The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 2

The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity · Book 2

p. 211BOOK II. Wherein is TREATED OF St. Peters Primacy, And of his Abode at ROME.

CHAP. 1. That the Government of the Univerſal Church cannot, and muſt not be Monarchical.

State of the Queſtion.

ALthough in civil matters ſeveral Nations follow not the ſame form of Government, there being in the world, ſome Monarchical, ſome Ariſtocratical, ſome popular States, and ſome mingled of all three; yet the whole mankind taken together is but a Monarchy, of which God is the Monarch and the Soveraign head.

Thus in the queſtion about Church-government, although ſeveral Churches have ſeveral forms of Eccleſiaſtical policy: Yet taking the whole Orthodox Church together, it is a Monarchy, whereof Jeſus Chriſt is the Head. About that we do not diſſent with our Adverſaries. But the queſtion between us is, whether under Jeſus Chriſt there muſt be a viſible Head over the whole Univerſal viſible Church? Alſo whether that power belong to the Pope of Rome?

In this queſtion we muſt carefully diſtinguiſh the Univerſal Church from the Churches of one Town, or one Countrey. For as in civil things, if one hath p. 212proved that the Monarchical State is the beſt of all, he hath not therefore proved that there muſt be one Monarch over the whole world. Likewiſe if it be expedient that each particular Church be governed by one head, not by many, it follows not that there muſt be one head over the Church of the whole world. Thus God hath given that inſtinct unto Bees, that every hive, or every ſwarm hath its King, but there is no King over the whole kind. Wherefore out of that Policy of the Church of Iſrael, that they had one High Prieſt, one cannot inferr that the like muſt be in the Chriſtian Univerſal Church; becauſe that Policy was incloſed within one Nation, but this extends to all Nations, of whom none is excluded from the Covenant of God in Jeſus Chriſt, and that Covenant is preſented unto all by the Goſpel. One Head might be ſufficient to govern the Church of Iſrael: But to govern the Church of the whole world, no head is ſtrong enough, and no ſhoulders are able to bear ſuch a heavy burden. A man raiſed to that height ſhould ſoon become giddy; pride would puffe him up, and the diſtance of places would keep him from having his eye everywhere, and giving order to all. Beſides, the form of the Church-government of Iſrael was a figure of the Chriſtian Church, and of Jeſus Chriſt and his graces, and by conſequent, there was need in that government of one High Prieſt that ſhould be a figure of Chriſt our High Prieſt.

For this cauſe our Adverſaries who will needs have it granted that St. Peter was head and Monarch of the Chriſtian Univerſal Church, yet acknowledge that the other Apoſtles were alſo Heads of the Univerſal Church, as we ſhall ſee hereafter, tacitely acknowledging that ſuch a power could not be proper for one man alone.

Wherefore alſo the Apoſtle Eph. 4. making an enumeration of the charges which Jeſus Chriſt going up to heaven left unto his Church, ſaith, that he gave ſome Apoſtles, ſome Prophets, ſome Evangeliſts, and ſome Paſtors, and Doctors. Of Pope or Monarch of the Univerſal Church, he ſpeaks neither there nor in any other place. In that text it is eſpecially to be noted that Paul ſpeaks of the union of the Univerſal Church in one body, and of the compact communion of the Saints and faithfull; Which neceſſarily required that he ſhould ſpeak of the Head which joyns and keeps that body in union, if God had appointed ſuch a head in his Church.

The book of Eccleſiaſtical Hierarchy, attributed to Dionyſius Areopagita, makes an enumeration of Eccleſiaſtical Offices, and an exact deſcription of the order and conſtitutions of the Chriſtian Church; but he ſpeaks of no higher degree then Biſhops of every particular Church. To compoſe a book of Hierarchy without ſpeaking of the chief Hierarch, it is as if one ſpake of Monarchy without ſpeaking of a Monarch, and of Kingſhip without mentioning a King.

If the Church of the Apoſtles time had acknowledged an Univerſal Head under Chriſt, No doubt but that upon the deceaſe of St. Peter (who is now held to be the firſt Pope) the Apoſtles that out-lived him would have met to chooſe a ſucceſſor; and would have choſen one of the Apoſtles, and would not have left the Creation of a head for the Univerſal Church, to the diſcretion of the people and Clergy of Rome; for the Chriſtian people of the City of Rome had no right to give a Head to the Churches of Perſia, Syria, Armenia, and Aegypt, without their concurrence.

And if after St. Peters death there had been need of one that ſhould ſucceed him in that Primacy; without queſtion the Apoſtle St. John, the Diſciple whom Jeſus loved, and his near Kinſman, ſhould have ſucceeded him in that power, before Linus, of whom we have no record of any action worthy of memory, or(a)(a)Cauſa 12. qu. 1. Can. dilectiſſimis. Clement, to whom certain Epiſtles are aſcribed that give Conſtitutions about mice-dung, and would have poſſeſſions and women to be common; To whom alſo the Apoſtolical(b)(b)Conſtitut. l. 3. c. 2. Conſtitutions are aſcribed, which ſay to marry above three times is plain fornication.

The principal power is, that if that Soveraign power over the Church of all the world muſt be received, it muſt have been eſtabliſhed by Chriſt, and the ſucceſſion p. 213in that Office muſt be grounded upon his ordinance. Suppoſe then that Chriſt hath given unto St. Peter alone the Primacy over the Church of the whole world: Yet that Office cannot be perpetual in the Church, and continued by a thred of ſucceſſion, unleſs Chriſt hath conſtituted that ſucceſſion. Thus Moſes had been conſtituted by God a Prince, and Lawgiver, and Prieſt in Iſrael, but he had no ſucceſſor in all theſe Offices, becauſe God had not commanded it. Thus John the Baptiſt had no ſucceſſor. And the Apoſtles, John, James, Philip, Paul, &c. had no ſucceſſors in their Apoſtleſhip. This indeed is the point which we inſiſt upon, and upon which our Adverſaries are gravelled. We deſire them to bring forth ſome declaration of Chriſt upon that ſubject, or ſome text of the word of God whereby a ſucceſſion is aſſigned unto St. Peters Apoſtleſhip, or to his primacy over the Church, or whereby it is declared that the Office of Head of the Univerſal Church muſt be perpetual, or a conſtitution of St. Peter, that the Biſhop of Rome ought to ſucceed him in that dignity. He hath writ to the Church two Epiſtles full of doctrine, the laſt of them written(c)(c)2 Pet. 1.13. & 14.2 Pet 1:132 Pet 1:14 a little before his death. Reaſon required that he ſhould have charged the Church to obey the Biſhop of Rome after his deceaſe, as to his ſucceſſor in his Apoſtleſhip, and he to whom he reſigned before his death, the conduct of the Univerſal Church. But not a word of that. So that this point which is the chief of all the controverſies, and the main hinge upon which the whole Roman Religion is turning, and that which is made in our dayes the main ground of the Chriſtian faith; that point, I ſay, is found to have no ground in the word of God, and is but an unwritten Tradition.

Bellarmin (d)(d)Lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. c. 12. Obſervandum eſt tertio, licet forte non ſit de jure divino Romanum Pontificem ut Romanum Pontificem Petro ſuccedere, tamen id ad fidem Catholilicam pertinere. Non enim eſt idem aliquid eſſe de fide & eſſe de jure divino. Nec enim de jure divino fuit ut Paulus haberet penulam, eſt tamen hoc ipſum de fide Paulum habuiſſe penulam. Etſi autem Romanum Pontificem ſuccedere Petro non habeatur expreſſe in Scripturis, &c.Rom 12acknowledgeth that the Scripture ſpeaks not of the ſucceſſion of the Pope in the Primacy of St. Peter, and that it is not a point of divine right, no more (ſaith he) that it is not a point of divine right to believe that St. Paul had a cloak. But there is inequality in that compariſon; For we find in Scripture that St. Paul had a cloak, but we find not in Scripture that God hath eſtabliſht the Biſhop of Rome ſucceſſor of St. Peters Primacy. Obſerve then that the whole Romiſh Religion is founded upon a tradition which is not of divine right, about which we have not any Ordinance of God, and of which, by the confeſſion of our very Adverſaries, the word of God ſpeaks not.

We acknowledge that St. Peter, as alſo the other Apoſtles planting the Goſpel and ſetting up Churches in thoſe places, where they paſſed, eſtabliſhed in thoſe Churches Paſtors, which therefore had a good right to call themſelves ſucceſſors of ſuch an Apoſtle: Not ſucceſſors in the Apoſtleſhip, but in the charge of Biſhop over that particular Church. In that ſenſe many Fathers called the Biſhop of Rome ſucceſſor of St. Peter, not in the Apoſtleſhip, but in the Biſhoprick of the Roman Church, which in the firſt age did not extend much beyond the walls of the City of Rome; In the ſame manner as Simon was the ſucceſſor of St. James in the Biſhoprick of Jeruſalem, and Titus ſucceſſor of St. Paul in the Ile of Candia, and Timothy in the Church of Epheſus.

Although this be the main difficulty about which our Adverſaries are plunged, having nothing firm for proving that ſucceſſion of the Pope in St. Peters primacy, without which evidence of ſucceſſion in vain do they labour to prove St. Peters primacy: Yet becauſe the Cardinal following the ſteps of his Majeſty of great Brittain, falls upon that diſcourſe in the fifty ſixth chapter of the firſt book, we will give alſo ſome chapters to the examination of the reaſons and teſtimonies which he brings for it.

p. 214CHAP. II. That S^t. Peter had no jurisdiction over the other Apoſtles, and was not Monarch of the Univerſal Church.

Anſwer to the Lord Cardinal.

WEE deny not that St. Peter was Head and Paſtor of the Univerſal Church; for the ſame power belonged alſo to every one of the Apoſtles, as St. Paul ſaith of himſelf, that he had the care of all the Churches, 2 Cor. 11.28.

Wherefore alſo Chriſt being neer his death, reſigneth the care of his Church to all his Apoſtles alike; I diſpoſe unto you the Kingdom, as my Father diſpoſed it unto me. For their Apoſtleſhip was not affected to one particular Church.

(a)(a)Cypr. l. de unitate Eccleſiae, c. 3. Chriſtus Apoſtolis omnibus poſt reſurrectionem parem poteſtatem tribuit. Et paulo poſt. Hoc etiam utiquè caeteri Apoſtoli quod Petrus, pari conſortio honoris & poteſtatis.Cyprian doth acknowledge it. Chriſt (ſaith he) after his reſurrection gave an equal power unto his Apoſtles. And in the ſame place, The Apoſtles were the ſame thing as Peter, having an equal fellowſhip in honour and power. And(b)(b)Hieron. lib. 2. in Jovinianum. In alio loco ſuper omnes Apoſtolos fundantur Eccleſia, & cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiunt, & ex aequo ſuper eos Eccleſiae fortitudo ſolidatur. Hierom after him ſaith the ſame.

Neither would we deny that St. Peter was the firſt and the moſt honourable among the Apoſtles, having the precedence among his brethren; and that as among the Kings of Chriſtendom there is ſome order of ſitting, and the Embaſſadours of the one march before the Embaſſadours of the other; ſo St. Peter was the firſt in the order of ſitting among the Apoſtles, who deferred that honour to his excellent vertues, to his zeal, to his miracles, or to his age (although Epiphanius affirmeth that his brother Andrew was the eldeſt) or to ſome other conſideration. Wherefore alſo the Ancients call often Peter the Prince of the Apoſtles, and in the liſt of the twelve Apoſtles he is alwayes placed the firſt by the Evangeliſts.

But to think that Peter had a power of juriſdiction over the other Apoſtles, the word of God alloweth it not, ſeeing that himſelf hath written two Epiſtles, wherein the higheſt titles which he aſſumeth, are the titles of Apoſtle, and Presbyter, or Elder. Now Monarchs will never write to their ſubjects (eſpecially when it is queſtion of preſcribing them their duty) but they will take the titles of Soveraign authority, which give weight to their words.

In the celebration of the holy Communion, the Apoſtle St. John was ſitting in the moſt honourable place, being the neareſt unto Chriſt, and reſting his head in the Lords boſome.

In the ninth chapter of Luke, Chriſt ſends his Apoſtles to preach the Goſpel, without money, without proviſion, without horſe; St. Peter was ſent like the reſt and in equal condition.

Acts 15. the Apoſtles meet to decide a queſtion raiſed among the Diſciples. Now in ſuch Aſſemblies he that preſideth or moderateth, muſt ſpeak the firſt, to make the overture of the Action, and the laſt alſo, to pronounce the concluſiſion. But St. Peter doth neither, in that place: For before he ſpake, the queſtion(c)(c)Act. 15.7. foreign.Acts 15:7 had been long agitated; And St. James ſpeaketh the laſt, and pronounceth the final deciſion; adding ſeveral things to that which St. Peter had propounded, as the abſtinence from blood, and from things ſtrangled. Wherefore alſo Chryſoſtome in his Homily upon that place, ſaith(d)(d)foreign. that the principality was deferred unto James.

