Of the Church fiue bookes. By Richard Field Doctor of Diuinity and sometimes Deane of Glocester.

THE FIFT BOOKE, OF THE DIVERSE DEGREES, ORDERS AND CALLINGS OF THOSE men to vvhom the gouernement of the Church is committed. (Book 5)

CHAP. 1.

Of the Primitiue and first Church of God in the house of Adam the Father of all the li∣uing, and the gouernement of the same.

ALMIGHTIE GOD, the fountaine of all be∣ing, who to manifest the glory of his power, and the riches of his goodnesse made all things of no∣thing, disposed and sorted the things hee made in∣to three seuerall rankes. For to some hee gaue being without any apprehension or discerning of it. Others hee made to feele, and sensibly discerne that particu∣lar good hee was pleased to doe vnto them: And to a third sort of a more eminent degree and qualitie, made after his owne image, hee gaue generality of knowledge of all things, and extent of desire answe∣rable thereunto; causing them without all restraint or limitation, to take view of all the variety of things that are in the world, and neuer to rest satisfied till they come to see, inioy, and possesse him that made them all.

These hee seperated from the rest of his creatures, causing them to approach and drawe neere vnto himselfe; and to compasse about his sacred throne, and called them forth to be a joyfull company of blessed ones, praising and worshiping him in the glo∣rious Temple of the world; & to bee vnto him an holy Church, in the midst whereof his greatnesse should be knowne, and his name called vpon. These are of twoe sorts: Angells, dwelling in heauenly palaces: and Men, made out of the earth, dwelling in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust. The Angels are immortall, im∣materiall, and spirituall substances, made all at once: and immediately after their creation, soe many as turned not from God their Creator, corfirmed in grace, and perfectly established in the full possession of their vttermest good, soe that they neede noe guide to leade them to the attaining of the same: howsoeuer in the degrees of their naturall or supernaturall perfections, and in the actions of their ministery wherein GOD employeth them, they are more great and excellent one then ano∣ther, and are not without their order and gouernement. But concerning men made out of the earth, and compounded of body and spirit, it is farre otherwise: For God

did not create them all at one time, but made onely one man, and one woman immedi∣atly with his owne hands; appointing that the rest should descend and come of them by naturall generation. Whereupon wee shall finde, that as in the Creation the tree was first, and then the seede, but in the naturall propagation of things the seed is first, and then the tree. So the first man whom God made out of the earth, and the first woman whom he made of man, were perfect at the first, as well in stature of body, as in qualities of the minde, (both because whatsoeuer is immediatly from God is per∣fect, as also for that the a 1.1 first things whence all other haue their being, must be per∣fect) but afterwards the beginnings of all the sonnes of men are weake, and they grow by degrees to perfection of body and minde, hauing need to receiue nourishment, sup∣port, guidance, and direction from them, from whom they receiue their being. So that nothing is more naturall then for children to expect these things from their pa∣rents, nor for parents then to nourish, guide, and direct their children. This care pertaineth as well to the mother that bare them, & in whose wombe they were con∣ceiued; as to the father that begate them, and out of whose loynes they came. Yet be∣cause the man was not of the woman, but the woman of the man: the man was not cre∣ated for the woman, but the woman for the man: the originall disposition and sove∣raigne direction of all doth naturally rest in the man, who is the glory of God, the wo∣mans head, and euery way fittest to be chiefe commaunder in the whole Family and houshold. Heereupon Adam the father of all the liuing, was appointed by that God that made him, to instruct, guide, and direct those that should come of him, euen in the state of natures integritie, though without any forcing with terrours, or recal∣ling with punishments while there was yet no pronenesse to euill, nor difficultie to doe good. And when he had broken the Law of his Creator, was called to an account, made know his sinne, and recomforted with the promise, that the seede of the woman should breake the Serpents head: he was to teach his children the same things, & san∣ctified to be both a King to rule in the litle World of his owne Family: and a Priest, as well to manifest the will of God to them of the same, as to present their desires, vowes, and sacrifices vnto him: then which course, what could be devised more fit∣ting? For when there were no more in the World but the first man whom GOD made out of the earth, the first woman that was made of man, and the children which GOD had giuen them, who could bee fitter to rule and direct, then the man for whose sake the woman was created, and out of whose loynes the children came?

CHAP. 2.

Of the dignity of the first-borne amongst the sonnes of Adam, and their Kingly and Priestly direction of the rest.

AND seeing nothing is more naturall, then that as the Father is to instruct, di∣rect, and set forward the children that GOD hath giuen him in the way of vertue and well-doing, so amongst the children the elder should help the yon∣ger: the stronger, and more excellent the weaker, and more meane; none could be fitter to assist him in the Kingly, and Priestly office, while he liued, and to suc∣ceed him in the same when he died, then the first-borne, a 1.2 the beginning of strength, the excellencie of dignity, and the excellencie of power. And heereupon we shall finde, that from the beginning the first borne excelled the rest in three things. For first he was Lord ouer his brethren, according to that of Isaac, blessing Iacob the yonger in steed of the elder, and thereby preferring him to the dignity of the first-borne: b 1.3 Be Lord ouer thy brethren, and let thy mothers children bow downe vnto thee. Secondly, he had a double portion; & thirdly he was holy vnto God, which dignity as it belonged for∣merly euen frō the beginning to the first-borne, as being most worthy & excellent: so was it confirmed c 1.4 when God striking all the first borne in Egypt, spared the first born

of the Israelites. This praeeminence of the first borne continued, the eldest euer suc∣ceeding in the Kingly and Priestly office, vnlesse for impiety, or cause best knowen to God he were reiected by him, till the time that Israel came out of Aegypt, and the Church of God became nationall. For then according to the tenor of Iacobs d 1.5 blessing, these priuiledges were diuided. Iudah had the Scepter, Leui the Priesthood, and Ioseph the double portion, in that two of his Sonnes Ephraim and Manasses became Patriarches and Heads of tribes, and had equall inheritance in the land of promise with the sonnes of Iacob. So that in the societies of faithfull and holy ones, from the first man that God made, till Aaron was sanctified to bee a Priest vnto God in steed of the first borne, the eldest alwayes (vnlesse for impiety, or other cause best knowen to God, hee were reiected by him) had the Kingly, and Priestly direction of the rest. So when Cain the eldest Sonne of Adam, and first that was borne of a woman, to whom the dignity of the first borne did pertaine, was for his impiety reiected from that honour, and Abel who by fayth offered a better sacrifice then hee, was slaine by him, God raysed vp e 1.6 Seth, who being taught by Adam his father touching the Creation, the fall, the punishments of sinne, and the promised Sauiour, assisted him while hee lived in guiding the people and Church of God, and succeeded him in the same gouernment after his death. In like sorte f 1.7 Enosh assisted and succeeded Seth, and dying left that honour to Kenan: Kenan to Mahalaleel: Mahalaleel to Iered; Iered suruiuing Enoch his son, whom God tran∣slated, left it to Methusalem, Methusalem to Lamech the father of Noe, in whose time the children of God, that is, the posterity of Seth, marying with the daugh∣ters of men, that is, such as came of wicked Cain, highly displeased almighty God, who therevpon appoynted g 1.8 him to bee a preacher of repentance vnto them; whom when they contemned and despised, hee brought in the floud, and destroyed both them, and all the inhabitants of the world, Noe and his family onely excepted. Noe gouerned the Church before and after the floud, and left the same office and dignity to Sem his eldest sonne, saying, h 1.9 Blessed bee the God of Sem, and let Canaan be his servant: The Lord perswade Iaphet to dwell in the tents of Sem. i 1.10 Sem begat Ar∣phaxad: Arphaxad, Sale: Sale, Heber: Heber, Phaleg: Phaleg, Rehu: Rehu, Serug: Se∣rug, Nachor: Nachor, Thare: Thare, Abraham, and Abraham, Isaac. All these, onely Heber, and Isaac excepted, he suruiued: so that dying, he left the right of his office & dignity to Isaac, Heber hauing corrupted his wayes. This k 1.11 Sem the Iewes thinke to haue beene Melchizedek that l 1.12 met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings, that brought out bread and wine, to refresh his wearied troupes, and blessed him in the name of the Lord, as being a Priest of the high God. Thus then Sem go∣uerned the Church in his time, and dying, in part left his honour to Isaac, soiourning as a stranger in Canaan: Isaac to Iacob: Iacob to Iudah and his sonnes; who liuing in Ae∣gypt in bondage with the rest of their brethren, could not freely exercise the Kingly and Priestly office, nor performe the things pertayning therevnto. So that none of these succeeded Sem in the fulnesse as well of Kingly as Priestly power.

CHAP. 3.

Of the diuision of the preeminences of the first borne amongst the sonnes of Iacob when they came out of Aegypt, and the Church of God became Nationall.

BVt when it pleased Almighty God, who chose vnto himselfe the poste∣ritie of Israel and sonnes of Iacob as his peculiar portion and inheri∣tance, aboue all the nations of the world, to bring them with a mighty hand, and out stretched arme out of the land of Aegypt and the house of bondage to the land which he promised to their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, & to make of them a mighty people; then the former kinde of gouernment, which was domesticall, not so well fitting a people as a houshold, he setled another; & in steed of the first borne which formerly in each family and kindred was both a King and Priest,

he chose the tribe of Iudah to sway the scepter, and to be a lawgiuer to the rest of of his people: and the tribe of a 1.13 Leui to attend his Tabernacle and seruice: and out of all the families of that tribe, tooke b 1.14 Aaron and his sonnes to serue in the Priests office, ap∣pointing the rest to meaner seruices about the Sanctuary, or to bee assistants to the Priests, and rulers in the gouernment of the people.

CHAP: 4.

Of the separation of Aaron and his sonnes from the rest of the sonnes of Leui, to serue in the Priests office, and of the head or chiefe of that company.

THE Priests, the sonnes of Aaron, whom God separated from the rest of their brethren the sonnes of Leui, were of two sorts. For there was an high Prieste: and there were others of an inferiour condition. a 1.15 Touching the high Priest, foure things are to obserued. First, his consecration. Second∣ly, the things that were required in him that was to be consecrated to so sacred a fun∣ction. Thirdly, his imployment, and Fourthly, his attire. The consecration of the high Priest was seauen daies in performing, in this sort: 1. He that was to be consecra∣ted, was brought before the Altar. 2. Then he was washed with water, and clothed with those sacred garments which God had prescribed; holy oyle was poured on his heade, sacrifice was offered on the Altar for his sanctification, and his garments were sprinkled with the blood of it. The things that were required in him that was to serue in the high Priests office, were these. Hee might not be defectiue nor deformed in body; His wife must be a virgin, not a widdow, not one that had beene diuorced, nor that had beene infamous, but of good parentage, and of his owne people. Hee might not vncouer his heade, rent his garments, nor goe in to mourne ouer any that was dead, noe though it were his father or mother. His imployment was to goe dayly into the Sanctuary, to light the Lampes, to burne incense, and euery weeke to prouide the shew-bread or breade of proposition: on the feast daies to offer the peoples sacrifices together with the other Priests: and once in the yeare, on the day of expiation, to enter into the holiest of all, to cleanse, and hallow it from the sinnes of the people, and to make prayer for himselfe, and them. The holy vestiments, in which hee was to performe this seruice of God, are discribed to haue beene a Breast-plate, an Ephod, a Robe, a broidered Coate, a Mitre, and a Girdle. The Ephod was of gold, blue silke, purple, skarlet, and fine twined linnen of broidred worke: In the shoulders of the Ephod were two Onyx-stones, and vpon them the names of the chil∣dren of Israel grauen; sixe names vpon the one stone, and sixe other names vpon the o∣ther stone according to their generations. These were stones of remembrance of the children of Israel before the Lord. Of these b 1.16 Iosephus writeth, that they shewed when God was present with his people, when hee accepted the Sacrifices they offered vnto him, and was pleased with them, and likewise when hee was displeased with them and rejected them: in that when God was pleased with his people and accepted their sacrifices, the stone which was on the right shoulder shined in such sort, that it might be seen a farre off, whereas otherwise no such shining brightnesse appea∣red in it. The Breast-plate of judgment was of broydered worke, like the worke of the •…•…phod: of gold, blewe silke, purple and skarlet, and fine twined linnen. It was set full of places for stones, euen foure rowes of stones. The stones that were set in these rowes were twelue, according to the number of the tribes of Israel, and in them the names of the twelue tribes were grauen. In this Breast-plate likewise were put Vrim and Thummim which were vpon the heart of the high Priest, when he went in before the Lord. By these twelue stones that were in the Breast-plate of the high Priest, God did shew vnto his people the successe of their battles when they intended to make warre. For if hee meant to prosper their enterprise, these stones did so shine, that they were thereby vvell assured God vvould goe forth vvith their

armies; and fight their battels for them, otherwise they were discouraged from attēp∣ting any thing. The c 1.17 Vrim and Thummim likewise some of the Iewes thinke to haue beene two stones, by which the high Priest vnderstood what things were to come, & revealed the same vnto the people: For if nothing new & strange were to fall out, they held their colour: but if any great & extraordinary mutation were to follow, the bright shinings of these stones did foreshew it. d 1.18 Others suppose that they were the Name of God, Iehovah in letters of gold, by the shining brightnesse whereof they vnderstood the answer of God when they sought vnto him, but e 1.19 Augustine is of o∣pinion, that these very wordes were written in letters of golde in the middle of the breast-plate that did hang before the breast of the high Priest.

CHAP. 5.

Of the Priests of the second ranke or order.

TOuching the Priests of the inferiour Ranke, they had the same kinde of con∣secration which the high Priest had: in sacrificing they were like vnto him, & in the seruice of the Sanctuarie, in burning incense, prouiding the Shew∣bread, and preparing, & looking to the lampes & lights: neither was there a∣ny other difference betweene him and them in the performance of these things: but that hee was chiefe, and they assistants vnto him. The onely thing that was peculiar vnto him, was the a 1.20 consulting of God by Vrim & Thummim, and the b 1.21 entring into the Holiest to make an Atonement. Their vestiments were the same, c 1.22 saue that the high Priest onely had the Breast-plate, & an Ephod of gold: for the rest did also some∣times weare a linnen Ephod. The things required in them that were to serue in the Priestly office were these. They might not bee d 1.23 deformed nor defectiue in body: they might e 1.24 drinke no wine nor strong drinke, when they were to enter into the Sanctuary: they f 1.25 might not defile themselues by the dead, nor come neare vnto any that was dead, except it were their father, or mother, sonne, or daughter, or sister vn∣married: they g 1.26 might not shaue their heads, nor beards, nor cut their flesh: they might h 1.27 marry no harlot, nor woman divorced: The i 1.28 first that were consecrated Priests, were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar the sonnes of Aaron, k 1.29 Nadab, and Abihu died before their father, and had no children: they both perished, be∣cause they l 1.30 offered strange fire vpon the Altar, so that Eleazar & Ithamar onely re∣mained, of whom the whole number of Priests that were afterwardes, did come. m 1.31 From Eleazar in Dauids time were issued sixteene Families, and from Ithamar eight. These Dauid sorted into twenty foure Classes or Courses, and named eue∣ry Classis or Course after the name of him who was then chiefe of each Family: and for the ordering of them, and setting one before another, they cast lots. The reason of the sorting of them into these rankes was, for that hee would not haue all the Priests to attend euery day, but that they should haue some intermission, and times of vacation, one Classis performing the seruice one weeke, & another, another. Though, sayth n 1.32 Iosephus, there bee twenty foure Classes or Courses of Priests a∣mongst vs, whereof euery one hath more then fiue thousand, yet they waite not all at once, but on certaine dayes appointed & assigned vnto them, which being past, others succeede, who are called into the Temple at Noone, & haue the keyes thereof deliue∣red vnto them, and the sacred vessels by tale. In this sense it is saide in the booke of Chronicles, that o 1.33 Iehoiada the Priest dismissed not the Courses, that is, sent not a∣way the Troupes and Companies of Priests, that attended the seruice of the Temple, when their time was expired, and according to order they should haue departed, and others succeeded them: for that he meant to make vse of them in the deposing of wicked Athaliah, and the establishing, and setling of the true and lawfull King in the Royall Throne of Iudah. In these Courses they were wont to cast lotts what kinde of seruice euery one should doe in the weeke of his attendance, as for example: Who should sacrifice, and who should burne In∣cense:

wherevpon it is sayd in the Gospell of Luke, that p 1.34 in the time of Herod King of Iudaea, there was a certaine priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abiah; q 1.35 and it came to passe as he executed the Priests office before God, as his course came in order, according to the custome of the Priests office, that his lot was to burne incense when hee went into the house and Temple of the Lord. r 1.36 Over euery of these companies of Priests in their courses attending, there were certaine priests set, that were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Prin∣cipes Sacerdotum, that is chiefe Priests, or rulers of the Priests. Of these the Evange∣list S. Marke speaketh when he sayth, s 1.37 They brought Iesus to the High Priest, and the Chiefe Priests sought false witnesse against him: that is, the Heads of the Companies of Priests, who came to consult with the high priest about the putting of Iesus to death. For while the policie appointed by almighty God continued, there was but one that properly was named the high Priest.

CHAP. 6.

Of the Levites.

HAving spoken of Aaron and his sonnes, whom God chose out of all the fa∣milies of the tribe of Leui, it remaineth that we speake of the employment of the rest of that tribe, called by the common name of Leuites. a 1.38 These were sorted by Dauid into foure rankes: for some he appointed to bee ministers of the Priests and Temple, who were most specially named Leuites: some Singers: some Porters: and others Scribes and Iudges. Touching the Leuites more specially so named, that attended the seruice of the Sanctuarie, their office was to carie the Taber∣nacle, and the Arke of the Couenant in the Remoues of the people, till God fixed the same in one place; and then they were to take care of it, and the sacred vessels that were in it appoynted to be vsed about the service of God. In later times also they flayed the Beasts appointed for the Sacrifices. according to that in the second of Chronicles: b 1.39 The service was prepared, and the Priests stood in their places; also the Le∣uites in their orders according to the Kings commaundement, and they slue the Passeouer, and the Priests sprinkled the bloud with their hands, and the Leuites flayed them. Of the singers we reade in the first of Chronicles, how they were appoynted c 1.40 by Dauid to sing prophesies with Harpes, with Viols, and with Cymbals. The d 1.41 Porters were appointed to see that no vncircumcised, polluted, or vncleane person should enter in∣to the house of the Lord; and to guard the same that all thinges therein might bee in safety, as the sacred vessels, the treasure of the house, and the treasure of the dedicated things. To these were added as assistants the e 1.42 Nethinims or Gibeonites, who serued as f 1.43 hewers of wood, and drawers of water: The Scribes were such as read, and inter∣preted the Law of God in the Temple at Hierusalem, and in the Synagogues that were in other parts of the land, and are also called Doctors of the Law, that is, Inter∣preters of the Law of God.

CHAP. 7.

Of the Sects, and factions in Religion, found amongst the Iewes in later times.

ANd here because we haue made mention of such Leuites as were Scribes, that is, Doctors and Interpreters of the Law of God, it is not out of place to speake of the doctrine of the Iewes in later times, and the seuerall sects into which their teachers and guides were diuided. Epiphanius sheweth that there were a 1.44 seauen principall sects amongst them; the first whereof was that of the b 1.45 Scribes, who were Interpreters of the Law, but such as deliuered many traditions as from their Elders, that were not contayned in the Law, and sought to bring in a more exact kinde of worship of God, then Moses and the Prophets taught, consi∣sting in many voluntary observations and customes deuised by men.

The second, c 1.46 Sadduces, which were of the race of the Samaritanes; these had their name from one Sadoc a Priest; they denyed the resurrection, and beleeued not that there is any Angell or Spirit, and consequently ouerthrew all Religion.

The third sort were d 1.47 Pharisees; these were the strictest of all other, and most estee∣med: they beleeued the resurrection of the dead, that there are Angels and Spirits, as the Scribes also did, and that all shall come into judgement to receiue according to the things they doe in this body, whether they be good or euill: they much honou∣red virginity and single life: they payed tithes of the smallest things they possessed: they washed cups, platters, and all kinde of vessels they vsed: they fasted twice eue∣ry weeke: they brought in the doctrine of fatall necessity: and differed in their habit from other men.

The fourth sort were the e 1.48 Hemerobaptists, who did thinke that no man could bee saued, if he were not washed euery day, that so he might be cleansed from the impuri∣tie of sinne; but, as Epiphanius rightly noteth in refutation of the errour of these men, it is not the whole floud Iordan wherein Christ was baptized, nor the sea, nor any fountaine abounding with water, that can wash away the impurity of sinne by any naturall force thereof or voluntarie vse; but repentance, and the vse of such sacred ce∣remonies, and sacramentall elements, as God appoynteth to signifie, expresse, and communicate vnto vs the vertue of Christ Iesus, and the sanctifying grace of the Spirit of God.

Next vnto the Hemerobaptists were the f 1.49 Essenes. These withdrew themselues from the society of other men. They despised mariage, and liued without the company of women, hauing no children of their owne, they adopted such as voluntarily came vnto them, g 1.50 Quos vita fessos (sayth Plinie) ad mores eorum fortunae fluctus agitat: Ita per saeculorum millia (incredibile dictu) gens aeterna est, in quâ nemo nascitur; tam faecun∣da illis aliorum vitae poenitentia est. That is, Such as wearied with the turmoils of this life, were by the experience of fortunes vncertainties, forced to like their retired manner of liuing; so that for many ages (which is a thing not credible) there hath bin a neuer-failing nation, in which no man is borne. So many doth other mens dislike of their owne manner of liuing send vnto them. These were something like the Monkes and Religious men, that are, and haue beene amongst Christians.

The sixt sorte were the h 1.51 Nazaraei, who in all other things were Iewes, but held it vnlawfull to kill any liuing thing, or to eate the flesh of any thing wherein the Spirit of life had beene; they condemned the bloody sacrifices prescribed in Moses law, and therefore could not bee induced to thinke, that Moses was author of those bookes that goe vnder his name; yet did they honour Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, and other holy men mentioned in them.

The seauenth and last sort were the i 1.52 Herodians, who were of the Iewes Religion in all other things, but thought Herod to bee the Christ; because the scepter departed from Iudah, and the Law-giuer from betweene his feete, when Herod who was a stranger obtayned the title and power of a king, and ruled ouer the people of God.

These were the sects and Heresies, that prevayled in the Church of the Iewes be∣fore the comming of Christ, amongst whom the Pharisees and Sadduces were chiefe; so that the whole state seemed to be diuided into these two factions, k 1.53 the nobles and great ones enclining for the most part to the Sadduces, and the common people to the Pharisees; whereupon wee reade in the acts of the Apostles, that Paul standing be∣fore Ananias the high Priest, and the rest of the chiefe Priests and Rulers of the peo∣ple to be judged, knowing that the one part of them were Sadduces, and the other part Pharisees, cried aloud; l 1.54 I am a Pharisee, and the sonne of a Pharisee, I am accused of the hope and resurrection of the dead: and that vpon the hearing of these words, there was a dissention betweene the Pharisees and Sadduces, so that the whole multitude was diuided; that there was a great cry; and that the Scribes of the Pharisees part a∣rose vp, and stroue, saying, m 1.55 Wee finde no euill in the man: But if a Spirit or an Angell hath spoken vnto him, let vs not fight against God.

CHAP. 8.

Of Prophets and Nazarites.

BEsides the Priests and Levites, whom God chose to attend his Seruice & San∣ctuary, rent and divided in latter times into the manifold factions and Heresies aboue-mentioned, there were other who medled not with the Ministery of holy things, and yet were specially dedicated and sanctified vnto God. These were either such as dedicated their bodies and persons vnto God, as the Nazarites; or such as God raised vp extraordinarily to fore-shew future things, and to reforme ab∣uses and errours, as were the Prophets.

The vow of the Nazarits is described in the book of Numbers, where the Lord God spake vnto Moses, saying, a 1.56 Speake vnto the children of Israel, and say vnto them, When a man or woman doth separate themselues to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate himselfe vnto the Lord, he shall abstaine from wine and strong drinke, no razorshall come vpon his head, but he shall let the lockes of the haire of hishead to grow, during the time that he sepa∣rateth himselfe vnto the Lord: He shall come at no dead body, hee shall not make himselfe vncleane at the death of his father or mother, brother or sister: for the consecration of the Lord is vpon his head.

The Nazarites were of two sorts: for some did separate themselues vnto the Lord but for a time, and others perpetually. Nazarites of the former sort they were, of whō Iames, and the Elders doe speake in the Acts, saying vnto Paul, b 1.57 Wee haue foure men which haue made a vow: them take, and purifie thy selfe with them, and contribute with them, that they may shaue their heads, and all shall know that those things whereof they haue beene informed concerning thee, are nothing, but that thou thy selfe also walkest and keepest the Law. Of the latter sort the Scripture mentioneth onely two: Sampson and Samuel. Concerning Sampson we reade, that the Angell of God appeared vnto the wife of Manoah his mother, and said vnto her; c 1.58 Behold now thou art barren, and bearest not, but thou shalt conceiue, and beare a sonne; and now therefore beware that thou drinke no wine nor strong drinke, neither eate any vncleane thing. For loe thou shalt con∣ceiue, and beare a sonne, and no razor shall come on his head; For the Childe shall be a Na∣zarite vnto God from his birth, and he shall begin to saue Israel out of the hands of the Phi∣listines. And of Samuel, his mother sayd before he was borne: d 1.59 I will giue him to the Lord all the dayes of his life, and no razor shall come vpon his head. To these e 1.60 Hierome ad∣deth out of Egesippus, Iames the just, the brother of our Lord.

Prophets properly are such as fore-know and fore-tell things that are to come: but because, as f 1.61 Gregory fitly noteth, it is as hard to know the things that are past, where∣of there is no report, and the things that are done a farre off, or in secret, or that are but contriued, and resolued on in the purposes of the heart, as to fore-see what shall come to passe hereafter; the knowledge of all these things pertaineth to propheticall grace and illumination; and it was no lesse a propheticall spirit that directed Moses in wri∣ting the storie of the Creation, fall, and propagation of mankind, nor no lesse a Prophe∣ticall illumination that made Elizeus know what was done in the King of Arams privie chamber, then it was in Esay and the rest, that enabled them to foretell and fore-shew the things that were to come. And therefore the Diuines make diuerse sorts of Prophets; some to whom principally things past were reuealed, or hidden things then being: and some to whom things that were after to come to passe, were more special∣ly manifested or made knowne: g 1.62 Some that were Prophets both in grace and mission, some in grace onely: In grace and mission, as they that were specially sent to foreshew the people of God what was to come to passe, to tell them of their transgressions, and the judgments that were to follow: In grace onely, as were all such as were not speci∣ally imployed to this purpose, and yet had the knowledge of secret things, as Daniel and some other.

CHAP. 9.

Of Assemblies vpon extraordinary occasions.

THVS hauing spoken sufficiently of the persons that God sanctified to serue him in the Temple, and to teach, direct, and instruct his people; as also of such as voluntarily dedicated themselues vnto him, or were extraordinarily raised vp by him: Let us see what the gouernement of the Church, and people of God was vnder them during the time of the law, vntill the comming of Christ.

The Scriptures shew vs, that God appointed for the gouernement of his people, ex∣traordinary Assemblies; and set judgments: Whereunto the Prophet Dauid seemeth to allude, when he sayth, The a 1.63 wicked shall not rise vp in judgment, nor Sinners in the as∣sembly of the righteous. In assemblies were handled things concerning the state of the whole common-wealth: In the set Courts, things concerning particular parts of it. Assemblies were of two sorts: either of the whole people, or of the Elders and Rulers only. Assemblies of the whole people were gathered together to heare the comman∣dements of God: to make publike praiers vnto him, or to performe and doe some ex∣traordinary thing: as to appoint a King, a Iudge, or a Prince, to proclaime or wage warre, or the like.

These Assemblies were either of the whole people of Israel, or onely of the whole people of one tribe or citie. For the calling of these assemblies God commanded b 1.64 two trumpets of siluer to be made and to be in the custodie of Moses and his succes∣sours: with this direction, that when they blowed with them both, all the congrega∣tion should assemble vnto them: but when they blowed but with one, the Princes or Heads ouer the thousands of Israel onely should come.

The set Courts and Tribunals were of two sorts, the one in the gates of euery Cit∣ty, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Iudgment; the other at Hierusalem, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Councell: where∣vnto Christ seemeth to haue alluded, when he sayd, c 1.65 Whosoeuer is angry with his bro∣ther vnaduisedly, shall be guilty of judgment: but whosoeuer sayth, Racha, shall be guiltie of a Councell: and he that saith, Thou foole, shall be worthy to be punished with Gehenna of fire, or the fierie Gehenna. Thereby shewing vs, that one of these offences and faults, is more grieuous and worthy of greater punishment then the other: for the Councell or Sanedrim did handle weightier causes, and might inflict more grieuous punish∣ments, thē the set Courts of Iustice in the gates of euery city. So that this is it he meant to say. He that is angry with his brother vnaduisedly shall be guilty of judgment, that is, of some lighter punishment; and he that sayth, Racha, shall be subject to the coun∣cell, that is, punished more grieuously: but he that sayth, Thou foole, shall be punished with all extremity, answering in proportion to the cruell and mercilesse burning of of men in the d 1.66 valley of Hinnon, or the fiery Gehenna.

S. Augustine in his first booke e 1.67 De Sermone Domini in monte, doth somewhat other∣wise, but very excellently, expresse the meaning of Christs words in this sort. There are sayth he, degrees of sinne in this kind mentioned by Christ: itaque in primo vnum est, id est, ira sola: in secundo, duo:: & ira, & vox quae iram significat: in tertio, tria: & i∣ra, & vox quae iram significat, & in voce ipsa certae vituperationis expressio. Vide nunc etiam tres reatus, Iudicij, Concilij, & Gehennae ignis. Nam in Iudicio adhuc de∣fensioni datur locus: ad Concilium pertinet sententiae prolatio, quando non jam cum reo agitur, vtrum damnandus sit, sed inter se qui iudicant, conferunt, quo supplicio damnari o∣porteat, quem constat esse damnandum. Gehenna vero ignis nec damnationem habet dubiā, sicut Iudicium, nec damnati poenam sicut Conciliū: in Gehenná quippe ignis certa est & dā∣natio, & poena damnati. That is: In the first degree there is but one thing, that is, anger only: In the 2^d two: anger & a voyce expressing anger: In the third three: anger, the voyce that giueth signification of it, and in the voyce it selfe an expressing of some certaine reproach. See now also three guilts, of judgment, of Councell, and the Ge∣henna of fire: For in Iudgment there is yet place left for defence; to Councell pertaineth

the pronouncing of the sentence, when there is no more to bee done with the partie guilty, nor no further doubt whether he be to be condemned or not, but they that iudge take counsell and conferre amongst themselues, to what punishment they shall condemne him, of whose condemnation they are already resolued: but in the Gehen∣na of fire, there is neither doubtfulnesse of condemnation, as in Iudgement, nor of the punishment of the condemned, as in Councell: For there both the condemnation is certaine, and the punishment also.

The Papists alledge the words of Christ for proofe of veniall sinnes, because onely the last degree of vnaduised and causelesse anger, is pronounced worthy to be punish∣ed with Gehenna of fire, or hell fire. Whence they thinke it may be concluded, that other degrees of causelesse anger, though sinfull, yet do not subiect men to any punish∣ment in hell, and consequently are by nature veniall. But if we vnderstand that Christ alluded to the different courts of justice amongst the Iewes, their proceedings in the same, and the diuersity of punishments which they inflicted more or lesse grieuous, as Sigonius in his booke f 1.68 Derepub. Hebraeorum, and other excellently learned doe; then by Gehenna of fire, is not simply meant hell fire, which is the generall punish∣ment of damned sinners: but the greatest extremity of punishment in hell, expressed by comparison with the cruell torments, which they indured that were consumed in fire in Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnon, farre more intollerable then were the punishments inflicted by the Iudgement or Councell, to which the lighter and lesser punishments in hell, due to lesser and lighter sinnes, may be resembled. And though wee vnder∣stand the words as Augustine doth, yet is not their errour confirmed by this place: for as he fitly noteth, whereas to kill is more greeuous then to wrong by contumeli∣ous and railing speeches, amongst the Pharisees onely killing was thought to make a man guilty of judgement; But heere anger, the least of all the sinnes mentioned by Christ, is by him pronounced guilty of judgement; and whereas amongst them, the question of murther was brought before the iudgement seate of men, here all things are left to the judgement of God, where the end of the condemned and guilty is hell fire. And for farther cleering of this point he addeth, that if any man shall say, that murther, as more greiuous, is to be punished more grieuously, according to the rule of iustice, then with hell fire, if rayling speeches be punishable with hell fire, hee will force vs to acknowledge diuerse hells, or kindes and degrees of punishments in hell. So farre was Augustine from imagining any such difference of sinnes, whereof some should be worthy to be punished in hell, and some not, to be proued out of this place, as our aduersaries would enforce and vrge.

CHAP. 10.

Of the s•…•…t Courts amongst the Iewes, their authority and continuance.

TOuching the Tribunals and iudgements that were in euery city, God sayd vnto Moses: Thou shalt appoint thee Iudges and Magistrates in all thy cityes; * 1.69 and againe: They shall goe vp to the Iudges that sit in the gates of the city. But the Sanedrim or great Councell of State, consisted of the King, the twelue Princes of the people, the seaventy Elders, the high Priest, the chiefe Priests, and the * 1.70 Scribes. And this Councell was first in Siloh, afterwards at Hierusalem; first in the tribe of Ephraim, and after in the tribe of Iudah: and after the rent of the tenne tribes, none but the elders of Iudah, and Beniamin, and the Priests and Leuites entred into this Councell.

This Councell either the King or high Priest called, according as the matter to bee heard, touched Religion or the common-wealth: But after the returne from Baby∣lon, the high Priest was alwayes chiefe, and gouerned with the Elders and chiefe Priests: For there were no more kings of Iudah after that time, but the kings of Per∣sia, Aegypt, and Syria had the command ouer Iudaea, and made the Iewes pay tribute vnto them. Of this Councell almighty God did speake when he said: c 1.71 If there arise

a matter too hard for thee in iudgement between bloud and bloud, between plea & plea, be∣tweene plague and plague, in matters of controversie within thy gates, then shalt thou arise & goe vp to the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse; and thou shalt come vnto the Priests of the Leuites, & vnto the Iudge that shall be in those dayes, & aske, & they shall shew thee the sentence of iudgment: & thou shalt doe according vnto that thing which they of that place which the Lord hath chosen, shew thee: & thou shalt obserue to doe according to all that they informe thee, according to the Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the iudgement which they shall tell thee, shalt thou doe; thou shalt not decline from the thing which they shall shew thee, neither to the right hand, nor to the left: And that man that will doe presumptuously not hearkning to the Priest that standeth before the Lord thy God to minister there, or vnto the Iudge, that man shall die, and thou shalt take away euill from Israel.

This was the highest Court amongst the Iewes, & from this there was no appeale: and this Court some thinke to haue enjoyed so great and ample priviledges, as that it could not erre: and thereupon inferre, that Popes in their Consistories cannot erre, to whom Christ hath made as large promises of assistance and direction, as euer he did to the high Priests and Rulers in the time of Moses Law.

That the Priests and Rulers in the time of the Law could not erre, they indeavour to proue, because he was to answer it with hisbloud whosoeuer disobeyed the sentence & decree of those Iudges; & God required euery man without declining to the right hand or the left, to doe that they commanded.

If it be objected that the words of Almighty God, requiring all men so strictly to obey the sentence and decree of those Rulers, are not to bee vnderstood concerning matters of faith, but Causes Ciuill and Criminall; and that therefore this place ma∣keth not any proofe of the infallibilitie of their judgment in matters of faith; it will bee answered, that there is no reason to doubt of their judgment in matters of faith, of whose right judgment in matters Ciuill and Criminall wee are assured.

Surely, it is true, that if those Iudges in the time of the Law, could not erre in mat∣ters Ciuill and Criminall; they were vndoubtedly much more freed from danger of erring in matters of faith: but it is one of the strangest paradoxes, as I thinke, that euer yet was heard of, that the Priests and Iudges in the time of the Law were priviledged from danger of erring in matters of fact, and that they were so assisted in their procee∣dings, as that they could not bee mis-led by any passions or sinister affections, to per∣vert judgement and doe wrong. For besides that it is refuted by sundry instances, of sinister and wicked judgments passed by those Iudges, against the Seruants and Pro∣phets of Almighty God, it maketh the Ministery and government vnder the Law, in∣comparably more glorious and excellent then the Ministerie of the Gospell. For it is by all confessed, that the Popes and Councels may erre in things of this nature. But that the Priests in the time of the Law did sometimes erre in judgment, condemning them whō God would not haue had condemned, appeareth evidently by that we read in the booke of the Prophesies of Ieremy, where d 1.72 when Ieremy had made an end of spea∣king all that the Lord commanded him to speake, then the Priests and the Prophets, and al•…•… the people took him, and said, Thou shalt dye the death. e 1.73 And when the Princes of Iudah heard of these things, they came vp from the Kings house into the house of the Lord, & sate down in the entry of the new gate of the Lords House. Then spake the Priests & the Pro∣phets vnto the Princes & to all the people, saying, This man is worthy to dye, f 1.74 but the Prin∣ces said, This man is not worthy to dye: for he hath spoken vnto vs in the Name of the Lord our God. Here we see the Priests erred, and were resisted by the Princes of the Land: but elsewhere we reade, that g 1.75 the Princes also were angry with Ieremy, & smote him, and layde him in prison in the house of Iehonathan the Scribe, and saide unto the King: h 1.76 Wee beseech thee, let this man be put to death, for he weakneth the hands of the men of war that are in the Citie, and the hands of all the people. So that both Priests and Princes, might, & did sometimes erre in judgment. But some man perhaps will say, that howsoeuer they might erre in matters of fact, yet they could not erre in any matter of substance pertai∣ning to the worship & seruice of God. This also is clearely demonstrated to be false, &

their errours in things pertaining to the worship and seruice of God proued by sun∣dry examples.

In the second booke of Kings wee reade, that i 1.77 Ahaz k•…•…ng of Iudah walked in the waies of the kings of Israel, made his sonnes goe through the fire, after the abominations of the heathen, and offered burnt incense in the high places, and on the hils, and vnder eue∣rie greene tree. This wicked Ahaz k 1.78 sent from Damascus to Vrias the Priest, the pat∣terne of the Altar he saw at Damascus, and the fashion of it, and all the workemanship there∣of; and Vrias the Priest made an Altar, in all points like to that which King Ahaz sent from Damascus. So did Vrias the Priest before King Ahaz came from Damascus; l 1.79 and the King commanded Vrias to offer sacrifice on the Altar, and m 1.80 Vrias did whatsoeuer the King commanded him. Yea we reade of many Priests, especially about the time of the Macca∣bees, that forsooke the law of God, and followed the abominations of the heathen Ido∣laters; and many Iudges and Kings likewise; so that, Dauid, Hezekiah, & Iosias only ex∣cepted, there was none of the Kings that did not decline more or lesse to Idolatry.

n 1.81 The meaning therefore of Almighty God according to the iudgment of the best Diuines was not, that Priests and Iudges in the the time of the law should be obayed in all things without exception, but when they commanded and iudged according to the diuine law and verity: and in the same sort must wee vnderstand the words of Christ, when he sayth, The Scribes and Pharisees sit on the Chaire of Moses; and commandeth the people to obserue and doe whatsoeuer they prescribe to be obserued and done. For o∣therwise * 1.82 Christ should be contrary to himselfe, who elsewhere willeth men to p 1.83 be∣ware of the leauen of the Pharisees, (which S. Mathew interpreteth to bee their q 1.84 do∣ctrine) & teacheth men by his own example to cōtemn their traditiōs. Yea, it is most * 1.85 certaine, that the Pharisees erred dangerously and damnably in many things, notwith∣standing their sitting on Moses chaire: and therefore Christ doth oftentimes sharpely reproue them for mis-interpreting the law of God.

Some man perhaps will say: they taught lesse then is implied in the Law, in that they condemned murther, adultery, and the like crimes, but not lust, hatred and such other sinister affections of the heart: and that therefore Christ did not reproue them as teaching any thing contrary to the Law, but as teaching lesse then is contained in it, and comming short of it. This euasion will not serue: for it appeareth euidently, that they did not only come short of that the Law requireth; but were also contrary vnto it, and that Christ taxeth them for the same. s 1.86 Quia non intelligebant, (sayth Saint Au∣gustine,) homicidium nisi per interemptionem corporis humani per quam vitâ priuaretur, aperuit Dominus omnem iniquum motum ad nocendum fratri in homicidij genere deputa∣ri: vnde & Iohannes dicit, Qui odit fratrem suum, homicida est: & quoniam putabant tan∣tummodo corporalem cumfoeminâ illicitam commixtionem vocari moechiam, demonstrauit Magister etiam talem concupiscentiam nihil esse aliud: That is, they vnderstood no other Kind of murther, but that which is the sundring of soule and body, and the taking a∣way of life, therefore our Lord shewed, that euery vnrighteous motion to hurt our brother is to be accompted murther, Whence also S. Iohn sayth, He that hateth his bro∣ther, is a man-slayer: and because they thought the vnlawfull conjunction of man and woman only to be adulterie, our Maister shewed, that euen the desire is no lesse. Now I thinke, that to say, that is not murther nor adultery which Christ pronounceth to be murther and adultery, is not onely to teach lesse then is in the Law, but to teach con∣trary to it.

But to make this point more cleare and euident, and that there may bee noe doubt, but that their doctrine was contrary to the Law, the Scripture reporteth, nay our Sauiour Christ telleth vs in the Scripture (whose report wee may not doubt of) that they taught a man t 1.87 to loue his friend, and to hate his enimy: whereas by the Law of God we are bound to loue our enemies, to blesse them that curse vs, to do good to them that hate vs, and to pray for them that hurt vs, and persecute us. It is true indeed, that * 1.88 S. Au∣gustine not obseruing this glosse of hating our enemies, to bee the lewd tradition of the Pharises, but thinking it to be written in the Law, doth in one place say, that that which is sayd in the Law, Thou shalt hate thine enemy, is not to be taken as the voyce of

him that commandeth and prescribeth what the just should doe, but permitteth what the infirmity of the weake requireth; and in another place writing against the Mani∣chees sayth, x 1.89 that that which is in the old Scripture, Hate thine enemie, and that which is in the Gospell, Loue your enemies, do agree together very well. For euery vnrighte∣ous man in quantum iniquus est, odio habendus est, & in quantum homo, diligendus, in that he is vnrighteous, is to be hated, and in that he is a man, is to be loued. This saying hee sayth the Pharisees did not rightly vnderstand, and that therefore Christ laboured to teach and instruct them better, and to let them know, that they were so to hate their e∣nemies, that they should also loue them.

This which S. Augustine deliuereth is most Catholike and true: For we are to hate the vices, and loue the persons of our enimies; but neither is there any mandate in the Scriptures that we should hate our enemies, neither had that precept of the Pharisees that sense wherein S. Augustine cōceiueth a man may lawfully hate his enemies: but as himselfe cōfesseth, they thought they were so to hate their enemies, that they were not bound to loue thē; against which erroneous conceipt Christ opposeth himselfe, saying, But I say vnto you, loue your enemies. Neither doth he oppose an Euangelicall coūsell of greater perfection then the Law requireth, to that imperfect thing the Law prescri∣beth, as some men haue ignorantly fancied; but the true meaning of the Law, to the false construction of the same made by the Pharisees, as likewise he doth in all other his op∣positions to that which had bin sayd to them of old time.

But let vs let this passe, and come to the other errours of the Pharisees taxed by our Sauiour Christ in such sort as no man can excuse them, y 1.90 Why doe ye transgresse, sayth he, the commandement of God by your traditions? for God hath commanded; saying, Ho∣nour thy Father, and thy Mother; and he that curseth Father or Mother, let him die the death: but ye say, Whosoeuer shall say to Father or Mother, By the gift that is offered by me thou maist haue profit, though he honour not his Father or Mother, shall be free: Thus haue you made the commandement of God of none effect, by your owne tradition. Againe, they taught that it is z 1.91 nothing if a man sweare by the Altar, but that he that sweareth by the gift or offering that is on the Altar is a Debtor, that is, bound to do that he sweareth. Many other like fond & wicked glosses of the Pharisees we read of, whereby they made the cōmandemēts of God of none effect, whereupon our Sauiour sayth: a 1.92 Except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnes of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye cannot enter into the kingdome of heauen. Thus then I hope it appeareth to all that are not wilfully blinded, that Christ meant not, when hee sayd, The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses chaire, therefore whatsoeuer they bid you, that obserue and doe, that they could speake nothing but truth, and that whatsoeuer they sayd was to be receiued without any examinati∣on; but that whatsoeuer things they spake pertinentia ad Cathedram (as the author of the * 1.93 interlineall Glosse interpreteth the words) and whatsoeuer things they deliuered as sitting in Moses chaire, that is, doing the duty of Teachers, they should bee listned vnto, howsoeuer otherwise they were wicked, and godlesse men.

They that teach, iudge, and rule the people of God, are described to performe those things sitting, to put them in minde that they must doe all things with setled, com∣posed, and well aduised resolution, and not rashly, hastily, and inconsiderately: whereupon Princes haue their thrones, Iudges their Tribunalls and iudgment seates, and Teachers their chaires. Hence Moses office of teaching the people the lawes of God and the performance of the same, is metaphorically named Moses chaire; and the succeeding of Moses in this office and duty of deliuering the lawes of God to the people, & the performance of the same, is rightly expressed by the sitting on the chaire of Moses: & in this sense the Scribes & Pharisees are rightly sayd to haue sitte on Mo∣ses chaire, because they succeeded him in the office and duty of teaching the people the lawes of God, and in the performance of the same duety in some part, though not wholly. And therefore our Sauiour Christ requireth all men, notwithstan∣ding their wicked conuersation and manifold errours in matters of doctrine, to do whatsoeuer they commanded while they sate on Moses chaire, that is, performed the duty belonging to Moses office and place.

It is strange that any man should seeke to extend the words of Christ any farther, as if they meant to cleare the Scribes & Pharisees from all possibilitie and danger of er∣ring, in that they possessed the roome of Moses, and had the places of Teachers in the Church; when it is b 1.94 confessed by the best learned of all sides, that the Priests of the Law had no priuiledge of not erring in teaching the people of GOD after Christ ap∣peared, and began to teach in his owne person, whatsoeuer they had before; and c 1.95 that this was fore-told by Ieremy the Prophetwhen he said, Peribit lex à Sacerdote, verbū à Propheta, consilium à Sapiente; The Law shall perish frō the Priest, the word frō the Pro∣phet, and counsell from the wise. But such is the impudencie of some d 1.96 of the friends & louers of the Church of Rome, that they feare not to defend & cleare the doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees from errour, wherewith Christ so often chargeth them, & to justifie the proceedings of the high Priest, and the rest of the Priests and Rulers assembled in Councell against Christ himselfe, affirming, that the sentence pronounced against him was true and just: for that he was truly guilty of death, in that hee had ta∣ken vpon him our sinnes to purge them in himselfe, and that it was indeede expedient that he should dye for the people, according to the e 1.97 saying of Caiphas, who in so saying is saide to haue prophesied, as being the high Priest that yeare. But Bellarmine inge∣nuously acknowledgeth the ouer-sight of his friends and companions, and saith, that howsoeuer those words of Caiphas admit a good sense (though not intended by him) for he meant it was better that Christ being but one should die, then that the whole people (whose destruction he thought vnavoidable, if Christ were suffered to liue) should perish & come to nothing: Yet there are other wordes of Caiphas, that in no sense are justifiable, as when he said, f 1.98 He hath blasphemed, what need we any more wit∣nesses? Touching his former speech, it was the will of God, for the honour of the Priest∣hood, that he should vtter that he meant ill, in such wordes as might haue a good sense, though not meant nor intended by him, whereupon he is said to haue prophesied: but the latter words are words of cursed blasphemy, & without horrible impiety cannot be excused in any sense. Therefore there are others, who confesse that Caiphas and his assistants erred when they cōdemned Christ, but that it was but a matter of fact where∣in they erred, in mistaking the quality of Christs Person, & in being mis-informed of him, in which kinde of things Councels may erre. This conceipt the Cardinall like∣wise rejecteth & explodeth as absurd: for that howsoeuer it was a question of fact, & concerning the Person of him that stood to be judged, yet it inwrapped in it a most important question concerning the Faith, to wit, whether IESVS the Son of Mary vvere the true Messias & Son of God: & therefore Caiphas with his whole Councell resoluing that he was not, erred damnably in a matter of Faith, & pertinaciously, in that they rejected him as a blasphemer of God, whom the Angels from Heauen testi∣fied to be the Son of God: the Starre designed to be that light, that lightneth euery one that commeth into the World: the Sages from a farre adored, as being that King of the Iewes, that is to sit vpon the Throne of Dauid for euer, whose Dominion is from Sea to sea, & from the Riuer to the end of the Land: whom the seas & windes obeyed, & at whose rebuke the Diuels went out of those they had formerly possessed. But if this defence of the hellish sentence of wicked Caiphas be too weake, as indeed it is, our ad∣versaries last refuge is, that this Councel erred, because Caiphas & his fellowes pro∣ceeded in it tumultuously, & not in due sort: vvhich is a most silly shift. For how are Councels priviledged from erring, vvhich is the thing these men seek so carefully to defend (though it be vvith excusing of the Fact of those men vvho shalbe found vnex∣cusable in the day of Iudgment) if Councels may proceed tumultuously, & so define a∣gainst the truth.

Thus we see that the great Councell of state amongst the Iewes, to vvhich all mat∣ters of difficultie vvere brought, & from vvhich there vvas no appeale, might and did erre sometimes dangerously, & damnably. This Councell continued in some sort as vvell after the captivity of Babylon, & the returne from the same, as before: g 1.99 though vvith this difference, that vvheras before, the king had a principal interest in the same, aftervvards the High Priest alvvayes vvas chief, there being no more Kings of Iudah,

but the kings of Persia, Aegypt, and Syria, commaunding ouer the Iewes, and making them tributaries vnto them. In this sort were they gouerned, till some differences growing amongst them for the place of the high Priest, they were by Antiochus E∣piphanes king of Syria depriued both of their liberty and exercise of religion, and brought into miserable bondage; the indignity whereof the Assamonaei of the tribe of Leui could not indure, but by force and policie in a sort freed the state of the Iewes againe, and tooke vnto themselues first the name of Princes, and then of Kings. In the booke of Maccabees we reade, that Mattathias was constituted Priest, Prince, and Ruler, and that many came downe to him to seeke judgement and iustice. Iudas Mac∣cabaeus succeeded Mattathias, and joyned the dignity of the high Priest to the prince∣ly power. Ionathas succeeded Macchabaeus, of whom we reade, h 1.100 Now this day doe we chuse thee to be vnto vs a Prince instead of Iudas, and a captaine to fight our battels. Simon succeeded Ionathas, and in his time Demetrius king of Syria and Antiochus his son re∣mitted all tributes; so that then the Iewes recouered their ancient liberty in as ample manner as they had formerly enjoyed it vnder their kings. Iohn succeeded Simon, and Aristobulus Iohn, who put vpon himselfe a Diademe, and assumed the name of a King. After Aristobulus succeeded Alexander his brother, marrying Solina his wife. Alexander being dead, Alexandra obtayned the kingdome, & after her Hircanus, whom Aristobulus his brother expulsed. Pompey tooke this Aristobulus prisoner, subdued Iudaea, brought it into the forme of a prouince, and appointed Antipater As∣calonita to be Procurator of it; but not long after, Antigonus the son of Aristobulus re∣couered the citie of Hierusalem, & inuaded the kingdome; against whom the Romans set vp Herod the son of Antipater and gaue him the name of a King.

Thus the direction and gouernment of the Iewes rested principally in the Sanedrim, as well before as after their returne from Babylon; and the Sanedrim, which was the highest Court, and swayed all, consisted for the most part of men taken out of the house of Dauid, and therefore the Scepter did not depart from Iudah so long as that Court continued, and retayned the authority belonging to it; though there were no king of the posterity of Dauid and tribe of Iudah, but the high Priests first, and then other of the tribe of Leui, assuming to themselues Priestly, and Princely dignity, had the chiefest place and highest roome in this court of state. But when Herod swaied the Scepter, flue all those that he found to be of the bloud royall of Iudah, and tooke away all power and authority that the Sanedrim formerly had, then the Scepter departed from Iudah, and the Law-giuer from betweene his feete; so that then was the time for the Shiloh to come.

CHAP. 11.

Of the manifestation of God in the flesh, the causes thereof, and the reason why the se∣cond Person in the Trinitie rather tooke flesh, then either of the other.

GOd therefore in that fulnesse of time sent his Sonne in our flesh to sit vpon the throne of Dauid, and to bee both a King and Priest ouer his house for euer; concerning whom, three things are to bee considered. First, his humiliati∣on, abasing himselfe to take our nature, and become man. Secondly, the gifts and graces he bestowed on the nature of man, when he assumed it into the vnitie of his Person. Thirdly, the things hee did and suffered in it for our good.

In the Incarnation of the Sonne of God, we consider first, the necessity, that God should become man; secondly, the fitnesse and conuenience, that the second Person rather then any other: Thirdly, the manner, how this strange thing was wrought & brought to passe. Touching the necessity that God should become man, there are two opinions in the Romane schooles.

For some thinke, that though Adam had neuer sinned, yet it had beene necessary for the exaltation of humane nature, that God should haue sent his Sonne to become

man; but others are of opinion, that had it not beene for the deliuering of man out of sinne and misery, the Sonne of God had neuer appeared in our flesh. a 1.101 Both these opi∣nions, sayth Bonauentura, are Catholique, and defended by Catholiques: whereof the former seemeth more consonant to reason, but the later to the piety of faith, because neither Scripture nor Fathers doe euer mention the Incarnation, but when they speake of the redemption of mankind: soe that seeing nothing is to be beleeued, but what is proued out of these, it sorteth better with the nature of right beliefe, to thinke the Sonne of God had neuer become the Sonne of man, if man had not sinned, then to thinke the contrary. b 1.102 Venit filius hominis, sayth Augustine, saluum facere quod perierat: Si homo non perijsset, filius hominis non venisset: nulla causa fuit Christo venien∣di, nisi peccatores saluos facere. Tolle morbos, tolle vuluera; & nulla est medicinae cau∣sa: that is, The Sonne of man came to saue that which was lost; If man had not peri∣shed, the sonne of man had not come, there was no other cause of Christs comming, but the saluation of sinners: Take away diseases, wounds and hurts, and what neede is there of the Phisition or Surgeon? Wherefore resoluing with the Scriptures and Fa∣thers, that there was no other cause of the incarnation of the Sonne of God, but mans redemption, let vs see whether so great an abasing of the sonne of God, were necessary for the effecting hereof.

Surely there is no doubt, but that Almighty God, whose wisdome is incomprehen∣sible, and power infinite, could haue effected this worke by other meanes, but not soe well beseeming his truth and justice; whereupon the Diuines doe shew, that in many respects it was fit and necessary for this purpose, that God should become man.

c 1.103 First, ad fidem firmandam; to settle men in a certaine and vndoubted perswasion of the truth of such things as are necessary to be beleeued: vt homo fidentiùs ambularet ad veritatem, sayth * 1.104 Augustine, ipsa veritas, Dei filius homine assumpto, constituit & fundauit fidem: that is, That man might more assuredly, and without danger of erring, approach vnto the presence of sacred truth it selfe, the sonne of God, assuming the nature of man, setled and founded the faith, and shewed what things are to be beleeued.

Secondly, ad rectam operationem, to direct mens actions; for whereas man, that might be seene, might not safely be followed, and God, that was to bee imitated and followed could not be seene, it was necessary that God should become man, that hee, whom man was to follow, might shew himselfe vnto man, and be seene of him.

Thirdly, ad ostendendam dignitatem humanae Naturae, to shew the dignitie and ex∣cellencie of humane nature, that no man should any more soe much forget himselfe, as to defile the same with finfull impurities. d 1.105 Demonstrauit nobis Deus, sayth Augustine, quàm excelsum locum inter creaturas habeat humana natura, in hoc quòd hominibus in vero homine apparuit; that is, God shewed vs how high a place the nature of man hath amongst his creatures, in that he appeared vnto men in the nature, and true being of a man. e 1.106 Agnosce (sayth Leo) O Christiane dignitatem tuam, & diuinae consors factus naturae noli in veterem vilitatem degeneri conuersatione redire: that is, Take knowledge ô Christian man of thine owne worth and dignity: and being made partaker of the di∣uine nature returne not to thy former basenesse by an vnfitting kind of life & conuer∣sation. Lastly, it was necessary the Sonne of God should become man, ad liberandum hominem à seruitute peccati, to deliuer man from the slauery and bondage of sinne. For the performance whereof, two things were to be done: For first, the justice of God displeased with sinne committed against him, was to bee satisfied: and secondly the breach was to be made vp that was made vpon the whole nature of man by the same: neither of which things could possibly be perforned by man or Angell, or by any cre∣ature. For touching the first, the wrath of God displeased with sinne, and the punish∣ments which in iustice he was to inflict vpon sinners for the same, were both infinite: because the offence was infinite, and therefore none but a person of infinite worth, value, and vertue, was able to endure the one, and satisfie the other.

If any man shall say, it was possible for a meere man stayed by diuine power and as∣sistance, to feele smart and paine in proportion answering to the pleasure of sin, which is but finite, and to indure for a time the losse of all that infinite comfort & solace that

is to be found in God, answering to that aversion from God that is in sinne, which is infinite, and so to satisfie his justice; he considereth not, that though such a man might satisfie for his owne sinne, yet not for the sinnes of all other, who are in number infi∣nite, vnlesse his owne person were eminently as good as all theirs, and vertually infi∣nite. Secondly, that though he might satisfie for his owne actuall sin, yet he could not for his originall sin, which being the sin of nature, cannot be satisfied for but by him, in whom the whole nature of man in some principall sort is found. Thirdly, he consi∣dereth not, that it is impossible that any sinner should of himselfe euer cease from sin∣ning; and that therefore, seeing so long as sinne remaineth, the guilt of punishment re∣maineth, he must be euerlastingly punished, if he suffer the punishment due to his e∣uerlasting sinne: and consequently, that he cannot so suffer the punishments due to his actuall sinnes, as hauing satisfied the vvrath and justice of God to free himselfe from the same If it be said, that by grace he may cease from sinning, and so suffer the punish∣ment due to sin so ceasing, and not eternall; it vvill be replyed, that God giueth not his grace to any till his justice be first satisfied, and a reconciliation procured: for hee gi∣ueth it to his friends, not to his enemies.

Touching the second thing that vvas to be done for mans deliuerance, vvhich vvas the making vp of the breach made vpon the nature of man, & the freeing him from the impuritie of inherent sinne, that so the punishment due to sinne past being felt and suf∣fered, he might be reconciled to God; it could not bee performed by any meere crea∣ture vvhatsoeuer. For as all fell in Adam, the roote and beginning of naturall being, vvho receiued the treasures of righteousnesse and holinesse for himselfe, and those that by propagation vvere to come of him: so their restauration could not bee vvrought, but by him that should be the roote, fountaine, and beginning of supernaturall and spi∣rituall being, in whom the whole nature of mankind should be found in a more emi∣nent sort then it was in Adam: as indeed it was in the second Adam, f 1.107 of whose fulnesse we all receiue, grace for grace. And this surely was the reason, why it was no injustice in God to lay vpon him the punishments due to our sinnes, and why his sufferings doe free vs from the same. It is no way just, that one man hauing no speciall communion with another, should suffer punishment for another mans fault; but the whole nature of man being found in him in a more eminent sort, then either in Adam, or any one of them that came of him, & he hauing vndertaken to free & deliuer it, it was just & right he should feele the miseries it was subiect vnto: & that being felt, and sustained by him in such sort as was sufficient to satisfie diuine justice, they should not be impo∣sed or laid on vs.

Hereupon some haue said, that Christ was made sin, not by acting or cōtracting sin (for so to say were horrible blasphemy) but by taking on him the guilt of all mens sinnes: which yet is wisely to be vnderstood, lest we run into errour. For whereas the guilt of sin implieth two things; a worthines to be punished, & a destination vnto punishment; the former implieth demerite naturall or personall in him that is so worthy to bee pu∣nished, & this could not be in Christ: the other, which is obligatio ad poenam, a being subject vnto punishment, may grow from some cōmunion with him or them that are worthy to be punished. And in this sense some say, Christ took the guilt of our sins, not by acting or contracting sin, but by communion with sinners, though not in sin, yet in that nature, which in them is sinfull & guilty, as those good men that are parts of a sinfull City, are justly subject to the punishments due to that City, not in that they haue fellowship with it in euill, but in that they are parts of it being euill: as the son of a traitor is justly subject, to the grievous punishment of forfeiting the inheritance, that should haue descended vpon him from his father, though hee no way concurred with him in his treason, in respect of his nearenesse & cōmunion with him, of whom he is as it were a part. Wherupon all Divines resolue, that men altogether innocent, yet liuing as parts of the societies of wicked men, are justly subiect to those temporal pu∣nishments those societies are worthy of: & that the reason why one man cannot bee subject to those spirituall punishments which others deserue, is, for that in respect of the spirit & inward man, they haue no such derivation frō, dependance on, or cōmuniō with others, as in respect of the outward man they haue.

Wherefore to conclude this point, we may safely resolue, that no other could sa∣tisfie diuine justice, and suffer the punishments due to sinne in such sort as to free vs from the same, but Christ the Sonne of God, in whom our nature by personall vnion was found in an excellent sort; and that it was right and just, that hauing taken our na∣ture vpon him, & vndertaken to free and deliuer the same, hee should suffer & endure whatsoeuer punishments it was subject vnto. For the illustration of this point the learned obserue, that g 1.108 when God created Adam, he gaue him all excellent & precious vertues, as Truth to instruct him, Iustice to direct him, Mercy to preserue him, and Peace to delight him with all pleasing correspondence; but that when he fell away, & forgate all the good which God had done for him, these vertues left their lower dwellings, and speedily returned backe to him that gaue them, making report what was fallen out on earth, and earnestly mouing the Almighty concerning this his wret∣ched and forlorne creature; yet in very different sort and maner. For Iustice pleaded for the condemnation of sinfull man, and called for the punishment hee had worthily deserued; and Truth required the performance of that which God had threatned; but Mercy intreated for miserable man made out of the dust of the earth, seduced by Sa∣tan, and beguiled with the shewes of seeming good; & Peace no lesse carefully sought to pacifie the wrath of the displeased God, and to reconcile the Creature to the Cre∣ator. When God had heard the contrary pleas and desires of these most excellent Orators, and there was no other meanes to giue them all satisfaction, it was resolued on in the high Councell of the blessed Trinity, that one of those sacred Persons should become man, that by taking to him the nature of man he might partake in his mise∣ries, and be subject to his punishments, and by conjoyning his diuine nature and per∣fection with the same, might fill it with all grace and heavenly excellencie. Thus were the desires of these so contrary Petitioners satisfied: for man was punished as Gods Iustice vrged; that was performed which God had threatned, as Truth required: the offender was pittied, as Mercy intreated; and God & man reconciled, as Peace desired; and so was fulfilled that of the Psalmist: h 1.109 Mercy and Truth are met together, Righte∣ousnesse and Peace haue kissed each other.

Wherefore now let vs proceede, to see which of the Persons of the blessed Trinity was thought fittest to be sent into the world to performe this worke. Not the Father; for being of none, he could not be sent: Not the holy Ghost; for though he proceede, yet he is not the first proceeding Person; and therefore, whereas a double mission was necessary, the one to reconcile, the other to giue gifts to reconciled friends; the first proceeding Person was fittest for the first mission, and the second for the second. Se∣condly, who was fitter to be cast out into the Sea, to stay the tempest, then that Ionas for whose sake it arose? Almighty God was displeased for the wrong offred to his Sonne, in desiring to be like vnto God, and to know all things in such sort as is proper to the onely begotten Sonne of the Father, therefore was he the fittest to pacifie all a∣gaine. Thirdly, who was fitter to become the Son of man, then he that was by na∣ture the Sonne of God? i 1.110 Patrem habuit in coelis, Matrem quaesiuit in terris: Hee had a Father in heauen, he sought onely a mother on earth. Who could bee fitter to make vs the Sonnes of God by adoption & grace, then he that was the Sonne of God by na∣ture? who fitter to repaire the Image of God decayed in vs, then hee that was the brightnesse of glory, and the engrauen forme of his Fathers Person? Lastly, who was fitter to bee a Mediator, then the middle Person, who was in a sorte a Mediator in the state of creation, and before the fall?

Wherevpon Hugo de Sancto victore bringeth in Almighty God speaking to the Sonnes of men concerning Christ his Sonne in this sort: k 1.111 Nolite putare, quòd ipse tan∣tùm sit Mediator in reconciliatione hominum, quia per ipsum etiam commendabilis & pla∣cita fit aspectui meo conditio omnium creaturarum: that is, thinke not that he is a Medi∣ator onely in the reconciliation of men, for by him the condition of all creatures is gratefull vnto me, and pleasing in my sight. Magni consilii Angelus, sayth Hugo, nobis mittitur, vt, qui conditis datus fuit ad gloriam, idem perditis veniat ad medelam: that is, the Angell of the great Counsell is sent vnto vs, that hee who was giuen vnto vs,

when we were made, to bee the crowne of our glory, and Prince of our excellency, might relieue, helpe, and restore vs when we were lost.

Yet our aduersaries take I knowe not what exceptions against Caluin for saying, that Christ was a Mediator in the state of creation; but they should know, that there is a Mediator of reconciliation of parties at variance, and a Mediator of coniunction of them that are farre asunder, and remote one from another: and that in this later sort, betweene the Father, that no way receiueth any thing from another, and the creatures, that so receiue their being from another, that they are made out of nothing, hee may rightly be sayd to mediate, that receiueth being from another, but the same that is in him from whom he receiueth it. If any man shall say, that the holy Ghost also in this sort commeth betweene him, in whom the fulnesse of beeing is originally found, and the creatures that are made of nothing, as well as the Sonne, and that therefore in this sence, he also may be said to be a Mediator, it is easily answered, that the Sonne onely commeth betweene the Father, in whom the fulnesse of beeing is originally found, & the creatures made of nothing, as he by whom all things were made; the holy Ghost, as he in whom all things doe consist and stand; and that therefore he hath not the con∣dition of a Mediator being not considered as he by whom all things are bestowed vp∣on vs, but as that gift in which all other things are giuen vnto vs: so that the Sonne onely is the Mediator, because by him, from the Father, in the holy Ghost, we receiue all that which we haue and enjoy.

Neither needeth there any Mediator to conjoyne him to vs, and vs to him: for the medium conjoyneth both the extremes, first with it selfe, and then within themselues, in that it hath something of one of them, and something of another, in something a∣greeing with, and in something differing from either of the extremes: So the Sonne of God agreeth with vs, in that hee receiueth the beeing and Essence he hath from a∣nother, in which respect he is distinguished, though not diuided from the Father, but in that the nature he receiueth from the Father is not another, but the same which the Father hath, he is vnlike vnto vs, but agreeth with the Father. And here we may see the malice and ignorance of l 1.112 them that charge Caluine with heresie, for affirming that Christ is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God of himselfe, as if hee denyed the eternall generation of the Sonne of God, and were contrary to the decree of the sacred Nicene Councell, which defineth that he is Deus de Deo, Lumen de Lumine: for these men should know, that Christ may be sayd to be from another in two sortes; either by production of Essence, or by communication of Essence: the Nicene Councell defined that Christ the Sonne of God who is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, consubstantiall with the Father, is notwithstanding God of God, that is, hath his Essence & Deitie communicated vnto him by eternall gene∣ration from the Father, euen the same the Father had originally in himselfe. All which Caluine most willingly acknowledgeth to be true, and therefore denyeth not, but that it may bee truely sayd according to the sacred decree and definition of that worthy Councell, that Christ the Sonne of God is God of God, and light of light: but to imagine, as Valentinus Gentilis, and other damnable heretickes did, that he is from the Father by production of Essence, whence it will follow, that he hath not the same essence with the Father, but another different from it, inferior to it, and dependant on it, is impious and hereticall: and in opposition to this impious conceit of these Hereticks, and in the sense intended by them, Caluine rightly denied Christ to bee God of God. For this their conceipt was euer detested by all Catholiques, as wicked & blasphemous, yea so farre are they from approuing any such impiety, that no axi∣ome is more common in all their Schooles, then that Essentia nec generat, nec genera∣tur, that is, the diuine Essence neither generateth, nor is generated: and surely, how∣soeuer m 1.113 Kellison in his Suruey saith the contrary, and opposeth his affirmatiue against the negatiue of all the most famous and renowned Schoole-men, yet I am perswaded he did so rather out of ignorance, then any reason leading him so to doe, & do thinke it more then improper and hard to say, that the diuine Essence doth either generate or is generated.

Thus then Christ is truly sayd by Caluine to be God of himselfe, by way of oppo∣sition

to that kinde of being from another, which is by production of Essence, and yet is rightly acknowledged by him with the Nicene Fathers to be from another, to wit, the Father, and to be God of God, in that he receiueth the eternall Essence by communi∣cation from him.

This n 1.114 Bellarmine saw, and acknowledged to bee true, pronouncing that touching this point Calvin erred not in judgment, & that his opinion is rather an error in forme of words, & expressing ill that he meant well, then in the thing it self. That Caluin erred not in the thing it selfe he deliuered, he proueth at large, specially out of the doctrin of Caluins followers: for Beza in axiom. de trin. & in the 14 axiom, affirmeth, that the Son is frō the Father by ineffable cōmunication of the whole diuine Essence: & Iosias Sim∣lerus in his epistle to the Polonians, defendeth the opinion of Calvine, and expresseth his owne opinion & Calvins in this sort: Non negamus filium habere essentiam à patre, sed essentiam genitam negamus: that is, we doe not deny the Son to haue receiued his Essence from the Father, but that his Essence is generated. This doctrine of Simlerus, why it should not be Catholique, Bellarmine professeth, he cannot see: yet his fellowes in all their Pamphlets traduce Calvins Autotheisme as an execrable heresie: and mu∣ster the Autotheani, as they call them, amongst the damned Heretickes of this time: which is not to bee marvailed at; for the manner of these men is, odiously to object things againe and againe, that haue beene often cleared both by themselues and vs, litle regarding whether it bee true or false they say, so they may fasten some note of dis∣grace vpon them whose persons and professions they hate.

One memorable example of hellish impudencie in this kinde, worthy neuer to bee forgotten, but to be remembred and recorded to the shame and reproofe of the slaun∣dering Sect of Papists, we haue in Mathew o 1.115 Kellison his late Survey of the new Reli∣gion: who, to proue that the Protestants contemne the Fathers, affirmeth that Beza called Athanasius (that worthy Champion of the Catholique faith) Sathanasius, and judged the Fathers of the Nicene Councell to haue beene blinde Sophisters, ministers of the Beast, and slaues of Antichrist: whereas Beza esteemeth of Athanasius as one of the worthiest Divines that the World for many ages had, in whose lap and bosome our wearied Mother the Church, in her greatest distresses, forsaken of her owne chil∣dren, was forced to repose and lay her head in those restlesse and confused turmoyles during the time of the Arrian heresie: p 1.116 and professeth, that he thinketh the Sunne in Heauen neuer beheld a more sacred and diuine assembly or meeting then that of the Nicene Fathers, since the Apostles times: yea he pronounceth, that there was neuer a∣ny found to resist against the proceedings and decrees of that Councell, but their wo∣full and vnhappy ends made it appeare to all the World, they were fighters against God: and condemneth the Arrians as execrable miscreants, to the pit of hell, for v∣sing those words wherewith this Surveyour chargeth him. Wherefore let the Reader beware, how without due examination he giue credite to the sinister reports of these lewde companions, who haue sold themselues not onely to speake lies, but to write them, and leaue them vpon record to all posterity.

But let vs see whether Caluin haue not erred at least in the forme of words, and ill expressed that he meant well, as Bellarmine chargeth him. Surely we shall finde, if wee take a view of that which Caluin hath written, that the Cardinals reprehension of him in this behalfe is most vnjust: for Epiphanius a worthy Bishop, and great Diuine, writing against heresies, and therefore endeavouring to be most exact in his formes of speech, calleth the Sonne of God q 1.117 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as well as Caluine doth. It is true, saith Bellarmine, he doth so: but when he saith, Christ is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he meaneth onely, that hee is truely God: whereas Caluin affirmeth, that he is so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that hee is God of him∣selfe, which is false: for neither the Father, nor the Son is God of himselfe, the Sonne being of the Father, and the Father of none, because he receiueth being from none: as if it were so strange a thing to say, God is of himselfe, or as if it were all one for a thing to be of it selfe, and to be produced, or to receiue being of, or from it selfe, r 1.118 Om∣ne ens (saith Scaliger) aut est à se, aut ab alio; that is, euery thing that hath being, either is of it selfe, or of another. s 1.119 Cuius rationi (saith Scotus) simpliciter repugnat esse ab alio,

illud si potest esse, potest esse â se; sed rationi primi effectiui repugnat esse ab alio: ergo potest esse à se, ergo est à se, quia quod non est à se, non potest esse à se: quia tunc non ens produce∣ret aliquid ad esse, & idem causaret se, & ita non erit incausabile omnino. That thing, with the nature and condition whereof it cannot stand, to be of, or from another, if it may be at all, it may be of it selfe: but it standeth not with the nature and condition of the first efficient cause, to be of or from another; therefore it may be, nay therefore it is of it selfe; because that which is not of it selfe, cannot afterwards be of it selfe: For then a thing not being might cause a thing to be, yea the same might be the cause of it selfe, and soe the highest and first cause of all things might haue a cause giuing beeing vnto it, which is impossible. These men feared not to speake, as Caluine speaketh, and yet I thinke Bellarmine dareth not reprehend them also as he doth Caluine; but if hee do, I suppose the world will thinke they knewe how to speake as properly as hee.

Thus then we see the Son of God is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, God of himselfe, & that yet he re∣ceiued his essence frō the Father but the same that was in the Father, not another cau∣sed, made, or produced by him: and that soe he was a Mediator in the state of creation between God and his Creatures, in that hee was of a middle condition betweene him that no way was of any other, and those things that by another were made and produ∣ced out of nothing, knitting and ioyning them together in an indissoluble band: and that in this respect he was fittest to become Man, and to be a Mediator of reconciliati∣on, when betweene God and his creatures there was not onely a great distance as be∣fore, but a great diuision, difference, and breach also.

CHAP. 12.

Of the manner of the vnion that is betweene the Person of the Sonne of God, and our nature in Christ, and the similitudes brought to expresse the same.

WHerefore let vs proceede to see how the natures of God and Man were vnited in Christ, and what kinde of vnion it was, that made God to be∣come Man, & Man God. For the clearing hereofthe a 1.120 Diuines do note, that there is Vnum per vnitatē, & Vnū per vnionē, that is, that sometimes a thing is said to be one by vnity or Onenes, & sometimes by vniō. Vnum per vnitatē est illud in quo non est multitudo, quod scilicet nō est in multis, nec ex multis; that is, That thing is one by vnity, wherein there are not many things foūd, which neither cōsisteth in many things, nor of many things: in which sort God only is most properly sayd to be One, in whom there is neither diuersity of natures, nor multiplicity of parts, nor com∣position of perfection and imperfection, being and not being, as in all creatures. One by vnion, is that, which either consisteth in many things, or of many things: and is either in a sort only, or simply One. In a sort onely a thing consisting in or of many things, is sayd to be one three waies. First, when neither the one of the things whereof it consisteth hath denomination from the other, nor the property of it, as when stones are layd together to make one heape. 2^ly When the one hath the pro∣perty of the other, but no denomination from it, as is the vnion betweene the hand and those sweete spices it holdeth in it. Thirdly, when the one hath denomination from the other, but no property of the other, as a man is sayd to be apparelled from his apparell, but noe property thereof passeth from it vnto him, as the sauour of the sweete spices doth into the hand. Vnion simply is of diuerse sorts. First when one of the things vnited is turned into the other: this falleth out soe often as there is a re∣pugnance betweene the things vnited, and one is predominant, and preuailing, as when a drop of water is poured into a whole vessell of wine. Secondly, when both the things vnited are changed in nature and essence; and that commeth to passe so often as the the things vnited haue a repugnance betweene themselues, and yet no preuailing of one ouer the other: In this sort the elements are vnited to make mixt or compound bodies. Thirdly, when there is no transmutation of the things vnited, but the constitution of a third nature out of them, because they haue no repugnance, but mutuall dependance. Of this sort is the vnion of the soule and body. Fourthly when

there is neither transmutation of the natures vnited, nor constitution of a third out of them, but onely the founding, setling, and staying of the one of the things vnited in the other, and the drawing of it into the vnity of the personall being or subsistence of the other: this commeth to passe, when there is neither repugnance nor mutuall de∣pendance of one of the things vnited vpon the other, but a dependance of another kinde; so the braunch of a tree being put vpon the stocke of another tree, is drawne into the vnitie of the subsistence of that tree into which it is put; and whereas if it had beene set in the ground, it would haue growne as a separate tree in it selfe, now it groweth •…•…n the tree into which it is grafted, and pertayneth to the vnitie of it. Here is neither mixture of the natures of these trees, nor constitution of a third out of them, but only the drawing of one of them into the vnity of the subsistence of the o∣ther: so that here is not Compositio huius ex his, but Huius ad hoc, that is, not a com∣position * 1.121 of a third thing out of the things vnited, but an adioyning of one of the things vnited to the other. And this kinde of vnion doth of all other most perfectly resemble the personall vnion of the natures of God and man in Christ; wherein the nature of man, that would haue beene a person in it selfe, if it had been left to it selfe, is drawen into the vnity of the diuine person, and subsisteth in it, being preuented from subsisting in it selfe by this personall vnion and assumption.

This that wee may the better conceiue, we must consider what the difference is be∣tweene nature and person, and what maketh an indiuiduall nature to bee a person. Some thinke that nature and person differ, as that Quod est, and Quo est, that is, as the thing that is, and that whereby it is. Other, that the condition of personall be∣ing, addeth to an indiuiduall nature a negation of dependance or beeing susteined by another: but to leaue all vncertainty of opinions, to bee this or that, is indiuiduall; to bee this or that in and for it selfe, is personall being; to be this or that in and for another, is to pertaine to the person or subsistence of another: so that euery thing that is in or for it selfe, is a subsistence or thing subsisting, and euery such rationall indiuiduall na∣ture is a person. Amongst those created things which naturally are apt to make a subsistence, or to subsist in and for themselues, there is very great difference: for some naturally may become parts of another more entire thing of the same kinde, as wee see in all those things wherein euery part hath the same nature and name that the whole hath, as euery droppe of water is water, and, being left to it selfe, is a subsi∣stence in it selfe, and hath that beeing, quality, and nature that is in it, in and for it selfe; but being joyned to a greater quantity of water, it hath now no beeing, quality or operation, but in and for that greater quantity of water into which it is powred. Other things there be, that cannot naturally or by the working of naturall causes, put themselues into the vnity of any other thing, but by the helpe of some forreine cause, they may be made to pertaine to the vnity of another thing different in nature & kind: So the braunch of a tree of one kinde, which put into the ground would bee an entire distinct tree in it selfe, growing, mouing, and bearing fruite in and for it selfe, may by the hand of man be put into the vnity of the subsistence of a tree of another kind and sort, and so grow, moue, and beare fruite, not distinctly in and for it selfe, but joynt∣ly in and for that tree into which it is implanted. A third sort of things there are, which being left to themselues become subsistences; and cannot by force of naturall causes, nor the helpe of any forreine thing, euer become parts of any other created thing, or pertaine to the vnity of the subsistence of any such thing: such is the nature of all liuing things; and such is the nature of man, which cannot be brought by force of any cause to pertaine to the vnity of any created subsistence; because it cannot haue such dependance on any created thing as is required to make it pertaine to the subsistence thereof; yet by diuine and supernaturall working, it may bee drawen into the vnitie of the subsistence of any of the Persons of the blessed Trinitie, wherein the fulnesse of all being, and the perfection of all created things is in a more eminent sort then in themselues. For though all created things haue their owne being, yet seeing God is nearer to them then they are to themselues, and they are in a better sort in him then in themselues, there is no question, but that they may be preuented, and stayed,

from being in & for themselues, & caused to bee in & for one of the diuine Persons of the blessed Trinity. So that as one drop of water, that formerly subsisted in it selfe, powred into a vessell containing a greater quantity of water, by continuitie becom∣meth one in subsistence with that greater quantity of water: & as a braunch of a tree, which being set in the ground, & left to itselfe, would bee an entire & independent tree, becommeth one in subsistence with that tree into which it is graffed; they both lose their own bounds, within which contayned, they were distinctly seuered from o∣ther things, & the relation of being totall things; so the individuall nature of man as∣sumed into the vnity of one of the Persons of the blessed Trinity, loseth that kinde of being, that naturally left to it selfe, it would haue had, which is, to bee in & for it selfe, & not to depend of any other, & getteth a new relation of dependance & being in a∣nother. And as it is continuitie that maketh the former things one with them to which they are joyned: so here a kinde of spirituall contact betweene the Diuine Person, & the nature of man, maketh GOD to be Man. For as situation and position is in things corporall, so is order and dependance in things spirituall.

There are many similitudes brought by Diuines, to expresse this vnion of the Na∣tures of God, & Man, in the same Christ, as of the soule & body; of a flaming & fierie sword; of one man hauing two accidentall formes: & lastly, of a tree, & a braunch or bough that is graffed into it. The similitude of the soule & body making but one man, is very apt, & vsed by the b 1.122 Ancient, yet is it defectiue & imperfect: first, for that the soule & body being imperfect natures, concurre to make one full & perfect nature of a man: secondly, for that the one of them is not drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of the other: but both depend of a third subsistence: which is, that of the whole: whereas in Christ, both natures are perfect, so that they cannot concurre to make a third nature or subsistence; but the Eternall Word subsisting perfectly in it selfe, draweth vnto it, & personally sustaineth in it, the nature of man, which hath no subsistence of it owne, but that of the Son of God communicated vnto it. Touching the similitude c 1.123 of a fiery & flaming sword, it most liuely expresseth the vnion of the two Natures in Christ, in that the substances of fire, & of the sword, are so nearely cō∣joyned, that the operations of thē for the most part concurre, & there is in a sort, a cō∣munication of properties from the one of them to the other. For a fiery sword in cut∣ting & dividing, wasteth & burneth; & in wasting and burning, cutteth and diuideth; and we may rightly say of this whole thing wherein the nature of the fire, and the na∣ture of the Steele, or Iron (whereof the sword is made) doe concurre & meete, that it is fire, & that it is steele, or Iron: that this fiery thing is a sharpe piercing sword, and that this sharpe piercing sword is a fiery & devouring thing. But this similitude is defectiue, because the nature of Iron is not drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of fire, nor the fire of Iron, so that we cannot say, this fire is steele or Iron, or this steele or Iron is fire. The third similitude of one man hauing two qualities, or accidentall formes, (as the skill of Physicke and Law) hath many things in it most aptly expres∣sing the personall vnion of the two Natures of God & Man in Christ. For first, in such a man there is but one person: and yet there are two natures concurring and meeting in the same: the qualities are different, and the things had, not the same: But hee that hath and possesseth them, is the same. Secondly, the person being but one, is deno∣minated from either, or both of these different formes, qualities, or accidentall natures, and doth the workes of them both: and there is a communication of properties con∣sequent vpon the concurring of two such formes in one man. For wee may rightly say of such a one: This Physitian is a Lawyer; and, this Lawyer is a Physitian. This Law∣yer is happy in curing diseases: and, this Physitian is carefull in following his Clients causes. d 1.124 Scotus especially approueth the similitude of the subject, and accident; first taking away that which is of imperfection in the subject, as that it is potentiall in re∣spect of the accident to be informed of it, and in a sort perfected by it: Secondly, that which is of imperfection in the accident, as that it must be inherent: for otherwise the * 1.125 nature of man is joyned to the Person of the Son of God per modum accidentis, for that advenit enti in actu completo, that is, it commeth to a thing already complete and

perfect in it selfe. In which sort, one thing may bee added and come to another, either so, as not to pertaine to the same subsistence, as the garments that one putteth on; or so, as to pertaine to the same subsistence, but by inherence; or thirdly, so, as to pertaine to the same subsistence, without the inherence of the one in the other, by a kind of inexi∣stence, as the branch is in the tree into which it is graffed: which is the e 1.126 fourth si∣militude, and of all other most perfect. For there are but two things wherein it fai∣leth and commeth too short: whereof the first is, for that the branch hath first a seperate subsistence in it selfe, and after looseth it, and then is drawne into the vnity of the subsistence of that tree into which it is implanted: the second, for that it hath no roote of it owne, and soe wanteth one part pertaining to the integrity of the nature of each tree. But if a branch of one tree should by diuine power bee created and made in the stocke of another, this comparison would faile but onely in one circum∣stance, and that not very important; seeing, though the humane nature want noe part pertaining to the integrity and perfection of it, (as the implanted branch doth of that pertaineth to the integrity of the nature of a tree, in that it hath no roote of it owne) yet the humane nature in Christ, hath no subsistence of it owne, but that of the Sonne of God communicated vnto it; and therefore in that respect it is, in some sort, like to the branch that hath noe roote of it owne, but that of the tree, into which it is implanted, communicated vnto it. This comparison is vsed by Ale∣xander of Hales, and diuers other of the Schoole-men, and, in my opinion, is the aptest and fullest of all other. For as betweene the tree and the branch there is a composition, not Huius ex his, but huius ad hoc, that is, not making a tree of a compound or middle nature, and quality, but causing the branch, though retaining it owne nature, and bearing it owne fruite, to pertaine to the vnity of the tree into which it is implanted, and to beare fruite in and for it, and not for it selfe: soe the Person of Christ is sayd to bee compounded of the nature of God and Man, not as if there were in him a mixt nature arising out of these, but as hauing the one of these added vnto the other in the vnity of the same person. And as this tree is one, and yet hath two different natures in it, and beareth two kinds of fruite: soe Christ is one, and yet hath two different natures, and in them performeth the distinct actions pertaining to either of them. Lastly as a man may truly say, after such implanting, this Vine is an Oliue tree, and this Oliue tree is a Vine; and consequently, this Vine beareth Oliues, and this Oliue tree beareth Grapes: so a man may say, this Sonne of Mary is the Sonne of God: and on the other side, this Sonne of God, and first borne of euery creature, is the Sonne of Mary, borne in time: the Sonne of God, and Lord of life was crucified, and the Sonne of Mary layd the foundations of the earth, & stret∣ched out the Heauens like a curtaine.

CHAP. 13.

Of the Communication of the properties of either nature in Christ, consequent vppon the v∣nion of them in his Person, and the two first kindes thereof.

HAuing spoken of the assuming of our nature by the Sonne of God into the v∣nity of his diuine Person, it remaineth, that we speake of the consequents of this vnion, and the gifts and graces bestowed vpon the nature of Man when it was assumed. The first and principall consequent of the personall vnion of the natures of God and Man in Christ, is, the Communication of their properties: of which there are three kindes or degrees. The first is, when the properties of either nature considered singly and apart, as the properties of this or that nature, are attri∣buted to the person from whichsoeuer of the natures it be denominated. The second is, when the different actions of two natures in Christ concurre in the same works and things done. The third, when the diuine attributes are cōmunicated vnto the humane nature, and bestowed vpon it. Vsually in the Schooles, only the first degree or kinde of communication, is named the communication of properties. Which that wee may

the better vnderstand, we must obserue, that there are abstractiue & concretiue words: the former whereof do precisely note the forme or nature of each thing, the latter im∣ply also the person that hath the same nature or forme; as, Humanitas and Homo, Sancti∣tas, and Sanctus. Manhood and Man: Holinesse & Holy. 2^ly Wee must obserue that ab∣stractiue words, noting precisely the distinct natures, cannot be affirmed one of the o∣ther, nor the properties of one nature attributed to the other abstractiuely expressed. For neither can we truly say, that Deity is Humanity, or Humanity, Deity; nor that the Deity suffered, or the Humanity created the world; but we may truly say God is Man, and Man is God: God died vpon the Crosse, and Maries babe made the world; Because the person which these concretiue words imply, is one: & all actions, passions, and qualities, agree really to the Person, though in, and in respect sometimes of one nature, and sometimes of another. When wee say, God is Man, and Man is God, wee note the conjunction that is between the natures meeting in one person: and therefore this mu∣tuall & conuersiue predication cannot properly be named communication of proper∣ties; but the communication of properties is, when the properties of one nature are at∣tributed to the Person, whether denominated from the other, as some restraine it, or from the same also, as others enlarge it. This communication of properties is of diuers sorts: first when the properties of the diuine nature are attributed to the whole Person of Christ subsisting in two natures, but denominated from the diuine nature, as when it is sayd: a 1.127 Those things which the Father doth, the Sonne doth also. Secondly, when the properties of the humane nature are attributed to the person denominated from the diuine nature, as when it is sayd, b 1.128 They crucified the Lord of glory. c 1.129 They killed the Lord of life. Thirdly, when the properties of the diuine nature are attributed to the person denominated from the nature of man, as when it is sayd: d 1.130 No man ascendeth into Heauen, but the Son of man that came downe from Heauen, euen that Son of man that is in Heauen. 4^ly, When those things that agree to both natures are attributed to the person denominated from one of them, as when the Apostle sayth: e 1.131 There is one God, & one Mediatour betweene God & man, which is the man Christ Iesus. Fiftly, when the proper∣ties of one nature are attributed to the person, neither denominated precisely from the one nature, nor from the other, but noted by a word indifferently expressing both; as when we say, Christ was borne of Mary. If any man list to striue about words not ad∣mitting any communication of properties, but when the properties of one nature, are attributed to the person denominated from the other, as when wee say, the Son of God died on the Crosse, the Son of Man made the world: besides that he is contrary to the ordinary opinion, he seemeth not to consider, that it is a person consisting in two na∣tures that is noted, by what appellation soeuer we expresse the same; and that there∣fore the attributing of the properties of any one of the natures unto it, may rightly be named a communication of properties, as being the attributing of the properties of this or that nature to a person subsisting in both, though denominated from one. For the better vnderstanding of that hath bin said touching this first kind of communication of properties, & the diuers sorts thereof, there are certaine obseruations necessary, which I will here adde. The first is, that the cōmunication of properties wherein the proper∣ties of the one nature, are affirmed of the person denominated of the other, is reall, and not verball onely. The second, that the properties of the humane nature are not re∣ally communicated to the diuine nature. The third is, that the properties of the di∣uine nature, are in a sort really communicated to the humane nature, whereof wee shall see more in the third kind of communication of properties. The fourth obser∣uation is, that in the sacred and blessed Trinity, there is Alius & Alius but not Aliud & Aliud, diuersity of persons, but not of being & nature: but that in Christ there is aliud & aliud, and not alius & alius, that is, diuersity of natures, but so that he that hath them is the same: whence it cōmeth that the properties of either nature may be affirmed of the person, from which soeuer of them it be denominated: yet so that more fully to ex∣presse our meaning, it is necessary sometimes to adde for distinction sake that they are verified 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 secundum aliud; that is, according vnto the other nature, and not ac∣cording vnto that whence the person is denominated. This explication, or limitatiō is thē specially to be added, whē such properties of one nature, are attributed to the persō

denominated from the other, as seeme to exclude the properties of the other: so when we say, Christ the Son of God, is a creature, we must adde, that wee neither scandalize them that heare vs, nor giue any occasion of errour, that hee is a creature in that hee is man. Now it followeth that wee speake of the second kinde or degree of communica∣tion of properties, which is in that the actions of Christ are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Deiuiriles, Di∣vinely-humane, & Humanely-diuine, & each Nature so worketh it owne worke, ac∣cording to the naturall propertie thereof, that it hath a kinde of communion with the other. But lest we fall into errour touching this point, we must obserue, that the acti∣ons of Christ may bee said to bee Theandricall, that is, Diuinely-humane, three wayes. First so, as if there were one action of both Natures, and so we must not vnderstand the actions of Christ to be Diuinely-humane, for this is to confound the Natures; whereas we must vndoubtedly beleeue, that f 1.132 Omnia in Christo sunt duplicia, naturae, proprietates, voluntates, & operationes, solâ exceptâ subsistentiâ, quae est una: that is, that all things in Christ are twofold, or double, as his Natures, properties, wils, & actions: his subsi∣stence only or Person excepted, which is but one. Secondly, the actions of Christ may be said to be Theandricall, that is, Diuinely-humane, for that both the actions of Deitie, & Humanity, though distinct, yet concurre in one work: to which purpose Sophronius in that notable Epistle of his, which we read in the •…•…6^t generall Councell, doth distin∣guish * 1.133 3 kinds of the works of Christ, making the first meerely diuine, as to create all things: the second meerely humane, as to eate, drink, & sleep: the third, partly diuine, & partly humane, as to walke vpō the waters: in which worke, vvalking vvas so hu∣mane, that the giuing of firmnes & soliditie to the vvaters to beare the vveight of his Body, vvas an action of Deitie. Thirdly, the actions of Christ may be said to be Thean∣drical, that is, Diuinely-humane, in respect of the Person that produceth & bringeth thē forth, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God-man. In either of these two latter senses, the actions of Christ may rightly be vnderstood to be Theandricall: & that of Leo is most true cōcer∣ning Christ. h 1.134 In Christo utra{que} forma operatur cum alterius cōmunione quod propriū est: that is, in Christ both natures do work that which is proper vnto them, with a kind of cōmuniō the one hath with the other: for this saying is true, first in respect of the Per∣son, & the cōmunion which either nature hath with other therein. Secondly, in respect of the work & effect, wherunto by their seuerall proper actions they cōcurre, though in different sort, as in healing of the sick, not only the force of Deity appeared, & shew∣ed it self, but the humane nature also did cōcurre, in respect of the body, in that he tou∣ched those that were to be healed, laid his hands vpon thē, & spake vnto thē: in respect of the soul, in that he desired, applauded, & rejoiced in that, which by diuine power he brought to passe: thirdly, in that the actions of humane nature in Christ haue in them a greater perfection then can be found in the actions of any meere man, from the assi∣stance of the Deity, that dwelleth bodily in him.

CHAP. 14.

Of the third kind of communication of properties, and the first degree thereof.

NOw let vs come to the third kind of cōmunicatiō of properties, which is that whereby diuine & precious things are really bestowed on the nature of man. The things which are thus cōmunicated & bestowed, are of 2 sorts. The first finite, & created: as qualities or habites, formally, habitually, & subjectiuely inherent in the humane nature: the 2^•, the essentiall attributes of the diuinity it self, cō∣municated to the humane nature, not formally by physicall effusion, or essentiall confu∣siō, but by dispensatiō of personal vniō. Touching the things of the first sort, there is no questiō but that they vvere bestovved vpon the nature of man, in all perfectiō, vvhen it vvas vnited to the Person of the Sonne of God: so that in it vvas found the fulnesse both of grace & vertue, according to that of S. Iohn, a 1.135 The word was made flesh, & dwelt amōgst vs. & we saw the glory of it, as the glory of the only begotten Son of God, full of grace & truth. b 1.136 The fulnes of grace (as the Schoolemen excellently note) is of tvvo sorts; first in respect of grace it selfe: and secondly, in respect of him that hath it: The ful∣nesse of grace in respect of grace it selfe, is then, vvhen one attaineth to the highest and vttermost of grace, both quoad essentiam, & virtutem, intensiuè, & extensiuè: in

the Essence and vertue of it, intensiuely, and extensiuely, that is, vvhen he hath it as farre forth as it may be had, and vnto all effects and purposes wherevnto grace doth or can extend it selfe; as he is said, to haue life perfectly, or the fulnesse of life, that hath it not onely in the essence, but according to all the operations and acts of life, sensi∣ble, rationall, intellectuall, spirituall, and naturall; in which sort, man onely hath the perfection and fulnesse of life in him, and no other thing of inferior condition. This kinde of fulnesse of grace is proper to Christ onely, c 1.137 Of whose fulnesse wee all receiue. The fulnesse of grace in respect of the subiect or him that hath it, is then when one hath grace fully and perfectly, according to his estate and condition, both intensiuely to the vttermost bound that God hath prefixed to them of such a condi∣tion; and extensiuely in the vertue of it, in that it extendeth to the doing and per∣forming of all those things that may any way pertaine to the condition, office, or e∣state of such as are of his place and Ranke. In this sort Stephen is said to d 1.138 haue beene full of the holy Ghost, who is the fountaine of grace; and Marie the blessed Virgine, the mother of our Lord, is by the Angell, pronounced: e 1.139 Blessed amongst women, and full of grace: for that shee had grace in respect of the Essence of it, intensiuely, in as perfect sort as any mortall creature might haue it, and in respect of the vertue of it, extending to all thinges that might any way pertaine to her that was chosen to bee the sacred vessell of the incarnation of the Sonne of God: So that there was neuer any but Christ, whose graces were no way stinted, and to whom the spirit was not giuen in measure, that was absolutely full of grace; which fulnesse of grace in Christ, the Diuines doe declare and cleare vnto vs, wherein it consisted, by distinguishing a double grace in Christ, the one of vnion, the other of vnction, or habituall; and doe teach, that the grace of vnion, in respect of the thing giuen, which is the personall subsistence of the Sonne of God, bestowed on the nature of man formed in Maries wombe (whence that which was borne of her, was the Sonne of God) is infinite, howsoeuer the relation of dependance found in the humane nature, whereby it is v∣nited to the person of the Sonne of God, is a finite, & created thing. Likewise touch∣ing the grace of vnction, they teach, that it is in a sort infinite also: for that howsoeuer it be but a finite, and created thing, yet in the nature of grace it hath no limitation, no bounds, no stint, but includeth in it selfe whatsoeuer any way pertayneth to grace, or commeth within the compasse of it. The reason of this illimited donation of grace, thus without all stint bestowed on the nature of man in Christ, was, for that it was giuen vnto it, as to the vniuersall cause, whence it was to be deriued vnto others. Frō the fulnesse of grace in Christ, let vs proceed to speake of the perfection of his vertues also. f 1.140 Vertue differeth from grace, as the beame of light frō light: for as light indiffe∣rently scattereth it self into the whole aire, & all those things vpon which it may come, but the beame is the same light as it is directed, specially to some one place or thing: so grace replenisheth, filleth, & perfecteth the whole soule, & spirit of man; but vertue more specially this or that faculty or power of the soule, to this or that pur∣pose or effect. In respect of both these the soule of Christ was perfect, being full of vertue as wel as grace; wherevpon the Prophet Esay saith: g 1.141 The Spirit of the Lord shall rest vpon the flowre of Ishai, the Spirit of wisedome and vnderstanding, the Spirit of coun∣sell & strength, the Spirit of knowledge & of the feare of the Lord. Wisedome is in re∣spect of things diuine: vnderstanding of the first principles; science of conclusions; counsell of things to be done: feare maketh men decline from that which is ill, and strength confirmeth them to ouercome the difficulties wherewith weldoing is beset. So that seeing the spirit, that is the giuer of all these vertues (within the compasse whereof all vertue is confined) is promised to rest on our Sauiour Christ, we may vn∣doubtedly resolue, that there is no vertue pertayning to man (h 1.142 neither including in it imperfection, as Faith, & Hope, nor presupposing imperfection in him that hath it, as Repentance, which presupposeth the penitent to bee a sinner) but it was found in Christs humane nature, & reasonable soule, & that euen from the very moment of his incarnation. How is it then, will some man say, that the Scripture pronounceth, that he i 1.143 increased in the perfections of the mind, to wit, both in grace & wisedome, as hee grew in stature of body. And here that question is vsually proposed & handled, whe∣ther

Christ did truly and indeede profit, and growe in knowledge, as not knowing all things at the first, as he grew in stature of body from weake beginnings; or only in the farther manifestation of that knowledge hee had in like degree of perfection from the beginning. For the clearing whereof, wee must note, that there were in Christ two kinds of knowledge: the one diuine, and increate: the other humane and created. Tou∣ching the first, there is no doubt but that being the eternall Wisdome of the Father, by whom all things were made, hee knew eternally all things that afterwards should come to passe; and therefore the Arrians impiously abused those places of Scripture which they brought to proue, that Christ grew in knowledge, and learned something in processe of time, which he knew not before; in that they vnderstood them of his diuine knowledge which he had in that he was God: and thereby went about to proue, that he was not truly and properly God, nor consubstantiall with the Father, but soe only, and in such a sense, as that wherein the Apostle sayth, k 1.144 There are many Lords, and many Gods. The later kind of knowlege found in Christ, which is humane, the Schoole∣men diuide into two kinds; the one, in verbo, the other in genere proprio, that is, the one in the eternall Word, wherein he seeth all things; the other, that whereby he seeth things in themselues: for he hath an immediate and cleare vision of the Godhead, and in it of all things, and hee hath also the knowledge and sight of things in themselues. l 1.145 By vertve of the first of these two kinds of humane knowledge, the soule of Christ beholding the diuine Essence, in it seeth all things in respect of that they are, and taketh a perfect view of the Essence and nature of euery thing that is, may be, or is possible to be, as in that sampler, according to which God worketh all things: but the actuall being of things it cannot know by the vision and sight of Gods Essence, but meerely by his voluntary reuelation, and manifestation of the same; seeing though the Essence of God be naturally a sampler of all things that are or may be, according to which all things are wrought, yet he produceth things voluntarily, and according to the good pleasure of his will, & not naturally & necessarily: so that that kind of knowledge, which con∣sisteth in the vision of God, is more perfect then any other, & onely maketh men hap∣pie, because it is in respect of the best and most noble object. Yet m 1.146 the other kind of knowledge, that maketh vs take a view of things in themselues, is more perfect, in that it maketh knowne vnto vs the actuall being of things, and particular facts, which that happie kind of knowledg of things seen in the glasse of the diuine Essence doth not.

These things thus distinguished, it is easie to conceiue how, and in what sort Christ grew and increased in grace and wisdome, and how hee was full of the same from the moment of his incarnation, soe that nothing could bee afterwards added vnto him. For, concerning his diuine knowledge, the perfection of it was such, and so infinite from all eternitie, that it is impious once to thinke that hee grew and increased in the same.

* 1.147 Touching the humane knowledge he had of things seene in the eternall word, and in the cleare glasse of the diuine Essence, it is most probably thought by some of excel∣lent learning, that though the soule of Crist had at the first, and brought with it into the world a potentiall hability and aptnesse to see all things in God, soe soone as it should conuert it selfe to a distinct view of them: that yet it did not actually see all things in the Essence of God at once from the beginning, but afterwards in processe of time: and for the n 1.148 other kind of knowledge and apprehension of things, which he had as beholding them in themselues, they thinke it was perfect in habit from the first moment of his incarnation, but not in actuall apprehension, wherein he did truly in∣crease and and grow: as also in experimentall knowledge. For the humane knowledge that was in Christ, was by conuersion to those Phantasmata & sensible representations of things, that from without are by the senses presented vnto the Soule: & was dis∣cursiue, though not proceeding from things known, to find out things altogether vn∣knowne, yet from things actually known, to such as he knew but habitually only, and not actually before. That the humane knowledge Christ had of things in thēselues, was discursiue, & by conuersion to the sensible representations of them from without, it is euident, in that all perfectiōs are receiued according to the condition & capacitie of the

receiuer. Now the condition of the Soule of man in the state of this life is, to know no∣thing but by conversion to the sensible appearances of the same, & that not onely in re∣spect of things naturall, but mysticall also and supernaturall; o 1.149 Quia impossibile est (saith Dionysius Areopagita) nobis aliter superlucere radium diuinum, nisi sacrorū vela∣minū varietate circumuelatū: that is, because it is impossible the beame of divine light should shine on vs, vnlesse it be vailed on euery side with the variety of sacred vailes.

Thus then wee see, how it may be truely said, that Christ grew in wisedome and knowledge, as he did in stature of body, non quoad habitus essentiam & extensionem, sed quoad actualem cognitionem & experimentum: that is, not in respect of the essence or extension of the habit, but of actuall knowledge & experience. That which Thomas & others haue, that Christ knew all things at first by an infused knowledge, & afterwards attained another kinde of knowledge of the same things, which they named acquisite, is not so fit: for two formes or qualities of one kinde cannot bee in the same subject. Now as the sight which is in men naturally, & that which once lost is restored againe by miracle, is of the same nature, & condition: so is that knowledge of things that is by infusion, & that which is acquisite: howsoeuer these men seeme to make them of two kindes. Wherefore passing by this conceipt as not probable, to conclude this point, p 1.150 euen as touching the condition of children, which should haue been borne in the state of innocency, there are diuerse opinions, some thinking they should haue had the vse of reason, & perfection of knowledge at the very first, so that they should haue grown & encreased afterwards only in experimētal knowledge: others, that they should haue had no vse of reason at the first: & a third sort, that so soon as they had bin borne, they should haue had the vse of reason, so farre forth as to discerne outward things good or euill (seeing euen the little lambes by natures instinct, doe know the Wolfe, & fly frō him, & seeke the dugges of their dammes) but not to discerne things concerning mo∣rall vertue, & the worship of God. So likewise, some thinke that the Babe IESVS, e∣uen in his humane soule, had the actuall knowledge of all things euen frō the begin∣ning, & that he grew only in experimentall knowledge: but there are other of as good judgment, & as great learning, who think, that howsoeuer he had the habit of al know∣ledge frō the beginning, & brought it with him out of the womb, yet not the act & vse of it: & this is all that either Luther or Calvine say: & yet we know how clamorously some inveigh against them, as if they had broached some damnable heresie. But some man will say, if we grant that Christ in his Humane Soule knew not all things frō the beginning, but in processe of time learned that which before he actually knew not, wee fasten on him the disgracefull note of ignorance, & consequently bring him within the confines & cōpasse of sin. Hereunto Hugo de S. Vict. answereth, & sheweth the fol∣ly of this silly objection, peremptorily resoluing, that q 1.151 non omnis qui aliquid nescit, aut minus perfectè scit, statim ignorantiam habere, seu in ignorantiâ esse dicendus est; quia igno∣rantia non dicitur, nisi tunc solùm, cum id quod ignorari non debuisset, nescitur: that is, we must not say, that euery one that knoweth not a thing, or doth lesse perfectly know it, is ignorant, or in ignorance; because ignorance is only the not knowing of such things as should haue beene knowne Neither is there any distinction more triuiall or ordina∣ry in the Schooles then that of nescience, & ignorance: and therefore howsoeuer some in the heat of their distempered passions, lay a heavy imputation of horrible impiety vpō Luther, Caluin, and others, for that they say, there were some things which Christ in his humane soule did not actually know from the beginning: yet Maldonatus, a man as ill conceited of them as any other, r 1.152 confesseth, that though some say Christ profited in wisdome and knowledge, not in his owne person, but in his mysticall body, which is the Church: others, that his growing and increasing was onely in the manifestation of that, which in all perfection was found in him from the beginning: or in experimental knowledge of those things which in generall contemplation he knew before: yet ma∣ny of the ancient Fathers, answering the objections of the Arrians, and other like here∣tiques, and rejecting as impious their conceit, who thought Christ was absolutely ig∣norant of any thing, denied not but that there were some things which Christ in his humane nature did not actually alwaies know. This (saith Maldonat.) I suppose Luther,

Caluin, and the rest knew not; for had they known, that the Fathers taught, that Christ did truly grow in humane knowledge and wisdome, and that he knew not all things a∣ctually frō the beginning, to be contrary to the Fathers, they would haue been of ano∣ther mind. How charitable this his surmise and conjecture is, let the Reader judge. Howsoeuer, we haue his cleare confession, that many of the Fathers were of opinion, that Christ in his humane nature did not alwayes actually know all things. Yea, vpon the 24 of Matthew hee testifieth, that s 1.153 many of them sayd plainely, that Christ as man knew not the day appointed for the generall judgement of the quicke and dead, when he said, That day and houre knoweth no man, no not the Angels, nor the Son him∣selfe, but the Father onely. It is true indeede, that he goeth about, notwithstanding this his cleare confession of the truth, to construe the words of some of the Fathers in such sort, as if they had not meant simply, that Christ in his humane soule knew not that houre and time, but onely that he knew it not by force of his humane nature; but this commentarie (I feare) will not agree with their texts. For Origen in his third tract vpon Matthew saith, that Christ knew not the time and day of judgement, when he sayd, Of that day and houre knoweth no man, no not the Sonne; but that after∣wards he knew it, when he was risen, and appointed of his Father, King and Iudge; which words of his admitte no such glosse. Wherefore Iansenius saith, there are t 1.154 two principall interpretations of those words of Christ, when he saith, Of that day and houre knoweth no man, no not the Sonne; the one, that he sayd hee knew it not, be∣cause he knew it not to reueale it, and because his body the Church knew it not; the o∣ther, that he knew it not, as man; and this interpretation hee sheweth to bee likewise two-fold: For, saith he, if we follow the common opinion, that Christ had the perfect knowledge of all things in his humane soule at the first, then we must vnderstand that Christ sayd, hee knew not the day of judgement, because hee knew it not by naturall and acquisite knowledge, but by vertue of that knowledge, that was infused into him: but if wee follow the other opinion, that Christ had not perfect knowledge of all things in his humane soule at the first, but grew in it, then, as Origen among other senses deliuereth, the meaning of the words is, that hee knew it not, till after his re∣surrection.

And surely u 1.155 Cyrill a worthy Bishop, and one that had many conflicts with the Ne∣storian heretiques, who diuided the person of Christ, feareth not directly to say, that Christ as man knew not the day appointed for the generall judgement, when he vsed the words before mentioned. Neither is this the heresie of the Agnoêtae, as some ignorantly affirme: for their errour was, that the Deitie of Christ was ignorant of some thing, or that Christ in his humane nature was properly ignorant, that is, knew not such things, and at such time, as he should haue knowen; and that he is still igno∣rant of sundry things in the state of his glorification, as it appeareth by that x 1.156 Epistle of Gregorie, in which one of them alledgeth, that as Christ tooke our nature, so hee tooke our ignorance, to free vs from the same: and therefore Maldonatus vpon the 24. of Matthew saith; that the Themistians, called also Agnoetae, were accounted he∣retiques, not for saying Christ knew not the day of iudgement, as Damascene de haere∣sibus testifieth; but that, as may be gathered out of the same Damascene, they simply, without all distinction of the diuine or humane nature, said, Christ was ignorant thereof, because they thought the Diuinitie was turned into the Humanitie.

CHAP. 15.

Of the third kind of Communication of properties, and the second degree thereof.

THus hauing spoken of those finite and created things, that were bestowed on the nature of man, when it was assumed into the vnitie of the diuine person, let vs come to those things that are infinite. Where first, we are certaine∣ly to resolue, that as the nature of man was truely giuen and communicated

to the Person of the Sonne of God, so that he is indeede and really Man; so the Persont of the Sonne of God was as truly communicated to the nature of man, that it migh subsist in it, and that that which was fashioned in the wombe of the blessed virgine, & borne of her, might not onely be holy, but the holiest of all, euen the Sonne of God. Secondly, that in this sense, the fulnesse of all perfection, and all the properties of the diuine Essence, are communicated to the nature of man in the Person of the Sonne. For as the Father communicated his Essence to the Sonne by eternall generation, who therefore is the second Person in Trinitie, and God of God; so in the Person of the Sonne, hee really communicated the same to the nature of man formed in Maries wombe, in such sort, that that Man, that was borne of her, is truely God. And in this sense the Germane Diuines affirme, that there is a reall Communication of the diuine properties to the nature of man, in the personall vnion of the natures of God and Man in Christ; not by physicall communication, or effusion, as if the like & equall properties to those that are in God; were put inherently into the nature of man, in such sort, as the heate transfused from the fire into the water is inherent in it, (whence would follow a confusion, conuersion, and equalling of the natures, and naturall pro∣perties) but personall, in the Person of the Son of God. For as the Person of the Son of God, in whom the nature and Essence of God is found, is so communicated to the nature of Man, that the Man Christ is not onely in phrase of speech named God, but is indeede, and really God: so he is as really omnipotent, hauing all power both in heauen & in earth. a 1.157 There is one Christ (saith Luther) who is both the Son of God, and of the Virgine. By the right of his first birth, not in time, but from all eternity he receiued all power, that is, the Deitie it selfe, which the Father communicated to him eternally: but touching the other nature of Christ, which began in time, euen so also the eternall power of God was giuen vnto him; so that the Son of the Virgine is truely & really eternall God, hauing eternall power, according to that in the last of Matthew, b 1.158 All power is giuen vnto me both in heauen, and in earth. And of this pow∣er, a litle after he bringeth in Christ speaking in this sorte; Although this power was mine eternally, before I assumed the nature of man, notwithstanding after I began to be man, euen according to the nature of man, I receiued the same power in time, though I shewed it not during the time of my infirmitie, and crosse. c 1.159 Bonauentura saith the very same in effect that Luther doth: when it is sayd, saith he, speaking of the Man Christ, This Man is euery where, this may either note out the Person of Christ, or the singular and indiuiduall nature of a man: if the Person of Christ, there is no doubt but the proposition is true: if the indiuiduall nature of a Man, yet still it is true, not by proprietie of nature, but by communication of properties; because that which agreeth to the Sonne of God by nature, agreeth vnto this Man by grace. Car∣dinall d 1.160 Cameracensis agreeth with Bonauentura, affirming, that the diuine attributes and properties are more really communicated to the Man Christ, then the humane are to the Sonne of God: and that therefore a man may most truely and properly say, speaking of the Man Christ, This Man is immortall, almighty, and of infinite power, and maiestie; because he is properly the diuine Person, & so consequently, truely & really immortall, and omnipotent. Yea e 1.161 Bellarmine, though he impugne the errours of the Lutherans, (as he calleth them) with all bitternesse, yet confesseth all that hi∣therto hath beene sayd to be most true. I say, saith he, as before, that the glorie of God the Father was giuen to the humanitie of Christ, non in ipsa, not to be formally or subiectiuely inherent in it, but in the diuine Person; that is, that by grace of vnion the humane nature of Christ obtained to bee in such sort the nature of the Sonne of God, that the Man Christ should be truely and really in the glory of God the Father, filling both heauen and earth. Againe he saith, those places, f 1.162 All things are giuen me of my Father; and g 1.163 All power is giuen me both in heauen and earth, may bee vnderstood, first, of diuine power which the Sonne of God receiued of the Father by eternall ge∣neration; and secondly, of diuine power which the nature of Man receiued by perso∣nall vnion: and in another place speaking of sundry things proper to God, he saith, h 1.164 All those things may be sayd to be communicated and giuen to the humane nature,

not formally in it selfe, but in the Person of the Sonne of God by the grace of v∣nion.

The Diuines distinguish the properties of God, and make them to be of two sorts; communicable, and incommunicable: Communicable properties they define to be those perfections, that are called perfectiones simpliciter, which are found without mixture of imperfection in God, and in a more imperfect sort in the creatures. These they name perfectiones simplicitèr, that is, simply and absolutely perfections, because it is better for any thing to haue them, then not to haue them: and because those things are better that haue them, then those that haue them not: as likewise, for that they im∣ply in them no imperfection, though they bee mingled with imperfection & defect in the creatures. Of this sort is life, which it is betrer to haue, then not to haue; and it in∣cludeth in it no imperfection, though it bee accompanied with defect & imperfection in many of the things wherein it is found: for that life that is in trees, is an imperfect life, & the life of men, who in truth then begin to die, when they begin to liue, is im∣perfect; yea, the life of Angels is imperfect, because if they be not continually sustai∣ned, they returne to that nothing out of which they were made. Of the same kinde, are Truth, Goodnesse, Iustice, Mercie, Wisdome, Knowledge, & Vnderstanding. And therefore all these separated from that imperfection that cleaueth vnto them else∣where, are found in God, & may truely bee attributed vnto him. Incommunicable properties are nothing else but the negation and remouing of all that imperfection that is in the Creatures, of which sort are Immortality, Eternity, Immensitie, Infinitie, & the like, all importing a negation of imperfection. The former of these two sorts of diuine properties which are named Communicable, are communicated to meere creatures in some degree and sort, though in highest degree they are no where found but in God, & with the addition of words expressing such eminency, they may bee at∣tributed to none but to God: for hee onely is Almighty, most wise, most just, and most mercifull. But both these with addition of highest degree, and the other, which are named Incommunicable, are by all Diuines confessed, to bee in such sort communica∣ted in the Person of the Son of GOD to the nature of man assumed into the vnity of the same, that the Man CHRIST, and the Son of Mary, is not in title onely, but real∣ly, & indeede most wise, most just, omnipotent, incomprehensible, eternall, and infi∣nite.

And this is all, as I thinke, that the Diuines of Germany, the followers of Luther meane, when they speake of the reall communication of divine properties to the hu∣mane nature in Christ. If any man say, that they may justly bee thought to proceede farther, & to vnderstand some other communication of properties, then that by vs ex∣pressed, in that they doe not onely say concretiuely, that the Man Christ is omni-pre∣sent, but the Humanity also: It may be answered, that when we speake of the Huma∣nity of Christ, sometimes we vnderstand onely that humane created essence of a man that was in him, sometimes all that, that is implyed in the being of a Man, as well subsi∣stence as essence. In the former sort, it is absurd and impious to thinke, that the Hu∣manity of Christ, that is, the created Essence of a Man in him, is omnipotent, omni-present, or infinite; neither doe they so thinke; but they affirme, that the subsistence of the Man Christ implyed in his being a Man, is infinite, and omni-present, as being the subsistence of the Sonne of GOD communicated to the nature of Man, in steade of that finite subsistence, which, left to it selfe, it would haue had of it owne.

Much contention there hath beene betweene them & other, touching the vbiqui∣tary presence of the humanity of Christ; but I verily thinke, it hath beene in a great part vpon mistaking, & because they vnderstood not one another. For the follow∣ers of Luther confesse, that the Body of Christ is onely in one place locally, & doe not thinke it to bee euery-where in Extent of Essence diffused into all places, but say one∣ly, that it is euery-where in the infinitenesse of the subsistence of the Son of God com∣municated to it. i 1.165 If we aske them (saith Zanchius) whether Christs Body be euery-where, they answere, that locally it is but in one place, but that personally it is euery-where:

If they meane, saith he, that in respect of the being of Essence it is finite, and confined to one certaine place, but that the being of subsistence which it hath is infi∣nite, & contained within the straites of no one place, they say the truth, & contradict not them whom they seeme to doe. Now that this is their meaning, which this wor∣thy learned Diuine acknowledgeth to bee true & Catholique, & not contradicted by them that seeme to bee their opposites, they constantly professe: and therefore I am perswaded, that howsoeuer some of them haue vsed harsh, doubtfull, dangerous, and vnfitting formes of speech, yet they differ not in meaning and judgment from the Or∣thodoxe, and right beleeuers. For they do not imagine, if wee may beleeue their most constant protestations, any essentiall or naturall communication of diuine properties, but personall onely, in that the Person of the sonne of God is really communicated to the nature of man, in which Person they are. Neither do they define the personall vniō by the communication of properties, but say onely, that it is implied in it: & touching the co-operation of the two natures of God and Man in Christ, they teach noe other, but that which wee described, when wee spake of the Theandricall actions of Christ. The infinite obiections that are made on either side, to the multiplying of needles, & fruitlesse contentions, may easily be cleared, and the seeming contradictions reconciled by the right vnderstanding of the point, about which the difference hath growne.

CHAP. 16.

Of the worke of Mediation performed by Christ in our nature.

THus hauing spoken of the abasing of the Sonne of God to take our nature, and of the gifts and graces he bestowed on it, when he assumed it into the vnity of his Person; it remaineth, that we speake of the things hee did and suffered for vs in the same. The thing in generall which he did for vs in our nature thus assumed, was, the mediating betweene God and vs, that hee might reconcile vs vnto God. For the better vnderstanding whereof wee must obserue, what it is to mediate, and the diuerse kindes of mediation. Mediation is by all sayd then to be performed, when one interposeth himselfe betweene such as are at variance, to reconcile them, or at least, betweene such as haue no friendly intercourse, to joyne them in a league of friendship and amitie, The mediation that is betweene them at variance, (the end whereof is reconciliation) is performed foure wayes. First by discerning and iud∣ging the matters of quarrell and dislike, that diuide and estrange them one from ano∣ther. Secondly, by reporting from one of the parties to the other, the conditions v∣pon which either of them may come to an agreement with the other; in which sense Moses sayth vnto the children of Israel, a 1.166 I was a mediator at that time betweene God and you; and the Apostle sayth in the Epistle to the Galathians, b 1.167 The Law was giuen by Angels in the hand of a mediatour. Thirdly by intreating one party for another: and fourthly by satisfying one party for the wrongs done by the other. All these wayes Christ may be sayd to haue bin a Mediatour between God & vs. For first, he interposed hi•…•…selfe as an Arbitrator betweene God and vs, soe ordering the matters of difference betweene vs, that God should accept our repentance, faith, and purpose of amend∣ment: and that we should not only repent vs of the euils past, and prostrate at the feete of his Majesty, intreate for mercy; but make a Couenant also with our selues, and bind our selues by a solemne vowe, neuer to cast his lawes behinde our backe any more. Secondly he put himselfe betweene God and us, by reporting Gods pleasure vnto vs, and what he requireth of vs, and by reporting vnto God our submissiue yeelding of our selues to do that he requireth. Thirdly, hee performed the worke of a Mediator, by intreating the one party to be reconciled to the other, in that c 1.168 He makath request for vs, as it is in the Epistle to the Romanes, and d 1.169 is our Aduocate, as it is in the Epistle of S. Iohn. Lastly, hee mediated by satisfying one party for the wrongs done by the other: and this kind of mediation was proper to Christ alone, according to that of the Apostle, He was made sinne for vs, that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him. * 1.170

These being the diuerse kinds wherein Christ mediateth betweene God and vs, for the better vnderstanding of the nature and force of his mediation, two things are to be obserued: First, what the nature of Medium, that is, a meane betweene two extreames is; and secondly, how, and according to which nature Christ was a Mediatour between God and vs.

A medium or meane betweene two extrreames, is of three sorts: The first, when two extremes or contraries concurre and meete in a third nature, arising and growing out of the mixture of them both; as white & blacke, being contrary colours, do meet and concurre in the middle colours, & in this sort there can be no meane betweene God & vs. The second, when some qualities or properties of either of the extremes or op∣posites are found in a third thing; and so Christ, as Man, was a meane between God and Men: For in his humane nature was found righteousnes, wherein he was like to God; & miserie, wherein he was like to mē. To which purpose that is, that S. Aug. hath whē he saith, e 1.171 Christus est Mediator inter Deum & homines. Quid est Deus? Pater, Filius, & Spiritus Sanctus. Quid sunt homines? Peccatores, impii, mortales. Inter illam Tri∣nitatem, & hominum infirmitatem, & iniquitatem, Mediator factus est homo non ini∣quus, sed tamen infirmus: vt, ex eo quòd non iniquus, iungeret te Deo, in eo quòd infirmus, propinquaret tibi; that is, Christ is a Mediator between God & Men, What is God, but the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost? What are Men, but sinners, wicked ones, & sub∣iect vnto death? Betweene that Trinitie therefore, and the infirmitie, and iniquitie of men, that Man became a Mediatour, that was not sinfull, but infirme; that, in that he was not sinfull, he might joyne thee to God; and in that he was infirme, hee might draw neare vnto thee. The third, when both extremes concurre & meete in the same person; and in this sort Christ is most properly a meane, or of a middle condition be∣tweene God and vs, in that both the natures of God & man do concurre, and are con∣joyned in his Person. And to this purpose excellent is that of Hugo de S. Victore. f 1.172 The Apostle (saith he) saith, A Mediatour is not a Mediatour of one. Duo enim e∣rant Deus & Homo; Diuersi, & Aduersi: Deus erat iustus, Homo iniustus; in hoc nota aduersos: Homo erat miser, Deus beatus; in hoc nota diuersos. Sic igitur Homo & ad∣uersus Deo erat, per iniquitatem; & diuersus á Deo, per miseriam: That is, For God & man were two; diuerse and different; aduerse & contrary one to the other. God was just, man vniust; in this obserue their contrariety: Man was miserable, God blessed; in this note their diuersity and difference: So therefore man was both aduerse, and contrary vnto God, in respect of iniquitie; and diuerse and different from God, in re∣spect of misery. And therefore in this behalfe needed a Mediator vnto God, that hee might be reconciled, and brought backe vnto him; but the dispatch of this businesse of reconciling them that were so greatly at variance, no man could conueniently and fitly vndertake, who was not nearely conioyned by the bands of friendly Societie, & peaceable agreement with both the parties. For this cause therefore the Sonne of God became Man, that he might be a Mediatour of reconciliation, and peace between man & God. Suscepit humanitatem, per quam hominibus appropinquaret; & retinuit Diuinitatem, per quam á Deo non recederet: factus homo, sustinuit poenam, vt demon∣straret affectum: seruauit iustitiam, vt conferret remedium: that is, hee tooke vnto him the nature of a Man, that therein he might draw neare vnto men, and retained the na∣ture of God, that so he might not depart from God: Being made Man, hee suffered punishment, to shew his affection: but kept himselfe just, and vnworthy of punish∣ment, that he might helpe and relieue others. Againe, the same Hugo proceedeth & goeth forward, excellently expressing the concurrence of the natures of God & man in the vnity of Christs person, in this sort: Verbum quod cum Patre Deo vnum erat per ineffabilem vnitatem, cum homine assumpto vnum factum est per admirabilem vnionem: Vnitas in naturâ, Vnio in personâ: Cum Patre Deo vnum in naturâ, non in Personâ: Cum homine assumpto vnum in personâ, non in naturâ. Assumpsit ex nobis nostram naturam, vt eam sibi sociaret per vnionem in personâ, quae sociata non erat per vnitatem in naturâ: vt per id quod de nostro vnum secum fecerat, nos sibi vniret, vt cum ipso vnum essemus, per id quod nostrum sibi vnitum erat; & per ipsum vnum essemu•…•… cum patre, qui cum ipsa vnum

erat. That is, The Word which was one with God the Father by ineffable vnity, be∣came one with man assumed by admirable vnion. The vnity was in nature: the vnion in Person. With God the Father it was one in Nature, not in Person, with man assumed it was one in Person, not in nature. It tooke of vs our nature to joyne it to it selfe by v∣nion in Person, which had no societie with it by vnity of nature, that by that, which ta∣ken from us, it made one with it selfe, it might unite vs to it selfe, that wee might bee one with it, by that of ours which was vnited to it: & by it wee might be one with the Father, who is one with it.

Thus hauing shewed in what sort Christ is a meane betweene the two extreames God & Man, it remaineth that we seeke out, how, & according to which nature he is a Mediatour. That he is a Mediatour according to the concurrence of both Natures in the vnitie of his Person, it is confessed by all, for if he were not both God & Man, hee could not mediate betweene God & Men. But whether hee be a Mediatour according to both Natures concurring in the worke of Mediation, there be some that make que∣stion. For the clearing whereof, the Diuines distinguish the workes of Mediation, making them to be of two sorts: Of Ministery, & of Authority. Of Ministery, as to pray, to pay the price of Redemption, & by dying to satisfie for sin. Of Authority, as to passe all good vnto vs from the Father in the Holy Ghost. Touching the workes of Ministery, it is agreed on by all, that the Person of the Son of God performed them in the nature of Man: for we must distinguish Principium quod, & Principium quo; that is, the Person which doth and suffereth, and that wherein it doth and suffereth such things as are necessary to procure our reconciliation with God. It was the Son of God, & Lord of Life, that died for vs on the Crosse, but it was the nature of Man, not of God, wherein he died: & it was the nature of God, and infinite excellencie of the same, whence the price, value, & worth of his passion grew. The workes of Authority and Power, as to giue life, to giue the Spirit, to raise the dead, to make the blinde see, & the dumbe to speake, were all performed by the Diuine Nature; yet not without an instrumentall concurrence of the Nature of Man, in sort as hath beene before expres∣sed, when I shewed how the Actions of Christ were diuinely-humane. If it be alled∣ged, that Opera Trinitatis ad extra are indivisa, that is, that there is nothing that one of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity doth towards the Creatures, but they all doe it, and consequently, that those things which Christ did in his Diuine Nature, pertained not to the office of a Mediatour, being common to all the Persons: we answer, that as the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, though they be one & the same God, yet differ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in subsistence, & the manner of hauing & possessing the Deitie, & Diuine Na∣ture; so though their action be the same, & the worke done by them, yet they differ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the manner of doing it: for the Father doth all things authoritatiuè, and the Son subauthoritatiuè, as the Schoolemen speake; that is, the Father, as he from whom, & of whom all things are; the Son, as he by whom all things are, not as if hee were an instrument, but as Principium à Principio, that is, a cause & beginning of things, that hath receiued the Essence it hath, and power of working from another, though the very same that is in the other. And in this sort to quicken, giue life, and to impart the spirit of sanctification to whom he pleaseth, especially with a kind of con∣curring of the humane nature, meriting, desiring, and instrumentally assisting, is proper to the Son of God manifested in our flesh, & not common to the whole Trinity; and therefore, notwithstanding the objection taken from the vnity of the Workes of the Diuine Persons, may be a worke of mediation. Bellarmine the Iesuite bringeth ma∣ny reasons to proue, that Christ is not a Mediatour according to both Natures: but that which aboue all other he most vrgeth, is this, g 1.173 If Christ, saith he, be a Mediatour according to both Natures, then either according to both jointly, or seuerally; not se∣uerally, because not according to his Diuine Nature seuerally considered, being the party offended. Not according to both jointly, because though in that sort he differ from the Father & the Holy Ghost, neither of which is both God & Man; and from the sonnes of men, who are meerely men; yet hee differeth not from the Son of God, (who was to be pacified by the Mediatour, as well as the Father, & the Holy Ghost)

neither in nature, nor in person. This surely is is a silly kind of reasoning: for it is not necessary that a thing should differ from both the extreames according to all that in respect whereof it is of a middle condition, but it is sufficient, if it differ in some thing from one, and in some thing from another. The middle colour differeth from the extreames, not in the whole nature of it, but from white, in that it hath of blacknesse, and from blacke, in that it hath of whitenesse: but it is medium, in that it hath something of either of them. Soe the Sonne of God incarnate differeth not onely from the Father and the holy Ghost, but from himselfe as God, in that he is Man: and from Men, and himselfe as man, in that hee is GOD: and therefore may mediate not onely betweene the Father and vs men, but also betweene him∣selfe as God, and vs miserable, and sinnefull men. Wherefore to conclude this point wee say, that some of the workes of Christ the mediatour, were the workes of his Humanity in respect of the thing done, and had their efficacie, dignity and va∣lue from his Diuinity, in that they were the workes of him that had the Diuinity dwelling bodily in him: and some the workes of his Diuinitie, the humane nature concurring only instrumentally, as the giuing sight to the blinde, raising the dead, remitting of sinnes, and the like. Neither doe wee imagine one action of both na∣tures, nor say that Christ died, offered himselfe on the Altar of the Crosse, or payed for vs in his Diuinity, as some slanderously report of vs: and therefore all the objections that are mustered against vs, proceeding from the voluntary mistaking of our sense and meaning (which some will not conceiue, that they may haue something to say a∣gainst vs) are all easily cleared and answered by this explication of the same.

By that which hath beene sayd touching Christs being a Mediatour according to both natures, wee may easily vnderstand, how, and according to what nature hee is Head of the Church. In a naturall Head h 1.174 Bonauentura obserueth three things: the first, that it is Conforme caeteris membris: the second, that it is Principium membrorum: and the third, that it is Influxiuum sensus & motus: that is, first, that it hath conformi∣tie of nature with the rest of the members of the body. Secondly, that it is the first, chiefest, and in a sort the beginning of all the members: and thirdly, that from it influ∣ence of sense and motion doth proceede: and hee sheweth the same to bee found in Christ, the mysticall head of the Church. For first, hee hath conformitie of nature with them that are members of his body the Church, in that he is Man: Whereupon S. Augustine, sayth, i 1.175 Vnius naturae sunt vitis & palmites: the vine and the branches are of the same nature. And secondly, as the naturall head is the chiefest and most principall of all the members, so is Christ more excellent then they that are Christs. k 1.176 Omnia membra faciunt vnum corpus, sayth, S. Augustine, multum tamen interest inter caput & caetera membra: Etenim in caeteris membris non sentis nisi tactu, tangendo sentis in caeteris membris: in capite autem & vides, & audis, & olfacis, & gustas, & tan∣gis. All the members make one body, yet is there great difference between the head, and the rest of the members: for in the rest a man hath no sense, but that of feeling, in the rest he discerneth by feeling: but in the Head heseeth, and heareth, and smelleth, and tasteth, and feeleth. So in the members of Christs mysticall body, which is the Church, there are found diuersities of gifts, operations, & administrations: and to one is giuen the word of wisdo•…•…, to another the word of knowledge, to another faith, to another the gift of healing, to another the operation of great workes, and to another prophesie: but to the man Christ, the spirit was giuen without stint or measure, and in him was found the fulnesse of all grace. The third property of a naturall Head, which is the iufluence of Sen•…•…e and Motion, agreeth vnto Christ in respect of his huma∣nity and diuinity both. For hee giueth influence of diuine sense and motion two waies: per modum praeparantis: and per modum impertientis, that is, by preparing and making men fitte to receiue grace, & by imparting it to them that are fitted & pre∣pared. He prepareth and fitteth men to the receipt of Grace by the acts of his huma∣nity, in which hee suffered death, dying satisfied Gods wrath, remoued all mat∣ter of dislike, meritted the fauour and acceptation of God, and soe made men fitte to receiue the grace of God, and to enioy his fauour: Hee imparteth and conferreth

grace, by the operation and working of his diuine nature, it being the proper worke of God to inlighten the vnderstandings of men, and to soften their hearts. So that, to conclude this point, we may resolue, that the grace, in respect whereof Christ is Head of the Church, is of two sorts: the one created, and habituall: the other increate, and of Vnion. In respect of the one hee giueth grace effectiuè, by way of efficiencie: in respect of the other, dispositiuè, by way of disposition, fitting vs, that an impression of grace may be made in vs.

CHAP. 17.

Of the things which Christ suffered for vs, to procure our reconciliation with God.

HAuing shewed how Christ as a Mediator interposed himselfe between God and vs when we were his enemies, and how he is the Head of that blessed company of them that beleeuing in him looke for saluation; let vs see & con∣sider, first, what he suffered for vs, to reconcile vs vnto God: secondly, what he did for vs; thirdly, what the benefits are that hee bestoweth on vs; and fourthly to whom he committed the dispensation of the rich treasures of his graces, the word of reconciliation, and the guiding and gouerning of the people which hee purchased as a peculiar inheritance to himselfe.

Touching the first, to wit the sufferings of Christ, he was by them to satisfie the ju∣stice of God his Father displeased with vs for sinne: that so wee might bee reconci∣led vnto him. Wherefore, that wee may the better conceiue what was neces∣sary to be done or suffered to satisfie the justice of God, wee must consider sinne in the nature of a wrong, and in the nature of sin. In the nature of a wrong; and so two things were required for the pacifying of Gods wrath; for first, he that hath done wrong, must restore that he vnjustly tooke away from him whom he wronged; and secondly, hee must do something in recompence of the wrong he did: as, if hee tooke away another mans good name, by false and lying reports, hee must not only restore it to him againe by acknowledging that the things were vntrue, which in defamation of him hee had spoken, but he must also take all occasions to raise continue, and increase a good opini∣on of him. If sinne be considered in the nature of sinne it implyeth in it two things: debitum poenae, and debitum neglectae obedientiae, that is, a debt of punishment, and a debt of obedience then neglected, when it should haue been performed: and therefore in the satisfaction that is to reconcile us to God displeased with vs for sinne as sinne, two things must be implyed: for first, the punishment must be sustained that sinne deser∣ued: and secondly, that obedience must be performed, that should haue been yeelded whilest sinne was committed, but was neglected. For if only the punishment be sustai∣ned we may escape the condemnation of death, but we cannot inherit eternall life, vn∣lesse the righteousnesse and obedience which Gods law requireth be found in vs also: Now the law of God requireth obedience, not only in the present time, and time to come, but from the beginning of our life to the end of the same, if wee desire to in∣herit the promised blessednesse. And though the performance of that obedience that was neglected may seeme to be in the nature of merit rather then satisfaction: yet in that it is not simply the meriting and procuring of fauour and acceptation, but the re∣couering of lost friendship, and the regaining of renewed loue, it is rightly esteemed to pertaine vnto satisfaction. Touching sinne considered in the nature of an offence & wrong, and the things required to pacifie Gods wrath in that respect, there is no que∣stion, but that the sinner himselfe that wronged God in sinning, must, by sorrow of heart, disliking and detesting, and by confession of mouth, condemning former euils, restore that glory to God hee tooke from him: and seeke and take all occasions the weaknes of his meanes wil affoord, to glorifie God as much as he dishonoured him be∣fore: and God accepteth weake indeauours as sufficient in this kind, CHRIST ha∣uing perfectly satisfied for us: as a publicke person may accept of a meane and

weake satisfaction for the wrong done to him, but must inflict punishment answerable to the fault, to satisfie publique justice offended by that wrong. Wherefore, passing from this kinde of satisfaction, let vs speake of that other that God requireth, standing in the suffering of punishments due to sinne. Some define this kind of satisfaction to be the suffering of the punishments that God inflicteth, or wherewith a man volunta∣rily punisheth himselfe: but this is not a good definition. For as a thiefe or murtherer may not lay violent hands on himself, & be his owne executioner when he hath offen∣ded, to satisfie publique Iustice, but must submit himself to that which authority will lay on him: so it is so farre frō being any satisfaction to Gods Iustice, for a man, when he hath sinned, to become his own executioner, & to punish himselfe for his sin, to sa∣tisfie the Iustice of God, that it highly displeaseth God. It is true indeede, that we may lawfully afflict our selues, not to satisfie Gods Iustice, but to purge out the drosse of that sinfull impuritie that cleaueth to vs, and to cure the wounds of our soules, as wee may afflict our selues by fasting, watching, and abstaining from many things other∣wise lawfull, for the freeing of our selues from the remaines of our former excessiue and immoderate delight in eating, drinking, surfeiting, and riot, & other abuses of the good creatures of God. So that we must not define satisfaction, to bee the suffering of those punishments, that God inflicteth, or wherewith the sinner punisheth himself; for it is only the sustaining of those that God in Iustice doth inflict. And in this sort Christ satisfied his Fathers wrath, not by punishing himself, but by being obedient to his Fa∣ther euen vnto the death. Wherefore let vs proceed more particularly, to consider the satisfactory sufferings of Christ, & see first, what punishments Christ suffered to paci∣fie his Fathers wrath: and secondly, what the manner of his passion was.

Touching the punishments that Christ suffered, they were not ordinary, but beyond measure, grievous, bitter, & insupportable: yea, such as would haue made any meere creature to sinke down vnder the burthen of thē to the bottome of Hell: For he suffe∣red grieuous things from all the things in Heauen, Earth, & Hell; & in all that any way pertained to him. He suffered at the hands of God his Father, and of Men; of Iewes, of Gentiles, of enemies insulting, of friends forsaking, of the Prince of darknes, & all his cruell & mercilesse instruments; of the elements of the world, the Sun denying to giue him light, the aire breath, & the earth supportance. Hee suffered in all that pertained to him: In his name, being condemned as a blasphemer, as an enemy to Moses, the Law, the Temple, & worship of God; to his own Nation, to Caesar, & the Romans: a glutton, a cōpanion with Publicans, & sinners, a Samaritan, one that had a Diuell, & did all his miracles by the power of Beelzebub. In the things he possessed, when they stripped him out of his garments, & cast lots on his seamelesse coate. In his friends greatly di∣stressed & discomforted with the sight of those things that fell out vnto him, accor∣ding to that which was prophesied before: a 1.177 The Shepheard shall be smitten, & the sheep shall be scattered. In his body, when his hands & feete were nailed, his sides goared, his head pierced with the crown of thorns, his cheeks swollen with buffering, his face de∣filed with spitting vpon, his eyes offended with beholding the scornefull behauiour of his proud insulting enemies, his eares with hearing the wordes of their execrable blas∣phemy, his taste with the myrrhe & gall that they gaue him in his drinke, his smell with the stinch and horrour of the place wherein he was crucified, being a place of dead mens skuls. Lastly, in his soule distressed with feares, & compassed about with sorrowes besetting him on euery side, & that euen vnto death: In so wofull sort did he take on him our defects, and suffer our punishments.

But, because we may as well enlarge and amplifie Christs passions and sufferings too much, as extenuate them too much, let vs see, if it bee possible, the vttermost ex∣tent of that he suffered. For the clearing hereof b 1.178 some say, that he suffered all those punishments that were beseeming him, or behoofefull for vs: that hee suffered all those punishments, that neither prejudice the plenitude of sanctitie, nor science. But, that wee may the better informe our selues touching this point, wee must ob∣serue, that the punishments of sinne are of three sorts: First, Culpa: Secondly, ex culpa, & ad culpam. Thirdly, ex culpa, sed nec culpa, nec ad culpam: that is, First, sinne.

Secondly, something proceeding from sinne, and inducing to sin. Thirdly, things pro∣ceeding from sin, that neither are sins, nor incline and induce to sinne. Examples of the first, are Enuie, afflicting the mind of the proud man; grieuous disorders, accompany∣ing the drunkard, and a reprobate sense, following the contempt of Gods worshippe and seruice. * 1.179 Of the second, naturall concupiscence, pronenesse to euill, difficulty to doe good, contrariety in the faculties of the soule, and repugnance and resistance of the meaner against the better. Examples of the third, which are things proceeding from sin, but neither sinnes, nor inclinations to sinne, are hunger, thirst, weakenesse, nakednesse, and death it selfe. The punishments of this last sort onely Christ suffered, and neither of the former two: for neither was there sin in him, nor any thing incli∣ning him to euill, or discouraging him from good. The punishments of this kinde are of two sorts: Naturall, and Personall. Naturall, are such as follow the whole na∣ture of man, as hunger, thirst, labour, wearinesse, and death it selfe. Personall, are such as grow out of some imperfection and defect in the vertue and faculty forming the body, disorder in diet, or some violence offered; and these are found but in some particular men, and not in all men generally, as Leprosies, Agues, Gowts, & the like, All those punishments, that are punishments only, that are from without, and that are common to the whole nature of Men, Christ suffered, that came to bee a Redeemer of all without respect of persons: but such as flow from sin dwelling within, or proceed from particular causes, or are proper to some, and not common to all, hee suffered not.

The punishments that are punishments onely, and not sinne, and are common to the whole nature of man, are likewise of two sorts: for either they are suffered for sinne imputed, or sinne inherent. For one may bee punished either for his owne fault, or the fault of another in some sort imputed to him. When a man is punished for his owne fault, hee hath remorse of conscience, blaming and condemning him as hauing brought such euils vpon himselfe, by his owne folly. But when a man is punished for another mans fault, whereof hee hath beene no cause, by example, per∣swasion, helpe, or consent, hee canne haue no remorse of conscience. Now our Sa∣viour Christ, suffered the punishments of the sinnes of other men, not his own, and therefore hee was free from remorse of conscience, though it be generally found in all men, and be neither sinne, nor inducement to sin.

Lastly, the punishments that are punishments onely, and not sin, that are common to the whole nature of Man, and suffered not for the faults of him that suffereth them, but for the sins of other, are of two sorts: for either they are the punishments of sinne eternally remayning in staine and guilt; or broken off, ceasing, and repented of.

The punishments of sinne eternally remaining, must according to the rules of di∣uine justice, be eternall, and consequently joyned with desperation, which alwayes is found, where there is an impossibility of any better estate for euer. But it c 1.180 is no way necessary, neither doth the iustice of God require, that the punishments of sinne repented of, ceasing, and forsaken, should bee euerlasting, or ioyned with despaire. For, as the Diuines doe note, that there are three thinges to bee considered in sinne; The auersion from an infinite, and incommutable good: the inordinate conuersion to a finite good; and the continuing in the same, or ceasing from it: so to these seue∣rall thinges in sinne, there are three seuerall thinges answearing in the punishment of it. For to the auersion, which is obiectiuely infinite, there answereth poena dam∣ni; the losse of God, which is an infinite losse. To the inordinate conuersion of the sinner to thinges transitory, there answereth poena sensus, a sensible smart and griefe intensiuely finite, as the pleasure the sinner taketh in the transitory thinges, hee inor∣dinately loueth, is finite. To the eternity of sin remayning euerlastingly in staine & guilt or the continuance of it but for a time, answereth the eternity of punishment, or the suffering of the same but for a time.

It is true, that euery sinner sinneth in suo aeterno, as Saint d 1.181 Gregorie speaketh, in that hee would sinne euer if hee might liue euer; and that euery sinner casteth himselfe,

by sinning, into an impossibility of euer ceasing to sin of himselfe: as a man that casteth himselfe into a deepe pit, canne neuer of himselfe rise out of it againe: And there∣fore naturally eternity of punishment is due to sinne: but, if by force of Diuine ope∣ration, men be framed to cease from sinne, and to turne from it vnto God, the Iu∣stice of God requireth not eternity of punishment, but onely extr•…•…mitie answerable to the grieuousnesse of sinne. Wherefore seeing our Sauiour Christ suffered onely for those sinnes which he meant to breake off by framing the sinners to repentance, it was no way necessary for the satisfying of diuine Iustice, that hee should endure eternall punishment.

If it be sayd, that all doe not repent, nor cease from doing ill, wee easily graunt it: but it is likewise to be knowne, that the satisfaction of Christ is not appliable to all sinners, not through any defect in it selfe, but through the incapacity of them to whom it should be applyed. Soe that as Christ dyed, and satisfied Gods wrath suf∣ficiently for all, but effectually onely for the elect and chosen: soe likewise hee gi∣ueth grace to cease from sinne, if the fault were not in themselues, sufficiently to all. But to the elect and chosen, whom he foreknew before the world was made, hee gi∣ueth grace effectually, that his passion may be applyed vnto them, and they really and indeede made partakers of it.

They seeme therefore to be deceiued, who thinke, that the excellencie of the per∣son of Christ, dispensed with the eternity of punishment, which otherwise to satisfie diuine justice, hee was to haue suffered; and thereupon inferre, that it might also dis∣pense with the grieuousnesse and extremity of punishment, that otherwise hee was to haue endured. For the worth and excellency of his person, was neither to dispense with the time, nor grieuousnesse of his punishments, but to make the passion of one a∣uaileable for many. Otherwise, if it might haue dispensed with one degree of extremi∣tie of punishment due to sinne, it might also haue dispensed with two, and consequent∣ly with all, as Scotus aptly noteth, though to another purpose. * 1.182

These things being thus distinguished, it is easie to answer that question that hath troubled many: Whether Christ suffered all the punishments of sinne or not. For wee may safely pronounce, as I thinke, that Christ suffered the whole generall punish∣ment of sinne, that onely excepted which is sinne, or consequent vpon the inherence, and eternity of sinne that is punished, as remorse of conscience and desperation. If any man shall goe further, and aske, whether to satisfie Gods justice, Christ suffered the paines of hell or not: it will be answered, that he suffered not the paines of hell in specie or loco, that is, either in kind or place; but some thinke that he suffered paines and punishments conformable and answerable to them in extremity, that onely ex∣cepted which is sinne, or consequent vpon the inherence, and eternity of the sinne of such as are punished in hell.

Concerning poena sensus, that is, sensible smart and griefe, Cardinall f 1.183 Cusanus (a fa∣mous learned man) is claerely of opinion, that Christ suffered extremity of such paine, answerable to that sensible smart and griefe that is indured in hell: but the doubt is principally of the other kind of punishment, named Poena damni, which is the losse of God. For the clearing of which point, g 1.184 Scotus aptly obserueth diuers things. For first, he sheweth that punishment is the discernable want of some fitting good in an intellectuall nature, and the presence of some euill in the same. Secondly, that the good that is in an intellectuall nature is of two sorts; the one of vertue, the other of sweete, joyfull and pleasing delight: and that, though both these concurre sometimes, as in the fruition of God in heauen, wherein the perfection of vertue, & the fullnesse of joy and delight do meete together: yea, that though every thing that is vertuous, be de∣lightfull, yet it is not so much the height of vertue as of delight, that is to be judged happinesse. Thirdly, he inferreth from hence, that there are two kinds of punish∣ment consisting in the losse of God: whereof the one is, the want of that vertue whereby the soule is to be joyned and knit vnto God; the other, the want of that de∣light and pleasure that is to be found in God. That the former is an evill of vnrighte∣ousnesse & sin, & may be called an obstinacy in sinne, and is nothing else but sinne not

remitted nor remoued, Poena derelicta non inflicta, that is, no new euill brought in v∣pon the sinner, but that left in him that hee wrought in himselfe. The other is more properly named Poena damni, or Damnum, that is, the punishment of losse, or a losse & damage. It were impious to thinke, that Christ suffered the former kinde; but that hee suffered this latter kinde of punishment of losse & damage, many great Diuines are of opinion. For though as hee was ioyned to God affectione iustitiae, that is, by the affection of vertue or justice, hee could not be diuided or separated from him, no not for a moment, because he could not but loue him, feare him, trust in him, & giue him the praise and glory that belongeth to him; yet, as he was to be joyned to him, affecti∣one commodi, that is, by that affection that seeketh pleasing content in enjoying those ineffable delights & pleasures that are found in him, hee might bee, and was for a time diuided from him. For as very great & graue Diuines do thinke, he was destitutus om∣ni solatio, that is, destitute & void of all that solace he was wont to find in God, in that fearefull houre of darknesse, & of his dolefull passion. h 1.185 As saith Melchior Canus, Christ in the time of his life, miraculously restrained, & kept within the closet of his secret Spirit, the happines that he injoyed in seeing God, that it should not spread far∣ther, & communicate it self to the inferior faculties of his Soule, or impart the bright∣nes of it to the body: so in the houre of his passion, his very Spirit was with-holden from any pleasure it might take in so pleasing an object, as is the Essence, Majesty, and glory of God, which euen then he clearely beheld. So that Christ neuer wanted the vi∣sion of that object, which naturally maketh all them happy that beholde it, and filleth them with such joy, as no heart of mortall man can conceiue, or tongue expresse.

But as it was strange, and yet most true, in the time of his life, that his Soule enjoy∣ed Heauen-happines, and that yet neither the inferiour faculties thereof were admit∣ted into any fellowship of the same, nor his Body glorified, but subject to misery and passion; so it fell out by the speciall dispensation of Almighty God, in the time of his death, and in that fearefull houre of darknes, that his Soule seeing God, the pleasure & delight that naturally commeth from so pleasing an object, stayed, with-held, & com∣municated not it selfe vnto it: as a man in great distresse taketh no pleasure in those things that otherwise exceedingly affect him. This his conceipt, he saith, he communi∣cated to very great and worthy Diuines, while he was yet but a young man, and that they were so farre from disliking it, that they approued it exceedingly. But some man will say, it is not possible in this life to feele extremity of paines, answereable to the paines of hell, more then on earth to enjoy the happines of Heauen: and that therefore it is absurd to grant, that Christ in the dayes of his flesh suffered in this World extre∣mity of paine answerable to the paines of hell. Hereunto it is answered, that in ordi∣nary course, it is impossible for any man liuing in this World, either to enjoy the hap∣pines of Heauen, or feele the paines of Hell: but that, as Christ was at the same time, both Viator and Comprehensor, that is, a manlike vnto vs that journey here in this World towards Heauen-happines, and yet happy with that happines that ordinarily is found no where but in Heauen: so hee might suffer that extremity of paine, & haue that apprehension of afflictiue euils, that ordinarily is no where to bee found in this World, euen while he liued here on earth. i 1.186 Luther saith truely, that if a man could perfectly see his owne euils, the sight thereof would bee a perfect hell vnto him: now it is certaine that Christ saw all the euils of punishment before expressed, to which he voluntarily subjected himselfe, to satisfie diuine Iustice comming fierce and violently vpon him, with as cleare a sight, and as perfect an apprehension of them, as is to be had in the other World.

CHAP. 18.

Of the nature and qualitie of the passion and suffering of Christ.

HItherto we haue spoken of the punishments that Christ sustained and suffe∣red to satisfie the justice, and pacifie the wrath of his Father. Now it re∣maineth, that we come to take a view of the nature and qualitie of his pas∣sion and suffering, consisting partly in his feare and agonie before, and pardy in his bitter sorrow and distresse in the very act of that dolefull tragedy. Touching the first, the Scripture testifieth, that he a 1.187 feared exceedingly, and desired b 1.188 the cuppe might passe from him. Touching the second, that he c 1.189 was beset with sorrowes euen vnto the death; and that in his extremitie he cried aloud; d 1.190 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? But touching both these passions of feare, & sorrow, it is noted, e 1.191 that, whereas there are three kindes of faults found in the passions of mens mindes, the first, that they arise before reason be consulted, or giue direction; the second, that they proceed farther then they should, and stay not when they are required; and the third, that they transport reason & judgement it selfe: Christ had these passions, but in a sort free from all these euils: For neither did they arise in him before reason gaue di∣rection; wherevpon he is said to haue f 1.192 troubled or moued himselfe in the case of La∣zarus, for whom he greatly sorrowed; neither did they proceede any farther, if once reason & judgement commanded a stay, and retrait, wherevpon they are called g 1.193 Pro∣passions rather then Passions; not because, (as h 1.194 Kellison ignorantly supposeth) reason preuenteth them, and causeth them to arise, though it bee true it doth so; but because they are but fore-runners to passions at liberty, and beginnings of passions to be staied at pleasure, rather then full and perfect passions; and therefore much lesse had they any power to transport judgement & reason it selfe. From these generall considera∣tions of the passions of Christ, let vs proceede to take a more particular view of the chiefe particulars of his passions, to wit, Feare, & Sorrow.

Feare is described to bee a retiring, or flying backe from a thing, if it be good, be∣cause it is too high and excellent aboue the reach, and without the extent of our con∣dition & power; if it be euill, because it is hard to bee escaped. So that the proper and adequate obiect of feare, is not, as some suppose, future euill, but difficulty, great∣nesse, & excellency: which found in things good, makes vs know wee cannot at all attaine them, or at least that wee cannot attaine them but with too great difficultie & labour; in euill, that they will not easily be ouer mastered or escaped.

The difficultie, greatnesse, and excellency, found in things that are good, causeth feare of reuerence, which maketh vs steppe backe, and not to meddle at all with thinges that are too high & excellent for vs, nor with things hard, without good ad∣vice: and causeth vs to giue place to those of better condition, and to acknowledge and professe by all significations of body and minde, the distance, and disproportion that we know to be betweene them and vs, together with our dependance of them, or subiection to them. This kinde of feare causeth and produceth all acts of Reue∣rence & Adoration. It is found in the Angels, and spirits of iust & perfect men, & is more excellent then any other vertue.

The greatnesse that is found in thinges that are euill, causeth a feare declining them as euill, which is of diuerse sorts: For first, there is an Humane feare, which maketh men more decline the losse of their liues & good estates, then the losse of the fauour of God. Secondly, there is a Mundane feare, that causeth them to decline the dis∣fauour of the world, more then the displeasure of Almighty God: and these two kindes of feare driue men from God; but there are other kindes which driue them vn∣to God. The first whereof is a Seruile feare, that maketh men leaue the act of sinne, both inward & outward, to auoid punishment, though they retaine the loue & liking of it. The second is an Initiall feare, that maketh them cast from them, the very de∣sire of sinning, not out of the loue of God, which they haue not yet attained vnto, but

out of the consideration of the wofull consequence of it: and thirdly, there is a Filiall feare, proceeding from the loue of God, causing vs to decline the offending of him whom we so dearely loue, and of whom wee are so dearely loued, more then any euill whatsoeuer.

The former kindes of feare that driue men from God, could not bee found in Christ, who was not onely nearely ioyned vnto God, but God himselfe blessed for e∣vermore: for neither did hee prize life, nor the fauour of the world that knew him not, at any higher rate then was fit. Of the later sorts of feare, neither Seruile nor I∣nitiall, were in him that was free from all sinne; and touching Filiall feare, being well assured of his owne power, in respect whereof it was impossible for him to be drawn to the committing of any euill; though he had that part of it, which standeth in decli∣ning the offence of GOD more then any euill in the world, yet not that other, that proceedeth from the consideration of the danger of being drawen therevnto: so that hee could not feare lest hee should fall into sinne. Besides all these kindes of feare, whereof some driue men from God, and some bring them to God, there is another which is the ground of them all, named Naturall feare, which is the declining of any thing that is hurtfull, or contrary to the desired good of him that feareth: This Na∣turall feare, as also the feare of Reuerence, & that part of Filiall feare, that is the decli∣ning of sinne, and the displeasing of God, was found in Christ, as all other sinlesse and harmelesse affections were. For in the nature of man, he reuerenced and adored the Maiesty of God his Father; and with a Naturall feare, declined death, and the bitter∣nesse of that cuppe he was to drinke of, and with a Filiall feare declined the offending of God his Father, more then hell it selfe.

But (passing by the feare of Reuerence, and that part of Filiall feare that was found in Christ, concerning which there is no question among the Diuines) that wee may the better discerne, both what his Naturall feare was, and in respect whereof; wee must note, that i 1.195 feare is, first, in respect of things which cannot bee auoided, neither by resistance and encounter, nor by flying from them: which things though they may seeme rather to make an impression of sorrow then feare, because in respect of their certainty they are rather apprehended as present, then future; yet for that wee know not experimentally, how we shall bee afflicted with them, and in what sort wee shall sustaine and beare them, we may rightly be said to feare them. Secondly, in respect of such things, as may be escaped or ouercome with a kinde of vncertainty of euent, and danger of the issue. Thirdly, in respect of such as may be escaped or ouercome without any vncertainty of the euent or issue, though not without great conflict and labour.

These kindes of Naturall feare thus distinguished, it is easie to see what Christ fea∣red, and in what sort. For first hee feared death, and the stroke of the iustice of God his Father, sitting on the Tribunall or Iudgement seate, to punish the sinnes of men, for whom hee stood forth to answere that day: and secondly, hee feared euerla∣sting destruction. The former of these hee feared, as things impossible to be esca∣ped, in respect of the resolution and purpose of God his Father, that by his satisfacto∣ry death and suffering, and no other way, man should be deliuered, The later hee feared, that is, declined as a thing he knew he should escape without all doubt or vn∣certainty of euent, though not without conflicting with the temptations of Sathan, and the enduring of many bitter and grieuous things: for it was no otherwise possible for him, hauing put himselfe into the communion of our nature, to escape the swal∣lowing vp of that gulfe into which wicked sinners sinke downe, but by resisting the temptations of sinne, that it might not enter into him, by breaking off the same in o∣thers, and by suffering whatsoeuer it had deserued. But some man will say, k 1.196 Beza teacheth that Christus veritus est succumbere, & absorberi à morte; that is, that Christ feared to sinke downe, and to bee swallowed vp of death; and consequently, that he feared euerlasting destruction, with an vncertainty of his escape from the same.

It is true that Beza saith, that Christ feared to sinke downe, and to bee swallowed vp of death; yet doth not that follow, wh•…•…ch is alledged as a consequent of his saying,

nor any thing contrary to that hath beene said of vs. For whereas there is a double * 1.197 apprehension of reason in Christ, the one named Superior, that looketh into things with all circumstances: the other Inferiour, that presenteth to the minde of man some circumstances, and not all; Beza teacheth, that Christ feared to sinke downe, and to be swallowed vp of death, that is, that he so declined the swallowing gulfe of death, out of which he saw no escape within the view of Inferiour reason, presenting vnto him this hideous & destroying euill, in it owne nature endlesse, without shewing the issue out of the same; that yet notwithstanding simply he feared it not, Superiour reason clearely shewing him the issue out of it. This wil not seem strange vnto vs, if we consi∣der, that in Christ euery faculty, power, & part was suffered, notwithstāding the per∣fectiō found in some other, to do that which properly pertained to it; & from hence it is easie to discerne, how it came to passe, that Christ should desire and pray for that which he knew should neuer be granted, as namely, that the m 1.198 cup of death might passe from him. For the sense of nature, & Inferiour reason presented death, & the igno∣minie of the Crosse vnto him, as they are in themselues euill, without the considerati∣on of any good to follow, & so caused a desire to decline them, expressed in the prayer he made: But Superiour reason considering them with all circumstances, & knowing Gods resolution to be such, that the World should thereby be saued, & by no other meanes, perswaded to a willing acceptance of them. Betweene these desires and re∣solutions, there was a diversity, but no contrariety; a subordination, but no repugnance or resistance. There was no contrariety, because they were not in respect of the same circumstances: for Death, as Death, is to be avoided; neither did Superiour reason e∣uer dislike this judgement of the Inferiour Faculties, but shewed farther and higher considerations, wherein it was to be accepted & embraced. There was no repugnance or resistance, because the one yeelded to the other. For euen as a man that is sicke, considering the potion prescribed to him by the Physitian, to be bitter & vnpleasant, declineth it while he stayeth within the bounds & confines of that consideration, but when casting his eyes farther, he is shewed by the Physitian, the happy operation of good that is in it, he willingly accepteth it, in that it is beneficiall and good: So Christ considering death as in it selfe euill, & contrary to nature, while hee stayed within the bounds and confines of that consideration, shunned and declined it: and yet, as the meanes of mans saluation, joyfully embraced it, accepting that he refused, and refusing that he accepted. n 1.199 There is a thing (saith Hugo de Sancto Victore) that is Bonum in se, good in it selfe, & the good of euery other thing. There is a thing good in it selfe, & yet good but to certaine purposes onely. And there is a thing euill in it selfe, & yet good to some purposes. The two former sorts of things may be desired simply and absolutely: the third cannot but onely respectiuely to certaine ends: & of this kinde was the death of the Crosse, with all the wofull tormentings concurring with the same, which simply Christ shunned and declined, but respectiuely to the ends aboue specified, willingly embraced. The Papistes o 1.200 impute I know not what impiety to Caluine, for that he saith, Christ corrected the desire & wish that suddenly came from him. But they might easily vnderstand if they pleased, that hee is farre from thinking that any desire, or expressing of desire, was sudden in Christ, as rising in him without consent of reason, or that he was inconsiderate in any thing hee did or spake: but his meaning is, that some desires which he expressed, proceeded from Inferiour reason, that considereth not all circumstances: & that hee corrected, & revoked the same, not as euill, but as not proceeding from the full & perfect consideration of all things fit to be thought vpon, before a full resolution be passed.

Thus hauing spoken of Christs feare & agony before his passion, it remaineth that we proceede to speake of the sorrowes that afflicted & distressed him in his passion. These sorrowes were such & so great, that being beset & compassed about with them on euery side, he professed p 1.201 his soule was heauy euen vnto the death: Yea. such was the bitternesse of his Soule, that pressed with the weight & burthen of grieuous and in∣supportable euils, he was forced to cry out aloud, q 1.202 My God, my God, why hast thou for∣saken me? These words of sorrowfull passion, the Papists say, Caluine thought to bee

words of despaire, and that Christ despaired when he vttered them. Surely this shame∣lesse slander sheweth, that they that thus speake they care not what, are desperately malitious, and maintaine a desperate cause that cannot be vpholden, but by falshood, & lying. But Caluine is farre frō any such execrable & hellish blasphemie. For hauing by occasiō of these words, amplified the sorrowes & distresses of Christ in the time of his passion, r 1.203 hee sayth there were some that charged him that hee sayd, these words were words of desperation, and that Christ despaired when he vttered them: but hee accurseth such hellish blasphemie, and pronounceth that howsoeuer the flesh appre∣hended destroying euils, & inferiour reason shewed no issue out of the same: yet there was euer a most sure resolued perswasion resting in his heart, that hee should vn∣doubtedly preuaile against them, and ouercome them.

wherefore passing ouer this wicked calumniation of our aduersaries, let vs see in what sense Christ the Sonne of God complained of dereliction, and cried aloud vnto his Father, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? For the clearing hereof the Diuines do note, that there are sixe kindes of dereliction or forsaking, whereof Christ may be thought to haue complained. The first whereof, is by disunion of Person; the second, by losse of Grace; the third, by diminution or weakning of grace; the fourth, by want of assurance of future deliuerance, and present support; the fift, by deniall of protection; the sixt by withdrawing of solace, and destituting the forsaken of all com∣fort. It is impious once to thinke, that Christ was forsaken any of the foure first wayes. For the vnity of his person was neuer dissolued, his graces were neuer either taken away or diminished; neither was it possible he should want assurance of future deliuerance and present support, that was eternall God, and Lord of life. But the two last waies he may rightly be sayd to haue beene forsaken; in that his Father denied to protect and keepe him out of the hands of his cruell, bloudy, and mercilesse enemies, no way restrayning them, but suffering them to doe the vttermost of that their wic∣ked hearts could imagine, and left him to endure the extremity of their furie and ma∣lice: and, that nothing might be wanting to make his sorrowes beyond measure sor∣rowfull, withdrew from him that solace he was wont to finde in God: and remoued farre from him all things, that might any way lessen and asswage the extremity of his paine. So that Christ might rightly complaine that he was forsaken, though he were farre from despaire, and words of despaire.

CHAP. 19.

Of the descending of Christ into Hell.

WITH the sufferings of Christ, his Descension into Hell is connexed, both in the order of things, and in the Articles of the creede, and there∣fore it remaineth, that in the next place, we speake of that. a 1.204 Bellarmine obserueth, that the Article of Christs descending into Hell, was not in the Creede with all Churches from the beginning: for that Irenoens, Origen, and Tertullian haue it not: and Augustine in his booke de Fide & Symbolo, and in his foure bookes de Symbolo ad Catechumenos, mentioneth it not, expounding the Creede fiue times: though b 1.205 elsewhere he say, that none but an Infidell will deny the descension of Christ into Hell. Ruffinus expoundeth it amongst the articles of the Creede, but noteth, that it is not in the Symbole of the Romane Church, nor those of the East. The Nicene Creede hath it not, but that of Athanasius hath, and other of the Fathers reade it also. And at this day it is receiued in all the Churches of the world without contra∣diction: though there be some question touching the meaning of it.

c 1.206 Bellarmine reckoneth three opinions of Protestants, differently vnderstanding the same: whereof the first is, that to descēd into hell, is to be vtterly annihilated, & brought to nothing: the second, that it is to suffer the paines of hell: and the third that it is no∣thing else but his buriall. Of these three opinions imputed by Bellarmine to the Pro∣testants, the first is nothing but his owne fancy, neuer dreamed of by any Protestant.

For who euer, professing himselfe a Christian, thought, that to goe downe into hell, is to be vtterly extinct, and to be no more? But (saith he) d 1.207 Brentius bringeth in Christ speaking in this sort: I will descend into hell, I will feele the paines of hell, & seeme vtterly to perish: therefore he is of that opinion, whatsoeuer others are. A strange thing it is, that men of learning, & iudgement, should so forget themselues, as this Cardinall often doth, saying hee knoweth not what. For doth he vtterly cease to be, that feeleth the paines of Hell? or doe not the wicked perish, & is not their estate in holy Scripture described to be euerlasting perdition? hee knoweth right well it is: & yet, I thinke, dareth not from thence inferre, that they are vtterly extinct, and haue no more beeing: if he doe, we will not feare to brand him with the marke of impiety, and intollerable ignorance; for the wicked are said vtterly to perish, not by losing all being, but all good, desirable, & happy being. If Brentius escape his hands, hee hath good hope to conuince Caluine of this errour, and so still to lay vpon vs the heauy im∣putation of so damnable impiety. Caluine hath written a Booke called Psychopany∣chia, the drift whereof is, to proue, that the soules & spirits of men, sleepe not after death, but liue, either in paine, or rest; out of this booke the Cardinall presumeth, that he shall bee able to proue, that the soules & spirits of wicked men are vtterly extinct, and haue no more beeing. An ill chosen booke, in my opinion, for such a purpose, the whole drift thereof being to demonstrate the contrary of that hee vndertaketh to proue out of it. Yet let vs see how he goeth about to conuince the Author of this booke of that errour, which throughout the same he laboureth to confute. His first demonstration is this. Caluine proueth at large in that booke, that the wicked doe liue for euer, though in paine & torment; therefore he thinketh that to goe downe into hell, is to be vtterly extinct, and to haue no more beeing. Astrange illation, & such as perhaps will not satisfie all: therefore let vs heare another, for he hath store of proofes. Caluine in the same booke, laboureth to proue, that the Spirits of iust men are not extinguished, but that they liue & remaine for euer, because that Christs soule was not extinguished in his death, but remained still, & liued after death. That Christs soule was not extinguished in his death, he strongly demonstrateth, because it was so commended into the handes of his Father, that it could not perish so as the wicked doe, who are swallowed vp of hell & destruction, and yet still remaine and liue for euer. If this demonstration satisfie vs not, what will? Christs soule was so kept by GOD the Father, to whom it was commended, that it could not perish at all, no not so as the wicked doe, who yet are not extinct, but liue for euer in bitter sense of woe & misery, much lesse be extinct, & vtterly cease to be: therefore Christs descension into hell, was an vtter extinction. These must be the Cardinals proofes, if hee will bring any out of that booke to conuince Caluine of that errour, wherewith he chargeth him. But he knoweth right well, that neither these, nor any other that he doth or can produce out of the same, conclude any such thing as he intendeth; and therefore let the Reader know that the Cardinall neuer perswaded himselfe, that ei∣ther Brentius, or Caluine, or any other Protestant was of that opinion, with which he chargeth them; but that he sought onely to abuse his Reader: and therefore that which in vile hypocrisy he saith of Caluine & Brentius, that e 1.208 they bring in Atheisme, by these their impious & damnable assertions, may be verified of himselfe, and other his consorts, who by their shamelesse lying, & hellish slaundering, wrong both God and men, and bring all Religion into horrible contempt. Wherefore leauing these Hel∣lish & Diuellish slaunderers to Gods most righteous and fearefull Iudgements; touch∣ing the descending of Christ into hell, it is true that Saint f 1.209 Augustine saith, None but an Infidell will deny it: for it is one of the Articles of our Christian Faith. But how we are to vnderstand this his descending, it is not so certaine.

