The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity

CHAP. 67. Of the opinion of S ^t . Austin concerning the Canonical books. And of the Canon of the third Council of Carthage, upon which the Cardinal grounds himself.

SAint Austin is the only of all the Fathers that speaks of this matter with so much diversity and contrariety, that it is impossible to draw any certainty from his assertions.

In the second book of the Christian Doctrine, chap. 8. he makes an enumeration of the Canonical books, where it is evident that he takes the word Canonical in another sense then it is taken by the other Fathers, namely for the books which the Universal Christian Church hath received for divine and sacred, and for rules of the faith. But in that place he makes many sorts of Canonical books, some of greater, some of lesser authority, which nevertheless he calls Canonical. These are his words. The industrious seeker of Canonical Scriptures must keep this rule in matter of Canonical Scriptures; to prefer the Scriptures that are received by all the Catholic Churches to them which some Churches receive not. But as for those that are received by all the Churches, let him make more of those which more Churches and more honorable receive, then of those that are received by Churches inferior in number and authority. But if some Scriptures be found of which some be received by the more honorable Churches, and some be received by the greater number of Churches, although he cannot find that, yet I think that they must be held in the like authority.

Now let any man judge in what uncertainties this Father entangleth men's understandings; if so be that to know which are the Canonical Scriptures of great or small authority, we must number and weigh the Churches. By his account, if of fifty Churches ten receive a book for Canonical, and forty reject it, the book shall be Canonical, but of small authority. But if twenty receive it, and thirty reject it, the authority thereof shall grow a little. And if a great and famous Church receives it, and ten little Churches reject it, there he leaves men's minds balancing. At least he ought to define what number of Churches is requisite to make a book Canonical. No doubt but that discourse of Austin is very much displeasing to our Adversaries. For why doth he not send them in that irresolution unto the Pope and to the Roman Church, which in our days ascribes to herself the authority of defining the Canon of Scriptures? But in those days they did not speak so: And the Church of Africa, to which Austin did belong, was not subject unto the Roman. That good Bishop in his reception did not receive from the Bishop of Rome his letters of investiture, and did not take an oath of allegiance to him. Besides, if those books which he saith to be of less authority be received as infallible, they are of sovereign authority: but if they hold them not for infallible, they are not Canonical.

Austin having given such an uncertain rule to know the Canonical books, makes a Catalogue of them, and puts among them Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees; and no wonder, since that a book may be Canonical, it is enough in his account, that it be received by some few Churches, although the greatest number of Churches reject them. And there again he plungeth men's understandings into a greater uncertainty, for while he makes that Catalogue, he doth not specify which of them are of greater, which of lesser authority; and leaveth us to count the number, and weigh the quality of Churches.

But in other places he contradicts himself; for having said in this place that the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiastious are Canonical; in other places he saith that they are not Canonical; as in the twentieth chapter of the seventeenth book of the City of God, where he speaks thus; It is found that Solomon hath prophesied in his books; of which there are three which are received with Canonical authority, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But the other two, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, custom hath obtained that they should be called Solomon's books, because of some likeness of style. But the most learned hold it for certain that they are none of his. Then he addeth, that the Occidental Church hath received them; Not then the Oriental. But Jerome, Ruffin, Hilary, Philastius and the Gallican Churches contradict him, as we have seen.

In the same chapter he alledgeth Ecclesiasticus, then he addeth, as correcting himself, But the things that are not written in the Canon of the Jews, are not alleged with so much authority.

It is very considerable, that in that place he doth not only put the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus out of the rank of the Canonical books, against that which he had said in the second book of the Christian doctrine, chap. 8. but also by saying that the book of Wisdom is not of Solomon, he accuseth the Author of untruth, who saith himself to be Solomon: For so he speaks to God, chap. 9. ver. 7, 8. Thou hast elected me to be King of thy people. Thou hast told me that I should build thee a Temple in thy holy mountain.

He giveth the like usage to Ecclesiasticus, which he puts among the Canonical books in the second book of the Christian doctrine, chap. 8. and yet in another place he fights against that book, and confutes the doctrine of the same. For whereas the said book chap. 46.21. affirmeth that Samuel hath prophesied after his death, and lift up his voice out of the earth, though this was done by a witch and by the power of the Devil; Austin disputes against it in the second book of questions to Simplician, in the third question; declaring it a very improper thing to put the spirits of the Saints in the power of Devil, and maintaining that it was not Samuel that spake to Saul, but the Devil in the form of Samuel; In this business (saith he) there may be a more easy intelligence, and a readier way to come out of it, which is to believe that it was not truly the spirit of Samuel that was drawn out of his rest, but rather that it was some apparition and imaginary illusion made by the Devils machinations, which the Scripture calls with the name of Samuel, because they use to call images with the name of things whereof they are images. And a little after he concludeth thus, Let us rather think that such a thing was done by the malicious ministry of the witch.

The same he saith in the sixth question of Dulcitius where he approveth and confirmeth that which he had said in his questions to Simplician. About that, See the Canon Nec mirum, in the fifth question of the twenty sixth Cause, where the doctrine of Ecclesiasticus is confuted at large: And the book of the Questions of the Old Testament in the twenty seventh question, where Austin among other things saith that Saul worshipped the Devil, thinking him to be Samuel.