Luke 22. the day before our Saviours paſſion the Apoſtles diſpute among them about the preheminence: Which they would not have done, if they had believed that Chriſt had given the primacy to Peter. Then or never Chriſt would have told them, Why will ye overthrow the order which I have eſtabliſhed? Since I have given the primacy to Peter, why do you reſiſt my will? But he tels them no ſuch thing: Nay, he tells them, The Kings of the Nations exerciſe dominion over them, but it ſhall not be ſo among you. And Mat. 20.25. Ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exerciſe dominion over them, and they that are great, exerciſe p. 215authority upon them. But it ſhall not be ſo among you, but whoſoever will be great among you, let him be your miniſter; and whoſoever will be chief among you, let him be your ſervant. Cardinal du Perron ſeeks to elude this text, ſaying that Chriſt forbids them, not primacy, but only the deſire and affectation of primacy; and to aſpire to a ſuperiority over their fellows. But it is clear that Chriſt forbids both to his Apoſtles. For he tells not them only, Whoſoever will be great among you, but alſo, Whoſoever ſhall be great. Again, the Kings of Nations exerciſe dominion over them. But it ſhall not be ſo among you. It is clear that he forbids the Apoſtles that any of them exerciſe dominion over his fellows. For the primacy of a Paſtor in a particular Church is not ſubject to the ſame inconveniencies as the domination of one over the Univerſal Church. It is alſo an error to think that Chriſt forbids his Apoſtles only, to uſe a tyrannical domination over ther fellows. For it is not credible that any of them had ſuch a perverſe inclination. Beſides, Chriſt forbids them to uſe authority, which is far leſs then domination. The ſame thing he forbids them, Matth. 23.8. Be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Maſter, even Chriſt, and all ye are brethren. That word Rabbi did not import any domination or tyranny, but ſuch an authority and reſpect as was deferred unto the Scribes and Phariſees, out of the opinion that the people had of their holineſs.

Acts 8. the Apoſtles ſend Peter and John to preach in Samaria. Would the Pope now accept of ſuch a Commiſſion, to be ſent to preach into Suitzerland or into Denmark? In vain the Cardinal affirms that St. Peter was ſent by intreaties; for Peter and John are here ſet together in the ſame miſſion, and are not ſent in ſeveral manners. In our dayes the Pope would take ſuch an intreaty as an injury or a ſcorn. Neither doth the text ſpeak of intreaties. To affirm that without proof, is a raſh part.

If Peter had had the power of juriſdiction over the other Apoſtles, he ſhould be alwayes named the firſt. And St. Paul, Gal. 2. would not ſay, that James, Cephas, and John were held to be the pillars; for ſo it is ſet down in all the copies, and even in the vulgar verſion, the only approved by the Council of Trent. The only edition of Compluto ſet out by Cardinal Ximenes hath corrupted that Text.

Among the Corinthians, ſome ſaid I am of Cephas, others ſaid I am of Paul, preferring Paul before Peter. But they would never have preferred Paul before Peter, had Paul taught them that Peter was the Maſter and Superiour of Paul, and the only viſible Head of the Univerſal Church.

2 Cor. 11.5. St. Paul ſaith, I ſuppoſe I was not a whit behind the very chiefeſt Apoſtles; By ſaying not a whit, or, in nothing, he doth not except any thing. Wherefore Hierom in his Comment upon Gal. 2. brings in Paul comparing himſelf unto St. Peter in theſe words, I am in nothing inferiour to him, for we are eſtabliſht in the Miniſtery by the ſame God. And in the Council of Epheſus there is an Epiſtle inſerted of the Council of Alexandria, which ſaith that(e)(e)Petrus & Johannes equalis ſunt ad alterutrum dignitatis, propter quod Apoſtoli & ſancti diſcipuli eſſe monſtrantur. lib. de unitate Eccleſiae. Peter and John are of the ſame dignity one towards another; wherefore alſo they are Apoſtles and holy Diſciples. And Cyprian ſpeaks thus(f)(f)Hoc erant utique caeteri Apoſtoli quod Petrus, pari conſortio & honoris & poteſtatis. lib. 2. contra Iovinian. The other Apoſtles were the ſame thing as St. Peter, aſſociate in the ſame ſociety of honour and power. And Hierom (g)(g)Cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiunt, & ex aequo ſuper eos Eccleſiae fortitudo ſolidatur.They all receive the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven, and the ſtability of the Church is equally founded upon them all.

Wherefore alſo Paul, Gal. 2.9. ſaith that James, Peter and John gave him the hand of aſſociation, receiving him for their fellow-worker. It is more then the Pope doth to any man.

p. 216CHAP. 3. Teſtimonies of Fathers upon this ſubject. An excellent place of S^t. Ambroſe falſified by the Cardinal: And a text of the Apoſtle falſified likewiſe.

ORigen in the third Homily upon the third of Numbers, ſaith(a)(a)Paulus mihi viam novi hominis & ardui itineris oſtendat. Ipſe ergo Apoſtolorum maximus, &c. Let Paul go before me, and ſhew me the path of that new man, and that difficult way: He the greateſt among the Apoſtles, who knew that there were many Churches not only in earth but in heaven alſo.

Euſebius in the ſecond book of his hiſtory, cap. 1. alledgeth Clement in the ſixth of his hypotypoſes, ſaying, Peter, James and John having been preferred by the Lord, had no contention about the honour, but choſe James the juſt Biſhop of Jeruſalem. If St. Peter had been the Head of the Univerſal Church, it had been a ſmall thing to him to be Biſhop of Jeruſalem; and there had been for him no occaſion of diſpute about the degree. A certain proof that the Biſhop of Jeruſalem was honourable above all others, and was not inferiour in dignity to any. And the ſame Clement in the ſeventh of the Hypotypoſes, alledged by Euſebius in the ſame place, The Lord after the reſurrection gave to James, John and Peter, &c. giving to James the firſt place.

Cyprian was of opinion that before the reſurrection of the Lord, Peter had the primacy over the other Apoſtles, but that after the reſurrection he made them equall in power and authority: Having begun by one, to ſhew that the Church is one. In the book of the unity of the Church he ſpeaks thus, Although the Lord after his reſurrection give to all his Apoſtles an equal power, and ſay, As the Father hath ſent me, ſo I ſend you, Receive the holy Ghoſt. Whoſe ſins ye remit, they ſhall be remitted. Yet to ſhew the unity, he hath eſtabliſht a chair, and hath diſpoſed by his authority the origine of that ſame unity, beginning by one. All the Apoſtles were in effect that very thing which St. Peter was, having the ſame ſociety of honour and power. But that place ſhall be examined hereafter.

We have alledged before a notable expreſſion of the Council of Alexandria, that(b)(b)Epiſt. Conc. Alexandrini. Aequalis ſunt ad alterutrum dignitatis, &c. Peter and John are of equal authority one towards another.

Chryſoſtome (c)(c)foreign.Hom. 18. upon the Epiſtle to the Romans, God hath committed unto Paul the whole preaching, and all the affairs of the habitable world, and all the myſteries, and the whole adminiſtration. And Hom. 3. upon the firſt of Matthew, (d)(d)foreign, &c.Paul ſaith, I am not worthy to be called an Apoſtle; Therefore was he made the firſt of all. And Hom. 66.(e)(e)foreign. It is manifeſt to all, that none ſhall be ſet before Paul. And upon Gal. 1.18.(f)(f)foreign, &c. Paul after ſuch great and good actions, having no need of Peter, nor of his word, but equal in honour to him (for I will ſay nothing more) yet goeth up to him, as to a greater and elder. And upon Gal. 1.(g)(g)foreign. Paul ſheweth that for the reſt he was equall unto them, and compareth himſelf not to the others, but to the firſt of the Apoſtles, ſhewing that each of them enjoyeth the ſame dignity.

Epiphanius, who in other places calls Peter the firſt and the Prince of the Apoſtles, nevertheleſs in the Hereſie of the Nazarites, which is the twenty ninth, asketh how the Prophecy was fulfilled, which foretelleth that the Chriſt ſhall ſit for ever upon the throne of David; and anſwereth, that it was fulfilled in the Biſhops. For (ſaith he) James ſucceeded Chriſt in the Pontificat and principality over the Church, becauſe James was of the race of David. And in the hereſie againſt the Antidicomarianites which is the fifty eighth, he ſaith that(h)(h)foreign. James was the firſt that received the Epiſcopal chair; and that to him firſt p. 217Chriſt did commit the throne which he had on earth. Indeed to ſay that James was the ſole ſucceſſor of Chriſts throne over the Church, is acknowledging him the firſt and the chief of the Apoſtles.

The ſame in the hereſie of the Marcoſians, which is the 34. puts Paul before Peter. No man (ſaith he) can be equalled unto them in greatneſs of knowledge (i)(i)foreign.neither Paul nor Peter, no… any other Apoſtle.

Gregory Nazianzen doth the ſame in the twenty ſixth Oration, Paul, or Cephas, or Apollo, or ſuch a planter, or ſuch a waterer. And a little after; The Paul's, the Cephas'es, the Apollo's.

Ambroſe in the ſixty ſixth Sermon of the nativity of Peter, and that of Paul, (k)(k)Ergo beatus Petrus & Paulus eminent inter univerſos Apoſtolos, & peculiari quadam praerogativa praecellunt; verum inter ipſos quis cui praeponatur, incertum eſt.Then (ſaith he) Peter and Paul are eminent among all, and excellent by a particular prerogative. But it is uncertain which of the two muſt be preferred before the other. I think they are equall in merit, ſince they are equall in paſſion or ſufferings. And upon Pſalm 38. Quod Petro dicitur, Apoſtolis dicitur. That which is ſaid to Peter, is ſaid to the Apoſtles; ſpeaking of theſe words of Chriſt to Peter, I will give thee the keyes of the kingdom of heaven.

The ſame in the book of the incarnation, chap. 4.(a)(a)Petrus loci non immeror ſui, primatum egit. Primatum utique confeſſionis non honoris, primatum fidei non ordinis. Peter not forgetfull of his place, made uſe of his primacy; I mean of his primacy in confeſſion, not in honour; of the primacy of faith, not of order. Which text the Cardinal dippeth and falſifieth in his 526. page, putting theſe words only, Peter not forgetting his place, made uſe of his primacy. The reſt he hath ſuppreſt.

The ſame Ambroſe upon Gal. 2.(b)(b)Petrum ſolum nominat, & ſibi comparat, quia primatum ipſe accepit ad fundandam Eccleſiam; Se quoque pari modo electum ut primatum habeat in fundandis Eccleſiis gentium. Paul nameth Peter alone, and compareth him with himſelf, becauſe he had received the primacy to lay the foundation of the Church. He ſaith that he was choſen in the ſame manner to lay the foundation of the Churches of the Gentiles.

And in the ſame place(c)(c)Quis eorum auderet Petro primo Apoſtolo, cui claves regni coelorum Dominus dedit, reſiſtere, niſi alius talis qui fiducia electionis ſuae, ſciens ſe non imparem, conſtanter improbaret quod ille ſine conſilio fecerat? Which of them durſt reſiſt Peter the firſt Apoſtle, to whom the Lord hath given the keyes of the kingdom of heaven, unleſs it was ſome other like him, who grounding himſelf upon his election, and knowing that he was not inferiour unto him, conſtantly reproved that which he had done without counſell?

The ſame in the ſecond book of the Holy Ghoſt, chap. 12.(d)(d)Nec Paulus inferior Petro, quamvis ille Eccleſiae fundamentum. Paul was not inferiour to Peter. And a little after(e)(e)Nec Paulus unquam indignus Apoſtolorum Collegio, cum primo quoque facilè conferendus, & nulli ſecundus. Paul was not unworthy of the Colledge of the Apoſtles, and may be compared with the firſt whoſoever he be, and muſt not be put in the ſecond rank after any.

Hierom upon the ſecond chapter of the Epiſtle to the Galatians perſonateth Paul ſpeaking thus(f)(f)Hieron. ſecundo & breviori commentario in Galatas, In nullo ſum illo inferior, quia ab uno Deo ſumus in Miniſterio ordinati.: I am in nothing inferiour to Peter, for we have been eſtabliſht in the Miniſtery by the ſame God. And in the firſt book againſt Jovinian, Although the Church be founded upon all the Apoſtles, and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and that the ſtability of the Church be equally founded upon them all; yet one is choſen among twelve, that by the eſtabliſhing of one head, the occaſion of Schiſm be taken away. Himſelf upon Iſaiah 54. calleth Peter and Paul, duos Apoſtolorum Principes, the two Princes of the Apoſtles.

Leo the firſt in the Sermon of the Nativity of the Apoſtles, comparing Peter with Paul, Of whoſe vertues and merits (ſaith he) we muſt have no diverſe or ſeparate conceit; for the choyce hath made them even, and the labour alike, and the end equals.

Victor of Carthage (g)(g)Baro. com. 8. an. 646. §. 22.The moſt bleſſed Apoſtles, endowed with the like honour and fellowſhip of power, have converted the Nations unto the Church.

