I do not disput this great Controversie so to the purpose , as the importance of it requires : But I answer , whether I disput well or badly , I d●serve neither the praise nor the blame , since I only disput it as the greatest Spirits of both sides have done before me . When a Clerk minuts the disput of Pleaders before a Judge , his part is to do it faithfully , which if he perform , he cannot in reason be blamed , although the reasons hinc inde , be never so weak , or not perswasive , otherwayes , he is guilty of forgery . I play the part of a Clerk , not of a Judge ; which if I do unfaithfully , let any put me to it , either in privat or in publick , and if I do not vindicat my self , I deserve the character of an Impostor . It is true indeed , that I mention some testimonies of Fathers , which I did not see in the Originals ; but there is not one of these testimonies , but I can instruct , that they are cited by popish Authors themselves , or if they be not , I can instruct by the Originals , that they are falsly cited by the saids popish Authors , that is , that they are either falsly translated out of the Greek ( as I instance in several passages , cited by our Adversaries from the versions of Christopherson and Trapezuntius ) or else they are mutilated , that is , telling that part of the Tale which makes for them , and suppressing that which makes against them : or else they are forged , and that the Fathers affirm no such thing as they pretend . Of their mutilating of testimonies , I will only instance two particulars , or three at most ; The first is , Ambrosius affirms , We use to follow the Church of Rome in all things ; Bellarmine with great pomp concludes , that from these words , Ambrosius asserts necessar communion with the Church of Rome : but he forgets to tell , what Ambrosius sayes immediatly af●er , viz. quia tamen nos homines sumus si quid alibi rect●us , hoc observamus ; that is , albeit we use to follow the Church of Rome ( it being the prime Church ) yet , if elsewhere we find any thing more Orthodox , since we are men endued with reason , we use to follow that . The truth is , Ambrosius in that place is expresly disputing against necessar communion with the Church of Rome , ( as shall appear part 2. lib. 1. ) concer●●ng a certain ceremony in Baptism . Likewayes , Gregorius Magnus is cited by Bellarmine , to prove that Peter was ordained Monarch of the Church , because he affirms , that the care of the whole Church was committed to him ; in which he playes the sophister egregiously , suppressing what immediately followeth , viz. Petrus tamen non erat universalis Apostolus , Peter was not universal Apostle nevertheless . The truth is , Gregorius is expresly disputing in that passage , against any Monarch of the Church , calling that Title sacrilegious and blasphemous ; and amongst other reasons , he hath this for one , if any had reason to be called Monarch of the Church or oecumenick Bishop , it was Peter , because the care of the whole Church was committed to him ; but notwithstanding of that , he was not oecumenick Bishop , or universal Bishop , or Apostle . Your Lordships will find many instances of that kind , dispersed through the following Treatise , and also their false translations : yea , they do not produce one testimony ( except either of Bishops of Rome , or their flatterers , which sort of testimonies are rejected by Aeneas Silvius , afterwards Pope himself , as meriting no credit ) but either it is mutilated in the foresaid manner , or falsly translated or forged . It may be objected secondly against me , that my Stile is rude ; But I answer , a key of Iron , if it open the door with facility , is to be preferred to one of Gold , which doth it with difficulty . The Discourse for the most part is Dogmatick , in which Rhetorick is rather hurtful then profitable ; the strained Rhetorick of the Fathers hath set us all by the ears together . Most of the shelter which our Adversaries have in the Writings of the Fathers , is in their too high strained Allegories , as will be proved by an induction of all those Controversies we have with the Church of Rome . We will give an instance or two in this Preface , of which your Lordships will find innumerable , dispersed through the whole Disput , especially part 4. lib. 2. where the newness of the present popish Religion is expresly disputed . First , to prove necessar communion with the Church of Rome , or the infallibility of the particular Church of Rome , Bellarmine cites Cyprian , affirming , that Perfidy can have no accesse to that Church : which expression of his , is found in an Epistle of his , written to Cornelius Bishop of Rome . That this is onely Rhetorick , and a Complement , appears by innumerable other Epistles of Cyprian ; in which he taxeth Stephanus Bishop of Rome , and the particular Church of Rome , of Ignorance , Arrogancy , and Patronizing of Hereticks ; yea it is notorious , and confessed by our Adversaries , that he died out of communion with the Church of Rome ; and yet ( as we said ) he is a Saint in the Roman Callander . Secondly , Bellarmine and others , produce many testimonies of the Fathers , to prove the Supremacy of Peter , because they call him Head and Prince of the Apostles , that this is only Rhetorick , is notorious , for two reasons : first , it shall be proved , that these very Fathers expresly affirm , and prove , that Peter had no Supremacy over the Church , or other Apostles : but that all the Apostles were of alike Fellowship , Dignity , and Power with him . 2. Because these very Fathers , complement others also , with the same title of Head and Prince , as they do Paul and James , yea , Chrysostom ( then whom none calls Peter oftner Head and Prince ) expresly affi●ms , Paul was in every thing equal to Peter ; and when he had so sayed , he adds , ne dicam amplius ; which is as much as to say , that in his opinion , Paul was to be preferred to Peter . 3. To prove Transubstantiation , they bring many testimonies of the Fathers , such as these , This Bread which you see , is not common Bread , but the Flesh of Christ ; this Wine which you see , is not ordinar Wine , but the Blood of Christ ; that these ex●ressions are onely strained Allegories , appears , by the testimonies of the same Fathers , especially of Ambrosius , who speaking of the Water in Baptism , useth the same phrase of speaking , viz. that Water which ye behold , is not ordinar Water , but the Blood of Christ ; but our Adversaries do not affirm , that the Water in Baptism is transubstantiat into the blood of Christ . Another reason is unanswerable , that those expressions are only Allegories , viz. Those very Fathers , especially Ambrosius , expresly affirm , that after the consecration , the Bread keeps still the nature of Bread , and the Wine of Wine ; many of which expressions are now taken out by the I●dices expurgatorii , in all the new printed Copies of the Fathers , by the Popes authority , contrary to the Faith , not only of all the old Manuscripts , but also of the printed Copies , before anno , 1564. at which time , that famous Printer Manutius gelded all the Fathers , ( which he doth not dissemble himself ) at the command of Paulus 4th . Bishop of Rome . My Lords and Gentlemen , Thus I have represented unto you , the excellency of the Subject of which I treat ; 2. What method I observe in it ? 3. What is my scope in it ? 4. How I answer , as I can , all what is objected against me ? If any have more to object , I intreat them to put me to it , and if I cannot convince them by an Apology , I shall ingenuously confess my fault , either in privat or in publick . No more , but wishing every one of you in your stations , to be serviceable to God , your King and Country , and steadable to your own Families and Relations ; I rest according to my power , ready to do you service , SAMUEL COLVIL . THE GRAND IMPOSTOR DISCOVERED OR AN HISTORICALL DISPVT OF THE Papacy and Popish Religion . PART I. BOOK I. Of the Bishoprick of Peter . 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 animosity in this contest : the one to assert it , the other to assault it : both parties pretending Scripture , Reason , Councils , Fathers ; and each party upbraiding other with wresting of Scripture , Sophistry , perverting , and forging testimonies of Antiquity . 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 Grammaticisms , 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 Honor 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 infamous 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 Monarch 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 Monarchy of the Church , albeit Peter were Monarch of the Church himself , except Peter were also Bishop of Rome . Again , albeit 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 unquestionable Antiquity . Calvin , lib. 4. Inst . cap. 6. num . 8. rightly observes , that Peter might have had some extraordinary 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 disputed 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 prerogatives and carriage , unto chap. 19 : Thirdly , by testimonies 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 testimonies 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 testimonies 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 ) ordinarily . 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 subsist or not ? By Christianity , or Christian Faith , or Christian Religion , 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 without 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 assertion 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 Ancients 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 Supremacy of Peter , nor of the Bishop of Rome , nor necessar communion with the Church of Rome ; since the last two ( as we said ) depend upon the first : and therefore we will examine this passage 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 Oecumenick 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 Scripture and Reason . Secondly , by Councils and Fathers . Thirdly , 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 Foundation , 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 Secondary Foundations : Christ is called the Corner-stone , or chief foundations ; the Prophets and Apostles are secondary foundations . But it is replyed : First , That Bellarmin cannot apply his distinction of secondary foundation to Peter alone by this passage , since the Apostle expresly affirms , That all the Prophets and Apostles are Bellarmins secondary foundations ; and consequently , 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 improperly , or metonymically foundations ; viz. they are called foundations , because they preach Christ , or by reason of their Doctrine of Christ , who is the true foundation : So Ambrosius ; Primasius , Anselmus , Lombardus , Cajetanus , Lyranus , and the interlinear gloss upon 1. Cor. 3. 11. Guillaudus interprets after the same manner , and the great School-man Vasquez , 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 himself , 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 fundamentis , 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 moriendo . 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , aliud and alterum ; which cannot well be expressed in English , 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 , because 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 foundation ; Peter is the subordinat and ministerial foundation . But this subtilty of Stapleton is to no purpose : First , because the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another signifie sometime things which differ only accidentally , as Mat. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , He saw two other Brethren , Mark 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . His hands was made whole as the other . Therefore its false that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a thing different by nature ; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a thing differing 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 constellation , 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 subordinat and Ministerial foundation , there he calls him a principal 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 foundation . 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 Syrian 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 , Baronius , 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 Christus , 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 Syrian 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 assuredly 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 written originally in Syriack ) translats the word of Christ unfaithfully 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 condemns the whole primitive Church , and the ancient Church of Rome among the rest , for approving as authentick , a false interpretation 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 Peter would be the foundation of the Church triumphant , if he were the Rock upon which the Church is built . And since the Bishop 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 promise 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 pronounced him blessed . Thirdly , Christ affirmed he had that secret only by revelation from God. Lastly , Christ pronounced 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 Hilarius 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 datum , sicut Patris quoddam donum erat eidem concessum : Pater enim revelavit Petro Christum esse Filium Dei vivi ; Filius tribuit 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 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : 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 peculiar 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 , affirming 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 Peter ; 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 referred 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 Council 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 , omnes riserunt . This passage is most fitly applyed to our adversaries , 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 council , but only the words of Paschasinus , Lucentius , and Bonifacius , Legats to Leo Bishop of Rome , giving their votes against 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 Pontificum sunt , suas fimbrias extendentium , aut illorum qui eis adulabantur ; 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 Supremacy 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 foresaids 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 : Paschasinus and his fellows pleaded the sixth canon of the Council of Nice . The words are those , Let the old custom remain in Egypt , 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 exception , 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 Bishop of Constantinople the second place next to him , because Constantinople 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 Egypt , 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 Alexandria ; or , the authority of the Bishop of Alexandria flowed from the authority of the Bishop of Rome : And since the Bishop 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 Constantinople 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 preferring 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 unreasonable 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 Alexandria ; the meaning of the Canon being only this , viz. The occasion of the Canon was one Miletius troubled all Egypt by ordaining Bishops at his own hand . Alexander Bishop of Alexandria 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 writer , who lived near these times , interprets ) in Ecclesijs Suburbicarijs , 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 framed in government according to the pattern of another common-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 dignity : which before that time , belonged to the Bishop of Alexandria , 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 second 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 preferred to that of Alexandria , and made equal to the Government of those places , depending upon the city of Rome ; therefore the said council of Constantinople did no wrong in equalizing 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 Constantinople , being made equal to those of Rome , was the cause why the council of Constantinople made the Bishop of Constantinople 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 ; Definimus & communi calculo sancimus , quod attinct ad praerogativas honoris sanctissimae Ecclesiae hujus Constantinopoleos novae Romae , Etenim Patres , Sedi Antiquioris is Romae , ob eam caussam quia Imperium obtineret Urbs illa , merito Primatum honoris detulere , Sed & eadem ratione moti , centum quinquaginia religiosissimi 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 Jurisdiction , with the Bishop of Rome . Secondly , that the Bishop 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 Constantinople , 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 Baronius , who abuse their Reader with strange Sophistry , and most shameless . The Council of Chalcedon , say they , interpreted the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice , to the advantage of the Bishop of Rome : For immediatly after the reading of the said Canon , the beginning of which was , Ecclesia Romana 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 copies 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 , Antiquus 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 Bellarmin 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 subscribers were compelled so to do , by one indirect way or other : The whole Fathers of the Council answered , they had deliberatly , and voluntarily subscribed . Whereupon Lucentius protested 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 Council 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 ingeminating , 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 general 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 Empress ; his 62. to Maximus Bishop of Antioch ; in which Epistles 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 adversaries object the Council of Chalcedon , to prove that Peter was the Rock , meaned by our Savior in these words , Tu es Petrus , &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 Trullanum , 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 acquainted Celestine Bishop of Rome , as appears by the Synodical 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 ordain Bishops in the Isle of Cyprus , Binius Tom. 26. pag. 768. As for the fifth general council of Constantinople , it rejudged 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 Bishop of Rome , by reason of his succession to Peter , in the Monarchy 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 , concerning 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 Jurisdiction : 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 Valentia , Agricola , Stapleton ; but most of all Bozius , de signis lib. 18. cap. 1. But it is answered , It is notoriously false , that all the Fathers 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 Fathers interpreting the Rock to be Christ . Tertullianus against Martian . lib. 4. cap. 13. Where , telling a reason wherefore the name of Peter was changed from Simon to Peter , gives this reason , Quia Petra & lapis erat Christus , 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 Peters 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 Protestants ; 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 against the Jews , Dominus est Petra fidei : tanquam fundamentum , ut ipse Dominus ait ad Principem Apostolorum . Tu es Petrus , & 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 Christ●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 number , none but Christ is understood . Hieronymus on Matthew 7. Super hanc Petram Dominus fundavit Ecclesiam : ab hac Petra Apostolus Petrus sortitus est nomen . 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 Mattheum . Simon quippe ante vocabatur , hoc autem nomen ei , ut Petrus 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 testimonies 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 ignorant of the Syriack tongue ; As if those other Fathers , especially 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 answered , 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 . Secondly , 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 initial Letters , with the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 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 referring the pronoun hanc , to the words immediatly going before 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 testimonies 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 assertion , without any other reason : which is a childish petitio 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 imports as much , as the Church was not already built upon 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 Saviour is prophesying here , that the Gopel shal be propagated throughout the whole world , and the Church built upon 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 Augustinus , affirming , super me ipsum filium Dei vivi aedificabo Ecclesiam . Which is his gloss upon these words , super hanc Petram . Secondly , It contradicts Bellarmin , affirming , in se jam aedificaverat 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 ●nterpret Peter to be the Rock , upon which the Church is built , especially , Augustinus , who disputing against the Donatists , cites many passages of Scripture , by which we are instructed , 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 necessar , 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 confirmationem sanctae tuae Catholicae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae , quam fundâsti 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 & immobile fundamentum , una haec felix fidei Petra Petri ore confessu , Tu es , inquit Christus filius Dei vivi , that is , This is the only 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 testimonies , this one will suffice , Super hanc igitur confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est , The Church is built upon this Rock of confession . Nyssenus in the last chapter of his testimonies against the Jews , after he had first called the Rock Christ , as we said before , in the following words he adds , Tu es Petrus & super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam , hoc est , super confessionem Christi : where he interprets the Rock to be also the confession of Peter , by which it appears , that the sense is all one , whether the Rock be called Christ or the confession of Peter ? Innumerable others interpret the Rock to be the Confession 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 Matthew 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 confession 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 Antioch ; of the sixth General Council of Constantinople , called Trullanum : of Damascenus in his Sermon upon the transfiguration 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 ignorants ; 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 testimony 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 concreto . 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 Confession 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 Bellarmin , 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 Trinity , expresly distinguish the Rock from Peter , and therefore 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 , Petrus 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 confession 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. Peter . 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 several Sophistries , that the Faith , or Confession of Peter cannot 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 foundation of a house consisting of Men : or substances . But it is answered , First , The Faith and confession of Peter may be considered two wayes . First , Formally for the quality 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 Objectively for the thing confessed , or believed ; for , as we said before , 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 concessis . 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 Homogeneous 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 Council 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 Oecumenick 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 , Cyprianus , Athanasius , Origines , Hilarius , Ambrosius , Hieronymus , Nazianzenus , Chrysostomus , Psellus , Augustinus , Maximus Tautinensus , Cyrillus Alexandrinus , Leo Magnus , Prosper , Andreas Cretensis , Gregorius Magnus , Theophylactus . 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 notable 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 Supremacy 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 General 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 acknowledged 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 Augustinu● 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 supposititious . 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 Oecumenick 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 Oration , 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 called 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 Jurisdiction 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 interpret Peter to be the Rock , call others beside Peter in the same sense , Rocks ; whence it is evinced unanswerably , they intend 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 Ecclesiam , quid dicturus de Joanne filio tonitrui , & Apostolorum 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 Ecclesiam 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 Apostles 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 deceived , 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 after the words now cited , he adds another reason , viz. because the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to all the Apostles 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 question 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 Origen consists not with the words of Christ , Because they are only spoken of Peter , and understood of him ; Ergo , this testimony 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 reasons , that the promise was made to all , as well as Peter : Moses 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 Peter , 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 directed . 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 upon all the faithful , because it consists of them ; and so Lyranus 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 . Secondly , the Apostles are called foundations in a peculiar manner ; because they founded the Church by preaching that Doctrine 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 deny other men to be the Rocks , in that sense mentioned to Bellarmins third reason now mentioned . And thus much of Origines . 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 Government of the Church : Ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur , & 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 Peter 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 represented 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 foundations : 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 nothing 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 Bishop 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 Savior , 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 contradictory 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 consequently foundation in Bellarmins third sense is a dream of his own , by which he may well confirm his disciples , he will never 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 Article of the Creed , Catholick Church , making it Catholick Roman Church . Secondly , we have shewed , That this third way of Foundation is a fiction of Bellarmins , not dreamed of by the Ancients ; 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 potestatis , plenitude of power , in which it contradicts the Theologick 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 plenit●de of power ; yet he contradicts himself , in giving to Peter 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 Legats 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 Apostles to be extraordinar Pastors , Peter as well as the rest ) First , he makes the other Apostles above Peter ; since extraordinar 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 , Prophets , and Evangelists , before Pastors and Doctors : and so he contradicts himself , in affirming , that extraordinar Pastors depend upon Peter , as their head , whom he maketh ordinar Pastor . Secondly , He contradicts himself in making the other Apostles Legats to Peter , and to omit , he doth so without any ground ( having no authority , but his own assertion ) he intangleth himself in his reason : for he hath no other reason wherefore the other Apostles are Legats to Peter : but only because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 extraordinar 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 promised to build his Church ; and to give him the power of the keys : Ergo , they were given to Peter alone . For albeit afterwards 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 notoriously 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 Divines , 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 , Bishops , Presbyters , and Deacons , and Doctors , are ordinar Officers ; Apostles , Evangelists extraordinar . Secondly , Though the distinction of Sanderus , in that sense of ordinar and extraordinar were granted ; his assertion 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 inconsequent , and proves nothing : for albeit our Savior had exhibited 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 extraordinar , 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 Emperors . 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 , Senators , 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 Bishop 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 Doctors , 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 approved by the Modern Church of Rome , as an article of Faith , is against all Antiquity , and a new devised cheat of late , to establish 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 among 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 observed , that those who interpret the Rock to be Peter only , and tax others of their own profession of her sie , are but of yesterday , 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 tyranny 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 Peter , 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 ; Gregorius Bishop of Rome , in Job , lib. 31. cap. 19. in sacro eloquio cum singulari numero Petra nominatur , quis alius quàm Christus 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 followeth , Super hanc Petram , id est , Super me aedificabo Ecclesiam meam . Quasi dicat : si● es Petrus à me Petra , ut tamen mihi reservetur fundamenti dignitas . Sed tu , cui ego amatori , & confessori me● Participium mei nominis dedi , Super me fundamentum 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. whereby 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 intelligendus , 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 confessus 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 Ecclesia : ideóque nullo unquam tempore , nullâque vi labefactari & 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. because 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 lately , it is evident , that the interpretation of the Rock to be Peter , 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 confessus es , & à qua vocabull sortitus es dignitatem , super hanc soliditatem 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 confession of Peter , mean both one thing : since he expresly affirms , 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 recorded by Gratianus , Distinct . 22. cap. 1. Romanam Ecclesiam 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 Erasmus ; all which expresly interpret the rock to be the confession 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 famous Cardinal , whom Espenseus , lib. 2. de adorat . Ecclesiae , and Aeneas Silvius afterward Bishop of Rome , both commend 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 likewise , 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 Apostoli fuerunt lapides ; Apocal. 21. In which words he expresly affirms , and proves that the other Apostles were Rocks as well as Peter , which he proves by the testimony of Hieronymus . 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 Baronius , 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 argument of our adversaries , proving Peter to be Oecumenick 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 answered by Protestants , that in those words , the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven , our Savior doth not mean universal Jurisdiction 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 Jurisdiction 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 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and they call Shebna , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 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 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 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 jurisdiction of the Church . It is answered , the case is different : 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 consequently , 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 , promising to Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven , promised to him alone the government of the whole Church , by the testimonies of Fathers . The first testimony of Chrysostomus , 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , pos●it eum , placed him . Trapezuntius ; renders praeposuit , 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 Pastor of the Church ; but that 's nothing to an Oceumenick Bishop : 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 Bishops . Secondly , the impudence of Bellarmin is very great , in objecting 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 Canons 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 impudence of Bellarmin no greater can be imaginable : Gregory expresly 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 Gregories 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 Oecumenick Bishop . And thus much of the first reason , wherefore Protestants deny , that the power of the keyes imports no universal 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 second place is in Joh. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit , they are remitted 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 forgiveness of sins : but binding and loosing may be exercised in other objects , 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 , potestatem ligandi , solvendique peccata . In which words he expresly 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 Apostles , 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 Apostles , John 20. is this , in Matthew it is said to Peter , Whomsoever thou shalt bind , &c. But it is said to the other Apostles 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 Scripture , 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 punishment : 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 refusing 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 retained by two keyes of power and remission . Bellarmins third argument , proving that John 20. and Matthew 16. are not alike , is this ; because , saith he , in John 20. Power of forgiving sins , by the Sacrament of Baptism or Penitence is only conferred upon the Apostles : which he proveth by the authority 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 conferred by Christ upon the Apostles in this place ; since retaining of sins is also given unto them . Secondly , Fathers referr to Baptism that loosing given to Peter , Matthew 16. So Cyprianus , epistle 73. where he disputs , that forgiving of sins in Baptism 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 dissimilitude 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. Nevertheless , 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 Apostles , Matthew 18. 18 His argument is this , which I believe he understands not himself . In Matthew 18. ( saith he ) Nothing is given to the Apostles 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 exhibited 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 , Matthew 16. 19. and Matthew 28. 18. for in stead of proving them different places , by his sophistical contradictory babling , he proves they are just the same : For first he grants , that nothing was exhibited in either place , but only promised . Secondly , 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 Jurisdiction 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 loosing 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 conscience , 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 ? Secondly , 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 singular number Heaven . So Hilarius , lib. 6. de Trinitate affirms , That all the Apostles had the keys Regni Coelorum of the Heavens : 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 binding and loosing in Coelis , in the Heavens . The school-men likewise speak after the same manner , as Lombardus , distinct . 18. of the first chapter , lib. 4. and also in the same book , distinct . 19. and Durandus , quest . 1. in his Commentaries 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 Castro , 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 distinction 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 Origen , 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 allegorically , 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 notorius 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 : otherwise he were not only a lyar in this place , but also a contradicter of Reason , Scripture , and other Fathers , and of himfelf 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 contradict 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. because 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 exceptions 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 Heaven were given to others , as well as to Peter : those testimonies 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 Treatise against the Novatians . All which testimonies expresly affirm , That the keys were given to others beside Peter : Neither is it needful to set down the words , since our adversaries cannot have so much impudence as to deny them : To which testimonies may be added , that of Hieronymus against Jovinanus , 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 coelorum , 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 testimonies . 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 alike power with Peter , in the power of the keys , albeit it seems to be the meaning of those Fathers : which he illustrats by the example of Moses , and the 70. Elders : since it is said , Numbers 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 , Matthew 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 loosings , in Relec. controvers . 3 ▪ quest . 1. art . 1. conclus . 4. Others answer , Distinguishing the keys of Order and Jurisdiction , 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 appears 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. & consequently , 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 , mentioned , 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 forgive , they are remitted unto them , and whose soever sins ye retain , 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 devised evasions is unanswerable : viz. It appears by the Fathers , 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 given 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 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ? 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 believed that the power of the keys , promised to Peter , Matthew 16. was greater then that promised to the other Apostles , Matthew 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 deduced . 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 Gaudentius , primae de ordinationis suae , that all the Apostles as well as Peter 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 carriage and practise , that he had any Jurisdiction over the other Apostles . 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 unfaithfulness of Peter : if it be false , ( as it is , ) it is great impudence in the Jesuit . The second argument taken from the Fathers , proving consequentially that the other Apostles were promised the keyes , as well as Peter , is taken from Augustinus , who affirms , That Peter 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 , solvendique peccata . In which words he expresly affirms , That Peter 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 distinctions , explaining how the keyes were given to Peter , representing 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 Horantius 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 Authority 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 Kingly Authority , when he who is made King gets it : But Augustinus 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 promised 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 Dominus , tibi dabo claves regni coelorum , & quaecunque solveris in terra , soluta erunt in coelo : & quaecunque ligaveris in terra , ligata 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 reconciliatur ab Ecclesia , in coelo soluitur excommunicatus : si hoc , Ergo , in Ecclesia fit . Petrus quando claves accepit , Ecclesiam sanstam significavit . By which it appears , that he expresly disputs that Peter had not the keyes given to him alone , because the whole Church used them as well as he : and thence concluds , that he represented the whole Church , when our Savior 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 Germany : Since all Germany doth not exercise the Imperial Authority 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 another , 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 himself , no more then an Ambassador representing his King , marrying 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 affirm , That Bellarmins enumeration is still insufficient ; for Peter got the keyes neither as Vicar of the Church , nor a Moderator 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 Apostolatus 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 Episcopatui preferendum ? Who knows not that the Primacy of an Apostleship 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 Apostle 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 particular charges of exercising Jurisdiction . But it is answered , This Gloss of Bellarmins is against all Antiquity : innumerable testimonies of Fathers might be produced , 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 produced as he is called by Canus , loc . Theol , lib. 12. cap. 1. Relect . 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 Jurisdiction 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 Jurisdiction , 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 power 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 answer 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 Bellarmin affirms , That Peter answered only for himself , and not for the rest , because he knew not what they would answer ; It is frivolous , 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 answer ; but since the others did not answer at all , but only himself ▪ 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 believed 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 Bellarmin 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 answered 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 answered , It doth not follow . He answered not for them all , Because 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 , answered 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 , because 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 answered 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 proving 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 although 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 Chastising : As appears by our Savior using the Greek verb , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which signifies to feed by commanding , in which sense , Kings are called by Homer , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Pastors of the people . But it is answered , Bellarmin subtilty in such Grammaticisms hath no ground : Our Savior in the same place , useth the Greek verb , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as well as , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , imports no dominion at all ; but only Ministration of food . Secondly , albeit there were such a Mystery in the Greek verb , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as to signify Jurisdiction ; Yet it is injoyned to Peter , 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 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Praefecturam , 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 Priesthood , which is common to all Priests , and not of an Oecumenick 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 Pastors 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 Savior affirmeth , As my Father sent me , so send I you : Which words are expounded by Cyrillus , lib. 12. in John , by Chrysostomus , hom . 85. upon John , By Theophylactus upon this place to this purpose : viz. Cyrillus affirms , That all the Apostles were ordained Doctors of the whole World , to inlighten not only the Jews , but all the Nations of the World. Chrysostomus 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 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 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 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 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 ? respondit , 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 Clergy 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 Pastors , 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 Resurrection . Augustinus , tract . 123. upon John , Chrysostomus , de Sacerdotio , 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 Adversaries ; 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 Savior 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 ? Follow 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 stateing of the question : as if Protestants denyed , that these words of our Savior were directed to Peter alone : And therefore 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 foresaid 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 . After 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 Savior , 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 Bellarmins 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 Scripture , 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 Fathers : It is contrair to Fathers , as was proved by the testimonies of the Clergy of Rome , of Cyrianus , of Augustinus , Chrysostomus and Basilius . Finally , it is contrair to Popish Doctors , as Franciscus de Victoria , who ( as we shewed before ) disputed expresly , That all the Apostles had not only their Order , but also their Jurisdiction immediately from Christ : And reprehended the ordinar gloss , for using that distinction , in exposition 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 immediatly 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 argument , 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 Apostle John had Jurisdiction over those Apostles , who loved not Christ so well as himself : that Stephanus a Deacon had Jurisdiction 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 Zadeel , 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 authority , or that because these words , Feed my sheep , were injoyned 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 , because our Savior injoyned the Feeding of his sheep to others , as well as to Peter : which we proved by Scripture , and Fathers , 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 conclude 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 Apost●es also : he endeavors to prove it two wayes . First , reasoning 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 according 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 themselves . 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 Bellarmin of his subtile distinction now ? Secondly , all Antiquity 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. Chrysostomus on John , Homily 87. Ambrosius , or the Author of those sermons attributed to him , Sermon 46. It is needless to mention 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 expresly 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 Bellarmin , 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but also by the Greek article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which article● and Pronoun 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 instance overthrows the sophistry of Bellarmin and Turrianus . These propositions are indefinit : if universal , they were notoriously false ; and yet they have both the Articles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 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 Apostles , 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 comprehended ; 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 before these Sheep and Lambs , are meant others besides the Apostles , 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 : It s false , that no Sheep are commended to Peter , or that some certain 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 , Mathew 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 consequently 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 immediatly : 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 Monarch of the Church by Christ : we will conclude the disput with two passages , the one of Gregorius De Valentia , that famous Jesuit : the other of Cusanus , that no less famous Cardinal . 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 question , 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 Savior in these three passages , ordained the Apostle Peter Monarch 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 , & incogitantia , nihil ab adversariis responderi posse , certissimus sane 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 Typographi , or a fault of the Printer : but when I consulted Valentia 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 invincible . The ground of his argument consist in a Topick Axiom of his own divising against all the rules of Logick : viz. If the negation 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 axiom of Valentia is the foundation of a Syllogism consisting of affirmatives 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 invincible ? 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 notoriously 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 Gregorius de Valentia , viz. If Peter did not feed the flock of Christ , and had not the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven , it follows necessarily 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 Bishop 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 , quemcunque ligaveritis ? Et quanquam Petro dictum est , Tu es Petrus . Si Petrus per Petram lapis fundamenti Ecclesiae intelligi 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 universum , &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 Nations . And thus much Cusanus , in which words although a Cardinal , 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 whereas , 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 receperunt immediatè à Christo , quod pro certo mihi videtur pronunciandum . Haec est apertè sententia Cypriani , epist . de unitate Ecclesiae : hoc erant caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus , nec audienda est glossa , dicens , Hoc non intelligi de potestatis plenitudine , ut patet apud Cyprianum . Quod pro certo mihi videtur pronunciandum : In which words , he not only affirmeth , That all the Apostles had their power immediately from Christ : but also , alike power immediatly from Christ : reprehending that ordinar distinction of the Roman Church , viz. That all the Apostles although they had their power immediately from Christ , yet not secundum plenitudinem potestatis , which he proves by that passage of Cyprian , de unitate Ecclesiae , 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 Apostle 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 Disputation , to prove a negative : or that Peter was not ordained Oecumenick Bishop by Christ ( it being enough 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 Oecumenick Bishop . Therefore these passages ought not to be neglected ( since they are recorded in Scripture for our instruction ) but on the contrair , diligently examined , and vindicated , 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 constraint ; 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 immediately 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 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , used by the Apostle in the said place , which evermore imports tyrannical domination , as the verb , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , signifies to exercise dominion lawfully . But he is mistaken : Both these verbs are used promiscuously in Scripture for the same : both signifying lawful dominion , or exercising dominion lawfully , as appears by comparing , Matthew 20. 25. and Mark 10. 42. where the verb , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; Whereby it appears that these two Greek verbs signify both one sort of ruling which is lawful : and not the one of them used by Peter , 1. 5. signifyeth tyrannical domination : 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 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , made use of by Peter , 1. 5. 3. as Psalm 72. 8. and 110. 2. and Genesis 1. 28. other innumerable places 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 , supream 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 Empress 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 Eutychian 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 inserted 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 likewise 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 condemned two decretal Epistles of the said Honorius , as Heretical . 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 ; potest 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 facere justitiam , corrigendo jura , & mutando : demum plenitudinem 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 dominion in Spirituals , which was the first particular . The second particular of his tyrannical dominion , is in Temporals . 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 natural Princes ; to command them to fight against them , and consequently to kill them : that all are oblieged to acknowledge him for their natural Prince whom the Pope shal appoint . It is taught also in that Church , That the Pope is direct Monarch 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 deposing 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 Flatterers . 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 deposing 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 unanimously 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 Henry 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 notorious ) in which he assums to himself that power , as appears by innumerable of his Bulls , especially by those now mentioned against the Emperor , Kings of England & France : in which , he expresly assumes unto himself authority of building , or aedificandi ; of casting down , or demoliendi ; of planting , plantandi ; of rooting out , eradicandi , transferendi , of transferring , Kingdoms at his pleasure . In some of which Bulls also , he applyeth to himself 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 General Council ; protesting he detested that doctrine as unsound . 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 authority 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 Lateran , anno 1116. is called a General Council by Baronius . Likewise 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 Council 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 , attributed 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 Council of Trent , where he would find that power of the Popes so intelligibly asserted , and consequentially ( although not expesly ) 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 deprived 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 heresie . 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 Cardinal Peron , in the name of the Clergy of France , as their Speaker in an Assembly of the Estates : in which speech , he openly maintains , 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 largely 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 confession forbidden , Peter 1. 5 , 3. The third particular of the tyrannical Domination of the Bishop of Rome , is over souls departed . The fourth is over Angels . Both which usurpations appear 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 & absolutus : & 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 electione C. fundamenta , affirms , That S. Peter was assumed in the fellowship 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 Institution ; 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 Domination of the Bishop of Rome is , his hearing , patientissimis auribus , 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 censeatur ; 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 Innocent 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 calleth 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 proved 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 granted , that only tyrannical Domination in Church-men were forbidden 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 tyrannical 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 arguments , that the power of the Bishop of Rome now-a-dayes , was not only tyrannical , but blasphemous , and a right-down Gigantomachy : which shal more largely be proved , part . 4. lib. 1. In this following chapter , we make use of a second argument against 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 Oecumenick 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 against 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 Constantinople , 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 Sophistry , because Gregory disputs generally against all who presume 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 disputs 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 Constantinople : 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 belonged 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 Ascetitis in the Prooem , where he calls Christ the only head of the Church . And thus ye have the opinion of Basilius , and Gregorius , both called the Great , that a Secundary Head of the Church , is an Antichristian fiction , since they thunder so against 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 contumelious to Christ ? His argument is this , Many titles of Christ are communicated to men , such as Pastor , Bishop , Apostle , Prophet , Light , Foundation : Yea , and the title of God himself ; and yet no injury is done to Christ , when men are called Apostles , 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 Subjects : 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 Kingdom 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 translated to Christ : and since our Savior demits himself voluntarily , to these titles , it is no injury to him , though they be attributed to him , Metaphorically and Abusively . In the next place , are Light and Foundation , which according to an Homonymy are attributed to Christ and to men . And first , Light , if it were attributed to them both properly , 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 , because he illuminats ; men are called Lights because they are illuminated . 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 illuminats : men were only called Lights , because they were illuminated 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 fundamenta 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 confessed 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 Prophets ; 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 foundation 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 , improperly 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 : because 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 , Antiquity , 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 Viceroy to Christ , otherwise in the government of the Church , then a King is Viceroy to GOD , in the government of a Kingdom . But Kings are absolute , and not Viceroys , and therefore 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 infallibility 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 Antecedent , 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 Fathers : Ergo , why may there not be one visible head of all the Church under Christ ? But it is answered , First , if Sanderus had objected that argument to Gregorius Magnus himself , 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 Sanderus have endeavored to prove , that it is not inconsistent with the Church , to have two heads : because , the one is a Primary 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 , Panigarola 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 Bellarmin 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 called a body two ways , saith he . First , as it is a total body . Secondly , 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 Successors , are visible heads of the Church : So the Church cannot be said to have two heads ; for Christ , and Peter and his Successors , 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 Successors 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 mystical , 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 body , 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 Fathers 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 consequently , 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 notoriously 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 secundary 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 body of the said secundary head , if there were any such thing . But since the Church is no where called the body of that secundary 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 secundary head of the Church is as perpetual , as a King in a Kingdom : 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 depends upon none but Christ : and therefore the Church may as well be called his body , and Church , as a Kingdom may be called Kingdom of the King. But since the Church is no where called body of that secundary head , it is evident , that the said secundary head is but a fiction . Bellarmin pressed with those difficulties , ●●ies to another distinction , 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 any 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 abuseth Scripture , and a passage of Augustinus to prove it . The place of Scripture is 1 Corinth . 12. verse 12. Where the Apostle 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 . Augustins words are , Non dixit ita & Christi , idest , corpus Christi , vel membra Christi : sea ita & Christus unum Christum appellens 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 affirmed , 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 called the Body of that secundary head ? But the Roman Doctors of late maintain , that the Church is , and may be called the body 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 institution of the Supremacy of Peter : now followeth the third , which is this , If Peter had been ordained by our Savior Monarch of the Church , then the Apostles themselves , and these who lived in their times , delineating the Hierarchy of the Church , would have mentioned it , or affirmed , That the Government of the Church was monarchical , under 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 ever 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 Hierarchie of the Church , verse 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14. hath these words , He that descended , is even the same that ascended , far above 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 every degree many persons : the highest degree , is that of the Apostles : which are also many , or in the Plural number , whereby 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 , ordained by Christ , is not full , or is not perfect ; as if the Apostle had omitted some Church-Officers , ordained by Christ : because it appears by verse 12 , 13 , & 14. That no more were necessarie for the building up of the Church , or performing any duty 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 , wavering , 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 Apostle , it is evident , that there was no such Monarch ordained 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 affirms 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 extraordinar 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 Ministers there are many , and not one only in each degree : it is evident , 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 perfect : 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 , Apostles , Prophets and Evangelists . He passeth from this , and affirms next , That an Oecumenick Bishop is comprehended under Apostles : because , not only here , but also 1 Corinth 12. Apostles are put in the first place : and therefore the chief Ecclesiastick 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 Modern 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 passage , 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 , iracundiae , rationi modum statue pro dignitate : tibi verò divini Ministri : his Sacerdotes : Pontifices Sacerdotibus : Pontificibus Apostali stoli , Apostolorúmque successores . Quod si qu●s etiam in istis ab officio discedat , à sanctis qui sunt ejusdem ordinis corrigetur : atque ita non insultabit ordo in ordinem : sed unusquisque in suo ordine , 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 further 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 successors of the other Apostles , were in the first place of the Hierarchy , 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 Disciple 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 Episcopi , 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 succeeded 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 Sacerdotum , 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 , because not only Hieronymus ( contemporarie with Ambrosius ) and other Fathers , but also Ambrosius himself , calls all Bishops , Summos Sacerdotis , or chief Priest , and of alike Jurisdiction : 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 : Eusebius , 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 numbers 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 Fathers , calling ; All Bishops alike , or all Bishops High-Priests , by distinguishing equality in that of Order , and that of Jurisdiction . 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 censured 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 passage of Scripture claimed by both : that is , the Romanists by it endeavor to establish the supremacy of Peter The Protestants 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 Sophister , 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 domination 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 supposition 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 affirmed 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 affirm , 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 . Whereas 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 Ministry , but all domination is opposit to Ministry , as appears 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. Nehemia complains , That some of the former Governors had extorted 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 objected to Christ , that Moses did command to give a bill of divorce , that a man should put away his wife upon every slight occasion . 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 whereas our Adversaries affirm , that only tyrannical domination is forbidden : Although it were so , this place quite militats against 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. being pressed with paralell places to this , that nothing can be gathered from those contentions of the Apostles , for the supremacy 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 mountain , 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 : because 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 signified , 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 , because the Evangelists doth not mention it oftner then two times , as Matth. cap. 18. & 20. Mark. cap. 9. 10. Luk. cap. 9. 