It is this Fathers custom when his Adversaries object unto him some place out of the Apocrypha, to answer with weakening their authority. As in the second book against Gaudentius, chap. 23. the Donatists, Circumcellions, who would kill and cast themselves headlong, defended themselves with the example of Razias who killed himself, 2 Mac. 14. Austin answereth them, The Jews receive not that Scripture which they call Maccabees, as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord beareth testimony. Thereby declaring that the Maccabees are books unto which the Lord doth not bear testimony. Thus in the second book of the Retractations ch. 20. retracting that which he had said after the book of Wisdom, That Manna had a taste in the mouth according to every man's will, he saith this, I remember not that this can be proved but by the book of Wisdom which is not received among the Jews in a Canonical authority. If Austin had received the book of Wisdom among the Canonical books, he would not have retracted that which he had alleged out of that book. And in the book of the care which must be had of the dead, chap. 15. he alledgeth Ecclesiasticus, which saith that Samuel prophesied after his death: then he addeth This book is contradicted out of the Canon of the Hebrews, because it is not found in it. He saith not that the Hebrews contradict it, but that others contradict it by the Canon of the Hebrews, showing that Christians contradict it, because they adhere to the Canon of the Hebrews.

Wherefore in the fore-alleged place against Gaudentius, after he hath said that the book of the Maccabees is none of those to which the Lord bears testimony, he addeth, that yet it is not unprofitably received, so that it be read soberly; which is a commendation bordering upon blame, to say that the book is not altogether unprofitable, and that one hath need to read it soberly, that is, that one must not adhere too much unto it.

So much is sufficient to show that when Austin in the second book of the Christian doctrine put Judith, Wisdom, and the Maccabees among the Canonical books, he meant those Canonical books which he saith to be of small authority. Observe also that Austin writ the books of Christian doctrine being yet young, and newly received to the Episcopal Office; as one may see by his books of Retractations, where he makes a review of his books according to the order of the time in which he writ them. In the second book of his Retractations, chap. 4. he hath put his books of Christian doctrine. But in chap. 43. he speaks of his books of the City of God as made a long time after. There he puts clearly Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus out of the number of Canonical books, correcting what he had said in the second book of the Christian doctrine. In the same fourth chapter of the second book of his Retractations, he retracteth himself for attributing the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus unto Solomon, having since that time got better information.

I find a place of Austin in the thirty sixth chapter of the eighteenth book of the City of God, of which it is hard to judge. For in the same place he saith that the books of Maccabees are neither holy nor Canonical Scriptures, and yet he saith that the Church holds them for Canonical. The supputation of these times (saith he) is not found in the holy Scriptures which they call Canonical, among which the Maccabees are not. There can be nothing more express. But the following words contradict it; which not the Jews but the Church hold for Canonical, a sentence which hath always been unto me suspected of falsification.

We must not dissemble that the Gallican Churches disliked that Austin should use in his writings testimonies of books not Canonical, as Hilary Bishop of Arles testifieth in his Epistle to Austin. When all is said, of what weight is Austin authority against the consent of so many Fathers more ancient then he, whom we have produced before? and against the authority of the Church of the Old Testament? and against the word of God? and against himself, seeing that he contradicts himself as I have shown by many proofs?

It remains now to speak of the Canon of the third Council of Carthage, which is the twenty fourth Canon in the Code of the African Church. About that Canon there is a dissent between the Greek and the Latin Copies. For in the Latin the books of the Maccabees are put among the Canonical books, but in the Greek they are omitted, and put out of the roll of the Canonical. Whereupon M. du Perron goeth about to prove that the Latin copies are to be preferred before the Greek, calling in contempt the Code of the African Church a Rapsody, because it is gathered out of the Canons of several Councils of Africa. I could demonstrate by a multitude of proofs, that hardly shall one find a book in the whole world more swarming with falsifications and corruptions then the Latin Tomes of Councils; the first especially, where that Canon is found. Besides that M. du Perron overthrows with his own hand all that he alledgeth for the Latin Copies, acknowledging that there are vices in the Latin, which he imputeth to the Copists or transscribers, preferring the Greek Copies before the Latin, as for certain Epistles (of which we shall speak in the right place) because he holds the Greek Copies of those Epistles to be more favorable to him. But that dispute is useless, since we have those two things granted, the one that the contrariety of the Copies makes this Canon doubtful; The other, that though we would receive that Canon such as it is found in the Latin Copies, yet the authority of a Council of Carthage held within the fifth age is not sufficient to overthrow a Council of Laodicea more ancient by two hundred years, and approved by the Universal Councils, or to outweigh the general consent of so many Fathers both Greek and Latin, which we have produced; Much less to be opposed to the word of God, and to make fables to become true histories.

CHAP. 68. Of the Canon of the holy Scriptures defined by Pope Innocent the I. And of the Decretal Epistle of that Innocent to Exuperius.