That I may not be tedious in heaping up a multitude of allegations, the ſtrength of truth is ſo great, that the Cardinals Bellarmin (h)(h)Bellar. lib. 1. c. 9. de Pontif. Romano §. Reſpondeo. Summa poteſtas Eccleſiaſtica non ſolum data eſt Petro ſed etiam aliis Apoſtolis.and Du Perron acknowledge that all the Apoſtles were heads of the Univerſal Church. Bellarmin makes them equals. The Soveraign Eccleſiaſtical power (ſaith he) was not only given to Peter, but alſo to the other Apoſtles. And a little after, It was neceſſary that to the firſt p. 218preachers and founders of Churches a ſoveraign power and liberty ſhould be granted. And in another place(i)(i)cap 12. quidem libri. We confeſs that the Apoſtles were equal in Apoſtolical power, and had altogether the ſame authority over the Chriſtian people. Yet he puts this difference, that the ſoveraign power was given to Peter as to an ordinary Paſtor that ſhould leave behind him a perpetual ſucceſſion, but to the others as to ſubdelegate perſons that were not to leave any ſucceſſour. But this he ſaith without proof, and without any word of God; and it is abſurd and impoſſible. For the power of a ſubdelegate is never equal to that of the Soverain who hath delegated him, and to whom he is to give account of his charge, and who can take it from him at any time.

M. Du. Perron (k)(k)cap. 56. pag. 526.acknowledgeth that to the other Apoſtles the authority of governing the Church was conferred in common, and jointly with St. Peter. Yet he adds that they had not the power of exerciſing that authority, but in as much as they were aſſociated and aggregared with Peter, and as it were grafted and inſerted upon him. This he ſaith (as Bellarmin) without proof, and without Scripture, and contrary to the Apoſtles ſaying, Gal. 1.1. of himſelf, that he is an Apoſtle, not of men, nor by man. And Gal. 2.6. that they who ſeemed to be ſomewhat added nothing to him. foreignA text which the Cardinal hath falsified to break the ſtrength of it, alledging it thus, They that ſeem to be ſome what have taught me nothing. Book 1 ch. 526. Falſification of the Cardinal.Having put this word [taught] of his own, to make the world believe that St. Paul compareth himſelf to the chief Apoſtles only for learning and doctrine, not for the charge and authority of Apoſtle. But how doth he prove that? For God doth not ſet Peter as the ſource and the origine of the Apoſtleſhip. And Peter was as much obliged to adhere to the other Apoſtles, as the other Apoſtles to Peter. Wherefore when Peter returned from the houſe of Cornelius he gives account of his actions, Act. 11. that none ſhould believe that he was departed from the union with his brethren. And St. Paul Gal. 1.1. ſaith himſelf to be an Apoſtle, not by man but by Jeſus Chriſt only. As indeed he was many years in his Apoſtleſhip before he ſpake to Peter, or had any communication with him.

CHAP. 4. Examination of the text of Matth. 16.18. Thou art Peter and upon this rock, &c.

Shifts of the Cardinal.

TO all that we have ſaid before, our Adverſaries oppoſe the words of Chriſt, Matth. 16.18. that after Peter had made that confeſſion whereby he acknowledgeth Jeſus to be the Chriſt the Son of the living God, Jeſus ſaid to him, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, &c. By which words they pretend that Chriſt ſets Peter to be the foundation and the Head of the Univerſal Chuch.

But ſince that by this text Chriſt puts not Peter in actual poſſeſſion of any power over the Church, but only doth promiſe it to him, ſaying to him in the future, I will give thee the Keys, &c. we cannot underſtand wherein conſiſteth that power, but by the text whereby Chriſt fulfilleth the promiſe made in this place. That text is found, Joh. 20. v. 21. & 23. where Chriſt doth actually confer that power to all his apoſtles: As my Father hath me, even ſo ſend I you. Whoſeſoever ſins ye remit, they are remitted, and whoſeſoever ſins ye retain, they are retained. There all the Apoſtles receive equal power. So that the power promiſed Matth. 16. unto Peter, after the reſurrection, is equally conferred upon all. As alſo the ſame promiſe is made equally to all Matth. 18.18. Whatſoever you ſhall bind on earth ſhall be bound in heaven &c. Had the Apoſtles underſtood that by that text Thou art p. 219Peter, &c. Chriſt had conferred the primacy upon Peter; after that they would never have diſputed about the ſuperiority. And the Greek text, as alſo the Latine verſion puts a clear difference between the perſon of Peter, and the ſtone upon which the Church is founded, foreign &c. Tu es Petrus, et ſuper hanc petram. Upon that Stone and ground which thou haſt now laid, namely that Jeſus is the Chriſt, the Son of the Living God, the Church is founded. For the Church is not founded upon a mortal man, but upon the Son of the eternal God. The Church was before Peter, and at the coming of Peter hath not got a new ground; If it had, we ſhould alſo ſay that Peter being dead, the ground of the Church ſhould have been changed again, and another put in his room. And the faith of Peter ſhould have been grounded upon his own ſelf.

That which is the ground of the Church, is alſo the ground of our faith. Now our faith is not grounded upon the perſon of Peter, but upon his doctrine, which is the ſame as that of the other Apoſtles, who alſo are equally called foundations by the Apoſtle, Eph. 2.20. being built upon the foundation of the Prophets and the Apoſtles, Jeſus Chriſt himſelf being the chief corner ſtone. Obſerve that the Church is grounded upon the Prophets as well as upon the Apoſtles: Now it is not grounded upon the perſons of the Prophets, who were dead long before St. Paul writ this; No more then upon the perſons of the Apoſtles, but upon their doctrine, and upon Jeſus Chriſt whom they have laid for the foundation of faith. And Rev. 21. The wall of the City (which is the Church) had twelve foundations and in them the names of the twelve Apoſtles. This is a peremptory truth, 1 Cor. 3.1. Other foundation can no man lay then that is laid, which is Jeſus Chriſt. Wherefore alſo the Apoſtle, Jude v. 20. will have us to build up our ſelves on our moſt holy faith, that is, upon Jeſus Chriſt apprehended by faith: For our faith is not grounded upon men. A truth not contradicted by thoſe texts that call the Apoſtles foundations; for by the Apoſtles their doctrine is underſtood, which layeth Chriſt for the foundation of the Church.

Wherefore we conclude that the ſtone upon which Chriſt ſaid that he would build his Church, is Chriſt himſelf confeſſed by Peter, or the faith and confeſſion which Peter had newly made. Or if by that ſtone we underſtand the perſon of St. Peter, it is a Metonymical expreſſion; wherein by St. Peter we underſtand his doctrine and preaching: In the ſame manner as we ſay Tully and Virgil for the works of Tully and Virgil; And as the Apoſtle ſaith Eph. 2.20. that we are built upon the Prophets, and Apoſtles, that is, upon their doctrine.

The Fathers very often by that rock upon which Chriſt would build his Church, underſtand the faith and confeſſion that Peter had expreſt. Cyrillus lib. 4. de Trinitate; I think (ſaith he) that by that rock he underſtands nothing elſe but the unſhaken and moſt firm faith of the Diſciple. Hilary in his ſecond book of the Trinity;(a)(a)Unum igitur hoc eſt immobile fundamentum, una haec eſt fidei Petra Petri ore confeſſa. It is the bleſſed only rock of faith confeſſed by the mouth of Peter. And in the ſixth book(b)(b)Super hanc confeſſionis Petram Eccleſiae aedificatio eſt. Ʋpon that ſtone of confeſſion the Church is built. And in the ſame place, That faith is the foundation of the Church.

Hierom in his firſt book upon Mat. 7. The Lord (c)(c)Hier. in Matth. Super hanc Petram Dominus fundavit Eccleſiam. Ab hac Petra Apoſtolus Petrus ſortitus eſt nomen.hath founded his Church upon that rock. From that rock the Apoſtle Peter hath got his name. Chryſoſtome Hom. 55. upon Matthew,(d)(d)foreign. Ʋpon that ſtone I will build my Church, that is, upon the faith of the confeſſion.

Ambroſe upon Epheſ. 2.(e)(e)Ʋnde dicit Dominus ad Petrum, Super iſtam Petram aedificabo Eccleam meam, hoc eſt in hac Catholicae fidei confeſſione ſtatuo fideles ad vitam. Ʋpon that rock I ſhall build the Church, that is, upon the confeſſion of the Catholick faith, I eſtabliſh the faithfull unto life. And in the book of the Sacrament of the Incarnation, chap. 5.(f)(f)Fides eſt Eccleſiae fundamentum; Non enim de carne Petri ſed de fide dictum eſt, quia portae mortis ei non praevalebunt, ſed confeſſio vicit infernum. The faith then is the foundation of the Church; for it is not of the fleſh but of the faith of Peter that it is ſaid that the gates of death ſhall not prevail againſt it. It was the confeſſion that overcame hell.

p. 220Baſilius of Seleucia in the Homily upon this place,(g)(g)foreign. Chriſt having called that confeſſion [Petram] the rock giveth that name to Peter, who had firſt made that confeſſion.

The Council of Chalcedon, (h)(h)Concil. Chalcedon, in reſcripto Synodicarum literarum Juvenalis Hieroſolymitani ad Palaeſtinos.The Church is faſtened upon that confeſſion, and upon the faith which the Apoſtles have given us.

Auſtin upon the tenth Treatiſe upon the firſt Epiſtle of John, (i)(i)Quid eſt Super hanc Petram aedificabo Eccleſiam meam? Super hanc fidem, ſuper hoc quod dictum eſt, Tu es Chriſtus.What mean theſe words, I will build my Church upon that rock? Ʋpon that faith, upon that which is ſaid, Thou art the Chriſt, &c.

And in the 142. Treatiſe upon John, (k)(k)Super hanc ego Petram quam confeſſus es, aedificabo Eccleſiam meam. I etra enim erat Chriſtus.Ʋpon that rock which thou haſt confeſſed, I will build my Church, for Chriſt was the ſtone.

And in the 13 Sermon of the words of the Lord in St. Matthew, Thou art Peter, and upon that rock which thou haſt confeſſed, upon that ſtone which thou haſt known, ſaying, Thou art the Chriſt the Son of the living God, I will build my Church; (l)(l)Super meipſum filium Dei vivi aedificabo Eccleſiam meam. Super me aedificabo te, non me ſuper te.I will build my Church upon my ſelf who am the Son of the living God. I will build thee upon me, not me upon thee. The ſame he ſaith in the fiftieth Treatiſe upon John. And whereas it had happened to him ſometimes to call Peter the rock of the Church, he corrects himſelf for it in the book of Retractations, chap. 21. I have ſaid in ſome place (ſaith he) that upon Peter, as upon the rock, the Church is founded: But I know alſo that ſince I have ſo expounded it, that it may be underſtood that by that ſtone, I meant the ſtone which Peter confeſſed. For it was not ſaid to him, Tu es petra, ſed tu es Petrus; Thou art the ſtone, but thou art Peter: Now the ſtone was Chriſt.

Upon this, two Cardinals,(m)(m)Bellar. l. 2. de Summo Pontific. cap. 10. Bellarmine and Du Perron, accuſe Auſtin of ignorance; and that he underſtood not the languge in which the Lord ſpake; It is (ſaith Cardinal du Perron, pag. 545.) a Grammatical errour, ariſing in part for want of knowledge of the Hebrew and Syriack tongues, &c. And pag. 546. he ſaith that Auſtin is fallen into an overſight.

Nicolas de Lyra is excellent upon this text. The Lord ſaid unto Peter, (n)(n)Et ego dico tibi pro te & pro ſociis tuis quod tu es Petrus, id eſt confeſſor Petrae verae quae Chriſtus eſt factus, & ſuper hanc Petram quam confeſſus es; id eſt ſuper Chriſtum aedificabo Eccleſiam meam.I tell thee, that is, for thee and for thy fellows, that thou art the ſtone, that is, the confeſſour of the true ſtone which was made the Chriſt, And upon that ſtone which thou haſt confeſſed, that is, upon the Chriſt, I will build my Church.

The ordinary Gloſs ſaith the ſame?

Anſelmus whom the Pope hath made a Saint, upon Matth. 16. ſaith, Super hanc petram id eſt ſuper me aedificabo Eccleſiam mean. I will build my Church upon this ſtone, that is upon my ſelf.

Hincmarus Arch-Biſhop of Rhemes, who writ about the year of our Lord 865. in the work of 55 Chapters, Chap. 45.(o)(o)Tu es Petrus, & ſuper hanc Petram id eſt ſuper hanc firmam & ſolidam fidei conſeſſionem quam tu es confeſſus, aedificabo Eccleſium meam. Thou art Peter and upon that ſtone, that is, upon the firm and ſolid confeſſion of faith which thou haſt confeſſed, I will build my Church.

To the places of Fathers, which ſay that this ſtone is not the perſon of Peter, but Jeſus Chriſt confeſſed by Peter, the Cardinal ſaith(p)(p)Pag. 323. & 324. that the Fathers before Conſtantines time, in whoſe reign the Arians riſed, have underſtood by this ſtone the perſon of St. Peter; But ſince Arius began to deny the Godhead of Chriſt, the Fathers have licenſed themſelves to call that confeſſion the foundation of the Church, and to change the litterall ſenſe into a moral and tropical, that they might thence take occaſion to declaim againſt the Arians, who by denying the Godhead of Chriſt, deſtroyed the foundation of the Church. This is worth obſerving; For thereby he accuſeth the Fathers of wreſting the Scripture to their advantage, and to give diverſe expoſitions to Scripture according to the times and perſons they had to do with. Thereby alſo he ſaith, that the Fathers uſed this text againſt the Arrians to prove the Godhead of Chriſt, becauſe the Church cannot be founded upon a man. If their reaſon be good it is impoſſible that by the ſtone upon which the Church is founded, the perſon of Peter ſhould be underſtood. Note that the Fathers in the texts which we have alledged, ſay not only that by the ſtone we muſt underſtand Chriſt, or the faith and confeſſion of Chriſt, but p. 221alſo formally deny that the perſon of Peter can be underſtood. Whence it appeareth that not only they bring a different expoſition, but alſo that they impugn and overthrow the other.