22. Secondly , 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 different contention from Matthew 20. and Mark 10. because in Luk. 22. no mention is made of the petition of the Sons of Zebedeus , 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 among you , and greatest among you , is the same thing : Great among 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 comparative degree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , whereas Matthew and Mark have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , what Matthew and Mark calls great in the positive degree , Luke calls more great , in the comparative degree : whereas the expressions of both are equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 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 , renders 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . which ever denotats a single person : Secondly , by reason of the substantive verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : ( Sanderus and Bellarmin argue from the Latin Version ) both the articles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the substantive verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , are mentioned , Luk 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . But Sanderus grants one is not made least in that place . Bellarmin urgeth ano●her difference , as Luk 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which word signifieth a Prince or Captain , a single person commanding over many : But is answered , Nothing can be gathered from that word , because , Acts 15. 22. and Heb. 13. 16. 17. many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 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 affirmed , 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 expressed : 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 metaphor 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 expressions : now to apply , Let him serve , or be a servant , Matthew 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 between , 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 already 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 indefinit , 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 primary 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 coheres well enough when he proposeth his own example as a reason 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 himself 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 follow 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. impertinently , 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 Sophism 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 particular ) to follow his example in humble carriage : not in Domination , 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 Antiquity , 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 . Secondly , 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 angelica & 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 institution 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 Corrolaries of the former , or else some places of Scripture mis-interpreted , 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 ridiculous . CHAP. XV. of the Prerogatives of Peter in general . BEllarmin , lib. 1. cap. 17. De Pont. Rom. having disputed 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 purpose . 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 Oecumenick 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. Rebuked 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 unto the Gentiles , Acts 13. healed the sick only with his handkerchief , Acts 19. Struck Elimas with blindness , ibid. converted 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 original 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 Prerogatives of Paul , as if no mortal man were capable of greater : and since these Prerogatives of Paul do not conclude him Oecunick 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 universos 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 opinion , 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 equal to those of Peter , as expresly is affirmed by them : and also Superior to those of Peter , as may be gathered , not obscurely from their words : albeit out of modesty they affirm it not expresly . Prerogatives then concluding Peter to be Oecumenick 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 Prerogatives : 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 understand 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 , tempting 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 , impertinent Rhetorications , and oratorial digressions , tedious repetitions of the same things ad nauseam usque ; wrested , mutilated , falsly interpreted , and forged Testimonies of the Ancients , to deceive 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 reason , 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 irrefragable 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 disput 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 others , who prosecute that dispute to the full . The Popish Authors 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 Tradition . We will dispute the first 20. in the following 16. chapter , 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 refuting : but lest our Adversaries brag that we omitted 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-mentioned prerogatives of Paul , are nothing inferior to them . Secondly , It will appear that there is not one of them , but it is either impertinent , and nothing to the purpose ; or else , notoriously 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 Oecumenick 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 extravagant phantasies , falling again upon Tu es Petrus , which we disputed to the full before . The second prerogative is this , When the names of the Apostles 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 among 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 Peter 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 , indeed , 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 nothing 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 Trinity 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 exposition of this place , viz. That the gates of hell should not overcome 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 decayed . 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 Peter 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 confession of Peter . In a third , Peter himself . However , they intangle 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 tribute to be payed for him and Peter : whence some Fathers gather , that the Apostles themselves knew the supremacy of Peter . So Hieronymus on Matthew 18. as he is cited by Bellarmin . But it is answered , Although some Fathers were of that opinion , 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 Zebedens 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 error 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 Bishop of Rome is a temporal monarch . But they affirm , that Peter was the same which the Bishop of Rome is : but that he holds himself as a temporal Monarch , and teacheth it in Cathedra , 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 Bishop ; or that the said tribute was payed for all the Church Militant : which cannot be mentioned without laughter . However , 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 . Secondly , 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 stupendious 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 tribute 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 together alone . He is not so subtile as Bellarmin , to gather any supremacy of Peter , from those words : The truth is , both Peter 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 hunting 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 Peters ? 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 signify the Church : that of Luke 5. the Church Militant , because 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 Triumphant ? 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 Heresies of the Church Militant . In the second , the nets did not brea● at all , which signifyeth , The Vnity of the Church Triumphant . 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 convinced by these former reasons , that in these two fishings , the Church Militant and Triumphant are represented , they cannot but be convinced , by this following reason . viz. In the first fishing , the fish were taken in the ship , Luke 5. But in the second , 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 fishings 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 Peter 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 going a fishing , and the rest said , they would go with him . Secondly , 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 conferred 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 person 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 : because 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 Theophylactus comments upon the place , viz. that Peter shal confirm his Brethren , by keeping them from despair of forgiveness , although 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 Euthymius and Maldonat the Jesuit , who upon this place hath these words , Ambrosij , Theophylacti , & Euthymij interpretatio mihi non displicet , qui conversum exponunt ●peccato , quo Christum negavit , acta poenitentia , quasi aliis de suó vulnere fecerit medicinam . In which words the Jesuit expresly aquiesceth in the exposition of these Fathers Whence appears the notable sophistry of Bellarmin , lib. 4. cap. 3. de pont . Rom. who interprets these words of our Savior , Therefore when thou art converted , 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 , convert thy self to them , and confirm them . They object many things here , as that Theophylactus affirmeth , That Peter after his repentance shal recover Primatum omnium , and Praefecturam orbis : that Ambrosius affirms , Petrus Ecclesiae praeponitur postquaem tentatus à Diabolo est . Augustinus also calls Peter Rectorem Ecclesiae , cui claves Regni Coelorum creditae sunt . But these objections are of no moment . And first , that Theophylactus affirms that Peter recovered the Primacy 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 Jurisdiction : and it shal be proved , cap. 19. & 20. that not only 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 mother , or to any of the Apostles . If Bellarmin answer , That Mary Magdalen was only a woman : It is replyed , It concluds , Women 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 Simon : which is all that Bellarmin alledgeth to prove that Christ first appeared to Peter , except that of 1 Corinth . 15. He appeared unto Cephas , and after that unto the eleven : however , albeit it be very probable that our Savior appeared to Peter , before 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 , before ever he appeared to the other Apostles . The tenth Prerogative is taken from John 13. when our Savior 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 conjecture 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 Savior 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 Aquinas , 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 demand 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 gathered from the words . And whereas they insist upon stretching 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 another 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 whither 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 gather great things . First , that Peter convocated the rest of the Apostles ; Ergo he was Oecumenick Bishop . But first , it is inconsequent ; 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 convocated 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 , because 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 admiration of all the hearers , but questionless , what they spake was the Gospel . The fourteenth Prerogative , is , from Acts 3. 6. Where Peter 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 Ascension . But it is replyed , What although it were ? It doth not conclude 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 preached 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 . Secondly , 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 Cornelius . The eighteenth Prerogative , is , from Acts 12. Where it is affirmed , That the Church made continual intercession for Peter , when he was imprisoned . But it is answered , None but a Sophister , would object that to prove Peter Oecumenick Bishop . Bellarmin instances . That they prayed not for James , and Stephen : But it is answered , That 's 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 pronounced 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 presided 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 Jerusalem 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 Chrysostomus , 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 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that this is Chrysostom's meaning 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 manner , he sophisticats in Hieronymus , whom he brings in affirming the reason of that visit , was , because , Peter was the first Apostle . 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 affirms in the same place , That Paul came to see Peter , non discendi 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 Prerogatives of Peter , in which we have omitted nothing of moment , or what is worth the answering . Bellarmin alledgeth some testimonies 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 testimonies we have vindicated . He deludes his Reader in this , viz. because those Fathers acknowledge some of those Prerogatives , 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 contradicts , 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. Chrysostomus on the Acts , homil . 1. who all affirm , That Peter and the other Apostles were baptized by John the Baptist ; Augustinus , 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 . Nevertheless , 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 Chrysostomus 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 properly : 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 Hereticks , 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 disputation , but it is laught at else where . Secondly , that argument would conclude Paul to be Oecumenick Bishop , since Cyrillus , Cathes . 6. Sulpitius , hist . Sacr. lib. 2. Ambrosius sermon . 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 Magus 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 presumptions , that Peter was never at Rome : and that all Bellarmins proofs to the contrair , are of no moment . The fourth Ttraditional prerogative of Peter , is , That Peter 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 : Secondly , 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 terrarum partibus , suscepissent , Petrus , Princeps Apostolici ordinis 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 answered , he was come again to be crucified . But it is answered : First , it contradicts Scripture , affirming , 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 Bellarmin 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 Scripture , 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 Sophistry , 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 mentions 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 Chalcedon , established by Law. And therefore , it is false which Bellarmin affirms , That these three were ever held Patriarchal seatsonly , because they were founded by Peter ; as shal be proved at large , part . 2. lib. 2. Thirdly , It is false which he affirms , viz. That those Churches were called Patriarchal , because 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 Bishop 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 divisionem , & praerogativas à Romanis antea stabilitas , quam plurima sunt exempla . And a little after , he affirms , That the Patriarch 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 , because 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 observed 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 Reason , 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 inserted . If ye answer , that it is but a late invention , Bellarmin will produce an Epistle of Atticus Bishop of Constantinople But it is replyed , Several makes mention of these Literae called Formatae ; but of that sort as they are mentioned by Bellarmin , 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 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which three letters signify Father , Son , and Holy Ghost ; Then was written 〈◊〉 the initial 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 letters . 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 Bellarmin in this argument of prerogatives , for the supremacy of Peter , which is the fourth general argument , proving him Oecumenick Bishop alledged by our adversaries . CHAP. XVIII . Several Arguments from the Carriage of Peter , disproving his Supremacy . OUr Adversaries in the three preceeding chapters , endeavored 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 Peter 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 arguments from his carriage , disproving his supremacy , are no sophisms , 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 , cannot 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 only guesseth , his answer hath no warrand in the text , and by such answers as his , any passage of Scripture , albeit never so evident , may be eluded . Bellarmin , Stapleton , Sanderus , Salmero , and Baronius , anno 35. num . 9. affirms , That it is not inconsistent with Equals , 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 Roman Doctors maintain ) under his own authority . They instance , secondly , Herod sent the wise men to Bethlehem ; 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 consequently , he was not Oecumenick Bishop . Secondly , Herod did not delegate the wise men , not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 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 signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 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 . Secondly , Acts 15. the Greek verbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , are not used by Luke , but the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; which signifies a honorable 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Legat , 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 particular 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 argument 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 brethren 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 Oecumenick 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 memoriam . 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 translatione 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 potestatis , 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 Oecumenick 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 expresly to contradict Scripture , as appears to any having the use of reason , considering both that vision , and also his speech meeting with Cornelius , verse 34. Stapletonin Relect. Controvers . 3. quaest . 1. art . 3. and in other 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 forbidden 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 . Secondly , That he was deservedly resisted . This objection puts the Roman Doctors by the ears together how to answer it ? The most ingenuous among them confess , that Paul in those words expresly 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 Alexandrinus , 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 Peter 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 , affirming , That it was but a dissimulation , and the reprehension proceeded 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 Augustinus , 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 reprehension , 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 reprehend 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 Bishop ? 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 acknowledged 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 Christian Doctrine . It is needless to examine the answers of others , as of Stapleton 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 Government , 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 Sophisters 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 inevitable , 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 Magistrat can be equal in the execution of Authority to the Supreme 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 consists 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 Oecumenick 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 transgressors , 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 preferred 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 carriage 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 , Prerogatives and Carriage . It remains only now to disput the Supremacy 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 custom ) 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 authority 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 Bellarmine , 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 fraudulently 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 tempore ; 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 Foundation , 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 Augustinus : 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 oecumenick 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. Homile 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 . Secondly , 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 Cyprianus . But , ( say the protestants ) the word First , imports 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 Peter and his successors , called the Chair of the whole Church , which infers , that according to Optatus , Peter was oecumenick Bishop . But it is answered , that Optatus in those words , is disputing against the Donatists , who had set up a Bishop of their own faction at Rome , in opposition to the true Bishop : 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 constitute another Chair , much lesse ye ought to set another Bishop in that Chair , in opposition to the successors 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 constituted 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 , Sermon 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 Apostles 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 , although 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 , Apstolatus 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 preferred 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 Thesaurus 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 Opusculo , 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 Bernardus 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 testimonies which they so magnify , are either ( ipsorum summorum , Pontificum Fimbrias suas extendentium ) Are either of Popes themselves enlarging their authority , or else of their flatterers . Bellarmines eleventh testimony , is taken from Eusebius Caesariensis , lib. 2. hist . cap. 14. who affirms , Peter is , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 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 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . That is , Not Captain of the Militia 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 generous and valiant Captain , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and consequently , Bellarmine triumphs before the Victory , since that testimony 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 Supremacy 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 answer ; 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 arroganter 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 consequently it appears rather that Cyprian , in these words , denyeth Peter to have the Supremacy : It seems Pamelius understands 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 specious testimonies , to prove the Supremacy of Peter over the other Apostles , as that Basilius affirms , he was preferred to the other Apostles ; Nazianzenus , That the other Apostles 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 ; Oecumenius , he obtained the precedency of the other Apostles ; Hieronymus , 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 . Ruffinus , 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 . Lastly , those very Fathers who give those elegies to Peter ; affirm , 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 principals of the Fathers expresly affirm , that Peter had no jurisdiction 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. paraphrasing on Pauls words , saith , I am nothing inferiour to Peter , we are both placed in the ministry by the same person , ( 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 oecumenick 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 Bishop . Of that title of head , we spake before , that it was given 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 without 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 primacy , 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 supremacy 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 Chapter , we will vindicate the said testimonies from the exceptions 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 fellowship 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 inequality might be amongst those of the same fellowship ; and our Adversaries ordinarily distinguish between order and jurisdiction , 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 Cambron 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 demonstrated , 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 : It s 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 supremacy 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 omnibus , 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 persons , 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 Authority of Peter , who was ordinar Pastor , and whose Authority was derived to his Successors ; we proved before , that it was a fiction 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 Authority 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 Constantinople 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 victoria ( as we shewed before ) expresly disputs , that all the Apostles had their Authority immediatly from Christ ; and taxeth 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 distinction , the first is , that all the Apostles were of alike power 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 superioritatem 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 Government above the other Apostles : but according to the execution of that Power , all the Apostles were alike with him : But that distinction , is likewayes contradictiory , as we shewed before , and this much of Cyprian . The second testimony , is of Hieronymus , lib. 1. in Jovinianum , Vt dicis , super Petrum sundatur ecclesis : licet id ipsum 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 destroyes 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 Peter , in these words tues Petrus , and proves it by this testimony 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 authority . 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 oecumenick 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 dignity 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 afterwards 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 instituted 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 institution , 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 conjectures 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 Peter by Babylon means Rome , and consequently Peter was at Rome . But it is answered , albeit in the Apocalyps , which is a mystical 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 auditors 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 traditions : 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 supremacy 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 endeavours 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 confesseth . Bellarmine answers , That Orosius doth not affirm , that Christians 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 acknowledged 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 eliminating is properly to put them out , that were in already . Likewayes , 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 Christians 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 Apocryphal . Bellarmines third reason , to prove that Peter was at Rome , is , That several of the Fathers affirm , that Mark wrote his Evangel at Rome , as he heard Peter preach it there . But it is answered , that all this depends upon the Authority of Papias , neither do they agree amongst themselves in the relation ; for , Hieronymus following the authority of Papias , 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 testimony 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 professeth 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 contain 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 affirmed , 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 supremacy 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 , minuting the reasons of Velenus ) by consequence , the supremacy 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 Disciples 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 , Ambrosius , 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 successions 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 Apostleship ; 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 & instruentes 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. Episcoporum 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●●● 〈…〉 Episcopatum 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 following . 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 Bishop , 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 reckoned 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 second Bishop ; and lib. 4. cap. 1. he calls Euaristus fourth Bishop , and cap. 5. he calls Telesphorus seventh Bishop : likewayes in his Chronicles , he gives unto them the same order of succession , anno . 69. and 81. and 93. and 100. whereby 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 second , Clemens the third ; which is as much as if those Fathers 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 , Abilius 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 Peter 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 ; whereby 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 properly , 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 testimonies . 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 Eusebius , lib. 5 hist . cap. 6. where Eusebius brings in Irenaeus speaking thus , The blessed Apostles [ Paul and Peter ] founding 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 govern 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 Linus had been Coadjutor to those who ordained him , he would have been Coadjutor to Paul as well as to Peter , and consequently , Paul was also Bishop of Rome . 3. Irenaeus expresly 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 Bishop . 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 ; whereby 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 . Barrontus 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 demonstrations 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 appear , 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 , It s 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 Fasciculus temporum &c. But it is replyed , that Bellarmine will not affirm , that Origines , Marianus , Scotes , Beda , Damasus , 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 after . 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 twenty five years : but it appears by Galat. 1. and 2. Acts 12. and 15. that Peter for the most part was at Jerusalem , 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 mentioned , 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 absurdities ; first , in affirming Peter was expelled Rome by Claudius , when he made that Edict against the Jews ; because if Peter had been expelled by that Edict , it behoved of necessity to be some considerable time before the Council of Jerusalem , since Peter being expelled by that Edict , was present at the Council of Jerusalem ; but Paul and Barnabas ( as is affirmed by Luke ) after that Council , stayed some time at Antiochia , and then Paul journyed to Syria 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 Amphipolis 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 appears , that Bellarmine affirms falsly , that Peter was expelled 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 Peters 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 it s no less pernitious example to leave their particular Charge , as Bellarmine affirms , Peter did ; neither is it of any moment 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 absurd 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 Council , 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 incredible he would have saluted so many , and ommitted 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 Hebrews ; and yet John was Bishop of Ephesus , and James Bishop of Jerusalem . But it is replyed , this answer of Bellarmine is very childish , 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 returned 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 Nero , 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 testified when it should have been testified : this last sort of negative 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 reprehension , 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 following three : for , if Peter had been at Rome , Paul would never 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 inconsistent 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 permitted them not to tye themselves to a particular place : but if they had been Bishops , they were of necessity tyed to a particular 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 Gentiles , 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 likewayes 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 famous 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 Preface , 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 assertions , 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 . THE GRAND IMPOSTOR DISCOVERED : OR , AN HISTORICAL DISPUT , Of the Papacy and Popish Religion . PART I. BOOK II. Of Bishops . CHAP. I. Of the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter . IN the former Book , were disputed the first two Questions , of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , viz. Whether Peter was , by divine right , Monarch of the Church ? 