THE Roman Church is like a sick body laboring with complicated Symptoms, whereof one cannot be eased without irritating another. In the first Tome of the Councils there is a Decretal Epistle attributed to Innocent the I. directed to Exuperius Bishop of Tolosa, in which that Pope makes a list or enumeration of the Canonical books, conformable unto that which is established by the Council of Trent. Our Adversaries producing that Epistle in this Cause, see not what a blow they give to the authority of the Bishop of Rome; for thereby it appeareth that the Greek and Oriental Church was not subject unto the Roman, since that Church had another sense then the Roman. If such was the belief of the Roman Church, how comes it to pass that the Council of Laodicea, Origen, Melito, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyrillus of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Epiphanius, and generally all the Greek Fathers, have held those books for Apocrypha, which the Roman Church held for Canonical? Why did even the Occidental Church differ from the Sea of Rome in that important point; which we have shown by testimonies, of Ruffinus, Hilarius, Philastrius and the Gallican Churches? Or if the belief of the Bishops of Rome that went before, that Innocent was conformable unto that of Innocent, how cometh it to pass that Jerome who was Secretary to Damasus a Roman Bishop, and out-lived that Innocent, was so bold as to depart from his Masters opinion? Could that man, so eminent in learning, be ignorant of the belief of the Roman Church? Here is more. For Gregory the first Bishop of Rome who writ well nigh two hundred years after that Innocent, is of contrary opinion, and holds that the Maccabees are not Canonical. And Pope Gelasius holds Susanna for Apocrypha. These Gentlemen by producing that Epistle of Innocent, show that the decisions of the Bishops of Rome were in those days of very small account among strangers, and that those that belonged to the Popes family, and his very successors, did little regard them.

But to come to that Epistle, who so shall but look upon it near hand, will acknowledge that it is an absurd and ridiculous piece, which abuseth Scripture with a profane licentiousness. It is that Decretal which proveth that married persons must not be admitted to Ecclesiastical charges, because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy: and because the Apostle said, To the clean all things are clean, but to the defiled and the unbelievers nothing is clean. As though marriage were a pollution and infidelity. Also because the same Apostle said, They that are in the flesh, cannot please God. Now you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. As if the Apostle by them that are in the flesh meant married persons, and by them that are in the Spirit, the unmarried. Are these Apostolical Oracles? Nay, is it not a manifest impiety and profanation of the Word of God?

In the same Epistle it is said that the Law of God prohibiteth the admitting of married persons into Ecclesiastical honors; Of which nevertheless the word of God speaks not, neither is there one word of that to be found in the whole Scripture. Wherefore also Bellarmine, after Thomas, acknowledgeth that the Celibate of Clerks is but of human right.

The same Epistle saith that of all antiquity, and from the beginning, Priests were commanded to abide in the Temple during the year of their service (supposing that there was no women in the houses of the Temple) and that the Priests were forbidden to come near their wives all the year of their ministering. For (saith the Author of the Decretal) those ought not to be admitted to the sacrifices that use a carnal conjunction with their wives; because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy. How many untruths and ignorances in few words? It is false that the Priests did serve by years. For as for the High Priest there was never a year but he did officiate in his Priesthood. But under him he had four and twenty courses or divisions of chief Priests that served by turns, each one a fortnight every year. It is a great error to think that each of these chief Priests was three and twenty years without officiating. It is false also that those courses or divisions of Priests serving by turn were so from the beginning, as that Decretal saith. David instituted that order about four hundred and fifty years after the first institution of the legal Priesthood, as it may be seen, 1 Chron. 24. It is false also that the Priest was separated from his wife during the time of his ministration, and that there was no woman dwelling in the Temple. We have an example of the contrary, 2 Kings 11. where it is said that Jehosheba daughter to King Joram kept Joash hid for the space of six years, with his Nurse in the Temple in the bedchamber. And of Anna, Luke saith in the first chapter, that she departed not from the Temple. 1 Sam. 2. the Priests sons of Eli lay with the women that assembled at the door of the Tabernacle. And the High Priest and his children having their ordinary dwelling in the lodgdings of the Court, which made part of the Temple, we must not doubt but that their wives dwelt in the same house.

By all these it appeareth what authority that Decretal can have which is attributed unto Innocent. For I can hardly believe that it is his, both because of the absurdity of the Epistle, and because the first Tome of the Councils is full of false Epistles of Popes, as it is acknowledged by the most learned of our Adversaries, of which we shall hereafter give evident proofs.

Yet if it be of Innocent, we are no more obliged to believe him then Jerome, and Ruffinus, and Gregory the first, successor to that Innocent, or then the Churches both Oriental and Occidental of Innocents time, who held Judith, Wisdom, Maccabees, &c. for Apocrypha, as we have proved.

It is no wonder if that Innocent was a man of little learning, for the Roman Sea was always barren in learned men. In the three first ages that Sea had good Bishops and faithful Martyrs, whose power did not reach much beyond the walls of Rome. Since that time, some ages past in which we find in that Sea prudent Bishops, industrious in their temporal businesses, laboring to raise their authority which was but small. But we find not one among them of exquisite learning. And always that Sea was inferior in that point to the Churches of Greece, Asia and Africa, which have had Bishops of far higher learning.

CHAP. 69. That the Popes have put their Canons and Decrees not only in the same rank as Canonical Scriptures, but above.

BEcause nothing hinders so much the progress of the Kingdom of Satan as the word of God contained in the holy Scriptures, the enemy of our salvation hath bent all his strength to put it out, and used all his craft to corrupt it, and bring down its authority. He made use sometimes of the impiety of the Kings of Judah, and of the profane negligence of the High Priests to abolish the books of the Law; so that in the beginning of the reign of Josiah it was an unknown book, which would have been lost, had not the High Priest, looking not for it, found a copy of it hid in a corner of the Temple. Since that time he raised Antiochus Epiphanes, who spared no endeavors to abolish all the copies of the same. We read in a hundred places of Austin, that before Constantine's time the persecutors constrained the Christians to deliver to them the holy Scriptures to suppress them. Whence arose the schism of the Donatists, who denied that Cecilian was the lawful Bishop of Carthage, because he had been ordained (as they say) by Bishops that had delivered the sacred books to the Persecutors.