He ſaith alſo that theſe two expoſitions agree very well,Pag. 522. Of this text and the manifeſt impiety, ſee the Preface of this Book. and that the Church is formally founded upon the perſon of St. Peter, but cauſally upon his confeſſion: That is, that the Church is really founded upon the perſon of Peter, but that the confeſſion which he made, is the cauſe that the Church is founded upon his perſon. So that he will have theſe words, The Church is grounded upon the perſon of Peter, to be proper; but theſe, The Church is grounded upon the perſon of Chriſt confeſſed by Peter, to be figurate. He ſaith that this expreſſion, that the Church is founded upon the faith or confeſſion which Peter made, is like unto this, that the faith of Peter marched upon the waters, which is a very improper locution, and literally falſe.

Herein the Cardinal ſpeaks clean contrary to truth, and there is blaſphemy in his doctrine; whereby he teacheth that he that ſaith that the Church is founded upon Jeſus Chriſt, or upon the faith in him, ſpeaks improperly; but he that ſaith that it is founded upon the perſon of Peter ſpeaks properly, and without figure. For Chriſt and his doctrine is the foundation of the Church truly, properly, and really: But the perſon of Peter is figuratively and Metonymically the foundation of the Church, taking Peter for his doctrine; as we ſay Homer for the book of Homer, and the Prophets for the writings of the Prophets. It is falſe that the faith of Peter is the cauſe that his perſon was made a foundation of the Church; as if the excellency of his faith and confeſſion had deſerved to receive that honour from Chriſt. For Peter had not that faith by his vertue, but by Gods inſpiration: Now there is no merit in receiving the graces of God, to whom alone the praiſe for them is due. Beſides, many before Peter have made the like confeſſion; as Nathaneel, John 1. Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Iſrael; and the Samaritans, John 4. We know that this is the Chriſt the Saviour of the world. And the fall of Peter denying his Maſter, which hapened ſince, ſhewed what the merit of his faith could then be, and how ſtedfaſt it was.

No more truth is there in the Cardinals affirmation,Chap. 56. p. 411. of the ſecond Edition. that when Peter ſaid to Chriſt, Thou art the Chriſt, the Son of the living God, he had already been made Head of the other Apoſtles. That is confuted by Chriſts words in the ſame place, where he ſaith to Peter, I will give thee the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven. By ſpeaking in the future, and promiſing to give him the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven, that is the government of the Church, he ſheweth that he had not given them to him before.

It is falſe alſo that Peter anſwered, Thou art the Chriſt, the Son of the living God, Pag. 513.the other Apoſtles holding their peace, and not knowing what to anſwer, as the Cardinal will have it. Is it credible that the Apoſtles knew not that Jeſus was the ſon of God? having heard the Father bearing that teſtimony unto him from heaven, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleaſed? Having already preached the Goſpell, the ſummary whereof is that ſentence.John 4.42.John 4:42 Were they worſe inſtructed then the Samaritans who long before had made that confeſſion? or then Nathanael, who the very next day after Peter was called to the Apoſtleſhip had made that notable confeſſion, John 1.49. That then Peter ſet himſelf forth to anſwer the firſt, came out of his zeal and his wonted forwardneſs, not out of the ignorance of his fellows.

With the like error the Cardinal ſaith in the ſame place,Pag. 523. that of thoſe two expoſitions the one is immediate, the other mediate; the one direct, the other collateral; the one literal, the other moral; the one original, the other acceſſory; the one perpetual, the other temporal; the one from the beginning the other by occaſion. An impious Philoſophy! For can one ſay without impiety that this propoſition that the Church is founded upon Jeſus confeſſed by Peter, is an indirect and not perpetual propoſition, and is not from the beginning? Certainly this was and is, and ſhall be for ever true. That expoſition is true, not occaſionally p. 222but by a perpetual neceſſity. One would think that this Cardinal hath undertaken to make war againſt the Son of God.

After theſe ſo impious and ſo extravagant conceits he brings more of the like ſubtilty.Pag. 525. He ſaith that the diverſe uſes of this word, foundation of the Church, muſt be diſtinguiſhed. That it is one thing to be a foundation of the faith of the Church, another thing to be a foundation of the Miniſtery of the Church. And of that foundation of the Miniſtery of the Church he makes three kinds; the firſt an objective foundation, the ſecond a ſuggeſtive foundation, the third an inſtrumental and organical foundation. So he ſtretcheth his wit about vain and ſenſleſs conceits. For there is no objective foundation, there being no relation or proportion between being the foundation of a building, and being the object of a faculty or action. And theſe words, a ſuggeſtive foundation ſignifie nothing at all; never did any man ſpeak ſo. This Cardinal pleaſeth himſelf with his own conceits; and as Apes hold their young ones to be of excellent beauty, ſo doth this Prelate admire his own miſhapen fancies, which he hideth in obſcurity as it were with a cloud of duſt, that they may be ſuffered to paſs.

It is falſe alſo that Peter or the Apoſtles be miniſterial foundations, unleſs by the Apoſtles their doctrine be underſtood. The authority of the Miniſtry is founded upon him who is the author of the ſame, the Lord Jeſus. Otherwiſe the authority of Peters Miniſtry ſhould be founded upon Peter himſelf. Which is both abſurd and impoſſible.

CHAP. 5. Six reaſons of the Cardinal to prove that by this Stone the Perſon of Peter is underſtood.

Pag. 541. & 542.TO perſwade that by theſe words Thou art Peter, &c. Chriſt foundeth his Church upon the perſon of St. Peter, the Cardinal brings ſix reaſons, but all to no purpoſe. For we eaſily ſuffer that expoſition, ſo that by the perſon of Peter his doctrine be underſtood, as they ſay the Prophets, to ſignifie the writings or the doctrine of the Prophets. Yet let us examine his reaſons.

The firſt is that our Lord having foretold to Peter that he would change his name, puts him now in poſſeſſion of that promiſe. And that this text cannot expound the ſenſe of the word Peter, unleſs in the ſecond part of the text the word Peter be taken in the ſame ſenſe, and for the ſame ſubject, as it is taken in the firſt. And by conſequent that ſentence, Upon this ſtone I will build my Church, cannot be interpreted of the perſon of Chriſt, but of the only perſon of Peter.

I anſwer that the ſenſe is both natural and fluent, by expounding it thus, Thou ſhalt be called Peter by reaſon of the ſtone which thou haſt confeſſed, upon which the Church is founded. Beſides, before that Chriſt had ſpoken ſo to Peter, he was already named Peter. So St. Matthew calls him in ch. 10. That name is given him by Chriſt in the firſt chapter of John v. 41. Thou art Simon the ſon of Jona, thou ſhalt be called Cephas or Peter. Which is not a prediction nor a promiſe, but an actual impoſing of the name. As when the Angel ſaid to Jacob, Gen. 32. Thou ſhalt no more be called Jacob but Iſrael, although he ſpeak in the future, yet Jacob did at that time receive the name of Iſrael. Thus Luke 1.60. Elizabeth naming her ſon ſaid, His name ſhall be John.

The ſecond reaſon is, that our Saviour intends in this place to return to Peter that which Peter had done for him in his diſcourſe. Now Peter had done two things, the one to declare the appellative name of our Lord, which is Chriſt, the other to expound the ſenſe and the energy of the ſame word Chriſt, ſaying thou art the Chriſt the ſon of the living God. Wherefore the law of the antitheſis required that not only the Lord ſhould declare a name unto him, ſaying, Thou art Peter, but alſo ſhould expound unto him the energy of that name, ſaying, I ſhall build my Church, p. 223which could not take place, unleſs by the word Peter in this ſecond ſentence the perſon of Peter be underſtood, &c.

But here the Cardinal is out, to think that theſe words, Thou art the Son of the living God, be the expoſition of the word Chriſt. For Chriſt is a name of office; but to be the ſon of the living God, belongs to his nature, and is an expoſition of the ſame.

The third reaſon is, that it had been altogether out of purpoſe to make mention of the name of Peter, conſidering the nature of the diſcourſe that Chriſt was to uſe with him, if by theſe words, and upon this ſtone, he had not meant the perſon of Peter. For this word Peter had no relation to the keyes, but to building.

But that reaſon is without reaſon. The word ſtone or rock hath relation to the next ſentence, I will build my Church: And that relation ſtands alike whether by the word ſtone the perſon of Peter be underſtood, or the ſtone confeſſed by Peter.

The fourth reaſon is that it would have been an all Grammatical coherence to ſay, I declare unto thee that thou art Peter, and that upon that ſtone which is my ſelf, I will build my Church, and I will give thee the keyes of the kingdom of heaven.

But the coherence is very good, taking thus the words of our Saviour, I tell thee that thy name is Peter, and that upon the ſtone which thou haſt taken for thy foundation, namely that I am Chriſt the ſon of God, I will build my Church.

The fifth reaſon is, that the Pronoun this is relative, which muſt be referred to the Antecedent already expreſt.

I anſwer that the text of Matthew ſheweth that the pronoun this, is not the relative of Peter: For the relative muſt agree in gender with the antecedent. But there is in Matthew foreign, Tu es Petrus, and then in the feminine foreign ſuper hanc petram.

Finally, he ſaith that our Saviour would make ſuch an alluſion to the name of Peter, as would ſeem to confirm and approve the impoſed ſirname. Which I grant, For it is as if Chriſt had told him, Thou art with good reaſon called Peter, becauſe by calling me the Chriſt the ſon of the living God, thou layeſt the fundamental ſtone upon which I ſhall build my Church.

CHAP. 6. Other proofs brought by the Cardinal out of Scripture.

HE heapeth up more proofs for St. Peters primacy.Pag. 529. He alledgeth that to him it was ſaid, I will give thee the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven. By the keyes of the kingdom of heaven nothing elſe is underſtood but the government of the Church, which often in Scripture is called the Kingdom of heaven, and the Kingdom of God. It is the ſtyle of Scripture to underſtand by the keys, the government of the houſe. Thus Iſa. 22.21. God promiſeth to Eliakim the charge of High Steward in the Kings houſe, The key of the houſe of David will I lay upon his ſhoulder, ſo he ſhall open and none ſhall ſhut, and he ſhall ſhut and none ſhall open. And Rev. 3. it is written that Chriſt hath the key of David, that is, the government of the Church. That key was given not only to Peter, but alſo to all the Apoſtles. For Chriſt having asked all his Apoſtles, Whom ſay ye that I am, and Peter having anſwered for all, hath received alſo the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven for all, as(a)(a)Aug. Tract. 50. in Joh. Si hoc Petro tantum dictum eſt non facit hoc Eccleſia. Et paulo poſt, Petrus quando claves accepit, Eccleſiam ſanctam ſignificavit. Idem Tract. 118. Petro dicitur, Tihi dabo claves, &c. tanquam ligandi & ſolvendi ſolus acciperet poteſtatem; cum & illud pro omnibus dixerit, & hoc cum omnibus tanquam perſonam gerens ipſius unitatis acceperit. Auſtin ſaith in the fiftieth and one hundred and eighteenth Treatiſe upon St. John, and Hierom in the firſt book againſt Jovinian. They all receive the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven, and upon them the ſtedfaſtneſs of the p. 224Church is equally founded. Thus Gregory Nazianzen in the Oration upon Baſil ſaith, that the keyes of heaven have been committed to Baſil. And in the Council(b)(b)L. 3 c. 9. of Paris under the Emperours Lewis and Lothary, all the French Biſhops ſay themſelvs to be porters, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven are given. Ambroſe (c)(c)Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum, & ut ſolvas & liges. Quod Petro dicitur, Apoſtolis dicitur, non poteſtatem uſurpamus, ſed ſervimus imperio.upon Pſal. 38. I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, &c. That which is ſaid to Peter, is ſaid to the other Apoſtles. Hilary in book 6. of the Trinity ſpeaks thus to the Apoſtles(d)(d)Vos ô ſancti & beati viri ob fidei veſtrae meritum claves regni coelorum ſortiti, & ligandi & ſolvendi in coelo & terra jus adepti. You holy and bleſſed men who by the merit of your faith have obtained the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. Theophylactus upon that text of Matthew; Although it be ſaid to Peter alone I will thee the keyes, yet they are given to all the Apoſtles. When? It was then when he ſaid to them, Whoſe ſins ſoever ye remit, they ſhall be remitted. And Anſelmus upon that place, We muſt obſerve that this power was not given to Peter alone, but as Peter anſwered him alone for all, ſo in the perſon of Peter the Lord gave that power unto all.

Our Adverſaries themſelves hold that the power of the keyes is included in the power of binding and looſing. Now the power of binding and looſing is given to all the Apoſtles, Mat. 18.18.