Wherevpon wee shall finde that there are presently three opinions in the Church concerning the same. For some vnderstand by the name of Hell, the place of dead bodies, and the dominion of death holding soule & body asunder, & turning the bo∣dy forsaken of the soule into rottennesse, & corruption. These do so interprete this Article, as that they vnderstand nothing else by Christs descending into Hell, but his

going downe into the chambers of death, and his three dayes continuance in the pla∣ces of darknesse vnder the dominion thereof. Others vnderstand by the name of Hell, the paines of Hell, and thinke, that Christs descending into Hell, was nothing else but the suffering of hellish pains in his Soule, in the time of his Agonie in the Gar∣den, and in the houre of his death vpon the Crosse. A third sort there are, that vnder∣stand by the name of Hell, into which (in this Article) Christ is said to haue descen∣ded, the receptacles and places appointed for the soules of men after this life seque∣stred from the presence of God, and not admitted into Heauen. These places the Ro∣manists imagine to be foure. Of which, the first is, the Hell of the damned, wherein wicked Cast-awayes, & impenitent sinners are punished, not onely with the losse of the sight of God, but with sense also of smart & miserie, & that for euer. The second, is by them named Limbus puerorum, where Infants dying vnbaptized, and in the state of originall sin, are supposed to be holden for euer exiled from the presence of God, & his holy ones, yet without all sensible smart or paine. The third (they imagine) is Purgatory, where they thinke the soules of good, but yet imperfect men, are punished till they haue satisfied the wrath of God for sins committed in the time of their life, but not sufficiently repented of, nor satisfied for while they liued. The fourth place imagined by thē, is Limbus patrum, wherein the soules of Abraham, Isaack, and Iacob, and all the just, were holden till the comming of Christ, and kept from the sight and presence of God, yet without all sensible smart or griefe. These being the different mansions of that place, wherein the soules of men are sequestered from the presence of God, comprehended all in a sort, vnder the name of Hell, as our Adversaries fancie: the ordinary opinion of the Schoole-men heretofore was, g 1.210 that Christs Soule went locally onely into Limbus Patrum, & not into any of the other man•…•…ons of Hell, nei∣ther Limbus puerorum, Purgatory, nor the lowest Hell: but that hee descended into these places vertually onely, in that he made it appeare to all that were in them, that the worke of Redemption was now wrought, by force whereof, they in Purgatory, after full satisfaction should be receiued into Heauen: the rest, as well in Limbus pue∣rorum. as in the lowest Héll, being excluded from all hope of bettering their estate, and left in endlesse misery with the Diuell and his Angels. But h 1.211 Bellarmine thinketh, he went personally, and locally into the place of the damned, euen into the lowest Hell. These being the diuerse and different opinions of men, touching the meaning of the Article of Christs descending into Hell, let vs see what is to be resolued touching the same.

It is true, according to the first and second opinion imputed by Bellarmine vnto the Protestants, that Christ dying, after a sort suffered the paines of Hell, and being dead, was vnder the dominion of death three dayes: yet neither of these interpretations seemeth fitly to agree to the Article of our Faith: for that the hellish & bitter suffe∣rings of Christ are sufficiētly expressed, in that he is said to haue suffered vnder Pontius Pilate, to haue beene crucified, and to haue dyed; and his being vnder the dominion of death, in that he is said to haue beene buried. Wherefore the third opinion, which is, that he descended into the places of soules sequestred, & shut out from the presence of God, seemeth more truely to expresse the meaning of this Article, not vnderstan∣ding that he went into Purgatory, Limbus puerorum, or Limbus patrum, but that hee descended into the lowest Hell. For the three former imagined places are no where, and so no part of Hell into which Christ descended.

Of Purgatory, we finde nothing in the Scriptures, or in the writings of the most an∣cient Fathers, as I haue i 1.212 elsewhere shewed. Of Limbus puerorum, wee reade in Au∣gustine, but confuted and rejected by him, as an erroneous conceipt of the Pelagians, who imagined a third place betweene Heauen and Hell, and a third or middle estate * 1.213 betweene heauen happinesse, and the miseries of the lowest Hell, wherein men dying in the state of Nature onely, shall continue for euer depriued of the happinesse of see∣ing God, but no way subjected to sensible smart and griefe. Of this it is, that S. Au∣gustine saith, he hath heard of the right hand, and the left; of Come yee blessed, and Goe yee cursed; of Sheepe & Goates; of the Kingdome of Heauen, & Hell where the Diuell

and his Angels are euerlastingly punished: But of a third estate, of a third sort of men, or of a third place, hee hath neuer heard or read, and therefore is verily perswaded there is no such.

Touching Limbus patrum, it is true, that some amongst the Ancient seeme to speake of some such thing: but we cannot perswade our selues that there is any such place, nor that Christ is to bee vnderstood to haue descended thither, when in the Article of the Creede, hee is sayd to haue descended into hell. First, because, as l 1.214 S. Augustine fitly noteth, we do not find in the Scripture, that the word Hell is euer vsed to expresse a∣ny other place, but a place of woe and misery: and therefore so direfull a word, vsed onely to note vnto vs the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, cannot signifie that place where the soules of the just did rest till the comming of Christ, named in the parable or history of the rich man and Lazarus, Abrahams bosome. Neither did Augustine euer learne any other lesson afterwards, as m 1.215 some vntruly report that he did. Secondly, because wee cannot conceiue what Christ did benefit the spirits of the just, Abiding in Abrahams bosome, when hee went downe into hell: A quibus (as Saint n 1.216 Augustine rightly noteth) secundum beatificam Diuinitatis praesentiam, nunqua•…•…e∣cessit, sed quemadmodum apud Tartara semper fuit judicante potentiâ, ita in paradiso, & sinu Abrahae beatificante sapientiâ; that is, from whom according to that presence of his Deity that maketh all them happy that enjoy it, he neuer departed, but as hee was euer present in hell by his power, judging & fastning condemnation to the woful inha∣bitants of that place of vtter darkenes; so he was allwaies in paradise, & in the bosome of Abrahā, as that wisdom of God that filleth al with blessednes, where it vouchsafeth to manifest it self. Christ therefore descēded into Hell, according to the Article of the Creed; into the place of soules sequestred frō the presence of God, into the place of dā ned soules euen into the lowest hell: for there are no soules or spirits of men seque∣stred from the presence of God, after the separation frō the body, but the soules of wic∣ked Cast-awayes: nor other place of soules so sequestred, but the prisō of the lowest hel.

The end of Christs, going & descending into the hell of the damned, was not as o 1.217 Cle∣mens Alexandrinus, and •…•…ome other did thinke, to preach vnto the damned spirits, and to deliuer from thence such as should there beleeue in him, either all or any. For wee must constantly resolue, that none were deliuered out of hell by Christs descending, nor none there conuerted by his preaching, but that his descending was onely to fa∣sten condemnation to the Diuell and his Angels, to triumph ouer the principalities of darkenesse, to secure vs from being surprized by them, and to preuent our comming thither, not to fetch backe any that were there already. The places that are brought to proue that Christ preached in Hell, and sought the deliuerance either of all, or at the least of some of them he found there, are specially two. The first is that of the Apostle S. Peter: where he sayth: p 1.218 The Gospell was preached to the dead, that they might be jud∣ged according to men in the flesh, but liue according to God in the Spirit. Here we see the Apostle speaketh of preaching vnto the dead; but he is to be vnderstood to speake of preaching to the dead, q 1.219 that is, to such as were dead when he wrote, but not when the Gospell was preached vnto them: as wee say Christ shall judge the quicke and dead, not as if any should be iudged being dead, but because many of them that shall be judged, are then deade when wee speake of them, though they shall not be, when they shall come into judgment: Or otherwise, that he speaketh of such as were dead in sinne, as some enterpret his words. The second place is that of the same Apostle, where he sayth, that s 1.220 Christ in spirit went, and preached to the spirits in prison, sometimes * 1.221 disobedient in the dayes of Noe. But as Saint t 1.222 Augustine fitly noteth, this preaching of Christ in spirit mentioned by the Apostle, was not after his death in his humane Soule, but in the dayes of Noe in his eternall Spirit, & Deity. And as u 1.223 Andradius rightly ob∣serueth, they that he preached vnto, are named spirits in prison, because they were spi∣rits in prison, when Peter wrote of them, not when Christ preached to them: though, if they should be vnderstood to be named Spirits in prison, as being such when Christ preached vnto them, yet we might rightly conceiue as Saint Augustine doth, that he preached to the Soules and Spirits of Men shut vp in the prison house of their sin∣full

bodies, and the darke dungeons of ignorance, and sin, and not in the prison of hell.

Thus then our Diuines deny the descending of Christ into Purgatory, Limbus pue∣rorum, and Limbus patrum, perswading themselues that there are no such places. But his descending into the Hell of the damned they all acknowledge, though not to deli∣uer men thence, yet to fasten condemnation to them that are there, to bind Sathan the Prince of darkenesse, that hee may not prevaile against them that beleeue in Christ: and to keepe them from sinking downe into that deuouring pi•…•… into which he went, and out of which hee soe triumphantly returned. Onely this difference may seeme to be amongst them, that some of them thinke he went personally and locally, others onely vertually, in power and operation: Which diuersity of opinions is likewise amongst the Papists; Bellarmine, and some other in our time teaching, that hee went locally into the lowest Hell: and the Schoole-men, that he went not locally into the lowest Hell, but vertually onely in the manifestation of his vertue, and power, and into Limbus Patrum locally and personally: soe that all the controuersie betweene them and vs, standeth in two points: The descending of Christ into Limbus Patrum, and the suffering of Hellish paines. For whereas Cardinall x 1.224 Bellarmine laboureth to proue a locall Hell he busieth himselfe in vaine, no man denying it: But, sayth he, Beza, and others do say, the words vsed in the Hebrew and Greeke Sheol, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doe al∣waies signifie the Graue in holy Scripture, and not Hell, whence it may seeme to follow, that there is no other Hell then the Graue: and soe consequently, noe locall Hell for damned soules. Surely this is a most vnjust, and vntrue imputation. For Beza, and the other learned Diuines he speaketh of, do not affirme, that Sheol and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doe precisely and alwayes in holy Scripture signifie the graue, but as y 1.225 Arias Mon∣tanus, z 1.226 Andradius, and sundry other excellently learned amongst our aduersaries do, that Sheol, which the Septuagint translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth not precisely, and immediatly sig∣nifie the place of damned soules, but in an indifferencie, and generality of signification, noteth out vnto vs the receptacles of the dead: And that, seeing there are two parts that are sundered one from another in them that are dead, there are likewise two kinds of receptacles of death, or dwelling places for them on whom death hath her full force: the one prouided for their bodies putrifying, and rotting, and the other for their soules tormented euerlastingly. Soe that, when these words, thus indiffe∣rently signifying either of these receptacles of death, do note out vnto vs the one, or the other of these two places, either the graue for the body, or hell for the soule: can∣not be gathered out of the words themselues, but the circumstances of those places of Scripture where they are vsed. In like sort they say, that the word Nephesh tran∣slated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and anima, doth not alwaies signifie the spirituall substance of man that is immortall, but the whole person, the life, yea, and some times that which hath beene aliue, though now dead, euen a dead carcasse: according as wee reade in Leuiti∣cus, where God pronounceth, that whosoever toucheth a 1.227 Nephesh, that is, a deade corpes, shall be vncleane. And in this sense it is, that b 1.228 Arias Montanus translateth not that place in the c 1.229 Psalme, Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, that is, Thou shalt not leaue my soule in Hell, but, Non derelinques animam meam in sepulchro, that is, Thou shalt not leaue my Soule, Life, or Person, or that Body that sometimes was aliue, in the Graue. For it it cannot be vnderstood, that the reasonable soule, or immortall Spirit of Christ, was euer in the graue, either to be deliuered thence, or left there. If it be sayd, that the Greeke and Latine words vsed by the Translators, signifie more pre∣cisely hell, and the reasonable Soule or Spirit, then those Hebrew words Sheol and Nephesh doe: we answere, that whatsoeuer their vse and signification be in prophane Authors, yet they must be enlarged in the Scriptures, to signifie all that which the Hebrew words doe, that so the translation may be true and full. d 1.230 Bellarmine, to con∣fute this explication; and construction of the Hebrew words made by Beza, and the rest, vrgeth that the Septuagint neuer translateth Sheol by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which properly signi∣fies the graue, but by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and that therefore Sheol doth not properly signifie the Graue. Hereunto we answere, that the word of it selfe being indifferent to signifie any receptacles of the dead, whether of their bodies or soules, must not be translated by a

word precisely noting the graue, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth: and that therefore it is not to be mar∣vailed at, that the Septuagint neuer translate the Hebrew word by this Greeke word of a narrower compasse, & straiter significatiō. Secondly we say, that seeing Sheol, when (by the circumstances of the places where it is vsed) it is restrained to signifie onely the place of dead bodies, yet doth not precisely note that fitting receptacle provided for them to be laide in, as in their beds of rest, by the liuing, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth, but any o∣ther receptacle what•…•…er, euen of such as want that honourable kind of buriall, whe∣ther they be devoured by wilde beasts, swallowed vp of the Sea, or receiued into any other place of stay and abode, till the time of the generall resurrection, the Translators vsed not the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of too narrow compasse & straight signification, but the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 enlarged by them to expresse all that the Hebrew word importeth: & in this sense e 1.231 Iacob said, he would go down mourning into Sheol, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to his son, not into a place of soules sequestred from God, or into hell, sor he neuer thought his sonne to bee gone thither, nor into the graue properly so named, for he thought his son had bin devoured of a wilde beast; but into the receptacles of the dead, and into the chambers of death, wherein there are many, & very different mansions. The words of this holy Patriarch, professing that he would goe down mourning to his son into Sheol, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & not ob∣seruing of this generalitie of signification of the word Sheol, but restraining it to note only the receptacles of the damned spirits, gaue occasion to some for to think, that the soules of the Iust were in some part of Hell, or at least in some invisible place farre frō Heauen, & within the confines of Hell, till the resurrection of Christ, if not till the ge∣nerall resurrection, & his teturne, to judge both the quick & dead, as f 1.232 Irenaeus, g 1.233 Tertul∣lian, & others imagined. But howsoeuer the Greek or Latine words may seeme to bee restrained, to note only the places of damned spirits, yet it is plaine and euident, that the Hebrew word Sheol signifieth any devouring gulfe or pit, swallowing vp the dead, in that h 1.234 Kore, Dathan, & A•…•…iram, with their wiues, children, cattell, tents, & all that euer they had, went down into Sheol, which cannot be vnderstood to be precisely the place of the damned spirits, vnlesse we will imagine, that sheepe, oxen, & tents may finde any place amongst the damned spirits.

The reason why our Diuines doe so much vrge the generality of the signification of this word, and will not suffer it to be restrained to signifie onely the place of dam∣ned spirits, is, because the proprietie of the word admitteth no restraint, and there are many things in Scripture said to goe down into Sheol, or to be in Sheol, that cannot bee vnderstood to haue gone into Hell, or to be in Hell; & not for that they deny Christs descending into the Hell of the damned: for there is no Protestant but confe•…•…seth that Christ did virtually descend into Hell, and many thinke he descended locally, and per∣sonally; which difference of opinions is also amongst the Papists. For i 1.235 Durandus thinketh that Christ descended into no part of hell personally, or locally, but virtually onely. k 1.236 The rest of the Schoolemen for the most part suppose, that hee descended lo∣cally into that part of Hell which they call Limbus Patrum, but into the Hell of the damned, and the other infernall Mansions vertually onely. But l 1.237 Bellarmine thinketh hee went locally into the lowest Hell, or Hell of the damned, mooued so to thinke, as hee saith, by the authoritie of the Fathers, that seeme to haue beene of that opinion. So that, as I saide before, the onely difference betweene the Romanistes, and our Diuines about the descending of CHRIST into Hell, is, touching the suffering of Hellish paines, (whereof I haue spoken at large before, clearing the opinions of our Diuines in such sort, as I thinke our Adversaries will not much resist against the same so vnderstood, as I haue shewed they must bee) and touching Limbus Patrum. Wherefore let vs proceede to take a view of the proofes they bring for confirmation of their Limbus.

The first place that Bellarmine bringeth for confirmation thereof, is that in Gene∣sis, where Iacob saith, m 1.238 I will descend or goe downe mourning to my Sonne into Sheol. See, saith n 1.239 Bellarmine, Iacob was a godly man, and so was Ioseph, and yet neither of them went vp into Heauen, but both descended into Hell. That they descended

into Sheol, that is, into the chambers of death, and receptacles of dead bodies, we make no question; but that they went into the Hell of the damned, or into any region of darknesse neare vnto it, cannot bee proued; howsoeuer some amongst the Auncient, deceiued by the Greeke & Latine words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Infernus, vsed by the Translatours to expresse the force of the Hebrew word Sheol, haue so thought. The second proofe that he bringeth is this. Abraham in the Gospell telleth the rich man in Hell, that be∣tween theē there is o 1.240 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifieth such a saeparation as is by the renting of the earth, & diuiding of one part thereof from another; therefore there is no solide thing betweene them, and consequently, they were all in the same deuouring gulfe or pitte. But this surely is a strange kinde of proofe: for his owne friends, and followers vn∣derstand by this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the immoueable decree of God, who will neuer suffer the one to passe to the other, and not litterally such a void, empty, & gaping distance, as the word doth properly signifie. Yea p 1.241 Maldonatus is so farre from being perswa∣ded by the bare signification of this one word, that Abraham & Lazarus were in the same deuouring gulfe with the rich man, that he saith, the place Abraham speaketh of, betweene which & Hell there is so great a distance, is heauen. Wherevnto Augu∣stine seemeth in part to consent, who q 1.242 pronounceth that he could neuer find, that A∣brahams bosome, wherein Lazarus rested, was any part of hell. Wherefore it is ab∣surd to imagine vpon the bare & onely signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Abraham, & the rich man in Hell, were in the same pit, diuided only by an empty gulfe between them; seing Tertullian a very ancient writer, that knew the force of this word, as wel as Bellarmine, affirmeth, notwithstanding any thing that may be inferred from thence, * 1.243 that Abrahams bosome is on high, far aboue those infernall dwellings of the damned. Wherevnto that in the Proverbs agreeth, s 1.244 The way of life is on high to the prudent, to a∣voide from Hell beneath.

The next place that the Iesuite bringeth to proue Limbus, is that of t 1.245 Samuel, whō the Pythonisse raised, when Saul consulted her, being destitute of other means of dire∣ction. But this place of all other maketh least to the purpose, it being very doubtfull, whether it were true Samuel that appeared, or Sathan taking vnto him a body, and comming forth in the likenesse of Samuel. But let vs suppose it was true Samuel: could not his Soule returne from some other place as well as out of Limbus? No doubt it might: & that which Bellarmine hath, that the Soule of Samuel appearing vnto Saul, seemed to come out of the earth, and consequently out of Limbus, is a very silly conceipt; for what eye could see & discerne Samuels Soule? But, saith he, Samuel ap∣pearing told Saul a wicked & godlesse man, that he should be with him very shortly: therefore hee was in some region of Hell, & not in Heauen, seeing this wicked King could not goe to him into heaven. Wee need not seeke far for answere to this obiecti∣on; for the ordinarie u 1.246 Glosse doth excellently answere it. saying, that if these were not the words of a lying Spirit, they may be vnderstood in respect of the common condi∣tion of death, not in respect of the same place, there being so great a distance betweene them, & so surely setled & established.

Touching this appearing Samuel, I find great difference of opinions amongst Di∣vines: some thinking it was true Samuel the Man of God; others, a lying Spirit in his likenesse. Lyra in his annotations vpon the 1. of Kings, Chapter 28, putteth downe the reasons brought on both sides; and first, that it was the true Samuel, hee sheweth that these reasons are commonly brought. First, because the Scripture speaketh of him, as of his very person, not of any counterfeit likenes of him, calling him not once, but of∣ten, by the name of Samuel. Secondly, for that it had bin a great dishonour & irreue∣rence offered to Samuel, if so often the Diuell should haue beene called by his name in holy Scripture. Lastly, for that it is said in Ecclesiasticus, in the praise of Samuel the Prophet of God, that x 1.247 he prophesied after his death, that he afterwards slept againe, and that he made known to King Saul his end, & the ouerthrow of his armies, which prediction is not to bee imputed to a lying Spirit, seeing hee so certainely foretold what was to come to passe. On the other side, he produceth these proofes. First the

Glosse vpon the 29 of Esay sayth, the Pythonisse did not raise Samuel, but euocated & called out the Diuell in his likenesse. Secondly, it is not likely, that God, who would not answere Saul by liuing Prophets, would send any from the dead to aduise or direct him. Thirdly, he that appeared vnto Saul sayd vnto him, To morrow thou shalt be with me; but Saul as a wicked man was to be in Hell the place of torments: therefore he that appeared was so. Fourthly he that appeared suffered Saul to wor∣ship him, which true Samuel would not haue done, seeing God onely is to be worship∣ped. Fiftly, if it were true Samuel that appeared; either hee was raised by diuine power, or by the power of magicall incantations: if by diuine power, God should very much haue fauoured magicall arts, if at the inuocation of this Pythonisse hee had wrought such a miracle: if by the power of Magicke, then was he raised by the Di∣uell: and that either with his consent, and then he had done euill, which he could not doe: or without his consent, which could not be, seeing the Diuell hath no power to force the Saints of God after their death, and departure hence. Lastly, he alleageth the authority of a 1.248 Augustine, who bringing the reasons on both sides, in the end incli∣neth rather to this later opinion: and that in the b 1.249 Decrees, Cap. Nec mirum &c. ad∣ding that if that decree taken out of Augustine bee the decree of the Church, noe man may thinke otherwise: but if it be not (as he thinketh it is not, because Augustine, out of whom it was taken, disputeth the matter doubtfully, and many of the Diuines since the compiling of that decree, are of another opinion, which they ought not to be, if it were the decree of the Church) he rather thinketh it was true Samuel that appea∣red, then any counterfeit in his likenesse. If any man desire to see the different opi∣nions of the Fathers touching this point, let him reade Tertullian in his booke de A∣nimâ, the 33, Chapter, & the annotations vpon the same place of Tertullian. But how∣soeuer, whether it were true Samuel that appeared vnto Saul, or a counterfeit in his likenesse, I hope it is cleare and euident out of that which hath beene sayd, that this apparition no way proueth the imagined Limbus of the Papistes.

There remaine yet two other places of Scripture to be examined, that are brought for confirmation of the same, but yealding as litle proofe as this. The one is in the pro∣phesies of Zacharie, the other in the Epistle of S. Peter. The words in the former place according to the Vulgar translation are these: c 1.250 Thou in the blood of thy testament, hast deliuered thy prisoners out of the Lake wherein there is no water. But in the Originall the words are otherwise, and d 1.251 Arias Montanus translateth the place otherwise in this sort, And thou, to wit, Ierusalem, in the blood of thy testament, that is, sprinkled with the blood •…•…f thy testament, reioyce and be glad; I haue dismissed thy prisoners, out of the lake wherein there is no water. So that these words, Thou in the blood of thy testament, are not appliable vnto Christ, but to Hierusalem; and the other touching the dismissing of the prisoners out of the lake wherein is no water, vnto God the Father, who speaketh in this place to Hierusalē, cōcerning Christ her King, & cōforteth her, saying: Rejoyce, o Daughter of Sion: be glad, ô Daughter of Hierusalem; for behold, thy King commeth vnto thee meeke, & riding on an Asse vsed to the yoke, and the fole of an Asse. I will destroy the Charriot frō E∣phraim, and the Horse from Hierusalem: He shall destroy the bowes of the fighters, and the multitude, and publish peace to the nations. He shall rule from Sea to Sea, and from the riuer to the end of the Land; And thou, to wit, Hierusalem, in the blood of thy testament, that is, sprinkled with the blood of thy testament, reioyce and be glad. I haue dismissed thy Prisoners out of the lake wherein there is no water. Thus wee see this place according to the Origi∣nall verity and the translation of Arias Montanus, maketh nothing for the confir∣mation of that, for proofe whereof it is brought. Yea, though we should follow the Vulgar Translation, and take the words to be spoken by Almighty God to Christ his Sonne, yet could not our aduersaries proue Limbus out of this place. For the Author of the Glosse, and many other, following the Vulgar Translation, vnderstand these words of the deliuerance of the people of God, out of the captiuity of Babylon, which was as a deepe pit, hauing in it no water but mire, wherein their feete stucke fast. And e 1.252 Hierome himselfe, though he vnderstand the words of Christs descending into hel, yet

mentioneth the other interpretation also in the same place, not much disliking it. Nei∣ther doth his interpretation of Christs descending into Hell proue Limbus. For hee speaketh of the prison of Hell, where is no mercie, & calleth it a cruell, or fearefull Hell; & not of Limbus patrum, or Abrahams bosome. Bellarmine cunningly after his manner, to discredite our interpretation of deliuerance out of Babylonicall captivitie, maketh, as if Caluine onely had expounded the wordes of the holy Prophet in that sort; whereas yet many excellent Diuines, long before Caluine was borne, interpreted them in the very same sort, as we doe. But if the challenge of novelty faile, he beta∣keth himselfe to another of absurditie, & improbabilitie, pronouncing that our Inter∣pretation hath no probabilitie: first, because in the wordes immediatly going before, there is a prophesie concerning Christ, vttered vnto Hierusalem in these words: Re∣ioyce O daughter of Sion, for behold thy King commeth, &c. Which the Evangelists ex∣pound of Christs comming into Hierusalem: and then secondly, an Apostrophe to Christ in the words questioned. But first heerein he is deceiued: for the speech of Al∣mighty God to his Church, begun in the former words, is still continued in these, shewing what fauours for Christs fake he had, & still meant to bestow on her: where∣as according to the Translation they follow, there is first a speech directed to the Church concerning Christ, then an Apostrophe to Christ, and then thirdly, a returne unto the Church againe. Secondly, if that were graunted, which he vrgeth touching the supposed Apostrophe, it would not proue that there is no probabilitie in our In∣terpretation. For this consequence will neuer be made good in the Schooles: Christ is prophesied of in the words immediatly going before, & in these words God spea∣keth vnto him by way of Apostrophe; therefore they cannot be vnderstood of deliue∣rance out of Babylonicall captivitie; seeing it is certaine, that Christ deliuered the Is∣raelites out of all the miseries, out of which they escaped. But, saith Bellarmine, if wee admit this Interpretation, in what bloud of the couenant may wee vnderstand the Iewes to haue beene deliuered out of Babylonicall captivitie? Surely, this question is soone answered. For their deliuerance out of the hands of their enemies, and all o∣ther benefites, were bestowed on them by vertue of the couenant betweene God and them, which was to be established in the bloud of Christ; in figure whereof, all holy things among the Iewes were sprinkled with bloud, as the Booke of the Covenant, the Altar, the Sanctuary, and People.

Wherefore seeing this place maketh nothing for the confirmation of the Popish errour, touching Limbus, let vs come to the last place brought for proofe thereof, which is that of S. Peter concerning f 1.253 Christs going in spirit, and preaching to the spi∣rits in prison: & see, whether from thence it may be proued any better. g 1.254 S. Augustine vnderstandeth the words of the Apostle, as I noted before, of Christs preaching in the dayes of Noe, in his eternall Spirit of Deity, & not of preaching in Hell, in his humane Soule after death: but this interpretation of S. Augustine, first Bellarmine rejecteth as contrarie to the Fathers: & secondly, endeauoureth to improue it by weakening the reasons brought to confirme it, and by opposing certaine reasons against it. The first of the Fathers that he alledgeth, is h 1.255 Clemens Alexandrinus, who indeede vnderstan∣deth the words of S. Peter, not as S. Augustine doth, but of Christ preaching in Hell after his death in his humane Soule; but, not conceiuing to what purpose preaching should serue in Hell, if there were not intended a conversion & sauing of some there, he runneth into a most grosse & dangerous error, cōdemned & rejected as well by Bellarm. & his companions, as by vs: so that his authority, as contrary to Augustines interpre∣tation, needed not to haue beene alledged, nor would not haue beene, if Bellarmine had meant sincerely. For Clemens Alexandrinus affirmeth, as hee well knoweth, that so many Infidels as beleeued in Christ, and listened to the wordes of his prea∣ching when hee came into Hell, were deliuered thence, and made partakers of euerlasting saluation: against which errour, himselfe being Iudge, Saint Au∣gustine not without good cause disputeth in his Epistle to Euodius. The second auncient Writer that hee produceth for proofe of Christs preaching in Hell after his death, is i 1.256 Athanasius, who indeed doth expound the wordes of

Peter, of Christs going in Soule to preach in Hell after his death; but no way expresseth in what sort, to whom, to what purpose, or with what successe he preached. k 1.257 Epi∣phanius, whom he produceth in the third place, doth not so interprete the words of Peter himselfe; but onely vpon another occasion citeth the epistle of Athanasius to Epictetus, wherein hee doth so interprete them. So that the authority of Epiphanius might haue beene spared. Ruffinus in his explication of the Creede, interpreteth the words of Peter, as Athanasius doth. l 1.258 Cyrill in the place cited by Bellarmine, speaketh of Christs preaching to the spirits in Hell, but saith nothing in particular of this place of Peter. m 1.259 S. Ambrose doth not speake of this place, but that other of preaching the Gospell to the dead. So that there are no moe Ancient writers cited by Bellar∣mine, that doe precisely interprete this place of Peter of Christs preaching in Hell in his humane soule after death, but onely Clemens, Athanasius, Ruffinus, and Oecu∣menius. On the other side we haue S. Augustine, Beda, the authors of the Ordinarie and Interlincall Glosses, Lyra, Hugo Cardinalis, and other, interpreting the words as wee doe: so that our Aduersaries haue no great aduantage in respect of the number of Interpreters: and yet if they had, it would not helpe them for confirmation of their supposed Limbus, seing some of the Fathers cited by him, as namely Clemens Alexan∣drinus, speake directly of preaching in the lowest Hell, for the conuersion of Infidels; which they dislike as much as wee. Wherefore let vs proceede to examine the rea∣sons that are brought either of the one side, or the other, to confirme their seuerall in∣terpretations of these words; and let vs see how Bellarmine weakneth the reasons brought by S. Augustine, and improueth his interpretation by reasons brought a∣gainst it. The first reason whereby S. Augustine confirmeth his interpretation, is, for that mortification in the flesh, and viuification in the Spirit mentioned by the A∣postle, cannot be vnderstood of the body & Soule, of Christ, as they that follow the other interpretation doe vnderstand them, seeing Christ neuer dying in soule, could not be said to be quickned in it. Besides that, the very phrase of the Scripture op∣posing flesh and Spirit in Christ, doth euer import the infirmity of his humane nature, and the power of his Deitie: and in other men, that part that is renued by the sanctification of the Spirit, and that which is not yet so renued. Against the former part of this reason of S. Augustine, Bellarmine opposeth himselfe, saying that it is not good: seeing a thing may be sayd to be quickned that was neuer dead, if it be preser∣ued from dying, & kept aliue. But he should know, that onely those thinges may be said to be quickned, in that they were preserued from dying, which otherwise, if they had not beene so preserued, might haue beene killed, or dyed of themselues. Which cannot be verified of the Soule of Christ, that could neither die of it selfe, nor be killed by any other; and therefore the Soule of Christ cannot be said to bee quick∣ned in this sense. The place in the seauenth of the Acts, brought by Bellarmine to proue, that those things may bee said to bee quickned that were neuer dead, besides that it is nothing to the purpose, is strangely wrested. For S. Stephen in that place speaketh nothing of viuification or quickning in that sense we now speake of it, but of multiplying, & increasing; saying, that n 1.260 After the death of Ioseph, there rose vp ano∣ther King in Egypt, that knew not Ioseph, who euill intreated our Fathers, and made them cast out their infants, and new borne children, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, that they should not increase, & multiplie: and therefore Bellarmine should not in reason so haue pressed the Latine word of viuification vsed by the Vulgar translatour, seeing the Originall importeth no such thing as he endeauoureth to proue. But to take a∣way all doubt touch•…•…ng the words of Peter; there is a decree of the o 1.261 Tridentine Coun∣cell, that the Romanists in all their disputations, readings, and sermons, shall vse the Vulgar translation, and no way dare to refuse the authority of it vnder any pretence whatsoeuer. Now in the ordinarie readings of the Vulgar Translation, the words of the Apostle doe lie in this sort; Christ dyed for sinners, the iust for the vniust, that hee might offer vs to God; mortified in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit, in which Spirit he went and preached, &c. So that according to this reading, the Apostle speaketh not of Christs quickening but of our quickning in the Spirit, which cannot be vnderstood

of the humane Soule of Christ, but of the Spirit of sanctification: whence it follow∣eth, that Christ going to preach in that Spirit, by the force whereof we are quickned, & made aliue from the death of sin, went in his eternall spirit of Deity, & not in his humane Soule. But, saith Bellarmine, it cannot be sayd properly, but Metaphori∣cally onely, that Christ did goe in his eternall Spirit of Deitie to preach to the old world. Suppose it to be so: Is it so strange a thing, that such locall motions should be Metaphorically attributed vnto God, that we should therevpon deny the going of Christ to preach, to haue beene in his eternall Spirit of Deitie? Doe wee not often reade in Scripture of Gods comming downe to see what thinges are done on earth? But it is hard to vnderstand by Spirits in prison, the soules of men shut vp in the pri∣sons of their bodies, and in the darke dungeons of ignorance and impiety, as Augustine doth, and therefore we must not follow his interpretation. Surely, it is true that it is something hard to vnderstand these words of the Apostle, as S. Augustine doth, and therefore we rather follow the interpretation of p 1.262 Andradius before mentioned, who expoundeth the words of the Apostle so as Augustine doth, saue that he thin∣keth that they to whom Christ preached in his eternall Spirit in the daies of Noe, are named spirits in prison, not for that they were so when hee preached to them, but when Peter wrote of them. Thus wee see, the Cardinall hath not yet greatly weak∣ned any of Augustines reasons. One reason more S. Augustine hath, so forcible and strong, to confirme the interpretation hee followeth, that I thinke the Iesuite will hardly be able to say much against it: If the Apostle (saith S. Augustine) had meant to describe the descending of Christ in his humane soule to deliuer the Patriarches, hee would not haue expressed his meaning by saying, Hee went and preached to the spirits in prison sometimes disobedient in the daies of Noe. For, to say, a•…•… Bellarmine doth, that Christ went and preached onely to the good spirits in Limbus, but that the Apostle describing the same, nameth the disobedient in the dayes of Noe, lest it might bee thought that they all perished, is friuolous; seeing there was no reason, why the Apostle in describing the descending of Christ into Limbus, should bee so carefull to let all men know, that they did not all perish that contemned the preaching of Noe: and besides, if the Apostle had meant any such thing, hee would haue added, that howsoeuer these men were disobedient for a time, yet they did afterwards repent, o∣beying the voyce of God speaking by the mouth of Noe. If any man shall aske, as Bellarmine doth, why Peter should mention Christs preaching in his eternall Spirit to them in the dayes of Noe, more then to them in the dayes of Abraham, or Moses: the answere is easie: for therefore doth hee mention them, rather then any other, be∣cause they that liued before the floud, were men of another world, & are named the old world, & it was the greatest mutation of the world that euer was before or since, that followed vpon the refusall of Christs preaching by the mouth of Noe, who was the same then, that he is now: the same yesterday, & to day, & for euer.

That which the Cardinall hath in the conclusion, that the Fathers generally belee∣ued that Christ descended into Hell, wee thinke to be most true: but that the soules of all the iust were in Hell, till the resurrection of Christ, and then deliuered thence, is not the opinion of the Fathers. For q 1.263 Augustine clearly denieth that the spirits of the just, dying before Christ, were in Hell, till the comming of Christ; & touching the rest of them, some thought, that the Spirits of the just are & shall bee in a place of sequestration, separate from the presence of God, till the generall resurrection: so that according to their opinion, Christ by descending into Hell did not deliuer them from thence: of which opinion wee finde Irenaeus, Tertullian, & some others to haue beene. Some there were that thought, that Christ deliuered out of the lowest Hell, such as beleeued in him when hee came thither: and some, that hee went not to Hell to deliuer any from thence, but to preserue & keepe such from going thither, as o∣therwise should haue gone thither, if by vertue of his descending they had not beene preserued from falling into that hideous & deuouring gulfe. So that, though it were euer most certainly resolued, that Christ descended into Hell, to triumph o∣uer the prince of darkenesse, to fasten condemnation to the Diuell and his Angells,

and to preserue all beleeuers, and faithfull ones, from falling into the pit of destructi∣on; yet, as it appeareth by Augustines Epistle to Euodius; there was no certaine reso∣lution amongst the Ancient, whether Christ deliuered any, or all: or whom he deliue∣red, if any, when he went into Hell.

CHAP. 20.

Of the Merite of Christ: of his not meriting for himselfe, and his meriting for vs.

HAuing spoken sufficiently of the sufferings of Christ, and his descending in∣to Hell, it remaineth that in the next place wee come to speake of his merite; where we must obserue three things. First, whether he might or did merite. Secondly, whether he merited for himselfe. Thirdly, how, and in what sort he merited for vs.

The first of these questions is moued, because Christ being in termino, and compre∣hensor, that is, in possession of all desired blessednes, and seeing God face to face, euen while he liued heere, may seeme to haue beene extra statum merendi, that is, in such a state and condition, wherein there is no place for merite, and so not to haue merited: to merit being proper to them, that are viatores, that is, men journeying towardes the possession of Heauen-happines not yet attained. Wherefore, for the clearing of this point the Diuines doe note, a 1.264 that Christ in his humane nature, in the dayes of his flesh, was both Viator, and Comprehensor; in termino, and extra terminum: that is, both a man journeying toward heauen-happinesse, & one that had already attained it, being alrea∣dy come to the vttermost bound of all his desires, and yet in a sort not being come vnto it, because, howsoeuer he was perfectly joyned with God affectione iustitiae, that is, with that affection that yeeldeth vnto God the praise, honour, and loue that is due vnto him, and saw him face to face with cleare and perfect vision: yet hee was not so fully joyned to him, as he is to be enjoyed affectione commodi, that is, with that affecti∣on that seeketh after pleasing delight: but that hee suffered many bitter, grieuous, and vnpleasant things, fasting, watching, weeping & wearying himselfe, in all which re∣spects being extra terminū, that is, not yet come to the vttermost extent & bound of that is desired, he was in state of meriting. But, because the enduring of these bitter, grieuous, & afflictiue euils, may seem rather to pertain to the nature of satisfactiō, then merit, therfore they adde, that howsoeuer in respect of the perfectiō of his Diuine & Heauenly vertues, he were in termino, that is, come to the vttermost bound & extent thereof, yet in the expressing of the actions of thē, he fitted himself to the conditiō of men here below, as appeared in the actiōs of his loue & obediēce, in that he gaue him∣self for the pacifying of his Fathers wrath, the satisfying of his Iustice, & the prome∣riting of our good: & besides, he had the actiōs of many vertues that are proper to the conversation of this world: & whereof there is no vse in Heauen, or in Heauen-hap∣pinesse, but in the way and journey towardes Heauen: as Temperance, Sobriety, Fortitude, Patience, and the Obseruation of the ceremoniall and judiciall Law: in which respect he may very properly be said, to haue been in a state of meriting, and to haue merited.

Wherefore presupposing that Christ might and did merite, let vs see whether hee merited any thing for himselfe. The b 1.265 Papists impute, I know not what impiety to Caluine, because he saith, Christ merited not for himselfe, but for vs onely, & vrge a∣gainst him that saying of the Apostle, when he saith, that c 1.266 Christ humbled himselfe, & was made obedient vnto death, euen the death of the Crosse, and that therefore God exalted him, and gaue him a name aboue euery name. Wherefore let vs take a view of that they teach touching this point, that so wee may the better discerne whether Cal∣uine be justly blamed by them, or not. The Schoolemen generally agree, that Christ neither did, nor could merite the grace of personall vnion, the habituall perfections of his humane Soule, or the vision of God, because hee possessed all these from the begin∣ning,

& it would haue beene a matter of more imperfection to haue wanted any of them at the first, then of perfection to haue gotten them by merite afterwards: Yet the d 1.267 Master of Sentences, & others resolue, that hee did procure vnto himselfe by his me∣rite, the impassibility and glorification of his Body. But e 1.268 Scotus very acutely and wit∣tily objecteth against them that so think, that Christ cannot be sayd to haue merited the impassibility & glorification of his body, because they would haue beene found in it, from the very first instant of the vnion, of the Natures of God and Man in him, by vertue of that union, before any act of his, had not the naturall consequence and flow∣ing of them from that vnion, beene stayed and hindered by speciall dispensation, for the working of our saluation: and therefore he sayth, that if we will defend the Ma: ster of Sentences from errour in this point, we must soe construe his words, as that Christ did not directly merit glorification and impassibility, but onely the remouing of that miraculous stay of the naturall redundance of glory from his Soule, filled with the happy vision of his Deitie, into his body. But surely this fauourable constructi∣on will not helpe the matter, for seeing the miraculous stay of the redundance of glo∣ry from the Soule of Christ into his body, was of it selfe to cease, when that should be performed, for the effecting whereof such stay was made, he could no more merit such remoue of stay then the glory it selfe, that in respect of the grace of personall vni∣on, would as naturally haue beene communiated to his body, as it was in his Soule, had not God for speciall purpose stayed and hindred such redundance. So that wee shall find, that how soeuer the Papists do presse certaine testimonies of Scripture, as if they would proue out of them, that Christ meritted the name aboue all names, and the fullnesse of all power both in heauen and in earth, which hee could no more merit then to be God; yet in the end they are forced to confesse, (soe great is the truth which will euer preuaile) that he neither meritted the personall vnion of his two natures, the perfection of his habituall graces, the vision of God, nor the glorification of his body, but onely the remouing of that stay and impediment that hindred the flowing of Glo∣ry from his soule into his body: & finding, that this stay or hinderance was to cease of it self, so soon as the work of our Redēptiō should be wrought, & consequētly, that he could not merit it, they flie for helpe to a distinctiō of merits, which they make to be of 3 sorts. For f 1.269 there is, as they say, one kind of merit, that maketh a thing due which was not due before; another, that maketh a thing more due thē it was before; & a 3^d that maketh a thing more waies due thē at first it was. The 2 first kinds of merit, they cō∣fesse, did not agree to Christ, there being nothing that was not due vnto him in as high degree in the beginning, as euer it was afterwards. But they say that he merited in the 3^d sort or kind, in that he made those things that were due vnto him as consequents of the personall vnion of his 2 natures, to be due vnto him as a reward of his passion. This truly is a very silly evasiō; seeing that cānot be a reward of a mans labors, that was due to him in as high degree before, as after his work is don. He that labouteth in the field or vineyard of another man, & she that nourisheth a child that is not her owne, trauaile both in hope of reward, but that reward must of necessity be some thing that was not due to them before such trauaile; yea, he that dresseth his owne vine, & she that nou∣risheth her owne children, looke to the recompense of reward; but that reward is no other thing, but the prosperity and increase of their fields and vineyards, and the grouth of their children, like the Oliue branches round about their their table; which, without such paines and trauaile, they could not looke for. In like sort, a Man may say to his child; this land shall be the reward of thy dutifull behauiour; if he haue po∣wer to put it from him, if his behauiour be not dutiefull: but if he haue not, it is ridi∣culous to promise it as a reward, seeing a reward is euer some good to be gained by our well doing or patient suffering, counteruailing the difficultie in doing, and bitter∣nesse in suffering. It is therefore most absurd, that any thing which is a mans owne, in as ample sort before he begin his worke as after he hath done it, should be the re∣ward of his worke. But some man perhaps will say, that a thing that was due in re∣spect of the habit resting in the mind, may become due in respect of the Act done: and consequently, that that which was due one way, may become more waies due. Surely

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

wee make no question but it may, because it was due to the Habit as to the Roote of such action, when occasion should be offered, & opportunity serue, & not otherwise. But seeing in Christ, the glorification & impassibility of his body was due vnto him as a consequent of personall vnion, and not of any habituall quality, or habit inclining & fitting vnto action, therefore that could not become due to any action of Christ, that was due vnto him in respect of some former thing, as that may bee due to the a∣ction of a Man, that was formerly due to the habit that is the roote of such action.

The places of Scripture that are brought to proue that Christ merited for himself, are specially two: for though there be a third, as pregnant as any of the other, in the first to the Hebrewes, where it is said of Christ g 1.270 Thou hast loued righteousnesse, and hated iniquity: therefore God, euen thy God hath annointed thee with the oyle of gladnesse aboue thy f•…•…llowes: yet doe they not much stand vpon it, because, if it proue any thing, it proueth that Christ merited the grace of vnction, which they deny, who teach that Christ merited for himselfe. The first of the two places alleaged to proue that Christ merited for himselfe, is in the second to the Hebrewes: where the Apostle saith, Wee see Iesus for the passion of death, crowned with glory and honour. But the * 1.271 words, as some thinke, are not so to be read, but to be placed in this sort: Wee see Ie∣sus, who was for a litle while made lower then the Angels, for the passion of death, that is, that he might suffer death, crowned with glory and honour; so expressing the finall cause of his humiliation, and not the meritorious cause of his exaltation. This con∣iecture is made exceeding probable by those words added by the Apostle, that hee might taste of death: which otherwise haue no coherence with any part of his speech. The second place that they bring, is that of the second to the Philippians: The words are these: i 1.272 Christ humbled himselfe, and became obedient vnto the death, euen the death of the crosse: Wherefore God hath also highly exalted him, and giuen him a name aboue e∣very name, &c. This place, as k 1.273 Hugo de Sancto Victore hath fitly noted, importeth, that the humiliation of the Son of God becomming Man, was the cause of the exaltation of the nature of Man, for when he personally assumed the nature of Man, & became Man, Man became God almighty, hauing all power, & a name aboue all names: according to that of Leo, l 1.274 Diuinae maiestat is exinanitio, seruilis formae in summa prouectio est; that is, The abasing of the Diuine Maiestie, and Person of the Sonne of God, is the high ad∣uancing & exaltation of the forme of a Seruant: and therefore he addeth, that Ex quo Deus coepit esse homo, & homo coepit esse Deus; Deus coepit esse homo subiectus, & homo coepit esse Deus perfectus. Si Deus humiliatus est quantum potuit in homine, homo subli∣matus non est quantum potuit in Deo? that is, When God began to be Man, and Man began to be God; God began to be a Man in subiection and humilitie, and Man to be God in the heighth of perfection: For if God were humbled, as much as hee might be, in that he became man; was not Man exalted, as much as he might be, in that hee became God? God was humbled, when first he became Man, In quantum homo, dig∣nitate, in quantum bonus, voluntate: that is, in that a Man, in condition and state, in that a good man, in will & minde: but manifested the same more specially in his pas∣sion: Likewise the Man Christ was exalted, when he was borne the Sonne of God, but manifested the same more specially after his resurrection then before. For wee must not thinke, that the Man Christ, did then first receiue, the full, and perfect pow∣er of Deitie, when he sayd, m 1.275 All power is giuen me in heauen and in earth: seeing before the vttering of those words, he commaunded the Diuels, had the Angels to do him seruice, and made the very elements of the world to bow and bend at his pleasure. Wherefore this place is vnaduisedly brought by our Aduersaries, to proue that Christ merited for himselfe, it being most cleare and evident, that the name aboue all names mentioned in this place, which is the name of God Almighty, was giuen to the Sonne of God donatione naturali, that is, by naturall communication, when he was begotten of his Father before all eternity, and to the Man Christ donatione gratuità, that is, by free gift, when God was made man, and Man became God, as the ordina∣rie Glosse vpon these words fitly obserueth: and so could no more bee merited by the passion of Christ, then it was possible for him to doe any thing whereby

to merite to be God. And hereupon n 1.276 Caluine rightly asketh (which all the Papists in the world are not able to answere) Quibus meritis assequi potuit homo ut iudex esset mundi, caput Angelorum, atque ut potiretur summo Dei imperio? that is, by what merits could man attaine to bee Iudge of the world, Head of Angels, & to haue the highest authority and power of God? But some man will say, that Christ pronounceth, it was * 1.277 necessary that he should suffer, and so enter into his glory; and that therefore it seemeth, he could not haue entred into it, vnlesse hee had suffered. Quomodò ergo suam (saith Hugo) si oportuit? & quomodò oportuit, si suam? Si gloria eius fuit, quomodò vt ad illam intraret, pati oportuit? Sed suam propter se; oportuit propter nos: that is, How then was it his glory, if he could not enter into it, vnlesse he suffered? and how was it necessary that hee should suffer to enter into it, if it were his? Surely it was his in respect of himselfe; and it was necessary he should enter into it by suffering, onely in respect of vs. For Christ truly if he had pleased, might haue entred into his glory some other way, & haue receiued it in what sort he would, euen as hee needed neuer to haue wanted it, vnlesse he had pleased: but he would for our sakes by punishment enter into his glory, that dying he might take away the feare of death, & rising againe he might restore vn∣to vs the hope of glorification: he would not goe any other way, because we could not go any other way: we would, but could not; he could, but would not. Quia sialiter iuis∣set, pervenisset, sed non subvenisset: that is, because if hee had gone any other way, hee might haue entred in himselfe, but could not haue brought vs in with him.

There is nothing therefore that Christ gained to himselfe by his passion, but that hee was made an example of suffering to all that beleeue in him, & a cause of glorification to all them that suffer with him, that they may bee glorified with him: but what did this profite him? He went before, & wee all follow him: whose good is this? I finde men out of the way, I goe before them to shew them the way, & all follow mee; what doth it profite me? I knew the way, and could haue gone it by my selfe alone: Sed non esset causa pergendi, nisi compassio esset subveniendi: that is, but there were no cause of my going, if the compassionate consideration of such as know not the way, did not moue me by going before them to be a guide vnto thē. Thus then we say, that Christ merited nothing for himself, not because we would detract any thing frō him, for he did things worthy of most ample rewards, if there had beene any thing hee had not already, that might haue been giuen & added to him, or that hee had not already a just claime vnto: but because we admire his perfection, which was so great from the beginning, that no∣thing could be after added vnto it: and praise his goodnesse that came into this world for our sakes onely, and not for his owne good. Wherefore let vs proceed to see how, and in what sort he merited for vs.

In the merit of Christ, 2 things are to be considered. The worth of those actions & workes of vertue which hee performed: & the dignity of his Diuine & Infinite Person performing them. Touching the former, though the actions of the best men that euer were, done in the state of grace, & proceeding frō the working of Gods Spirit, be not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed, yet we constantly affirme & teach, that the actions of Christ, done in his humane nature, were worthy of that glory: and therefore dare not deny, that Christ merited for vs ex condigno, as some of the Schoolemen doe. But for the better clearing of this point, touching the merite of Christ, wee must ob∣serue, that to merite, simply, absolutely, & properly so named, foure things concurre. For first, he that will merite or deserue any thing at anothers mans hand, must do som∣thing that the other had no former claime vnto. Secondly, hee must doe something that may be beneficiall & good vnto him, of whom hee desireth to deserue something. Thirdly, he must doe something that may bee beneficiall in as high a degree vnto him, as he looketh to be benefited by him againe. And fourthly, hee must not hurt & wrong him as much one way, as he benefiteth him another: for if he doe so, he loseth all merit of reward.

These being the things required to the nature of Merite, strictly so named, no crea∣ture can in this sort merit any thing at Gods hand, seeing there is nothing that any cre∣ature can doe which God may not justly claime & challenge as due, in respect of good

already done to it; or whereby it may any way benefite or profite him according to that in Iob, that p 1.278 Our righteousnesse reacheth not vnto God: Yet such is the goodnesse of Almighty God towards his poore creatures, that, as if hee had no claime to their well doings, in respect of benefits already bestowed on them, and, as if they were as good and beneficiall to him, as they are good in them selues seeking in all his workes to communicate, and not to receiue any good, in the day he made them, hee couenan∣ted with them to giue them rewards answerable to the worth of their actions: which gracious condescending of Almighty God to the condition of his creatures presup∣posed, Adam in the state of his innocencie, and before he fell, might haue merit∣ted and deserued good at Gods hands: but the best men in the world since his fall, are excluded from all possibility of meriting any thing, especially heauen-happinesse, properly of him: first, because they haue lost all that power of well doing, which originally in the state of their creation they had, and canne performe nothing that is good, vnlesse it be giuen vnto them by a newe free gift, for which they shall rather be indebted to God, then any vvay binde him vnto them. Secondly, because they offend him as much one vvay, as they please him another. And thirdly, because there is no equality betweene the good actions of vertue vvhich they performe and do, and the revvards that are layd vp in heauen, neither in totall, perpetuall, and constant doing of that they do, nor in the manner quality and measure thereof, the height of heauen-happinesse incomparably exceeding all other knowledge and desire, according to that of the Apostle: The eye hath not seene, the eare hath not heard, neither hath it entred into the heart of Man, what things God hath prepared for them that loue him. But none of * 1.279 these things exclude Christ from meriting in the nature of Man, which he assumed: for he brought the fulnesse of grace with himinto the world, & it was Naturall unto him: He no way offended or displeased God his Father: and there was a perfect equality betweene his actions and the rewards of Heauen, in that he loued God with that kind, degree, and measure of loue, wherewith men loue him in heauen; ardently, with∣out defect; entirely, and totally without distraction; perpetually without intermission; and constantly, without possibility of euer ceasing so to do.

Wherefore let vs passe from the worth and value of those workes of vertue that Christ performed, to the consideration of the dignity of his diuine, and infinite Per∣son performing them. Which dignity and infinity of the Person of Christ, to which nothing could be added, made the things he did to promerite, and to procure good to others, and to infinite other. r 1.280 Christus (sayth a learned Schoole-man) meruit omnibus quantum fuit ex sufficientiâ sui, pro eo quod in ipso fuit gratia: non sicut in singulari homi∣ne, sed sicut in capite totius Ecclesiae; propter quod fructus passionis eius redundare potuit in omnia Ecclesiae membra: & quia, vt dicit Damascenus, ratione vnitatis Diuinitatis cum humanitate, Christus operatur ea quae sunt hominis, supra hominē, operatio eius extendebat se ad totam naturam, quod non potest operatio puri hominis. Huius diuersitatis ratio re∣ducenda est non in habitualem aliquam gratiam creatam sed increatam; quod pro multis sufficit finita gratia, haec sufficientia est ex gratiâ infinita & increata; That is, Christ merited for all sufficiently on his part, in that grace was found in him, not as in a par∣ticular man, but as in the Head of the whole Church: for which cause the fruit of his passion might redound to all the members of the same Church: and because, (as Da∣mascene sayth) by reason of the vnion of the natures of God and Man in his Person, he doth the workes of a man in a more excellent sort, then any meere man can do, the be∣nefite and force of his working and operation, extended to the whole nature of Man, which the action of a meere man cannot do. The reason of which difference is not to be attributed to any habituall, created grace, but to that which is increate: for that the finite grace that is in Christ, (that is, his vertue, and worke of vertue) is availeable for the good of many, it is from his infinite, and increate Grace.

CHAP. 21.

Of the benefits which wee receiue from Christ.

HAuing spoken of the Satisfaction, and Merit of Christ, it remaineth that we speake of the benefites which we receiue from him: which are all most fully expressed by the name of redemption, which is the freeing of vs from that miserable bondage and captiuity, wherein we were formerly holden by rea∣son of Adams sin. This bondage was twofold; first in respect of sin: and secondly in respect of punishment. In respect of sinne, we were bondmen to Sathan, whose will we did, according to that of the Apostle, His seruants ye are, to whom ye obey. In respect of punishment, we were become bondmen to Almighty God the righteous Iudge of * 1.281 the world, who vseth Sathan as an instrument of his wrath, and an Executioner of his dreadfull Iudgments, against such as do offend him and prouoke him to wrath. These being the kinds of captivity and bondage wherein we were holden, it will not be hard to see how we are freed and redeemed from the same. There is no redemption, as the Diuines do note, but either by exchange of prisoners, by force and strong hand, or by paying of a price. Redemption by exchange of prisoners is then, when wee set free those whom we hold as captiues taken from our Enemies, that they may make free such as they hold of ours: and this kind of redemption hath no place in the deliuerance of sinnefull men from sinne and misery: but their deliuerance is onely wrought by strong hand, and paying of a price. For Christ redeemed vs from the bondage of sinne, in that by the force, and working of his grace, making vs dislike it, hate it, re∣pent of it, and leaue it, he violently tooke vs out of Sathans hands, who tyrannically, and vnjustly, had taken possession of vs: but from the bondage of punishment in re∣spect whereof we were become Bondmen to Almighty God, hee redeemed vs not by force and strong hand, but by paying a price, satisfying his justice, and suffering what our sinnes had deserued, that so being pacified towards vs, he migh cease to punishvs, and discharge Sathan, who was but the Executioner of his wrath, from afflicting vs any longer.

In this sort do wee conceiue of the worke of our redemption, wrought for vs by Christ; and therefore it is absurdly and vntruely sayd by b 1.282 Matthew Kellison, in his late published Suruey of the supposed new religion, that we make Christ an absurd Redee∣mer, for we speake no otherwise of Christ the Redeemer, then we haue learned in the Church and House of God. But for the satisfaction of the Reader, let vs see how he go∣eth about to conuince vs of such absurdity as hee chargeth vs with. The Protestants, sayth he, do teach (thē which nothing can be more absurd) that Christs passion was our Iustice, Merit, Satisfactiō, that there is no Iustice but Christs, no good workes but his workes, no merit but his merite, no satisfaction but his satisfaction; that there is noe justice or sanctitie inherent in man, nor none necessary; that no Lawes can bind vs, be∣cause Christs death was the ransome that freed us from all Lawes, Diuine & Humane. that no sinnes nor euil workes can hurt vs, because Christs Iustice being ours, no sinnes can make vs sinners: that no Hell or Iudgment remaineth for vs whatsoeuer wee doe, because Christs Iustice being ours, sins can neither be imputed to vs in this life, nor pu∣nished in the next, and that herein consisteth Christian liberty. A more shame∣lesse slanderer, and trifling smatterer, I thinke was neuer heard of. For some of these assertions are vndoubted truths, against which no man may oppose himselfe, vnlesse he will be branded with the marke of impiety and blasphemy: as that Christs passion is our justice, merite, and satisfaction: that there is no merite properly soe named, but Christs merite; no propitiatory, and expiatory satisfaction but Christs satisfaction: and the other are nothing else but shamelesse and hellish slaunders, and meere deuices, and fancies of his idle braine, without all ground of truth as that there is no justice nor sanctity inherent in Man, nor none necessary: that good workes are not necessary: that noe lawes canne binde vs: that noe sinnes nor euill workes canne hurt vs: and that no hell nor judgment remaineth for vs whatsoeuer wee doe.

For we most constantly affirme and teach, that there is both justice and sanctity inhe∣rent in Man, though not so perfect, as that hee may safely trust vnto it, & desire to bee judged according to the perfection of it in the day of Tryall. Likewise wee teach, that good workes are in such sort necessary to saluation, that without Holinesse, & a desire at the least to performe the workes of sanctification, no man shall euer see God. Nei∣ther doe we say, that no Lawes can binde vs, as he slaunderously misreporteth vs, but wee constantly teach, that not to doe the things contained & prescribed in the Law of God, is damnable & damning sinne, if God vpon our repentance forgiue it not. And therefore c 1.283 Bellarmine, though hee wrongeth vs in like sort, as Kellison doth, yet in the end like an honest man, he confesseth ingenuously that he doth wrong vs, and sheweth at large, that Luther in his booke de votis Monasticis, defineth the liberty of a Chri∣stian to consist, not in being freed from the duty of doing the things prescribed in the Law of God, as if at his pleasure he might doe them, or leaue them vndone; but in that there are no works forbidden in the Law, that may stand with Faith, so euill, that they can condemne vs, nor none there prescribed, performed by vs, so good as to cleare, de∣fend, & justifie vs; So making vs free non ab operibus faciendis, sed defendentibus & accu∣santibus: that is, not from the necessitie of doing the things that are commaunded as good, but from seeking justification in workes, or fearing condemnation for such euil workes as wee consent not fully vnto, but dislike, resist against, and seeke remission of. Whereunto Caluin agreeth, teaching that Christian liberty freeth not frō the duety of doing the things which the Law requireth, but frō doing them so, as to haue them ex∣amined & tryed strictly according to the Law & rule of Iustice: God in mercy accep∣ting our works though imperfect, if they proceed frō a good conscience, & faith vn∣fained. But, saith d 1.284 Kellison, the Protestants teach, that Christ came to bee a Redeemer only, not a Law-giuer: & therefore it seemeth they thinke men free from the duety of following the prescription of any Law. This surely is a very bad & weake inference. Christian men haue nothing to doe with Moses & his Law, and may at their pleasure either breake it or keep it, because Christ came to be a Redeemer, & not a Law-giuer. For though it be true that Christ came not to giue a new, or more perfect Law of mo∣rall duties, or to vrge it more strictly then Moses did, as some imagine, in which sense our Diuines rightly deny him to haue come as a Law-giuer, yet hee came to fulfill the Law formerly giuen by the Ministery of Moses: which thing hee performed: first, by clearing the meaning of it, and making it to be rightly vnderstood, where it was mista∣ken. Secondly, by meriting remission of the precedent breaches and transgressions of it. And thirdly, by giuing grace that men may in some sort doe the things it requireth. Wherefore if any man aske of vs, whether it may be truly said, that Christ was a Law-giuer to his Church, we answer, that our Diuines did neuer simply deny Christ to be a Law-giuer, but onely in sort before expressed. For they confesse, that he may truely be so named; first, because he writeth those Lawes in our hearts, which Moses deliuered written in Tables of stone; and secondly, because hee gaue certaine positiue Lawes to Christian men, touching Sacraments, Ministery, and outward meanes of saluation, that were not of force before. Wherefore to conclude this point, we do not think (as Kel∣lison slaunderously against his own conscience reporteth of vs) that no sins can hurt vs, that no Hell nor Iudgement remaineth for vs whatsoeuer we doe: but wee constantly teach, that they who commit sinne with full consent, and persist therein, shall vndoub∣tedly perish euerlastingly. So that this is all that we say, that no sins, how grieuous so∣euer, resisted, disliked, repented of, & forsaken, can hurt vs, & that no Hell, nor Iudge∣ment remaineth for them, whom the working of diuine grace freeth from the domi∣nion of sin, and the satisfaction of Christ from the condemnation of it: Against which doctrine, or any part of it, neither Kellison, nor any Papist in the world, is able to take any just exception.

CHAP. 22.

Of the Ministery of them to whom Christ committed the publishing of the reconciliation betweene God and Men, procured by him.

THus haue wee seene, first, the excellency of Christ our Sauiour, whom God sent into the world, in the fulnesse of time, to bee the great Sheepheard of his Sheepe, the guide of his people, the light of the Gentiles, the glory of Israel, and a King to fit vpon the throne of Dauid for euer, hauing all power both in Heauen and in Earth. Secondly, what great thinges hee did and suffered for vs, to reconcile vs vnto God. Thirdly, what the benefits are which hee pro∣cured for vs and bestowed on vs. Now it remaineth that wee see to whom he com∣mitted the publishing of the joyfull reconciliation betweene God and Man, the con∣version of the world vnto himselfe, and the gouernment of such as should by belee∣uing, become his people, when hauing finished the great worke he came to performe, he was to returne backe to that God his Father that sent him. The Apostle Saint Paul telleth vs, that a 1.285 Christ hauing triumphed ouer principalities and powers, and made a shew of them openly * 1.286 vpon his Crosse, led captiuitie captiue, and gaue gifts, vnto men: * 1.287 that hee gaue some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, and some Pastours and Teach∣ers, for the gathering together of the Saints, the worke of the Ministery, and the edifying of the body of Christ, vntill wee all meete in the vnitie of Faith, and knowledge of the Son of God into a perfect Man, euen into the measure of the Age of the fulnesse of Christ. A∣mongstall those Messengers of glad tidings, and Ministers of Christ, appointed by him for the gathering together of the Saints, the Apostles were chiefe, and princi∣pall; Evangelists were assistants, which they vsed for the better settling & perfecting of thinges happily begunne by them, and the writing of the Euangelicall histories, concerning Christ: The Prophets were such as foretold future thinges, that knew all secrets, and opened the hidden mysteries of God, speaking to the consciences of Men in a strange and admirable manner; so that, as the Apostle telleth vs, b 1.288 They that heard them prostrated themselues at their feete acknowledging that God was in them. These were temporary, and to continue but for a time. In the Apostles, two sorts of thinges are to bee considered, and distinguished by vs: first, such as were proper to them, as fitting to those first beginnings of Christianity; and secondly, such as are of perpetuall vse and necessity, and so to bee passed ouer to other, and continued to the end of the world.

The Diuines do note, that there were foure things proper & peculiar to the Apo∣stles, & not communicable to any other of the Ministers of Christ, appointed by him for the gathering together of his Saints. The first was, Immediate vocation; the se∣cond, Infallibility of Iudgment: the 3^d, generality of Commission, to do all things per∣taining to the ministery of Saluation, in all places, & towards all Persons: the fourth, the speaking in all the tongues and languages of the world, the knowledge of all se∣crets, and power to confirme their Doctrine by signes and miracles, and by the im∣position of their hands to giue the like miraculous gifts of the Spirite to others. These joyntly were not communicable to any other in those times, neither Evangelists, nor Prophets, as either not being called immediatly, but appointed by the Apostles; or not infallibly led into all truth: Generall commission they had not, but were taken in∣to the fellowship of the Apostles labours; to assist their presence, & supply their ab∣sence, to build vpon their foundation, and to perfect that they beganne. Lastly, though the hauing of miraculous gifts, and the power of working miracles sim∣ply, were not proper to the Apostles, yet the hauing of them in such sort, as by the imposition of their hands to giue the Spirit, enabling to worke miracles, & to doe miraculous things, was peculiar and proper to them; and therefore we reade, that c 1.289 Philip baptized, but that the d 1.290 Apostles went to confirme them by impositi∣on of hands that were baptized by him, that so they might receiue the miraculous

gifts of the holy Ghost. And as these things were reserued as proper and peculiar vnto the Apostles, and not communicated to any other in their time, soe are they not passed ouer to their after-commers by succession: but in steed of immediate calling wee haue now succession; in steed of infallibility of judgment, the direction of their writings, guiding vs to the finding out of the truth: in steede of Generall commission particular Assignation of seuerall Churches to rule, and parts of Christs flocke to feed: in steed of miraculous gifts, and the Apostles power to conferre them, a setled course of Schooles and Vniuersities fitting men for the worke of the Ministery: insteed of their Miracles wherewith they confirmed their doctrine, the Faith already receiued, and by so many generations recommended vnto vs, as confirmed by the Apostles Mi∣racles at the first. Neither was it fit, as e 1.291 Saint Augustine noteth, that these mira∣culous courses should still haue continued. For euen as a man that neuer had seene the seede cast into the earth, and there rotting; and the trees dead in Winter, after re∣uiuing, and flourishing againe in their appointed time, would wonder no lesse at it, then if he should see a blind man receiue sight, or a dead man life: but now that these things are ordinary, wee little esteeme them: so if those miraculous things appearing in the Apostles, and first Ministers of Christ which with their newnesse and strangenesse moued much at the first, should haue beene continued still, they would haue grown into contempt, and not haue beene regarded at all.

All that which hath beene sayd touching the dignity Apostolicall, and the things properly pertaining to it, is so cleare and euident, that wise and judicious men, make no question of any part thereof. Yet are there some that seeme to doubt, whether the Apostles generally had immediate calling, or vniuersality of commission, suppo∣sing that Peter onely was immediately designed by Christ, and the rest by him: that he onely had an illimited commission, without all restraint, and the rest an inferiour commission to that of Peter, bounded and stinted.

Touching the first of these doubts, f 1.292 Bellarmine (whose manner it is not to conceale the diuisions and differences that are or haue beene amongst the Friends and Louers of the Church of Rome, but to write them in the forehead of euery controuersie) shew∣eth, that there are three opinions amongst the Diuines of the Romish Church touching this point. The first that as well the Apostles, as succeeding Bishops receiued their power, and and jurisdiction from Peter, and his supposed successour the Bishop of Rome. The second, that both Apostles and Bishops receiued their Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction immediately from Christ, and not from Peter nor his Suc∣cessours. The third, that Bishops receiue their jurisdiction from the Pope, but that the Apostles receiued all their power and jurisdiction immediately from CHRIST, and not from Peter. The Second of these opinions is wholly true, and I will in due place confirme the same. The third, in part true, and in part false, which Bellarmine followeth: and the first wholly false, which hee largely and substantially confuteth; prouing first, g 1.293 that the Apostles receiued all their jurisdiction and power immediately from Christ, and not from Peter, as well out of the words of our Saui∣our, when hee sayth: As my Father sent mee, soe send I you: as out of the election of * 1.294 i 1.295 Matthias, who was not chosen by Peter, or the other Apostles, but designed im∣mediatly by God himselfe, shewing by direction of the Lot falling on Matthias, that it was hee whom hee would haue to succede into the void roome of Iudas the Tray∣tour: adding, that the Apostles gaue him no authority; and that Paul professeth the same touching himselfe, k 1.296 protesting that hee receiued all his power and Iurisdiction immediately from Christ, and thereby prouing himselfe to be an Apostle. Secondly, he proueth that the fullnesse of all Ecclesiasticall power, was committed to all the A∣postles, in as large and ample sort as to Peter, by the testimonies of Chrysostome and Theophylact: and that Christ by those words, As my Father sent mee, so send I you, made all the Apostles his Vicars or Vicegerents, yea, gaue them his owne office and autho∣rity; and out of Cyrill, that by these words he made them Apostles and Doctours of the whole world: and that to let them know, that in Apostolique power hee gaue them all Ecclesiasticall power, he sayd vnto them, As my Father sent me, so send I you: it

being certaine that the Father sent the Sonne with all fulnesse of power. Farther he addeth out of l 1.297 Cyprian, that the same fulnesse of power was giuen vnto the rest of the Apostles by those words, As my Father sent me, so send I you, that was promised to Pe∣ter by those, I will giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, & performed by those other, Feed my Sheep, feed my Lambes. Now, saith he, it is certain that by those words; I will giue thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, and by those other, Feed my sheep &c. is vnderstood all fulnesse of Iurisdiction both inward and outward: therefore the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and Iurisdiction was giuen to euery one of the Apo∣stles. Thus then the Cardinall confesseth, first that all the Apostles were immediately taught of God, without learning any thing of Peter, or needing in any thing to be con∣firmed by him. Secondly, that their commission was generall; so that there was not any act of Ecclesiasticall Ministery to which their commission did not extend, nor any places in which, nor persons towardes whom, they might not performe the acts of their Ministery. Thirdly, that they receiued all this authority and power immediatly from Christ, and not from Peter, and that therefore they could neither be limited, nor wholly restrained by him in the vse and exercise of the same. Thus doth hee ouer∣throw the whole frame and fabrique of their building, who ground the pretended su∣premacy of the Pope vpon Christs words spoken to Peter. For to what purpose doe they vrge, that to Peter onely Christ said, Feede my Sheepe, &c? that to him onely he gaue the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, and vpon him onely promised to build his Church? seeing they are forced to confesse, that the commission of feeding Christs sheepe, was giuen in as ample sort to the rest as to Peter, that they all receiued the whole power of the keyes; that the Church was builded vpon the rest as well as vpon Peter, and equally founded vpon them all.

If the Cardinall shall shrinke from this his confession, we can easily force him to it againe, and make him acknowledge that whatsoeuer Christ promised, intended, or performed by any of his speeches directed vnto Peter, he performed to all. Christ said specially to Peter, Feede my sheepe: yet had the rest (our Adversaries being Iudges) the same commission. Hee promised to him the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen; so that what hee should binde on Earth should bee bound in Heauen: hee named him Peter, and promised vpon that Rocke to build his Church: yet all receiued the same keyes as well as he, the same power of binding and loosing: & the Church was equal∣ly builded on them all. These things I will particularly confirme and proue; and first, that all the Apostles had the same commission of feeding the flocke of Christ that Pe∣ter had, it is euident. For whereas there are but foure kindes of feeding; m 1.298 Vitâ exem∣plari, subsidio corporali, doctrinâ salutari, & disciplinâ regulari; that is, By exemplary conversation, by ministring things necessary for the entertainment of this present life, by wholesome doctrine, and by regular discipline and gouernement; all these waies, the rest of the Apostles, stood bound to feede the flocke of Christ, as well as Peter. For they were all the n 1.299 Lights of the world, and their o 1.300 Light was so to shine before men, that they seeing their good workes, might glorifie their Father in Heauen: they were all to take care of the poore and needie; they had all power to preach and minister Sacraments by Christs owne warrant, saying vnto them all, p 1.301 Goe teach all Nati∣ons, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holy Ghost: and to gouerne and guide the Church and people of God, as well as Peter: Christ sending them as his Father sent him, and assuring them that whose sinnes they re∣mit, they are remitted, and whose sinnes they retaine, they are retained. Neither can this bee doubted of, seeing Bellarmine himselfe confesseth in the place before alleadged, that in the Apostolique power, all power and Jurisdiction Ecclesia∣sticall, as well inward as outward, was contained: so that, that which Bellarmine and other Papistes insist vpon, q 1.302 that Christ commended all his Sheepe vnto Peters care and charge, in that hee saide vnto him, Feed my sheepe, without any limitation or distinction, as if in this respect they would shew vs some singular thing in Peters feeding of the flocke of Christ, not found in others, is too sil∣ly, For who knoweth not, that euery Apostle had generall commission, and that howsoeuer for the better dispatch of the worke they had in hand, they diuided

amongst them the seuerall prouinces of the world; yet this was, as Bellar•…•… him∣selfe confesseth, r 1.303 Prouinciarum, non iurisdictionis diuisio; that is, a diuision of prouin∣ces, not of Iurisdiction: for there was not any of them, but had power to preach, mi∣nister Sacraments, and exercise discipline wheresoeuer they would, one of them no way hindering the employment of another, but all with joynt care seeking to set forward the worke, they had in hand. Yea this is so cleare, that the Cardinall ingenu∣ously confesseth it to be so, saying in expresse words, that s 1.304 the rest of the Apostles were heads, Rulers, and Pastours of the vniuersall Church.

Touching the power of the Keyes promised to Peter, and the power of binding and loosing, it will easily appeare, that no singular thing was either promised or giuen vn∣to him, but that which was common to him with the rest. t 1.305 Thomas Aquinis fitly obserueth, that in corporall things the Key is an instrument that openeth the doore, and giueth entrance to him that formerly was excluded: Now the doore of the king∣dome of heauen is shut against vs by sinne, both in respect of the staine of it, and the guilt of punishment: whence it commeth, as hee aptly noteth, that the power, by which this stoppe & impediment is taken away, is named the Key. This power is in the diuine Trinity principally, and by way of authority, in that God onely taketh away sinne, dimittendo, quae facta sunt; adiuvando, ne fiant; & perducendo ad vitam, vbi omnino fieri non possunt; that is, By forgiuing the sinne that is past: by helping the sin∣ner, that he doth not the like againe; and by bringing him to that life, where hee can sinne no more. And therefore the blessed Trinity is said to haue the Key of Authori∣ty. Christ had power to remoue this stoppe and hinderance by the merite of his pas∣sion, by instituting Sacraments, and making them effectuall instruments of the com∣munication of his grace, for the taking away of sinne, and therefore he is said to haue the Key of Excellency. In men there is a ministeriall Power to remoue the impedi∣ment of sinne, that hindereth from entring into Heauen, and therefore they are right∣ly said to haue a key of Ministery, which is two-fold; of Science, and of Iurisdiction: Of Science, remouendo ignorantiam, & inducendo ad conuersionem; that is, by remo∣uing the blindnesse of heart that is found in men, and inducing them to conuert and turne to God: Of Iurisdiction, in receiuing men into the society of holy ones, and in admitting those that they thinke meete & worthy to the participation of the holy Sacraments, in which the efficacy of Christs passion communicateth it selfe; as also in reiect•…•…ng the vnholy and vncleane. The Iurisdiction of the Church is rightly signi∣fied Metaphorically by the name of a Key, because the chiefe command in a house or Citty, is in him to whom the keyes of that house or Citty are committed; & hee that hath the keyes, hath thereby power to admit and receiue into the house or Citty whom he will, & to exclude and shut out whō he pleaseth. And therefore when Prin∣ces enter into their Cities & Towns, the Citizens are wont to offer vnto thē the keyes thereof, thereby acknowledging that the chiefe power & command of those places doth rest in them. Wherevpon when the Lord promised to Eliacim, sonne of Hil∣kiah, servant of King Hezekiah, chiefe authority in the Kings Court, and in the Citty of Ierusalem, he said by his Prophet; u 1.306 I will giue the keye of the house of Dauid vpon his shoulders. Hee shall open and no man shall shut: hee shall shut, and no man shall open. In which sense also it is said in the Reuelation of Christ: that x 1.307 He hath the key of Dauid, that he openeth and no man shutteth, that hee shutteth and no man openeth; that is, hath all fulnesse of power in his Fathers house and kingdome. Thus then the key of Mi∣nistery being onely the power of teaching, instructing, admonishing, comforting, go∣uerning, and yeelding sacramentall assurances of Gods mercy & grace, by dispensing the Sacraments Christ hath instituted; and this power being the same in Peter, & the rest; it is cleare that the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen were equally committed vnto them all.

The force of these keyes is not onely expressed by the acts of opening & shutting, but of binding & loosing also, thereby to shew, that they are no materiall keyes, but Metaphorically vnderstood, and spirituall; and that heauen is then opened vnto men that they may enter into it, when they are loosed from their sins that hindered them

from entring in thither: and hereupon it is, that Christ hauing promised the keyes of the kingdome of heauen to blessed Peter, telleth him likewise, that what hee shall binde on earth, shall be bound in heauen, and what he shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heauen. The bonds wherewith men are bound on earth, are of foure sorts. First of Lawes, obliging, and tying them to the performance of certaine duties. Secondly, of sinnes. Thirdly of punishments to be inflicted by Almighty God; and Fourthly, of pu∣nishments to be inflicted by men. The bond of Lawes is of two sorts. For there are diuine lawes, and there are humane Lawes. God bindeth men to the doing of what hee pleaseth; and Men that are in authority, either Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall, to such things as they thinke fit. Touching these bonds, none haue power to loose, but they that haue power to binde: so that what God by precept bindeth vs to doe, none but God can free vs from the necessity & duty of doing it: and what the Church or Ma∣gistrate binde vs to, no inferiour power can loose vs or free vs from. Loosing in this sense opposed to binding by law and precept, is in two sorts; By Reuocation, and by Dispensation. Reuocation, is an absolute Abrogation of a Law in respect of all pla∣ces, times, persons, and conditions, and that either by expresse and direct Repeale, or by generall neglect, and long continued disuse. Dispensation is in respect of certaine persons, times, places and conditions of Men & thinges: so that a dispensation per∣mitting the Law to retaine her wonted authority, onely freeth some particular person or persons, at some times, in some places, and in some condition of thinges, from the necessity of doing, or leauing vndone that, which, vnlesse it be in consideration of such particular circumstances, the Law-giuer meant should be obserued, but in such cases not so.

Heere the question is moued by occasion of that kinde of loosing, which is by re∣uersing Lawes formerly in force, whether God the giuer of the morall Law, may re∣voke the same, and dispense with men for the not doing of things there prescribed, of the doing of things there forbidden. The answere is, y 1.308 that these Lawes are impo∣sed vpon men by the very condition of their nature and creation: as the very conditi∣on and nature of a man, created by GOD, requireth that he should honour, loue, feare, and reuerence him that made him: and therefore touching the precepts of the first Table (that concerning the Sabaoth excepted) it is cleare and euident, that they can∣not be altered, nor Man by God himselfe discharged from the duty of honouring, lo∣ving, and fearing God so long as he hath any beeing. Touching the precepts of the second Table, it is resolued, that GOD cannot dispense with man, or giue him leaue to doe the thinges therein forbidden, as to steale, murther, or lie. For all these im∣ply, and involue in them that which is simply euill, and to bee disliked: but by some alteration in the doer, or matter of action, he may make that not to bee euill, that o∣therwise would bee euill: and consequently not forbidden; as namely, that to bee no theft, or murther, which otherwise would be: as when hee commanded the Israelites to spoyle the Aegyptians, they did not commit the act of robbery: for robbery is the taking away of a thing from the owner against his will: but these thinges which the Israelites tooke away, were the Aegyptians no longer, after God the supreme Lord, had spoyled them of the title they had therevnto, and assigned the same to the Israelites. So likewise for one man to take away the life of another, hauing no authority so to doe, is murther, and no man can be dispensed with lawfully to doe any such act; but for a Magistrate to take away the life of an offender, is a lawfull act, and no act of murther; and so, if Abraham had slaine his sonne Isaac, it had not beene murther, being authorized so to doe by God, who hath supreme authority in the world, and may justly, as a Iudge, for sinne found in men, take away the liues of whom he plea∣seth, and as supreme and absolute Lord, bring all to nothing that for his wills sake he made of nothing, though there were no sinne nor fault at all. But touching Ceremo∣niall, Iudiciall, and Positiue Lawes of God concerning Sacraments and obseruations of what kinde soeuer, seeing they are imposed after & vpon the being of nature, wee thinke that God may alter them at his pleasure, so that at one time it may bee lawfull to doe that was forbidden at another. The Gouernours that God hath set ouer his

Church and people by commission from him, may interprete what is doubtfull in these Lawes of God, or in those of the other sort: but yet according to the Law: but they may not abrogate or dispense with any Law of God, either naturall and morall, or positiue established concerning the vse of Sacraments, and things pertaining to Gods worship and seruice. But concerning those Lawes that were made by the Apostles and Primitiue Fathers; touching matters of outward obseruation, the succeeding Guides of the Church may either dispense with them, or reverse them vpon the due consideration of the difference of times, Men, and things. And so wee see to whom it pertaineth to binde men with their lawes, and to loose them from the bonds thereof.

The bond of sin, which is the second kinde of those bonds I mentioned, is two-fold; for there is Vinculum captivitatis, and Vinculum servitutis: that is, a man that is a sin∣ner, * 1.309 is so bound, that hee can neither returne to doe good, nor leaue off to doe euill: for sinne holdeth him in a bond of captivitie, that hee shall not returne to doe good: and with a bond of seruitude, that he shall not cease to doe euill. And though God hath so ordered the nature of Man, that hee who will doe euill, shall thus bee entangled: yet it is man that thus entangleth, wrappeth, and bindeth himselfe, and not God. But for the bond of eternall condemnation, and the punishments following euill doers, which is the third kinde of those bonds wherewith I shewed that men are tyed and bound, it is of GOD. From these bonds of sin, and punishment inflicted by GOD, none but hee alone can free men by his fauour, and the worke of his grace, as the supreme and highest cause, none but Christ by Merite & Satisfaction. The Ministers of the Church, by the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments, may convert Men to God instrumen∣tally, making them partakers of his graces, & bringing thē into such an estate, wherein they shall be sure for Christs sake to finde mercie with GOD, for the remission & ta∣king away of their sinnes. They may pray for them, and out of the knowledge of their estate, assure them of remission: But other power to vnloose and vntie these direfull & horrible bonds of sinne and punishment, they haue none: only the punishments which they haue power to inflict, they haue authoritie to diminish, lessen, or take away: so that whom they bind with the bonds of Ecclesiasticall censures, & punishments, those by the same authoritie they may vnloose. For as the Guides of Gods Church may prescribe, enjoyne, and impose certaine actions of Mortification, and penitentiall con∣version vnto GOD: so when they see cause, they may release from the same: as by ex∣communication they may restraine from vse of Sacraments, societie of Beleeuers, and benefite of the Churches praiers: so by Absolution they may free from all these bonds againe. Neither is this kinde of binding and loosing lightly to bee esteemed of, or little regarded: for he that for his contempt and disobedience, is debarred from the vfe of the Sacraments, from enjoying the societie of the beleeuers, and partaking in the benefite of the Churches prayers, is vndoubtedly excluded from all accesse to the Throne of grace in Heauen, & all acceptation there: & so consequently no lesse bound in Heauen, then in Earth: and he that is vnloosed from these bonds on Earth, is vnloo∣sed and set free in Heauen, that without all restraint, he may * 1.310 goe boldly to the Throne of Grace, to seeke helpe in the time of neede.

Thus wee see the diuerse kindes of binding and loosing, & that the Guides of Gods Church haue power and authority by Lawes and precepts, censures, and punishments, to binde those that are committed to their care and trust, and when they see cause, by reuersing such Lawes and precepts, wholly or in part, and by diminishing, releasing, & taking away such censures, and punishments, to vnty them, and set them free againe. The bond of Diuine Lawes, they may no otherwise meddle with, then by letting them know who are so bound, how straightly they are tyed. The bonds of sinne, and pu∣nishments by Diuine Iustice to be inflicted, they haue no power and authoritie to vn∣loose, but they concurre as helpers to the vnloosing of them by the Ministery of the Word, vvinning and persvvading men to convert vnto God, to cast their sinnes from them, and by the Sacraments instrumentally communicating vnto them; the grace of repentant conversion, and the assurance of remission and pardon.

In all these kindes of binding and loosing, the Apostles were equall: seeing (our Ad∣uersaries themselues confessing) they had the same power of Order and jurisdiction in like extent, within the compasse whereof all these kinds of binding and loosing are confined. Wherefore let vs proceede to speake of the power of remitting and retai∣ning sinnes, giuen to the Apostles by Christ our Sauiour. To remit sinne, properly is nothing else but to resolue not to punish sinne, and therefore hee onely may properly be sayd to remit sinne, that hath power to punish it. Now as sinne is committed a∣gainst the prescript of God, our Conscience, and Men in authority: soe GOD, the conscience of the Sinner, and the Magistrate, and Minister, haue power to punish sinne: GOD, with punishments temporall and eternall, of this life and that which is to come: the Conscience, with remorse: the Magistrate, with death, banish∣ment, Confiscation of goods, imprisonment, and the like: and the guides of the Church, with suspension, excommunication, degradation, and such other cen∣sures. Hence it followeth, that GOD onely is sayd properly to remitte the pu∣nishments that his justice doth inflict: that the conscience onely vpon repentance, canne take away that bitter and aflictiue punishment of remorse, wherewith shee is wont to torment and disquiet the minde of the offendour: and that the Magistrate and Minister onely haue power to take away those punishments that in their seuerall courses, they may and doe inflict. Notwithstanding, the Minister by the Word, perswading men to repentance, procuring remission, and out of his prudent obser∣uation of the parties conuersion vnto GOD, assuring him that it will goe well vvith him, as also by the Sacrament instrumentally communicating to him as well the grace of repentant conuersion, as of free remission (that soe hee may heare the very sound and voyce of GOD in mercy, saying to the heart and spirit of the re∣pentant Sinner, I am thy Saluation) may bee sayd in a sort to remitte sinne, euen in that it is an offence against GOD, not by way of authority and power, but by winning and perswading the sinner to that conuersion which obtaineth remissi∣on from GOD, and by the Sacrament instrumentally making him partaker as well of the grace of remission of sinne from GOD, as of conuersion from sinne to GOD. There are but foure things in the hand of the Minister, the Word, Prayer, Sacraments, and Discipline. By the word of Doctrine hee frameth, winneth, and perswadeth the sinner to repentant, conuersion, seeking, and procuring remission from God. By Prayer, he seeketh and obtaineth it for the sinner. By Sacraments, he instru∣mentally maketh him partaker as well of the grace of remission as conuersion: And by the power of Discipline, he doth by way of authority punish euill doings, and re∣mit or diminish the punishments he inflicteth, according as the condition of the party may seeme to require. By that which hath beene sayd, it appeareth that to bind and loose, to remit & to retaine sins, are equiualent & the same: saue that to bind and loose, is of more ample & large extent, in that it implyeth in it the binding by precepts & lawes, & the loosing which is by reversing or dispensing with the same. And therefore hauing shewed that the Apostles were equall in the power ofbinding and loosing, we need ad no farther proofe that they were equall in power of remitting & retaining sins.

Wherefore let vs proceede to the promise of Christ made to Peter, that vpon the Rocke mentioned by him, he would build his Church, and let vs see, whether any pecu∣liar thing were promised vnto Peter in that behalfe. The Church of God, we know, is compared in Scripture to a City, an House, and a Temple; and therefore the begin∣ning, proceeding, and increasing of the same, is rightly compared to building. Now in building there must be a foundation vpon which all may rest, and stay, that is put into the same building: and the foundation must be sure, firme, & immoueable; for other∣wise it wall faile, and so alll other parts of the building, wanting their stay, will fall to the ground. Now nothing is so firme, sure and immoueable, as a Rocke, and conse∣quently no building so strōg as that which is raised vpon a rockie foundation: where∣vpon our Sauiour sheweth b 1.311 that a House builded on the sand is easily ruinated, & soone shaken to pieces, but that an House builded vpon a rocke standeth firme, notwithstan∣ding the furie and violence of the flouds, winds, and tempests: and compareth a Man

rightly grounded, and established in his perswasion and resolution, to an house so built. By a Rocke therefore in this place is meant a sure foundation, that will not faile, nor be moued or shaken, how great a weight soeuer be laid vpon it. In a foun∣dation there are three things required. The first is, that it bee the first thing in the building: the second, that it beare vp all the other parts of the building; & the third, that it be firme and immoueable. For as Christ saith; c 1.312 If the eye that is the light of the bodie, be darknesse, how great is that Darknesse? So, if that which is to support and beare vp all, doe faile & shrinke, all must needs be shaken, and fall a sunder. These being the things required in a foundation; simply, and absolutely, in respect of all times, persons, and things, Christ onely is that foundation, vpon which the spirituall building of the Church is raised, because he onely is that beginning whence all spiri∣tuall good originally floweth, and commeth, vpon whom all the perswasion of the truth of things revealed staieth it selfe, as being the Angell of the great Couenant, and that eternall Word, that was with God in the beginning, vpon whom all our hope, con∣fidence, and expectation of any good groundeth it selfe: all the promises of God being in him d 1.313 yea and Amen. And in this sense the Apostle Saint Paul saith, e 1.314 Other Foun∣dation canne no man lay then that which is layd, which is Iesus Christ. And f 1.315 S. Augu∣stine, and other of the Fathers vnderstand by that rocke vpon which our Sauiour pro∣mised Peter to build his Church, the rocke that Peter confessed, which rocke was Christ, vpon which foundation euen Peter himselfe was builded, for that other Foun∣dation can no man lay, then that which is laid, which is Iesus Christ. But in respect of some particular times, persons, and things, and in some particular and speciall consi∣derations, there are other things that may rightly bee named foundations also, in re∣spect of the spirituall building of the Church. So in respect of the frame & fabrique of vertue and weldoing raised in this building, the first vertue, namely Faith, vpon which all other vertues doe stay themselues, and from which they take the first di∣rection that any vertue can giue, is rightly named a foundation. In respect of the forme of Christian doctrine, the first principles of heauenly knowledge are rightly named a foundation, g 1.316 Not laying againe, saith the Apostle, the foundation of faith, and of repentance from dead workes, of the doctrine of Baptismes, & of the imposition of hands, of the resurrection of the dead, and ofeternall iudgement, let vs be led forward vnto per∣fection. These first principles of heauenly knowledge are named a foundation, be∣cause they are the first things that are knowen, before which nothing can be knowen; and because vpon the knowledge of these things, all other parts of heavenly know∣ledge doe depend. In respect of the confession of the true faith concerning Christ, the first cleare, expresse, and perfect forme of confession that euer was made concer∣ning the same, may rightly be named a foundation, and in this sense Peters faith and confession is by diuerse of the h 1.317 Fathers named the Churches foundation. But they vnderstand not by the faith and confession of Peter, either the vertue and quality of faith abiding in his heart and mind, or the outward act of confessing, but the forme of confession made by him when he said i 1.318 Thou art the Christ, the Sonne of the liuing God: vpon which forme, as being the rule of all right beleeuing, the Church of God is builded. In respect of the supernaturall knowledge of God in Christ, the first & immediate reuelation made to the Apostles from whom all other were to learne, and by whose Ministerie, accompanied with all things that might winne credit, they were to be gained vnto God, may very rightly and justly be named a foundation, vp∣on which the faith of all after-commers is to stay it selfe, and from which in all doubts they must seeke resolution. And in this sort k 1.319 Bellarmine saith truely, that the Apostles may be named Foundations of the Church: according to that description, in the Reuelation of Saint Iohn, of the wall of the citie of God, that had l 1.320 12. founda∣tion-stones vpon which it was raised, and in them written the names of the Lambes twelue Apostles; and that of S. Paul, that m 1.321 wee are builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Iesus being the Head corner-stone: And this in three respects. First, because the Apostles were the first that founded Churches, and conuerted vn∣beleeuers to the faith. Secondly, because their doctrine, which they receiued imme∣diatly

from God by most vndoubted revelation, without mixture of errour, or danger of being deceiued is the rule of the faith of all aftercommers, and that sure, immoue∣able, and rockie foundation, vpon which the perswasion of all succeeding generations, and posterities, may and doth, most securely stay and ground it selfe. Thirdly, be∣cause they were Heads, Guides, and Pastors of the whole vniuersall Church, hauing not onely supreme, but prime and originall gouernment of the same, out of whose most large and ample commission, all Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie of after-commers, was in an inferiour degree and sort to bee deriued, and taken. In all these respects, all the Apostles were that strong rocke, and those strong rockie foundation-stones on which the Church is builded, though in a peculiar sense Christ alone bee the Rocke: and in all these respects, as S. Hierome saith, n 1.322 Super omnes ex aequo Ecclesiae for∣titudo solidatur: that is, the strength and firmenesse of the Church doth equally & in∣differently stay it selfe vpon them all: and consequently no more vpon Peter then any of the rest. Hitherto we finde nothing peculiar to Peter, and not common to all the Apostles: so that all the allegations of our Adversaries touching the feeding of the Sheep of Christ committed to Peter, the power of the keyes, of binding and loosing, of remitting and retaining sinnes, and the promise that on him as on a rockie foundati∣on-stone elect and precious, Christ would build his Church, are to no purpose, seeing they are forced to confesse, that all these things were likewise either by direct o 1.323 words, or by intendment bestowed on all the rest. Wherefore let vs see how notwithstanding this their confession they can make good, that there was a primacie of power in Peter, and how they goe about to confirme the same.

CHAP. 23.

Of the primacie of power imagined by our Adversaries to haue beene in Peter, and their defence of the same.

FOr the avoyding of the cleare evidence of the truth of all that which hath beene said, touching the equalitie of the Apostles of Christ amongst thēselues (which our Adversaries cannot but see, & acknowledge) they haue two shifts; The first, a 1.324 that the Apostles were equall towards the people, but not amongst themselues. The second, b 1.325 that they were equall in the Apostolique power, but that Peter had that amplitude of power (which the rest had as Apostles by speciall fauour, and onely in & for their own persons) as an ordinary Pastour, and in such sort that he might leaue the same to his Successors. These their silly shifts & evasions we will examine, that so the truth of that which hath bin said, be more fully cleared, & that all men may see & per∣ceiue; that nothing can be substātially objected against it, nor no evasiō foūd to avoid it.

Touching the first thing that they say, it is an Axiome, as I thinke, that may not bee doubted of, that whatsoeuer things are equall in respect of a third thing, are in the same sort, & fo farre for equall amongst themselues. So that if the Apostles were equall in the respect they had to the people, & as gouernours of the same, they were so far forth, & in that respect equall amongst thēselues. But they will say perhaps, that the Apostles were indeed equall amongst themselues in the power & office of teaching, directing, guiding, & gouerning the Christian World, but that yet amongst themselues there was an inequality, & one was superior, & had power ouer the rest, not in respect of the acts of their office of teaching & gouerning the world, but in respect of their personall a∣ctions. This surely is one of the strangest paradoxes that euer was heard of. For who can imagine, that God would trust the Apostles, with the managing of the weightiest affaires of his Church, & the gouernment of the whole world, without being any way accountant in respect thereof, vnto any one amongst thē as superiour, & that he would appoint an head & chief, & subject them to his censure in their personall actions? Nay this is impossible, & cannot be. For if in their office of teaching, & gouerning the rest of the Church they were equall, & could not therein be limited or restrained one by a∣nother, then was there none amongst them that could put any of the rest from his of∣fice, dignity, and imployment.

Now it is most cleare and certaine, that he who hath not power to suspend another from the execution of his office in the Church, hath no power to suspend him frō the Sacraments, or to excōmunicate him whatsoeuer his personall misdemeanours be. For as to be a Minister of the Church, presupposeth to bee a member of it: soe to be put from being a member of the Church, implyeth and presupposeth a putting from all office and dignity in the Church: soe that there neither was, nor could bee any a∣mongst the Apostles, that had power to put any of the rest out of the Church, or to suspend them from the vse of the Sacraments, seeing there was none found amongst them that had authority to limit, restraine, or debarre any of the rest from the executi∣on of his office: and therefore all that any one of them could do in respect of another, was but to admonish him, & vpon his rejecting of such admonitions to refuse to com∣municate with him; which thing any one may doe in an absolute equality, as well as when one is superiour to another; as we see by the example of Paul c 1.326 reprouing Peter, and resisting him to his face, and likewise by that of Paul and Barnabas d 1.327 parting the one from the other vpon such dislikes and differences as grew betweene them.

Wherefore I suppose our Aduersaries will not much insist vpon this their first shift and evasion. Let vs see therefore if their second be any better. It is true (say they) that all power Ecclesiasticall, and all degrees of the same are included and implyed in the Apostolique office and dignity; that the Apostles, as Apostles were all equall; and consequently, that there was no one amongst the Apostles, but in his time had as much to doe in gouerning of the Church as Peter, without receiuing any thing from him, or being any way subiect to his controule, and to be restrained, limited, or directed by him: But this amplitude of power whicch all the Apostles had in common, the rest had onely for themselues, and as a personall priuiledge that was to end with them, but Peter had the same in such sort, that he might leaue it to to his Successours. Soe that that power which in the rest was Apostolique and temporary, and to end with them, was ordinary, Pastorall, and perpetuall in Peter, and to be deriued from him to his Successours and after-commers. Surely this second evasion will be found much worse then the first: for it is absurd to say, that Peter left all the dignity and Ecclesia∣sticall power he had in common with the rest of the Apostles, to his successours: for then all Popes should be immediately chosen by God, not by the Cardinals; then should they all be consecrated and ordained immediately by Christ, not by Bishops: then should they all see Christ in the flesh: then should they all haue power to write bookes of Canonicall Scripture, and be free from danger of erring whensoeuer they either preach or write: for so the Apostles were: yea then should they confirme their do∣ctrine by miracles, and giue the Holy Ghost by imposition of their Hands. Where∣as yet noe Pope dareth challenge any one of these preeminences. If they say, that all the dignity and power that was in the Apostles vvas not ordinary, Pastorall, and perpetuall in Peter, and soe to be passed ouer to his Successours, but some part of it onely, it is just nothing they say. For then this is all that they affirme, that some part of that dignity and power that was in Peter, is in Peters Successours, and so there is in the silliest Priest in the world.

But they will say, immediate vocation, the seeing of Christ in the flesh, infallibility of judgment, power to write Canonicall bookes of Scripture, and the confirmation of doctrine by miracles, together with the giuing of the holy Ghost by imposition of hands, were fitting to the first beginnings of Christianity, and not of perpetuall ne∣cessity and vse, and therefore to cease after things were established; but that vniver∣sality of jurisdiction, and a kind of infallibility of judgment, are perpetually necessa∣rie, and therefore these were to passe from Peter to others, though the rest of the Apostolique preeminences were not. Thus then first they amplifie the excellent dignities of Peter, as if the rest had not had the like; but being conuinced, that hee had nothing the rest had not, they make shew as if they would proue, that the Apostle S. Peter had all those things in such sort that hee might leaue them to his Successours, which the rest had as personall priuilidges onely; because hee is described to be a Pa∣stour of the Church, in that CHRIST sayth vnto him, e 1.328 Feed my sheepe, and the

office of a Pastour is of perpetuall necessity. But being vrged, that there are many excellent dignities found in Peter and the rest, that are not communicable to any o∣ther, as immediate vocation, seeing of CHRIST in the flesh, absolute infallibi∣litie in word and writing, speaking in diuerse tongues, power to doe miracles, and power to giue the visible giftes of the holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, they confesse, that precisely Peters being a Pastour of the Christian Church, will not proue, that anie dignitie of his mentioned in the Scripture is perpetuall, pa∣storall, and to continue for euer, vnlesse the necessity of the perpetuity of it bee made to appeare otherwise. Whence it will follow, that they cannot proue that any speciall preeminences in Peter which hee had in common with the rest, as namely, infallibility of judgment, and vniuersality of Iurisdiction, were Pastorall and perpetuall in him, and to bee passed from him to his after-commers, and thereby entitle the Pope vnto them. For PETERS being a Pastor, which is the onely thing they canne alleage to proue, that what hee had was pastorall and perpetuall, proueth it not: and the proofe of the necessitie of the continu∣ance of any preeminence found in Peter and the rest of the Apostles, sheweth that such a preeminence must continue, but not in what person or persons it must continue.

But let vs see whether infallibility of judgment, and vniversality of Iurisdiction bee amongst the things that were proper to the beginnings of Christianity, or amongst those that are perpetually necessary. Surely; touching the first, f 1.329 Bellarmine see∣meth to confesse, that the being taught immediately of GOD, and the being absolute∣ly free from errour, soe that their writings and sayings were Canonicall, were temporarie in the Apostles, as necessary onely in those first beginnings of Christi∣anity; and whether hee confesse it or not, it is most vndoubtedly true, that that absolute infallibility that was in Peter, for whose faith Christ prayed that it might not faile, was temporary, and not to bee communicated to any after-commers: for hee was so lead into all trueth, that hee could not erre in any of his writings and preachings; whereas all confesse, that euen Popes may erre in both these, and that they are free from errour onely when they determine those things, where∣in the whole Church seeketh their resolution. Touching the second which is vni∣uersality of jurisdiction, the same Cardinall hath these words. g 1.330 Fuit in illis Ecclesiae primordijs necessarium ad fidem in toto orbe terrarum disseminandam, vt primis praedicatoribus & Ecclesiarum fundatoribus summa potestas & libertas conce∣deretur: That is, in those first beginnings of the Church it was necessary, for the quicke dispersing of the Faith throughout the whole world, that the first Prea∣chers, and founders of Churches, should haue a most ample power, and free com∣mission, without that streightning and limitation of the same that is in their after-commers, that soe euery one of them might truely vse those words of the Apostle, h 1.331 Instantia mea quotidiana sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum, that is, my dayly instance is the carefulnesse of all Churches: or as some other translate it: I am cumbred dayly, and haue the care of all Churches. And therefore howsoeuer the Apostles diuided amongst themselues the seuerall parts of the world, to which each one of them should more specially preach the word of the Lord; yet did they not shut vp and inclose their cares within the bounds and compasse of any one prouince, but euery one of them. did soe take care of the whole Church, as if that care had pertained vnto him alone. Thus farre Bellarmine, clearely confessing, that the illimited comission of the A∣postles was fitted to those first beginnings of Christianity, and the condition of those first times: soe that the same reason that excludeth the other dignities and preeminen∣cies of the Apostles, as namely their being fitted to the first beginnings, excludeth both these from being perpetuall likewise.

But let vs let this aduantage go, and take a view of those proofes which they bring of the power of Peters Successours aboue other Bishops, whereas Peter himselfe had noe power more then any of the rest. It is true (say they) that Peter had noe

power which the rest had not, but he had that amplitude of Ecclesiasticall power as an ordinary Pastour, which they had onely as Apostles and Delegates by speciall fauour, and personall priviledge. Against this distinction few of our Diuines say any thing, many of them confessing they vnderstand it not; so deepe is the learning of our Adversaries, that euery Man cannot bee so happie as to vnderstand what they write. Which is the lesse to be marvailed at, seeing many of them scarce vnderstand them∣selues, and yet contemne vs, as if we were silly idiots. But if without offence wee may conjecture what the meaning of this their riddle is, surely vnder correction I thinke this it is. The rest of the Apostles had as great authoritie and power, and as large a commission as Peter had: but they had it onely for terme of life, and could leaue none to succeed them in the same. He had it for himselfe, and such as hee would leaue it vnto. Besides, he was first invested with all the plenitude of Ecclesiasticall power & jurisdiction, so that none could haue any thing to doe in this businesse, but such as should receiue commission from him, saue onely that Christ reserued power to him∣selfe, to giue commission to such as by speciall fauour hee should be pleased to honour, as were the Apostles separated to the worke of the Ministerie by his owne immediate designement, without receiuing any thing from Peter: but afterwards all were either to receiue of him, or of them to whom hee should leaue his office and charge. This their conceipt they illustrate by a similitude. A Bishop, say they, hath authoritie to preach in his Diocese, as Pastour of the place, and whosoeuer succeedeth him in his Bishoplie office, succeedeth him in the same power likewise. A Fryer by speciall fa∣uour from the Pope, may preach in the same Diocese wheresoeuer the Bishop may, and cannot be silenced or restrained by him, because hee receiued nothing from him, but his superiour the Pope; but another desiring to succeed the Fryer, not so fauoured and priviledged by the Pope, must fetch his commission and allowance from the Bi∣shop, and be subject to him in the performance and execution thereof. So heere Pe∣ter was first constituted Pastour of all the World; the Apostles were by speciall fa∣uour authorized immediately by Christ to preach in Peters charge, and to gouerne the Church whereof he was Bishop, as well as he; but yet so, that all they that were to fol∣low after, were to deriue their commission from Peter or his Successour, if they would meddle in the Church which was his charge. Many things are said by Caietan, Bellarmine, Stapleton, and others to this purpose; but this is the substance of all: Wher∣fore let vs see how they proue that they say.

Touching the first of these two points, thus they proue it. Peter was a Pastour, and had that amplitude of illimited commission before described, as a Pastour: but the office of a Pastour is of perpetuall necessitie and vse: and therefore this his illimited power and commission was to be perpetually continued. That Peter was a Pastour they proue, because Christ said vnto him expressely, Feede my Sheepe, Feed my Lambes. This is the frame of their whole building, which may very easily be throwne to the ground, if any man will put his hand vnto it. First, because it is certaine the other A∣postles were Pastours also: so that if Peters being a Pastour proue the necessitie of the continuance of those ample preheminences hee had, and that hee might leaue them to whom he pleased, it would follow, that the rest of the Apostles also had their prehe∣minences, which were equall with those of Peter, not as things temporarie, but per∣petuall, and such as they might leaue to whom they pleased. That the other A∣postles were Pastours, i 1.332 first the Hymne of the Church wherein they are expressely saide to haue bin constituted Pastours by Christ, proueth. Secondly, the confessi∣on of k 1.333 Bellarmine, acknowledging that what was giuen to Peter by those wordes, Feede my sheepe, was giuen vnto all by those other wordes, As my Father sent me, so send I you, confirmeth the same. And thirdly, the enumeration of the seuerall kindes of feeding, euery of which the Diuines doe shew to agree to the rest, as well as to Peter, demonstrateth that they were all Pastours. Secondly, where∣as they say, that the office of a Pastour is a thing of perpetuall vse and neces∣sitie, and consequently perpetuall, and that the amplitude of power which was in Pe∣ter

agreed vnto him in that hee was a Pastor, and as a Pastor, they bewray notable ignorance and folly. For it is true indeed that the office of a Pastor is of perpetuall vse and necessity, and soe to continue for euer: but the amplitude of power and juris∣diction, and the great preëminences, that were in Peter, did not agree vnto him as to a Pastour, or in that hee was a Pastor: For if they had, then must they agree to euery Pastor, & so euery Bishop must haue the same, & not the Pope only. For as whatsoe∣ver agreeth to a man in that he is a man, agreeth to every man; so whatsoeuer agreeth to a Pastor in that he is a Pastor, agreeth to euery one that is a Pastor. If they shall say, that the great and ample preëminences that were in Peter, did not agree vnto him as a Pastor, but in some other respect; then his beeing a Pastor, which is an office of perpetuall necessity, vse, and continuance, will not proue the same perpetuall, no more then other things which this Pastour had in that he was an Apostle. If they shall say, these things agreed vnto him, not in that he was a Pastor, but in that he was such a Pastor as was to feed the flocke of Christ and people of God, by deliuering vnto them the doctrine of truth without all mixture of any the least errour, to confirme the same by miracles following, & to giue the visible gifts of the holy Spirit by the only im∣position of his hands; it is true that they say; but such a Pastour they confesse is ne∣cessary onely in the beginnings of the Christian Church, and not afterwards; and therefore from hence it cannot be concluded that the ample preëminences, that were in Peter, as his infallibility of judgement, and illimited Commission, were to be pas∣sed ouer from him to his Successors, and after-commers. Their second conceipt is more fond then the first: For if Peter were by Christ constituted sole supreme Pa∣stour and Bishoppe of the whole vniuersall world, and yet his meaning was, that o∣thers should likewise receiue immediatly from himselfe power to doe as much in the governing of the Church as Peter; he meant to giue him something, and presently to take it from him againe. For as if the Pope shall make a man Bishop of such a cittie, or countrey, and thereby giue vnto him that supreme direction that nothing shall be done within that compasse without his authoritie and consent; and shall presently send another with full authority to doe any thing that the former may do, and no way to bee subiect to his controule or restraint in the performance thereof, or accomptant for it; hee reuoketh, and maketh voyde his first graunt: so here, if Christ make Peter supreme Bishoppe, and Pastour of the whole Christian world, and presently constitute eleuen other Apostles with power and commission to doe any thing that Peter may doe in all parts of the world, and towards all persons (which as they haue not from him so he cannot take it from them, or limit them in the vse of it) hee abso∣lutely voideth his first graunt made to Peter.

But they will say perhaps, that Christ meant little fauour to Peter more then to one of the rest of the Apostles, but that all his care was for the good of the Pope, whom hee meant to make a great man in the world: and that therefore he constituted the other Apostles immediatly as well as Peter, put them into equall commission with him, and would not haue them beholding to him for any honour or power they had, but appointed that all other Bishops should receiue their mission, calling, commission, and authority from Peter during the short time of his life, and after his departure in all succeeding ages to the end of the world, from his Successours the Bishoppes of Rome. This truly is well said in fauour of the Pope, if it were as truly said as it is kind∣ly meant; but we shall find, that there is no truth in that they say: For it is cleare and evident, that each Apostle by his commission hee had from Christ without being any way beholding to Peter for it, had authority to preach the Gospell to such as neuer heard of it before, to plant Churches, and ordaine & constitute in them Pastours and Bishops, and out of his more large and ample commission to make other, though somewhat more restrained and limited; whence it will follow that they whom any of the other Apostles ordained and constituted Pastours and Bishoppes which were innumerable in all parts of the world, receiued nothing from Peter nor his preten∣ded Successour. Now they whom the Apostles thus constituted, and ordained,

might constitute and ordaine other by vertue of their office and calling they had from the Apostles, and those other, other againe to succeede them, so that none of these to the end of the world, one succeeding another, should euer receiue any thing frō Peter or his pretended Successor, And therefore it is absurd that l 1.334 Bellarmine saith, that the Apostles receiued all their jurisdiction immediately from Christ, & that yet notwithstanding all Bishops receiue the same frō the Pope. And those Papists are bet∣ter aduised that say, that the Bishops of other Churches receiue not their jurisdiction from the Pope, but from Christ by those Apostles that constituted their Churches, and planted their predecessours in the same, setting them the bounds of their Bishop-like charge: whence it will follow (as Bellarmine wisely foresaw, and therefore declined this opinion) that the Pope cannot either take away or diminish their authority vn∣lesse any man can shew where Christ gaue him power to limite, restraine, or take away that power from men, which they haue from himselfe by the hands of the other A∣postles, and their after-commers, without being any way beholding to Peter for the same.

Wherefore they haue yet one more strange conceipt behind to helpe the matter, then any of those we haue hitherto heard; which is, that Peter being not onely an A∣postle, but supreme Pastour and Bishop of the whole world constituted by Christ, made the other Apostles Bishops and Pastours; and that they ordained Bishops not by vertue of their Apostolique power (which they receiued immediately from Christ without being beholding to Peter for it, or inferiour to him in it) but by vertue of their Bishoply authority and offīce which they receiued from Peter. m 1.335 Alioqui enim, sayth Bellarmine, cum omnes Apostoli plurimos Episcopos in varijs locis constituerint, si Apostoli ipsi non sint facti Episcopi à Petro, certè maxima pars Episcoporum, nondeducit originem suam à Petro; that is, For otherwise, seeing all the Apostles constituted ex∣ceeding many Bishops in diuerse places, if the Apostles themselues were not made Bishops by Peter, certainely the greatest part of Bishoppes will not fetch their ori∣ginall from Peter. This his fancie of Peters making the other Apostles Bishoppes, immediately after as his manner is, like an honest man hee contradicteth, confessing, that the Apostles were all Bishops, and the first Bishops of the Church in that they were Apostles, without any such ordination. n 1.336 Omnes Apostoli, sayth he, fuerunt Epis∣copi, imò etiam primi Episcopi Ecclesiae, tametsi non sunt ordinati: that is, All the Apostles were Bishops, nay, which more is, the first Bishops of the Church, without any other or new ordination besides their Apostolique mission and calling. And o 1.337 in another place he pronoūceth perēptorily, that by vertue of these words. p 1.338 As my Father sēt me so sēd I you, the Apostles were made Vicars of Christ, nay that they receiued the very offīce, & authority of Christ, and that in the Apostolique power all Ecclesiasticall power is contained: and though in the former place he sayd expressely, Non eo ipso quòd aliquis est Apostolus, est Episcopus; that is, A man is not therefore a Bishop, because an Apostle: for the twelue were Apostles before they were either Bishops or Priests: yet in the later place hee sayth, it is not to be maruailed at, that they were Apostles before the passīon of Christ, and yet neither Priests nor Bishops: for that the Lord at diuerse times gaue the Apostles diuerse kindes and degrees of power: but especiallie in the twentith of Iohn, perfected that hee beganne before his passīon. Soe that an A∣postle perfectly constituted and authorised, hath both Priestlie and Episcopall dig∣nitic and power, though in the beginning, when the Apostles were rather desig∣ned then fully constituted, not hauing receiued their full Commissīon, they vvere neither Priests nor Bishoppes. But to leaue BELLARMINE lost in these mazes, it is most easie demonstratiuely to proue, that the Apostles in that they were Apostles perfectly and fully constituted, had both Priestlie and Bishop∣ly dignity and power in most eminent sort. For did not CHRIST giue the Apostles power to doe any Ecclesiasticall act that a Bishoppe can doe? Did hee not giue them power to preach and baptize, vvhen hee sayd vnto them, q 1.339 Go teach all nations Bapti∣zing them, &c: to minister the holy Eucharist, vvhen hee sayd, r 1.340 Doe this as est as ye shall doe it in remembrance of mee? Did hee not giue them the power of the

Keyes, of binding & loosing, of remitting & retaining sinnes, & consequently all that commeth within the compasse of Ecclesiasticall office and Ministerie? doubtlesse hee did: Neither is there any that dareth to deny any part of that which hath beene saide. And therefore it is an idle fansie that Peter made the rest of his fellowes Bishops, the Apostolique power implying in it eminently Episcopall, as the greater the lesser.

But they will say, Peter made Iames the lesser Bishop of Hierusalem. Indeed s 1.341 Baro∣nius falsifieth Chrysostome, and maketh him say, that the Doctour of the world made Iames Bishop of Hierusalem, whereas hee saith no such thing; but asking the question why Peter, whom Christ so much fauoured, was not preferred to bee Bishop of Hie∣rusalem, answereth, that Christ made him Doctour of the world, which was a greater honour then to haue beene fastened to the Church of Hierusalem, & to haue beene set in the Episcopall Throne there. But it is cleare by the testimonies of Antiquity, that Peter, Iames the greater, & Iohn, ordained Iames Bishop of Hierusalem. So saith Ana∣cletus in his second Epistie, if any credit be to be giuen vnto it, where hee hath these words: A Bishop must be ordained of three Bishops, as Peter, Iames the greater, and Iohn, ordained Iames the lesser Bishop of Hierusalem. t 1.342 Clemens Alexandrinus also, as we reade in Eusebius, saith the very same; and u 1.343 Hierome de viris illustribus, attributeth the ordaining of Iames not to Peter alone, but to the Apostles. His words are, Iacobus, statim post passionem Domini ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatur: that is, Iames presently after the passion of the Lord, is ordained Bishop of Hierusalem by the Apostles. If any man aske how the Apostles did ordaine or make Iames being an Apostle, a Bishop, if the Apostolique office imply in it the office and dignitie of a Bi∣shop, as the greater the lesser: we answere, that a Bishop differing from an Apostle, as in other things, so in this, that he is fixed to some certaine place whereof specially hee taketh the care, whereas the care & imployment of an Apostle is more at large: When the Apostles after the conversion of Nations and people began to retire themselues to certaine places there to rest, and specially to take care thereof, they were in that re∣spect rather Bishops then Apostles; and in this sort Iames the lesser being appointed by the Apostles, to make his principall abode at Hierusalem a chiefe city of the world, whence the faith spread it selfe into all other parts, and more specially to take care thereof, is rightly said to haue beene constituted Bishop of that place by them, not as if they had giuen him any new power and authority, that he had not before, or not in so perfect sort, but that they limited, and restrained him more specially to one certaine place where he should vse the same.

The place in the x 1.344 Acts maketh nothing for the confirmation of the Popish errour: for Paul and Barnabas formerly designed by Christ to be Apostles, were againe by the ministerie of Prophets revealing the will and pleasure of Almighty GOD, separated more specially to bee Apostles of the Gentiles, and put forth into that employment with fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands: not thereby receiuing any new power, but a speciall limitation and assignation of those parts of the world, wherein princi∣pally they should be employed. Besides, these were not Apostles but Prophets, such as Agabus was, that are mentioned in this place, inferiour in degree to Apostles, and such as might not make an Apostle to be a Bishop, but did onely signifie and reueale what the will of God was, and whither he meant to send these worthy Apostles, and so with prayer and fasting commended them to the grace of God; and therefore this place ma∣keth nothing for proofe of Peters ordaining and appointing the rest of the Apostles to be Bishops.

CHAP. 24.

Of the preeminence that Peter had amongst the Apostles, and the reason why Christ directed his speeches specially to him.

THAT there was no more power and authoritie in Peter then in any of the rest, I hope it appeareth by that which hath beene said: and therefore it re∣maineth that now wee examine, what was the reason why so many thinges were specially spoken to him, why so many wayes hee may seeme to haue beene preferred before the rest, and what in trueth and in deede his preeminence, and primacie was. Touching the speeches of Christ for the most part specially dire∣cted to Peter, it is most certaine by that which hath beene said, that they did giue no singular and speciall power to Peter that was not giuen to euery of the rest.

And therefore a 1.345 the Diuines doe obserue the difference of the speeches of Christ, and note that Christ sometimes directed his speech to particular men precisely in their owne persons, as in the remission of sinnes, healing the sicke, and raising the dead: sometimes in the person of all, or many others, as when he saith, b 1.346 Goe and sinne no more, which hee is intended to haue done so often as there is the same reason of speaking a thing to one and to others; as when a man is induced to doe or not to doe a thing, to beleeue or not to beleeue a thing, which other in like sort are bound to doe or not to doe, to beleeue or not to beleeue as well as hee. So it being as necessary for one to watch as another, Christ saith, c 1.347 That I say vnto you I say vnto all, Watch. And so here, seeing it is confessed and proued by our Aduersaries themselues, that there was nothing promised or performed to Peter that was not in like sort intended vnto, and bestowed on euery of the rest, it must be graunted, that what he spake to him, he meant to all, and would haue his words so vnderstood and taken. d 1.348 The reason why more specially, notwithstanding this his generall intendment, he directed his speech to Peter, then to any of the rest, was either because he was more auncient, and more ardent in charitie then the rest, thereby to signifie what manner of men they should be that should be chosen Pastours of the Church, namely men of ripe age and confir∣med judgement, and full of charitie: or lest hee might seeme to bee despised for his deniall of Christ, which the Glosse seemeth to import when it saith, Trinae negationi redditur trina confessio, ne minus amori lingua seruiat, quám timori; that is, Therefore he was induced by Christ thrice solemnly to protest and professe his loue vnto him, as he had thrice denied him, that his tongue might shew it selfe no lesse seruiceable vnto loue that rested in him, then it had done vnto feare: or else because he first con∣fessed Christ to bee the Sonne of the liuing God consubstantiall with his Father, be∣cause he was much conuersant with Christ, and acquainted with his secrets & coun∣sels; or lastly, because Christ meant there should bee a certaine order amongst the guides of his Church, and some to whom the rest in all places should resort in all mat∣ters of importance, as to such as are more honourable then other of the same ranke & degree who are first to be consulted, from whom all actions must take their begin∣ning, therefore he so specially spake to Peter, whom hee meant in this sort to set be∣fore the rest. Thus then, there is a primacie of power when one hath power to doe that act of ministerie another hath not, or not without his consent; and when one may by himselfe limite, restraine, or hinder another in the performance of the acts of ministery; and such primacie wee haue shewed not to haue beene in Peter. But there is another of order & honour, which he had, whereby he had the first place, the first and best employment, the calling together of the rest in cases where a concur∣rence of many was required (as for the better sorting out of the worke they had in hand, the ioynt decreeing of things to be euery where alike beleeued, and practised) and in these assemblies thus called, the sitting & speaking first, the moderation and direction of each mans speaking, and the publishing and pronouncing of the conclu∣sion agreed vpon, if so he pleased. In this sense Cyprian saith, e 1.349 Erant vtique & cae∣teri

Apostoli quod fuit & Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis, fed exor∣dium ab vnitate proficiscitur; that is, The other Apostles doubtlesse were that which Peter was, hauing the same fellowship both of power and honour, but the beginning proceedeth from vnity, that the Church may be shewed to be one. And in the same sense Hierome saith against Iouinian, f 1.350 Thou wilt say, the Church is founded vpon Pe∣ter: it is true it is so, and yet in another place the same frame of the Church is raised vpon all the Apostles: and all receiue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, and the firmenesse of the Church stayeth it selfe equally vpon them all: but therefore doth Christ more specially promise to build his Church vpon Peter, that hee being consti∣tuted and appointed head & chiefe amongst them, all occasion of Schisme might bee taken away. To the same purpose it is that Leo writeth to Anastasius, where hee saith, g 1.351 Inter beatissimos Apostolos in similitudine honor is fuit quaedam discretio potesta∣tis, & cum omnium par esset electio, vni tamen datum est, vt caeteris preemineret; that is, Amongst the most blessed Apostles like in honour, there was a certaine difference of power; and when all were equally elected, yet it was giuen to one to haue a preemi∣nence amongst the rest. In which saying of Leo, that it bee not contrary to that of Cyprian, who saith, that the Apostles were companions, and consorts equall both in honour & power, wee must not vnderstand that one Apostle had more power then a∣nother, or that power another had not; but that in the same power one was so before the rest, that hee was the partie to whom they were to resort, and without consulting whom first and before all other, they might attempt nothing generally concerning the state of the whole Church, by vertue of this power. In which sense he saith in another place: h 1.352 Petro praecaeteris soluendi & ligandi tradita est potestas; that is, The power of binding and loosing was so giuen to Peter, that therein hee was before the rest; and againe, i 1.353 Siquid cum eo commune caeteris Christus voluit esse principibus, nun∣quam nisi per ipsum Petrum dedit quicquidaliis non negavit: that is, If Christ would haue any thing to be common to the rest of the Princes, that is, Apostles, with Peter, he neuer gaue that which he vouchsafed vnto them any otherwise then as by Peter; which words must not so bee vnderstood, as if Peter had first receiued the fulnesse of power, and others from him; for all the Apostles receiued their power and commis∣sion immediatly from Christ & not from Peter, as I haue largely proued, and all con∣fesse; but that what hee gaue to others, it did so passe vnto them, as that in the first place it was giuen to Peter, and hee thereby set in order and honour before the rest put in the same commission with him; so that Peter receiued not a different or more large commission from Christ then the other Apostles, but onely a kinde of honou∣rable precedence, preëminence, and priority, such as the Duke of Venice hath amongst the great Lords of that state, to whom all Embassies and messages are directed from forreine Princes, and in whose name all letters, warrants, and mandates are sent out, as representing the whole State: yet can hee doe nothing without the rest, nor crosse the consenting resolution of those noble Senators.

And in this sense it is that k 1.354 Augustine saith of Peter, that he was by nature one par∣ticular man, by grace a christian man, by more ample and abundant grace a chiefe A∣postle; but that when hee receiued the Keyes, hee represented the whole vniuersall Church, not as a legate that representeth the person of his Prince, and receiueth ho∣nours, dignities and titles for him and not for himselfe, but as chiefe of the company of the Apostles receiuing for himselfe in the first place, that which in him and toge∣ther with him was intended to them all. l 1.355 This primacie of honour and order found in blessed Peter; who is therevpon named by the Fathers Prince and head of the Apo∣stles, is the originall of all that superiority that Metropolitanes haue ouer the Bishops of their prouinces; and Primates and Patriarches ouer Metropolitanes, and in a word of all that order that is in the Church, and amongst her guides, whereby vnitie is pre∣serued.

CHAP. 25.

Of the distinction of them to whom the Apostles dying left the managing of Church affaires: and particularly of them that are to performe the meaner seruices in the Church.

HAuing spoken of the Apostles power and office, and the largenesse of that commission, it remaineth that wee come to speake of them to whom they recommended the managing of Church affaires, and the ministerie of holy things when they left the world. They to whom they recommended the care of these things, when hauing finished their course, they were called hence to re∣ceiue the Crowne laid vp for them in Heauen, were of two sorts: first such as they trusted with the ministerie of the Word and Sacraments, and government of Gods people; and secondly, such other as they appointed to be assistant to them, and to per∣forme the meaner seruices, though necessary also.

The former sort are all comprehended vnder one common name of Presbyters, that is, fatherly guides of Gods Church and people; the latter are Deacons, and such other inferiour Ministers, as attend the necessities of the Saints, and assist the principal Guides of the Church. In the ordination of a Presbyter, saith a 1.356 Durandus, there is a certaine power conferred on him, and assigning of him to an employment, whereby after his ordination hee may doe something which hee could not haue done before, etiam quoad genus facti, no not in the kinde and nature of the thing it selfe; as hee that is ordained a Presbyter, may consecrate the Lords Body, and absolue in the Court of Pe∣nitencie; neither of which things without such ordination can be done: but to them that are in the inferiour orders there is no power giuen, neither haue they any assigne∣ment to doe any thing which they could not doe before, and without such ordination, but to doe such things as they could not lawfully doe; nay in many of them there is no designement of them that are so ordained to the performance of any thing, but that which according to the vse of the vniuersall Church, men without such ordination may lawfully doe. So that the ordination of men to the performance of such things, and the execution of such offices, seemeth to haue proceeded from the institution of the Church, for the greater solemnitie of Diuine worship and seruice: and therefore such inferiour orders are neither simply orders (order being a sacred signe or chara∣cter, by vertue whereof a power is giuen to the ordained, not onely to doe that hee could not otherwise lawfully doe, but to doe that which otherwise hee could not doe at all) neither are they Sacraments, but Sacramentall solemnities onely, seeing the Church can institute no Sacraments. Hitherto Durandus. These being the sorts of them to whom the Apostles recommended the managing of Church affaires, and this the difference of their orders, I will first speak of the diuers orders & degrees of them that performe the meaner seruices in the Church, and then come to speake of them that haue the gouernement of the Church.

b 1.357 The Master of Sentences saith, that the order of Subdeacons, and other minor or∣ders below the degree of Deacons, as Acoluthes, Exorcists, Lectors, & Ostiaries, were brought in by the Church, and that they were not in the Apostles times; and * 1.358 Thomas Aquinas, and other, are of the same minde. Notwithstanding there is no question but these minor orders and degrees were very ancient. For c 1.359 Cyprian maketh men∣tion of one Mettius a Subdeacon, and Nicephorus an Acoluthe. In another place hee writeth, that he had ordained d 1.360 Aurelius and Celerinus Lectors: and in a third place hee mentioneth e 1.361 Exorcists and Lectors. Cornelius Bishop of Rome in his Epistle re∣corded by f 1.362 Eusebius, describing the Clergie of the Romane Church in his time, shew∣eth that there were in the same 46 Presbyters, 7 Deacons▪ 7 Subdeacōs, 42 Acoluthes, 52 Exorcists, Lectors, & Ostiaries, Widowes with distressed people, more then 1500. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Antiochians, omitting Acoluthes, reckoneth the rest, as Subdeacons, Lectors, Ostiaries, and Exorcists, adding to them Cantores, and Laboran∣tes,

or Copiatae, whose imployment was to bury the dead; of whom also g 1.363 Epiphanius speaketh. Whereupon Bishop h 1.364 Lindan sayth, that howsoeuer in these times they make or account but seauen orders, yet in the Primitiue Church there were more now scarce knowen. But let vs see what the office, employment and manner of the admission of these men was in former times. Touching Ostiaries, the Councell of Carthage ordayneth thus: i 1.365 Let the Ostiary after he hath beene instructed by the Arch-deacon how to behaue himselfe in the house of God, at the suggestion of the Arch-deacon be ordained, and let the Bishop take the Keyes frō the Altar, and giue them to him saying: So demeane thy selfe as being to giue an accoūt to God for the things that these Keyes locke vp.

The Lectors were to reade in the Church whatsoeuer was to be read out of the old or new Testament; whereupon Cyprian hauing ordained Aurelius the confessour, a Lector, giueth a reason why he had so done: k 1.366 Quia nihil magis congruit voci, quae Dominum gloriosa praedicatione confessa est, quam celebrandis diuinis Lectionibus persona∣re: that is, Because nothing doth more fitte or better beseeme the voyce that by a glo∣rious publique testimony hath confessed the Lord, then to giue a sound in the Church, in reading the diuine Scriptures of the Lord.

The Exorcists were such as tooke care of the Energumenes, or men vexed with the Diuell, who in ancient times came to the Churches in great companies, and were there prouided for, and kept vnder rules and disciplinary gouernment. These Exorcists receiued of the hands of the Bishop the booke wherein the Exorcismes were written, which they were to commit to memory, that so by earnest inuocation of the name of CHRIST, who is to returne to judge the quicke and the dead, and to judge the world in fire, they might obtaine of him the repressing of Sathans furies, and the ease, and deliuerance of such as were disquieted and vexed by him. These had pow∣er to impose hands on them that were disquieted with Diuels, whether baptised or not; and in solemne manner to commend them vnto God, who onely hath power to rebuke Sathan.

Acoluthes were so named, for that they were to follow and attend the Bishop whi∣thersoeuer he went, that so they might not onely be witnesses of his blamelesse conuer∣sation, but do vnto him such seruice as he should require & stand in need of; whereupon in later times, for that they were to go before the Bishop in the Churches, bearing wax lights in the night watches, and other meetings for diuine seruice in the night time, they were named Ceroferarij, that is, Taper-bearers. Subdeacons were to assist the Deacons in all things pertaining to them. The order of Subdeacons in ancient time was not accounted a sacred order, l 1.367 so that they might not touch the sacred vessels, nor none might be chosen a Bishop out of their ranke: but the later Bishops of Rome de∣creed, that the order of Subdeacons should be reputed a sacred order.

These were the inferiour orders of ministery in the Church in anciēt times, to which were added * 1.368 Widowes, or holy women, which being aged and destitute of friends, were maintained by the Church; and being of good report, were chosen and appoin∣ted to minister to the women that were baptized, to teach and direct them how to answere the Baptizer, and how to liue afterwards, as also to take care of them that were sicke.

All these, as well Ostiaries, Lectors, Exorcists, and Acoluthes, as Subdeacons, in ancient times serued for a certaine space in these degrees: and therefore the solemne designing of them thereunto was not to be disliked; but now, when they execute the office of Ostiaries, who are no Ostiaries: of Lectors, who are no Lectors: of Psal∣mists, who are worthy to bee driuen not onely out of the Quire, but out of the Church also, as Bishoppe m 1.369 Lindan rightly noteth: when none of these performe the duties their names import, and euery man almost is made a Presbyter the first day, as if none might bee made the next, it is but for shew and fashion onely that men are ordained to the performance of these offices, and in truth and in deede, no∣thing else but a meere mockery, as the same Bishop Lindan ingenuously confesseth. With whom Duarenus agreeth: His words are: n 1.370 Hodie nec Diaconis nec alijs inferioribus Clericis vllus locus est in Ecclesia, vllumue ministerium aut munus quòd ex∣equantur;

sed quia priscis canonibus statutum est vt nemo Presbyter ordinetur, •…•…isi per omnes gradus inferiores ascenderit, ideo dicis causa, vt ita dicam, gradatim ordinari so∣lent, idque certo quodam solenniqueritu, vt ad honorem Presbyterij aut quemuis ali•…•… sublimiorem capessendum idonei reddantur, potest que dici imaginaria haec ordinatio: that is, At this day neither is there any place for Deacons, nor other inferiour Clergi∣men in the Church, nor any ministery or function for them to execute; but because it is ordained in the ancient Canons, that no man be ordained a Presbyter, vnlesse hee ascend and climbe vp by all inferiour degrees: therefore for names sake they are wont to bee ordained to euery of these degrees in order, and that with a certaine solemne rite, that they may be made capable of Priestly honour, or any other higher dignity. And this ordination may rightly be tearmed an Imaginarie ordination, or in imagina∣tion onely. And therefore our Aduersaries cannot justly blame vs, who omitting the other inferiour ordinations, giue no lower order then that of a Deacon.

All these both Ostiaries, Lectors, Acoluthes and Subdeacons, in former times, were sanctified and set apart to serue God in these meaner employments, that they might bee trained vp thereby to performe the duties of higher orders. For in those times, men were not promoted to the highest roomes but by degrees, being found to haue demeaned themselues well in the lower: and therefore they were vnder a stri∣cter kinde of gouernment then they of the Laity: and both in their conuersation, ha∣bite, and all things beseeming modesty and grauity, they were more precisely tyed to the keeping of order then other men. * 1.371 Hereupon they were not suffered to weare their haire long like wantons, vnciuill men, or men of warre; but were commanded to polle their whole heads, leauing onely a circular crowne in the lower parts there∣of.

And here truly we cannot but condemne the absurd custome of the Romane Church, violating old Canons, degenerating from auncient vse, and exposing her Priests and Leuites to the scorne and contempt of the world by those triobolar shauen crownes, which daily shee setteth before our eyes. For first, whereas the o 1.372 Councell of Toledo in Spaine prouideth, that all Cleargie men, Lectors, Deacons, and Priests, polling the whole head aboue, shall leaue onely a circular crowne below, and not as the Lectors hitherto had done in the parts of Galicia (who wearing their haire long as Lay-men, were polled in a little round compasse in the tops of their heads onely) for that this had beene the custome of certaine Heretiques in Spaine, the Church of Rome abando∣neth the forme of polling prescribed by the Councell, and alloweth the obseruation of those auncient Heretiques the Councell condemned. Here we see, saith Bishop p 1.373 Lindan, whence these triobolar crowns in the tops of cleargy mens heads did come, namely from certaine auncient Heretiques in Spaine. But these lesser things might easily be reformed, if the vnspeakable scandals, shames, & dishonours of the Church, were first remoued and taken away. This is the censure of that learned Bishop. Se∣condly, whereas rasure was not vsed in auncient times, but condemned by the Fa∣thers, as most vnseemely; they of the Church of Rome haue left tonsure, and brought in rasure in steed thereof. That rasure was not vsed in auncient times, it appeareth by q 1.374 Clemens Alexandrinus, where he saith, that the haires are to bee cut off not with the rasoure, but with the Barbours sheares; and by r 1.375 Optatus Bishop of Mileuis, where hee reprehendeth the Donatists that tooke certaine Catholike Priests, and by force did shaue their heads. Shew vs (saith hee) where you are commanded to shaue the heads of Priests, when as on the contrary side, there are so many examples proposed that it ought not so to be done. With Clemens Alexandrinus, and Optatus, Hierome a∣greeth, who vpon the 44. of Ezekiel saith in expresse words, that Priests must nei∣ther nourish their haire, nor be shaued, but so polled, that their skinne may still re∣maine hid and couered; and s 1.376 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, that Dionysius, Epipha∣nius, Hierome, Athanafius, Palladius, Augustine, Isidore, Bede, and the Councels of Carthage & Toledo, doe speake of tonsure onely, and neuer mention rasure, and that the Epistle of Anicetus the Pope alledged for rasure, is not indubitate. What then will the Cardinall bring for defence of the contrary custome now prevayling in the

Church of Rome? and what will he answer to these authorities of the ancient? We re∣prehend not, saith he, the customes of those times, neither do they of those times con∣demne our obseruation. For howsoeuer tonsure, and not rasure, was anciently vsed, yet were not they of the Clergie forbidden to vse rasure, or to shaue their heads. A strange answer of so great a Rabbi, and contrary to that he knoweth to be vndoubted∣ly true. For Optatus directly condemneth rasure, as wee haue heard; and Hierome wri∣ting vpon the 44 of Ezekiel, hath these words: Quod autem sequitur, Caput autem suū non radent, neque comam nutrient, sed tondentes attondebunt capita sua, perspicuè demon∣stratur, nec rasis capitibus, sicut Sacerdotes cultoresque Isidis atque Serapis nos esse debe∣re; nec rursum comam dimittere, quod propriè luxuriosorum est barbarorumque & mili∣tantium, &c. That is, that which followeth, They shall not shaue their heads, nor let their haire grow long, but polling they shall polle their heads, doeth clearely demon∣strate, that wee should neither shaue our heads like the Priests and worshippers of Isis and Serapis, nor on the other side let our haire grow long, as wantons, barbarous men, and Souldiers are wont to doe: that that which is fitting, honest, and seemely, may ap∣peare in the faces of the Priests. The Septnagint reade the wordes of the Prophet somewhat otherwise in this sort: They shall not shaue their heads, nor cut their haire too neere, sed operientes operient capitasua: that is, but hiding they shall hide their heads: whereby wee learne, that wee must neither make our selues bald by shauing, nor cut the haire of our heads so neere as if wee were shauen, but let our haire grow so that the skinne may be hid & couered. These are the words of Hierome, whereby it appeareth, that the absurd and ridiculous ceremony of the Romanists, in shauing the heads of those of their Clergie, is condemned by the Fathers, and that Bellar∣mine speaketh against his owne conscience, when hee sayth the contrary. Where∣fore ceasing any longer to insist vpon the refutation of the absurditie of so ridiculous a ceromonie, and leauing those inferiour orders and degrees of Ministerie in the Church of God, wherein men in auncient times were trained vp vnder the rules of strict and seuere gouernment & discipline, and fitted for higher and greater employ∣ments, let vs come to the office of the Deacons.

The office of Bishops & Presbyters, was from Christs owne immediate institution: but the institution of Deacons was from the Apostles, as t 1.377 Cyprian deliuereth. These the Bishop alone may ordaine, neither is it necessarie that other impose their hands with him, as in the ordination of Presbyters, seeing they are consecrated onely to bee assistants to the Bishop & Presbyters, & not admitted into the fellowship of the same power and order with them.

The Deacons according to the intendment of their first institution, were to take care of the poore, and the treasure of the Church, and therevpon Chrysostome, and af∣ter him the Fathers of the u 1.378 sixth generall Councell, doe thinke they were not the same wee now haue; ours being busied in other affaires of the Church. But I am of o∣pinion that they were the same: and that (the end of their first institution being prin∣cipally to ease the Apostles of the care of prouiding for the poore, and to take the charge of the Church-treasure) when the treasure of the Church encreasing was committed to certaine Stewards, and the poore otherwise provided for, they were more specially vsed for the assisting of the Bishoppe and Presbyters in things pertai∣ning to Gods seruice and worship. Whereupon wee shall finde in some cases they might baptize, reconcile penitents, preach, and doe sundry other things pertaining to the office of the Bishop and Presbyters. That in some cases they might baptize, ^u Ter∣tullian witnesseth. That they might reconcile penitents, wee haue the authoritie of * 1.379 Saint y 1.380 Cyprian. That they might preach, wee haue the testimony of Saint ^z Gregory. And that they assisted the Bishops and Presbyters in ministring the Sacrament of the * 1.381 Lords body and bloud, and ministred the cup, it appeareth by a 1.382 Cyprian. And hereupon Hierome amplifieth the dignity of them exceedingly, shewing that for avoyding pre∣sumption, the Presbyters may not take the cup of the Lord from the holy Table, vn∣lesse it be deliuered vnto them by the Deacons. These are they, saith hee, of whom we reade in the Revelation, b 1.383 Septem Angeli Ecclesiarum, hi sunt septem candelabra au∣rea,

hi sunt voces tonitruorum, virtutum operatione praeclari, humilitate praediti, quieti, Euangelizantes pacem, annunciantes bona, dissentiones, & rixas & scandala resecare docentes, soli Deo colloquentes in templo, nihil penitus de mundo cogitantes, dicentes Pa∣tri & Matri, non noui vos, filios suos non agnoscentes. Sine his Sacerdos nomen non habet, ortum non habet, officium non habet: that is, These are the seauen Angels of the Churches; these are the seauen golden Candlestickes; these are the voyces of the thunders; these are renowned for the operation of vertues, humble, quiet, preaching peace, publishing good things, teaching how to cut away dissentions, brawles and scandals, communing with God alone in his holy temple, hauing no thought of the world, saying to Father and Mother, I know you not, and not acknowledging their own sons; without these the priest hath not the name, not the beginning, not the office of a Priest. And a litle after he addeth, Sacerdotibus etiam propter praesumptionem non li∣cet de mensa Domini calicem tollere, nisi eis traditus fuerit à Diaconis: Leuitae componunt mensam Domini: Leuitae Sacerdotibus cum Sacramenta benedicunt, assistunt: Leuitae ante Sacerdotes orant, vt aures habeamus ad Dominum Diaconus acclamat: that is, Euen the Priests themselues for the auoiding of presumption must not take the holy cup from off the Table of the Lord, vnlesse it be deliuered to them by the Deacons. The Dea∣cons or Leuites prepare the Table of the Lord, and make all things ready on the same. The Leuites assist the Priests when they blesse and sanctifie the sacramentall elements. The Leuites pray before the Priests. The Deacon crieth out aloud vnto vs to open our eares, and to listen and heare what the Lord will speake vnto vs. Great and glorious are these dignities of the Deacons; yet the councell of Carthage maketh them c 1.384 Mini∣sters not of the Bishop alone but of the Presbyters also: soe that they might not sit in the presence of the Bishop or Presbyters. And when some went about to preferre them before Presbyters, Hierome with great violence opposed himselfe against the same, say∣ing. d 1.385 Quid patitur mensarum & viduarum minister, vt supra eos se tumidus efferat, ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur? that is, What passion is this, that thus transporteth the Minister of the Tables and Widowes, that swelling in pride hee should lift vp himselfe aboue them, at whose prayers the body and blood of Christ is consecrated? And obiecting to himselfe the custome of the Romane Church, where a Presbyter is ordained vpon the testimony of a Deacon, hee passionately breaketh into these words: Quid mihi profers vnius vrbis consuetudinem? Diaconos paucitas honorabi∣les, Presbyteros turba contemptibiles facit. Caeterum etiam in Ecclesiâ Romae Presbyteri sedent, & stant Diaconi, licet paulatim increbresentibus vitijs, inter Presbyteros, absente Episcopo, sedere Diaconum viderim: that is, why dost thou vrge me with the custome of one Citie? the fewnesse of Deacons maketh them honorable, and the number of Pres∣byters make thē to be lesse esteemed. Yet euē in the Church of Rome Presbyters do sit, and Deacons stand; although things (growing worse and worse by degrees, and many things growing out of order) I haue seene a Deacon in the absence of the Bishop, sit a∣mongst the Presbyters.

Out of the society and company of the Deacons in each Church, there was one chosen who not only was to performe the things pertaining to the Deacons office, but also to prescribe vnto others what they should doe. The institution of these is not new but very ancient, as it appeareth by e 1.386 Hierome, who vrging the necessity of order and gouernment, sheweth that the heardes of cattel haue their leaders which they fol∣low; that Bees haue their King; that the Cranes flye after one that leadeth them the way; that there is one Emperour, and one Iudge of each prouince; that Rome could not haue two brethren to reigne in her as Kings, but was dedicated in parricide: that •…•…sau and Iacob were at warre in the wombe of Rebeccah: that euery Church hath her Bishop: euery company of Presbyters and Deacons, their Arch-presbyter, and Arch-deacon.

* 1.387 These chiefe Deacons, or Arch-deacons were in processe of time (notwithstan∣ding all Canons to the contrary, and the violent opposition of Hierome and other Worthies of those times) lifted vp not onely aboue the Presbyters, but the Arch-pres∣byters also. The reason of which their aduancement was, first because the number

of Presbyters made them little esteemed, and the paucity and fewnesse of Deacons made them honourable, as I noted before out of Hierome. Secondly, because they were busied about money-matters, and had the charge of the treasure of the Church, which kind of imployments are vsually much set by. Thirdly, because being Ministers vnto the Bishop, they were vsed by him for the viewing of such parts of his Diocese, as he could not conueniently come vnto himselfe, the dispatch of thinges for him, and in the end for the reformation of the lesser and smaller faults which vpon such view they should find. Whereupon at the last they obtained a kind of jurisdiction & power of correction by prescriptiō & custome, whereof I shall haue occasion to speake more hereafter. Thus haue we spoken of the inferiour degrees of Ministery, by which men were wont to ascend to the higher, being trained vp for a certaine space in the lower, that they might thereby be fitted for the higher, according to that of Hierome touching Nepotian, f 1.388 Fit Clericus, & per solitos gradus Presbyter ordinatur; that is, Hee is made a Clergie-man, and passing through the ordinary degrees he is ordained a Presbyter.

CHAP. 26.

Of the orders, and degrees of them that are trusted with the Ministery of the Word and Sa∣craments, and the gouernment of Gods people: and particularly, of Lay-Elders, falsly by some supposed to be Gouernours of the Church.

NOW it remaineth that we speake of them that are trusted with the ministe∣ry of the Word and Sacraments, and the gouernment of Gods people, com∣prehended vnder one common name of Presbyters, that is, Fatherly Guides of Gods Church and people. Touching these Presbyters, or fatherly Guides of Gods Church, some in our time haue a new and strange conceipt, making them to be of two sorts: whereof some haue charge of gouernment onely, and some together therewith the ministery of the Word and Sacraments; the one sort Lay-men, and the other Clergie-men; the one sort gouerning only, & the other sort preaching, teaching, ministring Sacraments, and gouerning also.

Touching these newly supposed gouerning Elders, that are not Mininisters of the Word and Sacraments, I will first set downe the reasons that moue vs to thinke there neuer were any such in the Church: and secondly I will shew the weakenesse of their reasons that are induced to thinke there were.

The first reason that moueth vs to thinke, there neuer were any such, is, because Bi∣shops, Presbyters, that preach and minister Sacraments, and Deacons that assist them, howsoeuer they much degenerated in later times, yet all still remained in all Christian Churches throughout the world (though in many things exceedingly different, as Greeke, Latine, Aethiopian and Armenian) in their names and offices also in some sort: But of these Lay-elders, there are noe foot-steps to be found in any Christian Church in the world, nor were not for many hundred yeares, whereas there would haue beene some remaines of these, as well as of the other, had they euer had any institution from Christ and his Apostles, as the other had.

Our second reason is, for that S. Paul prescribing Timothy how he should establish * 1.389 the Church and appoint her Pastours, and shewing who should be Bishops and Mini∣sters, who Deacons, yea who Widowes, passeth immediately from describing the qualitie of such as were to be Bishops and Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, to the Deacons, omitting these Lay-elders that are supposed to lye in the midst betweene them, no way describing vnto vs of what quality they must bee, which in reason hee neither might nor would haue omitted, if there had beene any such.

Our third reason is, for that neither Scripture, nor practice of the Church, boun∣ding the gouernment of such Gouernours, nor giuing any direction how farre they may goe in the same, and where they must stay, lest they meddle with that they haue nothing to doe with, men should be left to a most dangerous vncertainty in an office

and employment of so great consequence, either of not doing that their office and place requireth, or presuming beyond that they should: which is not to be conceiued, seeing Christ our gracious Sauiour by himselfe or his Apostles, left certaine direction for farre lesser things then these mens gouernment is supposed to be. That the gouern∣ment of these supposed Lay-elders is not bounded in the Scripture, or Fathers, it is most euident, neither can any man liuing shew vs any such bounding of the same in ei∣ther of them. The gouernment of the Church is in respect of two sorts of men; the Cleargie, and the Laytie: Touching the former, they are to be tryed and approued for their life and learning, they are to be ordained with solemne imposition of hands, and if they deserue it, they are to be suspended from the execution of their office, or vtter∣ly depriued, and degraded. Shall Lay-elders haue as much to doe in all these actions, as they to whom the Ministerie of the Word and Sacraments is committed? are they competent Iudges of mens learning and aptnesse to teach, that neither are Teachers nor learned? Can they giue the sacred power of holy ministery to others, that haue it not themselues? Or is it not a certaine Axiome on the contrary side, that the les∣ser is blessed of the greater? Surely they that in England sought to bring in the go∣uernment of the Church by Lay-elders, were of opinion, that they ought to haue in∣terest in all these things, as well as the Pastours of the Church. And indeede admit them to the gouernment of the Church by force of certain doubtfull words of Scrip∣ture, mentioning gouernment without any distinction or limitation; and there is no reason to straighten them, but that they should haue their sway in all parts of it. But they of Geneva, France, and other parts, exclude these Elders from inter∣medling in ordination, and leaue the power to trye, examine, approue, and or∣daine, to the Pastours onely. Likewise, as I thinke, they referre the deciding * 1.390 of doubts in matters of Faith and Religion to the Pastours onely, and not to the suffra∣ges of Lay-men by multitude of voyces ouer-ruling them. Touching the other sort of them of whom the Church consisteth, which are Lay-men, who are to bee admo∣nished, corrected, put from the Sacraments, yea from the communion of the Church for impiety, disobedience, and wickednesse, and vpon repentance and submission to bee receiued againe; doth not the ordering of these men in this sort come within the compasse of the power of the Keyes, and of binding and loosing? Did Christ leaue these to his Apostles as speciall fauours, and are they now transferred from their Suc∣cessours, the Bishops and Pastours of the Church to Lay-men, that haue neither part nor fellowship in the worke of the Ministerie? Hath GOD committed the dis∣pensation of his Sacraments to the Pastours of the Church? Is it on the perill of their soules, that they duely giue them, or with-holde them as cause shall require? And shall there bee in others that are not trusted with them, as great a power to di∣rect the vse of this Ministeriall authoritie as in them? nay greater, the other being more in number, and their voyces more to carry any thing that shall bee brought into deliberation? Besides all this which hath beene saide, there are many more doubts touching the authoritie of these men, wherein I feare there wil be none found amongst the friends and fauourers of these Lay-elders that will be able to giue vs any satisfacti∣on. For first, I would gladly know, whether these ruling Elders must bee in euery Congregation with power of ordination, and deprivation, suspension, excommunica∣tion, and absolution? or whether this power bee onely in the Ministers and Elders of diuerse Churches concurring? Surely in Geneva there are Elders in the Con∣gregations that are abroad in agro, that is, in the Country, but these haue no power of excommunication, much lesse of ordination or deprivation: They may onely com∣plaine to the Consistorie of the Cittie. Nay they that are in the Congregations with∣in the Cittie, haue no separate power with their owne Ministers, but a joynt procee∣ding with the rest of the Ministers and Elders of the other Churches and Congrega∣tions; all which concurring make but one Consistorie. Secondly, let them tell vs, whether these offices be perpetuall, as the offices of Bishops and Pastours; or annuall, and but for a certaine time.

But to leaue them in these vncertainties, the fourth reason that moueth vs to reject

the conceipt of these Lay-elders, is, because the founders of this new gouernment, fetch the patterne of it from the Sanedrim of the Iewes, the platforme whereof they suppose Christ meant to bring into his Church when hee said, b 1.391 Tell the Church. Whereas it is most cleare, that that Court was as a ciuill court, and had power to ba∣nish, to imprison, yea and to take away life, till by the Romanes the Iewes were re∣strained: which made them say in the case of Christ, that c 1.392 it was not lawfull for them to put any man to death.

Our fift and last reason is, for that all Fathers and Councels mentioning elders or Presbyters, place them betweene Bishops and Deacons, and make them to bee Cleargy-men: and that in the Acts, where the Apostles are said to haue constitu∣ted Elders in euery Church, Pastours and Ministers are meant, and not Lay-men, is strongly confirmed by that in the twentieth of Acts, where the Elders of the Church of Ephesus conuented before Paul are commanded to feede the flock of Christ, ouer which they were appointed ouerseers; whence it followeth ineuitably, that they were pastours.

The places of Scripture brought to proue this kinde of gouernment by Lay-elders are specially three. The first is that to Timothie, d 1.393 Let the Elders that rule well, bee e∣steemed worthy of double honour, especially they that labour in the word and doctrine. The second is that in the Epistle to the Romanes: e 1.394 He that ruleth, let him doe it with dili∣gence. The third is that to the Corinthians, where f 1.395 Gouernours, or Gouernments are mentioned. The two later allegations are too too weake to proue the thing in questi∣on. For will any man that knoweth what it is to reason, reason à genere ad speciem af∣firmatiuè, that is, from the generall to the particular and speciall affirmatiuely? Or will euer any man of common sense bee perswaded that this consequence is good; There were gouernours in the Primitiue Church mentioned by the Apostles, and re∣quired by them to rule with diligence; therefore they were Lay-gouernours? Surely I thinke not. Wherefore let vs see if the first place alledged by them yeelde any bet∣ter proofe. Touching this place, some interprete it in this sort. The Guides of the Church are worthy of double honour, both in respect of gouerning and teaching, but specially for their paines in teaching; so noting two parts or duties of Presbyteriall offices, not two sorts of Presbyters. Some in this sort: Amongst the Elders and Guides of Gods Church and people, some laboured principally in gouerning and ministring the Sacraments, some in preaching, and teaching: So Paul sheweth, that hee prea∣ched and g 1.396 laboured more then all the Apostles, but h 1.397 baptized few or none, leauing that to bee performed by others; and when Paul and Barnabas were companions, and their trauels were equall, yet i 1.398 Paul is noted to haue beene the chiefe speaker: so that though both were worthy of double honour, yet Paul especially. Some interprete the words in this sort. There were some that remained in some cer∣taine places, for the guiding and gouerning of such as were already wonne by the preaching of the Gospell; other that travayled with great labour and paines from place to place, to spread the knowledge of God into all parts, and to preach Christ crucified to such as had neuer heard of him before. Both these were worthy of dou∣ble honour, but the later that builded not vpon another mans foundation, more es∣pecially then the former that did but keepe that which others had gotten, and go∣verne those that others had gained. Thus wee see that these words may haue a ve∣ry good and true sense, without pressing of them to confirme the late conceipt of some few men touching Lay-elders. Which construction wee haue no reason to ad∣mitte, seeing the circumstances of the place doe not enforce it, nor no Ecclesiasticall writer did euer so interprete the words before our age. So that to conclude this point, the name of Presbyter, (one place onely in the first of Timothy and the fifth excepted, where it is a name of age and not of office) in the writings of the Apostles doth euer note out vnto vs a Minister of the Word and Sacraments. The reason why the Apostles chose this word rather then the name of Sacerdos, which wee common∣ly translate Priest (though the English word Priest come of Presbyter) was, lest there should be a confusion of the Ministers of the old Testament, who were to offer

sacrifices vnto God, figuring the comming of Christ, with those of the new: and to shew that none should be appointed Ministers, but men of ripe age and confirmed judgment. But some man will say: the auncient Writers mention Seniours, without whose advice nothing was done; an Ecclesiasticall Senate and a Presbytery, or compa∣ny of Presbyters, which gouerned the Church together with the Bishop: therefore the matter is not so cleare against Lay-elders, as some would make it.

Wee deny not but that there were Presbyters in the primitiue Church constituted and ordained by the Apostles and their Successours, not onely to preach and minister Sacraments, but to gouerne, direct, and guide the people of God also; but that they were Lay-men it cannot bee proued. The Bishops in the greater Churches, and in the Citties had a great number of Clergy-men seruing in diuers sorts, as it ap∣peareth by Cyprian, and the whole Ecclesiasticall history; but out of the whole Clergie at large, the Presbytery or company of Presbyters was called forth to the weightiest deliberations, and to assist the Bishop for the preseruation of discipline; l 1.399 Admonitos nos & instructos sciatis dignatione diuinâ, sayth Cyprian, vt Numidicus Presbyter ascri∣batur Presbyterorum Carthaginensium numero, & nobiscum sedeat in Clero: that is, Know yee, that we haue beene admonished and directed by God himselfe, to choose Numidicus, and to make him one of the company of the Presbyters of Carthage, that he may sit together with vs as a Clergy-man: by which words it appeareth, that there was in Cyprians time a Colledge of Presbyters or Elders in the Church of Carthage, which sate together with the Bishop for the hearing and determining of the causes of the Church; but that these Elders were Clergie-men, and not such Lay-seniours as some would haue. m 1.400 Cornelius Bishop of Rome, writing to Cyprian, se totum Presbyte∣rium contraxisse, that is, that hee drew together the whole Presbytery, or compa∣nie of Presbyters, for the reconciling of certaine Schismatiques to the Church, and that hee called together fiue Bishops also, and by common consent ended the whole matter. Of this Senate and company of Presbyters, Tertullian speaketh in his A∣pologie, when he sayth: n 1.401 with vs the most approued Seniours do sit as praesidents to cen∣sure offendours, and to exercise discipline. And of these likewise is it that Hierome sayth, writing vpon Esay: o 1.402 We also in the Church haue our Senate, the company of Pres∣byters: And vpon Titus: p 1.403 The Churches were gouerned by the common aduice and councell of the Presbyters. For to put it out of doubt that he meaneth not Lay-elders, hee sayth in the same place. Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus: that is, Therefore a Presbyter and Bishop are all one.

There is onely one place in Ambrose that hath some shew of proofe for Lay-el∣ders. His words are; q 1.404 The Iewish Synogogue, and after the Church, had Seniours or Elders, without whose councell nothing was done in the Church; which, by what negli∣gence it grew out I know not, vnlesse it were by the sloth or pride of the Teachers, whilest they alone would seeme to be something. Here is mention of Elders, without whose ad∣uice nothing was done; but it is not sayd, they were Lay-men. But some man per∣haps will reply, that the Elders which Ambrose speaketh of, ceased before his time, which cannot be vnderstood of Clergie-men, therefore they were Lay-men. To this we say, that Ambrose doth not say, the elders without whose councell nothing was to be done, ceased before his time, and were no more, but that the aduising and con∣sulting with them ceased, whilest some would doe all themselues. If it be sayd, that they who thus assumed more then was fitte, and excluded those Seniours without whose councell anciently nothing was done, are not said to haue bin Bishops, but Do∣ctours, and that therefore Ambrose speaketh, not of Bishops excluding other Mini∣sters of the Word and Sacraments from their consultations, but of Clergie-men refu∣sing the aduice of Lay Seniours; we answere, that Ambrose by the name of Teachers, whose sloath or pride hee condemneth in this place, might fitly vnderstand the Bishops, seeing none but bishops haue power to preach in their owne right, and other but only by permission from them. Hereupon it is, that Possidonius in r 1.405 the life of Au∣gustine saith, that Valerius Bishop of Hippo, gaue S. Augustine his Presbyter leaue to preach, because being a Grecian, hee could not very well expresse himselfe in Latine.

In the s 1.406 Councell of Vase leaue is giuen by the Councell of Bishops to Presbyters for to preach. But because this question touching Lay-elders is excellently handled by sundry of our Diuines, I will not trouble the Reader with any farther discourse of this matter.

CHAP. 27.

Of the distinction of the Power of Order and Iurisdiction, and the preheminence of one amongst the Presbyters of each Church, who is named a Bishop.

CEasing to speake of supposed Lay-elders, which the Church of God knoweth not, let vs come to the other that were appointed to teach and gouerne the people of GOD. Where first wee are to speake of the diuerse degrees of honour and preheminence found amongst them. Secondly, of their calling and appointing to the same. And thirdly, of their maintenance. For the clearing of the former of these three things, the Schoole-men note, that there is a two-folde power found in the Ministers of the Church of GOD, the one of Order, the other of Iurisdiction. The power of Order is that, whereby they are sanctified and ena∣bled to the performance of such sacred acts as other men neither may nor can doe, as is the preaching of the Word, and ministration of the holy Sacraments. This power is to bee exercised orderly, and the acts of it to bee performed in such sort that one disturbe not another. Whereupon the Apostles, the first Ministers of CHRIST IESVS, though equall in the power of Order and Iurisdiction, yet for the better and more orderly dispatch of the great worke of converting the world, which they had in hand, and that they might not hinder one another, divided amongst them∣selues the parts and Provinces of the World; but when for the assisting of them while they liued, and succeeding them dying, they were to passe ouer part of their power to other, they so gaue authoritie to such as they made choyce of for this worke, to preach, baptize, and doe other acts of sacred Ministery (which are to bee perfor∣med by vertue of the power of order) that before they invested them with this power, they divided the parts of the world converted to Christianity into seuerall Churches, and when they ordained them, assigned each of them to that particular Church wherein he should preach and minister Sacraments. So that these succes∣sours of the Apostles had not an illimited commission, but were confined within cer∣taine bounds; that they were not to preach, nor minister Sacraments, but onely with∣in the limits and compasse of those places which were assigned vnto them, vnlesse it were with the consent, desire, and liking of other, willing to draw them at sometimes for speciall causes, to performe such sacred acts, within the limites and bounds of their charge.

This assigning of men hauing the power of order the persons to whom they were to minister holy things, and of whom they were to take the care, and the subjecting of such persons vnto thē, gaue them the power of jurisdiction which they had not be∣fore. And thus was the vse of the power of order which is not included within any cer∣tain boūds, limited in those the Apostles ordained, & their power of Iurisdictiō inclu∣ded within certain bounds: so that the one of these kinds of power they haue not at all without the extēt of their own limits, nor the lawful vse of the other. Hence is that re∣solutiō of the Diuines, that if a Bishop adventure to do any act of Iurisdictiō out of his own Diocese, as to excōmunicate, absolue, or the like, all such acts are vtterly voide, & of no force; but if hee shall doe any act of the power of order in another mans charge, as preach, or minister Sacraments, though he cannot be excused as not offending, if he doe these things without his consent, yet are the Sacraments thus ministred truly Sa∣craments and of force.

When the Apostles first founded Churches, and assigned to such as they ordained to the worke of the ministery the seuerall parts of the flocke of Christ, and people of GOD, of which they appointed them to take care and charge, they so sorted & di∣vided out particular Churches, that a Cittie, and the places neere adioyning made but one Church: Wherevpon wee shall finde in the holy Scriptures, that to ordaine Presbyters a 1.407 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and b 1.408 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is in euery Church, and in euery Citty, are all one. Now because Churches of so large extent required many Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, and yet of one Church there must be but one Pastour; the A∣postles in setling the state of these Churches, did so constitute in them many Presby∣ters with power to teach, instruct, and direct the people of God, that yet they ap∣pointed one onely to be chiefe Pastour of the place, ordaining that the rest should be but his assistants, not presuming to doe any thing without him; so that though they were all equall in the power of order, yet were the rest inferior vnto him in the go∣vernment of that Church whereof hee was Pastour, and they but his assistants onely. As another of my ranke cannot haue that Iurisdiction within my Church as I haue, but if hee will haue any thing to doe there, he must be inferiour in degree vnto me. So wee reade in the Reuelation of Saint Iohn, of the c 1.409 Angell of the Church of Ephesus, to whom the Spirit of God directeth letters from heauen, as to the Pastour of that Church. It is not to be doubted but that there were many Presbyters, that is, Mini∣sters of the Word and Sacraments in so large a Church as that of Ephesus was; nay wee reade expressely in the Acts, that there were many in that Church, d 1.410 that fed the flocke of Christ, and consequently were admitted into some part of pastorall office & employment; yet was there one amongst the rest to whom onely the Lord did write from heauen, to whom an eminent power was giuen, who was trusted with the go∣vernment of that Church and people in more speciall sort then any of the rest, and therefore challenged by name by Almighty God for the thinges there found to bee a∣misse, the rest being passed ouer in silence. The like wee reade of the rest of the se∣ven e 1.411 Churches of Asia, compared to seuen golden candlestickes, in the midst where∣of the Sonne of God did walke, hauing in his hand seuen starres, interpreted to haue beene the seuen Angels of those seuen Churches. Neither was this orderly superi∣ority of one amongst the Presbyters of the Church, found onely in the seuen Chur∣ches of Asia, but in other Churches also. For Saint f 1.412 Hierome testifieth, that in the Church of Alexandria, from the time of Marke the Evangelist, there was euer one whom the Presbyters of that Church chose out of themselues to be ouer the rest. Nei∣ther was this proper to the Church of Alexandria, but wee can shew the successions of Bishops in all the famous Churches of the world, euen from the Apostles times: and therefore all admitte and allow a kinde of preëminence of one aboue the rest in each Church. g 1.413 Heresies haue sprung, saith Cyprian, and schismes risen from no o∣ther fountaine then this, that Gods Priest is not obeyed, nor one Priest in the Church acknowledged for the time to bee Iudge in Christs steed. h 1.414 If one, saith Hierome, in each Church be not aboue and before the rest of the Presbyters, there will be as many Schismes as Priests; and the i 1.415 best learned in our age that affect presbyteriall govern∣ment, ingenuously confesse it to be an essentiall, & perpetuall part of Gods ordinance, for each presbytery to haue a chiefe amongst them, the necessity whereof, wee may learne from all Societies, both of men indued with reason, and of other thinges also to which God hath denied the light of vnderstanding. k 1.416 The dumbe beasts, saith Hie∣rome, and wilde Heards haue their leaders which they follow; the Bees haue their King; the Cranes fly after one in order like an Alphabet of letters: there is but one Emperour, one Iudge of a Prouince; Rome newly built could not endure two bre∣thren to bee Kings together; and therefore was dedicated in parricide; Esau & Iacob were at warre in the wombe of Rebeccah: euery Church hath her owne Bishop, her owne Arch-presbyter, her owne chiefe Deacon, and all Ecclesiasticall order consi∣steth herein, that some doe rule and direct the rest. In a shippe there is but one that directeth the helme. In a house or family there is but one master. And to conclude, in an armie, if it be neuer so great, yet the direction of one Generall is expected.

Thus then all confesse, that there alwayes hath beene, and must be in each Church, a preëminence of one aboue the rest of the Presbyters of the same; but some thinke this preëminence should be onely a priority of order, in sitting before, in propoun∣ding things to be thought of, and in moderating the whole action of deliberation, and that all things should be swayed by voyces, the President or Bishop hauing no voyce negatiue or affirmatiue, but as the maior part shall direct him. Likewise this presiden∣cie they thinke should bee but annuall, or to end with the action about which they meete, whether it be to determine a doubt, to ordaine a Minister, or to doe any other such like thing.

This new conceipt wee cannot approue of, because wee finde no patterne of any such Bishop or President in all antiquity. But the Fathers describe vnto vs such a Bishop, as hath eminent and peerelesse power, without whose consent the Presbyters canne doe nothing. l 1.417 Hence haue heresies sprung and schismes arisen, sayth Cyprian, because one Priest in the Church is not acknowledged for the time to bee Iudge in Christs steed, to whom if all the brethren would be subiect according to the diuine directions, no man would, after the diuine iudgements, after the suffrages of the people, after the con∣sent of other Bishops, make himselfe Iudge, not of the Bishop, but of God. m 1.418 Let the Presby∣ter, saith Ignatius, doe nothing without the Bishop; n 1.419 The Bishop (saith Hierome) must haue an eminent and peerelesse power, or else there will be as many schismes in the Church, as there are Priests. And o 1.420 Tertullian sheweth, that without the Bishops leaue and con∣sent, no Presbyter may baptize, minister any Sacrament, or doe any ministeriall act. So that it is most cleare and euident, that the Bishop in each Church is aboue and be∣fore the rest of the Presbyters of the same, not in order onely, but in degree also and power of Iurisdiction.

Yet on the other side, we make not the power of Bishops to be Princely, as Bellar∣mine doth, but Fatherly: so that as the Presbyters may doe nothing without the Bi∣shop, so he may doe nothing in matters of greatest moment and consequence without their presence and aduice. Wherevpon the Councell of Carthage p 1.421 voideth all sen∣tences of Bishops which the presence of their Clergie confirmeth not; and euen vnto this day they haue no power to alienate lands, and to doe some such like things with∣out the concurrence and consent of the Presbyters of the Cathedrall, and great Church.

It is therefore most false that q 1.422 Bellarmine hath, that Presbyters haue no power of Iurisdiction, and the proofe he bringeth of this his assertion most weake, when he al∣ledgeth, that all Councels both generall and prouinciall wherein Iurisdiction is most properly exercised, were celebrated and holden by Bishops, as if Presbyters had had nothing to doe therein. For it is most cleare and euident, that in all prouinciall Sy∣nodes Presbyters did sit, giue voyce, and subscribe as well as Bishops. And howso∣euer in generall councels none did giue voyce but Bishops alone, yet those Bishops that were present, bringing the resolution and consent, of the prouinciall Synodes of those Churches from whence they came, in which Synodes Presbyters had their voyces, they had a kinde of consent to the decrees of generall Councells also: and no∣thing was passed in them without their concurrence. Thus were things moderated in the primitiue ages of the Church; and though Bishops had power ouer Presbyters, yet was it so limited, that there was nothing bitter or grieuous in it, nothing but that which was full of sweetnesse, and content. For if any difference grew betweene the Bishop and his Presbyters; the Presbyters might not iudge their Bishop, whom they were to acknowledge to be a Iudge in Christs stead, but an appeale lay vnto a prouinciall Synode, to which not onely the Bishops of the prouinces were to come, but a certaine number of Presbyters also out of each Church, to sit as Iudges of such differences. Neither might the Bishop of himselfe alone depriue, degrade, or put from their office and dignity the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church; but r 1.423 if there were any matter concerning a Presbyter, he was to joyne vnto him fiue other Bishops of the prouince; and if any matter concerning a Deacon, two other Bishops, before he might proceede to giue sentence against Presbyter or Deacon. The causes

of other inferiour Cleargie-men the Bishop might heare and determine himselfe a∣lone, without the concurrence, and presence of other Bishops, but not without the concurrence of his owne Cleargie, without whose presence no sentence of the Bishop was of force, but judged and pronounced voide by the canon.