If the Popes had undertaken to abolish the holy Scriptures, they could never have compassed it, because the Jews have carefully kept for us the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the Greek Churches have faithfully preserved the New Testament in Greek: And over them the Pope hath no power.

All that the Popes could do, was to forbid the reading of them unto the Nations subject unto them, and to hinder the translation of that holy book into the vulgar tongues. In Italy and Spain and all the Countries where the Inquisition reigneth, it is a crime punishable with the fire, to have an Italian or a Spanish Bible. To which the Popes and his instruments have added all the possible means and arts to weaken the authority of the holy Scripture, teaching that it contains not all things necessary to salvation; that it is obscure, and that the reading of it is dangerous: Also that there is another word not written; and that the tradition of the Roman Church is more ancient, more perfect, and of greater authority then the holy Scripture; And that the Church is not subject to Scripture, but Scripture to the Church, that is, to the Pope. That Scripture is not the Sovereign Judge of the points of faith, but that unto the Roman Catholic Church that judgment belongs. That from the authority of that Church the authority of Scripture depends, which is a dumb rule, and to be received only because the Church commands it.

But one of the subtilest wiles of Satan to weaken the authority of Holy Scripture, was to foist into Scripture fabulous and erroneous books, that the evident untruth and absurdity of those books might bring in question the truth of the other books divinely inspired, and that by mingling of false coin the good gold might be suspected, and the whole Scripture lose credence in men's minds.

The malice and rash profaneness of those whom Satan hath employed in that work, is come so far as to go about to put the Decretal Epistles of the Popes among the Canonical books, which if they could have compassed, we should have the Scriptures increased by one half and above, and the sacred books indicted by the Spirit of God, should have been matched with ridiculous pieces, which many times want common sense.

In the Roman Decree in the nineteenth Distinction, the Canon In Canonicis, beareth this inscription, Inter Canonicas Scripturas Decretales Epistolae connumerantur, that is, The Decretal Epistles of the Popes are reckoned among the Canonical Scriptures. And that proved by a testimony of Austin wickedly falsified.

About the year of our Lord 865. Hinckmarus Archbishop of Reims made difficulty to obey Pope Nicolas the I. and spake of the Decretals of the Popes with contempt, saying that they are not inserted in the Code of the Canons of the Church, as not being of the like authority. Against that Hinckmarus, Pope Nicolas in the time of King Charles the Bald disputes with a proud language, in an Epistle to the Bishops of the Gallican Church; where he saith that there is a Chapter of Pope Innocent, by whose authority it is taught that the Old and the New Testament ought to be received, although they be not inserted within the Canons of the Fathers. Whence he inferreth, that if the Old and the New Testament must be received, not because they are annexed to the Code of the Canons, but because the holy Pope Innocent hath pronounced his sentence that they must be received, by the same reason the Popes Decretals ought to be received, though they be not inserted in the Code of the Canons, because among them there is a Chapter of the holy Pope Leon, who commands us so to keep in force the Decretals of the Apostolical Sea, that if any sin against them, he may know that he shall not be pardoned. What is all that but a company of blasphemies heaped up with a bestial stupidity, and destitute of common sense? For what can be more absurd then that Decree of Innocent, which commands that the Old and the New Testament be received, as if it had been a doubtful thing whether they must be received, unless he had pronounced his sentence in their favor? Or can there be a greater impiety, then to conclude that the Old and the New Testament must be received, because such is the Popes sentence? And that must be, although the books of the Old and the New Testament be not annexed unto the Canons of these Roman Church, which presupposeth that the conjunction of Scripture with those Canons was able to add unto Scripture some authority. A thing so far from truth, that rather, if anything could take authority from Scripture, it should be that association of the Canons of the Roman Church with the sacred books. Was there no stronger reason then the Popes authority to oblige us to receive Scripture? But what, They could speak no better for their end, which is to equal the Popes Decretals unto the word of God: for so they ground both upon the same authority. Finally, to fill up the measure of impiety, that Pope saith that if any disobey the Popes Canons, it shall not be forgiven him. For the offenses against God Laws are pardoned, but the offenses against the Popes Laws are not pardoned, as being far more grievous sins, and committed against a greater Master; the reason whereof is given by Pope Damasus, Causa 15. Qu. 1. Can. Violatores: The inscription of that Canon is, In Spiritum Sanctum blasphemant qui sacros Canones violant. They that transgress the holy Canons, blaspheme against the Holy Ghost. Wherefore that sin is unpardonable.

To this language is conformable that of Gregory the first in his Epistle to Antoninus Subdeacon, wherein he complains of a certain Honoratus, who (saith he) not only hath neglected God's commandments, but hath despised our writings. Here is the language of the servant of servants. Here is the Apostolical humility.

Bellarmine in the second book of the Councils, chap. 12. maintains that the Popes Canons are Canonical Scriptures. The Popes Canons (saith he) in their way, are and may be called holy and Canonical Scriptures. And truly if it be so that the Decrees of Popes give authority to Scripture, and that the Pope is Judge of Controversies, not the Scripture; we must grant that the Popes decrees have more authority then the Canonical Scriptures, and must be inserted in the Bible rather then the Epistles of the Apostle St. Paul. For (if these men must be believed) the Pope is the only head of the Universal Church, which St. Paul was not.