The Cardinal alledgeth alſo the words of Chriſt to Peter, Luke 22. I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, ſtrengthen thy brethren. By which words Chriſt promiſeth to Peter, that in the temptation at hand his faith ſhould not ſink and fail altogether: And he warneth him that after he is riſen from his fall, he ſhould admoniſh others to grow wiſe by his example. But this text hath no relation to the primacy, neither far nor neer.

The Cardinal uſeth alſo theſe words thrice repeated of our Saviour to Peter, Feed my ſheep. But Chriſt ſaid not to him, Feed alone my ſheep, and with ſoveraign power. There is no Paſtor of the Church but muſt feed Chriſt ſheep, Eph. 4.11. Acts 20.28.

Auſtin in chap. 30. of the book of the Chriſtian combat ſaith, that(e)(e)Cum Petro dicitur Amas Me? Paſce oves meas; omnibus dicitur. when it is ſaid unto St. Peter, Loveſt thou me? Feed my ſheep; it is ſaid unto all.

Baſil in his Aſcetical conſtitutions, chap. 22. Having conſtituted Peter Paſtor of his Church after him: For he told him, Loveſt thou me more then theſe? feed my my ſheep; (f)(f)foreign.Giving to all Paſtors and Doctors that ſhould come after, the like power. Whereof we have a proof in that all bind and looſe as well as he.

Ambroſe in the book of the Prieſtly dignity(g)(g)Quas oves & quem gregem non ſolum tunc beatus ſuſcepit Petrus, ſed & nobiſcum eas ſuſcepit, & cum illo nos eas ſuſcepimus omnes.. Which ſheep Peter did not then receive alone, but he with us, and we all with him have received them. That interrogation, Peter, loveſt thou me? was made to St. Peter thrice, that by three confeſſions he might repair the three denials, whereby a little before he had denied the Lord, as Hierom ſaith in the Epitaph to Fabiola, Petrus trinam negationem trina confeſſione delevit, Peter blotted away his triple denyal by his triple confeſſion. And Auſtin in the twenty third Treatiſe upon St. John, Redditur trinae negationi trina confeſſio. Three confeſſions are given to repair the three denyals. Ambroſe ſaith the ſame in the Apology of Daniel, chap. 6. And Epiphanius in the hereſie of the Cathari, which is the 59. §. 1. And Cyrillus upon John 12. cap. 64. Where alſo he renders a reaſon why after theſe three confeſſions the Lord ſaid to him, Feed my ſheep; namely that thereby the Lord reſtored him into the dignity of the Apoſtleſhip, leaſt that by the triple denial he might not ſeem to have been ſhaken. Very unfitly then words of comfort are imployed to eſtabliſh a Monarchy.

The Cardinal is not aſhamed to uſe for Peters primacy, that which is ſaid in Matthews Goſpel,Page 539. that Jeſus Chriſt commanded Peter to pay tribute for him and for himſelf, which is a proof unworthy to be confuted.

p. 225CAHP. VII. Of Cyprians opinion about Peters primacy, and that the Cardinal hath not underſtood it. And how all the Apoſtles have been heads of the Univerſal Church.

CCyprian in the book of the unity of the Church, held, that before the reſurrection of Chriſt Peter alone had the primacy, but that after the reſurrection all the Apoſtles were made equal, ſo that by his reckoning, his Primacy continued but two or three years at the moſt. He ſaith that Chriſt would have that primacy to be at the firſt, in one man only, before it was communicated to many, that the dignity ſhould begin by one, to ſhew the unity of the Church, and that all Biſhops, though in ſeveral Countries, make but one chair, and one ſucceſſion. His words are theſe,(a)(a)Quamvis Apoſtolus omnibus poſt reſurrectionem ſuam parem poteſtatem tribuat, & dicat, Sicut miſit me Pater, & ego mitto vos, Accipite Spiritum Sanctum. Si cui remiſeritis peccata; remittentur illi; Si cui tenueritis, tenebuntur: Tamen ut unitatem manifeſtaret, unam cathedram conſtituit & unitatis ejuſdem originem ab uno incipientem ſua authoritate diſpoſuit. Hoc erant utique caeteri Apoſtoli quod Petrus, pari conſortio praediti & honoris & poteſtatis. Sed exordium ab unitate proficiſcitur ut Eccleſia una monſtretur. Pamelius hath corrupted that place, and hath added this, Supra Petrum unum Chriſtus aedificat Eccleſiam ſuam. Alſo Primatus Petro datur. Which words are not found in the other copies. Although the Lord after his reſurrection give to his Apoſtles an equal power, and ſay, As my Father hath ſent me, ſo do I ſend you, Receive the Holy Ghoſt: Whoſe ſins ſoever ye remit, they ſhall be remitted. Yet to ſhew the unity, he hath eſtabliſht one chair, and hath by his authority diſpoſed the origine of the unity, beginning by one. The other Apoſtles indeed were the ſame thing as Peter was, endowed with the like honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, to ſhew that the Church is one.

The Cardinal is not far from that opinion.(b)(b)Pag. 529. Only he addeth one thing of his own, which Cyprian ſaith not, That Chriſt gave to other Apoſtles part in the authority which he had given to St. Peter. And that this priviledge to be the foundation of the Church was originally in Peter, but in the others by aſſociation and aggregation. Wherein he differs from Cyprians doctrine, who ſaith that Peter was the head of the Church before the other Apoſtles only in time, not in degree; and ſaith not that the dignity of the other Apoſtles was grounded upon that of Peter, and makes it not depend from his primacy. He ſaith indeed that he that abandoneth Peters chair, cannot be in the Church. But by Peters chair he underſtands not that of the Roman Biſhop only, but(c)(c)Cyprian l. de unitate Eccleſiae, §. Epiſcopatus unus eſt cujus à ſingulis in ſolidum pars tenetur. the whole body of Biſhops, whom he holds to be all ſitting in that chair, and to have a ſolid and joint part in that ſucceſſion. Herein alſo the Cardinal contradicteth St. Paul, who in the beginning of the Epiſtle to the Galatians, ſaith himſelf to be an Apoſtle not of men, nor by man, but by Jeſus Chriſt. And chap. 2. ver. 6. he ſaith that they that ſeemed to be ſomewhat (he ſpeaketh of the moſt excellent Apoſtles) added nothing to him: Which ſhould be falſe if his Apoſtleſhip had been grounded upon Peter, and had taken origine from him. And really he had exerciſed his Apoſtleſhip many years before he ſpake with Peter, and before he had any communication with him.

To the words of Cyprian, which ſay that Chriſt gave to his Apoſtles an equal power after his reſurrection, and that they were all endowed with the like honour and authority, the Cardinal brings a diſtinction; ſaying that Cyprian ſpeaketh of the inward and eſſential power of the Apoſtleſhip, not of that which is external and accidental to the Apoſtleſhip. And that they were equal as for the power, not as for the order of the exerciſe of the power. He caſteth thoſe dark words, as a black ſmoak before the eyes of the Reader, for fear of being perceived. He meaneth that they were equal in that which is eſſential to the Apoſtleſhip, but not in the primacy, which is accidental and not eſſential to the Apoſtleſhip. But Cyprian clearly confutes that diſtinction, making them equal in honour: Now the chief honour which our Adverſaries attribute unto Peter, is the honour of the primacy. Beſides, Cyprian ſaith that the Lord, Mat. 16. eſtabliſhed Peter to be the head of the Church, but that after his reſurrection he made them equal; which is ſaying clearly enough, that after the reſurrection he p. 226made them all heads, and that Peter had no more that primacy. Our Adverſaries ſay that (Mat. 16.) Peter was eſtabliſhed head of the Univerſal Church, which is a thing accidental to the Apoſtleſhip. Now it is in that very thing that Cyprian ſaith that Chriſt made the other Apoſtles equal unto Peter; that is, in the prerogative which he had before his reſurrection; making them all after the reſurrection of Chriſt equal both in honour and power. How equall in power, if Peter had power over them? And how equall in honour, if Peter had alone the primacy over the Univerſal Church?

Becauſe the Fathers ſay very often that all Biſhops are ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles, and of St. Peter: the Cardinal ſaith that the Biſhop of Rome alone is ſucceſſor of St. Peter by a direct ſucceſſion, but that the others Biſhop are ſitting in St. Peters chair, and are in ſome ſort his ſucceſſors by an oblique and indirect ſucceſſion. But the moſt eſteemed among the Popes, Gregory the I. ſirnamed the Great, did not know that diſtinction. For in the 37. Epiſtle of the firſt book, he extolleth the dignity of the three Sees of St. Peter, which are Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. Then he addeth,(d)(d)Cum ergo unius atque una ſit ſedes cui ex authoritate divina tres nunc Epiſcopi praeſident. Whereas then the See is one, and of one man, over which See three Biſhops preſide now by divine authority, all the good which I hear of you, I attribute unto my ſelf; and if you hear any good of me, impute it to your merit. And in the fifth book, Epiſt. 60. he writes thus to the Biſhop of Alexandria (e)(e)Hujus nos Magiſtri & Diſcipuli authoritate conſtringimur ut & ego ſedi Diſcipuli praefidere videar propter Magiſtrum & vos ſedi Magiſtri propter Diſcipulam.. We are tyed together by the union between the Maſter and the Diſciple [St. Peter and St. Mark] ſo that it ſeems that I preſide over the See of the Diſciple, becauſe of the Maſter; and that you preſide over the Maſters See, becauſe of the Diſciple. There not only he makes the Biſhops of Alexandria equally ſucceſſors of St. Peter with him, but alſo he ſaith that they preſide over the Roman See in ſome ſort. And he equalleth the Biſhops of Antioch and Alexandria to that of Rome, as ſitting in the ſame chair, and having the ſame ſucceſſion. And truly if Peter hath been Biſhop of Antioch, and the Biſhops of Antioch are deſcended from him in a direct line; I ſee not why the Cardinal makes them his ſucceſſors in a collateral and indirect line. That he affirmeth with his own meer authority, and brings no other authority for it.

CHAP. VIII. Of St. Peters being at Rome. Examination of the Cardinals reaſons.

VVHether St. Peter hath been at Rome or not, and whether he ſuffered Martyrdome there, is a queſtion of no uſe for the eſtabliſhing the primacy of the Biſhop of Rome. For it is not neceſſary that he hath given preheminences to all the places where he made ſome ſtay. If he was put to death at Rome, it is rather a diſgrace to the City of Rome then an honour, to have murthered ſuch an excellent Apoſtle. Thus our Saviour marketh Jeruſalem with a note of infamy for killing the Prophets.Luke 13.Luke 13 Or if the abode and martyrdome of Peter at Rome is conſiderable for conferring the primacy upon the Biſhop of Rome, much rather ought the Biſhop of Jeruſalem have the Primacy, ſince Chriſt was crucified at Jeruſalem; and that it was for a good while the dwelling place of all the Apoſtles. Had St. Peter died at Milan, or at Capua, or in Capernaum, none would for that defer to the Biſhops of thoſe places the government of the Univerſal Church. Nevertheleſs M. du Perron, after others, thinking thereby to confirm powerfully the Popes primacy, treats that queſtion at large, and giveth to that matter the 31. chapter of his firſt book.

I do acknowledge freely, in the very beginning of this controverſie, that this opinion hath been received among the Fathers, that St. Peter was at Rome and there died; yet the moſt antient of them that ſpeak of it are(a)(a)Irenaeus lib. 3 cap 3. Irenaeus p. 227and(b)(b)Tertull. de praeſcriptionibus. cap. 36. Tertullian who writ about a hundred and thirty years after St. Peters death, which is a ſufficient time to give courſe to a falſe opinion.

I purpoſe not to oppoſe the teſtimony of the Antients, nor to deny abſolutely that St. Peter was at Rome. Only I ſay that this matter is ſo involved with fables, that the untruths added to it, are ſufficient to bring all the truths in queſtion. It is eaſie to ſhew that the Traditions about that, received by our Adverſaries, that St. Peter after he had been ſeven years Biſhop of Antioch, tranſported his See to Rome, where he was Biſhop and firſt Pope five and twenty years together, are things inconſiſtent, and whereof the untruth is evident.

The Cardinal in the forealledged chap. 31. begins by our objections, which he ſets forth neither in the manner nor in the order that we propound them, and brings weak reaſons for us, ſuch as we would not inſiſt upon. Here then I will inſiſt only upon that which I think to be ſolid, and ſet down our reaſons, ſuch as they are indeed, not ſuch as he makes them.

I. We ſay then that if St. Peter had been Pope at Rome ſo long, ſome traces ſhould be extant in the Acts of the Apoſtles, or in ſome Antient Author of good credit, of a thing ſo notable; ſome deſcription, or ſome mention of his journey, and of the places where he paſt going from Syria to Rome. The firſt that deſcribed St. Peters journey was Simeon Metaphraſtes, about eight hundred and fifty years after Chriſts birth; an Author notoriouſly fabulous, whom(c)(c)Ann. 44. Sect. 17. Baronius very often accuſeth of untruth. In vain the Cardinal anſwereth that St. Luke in the Acts follows eſpecially the actions of St. Paul his Maſter. For beſides that Luke ſpeaks often of St. Peter; even ſince the converſion of Paul, that action of tranſporting the ſeat of the Eccleſiaſtical Monarchy from the Eaſt to the Weſt, is ſuch an important and publick thing, that it ſhould not have been buried in ſilence, but made known to all the Churches of the world. That man ſhould be ſtrangely negligent, who writing the Roman Hiſtory of Conſtantines time, ſhould ſay nothing of the removing of the Roman Empire to Conſtantinople.