2. Whether he was by divine Institution , Bishop of Rome ? Now followeth the third Question , Whether the Bishop of Rome , by divine right , succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church ? Bellarmine and others brag , with great confidence to prove that he did , but their performance is very little : not so much as one of them , when it comes to the push , brings any passage of Scripture to prove it , except only Bozius , lib. 18. cap. 3. where he makes use of two places , the first is Phil. 4. 3. the words are , And I beseech thee , faithful yoke-fellow , help those women which laboured with me in the Gospel , with Clement also , and with other my fellow-labourers , whose names are in the book of life . Any reasonable man would admire , by what Chymistry he can distill the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter , out of these words ? He will tell you , Clement there mentioned was Bishop of Rome : Secondly , That the care of those women of Philippi belonged to him , Ergo , he was oecumenick Bishop ; otherwayes , how could he have any medling at Philippi , which was so far distant from Rome ? Let us examine this Logick , it will recreat the Reader : First , how knows he that Clement was Bishop of Rome ? He will tell you , that there was one Clement that succeeded to Peter Bishop of Rome . But we ask him , though that were granted , what then ? how knoweth he that it is the same Clement whom the Apostle mentions here ? He will tell you , this Clement mentioned by the Apostle , is called by Paul his fellow-labourer ; Ergo , he was a Bishop , and consequently designed at least Bishop of Rome . But it is replyed , first , It doth not follow that Clement was a Bishop , because he is called by Paul his fellow-labourer ; for that same Argument would conclude Priscilla and Aquila , a man and his wife , to be both Bishop . Rom. 16. Paul calls them his fellow-labourers . Secondly , Salmero the Jesuite , pressed by the Madeburgenses that Clement was not oecumenick Bishop , because Paul calls him fellow-labourer , Phil. 4. 3. answers , That at that time Clement was not designed Bishop of Rome ; and therefore it doth not follow : where observe how he contradicts Bozius ; Bozius concludes he was oecumenick Bishop designed , because Paul calls him fellow-labourer ; Salmero grants , that it follows he was not designed oecumenick Bishop , because Paul calls him fellow-labourer : Bozius reasons , he is called fellow-labourer , Ergo , he was designed oecumenick Bishop ; Salmero reasons , Paul calls him his fellow-labourer , Ergo , he was not designed oecumenick Bishop at that time ; having no other shift to elude the Argument of the Madeburgenses . Again , although it were granted , that Paul meant Clement Bishop of Rome , how proves he that Clement succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church ? which is the Question . He answers you , because Paul desires his yoke-fellow to assist him in the care of those women at Philippi : for what ado had Clement with women in Philippi , he being designed Bishop of Rome , except the care of the Church of Philippi had belonged unto him , and consequently he was oecumenick Bishop ? But to omit the bad consequence of that Argument , he mistakes the words of Paul or their construction ; Paul doth not desire his yoke-fellow to assist Clement in having a care of those women ; he only desires him to have a care of those women , who laboured with Paul himself and with Clement in the Gospel : That this is the true meaning of the words , is granted by Popish Doctors themselves commenting upon this place , as Justinianus the Jesuite , Cardinal Cajetanus , Lyranus ; yea , the French Lovaine Bible translates these words , Qui ont ●●auaillé auec moy en l'Evangile auec Clement , & mes autres co●diuteurs . The second place alledged by Bozius , is from 2 Pet. 1. 15. I will endeavour therefore alwayes , that ye also may be able to have remembrance of those things after my departing . If ye ask him , how he concludes that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter from those words ? He tells you , Peter promiseth after his death , to put those to whom he wrote in remembrance of those things , or to have a care that they should remember those things . If ye ask him , what then ? he tells you , Since Peter was dead himself , he behoved to put them in remembrance by another , and that other must of necessity be one who succeeded to him in the Monarchy of the Church . Let us retex this Logick , that the Reader may laugh . First he suppones , that Peter was to put them in remembrance by another then himself , which cannot be gathered from Peters words : he answers , Peter himself was dead ; Ergo , he beh●ved to do it by another . It is replyed , Peter , while he was yet al●ve , might have a care that they should remember these things after his death : Secondly , the whole current of Popish Doctors contradicts him , affirming , that Peter promiseth to have a care by himself , and not by another , that they should remember those things , viz. From this place they prove intercession of Saints ; and so according to them , the meaning of Peter is , that when he is departed , he will intercede for them . Thirdly , the true meaning of Peter is , that while he is alive , he will endeavour to provide them faithful Pastors , to instruct them , that they may remember those things : and therefore , his meaning is nothing less then an oecumenick Bishop : and this much of Bozius . Bellarmine states the question very perplexedly , and so obscurely , that it appears to any , he is diffident to make out what he undertakes : First , he observes four things , and then he falls a disputing . His first observation is , That the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter , in the Monarchy of the Church , is Jure Divino ; But the manner or way of succession , ratio successionis , depends upon the fact of Peter : which distinction of Bellarmins is very obscure and implicating ; he explains himself , that Peter might never have fixed his seat at Rome , and therefore it depends upon the ●act of Peter , that the Bishop of Rome succeeds to him : but he had said before , that Peter had fixed his seat at Rome , by the command of Christ : how can any make sense of those expressions ? he involves himself here in many contradictions ; first he affirms , that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church , is Jure divino , or by institution of Christ ; but that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church , is not Jure divino , but depends upon the fact of Peter : which is as much to say , that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is Jure divino , and yet the Bishop of Rome succeeded not Jure divino . Secondly , he affirms , That it depended upon the fact of Peter , that he was Bishop of Rome : and yet he saith , lib. 2. Fundatur jus successionis Pontificum Romanorum , in eo , quod Petrus Romae suam sedem , jubente Domino , collocaverit , atque ibidem usque ad mortem sederit ; That is , the right of the Bishop of Rom's succession is founded in this , viz. that Peter at the command of Christ , fixed his Bishoprick at Rome , and did sit Bishop there till his death . How can those two consist together ? First , Peter was expresly commanded by Christ to fix his Bishoprick at Rome ; Secondly , and yet notwithstanding , it was in Peters option whether he should do so or not ? He might be further pressed , but it is sufficient to answer here ( to omit his contradictions ) that all his suppositions are false : first , it is false , that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter is Jure divino , Secondly , it is false , that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter , because Peter fixed his seat at Rome , since it was proved in the former Book , that Peter was not Bishop of Rome at all . Thirdly it is most false , that Peter at the command of Christ , fixed his seat at Rome , neither doth he bring any thing to prove it , beside his own assertion : these three places , Matth. 16. 18 , and 19. and Joh. 21. 15. ( though it were granted that Peter was ordained by Christ Monarch of the Church by them , which was proved false in the former Book ) mentions nothing of the fixing his seat at Rome . The second observation of Bellarmine is this , If ye absolutely ask ( saith he ) if the Bishop of Rome , by divine institution , be Monarch and Head of the Church ? it is answered , certainly he is . Where he involves himself in another contradiction : in the former observation he affirmed , that the Bishop of Rome his succession to Peter depended upon the fact of Peter , which he granted was changable ; but nothing can be by divine institution , which depends upon an uncertainty . His third observation is very admirable , The Bishop of Rome , as the Bishop of Rome , ( saith he ) succeeds not to Peter Jure divino , and yet est de fide ; that is , we are oblieged to believe it , as an article of Faith : which is very mysterious language , how can we belive that by divine Faith , which is not revealed by God ? he answers , We are oblieged to believe it , as well as that Paul left his Cloak and Parchments at Troas . But it is replyed , those things are expresly mentioned in Scripture , and it s very strange , that the Scripture should mention the Cloak and Parchments of Paul , and not mention the Roman Bishoprick of Peter , or the Bishop of Rome's succession to Peter . Bellarmine goes on , They are not mentioned expresly , but deduced by necessar consequence out of Scripture . It ye ask him from what places of Scripture ? he tells you , It s a tradition Apostolick : If ye ask him how he proves that ? he tells you , by Councills , Fathers , Institution of Bishops , Appellations , &c. and so he takes up the whole dispute , by producing such probations : Where the Reader may observe , that after such bragings of the succession of the Bishop of Rome Jure divino , in the Monarchie of the Church , the Mountains have brought forth a Mouse , viz. he brings nothing but perverted Testimonies of the Ancients , falsly translated , and many of them forged , others mutilated , as shall appear in this , and the next two following Books ; where also it shall be proved , by the Testimonies of those same Councells and Fathers , pretended by him , that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church , is a meer fiction , not known to the Ancients of the first six Centuries : It s true indeed , that some ambitious Bishops of Rome , contending with the Bishops of Constantinople for the Primacy , ( which contention did begin after the Council of Chalcedon , Anno 453. ) invented this fiction of the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter : But that it was a new invented fiction , appears by two reasons : The first is , because the Council of Chalcedon , Canon 28 , made the Bishop of Constantinople equal in Jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome . It s true indeed , the said Council gave the first place in dignity to the Bishop to Rome , but it appears expresly by the words of the Canon , that it was not by any reason of succession to Peter , but only because Rome was the chief imperial City ; the words in the Original are , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , because Rome was the imperial City : where it is to be observed , that Aetius for the Bishop of Constantinople , and Paschasinus for the Bishop of Rome , had pleaded with great animosity for the Primacy before the said Council ; both alledging the sixth Canon of the Council of Neice , ( Paschasinus not mentioning Tu es Petrus at all ) in the end , the Council having heard them both at length , pronounced in favour of the Bishop of Constantinople , interpreting the sixth Canon of the Council of Neice , as making all the Patriarchs equal in Jurisdiction with the Bishop of Rome : after which Decree of the Council , the following Bishops of Rome devised Tu es Petrus , pleading for the Primacy . The second reason is , that in the latter end of the sixth Century , Pelagius Secundus and Gregorius Primus , Bishops of Rome , pleaded with great animosity against a visible Head of the Church , as Derogatory to Christ : and Gregorius amongst other reasons , useth this for one , that Peter was not universal Apostle , or visible head of the Church , Epistola 32. but more of that hereafter . Since then before the latter end of the fifth Age , never any Bishop of Rome pleaded the succession by Peter unto the Monarchie of the Church , and since Gregorius in the beginning of the seventh Age expresly disputed against it , it is evident , that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter , is a new devised fiction : yea , it shall be proved , lib. 5. that the said succession to Peter was held no article of Faith in the Church of Rome , before the eleventh Age , and not then neither , without great contention . Bellarmin's fourth observation is this , That the universal Bishoprick , and the Bishoprick of Rome , are not two Bishopricks , nisi potentia , and therefore they are but one Bishoprick : wherein he expresly contradicts himself ; he said before , that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchie of the Church was Jure divino , but as he was Bishop of Rome , it was not Jure divino ; now he makes them one Bishoprick , but how can that consist , since he had made them before two , whereof the one was Jure divino , and the other not ? Secondly , Bellarmine may be asked , Whether the Pope be Bishop of Rome , because he is universal Bishop ? or if he be universal Bishop , because he is Bishop of Rome ? ( one of the two must of necessity follow , since they are on Bishoprick in effect , and distinct only potentia ) if he affirm he is Bishop of Rome , because he is universal Bishop ; then it followeth , that Peter had been Bishop of Rome , although he had never been at Rome : and consequently , he was Bishop of Rome , when he was Bishop of Antioch . If he affirm , he is universal Bishop , because he is Bishop of Rome , it follows , he is universal Bishop , because he is a particular Bishop , which is against nature , and reason : And this much of the stating of the question . Bellarmine having stated the question , falls a disputing , and it appears by his first Argument more distinctly , what he means , which Oedipus himself could not gather from his stating of the question : his Argument is this , One or other of necessity beloved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church , Jure divino , but no other but the Bishop of Rome could succeed to him , Ergo , the Bishop of Rome succeeded to him . That one or other behoved to succeed to Peter , he proves by six reasons , which in effect is the sum and repetition of all those two prolix disputs of his , that the Government of the Church is Jure divino Monarchicall , and that Peter was the said Monarch . His first reason ●s , Because the Church is the end of a Bishoprick : since the Church is one , therefore there must be one Bishop in the Church . But it is answered , Christ is that one Bishop : that the Church should have any other Bishop under Christ as a visible head , Bellarmine suppones falsly ; it s a sort of disputing called Petitio principii , where the thing is taken as granted , which is the state of the question . His second reason is , That in the times of the Apostles the Church had a visible head under Christ : But the Government of the Church is ever the same . But it s answered , it is false , that in the times of the Apostles the Church had a visible head ; as was prolixly , proved , lib. 1. His third reason is of the same mettal , Joh. 21. 15. Christ saith to Peter , Pasce oves meas , Feed my Sheep . But it is answered , that passage was prolixly answered before . His fourth reason is , by feeding of the sheep of Christ , is meaned , feeding of all the Sheep of Christ , which none but one visible Head could do . But that objection was also answered before , lib. 1. His fifth reason is , from 1 Cor. 12. ●1 . The head cannot say unto the feet , I have no need of you . From which place he reasons thus : The Church ( saith he ) is compared to a humane Body with a Head , here the Head is brought in speaking to the Members , that it cannot say , I have no need o● you ▪ Or , which is all one , this Head of the Church hath need of the Members , but this must be another Head then Christ , because Christ hath no need of the Members . But it is answered , this is a flat abusing of Scripture : the scope of the Apostle in that place is to show , that although some in the Church have more excellent Gifts then others ; yet , the fellowship and endeavours of those of mean Gifts is necessar , for the edification of the Church ▪ which he proves , by a similitude taken from a humane Body , where some Members are more noble , as the Head ; some less , as the Feet : And ( saith he ) as he Head cannot say unto the Feet , I have no need of you , or ye are not necessary to the Body ; So they of more excellent Gifts in the Church , cannot say unto those of meaner Gifts , we have no need of you , neither are ye necessary for the edification of the Church : That this is the true exposition of this place , appears by the Interpretation of all the Ancients , as Ambrosius , Chrysostomus , Theophylactus , whose Interpretation is also followed by those two Leaders of the School-men Lombardus and Aquinas ; neither did ever any Interpreter-dream to prove a visible Head out of this place , before the times of the Jesuites , as Bellarmine , Sanderus and Turrianus . Their reason is most ridiculous , There is but one Head of the Body , ( say they ) to which the Church is compared ; Ergo , there is but one Head in the Church . Which Argument may be retorted thus , There are but two Feet in the Body , to which the Church is compared ; Ergo , there are but two Feet in the Church , or two only in the Church , who have meaner Gifts . The Sophistry discovers it self ; for according to the Interpretation of the Ancients , that one Head of the Body answers to many persons in the Church , as appears by the 70. Epistle of Basilius to the Bishops of Italy and France , where he hath these words , Cum igitur non possit Caput Pedibus dicere , Non estis mihi necessarii , omnino non tolerabitis nos abdicari ; Since the Head cannot say unto the Feet , ye are not necessary , ye will not suffer us to be abdicated , or cut off He repeats the same words , Epist . 77. to the Transmarine Bishops . Likewayes , Primasius , Oecumenius , and the Author of those Commentaries attributed to Hieronymus , compares all Bishops to that one Head of the Body , and so doth Aquinas , to which he compares also the Civil Magistrates . And this much of that head , mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 21. Bellarmin's last reason to prove , That the Government of the Church is Jure Divino Monarchical , and consequently , that one or other behoved to succeed to Peter , is taken from the High Priest in the Old Testament ; under whom the Government of the Church was Monarchical , Ergo , ( saith he ) the Government of the Church under the New Testament , is Jure Divino Monarchical , under one visible Head. But it is answered , first , many things were in the Church-government in the Old Testament , which are not in that of the New ; and therefore the Argument doth not follow . Secondly , Bellarmine could not have produced a sharper Sword to cut his own throat ; for the High-priest in the Old Testament was a Type of Christ , and as the said High-priest governed the Church , without a visible Head under him in the Old Testament ; So Christ governs the Church in the New Testament , without a visible Head under him . And this much of those reasons , by which Bellarmine endeavours to prove , that one or other behoved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church . In the next place he endeavours to prove , that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to him ; which he doth thus : Either the Bishop of Antioch , or else the Bishop of Rome , succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church : but not the Bishop of Antioch , Ergo , the Bishop of Rome . But it is answered , first it is false , that either the Bishop of Antioch , or the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church , since we proved before , that Peter was not Monarch of the Church himself , and therefore no Bishop could succeed him in the Monarchy of the Church . Secondly , We proved also in the last Chapter of the first Book , that Peter was Bishop of no particular Church . Thirdly , though it were granted , that either the Bishop of Antioch , or the Bishop of Rome , behoved to succeed to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church , the Bishop of Antioch ought to be preferred to the Bishop of Rome ; because we have Scripture expresse that Peter was at Antioch , but none at all that he was at Rome ; but on the contrary , it appears by infallible presumptions from Scripture , that he was never at Rome , as was proved in the last Chapter of the former Book ; where it was also proved , that the Testimonies of those Fathers , by which Peter was proved to be at Rome , were grounded on the Authority of Pappias , an Author meriting no credit , in the opinion of Eusebius . Bellarmine in the next place endeavours to prove . That the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church , by several general Arguments ; As , 1. Testimonies of general Councils . 2. Of Bishops of Rome themselves . 3. Of Greek Fathers . 4. Of Latine Fathers . 5. From Viccars . 6. From Right of Appellations . 7. From exemption from judgement . 8. From ordination of Bishops . 9. From Laws , Dispensations and Censures . 10. From Names or Titles . In the following Books , we shall not miss one of his Arguments of any moment unanswered , and not retorted . But , to avoid repetitions , we will alter his method , distinguishing the Bishop of Romes succession to Peter in several Intervals , as was shewed in the Preface of this Treatise : in this second Book , we will dispute the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter , in the Monarchy of the Church , from the dayes of the Apostles , untill the death of Cyprian ; that is , untill anno , 260. or thereabout , insisting most upon these four following particulars : First , we will dispute the occasion of the opinion of Aerius , by whom it was maintained , unto cap. 5. In the second place we will dispute , that there was no Office in the Church during that interval , above that of a Bishop , unto cap. 9. In the third place , we will answer what is objected for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval by our adversaries , unto cap 13. Fourthly , we will examine several forgeries , pretended by our adversaries for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval . Of which in order . CHAP. II. The occasion of the opinion of Aerius , who were his followers , and what the Bishop of Rome was at first in their opinion ? SOme Protestants stumble at the word Hierarchy , and will needs have the word Hieredulia put in the place of it , the first word in the Original signifying Church-ruling , the last Church-ministry : However , that the Church Hierarchy or Hierodulle , instituted by the Apostles , consisted of Bishops , Presbyters and Deacons , is denyed by none ; as in civil families , some servants had titles of honour given them , and were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , majores domus familiam ducentes , trusties , master-housholds rulers , of the family ; others were called by the common name of Servants : So in the Ministry of the Church , some Ministers had titles of honour given them , and were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Overseers , Bishops ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Presbyters , Elders ; all other Ministers of the Church were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Deacons , which is as much as to say , Ministers , or were called by the name of Ministers common to them all . Those titles of Bishop and Presbyter are borrowed by a metaphor from the civil administration ; they who ruled Cities of old among the Jews and Grecians were called Presbyters , and rulers of Provinces were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Bishops , Overseers , as appears by 1 Maccab. 1. All other Church Ministers were called Deacons or Ministers simply . In the times of the Apostles , Bishops were called Presbyters , and Presbyters Bishops ; so Tit. 1. those who are called Presbyters , verse 5. are called Bishops , verse 7. It appears also by Philip. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. and Acts 20. that the Rulers of Churches in one City are called Bishops in the plural number ; which could not be , if Presbyters were not called Bishops , since there could be but one Bishop in one City , as all know . Those also who lived at the same time with the Apostles , speak after the same manner : Clement Bishop of Rome , mentioned by Paul , and familiar with him in his Epistles directed to the Corinthians ( which Epistle is mentioned by Hieronymus , but never seen , till of late Cyrillus , Patriarch of Constantinople , sent it from the Bibliothick of Alexandria to King James , as a precious monument of Antiquity ) calls the Rulers of the Church of Corinth Bishops in the plural number , directing his Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons of Corinth : and likewayes in the body of his Epistle , he calls those very persons Bishops in one place , whom he calls Presbyters in another . Polycarpus also directs an Epistle to the Presbyters and Deacons of Philippi , and in the body of his Epistle he calls these very persons Bishops : this o●yearpus was the disciple of John. This manner of speaking continued unto the latter end of the second Age ▪ Irenaeus , who lived about that time , in an Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome , calls the predecessors of the said Victor , Presbyters , ruling the Chu●ch of Rome : Likewayes , whom he calls Presbyters , lib. 3. cap. 2. in the very next Chapter he calls Bishops ; and again , lib. 4. cap. 43. he calls them Presbyters . Pius also Bishop of Rome , in an Epistle to Justus Bishop of Vienna , speaking of the succession of Bishops in several Places , calls it a succession of Presbyters . Other Testimonies might be multiplied to this purpose , but it is needlesse , since it is confessed by Bellarmine and Petavius , that in those primitive times , Presbyters were called Bishops , and Bishops Presbyters promiscuously . Aerius , who lived about the midle of the fourth Age , believed for that reason , that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter in those times was one and the same ; and that no Bishop was Jure Divino , above a Presbyter : which opinion Epiphanius , Hereste 75. calls Furiosum dogma , and for that reason , ranks Aerius among Hereticks : but he answers the Arguments of Aerius vere childishly , in the opinion of Bellarmine himself ; for when Aerius objected those formentioed passages of Scripture , naming many Bishops in one City , Epiphanius answers , the reason is , Because in these times there was such penury of Presbyters , that many Bishops were in one City : then which answer , nothing is more ridiculous . However , the authority of Epiphanias is of no more weight to make any Opinion Heresie , then the authority of some other Fathers , who declared them Hereticks who maintained the Antipodes , Avertinus , lib. 3. Anal. Augustinus also seems to call Aerius an Heretick ; but it s very like , that he calls him so for some other reason , then denying the divine right of Bishops : other things were laid to the charge of Aerius ( how justly is doubted ) it may be also that Augustinus takes Heresie in a large sense as it comprehends Schisme : for he professeth himself in that place , he knoweth not what is the regular distinction of Heresie . That Schismaticks were sometimes called Hereticks , appears by the sixth Canon of the first Council of Constantinople , which , In codice canonum , is 169. That Augustine called not Aerius an Heretick , for denying the divine right of Bishops , but only for making a separation upon that account , or else for some other reason , is evident ; because , not only Augustinus himself , but also many others of the most eminent Fathers , seem to be of the same opinion with Aerius , as Medina confesseth ; and although Bellarmine and Petavius reprehend Medina for so saying , yet in end , both are forced to acknowledge , that some of those Fathers were of that opinion . Likewayes , many Popish Doctors came very near the opinion of Aerius ; all the Protestant Divines abroad , for the most part , are of that opinion ; and many learned Protestants at home , as Whitaker , Reynolds , &c. although some eminent English Divines be against it , as Andrews , Hall , and other learned men . However , it is certain , that none were more submissive to Episcopal Government amongst the ancient Fathers , and some of the modern Doctors , then those who dispute expresly against the divine right of Bishops ; as Augustinus quaest . 101. upon 1 Tim. 3. Hilarius upon the same place , and likewayes upon Ephes . 4. Hieronymus in his Epistle to Euagrius , and likewayes upon Tit. 1. Ambrosius ( as he is cited by Amalarius ) upon Tim. 3. Chrysostomus and his admirer Theophylactus , Primasius oecumenius Sedulius upon Tit. 1. and among the late Fathers , Amalarius , Isidorus , Rabanus Maurus ; amongst the Popish Divines , Cusanus , lib. 2. de concordia Catholica , cap. 13. Contarenus and Dionysius , Carthusianus on Philip. 1. Durandus in Rationali , lib. 2. cap. de Sacerdotibus , and likewayes upon the sentences , lib. 4. dist . 34. q. 5. Marsilius Patavinus , dict . cap. 15. Haymo on Philip. 1. Asorius the Jesute , P. 2. Q. 2. cap. 16. All which Popish Doctors came very near the opinion of Aerius , and yet were very submissive to Episcopal Government : Whitaker , a most stout defender of Aerius , yet was most submissive to the Episcopal Government ; and many of the most eminent Divines abroad , who defended the opinion of Aerius , yet in their Epistles to several English Divines , they exhort dissatisfied persons , to submit to the Government of the Church of England : which in effect is , the same with that Church Government which was established by the first general Council of Neice . Those who follow the opinion of Aerius , affirm , that the Bishop of Rome , in the beginning , was nothing else but the first Presbyter , or first ordained Presbyter , amongst the Presbyters of the Church of Rome : Hilarius by many cited by the name of Ambrosius ) upon Eph. 4. affirms , that in those primitive times , a Bishop was nothing else but primus Presbyter , that is , Presbyter of oldest ordination , and he dying , the next in order coming to be first Presbyter , became hoc ipso Bishop , without any new ordination ; as appears by the the same Author , 1 Tim. 3. where he expresly affirms , when any is ordained Sacerdos , he is ordained both Bishop and Presbyter ; for , saith he , Una est ordinatio Presbyteri & Episcopi , quia uterque est Sacerdos . That is , The ordination of a Bishop and Presbyter in one , because both are Priests : Whence it appears that Bellarmine is mistaken , who affirms , that a first Presbyter behoved to be ordained of new , when he became Bishop , according to the opinion of that Author : Petavius grants , that a first Presbyter became Bishop , without any new formall ordination , but it was requisite that he should be consecrated by a secret imposition of hands , called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , a mysticall imposition of hands ; but he brings no probation , he only affirms , it . We read of such a secret imposition of hands , not in that case , but in other two : the first , is , when Miletius troubled all Aegypt by his ordaining without authority , those whom he ordained were not formally re-ordained , but only consecrated by that secret imposition of hands , or privat imposition of hands , as witnesseth Theodoretus , lib. 1. cap. 10. The other case is , those who were baptized by Hereticks , were not re-baptized , but only anointed with the Chrisme , together with that secret imposition of hands : both the one and the other case is mentioned by Justinus , in Respons , ad Orthodox . It is to be observed , that although the first Presbyter was called Bishop , Antonemasticè , yet the other Presbyters were called Bishops ; and the first Presbyter sometimes Episcopus Episcoporum , Bishop of Bishops ; so the Apostle James is called by Clement , when the said James was Bishop or first Presbyter of Jerusalem : whence appears , the weakness of that objection of Bellarmine , proving that the Bishop of Rome was reputed oecumenick Bishop , because he is stiled by some , Episcopus Episcoporum , Bishop of Bishops . CHAP. III. Conjectures of Aerians , concerning the original , progress , and universal establishment of Episcopacy . THe first step then of the Bishop of Rome ( in the opinion of those who follow Aerius ) was from a first Presbyter to a Bishop , before the time that Bishops and Presbyters were distinguished , all Presbyters were called Bishops , but after that time , no Presbyter was called Bishop , as Ambrosius ( cited by Amalarius ) affirms , on 1 Tim. 3. The word Bishop in greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , imports as much as an Overseer ; those who had the oversight of any charge were called by the Graecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Bishops ; so we find in Xenophon Physitians called . And in other Authors Moderators of Controversies , and Visitors of Cities amongst the Athenians , were called Bishops . Rulers of Provinces , or who were set over Provinces , 1 Maccab. 1 , are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Bishops . Yea , in the glosses of the old Graecians , Kings are called Bishops : Hesychius amongst his glosses hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the same sense in which they are called by Homer , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Pastors of the people ; by which it appears ( if we durst affirm it ) that Salmasius is in a mistake , affirming that Bishop is only a word of care , tutelage , or curatory , and not a word of rule or command : Bellarmine also is in a mistake , who eludes that passage of Augustine , a Bishop is greater then a Presbyter by consuetude ; affirming the meaning of Augustine to be , that before the times of Christians , the word Bishop was not a title of honour , but by the consuetude of Christians , it became to be so . The time when Episcopacy did first begin , is guessed to he about the latter end of the second Age , when Victor was Bishop of Rome : which conjecture is proved by two reasons : The first is this , Ambrosius on 1 Tim. 1. 