Touching the preheminence of Bishops aboue Presbyters there is some difference among the Schoole-Diuines: For the best learned amongst them are of opinion, that Bishops are not greater then Presbyters in the power of consecration or order, but on∣ly in the exercise of it, and in the power of Iurisdiction, seeing Presbyters may preach, and minister the greatest of all Sacraments, by vertue of their consecration and order, as well as Bishops. Touching the power of consecration or order, saith s 1.424 Durandus, it is much doubted of among Diuines, whether any be greater therein then an ordina∣rie Presbyter: For Hierome seemeth to haue beene of opinion, that the highest power of consecration or order is the power of a Priest or elder; so that euery Priest in re∣spect of his priestly power, may minister all Sacraments, confirme the baptized, giue all orders, all blessings and consecrations; but that for the avoiding of the perill of schisme, it was ordained that one should be chosen, who should bee named a Bishop, to whom the rest should obey, and to whom it was reserued to giue orders, and to doe some such other things, as none but Bishops doe. And afterwards hee saith, that Hi∣erome is clearely of this opinion; not making the distinction of Bishops from Presby∣ters, a meere humane invention, or a thing not necessary, as Aerius did; but thinking that amongst them who are equall in the power of order, and equally enabled to doe any sacred act, the Apostles (for the avoyding of schisme and confusion, and the pre∣seruation of vnity, peace, and order) ordained that in each Church one should beebe∣fore and aboue the rest, without whom the rest should do nothing, and to whom some things should bee peculiarly reserued, as the dedicating of Churches, reconciling of penitents, confirming of the baptized, and the ordination of such as are to serue in the worke of the Ministerie: Of which the three former were reserued to the Bishop a∣lone, Potiùs ad honorem Sacerdotii, quam ad legis necessitatem; that is, rather to honour his priestly and Bishoply place, then for that these things at all may not be done by a∣ny other. And therefore wee reade, that at some times, and in some cases of necessi∣tie t 1.425 Presbyters did reconcile penitents, and by imposition of hands confirme the bap∣tized. But the ordaining of men to serue in the worke of the Ministerie, is more properly reserued to them. For seeing none are to be ordained at randome, but to serue in some Church, and none haue Churches but Bishops, all other being but assistants to them in their Churches: none may ordaine but they onely, vnlesse it bee in cases of ex∣treme necessitie, as when all Bishops are extinguished by death, or fallen into heresie, obstinately refuse to ordaine men to preach the Gospell of Christ sincerely. And then as the care and charge of the Church is devolued to the Presbyters remaining Catho∣lique; so likewise the ordaining of men to assist them, and succeede them in the worke of the Ministery. But hereof I haue spoken at large elsewhere. Wherefore to con∣clude this point, we see that the best learned amongst the Schoolemen are of opinion, that Bishops are no greater then presbyters in the power of consecration or order, but onely in the exercise of it, and in the power of Iurisdiction, with whom u 1.426 Stapleton seemeth to agree, saying expressely, that Quoad ordinem Sacerdotalem, & ea quae sunt ordinis; that is, In respect of Sacerdotall order, and the things that pertaine to order, they are equall, and that therefore in all administration of Sacraments which depend of order, they are all equall potestate, though not exercitio; that is, in power, though not in the execution of things to be done by vertue of that power: whence it will follow, that ordination being a kinde of Sacrament, and so depending of the power of order, in the judgement of our Adversaries might bee ministred by presbyters, but that for the avoyding of such horrible confusions, scandals, and schismes, as would follow vpon such promiscuous ordinations, they are restrained by the decree of the Apostles; and none permitted to doe any such thing, except it bee in case of extreme necessitie, but Bishops, who haue the power of order in common together with presbyters, but yet so, as that they excell them in the execution of things to bee done by vertue of that

power, and in the power of Iurisdiction also.

But x 1.427 Bellarmine sayth, the Catholique Church acknowledgeth, and teacheth, that the degree of Bishops is greater then that of Presbyters by Gods Law, as well in the power of order as jurisdiction: & addeth, that the Schoole-men vpon the fourth of the Sentences defend the same, and Thomas in his Summe; which yet y 1.428 elsewhere he con∣fesseth to be vntrue. This his opinion he endeauoureth to confirme, because none but Bishoppes doe ordaine; and if they doe, their ordinations are judged voyde: which they could not be by the Churches prohibition, or decree of the Apostles, if they were equall in the power of order to Bishops. Hereunto I haue answered z 1.429 elsewhere shewing that ordinations at large, or sine titulo, and ordinations in another mans charge by bishops, who by the character of their order may ordaine, are likewise pronounced to be voide by the ancient canons: and that therefore the prohibition of the Church and decree of the Apostles for the auoyding of confusion and schisme, reseruing the honour of ordaining to Bishops onely (vnlesse it were in the case of extreame necessi∣tie) might make the ordinations of all other to be void, though equall with them in the power of order.

CHAP. 28.

Of the diuision of the lesser Titles, and smaller Congregations or Churches, out of those Churches of so large extent, founded and constituted by the Apostles.

HItherto wee haue seene how the Apostles diuiding the Churches in such sort that a whole citty and the places adioyning made but one Church, set ouer the same one Bishop, as Pastour of the place, & diuers Presbyters, as assistants vnto him. But in processe of time, we shall find certaine portions of these greater flockes of Christ, and Churches of God, to haue beene deuided out and distin∣ctly assigned to seuerall Presbyters, that were to take the care and charge thereof, yet with limitations and reseruations of sundry preeminences to the Bishop, as remaining still Pastour of those smaller particular congregations, though in a sort deuided and di∣stinguished from that greater Church, wherein especially hee made his abode. Two words wee find in Antiquie vsed to expresse the flockes of Christ, and Churches of * 1.430 God thus deuided for more conuenience, and yet still depending on that care of one Pastour or Bishop, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, parish and Diocese: The former contai∣ned the cittizens, and all such borderers, as dwelt neare and repaired to any chiefe church or citie, though now we vse the word Parish to signifie another thing: namely, some particular, smaller and lesse congregation, diuided out from the Mother Church: the later which is Diocese, both then and now, importeth the villages and Churches dispersed in diuers places, vnder the regiment of one Bishop.

The first that began thus to deuide out smaller Churches and congregations out of those great ones first founded, and to assigne Presbyters distinctly to take care of thē, was b 1.431 Euaristus Bishop of Rome, whose example others did follow in al parts of the world. These parts of Gods Church thus deuided, & assigned to the care of seuerall Presbyters, were called Tituli, that is, Titles, because God was intituled vnto them, & did specially claime them as the lot of his inheritance. These Titles, or smaller Churches and congregations were of diuerse sorts: for some were more principall, wherein Baptisme might be administred, and the like things performed, which were thereupon named Baptismall Churches: and in respect of meaner in time gro∣wing out of them and depending of them, Mother Churches also: Other there were not hauing so great liberties. c 1.432 To such of these Churches as he pleased, the Bishop himselfe went and preached one day in one of them, and another in another, carrying great cōpanies with him, & drawing great multitudes to him, which solemne assēblies & meetings were named stations, from their standing at prayers vsed in those times: and were like the mighty armies of God keeping their watches, and standing ready to encounter their furious and dangerous enemies. In this sort Gregory the Great went

and preached in such Churches in Rome, as he thought fit, whose Homilies and Ser∣mons then preached are yet extant, with the names of the particular churches or places where they were preached, which were therevpon named churches of station; though now in another sense they call those churches of station, whither men out of devotion resorting to visite Reliques and Monuments, are made partakers of ample Indulgences and pardons, for dayes, yeares, nay hundreds, and thousands of yeares. In those times when the auncient Bishops of Rome were wont to goe to the churches of station, because all churches had not their Quire and Ministers fit to performe the seruice of God with that solemnitie that was wished, there were some specially ap∣pointed for this purpose, that they might attend the Bishoppe, and goe with him in the dayes of station, that so nothing might be wanting to all joyfull solemnitie & di∣vine exultation.

d 1.433 Those principall titles or parish churches, as now we vse to speake, that enioyed the greatest liberties and priuiledges, were called Cardinall Titles, or churches; and those Presbyters that attended the service of God in those principall or Cardinall churches, were called Cardinall Presbyters; and in processe of time some amongst the Deacons also, Cardinall Deacons; and amongst the Bishops of Italie, certaine Bishops were named Cardinall Bishops. Neither were these Cardinall Presbyters onely in the church of Rome, but in other churches also, as e 1.434 Duarenus sheweth; whence it is that wee reade in the councell of f 1.435 Melden, that the Bishop must cano∣nically order the Cardinall Titles in the cities or suburbes; and that wee reade in g 1.436 Io∣annes Diaconus, that Gregorie called backe the Cardinals violently ordained in the pa∣rishes abroad, into their auncient title againe. h 1.437 Onuphrius a great Antiquary, giueth another reason of the name of Cardinall, supposing that they were called Cardinall priests and deacons in each church, which were ouer all the other priests and dea∣cons of the same; for that they were chiefe priests and deacons, and of more principall esteeme then the rest. But this conceipt of his, i 1.438 Bellarmine refuteth, for that there were sometimes many Cardinals in the same title, as appeareth by Saint Gregorie in his Epistles. So that it seemeth more probable, that Cardinalls are so named from the titles and churches which are Cardinall & chiefe churches, enjoying greater li∣berties and priuiledges then others, then for that they are Cardinall or chiefe amongst the Priests of those their churches and titles.

But whatsoeuer was the reason that they were named Cardinals, which perhaps cannot now certainely bee knowen; it is strange to see from how meane beginnings they haue grown so great in state & dignity, as therein to match & equall the greatest Princes of the world. That at first they were but parish priests of Rome (besides that it is confessed by all) it is most euident, for that yet still in this their greatnesse, they are stiled but Cardinall priests of such a title or parish church in Rome; and that for a long time there was no more respect had to one Presbyter then another, but all equal∣ly interessed in the gouernment of the church, were indifferently called to the electi∣on of the Bishop, and his consultations, it is most cleare and euident. Whereupon k 1.439 Cyprian writing to the cleargie of Rome, writeth not to the Cardinalls onely, but to all the priests and deacons of the church of Rome. In the time of Gregorie the Great, it may seeme that all the Presbyters were not called to the consultations of the Bi∣shop, but Cardinall Presbyters onely: For l 1.440 onely foure and thirty were present at the Synode holden by him, and mentioned in his epistles; whereas no doubt in his time there were many more Presbyters of that great and large church, seeing there were sixe and fortie in the dayes of Cornelius in the time of persecution, when the greatest part of the citie remained yet still in infidelity, and heathenish superstition. But whether all the Presbyters of the church of Rome, or onely some certaine were called to the consultations of the Bishop in Gregories time, it is certaine that all the cleargie had interest in the choice, and election of the Bishop. But afterwards in pro∣cesse of time, the Cardinals onely had interest in the election of their Bishop, & they and no other were admitted to sit in councell with the Bishop, all other Presbyters being excluded. By which meanes the dignitie of these Cardinals was greatly en∣creased.

So that whereas before all Bishops were preferred before those Cardinals that were not Bishops, and to be a Cardinall was but a step to the degree of a Bishop, as Onuphrius in his booke of Cardinals sheweth, and as is collected out of the first book and seuenth Chapter of the life of Gregory: afterwardes, this order was changed, and the dignity of a Bishop was made but a step to the degree and honour of a Cardinall. Neither did they onely exclude the rest of the Clergie of the Church of Rome from the election of their Bishop, and from sitting in Councell with him: but whereas from the yeare three hundreth, to the yeare eight hundreth after Christ, for the de∣termining of all weightie matters concerning the Church, the Bishoppes of Italie were convocated to Nationall Synodes, as it appeareth by the Tomes of the Coun∣cels, they excluded them also: so that the managing of the weightie affaires of the Church, was wholly referred to these Cardinals, the other being no longer called ac∣cording to the olde manner, though yet still they take an oath yearely to visite the Apostolicall thresholds, and to present themselues vnto the Romane Bishoppe their Metropolitane, as they were wont to doe, when being called by him to Nationall Synodes, they were bound to make their repaire to Rome. Of this chaunge m 1.441 Car∣dinall Cusanus speaketh, shewing that in his opinion the first steppe to the due refor∣mation of the Church, were the chusing of these Cardinals out of those seuerall Churches which were heretofore interessed in the deliberations of the Romane Bi∣shop, and the making of them to be but agents and procurators for them, and in their names, till such time as the Bishops might be convocated againe to Nationall Synods, as in former times they were wont to be. From hence, saith n 1.442 Duarenus, wee may easily gather the same that the Interpreter of the decrees somewhere writeth, that howsoeuer in time, and by spoyling other of their right, the Cardinals of the Church of Rome are growne exceeding great, yet in trueth and indeed, euery Bishop of what citie soeuer, is of greater dignity then any Cardinall, Priest, or Deacon of the Romish Church: which thing, saith Duarenus, if any man should doubt of, might easily be con∣firmed by the authoritie of Saint Augustine, in a certaine Epistle to Saint Hierome Priest of the Romane Church, where hee saith expressely: Quanquam secundùm voca∣bula, quae vsus obtinuit, Episcopatus sit Presbyterio maior; Augustinus tamen Hieronymo minor est: that is, Although according to the titles which now are in vse, it is a more honourable thing to be a Bishop, then a Presbyter, yet Augustine is lesse then Hierome. His meaning is, in merite, and personall worth: for otherwise, that there is no other reason of Priests, and Deacons of the Church of Rome, then of any other citie, in re∣spect whereof Hierome as Priest of Rome, might be greater then Augustine being Bi∣shop of little Hippo in Africa, Hierome himselfe demonstrateth at large in his Epistle to Euagrius. But this proofe of Duarenus perhaps will be found too weake, because it is greatly doubted by some of excellent learning, whether Hierome were a Priest of the Church of Rome, or not. Surely in his * 1.443 Epistle against Iohn of Hierusalem, he ter∣meth himselfe a Priest of the Church of Antioche, and not of Rome: So that it may bee probably thought, that howsoeuer for a time he were in Rome, and did o 1.444 helpe Dama∣sus the Bishop in certaine writings, matters of learning, and resolution of doubts, yet hee neuer had any title or charge in the Romane Church. p 1.445 Bellarmine taketh great ex∣ception to Caluine, for saying that Hierome was Priest of the Romish Church, which if he had beene well aduised, he should not haue done (howsoeuer perhaps Caluine were deceiued in that point) not onely because many of his owne friends haue erred with Caluine in this point, if it be an errour, but because they haue for a long time in their Churches, and all other places, painted him in his scarlet robes, & * 1.446 red hat, like a Car∣dinall. And howsoeuer Bellarmine perhaps will not bee much moued with these pain∣tings, yet Campian a great champion of the Roman Church, bringeth the painted glasse

windowes of their Churches as pregnant witnesses against vs, which we may not ex∣cept against; & testes fenestrae are not the meanest of those witnesses, which in his Om∣ne genus testium (wherein he maketh a search in heauen, and raketh hell, to see who will speake for him, and depose against vs) he produceth and bringeth to the barre. But to leaue this proofe of the dignity of Bishops brought by Duarenus as vncertaine, it is most certaine, which the same Duarenus hath, that Cardinals of the Church of Rome in ancient time, were not matchable in honour & dignity with the meanest Bishop in the world; that they were but parish Priests & deacons of the Church of Rome, & bound by all canons to be resident in their parishes and titles, as all other Priests, and Deacons are; & that they canne noe way justifie their possessing of Bishoprickes, being noe Bi∣shops, but Presbyters, and Deacons onely. What hauocke and spoyle these parish Priests haue made throughout the whole Christian world, since they came to that greatnesse they are at now, by seazing into their hands the richest Abbeys, Bishop∣rickes, and Arch-bishoprickes by vertue of the Popes prouisions, not contenting themselues with one or two, but getting to themselues so great a number of the grea∣test dignities and Church-liuings, as is incredible, q 1.447 all stories report, and the wo∣full experience of all Christendome, doth sufficiently testifie. If any man desire to see how the Pope as a wild Boare hath layd wast the Vineyard of the Lord in former times, spoyling the Church and people of God for the enriching of these his Cardi∣nals, that so they might be equall in state and magnificence to the Princes and Poten∣tates of the world, let him reade that which r 1.448 Doctor Reynolds in his most learned and worthy Conference, hath collected and gathered out of most authenticall records, touching these Romish practices, to the euerlasting shame and ignominie of the Court Rome; which long since for the intollerable and infatiable couetousnesse thereof, s 1.449 Gro∣stead the renowned Bishop of Lincolne fitly compared vnto that Behemoth, that thin∣keth he can drinke vp the whole riuer of Iordan & sayth, that among other the praises of the Romish Court, these two are not the least, that Eius auaritiae totus non sufficit orbis, Eius luxuriae meretrix non sufficit omnis: that is, That the Courtiers of the Court of Rome are so insatiable in couetousnesse, that a whole world of wealth is not sufficient to satisfie their greedy desires; and so impure in their filthy lusts that all the stewes in the world are not able to giue them content.

CHAP. 29.

Of Chorepiscopi, or Rurall Bishops, forbidden by old Canons to encroach vpon the Episco∣pall office, and of the institution and necessary vse of Arch-presbyters, or Deanes.

FOR the more easie gouerning of their Churches, in number many, and in place farre distant one from another, some of the Bishops in ancient times communi∣cated part of their authority to some principal men, which in places farre remote from them supplied their absence, and performed some things pertaining to them. These were called Chorepiscopi, either for that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, rurall Bishops; or else for that they were in steed of the Bishops, and in many things supplied their places, and did their duties. The first institution of these as it appea∣reth by the Councell of a 1.450 Neocaesarea, and b 1.451 Damasus in his Epistle written concerning these Rurall Bishops, was specially that they might be assistant to the Bishop in recei∣uing such contributions, oblations, and set rents, as were for the maintenance of the Bishoppe, and his Clergie, the reliefe of the poore and needy, and the entertain∣ment of strangers; as also in taking care of the poore, and prouiding for them out of the common treasury, the Bishop himselfe being farre off. Afterwards in processe of time there were some Bishops, that put ouer vnto these the care, execution, and perfor∣mance of such things as properly pertained to themselues, that they might take their ease, and attend their owne priuate affaires; like harlots, that put out their children to be noursed by others, that themselues in the meane while may satisfie their lusts,

as a great c 1.452 Bishop, not without some bitternesse, speaketh: whence it came that these Chorepiscopi waxed proud, and insolent, and in the end being but Presbyters, presumed to ordaine Priests and Deacons, and to doe such things, as none but Bishops ought to do: whereupon they were controlled by the learned Bishoppes that liued in those times, and the councels holden by them. Damasus so farre disliketh their presumption in ordaining Prests and Deacons, that he will not haue them to ordaine sub-deacons or inferiour clearkes. The Councels of d 1.453 Ancyra, and e 1.454 Hispalis, f 1.455 Leo the great, and g 1.456 Iohn the third, forbid them the ordaining of Priests & Deacons, mentioning not the other inferiour clerkes. The Councell of h 1.457 Antioche sayth, the rurall Bishops that haue receiued imposition of hands of Bishops and haue been ordained as Bishops, may ordaine Sub-deacons, and other inferiour clerkes; but Priests or Deacons without the Bishop of the cittie, or as some reade it, without the priuity of the Bishop of the cit∣tie, they may not: thereby insinuating that with his consent they may. Out of which Councell i 1.458 Bellarmine collecteth two things: The first that in the Primitiue Church there were two sorts of Chorepiscopi or rurall Bishops, whereof the former had Epis∣copall ordination, that is, were ordained of three Bishops like the Suffragan Bishops of our time: the later were but Presbyters: The second, that the Councell appointing the rurall Bishop to be ordained by the Bishop of the Citty, meant to forbid that there should be any more such rurall Bishops as haue Episcopall ordination, whereunto the concurrence of three Bishoppes at the least is required: & thereupon hee thinketh, the Councell of Antioche permitting rurall Bishops to ordaine Sub-deacons, and the De∣cretall of Damasus forbidding them so to do, may be reconciled; for that the Councell permitting the ordination of Sub-deacons to rurall Bishops speaketh of such as were ordained of three Bishops: and the Decretall of Damasus forbidding them to meddle in such ordination, of such as were but meere Presbyters. But whosoeuer shall take a view of the Decretall epistle of Damasus, shall finde that hee condemneth the inter∣medling of any rurall Bishops whatsoeuer in ordination, and shutteth them out of the * 1.459 Church, as men that neither haue nor can haue any place in the same. What is Chore∣piscopus, sayth Damasus, but a country Bishop? and if hee be a country Bishop, what doth he in the citty? the Canon altogether forbidding, that there should be two Bi∣shops in one city. If he be not in the city, but in some countrey village, and in such place where there neuer was any Bishop before (the canon forbidding Bishops to be ordai∣ned in meane cities, villages or forts, or in any place whatsoeuer were bishops haue not bin placed in former times, least the authority, & name of Bishops grow into contēpt) what I pray you shall he be? For behold, neither doth the place agree with his ordina∣tion, nor his ordination with the place: because, if such rural Bishops haue receiued the imposition of the hands of many Bishops, & haue bin ordained as B^s, they should not haue bin consecrated in a country village, such as the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 importeth, the canon forbidding Bishops to be placed in villages, small forts, or litle citties. Giue me therefore a reason, sayth he, I pray you, of the constituting of these men: or if you can∣not, as I know you cannot, lay your hand on your mouth, and assure your selues, that they haue no place nor authority in the Church of God, diuers things making voyd their ordination, and whatsoeuer thing they attempt to doe by vertue of such ordina∣tion: Whereof the first is, for that they are wont to bee ordained by one Bishop, wherein their ordination is against the canons concerning Bishops, which will haue Bishops ordained by the imposition of the hands of 3 Bishops at the least. The 2^•, for that if they be ordained by many bishops, yet they are placed in some village, litle fort, or smal city: or at least in some such place where lawfully Bishops may not be ordained, or formerly haue not bin, & where the authority, and name of a Bishop wil grow into contempt: or if they be placed in a city, they are placed there with another Bishop, whereas the canons permit not 2 Bishops in one city. The third is, for that if they haue bin ordained at large, & neither placed in city, nor country village, as it hath bin repor∣ted vnto vs of some, their ordination is voyd, because the canons do voyd all ordina∣ons at large: so that which way soeuer we turne vs, we shal find that these men neither haue, nor can haue any Episcopal authority or place. This is the resolution of this great

Romane Bishop, who wholly rejecteth this kinde of rurall Bishops, and will not haue them at all to intermeddle in any thing peculiarly pertaining to the Episcopall office. But some man will say, May not a Bishop when he is growne aged, infirme, and vnable to sustaine and beare the weight of that great office, haue a Coadiutor or assistant? Surely there is no doubt but that he may haue one joyned vnto him to beare part of his burthen; but that that other should haue Episcopall ordination, the Canons permit not: whereupon S. Augustine now aged, and distracted with multiplicitie of mani∣fold businesses concerning the state of the whole Church, desirous with the consent of his Cleargie and people, to haue Eradius a Presbyter of his Church joyned vnto him as a Coadiutor while he liued, & designed to succeede him after his death, would by no meanes haue him ordained a Bishop, but to continue a Presbyter still, though himselfe had beene ordained a Bishop, while Valerius yet liued. His words are these, l 1.460 Adhuc in corpore po sito beatae memoriae Patre & Episcopo meo Valerio, Episcopus ordinatus sum, & sedi cum illo: quod Concilio Niceno prohibitum fuisse nesciebam, nec ipse sciebat. Quod er∣go reprehensum est in me, nolo reprehendi in filio meo: erit Presbyter, ut est; quando Deus voluerit, futurus Episcopus. Obsecro vos, & obstringo per Christum, ut huic Iuveni, huic Presbytero Eradio, quem hodiè in Christi nomine designo Episcopum successorem mihi, pa∣tiamini refundere onera occupationum mearum, &c. that is, While my Father & Bishop Valerius yet liued, I was ordained a Bishop, and sate together with him, which I knew not to haue bin forbidden in the Nicene Councell, neither did he know it. What ther∣fore was disliked in me, I will not haue to be blamed in my sonne, hee shall continue a Presbyter as he is, & when God will hee shall bee a Bishop. I beseech you, and ear∣nestly entreate you for Christs sake, that you will giue mee leaue, in some sort to ease my selfe, and to cast the burthen of my employments vpon the shoulders of this yong man, this Presbyter Eradius, whom this day in the name of Christ, I appoint and de∣signe the Bishop that shall succeede mee. My counsell shall nót bee wanting to him, neither will I faile to supply what shall be any way defectiue or wanting in him. Thus wee see, a Coadiutor was allowed, but yet such a one as should be but a Presbyter: and therefore long after the time of Augustine, when m 1.461 Zacharias Bishop of Rome associ∣ated another Bishop, as a Coadiutor to Bonifacius the Bishop of Mentz, he confessed it to be a thing that was forbidden, and worthy reprehension: but that vpon his impor∣tunity, of speciall fauour, he had yeelded so much vnto him, that he might haue such a Coadiutor, whom with the advice of his brethren hee might appoint to succeede him when hee should die. But notwithstanding the Canons forbidding any such thing to bee done, and the dislike of many the greatest Bishoppes of the world, yet in the later ages of the Church, the Bishops giuing themselues to ease, or attending secular busi∣nesses, and greatly neglecting their Episcopall function, again reduced into the Church these rurall Bishops, whom they named Suffraganes. To these they committed the doing of such things as are most proper vnto Bishops, as ordination & confirmation, but kept the power of Iurisdiction to themselues, or gaue it to some other, and not to these: contrary to the example of S. Augustine, that put ouer to Eradius the hearing of causes, and the performing of things pertaining to Iurisdiction, himselfe onely di∣recting and ouerseeing him, but held still himselfe that which is most properly Epis∣copall. Such Bishoppes n 1.462 Melchior Canus entreating of Councels, and the per∣sons whereof Councels consist, sayth, are so farre from hauing any place or voyce in the Councels, that they neither haue, nor ought to haue any place in the Church at all.

But whatsoeuer wee thinke of these, the Bishops in former times for the better go∣verning of their Churches, chose out certaine of their Presbyters to assist them in the supervision and direction of the rest, whom they first named Arch-presbyters, and af∣terwardes Deanes. The name of Decanus or Deane being first vsed, to note out such a Prefect or Governour of Monkes, as had the rule of tenne Monkes liuing together in common: And in this sense the name of a Deane is found in o 1.463 S. Augustine. The Arch-presbyters, which Bishops anciently appointed to assist them, were of 2 sorts, p 1.464 Vrba•…•…i & Vicani, that is, such as liued in the great Church in the City, and such as liued abroad

in the country, & were therevpon named Rurall Arch-presbyters, or Rurall Deanes. Touching the former, who liued in the great church in the citie, because the Bishop alone either in respect of absence, or employments, could not execute all things that pertained to the service belonging to his place, nor giue particular direction to eve∣ry other what he should doe, they were chosen out of the whole number of Presby∣ters, partly to execute and performe what the Bishoppe in his owne person should haue done, and partly to prescribe to others what they should doe. The Rurall Arch-presbyters had the ouersight and direction of the Presbyters, that were pla∣ced in the lesser Titles, or meaner churches, abroad in the countrey. Concerning these wee finde it thus decreed, q 1.465 Vt singulae plebes Archipresbyterum habeant, qui non solùm imperiti vulgi sollicitudinem gerat, sed etiam Presbyterorum qui per minores Titulos habitant, vitam iugi circumspectione custodiat, quâ quis{que} industriâ diuinum opus exerceat, Episcopo enunciet; nec contendat Episcopus non egere plebem Archipresbytero, quasi ipse eam gubernare valeat; quia etsi valde idoneus sit, decet tamen vt sua onera par∣tiatur, vt sicut ipse matrici Ecclesiae praeest, ita Archipresbyteri praesint plebibus, vt in nul∣lo titubet Ecclesiastica sollicitudo; cunctatamen referant ad Episcopum, nec aliquid con∣tra eius decretum ordinare praesumant; that is. That each division of the people of God in their seuerall limits haue their Arch-presbyter, who may not only take care of the rude and ignorant multitude, but may also with continuall circumspection obserue & looke vnto the life & conuersation of the Presbyters, which dwell in the lesser Titles, and shew vnto the Bishop with what diligence each of them performeth the worke of God. Neither let the Bishoppe contend and say, that the people committed to his charge need no Arch-presbyter, as if he himselfe were able sufficiently to gouerne the same, because, though he be exceeding worthy, yet it is fit hee should deuide his bur∣thens, that as he is ouer the Mother church, so the Arch-presbyters may bee ouer the people abroad, that the Ecclesiasticall care stagger not, or be not two weake in any thing. Yet notwithstanding let them referre all things to the Bishop, neit•…•…r let them presume to order any thing against his liking & decree. These rurall Arch-presbyters were to be chosen by the clergie, & confirmed by the Bishop, and being so placed, might not be remoued without the consent of the clergie. r 1.466 Archipresbyterum, saith the second Councell of Turone, sine omnium Presbyterorum consensu de loco deiicere Episco∣pus non praesumat: quem autem negligentia eijcit, cum omnium Presbyterorum consilio re∣futetur: that is, Let not the Bishop presume to remoue or put an Arch-presbyter frō his place, without the consent of all the Presbyters: but when the negligence of any one of these maketh him worthy to be eiected & put out, let him be reiected with the counsell and aduice of all the Presbyters. Touching the power & authority of these Arch-presbyters; first they were to admonish such as they saw to liue scandalously, or any way to offend, as well Lay-men as clergie-men; and the Councell of s 1.467 Antisiodo∣rum decreeth, that if any lay or secular man shall contemne and despise the informati∣on & admonition of the Arch-presbyter, he shall be kept from entring or setting his feete within the thresholds of the holy church, till hee shall submit himselfe to the wholesome information & admonition: Secondly, t 1.468 they were twise in the yeare to visite all the churches within the limits subiect to them, to see what was there amisse, defectiue, or weake, that so they might either reforme, supplie, or strengthen & con∣firme the same: Thirdly, they were to receiue warrants from the Bishop or his substi∣tute, and by vertue thereof to cite all such to make their appearance before the chiefe * 1.469 Pastour or Bishop, as were vpon any occasion to be conuented before him: and this their citation of such parties to be conuented, vnder the seale of their office they were to certifie the Bishop of. Fourthly, x 1.470 they were to hold Chapiters in a set course foure times in the yeare, and at other times as often as vrgent occasions should require; and all y 1.471 parish Ministers within a yeare after their being possessed of their liuings were to sweare to the Deane, and so to be admitted as brethren to sit in Chapiter with him, & to be bound to come to the yearely Chapiters, and otherwise also when as vpon vr∣gent cause the Deane should call a Chapiter; and to beare part of the charge. This oath which the Ministers were to take before they were admitted to sit in Chapiter, was

not simple, but with this limitation, Saluis juribus Capituli; that is, No way to prejudice the rights of the Chapiter. In these Chapiters the Arch-presbyters, were to publish the decrees of prouinciall, and Episcopall Synodes, excluding Lay-men at such times as they published things precisely concerning the Clergie, which otherwise might bee present at the publication of things generally concerning all. Neither were they onely to publish such decrees in their Chapiter, but to vrge the execution of the same, to take notice of all places of ministery void, vpon what occasion, and by whose fault they continued voyd; of all intrusion into places of ministery, and of the inuestiture of all such as newly entred into the charge of ministery, and the authority by which substi∣tutes supply the places of other men. And besides they were to admonish such as ei∣ther by their visitation or other information they found to be faulty: And if by other good meanes they could not win them to z 1.472 suspend Lay-men from the Sacraments, & Clergie-men from the execution of their offices, but farther they might not goe. But in case of obstinate continuance of disordred persons in their misdemeanors notwith∣standing these proceedings, they were to complaine to the Bishop if the matter requi∣red hast, or otherwise to the next Episcopall Synode. For the Bishop in each diocese hauing certaine thus appointed to assist and helpe him in the superuision of the rest, as well of the Clergie as the people, was once in the yeare to hold a Synode with the chiefe of his Prelates, Deanes rurall, and other worthy men. a 1.473 Annis singulis (saith Gra∣tian) Episcopus in suá Diocesi Synodum faciat de suis Clericis & Abbatibus, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 alteros Clericos, & Monachos; that is, Let the Bishop euery yeare hold a Synode in his Diocese of his Clerkes and Abbots: and let him therein discusse and examine the lear∣ning, conuersation, & behauiour of other Clerkes & Monkes. The Synode of Colei•…•…e vnder Adolphus confirmed by Charles the fifth, appointed this Diocesane Synode to be holden twise euery yeare, according to the old manner & custome. And the Synode of Coleine vnder Hermannus ordaineth, that the Bishop or his Officiall generall with the Prelate•…•… of the Metroropoliticall, Cathedrall, & Collegiate Churches, especially the Arch-deacons, & Deanes rurall, who in some part are taken into the fellowship of the Bishops cares, shall enquire into things out of order; & what he shall find by their iudgment to need reformation, he shall with their aduice amend & reforme. The like doth b 1.474 Laurentius the Popes Legate decree and ordaine. Yea the Councell of c 1.475 T•…•… confirmeth the same also; and the Councell of Coleine vnder Adolphus taketh order, that Deanes of colledges comming to the Episcopall Synode in the name of their col∣ledges, & rurall Deanes in the name of the parish ministers within their diuisiōs, shall haue their charges borne by such their colledges & ministers, according to the nūber of daies the Synode endureth, seeing they go on warfare for God. The forme of holding a Diocesane Synode Iouerius out of Burchardus describeth in this sort. d 1.476 At a cōueniēt hower whē it seemeth good to the B: or his vicegerent, all other doores being locked, let the Ostiaries stād at that, by which the Presbyters are to enter, & cōming together let thē go in & sit according to their ordinatiō: after these the approued Deacons which order shall require to be present; let some lay-men also of good cōuersation be brought in, and then let the Bishop or his substitute enter: who entring into the Synode, is first to salute the clergie and people: and then turning towards the East to say a certaine prayer: & the Deacons to read the Gospel, When it was late the first day of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and the dores were shut, &c: after which reading and praiers all are to go out saue the Presbyters and clerkes only: & after departure of the rest, another prayer being made the Bishop shall will the Presbyters to propose their doubts, and either to learne or teach, and to make known their complaints, that so they may receiue satisfaction. This is all that is done the first day. The second day, if the clergie haue no matter of com∣plaint or doubt, let the Laitie bee let in to propose their doubts, and make knowne their grieuances, or otherwise let their comming in be deferred till some other day. Besides this Synode, which euery Bishoppe was to hold once euery yeare, he was to goe from Church to Church, and see all the Churches in his Diocese. The se∣cōd councell of e 1.477 Bracar appointeth, that the Bishop shall go through all his Churches enforming both Presbyters and people: and the third councell of f 1.478 Arles prescri•…•…th,

that he shall enquire & take notice of the wrongs offered to those of meane & poore estate, by them that are great and in authoritie, and first seeke to reforme such euils by Episcopall admonition and counsell; but if he cannot so prevaile, hee shall acquaint the King with it. The Bishop, saith the fourth Councell of g 1.479 Toledo, must goe euery yeare through his Diocese, and see all his Churches and parishes, that he may enquire what reparations the churches doe neede, and what other things bee amisse. But if he be either detained by sicknesse, or so intangled with businesse that he cannot goe, let him send some approued presbyters or Deacons, which may not onely consider of the ruines of each church, and the needfull reparations thereof, but enquire also into the life and conversation of the clergie, and ministers. According to the decree and di∣rection of this Councell, we shall finde that Bishops hindered by other employments, sicknesse, weaknes, or age, so that they could not go in person to visite their churches, sent some of their chiefe Presbyters or Deacons, but especially the chiefe Deacons, to performe the worke of visitation for them, because they being the chiefe among the Deacons, which are but church-seruants, were more attendant about them for dis∣patch of all publicke businesses, then presbyters. These chiefe Deacons, or Arch-Deacons at first, they sent onely to visite, and to make report, but not to sententi∣ate any mans cause, or to meddle with the correcting or reforming of any thing, but afterwardes in processe of time they were authorized to heare and determine the smallest matters, and to reforme the lighter and lesser offences: and therefore in the Councell of h 1.480 Laterane vnder Alexander the third, it is ordered, that the Arch-deacon shall not giue sentence against any one; But in the i 1.481 Councell of Rhoane it is appointed, that the Arch-Deacon and Arch-presbyter shall bee fore-run∣ners to the Bishoppe, and shall reforme the lighter and smaller things they finde to bee amisse.

Hence in time it came, that Arch-Deacons much vsed by Bishops, as most attendant on them in the visitation of their churches, and reforming some smaller disorders, at length by prescription claimed the correction of greater things, as hauing of long time put themselues into the exercise of such authoritie. And thus the Deacons, or at least the chiefe of them, the Arch-Deacons (which at first might not sit in the pre∣sence of a presbyter, but being willed by him so to doe) in the end became, by reason of this their imployment by the Bishoppe, to bee greater, not onely then the ordinary presbyters, but then the Arch-presbyters themselues. And therefore it is confessed by all, that the Arch-deacon hath no authoritie or power of Iurisdiction by vertue of his degree & order, but by prescription onely: neither can hee claime more then hee can prescribe for; which his prescription is thought reasonable, because the Bishop is sup∣posed to haue consented to his intermedling in such parts of gouernement, as by pre∣scription hee may claime. Yet lest it might seeme absurd for him that is onely a Deacon, to exercise Iurisdiction ouer presbyters, the canon of the Church prouideth, that no man shall possesse the place of an Arch-Deacon, vnlesse he haue the ordination of a presbyter.

Besides the Deanes or Arch-presbyters, which the Bishops vsed for the gouerning and ouer-seeing of certaine parts of their Diocese allotted to them, with such limita∣tions as they pleased, & for counsell & aduise in managing of their weightiest affaires; and the Arch-deacons, which they vsed as spies in all places, and trusted with the dis∣patch of what they thought fit; they had for their direction in cases of doubt, and for their ease in the multiplicitie of their employments, k 1.482 certaine of their cleargie, skil∣full in the canons; and Lawes of the Church, whom they vsed as Officials to heare all manner of causes, and matters of instance betweene party & party, but suffered them not to meddle in the censuring and punishing of criminall things, or in any matter of office: but in case of absence, or sicknesse, they had Vicars generall, that might doe any thing almost that pertaineth to the Bishops Iurisdiction. The former are not onely named Officials, but Chauncellours, though the name of Chauncellour bee not in this sense so auncient as the former. l 1.483 Cancellarius originally, and properly, signifieth a Notarie or Secretarie, because these for the preseruing of their writings

and notes of remembrance, were wont to sit and write Intra cancellos; that is, Within certaine places inclosing them, made in the manner of Checquer-worke: But from hence in time it came to be vsed, for any one that is employed for the giuing of an∣swere vnto sutors, for keeping of Records and notes of remembrance, and generally for the performance of some principall duties pertayning to him, whose Chauncel∣lour he is said to be.

CHAP. 30.

Of the forme of the gouernment of the Church, and the institution and authority of Metropolitanes and Patriarches.

THis being the forme of gouernment of each Diocese, and particular Church, let vs consider what dependance or subordination such particular Churches haue. For it cannot, nor may not be imagined, that each Diocese, or parti∣cular church is absolutely supreme, and subiect to no higher authority. The Papists are of opinion, that Christ constituted and appointed one chiefe Pastour, with vniuersality of power, as his Vicegerent generall vpon earth, placed him in the chiefe City of the world, and set him ouer all the other both Bishops and Churches: But the auncient Fathers are of another opinion: For a 1.484 Hierome pronounceth that all Bi∣shops are equall in order, office, and ministery, whether of Rome, Eugubium, Tanais, or Constantinople, howsoeuer riches and magnificence of Churches and cities, may make one seeme to be greater then another: and Cyprian speaketh to the same pur∣pose, saying: b 1.485 Let no Bishop make himselfe a Iudge of other, euery one hauing re∣ceiued his authority from Christ, and therefore being accountant to him onely. And this he speaketh vpon occasion of a difference, betweene him and the Romane Bishops of that time, about rebaptization.

Wherefore let vs examine these contrary opinions, and see which of them is most agreeable vnto truth and reason. For the confirmation of the former of these two opi∣nions, the Romanists alledge many things, to proue, that the best forme of Regiment and gouernment is a Monarchie, and consequently that Christ who vndoubtedly e∣stablished the best forme, appointed one supreme Monarch in his Church. To this allegation c 1.486 Ockam most excellently and learnedly answereth in his Dialogues, shew∣ing and prouing at large, that though the gouernment of one, or a Monarchie, be the best forme of Regiment in one citty or country, as Aristotle rightly teacheth, yet it is not the best forme of policie and gouernment in respect of the whole world and all the parts of it, so farre distant & remote one from another; because the whole world, and the infinite different countreyes and regions of it, regularly may be better gouer∣ned by many, whereof no one is superiour to other, then by one alone: neither is the same forme of gouernment alwayes most expedient for the whole, and for each part; for greater circuits, and for straighter or narrower bounds: seeing one man may su∣steine the burthen of hearing, determining, and dispatching the greater causes & more important matters in one kingdome or countrey; but no one can so manage the weightiest businesses of the whole world. And that in like sort, though it be expe∣dient that there should bee one Bishop ouer some part of the Church and people of God, yet there is not the same reason that there should bee one ouer the whole, seeing no one canne dispatch the greater businesses, and manage the weightier affaires of the whole Christian world. Besides, he saith, it would bee most dangerous, that there should be any such one supreme ruler of the whole Church; for that, if he should fall into errour or heresie, all the whole world would bee in great danger to bee seduced, the members, for the most part, conforming themselues to their head, and the inferi∣ours to their rulers and superiours. That which Ockam saith, may be confirmed by the authority of Saint Augustine, who thinketh a Monarchie or the gouernment of one supreme ruler, most fit for the seuerall countries and parts of the world, but not for the whole. His words are: d 1.487 Feliciores essentres humanae, si omnia Regnaessent parua,

& concordi vicinitate laetantia; that is, The state of worldly things would bee much more happy, if the whole world were diuided out into small kingdomes, joyfully conspiring together in a friendly neighbourhood, then if all should be swayed by one supreme commander.

Thus then wee deny not, but that amongst all the simple and single formes of go∣vernment, a Monatchie is the best for each country and people; neither doth Caluine contradict vs herein, as e 1.488 Bellarmine seemeth to report; for hee doth not simply say, that amongst all the simple formes of gouernment Aristocratie is best and to bee pre∣ferred, but onely in the respect of often declinings and swaruings of absolute Kings, hardly moderating themselues so in so free and absolute a liberty of commaunding all, as that their wils should neuer swarue from that which is right and good. f 1.489 But Bel∣larmine himselfe thinketh, that the mixt formes of gouernment are to bee preferred before any of those simple formes of Monarchy, Aristocratie, and Democratie, as ha∣ving in them the best that is found in every of those single and simple formes. And such is the gouernment of the Church of God (Christ vndoubtedly establishing the best forme of gouernment in the same.) For the gouernment of each Diocese, & par∣ticular Church, resteth principally in one, who hath an eminent & peerelesse power, without whom nothing may be attempted or done: yet are there others joyned with him as assistants, g 1.490 without whose counsell, aduice, and consent, he may doe nothing of moment and consequence; whom hee cannot at his pleasure displace and remoue from their standings, or depriue them of their honour, or any way hardly censure them of himselfe alone; but in h 1.491 the case of a Deacon, hee must haue two other Bishops to concurre with him, and in the case of a Presbyter, fiue, without which concur∣rence he may not proceed against either of them. The gouernment of a prouince is principally Aristocraticall, resting in the Bishops of the prouince & their assistants, but it hath a kinde of chiefty of one hauing a primacie of order and honour amongst the rest, who being placed in the Metropolis or Mother cittie is named a Metropoli∣tane; This gouernment is so mixed, that the Bishops may doe nothing concerning the state of the whole Prouince, or out of the limits of their owne Churches without consulting the Bishop of the mother citty, nor i 1.492 he without them; and k 1.493 if they differ in judgement and opinion, he is bound to follow the maior part of voices for the en∣ding and determining of all controuersies that may or doe arise concerning matters of faith, or of fact. Neither is this the forme of gouernment of one prouince only, but the gouernment of larger circuits is altogether like vnto it, and in proportion the same. For looke what the Metropolitane is in respect of the Bishops of the prouince, that and no more is the primate or Patriarch in respect of the Metropolitans, & Bi∣shops of diuerse prouinces; so that as the Metropolitan canne doe nothing out of his owne Diocese without the concurrence of the maior part of the Bishops of the pro∣vince, though he be in order and honour the first and greatest amongst them, who must bee consulted before they canne doe any thing; so in like sort, the Primate or Patriarch may doe nothing without the aduice and consent of the Metropolitanes & Bishops subiect vnto him. So that wee see the forme of Church gouernment is mixt in such sort, that in respect of a Diocese or particular Church, there is a speciall au∣thority resting in one, though not excluding nor neglecting the assistance and concur∣rence of more; but the gouernment of many particular Churches and prouinces is principally Aristocraticall, all thinges being swayed by the maior part of the voyces of the Bishops and Metropolitanes, yet admitting a primacie of order and honour of one amongst the rest, who must be first consulted, from whom all deliberations must take beginning, and who sitteth in all their meetings as a president and modera∣tour.

This l 1.494 Bellarmine endeavoureth to improue, and therefore laboureth to shew, that the supreme power of the Church is not in the company of Bishops. His first reason is, because Christ, as he supposeth, gaue no authority to his Apostles and Disciples, but that which he gaue to euery one of them apart, as to preach, baptize, binde and loose, remitte, and retaine sinne. But this silly argument is easily answered, and the

absurditie of Bellarmines confident affirmation is too too apparant. For to ordaine Bishops, to depose Bishops or Presbyters, and to determine the differences, and con∣troversies that arise amongst them, is, as I thinke, a great part of Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction: yet may no one Bishop doe any of these things, but the company of Bishops onely. m 1.495 To the ordination of a Bishop, the presence of the Metropolitane, and of three other Bishoppes at the least, with the consent of the rest that are absent, sig∣nified in writing, is by the olde Canons required: neither did the Church euer ad∣mit lesse then three Bishops to ordaine, vnlesse in certaine cases of necessitie: And touching the depriuing or degrading of Bishoppes, Presbyters, and Deacons, the auncient Canon requireth the concurrence and consent of three Bishoppes, for the cen∣suring and depriuing of a Deacon; of sixe for the depriuing of a Presbyter; & of twelue for the censuring, judging, and deposing of a Bishop. Wherefore let vs see, if the Car∣dinall haue any better reason behinde.

His second reason is, that it cannot bee imagined that CHRIST committed the gouernement of the Church to the company of Bishoppes; for that then the Church should oftentimes lacke Gouernours, for that the Bishoppes are seldome assembled by joint consent to decree and determine things. Surely this reason hath farre lesse strength then the former; for in the beginning all the Bishoppes of each Province met to the ordination of euery Bishoppe newly elected; and twice in the yeare be∣sides, there was a Synode holden, consisting of all the Bishoppes of the Pro∣vince, the Metropolitane not onely hauing power, but also being straightly bound to convocate his brethren: and they as surely tyed and obliged to come when he cal∣led them.

His third reason which he bringeth to proue, that the gouernement of the church was not by Christ committed to the company of Bishoppes, but to some one chiefe and supreme amongst them, is, for that the whole multitude of right beleeuing Chri∣stians is one church, and therefore must haue one chiefe Ruler. For answere here∣unto wee say, that a church may bee named one either in respect of the same faith, hope, profession, meanes of saluation, and communion or fellowship of Saints: and so the whole multitude of right beleeuers throughout the world is but one church: or in respect of the same immediate communicating together in Sacraments, and in the actions and exercises of Gods worship and seruice. The vnitie of the church of God in this later sort implyeth and requireth a necessitie of the vnity of one chief Pastour; but the vnity of the church in the former sort may stand without the vnity of one Pa∣stour. n 1.496 Christian men, saith Ockam, in Scripture are compared to sheepe, and the church of God to a fold. Now though it bee expedient that these sheepe so many as belong to the same particular fold, that goe out to the same pastures to feed, to the same riuers of water to drinke, and doe remaine and abide together, should be fed, directed, and guided by the same Pastour; yet the sheepe of diuerse folds led out to di∣verse pastures to feede in, and riuers of water to drinke, may haue their diuersitie of Pastours vnder the same chiefe Sheepheard Christ Iesus: neither is there any vnitie implyed in the whole Church, or in the Churches of diuerse Provinces which may not be preserued, as well by the multitude and diversitie of Pastours, bound & knit to∣gether in the bond of conspiring consent and agreement, as by the vnitie of one chiefe Pastour. And in this sort wee shall finde the Church of God to haue stood in per∣fect vnitie in the first and best ages thereof, without finding any want of the helpe of one chiefe Pastour. For how could there bee a more perfect vnitie in the whole Church, then when the Pastour of each particular Church chosen by the Cleargie, and people of the same, was appointed by the Metropolitane, and all the rest of the Bi∣shops of the province, for his sincerity in profession, and godlinesse of conversati∣on, and ordained to the worke of the Ministery by the joint imposition of all their hands? when the * 1.497 Metropolitanes of seuerall provinces were confirmed by the Pri∣mate or Patriarch, but ordained by the Bishops of their provinces? when the o 1.498 Patri∣arches elected by the Cleargie and people, and ordained by their Metropolitanes, sent their Synodall letters one to another, testifying and expressing their faith and pro∣fession,

before they were receiued and allowed one of another, and before tehy were accounted and reputed for lawfull Patriarches?

Wherefore presupposing that the gouernment of the Church is not Monarchicall in respect of any one supreame Pastour on earth, but mixt; and hauing seene how, not∣withstanding the diuersitie of many Pastours, the Church may be preserued in peace and vnity, let vs more exactly and distinctly consider what the auncient forme of Church policie and gouernment was.

If we looke into the monuments of Antiquity, wee shall finde, that there were aunciently three Subordinations in the Church. For the actions of the Bishoppe of each particular Church of a citty, and places adjoyning, were subject to the censure and judgment of the rest of the Bishops of the same prouince; amongst whom for or∣der sake there was one chiefe, to whom it pertained to call them together, to sit as moderator in the midst of them being assembled, and to execute what by joynt con∣sent they resolued on. The actions of the Bishoppes of a prouince, and a prouinciall Synode consisting of those Bishoppes, were subject to a Synode consisting of the Metropolitanes, and other Bishoppes of diuerse prouinces. This Synode was of two sorts. For either it consisted of the Metropolitanes and Bishoppes of one king∣dome and nation onely, as did the Councels of Africa: or of the Metropolitans, and Bishoppes of many kingdomes. If of the Metropolitanes and Bishoppes of one kingdome and state onely, the chiefe Primate was mederator. If of many, one of the Patriarches, and chiefe Bishops of the whole world, euery Church being subordinate to some one of the Patriarchicall Churches, and incorporate into the vnity of it. Third∣ly, the actions of the Bishops of a whole kingdome and Patriarchship, were subject to an Oecumenicall Synode consisting of all the Patriarches, and the Metropolitanes and Bishops subject to them.

Touching prouinciall Councells, to the censures whereof the actions of particular Churches are subject, they were by the auncient Canons of the Church to be holden in euery prouince twice euery yeare. p 1.499 It is very necessary, say the Fathers of the Councell of Nice, that there should be a Synode twice euery yeare in euery prouince; that all the Bishops of the prouince meeting together, may in common thinke vpon those thinges that are doubtfull and questionable. For the dispatch of Ecclesiasticall businesses, and the determining of matters in controuersie. q 1.500 Wee thinke it were fit, say the Fathers in the Councell of Antioche, that in euery prouince Synodes of Bishops should be assembled twice euery yeare. The first councell of r 1.501 Constantinople decreeth the same: and the Fathers assembled in the Councell of s 1.502 Chalcedon complaine that in some prouinces the Sy∣nodes of Bishops are not holden, and that thereby many Ecclesiasticall matters nee∣ding reformation are neglected: and therefore they appoint, that the Bishops of euery prouince shall assemble euery yeare twice at that place, which the Bishoppe of the mother Citty shall thinke fit, to amend all thinges that shall be found to bee amisse in the prouince. Here we see the necessity of holding these Synodes, and by whom they were to bee called and moderated. Wherefore let vs now proceede to see of whom they consi∣sted, what causes they examined and determined, what the power of the Metropoli∣tane originally was, and what in processe of time, by positiue constitution, vpon due and just considerations it grew to be.

Touching the persons that prouinciall Synodes consisted of, it is cleare and eui∣dent, that not onely Bishops, but Presbyters also were present in these Assemblies, and had decisiue voyces: whereupon the Councell of t 1.503 Antisiodorum sayth; Let all the Presbyters being called come to the Synode in the Citty. The Councell of Tarracon. u 1.504 Let letters bee sent by the Metropolitane to his brethren, that they bring with them to the Synode, not onely some of the Presbyters of the Cathedrall Church, but also of each Diocese. And the fourth Councell of Toledo, describing the forme of celebrating prouinciall Synodes, hath these words: x 1.505 Let the Bishops assembled goe to the Church, and sit accor∣ding to the time of their ordination; and after all the Bishops are entred and set, let the Presbyters be called, and the Bishops sitting in compasse, let Presbyters sit behind them, and the Deacons stand before them. In the first Councell of Toledo, we find these words.

y 1.506 Considentibus Presbyteris, astantibus Diaconis, & caeteris qui intererant Concilio con∣gregato, Patronus Episcopus dixit, &c. that is, The Presbyters sitting together with the Bishops, the Deacons standing before them, and the rest, which were present in the Councell assembled, Patronus the Bishop said, &c. The like we reade of a Synode holden by Gregory the Pope. The words are these: z 1.507 Gregorius Papa coram sacratis∣simo corpore Beati Petri Apostoli, cum Episcopis omnibus Romanae Ecclesiae, & Presbyte∣ris residens, assistentibus Diaconis, & cuncto Clero, dixit &c. that is, Gregory the Pope sitting before the most sacred body of blessed Peter, with all the Bishops of the Ro∣mane Church and the Presbyters also, the Deacons standing before them, and all the Clergie, said, &c. And that Presbyters were not only present in Provinciall Synodes, but had decisiue voyces as well as Bishops, it appeareth by their a 1.508 subscribing to the Decrees of such Synodes, in the very same forme and manner that Bishops did. So that it will be found most false and vntrue that b 1.509 Bellarmine hath, that Presbyters haue no voyces in Synodes: and the auncient forme of our Convocation here in England, wherein not onely the Arch-bishops, and Bishops, but sundry Presbyters also, as well out of Cathedrall Churches as Dioceses at large, are present, and haue decisiue voi∣ces, will clearely refute the same.

The causes that were wont to be examined and determined, in the meeting of the Bishops of the prouince, were the c 1.510 ordinations of Bishops, when any Churches were voyd, and the depriving and reiecting of all such, as were found vnworthy of their honour and place: and in a word, any complaint of wrong done in any Church, was there to be heard. d 1.511 Let the prouinciall Synodes be holden twice euery yeare, saith the Councell of Antioch, and let the Presbyters and Deacons bee present, and as many as thinke they haue beene any way hurt or wronged, there expect the determination of the Sy∣node. The power of the Metropolitane, was in calling the rest of the Bishops to the Synode, in appointing the place of their meeting, and in sitting as President in the midst of them: and so were things moderated, that e 1.512 neither the rest might proceede to doe any thing without consulting him, nor hee to doe any thing without them, but was tyed in all matters of difference to follow the maior part; and if hee neglected his dutie in convocating his brethren, that so things might bee determined by com∣mon consent, hee was by the Canons subiect to censure and punishment. Thus at first all matters were to be heard, determined, and ended by Synodes, and they holden twice euery yeare: But in processe of time when the gouernours of the Church could not conueniently assemble in Synode twice a yeare, the Fathers of the sixth f 1.513 generall Councell decreed, that yet in any case there should be a Synode of Bishops once eue∣ry yeare for Ecclesiasticall questions. Likewise the g 1.514 seventh generall Councell de∣creeth in this sort. Whereas the Canon willeth iudiciall inquisition to be made twice eue∣ry yeare by the assembly of Bishops in euery prouince, and yet for the misery and pouerty of such as should trauell to Synodes, the Fathers of the sixth councell decreed, it should be once in the yeare, anà then thinges amisse to be redressed, we renew this later Canon. So that, whereas at the first there was a Synode of Bishoppes in euery prouince twice in the yeare, now it was sufficient if the Bishops met once. But afterwards, many thinges falling out to hinder their happy meetings, we shall finde that they met not so often, and therefore the Councell of h 1.515 Basil appointeth Episcopall Synodes to be holden once euery yeare, and Prouinciall at the least once in three yeares: And so in time, cau∣ses growing many, and the difficulties intollerable in comming together, and in stay∣ing to heare these causes thus multiplyed and encreased, it was thought fitter to re∣ferre the hearing of complaints and Appeales to Metropolitanes, and such like Eccle∣siasticall Iudges, limited and directed by Canons and Imperiall lawes, then to trouble the Pastours of whole provinces, and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pa∣stours and Guides.

Thus hauing spoken of the authority of the Metropolitane and his Councell in e∣very province, it remaineth that we come to Synodes of a larger extent. These, be∣sides Oecumenicall, whereof wee will not yet speake, were of two sorts: Patriarchi∣call, wherein one of the Patriarches and chiefe Bishops of the world sate as president;

or Nationall, consisting of the Bishops of many Provinces, within one Country or Kingdome, wherein the Primate sate as President: of which sort the Councels of A∣frica were; concerning which Councels it is ordered in the third Councell of i 1.516 Car∣thage, that once euery yeare there shall be a general assembly of the Bishops of Africa, to which all the provinces which haue primas sedes, that is, first Sees, and so may holde provinciall Councels, shall out of their Councels send two Bishops, or as many as they shall thinke fit; but that out of Tripolis, because of the pouerty of the Bishops of it, one Bishop shall come. In these Councels, the Legates of the Bishop of Rome were sometimes present, not as presidents, but assistants, as other Metropolitanes were. There were many provinces which had primas sedes, that is, first Sees, and so conse∣quently many Primates; yet for distinction, some call him that was Bishop of that first See (which was in honour before all the rest of the same country and kingdome, and to whom in all common deliberations the other Metropolitans did resort) by an excel∣lency, the Primate; & the rest by the cōmon name of Metropolitans; in which sense the Bishop of Carthage was Primate of all Africa; and so is a Primate in order and honour before Metropolitanes, but inferiour vnto a Patriarch. Of this distinction of de∣grees of honour amongst Metropolitanes and chiefe Bishops, Hugo de Sancto Victore writeth in this sort: k 1.517 Post Sacerdotes altiores sunt Principes Sacerdotum, id est, Episcopi: supra quos iterum sunt Archiepiscopi: & supra illos qui dicuntur Primates: supra quos quidam Patriarchas constituere volunt: alii eosdem Patriarchas & Primates dicunt: that is, after priests we are to reckon the chiefe priests, that is, Bishops, as in the first degree and honour aboue them: aboue whom againe are Arch-Bishops, and aboue them they that are named Primates: aboue whom some will haue Patriarches to bee placed: but others will haue Patriarches and Primates to bee all one. Rabanus in his booke l 1.518 de institutione Clertcorum, sorteth Bishoppes into three rankes: Patriarches, Arch-Bishoppes, who also are named Metropolitanes: and ordinary Bishops.

CHAP. 31.

Of Patriarches who they were, and the reason why they were preferred before other Bishops.

TOuching the Patriarches, they were in the beginning but onely three: to wit, the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioche. The reason, as some thinke, why the Bishops of these places were preferred before other, and made Pa∣triarches, was in respect had to blessed Peter, who was in sort before expres∣sed, in order and honour the first and chiefest of the Apostles. For Antioche was ho∣noured, for that he sate there for a certaine space, and afterwards governed it by Euo∣dius: Alexandria for that he placed Marke his Scholler there: and Rome because it was the place of his death and martyrdome, where in his body hee stayeth and expe∣cteth the Resurrection of the dead, and the second comming of Christ. All the Chur∣ches founded by any Apostle, are rightly called Apostolique, but these more specially in which the Apostle Peter sate. a 1.519 Secunda fedes, saith Anacletus, apud Alexandriam beati Petri nomine à Marco eius discipulo consecrata est. Tertia autem sedes apud Antio∣chiam eiusdem beati Petri Apostoli habetur honorabilis; that is, The second See, and in degree and honour next vnto that of Rome, was consecrated at Alexandria, by the au∣thoritie of blessed Peter, by Marke his Scholler; and the third See honourable for Pe∣ters presence in the same, is at Antioche. b 1.520 Nihil, saith Leo writing to Anatholius, A∣lexandriae sedi, eius quam per sanctum Marcum Evangelistam beati Petri discipulum me∣ruit, pereat dignitatis. Antiochena quoque Ecclesia in quâ primum praedicante Apostolo Petro, Christianum nomen exortumest, in paternae constitutionis ordine perseveret; & in gradu tertio collocata, nunquam fiat inferior: that is, Let the See of Alexandria lose no part of that dignity which it obtained by Saint Marke the Evangelist, the disciple of blessed Peter. Let the Church of Antioche also, in which vpon Peters preaching, the name of Christians first beganne, continue in that degree and order, wherein the con∣stitution

of the Fathers set it, and being placed in the third degree, let it neuer be put lower. This did Leo write, when the Bishop of Constantinople sought to haue the second place in the Church of God, and to be preferred before the Bishops of Alexan∣dria, and Antioche. Gregory writeth to the same effect to Eulogius Bishop of Ale∣xandria. His words are. c 1.521 Cum multisint Apostoli, pro ipso tamen principatusola Apo∣stolorum Principis Sedes in authoritate conualuit, quae tribus in locis vnius est. Ipse enim sublimauit sedem, in qua etiam quiescere & praesentem vitam finire dignatus est. Ipse deco∣rauit sedemin qua Euangelistam discipulum misit. Ipse firmauit sedem, in qua septem an∣nis, quamuis discessurus sedit, Cum ergo vnius atque vna sit sedes, cui ex authoritate di∣nina tres nunc Episcopi praesident, quicquid ego de vobis boni audio, mihi imputo; that is, Whereas there were many Apostles, yet in respect of the chiefty that Peter had, as be∣ing Prince of the Apostles, his Sea only grew to be in chiefe authority, which in three places is yet the See but of one and the same Apostle. For he exalted that Sea in which he pleased to rest, and end this present life. Hee beautified that Sea in which he placed Marke his Scholer: and he firmly and strongly setled that Sea in which hee sate seauen yeares, though with purpose in the end to leaue it. When as therefore there is one See of one Apostle, in which by diuine authority three sit as presidents, whatsoeuer good I heare of you, I impute it to my selfe. And againe in the same place to Eulogius, hauing spoken to him of the dignitie of Peters chaire in which he sate, he saith: He hath spo∣ken to me of Peters chaire, who himselfe sitteth on Peters chaire. This is the opini∣on of these Romane Bishops, touching the reason of the exaltation of the Seas of Rome, Alexandria and Antioche aboue other Episcopall Seas; who, how partially soeuer they may be thought to be affected to the chaire of Peter, yet herein do they mainly crosse the conceipt of the Romanists at this day, in that they teach that other Bishops succeede Peter in the chaire, and that chiefty and primacy he had, as well as the Bishop of Rome.

The dignity of these 3 Apostolicall Churches was cōfirmed in the Nicene Councell; and each of them confined within the ancient bounds and limits thereof. d 1.522 Let the anci∣ent custome, say the Nicene Fathers, continue in Aegypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria may haue power ouer all these; seeing the Bishop of Rome hath the like custome. In like sort in Antioche, and other prouinces, let euery Church retaine and keepe her owne degree and honour. e 1.523 Bellarmine much troubleth him∣selfe about this limitation and bounding of these Patriarches, as preiudiciall to the illimited iurisdiction of the Romane Bishop: and therefore though it be most cleare that there was a particular assignation of Churches to euery of these Patriarches, yet hee seeketh to auoyd the euidence of these words. For whereas f 1.524 Ruffinus sayth, it was decreede by the Councell of Nice, that the Bishop of Alexandria should haue care and charge ouer Aegypt, as the Bishop of Rome hath of the Churches neere that city; and Theodorus Balsamon in the explication of the Nicene canons, with Nilus in his booke against the primacie interpreteth the words of the Nicene decree in this sense, that the Bishoppe of Alexandria should haue the charge of Aegypt, Lybia, and Pen∣tapolis, and the confirming of the Metropolitanes in those parts, because the Bishop of Rome, who hath a care of the West, confirmeth the Metropolitanes of the West; hee maketh this construction of the words of the councell: Let the Bishop of A∣lexandria haue the charge of Aegypt, seeing the Bishoppe of Rome was wont to per∣mitte him soe to haue, before any Councell had decreed it. And soe, hee sayth, Nicolas the Pope in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour vnderstandeth the words; which yet is most vntrue: for Nicolas sayth no such thing, but onely that the Coun∣cell maketh the custome of the Romane Church the patterne for others to follow. But the g 1.525 eight generall Councell, which no doubt vnderstood the words of the Nicene Fathers farre better then Bellarmine, sheweth plainely, that the meaning of the Ni∣cene Canon was, that the Bishop of Alexandria should haue power ouer Aegypt, and the prouinces pertaining to it, to confirme the Metropolitanes in the same, seeing the like custome preuaileth in the Romane Church; And this Councell confirmeth the same distinction of the bounds of iurisdiction, within which euery Patriarch is to con∣taine

himselfe, both for old Rome and new, and for the other Churches of Alexandria and Antioche. The Canons of the Nicene Councell translated out of the Arabian tongue, and published by Turrian, Pisanus, and Binnius, will fully cleare this point, if our Aduersaries giue any credit vnto them. * 1.526 For in the eighth of those Ca∣nons, the decree, about the meaning whereof wee contend, is thus set downe: Constitutum est, vt Episcopus Aegypti, id est, Patriarcha Alexandrinus, praesideat & habeat potestatem totius Aegypti: that is, It is ordained that the Bishop of Aegypt, that is, the Patriarch of Alexandria, shall sit as President, and haue power ouer all Aegypt, and ouer all places, Citties and Townes which are round about it: because soe it is fit, and because likewise the Bishop of Rome, that is the Successour of Peter the A∣postle, hath power ouer all the Citties and places which are about Rome. And in like sort let the Bishop of ANTIOCH haue power ouer that whole prouince, &c. But because perhaps these Canons, though published by themselues, as rare se∣crets of Antiquity lately brought to light, will be of litle credit with them, I will adde one reason more, which to me seemeth very forcible to confirme our interpretation of the words of the Nicene Fathers. h 1.527 There was aunciently a great contention betweene the Church of Rome, and the Church of Constantinople, about the Churches of Bulgaria, either of these Churches making claime thereunto, and seeking to bring them within the compasse of their owne Iurisdiction: which contention could not haue beene, if the one of these two Churches had had an illimited extent of Iurisdicti∣on. But that neither of them had any such illimited Iurisdiction, it is euident, in that neither Constantinople, nor Rome, vrge any such thing for iustification of their claime, but stand vpon their conuerting of the people of Bulgaria to the Christian faith, and the planting of religion amongst them. Which either of these pretending rather then other, sought thereby to iustifie a title of iurisdiction, and authority ouer them.

Wherefore resoluing that we haue the true meaning of the Nicene canon, let vs re∣turne thither whence we haue a litle digressed, namely to the discourse of Patriarchical Churches and Bishops set in order and honour before all other. These as I haue already shewed, were at first but three, to which afterwards two other were added: First Constantinople, and afterwards Hierusalem. Touching the Church and Bishop of Con∣stantinople, after that city was by Constantine made the seate of the Empire, and thereby as much or more honoured then any city in the world, the Bishop thereof, before little esteemed, grew exceeding great: and in the second Councell, which was the first of i 1.528 Constantinople, was made a Patriarch in degree of honour next the Bishop of Rome, and before the other two: And againe in the Councell of k 1.529 Chalcedon, confirmed in the same. And though Leo resisted against this act of the Councell of Chalcedon, and pe∣remptorily protested, that he would not suffer the Church of Alexandria to loose the dignity of the second See, and the Church of Antioch of the third; and his successours many of them persisted in the same resistance; yet they were forced in the end to giue way to the exaltation of the Constantinopolitane Church; so that after the time of Iusti∣nian the Emperour, they neuer made any more words about this matter. Whereby we see, that to be true of Hierome, l 1.530 Orbis maior est vrbe; that is, The world is greater then any one city of the world, though Rome it selfe. The Church of Hierusalem, as being the place of Christs passion, & whence the preaching of the Gospell tooke beginning, was euer much honoured; yet was it not so much as a Metropolitane Church at the first; but the B: & Clergy there of were subiect to the Bishop of Caesarea, as their Metropolitane, & the Bishop of Antioch as their Patriarch; as Hierome writing to Pammachius against Iohn of Hierusalem testifieth: And thereupon Leo m 1.531 writing to Maximus Bishop of An∣tioch, blameth Iuuenall Bishop of Hierusalem for seeking to subiect Palaestina to him∣selfe, & chargeth him with insolent boldnesse for that attempt. But the n 1.532 Fathers of the fifth generall Councell thought good to honour the Church of Hierusalem, where Christ suffered, and rose againe from death: and therefore whereas the Bishoppe thereof had formerly but a bare title, and a preeminence in sitting before other, they made him a Patriarch in order the fifth; and that hee might haue Metropoli∣tanes

subject vnto him, they tooke some parts of the Diocese of Alexandria, and Antioche from the Bishops of those Churches, and put them vnder him: So that now we haue fiue Patriarches of the Christian Church. Touching these, the o 1.533 eighth gene∣rall Councell taketh order, that no man shall offer any indignity to any of them. To these they were wont to wish all prosperitie and long life in the conclusion of their Councels. Without these, no Councell was holden to bee full and perfect. These might convocate the Metropolitanes of their seuerall divisions, and holde a Pa∣triarchicall Councell, which was of greater authoritie then either those in the seuerall provinces, or of a whole Nation, formerly mentioned, because it consisted of more, and more honourable Bishops: yet had the Patriarches no greater authoritie ouer the Metropolitanes within their larger circuites, then the Metropolitanes within their lesser compasse. These were by the order of the p 1.534 eighth generall Councell, to confirme the Metropolitanes subject vnto them, either by imposition of hands, or giuing the Pall: but inferiour Bishops they might not meddle with, but were to leaue them to the ordering of their Metropolitanes.

CHAP. 32.

How the Pope succeedeth Peter: what of right belongeth to him: and what it is that he vniustly claimeth.

VVE deny not but that blessed Peter had a kinde of primacie of honour and order, that in respect thereof, as all Metropolitanes doe suceede him, as being greater then other Bishops in honour and place; so the Patriarches yet more specially: and amongst them the Romane Bi∣shops in the first place. We will not therefore put our Adversaries to so much paines, as some other haue done, to proue, that Peter was at Rome; that he dyed there, and that the Bishop of Rome succeedeth him. But this is it which we say, that he succeeded him in the Bishopricke of that Citie, and in the honour of being one of the prime Bi∣shops of the world, as the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioche likewise did: but not in the condition of being vniversall Bishop, that is, such a one in whom all Episcopall power and authority is originally invested: from whom it is deriued to others: and who may limite and restraine the vse of it in other, as seemeth good vnto himselfe. Por Peter was not such an Apostle, but had only a joint commission with the rest, who were put into it immediatly by Christ as well as he, though hee were in some sort the first man in it.

We deny not therefore to the Romane Bishop his due place among the prime Bi∣shops of the World, if therewith he will rest contented: but vniuersall Bishop in sort before expressed, we dare by no meanes admit him to be, knowing right well, that eue∣ry Bishop hath in his place, and keeping his owne standing, power and authority im∣mediatly from Christ, which is not to be restrained or limited by any, but by the com∣pany of Bishops: wherein though one be chiefe for order sake, and to preserue vnity, & in such sort, that all things must take their beginning from him, yet he can do nothing without them.

The Bishop of Constantinople, as I haue alreadie noted, in the time of the second ge∣nerall Councell, obtained to be one of the foure Patriarches, by reason of the greatnes of his Church and citie: and in the fourth holden at Chalcedon, to haue equall privi∣ledges with the Bishop of Rome: but not contenting himselfe long with this equality, soone after he sought to be aboue him, and would be called vniversall Bishop, seeking thereby to subiect to himselfe all other Bishops and Churches: in which proud claime he was resisted by Gregory the 1, who professeth, a 1.535 that whosoeuer assumeth this title, ouerthroweth the dignity & honour of all other Bishops, in his pride is like Lucifer, & may rightly be thought to be a fore-runner of Antichrist. Paul the Apostle, saith Greg. when he heard certain men say, I am of Paul, I am of Apollo, & I of Cephas, trembling, &

quaking exceedingly, to heare and see this tearing and renting asunder of the Lords body, through which his members joyned themselues in companies factiously vnto other heads, cryed out aloud saying, Was Paul crucified for you? or were yee baptized in the name of Paul? In such sort therefore did hee decline the particular subiecting of the members of the Lords body to certaine Heads, as it were, besides Christ, yea though they were the Apostles themselues. And what wilt thou be able to answere to Christ the Head of the vniuersall Church in the tryall of the last Iudgement, which goest about by assuming the title of vniuersall Bishoppe, to put vnder thy selfe all the members of his mysticall body? Who is it, I pray thee, whom thou proposest to thy selfe for imitation, in taking to thee so perverse a title, but hee who despi∣sing the Legions of Angells, joyned with him in society as companions, sought to climbe vp aboue them to the heighth of singularity, that neither hee might seeme to bee vnder any, nor any might bee found ouer whom hee was not: who also said, I will ascend into heauen, I will exalt my throne aboue the Starres of heauen, I will sit in the mountaine of the testament, in the sides of the North; I will ascend aboue the heighth of the cloudes, and will bee like vnto the most high. For what are thy brethren, all the Bishoppes of the vniuersall Church, but the starres of Heauen; whose life, and tongue or speech, doe shine in the midst of the sinnes and errours of men, as it were in the midst of the darkenesse of the night; whose name and honour while thou see∣mest to trample vnder thy feete, in that thou seekest by this title of pride to preferre thy selfe before them, what else doest thou say, but I will ascend into heauen, and ex∣alt my seate aboue the Starres of heauen? Are not all the Bishoppes of the Church; cloudes, who by the wordes of their preaching powre downe the graces of GOD like showers of raine, and shine through the light of good workes, whom whiles your brotherhood despising seeketh to bring vnder it selfe, what other thing doth it say but this, which is said of the old enemy, I will ascend aboue the heighth of the cloudes? And a little after, the same Gregory addeth: Surely Peter the Apostle was the first member of the holy and vniuersall Church: Paul, Andrew, and Iohn, what other thing are they but heads of particular parts of the people and Church of God? and yet notwithstanding they are all members of the Church vnder one head. Thus doth this holy man and worthy Bishop dislike, that any amongst the Bishops of the Christian Church, should bee so proud and insolent, as to seeke to bee ouer all, and subiect to none; to subiect vnto himselfe all the members of Christ, as to a head, and to challenge vnto himselfe to bee vniuersall Bishoppe: b 1.536 for that if any such bee, if hee fall into errour or heresie hee draweth all other with him, and ouerthroweth the state of the whole church. Yet doe the Romane Bishoppes at this day, take all these thinges vnto themselues: for they subiect all Christs members to themselues, as to Heads of the vniuersall church, vpon perill of euerlasting damnation: they will bee subiect to none, or haue any to bee ouer them, so that all depends of them, their standing is the stay of all, and their fall the ruine of all; and if they erre, all erre.

But perhaps it will be said, that the name of vniuersall Bishop is not simply euill, nor these claimes simply to be disliked; but when they are made by them to whom it pertaineth not to make them, such as the Bishops of Constantinople were. Surely this evasion will not serue the turne. For Gregory saith in the same place, that no Bishop of Rome euer assumed this title, ne dum priuatum aliquid darétur vni, honore debito Sa∣cerdotes priuarentur vniuersi: that is, Lest while some singular thing were giuen to one, all Bishops should be depriued of their due honour: thereby shewing, that this ti∣tle, and the claimes accompanying it, are simply to bee disliked, as preiudiciall to the state of the whole Church, & the honour & dignity of all other Bishops, by whomso∣euer they be made. Some man perhaps will be desirous to know, how our Aduersaries seeke to decline the evidence of this cleare testimony of so great a Romane Bishoppe, witnessing against them in a matter of so great consequence. I will therefore set downe briefly in this place, what I find any where said by any of them in answere to this authority. The credit of the Author is such, that they dare take no exception a∣against

him; and the generality of his speech is such, that what he disliketh in the Con∣stantinopolitane Bishop, he confesseth to be euill in any other, and particularly in the Bi∣shop of Rome. And therefore the onely thing that they can deuise, whereby to darken the cleare light of truth, is this; that the Bishop of Constantinople did so, and in such sence challenge to be vniuersall Bishop, that hee onely would haue beene a Bishop, and there should haue beene no more; then which nothing could be more absurdly sayd. For the thing that the Romane Bishops disliked in those of Constantinople, was not the putting of all other from being Bishops, but the preferring themselues before other, the subjecting of other to themselues, the incroching vpon the priuileges and rights of other, and the challenging of the power of ordination, and confirmation of them, whom it pertained not to them to ordaine or confirme; as appeareth by the Epistles of c 1.537 Leo, blaming Anotolius for subjecting all vnto himselfe, for depriuing other Metropolitanes of their due honour, by encroaching vpon their rights, and for taking vpon him to ordaine the Bishop of Antioch, who was one of the Patriarches. That the Bishops of Constantinople sought not so to be vniuer all Bishops, that there should be no other Bishops but they only, is most euident by the Epistles of Leo and d 1.538 Grego∣rie, in that they ordained Bishops themselues, and are blamed by them for presu∣ming to ordaine such as they should not haue ordained. Wherefore the most that they can be conceiued to haue desired, and sought in assuming the title of vniuersality, is no more but the inuesting of the fulnesse of all power and jurisdiction Ecclesiasti∣call originally in themselues, and thereby the subjecting of all other to a necessity of deriuing ministeriall power and authority from them; of seeking ordination at their hands, and being in all things pertaining to Episcopall office subiect to them: all which things are challenged by the Bishop of Rome, For the Romanists at this day teach, that the fulnesse of all power and jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall is originally in the Pope, & that he communicateth a part thereof vnto others, with such limitations as seemeth best vnto himselfe; that all other Bishops receiue their jurisdiction from him; that all the Bishops of the world cannot iudge him: that hee may dispose of all the king∣domes of the world, that his standing is the stay of all: that his fall would be the ruine of all: and that therefore we must perswade our selues hee cannot erre. And hence indeed it followeth, that he onely is Bishop in truth, and that there are no other. For if the Pope may take from any Bishop, so often as he seeth cause, as many as he pleaseth of them that are subject to him: if hee may reserue vnto himselfe what cases he will, and inhibite Bishops to meddle with them: if hee may giue leaue to preach, minister Sacraments, and to do all other Ecclesiasticall duties, to whom he will, within any Di∣ocese of the world: if in generall councels, where the power of jurisdiction is princi∣pally exercised, where the great affaires of the Church are treated of, where doubts are resolued, controuersies determined, articles of faith defined, and lawes made that bind the whole Church, he haue so absolute power, that he is neither bound to follow the greater, nor the lesser part of Bishops there present, but may determine what hee pleaseth, when they haue all done, & sayd what they can. If the assurance of finding out the truth, and decreeing that which is good & behoofefull, rest not partly in him, & partly in them, but only in him, as our Aduersaries teach: then are Bishops indeed no Bishops: no judges of controuersies, but counsellers only to aduise the Pope: no Law∣giuers to the Church, but such as must receiue lawes from the Pope: no commaunders in their own right in the Church in any degree, but meere Lieuetenantes, or, to speake more truly and properly, vassals to the Pope.

CHAP. 33.

Of the proofes brought by the Romanists, for confirmation of the vniversality of the Popes iurisdiction and power.

IT is euident by that which hath beene said, that that vniuersality, whereof Gregory speaketh in his Epistles, and which he so peremptorily condemneth, is claimed by the Popes his successours, at this day; and consequently, that they are in his judg∣ment the fore-runners of Antichrist, and in pride like Lucifer. Yet because there is nothing so absurd, that some will not defend; nothing so false, which some will not en∣deauour to proue true: let vs see what the Romanists can say for proofe and confirma∣tion of the vniuersall Iurisdiction of their Popes. Surely as men carefull to vphold the state of the Papacy, vnder the shadow of the boughes of which tree they so sweetly rest, and repose themselues, they haue turned ouer their bookes to see what may bee said, and out of them alleage against vs the testimonies of Councels, Popes, Fathers Greeke and Latine, and the practise of Popes, whence such a peerelesse power may bee proued and inferred.

The first testimony that they bring out of any Councell, is out of the a 1.539 Epistle writ∣ten by the Fathers of the second generall Councell to Damasus Bishop of Rome, & the other Bishops of the west; wherein the Fathers say, (if we beleeue these men) that they came together to Constantinople by the mandate of the Pope, whose letters the Empe∣rour sent vnto them: and confesse, that the Romane Church is the head, and they the members. Truely this is a very ill beginning, and may make vs justly feare, that we shall find little good dealing in that which followeth. For there is no part of this true, which, in the front of all their proofes, is by them so confidently alleaged. For thus the matter standeth betweene the Fathers of that Councell, and the Bishop of Rome. The Bishops assembled at Constantinople writ to the Bishop of Rome, and the rest of the Bishops of the West assembled in a Councell at Rome, signifying, that they had beene invited by them out of their brotherly loue, as their owne members, to come to their Councell; and that they wished nothing more, then that they had the wings of doues, that they might flye away, and rest with them; but that the state of their Chur∣ches not permitting them to be so long absent, and that intending at the time they vn∣derstood of their letters, to come no farther then Constantinople, they could not come, but had sent notwithstanding certaine vnto them. This is all that is contained in the letter of those Fathers written to the Bishop of Rome: in all which there is no word of any mandate of the Pope, but of a friendly and louing entreatie of the Westerne Bi∣shops, desiring the presence of their brethren of the East; no word of head and mem∣bers, but of fellow members, nor any thing that may proue a commaunding power in the Pope. Nay, the contrary is most strongly from hence to be proued. * 1.540 For it was the Emperour, and not the Pope, that called them to Constantinople: they refused to come to Rome, though they had receiued the letters of the Romane Bishop, and his colleagues, intreating and desiring them to come to Rome, they abode at Constantinople, and were esteemed to bee the Generall Councell, though the Pope held a Councell in the West at the same time, which should haue beene accounted generall, rather then this, if all assurance of finding out the trueth, and making good Lawes, did rest in the Pope onely. And lastly, they ordained Bishoppes of the greatest and most famous Churches of the world, such, and in such sort, as the Pope did not greatly like, and yet was forced to giue way to their doings, and to ratifie that which they had done.

The 2^d allegation to proue the vniversalitie of the Popes jurisdiction, is, b 1.541 that the Fathers of the 3^d general Councell, holden at Ephesus, professed, that they deposed Ne∣storius by force of the mandatory letters of Caelestinus B. of Rome, & that in their epistle to Caelestinus they say, they reserued the judgement of the cause of Iohn Patriarch of Antioch to him, as being more doubtfull. The former of these two things

they endeauour to proue out of c 1.542 Euagrius; the later out of the Epistle written by the Fathers of that Councell, extant in the Councell it selfe. For the clearing of this ob∣jection wee must obserue, that d 1.543 Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople, hauing vttered certaine hereticall, and impious speeches, touching the personall vnion of the natures of God and Man in Christ, whereby many were scandalized, the first amongst the Patriarches that tooke notice of it, was Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria in Aegypt; who after he found, that Nestorius would not bee reclaimed by admonitions, called a Sy∣node of his Bishops, and condemned the absurd and hereticall positions of Nestorius, and required him to anathematize them, otherwise threatning, that hee and his Bi∣shops, would reiect him from their communion, and hold them as brethren who vn∣der his iurisdiction resisted against him. This his proceeding hee signified to the Bishop of Rome, who approved and commended the same; & with his whole Synode of westerne Bishops encouraged him to goe forward, wishing him not to doubt of his concurrence with him, but as hauing all the authority and power hee and his Bi∣shops had, to prouide for the church of Constantinople, and to let Nestorius know, that he was cut off from the vnity of the body of their Churches, if hee should not within a certaine number of dayes anathematize his wicked doctrine, and professe the faith touching the generation of Christ the Sonne of God, which the Romane Church, the Church of Alexandria, and Christian religion euery where preacheth. Hereupon Nestorius, fearing the course that Cyrill would take against him, desired the Empe∣rour to summon a generall Councell. To this Councell came Nestorius, and the Bishops that were vnder him: and Cyrill, with his Bishops, assisted with the concur∣rence of the resolution and direction of the Bishop of Rome, and other Bishoppes of the West, though absent; But Iohn the Patriarch of Antioche and his Bishops were not come. Whereupon after a while, the Bishops that were present, being wearie of staying there, beganne to proceede without him, requiring Nestorius to appeare in the Synode, and to answere to such things as should bee obiected to him; Which when hee refused to doe, the Fathers assembled, finding by manifest proofe, that hee had taught impiously, condemned, and deposed him, compelled so to doe by the Ca∣nons, and the letters of the Bishop of Rome, and his westerne Bishops, who had set a time, within which if hee submitted not himselfe, they would reiect him from their communion. Fiue dayes after the condemnation and deposition of Nestorius, came Iohn the Patriarch of Antioche with his Bishops, excusing himselfe for his long tar∣rying in respect of the distance of the place from whence he came, as also for that his Bishops could not sooner be gathered together. Hee was much offended, that they who were come before him had passed their sentence before his comming; and there∣vpon without delay, before he had put off his cloake, or shaken off the dust from his feete, as the storie saith, assembling the Bishops subiect to him in a Synode, deposed * 1.544 Cyrill and Memnon Bishop of Ephesus, who were chiefe agents in the proceedings against Nestorius. Which deposition of Cyrill and Memnon, was something hastily confirmed by the Emperour Theodosius. The Synode assembled vnder Cyrill, in like sort gaue sentence against Iohn, and signified to Caelestinus Bishop of Rome, what they had done, shewing how vnaduisedly a few had presumed to condemne a great many, and the Bishop of the third See, Bishops of greater Sees, to wit, Cyrill of Alexandria, and Caelestinus of Rome, who was present in the Councell by his Vicegerent: yet re∣ferring the finall proceeding to his consideration also, hee and his Bishops being as much interessed in this businesse, as they that were assembled. In the end by media∣tion of many great and worthy ones, Iohn and his Bishops, that formerly were mis∣conceited of Cyrill, were satisfied, and he sent the confession of his faith vnto him; which he approued, and so they were reconciled, and made friends without any far∣ther intermedling of the Bishop of Rome. Here is nothing to be found, that any way argueth or importeth an vniuersality of power in the Bishop of Rome, but onely his concurrence with the other Patriarches, as prime Patriarch, in the waighty and im∣portant businesses of the Church: and therefore the f 1.545 Fathers of that Councell wri∣ting to the Vicars of the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops, sent by them to the Em∣perour,

to informe him concerning the differences that had arisen in the Councell, and their proceedings, charge and require them to doe nothing but according to their di∣rection; assuring them, that if they doe otherwise, they will neither ratifie that they doe, nor admit them to their communion: Thereby shewing, that though the Romane Bishop be to concurre with the Fathers assembled in Councells, yet he is not abso∣lutely there to commaund, but to follow the directions of the Maior part. So that he hath a joynt interest with others, but not an absolute Soueraignty ouer all others; God therefore hauing ordained the high toppes of Patriarchicall dignities (as it is in the eighth generall g 1.546 Councell) that they might iointly concurre to vphold the state of the Church, and the truth of Religion; and that if one fell, the rest might restore, settle, and reestablish things againe: Which course h 1.547 Cyrill in his Epistle to Iohn of Antioche sheweth to haue beene holden by him. For when he obserued that Ne∣storius his fellow Patriarch erred from the faith, he first admonished him, and threat∣ned to reiect him from the communion of his Churches. Secondly, he acquainted the Bishop of Rome and the Westerne Bishops with the impieties and blasphemies of Ne∣storius; who thereupon reiected him, professing that they would admitte none to their communion, but such as would condemne him. Thirdly, he wrote to Iuvenall Bishop of Hierusalem, and to Iohn Bishop of Antioche, shewing his owne dislike of Nestorius, and farther professing, that for his part hee was fearefull to be cast out of the communion of the Westerne Bishoppes, as hee saw he must be, if he accursed not Nestorius.

The next allegation is out of the Councell of i 1.548 Chalcedon, where Theodorus and Ischiron, Deacons, in their bils of complaint exhibited to the Bishop of Rome as pre∣sident, and to the whole Councell, call Leo the Bishop, Most holy and most blessed vniuersall Arch-bishop, and Patriarch of great Rome. But they that presse the testi∣mony of these two distressed Deacons, flying to Leo for helpe, should remember, that in the Councell of k 1.549 Constantinople vnder Mennas, not Deacons, but Bishops, & they many, are reported to haue written to the Bishop of Constantinople in this sort: To our most holy Lord, and most blessed Father of Fathers, Iohn, the Archbishop, and vniuersall Patriarch; and l 1.550 Mennas himselfe also is called Oecumenicall Patriarch, & Archbishop, oftentimes in that Councell of Constantinople: and yet, I thinke, they will not acknowledge the Bishops of Constantinople to haue had an vniuersall, supreme commaunding power ouer the whole world.

Herevnto therefore they adde another proofe, out of the relation of the m 1.551 Councell of Chalcedon made to Leo; wherein the Fathers complaine of Dioscorus, that as a wilde Boare he had violently entred into the vineyard of the Lord, and wasted the same, plucking vp the true fruitfull vines, and planting vnfruitfull in their places; and that hee stayed not there, but reached out his hand against him to whom the keeping of the vineyard was committed by our Sauiour, that is, against the Bishop of Rome, whom hee thought to excommunicate. These words wee willingly confesse, to bee words of iust complaint, vpon great cause made by the Fathers of the Councell, a∣gainst Dioscorus; but they proue not the thing in question. For wee make no doubt, but the keeping of the vineyard of the Lord of hosts was committed to the Bishop of Rome, not onely as well as to other, but in the first place, as being in order and honour the chiefe: But that he onely receiued from Christ this power, authority & charge, and others from him, not we onely, but many learned amongst themselues doe denie, as n 1.552 Bellarmine testifieth.

There are two other testimonies that may be alleaged out of the Councell of Chal∣cedon. For Paschasinus, one of the Vicegerents of the Bishop of Rome in that Coun∣cell, calleth o 1.553 Rome the head of the churches, and p 1.554 Leo the Bishop of Rome, head of the vniuersall Church. But they who presse so much the saying of the Popes Legate in fauour of the Pope, must know, that by head hee meant chiefe in order and honour, and not one hauing all power originally in himselfe, and absolutely commaunding o∣uer all, as the Papists now teach. For if he had meant so, he had not been endured by the Fathers of that Councell, who peremptorily pronounce, q 1.555 that it was the great∣nesse

of the citie, and not any power giuen by Christ or deriued to him from Peter, that made the Bishop of Rome to be great; & that therefore they would equall the Bi∣shop of Constantinople vnto him, seeing Constantinople was now become equall vnto Rome.

The next testimony that they alleage, is out of the Patriarchicall Councell of r 1.556 Con∣stantinople vnder Mennas, wherein the Fathers professe by Mennas their president, that they follow and obey the Apostolique See, that they communicate with them with whom that See communicateth, and condemne all those it condemneth. Surely, this reason, howsoeuer it may seeme to haue some force, yet indeed hath none at all. For there is no question, but that the Bishop of Rome with his Westerne Synods, all which according to the phrase of Antiquity, are comprehended vnder the name of the Apo∣stolique See, was more to be esteemed then the particular Synode vnder Mennas; and that therefore they might professe to follow it, and obey the decrees of it; and yet nei∣ther thinke the Pope to bee vniuersall Bishop, nor that the Bishop of Rome with his Westerne Bishops, is more to be listned vnto, and obeyed, then all the other Bishops of the Christian World. That s 1.557 Adrian the Bishop of Rome, in his Epistle to Thara∣sius inserted into the seuenth generall Councell, saith, that the See of Rome hath the primacie throughout the whole world, and is the head of all Churches (which is the last allegation of Bellarmine out of Councels) is no more then wee granted before, if it be rightly vnderstood of a primacie of order and honour, and not of an vniversall, su∣preme, commaunding power ouer all.

This is all that Bellarmine can alledge out of any auncient Councell: in which his allegations, it will not be amisse for the Reader to obserue his guilefull cunning: who vndertaking to produce the testimonies of auncient Councels for confirmation of the Papacie, bringeth nothing for the most part, but the words of particular men: and they either sutors to the Pope, agents for him, or Popes. To that which hee hath out of latter Councels, as that of Laterane vnder Innocentius, and that of Lyons, and Florence, I will answere when I come to shew the opinions of latter times tou∣ching the Popes vniversality of jurisdiction and power, and therefore will passe them ouer in this place.

CHAP. 34.

Of the pretended proofes of the Popes Iurisdiction, taken out of the Decretall E∣pistles of Popes.

THE next proofes that are brought for confirmation of the vniversalitie of Papall jurisdiction, are the sayings of Popes in their Decretall Epistles. These Epistles a 1.558 Bellarmine sorteth into three rankes, placing in the first the Epistles of those Popes that liued within the first 300 yeares: in the second, the Epi∣stles of those that liued after the first 600 yeares: and in the third, the Epistles of such as came in the midst betweene these.

Touching the first, he confesseth, that certaine errours haue crept into them, and that he dareth not pronounce them to be indubitate: but Cardinall Cusanus, a man of great learning, reading, and judgement, minseth not the matter, as Bellarmine doth, but plainely and in direct words professeth, that he thinketh these Epistles that goe vnder

the names of auncient Popes, are counterfeit. His words are these. b 1.559 In my opi∣nion, the things that are written of Constantine and his donation, are Apocryphall, as also perhaps some other long and large writings, attributed to the holy men Clemens and Anacletus the Pope, on which, they that desire to magnifie the Romane See, which is worthy of all honour, and to exalt it more then either is expedient for the Church, or is any way fit, doe either altogether, or in some sort ground themselues. For assuredly, if any man would diligently reade ouer and peruse all the writings at∣tributed to those holy men, and compare the times wherein they liued with those writings, and then would be conversant in the workes of all the holy Fathers, which

were till the time of Augustine, Hierome, and Ambrose, and in the bookes of Councels, wherein authenticall writings are alleaged, committing them to memory, & making vse of thē, he would find this to be true, that neither any mētion is made of those fore∣named Epistles in any of those writings, nor that the epistles compared with the times wherein their supposed authors liued, can be made to agree with the times of their life; but by the very circumstance of time bewray themselues to be coun∣terfeit. It is written in the Epistles of Clemens, how he was made Pope and succeded Peter: and after the death of Peter, the author of these Epistles writeth vnto Iames, who was brother of our Lord and Bishop of Hierusalem: and yet it is most manifest that the same Iames died eight yeares before Peter, which was one of the causes (as Beda writeth in his commentaries vpon the Canonicall Epistles) why the Epistle of Iames is set first among the Catholique Epistles. Neither is this the censure of Cusa∣nus

onely, but c 1.560 Contius a learned Canonist, in his annotations vpon Gratian, feareth not to pronounce all the decretall Epistles, that go vnder the names of such Bishops, as liued before Syluester, to be false and counterfeit. Besides these censures of learned men, there want not strong and effectuall reasons to disproue these Epistles. For first, they will easily appeare to be counterfeit, because they are barbarously, and rudely writ∣ten, and are not like the writings of those men, that liued in the times wherein the supposed authors of those Epistles did liue, but like the writings of such as liued in later and worse times, after Barbarisme had preuailed and ouerflowne all. Secondly, because the style is so different from those indubitate remainders of the Epistles of the same Popes, found in d 1.561 Cyprian, e 1.562 Eusebius, and f 1.563 Athanasius, that they cannot be but counterfeit: For whosoeuer shall compare them, shall find them to differ as much as gold and drosse. Thirdly, for that all these supposed Epistles are soe like one ano∣ther in style, and oftentimes haue the verie same sentences, that it is very likely they came all from one and the same forge. Fourthly, because neither Eusebius, Hie∣rome, nor any other auncient writer maketh any mention of them. Fiftly, because they follow not the old translatiō in their allegations of Scripture, but that of Hierome, which was not in being in those times, wherein the supposed Authors of these Epistles did liue. Lastly, which is the reason before vsed by g 1.564 Cusanus, because the Epistle to Iames written after the death of Peter, as appeareth in the front of it, and soe conse∣quently after the twelfth yeare of Nero, could not be written to Iames the brother of our Lord, who, as h 1.565 Hierome testifieth, was slaine at Hierusalem in the seauenth yeare of Nero. But whatsoeuer become of the censure of learned men branding these E∣pistles with the note of forgery, and the reasons brought to disproue them, which can∣not easily be answered; yet Bellarmine will proue, that these Epistles are mentioned by the ancient, and consequently, that the i 1.566 Centurie-writers say vntruly, that hardly any shall be found before the time of Charles the great, that speaketh any thing of them. To this purpose he produceth Isidore, in his preface before his collection of the Councels, affirming, that he gathered Canons out of the Epistles of Clemens, Anacle∣tus, Euaristus, and the rest of the Romane Bishops, by the aduice of eightie Bishops; but this is to justifie one counterfeit by another; For this preface is thought to be counterfeit, because in it there is mention made of the sixt generall Councell vnder A∣gatho, whereas Isidore was dead forty yeares before the holding of that Councell. Wherefore he alleageth the Councell of Vase, as mentioning the same decretals. But the decrees of that Councell are vncertaine, as k 1.567 Binnius noteth, by reason of the great confusion that is found in them: and truly, I thinke, there is noe man that can make a∣ny sence of that which is cited out of Clements Epistles by that Councell. Therefore in the third place he addeth Ruffinus, who in his preface before his translation of the re∣cognitions of Clemens out of Greeke, speaketh of an Epistle of Clement vnto Iames the brother of our Lord, and sayth, hee turned it out of Greeke into Latine: and this, sayth Bellarmime which we haue, is vndoubtedly the same that he translated, as may be proued out of l 1.568 Gennadius: therefore the Epistle that is now carried about vnder the the name of Clemens, is ancient, and not late or counterfeit. But that these Philistines may fall by their owne sword, wee will oppose against Bellarmine the Cardinall, Ba∣ronius the Cardinall, against the Romane reader of controuersies, the Romane Annalist.

For m 1.569 Baronius proueth out of n 1.570 Gennadius, whom Bellarmine alleageth, that these Epistles wee haue, are not the same that Ruffinus translated, because those hee transla∣ted had prefaces before them, but this of Clement hath none. Thus wee see the E∣pistles of the Popes of the first 300 yeares, proue nothing, because they are coun∣terfeite.

Of them that were written by such as liued after the first 600 yeares, I shall haue a fitte opportunity to speake in another place. Wherefore let vs come to those of the middle ranke, where Bellarmine produceth twelue auncient Bishoppes of Rome, clay∣ming that supreme, absolute, and commaunding authority ouer the whole Church, which we deny.

The first of the twelue, is Iulius the first, in his Epistle extant in the second Apo∣logie of Athanasius. The witnesse is good, and wee will not except against him, but hee deposeth directly against them that produce him; neither is there any better evi∣dence to bee desired, then this his Epistle. For the Bishops of the East hauing writ∣ten to Iulius, and blamed him for communicating with such as they reiected, & go∣ing about to reuerse the acts which they had agreed on; and hauing told him, that the greatnesse of citties maketh not the power of Bishoppes to bee the greater: and that therefore he should not takē on him to bee greater then other Bishops, and to vndoe that which they had done, because he was Bishop of a greater citty then any of them was; hee answereth modestly in this his Epistle, that hee hopeth hee offendeth not in desiring them to come to a Synode, that therein their proceedings might bee exami∣ned; seeing the Nicene Councell appointeth the acts of one Counecll to be reëxami∣ned in another. Secondly he sheweth, that they whom they sent to informe him & the Westerne Bishops, touching their proceedings against Athanasius, being conui∣cted by the Presbyters of Athanasius, desired him to call a Councell of his owne Bi∣shops, and to write to Athanasius, and those of Eusebius part to come vnto the same; wherein they doubted not, but they should proue the things they had alleaged. Third∣ly, he sheweth that if without the sollicitation of their Agents he had desired them to meete in Councell, it had beene no fault, nor any way preiudiciall vnto them. Fourth∣ly, that they who will not haue their proceedings reëxamined contemne Councels, by admitting such as were condemned by the Nicene Councell; that Athanasius was not condemned at Tyrus; that he was not present when he was condemned at Mare∣otta; and that many wrote in his defence, to him & the other Bishops of the West; & that yet he foreiudged nothing, but would haue had matters defined in a Coūcel. Fift∣ly, he sheweth that though he wrote alone, yet he reported not his own opinion only, but of all the Bishops of Italy, and the countries thereabout. Lastly, he telleth them, that the Bishops they proceeded against, being no vulgar persons, but Bishops of such churches as the Apostles themselues planted, before they had proceeded against them, they should first haue written to him and his colleagues, that from thence might haue beene defined, what was right and good; then which course what could be more fit∣ting? For Athanasius Bishop of the second See, with other his adherents, were not to be iudged by Bishops of an inferiour ranke, especially in a matter concerning the faith, without first consulting the Bishop of the first See, & his colleagues, that from thence an action of such consequence might take beginning. And therefore Iulius rightly telleth the Orientall Bishops, that in their rash proceeding against so great & worthy a Bishoppe, as was Athanasius, they had offended against the ordinations of Paul; that the Fathers had not taught them so to doe; and that he had receiued other∣wise from blessed Peter. Here is nothing found, for any thing I see, that any way proueth the Pope to haue a supreme commaunding power ouer the whole church; but rather the contrary: For hee doth nothing, without the Synode of the Westerne Bishops: Hee challengeth not the right of iudging the causes of the Orientall Bi∣shops, either by himselfe alone, or with his Synode of Westerne Bishops: much lesse deriueth the claime of any such right from Peter; as the Iesuite vntruly misreporteth the matter; but thinketh, that the finall, and supreme iudging of them, pertaineth to a generall Councell.

The next allegation is out of an o 1.571 Epistle of Damasus, wherein writing to the Bi∣shops of the East, he commendeth them that they gaue due reverence to the See Apo∣stolique, and calleth them sonnes. To what purpose this allegation serueth, I know not. For if any man doe thinke it consequent, that the Pope hath an vniversall commanding power ouer all, because the Bishops of the East yeelded a kinde of due respect and re∣verence to the See Apostolique, (that is, to the Bishop of Rome, and his colleagues) for that it was in order and honour the first See; he is greatly deceiued, and may bee con∣futed out of the p 1.572 Epistle of the Orientall Bishops, in answere whereof Damasus wri∣teth. For they write vnto him, not as to their Lord and Commaunder, but as to their brother and colleague; and direct not their letters to him onely, but to him and the o∣ther Bishops of the West. Their Epistle beginneth in this sort. To their brethren and Colleagues, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerianus, Acholius, &c. and the rest of the holy Bishops assembled in the great citie of Rome. Where by the way, we may ob∣serue, that howsoeuer Damasus call them sonnes, as being Bishops of meaner places, & inferiour Sees, yet they call him brother and colleague, as being equall in office and power, though inferiour in order and honour. Besides this, they refused to come to Rome, though earnestly entreated by Damasus so to doe, but stayed at Constantinople, and there held a Councell, wherein they condemned the heresies of the Eunomians, & Macedonians; ordained sundry Bishops, as the Bishops of Constantinople, Antioche, and Hierusalem, Nectarius, Flavianus, and Cyrill: they made the Bishop of Constantinople a Patriarch, and set him in degree of honour next vnto the Bishop of Rome. These or∣dinations * 1.573 of Nectarius, and Flavianus especially, Damasus liked not, and yet was for∣ced to giue way vnto them, and to yeeld to the Bishops assembled at Constantinople, (being but an hundred and fiftie in number) the name of the generall Councel, though about the same time, hee, and all the Bishops of the West were assembled at Rome. Wherefore this testimony might well haue beene spared. The next allegation out of the q 1.574 Epistle of Damasus to the Bishops of Numidia, is lesse to be esteemed then the former; seeing that Epistle hath many things in it, which cannot agree with the state of things in those times. For if the Africans had bin so willing to refer all greater mat∣ters by way of appeale to Rome, as the Epistle of Stephen, in answere whereunto this of Damasus is written, importeth; how could it haue come to passe, that in Zozymus his time, appeales to Rome should seeme so strange, as it appeareth they did?

That which is alleaged out of the Epistle of Syricius to Himericus, Bishop of Tarra∣con, and of Zozymus to Hesychius, Bishop of Salona, is to little purpose; for that Syrici∣us saith, he is more zealous of true Religion, then all other Christians, and that he bea∣reth the burthen of all that are grieued, is no more then is attributed to r 1.575 Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria. Neither is it to be marvailed at, that he saith, the Bishop of Tarracon referred certaine matters to the Church of Rome, as to the head of his body, seeing he was one of the Bishops that were subiect to the Bishop of Rome, as Patriarch of the West. Which also is the reason why Zozymus giueth directions to the Bi∣shop of Salona, touching the time they of the Clergie were to continue in euery of the lower degrees, before they might be preferred to higher, wishing him to acquaint o∣thers neare vnto him with the same, and to assure them, that he should answere it with the losse of his place, whosoeuer should contemne the authority of the Fathers, and ne∣glect his prescriptions.

The next Pope that is produced as a witnes, is s 1.576 Innocentius the first, in his Epistles to the Bishops of Macedonia, & the t 1.577 Fathers assembled in the councels of Mileuis & Car∣thage; out of which Epistles, foure things are alleaged for proof of the Popes suprema∣cie. The first is, that the Church of Rome is by him called head of Churches, yea the wellspring, and head of all Churches, The second, that doubtfull cases were referred to the See of Rome by the Bishops of Macedonia. The third, that all the Bishops of the world, were wont to consult the Romane Bishop, in doubtfull questions touching mat∣ters of faith. The fourth, that the Romane Bishops haue the care of all Churches. To these seuerall obiections framed out of the Epistles of this Romane Bishop, we answer briefly: First, that the Church of Rome was head of all Churches; that is, first in order

and honour amongst them, but not in absolute supreme commanding power. Second∣ly, that the Church of Rome was in more speciall sort head of such Churches, as were within the Patriarchship of Rome (as Macedonia was in Innocentius his time) and that this was the reason, why the Bishops of Macedonia referred their doubts to the determination of the See of Rome. Thirdly, that all the Bishops of the world consul∣ted the Apostolique See of Rome, and the Bishop thereof, in controuersies of Faith and Religion, not as an absolute supreme judge, to whose determinations they were bound to stand, but as their most honourable Collegue, interessed as much as any of them in the maintenance of the truth of Religion, and the determination of things questioned concerning the Faith. Fourthly, that they did not consult the person of the Bishop of Rome alone, but all the Bishops of the West together with him, who were a great and principall part of the Christian world, though sometimes hee onely be named, as beeing the President of all the Synodes of Bishoppes throughout the West. Fiftly, that the Bishops of Rome had the care of all Churches, not as absolute supreame com∣manders, but as most honourable amongst the Bishops, and Pastours of Churches, who were first to be sought vnto in matters requiring a common deliberation, and from whom, all things generally concerning the state of the whole Church, were either to take beginning, or at the least to seeke confirmation before they were generally impo∣sed, and prescribed; that so being rightly determined by the Bishops of the chiefe and principall Churches, other Churches might receiue the same, like waters flowing from a fountaine, and running in puritie in all Churches, according to the purity of the head and beginning.

The sixt Bishop of Rome that is produced to giue testimonie for the Popes supre∣macie, is Leo the first, out of whom seauen things are alleaged: whereof the first is, that he u 1.578 appointed Anastasius the Bishop of Thessalonica, to be his Vicegerent for the gouernement of the Prouinces farre off from him: whence it may be inferred as our Aduersaries thinke, that the Bishops of Rome had an vniuersall commanding power o∣uer all the world. The second, that he x 1.579 commaundeth Anatolius Patriarch of Con∣stantinople. The third, that he y 1.580 wisheth the Bishop of Antioch to write often to him, touching the affaires and state of the Churches. The fourth, that z 1.581 Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria besought him, not to permit Iuuenall Bishop of Hierusalem, to prejudice the right of the Church of Antioch, and to subject Palestina to himselfe. The fifth, that hee a 1.582 commaunded Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria. The sixt, that hee b 1.583 intermeddled in Africa. And the last, that hee c 1.584 sayth, that Rome had a larger extent of Presidence, in that by Peters chaire she was made the head of all Churches, then in that, in respect of earthly dominion, she was Lady and Mistresse of a great part of the world. To all these objections thus mustered together out of the writings of Leo, we answere in this sort. First, that Thessalonica was within the Patriarchship of Rome, and that therefore the Bishop of Rome, might haue a Vicegerent there, to dis∣patch some of those things that pertained to him as Patriarch, and yet haue no vniuer∣sall commanding power ouer all the world. Secondly we say, that Leo did not acknow∣ledge Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople to be a Patriach, and that therefore it follow∣eth not, that he would haue presumed to haue commanded a Patriarch, if he had com∣manded him: but that indeed he did not cōmand him. For thus the case stood. d 1.585 After the Councel of Ephesus wherein diuers Bishops compelled by Dioscorus, subscribed to impious decrees, Leo besought the Emperour, that a generall Councell might be called; but because by reason of warres in many parts of the world, such a Councell could not conueniently be presently called, he sent certaine commissioners to Constantinople, who taking to them the Bishop of Constantinople, and being assisted by him and the Bishops thereabout, might, vpon repentance and due satisfaction, reconcile and againe admitte to the communion of their Churches, such as they should thinke fit. These commissi∣oners Leo directed and commanded, as in right he might: But that he specially com∣manded the Bishop of Constantinople, it cannot be proued. Thirdly we say, that Leo in brotherly sort wished the Bishop of Antioch to resist heretiques: and to let him vnder∣stand of the state of the Churches, and to be a consort of the Apostolique See in this

care: to see that the priuiledges of the third See were not deminished by any mans ambition, assuring him, that whensoeuer he will do any thing for the aduancing of the dignity of the See of Antioch, he also will be ready to concurre with him. In all which passages betweene Leo and the Bishop of Antioch, there is nothing found that hath any shew of proofe of the Popes supremacie. Fourthly, we say that Cyrill the Patriarch of Alexandria, besought Leo to giue noe consent to the attempts of Iuuenall Bishop of Hierusalem, seeking to prejudice the Church of Antioch, & to subject Palaestina to him∣selfe: but that he besought Leo, not to permit, nor suffer Palaestina to be taken from Antioch, and subjected to the Church of Hierusalem (as if the whole power of permit∣ting or hindring this thing, had rested in Leo) is but the false report of the Cardinall, according to his wonted manner of misse-alleaging authors for the the aduantage of his cause. So that the disposition of this matter rested not wholly in Leo, but his con∣currence with the Bishops of Antioch, and Alexandria, was necessary for the withstan∣ding of the attempts of Iuuenall; which his concurrence and helpe, hee promised the Bishop of Antioch, as we haue already heard, and was euer ready to yeeld the same vn∣to him. Fiftly we say that Leo did not command Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria: but whereas the manner was, when the Patriarches were first elected & ordained, that they should mutually consent one to another, and that hee who was newly ordained, should send vnto the rest his Synodall letters, and testimonies of his lawfull election and ordination: Dioscorus being newly elected, & appointed Patriarch of Alexandria, sendeth his Synodall letters to Leo Bishop of Rome, that so he might giue his consent, & receiue & embrace him as his fellow Patriarch. Leo, that these beginnings of Diosco∣rus might be more sure and firme, & nothing wanting to perfection, fatherly, as more ancient, and brotherly, as of the same ranke with him, putting him in mind of some dif∣ferences betweene their two Churches, about the time of the ordination of Ministers; and for that it seemed not likely vnto him, that Marke the scholler of Peter tooke any other order in this behalfe then Peter did, saith vnto him; Wee will haue you to obserue, that which our Fathers euer obserued; making this a condition of the allowance & con∣sent he was to yeeld vnto him; and vrging the practice of the Apostles, sayth, hee shall do well, if obeying these Apostolicall institutions, he shall cause that forme of ordinati∣on to be kept in the Churches ouer which God hath set him, which is obserued in the Churches of the West; that Ministers of the Church may be ordained onely on the Lords day, on which day the creation of the world was begun, in which Christ rose, in which death was destroyed; and life, after which there is no death, tooke beginning; in which the Apostles receaued frō the Lord the trūpet of preaching the Gospel, & the ministration of the Sacrament of regeneration. Sixtly we say, that Leo intermedleth in the Churches of Africa, and requireth some ordained contrary to the Canons, to be put from their places: tollerateth others, and willeth the cause of Lupicinus, a Bishop who had appealed vnto him, to be heard there, because he was Patriarch of the West: and these parts of Africa were within his Patriarchship: and that yet this his inter∣medling in so particular sort with the affaires of the Africane Churches, was not very pleasing vnto those of Africa, as shall appeare by that which followeth. Lastly, we say that the Church of Rome was the head of all Churches in the sence before ex∣pressed, and had a presidence of order and honour amongst them: and had in that sort, as Leo truly saith, more subject to it, then euer were vnder the Romane Empire: but vn∣der any absolute, supreme commanding power of the Church of Rome they were not. But, saith Bellarmine, if the former testimonies of Leo be auoided, there is one more yet behind so cleare and full for the supremacie of the Pope, that nothing can be sayd in answere vnto it, in his Epistle to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica. His words are these: e 1.586 Amongst the most blessed Apostles, like in honour, there was a certaine difference and distinction of power; and whereas they were equally chosen, yet notwithstanding it was giuen to one of them to haue a preeminence amongst the rest, from which forme, the distinctiō and difference, that is amongst Bishops, hath taken beginning; and by a most wise disposition it hath beene prouided, that all without difference shall not challenge all vnto thēselues, but that there should be in seuerall prouinces seuerall Bishops, whose sentence & judgment should

be first and chiefe amongst the brethren; and againe certaine other constituted and placed in greater cities, who might take the care of more then the former, by whom the care of the whole Church might flow vnto that one seate of Peter, and nothing any where might dissent from the head. These words truely make a goodly shew, and may seeme most strong∣ly to proue the supremacie that the Popes now challenge: but in very deede they most powerfully ouerthrow it. For the Bishops of Rome will neuer be perswaded in pro∣portionable sort as is expressed in the words of Leo, to challenge no more in respect of the whole Church, then the Metropolitane Bishops doe in respect of their Provin∣ces, and the Patriarches in respect of their Churches of a larger extent: For then they must doe nothing, but accordingly as they shall bee swayed by the major part of the voyces of the Bishops of the Christian Church. For the Metropolitane may doe no∣thing in his province, nor the Patriarch in his larger extent, but as they shall be dire∣cted, & swayed by the major part of the voices of their Bishops: and yet surely the meaning of Leo was not to giue so much to the Bishop of Rome, in respect of all Christian Bishops, as pertaineth to the Metropolitanes and Patriarches, in respect of their Bishops. For the Metropolitane is to ordaine the Bishops of the Province, and the Patriarch to ordaine and confirme the Metropolitanes by imposition of hands, or mission of the Pall: but the Pope neuer had any such power in respect of the Patri∣arches, who were onely to send their Synodall Epistles to him, testifying their faith, as he likewise to them, without expecting any other confirmation then that mutuall consent, whereby one of them assured of the right faith and lawfull ordination of ano∣ther, receiued and embraced each other as fellowes and colleagues. So that that care of the vniversall Church, which Leo saith, floweth together, and commeth vp to that one chaire of Peter, is to be vnderstood only in respect of things concerning the com∣mon faith, & generall state of the Church, or of the principall, most eminent, & highest parts, & members of the same: none of which things might bee proceeded in, without the Bishop of Rome and his Colleagues: but otherwise he was not to intermeddle with inferiour persons and causes, within the Iurisdiction of other Patriarches, neither im∣mediatly, nor vpon appeale, and complaint.

The 7^t• Roman Bishop brought to testifie for the absolute supreme power of Popes, is Gelasius: out of whom two things are alledged: The first is, that he f 1.587 saith, the See of Peter hath power to loose that which the Bishops of other Churches haue bound. The second, that g 1.588 it hath power to judge of euery Church, & that no Church may judge of the judgment of it. For answer to this testimony of Gelasius, first we say, that the Church of Rome may not meddle with reviewing, re-examining, or reversing the acts of other Churches, proceeding against Lay-men or inferiour Cleargy-men. Secondly, that in the case of a Bishop complaining of wrong, by the authority of the Councell of h 1.589 Sardica, she might interpose her selfe, not so as to bring the matter to Rome, there to be heard: but so farre forth onely, as to commaund and appoint a review to be taken, by the Bishops of the next bordering Province, or at the most to send some Cōmissio∣ners to sit with such second Iudges. Thirdly, that in cases which concerned the princi∣pall Patriarches, whether they were differences between them & their Bishops, or be∣tween themselues, the chiefe See, as the principall part of the whole Church might interpose it self. Neither was this proper to the See of Rome: for other Patriarchs like∣wise of the higher thrones, might interpose thēselues in matters concerning the Patri∣archs of inferiour thrones: whence it is, that Basil writing to Athanasius Bishop of the second See, i 1.590 telleth him, that the ordering of the Church of Antioch, which was the 3^d See, did pertain to him, & that he was to see to the setling of things there, though the quieting of the whole East required the helpe of the Occidentall Bishops: & k 1.591 Cyril in the case of Nestorius not yet fully established, in the right of a Patriarch intermedled, & proceeded so far as to reject him & his adherents frō the cōmunion of the churches of Egypt, Lybia, & Pentapolis. But the B. of the inferior thrones, might not judge the supe∣rior: & therfore l 1.592 Iohn of Antioch of the 3^d See, is reprehended & reproued for judging Cyril Bishop of the 2^d See: & Dioscorus Bishop of the 2^d See, is condemned in the councel of m 1.593 Chalcedon, as for other things, so for this amōg other, that he presumed to

judge the first See. So that this is it which Gelasius saith, that the See of Rome, that is, the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishops of the West, may iudge and examine the dif∣ferences betweene Patriarches, or between Patriarches and their Bishops; but neither so peremptorily, nor finally, but that such iudgement may be reuiewed and reexami∣ned in a generall Councell: and that no other particular Church or See may iudge the Church of Rome, seeing euery other See is inferiour to it; no way denying, but that a generall Councell may review, reēxamine, and reuerse the acts & iudgements of the Romane See; as being greater, and of more ample authority. Neither truely can there be any better proofe against the pretended supremacie of the Popes, then this Epistle, the circumstances whereof are these. Acatius Bishop of Constantinople, for commu∣nicating with certaine Eutichian Heretickes, was by the See of Rome condemned; some disliked his proceeding against him, because a Synode was not specially summo∣ned for the purpose, especially seeing he was Bishop of the Princely citty; Gelasius standeth not vpon the claime of vniuersall power, thereby to iustifie his proceeding, but aunswereth; First, that Eutiches being condemned in the Councell of Chalcedon, all such were accursed likewise, as should either by defence of such errour, or com∣municating with men so erring, fall into the fellowship of the same heresie, and that therefore there needed no Synode, but the See Apostolique might execute that was there decreed. Secondly, that the Catholicke Bishops in the East being deposed, and Heretickes thrust into their places, there was no reason why hee should haue consul∣ted with them. Thirdly, that hee did nothing of himselfe, but with a Synode of the Westerne Bishops.

The next foure Bishops produced by the Cardinall, are Iohn the second, Anastasius the second, Felix the fourth, and Pelagius the second; out of whom hee alleageth no∣thing but this, that the See of Peter holdeth the chiefty assigned of the Lord in the v∣niuersall Church, and that the church of Rome is the head of all churches. Wherevnto wee briefly answere, that the See of Peter euer held the chiefty, & that the church of Rome was euer the head of all churches, not in vniuersality of absolute supreme power & commanding authority, but in order & honour in sort before expressed: & that by the See of Peter and church of Rome, is meant the whole West church, & not precise∣ly the Diocese of Rome, as likewise we haue noted before; and therefore these allega∣tions to proue the Popes supremacie ouer all Bishops, are nothing to the purpose.

The last of the twelue Bishops brought by Bellarmine, is Gregorie the first; out of whom foure things are alledged; the first is, * 1.594 that he required the Africanes to per∣mit appeales to Rome from the Councell of Numidia, and blamed the Bishops of A∣frica, for that after letters written vnto them, they had degraded Honoratus the Arch-deacon. * 1.595 The second, that he sent a Pall to the Bishop of Corinth. The third, o 1.596 that he saith, Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople, acknowledged the Church of Constantinople to be subiect to the See Apostolique. The fourth, p 1.597 that the Bishop of Constantinople professeth his subiection to the See Apostolique. To these obiections we answer; First, q 1.598 that it is contrary to the resolution of the ancient Councels of Carthage, & Mileuis, that the Bishop of Rome should admit appeales of inferiour Clergy-men out of Afri∣ca; & that therefore by some positiue constitution or later agreement, Gregory might bee permitted to heare the complaints of an Arch-deacon appealing vnto him out of Africa, yet from the beginning it was not so, though some parts of Africa were euer within the compasse of the Patriarchship of Rome. Secondly, that he sent the Pall to the Bishop of Corinth, because hee was within his Patriarchship; all Patriarches being to confirme their Metropolitanes by imposition of hands, or by sending the Pall. 3^•. That there was no such Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople in Gregories time, as is men∣tioned in the Epistle alledged; and that they that were, as Iohn & Cyriacus, stroue and contended with Gregory, to be aboue him, and to haue the first place in the Church; & that not without the help & furtherance of the Emperour: so that it may be doubted whether Gregory wrot this or not, it being so contrary to that wee know to haue bin attempted & sought by the Bishops of Constantinople, that liued in his time. But gran∣ting that Gregory did so write, & that Eusebius a B. of Constantinople did acknowledge

his Church to be subject to the See of Rome, yet he meant nothing else thereby, but that it was an inferiour See and so subject in such sort, as I haue declared the inferiour Sees to be subject to the superiour; which subjection will no way proue the suprema∣cie that the Popes now claime. Fourthly, that Gregory doth not say that the Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged himselfe subject to the Bishop of Rome. For it was not Primas Byzanzenus, the Primate of Byzantium, that Gregory reporteth to haue confest himselfe subject to the Bishop of Rome, and whose cause the Emperour commanded Gregory to heare, but r 1.599 Primas Byzanzenus, that is, the Primate of the Byzazene pro∣uince of Africa. So that this confession of the Primate mentioned by Gregory, brought to proue that the Bishop of Rome had a commanding power ouer the Bishop of Con∣stantinople, is meerly mistaken by Bellarmine, as it was before him by Gratian. But some man wil say, howsoeuer there be a mistaking of this allegation, yet it is strong and for∣cible to proue the thing intended. For Gregory saith expressely, that howsoeuer all Bi∣shops in respect of humility, be equall, yet there is no Bishop but if he be found faulty, is subject to the See of Rome. That this saying of Gregory may be foūd true, certaine li∣mitations must be added vnto it. For the Bishop of Rome might not immediatly punish euery Bishop that he found to offend, nor vpon appeale take notice of the faults and misdemeanours of all Bishops; but the Councell of s 1.600 Chalcedon ordereth, that if any in∣feriour Clergy-man haue ought against another inferiour Clerke, the matter shall be heard and determined by the Bishop, or such as with the liking of the Bishop shall by the parties be chosen arbitratours; and if he go against their determination, hee shall be punished. If a Clerke haue ought against his owne or another Bishop, it shall be in∣quired of in the audience of the Synode of the Prouince: If either Clerke or Bishoppe haue ought against the Metropolitane of the prouince, hee shall goe to the Primate of the Diocese, or to the throne and See of the Regall citty of Constantinople. This Canon of the great Councell of Chalcedon, was confirmed by the decree of Iustinian the Emperour. t 1.601 If any man (sayth the Emperour) accuse a Bishop, for whatsoeuer cause, let the cause be judged by the Metropolitane: and if any man gainsay the Metro∣politane, let the matter be referred to the Arch-bishop, and Patriarch of that Diocese, and let him end it according to the canons and Lawes. So that wee see the Bishops of Rome might not intermedle in judging inferiour Bishops, subject to other Patri∣arches, neither immediatly, nor vpon complaint and appeale, whatsoeuer their faults be: but they haue other supreme Iudges, who haue power finally to determine such matters, and from whom there lyeth noe appeale. This canon of the Councell of Chalcedon, and the Emperours decree confirming the same, u 1.602 Gregorie alleageth and al∣loweth, onely adding, that if there be no Metropolitane or Patriarch, such things as o∣therwise should be finally determined, and ended by them, are to be brought to the Bi∣shop of Rome: Wherefore it seemeth that Gregory speaketh of the Bishops within his owne Patriarchship, whom sometimes he calleth his own Bishops, when he sayth there is no Bishop, but if he be found faulty is subject to the See of Rome. Of these hee speaketh when he sayth, x 1.603 I impute it to my sinnes, that my owne Bishops should thus despise me. And againe, if the causes of bishops committed to mee be thus dealt with, alas what shall I doe? And in this sense he y 1.604 willeth Iohn of Palermo, to whom hee sen∣deth a Pall, not to suffer the reuerence of the Apostolique See to be troubled by any mans presumption: for that the state of the members is then entire and safe, when the canons are kept, and no iniurie hurteth the head of the faith: not naming the Church of Rome the head of the Faith, for that the Bishop of Rome hath an infallible iudgment, and absolute command in matters of faith, vpon which all the world must depend (as some ignorantly construe him) but because it was the head, that is, the beginning and wel-spring, whence the doctrine of Faith, the knowledge of GOD, and all Chri∣stian institution flowed to sundry other Churches, which therefore are in a sort to de∣pend on it, to haue recourse to it, and to hold conformity with it. z 1.605 No other, faith Innocentius, established and founded the Churches of Italy, France, Germany, Spaine, Africke, and the Isles that lye betweene, but Peter and his Successours: and there∣fore the Bishoppes of these Churches, must keepe such obseruations as the Romane

Church (from which they tooke their beginnning) receiued from the Apostles, ne caput institutionum omittere videantur, that is, Lest they seeme to forsake the Head, & well-spring of all the institutions and ordinances they haue. This is the reason, why the Churches of these parts haue beene so subiect to the Church of Rome, namely for that from thence they receiued the light of Christian knowledge; but to all Churches it is not an head in this sort, seeing they receiued the faith not from Rome, but from some other Apostolicall Church, as Antioche, or Alexandria.

CHAP. 35.

Of the pretended proofes of the Popes supremacie, produced and brought out of the writings of the Greeke Fathers.

HAuing examined the proofes they bring for confirmation of the Popes su∣premacie out of Councels, and the writings, of ancient Bishops of Rome, let vs come to the testimonies of the Fathers Greeke and Latine.

The first that they produce amongst the Greeke Fathers, is Ignatius, a 1.606 who writeth to the Holy Church which hath the presidence in the Region of the Romans, or sitteth before other in the Region of the Romans; from which wordes nothing can be inferred that wee euer doubted of. For wee most willingly confesse the Romane Church to haue beene in order and honour the first and chiefest of all Churches, and he saith nothing out of which any other thing may be concluded.

The next is Irenaeus, b 1.607 who being to shew against Heretiques, that the Tradition of the Church is against them, and for him, and thinking it very tedious to run through the successions of all Churches, saith, he will content himselfe with that which is the greatest, ancientest, best knowne to all, & founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, at Rome; for that the whole Church, that is, the company of all faith∣full ones, that are euery-where, in which the Tradition hath beene euer preserued, must of necessity agree in her tradition with this, propter potentiorem principalita∣tem, that is: For that it is the principall of all other. This testimony of Irenaeus no way proueth the thing in question. For heere is nothing of the dependance of all other Churches on the Church of Rome, in their faith and profession, nor that all Churches haue kept the faith in that Church, that is, in cleauing to it, as to their Head and Mother, as Bellarmine vntruly fansieth: But all that is heere saide, is no∣thing else, but that vndoubtedly the same faith was giuen and deliuered to all other Churches, that was deliuered by blessed Peter and Paul, to the Church of Rome the chiefest of all.

The two next Greeke Fathers that are produced to testifie for the supremacie, are c 1.608 Epiphanius, and d 1.609 Athanasius, who report, that Vrsacius and Valens, sworne enemies of Athanasius, repenting them of their former errours, came to Iulius Bishop of Rome, to giue an account, and to seeke fauour and reconciliation. Surely, the pro∣ducing of such testimonies as these are, is nothing else but meere trifling; and they that bring them know right well, that they no way proue the thing questioned: the circumstances of this narration touching Vrsacius and Valens, are these. The cause of Athanasius, as himselfe e 1.610 testifieth, was first heard in his own Province, by an hundred Bishops, and he there acquitted: Secondly at Rome, by more then fiftie Bishops, at the desire of Eusebius his Adversary: and lastly, at Sardica, by three hundred Bi∣shops, where he was likewise acquitted. To the decrees of this Synode, Vrsacius and Valens, his enemies, making shew of repentance, subscribed, confessing they had played the Sycophants: neither rested they there, but they wrote to Iulius Bishop of Rome, to testifie their repentance, and to desire reconciliation; and likewise to Atha∣nasius himselfe. It were strange if any man could proue the absolute supreme power, & cōmanding authority of the Bishop of Rome ouer all the world by this testimony, wherin nothing is foūd of submissiō to Iulius, or of seeking his fauor & cōmuniō more

then the fauour and communion of Athanasius, and all other Catholique Bishops ad∣hering to him. The Epistle of Athanasius to Felix Bishop of Rome, is a meere coun∣terfeit, as that worthy and renowned f 1.611 Iuel hath proued at large by vnanswerable de∣monstrations; and therefore it needeth no answere. The allegation of the accusation of Dionysius of Alexandria, to Dionysius of Rome, joyned with it by Bellarmine, is of the very same stampe; and yet if it were not, proueth nothing against vs. For there is no question, but that in matter of faith, men may accuse any erring Bishop, to the Bi∣shop of Rome and his Westerne Bishops; and that they may iudge and condemne such a one, though the Pope be not supreme head of the Church.

The fifth Greeke Father that they alledge, is Basil, g 1.612 who, as they say, in an Epistle to Athanasius, attributeth to the Bishop of Rome authority to visit the Churches of the East, to make decrees, and to reuerse the decrees of generall Councels, such as that of Ariminum was. Truly to say no more, the alledging of this testimony, sheweth they haue very little conscience that alledge it. For these are the circumstances of Ba∣sils Epistle, whereof let the Reader iudge. Basil writing to Athanasius (whom hee highly commendeth, for that, whereas other thinke it well if they take care of their owne particular churches, his care was no lesse for the whole church, then for that which was specially committed to him) aduiseth him, that the onely way to settle things put out of order in the Easterne churches by the Arrians, were the procuring of the consent of the Westerne Bishops, if it were possible to intreat them to inter∣pose themselues: for that vndoubtedly the rulers would greatly regard, and much reuerence the credit of their multitude: and people euery where would follow them without gainesaying. But seeing this, which was rather to be desired, would not in likelihood easily be obtained, he wisheth that the Bishop of Rome might be induced, to send some of good discretion and moderation, who by gentle admonitions might pacifie the mindes of men, and might haue all things in readinesse that concerned the Arimine Councell, necessary for the dissoluing and shewing the inualidity of the acts of that Councell. I doubt not but the Reader, vpon the bare view of these circum∣stances, will easily perceiue, that this Epistle of Basill maketh very much against their opinion that alledge it: For hee preferreth, and rather wisheth a Councell, then the Popes owne interposing of himselfe, if there had beene any hope of a Councell. Be∣sides, these whom the Pope was to send, were not to proceed iudicially, and by way of authority, but by intreaty and gentle admonitions to pacifie the mindes of men; & therefore here is nothing of visiting the Churches of the East, or voiding the acts of the Councell of Ariminum by way of sentence and formall proceeding, as Bellarmine vntruly reporteth; but onely a reaching forth of the hand of helpe to the distressed parts of the Church, by them that were in better state, and a manifesting or declaring of the inualidity of that Councell, the vnlawfull proceedings of it, and the reasons why it neither was, nor euer ought to be admitted.

The sixth Greeke Father brought to be a witnesse of the Popes supremacie, is Gre∣gorie Nazianzen, h 1.613 who saith, that the Romane Church did euer hold the right pro∣fession, as it becommeth the citty which is ouer all the world. This testimony is no lesse abused then the former, as it will easily appeare to him that will take the paines to view the place alledged. Nature (saith Nazianzene) doth not affoord two Suns, yet are there two Romes, the lights of the whole world: the old and the new seate of the Em∣pire, The one of these lights appeareth at the rising, and the other at the setting of the Sunne, and both iointly send forth a most excellent glittering brightnesse. The faith of the one was a long time, and now is right, knitting, and ioyning the West to the sauing word of Life, as it is fitte the Mistresse and Lady of the world should be. In which words it is euident, that hee speaketh of the greatnesse of the cittie of Rome, in respect of her ciuill and temporall soueraignty; and not in respect of the spirituall power of the Church; and therefore it is strange that Bellarmine should deny the same. For though in the time of Nazianzen, the Emperour made his abode, for the most part, at Con∣stantinople, and not at Rome, yet he calleth Rome the Mistresse of the world, in respect of the ciuill state thereof, as appeareth in that he speaketh of two famous cities, two

lights of the world; and nameth the one the old Seate, and the other the new Seate of the Empire.

The seuenth Greeke Father is Chrysostome, who (if we may beleeue Bellarmine) be∣ing deposed by Theophilus Bishoppe of Alexandria, and put from the Bishopricke of Constantinople in a Councell of Bishops, i 1.614 writeth to the Bishop of Rome, by his au∣thority to voyde the sentence of Theophilus, and to punish him: whence it will fol∣low, that Chrysostome acknowledged the Romane Bishop to bee supreme Iudge of the Greeke or Easterne Bishops, and consequently of all the world. For the better mani∣festing of the bad dealing of the Cardinall in alledging this testimony, I will briefly set downe all the most materiall and principall circumstances, of the narration of the most vniust deposition of Chrysostome, that worthy and renowned Bishop of Constan∣tinople. Thus therefore the case stood. k 1.615 There arose a question in the Churches of Aegypt, whether God were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, had the shape of a man. Some of the simpler sort of Monkes thought, that God hath a bodily forme or shape: others thought otherwise, and condemned such as so thought, as blasphemous: Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, was of opinion, that GOD is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, that God hath no bodily shape or forme: which the Monkes that thought otherwise greatly disliking, came to Alexandria with a full purpose to kill and destroy him, as a wic∣ked and godlesse person. But he perceiuing their affection, presented himselfe spee∣dily vnto them saying, I haue seene you, and looked vpon you, as vpon the face of God: and thereby pacified them for the present, supposing he had beene of their opinion, and had thought God to haue a face and countenance like man. But afterwards, hauing vpon some dislikes excommunicated Isidorus, a Presbyter of his Church, Isidorus go∣eth to the Monkes, and thereupon Ammonius with certaine other come to Theophilus, desiring him to receiue such to the communion, as hee had excommunicated, which he promised to doe, but performed not. Hereupon farther quarrels grew, and The∣ophilus perceiuing that these Monkes were in opinion contrary to the Anthropomor∣phites, ioyned himselfe with the Anthropomorphites, and intended some ill to the o∣ther; whereupon Ammonius, Dioscorus, and Isidore, came to Constantinople, and desi∣red that the Emperour and Chrysostome might heare the matter between them. Chry∣sostome vsed them kindly, and suffered them to be present at the common prayers, but admitted them not to the communion: he wrote to Theophilus, to restore them to the communion as being right beleeuers, and desired him, if he thought fitte to haue their cause heard and examined at Constantinople, to send some to follow the businesse for him: Whereunto Theophilus returned no answere; which moued the complainants to sue to the Empresse, that a Councell might be called, which shee promised to pro∣cure: but in the meane while there being a rumor raised, that Chrysostome had recei∣ved Dioscorus and the rest to the communion, and that he sought to steed them what hee could, Theophilus enraged against him, beganne to devise how hee might put him from his Bishopricke. To this purpose he writeth to sundry Bishops, reprehending the bookes of Origen, wherein the errour of the Anthropomorphites was condemned. Amongst other, he drew into his faction by this means Epiphanius, a man erring in that point, but otherwise of great authority for his good life and learning. Epiphani∣us calleth a Synode of the Bishops of Cyprus, condemneth the bookes of Origen, for∣biddeth the reading of them; and perswadeth other, and amongst them the Bishop of Constantinople to doe the like. Theophilus likewise followed his example, and with his Bishops passed the like decree; but Chrysostome neglected the matter: which offen∣ded Epiphanius and Theophilus not a little. Hereupon many of the great ones in Con∣stantinople, and of the Clergy also, hating Chrysostome, perceiuing that Theophilus was bent against him, vrged him to goe forward, and procured a great Synode to be called at Constantinople; which opportunity he neglected not, commanding the Bishops of Aegypt to goe thither, and writing to Epiphanius and the rest of the Easterne Bishops to come thither. Epiphanius accordingly came thither, shewed himselfe auerse from Chrysostome, and would neither come into the same house, nor pray with him, though hee sought him with great respect: Wherevpon after a while, Epiphanius in great

dislike departed from Constantinople; at the parting of these Bishops, the one of them saying, he hoped the other should neuer returne home; the other, that he should neuer dye a Bishop; both which fell out accordingly: for Epiphanius dyed by the way, as he was returning home, and Chrysostome cast out of his Bishopricke, dyed in banishment. After the departing of Epiphanius, Chrysostome made a Sermon in reproofe and repre∣hension of women; which so moued and enraged the Empresse, that shee complained bitterly to her husband, and vrged him to cause Theophilus to come quickly, and to hold a Councell, which accordingly he did. Chrysostome was called to come into the Synode; but he answered, that he refused not judgement, but desired to know his accusers: and what crimes he was charged with, and protested against these Iudges as partiall, appealing to a Generall Councell, whereupon he was deposed. Three dayes after he withdrew himselfe; which put the people into an vproare, who stirring in very tumultuous manner, forced the Emperour to bring him backe againe, and caused him to take his chaire againe, thirtie Bishops bringing him to it. Heere beganne a new quarrell, for that being deposed by a Synode, hee resumed his place without a Synode: but the matter was reasonably well quieted, till reprehending those in authority, for permitting certaine abuses, the Empresse thinking her selfe touched, beganne againe to thinke, how she might procure another greater Councell to bee called then before; which Chrysostome vnderstanding, made that Sermon that beginneth, Herodias denuò insanire, denuò commoveri, denuò saltare pergit, denuò caput Ioannis in disco accipere quae∣rit: that is, Herodias proceedeth and goeth on to be mad againe, to be moued and stir∣red againe, and to daunce againe: shee seekes once againe to haue the head of Iohn in a platter. It was not long after the preaching of this Sermon, before the Bishops came together and met in Synode, by the procurement of the Empresse: who omitting all other things, objected vnto him, the resuming of his place without a Synode. He an∣swered, that there were 50 Bishops that consented to him, and communicated with him. But they replyed, that there were more that condemned him: and that there∣fore by the Canon he ought not to haue resumed his place. To whom he answered, that that was a Canon of the Arrians, made by them when they proceeded against Athanasius, and therefore not to bee regarded. But that answer would not serue the turne: wherefore they proceeded to sentence against him, and put him out of his Bi∣shopricke, and the Emperour immediatly sent him into banishment. Being in this di∣stresse, and thus grieuously wronged, he writeth to Innocentius, and the Westerne Bi∣shops, desiring them to doe what they can to represse these vile practises, & to write, that the things done against him be of no force, as indeede they are not: and that hee might still hold communion with them, as before he had done. The Bishop of Rome vpon this his suite, called a Synode of all the Bishops of the West, * 1.616 held both Theophi∣lus and Chrysostome in their communion: pronounced the judgement of Theophilus, & his proceedings against Chrysostome, to be voide, as being against the Canons: and yet tolde Chrysostome, there was no helpe, nor no meanes to releeue him, but in a generall Councell, which by all possible meanes he will labour to procure: till which time hee must be content, and referre all to God, who taketh care of these things. But with how ill successe hee sought to procure a generall Councell for the restoring of him to his place againe, wee may finde in ^k Sozomene: who reporteth, that being desirous that * 1.617 Chrysostome might returne, he sent with those Orientall Bishops that came to him to intreate his helpe and assistance, fiue Bishops, and two Presbyters to Honorius, & Ar∣cadius, to obtaine a Councell, and to haue the time appointed: who were so farre from prevailing and obtaining that they sought, that they were sent away with disgrace, as forreine and outlandish disturbers of the state of the Empire. These are the princi∣pall, and most materiall circumstances of the narration and report of the vniust depo∣sition of Chrysostome, his writing to the Bishop of Rome, and the answer hee had from him, and the other Bishops of the West, which make most strongly against the pre∣tended supremacie of Popes. For Innocentius telleth Chrysostomes friends, that it ly∣eth not in him to helpe him; but in a generall Councell: And though hee and the Bi∣shops of the West pronounce the proceedings of Theophilus voide, as against the Ca∣nons,

and do make them voyd, as much as by their dissenting they can, yet they con∣fesse, that the absolute voyding of them, and the punishing of Theophilus was not in them, but in a generall Councell. But sayth Bellarmine, m 1.618 Chrysostome in another E∣pistle giueth Innocentius thankes for his fatherly care and kindnesse, & intreateth, that his enemies may not be excluded from the communion, if by any meanes they may be reclaimed: therefore it seemeth Chrysostome thought, hee had an absolute supreame commanding power. What it is in this Epistle that argueth that supreame power which Bellarmine dreameth of, I cannot tell. For I know no reason why Chrysostome, now a deposed and distressed Bishop, might not vse so respectiue a forme of speech to the Bishop of the first See, and esteeme of him as a father, without acknowledging him to haue any absolute supreame power ouer all. And all the other circumstances and parts of the Epistle most clearely make against the Papacie. For he sayth, Innocen∣tius had done what he could; but that his enemies notwithstanding went still forward in their ill courses; and for the auoyding of greater scandals, distractions, & confusions, desireth him not to reiect them from his communion, considering the greatnesse of the worke: for that this was the contention almost of all the world: So that the Churches were brought vpon their knees, the people dispersed, the Cleargy vexed, Bishops ba∣nished, and the constitutions of the holy Fathers violated and broken.

The eighth Greeke Father is Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, out of whom Bellarmine alleageth noe new thing, but the very same which hee brought out of the Councell of Ephesus, whereof he was president; and therefore I will make no new answere here to this renued allegation, but referre the Reader to the n 1.619 answere already made,

The ninth Greeke Father is Theodoret, out of whom Bellarmine seeketh to confirme the Papacie, for that though he were a Bishop of Asia, and had vnder him eight hun∣dred Churches, yet o 1.620 he acknowledgeth the Bishop of Rome to be his supreme Iudge: and in an Epistle written to Renatus, a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, sayth, that that holy See hath the gouernment and direction of the Churches throughout the world. For answere vnto this objection, we must obserue, that Theodoret being depo∣sed, banished, and grieuously vexed for matters of faith, seeketh to haue his cause reexa∣mined, and heard againe by the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishops of the West; which thing he obtained, and was by Leo, and the rest of the Bishops of the West, judged Catholique, receiued to their communion, and, as much as lay in them, restored to his Bishopricke againe; yet could he not repossesse his place, till the Councell of Chalcedon put him into it; p 1.621 which, though it were informed by the deputies of Leo, that hee had long before receiued him to his communion, yet admited him not till he was reexami∣ned, and at the first many of the Fathers disliking his answeres as imperfect, cryed out aloud, that he was a Nestorian, and desired that the Heretique might be cast out, cen∣suring him as Cyril, and other Catholique Bishops had done before. But when hee fully and peremptorily accursed Nestorius with all his adherents, they all with one consenting voyce, pronounced him worthy of his place, and admitted him to sit in Councel with them. Whereby it apeareth, that howsoeuer the Westerne Bishops pro∣nounced him Catholique, receiued him to their communion, and, as much as in them lay, restored him to his place, yet of themselues they neither could, nor did perfect that worke but were forced to leaue it to the generall Councell: all which Leo himselfe in his Epistle to Theodoret acknowledgeth: q 1.622 Adiutorium nostrum sayth he, in nomine Do∣mini, qui fecit coelum & terram, qui nullum nos in nostris fratribus detrimentum sustinere permisit: sed quae nostro prius ministerio definierat, vniuersae fraternitatis irretractabili fir∣mauit assensu, vt verè àse prodijsse ostenderet, quod priùs à prima omnium sede formatū, totius Christiani orbis iudicium recepisset, vt in hoc quo{que} Capiti membra concordent. Nā, ne aliarum sedium, ad eam quam caeteris omnium Dominus statuit praesidere, consensus, as∣sentatio uideretur, inuenti priùs sunt, qui de iudicijs nostris ambigerent: that is, Our helpe is in the name of the Lord, who made both heauen and earth, who suffered vs not to sustaine any losse in our brethren, but confirmed & established by the irreuocable assent of the whole brotherhood, what things he had before defined by our ministery; that he might clearly shew that thing vndoubtedly to haue proceeded frō himselfe, which

being formerly framed by the first See, the iudgment of the whole Christian world received: So that herein the head & mēbers conspire together. For lest the consenting of other Sees to that which the Lord of all appointed to be the first of all, might seeme to bee but flattery, there were some found that at first doubted of our iudgements, whether they were right or not. And he addeth, that multum Sacerdotalis officij me∣ritum splendescit, vbi sic summorum servatur authoritas, vt in nullo inferiorum putetur imminuta libertas: that is, that the excellent worthinesse of the Priestly office doth then most appeare in shining brightnesse, when the authority of the highest is so retai∣ned, that the liberty of the inferiour and lesser be thought in nothing to be diminished or empaired. Thereby insinuating, that hee and his Westerne Bishops did so goe be∣fore in their resolution touching the case of Theodoret, that they no way diminished, much lesse tooke away the liberty of other inferiour Sees, but that they might resist and gainesay, till they were satisfied, and made to see the equity of the iudgement of the first See: accordingly as we finde they did in the Councell of Chalcedon, reiecting him as an Heretique, whom the Bishop of Rome had receiued, till vpon more full & particular examination, they found him to be catholicke, and acquited him in their owne iudgement. So that here we see there is nothing to proue the Pope to bee an absolute supreme iudge of all, as Bellarmine vntruly alledgeth. But happily hee will say, that Theodoret intreateth Renatus to perswade Leo to vse his authority, and to re∣quire the Bishoppes that had proceeded against him, to come to his Synode in the West, seeing the See of Rome hath a direction of all Churches, and that therefore hee seemeth to acknowledge an absolute supreme power in the Pope. For answere here∣vnto we say, that the circumstances of this Epistle doe clearely conuince and proue he had no such conceipt. For first, he speaketh not of Leo alone, as if of himselfe hee could determine the matter of difference betweene him and his Aduersaries, but of him and his Westerne Councell, Secondly, hee doth not say, that he, & his Coun∣cell alone may determine the matter; but that his See being the first See, hee and his Bishops may call all other Bishops to their Councell: and this is that direction or go∣vernment which he saith the first See, or Westerne Church hath of other Churches; namely, in going before them, and inuiting and calling them to publique deliberati∣ons, not in peremptory and absolute commanding without them and ouer them.

The tenth witnesse produced out of the Greeke church, is Sozomene, out of whom two things are alledged. The first is, that he saith r 1.623 Iulius Bishop of Rome, restored Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, to their chur∣ches, from which they were violently and vniustly expulsed by certaine Orientall Bishops. The second, s 1.624 that he did this because the care of all pertained to him in re∣spect of the dignity of his See. How the words of Sozomene reporting that Iulius restored these Bishops to their churches, are to bee vnderstood, we may learne of Iu∣lius himselfe, who in his Epistle mentioned by Athanasius in his second Apologie, hauing blamed the Orientall Bishoppes, for proceeding in a matter of so great conse∣quence concerning the faith, and the Bishops of the principall Churches of the world, without him and his Bishops, and, as he vnderstood, very irregularly; telleth them, that he durst not confirme that they had done, that he communicated still with A∣thanasius and Paulus, not foreiudging any thing, but desir•…•…ng them to come to a Sy∣node, where thinges might bee fully debated, and determined; and that, though hee alone wrote for them, yet he wrote in the name, and with the consent of all the Bi∣shops of the West. Vpon which his letter, they t 1.625 were so farre from restoring them to their places, that they tooke it in ill part, that hee did write vnto them, telling him that when hee proceeded against certaine Nouatians, they intermedled not, and that therefore hee should not meddle with their proceedings, seeing the greatnesse of citties maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then the power of another. By which their peremptory reiecting of his motion, it appeareth that hee neither did, nor could put the expulsed Bishops into their places againe: which thing u 1.626 Sozomene himselfe testifieth also, telling vs, that they could neuer recouer their places, till the Emperour by his mandatory letters preuailed. So that when he saith, Iulius resto∣red

them, his meaning is, that hee restored them as much as lay in him: as likewise it may be said of Cyrill, and Iohn of Antioche, that after many and bitter contentions, they were in the end reconciled, and x 1.627 restored each to other their Churches, from which yet they were neuer driuen indeed, but in the censures of the one of them pas∣sed against the other. But Sozomene saith, the care of all Churches pertained to the Bishop of Rome, therefore he acknowledgeth, that hee had an vniversalitie of power ouer all. Surely this consequence will neuer be made good. For the Metropolitane, or he that is Bishop of the first See in each Province in respect of the dignitie of his See, hath the care of the whole Province, yet can he doe nothing, but as hee is directed by the maior part of the Bishops. So that the care of all is said to pertaine to him, not because he hath power to dispose of all things by himself, but because all publike pro∣ceedings concerning the whole Province, must take their beginning from him, & no∣thing of that nature may be taken in hand, without consulting him. In like sort, and in the same sense and meaning, Sozomene saith, that for the dignity of his See, the care of all pertained to the Bishop of Rome; not as if the absolute disposing of all things did rest in him, but for that he, as prime Bishop of the world, was first to be consulted, be∣fore any thing concerning the common faith, and the whole state of the Christian Church, were determined; and for that by the assistance and concurrence of other Bi∣shops, he as first in order and honour amongst them, was to beginne and set forward allthings of greatest consequence tending to the common good.

Three more witnesses Bellarmine hath yet behinde, Acatius the Bishop of Patara; and Iustinian the Emperour, out of whom three things are alledged. The first, that the Bishop of Rome beareth about with him the care of all Churches. The second, that the Pope is ouer the Church of the whole world. The third, that the Pope is the Head of all holy Churches. To the first of these allegations taken out of Acatius his Epistle to Simplicius Bishop of Rome, I haue answered before; as likewise in what sense the Pope may be said to be ouer the Church of the whole world, to wit, in respect of a pri∣macie of order and honour, but not of power; in which sense also, Iustinian the elder, writing to Iohn the second, saith, his See is the Head of all Churches. And thus hauing examined the testimonies of the Greeke Fathers, we are now to proceed to the autho∣rities of the Latine Church.

CHAP. 36.

Of the pretended proofes of the Popes supremacie, taken out of the writings of the Latine Fathers.

THe first among the Latine Fathers, that a 1.628 Bellarmine produceth, is Cyprian; who of all other most clearely ouerthroweth the error of the Romanists, tou∣ching the Papacie, & therefore is very vnadvisedly produced by them in the first place, and appointed to marshall and conduct the rest of their witnesses; yet let vs heare what he will say. Out of Cyprian foure places are alledged. The first is, in his booke de vnitate Ecclesiae. The second, in the third Epistle of his first book writ∣ten to Cornelius. The third, in the tenth Epistle of his second booke to the same Cor∣nelius. The fourth, in the eighth Epistle of the first booke ad plebem vniversam. Out of the first of these places they will proue, that hee maketh Peter Head of the whole Church. Out of the second, that there is one High Priest, & one supreme Iudge in the Church, whom all men are bound to obey. Out of the third, that Cornelius was Head of all Catholiques. Out of the fourth, that there is one singular Chaire in the Church, wherein he sitteth that must teach all.

To euery of these allegations, I will answere in order, and make it most cleare and evident, that none of the things imagined by the Cardinall, can possibly bee concluded out of any of the fore-named places. For to beginne with the first: whosoeuer will but reade ouer Cyprians booke of the vnity of the Church, shall most certaine∣ly and vndoubtedly finde, that hee speaketh not in that book of Peters headship of the

vniuersall Church, as the Iesuite fansieth: but of the head, originall, and first begin∣ning of Pastorall commission. Which that it may the better appeare, I will as briefe∣ly as possibly I can, lay downe the most principall and materiall circumstances of the whole discourse of that booke, written vpon occasion of the Schisme of the Nouatians. The first thing that occurreth in the whole discourse of the booke, is the authors ob∣seruation of the endlesse malice of Satan, who when he found the Idols of the Gentiles, wherein he was wont to be worshipped, to be forsaken, & his Seates & Temples de∣serted, almost all professing to belieue in Christ, Haereses inuenit & Schismata, quibus subuerteret fidem, veritatem corrumperet, scinderet vnitatem: that is, Found out Heresies and Schismes; by which he might subvert the Faith, corrupt the verity, and cut in sun∣der the vnity: so that Quos detinere non potest in viae veteris coecitate, circumscribit, & decipit noui itineris errore that is, Whom he cannot hold in the blindnesse and darkenes of the old way, those he circumuenteth and beguileth, by making them erre, goe aside, and not hold on the right course of their journey in the new way that leadeth to life. In the second place he sheweth, that this so falleth out, and that men are soe beguiled, and misse-led into Schismes & Heresies, because they returne not backe to the first origine of truth, because they seeke not the head, nor keepe the doctrine of the heauen∣ly Maister: which if a man would consider and thinke of, he should not neede to seeke out many arguments, nor fetch any great compasse about: but the truth would easily without any great search offer it selfe vnto him. For therefore did Christ, when hee was to lay the foundations of the Christian Church, say specially to Peter, b 1.629 Thou art Peter, & vpon this Rocke will I build my Church, & I will giue to thee the keyes of the king∣dome of heauen: and againe after his resurrection, c 1.630 Feede my sheepe: because though ri∣sing againe from the dead, he gaue like power to all the Apostles, when he sayd d 1.631 As my Father sent me, so send I you: whose sinnes ye remit, they are remitted: whose sinnes ye re∣taine, they are retained: yet he would by speaking specially to one, & by appointing one chaire, shew what vnity should be in the Church. The rest of the Apostles, sayth Cypriā, were vndoubtedly the same that Peter was, equall in honour & power: but therefore did Christ in the first place giue or at least promise to giue specially & particularly to one that Apostolique cōmissiō, which he meant also to giueto the rest, that hee might thereby shew, that the Church must be one, and that there must be but one Episcopall chaire in the world. All the Apostles, say the Cyprian, are Pastours, but the flock of Christ is but one, which they are to feed with vnanimous cōsent. There is but one body of the Church, one spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one baptisme, one God. This vnity all men must endeauour to keepe, especially Bishops, that they may make it appeare that there is but one Bishoply commission in the Christian Church, Cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur, that is, Whereof euery one indifferently and in equall sort hath his part. Here is nothing that proueth the vniuersality of the Papall power, or that Peter was by Christ made head of the whole Church. But this place most mainely ouerthroweth that supposed Headship. For Cyprian teacheth, that Christ meant to giue equall power and authority to all his Apostles, and that the rea∣son, why intending no more to one then to the rest, yet he more specially directed his speech to one then to the rest, was, onely to shew, that there must be an vnity in the Church, which he settled in that beginning with one, from him he proceeded to the rest, not meaning that the rest should receiue any thing from him, but that from him∣selfe immediately they should receiue that in the second place, which he had first, and that they should receiue the same commission together with him into which he was first put, that they might know him to be the first of their company. In this sense Innocentius sayth, e 1.632 A Petro ipse Episcopatus, & tota authoritas nominis huius emersit: that is, The Bishoply office, and the whole authority of this name and title tooke be∣ginning from Peter: whom, he sayth, all Bishops must respect, as Sui nominis & ho∣noris authorem: that is, as the first and originall of their name and honour. And Leo in like sort, Huius muner is sacramentum ita Dominus ad omnium Apostolorum officium * 1.633 voluit pertinere, vt in beatissimo Petro Apostolorū omnium summo principaliter collocaret, v•…•… ab ipso, quasi quodam capite, dona sua velut in corpus omne diffunderet; that is: The

Lords will was, that the mystery of this heauenly gift, commission, and imployment, should so pertaine to the ministery & office of all the Apostles, that yet he would first and principally place it in most blessed Peter the greatest of all the Apostles, that soe beginning with him as the head and first, hee might proceede from him to poure forth his gifts into all the body. But, sayth Bellarmine, Cyprian speaketh of another head of the Church besides Christ, and maketh the Church that so enlargeth it selfe, and hath so many parts, yet to be one in this roote and head: as the beames are many, but the light is one, as the boughes are many, but the tree is one: the riuers are many, but the fountaine is one. It is strange that a man of his learning and judgement should so mis-conceiue things, as he seemeth to doe. For it is most euident to any one that will but take the paines to peruse the place, that Cyprian speaketh not of a di∣stinct head of the Church different from Christ, and appointed by him to gouerne the Church, but of the originall, first beginning, and head of the commission the Pastours of the Church haue: Which commission Christ so gaue to all the Apostles, that yet first hee gaue it, or at least, first promised to giue it to one, and directed his speech specially to him, to shew that none can be Pastors of the Church, but such as without intrusion are consented on by them, that, hauing this power in vnity amongst them∣selues, may communicate it to others. Neither doth he say, as the Iesuite fansieth, that the many parts of the Church are one in subjection to one head distinct from Christ, as the beames of the sunne are one in the same light; but in the vnity of the same maine body: For euen as, sayth Cyprian, the beames of the sunne are one in the same light, and the boughes of the tree are one in the same tree; so all Churches must deriue thēselues frō the first Church, & all Pastors their cōmission from the first cōmission, which Christ gaue to all his Apostles; yet so, that he put one first into it, & directed his speeches specially vnto one, thereby to setle thē in an orderly vnity amongst thēselues. This is vndoubtedly the meaning of Cyprian: For it can no way stād, either with truth, with the opinion of Cyprian, or with the opinion of our Aduersaries themselues, that rest of the Apostles receiued their Ministeriall power from Peter, and were subject to him as to an head, and absolute commander ouer them, seing hee sayth expressely, that they were the same that Peter was, & equall to him, both in honour and power; and be∣sides, both in this booke, and in many other places, hee is wont to deriue the originall of schismes and heresies, frō the intrusion of men into places already full, ar at least into void places, without due admittance and allowance of them, that in a kind of coherent concord, rule and gouerne the Church; & neuer frō the resistance against one supreme cōmander set ouer all. So in his g 1.634 Epistle to Antonianus, he proueth Cornelius Bishop of Rome to be a true and lawfull Bishop, because hauing the testimony of the Clergie, and voyces of the people, the place of Fabianus being voyd, he was ordained to succeede him by many Bishops then at Rome, who sent their letters abroad, making honourable report of his due and right comming to the place, and the whole number of Bishops throughout the world with great vnanimity consented: and by the want of these things proueth his factious opposites to be schismatiques.

In the second allegation the Cardinall bewrayeth very grosse ignorance: For it was not a difference betweene Cornelius, and the Nouatians, refusing to acknowledge him to be Bishop, that gaue occasion of writing that h 1.635 Epistle, as he vntruely saith; but the calumniations of Faelicissimus and Fortunatus, against Cyprian himselfe: Which factious companions being put from the communion by Cyprian, and many of his col∣leagues, flying to Rome, were there rejected, and thereupon fell to threatning. These threatnings Cyprian despiseth, pronounceth them to be murtherers, sheweth that they shall not escape the judgment of God, and that nothing is to be remitted of the seuerity of Church-discipline, for feare of these wicked ones, that are ene∣mies of Priests, and rebels against Gods Church; whom God will vndoubtedly much more seuerely punish, then they were, who in the time of the law of Moses despi∣sed the high Priest, and other Priests and rulers of the people: who yet answered such their contempts with their bloud; and then addeth the words cited by Bellar∣mine,

that hence all heresies and schismes doe arise, for that the Priest of God is not

obeyed, nor one Priest in the Church for the time, & one Iudge in Christs stead for the time acknowledged: whom if men would obey according to the divine instru∣ctions, no man would attempt any thing against the Colledge of Priests, no man af∣ter the judgement of God, the voices of the people, & the consent of fellow-Bishops, would make himselfe a Iudge, not so much of the Bishops, as of God himself; no man pleasing himself would bring in any new heresie or schisme to the renting & dividing of the Church; as if, when a sparrow falleth not to the ground without the will of our Father, it were possible that hee who is ordained a Bishop in the Church, should bee ordained without the will of God. Surely, saith he, I speake it provoked, I speake it grieued & constrained, when a Bishop is placed in the roome of one that is dead, cho∣sen in peace by all the people, protected by diuine helpe in the time of persecution, faithfully conjoined with all his colleagues, approued to his people foure years in his Bishoply office, in the time of peace keeping the rules of discipline, proscribed in the times of trouble, so often euen with addition of the title of Bishop, called for to bee cast to the Lyon, & euen in these very dayes wherein I write vnto thee, called for a∣gain to the Lyon; if such a one be impugned by a few desperate & wicked ones, it will easily appeare who they are that so impugne him. All these things are spoken by Cy∣prian

of his own case, as most clearly appeareth by his 69 epistle; & therfore the words are strangely wrested by Bellarmine to proue the Papacie, when Cyprian speaketh of the respect that is due to the B. of euery particular Church, &, by application thereof to himself, sheweth Cornel. how little he had bin respected, & how grievously he hath bin wronged. But the Cardinall will proue that he speaketh of the Pope, when he spea∣keth of one Pastour, & of one Iudge in the Church for the time, & not of euery Bishop or Pastour in his own particular Church: First, because in the book De vnitate Eccle∣siae, he maketh Peter Head & Commander of all the Church; and saith, heresies spring from the not seeking to this Head; then which nothing is more vntrue. For Cyprian doth not make Peter Head & commander ouer the whole Church, as I haue alreadie shewed in answer to the former allegation. Secondly, for that when he speaketh of one Iudge in the Church in stead of Christ, he must of necessitie by the name of the Church vnderstand the vniversall Church, and not each particular Church, because in his E∣pistle he speaketh of Cornelius. A strange kinde of proofe, & such as I thinke can neuer be made good: For first, the consequence doth not hold, seeing he might speak of Cor∣nelius, & yet vnderstand by the name of the Church, the diocese of Rome, and not the vniversall Church: and secondly, it is vntrue that hee saith, hee speaketh of Cornelius. For it is as cleare as the Sun at noone day, that throughout the whole Epistle, hee com∣plaineth of contempts, indignities, & wrongs offered to himselfe by Faelicissimus and Fortunatus, & not to Cornelius. But that Cyprian neuer acknowledged the supremacie of power which the Roman Bishops at this day claime, no better proof can be desired then this Epistle will yeeld: For these miscreants, Faelicissimus, Fortunatus, & their ad∣herents, fled to Cornelius, complaining against Cyprian: whom hee peremptorily con∣demneth for this their flying to Rome, as violators of the Canons, & disturbers of the order of the Church, which requireth all matters to bee heard and determined in those places where the accusers and witnesses may be produced,

Vnlesse, saith he, a few de∣sperate & wicked companions do thinke the authority of the African Bishops to be lesse then the authority of the other Bishops elsewhere, & therefore carry things out of Africa by way of appeale to other places. So that when hee calleth the Church of

Rome the principall Church, whence Sacerdotall vnity sprang, his meaning is, that it is the principall Church in order & honour, & not in absolute, supreme, commaunding power: & that Sacerdotall vnity sprang from thence, not as if all Bishops did receiue their power and jurisdiction from the Bishop of Rome, but for that, though all receiue their Bishoply commission immediatly from Christ, by the hands of the Apostles or∣daining them, yet he is to be acknowledged as first in the commissiō succeeding Peter, to whom Christ first promised that, which hee meant afterwards in as ample sort to giue to all the rest.

For answer to the third allegatiō, we must obserue that Cyprian in the i 1.636 Epistle cited

by Bellarmine, laboureth to satisfie Cornelius Bishop of Rome, who was something of∣fended with him, for that presently so soone as he heard of his ordination, he did not write vnto him as to his fellow Bishop. To this purpose he sheweth, that he refrai∣ned and forbare so to doe, till he was by others assured of his due and orderly election, and ordination, as well as by himselfe, because hee perceiued there was some oppo∣sition against him; but that as soone as his ordination was approued vnto him, hearing of some factious and turbulent men stirring against him, hee sent certaine of his brethren and colleagues, to put to their helping hands for the bringing of the de∣vided members of the body, to the vnitie of the Catholique church, if by any meanes it might bee; but that the obstinacie of the one part was such, that they not onely refused the bosome of the roote, and common mother, seeking to receiue and embrace them, but set vp another head or Bishop; where it is plaine and euident, that he speaketh not of the vniuersall church, the common mother of all beleeuers, but of that particular church of Rome, whereof Cornelius was Bishop, opposite to the di∣visions of such as departed from the vnity of it, who being gone out of the bosome and lap of it, chose a Bishop of their owne faction.

The fourth and last allegation will easily be answered, if we doe but take a view of that which Cyprian writeth in the k 1.637 Epistle alleaged. There is, saith he, one God, one Christ, one Church, one chaire founded vpon Peter by the Lords owne voyce. No other Altar may be raised, nor other new Priest-hood appointed, besides that one Altar and one Priesthood already appointed. Whosoeuer gathereth any where else, scattereth. Surely, it is not possible, that the Cardinall should thinke as he pretendeth to do, that Cyprian speaketh of one singular chaire ordained by Christ for one Bishoppe to sit in, appoin∣ted to teach all the world. For the question in this place is not touching obedience to be yeelded to the Bishop of Rome, that Cyprian should neede to vrge that point, but touching certaine Schismatiques which opposed themselues against him; & there∣fore hee vrgeth the vnity of the church and of the chaire, to shew, that against them that are lawfully placed, with consenting allowance of the Pastors at vnity, others may not bee admitted; and that they, who by any other meanes get into the places of Ministerie, then by the consenting allowance of the Pastors at vnitie amongst them∣selues, are in trueth and indeede no Bishops at all. So that Cyprian by that one chaire hee mentioneth, vnderstandeth not one particular chaire appointed for a generall teacher of all the world to sit in, but the ioynt commission, vnity, and consent of all Pastors, which is and must be such, as if they did all sit in one chaire.

Hitherto we haue heard what can be alleaged out of Cyprians writings, to proue the supreme commaunding authority of the Pope. Now let vs heare what may bee alleaged out of the same for the improuing thereof. First, in his booke of the v∣nity of the church he saith,

There is one Episcopall office whereof euery one equally and indifferently hath his part; and secondly, in the Councell of Carthage holden by

him and other Bishops of Africa, he saith; l 1.638

None of vs maketh himselfe a Bishop of Bishops, or tyrannically enforceth his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, because every Bishop hath his own free iudgment & disposition, & may neither iudge other, nor bee judged of other, but must all expect the iudgement of God, who only hath power to set vs over his Church, and to iudge of our actions. To the first of these au∣thorities

m 1.639 Bellarmine answereth that each Bishop hath his part in the Episcopall of∣fice & communion, equally, & as well as any other, but not an equall part: For Peter & his successours haue that part, that is as the roote, head, & fountaine; the rest, those parts that are as the braunches, members, & riuers, and that therefore Peters Succes∣sours are to rule & gouerne the rest. But this answere is refuted by the other place, where Cyprian with the whole Councell of Carthage saith: None of vs maketh himselfe a Bishop of Bishops, or goeth about tyrannically to inforce others to a necessity of obeying, see∣ing each Bishop hath his liberty, & no one may iudge another, nor be iudged of another, but must all expect the iudgement of God. If hee reply, that this which Cyprian speaketh of the equality of Bishops, is to be vnderstood of the Bishops of Carthage, amongst whō none was found, that had power to command ouer others, & not generally so as to in∣clude

the Bishop of Rome, he is refuted by Cyprian himselfe: who in his Epistle to' Ste∣phen * 1.640 Bishop of Rome, hauing freely dissented from him, and shewed the reasons of his so dissenting, pro communi honore, & simplici dilectione: that is, For the fellowship they haue in the same honorable calling and imployment, and the simplicitie and singlenesse of his loue, sayth, hee hopeth Stephen will approue that which is true and right, and which he hath so strongly confirmed and proued, though there be some (so taxing him in a sort as too stiffely cleauing to his owne opinion) that will not easily alter their minds, but holding communion with their colleagues, stiffely maintaine what they haue once conceiued. Wherein, saith he, Nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem da∣mus, cum habeat in ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum vnusquisque praepofitus, rationem actus sui Domino redditurus: that is, Neither do we force any man, or giue a law vnto any man, whereas euery gouernour hath the free disposition of his owne will in the administration of the Church being to giue an account of his actions vnto the Lord. Here wee see Cyprian speaketh in the very same sort in the case be∣tween him and Stephen, as he did in the Councell of Carthage, and that generally hee maketh all Bishops equall, and no one subject to the judgment of another, but to the judgement of God only, and the company of their fellow Bishops. And that he did not thinke the Bishop of Rome to haue an infallibility of judgment, or a commanding au∣thority ouer other Bishops, it appeareth, in that writing to o 1.641 Pompeius of Stephens an∣swere to his letters, and sending him a copy of the same answere, he telleth him, that by reading it, hee may more and more note his errour in maintaining the cause of here∣tiques against Christians and the Church of God: and feareth not to pronounce of him, that he writeth many things proudly, impertinently, vnskilfully, improuidently, and contrary to himselfe: and, which more is, contemning his prescription, that heretiques should not be rebaptized, but bee receiued with the imposition of hands onely, hee chargeth him with hard, stiffe, and inflexible obstinacie. p 1.642 Firmilianus with the Bi∣shops of Phrygia, Galatia, Cilicia, and other regions neere adioyning, assembled in a Synode at Iconium, consented with Cyprian: and Firmilianus writing to him, telleth him of their resolution, and chargeth Stephen with folly, who bragging of the place of his Bishoprique, and pretending to succeed Peter, on whom the Church was founded, yet bringeth in many other rockes, and new buildings of many Churches, in that hee supposed heretiques to be truly baptized, who are out of the communion of the true Church: whereas the Church was specially promised to be builded on Peter, to shew that it must be but one. And in great dislike and reprehension of Stephen, he saith, he was not ashamed in fauour of heretiques to deuide the brotherhood, and to call Cyprian the worthy seruant of God, a false Christ, a false Apostle, and a deceiptfull, and guilefull workeman: whereas all these things might much more truly bee sayd of him: and therefore guilty to himselfe, Praeuenit, vt alteri ea per mendacium ob∣jiceret, quae ipse ex merito audire deberet: that is, By way of preuention, hee falsely, and lyingly obiected those things to another, which himselfe truly and deseruedly might haue had objected to him by others. Such and so great were the oppositions of Cyprian and his consorts, against Stephen and his adherents, in the matter of rebapti∣zation: whereupon q 1.643 Bellarmine saith, it seemeth that Cyprian sinned mortally, in that hee obeyed not the commandement of Stephen, nor submitted his judgement to the judgement of his superiour. That hee erred in the matter of rebaptization, we willingly confesse: but, that he knew not the power, authority, and commission of the Bishoppe of Rome, or that he would euer haue dissented from him, or opposed himselfe against him in a question of faith if hee had thought his power to bee vniuer∣sall, and his iudgment infallible, we vtterly deny. For then hee should not onely haue erred in the matter of rebaptization, but haue beene a damnable heretique, and and haue perished euerlastingly: whereas yet the Church of God hath euer reputed him a holy Bishop, and a blessed Martyr. Thus hauing examined the testimonies of Cyprian, vsually alleaged, for and against the supremacy of the Pope, let vs proceed to the rest of Bellarmines witnesses.