II. But who will believe that ſuch an excellent Apoſtle hath been ſo long in the firſt City of the world, upon ſuch a high ſtage, among ſo many combats, and left behind him no Sermon, and no record of his miracles and of his combats againſt the enemies of the Goſpell? Doubtleſs not only the Chriſtian Authors, but even the Pagan Hiſtorians, of which that age was ſo fertile, had not been ſilent of him; ſeeing that the miracles of Apollonius Thyanaeus, who lived near about the ſame time have been recorded, and the Apophthegmes of one Demetrius a Cynick who lived then at Rome, and of Florus a begging Philoſopher, have been recorded.

It is true that ſome Antients ſay that St. Peter fought at Rome in the ſight of all the people againſt Simon Magus, who being carried up in the air in a fiery Chariot fell down at the prayers of St. Peter, and brake his neck. But ſuch a publike and wonderfull accident had not been forgotten by the Pagan Authors of that age, as Suetonius, Tacitus, Seneca, Pliny and others. Auſtine in his Epiſtle to Caſulanus, which is the 86. ſaith that many Romans hold that narration to be falſe: Where Auſtin ſpeaks not only of the faſt whereby Peter prepared himſelf for that combat (as M. du Perron will have it) but of the whole ſtory. There being no likelyhood of ground for thinking it falſe, that Peter prepared himſelf by faſting for ſo great a combat. St. Auſtin was too prudent to make that faſt to be ſuſpected as fabulous.

The ſame appears alſo in that(d)(d)Juſtin. Mar. Apol 2. foreign. Juſtin Martyr in his ſecond Apology, and Tertullian in the Apologetick, ſay that the Romans had honoured Simon Magus with a Statue inſcribed To Simon the Holy God. For if the Romans had ſeen him thus caſt headlong at St. Peters prayer, they had rather erected a Statue to Peter, inſtead of crucifying him. Baronius on the year 44. §. 55. ſaith, that under Gregory XIII. in the Iſle of Tiber was found a ſtone with this inſcription, Semoni Sango Deo. It is that God whom the antient Romans called Sanctas & Dieſpiter, which Varro mentions in his fourth book of the Latin tongue. And Ovid. Faſtor. 4.

p. 228Quaerebam Nonas Sancto Fidione referrem,

An tibi Semo pater, &c.

It is credible that the antient Chriſtians little skilled in the Roman antiquity, ſeeing that inſcription in the baſis of a ſtatue, thought it was the ſtatue of Simon Magus.

III. It is very conſiderable alſo that St. Paul, in the laſt chapter of the Epiſtle which he writ to the Church of Rome, ſaluteth a great number of perſons; among others, ſome whom he cals his helpers in Chriſt, and his work-fellows; but he makes no mention of Peter, Pag. 183.who (if he had been at Rome) ſhould have been ſaluted the firſt. M. du Perren anſwereth, that the Epiſtle to the Romans was written while the Jews were out of Rome, and that St. Peter was relegated into the Eaſt. A thing evidently falſe and convinced of untruth, by the names of the perſons that then were at Rome whom St. Paul ſaluteth. For he ſaluteth Priſcilla and Aquila which were Jews, as it appeareth, Acts 18.2. who being baniſht out of Rome by the Emperour Claudius, like the other Jews retired to Corinth, but ſince returned to Rome, and there continued; for when Paul came to Rome, he conferred with the Jews that lived there, Acts 28.17.

As for Peter, if he was baniſht out of Rome with the other Jews, I ſee no reaſon why he was rather relegated into the Eaſt (as M. du Perron ſaith) then his Countrey-men that went to Corinth and other places. Beſides, St. Peter was a Jew, and therefore of the Eaſt. Now none is relegated into his own Countrey. A Jew cannot be baniſht into Judea.

The Cardinal adds that if this argument take place, we muſt conclude alſo that Timothy was not Biſhop of Epheſus, becauſe St. Paul writing to the Epheſians ſalutes not Timothy; And that St. James was not Biſhop of Jeruſalem, becauſe St. Paul writing to the Hebrews, doth not ſalute St. James, and makes not any mention of him. But this Cardinal is ſhort here, and apprehends not that the ſtrength of our argument lyeth not, in that Paul writing to the Romans ſalutes not Peter, but in that he ſaluting many perſons of the Church of Rome, and naming them, and ſaluting eſpecially his helpers in Chriſt, and work-fellows in the Goſpel, he nameth not Peter, and ſalutes him not. If St. Paul writing to the Epheſians while he was there had ſaluted many perſons making no mention of Timothy, there had been reaſon to find it ſtrange. Note by the way the Cardinals ignorance, who thinks that the Epiſtle to the Hebrews was written particularly to the Church of Jeruſalem, ſeeing that it is written to the Jews ſcattered over all the world. If it had been addreſſed in particular to the Church of Jeruſalem, the Apoſtle would rather have written to them in the Jewiſh language, and would not have alledged Scripture unto them according to the verſion of the Septuagint, but as it was read in the Synagogues of Jeruſalem.

IV. Moreover, it is not likely that St. Paul would have written ſuch a long Epiſtle unto the Church of Rome to inſtruct them in the Chriſtian religion, if they had then enjoyed the daily inſtruction of Peter the Apoſtle. At leaſt he would have given ſome reaſon in that Epiſtle why he would inſtruct the Church of Rome, which having ſuch an excellent Paſtor as St. Peter, did not want inſtruction. And he would have exhorted the Romans to value very highly that ſingular grace of God, to have provided for them ſuch an holy and excellent Apoſtle.

V. Obſerve alſo that St. Paul writ to the Romans, being at Corinth, two years and above before his journey to Rome, which he took in the ſecond year of Nero, when Feſtus was ſent to ſucceed Felix Governour of Judea. Now the five firſt years of Nero paſt with all lenity, neither did Nero then oppreſs or perſecute any; ſo that no perſecution could conſtrain Peter to abſent himſelf from Rome, if he had been Biſhop of Rome at that time. And Pauls coming to Rome at that time ſhews ſufficiently that Peter was not then at Rome; for St. Luke, Acts 28.15. & ſeq. relateth how ſome of the brethren came to meet him, and how being p. 229come to the City, he viſited the chief of the Jews; Of viſiting Peter, or any communication with him, no mention is made, and yet he ſhould have begun his viſits there.

VI. While Paul ſojourned at Rome he writ many Epiſtles; to the Galatians, to the Epheſians, to the Philippians, to the Coloſſians, to Philemon, and the ſecond to Timothy, as it appears by the ſubſcription of the Epiſtles, which (though not Canonical) are not to be contemned.Gal. 2.6, 7, 8.Gal 2:6Gal 2:7Gal 2:8 In the Epiſtle to the Galatians he defends the honour of his Apoſtleſhip, againſt thoſe that would abaſe it, making him much inferiour unto other Apoſtles. To that end he ſaith that the moſt eminent (meaning James, Peter and John) having perceived the grace that was given unto him, gave him the right hand of fellowſhip, receiving him in the ſociety of the Apoſtles. Had the Apoſtle Paul loſt memory or common ſenſe, that he ſhould omit his preſent condition, which would have ſerved more then any other thing to raiſe the dignity of his Apoſtleſhip? For he could have ſaid that Peter had received him for his aſſociate in the conduct of the firſt Church of the world, where was the ſeat of the Primacy over the Univerſal Church. To ſay that the Epiſtle to the Galatians was written before that to the Romans, (as the Cardinal deemeth) is contradicting the ſubſcription of the Epiſtle to the Galatians, which ſaith expreſly, that it was written from Rome, and by conſequent after the Epiſtle to the Romans, which was written from Corinth, long before Paul came to Rome.

VII. In the Epiſtle to the Coloſſians, written alſo from Rome, chap. 4. v. 10, 11. He ſaith that Ariſtarchus and Marcus, and Jeſus which is called Juſtus, were his only fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, which had been a comfort unto him. Where was St. Peter then? Is it credible that he was not joined with St. Paul to help him in the work of the Goſpel, and to be a comfort unto him? Or ſhall we ſay that Paul envied him that praiſe? Note alſo that he ſpeaks not of thoſe that ſerved him at home, but of thoſe that were his coadjutours in the Kingdom of God, that is, in the work of the Goſpel.

VIII. It is not to be omitted that Gal. 2.7. Paul ſaith that the Goſpel of the circumciſion was committed unto Peter, that is, the charge of announcing the Goſpel unto the Jews; for which it was more convenient for him to live in Judea, or Syria, or Idumea, or Aegypt, or Cyrene, which ſwarmed with Jews, then at Rome, where there was but few Jews at that time, and thoſe ſubject to baniſhment, and expoſed to much oppreſſion and ſcorn:(e)(e)Martial. Epigr. l. 1. Hoc quod tranſtiberinus ambulator qui pallentia ſulfurata fractis permutat vitreis. Juvenalis. Occultam Judaea ſuſurrat in aurem. Qualiacun que voles Judaei ſomnia vendunt. They ſold matches beyond the Tyber, were fortune-tellers, lay in the Foreſt of Aricinum, and were in great contempt.

IX. The ſame Apoſtle, Rom. 15.23. ſaith to the Romans, that he had a great deſire to come to them, for he intended to advance the work of God at Rome. Now he had told them, ver. 20. that his cuſtome was not to build upon another mans foundation, that is, to announce the Goſpel in ſuch places where ſome other Apoſtle had already founded the Church. He preſuppoſeth then that Peter had not founded the Roman Church.

X. But that which makes the abode of Peter at Rome, and his being Biſhop there more uncertain, is the diſſent which is found among the Antients about that matter.

Euſebius in his Chronicle, according to Hieroms verſion, ſaith that St. Peter having been the firſt founder of the Church of Antioch, was ſent to Rome to preach the Goſpel, where he was Biſhop of the ſaid City five and twenty years together. But that place is falſified and corrupted; for in the Greek text of Euſebius theſe words where he was five and twenty years a Biſhop, are not found. Yet that which Euſebius ſaith, that Peter was ſent, ſheweth that he was ſubject to the colledge of the Apoſtles, ſince he received his miſſion from them.

The Pontifical of Damaſus in the life of Linus, ſaith that Linus was Biſhop of Rome from the Conſulate of Saturninus and Scipio, which was in the ſecond year of Nero, unto the Conſulate of Capito and Rufus, which fell in the thirteenth year of the ſame Emperour. By which reckoning Linus was eleven years Biſhop p. 230of Rome. But in thoſe eleven years our Adverſaries ſay that Peter was Biſhop of Rome. Which if it be true, there was two Biſhops or Popes at Rome at the ſame time.

As for St. Peters death,(f)(f)Petrus à Nerone affixus cruci, martyrio coronatus eſt, capito…d terram verſo, & in ſublime pedibus elevatis, aſſerens ſe indignum ut ſic crucifigeretur ut Dominus ſuus. Hierom in his Catalogue of Eccleſiaſtical Writers ſaith, that in the laſt year of Nero, which was the fourteenth, Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downwards, becauſe he held not himſelf worthy to be crucified in the ſame form as Chriſt his Lord was; as if the form of the puniſhment were at the choice of him that is puniſht. Alſo that he was buried in the Vatican neer the triumphal ſtreet. Now he could not be buried there preſently after his death. For it is not credible that the Roman Magiſtrate would have ſuffered that the body of a fellon, executed with the moſt infamous puniſhment of all, ſhould be buried in an honourable place, where none was buried before. Euſebius in the laſt chapter but one of the ſecond book of his hiſtory, ſaith, foreign, that Peter was nailed to a piece of wood, but of that turning of his head downwards he ſpeaks never a word.

The firſt Decretal of Clement the V. giveth notice to James of the death of Peter. If we believe that Epiſtle, Peter dyed before James. Now James dyed in the ſeventh year of Nero; So the furtheſt time that can be aſſigned to Peters death by that account, muſt be the ſixth year of Nero, in which time Nero had not begun yet to perſecute the Chriſtians; not the fourteenth year, as Hierom ſaith. Our Adverſaries cannot accuſe that Epiſtle of untruth, ſince Pope Leo IX. in his fourth Epiſtle, and Gregory the VII. in the thirty ſixth Epiſtle, and the Council of Vatſon alledge it. And the Jeſuite Turrianus made a book purpoſely for the defence of theſe Decretals.

In the firſt Tome of the Councils there is an Epiſtle of Cornelius Biſhop of Rome, where he ſaith that he hath buried the body of St. Peter (g)(g)In Templo Apollinis, in monte aureo, in Vaticano palatii Neroniani.in the Temple of Apollo, in the golden Mount, in the Vatican of the Pallace of Nero, where alſo he ſaith that the bodies of many Biſhops lye; All fables and forged tales; for Cornelius would not have laid St. Peters body in a Temple of Idols: and if he had offered to do it, the Pagans would not have ſuffered it; Eſpecially in a time when the Church of Rome was hidden and cruelly perſecuted. And Nero's Pallace was not a place where any was buried; and that golden Mount is an imaginary place. And the Pagans did not bury in their Temples.