3. ( as he is cited by Amalarius ) affirms , That after Episcopacy was brought in , Presbyters were called no more Bishops as they were before , nor were Bishops called Presbyters : but we read in the Epistles of Victor , that Presbyters are called Bishops , and Bishops Presbyters , as was before-mentioned ; but after the time of Victor we find , that neither Bishops are called Presbyters , nor Presbyters Bishops : whereby it is very probable , that in those dayes a Bishop was distinguished from a Presbyter . The second reason is this , Ignatius ( falsly believed to be the Disciple of John ) lived about that time , and in his Epistle to the Magnesians , calls Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a new Ordination , whence it appears , it did begin about that time . That the said Inatius lived in those dayes ( and consequently could not be that Ignatius who was the disciple of John ) appears , because he mentions the heresie of Valentinus , who affirmed , that Christ proceeded from Siges ; which Heresie was never heard of , till immediatly before the times of Victor ; and therefore the said Ignatius behoved to live after the time of Valentinus , and consequently about the time of Victor . To which two reasons , may be added a third , ( viz. ) That the said Magnesians and Tralliani were so averse from receiving of Bishops , ( as if those Tralliani had been so called after Mr. Robert Trail ) that Ignatius was forced to spend much Rhetorick , to perswade them to receive a Bishop : but it is very unlike they would have been so refractory , if Bishops had been among them from the beginning : And this much of the original of Episcopacy . As for the progress ; Bishops were not brought in , in all places at one time , but by degrees , first at one place , then at another : It is very like they first began at Rome , and that Victor was the first Bishop that ever was ; he was a very aspireing man , and for his presumption , was sharply rebuked by Irenaeus , and bitterly mocked by Tertullian : and therefore , it 's very unlike such an alteration of Government could begin in any other City then Rome , which was the chief Imperial City : for which reason , Potentior principalitas , a more powerful principality was attributed to the Church of Rome by Irenaeus , by reason of which ( saith he ) and also by reason that the Traditions of the Apostles were preserved more purely there , it is necessary that all Churches conform themselves to that Church . That Episcopacy was not established in all places at once , in alike perfection , is evident by three reasons . The first is , when Presbyters in other places had no ordination , they had it still at Alexandria unto the times of Heraclas and Dionysius , which was about Anno 235. as is testified by Ambrosius ( by some thought Hilarius ) on Ephes . 4. and Augustinus ( if he be the Author ) on Tim. 1. 3. quaest . 101. upon the Old and New Testament , and Hieronymus in his Epistles to Euagrius . The second reason is , when Bishops only confirmed in the West , Presbyters confirmed throughout all the East , as is testified by Cyrillus Hierosol mitanus , in his Catechise de Chrismate , and Severus Alexandrius , de Ritibus Baptismi . The third reason is , when in many places Bishops had sole ordination and sole jurisdiction , in Africa they were inhibited , and expresly forbidden , either to ordain or to exercise jurisdiction , without concurrence of Presbyters ; as appears by the 22. and 24. Canons of the fourth Council of Carthage . When Episcopacy was universally established , was as uncertain , as when it first began . Hieronymus affirms , it was decreed through the whole world ; Ambrosius or Hilarius affirms , it was established prospiciente concilio ; but none could tell , as Bishop Hall objects , what either the one or the other meaned ? but of late it is discovered , that both mean the 4. Canon of the first Council of Neice . Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria , in his Books de originibus ( newly published in Arabick and Latine by Seldenus ) testifies , that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria , did take the power of ordination from the Presbyters there , who before that time had the power of ordaining their Bishop . And since Eutychius affirms , that the said Alexander was present at the Council of Neice , without all question , he inhibited Presbyters to ordain the Bishop of Alexandria , by authority of the said 4. Canon of the Council of Neice ; neither could any authority , except that of a general Council , establish any thing universally ; neither was there any general Council , before that of Neice . CAP. IV. Wherein a Bishop differs from a Presbyter ? Conjectures of Aerians wherefore Episcopacy was brought in the Church ? AFter Episcopacy was established , a Bishop differs from a Presbyter by ordination : whence nothing is more frequent with Augustinus , Hieronymus , Ambrosius , Chrysostomus , and other Fathers , then that a Bishop differs from a Presbyter by ordination , which is all the Argument that Bellarmine and others produce to prove , that the forsaid Fathers were for the divine right of Bishops : But since those Fathers expresly dispute against the divine right of Bishops , since they tell a reason wherefore Episcopacy was brought in , since they tell the time when , ( albeit obscurely ) it is evident , that those Fathers speaks so , according to the consuetude of their own times ; that is , Bishops have ordination , and Presbyters have it not , not by divine right , but only by consuetude : yea , Hieronymus upon Titus , after he hath disputed most vehemently against the divine right of Bishops , concludes his dispute with these words , Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores ; That is , Bishops should know that they are greater then Presbyters , more by consuetude then divine right ; which passage is so evident , that not only Medina , but also Alphonsus de Castro , Albertus Pighius , Petavius , yea , Bellarmine and Bishop Hall , are forced to confesse , that Hieronymus was against the divine right of Bishops : which last , calls him a waspish man , and that he was irritated by John Bishop of Jerusalem . The reasons wherefore Episcopacy was brought in , are three , according to those Fathers : the first reason is of Ambrosius ( or according to some Hilarius ) upon Ephes . 4. who after he had told , that in the primitive times , a Bishop was no other then a first Presbyter , or the Presbyter of oldest ordination in any City ; he subjoynes , that Bishops were after that time , not by succession , but by election ; because the first Presbyter was many times unworthy , and therefore not the first , but the most worthy was chosen bishop . The second reason is of Ambrosius ( as he is cited by Amalarius ) upon 1 Tim 3. ( viz ) because ●resbyters , in following times , had not such eminent gifts , as those who lived in the primitive times ; therefore it was not fit , that the Church should be governed alike by them all any more therefore the most eminent in gifts , of the number of Presbyters , was chosen Bishop , differing from the other Presbyters by Ordination ; and he who was so chosen , was no more called Presbyter , but Bishop : and the other Presbyters were no more called Bishops , but only Presbyters : the third reason is of Hieronymus upon Tit. 1. who affirms , Bishops were brought in , to take away Schisms , such as when one said , he was of Paul , another he was of Cephas , another he was of Apollos . Petavins hierarchiae , lib. 1. cap. 10. num . 8. and in other places , accknowledgeth , that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter concurred in one Person in some Cities in the times of the Apostles : but he endeavours to prove , by this passage of Hieronymus , that custome was changed in the times of the Apostles themselves ; ( viz. ) when that Schisme was among the Corinthians , one saying he was of Paul ; another he was of Cephas , &c. Bellarmine and Bishop Hall , by the same passage , endeavour to bind contradictions upon Hieronymus ; because he assi●ms on Tit. 1. that according to Paul , a Bishop and a Presbyter is all one ; and in the same place he affirms , that according to Paul they were made different a long time before , ( viz. ) when that Schisme was among the Corinthians , which Schisme was before Paul wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians , which first Epistle , was written long before the Epistle to Titus : But it is answered , it is very strange , that any eminent person as Bishop Hall , should own such a Protervum Sophisma ; and therefore , to return the sharp edge of the Weapon , whereas they strike only with the blunt , it is reasoned thus ; Hieronymus affirmeth , according to Paul , Tit. 1. The Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter is one and the same ; Ergo , it cannot be the meaning of Hieron mus , that they were made different precisely at that time , when that Schisme was among the Corinthians , since he could not be ignorant , that Schisme fell out long before Paul wrote his Epistle to Titus : the intention then of Hieronymus is , not to tell precisely the time when ? but only the cause why ? ● Bishop was made different from a Presbyter , ( viz. ) Schisme , such as that among the Corinthians , not that very Schisme among the Corinthians : which maner of speaking is not only frequent , but also elegant , as can be made out both by Scripture , and prophane Authors , if it were needful , or any versed in either , had the Brow to deny it . CHAP. V. What primacy the Bishop of Rome had before other Bishops , before the times of Cyprian . ANd this much of the original , progress and universal establishment of Episcopacy , of the difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop , and for what reasons Bishops were brought in . Now it is requisite to declare , what Primacy was due to the Bishop of Rome during that time , when no Office was in the Church above that of a Bishop ? ( viz ) before the time of Cyprian , who lived about Anno 250. or 60. that is , seventy or eighty years before the Council of Neice . During then that interval , we find two sort of priorities among Bishops , neither of which imported any authority or jurisdiction of one Bishop above another ; they imported only a priority of precedency or place . The first was , priority of Age , that is , he who was first ordained Bishop , had the place of him who was ordained after him ; and in that respect , the primacy of Bishops was ambulatory in every Province ; except the Bishop of the first City of the Province , where the Roman Governour remained ; and that Bishop had the place of all the Bishops of the Province , although later ordained then any of them , and was called Primae Sedis Episcopus , or Bishop of the first Seat , which was the other sort of priority among Bishops . In a word then , the Bishop of the first City of the Province , had a fixed priority ; Bishops of the other Cities had an ambulatory priority , that is , now one , now another , according to the time of their ordination : and for that reason , they were all called Secundae Sedis Episcopi , or , Bishops of the second Seat , not some of them Bishops of the third , and others of the fourth Seat , because now this Bishop , then another ; or now Bishop of this City , then of another , was Bishop of the second Seat , according to the priority of his ordination . It is to be observed , that after Justinianus , the priority of the first Bishops themselves , or Bishops of the first Seat , was made ambulatory in Africa , by a Constitution of the said Justinianus ; except only the Bishop of Carthage , who still remained fixed first Bishop , whether he were of older or newer ordination ; because Carthage was the first City of the first Province of Africa . In like manner , the Bishop of Rome was the fixed first Bishop of all the world , because Rome was the first City of the first Province of the world ; and for that reason ( as we said ) potentior principalitas , or , a more powerful principality was attributed to the Church of Rome by Irenaeus . The Church of Rome in those dayes was of no further extent then the walls of the City , as is at large demonstrated by Salmasius ; for the Bishop of Rome then was only a Bishop , and was neither Metropolitan , nor Patriarch , much less an oecumenick Bishop . That the Bishop of Rome was first Bishop , because Rome was the first City of the Empire , and for no other reason , appears not only by what is said , but also , because for the same reason , he was declared first Metropolitan by the second general Council of Constantinople , and first Patriarch by the fourth general Council of Chalcedon , and oecumenick Bishop by Phocas , as shall be declared hereafter at large : whereby it is evident , That the Bishop of Rome , had still the priority for civil respects , and by humane ordination , and not at all by divine institution , or by reason of succession to Peter ; for in that respect , the Bishop of Antioch , would be preferred to the Bishop of Rome , because he is Bishop of Antioch , or rather founded the Church of Antioch before ever he saw Rome : and whereas Petavius , and others affirm , that the Bishop of Rome was successor to Peter , because Peter died at Rome ; it is frivolous , 1. Because Velenus , Salmasius , and others prove by unanswerable reasons , that Peter neither lived , nor died at Rome , that is , was never at Rome , whose reasons were summed in the former Book , cap. 24. 2. Because Peter , although he had been at Rome , yet was never Bishop at Rome , but only in a large sense , ( viz. ) as Bishop comprehends the founder of any Church , in which sense Paul may be called the Bishop of Corinth , Thessalonica , &c. yet in that respect , Paul is to be preferred to Peter , because he not only founded the Church of Rome , as all agree , and not Peter as many affirm ; but also , although he and Peter had founded the Church of Rome joyntly , he is to be preferred to the Bishoprick of Rome ; because Rome was a City of the Gentiles , expresly comprehended under the Apostolat of Paul , whereas the Jews were only committed to Peter ; and for that reason , in the Seals annexed to the Popes Bulls , unto this day , the Images of Paul and Peter are joyntly imprinted , and that of Paul hath the right hand ; many admire why ? but the reason can be no other , then what we have told , ( viz. ) because although Peter and Paul are believed joyntly to have founded the Church of Rome , and therefore the image of both is imprinted in the Seals , yet that of Paul hath the right hand , because Rome was under the Apostolat of Paul , and not of Peter , as we said . Likewayes , it is agreed by all , that Paul died at Rome , but not that Peter , and it is thought , that none of the Ancients knew where Peter died ? one thing is certain , that Clement third Bishop of Rome , speaking of the deaths of Peter and Paul ( to both whom he was contemporary ) and who was called by Paul his fellow-labourer , although in his Epistle to the Corinthians , he speaks more particularly of the martyrdome of Paul , when and where he died , and under whom ; yet , he doth not mention the death of Peter so particularly : which he would have done , if Peter had died at Rome , in the same day with Paul , as the Romanists affirm . 3. If the Bishop of Rome , have any priority , by reason of Peters dying at Rome ; the Bishop of Jerusalem is to be preferred to the Bishop of Rome , because Christ died at Jerusalem : yea , for that reason , the foresaid Clement seems to call James the Apostle ( thought to be the first Bishop of Jerusalem ) Episcopum Episcoporum , or , Bishop of Bishops ; which Epithet , if any had given to the Bishop of Rome in those dayes , Bellarmime and Barronius would have blacked many sheets of paper with repetitions of that Testimony , ingeminating it every where , as they do other testimonies of far less moment : In what sense Clement calls James Bishop of Bishops , shall be shewed hereafter . CHAP. VI. The Testimonies of Dionysius and Ignatius , against the Bishop of Romes Supremacy . AENeas Silvius , ( afterwards the Pope under the name Pius second ) in his 288. Epistle ( according to the supputation of Bellarmine ) affirms that before the Council of Neice , little or no regaird was had , to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome : which confirms what we said before , viz. that before the times of Cyprian , the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was only of Dignity , but not of Jurisdiction , viz. because he was Bishop of the chief Imperial City , as also because he was Bishop of that particular Church , commonly believed in those dayes , to have been joyntly founded by those Princes of the Apostles , Peter and Paul. Yet notwithstanding , since the Doctors of the Church of Rome , endeavour to prove , by Testimonies of Fathers , and actions of Bishops of Rome , that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , was acknowledged in the first three Centuries : in disputing this Question , we will observe this following method ; first , we will prove by Testimonies of those Fathers , who lived in that interval , that the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , was not acknowledged in those dayes . Secondly , we will answer what is objected to the contrary from actions of Popes , and from Testimonies of Fathers . Lastly , we will discover several forgeries pretended by our Adversary , to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval . We will first assault the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , by the Testimonies of two much magnified by some of that Church : the first is , Ignatius , whom they affirm to be the Disciple o● St. John ; the second is Dionysius , believed by them to be the Disciple of St. Paul : and albeit we proved in another place that the pretended Ignatius was not the Disciple of John , and shall prove hereafter , that the pretended Dionysius was not the Disciple of Paul , mentioned Acts. yet , neverthelesse , both the one and the other are very ancient : we proved elsewhere , that Ignatius lived about the time of Victor Bishop of Rome : when Dionysius lived , is uncertain ? Ignatius in his Ep●stle to the Trallians , hath these words , What is a Bishop but he who goeth beyond all command and power , who commands all as far as a man can command ? In which words , he expresly affirms , that there is no Office of the Church , above that of a Bishop : for , if a Bishop have supream command ( as he expresly affirms ) he can be commanded by no superior Church-ruler , as Metropolitan , Patriarch , or oecumenick Bishop . The Testimony of Dionysius is taken from his 8. Epistle , his words are these in substance , Every man should strive to live blamelesly , if he do not , the Priest should take a course with him : if the Priest deborde , he should be judged by his Bishop : if the Bishop do amiss , he should be judged by the successors of the Apostles : if those again do amiss , they should be judged by those of the same order , and degree . In which words he quite excludes one visible Head over all ; and consequently it appears , that in his dayes , the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not believed , as an article of Faith in the Church : since he affirms ▪ that many hold the chief place of the Hierarchy ; whereof any should be judged by the rest , and not all by one visible Head , or by the Bishop of Rome . What he means by Successors to the Apostles , whom he places above Bishops , none can tell , except he mean , Metropolitans and Patriarchs ; if he do , its evident , he lived after the times of Cyprian : because in the dayes of Cyprian , and before , there was no Office in the Church , above that of a Bishop , as appears first , by that passage of Ignatius , in his Epistle to the Trallians now cited . Secondly , it appears by the Epistle of the said Ignatius , written to the Magnesians , in the which Epistle , he comprehends all Church-rulers under Bishops and Presbyters ; where he affirms , that Bishops have the cheif place loco Dei , in place of God ; Presbyters have the next place concessus Apostolici loco , that is , they represent the Council of the Apostles ; the last place he gives the Deacons , to whom the Ministery of Christ is committed . Thirdly , that no Office was in the Church , above that of a Bishop , before the times of Cyprian , nor in his time , appears by those two following most notable passages of Cyprian , the one in his Books de unitate Ecclesiae , lib. 4. Epist . 9. the other from his Oration , to the Council of Carthage ; of which two passages in order . CHAP. VII . Explication of that place of Cyprian , De unitate Ecclesiae . THe words of Cyprian are , Unus Episcopatus est cujus à singulis pars in solidum tenetur ; that is , There is one Bishoprick , of which every Bishop hath alike full share : by which passage of Cyprian , it not only appears , that the Bishop of Rome , in his dayes , was not believed to be visible Head of the Church ; but also , that there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop , since every Bishop had alike full share of that one Bishoprick , which could not be , if in those dayes , Metropolitans had been above Bishops , Patriarchs above Metropolitans , and an oecumenick Bishop above all . This notable passage of Cyprian , puzles the Learned of the Church of Rome very sore : they vary very much in their glosses upon this place of Cyprian , as Rufus , contra Molinaeum , Fran. Agricula , cap. 18. varies from him . Hayus , disput . lib. 1. cap. 11. and Turrianus contra Zadeel , lib. 1. cap. 17. 26. agree almost in one Exposition , but they differ from the other two . Sanderus , de visib . Monarch . lib. 7. num . 45. differs from all the former . Bellarmine , lib. 2. de pont ▪ Rom. cap. 16. varies from them all . We will examine the exposition of Bellarmine ; for since they vary in their opinion about the meaning of Cyprian , and since the meaning of Cyprian can be but one , of necessity all their glosses must be false except one ; and since the gloss of Bellarmine is most approved by the Church of Rome , we will examine it . Bellarmine in the forecited place , expones the words of Cyprian thus ; There is one Bishoprick ( saith he ) in the same way that the Church is one . But the Church is one , as many branches of the same Tree are one Tree ; many rivolets are one Water ; many beams one Light : as then in branches there is an unity , by reason of one Root ; in rivolets , by reason of one Fountain , &c. So is the Church one , and consequently the Bishoprick one in its Head and Root , the Church and Bishoprick of Rome . And whereas Cyprian affirms , that every Bishop hath a full share of that one Bishoprick ; Bellarmine grants its true , but by a distinction , that is , Though every Bishop have a full share , yet he hath not an equal share , nor in the same manner ; for Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome , have that share which answers to the Head , Root and Fountain ; but other Bishops have that share answering to the Branches , Rivolets , &c. This gloss of Bellarmines quite destroyes the Text ; for , Cyprian compares particular Churches to Branches , Rivolets , Beams ; that one Bishoprick he compares to an Oak , to Light , to a Fountain , whereby it evidently appears , that by that one Bishoprick he means not the Bishoprick of Rome , which is a particular Bishoprick , as well as the rest ; and not that great Bishoprick , or one Bishoprick , whereof every one hath a full share . Secondly , that by unus Episcopatus he means , not the Bishoprick of Peter , having authority over other Bishops , is proved by his words in the same Book de unitate Ecclesiae , where he affirms , Whatever the other Apostles were , Peter was the same ; that all the Apostles were equal to Peter , in dignity and power : whereby it appears , whatever the Bishoprick of Peter was , the Bishopricks of the other Apostles were equal to it ; and since the Bishopricks of the other Apostles were particular Bishopricks , each having a full share of that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian ; the Bishoprick of Peter was only a particular Bishoprick , and not that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian . Thirdly , That the Bishoprick of Rome is not that one Bishoprick , appears by the express words of Cyprian , in his Oration to the Council of Carthage ; in which ( as we shall prove in the next Chapter ) he makes any other Bishop equal in jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome . Fourthly , Bellarmine and Sanderus , in making that one Bishoprick the Bishoprick of Peter , must of necessity grant , that Peter only had his Bishoprick immediatly from Christ , and the other Apostles their Bishopricks from Peter ; since Sanderus expresly affirms , that all other Bishopricks flow from the Bishoprick of Peter , as all mankind had their Original from Adam . But , in averring the Apostles to have their Bishopricks from Peter , Bellarmine contradicts first Fran. de victoria , who , relect . 2. quaest . 2. conclus . 3. and 4. expresly affirms , That the other Apostles received all their power , both of order and jurisdiction , immediatly from Christ . In which words , he is glossing upon that passage of Cyprian , de unitate Ecclesiae , which we now mentioned , Whatever Peter was , the other Apostles were the same , of alike dignity and power with him . Secondly , Bellarmine contradicts himself , because he affirms , That all the Apostles were made Bishops immediatly by Christ , and had their jurisdiction immediatly from him , lib. 4. cap. 23. de pont . Rom. and whereas the Church of Rome doth distinguish , that although the other Apostles had their Bishopricks immediatly from Christ , yet they had them not secundum plenitudinem potestatis , as Peter had his Bishoprick immediatly from Christ : Fran. de victoria exsibilats that distinction , as contrary to the mind of Cyprian , asserting an absolute equality of jurisdiction of all the Apostles with Peter , Fran. de victor . ibid. And thus we have proved , that Bellarmine is a bad interpreter of Cyprian , in affirming , that Cyprian by unus Episcopatus means , the Bishoprick of Peter , or his Successor the Bishop of Rome . Now let us examine , how Bellarmine comments upon those words of Cyprian , Cujus pars á singulis in solidum tenetur ? That is , of which Bishoprick , every Bishop hath a full share : Bellarmine grants , that every Bishop hath a full share , but denyes they have an equal share , or in the same manner ; he compares that one Bishoprick to a dissimilar body , v. g. to a Tree , he compares the Bishoprick of Peter to the Root , other Bishopricks to the Branches ; for as the Root , although it be a part of the Tree , as are the Branches , yet it sustains and rules the Branches ; and therefore , although the Branches have a part of the Tree in solidum , yet are they not an equal part of the Tree ; neither are they a part of the Tree , in that manner as the root is . The Root is a part sustaining the Branches , the Branches again are parts sustained and governed by the Root ; So saith Bellarmine , The Bishoprick of Peter and his Successors is a part of that one Bishoprick answering to the Root , other Bishopricks are parts answering to the Branches , ruled and sustained by the Bishoprick of Peter . But it is answered , Bellarmine in this glosse , intangles himself , first in absurdities , next in contradictions ; and first , he intangles himself in absurdities , because Cyprian expresly compares that one Bishoprick to an Oak , a Fountain , a Light , which are all similar and homogeneous bodies ; of which , every every part hath the name and nature of the whole ; every part of an Oak is Oak , every part of a Fountain of water , is water , &c. and therefore , Bellarmine is absurd in affirming , that Cyprian compares that one Bishoprick to a dissimilar and heterogenious body ; the Sophistry of Bellarmine consists in this , what Cyprian calls Robur or an Oak , Bellarmine calls it Arbor , or a Tree ; the difference is this , any tree may be considered two wayes , first , as it is an organick body consisting of Root and Branches which are dissimilar , organick parts : Secondly , as it is an homogenius body , as an Oak , all the parts of which are Oak , both Root and Branches , although the Root , be not the Branches ; and so Bellarmine egregiously sophisticats , in making Cyprian compare that one Bishoprick to a Tree , as it is an organick body ; whereas Cyprian compares it to an Oak , as it is a similar body . Secondly , the Whole cannot be the same with any one Part ; nor any one part the whole : Cyprian maketh that one Bishoprick the whole , and every particular Bishoprick a part . But Bellarmine makes the Bishoprick of Peter , and his successors the whole , or that one Bishoprick mentioned by Cyprian ; he likewayes makes it a part , in shewing , in what manner , comparatively with others , it hath a share of that one Bishoprick , which is the whole , according to his own confession ; and likewayes a part , according to his own confession , which is a manifest contradiction . Thirdly , he adds contradiction to contradiction ; for in explaining the way how every Bishoprick hath a share of that one Bishoprick , he grants that every part , hath a full share , but not an equal share ; which is a flat contradiction , since all full shares are equal shares , neither can any full share be more or lesse then an other full share . It is true indeed , that one Bishoprick , may be greater in riches , splendor , &c. then an other Bishoprick ; but they are all alike Bishopricks : Riches , and Poverty hinders not the Episcopal Dignity and Jurisdiction , as is affirmed by Hieronymus , in his Epistle to Euagrius ; where he affirms , that the meanest Bishop , is equally a Bishop with the Bishop of Rome , or Constantinople , which equality of Bishops is in essentialls ; for the superiority of an Archbishop , above a Bishop , is in accidentals , and was a non-ens in the dayes of Cyprian ; and therefore , he speaks absolutely , without restriction , of the equality of Bishops . And thus we have shewed , with what admirable Sophistry , Bellarmine endeavours to wrest the meaning of Cyprian ; with whose Testimony Rayinundus Rufus is so pressed , disputing against Molinaeus , that he taxeth the saying of Cyprian as erronious : because , saith he , Ulpianus affirms , that two persons , cannot have dominion in solidum of one thing ; and therefore Cyprian is in an error in affirming , that every Bishop hath a part of that one Bishoprick in solidum . But it is answered , Rufus is in a mistake , both in the These and in the Hypothese ; he is mistaken in the These , because the Lawyers maintain , that more persons may have dominion in solidum of one thing , as of via aquae ductus , or any Comunality , as pasturage , &c. Secondly , he is mistaken in the Hypothese : for Cyprian is not speaking of the dominion of things ; he is only comparing that one Bishoprick , toti similari vel universali , the part of which wholes equally participate their name , and definition , as all men do the humane nature , and all Kings are equally Kings : so saith Cyprian , all Bishops are equally Bishops . Turrianus in his defence against Zadeel lib. 1. cap. 17. grants , that Cyprian compares that one Bishoprick to a similar body , but yet he affirms , that Cyprian is not to be understood literally ; otherwayes he cannot be defended from error : because , saith he , if every Bishop have a part in solidum of that one Bishoprick , he hath that whole one Bishoprick : but he is mistaken , in confounding similar with dissimilar bodyes ; for , one having the branch of a tree , hath not all the tree : yet every drop of water hath both the name and definition of the whole Fountain , or is called water , and is water as well as the whole water of the Fountain . Secondly , Turrianus , to shun this pretended absurdity , interprets that one Bishoprick of Cyprian to be the Church ; likewayes , he interprets those words , whereof every one hath a full share , to be , that every one is bound alike to give an account of his administration : but he is mistaken in both those glosses ; he is mistaken in the first , because Cyprian expresly distinguisheth , that one Bishoprick from the Church ; for immediatly after those words , unus Episcopatus est , &c. there is one Bishoprick , &c. he subjoynes , una quoque est Ecclesia , &c. there is one Church , &c. whereby it appears he speaks of one Bishoprick and one Church , as different things : He is likewayes mistaken in his other gloss ; for it is false which he affirms , that every one is tyed alike to give an account of his administration , since it is notorious , that some are tyed to a stricter account then others . We will close by instancing one other answer , mentioned by Chamier , but he doth not name the Author : the said Author grants , that the meaning of Cyprian is , that all Bishops are alike Bishops , but he distinguisheth quo ad ordinem Sacerdotalem , and quo ad Jurisdictionem , that is the order of all the Bishops is alike , but not the Jurisdiction ; and therefore , albeit all Bishops be equally Bishops with the Bishop of Rome , yet they are not equal with him in Jurisdiction . Hayus , disput . lib. 1. cap. 12. gives the same answer , to that passage of Hieronymus , Epist . 85. ad Euagrium : we shall discuss that distinction of Hayus , in the following Book , to which it properly belongs , as concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , in the interval of Metropolitans : whereas now we dispute only his Supremacy , in the interval of Bishops . It is sufficient for the present to answer , that the said distinction between Order and Jurisdiction is contrary to the meaning of Cyprian ; for it shall appear in the following Chapter , that any Bishop is equal in Jurisdiction with the Bishops of Rome , as well as in order , in the opinion of Cyprian ; because he affirms in his Oration to the Council of Carthage , that the Bishop of Rome cannot judge another Bishop , no more then he can be judged by him : but if that be not an equality in Jurisdiction , there is none at all . CHAP. VIII . Some Testimonies from Cyprians Oration in the Council of Carthage explained . IN the former Chapter we observed , by what sophistry our Adversaries endeavoured to pervert the meaning of Cyprian in that famous passage , found in his Books de unitate Ecclesiae . But , in sophisticating those following testimonies of his , uttered in the Council of Carthage , their art is admirable . From the said Oration , are gathered the following Testimonies : 1. Neither doth any of us constitute himself Bishop of Bishops , to compell by tyrannical terror his Colleagues to necessity of obedience . 