Hinckmarus Archbishop of Reims in his book of fifty five chapters, alledgeth very often this sentence of Pope Hilary, who saith, that the sin committed against the Ordinances of the holy Traditions, is not a lesser sin then rashly presuming to outrage the Lord himself. Again, It is not lawful to any to violate the divine constitutions, and the Decrees of the Apostolic Sea.

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

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

CHAP. 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 Let Paul go before me, and show 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 honor, 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 honorable above all others, and was not inferior in dignity to any. And the same Clement in the seventh of the Hypotyposes, alleged 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 equal in power and authority: Having begun by one, to show 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 show the unity, he hath established a chair, and hath disposed by his authority the origin 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 honor and power. But that place shall be examined hereafter.

We have alleged before a notable expression of the Council of Alexandria, that Peter and John are of equal authority one towards another.

Chrysostom 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, Paul saith, I am not worthy to be called an Apostle; Therefore was he made the first of all. And Hom. 66. It is manifest to all, that none shall be set before Paul. And upon Gal. 1.18. Paul after such great and good actions, having no need of Peter, nor of his word, but equal in honor to him (for I will say nothing more) yet goeth up to him, as to a greater and elder. And upon Gal. 1. Paul showeth that for the rest he was equal unto them, and compareth himself not to the others, but to the first of the Apostles, showing 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 Heresy of the Nazarites, which is the twenty ninth, asketh how the Prophecy was fulfilled, which foretelleth that the Christ shall sit forever 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 heresy against the Antidicomarianites which is the fifty eighth, he saith that James was the first that received the Episcopal chair; and that to him first Christ did commit the throne which he had on earth. Indeed to say that James was the sole successor of Christ's throne over the Church, is acknowledging him the first and the chief of the Apostles.

The same in the heresy of the Marcosians, which is the 34. puts Paul before Peter. No man (saith he) can be equalled unto them in greatness of knowledge 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, 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 equal in merit, since they are equal 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 keys of the kingdom of heaven.

The same in the book of the incarnation, chap. 4. Peter not forgetful of his place, made use of his primacy; I mean of his primacy in confession, not in honor; 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 suppressed.

The same Ambrose upon Gal. 2. 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 Which of them durst resist Peter the first Apostle, to whom the Lord hath given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, unless it was some other like him, who grounding himself upon his election, and knowing that he was not inferior unto him, constantly reproved that which he had done without counsel?

The same in the second book of the Holy Ghost, chap. 12. Paul was not inferior to Peter. And a little after Paul was not unworthy of the College of the Apostles, and may be compared with the first whosoever he be, and must not be put in the second rank after any.

Jerome upon the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians personateth Paul speaking thus : I am in nothing inferior to Peter, for we have been established in the Ministry 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 virtues and merits (saith he) we must have no diverse or separate conceit; for the choice hath made them even, and the labor alike, and the end equals.

Victor of Carthage The most blessed Apostles, endowed with the like honor 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 Bellarmine and Du Perron acknowledge that all the Apostles were heads of the Universal Church. Bellarmine makes them equals. The Sovereign 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 preachers and founders of Churches a sovereign power and liberty should be granted. And in another place 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 sovereign 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 successor. 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 Sovereign 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 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 Bellarmine ) 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. A text which the Cardinal hath falsified to break the strength of it, alleging it thus, They that seem to be some what have taught me nothing. 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 origin 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.

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

TO persuade 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 signify 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 Jonah, 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 Savior 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, which 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 keys, 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 myself, I will build my Church, and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

But the coherence is very good, taking thus the words of our Savior, 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 expressed.

I answer that the text of Matthew showeth 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Tu es Petrus, and then in the feminine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 super hanc petram.

Finally, he saith that our Savior would make such an allusion to the name of Peter, as would seem to confirm and approve the imposed surname. 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. He alledgeth that to him it was said, I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. By the keys 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 keys of the Kingdom of heaven for all, as Austin saith in the fiftieth and one hundred and eighteenth Treatise upon St. John, and Jerome in the first book against Jovinian. They all receive the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and upon them the stedfastness of the Church is equally founded. Thus Gregory Nazianzen in the Oration upon Basil saith, that the keys of heaven have been committed to Basil. And in the Council of Paris under the Emperors Lewis and Lothary, all the French Bishops say themselves to be porters, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven are given. Ambrose 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 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 keys, 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 keys 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 near.

The Cardinal useth also these words thrice repeated of our Savior to Peter, Feed my sheep. But Christ said not to him, Feed alone my sheep, and with sovereign 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 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; 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 . 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 Jerome saith in the Epitaph to Fabiola, Petrus trinam negationem trina confession delevit, Peter blotted away his triple denial 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 denials. Ambrose saith the same in the Apology of Daniel, chap. 6. And Epiphanius in the heresy 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 employed to establish a Monarchy.

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

CAHP. 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 show the unity of the Church, and that all Bishops, though in several Countries, make but one chair, and one succession. His words are these, 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 show the unity, he hath established one chair, and hath by his authority disposed the origin of the unity, beginning by one. The other Apostles indeed were the same thing as Peter was, endowed with the like honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, to show that the Church is one.

The Cardinal is not far from that opinion. 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 privilege 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 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 origin 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 honor 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 smoke 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 honor: Now the chief honor which our Adversaries attribute unto Peter, is the honor 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 made 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 honor and power. How equal in power, if Peter had power over them? And how equal in honor, 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. surnamed 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, 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 myself; 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 . We are tied 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 mere authority, and brings no other authority for it.