If any muſt be believed in a matter, the relation whereof is ſo various, it ſeems to be Athanaſius, to whoſe authority, that of other Fathers ought not to be compared. He then in his firſt Apology for his flight ſpeaks thus(h)(h)foreign.. Peter who hid himſelf for fear of the Jews, and Paul who was let down in a basket and fled, haveing heard this voyce, You muſt ſuffer Martyrdom at Rome, did not ſhrink back from that journey, but rather went rejoycing. And Peter rejoyced when they cut his throat, as returning to his own kindred. Three things he ſaith of Peter. The one, that the Jews ſought to put him to death. The other that Peter and Paul were not taken at Rome, but that both took their journey to Rome, there to ſuffer Martyrdome. (He meaneth, it ſeems, that the Jews having delivered them to the Romans, theſe Apoſtles were at ſeveral times brought to Rome) The third thing which he ſaith, is, that Peter had his throat cut, not then that he was crucified. Wherefore I wonder how Euſebius, contrary to the teſtimony of Athanaſius, would ſay that Peter was nailed to a piece of wood.

Other fables are ſaid of Pauls (i)(i)Baron. an 69. §. 12.deat…, that when he was beheaded, out of his neck iſſued not blood, but milk.

The like diſſent is between Writers about the ſucceſſors of Peter, and that diſſent breeds a very thick darkneſs. Tertullian in the thirty ſecond chapter of Preſcriptions, and Hierom upon Iſa. 52. and in the firſt book againſt Jovinian, put Clement immediately after St. Peter. Optatus in the firſt book againſt Parmenian, puts Linus, and then Clement, and next to him Euariſtus. Hierome in the firſt book of Eccleſiaſticall writers, ſpeaking of Clement, puts him the fourth after Peter. Anaſtatius the Library-keeper, and Luitprandus ſay the ſame. But Euſebius in his Chronicle, and Irenaeus confound Cletus with Anacletus, as being but one. p. 231for which(k)(k)Epiph. contra Carpocrat. haer. 27. Epiphanius in the twenty ſeventh hereſie brings divers reaſons, ſaying that the truth is not evident to him. It is no wonder then, if the ſucceſſion of ſome particular Biſhop be doubtfull, and if the Authors vary upon the names of the ſucceſſours. But it is not credible that if the Biſhop of Rome had been the Head of the Univerſal, Church, the name and number of the firſt that held that Monarchy; could have been uncertain; and that in a flouriſhing age, where there was no want of Writers. As if there were a diſpute about the next ſucceſſour of Auguſtus or Charlemagen.

But when our Adverſaries are put to find the ſeven years, in which they ſay that St. Peter held his See at Antioch, and the five and twenty in which they ſay that he held it at Rome, they find themſelves in a maze, and involved with inſoluble difficulties: for there being but thirty ſix or thirty ſeven years from the death of Chriſt to that of Peter, if from them you take off the ſeven years of his ſojourning at Antioch, and the twenty five of his ruling the See of Rome, there will remain to him but four or five years to do all the things that are ſaid of him in the Acts of the Apoſtles, and in the Epiſtle to the Galatians; which yet could not have been done in leſs then eighteen or twenty years.

Suppoſe that the converſion of Paul happened a year after the death of Chriſt, as Cardinal Baronius will have it, and after him Cardinal du Perron, which paſſage yet we will ſhew hereafter to have happened above ſix years later.

Gal. 1.18. St. Paul ſaith that three years after his converſion he went up to Jeruſalem to viſit Peter.

Twelve years after Chriſts death, St. Peter is committed in the priſons of Jeruſalem by Herod Agrippa, Acts 12. For that happened in the laſt year of that Herod, the ſecond or third year of the Emperour Claudius. So twelve years are paſt already, and Peter is ſtill in Judea, and hath not yet fixed his See at Antioch. Which is confirmed by Euſebius in the fifth book of his Hiſtory, chap. 17. where he ſaith that a certain Apollonius knew by a Tradition come from the Apoſtles, that Chriſt before he aſcended into heaven, had commanded his Apoſtles to abide at Jeruſalem twelve whole years. Not but that it was lawfull for them to go out of the Town to viſit the neighbouring Churches,Act. 9.10, 11.Acts 9:10Acts 9:11 but their ordinary reſidence was as Jeruſalem. Thus Peter dwelling at Jeruſalem, yet went to Lydda, Samaria, and Ceſarea. Which agreeth very well with that relation, Acts 8.1. that after Stevens death, the Church of Jeruſalem was diſſipated, and ſcattered in diverſe places; the Apoſtles only excepted, who ſtayed at Jeruſalem. They would not think of flying out of Jeruſalem, notwithſtanding the peril to obey Chriſts prohibition.

We learn Acts 11.20. that the Church of Antioch was founded a little before Peters impriſonment; not by Peter, but by the preaching of ſome Cyprians and Cyrenians, who firſt announced the Goſpel in Antioch unto the Gentiles, and that for the advancing of that holy work, Barnabas was ſent from Jeruſalem, who joyned Paul with himſelf. And a famine being ſhortly after in Judea, the Diſciples of Antioch ſent ſome relief by the hands of Barnabas and Saul unto the Churches of Judea that were pincht with famine and poverty, Act. 11.29. In all that work Peter had no part, whence it is evident that he was not yet Biſhop of Antioch.

Barnabas and Saul being come to Jeruſalem found Peter priſoner; for in the firſt verſe of the chapter following, we read that(l)(l)foreign. at or about the ſame time Herod ſtretched forth his hands to vex certain of the Church, and apprehended Peter.

Onuphrius an Auguſtinian Monk, the moſt learned in hiſtory of all our Adverſaries, ſaith that Peter being come out of priſon, went immediately into Antioch twelve years after Chriſts death. But that is contradicted by the hiſtory of the Acts; for in the beginning of the thirteenth chapter an enumeration is made of the holy men that ſerved the Church of Antioch, among which Peter is not named. So that already thirteen years at the leaſt are paſt ſince Chriſts death, and Peter is not yet Biſhop of Antioch.

p. 232Let us follow the thread of the hiſtory. We have ſaid that Paul three years after his converſion came to Jeruſalem, and there ſaw Peter, with whom he was fifteen dayes. The ſame Apoſtle ſaith in the following chapter, that fourteen years after he went up again to Jeruſalem, Gal. 2.1.Gal 2:1where he ſaw James, Cephas and John, who gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowſhip. Whether you reckon thoſe fourteen years from his converſion, or rather (as it is more likely) from his firſt journey to Jeruſalem, they will be above fifteenth years ſince Chriſts death, and St. Peter is ſtill in Judea, and hath not yet ſeated himſelf in Antioch.

In the fifteenth of the Acts a Council is kept at Jeruſalem, where Paul being ſent from Antioch, was preſent, and Peter alſo. Our Cardinal will have that Council to be upon the eighteenth year after the death of Chriſt. All which time from the death of Chriſt, Peter is ſtill found in Judea, never in Antioch.

Suppoſe that preſently after that Council, Peter ſet his See in Antioch, and there lived ſeven years, which yet doth not appear; yet twenty five years are already paſt ſince our Saviours death before Peter was at Rome. And yet you muſt find ſome years for him to viſit the Churches of Aſia, Pontus, and Galatia, to which he directeth his firſt Epiſtle; which Churches he viſited after his reſidence at Antioch, according to Hieromes teſtimony in his Catalogue.

By that calculation ſome twelve years ſhould remain for Peter to reſide in Rome. But if Pauls converſion did not happen but ſeven or eight years after our Saviours death, hardly will four or five years remain, and the twenty five years of Peters holding his Biſhops See at Rome ſhall be reduced to the ſixth part.

The Cardinal to rid himſelf of theſe difficulties, doth two things. Firſt, he makes St. Peter to take many journeys from Rome to Judea, and tranſports him in an inſtant from Rome to Jeruſalem. Of which journeys not the leaſt mention is made in all Antiquity. It had been a ſhorter courſe to put him in many places at the ſame time, as well as the body of Chriſt in many millions of places in the ſame moment. Secondly, he haſtens the converſion of St. Paul, and will have him converted the very firſt year after the Lords death. A thing very unlikely. For the perſecution and the martyrdom of Steven preceded the converſion of Paul, there being an intervall between, in which Paul did perſecute many. Now that perſecution about Steven happened many years after Chriſts death. In the end of the Greek Chronicle of Euſebius, ſet out by Joſephus Scaliger, there is a little book intituled the Epitome of times, which ſaith that the martyrdome of Steven happen ſeven years after Chriſts Paſſion. Nicephorus in the ſecond book, chap. 3. alledgeth Enodius the next ſucceſſour to Peter in the Biſhoprick of Antioch, who ſaith that Steven died ſeven years after our Saviours death, and that Paul was converted ſix moneths after. To which Euodius, as more antient, and contemporary to the Apoſtles, we muſt give more credence then to the Chronicle of Euſebius. Beſide it is not credible that this perſecution was raiſed againſt the Chriſtians by the Jews in the firſt year after the Lords death, becauſe Tiberius was then living, who would not have permitted that perſecution. For Tertullian in the firſt chapter of the Apologetick, and Euſebius in his Chronicle, teſtifie that Tiberius favoured the Chriſtians, and prohibited upon heavy penalties that they ſhould be accuſed. It is more credible that this perſecution happened in the beginning of the Empire of Caligula, which meets with the ſeventh year after the Lords death.

Moreover, if St. Paul was converted the firſt year after the Lords death, it will follow that the eight firſt chapters of the book of the Acts of the Apoſtles, and half the ninth, contain no more but the hiſtory of one year, and that the two following chapters contain the hiſtory of ten or eleven years. For that which is related in the eleventh and twelf chapters happened twelve years after Chriſts death.

Such are our reaſons, not thoſe which M. du Perron frameth for us, to the p. 233number of twelve: Which having ſet forth ſuch as he would, he takes after a great deal of pains to confute them.

As for reaſons and proofs out of the word of God, to ſhew that Peter was Biſhop of Rome, he brings none, but the laſt verſe but one of the firſt Epiſtle of Peter, where he ſaith, The Church that is at Babylon, ſalutes you, and Marcus my ſon. For (ſaith he) Babylon is Rome, and the word Marcus is a Roman name. And Papias by the relation of Clemens Alexandrinus, ſaith, that Marcus being deſired at Rome by the brethren, writ a ſhort Goſpel, which Peter having read, approved of it.

For anſwer, I ſay that it is doubtfull whether by Babylon Peter underſtands the Babylon of Chaldea, or the City of Rome, or the whole body of the Paganiſm, under which the Chriſtian Church ſuffered perſecution. As Rev. 18. by theſe words, Come out of Babylon my people, God commands not his people to come out of the City of Rome, but out of Popery, and out of the ſubjection under the Roman Hierarchy. Yet let us ſuppoſe that by Babylon Peter underſtands Rome; what can be inferred thence, but that Peter was at Rome? But that proveth not that he was Biſhop of Rome, or that he hath ſet there the ſeat of the primacy over the Church, or that he hath continued there long.

In one thing the Cardinals judgement was ſhort,Pag 189. when he reproved Eraſmus for ſaying that the Babylon which St. Peter ſpeaks of, is the Babylon of(m)(m)The Cardinal ſhould have ſaid Chaldea. Aſſyria, admiring the ignorance of Eraſmus, for not knowing that when St. Peter writ this Epiſtle, there was no more Jews in Babylon, as Joſephus teſtifies. To what purpoſe that? and what doth it againſt Eraſmus? Is it not enough that Babylon had ſome Chriſtians, though they were no Jews? for thoſe Chriſtians were the Church of Babylon.

And how abſurd is his argument! Marcus my ſon ſalutes you; Now Marcus is a Roman name; Ergo Peter was at Rome, when he writ this Epiſtle. This is want of natural Logick. Thus Paul is a Roman name; may one thence infer that St. Paul was at Rome when he writ his Epiſtles? A man that never was at Rome, may have a Roman name. And ſuppoſe that Mark writ his Goſpel at Rome, doth it follow that St. Peter approved it being at Rome? For his credit he ſhould have abſtained from alledging Papias, who is a teller of fables. It is the teſtimony that Euſebius giveth of him, in the third book of his hiſtory, in the laſt Chaper.

Another ignorance of the Cardinal muſt not be forgiven him,Pag. 180, & 181. when he admires the ignorance of Calvin for ſaying that the journey to Jeruſalem (which St. Paul ſpeaks of Gal. 2.1. when he ſaith, Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jeruſalem) was not the journey for the Council, but the journey for the Alms.

For although Pauls journey mentioned Gal. 2.1. was another then that for the Alms, Acts 11.29, 30. yet the Cardinal is out, thinking that the journey that St. Paul ſpeaks of, Gal. 2.1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jeruſalem, is the ſame journey as that for the Council. For it is ſaid Acts 15.2. that Paul was ſent by deputation from the Church of Antioch when he went to that Council. But the voyage for the Alms, Gal. 2.1, 2. was undertaken by(n)(n)foreign. revelation. I went up, ſaith he, by revelation. The firſt journey was to get the advice of the Apoſtles about a controverſie moved at Antioch. But the journey mentioned, Gal. 2.1, 2. was undertaken to commune with the Apoſtles about the preaching of the Goſpel, leſt by any means (ſaith he) I ſhould run or had run in vain.