The next that followeth is Optatus, out of whom it is alleaged, that r 1.644 there was one

Episcopall Chaire in the whole Church appointed by Christ. But because this is the same which was formerly alleaged out of Cyprian, & already answered in the answers to the allegations brought out of him, therefore without farther troubling of the Rea∣der, I referre him to that which went before.

The next vnto Optatus is Ambrose, out of whom three seuerall places are produced; in the first, his words are these, as Bellarmine citeth them. s 1.645 Though the whole world bee Gods, yet the Church onely is called his house, the Gouernour whereof at this day is Dama∣sus. For answer hereunto we say, that this testimony rather witnesseth their forge∣ry, then confirmeth their errour. For the Commentaries attributed to Ambrose, wherein these words are, are not his: and besides, this addition, (the gouernour where∣of at this day is Damasus) may be thought to haue beene put in, in fauour of their fancie touching the Papall vniversalitie of jurisdiction; it is so sudden, causelesse, and abrupt. In the second place, Ambrose t 1.646 reporteth of Satyrus, that before he would receiue the Sacrament of the Lords body, he asked of the Bishop by whose hands hee was to re∣ceiue it, whether he held communion with the Catholick Bishops, and namely, with the Romane Church? To the inference of our Adversaries, and the conclusion they seek to deriue & draw from these words in fauour of the Papacie, I haue answered else∣where, * 1.647 whither I referre the Reader. Wherefore let vs come to the third and last place of Ambrose: His words are, Wee follow the type and forme of the Romane Church * 1.648 in all things; and againe, I desire to follow the Romane Church in all things. Surely, this place of all other most clearely confuteth the errour of the Romanists, touching the infallibility of the judgement of the Roman Church and Bishop, and the necessitie of absolute conformity with the same. For in this place Saint Ambrose sheweth, that in the Church of Millaine, whereof he was Bishop, the manner in his time was, that the Bishop girding himselfe about with a towell in imitation of Christ, did wash the feete of such as were newly baptized; and after great commendation of the same cu∣stome, objecting to himselfe that the Romane Church had it not; first he saith, that per∣haps the Church of Rome omitted this washing, because of the difficultie, and great la∣bour in performing it, by reason of the multitude of those that were baptized. Second∣ly, whereas some said in defence and excuse of the omission of this washing in the Ro∣mane Church, that it is not to be vsed as a mysticall right in the regeneration of them that are new borne in Christ, but in the ciuill entertainment of strangers (the offices of humilitie and ciuill courtesie, being very farre different from the mysteries and sacred rights of sanctification) he reproueth them for so saying, and endeauoureth to shew, that this kinde of washing is a sacred and mysticall right, tending to the sanctification of them that are newly baptized, and that out of the words of Christ to Peter; Vnlesse I wash thee, thou shalt haue no part in me: and then addeth the wordes alleaged by Bellar∣mine, I desire in all things to follow the Romane Church, but notwithstanding we also are men, and haue our sense and iudgment: and therefore what we finde to be rightly obserued any where else, we also rightly obserue & keepe: we follow the Apostle Peter, wee cleaue fast vnto his devotion, and hereunto, what can the Church of Rome answer? Whereby wee may see with what conscience these men alleage the testimonies of the Fathers. Am∣brose saith, Other men haue judgement to discerne what is fit to be done, as well as the Romanes: that if any where else they finde better obseruations then in the Church of Rome, they may lawfully embrace them; that S. Peter Bishop of Rome was authour of his assertion; and that the Church of Rome hath nothing to answer in her own defence, or whereby to justifie her omitting of this sacred washing: and they produce his te∣stimonie to proue, that he thought it necessary to be like in all things to the Church of Rome. Neither doth Bellarmines answer, that he thought it necessary to follow the Church of Rome in all things necessary to saluation, though he dissented in this obser∣vation, satisfie vs; seeing he thought this obseruation necessary to the perfect regene∣ration of the baptized, & consequently to saluation, as appeareth in the place it selfe. Wherefore, when Ambrose saith of himselfe, and those of Millaine, that they follow in all things the type & forme of the Romane Church it is not to be vnderstood with∣out all limitatiō: but that as other daughter-Churches do follow the custome of their

mother-churches; so the church of Millaine conformeth her selfe to the church of Rome in all things, so farre forth as shee can perswade her selfe it is fitte and right so to doe: otherwise, out of her judgement and discretion receiuing from other churches that which they haue in better sort then shee: euenas Gregorie Bishop of Rome y 1.649 pro∣fessed, that he was not ashamed to learne of those churches that were meaner then his owne.

From Ambrose the Cardinall passeth to Hierome, out of whose writings he produ∣ceth two testimonies. The first, out of his Epistle to Ageruchia, de Monogamiâ; the other out of his Epistle to Damasus touching the vse of the word Hypostasis. The first of these two testimonies might well haue beene spared. For what canne any man in∣ferre from this that Hierome saith, hee did helpe Damasus in writing answeres to the Synodall consultations of the East and West? was there euer any man that doubted of the consulting of the Bishop of Rome, and his Bishops by the Synodes of the East and West, in matters concerning the faith, and state of the vniuersall Church? Or may it bee concluded from hence, that the Pope hath an absolute supreme power in the Church? Surely, I thinke not. Wherefore let vs passe to the second testimonie. Ego, saith Hierome to Damasus, nullum primum nisi Christum sequens, beatitudini tuae, idest, Cathedrae Petri, communione consocior: super illampetram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio, Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum commederit, profanus est: Si quis in arcâ Noae non fuerit, peribit regnante diluuio; that is, I following no first and chiefe but Christ, am ioyned in communion to your blessednesse, that is, to Peters chaire. Vpon that rocke I know the Church to bee builded: whosoeuer shall eate the Paschall Lambe out of this house, he is a profane person: If any man shall be out of Noahs arke, hee shall vn∣doubtedly perish, when the floud prevaileth and drowneth all. It is true, that z 1.650 Cy∣prian hath obserued in his Epistle to Stephen Bishop of Rome, that therefore almighty God appointed a great number & companie of Bishops, ioyned together by the glew and bond of vnity, that if some fall into heresie, and seeke to wast the flocke of Christ, the rest may gather the dispersed sheepe into the fold againe; and therefore euen as if one hauen be dangerous, they that saile will seeke to another more safe; and if one Inne vpon the way be possessed by theeues and wicked persons, wayfaring men will turne into another; so in the Church, when the Pastours of one part of it are infected with errour and heresie, men must flie to them that are right-beleeuers in other parts. This was the case of Hierome, as it appeareth by this his Epistle: Hee liued at the time of the writing of it in the East parts, where Arrianisme had strangely and dan∣gerously prevailed, but the West churches were sound. Hee was vrged to confesse and acknowledge, that there are three Hypostases or subsistences in the Godhead. This forme of speaking he suspected, as fearing some ill meaning, especially because he suspected them that tendered it to him; and therefore flieth for direction to Da∣masus and the Westerne Bishops. For it appeareth that hee sought the resolution of them all, though the manner was to write onely to the chiefe amongst them. Let vs heare therefore what it is that he saith, and what the Iesuite inferreth from his say∣ing. He admitteth, saith Bellarmine, no originall teacher but Christ: yet is ioyned in communion with Damasus, that is, with Peters chaire, and professeth, that vpon that rocke the Church was builded. Therefore he acknowledgeth the vniuersality of Pa∣pall power and iurisdiction. This argument of the Cardinall is too weake to proue the intended conclusion. For though there bee no question but that in a true sense the Church may be said to haue beene builded on Peters chaire, that is, vpon his office and Ministery, yet it will not follow that they who succeed him in that chaire haue vni∣versality of power and iurisdiction: seeing a 1.651 Hierome himselfe teacheth, that the Church is builded as well vpon the rest of the Apostles, as vpon Peter, & consequent∣ly that their chaires are that rocke, vpon which the Church is builded, as well as Peters. And yet besides all this, b 1.652 Gregory sheweth, that Peters chaire being but one, is in three seuerall places, and three Bishops doe sit in it. For Peters chaire is at A∣lexandria, where he taught and ruled by Marke his scholler; at Antioch, where he re∣mained for a time; and at Rome, where in his body he yet still abideth, expecting the

second comming of Christ. Vpon this chaire as on a rocke the Church is builded. But this chaire and throne implieth not onely the office and ministery of them, who most specially succeed Peter, as the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, but of such other also, as in ioynt commission with them gouerne the Church. Wherevp∣on, according to the phrase of c 1.653 Antiquity, the iudgement of the Romane See, and the iudgement of the Bishop of Rome with his fellow Bishops of the West, is all one. But some man will say, that Hierome pronounceth him to be a profane person that eateth the lambe out of this house, speaking of the Church of Rome: therefore hee thinketh all men and Churches bound for euer to hold communion with the Romane Church. For answere to this obiection, first we say, it may very probably be thought, that by the house he speaketh of, out of which the Lambe may not be eaten, he meaneth not particularly the Romane Church, but the true Catholique Church of Christ, which is equally builded vpon all the Apostles, in respect of the same firmenesse found in them all; but more specially vpon Peter, as in order and honour the chiefest of them; and then there is no question but all men are bound for euer to adhere to this church, and to eate the Lambe within the wals of this house. That this is the meaning of Hie∣rome, the very forme of his words doe perswade vs. I am ioyned (saith hee) to Peters chaire, vpon that rocke the Church is builded, out of this house (of the Church, doubtlesse) the Lambe may not be eaten. Now by the name of the Church immediatly going be∣fore, is meant the vniuersall Church: therefore by this house we must vnderstand that great house, within the wals whereof the whole houshold of faith is contained. Se∣condly we say, that if he speake of the Romane or West Church particularly, he may be thought to meane, not that hee shall perpetually and alwayes bee iudged a profane person that eateth the Lambe without the wals of that house: but things so standing as they did when he wrote, no other partes of the Church being sound, safe, and free from heresies, but the Westerne parts onely. Which made him say, hee knew not Paulinus, who was then Bishop of Antioch, within the compasse of whose Patriarch∣ship he liued, because there was question as well of his faith, as of the lawfulnesse of his ordination. For otherwise hee ought to haue knowne him, sought to him, and respected him. Thirdly, wee say it is more then probable, that the whole West Church shall neuer lose or forsake the true profession, and that therefore hee may rightly be iudged a profane person that eateth the paschall Lambe out of the commu∣nion of the same; though sometimes the Bishop of Rome in person be an heretique, o∣ther of his colleagues continuing faithfull. And that Hierome was of opinion, that the Bishop of Rome may become an heretique, it is most cleare and euident, in that d 1.654 he saith, that both Liberius and Felix were Arrian Heretickes.

Thus haue we answered whatsoeuer may be alledged out of Hierome for the Papa∣cie, and shewed the weakenesse of those allegations. Now let vs see what authori∣ties may be brought out of his writings against the absolute supreme power of Popes. First, he saith, if wee seeke authority, e 1.655 Orbis maior est vrbe. The world is greater then the greatest citty in the world, and the whole Church is of greater authority then the particular Church of Rome: And thereupon reprehendeth the negligence or errour of the church of Rome, in permitting contrary to the manner of other churches, Dea∣cons to grow so insolent, as to dare to sit in the presence of the Presbyters when the Bishoppe was away; as also in ordaining Presbyters vpon the commendation of Dea∣cons; So that hee blamed not the Deacons onely, as f 1.656 Bellarmine vntruely saith, but the Romane Bishop, to whom the ordaining of Presbyters pertained. Neither will it followe, that the insolencie of the Deacons presuming to sitte in the presence of Presbyters, was vnknowne to the Bishop, or not allowed by the Church, as Bellar∣mine collecteth, because they are said so to haue done, when the Bishop was away. For that circumstance rather insinuateth that though they had not cast off all respect to the Bishop, yet they had forgotten their duty towards the Presbyters, then that this their presuming was vnknowne to the Bishop. Secondly, he pronounceth that g 1.657 wheresoeuer a Bishop bee, whether at Rome or Eugubium, at Constantinople or Rhegium, at Alexandria or Tanais, hee is of the same merit, and the same Priesthood; the power of

riches, and the humility of poore estate not making a Bishop higher or lower. To this place Bellarmine answereth, that all Bishops are equall in the power of order, but not of ju∣risdiction. But it is certaine, Hierome thought all Bishops equall, not only in the power of order, but of jurisdiction also. For Metropolitanes in his time, though in order and honour greater then the rest, were bound to follow what the greater part of the Bi∣shops of the Province consented on, and might doe nothing but as the greater part should resolue, howsoeuer in processe of time, by positiue constitution, the Metropo∣litanes limited and directed by Canons, were trusted with the doing of many things by themselues alone, rather then the Bishops would bee troubled with often meeting in Councels. But saith Bellarmine, it cannot bee that Hierome should thinke all Bi∣shops equall in the power of jurisdiction, seeing without all question the Bishop of A∣lexandria, hauing vnder him three great Provinces, was greater in jurisdiction then the Bishop of Tanais, who had vnder him onely one poore little city. For answer here∣unto we say, that Patriarches haue no more power ouer the Metropolitanes subject to them, then the Metropolitanes haue ouer the Bishops of the Province; and that there∣fore howsoeuer the extent of their power reach farther, yet proportionably it is no greater then the power of the Metropolitanes within their narrower precincts and compasse, & that the Metropolitan originally is not greater in the power of jurisdictiō, then any other Bishop of the Province, howsoeuer he haue a preheminence of honour, and sit as a President among the Bishops meeting to performe the acts of jurisdiction, and by cōmon consent to manage the affaires of the Province: so that, notwithstanding any thing the Cardinall can say to the contrary, the testimonies and authorities of Hi∣erome stand good against the Popes proud claime of vniversall power.

Wherefore leauing Hierome, who witnesseth not for them, but against them, let vs heare whether Augustine will say any thing for them. Out of Augustine sundry things are alleadged: as first, that hee saith, h 1.658 The principality and chiefetie of the Aposto∣licall chaire did euer flourish in the Romane Church: and secondly, that to Bonifacius he saith, i 1.659 Thou disdainest not to be a friend of the humble, and those of the meane sort; and though thou sit in higher place, yet thou art not high minded: And againe. k 1.660 The watch tower is common to vs all that are Bishops, although thou hast a higher roome in the same. Surely it is strange to what purpose these places of Augustine are alleaged. For wee neuer denied a principality or chieftie of order and honour to haue belonged ancient∣ly to the Bishops of Rome, whilest they rested contented therewith, and sought not to bring all vnder them by claime of vniversall power: and this is all that can be collected out of Augustine. But (saith Bellarmine) In his l 1.661 Epistle to Optatus, speaking of a meeting of Bishops at Caesarea, he saith, an Ecclesiasticall necessitie laid vpon them by the reverend Pope Zozimus, Bishop of the Apostolicall See, drew them thither: there∣fore he thought the Bishop of Rome superiour vnto other Bishops, not in order & honour onely, but in power of commaunding also. For answer hereunto, first wee say, that a great part of Africa was within the precincts of the Pat•…•…archship of Rome, and that therefore the Bishop of Rome might call the Bishops of those parts to a Syno∣dall meeting, as euery Patriarch may doe the Bishops vnder him, though hee had no commaunding power ouer all the world. Secondly, that in a matter of faith concer∣ning the whole state of the Church, Zozimus as in order and honour first amongst Bi∣shops, might vrge them by vertue of the Canons appointing such meetings, to meete together in a Synode for the suppressing of such heresies as he found to arise amongst them, and might justly threaten, if they should refuse so to doe, to reject them from the communion of the Bishops and Churches adhering to him, and thereby lay an Ec∣clesiasticall necessity vpon them, without any claime of vniversall power. Neither doth the next place (wherein m 1.662 Augustine, and the Bishops assembled in the Councell of Mileuis, desire Innocentius to concurre with them in suppressing the heresies of the Pelagians, which sought to spread themselues into all parts of the world, and to vse his pastorall care and diligence for the preventing of the dangers of the weake members of Christ) yeeld any better proofe, that they reputed him vniversall Bishop. For what doe they here attribute to the Bishop of Rome, that. n 1.663 Cyprian writing to Stephen in the

case of Martianus Bishop of Arle, doth not assume to himselfe & other his colleagues, saying of himselfe & thē, that they are bound to vse all diligence to gather together, and call backe the erring sheepe of Christ, to apply the medicine of fatherly piety for the curing of the wounds and hurts of such as are fallen, to recollect and cherrish al the sheepe that Christ purchased with his precious bloud; & to know that though they be many Pastours yet they feed but one flocke. But sayth Bellarmine, why do they not ra∣ther write to the Patriarch of Hierusalem, to the Metropolitane of Palaestina, or to the Primate of Africa, in which parts of the world Pelagianisme specially seemed to pre∣uaile, then to the Bishop of Rome, if they did not thinke him to haue an vniuersall power? Surely this question of the Cardinall sheweth that either he knoweth not, or careth not what he writeth: for the cause of Pelagius had beene often heard and exa∣mined by Synodes of Bishops in Palaestina; and the o 1.664 Primate of Africa with his Afri∣cane Bishops did write to Innocentius as well as Augustine, and those assembled in the Councell of Mileuis; as well to informe him of the guilefull fraudulent, and slipperie dealings of Pelagius, that hee might no way be induced to fauour him, (as some feared not to giue out that he did) as also that he might be perswaded to put to his helping hand for the suppressing of this heretique, who though condemned by many Synodes, ceased not to flie from place to place, seeking to spread his heresies, & therefore there was no cause that they should write to either of these.

Thus haue our Aduersaries found nothing in Augustine and the Africanes, that a∣ny way fauoureth the Popes proud claime of vniuersall power. Neither do the rest of the witnesses who are next brought forth to giue testimonie for the Pope, depose a∣ny more to the purpose then the former haue done. For that Prosper saith, p 1.665 Rome the See of Peter being made the head of Pastorall honour to the world, holdeth by re∣ligion whatsoeuer it possesseth, not by force of armes; and q 1.666 that by reason of the prin∣cipality of Priestly or Bishoply dignity, it became greater in respect of the high tower of religion, then the throne of princely power; that Victor Vticensis r 1.667 calleth the Church of Rome the head of all Churches; & Hugo de Sancto Victore sayth, s 1.668 the Apostolique See is preferred before all the Churches in the world; is no more then that wee euer gran∣ted. For they all speake of a chieftie and principality of order and honour, and not of absolute commanding power. And the place which our Aduersaries bring out of Vincentius Lirinensis t 1.669 to proue the Pope to be head of the world, is strangely misse∣alleaged. For hauing spoken of the letters of Faelix the Martyr, and holy Iulius Bishop of Rome, he addeth, that blessed Cyprian was produced out of the South, and holy Am∣brose out of the North, that so not only Caput orbis, the head of the world, but the sides of it also might giue testimony to that iudgment, by the head and sides of the world vnderstanding the parts of the world, whence these witnesses were produced, and not the witnesses themselues: So that there is no more reason to inferre from hence, that the Bishop of Rome is head of all the world, then that Cyprian and Ambrose were the sides of the world. Neither doe the testimonies of Cassiodore u 1.670 who attributeth to the Bishop of Rome a generall care of the whole Christian world, and Beda who sayth, x 1.671 Leo excercised the Priestly office in the Christian world, make any more for proofe of the Popes vniuersall jurisdiction then the rest that went before. For their sayings argue not an absolute vniuersall commaunding power ouer all, but such a care of the whole, as beseemeth him that is in order and honour the chiefe of Bishops, from whom all actions generally concerning the Christian Church, are either to take beginning, or at least to be referred before finall ending, that so his aduice may be had therein. And surely howsoeuer Anselmus y 1.672 sayth, the custodie of the faith of Christians, and the regiment of the Church is committed to the Bishop of Rome; and Bernard z 1.673 writeth of him that he is chiefe of Bishops, heire of the Apostles, in primacie Abel, in gouerne∣ment Noah, in Patriarchicall honour Abraham, in order Melchizedek, in dignity A∣aron, in authoritie Moses, in iudgment Samuel, in power Peter, and in vnction Christ: that others haue particular flockes assigned to them, but that his charge hath no limits, with such like Hyperbolical amplificatiōs of the Popes greatnes, sauouring of the cor∣ruptiō of those late times wherein he liued; yet wil it neuer be proued, that either he or

diuers others speakinges he did, were of the Papall faction, or beleeued that the Pope hath that vniuersall power and iurisdiction, that is by the Iesuits. and other Romanists at this day giuen vnto him. For as Iohn Bacon a 1.674 a learned Schooleman, and countri∣man of ours, hath fitly noted, some attributed all those things whereof Bernard, and Anselmus speake, to the Pope, as thinking all fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and ju∣risdiction to be originally found in him, and that by himselfe alone hee might doe all things in the gouernment of the Church, and all other were to receiue of his fulnesse; which is the opinion of our aduersaries at this day: Other attributed these thinges vnto him, not as hauing all power in himselfe alone, but as head & chiefe of Bishops, together with their ioynt concurrence and assent: So that hee had power to iudge of the faith, to determine controuersies in religion, as Patriarch of the West, with the ioynt consent of his Westerne Bishops, and as prime Bishoppe of the world with an Oecumenicall Synode, wherein he was to sitte as an honourable president & modera∣tour, pronouncing according to the resolution of the Bishops, and not absolutely dis∣posing thinges according to his owne liking. Neither is it to be doubted but that very many followed this latter opinion, & consequently neuer gaue that fulnesse of power to the Pope that is now claimed, howsoeuer they attributed that vnto him as presi∣dent of Ecclesiasticall meetings, which rested not in him alone, but in the whole mee∣tings and Assemblies; as it is an ordinary thing to attribute that to the president of a∣ny company that is done by the whole company: and as all the great actions of State are attributed to the Duke of Venice, whereas yet he can do nothing but as he is sway∣ed & directed by the noble Senatours of that State.

CHAP. 37.

Of the pretended proofes of the Popes vniuersall power, taken from his intermedling in auncient times in confirming, deposing, or restoring Bishops deposed.

HAuing examined the testimonies of Councels, Popes, and Fathers Greeke and Latine, brought to proue the vniuersality of Ecclesiasticall power clai∣med by the Pope, and found their insufficiencie and weakenesse; let vs pro∣ceed to see, by what other proofes our Aduersaries endeavour to demon∣strate and confirme the same. The absolute, supreme power of Popes, they labour to proue, by the authority they exercised ouer other Bishops; by their lawes, dispen∣sations, and censures; by their Vicegerents which they appointed in places farre re∣mote from them; by Appeales brought vnto them; by their exemption from beeing subiect to any judgement; and by the names and titles that are giuen vnto them. Of all these I will entreat in order, and first of the authority the Bishoppes of Rome are supposed to haue exercised ouer other Bishops, in confirming, deposing, or restoring them.

Of confirmation a 1.675 Bellarmine bringeth some few examples, but such as will neuer confirme the thing he desireth to proue. For touching the confirmation of b 1.676 Maxi∣mus in the Bishopricke of Antioch, which is the first example that hee bringeth, first, it was not any confirmation of himselfe in his Bishoply office, but onely the determi∣ning of certaine differences betweene him and Iuvenall, about their limits, and the confirmation of the same end and conclusion: Secondly, this end was not made by Leo alone, but by the whole Councell of Chalcedon. Neither is the second proofe, that the confirmation of the chiefe Bishoppes of the world pertained aunciently to the Pope, any better then this. For these are the circumstances of that c 1.677 Leo wri∣teth, whom Bellarmine citeth in the second place, as challenging the right of confir∣ming the Bishop of Constantinople. Anatolius the Bishop of Constatinople, ambiti∣ously asp•…•…red to be greater then was fit, as Leo thought: Leo writeth to the Empe∣rour in reprehension of his presumption; and saith, that he might haue forbornethus ambitiously to aspire higher, seeing hee obtained the Bishopricke of Constantinople by the Emperours helpe, and his favourable assent. The favour that Leo speaketh

of, was in that Anatolius not hauing passed through the lower degrees of Ecclesiasti∣call Ministery, was somewhat irregularly preferred to bee Bishop of so great a city, which he was content to winke at, at the Emperours entreaty. And as the manner was, that the foure Patriarches, should (vpon notice giuen of their due ordination, and Synodall letters containing a profession of their faith) mutually giue assent one to another before they were accounted Patriarches, and fully possessed of their places: by his allowance, in the same sort as others were to allow of him, as much as in him lay he was content to confirme and make good his ordination, though somewhat irre∣gular and defectiue; which no way proueth that the confirming of the great Bishops of the world pertained any otherwise to the Bishop of Rome, then the right of confir∣ming him pertained vnto them. Yet this is in effect all they can say: For that d 1.678 Leo willeth the Bishop of Thessalonica to take knowledge of the Metropolitanes chosen in the Provinces subject to him, as Vicegerent to the Patriarch of Rome, and by his assent to confirme their ordination; as likewise, that e 1.679 writing to the Bishops of Africa, sub∣ject to him as Patriarch, he telleth them, hee is content the Bishop of Salicen turned from Novatianisme, shall keepe his place, if hee send vnto him the confession of his faith, and that f 1.680 Gregory complaineth, that the Bishop of Salona within his Patriarch∣ship was ordained without his privity and consent, doth no more proue the Pope to be vniversall Bishop, then the other Patriarches, without whose assent none of the Me∣tropolitanes subject to them, might be ordained. And this was it that so much grie∣ued Gregory, namely, that his Bishops (thereby putting a difference betweene such as were subject to him, in that he was Patriarch of the West, and others) should so de∣spise and contemne him. But let our Aduersaries proue, that either Gregory, or any of his predecessours euer challenged the confirmarion of Metropolitanes, subject to any of the other Patriarches, and we will confesse they say something: Otherwise all that they bring is idle, and to no purpose, prouing nothing that wee euer doubted of. For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of confirming the Metropolitanes within the precincts of his owne Patriarchship, as likewise euery other Patriarch had: and that therefore hee might send the Pall to sundry parts of Greece, France, and Spaine, as Bellarmine alleadgeth, being all within the compasse of his Patriarch∣ship, and yet not bee vniversall Bishop, as Bellarmine would willingly from hence inferre.

Wherefore seeing our adversaries haue so little to say for the Popes right of con∣firming Bishops, let vs proceede to see what proofes they can produce of his power and authority in deposing them. Their first allegation is touching g 1.681 Stephen Bishop of Rome, deposing as they suppose Martianus Bishop of Arle in France, who had joined himselfe with Novatianus, denying reconciliation, and the Churches peace to such as hauing fallen and denyed the faith, afterwardes repented and turned againe vnto God. This allegation is too weake to proue their intended conclusion: For it is most certaine by all circumstances of the Epistle of Cyprian cited by Bellarmine, that Stephen the Bi∣shop of Rome did not depose Martianus by himselfe alone: and therefore Cyprian doth not say to Stephen, therefore hath God appointed thee to bee ouer all Bishops, that if they fall into heresie, or faile in the performance of their duty, thou mightst set all right againe: but, therefore hath God appointed a great number of Bishops, that if any one of that company and society fall into here sie, and beginne to teare, rent, and waste the flocke of Christ, the rest may helpe, and as good and pittifull Pastours, gather the scattered sheepe of Christ into the fold againe. Neither doth he say to Stephen, that hee should suspend Martianus, but that he should write to the Bishops of France to doe it, and not to suffer him any longer to insult vpon the company of Catholique Bishoppes, for that hee was not yet suspended, and rejected from their communion. But some man per∣haps will aske why Cyprian desireth Stephen to write to the Bishops of France, and writeth not himselfe, as if the power of deposing Martianus were no more in Ste∣phen then in himselfe. Surely there may bee three reasons giuen of his so doing; the first, because hee was nearer to them then Cyprian. The second, because hee as Patriarch of the West, with his Bishoppes, was more likely to prevaile

then Cyprian with his Africanes alone. The third, for that (as Cyprian himselfe obserueth in the end of this Epistle) it more concerned him then any other to main∣taine the reputation of LVCIVS and CORNELIVS his predecessours, and to oppose himselfe against Martianus, who joyned himselfe with Nouatianus, that had schismatically and heretically rent and diuided himselfe from them, and made a schisme in their Church. Neither doth that which followeth (where he de∣sireth Stephen to write vnto him, who is appointed in the roome of Martianus, that so he may know whom to write vnto, and with whom to communicate) im∣port, that hee should by himselfe alone constitute the Bishoppe of Arle; but that writing to the people to choose, and the Bishoppes of the prouince to direct them in choosing, and to consecrate him they should choose, hee should require to be certi∣fied from them of their proceedings accordingly, that so he might impart the same vn∣to him.

The next proofe that the Pope hath authority to depose any Bishop of the world, deseruing to be deposed, is out of the Epistle of Nicholas the first to Michael the Em∣perour of Constantinople. But whosoeuer shall peruse the place, shall finde, that noe such thing can be concluded out of it. For the drift of Nicolas in that Epistle, is to shew, that the inferiours may not iudge their superiours, as the prouinciall Bishops their Metropolitanes, or the Metropolitanes their Patriarch; but that still the greater must judge the lesser. If a Clerke, sayth the Councell of h 1.682 Chalcedon, haue ought against his Bishoppe, let the matter bee heard in the Synode of the prouince: but if a Bishop or Clerke, haue a complaint against the Metropolitane, let him go to the Pri∣mate of the Diocese, or to the See of Constantinople: So that euer the greater must judge the lesser, and the lesser may neuer presume to judge the greater, so long as there is any greater to flye vnto. And therefore Iohn of Antioch in the Councell of Ephesus was re∣proued, for that being but Bishop of the third See, he presumed to judge Cyril Bishop of the second See: & Dioscorus Bishop of the second See was condemned in the Coun∣cell of Chalcedon, for that he iudged Leo, Bishop of the first See. This he insisteth vpon, to shew, that the Bishops subiect to Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, had vnjustly proceeded against him: & then to shew, that this their proceeding was strange & new, he saith, there hath scarce beene any of the Bishops of Constantinople deposed, whose deposition hath bin holden iust and good, without the concurrence of the See of Rome. Now how will this proue that the Pope hath power in himselfe alone to depose all Bishops worthy to be deposed? is it consequent, that if the Bishops of Patriarchicall Sees may not be judged by their owne Bishops alone, nor by those that are in degree of honour inferiour to them, and that the Patriarches of higher Sees, with their Bi∣shops, must concurre with the Bishops of those Patriarches that are judged, and that neuer any Bishop of Constantinople, being next in honour to the Bishop of Rome, was deposed but by such a Synode, whereof the Bishop of Rome was president, that the Bishoppe of Rome hath in himselfe alone the fulnesse of all Ecclesiasticall power? Surely, I thinke not, our Aduersaries themselues being judges. But Gelasius in his Epistle to the Bishops of Dardania, sayth, the See Apostolique by her authority con∣demned Dioscorus, Bishop of the Second See: therefore the Pope hath all Ecclesiasti∣cal power originally seated in himselfe alone. Truely this cōsequence is no better then the former. For by the See Apostolique Gelasius vnderstandeth the Romane Bishop, and the Bishops of the West subject to him, who Synodically condemned Dioscorus, and yet not without the concurrence of many other Bishops: nor so as that the iudge∣ment was thought perfect, till an i 1.683 Oecumenicall Synode confirmed it, as it appeareth by the course of histories.

The next example is the deposition of k 1.684 Flauianus, Bishop of Antioch, by Dama∣sus Bishop of Rome. But this example might haue beene spared. For it is most cer∣taine that Damasus did not depose Flauianus. The circumstances of the history are these: Eustathius that worthy Bishop of Antioch, who l 1.685 made that excellent Oration in the prayse of Constantine in the Councell of Nice, and was so earnest and zealous a de∣fender of the true faith against the Arrians, being by certaine Arrians m 1.686 cast out of

his Bishoprique, and banished, vpon the occasion of a lewd woman; charging him to haue committed adultery with her, but afterward confessing she had wronged him, and that shee had beene suborned by those Arians, so to accuse him, Eulalius was cho∣sen into his place, whom Euphronius succeeded, and after him, Placitus obtained the Bishoprique. All these did secretly fauour Arrianisme, and therefore many, both of the people and Priests, forsaking the publique assemblies, had their priuate meetings, and were called Eustathians; for that, after the banishment of Eustathius, they began thus to assembe together. n 1.687 Stephen succeeded Placitus, Leontius Stephen, and o 1.688 Eudoxi∣us Leontius; who p 1.689 obtaining to be Bishop of Constantinople, left the Church of Anti∣oche voide: Whereupon the Bishops of the prouince assembled together, and chose Milesius to be Bishop, some of them hoping that he would fauour Arrianisme, and o∣ther knowing that he was an Orthodoxe; the errour of the one side mis-perswaded of the man, and the true knowledge the other had of him, made both willingly to con∣sent to his election and ordination. But so soone as the Arrians perceiued what he was, they deposed him and sent him into banishment, placing Euzoius in his place: which when the people and Priests that were Catholique perceiued, who had long en∣dured the insolencies of the Arrians, they diuided themselues, and refused to com∣municate with him. After a while q 1.690 Milesius, in the time of Iulian, returneth from banishment; to whom though such Catholiques as diuided themselues vpon dislike of Euzoius, presently cleaued; yet would not they that first diuided themselues in re∣spect of Eustathius, neither at the first ordination of Milesius, though Eustathius were then dead, nor now vpon his returne by any meanes be induced to hold communion with him and his; which Lucifer, one of them that had beene in banishment with A∣thanasius seeing, and pittying, laboured with them what he could to bring them to vni∣ty. But when he saw they would not be induced to joyne with Milesius and that Pau∣linus was their leader, hee made him their Bishop: which act of his, made the Schisme more dangerous then before, and of longer continuance, then otherwise happily it would haue beene: for it r 1.691 continued 85. yeares. s 1.692 Milesius perceiuing Paulinus to be or∣dained Bishop ouer them that were diuided from his communion, seemed noe whit therewith to be offended or displeased, but spake peaceably to Paulinus, desiring him that they might joyne their flockes, and feede them together: and if, sayd hee, the throne diuide vs, let mee lay the Gospell in it, and then do thou sit in it some∣times, and I will sit in it at other times: and if I dye before thee, thou shalt haue the care and charge of all: if thou dye before mee, the care and charge of all shall be deuolued to mee. This counsell, Paulinus would not harken vnto, and therefore the Emperours officer adiudged the Churches to Milesius, and the guiding of the diuided sheepe to Paulinus. Whereupon, when Milesius dyed, t 1.693 though Pau∣linus would haue had the place, yet hee was refused, because hee had refused to har∣ken to the Counsell of Milesius: and the Bishoppes chose Flauianus, a man verie conspicuous for his great labours, and one that had exposed himselfe to many dan∣gers for the good of the Church. Yet this ordination greatly displeased the Aegyp∣tians and Romanes. u 1.694 The reason of which their soe great dislike, was for that when there was much contention betweene Milesius and Paulinus, it was so agreed, that all they that were fit for that Bishopricke, or might in likelyhood bee in any hope or expectation of it, should sweare neither to seeke it nor accept it, while either of these liued: nor noe way to hinder, but that after the death of the one, the other might haue the full and entire gouernement of the whole: of which number it was thought that Flauianus was one, & that therefore not without periury, contrary to his vow and oath, hee had hindred the reuniting of the diuided parts of the Church.

This dislike conceiued against Flauianus, dyed not when Paulinus dyed: but though Euagrius most vnlawfully, and against the Canons had gotten the Bishoprique, ha∣uing * 1.695 noe ordination but from his predecessour, (whereas the Canons allow no such nomination of a Successour, and besides require the presence of the Bishoppes of the prouince) yet would they that at first disliked the ordination of Flauianus take noe knowledge of any of these things, but cōmunicated with Euagrius, & incited the Em∣perour

against Flavianus; who being vrged continually by the Bishop of Rome, and o∣thers, no longer to suffer Flavianus to enjoy his place: and told, that suppressing Ty∣rants, he did ill to suffer the violatours of the Lawes of the Church to escape vnpuni∣shed; sent for Flavianus, thinking to send him to Rome, there to be judged in a Synode of Bishops: who when hee came into the presence of the Emperour, tolde him confi∣dently, that if any man would object against his doctrine or life, he would desire to be tryed by no other Iudges but his greatest enemies; but if the matter were for his E∣piscopall chaire, he would willingly relinquish it, that the Emperour might commit it to whom hee would; vpon which his confident answere, the Emperour dismissed him, and bade him to goe home, and feed the flocke committed to him. Yet long after, many complaints were againe renewed against him to the Emperour by sundry Bi∣shops being at Rome, fearing to taxe the Emperour himselfe for that he suppressed not the tyranny of Flavianus: but the Emperour bade them say, what that tyranny was, as if he were Flavianus, for that he had vndertaken the defence of him. Which when they refused to doe, professing themselues vnwilling to stand vpon termes with the Emperour, he exhorted them to lay aside their foolish quarrellings, and to reunite the Churches that had long without cause beene divided: for that Paulinus was now dead, and Euagrius came vniustly to the Bishopricke; and the ordination of Flavia∣nus was so farre forth allowed of, that all the Churches of the East, with the Churches of Asia, Pontus, Thracia, and Illyricum, held Flauianus to be lawfull Bishop of the East. Hereupon the Bishops promised to surcease, and that if Flavianus would send Legates vnto them, they would kindly intreate them, and hold communion with him. How∣soeuer it appeareth by y 1.696 Socrates, that after the death of Euagrius, hee procured there should be no Bishop chosen in opposition to him: and first pacified Theophilus, and af∣terwards by his meanes Damasus: z 1.697 Sozomen reporteth, that Chrysostome after he was made Bishop of Constantinople, finding that the Aegyptian & westerne Bishops dissented from those of the East, in respect of Flavianus, and that all the Churches throughout the whole Empire were divided about him, besought Theophilus to bee pacified to∣wards him, and to assist him for the reconciling of Damasus also. To this suite of Chrysostome, Theophilus yeelded, & sent certaine to Rome; who prevailing, sailed into Aegypt, and from thence, as also from Rome, brought letters of reconciliation & peace, both from the Aegyptian and Westerne Bishops. This History, I thinke, will neuer proue, that the Bishop of Rome deposed Flavianus, Bishop of Antioche, and that hee could not hold his Bishopricke till the Bishop of Rome consented to him. For the thing that was sought, was not his holding of his Bishopricke, as Bellarmine vntruly reporteth, but the peace and concord of the Churches, divided about him. Neither was the difference onely betweene him and Damasus, but all the Bishops of Aegypt, & the West dissented from him likewise: and therefore a 1.698 Ambrose sheweth, that the ex∣amining of the matter betweene Euagrius and him, was committed to Theophilus, & the Bishops of Aegypt, and desireth him to make relation of the end he should make, to the Bishop of Rome, that he also agreeing thereunto, an vniversall peace might be con∣cluded. So that nothing can bee concluded out of this history, for proofe of the vni∣versall power of Popes: Seeing Damasus could neither of himselfe alone, nor with the concurrence of the Westerne Bishoppes depose Flavianus, nor by any meanes perswade the Emperour to thrust him out of his place, but was sharply reproo∣ued by the Emperour for quarrelling with him, and required to bee at peace with him, that so the Churches formerly divided without cause, might be re∣vnited.

The next instance of the Popes deposing Bishops, is that of b 1.699 Sixtus the third, who deposed Polychronius, Bishop of Hierusalem, if wee may beleeue Bellarmine: but in truth there was neuer any such thing. The circumstances of the whole proceeding a∣gainst Polychronius, Bishop of Hierusalem, (if there be any credite in the report of Pope Nicholas, and the acts of the Councell vnder Sixtus the third) were these. Two * 1.700 things specially were objected to him: the one, that hee went about to violate the ancient bounds of the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of Bishops, set and limited by the

Fathers, to preferre himselfe before the other principall Bishops, and to make his See the first, whereas in trueth it was the last amongst the Patriarchicall Sees; the other that Simoniacally he conferred Ecclesiasticall honours vpon such as would purchase the same. Hereupon the Bishops subiect to him, not willing to proceede against him themselues alone, complained to the Bishop of Rome, and shewed him how much he was wronged by the vndue claimes of this Bishop. The Bishop of Rome tooke not vpon him to doe any thing of himself, but called a Synode of the Bishops of the West, and by their aduice, with the concurrence of the Emperour, directed certaine out of the West, authorized by the whole Synode, to goe, and sitte in Councell with the Bishoppes of those parts: who together with them examining the crimes obiected to Polychronius, and finding that hee was truely charged with them, deposed him from his Bishopricke; so that the Bishoppe of Rome did not depose him of himselfe, but onely called a Synode, (as in such a case it was fitte hee should) and the Synode deposed him; but in trueth it is rather to bee thought, that the acts of the Councell vnder Sixtus the third, are counterfeit, and of no credite. For d 1.701 Binnius sheweth, that there was no such Polychronius Bishop of Hierusalem in those times, & bringeth ma∣ny other reasons to disproue the acts of this supposed Councell, besides that the absur∣dity in the proceedings bewrayeth them to be counterfeit. For what can be more ab∣surd, then that the accuser of Polychronius, making good his accusation, should bee condemned for accusing him, and he first condemned; and then presently vpon slender or no reasons at all, restored againe?

Thus we see how little our Adversaries are able to say for proofe of the Popes v∣niversall power, exercised in deposing Bishoppes. Wherefore let vs now proceede to see if they can produce any better proofes of his restoring such as were deposed by others. The first example they bring, is the restitution of e 1.702 Basilides, a Bishop in Spaine, but they know right well that the Bishop of Rome did not restore him to his Bishop∣ricke, and that therefore this allegation serueth to no purpose, but to abuse the Rea∣der, & to make him beleeue they say something, when they say nothing. The circum∣stances of the matter concerning Basilides, are these, layed down in Cyprians Epistles. Basilides & Martialis, had defiled themselues with some kind of consenting to Ido∣latry, & therefore the Clergy & people subiect to them, fearefull to communicate with them, write to Cyprian, & the African Bishops, for counsaile & helpe: they returne an∣swer, that they are to withdraw themselues from them, & to proceede to the election of new Bishops. Hereupon the Bishops of the prouince comming to the place where Basilides was Bishop, Sabinus was elected Bishop by the Clergy, & people, with the liking of all the Bishops of the province, and ordained by them Bishop in the place of Basilides. After this Basilides goeth to Rome, mis-informeth Stephen the Bishop, and seeketh by his meanes, & the help of his Bishops, to recouer his place againe: they communicate with him; & so as much as in them lyeth, restore him to his former place & dignity againe. Cyprian condemneth the false & ill dealing of Basilides, and reproueth also the negligence of Stephen, that suffered himselfe so easily to be misled, taxing him, & such as consented with him, for cōmunicating with such wicked ones; and shewing, that they are partakers of their sins, & that they violate the Canon of the Church, which the Bishops of Africa, and all the Bishops of the world, yea euen Cor∣nelius the predecessour of this Stephen, had consented on: to wit, that men so defiled with idolatry as Martialis & Basilides were, should be receiued to penitency, but bee kept from all Ecclesiasticall honour. Hereupon he exhorteth the brethren not to bee moued, if in these last times the faith of some men be shaken, or the feare of God faile in them, or if they hold not peaceable concord with their brethren: for that both the Apostle, and the Lord himselfe foretold, that such things should come to passe in the last times, the world decaying, & Antichrists reuelation drawing on; & cōforteth & encourageth thē to hold on in the good course they were in, for that the vigor of the Gospell, and the strength of Christian vertue, & faith, do not so wholly fall away in these last times, vt non super sit portio Sacerdotū, quae minimè ad has rerum ruinas & fidei naufragia succūbat: that is, that no remnant of Bishops should remaine which should

no way sinke or fall in these ouerthrowes of things, and shipwrackes of faith, but full of the feare of God, couragiously maintaine the honour of the diuine maiesty and the dignity of the Priests. We know, saith he, that when the rest yeelded, Mattathias valiantly maintained the law of God: and that Elias stood and stroue zealously, when others forsooke the law of his God. Wherefore let them that either violate the Canons, or treacherously be∣haue themselues, looke to it: there are many, who still retaine a sincere and good minde. What if some haue fallen away from the faith? doth their infidelity make the truth of God of none effect? God forbid. For God is true, and euery man a lyer; and if euery man be a lyer, and God only true, what should the seruants and Priests of God do, but leaue the errours and lyes of men, and keepe the precepts of the Lord, and remaine in the truth of God? Wherefore, though some of our Brethren, and Colleagues thinke, they may neglect the discipline of God, and rashly communicate with Basilides and Martialis; let it not trouble nor shake our faith, seeing the spirit of God threatneth in the Psalmes, saying, Thou hast hated discipline, and cast my words behind thy backe. If thou sawest a thiefe, thou rannest with him, and hadst thy portion with the adulterers. These are the circumstances of Cyprians Epistle, wherein he relateth the proceedings against Basilides and Martialis, and the inconsiderate course held by the Bishop of Rome, hastily communicating with them: whereby wee may see how wisely and aduisedly our Aduersaries alleage Cyprian to proue, that in ancient times, the Bishops of Rome had power to restore such Bishops to their places againe, as were deposed by other. For thus they must reason from this place of Cyprian if they will make any vse of it: Basilides & Martialis iustly put from their office and dignity, and others rightly and in due sort chosen into their places, flye to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, hoping by his meanes to procure the reuersing of that which was done against them. He, with such as adhered to him, though they could not restore them to their places, yet communicated with them. Cyprian offēded herewith, chargeth Basilides & Martialis with execrable wickednesse, for abusing Stephen, and misse-informing him: & Stephen with intollerable negligence & vnexcusable violatiō of the Canōs, for parta∣king with such wicked persons; & wisheth all his Brethren and colleagues cōstantly to hold on their course against them, notwithstanding the failing of Stephen and his adhe∣rents. Therefore the ancient Bishops of Rome restored to their places such as were ju∣dicially deposed by others: and were thought by the Fathers to haue power & autho∣rity so to do. Which kind of reasoning I thinke the Reader will not much like of.

Touching Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, Paule Bishop of Constantinople, and Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, deposed by the Orientall Synode, their complaints to the Bishop of Rome, and other Bishops of the West, of the wrongs done vnto them; how the Bishop of Rome with the Westerne Bishops fought to relieue them, with how ill successe, and how litle this instance serueth to proue the thinge in question, I haue shewed f 1.703 before: as likewise Theodorets desiring Leo, with his Westerne Sy∣nodes to take knowledge of his cause. Soe that it is a vaine bragge of Bellarmine, that to these, and the like testimonies of Antiquity, nothing is, nor can be answered.

CHAP. 38.

Of the weakenesse of such proofes of the supreme power of Popes, as are taken from their Lawes, Censures, Dispensations, and the Vicegerents they had in places farre remote from them.

HAVING examined the pretended proofes of the illimited vniversality of the Popes authority and jurisdiction, taken from the power they are suppo∣sed to haue exercised in former times ouer other Bishops, by confirming, de∣posing, or restoring them; let vs come to their Lawes, Dispensations, & Cen∣sures, & see if frō thence any thing may be cōcluded. If they could as strongly proue, as they cōfidētly endertake, that Popes in ancient times made Lawes to bind the whole Christian Church, dispensed with such as were made by general Coūcels, & cēsured al

men as subject to them; of necessity we must be forced to acknowledge the fulnesse of all power to rest in the Romane Bishops. But their proofes are too weake to make vs beleeue any such thing. For first, touching the decrees of Popes, they did not binde the whole Christian Church, but the Westerne Provinces onely that were subject to them, as Patriarches of the West. And secondly, they were not made by them with∣out the consent and joint concurrence of the other Bishops of the West, assembled in Synodes, and sitting with them as their fellow Iudges, with equall power of defining and determining things concerning the state of the Church; as appeareth by the De∣crees of a 1.704 Gregory the first, who sitting in Councell with all the Bishops of the Roman Church, (the Deacons and inferiour Clergy-men standing before them) made De∣crees, and confirmed them by their subscriptions, the rest of the Bishops and the Presbyters also, who sate in Councell with them subscribing in the very same sort that Gregory did. And of Decrees in such sort made, Leo speaketh, when he b 1.705 requireth the Bishops of Campania, Picene, & Thuscia, to keepe and obserue the Decretall consti∣tutions of Innocentius, and all other his predecessours, which they had ordained as well touching Ecclesiasticall orders, as the Discipline of the Canons, or otherwise to looke for no fauour or pardon. And in the very same sort are the words of c 1.706 Hilarius to be vnderstood, when he saith: That no man may violate either the divine constitutions, or the Decrees of the Apostolique See, without danger of losing his place. For this he spake sitting as President in a Councell of Bishops assembled at Rome, of things de∣creed by Synodes of Bishops, wherein his predecessours were Presidents and Mode∣ratours, as he was now, but not absolute commaunders. But Bellarmine saith, that * 1.707 Pope Anastasius the yonger, in his Epistle to Anastasius the Emperour, willeth him not to resist the Apostolicall precepts, but obediently to performe what by the Church of Rome and Apostolicall authority shall be prescribed vnto him, if hee desire to holde communion with the same holy Church of GOD, which is his Head. Therefore the Pope had power to command and giue lawes to the Emperour, and consequently had an absolute supreme authority in the Church. Surely this allegation of the Car∣dinall is like the rest. For Anastasius doth not speake in any such peremptory and threatning manner to the Emperour, but acknowledging his breast to bee a Sanctuary of happinesse, and that he is Gods Vicar on earth, telleth him in modest and humble sort, that hee hopeth hee will not suffer the insolencie of those of Constantinople, proudly to resist against the Evangelicall and Apostolicall precepts in the cause of A∣catius, but that he will force them to performe and doe what is fit, and in like humble sort beseecheth him, when he shall vnderstand the cause of them of Alexandria, to force them to returne to the vnity of the Church. The last instance of the Popes Law-giuing power, brought by Bellarmine, is the priviledge granted to the Monaste∣ry of Saint Medardus, by e 1.708 Gregory the first; in the end whereof we finde these words:

Whatsoeuer Kings, Bishops, Iudges, or secular persons, shall violate the Decrees of this Apostolicall authority, and our commaundement, shall be depriued of their ho∣nour, driuen from the society of Christians, put from the communion of the Lords body and bloud, and subjected to Anathema, and all the wofull curses that Infidels & Heretikes haue beene subject to from the beginning of the world, to this present time. A strong confirmation of the priviledges graunted is found in these wordes,

but a weake confirmation of the thing in question: for the priuiledges were graunted and confirmed in this sort, not by Gregory alone out of the fulnesse of his power, but by the consenting voyce of all the Bishops of Italy and France, by the authority of the Senate of Rome, by Theodoricus the King, and Brunichildis the Queene. So that from hence no proofe possibly can be drawne of the Popes absolute power of making lawes by himselfe alone, to binde any part of the Christian Church, much lesse the whole Christian world.

Wherfore let vs passe from the Popes power of making lawes, to see by what right they claime authority to dispense with the Lawes of the Church, and the Canons of Generall Councels. The first that is alleadged to haue dispensed with the Canons of Councels, is f 1.709 Gelasius. But this allegation is idle, and to no purpose. For first,

it cannot bee proued, that by dispensing he sought to free any, from the necessity of doing that the strictnesse of the Canon required, but those onely that were subiect to him as Patriarch of the West. And secondly, he did not dispense but vpon very vr∣gent cause, and driuen by necessity so to doe; and yet not of himselfe alone, but with the concurrence of other Bishops of the West, assembled in Synode. The other in∣stances that are brought of the dispensations of g 1.710 Gregory the first, are nothing else but the instances of the ill consciences of them that bring them. For Gregory did not dispense with the English, to marry within the degrees prohibited (as the Car∣dinall vntruely reporteth) but only aduised Austine, not to put them that were new∣ly conuerted, from such wiues as they had married within some of the degrees pro∣hibited, in the time of their infidelity, lest hee might seeme to punish them for faults committed in the daies of their ignorance, and to discourage other from becomming Christians. Neither did he dispense with them of Sicilia, for the not keeping of the canon of the Nicene councell, requiring prouinciall Synodes to be holden twice eue∣ry yeare; but whereas they held not such Councels so much as once in the yeare, hee commaunded that they should not faile to meete in Councell once at the least every yeare; seeing the Canons require that these meetings should bee twice. These truly are very weake and insufficient proofes of the Papall power in dispensing with the lawes of the Church, and the canons of generall Councels: and yet these are the best, nay these are all that they canne make shew to bring out of all Antiquity.

Let vs therefore proceede to the censures that the ancient Bishops of Rome are re∣ported to haue exercised, and see if they proue the vniuersality of power now claimed. The first allegation to this purpose, is the intent of h 1.711 Victor, Bishop of Rome, resoluing to haue reiected from his communion all the Churches of Asia, for keeping the feast of Easter on the same day the Iewes did. For, saith i 1.712 Bellarmine, howsoeuer Irenaeus and others disswaded him from executing that hee intended, yet it appeareth his obserua∣tion was right, in that it was afterwards confirmed by the Nicene Councell, and that hee had authority ouer all, in that hee went about to excommunicate those of Asia for dissenting from him in the obseruation of that Feast, and keeping it with the Iewes, though hee were content, for the avoiding of some inconueniencies, at the intreaty of Irenaeus to forbeare proceeding against them. For answere hereunto wee must obserue, that by reason of the custome of those of Asia, that kept the feast of Easter precisely at the same time the Iewes did, there was moued not a little contention throughout the whole world, and many Synodes in euery place called. For k 1.713 in Pale∣stina a Synode was holden, whereof Theophilus of Caesarea, and Narcissus of Hierusa∣lem, were Presidents; another at Rome, whereof Victor was President; and another, of the Bishoppes of Pontus, whereof Palmas as most auncient, was President: and in sun∣dry other places, other Synodes were called. But the Synode of the Bishops in A∣sia, whereof Polycrates was President, stiffely maintayned the auncient custome that had long prevailed in those parts, and wrote an Epistle to Victor, and those of the Ro∣mane Church, to iustifie themselues in this behalfe. Victor and his Bishops much of∣fended with this their pertinacy (as they construed it) would for this cause, haue re∣iected them from their communion. But Irenaeus, with some other of a milder spi∣rit, and better temper, stayed them from such rash and violent proceedings; and Ire∣naeus wrote his letters to this purpose to the Bishop of Rome, and other his colleagues: so that here is nothing to proue the power of the Pope. For what was resolued on, both touching the right of the observation, and the proceedings against them that disliked it, was resolved by the Synodes of Bishops, and not by Victor alone: as like∣wise Irenaeus was not alone, but many other ioyned with him in the reprehension of Victor, whose number and multitude prevayled much with him, and stayed his procee∣dings as well as the perswasions of Irenaeus. And yet did not the Westerne Bishops take vpon them to excommunicate those of Asia, as the Cardinall vntruely affirmeth, but onely to reiect them from their communion and fellowshippe; there being a very great difference betweene excommunication properly so named, and the reiecting of men from our communion or fellowship. For excommunication properly so na∣med,

is a resolution to deny the Sacraments to such as are to receiue them of vs, the a∣bandoning of all fellowship with them, and the requiring and commanding of others to refraine from all communicating with them in priuate or publique; and argueth him that so excommunicateth, to be superiour in authority, and greater in place then they are whom he excommunicateth. But reiecting from communion, or refusing to communicate with men, may bee found among them that are equall. So l 1.714 Cyril wrote to Nestorius, that if hee reuoked not certaine dangerous positions, hee would communicate no longer with him. So the m 1.715 Bishops of the East told Iulius Bishop of Rome, that if hee communicated with Athanasius, they would no longer commu∣nicate with him. And such was the proceeding that Victor intended against those of Asia; and therefore proueth not that he was their superiour, or had a commaunding authority ouer them. And yet surely, howsoeuer it be true, that his manner of ob∣servation was better then theirs, whom he disliked, his intention vpon such an oc∣casion to haue made a breach in the Christian Churches, was justly with some bitter∣nesse reprehended by Irenaeus, and his brethren. For howsoeuer Bellarmine would * 1.716 make the Reader beleeue by alledging that of Blastus, who vrged the keeping of Easter with the Iewes, and sought to bring in Iudaisme, that Victor had reason to bee violent as hee was, as perceiuing some ill meaning in them that helde the Iewish ob∣servation; yet farre be it from vs to thinke that Polycarpus, and so many worthy and holy men, as aunciently kept that observation, were any way inclinable to Iudaisme. But this difference may be thought to haue growne not from any diuersity of Iudge∣ment touching matters of faith, but for that in some places they thought it fit to keep this feast on the Lords day, for very important reasons mouing them so to doe; and in other places, though they could haue beene content to haue done so likewise vpon the same reasons, yet kept they it after the old manner, for the avoyding of the scan∣dall of the Iewes, for the easier winning of them that were not yet gained to Christia∣nity, and the holding of them in the loue & liking of Christian profession, that were already of Iewes become Christians. The next instance is of o 1.717 Innocentius the first, who after that he heard of the death of Chrysostome, whom Theophilus had deposed, & the Emperour Arcadius banished, excommunicated the Emperour & Empresse, and anathematized Theophilus in such sort that he should vtterly be excluded, & haue no place among Christians. But this report may very justly bee doubted of, the credit thereof resting onely on the authority of Nicephorus. Seeing the auncient p 1.718 Histo∣rians, that report the proceedings of Theophilus and Arcadius against Chrysostome, & his complaints to the Bishop of Rome, and other Bishops of the West, of the wrongs that had beene done vnto him, report also the answere of the Romane Bishop to haue beene, that hee greatly pittied his case, but saw no hope of remedy, nor meanes to re∣leeue him, vnlesse a generall Councell might be called, to which purpose he would do his best with the Emperour; and that Chrysostome himselfe wished him not to pro∣ceede so farre, as to reiect them from his communion that were his aduersaries, for feare of further inconueniences; this being the contention almost of the whole world, and the Churches by occasion heereof every where brought vpon their knees. Yea all auncient Historians are silent, and say nothing of this excommunication, but re∣port the * 1.719 repulse, which the messengers, the Romane Bishop sent to the Emperour to procure a Councell, receiued; and q 1.720 Theophilus (for ought I know) was euer holden a catholicke Bishop, both by Hierome and others to his dying day; notwithstanding these quarrells betweene him and Chrysostome. The excommunication of Leo the Emperour, by Gregory the third, whereof Zonaras writeth in the life of Leo Isau∣rus (which is a third instance of Papall censures, against the great men of the world) proueth not the matter in question: For Gregory did not anathematize Leo of him∣selfe alone, but with a Synode of Bishops; neither was he able by his owne authority to stay the Tribute that was wont to be payd to the Emperour, but by his sollicitati∣on * 1.721

procured a confederacie of the French and Germans against the Emperours of Con∣stantinople, and by their meanes stayed the Tribute that was wont to be paid; where∣vpon the Germans and French possessed Rome, and became Lords of it. The last ex∣ample is that of s 1.722 Nicholas the first, excommunicating Lotharius King of France, and his concubine Valdrada, together with the Arch-bishops of Coleyn & Treuers, But the answere herevnto is easie. For first, this example proueth not the thing in q•…•…e∣stion, to wit, that the Pope hath an vniuersall power ouer all the world, seeing all these were within the Patriarchship of the Bishop of Rome. And secondly wee say, these circumstances of this proceeding are vntruely reported by Bellarmine. For this is the true report which wee finde in Rhegino and others. Lotharius King of Lorrayne, falling in loue with Valdrada, which had beene his concubine while hee was yet a young man in his fathers house, beganne to dislike Thietberga his wife. Hereupon hee laboureth with the Bishops of Treuers and Coleyn, to finde some meanes to put her a∣way. They call a Synode, wherein Thietberga is charged to haue committed incest with her owne brother, and thereupon pronounced an vnfit wife for the King. The King thus freed from his wife, professeth hee cannot liue single; they pronounce it lawfull for him to marry another wife, and he taketh Valdrada to wife, whom he had formerly kept as his concubine. Nicholas the first, Bishop of Rome, hearing of this, sendeth into France to learne the certainty. The Legates hee sendeth, come to the King to expostulate the matter with him. The King answereth, that he did nothing but what the Bishoppes of his kingdome in a generall Councell had assured him was lawfull to bee done. Whereupon the Bishops of Coleyn and Treuers were sent for to Rome, and the Pope called a Councell, in which the opinions and proceedings of these Bishops were condemned, and they degraded by all the Bishops, Presbyters & Deacons that were assembled in Councell. In all which narration there is no cir∣cumstance found, that any way proueth the Pope to haue the fulnesse of all Ecclesia∣sticall iurisdiction; but the contrary rather may from hence bee concluded, because nothing is done against these two Bishops, but by a Synode of Bishops assembled by their owne Patriarch. But, saith Bellarmine, Pope Nicholas excommunicated the King, and Valdrada his supposed wife; therefore he is vniuersall Bishop. The former part of this saying is most vntrue; for the Pope did not excommunicate the King, but Valdrada onely. And I thinke the excommunicating of one silly harlot, that had so grievously scandalized the Church of God, and whose cause was iudged before in a Synode, being brought thither, and there examined, by reason of the vniust procee∣dings of the Bishops of Coleyn and Treuers, against a lawfull Queene, in favour of her, will neuer by any good consequence proue the Pope to bee vniuersall Bishop; & yet these are all the proofes the Cardinall canne bring from the censures the auncient Bishops of Rome are reported to haue vsed: and therefore he t 1.723 proceedeth to shew & demonstrate the Amplitude of the Popes illimited power & iurisdiction by the Vice∣gerents hee appointed in all partes of the Christian world, that were farre remote from him, to doe things in his name, & by his authority.

But for answere herevnto, we say, that neither this Cardinall, nor any other canne proue, that the Bishops of Rome had any such Vicars, Vicegerents, or Substitutes, but onely within the compasse of their owne Patriarchships: and that therefore from the hauing of them, nothing can be inferred for confirmation of their illimited power & authority. So Leo (as we reade in his u 1.724 Epistles) constituted Anastasius▪ Bishoppe of Thessalonica, his Vicegerent for the parts thereabouts, as other his predecessours had done former Bishops of that Church. Wh•…•…ch causing great resort thither vpon diuers occasions, may bee thought to haue beene the reason why the Councell of x 1.725 Sardica prouideth, that the Clergy-men of other churches shall not make too long * 1.726 stay at Thessalonica. So the same y 1.727 Leo made Potentius the Bishop his Vicegerent in the parts of Africa; z 1.728 Hormisda, Salustius Bishop of Hispalis, in Boetica and Lusitania; and Gregory, Virgilius Bishop of Arle, in the regions of France: all these places be∣ing within the compasse of the Patriarchship of Rome, as b 1.729 Cusanus sheweth. And the same may be sayd of the Bishop of Iustiniana the first, who was appointed the Bishop

of Romes Vicegerent in those parts, vpon signification of the c 1.730 Emperours will and de∣sire that it should be so. Neither doth the Cardinall proue any other thing, whatso∣euer he maketh shew of. For though Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, were the Vice∣gerent of Caelestinus, in the cause of Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople, yet was he not his Vicegerent in such sort as they were that were within his owne Patriarchship, as if he had had none authority of his owne, but that onely which Caelestinus gaue vnto him. But d 1.731 Caelestinus hauing beene informed by Cyril of the impieties of Nestorius, and hauing in his Synodes of the West condemned the same, joyned his authority with the authority of Cyril, that so he might proceed against him, not onely as of him∣selfe, and out of the iudgments of his own Bishops, but also out of the consenting reso∣lutions of them of the West. And therefore e 1.732 Euagrius sheweth, that at or before the time appointed by the Emperour, Nestorius and Cyril came to Ephesus, where a Councell was to be holden: and that Iohn of Antioch with his Bishops, being not come, after fifteene dayes stay, Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, the greatest of all the Bishops that were present (who also supplied the place of Caelestinus) with the rest of the Bi∣shops thought good to send for Nestorius, and to require him to appeare in the Sy∣node, to answere to the crimes obiected to him. Whereby it is euident, that (Nesto∣rius being to be iudged in a generall Councell) Cyril being the greatest of the Bishops that were present, (the Bishop of Rome neither comming nor sending at the first) was in his owne right, f 1.733 President of that assembly. But the Bishop of Rome, who could not come, (but hauing assembled his Bishops in the West, had iudged and condemned him) ioyned his authority with Cyril, the principall of the Bishops that were present, that so nothing might be wanting to the perfection of a generall Councell. So that it is most certaine, that Cyril was president of the Councell of Ephesus, not as a Vice∣gerent onely to the Bishop of Rome, but in his owne right, though he had the authori∣ty, direction, and consenting concurrence of the Bishop of Rome, and all the Westerne Bishops, ioyned with the power and authority, which he and the rest of the Bishops present had of themselues. And therefore g 1.734 Leo saith in expresse wordes, that Cyril was President of the Councell of Ephesus, as likewise h 1.735 Photius and others affirme. The same answer may serue for Acacius. For i 1.736 he was not Vicegerent of the Bishop of Rome, in hearing and determining the cause of Peter Bishop of Alexandria (who was an Eutychian Heretique) as hauing none authority of his owne: but there was a ioynt concurrence of the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop of Constantinople, the later ha∣uing besides his owne right and interest, the full power and authority of the other: and being likewise to vse the helpe of the Emperour for the reducing of the Church of Alexandria, to the vnity of the faith againe: in which businesse he failed: for though at first he condemned Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, yet afterwards he was content to cō∣municate with him. For which cause he was iustly reprehended as not answering the trust that was reposed in him, and as being a fauourer of heretiques and so in a sort an heretique himselfe. To these allegations which we haue already heard, k 1.737 Harding in his answer to Bishop Iewels challenge addeth another, of a Bishop of Alexandria be∣ing Vicegerent to the Bishop of Rome, out of the Epistle of Bonifacius the second, to Eulalius or Eulabius. But l 1.738 Bellarmine refuteth that Epistle, and sheweth that it is coun∣terfeit, and that there neuer was any such Eulabius, to whom Bonifacius might write: and therefore we will no longer insist vpon the examination of the same, but proceed to the proofes, which our Aduersaries bring from appeales made to Rome.

CHAP. 39.

Of Appeales to Rome.

FOR the clearing of the matter of Appeales we must obserue, that they are of three sorts: Of Lay-men, of inferiour Clergie-men, and of Bishops. Of the appeales of Lay-men there is noe mention in all Antiquity: and yet now the Bi∣shops of Rome reserue all the greater causes euen concerning the Laitie to thē∣selues alone, forbidding the ordinary guides of the Church to intermedle with them:

and very ordinarily admitte appeales of Lay-men to the infinite vexation of men, and the great hinderance of the course of all Iustice. Whereas it is most wisely and right∣ly ordered, each Bishop hauing his portion of the flocke of Christ committed to him, as Cyprian obserueth, that they that are committed to their charge should not bee permitted to runne hither and thither, but bee iudged there, where the thinges, for * 1.739 which they are called in question, were done, and where the accusers and witnesses may bee present.

Concerning inferiour Clergy-men the holy Bishoppes in the Councell of Mileuis speake in this sort: b 1.740 It hath seemed good vnto vs, that if Presbyters, Deacons, & other inferiour Clergi-men complaine of the iudgements of their own Bishops, the neighbour Bi∣shops intreated by them with the consent of their Bishoppes shall heare them and make an end; and if they thinke good to appeale from their iudgement, it shall not be lawfull for them to appeale, but onely to the Councels of Africa, or to the Primates of their owne Provin∣ces. And if they shall make their appeale beyond the seas, no man in Africa shall receiue them to the Communion. This whole Councell Innocentius the first approued, as it appeareth by his c 1.741 Epistle, which we finde in the booke of the Epistles of S. Augustin. Hereunto, Bellarmine d 1.742 saith, some answere with e 1.743 Gratian: who addeth to the Canon of this Councell, forbidding appeales to be made beyond the seas, an exception, vn∣lesse it be to the Sea Apostolique. But this exception, saith Bellarmine, seemeth not fit∣ting, seeing the Africanes made this decree, that men should not appeale beyond the seas, especially in respect of the Church of Rome, and to restraine the making of ap∣peales thither; there neuer being any appeale from the Africans to any other church but to the church of Rome only. And yet f 1.744 Stapleton answereth the authority of this Councell as Gratian doth, and that out of Iulius and Fabianus, Bishops of Rome, as he saith. The Councell of g 1.745 Sardica (saith Bellarmine) decreed, that the causes of Pres∣byters and inferiour clergy-men appealing from the iudgements of their owne Bi∣shops, should be determined and ended by the neighbour-Bishops: and Pope Zozi∣mus, as appeareth by the sixth Councel of Carthage, and the Epistle of the same Coun∣cell * 1.746 to Bonifacius the Pope, required the same canon to be reuiued. i 1.747 Augustine like∣wise sheweth, that it was not lawfull for those of the clergie vnder the degree of Bishops, to appeale out of Africa. Neither was this the peculiar priuiledge of A∣frica alone. For the Councell of k 1.748 Chalcedon ordained; that if a clergie-man haue ought against another of the clergy, the matter shall be heard by the Bishop, or by ar∣bitrators chosen by both parties, with the Bishops allowance. But if he haue ought against his Bishoppe, he shall prosecute the same complaint in the Synode of the pro∣vince. This canon of the Councell of Chalcedon the l 1.749 Emperour confirmed, saying, if any of the clergy complaine against his Bishop for any matter, let the cause be iudged by the Metropolitane, according to the sacred rules, and the imperiall lawes. And if any man appeale from his sentence, let the cause be brought to the Arch-bishoppe or Patriarch of that Diocese, and let him according to the canons, make a finall end. And yet, notwithstanding these canons aboue recited precisely forbidding inferiour clergy-men to appeale to Rome, we finde that the m 1.750 Bishops of Rome admitted the ap∣peale of one Apiarius, iudged & condemned in Africa; which caused a great diffe∣rence betweene the Africanes and him. Whereupon the Fathers in the Councell of Africa, wish the Bishop of Rome (as it beseemeth him) to reiect and repell the wic∣ked and vnlawfull appeales, as well of Presbyters, as of other inferiour clergy-men; seeing the ending and determining of their causes, is by no decree of any Synode de∣nied to the church of Africa, and the Nicene canons most clearely committe both in∣feriour clergy-men and Bishops to their owne Metropolitanes. n 1.751 Bellarmine, to cleare the Pope from intrusion, and to avoide the testimonies & authorities of the holy Bi∣shops and Pastours of the church, which we haue produced to shew the vnlawfulnes of appeales to Rome; answereth first: that though they of the inferiour clergy were prohibited to appeale to the Pope, yet hee was not forbidden to admit their appeales; which is a most strange answere. For if they in appealing did ill, and violated the canons, hee could not but offend, in admitting such their appeales. And therefore

o 1.752 they of Africa tell the Pope, that it befeemeth him to repell such appeales; and that to admit them, is to bring in the smoaky puffe of worldly pride into the Church, pro∣fessing that the ending of such matters belongeth to the Church of Africa, and com∣plaining of intollerable wrongs and injuries done vnto them, when such appeales are admitted; whence it is consequent, that the Pope may not admit them. Secondly, he answereth, that the Bishop of Rome admitted not the appeale of Apiarius, but heard his complaints, and commaunded them of Africa more diligently to examine his cause: whereas it is most plaine and euident, that the Pope vpon his appeale, vnadvisedly re∣ceiued him to his communion, and restored him to his degree and place again. Besides that, to heare complaints, & to command a review, is in the judgement of all men of sense & vnderstanding, a kind of an admitting of an appeale; seeing no such thing can be done but by him that hath power to judge of their judgement, whom he cōmaun∣deth to review and reexamine that they haue formerly judged.

Concerning Bishops, the p 1.753 Councell of Chalcedon decreed, that if a Bishop haue ought against the Metropolitane, he shall goe to the Primate of the Diocese, or to the See of the Princely city of Constantinople, that there the matter may be examined and heard. And the q 1.754 Emperour confirming the same canon, decreed▪ that if the Bishops of one Synode haue any matter of variance among themselues, either for Ecclesiasticall right, or any other occasions; first the Metropolitane, and the other Bishops of the Sy∣node shall examine and determine the cause; and if either part dislike the judgment, then the Patriarch of that Diocese shall giue them audience according to the Ecclesi∣asticall Canons, and Imperiall lawes, neither side hauing liberty to contradict his judg∣ment. This decree of the Emperour r 1.755 Gregory the first reciteth, and alloweth: onely adding, that if there be neither Metropolitane nor Patriarch, then the matter must bee ended by the Apostolicke See, which is the Head of all Churches. So that euen in his judgment, when there is a Patriarch, no Bishop may appeale frō him to Rome, but eue∣ry one is bound to stand to the end that he shall make. The eight s 1.756 generall Councell in like sort appointeth Bishops cōplaining of their Metropolitans, to go to the Patriarch, that he may make an end, & requireth either side to stand to the end that he shal make, seeing the more honourable Bishops out of sundry Provinces called together by him, sit in councell with him. Yet t 1.757 Zozimus, Bonifacius, & Caelestinus Bishops of Rome, by their agents in the Councels of Africa vrged & claimed a pretended right, to admit appeales of Bishops from any part of the world, as frō the canons of the Nicene coun∣cell. But the worthy Bishops there present, looking into the decrees of that councell, & finding no such thing as was alleaged, lest haply those copies of the councell which they had, might be defectiue, imperfect, or corrupted, sent to the most reverend Patri∣arches of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, for the authentical & indubitate copies: but could find no such thing in them when they came, as was alleaged by the agents of the Bishop of Rome. And therefore they wrote vnto him, & prayed him no more so easily to admit men comming to him with appeales and complaints, nor to receiue to his communion such as they should excommunicate▪ because the Nicene councell hath forbidden all such admission, committing not onely Lay-men and infe∣riour Cleargy-men, but * 1.758 Bishops also to their owne Metropolitans: and requiring that Bishops put from the communion in their own Provinces, should not bee by o∣ther, hastily, suddainly, or vnduely restored to the communion. And farther, they be∣sought the Roman Bishops to repell, as beseemeth them, the wicked appeales of Pres∣byters, & other inferiour Clergy-men, because no decree of any councell hath prejudi∣ced the Church of Africa in this behalfe, but all the Fathers most prudently & justly decreed & determined, that all matters should be ended in the place where they arise, seeing no Province can lacke the grace of the Holy Ghost, whereby the Bishops of Christ may be able both wisely to see, and constantly to maintaine the right; and espe∣cially for that it is lawfull for euery one that shall mislike the judgment of them that haue the hearing of his cause, to appeale to the councels of his Province, or to a gene∣rall Councell, vnlesse haply any man will thinke, that God will inspire the tryall of justice into one man alone, & that he will deny the same to a great number of Bishops

assembled in Councell: and farther they adde, that these beyond-sea iudgments cannot be thought good, and of force, whereunto the persons of the witnesses necessary for the finding out of the truth, cannot bee brought, either in respect of the infirmity of their sexe or age, or by reason of some other impediment. And thus we see that the Bishops of Rome could not demonstrate their right to receiue Appeales of Bishops, re∣fusing to stand to the iudgments of their owne Metropolitanes and Synodes, out of the Nicene Councell, but failed in the issue. Yet may we not hereupon charge them with falsification or mistaking, say the worthy u 1.759 Proctors of the Romane Church. But wee must rather say with counterfeit Athanasius, in his Epistle to Faelix, that the coppies of the Nicene Councell were corrupted, or in his Epistle to Marke the Bishop of Rome, that they were burned; then that we should yeeld any such thing. And yet surely if they were corrupted, they were not burned: and if they were burnt, they were not corrupted: and that the Arrians should corrupt the coppies of the Nicene Councell in other things, and leaue it inuiolable in that part that toucheth them most, and condem∣neth their heresie, is strange and vnlikely. x 1.760 Bellarmine saith, the Magdeburgians doe laugh at the report of the burning of those coppies of the Nicene Councell that were kept at Alexandria, and seemeth to confesse they haue reason so to do. For (saith hee) the supposed burning happened in the time of Constantius the Emperour, when as Athanasius being driuen from thence, George the Arrian had gotten into his place as Athanasius testifieth in his Epistle ad omnes Orthodoxos; whereas it may be clearely proued out of the Chronicle of Hierome, that Marke the Pope was dead at that time. Besides, if Marke the Pope had sent the true coppies to Alexandria vpon this letter of Athanasius (as is pretended) why should not the coppies that were found at Rome, & they that were brought from Alexandria into Africa, haue agreed together? How came it to passe that the canon vrged for the Popes aduantage in the Councels of Africa, was not found in the coppies sent from Alexandria? but that that coppy altogether agreed with the other that came from Constantinople and Antioch. Bellarmine therefore pas∣sing by these Epistles, as being of no great credit, alleageth sundry things mentioned by the Ancient, as decreed by the Councell of Nice, which yet are not found in those twenty Canons now extant; to proue that it followeth not that the Bishops of Rome falsified the Councell of Nice, because they could not finde the things they vrged in the coppies sent out of the East, seeing they might be in some other, as well as those things that are mentioned by the Ancient, which are not found in these twenty Ca∣nons. The things alleaged by him out of the Ancient, as decreed by the Nicene Coun∣cell, which yet are not found in the Canons now extant, are in number seauen, whereof some were neither decreed in that Councell, nor reported by the Ancient to haue been decreed there. For y 1.761 Hierome doth not say that the Conncell of Nice, reckoned the booke of Iudith among the bookes of the Canon, but onely that some said it did; but that it did not, Bishop Lindan bringeth very good reasons, as I haue ^z elsewhere * 1.762 shewed. The like may be said of the permitting of Clergie-men hauing wiues, to liue with their wiues. For the a 1.763 histories do not say, the Councell passed a decree to that purpose, but that whereas the Fathers of the Councell were about to haue made a de∣cree for the restraining of Clergy-men from Matrimoniall society with their wiues, they were by Paphnutius a worthy Bishop and holy Confessor, disswaded from so do∣ing and induced to leaue it free as they found it. The obseruation of the feast of Easter vpon the Lords day, is the third instance giuen by the Cardinall. But if Zozimus, Bo∣nifacius and Caelestinus could haue brought as good proofe, that the decree they vrged was passed in the Councell of Nice, as may be brought for the decree touching the keeping of Easter only on the Lords day, they had neuer bin resisted, though they could not haue found it in the canons. For the order that the Councell tooke for vni∣formity in the keeping of this feast, is mentioned in the Epistle of the Councell to the Churches of Aegypt, Lybia and Pentapolis; and all histories and writers do agree on it. Touching the hauing of 2 Bishops in one city, which b 1.764 Augustine saith, Valerius his pre∣decessor knew not to be forbidden by the Councel of Nice, when hee caused him to be ordained Bishop, and to sit together with him, while he yet liued; it is strange that

Bellarmine should deny it to be found among the twenty Canons we speake of, when as in the eighth Canon it is expressely prouided, that if a Nouatian Bishop returne to the vnity of the Church in any citty where there is a Catholique Bishop already, the Catholique Bishop shall looke out for him some place, in his Diocese, that he may bee a Chorepiscopus, or shall appoint him to be a Presbyter; that both he may remaine in the Clergie, and that yet there may not seeme to be two Bishops in one citty. That Atticus in the end of the Councell of Chalcedon saith, the manner of writing those letters, that were called Litterae formatae, was deuised in the Councell of Nice, no way proueth the thing in question. For we inquire not, what was there deuised, but what was there decreed. Lastly, that which the c 1.765 Councell of Africa hath, as out of the Coun∣cell of Nice, that none should celebrate the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, but such as are fasting: & d 1.766 Ambrose, that none should be taken into the Clergie that haue beene twise married, might by them be taken vpon vncertaine report, as that touching the booke of Iudith was by Hierome. But to what purpose doth Bellarmine insist vpon these allegations? and why doth hee so carefully labour to shew that all the decrees of the Nicene Councell, are not comprised within the twenty Canons now extant? Is it be∣cause he would thereby make vs thinke, the Nicen Councell did decree any such thing cencerning appeales, as was alleaged in the Coūcel of Africa by the Popes agents? Sure∣ly no. For he professeth, hee thinketh it very probable, that the pretended Canons were neuer made by the Nicene Councell, but that they were the Canons of the Coun∣cell of Sardica: and his reason is, because these Canons are in the Councell of Sardica, in the very words alleaged. And it is not likely the Fathers in that Councell would make the same Canons, the Councell of Nice did, and no way expresse it, that they did not make newe, but renew such as were made before. Which if it be so, it must needes be confessed, that the Bishops of Rome were deceiued and mistooke, when they alleaged Canons as made in the Councell of Nice, that were not made there but in the Councell of Sardica. Yet Bellarmine is vnwilling to yeelde so much to the trueth, though it bee very mighty and ready to preuaile with him: and therefore rather then he will confesse any errour or mistaking, hee affirmeth, that both these are to be esteemed but as one Councell: because many of the same Bishops were present in them both, and confirmed the same faith. A strange saying doubtlesse, and contradi∣cted by himselfe. For in his book e 1.767 De Concilijs, sorting Councels into three rankes, accounting some wholly rejected, some wholly approued, and some in part reje∣cted, and in part approued: hee reckoneth the Councell of Nice among those of the second sort, and the Councell of Sardica among those of the third sort: because consisting of three hundred seuenty and sixe Bishops, the three hundreth Occidentall Bishops confirmed the Catholique faith: and they of the East diuiding themselues from them, cōfirmed the heresie of the Arrians: whereas here he will haue it to be the same with the Councell of Nice, for that it was a generall Councell approued, and not reckoned in number the second. But let vs pardon them this errour and mistaking, and see what it was the Councell of Sardica decreed. The words of the Fathers of the Councell are these: f 1.768 It hath seemed good vnto vs, that if a Bishop shall be accused, and the Bishops of the same region shall judge him and degrade him; if hee that is so deposed or degraded, shall appeale and flye to the Bishop of Rome, and desire to be heard, if hee thinke good to renew the judgment, let him be pleased to write to the Bishops that are in the next Prouince, that they may diligently enquire into things, and judge according to trueth and equity. But if hee that desireth to haue his cause heard againe, shall moue the Bishop of Rome to send a Presbyter from his owne side, let him do what hee thinketh fit. And if he shall thinke fit to send some, who being present with the Bishops may iudge together with them, hauing his authority from whom they are sent, let him do as hee pleaseth. And if he thinke the Bishops to be sufficient to put an end to the matter, let him vse his owne dis∣cretion. For the clearing of this matter, and that we may the better discerne the force of this decree: first, we must marke that it was made after the diuision and parting of the Bishops of the East from them of the West, and so by the Westerne Bishops alone, &, as it may seeme, respectiuely to the Prouinces of the West, ouer which the Bishop of

Rome was Patriarch. Secondly, that the Africans tooke no notice of it; and yet there were Bishops of Africa at the Councell, so that in likely-hood this decree was not confirmed by subsequent acceptation, execution, and practise. Thirdly, that the Councell of Chalcedon, which was absolutely Oecumenicall, and wholly approued, & so of greater authority then this, that was not an approued Generall Councell, but in a sort onely, g 1.769 decreeth the contrary, and referreth the finall determination of all causes of Bishops, to the Primate or Patriarch, which the Emperour also confirmeth, and will haue no man to haue power to contradict the end which the Primate or Patriarch shall make. Lastly, that this canon maketh rather against them that alleage it, then a∣ny way for them. For by this Canon all matters must bee ended at home, or in the next Province to that wherein they arise; and the Pope may not call matters to Rome there to bee heard, but is onely permitted in some cases to send a Presbyter hauing his authoritie, and to put him in commission with the Bishops of the Province, that so hee and they jointly may reexamine things formerly judged. If this Canon were now obserued, I thinke there would not bee so great exception taken to the court of Rome, in respect of appeales, as now there is. h 1.770 Quous{que} (saith Saint Bernard to Eugeni∣us) non evigilat consideratio tua ad tantam appellationum confusionem? Ambitio in Ecclesia per te regnare molitur. Praeter ius & fas, praeter morem & ordinem fiunt: repertum ad remedium, reperitur ad mortem. Antidotum versum est in venenum: murmur loquor & querimoniam communem Ecclesiarum. Truncari se clamant & 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Vel nullae, vel paucae admodum sunt, quae plagam istam aut non doleant, aut non timeant; that is, How long will it bee before thou awake to consider this so great confusion of appeales? Ambition striueth and seeketh busily to raigne in the Church by thy meanes, They are entred, prosecuted, and admitted, beside right & law, besides custome and order. That which was first found out for a remedie, is now found to bee vnto death. I doe but expresse the murmuring and common complaint of the Chur∣ches. They cry out that they are mangled and dismembred, and there are few or none found that doe not either already grieue at this plague, or feare the smart of this euill. Yet would not the Africans admit the canon of the councell of Sardica, but willed the Pope to send no more any of his clearkes, to dispatch causes at any mans suite. For that this was to bring in the smoakie puffe of worldly pride into the Church, and in very earnest sort besought him not to bee too easie in admitting any appeales brought from them. If within a little time after, the Bishops of Rome prevailed so farre, as that Bishops were suffered to appeale out of Africa to Rome, which was the thing clai∣med by Zozimus, but denied vnto him by the Africans; it is not to bee marvailed at, seeing they still enlarged the extent of their power, till they had ouerthrowne the ju∣risdiction of all the Bishops of the West, and alienated the affections of all other from them. So that there was a schisme in the church, the other foure Patriarches divi∣ding themselues from the Bishop of Rome, and at their parting vsing these or the like words, as it is reported. i 1.771 Thy greatnesse wee know, thy covetousnesse wee cannot satis∣fie, thy encroaching we can no longer endure, liue by thy selfe. But here we shall find a great contrariety of judgment among the greatest Rabbies of the Romish church touching these Africans that thus withstood the claimes of Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celesti∣nus. For Harding against Bishop Iewels challenge in the Article of the supremacie, * 1.772 saith, that the whole church of Africa withdrew it selfe from the church of Rome by reason of this difference, through the enticement of Aurelius Archbishop of Car∣thage, and continued in schisme by the space of an hundred yeares; during which time by Gods punishment they were brought into miserable captiuity by the barbarous & cruell Vandales, who were Arrians; till at length when it pleased Almighty God of his goodnesse to haue pitty of his people of that Province, hee sent them Belisarius that valiant Captaine that vanquished and destroyed the Vandales; and Eulabius that godly Bishop of Carthage, that brought home the Africanes againe, and joy∣ned those divided members to the whole Body of the Catholique church. A publique instrument containing their submission, being made and offered to Bonifacius the second, by Eulabius in the name of the whole Province. Which was

joyfully receiued; and whereof Bonifacius writeth to Eulabius Bishop of Thessaloni∣ca, desiring him to giue thankes to God for the same. But l 1.773 Bellarmine proueth at large, that notwithstanding this resistance and opposition of the Africans against the claimes of Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Caelestinus, yet there neuer was any appa∣rant breach betweene the Romanes and them. And for the Epistle of Bonifacius the second to Eulabius, wherein he saith very harshly (as m 1.774 Cusanus well noteth) that Aurelius sometimes Bishop of the church of Carthage, with his colleagues, beganne to waxe proude and insolent against the church of Rome, by the instigation of the di∣vell in the dayes of his predecessours, (so condemning Augustine, Alipius, and two hundreth twenty fiue Bishops more, as set on by the diuell to resist the claimes of his predecessors, and the Epistle of Eulabius Bishop of Carthage, wherein hee con∣demneth his predecessours, and submitteth himselfe to the Bishop of Rome,) he pro∣fesseth he greatly suspecteth they are forged & counterfeit. First, because that which is contayned in them cannot stand with that which is most certainely proued & known to be true touching the amity and friendship that was betweene the Romane Church and Augustine, Eugenius, Fulgentius, and other Africans, after the opposition about the matters of appeales. Secondly, for that there was no such Eulabius Bishop of Ale∣xandria at that time, to whom Bonifacius might write, as it appeareth by the Chro∣nologie of Nicephorus of Constantinople. Thirdly, for that Bonifacius in his Epistle doth signifie that hee wrote in the time of Iustinus the Emperour; whereas Iustinus was dead before Bonifacius was Bishop, as appeareth by all histories. So that we may see what grosse forgeries there haue beene in former times deuised onely to abuse the simple, and make the world beleeue, that all Bishops and churches subiected them∣selues vnto the church of Rome. And how shamelesse a defender of Antichristian ty∣rannie Doctour Harding was, that could not escape this censure of Bellarmine the Ie∣suite. But it is l•…•…sse to be maruailed at, that he should so harden his forehead, as not to blush when he brought into the light, and presented to the view of the world such rotten forgeries, that was not ashamed to become a proctor of the filthy stewes.

Wherefore, leauing him & his counterfeit and apocryphall stuffe, which he sought to vent vnto the world, let vs proceede from the appeales of Lay-men, inferiour Clergy-men & Bishops, to speake of the appeales of the chiefe Primates or Patriar∣ches. For the clearing of which point, we must obserue, that it is a rule in Church-go∣vernment, that the lesser and inferior, may not iudge the greater & superiour. And therefore the Bishops of the Prouince, may not iudge the Metropolitane, but may on∣ly declare in what cases he is iudged, excommunicated, suspended, or deposed, ipso facto, by the sentence of the Canon it selfe, and by separating themselues from him, & withdrawing themselues from being subiect to him, put him in a sort from his place, and depose him. But otherwise, if any Bishop haue ought against his Metropolitane, he must goe (as I shewed before) to the Patriarche, and his Synode, to complaine, as to fit and competent Iudges. For against the g•…•…eater person wee complaine, to the greater Iudge we must flie. If a Clerke haue ought against a Bishop, the matter may bee iudged in the Synode of the Prouince; but if Clerke or Bishoppe haue any com∣plaint against the Metropolitane, the Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon prouideth (as I noted before) that they shall goe to the Primate of the Diocese, or to the See of the Princely City of Constantinople. From whence in like proportion it is consequent, that thòugh the Metropolitanes and Bishoppes subiect to a Patriarche, may declare in what cases hee incurreth the sentence of suspension, excommunication, depositi∣on, or degradation, pronounced by the very Law and canon it selfe, and so with∣draw themselues from his obedience; yet may they not by way of authority proceede against him, but must flie to another Patriarche, who in a Synode consisting of his * 1.775 owne Bishops, and the Bishoppes of that Patriarch that is complained of, may iudge and censure him, so that hee bee a Patriarch, in order and honour greater then hee a∣gainst whom they complaine; seeing the lesser may not iudge the greater. And therefore we finde that in the differences that fell out, between Cyrill of Alexandria, and Iohn of Antioche, Iohn was blamed, for that beeing but Bishoppe or Patriarche

of the third See, hee tooke vpon him to judge Cyril, that was Patriarche of the se∣cond; and hauing but a fewe Bishoppes joyned with him, to judge Cyril with many. Soe likewise Dioscorus was condemned, not onely for fauouring the wicked heresie of Eutiches, and his violent proceedings in the second Councell of Ephesus; but special∣ly for that being but Bishop of the second See hee tooke vpon him to judge Leo, that was Bishop of the first See. And this was that which Iulius in his Epistle reported by Athanasius in his second Apologie, blamed in the Bishops of the East; namely that they proceeded to the judging of Bishops of such Sees, as were Athanasius of Alexandria, and Paulus of Constantinople, without making him first acquainted with the same; that so their proceedings might haue taken beginning from him, as beeing in order the first among the Patriarches. And hence it was, that o 1.776 Theophi∣lus Bishop of Alexandria taking himselfe to be Bishop of the second See, came to Constantinople, and there with other Bishops judged Chrysostome; and that Chryso∣stome, as being by vertue of the Canon of the Councell of Constantinople made Bishop of the second See, and set in order and honour before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioche, would haue taken vpon him to judge some matters concerning Theophi∣lus: and in this sort did sundry Bishops of Rome in Synodes consisting of their owne Bishops, and the Bishops subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, judge and de∣pose certaine Bishops of Constantinople. Whereupon Nicholas the first in his p 1.777 Epistle to Michael the Emperour sayth, that scarce any Bishop of Constantinople can be found, that was orderly deposed and driuen from his Bishopricke, and whose deposition held as good and lawfull, without the consent of the Bishop of Rome: and therefore prote∣steth against the deposition of Ignatius as vnlawfull and vnjust, for that he was con∣demned by his owne Bishops: comparing the Synode that deposed him to the second of Ephesus, and affirming, that it was much worse then that. For that there Diosco∣rus Bishop of Alexandria with his colleagues judged Flauianus, though most vio∣lently and disorderly. But here there was none of the Patriarches, nor any one Bi∣of any the meanest cittie, that was not his owne Suffragan. By that which hath beene sayd it is euident, that the great Patriarches of the Christian Church, are not to bee judged but by some other of their owne ranke in order before them, assisted by inferi∣our Bishops; q 1.778 that the Bishoppe of Rome, as first in order among the Patriarches, as∣sisted with his owne Bishoppes, and the Bishoppes of him that is thought faulty, may iudge any of the other Patriarches: that such as haue complaints against them, may flye to him and the Synodes of Bishoppes subject to him, and that the Patriarches themselues in their distresses may flye to him and such Synodes for reliefe and helpe, though of himselfe alone he haue no power to do any thing.

Wherefore let vs proceed from the distinction and explication of the diuerse and different kinds of appeales, lawful, and vnlawfull, permitted and forbidden, to examine the allegations of our Aduersaries, and to see whether from any allowed practise and approued course of appeales made to Rome, in the Primitiue Church, they can inferre the Vniversality of Papall power and jurisdiction. The first example that r 1.779 Bellarmine bringeth, is very impertinēt. For whereas he should proue, that the Bishops subject to any of the foure Patriarches might lawfully appeale to Rome, & that there lay appeales from any part of the world thither: hee bringeth forth the testimony of s 1.780 Leo tel∣ling the Bishoppes of France, subject to him as Patriarche of the West, that of anci∣ent time appeales were wont to be made out of France to Rome: which no way pro∣ueth the Bishoppe of Rome to bee vniuersall Bishoppe, vnlesse wee will acknowledge euery one of the Patriarches to haue beene soe too: it being lawfull to appeale vnto them, out of any the remotest Prouinces subiect to thē. From this ill-chosen example, hee proceedeth to a worse of t 1.781 Marcion the heretique, who being excommunicated by his owne Bishoppe in Pontus, fledde to Rome that hee might be absolued of the Romane Church as he telleth vs out of Epiphanius. But surely it is most strange that he can be content thus to abuse himselfe and others. For he knoweth right wel, that Mar∣cion did not appeale to Rome, and that if hee had so done, the act of a vile and exe∣crable heretique should not bee drawne into example. The historie of Marcion (as we

finde in Epiphanius) is this: Marcion was the sonne of a Bishop in Pontus, hee embra∣ced virginitie in his first times, and seemed to liue a retired, solitarie, and Monasticall kinde of life; but in the end, casting the feare of God behinde his backe, hee abused a certaine virgin; and not onely fell himselfe, but drew her also away from the course of vertue and well-doing, into the fellowship of sinfull wickednesse. Heereupon hee was excommunicated and put out of the Church by his owne Father. For his Fa∣ther was a right good and vertuous man, and carefull of the things that concerned his calling: and though after he was put out of his Church, hee sought very earnestly to be admitted to penitency, that so he might bee restored to the Church againe: yet his Father exceedingly grieued, not onely in respect of his fall, but also in respect of the dishonour and shame hee had brought on him, would by no meanes be induced to yeelde vnto it. Whereupon hee left that Citie whereof his Father was Bishop, and went to Rome in the time of the vacancie of that See, after the death of Hyginus, and after he had stayed there a certaine space, and conferred with the Presbyters of that Church, hee desired to be admitted to their assemblies. But they tolde him, they could not so doe without the consent of his honourable Father. For (say they) wee have one faith, and one consent, and wee may not contrary our good fellow-mini∣ster thy Father. Which their answere when hee heard, hee was filled with fury and madnesse, and professed in great rage, that hee would rent their Church in peeces, and cast a schisme into it that should neuer haue an end. This is the narration wee finde in Epiphanius concerning Marcion his going to Rome. Wherein there is no∣thing that any way proueth, that it was alwayes lawfull to appeale from all other Bi∣shops to the Bishop of Rome. For first, it doth not appeare that Marcion went thi∣ther to complaine of his Father, but being put from the communion by him, and not obtaining reconciliation by any intreaty, as a runnagate he sought to other places, and among other went to Rome, hoping there to bee receiued into the Church. But the guides of that church knowing the canon, which forbiddeth one church to ad∣mit them another hath reiected and cast out, vtterly refused to permit and suffer him to communicate with them. And secondly, if hee had gone to Rome by way of appeale, it would most strongly ouerthrow all such courses, and proue that the Ro∣mane Bishop may not reverse and make voide the Acts and proceedings of other Bi∣shops, seeing the gouernours of the Romane church at that time, freely professed vnto Marcion, and told him peremptorily, that it was not lawfull for them to admit him to their communion without his Fathers consent, by whom hee was excommunicated. But the truth is, he did not seeke by their authoritie as superiours, to reverse his Fa∣thers censure and iudgement, or to bee restored to the communion of that church, out of which he was eiected (which had beene to appeale:) but being in Rome, de∣sired onely to bee admitted to ioyne in prayers and other exercises of Religion, with them of that Church: which yet (as Epiphanius reporteth) was denied vnto him. The next example is of u 1.782 Fortunatus and Faelix in Africa, deposed by Cyprian (as Bellar∣mine would make vs beleeue) and appealing to Cornelius Bishop of Rome for releefe. But there is no word of trueth in that which this Cardinall writeth. For these men did not goe to Rome to complaine that they were vniustly deposed (as hee vntruely reporteth) but these are the circumstances of the matter, as we may reade in the E∣pistles of Cyprian. A company of wicked ones hauing made Fortunatus (one of the Presbyters that were suspended by Cyprian, and a great number of other Bishops) a Bi∣shop in opposition to Cyprian, hasten to Rome to Cornelius with false reports of the number of Bishops that concurred in the ordination of Fortunatus; that so hee might be induced to admit of him, as a true Bishop, and hold communion with him. Which when Cornelius wisely refused to doe, he feared not to threaten grieuous things vnto him. With the suddennesse and strangenesse whereof Cornelius much moued, maruai∣led greatly that Cyprian had not before certified him of this schismaticall ordinati∣on, that so hee might haue beene the better prepared. Whereunto Cyprian answe∣red: That it was not necessarie to be so carefull about the vaine proceedings of here∣tiques, that he had before giuen him the names of such Bishops as were found, to whō,

and from whom hee might write and receiue letters. And that howsoeuer false & ill dealing by haste and preuention thinketh to gaine all, yet that is but for a little time, till trueth overtake it, and discouer it, euen as the darknesse of the night continueth till the Sunne arise. And farther hee sheweth, that these schismaticall companions had no reason to make such haste to Rome, to publish it and make it knowen, that they had set vp a false Bishop against a true. For that either it pleased them that they had so done, and then they continued, and went forward in their wickednesse: or they re∣pented of that they had done, and then they knew whither to returne, and needed not to haue gone to Rome. For (saith he) whereas it is agreed among vs, and it is both iust and right, that euery man shall be heard there where his fault was committed; and all Pa∣stours haue a part of the flocke of Christ assigned to them, which euery one is to rule & go∣verne, as being to giue an account vnto the Lord of his actions; it is not fitte, nor to be suffe∣red, that they ouer whom we are set should runne vp and downe, and by craftie and deceit∣full rashnesse shake in sunder the coherent concord of brethren, but that they should haue their causes handled where they may haue both accusers and witnesses of their crimes. Vn∣lesse, a few desperate and wicked companions doe thinke, the Bishops of Africa that iudged them, haue lesser authority then others. A more cleare testimonie or pregnant proofe against appeales to Rome then this, cannot be had. And yet this is one of the principall authorities, the Cardinall bringeth to proue the lawfulnesse of appeales to Rome. To the next place alleaged out of x 1.783 Cyprian, touching Basilides and Martialis Bishoppes of Spaine, I haue answered y 1.784 already, and made it most cleare, that nothing could be al∣leaged more preiudiciall to the Popes claimes, and more for the aduantage of the trueth of that cause, which wee defend. So that it seemeth our Aduersaries haue turned their weapons against themselues, and whetted their swords, and made readie their arrowes, to wound themselues to death. How the facts of Athanasius, Chry∣sostome, Flauianus, and Theodoret, appealing to the Bishop of Rome with his Western Synodes, for reliefe and helpe, when they were oppressed and wronged by the Ea∣sterne Bishops, proue not the illimited and vniuersall power of the Pope, I haue at large shewed before, to the satisfaction (I doubt not) of all indifferent Readers. * 1.785 And therefore there remaineth but onely one allegation of Bellarmine touching ap∣peales to be examined. Gregory the first (saith he) put Iohn the Bishop of Iustiniana * 1.786 the first, from the communion, for that he presumed to iudge the Bishop of Thebes hauing appealed to Rome. The case was this. The Bishop of Thebes wronged by his fellow-Bishops, made his appeale to Rome. Hereupon Iohn Bishop of Iustiniana the first, who was the Bishop of Romes Vicegerent for certaine Prouinces neare adioy∣ning, was appointed by the Emperour to heare the cause; which he did accordingly. But without all indifferencie, and (in sort) contrarie to the Canons; and though vpon the discerning of his vniust and partiall proceeding an appeale were tendered to him, yet gaue he sentence against the poore distressed Bishop. Gregory hearing hereof, put∣teth him from the communion for thirty dayes space, inioyning him to bewaile his fault with sorrowfull repentance and teares, Truely this allegation maketh a very faire shew at the first sight. But if wee remember that the Bishop of Iustiniana the first, and the distressed Bishop of Thebes, wronged by him, were within the Patri∣archship of Rome (as b 1.787 Cusanus sheweth they were) you shall finde it was no more that the B of Rome did, then any other Patriarch in like case might haue done, within his owne precincts and limits. Neither can the Cardinall euer proue that the Bishop of Rome had any such Vicegerent as the Bishop of Iustiniana the first was, but onely within the compasse of his owne Patriarchship. But (saith hee) it was a Greeke Bi∣shop, that Gregory thus proceeded against. It is true, it was so. But what will hee inferre from thence? Is it not knowne that many Greeke Bishops were subiect to the Bishop of Rome, as Patriarch of the West? was not the Bishoppe of Thessalonica a Greeke Bishop? and yet I thinke no man doubteth, but that hee was within the com∣passe of the Patriarchship of Rome, as many other also were, howsoeuer in time they fell from it, & adhered to the Church of Constantinople, after the diuision of the Greeke and Latine Churches.

CHAP. 40.

Of the Popes supposed exemption from all humane Iudgement, as being reserued to the Iudgement of Christ onely.

OVR Adversaries finding their proofes of the Popes illimited power, taken from such appeales as were wont in auncient times to bee made to Rome, to bee too weake, flie to another, wherein they put more confidence; which is his exemption from all humane Iudgement: Christ (whose Vicar he is) ha∣ving reserued him to his owne iudgement onely. If this exemption could bee as strongly proued, as it is confidently affirmed, it would be an vnanswerable proofe of the thing in question. But the proofe hereof will be more hard, then of the princi∣pall thing in controuersie betweene vs. Touching this point, I finde a 1.788 great contra∣rietie of opinions among Papists, as men at their wits ends, not knowing what to af∣firme, nor what to denie. For first, there are some among them that thinke that the Pope, though hee violate all lawes diuine and humane, though hee become publickly scandalous, and therein shew himselfe incorrigible, yea though hee be a professed and damnable hereticke; yet neither is deposed ipso facto, by the sentence of the canon, nor may be deposed by all the men in the world. Which opinion if we admit to bee true, the condition of the church, the beloued spouse of Christ and mother of vs all, is most woefull and miserable, in that hereby shee is forced to acknowledge a denou∣ring wolfe, making hauocke of the sheepe of Christ redeemed with his precious bloud, to be her Pastor and guide. Secondly, some are of opinion, that the Pope, if hee become an open and professed hereticke, is deposed ipso facto, by the sentence of the canon, and that the church may declare, that he is so deposed. Thirdly, there are that thinke that an hereticall Pope is not deposed ipso facto, but that he may be depo∣sed by the church. Fourthly, many worthy Diuines in the Romane church hereto∣fore haue beene of opinion, that the Church or generall Councell may depose the Pope, not onely for heresie, but also for other enormous crimes. Of this opinion was Cardinall b 1.789 Cusanus, Cardinall c 1.790 Cameracensis, d 1.791 Gerson Chauncellour of Paris, Almaine, and all the Parisians, with e 1.792 all the worthy Bishops & Diuines in the Coun∣cels of Constance and Basill. Yet the Papists at this day for the most part dislike and condemne this opinion, and acknowledge no deposition of any Pope how ill soeuer, vnlesse it be for heresie. And Bellarmine (to make all sure) telleth vs farther, that the church doth not by any authoritie depose an hereticall Pope, but whereas he is depo∣sed ipso facto, in that hee falleth into heresie, onely declareth the same; and thereupon largely refuteth the opinion of Cardinall Caietane, f 1.793 who thinketh that the Pope when he falleth into heresie, is not deposed ipso facto, but that deseruing to bee depo∣sed, the Church doth truely, and out of her authority depose him. First, because, (as he saith) if the Church or Councell may depose the Pope from his Papall digni∣ty, against his will, for what cause soeuer, it will follow, that the Church is aboue the Pope, which yet Caietane denieth. For as it will follow, that the Pope is aboue o∣ther Bishops, and of more authority then they, if he may depose them; so if the coun∣cell of Bishops may depose the Pope, they are greater then hee. Secondly, he saith, to be put from the Papacie vnwillingly, is a punishment; so that if the Church may depose the Pope, though vnwilling to leaue his place, it may punish him, and conse∣quently is aboue him. For hee that hath power to punish, hath the place of a Supe∣riour and Iudge. Thirdly, he that may restraine and limit a man, in the vse and ex∣ercise of his ministerie and office, is in authority aboue him; therefore much more he that may put him from it. By these reasons it is clearely demonstrated and proued, that if the Church or generall Councell haue authority in case of heresie to depose the Pope, at least in some sort, it is of greater authority then the Pope. And therefore to avoide this consequence (as g 1.794 Gerson rightly noteth) they that too much magni∣fie the greatnesse and amplitude of Papall power, say, that an hereticall Pope, in that

he is an Hereticke, ceaseth to be Pope, and is deposed by Almighty God. So that the Church doth not by vertue of her authority and jurisdiction depose him, but onely de∣nounce and declare that he is so deposed by God, & to be taken for such a one by men, and not to be obeyed. This they endeauour to proue, because all h 1.795 Heretickes are con∣demned by their owne iudgment, as the Apostle saith, and stay not as other euill doers, till the Church cast them out, but voluntarily depart of themselues from the fellow∣ship of Gods people, and cut themselues off from the vnity of the Body of the Church; thereby ceasing to be members of it, and consequently losing all authority & commaund they formerly had. For the clearing of this point, wee are to obserue, that there are some who runne into errours so directly contrary to all Christianity, & the sense and judgment of all Christians, that by the very proposing thereof, they a∣bandon and driue from them all such as dissent: and are abandoned of all. Secondly, there are some that runne not into errours so directly contrary to the sense and judge∣ment of all Christians as the former, but with such fury, madnes, & pertinacy, that they vtterly reject, forsake, and depart from all such as doe dissent, or are otherwise min∣ded. Thirdly, there are some, who though they be not carried with such violent fu∣ry into errour, as to condemne, reject, and depart from all that dissent, yet they runne into olde heresies formerly condemned, and so by force of the former condemnation, are rejected, & put out of the lap and bosome of the Church. Fourthly, there are some who fall into hereticall and dangerous errours, but neither directly contrary to the common sense of all right beleeuing Christians, nor formerly condemned by the consenting voice of the whole Church of God, nor with such pertinacy, as either to re∣fuse to communicate with them that think otherwise, or to seeke to depriue, depose, degrade, or otherwise violently vexe and molest them that are vnder them, for not consenting to them in their errour. The three former sorts of men falling into er∣rour and heresie, voluntarily cut themselues off from the vnity of the Body of the Church, depart from the fellowship of Gods people, and ipso facto cease to bee mem∣bers of the Church, and lose all authority and commaund they formerly had. So that they neede not the Churches censure or sentence to cast them out, departing of them∣selues: but it sufficeth that their breaches and divisions from the maine body of the Christian Church, be published and made knowne, that so they may be avoided. So i 1.796 Caelestinus in his Epistle to Iohn of Antioch, saith, that if any one haue beene excom∣municated, or depriued by Nestorius, or any of his adherents, since the time they first began to publish their impieties, he still continueth in the cōmunion of his Churches, neither doth he judge him to be remoued from his place: and the like hee hath in his k 1.797 Epistle to the Clergy of Constantinople. But the fourth sort of men erring, doe not cease to be members of the Church, nor lose their places by so erring, till both the point of doctrine wherein they are deceiued be tryed and examined, and by lawfull & highest authority be found faultie: and their pertinacie such, as rather to suffer them∣selues to be rejected, and put from the communion of all that are otherwise minded, then to alter their judgements. l 1.798 Cyprian fell into an hereticall opinion, that the Baptisme of Heretiques is voyde, and that all that haue beene baptized by Heretiques, are to be rebaptized. Yet because this point was not examined and condemned in a generall Councell, nor his pertinacie therein vpon such examination and condemnati∣on, found such, as rather to suffer himselfe to bee reiected from the communion of all them that thought otherwise, then to giue way and alter his iudgment, hee was no he∣reticke, neither did he lose his place of ministery in the Church of God. The questi∣on therefore is, whether if the Pope fell into such an errour, as that of Cyprian, by which he doth not actually, and ipso facto divide and cut off himselfe, the Church may examine it, and judge him to be rejected, and put from the communion, if he alter not his iudgement. If they say it may, then hath the Church power to iudge a Pope that is not an Heretique. For he is not an Hereticke till after such determination, he choo∣seth rather to be reiected from the cōmunion of the faithfull, then to alter his iudge∣ment. If it may not iudge the Pope so erring, then might the Popes in former times haue taught rebaptization with Cyprian; the errour of the Chiliastes, with sundry of

the Fathers: that all right beleeuers, how wickedly soeuer they liue, shall in the end be sa∣ued, with some of the Ancient; that the just shall not see God till the resurrection, and the like: and yet the Church haue had noe power to force them to forsake and con∣demne such errours, or to cease from perswading and inducing men, both by doctrine & example to erre in like sort. And then we may runne into their errour, who thinke, that though the Pope be an hereticke, yet hee is neither deposed ipso facto, nor may be deposed, but that the Church must acknowledge a deuouring wolfe making hauock of the flocke of Christ, to be her Pastor; which Bellarmine himselfe thinketh to be ve∣ry absurd. Thus then we see, that all who fall into heresies, do not cut off themselues from the vnity of the body of the Church, nor lose the iurisdiction and authority they formerly had, ipso facto, as the Papists (to auoid the deposing of Popes by the authori∣ty of the Church) seeme to imagine; but that many doe soe fall into heresies, that they goe not out of themselues till they be rejected and cast out. But howsoeuer our Ad∣uersaries must not defend, that Popes falling into heresies are deposed ipso facto, for if they do, they ouerthrow the whole building and fabricke of Popery. The constant o∣pinion of almost all later Papists is, m 1.799 that howsoeuer the Pope may personally erre and fall into heresie, or become an Hereticke, yet the prouidence of God ouer him is such, (because he is Christs Vicar, Peters Successour, heire of the Apostles, and head of the vniuersall Church) that hee cannot define or decree any heresie, or prescribe vnto all Christians to belieue amisse. Which conceipt cannot stand, but falleth to the ground, & is clearely ouerthrowne, if the Pope by becōming an hereticke, be deposed ipso facto. For doubtlesse if the Pope becomming an hereticke ipso facto cease to bee Pope, and to be soe much as a member of the Church, then doth not the prayer of Christ for the not failing of Peters faith extend to him any longer, neither is hee any longer any way priuiledged, by vertue of his succeeding blessed Peter, but that hee may runne into all extremities in most damnable sort, seeke to subuert the faith, to force all to belieue as he doth, and define and determine that all shall professe the same do∣ctrine of Diuels, that himselfe doth; seeing when God forsaketh him, and putteth him out of his protection, the Diuell entreth into him as he did into Iudas the traytor. And how violent and strange the mouings of the euill spirit are, wee are not ignorant: for sometimes he casteth them that are possessed by him into the fire, and sometimes into the * 1.800 water: sometimes into one extremity, and sometimes into another. Wherefore either the Papists must confesse, that the Pope may define for heresie, & then all their religion is ouerthrown: or else they must acknowledge, that he is not deposed ipso facto, by be∣comming an hereticke, but that he is to be deposed by the authority of the Church, and so make the Church of greater authority then the Pope: and then they are in worse case then before. For then, as the Church by her authority censureth him for heresie, lest he subuert the faith, misse-leade the People of God, and ouerthrow religion: so she may likewise censure him in other cases for the auoiding of the like danger: Seeing such may be his prodigious and hellish conuersation, and his execrable corruption & violence in doing wrong, in peruerting justice, in turning iudgement into worme∣wood, in violating all lawes and Canons, in ouerthrowing the jurisdiction of all other Bishops, and in making a scorne of all religion, as may be as hurtfull to the Church as heresie. Now that wee speake not of an impossible or strange thing, or neuer heard of before, when we speake of monsters, prodigious and hellish monsters, intruding themselues by sinister meanes into the holy chaire of blessed Peter, let the Reader pe∣ruse the o 1.801 Histories written of the Popes, by their owne friendes, and by the louers of the Church of Rome, which are full of the villanies of this kind of men, in which no∣thing is more ordinary, or more often repeated then those honourable titles of most wicked Popes, Monstra, teterrimamonstra: monsters, most hydeous and ougly mon∣sters. Let him cast his eyes vpon the 50 Popes mentioned by p 1.802 Genebrard (that vassall of the Pope, and sworne enemy of all honest and good men) which are by him acknow∣ledged to haue beene monsters, and Apostaticall, rather then Apostolicall: and among them vpon that monster of monsters, Iohn the twelfth, then whom a viler hell-hound neuer breathed vpon the earth, and who seemed to be a very Diuell incarnate.

Wherefore let vs passe from the case of heresie, to see whether the Pope may not bee deposed for other enormous crimes publickely scandalous. The chiefe and prin∣cipall reason brought by our Aduersaries, to proue that hee may not be iudged of any, whatsoeuer hee doe, is because he hath soueraigne authority ouer all, and is Prince of the whole Church. But this reason (as q 1.803 Bellarmine confesseth) is Petitio principii, that is, a grosse begging of that which is in question; and besides, they who bring this proofe, runne round in a circle, and make themselues giddy by sophisticall cir∣culation. For thus they dispute. The Pope hath an absolute soueraignty ouer all, & is Prince of the whole Church, because no man may iudge him; and if any man doubt, whether he may be iudged or not, they proue full wisely that he may not; because he hath an absolute soueraignty. Wherefore the Cardinall leaueth the prouing of this point by reason, and vndertaketh to demonstrate the same by authorities. But they are such as are not much to bee esteemed. For either they proue not the point in que∣stion, or else they may iustly be suspected of forgery & corruption.

The first testimony hee alledgeth, is out of the Councell of Sinuessa, which was called (as it is supposed) by the Clergy of Rome, in the time of Dioclesian the Empe∣rour, to examine the fact of Marcellinus, that had sacrificed vnto Idols. Of the acts of this Councell, Binnius in his Annotations vpon the same, in the first Tome of the Councells, saith: That very many of the best learned Diuines, doe thinke them to be meere counterfeits, and of no esteeme or credit, and that they were but the deuice of the Donatists, seeking to blemish the blessed memorie of Marcellinus, whom all an∣tiquity much esteemed and honoured. Whereupon Saint r 1.804 Augustine saith, that cer∣taine Donatists obiected the fall of Marcellinus to the Catholickes, but that they could neuer yet proue any such crime to haue been committed by him, as they char∣ged him with. Howsoeuer there are many most strong and forcible arguments to proue, that the acts of this Councell are meere forgeries. For first, whereas this Councell is said to haue beene holden at Sinuessa, in a certaine vault or caue vnder the ground, that was named the vault or caue of Cleopatra, there is no History, nor no Writer that mentioneth any such caue, nor any man that can tell of any the least me∣moriall of any such thing. Neither doth that answere satisfie men, that many famous citties haue beene made desolate by Earth-quakes, and many mountaines and plaines haue changed both their situation, place, and name. For howsoeuer they lost their old names, and are called by new, yet their old names remaine still in those auncient Writers, wherein formerly they were; but the name of this caue or vault cannot bee found in any auncient Writer whatsoeuer. Secondly, it is very strange, that in the time of Dioclesian, when the persecution was hottest, and the flame of that fire con∣sumed and wasted all that came neere it, three hundred Bishoppes should bee assem∣bled together, and meet in such a caue, whereinto they could not all enter; and so hide themselues, but only 50 at a time, leauing the rest abroad to be spied & apprehended: then which, what can be more vnlikely? For they are reported to haue made choice of a caue to meete in, that by hiding themselues they might decline the furie of their bloudy enemies, and yet this caue is described to haue beene in a citty, and of so small receipt and narrow compasse, that onely 50 could enter into it at a time. So that 250 were alwaies in open view abroade in the citty. Thirdly, in the accusation that is brought against Marcellinus, it is said, that Dioclesian brought him into the Temple of Vesta and Isis, and that he caused him to sacrifice to Saturne and Iupiter; whereas it is certaine that diuerse Gods and Goddesses among the heathen had their diuerse Tem∣ples, so that they neuer vsed to sacrifice to Iupiter in the Temple of Vesta, or to Vesta in the Temple of Iupiter or Mars. Fourthly, the Author of the Pontificall saith, Marcellinus did sacrifice, and a few dayes after repenting of that hee had done, was martyred. Now how 300 Bishoppes in so few dayes could bee brought together, I thinke neither the Authours nor the patrons of these forgeries can easily tell vs. These and the like reasons, are brought by Cardinall s 1.805 Baronius and others, who (thinking that to acknowledge that Marcellinus did sacrifice to idols, doth more disaduantage their cause, then any thing decreed in it doth helpe it) incline to say, that the acts

of this Councell are counterfeite, and that all these things were devised by the ene∣mies of the See Apostolicke. But others thinking that the fact of this Pope may be excused, and supposing that the Decree of this councell, that the first See is to be iudged of none, may much helpe their helplesse cause: and t 1.806 for that otherwise they shall be dri∣uen to discredite it, their Martyrologies, and their Breviaries, and Pope Nicholas the first, who vrgeth the saying of these supposed Bishops in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour, admit this Councell as if it were of credite, and vrge the authority of it to confirme things questioned betweene them and vs; though they bee not able to an∣swere the reasons of the other side, to the satisfaction of any indifferent man: for this is the manner of these Iesuited Papists, to reject or admit nothing otherwise, then as they thinke it may make for them or against them. But to leaue them thus striuing and contending one with another, and to come to the saying alleadged by Bellarmine out of this supposed Councell, it no way maketh for them, but against them, and can∣not stand with the grounds of their owne Divinity, vnlesse they will bee of their opi∣nion, who think that the church must endure an hereticall Pope, & that he must be still taken to be a sheepheard of the sheep of Christ, though as a devouring wolfe, he make havocke of the flocke of Christ. For is not Infidelity as badde as Heresie? And did not Marcellinus as much endanger the Church of Rome, and the Religion of Christi∣ans, in making friendship with Dioclesian, by sacrificing to his Idoles, as Liberius did by subscribing to the Arrians wicked proceedings against Athanasius, and commu∣nicating with Heretickes? Was it lawfull for the cleargy of Rome, vpon the know∣ledge of Liberius his fact to depose him; and might not the same cleargy assisted with three hundred Bishops, judge and depose Marcellinus? But heere wee may see the partiality of these Papists, and that they write without all conscience. For Bellar∣mine being to justifie Felix to be a true Pope, who possessed the place while Liberius * 1.807 liued, saith, that in his entrance hee was a schismaticke (Liberius yet liuing, and con∣tinuing a Catholique Bishop:) but that after the fall of Liberius, for which the Church did lawfully depose him, hee was by the same church, admitted and taken for a true Bishop. Yea, though Liberius were not in heart an Hereticke, but was presumed to bee an Hereticke, onely because hee made peace with the Arrians, and so was an Hereticke in his outward courses and acts, of which men are to judge, and not of the heart. And yet touching x 1.808 Marcellinus, hee saith, hee thinketh hee lost not his Pope∣dome, nor might not bee deposed from it for that most execrable externe act of idola∣trie & infidelitie, because it might be thought he did it out of feare. Shall the vncertain coniecture of the motiue that made him doe so vile an act, excuse him from being pro∣ceeded against, as an Infidell that doth the workes of an Infidell? and shall not the like conjectures stay the proceedings against men as Heretickes, vpon their out∣ward concurring with Heretickes in some things? Shall feare excuse Marcellinus? and shall not the impatience of Liberius (no longer able to endure such intollerable vexations as he was subject to) excuse him? was it not as strongly presumed, that impatience moued the one to doe that hee did, as feare the other? Yes surely much more. For if wee may beleeue the acts of this faigned Councell, Marcellinus was rather wonne with flattery and faire promises, then forced with terrours, the Empe∣rour seeking to winne him with kindnesse, and not to force him with seuerity and ex∣tremity, being perswaded by Alexander, and Romanus, so to doe. For that if hee could insinuate himselfe into the affection of the Bishop, and assure him vnto himselfe, he might thereby easily gaine the whole city. Thus hauing examined the first testi∣mony produced by the Romanists to proue that the Bishoppes of the Romane See may not bee judged, and found it to bee of no credite, let vs see if the next will bee any better.

The next is taken out of the Romane Councell vnder Pope Sylvester, consisting of 284 Bishops, wherein we finde these wordes: y 1.809 Neque ab Augusto, neque à Regibus, neque ab omni Clero, neque â populo iudicabitur primasedes: that is, The first See shall not bee judged neither by Augustus, neither by Kings, neither by the whole Clergie, neither by the people. Before we come to answere this authority, we must obserue,

that many things are most fondly and fabulously deuised and attributed to this Sylue∣ster, vnder whom this imagined Romane Councell is supposed to haue beene holden. For whereas z 1.810 Eusebius, a 1.811 Zozomen, and other Historians of credit report, that the conuersion of Constantine the great was partly out of those good lessons he had lear∣ned of his father, and partly by a strange apparition of the signe of the Crosse, with an inscription in it: in hoc vince, that is, in this ouercom, appearing to him in the aire when preparing himselfe to the warre against Maxentius, he carefully bethought himselfe to what God hee should betake him, and whose helpe among the Gods hee should specially seeke; and partly by a vision of Christ appearing to him: whereupon he sent for the Priests of that God that had so manifested himselfe vnto him, and lear∣ned of them what God he was. Those fond men b 1.812 that published the faigned acts of Syluester, report, that Constantine after many horrible murthers of his nearest Kins∣men, and the parricide of his owne sonne Crispus, being stricken with leprosie, was wished by the South-sayers to whom hee sought for counsell and aduice, to take the blood of Innocents, and to bathe himselfe in it for the curing of his leprosie; but that discouraged from the effusion thereof by the piteous cries of their tender mothers, hee be thought himselfe better, and sought expiation of his grieuous crimes, which all other denying to him, for so grieuous offences, Hosius of Corduba told him that the Christians could purge him, and Peter and Paul appearing to him, told him, hee must recall Syluester out of his hiding place, whither he was gone for feare, and seeke bap∣tisme of him; and that then he should be purged both from the impurity of his soule & body, which accordingly was done, and he recouered. In thankefull requitall where∣of he cast downe the Temples of the false Gods, builded many Christian Churches, and gaue to Syluester the citty of Rome, with all Italy, and many other prouinces be∣sides, making him temporall Lord of all those places. Whereas it is most certaine, that Constantine was not baptized till a litle before his death, as it appeareth by c 1.813 Eusebius, by d 1.814 Hierome, & by the Synodal Epistle of the Coūcel of Ariminum, written to Constantius, reported by e 1.815 Theodoret, f 1.816 Socrates, and g 1.817 Zozomen; and as certaine, that Constantine was a Christian Emperour, before Syluester was Bishop. For h 1.818 in the daies of Melchiades his predecessour, hee tooke notice of the differences among Bishops, in respect of Caecilianus, and rested not till hee had composed them; professing that hee so honou∣red the Catholique Church, that hee could not endure any schisme to be in it. Not∣withstanding the same authors of lyes go forward, and tell vs, after the Baptisme of Constantine by Syluester, of a Councell holden at Rome by the same Syluester, consisting of 284. Bishops, brought thither, and maintained there at the Emperours charges. But there are many things that bewray it to be a mere counterfeit. For first it hath a sencelesse title; for it is named another Romane Councell vnder Syluester the first, whereas no man can tell of any besides this. Secondly, it is fronted with a briefe Epi∣logue in steed of a Preface. Thirdly, there is scarce any sence to bee made of any one sentence throughout the whole. Fourthly, it is sayd to consist of 139 Bishops out of the citty of Rome, or not farre from it, and the rest out of Greece; whereas all men know, the citty of Rome had but one Bishop, so that it was sencelesse to say, there were in that Councell 139 Bishops out of the citty of Rome, or not farre from it. And besides, all men see, how silly a thing it was to muster so many names of Bishops, without specifying the places whereof they were Bishops. Fiftly, whereas it is said to haue consisted of 284 Bishops out of the citty of Rome, and places neere to it, and out of Greece, as if it had beene a generall Councell; it is strange that the Histories re∣porting farre meaner Councels then this is supposed to haue beene, should neuer make any mention of this, nor the occasion of calling it. Sixtly, whereas the supposed Fathers of this Councel, do condemne (though in very sencelesse manner) certaine vn∣knowne heretickes, it is strange they should make no mention of the Arrians, who were famous, and * 1.819 at that time troubled all the East. Seuenthly, the end why these supposed Fathers met, was ridiculous. For thus it is expressed, ⁱ Vt Ecclesiae regia non vatieinentur, sed sit fi•…•…ma, & claudat ostium propter persecutorem. Or as another Edi∣tion hath it: Vt Ecclesia regia non vacilletur, sed sit firma, & claudat ostium propter * 1.820

persecutorem. For why should these good men forbid the kingly Churches to pro∣phecie? or why should they feare the shaking or tottering of them? or shut the doore for feare of the persecutor, after Constantine, was become a Christian, baptized by Syl∣uester, and in requitall of his kindnesse, had giuen him all the Empire of the West? Lastly, whereas the manner of Councels was that the Bishops sate round in a compasse, the Presbyters sate behind them, and the Deacons stood before them: the k 1.821 Councell of Carthage forbiddeth a Bishop to sit, & suffer a Presbyter to stand: l 1.822 & Hierome sheweth, that euen in Rome, the manner was, that Presbyters did sit, and Deacons stand: here it is noted, that none sate but Bishops. These things being obserued touching the cre∣dit of this Councel, let vs come to the Decrees of it, by which the Pope would exempt himselfe from all iudgment of men, whatsoeuer villanyes he should chance to commit. Thus then the Decrees of this sacred Synode are passed in fauour of the Pope. First it is decreed, that no Presbyter à die onus Presbyterij (latine fitter for Hog-heards * 1.823 then Bishops) shall marry, and that if he do, hee shall loose his honour for 12. yeares. Se∣condly, it is ordered thus: That if any one shall do against this present hand-writing, hee * 1.824 shall be condemned for euer. For let no man iudge the first See: for neither shall the Iudge be iudged of Augustus, nor of all the Clergy, nor of Kings, nor People. These sencelesse Decrees of a fained & ridiculous Synode, our aduersaries (such is their pouerty in this cause) bring forth, as good authorities for the Pope. But I thinke the reader will not much be moued with them, vnlesse it be to pitty those that liued before vs, who were abused with such fooleries, and shamelesse forgeries: and to giue thankes to God that hath giuen vs meanes to descry the cozening deuices of Satans Agents. Neither doth it any thing assure vs of the truth of this Councel, that Pope Nicholas was cōtent to make vse of it in his Epistle to Michael the Emperor of Constantinople, seeing he citeth also in the same Epistle the Romane Synode vnder Sixtus the third, in the cause of Polychro∣nius Bishop of Hierusalem, whereas yet not withstanding o 1.825 Binnius saith confidently, that euery learned man wil pronounce the acts of it to be counterfeit, if he attend the names of the Consuls in whose times it is supposed to haue bin holden: the name of him that was accused, and other things described in those supposed & pretended acts.

To these they adde another authority (as it may seeme) of the same stamp, out of the p 1.826 Councell of Rome vnder Sixtus the third, which they endeuour to strengthen with certaine sayings out of a booke of one Euodius a Deacon, admitted, and allowed in the fifth Councell vnder Symmachus. The Romane Councell vnder Sixtus was called to examine a very foule fact, wherewith Sixtus was charged, which was the abusing of one Chrysogonet, a professed and consecrated virgin. In this Councell Sixtus presen∣ted himselfe, and professed that it was in his power & choice either to submit himselfe to the iudgment of the Councell, or to refuse it; & yet voluntarily referred his cause to be there heard: whence our Auersaries suppose they may inferre that all the world may not iudge the Pope against his will. The Barbarismes, & manifold senceles absur∣dities that are found in this Councell, may iustly make us suspect it of forgery. But ad∣mitting it to haue bin a lawfull Synode, no such thing can be concluded out of it, as our aduersaries dreame of. For it was but a Diocesan Synode, & there was neuer a Bishop in it, besides Sixtus, whom they went about to iudge. And therefore it was not to be maruailed at, if Sixtus said, it was in his power and choice whether hee would be iudged by the Presbyters & Deacons of his owne Church, or not: seeing no Bishop, be he neuer so meane, may be judged by the Clergy of his own Church, but by the Synode of the Bishops of the prouince: and therefore I greatly feare, they wil hardly draw a good argument frō hence, to proue, that the Pope may not at all be iudged. For I think it will not follow: Maximus the exconsul said, it was not lawful for those Lay-men, & inferiour Clergy-men thē assembled, to giue sentence against the B: of Rome; & the B: himselfe protested that he might chuse, whether he would be judged by them or not: therefore the whole Christian world may not judge the Pope. Wherefore let vs come to the sayings of Euodius, & see whether they confirme the Romish conceipt any bet∣ter. The occasiō of the writing of this booke of Euodius, was this: q 1.827 Symmachus the

Bishop of Rome, being charged with certaine grieuous crimes, was to bee judged in a Synode called by Theodoricus the King, not without his own cōsent. To this Councel he was willing to come, and to submit him selfe to the judgement of it; onely hee desired restitution of such things as had beene taken from him, till he were convicted: which he could not obtaine, and yet presented himselfe in the Synode. But such was the fury and violence of his enemies pressing in vpon him, that he was in very great danger of his life; and therefore after the first time, would come no more to the place where the Bishops sate. Whereupon they not knowing what to doe (for it was not fit to judge him being absent, & there was no reason to proceed against him as contumacious in re∣fusing to come vnto them, seeing his refusall seemed to proceed from just feare of dan∣ger) vtterly refused & disclaimed the trying of his cause, and the judging of it; moued not a little so to doe, because great multitudes of the people communicated with him, and they had no president of such proceedings against former Bishops. The King somewhat offended herewith, tolde them, that if they did not discusse the cause, they would giue an ill example to all Bishops to liue wickedly, and at their pleasure, in hope of impunity; and yet left the matter wholly to them, who did nothing in it, but onely perswaded to vnity. Heereupon there grew some distraction among the Cleargy and people of Rome, and some thought the Bishops had done ill in leauing the matter vnexamined. Vpon which occasion one Euodius a Deacon, writeth a booke in de∣fence of their proceedings, which they approue in their fifth Synode or meeting, wherein among other things hee hath these wordes: Lex probitatis & mentis est, quae hominem viventem sine lege castigat: propriè moribus impendit qui necessitati non debet disciplinam. Aliorum fortè hominum causas Deus voluit homines terminare, sed sedis istius Praesulis suo sine quaestione reservavit arbitrio. Voluit beati Petri Apo∣stoli successores coelo tantùm debere innocentiam, & sublimissimi discussoris indagini iu∣violatam exhibere conscientiam. That is, The Law of vertue and of the minde keepeth them in awe, who liue without any other law. Hee that is not otherwise inforced to liue well, will liue orderly for the loue of order and good life. Haply God would haue the causes of other men ended by men, but the causes of the Bishop of this See he reserued no doubt to his owne judgment: and his pleasure was, that the succes∣sours of blessed Peter should be accountable for their good or ill liuing to Heauen on∣ly, and present and exhibite their consciences kept inviolable to the examination of the most exquisite examiner. For answer to this allegation wee say, that neither the credite of Euodius is so great, that vpon his bare word wee should bee bound to be∣leeue him, nor the authoritie of these Fathers such, that whatsoeuer they approue and allow, must bee holden for good. Notwithstanding, admitting these sayings to bee true, their owne Canonists and Diuines in their Glosses, doe limite and restrain them with certaine exceptions. For first they say, the case of heresie must bee excepted, * 1.828 there being no question, but that the Pope may bee judged and condemned by men, if he become an hereticke. Secondly, the case of Penitentiall confession, wherein he yeel∣deth himself, as in duty bound so to do, to be judged, directed, and commanded for his soules good, by him to whom hee is pleased to reueale the estate of the same. Thirdly, the case of voluntary submission. It is in my power (saith Pope Sixtus) to bee judged or not, but let matters bee examined, and the trueth found out. And in like sort, Symmachus submitted himselfe to bee judged by the Councell of Bishops. Fourthly, the case of incorrigible wickednesse, when the Church is grieuously scan∣dalized by the notorious ill life and wickednesse of the Pope, and hee is found incor∣rigible in the same. This case the Glosse excepteth, warranted so to doe by the ve∣ry light of naturall reason, which teacheth vs, that when any member of the Body, after the cutting off whereof the body may liue and continue, infecteth and endange∣reth the rest, and is incurable, it may, and ought to bee cut off. Now though the Pope should in a sort be acknowledged to haue the proportion of the head in the body of the church, yet is he herein vnlike vnto a natural head, for that the body of the church dieth not when he is taken away from it; & therefore to stop the deadly infectiō of his

impiety, and outragious wickednesse from spreading it selfe any further, he may bee cut off. So that this is the onely difference betweene the Pope and other Bishops, that other may be judged, though they be not incorrigible, but he is not to bee iud∣ged of any other, without his owne consent and concurrence, when he may be indu∣ced to reforme and correct what is amisse, as being the chiefe of that company that is to judge of ill doers; but if he be incorrigible, hee may be proceeded against, euen a∣gainst his will, as wee see by the example of s 1.829 Iohn the twelfth, who being prodigi∣ously wicked, and after many and most earnest admonitions, intreaties and perswasi∣ons, of the Emperour and others, refusing any way to reforme himselfe, the Empe∣rour called a Councell, and deposed him, and chose another to succeede him; & that this deposition was lawfull and good, it is euident, in that the succeeding Pope was holden to be a true and lawfull Pope while hee yet liued. But concerning Gregory * 1.830 the Pope, Henry the third, did rather perswade him to yeeld, and to relinquish his place, then depose him, because he found him tractable.

Two other authorities our Aduersaries haue yet behind, to proue that the Pope may not be iudged. The first, is out of the Councell of u 1.831 Chalcedon, where the Fathers among many other reasons alledged why they condemned Dioscorus, vrge this also as one, that hee was so farre from repenting of his manifold euill doings, that he railed a∣gainst the Apostolicke See, sought to excommunicate blessed Leo, and persisting in his wickednes, was wilfull against the whole Councell, & refused to answer to such things as hee was charged with. How it will be inferred from hence that the Pope may not be iudged by a generall Councell, I see not. For though it bee true that the inferiours may not iudge the greater and superiour; and that therefore Iohn of Antioch was con∣demned for iudging Cyril of Alexandria, and Dioscorus for iudging Leo, yet it is no way consequent that either Cyril or Leo, were free from all iudgement, or that they might not be iudged by a generall Councell, whatsoeuer they should doe. The other authority is out of the Romane Councell vnder Adrian the second, whose words reci∣ted in the eigth generall Councel are these: We reade that the Romane Bishops haue * 1.832 iudged the Bishops of all Churches, but that any one hath iudged them, we doe not reade. For the better vnderstanding and clearing whereof, we must obserue, first that the person of the Bishop of Rome alone is not meant, when he is said to haue iudged the Bishops of all Churches; but he must be vnderstood to haue iudged them with his Synode, and the Bishops subiect to him, as Patriarch of the West. For otherwise he might not, nor did not iudge any B. of himselfe alone. 2, That being B. of the first See, he, with his associates, might iudge any other B. or Patriarch, but no particular Patriarch with his Bishops might iudg him & his, because y 1.833 there is no particular per∣son, or company of men, greater then he and his, being chiefe Patriarch of the world: but that both hee and his may bee iudged by a generall Councell, it appeareth by the eight generall Councell, wherein the words now vrged, are recited. For that z 1.834 Coun∣cell taketh order that all the Patriarches shall bee honoured and respected, and especi∣ally the Bishop of Rome, and forbiddeth any man to compose any billes or writings against him, vnder pretence of some crimes, wherewith they will charge him, as Dioscorus did: but that if there bee a generall Councell, and any question bee moued touching the Romane Church, they may in reuerent and due sort determine the same, though they may not proceede contemptuously against the Romane Bishop. And so first, the Councell of a 1.835 Nice gaue lawes, as to the other two Patriarches, so likewise to the Bishoppe of Rome, and included him within his owne bounds and limits. Se∣condly, the Councell of b 1.836 Chalcedon made the Bishoppe of Constantinople a Patriarch, and the Bishoppe of Romes Peere, notwithstanding the resistance of those that were there present on the behalfe of Leo, then Bishop of Rome, and the other Bishops of the West. And this decree in the end preuailed, so that after much contradiction, and long continued opposition, the Bishops of Rome were forced to yeeld vnto it. Thirdly, c 1.837 generall Councels reexamined and iudged againe thinges iudged by the Bishop of Rome, and his Bishops, as the Councell of Chalcedon reexamined the iudgement of Leo against Dioscorus, and for Theodoret. And the sixth generall Councell, the iudge∣ment

of Pope Martine, with his Synodes against Pyrrhus, and Sergius: and the eighth, the judgments of Nicholas and Adrian against Photius. d 1.838 Augustine speaking of the sentence of the 70. Bishoppes against Caecilianus, retracted and reuersed by Melchia∣des Bishop of Rome and his colleagues (whom vpon the suites of the Donatists, Con∣stantine appointed to heare the matter) sayth, they therefore appealed to the judge∣ments of the Bishops beyond the Seas, that if by any falsehood and slaunders they could preuaile, they might gaine the cause: if not, they might say (as all men that haue ill causes are wont to do) that they met with bad judges. But (sayth hee) let vs grant that those Bishops that judged the matter at Rome, were not good Iudges; yet there remained a generall Councell of the whole Church for them to flye vnto, where the matter might anew haue beene handled with the former Iudges; that their sentences might be reuersed, if they should haue beene conuinced to haue judged ill. Which thing if they did; let them make it appeare vnto vs. Wee proue they did not, because all the world communicated with Caecilianus, and not with Donatus and his adherents. So that either they neuer brought the matter to be scanned in a generall Councell, or else they were therein condemned also. Here wee See hee clearely acknowledgeth the generall Councell to haue power to reexamine and reuerse the judgement of the Bishoppe of Rome and his colleagues. Saint e 1.839 Gregory likewise acknowledgeth the vniuersall Church to be greater then hee and his. For, professing to follow the direction of Christ (in the matter betweene him and the Bi∣shop of Constantinople) who willeth vs, if our brother offend against vs, to go and admo∣nish him betweene him and vs; & if then he heare vs not, to take two or three with vs, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses euery word may stand: and if he heare not them, then to tell the Church, he sayth, that he had first sent to the Bishop of Constanti∣nople, and by his messengers admonished him in all gentle and louing sort; and that now he writeth vnto him, omitting nothing that in all humility he ought to doe: but that seeing hee is thus despised, there remaineth nothing, but that he vse the helpe of the Church, for the repressing of the insolencie of this man, soe preiudiciall to the state of the whole Church. Fourthly, generall Councels haue by their decrees ordai∣ned many things concerning the See of Rome, either enlarging or limitting the pow∣er of it, and the exercise of the same, as it seemed good vnto them: as we see in the Councell of f 1.840 Sardica. Hosius with the Bishops there assembled, resolued in the ho∣nour of the memory of Peter, to make a Decree, that Bishoppes condemned by the Bishoppes of their owne Prouinces, might appeale to the Bishop of Rome: and that it might be lawfull for him vpon such appeale to write to the Bishops of the next Pro∣uince to reexamine the matter againe: And if hee pleased, to send some from him∣selfe to sit with them in joynt commission. Neither did the Bishoppes of Rome, g 1.841 Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Caelestinus, vrge the law of Christ, or the right of Saint Peter, to justifie their claime of receiuing appeales out of Africa, but the Decrees of * 1.842 the Nicene Councell. And this is farther confirmed in that the Bishops in the Coun∣cell of Chalcedon say, the Fathers gaue the preheminence to the Bishop of Rome in an∣cient times, because it was the seat of the Empire: and that therefore now, they would giue the like to Constantinople, now become the seat of the Empire, and na∣med new Rome. And as generall Councels gaue preheminences to the Romane Bi∣shops, so also they restrained and limited them in the vse of their jurisdiction, when they saw them to incroch too much: as the Councell of i 1.843 Sardica tooke order, that they should not meddle with the causes of Presbyters and inferiour Clergy-men vpon any appeale, but leaue them to to their owne Bishops, and the Synodes of the Pro∣uinces, and in the case of Bishops appealing, not to reuerse the acts of the Synode of any prouince without another Synode of the Bishops of the next Prouince. And the Councels of k 1.844 Chalcedon, and Constantinople the l 1.845 eighth decreed, that the Bishop * 1.846 Rome, and the other Patriarches shall confirme the Metropolitanes subject vnto them, by sending the Pall, or by imposition of handes, but shall not intermeddle in the ordination of Bishoppes. Fifthly, it appeareth that the Romane Bishops; are inferiour to the whole Church. First, in that their Legates m 1.847 rise vp when they speake

in generall Councels. And secondly, in that in the councell of n 1.848 Ephesus, when they with others were sent by the councell to the Emperour, they were willed precisely to follow the directions and instructions giuen them. For that if they did not, all their proceedings should bee voided, and they rejected from the communion of the rest. Sixthly, in that the sixth generall councell particularly giueth lawes to the Church of Rome. For in the thirteenth canon it reprehendeth the Romane Church, because it forbiddeth Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, to liue in matrimoniall society with their wiues, and commaundeth it to leaue them to their owne libertie in this behalfe. And in the 55 canon it reprehendeth the same Romane Church for fasting on Satur∣dayes in Lent, and forbiddeth the continuing of that obseruation any longer. Se∣uenthly, the o 1.849 Pope is but a Bishop, as appeareth in that hee is ordained by Bishops, and in that Dionysius acknowledgeth no higher dignity in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy, then that of a Bishop. Now all Bishops, as Bishops, are equall. For howsoeuer Metropolitanes in Provinces, and Primates, or Patriarches in their larger circuites, are in all common businesses to be first sought vnto, that actions of that nature may take beginning from them; yet haue they no voyce neither affirmatiue nor negatiue, in de∣termining or concluding things otherwise then as the maior part of those Bishops a∣mong which they are in order first, shall sway them; and therefore they haue not a more ample jurisdiction then other Bishops, but in the administration and exercise of the power of jurisdiction common to them and other, they haue the first place, and are in honour before others. Wherefore seeing the Pope hath not any dignity or or∣dination Ecclesiasticall, greater then that of a Bishop, and all Bishops by Gods Law are equall in the power of jurisdiction, howsoeuer in the execution and exercise thereof, some be before other, there is no question to be made, but that the Pope is subject to some censure and judgment. Eightly, tbe Pope being a Bishop, & the Councels making lawes generally to binde Bishops, it is not to be doubted but that the same Lawes and Canons doe binde him. Now many of those lawes and canons doe depriue them that shall offend against them, ipso facto, and other make them depriueable. Therefore he is subject to censure and judgement. To this our Adversaries answer, p 1.850 That the lawes and canons of generall councels doe not extend to the Pope, but only to such as are subject to them, as inferiour Bishops, and such as are below the condition of Bi∣shops. But this answer is easily refuted, because the q 1.851 Popes anciently at the time of their admission, did by a solemne profession binde themselues to the obseruation of the Decrees of generall councels, in as precise and strict sort as any other Bishops. The forme of their profession was this: Sancta octo vniversalia Concilia usque ad u∣num apicem immutilata servare, & pari honore, & veneratione digna habere, & quae praedicaverunt & statuerunt, modis omnibus sequi & praedicare, quaeque condemnave∣runt, ore & corde condemnare profiteor; that is, I professe to keepe inviolable the sa∣cred eight general Councels, euen to the vttermost title and iota, and to esteeme them worthy of equall honour and reuerence, and by all meanes to follow and publish those things which they published and decreed, and to condemne with mouth and heart whatsoeuer things they condemned. But r 1.852 they will say perhappes, the Pope is in such sort bound to keepe the lawes of the church, and the canons of generall councels, that hee offendeth God, and shall bee punished by him if hee keepe them not. But that no man hath power to punish him for the not keeping of them, or to force him to keepe them. And that therefore though he neglect his owne saluati∣on, * 1.853 and the saluation of his brethren, yea, though hee draw innumerable multitudes with him into hell, there to perish euerlastingly with the diuell and his angels, yet no councel, nor company of mortall men vpon earth may presume to censure him, vnlesse he erre from the faith, because hee being to judge all, must bee judged of none. This answer wil be found very insufficient and weake; for seeing (as it is before pro∣ued) all Bishops are equall in the power of jurisdiction, one hath no more power to make lawes then another, neither can any one actiuely bind other to the observati∣on of any thing more then any other may binde him. And therefore if other Bishops cannot bind the Pope by their lawes, he cannot bind them by his, and so by this meanes

all shall be left free to doe what they will. For it is true of all Bishops that t 1.854 Cy∣prian speaketh of himselfe, and the Romane Bishop, that none of them seuerally hath power to iudge other, but they are accountant onely to God; yet is euery Bishoppe subject to the cōpanies of Bishops, whereof he is but a part; & if any one hauing none other dignity or ordination but that of a Bishop, may exempt himself from being sub∣ject to the Synodes of Bishops, euery one may, and so all shall be set loose and at li∣berty to doe what they list. But here perhaps some man will say, the Metropoli∣tanes cannot bee judged by the Bishoppes of the prouinces, as being in a sort heads of those companies of Bishops, but by greater Synodes: therefore the Romane Bishop, being Primate of the chiefe part of the Christian world, as Patriarch of the West; and president of a generall Councell, as being the first among the Patriarches, is not to be iudged at all, there being no greater company of Bishoppes to judge him, then those of which hee is in a sort head and president. For answere whereunto, first wee say, that the Bishoppes of the Prouinces may judge the Metropolitanes in all those cases, wherein their places are made voide, and they put from all Ecclesiasticall honour, ipso facto, by force of the canon it selfe, that is, they may declare, that they are by the sen∣tence of them that made the canon voided out of their places, and consequently, the Bishops of the West subiect to the Pope, as their Primate or Patriarch may iudge him, that is, declare and pronounce, that hee is deposed by the sentence of the canon, in all such cases, wherein Bishops are deposed, ipso facto. Secondly, wee say, that though ordinarie Bishops may not be deposed without consulting the Metropolitane, nor the Metropolitane without consulting the Patriarch, nor the Patriarch of a mea∣ner See, without consulting them of greater and superiour Sees, because still there is an higher to whom to goe: yet hee that is the first and in order before all other, if by no other meanes he may bee induced to reforme himselfe, or voluntarily to relinquish his place (if his offence so require) may, in case of grieuous and scandalous wicked∣nesse, wherein hee is found incorrigible, be deposed by them that are in a sort inferi∣our to him. Neither neede this to seeme strange in the deposition of Bishops, see∣ing the same falleth out in their ordinations. For ordinary Bishops may not be or∣dained without the Metropolitanes, who are in order and honour greater then they, nor Metropolitanes without the Patriarches, from whom they are to receiue impo∣sition of hands, or confirmation by a Pall sent vnto them. But the Patriarches are or∣dained by their owne Bishops, and haue no imposition of hands of any that are grea∣ter then themselues, nor other confirmation then that which the meanest is to giue to the greatest, as well as the greatest to the meanest. But some man will say, is there then no difference betweene him that is the first among Bishops, and them that are of an inferiour condition? Is he no more exempted from judgement then they? surely no: yet, as some thinke, there is some difference between him and them, because they may be judged, though not incorrigible; but he as being in order and honour the first, is not to be iudged, if by any other meanes he may be induced to reforme himselfe, or voluntarily to relinquish his place, if his fault so require. And that in this case, as well as for heresie, the Pope may be deposed, we haue many of the best learned Papists consenting with vs: as u 1.855 Ockam, x 1.856 Cusanus, Cameracensis, z 1.857 Gerson, a 1.858 Almaine, the Bi∣shops and Diuines in the Councells of Constance and Basill, b 1.859 Driedo; and in a word, all those that thinke the Councell to be of greater authority then the Pope.

CHAP. 41.

Of the titles giuen to the Pope, and the insufficiencie of the proofes of his illimited power and Iurisdiction taken from them.

SEEING the vniuersality of the Popes power and jurisdiction cannot be pro∣ued from any exemption hee hath from being judged; let vs proceede to consi∣der the next proofe taken from the names & titles giuen to him, which is more weake then any other. For we shall finde that other Bishops in auncient times,

writing to the Romane Bishop, sometimes call him brother, sometimes fellow-bi∣shop and colleague, sometimes Bishop, sometimes Arch-bishop, sometimes Patriarch; but that they neuer gaue him any title whence he may bee proued to haue an vniuersa∣lity of illimited iurisdiction ouer all.

The first title that our Adversaries a 1.860 vrge is that of Pope, which (as I thinke) will hardly proue the Romane Bishop to haue power ouer all. For whereas Papa or Pa∣pas, among the Greekes signifieth a father, and is the appellation that little children be∣ginning to speake are wont to giue to their parents; and in like sort among the Latines noteth a father or grandfather; hence the Christians in auncient times, did vse to call their spirituall Fathers and Bishops Papes or Popes. So that the name of Pape or Pope was a common name to all Bishoppes. Wherevpon b 1.861 Hierome writing to Augustine, calleth him Pope, and writeth, To the most honourable Pope; whereas yet hee was not vniuersall Bishoppe, but Bishop of little Hippo onely: and therefore the name of Pope doth no way proue every one that is so called, to be vniuersall Bishop. But they say, the Bishop of Rome is named absolutely Pope, and none other Bishop, & that whensoeuer the name of Pope was vsed absolutely without addition, all men vnder∣stood thereby the Romane Bishop to bee meant. Whence it may bee inferred, that hee was greater then all the rest, as being esteemed a common father of all. But for answere hereunto we say, that the Romane Bishoppe was neuer in auncient times na∣med absolutely the Pape or Pope, without specification of his name, or the place whereof hee was Pope, but when by some other circumstance it might be knowne, what Pape or Pope it was men speake of, accordingly as men are wont to say no more, but, the Bishop did this or that, when by things going before, it may be knowne what Bishop they meane; and so the Vicars of Leo in the Councell of c 1.862 Chalcedon said: The most blessed and Apostolique man the Pope gaue them such directions, as they there specify, without adding of Rome, or the name of Leo, because all men knew, from what Pope they came, and whose Vicegerents they were in that Councell. For other∣wise without some circumstances specifying the party, men would neuer haue vn∣derstood whom they had meant, if they had only named the Pope indefinitely. But the same vicars of Leo, in the Councell of Chalcedon, call him Pope of the vniuersall Church; Therefore, d 1.863 saith Bellarmine, we may conclude him to be supreme and abso∣lute commaunder ouer all, out of the titles given vnto him. If the Cardinall would but remember that euery Bishoppe is interessed in the care and gouernment of the whole Church (as I haue elsewhere shewed out of e 1.864 Cyprian) he would easily find the weakenesse of this consequence.

Wherefore let vs passe from the title of Pope to the next, which is Pater Patrum, that is, Father of Fathers, which Bellarmine saith is giuen to the Romane Bishoppe, and to none else; whereas yet hee knoweth the contrary to bee most true. For the relation made to Iohn the Patriarch of Constantinople, by the whole Synode assembled, beginneth in this sort: f 1.865 Domino nostro sanctissimo, & beatissimo Patri Patrum, & Oe∣cumenico Patriarchae, Synodus, &c. Where wee see that the Patriarch of Constanti∣nople is called by a whole Synode, most holy Lord, most blessed Father of Fathers, & Oecumenicall Patriarch. And the g 1.866 Epistle of the Bishoppes of the second Syria, to the same Iohn the Patriarch, beginneth thus: To our most holy Lord, and to the most blessed Father of Fathers, Oecumenicall Arch-bishop and Patriarch. So that the Title of Father of Father's is not proper to the Romane Bishop, as Bellarmine vntruly affir∣meth. The title of summus Sacerdos, or high Priest, giuen to him by Saint Hierome, is common to all Bishops, in respect of Presbyters, and all Metropolitanes, in respect of Bishops, (although the third Councell of i 1.867 Carthage, to shew that Metropolitanes * 1.868 haue not an absolute command, will not haue them called high Priests, or chiefe priests, but onely Bishops of the first See) and therefore though the Pope should bee named, most holy Father, chiefest Pope, chiefe of Priests, or high Priest, yet nothing could be concluded from hence, that either we deny, or they affirme.

The title of Vicar of Christ is new, and not found in all Antiquity, the first in whom wee reade it being k 1.869 Bernard; and therefore not much to bee stood on seeing the Aun∣cient

make all Bishops the Vicars of Christ, and doe neuer appropriate it vnto the Bi∣shop of Rome. Yet will not Bernards appropriating of it proue the thing in questi∣on, seeing hee may bee thought to haue had an eye in so doing, to the chiefty of order and honour, (in respect whereof, he is in more speciall sort a Vicar of Christ, then some other) rather then to any vniversality of commission and authority. Head of the Church the Pope is neuer called among the Ancient, though the Cardinall be plea∣sed vntruely so to report. But the Bishops assembled in the Councell of l 1.870 Chalce∣don writing to Leo, who by Vicars was President of that assembly, say, he was ouer them, as the head ouer the members, not in respect of absolute commaunding autho∣rity, but of honourable presidencie onely, as it appeareth in that (notwithstanding the resistance of his Vicegerents) they passed a decree for the advancement of the Bishop of Constantinople. For otherwise Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome alloweth no man to be called Head of the Church. m 1.871 Petrus (saith he) primum membrum sanctae & vniversalis Ecclesiae est: Paulus, Andreas, Iacobus, quid aliud quàm singularum plebium sunt capita? omnes tamen sub uno capite membra Ecclesiae sunt: that is, Peter is the first, and in ho∣nour the chiefest member of the holy and vniversall Church; Paul, Andrew, Iames, what other thing are they then heads of seuerall parts of Gods people? Yet so, that all notwithstanding are members of the Church vnder one Head. So that a Head of the Church, besides Christ, must not be acknowledged, because no one hath an vniver∣sall commaunding power ouer all, but hee onely: Yet in a certaine sense the Romane Church is named the Head of all Churches; that is, the first and chiefest of all Chur∣ches, as the city of London may bee named the Head of all cities in this state & king∣dome, though it hath not a commaunding authority ouer them, neither is the chiefe Magistrate thereof head ouer all other Magistrates in the kingdome. The authority of the n 1.872 Florentine Councell, naming the Bishop of Rome, Father and teacher of all Chri∣stians, and the Councell of o 1.873 Lyons naming him the bridegroome of the Church, is not so great, that wee should neede much to insist vpon any thing that is alleadged out of them. And touching the latter title, wee know p 1.874 Saint Bernard in his Epistles, wish∣eth the Pope not to take it on him, as being proper to Christ, but to thinke it honour enough to be a friend of the bridegroome. And yet if we should yeelde it vnto him, wee know what q 1.875 Gerson hath written, to shew how this bridegroome may bee ta∣ken away from the Church the spouse of Christ, and yet the Church remaine entire and perfect.

The next glorious title of the Romane Bishop, is Bishop of an Apostolique See. But this is common to him with many others, as some of the rest also are: For, as not only the Romane Church, but the Churches of Ephesus, Antioch, Hierusalem, and Alexan∣dria, which the Apostles founded, and in which they sate as Bishops, are named Apo∣stolicall Churches, so the Bishoppes of all these are named Bishops of Apostolique Sees. Neither doe men know which of the Apostolicke Churches is expressed by the name of the Apostolique See, or which of the Bishops by the name of the Bishop of the Apostolique See, vnlesse by some circumstance the same be specified. As when Augustine said, r 1.876 there were relations made from the Councell of Carthage and Mi∣leuis to the Apostolique See: all men vnderstood what Apostolique See he meant, be∣cause it was knowne to what Apostolique Church they vsed to make such relations. Neither doth the principalitie of the Apostolique chaire, which Augustine s 1.877 affirmeth to haue euer flourished in Rome, argue the supremacie of the Pope, seeing the princi∣pality or chieftie of the Apostolique chaire, mentioned by Saint Augustine, may seeme to import the chieftie that the Apostolike chaire hath aboue those that are not Apostolique, or in which blessed Peter the chiefe of the Apostles did not sit. For though the chaires of the Apostles were in diverse places, yet Peters chaire was estee∣med the principall of all the rest, which being the See and chaire of one, yet was in three places, and three Bishops did sit in it: Namely the Bishops of Rome, Alex∣andria, and Antioche, as I haue shewed t 1.878 before out of Gregory; yet was the princi∣palitie, or chieftie of this chaire of Peter more specially in Rome then in the other pla∣ces, and the Bishop of Rome in order and honour the first and greatest of the three.

The last title brought to proue the supremacie of the Pope, is that of Vniuersall Bi∣sho•…•…, which though it be not giuen to Leo Bishop of Rome, by the whole Councell of C•…•…alcedon: yet is it giuen to him in the u 1.879 Epistles of three seuerall Grecians, writing to h•…•…, as wee may read in the third action of that Councell: and Saint x 1.880 Gregory saith, it •…•…s offered to his predecessours in that Councell, and that they refused it. This title •…•…ill proue the supremacy of the Pope no better then the rest, being common vnto o∣•…•…er with him, and therefore no way arguing any thing peculiarly found in him alone. •…•…or wee shall finde that the y 1.881 Bishops of Constantinople are named vniuersall Bishops, •…•…nd Oecumenicall Patriarches, as well as the Bishoppe of Rome, and that not by one or two particular men, but by whole Councels, by Emperours, and Popes: and though Saint Gregorie justly disliked this name or title, as profane and prejudiciall to the dignitie of all other Bishoppes and Patriarches, when it importeth an vni∣uersalitie of jurisdiction, and generall commanding authoritie ouer all, yet might any one of the Patriarches be named an vniversall Bishoppe, as being one of those fiue principall Bishoppes, to whom all the Bishops and Metropolitanes in the world were subject.

CHAP. 42.

Of the second supposed priuiledge of the Romane Bishops, which is infallibilitie of judg∣ment.

SEEING our Aduersaries cannot proue the vniversall and illimitted power and jurisdiction of their Popes, but the contrary is most clearely deposed by those witnesses which they produce to speake for them, affirmed by those Di∣uines, whom they cannot but acknowledge to be Catholique, and inferred out of their owne principles; let vs proceed to see whether they haue any better proofes of the infallibility of their judgment, which is the next supposed priuiledge of the Romane Bishops. Touching this point I finde foure opinions in the Church of Rome. The first is: that the Pope is so led into all truth, that hee cannot erre in such sort as to become an hereticke. And of this opinion was a 1.882 Albertus Pighius. The second leaueth it doubtfull, whether he may be an hereticke or not, but pronounceth confidently that whether hee may or not, yet hee cannot define and decree any thing that is hereticall. And this is the opinion of almost all b 1.883 Papists at this day. The third, that the Pope not onely as a particular Doctour, but euen as Pope, may bee an heretique, and teach heresie, if he define without a generall Councell. This was the opinion of c 1.884 Gerson, Almayne, and other Parisians; of Alfonsus à Castro, Pope Adrian the sixth, Cardinall Cameracensis, Cusanus; Occam, Durandus, the Fathers of the Councels of Constance and Basill, and many moe. The fourth that hee may erre and define for heresie, though he be assisted with a generall Councell. Of this opinion was d 1.885 Waldensis, and sundry other, as appeareth by e 1.886 Picus Mirandula in his Theorems. So that it is not true, that f 1.887 Bellarmine saith, that all Catholiques consent, that the Pope with a generall Councell cannot erre. For these teach that onely the resolutions of the vniuersall Church (which is the multitude of beleeuers that are and haue beene) are to be receiued without any farther question or examination, as vndoubtedly true. These are the differences of opinions found among them that brag so much of vnity and make the ground thereof to be the submitting of their iudgments to the Pope. But because in so great vncertainty and contrariety of judgments, almost all Papists at this day en∣dine to that opinion, that the Pope, whether he may erre personally or not, yet cannot define for falshood and erre; let vs first see, how they indeauour to confirme the same: and secondly how they can cleare those Popes from heresie, and decreeing for heresie, that are charged therewith.

To proue that the Pope cannot decree for heresie, g 1.888 they alleage in the first place the saying of Christ, who professeth that he h 1.889 prayed for Peter, that his faith should not •…•…ile; and least we should mis-understand the words of Christ, they bring, vs the inter∣pretations

of Augustine, Chrysostome, and Theophylact: whereof the first saith, i 1.890 〈◊〉〈◊〉 when Christ prayed, that Peters faith might not faile, he prayed that he might haue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 free, couragious, inuincible and resolute will, to continue in the true faith. The seco•…•…, k 1.891 that Christ did not say to Peter, Thou shalt not deny mee; but I haue prayed, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 faith shall not faile. For by his care and fauour it was brought to passe, that Peters fai•…•… should not faile, though for feare he denied his master. The third bringeth in Chri•…•… speaking to Peter in this sort: l 1.892 Although for a little time thou shalt be shaken, thou ha•…•… notwithstanding the seedes of faith hid in thee; although the winde and violent blast of hi•…•… that setteth on thee, shall shake off the leaues, yet the roote shall liue, and thy faith shall not faile. So that all these so vnderstand the prayer of Christ for Peter, as that he should not onely rise againe after his fall, and be found faithfull in the end, but that he should neuer fall in respect of the perswasion of faith that was to rest immoueably in him, e∣ven in that most dangerous time of the temptation and triall of the Apostles, when Christ was deliuered into the hands of wicked men to bee crucified. For howsoeuer he denied Christ with bitter imprecations, yet hee did it out of feare, and not out of infidelity, the perswasion of his heart remaining the same that it was before. Where∣fore hauing the words of Christ, and the meaning of them, let vs see whether the o∣pinion which our aduersaries haue of the Pope his infallible discerning and constant defending of the trueth, may bee confirmed out of them. If they could proue the contrary to that which was found in Peter to bee found in the Pope by vertue of Christs prayer for Peter, they might easily make good their opinion. But otherwise neuer out of these words. For thus they must reason, if they will confirme the con∣ceit they haue of the infallibility of the Popes iudgment, by Christs prayer for Pete•…•…▪ Peters faith by vertue of Christs prayer for him, remained firme, immoueable, and most constantly setled in inward perswasion and affection, though it failed for a little time in outward profession: Therefore howsoeuer the faith of the Pope may faile in respect of the perswasion of his heart, yet it shall neuer faile in respect of outward profession. For though he become an heretique in heart, yet hee shall euer professe rightly concerning Christ, to all men that shall come vnto him, to enquire of him, & to bee resolued by him. This kinde of reasoning, I thinke, is not very forcible, and therefore it is much to be doubted, that the Romanists will neuer be able to perswade men that the Pope cannot erre, by vertue of Christs prayer for Peter: Nay that no such thing can be proued out of Christs words vnto Peter, it is most plaine and eui∣dent, because the words that Christ spake vnto Peter, when hee said vnto him, m 1.893 I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not, and when thou art conuerted, confirme thy brethren, are no way appliable to Peters successours. For that if they were, first they must euer bee right beleeuers in heart, notwithstanding whatsoeuer failings in out∣ward confession. Secondly, they must deny Christ as he did, and afterwards repent of such deniall; and conuert and turne vnto God, that so they may confirme their bre∣thren. For so it was in Peter. And. n 1.894 Theophylact doth not attribute the confirmati∣on of the brethren by Peter, which he is commaunded to performe, to his constancy in the true faith, and in the profession of it; but to the experience that hee had of the tender mercy and goodnesse of God towards him. Out of which hee was able t•…•… strengthen them that were weake, to comfort them that were sorrowfull, to put then in assured hope of finding mercie, that otherwise might despaire, and to confirm•…•… them that were doubtfull. For who will not (as the same Theophylact fitly obserueth be confirmed by Peter in the right perswasion of the mercies and goodnesse of Go•…•… towards repentant sinners, when he seeth him whom Christ had so much honoure•…•…, after so shamefull a fault, and so execrable a fact of the abnegation of his Lord and Master, the Lord of life, not onely receiued to mercy, but restored to the dignity of the prime and chiefe Apostle? To this obiection (as wee thinke) vnanswerable, o 1.895 B•…•…l∣larmine answereth, first, that it is not absurd, to referre the conuersion of Peter me•…•…∣tioned by Christ, after which he is to confirme his brethren, not to his turning fro•…•… sinne, but to his brethren, to aduise, admonish, and direct them; not making the sence to bee, thou being turned from sinne by repentance, confirme thy brethren, b•…•…

thou whose faith shall neuer faile, when thou seest any of thy brethren wauering, turne thy selfe vnto them, and confirme them. Secondly, that it followeth not, that the successours of Peter must first fall, and after repent of their fall, if the wordes of Christ bee applyed vnto them, of confirming the brethren; seeing Peters fall was perso∣nall, but his confirming of his brethren is of office, wherein they are to succeede him, and not in the things that are personall. This answer of the Cardinall is insufficient. First, because the current of almost all Interpreters vnderstandeth the conversion of Peter mentioned by our Sauiour, of his turning from sinne, and not of his turning of himselfe to them, whom he was to advise, comfort, and confirme. And secondly, be∣cause in this his answer he contrarieth himselfe. For p 1.896 elsewhere (which it seemeth in making this answer he had forgotten) he denieth that the words of Christ directed to Peter, of confirming his brethren, may be vnderstood of the vniversall Church, or the Bishops of it, and faith; Hoc certè non potest Ecclesiae toti convenire, nisi dicamus totam Ecclesiam aliquando esse pervertendam, ut posteà iterum convertatur: that is, This saying of Christ cannot agree to the whole Church, vnlesse we say, the whole Church shall at sometime be perverted, that afterwards it may be converted. Whereby it is cleare hee thinketh, that the latter part of Christs speech, of confirming the brethren, can agree to none, to whom the former doth not. So that we see, the wordes of Christ spoken to Peter, are no sufficient warrant vnto vs that the Pope cannot erre, and therefore the better to perswade vs of the same, our Adversaries bring the sayings of some great Di∣vines, who conceiued that some such thing may be inferred out of the wordes as they dreame of; as q 1.897 Lucius, r 1.898 Felix, and s 1.899 Marke, ancient Bishops of Rome, and great Lights of the world in their times. If they could indeede bring vs the judgement and re∣solution of these ancient Bishops, they would doubtlesse greatly prevaile with vs. But seeing vnder these names they bring forth vnto vs the Authours of shamelesse forge∣ries, wee are thereby induced more to dislike their conceits then before. Now that they (who masked vnder the names and titles of ancient Romane Bishops, magnifie the greatnesse of the Romane Church, and pleade for the not erring of the Bishoppes thereof) are nothing else but ignorant authors of absurd and shamelesse forgeries, it will easily appeare out of that which I haue t 1.900 elsewhere largely discoursed, to shew that the Epistles attributed to the ancient Popes, are forged and counterfeit; not onely by the judgements and opinions of the best learned on both sides, so censuring them, but by many reasons inducing vs so to thinke: among which one is, the likenesse of the stile found in these Epistles, arguing that they came all out of the same mint, and were not written by those different Popes, liuing at diuerse times, to whom they are attri∣buted. Which similitude of stile will bee found in these Epistles that our Adversa∣ries alleadge to proue, that the Pope cannot erre, as much or more then in any other. For in these wee shall finde the very same words. The agreeing of witnesses in the same substance of matter with some difference of wordes, argueth, that they speake truely; but their precise agreement in words and formes of speaking, argueth rather a compact and agreement to speake the same things, then a desire to vtter the trueth. So here, the precise vsing of the very same words by all these Popes liuing at diuers times, argueth that it was one man that taught them all to speake. But they will say, Pope Leo in his third Sermon of his Assumption to the Popedome, saith as much as they doe: and that therefore wee may not discredite their testimony. Surely if they can proue that Leo saith any such thing as the former Popes are taught to say, wee will most willingly listen vnto them. For wee acknowledge Leo to haue beene a most worthy Bishop, and the things that goe vnder his name, to bee his indubitate workes. Let vs heare therefore what he saith. His wordes in the place cited by the Cardinall are these: Christ tooke speciall care of Peter, and prayed specially for him, because the state of the rest is more secure, when the minde of him that is chiefe is not ouercome. In Peter therefore the strength of all is surely established, and God doth so dispence the helpe of his di∣uine grace, that the same firmenesse that he giueth to Peter, is by Peter conferred and be∣stowed on all. Here is nothing to proue that the pope cannot erre, which is that our Adversaries vndertake to demonstrate, nor that the Romane church cannot erre, which

is that the former Popes affirme in their coūterfeit Epistles: but that the state of the rest is more secure, when he that is chiefe is not ouercome, which no man euer doubted of: and that Christ gaue, or at least promised to giue that assistance of his grace to Peter, which he meant to the rest, and to passe it by him vnto them, so as they should receiue it after him, but not from him. For thus the words of Leo must be vnderstood, seeing it is most certaine (which thing also u 1.901 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth) that the Apostles receiued their infallibility of judgment, and their commission or authority immedi∣ately from Christ, and not from Peter. From Leo they passe to Agatho, who in his E∣pistle to Constantine the Emperour, read and approued in the sixth generall x 1.902 Coun∣cell, sayth, that by the grace of God such hath beene the felicity and happinesse of the Ro∣mane, Church, that it can neuer be proued to haue erred from the path of the Apostolicall tradition, nor to haue fallen being depraued with hereticall nouelties, but the same faith it receiued at first, it holdeth still, according to Christs promise which he made to Peter, wil∣ling him to confirme his brethren. Which thing (saith Agatho) my predecessors haue euer done as is well knowne to all. These words of Agatho are not so farre to be vrged, as if simply neuer any of his predecessors had failed to defend the truth, and confirme his brethren, but that the Romane Church was euer so preserued from heresie, that how∣soeuer some fewe in it for a time might neglect to do their duty, yet neither soe long, nor in such sort, but that that Church and the Bishops of it, were alwaies a stay to the rest in all the dangerous tryals that fell out in ancient times, euen as in the que∣stion concerning the two wils of Christ, about which the Councell was called, it was; wherein though Honorius failed, yet the rest that gouerned the Apostolicall throne with him, did not; and Agatho, who soone after succeded, shewed himselfe an ortho∣doxe and right beleeuer. For, that all the predecessors of Agatho did not alwaies confirme their brethren in the true faith of Christ, it is most euident, in that Marcel∣linus sacrificed vnto Idols (if we may beleeue the y 1.903 Romish stories) and was forced be∣ing conuicted thereof to professe himselfe vnworthy of the Papall office and dignity, in a Synod of Bishops; in that z 1.904 Liberius and Felix communicated with heretiques, and subscribed to the vnjust condemnation of worthy Athanasius; which was not to con∣firme the brethren, but to discourage, disharten and weaken them: and in that a 1.905 Agatho himselfe doth anathematize his predecessor Honorius as a Monothelite, with whom Leo the second concurreth in his Epistle to Constantine the Emperour: who anathematizing Theodorus, Syrus, Sergius Pyrrhus, Paulus, and other Monothelites, ad∣deth to them Honorius Bishop of Rome his predecessor; saying we accurse also Honori∣us, who did not lighten this Apostolicall Church with the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles, but sought to subuert the vndefiled faith by prophane perfidiousnesse. With whom also Pope Adrian agreeth, who in the Synode of Rome, called about the bu∣sinesse of Photius of Constantinople, saith, that c 1.906 the Romane Bishop hath judged of the Bishops of all Churches, but that wee reade not of any one that hath iudged him. For though Honorius were accursed after his death by those of the East, yet it was because he was accu∣sed of heresie, in which only case the lesser may iudge the greater; yet euen there it had not beene lawfull for any of them to giue sentence against him, had not the consent of the first See * 1.907 gone before. So that wee see the Epistle of Agatho doth not sufficiently proue that the Popes cannot erre. Let vs therefore consider whether they haue any better proofes. Nicholas the first (saith Bellarmine) in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour pronoun∣ceth, that the priuiledges of the See of Rome are perpetuall, rooted and planted by Al∣mighty God, in such sort, that men may stumble at them, but cannot remoue them; may pull at them, but cannot pull them vp; therefore he thinketh the Pope cannot erre, which is a very bad consequence. For the infallibility of iudgment in the Pope, is not mentioned among the inuiolable priuiledges of the Church of Rome, and therefore the priuiledges of that Church may be inuiolable, and yet the Pope subiect to errour: * 1.908 neither hath Nicolas one word of the Popes not erring. The testimonies of d 1.909 Leo the ninth, and Innocentius the third, as being late and partiall in their own cause, may iustly be excepted against, yet do they not proue the thing in question. For they speake of the See and throne of Peter, in which the faith may continue without failing (though the

Popes erre and seeke to subuert the same) so long as any other, that are to gouerne the throne with them, perseuere in the true faith.