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

WHether St. Peter hath been at Rome or not, and whether he suffered Martyrdom 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 preeminences 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 honor, to have murdered such an excellent Apostle. Thus our Savior marketh Jerusalem with a note of infamy for killing the Prophets. Or if the abode and martyrdom 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 controversy, that this opinion hath been received among the Fathers, that St. Peter was at Rome and there died; yet the most ancient of them that speak of it are Irenaeus and 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 Ancients, 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 easy to show 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 Christ's birth; an Author notoriously fabulous, whom 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 public 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 Constantine's 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 Gospel? 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 Cynic who lived then at Rome, and of Florus a begging Philosopher, have been recorded.

It is true that some Ancients 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 public and wonderful accident had not been forgotten by the Pagan Authors of that age, as Suetonius, Tacitus, Seneca, Pliny and others. Augustine 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 likelihood 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 Justin Martyr in his second Apology, and Tertullian in the Apologetic, say that the Romans had honored 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 ancient Romans called Sanctas & Diespiter, which Varro mentions in his fourth book of the Latin tongue. And Ovid. Fastor. 4.

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 calls his helpers in Christ, and his work-fellows; but he makes no mention of Peter, 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 banished out of Rome by the Emperor 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 banished 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 Country-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 Country. A Jew cannot be banished 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 lieth 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 alleged 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 Governor 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 Paul's coming to Rome at that time shows 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 come 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. In the Epistle to the Galatians he defends the honor of his Apostleship, against those that would abase it, making him much inferior 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 expressly, 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 Egypt, 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: They sold matches beyond the Tiber, 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 custom was not to build upon another man's 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 Ancients about that matter.

Eusebius in his Chronicle, according to Jerome's 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, showeth that he was subject to the college 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 Emperor. By which reckoning Linus was eleven years Bishop of 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, Jerome 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 punished. Also that he was buried in the Vatican near 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 honorable place, where none was buried before. Eusebius in the last chapter but one of the second book of his history, saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 died before James. Now James died 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 Jerome 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 allege it. And the Jesuit Turrianus made a book purposely for the defense 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 in the Temple of Apollo, in the golden Mount, in the Vatican of the Palace of Nero, where also he saith that the bodies of many Bishops lie; 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 Palace 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 . Peter who hid himself for fear of the Jews, and Paul who was let down in a basket and fled, having heard this voice, You must suffer Martyrdom at Rome, did not shrink back from that journey, but rather went rejoicing. And Peter rejoiced 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 Martyrdom. (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 Paul's 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 Jerome 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. Jerome in the first book of Ecclesiastical 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. for which Epiphanius in the twenty seventh heresy 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 doubtful, and if the Authors vary upon the names of the successors. 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 successor 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 show 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 Christ's 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 Emperor 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 lawful for them to go out of the Town to visit the neighbouring Churches, 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 Christ's 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 joined 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 pinched 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 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 Christ's 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 Christ's death, and Peter is not yet Bishop of Antioch.

Let 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 days. The same Apostle saith in the following chapter, that fourteen years after he went up again to Jerusalem, where 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 Christ's 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 Savior's 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 Jerome's testimony in his Catalogue.

By that calculation some twelve years should remain for Peter to reside in Rome. But if Paul's conversion did not happen but seven or eight years after our Savior's 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 Lord's death. A thing very unlikely. For the persecution and the martyrdom of Steven preceded the conversion of Paul, there being an interval between, in which Paul did persecute many. Now that persecution about Steven happened many years after Christ's death. In the end of the Greek Chronicle of Eusebius, set out by Josephus Scaliger, there is a little book entitled the Epitome of times, which saith that the martyrdom of Steven happen seven years after Christ's Passion. Nicephorus in the second book, chap. 3. alledgeth Enodius the next successor to Peter in the Bishopric of Antioch, who saith that Steven died seven years after our Savior's death, and that Paul was converted six months after. To which Euodius, as more ancient, 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 Lord's death, because Tiberius was then living, who would not have permitted that persecution. For Tertullian in the first chapter of the Apologetic, and Eusebius in his Chronicle, testify that Tiberius favored 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 Lord's death.

Moreover, if St. Paul was converted the first year after the Lord's 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 Christ's death.

Such are our reasons, not those which M. du Perron frameth for us, to the number 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 show 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 doubtful 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 judgment was short, when he reproved Erasmus for saying that the Babylon which St. Peter speaks of, is the Babylon of 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 Logic. 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 alleging 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, 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 Paul's 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 revelation. I went up, saith he, by revelation. The first journey was to get the advice of the Apostles about a controversy 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-alleged Pontifical of Damasus makes it plain, and discovereth the truth, so that he points to us the spring and the origin of the error, and of the contradictions upon that subject. He saith that Linus was Bishop of Rome under the Emperor 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 Emperor. 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 months of imprisonment he was put to death, the last year of the Empire of Nero. But Eusebius hath mistaken one Emperor for another, putting the date of Peters coming to Rome on the second year of Claudius, instead of the second year of Nero. An easy mistake, since those two Emperors 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 Christ's 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 had his throat cut, or was strangled. His burial was no doubt, as of other executed persons, not in an honorable place. But long after his death, the Christians might have transported his bones, and buried them with honor.