To ſhut up this diſcourſe, although in the word of God no trace is extant of the voyage of St. Peter to Rome, and of his ſuffering there, but rather many things that give ſuſpicion of the contrary; yet I am prone to believe that he was at Rome, and there ſuffered Martyrdom, ſeeing the conſent of the Fathers upon that matter, although they writ long after St. Peters death. As for the time that he was there, it ſeems that the fore-alledged(o)(o)Pontificale Damaſi in Lino. Pontifical of Damaſus makes it plain, and diſcovereth the truth, ſo that he points to us the ſpring and the origine of the errour, and of the contradictions upon that ſubject. He ſaith p. 234that Linus was Biſhop of Rome under the Emperour Nero, from the Conſulate of Saturninus and Scipio, which was on the ſecond year of Nero, unto the Conſulate of Capito and Rufus, in the thirteenth year of the ſame Emperour. I think then that Peter being come to Rome in the ſecond year of Nero, placed Linus there to conduct that Church, and after a ſhort ſtay at Rome he returned into Judea. And that eleven or twelve years after his departing from Rome, being apprehended by the Jews, and delivered up to the Romans, he was carried up to Rome, 36 or 37. years after the death of Chriſt; where after ſome moneths of impriſonment he was put to death, the laſt year of the Empire of Nero. But Euſebius hath miſtaken one Emperour for another, putting the date of Peters comeing to Rome on the ſecond year of Claudius, inſtead of the ſecond year of Nero. An eaſie miſtake, ſince thoſe two Emperours had the ſame name, the one being called Claudius Nero, the other Nero Claudius. He hath then taken one Claudius for another, and one Nero for another, and the ſecond year of the one for the ſecond year of the other. Making Peter to come to Rome the twelfth or thirteenth year after Chriſts death, inſtead of the twenty fourth or twenty fifth, which is the ſame time that Paul alſo was carried up to Rome; where Paul continued longer, as having guards, though he had leave to walk in the City. But Peter returned into Judea, leaving Linus Paſtor of the Church of Rome.

As for the form of his execution, I think not that Athanaſius ſpoke lightly and without good information, that he was ſought by the Jews to be apprehended. That he went up to Rome, there to ſuffer death, and that he performed that journey cheerfully. That he(p)(p)foreign. had his throat cut, or was ſtrangled. His burial was no doubt, as of other executed perſons, not in an honourable place. But long after his death, the Chriſtians might have tranſported his bones, and buried them with honour.

In our dayes, an imaginary ſepulcher, and ſuppoſititious relicks ſerve for the traffick. For the Archiepſcopal cloaks or palls which the Pope ſells very dear, are laid upon St. Peters tomb, and ſent to the new Archbiſhops that pay for them. Every year, one with another, the Pope gets by thoſe palls above an hundred thouſand Ducats.

CHAP. 9. Falſifications of the Cardinal about this matter in his fifty ſixth Chapter.

I Owe ſome notes to the falſifications, wherewith the fifty ſixth chapter of the Cardinals firſt book is ſtuffed, to prove the Primacy deferred by Chriſt unto Peter.

In page 527. he alledgeth the words of Cyrillus of Jeruſalem in the eleventh Catecheſis; All the other Apoſtles holding their peace (for that doctrine was above their ſtrength) Peter the Prince of the Apoſtles, &c. told him, Thou art the Chriſt, the ſon of the living God. Theſe words, above their ſtrength, are not in the Greek, but are added by the Cardinal to depreſs the other Apoſtles in compariſon of Peter, as wanting that ſtrength and vertue which Peter had to make that anſwer. There is in the Creek of Cyrillus (a)(a)foreign, &c.All being ſilent (for that doctrine was above man) Peter, &c.

With the like licentiouſneſs he corrupts a place of Athanaſius in the fourth Oration againſt the Arrians. He maketh Athanaſius ſay, There is no doubt but that the ſame who inquired, as having firſt revealed unto Peter the things which he had known, now asketh the ſame things of him in an humane manner. He alledgeth that text, to perſwade that Chriſt had revealed unto Peter, that he is the Chriſt the ſon of God, before he had revealed it to the other Apoſtles. But Athanaſius ſaith no ſuch thing, but only that Chriſt had revealed that unto Peter, before he queſtioned him about p. 235it. His words are(b)(b)foreign. There is no doubt but that the ſame Lord who did inquire after that he had revealed unto Peter that which he had from his Father, did afterwards put a queſtion to him about it in an humane manner.

Theſe two falſifications were added to fill up the meaſure; for in the page before, there are two notorious ones, which I already touched before. The one whereby he makes Paul to ſay, Gal. 2.7. that(c)(c)foreign. they that ſeemed to be ſomewhat, had taught him nothing, whereas there is in the text, that they had added nothing to him. Leſt that it ſhould be known that Paul in that text doth equal the dignity of his Apoſtleſhip, with that of the moſt excellent Apoſtles, the Cardinal hath put, they have taught me nothing, inſtead of they have added to me nothing, to make the world believe that Paul compareth himſelf in learning unto the other Apoſtles, not in the authority and dignity of the Apoſtleſhip. And yet the ſame Apoſtle ſaying in the ſame place, that James, Cephas and John had given him the right hand of fellowſhip, ſpeaks manifeſtly of the ſociety in the Apoſtleſhip, not of the equality in ſcience.

The other falſification is an allegation of Ambroſe in the fourth chapter of the book of the incarnation.(d)(d)Petrus ſtatim loci non immemor ſui, primatum egit; primatum confeſſionis uti que , non honoris; primatum fidei, non ordinis. Peter not forgetfull of his place, made the primacy; clipping the following words, the primacy indeed in the confeſſion, not in honour; the primacy in the faith, not in order.

In pag. 531. & 532. he turneth the words of Chryſoſtome upſide down with a notorious depravation. We object to our Adverſaries theſe words of Gal. 2.9. James, Cephas and John, who ſeemed to be the pillars, gave unto me, and to Barnabas the right hand of fellowſhip. So all the copies have, ſaving only that of Cardinal Ximenes the Edition of Compluto. And the vulgar verſion, the only approved by the Council of Trent, renders it thus, Jacobus, & Cephas, & Johannes qui videbantur columnae eſſe. Whence we inferr, that if Paul had believed Peter to be the only Head of the Univerſal Church above all the other Apoſtles, he would not have ſet James before Peter. To weaken that Text and make it ſuſpected, the Cardinal ſaith that Chryſoſtome in his Comment upon the Epiſtle to the Galatians, reads Cephas, James and John. Who ſo will take the pains to look to the place of Chryſoſtom, ſhall find the contrary, and ſhall ſee that Chryſoſtom both alledgeth and expoundeth the text thus, foreign. James, Cephas and John. In the very ſame manner the Cardinal falſifieth Hierom in the following lines.

This is no better. In the ſame fifty ſixth chapter in page 533. he brings Auſtin alledging a text of Cyprian in the ſecond book of Baptiſm, chap. 1. For Auſtin alledgeth thus Cyprian, with whoſe authority the Donatiſts fenced themſelves againſt the Orthodox. Cyprians authority doth not fright me, becauſe his humility doth recreate me. We know that the merit of Cyprian, a Biſhop and a Martyr was great; but is it greater then that of Peter an Apoſtle and a Martyr? Of whom the ſame Cyprian in his Epiſtle to Quintus ſpeaks thus, (e)(e)Nam nec Petrus inquit, quem primum Dominus elegit, & ſuper quem aedificavit Eccleſiam ſuam, cum ſecum Paulus de circumciſione diſceptaret, poſtmodum vendicavit ſibi aliquid inſolenter, aut arroganter aſſumpſit, ut diceret ſe primatum tenere, & obtemperari à novellis, & poſteris ſibi potius diberi.For (ſaith he) neither Peter whom the Lord hath firſt elected, and upon whom he hath founded his Church, when Paul diſputed with him of the circumciſion, attributed any thing to himſelf inſolently, nor aſſumed any thing with arrogance, to ſay that he had the primacy, and that the new [Apoſtles] and late comers ought rather to obey him. By theſe words, Cyprian ſaith plainly, that if Peter had aſſumed the primacy, or pretended that Paul was to obey him, he had ſpoken arrogantly and inſolently. For we have ſeen that Cyprian believed that Peter had the primacy over the Apoſtles, before the reſurrection of the Lord, but that the Lord made them all equall after his reſurrection. And that he made Peter the firſt among the Apoſtles, only for the priority of time, not for the Apoſtolical dignity. Whence it appears alſo that Cyprian believed that the Church was founded upon Peter, yet not upon the perſon of Peter, but upon his doctrine. Then to caſt duſt into the Readers eyes, the Cardinal corrupts the whole place with a moſt ſhamefull falſification; thus alledging Cyprians words; You ſee what Cyprian ſaith, that the holy Apoſtle Peter in whom ſuch a great grace of the primacy was ſhining, being reproved by Paul, anſwered not that he had the primacy, and ought not to be reproved p. 236by new men and poſteriour unto him. He cuts off Cyprians words, that it would have been arrogance and inſolence in St. Peter, if he had attributed the primacy to himſelf, or if he had thought that St. Paul did owe him ſome obedience. Alſo he interprets the word poſteris, poſteriours, whereas he ſignifieth thoſe that are come ſince. And whoſoever hath any relliſh of the Latin tongue, knoweth that poſteri ſignifieth not men poſteriour in order or dignity, but the poſterity, and ſuch as are poſteriour in time.

The following is one of the leaſt, and yet muſt not be omitted. In page 534. he alledgeth Cyprian in the book of the unity of the Church, ſaying that the other Apoſtles were that which St. Peter was, (f)(f)Pari conſortio praediti & honoris & poteſtatis.endowed with an equal part of authority and power. Cyprian doth not ſpeak ſo, but ſaith, The other Apoſtles were that which St. Peter was, endowed with the like ſociety of honour and power. That word part weakeneth this place of Cyprian, as if every Apoſtle had not the entire power. Then the Cardinal hath put the word authority inſtead of honour, that the Reader may think that Cyprian ſpeaks of the inward authority of the Apoſtleſhip (as the Cardinal ſpeaks) not of the honour due to the primacy.

A few lines before he doth fraudulently alledge Chryſoſtome upon the Epiſtle to the Galatians, where that Father ſpeaks thus: Hence cometh that Paul reproveth, and Peter bears it; to the end that while the Maſter holds his peace, the Diſciples may change their opinion. The end of the Cardinal is to perſwade that Chryſoſtome calls Peter Maſter in reſpect of Paul. But the truth is, that in that place he is called Maſter with a relation to his Diſciples, who are mentioned in the ſame line, in whoſe preſence Paul made that reprehenſion to Peter.

In the following page, which is the five hundred thirty fifth, he alledgdeth a place out of Cyprians book of the unity of the Church, which is not found in any Copy of Cyprian; but he ſaith that Ivo and Gratian alledge it ſo; making Cyprian to ſay, He that forſaketh Peters chair upon which the Church is founded, doth he truſt that he is in the Church? If the works of Cyprian were loſt, it were excuſable to alledge fragments related by other Authors; But ſince we have Cyprians works in their integrity, is it not an abuſe and a kind of falſification to ſtand upon allegations made by new Authors, who are juſtly ſuſpected, rather then upon the works extant of Cyprian? Beſides, that one may not ſee whether he hath faithfully alledged Ivo or Gratian, he abſtaineth from quoting the Canon, and the Diſtinction where they ſpeak ſo.

I cannot call it a falſification, but a flight mingled with contempt of Gods word, that in the ſame chapter, page 540. after he hath proved St. Peters primacy, becauſe Chriſt commanded Peter to pay the tribute for him and for himſelf, and becauſe ſick men were carried into the way where Peter paſſed, that at leaſt his ſhadow might paſs over them, and becauſe he puniſht Ananias and Sapphira with death (which are ingenuous and recreative proofs) he declareth that he will examine a text of Scripture alledged by his Majeſty of Great Britain, not by the Scripture, but by the Fathers. As if there were any better interpreter of Scripture then Scripture it ſelf. Or as if the Expoſition made by men ought to be preferred before God himſelf ſpeaking in his word. Devils do not fly ſo faſt from holy water, as this Prelat from the word of God; or if ſometimes he makes uſe of it, it is to wreſt it and falſifie it.

I will bring one more of his falſifications, which is in the laſt line of his fifty fifth chapter, where he alledgeth Leo ſpeaking thus in the Epiſtle to Martianus, which is the fifty ſecond. None of the Patriarchal Sees but that of Rome ſhall remain ſtable and unmoved. This place is altogether falſe. Here it is truly, Nec praeter illam Petram quam Dominus in fundamentum poſuit, ſtabilis erit ulla conſtructio. That is, No building ſhall ſtand firm beſides that ſtone which the Lord hath laid for a foundation. Of Rome or the Patriarchat of the ſame he makes no mention. And though he did, are Popes receivable witneſſes when the diſpute is of their authority? Muſt we receive Popes for Judges in their own cauſe?

Theſe are ſome of his many falſifications, that by this pattern the reader may judge of the whole piece. For if one would examine all the authorities brought p. 237by this Prelat, he ſhould weary the Reader with a long liſt of falſifications; the reading whereof would be odious to our Adverſaries, and of ſmall edification to them that fear God. Yet hereafter according to occaſions we will ſhew more of that kind, in the Cardinals work.