2. Because every Bishop , by the licence and liberty of his power , hath his own proper judgement . 3. He cannot be judged by another Bishop , neither can he judge another Bishop . 4. Let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ , who alone hath power to prefer us , to the Government of the Church , and to judge our actions . These famous testimonies of Cyprian perplexeth the learned men of the Roman Church very much ; neither do they agree in their answers , as appears by what followeth . When Luther , in the conference at Lypsick , objected those testimonies to Eccius against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ; Eccius answered , that Cyprian in those words , no man constitutes himself Bishop of Bishops , speaks against those only , who without a lawful vocation , obtrudes themselves upon any Church to govern tyrannically : But this answer is naught , because Cyprian in those words , is not speaking how Bishops should be constitute ? but of the power which constitute Bishops have ; as appears not only by those words of Cyprian we have cited , but also , by his words uttered after the reading of the Letters of Jubaianus , in the Council : The question stated in the Council was , whether those who were baptised by Hereticks , should be re-baptised ? Cyprian , after the reading of those Letters , and stating of the question , desires every one of them to tell their opinion freely , and not to remove from their communion , those who were of contrary judgement to them : and then he subjoyns those passages we cited in the beginning of the Chapter , no man constitutes himself Bishop of Bishops , &c. whereby it is evident , that he speaks of Bishops already constitute , and not of the vocation of Bishops , as Eccius affirms . Sanderus , lib. 6. cap. 4. of his visib . Monarch . answers diversly , 1. that Cyprian speaks so out of humility , since himself in a manner was Bishop of Bishops , when he presided several times in a Council : But this answer is nothing worth , for Cyprian by Bishop of Bishops , means one who takes upon him to compell his Colleagues to necessity of obedience , as having Jurisdiction over them : but none will affirm , that he who presides in a Council , hath that power ; almost 100 , years after Cyprian , it was ordained by the 9. Canon of the Council of Antioch , that Metropolitans should do nothing without the consent of other Bishops , as inferior Bishops could do nothing without them : much lesse in the times of Cyprian , had he who presided in a Council any Jurisdiction above his Colleagues ; since in his dayes , there was no Office in the Church above that of a Bishop , as is believed by many learned men : and he who was Bishop primae sedis , of the first seat , or chief City of the Province , was constant President in Provincial Councils , as Cyprian , because he was Bishop of Carthage ; neither had the President of a Council more authority over his fellow Bishops , then the President of a Colledge of Judges , over his fellow Judges . Sanderus answers , secondly , that Cyprian in those words , no man makes himself Bishop of Bishops , &c. is only speaking of those Bishops present at the Council of Carthage , and means not the Bishops of Rome at all ; which is also the answer of Bellarmine , lib. 2. cap. 16. de pont . Rom. and likewayes of Pamelius , in his Annotations upon the foresaid place of Cyprian . But it is answered , that Cyprian is speaking of all Bishops , comprehending the Bishop of Rome , as well as other Bishops : his reasons are general , as is evident by his words ; No man ( saith he ) makes himself Bishop of Bishops , because every Bishop hath proprium arbitrium , that is , he hath as much authority to utter his judgement as any other , and when his opinion is delivered , no Bishop hath power to compell him to alter it ; as he cannot judge another Bishop , neither can any other Bishop judge him : and therefore , all Bishops should expect the judgement of Christ , who only can judge their actions . Secondly , it is false which they affirm , that Cyprian in those expressions , doth not mean by the Bishop of Rome ; for , Binius , tom . 1. in his Annotations upon this Council of Carthage affirms , that those words of Cyprian were , tacitè , directed against Stephanus Bishop of Rome . The question agitated in the Council was , Whether those who were baptized by Hereticks , should be re-baptized ? Stephanus Bishop of Rome was for the negative , Cyprian for the affirmative ; Stephanus , as Binius relates , and Cassander also , consult , art . 37 , threatned Cyprian and the Churches of Africa with Excommunication , if they changed not their Opinion : This Council of Carthage is called , consisting of eighty seven Bishops ; Cyprian in his Oration to the Council , affirms , None of us makes himself Bishop of Bishops , or takes upon him to compell his Colleagues , by tyrannical terrors to necessity of obedience ; which words , as Binius observes , were directed against Stephanus Bishop of Rome ; because he had threatned the Bishops of Africa with Excommunication , if they did not alter their Judgement . Sanderus answers thirdly , that albeit Cyprian did assert the equality of Bishops in those words : yet , it was only an equality according to their Order of Priesthood , not according to their Jurisdiction : albeit the Bishop of Rome be equal to other Bishops , as he is Bishop , yet he is above them in jurisdiction ; he gives this answer , lib. 7. cap. But it is replyed , this distinction is frivolous , and quite contrary to the meaning of Cyprian , whose intention in those words , is expresly to assert the equality of Jurisdiction : and since he aims at the Bishop of Rome , it is evident in his opinion , that any Bishop is of equal jurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome . How can any be so impudent to deny , that Cyprian asserts equality of Jurisdiction ? since he expresly affirms , No Bishop can judge another Bishop , nor be judged by him ; Christ is the only judge of Bishops ; which in right down terms is , that all Eishops are equal in Jurisdiction , which none but a Sophister will deny . It is needless to mention the answers of other Romanists , as of Alanus Copus , lib. 1. cap. 19. and Dormanus in his English Treatise against Bishop Jewel , cap. 10. since they are not worth the refuting . The most ingenuous answer of them all , is that of Stapleton , lib. 11. cap. 7. de princip . fid . doctrin . where he affirms , that Cyprian in those words , to patronize his error , Utitur verbis errantium , and that he seems wonderfully to protect Hereticks ( he means Protestants ) against the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome : he calls those expressions O Cyprian pernicious , if they be not defended by a commodious Exposition . But it is answered , the authority of St. Augustine is of more moment , then the authority of Stapleton , who not only commends those expressions of Cyprian , but also recommends them to the whole Church , to be taken notice of as so many Oracles , and that in moe places then one , as lib. 2. cap. 2. lib. 3. cap. 3. lib. 6. cap. 7. against the Donatists . Further , that Stephanus Bishop of Rome himself , understood those words of Cyprian as the Protestants do , against the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome , appears by his excommunicating Cyprian , as Cassander relates , consult . art . 7. neither read we ever of his reconciliation , as is confessed by Bellarmine , lib. 2. de con . cap. 5. Neither is it of any moment , what they object , that in that question of re-baptizing those who were baptized by Hereticks , the affirmative maintained by Cyprian was wrong , and the negative maintained by Stephanus was right : for , the state of the question with the Church of Rome in this particular , is , Whether Cyprian was for or against the Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome ? or , whether he did right in opposing the usurpation of Stephanus ? It seems he did , for two reasons , first , because those expressions of his were recommended by St. Augustine to the whole Church : next , because notwithstanding of his dying excommunicate by Stephanus , he was held ever since those times to be a Saint and a Martyr , by the Church of Rome it self , as he is at this day : whereby it appears , that the ancient Church of Rome , immediatly after the times of Cyprian , had not much regard to the authority of Stephanus his excommunicating Cyprian . The truth is , Cyprian in that conflict with Stephanus , was a good Patron of an evil cause ; and Stephanus was a bad Patron of an good Cause : Cyprian was wrong , in maintaining re-baptization of those who were baptized by Hereticks , but he defended it rightly : Stephanus , who maintained the contrary opinion , was right , but maintained it badly , that is , by usurpation , arrogancy and presumption . CHAP. IX . Of the contest between Victor Bishop of Rome , and the Bishops of the East . WE have in the former Chapters proved , by the testimonies of the Ancients , that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was not believed as an Article of Faith , in the dayes of Cyprian , nor any time before unto the dayes of the Apostles . We have also shewed , with what perplexed sophistry our Adversaries endeavour to elude the force of those testimonies . In the following Chapters , we will examine what is objected by our Adversaries , to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval . If it had been an Article of Faith in the Church , that the Bishop of Rome was ordained by Peter , to succeed to himself in that Function of oecumenick Bishop , or that the Bishop of Rome did succeed to Peter in that Function , the evidence of that succession had been greater , in these primitive times , then it was afterwards : but contrarily , we find the nearer we come to the Apostles times , the less evidence we find , for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome : whereby it appears , that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , by reason of his succession to Peter , is but a fiction : neither was it ever urged , as to jurisdiction , till after the Council of Chalcedon , as shall appear in the following Books , and the more the times were remote , that opinion of the succession to Peter increased the more . That there was no great evidence before the Council of Neice , of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , is acknowledged by Aeneas Silvius , Pope himself , in his 288. Epistle , and yet he was the greatest Antiquary of his time : the truth of his assertion will appear by our Answers to that which they object , which are so many testimonies against themselves . To prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval , they object nothing ( beside what we shall prove forged by testimony of their own Doctors ) before the latter end of the second Age , or beginning of the third ; and then their objections are of two sorts , first actions of Popes ; secondly , tectimonies of Popes and Fathers . What regaird should be had to the actions and testimonies of Popes , appears by the Commentaries which Pope Aeneas Silvius , or Pius second , wrote upon the Councel of Basile ; his words are these , Ne● considerant miseri quia quae praedicant tantopere verba , aut ipsorum sumorum pontificum sunt , simbrias suas extendentium , aut illorum qui●eis adulabantur : that is , neither do those miserable men consider , these testimonies they magnifie so much are either of Popes themselves , inlarging their own interests , or of their Fathers . We will first treat of the actions of Popes , and next examine their testimonies . Before the time of Victor Bishop of Rome , there is no Monument of antiquity for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome besides some forgeries , acknowledged by the most eminent Doctors of that Church , and proved to be forgeries by unanswerable reasons , as shall appear afterwards in the last Chapters of this Book . The said Victor , about anno , 195. had a difference with the Bishops of Asia , about the observation of Easter , or Pasch ; the Churches of Asia , pretending a tradition from the Apostle of St. John , observed Easter , according to the manner of the Jews eating their Passover , and for that reason , were called quartadecemani . The Churches of the West observed it , as it is now in the Church of Rome : they object here , that Victor excommunicated the Bishops of the East for not observing Easter , after the Roman and western fashion : Ergo , say they , the Bishop of Rome in those dayes , was oecumenick Bishop ; otherwayes , he would not have taken upon him , to exercise Jurisdiction in so remote parts as in Asia . But it is answered , usurpation is no title of authority , and by this very action of Victor , it appears , that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , or necessar communion with the Church of Rome , was not believed in those dayes : as appears by two reasons ; The first is , the opposition made by the Churches of Asia to that excommunication of Victor : but it is altogether impossible that they would have mis-regarded it ; if the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , or necessar communion with the particular Church of Rome , under the pain of damnation , had been an Article of Faith in those dayes , as it is now . That those Bishops in the East slighted the excommunication of Victor , appears by Eusebius , hist . Eccles . lib. 5. cap. 23. and 24. who relates , and brings in Polycrates , Bishop of Ephesus in Asia , pleading their Cause , in an Epistle , written by the consent of them all ; that they had the same tradition , of observing Easter , from the Apostle John : that it was practised by Philip the Apostle , Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna , and Martyr disciple of John the Apostle ; and by the other Bishops , and Martyrs , as Thraseas , and Sagonius , that they had confirmed their own way , of observing Easter , in the council of all the Bishops of Asia : and for those reasons , they were not moved , with the terrors of that excommunication , pronunced against them by Victor : but it is very unlike they would have so contemned it , if they had believed the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome : If there was any such thing , as the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome : their opposition demonstrats , that either they were ignorant of it , or els wilfully opposed it ; they could not be ignorant , for who dare affirm , that the Apostles John and Philip , and Polycarpus the Disciple of John , could be ignorant of so necessar a point of Salvation ? if there had been any such thing . Neither can it be affirmed , that they wilfully opposed it , for it is a thing incredible that so many holy men Saints and Martyrs ( confessed to be such by the modern Church of Rome it self ) would die out of the communion of the Church of Rome , and in so doing , condemn themselves eternally : for Bellarmine himself , de pont . Rom. lib. 2. cap. 19. affirms , that it is not found , that ever Victor recalled his excommunication . And since these holy men , neither could be ignorant , that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was an article of Faith ( if it had been in these dayes ) neither would they have opposed it , and contemned Victors excommunication , if they had known it ; it is evinced , that in these dayes , there was no such article of Faith , as the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , or necessar communion with the Church of Rome : yea , notwithstanding of the excommunication of Victor , the whole Churches of the East , before the Council of Neice , observed Easter in their own fashion : but it were too hard to affirm , that they were all damned ; which must of necessity be affirmed , if the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , had been an article of Faith in those dayes : and this much of opposition from the East , to that decree of Victor . The second Argument taken from the action of Victor , against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , is the opposition that it had from the West ; although the whole Bishops of the West were of the same opinion with Victor , anent the observation of Easter ; yet they absolutely condemned his way of proceeding . For , as Eusebius relates , Hist . Eccles . lib. 5. cap. 24. Irenaeus , Bishop of Lyons , in the name of the whole Churches of France , in an Epistle to the said Victor , ( recorded by Eus●ebius , ibid. ) expostulates most bitterly with Victor , not obscurely taxing him of ignorance , and arrogance , for his precipitated proceeding , objecting to him , the example of his predecessors , Bishops of Rome , as Pius , Telesphorus , Anicetus , &c. who all of them keeped communion with the Bishops of the East , notwithstanding their observation of Easter , otherwayes then it was observed at Rome : yea , the same Bishops of the West , still keeped communion with the Bishops of the East , notwithstanding their excommunication by Victor : but they would never have done so , if the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , had been believed in those dayes , or if necessar communion with the Church of Rome , had in those times been an article of Faith. Sanderus , lib. 7. of his visib . Monarch . and with him Bellarmine , prove the supremacy of Victor in this action by a notable cheat , the more opposition it had ( saith Sanderus ) the authority of Victor was the more conspicuous ; because the Council of Neice declared in favour of Victor , against all his opposers ; in decerning that Easter should be observed according to the decree of Victor . But it is answered , that the Council did so , not for the authority of Victor , but only because they thought that opinion to be right : it was professed by all the Churches of the West , and by Irenaeus : but Sanderus will not affirm , that the Council of Neice followed the authority of Irenaeus . Secondly , albeit the Council had followed the authority of Victor , or perswaded by his authority , had made that decree ; it doth not follow , that Victor had any jurisdiction over the Council , or the whole Church : Paphnutius made a motion in the Council of Neice , in the defence of married Priests , the Council all followed his opinion , as Socrates relates , lib. 1. cap. 8. of his history of the Church ; and yet the said Paphnutius had no supremacy over the Council . Sanderus instances , that the Council of Neice , in a Letter to the Church of Alexandria ( mentioned by Theodoretus ) affirms , that all the Brethren of the East are resolved to follow the Church of Rome , us ( the Council ) and you of Alexandria , in the observation of Easter : where Sanderus and Bellarmine espy out two things for their advantage ; the first is , follow , the second is , that Romans is put in the first place before us ( the Council ) whereby they prove the authority of the Bishop of Rome , above the Council , because Romans is put before the Council , or us , and also because the Brethren of the East are said to follow the Romans . But it is answered , albeit Romans were put before us , or the Council , it doth not follow , that the Church of Rome hath any authority over the Council : being first mentioned in an Epistle , doth not import a jurisdiction above another : Constantine in an Epistle ( mentioned by Theodoretus , lib. 1. cap. 10. ) writing of the same business , enumerating a number of Churches , with which these Churches of the East were resolved in time coming , to observe Easter ; placeth Spain before France , but it doth not follow , that the Church of Spain had any authority over the Church of France . Secondly , Bellarmine and Sanderus , following the version of Christhofersone , translates Theodoretus falsly , his words in the Original are , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; That is , So that all the Brethren of the East , who dissented from the Romans and you , and all those who observed Easter from the beginning , are resolved hereafter to observe it with you . The sophistry of Sanderus and Bellarmine appears in this , in stead of these words , are resolved hereafter to observe Easter with you , which is the Original , they translate , they are resolved hereafter to follow the Roman , the Council and you , putting in follow for with you . Secondly , in putting in the Romans and the Council , which is not in the Original : which words us or the Council , they insert to prove the authority of the Church of Rome above the Council , Romans being placed by them before the Council . And this much of that contest of Victor , with the Bishops of Asia , which they produce to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , whereas in effect , it hath disproved it . Such an other business as this , is that contest of Stephanus , Bishop of Rome , with Cyprian , and the Churches of Africa , about the rebaptising of those who were baptised by Hereticks : which they instance also to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , before the Council of Neice . But since we shewed , that the excommunication of Stephanus was not regairded , that Saint Augustine praised the opposition of Cyprian to it , and recommended these expressions of Cyprian , against the usurpation of Stephanus to the whole Church , since 87 Bishops in that Council of Carthage , condemned the proceedings of Stephanus , since Cyprian , dying excommunicated , was reputed nevertheless a Saint by Augustine , and other Fathers , and by the ancient Church of Rome , and also so reputed by the Modern Church of Rome : that Excommunication of Cyprian by Stephanus is so far from proving , that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was an Article of Faith in those dayes , that it demonstrates invincibly the contrary . CHAP. X. Of Appellations , pretended to prove the Supremacy , of the Bishop of Rome , in that interval , from the Apostles to the death of Cyprian . TO these actions of Popes usurping Authority , in that interval , are referred several pretended Appellations , to the Bishop of Rome , by which they endeavour to prove , his Supremacy in those times : they mention divers , Bellarmine makes use of three ; the first is , of the Grand Heretick Marcion , who being excommunicated , for his prodigious opinion , by his own Father , a Bishop in Pontus , had his recourse to Hyginus , Bishop of Rome , anno , 142 , as Epiphanius affirms , Heres . 42. The second is Fortunatus , and Felix , being deposed by Cyprian in Africa , about anno , 252. fled to Cornelius Bishop of Rome ; as is related by Cyprians Epistle , 55. The third is a little after the same time ; Basilides , and Martialis , being deposed by the Bishops of Spain , ( as is reported by Cyprians epistle , 68. ) fled to Stepahnus , Bishop of Rome ; of which in order , and first of Marcion . This Marcion , was a notorious and dangerous Heretick : against whom Tertullian , and Epiphanius , most bitterly enveigh : he denied the verity of Christs humane nature , and the verity of his sufferings ; he denyed also the resurrection of the body : he maintained , that men might be thrice baptised . His Father was a Bishop or Preacher in Pontus , by whom he was excommunicated : he fled to Rome , desiring to be admitted to the communion of that Church ; but he was rejected by the Clergy of Rome : he asked them a reason , they answered , they could not admitt him , without a testimonial from his Father the Bishop , who had excommunicated him , as is reported by Epiphanius . It is very strange , that Bellarmine should call this an appellation , since the Clergy of Rome refused to hear him ; neither did he appeal at all , as appears , both by the reason wherefore he left his own Countrey , and also by his demands at Rome . The first is related by Epiphanius , who tells , he fled from his own Countrey , not enduring the scoffs of t●e common people : his demands at Rome are likewayes related by Epiphanius , viz. not to take knowledge in his cause , in a second judgement , which is the demand of Appellants ; but only to be admitted to the communion of that Church ; which are also refused him , as is affirmed by Epiphanius . When he was rejected at Rome , he associated himself with one Cerdon : those two hatched an opinion of three gods ; the first they called the good God , which created nothing at all that is in this world ; the second they called a visible god , Creator of all things ; the third god was the devil , whom they made as a mid-thing , between the visible and the invisible god . Cerdon before he was acquainted with Marcion , asserted only two gods , the one author of all good things , the other of all evill things : but after his aquaintance with Marcion , they both taught these three gods : this damnable heresie , wounderfully increased in many places ; as Italy , Egypt , Palestine , Arabia , Syria , Cyprus , Persia , and other places ; which caused Tertullian and Epiphanius inveigh so bitterly against it in their Books . Bellarmine his second instance of Appellations , is of Fortunatus and Felicissimus , the story is this ; Felicissimus and Novatian were condemned at a Council of Carthage ; Felicissimus for averring , that those who had lapsed to Idolatry , in time of persecution , should be admitted to office of the Church , after pen ance : Novation , for maintaining , that they might not be admitted to communion at all , no not after pennance : the Church of Carthage takes a midway , decerning , that after pennance they might be admitted to communion , but not to their charge in the Church . Felicissimus , who had fallen in Idolatry himself , and for that reason was debarred from his charge , conspires with one Privatus , who was excommunicated as well as himself : they make a faction , and sets up one Fortunatus , Bishop of Carthage , in oposition to Cyprian ; and immediately goes to Rome , desiring of Cornelius , Bishop of Rome , to be admitted to communion with that Church , desiring him to countenance their new Bishop Fortunatus . Cornelius refuses at first , to hear them ; but afterwards they use Menaces ; whereupon he writes to Cyprian his intimate friend , in their favour . It is demanded of Bellarmine , how he finds any Appellation here ? The cause is almost the same with that of Marcion , which we now mentioned , yea , Pamelius himself in his Annotations , upon that place of Cyprian , denyes expresly there was any appellations , but that these went to Rome , to complain , or to be judged , not in those things in which they had been already judged by Cyprian , but in other things . Secondly , albeit there had been any appellations , it was opposed by Cyprian , for two reasons ; first , because delinquents should be judged where the crime is committed where witnesses may be had against them . Secondly , because the authority of the Bishops in Africa was no less , ( who had already judged them ) then the authority of the Bishop of Rome , to whom they had their recourse . Bellarmine answers to both these reasons ; to the first he gives a twofold answer , first , that the meaning of Cyprian is to be understood de prima instantia , that is , persons should be judged where the crime is committed , the first time only ; but if they appeal , they should be judged in that place , to which they appeal . But he Sophisticates , for Cyprian is opposing a second judgement at Rome , after they had been condemned in Carthage , as is notorious by the History . Bellarmine answers , Secondly , that Cyprian is against a second ●udgement or appellation , when the crime is manifest , and not when it is dubious . But it is replyed , that manifest or unmanifest crime doth not take away appellation , if the appellation be otherwayes legal , or it the Judge to whom they appeal , have jurisdiction over him , from whom they have appealed : Neither doth Cyprian distinguish ▪ between manifest and not manifest crimes at all . Secondly , Bellarmine contradicts himself , in affirming , that the meaning of Cyprian is that they may appeal to Rome , when the cause is dubious , but not when it is manifest ; which distinction Bellarmine admits , viz. that there should be no appellation when the crime is manifest ; and yet in this case of Fortunatus , and Felix , the crimes were manifest : and Bellarmine instances their appellations as legal , which is a flat contradiction : and this much of Bellarmines answer to Cyprians first reason , viz. That Crimes should be judged where they are committed . He yet instances , that if that reason of Cyprians were valid , it would cut off all appellations , for there can be no appeal , if crimes be judged where they are committed , But it is replyed , that Cyprian adds , when the authority of those who have already judged them , is no less then the authority of those to whom they appeal ; for immediatly after those words , crimes should be judged where they are committed , he restricts his meaning by the comparison of authority , except ( saith he ) the authority of the Bishops of Africa , be thought not sufficient by those profligate fellows who were judged by them . Bellarmine instances , those words of Cyprian , are not comparing the authority of the Bishops of Africa , with the authority of the Bishop of Rome : but only , with the cause of Fortunatus , and Felix : that is , the authority of the Bishop in Africa , is sufficient to judge that case : but it is answered , although that were the meaning of Cyprian , it cutts off all appellations to Rome : for if the authority of the Bishops of Africa , be sufficient in that case of Fortunatus and Felix , they cannot be rejudged at Rome , in a second judgement . Secondly , albeit ●yprian for modesties sake , doth not name the authority of the Church of Rome , in the comparison : ( for he was a great respecter of Cornelius Bishop of Rome ) yet , that this is his meaning , appears more evidently by those speeches of his , uttered against Stephanus Bishop of Rome afterward , in an other Council of Carthage , which we mentioned in the former Chapter ; where he expresly affirms , that all Bishops , are of a like jurisdiction : And this much of Bellarmine . Pamelius answers this passage of Cyprian otherwayes , with a world of Sophistry . And first he affirms ▪ that Cyprian in those words , is not disputing against a second judgement at Rome , but against a judgement at Rome , in the case of Fortunatus , and Felix in prima instantia ; and therefore he uses these words , the crime should be judged where it is committed ; alluding to an Epistle Decretal of Fabianus Bishop of Rome , in which it is expresly ordained , that no Bishop should be judged at Rome , per Saltum , that is , until he be first judged , where he is accused to have transgressed . So if ye object to Pamelius , that Fortunatus and Felix , were already judged in Africa , and went to Rome to demand a second hearing : he answers , they did not demand a recognoscing of these things , for which they had been already judged ; but desired of Cornelius Bishop of Rome , that he would be judge in things afterward laid to their charge by the Bishops of Africa , which were not yet judged by them . But it is replyed , it is false , that Pamelius affirms , for it appears expresly ●y Cyprians Letter , that he disputes against a second judgment at Rome , and not a judgement in Prima instantia ; whereas Pamelius affirms , that new crimes were intended , which had not been yet judged : it is his bare assertion , neither brings he any proof of it ; for if any such thing had been , a judgement in prima instantia could not have been with any shadow of justice countenanced at Rome : neither could Felicissimus be so ignorant , as to expect any redress that way ; the Scope of Felicissimus complaint was , that he and Fortunatus might be restored , because the judgement of the African Bishops passed against them was unjust . Pamelius instances secondly , that it was a first judgement or in prima instantia , which Felicissimus demanded at Rome , or else it was an appellation ; seing there can be no mids , but there is no mention made of appellation at all by Cyprian , Ergo , it was a judgement in prima instantia which they demanded at Rome ; and for which Cyprian so much expostulats with Cornelius , and inveighs against them . It is answered first , how this passage of Cyprian puzles them , appears by their contradictions in their glosses : Bellarmine instances this particular of Felicissimus , as an appellation , to prove the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome , over the Bishops in Africa : Pamelius flatly denys , that Felicissimus appealed at all ; which is a flat contradiction of Bellarmine : he takes this course , perceiving , that if this particular of Felicissimus were an appellation , Cyprian must of necessity be against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ; since he expresly disputs , that Felicissimus cannot be judged at Rome , and consequently Pamelius confesseth , that Bellarmines evasions are nothing to the purpose . It is answered , secondly , ( whereas Pamelius disputes Felicissimus did not appeal , Ergo he demanded a judgement in prima instantia ) it doth not follow , because there is a mids : Felicissimus did make no appeal , when he came out of Africa , neither desired he a second judgment at Rome , as it had been a formal appeal : out only desired , the assistance of Cornelius , that by his moyen he might have some redress : that this is no evasion , appears by two unanswerable reasons ; the first is this , Cyprian in his 55. Epistle affirms , that they had solicited the Bishops in Africa , before ever they had solicited the Bishop of Rome , making the same complaints : but none will affirm , that they appealed to those Bishops of Africa , after they had been condemned by the Council of Carthage , over which the Bishops of Africa had no authority ; in which doing they followed the example of Privatus , who after he was condemned both in the Council of Africa and at Rome by Cornelius himself , yet he desired a second judgement , in another Council in Africa , whereby it is evident , that a second ●udgement in those dayes , did not infer of necessity , a formal appellation , since there could be no appellation from a Synod to its self : neither will Bellarmine affirm , that Privatus appealed from Cornelius to a Council in Africa . The second reason proving a mids between an Appeal and a judgement in prima instantia , is this : we have proved , that Felicissimus did not demand a judgement in prima instantia from Cornelius Bishop of Rome ; but neither did he appeal unto him for an Appealer is held Pro non judicato or not guilty , till the appeal be discussed ; but so was not Felicissimus , for all held him guilty in Africa , and refused communion with him : neither did Cornelius admitt him to his communion at Rome , after he was condemned by the Council of Carthage : neither did Cornelius judge in his cause at all , but only wrote unto Cyprian to deal favourably with him . Since then , Cyprian disputed so vehemently , that Cornelius should not medle in that case of Felicissimus , after the determination of the Council of Carthage ; much more he would have opposed the authority of Cornelius , if there had been any formal appellation : and all what Bellarmine and Pamelius alledge to the contrary , is proved sophistry , the one contradicting the other , and this much of Fortunatus and Fellicissimus . The third example of Appellations ( in this interval before the Council of Neice ) instanced by Bellarmine , is this , Cornelius Bishop of Rome dying , Lucius succeeds ; but he not living long , Stephanus succeeds , in whose time the Bishops of Spain excommunicat Basilides a Bishop , and likewayes one Martialis , for falling in Idolatry , or sacrificing to Idols , in the time of persecution , for fear of torture , or death : Basilides becomes penitent , demands absolution , which they grant him ; but withal , they refuse to restore him to his Bishoprick , in which they put another called Sabinus . Basilides and Martialis have their recourse to Stephanus Bishop of Rome ; he takes not so much notice of Martialis , but he writes to the Bishops of Spain to restore Basilides to his place : they consult the Bishops of Africa , who meeting in a Council about the business , the Bishops of Africa send their opinion in an Epistle ( which in the edition of Turnebius is Epist . 