Wherefore from the prayer of Christ made for Peter, that his faith should not faile, they descend to other proofes taken from the promise made to Peter by Christ, f 1.910 that vpon him he would build his Church; and his mandate requiring him to g 1.911 feede his sheepe, and to feede his Lambes: which are too weake to perswade vs that the Pope can∣not erre, or is more priuiledged then other Bishops in this respect. First, because it is most cleare and euident, and confessed by our aduersaries themselues, that the Church was builded vpon all the Apostles, as well as vpon Peter, and there is no kind of feeding of Christs sheepe and flocke that commeth not within the compasse of that office and commission, which the other Apostles had in common with him: as I haue h 1.912 elsewhere shewed at large. Secondly, because Peter and his colleagues were foundation stones vp∣pon which the Church was builded, in that their doctrine was receiued by immediate and vndoubted reuelation, without mixture of errour, vpon which the faith of all af∣ter-commers was to stay it selfe: none of which things agree to the Romane Bishop. So that it is no way necessary, that there should be the same infallibility of judgment in him that was in Peter, and in his colleagues. Thirdly, because we know, and all that are in their right wits do acknowledge, that a man may be a Pastor in the Church of God, and yet subject to errour: and that therefore Christs requiring Peter to do the duty of a Pastor, will not proue that the Pope cannot erre.

Wherefore from the Scriptures they passe to the Fathers: and among them first they produce Theodoret, who in his Epistle to Renatus a Presbyter, saith, that among other things, the reason why the Romane Church hath a kind of chiefety among other Churches, is because it hath euer remained free from heresie. From whence I thinke hardly any good proofe can be drawne, of the Popes not erring. For how will this consequence euer be made good? There are many things that make the See of Rome great, as the greatnesse of the city, the Empire, the sepulchers of those common Fathers and Doctors of truth, Peter and Paule, those two great lights, that rose in the East, & cast forth their beames into all parts of the world, but set in the West; and sundry other things, and among them the felicity and happinesse of it, that till the time of Theodoret no heresie euer preuailed in it: therefore the Bishop of Rome can neuer erre: Seeing Theodoret doth not dispute what may be, but sheweth only, what by the happy prouidence of God had beene: and besides speaketh not precisely of the Bishop of Rome, but of the Romane See, i 1.913 including the whole company of the Bishops of the West adhering to him: which was a great part of the whole Christian Church, and more glorious then the rest, for that it was more free from hereticall novelties in those times then they. To Theodoret they adde Saint k 1.914 Augustine, who saith, the succession of Bishops from Peters chaire, to his time, is that rocke against the which the proud gates of hell cannot preuaile. His mea∣ning is, that what all those Bishops haue constantly and successiuely taught as true, must needes be true: and what they haue impugned as false, must needes be false: seeing it is impossible that any errour, or the impugning of any trueth, should haue bin found successiuely in all the Bishops of that, or any other Apostolicall Church whatsoeuer. But what is this to the Popes not erring? Surely as litle as that of Gelasius in his Epistle to Anastasius the Emperour, that the glorious confession of the Apostle Peter, thou art the * 1.915 Christ, the Son of the liuing God, is the roote of all the faith and piety of the whole world. & that therefore the Apostolique See carefully looketh vnto it, that no chinke be made in it, & that it be not spotted with any contagion; for that if it should, there were no meanes of resi∣sting any errour. But because this maketh not for them, the Cardinall helpeth the mat∣ter with an vntruth, saying: that Gelasius proueth that the See of Rome cannot erre, be∣cause the confession of it is the roote of al the faith & piety that is in the world: where∣as he neither goeth about to proue the one nor speaketh any word of the other: but of the excellencie of the confession that Peter made, the necessity of preseruing it inuio∣lable, and the care of the See of Rome, in and before his time, for the safe keeping of the same. Wherefore let vs come to the places that are cited to this purpose out of Grego∣ries Epistles, which shew plainly, they are past shame that manage the Popes affaires, & defend his cause. For whereas m 1.916 Gregory saith, that if he that claimeth to be vniuersal B:

doe fall, all the whole Church is ouerthrowne, and that therefore there must bee no such vniversall Bishop; and particularly sheweth by the grieuous heresies that pre∣vailed in the Church of Constantinople, how ill it would haue beene for the Churches of God, if the Bishops thereof had beene vniversall Bishops, as they sought to be: they bring this place to proue, that the Pope cannot erre: whereas they should haue brought it to shew, how dangerous it is, that there should bee any one vniversall Bi∣shop, such as their Pope desireth to be; and that therefore (as n 1.917 Cyprian obserueth) Al∣mighty God wisely foreseeing what euils might follow such vniversality of power and jurisdiction in one man, ordained that there should bee a great number of Bishops joyned in equall commission, that so if some fell, the rest might stand and keepe the people from a generall downefall. The next allegation is out of the Epistle to Eu∣logius Bishop of Alexandria, whereby the Reader may see with what conscience these Iesuited Papists doe cite the writings of the Fathers. The wordes of Gregory are these. o 1.918 Your most sweete Holinesse hath vttered many things in your leters concer∣ning Peters chaire, saying, that he yet sitteth in it in his successours: I truely doe acknow∣ledge my selfe to be vnworthy, not onely to be in the number of those that sit as rulers, but of them that stand to bee ruled. But I therefore willingly accept whatsoeuer you say, be∣cause he hath spoken to me of Peters chaire, that sitteth in Peters chaire; and although it no way pleaseth or delighteth me to be specially honoured, yet I greatly reioyced, because what you attributed to me, you gaue to your selues. For who knoweth not, that the holy Church is firmely established in the soundnesse of the Prince of the Apostles? whose firme∣nesse his name doth shew: for he is named Peter of Petra a Rocke, to whom the voyce of Ve∣rity saith, I will giue to thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, and thou being conver∣ted, confirme thy brethren: and againe, Simon Ioanna, Louest thou mee? feede my sheepe. Wherefore though there were many Apostles, yet in respect of the chiefty he had, the chaire of Peter chiefe of the Apostles grew to be in greater authority then the rest, which is the chaire of one Apostle in three places. For he exalted the See, in which he was pleased to rest, and to end this present life; he beautified that See, wherein he left the Evangelist his Disciple: and he firmely established that See, in which he sate seuen yeares, though with pur∣pose in the end to leaue it, and to depart from it. Whereas therefore there is the See of one, and that but one, wherein three Bishops by Gods appointment doe sit to rule, whatsoeuer good I heare of you, I account it mine owne; and what you perswade your selues of mee, thinke that you also are worthy of the same. If this Epistle proue that the Pope can∣not erre, it proueth likewise that the Bishoppes of Alexandria and Antioche are free from errour. For all these succeede that great Apostle Saint Peter (to whom Christ saide, To thee will I giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, and thou being turned, confirme thy brethren: And againe, Louest thou me? feede my sheepe) as well as the Pope. All these sit in Peters chaire: Peters chaire is in Alexandria, and at Antioche, as well as at Rome: and whatsoeuer they that are Bishops of Alexandria and Anti∣oche, attribute to the Bishop of Rome, they may lawfully assume to themselues: seeing they are worthy of the same, as Gregory in this place telleth vs.

Wherefore, seeing not onely Fathers and Councels, but euen Popes also (in whose defence he writeth) faile him, the Cardinall flieth for helpe to the Priests of Aarons order, and goeth about to proue, that the Pope cannot erre, because the high Priest had in his brest-plate p 1.919 Vrim and Thummim, light and perfection, or doctrine and trueth, as hee will haue the Hebrew word translated, importing (as hee supposeth) that he could not erre in the vnderstanding of the Law of God. Whereupon (as he think∣eth) God commaunded all those that any way doubted of the meaning of his Law, to goe vp to the high Priest, and to seeke to bee satisfied by him, saying, q 1.920 They shall iudge true iudgment vnto thee. Lyra in his Annotations vpon this place, repor∣teth, that there was a certaine Glosse of the Hebrewes, that if the High Priest should tell them, that their right hand were their left, or their left their right, they were to hold it good and right. The like opinion it seemeth the Romanists haue of the Pope. But Lyra in that place condemneth the folly of those Iewes that so thought, because the sentence of no man of what authoritie soeuer hee bee, is to bee

admitted, if it containe a manifest vntruth and errour; which hee saith is euident out of the very text it selfe, in that it is said, They shall iudge vnto thee true iudgement, r 1.921 and thou shalt doe whatsoeuer they shall say vnto thee, that are ouer the place that the Lord hath chosen, and whatsoeuer they shall teach thee according to his lawes. Whereby it appeareth, that if they speake that which is vntrue, or manifestly depart from the law, they are not to be heard. The Author of the ordinary Glosse agreeth with Lyra, saying; Note that the Lord requireth thee to doe, whatsoeuer the Priests doe teach thee according to the Law, because otherwise thou art not to obey them, vnlesse they teach thee according to the Law. Whereupon Christ saith, s 1.922 the Scribes and Pharisees sit vpon Mo∣ses chaire, who yet (as the Author of the t 1.923 Interlineall Glosse noteth) are not generally without exception to be hearkned vnto, but then onely, when they vtter and deliuer pertinentia ad Cathedram; that is, such things as beseeme him to vtter, that sitteth in Moses chaire. So that to conclude this point, neither the Vrim and Thummim in Aarons breast-plate, nor the Mandate of Almighty God to goe vp to the sonnes of Aaron to secke iudgement & iustice, proue, that they could not erre, and therefore the Pope is still in as bad case as euer he was.

Wherefore finding no helpe in the Tribe of Leui, nor in the house of Aaron, they betake themselues to experience, and are in good hope to proue out of the experience of former times, that the Pope cannot erre. First, because (as they say) whatso∣ever the Pope condemned at any time as hereticall, was euer holden to bee so by the whole Church; and many heresies were neuer condemned any otherwise, but by his iudgement onely. Secondly, because neuer any Pope was an Heretique, where∣as all other principall Sees and Churches, haue had Bishoppes, not onely erring, but teaching and professing heresie. The instances, that Bellarmine, giueth of he∣resies and heretiques condemned by the Pope, and reiected for such by the Church, onely because hee condemned them, are the Pelagians, Priscillianists, Iouinian, and Vigilantius, and their heresies. It is hard (I see) for a Blackamoore to change his skinne, for a Leopard to put away his spots, or for a man, that hath long acquainted himselfe with false and vnfaithfull dealing, to learne to deale sincerely and truely. For touching the heretickes mentioned by the Cardinall, all the world knoweth they were condemned in Synodes by many Bishops, and not by the priuate censure of the Bishoppe of Rome alone. Nay, it is most certaine, that others shewed more care & diligence in suppressing some of these heretickes and their errours, then euer the Ro∣mane Bishop did, which I will make to appeare in the particulars, beginning with the Pelagians. u 1.924 Pelagius the founder of these hereticks, was borne in great Britaine, and becomming a Monke in the East parts of the world, after hee had sparsed his errours in other places abroad, returned home into his owne countrey, and infected it almost wholly with his heresie. Heereupon the Britaines sought helpe and dire∣ction of the French Bishoppes, because learning at that time flourished more among them, then it did among the Britaines; who willing to reach forth their helping hands to their neighbours and brethren in this time of their neede, sent vnto them Germanus and Lupus, Bishops and brethren, defenders of the Catholicke faith, who cleared the Ile from the Pelagian heresie, and confirmed it in the faith both by the word of truth, & signes and miracles. Besides this condemnation of Palagius by the French & Bri∣taines, there were sundry Councels holden to condemne both him & his wicked he∣resies, in Palestina, at Carthage, at Mileuise, and at Arausicum: and it is most certaine, that the Church of GOD, and all posterities are more bound to Saint Augustine for clearing the points of doctrine questioned by the Pelagians, then to any Bishop of Rome whatsoeuer. So that it is most vntrue, that the Pelagians were condemned onely by the Bishop of Rome: for other were as forward in that businesse as he; yea the x 1.925 Afri∣cans were more forward then the Romanes, and drew them into the fellowship of the same worke with themselues. The like may be said of the Priscillianistes; for it is more then euident out of the Councell of Bracar, that they were not condemned by the Bi∣shop of Rome alone, but by many Synodes: for it is there reported, that y 1.926 Leo did write by Turibius notary of the See Apostolike, to the Synode of Galitia, at what time the

heresie of the Priscillianistes began to spreade in those parts; and that by his prescrip∣tion and appointment, they of Tarracon, of Carthage, of Portugall, and Boetica, met in Councell, and composing a rule of faith against the heresie of the Priscillianistes, containing certaine chiefe heades of Christian doctrine, directed the same patterne of right beliefe to the Bishop of Bracar, that then was: which heads of Christian doctrine were recited in the first Councel of Bracar, & the heresie of the Priscillianistes thereupō more distinctly and particularly condemned, then euer before. In all which procee∣dings, we may see that the Pope doth nothing of himselfe alone, but being Patriarch of the West, and hearing of a dangerous heresie spreading in some Churches subject to him, hee causeth the Bishops vnder him to meete in Councels, and to condemne the same. Which (as I thinke) will not proue, that the Pope alone condemned he∣resies, or that some heresies were rejected onely, because the Pope condemned them; or that the Pope cannot erre, which is the thing in question. Touching Iouinian and Vigilantius, their errours are so vncertainely reported, some attributing to them one thing, and some another, and some condemning them for things, for which they were not to be condemned, that it is hard to say, by what lawfull authority, or by whom they were condemned: but that in their errours justly disliked, they were condemned onely by the Bishops of Rome, and therefore taken to bee heretickes by the whole vniuersall Church, our aduersaries will neuer be able to proue. That the errours attributed vnto them are vncertainely reported, it appeareth, in that z 1.927 Au∣stine chargeth Iouinian with two dangerous and wicked assertions, touching the deni∣all of the perpetuall virginity of the blessed Virgin the mother of our Lord: and the parity of sins: whereof Hierome (who yet was not like to haue spared him) maketh no mention. And that they were in somethings vnjustly condemned, it is euident; first, in that a 1.928 Hierome blameth Iouinian for saying, that married persons, virgins, & widowes, if they differ not in other workes of vertue, and therein excell one another, are of e∣quall merit; which the best learned both of the Fathers and Schoole-men do approue, as I haue b 1.929 elsewhere shewed at large. Secondly, in in that c 1.930 he so bitterly inueigheth a∣gainst Vigilantius for disliking the pernoctations in the Cemiteries and places of Saints buriall, vsed in ancient times; which a d 1.931 Councell for the same reasons that moued Vi∣gilantius to dislike them, took wholly away, and forbade them to be vsed any more, & the Romane Churches haue long since disused. But that the Popes peremptorie cōdem∣ning of an error in matter of faith, was not taken in ancient times to be a sufficiēt de∣monstration, that they were heretickes that defended such errors after his cōdemning of the same, it is euident, in that e 1.932 Austine saith, that the Churches might doubt stil tou∣ching the matter of rebaptization, because in the times of Stephen who condemned it, and Cyprian who vrged it, there was no generall Councell to end the controuersie be∣tweene them: and in that, after the peremptory forbidding and condemning of re∣baptization by Stephen Bishop of Rome, Cyprian and his colleagues still persisted in the practice of it, and in vrging the necessity of it: and yet were neuer branded with the marke and note of heresie, but euer were and still are reputed Catholiques. f 1.933 Bellarmine, to avoid the force of this argument, feareth not to say contrarie to his owne knowledge, that Stephen and his adherents neuer determined the question of rebaptization. But that hee did (and that in most peremptory sort and manner) it is more cleare and euident, then that the Sunne shineth at noone. For e 1.934 Firmili∣anus a famous learned Bishoppe chargeth him, that hee caused great dissentions throughout all the Churches of the world, that hee grieuously sinned: in that hee deuided himselfe from soe many flockes of Christs sheepe: that hee was a schisma∣ticke: that hee had forsaken the communion of Ecclesiasticall vnity: willing him not to deceiue himselfe, but to bee well assured, that in thinking hee could put all other from the communion, he had put himselfe out of the communion of all: that hee brake the bandes of vnity with many Bishoppes in all parts of the World, as well in the East, as in the South with the Africanes, not admitting such as came from them vnto him into his presence, or to any speech with him: and farther com∣manding the brethren, that none of them should receiue them to house. So that he not only denyed the peace of the Church, and the communion of Christians vnto them, but

the entring vnder the roofe of any mans house, that would be ruled by him; and that thus he held the vnity of the spirit in the bond of peace, rejecting them as damnable miscreants that dissented from him, and calling blessed Cyprian, a false Christ, a false A∣postle, and a deceiptfull labourer or workman. And f 1.935 Dionysius, a famous and worthy Bishop reporteth, that he wrote concerning Hellenus and Firmilianus, and all the Bi∣shops in Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Galatia, and all the bordering countries, that he would not communicate with them for the same cause of rebaptization: which yet (as hee saith) was agreed on in many very great Synodes of Bishops. If this bee not suffici∣ent to proue, that Stephen determined the question of rebaptization, I know not what can bee. For first, he commaunded, that none should be rebaptized when they returned from the societies and prophane conventicles of heretickes, but that they should bee admitted with the onely imposition of hands. Secondly, he deliuered his owne opini∣on, that rebaptization was vnlawfull, confidently, as hauing so learned of his elders, & not in doubting manner. And thirdly, he rejected all them from his communion, that thought and practised otherwise then he did, as it appeareth by the testimonies of Firmilianus and Dionysius; so that it is strange, that Bellarmine should bee able so to harden his fore-head, as not to blush when he saith, that Stephen did not define any thing touching the question of rebaptization; that he did not make it a matter of faith, & necessary to be beleeued of all: and that he did not excommunicate those that were to her wise minded, but onely threatned them that he would so doe. It is true in deede, that Cyprian, howsoeuer hee definitiuely deliuered in a Councell of Bishops, what hee was perswaded men were to beleeue and practise touching rebaptization: and prote∣sted against Stephen, as a proud, ignorant, and vnadvised man: yet did not vrge this his decree so, as to reject from his communion all that should dislike it: but left euery Bi∣shop to his owne judgement, as being to giue an account to God onely. But how the Iesuites can defend against all the former proofes, that Stephens proceedings were like to those of Cyprian, and that he also left euery man to his owne judgement, and reje∣cted no man from his communion, for dissenting from him, I cannot see. By that which hath beene said, it appeareth, that the Ancients did not thinke euery thing to be heresie that the Romane Bishops defined to be so: and that therefore they did not thinke him free from danger of erring. Neither need we to marvaile (saith Bellarmine) if in for∣mer times men had not learned this lesson, seeing to this day they are not judged to be heretickes that thinke the Pope may erre. Yet so kinde is he to Cyprian, that (whereas Austine excuseth him in his errour, and thinketh his sinne was veniall) he g 1.936 pronoun∣ceth he sinned mortally, and so without particular repentance (whereof there is little likelyhood) perished euerlastingly, notwithstanding his martyrdome. The reason of this difference of the censures of Austine and Bellarmine is, because Austine looked onely or principally to his errour, but Bellarmine to his contempt of the Bishop of Romes Decrees and determinations.

CHAP. 43.

Of such Popes as are charged with heresie, and how the Romanists seeke to cleare them from that imputation.

HAuing examined our Adversaries proofes of the infallibilitie of the Popes judgement, taken from the acceptation of his judgement as right and good by all the world, whensoeuer hee defined anything: let vs come to the o∣ther proofe of the same, taken from the felicity of the Romane See in for∣mer times. a 1.937 Ruffinus saith, that before his time no heresie had euer taken be∣ginning in the Romane Church, but our Adversaries proceede farther, and feare not to b 1.938 pronounce after sixteene hundred yeares, that no hereticke did euer sit in the See of Rome: which their proud bragge will bee found much more vaine then true, and many vnanswerable instances will bee brought of wicked heretickes

possessing that chaire. Tertullian in his booke against Praxeas speaketh of a Bishoppe of Rome, but nameth him not, that admitted and allowed the prophecies of Monta∣nus and his two Prophetesses, Prisca and Maximilla, and held communion with the Montanists till he was disswaded by Praxeas. Who (as he saith) caused the prophe∣cies of Montanus and his Prophetesses to be banished, and brought in heresie, who banished their Paraclete, and crucified the Father. But because Tertullian was a Mon∣tanist, and wrote partially in things that concerned them (though c 1.939 Rhenanus say, the Bishop of Rome did Montanize) yet for my part (no other history reporting any such thing of any Romane Bishoppe) I will not vpon Tertullians bare word, charge any of them with any such heresie.

But (howsoeuer wee thinke of Tertullians report) we finde in the Councell of Si∣nuessa, in the d 1.940 Pontificall, in the Epistle of Nicholas the first, to Michael the Empe∣rour, in e 1.941 Platina and others, that Marcellinus did sacrifice vnto idols, and so at least in outward action shewed himselfe an infidell; which is a higher degree of impiety then heresie. If it be said, he committed that execrable act of idolatry, not out of a∣ny mis-perswasion of his minde, but feare of death, it will be replied, that if the pas∣sion of feare bee able to worke so ill effects in Popes, as the vtter abnegation of Chri∣stianity, and the professing of themselues to bee Pagan infidels, by publicke outward acts of idolatry, there is little reason to be giuen, but that some other sinister and vile affection may carry them as farre to make profession of heresie, a thing not so ill as Paganisme. Wherefore f 1.942 Baronius, to prevent the worst, and to make all sure, incli∣neth to deny, that euer Marcellinus committed any such act of idolatry, and discredi∣teth the report of the Councell of Sinuessa, in which he is said to haue beene condem∣ned. Wherein hee doth as much disaduantage the Romane cause another way, in de∣priuing his friends of so good an authority as the resolution of that sacred Synode, that Prima sedes á nemine iudicatur, that is, that the first See is iudged of none; as hee advantageth it in the clearing of Marcellinus; and therefore hee is rightly blamed by Binnius for his inconsiderate rashnes in this behalfe. * 1.943

But that wee may be assured, that Popes may be hereticks as well as infidells, wee haue the confession of as good a man as Baronius, acknowledging the same. For h 1.944 Bel∣larmine saith, that Liberius (howsoeuer for a long time he continued constant in the profession of the true faith, so that for the same his constancie he was banished, and a∣nother by the Arrian faction put into his place) yet in the end weary of banishment, he was brought to subscribe to heresie, and was in his outward courses an hereticke whatsoeuer his heart was, whereof God onely is the searcher; so that iustly as an he∣retick he was condemned, & pronounced to be no Pope any longer by his own Cler∣gie. This he proueth out of the testimonies of i 1.945 Athanasius and k 1.946 Hierome, who say expressely, that being weary of his continuance in banishment, he was at last brought to subscribe to heresie: And l 1.947 Hilary (who speaking to Constantius the wicked Arri∣an Emperour) hath these wordes: Afterwards thou diddest turne the course of thy warre against Rome, whence thou tookest the Bishop, ô wretched Emperour! I canne hardly say, whether thy impiety were greater in sending him into banishment, or in sending him home againe. Thereby insinuating that he restored him vpon very ill conditions. And that he was not restored, but by some kinde of consenting with the Arrians, it is most cleare, in that m 1.948 Zozomen reporteth, that the Arrian Bishops assembled at Sirmium, sent their letter to Felix, then Bishop of Rome, & the Clergy there, kindly to receiue Liberius, and that both Felix and he might sit as Bishops, and gouerne the Romane Church together: which they would neuer haue done, if they had not found him tractable & yeelding; yet could not these two Bishoppes endure one the other long, notwithstanding these letters. And therefore n 1.949 Hierome saith, that Liberius impati∣ent of any longer continuance in banishment, subscribed to hereticall prauity, and so returned to Rome as a conquerour, and cast out Felix who had possessed himselfe of the Episcopall chaire, and put divers other of the Clergie also out of the Church; and o 1.950 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, he hath seene in the Vatican Library, manuscript E∣pistles of Liberius, some written to the Emperour, and some to the Easterne Bishops,

wherein he signifieth plainly enough, that in the end hee was content to yeeld to the will of the Emperour. And besides, if the Romanists doe not acknowledge that Li∣berius was a conuicted hereticke, (there being no other cause but heresie for which (as they thinke) a Pope may lawfully bee iudged and deposed) they must put Felix, who was Pope while Liberius yet liued, out of the number of Popes, whom yet their church doth worship as a Pope Saint, and a Martyr. So that wee see, Liberius was justly judged and condemned as an hereticke; and that, seeing a Pope, in that he be∣commeth an hereticke, ceaseth to be Pope, hee lost all the priuiledges that belong to Peters successours, and so might decree for heresie: yea, I thinke there is no reaso∣nable man but will confesse, that his subscribing to heresie that is the head of the church, is a decreeing for heresie. Now that he subscribed to heresie, we haue the expresse testimony of Saint Hierome. p 1.951 After the banishment of Liberius by the meanes of Acatius, Bishoppe of Caesarea in Palestina, who was a great man with Con∣stantius the Emperour, Felix, a Deacon of the church of Rome, was chosen Bishop, and appointed to succeed him. This Felix, (as q 1.952 Theodoret testifieth) was a Catho∣licke, and held the profession of faith agreed on at Nice, but communicated freely with the Arrians. Wherevpon hee was so much disliked by those that were Ca∣tholickes, that none of them would once enter into the house of prayer while he was within. For that, though he were not in perswasion and vocall profession a full Ar∣rian, yet by communicating with them, and being ordained by them, he consented to their wicked and hereticall courses. Neither doth it appeare by any history of cre∣dit, that euer he refused to communicate with the Arrian heretickes, during the time he quietly possessed and enioyed the Bishopricke of Rome. But the contrary is more then probable, because when Liberius subscribed, and was thereupon sent home with letters of commendation from the Arrian Bishoppes assembled at Sirmium, r 1.953 they carefully prouided for Felix his continuance in the Episcopall office still, and desired that the violences and outrages committed in the time of his ordination (when the people for the loue they bare to Liberius were in an vprore, and some of them were slaine) might be forgotten, and that both of them might sitte and gouerne the church together, as Bishops of the place; which fauour the Arrian Bishoppes would neuer haue shewed to Felix, if he had disclaimed their communion. So that it is more then probable, that he neuer forsooke the communion of the Arrian hereticks. For Libe∣rius returning as a conquerour, so soone as hee came to Rome, cast him out of the Church, and shortly after hee dyed; and therefore I cannot see what reason the Roma∣nists haue to put this good man into the Kalender of their Pope Saints, whose entrance into the Episcopall chaire was not onely schismaticall (there beeing a catholicke Bi∣shop yet aliue, & suffering banishment for the catholicke faith) but violent & bloudy also (for he got the place by the meanes of bloody heretickes, making himselfe guilty of all the sinnes of those heretickes with whom he communicated) and of whose re∣linquishing and abandoning the communion and fellowship of the Arrians, there is no mention found in any Authour of credit, but in the Authour of the s 1.954 Pontificall on∣ly, who hath as many lies as words in his narration concerning Felix. For first, hee saith, he sate but one yeare, three moneths, and three daies, whereas it is reported by t 1.955 Theodoret, that Liberius had beene more then two yeares in banishment before suite was made to the Emperour for his returne; all which time Felix was Pope. Second∣ly, he saith, Felix declared and published Constantius the sonne of Constantine to be an hereticke, and that Constantius was rebaptized, or the second time baptized by Eu∣sebius Bishoppe of Nicomedia, neare vnto Nicomedia; which thing is most false, as u 1.956 Binnius in his Annotations telleth vs, because both x 1.957 Athanasius and y 1.958 Socrates doe affirme, he was baptized by Euzoius an Arrian, when he was ready to die. And Hi∣larius after the time of this supposed baptisme inueyeth against him, for that not be∣ing baptized, he presumed to prescribe to the Church a forme of faith. Thirdly, he saith, Felix built a certaine Church, while he was a Presbyter, whereas it is certaine, that of a Deacon hee was made a Bishoppe, and neuer liued in the degree of a Presby∣ter. And fourthly, touching the death of Felix he is very vncertaine and doubtfull, * 1.959

and others speake nothing of his martyrdome at all. Heereupon (as both a 1.960 Bellar∣mine, and b 1.961 Binnius report) in the time of Gregory the thirteenth, in the yeare of our Lord 1582. where certaine learned men in Rome were deputed to correct the Mar∣tyrologe, they were doubtfull whether they should put his name into the new Marty∣rologe or not, seeing both his entrance into his Bishopricke was violent, bloudy, and schismaticall, and his end vncertaine, and they inclined to leaue it out; which they had done, if a certaine marble chest had not beene found in the Church of Cosmas and Da∣mianus, the 28 of Iuly, the day before his wonted and accustomed feast, with this in∣scription in olde characters: Heere lyeth the body of Felix the Pope and Martyr, who condemned Constantius the hereticke. Whereby wee see how little reason the Roman Church hath to worship this Saint, and to admire the providence of God, in preser∣uing this See Apostolicke from heresie; in that, as they would beare vs in hand, Felix after he heard of the subscription of Liberius, who thereby ceased to bee Pope, con∣demned the Arrians, was admitted by the Catholickes, and became a true Bishop, suffering death vpon the returne of Liberius; as if the very See did change the mindes of all that sit in it, and make them good, how bad soeuer they were before; whereas Felix c 1.962 being in his entrance a schismaticke, in communion, if not in profession, an he∣reticke, and in his ordination which was voyde, no Bishop, and no history of credite reporting either his condemning Arrianisme, or his admission to bee a Bishop after the deposition of Liberius by the Catholickes, or what his end was; it appeareth that heretickes and schismatickes may possesse the chaire of Peter, and bee worshipped for Pope Saints after their death. But whatsoeuer became of Felix, they say, Liberius af∣ter the death of Felix became a Catholicke, and got the loue of the Catholickes; and so by their acceptation of him, became a true Bishop againe, and in that state dyed. Thus doe our Adversaries seeme to carry this matter very fairely, as if all were safe & well, whereas indeed they are in a very great straite, for either Liberius was an heretick be∣fore his returne home, and justly deposed for heresie, or else Felix was neuer true Bi∣shop, and then their Church hath worshipped a schismaticke as a Pope-Saint for the space of a thousand yrares: if he were an hereticke, and justly deposed (as to iustifie Felix, they must be forced to confesse) hee could neuer bee restored to the Episcopall office and dignity againe. For the d 1.963 Canon of the Church is, that no Catholicke be∣comming an hereticke, and being condemned by the Church for such a one, shall euer bee receiued to Ecclesiasticall honour againe: so that hee could not dye true Pope, as our Adversaries dreame he did. Let them shew vs how they can cleare themselues from sundry absurd contradictions in this point, and we will rest satisfied. For wee doe not deny, but that hee might repent of his subscribing to heresie, and dye a Ca∣tholicke, though some of the testimonies that Bellarmine bringeth, will scarse proue it.

The next Pope that we finde to haue beene touched with any suspition of heresie, is Anastasius the second, whom the Author of the e 1.964 Pontificall taxeth. First, for that he communicated with Photius, a Deacon of the Church of Thessalonica, that had com∣municated with Achacius, Bishop of Constantinople, without the counsell of the Bi∣shops and Presbyters of the Catholique Church; which his inconsiderate action, made many of the Presbyters and Cleargy refuse to communicate with him. Secondly, for that he sought to restore Achacius, whom Felix and Gelasius his predecessours had condemned: for which fact hee was suddenly stricken of God, in such sort that he dyed. To these f 1.965 Gratian addeth another taxation, reprehending him for that hee al∣lowed the baptisme and ordination of such as were baptized and ordained by Achaci∣us after he was become an hereticke. But because the baptisme and ordination of he∣retickes is holden good, and it appeareth by the Epistle of Anastasius to Anastasius the Emperour, that Achacius was dead before he was Bishop, and that hee desired to haue the name of Achacius razed out of the Diptickes of the Church, after his death: I will passe by this censure of the Authour of the Pontificall, and Gratian as doubtfull, and leauing Anastasius, come to Vigilius; who (as g 1.966 Liberatus reporteth) to get the Pope∣dome like a notable dissembling hypocrite, pretended at Rome to be a Catholicke, but

in his letters to Theodora the Empresse, who was an hereticke, condemned the Catho∣licke faith: and promised that if Syluerius might be thrust out, and hee put into his place, he would restore Anthemius Bishop of Constantinople, reiected by Agapetus for heresie. Which being brought to passe by Theodora the Empresse, and Syluerius vn∣iustly banished, he sate for a while as an Anti-pope and an heritique. But when as Syl∣uerius was dead, he professed himselfe a Catholique, and refused to performe that hee had promised to Theodora. Whether this man being an hereticke in his outward pro∣fession at his entrance, and by such profession getting the Popedome vnjustly, schisma∣tically, and as an Anti-pope, could euer after be true Pope, let our Aduersaries giue vs answere, when they haue aduisedly thought of it.

The next Pope that is charged with heresie, is Honorius the first, whom the Christi∣an world, and not a fewe particular men onely condemned as a Monothelite. For in the h 1.967 sixth generall Councell, his Epistles to Sergius the heretique are publikely read and condemned, and he accursed as an hereticke. The i 1.968 seauenth generall Councell like∣wise doth anathematize Honorius, Sergius, Syrus, and the other Monothelites. In the k 1.969 eigth generall Councell, called about the matter of difference betweene Ignatius and Photius, the acts of the Councell of the West vnder Adrian the second, are read and allowed; wherein Adrian professeth, that none of the inferiour Sees may judge the greater, and specially Rome, vnlesse it be in case of heresie; in which case they of the East did anathematize and accurse Honorius: which yet (he sayth) they would not haue aduentured to do, if the Romane Church had not gone before them in such condemna∣tion of her owne Bishop. Pope Leo the second in his Epistle to Constantine the Em∣perour, which wee finde in the end of the sixth generall Councell, accurseth the same Honorius as an heretique and a wicked one, that defiled and polluted the Apostolike chaire with heresie. With Leo consenteth l 1.970 Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople, m 1.971 Theo∣dorus Bishop of Hierusalem; n 1.972 Epiphanius in his disputation with Gregory, in the sixth Action of the seuenth generall Councell: o 1.973 Psellus, p 1.974 Beda, and the q 1.975 Author of the Pon∣tificall. These authorities may seeme very sufficient to proue, that Honorius was an here∣tique: yet so well are our aduersaries affected to him, that they will rather discredit them all then suffer him to be spotted and disgraced: and therefore some of them say, that the sixth generall Councel is corrupted; & likewise the Epistle of Leo the second, in the end of it: & that the Fathers in the 7^th Councell were deceiued by the 6^th, as like∣wise Pope Adrian with the whole Romane Synode, and the other Authors, that con∣curre with them in the condemnation of Honorius. Others thinke that indeede the 6^th Councell condemned Honorius, but vpon false information, and so erred in a matter of fact. Which conceipt is no way probable. For that the Fathers of the Councel procee∣ded not rashly, r 1.976 but caused the Epistles of Honorius written to the heads of the faction of the Monothelites (for which he was suspected,) to be openly read and examined. But (say they) first, these Epistles haply were counterfeit, 2^ly If they were not counterfeit, there is nothing in them contrary to the truth. Neither of these answeres is sufficient. For first, that the Epistles were not coūterfeit, it appeareth by Maximus, s 1.977 who answe∣reth a place brought out of one of thē, & sheweth the meaning of it, as frō the Secreta∣ry that wrot it, then liuing. 2^ly, If these Epistles had bin coūterfeit, the Legates of Aga∣tho present there, would haue taken exception to thē, & not haue cōsented to the con∣demnation of one of his predecessors vpon coūterfeit euidence. Neither is the 2^• an∣swere better thē the 1^st: for that the Fathers assēbled in a generall Coūcel, should not be able to vnderstand the Epistles of Honorius, & judge whether they were hereticall or not, as well as the Iesuites now liuing, is very strange. But let vs suppose the Iesuites to haue more wit thē all those worthy B^s & Fathers that were assembled in the sixt Coun∣cel, & let vs see by taking a view of the Epistles themselues, whether they may be clea∣red frō the error they haue bin charged with, or not. It is not to be denied, but that Ho∣norius in these his Epistles t 1.978 confesseth, that the nature of God in Christ, worketh the things that are diuine: & the nature of man, the things that are humane, without diuisi∣on, confusion, or conuersion of one of thē into another: & that the differences of these natures remaine inuiolable. But in that he denyeth, that there are two actions in Christ,

the one of Deity, and the other of Humanity; in that he saith, it is absurd to thinke, that where there are more natures then one, there must be more actions then one: and al∣loweth of Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, and Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, who were Monothelites, rather then of Sophronius Bishoppe of Hierusalem, a right worthy and learned Bishop (who defended the truth against them both, and whose learned Epistle to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, we finde in the u 1.979 sixth generall Councel:) it cannot be avoided but that he erred in matter of faith, in such sort, as by consequence it ouerthroweth that distinction of the two natures of God & man in Christ, which hee seemed to acknowledge. Neither can it be cleared from suspition of hereticall & bad meaning, that he maketh it but a curiosity of philosophers to acknowledge a two∣fold action in Christ, & denieth that the fathers euer defined any such thing; whereas Pope Martine the first in the x 1.980 Synode of Rome saith, it is cleare by the determination of the Fathers, that the two natures of Christ remaine vnconfounded in the vnion, & vndiuided, as also his two wills, and the two distinct actions, & naturall properties of them. Maximus in his disputation with Pyrrhus, found in the second Tome of the Councells, cleareth one sentence of Honorius, wherein hee seemeth to acknowledge but one will in Christ; affirming out of the testimony of him that wrote that Epistle for Honorius, that hee meant it of one will of the humane nature of Christ; thereby shewing, that there was no such contrariety of desires found in him as in vs. But what is that to the other things that are obiected to him? Two obiections our Aduer∣saries haue against them who thinke that Honorius was condemned for heresie. The first is, that the sixth generall Councell could not condemne him, without being con∣trary to it selfe, in y 1.981 allowing the Epistle of Agatho, wherein he saith; that the faith neuer failed in Peters chaire, and that his predecessours did alwayes confirme their brethren. The second, that some Writers speaking of the Monothelites, and naming diuers of them, omit him; that z 1.982 Maximus in his Dialogue against Pyrrhus, Theopha∣nes Isaurus in his History, cited by a 1.983 Onuphrius, and Emmanuel Chalica in his booke in the defence of the Latines against the Greekes, affirme, he was euer a catholicke; & some other, as Beda, Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Blondus, Nauclerus, Sabellicus, & Platina, doe speake of him as of a Catholicke Bishop. The first of these obiections I haue answered else-where, shewing that some of Agathoes predecessours, might * 1.984 for some short space faile to doe their duty, in confirming their brethren, & swarue from the trueth; and yet that be true he saith in that Epistle, that in the See it selfe the faith neuer failed: and that his predecessours fell not either so many, or in such sort, but that the Bishoppes of that Church did euer reach forth their helping hands to o∣ther, either in the beginning of each heresie, or before it was vtterly extinct and sup∣pressed; as it fell out in this, both in respect of Pope Martine and others before, and of himselfe now. To the second wee say, that it doth not seeme to be strongly pro∣ved, that Honorius was no hereticke, by the silence of some few. That Maximus doth not cleare Honorius generally, but one sentence of Honorius onely. That Theophanes Isaurus doth not goe about to cleare Honorius from heresie, but saith onely, that the Canons of the sixth Councell were not made by the same Fathers that were at first assembled, but by others. So speaking nothing of Honorius, who was condemned in the Councell, and not in the canons; and that the rest, to wit, Chalica, and some few other liuing long after the time of Honorius, are no sufficient proofe against that cloud of witnesses, which wee produced in the beginning. And therefore there is yet no∣thing brought to reproue the testimony of onr witnesses, or to make good that hee was alwayes a catholicke, which is the thing to be proued.

With Honorius wee may joyne Gregory the third, who in his c 1.985 Epistle to Bonifa∣cius, giueth leaue to a man, whose wife falleth into some such infirmity, as maketh her vnfit to company with him, to marry another; so that hee giue her maintenance. And that he speaketh not of any impediment before marriage not knowne, which maketh the contract voyde from the beginning, but of such infirmities as fall out afterwards, it is evident. First, in that he saith: If any mans wife shall be taken with such infirmity, &c. Secondly, in that he prouideth: That the husband shall prouide for her main∣tenance;

which in case of a voyde contract from the beginning, is no way reasonable. Thirdly, in that he saith: He shall thus prouide for her, seeing infirmity, and not wicked∣nesse driueth him from her. Fourthly, in that he saith: It were better he should containe; seeing in case of abuse by vnknowne defect and impediment, making the contract void from the beginning, there is no more cause why a man so abused, should containe and refraine from marriage, then any other. Now to permit marriage by reason of any defect or infirmity ensuing after the first marriage, I thinke our Adversaries will not deny to be erroneous, seeing the contrary is defined in the d 1.986 Councell of Trent. Nei∣ther doth it excuse this errour of Gregory, that Bellarmine alleadgeth out of e 1.987 Austin, who maketh some doubt whether the wife with her husbands consent, yeelding to the wicked desires of him in whose hands he is, to saue his life, bee excusable from sin; seeing he doth but vpon a particular accident propose a disputable question; and the o∣ther resolueth and giueth warrant for the practise of an vnlawfull thing, and that as a Pope in his directions to Bonifacius, hauing newly converted certaine barbarous peo∣ple to the faith of Christ.

Wherefore let vs proceede to see whether therebe any moe Popes that may justly be charged with errour or heresie. Wee reade in the f 1.988 stories of the Church, that one Formosus, Bishop of Portua, being hardly thought of, and suspected by Iohn the Pope, left his Bishopricke, and fled for feare of him; that being called backe by Iohn, & refusing to returne, he was anathematized by him; & that at last comming into France to satisfie the Pope, he was degraded, and put into a Lay habite, and made to sweare neuer to enter into Rome any more, nor euer to communicate but as a Lay man: yet afterwards by Martinus, Iohns successour, he was restored to his Bishopricke, absol∣ued from his oath, came to Rome, and in the end obtained to be Pope, contrary to the mindes of many of the Romanes, who desired rather to haue had one Sergius a Deacon of the Church of Rome, but prevailed not. Whereupon there grew great question with much scandall, some affirming that his consecration, and the consecration of such as he ordained, was voyde: others, that whatsoeuer were thought of Formosus, yet for the dignity of his Bishoply office, and the faith of those he ordained, their ordinati∣ons were to be holden for good, especially seeing he was absolued from his perjury by Martinus the Pope. The next Pope (saue one) that succeeded Formosus, was Stephen, who sate but foure moneths, yet was not idle, but though hee had beene ordained Bi∣shop of Anagnia by him, persecuted him with deadly hate, and pronounced the ordina∣tions of all such as he had ordained to bee voide. After him succeeded Romanus, and after Romanus, Theodorus, who being contrarily minded to Stephen, reconciled those whom Stephen had degraded, but presumed not to consecrate or ordaine them againe. After Theodorus, followed Iohn, who, to confirme the ordinations of Formosus, pro∣nounced voide by Stephen, called a Councell of 72 Bishops, the Archbishops of France, and the King being present: and in the sight of them all, caused the Acts of the Synode which Stephen held for condemnation of Formosus, to be burned. After Iohn succee∣ded Benedictus, and aftet him Sergius the Deacon, that missed the Popedome when Formosus got it. This Sergius in revenge of his former repulse, forced the Romanes with threates and terrours, to account the ordinations of Formosus voide, and (which is not to be spoken) drew him out of his graue after hee had rested in it a good space: put vpon him the Papall vestures, set him in Peters chaire: commaunded him to bee beheaded, and then cutting off three of his fingers, caused him to bee cast into Tiber, degrading all that he had ordained. Heere we see Popes clearely convinced of here∣sie, and defining and decreeing for heresie. For seeing Formosus was sometime vn∣doubtedly a true Bishop, it was an errour in faith to say, that his ordinations were voide. This is so cleare, that g 1.989 Bellarmine denyeth it not, but saith onely, that neither Stephen, nor Sergius published any decree, that their ordinations were voide, whom Formosus had ordained, and that they were to be re-ordained: but did onely so re-or∣daine, de facto, in their fury, & distempered passions: wherein he is clearely refuted by h 1.990 Sigebert, who saith expressely, that they decreed omnes ordinationes eius irritas esse de∣bere: that is, That all his ordinations were to be taken and reputed for voide.

To Stephen and Sergius we may adde Caelestinus the third, who (as i 1.991 Alfonsus á Castro truly affirmeth) cannot by any meanes be excused from heresie, in that hee taught, that the bond of marriage is so dissolued by heresie, that he whose wife falleth into heresie, may lawfully leaue her and take another. This decree of Caelestinus is not now to be found in the Decretals, but it was in the ancient; & Alfonsus, professeth he read it k 1.992 there himselfe. Now that it is hereticall in the judgment of our aduersaries, it is euident, in that l 1.993 Innocentius the third teacheth the contrary, and the m 1.994 Councell of Trent defineth otherwise. Neither doth Bellarmines answere, that he did not passe any Decree, but on∣ly deliuer his owne priuate opinion, helpe the matter. For n 1.995 Gratian maketh the De∣cretals equall in authority with the Canons of Councels, and our aduersaries are wont to proue the Popes power by his Decretals, as if all they were subject to him, and bound to obey him to whom he writeth them.

The next Pope that is charged with heresie, is Nicholas the fourth, who o 1.996 defineth, that Christ taught both by word and example most perfect pouerty, consisting in the abandoning of al propriety in things, and right or claime to them, either in particular, or in respect of the whole Colledge & company of men living together, and that such pouerty is pleasing to God, and meritorious. For the better vnderstanding of this mat∣ter we must distinguish the vse of things, and the proprietie in them, or right & claime to them. p 1.997 The proprietie in things, and the right and claime to them, is two-fold; ei∣ther absolute, when men may judicially challenge a thing as their own, and vse it how, & in what sort they will, so that it be not prohibited by the law of God and nature; or restrained and limited: as Clergy-men may chalenge the possessions & lands belonging to them, & judicially recouer them if they be with-holden from them; yet may they not so freely dispose of them, as Lay-men may of theirs. The vse of things is two-fold. For there is vsus juris, & vsus facti. Vsus facti is when one hath the vse of a thing, but so, that he hath no right to vse it, warrantable by any positiue or humane law; & if any one will depriue him of it, he cannot by law hinder him. Vsus juris, is the right one hath to vse a thing, leauing the claime of the possessiō of the substance of it to the owner there∣of. This kinde of vse is likewise two-fold: nudus, and vsus-fructus. The former is when one hath right to vse a thing; but so limited and restrained, that he may neither sell, let, nor giue the same right. The later when he may. The Franciscan Friars imagining the height of Christian perfection to consist in extreme pouerty, by their vow of pouerty abandon, not only in particular, as do other Religious, but in generall, euen in respect of their whole company and society, all interest, right and claime to lands, liuings and pos∣sessions, or to the vse of any such thinges leauing nothing to themselues, but the bare vse of such things as by free gift, begging, or labour, come to their hands; without all right to vse them pleadable and justifiable by any course of humane law. So that if any one will take the bread out of their handes, before it come to their mouthes, or the clothes from them, wherewith they hide their nakednesse, they may not complaine of him for so doing, nor prosecute any suite against him for it. This kinde of pouer∣ty Pope Nicholas affirmeth Christ taught, both by word and example, and willeth the Franciscanes according to their rule, strictly to obserue the same. And for their safety and security taketh order, that all moueables giuen to them for vse, shall in respect of right belong to the Church of Rome, as likewise their Oratories, and Ce∣miteries But their dwellinges not so, vnlesse the giuer expresse an absolute gift (which yet must not be to the Fryers, but to the Church) and the Church expressely accept the same. For otherwise the owner may at his pleasure take them away a∣gaine. Farther he ordereth, that such such things as are giuen to them, and they haue the vse of, they may either of themselues change them for such other things as they neede or desire, or cause the gouernour and disposer of them appointed by the Pope, to sell them, and with the money to buy such things as they neede, and let them haue the vse of them, as bookes and the like. For with money they themselues may not meddle. Pope Iohn the two and twentieth, following Nicholas, and finding by experience, that these Fryers did but abuse the world with their faire shewes of perfection, q 1.998 con∣demned their hypocrisie, and would be no patron of it, as his predecessour was. First,

therefore hee shewed, that perfection consisteth essentially in charity, wich Paule na∣meth the bond of perfection, & that the abandoning of propriety in things maketh no∣thing to perfectiō, farther thē it excludeth the care that is wont to be found in men, in getting, keeping, & disposing of them, weakning the act of diuine loue, So that if there be as much carefulnesse in men after the disclaiming of propriety in things, as before, their seeming pouerty maketh nothing to Christian perfection. Now he sayth, that after the ordination of his predecessour, these Fryers were no lesse carefull in getting and keeping things both by begging, judiciall suing, and the like meanes, then any o∣ther mendicants that haue some things as their owne in common. And that therefore howsoeuer they pleased themselues, their obseruation was of no more perfection then theirs that had something of their owne in common. Secondly, he shewed, that these mendicants hauing the vse of such things as are giuen to them, and the Church of Rome the propriety (in name and title, but not in deede, being onely to secure them in the vse thereof, and to make no benefit) that it is but a single right the Church hath, and that they are in trueth and indeede no poorer then they that haue thinges of their owne; seeing they may change the vse of one thing for another, or at least cause the procurator, designed by the Church of Rome, to change things into money, and buy for them such as they rather desire to haue, making vse of all things that come to their hands at their pleasure, as much as they that haue them of their owne. Third∣ly, hee pronounced, that to thinke that Christ and his Apostles had nothing of their owne in speciall or common, and that they had no right to vse such things, as they had, to sell them, giue them, or with them to buy other, is contrary to the Gospell, condemneth Christ and his Apostles of iniustice, and ouerthroweth the whole Scrip∣ture. Yet Pope Nicholas defined, that Christ & his Apostles had nothing of their own, either in speciall or common, and that the hauing of a common bagge no way con∣trarieth this conceit, seeing that was but by a kinde of dispensation in the person of the weake and imperfect; and to shewe, that he disliketh not them that come short of his perfection. Thus we see Pope Nicolas erred in a matter of faith, patronized hy∣pocrites in their faignes shewes of counterfeit perfection, & was disliked and contra∣ried by his owne successour Iohn the two and twentieth for the same; by reason where∣of there grew a maine difference betweene Pope Iohn and the Franciscan Fryers, hee charging them with heresie and persecuting them from place to place: and they like∣wise disclaiming him as a damnable heretique, and no Pope. The principall men on the Fryers part were r 1.999 Michael Caesenas, and s 1.1000 Occam the great Schoole-man, who hath written much against Pope Iohn, touching this argument.

Neither is Pope Iohn (though in this point of Christian perfection hee were of a sounder & better judgment then his predecessor) & any happier thē he. For he is like∣wise charged with errour in matter of faith (& that not vniustly) by the same Friers, that he so much hated & persecuted. For (as Occam testifieth in his t 1.1001 Dialogues) hee taught, that the soules of the just shall not see God till the generall resurrection: and that not faintly, or doubtingly, but in such passionate and violent manner, as not to en∣dure those that thought otherwise. u 1.1002 Gerson likewise in his sermon vpon Easter day, before the French King and his Nobles, sayth, That the theefe on the crosse in that very hower that Christ spake vnto him, was made happy, and sawe God face to face, according to the promise of Christ made vnto him, This day shalt thou bee with mee in Paradice; and that thereby the doctrine of Iohn the two and twentieth is proued false, that was coudemned by the Diuines of Paris with the sound of trumpets, before King Phi∣lip, vncle to the King before whom then he spake; the King rather believing the Diuines of Paris, then the Court of Rome. x 1.1003 Bellarmine, to deriue the hate of this matter from the Pope to others, would willingly fasten this errour on Caluine, and to that purpose alleageth y 1.1004 two places out of him. But neither of them proueth any such thing. For in the first, he speaketh not of any stay of the Saints departed without, in outward courts, out of heauen till the resurrection (as the Cardinall strangely mis∣understandeth him) but sheweth by a most apt comparison, that as in the time of MOSES Law, the high Priest onely entred into the Holiest of all to make an

attonement, and all the people stayed without: So none but Christ goeth into the pre∣sence of God, to make peace, and to worke the great worke of reconciliation, and that all the sonnes of men are to expect without, till hee bring them assurance of fauour and acceptation. And in the second place where saith, that the dead are joyned with vs that liue in the vnity of the same faith, his meaning is not, that faith opposite to sight is found in the Saints after death, as it is in vs, but that they haue a cleare view, and pre∣sent enjoying of those things which we beleeue. Neither is there any thing found in Caluine that may any way excuse the errour of Pope Iohn. Thus then (I hope) it doth appeare by that which hath beene saide, that Popes are subiect to errour, that they may become Heretiques, and define for heresie, and that therefore the second supposed priviledge of the Roman Bishop, which is infallibility of judgment, is found to haue no proofe at all. Wherefore let vs proceede to the third, which is his power to dispose of the kingdomes of the World, and to ouer-rule the Princes and Poten∣tates thereof.

CHAP. 44.

Of the Popes vniust claime of temporall dominion ouer the whole world.

TOuching the right and interest of Popes in intermeddling with secular af∣faires, and disposing of the Kingdomes of the world, there are three opinions among the Romanists. The a 1.1005 first is, that the Pope is soueraigne Lord of all the world, or at least of all the Christian world; and that the Princes of the Earth are but his Vicegerēts and Lieuetenants. The b 1.1006 second, that the Pope is not soueraigne Lord of the world, nor of any part thereof: and that therefore hee may not at his pleasure intermeddle with the affaires of Princes, but only in case of some defect foūd in them, as when they faile to doe their duty, or seeke to hinder the common good, especially of the Church. The c 1.1007 third, that hee may not at all intermeddle with the dis∣position of earthly kingdomes, or restraine, or depose Princes, how much soeuer they abuse their authoritie.

The first of these three opinions, had anciently, and hath presently, great patrons and followers. Yet d 1.1008 Bellarmine very confidently and learnedly refuteth the same. First, shewing that the Pope is not soueraigne Lord of the whole world. Secondly, that he is not Lord of the Christian world. And thirdly, that hee is Lord of no part of the world. That he is not Lord of the whole world, he proueth, because not of those Provinces that are possessed by Infidels, which hee demonstrateth. First, because Christ committed none but onely his sheepe to Peter; and therefore gaue him no au∣thoritie ouer Infidels which are not his sheepe; whereunto Saint Paul agreeth, pro∣fessing that hee hath nothing to doe to iudge them that are without. Secondly, because dominion and the right of Princes is not founded in grace or faith, but in free will and * 1.1009 reason, and hath not sprung from the written Law of Moses, or Christ, but from the law of Nations and Nature. VVhich is most cleare, in that God both in the Olde and New Testament approueth the Kingdomes of the Gentiles and Infidels, as appea∣reth by that of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar: f 1.1010 O King, thou art King of Kings, For the God of Heauen hath giuen thee a kingdome, power, and strength, and glory, and in all places where the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowles of the heauen hath hee giuen into thine hand, and hath made thee a ruler ouer them all. And that of Christ, g 1.1011 Giue vnto Caesar the things that are Caesars. With whom the Apostle agreeth, requi∣ring the Christians of his time, not only to pay tribute to Heathen kings; but also h 1.1012 to o∣bey them for conscience sake; which men were not bound to, if they had no authority and right to commaund. Neither can it be said, that heathen princes are the Popes Lieuete∣nants, and theresore to be obeyed for his sake, though not for their owne, seeing the Pope would haue no such Lieutenants, if it lay in him to place them, or displace them. Lastly hee proueth, that the Pope hath no such soueraigne right of commaunding

ouer all, as is pretended, seeing it had beene vaine for Christ to giue him a right to that, whereof hee should neuer get the possession. And hauing thus proued, that Infidels were truely and rightly Lords of the countries subiect to them before the comming of Christ, that he found no nullitie in their titles, nor euer seized their kingdomes and dominions into his owne hands, as some fondly imagine that he did, hee proceedeth to proue, that Princes when they become Christians, lose not the right that they formerly had to their kingdomes, but get a new right to the kingdome of heauen. For that otherwise Christs grace should destroy nature, and his benefits be preiudiciall to such as are made partakers of them. Whereas Christ came not to destroy and ouerthrow things well setled before, but to perfect them: nor to hurt a∣ny, but to doe good to all. For confirmation whereof hee alleageth part of the Hymne of Sedulius, which the whole Church doth sing. Hostis Herodes impie, Chri∣stum venire quid times? Non eripit mortalia, Qui regna dat coelestia; that is, O impious enemie Herod, why doest thou feare Christs comming? He will not depriue thee of thy transitorie kingdome vpon earth, that giues an eternall kingdome in heauen. Whence it followeth, that Christ imposed no such hard condition on those kings that were to become Christians, as to leaue their crownes & dignities.

And so he commeth to his second proposition, that the Pope is not temporall Lord of the Christian world, which he confirmeth. First, because if the Pope were soue∣raigne Lord of all the Christian world, Bishops should be temporall Lords of their ci∣ties, & the places adioyning subiect to them. Which neither they will graunt, that contend for the soueraigntie of the Pope, nor can stand with that of Saint i 1.1013 Ambrose, who saith, If the Emperour aske tribute, we deny it him not. The Church lands doe pay tribute. And againe, Tribute is Caesars, it is not denied him, but the Church is Gods, and may not be yeelded to Caesar. And that of Hosius Bishop of Corduba, who (as we reade in k 1.1014 Athanasius) telleth the Emperour, that God hath giuē him the Empire, but that he hath committed to Bishops, those things that pertaine to the Church. Secondly, out of the confession of Popes, l 1.1015 Pope Leo confessing, that Martianus the Emperour, was appointed to the Empire by God, and that God was the authour of his Em∣pire: And m 1.1016 Gelasius writing to Anastasius the Emperour, and acknowledging that there are two thinges by which principally the world is guided, to wit, the sacred au∣thority of Bishoppes, and the regall power of Princes; with whom Gregorie agreeth when hee saith, n 1.1017 Power ouer all is giuen from heauen to the piety of my Lord.

And from hence hee inferreth his third proposition, that the Pope is temporall Lord of no part of the world, in the right of Peters successour, and Christs Vicar. For, if there were no nullitie in the titles of infidell kings and princes, nor no necessity im∣plied in their conuersion, of relinquishing their right when they became Christians, but that both infidels & christians, notwithstanding any act of Christ, continued in the full possession of princely power & right, it could not be, that Christ should inuest Pe∣ter, or his successours, with any kingly authority, seeing hee could giue them none, but such as he should take from others.

Nay, hee proceedeth farther, and sheweth, that Christ himselfe, while hee was on the earth, was no temporall Lord or King, and therefore much lesse gaue any tem∣porall dominion or kingdome to his Apostles. That he was no temporall king, he proueth, because the right to bee a King or Lord in such sort as men are Kings or Lords, is either by inheritance, election, conquest, or speciall donation and gift of Al∣mighty God. Now that Christ according to the flesh, was a King by right of inheri∣tance, hee saith, it cannot be proued, because though hee came of the kingly familie, yet it is vncertaine whether he were the next in bloud to Dauid or not. And besides, the kingdome was taken away from Dauids house, before Christ was borne; & God had foretold, that of the house of Ieconiah, of which Christ came (as we may reade in the o 1.1018 first of Saint Matthew) there should neuer be any temporall King such as Da∣vid, and the rest that succeeded him were, saying; p 1.1019 Write this man barren, a man that shall not prosper in his dayes; for there shall bee no man of his seede to sitte vpon the throne of Dauid, & to haue power any more in Iudah. And whereas it might be obiected,

that the Angell prophecied, that q 1.1020 the, Lord God should giue vnto Christ, the seat of Da∣uid his father, the Cardinall answereth out of Hierome, vpon the place of Hieremie: and Ambrose vpon Luke, that the words of Almighty God which we read in Hieremie, are to be vnderstood of a temporall kingdome, and the words of the Angell of a spirituall and eternall kingdome. That Christ was not a temporall King by right of election, hee proueth by that of Christ himselfe, when he saith, r 1.1021 O man, who hath made me a judge, or a diuider among you. And by that of S. Iohn where he saith, that s 1.1022 When Christ knew they meant to come & take him, & make him a King, he fled againe himselfe alone into a moun∣taine. So that he neither was chosen, nor would haue accepted of any such choise. That by right of conquest and victory hee was not a temporall King, it appeareth, in that his warre was not with mortall Kings, to depriue them of their kingdomes, but with the prince of darkenesse; according to that of the Apostle: t 1.1023 To this purpose did the Sonne of God appeare, that he might dissolue the workes of the Diuell. And that againe, u 1.1024 Now is the Prince of this world cast out. And that of Saint Paule, who speaking of Christ, sayth, x 1.1025 That spoyling principalities and powers, hee made a shew of them open∣ly, triumphing ouer them in himselfe. So that his warrefare was not, by carnall weapons to get himselfe an earthly kingdome, but by spirituall weapons, mightie through God, to get a spirituall kingdome, that hee might reigne in the hearts of men, by faith and grace, where Sathan reigned before by infidelity, disobedience and sinne. Lastly, that he was no temporall king by any speciall gift of God his Father, it is euident out of his owne words, when he saith, y 1.1026 My kingdome is not hence: For as the z 1.1027 Fathers note vpon these words, Christ meant by so saying, to put Pilate out of doubt, that he affected no temporall kingdome. And therefore the sence of his words, must needes be this, I am a King, but not in such sort, as Caesar and Herod: My kingdome is not of this world, that is, The supports of it, are not things of this world, it doth not consist in honour, riches, and power of this world. This thing the Cardinall far∣ther proueth to be true, because he came to minister, and not to be ministred vnto: to be judged, and not to judge: and by his whole course of conuersation, shewed the same, neuer taking vpon him to do any kingly act. For whereas hee cast out the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, it rather pertained to the Priestes office, then the kings, according to that, which wee read in the old Testament, that the a 1.1028 Priest draue the king himselfe out of the Temple, when disorderly he presumed to do things not pertaining to him: and yet he did it not by any Priestly or kingly authority, but after the manner of Prophets, by a kind of diuine zeale, like that wherewith b 1.1029 Phinchees was moued to kill the adulterer and adulteresse, and c 1.1030 Elias to slay the Prophets of Baal. This most true opinion of the Cardinall, that Christ was no tem∣porall king, is farther confirmed, in that such a kind of kingdome had not beene neces∣sary. Nay, it had beene an hinderance to the worke he had in hand, which was to perswade to the contempt of glorie, honour, riches, pleasures, and all such other earthly things, wherewith the Kings of the earth abound: and by suffering death, to ouercome him that had the power of death; and to reconcile the world vnto God. And besides, in that all the places, where any mention is made of the kingdome of Christ, are necessarily vnderstood of a spirituall and eternall kingdome. So in the Psalme, d 1.1031 I am apointed of him a King, to preach his commandement. And againe, in the booke of Daniel: e 1.1032 In their dayes shall God raise vp a kingdome, which shall not be destroyed for euer. And of his kingdome there shall be no end. Whereas the king∣domes of men, continue but for a time: and therefore if Christ had beene a King in such sort while he was vpon the earth, as men are, he had ceased to be so, when hee left the earth. And then it could not haue beene true, that of his kingdome there should be none end. Nay seeing the kingdome of the Iewes was possessed by the Romanes, at, or immediately after the time of the departure of Christ out of the world and afterwards by the Saracens, and Turkes: how could that of Daniel haue beene fulfilled, that his kingdome shall not be giuen to another people, if his kingdome had beene like the kingdomes of men? So it is true, that Christ came into the world to be a king, and that GOD gaue him the seate of Dauid his father. But this king∣dome

was diuine, spirituall, eternall, and proper vnto him, in that hee was the Sonne of God, and in that he was God and Man. But a temporall kingdome, such as the sonnes of men haue, he had not. And heereupon Saint Augustine bringeth in Christ spea∣king in this sort, f 1.1033 Audite Iudaej & Gentes, audi circumcisio, audi praeputium, audite om∣nia regnae terrena, non impedio dominationem vestram in hoc mundo, &c. that is, Heare O Iewes and Gentiles, heare circumcision, and vncircumcision, heare all ye king∣domes of the earth, I hinder not your dominion and rule in this world, because my kingdome is not of this world. Feare not therefore with that most vaine and cause∣lesse feare, wherewith Herod feared, and slew so many innocent babes, being cruell, ra∣ther out of feare then anger, and so forward: shewing that the Kingdome of Christ is meerely spirituall, and such as no way prejudiceth the kingdomes of men. Which the g 1.1034 Glosse confirmeth, noting that Christ, while hee was yet to liue longer in this world, when the multitudes came to make him a King, refused it: but that when hee was ready to suffer, he no way reproued, but willingly accepted the hymnes of them, that receiued him in triumphant manner, and welcommed him to Hierusalem, ho∣nouring him as a King; because hee was a King, not hauing a temporall and earthly kingdome, but an heauenly. Whereunto Leo agreeth, shewing that Herod, when hee heard a Prince was borne to the Iewes, feared a successour; but that his feare was vaine and causelesse, saying, h 1.1035 O caeca stultae aemulationis impietas, quae perturbandum putas divinum tuo furore consilium! Dominus mundi temporale non quaerit regnum∣qui praestat aeternum. that is, Oblinde impietie of foolish emulation, which thinkest to trouble and hinder the Counsels of God by thy furie. The Lord of the World, who gi∣ueth an eternall Kingdome, came not into the World to seeke a temporall kingdome.

And i 1.1036 Fulgentius accordeth with him, saying, The golde which the Sages offered to Christ, shewed him to bee a King, but not such a King as will haue his Image and su∣perscription in the coyne, but such an one as seeketh his image in the sonnes of men.

Whence it followeth, he was no temporall or mundane King: seeing they haue their images and superscriptions in their coyne, that are kings after the manner of the World. This assertion may be proued by many vnanswerable reasons. The first is this, Christ standing before Pilate, and being asked by him if he were a King, aunswered, k 1.1037 That his Kingdome was not of this world. Therefore he was not temporall or mundane King. This consequence fome deny, affirming that Christ intended not in his answer to Pilate, to deny his kingdome to be a temporal, earthly, & mundane kingdome, but that he meant onely to let him know that he had receiued his kingdome of God, & that the World neither gaue it him, nor chose him to it. And therefore he saide, Regnum meum non est hinc, and not Regnum meum non est hic, that is, My Kingdome is not hence, and not, My Kingdome is not here. This was the evasion of Pope Iohn the two and twen∣tieth (as l 1.1038 Ockam testifieth) but hee refuteth the same by most cleare circumstances of Scripture, and euidence of reason, shewing that Christ being accused vnto Pilate as an enemy to Caesar, in that he made himselfe a King, so cleared himselfe, that Pilate pro∣nounced that he found nothing against him; which he could not, nor he would not haue done if he had confessed his Kingdome to be a mundane Kingdome, though hee had deriued the right and title of it from Heauen. For Caesar would not haue endured a∣ny claime of such a Kingdome, though fetched from Heauen. Neither durst Pilate haue pronounced him guiltlesse that had made such a claime, and therefore Christ, when hee saide, his Kingdome was not of this World, meant not onely to deny the re∣ceiuing of it from the World, but also the dependance of it vpon any thing in the World: the supports of it not being things earthly, but heauenly and diuine, it no way consisting in riches, honour, power, & worldly greatnesse, as doe the kingdomes of men, but in the power of God. Which thing is aptly expressed by Christ himselfe, when he saith, m 1.1039 If my Kingdome were of this world, my Souldiers would fight for mee. The second reason is this. He that is no judge of secular quarrels, nor divider of in∣heritance, is no King. For these things belong to the office of a King. But Christ was no judge of such quarrels, and differences; therefore hee was no King. That hee was no judge of secular quarrels, nor divider of inheritances, it is evident by his

owne n 1.1040 deniall thereof. Which Saint Ambrose excellently expresseth, saying; o 1.1041 Be•…•… terrena declinat, qui propter diuina descenderat; nec iudex dignatur esse litium, & arbiter facultatum, viuorum habens mortuorumque iudicium, & arbitrium meritorum: that is, Hee doth well decline things earthly, who descended and came downe for things di∣vine. Neither doth hee vouchsafe to bee a judge of quarrels, and an arbitratour to determine the differences of men about their possessions, who is appointed to bee judge of the quicke and dead, and to whom it pertayneth to discerne betweene the well and ill doings of men. And againe; Meritò refutatur ille frater, qui dispensatorem coelestium gestiebat terrenis occupare: that is; That brother is worthily reiected, and hath the repulse, who sought to busie him whom God hath appointed the disposer of things heauenly, with things that are earthly. The third is, because Christ refused to be a King when it was offered him, and told his disciples, that p 1.1042 The kings of the nations haue dominion ouer them, and they that are great, exercise authoritie. But that it should not be so with them, but that whosoeuer would be great among them, must be their minister. The fourth; hee that is a King and will neuer meddle with the things that belong to a King, is justly to be charged either with wickednes, or negligence. But Christ neuer medled with any thing pertaining to the office of a temporall king in this world; therefore either he was no such king, or he may be charged with malice or negligence. But neither of these two latter may be admitted; therefore hee was no such king. The fifth; there cannot be two kings of one kingdome, vnlesse either they hold the same ioyntly, or the one acknowledge to hold the same, as of and from the other. But Caesar and Christ, neither held the kingdome of Iudaea ioyntly, nei∣ther did Caesar hold it as from Christ, nor Christ as from Caesar. Therefore either Caesar was no true king, or Christ was no secular king of that kingdome. But that Caesar was a true king, it appeareth by the testimony of Christ himselfe, saying; q 1.1043 Giue, or rather render, to. Caesar the things that are Caesars. Now Caesar claimed tri∣bute as Lord of the countrey, and therefore hee was truely Lord and King of it. That Caesar held not of or from Christ as man, it is euident; and much more, that Christ, who wholly refused to be a king, did neuer acknowledge to hold any kingdome from mortall man. The sixth; that was the kingdome of Christ whereof the Prophets pro∣phesied: But they prophesied not of any earthly kingdome; therefore Christs king∣dome was not earthly. That they prophesied not of any earthly kingdome, it is eui∣dent, in that the kingdome they prophesied of, was to be confirmed and restored by him: but the earthly kingdome of Iudaea was not confirmed by the comming of Christ, but vpon the refusall of him vtterly ouerthrowne; therefore it was not that the Prophets prophesied of. That the kingdome they prophesied of, was to be con∣firmed, restored and bettered, the words of the Prophets are proofe sufficient. r 1.1044 Be∣hold the day commeth (saith the Lord) and I will raise vp vnto Dauid a righteous branch, and a king shall reigne, and he shall bee wise, and shall doe iudgement and iustice in the earth. In those dayes Iudah shall be saued, and Israel shall dwell boldly. And this is the name that they shall call him by: The Lord our righteousnesse. And againe, s 1.1045 A little child is borne vnto vs, and the principality or rule is on his shoulders. His name shall bee called wonderfull, the mighty God, Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace, the increase of his gouernement and peace shall haue no end. Hee shall sitte vpon the throne of Dauid, and vpon his kingdome to order, and to stablish it with iudgement, and with iustice from henceforth euen for euer. Now that the kingdome of Iudaea was not established, but vtterly ouerthrowne immediatly after Christs departure hence, vpon and for the refusall of him, the words of Christ foretelling it, and the euent of things answering vnto his prediction, are proofe sufficient. t 1.1046 The day shall come vpon thee (saith Christ to Hierusalem, the chiefe citie of that kingdome) that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and hold thee in straight on every side, they shall cast thee to the earth, and thy children that are in thee, and shall not leaue a stone vpon a stone, because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

Thus we see it strongly proued, that u 1.1047 Christ himselfe was no temporall or earthly king, and therefore much lesse Peter or the Pope, that pretendeth to be Christs Vi∣car,

and Peters successour. Notwithstanding, they that are otherwise minded, en∣devour to proue, that Christ was a temporall king, and that hee left a kingly power to Peter and his successours. First, out of Scripture strangely wrested. Secondly, out of the testimonies of Popes. (For better authorities they haue none.) The principall text of Scripture which they alleage, is in the Gospell of Saint Matthew, where our Sauiour saith, x 1.1048 All power is given me in heauen and in earth. But y 1.1049 Bellarmine tel∣leth them, and the best Diuines agree with him, that that place is not to bee vnder∣stood of a temporall power, such as earthly kings haue, but either of a spirituall, whereby Christ so raigneth in earth, in the hearts of men by faith, as hee doth in hea∣ven in the presence of his glorie among the Angels; or a diuine power ouer all crea∣tures, not communicable to mortall men. The former of these interpretations the Authour of the Interlineall Glosse followeth, the later Lyra vpon this place: his words are; Licèt Christus, quantum ad diuinitatem ab aeterno haberet hanc potestatem, & in quantum homo, ab instanti conceptionis, haberet potestatem in coelo, & in terra, au∣thoritativè, tamen executivè non habuit ante resurrectionem suam, sed voluit esse passibi∣litati subiectus propter nostram redemptionem; that is, Although Christ, in that he was God, had this power from all eternity, and in that hee was man, had power both in heauen and in earth, from the first moment of his conception in respect of authority, yet in respect of the execution and performance of the acts of it, he had it not before his resurrection, but was pleased to bee subiect to passibilitie for our redemption. Let vs come therefore from the Scripture to the testimonies of later Popes; for Fathers, auncient Councells, or auncient Bishops of Rome, they haue none to speake for them. The first Pope that they alleage, is Pope Nicholas, in a certaine z 1.1050 Epistle of his, where he saith (as they tell vs) that Christ committed and gaue vnto blessed Peter, the Key∣bearer of eternall life, the rights both of the earthly and heauenly Empire. To this au∣thority first wee answere, that Pope Nicholas hath no such words in any Epistle; how∣soeuer Gratian, who citeth them as the words of Nicholas, mistooke the matter. Se∣condly, that supposing the words to be the words of Nicholas, his meaning may bee, that the spirituall power of binding and loosing, which Christ left to Peter, is not onely of force in earth, but in heauen also, that being bound in heauen that is bound on earth, and they beeing repulsed from the throne of grace in heauen, and excluded from Gods fauours, that are reiected from the holy Altars, and put from the Sacra∣ments of the Church. Wherevpon a 1.1051 Chrysostome saith, that the power of the church directeth and commaundeth the very Tribunall of heauen, and addeth, that heauen ta∣keth authority of judging from the earth: For that the Iudge sitteth on earth, and the Lord followeth the sentence of his servants, according to that of Christ, b 1.1052 What∣soeuer you shall binde on earth, shall be bound in heauen. Others expound the suppo∣sed words of Pope Nicholas of the spirituall power of Peter ouer the good and bad in the visible church, the good being named the kingdome of heauen, and the bad an earthly kingdome or company. But howsoeuer, it is most certaine, that Pope Ni∣cholas in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour, hath the cleane contrary to that which some would charge him with. For there hee sheweth that howsoeuer be∣fore Christ, some were both kings and priests, as was Melchisedeck, and as likewise some other among the Pagans were, yet after Christ none were so. Neither did the Emperour take vnto him the rights of the chiefe Priesthood, nor the chiefe Priest the name of the Emperour. Sed mediator Dei & hominum, homo Christus, sic actibus propriis & dignitatibus distinctis, officia potestatis vtriusque discreuit, vt & Christiani Imperatores pro aeterna vita pontificibus indigerent, & Pontifices pro cursu temporalium tantummodò rerum Imperialibus legibus vterentur; that is: But the Mediatour of God and men, the man Christ, did so distinguish and seuer the duties and offices of either of these kinds of power by their proper actions, & distinct dignities, that both Chri∣stian Emperours should stand in neede of Bishops, for the attaining of eternall life; and that Bishoppes should vse the lawes of Emperours, for the course of temporall things onely: that so both the spirituall action and employment might be free from carnall turmoyles, and that he who goeth on warfare vnto God, might not at all bee

entangled with secular businesses: and that on the other side, he might not seeme to bee set ouer the things that are Diuine, whom the businesses of this world should possesse: that both the modestie of each of these orders and degrees might bee preserued, and that also, no one hauing both these kindes of power should be lifted vp too high. The next authoritie is that of Bonifacius the eighth, who hath these words (speaking of the Church, which is one, and whereof he supposeth the Bishop of Rome to be the head▪)

c 1.1053 Wee are instructed by the Evangelicall sayings, that in this Church, and in the power of it there are two swords, to wit, a spirituall, and a temporall. For when the Apostles said, Beholde heere are two swords, to wit, in the Church (because they were the Apostles that spake) the Lord did not answere that it was too much, but that it was enough; and therefore surely, whosoeuer denyeth the temporall sword to be in the power of Peter, seemeth not well to consider the word of the Lord com∣maunding him to sheathe his sword. The answer vnto this authority is easie. For

Bonifacius (as d 1.1054 Duarenus noteth) was a vaine, busie, turbulent, arrogant, and proud man, presuming aboue that which was fit, and challenging that which no way pertai∣ned vnto him; and therefore we may justly reject both him and his sayings. But for the words of our Sauiour it is euident, that they proue no such thing, as this Pope would inforce out of them. Some (saith e 1.1055 Maldonatus) frō these words would proue,

that the Church hath two swords, the one spirituall, the other temporall; which, whether it haue or haue not, cannot be proued out of this place, where other swords are meant then either of Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall authority. Our Sauiour telleth his Disciples, the times approaching will be such, as that a man had neede for his owne defence to sell his coate to buy a sword. Whereupon the Disciples supposing they should vse materiall swords in their owne defence, answere, that they haue two swords. To whom Christ replyeth, that it is enough, not confirming their erring opinion, but answering them Ironically, as Theophylact and Euthymius thinke. Or o∣therwise letting them vnderstand, that though the times would be such, as that many swords would not suffice to defend them, yet that these two were enough, because he meant to vse none at all, but to suffer all that the malice of his enemies could doe vnto him. This, Maldonatus deliuereth to be the literall sense of Christs wordes, &

sheweth a mysticall sense of them also out of Beda, much more apt then that of Boni∣facius. Duo gladii (saith Beda) sufficiunt ad testimonium sponte passi Salvatoris. Vnus, qui & Apostolis audaciam pro Domino certandi; & evulsàictu eius auriculâ, Domino e∣tiam morituro pietatem, virtutemque doceret inesse medicandi. Alter, quinequaquam va∣ginâ exemptus, ostenderet eos nec totum quod potuere, pro eius defensione facere permissos: that is, Two swords are sufficient to giue testimony vnto our Sauiour, that he suffered willingly. The one of which might shew, that the Apostles wanted no courage to fight for their Master: and by the eare that was cut off by the stroke thereof, and healed a∣gaine by the Lord; that he wanted neither piety to compassionate the miserable, nor vertue and power to make him whole that was hurt, though now hee were ready to dye. And the other, which neuer was drawne out of the sheath, might shew, that they were not permitted to doe all that they could haue done in his defence. It is not to be denyed, but that S. f 1.1056 Bernard mystically expounding the words of Christ, saith; the Church hath two swords of authority. But he thinketh it hath them in very diffe∣rent sort. For it hath the vse of the one, and the benefite of the other, The one is to bee drawne by it, the other for it. So that this is all that hee saith, that the sword of ciuill authority is to be vsed by the Souldiers hand, at the commaund of the Emperour, by the direction, and at the suite of the Church. From Bonifacius they passe to g 1.1057 Inno∣centius the third, who in the vacancy of the Empire, willed those that were wronged in their rightfull causes, to haue recourse either to some Bishop, or to himselfe: And Clemens the fifth, who h 1.1058 professeth to intermeddle with certaine secular businesses & affaires, and to determine certaine ciuill causes vpon three seuerall grounds. Whereof the first is, his greatnesse, making him superiour to the Emperour. The second, his be∣ing in steed of the Emperour, in the vacancy of the Empire. And the third, the ful∣nesse of power, which Christ the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords gaue vnto Peter,

and in him to his successours. Whatsoeuer wee thinke of the former of these two Popes, who seemeth to ground his intermedling in ciuill affaires vpon some law of the Empire, and concession of ciuill Princes, accordingly as we reade of i 1.1059 Theodosius, that he permitted any Lay-men hauing ciuill differences among themselues, to referre the same to Ecclesiasticall Iudges if they listed. (Which concession proceeding ex pieta∣te, not ex debito, that is, out of piety, and not out of any right or necessity that it must bee soe, is long since growne out of vse; the state of Church-men beeing much changed from that it was, when hee granted them that priuiledge as k 1.1060 Duarenus sheweth.) Yet Pope Clemens can by no meanes be excused from hereticall impiety, affirming that which is most vntrue, as may appeare by the many fold reasons brought before to proue the contrary; nor from Antichristian pride, in seeking to tread vn∣derneath his feete, the crownes and dignities of Kings and Princes, and to lift himselfe vp aboue all that is called God.

CHAP. 45.

Of the Popes vnjust claime to intermeddle with the affaires of Princes and their states, if not as soueraigne Lord ouer all, yet at least in Ordine ad spiritualia, and in case of Princes failing to do their duties.

THAT Christ was no earthly King, that he left no Kingly power to Peter, and that the Pope hath no meere temporall power, in that he is Christs Vicar, or Peters successor, it is most euident out of the former discourse, and the Cardinall Iesuite confesseth so much; and yet a 1.1061 he thinketh the Pope hath a supreme power to dispose of all temporall states and things, in ordine ad bonum spiri∣tuale, that is, in a kinde of reference to the procuring and setting forward of the spiri∣tuall good. But this fancy is most easily refuted by vnanswerable reasons presupposing his former concession.

For first, no man can take away, limit, or restraine any power, or the excercise of it, but he in whom it is in eminent sort, and from whom it was receiued. But the ciuill power that is in Princes, is not in the Pope, neither did it proceede and come original∣ly from him; therefore it cannot be restrained, limited, or taken away by him. The maior proposition is euident: the assumption is proued, because ciuill power is in heathen infidels, who no way hold of the Pope. Secondly because it is agreed by all Diuines of worth and learning, that the ciuill power in the first originall of it, is im∣mediately from God: or if not immediately by his owne deliuery thereof, yet by no other mediation then that of the law of nature and nations. b 1.1062 The Emperours know (saith Tertullian) who gaue them the Empire, they know that it was euen the same God, who gaue vnto them to be men, and to haue humane soules. They well perceiue, that he onely is God, in whose onely power they are: à quo sunt secundi, post quem primi, ante omnes & su∣per omnes Deos: that is, After whom, they are in order the second, but among all other the first, before and aboue all Gods. And againe, Inde est Imperator, vnde & ho∣mo antequam Imperator; inde potest as illi, vnde & spiritus: that is, From thence is the chiefe ruler and Emperor, whence he was a man before hee was an Emperour: from thence hath hee his power, from whence he receiued the spirit of life. The Author of the answer to the reports of a great and worthy Iudge among vs, who hath lately written in the defence of the Popes ouerspreading greatnesse, seemeth in part to agree with Tertullian, and telleth vs, c 1.1063 that ciuill power is receiued from God, not imme∣diately by his owne deliuery thereof, but mediately rather by the mediation of the law of nature and nations. For by the law of nature God hath ordained that there should be politicke gouernment, which the law of nations assuming, hath transferred that go∣uernment to one, or more, according to the diuers formes thereof. And d 1.1064 Occam pro∣ueth at large, that Imperiall power is not from the Pope, and that it is hereticall to say, that all lawfull ciuil power is from the Pope.

Our second reason is this: Absolute & soueraigne ciuill Princes while they were infi∣dels,

had true dominion, rule and authority, holding it as immediatly from God, not depending on any ruler of the church, as hath beene shewed before. But when they become Christians, they still remaine in the same fulnesse of authority, in as ample & independent sort as before, because the benefite of Christ tendeth to no mans hurt, & grace ouerthroweth not nature: therefore still they remaine independent and subiect to none in the same power, and in the exercise of it. If they shall say, they are sub∣ject to none while they vse their authority well, but that if they abuse it, they lose the independent absolutenesse thereof; their saying will bee found to bee heteticall. For if vpon abuse of independent authority, they that haue it, lose and forfeit it ipso facto, then authority and abuse of authority, or at least extreme abuse of it, cannot stand to∣gether; which is contrary to that of Saint Augustine, where he saith: e 1.1065 Nec tyranni∣caefactionis perversitas laudabilis erit, si regia clementia tyrannus subditos tractet, nec vi∣tuperabilis ordo regiae potestatis, si Rex crudelitate tyrannicâ saeuiat: aliud est namque in∣iustâ potestate iustè velle vti; & aliud est iustâ potestate iniustè velle vti: that is, Neither shall the peruersnesse of tyrannicall vsurpation euer be praise worthy, though the ty∣rant vse his subiects with all Kingly clemency, nor the order of Kingly power euer be subiect to iust reprehension, though a king grow fierce and cruell like a tyrant. For it is one thing to vse an vnlawfull power lawfully, and another thing to vse a lawfull power vnrighteously & vniustly.

The third reason may bee this. If God did giue to the Pope authority to depose Princes, erring and abusing their authority, hee would giue them the meanes to exe∣cute that their authority reacheth vnto, to wit, ciuill greatnesse, armies of Souldiers, walled cities, towers, and strong holds, both for defence and offence, and all other thinges necessary for the putting downe of wicked Kinges. But the Pope as Christs Vicar hath none of these, neither was hee at any time as a temporall Prince, the grea∣test monarch of the world, and so able to represse the insolencies of all hereticall, pa∣gan, and wicked Kings, hindering the peaceable proceeding of the Gospell of Christ: therefore he hath no such authority. For to say, that God giueth authority, & not the meanes whereby it may execute and performe that which pertaineth to it, is im∣pious. The onely meanes the Pope hath to depose Princes, are two; but neither of them within the compasse of his power to dispose of. The first, is the raising of sub∣jects against their Prince. The second, is the raising of neighbour Princes. The for∣mer of these meanes is very defectiue, seeing (as f 1.1066 Bellarmine rightly obserueth out of Ecclesiasticus) g 1.1067 Such as the Ruler of a citie is, such are they that dwell in it: And there∣fore if the King bee an hereticke, the most part of his people will bee so too, and ra∣ther assist him for the maintenance of his heresie, then resist against him for the sup∣pressing of it. Which thing (as he saith) experience teacheth: For when h 1.1068 Ieroboam became an Idolater, the greatest part of the kingdome worshipped Idols. When Con∣stantine reigned, Christian Religion flourished: When Constantius reigned, Arrianisme prevailed, and ouerflowed all: When Iulian swayed the Scepter, the greatest part re∣turned to Paganisme. So that i 1.1069 Iouian being chosen after his death, refused to bee Emperour, protesting that being a Christian, hee neither could, nor would bee Em∣perour ouer infidells. Whereupon they all professed, that howsoeuer they had dis∣sembled before, yet they were still in heart Christians, and now would shew it againe. So that wee see, the first meanes for the suppressing of erring Princes, is no meanes, or a very vncertaine one. And a second is worse then the first: For I neuer read in any Diuine, of what religion soeuer, that one King is bound to make warre vpon a∣nother, vpon the Popes command, for the suppressing of heresie. And therefore the Pope may breath out excommunications till he be breathlesse, but can goe no farther by any meanes that God hath giuen him.

Fourthly, thus we reason. Either the power of the Pope is meerely Ecclesiasticall and spirituall, or it is not. If it bee not, then hath hee ciuill authority from Christ, which they deny. If it be, then can it inflict no punishments, but meerely spirituall, and Ecclesiasticall. For of what nature each power is, of the same are the punishments it inflicteth. The temporall power inflicteth onely temporall, outward, and corporall

punishments, as losse of goods, imprisonment, banishment, or death. The spirituall on∣ly spirituall, as suspension, excommunication, and the like. Now I suppose the losse of a kingdome, with all the riches and honour of it; & captivity, banishment, or death, vpon resistance against the sentence of deposition, is a temporall and externall punishment of the worst nature and highest degree that may be.

Lastly, if soueraigne Kings may bee put from their Kingdomes vpon abuse of their authority, either they forfeit and lose the right of them ipso facto, and are depriued by Almighty God: and then the Pope can but declare what God hath already done, as a∣ny man else may vpon perfect vnderstanding of the case: or else other neighbor Kings, or their owne subjects are to depose them, and the Pope is onely to put them in mind of their duty, and as a spirituall pastour to vrge them to the performance of it: and then he deposeth thē not, but they. Or lastly, the power of assuming their authority to himself, vpon their abuse thereof, pertaineth vnto him: and then in ciuill authority he is the greatest and ouer all; which yet these men deny. For hee that is to judge of Princes actions: and vpon dislike, to limite, restraine, or wholly take their power from them, is supreme in that kinde of authority. And if he may take ciuill authority from other, and giue it to whom he pleaseth, there is no question but hee may giue it vnto himselfe, and so hath power vpon all defects of Princes, to take into his owne hand that which formerly pertained to them, and to doe the acts that were to be performed by them.

Now as these reasons strongly proue, that the Pope cannot depose Princes in ordine ad spiritualia, so the weaknes of the reasons brought to proue it, will much more con∣firme the same. Their first reason is taken frō the perfection and excellency of the Ec∣clesiasticall or spirituall power, which they say is greater and farre more excellent then that which is ciuill. Whereunto we answer with k 1.1070 Waldensis, that though the spi∣rituall power be simply more perfect & excellent then the ciuill, yet either of these in the performance of things pertaining to them, is greater then the other, and each of them independent of the other. Ambrose was greater then Theodosius in respect of the administration of diuine things, & might either admit him to, or reiect him from the Sacraments. But Theodosius in respect of all temporall things was greater then hee, and might cōmand him, send him into banishment, or take away all that he had. The Sun is more excellent then the Moon, & the influence thereof more powerfull; yet is there a kind of influence vpon the waters, wherein the Moon is more excellent then the Sun. In like sort, the power which is spirituall may do greater things then that which is temporall, & yet the temporall may do those things the spirituall cannot do. And ther∣fore it will not follow, that the Ecclesiasticall state, & the principall Ministers of the Church may take vnto themselues the authority of Kings, or take vpon them to do the things that pertaine to Kingly offices, because they are greater in dignity, and haue a greater power; vnlesse they had a greater dignity & power in the same kind. Nowthey who most amplifie the greatnes of Ecclesiasticall power, preferring it before the other which is ciuill, neuer make the greatnes of it to consist, in that in ciuill affaires it may do more then that; but in that it hath a more noble object, & more wonderfull effects.

l 1.1071 We also (saith Nazianzen) haue power and authority, & that farre more ample and excellent then that of ciuill Princes, insomuch as it is fit the flesh should yeeld to the spirit, & things earthly to things heauenly. m 1.1072 Priesthood (saith Chrysostome) is a Princedome, more honourable & great then a Kingdome; tell not mee of the purple, diademe, scepter, or golden apparell of Kings, for these are but shadowes, and more vaine then flowres at the spring time. If you will see the difference betweene them, & how much the King is inferiour to the Priest, cōsider the manner of the power deli∣uered to them both, & you shall see the Priests tribunall much higher then that of the King, who hath receiued only the administratiō of earthly things. But the Priests tri∣bunal is placed in heauē, & he hath authority to pronoūce sentence in heauēly affairs. And again, n 1.1073 Earthly Princes haue power to bind but our bodies onely, but the bands which Priests can lay vpō vs, do touch the soul it self, & reach euen vnto the heauēs, so far forth, as that whatsoeuer Priests shal determin here beneath, that God doth ratifie

aboue in heauen, and confirme the sentence of his seruants vpon earth. o 1.1074 When king

Richard the first returning from the holy land, was taken and holde as a prisoner by Duke Leopold of Austria, and the Emperour Henry the sixth; Queene Elenor his mo∣ther seeking all meanes to procure his deliuerance, among other thinges, wrote a letter to the Bishop of Rome, intreating him to interpose his authority. The words of her letter are these, expressing the passion and earnest desire of her heart.

This one∣ly remaineth (ô Father) that you draw forth the sword of Peter against malefactors; which sword, God hath appointed to be ouer nations and kingdomes. The Crosse of Christ doth excell the Eagles that are in Caesars Banners, the spirituall sword of Peter is of more power then was the temporall sword of Constantine the Emperour, and the See Apostolicke is more potent then any Imperiall power or authority: and I would aske whether your power be of God, or of men? did not the God of Gods speake to you in Peter the Apostle, saying: Whatsoeuer you shall binde vpon earth shall be bound in heauen; and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall bee loosed in heauen? and why then do you so negligently, or rather cruelly delay, for a long time, to lose my sonne? or why dare you not do it? perhaps you will say, that the power giuen you by God of binding and losing, is for soules and not for bodies. Let it bee so, truly it is sufficiont for vs if you will binde the soules of those that hold my sons body bound in prison. By all these sayings of them that most admired the excellency

of Priesthood, it appeareth, that the excellencie thereof aboue princely power is in re∣spect of the object thereof, which is more noble; & the effects thereof, which are more wonderfull: & not in respect of greater power, authority & right to dispose of tempo∣ral affaires & businesses, either simply, or vpon any abuse or negligence of ciuil Princes. So that from hence it cannot be inferred, that the chiefe ministers of the Church may depose the Princes of the world. p 1.1075 Hugo de sancto Victore sayth: There are two kinds of power, the one terrene, the head whereof is the King: the other spirituall, the head whereof is the pope. To the Kings power those things pertaine that are ter∣rene: to the Popes, those that are spirituall: and looke how much the spirituall life is better then the earthly, so much doth the spirituall power excell the earthly in honour and dignity: For the spirituall power doth constitute the terrene power, that it may be; and iudgeth it whether it proceede aright, or not. But it selfe was first instituted of God, and when it goeth aside, can bee judged of none but of God onely. From hence (as q 1.1076 Waldensis sheweth) some men tooke an occasion of errour, affirming, that the roote of terrene power, doth so farre fotrh depend vpon the Pope, that by commission from him, the execution of things pertaining thereunto, is deriued vnto the Prince: and that when the Prince goeth aside or faileth to do his duty, the chiefe Bishop may manage the ciuill affaires; because, hee saith, the spirituall power doth institute the ciuil power, that it may be. But these men presume too farre, and in so doing offend, because the terrene power of Kings is not reduced into any other originally, as hauing authority ouer Kings, but vnto Christ onely: and yet notwithstanding, as the Priest joyneth the man and his wife in marriage, and blesseth them that they may be man and wife, and joyfull parents of happy children; and judgeth afterwards, whether they performe the duties of marriage or not. So the chiefe Priest setteth the crowne vpon the head of the Empreor, anointeth him with holy oyle, taketh an oath of him for the defence of the Christian faith and religion, putteth vpon him the royall robes, and thereby inuesteth him with royall power, & putteth him in possession of his Imperiall state and dignity. But it is not to be imagined (saith Waldensis) that the imperiall power is from the power of the Church, or dependeth of it, though certaine solemnities bee vsed by Bishops in the inauguration of Kings and Emperours; neither may the chiefe Ministers of the Church any more challenge the disposing or managing of ciuill af∣faires, vpon any defect or failing of ciuill Princes, then they may, the administration and dispensation of holy things, vpon the defect or failing of the Ecclesiasticall Mini∣sters. Yet in case of necessity, either of these two states may and ought to helpe and succour the other; not (as he sayth) vt vtens potestate, sed fraternitatis accessu: that is, Not as hauing authority, or by vertue thereof presuming to doe any thing; but

as one brother maketh hast to helpe another in danger, reaching forth the hand to stay him that is standing, and to raise him that is fallen. Both the brethren, (sayth Walden∣sis) both Simeon and Leui, Priest-hood and knight-hood, Bishoply power, and that which is Princely, must rise vp together for the rescuing of Dinah their sister, out of the hands of him that seeketh to dishonour her: Vi charitatis etsi non authoritatis: that is, By force of charity, though not of authority. So that according to his opi∣nion, the chiefe Ministers of the Church inuest the Princes of the world with their royall authority, according to the saying of r 1.1077 Hugo; but giue them not their authority: they may iudge of the actions of Princes, but they may not praeiudicare, they may not preiudice Princes. They may in the time of neede come to the suc∣cour, and in the time of danger reach forth the helping hand to the ciuill state, shaken by the negligence or malice of ciuill princes: but it must bee by way of charity, not of authority; as likewise the ciuill state may, and ought to bee as∣sistant to the Ecclesiasticall in like danger, defect, or failing of the Ecclesiasticall mi∣nisters.

The next argument that our Aduersaries bring, is taken from a comparison between the soule and body, expressing the difference betweene the ciuill and Ecclesiasticall state, found (as they say) in s 1.1078 Gregory Nazianzen. But that we may the better vnderstand the force of this argument, we must obserue, that in the comparison which they bring, they make the Ecclesiasticall state and spirituall power, like the spirit, and diuine facul∣ties thereof: and the ciuill state like the flesh, with the senses, and sensitiue appetite thereof. And as in Angels there is spirit without flesh, in bruit beasts flesh and sense without spirit; and in man both these conjoyned: so they will haue vs graunt, that there is sometimes Ecclesiasticall power without ciuill, as in the Apostles times, and longe after; sometimes ciuill without Ecclesiasticall, as among the heathen, and some∣times these two conjoyned together. And as when the spirit and flesh meete in one, the spirit hath the command; and though it suffer the flesh to do all those things which it desireth vnlesse they be contrary to the intendments, designes, & ends of it: yet when it findeth them to be contrary, it may, and doth command the fleshly part to surcease from her owne actions, yea it maketh it to fast, watch, and do and suffer many grieuous and afflictiue things, euen to the weakning of it selfe. Soe in like manner they would inferre, that the Ecclesiasticall state being like to the spirit and soule, and the ciuill to the body of flesh, the Church hath power to restraine, and bridle ciuill Princes, if they hinder the spirituall good thereof, not onely by censures Ecclesia∣sticall, but outward inforcement also. This is the great and grand argument our Aduersaries bring to proue, that Popes may depose Princes: wherein first wee may obserue their folly, in that they bring similitudes, which serue only for illustration, and not for probation, for the maine confirmation of one of the principall points of their faith: t 1.1079 which whosoeuer denyeth, sinneth in as high a degree as, Marcellinus that sa∣crificed vnto Idols: and Peter, that denied his maister. Secondly, we see how much Princes are beholding vnto them that compare them to bruit beasts, and at the best, to the brutish part that is in men, common to them with bruit beastes. If they say, Nazi∣anzen so compareth them, they are like themselues, and speake vntruly: for he compa∣reth not Princes & Priestes to spirit and flesh, but going about to shew the difference of the objectes of their power maketh the spirit to be the obiect of the one of thē, & the flesh of the other. Not as if Princes were to take no care of the welfare of the soules of their subjects, as well as of their bodies, but because the immediate procuring of the soules good, is by preaching, & ministration of the Sacraments, & Discipline, which the Prince is to procure, and to see wel performed, but not to administer these things him∣selfe: as also because the coactiue power the Prince hath, extendeth onely to the body, and not to the soule, as the Ecclesiasticall power of binding and loosing doth. Thirdly, we may obserue, that if this similitude should proue any thing, it would proue, that the ciuill state among Christians hath no power to do any act whatsoeuer, but by the com∣mand or permission of the Ecclesiasticall. For so it is between the spirit & the body, &

sensitiue faculties that shew themselues in it. The Philosophers note, that there is a double regiment in man: the one politicall or ciuill, the other despoticall; the one like the authority of Princes ouer their subjects that are freemen, the other like the authority of Lords ouer their bondmen and slaues. The former is of reason in re∣spect of sensitiue appetite, which by perswasion it may induce to surcease to desire that which it discerneth to be hurtfull, but cannot force it so to doe: the other of rea∣son and the will, in respect of the loco-motiue facultie; and this absolute, so that if rea∣son cannot winne a desisting from desire in the inferiour powers that shew themselues in the body, yet the will may command the loco-motiue faculty, & either cause al out∣ward action to cease, how earnestly soeuer sensitiue desire carry vnto it, or to bee per∣formed how much soeuer it resist against it: as it may commaund and force the drin∣king of a bitter potion, which the appetite cannot be wonne vnto, and the rejecting & putting from vs those things that are most desired. Neither can the appetite and sensi∣tiue faculties performe any of their actions without the consent of the will & reason: For if the will commaund, the eyes are closed vp and see nothing, the eares are stop∣ped and heare nothing, how much soeuer the appetite desire to see and heare. Neither onely haue the soules higher powers this commaund ouer the inferiour faculties, in respect of things that may further and hinder their own good and perfection, as they may command to watch or fast, for the prevention and mortification of sin; but they may also at their pleasure, hinder the whole course of the actions of the outward man, withdraw all needfull things from the body, and depriue it euen of life it selfe, though there be no cause at all so to doe. So that if the comparison of the ciuill and Ecclesiasti∣call state to the soule and body do hold, from thence may it be inferred that the Church hath power to commaund in all things pertaining to the common-wealth, and that the ciuill magistrates haue none at all. For the lower faculties neither haue, nor ought to haue any commaund further then they are permitted by the superiour; neither can they doe any thing contrary to the liking of the superiour, though neuer so just & rea∣sonable. And so we see how silly a thing it is to reason from these similitudes, and that they that so do, build vpon the sands, so that all the frame of their building commeth to the ground.

The third reason brought by our Adversaries, is this: Euery cōmon-wealth must be perfect in it selfe, & able to defend it self frō all injuries that any other may offer vnto it, & if it can no other way free it selfe, it must haue power to depose the Prince, and change the gouernment. Therefore the Church must be able to defend it self against all injuries of wicked Kings, whether Infidels, Heretickes, or Apostataes: & if otherwise it cannot defend it selfe frō their violences and wrongs, it must haue power to depose them. This consequence I thinke will neuer be found good in the judgement of any in∣different Reader. For the kingdomes and cōmon-wealths of the world, the good, pro∣sperity, & happines whereof is outward, must haue outward meanes to represse the insolencies of all such as seek to impeach or hinder the same; But the Church being a society, the happines & good wherof is not outward, but inward, cōsisting in the gra∣ces of God, & the hope of a better life in the world to come, may be perfect in it selfe, though it want meanes to represse outward violences & insolencies. The Apostle him∣self, who was a chief cōmander in it, professing that the u 1.1080 weapons of his warfare were not carnall, but mighty through God, for the casting down of proud thoughts; but not for the ouerthrow of cities & townes, or the subduing of the Princes of the world. So that the perfectiō of this society or cōmonwealth standing in the inward graces of the spirit, & the expectatiō of future happines, she may attain her own end, enioy her own good, & flourish in the midst of all pressures, more thē in any state of outward prospe∣rity; & so vndoubtedly she doth. For as the gold is more pure the more it is tried in the fire; as the cammomill smelleth the sweeter the more it is troden on; as the palme tree spreadeth the further the more it is pressed down; as the ark of Noe rose the higher the more the flouds did swell: so Gods Church did then most grow, increase & prosper, when the persecutiōs were hottest. And therfore S. Austin saith (speaking of the primi∣tiue Christians) Includebantur, ligabātur, torquebātur, trucidabātur, & multiplicabātur; * 1.1081

that is, they were shut vp in prisons and dungeons, they were bound in fetters and chaines, they were tortured & racked, yea, they were slaine with the sword, and yet they increased and multiplied. And y 1.1082 S. Bernard distinguishing three seuerall times of the Church, in all which shee complained of bitternesse, the first vnder persecuting heathen Emperors; the second, in the conflicts with heretickes, & the third, when she had rest from both these; saith, the state of the church was worst in her peace, & brin∣geth her in complaining and saying: Amarissima amaritudo mea in pace mea; that is, My bitternesse is most bitter in the daies of my peace. For now omnes amici, omnes inimici, omnes domestici, nulli pacifici; serui Christi seruiunt Antichristo: that is, All are friends, & all are enemies, all are of my houshold, but none are at peace with me; the seruants of Christ serue Antichrist. So that it followeth not, that if the church must haue meanes to attaine her owne end, and enioy her owne wished good, that she must haue power sufficient to procure her outward peace, and represse the insolencies of out∣ward enemies. And yet besides, this reason chargeth Christ with want of care of his Church, who left it without meanes to defēd it selfe against outward violence for the space of 300 yeares together, during the time of the heathen Emperors; & afterwards also vnder the reigne of Apostataes and heretickes. For z 1.1083 Bellarmine saith, that the primitiue Christians did not depose Nero, Dioclesian, Iulian the Apostata, Valens the Arrian, and other like, because they wanted temporall forces.

The next reason is more strange then this. For first, forgetting what they are to proue, in steed of prouing that the Pope may depose Princes, they endeuour to proue, that the people may depose Princes when they fall into heresie, and that the Pope is to iudge of heresie. Secondly, they conclude, that Christian people may not endure their King if he fall into heresie, because they may not chuse a king that is an infidell or hereticke. That they might not chuse an hereticke (which no man denieth) they proue, because the a 1.1084 Iewes might chuse none to be their king that was not of their bre∣thren, lest he should draw them to idolatry. But the consequence they goe not about to proue, which we deny, and they will neuer be able to confirme. For there is no que∣stion but people are bound to bee subiect to such a king, as in conscience they might not chuse, if they were free & to make choice. b 1.1085 When Moses was counselled by Ie∣thro, to chuse Elders & rulers to assist him, he told him what maner of mē they should bee, to wit, men fearing God, dealing truely, hating couetousnesse: and none but such ought electors, hauing freedome of choice, to chuse: and yet I thinke, though a king bee couetous, hee is not presently to be deposed. And therefore c 1.1086 Bellarmine (like an honest man) confuteth his owne argument, and saith, that infidels that had domi∣nion ouer people before they became Christians, are to be tollerated by Christians, if they seeke not to draw them to idolatry, whom yet I thinke Christians might not chuse to reigne ouer them if they were free. Besides this, if Bellarmine say true, that subiects sinne as much in tollerating kings that are infidels, Apostataes, or here∣tickes, as in chusing such to rule ouer them when they were free, all the primitiue Christians that tollerated Nero, Dioclesian, Iulian the Apostata, Constantius, Valens, & other heretickes sinned damnably in so doing. Neither will Bellarmines answere that they are to be excused, though they did not depose thē, because they wanted strength, auoid the same. For it is euident by Tertullian, that they wanted not strength if they had thought it lawfull. d 1.1087

If we should goe about to auenge our selues (saith Tertulli∣an) we should not want meanes. For behold, we are more in number, and greater in strength, then any one nation & people of the world. We are strangers vnto you, and yet behold, we haue filled all places pertaining vnto you, your Cities, your Isles, your Villages, your Towns, your Councel-houses, your Castles, & strong Forts, your Pa∣laces, your Senates, & your market places: only your Idoll Temples we haue left free vnto you. What warre should not we be able to take in hand? or what attempt should seem hard vnto vs? though we were too weake who so willingly are slaine, if it were not more lawfull to be killed then to kill in our profession. Nay, though wee should neuer arme our selues, nor lift vp our hands against you, but only depart away, and withdraw our selues into some remote parts of the world, how should we confound

and amaze you? How could you endure so great a losse? How would your cities be left desolate, & none found to dwell in them? So that it was not want of strength that

held the Primitiue Christiansin subjection to their heathen & persecuting Emperors, but the perswasion they had, that it was their duty so to be subject, perswading them∣selues they had their power from heauen: and therefore e 1.1088 Illuc suspicientes (saith Ter∣tullian) manibus expansis, quia innocuis, capite nudo quia non erubescimus; denique sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus precantes sumus omnes semper pro omnibus Imperatoribus, vitam illis prolixam, imperium securum, domum tutam, exercitus fortes, senatum fidelem, populum probum, orbem quietum & quaecunque hominis & Caesaris sunt vota: that is, Loo∣king vp thither, with handes lifted vp and spread out, because innocent, with bare heads, because we are not ashamed, and without a remembrancer, because our prayers proceed from the desires that lodge within in our breast, wee all pray alwaies for all Emperours and rulers, desiring God to grant vnto them a long life, a secure reigne, a safe house, valiant armies, a faithfull Senate, good people, a quiet world; and all the good things that the heart either of a priuate man, or of Caesar can desire. O silly erring Christians, durst you pray for the prosperity of them, whom you should haue perse∣cuted with fire and sword, and vtterly haue destroyed? But it is not to bee maruailed at, if you thus erred: for you were Christians, and had no Iesuites among you, from whom these mysteries of deposing Princes might haue beene learned: so that we may hope that ignorance did excuse you, and that ye are not gone to hell for this neglecting of your duty. But some man perhaps will say, Tertullian might be deceiued in this point. Let vs heare therefore whether others were of his mind or not. Iulianus Impe∣rator (saith f 1.1089 Ambrose) quamuis esset Apostata, habuit tamē sub se Christianos milites, qui∣bus cum dicebat, producite aciem, pro defensione Reipublicae obediebant ei. Cumautē dicer•…•… eis, producite arma in Christianos, tunc cognoscebant Imperatorem Caeli; that is, Iuli•…•… the emperour, though he were an Apostata, yet had vnder him Christian souldiers, who when he said vnto them, bring forth your armies for the defence of the common∣wealth, willingly obeyed him. But when he said vnto them, bring forth your forces, and fight against the Christians, tooke knowledge of the Emperor in heauen, and not of him. And S. g 1.1090 Augustine saith to the same purpose, that Iulian the Emperour was an Infidell, an Apostata, a wicked man, & an idolater; & yet there were Christian souldiers that serued this vnbelieuing Emperour, when they came to the cause of Christ they acknowledged none other Emperor, but him only, whose throne is in heauē. When he required them to worship Idols, or to burne incense, they preferred God before him. When he said, bring forth your armies, & go against such a nation, they presently obey∣ed him: so did they wisely distinguish between the eternall and temporall Lord, & yet they were subiect to the temporall Lord for the eternall Lords sake. Neither was this the priuate conceipt of these men alone, but all other the worthy Fathers, and Bishops of the Church were of the same minde, and perswaded themselues, that they owedall dutie to kings and Emperours, though they were heretiques or infidels. And therefore Athanasius (whēsome charged him, that he had spoken euill of Constantius the Arrian heretick to Constance his brother, & sought to make variance between thē) in his Apo∣logy to Constantius, calleth God to witnesse against his own soule, that he had neuer don any such thing; and telleth the Emperor, he was not mad, nor had not forgotten the say∣ing of the wise man. h 1.1091 Curse not the King in thy secret thought, and speake not euill of the rich and mighty in the retired places of thy chamber. For the fowles of heauen will carry forth thy voyce, and that that hath wings will make report of thy words.

The fifth reason that they bring, to proue that Christians may depose mis-beleeuing Emperors and Kings, if they haue meanes so to do, is, because the Apostle i 1.1092 willeth the Corinthians that were become Christians, to appoint new iudges of their controuersies about temporall affaires & businesses, that they might not be forced to bring their pleas before heathen magistrates that were their enemies, to the scorne of their profession: which is so silly a reason, that I cannot perswade my selfe they propose it in earnest, but only for fashions sake to helpe to make vp a number. For they know right well, these Iudges the Apostle speaketh of, were but onely arbitrators chosen by the agreement of

the parties, & not absolute rulers ouer them with abrogation of the magistracie of those heathen rulers, to whom they were subject, and therefore notwithstanding any thing the Apostle writeth, there were k 1.1093 three cases, wherein the faithfull and belee∣uing Corinthians might lawfully come before the Heathen Iudges. The first, if the In∣fidels in the controuersies they had with them about secular things, drew them thither. The second, if a beleeuer being contenitous, drew them to those tribunals, refusing to haue things determined otherwise. The third, if the beleeuer had none other meanes to recouer his right, which he was bound in conscience to recouer and preserue, for in such a case he might become a plaintife before Heathen Magistrates.

But (saith l 1.1094 Bellarmine) the beleeuing husband, whose wife being an Infidell, will not dwell with him without continuall blaspheming of God the Creator, and sollici∣ting him to Infidelitie and Apostacie, is freed from his wife: and likewise the belee∣uing wife from her vnbeleeuing husband, so continuing to blaspheme Christ, and to sollicite her to Idolatrie, therefore by like reason the beleeuing people are freed from the yoake of an vnbeleeuing King, seeking to draw them to Infidelity. This argument drawne from comparison, faileth many wayes. For first, according to m 1.1095 Bellarmines opinion, the beleeuing party is free from the other remaining in Infidelitie, though the Infidell doe neither depart, nor sollicite, or perswade to Idolatrie, if there be not a pre∣sent conversion: so that the beleeuer may dismisse his wife which hee married in infi∣delitie, if she continue an infidell, though she neither depart from him, nor seeke to win him to infidelitie. But touching a King who is an vnbeleeuer, hee thinketh (though n 1.1096 Thomas be of another opinion) that the people converting to Christianitie, cannot shake off his yoake, vnlesse he seeke to draw them backe to infidelitie; and therefore all that, is not lawfull to the people, in respect of an vnbeleeuing King, that is lawfull to the husband, in respect of his vnbeleeuing wife, or to the wife, in respect of her vnbe∣leeuing husband. Secondly this comparison if it proue any thing, mainely ouerthrow∣eth the opinion of Bellarmine. For if the husband and the wife were Christians when they were married, and afterwards one of them fall into heresie, apostasie, atheisme, or whatsoeuer else, and seeke neuer so violently to draw the right beleeuer to the same euils; yet the bond of marriage remaineth inviolable, and is not, nor may not be dissol∣ued: and therefore if this comparison hold, a Christian King falling into heresie, apo∣stasie, or atheisme, and seeking to draw his people to the same, doth not lose the right of dominion he hath ouer them. Thirdly, in Bellarmines opinion it is not refusall to dwell together, nor sollicitation to idolatrie that could make a separation, if the band of matrimony contracted betweene Infidels were simply firme and indissoluble, as that of Christians is. But heathen Princes haue as good interest in their Kingdomes (which are not founded vpon grace or faith, but vpon the light of reason, the freedome of will, and the Law of Nature and Nations) as beleeuers: therefore their solliciting to infi∣delity and idolatrie, cannot make their titles to their kingdome voide. Lastly, mali∣tious desertion or refusall to dwell with the beleeuer, vnlesse he some way at lest by si∣lence consent to the blasphemies of the Infidell, is directly contrary to the nature, es∣sence, end, and intendment of marriage, and therefore dissolueth marriage: but the ab∣vse of sacred authority to the promoting of impiety, and suppressing of true Religi∣on, is not contrary to the nature and essence of authority, but to the right vse of it; and therefore it doth not make voide the title of magistrates, seeing it is certaine that law∣full authority may stand with most horrible abuse of the same.

Wherefore let vs proceede to their seuenth proofe. When Princes (say they) come to the Church, and are admitted to the Communion of the faithfull people of God, they are not admitted but vpon promise and agreement, that if they forsake the faith, or hinder the good of GODS people, they will bee content, and it shall bee lawfull for the Gouernours of the Church to take their authoritie from them; therefore when Princes become heretiques or Apostataes, it is lawfull by their owne agreement and consent for the Gouernours of the Church, to depose them. The antecedent of this Argument, I thinke, will neuer bee made good. For what Prince in his admission

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

to bee a Christian, did euer thus condition with the Church, either expressely, or by necessary implication? examples of any such stipulation, I am perswaded they canne bring vs none. It is true indeede, that the very vow of a Christian made in Baptisme, implieth in it a resolution and promise, rather to depart with any thing, and lose all, then to forfeit the inheritance he is entitled vnto, to dishonour God, or any way to hinder the good of his church: but this vow and promise is made to God, and not to the church; and therefore God may take from Christian kings their kingdomes, when they become heretiques, and seeke to misleade the people, as forfeited vpon their own agreements; but the Church hath nothing to doe with them, more then the great Turke, vpon any such forfeiture made vnto Almighty God. It is true, that all infi∣dels, and wicked ones, haue forfeited their kingdomes to God; but yet in the title of mundane iustice, they haue right to them still, and may not bee dispossessed of them by mortall men, vnlesse they bee specially authorised by almighty God, as the Israe∣lites were to cast out the Canaanites. And this was the meaning of Wickliffe, when he affirmed, that a Prince being in state of mortall sinne, ceaseth to bee a Prince any longer, namely in respect of any title he canne plead to God, if hee be pleased to take the advantage of the forfeiture; but in respect of men, he hath a good title still, in the course of mundane iustice. So that whosoeuer shall lift vp his hand against him, offe∣reth him wrong. The Church therefore may proceede no further then to admonish Princes, when they offend, and for grieuous and scandalous faults, to deny vnto them the benefit of her Communion.

The last proofe they bring for deposing Princes, when they become heretickes, is taken from the office of a Pastor, to whom it pertaineth to driue away wolues, to re∣straine and keepe the Rammes, and great leaders of the flockes, from hurting those sheepe that are more weake. This reason as it is the last, so it is the worst of all. For each Pastour must doe these things according to the nature and quality of his Pasto∣rall office, and therefore a spirituall Pastour must performe them by spirituall and ec∣clesiasticall censures, driuing away the wolues from his flockes, by suspension, ex∣communication, and anathema, and restraining the Rammes from hurting the rest, by the same meanes, so binding them with bands that exceed all the bands of restraint, vsed by the secular powers.

CHAP. 46.

Of examples of Church-men deposing Princes, brought by the Romanistes.

HAuing examined the reasons brought to proue that the chiefe gouernours of the Church may depose Princes erring from the faith, and hindering the course of religion; let vs see what examples our Aduersaries produce of the practise of deposing them. The first is the example of Samuel a 1.1097 appointing Saul to be a king, and afterwards b 1.1098 deposing him for his disobedience. But in this ex∣ample they are grossely deceiued. For first, Samuel was neither high Priest nor Priest at all, not being of the posterity of Aaron. Secondly, Samuel did not appoint Saul to be king, as being of higher authority, but as obeying and executing the man∣date of God, as the meanest man in Israel might haue done: as we reade in the second of the Kings, of c 1.1099 one of the sonnes of the Prophets, who at the commandement of E∣lizeus annointed Iehu king ouer Israel, yet was neither Elizeus, nor he, greater in dignity then Kings. Thirdly, we doe not reade in the sacred History, that Samuel deposed Saul, but that God deposed him, and that Samuel was the messenger sent from God to let him know it. Because (saith Samuel) thou hast cast away the word of the Lord, the Lord hath cast thee away that thou shalt not reigne. And againe, the Lord hath cut away the kingdome of Israel from thee this day. Yea so farre was Samuel from deposing Saul, that he mourned for him, till God blamed him, saying. d 1.1100 How long dost thou mourne for Saul? whereas I haue cast him away that hee should not reigne ouer Israel.

The next example is that of Hieremy the Prophet, to whom the Lord said, e 1.1101 I haue set thee ouer nations and people, to plucke vp, and to roote out, and to destroy, and throw downe, to build and to plant. Whence they inferre, that the chiefe Priest is ouer the kingdomes of the world, and may giue them to whom hee will. But first, wee must obserue, that Hieremy was not the high Priest, but one of an inferiour ranke; & that therefore if we will conclude any thing from hence, touching the power of disposing kingdomes by Priests, every Priest must haue this power. Secondly, we must know that Hieremie was set ouer the kingdome of Iudah and other kingdomes, not to rule them, but prophetically to denounce vnto them and foreshew the things, that after∣wards should fall out. Whereupon Lyra interpreteth the words of Almighty God in this sort. f 1.1102 Constitui te super Gentes, & super regna, vt euellas, id est, euellendo denun∣cies, transferendos inde habitatores; & destruas, quantum ad occidendos; & disperdas, quantum ad fugientes per diuersas vias; & dissipes, quantum ad morientes in fuga vel cap∣tiuitate; & aedifices & plantes, id est, denuncies Iudaeos reaedificandos, & plantandos in terrasua, &c. that is; I haue set thee ouer nations, and kingdomes, that thou mightest plucke vp, that is, that thou mightest denounce and foreshew, that the inhabitants being plucked vp out of their places, shall bee carried into another place; that thou mayst destroy, that is, denounce the destruction of such as shall be slaine. That thou maist scatter, that is, denounce and foreshew the dispersion of such as shall flie diuers wayes. That thou maist ouerthrow, that is, declare and foreshew the ouerthrow of them that shall die in flight or in captiuitie. That thou maist build and plant, that is, foreshew, that the Iewes shall be builded and planted againe in their owne land; which was fulfilled in the time of Cyrus, who gaue liberty to the people to returne into their owne countrey, and to reëdifie the temple; and in the time of Artaxerxes, who gaue leaue to Nehemiah to reëdifie the citie of Hierusalem, as we may reade in the bookes of Ezra and Nehemiah. The authour of the interlineall Glosse interpreteth the words in this sence: that the Prophet was appointed by almighty God, ouer king∣domes and people, to plucke vp vices and sinnes, to destroy the kingdome of the Di∣vell, and to build the Church of God. Saint Hierome likewise interpreteth the words in the same sort: g 1.1103 Considerandum est (saith he) quòd quatuor tristibus, duo laeta succe∣dunt. Neque enim aedificari poterant bona, nisi destructa essent mala; nec plantari optima, nisi eradicarentur pessima, &c. that is; Wee must consider, that two joyfull & happy things succeed foure grievous and sorrowfull thinges. For neither could good things be builded, if euill things were not first destroyed; nor the best things bee planted, if the worst things were not first pluckt vp by the rootes. For euery plant which our heauenly Father hath not planted, shall be plucked vp by the rootes. And euery buil∣ding which hath not a foundation vpon the Rocke, but is builded vpon the sand, is digged downe and destroyed by the word of God; and Iesus shall consume it by the spirite of his mouth, and destroy it by the comming of his presence▪ that is; hee shall destroy for euer all sacrilegious and peruerse doctrine, and that also which is lifted vp against the knowledge of God, and the confidence that men haue in their owne wisedome he shall-scatter, destroy, and cast downe; that in steed of these things, the things that sauour of humilitie may be builded; and the thinges which agree with Ecclesiasticall veritie may be builded and planted in the place of the former thinges, which were destroyed, and pluckt vp. Here is pulling vp of all false doctrine, and throwing downe whatsoeuer is lifted vp against the knowledge of God, that those things that sauour of humilitie, and are agreeable to Ecclesiasticall verity, may be buil∣ded and planted. And thus to plucke vp and to plant, to cast downe, and to build vp, pertayneth to Hieremies office and calling; but for deposing of Kings, and trans∣ferring kingdomes, no auncient write•…•… could euer finde any thing in this place.

The third example that they produce, is that of h 1.1104 Vzziah, who after much prospe∣ritie in all that hee tooke in hand, and many glorious victories obtayned, not conten∣ting himselfe with the honour of a King, but presuming to come into the Temple to offer incense, and intruding vpon the Priests office also, was by them resisted, & told it would be displeasing to allmighty God, that he did. But he waxing angry, would

not desist, till beeing stricken with leprosie, and the verie earth trembling and qua∣king for horrour of so vile a fact, hee was by the Priests; and the remorse of his own conscience forced to goe hastily out of the Temple. This leprosie departed not from him till his dying day, and therefore hee was by vertue of Gods lawe constrained to departe from the society of men, and to dwell apart; and Iotham his sonne ruled ouer the kings house, and iudged the people of the land. How this place will proue, that the deposing of Kings belongeth to Priests, I knowe not, for surely Vzziah was not deposed, but being forced to liue in an house apart by himselfe, and in that respect vn∣fitte for the gouernment, his sonne supplied his place in iudging the people of the land: but hee continued king still; and if hee had beene cleansed from his leprosie before his death, no doubt, might, and would haue resumed his kingly dignitie, and the publique administration of iustice. Wherevpon wee shall finde that Iotham is said to haue reigned no more but i 1.1105 16 yeares, because after his fathers death in his owne right he reigned no more. Though otherwise wee finde mention of things that fell out in the k 1.1106 20 yeare of his reigne. So including the time of his ruling for his fa∣ther in his right. So that here was nothing done by the Priests, but that which pertai∣ned to their priestly office, which was to keepe the holy places, & attend the Altars, & to iudge of the plague of leprosie. But for deposing the King, they medled not.

The fourth example is of Iehoiada the high Priest deposing Athaliah, and setting vp Ioash, as they tell vs. The storie is this. l 1.1107 Iehosaphat dieth, and Iehoram his sonne succeedeth him. This Iehoram marrieth Athaliah the daughter of Ahab, the sonne of Omri; and hee walked not in the wayes of Iehosaphat and Asa kings of Iudah, but of wicked Ahab, whose daughter hee married. Whereupon God stirred vp the spirite of the Philistines, and Arabians, and they came, and tooke away all the sub∣stance that was found in his house, and his wiues and sons, so that none was left him, but Iehoahaz or Ahaziah his youngest sonne. After this Iehoram dieth, and Ahaziah reigneth in his stead, who followed the counsell of Athaliah, and did wickedly in the sight of the Lord. This Ahaziah going to Iehoram the sonne of Ahab, and being found with him when Iehu came to execute iudgement against the house of Ahab, was there slaine by Iehu. After his death Athaliah his mother, destroyed all the Kings seede of the house of Iudah, and vsurped the kingdome: But Iehoshebeath the wife of Iehoiada the Priest, sister to Ahaziah, stale away Ioash the Kings sonne, from among the Kings sonnes, that hee should not be slaine; and hee was hid in the house of God sixe yeares, all which time Athaliah reigned. But in the seauenth yeare Iohoiada waxed bold, tooke the Captaines of hundreds in couenant with him, and went about in Iudah, and gathered the Leuites out of all the cities of Iudah, and the chiefe-fathers of Israel; & they came to Ierusalem: and all the congregation made a couenant with the King, & said, The Kings sonne must reigne, as the Lord hath said of the sons of Dauid. Hereupon the King is proclaimed, Athaliah is slaine, the house of Baal destroied, & the Altars and idols that were in it broken down. In all this narration there is nothing that maketh for the chiefe Priests power of deposing lawfull kings, if they become he∣retiques: For first, Athaliah was an vsurper & no lawfull Queene. Secondly, here was nothing done by Iehoiada alone, but by him, and the Captaines of hundreths, and the chiefe Fathers of Israel, that entred into couenant with him. Thirdly, there is great difference betweene the high Priest in the time of the Lawe, and in the time of Christ. For before the comming of Christ, the high Priest euen in the managing of the weightiest ciuill affaires, and in iudgement of life and death, sate in the Coun∣cell of State, as the second person next vnto the King by Gods owne appointment. Whereas our Aduersaries dare not claime any such thing for the Pope. And there∣fore it is not to bee maruailed at, if the high Priest, beeing the second person in the kingdome of Iudah, by Gods owne appointment, and the Vnckle and Protectour of the young king, whom his wife had saued from destruction, bee the first mouer for the bringing of him to his right; and when things are resolued on by common con∣sent, take on him not onely to commaund and direct the Priests and Leuites, but the Captaines & souldiers also, for the establishing of their King, & the suppressing of

a bloody tyrant and vsurper. For all this might be done by Iehoiada, as a chiefe man in that state: and yet the Pope be so farre from obtaining that he claimeth (which is to depose lawfull kings for abusing their authority) that hee may not presume to do all that the high Priests lawfully did, and might doe: as not hauing so great pree∣minence from Christ, in respect of matters of ciuill state in any kingdome of the world as the high Priest had by Gods owne appointment in the kingdome of Iudah & Israel. In the old Law (saith m 1.1108 Occā) the high Priest meddled in matters of warre, in the judgment of life and death, & the losse of members, & vengeance of blood &; it besee∣med him well so to do: But the Priests of the new Law may not meddle with things of this nature. Wherefore from the power & dominion, which the high Priest of the old Law had, it cannot be concluded, that the Pope hath any power in tēporal matters.

The fifth example is of Ambrose, repelling Theodosius the Emperour from the communion of the Church, after the bloody and horrible murther, that was com∣mitted at Thessalonica by his commandement. The story is this n 1.1109 The coach-man of Borherica, the Captaine of the souldiers in that towne, for some fault was committed to prison. Now when the solemne horse-race and sporting fight of horsemen appro∣ched, the people of Thessalonica desired to haue him set at liberty, as one of whom there would be great vse in those ensuing solemne sports. which being denied, the citty was in an vprore, and Botherica, and certaine other of the magistrates were sto∣ned to death, and most despitefully vsed. Theodosius the Emperour hearing of this outrage, was exceedingly moued, and commaunded a certaine number to be put to the sword, without all iudiciall forme of proceeding, or putting difference betweene of∣fendors and such as were innocent: So that seauen thousand perished by the sword, and among them many strangers (that were come into the citty vpon diuerse occasi∣ons, that had no part in the outrage, for which Theodosius was so sore displeased) were most cruelly and vniustly slaine. Saint Ambrose vnderstanding of this violent and vn∣iust proceeding of the Emperour, the next time he came to Millaine, and was com∣ming to the Church, after his wonted manner, met him at the doore, and stayd him

from entring with this speech: Thou seemest not to know, O Emperour, what hor∣rible and bloudy murthers haue beene committed by thee; neither dost thou bethinke thy selfe now thy rage is past, to what extremities thy fury carried thee: perhaps the glory of thine Imperiall power, will not let thee take notice of any fault, & thy great∣nesse repelleth all checke of reason controlling thee: but thou shouldest know the frailty of mans nature, and that the dust was that beginning whence we are taken, and and to which we must returne. Let not therefore the glory of thy purple robes make thee forget the weakenesse of that body of flesh that is couered with them: Thy sub∣jects O Emperour are in nature like thee, and in seruice thy fellowes, for there is one Lord and commander ouer all: the maker of all things. Wherefore with what eyes wilt thou behold his temple, or with what feete wilt thou treade on the sacred paue∣ment thereof? wilt thou lift vp to him those hands, from which the bloud yet drop∣peth? wilt thou receiue with them the sacred body of our Lord? or wilt thou pre∣sume to put to thy mouth the cup replenished with the precious bloud of Christ, which hast shed so much innocent bloud by the word of thy mouth, vttering the pas∣sion of thy furious minde? Depart therefore, adde not this iniquity to the rest, and decline not those bands, which God aboue approueth. With these speeches the Em∣perour

was much moued: and, knowing the distinct duties, both of Emperours and Bi∣shops (for that he had bin trained vp in the knowledge of heauenly doctrine) returned to the Court, with teares & sighes. A long time after (for eight moneths were first past) the solemne feast of the Natiuity of Christ approached, and all prepared themselues to solemnize the same with triumphant ioy. But the Emperor sate in the Court, lamenting & powring out riuers of teares: which when Ruffinus, maister of the pallace perceiued, he came vnto him, and asked the cause of his weeping: to whom (weeping more bit∣terly then before) he said, O Ruffinus, thou makest but a sport of these things, for thou art touched with no sence of those euils, wherewith I am afflicted, but the consideration of my calamity maketh me sigh and lament: for that whereas the doores of Gods Temple are

open to slaues and beggars, and they goe freely into the same to make prayers vnto their Lord, they are shut against me; and, which is yet worse, the gates of heauen are shut against me also; for I cannot forget the words of our Lord; who saith, Whomsoeuer ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heauen. To whom Ruffinus replied, I will runne, if it please thee, O Emperour, to the Bishop, and intreate him to vnloose these bands, wherewith hee hath bound thee. No (saith the Emperour) it is to no purpose so to doe, for he will not bee intreated. I know his sentence is right and iust, and that he will not transgresse the law of God, for any respect of imperiall power. Yet when Ruffinus was earnest, and promised confidently to pacifie Ambrose, he bade him goe with speede, and himselfe followed after in hope of reconciliation, trusting vpon the promises of Ruffinus. But when Ambrose saw Ruffinus, he sayd vnto him: O Ruffinus, thou doest imitate the impuden∣cie of shamelesse dogges; for hauing beene the aduiser and counsellor to so vile murthers, thou hast hardned thy forehead, and hauing cast away all shame, blushest not, after the committing of so great and horrible outrages, against men made after the image of God. And when he was importunate with him, and told him the Emperour was comming, full of fierie zeale, he brake forth into these words: I tell thee Ruffinus, I will not suffer him to passe the thresholds of Gods house; and if of an Emperour he become a tyrant, I will ioyfully suffer death, Whereupon Ruffinus caused one to runne to the Emperour, & to desire him to stay within the Court. But the Emperour being on the way when the messenger met him, resolued to come forward, and to endure the reproof of the Bishop. So hee came to the sacred railes, but entred not into the Temple; and com∣ming to the Bishoppe, besought him to vnloose him from the bands wherewith hee was bound. The Bishop somewhat offended with his comming, told him, the manner of his comming was tyrant-like; and that being mad against God, he trampled vnder his feete the lawes of God.

Not so (said the Emperour) I presse not hither in de∣spite of order, neither doe I vniustly striue to enter into the house of God. But, I beseech thee, to vnloose me, to remember the mercifull disposition of our common Lord, and not to shut the doore against me, that hee would haue opened to all that repent. What repentance therefore (saith the Bishoppe) hast thou shewed, after so grieuous an offence? what medicines hast thou applied to cure thy wounds? It per∣taineth to thee (sayth the Emperour) to prepare the medicines, that should heale mee, and to cure my wounds; and to me to vse, that thou prescribest. Then (sayd Ambrose) seeing thou makest thy displeasure iudge, and it is not reason, that giueth sentence, when thou sittest vpon the throne to doe right, but thy furious procee∣dings; make a law, that when sentence of death and confiscation of goods shall bee passed, there may passe thirty dayes before the execution of the same, that so, if with∣in that space it be found vniust, it may be reuersed; or otherwise, it may proceede.

This law the Emperour most willingly consented to make, and thereupon Ambrose vnloosed him from his bands; and he entred into the Temple, and prayed vnto God, not standing, nor kneeling, but prostrate vpon the earth, and passionately vttering these words of Dauid. o 1.1110 My soule cleaueth to the pauement, Lord quicken me according to thy word. Here we see an excellent patterne of a good Bishoppe, and a good Em∣perour; and it is hard to say, whether Ambrose were more to be commended for his zeale, magnanimous resolution and constancie, or the Emperour for his willing and submissiue obedience. But of deposing Princes here is nothing, Ambrose being so farre from any thought of lifting vp his hand against the Emperour, that he resolued to subiect himselfe vnto him, euen to the suffering of martyrdome, if neede should re∣quire. But (saith Bellarmine) Ambrose exercised ciuill authority, in that hee tooke notice of this murther of the Emperour, beeing a criminall cause, and forced him to make a ciuill law, for the preuenting of furious and bloodie proceedings in iudgment. This surely is a weake collection: for the Church hath power, by vertue of her Eccle∣siasticall iurisdiction to take notice of such horrible crimes as murther, & to punish them with spirituall punishments. Neither was the inducing of Theodosius to make a ciuill law for the preuenting of such like euils, as he was now censured for, before he would reconcile him to the Church, an act of ciuill authoritie: But such testimonies

as this is, they that haue no better must be forced to vse.

That which followeth of p 1.1111 Gregories confirming the priviledges graunted to the Abbey of Saint Medardus, in such sort, that whatsoeuer Kings, Iudges, or secular per∣sons should go about to violate them, should be depriued of their honour, proueth not the thing in question. For it is evident, that the confirmation of these priviledges was passed, not by S. Gregory alone, but by a whole Councell, and more specially by Theodo∣ricus the King, and Brunichildis the Queene, who might binde their successours, and other inferiour secular Rulers vnder paine of deprivation, though neither Gregory of himselfe, nor yet a councell of Bishops, could doe any such thing by their authoritie alone.

Wherefore let vs proceede to the next example. q 1.1112 Gregory the second (saith Bellar∣mine) excommunicated the Emperour Leo the third, who was an enemy to Images: he forbade any tribute to be payde him out of Italy, and consequently depriued him of part of his Empire. Surely if Greg. the second of himself alone had had such power, as to forbid all Italy vpon his dislike to pay any more tribute to the Emperour, there were some good shew of proofe in this allegation. But if wee examine the stories, we shall finde the case to haue beene farre otherwise then Bellarmine would beare vs in hand it was. For first, Gregory did not excommunicate Leo of himselfe, but called a Synode to doe it. Secondly, he did not forbid the paying of tribute out of Italy, to the Emperour: but the circumstances of the History are these. Leo seeking to win the Bishop of Rome, and the people of Italy to the casting downe of Images in the West, as he had done in the East, Gregory the Bishop did not onely refuse to obey him, but ad∣monished all other to take heed they did no such thing for feare of any Edict of the Emperour. By which exhortation the people of Italy already mis-conceited of the Emperours governement, were so animated, that they were likely to haue pro∣ceeded to the election of a new Emperour: and r 1.1113 Nauclerus sheweth, that the de∣crees of the Bishop of Rome, disswading the people of the West from obeying the Emperour, in casting downe of Images, were of so great authoritie, that the people and souldiers of Ravenna first, and then of Venice, beganne to make shew of rebelli∣on against the Emperour, and his Exarche or Lieutenant, and to inforce the Bishop of Rome, and the other people of Italy, to disclaime the Emperour of Constantinople, and to chuse another in Italy. And that this rebellion proceeded so farre, that e∣uery city putting downe the Magistrates of the Exarch, set vp Magistrates of their owne, whō they named Dukes; but that the Bishop of Rome at that time pacified thē, and by his perswasions stayed them from chusing any new Emperour, in hope that he would amend. So that we see, the Bishop of Rome with his Bishops, by their au∣thority did nothing but stay the people from obeying the Emperours vnlawfull De∣crees, as they iudged them; but no way went about to depose the Emperour, or to de∣priue him of any thing that of right pertained to him. But the people of Italy mo∣ued against the Emperour, proceeded further then the Bishop of Rome would haue had them to haue done. For they put downe the Magistrates appointed by the Empe∣rour, and set vp other of their owne; and would haue forced the Bishop of Rome, and the other people of Italy, who yet consented not vnto them, to disclaime the Empe∣rour of Constantinople, and to chuse another in Italy. And therefore, if at that time they forbare to pay any more tribute, (as s 1.1114 Zonaras saith they did) it was not because the Pope forbade them so to doe (as hauing supreme power in ciuill things) but being averse from the Emperour, as for other dislikes, so by the Popes perswa∣sions, they stayed the tribute of themselues, as of themselues they put downe the Ma∣gistrates of the Emperour, without the liking of the Bishop of Rome. That which t 1.1115 Otho Frisingensis hath, that the Pope hauing often admonished the Emperour, and found him incorrigible, perswaded the people of Italy to depart from the Empire, seemeth to bee contrary to the reports of u 1.1116 the Authour of the great Chronicle, x 1.1117 Nauclerus, y 1.1118 Rhegino, and others; but yet maketh the Pope onely a per∣swader, and the people of Italy the doers of that was done. And in like sort it must bee vnderstood that Zonaras saith, the Bishop of Rome stayed the paying of tribute to

the Emperour, namely, that his dislike of the Emperours courses, together with their owne distast of his actions, did so auert the minds of the Italians from the Emperour, that they refused to pay him tribute; that being attributed to him, as done by him, which his perswasions (though tending to another purpose) did worke without his liking, and against his will. And in the same sence it is, that z 1.1119 Sigebert saith, Gregory charged the Emperour with errour, blamed him for it, and turned away the people of Rome, and the tribute of the West from him.

The third instance of Popes intermedling in the disposition of the kingdomes of the world, is that of Zacharias the Pope, of whom Gregory the seuenth, in his E∣pistles writeth thus: a 1.1120 Another Romane Bishop also, to wit, Zacharias, deposed the French King from his kingdome, not so much for any fault done by him, as for that he was vnfit to sway so great power; and put Pipine, the father of Charles the great, afterwards Emperour, into his place, freeing and absoluing all the Frenchmen frō their oath of feaul∣tie. Which words of Gregory are found likewise in the decrees. To this allegation c 1.1121 Oc∣cam * 1.1122 answereth, that Zacharias did not depose Childericke the French King (as Gregory the seuenth vntruly reporteth) but onely gaue allowance of the Peeres doposing of him. And to that purpose alleageth the Glosse vpon the decrees, wich sayth, d 1.1123 Dici∣tur deposuisse quia deponentibus consensit: that is, The Pope is said to haue deposed the King, because hee gaue consent to those that did depose him, and allowed their act. But he noteth also, that there are others, that doe not soe excuse the Pope, but do thinke he put his sickle into another mans haruest, and tooke vpon him to do that hee had no authority to doe; which other Popes likewise haue not feared to doe, in prejudice of the right of the laity, as they shew out of another e 1.1124 Glosse. Soe that the f 1.1125 Century writers are not alone in the reprehension of this fact of Zachari∣as, (as g 1.1126 Bellarmine vntruly anoucheth) notwithstanding I rather follow the judgment of the author of the Glosse, and thinke, that he did but giue his opinion, what might be done, and approue the act when it was done. For confirmation whereof, I will lay downe the circumstances of the narration touching the proceedings in this matter, as I find them reported by ancient writers. First, all h 1.1127 Historians agree, that the Kings of France in those times, giuing themselues to idlenesse and pleasures, wholly negle∣cted the gouernment: that they were seene but only once in the yeare of their subjects; and that the gouernor of the Kings house ruled all. Neither did things stand thus for a short space, but i 1.1128 Sigebert saith, they continued so 88 yeares. In this office of a prefect or gouernor, Pipine incceeded his auncesters, but exceeded them in the greatnesse of wor∣thy exploits; neither did any thing hinder the course of his great and honourable acti∣ons, but that hee was forced to suffer & endure a king almost witlesse & mad with di∣uers sencelesse fooleries. Wherefore they who write the histories of France report, that the Nobles and people of that nation duely weighing the vertue of Pipine, and the witlesse follies of Childericke the King, consulted Zachary then Bishop of Rome, & desi∣red him to tell them, whether he thought so foolish and vnworthy a King were any longer to be endured; or Pipine to be defrauded of royall dignity which he deserued, & was right worthy of. Who when they had receiued answere from the Pope that he was to be estemed the King, who knew best how to performe kingly duties: the French by the publique and common aduice and counsell of the whole nation, proclaimed Pipine King, and shore the head of Childericke, and made him a Clearke. k 1.1129 Nauclerus saith, the French men anciently had their kings descended of an ancient stocke, who of Meroueus the sonne of King Clodius the second, were called Merouingians: the race of which kings continued till Childericke, and in him ended. For long before, they were of no esteeme or authority, neither had they any thing, but the vaine and empty title of Kings, for the riches and power of the kingdome were in the hands of the prefects of the pallace, who were called the chiefe of the Kings house, and swayed the vvhole kingdome, vvho at that time vvere the successors of Charles Martell, and vvere named Dukes. Neither vvas there any other thing permitted to the King, but that contenting himselfe vvith the bare name of a King, hauing long haire and a long beard, hee should sit vpon the throne, and haue some shew of a ruler and heare Embassadors com∣ming

from all parts, and giue such answers vnto them (as out of his owne power) which he was taught and commanded to giue. Hee had nothing to liue on, but such a stipend and allowance, as the Prefect was pleased to allow vnto him. Hee possessed nothing but one little village: once onely in the yeare, hee was seene of his subiects in a publique and solemne assembly, & hauing saluted them all, returned againe into his pri∣uate course of life, leauing the gouernment of all to the Prefect. Pipine therefore, who then supplied that place, as succeeding his ancestors in the same, considering the slouth and idlenesse of these Kings, who neglecting the common-wealth did hide themselues in their owne priuate houses: and that both the Nobles & people tooke notice as well of his vertues, as of the sencelesse follies of Childericke, consulted the Pope (as we heard before:) vpon whose answere (that he was to be reputed King, that could best do the duty of a King) the French by a publique decree of the whole nation, chose Pipine to be King, which thing Zachary approued. l 1.1130 Otho Frisingensis saith, that the French se nt messengers to Rome sciscitandi gratia, to aske the Popes aduice, and to be resolued by him: vpon whose answere, and by whose authority (warranting them it was lawfull so to do) Bonifacius Arch-bishop of Mentz, & the other Princes of the kingdome, met together, and chose Pipine King. And Rhegino saith, Pipine was chosen King accor∣ding * 1.1131 to the manner and custome of the French, and being annointed by the hands of Bo∣nifacius Arch-bishop of Mentz, was by the French lifted vp into the royall throne, and Childericke who was but in title onely a King, was shorne, and thrust into a Monaste∣ry. With these agreeth n 1.1132 Sigebertus, and the rest. Wherefore to conclude this point, touching the deposition of Childericke, we must obserue. First, that hee was not deposed for heresie, or any way going about to hinder the course of religion; and that therefore the Pope could not depose him, vnlesse Princes be subiect to such cen∣sures for defects of nature, and negligence in doing their duties. Secondly, that hee and his predecessours for almost an hundred yeares, were put from all gouernement, and were but in name onely Kings, others hauing the authority, and that with the allowance of the whole state. So that it is the lesse to be maruelled, if the Pope bee∣ing consulted as a Diuine, answered, it was fit rather that hee should haue the name, title, and inauguration of a King, that was to do the duty, then hee that was to be but a shadow onely. Yet do I not say, that hee spake like a good Diuine. Thirdly, that in those times the Vniuersity of Paris was not yet founded: and the kingdome had few learned men, and that therefore they sought to forrainers. For otherwise wee know that afterwards the Kings and Princes of France rather o 1.1133 beleeued the Diuines of Paris then the Court of Rome, in greater matters then this. Fourthly, that the Bi∣shop of Rome as Patriarch of the West, was the chiefe Bishop in these parts of the world, and therefore not vnfitly consulted in a matter of such consequence as this was.

Wherefore let vs now proceed to the fourth instance, which is that of the transla∣tion of the West Empire, from the Emperours of Constantinople to Charles the Great, which our Aduersaries say, was done by Pope Leo the third. But surely whosoeuer shall looke into the course of Histories shall find, that this instance maketh rather a∣gainst them, then for them. For it is most certaine, that the Pope by his papall power did not translate the Empire. p 1.1134 The Romanes, sayth Sigebert, (who long before in their hearts were fallen away from the Emperour of Constantinople, now taking the opportunity of the occasion offered, while a woman hauing put out the eyes of Con∣stantine the Emperour her sonne, tooke vpon her to rule ouer them) with one consent proclaimed Charles the King their Emperour, and by the hands of Leo the pope set the Crowne vpon his head, and gaue him the title of Caesar and Augustus. With Sigeber∣tus the author of q 1.1135 the great Chronicle agreeth; His words are these. In the time of the solemnities of the Masse celebrated vpon Christmas day in S. Peters Church, Leo the pope by the decree of the people of Rome, & at their entreaty crowned Charles proclai∣med Emperor of the Romanes, & set such a Diademe vpon his head, as the anciēt Empe∣rors were wont to weare; & then the people, which was present in great number with ioyful acclamation cried out thrise: Carolo Augusto, á Deo coronato, magno et pacifico Im∣peratori, vita & victoria. So that we see, it was the decree of the Romanes that made

Charles Emperour, and that they vsed Leo for the performance of the solemne rites of his Coronatiō & vnction. With Sigebert & the Authour of the great Chronicle, we may joyne r 1.1136 Lambertus Schaffnaburgesis. His words are, Carolus á Romanis Augustus est appellatus. That is: the Romanes proclaimed Charles Augustus, And s 1.1137 Nauclerus saith, Pontifex populi Romani consensu, Carolum Romanorum Imperatorem declarat, &c. that is: The high Bishop, with the consent of the people of Rome, proclaimeth Charles Emperour of Romanes, & crowneth him with a Diademe. The people with a joyfull shout, crying out thrice, Carolo Augusto, á Deo coronato, magno & pacifico Imperatori, vita & victoria. But to cleare this point: & to make it euident to all the world, that howsoeuer the Pope & Clergy might concurre in this act, with the people & nobles of Italy, as hauing part & interest in matters of state as well as other, yet the Pope by his Papall power did not translate the Empire; three things are to be obserued. The first, that in the time of Gregory the 2^d, there was a great rebellion in Italy against the Emperour of Constantinople, and a desire to chuse a new Emperour, & that they of Ra∣uenna & Venice proceeded so farre in it, that they would haue forced the Bishoppe of Rome, and others to concurre with them: whereby it appeareth, that the act of transla∣tion was not proper to the Bishop of Rome, but proceeded frō the concurring desires of the Italians, and was their act, rather then his. The second, that Charles t 1.1138 was a mighty, potent, & great prince, hauing vnder him all France, Spaine, & a great part of Germany, with many other countries; & by his sword had subiected to him, the Lom∣bards, & was Lord of the greatest part of Italy, before either the people proclaimed him, or the Pope crowned him Emperor. So that howsoeuer the Italians by Leo the B. proclaimed, crowned, & accounted him Emperour; yet it was his right of inheri∣tance, & his sword that had possessed him of the thing, before euer they gaue him the title of the West Empire. The third, that whether the Italians had right to choose an Emperour or not, it mattereth nothing, seeing they rebelled against their Emperor, & thought, that in case of such necessity they might so do; and that therefore the obiecti∣on of Bellarmine against our position, is too weake, when he saith the people had no power to choose the Emperour. For howsoeuer anciently the Emperours were cho∣sen by the souliers, or came to it by inheritance, yet the people at this time de facto tooke vpon them to choose, without curious disputing the question of right.

The fifth instance of the Popes intermedling in the disposition of the kingdomes of the world, is that of Gregory the 5, who (as Bellarmine saith) appointed the forme of chusing the Emperour by the seauen Princes of Germany, and ordained that the Em∣perour should euer after be chosen by them. For the clearing of which point, wee must obserue u 1.1139 that the Empire of the West, being translated from Constantinople into France in the person of Charles the great, he dyed, and Ludouicus his sonne succeeded him. Lotharius succeeded Ludouicus, and Ludouicus his sonne succeeded him. Caro∣lus Caluus his vncle succeeded Ludouicus; Carolus Crassus his brother Ludouicus son, succeeded him. This Carolus Crassus for his vnfitnesse, was put from the Empire, and Arnulphus his nephew, son of Carlomaine was chosen in his place; who was the last of the race of Charles the great, that was crowned Emperour, whom Ludouicus his son succeeded, but was neuer crowned. In whom dying without childrē, the race of Charles did wholy cease. After him Otho the Duke of Saxony was greatly desi∣red; but refusing to bee Emperour in respect of his old age, the French by his aduice chose Conradus; and Conradus when he dyed named Henry the sonne of Otho Duke of Saxony, who reigned in East-France: But vpon the death of Ludouicus the third, the Lombards possessed themselues of the Empire in Italy, eight of them successiuely holding it for the space of 50 yeres, till Otho the sonne of Matilda (daughter of Theo∣doricus king of the Saxons) & Henry the king; who succeeding his father, & being ve∣ry famous for the things he had done in France & Germany, was desired by Agapetus the Pope, & many nobles of Italy now weary of the tyranny of the Lombards, to come and releeue them; which he did, and entring Italy with 50000. armed men, put Beren∣garius the Lombard from the Empire, and Albertus from the kingdome of all Italy; & was crowned Emperour in Rome by Iohn the twelfth, who died Emperour, and

Otho the second his son succeeded him, and Otho the third his sonne succeeded him. This third Otho (as u 1.1140 Nauclerus saith) hauing no heires male, by the aduice, & with the consent of the Princes of Germany, made a Decree, that after the death of the Em∣perour, an election of the new Emperour to succeede should for euer bee made in the citty of Franckford; and appointed electors three Arch-bishops, of Mentz for Germa∣ny, of Coleyn for Italy, and of Treuers for France: and with these foure other secular Princes, to wit, the Palatine of Rhene, who by office should be the Emperors Pant∣ler; the Duke of Saxony, who should be his Marshall; the Marquesse of Branderburge, who was to be his Chamberlaine; & the King of Boheme, who was to be chief Butler. This ordinance greatly displeased the Romanes, yet notwithstanding Gregory the fifth then Pope, who was a Germane borne, & of the Emperours house, seeing how hardly Otho the Emperour came to the Empire, though it were his inheritance, called a Sy∣node; and with the consent of the Princes of Germany, confirmed the ordinance of the Emperour, & decreed, that these 7 electors, should for euer haue power to chuse the Emperor in the name of all; who being chosen, should bee called Caesar & king of Ro∣manos, & after his coronation by the Pope, be named Augustus & Emperour. x 1.1141 Cardi∣nall Cusanus saith, the Emperor Otho, with the consent of the nobles, Primates, and both the states of the Clergy & people, ordained electors in the time of Gregory the 5. who was a Germane, & decreed, that they should haue power for euer to chuse the Emperor in steed of all. It is not therefore to be granted (saith hee) that the Princes e∣lectors haue their power of chusing the Emperor from the Pope, so that without his consent they should not haue it, or that he might take it from them if he would. Who therefore gaue the people of Rome power to chuse the Emperor, but the law of God, & nature? whence the Electors, appointed by the cōmon consent of all the Germanes, and other subiect to the Empire in the time of Henry the second, haue their power o∣riginally from the common consent of them all, who by natures right had power to constitute them an Emperour; and not from the Bishop of Rome, who hath no power to giue to any prouince of the world, a King or Emperour, without the consent there∣of. But the consent of Gregory the 5. who as Bishop of Rome in his degree and place, had interest to giue voyce in the chusing of the Emperour, concurred with the resolu∣tion of the Princes & people.

The sixt instance is of Gregory the 7. deposing Henry the 4. who (indeed) was the first Pope that euer tooke vpon him to depose Emperour or King. Wherefore for the better vnderstanding of the whole course of the proceedings of this Pope, wee must obserue, y 1.1142 that in the time of Henry the 3. about the yeare of our Lord 1040. there was an horrible confusion of Gods Church and people in the citty of Rome, three seuerall pretenders inuading the chaire of Peter, and challenging the name of his successours, and (which more increased the misery) the reuenues of the Church were diuided a∣mong these three, and seuerall Patriarchicall places assigned to them; one of them sit∣ting at S. Peters, another at S. Mary the greater, and the third named Benedict, in the palace of Lateran; and all of them liued very lewdly & wickedly (as Otho saith the Romanes reported vnto him being in Rome.) A certaine religious Presbyter named Gratian, considering this miserable state of the Church, & taking pitty on his distres∣sed mother, moued with the zeale of piety went to the three pretenders, and perswa∣ded them for money to leaue the holy seate of Peter; assigning to Benedict, as being of greater esteeme among them, the reuenues of England for his maintenance, and as a recompence of his voluntary relinquishing the claime to the Popedome. The citi∣zens of Rome admiring the happy atchieuement of this Presbyter, chose him to bee Pope, as being the deliuerer of the Church from so great a schisme; and changing his name, called him Gregory the 7. But when Henry the King heard of it, he passed into Italy. Gratian vnderstanding of his comming, met him at Sutrium, and to pacifie his wrath, offered him a precious Diademe. The King at the first honorably receiued him; but afterwards calling a Councell of Bishoppes, induced him to giue ouer the Popedome, as hauing by Symony obtayned it at the first; and with the consent of the Romane church placed Suidegerus Bishop of Babenberge in the Papal chaire, who was

named Clemens. This Clemens dyed, & Popio Patriarch of Aquileia succeeded him, and was named Damasus. Damasus dyed, and Bruno Bishop of the Tullians succeeded him, and was named Leo. This man being of a noble race in France, was appointed Pope by the authority of the Emperour: and hauing put on the Papall purple robe, journeyed through France, til he came to Cluniack where one Hildebrand was Priour. This Hildebrand moued with zeale came to Leo, and told him hee did ill to assume the Papall office by vertue of the Emperours nomination being a Lay-man, but that if hee would be aduised by him, he would direct him into a course, whereby he might with∣out offending the Emperour, preserue the liberty of the Church in chusing her chiefe Bishop. This aduice Leo hearkned vnto, and putting off his purple robe, put on the weede of a pilgrime, and so going to Rome with this Hildebrand in his company, by his aduice & counsell, found the meanes to get himselfe chosen Pope by the Clergy and people of Rome. Leo dyed, and Gebehardus afterwards named Victor, succeeded him, and Stephen him: about whose time Henry the third dyed, & Henry the fourth his sonne succeeded him; and after Stephen, Benedict, and Nicholas, Alexander gate the papall See, z 1.1143 against whom great exception was taken, for that contrary to the custome, hee was chosen without the Emperours consent, and with the liking of the yong Emperor and his mother (as some report.) Another was set vp by the Bishops of Lombardy, affirming that no man might be chosen or designed to the Popedome without the Em∣perours allowance. And besides, Anno Arch-bishop of Coleyn went to Rome to ex∣postulate the matter with Alexander and the Cardinals adhering to him, and to know of him, how he durst contrary to custome, and the law prescribed and imposed anci∣ently vpon the Popes, assume the Popedome without the consent of the Emperour; al∣leaging many things to shew the vnlawfulnesse of this fact, and beginning at Charles the great, hee named many Emperours who had either chosen or confirmed Popes, and made good their election. But being ready to go forward: and to adde more proofes vnto that which he had said, Hildebrand the Arch-deacon (the whole compa∣ny of Cardinals beckening vnto him so to doe) stood vp, and answered in this sort. Arch-bishop Anno, the Kings and Emperours of Rome neuer had any authority, right, or commanding power in the choyce of the Pope: and if at any time, any thing were done violently or disorderly, it was afterwards corrected and set right againe by the censure of the Fathers. After the death of Alexander, this Hildebrand, who thus euer opposed himselfe against the Emperours claimes, was by the Romanes chosen Pope without the Emperours consent. Which the Bishops of France vnderstanding, kno∣wing well of how violent, seuere, and vntractable a disposition hee was, vnwilling to haue him possesse so high a place in the Church, told the Emperour, that if hee did not in time preuent the matter, and voyd his election, greater euils and perils would beset him, then he could at first thinke of. Whereupon he sent Embassadours to Rome to know the cause why the Romanes contrary to the ancient custome, had chosen a Pope without his consent. And if they gaue not satisfaction, to put Hildebrand from the Papal dignity which he had vniustly gotten. The Embassadours comming to Rome, were kindly and courteously entertained, and when they had deliuered their message, Hildebrand (like a vile dissembling hypocrite) contrary to his owne practise, and that which he had perswaded other vnto, answered, that hee neuer sought this honor, but that it was put vpon him: and that yet hee would not accept of it, till by a certaine Embassadour, hee was assured, that not onely the Emperour, but the Princes of Ger∣many consented to his election. Which answer when the Emperour receiued, hee was fully satisfied, and with all readinesse, by his royall consent confirmed his election and commanded that he should be ordained. Thus wee see, how to serue his owne turne, he could now acknowledge the Emperours interest, and refuse to be ordained before hee had obtained his confirmation, which yet before in the case of Alexander he disclaimed: though ^a some say, hee neuer yeelded so much to the Emperour, but e∣uer * 1.1144 held out against him, disclaiming his intermedling, and that a most horrible schisme ensued thereupon. Howsoeuer, he was no sooner Pope, but he began to molest the Emperour, challenging him for Symony in conferring Ecclesiasticall dignities, and

requiring him to come to some Synodall answer; which when he refused to doe, he excommunicated him, depriued him of his Empire, and absolued his subiects frō their Oath of obedience, This was the first Pope that euer presumed to depose any Em∣perour. Lego & relego (saith b 1.1145 Otho Frisingensis) Romanorum Regum & Imperato∣rum gesta, & nusquam invenio quenquam eo•…•…um ante hunc à Romano Pontifice excom∣municatum, vel regno privatum, nisi fortè quis pro anathemate habendum ducat, quod Philippus ad breve tempus à Romano Pontifice inter poenitentes collocatus, & Theo∣dosius à beato Ambrosio propter cruentam caedem à liminibus Ecclesiae sequestratus sit: that is, I reade, and I reade ouer againe and againe, the Acts of the Romane Kings and Emperours, and I no where finde any of them before this, excommunicated by the Ro∣mane Bishop, or depriued of his kingdome, unlesse haply any man doe thinke that is to be taken for an excōmunication, that Philip was for a short time put among the Peni∣tents by the Bishop of Rome, and Theodosius for his bloudy murther stopped by blessed Ambrose from entring into the Church. And therefore whatsoeuer Gregory pre∣tendeth * 1.1146 to the contrary, professing that hee treadeth in the steps of the Saints, and his holy predecessours; yet it is true that d 1.1147 Sigebert saith, (which hee hopeth hee may say with the leaue of all good men) that this novelty (that hee say not heresie) had not shewed it self in the world in their time, that the Priests of that God which maketh hypocrites to reigne for the sins of his people, should teach his people that they owe no subiectiō to wicked Kings, and that they owe no feaulty vnto them, though they haue taken the oath of feaulty: that they are free frō periury that lift vp their hands a∣gainst the king to whō they haue sworne, & that they are to be taken for excōmunicate persons that do obey him. What horrible confusiōs followed vpon this censure of Gre∣gory, Otho Frisingensis reporteth in most tragicall manner. His wordes are these. How * 1.1148 great euils, how many warres and dangers of warres followed thence? How often was miserable Rome besieged, taken, and sacked? How one Pope was intruded vpon a∣nother: as likewise one King set vp against another, it is irksome to me to remember. To conclude, the whirle-winde of this tempest inwrapped in it so many euils, so many schismes, so many perils of the soules and bodies of men, that it alone may suffise in respect of the cruelty of the persecutiō, and the long continuance of the time thereof, to set before our eyes the infelicity of mans miserable conditiō. For i 1.1149 first the Empe∣rour offended with the Pope for molesting him about the Investitures of Bishoppes, which his Predecessours anciently had and enjoyed, and the Clergy discontented with him for his forbidding marriage; hee was in an assembly of the States and Bishops of Germany, holden at Wormes, deposed, & a letter written to him, requiring him no longer to meddle with the Episcopall Office, But such was the resolutiō and stoutnesse of this turbulent & vnquiet spirit, that being encouraged by certain Bishops of Germa∣ny, & promised their aide & helpe, he depriued the Bishops that had giuen sentence a∣gainst him, and deposed Henry the Emperour, absoluing his subiects frō their Oath of obedience. Whereupon many of the Princes of Germany, and first of all the Saxons formerly averse frō him, withdrew their subiectiō, pretending, that they might just∣ly cast off the yoake, and refuse to obey him any longer, seeing hauing beene called to giue satisfaction to two Popes, concerning certaine crimes obiected to him, he had refused to appeare, and was thereupon excommunicated. These rebellions and de∣fections so affrighted the Nobles and Princes of the Empire that still remained well affected to the Emperour, that for the staying of present confusiōs, & preventing of o∣ther, they thought good that the Pope should be intreated to come into Germany, and that then the Emperour should submit himselfe vnto him, & aske forgiuenesse; which thing accordingly was effected: for the Pope was perswaded, & consented to come in∣to Germany, & was cōming towards Augusta, as farre as Versella. But when hee came thither, pretēding feare that the Emperor meant not wel towards him, he brake off his journy, & went to Canossū, & there staied. Which the Emperor hearing of, & doubting what might be the cause of his stay, hastned thither, & putting off all Royall robes, on his bare feet came to the gates of the town, hūbly beseeching that he might be let in: but was staied without 3 daies, though it were extreme colde winter weather: which hee

endured patiently, continually intreating, till in the end hee was let in, and absolued; but yet conditionally, that being called, he should appeare in an assembly of Princes & Bishoppes, to answere such crimes as were obiected to him; and either to purge him∣selfe and so retaine his kingdome; or otherwise failing so to doe, to lose it. This his submission afterwards he made knowne to the Italians, who vnderstanding what hee had done, were exceedingly enraged against him, derided the Legates of the Pope, & contemned his curses, as being deposed by all the Bishops of Italy for iust causes, as namely, for simony, murther, adultery, and other most horrible and capitall crimes; and told him, that he had done a most intollerable thing, in submitting himselfe & his kingly Maiestie to an hereticke and most infamous person. Yea they proceeded so farre, that they told him, because he had so done, they were resolued to make his son Emperour in his steede; and to go to Rome and chuse a new Pope, by whom he might be consecrated, and all the proceedings of this false Pope voided. But the Emperour excusing himselfe for that which hee had done, as driuen by necessity so to doe, and promising to revenge these wrongs, when opportunity should bee offered, pacifyed them in such sort, that they began to incline to him againe. Yet were not his euils at an end hereby. For his enemies among the Germanes presently tooke the opportu∣nity of this his relapse, and calling an assembly with the Legates of the Pope, chose a new Emperour, Rodolphe Duke of Sueuia; to whō the Pope sent an imperiall crown, hauing this inscription: Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rodolpho. Which when he heard of, hee called a Councell of the Bishoppes of Italy and Germany, and char∣ging Hildebrand the Pope with most horrible crimes of heresie, necromancy, periu∣ry, murther, and the like, deposed him; chose Guibertus, Bishoppe of Rauenna in his place, and gathering together a great and mighty army, went against Rodolphe abi∣ding in Saxony; where a most terrible and bloudy battell was fought betweene them: in which battell Rodolphe was wounded; and going aside from his companions, with many other likewise wounded, was carried to Mersberge, where he died; who a litle before his death beholding his right hand cut off in that battell, fetching a deepe sigh, said to the Bishops which by chance were present: Behold, this is the hand with which by solemne vow and oath I obliged my faith and feaulty to Henry my Lord. Behold now I leaue his kingdome and this present life, see you that made mee climbe vp into his throne, what you haue done: would to God you had led me the right way, whom you found so wil∣ling to follow your aduice and counsell, and to be directed by you Yet did neither the ill successe of the former attempt, nor the speeches of Rodolphe at his death, blaming those that had set him a worke, and condemning himselfe for that which he had done, discourage the ill affected from proceeding on in their rebellious practises. For they set vp Hermannus, Prince of Lorrayne, in steed of Rodolphe, and proclaimed him Em∣perour, whom the Emperour Henry slew likewise, as he had done the other; & rested not till hee made Pope Hildebrand leaue Rome, and flie to Salernum; and brought the new Pope named Clement, to be inthronized, and himselfe crowned by him in Rome. The acts of Hildebrand (saith Nauclerus) were such, that the writers bee very doubt∣full whether the things that were done by him, were done out of any loue of vertue, or any zeale hee bare to the faith, or not. They that loued him best, disliked his stiffenes, as k 1.1150 Auentinus witnesseth. l 1.1151 Otho Frisingensis noteth, that his disposition was such, that for the most part, he euer liked that which others disliked. So, that of Lu∣cane might bee verified of him: Victrix causa Diis placuit, sed victa Catoni: that is, The prevailing part and cause best pleased God, but that which fell, and had the ouer∣throw, had Catoes wishes. And though he commend his zeale, yet in his prologue of his 7. booke he taxeth him, and others like vnto him, in very bitter sort. His words are these: Videntur tamen culpandi Sacerdotes per omnia, qui regnum suo gladio, quem ipsi ex regum habent gratia, ferire conantur. Nisi fortè Dauid imitari cogitant, qui Phi∣listaeum primò virtute Dei strauit, postmodùm proprio gladio iugulauit: that is, Notwith∣standing whatsoeuer may be said, the Priests seeme altogether blameable, and worthy of reproofe & reprehension, which goe about to strike Kings and princes with that their sword which they haue by the grace and fauour of Princes; vnlesse haply they

doe thinke it lawfull for them to imitate Dauid, who first ouerthrew and cast to the ground the proude Philistine by the power of God, and afterwards slew him with his ownesword. Of this Hildebrand l 1.1152 Sigebert saith, he found it thus written: Wee will haue you know, you that manage the Ecclesiasticall affaires, and to whom the care of the Church is committed, that the Lord, Pope Hildebrand, who also was called Gre∣gory, being in extremis, & drawing neare his end, called vnto him one of the 12 Car∣dinalls, whom hee loued dearely, and more then any of the rest; and in his hearing confessed to God, to holy Peter, and to the whole Church, that he had sinned excee∣dingly, and grieuously offended in the Pastorall charge committed to him, and in go∣verning the people of whom he had vndertaken the care; and that by the perswasion and instigation of the Diuell, he had stirred vp hatred and wrath against mankind: & then commanded the forenamed Confessor to make haste to goe to the Emperour, & to the whole Church of God, to aske forgiuenesse for him, because he saw the end of his life was neare at hand. And besides all this, in great haste put on him an Angeli∣call vesture or robe, and released & brake in sunder the bands of all those bitter curses whereunto hee had subiected the Emperour. These were the turbulent proceedings of this cursed Hildebrand, indeede a brand taken out of the very fire of hell, to set on fire the course of nature, and to put the whole world into a combustion; whereof (if this report mentioned by Sigebertus be true) it repented him not a little before his death. But howsoeuer, it is most certaine, that his best friends in the end beganne wholy to dislike him, when they saw whither his violent and furious passions carried him, and what wofull effects followed the same. Gerochus (saith m 1.1153 Auentinus) then whom no man was found more earnestly to defend Hildebrand by bookes written to iustifie his proceedings, and who published to the world diuers crimes obiected to the Emperour, mentioned by no other writer, at the last, constrained by the force of trueth, taxed the pertinacy, if not the tyranny, of the Pope & his adherents, in this sort. Romani (inquit) sibi diuinum vsurpant honorem, rationem actorum reddere nolunt, nec sibi dici aequo animo ferunt, cur ita agis? Illud Satyricum inculcant, Sic volo, sic iu∣beo, sit pro ratione voluntas; that is, The Romanes take vnto themselues the honour that is proper vnto God: they will giue no account for any thing they doe; they will be subiect to no controll, neither canne they endure with any patience, that any man should say to any of them, sir, why doe you so? That Satyricall saying they haue often in their mouthes: so I will haue it, so I command it to bee. Let my will stand for a reason, for so it shall. Thus we see how ill a beginning the Popes made of deposing Emperours, and how bad successe they had. Which is not to bee maruailed at, see∣ing in these attempts and practises they were contrary to Christ and his Apostles. For these (as Auentinus noteth) acknowledged the Emperours, as also all the holy Fathers did, to be in the second place and ranke after God, and before all mortall men, giuen, appointed, and chosen by the immortall God; and honoured them, as hauing the crowne set vpon their heads by God himselfe; they prayed daily for their pro∣sperity, they paid tribute vnto them, and proclaimed them rebels against God, that refused to bee subiect to them. After this bad beginning, some two or three other Popes succeeding, attempted in like sort as Hildebrand had done, to depose such Em∣perours as they were offended with. Concerning whose attempts and practises, let the Reader consider the censure of Cardinall Cusanus. His words are these: n 1.1154 Let it suffice the Pope, that he excelleth the Emperor, as much as the Sun doth the Moone, and the soule the body; and let him not challenge that which pertaineth not to him: neither let him affirme, that the Empire is not but by him, and in dependance on him: and if haply the deposing of some kings & Emperours, the translation of the Empire moue him so presumptuously for to thinke, let him know, that if the respect of re∣ligion, and due consideration of humility hindered not, it were easie to answere all those thinges truly & most clearely; and so, that haply these things should no way ar∣gue so great a power in the Pope, as Pope, without the consent or willing acceptati∣on of the parties contending, as is imagined. For there wanted not in ancient times men to defend Henry the fourth crowned at Basil by the Legates of Rome, from the

excommunication of Gregory or Hildebrand. Yea such there were that were Cardinals at that time, and a certaine Councell holden at Rome, nay which more is, the Generall Councell at Basil, holden at that time, did the same things concerning the chusing of Honorius Pope, for which Henry the Emperour was pronounced excommunicate. And in like sort there are found things excellently and strongly written in defence of Fredericke the second, a most valiant man, and a most constant defender of the Faith, as also in defence of other Emperours. How much the Popes proceedings against Frede∣ricke the second, hindered the course of the sacred warre vndertaken at that time against the Infidels, how many things the Pope charged him with, which hee vt∣terly disclaimed, & how much all Christian Princes in the end beganne to dislike the pride of the Romane Court, the o 1.1155 Histories of those times do sufficiently make knowne vnto vs. Wherefore to conclude this point, touching the Popes pretended power of deposing Princes; seeing the first that euer attempted to exercise the same, was that brand of hell Gregory the 7. seeing he had so ill successe in this his proud attempt, and caused such confusions in the Christian world, as the like had seldome or neuer bin be∣fore; & seeing the best learned about those times, & since, condēned the opinion of thē that thinke the Pope may depose Princes, as new & strange, if not hereticall: we may safely resolue, that the Pope taking vpon him to giue and take away kingdomes, which is proper to God, is that Antichrist that sitteth in the temple of God, as if he were God.