In our days, an imaginary sepulcher, and supposititious relics 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 virtue which Peter had to make that answer. There is in the Creek of Cyrillus 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 Arians. 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 human manner. He alledgeth that text, to persuade 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 it. His words are 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 human 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 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. Peter not forgetful of his place, made the primacy; clipping the following words, the primacy indeed in the confession, not in honor; the primacy in the faith, not in order.

In pag. 531. & 532. he turneth the words of Chrysostom 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 infer, 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 Chrysostom 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . James, Cephas and John. In the very same manner the Cardinal falsifieth Jerome in the following lines.

This is no better. In the same fifty sixth chapter in page 533. he brings Austin alleging 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, 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 anything to himself insolently, nor assumed anything 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 equal 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 shameful falsification; thus alleging 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 by new men and posterior 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 relish of the Latin tongue, knoweth that posteri signifieth not men posterior in order or dignity, but the posterity, and such as are posterior 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, 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 honor 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 honor, that the Reader may think that Cyprian speaks of the inward authority of the Apostleship (as the Cardinal speaks) not of the honor due to the primacy.

A few lines before he doth fraudulently allege Chrysostom 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 persuade that Chrysostom 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 allege 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 allege 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 alleged 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 God's 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 punished Ananias and Sapphira with death (which are ingenuous and recreative proofs) he declareth that he will examine a text of Scripture alleged 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 itself. 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 falsify 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 by 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 show more of that kind, in the Cardinals work.

CHAP. I. That in the first Age the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged Head of the Universal Church.

ALthough the Word of God decide this question sufficiently by not assigning unto St. Peter any successor in the Apostleship, or in the primacy over the Universal Church, and speak neither far nor near of a Hierarchical Sovereign, or of the Bishop of Rome: Yet because Cardinal du Perron being destitute of the word of God, casts himself altogether upon the Fathers, and grounds himself upon human testimonies; it will be expedient to search the first and the purest antiquity of the Church, and to show how much he is mistaken, and that in vain he heaps up testimonies to no purpose; taking the preeminence which the Bishop of Rome pretended in the time of the first four Councils, over the Bishops of the Roman Empire, for a primacy and sovereign power over the Church of all the world, the precedence for a power of jurisdiction, and the prerogatives founded upon the dignity of the City, or upon the Ecclesiastical Canons, for divine rules: Limiting himself purposely to the time of the first four Councils, the first whereof was held in the year of Christ three hundred twenty five, because the three precedent ages are contrary to him. Wherefore the three parts of four of the testimonies which he alledgeth, are from the history of about fourscore, or a hundred years.

Because in points of history and antiquity it is necessary to begin by the things that are most ancient, I am forced rather to follow the order of the times then that of the Cardinals Chapters, which overthrow the order of times, and have neither order nor coherence, and the most part whereof dispute about things of no use.

To begin then at the first Age: Among the Fathers of the first Age, I put in the first rank the Apostles and the Evangelists. In whose writings there is no trace of that imaginary Monarchy, and not one action of Peter that hath any relish of primacy or Sovereign power in the Church; Not one word of that holy Apostle, where he speaks like a Monarch, although we have the history of his life, and two long Epistles which he hath written to the Christian Church.

To that Apostle, Linus a disciple of St. Paul hath succeeded, according to the relation of many Ancients; And he succeeded him, not in the Apostleship, but in the conduct of the Church of the City of Rome: For of him we have no action recorded that extends beyond the limits of his particular Church. Had Peter needed a successor in the primacy over the Universal Church, there were some Apostles that out-lived Peter; among others that excellent Apostle St. John, to whom that dignity rather belonged then to a Disciple of Paul. At least the Apostles that out-lived Peter should have been called and asked their advice. A Head could not be given to the Universal Church without their consent.

After Linus, they put Clement, of whom divers Epistles are extant in the Tomes of the Councils. Whether they be true or false, it matters not for our present purpose, since our Adversaries give them to us as true. Among them there are two written to S. James Bishop of Jerusalem, to whom he gives these qualities; Clement to James brother of the Lord, Bishop of Bishops, governing the holy Church of the Hebrews which is at Jerusalem, as also all the Churches that are founded everywhere by the providence of God. Thereby he acknoledgeth St. James his superior, governing the Roman Church as well as the other Churches.

In the same Age lived Dionysius, the Areopagite converted by St. Paul. Which Dionysius, our Adversaries make the Author of the books of celestial Hierarchy, and of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. In that book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which he frames at the imitation of the celestial (where one sovereign Monarch, which is God, hath under him divers Angelical orders) this Author describes the Ecclesiastical charges and degrees: And from the least mounting to the greatest, he riseth no higher then to the charge of Bishop of each particular Church, and makes Episcopacy the highest degree. It would have been very convenient to his end, to have spoken of the charge of Sovereign Pastor, head of the universal Church, so to make the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy conformable unto the celestial. But of such a Head he speaks not, because he knew none such.

In the same Age the custom began to create the Bishop of Rome by the suffrages of the people and the Clergy: Which was also the custom of other Churches. A certain proof that the Bishop of Rome was not the Head of the Universal Church. For was it reasonable or likely that the people of the City of Rome should have the power to give a Head to the Churches of Bersia or East-Indies? Who knows not that in elective Kingdoms, the King is elected by the States, and general Assemblies, to which Deputies are sent from all parts of the Kingdom, because all parts are alike interested in that election.