35. in that of Pamelius , 68. of Cyprian ) in which Epistle , Cyprian inveighs against Basilides as an Impostor , taxeth Stephanus of credulity , in giving ear to Basilides , and concludes , that the cesire of Stephanus should not be obeyed , since Sabinus was legally put in the place of Basilides , and therefore they ought to maintain him in that Bishoprick . Here Bellarmine is demanded , what he sees in this History making for the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the Bishops of Spain ? or for proving that Basilides appealed formally ? It would seem , that Basilides appealed not , since he was held pro judicato ▪ excommunicated , deposed , and another put in his Bishoprick ; which could not have been done , if Appeals to Rome had been believed obligatory in those dayes . Secondly , Cyprian and the Council of Africa advise the Bishops of Spain , not to obey the desire of Stephanus in rescinding the ordination of Sabinus , affirmed by them to be legal ( Jure ordinata ) but if Basilides had appealed , the ordination of Sabinus had not been lawful ; whereby it is evident , that no appeals to Rome were approved in those dayes , albeit Basilides had appealed . Bellarmine answers , that Basilides did appeal , because he had his recourse to Stephanus , and complained : But it is replyed , first , that was no appeal , because he made no intimation of it to the Bishops of Spain , before he went to Rome . Secondly , because his going to Rome , did not hinder or suspend the execution of the sentence passed against him , as appears by the placing of Sabinus in his Bishoprick in the interim . Thirdly , when he came to Rome , he brought no probations with him , but only as Cyprian affirms , Stephanum longe positum & rei gestae ignarum fefellit ; that is , he deceived Stephanus Bishop of Rome , altogether ignorant of the business . Lastly , if Basilides had appealed , the Bishops of Spain had been cited to plead the cause at Rome , which they were not , whereby it is evident there was no appeal . Secondly , to prove the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome , Bellarmine alledgeth , that Stephanus commanded the Bishops of Spain to repone Basilides , and rescind that ordination they had made in favour of Sabinus . But it is answered ( to omit , we shewed it was no formal sentence of Stephanus , but only an advice ) Bellarmine ●orgets the other half of the tale , quite destroying the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ; as first , that the Bishops of Spain ( before they gave an answer to Stephanus ) consulted with the Bishops of Africa , whereby it is evident , they acknowledged not the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome . Secondly , the Bishops of Africa , meeting in a Council , advises them not to obey the desire of Stephanus , in rescinding their ordination of Sabinus , because it was Rite peracta , or legal , and consequently Stephanus had no authority to command them . Thirdly , because the Bishops of Spain did not obey the desire of Stephanus , at least it is not found in any monument of Antiquity , that ever Basilides was restored . Bellarmine instances , that Stephanus would never have taken it upon him , to cognosce in the cause of Basilides , if it had not belonged to him : But it is answered , first , he did not cognosce formally in it at all , as we shewed . Secondly , albeit he had , it was only an usurpation , which is no title of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome . We do not affirm that Stephanus had not so much arrogancy , since he declared he had , as appears by his proceeding with the Churches of Africa , mentioned in the former Chapter : we only affirm , that he did not cognosce formally in this case of Basilides , but only delt by way of perswasion : and although he had done so , it is no Argument for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , as an Article of Faith in those dayes ; since it was every-where opposed , as we proved by that passage of Victor , with the oriental Bishops , and of Stephanus with Cyprian , and this of Stephanus with the Bishops of Spain : by which passages it appears , that the decrees of the Bishop of Rome were opposed in all the East , in France , in Africa , in Spain , that is , almost by the whole Church . And this much of appellations to Rome , before the dayes of Cyprian . CHAP. XI . The testimonies of Ignatius , Irenaeus and Tertullian , objected to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , before the times of Cyprian , examined . IN the two former Chapters , we answered all what the Learned Romanists could pretend , to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , before the midle of the third Century , by usurpations of Bishops of Rome and appellations : They next endeavour to prove it by testimonies of Fathers , which are of two sorts ; 1. wrested ; 2. forged . In this Chapter and the next following , we will examine the first sort ; and then we will conclude this Book , with examining the last . The Fathers , whose testimonies they wrest , are either Greek , or Latin : The Greek Fathers are Ignatius , and Irenaeus ; the Latin Fathers , by them alledged are , Tertullian , and Cyprian : We will speak of the Greek Fathers , and also of Tertullian in this Chapter , and will answer these testimonies of Cyprian in the Chapter next following . And first of Ignatius , from whom they alledge the inscription of his Epistle written to the Romans , which is this , Ignatius to the Sanctified Church presiding in the region of the Romans ; thus the place is alledged by Bellarmine , whereas the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; that is , which presides in the place of the region of the Romans : wherefore they render it so ? this is the reason ; Barronius ad annum . 45. num . 10. observes , that the Roman Church , and the Catholick Church were believed to be the same ; and therefore , they translate Ignatius , affirming the Church of Rome , to Preside in the region of the Romans , that is ( saith Bellarmine and Bozius ) Presiding in the Catholick Church . But it is answered , first , that it was not the custom , in the dayes of Ignatius , to call the Roman-church , the Catholick-church : or where they spake of the Roman-church , to mean by it the Catholick-church : first , because the oldest testimony we have of that kind , is in the dayes of Theodosius junior , Victor Uticensis , and Gregorius Turonensis : that is , not till 300. years after Ignatius ; and 400. after Christ . Secondly , that maner of phrase had its Original from the Arians ; the said Gregorius Turonensis , in his Book , De Gloria martyrum , cap. 25. brings in an Arian Prince , calling the Orthodox-church , the Roman-church : or Orthodox-christians , Romans . Thirdly , that maner of speaking had its Original , from a politick reason ; and not from an Ecclesiastical : In those dayes the Goths , Alans , and Vandals made war upon the Romans ; the first three were Arians , the Romans Orthodox : and therefore , because all the Orthodox Christians partied the Romans in that war , they called them all Romans ; their Faith , the Roman Faith ; their Church the Roman Church : as the Turks at this day , call all Christians Francks , or French-men . Fourthly , as we said , they translate Ignatius falsly ; for his words are , to the Church presiding in Loco , regionis Romanorum , in the place of the region of the Romans : whereby it evidently appears , that the meaning of Ignatius is no other , then the Church presiding in the Town of Rome ; since none can affirm by these words , he means otherwayes , or that the Church of Rome presides in the whole Church ; since he particularizes the presidency , and restricts it to a certain-place , of the region of the Romans : and therefore , they sophisticate egregiously , in translating Ignatius , Presiding in the region of the Romans . Since the Romans ( say they ) at that time commanded the whole world , Ignatius by a Church Presiding in the region of the Romans , understands a Church Presiding in the whole world : whereas the words of Ignatus impart no more , but a Church presiding in a certain place , of the region of the Romans , Which is further confirmed , because we shewed before , from these two Epistles of Ignatius to the Trallians , and Magnesians , that he acknowledged no Office in the Church , above that of a Bishop : but he could not be so forgetful of himself , as in this Epistle , to acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , as Bellarmine and Bozius pretends he doth ; which is further confirmed , by the testimony of Basilius Epists 8. where he affirms , that Iconium presides in a part of Pisidia , which is just such an other expression as that of Ignatius . We could defend the meaning of Ignatius , not to make much for them , although they had translated him faithfully ; that is , if he had said Presiding in the region of the Romans : for , from these words it can no more be gathered , that the Bishop of Rome is oecumenick Bishop , then it can prove the Bishop of Ments , or the Bishop of Carthage , oecumenick Bishop ; because they preside in the region of Carthage , &c. for in the dayes of Ignatius , as we said , none were called Romans , but those who lived within the precinct , or particular command of the City : and this much of Ignatius . Now followeth Irenaeus , from whom they bring a testimony by them much magnified ; the passage is this , speaking of the Church of Rome , ad hanc enim ecclesiam , propter potentiorem principalitatem , necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam , hoc est eos qui sunt undique , fideles , in qua Semper ab his qui Sunt undique conservata est ea , quae ab Apostolis est traditio . The substance is , all Churches should accord with the Church of Rome , for two reasons , first , because of its more powerful principality ; the next is , because Apostolical tradition is preserved in that Church . But this place makes not much for them , as appears by Irenaeus scope ; this passage is found , lib. 3. cap. 13. in which Chapter he is disputing against Hereticks ; which were the perfect Scriptures ? he willeth them for their satisfaction , to consult with the ancient Churches , which successively descended from the Apostles : and for instance sake , proponeth unto them the Church of Rome ; his meaning is then , in those words , whatever the Church of Rome at that time thought perfect Scriptures , all Churches about were bound to acknowledge them for such ; first , by reason of its more powerful principality , that Church being founded by the Apostles Paul and Peter ( as was believed then ) Secondly , because it hath been thought by Churches about to have purely preserved that tradition of the Canon of Scripture , which it had received from the Apostles : so that the meaning of Irenaeus is no other then this , that all are bound to accord to that Church , so long as it preserves the perfect Canon of Scripture , and teaches no other Doctrine then is contained in it , by this testimony of Irenaeus , we are bound no more to adhere to the Church of Rome , then it adhereth to the Scripture . But they instance , Irenaeus simply , without such restrictions , affirms , that all should accord to the Church of Rome , because it observes the apostolick tradition ; which is as much , say they , as the Church of Rome cannot make an Apostacy . But it is replyed , first , although Irenaeus affirmed , that in those times , the Church of Rome preserved the pure Canon of the Scripture ; yet , he doth not affirm , that in all times coming it would do so . The Church of Rome at this day , observes not that Cannon of the Scripture , which was observed in the dayes of Irenaeus ; the Council of Trent , under the pain of an Anathema adds to the Canon of the Scriptures , these Books commonly called Apocrypha , which were rejected by the Church of Rome , in the dayes of Irenaeus , as shall be proved in its own place , by the testimonies of the most eminent Doctors of the Roman Church ; to omit the testimonies of almost all the Fathers , by whose testimonies it shall be proved , that in the dayes of Irenaeus , the Churches of Rome , Asia , Africa , Egypt , &c. rejected those Books canonized by the Council of Trent : and therefore , they must of necessity affirm , that either the Modern Church of Rome , or the Council of Trent , excommunicates all these , who accord with the Church of Rome , in the Canon of the Scripture , in the dayes of Irenaeus : or else they have made a defection themselves , from that Church , which was in the dayes of Irenaeus : The Council of Trent makes those Books Canonical , with an Anathema to those who shall not acknowledge them for such , but the Church of Rome , in the dayes of Irenaeus , rejected them as Apocryphal , as is proved by the testimonies of Ruffinus in Symbulo apud Cyprianum , and Hieronymus in his preface upon the Books of the Kings , and prologo Galeato , tom . 3. That all other Churches accorded with the Church of Rome , in that Canon of the Scriptures , is proved by an induction of them all : as the east Church , as is testified by Melito , the Church of Jerusalem ; as is testified by Cyril , of Alexandria , witnesse Athanas and Origen , of France ; as is testified by Hilarius , of Asia , Concil . Loadicenum , of Constantinople ; Nazianz , and Damascen . These testimonies are acknowledged by Bellarmine himself for the most part , lib. 1. cap. 20. de verbo Dei. Secondly , that Irenaeus in these words , means no other according with the Church of Rome , then in as far as it preserves the truth , appears further , not only by his keeping communion with the Bishops of the East , notwithstanding of their excommunication by Victor ; but likewayes by his sharply rebuking of Victor , taxing him of Ignorance , and Arrogance , for his proceeding in such a manner : by which it evidently appears , that neccessar communion with the Church of Rome was no article of faith in the opinion of Irenaeus , much less the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , and this much of Irenaeus . Now we come to the Latine Fathers ; the first passage alledged is of Tertullianus de pudicitia , where he calls Victor Bishop of Rome , Bishop of Bishops : But it is answered , first , albeit he did so , it proves not Victor was oecumenick Bishop ; because we read that James is so called by Clement , Lupus is so called by Sidonius , lib. 6. epist . 1. Marcus Bishop of Alexandria , is called also Bishop of Bishops , by Theodorus Balsamon , in his answers to the Interrogations of the said Marcus : but Bellarmine will not affirm , that James , or L●pus , or Marcus were oecumenick Bishops . Secondly , Tertullian in that place ; calling Victor Bishop of Bishops , doth so Ironicè or in mockery , as appeares by the occasion of his calling him so , which was this : Victor made a decree of admitting fornicators or whoremongers too easily to the communion of the Church , in the opinion of Tertullian . Speaking of that decree , Tertullian affirms , Episcopus Episcoporum nuper edidit Edictum , &c. The Bishop of Bishops hath now put forth an Edict , and falls too immediatly and disputes against it : whereby it appears , that he did not acknowledge the supremacy of Victor : that he is mocking him , appears further , by his calling that decree of Victor , Edictum , an edict , but Emperours only set forth Edicts , and so he calls Victor Bishop of Bishops , in the same sence that he calls his decree an Edict , which none can deny to be in mockery . They alledge another passage from Tertullian in his prescript . 76. against hereticks ; this passage is objected by Pamelius , and is this , If ye live in the adjacent places to Italy , ye have Rome , from whence we have also Authority . Tertullian himself then lived in Africa , whence they conclude from these words we have Authority , that the Bishop of Rome had Jurisdiction in Africa in the opinion Tertullian . But it is answered , this place resembles very much that of Irenaeus , which we now discussed ; his scope in these words , is to arme his Readers against heresies ; among other prescriptions , he prescribs this fore one , that all should strive to inform themselves what is the Doctrine of those Churches which were founded by the Apostles , and then to conform themselves to that Doctrine . And first , saith he , If ye live in Achaia consult the Church of Corinth ; if ye live not far from Macedonia , consult the Church of Philippi , and Thessalonica ; if ye live in Asia , consult the Church of Ephesus ; if ye live in the adjacent parts to Italy , follow the Church of Rome ; from which ( saith he ) we also in Africa have our authority , because it is the nearest Apostolick Church . Observe , he calls Apostolick Churches those who were founded by the Apostles themselves , as that of Philippi , Corinth , Thessalonica by Paul , that of Ephesus by St. John , that of Rome by Peter and Paul : whence it is easie to conjecture , what is the meaning of Tertullian : for by these words , from whence we have our Authority , it follows no more , that the Church of Rome hath jurisdiction in Africa , then it follows , that the Church of Ephesus , or Antiochia have jurisdiction over all Asia ; or , that the Church of Corinth hath jurisdiction over all Achaia . His meaning then assuredly is , that albeit one be not under the jurisdiction of the nearest Apostolick Church ; yet it is the surest way , to preserve your self from Heresie , to follow the Faith of that Church , because it is most like , that those Churches , who were founded by the Apostles themselves , are least obnoxious to defection . Secondly , that Tertullian did not dream of any such thing as the infalibity of the Church of Rome , or supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , as a necessar article of faith , appears , not only by his disputing expresly against that decree of Victor , Bishop of Rome , which we now mentioned ; but also , by several other passages of Tertullian , in the said prescriptions , and else where . Beatus Rhenanus in his Argument to the same book of Tertullian , de prescrip , printed at Basil , anno . 1521. ( which Rhenanus was a Popish Doctor , and exquisitly versed in the Writings of the Fathers , and especially of Tertullian , upon whom he commented ) hath these expressions ; Tertullian , ( saith he ) doth not confine the Chatholick Church to the Church of Rome , he doth not esteem so highly of the Church of Rome , as they do now a dayes ; he reckoneth her with other Churches , and admonisheth his Reader to enquire , as well what milk the Church of Corinth gave , as that of Rome : In which words , he means the same very passage of Tertullian which we now explained , and vindicated from the Sophistry of Pamelius : at last he concludes , if Tertullian were now alive , and should say so much , he could not escape unpunished ; and this much Rhenanus avouched , when he had the use of his tongue : but the index , expurgatorius belgicus , pag. 78. has gagged his mouth with a deleantur hec verba , and so they are not now found in the Editions of Rhenanus , printed since in those places , where the Pope hath jurisdiction . They had reason to purge out those words from Rhenanus , because the testimony of his was as a Poyniard , sticking in the very bowels of that article of the Catechise of the Council of Trent , viz. that there is no salvation without communion with the Church of Rome CHAP. XII . Several passages objected out of Cyprian , to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , in that interval ; vindicated from Sophistry . THe last Father they make use of , to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , in that interval , between the times of the Apostles , and the death of Cyprian , is Cyprian himself . There is not a Father of them all more urged , to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , then Cyprian ; and yet it is most certain , that it never had a greater enemy then he : what Cyprians opinion was anent that contest , appeared in the former Chapters , both by his testimonies , and his actions : Our adversaries dispute two wayes for the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , out of Cyprian : first by sophistry , next by forgery : we will refute the first in this Chapter , and prove the second in the Chapters following ; and that by the testimonies of the greatest Antiquaries , that ever the Church of Rome produced . The first testimony of Cyprian , they bring is , from his 42. Epistle , where writing to Cornelius Bishop of Rome , he hath these words , Some while ago , we sent some of our Colleagues to compose some differences , or to reduce some schismaticks to the unity of the Chatholick Church , &c. and a little after But those Schismaticks set up to themselves an adulterous head against the Church ; from which place , Bellarmine reasons thus , as those Novatians set up one to be heaa of their Church , or of the whole Church of the Novatians ; so Cornelius was head of the Catholick Church . But it is answered , this reasoning is very unbeseeming such a learned man as Bellarmine : for the meaning of Cyprian is no other , then that the Novatians set up to themselves a Bishop at Rome , in opposition to Cornelius ; so he calls the Novatian Bishop , an adulterous head , contrary to Cornelius , who was the true head of the particular Church at Rome , because he was the true Bishop thereof : and so Cyprian doth not mean any head of the whole Church , but only by Head , he means Bishop of the particular Church of Rome . Bellarmine instances , that Cyprian affirms , his intention was to reconcile those Shismaticks to the Catholick Church ; by which he means the Church of Rome , and since the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church , and the Bishop of Rome head of the Church of Rome , Ergo , he is head of the Catholick Church . But it is answered when Cyprian calls the Church of Rome the Catholick Church , his meaning is a particular Church professing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church ; and therefore , they who were reconciled to the Church of Rome , were reconciled to the Catholick Church also : so any reconciled to a particular Church , professing the Doctrine of the Catholick Church , is reconciled also to the Catholick Church , and yet that particular Church is not the Catholick Church . That this is the meaning of Cyprian , appears , by the preceeding Epistle , or epist . 41. where speaking of some Schismaticks in the Church of Carthage , he affirms they opposed themselves to the Catholick Church : he means , they opposed themselves to the Church of Cathage , inwhich doing , they opposed themselves to the Catholick Church ; because the Church of Cathage , professed the same Doctrine , with the Catholick Church , in opposing or renting the Church of Carthage , they rent and opposed the Catholick Church . Pamelius , urgeth , that Cyprian affirms , that those Schismaticks refused the bosome of the root and mother Church : where observe , saith he , that Cyprian calls the Church of Rome , the root and the mother of all Churches , or of the Catholick Church , which Epithet is given by Cyprian to the Church of Rome , not only in this epistle , but also in his 45. epist to Cornelius : in which he gives injunctions to those he was sending to Rome , ( to be informed concerning that schism of the Novatians ) that they should acknowledge and adhere to the Root and Mother of the Catholick Church . But it is answered , that Cyprian by Root and Mother of the Catholick Church , means no other thing , but the Catholick-Church it self , as appears by the said 45. Epistle ; in which he affirms to Cornelius , that hearing that there was a schism in the Church of Rome , he sent Caldonius and Fornatus , to be informed of the truth of the business , and to adhere to neither party , till they were informed which of the factions was in the right ? and which in the wrong ? and for that reason , he did not direct his Letters , either to Cornelius , or to that Novatian Bishop ; but only to the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome , that being informed by them , they might adhere to those , who held and acknowledged the Root and Mother of the Catholick Church : whereby it is evident , that Cyprian did not believe , that Cornelius Bishop of Rome , or those who adhered to him , were the root and mother of the Catholick Church , since he gave his messengers injunction , to suspend their Judgments , till they were informed , who adhered to the root and mother of the Catholick Church , that is , who maintained the true Faith , or who were members of the Catholick Church , for if Cyprian had believed , that Cornelius and his faction , had been the root and mother of the Catholick Church , he would not have injoyned his messengers to suspend their judgment , till they were informed by the Presbyters and Deacons : so it is evident , that Cyprian by Root and Mother of the Catholick Church , means the Catholick Church it self , both in his 45. and 42. Epistle ; and in the same sense , epist . 43. and 44. he exhorts them to return to their mother , that is , to the unity of the Catholick Church . The second passage of Cyprian is found in his 55. Epistle , where he hath these words , That the occasion of Heresies and Schismes in the Church is only this , that the Priest of God is not obeyed , and that it is not believed , that one Priest , as Judge in place of Christ for a time , is in the Church . This place is much urged by Pamelius , in his Annotations upon the said Epistle , to prove an oecumenick Bishop . But it is answered , Cyprian in this Letter or Epistle , is inveighing against those , who had set up one Fortunatus ( as we shewed before ) Bishop of Carthage , in opposition to himself : and his meaning is not , that there should be one Bishop in the Catholick Church , but only one Bishop in a particular Church , or the Church of Carthage : because two Bishops , in one place , occasions Schismes , and Heresies , saith Cyprian : so its evident , that Cyprian is pleading his own cause , disputing against those who had set up a Schismatick Bishop , in the Church of Carthage , in opposition to himself , and then went to Rome , and calumniated him to Cornelius : it had been impertinent in Cyprian , in this question , to bring in mention of an oecumenick Bishop ; the whole dispute of Cyprian consists in these two Sylogismes , the first is , who rise up in opposition to their lawful Bishop ; will assuredly be punished by God. But those men , Fortunatus and Felicissimus , rise up against their lawful Bishop . Ergo , God will assuredly punish them . The second Sylogisme is this , who are the occa●ion of Heresies and Schismes , will be punished : But who rise against their lawful Bishop , are the occasion of Heresies , and Schismes . Ergo , &c. By which disputations of Cyprians , it is evident , that by one Bishop he doth not mean an oecumenick Bishop , but any Bishop of a particular charge ; because if by one Bishop he had meaned , an oecumenick Bishop , the minor of his first Sylogisme is notoriously false : ●or , Fortunatus and Felicissimus , did not rise up against an oecumenick Bishop , but only against Cyprian , Bishop of Carthage . But Pamelius instances , first , that Cyprian cites several testimonies of Scripture , in this dispute , which did quadrate only to the high Priest of the Jewes : And therefore , those words of Cyprian are more fitly to be understood of an oecumenick Bishop . But it is answered , Pamelius playes the Sophister three wayes : First , it is false , that these passages cited by Cyprian , are only applyable to the high Priest of the Jewes ; first , he cites those words of Moses , Deutr. 17. what ever man , who out of Pride , shall not hearken to the Priest and Judge who shall be in those dayes , that man shall die . But that Moses is not speaking here of the High Priest , but of any Priest , a very child may perceive , who reads that Chapter of Deuteronomie , or the 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12. verses of it . Secondly , Pamelius Sophisticates , in omitting those passages cited by Cyprian , which cannot be applyed to the High Priest onely : as that of Matth. 8. 4. Go shew thy self unto the Priests , and that of Luke , 10. 16. he that heareth you heareth me , &c. Thirdly , Pamelius Sophisticates egregiously , in concluding Cyprian to mean in those words , an oecumenick Bishop , by reason of his citation of those testimonies of Scripture : for Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus , and in another Epistle to Florentius , cites all those very places , which he cites in this 55. Epistle to Cornelius , to prove that none should oppose their Bishop : But Pamelius himself , in his Annotations upon both those Epistles , confesseth , that neither in the one nor the other , Cyprian speaks of an oecumenick Bishop : in the one , he speaks of Rogatianus , in the other , he speaks of himself , as he doth in this 55. Epistle . Pamelius objects , Secondly , that Cyprian here speaks of a Bishop who is Judge in place of Christ . But it is answered , Cyprian in those words , means not an oecumenick Bishop , but any Bishop whatsoever , as is evident , by these following reasons : First , he gives Colleagues to that Bishop whom he affirmeth to be Judge in place of Christ , and that in the same Epistle , his words are , no man after divine judgement , suffrages of the people , consent of his fellow Bishops , would make himself Judge , not now of his Bishop , but of God. Secondly , because epist . 69. to Florentius , Cyprian calls himself a judge constitute by God for a time . Thirdly , it is no marvel , that Cyprian calls any Bishop , judge in place of Christ , since Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians , gives the same Eipthet to Deacons : he exhorts the said Trallians , to reverence their Deacons as Christ , whose place they hold . Pamelius objects , thirdly , that Cyprian affirms , that the cause of schisme and heresies is , that one Bishop is not constitute in the Church , and affirms that Cyprian by one Bishop ever means oecumenick Bishop , as appears by his epist . 48. to Cornelius , and by his Book de unitate ecclesiae : But it is answered , that it is false , which Pamelius affirms , for in those places mentioned by him , there is no such thing to be found in Cyprian , that by one Bishop he means an oecumenick Bishop . Secondly , it is false which he affirms , that Cyprian in every place by one Bishop , means an oecumenick Bishop ; for in his Epistle to Pupianus , he hath these very words which he hath in this 55. Epistle , viz. that the cause of Heresies and Schisms is , that one Bishop presiding in the Church , is contemned by the proud presumption of some : and yet Pamelius himself , in his Annotations upon the place , confesseth , that Cyprian by one Bishop means any Bishop whatsoever , and not an oecumenick Bishop . Pamelius objects fourthly , that Cyprian in his 55. Epistle , cannot mean himself alone , because he affirms , if that one Bishop were acknowledged , no man would move any thing against the Colledge of Priests ; because it doth not follow , that they who move any thing against Cyprian , oppose all other Bishops : But it is answered , Cyprian meaning is , that in opposing himself , they opposed the Colledge of Bishops which had ordained him Bishop of Carthage : as is evident likewayes , by the next following words , which we cited before , viz. no man can make himself judge of his Bishop , after the suffrages of the people , and the consent of his fellow Bishops : whereby it is evident , that the meaning of Cyprian is , that who opposed him , opposed the Colledge of Bishops , who had ordained him . Fifthly , Pamelius objects , that Cyprian after those words of one Bishop , makes mention de servo praeposito , or a servant preferred , or set over the rest , and immediately after he makes mention of Peter . But it is answered none , can understand wherein the force of this objection consists ; for Cyprian after he had affirmed , that it was no marvel they had deserted that one servant who was preferred to the rest , since the Disciples left Christ himself : and then our Saviour asked the Apostles , if they would also leave him ? then Peter ( upon whom the Church was built by our Lord ) answered for them all , Lord , whether or to whom shall we go ? Whereas Pamelius urgeth , that by servus praepositus is meaned Peter , it can be no wayes gathered out of the words of Cypria ; his scope in those words is only to shew , that it was no marvel that those Schismaticks abandoned him their Bishop , who was that servant set over them , since Christs disciples abandoned him . That Peter was only that servus praepositus , cannot be gathered out of the words of Cyprian : for , that the Church was built upon Peter , and that Peter answered in the name of the Church , it makes nothing for the supremacy of Peter , as we proved before by the testimony of Cyprian himself ; who in his books de unitate ecclesiae affirms , whatever Peter was , the other Apostles were the same , equal to him in dignity and power : However , that building of the Cchurch upon Peter , hath nothing ado with that servus praepositus mentioned by Cyprian ; for as we said , Cyprian means only any Bishop , and in particular himself by that Servant . Horantius , loc . chathol . lib. 6. cap. 10. and Harding , disputing against Jewel , art . 