CHAP. 47.

Of the Ciuill dominion which the Popes haue by the gift of Princes.

HAuing proued that the Popes neither directly, nor indirectly haue power o∣uer Princes & the Kingdomes of the world, or any thing to do in the mana∣ging and disposing of ciuill affaires, by vertue of any grant from Christ, let vs proceed to see what temporall dominion and ciuill power they haue by the grant of Princes. It is the resolued opinion almost of all men (saith a 1.1156 Cusanus) that Constantine the Emperour gaue the whole Empire of the West to Sylvester Bishop of Rome, and to his successours for euer, so that there can bee no Emperour of the West, but such a one as must wholly depend of the Pope, and acknowledge that hee hol∣deth the Imperiall Crowne of him. Neither were there many found in auncient times, that durst make question of this donation of Constantine, yet doth this great Cardinall & worthy Diuine professe, that hauing sought diligently to find out the ori∣ginal of this supposed grant, & the certainty of it (presupposing that Constantine might make such a grant, which yet will neuer be proued) he greatly wōdereth if euer there were any such thing. For that there is no such thing to be foūd in authenticall bookes, & approued Histories. I haue read ouer (saith he) againe and againe, all the Acts of Popes and Emperours that by any meanes I could meete with, the Histories of Saint Hierome, who was most diligent in collecting all things, the workes of Au∣gustine, Ambrose; and other learned Fathers, and the Acts of Generall Councels which haue beene since the Councell of Nice; and can finde no such thing as this sup∣posed donation, nor any thing that may import, that euer there was any such donatiō, neither can it stand with the course of things reported vnto vs by the auncient Histo∣rians and writers: Damasus at the request of Hierome, wrote the liues & actions of his Predecessors: & yet in the life of Syluester reporteth no such thing. He addeth further, that hauing diligently perused the Charter of this grant, hee found in it most euident arguments of forgery and falshood, and therefore saith, hee thinketh these things concerning Constantines donation to be Apocryphall, as some other large writings attributed to Clemens & Anacletus the Popes. For first, the Epistle of Melchiades tou∣ching the Primitiue Church, & the bounty of Constantine is proued coūterfeit, in that he speaketh of the Councell of Nice, holden after his death, and of Constantines dona∣tion, supposed to haue been granted in the time of Sylvester, who succeeded him. Be∣sides this, in the Charter of donation, Constantine professeth, that he was a Leper,

that hee was freed from the same by Sylvesters meanes, by whom hee was baptized, and that hee was first instructed in Christianity by him. Whereas it is a meere fable that is reported of Constantines leprosie, and it is most certaine that hee was a Christian before Syluester was Bishop of Rome. I no where euer read (saith b 1.1157 Mel∣chior Canus) in any good and approued authors, that Constantine was a Leper; But another of that name surnamed Copronymus, whence haply, through ambiguity of the name, this error might spring, vnlesse this rumor concerning the Leprosie of Constan∣tine may seeme to haue sprung from that we finde reported of him: that he went out of the Citty of Byzantium to certaine hot bathes for his healthes sake. Thomas Aqui∣nas in his c 1.1158 summe mentioneth this vulgar history of Constantines Leprosie, and (as it seemeth) approueth the same; but Caietane doth not so, writing vpon Thomas; neither wanteth hee good authors to induce him to reiect this fabulous report: for hee hath Platina in the life of Marke, d 1.1159 Ludouicus Viues in his booke de corruptis disciplinis, and e 1.1160 Alciat, all flatly denying and reiecting this report: and hee hath all ancient wri∣ters of that age, passing it ouer in silence: who would neuer haue omitted it, if they had knowne of any such thing, and would vndoubtedly haue knowne it, if there had beene any such thing. Touching his Baptisme, all the ancient Historians f 1.1161 Hierome, g 1.1162 Eu∣sebius, h 1.1163 Socrates, i 1.1164 Theodoritus, k 1.1165 Zozomen, l 1.1166 Cassiodorus: Pomponius Laetus, and other of that ranke affirme, that he was baptized by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, a little be∣fore his death, and not by Syluester. The author of the Pontificall, who is full of fables, the fained Charter of Constantines donation, and some late writers, deceiued by these late forgeries, affirme, that he was first conuerted to Christianity by Syluester Bishop of Rome, and by him baptized, which by no meanes can be true: it being most certaine he was a Christian in the time of Melchiades, Syluesters predecessor. It is most cer∣tainely true (sayth m 1.1167 Cusanus) that Constantine the Emperour was a Christian in the time of Melchiades the Pope, as it appeareth by Austine in diuers places, especially in his Epistle to Glorius and Eleusius. These are proofes more then sufficient, that the Edict of donation attributed to Constantine is counterfeit and forged: and therefore n 1.1168 Melchior Canus writeth thus of it. The Lawyers do sufficiently shew, that that forme of donation, which is attributed to Constantine, and commonly carried about, is faigned and counterfeit, in that they brand it with the disgraceful inscription of chaffe. Eusebius, Ruffinus, Theodoret, Socrates, Zozomen, Eutropius, Victor, and the other ap∣proued authors, who most diligently wrote all the acts of Constantine, do not onely passe by this supposed donation, without making any mention of it, but also deliuer, that Constantine by his last will and testament, so deuided the Prouinces, subiect to the Romane Empire, among his three sonnes, that all Italy fell to the lot of one of them: which being so religious a Prince, hee would not haue done, if he had formerly giuen Italy, and all the Westerne part of the Empire to the Pope. o 1.1169 Ammianus Marcelli∣nus reporteth, that Constantine held the Soueraignty of Rome, and appointed Leontius to be his Leiuetenant there, & all Historians do report that sundry Emperours long after the time of Constantines supposed donation, ruled & raigned as soueraigne Lords in Italy: and euen in Rome it selfe, p 1.1170 Pope Agatho writing to Constantine, that cal∣led the sixth Generall Councell, acknowledgeth that Rome is Imperatoris seruilis vrbs, that is, the Emperours cittie in all humble and submissiue subiection: and it is most euident that q 1.1171 in the time of Gregory the first, the Emperour held the citty of Rome, and gouerned it by a Lord Deputy. But some man perhaps will say, that the acts of Syluester in which this donation is found, are approued by Gelasius, and a Sy∣node of Bishoppes, and that therefore wee may not doubt of it. This allegation is easily answered. For (as r 1.1172 Cusanus rightly noteth) it is a very weake and slender confirmation of the actes of Pope Syluester, that is found in Gelasius, and the Synode of Bishoppes holden by him. For Gelasius sayth onely, the author of these actes is not knowne, and that yet they are read by some Catholikes in the Church of Rome, and many Churches by ancient vse imitate the same. The writings also (sayth hee) concerning the inuention of the holy crosse of our Lord, and some other writings concerning the inuention of the head of Saint Iohn Baptist, are truely but nouell and

late reuelations, and yet some Catholiques read them. But when writings of this kinde shall come into the hands of Catholikes, let that sentence of blessed Paul the Apostle be before them t 1.1173 Proue all things, and hold that which is good. Touching Gratian in whom this Charter of Donation is now found: u 1.1174 Antoninus Arch-bishop of Flo∣rence noteth, that in the old bookes it was not found. And therefore it is rightly no∣ted and distinguished from other things of more credit by the inscription of Pale•…•…, that is chaffe, because there is no good corne in it as Platina obserueth in the life of Iohn the seauenth, with whom x 1.1175 Contius, the authour of a Preface before the Decrees, agreeth; affirming that those things that are so noted, were at the first put into the margent onely, and so after crept into the text, and that many of them are not found in the most ancient bookes of Decrees. And in his Annotations vpon that y 1.1176 part of the Decrees, where this fayned charter of Constantine is found, insinuateth, that this Chaffe is not in all bookes of Decrees. Touching Isidore, the z 1.1177 Magdeburgians testifie, that in old copyes there is nothing found concerning this supposed donation, and the like may be thought of Iuo; so that there is no Author of any credit, that giueth te∣stimony to this donation: and they that doe speake of it, speake so differently and vn∣certainely, that from thence a 1.1178 Nauclere gathereth that the whole is but a forged mat∣ter, and meere deuise. For in the b 1.1179 Decrees there is mention of a donation of the city of Rome, of all Italy, and other Prouinces of the West, but in the fained c 1.1180 Epistle of Melchiades, and in the d 1.1181 Decretall of Bonifacius the eigth there is no mention but onely of the citty of Rome: so that though it bee not to be doubted, but that Constan∣tine gaue Princely gifts vnto the Church, and other Emperours and Princes augmen∣ted the same in such sort, that the Church long since had ample possessions, great reue∣nues, and a goodly patrimony in sundry parts of the West: yet I thinke we may most safely affirme with Platina, Otho Frisingensis, Cusanus, Valla, Nauclerus, Canus, and sundry other, that there neuer was any such donation as is imagined, but that both Rome and all Italy, with the Westerne Prouinces remained still subiect to the Empe∣perour, till the time of Pipine the father of Charles the great, being gouerned either by the Emperours themselues, or by such as they appointed when they liued away and made their abode in other places, as in processe of time they resided in a manner altogether at Constantinople, made great by Constantine, and better liked of by his successours then Rome it selfe. Whereupon wee reade of one e 1.1182 Narses the Emperors Lieuetenant, a good man, and a good gouernour, who hauing vanquished the Gothes, ruled the Romanes in great peace and quietnesse for a long time; till mooued with enuie they made complaints of him to the Emperour Iustinus, and Sophia his wife, professing that it were better for them to be vnder the Gothes againe, then to endure the proud and insolent command of this Lieuetenant. Vpon which complaints the Emperour displaced him, and sent one Longinus to succeed him. Which thing so of∣fended Narses, that hee called the Lumbards into Italy, whose comming made the Greeke Emperours in time to lose Rome, and all Italy. Longinus the successour of Narses, after hee was established in his place, (whereas before there were no Garri∣sons in the townes of Italy, but euery citty was gouerned by her owne Magistrates) put garrisons into diuers townes, and brought in a new forme of gouernment into Rome, and into all Italy, which more afflicted it, then all the calamities that it had beene subiect vnto for the space of 160. yeares before, though such and so grieuous, that Rome was sometime left desolate, to bee inhabited by wilde beasts. This man brought in a new name of dignity, to expresse the honourable place and office, of the chiefe commaunder in Italy vnder the Emperour, calling it the Exarchate, and him that so ruled the Exarch. This Exarch remained at Rauenna, and went not at all to Rome: hee appointed no one President ouer a whole Prouince or countrey, but left euery Citty to bee gouerned by her owne Magistrates, whom hee called Dukes, and made none other difference betweene Rome and other citties, but that whereas the Gouernours of other places were called Dukes, the Gouernour of Rome first placed, was called a President, and they that followed him Dukes, whence wee reade of the Romane Dukedome. Neither had the Romanes after the times of Narses and Basilius,

either Consulls or Senate lawfully called together, but all their affaires were mana∣ged by some Grecian Duke, whom the Exarch sent vnto them. This forme of go∣uernment continued till the time of Leo the third, who breaking downe Images in the East parts of the world, and seeking to bring the Pope and Christians of the West to doe the like, procured himselfe so great dislike and ill will among them, (the Pope perswading them to contemne his commaundements in this behalfe as vnlawfull) that they of Rauenna and Venice beganne to rebell against him and his Exarch, and would haue chosen a new Emperour, but that the Pope (in hope that hee would a∣mend) staide them by his perswasions from so doing. f 1.1183 Yet this rebellion proceeded so farre, that the Cities deposed the Magistrates set ouer them by the Exarch, and ap∣pointed new of their owne. The city of Rome slew Marius Spatharius, that was her Duke, and his sonne Adrian, and chose another. They of Rauenna were diuided a∣mong themselues: whereupon the Exarch was slaine, and in the meane while the Lombards brought into Italy by Narses, and now grown to be strong, possessed them∣selues of Bononia, and other places. The Emperour hearing of these innouations in I∣taly, g 1.1184 sent another Exarch, who sought to appease the Lombards with gifts, and to incite certaine Romanes against the Pope to take away his life. So that the Pope was greatly distressed on euery side, fearing both the Emperour and the Lombards. But being encouraged by the people so to doe, hee excommunicated the Exarch, whom the Emperour had sent, and pacified the Lombards, and afterwards wrought a re∣conciliation betweene the Exarch and himselfe: and perswaded him to goe to Rauen∣na, and there to make his abode as other his predecessors had done. After this the Lombard besiegeth Rome againe, and putteth the Pope and the inhabitants in great feare, yet did they not send to the Emperour for helpe, by reason of the great dislikes that were betweene them, as also for that there was little hope of any helpe to come from him, being scarce able to defend the Citie of Constantinople from the Saracens, but to Charles Martell, Father of Pipine, who by intreaty perswaded the Lombard to remoue his siege and goe away. After this againe Aistulphus King of the Lombards besieged Rauenna, & tooke it, and put the Romanes into as great a feare, as euer they had beene in before. Whereupon the Pope writeth to the Emperour, signifying in what state Rome and all Italy was, & that if hee did not presently send aide, they must fall into the hands of Aistulphus. Vpon these letters of the Pope, the Emperour sen∣deth to Aistulphus to perswade him to desist from inuading his countries and terri∣tories, but effecteth nothing. And therefore the Pope consulteth with the Romanes what was fitte to bee done. Who resolue to send to the Emperour, and to let him know, that if hee would not presently come in person with the forces of the Empire to relieue Italy, they must be forced to seeke defence and reliefe else-where. Accor∣ding to this resolution, messengers were presently sent to Constantinople, but not re∣turning in time, the Romans were forced to seeke to Pipine for helpe: who came in person, and restored the Bishoppe of Rome to his place from whence he was fled, for∣ced Aistulphus to sweare and giue pledges to restore all things to him that hee had ta∣ken away: but he was no sooner gone out of the country, but he did more mischiefe then euer, whereof Pipine vnderstanding, gathered a new army and returned into I∣taly, with a full resolution to subdue this Tyrant, & to settle the peace of the Church of Rome. The Emperour hearing that the Romans had sought helpe of Pipine, sen∣deth to him great gifts and presents, and beseecheth him to restore Rauenna and the Exarchate to the Empire, whereunto of right it pertayned, and not to giue them to the Romans or Pope. Whereunto Pipine answered; That he was now the second time come into Italy, not for gaine, but for his soules health, and to represse the insolencies of the Lombards, that they might not hurt the Church, and that therefore hee meant to take Rauenna and the Exarchate, and other parts of Italy out of the Lombards hand, and to giue them to the Pope and Romane Church▪ and so he did. Now the Exar∣chate was diuided into two regions, the one named Pentapolis, containing fiue citties, to wit, Rauenna, Caesena, Classis, Forum Liuii, and Forum Popilii: the other Aemilia wherein were Bononia, Rhegium, Parma, Placentia, and whatsoeuer land there is

from the bounds of those of Placentia and Ticine to Adria, and from Adria to, Ari∣minium. But the state of things was not so setled by Pipine, but that Desiderius, who succeeded Aistulphus in the kingdome of the Lombards, began a fresh to wrong the Church of Rome againe, & therefore in the time of Adrian the Pope, Charles the Great, was intreated to come into Italy; which thing hee willingly yeelded to performe, and came to relieue them whom his father before had set free, and rested not till hee had subdued the Lombards, and restored to the Church of Rome all that which Pipine had giuen, confirming his gift with more ample priuiledges then before, and therefore to shew their thankfulnesse to him, the Romans did him all the honour that possibly they could deuile, and a g 1.1185 Synode was holden in Rome called by Adrian, consisting of an hundred fifty and three Bishops, religious men and Abbots, and Adrian the Pope and the Bishoppes assembled in Councell, with vnanimous consent, yeelded to Charles right and power to choose the Pope, and to order the Apostolique See, they granted vnto him also the dignity of being a Patrician, that is, a noble man of Rome, and besides all this decreed, that Arch-bishops and bishops in all prouinces, should receiue inuesti∣ture from him: and that no man should be consecrated a Bishop, vnlesse hee were first approued and commended by the King, and inuested by him: subjecting all such as should dare to go against this decree, to excommunication and confiscation of goods, if they should not speedily repent, and shew themselues sory for so doing. This pri∣uiledge the French Kings enjoy in a sort vnto this day, especially in certaine Prouinces of France. After this the second time, Charles the Great was occasioned to come to Rome, by reason of some violences offered to Leo Bishop thereof, at what time the Bi∣shop of Rome considering, that the Emperours of Constantinople did hardly hold the title of Emperours, that they were able to yeeld litle reliefe in time of neede, and that they did in a sort forsake the Westerne part of the Empire, and besides all this, differed in some matters of religion: and on the other side, considering that Charles was a most mighty Prince, and one that deserued well of the Church, as Pipine and Martell had done before him, with the consent of the people of Rome, taking from him the title of a Patrician proclaimeth him Emperour.

Thus we see Pipine gaue certaine countries to the Pope and Church, and Charles confirmed the same gift. But they did not so giue them, but that they retained (as h 1.1186 Sigonius noteth,) Ius, principatum, & ditionem, that is, the right soueraignty and royal∣ty to themselues, and their successors, so that the Romanes were to do the Emperor ser∣uice, and pay him tributes, they were by an oath of fealty to oblige themselues vnto him, and i 1.1187 hee by his princely power might appoint Magistrates to judge and rule the people, yet such was the encroching of the Romane Bishops, that they could not endure long to be in this subiection, but sought wholy to cast off the yoake of the Emperors. Whereupon Fredericke Barbarossa (as k 1.1188 Nauclerus reporteth out of l 1.1189 Frisingensis) some differences growing betweene him and the Pope, and Citties of Italy, inquired of the Princes and Lawyers, in what sort and how farre forth the Citties of Italy were subject to the Empire: & they with one consent did al adiudge vnto him all royalties, as coynes, tolles, shippings, confirmation of dignities, of Iudges and Consuls, tributes and judgments anciently established, besides such other things as hee might require when the Empire should stand in neede. But the Pope alleaged at the same time, that the Emperour might send to Embassadors to Rome, without his conniuence, and that they of his Eschequer might make no collection of money, in the Castles, Villages or townes, subiect to the Pope, but onely at that time when first he putteth on the Empe∣riall Crowne in Rome. And Otho Frisingensis addeth, m 1.1190 that these articles were propo∣sed to the Emperour by the Popes Legates, to wit, that no messengers or Embassadours should be sent to the citty without the Popes priuity, seeing all the Magistrates of that towne are the officers of Saint Peter, with all royalties: that no money should be col∣lected out of the Popes Lordships, but only at the time of the Emperours Coronation; that the Bishops of Italy should onely take the oath of fealtie, and do no homage to the Emperour: and lastly that the Emperours Embassadours should not challenge any en∣tertainement in Bishops Pallaces. To these Articles n 1.1191 the Emperour answered in this

sort. I truly desire not the homage of the Bishops of Italy, if they please to renounce those royalties that do belong vnto vs: who, if they willingly heare from the Pope, What hast thou to do with the King? they must be content to heare from the Em∣perour also, What hast thou to do with mundane possessions? That our Embassa∣dours are not to abe receiued and intertained, I will easily graunt, if any Bishop may be found, whose Pallace stands vpon his owne ground, and not vpon ours. But whereas the Pope pretendeth that the Emperour may send no Embassadors to Rome without his priuity, that all Magistrates there are the officers of Saint Peter, this matter, I confesse, is of moment and consequence, and will require a more graue and mature deliberation. For seeing by the prouidence and ordinance of God, I am the Emperor of Rome, and so called. I shall but only carry a shew of a Soueraigne Lord, and haue the empty title without the thing, if the Soueraignty and command of the Citty of Rome be taken from mee. Thus did the good Emperour seeke to maintaine the right of the Empire, yet out of a good and Christian disposition, was willing to referre all diffe∣rences between the Pope and him, to the tryall of law, or of arbitrement. But the Pope would not consent to any such thing. Wherein hee shewed more policy then good disposition, as knowing that hee must needes fall in this suite, if the matter came to tryall. For it is most euident, that o 1.1192 Lotharius appointed Magistrates euen in Rome it selfe, to judge the people; that the Nobles of Rome tooke the oath of fealty to the Emperour Ludouicus father to Lotharius. This oath was taken in the time of Frede∣ricke the first, in Verona; The forme of the oath was this: p 1.1193 I do sweare that frō this time forward, I will be faithfull and true to my Lord Fredericke Emperour of Romanes a∣gainst all men, &c. And that I will neuer go about to take from him his royalties &c. These were the differences betweene Fredericke Barbarossa and the Pope, and the opposition grew so great and strong, that diuerse of the Cardinals conspired against the Emperour, and gaue large summes of money to Adrian the Pope to excom∣municate him. And this conspiracy was confirmed with oathes, that none should draw backe or seeke the Emperours fauour without the rest. And that if the Pope should dye, they should choose none, but one of the conspiring Cardinals to suc∣ceede him, But as Dauid sayd, q 1.1194 They shall curse, but thou shalt blesse: so GOD that spake by the mouth of Dauid, turned all that these conspiratours did to a con∣trary effect. For it came to passe that some few dayes after the Pope had denoun∣ced * 1.1195 excommunication against the Emperour at Anagnia, going forth to refresh himselfe with some fewe accompanying him; hee dranke of the water of a certaine well, and presently a Flye entred into his mouth and stucke so fast in his throat, that by no skill of Physitions it could bee drawne out, till hee had breathed out his last breath. Yet were not the conspirators discouraged by this accident, but after his death, the greater part of Cardinals chose Rowland the Chancelor a professed enemy to the Empire, and one of the conspiratours in contempt of Fredericke and the Ger∣mane Nation, (though there were some other that chose Cardinall Octauian and na∣med him Victor.) This Rowland naming himselfe Alexander the third, after he came to the Popedowe, had many dangerous conflicts with the Emperour, and was often∣times put to the worse by him, in so much that in the end hee was forced to disguise himselfe, and in the habit of a Cooke, to flye to Venice, where hee liued for a cer∣taine space in base condition: till in the end being knowne, hee was honourably en∣tertained, and kindly intreated by the Venetians: which when Fredericke vnderstood of, hee was greatly displeased with them for entertaining his enemy, and sent his Sonne with a great Nauy and strong army, by force and violence to fetch him thence. But such was the ill hap of the yong Prince, that beeing incountred by the Venetians, hee was by them taken prisoner: neither could his deliuerance by any meanes be pro∣cured, vnlesse Fredericke would come in Person to Venice, and seeke to be reconciled to the Pope: This hard condition the Emperour yeelded to for his Sonnes sake; went to Venice in person, and was reconciled to the Pope vppon this condition: that hee should restore to the Pope the citty of Rome, and whatsoeuer belonged to the royalty of it, and that hee should do such pennance as hee should inioyne him: which beeing

yeelded vnto, he came to the doore of Saint Markes Church, and all the people loo∣king on, the Pope commaunded him to prostrate himselfe on the ground, and to aske forgiuenesse, and then treading on his neck said: It is written: s 1.1196 thou shalt goe vpon the Aspe and Basiliske, and thou shalt treade vpon the Lyon and the Dragon: and when Fre∣dericke said vnto him, Non tibi sed Petro cuius successor es, pareo: that is, I doe not thus submit my self to thee but to Peter: the Pope answered, & mihi & Petro: that is, thou shalt doe it both vnto mee and vnto Peter. This storie so liuely describing the inso∣lencie and pride of the Pope, which hitherto hath gone for current, is now by certaine Romanists called in question, (so little doe they regard their owne Historians, and so freely may they cast aside whatsoeuer standeth in their way.) Howsoeuer, we see how mainely the Popes did striue after they had gotten a kind of ciuill dominiō vnder the Emperours, to cast off their yoake wholly, and not content therewith, sought to be Lords also ouer the Emperours, and to make them acknowledge that they holde their Empire from them. How and vpon what occasiō Leo the third, with the con∣sent of the people of Rome, proclaimed & annointed Charles the Great, King of France by inheritance, and of Italy by conquest, and Emperour of Rome, I haue shewed be∣fore. Yet (as t 1.1197 Sabellicus noteth) the opinions of men in the world were greatly alte∣red and changed after this new inauguration, for whereas before the Empire was thought to be frō Heauen, and the gift of God: Now many began to u 1.1198 think it to be the gift of the Pope. Whereupon wee reade that Adrian the fourth vpon the report of some villanies offered to the Bishop of Landa in the parts of Germany, as hee returned frō Rome, and not so pursued, sought out and revenged, as was expected, by Frede∣ricke Barbarossa then Emperour, writeth vnto him, and maruailing at his negligence in revenging wrongs offered to men of the Church, putteth him in mind what benefites * 1.1199 he had receiued frō him and the Church of Rome, as namely the fulnesse of Imperiall dignitie and honour, & the crowne appertaining thereunto, and professeth that hee would haue beene willing to haue conferred greater benefites then these vpon him, knowing right well how much good he might doe vnto the Church. y 1.1200 This Letter being brought to the Emperour by two Cardinals, Bernard & Rowland, offended the Emperour & Princes exceedingly, especially in that it was said in the Letter, that the fulnesse of dignitie and honour was cōferred vpon the Emperour by the Pope, & that hee had receiued the Imperiall crowne of his hand; and that it would not grieue him if he had receiued greater benefites of his hand. They which heard this Letter read, were induced to make a strict construction of the words, and to thinke the Pope vtte∣red them in the sense which they conceiued, because they knew well that certaine Romanists had not feared to affirme, that the Emperours had hitherto possessed the Empire of Rome, and the Kingdome of Italy by the Popes gift, and that they had not onely vttered such words, but that by writing they had affirmed the same, and by painting liuely represented it, that so it might be transmitted & sent ouer to posteri∣ties. For in the Palace of Lateran they had painted the manner of Lotharius the Em∣perour his receiuing the Crowne of the Pope, and written ouer it these words. Rex venit antè fores, iurans prius urbis honores, post homo fit papae sumit quo dante coronam. That is, the King doth come before the gate, first swearing to the cities state: the Popes man then doth hee become, and of his gift doth take the Crowne. This pain∣ting and superscription being reported to the Emperour the yeare before, when hee was neare the citty, by certaine faithfull and trusty subiects of his, greatly displea∣sed him. But the Pope perceiuing his dislike, promised that both the writing and the painting should bee taken away, that it might giue no occasiō of contention & dis∣cord. These Romish practises making the Emperour and his Nobles to vnderstand the wordes of the Popes Letter in the worst sense, caused the message of these Cardinals to bee very offensiue, and a generall murmuring against them was heard among the Princes: which growing more lowde, and being heard and discerned by the Legates, one of them adventured in the quarrell of his Master to demaund of whom the Emperour hath his Empire, if hee haue it not of the Lord Pope? Which speach of the Cardinall so inraged the Princes, that one of them, (to

wit, Otto the County Palatine of Boiaria) had with his sword runne him through, had not Fredericke the Emperor interposed his authority, & pacified the present rage. The Emperor seeing in what termes things stood, tooke the best course he could for the security of the Legates, and commaunded that they should presently bee had to their lodgings, & that the next morning they should be gon, & returne directly to him, that sent them, and not to wander vp & downe in the Territories of Bishops & Abbots; & as he thus happily dispatched them away in safety, so after they were gonne (provi∣dently by letters) he caused it to be made known throughout the whole Empire, what had passed betweene him & the Pope. The Tenor of his letters was this. Whereas the diuine power, from which all power proceedeth both in heauen and earth, hath committed to vs, his annoynted, the rule of the Kingdome and Empire; and ordayned that by Imperiall armes wee should preserue the peace of the Churches, we are for∣ced not without great griefe of heart to complaine vnto you, that from the head of the holy Church (in which Christ imprinted the Character of his peace & loue) the causes of dissention, the seminary of euils, and the poyson of a most pestiferous disease doe seeme to flow: by meanes whereof if God turne not away this euill, there is dan∣ger, least the vnity betwixt the Priest-hood & kingdome be broken, and a schisme fol∣low. For of late, as we were in the Court of Bisuntium, consulting about things con∣cerning the honour of the Empire & good of the Churches, there came vnto vs cer∣tain Legates from the Pope who professed to bring such a message as tended greatly to the increase of the honour of the Empire. But when we had the first day honorably entertained them (as the manner is) and the second day sat with our Princes to heare their message; They (as it were) puffed vp by reason of the Mammō of iniquity, out of the height of their pride, out of the haughtinesse of their arrogant mindes, and out of the execrable elation of their swelling hearts, presented vnto vs an Embassage contai∣ned in letters written by the Pope, the tenor whereof was: That wee should alwayes haue before the eyes of our mind in what sort the Lord Pope had conferred vpon vs, the Ensigne of the Imperiall crowne, and that yet notwithstanding it would no way repent him, if he had done vs greater fauours, and wee had receiued more benefits of him. These thinges not onely much affected, but so moued the Princes, and inraged them in such sort, that if we had not stayed them by our Princely authority, the two wicked Priestes, (the Legates) had neuer returned aliue. Wherefore seeing they had many schedules sealed to be written in at their pleasure, by which (as formerly they were wont to doe) they might scatter the poyson of their iniquity throughout all the Churches of the Germane kingdome; make bare & naked the holy Altars, & carry a∣way with them the vessels of the house of God as a prey; that they might proceede no farther in mischief, we cōmanded them without wandring or going aside to returne the same way they came. For whereas we haue our kingdome by the election of the Princes from God only, who in the passion of his son subiected the world to 2 sword•…•… and the Apostle Peter informed the world with the same doctrine, saying, Feare God * 1.1201 & honour the King. We are well assured, that whosoeuer shall say, that we receiue our Imperiall crowne as a benefit from the Pope, he is contrary to the institution of God, the doctrine of blessed Peter, & is a lyar: and therefore our hope is, that you will not suffer the honor of the Empire (which hath continued from the Constitution of the Citty, and the Institution of Christian Religion, inviolable till our times) to be dimi∣nished by such vnheard-of nouelties & presumptuous pride. But howsoeuer know yee, that we will rather run into perill of death it self, then suffer such a shamefull con∣fusion to fall out in our times. a 1.1202 After the returne of the Cardinals, & their complaints made, the Pope wrote letters to the Arch-bishops and Bishops of Germany, telling them with what indignity the Emperour dismissed his Legates, and how he forbad any to come to Rome out of his kingdome: and prayed them to aduise him better, and to let him know, that the Church (which is builded vpon a most firme & sure rocke) shall continue for euer, howsoeuer it may bee shaken with windes and tempests. b 1.1203 The Bishoppes of Germany hauing receiued these letters from the Pope, writ backe vnto him, that howsoeuer the Church cannot bee moued, yet they were greatly

shaken by reason of these differences betweene him and the Emperour: and tell him that the words of his letter were such as that neither the Emperor and Princes could indure them, nor they knew how to defend them, as being strange and vnheard-of be∣fore these times. Notwithstanding they let him know, that after the receipt of his let∣ters, they communed with the Emperour about these affaires, and receiued from him such an answere as beseemed a Catholique Prince, to wit, that there are two things whereby his Empire must be swayed; the Lawes of Emperors, and the vse and custome of his ancestors. These limits he is resolued not to passe, and whatsoeuer will not stand with these, he will vtterly refuse and reject: he is willing to giue all due reuerence vnto his ghostly father, but that he ascribeth the crown of his Empire to the diuine fauour onely, the first voyce in the election to the Arch-bishop of Mentz, and the rest to the other Princes in order: that hee acknowledgeth to haue receiued the vnction of a King from the Arch-bishop of Coleyn, and the supreme vnction, which is that of an Em∣perour, from the Pope: and that whatsoeuer is besides these, is more then ynough, and proceedeth from that which is euill: that hee had not sent away the Cardinals in contempt, but forbad them to proceede any further with such writings as they had, tending to the dishonour and scandall of the Empire: and that hee had not restrained the going of men into Italy vpon necessary occasions, to be allowed by their Bishops, nor simply inhibited the comming of men from thence, but that his meaning was to meete certaine abuses, whereby the Churches of his Kingdome had beene greeued, impouerished, and oppressed: all discipline of men liuing retyred and in cloysters vt∣terly ouerthrowne. Lastly, that God hauing exalted his Church, by meanes of the Em∣pire, in the head citty of the world, it should not be by any meanes, that the Church in the head citty of the world should ouerthrow the state of the Empire, that the matter began with painting, that it proceeded from painting to writing, that the writing now begins to be vrged as good authority, but that he wil not suffer it, nor indure it so to be, being resolued first to loose his crowne before hee giue any consent to the aba∣sing of the crowne of the Empire in such sort: and therefore requireth the paintings to be raced out, and the writings to be recalled, that such monuments of enmity between the Kingdome & the Priest-hood may not remaine: & hereupon they beseech the Pope by new letters to mollifie that which was too hard, and to sweeten that which was too sowre in the former. c 1.1204 This so wise, iust, and reasonable an answer of the Germaine Bi∣shops, preuailed so farre with the Pope, that he sent other Legates of a milder spirit & better temper to the Emperour, with new letters wherein he sought to qualifie what∣soeuer was offensiue in the former: d 1.1205 for touching that he wrote of the benefit the Em∣perour had receiued of him (which so highly displeased the Emperor, supposing that he meant that hee had receiued the Imperiall crowne, as a meere fauor or good turne from him) hee answered that howsoeuer the word Benefit be taken in another sence sometimes, yet hee vsed it in that signification which it hath by Originall instituti∣on and first imposition. So that the word Benefit being compounded of two simple words, bene and factum, signifieth a good fact, or a thing well done, and in this sence his setting of the crowne vpon the Emperors head might be called a benefit, not as be∣ing a meere fauour or good turne, but for that it was well and honourably done of him to set the Ensigne of Imperiall maiesty and power vpon the head of him, to whom such power pertained, and so were things at that time pacified by the good indeauor of the Cardinals, and by this mild letter of the Pope. But afterwards they brake out againe: Whereupon the Pope wrote in this sort to the Emperor. e 1.1206 Adrian the Bi∣shop, seruant of the seruants of God, to Fredericke the Romane Emperor, greeting and Apostolical blessing. The diuine law, as it promiseth long life to them that honour their parents, so doth it pronounce the sentence of death against them that curse father or mother. For wee are taught by the voyce of truth, that whosoeuer exalteth him∣selfe shall be brought low. Wherefore sonne beloued in the Lord, wee do not a little maruaile, that you seeme not to giue so much reuerence to blessed Peter, and to the ho∣ly Church of Rome as you ought to do. For in your letters written to vs, you put your name before ours; Wherein you incurre the note of insolency, that I say not arrogācy;

What shall I say of the fealty you promised and sware to blessed Peter? how doe you obserue it, when you require of them who are Gods, and the sonnes of the most High, to wit Bishops, the doing of homage vnto you, and exact fealty of them, inclosing their sacred hands in your hands, and manifestly opposing your selfe against vs, shut not onely the doores of the Churches, but the gates of the Cities of your kingdome also, against our Cardinals sent as Legates vnto you from our owne side? Repent, repent therefore we advise thee, of vs thou receiuedst thy consecration, and therefore take heed, lest affecting things denyed vnto thee, thou lose that which is yeelded to thee. To this letter of the Pope, the worthy Emperour answered in this sort. f 1.1207 Fredericke by the grace of God, Emperour of Romans, to Adrian Bishop of the Catholick Church, wishing vnto him a firme adhering and cleauing to all those things which Iesus began to do & speak. The law of Iustice giueth to euery one that which is his own. Neither do wee offend in this behalfe; for we derogate nothing frō our parents, but giue vnto them in this our Imperiall state all due honour, to wit, to those our Noble progenitors, frō whom we receiued the dignity of our kingdome, and our Crowne, and not frō the Pope. Had Sylvester Bishop of Rome any thing pertaining to Royall state and digni∣ty in the time of Constantine? was not liberty restored to the Church, and peace by his meanes? And hath not your Popedome receiued all such royall dignities as it now enjoyeth from Princes? And why then is it so much disliked, that when wee write vnto the Bishop of Rome, by ancient right, and after the old manner, we put our name before his, and according vnto the rule of Iustice, permit him writing vnto vs to doe the like? Turne ouer the Histories and Monuments of Antiquity, and if you haue not yet obserued it, you shall there finde that which we avouch: and why should wee not require homage and the performance of other duties due from subiects to Prin∣ces, of them who are Gods by adoption, and yet thinke it no disparagement to hold things pertaining to our Royall state? especially, seeing hee who was authour and beginner both of your dignity and ours, who neuer receiued any thing of any mortall King, but gaue all good things vnto all, paide tribute vnto Caesar for himselfe and Pe∣ter, and gaue you an example to doe the like; either therefore let them put frō them the things they hold of vs, or if they thinke it behoouefull to retaine and keepe them still, let them yeeld vnto GOD the things that are GODS, and to Caesar the things that are Caesars. The doores of our Churches, and the gates of our Cities are shut against your Cardinals, because wee finde them not to bee Preachers, but men desirous of a prey, not Confirmers of peace, but polling companions to get money, not such as come to repaire the breaches of the world, but greedily and insa∣tiably to gather golde. But whensoeuer wee shall see them such as the Church re∣quireth them to bee, men bringing peace, enlightning their Country, assisting the cause of those of meane degree in equity and right; they shall want nothing that is necessary for them. To conclude; When you thus contend about things little pertaining to Religion, and striue with secular persons about titles of honour, you seeme to haue forgotten that humilitie which is the keeper of all vertues, and that meeknesse that should bee in you. Let your Father-hood therefore take heede, lest while you moue questions about things vnworthy to be stood vpon, you scan∣dalize them who with attentiue eare listen to the wordes of your mouth, & wait for your speaches as for the latter raine. Wee are forced thus to write vnto you, be∣cause wee see the detestable Beast of pride hath crept vp euen to the seate of Peter. Prouide alwayes well for the peace of the Church, and fare you alwayes well. Thus wee see how the popes not contenting themselues with the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, though they had no just title vnto it, proceeded yet further; & partly by the fauour of Christian princes, and partly by fraud and violence, got to be great prin∣ces in the world, & stayed not till they made challēge to be ouer the mightiest Empe∣rors, & to dispose of their crowns & dignities. So shewing thēselues to haue the per∣fect marke and character of him of whom the Apostle speaketh; q 1.1208 Who sitteth in the temple of God as God, and is lifted vp aboue all that is called God. Yet could they not so prevaile in these their hellish practises, nor so carry away the truth of GOD,

and the liberty of his Church into captiuity, but that there were euer found both Christian Emperours, and learned Diuines to resist them in their vniust claimes.

CHAP. 48.

Of generall Councels, and of the end, vse, and necessity of them.

HAuing examined what may be said for proofe of the Vniuersality of the Bi∣shop of Romes power and iurisdiction, first we finde that the Sonne of GOD gaue him no power in the common-wealth, but a Father-hood onely in the Church. Secondly, that in the Church, hee neither gaue him an illimited power of commaunding, nor infallible iudgement in discerning, but that the greatest thing that either hee canne challenge or wee yeeld vnto him, is to be the prime Bishop in order and honour; the first and not of himselfe alone, or out of the fulnesse of his owne power, but with the joynt concurrence of others equall in commission with him, to manage the great affaires of Almighty God, and to gouerne the Christian Church: so that the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and iurisdiction is in the compa∣nies, assemblies, and Synodes of Bishoppes and Pastors, and not in any one man alone. I shewed a 1.1209 before, that in the churches founded and established by the Apostles, con∣tayning whole Citties and places adjoyning, though there were many ministers of the word and sacraments, yet one was so the Pastour of each of these Churches, that the rest were but his assistants, and might doe nothing without him: and that there∣fore there was an inequality established euen from the beginning, not of order onely, but of degree also, betweene such as are Pastours of Churches, & are named Bishops, and such as are but their assistants named by the common name of Presbyters, yet is the power of him that excelleth the rest in degree in each Church b 1.1210 fatherly not Princely: for things were so ordered in the beginning, that as the Presbyters could do nothing without the Bishoppe, so the Bishop in matters of moment might doe no∣thing without his Presbyters: and thereupon the Councell of Carthage decreeth, c 1.1211 that the Bishoppe shall not presume to heare and sententiate any mans cause without the presence of his Clergie. And though it bee said that the Bishop alone may heare and determine the causes of such Cleargy men as are below the degree of Presbyters & Deacons; yet that alone excludeth not his Cleargy; but the concurrence of other Bishops, which in the causes of Presbyters & Deacons is necessarily required. For without the presence and concurrence of his Cleargy, the Bishop may proceede to no sentence at all. If any difference grew betweene the Bishop and his Cleargy, or if [consenting] any one found himselfe grieued with their proceedings, there was a prouinciall Synode holdentwise euery yeare, in which the acts of Episcopall Synodes might be re-ëxamined. These prouinciall Synodes were subordinate to Nationall & Patriarchicall Synodes, wherein the Primate of a Nation or Kingdome, or one of the Patriarches sat, as President. And in these Nationall or Patriarchicall Synodes the acts of prouinciall Synodes might bee re-ëxamined and reuersed. Of all which I haue spoken before, in due place and vpon fit occasion, & haue d 1.1212 shewed at large of whom these Synodes doe consist. So that it is euident, that the power of Ecclesiasticall iu∣risdiction resteth not in Bishoppes alone, but in Presbyters also, beeing admitted to Prouinciall and Nationall Synodes, and hauing decisiue voyces in them as well as Bi∣shops, nor in any one Metropolitane, Primate or Patriarch, within their seuerall pre∣cincts and diuisions, but in these and their fellow Bishops joyntly, and that much lesse there is any one in whom the fulnesse of all Ecclesiasticall power, and the right to command the whole Church doth rest. So that this fulnesse of power, is found on∣ly in the generall assembly of Pastors, called a generall Councell. Wherefore now it remaineth that wee speake of Generall Councels. Wherein, first wee are to consider the vtility and necessity of such Synodall assemblies and meetings. Secondly, of whom they must consist. Thirdly, what assurance they haue of diuine assistance & direction: and, Fourthly, who must call them.

Toucing the first, the causes why generall Councels are called, are three. The first is, the suppressing of new heresies, formerly not condemned. The second, a generall & vniforme reformation of abuses crept into the Church. The third, the taking away of Schismes growing in Patriarchicall Churches, about the election of their Pastors, & the reiecting of intruders, violently and disorderly possessing themselues of those Patriarchicall Thrones. And so wee finde, that the Councell of Nice was called by Constantine, for the suppressing of the damnable heresie of the Arrians: the eight ge∣nerall Councell, by Basilius, for the ending of the difference that was growne in the Church of Constantinople about Ignatius and Photius, contending for the Episcopall chaire: and that all Generall Councels, intended and sought the reformation of abu∣ses, there being scarce any one wherein Canons were not made, for the reformation of disorders; in so much that the Fathers of the sixth Generall Councell, hauing only condemned the Heresie of the Monothelites, and made no Canons, met afterwards a∣gaine many of them, and made those Canons that are now extant, and are the chiefe directiō of the Greeke Church vnto this day. These being the causes for which Coun∣cels are called, it is euident that the holding of them is not absolutely and simply ne∣cessary, but in a sort onely. For Heresies may bee suppressed by the concurrence of Prouinciall Synodes, holden in the seuerall parts of the world; as they were in the first 300. yeares, when there were no Generall Councells: But one part of the Christian Church seeking the helpe of another, in common dangers, and one part readily con∣curring with another (as for the extinguishing of a dangerous fire threatning all, or the repressing & repelling of a common enemy) by mutuall intelligence passing from one to another; they abandoned Heresies newly springing vp, and preserued the vni∣ty of the common faith. Neither was this course holden onely in the time of perse∣cution, during the first 300. yeares, but afterwards also, in the time of the Churches peace, wee finde the same course to haue beene followed, in the suppressing of the Pe∣lagians; and therefore e 1.1213 Austine affirmeth, that there were but some few heresies of that nature, that a Generall Councell of all the Bishops of the East and West, was ne∣cessarily to bee called for the suppressing of them. And indeede wee finde, that, if some fiue or sixe heresies haue beene condemned by the censure of Generall Coun∣cells, an 100. haue beene suppressed and extinguished by other meanes. And of those, for the condemning whereof Generall Councells were holden, some were not extin∣guished a long time after. For that of the Arrians grew stronger after, then euer it was before, and those of Nestorius and Eutyches, continued some hundreds of yeares after the ending of those Councels, in which they receiued the sentence of condemna∣tion. How is it then that f 1.1214 Isidore saith, the Church before Constantines time was diuided & rent into diuers Factions and Sects, because there was no Generall Coun∣cell? as if there were no other meanes to preserue Vnity, but Generall Councels, and that wheresoeuer they may be had, Peace were presently established. For the clearing hereof we say, that such new opinions, as growing vp in those times, found a concur∣ring dislike in the seuerall Churches, seeking one to another, were then suppressed, when yet there could bee no Generall Councels, as the heresies of the Marcionites, Valentinians and the like. But they, wherein there grew difference among the chiefe Pastours and Bishoppes of the Churches, could not be determined in those times, as the errours of the Millenaries, of those that kept Easter after the Iewish obseruation, and of those that held the necessity of re-baptizing of such as were baptized by here∣tickes: in which point many worthy pastours & Bishops of the Church did erre, in the first ages of the Church, neither could their errour bee extinguished, as Austine noteth: nor the trueth so cleared, as that all dissenters should incurre the note of here∣sie, till the decree of a Councell passed about it. g 1.1215 Quaestionis huius obscuritas; (saith Austine) Prioribus Ecclesiae temporibus ante schisma Donati, magnos viros & magna charitate praeditos, Patres & Episcopos, ita inter se compulit, salua pace, disceptare & fluctuare, vt diu Conciliorum in suis quibus{que} regionibus diuersa statuta nutauerint, donec Plenario totius orbis Concilio, quod saluberrime sentiebatur, etiam remotis dubitationi∣bus formaretur▪ that is, The obscurity of this question, in former ages of the Church

before the schisme of Donatus, did cause great men, and Fathers, and Bishops, indued with great charity, so to striue among themselues, and to wauer as doubtfull & vncer∣taine, without breaking the bond of Peace, that for a long time the Decrees of Coun∣cels in seuerall Regions, were diuerse and different, without any settled certainty, till that which was most wholesomely conceiued, was fully formed, settled, and establi∣shed by a plenary Councell of the Bishops of the whole world, and no place left for doubting and vncertainty any longer. Thus wee see that some heresies may easily be suppressed without troubling all the Bishops of the world to meet in a Generall Coun∣cell, and that some others cannot easily bee suppressed without Generall Councels: & as heresies may be suppressed by the mutuall concurrence of seueral churches; so by the like correspondence, the seuerity of discipline may be vpholdē vniformely, & schismes prevented. When Cornelius was elected and ordained Bishop of Rome, at the first, * 1.1216 because there was some oppositiō, Cyprian & others were feareful to write vnto him as to the Bishop of Rome, but afterwardbeing fully informed, touching the lawfulnesse of his electiō and ordinatiō, they reiected his Competitours, and communicated with him onely: & the like we shall find to haue bin practised generally by all Bishops, carefully seeking to be certified out of other Provinces and parts of the Church, by such Bishops as were knowne to be Catholikes, who came lawfully into places of Mi∣nistery, & being so come, held the vnity of Faith and Charity, that so they might holde Cōmunion with them, and reject those that entered otherwise. Whereupon i 1.1217 Cyprian telleth Cornelius Bishop of Rome, to whō in Africa he might write as to Catholick Bi∣shops, & from whō he might receiue letters, as from Catholickes. Notwithstanding Generall Councels are the best meanes for preseruing of vnity of doctrine, seuerity of discipline, & preventing of schismes when they may be had: & though they be not ab∣solutely necessary to the being of the Church, yet are they most behoouefull for the best, readiest, & most gracious governing of the same: & how-soeuer there may bee a kind of exercise of the supreme jurisdictiō that is in the Church by the concurrence of particular Synodes, & the correspondence of seueral Pastors, vpon mutuall intelligence of the sence, judgment, & resolutiō of euery of them; yet the highest & most excel∣lent exercise of the supreme Ecclesiasticall jurisdictiō, is in Generall Councels. Heere the Papists are wont to argue, that the Protestants hauing no Generall Councels, haue not the exercise of the supreme Ecclesiasticall jurisdictiō: & consequently that they are not that Church, out of which no saluatiō is found: but this is a very silly trifling and playing with their owne shadowes; neither is it any thing else buta meere abu∣sing of themselues & others, thus idlely & fondly to jangle. For first the Protestants being but a part of the Christian Church, neuer challenged to themselues the authority that belongeth to the whole, as the Papists doe, who excluding all the Christians of Graecia, Armenia, Russia, & Aethiopia, out of the fellowship & cōmunion of Saints, and (as much as in them lieth) casting them into hell; suppose a Generall meeting of those of their own factiō, to bee a Generall Councell. And secondly, if the Protestants did think themselues to be the whole Church; yet their argument were of no force, seeing the whole Church may be without the benefite of Generall Councels, much longer then the Protestants haue beene, since the divisiō between them & the Papists: for the Christians of the primitiue church had no general councell for the space of 300 yeares after Christ. But to returne to the point frō which we are a little digressed (occasioned so to doe by this frivolous objectiō of the Papists) touching the good and profitable vse of Generall councels, there is no difference between vs & our Adversaries, but it is agreed on both sides, that though they be not absolutely necessary, yet they are very behoofefull, & much to be desired in diverse cases: neither euer was there any man of judgement that thought otherwise. For, that which k 1.1218 Nazianzen hath, that hee neuer saw good end of any councell, is not to bee vnderstood as spoken generally and abso∣lutely, but respectiuely to the turbulent times wherein he liued, and the Arrian faction so prevailed, that many Synodes were holden for the ouerthrow of the Nicene faith, without all respect to the good of the Church.

CHAP. 49.

Of the persons that may be present in Generall Councels: and who they are of whom gene∣rall Councels do consist.

HAuing spoken of the necessity, profit and vse of Generall Councels, it remai∣neth that wee proceede to see, who they are, that may bee present in such Councels, and of whom they do consist. The persons that may be present, are of diuerse sorts. For, some are there with authority to teach, define, prescribe and to direct: others are there to heare, set forward and consent vnto, that which is there to be done. In the former sort, none but only Ministers of the word, and sacraments are present in Councels, and they onely haue deciding and defining voyces; but in the latter sort, * Lay-men also may be present: whereupon we shall find, that Bishops and Presbyters subscribe in this sort: Ego N. definiens, subscrips•…•…, that is, I, as hauing power to define and decree, haue subscribed. But the Emperour or any o∣ther * 1.1219 Lay-person, Ego N. consentiens, subscripsi: that is, I, as one giuing consent to that which is agreed on by the spirituall Pastors, haue subscribed. That the Emperor and other Lay-men of place and sort may be present in Generall Councels, no man ma∣keth doubt. For though Pope a 1.1220 Nicholas seeme to deny, that the Emperours may be presēt in other Councels, where matters of faith are not handled; yet he cōfesseth, they may be presēt in general Conncels where the faith, which is cōmon to all, & pertaineth not to Clergy-men alone, but to Lay-men and all Christians generally, is treated of, it being a rule in nature & reason, b 1.1221 Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari debere: that is, that that which concerneth all, may be handled and medled with by all, so farre forth as conueniently it may, and as there is no manifest reason, in respect of the disturbance and hinderance of the deliberation, to repell them from such intermedling: for, in such cases there may bee a repelling of men hauing interest in such businesses and affaires: and therefore c 1.1222 Pulcheria the Empresse, Commanded the Captaine of Bythi∣nia, with violence to driue out of the Councell of Chalcedon, such Monkes, Clerkes, and Lay-men, as being of no vse, did but pester the Councell, and to leaue none there but such as the Bishops brought with them.

But our d 1.1223 aduersaries say, the Protestants affirme that Lay-men ought not only to be present in generall Councels, but also to haue decisiue yoyces, as well as they of the Cleargy, and thereupon charge vs with great absurdity. Wherefore, for the answe∣ring of this obiection, wee must obserue, that there is a threefold decision of things doubtfull and questionable. The one such as euery one vpon the knowledge of it must yeeld vnto vpon perill of damnation, vpon the bare word of him that decideth. The second, to which euery one must yeeld vpon like perill, not vpon the bare word of him that decideth, but vpon the euidence of proofe he bringeth. The third, such as euery one must yeeld vnto, not vpon perill of damnation, but of excommunication, and the like censure Ecclesiasticall. In the first sort the Protestants say, that onely Christ the sonne of God hath a decisiue voyce: In the second sort, that any Lay-men as well as Clergy-men: for whosoeuer it is that bringeth conuincing proofes, decideth a doubt in such sort, as that no man ought to resist against it. Whereupon e 1.1224 Panormitan sayth, that the iudgment of one priuate man is to be preferred before the sentence of the Pope, if hee haue better authorities of the Old and New Testament, to confirme his iudgment. And f 1.1225 Gerson saith, that any learned man may and ought to resist a∣gainst a whole Councell, if hee discerne it to erre of malice or ignorance; and what∣soeuer Bishops determine, their determinations binde not the conscience further then they approue that they propose, some other way then by their authoritie onely. Soe that in this sence, the Protestants truely say, that Bishoppes must not proceede Praetor-like, but that all that they doe, must bee but in the nature of an inqui∣ry, and their Decrees no farther of force, then reason doth warrant them. For, how∣soeuer the Son of God hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world, which shall bee fulfilled in respect of his elect and chosen who cannot erre damnably

and finally, yet hath he not tyed himselfe to any one sort or company of men, neither is it certainely knowne, but that all they that meete in a Councell, may erre notwith∣standing Christes promise. To which purpose it is, that Brentius, and other say, We cannot be certaine of the determination of Councells, because euery company of men professing CHRIST, is not the true Church, seeing all that so professe, are not E∣lect; neither doe they deny all authority and iurisdiction to such as are not knowne to be Elect, nor giue it all to such as no man canne knowe who they be (as g 1.1226 Bellarmine vntruly saith they doe,) for in the third sort they willingly acknowledge, that Bi∣shops haue deciding voyces, & power so to iudge of things, as to subiect all those that shall thinke and teach otherwise then they doe, to excommunication and censures of like nature. And that therefore they are properly Iudges; that their course of procee∣ding is not a bare Inquiry and search, but a binding determination, and that they haue a Pretorlike power, to binde men to stand to that they propose & decree: and in this sort, we all teach, that Lay-men haue no voyce decisiue, but Bishops & Pastors onely, which may be confirmed by many reasons. First, because, when the question is, in what pastures it is fitte the sheepe of CHRIST should feede, & in what pastures they may feede without danger, the duty of consulting is principally, and the power of prescribing, wholy, in the Pastours, though the sheepe of CHRIST being rea∣sonable, haue and must haue a kinde of discerning, whether they bee directed into wholesome & pleasant pastures or not. Secondly, none but they, whom Paul saith, h 1.1227 CHRIST going vp into heauen; gaue for the gathering together of the Saintes for the worke of the Ministery, haue authority to teach, and to prescribe vnto others, what they shall professe & beleeue: of whom the LORD said by Ieremy the Prophet: i 1.1228 I will giue you Pastors that shall feede you with knowledge and doctrine. Thirdly, because in all Councels, Bishops & Pastors onely, are found to haue subscribed to the decrees made in them, as defining & decreeing; howsoeuer other men testified their consent by subscription, and Princes and Emperours, by their royall authority, confirmed the same, and subiected the contemners and violaters thereof to imprisonment, banish∣ment, confiscation of goods, and the like ciuill punishments, as the Bishops did to ex∣communication, and censures Spirituall.

So that it is agreed on, that Bishoppes and Ministers onely, haue decisiue voyces in Councels, in sort before expressed, but, the question is onely whether all Ministers of the Word and Sacraments haue such decisiue voyces, or none but Bishops. The Papists thinke, that this is the peculiar right of Bishoppes; but they are clearely refu∣ted by the Vniuersall practise of the whole Church, from the beginning. For, in all Prouinciall and Nationall Synodes, Presbyters did euer giue voyce and subscribe in the very same sort that Bishoppes did, whether they were assembled, to make Ca∣nons of discipline, to heare causes, or to define doubtfull points of doctrine, as I haue k 1.1229 before shewed at large: and that they did not anciently sitte, and giue decisiue voy∣ces in Generall Councels, the reason was; not, because they haue no interest in such deliberations and resolutions, but, because seeing all cannot meete in Councels, that haue interest in such businesses, but some must be deputed for, and authorized by the rest, therefore it was thought fitte that Bishoppes, who are the chiefest among such as haue interest in deliberation of this nature, should in giuing decisiue voyces, supply the places of the rest, especially seeing the manner was euer in all the first Councells, that the chiefe Patriarches, being acquainted with the matter, that should be debated, sent to all the Metropolitanes subiect to them, who calling Prouinciall Synodes, con∣sisting of their Bishoppes and Presbyters, discussed such doubtes, and then by com∣mon consent, choosing out certaine principall Bishoppes, to goe to the Generall Councell in their name, sent by thē their resolutions. So, that in effect, Presbyters did subscribe as well as Bishoppes: seeing they that went and subscribed, were not to va∣ry from the instructions they carried with them. That this was the course, it is eui∣dent by that of l 1.1230 Iohn Bishoppe of Antioch in the third Generall Councell, excu∣sing his long tarrying, by reason that his Metropolitanes could not sooner as∣semble their Cleargy to consult: and by the Actes of the sixth Generall Councell

m 1.1231 where we find the suggestion of Agatho Bishop of Rome, sent to the Councell, sub∣scribed by himselfe and the whole Synode of the West, subiect to the See Apostolick: in which Synode sundry Bishops doe subscribe as Legates sent from Nationall Sy∣nodes. But if wee shall come to latter Councels, holden in the West, and estee∣med (by the Papists) to bee Generall, wee shall finde that Presbyters did giue voy∣ces decisiue in them, as well as Bishoppes. For n 1.1232 in the great Councell of Lateran (as they call it) vnder Innocentius the third, there were but foure hundred eighty two Bishops, but of Abbots and Priours Conventuall eight hundred: who yet haue much lesse to doe in the government of the Church, then Presbyters hauing care of soules. And o 1.1233 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, that by priviledge and custome, Presbyters, as namely Cardinals, Abbots; and the Generals of the Orders of Fryars, may giue decisiue voyces in Generall Councels; which they could not doe, if by Gods Law it pertayned to Bishoppes onely. For there is no prescribing against the Law of GOD; and therefore I cannot see why the Romanists should so bitterly p 1.1234 cen∣sure the councell of Basil, because Presbyters were admitted to giue voyces in it. Hauing cleared who they are that are to bee admitted to bee present, and to giue voyces in Generall councels, let vs proceede to see what number of Bishoppes is re∣quired to make a Generall councell, and what order must be kept in the holding of it. Touching the first, the Diuines require three conditions to make a Generall councell, whereof the first is, that the summons bee Generall, and such as may bee knowne to all the principall parts and provinces of the Christian World. The se∣cond, that no Bishop whence-soeuer hee come, bee excluded, if hee bee knowne to bee a Bishoppe, and not excommunicate. The third, that the principall Patri∣arches bee present with the concurrence of the particular Synodes vnder them, ei∣ther in person, or by their substitutes and Vicars, or at least by their provinciall Let∣ters, as the Patriarch of Rome was present in the second Generall councell, (though hee were not there in person nor by substitutes.) And heereupon the q 1.1235 second coun∣cell of Nice taketh exception to a certaine Synode holden in Constantinople as not Generall, because neither all that were present did consent, neither was there a con∣currence in it of the Bishoppe of Rome and his Bishoppes; either by his Vicars, or provinciall letters; nor of the Patriarches of the East, to wit of Alexandria, Anti∣och, and Ierusalem, and the Bishoppes subiect to them; and therefore pronounceth, that the wordes of those foolish men, assuming to them the name of a Generall coun∣cell, were not a candle sette on a candlesticke, to giue light to all in the house, but a meere smoake full of darkenesse, blinding the eyes of men, and were vttered as it were vnder the bedde, and not vpon the mountaine of right beleefe, and that their sound did not goe forth into all the earth, nor their wordes to the vttermost endes of the World, as the sound, voyce, and wordes of the former sixe Generall councels did. But that wee may the better discerne how farre forth the presence of the chiefe Pa∣triarches is necessary in Generall councels, and that wee bee not deceiued in this point, wee must obserue, that when wee speake of patriarches, either wee vnderstand them, and their Synodes, or themselues singly and apart: If wee speake of them in the former sense, no Synode can bee accounted fully and perfectly Generall, to which the presence of any one of the chiefe patriarches is wanting: and therefore the first councell of Ephesus was an imperfect Generall councell, when before the comming of Iohn of Antioch, and his Bishoppes, it proceeded to the condemnation of Nestori∣us. And wee see how great turmoyle and confusion that hath caused, which could neuer bee quieted and taken away, till Cyrill president of that councell, and Iohn were reconciled, and the Actes of the councell confirmed by the joint consent of them both: and hence r 1.1236 Cusanus saith it is, that the eighth Generall councell, when the Vicar of the Apostolicall Throne of Alexandria came, rejoyced greatly, and saide, wee glorifie the GOD of all, who hath supplyed vnto this vniuersall Synode what was wanting, and hath now made it most full and perfect. But if wee speake of them in the second sense, that is, singly and by themselues alone, in case of heresie or wilfull refusall, the councell may proceede without them, and yet want nothing that pertai∣neth

to the perfection of a generall Councell, as did the Councell of Ephesus, and the Councell of Chalcedon, proceeding to the condemnation of Nestorius and Dioscorus, vpon such euidence as they had against them, though they refused to present them∣selues in those Synodes: so that the concurrence of the Bishops subject to them be not wanting, as in the case of Nestorius and Dioscorus it was not. For the Bishops sub∣ject to Nestorius subscribed to his condemnation, and the Bishops of Alexandria gaue their consent to the condemnation of Dioscorus their Patriarch, and approued the pro∣ceedings of the synode against him, though they s 1.1237 refused to subscribe to the actes and decrees of it, till they had a new Patriarch chosen in his place. Which refusall though it were ill taken at the first, yet were the fathers in the end perswaded, by the mediation of the Iudges, to forbeare their subscription, till they might haue time to choose a new Patriarch; so that it is not the personal presence, or cōcurrēce precisely of those chiefe Bishops or Patriarches, to whom all other Bishops are subject, that is re∣quired to the fulnesse and perfection of a General Councell, but the comming of some from the seuerall Synodes subject to the Patriarches, or from the Patriarchicall sy∣node, where some out of all these doe meete, or at the least the sending of Synodall letters, that so the consent of all may be had: The Prouinces that are neare the place where the Synode is holden, sending the greater number, and they that are most re∣mote, sending some few, with instructions from the rest, or at the least their Synodall letters, expressing their opinion, judgment, & resolution. t 1.1238 So in the Councell of Nice, there were many B^s out of the East, but out of the West only two Presbyters out of Ita∣ly, one Bishop out of Spaine, one Bishop out of France, & one out of Africa. But u 1.1239 in the second and third Councels, there were many out of the East, and none out of the West. But the Bishops of Rome, x 1.1240 Damasus and Caelestinus, as Patriarches of the West, confirmed those Councels, and gaue consent vnto them in their owne names, and in the names of all the Bishoppes of the West, whome they had gathered toge∣ther in Synodes. In the Councell of Chalcedon, there were none present out of the West, but the Legates of Leo, but he sent by them the consent of the Bishops of Spaine, France, Italy, and other parts of the West: who hauing holden Synodes in their seue∣rall Prouinces, wrote vnto him, that they approued his judgment, touching the point in controuersie, which was to be debated in the generall Councell; and that they would most willingly concurre with him in the forme of instruction, which he meant to send to the Councell.

Touching the order that must be kept in generall Councels. y 1.1241 First the Booke of God must be layd in the middest of them that are present. Secondly, the meeting must be openly and not in secret. Thirdly, it must bee free, and euery man must bee permitted boldly to speake what hee thinketh. Whereupon Pope Nicholas, when some obiected to him the number of Bishoppes that mette in the Councell of Photius, answered, that the great concurse of Bishops in the Councels of Nice and Chalcedon, was not so much respected as their free and religious vttering of their iudgments and resolutions; and Agatho writing to Constantine the Emperour touching the Bishops that were to meete in the sixt generall Councell, hath these words: Grant free power of speaking, to euery one that desireth to speake for the faith which he beleeues and holdes, that all men may most clearely see and know, that no man, desirous and willing to speake for the trueth, was fobidden, hindred, or reiected, by any terrors, force, threatning, or any other thing that might auert and turne him away from so doing. And as there must bee a li∣berty and freedome of speech, in Generall Councels, soe there must be a desire of fin∣ding out the trueth, and an intending and seeking of the common good, that priuate respects, purposes and designes be not set forward vnder pretence of religion; and therefore Leo the first, writing to the Emperour, of the error of the second Ephe∣sine Counsell, hath these words. While priuate intendments, and designes were set * 1.1242 forward, vnder pretence of religion, that was effected by the impiety of a few, that wounded the whole vniuersall Church; wee finde by certaine report, that a great number of Bishops, came together vnto the Synode: who being come together in such great multitudes, might very profitably haue beene employed in deliberating and

discerning what was fit to be resolued, if hee who challenged vnto himselfe the chiefe place, would haue obserued such Priestly moderation, as that (according to the man∣ner and custome of such meetings, all men hauing freely vttered their opinions) that might peaceably and rightly haue beene decreed, that might both agree with faith, and bring them into the right way that were in error. But here wee finde, that when the Decree was to bee passed, all they who were come together, were not permitted to bee present: for wee haue beene informed, that some were rejected and others brought in, who, at the pleasure of the foresayd Bishoppe, were brought to yeeld captiue hands to those impious subscriptions: for that they knew that it would bee preiudiciall to their state, vnlesse they did such things as were inioyned them. Which kinde of proceedings, our substitutes sent from the Apostolicall See, discer∣ned to be so impious, and contrary to the Catholique faith, that by no violent meanes they could bee inforced to consent thereunto, but constantly protested, and professed, (as beseemed them) that that which was there agreed on and decreed, should neuer bee admitted or receiued by the Apostolicall See. And a little after hee hath these words. All the Bishops of those parts of the Church, that are subiect vnto vs, as suppliants in most humble manner, with sighes and teares, beseech your most grati∣ous Maiesty, that, seeing both those Substitutes which wee sent, did most constant∣ly resist against such impious and bad proceedings, and Flauianus the Bishop offered a bill of appeale vnto them, you would bee pleased to command a generall Councell to be holden in Italy. a 1.1243 Thus wee see what things are essentially required to the be∣ing of a Councell, and what order is to be obserued in it. The next thing that fol∣loweth in order to bee intreated of, is the Presidentship of such and soe sacred an as∣sembly.

CHAP. 50.

Of the President of Generall Councels.

TOuching the Presidentship of Generall Councels, it pertained in a sort, to all the Patriarches, and therefore Photius in his discourse of the seauen Synodes, in diuers of them, nameth all the Patriarches, and their Vice-gerents, Presi∣dents: as hauing an honourable preheminence, aboue and before other Bishops in such assemblies; yet wee deny not, but that as these were ouer all other Bishops, so, euen amongst these also there was an order; so that one of them had a preheminence aboue and before another. For the Bishop of Alexandria, was before the Bishop of Antioch, and the Bishop of Rome before him, anciently, euen before the time of the Ni∣cene Councell; and afterwards the Bishop of Constantinople, made a Patriarch, was set before the other two, next vnto the Bishop of Rome. And as these were thus one before another in order and honour, so they had preheminence of honour in Synodall as∣semblies, accordingly, in sitting, speaking, and subscribing, though this were not al∣wayes precisely obserued. For a 1.1244 in the Councell of Nice, there being two rankes of seates; the one in the one side of the hall, & the other in the other, where the Councell mette, the Emperour sitting in the middest, in the vpper part of the hall, Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, sate in the highest seate in that rancke that was on the right hand, and made the Oration to the Emperour; but in subscribing, many were before him. And Hosius the Bishop of Corduba in Spaine, a man of great fame was chiefe president, composed the forme of faith there agreed on, and subscribed it first, and then in the second place the Presbyters, that were the Vicegerents of the Bishop of Rome, who in respect of his old age could not be present, subscribed to the same forme of faith, and after them Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria. That Hosius was President of the Councell of Nice: and of many other Councels besides, we haue the testimony of b 1.1245 Athanasius. The reason why he being a Bishop of so meane a place, should bee so honoured and set before all other, was the good opinion that all men held of him be∣ing a man famous and renowned throughout the world, c 1.1246 which moued Constantine

after he heard of the differences in the Church of Alexandria, betweene Alexander and Arrius, to send him thither before euer he thought of calling this Councell, ho∣ping that by his wisedome and authority he might quiet all. But our Adversaries, lest any prejudice might grow to the Church of Rome by this ill president of the councell of Nice, in admitting so meane a Bishop to be her president, & neglecting the Bishop of Rome, adventure to say, that Hosius was not president in his owne right, but as the Bi∣shop of Romes Vice-gerent, and supplying his place, though they bee no way able to proue the same, and the cleare euidence of the thing it selfe reproue them. For the d 1.1247 Histories speake of Presbyters the Bishop of Rome sent to supply his place, but men∣tion not Hosius as imployed in that sort: which they would not haue omitted, if hee had beene imployed so also; and besides in the subscriptions, both as they are found in the ordinary Edition of the councell of Nice, and that which is out of the Greek book found in the Vatican, put forth by Pisanus the Iesuite, Hosius subscribeth first without any signification of his supplying the place of the Bishop of Rome, as Legates are euer wont to doe, and as Vitus and Vincentius his Legates do in this Councell: for the forme of their subscription is this, We haue subscribed for, and in the name of the most re∣verend man, &c. So that that which e 1.1248 Bellarmine alledgeth out of a certain preface be∣fore the councell of Sardica, the Author whereof is not knowne, is little to bee estee∣med, as no way able to weaken the authorities and reasons which wee bring. Tou∣ching the second Generall Councell, the Councell of f 1.1249 Chalcedon expressely affir meth, that Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople was president of it, and, if wee looke to the subscriptions, wee shall finde that hee subscribed first, and before all other. So that it is evident, that Damasus then Bishop of Rome, was not president of that assembly. And g 1.1250 Bellarmine confesseth as much: but he faith, if hee had beene present, hee had doubtlesse beene president: which haply may bee true, yet his reason to proue it, is not good, which hee taketh from the Epistle of the councell to Damasus. For in that E∣pistle the Fathers and Bishops acknowledge themselues members of that body, where∣of * 1.1251 Damasus and his company are a part: but doe not call him their head, as he vntrue∣ly reporteth. Neither doeth the Epistle of Damasus to the Fathers of the councell, yeeld any better proofe. For though hee call them sonnes, yet it will hardly fol∣low, that they would haue taken him for a president of their meeting, especially see∣ing it is probably supposed, that they therefore stayde of purpose at Constan∣tinople, that more freely, and with greater authority they might compasse such things as they intended, then if they should haue gone to Rome, where Damasus with his Westerne Bishops might haue crossed, or at least in some sort hindered their intend∣ments and designes. In the third Generall councell, which was the first at Ephe∣sus, Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria was President, as it appeareth euidently by the acts of the councell, and the Histories of those times: and had also the authority of Caele∣stinus Bishop of Rome ioyned vnto him, as may bee seene by the i 1.1252 Epistle of Calestinus written vnto him, which is found among the Actes of the Ephesine Councell. Where∣unto agreeth that of Valentinian and Martian, in their k 1.1253 Epistle to Palladius, expresse∣ly saying, that both Caelestinus Bishop of Rome, and Cyrill Bishoppe of Alexandria, were presidents of the Councell of Ephesus: and also that of the whole Councell of l 1.1254 Chalcedon, professing expressely, that both Caelestinus and Cyrill were presidents of that assembly: which thing the very Actes of the councell it selfe, sufficiently proue: in which he is described to haue moderated all, as chiefe and principall among the Bi∣shops present, yet not by his owne authority alone, but supplying also the place of Cae∣lestinus Bishop of Rome. And in like sort m 1.1255 Euagrius doth not say, that he supplyed the place of Caelestinus, as if he had not beene president in his owne right: but that hee also supplyed the place of Caelestinus: for so it is in the Greeke: & n 1.1256 Photius saith, Cyrill Bi∣shop of Alexandria, (who also supplyed the place of Caelestinus B. of Rome) & Mem∣non Bishop of Ephesus, and Iuvenall Bishop of Ierusalem, were Presidents of the first councell of Ephesus. Thus it is euident, that Cyrill sate as President in the coun∣cell of Ephesus, though not without the concurrence of the Bishoppe of Rome, who

joyned his authority with him, and sent his owne resolution, and the resolutions of his Bishops vnto him, and the Councell, though he o 1.1257 sent none out of the West to that meeting, till long after the Councell was begunne, and many things therein done. In the fourth Generall Councell, holden at Chalcedon, the Legates of the Bishoppe of Rome, had the first and chiefest place: but in the fift, Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople sate as President, and had the first place. And p 1.1258 though Vigilius then Bishop of Rome, being at that time at Constantinople, could neither bee induced to be present, nor to a∣gree vnto it, while it was holden, nor to confirme and allow it when it ended, yet it was iudged a lawfull Generall Councell, and hee and so many moe as resisted against it, for their wilfull dissenting, were sent into banishment. This Councell was called by Iustinian the Emperor, to examine and condemne an Epistle of Ibas; certain workes of Theodoret, and the person of Theodorus Bishoppe of Mopsuestia, who all were thought fauourers of Nestorius, and yet receiued to grace in the Councell of Chalce∣don, in hope that they would thereupon embrace and receiue that Councell, which were auerse from it; as thinking (though vntruly) that it fauoured the Nestorians; as also to condemne the errors of Origen & his followers. That this Councell, notwith∣standing the contradiction of Vigilius, was admitted & receiued as a true and lawfull Generall Councell, it appeareth by Gregory Bishop of Rome, who hauing allowed of the first foure Generall Councels, addeth these words; q 1.1259 I doe also in like sort reuerence and honour the fift Councell, in which the Epistle of Ibas, full of error, is reiected, in which Theodorus, separating and diuiding the person of the Mediator of God and Men, & ima∣gining two subsistences in Christ, is conuinced to haue fallen into perfidious impiety: and in which also the writings of Theodoret (wherein the faith of blessed Cyril is reprehended,) are found & pronounced to haue bin published by a boldfoolishnesse: but I truely reiect all those persons, which the forenamed reuerend & sacred Councels doe reiect, and embrace & honour those which they reuerence and honour, because being established and agreed vnto, and things setled in them by generall consent, hee destroyeth and ouerthroweth himselfe & not them, whosoeuer presumeth either to lose those whom they bind, or to binde those whom they lose. Whosoeuer therefore shall be otherwise minded, let him bee anathema. So that the Presidence and presence of the Bishoppe of Rome, is not so necessary in Generall Councels, but that in case of his wilfull refusall a Councell may proceed & bee holden for lawfull, without his consenting to it. It is true indeede, r 1.1260 that the Canon of the Church prescribeth, that no Generall Councell shall be holden without the Bishoppe of Rome, and the Bishops subiect to him; but the meaning of the Canon is not, that * 1.1261 all proceedings are voyde and vnlawfull, wherein his presence is not had, but wherein it is not sought & expected: for, if he wilfully refuse to ioyne with the rest, or his neg∣ligence be intollerable, the state of the Church requiring, that order be presently ta∣ken, they may proceede without him, as appeareth by the Eight Generall Councell, wherein some things were resolued on, before the comming of the Vicars of the Bi∣shop of Rome: and by this Fift, wherein neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any of his Bishops would be present, nor giue any consent vnto it, and yet it is reputed a lawfull Generall Councell. And, as a Councell may bee holden in such a case, without the presence or concurrence of the Romane Bishop, and those that are subiect to him, so being present, if he refuse to concurre in iudgement with the rest, they may procede without him, and their sentence may be of force, though he consent not to it; as we see in the Councell of Chalcedon. And though Generall Councels, wherein the Bishop of Rome, with his Bishoppes, refuse to be present, or beeing present, to giue consent to that which is decreed, bee not so full and perfect, as they are that haue his concurrence together with the Bishoppes subiect to him, and therefore the like effect doth not presently followe; yet wee shall finde, that all such determinations, consented and agreed vnto vniformely, by all the other Patriarches, doe in the end generally take place. So that euen the Romanes themselues are forced to yeelde vnto them; as wee see it came to passe, that the Decrees of the Fift Generall Councell, wherein the Ro∣manes refused to bee present, and to which they would yeelde no consent, were soone after generally receiued; the Romanes themselues yeelding vnto them; and

t 1.1262 likewise the actes of the Fourth general Coūcel, wherein the Decree of equalling the Bishop of Constantinople, to the Bishop of Rome, and preferring him before the other Patriarches, passing without the consent of the Bishoppe of Romes Legates, and re∣sisted by the Bishoppes of the West, yet preuailed in the end, and forced the Ro•…•…e Bishoppe to yeild vnto it. For after the time of Iustinian the Emperour, none of the Bishoppes of Rome was euer found to contradict it any more. Soe that to conclude and resolue this point, euen as no Chapter-act is good, wherein the meanest (hauing voyce in Chapter) is refused, neglected, or contemned: and much lesse, wherein hee that is chiefest and President is contemned: and as the Actes of Prouinciall Synodes are voyde, wherein the meanest Suffragan is not called & expected: so there is no que∣stion, but that all the acts of general Councels, are void, wherein the Bishop of Rome, so long as hee continueth Catholique, & keepeth his owne standing, is not specially aboue all other expected and desired. But, as things may passe in these assemblies, without their consent, whose presence is so necessarily to bee sought (as wee see in prouinciall Synodes the maior part swayeth all, and the Metropolitane hath no negatiue,) see in a generall Councell, things may passe by the consent of the greater part, not only with∣out the consent, but euen against the liking of the Bishop of Rome, and his Bishoppes. In the Sixt and seauenth Generall Councels, the Bishoppe of Romes Legates, and Vice-gerents (in a sort) had the Presidentship: yet so, as that Tharassius Bishoppe of Constantinople: rather performed the duty of a Moderator & President in the seauenth, then they, as it will easily appeare to any one that will but take a view of the Actes of that Synode.

So that wee find that neither the Bishop of Rome had the Presidentship in all Coun∣cels, nor that there was any certaine and vniforme course holden in giuing prehe∣minences to the chiefe Bishops, in the first seuen Generall Councells. For u 1.1263 in the Councell of Nice, Hosius doth first suscribe: after him, the presbyters, that supplied the place of the Bishop of Rome: then Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, the Bishop of Ierusalem after all the Bishops of Egypt, Thebais, and Lybia; and the Bishop of An∣tioch after all these, and the Bishops of Palaestina, and Phoenicia also, and yet he sate in the highest place on the right side. In the second, neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any Westerne Bishops were presēt: the first that subscribed was Nectarius, the next Timo∣thy of Alexandria and after him Dorotheus, then Cyril of Ierusalem, and Meletius of Antioch after him, and after all the Bishops of Palaestina and Phoenicia. In the third, Cyril subscribed first, and after him Iuuenall Bishop of Ierusalem, for Iohn of Antioche came not before the condemnation of Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople (to which they subscribed) was past. In the fourth, to the condemnation of Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria: First the Legates of Leo Bishop of Rome subscribed: then Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople: after him the Bishop of Antioch, and Iuuenall Bishop of Ierusalem, almost after all the Bishops in the Synode, though in the order of sitting he was placed in the fifth place: but where they subscribe to the decree touching matter of faith, he subscribeth in the fourth place, after Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch. To the act for aduancing the see of Constantinople, and setting it before the rest of the Patriarchi∣call thrones next to Rome, the Legates of the Bishop of Rome subscribe not, but Ana∣tolius Bishop of Constantinople in the first place; after him, Maximus of Antioch; and in the third place, Iuuenall of Ierusalem. In the fifth, they sate and subscribed in this sort. First, Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople, then Apollinarius of Alexandria, after him Domninus of Antioch, and last of all the Legates of Eustochius of Ierusalem: for the Bishop of Rome was not there in person, nor by his Legates. In the sixth, the Emperour sate in the highest place, in the middest: His great men, and the Consuls sate by him: on the left side the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, the Vicars of the Bishop of Ierusalem, & the Bishops that were present out of the Romane Synode: On the right side, sate first, the Bishop of Constantinople, next him the Bishop of Antioche, then hee that supplied the place of the Bishoppe of Alexandria, and so in order the Bishoppes subiect to them: yet in subscribing, the Bishop of Rome was first, Constantinople second, Alexandria third, Antioch fourth, and Ierusalem last. In the seauenth,

the Legates of Adrian Bishop of Rome had the first place, and subscribed first: after them the Bishop of Constantinople Tharassius; and then they that supplyed the roomes of the other three Patriarchicall Thrones. But Tharassius rather performed the duty of a President & Moderator, then the Legates of Rome, as I shewed before. These are all the Generall Councels that the Greeke and Latine Churches jointly acknowledge; & by this view which we haue taken of them, wee may see how diuersly things haue beene carried, both concerning the Presidentship in Generall Councels, and the prehe∣minences of the chiefest Bishops in the same.

Yet, as the Graecians were content in the x 1.1264 Councell of Florence, that the Bishoppe of Rome should haue all such preheminences againe, as hee had before the division of the Churches, if other matters might bee agreed on: So if the Bishoppe of Rome would disclaime his claime of vniuersall jurisdiction, of infallible judgement, and power to dispose at his pleasure the Kingdomes of the World, and would content himself with that all Antiquity gaue him, which is to bee in order and honour the first among Bi∣shoppes, wee would easily grant him to bee in such sort President of Generall Coun∣cels, as to sit and speake first in such meetings: but to bee an absolute commaunder, wee cannot yeeld vnto him. Cardinall y 1.1265 Turrecremata rightly noteth, that the Pre∣sidentship of Councels whereof men doe speake, is of two sorts, the one of honour, the other of power. Presidentship of honouris, to haue preheminence in place, to pro∣pose things to bee debated, to direct the actions, and to giue definitiue sentence accor∣ding to the voyces and judgement of the Councell. Presidentshippe of power is, to haue the right, not onely of directing, but of ruling their doings also that are assembled in Councell, and to conclude of matters after his owne judgement, though the grea∣ter part of the Councell like it not, yea though no part like it. A Presidentshippe of the former sort, Antiquity yeelded to the Bishop of Rome, when hee was not wanting to himselfe. And if there were no other differences betweene vs and him, wee also would yeeld it him; But the latter kinde of presidentshippe wee cannot yeeld, vnlesse wee ouerthrow the whole course of Councels, and goe against the streame of all Anti∣quity. This seemeth (saith z 1.1266 Duarenus) to bee consonant vnto the Law of GOD, that the Church which the Synode doth represent, should haue the fulnesse of all power, and that the Pope should acknowledge himselfe subject vnto it. For Christ did not giue the power of binding and loosing to Peter alone, whose successor the pope is said to bee, but to the whole church. Although I doe not deny, but that hee was set before the rest of the Apostles; yet so often as any one was to bee ordained, either Bishoppe, or Deacon, or any thing to bee decreed, that concerned the church; Peter neuer tooke it to himselfe, but referred it to the whole church. But heerein did his preheminence stand and consist, that as prince of the Apostles it pertained to him to call the rest together, and to propose vnto them the things that were to bee handled; as with vs at this day the president of the court of parliament calleth together the whole Senate, and when occasion requireth, beginneth first to speake, and doth many other things, which easily shew the greatnesse of the person which he sustaineth: and yet notwithstanding hee is not greater or superiour to the whole court; neither hath hee power ouer all the Senatours; neither may hee decree any thing contra∣ry to their judgements. But the judgement of all controversies pertaineth to the court it selfe, whose Head the president is said to be; nay, which is more, the court commaundeth, judgeth, and punisheth the president as well as any other, if there be cause so to doe. And these things truely were likewise in the Ecclesiasticall state here∣tofore, but I know not by what meanes it is now brought about, that supreme power ouer all Christians is giuen to one, and that hee is set free from all Lawes and canons, after the example of the Emperours.

This is the judgement of the learned and worthy Duarenus; yet the Iesuites, and Iesuited papists at this day, will needs haue the pope to be president of General coun∣cels, in such sort, that hee may conclude of matters after his owne judgement and li∣king, though the greater part of the councell like it not, yea, though no part like it. But this their conceit is easily refuted: first by reason, & then by the practise of the church

from the beginning. For first, either Bishops are assembled in Generall Councels, one∣ly as the Popes Counsellers to giue him aduise; or they are in joynt Commission with him, and sitte as his fellow Iudges of all matters of faith and discipline. If onely as Counsellers to aduise him, Councels should not consist only or principally of Bishops. For, as they say commonly, that many a doting old woman may be more deuout, and many a poore begging Frier more learned thē the Pope himself: so there is no questiō, but that many other may be as learned and iudicious as Bishops; a 1.1267 Though (saith Au∣stine) according to the titles of honour, which the custome of the Church giueth men, Au∣stine a Bishop be greater then Hierome a Presbyter, yet Hierome in worth and merite is greater then Austine. In the late Councell of Trent, there is no question, but that An∣dradius, Vega, and other Doctors that were there, were euery way comparable with the greatest Bishop or Cardinall; yet Bishoppes onely as of ordinary right, and some few other, by speciall priuiledge, gaue decisiue voyces in that Councell: other, how learned soeuer, being admitted onely to discusse and debate matters, and thereby to prepare and ripen them, that the Bishops might more easily iudge of them: and there∣fore the current of most Papists is against that conceit of making Bishops to bee but the Popes Counsellers onely, as appeareth by b 1.1268 Andradius, c 1.1269 Canus, d 1.1270 Bellarmine, and many moe. That Bishops (saith e 1.1271 Melchior Canus) are not Counsellers onely to ad∣vise, but Iudges to determine all matters doubtfull touching Faith and manners; may easily be proued by the proceedings of all ancient Councels. For the Fathers of the Nicene Councell, desire Syluester to confirme what they haue decreed; and Leo pro∣fesseth, that he approueth all those things which the Councell of Chalcedon decreed touching the Faith: and the Councell it selfe speaking to Leo saith, Honour our iudge∣ment with the concurrence of thy Decrees. And the sixt f 1.1272 Generall Councell saith: Wee anathematize Theodorus, Sergius, Syrus, &c. And a little after: All these things beeing determined by this holy Councell, and confirmed by our constant subscription, wee decree, that no man make any farther adoe about matters of faith, &c. Are these the words of him that onely giueth aduice and counsell? or of him that iudgeth and determineth what shall be beleeued and done? and in all the rest, the Fathers speake not as Counsel∣lers that are to aduise, but as Iudges that haue power to determine: For the third chapter of the Nicene Synode hath thus: The great Synode hath altogether forbidden, &c. Thus farre Melchior Canus, learnedly and strongly prouing, that Bishops are not present in Generall Councels, as the Popes Counsellers to aduise him; but as Iud∣ges together with him to define and determine: which if it be granted, we may easily in the second place proue, that the Pope may not determine things of himselfe contra∣ry to the iudgement of all the rest. For, though the chiefe President of a Company, may haue a negatiue voyce, against the affirmatiue of all the rest, yet neuer was there any company of Iudges, hauing power to iudge and determine, wherein one might not onely dashe what the rest agreed on, but determine also what hee pleased, though none concurred with him. When in any commission, some certaine number of men may determine and resolue, and none hath power to contradict, they are absolutely Iudges, & the power of iudging resteth wholy in them; when in their resolutions they may bee so gain-said by others, that yet others canne doe nothing without them, they are Iudges in part, & the power of iudging resteth in part in them; But when another may dash what they consent on, and doe what hee pleaseth, whatsoeuer they say to the contrary, they may bee in the nature of Counsellers to aduise, but not of Iudges to determine. For wheresoeuer there are many Iudges, either the power of determi∣ning, both affirmatiuely and negatiuely resteth in the Maior part; or else any one hath an absolute negatiue, and onely the concurrence of all an affirmatiue, as in Iuries here in England; or thirdly, either one man, or some certaine men haue their negatiue, and the affirmatiue is onely in the Maior part. And therefore it is most fond and friuo∣lous, that Canus hath in answere to this our argument; for whereas we say, if Bishops be Iudges, the Pope may not resolue against the Maior part of them, hee hath these words; g 1.1273 I deny that it is necessary to follow the iudgement of the Maior part, when we treat of matters of Faith, neither doe wee here measure the sentence by the num∣ber

of voyces, as in humane elections or iudgements; Knowing that oftentimes it comes to passe, that the greater part doth ouercome the better; that those things are not alwayes best, which please most; and that in things which pertaine to doctrine, the iudgement of the wise is to bee preferred, and the wise are exceeding few, where∣as there is an infinite number of fooles. Foure hundred Prophets did lie vnto Achàb, but the trueth came out of the mouth of one Michaeas alone, and hee very contempti∣ble, and therefore the Iudgements of Diuine thinges are not to bee moderated by hu∣mane reasons: The Lord saueth and deliuereth, sometimes, sooner with a few then many. This saying of Canus is contrary to all course of Iudgement in the world, and contradicted by his owne fellow and friend Cardinall h 1.1274 Bellarmine, who saith, that in Councells, things are to be carried by number of voyces, and not by disputation; that in the Councell mentioned in the Actes, the question was defined by the voyces of the Apostles: and that in the Councell of i 1.1275 Chalcedon the tenne Bishoppes of Egypt were condemned as Heretickes, because they yeelded not to the Maior part of that Councell. Thus doth hee crosse his fellow Canus. But let not Canus bee offended with him for so doing; for he will presently crosse himselfe also: for I hope he think∣eth the Bishoppes of Egypt were rightly iudged Heretickes for refusing to subscribe to the Iudgement of the Maior part of Bishops in the Councell of Chalcedon (seeing hee bringeth this censure to proue that the determinations of Councells doe bind the conscience) and then it will follow, that the greater part of Bishoppes in a Generall Councell cannot erre; which yet hee presently denieth, k 1.1276 and saith the greater part of this Councell did erre, and resolued that which was reuersed by the Pope. If hee say that those tenne Bishoppes of Egypt, refused to subscribe to that which was agreed on by the Maior part with the Legates of Rome, and that therefore they might iustly bee iudged Heretickes, as contradicting the Iudgement of them that cannot erre, it standeth no better with his resolution l 1.1277 else-where, that the Maior part of Bishops in a Generall Councell, with the Legates, may erre. But passing by these Contradi∣ctions and absurdities of the Cardinall, let vs see if he can cleare this doubt any better, which hath so much troubled Canus. For the avoyding of this one poore argument, hee is forced to diuide the Pope, as otherwise finding no meanes to escape the force thereof. m 1.1278 The Pope therefore (he saith) may be considered two wayes; either as hee is President of a Councell, and so hee is tyed to follow the Maior part; or as hee is chiefe Prince in the Church, and so hee may goe against the Maior part, and resolue what he pleaseth of himselfe: and yet this diuided consideration no way deuideth or breaketh the force of our argument, but leaueth it intire and whole as it found it. For wee seeke not the difference betweene a President and a chiefe and absolute Prince, but whether the Bishoppes sitting in Councell with the Pope, be his fellow Iudges, or not: which they cannot bee, if he may not onely dash what they would doe, but al∣so doe what he pleaseth without them. And besides this, if the Pope doe sit in Gene∣rall Councels as President, and so as bound to pronounce according to the Maior part of voyces in all Decrees, then hee sitteth not there as absolute Prince, hauing power not onely to dash what others would doe, but also to doe what he pleaseth of him∣selfe without them, and contrary to their iudgements; and so cannot define and deter∣mine contrary to the iudgement and resolution of the Maior part. The onely answere that may bee imagined to this obiection, is, that as inferiour Iudges may determine a thing, which yet by a superiour authority may bee reuersed, and the contrary de∣creed, so the Bishops in a Generall Councell, as Iudges, may decree and determine, and yet the power of re-examining and reuersing all, if neede be, may rest in the Pope as superiour Iudge vnto them, which yet no way cleareth the doubt. For howsoeuer it be true in Iudges and Iudgements, distinct, separate, and subordinate one to ano∣ther, that one may dash that the other doth, and doe the contrary without the con∣sent of the other, yet of Iudges ioyned in one Commission, and of the same iudgment it cannot be so conceiued. Now the Iudgement of the Generall Councell includeth in it the Iudgement of the Pope; the Pope and Councell make one Iudge, and are not separate, distinct, and subordinate Iudges, and therefore no such thing can bee said of

them. If it be said that he who is joyned in commission with others, in some infe∣riour Court, and hath a Negatiue voyce in it onely, and no absolute affirmatiue, may in a superiour Court haue both, and that therefore the Pope, who hath no absolute voyce affirmatiue and negatiue in a Generall Councell, may haue such a voyce in some higher Court, it will be found to be too shamelesse a saying. For there neither is, nor can be any higher Court then that of a Generall Councell consisting of the Bishop of Rome, and all the other Bishops of the World. So that all answers failing, wee may safely conclude, that if Bishops bee Iudges Ecclesiasticall, truely and properly, (as wee haue proued them to bee by vnanswerable reasons, and our Adversaries confesse) the Pope hath no absolute voyce affirmatiue and negatiue in Generall Councels; that is, to dash what the Maior part would doe, and to doe that they by no meanes like of. This n 1.1279 Andradius saw, and therefore hee disclaimeth the position of Bellarmine, o 1.1280 that all the assurance the Councell hath of finding out the truth, is Originally in the Pope, and from him cōmunicated to the Councell: and holdeth that the Councell hath as good assurance of finding out the trueth, and better then the Pope himselfe: And therefore hee saith, that though he thinketh it impossible the Pope should dissent frō the coun∣cell, so as to define contrary to it, yet; if it should so fall out (as hee thinketh it not im∣possible) that the Bishop of Rome, should altogether dislike in his opinion that which the Councell resolueth on, and which hee should consent vnto, and (though he define not the contrary) yet despise the Decrees of the Councell, and in his priuate opinion gainsay them; he thinketh in such a case, men were to conceiue none otherwise of him then if hee should depart from the faith and profession of the ancient Councels, which the consent of all ages hath confirmed, and p 1.1281 Gregory professeth to honour and esteeme as the foure Gospels, seeing the power and authority is as great in all Councels, as in those which the same Gregory saith, that whosoeuer holdeth not their certaine resolutions, though he seeme to be a stone elect and precious, yet he lyeth besides the foundation. And, because the authority of Cardinall Turrecremata is great with all those that defend the dignity of the Pope against the Bishops that were assembled in the Councell of Basil, & such as are of their judgement, therefore he produceth his opinion in these words: If such a case should fall out (saith Cardinall q 1.1282 Turrecremata) that all the Fathers assem∣bled in a Generall Councell with vnanimous consent should make a decree concerning the faith, which the person of the Pope alone should contradict, I would say according to my judgement, that men were bound to stand to the judgement of the Synode, and not to listen to the gainsaying of the person of the Pope: for the judgment of so many and so great Fathers in a Generall Councell, seemeth worthily to bee preferred before the judgement of one man. In which case that Glosse vpon the Decrees is most excel∣lent, that when the faith is treated of, the Pope is bound to require the Counsell of Bishops, which is to bee vnderstood to bee necessary to bee done, as often as the case is very doubtfull, and a Synode may be called, and then the Synode is greater then the Pope; not truely in the power of jurisdiction, but in the authority of discerning, judg∣ment, and the amplitude of knowledge. This is the opinion of this great champion, who so mainely in defence of the Popes vniversall jurisdictiō, impugned the Fathers that were assembled in the Councell of Basil. Whereby it is evident, that the pope may not go against the consent of a Generall Councell, & that he may not dissent from it, being greater in the authority of discerning and judgement then hee is; and conse∣quently that hee hath no negatiue voyce in Councels. Which may further bee pro∣ued; for that if he had a negatiue voyce, as the Councell hath, then were there two ab∣solute negatiues: but where there are two absolute negatiues, it is vncertaine whether any thing shall be resolued on or not, (whereas yet the state of the Church requireth resolution and certain concluding of matters, that men may know what they are to be∣leeue.) Therefore the Pope hath none, but, the onely negatiue is that of the Councell, a part whereof the Pope is, giuing a voyce as others doe. And this the manner of o∣ther Synodes confirmeth. For in Provinciall, Nationall, and Patriarchicall Councels, the Metropolitanes, Primates, and Patriarches haue no absolute negatiue, but giue only a single voyce: and the absolute negatiue, as also the affirmatiue, is onely in the Maior

part; and as Cardinall Turrecremata, learnedly and rightly maketh the authority of the Generall Councell, in discerning and defining what is to be belieued, greater then the authority of the Pope: and that the Councel is ratherto be listened vnto, then the Pope, dissenting from the Councell; so there is no doubt, but that (the authority of Councels being as great in making necessary lawes for the good of the Church, as in resoluing doubtes and clearing controuersies) the Councell is greater then the Pope in the power of making lawes, and consequently in the power of jurisdiction, which he denieth, and they of Basil affirme.

The greatest allegation on the contrary side is the confirmation that ancient Coun∣cels sought of the Bishop of Rome: for that may seeme to import, that their decrees are of no force, vnlesse they be strengthened by his authority: whereunto r 1.1283 Andradius answereth out of s 1.1284 Alfonsus á Castro and others, that Generall Councels carefully sought to be confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, not as if in themselues without his con∣firmation they were weake and might erre, nor for that they thought him to haue as much or more assurance of not erring then they; but that it might appeare, that he that hath the first place in the Church of God, and the rest, did consent and conspire toge∣ther in the deliuery, and the defence of the trueth. But because happily this answer may seeme too weake, therefore for the clearing of this doubt, we must obserue, that all the ancient Councels, were holden in the East, & that in some of them, neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any of his Westerne Bishos were present, and in others very few: For, there were onely three out of the West, in the name of all the rest, in the great Coun∣cell of Chalcedon, wherein 630 Bishops met. Now seeing the authority of generall Councels is from the consent of all other Bishoppes of the Christian Church, as well as those that meete in them, it was necessary that the Bishop of Rome, as Patriarch of the West, and the Bishops subject to him, though they were no more infallible in iudge∣ment then the other, yet should by consenting with the rest, confirme that was done; seeing they were not present to giue consent when it was done. If it besaid, that in diuerse of them, there were some for the Bishop of Rome, and some in the name of the Synodes subject to him, who hauing instructions from them, gaue consent in their names, and that therefore there needed no further confirmation, it will be easily answe∣red. First, that it was possible for those Legates, being but few, to forsake their in∣structions, and to do contrary to them, as t 1.1285 Rodoaldus and Zachary the Legates of Pope Nicholas did in the Councell vnder Michaell the Emperour, wherein Photius was set vp, and Ignatius put downe. Secondly, that u 1.1286 it was necessary, that the Fathers should wholly follow those instructions that they brought, and absolutely agree vnto them: and therefore when things were concluded, it was fit there should bee a signifying of that which was done, and a desire of the confirmation of the same. Thirdly, some things might be concluded, to which the instructions reached not, and in respect of them, a confirmation was necessary: as the Councell of x 1.1287 Chalcedon decreed certaine things wihout the compasse of Leos instructions, and therefore sought his confirmati∣on. Besides all this, we must note that the confirmation which the ancient Councels sought, was not from the person of the Bishop of Rome alone, but from him and his Synodes, as I haue proued before: And y 1.1288 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth; saying, that in the second and third Synodes, there were no Bishops of the West present, but that the Bishop of Rome in his owne name, and in the name of the Bishops, and Synodes subiect to him, did confirme them. So that this confirming of Councels by the Pope, proueth no more that hee is infallible in iudgment, or that all the assurance of finding out the trueth is originally in him, and from him communicated to generall Councels: then that all the Bishops and Synodes subject to him, are free from possibility of er∣ring: and that Nationall or Prouinciall Synodes in the West, are more infallible in their iudgments, then those that are Generall in the East. The next allegation to proue that the Councell is nothing without the Pope, is, that a promise was made to Peter, that z 1.1289 his faith should not faile, but that no promise was made to the Councell: that promise of Christ, a 1.1290 that where two or three are gathered together in his name, he will be in the middest of them, beeing no way proper to Councels and Bishops, b 1.1291 hauing no autho∣rity

when they are assembled, which they haue not when they are single and deuided. This allegation is contradictory to the resolution, and contrary to the practise of all times. For first, that promise of Christ, that where two or three are gathered together in his name, he will bee in the middest of them, was euer thought to assure his presence in a lawfull Generall Councell, in very speciall sort, and otherwise then any where else; and that vpon very good ground of reason. For if God be present with priuate men, meeting together in his feare about the things that concerne them, and with a few particular Pastors of Churches, for the direction of them in things that concerne them, there is no question but in Generall meetings, wherein all the variety of the gifts of God, bestowed on men, is gathered together, and things concerning the state of the whole Christian Church treated of, hee is present in most peculiar sort & man∣ner. Secondly, though Christ the sonne of God, gaue no authority to the whole vniuersality of Christian men, and therein the Church and Common-wealth may seeme to differ, yet he gaue Commission to the Generality of pastors, more then to each one apart, and being assembled, they haue that power which seuerally they haue not, as to ordaine, iudge, suspend, and depose pastors and Bishops. And howsoeuer, in each Prouince the rest are to know him that is the first among them, and to do no∣thing pertayning to the whole Prouince, without consulting him first, yet may he doe nothing without them. And as this is the Canon and Law of the Church in particu∣lar Prouinces, so in Churches of larger extent, comprehending whole countries, sub∣iect to one Patriarch, and much more in the whole Church, wherein there is no one hauing so much power in respect of the rest, as the Metropolitane hath, in respect of the Bishoppes of the Prouince; and the Patriarch, in respect of the Metropolitanes: For the Bishoppes are to bee ordained by the Metropolitane, and the Metropolitanes are to be ordained, or at least confirmed by the Patriarch; whereas among the Patri∣arches, there is no one, to whom it pertayneth to ordaine the rest, or to confirme them in any speciall sort, or otherwise then they are to confirme him.

Thus then it beeing proued by conuincing reasons, and the confession, not onely of such Papists as make the Pope among Bishoppes to be but as the Duke of Venice a∣mong the great Senators of that State (greater then each one, but inferiour to the whole company of them) but of such also as attribute much more vnto him; that he hath no such Presidentship in Generall Councels, as that hee may determine what he will against the liking of all, or the greater part of Bishoppes, but that he is bound to follow the greater part; and that Generall Councels are of force, not from the abso∣lute authority of the Pope, onely aduising with other Bishoppes▪ but from their con∣sents as wel as his: Let vs proceede to see if the practise of former times proue not the same. I finde (saith c 1.1292 Cusanus) that in all the first Eight Generall Councels, the Popes, or the Legates of the Popes, (for themselues were neuer present in person) did euer subscribe in the very same sort that the other Bishoppes did, without note of any singularity. For euery Bishoppe was wont to subscribe in this forme, An•…•…ens, vel consentiens, vel statuens, vel definiens, subscripsi: and this was the forme the Legates of the Bishoppe of Rome obserued. But (saith Cusanus) that no man may doubt, but that all things were determined by the joynt consent of such as met in Generall Coun∣cels, and not by the sole authority of the Bishoppe of Rome alone, wee finde in the Actes of the Councell of Chalcedon, that Dioscorus being the third time warned to ap∣peare, and refusing so to doe, Paschasinus the Legate of Leo the Pope, said vnto the Synode, Wee desire to learne of your Holinesse, what punishment he is worthy of. To whom the Synode answering, let that bee done, that is agreeable to the Canons: Paschasinus said, Doth your righteousnesse or reuerend worthinesse command vs to vse Canonicall ven∣geance against him? Doe you consent? or doe you resolue otherwise? The holy Synode said, wee consent, none dissenteth. This is the agreeing and consenting will of the whole Synode. Iulian the Bishoppe of Hypepa said to the Legates of Leo, Wee desire your Holinesse, in that you are more eminent then the rest, hauing the place of the most holy Pope Leo, to pronounce the sentence of iust vengeance against this contumacious person, the Canons requiring the same. For, wee all, and the whole Synode agree to the sen∣tence

of your Holynesse. Paschasinus said, Let what pleaseth your blessednes be pronounced with vnanimous consent. Maximus of Antioch said, what your holinesse thinketh fit to bee done, we consent vnto. After this the Apostolicall Legates pronounced the sentence, whereby Leo the Pope had deposed and condemned Dioscorus, and thenadded. Let not this holy Synode be slacke to determine what is agreeable to the canons touching Diosco∣rus. Whereupon Anatolius of Constantinople, and euery Bishop in the councell gaue sentence against him, saying, I iudge him to be reiected from all Sacerdot 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and E∣piscopall Ministery. Heere (saith Cusanus) the Reader may see, that the Apostolicall Legates (because they haue the first place in the councell) pronounce the sentence, & yet no otherwise, but if the councell cōmaund them so to doe; that all in order pro∣nounce sentence likewise; and that the force of the sentence dependeth on the vnity and consent of will in them that are present. Neither is this course obserued onely in Generall councels; but that, in those also that were Patriarchicall the other Bishoppes subscribed in the very same forme that the Bishoppe of Rome did, it is evident. For, in the councell vnder Pope Martine, before the sixt Generall councell, Martine subscri∣bed in this sort: I Martine, Bishop of the city of Rome, decreeing and determining, haue sub∣scribed to this definition of confi•…•…ation of the true faith and condemnation of Sergius of Constantinople, Pyrrhus and Paulus: And in the very same sort subscribed Maximus of Aquileia, defining and confirming the true Faith, and condemning the Heretickes: And so did a hundred and three Bishoppes more. And in the councell vnder Symma∣chus we reade that the Synode saide: whatsoeuer Clearke, Monke, or Layman, either of the superiour or inferiour order, shall presume to goe against these decrees, let him by the sentence of the canon be reiected as a Schismaticke. And the Bishops subscribed thus. I Symmachus, of the holy catholicke church of the city of Rome, haue subscribed to this constitution made by vs, by the inspiration of the Lord. I Lawrence, Bishop of the church of Millaine, haue subscribed to this constitution made by vs, &c. And so the rest in order. In the Councell of Africa, Gennadius said, Wee must by our seuerall subscriptions giue force and strength to the things we haue spoken: And all the Bishops said, Fiat, fiat, that is, Let vs so doe. So the Vicars of olde Rome said in the eight Generall councell: Seeing by the happy providence of God all things are come to a good end, wee must by subscription giue strength to that which is done. And the like we finde in the end and conclusion of all councels: d 1.1293 whereby it appeareth, that the strength, vigour, and force of all canons made in councels, is from the vniforme consent of them that haue voyces in coun∣cels, and not from the Pope, or head of such assemblies. In the e 1.1294 councell of Chalcedon we find, that a forme of a decree touching the faith was agreed on by al, besides the Ro∣manes, and certaine of the East, who would haue some things added out of the Epi∣stles of Leo. The Bishops vrged, that all had liked and approued that forme the day be∣fore, and that it did confirme the Epistle of Leo, which they all had receiued, and de∣sired the Iudges, that all might be cast out of the Synode that would not subscribe. The Vicars of Rome on the contrary side told them, that if they would not consent to the Epistle of Leo, they would returne, that a Synode might bee holden in the West: and the Iudges commaunded them to come to some conference, a certaine selected num∣ber of them: or else to declare their Faith by their seuerall Metropolitanes, that so there might remaine no further doubt or discord: and told them, that if they would follow none of these courses, nor agree to make a certaine Decree touching the true Faith, a Synode should be holden in the West. So that we see, that without the concur∣rence of the other Bishops, nothing could be done by the Romanes, and those of the East: that there was no other remedy, in case they would not haue agreed in determi∣ning the doubts then a foot, but to call another Synode, wherein a greater number of the Westerne Bishops might be present. So that the Pope was not at that time repu∣ted an abso lute commaunder in Generall councels.

CHAP. 51.

Of the assurance of finding out the Truth, which the Bishops assembled in Generall Councels haue.

HAuing shewed who haue decisiue voyces in Generall Councels, what pre∣sence of Bishops is necessary to the being of them, what order is to be obser∣ued in their procedings, who is President in them, and what his authority is, it remaineth that we proceed to see what assurance they haue of finding out the Trueth, and who is to call them. Touching the first of these two, some haue beene of opinion, that the Bishops and Fathers in Councels are so guided by the spirit of Trueth, that their Decrees and determinations may be ioyned to the Canonicall Scripture, and reckoned parts of it. This position Melchior a 1.1295 Canus sayth, a man excel∣lently learned, and that had so profited in Diuinity, that hee might be thought match∣able with great and eminent Diuines, feared not to hold in his hearing: and addeth, that b 1.1296 Gratian seemeth to haue beene of the same opinion, where hee affirmeth, that the Decretall Epistles of Popes are Canonicall Scripture, and alleageth Austine for proofe thereof. But the fame Canus refuteth that opinion as absurd, and sheweth that Gra∣tian mistooke Saint Austine. For whereas Saint Austine hath these words, c 1.1297 In Ca∣nonicis scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurium authoritatem sequatur: inter quas sane illae sunt, qu•…•… Apostolicas sedes habere, & epistolas accipere meruerunt. That is: In reckoning the bookes of Canonicall Scripture, lette the diligent searcher of the Scriptures follow the authoritie of the greater number of Catholike Churches. A∣mong which they truly which were so happy, as to haue Apostolique seates, and to re∣ceiue Epistles from Apostles, are specially and principally to be regarded. Gratian citeth the place thus; In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam plu∣rimum scripturarum solertissimus indagator authoritatem sequatur: inter quas fa∣nè illae sunt quas Apostolica sedes habere & ab eâ alij meruerunt accipere epistolas. So that whereas Saint Augustine saith, that in reckoning the Canonicall bookes of Scripture, a man must follow the authority of the greater number of Catho∣lique Churches, and among them especially such as either had Apostolicall seates, as Hierusalem and the like; or receiued Epistles from some of the Apostles, as did the Churches of Corinth and Galatia; Gratian maketh him say, that the Epistles which the Apostolicall See receiued, or other receiued of it, are to be reckoned among Ca∣nonicall Scriptures. This ouersight of Gratian, d 1.1298 Picus Mirandula long since obser∣ued, and after him e 1.1299 Alfonsus a Castro: whereby wee may see how easie it was for men in former times to runne into most grosse errors; before the reuiuing of learning in these latter times, while the blinde did lead the blinde. For Gratian was the man out of whom f 1.1300 the greatest Diuines of former times tooke all their authorities of Fathers and Councles, as appeareth by their marginall quotations. And how ignorantly and negligently he mistooke them, & mis-alleaged thē, this one example is proof sufficient.

But whatsoeuer we think of Gratian we shall find that not only our Diuines, but the best learned among our aduersaries also, put a greatdifference between the sacred scrip∣tures of the holy Canon, and the Decrees of Councels. For, first they say, the Scripture is the word of God reuealed immediately, and written in a sort from his owne mouth; according to that of S. Peter; g 1.1301 the holy men of God, spake as they were moued by the holie Ghost: And that of S. Paul: h 1.1302 All Scripture is by diuine inspiration: which is not so to be vnderstood, as if alwaies the holy Writers had had new reuelations, and had al∣wayes written that, which before they were ignorant of: for it is certaine that the E∣uangelists Mathew and Iohn, wrote those things which they saw, and Marke and Luke those things they heard from others, as Luke himselfe confesseth in the beginning of his Gospel. But the holy writers are therefore said to haue had immediate reuela∣tion, and to haue written the words of God himselfe: because either some new things and not knowne before, were reuealed to them by God: or because God immediately

inspired and moued the Writers to write those things which they had seene and heard and directed them that they should not any way erre in writing: whereas Coun∣cels neither haue, nor write immediate reuelations or words of God, but only declare which is that word of God vttered formerly to the Prophets and Apostles, how it is to bee vnderstood, and what conclusions may bee deduced from it by discourse of rea∣son. Secondly, the holy Writers performed that which they did, without any further labour or trauell, then that, in writing and calling to minde what they had seene and heard: but in Councels, the Bishoppes and Fathers, with great paine and trauell, seeke out the trueth by discourse, conference, reading and deepe meditation: and therefore the holy Writers are wont to attribute all to God onely, and the Prophets were wont often to repeate, The Lord sayth. Thirdly, in the Scriptures, not one∣the whole sentences, but euery word pertaineth to Faith: for no word is therein vaine or ill placed. But in Councels there are many disputations going before resolution, many reasons brought for confirmation of things resolued on, many things added for explication and illustration, many things vttered obiter, and in passage, that men are not bound to admitte as true and right: nay many things are defined in Councels that men are not bound to stand vnto. For it is the manner of Councels, sometimes to define a thing as certainely and vndoubtedly true, pronouncing them Heretiques that thinke otherwise, and subiecting them to curse & Anathema: and sometimes as probable onely, and not certaine, as the i 1.1303 Councell of Vienna decreed, that it is more probable, that both grace, and vertues accompanying grace, are infused into Infants when they are baptized, then that they are not: and yet is this no matter faith in the Church of Rome. Fourthly, in the scripture all things, (as well concer∣ning particular persons, as in generality) are vndoubtedly true. For, it is as certaine that Peter and Paul had the spirit of God, as that no man can be saued without the illu∣mination and sanctification of the spirit: but in the determinations and decrees of Bishoppes assembled in a generall councell it is not so: for they may erre in iudging of the persons of men, and therefore there is no absolute certainty in the canonizati∣on of Saints, as both k 1.1304 Thomas and l 1.1305 Canus do confesse. Fiftly, in Scriptures there are no precepts touching manners, either concerning the whole church or any part of it, that are not right equall, and just. But councels may erre, if not in prescribing things euill, in stead of good, yet in prescribing things not fitting nor expedient, if not to the whole church, yet to some particular part of it, as not knowing the cōdition of things therein. Yea m 1.1306 some there are that think it not hereticall to beleeue, that generall coun∣cels may prescribe some lawes to the whole church, that are not right, profitable, and iust: as to honour such a one for a Saint, who indeed is no Saint: to admit such orders of Religious men as are not profitable: to receiue the communion onely in one kinde, and the like. And there are n 1.1307 many that confidently pronounce, that generall coun∣cells may decree such things as may breed inconuenience, and may sauour of too great seuerity and austerity, which the guides of the church in the execution of the same must bee forced to qualifie and temper. So that the onely question is, whether a ge∣nerall councell may certainely, define any thing to bee true in matter of faith, that is false: or command the doing of any act as good and an act of vertue, that indeed and in trueth is an act of sinne. Touching this point, there are that say, that all interpretations of holy Scriptures agreed on in generall councels, and all resolutions of doubtes con∣cerning things therein contained, proceed from the same Spirit from which the holy Scriptures were inspired: and that therefore generall councels cannot erre either in the interpretation of Scriptures, or resoluing of things doubtfull concerning the faith. But these men should know, that o 1.1308 though the interpretations and resolutions of Bi∣shops in generall councels, proceed from the same Sperit, from which the Scriptures were inspired, yet not in the same sort, nor with like assurance of beeing free from mixture of errour. For the Fathers assembled in generall councels, doe not rely vp∣pon immediate reuelation, in all their particular resolutions and determinations, as the Writers of the Bookes of holy Scripture did, but on their owne meditation, search and study, the generall assistance of Diuine grace concurring with them. That

the Fathers assembled in Generall councels, rely not vpon any speciall and immedi∣ate revelations, may easily be proued by sundry good and effectuall reasons. For first, whensoeuer we hope to come to know any thing by speciall and immediate re∣velation from God, wee vse not to betake our selues to study and meditation, but to prayer onely, and other good workes, or at least principally to these: Whence it is that Daniel when he hoped to obtaine of GOD the interpretation of Nebuchad∣nezars dreame by speciall and immediate revelation, did not exhort his companions and consorts by study to search out the secret he desired to know, but by prayer and supplication to seeke it of GOD. And after hee had found out the secret hee sought for, hee saide, p 1.1309 O God of my Fathers, I confesse vnto thee, and praise thee, because thou hast giuen mee wisedome and strength, and hast shewed vnto me those things which we desired of thee, and hast opened vnto vs the word of the King: Whence also it is, that Christ promising-his Apostles, that hee would reveale vnto them what they should speake, when they should bee brought before Kings and Rulers, willeth them, To q 1.1310 take no care how, or what to speake, for that it should bee revealed vnto them in that houre what they should speake; It is not you that speake (saith our Sauiour) but the spirit of my Father that speaketh in you. When as therefore wee hope to learne any thing of GOD by immediate revelation, wee must not apply our selues to study, and me∣ditation, but to prayer. But when men meete in Generall councels, to determine any doubt or question, they principally giue themselues to meditation, study and search; therefore they hope not to bee taught of GOD by immediate revelation. Se∣condly, when wee desire to haue things made knowne vnto vs by immediate reve∣lation from GOD, wee goe not to them that are most learned, but to them that are most devout and religious, whether they bee learned or vnlearned, whether of the cleargy or the Laity, whether men or women, because for the most part GOD revea∣leth his secrets, not to them that are wiser & more learned, but to them that are better, & more religious and devout; according to that of our Sauiour, ^r I giue thee thankes * 1.1311 O Father, LORD of Heauen and Earth, because thou hast hidde these things from the wise, and men of vnderstanding, and hast opened them vnto Babes. And therefore the s 1.1312 good King Iosias, when hee desired by revelation to know the will of GOD tou∣ching the wordes of the volume that was found in the Temple, hee sent Helkiah the High Priest to Huldah the Prophetesse, and sought not concerning the wordes of the Law among the Priests, whose lippes are to preserue knowledge, and at whose mouth men ought to seeke the Law: because though the Law bee to bee sought at the mouth of the Priest, in all those things which may bee learned by study, medi∣tation, & search, yet in those things that are to bee learned by revelation, recourse must bee had to them that haue the spirit of prophecie, if any such bee; or else to them that are most holy, and whose prayers are most acceptable vnto God. Neither are men for satisfaction in these things, rather to goe to the Priestes, then to any Lay∣man, that is vtterly vnlearned; But in councels men goe to them that are more learned, and of better place in the church, though they bee not the best and holy∣est men: Therefore questions touching matters of faith, are not determined in coun∣cels by immediate revelation. If it be said, that the Apostles and Elders, in that first councell which is mentioned in the t 1.1313 Actes, relyed on the knowledge they had of the Scriptures and Trueth of GOD, and did not wayte for a new immediate re∣velation; and that therefore this kinde of reasoning will bring them within compasse of the same danger of erring, that wee subiect their Successors vnto, because they relye not vpon immediate revelation, but search and study: It will bee easily aun∣swered, that though the Apostles and others assembled in that councell, depended not vpon immediate revelation, but the knowledge they had of the Scriptures and Trueth of GOD, and thence inferred what was to be thought of the matter then in que∣stion, yet were they not in danger of erring, as their successours are, because they re∣lyed not on such imperfect knowledge, as study & meditatiō begets, but such as di∣vine revelatiō causeth: to wit, perfect & absolute; whēce they knew how to deriue the

resolution of any doubt or question, beeing specially assisted by the Spirit of Trueth. Neither lette any man thinke that the Apostles assembled in this Councell were any way doubtfull what to resolue, when they heard the matter proposed, because there is mention made of great disputation in that meeting: For, (as it may bee thought) that questioning and disputing was among the Elders and Brethren, and not among the Apostles; the meanest of them being able to resolue a farre greater matter with∣out any the least doubt or stay. So that it is absurd that u 1.1314 Melchior Canus from hence inferreth, that the Decrees of this Councell, wherein there was so great a dispute, are not Canonicall Scripture, any other wayes then the wordes of Pilate are, because they are recorded by the Euangelists in the holy Scripture. But to returne to the mat∣ter, whence this obiection made vs digresse, it is no way necessary to thinke, that the Fathers are any otherwise directed by the Spirit of Trueth in Generall Councels, then in Patriarchicall, Nationall, or Prouinciall; Seeing Generall Councells consist of such as come with instructions from Prouinciall, Nationall, and Patriarchicall Synodes, & must follow the same in making Decrees, as hath beene shewed before: and conse∣quently, that they are not led to the finding out of the trueth in any speciall sort or manner, beyond that generall influence that is required to the performance of euery good worke. So that as God assisting Christian men in the Church, onely in a generall sort to the performance of the workes of vertue, there are euer some wel-doers, and yet no particular man doth alwayes well; and there is no degree or kinde of Morall vertue commanded in the Law, but is attained by some one or other, at one time or other, one excelling in one thing, and another in another, yet no particular man, or company of men, hath all degrees and perfections of vertue, as x 1.1315 Hierome fitly noteth against the Pelagians: so in like sort, God assisting Christian men in the Church, in seeking out the truth, only in generall sort, as in the performance of the actions of vertue, & not by immediate reuelation and inspiration, as in the Apostles times; there are euer some that hold and professe all necessary truth, though no one man, or com∣pany of men doe find the truth euer, and in all thinges, nor any assurance can be had of any particular men, that they should alwayes hold all necessary truthes.

And therefore we may safely conclude, that no man can certainely pronounce, that whatsoeuer the greater part of Bishops assembled in a Generall Councell agree on, is vndoubtedly true. Neither are wee alone in this conclusion, but sundry excellently Learned among our Aduersaries in former times, euen in the middest of the Papacie, concurred in the same. For y 1.1316 Waldensis expresly affirmeth, that, Generall Councells haue erred, and may erre; and confidently deliuereth, that it is no particular Church, that hath assurance of holding the trueth, and not erring from the Faith, neither that of Africa, which Donatus so much admired, nor the particular Church of Rome, but the Vniuersall Church: nor that Vniuersall Church which is gathered together in a Generall Councell, which wee haue found to haue erred sometimes, (as that at Ariminum vnder Taurus the Gouernour, and that at Constantinople vnder Iustinian the yonger, in the time of Sergi∣us the Pope, according to Beda & certaine other) but that Catholicke Church of Christ which hath beene dispersed throughout the whole world by the Ministery of the Apostles, and others their successours, euer since the Baptisme of Christ, and continued vnto these times, which vndoubtedly keepeth the true faith, and the faithfull testimony of Christ, teaching Babes Heauenly wisdome, and retaining the truth constantly in the middest of all extremities of errours. And againe in another place, speaking of Councells, hee saith; z 1.1317 that which the multitude of Catholicke Doctors, with vnanimous consent, resolueth and deliuereth to be true, Catholicke, and Orthodoxe, is not lightly to be esteemed; though haply all that are there present are not led by the spirit: for this very vnanimous consenting is a great and excellent thing, and much to be respected: though sometimes by the faults of men carried with sinister respectes, it tend to scandall and ruine: and thereupon, hauing shew∣ed the different degrees of authority found in the Church, (which I haue a 1.1318 else-where set downe at large) he pronounceth b 1.1319; that onely the consent of the Fathers successiuely from the beginning (as absolutely free from danger of erring, and next in degree of autho∣rity to the Canonicall Scripture) is to be listned and hearkned vnto: And that no man

should thinke it strange that the Fathers successiuely in all ages, should be 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 certaine and infallible Iudges in matters of faith, then a Generall Councell of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…∣ting at one time and in one place, seeing so many wise, just and holy Fathers can neither bee contained within the straites of one place, nor are in the world at one time, but were giuen successiuely by Almighty God, to giue testimony vnto the faith in their seuerall times, in a constant and a perpetuall course: all which Fathers wee may gather together, and haue present all at once, so often as wee desire to consult them and to be resolued by them in matters of difficultie and doubt, though they could neuer be all assembled into one place, or meete together, while they liued in the flesh. Neither is this the priuate conceipt of Waldensis onely, but c 1.1320 Picus Mirandula affirmeth, that howsoeuer many Di•…•…es are of opinion, that generall Councells, wherein the Pope is present, cannot define any thing amisse concerning faith and good liuing, yet there are other that dissent from them, affirming that Councells haue erred, and may erre, as that at Ariminium, and the Second at Ephesus. Whereas the former sort answere, that these Councels might erre, because the Pope was not present in them, they reply, that the second Councell of Ephesus was lawfully called, the Popes Legates being present, and yet tended to the ouerthrow of the true faith, so that Leo was forced to procure the Councell of Chal∣cedon for the reuersing of the Acts of it. And this their opinion of the possibility of the erring of general Councels, they proue and confirme by the possibility of their dissen∣ting one from another; and the possibility of their dissenting one from another, by the directions which the * 1.1321 Diuines do giue, to shew to which we are to stand, when they are found contradictory one to another. Besides these, there are other who d 1.1322 say, that Generall Councells may erre for some short time, but that they cannot long persist in error: and a third sort, e 1.1323 who thinke that Generall Councels may erre when they proceede disorderedly, or vse not that diligence they should.

Neither is this opinion of the possibility of the erring of general Councels, the pri∣uate conceit of late Writers, but the Ancient accord with them in the same. For f 1.1324 Austine pronounceth that the writings of the Bishoppes that haue beene published since the Canon of the Scripture was perfited, may be censured and reproued by such as see more; by the grauer authority of other Bishops, by the prudence of the learned, and by Councels, if in any thing they bee found to haue erred from the Trueth; that Councels holden in seuerall Regions and Prouinces, must without all resistance giue way to those that are generall; and that among generall Councels, the former must be content to be amended by the latter, when by experiment that which was shut vp is opened, and that which lay hid is found out, and known. Neither doth g 1.1325 Bellarmines euasion, that Austine speaketh of matters of fact, wherein Councels may erre, or of con∣uersation and manners, which may vary, serue the turne: seeing the drift of Austine is to shew, that no writings of men are free from errors, but onely the Canonicall Scrip∣tures: and that therefore they must be content to be examined iudged, and controuled euen in matters of Faith. And h 1.1326 Isidore speaking of differences in doctrine and matters of Faith, and not of Fact only, as Bellarmine in the same place confesseth, acknowledgeth that Councels may dissent one from another, and consequently erre: and giueth direc∣tion which is to be followed; in case such difference doe fall out. I haue thought good (saith he) to adde in the end of this Epistle, that so often as in the Actes of Councells, there is found disagreement of iudgement, the sentence and iudgement of that Councel is rather to be holden, which in Antiquity or greatnes of authority excelleth the other. * 1.1327

But what neede we insist vppon Authorities to proue that Councels may erre? In the time of Constantius the Emperor, we know there was a generall Councell holden, consisting of exceeding many Bishops, gathered together out of all parts of the world, one part of thē meeting at Ariminium in the West, & the other at Seleucia in the East. In both these diuided assemblies, there were exceeding many right belieuing Bishops, & between these, there was a continuall intercourse: & yet things were so carried, that both parts consented to the betraying of the sincerity of the Christian profession, and the wronging of worthy Athanasius: some purposely out of an hereticall disposition: some, out of a mistaking of things, being abused by cunning companions; some for that

they could no longer indure to stay in a strange countrey, consenting to that which they should not haue consented vnto. If it be said that Liberius Bishoppe of Rome, did not consent to this Councell, it will easily be answered, that though at the very first he did not consent to the Hereticall practises of the Arrians; yet in the end he did, after he had beene in banishment for a time. As likewise Vigilius refused to subscribe to the Fifth Generall Councell, till he was banished for his refusal. The only thing that can be said, is, that they proceeded not orderly in this Councell, but violently, and fraudulently. But this absolutely ouerthroweth the infallibility of Councels, and their Decrees. For if Councels may erre when they proceede disorderly, and vse not that diligence for the finding out of the Truth, which they should, what certainty can there be in their Decrees? Seeing it may be doubted, whether they proceeded orderly, and consequently, whether they erred or not. k 1.1328 Leo confesseth, that in the Second Coun∣cell of Ephesus, there were a great number of worthy Bishops, who might haue been sufficient to haue found out and cleared the Truth, if he that obtained the chiefe place had vsed accustomed moderation, and suffered euery one to speake his minde freely, and not forced all to serue his vile designes. If it bee saide, that howsoeuer this was a Generall Councel, and lawfully called, yet the resolution was not the resolution of a Generall Councell, because it was not consented vnto, but mainely resisted by the Le∣gates of the Bishop of Rome, we shall finde that in the l 1.1329 councels vnder Michael the Emperour, the Legates of the Bishoppe of Rome consented also to an ill and vnlaw∣full conclusion there made. If it be further alleadged, that howsoeuer the Legats of the Bishop of Rome may erre as well as other Bishops in the councell, when they pre∣sume to define without instructions, or to goe against their instructions, yet the Pope himselfe cannot giue consent to any thing that is not true and right; it will bee proued that Popes also may be so mis-led by sinister affections, as not onely to consent to that they should not, but also to miscarry all in Councell as well as others. For m 1.1330 Sigebert reporteth, that Stephen Bishoppe of Rome, and after him Sergius, called Councels, and proceeded in them in furious manner against Formosus their Predecessour, not on∣ly pulling his dead body out of the graue, and despightfully re-ordaining such as hee ordained, but judicially pronouncing and defining, that his ordinations were voide, which was an errour in Faith, seeing hee was knowne once to haue beene a true and lawfull Bishop, though in respect of perjury or violent intrusion, he had beene judged neuer to haue beene lawfull Bishop of Rome.

But heere I cannot passe by the contradiction of Cardinall Bellarmine, strangely for∣getting himselfe, and saying hee knoweth not what. For first hee saith, n 1.1331 it is certain, and a matter of Faith, that a Generall councell confirmed by the Pope, cannot erre. Se∣condly, he saith, o 1.1332 the infallibility of Councels is wholly in the Pope, and not partly in the Pope, partly in the Bishops. And thirdly he saith, p 1.1333 he dareth not to affirme it to be a matter of Faith, that the Pope is free from danger of erring, though hee haue a par∣ticular Councell concurring with him. So strangely doth the good man crosse himselfe, and ouer-throw that in one place which hee built in another. For how can it bee certaine and a matter of Faith, that the Generall Councell approued by the Pope, cannot erre, if it haue no certainty of not erring but from the Pope, and it bee not certaine that the Pope cannot erre. That Councels, though lawfull, to which nothing wanted but the Popes consent, haue erred, hee saith, it is most certaine and vndoubted. So that Generall Councels are not in them-selues free from errour, but their infallibility resteth in the Pope. Now that it is not certaine, that the Pope is free from danger of erring, hee proueth, first, because they are still tollerated by the Church, & not condemned as Heretikes, that thinke the pope subiect to errour, euen in judiciall sentence and decree. Secondly, out of q 1.1334 Eusebi∣us, who saith, that Cornelius the pope with a National councel of all the Bishops of Italy decreed, that Heretikes ought not to be rebaptized, and Stephen afterwards approued the same sentence, and commaunded that Heretikes should not bee rebaptized; and yet r 1.1335 Cyprian thought the contrary, and earnestly maintained it, charging Stephen with errour and obstinacy, which he would not haue done, if he had thought the pope

free from danger of erring. Neither would the Church haue honoured him as a Ca∣tholicke Bishop and blessed Martyr, that thus confidently contradicted the Pope, and resisted his decrees and mandates, if it were certaine, and a matter of Faith, and all men vnder paine of Heresie bound to beleeue, that the Pope cannot erre. Wherefore to conclude this point, how can wee be sure with the certainty of Faith, that Generall Councels cannot erre, if their infallibility depēd on the Popes, who may be most pro∣digiously impious, and worse then infidells; not onely erring in some particular points concerning the Faith, but ouerthrowing all, as he did, that Picus s 1.1336 Mirandula speaketh of, who peremptorily denied that there is any God; and confirmed the same his execrable impiety by the manner of his entering into the Popedome, and liuing in it: And that other t 1.1337 he speaketh of, who denied the immortality of the soule, though after his death, appearing to one of them to whom in his life time he had vttered that his impious conceit, he told him he now found, to his endlesse woe and misery, that soule he thought mortall to be immortall, & neuer to dye.

Yet u 1.1338 when there is a lawfull Generall Councell according to the former descripti∣on, to wit, wherein all the Patriarches are present, either in person, or by their depu∣ties, and the Synode of Bishoppes vnder them signifie their opinion, either by such as they send, or by their Prouinciall letters, if there appeare nothing to vs in it, that may argue an vnlawfull proceeding, nor there be no gaine-saying of men of worth, place, and esteeme, wee are so strongly to presume that it is true and right, that with vnani∣mous consent is agreed on in such a Councell, that wee must not so much as professe publikely that wee thinke otherwise, vnlesse wee doe most certainely know the con∣trary, yet may wee in the secret of our hearts remaine in some doubt, carefully seek∣ing by the Scripture and Monuments of antiquity to finde out the Trueth. Neither is it necessary for vs expressely to beleeue whatsoeuer the Councell hath concluded, though it be true; vnlesse by some other meanes it appeare vnto vs to be true, and wee be convinced of it, in some other sort then by the bare determination of the Councell onely. But it sufficeth that we beleeue it, implicitè, and, in praeparatione animi, that out of the due respect wee beare to the Councels Decree, we dare not resolue other∣wise, and bee ready expresly to beleeue it, if it shall be made to appeare vnto vs. But, concerning the Generall Councels of this sort, that hitherto haue beene holden, wee confesse that in respect of the matter about which they were called, so neerely, and es∣sentially concerning the life and soule of the Christian Faith, and in respect of the man∣ner and forme of their proceeding, and the euidence of proofe brought in them, they are, and euer were expresly to bee beleeued by all such as perfectly vnderstand the meaning of their determination. And that therefore it is not to bee maruailed at, if x 1.1339 Gregory professe, that hee honoureth the first foure Councels as the foure Gospels; and that whosoeuer admitteth them not, though hee seeme to bee a Stone elect & pre∣cious, yet hee lyeth beside the foundation and out of the building. Of this sort there are onely sixe; the first, defining the Sonne of GOD to be co-essentiall, co-eternall, & co-equall with the Father. The second, defining that the holy Ghost is truely God, co-essentiall, co-eternall, and co-equall with the Father and the Sonne. The third, the vnity of Christs person. The fourth, the distinction and diuersity of his natures, in, and after the personall vnion. The fifth, condemning some remaines of Nestoria∣nisme; more fully explaining thinges stumbled at in the Councell of Chalcedon, and ac∣cursing the Heresie of Origen and his followers, touching the temporall punishments of Diuells and wicked Cast-awayes: and the Sixth, defining and clearing the distin∣ction of operations, actions, powers, and wils in Christ, according to the diuersity of his natures. These were all the lawfull Generall Councells (lawfull I say both in their beginning, and proceeding, and continuance) that euer were holden in the Chri∣stian Church, touching matters of Faith. For the Seauenth, which is the second of Nice, was not called about any question of Faith, but of manners: In which our Ad∣uersaries confesse there may be something inconueniently prescribed, and so as to bee the occasion of great & grieuous euils: and surely that is our conceit of the Seauenth Generall Councell, the second of Nice: for howsoeuer it condemne the religious ado∣ration

and worshipping of Pictures and seeme to allow no other vse of them, but that which is Historicall: yet in permitting men by outward signes of reuerence & respect towards the Pictures of Saints, to expresse their loue towards them, and the desire they haue of enioying their happie society, and in condemning so bitterly such as vpon dislike of abuses, wished there might be no Pictures in the Church at all: it may seem to haue giuen some occasion, and to haue opened the way vnto that grosse Idolatrie which afterwards entered into the Church. The Eigth Generall Councell was not called about any question of Faith or Manners, but to determine the question of right betweene Photius & Ignatius, contending about the Bishopricke of Constantinople. So that there are but seauen Generall Councels, that the whole Church acknowled∣geth, called to determine matters of Faith and Manners. For the rest that were hol∣den afterwardes, which our Aduersaries would haue to bee accounted Generall, they are not onely reiected by vs, but by the Grecians also, as not Generall, but Patriarchi∣call onely: because either they consisted onely of the Westerne Bishoppes, without any concurrence of those of the East; or, if any were present (as in the Councell of Florence there were) they consented to those thinges which they agreed vnto, rather out of other respects, then any matter of their owne satisfaction. And therefore how∣soeuer we dare not pronounce that lawfull Generall Councels are free from danger of erring (as some among our Aduersaries doe) yet doe wee more honour & esteeme, & more fully admit all the Generall Councels that euer hitherto haue beene holden, then they doe; who feare not to charge some of the chiefest of them with errour, as both the y 1.1340 Second, and the z 1.1341 Fourth, for equalling the Bishop of Constantinople to the Bi∣shop of Rome; which I thinke they suppose to haue beene an errour in Faith.

CHAP. 52.

Of the calling of Councells; and to whom that right pertaineth.

FROM the assurance of Trueth which lawfull Generall Councells haue, let vs proceede to see by whom they are to bee called. The state of the Christian Church, the good thinges it enioyeth, and the felicity it promiseth, being spi∣rituall, is such, that it may stand, though not onely forsaken, but grieuously op∣pressed by the great men of the world: and doth not absolutely depend on the care of such as manage the great affaires of the World, and direct the outward course of thinges here below: and therefore it is by all resolued on, that the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that beare the Sword, and that there is in the Church a power of conuocating these her Spirituall Pastours, to consult of thinges concerning her wel-fare, though none of the Princes of the World doe fauour her, nor reach forth vnto her their helping handes: neither need wee to seeke farre, to find in whom this power resteth: for there is no question, but that this power is in them that are first, and before other, in each company of spirituall Pastors and Ministers; seeing none other canne be imagined, from whom each action of consequence, & each common deliberation, should take beginning, but they, who are in order, honour, and place before other, and to whom, the rest that gouerne the Church in common, haue an eye, as to them, that are first in place among them. Hereupon, we shall find that the calling of Diocesan Synodes, pertaineth to the Bishop; of Prouinciall to the Metropolitane; of Nationall, to the Primate; and of Patriarchicall, to the Patriarch; in that they are in order, honour, and place before the rest; though some of these (as a 1.1342 Bellarmine truely noteth) haue no commanding authority ouer the rest. Touch∣ing Diocesan Synodes, I shewed b 1.1343 before, that the Bishop is bound once euery yeare at least to call vnto him the Presbyters of his Church, and to hold a Synode with thē: and the c 1.1344 Councell of Antioch ordaineth, that the Metropolitane shall call together the Bishops of the Prouince by his letters, to make a Synode. And the d 1.1345 Councell of Tarracon in Spaine decreeth, that if any Bishoppe warned by the Metropolitane, neglect to come to the Synode (except hee be hindered by some corporall necessity)

he shall be depriued of the communion of all the Bishops vntill the next Councell. The e 1.1346 Epaunine Councell in like sort ordereth, that when the Metropolitane shall thinke good to call his Brethren the Bishops of the same Province to a Synode, none shall ex∣cuse his absence without an evident cause. Touching Nationall Councels, and such as consist of the Bishops of many Provinces, such as were the Councels of Africa, the calling of them pertained vnto the Primate, as it appeareth by the second councell of f 1.1347 Carthage, in that the Bishop of Carthage being the Primate of Africa by vertue of particular canons concerning that matter, by his Letters called together the rest of the Metropolitanes and their Bishops. And concerning Patriarchicall councels, the g 1.1348 eighth Generall councell taketh order, that the Patriarch shall haue power to convo∣cate the Metropolitanes that are vnder him, and that they shall not refuse to come when he calleth them, vnlesse they be hindered by vrgent causes. And to this pur∣pose it was, that the Bishops within the Patriarchship of Rome were once in the yeare to visite the Apostolicall thresholds; which to do, they take an oath still euen to this day (as h 1.1349 Cusanus noteth) so that it is evident, that there is a power in Bishoppes, Metropolitanes, Primates, and Patriarchs, to call Episcopall, Provinciall, Nationall, and Patriarchicall Synodes; and that neither so depending of, nor subiect to the power of Princes, but that when they are enemies to the Faith, they may exercise the same with∣out their consent and privity, and subiect them that refuse to obey their summons; to such punishments as the canons of the Church doe prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilfull negligence. But that wee may see to whom the calling of Generall Coun∣cels doth pertaine in the times of persecution, and when there are no Christian Prin∣ces, we must obserue, that among the Patriarches, though one bee in order before ano∣ther, (As the Patriarch of Alexandria is before the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Pa∣triarch of Rome before the Patriarch of Alexandria) yet is not one of them superiour to another in degree, as Bishops are to Presbyters; nor so in order, honour, and place, as Metropolitanes are to Bishops, or Patriarches to Metropolitanes, whom they are to ordaine, or at the least to confirme: And therefore no one of them singly and by him∣selfe alone, hath power to call vnto him any Patriarch, or any Bishop subiect to such Patriarch; But as in case when there groweth a difference betweene the patriarches of one See and another, or betweene any of the patriarches and the Metropolitanes and Bishops subiect to them; the superiour patriarch not of himselfe alone, but with his Metropolitanes, and such particular Bishops as are interessed, may judge and deter∣mine the differences between them, if without danger of a further rent it may be done (as in the case of Chrysostome and Theophilus it could not;) So if there be any matter of Faith, or any thing concerning the whole state of the Christian church, wherein a common deliberation of all the pastors of the church is necessary, he that is in order the first among the patriarches, with the Synodes of Bishops subiect to him; may call the rest together, as being the principall part of the church, whence all actions of this na∣ture doe take beginning: And this is that which Iulius Bishop of Rome hath, when i 1.1350 writing to the Bishops of the East, he telleth them, that the manner and custome is, that they should write to him and the Westerne Bishops first; that from thence might be decreed the thing that is just: and againe, that they ought to haue written to them all, that so that which is just might bee decreed by all. And hence it is that k 1.1351 Da∣masus, Ambrose, Brito, Valerianus, and the rest of the holy Bishops assembled in the great city of Rome, out of their brotherly loue sent for the Bishops of the East, as their owne members, praying and desiring them to come vnto them, that they might not raigne alone. So that the power of calling Generall Councels, when the church hath no princes to assist her, is not in the Pope, but in the Westerne Synode: and yet hath not this Synode any power ouer all the other Churches, as a supreme Commaunder, but is onely (as a principall part among the rest) to beginne, procure, & set forward, as much as in her lyeth, such things as pertain to the cōmon good: neither may it by ver∣tue of any canon, custome, or practise of the church, excōmunicate the rest for refusing to hearken when it calleth: as it appeareth by the former example: in that they of the East came not when they were called, and intreated to come to Rome by Damasus,

Ambrose and the rest; but stayed at Constantinople, did some things which they disli∣ked, and yet were forced to giue way vnto them, and as being greater in authority then they, bare the name of the generall Councell: though they were assembled at Rome, at the same time in a very great number. But if the greater part concurre with them, they may excommunicate those few, that shall wilfully and causelesly refuse to obey them. If it be said, that hence it will follow, that there is no certaine meanes of hauing a generall Councell at all times, as there is of Prouinciall or Patriarchicall, (which may seeme absurde) it will be answered, that l 1.1352 there is not the like necessitie of hauing Generall Councels, as there is of hauing those more particular Synodes: and that therefore it is not absurd to grant, that the Church hath not at all times cer∣taine and infallible meanes to haue a Generall Councell, as it hath to haue the other. Nay, that it hath not, it most plainely appeareth, in that m 1.1353 in the case of Chrysostome greatly distressed & greiuously wronged, Innocentius professed vnto him, he knew no meanes to helpe him, but a Generall Councell; which to obtaine, he became an humble futer to the Emperour, but was so farre from preuailing, that the messengers hee sent were returned backe againe vnto him with disgrace.

Thus wee see to whom the calling of Councels pertaineth, when there is no Christi∣an Magistrate to assist the Church, but when there is a Christian Magistrate, it pertai∣neth to him to see, that these assemblies be duly holden accordingly as the necessity of the Church requireth, and the Canons prescribe. And therefor wee shall finde, that though Christian Emperours, Kings and Princes within their seuerall dominions, oftentimes permitted Bishops, Metropolitanes and Patriarches, to hold Episcopall, Prouinciall, Nationall, or Patriarchicall Councels, without particular intermedling therein, when they saw neither negligence in those of the Cleargy, in omitting to hold such Councels when it was fit, nor intrusion into their office; yet, soe often as they saw cause, they tooke into their owne hands the power of calling these more particu∣lar Synodes: And touching generall, there was neuer any that was not called by the Emperour.

That Emperours, Kings and Princes in their seuerall dominions respectiuely called particular Councels, is proued by innumerable examples. For Constantine the great, called the first Councell of Arle as it appeareth by his n 1.1354 Epistle to Crestus: and Binni∣us confesseth it. The Councell of Aquileia was called by the Emperours, as it ap∣peareth by the Epistle of the Councell to Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius the Em∣perours, in the first o 1.1355 Tome of the Councells. The p 1.1356 Councell of Burdegalis was cal∣led by the Emperour against Priscillian. The Councell of Agatha by the permission of the King, as as appeareth in the q 1.1357 second Tome of the Councels. The r 1.1358 first of Orleans was called by Clodoueus. The s 1.1359 Epaunine Councell by Sigismund the sonne of Gundebald. The second of t 1.1360 Orleans, by the command of Childebert the French King. The Councell of u 1.1361 Aruerne, by the permission of the King Theodobertus. The Fifth of x 1.1362 Orleans, by Childebert. The first of y 1.1363 Bracar, by Ariamirus, or (as some will haue it) Theodomirus. The second of z 1.1364 Turon, with the conniuence of the King. The second of a 1.1365 Bracar by Ariamirus. The b 1.1366 first Cabilon Councell, by the mandate of Gunthram; as likewise that of c 1.1367 Matiscon, and d 1.1368 Valentia. The third of e 1.1369 Toledo by Ri∣charedus. The Councels of f 1.1370 Narbone, and g 1.1371 Caesar-Augusta; by Richaredus, King of Sueueland. Many other examples might be produced, but these suffice, to shew what the ancient practise was, and what Christian Princes in former times tooke vpon them in this behalfe. And that they did lawfully, so to intermeddle, it appeareth, in that h 1.1372 S. Gregory writing to Theodoricus, exhorteth him by the crowne of life, to call Councels, and reforme abuses.

Wherefore let vs proceede to see who called the Generall Councells, that haue bin holden in the Christian Church. Hauing perused (sayth i 1.1373 Cusanus) the Actes of all the General Councels, to the Eighth inclusiuely: which Eighth was holden in the time of Basilius the Emperour, I find, that they were all called by the Emperours. Where∣upon (sayth hee) Elias the most holy Presbyter, that supplyed the place of the Bishop of Hierusalem sayd openly in the Eighth Generall Councell, in the hearing of all, that

Emperours did euer call Councels, and that Basilius was not inferiour to those that went before him, in the care of prouiding for the Church by Synodall meetings. And Anastasius the Popes Library-keeper, in his Glosse vpon the same place, saith, that the Emperors were wont to call Councells out of the whole world. Which thing is so cleare, that k 1.1374 Hierome writing against Ruffinus, and taking exception againsta cer∣taine Councell, biddeth him say, what Emperour it was that commaunded that Councell to be called? and therefore l 1.1375 Bellarmine confesseth it, and giueth foure rea∣sons, why it was so: whereof the first is, for that there was an Imperiall Law, that there should not bee any great Assemblies without the Emperours priuity, consent, and authority, for feare of sedition. The second, for that all those Cities in which such Councels might bee holden, being the Emperours, they might not bee holden without his consent. The third, for that the Councells were holden at the Empe∣rours charges, both in respect of carriages, and the diet, and intertainment ofthe Bi∣shops, during the time of their being in Councell, as m 1.1376 Eusebius in the life of Constan∣tine doth testifie; and n 1.1377 Theodoret in his Historie. The fourth, for that it was fitte the Popes in those times, acknowledging the Emperours to bee their Soueraigne Lords, should (as we reade they did) as suppliants beseech them to commaund Coun∣cells to be called. And surely, if wee had neither his confession, nor reasons, we neede not doubt hereof, hauing the testimony of all stories to confirme the same. For o 1.1378 Ruf∣finus saith, Constantine called the Councell of Bishops at Nice: and with him p 1.1379 Theodoret agreeth, saying expressely, that Constantine called the noble Synode of Nice: and q 1.1380 Eu∣sebius in his booke of the life of Constantine, affirming, that by his letters most hono∣rably written, he drew together the Bishoppes out of all parts, marshalling them as a mighty army ofGod, to encounter the enemies of the true faith. The occasion of calling this Councell, was the Heresie of Arrius, denying the Sonne ofGod to bee consubstantiall with the Father. The next Generall Councell after this, was the first at Constantinople, called for the suppressing of the Heresie of Macedonius and Eunomi∣us, who denied the holy Ghost to be God co-essentiall and co-eternall with the Fa∣ther, and this Councell was called by Theodosius the elder, as r 1.1381 Theodoret testifieth. s 1.1382 The third was holden at Ephesus, and called by Theodosius the Younger, at the suite of Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople, fearing the proceedings of Cyrill Bishoppe of Alexandria, and Caelestinus Bishop of Rome against him. The Fourth Councell was holden at Cahlcedon, and called by Martian the Emperour. The occasion was this: t 1.1383 In the time of Flauianus Bishop of Constantinople, the Heresie of Eutyches beganne, about which a Prouinciall Councell was called at Constantinople; whereunto vnfortu∣nate Eutyches being called, was found to haue vttered horrible blasphemies: for hee affirmed, that howsoeuer before the personall vnion, there were two distinct natures in Christ, yet after the vnion, there was but one; and besides affirmed, that his body was not of the same substance with ours: Whereupon hee was put from the Ministe∣ry of the Church and degree of Priest-hood. But not enduring thus to bee depriued of his place and honour, he complaineth to Theodosius the Emperour, pretending that Flauianus had fained and deuised matters against him, and rested not, till hee procu∣red a Synode at Constantinople of the neighbour Bishoppes to re-examine the mat∣ters, who confirming that which was formerly done, another by hīs procurement was called at Ephesus by Theodosius, and Dioscorus Bishoppe of Alexandria made Pre∣sident of it. In which Councell all thinges were carried in a very disordered & vio∣lent sorte: for Dioscorus permitted not the Bishoppes to speake freely, neither would hee suffer the letters of the Bishoppe of Rome (who was absent) to bee read; such Bi∣shoppes as he disliked, he violently cast out of the Councell, & retayned none but such as were fitte to serue his turne. Hee deposed Flauianus Bishoppe of Constantinople, Eusebius of Dorileum, Domnus Bishop of Antioch, and Theodoret, with sundry o∣ther. The Legates of the Bishop of Rome offended with these violent proceedings, protested against them as vnlawfull; and Flauianus (who was not only depriued, but so beaten, that not long after hee died) appealed to the Bishoppe of Rome, & other Bishops of the West for helpe and remedy: vpon the hearing of which complaints,

u 1.1384 Leo then Bishop of Rome, with many other Bishops of the West, went to the Em∣perour, and in most humble and earnest manner vpon their knees besought him to call a Councell in Italy, which he would not yeeld vnto, but called one at Chalcedon, com∣maunding him and all other Bishops to come vnto it. The fift Councell was holden at Constantinople, and called by Iustinian the Elder, as x 1.1385 Euagrius testifieth. I haue shewed y 1.1386 before what the occasion of calling this councell was, and that though Vi∣gilius Bishop of Rome, and the Westerne Bishops refused to bee present in it, together with the rest, or to confirme it when it ended, yet it was holden a lawfull councell. The sixt Generall councell was holden at Constantinople, and was called by Constantine the fourth, as appeareth by his letters to the Bishopps of Rome, Constantinople and the rest prefixed before it: The occasion whereof was the Heresie of the Monothelites, who denied the diuersity of wills, actions, and operations in Christ, & consequently of natures. The seuenth was holden at Nice, about the vse of Pictures in the church, and called by Constantine the Emperour, as appeareth by his Epistle to Adrian Bi∣shop of Rome, prefixed before it. The eight was holdenat Constantinople, about the difference betweene Ignatius and Photius, and called by Basilius the Emperour, as appeareth by the Appendix to the Acts of that councell; collected out of diuerse Au∣thors by Surius, and extant in the second part of the third Tome of Councels, set out by Binnius. So that wee see all the Eight Generall Councels were called by the Em∣perours, and not by the Popes, which thing is so cleare and euident, that our Adversa∣ries dare not deny it, but seeke to avoyde the evidence ofthe truth (against which they dare not directly oppose themselues) by all the shifts they can devise; for first they say, z 1.1387 that though it be not so proper to the Pope to call Councels, but that others may doe it, ifhee assent vnto it or approue it, yet that without his Mandate, Assent or Approbation of such indiction and calling, no councell is lawfull. Secondly, they say, a 1.1388 that the Emperours called councels by the authority of the Pope: and thirdly, b 1.1389 that happily they presumed aboue that was fit forthem to doe. Wherefore let vs see how they proue that they say.

That the right of calling Councels belongeth to the Pope, and not to the Emperor, and consequently, that the Emperour may call none without his assent, c 1.1390 Bellarmine en∣deauoureth to proue in this sort. They that meete in councels, must bee gathered together in the name of Christ: to be gathered in the name of Christ, is, to be gathe∣red by him that hath authority from Christ; and none hath authority from Christ to call together the Pastors of the church, but the Pope onely: therefore none but the Pope may call councels. To this argument wee answere, that indeed they must meet in the name of Christ, who assemble in councels: but that to meete in Christs name, importeth not in the promise made by Christ, a gathering together of them that meete by his authority. And that the Cardinall can neuer proue, that the Pope, and hee onely, is authorized to call together the Pastours of the churches. That to bee gathered together in Christs Name, importeth not to bee called together by pub∣like authority, as Bellarmine vntruely affirmeth, it is evident by his owne confession, in that hee acknowledgeth, that the gathering together in Christs Name, to which * 1.1391 hee hath promised to joyne his owne presence, may bee verified of many or few, Bi∣shops or Laymen, priuate or publike persons, about priuate or publike affaires: whereas priuate men meeting about priuate businesses, are not gathered together by any one hauing authority to commaund them, but by voluntary agreement among themselues: and therefore e 1.1392 Andradius telleth vs, that both by the circumstance of Christs speech, and the commentaries of the holy Fathers it is euident, that his wordes agree to euery meeting of such men, as beeing joyned together in Faith and charity, aske any thing of GOD: and particularly produceth f 1.1393 Chrysostome expoun∣ding Christs wordes as Calvine doth, whom Bellarmine taxeth; to wit, that they are saide to bee gathered together in Christs Name, whom neither respect of private gaine induceth. nor the ambitious desire of honour inviteth, nor the prickes ofhatred and envy incite & driue forward, whom the inflamed loue of peace, & the feruent af∣fections of Christian charity impell, and not the spirit of contention: & in one word,

they who meete to seeke out (by force of diuine grace, with common and heartiest longing desires sought and obtained) what especially pleaseth Christ, and what is true. For they that come together to set forward, and aduance their owne priuate designes and to serue their owne contentious dispositions, and to deceiue miserable men with the glorious name of a Councell, are by no meanes to be thought to come together in Christs name, nor to hold Ecclesiasticall assemblies, but such as are most pestilent and hurtfull: of which sort they were, which were holden heretofore in the time of Con∣stantine and Constantius, at Tyrus, Ierusalem, Antioch, Sirmium, and Seleucia, and infi∣nite other conuenticles of Heretiques, to which that most aptly agreeth, which g 1.1394 Leo the Pope pronounceth of the second Councell of Ephesus, to wit, that while priuate causes were promoted and set forward vnder pretence of religion, that was brought to passe by the impiety of a few, that wounded the whole Church. But (sayth Bel∣larmine) this note of meeting in the feare of God, with desire of finding out the truth and doing good, discerneth not lawfull Councels from other, seeing all that meete in Councels, pretend that they come together out of a desire of the common good, and not for priuate respects: and that therefore this is not to meete in Christs name: which is strangely sayd of him; as if lawfull Councels rightly proceeding in their deliberations, might not bee discerned from other by any thing that other may pretend: or as if this his silly argument might sway against the circūstances of Christs words, and the Commentaries of the holy Fathers. Wherefore passing from this first exception against his Argument, wee secondly answere vnto it, that Christ did not giue the power of calling Generall Councels to the Pope alone, as hee alleageth: and in what sort Christ committed his Church to Peter, to be gouerned by him: as likewise in what sence it is that h 1.1395 Leo sayth, Though there be many Pastours, yet Peter ruleth them all, we haue largely i 1.1396 declared already. So that from hence nothing can bee concluded to proue, that Christ gaue the power and right of calling Generall Councels to the Pope alone; And thirdly we say, that though it be true, that Christ did not leaue his Church to be gouerned by Tiberius Caesar an Infidell, so continuing, or to his successors like vnto him in Infidelity; yet hee that promised to giue * 1.1397 Kings to be nursing Fathers, and Queenes to be nursing mothers vnto his Church, left it to bee go∣uerned by those nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers, which he meant in succeeding times to raise vp for the good, comfort, and peace of his faithfull people, after that their faith, patience; and long suffering (more precious then gold) should bee suffici∣ently tryed in the fire of tribulation. Wherefore let vs passe to the Cardinalls se∣cond argument, which is noe better then the first. For neither hath the Pope power either Ciuill or Ecclesiasticall, to inforce all Bishops to bee present at such assemblies as hee shall appoint, neither did the Emperours informer time want meanes to inforce all to come when they called for them. And touching the present state of things, wee are not so foolish, as to thinke the right of calling generall Councels to rest in the Em∣perour, hauing so little command as now hee hath, but wee place it in the concur∣rence of Christian Princes, without which no lawfull Generall Councell can euer bee had. His third reason, taken from the proportion of Metropolitanes and Patriarches, calling Prouinciall and Patriarchicall Synodes, holdeth not, as I haue shewed before. Neither that which seemeth of all other to bee strongest, taken from the ancient Ca∣non of the Church, that without the liking iudgment, and will of the Bishop of Rome, no Councell may be holden, mentioned by k 1.1398 Socrates and l 1.1399 Zozomen. For first the Canon is not to be vnderstood of the person of the Bishop of Rome, but of him and his Westerne Bishops. Secondly, it is not so to be vnderstood, as if simply with∣out him and his Bishops, no Generall Councell could bee holden, but, that without consulting him, and first seeking to him and his, no such Councell may bee holden; as I haue largely m 1.1400 shewed before. For otherwise wee know that Vigilius Bishoppe of Rome, refused to haue any part in the deliberations of the Fifth Generall Councell, or to confirme the Actes of it when it ended. Yet was is euer holden to be a lawfull Generall Couucell, hee and his being sufficiently sought vnto, and their presence de∣sired. As likewiso Leo consented to the calling of the Councell of Chalcedon, only for

the determination of that question of faith, that was then debated, & * 1.1401 gaue no consent to the Decree therein passed touching the see of Constantinople, yet did this Councell preuaile, and the succeeding Bishops of Rome were forced to giue way to that Canon their predecessors so much disliked. And therefore, whereas the Bishop of Romes Le∣gates, in the Councell of Chalcedon do except against Dioscorus for presuming to hold * 1.1402 a Synode without the authority of the Apostolicke See, wich they say neuer was lawful, nor neuer was don: their meaning is not that in no case a Councell may be holden with∣out the Bishop of Rome, & the Bishops of the West, but that there neuer was any such Synod holden without requiring & admitting the concurrence of the Bishop of Rome, & the Bishops of the West. And that therefore Dioscorus was iustly to be condem∣ned, who not onely tooke vpon him by the fauour of one neere about the Emperour to bee President of the Second Councell of Ephesus, whereof they speake, and sit be∣fore the Bishoppe of Romes Legates, being but Bishop of the Second See, but also o 1.1403 re∣iected the Synodall letters of Leo, and the Bishops of the West, not suffering them to be read; and, as if all the power had beene in him alone, depriued the Bishoppes of Constantinople and Antioch, notwithstanding the Protestation of the Romane Legates against such proceedings, and their appeale from the same; and still carried on with his furious passions, rested not till hee had pronounced sentence of excommunication against blessed Leo, and all the Bishoppes of the West. The next testimony which Bellarmine bringeth, no way proueth that, for proofe whereof it is brought: for it is not sayd in the p 1.1404 place cited by him, that the Councell holden at Constantinople, against the painting of those things that are reported in the story of the Bible, and for the defacing of such pictures made for Historicall vse, was therefore voyd, be∣cause it was called without the consent of the Romane Bishoppe (as hee vntruely re∣porteth:) but that it was no Generall Councell, seeing many that were present consented not, but disliked the proceedings of it▪ and besides, it neither had the Bi∣shoppe of Rome to concurre, nor his Bishoppes, neither by their Vicegerents, nor by Prouinciall letters; neither yet the Patriarches of the East; to wit, Alexandria, Antioch, and Hierusalem, nor their Bishoppes. It is true indeede, that the q 1.1405 Bi∣shoppes assembled at Rome by the command of Theodoricus, to examine the matters obiected to Symmachus the Pope▪ told him, the Councell should haue beene called by the Pope, and not by him; but they spake of particular Councels, which oftentimes, by the permission of Princes were wont to be called by Metropolitans Primates, or Patriarches, and not of generall whereof our question is: and yet I haue shewed before, by many testimonies, that Princes when they saw cause, did call Councels of this sort also. So that the speech of these Bishops (affected to their Patriarche, and vn∣willing to come to any scanning of his actions) is not much to be esteemed. The next testimony out of the Epistles of r 1.1406 Leo testifieth the Cardinall careth not what he saith, so he say something: for it is true indeed, that Leo saith: Hee directed his Letters to his Brethren and fellow-bishops, and summoned them to a Generall Councell, but meaneth not a Councel absolutely General, consisting of all the Bishops of the world, of which our question is, but of all the Bishops of those parts to which hee writeth, being subiect to him as Patriarch of the West, as appeareth by the circumstances of the Epistle cited. But s 1.1407 Pelagius the Second in his Epistle to those that Iohn of Con∣stantinople called to his Synode as Generall, saith, The authority of calling general Coū∣cels, was by singular priuiledge of blessed Peter, giuen to the Apostolicke See; that no Synode was euer reputed lawfull, that was not strengthened by the authority of the See Apostolicke: and againe, that Councels may not be holden without the iudge∣ment and liking of the Bishop of Rome: therefore all is true that the Cardinall hath hitherto alleadged. Hereunto (though Pelagius may seeme somewhat partiall in his owne cause) wee answere, first with t 1.1408 Bellarmine himselfe, that the calling of Gene∣rall Councels is not so proper to the Bishop of Rome, but that another may do it, if he cōsent, or if he ratifie the indiction. Secondly, that though he refuse to ratifie it, if his resence & concurrence be sufficiently sought and desired, it may be lawfull, and of orce, as it appeareth by the Fift Generall Councel, which Vigilius refused to haue any

part in. The last testimony that Bell. produceth to proue, that the power of calling Councels doth not properly belong to the Emperours, is a saying of Valentinius repor∣ted by u 1.1409 Zozomen: but it maketh clearely against himselfe The circumstances of Zo∣zomens report are these. The Bishops of Hellespont, Bithynia, and some other, pro∣fessing to beleeue that CHRIST the Son of GOD is con-substantial with his Fa∣ther, sent a Legate to Valentinian the Emperour, and desired him to giue them leaue to meete about matters concerning the Faith. To whom the Emperour answered, that it was not lawfull for him, being one of the Laity, to intermeddle in these Businesses, but willed, that the Priests and Bishoppes, to whom the care of these things pertay∣neth, should meete in one place where-soeuer it should please them: for heere wee see, that the Bishops durst not presume to assemble themselues without the Emperors leaue: which mainely crosseth the conceit of the cardinall: neither doth the Empe∣rour say, the calling of councels pertaineth nothing to him, but the intermeddling with the matters that are brought in question in them; and therefore biddeth them meete by themselues, not intending to bee present among them; not meaning that it was not lawfull for him to be present, (for then he should condemne Constantine, and other that were present, either in person, or by Deputies) nor that it was simply vn∣lawfull for him to intermeddle, (for they intermeddled as I will shew in that which followeth) but that hee might not so intermeddle as Bishops & Priests, to whō pro∣perly it pertaineth to determine these things; yet, if Princes perceiue, that they who meet in councels, be swayed by sinister & vile affectiōs, not seeking the clearing of the truth, but the suppressing of it, they may, & in duty are bound to hinder their procee∣dings by all lawful meanes, that come within the compasse of their Princely power.