In all that Age no trace is to be seen of the power of the Bishop of Rome without the limits of his particular Church. No Law given by him to the Universal Church. No appeal from any Church, not so much as from the next Churches, much less from the remote. All the Churches that were founded immediately from the Apostles, as that of Jerusalem, of Rome, of Thessalonica, of Antioch, were honored above all others, and were called the first and Apostolical. And those that were propagated and planted by those, first took the same title, and were likewise much honored. Of them Tertullian speaks thus; They are all first and Apostolical, while the communion of peace, and the name of brethren, and the common earnests of hospitality show the union that is among them all.

This Age brought forth many heresies, the Simonians, the Cerinthians, the Ebionites, the Nicolaites, &c. If the Bishop of Rome had been Head of the Universal Church, it was his part to cite those heretics, and make them appear before him, and to take cognizance of their crimes and errors. But of that no trace is found. Neither do we see in Irenaeus, or Epiphanius, or Austin, or Theodoret, or Philastrius who have by express Treatises described and represented the heresies of the Antient, that any of those Heretics be condemned for disobeying the Pope, and not yielding to his Judgment.

There is a book of the same age called the Canons of the Apostles, which doubtless are very ancient, although there be but small likely-hood that they were made by the Apostles. There some Canons are found much contrary to that which is practiced in our days by the Popes, and by the Roman Church.

The eighty fourth Canon is such, Let the Bishop, the Priest, or the Deacon that will meddle with war, or will have these two things, the Roman Empire, and the Sacerdotal government, be deposed. For the things of Caesar must be given unto Caesar, and the things of God unto God. And in the sixth Canon the Bishop is forbidden to meddle with civil affairs.

The fifth Canon is this, Let not the Bishop, or the Priest, or the Deacon reject his own wife upon pretence of piety. If he put her away, let him be deprived from the Communion. If he continue, let him be deposed.

The sixty fourth Canon is this, If any Clark be found fasting upon the Lord's day, or on the Sabbath day, excepting one only, let him be deposed; if he be a Lay-man, let him be excommunicated.

Towards the end of this Age lived Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, who in the Epistle to the Philippians saith, that whoso fasteth upon the Lord's day or Saturday, is a murderer of Christ.

From those rules the Roman Church hath dispensed herself; Especially from the eighty fourth Canon. For many Popes have led Armies, and given battles. And the Pope hath drawn to himself the rights and the power of the Roman Emperor.

CHAP. II. That the Bishop of Rome in the second Age was not acknowledged Head of the Universal Church. Vindication of Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea against the false accusations of Cardinal du Perron.

IN the year of the Lord 103. according to the computation of Baronius, Anacletus was made Bishop of Rome, and held the Bishopric nine years and three months. That his charge was small, and the limits of his Bishopric but short, it appeareth by that the Pontifical of Damasus saith of him, that in those nine years he created five Priests, three Deacons, and six Bishops. If he had governed, I say not the Universal Church, but only a Diocese of ten leagues about Rome, he had created many more.

In the beginning of the same age Ignatius was Bishhp of Antioch, who passing through Smyrna writ a letter to the Romans, where he makes no mention of the Bishop of Rome, nor of the primacy of the Roman Church.

In the year of Christ 142. Telesphorus was made Bishop of Rome, who, as Damasus relateth, made an order that there should be a fast of seven weeks before Easter. But he saith that this order was only for the Roman Church; and that the other Churches held not themselves subject unto it, it appeareth in that many other Churches followed another order. Irenaeus shows it in the Epistle which he writ to Victor Bishop of Rome, which Epistle is related by Eusebius in the fifth book of his history, chap. 23. Some (saith he) think that they must fast but one day, some two, some more. Some limit their day [of fast] to forty hours both of day and night. And that diversity of observations hath not begun in our age, but hath been long before our Ancestors. And yet they have kept peace among themselves. He speaks of the Fasts before Easter.

In the year of the Lord 159. according to the relation of Baronius, Pius Bishop of Rome made a Law that Easter should be celebrated upon the Lord's day; and Baronius saith that this Law had been revealed unto him by Angels. So they said to show that this Law was given by Pius as necessary and come from God. And yet the Churches of Asia did not practice it, because they held not themselves subject unto the Bishop of Rome, who also made that Law, not for the Universal Church, but only for the Church of the City of Rome. This will clearly appear out of that which happened since. For about the year 167. Anicetus being Bishop of Rome, Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna came to Rome to confer with him: And this was their communication according to the testimony of Irenaeus, related by Eusebius. Polycarpus and Anicetus having conferred a little about certain things wherein they differed in opinion, made their peace presently; and for the observation of that Feast, they brake not the band of charity, &c. Yet Anicetus could not persuade Polycarpus to leave his custom. Neither could Polycarpus persuade Anicetus that he should practice the custom of Asia. Here two things are to be observed. 1. That Polycarpus thought not himself bound to follow the opinion of Anicetus the Roman Bishop. 2. That notwithstanding the diversity of opinions, they lived in peace, Anicetus being not offended that the brethren of Asia would not hearken to him.

That controversy about Easter grew hot afterwards: for the Church of the West, and part of that of the East did celebrate the Feast of Easter upon the Lord's day. But part of the Church of the East did celebrate it upon the fourteenth day of the Moon of March, not looking for the Lord's day, grounding themselves upon St. Johns authority, and that of his Disciples, Ignatius and Polycarpus, and of Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, then living, a person of great authority. Towards the end of that age,