4. brings another objection , that Cyprian by one Bishop means not himself , or any other particular Bishop , but oecumenick : their objection is founded upon the words of Cyprian , who after he had affirmed , that the cause of Schismes was , that one Bishop was not acknowledged Judge in place of Christ in the Church ; he adds , if according to divine precepts , the whole fraternity were obedient to the said Judge , no man would move any thing against the Colledge of Priests ; whence Horantius and Harding concludes , that by whole fraternity Cyprian means the whole Church , and by one Bishop one visible head of that Church . But it is answered , that Cyprian , by whole fraternity , means that multitude of which any particular Church is composed : as in his 68. Epistle , writing to the Bishops of Spain , he desires them not to rescind the ordination of Sabinus , whom they had placed in the Bishoprick of Basilides , he affirms , that the said Sabinus was chosen , by the suffrages of the whole fraternity : But Horantius and Harding will not affirm , that Cyprian in this 68. Epistle , means the universal Church , or church of Rome by whole fraternity ; since it is evident by the circumstances , that he means a particular Church , or that Congregation which chused Sabinus for their Bishop . Likewayes , as we shewed before , the said Sabinus was placed Bishop , and maintained in his Bishoprick over the belly of Stephanus , Bishop of Rome ; who desired them to restore Basilides ; and the scope of this 68. Epistle written in the Name of the Council of Carthage , to the Bishops of Spain by Cyprian , is to maintain Sabinus in his Bishoprick , notwithstanding that Stephanus Bishop of Rome , desired them to rescind the ordination of Sabinus , and to replace Basilides : That Cyprian by whole fraternity means a particular Church , appears by innumerable Epistles of his , as epist . 47. in two several places , and 58. in two several places ; likewayes , and 63. in which last place , he affirms , when we are at Supper at our Banquet , we cannot convocate the common People , that we may celebrate the verity of the Sacrament , in presence of the whole fraternity . And thus we have shewed , with what admirable Sophistry , our adversaries endeavour to wrest this notable passage of Cyprian , epist . 55. in which we have been the more prolix , because from thence , they bring all which they can pretend to be of any moment , to prove that Cyprian was for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome : they alledge other testimonies , more pungent , but they shall be proved forged ▪ in the following Chapters . The third testimony brought from the words of Cyprian , is in the edition of Pamelius , Epist . 46. in which Cornelius writing to Cyprian , hath these words ; We are not ignorant that there is but one God , &c. and a little after , that there should be one Bishop in the Catholick Church ; from whence they conclude an oecumenick Bishop or the Bishop of Rome , as successor to Peter Head of the Curch . But it is answered , Cornelius in this Epistle , is informing Cyprian , that some Shismaticks ( who had partied that Novatian Bishop set up at Rome against Cornelius ) desired to be re-admitted to his communion , confessing their error , that they had been seduced , and now they are convinced , that Cornelius was their true Bishop : amongst other of their confessions , they profess they were not ignorant , that there was but one God , one Christ , one Holy Ghost , and that there should be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church ; by which it is evident , that by Catholick Church they mean any particular Church , and here they mean the particular Church of Rome ; of which they acknowledge Cornelius , to be that one Bishop , and not that other Novation Bishop by whom they had been seduced , and whom they would acknowledge no more for their Bishop , since there could be but one true Bishop of that Church , viz. Cornelius himself . That this is the meaning of Cornelius● , in this Epistle , is further confirmed , in an Epistle of his to Fabianus , ( mentioned by Eusebius , Hist . lib. 6. cap. 35. ) in which he objects ignorance to one , who knew not , that there should be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church ; Here he means one Bishop in the particular Church of Rome . For a little after , in that Epistle , he affirms , in that same Catholick Church there were fourty six Presbyters , seven Deacons and seven sub-deacons ; but he could not affirm , that in the whole Catholick Church , there were only so many Presbyters , so many Deacons , and so many sub-deacons : whereby it is evident , that by one Bishop , in the Catholick Church , Cornelius , means , there should be but one Bishop in any particular Church ; which is so evident , that Chrystopherson , in his version of Eusebius , renders these words of Cornelius , his Epistle to Fabian , thus ; he was ignorant that there should be but one Bishop ( in hac Ecclesia Catholica ) in this Catholick Church , viz. in this particular Church of Rome : neither is there any expression , more frequent in the writings of those Ancients then to to call every particular Church , the Catholick Church , which observeth the purity of the Catholick Faith , or Church universal . The fourth passage of Cyprian , is in his 40. Epistle , directed to the people of Carthage , there is one God , one Christ , one Chair , one Church founded upon Peter , by Christs own mouth . But it is answered , it shall be proved in the following Chapters , that those last words are forged ; the rest have no difficulty at all : for by one Chair and one Church , Cyprian understands that there should be but one Bishop in every particular Church ; as is evident both by the scope and words of the Epistle : the scope of the Epistle is , to complain upon some Schismaticks , who had made a defection from himself , and the Church of Carthage ; where amongst other reasons , against their defection , this is one ; there is but one Chair , viz. there is but one Bishop in the Cburch of Carthage , Cyprian himself : and since none ought to be acknowledged Bishop but he , they were Schismaticks in making a separation from him . This reasoning of Cyprian , had been most ridiculous , if by one Chair he had meaned an oecumenick Bishop , viz. if he had reasoned thus ; they are Schismaticks , who made a defection from their Bishop Cyprian ; because there is but one oecumentick Bishop . Secondly , that this is the meaning of Cyprian , appears by the following words , where Cyprian affirms , they had made to themselves another Altar , intimating thereby , that there is but one Altar in the Church : whereby it is evident , that he speaks not of the Church universal● , but of a particular Church , since none will affirm , that there is but one Altar in the Catholick Church ▪ Likewise● in his 65. Epistle , pleading the cause of Rogatianus , he affirms , that they who make a defection from the Church , make another Altar unto themselves : but Pamelius himself , in his Annotations upon that Epistle , observes , that Cyprian in that place , is speaking only of particular Churches . Thirdly , that by one Chair cannot be meaned one Bishop of the Church universal , is evident , because Cathedra or Chair , is not one in the whole Church , since there are many Chaires in it : as is affirmed by Tertullian in his prescriptions , cap. 36. The last passage they object out of Cyprian , is from his Epistle to Pompeius , where he affirmeth , no man can have God to his Father , who has not the Church to his Mother , Costerus the Jesuit , Apolog. part . 3. objects this passage of Cyprian , to prove that the Church of Rome is the mother Church , and likewayes to prove the Bishop of Romes supremacy . But the impudence of Costerus is very great , for Cyprian in that whole Epistle , disputes with such vehemency , and bitterness against the Church and Bishop of Rome , that Pamelius wisheth it had never been written : and it shall be proved in the last Chapter of this Book , that the said Epistle of Cyprian to Pompeius , and others also of his Epistles of the same subject , are left out in some new Roman editions of Cyprians works . As for the words now alledged , Costerus miserably wrests them ; for in them he is disputing against the Church of Rome , and in the very next words , he accuseth Stephanus Bishop of Rome , not only of Error , but also of Obstinacy : his dispute is this ; Those who are baptized by hereticks , ought to be re-baptized , because the Sanctification of baptisme , is only to be found in the Church , ( apud Christi sponsam solam ) who can beget and bring forth children unto God : but they who are baptized by hereticks , are not born in the Church , neither can they have God to their Father , who have not the Church for their Mother . Ergo , they ought to be re-baptized . And a little after he adds , how comes it then , that the severe Obstinacie of our brother Stephanus , ( Bishop of Rome ) is come to such an hight ? he means , by that excommunication of himself , and the Church of Carthage , by Stephanus , and his harsh carriage . For , as Cassander relates , consult . art . 7. when Cyprian sent messengers to Stephanus , he not only re●used them audience , but also inhibited the Clergy of Rome , to admit any of them to their houses . By which passage of Cyprian with Stephanus it appears , with what ingenuity , they object the 67. Epistle of Cyprian , to prove , that he acknowledged the Supremacy of the said Stephanus : because in it , he writes to him ( say they ) to depose Marcianus Bishop of Arles in France . But it appears by the words of the Epistle , that Cyprian only exhorts Stephanus , to admonish the Bishops of the Province to depose him ; not to depose him , himself : what was the opinion of Cyprian concerning the power of the Bishop of Rome , in deposition , and restition of Bishops ? is sufficiently manifested , by his carriage in the cause of Basilides , and Sabinus mentioned a little before . For in his Epistle 68. he stoutly opposeth , the restitution of Basilides , and the deposition of Sabinus ; notwithstanding , that Stephanus injoyned both the one and the other , to the Bishops of Spain . CHAP. XII . Objections from forged Authors answered , pretended to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , before the dayes of Cyprian . HItherto , they have endeavoured to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , before the death of Cyprian , by wrested and misapplyed testimonies : that not serving the turn , they fall to forgery , and that of two kinds ; first , they bring testimonies from bastard , and suppositïtious , Authors ; Secondly , from true Authors , corrupted by the Popes authority or otherwayes : we will discourse of the first sort in this Chapter , of the second in the following . In the first place , they pretend the decretal Epistles of several Bishops of Rome , who lived in that interval , and after , unto the beginning of the fourth Age. But it is answered , all those decretals are forged , attributed to Popes before the dayes of Syrictus , Bishop of Rome , who lived about anno , 380. the reasons follow . First , Dionysius Exiguus , a diligent Compilator of all the decretals of Popes , in one volumne , begins this work with the decretals of the said Syritius , not mentioning the decretal Epistles of any Popes before him : whereby it evidently appears , that there was no such decretalls , in his time , or in the sixth Century , whereby also it is evident , that they have been forged since that time . Secondly , those decretalls are mentioned by non of the Ancients most exact enquirers after antiquity ; such as Eusebius , Hieronymus , Gennadius , and Pope Damasus , who lived himself in the time of Hieronymus , and to whom Hieronymus was Secretar , but all those Authors ; made exact enquiry , after the actions of Bishops of Rome , before the Council of Neice : and yet not one of them , maketh mention of those decretals , which are at least thirty . Thirdly , the stiles of men are almost as different , as their faces : but it appears to any Judicious Reader , that all those Epistles were penned by one man , having the same stile , but they are attributed to Bishops of Rome , of divers Ages , whereof the last lived three hundred year after the first . Fourthly , the Latine Tongue , before the Council of Neice , was in great purity : and the Bishops of Rome of those dayes , known to be most powerful in it : but the stile of those decretals , is most barbarous . Turrianus objects , ( who wrote a defence of those Epistles ) that those Bishops of Rome used a humble stile , in imitation of Paul , who shunned the words of humane wisdom . But it is answered , that although Paul did forbid affected eloquence , yet he did not prescrive solicismes , and barbarity , which both are frequent in those Epistles . And first , for Solicismes , Enaristus , epist . 2. Episcopi sunt obediendi & non detrahendi : Telesphorus in his Epistle hath these words , Patres omnes sunt venerandi non insidiandi , such like expressions are found every where . As for barbarismes , you have everywhere , such expressions as those folowing , Rigorosus tortor , dependere obtemperantiam : agere indisciplinate ; jurgialiter stare ; paternas doctrinas injuriare : cuncta charitative peragere . Fifthly , Isidorus Mercator , who lived in the seventh Age , challenged by Barronius , ad annum , 336. num . 80. and 60. as a great forger of monuments of Antiquity : he lived in the 7. Age , at which time , there was great debate between the Greek and the Latin Church ; the Greek Church , refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , albeit Phocas , in the beginning of that Age , had taken the title of oecumenick Bishop , from Cyriacus , Bishop of Constantinople , and bestowed it upon Bonifacius Bishop of Rome ; yet , notwithstanding , the Bishop of Constantinople , still keeped the stile of oecumenick Bishop and would not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome . The said Isidorus Mercator , as Barronius relates , forged several monuments of Antiquity , to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome ; and he is commonly thought to be the forger of those decretalls , for three reasons ; first , ( as we said ) he is detected of several other forgeries ; secondly , because it appears by their stile , they are all written by one man ; thirdly , because the stile is barbarous , and exactly agreeing with the stile of that Age , in which Isidorus lived . Sixthly , it is demonstrat those Epistles are forged , not only by the stile , but by the matter contained in them : It were prolix to mention all ; we will only note some few , sufficiently demonstrating those decretals to be forged . First , some of them are directed to those who were dead long before ; as that Epistle of Clement , to James , in which he writes to him of the death of Peter and Paul : but James was dead in the seventh year of Nero , as is testified by Eusebius , Hegesippus , and Hieronymus ; but Peter and Paul died not till seven years after , viz. the fourteenth year of Nero. 2. Anterius in his decretal , makes mention of Eusebius Bishop of Alexandria , and Felix Bishop of Ephesus : but Anterus lived in the beginning of the third Century , almost a whole Age before them both . 3. Fabianus in his Epistle , makes mention of the coming of Novatus to Italy ; but Cyprian , lib. 1. epist . 3. affirms , that Fabianus came to Italy in the time of Cornelius , who lived at another time . 4. Marcellus writes a threatning Letter to Maxentius , pressing him with the Authority of Clement Bishop of Rome : but Maxentius both a Pagan , and a Tyrant , cared nothing for Clement at all . 5. Zephyrinus in his Epistle to the Egyptians , affirms , that it was against the constitutions of Emperours , that Clergy men should be called before the Judge Secular : the same is affirmed by Eusebius , in his Decretal to the same Aegyptians . But in those dayes , viz. In the third Century , the Emperours were all Pagans : and it is ridiculous to affirm , that they made such Edicts , in favour of Christians , who were cruel persecuters of the Christians 6. It s known , that many ceremonies came by degrees in the Church , and that there were very few ceremonies in the Church , the time of those Bishop of Rome : but those decretal●Epistles , makes no mention of the grievous persecutions of the Church in those dayes , no not one of them ; but on the contrary , makes mention of the Church as it were in pomp , making mention of all those ceremonies , as holy vessels , of the habit of the Clergy , of the Mass , of Archbishops , Metropolitans , Patriarchs , none of which things were in the Church in those dayes : those Cannons , commonly called Apostolick , mention indeed Primats : but albeit they contain many profitable things , yet many learned men among the Papists themselves , maintain , that they were not made by the Apostles but collected from Cannons of the Council of Antioch , and other posterior Councils : See Salmasius , and Photius , Bibliothick , cap. 113. We might alledge several other reasons , to prove those Epistles forged , as their absurd interpetation of Scripture , some of them maintaining community of wives , &c. But those reasons are sufficient , since Bellarmine , and Barronius seems not to care much for them ; since Contius , Professour at Bruges , maintains them to be forged ; since Aeneas Silvius ( epist . 301. according to Bellarmines supputation , 288. ) expresly affirms , that before the Council of Niece , there are no Monuments for the Popes Supremacy ; which he would never have affirmed , if he had not believed those Epistles had been forged , which ingeminate everywhere , the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome : and yet the said Aeneas Silvius , was afterwards Pope himself , under the name of Pius second . Whence we conclude , that those Epistles were unknown to the Ancients . And whereas Turrianus objects , that Isidorus mentioneth them ; It is answered , he is charged for forging them . He objects , secondly , that Ruffinus turned those three Epistles of Clement ; but it is answered , those Epistles of Clement are very old indeed , but they do not prove the Antiquity of the rest . The stile of these three Epistles of Clement , is different from the stile of those others : and although Ruffinus , turned them from Greek to Latine , it doth not prove , they are Authentick . He tu●ned also his Books of Recognitions , which are esteemed Apocryphal , by Gratianus , Bellarmine , and other Doctors of the Church of Rome . And this much of those decretal Epistles : they alledge testimonies from several other forged Authors , in that interval , to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval , as Abdias Bishop of Babylon , is cited by Dorman to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome : Linus is cited by Coccius , for the same reason ; Clement by Harding . viz. his books of recognition : Dyonisius Areopagita , de divinis nominibus , is several times cited by Coccius in Thesauro , for the same end : but all these Authors , or those books now mentioned of those Authors , are rejected by Bellarmine or Barronius , or Possevinus , or Cajetanus , or Grocinus , or Sixtus , Senensis and other lights of the Church of Rome : and therefore , it is needless to insist upon the disproving them ; we will only answer one passage falsly attributed to Eusebius , or to Hieronymus , in his additions to Eusebius , and it is this : Bellarmine , to prove that the Bishop of Rome hath a legislative power , and Posnan also , thes . 131. alledge a passage of Eusebius , viz. that lent fast of 40 dayes was instituted by Telesphorus Bishop of Rome , who lived in the second Age , and this is his first instance : But it is answered , that Scaliger , in his edition of Eusebius demonstrats , those cannot be the words of Eusebius ; because lib. 5. cap. 17. he expresly affirms , that Montanus the heretick was the first that prescribed set fasts . Secondly , because cap. 34. of the same Book , Eusebius affirms from Irenaeus , that in the time of Victor Bishop of Rome , who lived after Telesphorus , that the fast of lent was not observed one way , some observing one day , some two , some more , &c. Bellarmines second instance is , that the said Eusebius affirms , that the mystery , or celebration of the Mystery of the resurrection of the Lords day , was first ordained by Pius Bishop of Rome , and universally observed in the west . But it is answered , that Eusebius , cap. 22. of the said Book , expresly affirms the contrary , viz. that it was ordained , by the decrees of several Councels : neither was it ever generally observed , before the Council of Neice ; whereby it is evident , that both the one and the other passage is fraudulently inserted , in the works of Eusebius , otherwayes Eusebius would contradict himself . CHAP. XIV . Of the corruptions of Cyprian . THere is not a Father of them all , of whom they bragg more then of Cyprian , to prove the supremacy of the Bishop Rome ; and yet , there is not a Father of them all , of which they have lesse reason to bragg , as we shewedbefore . Barronius , tom . 1. pag. 129. Let one speak for all ( saith he ) in time more ancient , in learning more excellent , in honour of Martyrdom far exceeding the rest of the Fathers , viz. Cyprian : and then he cites this following passages out of Cyprian , de unitate ecclesiae , cap. 3. To Peter , our Lord after his resurrection , saith , feed my sheep ; and buildeth his Church upon him ( alone . ) 2. And although after his resurrection , he gave alike power to all , yet to manifest unity , he constitute one Chair , and disposed by his authority the source or fountain of the same , beginning of one . 3. The rest of the Apostles were , that Peter was ; in equal fellowship of honour and power : but the beginning cometh of unity ( the primacy is given to Peter ) that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be one , and ( one Chair . ) 4. He that withstandeth and resisteth the Church , ( he that forsaketh Peters Chair , upon which the Church is built ; ) doth he trust that he is in the Church ? In these words observe , that all the sentences written within a parenthesis , are forged , and not to be found in the old Manuscripts of Cyprian , or in the old printed copies of Cyprian ; the reason wherefore the said sentences are added to the words of Cyprian is evident , because they make Cyprian expresly dispute for the supremacy of Peter , but take them away , the supremacy of Peter is quite destroyed ; as may appear to any who will read over these words , and omit those forged passages , written within a parenthesis . If ye demand how those passages came to be added to Cyprians text ? It is answered , that Pius fourth Bishop of Rome , called Manutius the famous Printer to Rome , to reprint the Fathers ; he appointed also four Cardinals , to see the work done , among the rest , Cardinal Barromaeus had singular care of Cyprian : Manutius himself , in his preface of a certain Book to Pius fourth , declareth , that it was the purpose of the Pope , to have them so corrected ; that there should remain no spot , which might infect the minds of the simple , with the shew of false Doctrine : How they corrected other Fathers , shall be declared in the following Books ? how they corrected Cyprian , appears by those words we have now et down , which are marked with Parenthesis , which being added , perverts the whole meaning of Cyprian : neither were they content , by adding to Cyprian , to prevert his meaning : other passages of Cyprian , which could not be mended by additions , or be made to speak for them , by inserting sentences , unless they made Cyprian speak manifest contradictions ; those other passages ( I say ) they razed quite out of Cyprian , in the said Roman Edition of Manutius , anno , 1564. in which Edition , they razed out Eleven or Twelve entire Epistles , as 1. 2. 3. 15. 21. 22. 71. 73. 74. 75. 83. 84. 85. 86. It were too prolix to declare , for what reasons they razed out all those Epistles the sum is , all of them were no great friends to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , nor to the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome , anent the perfection of the Scripture . We will cite a passage or two , out of the 74. and 75. Epistle , which will evidently make known , wherefore they razed those Epistles : surely there must be some great reason , since Pamelius himself wisheth , those Epistles had never been written : What the reason is , appears thus ? The 74. Epistle was written to Pompeius , against the Epistle of Stephanus , in which ye have these words , Stephanus Haereticorum , causum contra christianos & contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur ; and a little after , Reus in uno , videtur , reus in omnibus : That is , Stephanus Bishop of Rome , defends the cause of hereticks against the Church ; who is guilty in one thing , he seems to be guilty of all . The 75. Epistle , was written by Firmilianus to Cyprian ; in which ye have these words , Non intelligit obfuscari à se , &c. that is , Stephanus Bishop of Rome understands not , that the truth of the christian Rock is obfuscated by him , and in a manner abolished . The words of which two Epistles , are very prejudicial to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome : those Epistles are every where filled with such expressions , too prolix to be answered here ; but these we have mentioned , are sufficient to declare , what the opinion of Cyprian was , concerning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , or of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome . In the said 74. Epistle , in several places he calls the said Stephanus ignorant , arrogant , &c. insolent , impertinent , &c. in the 75. Epistle , Stephanus is called wicked , insolent , a deserter and betrayer of the truth : Likewayes , what a friend Cyprian was , to the Doctrine of the Modern Church of Rome ? appears by the said 74. Epistle ; where tradition without warrand of Scripture , is called by him Vetustas Erroris , antiquity of Error , and affirms , that all is to be rejected for such , which is not found in Scripture : so it concern matters of Faith : whereby it appears , that Cyprian incurres the Anathema of the council of Trent . And this we have shewed how they have corrupted Cyprian , as well in adding to him , to make him speak what he thought not ; and when that would not serve the turn , except they made him speak contradictions , they therefore also cutted out his tongue : what reason they had so to do , we have given some instances ; many such other might be given , but it would be prolix , and these are sufficient . Now let us hear , how they defend those Impostures , and first , for the razing out of those Epistles , Gretserus answers , Pamelius restored them in his edition of Cyprian . But it is replyed , that this is as much as to say , that by the testimony of Pamelius , Pope Pius Fourth , and those four Cardinals , whom he appointed to correct the works of Cyprian , are notorius impostors : It is a new sort of reasoning , that they did no wrong , in razing out those Epistles of Cyprian , because Pamelius restored them . Secondly , they defend those additions by an old copy of the Abbey of Cambron : 2. By a coppy fetched out of Bavaria ; 3. And by an other old coppy of Cardinal Hosius ; and so Gretserus the Jesuit defends the last three additions . But it is answered , that the first addition upon him alone , is the most important of all ; intimating , that upon Peter alone the Church was built , which is the main Basis of the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome : but Gretserus the Jesuit , who defends this corruption of Cyprian , doth not affirm , that those words upon him alone are found in any of these three Copies , he only affirms , that the second addition one Chair , and the third , the Primacy is given to Peter , are found in those old Copies . Secondly , it is replyed , that that Copy of Cardinal Hosius is only mentioned , but it was never yet seen : If Hosius had any such Copy , how comes he left not such a Monument of antiquity to Posterity ? As for the other two copies , of Cambron and Bavaria , it is a ridiculous business , to object their Authority , against the Authority , not only of all the printed Copies of Cyprian , before that of Manutius , but also against all the Manuscripts of Cyprian , found in the most famous Bibliothicks of Christendom , and the Vatican it self : and whereas Gretserus affirms , that perhaps the Wicklephian Hereticks , corrupted all those Ancient Manuscripts , it is a ridiculous objection : how could those Hereticks get access to the Libraries of all Princes , Universities and the Popes own Library , to corrupt the works of Cyprian , without being perceived ? It is far more like , that the Monks of Cambron and Bavaria , corrupted those two copies , ( If the Jesuits have not forged those two copies also ) since there are innumerable proofs and testimonies , ( as shall be proved in the following Books , ) Yea , and of Barronius himself ; that the Monks of several Monastries have corrupted and forged innumerable passages of Antiquity , especially in the seventh Age , when the contest was hot , with the Grecians about the Supremacy . The truth is , it is believed , that there are no such Copies at all , as that of Cambron and Bavaria , and that those Cardinals , appointed by Pius fourth , to oversee the Edition of Manutius , added those words of themselves , which is very like for two reasons ; First , because it is known , that the Indices expurgatorii , have added sentences , and razed out sentences at their pleasure in many Antient Copies , without the pretext of any other Copy . Secondly , their impudence was as great , in razing out of those twelve Epistles of Cyprian , as if they had added those four passages . And since they openly did the first , it is very probable , yea more then probable , they did the last . We have shewed , how Gretserus defends the first three additions . The Fourth is , he that forsaketh Peters Chair , upon which the Church is built , it seems that either those three Copies of Gretserus hath not these words , or else if they have , Pamelius doth not much regard their Authority , who in his Edition of Cyprian , hath left them out . It is to be observed , that the second and third Addition are of no such moment , as the first , and this fourth , and the razing out of these twelve Epistles of Cyprian . Gretserus defends only the second and the third ; the First he meddleth not with at all ; to the Fourth he answereth , that Pamelius hath left it out , and therefore it was not added fraudently : But we answer , as we did before , that Pamelius in leaving out those words , declares those four Cardinal Impostors , who were appointed by Pius the fourth , to oversee the Edition of Manutius ; whose Copy is followed in the reprinted works of Cyprian at Rome , Paris , Antwerp , &c. And thus we have minuted , all which is of any moment alledged , pro and con , for the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome , before the death of Cyprian : where we have proved , by the testimonies of Ignatius , Dionysius and Cyprian himself , that there was no Office in the Church , above that of a Bishop , in that whole Interval : Bellarmine braggs much , that the succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter , in the Monarchy of the Church , was an article of Faith in all Ages , since the dayes of the Apostles . But since we find no monuments in that interval , next the Ages of the Apostles , that there was any such Article of Faith , but on the contrary , since we have produced testimonies , and invincible ones , that there was no such Article of Faith , it is evident , that the said succession of the Bishop of Rome to Peter in the Monarchy of the Church , is a meer cheat : For if there had been any such thing , the Churches of the East , and West , in the times of Victor , and the Churches of Africa , in the times of Stephanus , would never have neglected the excommunication of Victor and Stephanus , and died unreconciled to the Church of Rome : Neither would the middle Church of Rome , have placed them in the Catalogue of Saints and Martyres , if it had been believed as an Article of Faith , that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter Jure divino in the Monarchy of the Church , as is believed now in the Modern Roman Church , as an article of Faith necessar to Salvation . And thus we have concluded the first Part of the grand Impostor , and have proved by Testimonies of Antiquity , ( notwithstanding all the bragging of our Adversaries , that all Antiquity is for them ) That the Antients , Councills , and Fathers , believed neither the Supremacy of Peter , nor that Peter was Bishop of Rome , nor that the Bishop of Rome succeded to him , in the Monarchy of the Church ; and consequently , did not believe any necessar communion with the Church of Rome : To prove which , they bring nothing from Antiquity of the first three Centuries , which is not perverted , mutilated , falsly translated or forged . In the Second Part shall be proved , they have as little shelter for their Tenets , from the death of Cyprian , 260. to 604. when Bonifacius the third was made oecumenick Bishop , by Phocas . FINIS . Partis primae . Errata of the PREFACE . Page 9. line 17. for given Phocas , read given by Phocas , p. 10 : l. 3. for hom . r. whom . p. 10. l. 29. for add there reasons , r. add other reasons . p. 13. l. 27. for Stephanus , r. Adrianus . p. 23. l. 32. for Du plesis , r. Du plessis . p. 28r l. 20. for lib. 2. r. lib. r. p. 29. l. 27. for suppositious , r. supposititious . p. 36. l. 3. for related , r. resuted . p. 34. l. 7. for Testimonies of antiquity at all , r. Testimonies of antiquity of any moment . Errata lib. 1. Page 17. line 28. for antiquitated , r. antiquated . p. 22. l. 23. for lib. 4. r. part 2. lib. 2. p. 23. l. 32. for lib. 5. r. part 3. lib. 2. p. 23. l. 32. for Hom ▪ 55. 5. r. Hom 5. 5. p. 36. l. 13. for lib. 3. r. part 2. lib. 1. p. 36. l. 15. for lib ▪ 4. r. part 2. lib. 2. p. 36. l. 16 for lib. 5. r. part 3. lib. 2. p. 39. l. 17. for of Peter , r. to Peter . p. 40. l. 22. for confidence , r. confidents , p. 49. l. 7. for mundos , r. multos p. 55 l. 30. for colunas , r. columnas . p. 56. l. 17. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p. 70. l. ●5 . for but to whom also , r. but to whom : also . p. 77. l. 4. for Hilarius de vi●ctad . r. Hilarius de trinitat . p. 101. l. 21. for Paul 5. r. Paul 4. Page 189. line 22. for were proved to be head , r. be called head . p. 19● . l. 16. for Cyrullus , r. Cyrillus , p. 199. l. 8. for our adversaries , r. whereas our adversaries . p. 200. l. 16. for Apostolus , r. Apostolis . after page 171 , Immediatly followeth , 187. which is a mistake in the Press , nothing is wanting . Errata lib. 2. Page 8. l. 12. for lib 5. r. part 3. lib 1. p. 16. l. 5. for distinction , r. definition . p. 86. l. 2. for constitute one Chair , r. ( constitute one Chair ) p. 87. l. 22. for causum r. causam .