Wherefore seeing our Adversaries cannot proue, that the right that Princes haue to call councels dependeth on the consent of the Pope, & that without his consent or ratification, their indiction of councels is vnlawful, let vs see how they can proue, that the Emperours called Generall Councels by the Popes authority, and as com∣maunded or required by him so to doe, and not otherwise. Wee know that x 1.1410 Libe∣rius intreated Constantius to call a councell: and that y 1.1411 Leo with other Bishops of the West, on their knees besought the Emperour Martian to call a councell in Italy, and could not obtaine it; but were commaunded to come to the councell the Emperour appointed at Chalcedon, and were straitly charged and required to come or send vnto it at the time appointed, not finding so much fauour as to haue it deferred for a little time. And therefore it is greatly to bee feared that Bellarmines allegations will be too weake to proue, that the Emperours called councels by the Popes authority, and as commaunded by him. For first, touching the councell of Nice, z 1.1412 Ruffinus sheweth, that Arrius hauing broached his diuelish Heresie, and being often admonished by his Bishop, Alexander Bishoppe of Alexandria, no way reforming himselfe, Alexander wrote to other Bishoppes, signifying what was fallen out in his Church, so that in the end, the matter came to the Emperours eares: who there-upon (by the counsel of the Bishoppes advising him so to doe) called the councell of Nice; and a 1.1413 Andradius saith, he was induced so to doe by the perswasion of Alexander Bishop of Alexan∣dria, but that the Bishop of Rome commaunded him so to doe, it no way appeareth. Indeede the author of the b 1.1414 Pontificall saith, Constantine called it with the consent of Sylvester. And the Fathers in the sixth c 1.1415 General councell (out of him or some such Author) say, that Constantine and Sylvester called it. But the author of the Pontificall is of no credite in this behalfe, reporting in the same place the curing of Constantines Leprosie, which is acknowledged by all learned men to bee a meere fable: and be∣sides, d 1.1416 Zozomen is of opinion, that the councell of Nice was not holden in the time of Sylvester, but of Iulius that succeeded him▪ wherefore let vs proceede to the next proofe. Damasus the Bishop of Rome (saith Bellarmine) called the first councell of Constantinople, and Theodosius the elder did but send his Letters to the Bishoppes to that purpose. Therefore the calling of Generall Councels pertaineth to the Pope. How little the Iesuites care what they write, it appeareth by the dealing of the cardi∣nal in this matter. For wheras both e 1.1417 Socrates, f 1.1418 Zozomen, & g 1.1419 Theodoret do testifie, that

the Emperour called the Bishoppes to Constantinople, without making any mention of the letters of the Bishop of Rome, & that they came vpon his summons; he saith, it was not the Emperour that called them to Constantinople, but the Pope; & that the Emperour did nothing but transport and conueigh his letters vnto them; wholy mi∣staking the story. For the letters he speaketh of, were not to call thē to Constantinople, whither they came vpon the Emperours summons, but to Rome, where the Bishops of the West were assembled in Councell, whither they refused to come. Neither doth hee shew any more faithfulnesse and sincerity in that hee hath touching the Councell of Ephesus. For whereas the h 1.1420 stories report, that things were managed in that Councell by the industrie of Cyrill, with the concurrence of the authority of Caelestinus, and that Cyrill, was there present and President, not onely in his owne name, but also as supplying the place of Caelestinus, hee inferreth from hence, that it was the Pope that called the Councell. That the Councell of Chalcedon was called by the Emperour, it is most euident; The Pope (as I haue shewed) beeing not able to preuaile so much, as to get it deferred for a time: yet will Bellarmine proue, that Leo called that Councell, though not without the helpe of the Emperour. First, out of the Epistle of the Emperour to Leo, prefixed before the Councell: And secondly, out of the i 1.1421 Epistle of the Bishoppes of the lesser Maesia, written to the Emperour. But these proofes are too weake: For the Emperour hauing resolued to haue a Coun∣cell, telleth Leo in his Epistle, that it remaineth that hee come vnto it: or if it seeme troublesome vnto him, that hee signifie so much to him by his letters, that hee may write to Illyricum, Thracia, and the East, that all the holy Bishoppes may come toge∣ther into the place hee shall appoint; and may declare, publish, and set forth by their Decree such things as may bee behoouefull to the religion of Christians and the Ca∣tholick Faith, accordingly as his Holinesse also shall define, according to the Ecclesia∣sticall Canons; but saith nothing whence it may bee inferred that Leo called the Coun∣cell. For I thinke it will not follow, that because the Bishoppe of Rome was to come to the Councell, or otherwise to send Synodall and Prouinciall Letters from himselfe and his Bishoppes, that so with one vniforme consent thinges might bee agreed on, therefore the Pope called the Councell. The Epistle of the Bishoppes of the lesser Maesia is lesse to the purpose, then the former of the Emperour: for they say. The Councell of Chalcedon was holden by the commaund of Leo Bishoppe of Rome, the chiefe of all Bishoppes, and the most honourable Bishoppe and Patriarch Anatolius; joyning the Bishoppe of Rome and the Bishoppe of Constantinople together, in commanding this Councell to bee holden. So that if the Cardinall will proue from hence, that the Pope called the Councell, hee may proue likewise, that the Patriarch of Constan∣tinople called it. But the trueth is, they might commaund the Bishoppes vnder them to assemble, after they receiued the Emperours letters, but the Councell was called by neither of them. And therefore whereas k 1.1422 Gelasius saith, the See Aposto∣licke onely decreed, that the Councell of Chalcedon should bee holden, his meaning is not, to exclude the Emperor and his Authority, but the other Patriarchicall Sees, and and to lette the world knowe, that the See of Rome alone, by the authority it had with the Emperour, prevailed so farre, as to obtaine his royall Edict, for the gathering to∣gether of the Bishoppes in this Councell; or else hee speaketh vntruely. For wee knowe the Emperour tooke vpon him in such peremptory sort to call this Councell, that hee would not bee intreated by the Romane Bishoppe, and other Bishoppes of the West, neither for the time, nor place, but out of his absolute authority appoin∣ted both, as it seemed good vnto himselfe. Three other proofes the Iesuite hath yet behinde. The first is out of Socrates, out of whom hee saith it may bee proued, that Iulius the Pope called the Councell of Sardica: but how, I cannot tell. For l 1.1423 Socra∣tes saith expressely, that the Councell of Sardica was called by the two Emperours, Constance and Constantius: whereof the one raigned in the East, the other in the West; the one by his Letters desiring it, the other most willingly performing that hee desired. But of Iulius calling it, hee maketh no mention. If the Iesuite thinke it may bee proued, that Iulius called it; because among them that sought to

excuse themselues from comming vppon fained pretences, some complained of the shortnesse of the time appointed for this meeting, and cast the blame thereof vpon Iu∣lius, he is greatly deceiued; seeing Iulius might be blamed, for procuring the Emperor Constance, by his Letters directed to Constantius his brother, to set so short a time as he did; though hee did not call the Councell himselfe. And that it was not the Au∣thority of the Pope that brought the Bishops together in this Councell, it is most eui∣dent, in that, m 1.1424 when he wrote to them to restore Athanasius to his place, they reiected his Letters with contempt, maruailing, that he medled more with their matters then they did with his. Neither is it likely, that Constantius would be commanded by Iulius to call this Councell. Seeing when the Councell had commanded Athanasius to be restored to his place, yet hee n 1.1425 refused to giue way, till his brother threatned to make warre vpon him for it. But it this proofe faile, Bellarmine hath a better. For hee sayth, Sixtus the third, in an Epistle to those of the East, writeth, That Valentinian the Emperor called a Synode by his authority, whence it followeth, that the calling of Generall Councels pertaineth in such sort to the Popes, that the Emperours may not call them, but by warrant and authority from them. If the Reader will bee pleased to cōsider of this proofe, he shall easily discerne how litle credit is to be giuen to Iesuited Papists in their allegations. For first, Sixtus doth not say, the Emperour Valen∣tinian called a Synode by his authority, but that hee commaunded a Synode should be called by his authority; that is, commaunded him to call it. And the author of the o 1.1426 Pontificall, speaking of the calling of the same Synode, sayth, the Empe∣rour commanded that the Councell and holy Synode should bee congrega∣ted. Secondly, it was but a Diocesan Synode, consisting of the Presbyters and Cleargy of Rome called together, about certaine crimes obiected to Sixtus, where∣of hee purged himselfe before them. Now I thinke it will not follow, that, if the Bishoppe of Rome might call together the Cleargie of his owne Diocesse, the calling of Generall Councels pertained to him onely: or that, if the Emperour thought fit, rather to command the Romaine Bishoppe to call together his Cleagie, then to doe it immediately by his owne authority; therefore hee would haue done the like in sum∣moning Generall Councells, consisting of all the Bishops of the World. Where∣fore let vs passe to the last of his proofes, taken out of the Epistle of Adrian the se∣cond, to Basileius the Emperour, prefixed before the eighth Generall Councell, which vndoubtedly vpō proofe, wil be foūd to be no better then the rest. For first; it is groū∣ded on the saying of a Pope, that liued many hundred yeares after Christ, and long after the diuision of the Empire, and the withdrawing of the Church of Rome from the obedience of the Emperours of the East, and so not much to be regarded in a question concerning the right of the Emperour. Secondly hee speaketh not in his owne name, but in the name of all the West Church. And thirdly, that he saith, * 1.1427 Wee will that by your industry, a great assembly be gathered; proueth not that the Pope tooke vpon him peremptorily to command the Emperour. For seeing in the whole Epistle hee vseth words of exhorting praying & intreating; these words may seeme to import no more, but, Our desire is, that there should be such an assembly by your industrie, in which our Legates sitting as Presidents, matters may be examined, and all things righted. Or, we, though no way subiect to your Empire, yet at your request, are content that such a Councell be called, and that our Legates do sit in it, with the Bishops subiect to your Imperiall command. For that Basileius called the Councell, appeareth by his words to the Bishops in the beginning of it.

But if none of these exceptions against the Emperours ancient practice of calling Councels will hold, our Aduersaries, rather thē they will suffer the Pope to be a looser, will not sticke to charge the Emperours with vsurpation, and taking more on them then pertained to them. Whosoeuer (saith p 1.1428 Andradius) shall thinke, that the power and authority of Emperours, is to bee esteemed and iudged of, by the things done by them in the Church, rather then by Christs institution, the Decrees of the Elders, and the force and nature of the Papall dignity it selfe, hee shall make vn∣bridled pride, and head-long fury to be chiefe commaunder, and to sway most in the

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Thus doth Andradius censure the auncient Christian Em∣perours, and exemplifieth not onely in Constantius the Arrian, but Iustinian also (as himselfe confesseth) a good Emperor. For refutatiō of which most vnjust exception, wee say, that howsoeuer it bee not to bee doubted, but that ill affected, or ill directed Emperours did some-times that which was not fit; yet, that in calling Councels by their Princely authority, and commaunding all Bishoppes to come or send vnto them, they exceeded not the bounds and limites of their commission, it is evident, in that ne∣uer any Bishop durst blame them for it; But all sought vnto them, euen the Bishops of Rome themselues, praying them so to doe, as I shewed before by the examples of Li∣berius, Innocentius, and Leo: which thing also q 1.1429 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth: Where∣fore seeing it is evident by the allowed practise of former times; that the calling of Generall Councels belonged to the Emperours, after they became Christians, let vs see what they tooke on them in these Councels, after they had called them; and con∣sequently, what right, power, and authority Christian Princes haue to manage the af∣faires, and commaund the holy Bishops and Ministers of the church.

CHAP. 53.

Of the power and authority exercised by the auncient Emperours in Generall Coun∣cels: and of the supremacie of Christian Princes in causes and ouer persons Eccle∣siasticall.

THe first thing that Christian Emperours in auncient times assumed to them∣selues in Generall Councels, was, to be present in them when they pleased: as we reade of a 1.1430 Constantine the Great, that hee not onely called the Councell of Nice, but was present in it; of b 1.1431 Martian, that hee was present in the Councell of Chalcedon, with Pulcheria the Empresse; of c 1.1432 Constantine the fourth, that hee was present in the sixth Generall Councell; and d 1.1433 Basileius in the eighth: and when they pleased to bee absent, to send some in their stead; as e 1.1434 Theodosius the yonger sent ^e Can∣didianus to be present for him in the councell of Ephesus, and Martianus, f 1.1435 though present in the first Session, yet being for the most part of the time absent, appointed certaine secular Iudges to sit in the Councell of Chalcedon.

The second thing that they assumed to them, was, to sit in the highest place: and so wee reade, that g 1.1436 in the councell of Nice, all the Bishoppes being placed in order, the Emperour (some few going before him) entred into the Councell; at whose comming all the Bishops rose vp, and did reverence vnto him, and hee passed through the midst of them, as an heauenly Angell of God, hauing on a purple robe, and shining vesture be-decked with gold, pearles, and pretious stones; and stayed not till hee came to the highest place, where a little seate of Gold was prepared: wherein yet hee sate not downe, but stood vpright till the Bishoppes had bowed and beckened vnto him to sit downe. In like sort we reade of h 1.1437 Martian, that hee sate in the highest place in the Councell of Chalcedon, with the Senatours and Iudges by his side: And of i 1.1438 Constan∣tine the fourth, that he sate in the highest place in the sixth Generall Councell. And when they were not present in person, the Senatours and secular Iudges deputed by them, sate in the middest in the highest roome: as wee shall finde they did in the coun∣cels of Chalcedon, at such times as the Emperour was away.

The third thing which the Emperours tooke on them either in their owne persons, or by such as they deputed▪ besides the defence of the Bishoppes from outward vio∣lence, was a kinde of direction of things that were to bee done in the councell. This direction consisted in seauen things: First, in providing that nothing should bee done passionately, violently, and by clamour of multitudes, but that the ground of each thing should be sought out. Secondly, in providing that nothing should

bee extorted by feare and terror, from them that meete to decree for truth & justice, without all priuate and sinister respects. Thirdly, in seeing that nothing should be omitted, that the holy Canons require to bee done for the finding out of that which is true and right; that so both errour and wrong might bee avoyded. Fourthly, in not suffering them to passe from one thing to another, before that they had in hand were fully ended; nor to digresse to things impertinent, which might breed confusi∣on, and hinder the effecting of that which was intended▪ And in putting an end to each action, when they saw as much done as was fitte, or otherwise deferring the far∣ther deliberation to some other time. Fifthly, when they found an indisposition in them, to agree to such and so cleare determination of matters in question, as might satisfie all, to dissolue the Councell, and to call another. Sixthly, in judging & pro∣nouncing according to that they saw alleadged with the approbation and assent of the Councell. Lastly, in subscribing and confirming by their royall assent, the thinges resolued and agreed on. All these thinges (as k 1.1439 Cusanus rightly noteth) the Empe∣rours tooke on them in Generall Councels; and the performance of euery of these we may finde in the Councell of Chalcedon, but specially the First and the Fifth. For l 1.1440 whereas the tenne Bishops of Egypt, that were there in the name of the rest, refused to subscribe to the Actes of the Councell, till they should haue a new Patriarch cho∣sen and ordained (not out of any dislike of that was done, or as being of another iudg∣ment, but because the custome of their country permitted them not to subscribe, vn∣lesse their Patriarch went before them in so doing) there was a generall clamour a∣gainst them, of all the Bishops, crying out alowde, that they were to be excommu∣nicated & Anathematized. And though they fell prostrate on their faces before the whole Councell, professing their refusall to proceede from no priuate conceit, & de∣siring to be pittied, and not vrged to any formall subscription, for that if they should doe any such thing, they were sure neuer to bee endured by the Bishoppes of their Country; yet could they finde no fauour or relenting, till the secular Iudges, out of their discretion, finding the true ground of this their stay to subscribe, to bee such as they alleadged, deliuered their opinion, that it was a thing reasonable, and in pitty to be granted vnto them, that they should be foreborne and stay in the Citty, till their Archbishop were chosen: Which when Paschasinus the Legate of Rome heard, hee said, if your glorious excellency command that it bee so, let them put in sureties not to depart the Citty, till their Archbishop bee chosen; and the rest of the Bishoppes a∣greed to him. So that the matter which was ready to bee swayed by the whole Councell, with clamour and out-cry in a very violent sort, was stayed by the wise∣dome of the secular Iudges, the poore distressed suppliants pittied, and the hard pro∣ceeding of the Bishops against them hindred. And in the same m 1.1441 Councell we read, that the Bishops hauing agreed on a forme of Confession of Faith, were desired by the Emperours Deputies the secular Iudges, for the satisfaction of all men, to adde cer∣taine wordes out of the Epistle of Leo, to that forme of Confession: which when they all (some few of the East, and the Legates of Rome excepted) with great clamour refu∣sed to doe; the Iudges tolde them, the Emperour should knowe of their clamorous courses: And that if they would not agree together to make some good end, a Coun∣cell should be called in the West; and they forced to walke thither.

Neither did Christian Emperours onely thus intermeddle in Generall Councells, as chiefe Lords of the whole world, but particular Kings and Princes likewise within their seuerall dominions and Kingdomes did as much. For wee reade that n 1.1442 Charle∣maigne, with the aduice & counsell of the seruants of GOD, and his Nobles, gathe∣red together into a Synode all the Bishoppes in his kingdome, with their Presbyters, that they might aduise him how the law of God and religion (well established in the times of former Princes, but now much fallen and decayed) might be restored, and Christian people attaine saluation, and not bee misled by false Priests: and by the ad∣uise of his Bishoppes and Nobles, according to this his good intent and purpose, hee ordained Bishoppes in his citties, and set ouer them Bonifacius as their Arch-bishop: hee decreed that a Synode should be holden once euery yeare, that in his presence the

Decrees of the Canons and Lawes of the church might be restored, and what should be found amisse in Christian religion, amended: he degraded false Priests & Deacons, & clearkes that were whoremongers and adulterers; he prescribed pennance to cer∣taine offenders, and subiected them to imprisonment & other corporall punishments and corrections. This Acte of Charlemaine is alleaged by o 1.1443 Cusanus, and greatly ap∣proued: yea the same p 1.1444 Cusanus complaining of the abuses of the Court of Rome (in that thinges are carried thither, that should bee determined in the Prouinces where they beginne, in that the Pope intermedleth in giuing Benefices before they be voide, to the preiudice of the originall Patrons, by reason whereof young men run to Rome and spend their best time there, carrying gold with them and bringing backe nothing but paper, and many like confusions, which the Canons forbid and neede reformati∣on) addeth, that the common saying, that the secular power may not restraine or al∣ter these courses brought in by Papall authority, should not moue any man: for that, though the power of temporall Princes ought not to change any thing established ca∣nonically for the honour of GOD and good of such as attend his seruice, yet it may and ought to prouide for the common good, and see, that the auncient canons be ob∣serued. Neither ought any one to say, that the auncient christian Emperours did erre, that made so many sacred constitutions, or that they ought not so to haue done. For (saith he) I read, that Popes haue desired them for the common good, to make lawes for the punishment of offences committed by those of the cleargie. And if any one shall say, that the force of all these constitutions depended vpon Papall or Syno∣dall approbation, I will not insist vpon it, though I haue read and collected foure score and sixe chiefe heads of Ecclesiasticall rules and lawes made by old Emperours, and many other made by Charles the Great and his successours: in which order is taken, not onely concerning others, but euen concerning the Bishoppe of Rome himselfe, and other Patriarches, what they shall take of the Bishoppes they ordaine, and many like things: and yet did I neuer finde, that the Pope was desired to approue them, or that they haue no binding force, but by vertue of his approbation. But I know right well, that some Popes haue professed their due regarde of those Imperiall and Princely con∣stitutions. But though it were graunted, that those constitutions had no further force then they receiued from the canons, wherein the same thinges were formerly ordered, or from Synodall approbation, yet might the Emperor now reforme things amisse by vertue of old canons, and Princes constitutions grounded on them. Yea, if hee should with good aduice (considering the decay of piety and diuine worshippe, the ouerflowing of all wickednes, and the causes and occasions thereof) recall the old canons, and the auncient and most holy obseruation of the Elders, and reiect whatso∣ever priuiledges, exemptions, or new deuices contrary therevnto, (by vertue where∣of, suites, complaintes and controuersies, the gifts and donations of benefices, & the like thinges are vnjustly brought to Rome, to the great prejudice of the whole Chri∣stian Church) I thinke no man could justly blame him for so doing. Yea he saith, the Emperour Sigismund had an intention so to doe, and exhorteth him, by no fained allegations of men fauouring present disorders, to bee discouraged: for that there is no way to preserue the peace of the Church (whatsoeuer some pretend to the con∣trary) vnlesse such lewde and wicked courses, proceeding from ambition, pride, and couetousnesse, be stopped, and the old canons reuiued.

From that which hath beene obserued touching the proceeding of Christian Kings and Emperours in former times, in calling Councels, in being present at them, and in making lawes for persons and causes Ecclesiasticall, it is easie to gather, what the power of Princes is in this kinde, and that they are indeede supreame Gouernours o∣uer all persons, and in all causes, as well Ecclesiasticall as Ciuill: which is that wee at∣tribute to our Kings & Queenes, and the Papistes so much stumble at, as if some new and strange opinion were broached by vs. Wherefore, for the satisfaction of all such, as are not maliciously obstinate, refusing to heare what may be said, I will endeauour in this place vpon so fitte an occasion to cleare whatsoeuer may bee questionable in this point; & will first intreat of the power and right that Princes haue in causes Ec∣clesiasticall,

& then of that they haue ouer persons Ecclesiastical: & jn treating of cau∣ses Ecclesiasticall, I will first distinguish the diversities of them, & the power of med∣ling with them. Causes Ecclesiasticall therefore are of two sorts: for some are original∣ly and naturally such; and some, onely, in that (by fauor of Princes out of due conside∣ration) they are referred to the Cognisance of Ecclesiasticall persons, as fittest Iud∣ges, as the probations of the Testaments of them that are dead, the disposition of the goods of them that dye intestat, and if there be any other like. Causes Ecclesiasticall of the first sort, are either meerely and onely Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall, or mixt. Meerely Ecclesiasticall, are of three sorts. First, matters of Faith and Doctrine. Se∣condly, matters of Sacraments, and the due administration of them, Thirdly, the or∣ders, degrees, & ordination of such as attend the Ministery of the word & Sacraments. Mixtly Ecclesiasticall, are of two sorts: either such, as in one respect belong to one kinde of cognisance, and in another to another, as marriages, which are subiect to ciuill disposition, in that they are politicall contracts: and to spirituall, in that they are orde∣red by the diuine law: or such as are equally censurable by Ciuill & Ecclesiasticall au∣thority, as murthers, adulteries, blasphemies, & the like. All which in the time when there is no Christian Magistrate, or when there is ouer-great negligence in the ciuill Magistrate▪ are to bee punished by the spirituall guides of the Church. Whereupon wee shall finde that the auncient Councels prescribed penance to offenders in all these kindes. But when there is a Christian Magistrate doing his duty, they are to bee re∣ferred, specially either to the one or the other of these; and accordingly to bee censured by the one or the other: as wee see the punishment of adultery, vsury, and things of that nature is referred to Ecclesiasticall persons, & the punishment of murther, theft, & the like to the ciuill Magistrate. This distinction of causes Ecclesiasticall premi∣sed, it is easie to see what authority Princes haue in causes Ecclesiasticall. For first, touching those causes that are Ecclesiastical, onely in that they are put ouer to the cog∣nisance of spiritual persons, there is no question but that the Prince hath a supreame power, and that no man may meddle with them any otherwise then as he is pleased to allow. And likewise touching those things which in one respect pertaine to ciuill jurisdictiō, & in another to spiritual, or which are equally censurable, by both, there is no question but that the Prince hath supreame power, in that they pertaine to ciuill ju∣risdiction. So that the onely question is, touching things naturally and meerely spi∣ritual: The power in these is of two sorts: of Order, & of Iurisdiction. The power of Order, is the authority to preach the Word, minister the Sacraments, & to ordaine Mi∣nisters to doe all these things: & this power the Princes of the World haue not at all, much lesse the supreame authority to doe these things, but it is proper to the Ministers of the church. And if Princes meddle in this kinde, they are like to p 1.1445 Vzziah that offe∣red to burne incense, for which he was stricken with Leprosie. The power of Iuris∣diction standeth first in prescribing & making Lawes. Secondly, in hearing, exami∣ning, and judging of opinions touching matters of Faith. And thirdly, in judging of things pertaining to Ecclesiastical order & ministery, and the due performance of Gods diuine worship & seruice. Touching the first, the making of a Law is the pre∣scribing of a thing vnder some paine or punishment, which hee that so prescribeth hath power to inflict. Whence it is consequent, that the Prince (hauing no power to excommunicate, put from the Sacraments, and deliuer to Satan) can of himselfe make no canons, such as Councels of Bishoppes doe; who commaund or forbid things vnder paine of excōmunication, and like spiritual censures; but (hauing power of life and death, of imprisonment, banishment, confiscation of goods, and the like) he may with the advice and direction of his Cleargy, commaund things pertaining to Gods worship and seruice vnder these paines, both for profession of Faith, ministration of Sacraments, and conversation fitting to Christians in general, or men of Ecclesiastical order in particular: & by his Princely power establish things formerly defined and de∣creed against whatsoeuer errour, and contrary ill-custome, and obseruation. And here∣in hee is so far forth supreame, that no Prince, Prelate, or Potentate, hath a commaun∣ding authority ouer him: yet doe we not whatsoeuer our clamorous Aduersaries vn∣truly

report, to make us odious,) make our Princes with their Ciuill States, supreame in the power of commanding in matters concerning God, and his Faith and religion, without seeking the direction of their Cleargy, (for the q 1.1446 Statute that restored the title of Supremacie to the late Queene Elizabeth, of famous and blessed memory, prouideth, that none shall haue authority newly to judge any thing to be Heresie, not formerly so iudged, but the high Court of Parliament with the assent of the Cleargy in their Conuocation,) nor with them, soe, as to command what they thinke fitte, without ad∣uising with others, partakers of like precious Faith with them, when a more generall meeting for farther deliberation may bee had, or the thing requireth it. Though when no such generall concurrence may bee had, they may by themselues prouide for those parts of the Church that are vnder them. From the power and authority wee giue our Princes in making lawes, and prescribing how men shall professe and practise touching matters of Faith and Religion, let vs proceed to treat of the other part of power ascribed vnto them, which is in judging of errors in Faith & disorders, or faults in things pertaining to Ecclesiasticall order and ministery according to former deter∣minations and decrees. And first, touching errors in faith, or aberrations in the per∣formance of Gods worship and seruice, there is no question, but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church (to whom it pertaineth to teach the trueth) are the ordinary and fittest Iudges: and that ordinarily and regularly, Princes are to leaue the iudgement thereof vnto them. But because they may faile, either through negligence, igno∣rance or mallice, Princes hauing charge ouer Gods people, and beeing to see that they serue and worship him aright, are to iudge and condemne them that fall into grosse errours, contrary to the common sence of Christians; or into any other heresies for∣merly condemned. And though there be no generall fayling, yet if they see violent and partiall courses taken, they may interpose themselues to stay them, and cause a due proceeding, or remoue the matter from one company and sort of Iudges to another. And hereunto the best learned in former times agreed, clearely confessing, that when some thing is necessary to be done, and the ordinary guides of the Church do faile, or are not able to yeeld that helpe that is needfull, wee may lawfully flye to other for re∣liefe and helpe; r 1.1447 when these two things do meete in the state of the Church, (sayth Waldensis) to witte, extreame necessity, admitting no delay, and the want of ability to yeeld reliefe in the ordinary Pastor or Guide, wee must seeke an extraordinary Fa∣ther and Patron, rather then suffer the frame, fabricke and building of the Lord Christ to bee dissolued. If any man happily say that s 1.1448 Ambrose, a most worthy Bi∣shop, refused to come to the Court to be judged in a matter of faith by Valentinian the Emperour, and asked; when euer hee heard that Emperours iudged Bishops in matters of faith? seeing if that were granted, it would follow, that Lay-men should dispute and debate matters, and Bishoppes heare; yea that Bishoppes should learne of Lay∣men, (whereas contrarywise, if wee looke ouer the Scriptures, and consider the course of times past, wee shall finde that Bishoppes haue iudged of Emperours in mat∣ters of faith, and not Emperours of Bishoppes) and that therefore it cannot bee with∣out vsurpation of that which no way pertaineth to them, that Princes should at all medle with the iudging of matters of faith. This obiection what shew soeuer it may seeme to carry, is easily answered, for first, the thing that Valentinian took on him, was not to iudge according to former definitions, but he would haue iudged of a thing al∣ready resolued on in a generall Councell, called by Constantine the Emperor, as if it had bin free and not yet indged of at all: whereas we do not attribute to our Princes with their Ciuill Estates, power newly to adiudge any thing to be heresie without the con∣currēce of the State of their Clergy, but only to Iudge in those matters of faith, that are resolued on, according to former resolutiōs. And besides this, Valentinian was known to be partiall; he was but a nouice, and the other iudges he ment to associate tohimselfe suspected; & therefore Ambrose had reason to do as he did. Wherefore let vs proceed to the other part of the power of jurisdictiō, that cōsisteth in iudging of things pertai∣ning to Ecclesiastical Order & Ministery. Concerning which point, first it is resolued, that none may ordaine any to serue in the worke of the Ministery, but the spirituall

Pastours and Guides of the church. Secondly, that none may judicially degrade or put any one lawfully admitted from his degree and order, but they alone. Neither doe our Kings or Queenes challenge any such thing to themselues: but their power standeth, first, in calling together the Bishoppes and Pastours of the Church, for the hearing & determining of such things, and in taking all due care, that all thinges bee done orderly in such proceedings, without partiality, violence, or precipitation, ac∣cording to the Canons and Imperiall lawes made to confirme the same. Secondly, when they see cause, in taking things from those whom they iustly suspect, or others except against, and appointing others in their places. Thirdly, in appointing some se∣lected men for the visitation of the rest. Fourthly, in joyning temporall menincom∣mission with the spirituall guides of the church, to take view of, and to censure the a∣ctions of men of Ecclesiasticall order: because they are directed not onely by Canons, but lawes Imperiall. Fifthly, when matters of fact are obiected, for which the ca∣nons and lawes Imperiall judge men depriueable; the Prince, when hee seeth cause, and when the state of things require it, either in person, if he please, or by such other as hee thinketh fitte to appoint, may heare and examine the proofes of the same, and either ratifie that others did, or voyd it: as wee see in the case of u 1.1449 Caecilianus, to whom it was objected that hee was a Traditor, and Faelix Antumnitanus that orday∣ned him, was so likewise, and that therefore his ordination was voyd. For first, the enemies of Caecilianus disliking his ordination, made complaintes against him to Con∣stantine; and hee appointed Melchiades and some other Bishoppes, to sitte and heare the matter. From their judgement, there was a new appeale made to Constantine. Whereupon hee sent to the Proconsull to examine the proofes that might bee produ∣ced. But from his iudgmēt the complainants appealed the third time to Constantine, who appointed a Synode at x 1.1450 Arle. All this hee did, to giue satisfaction (if it were possible) to these men; and so to procure the peace of the Church. And though he ex∣cused himselfe for medling in these businesses, and asked pardon for the same: (for that regularly, hee was to haue left these iudge ments to Ecclesiasticall persons) yet it no way appeareth, that hee did ill in interposing himselfe in such sort as hee did, the state of things being such as it was: nor that the Bishoppes did ill, that yeelded to him in these courses, and therefore in cases of like nature, Princes may doe whatso∣euer hee did, and Bishops may appeare before them, and submit themselues to their iudgement; though in another case Ambrose refused to present himselfe before Valen∣tinian the Emperour, for tryall of an Ecclesiasticall cause. Neither is it strange in our state that Kinges should intermedle in causes Ecclesiasticall. For y 1.1451 Matthew Pa∣ris sheweth, that the ancient lawes of England prouided, that in appeales men should proceed from the Arch-deacon to the Bishoppe, from the Bishop to the Arch-bishop, and that, if the Arch-bishop should faile in doing iustice, the matter should be made knowne to the King; that by vertue of his commandement it might receiue an end in the Arch-bishops Court; that there might be no further proceeding in appeales with∣out the Kings consent.

From the power which Princes haue in causes Ecclesiasticall, let vs proceed to the power they haue ouer persons Ecclesiasticall; and see, whether they be supreame ouer all persons; or whether men of the Church bee exempt from their iurisdiction, That they are not exempted by GODS law, wee haue the cleare confession of Cardinall z 1.1452 Bellarmine, and others: who not onely yeeld so farre vnto the trueth, forced so to doe by the cleare euidence thereof, but proue the same by Scripture and Fathers. The Cardinals wordes are these: Exceptio Clericorum in rebus politicis, tam quoad perso∣nas, quam quoad bona, iure humano introducta est, non diuino; that is, The exemption of Cleargy-men in things ciuill, as well in respect of their persons, as their goods, was introduced & brought in by mans law, and not by the law of God. Which thing is proued, first, out of the precept of the Apostle to the Romanes, a 1.1453 Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers: and addeth: b 1.1454 Therefore pay yee tribute: For when the A∣postle saith, Let euery soule be subiect: hee includeth Cleargy-men, as Chrysostome witnesseth: and therefore when hee addeth, for this cause pay yee tribute, he speaketh

of Cleargy-men also. Whence it will follow, that Cleargy-men are bound to pay tri∣bute; vnlesse they be exempted by the fauour and priviledge of Princes, freeing them from so doing▪ which thing Thomas Aquinas also affirmeth, writing vpon the same place. Secondly, the same is proued out of the Ancient. c 1.1455 For Vrbanus saith: The tri∣bute money was therefore found in the mouth of the fish, taken by Saint Peter, because the Church payeth tribute out of her outward and earthly possessions. d 1.1456 And Saint Ambrose saith, if tribute bee demaunded, it is not denyed, the Church-Land payeth tribute. Now if Vrbanus, Bishoppe of Rome, and worthy Ambrose Bishop of Millaine (then whom there was neuer any Bishoppe found more resolute in the defence of the right of the Church) say, that tribute is not to bee denyed, but payed vnto Princes by men of the Church: and in respect of Church-land, I thinke it is evident, there is no exempti∣on by any Law of GOD, that freeth the goods of Church-men from yeelding tri∣bute to Princes. For touching that text, (where our Sauiour sayth vnto Peter, e 1.1457 What thinkest thou Simon, of whom doe the Kings of the Gentiles receiue tribute? of their owne children, or of strangers? And Peter answereth, of strangers: Whence CHRIST inferreth, that the children are free) brought by some to proue the supposed immunity of Cleargy-men to bee from GODS owne graunt, Bellarmine sufficiently cleareth the matter. For first hee sheweth, that CHRIST speaketh of himselfe onely, making this argument; Kings sonnes are free from tribute, as beeing neither to pay to their owne fathers, seeing their goods are common: nor to strangers to whom they are not subiect: therefore himselfe being the Sonne of the great King of Kings, oweth no Tribute to any mortall man. So that when hee saide, the children are free, hee meant not to signifie, that any other are free: but onely that himselfe was free. Secondly, he rightly obserueth that this place would proue that all Christians are free from Tribute, if it proued any other then CHRIST to bee so: for all Christians are the sonnes of GOD by adoption and grace. And Hierome writing vpon this place hath these words: Our Lord was the Kings son both according to the flesh, and according to the spirit, descending of the stocke of Dauid, and being the Word of the Al∣mighty Father: and therefore as being the Sonne of the Kingdome owed no tribute, but be∣cause hee assumed the humility of flesh, it behooued him to fulfill all righteousnesse: but vn∣happy men that wee are! we are called after the name of Christ, & doe nothing worthy so great an honour. He for the great loue he bare towards vs, sustained the crosse for vs, and payde tribute: but we for his honour pay no tribute, and as Kings sons are free from tribute. These words are brought by some to proue the imagined freedome we speake of but first, they are so far from prouing any such thing, that f 1.1458 Erasmus thinketh Hierome re∣prehended it, and disliked it as a thing sauouring of arrogancy, that cleargymen should refuse to pay tribute, which, hee saith, is contrary to the conceit of men in our time, who thinke it the height of all piety to maintaine this immunity. And g 1.1459 Sixtus Senensis saith: that Hierome speaketh not of that tribute which subiects pay to their Princes here in this world, but of that which we all owe to CHRIST, so that this is that he saith, why doe not we wretched men, professing our selues to be the servants of Christ, yeeld vnto his Maiesty the due tribute of our seruice, seeing Christ, so great and excellent, payde tribute for our sakes? S. Austine in his h 1.1460 first book of Questions vpon the Gospels, saith: that Kings sons in this world are free, & that therefore much more the sonnes of that Kingdome, vnder which all kingdomes of the World are, should bee free in each earthly Kingdome: which words, i 1.1461 Thomas, and k 1.1462 Sixtus Senensis vnderstand of a free∣dome from the bondage of sin, but l 1.1463 Iansenius rejecteth that interpretation, because Austine saith: the children of Kings are free from tribute, and thinketh that Austines meaning is; that if God the King of Heauen & Earth had many naturall sonnes, as hee hath but one only begotten, they should all be free in all the Kingdomes of the world: and other apply these words to cleargy-men, though there bee nothing in the place leading to any such interpretation. But whatsoeuer we thinke of the meaning of Au∣stine, Bellarmine saith it cannot bee inferred from these his wordes, that cleargy-men by Gods Law are free from the duty of paying tribute: because (as Chrysostome no∣teth,) Christ speaketh only of naturall children: and besides prescribeth nothing,

but onely sheweth that vsually among men, Kings sonnes are free from tribute: and therefore, whereas the authority of Bonifacius the Eighth m 1.1464 who affirmeth, that the goods & persons of Cleargy-men are free from exactions, both by the law of God and man, is brought to proue the contrary: Hee answereth, first, that haply the Pope meant not, that they are absolutely freed by any speciall graunt frō God, but only that there is an example of n 1.1465 Pharaoh an Heathen Prince, freeing the Priests of his Gods mentioned in Scripture, which may induce Christian Kings to free the Pastours of Christs Church. Secondly, that it was but the priuate opinion of the Pope, inclining to the iudgment of the Canonistes: and that he did not define any such thing. So that men may lawfully dissent from him in this point. So that we see by the testimonies of Scripture and Fathers, and the confession of the best learned among our aduersaries themselues, that Almighty God did not by any special exemption free either the goods or persons of Cleargy-men from the command of Princes, and that in the beginning they were subiect to all seruices, iudgements, payments & burdens, that any other are subiect to, and required by Christ the Sonne of God, and his blessed Apostles, to be so.

But some man happily will say, that though Christ did not specially free, eyther the goods or persons of Cleargy-men from the subiection to Princes, yet there are induce∣ments in reason, and in the very light of nature, such and so great, to moue Princes to set them free, that they should not do well if they did not so. Whereunto wee answere, that there is no question to be made, but that the Pastors of the Church that watch o∣uer the soules of men, are to bee respected and tendered more then men of any other calling, and so they are, and euer were, where any sence of religion is, or was. The Apostle Saint Paul testifieth of the Galathians o 1.1466 that they receiued him as an Angell of God, yea as Christ Iesus himselfe, & that they would haue euen plucked out their eyes to haue done him good. p 1.1467 The Emperour Constantine honoured the Christian Bishops with the name and title of Gods, acknowledged himselfe subject to their iudgment, though he swayed the scepter of the World: and refused to see what the complaintes were that they preferred one against another, or to read their bils, but professed that to couer their faults he would euen cast frō him his purple Robe. Whence it came that many pri∣uiledges were anciently graunted vnto them, both in respect of their persons, & goods. For first, Constantine the Great, not onely gaue ample gifts to the Pastors of the Churches, but exempted them also from those seruices ministeries and imployments, that other men are subiect to. His Epistle to Anelinus the Proconsul of Africa, wherein this graunt was made to them of Affrica, is found in q 1.1468 Eusebius. Neyther is it to be doubted, but that he extended his fauours to the Bishops of other Churches also, aswell as to them. The words of the Grant are these. Considering that the due obser∣uation of things pertaining to true religion and the worshippe of God, bringeth great happi∣nesse to the whole state of the Common-wealth and Empire of Rome: For the incouragement of such as attend the holy Ministery, and are named Cleargy-men, my pleasure is, that all such in the Church wherein Caecilianus is Bishop, be at once and altogether absolutely freed, and exempted from all publicke Ministeries and Seruices. Neither did the Emperors on∣ly exempt them from these seruices, but r 1.1469 they freed them also frō secular iudgements, vnles it were in certaine kindes of criminall causes. Wherein yet a Bishop was not to be cōuēted against his wil before any secular Magistrate, without the Emperors cōmand. Neyther might the temporall Magistrates condemne any Cleargy-man, till hee were degraded by his Bishoppe, howsoeuer they might imprison and restraine such vpon complaints made. And answerably hereunto the Councell of Matiscon prouideth, s 1.1470 that no Cleargy-man for any cause, without the discussion of his Bishop, shall bee wronged & imprisoned by any Secular Magistrate, & that if any Iudge shal presume to doe soe to the Cleargy-men of any Bishoppe, vnlesse it be in a criminall cause, hee shall bee excommunicated as long as the Bishoppe shall thinke fitte. This was all the immunity that Cleargy-men anciently had by any grant of Princes, and as much as euer the Church desired to enjoy: but that which in latter times was challenged by some, and in defence of the claime whereof, Thomas Becket resisted the King: till his bloud was shedde, was of another kinde. For whereas it was not thought

fitte by the King and State of the Realme at that time, that Church-men found in enormous crimes, by the kings Iustices, should be deliuered ouer to their Bishoppes, and so escape ciuill punishment, but that confessing such crimes, or being clearely conuinced of them before the Bishoppe, the Bishoppe should in presence of the Kings Iustices degrade them, and put them from all Ecclesiasticall honour, and deliuer them to the Kings Court to be punished: Becket was of a contrary minde, and thought, that such as Bishoppes degraded or putte out of their Ministery of the Church, should not bee punished by the ciuill Magistrates; because as hee sayd, one offence was not to be punished twice. t 1.1471 The occasion of this controuersie betweene the King and the Arch-bishoppe, was giuen by one Philip Brocke, a Canon of Bedford: Who beeing brought before the Kings Iustices for murther, vsed vile and contemptuous speeches against them; which though it were proued against him before the Arch-bishoppe, yet hee was only depriued of the benefit of his Prebend, and driuen out of the Realme for the space of two yeares, for so horrible and bloudy a crime. This was one of those sixteene Articles concerning the ancient customes of the Realme, whereunto Becket and the rest of the Bishoppes did sweare, and whereof hee so soone repented againe: namely that Cleargy-men accused of any crime, should at the summons of the Kings Iustices appeare in the Kings Court, to answere to such things as to that Court should be thought to appertaine; and in the Ecclesiasticall, what pertained thereunto: and that the Kings Iustices should send to see, what was there done: and that if they should bee conuicted of any enormous cryme, or confesse the same; the Bishoppe should not protect thē: then which course nothing could be deuised more reasonable. Neyther is it absurd for sheepe to judge their Pastors in these cases, as Bellarmine * 1.1472 fondly affirmeth. That the Councell of x 1.1473 Chalcedon, and Toledo, forbid Cleargy-men to leaue the Eccesiasticall Iudges, and to prosecute their quarrels one against ano∣ther before Temporall Magistrates; and the Councells of * 1.1474 Carthage, and z 1.1475 Agatha, con∣demne a 1.1476 them that chuse rather to bee tryed in Ciuill Courts then Ecclesiasticall, when they haue power to chuse; or that begin suites there without the permission of their Bishoppe, no way contrarieth any thing that I haue sayd: for howsoeuer some things are to bee handled in the Ecclesiasticall Courts, as properly pertaining to them, either naturally and originally, or by graunt of Princes: and other thinges concerning Church-men, not to bee brought into Ciuill Courts but in due sort, and with respect had to their places and rankes, yet neuer had they any such absolute exemption and immunity, but that in criminall causes, such as theft murther, and the like, and in tryall of the title oflands and inheritances, and the right of aduocation of Churches, they were to bee tryed in ciuill Courtes, and no other, whether the differences grewe be∣tweene Lay-men and Cleargy-men, or Cleargy-men among themselues. As like∣wise they were to do homage, and sweare fealty, for such lands, honours, and Baron∣ryes, as they held of Princes. Thus wee see, how fauorable Princes haue beene in graunting priuiledges concerning the persons of such as attend the seruice of God. Neyther were they lesse carefull to free such lands and possessions as they indowed the Church with, from such burdens taxes and impositions, as other temporall pos∣sessions are subject to. So that howsoeuer in the Apostles times, and long after, euen till the time of Ambrose (as it appeareth b 1.1477 by his writtings) the Church-lands payd tribute, yet afterward by c 1.1478 Iustinian and other Christian Emperours, they were freed from those impositions. Neither is it to be maruailed at, that Christian Princes, out of their deuout and religious dispositions were thus fauourable to the Church, seing euen the Heathen Princes did as much for the Idolatrous Priestes of their false-Gods: for we read in the booke of d 1.1479 Genesis, that in the time of that great famine that was in the dayes of Ioseph, when the people of Egypt were constrained, after all their money and cattell were spent, to sell their land to Ioseph the Steward of Pharaoh, in whose hands all the prouision of Corne was, to buy them bread, so that all the land of Egypt became Pharaohs; yet the Priests were not forced to sell their lands; for they had an ordinary from Pharaoh, and they did eate their ordinary which Pharaoh gaue them. And when as afterwardes Ioseph let the people enjoy their land again, which he had bought

for Pharaoh, yet so, that onely foure parts of the increase thereof should bee to them∣selues, for the seed of their fieldes, for their meate, and for them of their householdes and their children to eate; and the fifth part should be Pharaohs, whose now the land was: the land of the Priests was free from this rent and charge, as not being Pharaohs. Yet were not the priuiledges and immunities which Christian Princes gran•…•…ed to Ec∣clesiasticall persons, to prejudice other men, nor to lay too heauy a burden on them; and therefore it was lawfull for Princes, when they saw any inconveniences, in that too much of their land, by passing into the right and possession of Church-men, was freed from seruices and charges, to e 1.1480 stop the passing of any more into such dead hands as would yeeld them no helpe; and cleargy-men were bound in conscience voluntarily to, f 1.1481 contribute to all publike necessities when need required; though the Temporall Magistrates might not impose any thing vpon them as we find it ordered in the third councell of Lateran, and in the g 1.1482 fourth vnder Innocentius the third: yea if they should contemptuously and presumptuously refuse to beare part of the common burdens, notwithstanding any pretended priviledges, the supreame Prince might force them to put too their helping hand, rather then the whole state of the cōmon-wealth should bee shaken and indangered, or other parts and members of it too heauily burdened, as h 1.1483 Duarenus learnedly and excellently sheweth. This may suffice touching the exemp∣tion of Cleargy-men, either in respect of their persons or goods, & the right by which they inioy the same. And thus haue we runne through all the different Degrees & Or∣ders of Ecclesiasticall Ministers, and shewed what their power, office, and authority is, both seuerally, and assembled in councels: and what power Princes haue to com∣maund ouer them, or to intermeddle with the businesses and affaires more specially be∣longing to them:

CHAP. 54.

Of the calling of Ministers: & the persons to whom it pertaineth to elect & ordaine them.

NOw it remaineth that we first treate of the calling of Ministers; for a 1.1484 No man taketh this honour vpon him but he that is called, as was Aaron•…•…: Secondly, of the things required in them: and thirdly of their maintenance,

Touching the first, which is the calling of Ecclesiasticall Ministers, Saint b 1.1485 Hierome noteth, that there are 4 sorts of such men as are imployed in the businesses & affaires of Almighty God. The first are such as are sent neither of men, nor by men, but by Iesus Christ, as the Prophets in olde time, and since the comming of Christ, those Twelue designed immediatly to the Worke of the Ministery by Christs owne voyce, specially called Apostles, The second, such as are sent of God, but by man, as Bishops and Ministers, which succeede the Apostles, and deriue their commission from them. The third are such as are sent of men, and not of GOD, who are they that are ordained by fauour of men, not judging rightly of the quality of them that are to serue in this calling; who yet are not simply denyed to bee sent of God, as if they had no commission from him, but therefore onely, because if the Ordainers had done their duties; they should haue made a better choyce, and sent other, and not these: for being sent by men that haue authority, though abusing the same, they haue a true and lawfull Ministery till they be put from it by superiour authority, else were all Mini∣stration of Sacraments, and other sacred things voyde, performed by such as simonia∣cally or by sinister meanes get into these holy places. The fourth are such as neither are sent of GOD, nor of men, nor by men, but of them-selues, of whom our Sauiour Christ saith, c 1.1486 all that came before me were theeues & robbers: and of whome almighty GOD pronounceth, and sayth by the Prophet Ieremy, d 1.1487 I sent them not, & they 〈◊〉〈◊〉: I spake not to them, & they prophecied. This euill is carefully to bee declined, and therefore CHRIST would not suffer the diuels to speake that which was true, least vnder the pretence of trueth, errour might creepe in; seeing hee that speaketh of him-selfe cannot but speake lyes. These are the foure sortes of

them that serue in the worke of the Ministery; whereof the last haue no calling at all and all they doe is voide: the Third haue a lawfull commission, though they obtay∣ned it by sinister meanes, and bee vnworthy of it, so that they could not bee put into it, without the faulte of the ordayners. The First had a lawfull but extraordinary calling, needefull onely in those first beginnings of Christianity, and not longer to continue. The second haue that calling which is Ordinary and to continue, whereof wee are now to speake. In this calling there are three things implied: Election, Or∣dination, and Assignation to some particular Church, whereof men elected and ordai∣ned are appointed to take charge.

In ancient times there was no ordination at large, without particular Assignation, and sine titulo, allowed, as it appeareth by the Councell of Chalcedon, forbidding any * 1.1488 such thing to be done, and voyding any such Act if it should bee done, and therefore in those times the very electing and ordayning, was an assigning of the elected & or∣dayned to the place of Charge they were to take, and a giuing of them the power of iurisdiction as wel as of order. But this Canon in latter times grew out of vse: whence ensued great confusions in the state of the Church, as f 1.1489 Duarenus rightly noteth: yet are we not of opinion, that all such ordinations are voyde in the nature of the thing; whatsoeuer the Ancients pronounced of them according to the strictnesse of the Ca∣nons. For seeing Ordination, which is the sanctifying of men to the worke of the holy Ministery, is a diffeernt thing in nature from the placing of them, where they shal do that holy worke; and a man once ordained needeth not any new Ordination, when he is remoued from one Church to another, it is euident that in the nature of the thing, Ordination doth not so depend on the title and place of Charge the Ordayned entereth into, as that Ordinations at large should bee voyd; yet are they not to bee permitted, neither are they in our Church. For the Ordinations of Ministers in Col∣ledges in our Vniuersities, are not within the compasse of those prohibited Ordinati∣ons at large, and sine titulo: and none other, by the order of our Church, may bee Or∣dayned, vnlesse he be certainly prouided of some definite place of charge & imploy∣ment. And as the Auncient were thus precise in admitting none into the holy Mini∣stery, but with assignation of the particular place of his imployment; so they tooke as strict order, that men once placed should not sodainly be remoued and translated to a∣ny other church or charge. In the Councell of g 1.1490 Sardica, Hosius the President of that Councell sayd;

That same ill custome and pernicious corruption is wholy to be pluc∣ked vp by the rootes, that it may not be lawfull for a Bishoppe to passe from his ci∣tie to any other city. For the cause why they doe so, is knowne to all, seeing none is found to passe from a greater citie to a lesser: whence it appeareth, that they are infla∣med with ardent desires of couetousnesse, and that they serue their owne ambitious designes, that they may exercise dominion, and grow great. If therefore it seeme good to you all, that such an euill as this is, may be more seuerely punished, lette him that is such a one, bee reiected from all communion, euen such as Lay-men inioy. To whom all the Bishoppes answered; it pleaseth vs well. To whom Hosius replyed; Though any shall bee found so ill aduised, as haply in excuse of himselfe to affirme; that hee receiued letters from the people, to draw him from his owne city to another; yet I thinke, seeing it is manifest, that some few not sincere in the Faith, might be corrup∣ted by reward, and procured to desire his translation, all such fraudes should altoge∣ther bee condemned: So that such a one should not bee admitted, so much as to the communion which Lay-men enioy, no not in the end: which thing if it seeme good vnto you all, confirme and settle it by your Decree. And the Synode answered, it pleaseth vs well. Leo, to the same purpose writeth thus; h 1.1491 If any Bishoppe, despising the meanenesse of his owne citie, shall seeke to gette the administration & gouern∣ment, of some more noted, and better respected place, and shall by any meanes tran∣slate

& remoue himselfe to a greater People, and more large and ample charge, let him

bee driuen from that other chaire which hee sought, and lette him bee depriued al∣so of his owne. So that hee bee neither suffered to rule ouer them, whom, out of a couetous desire, hee would haue subiected to himselfe, nor ouer them, whom

^g in pride hee contemned and scorned. And the like is found in other: but as i 1.1492 Theo∣doret

sheweth, it was ambition, and such other like euils, that these Holy Fathers sought to stoppe and preuent, rather then generally to condemne all Translation of Bi∣shops from one Church and cittie to another. For these changes may sometimes bring so great and euident vtility, that they are not to be disliked. And therefore the same k 1.1493 Theodoret sheweth that notwithstanding this Canon, Gregory Nazianzen, was remoued from his Church, and constituted Bishop of Constantinople. And l 1.1494 Socrates reporteth, that Proclus was remoued thither from Cyzicum. Wherefore passing by these matters as cleare and resolued of, Let vs proceed to see, first, to whom it pertaineth to Elect: Secondly, to whom it belongeth to ordaine such as are duly elected and cho∣sen to the worke of the Ministery.

Touching Election, m 1.1495 wee thinke, that each Church and People, that haue not by lawe, custome, or consent, restrayned themselues stand free by Gods law to admitte, maintaine and obey no man, as their Pastor, without their liking: and that the peoples election by themselues or their rulers, dependeth on the first principles of humane fel∣lowships and assemblies: for which cause, though Bishops by Gods lawe haue power to examine and ordaine, before any may be placed to take charge of soules: yet haue they no power to impose a Pastor on any Church against their wils, nor to force them to yeeld obedience and maintenance to any without their liking. And therefore an∣ciently (as n 1.1496 LEO sheweth) the custome was that hee should bee chosen of all, that was to bee ouer all, that the wishes and desires of the Cittizens should bee expected, the Testimonies of the people should be sought, the will and li∣king of the noble and honourable should be knowne, and the Cleargy should choose. All which thinges are wont to be obserued and kept in ordinations, by them that know the rules of the Fathers, that the rule of the Apostle may be followed in all things, who prescribeth, that hee who is to be ouer the Church, should not onely haue the allowance of the faithfull, giuing witnesse vnto him, but the testimony also of them that are without, and that no occasiō of any scandall may be left, while he, who is to be the Doctor ofpeace, is ordained in peace and concord, pleasing vnto God, with the agreeing and consen∣ting desires of all. And in the same Epistle hee addeth Teneatur subscriptio Clerico∣rum, honoratorum testimonium, ordinis consensus & Plebis: That is, Let the subscripti∣on of the Cleargy be had, the testimony of the honourable, and the consent of the or∣der and people. o 1.1497 Cyprian to the same purpose writeth thus: The people beeing obedi∣ent

to the precepts of the Lord, and fearing God, ought to seperate themselues from a sinnefull and wicked Ruler, and not intermingle themselues, or to haue any thing to do with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest: especially seeing they haue power eyther to chuse such Priestes as are worthy, or to refuse such as are vnworthy. And a little after in the same Epistle, hee hath these words: For which cause it is dili∣gently to bee obserued and kept, as from the tradition of God, and the Apostles, (which thing also is obserued and kept with vs, and almost throughout all Pro∣uinces) that for the due performance of the worke of Ordination, when any Ruler and Gouernour is to be ordained, the Bishops of the same Prouince, which are nea∣rest, should come together vnto that people, ouer whom he is to be sette, and that the Bishoppe should, be chosen in the presence of the people, which most fully and per∣fectly knoweth the life of euery one, and hath perceiued by their conuersation what kind of workes they are wont to do. Which thing also we see to haue bin don in the Ordination of Sabinus our Colleague, to wit, that vpon the voyces of the whole bro∣therhood, and the judgment of the Bishops, which came together & which sent their letters, expressing their opiniō of him, the Episcopall dignity was cōferred vpon him, & with the imposition of hands he was ordained into the voyd roome of Basilides.

That in the time of Chrysostome, the people had interest in chusing their Pastors, it is e∣uident out of his booke of p 1.1498 Priest-hood. The Fathes of the Nicene Councell (as wee finde in q 1.1499 Theodoret) write to the Church of Alexandria, and to the beloued brethren of Egypt, Lybia, and Pent•…•…polis in this sort: If haply any Bishop of the Church de fall a∣sleepe,

let it be lawfull for such of the sect of Meletius, as haue beene not long since resto∣red to the Communion of the Church, to succeede into the place of him that is dead, if so be that they shall seeme to bee worthy, and the people shall chuse them: yet so notwithstanding, that the voyce and consent of the Bishop of the Church of Alexandria bee added to seale and confirme the same. And touching the election of Nectarius, the Bishoppes of the first councell of Constantinople write thus: r 1.1500 Wee haue ordained the most reverend and beloued of God Nectarius, Bishop, before the whole Councell, with all consent and agreement, in the presence of Theodosius the Emperour, beloued of God, and of the whole cleargy, the whole city likewise with vnanimous consentagreeing thereunto. And Leo provideth and ta∣keth order what shall bee done, when they that should elect, agree not. His words are these: s 1.1501 When ye goe about the election of the chiefe Priest or Bishop, let him be advan∣ced before all, vpon whom the consenting desires of the Cleargy and People concurre with one accord: and if their voyces be divided betwixt twaine, let him be preferred before the o∣ther, in the iudgment of the Metropolitane, which hath more voyces and merits: but let none be ordained against their wils and petitions, least the people despise or hate the Bishoppe which they neuer affected, and lesse care for religion when their desires are not satisfied. And Grego•…•…y the Bishoppe of Rome long after, allowing the election by the people, hath these wordes: t 1.1502 If it be true that the Bishop of Salona bee dead, hasten to admonish the cleargy and people of that city, to choose a Bishoppe with one consent that may bee ordained for them. And to Magnus about the election of the Bishoppe of Millaine, hee saith: u 1.1503 Warne the Cleargy and people that they dissent not in choosing their Priest, but that with one accord they elect some one, that may bee consecrated their Bishoppe. By all which testimonies wee see what interest aunciently the people had in the choyce of their Bishops, and how carefull good Bishops were that they should haue none thrust vpon them against their wills, that they should proceede to election with one accord if it might bee; or otherwise, that such should be ordained as were desired by the grea∣ter part, and that all things might be done peaceably and without tumult.

But how much in time they abused this their power, it is too evident. For x 1.1504 Nazianzene reporting the choyce of Eusebius to bee Bishoppe of Caesarea, sayth, the Citty of Caesarea was in a tumult, and the people divided about the choyce of their Bishoppe; and the sedition was sharpe, and hardly to bee appeased; and that, as men distracted in many mindes, some proposing one, and some another, as is often seene in such cases, at length the whole people agreeing on one of good cal∣ling among them, commended for his life, but not yet baptized, tooke him against his will, and with the helpe of a band of souldiers that was then come to the Cit∣ty, placed him in the Bishops chaire, and offered him to the Bishoppes present, & mix∣ing threates with perswasions, required to haue him ordained and pronounced their Bishop. Likewise at Antioch (as y 1.1505 Eusebius reporteth) there was raised a grieuous se∣dition about the deposing of Eustathius: and after, when another was to be chosen, the flame therof so increased, that it was like to haue consumed the whole city. For the people being diuided into two parts, the Magistrates of the citie supported the sides, and bandes of souldiers were mustered as against an enemy: and the matter had vn∣doubtedly beene tryed by the sword, if God, and the feare of the Emperour writing to them, had not asswaged the rage of the multitude. But howsoeuer, such was the dissention, that eight whole yeares the place was without a Bishop. z 1.1506 When Dioscorus Bishoppe of Alexandria was deposed by the Councell of Chalcedon, & Proterius sette in his place, a mighty & intollerable sedition grew among the people for it: some affe∣cting Dioscorus, & some cleauing to Proterius. The people opposed themselues against the Magistrates, and when they thought with strong hande to suppresse the vprore, the multitude with stones, beat the souldiers into the church, besieged thē in it, & de∣stroyed a number of them with fire: and, vpon the death of Martian the Emperour, they chose a new B. and brought him into the church on Easter day. They slew Prote∣rius, and sixe other with him in the Temple, and drew his body wounded and man∣gled along through the quarters of the citie. a 1.1507 The like dissention grewe in the

Church of Millaine after the death of Auxentius the Arrian Bishoppe; but the issue was very happy: for Ambrose, at that time a secular Magistrate, seing the diuision to be very dangerous, and threatning the ouerthrow of the state of the citty, entred into the Church, and made an excellent Oration, perswading them to peace; wher∣with all sides were so well pleased, that with one consent, they desired to haue Am∣brose for their Bishoppe, who was not yet baptized: and the Emperour was carefull to satisfie their desire, and commaunded that it should be as they had desired b 1.1508 In the Church of Rome, after Liberius, Damasus succeeded in the Episcopall office: whom Vrsinus, a certaine Deacon of that Church, not enduring to bee preferred before him, waxed so madde, that hauing perswaded and drawne vnto him a certaine ignorant & rude Bishop, and gathered together a company of turbulent and seditious persons in the church of Sicinius, hee procured himselfe to be made Bishop against all order, law, and auncient custome. From which fact proceeded so great sedition, nay so great warre (some of the people defending Damasus as lawfull Bishop, and some Vr∣sinus) that the places of prayer were filled with the bloud of men. The people in this sort abusing their authority & power, were restrained by the decrees of Coucels, and by the lawes of Princes, and their right and power to choose their Pastours, ma∣ny waies limited and straitned, till in the end it was wholy taken from them. For first, the Councell of c 1.1509 Laodicaea forbad, that elections of such as were to serue in the holy Ministery of the Church, and execute the Priests office, should bee left to the multi∣tudes. But that Councell was but particular, and could prescribe no lawes to the whole world: and therefore after this, the people swayed things very much still, and d 1.1510 Leo Bishoppe of Rome, after this time, charged the Bishoppes to thrust none vpon the people without their consent. And euen in the Romane church the election of the people continued a long time after this decree of the Councell of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. For Pope Nicholas the second, in the Councell of Laterane, in the yeare of our Lord 1059. with the consent of the whole Synode, decreeth on this sorte: e 1.1511 Instructed & guided by the authority of our predecessours, and other holy Fathers, wee decree and deter∣mine, that when the Bishoppe of this Vniuersall Church of Rome dyeth; first of all the Car∣dinall Bishops shall most diligently consult together about the election of a new, and soone after they shall take vnto them the Cardinall Cleargy-men, and so the rest of the Cleargie and people shall come to giue consent to the new election. And because the See Apostolick is preferred before all the Churches in the world, and therefore canne haue no Metropoli∣tane ouer or aboue it, the Cardinall Bishops doubtlesse supply the place of the Metropoli∣tane, and are to promote and lift vp the new elected Bishop to the top of Apostolicke heigth. Yea the presence and testimony of Lay-men was not excluded in such elections a longtime after: For f 1.1512 Gregory the seuenth was elected by the Cardinals of the church of Rome, Clearkes, Acoluthes, Subdeacons and Presbyters, many Bishops, Abbots & others, both of the Cleargy & Laity being present.

But Christian Princes, Kings and Emperours, being chiefe among those of the Lai∣ty, and so hauing a soueraigne consent among and ouer the rest, in such elections as pertained vnto them by the right of humane fellowship and gouernment, interposed themselues in these businesses, and sundry wayes abridged that liberty, that the people in some places tooke vnto them. g 1.1513 Zozomen noteth, that after the death of Nectari∣us, Bishoppe of Constantinople, the Cleargy and people resolued to haue Chrysostome a Presbyter of Antioch, a man famously renowned throughout all the Empire, to bee their Bishop. Which their resolution the Emperour confirmed by his assent, & sent and fet him, and called a Councell to make his election more authenticall. Likewise h 1.1514 after the death of Sicinius, though some would haue had Philip, others P•…•…clus Pres∣byters of that church to succeed, yet the Emperour by the perswasion of certaine vaine men, called a stranger thither, to wit, Nestorius, who afterward proued an Arch-hereticke, i 1.1515 After the death of Maximianus, successor to Nestorius, the Em∣perour tooke order without delay that Proclus might bee placed in the Bishoppes chaire by the Bishops present, before the body of Maximianus was buried, least any variance and quarrelling might ensue.

Neither did the Emperours medlelesse with the election of the Bishop of Rome, then of Constantinople. For (as k 1.1516 Onuphrius rightly obserueth) after the Gothes were driuen out of Italy by Narses, the Lieutenant of the Emperour, and the country sub∣jected againe to the Empire of the East, in the dayes of Iustinian the Emperour there beganne a new custome in the election of the Romane Bishoppes; which was, that so soone as the Bishop of that See should be dead, the Cleargie and people (as for∣merly they had done) should presently choose another to succeede into his place: but that he might not bee confecrated & ordained by the Bishoppes, till his election were confirmed by the Emperour, and till he gaue leaue to ordaine him by his Letters Pat∣tents. For which confirmation a certaine summe of money was paide, which it is likely Iustinian did, or by his authority caused Vigilius the Bishop of Rome to doe it, that the Emperor might be assured of the conditions of the newly elected Bishoppe, least a factious and busie man being chosen, hee might conspire with the barbarous people that then sought to encroch vpon the Empire, and so cause a reuolte of the ci∣tie of Rome and the country of Italy from the Easterne Empire, the Bishoppe growing great, and the Emperour being farre off. Vpon which constitution it came to passe that the Romanes chose for the most part such a one, as they thought would be accep∣table to the Emperour, and of whom hee might bee perswaded, that hee would at∣tempt nothing preiudiciall to the state of the Empire, the Lombards about that time or presently after troubling Italy. This custome was continued till the time of Be∣nedict the Second, l 1.1517 in whose time Constantine the Emperour, for the good opinion hee had of him, and loue he bare to him, gaue commandement that the election of the Bishop of Rome being resolued on, the Bishops should presently proceede to the or∣dination of him, without expecting any confirmation from the Emperour. But the power of confirming the newly elected Bishoppe of Rome before hee might bee or∣dayned, or execute the Bishoppely office, was againe restored to Charles the great & his successours Kings of France and Emperours of the West, in more ample sort then it had beene before, by m 1.1518 Adrian the First; which being againe taken from his succes∣sours by n 1.1519 Adrian the Third, was restored to Otho the First, King of the Germanes, & Emperour of the West, by o 1.1520 Leo the Eigth. From which time it continued till Gre∣gory the Seauenth, p 1.1521 who though hee was glad to seeke the Emperours confirmation himselfe, when hee first entred into the Popedome, yet afterwards he disclaymed it as vnlawfull: so condemning many of his Predecessours, that had allowed and confirmed this part of Imperiall power, vnder great paines and curses to fall vpon such as should euer goe about to violate the same. After whose times other Popes reserued the whole power of electing the Romane Bishoppe to the Cardinalls alone, as wee see the manner is vnto this day. Thus writeth Onuphrius, professing that hee carefully looked ouer all the auncient monuments of the Romane Church, to finde out the cer∣tainety of these things. Neither neede we to doubt of the trueth of that hee writeth, yet for farther proofe, least any man should doubt, I will produce the reports of Histo∣rians, & the Acts of Councels to confirme that hee saith. Platina in the life of Pelagius the 2^d saith, nothing was done in the election of the Romane B. in those dayes, without the Emperours consent and confirmation: and sheweth that the reason why Pelagius was created Bishoppe without the commaund of the Emperour, was, for that they could send no messenger to him, the Citty being besieged. And touching Gregory |the First, q 1.1522 hee reporteth, that when he was chosen Bishoppe of Rome, knowing the Emperours consent necessarily to bee required in the election and constitution of the Bishoppe, unwilling to possesse that place and roome, hee sent vnto him, earnestly intreating him to make voyde the election of the Cleargy, and people: which his suite the Emperour was so farre from graunting, that hee sent to confirme the Ele∣ction, and to enforce him to take the Pastorall charge vpon him, in that most daunge∣rous and troublesome time. Whereby wee see how farre the Emperours intermed∣led in the election and constitution of the Romane Bishoppes in those daies. It is true indeede, that the same Platina reporteth, that r 1.1523 Constantine admiring the sanctity & vertue of Benedict the second, sent vnto him a sanction, that euer after all men should

presently take him for Bishop (without expecting the concurrence of the authority of the Emperour of Constantinople, or the Exarch of Italy) whomsoeuer the Cle•…•…rgy, people; and armies of the Romanes should chuse. Not-with-standing this freed•…•…me and libertie continued not long: for (as wee may reade in the s 1.1524 Decree•…•…) Charle•…•… the Great, and Adrian the first held a Synode in the Church of Saint Sauiour in Rome, wherein met 153 Bishops, religious men and Abbottes, in which Synod Adrian with the consent of the Bishops there assembled, gaue vnto Charles power to choose the Bi∣shop of Rome, and to order the Apostolicall See, together with the dignity of being a Patrician or Nobleman of Rome, and besides decreed, that all Arch-bishoppes and Bi∣shops in the Provinces abroad, should seeke investiture of him, and that no man should bee esteemed a Bishoppe, or bee consecrated, till he were allowed and commended by the King. This Decree the councell published, anathematizing all that should vio∣late it, and confiscating their goods; yet did t 1.1525 Adrian the third (as Platina reporteth) take so good heart vnto him, that whereas Nicholas the first did but attempt such a thing rather then performe it, hee in the very beginning of his Papall dignity made a Decree, that without expecting the Emperours consent or ratification, the election of the Cleargy, Senate and People should bee good. But Leo the Eight in a Synode ga∣thered together in the Church of Saint Sauiour in Rome, following the example of Adrian the first, with the consent of the whole Synode restored vnto the Emperour that power and authority which Adrian the first had yeelded vnto him, and Adrian the third had sought to depriue him of. The wordes of that councell are these.

u 1.1526 I Leo Bishop, and seruant of the seruants of God, with the whole Cleargy and peo∣ple of Rome, doe constitute confirme, and strengthen, and by our Apostolicall autho∣rity graunt and giue to our Lord Otho the first King of Germaines, and to his succes∣sours in this Kingdome of Italy for euer, power to choose a successour, and to order the Bishop of this highest See Apostolicke, as also Arch-bishoppes, and Bishoppes, that they may receiue investiture from him, and consecration whence they ought to haue it, those onely excepted which the Emperour himselfe hath graunted to the Popes and Arch-bishops; and that no man hereafter of what dignity or reli∣gious profession soeuer, shall haue power to chuse a Patrician or a chiefe Bishoppe of the highest See Apostolicke, or to ordaine any Bishop whatsoeuer, without the con∣sent of the Emperour first had, which consent and confirmation notwithstanding shall be had without money. So that if any Bishop shall be chosen by the cleargy & people, he shall not bee consecrated vnlesse hee bee commended and invested by the fore-named King. And if any man shall attēpt to do any thing against this rule & Apo∣stolicall authority, We decree, that he shal be subiect to excommunication, and that if he repent not, he shall bee perpetually banished, or be subiect to the last, most grie∣vous, deadly and capitall punishments. Hence it came that when any Bishop was

dead, they sent his staffe and ring to the Emperour: and hee to whom the Emperour was pleased to deliuer the same, after a solemne fashion and manner, was thereby de∣signed and constituted Bishop of the voyde place. Thus wee see how authentically, vnder great paines and curses, the Pope and councell yeeld that right to the Emperor, subjecting all that euer should goe about to disanull their Decree, to the great curse, perpetuall banishment, and grievous punishments. Yet Pope Hildebrand, who, as if he had beene a fire-brand of hell, set all the world in a Combustion, k 1.1527 disanulled this Law as impious and wicked: and Victor, Vrbanus, and Paschalis succeeding him were of the same minde. By reason whereof there grew a great dissention betweene the Popes and Emperours: Henry the fourth, and after him Henry the fifth, challenging not onely the right of confirming the election of the Popes, but power also to con∣ferre Bishoprickes and Abbeyes by Investiture of staffe and ring, as the Popes Adrian and Leo had yeelded and granted to Charles and his successours; which thing also had beene enioyed by the Emperour for the space of three hundred yeares: and the Popes on the other side thinking it vnlawfull for the Emperors in this sort to bestow either Bishopricke or Abbey, & forbidding them so to doe, vnder paine of the great curse. But Henry the fifth forced •…•…ope Paschall to confirme vnto him the ancient right again,

and to accurse all such as should dislike, resist, or seeke to disanull it: which yet not long after bee reuersed againe in another Councell: and in the y 1.1528 dayes of Calixtus, the Emperour resigned his right, and the Pope allowed, that within his kingdome of Ger∣many, elections should be made in his presence, and that with the aduice of the Metro∣politane and Bishops of the Prouince he might assist and strengthen the better part, and that the elected should receiue from him all things belonging to the King by the rea∣ching forth of his Scepter. z 1.1529 Matthew Paris sayth; the contention betweene Pope Paschall and Henry the Emperour about the inuestiture of Bishops and Abbots, which the Emperors had enioyed three hūdred yeares in the times of threescore Popes was so ended, that both Bishops and Abbots should first sweare Canonicall obedience to their Ecclesiasticall superiors, and be consecrated, and then receiue Institution from the Emperour by rod and ring. Thus wee see what right and interest ancient Empe∣rours challenged to themselues in the election of the Bishop of Rome, and in conferring other dignities of the Church, and that the latter Popes condemned that as euill and wicked which their Predecessors not onely allowed, but prescribed vnder great and grieuous paines and curses. Whereupon a 1.1530 Auentinus noteth, that among the Popes, Eadem facta modò superstitionis, modò pietatis, modò Christi, modò Antichristi, mo∣dò iusticiae, modò tyrannidis nomina accipiunt: that is, That the same factes, deedes and things, are at one time branded with the marke of superstition, and at another time set out with the glorious title of Piety: at one time attributed to Christ, at another time to Antichrist; at one time iudged iust and righteous, and at another time tyranni∣call and vnjust. b 1.1531 Genebrard (acknowledging that there haue beene many vile mon∣sters that haue gotten into Peters chaire, and that there were fiftie Popes rather Apo∣tacticall and Apostaticall, then Apostolicall) layeth the blame vpon the Romaine Em∣perours, as if they had placed those monsters in Peters chaire. It is well hee confes∣seth that such beastes haue entred into the Church of Rome, but if hee did not, wee would easily proue the same. For (to omit Hildebrand, whom some called a monster, and an enemy to mankinde, who caused more Christian bloud to be shed, and more grieuous confusions to rent and shake in sunder the Christian world, then any here∣tickes or persecutors had euer done before, soe that hee was forced to confesse at his death to God, to holy Church, and blessed Peter, that hee had grieuously offended in his Pastorall office; and Ioane the Whore, because (as c 1.1532 Onuphrius thinketh) shee was not Pope but the harlot of Iohn the twelfth: the Stories mention such vile mon∣sters sitting in that Chaire, that d 1.1533 Benedict the fourth is highly commended, for that though hee did nothing memorable, yet hee liued an honest and a good life. But that the Emperours were the cause of the placing of these Monsters (as Genebrard would make vs beleeue) it may not be yeldeed. For betweene the time of Adrian the third (who tooke the power of confirming popes from the Emperours) and the raigne of Otho the first, to whom it was restored by pope Leo: there entred Formosus, Bonifacius, Stephen, Romanus, Theodorus, Iohn the ninth, Christopher, and Sergius, all, men of ill note: and Iohn the twelfth, then whom the earth did neuer beare a more prodigious and vile monster. e 1.1534 This wretch, Otho, at the earnest suite of the Romanes, caused to be deposed by a Councell of Bishoppes, and Leo to bee chosen. Whereupon the power of choosing the pope, and ordering the See Apostolique, was againe by consent of Leo the pope, and the people and Cleargy of Rome, giuen and confirmed to him and his successors for euer, in sort before expressed. For (as f 1.1535 Sigonius sayth) Leo rightly considered, that after the time of Adrian the third, the ambition of the Romanes filled the Church with beasts, disordered these elections, and set all in a tumult: & therefore thought no meanes so fit to reforme these disorders, to represse these insolencies, and preuent these mischiefes, as to put the bridle into the Emperours hands againe. Yet not long after, the Romanes casting off the yoake, and breaking the bands in sunder, put in Boniface the seauenth, Benedict the ninth, and Syl∣uester, who sold the Popedome to Gregory the sixt, all which popes were soe intolle∣rably wicked, that g 1.1536 Platina calleth them teterrima monstra, that is, most vile, hideous and ougly monsters. And h 1.1537 Henry the second called a Councell, and deposed Gregory the

last of them, and placed Twideger a Germane in his place, who was afterwards na∣med Clemens, who againe restored the right of choosing the Pope to him & his suc∣cessours: for that (as Sigonius i 1.1538 noteth) after the law prescribing & requiring the Em∣perours consent to bee had in such elections was taken away, the state of the church was newly put in great danger. So that Henry the second was forced to come into I∣taly, to set thinges in order. And therefore it is more then ordinary impudency in k 1.1539 Genebrard, to impute all the confusions in the elections of the Romane Bishops to the Emperours, who were not the causes of them, but oftentimes staide them by their Princely power. Neither is it lesse strange that hee & other dare condemne that au∣thority in the Emperours as vnlawfull, which had continued from the time of Iusti∣nian to Benedict, and was againe confirmed by Adrian, Leo, & other Popes, with their Councells of Bishoppes; and by vertue where of Saint Gregory & other possessed the Episcopall chaire, who are vniustly censured by Genebrard, as entring by the Posterne gate, in this respect. Neither haue the Popes beene better, or the election freer from faction, since the Emperours were wholy and finally excluded, then they were be∣fore. For what shall we say of Bonifacius the Eigth, of whom it is said, l 1.1540 that he en∣tered like a Foxe, and died like a Dog, that hee coosened poore Caelestinus his prede∣cessour, and by false practises wonne him to resigne the Popedome to him, and resting not contented herewith, tooke vpon him to dispose of all the Kingdomes of the world at his pleasure? of m 1.1541 Iohn the three and twentith, a vile man, and a Diuell incar∣nate? and Alexander the sixt, of whom so many horrible things are reported by n 1.1542 Onu∣phrius, o 1.1543 Volaterran & others? And touching factions & schismes, whereas there haue bin thirty of them in the church of Rome, neuer any endured so long as the last which was since the Emperours were wholy excluded from intermedling with Papall ele∣ctions. For it continued forty yeares, and could neuer be ended but by the helpe of Sigismund the Emperour in the Councell of Constance. Wherefore seeing so many Councells & Popes yeelded the power of electing, or at least of allowing and confir∣ming the Popes to the Emperours, and seeing so good effects followed of it, and so ill of the contrary, there is no reason why our Aduersaries should dislike it. For seeing the people aunciently had their consent in these affaires, p 1.1544 Fredericke the Emperour had reason when hee said, that himselfe as King and ruler of the people, ought to bee chiefe in choosing his owne Bishop.

Neither had the Emperours onely this right in disposing of the Bishopricke of Rome and other dignities Ecclesiasticall, but other Christian Kings likewise had a principall stroake in the appointing of Bishops. For (as q 1.1545 Nauclere noteth) the French Kings haue had the right of Inuestitures euer since the time of Adrian the first: and r 1.1546 Duarenus sheweth, that howsoeuer Ludouicus renounced the right of choosing the Bishop of Rome, yet hee held still the right of Inuestiture of other Bishops, into the place whereof came afterwards, that right which the King vseth, when in the vacan∣cie of a Bishopricke hee giueth power to choose, and some other royalties which the Kings of France still retaine. It appeareth by the s 1.1547 twelfth Councell of Toledo, that the Kings had a principall stroake in elections in the Churches of Spaine: and touching England, Matthew Paris testifieth, that Henry the first by William of Warnaste his * 1.1548 agent, protested to the Pope, he would rather loose his kingdome then the right of Inuestitures; and added threatning words to the same protestation. Neither did he onely make verball protestations, but hee really practised that hee spake, and gaue the Arch bishopricke of Canterbury to Rodolphe Bishoppe of London, inuesting him by Pastoral staffe & ring. Articuli cleri prescribe, that elections shall be free frō force, feare, or intreaty of Secular powers: yet so as that the Kings license bee first asked, & after the election done, his royall assent and confirmation bee added to make it good. Whereupon the Statute of prouisors of Benefices, made at Westminster the fiue and twentith of Edward the third, hath these wordes: Our Soueraigne Lord the King and his heires shall haue and enioy for the time, the collations to the Archbishoprickes and o∣ther dignities electiue, which bee of his aduowry, such as his progenitors had, before free e∣lection was granted: sith that the first elections were granted by the Kings progenitours,

vpon a certaine forme and condition, as namely to demaund licence of the King to choose, & after choyce made, to haue his royall assent. Which condition being not kept, the thing ought by reason to returne to his first nature.

So that we see, that at first the Cleargy & people were to choose their Bishops & Ministers; yet so, that Princes by their right were to moderate things, and nothing was to be done without them. But when they endowed Churches with ample reve∣newes & possessions, & disburdened the people of the charge of maintaining their Pa∣stors, they had now a farther reason to sway things then before. And thence it is, that the Statute aboue-mentioned saith: the Kings gaue power of free elections, yet vpon condition of seeking their licence & confirmation, as hauing the right of nomination in themselues, in that they were Founders. Likewise touching Presbyters, the auncient u 1.1549 Canon of the Councel of Carthage (which was, that Bishops should not ordain clearks without the consent of their Cleargie, & that also they should haue the assent and te∣stimony of the Citizens) held while the Cleargy liued together vpon the common contributions and divident, but when not onely titles were divided & distinguished, and men placed in rurall Churches abroad: but seuerall allowance made for the main∣tenance of such as should attend the seruice of God by the Lords of those Countrey townes, out of their owne lands, and the lands of their tennants, they that thus care∣fully provided for the Church, were much respected. And it was thought fit they should haue great interest in the choosing and nominating of Clearkes in such places. x 1.1550 Iustinian the Emperour, to reward such as had beene beneficiall in this sort to the Church, and to incourage others to doe the like, decreed: That if any man build a Church or house of Prayer, and would haue Clearkes to be placed there, if hee allow maintenance for them, and name such as are worthy, they shall be ordained vpon his nomination. But if he shall choose such as bee prohibited by the Canons as vnworthy, the Bishop shall take care to promote some whom he thinketh more worthy. And the Councell of y 1.1551 Toledo about the yeare of Christ 655, made a Canon to the same effect. The words of the councell are these: We decree, that as long as the Founders of Churches doe liue, they shall be suffered to haue the chiefe and continuall care of the said Churches, & shall offer fit Rectors to the Bishop to be ordained. And of the Bishop neglecting the Foun∣ders shall presume to place any others, let him know that his admission shall be voyde, and to his shame; but if such as they choose be prohibited by the Canons as vnworthy, then let the Bishop take care to promote some whom he thinketh more worthy. Whereby we see what respect was anciently had to such as founded Churches, & gaue lands and possessions to the same: yet were they not called Lords of such places, after such dedication to God, but Patrons onely: because they were to defend the rights thereof, and to protect such as there attended the seruice of God: & though they had right to nominate men to serue in these places, yet might they not judge or punish them if they neglected their duties, but onely complaine of them to the Bishop or Magistrate: Neither z 1.1552 might they dispose of the possessions thus giuen to the Church, and dedicated to God, but if they fell into poverty, they were to be maintained out of the revenewes thereof. This power and right of nomination and presentation resting in Princes and other Foun∣ders, can no way prejudice or hurt the state of the Church, if Bishops (to whō exami∣nation and ordination pertaineth) doe their duties in refusing to consecrate & ordaine such as the Canons prohibite; but very great confusions did follow the Popes inter∣meddling in bestowing Church-liuings and dignities, as wee shall soone finde if wee looke into the practise of them in former times.

CHAP. 55.

Of the Popes disordered intermedling with the elections of Bishoppes and other Ministers of the Church: their vsurpation, intrusion and preiudicing the right and liberty of others.

THe Popes informer times greatly preiudiced the right and liberty of other men and hurt the estate of the Church of God three waies: first by giuing pri∣uiledges to Fryers, (a people vnknowne to all antiquity) to enter into the Churches and charges of other men, to do Ministeriall acts, and to get vnto themselues those things which of right should haue beene yeelded to other. Secondly, by Commendams, and Thirdly, by reseruations and prouisions.

Touching the first, a 1.1553 Matthew Paris noteth that about the yeare of our Lord 1246, the Preaching Fryers obtained great priuiledges from the Pope, to preach, to heare confessions, and to do other ministeriall acts, euery where disgracing the ordinary Pa∣stors, as ignorant and insufficient to gouerne the people of God. This new found or∣der of Fryers, he sayth, seemed to many discreet and wise men to tend to the ouerthrow of the order of Pastors and Bishops setled by the blessed Apostles and holy Doctors: and that, not hauing beene aboue thirty yeares in England they were growne more out of order, then the Monkes of S. Austine and Benedictes order were in many ages. For such was their impudent and shameles boldnesse, that they came to the Synodes of Bishops, Prelates, & Arch-deacons, sitting as Presidents in the middest of their Deanes, Rectors, and other worthy men, requiring their letters of commission and priuiledge to be read, and themselues to be admitted and commended to preach in their Synodes and Parish Churches as Embassadors and Angels of God with all honour. In this insolent sort went they vp and downe from place to place, and asked of euery man, (though of a religious profession) to whom he confessed himselfe; and if any one answered, that hee made his confession to his owne Priest, they asked againe, what Ideot that was? they told him hee was neuer hearer of Diuinity, that hee neuer studied the Decrees, and that he was not able to discusse any one cōtrouersy; adding that such Priests wereblind, & guides of the blind; & willed all men to come vnto thē as to men knowing to discern betweene Leprosie and Leprosie: to whom the hard and obscure things were knowne, and the secrets of God reuealed: whereupon many (especially Noble-men and Noble∣women, betooke themselues to these, contemning their owne Pastors: soe that the ordinary Ministers grew into great contempt, which grieued them not a little, nor without cause. But of these Fryerly people no man hath written better then Ar∣machanus: b 1.1554 who excellently deciphereth their intollerable hypocrisie, iniustice, and couetousnesse, joyned with all cunning and coozening practises and deuises. Their hypocrisie he discouereth, in that though they pretended pouerty, yet they had houses like the stately pallaces of Princes, Churches more costly then any Cathedrall Chur∣ches, more and richer Ornaments then all the Prelates of the world, more and better bookes then all the Doctors and great learned men of the world: cloysters, and wal∣king places so sumptuous, stately and large, that men of armes might fight on horse∣backe and encounter one another with their speares in them, and their apparell richer then the greatest and most reuerend prelates. Their iniustice he sheweth in their iniu∣rious intruding into other mens Churches & charges, depriuing thē of their authority, honor; & maintenāce: & their couetousnes, in that they sought only to do those things that might bring gaine: and insinuated themselues into the fauour and liking of the great ones of the world, little regarding those of meane condition. Whereupon hee warneth all men to take heede of them as wicked seducers, that enter into houses and lead captiue simple women laden with sinnes, bringing in sectes of perdition; and in couetousnesse making merchandise of men by crafty and fained words of flat∣tery. * 1.1555 This is that vnprofitable, and most dangerous and damnable generation of dis∣guised and masked hypocrites, which like Locusts are come out of the bottomlesse

pitte, in these last ages of the world, eating vp and deuouring whatsoeuer is greene and flourishing vpon the earth.

The Monkes in their beginning were a people of a farre other sort: For they tooke not on them to preach or minister Sacraments, but were a kind of voluntary peni∣tents, according to that of Saint Hierome; c 1.1556 Monachus Plangentis, non Docentis officium habet; that is, a Monke is a mourner, hee is no teacher. And againe: d 1.1557 Alia Monachorum est causa, alia Clericorum. Clerici pascunt ones, Ego pascor. Illi de Altari viuunt, mi∣hi quasi infructuosae arbor•…•… securis ponitur ad radicem, si munus ad Altare non defere: that is, The condition of Monkes and of Clearkes is very different. Clearkes feede the sheepe, but I am fedde; they liue by the Altar, but if I bring not my gift to the Altar, the Axe is lifted vp against mee, and layd as to the roote of an vnfruitfull tree. And therefore (as e 1.1558 Duarenus noteth) in ancient times Monkes were meere Lay-men, ney∣ther were there any Priestes or Clearkes found in Monasteries; but they came all, as other of the people did, to the common Temples and Churches, to bee taught, to pray, and to receiue the Sacraments. Which thing hee sayth, Iustinian the Empe∣rour plainely enough expresseth: and with him agreeth Bishoppe f 1.1559 Lindan, who sayth, that in ancient time all Monkes were Lay-men, and that they were all excluded and shut out of the Quire: when they came into the Temple and house of God, sometimes they did send for a Priest to do Ministeriall actes among them, and in the end some of them were ordained Priests, that soe they might haue the Ministration of Sacra∣ments among them, and make as it were a certaine Church among themselues, and so neither be forced to go to other Churches, nor to borrow Priests from other. And to the same purpose g 1.1560 Hugo de Sancto Victore sayth, that by speciall fauour and indul∣gence, the diuine orders of Ministery are granted to Monkes, that they might liue more quietly within themselues; not that they should exercise Prelacie in the people of God; but that they might celebrate the communion of God within their owne pri∣uate retiring places, which yet they say in the beginning was not so. For Monkes and men dwelling in the wildernesse, are sayd to haue had Priests assigned vnto them. But (as h 1.1561 Duarenus noteth) hereby the passage was opened, and all Monkes began to bee ordained Priestes, (though they had no gouernement of the Church) that they might procure the more dignity to themselues: the order and degree of Cleargy-men being more high and honourable then that of Monkes. Neyther did they long containe themselues within these bounds after they had attained to be Priestes: but gotte au∣thority and iurisdiction ouer Churches abroad, eyther because they were founded within their lands, or for that it pleased the Pope to take them from Bishops, and sub∣iect them to these Monkes. At the first (as the same i 1.1562 Duarenus noteth) they liued a∣part, in certaine abiding places, which they had in the mountaines and deserts, whence they were called not onely Monkes, but Heremites and Anchorites, though at cer∣taine houres and sette times they mette. Afterwards they beganne to liue toge∣ther, and the places where they liued were called Caenobia of the communion of life. And when certaine Ecclesiasticall persons remaining in cities and places of resort, and teaching the people, tyed themselues to like obseruations, though haply not altoge∣ther so strict, as these had done, they were called k 1.1563 Canonici, that is Regulars, rather then Monachi, Monkes, of which order S. Austine is supposed to haue bin the author. After∣wards in processe of time, some other Cleargy-men liuing together, & tied to the ob∣seruation of rules and Canons, but not so strict as these, nor so neere to Monkish profes∣sion, were called secular canons, & the other for distinctions sake Canons Regular. In these societies young men were trained vp, as likewise they were in all Cathedrall Churches, till the founding of the Vniuersities, passing through all the minor orders and performing for a space the duties belonging to them, that so they might be fitted for greater imployments. l 1.1564 The Monkes had one among them, that commanded ouer all the rest, named Coenobiarcha, Archimandrita or Abbas; and for the better perfor∣formance of his duty, tooke vnto him another, whose helpe he might vse in the gouer∣ning of those that were subiect to him, who was named a Prior. This Prior either assi∣sted the Abbot in the gouernment of those Monks, which liued within the boūds of the

Monastery, and was called a Prior Claustrall; or those lesser Couents that were abroad and yet subject to the Abbot, and was named a Prior Conventuall. By that hath bin saide, wee see, that the profession of Monkes in the beginning was voluntary peniten∣cy, and a retired life, not meddling with publique affaires, either Ciuill or Ecclesiasti∣call, (as appeareth by the Decree of the councell of m 1.1565 Chalcedon) that they were meere Lay-men, that they gloried not in the perfection of their estate, as they that call them∣selues Religious in our time doe, but confessed, that men of action and employment, who conflicted with the manifolde oppositions of the World, and declined not the battell, were more valiant Souldiers of Christ in his spirituall warfare, then them∣selues, who fearing their owne weakenesse did runne away. They acknowledged themselues inferiour to the whole Ecclesiasticall order, came to the common Prayers and Sacraments with the rest of the people, and payde their Tithes, and yeelded all o∣ther duties, as well as the rest: howsoeuer in the end they degenerated, and grew out of kinde, putting themselues into the Ministery, intruding themselues into the govern∣ment of the Church, spoyling the Bishops of their Iurisdiction, and inferiour Pastors of their maintenance, by appropriating to themselues the liuings that formerly be∣longed to them,

But the Fryers professe an intermeddling with the publicke direction and guidance of the people of God, causing great confusions in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie, and are most vnlike the auncient Monkes, and their beginning was but of latter time. These were principally of foure sorts: but among them all the Minorites or Franciscans see∣med to be the strictest. For whereas the Monkes possessed lands in common, though none of them had any personall propriety in any thing, and the rest of the Fryers had the right of moueable goods in cōmon, though they possessed no lands, these professed to haue nothing but the bare and single vse of things, without all right or claime, as I haue shewed n 1.1566 before. About which profession of theirs, there was great contention in the time of Iohn the two and twentieth, the folly and hypocrisie of which men (thinking perfection to consist in pouerty) is sufficiently refuted by o 1.1567 Gerson, p 1.1568 Iohn the two and twentieth, * 1.1569 Iansenius, and other, who shew, that perfection consisteth in the vertues of the minde, that poverty or riches neither make a man better nor worse, and consequently pertaine nothing to perfection, otherwise then as the care and loue of them hindereth, or the neglect of them furthereth the fervency of loue.

From this first way whereby the Pope disturbed the Ecclesiasticall order, which was by giuing priuiledges to exorbitant Fryers, let vs proceede to the second, which is by Commendams. In auncient times (sayth q 1.1570 Duarenus) when a worthy Pastour was not presently found to bee set ouer a church so soone as it was voide, to avoyde those euils and inconveniences, which for the most part Anarchy bringeth forth, the custome was, that in the meane while the voyde church should bee commended and committed to some honest man, who being but as a Tutor and Procurator onely, should bee bound faithfully to giue an account of that hee should doe. For hee was not Pastor of the church, but appointed onely for a time to take care of it. But in time, this thing (which was at first most profitable and behoouefull, and devised to provide for churches in vacancie,) was strangely turned to the hurt and plague of them. For they who by the canons may not haue the gouernement of churches or Monasteries committed to them, haue both churches and Monasteries commended vnto them perpetually, and as long as they liue. And such is the forme of this committing or commending in the Popes grants, that they to whom churches are so commended, haue free power not onely to dispose of such things as belong vnto them, but to consume, waste and spend them, without beeing subject to any account. And truely it is strange, that men of witte and vnderstanding, who devised this fraudulent kinde of practise, found not out some fairer colour of so great and grosse a corruption, that so they might not haue seemed so plainely and openly to haue despised the canons, and to make a mocke of them. Thus farre Duarenus. In this sort the Pope gaue the greatest Bishopperickes in the World

in Commendam, or perpetuall administration to his Cardinalls, and sometimes in title also; but so, that they were called Bishops elect of such a place, and neuer con∣secrated.

The third way whereby the Pope preiudiceth the Church, is by taking on him to giue Church-liuings in all partes of the world to whom hee pleaseth; a thing neuer thought of in the first ages of the church. For the Bishoppe of Rome had no power to ordaine Clearkes out of his owne Diocesse, or Bishoppes out of his owne Prouince, the Canons prouiding that a Bishoppe should bee chosen by the Cleargy and people, and ordained by the Metropolitane and other Bishoppes of the Prouince, It is true indeede, that as Patriarch of the West hee was to confirme the seuerall Metropoli∣tanes subiect to him, either by imposition of handes, or by sending the Pall as all o∣ther Patriarches likewise were to doe; but in the Patriarchshippe of any of the rest hee might not meddle, as appeareth by the r 1.1571 contention betweene Rome and Constan∣tinople about the Bulgarians; nor within his owne Precinctes further then the confir∣ming of the Metropolitanes, as it is euident by the Councell of s 1.1572 Chalcedon, forbid∣ding the Patriarche of Constantinople to meddle in the ordinations of Bishoppes, and requiring him to content himself with the confirmation of Metropolitanes, to whom yet in the same Councell equall priuiledges with the Bishoppe of Rome are giuen. So that it is not likely that in those times the Romane Bishoppes challenged to themselues any such power and right, as now they doe. Nay t 1.1573 Duarenus pronounceth, that there is no doubt, but that the more auncient and holy Bishoppes of Rome, conten∣ting themselues with their owne Church, left the administration of other Churches free to their owne Bishoppes, as rather thinking themselues Bishoppes of that one cittie then of the whole world, which thing haply moued a certaine Bishoppe (of whom Paulus u 1.1574 Aemylius maketh mention) to answere somewhat peremptorily to Gregory the Eleuenth, asking him why hee went not to his Church? for whereas Gregory satte at Auinion, and not at Rome, hee said vnto him, If one should aske thee why thou goest not to Rome, that hath beene so long forsaken of her Bishoppes, thou wouldest haue much lesse to answere then I haue. But the latter Bishoppes of Rome contented not themselues herewith; neither did they thinke it enough to bee Bishoppes of Rome, and prime Bishoppes amongst & before the rest, but they would needes bee vniuersall Bishoppes, and therefore thought it no robbery to concurre with all other Bishoppes, and to preuent them if they could in giuing voyde Bene∣fices before them: And because it was not easie to preuent the Bishoppes in this sort, in Prouinces and Kingdomes farre remote, therefore they found out a more cer∣taine and ready way, whereby to take from them their right and power: for a cu∣stome grew in and preuayled, vnknowne to former times, of certaine Papall graunts wherein Benefices not voyde were commaunded to bee bestowed and conferred when they should be voyd, vpon such as the Pope should thinke fit, and specially vp∣on strangers. These were called Gratiae expectatiuae, and Mandata de prouidendo: and x 1.1575 hereof the whole state of England complayned to Innocentius the Fourth, affir∣ning, that by vertue of these Prouisions, there were so many Italians beneficed in England, that the reuenues which they had from hence was 60000 markes; which was more then the bare reuenue of the Kings, and yet as if this had not beene enough, there came one Martine with Commission from the Pope to wrong the poore Church of England a little more. This man conferred certaine Benefices actually voyd of the value of thirty markes by the yeare vpon strangers, and when they dy∣ed hee put in others without the priuity of the Patrons, and went about to assure to such as hee pleased the like Benefices not yet voyde, whensoeuer they should bee voyde; besides many other most vniust exactions, wherewith hee vexed the poore English, putting all such as resisted against him vnder the sentence of excommunica∣tion and interdiction, taking more on him then euer any Legate did (though he came not as a Legate) to the great preiudice of the Crowne of England; seeing no Legate was to come hither, vnlesse he were desired by the King. The Messengers that the State of England sent to the Pope, to make knowne their greiuances and complaintes

were greatly disliked by the Pope, and their message no way acceptable to him: and therefore though dissembling the matter hee gaue them some good words, as if there should be no more such Prouisions made, but onely for some particular persons, and they not aboue twelue in number, yet such was the good nature of the man (as Mat∣thew y 1.1576 Paris noteth) that he would not suffer the poore English, though sore beaten with many stripes, once to cry or complaine. But because they published these their complaints in the Councell of Lyons, which was holden at the time of their comming, hee was exceeding angry, and z 1.1577 dealt with the French King to make warre against the King of England, and eyther to depriue him of his Kingdome, or to make him wholy to stoope to the pleasure of the pope, and the Court of Rome: which the French King vtterly refused to do. After these things thus past betweene the Pope and the English, he did worse then euer before. a 1.1578 Whereupon there was a new meeting of the States of England, wherein these grieuances were made manifest, and complained of: First, that the Pope was not content with his ordinary reuenew of Peter-pence, but exacted other contributions without the Kings knowledge. Secondly, that the Patrons of Churches were not permitted to present Clearkes, but Romanes were put into them, who neyther vnderstood the Language, nor euer meant to liue here; but carried away the money out of the Realme. So that neyther was the people instructed, hospitality kept, the Churches repaired, nor any good done: and beside, b 1.1579 the Originall Patrons were depriued of their right, one Italian succeeding another in the Churches founded by them, without their knowledge, and that vnwelcome Messenger, Non obstante, too often sent vnto them. These their complaints, the King, the Bishops, Abbots, Lords and Commons made knowne by their letters c 1.1580 and messengers to the Pope, with earnest desire of reformation and redresse: but could receiue none other answere from him, but that the King of England had his Counsell, and so had he; that the king began to kicke against him, and to play the Fredericke. And such was his displeasure, that all En∣glish were repelled and driuen away as Schismatickes. After this, new letters were againe written to the Pope, and in the end a priuiledge was graunted, that noe Pro∣uisions * 1.1581 should be made for Italians, Cardinalls, or the Popes Nephewes, before the King were first earnestly intreated to be content with thē, only to abuse such as would be abused. For the Pope went forward still in his prouisions, as formerly hee had done, as appeareth by his letters to the Abbot of Saint Albons, and by the d 1.1582 worthy letters of the Bishoppe of Lincolne written to the pope about these matters, and his e 1.1583 speeches against the Pope a little before his death. And here by the way, it is worth the noting, that f 1.1584 Matthew Paris hath, that in the time of Gregory the Ninth vppon complaint of onde Robert Tewing Patron of the Church of Lathune, the popes Graunt made in preiudice of his right was reuersed, because it was not knowne that the Patrone of that Benefice was a Lay-man when it was giuen by the pope. Soe that if it had beene in the gift of a Cleargy-mam, it must haue stood: so ready was the head of the Church to oppresse Church-men, and their possessions of all other were most fitte for spoyle. So little respect was there had to religion in those dayes, and soe were all things returned to their old Chaos againe: Whence it came that g 1.1585 the heartes of all men went away from the pope and the Church of Rome, whereof the one sought to bee esteemed a Father, and the other a Mother to all Churches: but the one of them proued a step-father, and the other a step-mother. Neyther did the pope like a wilde Bore make hauocke only in the Vine-yard of the Lord of Hosts, planted in this Island, which lay open to be spoyled by all passengers, but he playd his part also in all other Kingdomes of the West: though some resisted more against his intrusions then others. Touching France, wee read in the booke intituled, Pro libertate Ecclesiae Gallicae, aduersus Romanam aulam, defensio Parisiensis Curiae, Lu∣douico vndecimo Gallorum Regi quondam oblata, turned out of French into Latine by Duarenus, and added to his booke De sacris Ecclesiae Ministeriis, that there being a great number of goodly Churches founded by the Kings of France, when the Bishops of Rome began to prejudice the liberties of them, the King, the Nobles, the Princes of the bloud, the Cleargy and commons, assembled to resist the vexations, oppressions, &

wrongs of the Court of Rome, & made many good Constitutions for the repressing of such insolencies. So Lewys, when first the Pope began to meddle, in the yeare one thou∣sand two hundred sixty seauē, decreed that Preslacies & Dignities electiue should be gi∣uen by election: and such as are not electiue, by collation, and presentation of Pa∣trons: and that the Court of Rome should extort no money for any such thing out of the Kingdome of France. And when, notwithstanding this Decree, in processe of time the Court of Rome attempted divers things contrary to the liberty of the church of France, Charles the Sixth, with the advise of his Nobles, Prelates, Abbottes, Colledges, Vniversities, and other partes of his Kingdome, in the yeare one thou∣sand foure hundred and sixe, made a Constitution, whereby hee restored the church to her auncient liberty: and this Decree was published in the yeare one thousand foure hundred and seauen; in which yeare Benedict the Pope, and his Ministers hauing imposed and exacted great summes of money, a new complaint was made to the King: and thereupon a Decree made, that nothing should bee payde out of France in the nature of Annates or Tenthes, and that such as had beene excommuni∣cated for refusall of them, should bee absolued againe. In the yeare one thou∣sand foure hundred and eighteene, a Constitution was made, whereby all Reser∣vations and Apostolicall graces, as they call them, together with all exactions of the court of Rome were forbidden. And when as the Romanes contemning all Consti∣tutions, ceased not to trouble and confound the Hierarchy of the Church, and scat∣tered abroad euery where throughout the World their Reservations and expecta∣tiue graces, (whence followed great and horrible deformities in the church) at last a Generall Councell was assembled for the Reformation of the church, in the Head and members: which prohibited these Reseruations and expectatiue Graces, restored the canons touching Elections and Collations, and subjected all that should contumaciously resist (yea though the Pope him-selfe) to due punishment. The Decrees of this councell, Charles the Seauenth confirmed, with the consent of all Estates of his Kingdome, and this his Decree of Confirmation was called the Prag∣maticall Sanction. But the Popes neuer rested till they had, if not wholly ouer∣throwne it, yet greatly weakened it. The attemptes of Pius the Second (who beeing a private man in the Councell of Basil, set it forward what hee could) are not vnknowne, as also of Sixtus the Fourth, Innocentius the Eighth, Alexander the Sixth, Iulius the Second, and Leo the Tenth, who published a Constitution, whereby the Pragmaticall Sanction was much weakened, though not wholly taken away; and those his new Decrees were called Conventa, that is, agreements betweene the King and him. From these Decrees the Vniversity of Paris appealed to a Generall coun∣cell. And thus wee see how well the Popes fulfill the commaundement of Christ in feeding his Sheepe, that labour so mainely the ouer-throw of those canons, which being taken away, the whole Ecclesiasticall Order is confounded, whole countries are made desolate and forsaken, Kingdomes are robbed of their money and treasure, & churches are ruinated and subverted. For so did all good men out of wofull experience complaine in former times.

Wherefore passing by these intrusions, vsurpations, and tyrannicall inter-meddling of Popes with things not pertayning to them, it is evident by that which hath beene saide, that the Election of fit Ministers to teach the people of God, pertaineth to the cleargy and people, by the reasons and grounds of humane societies, vnlesse by their owne consent, forfeiture, restraint of superiour authority cōmaunding ouer them, or speciall reasons prevailing more then those generall grounds of humane fellowship, it be taken from them. As in case of founding churches and endowing them with lands, the Patrons haue the right of presenting: & in cases of intollerable abuses, negligen∣ces or insolencies, the Prince (as Head of the people) assumeth to himselfe the nomi∣nation of such as are to serue in the holy Ministery of the church.

Some there are that thinke the right of the people in choosing their Pastours and Ministers to bee such, as that it may not bee li∣mited, restrayned, or taken away vpon any consideration what-soeuer, and

that therefore there is no lawfull Election of Ecclesiastical Ministers, vnlesse the peo∣ple chuse: But the errour of these men is easily refuted. For seeing the Scripture & Word of GOD giueth no such power to the people, and all the interest they haue, or canne claime, is but from the ground of humane fellowship, subject to many limitati∣ons, alterations and restraintes, there is no reason to thinke that necessarily the people must euer elect their Pastors. In the reformed Churches of France & Geneua, the peo∣ple giue no voyces in the election of Ministers, but are onely permitted, if they haue any causes of dislike or exception, to make them knowne to the Pastours and guides of the Church; and the power of iudging of such exceptions resteth wholy in them. In so much that when one Morellius a fantasticall companion sought to bring the e∣lections of Bishoppes and Ministers to bee Popular, and swayed by the most voyces of the people, hee was condemned by all the Synodes in France, as h 1.1586 Beza sheweth in his Epistles. That there is no precept in the whole new Testament forcing popu∣lar elections it is euident: And the onely example that is brought of any such thing, is that of the i 1.1587 seauen Deacons; but first there was some speciall reason, why the peoples consent was sought in the election of these Deacons, beeing to bee trusted with the treasure of the Church, and the disposing of the contributions of the faithfull: and se∣condly, from one example, a generall rule may not bee gathered, Seeing the circum∣stances of things, times & persons, admit infinite varieties; some alleadge that place in the Acts for proofe of popular elections, where the Apostles are said to haue appoin∣ted Elders or Presbyters by k 1.1588 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth that kind of election, that is made by the more part of the voyces of the Electors expressing their consent by lifting vp of their handes, as sometimes men shew their consent by going to one side of the place or roome where they are, whence they are sayd, Pedibus ire insen∣tentiam. But surely these places are vnaduisedly alledged for proofe of popular ele∣ctions. For first, the Apostles onely are said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and consequently the election pertayned to them onely, and they onely elected; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to elect, and not to gather voyces. Secondly, though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doe originally signifie that kinde of election, which is made by many, expressing their consent, and giuing their voyces or suffrages by lifting vp of their handes; yet may it bee extended more generally to signifie any election of many expressing their consent by writing, by liuely voyce, or by going to one side of the place where they are; yea any choyce whatsoeuer, though made by one alone, as it appeareth in that the l 1.1589 Apostles are said to haue beene wit∣nesses formerly designed and appointed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereas Christ only chose them, and they were not elected by the voyces of many, or any but himselfe alone. And in Ecclesiasticall writers the m 1.1590 same word signifieth Ordination that is by Imposition of handes, as it were easy to proue by many testimonies of Antiquity.

CHAP. 56.

Of the Ordination of Bishoppes and Ministers.

FROM the Election of Ministers, whereof wee haue sufficiently spoken, let vs proceede to their Ordination, with which none but the Guides of the Church are trusted; And therefore, howsoeuer the people may sometimes elect; yet they are charged, a 1.1591 not to lay hands hastily on any man, nor to communicate with o∣ther mens sinnes. So that the moderation of all things in this kinde resteth in them, & this is all that the Scripture prescribeth touching the designing and appointing of Ministers: namely, whom, and how, they that haue power of ordaining, must ordaine. Ordination is the setting of men a part to the worke of the Ministery, the commen∣ding of them with fasting and prayer to the grace of God, and the authorizing of them to performe things pertayning to God; which others, without such sanctifica∣tion neither may nor can doe. Wherein the Ceremony of Imposition of handes is vsed. First, to expresse the setting of them apart for sacred imployment. Secondly, to let them knowe that the hand of God is with them, in all that they doe in his name,

and by his authority to guide, direct, strengthen & protect them. Thirdly, to note out the person vpon whom the Church by her prayers desireth the blessings of Al∣mighty God to bee powred in more plentifull sort then vpon others, as being to take charge of others. This Ordination is either of Bishoppes, to whome the care and gouernment of the Church is principally committed; or of other inferiour Cleargy∣men.

Touching the Ordination of Bishoppes, the Councell of b 1.1592 Nice decreeth, that a Bi∣shop must be ordained by all the Bishops in the Prouince: and that if it seeme hard, either in respect of some vrgent necessity, or the length of the wayes, that they should all meete, yet there must bee three at the least to concurre in all such ordinations, the rest by their letters testifying their consent, and the Metropolitane confirming that they doe. The Councell of c 1.1593 Antioch in like sort decreeth, That a Bishoppe shall not bee ordayned without a Synode, and the presence of the Metropolitane; That the Metropolitane by his letters shall call vnto him all the Bishops in the Prouince, if con∣veniently they may come together; if not, that at the least the greater part be present, or giue their consent by writing. And that if at any time there grow any difference among the Bishoppes of the Prouince about the person that is to bee ordayned, the greater part of voyces shall sway all. In the Second Councell of d 1.1594 Carthage, all the Bishops with one consent said: It seemeth good to vs all, that without consulting the Primate of each Prouince, no man easily presume, though with many Bishoppes, to ordaine a Bishoppe in what place soeuer without his commaund: but if necessity shall require, that three Bishoppes in what place soeuer they bee with the commaund of the Primate shall haue power to ordaine a Bishoppe. And because the concurrence of the Metropolitane, was to bee sought, and his presence or direction had in euery ordination; therefore least by his fault there might be too long and dangerous delayes, it was ordered that vnlesse it were in case of necessity, all ordinations should bee within three monthes after the voydance of any place: and that if by the fault of the Metropolitane there were any longer delay, he should be subiect to Ecclesiasticall Censure and punishment. In latter times vnder the Papacy, they e 1.1595 permitted by speciall dispensation one Bishop assisted with two mitred Abbots, to ordaine a Bishoppe, contrary to all the old Canons re∣quiring three Bishoppes at the least. The forme and manner of ordination we finde in the Fourth Councell of f 1.1596 Carthage, which prescribeth that when a Bishoppe is to bee ordained, two Bishops must hold the booke of the Gospels ouer his head, and that one powring forth the blessing vpon him, all the other Bishoppes that are present must touch his head with their handes: This is the forme of Episcopall ordina∣tion.

But touching Presbyters & Deacons, the g 1.1597 Councell of Hispalis saith: That the Bi∣shop alone may conferre Ecclesiasticall honour vpon them, but that alone he cannot take it from them, which yet is not so to bee vnderstood, as if the Bishop alone with∣out his Presbyters might ordaine Presbyters, but that hee may without the concur∣rence of other Bishops, giue that honour of Presbyteriall order, which without them he cannot take away againe. For otherwise the Councell of h 1.1598 Carthage prouideth that in the ordination of a Presbyter, the Bishoppe holding his hand on his head, and blessing him, all the Presbyters that are present shall holde their handes by the handes of the Bishoppe. Whereas i 1.1599 in the ordination of a Deacon, it sufficeth that the Bishop alone, put his hands vpon the head of him that is ordained; because he is not sanctifi∣ed to Priestly dignity, but to the seruice of the Church. So that other Ministers are to concurre in the ordination of the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, as well as the Bishoppe; being equall to him in the power of Order and Ministery, and his as∣sistants in the worke of it; yet hath the Bishop a great preheminence aboue them in the Imposition of hands: For regularly no number of Presbyters imposing hands can make a Minister without the Bishoppe. The reason whereof is, because no Ordinati∣ons are to be made sine titulo, that is, without title or place of employment: and none but Bishops haue Churches, wherein to employ men; seeing they onely are Pastours of Churches, & all other are but their assistants and coadiutors: not because the power

of order which is giuen in Ordination is lesse in them then in Bishops. So that Bi∣shops alone haue the power of Ordination, and no man may regularly doe it without them. Whereupon ordinarily, and according to the strictnesse of the old canons, all Ordinations made otherwise, are pronounced voyde: as wee reade of one l 1.1600 Coluthus, whose ordinations were therefore voyded, because he tooke on him to ordaine, being no Bishop, but a Presbyter onely.

But seeing Bishops and Presbyters are in the power of order the same; as when the Bishops of a whole Church or countrey fall from the Faith, or consent to them that so doe, the care of the church is devolued to the Presbyters remaining Catholicke; and as in the case of necessity they may doe all other things regularly reserued to Bishops only▪ (as m 1.1601 Ambrose sheweth, that the Presbyters of Egypt were permitted in some cases to confirme the baptized, which thing also n 1.1602 Gregory after him durst not condemne.) So in case of Generall defect of the Bishops of a whole countrey, refusing to ordaine any but such as shall consent to their Heresies, when there appeareth no hope of re∣medy or helpe from other parts of the Church, the Presbyters may chuse out one a∣mong themselues to be chiefe, and so adde other to their numbers by the imposition of his and their hands. This I haue proued in my o 1.1603 third booke out of the authorities of Armachanus, and sundry other, of whom Alexander of Hales speaketh. To which wee may adde that which p 1.1604 Durandus hath, where he saith: That Hierome see∣meth to haue beene of opinion, that the highest power of consecration or order, is the power of a Priest or Elder. So that euery Priest in respect of his Priestly power may minister all Sacraments, confirme the baptized, and giue all Orders, howsoeuer for the avoydiug of the perill of Schisme, it was ordained that one should bee chosen to haue a preheminence aboue the rest; who was named a Bishop, and to whom it was peculi∣arly reserued to giue Orders, and to doe some such other things. And afterwards he saith: that Hierome is clearely of this opinion. Neither can the Romanists deny this, & justifie their owne practise. For their Chorepiscopi, or Titular Bishops, are no Bishops (as I haue q 1.1605 proued at large out of Damasus, not disputing or giuing his private opiniō, but resoluing the point, and prescribing to other what they must beleeue & practise, & yet doe they of the Church of Rome permit these to ordaine, not onely Sub-deacons, and other inferiour Cleargy-men, but Priests and Deacons also; and holde their Ordi∣nations to be good and of force. If any man haply say, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop when he is old, and weake, or otherwise imployed, may haue a Coadiutor, and consequently, that it is no such absurdity to admit these Suffragan and Titular Bishops; and that therefore they may haue power to ordaine, as being truely Bishops, and yet Presbyters in no case bee permitted so to doe: for answer herevnto let him reade what I haue written in the 29. chapter of this booke concerning this matter.

CHAP. 57.

Of the things required in such as are to be ordained Ministers: and of the law∣fulnesse of their Marriage.

FRom the election and ordination of Ministers, we are to proceede to the things required in them that are to be chosen and ordayned. a 1.1606 If any man (saith the Apostle) desire the office of a Bishop, he desireth a worthy worke. A Bishop there∣fore must be vnreproueable, the husband of one wife, watching, sober, modest, harbe∣rous, apt to teach, not giuen to wine, no striker, not giuen to filthy lucre: but gentle, no fighter, not couetous, no young scholler, but well reported of, euen of those that are without. The ca∣nons of the church require the same things, and adde some other; as that no man may be chosen and ordained a Minister of the Word and Sacraments till he be thirty yeares of age: nor none that was baptized in his bed, and the like. The Papists proceed fur∣ther, and not contenting themselues with the moderation of the Apostle, and the Pri∣mitiue Fathers, admit none into the holy Ministery, but those that are vnmarried, or being married, promise to liue frō their wiues: & yet not so neither, if either they haue

beene twice married, or if they married with a widow. Wherefore letting passe the things the Apostle prescribeth, and those other which the Canons adde, of which there is no question, let vs come to the marriage of them that are to bee admitted into the holy Ministery of the Church.

It is clearely confessed by the best learned in the Romane Church, that Bishops, Pres∣byters and other Cleargy-men, are not forbidden to marry, or being married, be∣fore they enter into the Ministery, to continue in matrimoniall society with their wiues, by any law of God: and therefore there is little feare of offending against God, eyther by admitting such into the Ministery as will not liue single, or by entring into it, with purpose of marriage. b 1.1607 Non est essentialiter annexum debitum continentiae ordini sacro (sayth Aquinas) sed ex statuto Ecclesiae: vnde uidetur, quod per Ecclesiam possit dispensari in voto continentiae, solemnizato per susceptionem sacri ordinis: that is, It is not essentially annexed vnto holy order, that men should containe and liue single that enter into the Ministry, but by the Decree of the Church onely. So that it seemeth, that the Church may dispence in the vow of continency, though made solemne by taking holy orders. And in another place hee sayth: c 1.1608 that it is from the Churches constitution, that they who are entred into the holy orders of the Church, may not marry: which yet is not the same among the Graecians, that it is among the Latines. For the Graecians make no vow, and do liue with their wiues that they married before they entred into orders: of the same opinion is d 1.1609 Bonauentura, who acknowledgeth, that in the Primitiue Church, it was otherwise touching this matter, then now it is in the Church of Rome; and endeauoureth to giue reasons of the difference. e 1.1610 Scotus, and f 1.1611 Occam, are of the same iudgement: and all the rest of the Schoole men of note agree with them. And g 1.1612 Caietane, a great learned Diuine, and a Cardinall in our time, pro∣nounceth confidently, that it cannot be proued, either by reason or authority, (set∣ting aside the Lawes that are positiue, and vowes which men make to the contrary) that a Priest doth sinne in contracting marriage. And that therefore the Pope with good conscience may dispense with such a one, and giue him leaue to marry; though there be no inducement of publike profit, or benefit leading him so to do. And addeth that reason seemeth to bee strong on the contrary side for the lawfulnesse of such dis∣pensation: because (as it appeareth by Peter Lombard in the fourth of the Sentences) neyther Order, in that it is Order, nor holy Order, in that it is holy, crosseth or hin∣dereth marriage. And (as it is in the Decrees) Deacons in auncient times might marry, euen in the West Church: and (as it is in the same Decrees) they of the East Church are ioyned in marriage, euen after they are entered into holy Orders. Neither is that glosse to bee admitted, which expoundeth their coupling or ioyning in mar∣riage, of the liuing in marriage formerly contracted: Seeing the whole course & co∣herence of the Text speaketh of the Contract of Marriage, as by the opposition of the practise of the West Church (the Priests whereof are saide not to marry) it may bee confirmed. These are the wordes of Cardinall Caietan. With him agreeth Car∣dinall h 1.1613 Bellarmine, and confirmeth that hee saith by three reasons, whereof the first is this: Priestes are not forbidden by Gods Law to company with their wiues, which they married before they entered into holy Orders: Therefore they are not forbidden to marry after they are entred. The consequence he proueth; because if any thing bee found in marriage that cannot stand well with the sacred function and imployment of Ministers, it is the act of Matrimony and not the contract, which is a thing most ho∣nest, and is soone past. Whereupon, they that dislike the marriage of Church-men, were wont to alleadge the cares of houshold, and of children, causing distraction of mind, and other like things, and not the contract or Sacrament of marriage: & therefore he rightly reproueth Clicthoueus, for that hee i 1.1614 thinketh the matrimoniall society of such as were married before they became Ministers of the Church, is not forbidden by Gods lawe; and yet feareth not to say, that the contract of marriage ensuing after the entrance into the holy Ministery is forbidden. Wherefore leauing the consequence as good and sufficiently proued, he confirmeth the antecedent in this sort. That presby∣ters are not forbidden by Gods lawe to liue with their wiues, which they married be∣fore

they entered into the holy Ministery, it appeareth in that the Romane Church hath for many ages past permitted the Presbyters of the Greeke Church to liue with their wiues which they married before their Ordination; which it could not doe, if so to liue were forbidden by Gods law: That so the Romane Church hath allowed those of the Greeke Church to liue with their wiues, hee proueth by good authority. For in the k 1.1615 Decretals it is reported, that a certaine Grecian, while hee was yet in the minor Orders, according to the custome of the Greeke Church married a wife, and af∣terwards when he was a Priest begat a sonne of his lawfull wife. This Priests son was thought fitte to bee a Bishop, and chosen so to be: the Arch-bishoppe made question, whether he might confirme his Consecration or not, as doubting of his Legitimati∣on. To whom Innocentius the Third writeth thus: Wee considering that the East Church neuer admitted the vow of continency, but that they of the East while they are yet in the Minor Orders contract marriage, and when they are in the higher Orders, vse that marriage which they then contracted, doe commaund, that vnlesse any custome be against it (in that these Grecians liue among the Latines) if there be no other Canonicall impedi∣ment, you proceede without doubting to the Confirmation and Consecration of him. Wher∣by it is euident that the Bishoppe of Rome allowed the marriage of the Grecians: for Innocentius saith, this Presbyter, after he was a Presbyter, begatte a sonne of his law∣full wife: and approueth, nay commaundeth his sonne as lawfully begotten to be or∣dayned, if it were not offensiue, because he conuersed among the Latines. The next reason that Bellarmine bringeth is, for that there is no prohibition of Almighty GOD found either in the old, or new Testament: and the third, for that it is said in the Coū∣cell of l 1.1616 Ancyra, that Deacons, with the licence of the Bishoppe, may marry after they are ordayned. Whence it followeth, that they are not forbidden to marry by GODS Law; seeing Bishoppes may not dispense with GODS Law. And This Councell (as Bellarmine truely noteth) is most auncient, and approued by Leo the Pope.

The vttermost therefore that our Aduersaries canne say, is that the Church by her authority hath forbidden the marriage of Presbyters and Bishops: wherefore let vs take a view of the lawes of the Church concerning this matter: and for our more or∣derly proceeding in the examination of the same, let vs first obserue what the Church decreed, touching them that being married enter into the Ministery. Secondly, touching them that entered being single. Concerning the first, it is euident, that till the time of Siricius, married men were permitted throughout the whole Church to enter into the Ministery, and to liue with their wiues. In the Epistles of m 1.1617 Cyprian among other things, Nouatus, ordained a Presbyter of Carthage by Cyprian, is char∣ged, first, that he suffered his owne father to die of hunger, and tooke no care for his buriall when he was dead. Secondly, that by violence offered to his owne wife, hee caused her to be deliuered of her child before her time; so that the child dyed, and he was guilty of the murther thereof: for which crimes hee feared to bee put from his Priestly function, and the Communion of the Church; and therefore preuented his punishment by a voluntary Schismaticall departure. Where wee see a Presbyter per∣mitted by Cyprian to liue with his wife, and no way blamed, for that hee had com∣panied with her: but for that when shee was with child by him, hee had stricken her in such violent sort, that shee was vntimely deliuered, not without the death of the childe. Whereupon Pamelius hath this annotation vpon the Epistle of Cyprian: Ma∣ny married men at that time were taken into the Cleargy, because there were few other to bee had: and therefore it is not to be maruailed at, that Cyprian maketh mention of the wife of Nouatus who was a Priest. That Tertullian was married, it appeareth by the booke which he hath written to his wife: and that neither he nor shee voluntarily se∣perating themselues had vowed continency, it appeareth by the perswasions he vseth to induce her to liue single, and not to marry againe after his death, in those euill & dangerous times, if haply he should die before her; or at the least, if shee could not nor would not containe, to marry with none but a beleeuer. Had shee bound her selfe by vow to containe, hee would not thus haue left her to her owne liberty, and if she

could not, nor would not containe, he was bound by the Apostles rule, not to defraude her, but to yeeld vnto her due benevolence. Neither haue wee these examples onely, but many more: for wee reade in Gratian, of the sonnes of Presbyters and Bishoppes, that were promoted to the Papall dignity. n 1.1618 So was Bonifacius the Pope, the sonne of Iucundus the Presbyter: Faelix the Pope, the sonne of Faelix the Presbyter: Agape∣tus the Pope, sonne of Gordianus the Presbyter: Theodorus the Pope, sonne of Theo∣dorus the Bishoppe, and many more hee sayth there were, who beeing the sonnes of Bishoppes or Presbyters, were advanced to sit in the Apostolicall Throne. And addeth, o 1.1619 that when the sonnes of Presbyters and Bishoppes are saide to haue beene advanced and promoted to be Popes, wee are not to vnderstand them to haue beene such as were borne of fornication, out of lawfull marriages, which were lawfull vnto Priests before the prohibition: and in the Orientall Church are proued to be lawfull vnto them euen vnto this day. p 1.1620 Socrates sayth, that in Thessalia there was a particular custome growne in, that if a Cleargy-man, after hee became a Cleargy-man, companied with his wife, which hee marryed while hee was yet a Lay-man, hee should bee put out of the Ministery of the Church. Whereas all the most fa∣mous Presbyters and Bishoppes also in the East, might if they pleased, but were no way by any Law constrained to refraine from the company of their wiues. So that many of them euen when they were Bishoppes, did beget children of their lawfull wiues. A particular and most approued example whereof wee haue in the Father of Gregory Nazianzene: who beeing a Bishoppe, not onely liued with his wife till death divided them, but became the Father also of Gregory Nazianzen, (as worthy and renowned a man as any the Greeke Church euer had) after he was entered into the priestly Office, as appeareth by his owne wordes reported by q 1.1621 Gregory Nazian∣zen. For after many motiues vsed by him to Gregory Nazianzen his sonne, to per∣swade him to assist him in the worke of his Bishoply Ministery, the last that hee most insisteth on, is taken from the consideration of his olde age, dis-inabling him to beare that burden, and performe that worke any longer that hitherto hee had done. And therefore intreating him to put to his helping hand, he breaketh out into thesewords: Thou hast not liued so long a time as I haue spent in the priestly office, therefore yeeld thus much vnto mee, and helpe mee in that little time of my life that is yet behinde: or else thou shalt not haue the honour to bury mee, but I will giue charge to another to doe it. Heere we see Gregory Nazianzens father was employed in the priestly function before hee was borne: and that therefore hee became the father of so worthy a sonne after hee was a Bishoppe, or at least after hee was a Presbyter. Neither was the father of Gregory Nazianzene singular in this behalfe. For r 1.1622 Athanasius writing to Dra∣contius, (who beeing greatly in loue with a retyred and monasticall kinde of life, re∣fused the Bishoply Office when hee was chosen vnto it; for that hee feared hee might not in that state liue so strictly as formerly hee had done) controuleth this his con∣ceit; and telleth him that hee may in the Bishoppes office hunger and thirst as Paul did, drinke no wine as Timothy, and fast often as did the Apostle. So that the Bi∣shoppes Office is no cause of doing ill, or doing lesse good then may bee done in o∣ther states of life: and there-upon assureth him, that hee hath knowne Bishoppes to fast, and Monkes to eate: Bishoppes to drinke no wine, and Monkes to drinke it: Bishoppes to worke miracles, and Monkes to doe none: lastly, many Bishoppes neuer to haue married, and Monkes to haue become fathers of children: and on the contra∣ry side Bishoppes to haue become fathers of children, and Monkes to haue liued alto∣gether as Monkes without desire of posterity. Neither can this authority of Atha∣nasius bee avoyded, as Bellarmine seeketh to avoyde it; namely, that those Bishoppes did ill, which hee sayth, became fathers of children. For s 1.1623 Clemens Alexandrinus an auncient Greeke Father sayth expressely, The Apostle admitteth the husband of one wife to bee a Bispoppe, and that though hee bee a Presbyter, Deacon, or Lay-man, if hee vse marriage aright, and so as not to incurre iust reprehension, hee shall be saued by the procreation of children. t 1.1624 Chrysostome accordeth with Athanasius

and Clemens Alexandrinus, and sayth, that mariage is in so high a degree honourable, that men with it may ascend into the Episcopall chayres: euen such as yet liue with their wiues. For though it be an hard thing, yet it is possible, so to performe the du∣ties of marriage; as not to be wanting in the performance of the duties of a Bishoppe: wherevnto u 1.1625 Zozomen agreeth saying of Spiridion that though hee had wife and chil∣dren, yet he was not therefore any whitte the more negligent in performing the duties of his calling, and of Gregory Nyssene it is reported that though he were marryed, yet he was no way inferiour to his worthy brother that liued single. But some haply will obiect, that Epiphanius is of another minde, and that hee sayth, y 1.1626 where the strictnesse of the canon is obserued, none but such as are vnmarried, or resolued to refraine from matrimoniall society with their wiues, are admitted into the ministery of the Church. Wee deny not, but that he sayth so: But hee confesseth in the same place, that ma∣ny in the Church did liue with their wiues in his time, and beget Children euen after their admission into the ministery. Soe that the strictnesse of the Canon hee spea∣keth of, was not generall, but in some certaine places onely, as I noted before out of z 1.1627 Socrates. Nay, it is euident by Socrates, that howsoeuer in Thessalia, Thessalonica, Macedonia and Hellas this strictnesse preuailed; yet all the Bishoppes of the East be∣sides, were left to their owne liberty: and howsoeuer some in diuerse places went a∣bout to take away this liberty, yet the worthyest men the Church had, stood in defence of it, protesting they would not suffer themselues to bee inthralled in this behalfe. to which purpose, that of the famous and renowned Synesius is most excellent: who, when they of Ptolemais would needes haue him to be their Bishoppe; (which thing hee little desired) hee made them acquainted with his present condition, and resol∣ued purpose for the time to come. a 1.1628 God (sayth hee) the Law, and the sacred hand of Theophilus hath giuen vnto mee a wife, I therefore tell all men afore-hand, and testifie vnto all, that I will neither suffer my selfe to be altogether estranged and seperated from her, neyther will I liue with her secretly as an adulterer. For the one of these is no way pi∣ous and godly, and the other no way lawfull: but I will desire and pray vnto God that excee∣ding many and most good and happy children may be borne vnto mee. Neyther will I haue him, that is to be chiefe in ordayning of mee to be ignorant hereof.

This liberty the councel in b 1.1629 Trullo impeached in respect of Bishops, but in respect of Presbyters it continueth in all the East Churches of the world, euen till this day, Greeke, Armenian, and Ethiopian: warranted vnto them by the Canons of the A∣postles; Iudgment of Bishops, Decrees of Councels, and the consent of all other partes of the World. For first, the Apostle Saint Paule telleth the Corinthians c 1.1630 hee had power to lead about a wife a sister, as well as the brethen of the Lord and Cephas. Which words d 1.1631 Clemens Alexandrinus interpreteth in this sort. Paul feareth not in a certaine Epistle to speake to his yoake-fellow: which hee did not lead about with him, because he had no neede of any great seruice. Therefore hee sayth in a certaine Epistle: Haue wee not power to lead about a sister, a wife; as the rest of the Apostles? but they truely, as it was meete, because they could not spare their Ministery: attending without dis∣traction to preaching, lead their wiues about, not as wiues but as sisters; which should minister together with them, among the women which kept the houses, by whom the doctrine of the Lord might enter into the closet of women, without repre∣hension or suspicion. Neyther doth Clemens Alexandrinus only so vnderstand the wordes, but a e 1.1632 Romaine Bishoppe also. Soe that our Aduersaries haue no reason to charge vs with hereticall peruersenesse, for expounding the Apostles words, of the A∣postles wiues. Neyther can their interpretation of faithfull women following the Apostles, and ministring vnto them things necessary, any way stand with the Apostles drift and meaning: for first, it is no way to be conceiued, that those Apostles which had wiues, would not lead them about rather then strange women. Secondly, the word of leading about, implyeth a kinde of authority, right and interest, in those women which the Apostles lead about: which might be verified of them in respect of their wiues, but not in respect of such women as out of their deuotion followed them, if any soe did. Thirdly, the Apostle doth not say, Wee haue power to lead about a

woman a sister, as they reade it, but a sister, a woman, or wife. Now the addition of woman to sister is idle and needelesse: seeing euery sister is vndoubtedly a woman; Therefore wee must vnderstand the Apostle to say; a sister, a wife. f 1.1633 Hierome in∣deede vnderstandeth the Apostles words of strange women, and not of their wiues: yet denieth hee not, but that other interpret them otherwise, and translateth, and alleageth the wordes doubtfully, of the Apostles leading about women or wiues. Besides this claime that the Apostle maketh of power and authority in this behalfe, elsewhere prescribing what manner of men must bee chosen vnto the Bishoppes of∣fice, hee sayth, g 1.1634 A Bishoppe must be the husband of one wife, one that canne rule his owne house, hauing children vnder obedience, with all honesty. Now to say, they were to forsake their wiues as soone as they should enter into this calling, is most absurd, and contrary to the very Law of God and nature. For it is not in the power of the man to withdraw himselfe from his wife, with whom hee is one flesh, seeing h 1.1635 the man hath not power of his body, but the wife. Whereupon i 1.1636 Thomas Aquinas re∣solueth, that a man entering into holy Orders, cannot without the consent of his wife withdrawe himselfe from her; but is bound to liue with her still, and to yeeld vnto her due beneuolence. Neyther may man and wife part by consent perpetually, but for a time onely, according to that of the Apostle; Defraud not one another except * 1.1637 it bee by consent for a time, that ye may giue your selues to fasting and prayer; and againe come together, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. Answerable hereunto, the Canons attributed to the Apostles forbid Bishoppes, Presbyters and Deacons * 1.1638 to putte away their wiues vppon any pretence of religion. The wordes of the Ca∣non are these: Let no Bishoppe Presbyter or Deacon, put away his wife vppon any pre∣tence of religion; if hee doe let him be put from the Communion, and if hee persist, let him be remoued from his Order. This Canon (sayth m 1.1639 Zonaras) condemneth those sacred Ministers of the Church that put away their wiues. For that such putting of thē away seemeth to be done in disgrace of marriage: as if the companying together of man and wife were an impure and vncleane thing. Whereas the Apostle pronoun∣ceth, that n 1.1640 Mariage is honourable, and the bedde vndefiled. The Romanists to avoyd and decline the force of this testimony, say, that this Canon forbiddeth Bishoppes, Presbyters and Deacons the casting away of all care of prouiding for their wiues, but not the forsaking of their company: but this their euasion is easily refuted. First, be∣cause there is no shew of euill in Cleargy-mens prouiding for the necessity of their wiues, which they married while they were Lay-men: nay it would seeme vnto all men most vnnaturall for them to cast off all care of them, and all men would condemne them for soe doing; but in the companying with them (in the sinister iudgment of some men) there is: in respect whereof some forsake their wiues, vnder a pretence of religion: Secondly, because the Fathers in the o 1.1641 Sixth Generall Councell (who no doubt vnderstood the meaning of these Canons farre better then the Romanists do) vnderstand them, as forbidding Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, the refrayning from companying with their wiues, and not the neglecting to prouide for their neces∣sities. In the Councell of Nice some went about to make a Law, that Bishops and Mini∣sters of the Church should not, after their entring into the holy Ministery, company with their wiues, which they had formerly married. But p 1.1642 Paphnutius Bishop of a cit∣ty in the vpper Thebais, who was a most holy man, by whom miracles had beene wrought, and who for confessing the faith of Christ, had had one of his eies pulled out though himselfe were neuer married, cryed out aloud, and besought them, to lay noe such heauy yoake on the neckes of them that were entered into the holy Ministry: affirming, that Marriage is honourable among all, and the bedde vndefiled: calling the company of a man with his wife by the name of chastitie: and aduising them to take heede, least they did greatly hurt the state of the Church by making so strict a law, for that all cannot endure soe seuere a rule of Discipline: and for that also this rule haply cannot bee soe easily obserued by their wiues. To these speaches of Paphnu∣tius the whole assembly of Bishoppes assented. So that this controuersie was ended, and each man left to his owne liberty. This of Paphnutius is reported by q 1.1643 Socrates,

r 1.1644 Zozomen, s 1.1645 Suidas, t 1.1646 Nicephorus, and alleadged by u 1.1647 Gratian as true: yet x 1.1648 Bellarmine & the Iesuits feare not to reject it as false, as if they knew better what was done one thou∣sand three hundred yeares agoe, then all that euer haue bene since: & the better to dis∣credite this poore report, they charge both Socrates and Zozomen with Heresie, and contemne their stories. So must all goe to the ground, that standeth in their way, be it neuer so auncient; and yet they are the men that pleade Antiquity. But if this bee a fayned and counterfeit story, what are the signes of the forgery, whereby they dis∣cerne it to be so? Surely there appeare none; but it cannot bee true (the Iesuite saith) because it is contrary to the report of Epiphanius and Hierome. Touching Epiphanius I haue shewed already, that hee hath nothing contrary to this narration of Socrates and Zozomen: for hee confesseth that Bishoppes and Presbyters in his time * 1.1649 liued with their wiues, and begatte children of them, in such places where the strict∣nesse of the Canon was not admitted. So that the Canon he speaketh of, which was admitted in Thessalia, Thessalonica, Macedonia, and Hellas, and was proposed and reje∣cted in the Councell of Nice, was but particular and locall; which may stand well e∣nough with the narration of Socrates and Zozomen, that the Councell of Nice decreed nothing touching this point, but left it as they found it. The like may bee saide of Hierome. For Hierome writing against Vigilantius, speaketh of certaine Bishoppes, which would ordaine no Deacons vnlesse they marryed wiues, thinking that no single men liue chastly: who surely (if any such were found in those times) are not to bee ex∣cused. But if they onely demaunded first of them that were to bee ordayned, be∣fore they ordayned them, whether they would liue continently, or not, and if they an∣swered that they would not, willed them to marry before they ordained them (as Zo∣naras writing on the Canons of the Apostles sheweth that they doe in the Greeke Church) they were not to be blamed: Seeing the councell of z 1.1650 Ancyra permitted Deacons, protesting when they were ordained, that they would not liue single, to marry after they were entered into Orders. But a 1.1651 Hierome in opposition to the practise of these men, asketh what the Churches of the East, of Egypt, and of the Apostolicke See shall doe, which admit into the Cleargy, virgines, or such as con∣tayne, or such as if they had wiues, yet cease to bee husbands? whereby it may seeme, that this Canon of Bishoppes liuing from their wiues, was admitted generally, which is contrary to the narration of Socrates. But they that vrge these wordes of Hie∣rome, should consider; first, that hee doth not say, that these Churches mentioned by him, admitted none to the Ministery, but such as were single, or hauing wiues, resolued to liue no longer with them in matrimoniall society; but that they admitted such as had neuer beene maryed, or hauing had wiues, ceased to bee husbands, contrary to their practise, that would admit none, as hee sayth, vnlesse they saw their wiues to haue great bellies, or heard the children crying in their mothers armes. Second∣ly, supposing that these Churches mentioned by Hierome, admitted none but such as had neuer beene maryed, or hauing beene maryed, ceased to bee husbandes, hee plainely sheweth by the particular mention of these Churches; b 1.1652 that there was no such thing generally prevayling: and so no way contrarieth the report of Socrates and the rest. Wherefore seeing neither Epiphanius nor Hierome, will by their con∣tradiction eleuate the authority of Socrates, Zozomen, and the rest, the Cardinall will improue their narration by another meanes. The councell of c 1.1653 Nice, hee sayth, forbiddeth Bishoppes, Presbyters, and Deacons, to haue any woman in their hou∣ses, besides their Mother, Sister, or Aunt: whence hee thinketh it may bee inferred, that it did forbid euery of these to haue any Wife dwelling with them in the same house; seeing if they might haue wiues, they might vndoubtedly haue handmaides to attend them. This proofe is no better then the former: for in the canons of the Ni∣cene councell, translated out of the Arabian tongue, and put into the sirst Tome of councels by Binnius out of Alphonsus Pisanus; (in which, as Francis Turrian pro∣fesseth, in his Proeme before the same canons, there is nothing but that which is approued, and worthy that great Synode of Nice) the Decree of the coun∣cell is conceiued and expressed in such wordes, that it is evident it was neuer

meant to bee extended to such Bishoppes, Presbyters, or Deacons, as haue wiues; but to such onely, as neuer were married, or are widowers. The wordes are these. * 1.1654 We decree, that Bishoppes dwell not with women, neither any Presbyter that is a widower: the same is decreed touching euery Presbyter that is vnmarried, and the Deacons which haue no wiues: and that Priests might liue with their wiues in those times, the 78. of those Canons maketh it most cleare, for it layeth a more heauy punishment vpon him, that hath a wife liuing, and liuing with him, if hee committe adultery, then vpon him, that neuer was married, or is a widower. Wherefore let vs passe from the Coun∣cell of Nice, to the Councell of Gangra. d 1.1655 Socrates sheweth that Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, so farre disliked marriage, that hee perswaded many women to forsake their husbands, that hee contemned married Presbyters, & condemned the prayers and blessings of Presbyters hauing wiues, which they married while they were Lay-men. Now it is not to bee imagined, that hee would haue despised them if they had put away their wiues, (for he perswaded to that; and many women heark∣ning vnto him, departed from their husbands) but because they retayned them still; yet did the e 1.1656 Councell of Gangra condemne him; adding, that if any one contrary to the A∣postolicall Canons, shall presume to put any one of them, that haue taken holy orders, as Presbyters, or Deacons, from companying with their wiues, he shall be deposed. To this we may adde the Sixth Generall Councell holden in Trullo, wherein a Decree was passed, that such as doe enter into the Ministery being married, shall bee permit∣ted to liue with their wiues. The wordes of the Councell are these: f 1.1657 Because wee haue vnderstood, that it hath beene deliuered to the Church of Rome for a Canon, that Deacons or Presbyters, who shall bee thought worthy to be ordained, shall professe and pro∣mise to company no more with their wiues; wee keeping the ancient Canon of Apostolicall perfection and order, will and decree, that the marriages of such men, as are in holy orders, hence-forth, and from this moment of time shall bee firme and stable, no way dissoluing their coniunction with their wiues, nor debarring them from companying with them, at conueni∣ent times. Wherefore if any man be found worthy to bee ordained a Subdeacon, Deacon, or Presbyter; Let him by no meanes bee debarred from entring into such a degree; because hee liueth with his lawfull wife, neither let it bee required of him, at the time of his ordina∣tion, to promise to refraine from the lawfull companying with his wife; least by so doing, wee bee forced to doe wrong to marriage, ordained of God, and blessed by his presence: The Evangelicall voyce crying out alowde, the thinges which GOD hath ioyned, let no man sunder: And the Apostle teaching, that Marriage is honourable, and the bed vndefi∣led: And againe saying; Art thou bound to a wife? seeke not to bee loosed, &c. Thus doe the Fathers and Bishoppes assembled in this Councell, forbidde and condemne the putting of Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons from the society with their wiues, alleadging the ancient Canon, vse, and custome, and many excellent authorities, and reasons out of the Scriptures and word of God; shewing that no such thing canne bee done without great iniury to the state of Marriage, and without separating those whom God hath joyned together: and yet sodainely forgetting themselues, they g 1.1658 forbidde Bishoppes to liue with their wiues; so ouerthrowing the auncient custome and Canon, and separating those that God hath ioyned together. Whereby that which had beene free from the Apostles times (as h 1.1659 Zonaras noteth) was forbidden, & the Canon of the Apostles repealed. Yet did these Fathers (as wee see) most care∣fully prouide, that Presbyters and Deacons should not bee restrayned. And indeede, this liberty hath continued according to their Decree in this behalfe passed; euer since, in all the East Churches of the world. For first, touching the Greeke Church, which is principally directed by the Canons of this Councell, it is euident by i 1.1660 the censure of the Orientall Church, vpon the Confession of Auspurge, translated out of Greeke into Latine, and published by Stanislaus Socolouius. Secondly, the Sixth k 1.1661 Generall Councell testifieth, that the Armenians were so farre from disliking the marriage of their Cleargy-men, that they ranne into the o∣ther extreame. For they confined the Election of Church-men within the stocke of Church-men; as the Priesthood was confined in the time of Moses law,

and contained within the tribe of Leui. And thirdly, l 1.1662 Damianus a Goes witnesseth, that among the Aethiopian Christians, Cleargy-men are married: and that by dispensation of the Patriarche, after the death of the first wife, their priestes and Ministers may marry the second, though without such dispensation they may marry but once. The Armenians & Aethiopians (I suppose) haue not restrained their Bishops from liuing in matrimoniall society with their wiues, more then their Presbyters and Deacons: seeing they take no notice of the prescriptions of the Sixth Generall Councell, wherein this restraint began: The Armenians receiuing but only the three first, and the Aethiopians only the first foure Generall Councels.

Thus hauing taken a view of the course of things in the Church, from the begin∣ning, and made it euident, that generally there neuer preuailed any restraint of Clear∣gy-men from companying with their wiues, which they married while they were but yet Lay-men, or in the inferiour orders and degrees of Ministery: and that the grea∣test part of the Christian world hath euer from the beginning, euen vnto this day en∣joyed the liberty which some vniustly sought to impeache; let vs see where it was re∣strained or taken away, and by whom. Of the restraint in Thessalia, whereof He∣liodorus was Author, as likewise in Thessalonica, Macedonia and Hellas, and of the endeauours of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, resisted by the Bishops in the Councell of Gangra, I haue spoken sufficiently already and haue shewed, that this re∣straint could not preuaile, nor continue in those partes: all these Churches holding their liberty in this matter euen vnto this day. Therefore I will proceede to speake of the restraint, that some sought to bring into the West Church. The first re∣straint of Bishoppes, Presbyters, and Deacons from companying with their wiues, that I do finde in the West Church, was in the Prouinciall Councell of m 1.1663 Elliberis in Spaine, holden in the yeare three hundred and fiue, twenty yeares before the Councell of Nice, consisting of nineteene Bishoppes. But I hope our Aduersaries will not much presse vs with the authority of this Councell: seeing themselues make so little account of it as they doe. There are some most excellently learned (sayth n 1.1664 Binnius, in his notes vpon this Councell, that thinke it erroneous, and of no authority, and that it is to be contemned as rejected by the Church, for fauouring the heresie of Noua∣tus, the conceit of Vigilantius, and their opinion, that would haue no pictures in Churches. o 1.1665 Melchior Canus sayth, the thirty sixth Canon of it is erroneous: and p 1.1666 Bellarmine sayth, it was but Prouinciall, not confirmed, and that it erred in many things: namely, in not admitting to the Communion of the Church vpon their repen∣tance, such as in the time of persecution denyed the faith, or otherwise ranne into grie∣uous and enormous crimes and sinnes. And Cardinall Baronius, howsoeuer q 1.1667 varying in his opinion touching this Councell, yet r 1.1668 confesseth, there is no mention of it among the Ancient, as of others; and that it was vtterly suppressed, as if it had neuer beene be∣cause it was ill thought of, as fauouring Nouatianisme. And therefore contrary to this Councell, the Councell of s 1.1669 Ancyra, nine yeares after decreed, that they that fell in the time of persecution, and denied the faith, after condigne penance should bee re∣ceiued to the Sacraments of the Church againe: and that t 1.1670 Deacons protesting at the time of their ordination, that they cannot; nor are not resolued to containe, but that they purpose and desire to marry, shall remaine in the Ministery, though they marry after their ordination. This councell was confirmed by u 1.1671 Leo the fourth, and by the Councell of Nice, as it is in the x 1.1672 Councell of Florence. So that hitherto, no restraint of Cleargy-men from companying with their wiues preuailed. But almost foure hun∣dred yeares after Christ, y 1.1673 Syricius Bishoppe of Rome, writing to the Bishoppe of Tar∣racon, (by whom he vnderstood that very many Priests and Deacons in those parts, af∣ter their ordination, liued with their wiues which they had formerly married, and be∣gat children of them as before; and iustified their soe dooing by the example of the Priests of the Law) excusing that which was done, as proceeding from ignorance, if they would acknowledge themselues in fault, and refraine for the time to come, com∣manded that no such thing should be any longer permitted. Whereupon the z 1.1674 second Prouinciall Coūcell of Arle, holden in the time of this Syricius, decreed, that no maried

man should bee admitted to the degree of Priest-hood, vnlesse hee would promise to refraine from the company of his wife, and yet permitted him to haue her liuing in house with him. a 1.1675 Innocentius the first, who beganne his Popedome about the yeare of our Lord foure hundred and two, insisted in the steppes of Syricius his Predecessor, and drew some particular Bishops to concurre with him. So that in some particular councels, the lawfull society and companying of Cleargie-men with their wiues, be∣ganne to bee restrained. In the b 1.1676 second councell of Carthage, as it is vsually recko∣ned, but indeed the last, the Legate of the Bishop of Rome being present, procured the Bishoppes to passe a Decree, that Bishoppes, Presbyters and Deacons, should refraine from the company of their wiues; falsely affirming, that the Apostles did teach so, and Antiquity practise so; contrary to that which I haue before alleadged out of the canons of the Apostles, the councell of Gangra, the speeches of Paphnutius in the councell of Nice, the report of Socrates the Historian, and the Decree of the sixth Ge∣nerall councel, affirming the leauing of Cleargy-men to their liberty in this behalfe to bee Apostolicall and Auncient. The c 1.1677 first councell of Toledo holden in the yeare of our Lord foure hundred, decreed, that Deacons which had liued with their wiues, should not bee preferred to bee Presbyters, nor Presbyters to bee Bishoppes, though they had so done before the restraint made by the Bishoppes that were before them, but laide no other punishment on them. The Councell of d 1.1678 Agatha holden in the yeare fiue hundred and sixe, sheweth plainly, that at that time many Prouinces tooke no knowledge of the Decree of Syricius and Innocentius; but that their Presby∣ters and Deacons liued with their wiues still; and excuseth them in respect of their not knowing of any restraint; and continueth them in their places, onely debarring them from further promotion, and prescribing that the Decree of Syricius shall take place in time to come; and that such as knowe of it and disobey it, shall bee remoued from their places. The e 1.1679 first Councell of Turon, holden in the yeare foure hun∣dred foure score and two, sought to remitte something of the seuerity of some parti∣cular Councels, wherein the Bishoppes directed by the prohibition of Syricius and Innocentius, had gone too farre. The words of the Councell are these: Though our Fa∣thers, out of the authoritie committed to them, decreed that what Priest or Deacon soeuer, should bee found to begette children of their wiues, should bee put from the communion of the Lord; yet wee moderating this extreame seuerity, and by a more equall constitution mollifying and mitigating that which was too hard, haue decreed: That a Priest or Dea∣con continuing in Matrimoniall society with his wife, and not ceasing from the pro∣creation of children, shall not bee lifted vp to any higher degree, nor offer sacrifice vnto God, nor minister to the people: but let this be enough for them, that they are not put from the Communion. Thus wee see, that within a short time after the publishing of these Decrees, the Bishoppes were forced out of due consideration to remit something of that seuerity, that some other set on by Syricius and Innocentius had vsed, till at length the execution of these Decrees was in a manner wholy neglected as vnprofitable, and too heauy a burthen for the Ministers of the Church to beare. Whereupon we shall finde, that in all the Prouinces of the West, the Presbyters and Deacons of the Church were married, at that time that Hildebrand climed vp into the Papall Chaire, and had beene long before. Priests in those times (saith f 1.1680 Auentinus) had wiues publickly, as all other Christians, and begate sonues and daughters of them, as it ap∣peareth by the instruments of donations made to Churches, and Abbaies, wherein these Priests wiues together with their husbands, are brought as witnesses, and are stiled by the name of Presbyterissae. Yea so generall and so well setled was the ma∣riage of Cleargy-men in those times, that when Hildebrand beganne to restraine and forbid it, the whole Nation of Cleargie-men rose vp against him, called him Monster, and enemy of man-kinde, and pronounced him to bee Antichrist. And such was the resistance against this rash and inconsiderate attempt of the Pope, that hee could by no meanes prevaile, though hee caused so great confusions, tumults and disorders in the Christian worlde, as the like had neuer beene seene in any of the bloudy persecutions, that were in the time of the Primitiue Church: and was

forced to confesse a little before his death, that hee had caused grieuous scandals in the Christian world. The circumstances of the whole narration found in the Histori∣ans are these. g 1.1681 So soone as the Decree of Hildebrand was published, presently the whole faction of Cleargy-men was enraged against him: crying out that hee was an hereticke, and a man damnably erring in his judgement, who forgetting the speach of our Lord, that saith, All men receiue not this word; Let him that can receiue it, re∣ceiue it: and of the Apostle who saith, Let him that cannot containe, marry; for it is bet∣ter to marry then to burne, would by violent inforcement constraine men to liue after the manner of Angells; and while hee denyed, and sought to restraine the ordinary & accustomed course of nature, loosed the reines, and gaue free liberty to whoredome, and vncleannesse: protesting, that if hee should goe forward to vrge the execution of this his Decree, they were resolued rather to forsake the Ministery, then their mar∣riage. And that then hee, before whom men did stincke, should see, whence Angels are to be had, to vndertake the gouernment of the Church and people of God. Not∣withstanding all this resistance, and these earnest protestations, Hildebrand went for∣ward, vrged the matter, and reproued the Bishops as carelesse and negligent. The Arch-bishop of Mentz fearing the Popes displeasure, and yet considering, that it would bee no easie matter to alter a custome so strongly and by so long tract of time confirmed, proceeded moderately in those parts, where he had to doe: giuing those of the Cleargy halfe a yeares respite, to aduise themselues, praying and beseeching them to resolue to doe that willingly, which of necessity they must doe. But after the time expired, which hee had giuen vnto them, hee called a Synode, and was ear∣nest with them, that without all further delay or excuse, they would presently, either abiure their marriage, or put themselues from seruing any longer at the Altar. They on the contrary side alleadged many reasons to perswade him, not to vrge them to a∣ny such extremities: and when they found, that neither intreaty, and humble petition, nor weight of reason would prevaile, but that though professing himselfe vnwilling thus to vrge them, yet he was forced so to doe by the Popes mandate; and that there∣fore hee must haue no deniall, but that they must yeelde; they went out of the Coun∣cell-house, as if it had beene to deliberate, and resolued among themselues either ne∣ver to returne, or otherwise so to returne, as to pull him out of his chaire, before hee should pronounce so cursed a sentence against them, and to take away his life from him; that so his vnhappie end might be a warning to all posterities, that no succeeding Bishoppe might euer dare to attempt, so to wrong and dishonour the Priestly degree and order. The Arch-bishop by the meanes of some, that wished well vnto him, vn∣derstanding of this conspiracy, to preuent the tumult, which hee saw to bee vnauoy∣dable, if hee did not speedily giue them some satisfaction and contentment, sent vnto them, besought them to bee quiet, and to returne into the Synode; and promised, that as soone as any opportunity should bee offered, hee would doe his best endeauour to perswade the Pope to desist from these courses: These things were done in the yeare 1074. The yeare following, the Arch-bishoppe againe vrged by the Pope called a∣nother Councell at Mentz, to which the Popes Legate came, bringing his letters and mandates, and requiring him to vrge them presently, to yeeld, and if they should re∣fuse so to doe, to punish them with the losse of their degree and order, which thing when hee was about to doe, presently all the Cleargy-men which sate round about, rose vp, and so refuted, and reiected that hee said, with words, and by the violent mo∣ving & shaking of their hands, and gesture of their whole bodies, shewed themselues to bee so moued against him, as that hee feared euer to goe out of the Synode aliue; and so at last, ouercome with the difficulty of this atttempt, hee resolued to desist from medling with this matter any more, which hee had so often to no purpose taken in hand, and to leaue it wholly to the Pope to doe what hee would. These were the vaine attempts of the Romanistes for the restrayning of lawfull Marriage, which though they preuailed not at the first, according to the wishes of the wicked Pope, yet caused the most horrible confusions in the Westerne Church, that euer had been: for Lay-men taking occasion hereupon, despised their Priests, medled with the Mi∣nistration

of Holy thinges, ministered the Sacrament of Baptisme, annoynted men with the filthe which they tooke out of their eares, in steade of oyle; did many things most disorderly, and committed sundry intollerable outrages. And therefore it is most strange that h 1.1682 Bellarmine should so forget himselfe as he doth, For whereas all stories impute these confusions, prophanations and contempts of sacred things to the restraint of marriage, and the disgracing of it, so hard is his forhead, that he blusheth not to write, that the marriage of Ministers would hinder the due and reuerent ad∣ministration of Sacraments; and that experience shewed it, in that in Germany, in the time of Gregory the Seauenth when Priests began to marry wiues, there grew so great contempt of the Sacraments, that Lay-men beganne to administer them, as Nauclerus, and others report. In which speech of his, there is no word true: for neither did Priests begin to marry in Gregories time, but had beene ordinarily married long be∣fore, as i 1.1683 Nauclerus testifieth, saying, it was an old & confirmed custome, that was not easily to bee altered, which Gregory sought to take away, when hee went about to forbid the marriage of Priests: So that they did rather cease to marry in his time then beginne. Neither doth any story impute the confusions, prophanations, & contempts of Sacraments and sacred things in those times to the marriage of Priests, which was publickely allowed long before, without any such euill ensuing, as k 1.1684 Aventinus, and others doe testifie, but to the restraint of it. And therefore it was not the begin∣ning (as Bellarmine vntruely saith) but the ending of Priests marriages in Gregories time, that brought in so many and hideous euills into the Christian world. Thus ha∣uing seene with how bad successe Gregory the Seauenth beganne this restraint in other partes of the Christian world, let vs take a view of our owne countrey, and see what footing it had here. l 1.1685 Henry Huntingdon an auncient Historian and of good creditte, reporteth that before the time of Anselme Bishoppe of Canterbury, the marriage of Presbyters and other Ministers of the Church, was not forbidden in England; & that when he forbad it, howsoeuer hee pleased some, for that there seemed to bee greater purity in single life, then in the state of Marriage; yet this his prohibition seemed to other to be very dangerous: fearing that whiles he sought to bring men to that, which is aboue the reach, and without the compasse of humane frailty, hee would occasion many greeuous and scandalous euills. But howsoeuer, this his endeauour tooke not place by and by, for the same authour reporteth, that after that time one Iohn Cre∣mensis, a Cardinall came into England, and went about to restraine the Marriages of Church-men: So that it appeareth, that Anselme had effected nothing. This wor∣thy Cardinall (as hee reporteth) held a Synode at London, and in the same made a ve∣hement and bitter speach against the marriage of Presbyters; asking if it were not an impure and vnfitting thing for a Minister of the Church to rise vp from the side of an harlot, (for so it pleased him to terme the lawfull wiues of Church-men) and to goe to the Altar to consecrate the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Blood. But see the judgement of God, saith Huntingdon. The Impure Cardinall that had thus inveighed against Marriage, the night following was taken in bed with an Harlot though hee had said Masse and consecrated the blessed Sacrament in the morning; which thing * 1.1686 was so euident that it could not, and so foule, that it was not fitte to be concealed, and hee addeth, that if any Romane Prelate or other dislike this his most true reporte, hee were best to take heede hee follow not the example of Cremensis, least the like disho∣nour come vnto him as did vnto Cremensis, who being at first receiued in very glo∣rious manner, was in the end cast out with disgrace; and vvho despising lawfull mar∣riage, feared not to commit most filthy vvhoredome. Hereupon it seemeth, the matter of restraint of Presbyters marriage had no good successe at that time; which appeareth also in that m 1.1687 after this time in a Councell it was referred to the King, & hee vvas authorised & appointed to punish such Presbyters and ministers of the Church, as he should find married, but he notably deceiued the Popes Agents, that thus au∣thorised him; for hee tooke money of such as vvere found to be married and suffered them so to redeeme their liberties, vvhich grieued them not a little: yet did they in the end so farre forth obtaine their desires, and the tyranny of Antichrist so farre pre∣vailed,

that Presby ters durst no longer bee knowne publickly to be married, but were forced to take another course: for as it appeareth by the n 1.1688 Decrees of Otho, in the time of Henry the Third, many contracted matrimony secretly, and when in processe of time children were borne vnto them, for their good when they saw it fit, they would take order it might be proued they were married, and their children borne in mari∣age, either by witnesses, or publicke instruments, either while they liued, or after their death. Whereby it is evident, that howsoeuer the impure Romanists sought to keep Cleargy-men from marying, and to force them by the censures of the Church, and o∣ther extremities to put away their wiues, yet at that time they durst not pronounce their mariages voyde, nor their children illegitimate; for if they had, these men would not so carefully haue provided to bee able to make proofe of their mariages for the good of their children. So that though there wanted not instruments, set a worke by the Pope some hundreds of yeares past, that sought to restraine the mariage of Clear∣gy-men, yet was not their restraint like vnto that of the Romanists at this day, for they did not so restraine Cleargy-men from marying, or liuing with their wiues, as to pro∣nounce their mariages to be voyde, neither did they separate those that God had joy∣ned together, but if they would marry, or continue with their wiues, which they had formerly maried, they permitted them so to doe, and onely put them from the min∣stery. Presbyters in former times (saith ^o Duarenus) if they tooke wiues in those * 1.1689 places where mariage was forbidden, were put from the ministery, or perhaps where more severity was vsed, were excommunicated; but their mariage was not voyded; yet is it not to be denyed, but that Syricius and Innocentius spake very vnreverently of the state of mariage, indeavouring to proue that Presbyters are not to bee suffered to marry, because to liue in mariage is to liue in the flesh, & they that liue in the flesh can∣not please God. How absurd and inconsiderate this kinde of reasoning is, euery man (I thinke) will easily discerne: for whereas the p 1.1690 Apostle, and after him q 1.1691 Paphnutius in the Councel of Nice, pronounce that mariage is honourable among all, and the bed vn∣defiled: and Chrysostome affirmeth▪ that it is so honourable, that men may be lifted vp into the Bishops chaires with it; with what face can these men say, that to liue in ma∣riage * 1.1692 is to liue in the flesh, in such sort as not to please God. s 1.1693 Bellarmines evasion, that they speak not of mariage simply, but of forbidden mariage, such as that of Priests is, when they say, to liue in mariage is to liue in the flesh, & that therefore they say only, they who liue in vnlawfull & forbidden mariage, liue in the flesh; & cannot please God, will not serue the turne. For they speak not of vnlawfull & forbidden mariage, but goe about to proue, that mariage is to be forbiddē & denied to Presbyters, by a reason taken frō the nature of it, & something in it, or consequent of it, in respect whereof it cannot stand with the holinesse of the degree and calling of Presbyters and Ministers: So that they say simply, to liue in mariage; is to liue in the flesh: and that therefore the holy Ministers of the Church, who may not liue in the flesh, must bee forbidden to marry; their words being a reason mouing them to prohibite mariage, and not taken from the prohibition, as it will easily appeare to any one that will take the paines to view the Epistles of the Romane Bishops (if yet they haue not beene corrupted, as many other * 1.1694 things of like nature haue.) But how-so-euer wee censure these sayings of the Popes, it is most certaine, that those particular Bishops of the West, who vpon misconce it, sought to restraine Presbyters from liuing with their wiues, yet neuer proceeded so far as either to pronounce their mariages vnlawful, or to dissolue them, till of late. And therefore they were most contrary in their judgments to the lewde assertions of Pa∣pists; who thinke and teach, that the mariages of Church-men are adulteries, and feare not to say, that it is worse for a man to take a wife to liue with continuallie, then to joine himselfe vnto harlots: which prodigious assertion, all men in former times, euen they who were most averse from the mariage of Cleargy-men would haue detested. If a Presbyter (saith the councell of u 1.1695 Neocaesarea) will marry a wife, let him be put from his order, but if hee commit fornication or adultery, let him bee driuen further, and put to pennance. Whereunto the councell of x 1.1696 Helliberis before-mentioned, a∣greeth, prescribing that such as commit adulterie shall be put from the communion of

the Church for euer: and likewise the councell of y 1.1697 Arverne. Some other indeede there were that proceeded a little further, and put them from the communion of the Church, that would liue in Matrimoniall society; but the Bishops in the Councell of z 1.1698 Turon thought good to moderate that extremity, and onely to keepe them from fur∣ther promotion and sacred imployment: and with them the Bishops in the fifth Coun∣cell of a 1.1699 Orleans agree So that these Bishops though inconsiderately restraining mar∣riage, yet durst not pronounce the marriages of Church-men voyde, as our Aduer∣saries now do; neyther did they (for ought I can read) force men to make any vow of continence. For though some of them required a promise of liuing single, yet was it no vow; seeing a promise made to men is farre different from a vowe, which is a pro∣mise made to God. And many of them (as it may seeme) vrged such as they admitted into the Ministery to no such promise at all: but receiued them in such sort, that they should so lōg be imployed, as they would refraine, & that if they pleased to marry, they should still injoy the Communion of the Church, but should not be imployed in sacred function any longer. Touching the promise which some required, the second Coun∣cell of Toledo prescribeth, that at eighteene yeares of age they of the Cleargy shall * 1.1700 resolue to marry, or promise to containe; & that at twenty they shall be made Subdea∣cons. The Councell of c 1.1701 Ancyra prouideth, that if Deacons shallprotest when they are ordained that they will not liue single, but will haue wiues, they shall be permitted to marry, and yet keepe their places. But if professing that they will containe, they be∣take themselues to former or new marriages, they shall inioy the Lay-communion, but shall be put out of the Ministery and Cleargy. Whereby it appeareth, that there was no vniforme obseruation in the promise of continencie, that was required: seeing the one of these two Councels requireth it at eighteene yeares of age, of such as were not yet Subdeacons, and the other leaueth such as were to bee Deacons to their owne choyce at the time of their ordination: nor that this promise was thought to make voyd the ensuing mariage; seeing such as contrary to promise, returned to the state of mariage, were permitted to enioy the communion of the Church as Lay-men, though in some places they were put out of the Ministery and Cleargy. I say in some places, because it appeareth by the d 1.1702 Councell of Toledo, appointing that such shall haue but the places of Lectors only, that they were not wholy depriued of the honour of Clear∣gy-men in all places. Afterwards indeed in the e 1.1703 Ninth Councell of Toledo, the Bi∣shops finding that all their former indeauours preuailed not, though they voyded not the mariages of Cleargy-men, nor iudged them to be adulteries as our Aduersaries do, yet they adjudged such as should be borne of such marriages to a kind of bondage, and depriued them of that possibility of inheritance, which formerly they might haue had. But this was but the particular Decree of that prouinciall Councell, and soe could binde none but those fewe Churches in those partes. Neyther did it. For long after heere in England, (as I haue shewed) the Ministers of the church were publikely maried without any such wrong done eyther to them or their children. And long after the restraint of Gregory the seauenth, when this Decree of single life had in some sort preuailed, they did still secretly marry, and when they saw cause for the good of their children, made proofe of their mariages. Neither is it to be maruailed at, that some particular Synodes in the west, set on by the Bishops of Rome, went about in some sort to restraine the lawfull Mariages of church-men: (lawfull I say, both by the lawe of God, and the resolution, allowance, & practice of the greater part of the Christian Churches) seeing they forbade those, which euen in the iudgement of our aduersa∣uersaries themselues, I thinke cannot bee denied to haue beene lawfull. If the wid∣dowe or relicte of a Presbyter or Deacon, shall ioyne herselfe to any man in mariage (sayth the first Councell of Orleans) let them after chastisement bee seperated, or if they persist in the intention of such a crime, let them be excommunicated. Wherewith * 1.1704 the g 1.1705 Epaunine Councell agreeth, and the second Councell of h 1.1706 Bracar, saying: If any widdow of a Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon take an husband, let no Cleargy-man, nor no re∣ligious woman banquet with them; neither let her euer communicate, onely at the time of her death, let the Sacraments of the Church bee administred vnto her. Likewise,

the Councel of i 1.1707 Antisiodorum, decreeth to the same effect. Neither can it be answered, that these Councels forbid the widdows of Presbyters, Deacōs, & Subdeacons to mar∣ry, because during the life of their husbands, vpon some voluntary parting, they bound themselues by promise to liue continently. For the Councell of k 1.1708 Matiscon decreeth, that if the wiues of Subdeacons, Exorcistes, or Acoluthes, shall after their death, ioyne themselues in marriage the second time, they shall bee separated, and thrust into the houses of Nunnes. And yet these might lawfully liue with their husbands, euen in the judgement of them that made this decree. Neither were they any way indu∣ced necessarily to promise to containe.

Thus hauing seene, where, when, and by whom, the forbidding of the lawfull mar∣riage of Presbyters entred into the Church, in what sort it was vrged at the first, how afterwards, what contradiction it found, & how farre forth in the end it preuailed; it remaineth that wee proceed to see what good followed vpon it. Where first l 1.1709 A∣ventinus telleth vs, that after the restraint of Hildebrand, vnder the honest name of Chastity, the greatest part euery where, without checke of punishment, committed whoredomes, incests, and adulteries, and that the Lawe of single life, which offended the good, was exceeding pleasing to impure companions, who now for one wife might haue sixe hundred Harlots. Neither is this the priuate conceit of Auentinus, alone, but all good & wise men beare witnes with him, that hee speaketh the truth; & say as much as he. Bern: speaking of the state of the Cleargie in his time, saith, m 1.1710

Many, not all truely, but yet many vndoubtedly, who neither canne bee hid they are so ma∣ny, nor care to bee hid they are so shamelesse; many surely seeme to haue made the li∣berty in which they are called, to serue as a fitte occasion to satisfie the flesh; abstay∣ning from the remedy of Mariage, and powring forth themselues into all manner of sinfull wickednesses. And in the same Chapter he saith, That if wee digge downe the wall, according to the wordes of the Prophet Ezechiell, wee shall see horrible things in the house of God. For after whoredomes, adulteries, and incests, there are found the passions of ignominy, and the workes of impurity and filthinesse. Would to GOD (saith hee) those thinges that are most vnnaturall, were not committed: that neither the Apostles needed to write of them, nor wee to speake; and that no man would beleeue that so abominable lust did euer possesse the minde of man. Were not those Citties, which were the Mothers of this impure filthinesse, long since con∣demned by the iudgement of God himselfe, and consumed with fire? Did not the fire of hell, impatient of delay, preuent the time, and in a sort before the time, con∣sume that cursed Nation? Did not fire, brimestone, and the sto•…•…mie tempest, consume the very earth and ground it selfe, as priuie to such confusions, as should neuer so much as once bee thought of? Was not all the whole land and ground it selfe turned into an horrible Lake? Surely, fiue heads of the Monster Hydra are cut off: but woe is vnto vs, innumerable moe are risen vp. Who hath reedified those Cities of vil∣lany? who hath inlarged the walles of impuritie? and who hath spread out those ve∣nimous branches? Woe, woe! the enemy of man-kinde hath scattered euery where round about, the vnhappy reliques of that sulphureous burning, and hath sprinckled the body of the Church with those execrable ashes, & hath filled some of the Mini∣sters of the Church, with that filthy, stinking, and impure running sore. Saluianus in like sort, in his booke of diuine Prouidence, hath these wordes. n 1.1711 It is surely altoge∣ther a new and strange kinde of conuersion, that some men talke of, lawfull thinges they doe not, and vnlawfull thinges they committe. They refraine from mariage, but refraine not from Rape. What doest thou O foolish perswasion? God forbad sinne, not mariage: your deedes agree not with your profession. You should not bee the friends of enormous crimes, who professe to doe the workes of vertue. It is a pre∣posterous thing that you doe, it is not conuersion but auersion. You that haue long since (as the same is) forsaken the worke of honest mariage, cease at the last; from sinfull wickednesse. With these agree the Historians generally, o 1.1712 reporting that

innumerable euills followed the prohibition of the mariage of Cleargie-men, pub∣lished by Pope Hildebrand; that few liued continently, though some counterfaited so

to doe for filthie lucres sake, and for ostentation; and that many ioyned both periurie and adultery together: and not contenting them-selues with an ordinary degree of wickednesse, multiplyed their whoredomes and adulteries exceedingly.

Whereupon wee shall finde, that many of the best learned, most judicious, & wor∣thiest men, the Church had in latter times, wished the Law of single life to be taken a∣way, euen as many resisted it when it was first made. Durandus in his booke * 1.1713 De modo celebrandi Concilii, proueth by many reasons, that it were fit that the libertie of mariage were againe restored to Priests in a Generall councell. p 1.1714 In the councell of Basill, when exception was taken against the choice of Amedeus Duke of Savoy, (whō many thought fit to be Pope) for that he had beene a maried man, and had children, it was answered by some of good esteeme, that that was no exception, and that haply it were much better that Priests were permitted to liue in mariage, then restrained. For that many of them might be saued in chaste mariage, which now perish in their filthie and impure single life. Aeneas Sylvius a great man in that councell, who was after∣wards Pope, and named Pius the second, in an q 1.1715 Epistle to a friend of his, who was in the holy orders of the ministery of the church, & yet desirous for the avoiding of for∣nicatiō, to marry a wife, writeth thus: We suppose that you are not ill advised, if when you cannot containe, you seeke a wife, though that should haue been thought on before you had en∣tred into holy Orders. But wee are not Gods, neither can wee fore-see things to come. Where∣fore seeing things are come to this passe, that you cannot resist the law of the flesh, it is better to marry then to burne. Yet cannot the Pope be perswaded to dispense with you; but he stan∣deth resolued to holde his seuere course still, and thinketh it not fit to grant that to one, which may be hurtfull vnto many. If therefore you desire safely to marry, you must expect some o∣ther Pope, who may be more inclineable and yeelding. And of this Aeneas Sylvius, after∣wards named Pius the second, r 1.1716 Platina, and s 1.1717 Sabellicus report, that hee was wont to say, That they had, no doubt, reason to leade them so to doe, that forbade the Marriage of Cleargy-men, but that there were much greater reason now to leaue it free againe. t 1.1718 Bap∣tista Mantuanus saith, that many thought the Lawes against mariage to bee euill; that they which made those Lawes, had not sufficiently considered what the nature of man can beare, that CHRIST neuer put so vnpleasant a Yoake vpon the neckes of men; that this burden, too heavie for the shoulders of men to beare, hath brought forth many monstrous effects: that it was a shew of Piety, but indeede too great bold∣nesse, that laide this burthen vpon the shoulders of men; that it had beene more safe to haue gone that way wherein the divine Law directeth vs, and to haue trode in the steppes of the Auncient Fathers, whose life was better in marriage, then ours that is single. u 1.1719 Ioannes Antonius saith, in the time of the Primitiue Church, it was law∣full for Presbyters, and such as were entered into holy Orders, to haue wiues, so that they refrained from companying with them, vpon the dayes wherein they celebra∣ted: that afterwardes in the Westerne Church, they that were entred into holy Or∣ders were commaunded to containe: which commaundement (hee sayth) yeel∣ded matter to ensnare the soules of many men, and therefore hee verily beleeueth, that as the Church brought in this precept of continencie, so the time will come, when the same Church will reverse and revoke it againe: which revocation shall be a∣greeable to that of the Apostle, who sayth, x 1.1720 Concerning Virgins, I haue no commaunde∣ment, but I giue advice. With Antonius agreeth Panormitanus: who proposing the que∣stion, whether the Church may giue leaue to Presbyters to cōtract mariage, or to liue * 1.1721 in mariage, as the Graecians doe, aunswereth, that hee beleeueth it may: & that he is assured it may in respect of them, who are not tyed by vow implyed or expressed. Which hee proueth, because continencie in secular Cleargy-men is not of the sub∣stance of order, nor prescribed by the Law of GOD. For that otherwise the Grae∣cians should sinne, and no custome could excuse them: seeing no custome is of force against the Law of GOD. Neither doth hee onely thinke, that the Church hath power thus to doe, but professeth, hee thinketh it were behoouefull, and for the good and saluation of the soules of men, that such as are willing to containe,

and to lead a life of higher perfection, should be left to their owne will, and that such as are not willing to containe, should by the Decree of the Church be set free to con∣tract marriage. z 1.1722 Alfonsus Veruecius, as Andreas Frisius telleth vs, discoursing of the words of Paul, (For the auoyding of fornication, let euery one haue his owne wife) sayth, they containe no precept, but a concession or graunt: and affirmeth, that by vertue of this grant, euery one that cannot otherwise auoyde fornication, may marry a wife. And after certaine remedies prescribed to be obserued & vsed by Presbyters, that they may auoyde fornication, at last, confidently giueth counsell to him, who hauing try∣ed all those meanes cannot containe, rather to marry a wife, and soe to prouide for his owne saluation, then to commit fornication, and so cast himselfe head-long into eter∣nall death: but yet perswadeth such a one to doe nothing without seeking the Popes consent hopeing that he will dispense in such a case; seeing the power hee hath, was gi∣uen him for edification, & not for destruction.

I dare confidently say, (sayth a 1.1723 Polydere Virgill) that it hath beene soe farre from beeing true, that this inforced Chastity hath excelled that which is in marriage: that no sinfull crime hath brought greater disgrace to the order of the Ministery, more euill to religion, or made a greater and deeper impression of sorrowe in all good men, then the staine of the impure lust of Priests. And therefore haply, it were behoouefull for the Christian common∣wealth, and for the good of them that are of that sacred order and ranke, that at the last a publicke Lawe might bee made to giue leaue to Priestes to contract mariage. Wherein rather they might liue honestly and holily without infamy, then in most filthy manner defile themselues with this sinne of Nature. And Bishoppe b 1.1724 Lindan

sayth: Surely euen at this day, it is lawfull to take chast and honest married men into

the order of Priesthood: which (in my judgment) might much better bee done in some prouinces of Germany, then to set ouer them certaine most impure companions, or any longer to endure and tollerate Knaues, Apostataes, and sacralegious Pastours.

With these agreeth c 1.1725 Erasmus, affirming, that in his conceipt, hee should not ill de∣serue, nor take the worst course for the furthering of humane affaires, & the right in∣forming of the manners of men, which should procure liberty of mariage (if it might bee) both for Priestes and Monkes. And therefore Sigismund the Emperour, a lttle before the Councell of Basill began, published a reformation of the Cleargy, in which among other things this was one, that forasmuch as more euill commeth by the for∣bidding of mariage then good, it were better and more safe to permit Cleargy-men to liue in the state of mariage according to the custome of the Orientall Churches, then to forbid them so to do. In the Councell of Trent, the Orator of Bauaria moued to the same purpose. And d 1.1726 Chemnitius reporteth from George the Prince of Anhault, that Adolphus Bishoppe of Mersbergh his vncle, would often say, before euer Lu∣ther began to stirre, that if there were a Councell, hee would bee a perswader, that Cleargy-men might be permitted to marry: and professed that hee knew, that many for the quiet of their consciences secretly contracted mariage with those women which they kept vnder the name of Concubines. And surely euen the Popes them∣selues were content to winke at things in this kinde. Georgius Cassander, a man of in∣finite reading, excellent iudgment, and singular piety and sincerity, and therefore soe much respected and honoured by Ferdinand and Maximilian the second, that they held him the fittest man in the world to compose the controuersies in religion, & sent for him to come vnto them for the same purpose, is clearely of opinion e 1.1727 that howso∣euer some in ancient times forbad the marriage of Cleargy-men, yet now it were fit and necessary that that lawe were abrogated: first, because it is found by wofull expe∣rience, to bee the cause of many grieuous euils: secondly, for that the seuerity of Discipline, and strictnesse in all courses of life, that was in vse when this Lawe began first to bee vrged, is cleane gone, or much decayed, euen in the opinion of all. Soe that that which was fitte in those times, may now bee most vnfitte. Thirdly, for that many godlie and learned men are thereby * 1.1728 discouraged from entring into the Ministerie, refusing to binde themselues to the obseruation of this lawe of single life whereby the Church looseth the benefitte of their labours; fewe young men, indeed

religious and pious, applying themselues to the study of Diuinity: but such onely for the most part, as seeke nothing but riche and good liuings, that intend a dissolute course of life, and resolue aforehand, to wallow in all impurity of lust, (besides some fevve, who inconsiderately before they know themselues, fall into the snare.) Neither doth hee onely thinke it fitte, that married men be admitted into the Ministery; and suffered to company with their wiues, according to the custome of the Orientall Churches, but is of opinion also, that they may be permitted to marrie, after they are entred into holy Orders, yea though there were no allowed example of any such thing heretofore; seeing the prohibition is but positiue, and many positiue constitutions haue beene abrogated. But indeede there are not onely examples of men marying after entring into Orders: but also of the Churches allowing the same. For touching Sub∣deacons and Deacons, there can be no question; seeing the Councell of f 1.1729 Ancyra, which was most ancient and confirmed by Leo the Pope, as g 1.1730 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, decreed, that Deacons, with the Bishoppes leaue, might marrie vviues after their entrance into holy Orders. h 1.1731 In the time of Gregory the Seauenth, and before, as it appeareth by the stories of those times; Priestes did marrie after Orders: and when hee went about to forbidde them so to doe, hee vvas condemned by the whole Nation of Cleargie-men, and deposed in a Councell of Bishoppes: being justly disliked as for other things, soe for this his Antichristian and vile attempt. Ney∣ther did those men, which desired a Decree to be passed, to giue the liberty of marri∣age vnto Church-men, of whom I haue spoken, desire onely the permitting of maried men soe to continue, but of such as are not maried for to marrie, as it easily appeareth by their discourses. And surely howsoeuer there might bee some reason of expedi∣ence, rather to permitte maried men to enter into the Ministery, and to continue in the same state, then to suffer such as come into it vnmarried, to marry afterwardes: yet if the one be lawfull (as i 1.1732 Bellarmine rightly noteth) the other cannot bee vnlavv∣full. For if any thing be found in mariage, that cannot stand with the sanctitie of the Ministery, or the due execution of it, it is not the contract, which is a thing most seemely and honest and soone past, but the act of it, and the cares accompanying that state of life. The manner, custome and obseruation of the Greeke Churches, is descri∣bed by Zonaras in his explication of the Canons of the Apostles: where he saith, that Presbyters, Deacons, & Sub-deacons before they be ordained, are asked whether they will liue single or not: and if they answere that they will; they are presently ordai∣ned. But if they answere, that they will not: they are permitted to take them wiues first: and then are ordained after mariage. Soe that they giue them leaue to marrie after they haue chosen them, though before they ordaine them: but if refu∣sing to marry before ordination (when they are willed to resolue what they will doe) they marrie afterwardes, they are putte from the Ministery, but not from their wiues.

* 1.1733 By that which hath beene said, it is most cleare and euident, that the mariage of Ministers is justifiable by Gods Lawe, by the Canons and practice of the greatest part of the Church, and by the judgment of sundry of the greatest and worthiest of the World, in those places, where it seemed to be most disliked, in all ages, euen till our time: yet there remaineth still one doubt, touching the lawfulnesse of their Mariages that by vowe had promised the contrary. Concerning which point, two things are to bee obserued: first, whether their mariage bee voide, that vowed not to marrie. Secondly, whether they do sinne that vppon any occasion, or change of the state of things, do contrary to such their vow. Touching the first of these two pointes, to wit, that the mariages of such as had vowed the contrary, are not voyd, vvee haue the judgment of sundrie the best learned among the Fathers. For first, Cyprian speaking of Virgins hath these words: k 1.1734 Quod si ex fide Christo se dicauerunt, pudice & castè sine vlla fabula perseuerent. Ita fortes & stabiles praemium virginitatis expectent, si autem per∣seuerare nolunt, aut non possunt, melius est nubant, quam in ignem delictis suis cadant: That is: if by faith they haue dedicated themselues to CHRIST, let them chastly, and with all honest shamefastnesse, without lying, or falshood so continue, and resolute

and constant, let them expect the reward of Virginity: but if they will not, or cannot perseuere, it is better that they should marry, then that by their sinnes they should fall into the fire. Which wordes are cleare enough for proofe of that which wee defend. Yet l 1.1735 Bellarmine and some others seeke to avoyde them; making as if Cy∣prian did onely say, that if Virgins that are to resolue, and are yet free, thinke they can∣not containe, it were better for them to marry then to burne. But this evasion ser∣ueth not the turne: for Cyprian speaketh of such as haue alreadie dedicated them∣selues to God, willing them to perseuere; and yet saith, if they will not, or cannot con∣taine, they were better to marry then to burne: and therefore he thinketh mariage af∣ter a vow made to the contrary to be good, though he that voweth without constant purpose of performing, is not without fault. Pamelius writing on this place of Cy∣prian hath these wordes: If Cyprian by a certaine indulgence permitted such Virgines vpon whom the vaile was not yet put, to marry rather then to burne, let no man mar∣vaile at it: seeing their mariages, if they doe marry, are not dissolued by any Canons, but they are onely enjoyned penance. Saint Austine agreeth with Cyprian: for, speaking of the mariages of such as had vowed the contrary, he hath these wordes: m 1.1736 They who say, that the mariages of such men are not mariages, but rather adulteries, as it seemeth to mee, doe not acutely and diligently enough consider what they say: but a cer∣taine likenesse and shew of trueth deceiueth them. For, because they are saide to chuse CHRIST to bee their Husband, which out of a certaine loue of Christian sanctity, refuse to marry, there are some that argue and say, that if shee bee an adulteresse which marryeth to another man while her husband liueth, as the LORD himselfe defined in the Gospell, then so long as CHRIST liueth, ouer whome Death hath no more domi∣nion, shee must needes bee an adulteresse, which hauing chosen him to bee her hus∣band, marryeth vnto any mortall man: They truely which thus say, seeme to bee mo∣ued, by some reason, that is not to bee contemned: but they little consider, how great absur∣dity followeth vpon that which they say: for seeing a woman may laudably (euen while her husband liueth) with his consent vowe continency vnto CHRIST; according to the argument of these men, no woman may so doe; least (which once to thinke is impious) shee make CHRIST himselfe an adulterer, to whome shee marryeth, her husband yet li∣uing. After this refutation of their reasons, hee goeth forward to shew the absurd consequences of their opinion. By this inconsiderate opinion (saith he) of them that thinke the marriages of women, falne from an holy purpose, if they doe marry, to bee voide, not a little euill is brought forth: for from hence it commeth, that women are separated from their husbands, as adulteresses, and not wiues. And while they thus separate them, and force them to containe, they make their husbands truely and indeede adulterers: when as (these their wiues yet liuing) they marry. Thus doth Austine resolue, that maria∣ges after vowes made to the contrary, are lawfull and good; though the not perfor∣ming of vowed continency, is a sinne (as hee thinketh) more grieuous then adul∣tery, not for that the mariage of such is to bee condemned, but because the inconstancie in not performing that was purposed, and the violating of the vow are condemned. Non susceptio à bono inferiori, sed ruina ex bono superiori: not for that they doe a lesser good, but because they fall from a greater. Lastly, not for that they afterwardes ma∣ryed, but for that they violated their first faith of continency. Which thing that the Apostle might briefly insinuate, hee would not say, that they haue damnation which marry after the purpose of a more high degree of sanctity: not for that they are not to be disliked that so do, but least their mariage it selfe might seem to be condem∣ned; but when hee had saide, they will marry, hee by and by addeth, Hauing con∣demnation, and expresseth why; Because they haue broken their first faith. That it may appeare that the Will which fell from a former purpose, is condemned and re∣proued, whether mariage follow or not. If any man doubt whether Saint Austine were the Author of this booke, De bono viduitatis, wherein these things are found, as some doe; and consequently, whether he were of the opinion wee haue recited, or not: hee may easily know, that this is Saint Augustines judgement, whether this be his booke or not; by his n 1.1737 Epistle to one Bonifacius, who had vowed a monasticall

retyred, and single life, and yet afterwards did marry; whom hee telleth, hee cannot now, as otherwise hee would, exhort to that kind of life, which he had formerly vow∣ed, because of his wife, so that he thought not his mariage voyde, or that he was to be separated from his wife. His wordes are these: Thy wife hindereth mee that I cannot exhort thee to this kind of life; without whose consent it is not lawfull for thee to containe. &c. And o 1.1738 else-where speaking of certaine women, who abode not in that which they had first vowed, which had a desire of mariage, but maried not for feare of dis∣grace, he saith; It were better for them to marry then to burne: that is, then to bee wasted with the secret flame of the conscience in lust. And Hierome also is of the same opini∣on. For speaking to a certaine virgine that had priuately vowed virginity, and that could not endure the straight keeping of her mothers house, he hath these words: p 1.1739 If thou be a virgine, why dost thou feare carefull and diligent keeping? If thou be corrupted, why dost thou not openly marry? This is as a board to swimme out on after shipwracke. So should'st thou temper that which thou begannest ill, by vsing this remedy. Neither truely doe I say this, for that I take away repentance after sin, (that so that which is ill begun, may still continue) but for that I despaire of drawing of you from that ill company into which you are entered. And in his Epistle to Demetriades he hath these wordes: The ill name and report of some that behaue not themselues well, disgraceth and dishonoureth the holy purpose of virgins, and obscureth and blemisheth the glory of the Heauenly and Angel∣like family: who must bee plainely and peremptorily vrged and required either to marry, if they cannot containe, or to containe if they will not marry. To these we may adde q 1.1740 Epi∣phanius, who indeede maketh it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, a thing euill, and such as God will judge and punish, to forget, neglect, and not to performe a vowe made to God; but not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, a thing that casteth men into the condemnation of hell fire, and plun∣geth them into euerlasting destruction as to liue in adultery: Who defendeth, that it is better to descend to that state of life, which is lawfull and honourable, with one fault of breaking the vow passed to the contrary, and with teares of repentance to wash away the impurity of that one, fault of inconstancy, and so to bee saued, then to liue in sinne continually and so to perish. So that, though hee thinke it a fault for a man to promise a course of continencie to GOD by vowe, and not to performe it; yet hee thinketh it better for a man after this one fault committed, which may bee re∣pented of and forgiuen, to marry, then by liuing in continuall adultery, to adde one sinne vnto another, and to plunge himselfe into endlesse destruction. r 1.1741 Hugo de sancto victore maketh two constructions of the wordes of Saint Austine before alleadged. Whereof the one is, that hee speaketh of secret vowes, whereof the Church canne take no knowledge, because there is no witnesse of them; and that Saint Austines mea∣ning is, that mariages after such vowes, are to bee reputed good by the Church. The other is, that the Church in the time of Austine, allowed mariages, after a vowe made to the contrary, but that now the same Church (for consideratiōs her mouing) hath determined otherwise, and by her authority made them voyd. The for∣mer of these constructions is too weake and cannot be allowed. For, that Austine thinketh mariage is lawfull and good, after knowne vowes made to the contrary, it is euident by his Epistle to Bonifacius, whom he blameth for breaking his vow, whereof himselfe and Alipius were witnesses, and yet alloweth his mariage; as also for that in the place interpreted by Hugo, hee sheweth that some who were of another judge∣ment, (as indeed we finde s 1.1742 Innocentius Bishop of Rome to haue beene) dissolued mari∣ages after vowes made to the contrary, which they would not, nor could not haue done, if those vowes had beene altogether secret & vnknowne. Neither doth that hee saith in the 2^d place, any better avoyd the cleare euidence of Saint Austines judgment, then the first. For no difference of times, and conditions of men and thinges, canne so change the nature of vowes and mariages, as that a vowe at one time should make voyd an ensuing mariage, and not at another. Others therefore there bee, who goe about to avoide the euidence of the authorites of Austine and the Fathers brought to proue the validity of mariage, after vowes made to the contrary, by making a di∣stinction of vowes. These men therefore make 2. sorts of vowes: naming some simple,

and other solemne; and affirme that the latter do debarre men from mariage, and voyd their mariages if they do marry; but that the former do so debarre them from marry∣ing, that they cannot marry without some offence, and yet if they do, their mariage is good and not to be voyded. The Diuines of the Church of Rome (as t 1.1743 Caietane right∣ly noteth) differ much in opinion, about the difference of these vowes. For some of them thinke, that they differ in such sort, as that one of them is a promise onely, and the other a reall and actuall exhibition; & that the solemnity of a mans vow consisteth in a reall and actuall exhibition of himselfe, and putting himselfe into such an estate, as cannot stand with marriage. But this opinion (as hee rightly noteth) cannot bee true; seeing there is no such repugnance simply, and in the nature of the thinges, be∣tweene the Order of the holy Ministery and Marriage: as appeareth in that the Mi∣nisters of the Greeke Church (as tyed by noe vowe) are judged by all to liue in law∣full Mariage, notwithstanding their Ministery; and also in that the entering into noe religious Order, voydeth mariage, vnlesse it be approued by the Church. There is therefore (as he sheweth) another opinion, that it is not from different nature of the vowes, that the one voydeth mariage contracted, and the other doth not; but from the authority of the Church, that will haue mariage after a vowe made in one sort to bee voyd, and not in another The latter of these two opinions u 1.1744 Bellarmine sayth, Scotus, Paludanus and Caietane follow: and (as Panormitan reporteth) the whole schoole of Canonistes. And these do answere to the authorities of the Fathers, denying mariages to bee voyde after a solemne vowe, that they are to bee vnderstood to deny them to be voyde by Gods Law, and that there was no Law of man then passed to make them voyde, when they liued, that they knew of, and that therefore they might rightly bee of opinion in those times, that no vowes made insuing marriages to be voyde; seeing no vowes doe voyde marriages by GODS Law, and there was no law of man in their time making marriage voyde in respect of a vowe made to the contrary. Soe that euen in the judgment of many of the best learned of our Aduersaries themselues, Mariage after a vow is not voyd by Gods law, but only by the positiue Constitution of the Church, which will haue it so to bee. But against this positiue Constitution two things may be alleaged: first, that it began from that erroneous conceipt, which An∣stine refuteth in his booke do bono viduitatis: as it appeareth by the Epistle of Innocen∣tius, grounding his resolution for voyding of mariages in this kinde, vpon that verie reason of their beeing espoused to Christ, which haue vowed vnto GOD that they will liue continently. Secondly, that the Church hath no power simply to forbidde any man to marry, whom Gods Law leaueth free: seeing single life is one of the things that men may be counselled and advised vnto, but cannot be prescribed and imposed by commandement: that the Church may keepe men from mariage, if they will inioy some fauours, as wee see in Colledges and Societies, or that She may by her Censures punish such as vnaduisedly, and without just cause, shall breake their vow and promise, wee make no question: but that She may simply forbid any one to marry, how faulty and punishable soeuer otherwise, wee vtterly deny. Neyther is the reason that is brought to proue this power to bee in the Church of any force. For though it were graunted, that the Church by her authority for respectes best knowne to her selfe, may forbid a man to marry with some of those with whom God permitteth him to marry; yet wil it not follow, that she may absolutely forbid any one to cōtract mariage; seeing parents to whom it pertaineth to direct the choyce of their children, may forbid them to marry with such as they iustly dislike, and yet they may not simplie restraine them from marying. So that though it were yeelded, that the Church for causes best known to her selfe, may forbid mariage with moe then the Law of God doth: and that in such sort, as to void it, hauing greater power in this behalfe then naturall parents: yet would it not follow that shee may simplie forbid any one to marry, and voide his mariage if he do: whereas the Law of God voideth it not. And so vvee see, that as mariage after a solemne vow is not void by the Lavv of God, so the Church hath no power to make any law to make it voyd.

But because though it be so, yet it may seeme, that no man that had vowed the cōtrary

can marry without sinne, it remaineth, that wee proceede to consider and see whether there be any cases, wherein a man, that vowed the contrary, may marry without of∣fence to God. First, touching this poynt, the Schoole-men generally resolue, that the Pope may dispence with a Priest, Deacon, or Sub-deacon to marry though he haue sol∣lemnely vowed the contrary by entring into holy Orders; because the duty and bond of containing is not essentially annexed vnto holy Orders, but by the Canon of the Church onely. x 1.1745 Aquinas, and they of that time thought hee might not dispense with a Monke to marry. For that single life is essentially implyed in the profession of a Monke, and cannot be seperated from the same, as it may from the office and calling of a Priest. But since that time the generall opinion is that he may; because though single life cannot be separated from the profession of a Monke, yet he that is a Monke may be freed from that profession that he hath made, and cease to be a Monke. Neither is this onely the opinion of the Schooles, but the practise of Popes hath concurred with the same. For (as y 1.1746 Petrus Paludanus reporteth) a Pope reviued a Monke, who was next in blood, and to succeed in the Kingdome of Arragon, and dispensed with him to marry a wife for the good of that Kingdome. z 1.1747 Caietan sayth, the like is reported in the stories of Constantia, daughter and heire of Roger King of Sicily; who was a re∣ligious woman, and of fifty yeares of age, and yet by the dispensation of Caelestinus, was called out of the Cloyster, and permitted to marry with the Emperour Henry the Sixth, who begatte of her Fredericke the Second. And a 1.1748 Andreas Frisius reporteth out of the Histories of Polonia, that Casimirus, sonne of Mersistaus King of Polonia, was a Monke, and ordayned a Deacon, and yet when after the death of Mersistaus his father, there was none to sway the Scepter of that Kingdome, (whence many mis∣chiefes followed) Benedict the Ninth gaue him leaue to marry a wife, making him to leaue his Cloyster, his Vowes, and Deaconship, that so there might bee a succession in that Kingdome. So that there is no question, but that for a common good, men may bee dispensed with to marry, that haue solemnely vowed the contrary. Yea b 1.1749 Cardinall Caietan proceedeth further, and sayth, that the Pope may dispense with such to marry as haue vowed the contrary, not onely for the publike benefite & good of the whole, or Common-wealth, but for the greater good of the parties that haue so vowed. c 1.1750 Hugo de Sancto Victore disputing what vowes they are that must bee kept, pronounceth peremptorily, that the vowes of fooles are to be broken, and not kept; & defineth all those to bee the vowes of fooles, that either are made de malo, or de bono male: That is, for the doing of some ill, or for the doing of some good, but not well. For example, if one vow to kill a man, as they did in the Actes, that d 1.1751 bound themselues by a vowe neither to eate nor drinke till they had killed Paul; such a vow is de malo & malum; That is, it is for the doing of an euill thing, and it selfe is euill. In quo pri∣ma culpa fuit vovere, secunda foret, si impleretur, perficere: that is, in which kinde it was ill to vow, and it would be worse to performe: and therefore such vowes are not to be kept. Neither are they onely the vowes of fooles, that are made for the doing of some euill, but they also that are made for the doing of good, if they be not well and rightly made, are to bee reckoned among the vowes of fooles that are to be broken. Now that vow is not well made, which though it be touching something that is good, yet it is touching that which either one may not lawfully doe, or it is not expedient for him to doe: One may not doe, as if a woman vow continency without the con∣sent of her husband: Which it is not expedient to do, as if a man in fasting or any other worke purpose the doing of that which is aboue his strength and ability. All these vowes of fooles, as well of the second, as of the first kinde, may bee broken with∣out seeking any dispensation. For a dispensation is then needefull when the vow is good and advisedly made, and yet (in some particular case that may fall out) not to bee kept. In which case either the whole is remitted, or some other thing equiva∣lent is by way of commutation enjoyned. Wherefore let vs consider what is to bee thought of the vowes of single life, made by men of the Cleargy in latter times. Touching which e 1.1752 Andreas Frisius rightly noteth, that if the vowes of children in respect of their want of judgement, and the vowes of them that are constrayned, bee

little to be regarded, because they are not voluntary, there is little respect to bee had to those vowes of single life, that men made in latter times; seeing for the most part they desired not that they vowed, but some other things; in respect whereof they doubted not to vow that, they had neither purpose nor desire to performe. It was the hope of honour, wealth, ease, and a voluptuous life, that drew the most part of them to make promise of that which they neuer had any loue vnto, and some other of a better minde, finding that they could not otherwise enter into the Ministery of the Church, ranne into it, before they considered of the great waight of the burden which they put vpon their shoulders. It cannot be denyed (sayth f 1.1753 Cas∣sander) but that they did ill, and ensnared the consciences of men, who admitted young men not yet knowne to themselues, into the Ministery, and when they founde the burden of single life too heauy, which yet together with the honour of their cal∣ling they were forced to take vp, rather dissembled, and in a sort approued any impu∣rity in them, then they would remitte any thing of their owne law, or suffer them to marrie, without consideration of the difference of times, manners, and course of life; which haue made thinges not onely hard but impossible to bee performed, that were in the time of greater seuerity of discipline (as g 1.1754 Gerson rightly obserueth) not so hard. So that from this hard Law, and the violent vrging of it, many grieuous and most a∣bominable scandals in the Church haue proceeded. Wherefore seeing in the judg∣ment of the best Learned of the Fathers, mariages are good notwithstanding vowes made to the contrary, I thinke wee may boldly resolue, that howsoeuer they did ill, that made inconsiderate vowes of single life, which they neuer meant to performe; yet they did not ill, that out of consideration of their owne infirmity chose rather to marry, then continually to displease God by wallowing in all impurity. Hugo de san∣cto * 1.1755 victore bringeth in the secret thoughts of men bound with such vowes, solliciting and vrging them in this sort: Thou canst not resist so violent a passion, nor indure the heate of such burning desires, which haue proclaymed warre against thee, not for this day, or the next, or the third, or fourth alone, nor for the space of a month, or a yere; they will neuer leaue thee, they will not spare thee, they will giue thee no peace nor rest, so long as thou shalt liue vpon the earth, and carry about with thee this mortall flesh, they will alwayes oppresse thine intention, and auert thy cogitation, that thou shalt neuer bee able to lift vp thy minde with liberty, or thy will with purity vnto God. See therefore what thou doest: Thou loosest this world, and gainest not the other. It were better for thee at least to avoyde these present torments, then wholy to perish, and no where to see or enioy any good. God doth see that thou sufferest these thinges vnwillingly, that thou art drawne to that thou wouldst not, and giuest consent but by constraint. It may be he will haue respect to the violence of thy pas∣sion, that he will take pitty on thee, and pardon thy excesse; especially seeing the A∣postle saith, it is better to marry then to burne; and againe, for the auoyding of forni∣cation, Let euery one haue his owne wife; it is better to vse the lawfull remedy for this infirmity, then sinfully still to burne in lust. Where vnto hee bringeth in the in∣considerate votary, answering thus. The Lord knoweth that I cannot containe. When I thought I could, I willingly resolued so to doe, and would willingly still con∣tinue in the same will and resolution, if I could indure it. But I canne no longer a∣bide the heate of these burning desires. Wherefore I resolue to doe that which onely remaineth, which is to marry a wife, and so to suppott my weakenesse and infirmity: Sory truely, that I am forced to come downe from the heigth of that good I aspired vnto; but yet despaire not, because I descend to those thinges that are lawfull. I had rather, in inferiori bono saluari, quam in summo periclitari, that is, I had rather be saued, contayning my selfe within the limits of the lower degrees of good, then to indan∣ger my selfe in the highest: and if it be a fault that I descend, and performe not that I purposed, I will repent of this my fault, and by all due satisfaction pacifie and appease my God; nothing shall seeme hard vnto mee, so that I may avoyde this passion, and de∣cline this death, in quâ viuens teneor, that is, in which I am holden though I liue. These reasons he saith must needes preuaile, and cannot bee resisted; if mariage after

a vow made to the contrary be lawfull; if the Church may not dissolue it, and if sal∣uation may bee attained by men liuing in it, as I haue sufficiently proued they may: and therefore our Aduersaries rashly condemne such as in our time haue maried, not∣withstanding their vowes. If a man (saith i 1.1756 Frisius) shall vndertake to carry a bur∣den to a certaine place, and after finding his inability to performe it, shall desire to be excused, and that some lighter burden may be laid vpon him, hee is much better to be allowed of, then hee that goeth on in that hee vndertooke, and fainting by the way hurteth himselfe, and disappointeth him that set him on worke: and in like manner hee is rather to bee approued, that prayeth to bee eased of the ouer-heauy burden of single life, and resolueth to liue honestly in mariage, then hee that will still liue single, though neuer so wickedly, whatsoeuer Pighius and Eckius prate to the contrary: who feare not to preferre a Priest that liueth in adultery, before him that marieth a wife. Besides all this which hath beene said, seeing single life is not simply good, and to bee desired, but respectiuely to certaine endes, therefore they that chose to liue single, & intended not the glory of GOD, the good of his Church, and the more opportuni∣ties of doing good without distraction, did not make any lawfull vow; seeing a vow must bee of that which is good, and properly of the better good; and consequently were not tyed to the keeping of it; it being resolued, that the vowes of fooles, that is, such as are made without respect to the right end, without due consideration of their owne strength, and a free and voluntary purpose of performing that they pro∣mise, are not to bee kept. Whence it will follow, that the most part of the vowes men made in latter times, not intending the right end, are not to be kept.

CHAP. 58.

Of Digamie, and what kinde of it, it is that debarreth men from entering into the Ministery.

HITHERTO wee haue proued the lawfulnesse of Ministers mariage, and sufficiently shewed that no Law of GOD or the Church forbiddeth it, and that no rash and inconsiderate vowe hindereth it, if men cannot containe: Now let vs proceede to see, whether they bee any more restrayned and li∣mited in their mariage then other men. Some there bee who thinke they are, and teach, that they must marry but once onely; whereas other may lawfully marrie as of∣ten as they please. And further, they suppose, that if any man haue beene twice ma∣ried, or haue maried a Widow, hee may not beé admitted into the Ministery. The ground of which conceit is that of the Apostle, where hee saith: a 1.1757 A Bishop must be the husband of one wife: But the meaning of the Apostle is, that he, who is to be chosen a Bishoppe, must not haue more wiues then one at one time. So that the Digamie the Apostle condemneth is not the hauing of two or more wiues successiuely, but the hauing of more then one at the same time. Of which it is that b 1.1758 Iustine Martyr speaketh, when expounding that saying of our Sauiour: Hee that marieth her that is for saken, committeth adultery, hee concludeth that they, who according to mans lawe runne into Digamies, by our Masters judgement are found to bee sinners. And there∣fore c 1.1759 Chrysostome expoundeth the text of the Apostle as meant of Polygamy, which is the hauing of many wiues at once. His wordes are these: The Apostle saith not this as making a Law, that none without a wife may bee made a Bishoppe, but ap∣pointing a measure of that matter. For it was lawfull for the Iewes to be joyned in the second mariage, and to haue two wiues at once. Thus doth hee interpret the Apostles words, though he were not ignorant that some followed another interpretation. And therefore d 1.1760 Bellarmine vntruely denyeth, that any of the Ancient followed this inter∣pretation, but Theodoret. And the e 1.1761 Rhemistes confesse that Chrysostome so interpre∣teth them, but they say, that writing vpon Titus hee followeth the other interpreta∣tion; but surely it were strange if hee should so soone forget himselfe. Let vs heare therefore what he saith, that so we may the better discerne whether he dissent from

himselfe, and interpret the wordes of the Apostle to Titus as they would haue him, or not. His wordes are these: The Apostle purposeth vtterly to stoppe the mouthes of heretickes which condemne marriage; shewing that marriage is without fault, and so precious, that with it a man may bee preferred euen to the holy seate and chaire; of a Bishoppe. Also with this saying hee chastizeth vnchast persons, while he suffereth them not after their second mariage to bee taken to the gouernment of the Church. For hee which is found not to haue kept his beneuolence towardes his wife, which is gone from him, how should hee bee a good teacher of the Church? Nay rather to vvhat crimes shall hee not daily bee subiect? for you all knovv, that although by the Lavves, such second Mariages are permitted, yet that thing is open to many accusa∣tions. Therefore he will haue the Bishop to giue no occasion to them that are vnder him. These are the wordes of Chrysostome. Neither can any man doubt, that will advi∣sedly consider them, but that hee speaketh of a second mariage while the first wife li∣ueth, but is gone away (for so are the wordes, and not defunct or dead, as our Adver∣saries translate for their advantage,) and not of a second mariage after the death of the first wife. For if he did, he would not condemne them that marrie the second time as vnchaste and wanton, or make them subject to any crimes. With Chrysostome agreeth

Theodoret: his wordes are these; f 1.1762 The preaching then beganne, and neither did the Gentiles exercise Virginity, nor the Iewes admit it, for they esteemed the procreati∣on of children to be a blessing. And therefore for as much as at that time they were not easily to bee found which exercised continencie, of such as had maryed Wiues he commandeth them to be ordayned which had honoured Temperancie. And con∣cerning that saying, the husband of one Wife, I thinke certaine men haue saide well. For of olde time both Greekes and Iewes were wont to be maryed to two, three, or more wiues at once. And euen now when the Imperiall Lawes forbid men to marry two Wiues at one time, they haue to doe with Concubines and Harlots. They haue saide therefore that the holy Apostle sayth, that he that dwelleth honestly with one onely Wife is worthy to bee ordained a Bishoppe. For, say they, hee doth not reject the second mariage, who hath often commaunded that it should be vsed. For a woman (sayth he) is bound by the Law, so long as her husband liueth; but if her hus∣band be dead, she is free, that she may marry with whom shee will, onely in the Lord, &c. For if he haue thrust away his Wife, and be joyned to another, hee is worthie to bee reprehended, and is justly subject to accusation: but if force of death haue dis∣joyned his first Wife, and Nature vrging, haue compelled him to bee joyned to a second Wife, his second mariage is proceeded not of his will, but of casualty. These things considered (saith Theodoret) I admit the interpretation of those which haue so vnderstood the place. Neither doe Chrysostome and g 1.1763 Theodoret only thus inter∣pret the wordes of the Apostle, but Theophylact also. The Apostle (saith he) prescri∣beth, that he who is to bee chosen a Bishop, must bee the husband of one Wife, be∣cause of the Iewes to whom Polygamy was permitted, that is, to joyne mariage with many together. And Hierome maketh mention of this Interpretation. The Apostle * 1.1764 (saith he) was of the Iewes, and the first Church of Christ was gathered out of the remaines of Israell. He knew it was permitted by the Law, and ordinary among the people, by the example of the Patriarches and Moses, to begette children of many Wiues: vvhich thing also vvas permitted vnto the Priests, and therefore hee com∣maunded that the Priests of the Church should not take vnto themselues the like li∣berty, nor haue tvvo or three vviues at once: but that they should haue one only vvife at one time. And though he rather incline to another interpretation; yet in his Com∣mentary vpon Titus, hee mentioneth this againe, vvithout any signification of dislike, and saith, We must not thinke that euery one that hath beene but once maried, is bet∣ter then hee that hath beene tvvice maried, but that (indeed) hee may better exhort to one onely mariage, and continencie, that can bring forth his ovvne example in teach∣ing. For other vvise if a young man marry a vvife, & shee dye vvithin a little vvhile after, & after her he marry a second, vvhich vvithin a short time hee looseth also, and then continue continent, hee is to be preferred before him that liueth vvith one vvife

till his olde age. So that often-times, if he that hath beene but once maried, be prefer∣red

before him that hath beene tvvice maried, his happinesse is chosen rather then his vvill. And as sundry great and vvorthie Divines did soe interprete the Apostles vvords as to condemne Polygamie, and not to exclude from the Ministery mentvvice maried; so the practise vvas according there-vnto. For hovv-soeuer many vrged the other Construction of the Apostles vvordes, and excluded men tvvice maried from the holy Ministery; yet others did not so. And therefore Tertullian, vvho vvas a Montanist, and condemned second mariage, in his booke of Monogamie, interpreting the Apostles vvords, of such as had maried the second vvife, & speaking bitterly against the Catho∣likes of those times, saith: the Holy Ghost fore-savv there should come some that should affirme all things to be lawfull for Bishops. For (sayth he) how many are there among you that gouerne the Church, which haue maried the second time: insulting against the Apostles, and not blushing when these vvords are read vnder them. l 1.1765 Hie∣rome vvas of opinion, that men twice maried might bee chosen to be Bishops or Pres∣byters, if they maried both, or one of their vviues before they vvere baptized. Which vvas the case of very manie in those times: seeing, (besides those who vvere conuer∣ted from Paganisme) manie that were borne of Christian parents put off their baptisme along time. So that some were elected Bishops before they were baptized, as we read of m 1.1766 Ambrose. Hereupon he saith, the nūber of such as had bin twice maried, & yet vvere admitted into the holy Ministerie, vvas exceeding great. His vvords are these: All the world is full of these Ordinations: I speake not of Presbyters, nor those of inferiour degrees: I come to Bishops, whom if I shall go about particularly to name, I shall muster together soe great a nūber as will exceed the multitudes of them that were at the Councell of Ariminum. And it appeareth by the Epistle of n 1.1767 Innocentius to the Bishops of Macedonia, that they thought as Hierome did: that such as vvere not twice maried after Baptisme might be admited into the Ministery, hovv often soeuer they had beene maried before. It is true that Innocentius vvas of another minde, and o 1.1768 Austine likewise: But Hierome vvho is vvont to spare no man that crosseth his conceipt, calleth them Hypocrites, and telleth them that they are like the Scribes and Pharizees, that did straine at a Gnat and swallow a Camell that tithed Mint and Annis-seede, but let passe the weightier things of the Lawe: because they admitted such into the Ministery, as had kept Harlots before their Baptisme, and yet reiected such as had beene maried, for that sinne is washed away in Baptisme, and nothing else. Rem nouam audio (sayth hee) quia pecca∣tum non non fuit, in peccatum reputabitur. That is, it is a new and strange thing that I heare, because it was no sinne to haue a vvife, therefore it shall be reputed for a fault and sin. Whoredome, Impiety against God, parricide, incest, and the sin against Nature, are purged and washed away in the Baptisme of Christ: but this, that a man hath had a vvife, sticketh fast vnto him still. So are the filthy stewes preferred before the honou∣rable and vndefiled mariage-bed. Let the Pagans heare vvhat the Haruestes of the Church are, out of which our Barnes are filled. Let the Cathecumens (who are not yet baptized) heare likewise, and let them take heed they marry no wiues before baptisme, neither enter into the state of honest mariage, but let them giue themselues to all im∣purities: only let them take heed of the name of mariage, least after they shall beleeue in Christ, this may prejudice them, that sometimes they had not concubines, nor Har∣lots, but lawfull vviues. Zonaras in his exposition of the Canons of the Apostles, fol∣loweth the Opinion of Hierome, and so doth Sedulius, Scotus, and Anselme, as p 1.1769 Sixtus, Senensis reporteth. And this opinion vvas very generall, as it appeareth by q 1.1770 Ambrose, who though he disliketh it, yet saith exceeding many did approue it.

So that to resolue this point: wee see some vnderstood the words of the Apostle as ment against Polygamie only, or the hauing of many wiues at once, and not successiuely: and that accordingly many were permitted to gouerne the Church that hadbin twice maried: & that of them that vnderstood the words of the Apostle, as ment of the not hauing of more wiues then one successiuely: some excluded only such as had more thē one wife after baptisme: others, all that had bin twice maried, either before or after. But we shall find that they who generally excluded all them, that had bin twice maried fr•…•…

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

entring into the Ministery, had no good reason leading them so to doe. For neither is he alwaies better, that hath beene but once maried, then he that hath beene twice ma∣ried, as I haue shewed out of Hierome; neither canne he alwayes better exhort to con∣tinence; for how canne hee exhort others to liue continently, and not to marry the second time, or after the death of their wiues, that himselfe in his widow-hood com∣mitted Adultery, or liued as a whore-monger? seeing the Apostle willeth both men and women, rather to marry the second, third, or fourth time, then to burne in lust, and to commit adultery or fornication. There is therefore a third reason yeelded of this pretended prohibition of marying a second wife, after the death of the first: which is mysticall and taken from a kinde of Sacramentall signification, which must be found in them, that are to be admitted into the holy Ministery of the Church. And surely either this reason must preuaile, or none: for if it were some morall defect and imperfection, that debarreth men twice maried from entering into the Ministery; or for that it is a signe of incontinency to haue beene twice maried; it might be washed away in Baptisme, as well as Whoredome, and other Crimes, which yet these men deny. Let vs see therefore what force there is in this Reason of mysticall significa∣tion. r 1.1771 The mariage of the Fathers in the time of the old Law (saith Saint Augu∣stine) by their many wiues, expressed and figured those Churches, out of the many Nations, People and Kinreds, of the world, that were to ioyne themselues vnto Christ in Spirituall mariage at his comming: but the mariage of Christians, figureth special∣ly that perfect vnity that shall bee in Heauen, of all faithfull and holy ones, both with Christ, and amongst themselues. This is Augustines reason, and this the s 1.1772 Schoole-men vrge. But it is strange that men of Learning should stand so confidently vpon so weake a ground. For if the expressing of the vnity betweene Christ and the Church his Spou•…•…e, by the vndeuided vnity that is betweene one man and one woman, be ne∣cessarily required in him that is to be chosen a Bishop or Presbyter; then of necessity, every one that desireth to be a Bishop or Presbyter, must marry a wife, that so his ma∣riage may expresse the Spirituall mariage betweene Christ, and the Church. Nay, seeing Christ neuer withdraweth himselfe from his Church, but daily begetteth sons and daughters of her vnto God; each Bishop must haue a wife, and company with her continually; that so by the matrimoniall vnity that is betweene him and his wife, hee may expresse the vnity, that is betweene Christ and the Church. Their answere hereunto is, that as Christ is a Husband, so hee is a Virgin; and that therefore a man may beare an expresse resemblance and representation of Christ, by Virginity, as well as by Mariage, So that it sufficeth if either hee bee a Virgin, or haue beene but once maried, that is to be thought capable of Ecclesiasticall honour. But this answere vvill not serue the turne: For though a man bee no Virgin, (as t 1.1773 Hierome professed of him∣selfe, that hee vvas not; and as it is euident Augustine vvas not, in that u 1.1774 he had chil∣dren borne vnto him:) yet it is not necessary, in the iudgement of our Aduersaries, that such a one should marry a vvife, to make himselfe capable of Ecclesiasticall ho∣nour. Whence it followeth, that there is no necessity of Representing either the Virginity of Christ, or his matrimoniall Coniunction vvith the Church, by the Vir∣ginity or mariage of such, as are to be admitted into the holy Ministery. Besides this, it is not enough to expresse the Vnity betweene Christ and the Church, that a man marry but one vvife; but it is required also, that he defile not himselfe, by being ioy∣ned vnto harlots; but that he keepe himselfe intirely to his owne vvife. For so it is, betweene Christ and his Church; vvho not onely hath no other wife or spouse, but the Church of the faithfull; but also so intirely loueth her, that hee giueth no part of his loue to any stranger. So that hee, that marying but once, hath either before or after such mariage, committed adultery or fornication, doth not expresse the vnity that is betweene Christ and the Church. And yet our Aduersaries, that are so peremptorie against such as haue beene more then once maried, set open the doores to let in both Whoremongers and Adulterers into the Church, and house of God. And therefore the wordes of * 1.1775 Hierome may rightly be applyed vnto them. That they tithe Mint and Annisseed, and omitte the weightier things of the Law; & that they straine at a Gnat

and swallow a Camell, rejecting them as vnworthy that haue not offended, and ad∣mitting such as haue; justifying the sinner, and condemning the Innocent. But that wee may perceiue the weakenesse of this mysticall Reason, wee must obserue that our adversaries admit none into the Ministery that haue beene maried, vnlesse either their wiues bee dead, or by consent of their wiues they resolue to containe, renoun∣cing that power and interest the man hath ouer the body of his wife; and so (indeed) ceasing to bee husbands. So that if their Presbyters, and other Cleargy-men haue resemblance of CHRISTS mariage with the Church in respect of their mariage, it is while they are no Cleargy-men, but meere Laymen. Now how-soeuer it may be required of them that are to bee admitted into the Ministery, that they haue not beene scandalous before their enterance: yet I thinke it is not required, that they haue beene cleare representations or figures of CHRIST; but this is to bee looked for af∣terwardes, when they supply his place. Wherefore wee may assure our selues that this was not the reason that moued those to debarre men twice maryed, from entering into the Ministery that so did: but partly a mis-vnderstanding of the Apostles words; partly for that as x 1.1776 Duarenus noteth, though often marying bee permitted, both by Gods Law and mans Law: yet the olde Fathers did not greatly like it, as arguing im∣moderate incontinency in them that so doe.

Whereupon we shall finde that in auncient times they were all put to penance that maryed the 2^d time, though Lay-men, and neuer intending to enter into the Ministery. The wordes of the y 1.1777 Councell of Neocaesarea are these: Concerning such as often take them wiues, and such as are often marryed, it is ordered that they shall obserue and fulfill the time of the penance which is prescribed vnto them: yet so as that their conversation and faith may shorten the time. And the same Councell forbiddeth a Presbyter to bee present at the mariage-feast of them that are the second time maryed; seeing it is prescribed, that they must bee put to Penance that marry the second time. And ask∣eth what Presbyter that is, that will for a mariage-feast consent to such mariages. And z 1.1778 another Canon forbiddeth such mariages to be blessed in the Church. a 1.1779 The coun∣cell of Laodicea provideth in this sort, touching them that marry the second time: Concerning them that (according to the Ecclesiasticall Rule) are freely and lawfully joyned in the second mariage, and haue not secretly so joyned them-selues: It is fit that for some short time they giue them-selues to prayer and fasting: which being past, by a kinde of Indulgence, they may be restored to the Communion. The b 1.1780 Au∣thor of the vnperfect worke, that goeth vnder the name of Chrysostome, proceedeth a little farther in this sort: The Apostles (saith he) commanded to enter into the second mariage for the avoyding of fornication. For according to the precept of the Apostle, it is lawfull to take a second wife: but according to the rule and prescription of Trueth it is (indeed) Fornication. This conceipt grew so farre, that the Councel of c 1.1781 Nice was forced to make a Canon that the Catharists should not be receiued into the fellowship of the Church, vnlesse they would communicate with such as fell in the time of perse∣cution, & with such as had beene twice maryed: whereby it appeareth that some reje∣cted them, as though they might not haue beene receiued into the Church; no not after Penance.

So that to conclude this point touching Digamie, it is not the hauing of more wiues than one successiuely, that the Apostle condemneth: but the hauing of more wiues at once. Three reasons are brought by our Adversaries to proue the contrary: but they will be found too weake if we examine them. The first is, that Polygamie, or the hauing of many wiues at once, was not in vse in the Apostles time, & that therfore the Apostle had no reason to forbid it: but this may easily be refuted by good authorities, Your Ma∣sters (saith d 1.1782 Iustine Martyr speaking to the Iewes) euen to this day, suffer euery one of you to haue foure or fiue wiues: & in his e 1.1783 Apologie he vnderstandeth by Digamie, the ha∣uing of more wiues then one at one time, & not successiuely: for hee saith, they which according to mans Law doe enter into Digamie or second mariages, are sinners, ac∣cording to the Doctrine of our Teacher and Master. And Theodoret sayth: f 1.1784 In former times both Iewes and Gentiles tooke vnto them in mariage many wiues.

Their second reason is this. The Apostle requireth that a widdow must haue beene the wife of one husband: and his meaning must needes bee, that she must not haue had more husbands then one successiuely. Therefore when hee prescribeth, that a Bi∣shop must be the husband of one wife, his meaning is, that hee must not haue had more then one wife successiuely, the forme of speach being the same. That when he speaketh of widdowes hee meaneth that they must not haue had more husbands then one suc∣cessiuely, they proue, because howsoeuer Men haue sometimes had more wiues then one, at the same time; yet Women neuer had more husbands: and g 1.1785 hereupon they charge vs, with intollerable impudencie, violent wresting of the Scriptures; and bringing such an interpretation of the Apostles words, as neuer came into any wise∣mans cogitation before, when wee say, hee repelleth such from entering into the order of widdowes, as haue had two husbands at once, and not such as haue beene twice maried. But if it please them to giue vs leaue, wee will shew them, that they are too violent, and say they know not what. For wee thinke, nay we know it hath bene heard of, that a woman should haue two husbands at one time: yea that both a∣mongst Iewes and Gentiles in former times women forsaking their husbands, or forsa∣ken of them without iust cause, haue married againe: which the Apostle might iust∣ly condemne, and debarre such as had so done, from entring into the order, and ranke of sacred Widdowes. Neither is it hard to shew, that our interpretation hath beene thought of, and approued, more then a thousand yeares agoe, by men of as great wise∣dome, as our great maisters that thus insult ouer vs. For Theodoret vpon these very words of the Apostle, writeth thus. Hereof also, it is manifest that he reiecteth not se∣cond mariages, but decreeth that they liue chastly in matrimony: for hee which before hath established the secōd mariage by law, hath not here forbidden her which hath bin twice mar∣ried to obtaine bodily reliefe. And h 1.1786 Theophilact likewise sayth: The Apostle requireth Monogamie of her, that is to be admitted into the company of widdowes: that is, that shee haue beene coupled but to one husband at once, as a signe of honesty, chastity and good man∣ners. Concerning these Widdowes, two things are to be considered. First, hovv and in what sort they were imployed by the Church. Secondly, how farre fortth they were tyed not to leaue the Church-seruice and to marryagaine. Touching their ser∣uice, it was first and principally, about women that were to be baptized, for their in∣struction and the addressing of them-selues to that Sacrament and the sacred Rites of the Church accompanying the same: as appeareth by the i 1.1787 Constitutions of Clemens, it being more fitte for them, to haue priuate and often accesse vnto them, then for men. Which thing also k 1.1788 Epiphanius sheweth, calling them by the name of Diaconesses. Se∣condly, the attending, and taking care of the sicke and impotent. Touching the second point, wee suppose that these widdowes, (being of great Age, destitute of all outward supportes, seeking reliefe of the Church, and dedicating themselues to the seruice thereof) did by this very act, professe and make knowne their purpose of continuing in that estate of Widdowhood, and performing such seruice, as to them any way ap∣pertained. And therefore the Apostle condemneth them, that after such profession made, waxed wanton against Christ, sought to put themselues out of the holy Mini∣stery & seruice they had dedicated themselues vnto, & to returne to Secular courses of life againe. These according to the iudgment of l 1.1789 Epiphanius were subiect to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, just dislike and blame, and were to be condemned for their leuity, and incon∣stancie; but not to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to the condemnation of eternall death and destructi∣on, if declining adultery and other like vncleanenesse, they choose rather to marrie, then to defile themselues with such impurities. And m 1.1790 Augustine resolueth that their marriage, (notwithhanding any profession they seeme to haue made to the con∣trary) is not to be condemned as euill, or to be dissolued: but that onely their breach of promise made to God and his Church and their falling from their purpose, is to bee disliked and condemned. Thus do these learned and holy Fathers resolue, touching such widdowes as the Apostle speaketh of. And Peter Lumbard vpon these words of the Apostle in like sort, adding: that they breake their first faith euen that they pro∣fessed in baptisme, in that violating so solemne a promise, and turning away so scanda∣lously

from the calling they had voluntarily put themselues into, they seeme to forget and cast from them the very faith and profession of Christians. Soe that it is cleare, and not denyed by vs, that these widdowes made a kinde of promise and profession of continuing in widdow-hood, when they were admitted to the Almes and seruice of the Church: and that it was a fault not to be excused, to shew themselues inconstant in this respect: yet such was the tendernesse of the Church in auncient times, knowing the weakenesse of the sexe, as not to cast any snares vpon them or to tye them by the bond of any solemne benediction or consecration to a necessity of continuing in such an estate. but shee thought good to leaue them to their owne diliberations and reso∣lutions: so that, though they were wont to putte a kinde of sacred vaile on such vir∣gins, as voluntarily deuoted themselues to God; yet n 1.1791 Gelasius forbiddeth any Bi∣shoppe to attempt any such thing, as the vailing of a widdow: If widdowes (sayth hee) out of the mutability of their mindes, hauing made a kinde of profession of not marrying againe, shall returne to marriage, it shall be at their perill in what sort they will seeke to pacifie God: seeing (according to the saying of the Apostle) they haue broken their first faith. For as (if haply they could not containe, according to the Apostle) they were no way forbidden to marry; so hauing deliberated with themselues so to do, they ought to keepe their promise of continent liuing made to God, but wee ought not to cast any snare vpon such, but onely to exhort them to do that which is fit, by the consideration of the eternall rewards and punishments, that God hath prepared for men, according to their workes, that soe wee may cleare our selues and make knowne what wee thinke, and they may bee left to giue an accompt of that they doe, knowing best their owne intention. This was the Decree of this Pope, and some other were of the same iudgment who admitted widdowes to no benediction, but that of Penitencie: nor suffered no other vayle but the vayle of penitents to bee put vpon them. But it o 1.1792 seemeth this course was not holden afterwards: succeeding Bishops degenerating from the wise and discreet moderation of their Godly predecessors, and laying heauier burthens on mens shoulders then was fit.

CHAP. 59.

Of the maintainance of Ministers.

HAuing briefely run through all those things that concerne the different de∣grees, orders and callings of them Almighty God employeth in the Ministe∣ry of holy things: it remaineth, that in the last place I come to speake of the maintainance of them. That an honourable intertainement is due to the Mini∣sters of God, and disposers of his heauenly Treasures, there neithes is, nor can bee any doubt: The light of Nature, the sence of Piety and the Presidents of the Iewes and Gentiles before Christ, and all Christian Kingdomes, Nations, and People since, most clearely conuincing it. a 1.1793 Who goeth a warre-fare at any time (sayth the Apostle) at his owne charge? who dresseth a Vineyeard and tasteth not of the fruite of it? Who attendeth and feedeth a flocke, and eateth not of the milke of it? It is an Axiome most cleare and eui∣dent in the light of Nature, that The labourer is worthy of his hire, and the detaining of his wages is one of the sinnes that crye so loud, that he that sitteth in heauen heareth them. If this bee true in them that are imployed in any seruice, businesse or worke in the world, for the good of men; how much more in respect of them, that labour to procure their Spirituall and eternall good? b 1.1794 It is a small thing (sayth the Apostle) that we should reape your carnall things that haue sowne vnto you spirituall things: c 1.1795 therefore let him that is instructed in the word, make him that instructed him partaker of all his goods The Galathians thought them-selues so much bound to the blessed Apostle Saint PAVLE (by whose ministerie they were conuerted from Idolatry to serue the true and liuing GOD) that d 1.1796 they would haue plucked out their eyes, to haue done him good: perswading themselues, they were noe way able to make recompence vnto him, for all the good hee had done vnto them. And the Apostle

is bold to tell Philemon, ^• that he oweth himselfe vnto him. This thing is so cleare and * 1.1797 evident, that I suppose no man will contradict any Part of that which hath been said: yet notwithstanding it is not to bee dissembled, that Wickliffe and some others, let fall some inconsiderate speeches, out of an immoderate dislike of the abuse of things in the Romane Church: wherein all piety, care of Religion, and performance of pastorall du∣ties being neglected by the most part of men: nothing was sought after, but riches, honour, and greatnesse, accompanyed with excessiue and riotous expences, to the great scandall of the World. For the opinion of f 1.1798 Wickliffe was, that the Ministers of the Church ought to make no such claime to tithes, possessions, or lands, or any other re∣ward of their labours, as may be pleadable in any temporall court of Iustice, as each man doth to the things that are come to him by inheritance from his Fathers, or by his owne purchase, but that they should content themselues with the title of originall Iustice; by vertue whereof, that is due to euery good man that is fitting to him, & an∣swerableto his condition, merite, and worthinesse. This opinion of Wickliffe proceeded from a dislike of some-thing he conceiued to be amisse, but knew not how to reforme. And the censure of Gerson vpon this and the like Articles was right and good, that they who proposed them, had cause of offence at many abuses, by them reprehended: but that to goe about to reforme things out of order by such a course as those Ar∣ticles imported, was to east out one Deuill by another: where-vpon hee sheweth, that a golden meane is to bee followed, betweene that immoderate flattery, that gaue too much to the Pope and his Cleargy, and caused them to forget that they were men, and to encroach vpon the right and possession of all other men; and that vile detraction, that diminisheth the honour and reputation; and taketh away the re∣ward of worth and learning, to the ruine of the Church, and bringing in of all Barba∣risme and confusion. Wee say therefore, that this position is to be rejected, as contrary to the cleare evidence of Heauenly Trueth, the light of Nature, and the practise and Iudgement of all the world; whether wee respect Iewes, Pagans, or Christians. For is it so, (the Apostle himselfe disputing and determining the case) that the Ministers of God, by the rules of the Law of Nature, & that giuen by Moyses, haue more right to a maintenance, fitting to their worth and callings, than the labou∣rer hath to his hyre? And are not all Christian Princes and Magistrates bound, to force by their Lawes such as with-holde that which is thus due? Nay, may not the Church by her censures make them that are instructed to minister out of their tempo∣rall goods to such as instruct them? Surely there is no doubt but they may. Which duety being done, the Minister hath as good right by Positiue Law, to that mainte∣nance that is fitting for him; and may as lawfully sue for it in any court of Mundane Iustice, as any other may for that which by any right of this World pertaineth to him. This (I ihinke) will not bee much gainsaide: For all men will graunt, that a compe∣tencie of maintenance is due by the prescript of Gods Law, and the Law of Nature: and that Princes must take order that it be yeelded. But the onely thing that is que∣stionable▪ is, whether God haue determined of this competencie, or left the judgment & determining thereof vnto men.

In the Olde Law, himselfe from Heauen declared what hee thought to bee a fitte al∣lowance for his seruants the Priests and Leuites; which wee shall finde not to haue beene sparing, but very liberall. For, besides the Tenths of all the things that the rest of the Tribes possessed and enjoyed, he gaue them Cities to dwell in, and fields adjoy∣ning to the same. Touching Tithes in the booke of Leviticus it is thus written; h 1.1799 All the Tithe of the Land, both of the seed of the ground, and of the fruite of the Trees, is the Lords, it is holy to the Lord: and of euery Tithe of Bullocke, and of Sheepe, and of all that goeth vnder the rod, the Tenth shall be holy vnto the Lord. And as God prescribed and commaunded this Rent of the Tenth to be payde vnto him out of all that men posses∣sed by any right deriued frō him; so by his Prophets he did exact it whē it was vnpaid. i 1.1800 Bring (saith the Lord of Hosts by his Prophet Malachie) all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meate in my house, and proue me now herewith, if I will not open the win∣dowes of Heauen vnto you, and powre you out a blessing without measure: I will rebuke

the deuourer for your sakes, and hee shall not destroy the fruit of the ground, neither shall your vine bee barren in the field, saith the Lord of Hostes; and all Nations shall call you blessed, for you shall bee a pleasant Land. And touching Cities for the Priests and Le∣vites to dwell in; God spake vnto Moses his seruant in this sort: k 1.1801 Commaund the children of Israel, that they giue vnto the Leuites of the Inheritance of their possession, Cities to dwell in: Yee shall giue also to the Leuites, the Suburbs of the Cities round a∣bout them; so they shall haue Cities to dwell in, and their Suburbs shal be for their Cattell, anà for their substance, and for all their Beasts: and the Suburbs of the Cities which ye shall giue vnto the Leuites, from the wall of the Citie outward, shall be a thousand Cubites round about: These Cities, by Gods owne appointment, were fortie and eight. Be∣sides this standing Rent of Tithes, which God commaunded his people to pay vnto the Priests and Leuites, and these Cities, which they were to giue them to dwell in; hee made them yet a more plentifull and ample allowance out of his owne immedi∣ate Reuenue, and the presents that were daily brought vnto him. For whereas the people (after they were entred into the land of Promise) stood bound to make some acknowledgment, that they had receiued all of Gods hands, & therefore were to giue vnto him, the best, first, and principall of all that they were blessed with, euen the first of the fruits they gathered; The Leuites by Gods appointment had their parts in these first-fruits: Nay, as wee may reade in the booke of Numbers, God gaue these first-fruits which the people offered to him, to the Priests, saying vnto Aaron, & his sonnes, l 1.1802 All the fat of the oyle, and all the fat of the wine, and of the wheat, which they shall offer vnto the Lord for their first fruits, I haue giuen them vnto thee: and the first ripe of all that is in their Land, which they shall bring vnto the Lord, shall be thine. This Al∣lowance did God make them, out of his set Reuenue of first fruites; and yet was not vnmindfull of them, when any other presents were brought vnto him. So that they, m 1.1803 Who attended at the Altar, were (indeede) partakers of the Altar. Thus wee see in what sort God did prouide for his seruants the Priestes & Leuites, in the time of the Lawe.

Wherefore now it remaineth, that, passing by that Addition, that was out of those Offerings, which were proper to those times, we come to see, whether the same kind of prouision by Tithes (which GOD then prescribed) remaine still in force, by Vertue of any Lawe of GOD, or not. Here wee shall find a great and maine Con∣trouersie betweene the Schoole-men and the Canonists. For the Schoole-men (for the most part, nay all, if we may beleeue n 1.1804 Bellarmine) doe thinke, that Tithes are not due since the comming of CHRIST, by any Lawe of GOD or Nature. The Ca∣nonists resolue the contrarie, and are so peremptory in their opinion, that they doe (almost) condemne such of Heresie, as thinke otherwise. o 1.1805 Aquinas one of the grea∣test Rabbins amongst the Schoole-men, determineth the Question in this sort. The Precept concerning the paying of Tithes in the time of the old Law, was partly Mo∣rall, Naturall, and Perpetuall; & partly Iudiciall, applyed to the condition of that peo∣ple, & so to continue no longer by force of Gods prescription, then that state should continue. In that it prescribed a sufficient, large, and honourable maintenance, to bee yeelded to them that attended the holy things of God, it was Naturall and Morall, and is to continue for euer; but in that it prescribed such a proportion, as a fit and compe∣tent maintenance, namely the Tenth part out of euery mans increase, it was not Natu∣rall, but Iudiciall, applyed & fitted to the condition of that people. For the whole Na∣tion of the Iewes being diuided into thirteene Tribes, and the Tribe of Leui, that serued at the Altar and in the Temple, hauing no Inheritance or Possession amongst the rest, but God himselfe being the inheritance of them of that Tribe, that they might haue in some proportionable sort, as good an estate of maintenance as any of the rest, hee gaue vnto them the Tenth of all that the rest had. If it bee said, they were not the Tenth part of the people, but the Thirteenth; and that therefore to make them equall with the rest, GOD should haue giuen them the Thirteenth part one∣ly, and not the Tenth: hee answereth, that therefore GOD gaue them something more then each of the rest of the Tribes had; First, for that he knew all that he allowed

them would not be duly and exactly payd vnto them, but that they should loose some part of that which he meant vnto thē: which by this ouerplus of Allowance, he would make vppe vnto them againe. Secondly, for that hee would haue their allowance to be something better then that which others had, they being more neare vnto him then the rest. Thus doth he make the particular determination of the tenth, to bee judiciall, fitted to the condition of that people; and neither Morall nor Ceremoniall: & yet sayth, that as all things that were done in that state, and by that people, figured some thing that was afterward to come to passe: so this paying of the tenth of that each man possessed, though it were a iudiciall constitution, and not ceremoniall, yet figured the perfecting of all things by Christ the Sonne of God. For in that the number of ten, is the vttermost extent and perfection of numbers, beyond which no man goeth in numbring; by giuing the tenth part (that signifieth perfection) to God, and keeping nine (expressing imperfection) to themselues, they professed their own wants, defects, and imperfections, and the desire, hope and expectation they had, that God, (in whom onely perfection is found) would in his good time perfect all things by Christ his Sonne. How aptly these things are deliuered by THOMAS let the Reader iudge. There are other that likewise insist on the number of ten, as being the vtter∣most extent of number, but to another purpose. For they say, in that the people of God gaue vnto him the tenth of all that they possessed, which is the vttermost bound, and extent of all the things they had, they did thereby expresse the desire they had, that this tenth part, as being the bound and limit of all the rest, (in a sort included within it,) should sanctifie the rest; and that in respect of the blessing, which God hath promi∣sed vnto that, which is giuen vnto him, it should be as a wall of defence, for the safe∣keeping of the rest. And yet neither Thomas, nor these, make the paying of the tenth to be Ceremoniall, in respect of these significations, for then no such custome might be vsed amongst Christians, as some ignorant men haue taught in our age, out of this false conceipt. But Thomas supposeth the paying of the tenth, in the particular determination to be iudiciall, and the other thinke it Naturall and perpetuall. For (say they) seeing something is to bee yeelded to GOD out of that which wee haue, and the number of tenne is the bound of all the things wee haue, or canne haue, at least one of tenne is to bee payed vnto God, for an acknowledgment of our obligation vn∣to him, and for the maintenance of his seruice, and those that attend the same. For if wee may passe the number of ten, which is the bound of our possessions, and yeeld no one part thereof as an acknowledgment to God, we neede not to pay any thing to him at all.

This opinion is strongly confirmed, in that p 1.1806 Abraham payed tithe to Melchize∣dech, (who was a Priest of the high God, and blessed him in the name of the Lord) of all that he possessed, before any law written, or any particular prescriptiōthat we read of touching the same. Whereby hee shewed (as it may more then probably be con∣cluded) that tithes are due by the Law of nature. Neither did Abraham onely by his fact, shew the naturall duty of paying tithe, but Iacob also confirmed the same by the vowe hee made; That if God would prosper his iourney, and bring him backe in safety, the Lord should be his God, and q 1.1807 hee would offer vnto him the tenth of all that hee should giue him. But some man perhaps will say, that this vowe of Iacob, proo∣ueth rather the contrary: namely, that hee was not bound to pay tithes: for men doe vowe such things as they are not bound vnto, by any generall law of God or Nature. And therefore Cardinall r 1.1808 Bellarmine sayth, It had bin an impious thing, for Iacob in this conditionall sort; to haue vowed the paying of tithe, if by the generall law of GOD, and Nature, hee had beene bound thereunto. But surely this saying of the Cardinall is impious, and iniurious to the holy Patriarch, who neuer was charged with any Im∣piety, in respect of this his vowe; neyther can bee (as I suppose) and yet necessarily must bee, if this inference of the Cardinall bee good. For it is the first commandement in the law Naturall and Morall; Thou shalt haue no other Gods but mee and the holy Patriarch was bound by a generall Obligation of the lawe of Nature, to take the Lord for his God, and yet he voweth conditionally, That if the Lod will bee with him,

keepe him in his journey, and bring him safe backe againe, s 1.1809 he shall be his God, and hee will serue him: which if the Cardinall say true, he could not doe without Impiety.

But lesse vs passe by this ouer-sight, and see what is to bee resolued touching this point. It seemeth by the fact of Abraham, and vow of Iacob, before the Law, by the prescription of the same in the time of the Law, and by the judgement and practise of Christians since the time of the Gospell: that the duety of paying Tithes is naturall and perpetuall. t 1.1810 How doth our Righteousnesse (sayth Origen) exceede the Righte∣ousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees, if whereas they doe not taste of the fruites of the earth, before they offer the first-fruites to God, and set out the Tithe for the Leuites, wee doe no such thing, but so vse, or rather abuse the things which God hath giuen vs, Vt Sacerdos nesciat, Levita ignoret, Altare non sentiat; That is, in such sort, that the Priest shall not know of it, the Levite shall neuer heare of it, and the Altar of God ne∣uer feele it, or haue any sense of it. Saint u 1.1811 Hierome saith, Quod de Decimis, Primitiisque diximus, quae olim dabantur à populo Sacerdotibus & Levitis, in Ecclesiae quoque populis, intelligite quibus praeceptum est, non solùm Decimas & Primitias dare, sed & vendere om∣nia quae habent, & dare pauperibus: quod si facere nolumus, saltem Iudaeorum imitemur exordia, & pauperibus partem demus ex toto, & Sacerdotibus & Levitis honorem debitum deferamus: quod qui non fecerit, Deum fraudare, & supplantare convincitur. That is, Vn∣derstand that which I saide of Tithes and first-fruites, which of olde were giuen by the people to the Priests and Leuites, concerning the people of the church also, who are commaunded not onely to giue Tithes and first-fruites, but to sell away all that they haue, and to giue to the poore: which if we will not doe, at the least let vs imi∣tate those beginnings of the Iewes, that wee may giue a part of all to the poore, and yeeld due honour to the Priests and Levites: which who so doth not, is convinced to defraude and deceiue God. Heere wee see Hierome is of opinion, that Christians stand bound at least to performe as much touching the matter of tithes and first fruits as the Iewes: & that he maketh the not paying of tithes to be a sinnefull defrauding of God: but that which hee addeth of selling all and giuing to the poore, is not to bee vn∣derstood as meant generally, but onely in some cases that may fall out. With Hierome, Augustine, or the Authour of the Sermons De tempore, whosoeuer hee was, agreeth, saying, x 1.1812 Audi indevota mortalitas, nosti quia Dei sunt cuncta quae percipis, et de suo non accommodas omnium Conditori? That is: Heare O mortall man, voyde of devotion, thou knowest that all the things that thou enioyest are Gods, and wilt thou present him with nothing that made all, &c. Hee vouchsafeth to require onely the Tenth, and the First-fruites, and thou denyest him: what wouldest thou doe if hee should challenge nine parts, and leaue thee but the Tenth? For why might not God say, the men that serue thee are mine, I made them: the Earth that thou tillest is mine, the seed thou sowest is mine, the Oxen are mine that thou weariest in thy worke: yea, the showres of raine, the blasts of winde, and the heate of the Sunne is mine: all the things which cause thy increase are mine: and thou onely puttest to thy hand: therefore the Tenth onely is due vnto thee, and the rest is mine? but God (who is rich in good∣nesse) hath not giuen thee so sparing a reward of thy labour; for behold hee is content thou shall haue nine parts, and exacteth onely the Tenth: and thou most vnthakefully, perfidiously, and falsly with-holdest it from him, and therefore in his wrath hee often depriueth thee of those nine parts that thou mightest haue had, destroying and bring∣ing to nothing all that which thou hopedst to reape, by immoderate drougth or raine, by haile, frost, or some other meanes, as seemeth best vnto him. But whatsoeuer wee thinke of the Author of these Sermons, it is certaine Saint Augustine did vrge a neces∣sity of paying the Tenth at least of all that men possesse. y 1.1813 Set out (saith he) some cer∣tain thing out of thy revenewes, increase, or gain, if thou wilt the Tenth, though this be too little: for the Pharisees payde tithes of all that they possessed: and yet, If our Righte∣ousnes exceed not theirs, we cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heauen. And if we vrge you to the paying hereof, sayth he, think not that we seek your wealth, but your wel-doing. With Augustine agreeth z 1.1814 Chrysostome. The first Councell of Hispalis (as we reade in a 1.1815 Iuo) vrgeth the paying of tithes as commavnded by God, & pronounceth that he

maketh a prey of thinges holy vnto God, and is as a theefe and a robber, that payeth not tithe of all that he possesseth; and that all the curses which God powred out on Caine, that made no good diuision, but gaue the worst to God, and kept the best to himselfe, shall be powred vpon him. The first b 1.1816 Councell of Orleance sheweth that tithes were payed at that time: and the second c 1.1817 Councell of Matiscon saith, The law of God prouiding for the Priests and Ministers of the Churches, commaun∣ded the people to bring into the holy places, the Tenth of their increase, for an here∣ditary portion; that so being hindered by no labour, they might in due sort attend the worke of the holy Ministerie: which law the whole multitude and heape of Christi∣ans, hath kept inuiolablely for a long time. The Fathers assembled in the d 1.1818 Councell of Forum Iulii, after they haue alleadged the mandate of Almighty God in the third of Malachie, adde, that God himselfe pronounceth, that his wrath and indignation abideth vpon the Nation or People, which fulfilleth not this his commaundement with an intire heart, and a good will: and after recitall of the blessings and curses that follow them that keepe or breake this commaundement; If yee beleeue not vs, or despise vs (say they) because we are men, beleeue God himselfe in his threats and pro∣mises; and whosoeuer thou art, that professest thy selfe a Christian, De suis, non d•…•…is, da Domino; quia omne quod sumus, viuimus, & habemus, eius est, & de ipsius benigni∣tatis suscepimus manu: that is, giue vnto God of his owne, not of thine; seeing all that we are, liue & haue, is his, and wee haue receiued it at the hand of his goodnes. The Fourth e 1.1819 Councell of Arle decreeth thus; let euery one offer to God the Tenth & First fruites of all the increase of his labour, as it is written, Thou shalt not be slow to offer thy Tithes and first fruits vnto God. The Councell of Mentz vnder Charles the Great, prescribeth in this sort: f 1.1820 Wee admonish and commaund that no man neglect to pay Tithes vnto God, which God himselfe appointed to be giuen, because it is to be fea∣red, least as each man shall with-hold from God that which is due vnto him; so God for his sinne should take from him those thinges that are necessary, and which hee would otherwise suffer him to enioy. Which agreeth with that of Augustine in his booke of his 50. Homilies, where he saith: g 1.1821 Our Ancestours did therefore abound in wealth, and had plenty of all thinges, because they gaue Tithe to God, & Tribute to Caesar: Modò autem, quia discessit deuotio Dei, accessit indictio fisci, nolumus partiri cum Deo Decimas, modò autemtotum tollitur, hoc tollit Fiscus, quod non accipit Chri∣stus. That is, But now because deuotion giueth nothing to God, the Officers of Princes call for our Treasure, to fill their Coafers; wee will not so part & deuide with God, as to giue him the Tenth, and therefore all is taken from vs by men, the Exchequer seazeth on that, which Christ could haue no part of. The Councell of Tribur allead∣geth and alloweth the saying of the Authour of the sermons de tempore before cited, and addeth these wordes. h 1.1822 If any man aske why Tithes are payed, let him know that they are therefore payed, that God being pleased with this deuotion, may giue more largely the thinges wee haue neede of. The perswasion of the necessity of paying Tithes, was so deepely imprinted in the mindes of our Forefathers, that when they were ready to die, there was no account concerning things in this world, they more carefully sought to perfit, than this; and therefore, after they had taken order for sa∣tisfying all that they could any way finde to bee behind, in this kinde; they were wont, (lest happily something there might bee that came not to their minde) to appoint that the second best of those moueable thinges they had, should be brought after them to the Church when they went to be buried, as a Recompence, if in any thing they had done wrong in paying their Tithes; and this thing thus brought after them, was na∣med a i 1.1823 Mortuarie.

Thus we see, the fact of Abraham, and Vow of Iacob before the giuing of the Law; the prescription of Almighty God in the time of the Law; the Resolution of learned and worthy men, and the practise of the Church since the comming of Christ, proue strongly, That Tithes are perpetually and for euer due; yet the Schoolemen, and such as follow them, are of another opinion. k 1.1824 Bellarmine goeth about to proue that Tithes are not due by Gods law, in this sort. They are neither prescribed in the old Law,

nor in the new (saith hee) therefore they are not due by Gods Law. That they are not prescribed in the new (he saith) it is cleare, but proueth it not. But that tithes are to be paid, may bee proued by necessary consequence out of that which is prescribed in the new Testament. That they are not prescribed in the old, he cannot say; all the bookes of the old Testament being full of Mandates, Threats, Promises, and Encou∣ragements to moue men to pay Tithes. But he saith, the precepts that are founde in the old Testament, requiring and vrging men to pay Tithes, were Iudiciall, not Mo∣rall and Perpetuall. That they were not moral, hee endeauoureth to proue, because there was no Lawe concerning the paying Tithes before the time of Moses. If hee speake of a written Law, it is true there was no such before Moses, neither touching Tithes, nor any thing else: but if he speake of a Law simply, wee say there was a Law before Moses, which moued Abraham to pay Tithe; and that as (presupposing the knowledge of the Creation of the world in sixe dayes, and Gods rest in the seuenth) Reason conuinceth vs, that one day in seauen must bee a day of Rest from our owne workes, affaires, and businesses, that we may spend it in diuine thoughts, meditations, prayers, and prayses of God: So in like sort, the number of Tenne, being the vttermost extent, limit, and bound of all numbers, it being presupposed, that something is to bee giuen to God, out of that wee possesse, the very light of Reason will make vs knowe, that we ought not to passe the number of Tenne, but that one of tenne (at the least) is to be yeelded vnto God out of all that wee possesse; and that not the worst, (for wee doe not so deale with mortall Princes) but the best, the first and principall. Which is confirmed vnto vs, in that the Gentiles and people that knew not God, but by the light of Nature, and such Traditions as they had receiued from the Patriarches, did pay tithes as well as the Iewes did, and the Christians doe. The proofe hereof, the Reader may finde at large out of diuers Authors in a l 1.1825 Treatise of Tithes, written not long since, and in m 1.1826 Iansenius. But some man (perhaps) will say, that this confirmati∣on is too weake; for that many among the Gentiles were Circumcised as well as the Iewes, and that yet it followeth not from thence, that Circumcision was prescribed & imposed by the Law of Nature; so that the custome; practise, and obseruation of the Gentiles paying Tithes, will not proue that it is a naturall duty to pay Tithes. But they who bring this Obiection, should know, that there is a great difference between these two Observations of the Gentiles; For the one was but in some certaine parts of the world onely, and among such people as were descended of Abraham, or by Leagues, Compacts, and Perswasions, were induced by them to be Circumcised. But the paying, vowing, and offering of Tithes to their supposed gods, was generall a∣mongst all the Gentiles, Romans, Grecians, and Barbarians. Wherefore we may resolue, that the prescription of Tithe, was not meerely Iudiciall, and fitted to the State of the people of the Iewes (as Bellarmine out of Aquinas would haue it) but that it was Na∣turall, and from the beginning. And surely it is worth the noting, how strangely he forgetteth himselfe, and so runneth into grosse contradictions in this point. For first, to make it seeme probable, that this prescription was but meerely Iudiciall, hee saith: n 1.1827 The intendment of God, in prescribing Tithe was, that there should be a certaine e∣qualitie amongst the parts and Tribes of his people; and that therefore he allotted the Tenth to the Leuites, who were almost the tenth part of his people; and yet after hee saith, o 1.1828 The Leuites were not the sixtieth part of the people: and proueth the same out of the first and third of Numbers. So that it cannot bee imagined that the reason of allowing this proportion to the Leuites, was for that they were little lesse than the tenth part of the people, that so they might haue at least as much as the rest, if not a little more: especially seeing it may easily be proued, that the Cities and Suburbs that were allowed vnto them, by God himselfe, besides the First-fruits, & that part of the Sacrifices which they had, was as much as the possessions of any Tribe, though they had had no Tithes at all. So that the possessions of the Leuites and Priestes beeing more than the thirteenth part of the whole land, (whereas they were not the sixtieth part) and all the Tithes, First-fruits, and a part of the Sacrifices, being assigned vnto them besides, it is most cleare & euident, the Intendement of God in allowing Tithes

vnto the Leuites, was not the equalling of them and the rest. But to conclude this point, if we had neither the fact of Abraham, the vow of Iacob, the custome of the Gen∣tiles before CHRIST, nor any other reason to perswade vs, that Tithes are due by Gods Law; yet this very prescription in the time of Moses Law, would proue suffi∣ciently, that Christians must yeeld the Tenth (at the least) of all their increase towards the maintenance of the Ministers. For seeing the Ministerie of the Gospel is much more glorious then that of the Law, and the Obligation of the people vnto them stronger, there can bee no doubt made, but that Christians are bound to giue the Tenthe of their increase (at the least) towards the maintenance of them that attend the seruice of God: and consequently, that God hath not left it to men to determine what is a competent allowance for his servants (as some thinke:) which thing may easily be proued, if any man shall make any question of it. For seeing they of Levies Tribe had so large an allowance, whereas yet the most part of them were but ordinary Le∣vites, and imployed in meane seruices, the Priests being (in comparison) but a few, and attending but by courses once in 24 weekes: there is farre greater reason, that the Mi∣nisters of the Church that attend more holy things, and that continually, (whose Edu∣cation out of their owne Patrimonie hath beene chargeable vnto them, and whose pro∣fession of Learning and Knowledge is such, that the very furnishing of them with Bookes, is a matter of great expence) should haue a more plentifull allowance made vnto them than the Levites. Neither is there any kinde of Provision for Ministers fitter than this by Tithes. For if they haue their allowance in money, the prices of things often rising, it may bee too short; neither will they haue so sensible a fellow∣feeling of the blessings of God, or his punishments the people taste of, if they haue their allowance certaine, & no way subiect to those different courses of Times that o∣thers haue. And therefore we shall finde, that howsoeuer in the very first Times, Christians were forced to supply the necessities of their Ministers by other meanes, before things were setled; yet so soone as there was any quiet establishment of things, they embraced this course of providing for Ministers by Tithes, as of all other the best.

These Tithes (before there was that perfect distinction and division of Parochi∣all Churches that now is) they payed to the Bishop and Cleargy jointly. Whereupon we shall finde, that at first, as all Lands, so all Money, Tithe, First-fruits, and other Contributions made to the Church, were in the hands of the Bishoppe and Cleargy joyntly, but of the Bishop principally, as more eminent than the rest; and that hee was bound to p 1.1829 divide all into foure parts, whereof one serued for his owne maintenance, a∣nother for the Cleargy, the third for the Reparations of the buildings and houses belonging to the Church, and a fourth for the Reliefe of the Poore, and the entertaine∣ment of Strangers. And therefore at the first the Cleargy was maintained out of a common dividend, and the portion allowed to each man was named * 1.1830 Sportula, and they that liued by these allowances, Sportulantes. In which sense Cyprian writing of some that he had designed to bee Presbyters, hath these wordes: q 1.1831 Presbyterii honorem designâsse nos illis iam sciatis, & ut sportulis iisdem cum Presbyteris honorentur, & divi∣siones mensurnas aequatis quantitatibus partiantur sessuri nobiscum provectis & corrobora∣tis annis suis.

But this course continued but a while: for afterwardes as there was a division of Parochiall Churches, with particular assignation of seuerall Presbyters to take care of them; so likewise of the tithes of the increase of the lands & possessiōs of such as were within those Limits, the Bishop & Cleargy of the city, or of the chiefe church, liuing in common of such landes, revenewes and possessions as had beene giuen to the church, and the tithes and offerings of them that receiued Sacraments, and resorted ordinarily to be taught in the Cathedrall church; till in the end, as the Inhabitants of the country abroad, so they of the Cities likewise were put to Parochiall divisions, and none but the Bishop, Cleargy, and such as pertained to them, resorted ordinarily to the Cathe∣drall or great Church, but to other divided from it; and then was there no more tithe payde to the Bishop and Cleargy of the Cathedrall or chiefe church, but to the inferi∣our

Churches onely, the Bishop and his Cleargy, of the Mother Church, liuing of such lands as were giuen vnto them: which also in processe of time they diuided. So that the Bishop had his distinct possessions, lands, and reuenewes, proper to himselfe; and likewise they of the Cathedrall Church.

So that to conclude this matter, as tithes are payable by the lawes of God, & men, for the maintenance of Gods seruice, and them that attend the same: so before there was a∣ny particular diuision of Parochiall Churches, and while each citty and the places ad∣ioyning made but one Church, they were due, and of right to be payed, by men liuing within those limits, to the Bishop and Cleargy joyntly, who by a joynt care, were to gouerne and teach the people of such places. But after Parochiall Churches were deuided, each man was, and is to pay the tithes of the things he possesseth, within each parish, to that particular Presbyter that ruleth the same. And therefore it is an error to thinke as some do, that before the councell of Lateran, men might pay their tithes to what places and persons they pleased; and that by the decrees of that Councell, they were first limitted to the place of their habitation. For the thing that was ordered in the Councell of Lateran, was not the limiting of the dutie of paying tith to one cer∣taine and definite place, as if men had bin free before to pay them to whom and where they listed, but whereas men dwelling in one place, and hauing lands, liuings, and pos∣sessions in another, thought they might pay the tenth of the increase of such things as they had in other places, to the Minister of the place where they dwelt, and of whom they receiued the Sacraments: The r 1.1832 Councell decreed that the Tythes of such lands, as men had lying elsewhere, should not be payd by them, in the places of their habitation, but where the land lyeth; and personall tythes in the place of their abode, where they are partakers of the holy things of God, and not elsewhere: Then which nothing could be more iust and reasonable. Neyther did the Councell of Lateran alone, take order for this matter, but the Councell of Mentz cited by s 1.1833 Gratian prouideth like∣wise, that if any man giue away such places, as he had proprietie in, or other things, the tyth shall not be alienated from the Church, it did formerly belong vnto.

But that men were alwaies bound to pay their Tythes of such things as they possesse, within the place of their habitation, to the Ministers of the same, it may easily be pro∣ued, in that, very Auncient Councels do prouide, that no man shall pay the tythes of such things as hee hath within the limits of any place, but to that Church, to which all they that inhabit there resort for Baptisme, and spirituall instruction. Wee decree (sayth) t 1.1834 Anastasius, Bishop of Rome, that if any man seeke to with-hold the Oblati∣ons, and Tythes, which the people ought to yeeld vnto the Church, or giue them away from that Church, where they of the places, where such Tythes arise, doe vsually re∣ceiue the Sacrament of Baptisme, to any other without the Bishops consent, let him be accursed. It hath seemed good, not onely to vs, but to aur Auncestors, (sayth u 1.1835 Leo the Fourth) that the people shall pay their Tythes, where they and their children are baptized, and no where else. The x 1.1836 Councell of Wormes prouideth, that if any man with the Bishops consent builde a new Church within his owne land, the Auncient Church shall not bee preiudiced, but all accustomed Tythes shall be still paid vnto it. The y 1.1837 Councell of Ticin sayth, there are certaine Lay-men, who hauing Churches or Oratories within the compasse of their owne landes and possessions, pay not the tithes to those Churches, where they are partakers of the benefit of Baptisme, Preaching, Imposition of handes, and other Sacraments of Christ: but giue them to their owne Churches, or their owne Clearkes, as they list: which is contrary to the Law of God, and the sacred Canons. And therefore the Councell of z 1.1838 Mentz in the time of Arnul∣phus, decreed, That ^• Auncient Churches shall not be depriued of their tithes, or other possessions, and that the things that formerly did belong vnto them, shall not be giuen to new Chappels, or Oratories.

The first wrong that was offered vnto Churches, in depriuing them of their tythes, that preuailed, was in fauour of Monkes, who hauing their Mansion houses within the precincts of parishes, and landes belonging to the same, which for their prouision they held in their owne hands, and vsed for their owne benefit, rested not till they obtayned

of the Pope and other Bishoppes to haue them Tithe-free. The Councell of Lateran vnder Alexander the Third ordayneth, a 1.1839 That religious men shall pay no Tithes out of such their landes as they tille themselues. But if they shall rent any, they shall pay Tithe as other doe: and likewise if they let any landes out vnto Countrey-men to be tilled, they shall pay Tithes out of them; yea if they shall get new landes, after their founda∣tion and confirmation of their Priuiledges, they shall pay Tithes, though they keepe them in their owne handes. But this exemption of Religious men, (though very pre∣iudiciall to the Church) staid not heere, but preuayled yet further, to the great hurt of the Church: and therefore wee reade, that some sought to exempt their Farmers also from paying Tithes: which the Bishoppes assembled in the Councell of b 1.1840 Cabilon disliked, and commaunded that both Bishops and Abbots should permit their Tenants to pay Tithes in the places where they receiued the Sacraments: and that they should keepe the Tithes of such fieldes and Vineyardes, as they held in their owne occupati∣on, to themselues. Thus we shall finde that this Monkish generation first robbed the parochiall Churches, within the boundes whereof their houses and possessions were, of a great portion of Tithes due vnto them, by their priuiledges and exemptions: and that after they had tasted the sweetnesse of this robbery, they went forward, till they had subiected those Ministers and their Churches to themselues, to whose Iurisdicti∣on they were formerly subiect; And got the Tithes that others payed to parochiall Churches, to bee appropriated to themselues, that at first by priuiledge exempted themselues from paying Tithes; forgetting that of Saint c 1.1841 Hierome; Alia Monacho∣rum est causa, alia Clericorum, Clerici pascunt oues, ego pascor, illi de Altari vivunt, mihi quasi infructuosae arbori securis ponitur ad radicem, si munus ad Altare non defero; nec possum obtendere paupertatem cum in Evangelio anum viduam, duo quae sola sibi supe∣rerant aera, mittentem laudauerit Dominus, mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet; illi si peccauero, licet tradere me Satanae in interitum carnis, vt Spiritus salvus sit. That is, the condition of Monkes and the condition of Cleargy-men differ very much. Clear∣gy-men feede the Sheepe of CHRIST, but I am fedde; they liue by the Altar, but if I bring not my gift to the Altar, the Axe is laid vnto mee, as to an vnfruitfull Tree; neither •…•…nne I pretend Pouerty, seing the Lord in the Gospell, praysed the Widow, that cast in two Mites, which was all that shee had; I may not sitte in the presence of a Presbyter, but if I offend, he may deliuer me to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saued.

But as these idle bellies, and euill beasts, by the fauour of Popes and Prelates, got into their hands the portion which God appointed for his seruants the Ministers of his Churches; so in the end growing odious to the world, for that professing morti∣fication, and a voluntary penitentiall course of life, they abounded in wealth & sur∣fetted vpon pleasures, more then any secular men in the world, they were deuoured of others, who seazed vpon their houses, tooke from them their reuenewes, and to∣gether with their other liuings, led captiue that portion of tithes, they found in their possessions; and hold it (in sort) as the former vsurpers did, euen to this day. So that wee may truely pronounce, that the Cloisters of Monks are guilty of all that horri∣ble Sacriledge, that hath layed wast so many Churches, spoyled so many Christians of the comfort of Godly Pastors, that otherwise they might haue enioyed; & brought the Cleargy into that meane estate, that now it is come vnto. For it is not to be ima∣gined, that euer any Lay-man would once haue entertayned a thought of receiuing tithes, that (as consecrated things to God, and holy vnto him) were to bee put into the Store-house of his Temple, if they had not found them, (who by the originall of their order, and institution, were to pay, and not to receiue tithes) possessed of them and spending them in most vile and shamefull manner. Neither shall we euer finde (as I thinke) that Lay-men inherited this portion of the Lord, in sort as now they doe, till the suppressing of the houses of these irreligious Monkes; which were become cages of vncleane Birdes, and dens of theeues and robbers. It is true indeed that d 1.1842 Duarenus hath, that the right of receiuing sacred tithe, Clientela titulo, was by certaine Princes, with the consent of the whole Cleargy, made ouer to Knights and

Marshall men for defending the Church and people of CHRIST against the ene∣mies of Religion. But this was for the good and benefite of the Cleargy, and in their right; and not as now it is, by absolute Title of Inheritance, and Fee-simple, or Free∣hold. The beginner of this kinde of assignation of tithes to Lay-men for defence of the Church, was Charles Martell: as Duarenus saith, and the third Councell of Laterane reversed and voydedit more then foure hundred yeares since.

From tithes, (which the Lord God, possessor of Heauen and earth, appropriated to himselfe, as his owne particular portion from the beginning, though all were his) let vs proceede to see what the devotion of men gaue vnto him since the appearing of CHRIST his Son in the world. Touching which point, first we shall find in the sa∣cred story of the Evangelists, that many ministred vnto CHRIST out of their sub∣stance, and that hee had a Bagge wherein he kept the things which the faithfull mini∣stred vnto him; and out of the same supplyed his owne necessities, and the wants of o∣thers, as Saint e 1.1843 Augustine obserueth. So that he did not liue so as to haue nothing, or to begge, (as some here-tofore haue thought) whose errour Pope Iohn the two and twentieth long since condemned. Heere was the first patterne of Church-goods, and treasure, as Augustine noteth. After the death, resurrection, and returne of CHRIST into Heauen, such was the devotion of the beleeuers in the beginning, that many of thē f 1.1844 solde their possessions, and brought the price thereof, and laid it down at the Apostles feet. Which communication of the goods of the first Christians, though it extended to the benefite of all, yet was there a speciall respect therein had to the Apostles; to whom they would haue nothing to be wanting, and to whose disposition all was com∣mitted. The reason why they rather solde their possessions, and turned their lands into money, then gaue them to the Apostles for the reliefe and maintenance of themselues, & others, was, (as g 1.1845 some thinke) for that the Church was soone after to bee remooued from those parts, and to be dispersed amongst the Gentiles, which made them little re∣gard to haue lands and possessions in Iudaea.

But after these times when the Christians were dispersed throughout the world, & Churches established amongst the Gentiles, they thought it better to giue lands vnto the Churches, for the maintenance of the Ministery, reliefe of the Poore, & entertain∣ment of Strangers, then mony; as being a more sure, certain, & settled Indowment, & cōsequently fitter forchurches established. Of which change we may read in the epistle attributed to * 1.1846 Vrbanus Bishop of Rome about the yeare two hundred twenty sixe. And though the first course of giuing all that men possessed to the common benefite, soone ceased, & was neuer practised (for ought we read) amongst the Gentiles: yet great was the devotion of Christians, turning from Gentilisme, in those first Ages of the Church, while the blood of CHRIST lately shed, was yet warme in mens hearts: so that they gaue many goodly & ample Indowments & Possessions to the Church. Where-upon we shal find, that the church had very anciently goods & lands, as well as treasure. For the councel of h 1.1847 Ancyra holden in the yeare 314, voydeth the sale of such things, as the church made by Presbyters when there was no Bishop; & leaueth it in the choyce of the Bishop when he is chosen, if he please, to resume the things themselues againe. The i 1.1848 councell of Antioch in the yeare 340, maketh mention of the Fields, lands, and pos∣sessions of the church, and taketh order how they shall bee disposed. Agri Ecclesiae (saith Ambrose) solvunt tributa: that is, the fieldes and landes of the church pay tri∣bute. k 1.1849 Constantine the Emperour made a Law, that it might bee lawfull for such as pleased, to leaue their goods vnto the church. And l 1.1850 Licinia a rich and wealthie Ma∣tron, gaue her goods by will vnto the church of Rome, when Marcellus was Bishoppe. Hilary Bishop of Arle (as m 1.1851 Prosper reporteth) not onely possessed such things as the church had formerly but greatly increased the possessions of it, receiuing the inheri∣tances of many, who gaue that they had to the church. Thus did the devout Christians of the Primitiue church religiously giue, & the godly Bishops take such temporalties as were giuen vnto them. And therefore the conceipt of Wickliffe (if that bee true that is imputed to him) and some other, cannot well bee excused, who thought that Constantine, and other Christian Emperours sinned in giuing, and Syluester and other

Bishops in receiuing temporall goods and possessions.

It is true, that great was the superfluitie of Church-men in latter times, and their state such as made them forgette the things that most concerned them: whence grew that saying Religiopeperit diuitias, & filia deuorauit Matrem: That is; religion brought forth riches, and the daughter hath deuoured the mother. n 1.1852 Nauclere reporteth, that there was a common conceipt amongst many, that when Constantine first began to en∣dow the Churches, with lands & possessions, a voyce was heard from Heauen saying, Hodie venenum Ecclesiae estimmissum, that is, This day is poyson powred into the Church: and in processe of time, temporall Princes (finding that the indiscreet deuo∣tion of men, giuing more then was fit to the Church, preiudiced the state of their Kingdomes, & common-wealthes) made statutes of Mortmaine, to stay men from put∣ting any more of their lands and possessions into such dead hands, as would do them no seruice. But such is the infelicity of the sonnes of men, that commonly they run out of one extremity into another: and while they seeke to avoyd one euill they fall into an∣other as bad or worse. The abuse of the riches and wealth the Church had in the time wherein Wickliffe liued, made him so farre dislike the present state of things: that hee thought the contrary would right all againe: as the manner of men is, when they goa∣bout to straighten a thing that is crooked, to bow it as much the other way. But o 1.1853 Ger∣son, a right good religious & wise man bringeth in an euen & just moderation, to inter∣pose it selfe betweene these extremities, that neither men giue so much to the Church, as to make her sette her feete on the neckes of Emperours, nor yet bring her to want and contempt which hath beene the course of some men in our times, the vnhap∣py sequells of whose proceedings, wee see already in part; and it is to be feared, that posterity shall feele the smart of it in more grieuous sort then we do.

But to returne to the matter whence we are a little digressed. These Lands, which deuout and good people gaue vnto the Church, were at first possessed ioyntly by the Bishop and Cleargy: but in processe of time, a diuision was made and either knew dis∣tinctly their owne, and had power to dispose of it; so that they did nothing preiudici∣all to the inheritance of their Churches, or tending to the hurt of them that were to succeede them. For (to restraine them from doing any such thing) the Bishop was for∣bidden by the lawes of the Church, to let any thing belonging to his See, without the confirmation of his Cleargy, and the Ministers abroad, to alienate, exchaunge, or de∣mise any thing without the consent of the Bishop, and Patrons, or founders of the Churches. Otherwise, both the Bishop might dispose of himselfe alone, of that porti∣on that belonged vnto him, and the Ministers of their Tithes, Oblations, Obuentions, and Glebe-landes, without the Bishops intermedling with them. Onely three things were due to the Bishop out of the liuings of inferiour Ministers. For first, as p 1.1854 Duare∣nus noteth, the Ministers of inferior Churches, were to giue yearely a certaine tri∣bute or pension vnto the Bishoppe; which Tribute or Pension was called Cathe∣draticum, quod Cathedrae, id est honori Episcopali, debeatur. Secondly, when the Bishoppe goeth to visite his Diocesse, and the parishes abroad, the inferiour Ministers are to giue him entertainment, and prouide for him: which is called Procuratio; Quia Ecclesiae Episcopum procurant, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. curant, alunt & tuentur, sicut pueri dicuntur procurari a nutricibus: That is, Procurations, because the Churches abroad, must take care, prouide and procure, all things necessary for the Bishops lodging, diet and entertainment. But because in these visitations some Bishops grew too chargeable, therefore the Councell of q 1.1855 Lateran limiteth what company a Bishop shall haue with him, when hee goeth to visit. Thirdly, in former times, the fourth part of the Tythes due to inferiour Churches, and the fourth part of such thinges, as by Will men gaue to them, was by the Ministers of these Churches, to be paid vnto the Bishop, which thing is now growne out of vse. Neither is there any other thing payable, and due to the Bishop, from inferiour Ministers, but Procurations onely.

Thus were Church-lands, and tithes, (which at first were enjoyed by the Bishop and Cleargy joyntly) in time diuided, and eyther of them had an entire power to dis∣pose of the same, as seemed good vnto thē, without the intermedling of the other: yet

was there a difference made betweene such things as they had by right of inheritance or by the gift of their friendes, and those thinges which they gayned and gathered vp∣pon their Ecclesiasticall liuings. For sundry Canons prouided, that Bishops and other Cleargy-men, might make their last Will and Testament, and giue to whom they pleased, that which came to them by inheritance, the gift of their friendes, or which they gained vppon the same. But that which they gayned vpon their Church-liuings, they should leaue to their Churches. But the Church of England, had a different cus∣tome: neither were these Canons euer of force in our Church: And therefore, her Bi∣shops and Ministers might euer at their pleasure bequeath to whom they would, what∣soeuer they had gained, either vpon their Church liuings, or otherwise. And surely there was great reason it should be so, for seeing, The labourer is worthy of his hire, why should not they haue power to giue that which was yeelded vnto them as due recom∣pence and reward of their labours, to whom they please. And how can it bee excused from iniustice and wrong, that men (spending a great part of their owne Patrimonie, in fitting themselues for the Ministery of the Church, which conuerted to the best ad∣uantage and benefitte, might greatly haue enriched them) should not haue right and power to dispose of such thinges, as they haue lawfully gayned, out of those liuings which are assigned to thē, as the due reward of their worthy paines? Yet are there some▪ that are much more iniurious to the holy Ministery. For r 1.1856 Waldensis out of a Monkish humour, thinketh that Cleargy-men are bound to giue away, whatsoeuer commeth to thē, by inheritan ce, or by any other meanes; & that they ought not to possesse any thing in priuate, and as their owne. And alleageth to this purpose the saying of Origen, Hie∣rome, and Bernard: that the Cleargy-man that hath any part or portion on earth, can∣not haue the Lord for his portion, nor any part in heauen. But Cardinall s 1.1857 Bellarmine answereth to these authorities, That these Fathers speake of such as content not them∣selues with that which is sufficient, but immoderately seeke the things of this world; and proueth, that Cleargy-men may haue, and keepe lands and possessions as their owne. First because the Apostle prescribeth that such a one should be chosena Bishop t 1.1858 As gouerneth his owne house well, and hath children in Obedience; which presupposeth that he hath something in priuate, and that is his owne. Secondly, hee cofirmeth the same, by the u 1.1859 Canons of the Apostles, the Councell of x 1.1860 Agatha, Martinus Bracharen∣sis in his y 1.1861 Decrees, and the first Councell of z 1.1862 Hispalis; and further addeth, that a man hauing Lands, Possessions and Inheritance of his owne, may spare his owne liuing, and receiue maintenance from the Church: for proofe whereof he alleageth the Glosse, and Iohn de a 1.1863 Turrecremata, a Cardinall in his time of great esteeme; and confirmeth the same by that saying of Christ, b 1.1864 The Labourer is worthy of his hyre: and that of the A∣postle Saint Paul, c 1.1865 Who goeth to warfare at any time, at his owne charge?

FINIS.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Prima omnia perfecta sunt: caetera autem omnia, quae ex ipsis oriuntur, & post ipsa se∣quuntur, nisi per inter valla temporum crescendo ad perfectionem venire non possunt. Hugo citat. ab Alex. de Hales. part. 2. quaest. 89. memb. 2.
• a 1.2

  Gen. 49. 3.
• b 1.3

  Gen. 27. 29.
• c 1.4

  Num. 3. 13.
• d 1.5

  Gen. 49. & 49
• e 1.6

  Gen: 4. 25.
• f 1.7

  Chap: 5.
• g 1.8

  Chap. 6: et 7.
• h 1.9

  Chap: 9. ver. 26. 27.
• i 1.10

  Chap: 10. 11.
• k 1.11

  Hieronym. in epist. ad Eua∣grium.
• l 1.12

  Gen: 14. 18.
• a 1.13

  Numb: 3.
• b 1.14

  Exod. 28.
• a 1.15

  Sigonius de Rep. Hebraeor: lib. 5. c. 2.
• b 1.16

  Iosephus cita∣tus à Sigonio ibid.
• c 1.17

  Arias Mo•…•… tanus in appa∣ratu, & Sigoni∣us de Repub. Heb. l. 5. c. 9.
• d 1.18

  Rabbi Salom. citatus à Bel∣larm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3.
• e 1.19

  Aug. quaest. •…•…17. in Exod.
• a 1.20

  Exod. 28. 30.
• b 1.21

  Leuit. 16. 30.
• c 1.22

  Sigon. de Rep. Heb. l. 5. c. 3. exHier. & Eucherio.
• d 1.23

  Levit. 21. 18.
• e 1.24

  Levit. 10. 9.
• f 1.25

  Levit. 11. 1.
• g 1.26

  Ibid. vers. 5.
• h 1.27

  Ibid. vers 7
• i 1.28

  Levit 8.
• k 1.29

  1 Chron. 24. vers. 2.
• l 1.30

  Levit. 10.
• m 1.31

  1 Chr. 14. 4.
• n 1.32

  Ioseph. l. 2 contra Appio∣nem citat. à Si∣gon. ubi suprá.
• o 1.33

  2 Chr. 23. 8.
• p 1.34

  Luk. 1. 5.
• q 1.35

  Ibid: ver. 8. & 9.
• r 1.36

  Sigon. de rep. Hebr. l. 5. c. 3.
• s 1.37

  Mark. 14. 53.
• a 1.38

  Sigonius de rep. Hebraeor. li. 5. c. 4. 5. 6, & 7.
• b 1.39

  2 Chron. 35. ver. 10. & 11.
• c 1.40

  1. Chron: 25. 1:
• d 1.41

  1. Chron. 2 6.
• e 1.42

  1 Chron. 9. 2. Ez•…•…a 2. 70.
• f 1.43

  Iosuah. 9. 23.
• a 1.44

  Epiphan. contra haeres. lib. 1.
• b 1.45

  Haeres. 15.
• c 1.46

  Haeres. 14.
• d 1.47

  Haeres. 16.
• e 1.48

  Haeres 17.
• f 1.49

  Haeres. 19.
• g 1.50

  Plinius nat. hist. l. 5. c. 17.
• h 1.51

  Epiphan li: 1. haeres. 18.
• i 1.52

  Haeres. 20.
• k 1.53

  Sigon. de rep. Hebr. lib. 5. cap. 11. ex Io∣sepho.
• l 1.54

  Act. 23. 6.
• m 1.55

  Ibid, ve•…•…▪
• a 1.56

  Numb. 6. 2.
• b 1.57

  Act. 21. 23.
• c 1.58

  Iudges 13. 7.
• d 1.59

  1 Sam. 1. 11.
• e 1.60

  Hier. Catal. Script. Eccles. in lacobo.
• f 1.61

  Greg. hom. l. sup. Ezekielem.
• g 1.62

  Hugo de S. Vict. Erudit. Theol de Sacr. fidei lib. 1. part. 1 prolog. c. 17.
• a 1.63

  Psal. 1. vers. 5.
• b 1.64

  Numb. 10▪ 2.
• c 1.65

  Math. 5. 22.
• d 1.66

  2. Chron. 33. vers. 6.
• e 1.67

  Cap. 19. Apparet Augu∣stinum iudicia∣lis rationis He∣braicae notio∣nemnon habu∣isse. Sigonius de rep. Hebr. l b. 6. cap. 7.
• f 1.68

  Loco suprà citato.
• * 1.69

  a Deut: •…•…6. •…•…8.
• * 1.70

  b Si gon. de rep: Hebr. l. 6: c. 7.
• c 1.71

  D•…•…. 17. 8.
• d 1.72

  Ierem. 26. 8
• e 1.73

  Ibid. ver. 10▪
• f 1.74

  Ver. 16.
• g 1.75

  Ierem. 37. 15.
• h 1.76

  Ier. 38. 4.
• i 1.77

  2. Kings 16. 3.
• k 1.78

  Ibid. ver. 10. 11.
• l 1.79

  Ver. 15.
• m 1.80

  Ver. 16.
• n 1.81

  Lyra in Deu∣teron, 17. & alij.
• * 1.82

  o Math. 23. 2.
• p 1.83

  Math. 16. 6.
• q 1.84

  Ibid ver. 12.
• * 1.85

  r Math. 15.
• s 1.86

  Au•…•…ust. cont. Faust. Mani∣chaeum Lib. •…•…9. cap. 2•…•….
• t 1.87

  Math. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. •…•…3.
• * 1.88

  Aug. d•…•… Se•…•…: Do•…•…. in monte l•…•…b. 1. c. 41.
• x 1.89

  Contra Fau∣stum Manichae∣um. li. 19. c. 24.
• y 1.90

  Math. 15. 3.
• z 1.91

  Math. 23. 18.
• a 1.92

  Math. 5. 20.
• * 1.93

  In illum lo∣cum.
• b 1.94

  Bell. de auth. Concil. l. 2. c. 8.
• c 1.95

  Idem de Eccl. milit. l. 3. c. •…•…7
• d 1.96

  Vt refert Bell. de author. con∣cil. l. 2, c. 8.
• e 1.97

  Ioh. 18. 14.
• f 1.98

  Math. 26. 65
• g 1.99

  Sigon. de rep. Hebr. l. 7. c. 4
• h 1.100

  1 Maccab, 9. 30.
• a 1.101

  Bonauent. in 3 Sent. dist: 1. quaest. 2.
• b 1.102

  Aug. de verb. Apostoli. Serm. 70. tractans il∣lud Lucae, Venit filius hominis saluum facere quod perie•…•…at: & illud 1. ad Timoth: 1. Ve∣nit in hunc mundum pec∣catores saluos facere.
• c 1.103

  Thomas Sum. Theol part. 3. quaest. 1. art. 2.
• * 1.104

  August. de Ciuit. Dei lib. 11. cap. 2.
• d 1.105

  Aug. de ver. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Religione c. 16.
• e 1.106

  Leo Serm. 1. in na•…•…u. Dom.
• f 1.107

  Ioh 1. 16.
• g 1.108

  Cameracensis in principio in 3. lib. sent.
• h 1.109

  Psal. 85. 10.
• i 1.110

  Bernard de aduent. Domi∣ni, Serm. 1.
• k 1.111

  Hugo. erudit. Theol. de Tri∣nit, sum. per visib. agnition. lib. 7. c, 24.
• l 1.112

  Genebrard. l, 1 de Trinitate Lindanus in 2. Dialogo qui inscribitur Du∣bitantius Pe∣trus Canisius praefat. lib. de Sancto Iohan∣ne Baptista. citat. à Bellar.
• m 1.113

  Booke 3, Chap. 1.
• n 1.114

  Bellarm. de Christo lib. 2. c. 19.
• o 1.115

  Booke 1. ch. 4 p. 47.
• p 1.116

  For proofe hereof see Staple∣ton in his tripli∣cation against Whith•…•…ker. pag. 210. and 211. And the Author the treatise of of the grounds of the old religion. part. 1. c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 9. pag. 102.
• q 1.117

  Epiphanius contr•…•… Haeres. haeres. 69.
• r 1.118

  Scalig. exerc. 6 sect. 3.
• s 1.119

  Scotus 1. sent. dist. 2. quaest. 2.
• a 1.120

  Alex: de Ales Sum Theolog. part. 3, quaest. 7. memb. 1. art. 1.
• * 1.121

  Dutand. in 3. Sentent. dist. 6. quaest. 3.
• b 1.122

  Athanasius in Symbolo.
• c 1.123

  Basil. in orat. Sanct. nativit. & Damas. l. 3 de orthod. fid. c. 11.
• d 1.124

  Scotus in 3. sent. d. 1. q. 1.
• * 1.125

  Durand. in 3. sent. d. 6. q. 4.
• e 1.126

  Alex. de Ales. Sum. Theolog. part 3. quaest. 7. Memb. 1. art. 1.
• a 1.127

  Iohn 5. 19.
• b 1.128

  1 Cor: 2. 8.
• c 1.129

  Acts. 3. 15.
• d 1.130

  Iohn 3. 13.
• e 1.131

  1 Tim: 2. 5.
• f 1.132

  Epist. Agatho∣nis recitata & approbata in 6. Synodo. act. 4.
• * 1.133

  g Actione 11.
• h 1.134

  Leo ep. 10. c. 4.
• a 1.135

  Ioh. 1. 14.
• b 1.136

  Thom. Sum. Thcol. part. 3. q. 7. art. 9.
• c 1.137

  Ioh. 1. 16.
• d 1.138

  Acts. 7. 55.
• e 1.139

  Luke, 1. 28.
• f 1.140

  Alex. de Ales. part. 3. qu: 61. memb. 2. art. 4.
• g 1.141

  Esay, 15. 1.
• h 1.142

  Paludanus in 3 Sentent. dist. 14. qu. 2.
• i 1.143

  Luke 2. 25.
• k 1.144

  1. Cor. 8. 5.
• l 1.145

  Durand. in 3. Sentent. dist. 14. qu. 2.
• m 1.146

  Ibid. quaest: 3.
• * 1.147

  Vide apud Scotum li. 3. d. 14. q•…•…. opinio∣nem Henrici quol. 5. q. 14. &c.
• n 1.148

  Ibid. quaest. 4.
• o 1.149

  Dionys. eitat. ab eodem, Dutand. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. q. 3.
• p 1.150

  Alex. de Ales part. 2. quaest. 89 memb. 2.
• q 1.151

  Hugo de S. Victore de Sac. fid. l. 1. part. 6. c. 26.
• r 1.152

  Maldon. in 2. Luc. ver. 40.
• s 1.153

  Idem in 24. Matth. ver. 36.
• t 1.154

  Iansenius comm. in E∣vang. concord. cap. 123.
• u 1.155

  Cyrill. lib. 9. thesauri cap. 4. cirat. à Ianse∣nio, ibid.
• x 1.156

  Gregor. lib. 8. epist. 42. Nice. phor. lib. 18. c. 50. de Agnoetis
• a 1.157

  Luther. de verb. nouiss. Dauidis, tom. 3. fol. 9•…•….
• b 1.158

  Matth. 28. 18.
• c 1.159

  Bonauent. in 3. Sentent. dist. 22. quaest. 2.
• d 1.160

  Camerac. lib. 3. quaest. 1 in Sententias.
• e 1.161

  Bellarm. de Incarnatione, lib. 3. cap. 16.
• f 1.162

  Matth: 11. 27.
• g 1.163

  Matth. 23. 18.
• h 1.164

  Ibid. cap. 25.
• i 1.165

  Zanchius in iudic, de dissi∣dio coenae Do∣min. in fine Miscellan.
• a 1.166

  Deut. 5. 5.
• b 1.167

  Gal. 3. 19.
• c 1.168

  Rom. 8. 34.
• d 1.169

  1. Iohn 2. 1.
• * 1.170

  2 Cor. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 21.
• e 1.171

  August. in P. 39.
• f 1.172

  Hugo erudit. Theol. de Sa∣cramentis fidei, lib. 2 part. 1. cap: 12.
• g 1.173

  Bellarm de Christo Medi∣atore l. 5. c. 5
• h 1.174

  Bonauent: in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Sentent. dist. 13. quaest: 1.
• i 1.175

  Aug. tract. So. in cap. 15. Ioan:
• k 1.176

  Idem in Psal. 39.
• a 1.177

  Mark. 14. 27.
• b 1.178

  Bonav. in 3. Sent. dist. 15. quaest. 2.
• * 1.179

  The punish∣ments of this se∣cond sort are sins, though the Schoolemen doe not esteeme them to bee so.
• c 1.180

  Picus Miran∣dula, in Apolo∣giâ quaest. 2. & Scotus in 4. Sentent. dist. 46. q. 4. in resp. ad argumenta principalia.
• d 1.181

  Gregor. expo∣sit. moral. l. 34. c. 10. in 41. Ca∣put Iob. in illa verba, Aestima∣bit Abyssum, &c.
• * 1.182

  Scotus in 4. senten. dist. 46. qu. 4. de art. 4.
• f 1.183

  Cusanus Ex∣citationum lib. 10. p. 659.
• g 1.184

  Scotus in 4. sent: dist. 46. q. 4.
• h 1.185

  Canus Loc. Theol. l. 12. c. 13.
• i 1.186

  Luther cons. pro laborant. c. 1. de spectro primo. tom. 2.
• a 1.187

  Mark. 14. 33. Mat. 26. 37.
• b 1.188

  Mat. 26. 39.
• c 1.189

  Matth. 26. 38.
• d 1.190

  Matth. 27. 46.
• e 1.191

  Bonauent. in 3. Sent. dist. 16. qu. 2.
• f 1.192

  Ioh. 11. 33.
• g 1.193

  Hieronym. in 26. Matthaei.
• h 1.194

  Suruey. Booke 3. Chap. 10 pag: 177.
• i 1.195

  Caietan: in 3. part. Summae qu. 15. art. 7.
• k 1.196

  Annotat. in 5. ad Hebraeos. ver. 7.
• * 1.197

  Bonav. in 3 sent. dist. 16. q. 2. Scotus in 3. dist. 15. q. unica
• m 1.198

  Math. 26. 39
• n 1.199

  Hugo de S. Victore de Sac. fid. l. 1. part. 4. c. 19.
• o 1.200

  Bellarm. l. 4. de anim. Chri∣sti c. 8.
• p 1.201

  Math. 26. 38.
• q 1.202

  Matth. 27. 46
• r 1.203

  Comment: in 27. Matthaei.
• a 1.204

  De animâ Christi, l. 4. c. 6.
• b 1.205

  Epst. 99.
• c 1.206

  De animâ Christi, lib. 4. c. 7. 8. & 9.
• d 1.207

  Comment. in 2. Actorum.
• e 1.208

  De anim•…•… Christi l. 4. c. 7.
• f 1.209

  Epist. 99.
• g 1.210

  Thom. Sum∣mae part. 3. q. 52. art. 2.
• h 1.211

  De animâ Christi l. 4. c. 15
• i 1.212

  Book 3. c. 17.
• * 1.213

  k August. in Hy∣pognosticon resp. 5. l. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. de peccator. me∣rit. & remis. c. 28. & serm. 14. de verb. Apost.
• l 1.214

  Epist. 99.
• m 1.215

  Andrad: de∣fens. fidei Trid: li. 2. fol. 175.
• n 1.216

  Vbi supra.
• o 1.217

  Stromat. li. 6.
• p 1.218

  1. Pet. 4. 6:
• q 1.219

  Andrad. de∣fens. •…•…d. Tri∣dent. l. 2. p. 173.
• s 1.220

  1. Pet. 3. 19. 20.
• * 1.221

  r Lyra & Glossa ordinaria in hunc locum.
• t 1.222

  Epist. 99.
• u 1.223

  Defens. fid. Trident. li. 2. p. 172.
• x 1.224

  De animâ Christi l. 4. cap. 10.
• y 1.225

  De arcano ser∣mone c. 21.
• z 1.226

  Defens. fidei Trident. l. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. fol. 174.
• a 1.227

  Leuit. 21. 2. Numb. 19. 11.
• b 1.228

  Version. In∣terlinear. in Bi∣bi•…•…lijs Regijs.
• c 1.229

  Psal. 16. 11.
• d 1.230

  De anima Christi, l. 4. cap. 10.
• e 1.231

  Gen. 37. 35.
• f 1.232

  Cont. haeres. l. 5•…•…. in fine.
• g 1.233

  De anim. c. 32
• h 1.234

  Num. 16. 33
• i 1.235

  In 3 sent. dist. 22. q. 3.
• k 1.236

  Thom. Sum∣mae 3. part. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 52. art. 2.
• l 1.237

  De anima Christi l. 4. c. 16
• m 1.238

  Gen. 37. 35.
• n 1.239

  De anima Christi l. 4. c. 11
• o 1.240

  Luk. 16. 26.
• p 1.241

  In eum locum
• q 1.242

  Epist. 99.
• * 1.243

  r Aduersus Marcionem, l. 4
• s 1.244

  Pro. 15. 24.
• t 1.245

  1 Sam. 28.
• u 1.246

  In hunc lo∣cum.
• x 1.247

  Ecclus. 46. 20.
• a 1.248

  Ad Simplici∣anum.
• b 1.249

  Part. 2. causa, 26. quaest. 5. ca. Nec mirum.
• c 1.250

  Zach. 9. 11.
• d 1.251

  In versione interlineari,
• e 1.252

  In eum lo∣cum.
• f 1.253

  1 Pet. 1. •…•…9. 20.
• g 1.254

  Epist. 99.
• h 1.255

  Stromat. l. 6.
• i 1.256

  Ep. ad Epicte∣tum.
• k 1.257

  Haeresi. 77.
• l 1.258

  Lib de recta fide ad The•…•…∣dosium. & lib 12. in Ioannem cap. 36.
• m 1.259

  In cap. 10. ad Romanos.
• n 1.260

  Act. 7. 18.
• o 1.261

  Sess. 4. Decret. de editione & vsu sacrorum Libr•…•…rum.
• p 1.262

  Defens. fidei Trident. lib. 2. fol. 172.
• q 1.263

  Loco citato.
• a 1.264

  Scotus in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sent. dist. 18. quaest. unica.
• b 1.265

  Bellarm. de Christo Medi∣atore l. 5. c. 9
• c 1.266

  Philip. 2. 8.
• d 1.267

  Lib. 3. dist. 18.
• e 1.268

  Scotus in 3 dist. 18.
• f 1.269

  Bonauent. in Sent. lib. 3. dist. 18. q. 2.
• g 1.270

  Heb. 1. 9.
• * 1.271

  h Heb. 2. 9.
• i 1.272

  Philip: 2. 8. 9.
• k 1.273

  Hugo de S. Victore de Sa∣cram. fidei, lib. 2. part. 1. c. 6.
• l 1.274

  Leo Serm. 12.
• m 1.275

  Mat. 28. 18.
• n 1.276

  Calvin. instit l. 2. c. 17.
• * 1.277

  o Luke 24. 26.
• p 1.278

  Iob. 35. 7.
• * 1.279

  q 1 Cor. 2. 9.
• r 1.280

  Paludanus in 3 sent. dist. 18.
• * 1.281

  a Rom. 6. 16.
• b 1.282

  Suruey. books 3. chap. 2.
• c 1.283

  L. 4. de Iustif, c. 5.
• d 1.284

  Book 3. chap. 5.
• a 1.285

  Coloss. 2. 15.
• * 1.286

  Or in himselfe.
• * 1.287

  Ephes. 4. 8. &c.
• b 1.288

  1. Cor. 14. 25.
• c 1.289

  Acts. 8. 1•…•….
• d 1.290

  ver. 17.
• e 1.291

  Aug. de vtili∣tate credendi, cap. 16.
• f 1.292

  Bell. de Pont. lib 4 c. 22.
• g 1.293

  Ibid. cap. 23.
• * 1.294

  h Iohn 20. 21.
• i 1.295

  Acts 1. 16.
• k 1.296

  Gal. 1. & 2.
• l 1.297

  Cypr. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Eccl.
• m 1.298

  Ockam dial. l. 5. 1 part. c. 15. & l. 4. 1. tract. 3. partis. c. 10.
• n 1.299

  Matth. 5. 14.
• o 1.300

  Verse 16.
• p 1.301

  Matth. 18. 19.
• q 1.302

  Bellarm. de Pont. l. 1. c. 14.
• r 1.303

  Ibid. cap. 16.
• s 1.304

  Ibid. cap. 11.
• t 1.305

  In addit. ad 3. part. Summae. quaest. 17. art. 1.
• u 1.306

  Esay. 22. 22.
• x 1.307

  Reuel. 3. 7.
• y 1.308

  Paludanus in Sent. lib. 3. dist. 40. quaest. 2. & 3.
• * 1.309

  z Rich. de S. Vict. tract. de potest. ligandi & soluendi c. 2
• * 1.310

  Heb. 4. 16.
• b 1.311

  Matth. 7. 24. &c.
• c 1.312

  Matth. 6. 33.
• d 1.313

  2 Cor. 1. 20.
• e 1.314

  1. Cor. 3. 11.
• f 1.315

  Aug. tractat. vlt. in Ioan∣nem. Se•…•…m. 13. de verb. Dom. Retract. l. 1. ca. 21.
• g 1.316

  Hebr. 6. 1.
• h 1.317

  Leo in anni∣vers. assumpt. Serm. 2.
• i 1.318

  Matth. 16. 16.
• k 1.319

  De Pon. Rom. l. 1. c. 11.
• l 1.320

  Reuel. 21. 14.
• m 1.321

  Ephes. 2. 20.
• n 1.322

  Hier. l. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. con∣tra Iovinian.
• o 1.323

  Cusanus de Concord. Ca∣thol. l. 2. c. 13
• a 1.324

  Stapleton re∣lect. controv. 3. q. 1. art. 1.
• b 1.325

  Caietan. o∣pusc. tom. 1. tract. 1. c. 3.
• c 1.326

  Galat. 2. 11.
• d 1.327

  Act. 15. •…•…9.
• e 1.328

  I•…•…h. 21. 16.
• f 1.329

  De Pont: Ro. lib. 2. cap. 12.
• g 1.330

  De Pont. Ro. lib. 1. c. 9.
• h 1.331

  2. Cor. 11. 28.
• i 1.332

  Ockam. Dial. l. 4. primi tract. 3. partis c. 3.
• k 1.333

  Bellarm. de Pont. l. 4 c. 23
• l 1.334

  De Pont. Ro: lib. 4. c. 23. 24. & 25.
• m 1.335

  De Pont. Rom. l. 1. c. 23.
• n 1.336

  Ibidem.
• o 1.337

  Lib. 4. cap. 23.
• p 1.338

  Iohn 2•…•…. 21.
• q 1.339

  Math. 28. 19.
• r 1.340

  Luke 22. 19.
• s 1.341

  Baron. annal. an. Christi 34. 291. Chrysost. in Ioan. homil. 87.
• t 1.342

  Clem. Alex. apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 1.
• u 1.343

  Hier. de viris illustr. in Iacob.
• x 1.344

  Act. 13. 2. 3.
• a 1.345

  Ockam. Dia∣lo. l. 4. primi tractat. 3. pa•…•…t. cap: 3.
• b 1.346

  Ioh. 5. 14.
• c 1.347

  Mark. 13. 37.
• d 1.348

  Ockam. vbi suprá.
• e 1.349

  Cyprian de vnitate Eccle∣siae.
• f 1.350

  Hieron. lib. 1. contra Iouini∣an.
• g 1.351

  Leo epist. 84.
• h 1.352

  Leo ep. 89.
• i 1.353

  Leo in anni∣vers. assumpt. Serm. 3.
• k 1.354

  Aug. tractat. vlt. in Ioannem.
• l 1.355

  Leo epist. 84.
• a 1.356

  In 4. sent. dist. 24 qu. 2.
• b 1.357

  Lib. 4. c 24
• * 1.358

  Addit. ad 3. part. Summae. q. 37. art. 2.
• c 1.359

  Cyp. l. 2. ep. 10
• d 1.360

  Idem l. 2. ep. 5. & l. 4. ep. 5.
• e 1.361

  Lib. 5. ep. •…•…4
• f 1.362

  Eus. hist. Ec∣cles. l. 6. c. 42.
• g 1.363

  Epiphan. in epitome doctr. Catholicae.
• h 1.364

  Lindan. Pa∣nopl. l. 4. c. 77.
• i 1.365

  Concil. Car. thag. 4.
• k 1.366

  Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 5.
• l 1.367

  Concil. Laod. can. 21. Decret. part. 1. dist. 23. c. 26 & dist. 60. cap. 4.
• * 1.368

  Concil. Car∣thag. 4. can. 12.
• m 1.369

  Lindan. Pa∣nopliae. lib. 4. c. 78. & 79.
• n 1.370

  Duaren. de sacr. Eccles. mi∣nist. & Benef. lib. 1. cap. 16.
• * 1.371

  Concil. Car∣thag. 4. can. 44.
• o 1.372

  Concil. Tole∣tan. 4. can. 40.
• p 1.373

  Panoplia, li: 4. cap. 77.
• q 1.374

  Lib. 1. Paeda∣gog. cap 11.
• r 1.375

  Lib: 2. contra Parmenian.
• s 1.376

  Bell: lib. 2. de Monach. c. 40.
• t 1.377

  Cyprian. l. 3. cp. 3.
• u 1.378

  Canone 16.
• * 1.379

  x Tertul. lib. de Baptimo.
• y 1.380

  Cyp. l. 3. cp. 17
• * 1.381

  x Greg. ep. l. 4. c. 88.
• a 1.382

  Cypr. Serm. 6 de Lapsis.
• b 1.383

  Hier. tom. 4: de septem or∣dinib. Ecclesiae.
• c 1.384

  Concil. Ca•…•…th 4. can. 37. & 39.
• d 1.385

  Hieron. ad Euagrium.
• e 1.386

  Hier: ad Rusti∣cum mona∣chum.
• * 1.387

  This maketh nothing aga•…•…st them who wi•…•…h vs are named Arch-deacons, and vnder that name excercise Iurisdiction. For by the Canons of our Church they are Presbyters chosen to assist the Bishop in his gouernment, and not meere Dea∣c•…•…s as sometimes they were.
• f 1.388

  Hieron. in E∣pitaph: Nepoti∣ani ad Helio∣dorum.
• * 1.389

  a 1. Tim. 3.
• * 1.390

  See Bezaes E∣pistles, and Cal∣uins Institut. l. 4. c. 3. sect. 16.
• b 1.391

  Mat. 18. 17.
• c 1.392

  Ioh. 18. 31.
• d 1.393

  1. Tim. 5. 17.
• e 1.394

  Rom. •…•…2. 8.
• f 1.395

  1. Cor. 12. 28.
• g 1.396

  1. Cor. 15. 10.
• h 1.397

  1. Cor. 1. 14.
• i 1.398

  Acts 14. 12.
• l 1.399

  Cyprian. li. 4. epist. 10.
• m 1.400

  Apud Cypr. l. b. 3. epist. 11.
• n 1.401

  Tertul. in A∣polog. cap. 39.
• o 1.402

  Hieron. in 3. Esaiae.
• p 1.403

  In 1. ad Ti tum.
• q 1.404

  Ambros. com. in 1. ad Tim 5.
• r 1.405

  Cap. 5.
• s 1.406

  Canone 4.
• a 1.407

  Acts, 14. 23.
• b 1.408

  Titus. 1. 5.
• c 1.409

  Reuel. 2. 1.
• d 1.410

  Acts 20. 28.
• e 1.411

  Reuel. 1. 20.
• f 1.412

  Hierony. ad Euagrium.
• g 1.413

  Cyprian. li. 1. Epist. 3.
• h 1.414

  Hierony. ad∣uersus Lucife∣rian.
• i 1.415

  Beza. in resp. ad tract. de mi∣nist. Evang. gradib.
• k 1.416

  Hier. ad Ru∣sticum mona∣chum.
• l 1.417

  Cyprian. li: 1. epist. 3.
• m 1.418

  Ignat. ad Magnesian. E∣pist. 3.
• n 1.419

  Hier. aduer∣sus Luciferia∣nos.
• o 1.420

  Tertul. de Baptismo.
• p 1.421

  Concil. Car∣thag. 4. can. 23.
• q 1.422

  Bellar: li: 1. de Clericis, ca. 14.
• r 1.423

  Concil. Car∣thag. 3. can. 8.
• s 1.424

  Durandus in 4. Sent dist. 24. q. 5.
• t 1.425

  Ambros. in 4. ad Ephes.
• u 1.426

  Relect. con∣tio. 2. q. 3. art. 3.
• x 1.427

  Lib. 1. de Cle∣ricis, cap. 14.
• y 1.428

  De Sacram. Ord. l. 1. c. 5.
• z 1.429

  Booke 3. Chap. 39.
• * 1.430

  a See D. Bilson perpet. gouern. Chap: 11. Euseb. lib. 4. c. 4. 5. 15. 19. & 23.
• b 1.431

  Platina de vi∣tis Pont. in Euaristo.
• c 1.432

  Onuphr. in li∣bello de statio, vrbis Romae.
• d 1.433

  Bel: de Cleri∣cis li: 1. cap. 16.
• e 1.434

  De Sacris. E•…•…∣cles. minist. lib. 1. cap. 13.
• f 1.435

  Canone 54.
• g 1.436

  In vita Greg: lib: 3 cap: 1•…•….
• h 1.437

  Onuphr. lib. de Episc. tit. & Diaconijs Car∣dinal.
• i 1.438

  Bella. vbi su∣pra.
• k 1.439

  Cyprian lib. 3. Ep. 5. & 2•…•….
• l 1.440

  Greg. lib. 4. Registri. cap. 88.
• m 1.441

  De concord. cathol. l. 2. c. 18. citat. d. 93. c. 4.
• n 1.442

  De sacris Ec∣cles. ministeriis l. 1. c. 13.
• * 1.443

  Epist. 61. ad Pammachium, de erroribus Ioannis Hiero∣solym it.
• o 1.444

  Hier. ep. ad Gerontiam de Monogamiâ.
• p 1.445

  De Clericis l. 1. c. 16.
• * 1.446

  Innocent. 4. in Concilio Lugduni habi∣to plures Car∣dinales crea∣vit. Primu•…•…que fuit qui Cardinalitiam dignitatem rubeo pileo adauxit, eâ intentione vt admonerentur, teste Martino Po∣lono, se semper paratos esse debere sanguinem pro Christianâ religione profundere, praesertim eo tempore quo Roma∣na Ecclesia à Frederico secundo quondam Imperatore vehementer oppugnabatur. Bin. Conc. tom. 3. part. 2. pag. 148•…•…. in vita Innocentii 4.
• q 1.447

  Nicholas Cle∣mangis de cor∣rupto Ecclesiae statu.
• r 1.448

  Confer. with Hart, Chap: 7. diuision 6. pag. 384. 385. &c.
• s 1.449

  Math. Parisi∣en. in Henrico 3. p. 848.
• a 1.450

  Canone. 13.
• b 1.451

  Damas. Epist. 5.
• c 1.452

  Damasus ibid.
• d 1.453

  Canone 12.
• e 1.454

  Hispalens. 2. Canone. 7.
• f 1.455

  Epist. 86. & 88.
• g 1.456

  In epist. ad E∣piscop. Germa∣niae & Galliae.
• h 1.457

  Canone 10.
• i 1.458

  De Clericis. li. 1. c. 14.
• * 1.459

  k Epist. suprà citat.
• l 1.460

  Aug. ep. 110.
• m 1.461

  Naucler. vol. 2. gener. •…•…6 p. 667. Decreti part. 2 causa 7. q. 1. c. Petiisti.
• n 1.462

  Loc. Theol. l. 5. c. 2. The Bishops hee speaketh of, hee calleth annular Bishops, haply for that whereas full Bishops had both staffe and ri•…•…g, expressing their Iurisdiction as well as their e∣spousing to the Church, these had the ring onely.
• o 1.463

  Aug. de mo∣rib. Eccl. cath. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• p 1.464

  Duarenus de sacr. Eccl. mi∣nist. l. 1. c. 8.
• q 1.465

  Decret. Greg. 9. ex Synod. ha∣bit. Rauennae. l. 1. Tit. 25.
• r 1.466

  Concil. Turo∣nens. 2. Cano∣ne 7.
• s 1.467

  Canone 44.
• t 1.468

  Synod. Aug.
• * 1.469

  u Linwood. lib. 2. de Iudicijs, fol. 45.
• x 1.470

  Idem, li: 1. de Cóstitutionib.
• y 1.471

  Synod. Trebi∣•…•…ens. de Deca∣nis Christiani∣tatis.
• z 1.472

  Statu Syno∣da. Episc. Hil∣demens.
• a 1.473

  Decret. part. 1. dist. 18. cap. Annis. Conc. Tarrac.. can. 8.
• b 1.474

  Reformat: Cle•…•… Germa∣niae per Laur: Legat. Clem: 7. apud Ioue∣rium. Classe 2. sect. 3.
• c 1.475

  Ses. 24. cap. 2.
• d 1.476

  Iouer. Clas. 2. sect. 2.
• e 1.477

  Canone 1.
• f 1.478

  Canone 17.
• g 1.479

  Canone •…•…5.
• h 1.480

  Conc. Later. de Sent. & In∣terlocut. 4.
• i 1.481

  Conc. Rhoto∣mag. apud Io∣verium 2. Clas. sect. 2. ex Bur∣chard. l. 1. c. 90.
• k 1.482

  Annot. in 2. l. Linvvoodi de sequestration.
• l 1.483

  Onuphrius in interp. vocum Eccles.
• a 1.484

  Hieron. ad Euagrium.
• b 1.485

  Cyprian. li: 2. epist. 1. & in Concilio Car∣thaginensi.
• c 1.486

  Ockam. Dia∣log. l. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. tract. 1. part. 3. cap. 30.
• d 1.487

  Aug. de Ci∣vit. Dei. l. 4. ca. 15.
• e 1.488

  De Pont. Rom. l 1. c. 1. Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 6.
• f 1.489

  De Pont. Ro∣mano. l. 1. c. 3.
• g 1.490

  Concil. Carth. 4.
• h 1.491

  Conc. Carth. 3.
• i 1.492

  Lucius 1. in Epist. ad Episc. Hisp. & Galliae. Concil. Anti∣och. 1. Canone. 9. Concil. Ni∣cen. canone. 4.
• k 1.493

  Concil. Anti∣och. 1. canone. 19.
• l 1.494

  De Pont. Rom. l. 1. c. 8.
• m 1.495

  Conc. Carth. 2. can. 12.
• n 1.496

  Ockam. Dia∣lo. l: 2 tract. 1. part. 3. c. 30.
• * 1.497

  Vide Decret. Damasi ex De•…•…r. Iuoni•…•… Carnotens. l. 1. in Tom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Con∣cil. apud Binni∣um, p. 505.
• o 1.498

  Greg. l. 1. ep. 24. Vide exemplar literarum Tha∣r•…•…sii ad sum∣mos Sacerdotes & Episcopos Antiochiae, A∣lexandriae, & Sanctae Vrbis. in 3 Action. Sy∣nodi 7 apud Binnium.
• p 1.499

  Concil. Nice. canone 5.
• q 1.500

  Conc. Antioc canone. 20.
• r 1.501

  Canone. 2.
• s 1.502

  Canone. 19.
• t 1.503

  Concil. Anti∣siod. canone 7.
• u 1.504

  Conc: Tarrac. canone. 13.
• x 1.505

  Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 3.
• y 1.506

  Initio, Con∣cilij Toletan. 1.
• z 1.507

  Greg. lib. 4. E∣pistola•…•…um, ca: 88.
• a 1.508

  Vide Sub∣script. Concil. Elibert•…•…. & Synod. sub. Gregorio.
• b 1.509

  Bel. de Cleri∣cis li: c. 14.
• c 1.510

  Conc. Anti∣och. canonc. 19
• d 1.511

  Ibid. can. 20.
• e 1.512

  Ibid. can. 9.
• f 1.513

  Canone. 8.
• g 1.514

  Canone. 6.
• h 1.515

  Canone. 8.
• i 1.516

  Canone 2.
• k 1.517

  De Sacram. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2. part. 3. cap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• l 1.518

  Lib. 1. c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.519

  Anacletus epist. 3.
• b 1.520

  Leo ad Ana∣tol. ep. 53.
• c 1.521

  Greg. Epist. li. 6. ep. 37.
• d 1.522

  Conc. Nicen. Canone 6.
• e 1.523

  De Pontif. lib. 2. c. 3.
• f 1.524

  Ruff. Hist. eccl. li. 1. c. 6.
• g 1.525

  Canone 17.
• * 1.526

  Apud Binni∣um Tom. Con∣ciliorum pri∣mo, pag. 352.
• h 1.527

  Binnius in vita Hadriani 2. Tom. 3. Con∣cil. part. 2.
• i 1.528

  Canone. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• k 1.529

  Actione, 16.
• l 1.530

  Hieron. ad E∣uagrium.
• m 1.531

  Leo epist. 62.
• n 1.532

  In Fragmen∣to Concil. 5. apud Binnium. Tom. 2. Concil. pag. 606.
• o 1.533

  Canone 2•…•…
• p 1.534

  Canone •…•…7
• a 1.535

  Greg. ep. l. 4. cp. 34. & 38.
• b 1.536

  Greg. Epist. lib. 4. ep. 3 2.
• c 1.537

  Leo epist. 53.
• d 1.538

  Vide epist: Gregor. supra citat.
• a 1.539

  Theod. hist. l. 5. c. 9 citat. a Bellarm. l. 2. de Pont. Rom. c. 13. & Bin. in annot. ad con∣cil. Constant. 1.
• * 1.540

  Theod. hist. l. 5. c. 7.
• b 1.541

  Bellarm. ubi suprá.
• c 1.542

  Euagrius hist. lib. 1. cap. 4.
• d 1.543

  See these things in the Actes of the Councell of Ephesus, the 7. books of Socra∣tes hist and the first of Euagri∣us.
• * 1.544

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. cap. 17.
• f 1.545

  Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. cap. 19.
• g 1.546

  Apud Binni∣um Concilio∣rum. Tom. 3. part 2. Act. 1. pag. 881.
• h 1.547

  Cyril. Ep. in∣ter acta Ephe. Conc.
• i 1.548

  Actione. 3.
• k 1.549

  Actione 5. pag. 455. 460. a∣pud Binnium, tom. 2.
• l 1.550

  Eodem Tomo pag. 438.
• m 1.551

  Actione 16. pag. 139.
• n 1.552

  De Pontif. Rom. l. 4. c. 22.
• o 1.553

  Conc. Chal∣ced. act. 1. p. 4.
• p 1.554

  In Exempl. epist. Paschasi∣ni, pag. 141.
• q 1.555

  Act. 15 chap. 28.
• r 1.556

  Actione 4.
• s 1.557

  Ep. ad Tharas. in conc. 7. act. 2
• a 1.558

  De Pont. l. 2. c. 1•…•…4.
• b 1.559

  Cusan. de concord. cath. l. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. c. 2.
• c 1.560

  Contius an∣notat in dist. 26. cap. 70.
• d 1.561

  Cypr. epist. 46. & 48. in e∣dit. Pammelij.
• e 1.562

  Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 42.
• f 1.563

  Athanas. apo∣logia. 2.
• g 1.564

  Loco citato. vide etiam Bin∣nium in annor. in epist. Clem.
• h 1.565

  Hieron: Ca∣talog. Script. Eccl. in Iacobo.
• i 1.566

  Cent. 2. cap. 7. ad finem.
• k 1.567

  Binnius an∣not. in Conc. Vasens. 2.
• l 1.568

  Genna Cata∣log. illustrium virorum.
• m 1.569

  Baron. Anno 102. num. 6.
• n 1.570

  De viris l. lustr. cap. 17. vide Annot. Binnij in 1. Ep. Clement. ad Iacobum.
• o 1.571

  Apud Theo∣dor. l. 5. hist. Ec∣cles. c. 9.
• p 1.572

  Apud Theo∣dor. 10.
• * 1.573

  Vide notas Binnii in Con∣cil Constantin. Primum conc. tom. 1.
• q 1.574

  Damas. ep. 4•…•…
• r 1.575

  Basil. ep. 48
• s 1.576

  Innocent. cp. 22. ad Episcop. Maced.
• t 1.577

  Inter Episto∣las August. ep. 91. & 93.
• u 1.578

  Leo epist. 84.
• x 1.579

  Idem epist. 46.
• y 1.580

  Idem epist. 62.
• z 1.581

  Ibidem.
• a 1.582

  Idem epist. 81
• b 1.583

  Idem epist. 87.
• c 1.584

  Idem Serm 1. in natal. Apost.
• d 1.585

  Vide Epist. 46. Leonis.
• e 1.586

  Leo Epist. 84.
• f 1.587

  Gelas. cp. ad cp. Dardan.
• g 1.588

  Idem cp. ad Anast. Imperat.
• h 1.589

  Cap. 7
• i 1.590

  Basil. cp. 48
• k 1.591

  Act. concil. Ephes.
• l 1.592

  Ibid.
• m 1.593

  In epist. ad Martian. & Va∣lentinian. Imp. & in altera ad ipsum Leonem quae habetur act. 3. eius. conc.
• * 1.594

  Greg. Epist. lib. 1. cp. 72.
• * 1.595

  n Idem. l. 2. cp. 37.
• o 1.596

  Idem. li. 4. cp. 56.
• p 1.597

  Idem. lib. 7. cp. 63.
• q 1.598

  Vide infra. chap. 39. of ap∣peales to Rome.
• r 1.599

  Vide annot. in Gratian. Decr. part. 1. dist. 22. c. 3.
• s 1.600

  Canone 9.
• t 1.601

  Iustinian. No∣uel. 123. c. 22.
• u 1.602

  Gregor. Epist. lib. 11. cp 54.
• x 1.603

  Idem. lib. 4. Epist. 34. & in cp. 36 •…•…ortatur Eulogium E∣pisc. Alexandr, & Anastasium Antiochenū vt omnes Episco∣pos eorum cu∣rae Subjectos ab iniquitate elationis Episc. Constantino∣politani prohi∣beant.
• y 1.604

  Lib. 11. epist. 42.
• z 1.605

  Innocent in Epist. ad De∣centium. Eugu∣bin. Episcopum
• a 1.606

  Ignatius ep. ad Romanos.
• b 1.607

  Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3.
• c 1.608

  Epiph. haeres. 68.
• d 1.609

  Athan. in A∣pol. 2.
• e 1.610

  Apol. praedict.
• f 1.611

  Defence of the Chaleng. Artic. of the Suprema∣cie.
• g 1.612

  Basil. Epist. 52. &. 48.
• h 1.613

  Nazianz. in Carm. de vitâ suâ.
• i 1.614

  Chrysost. Ep. l. ad Innocen∣tium.
• k 1.615

  Sozomen. li: 8. ca. 11. & seq. Socrates. lib. 6. Pallad. & Gre∣gorius Alex. in vitâ Chrysosto∣mi Nicephorus l. 13. Baron. an. 404. numero 2. & Binnius. Concil. Tom. 1. pag. 589.
• * 1.616

  Vide ep. In∣nocentii ad Chrysostom. & Theophilum, apud Binnium. Tom. 1. Conc.
• * 1.617

  l Lib. 8. c. 18
• m 1.618

  Inter Episto∣las Innocentij supradictas.
• n 1.619

  See chap. 33.
• o 1.620

  Theodoret. in Epist. ad Leo∣nem quae habe∣tur in fine ope∣rum ejus.
• p 1.621

  Cone. Chalc. Act. 1. & 8.
• q 1.622

  Leon. Epist. in fine operum Theodoreti.
• r 1.623

  Sozom. l. 3. c. 7.
• s 1.624

  Ibidem.
• t 1.625

  Sozom. vbi supra.
• u 1.626

  Ibid. c. 9.
• x 1.627

  Socr. l. 7. c. 33 Euagr. l. 1. c. 5. Vide acta con∣cil. Ephes.
• a 1.628

  Bell. de Pont. l. 2. c. 16.
• b 1.629

  Matth. 16. 18. 19.
• c 1.630

  Ioh. 21. 15. 16.
• d 1.631

  Ioh. 20. 21. & 23.
• e 1.632

  Inter Episto∣las Augustini, epist. 91.
• * 1.633

  f Leo epist. 89.
• g 1.634

  Epist. 52.
• h 1.635

  Lib. 1. Epist. 3.
• i 1.636

  Lib. 2. ep. 10. ad Cornel.
• k 1.637

  Li. 1. Ep. 8. ad plebem vniuer.
• l 1.638

  Concil. Car∣thag. inter ope∣ra Cypriani.
• m 1.639

  De Pont Rom. l. 2. c. 16.
• * 1.640

  n Cypr. lib. 2. epist. 1.
• o 1.641

  Epist. 74.
• p 1.642

  Firmilianus in epist. 75. inter epist. Cy∣priani.
• q 1.643

  De Pont. Ro. lib. 4. c. 7.
• r 1.644

  Optat. lib. 2. contra Parme∣nian.
• s 1.645

  Ambr. in 3 cap. 1. ad Tim.
• t 1.646

  Ambr. in orat. in Satyrum.
• * 1.647

  u Book 3. chap. 41.
• * 1.648

  x Ambr. de sac. l. 3. c. 1.
• y 1.649

  Greg. Epist. l. 7. cp. 63.
• z 1.650

  Cyp. Ep. 67.
• a 1.651

  Hierome. li 1. cōtra Iouinian.
• b 1.652

  Greg. Ep. lib. 6. Epist. cp. 37.
• c 1.653

  Vide apud Binnium Epist. Nichola. Igna∣tio Constanti∣nopolitano. Tom. 3. concil. p 2. pag. 879 & alteram Epist. eiusdem, pag. 889. & orat. Basilij Impera∣toris, p. 859.
• d 1.654

  Hieronym. in Catalog. Script. in Fortunatia∣no & Acacio.
• e 1.655

  Hierome ad Euagrium.
• f 1.656

  Bel. de Pont. li: 2. cap. 16.
• g 1.657

  Hierome vbi iupra.
• h 1.658

  Aug. ep. 562.
• i 1.659

  Idem l. 1. ad Bonif. c. 1.
• k 1.660

  Ibid.
• l 1.661

  Ep. 157.
• m 1.662

  Ep. 92. ad Innoc.
• n 1.663

  Cyr. l 3. ep. •…•…3
• o 1.664

  Vt patet ex epist. August. supradict.
• p 1.665

  Prosper. lib. de ingratis.
• q 1.666

  Idem l. 2. de vocatione gen∣tium. cap. 6.
• r 1.667

  Lib. 2. de per∣sec. Wandalicâ.
• s 1.668

  De sacrament. lib. 2. part. 3. cap. 15.
• t 1.669

  Vinc. Liri∣nens. in suo commonit.
• u 1.670

  Cassiod. l. 11. Epist. 2. ad Io∣annem Papam.
• x 1.671

  Beda hist. gent. Anglor. l. 2. c. 1.
• y 1.672

  Ans. de incar. verbi. cap. 1.
• z 1.673

  Bern. lib. 2, de considera∣tione.
• a 1.674

  Iohn. Bacon. sup. Sen. prolog quaest. 10. art. 2.
• a 1.675

  Bell. de Pont. li: 2. c. 18.
• b 1.676

  Conc. Chal∣ced. Actione 7.
• c 1.677

  Leo Ep: 54. ad Marcianum.
• d 1.678

  Ep. 84. ad A∣nastas. Thessal.
• e 1.679

  Ep. 87. ad E∣pisc. Afric.
• f 1.680

  Greg. l. 1. ep. 34.
• g 1.681

  Cyp. l. 3. ep. 13.
• h 1.682

  Canone 9.
• i 1.683

  Vide acta Con∣cilij Chalced.
• k 1.684

  Bell. ex Theo∣doret h•…•…st. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 23.
• l 1.685

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. l•…•…. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 7.
• m 1.686

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap 2•…•…. 21.
• n 1.687

  Idem. l. 2. c. 24
• o 1.688

  Ibid. cap. 25.
• p 1.689

  Cap. 31.
• q 1.690

  Lib. 3. c. 4.
• r 1.691

  Ibid. cap 5•…•…
• s 1.692

  Lib. 5, c. 3.
• t 1.693

  Ibid. cap. 23.
• u 1.694

  Sozomen li. 7. c. 2. & 11. Socrates li. 5. c. 15.
• * 1.695

  x Theodoret. li. 5. c. 23.
• y 1.696

  Socr. l. 5. c. 15.
• z 1.697

  Zozo. l. 8. c. 3.
• a 1.698

  Amb. cp. 78.
• b 1.699

  Acta Sixti 3. in 1 tom. conc.
• * 1.700

  c Nichol. 1. in ep. ad Michael. Imp.
• d 1.701

  Binnius an∣not. in illud Concil.
• e 1.702

  Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 4.
• f 1.703

  Supra, cap. 35.
• a 1.704

  Greg. l. 4. ep. c. 88.
• b 1.705

  Leo ep. 1.
• c 1.706

  Citat. á Bell. de Pont. Rom. l. 2. c. 19.
• * 1.707

  d Ibid.
• e 1.708

  Ad finem ep. Greg.
• f 1.709

  Gelas. ep. 1
• g 1.710

  Greg. li. 12. Epist. 31.
• h 1.711

  Euseb. histor. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23.
• i 1.712

  Bell. de Pont. li: 2. cap. 19.
• k 1.713

  Euseb. hist. Ecclesiast. l. 5. c. 21. 22. 23.
• l 1.714

  Act. Concil. E∣phes. tom. 1. cap. 14.
• m 1.715

  Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 7.
• * 1.716

  n Tert. de prae∣script in fine.
• o 1.717

  Nicephorus. li: 13. cap. 34.
• p 1.718

  Vide supra cap. 35.
• * 1.719

  Sozom. lib. 8. cap 18.
• q 1.720

  Theodoret. spe•…•…king of the iniury done to Chrysostome, hath these words. Alias virtutes autho∣rum illius reve∣re•…•…i cogor: qua de causa annitar, vt ip∣sorum nomina occultem. lib. 5. hist. Eccl. cap. 34.
• * 1.721

  r Hierome wrote sundry Epistles to Theophilus, full of all due re∣spects, and turned his three Paschall bookes into Latine. Vide Epistolas Hieron. tom. 2.
• s 1.722

  Rhegino lib. 2. Otho. Frisin∣gens. l. 6. c. 3. Sigebert. in Chronico. an. 862.
• t 1.723

  De Pontif. l. 2. cap. 20.
• u 1.724

  Leo. Ep. 84.
• x 1.725

  Canon•…•… 20.
• * 1.726

  a Greg. l. 4. cp. 52.
• y 1.727

  Epist. 87.
• z 1.728

  Hormisd. in cp. ad Salust.
• b 1.729

  Cusan. lib. 2. cōcord. cathol. cap. 7. ex Dist. 12. cap: Qui▪ nesciat. & dist. 43. cap. Iuxta.
• c 1.730

  Iustinian. Au∣thent. Collat. 9. T•…•…t. 6. siue No∣uella Const. 131.
• d 1.731

  Caelest. ep. ad Cyril. Act. Con∣cil. Ephes. tom. 1. cap. 16. Cyril. epist. ad Nesto∣rium Ibid. cap. 14.
• e 1.732

  Euagr. lib. 1. cap. 4.
• f 1.733

  Relat. sanctae Synodi ad pientiss. Imp. inter epist. Sy∣nodales vocat Cyrillum ca∣put congrega∣•…•…orum Episco∣rum.
• g 1.734

  Leo Epist 47.
• h 1.735

  Photius de 7. Synodis.
• i 1.736

  Epist. 13. Ge∣lasij ad Episc. Dardan.
• k 1.737

  Apud Iuellum pag. 277.
• l 1.738

  De Pontif. li. 2. cap. 25.
• * 1.739

  a Cypr. lib: 1. epist. 3.
• b 1.740

  Conc. Mile∣uit. Canone. 22.
• c 1.741

  Epist. 93. inter Epistolas Aug.
• d 1.742

  de Pon. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 24.
• e 1.743

  Gratian. 2. quaest. 6. cap. placuit.
• f 1.744

  Controu. 3 de prim. subiect. potest. eccles. quaest 7. expli∣cat art.
• g 1.745

  Canone 17.
• * 1.746

  h Bell vbi supra.
• i 1.747

  August. Ep. 162.
• k 1.748

  Canone 9.
• l 1.749

  Iustin Nouell. Const. 123. c. 22.
• m 1.750

  Vt patet ex Epist. Concil. j Africani ad Coelestinum.
• n 1.751

  Vbi suprá.
• o 1.752

  Ep. praedict. Conc. Afric. c. 105.
• p 1.753

  Canone 9.
• q 1.754

  Novel. 123 c. 22.
• r 1.755

  Greg. ep. l. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. ep. 54
• s 1.756

  Canone 26.
• t 1.757

  Epist. citat. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Conc. Afric. sive Carthag. 6.
• * 1.758

  The Africanes though within the Patriarchship of Rome, disliked the appeales of Bishops to Rome, because they might haue right against their Metropolitanes, if they wronged them: in a gene∣rall Synode of A∣frick, wherein the P•…•…imate sate as President: for otherwise Bishop•…•… wronged by their Metropolitanes, might by the Ca∣nons appeale to▪ their owne Pa∣triarch.
• u 1.759

  Bell. de Rom. Pont. li. 2. c. 25.
• x 1.760

  Ibidem.
• y 1.761

  Hier. praefat. in Iudith.
• * 1.762

  Booke 4. Chap. 23.
• a 1.763

  Socrat. l. 1. c. 8.
• b 1.764

  August. epist. 110.
• c 1.765

  Canone 14.
• d 1.766

  Ambr. Epist. 82.
• e 1.767

  De Concil. lib. 1. c. 4. 5. & 7.
• f 1.768

  Concil. Sar∣dic. Can. 3. & 7.
• g 1.769

  Canon•…•… 9.
• h 1.770

  Bern. l. 3. de consider. ad Eu∣genium.
• i 1.771

  Gerson. part. 4. serm de pace & unit▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉, c•…•…nsid 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.772

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Harding apud Iuell. p. 29•…•…
• l 1.773

  De Pont. l. 2. cap. 25.
• m 1.774

  De Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c. 15 & li. cod. c. 17.
• * 1.775

  n See these things as large in the E∣pistle of Nicho∣las the first to Michael the Emperour, E∣pistle 8.
• o 1.776

  Vide supra, cap. 35.
• p 1.777

  Epist. 2.
• q 1.778

  Gelas. epist. 13. ad episc. Dardaniae.
• r 1.779

  De Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 21.
• s 1.780

  Leo epist. 89. ad Episc. Gal∣liae.
• t 1.781

  Epiphan. hae∣res. 42.
• u 1.782

  Cypr. l. 1. cp. 3
• x 1.783

  Lib. 1. ep. 4.
• y 1.784

  Chap. 37.
• * 1.785

  z Supra. c. 35. & 37.
• * 1.786

  a Epist. li: 2. cp. 6.
• b 1.787

  Cusan. lib. 2. Concord. Ca∣thol. cap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.788

  Bell. lib. 2. de Pont. Rom. cap. 30.
• b 1.789

  De Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c, 17.
• c 1.790

  Camerac. in Concilio Con∣stant.
• d 1.791

  Gers. de aufe∣ribilit. Papae consider. 16.
• e 1.792

  Vid. act. Conc. Constantiens. & Basiliens.
• f 1.793

  Caiet. in tract. de authorit. Pap. & Conc. c. 20. & 21.
• g 1.794

  Gerson loco supra citato.
• h 1.795

  Titus 3. 11.
• i 1.796

  Act. Concil. Eph. tom. 1. c. 19.
• k 1.797

  Ibid.
• l 1.798

  August. lib. de Baptism. c. 18.
• m 1.799

  Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap. 3. Stapleton. Rel. Controu. 3. quaest. 4.
• * 1.800

  n Marke 2, 2•…•….
• o 1.801

  Platina. in Io∣anne 10. Bene∣dicto, 4. Sergio 3. & Christo∣phor. 1. Sigon. de regno Italiae lib. 6. in vita Formosi.
• p 1.802

  Genebr. chro∣nol. lib. 4. Sae∣culo: 10.
• q 1.803

  de Rom. Pon. lib. 2. c. 26.
• r 1.804

  Aug. de vnico Baptismo cōtra Petilian. l. 1. c. 16.
• s 1.805

  Baron. annal. Tom. 2. anno. 303.
• t 1.806

  Binn. annot. in conc. Sinu∣essanum.
• * 1.807

  u De Pont. l. 4. c. 9.
• x 1.808

  Ib. cap. 8.
• y 1.809

  Cap. 20.
• z 1.810

  Euseb. de vita Constantini. li. 1. cap. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
• a 1.811

  Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 3.
• b 1.812

  Vide Acta Syluestri quae extant in epist. quadam decre∣tali, Tomo 2. Epist. Pontif. item Action. 1. Concil. Niceni 2. & Baronium anno 324. num. 32. & Seq. & Binnium in not•…•…s in vita Syluestri.
• c 1.813

  Euseb. lib. 4. de vita Con∣stantini. cap. 61. 62.
• d 1.814

  Hieronym. in Chronico.
• e 1.815

  Theodor. hist. lib. 2. cap. 26.
• f 1.816

  Socrates lib. 2. cap. 29.
• g 1.817

  Sozom. lib 4. cap. 17.
• h 1.818

  Euseb. hist. lib. 10, cap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.819

  This Councell was holden after the ending of the Nicene Councel, if we may beleeue the Epilogue be∣for•…•… i•…•….
• * 1.820

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cap. 1.
• k 1.821

  Conci. Carth. 4. canone 34.
• l 1.822

  Hieron. Epist. 85. ad Euagri∣um.
• * 1.823

  m Cap. 19.
• * 1.824

  n Cap. 19. & 20.
• o 1.825

  Annot. in acta de Synodali ac∣cusat. & expurg. Polychronij. Tom. 1. Concil.
• p 1.826

  Tomo 1. Con∣ciliorum.
• q 1.827

  Synod. Roma∣na 3. sub Sym∣macho. in 2. Tom. Concil.
• * 1.828

  1 Vide Ockam. dial. l. 6. part. 1. c. 62
• s 1.829

  Sigebert. An∣no. 963. Otho. Frisingens. li. 6. cap. 23.
• * 1.830

  t Otho Frising. lib. cap. 32.
• u 1.831

  Action. 3. Epi. ad Ma•…•…. & Valentinia∣num.
• * 1.832

  x Actione 7.
• y 1.833

  Vide Ockam. Dialog. lib 6. part. 1. cap. 1.
• z 1.834

  Canone 21.
• a 1.835

  Canone 6.
• b 1.836

  Actione 16.
• c 1.837

  Cusan. Con∣cord. cathol. lib. 2. cap. 1•…•….
• d 1.838

  August. Epist. 152.
• e 1.839

  Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 38.
• f 1.840

  Canone 3. & 17.
• g 1.841

  Vt patet in Concilio Car∣thag. 6.
• * 1.842

  h Actione 16.
• i 1.843

  Ca 16. & 17.
• k 1.844

  Actione 16.
• l 1.845

  Canone 17.
• * 1.846

  This Councell of Chalcedon speaketh onely of the Patriarche of Constanti∣nople in that restraint, but ma∣king him equall with the Bishop of Rome by the same Canon, re∣straineth the one as much as the other.
• m 1.847

  Synod. ge∣neral. 6. actione 1.
• n 1.848

  Act concil. Eph. tom. 4. c. 19.
• o 1.849

  Cusan. conc. cath. l. 2. c. 13
• p 1.850

  Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2, c. 27
• q 1.851

  Ex diurno libro dist. 16 c. 4
• r 1.852

  Bell. ubi su∣prá. Quoad di∣rectionem, non quoad coactio∣nem.
• * 1.853

  s Dictum Boni∣facii dist. 4. Si Papa.
• t 1.854

  Cyp. in Conc. Cartha: & lib. 2. ep. 1.
• u 1.855

  Ockam. Dial. l: 6. part. 1. c. 62.
• x 1.856

  Cusan. con∣cord. Cathol. l. 2. cap. 17.
• z 1.857

  Gers. de au∣feribilitate Pa∣pae, consid. 16.
• a 1.858

  Almain.
• b 1.859

  Dried. de dog. matib. extra can. script. sac. constit, l. 4. c. 4.
• a 1.860

  Bell. de Rom. Pont. li. 2. c. 3•…•….
• b 1.861

  Hier. in om∣nib Epist. ad Augustinum.
• c 1.862

  Actione 16.
• d 1.863

  Vbi supr•…•….
• e 1.864

  Cypr. lib 3. epist. 13.
• f 1.865

  Relat. Concil. sub Menna. act. 5.
• g 1.866

  Ibidem. Idem habetur in sup∣plicat. Cleric. & Monachor. An∣tioch. ad Ioan. Patriarch. & Synod. Con∣gregatam. Ibid.
• i 1.867

  Canone •…•…6.
• * 1.868

  h Hier. in praef. Evang. ad Da∣mas•…•…m.
• k 1.869

  Bern. lib. 2. de Consid.
• l 1.870

  Actione 1.
• m 1.871

  Greg. l. 4. ep. 38.
• n 1.872

  Conc. Flor. Sess. ult.
• o 1.873

  Conc, Lugd. cap. Vbi peri∣culum de ele∣ctione in 6.
• p 1.874

  Ep. 237
• q 1.875

  Gerson de auferibilitate Papae.
• r 1.876

  Aug. ep. 106
• s 1.877

  Ep. 162
• t 1.878

  Chap. 3•…•…
• u 1.879

  Concil. Cha. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 actione 3.
• x 1.880

  Greg lib 4. ep. 32.
• y 1.881

  Adrian. ad Tarasium, 7. Syn. actione 2. epist. Prae•…•…ul. Orient. ad eun∣dem, actio. 3.
• a 1.882

  Hierarch. Ec∣cles. l•…•…. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. c. 8.
• b 1.883

  Bellar. l. 4. de pont. cap. 2. Caietan in o∣pusc. de potest. Papae & Conc.
• c 1.884

  Citat. à Bellar. l. 4. de Pontif. cap. 2. & à Sta∣pletono. cont•…•…. 3. qu. 4.
• d 1.885

  Doctrinal. fidei. l. 2. art. 2. cap. 19.
• e 1.886

  Theorem. 4.
• f 1.887

  vbi supr•…•….
• g 1.888

  Bellarm. de Pontif. l. 2. c. 3.
• h 1.889

  Luke 2•…•….
• i 1.890

  August. lib. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & gra∣tia cap. 8.
• k 1.891

  Chrysost. ho∣mil 83. in Mat∣thaeum.
• l 1.892

  The•…•…phyl. in cap. 22. Lucae.
• m 1.893

  Luk. 22. 32.
• n 1.894

  In bunc lo∣cum.
• o 1.895

  De Pontif. l•…•…b. 4. cap. 3.
• p 1.896

  Eodem cap.
• q 1.897

  Lucius r. in ep. ad Epis•…•…. Hisp. & Galliae.
• r 1.898

  Felix 1. ep. ad Benign.
• s 1.899

  Marc. ep. ad Athanas. de missione can. Niceni conc.
• t 1.900

  Chap. 3 4.
• u 1.901

  Li. 1. de Pont. cap. 11.
• x 1.902

  Actione 4.
• y 1.903

  Platina in Marcellino. & acta Concil. Sinuessani.
• z 1.904

  Athanas. ep. ad Solit. vitam agentes. Hier. in Chronico. & in Catal. Scrip∣tor. Eccles. in Fortunatiano & Acacio. Da masus in vita Liberij.
• a 1.905

  Epist. Agatho∣nis ad Constan∣tinum quae ha∣betur Synod. 6. actio. 4.
• c 1.906

  Habentur haec verba in Syno. 8. actione 7.
• * 1.907

  b In fine ejusd. Con•…•…ilij.
• * 1.908

  e Epist. ad Epis. Arelat. & habe∣tur cap. maiores extra. de Baptis mo & eius effe∣ctu.
• d 1.909

  Epist. ad Pe∣trum Antioch.
• f 1.910

  Matth. 16. 18.
• g 1.911

  Iob. 21. v. 15. 16. 17.
• h 1.912

  Chap. 22.
• i 1.913

  Cusan. de con∣cord. cathol. l. 2. cap. 7. & lib. 1. cap. 14.
• k 1.914

  August. in Psal. contra. partem Donati.
• * 1.915

  l Inter Epistol. Gelasij.
• m 1.916

  Greg. lib. 4. ep. 32.
• n 1.917

  Epist. 67.
• o 1.918

  Greg. l. 6. cp. 37.
• p 1.919

  Exod. 28. 30
• q 1.920

  Deut. 17. 9
• r 1.921

  Vers. 10.
• s 1.922

  Matth. 23. 2.
• t 1.923

  In eundem locum.
• u 1.924

  August. de hae∣resib Beda de ratione tempo∣rum. Alfons. à Castro contra haeres. lib. 2. pag. 1•…•…9.
• x 1.925

  See Epist. 9 5. inter Epist. Au∣gustini.
• y 1.926

  Initio acto∣rum Concil. Bracar. 1•…•…
• z 1.927

  Aug. de haeres. cap. 82.
• a 1.928

  Hier. contra Iouinian. lib. 1.
• b 1.929

  Booke 3. chap. 30.
• c 1.930

  Hieron. cont. Vigilantium.
• d 1.931

  Concil. Eliber∣tin. Canon. 34. 35.
• e 1.932

  Aug. lib. 1. de Baptismo c. 18.
• f 1.933

  De Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 7.
• e 1.934

  Firmilian. ad Cyprian. inter Epistolas Cy∣prian ep. 75.
• f 1.935

  Euseb. Hist. l. 7. c. 4.
• g 1.936

  Vbi supra.
• a 1.937

  In exposit. symboli.
• b 1.938

  Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 8
• c 1.939

  Annotat. in Tert. contra Praxeam.
• d 1.940

  In vita Mar∣cellini.
• e 1.941

  In Marcellino
• f 1.942

  Annal. Ann. 303. num. 99.
• * 1.943

  g Annot. in acta conc. Sinuessa∣ni.
• h 1.944

  De Pontif. li. 4. cap. 9.
• i 1.945

  Athanas. in e∣pist. ad solitar•…•…. vitam agentes.
• k 1.946

  Hieron. in Chronico. & in Catalog. Script. Eccles. in For∣tunatiano.
• l 1.947

  Hil. in lib: ad∣uers. Constanti•…•…
• m 1.948

  Zozom. lib. 4. cap. 14.
• n 1.949

  In Ch•…•…onico.
• o 1.950

  Vbi suprà.
• p 1.951

  Hieron. in Ca∣talog. Script. Ecclesiast. in A∣cacio.
• q 1.952

  Theodoret. hist. Eccles. l. 2. cap. 17.
• r 1.953

  Sozom. l. 4. 14.
• s 1.954

  In Felice.
• t 1.955

  Theodoret. v∣bi suprà.
• u 1.956

  Binnius an∣not. in vitam. Felicis.
• x 1.957

  Athanas. lib. de Synodis.
• y 1.958

  Socrates: lib. 2. cap. vlt.
• * 1.959

  z Hilar. lib. de Synodo.
• a 1.960

  De Pont. l. 4 c 9.
• b 1.961

  Annot. in vit. Felicis.
• c 1.962

  Ruffin. Eccl. hist. l. 1. c. 22.
• d 1.963

  Hier. contra Luciferianos. Cypr. l. 2. cp. 1
• e 1.964

  In vita Ana∣stasii 2.
• f 1.965

  Dist. 19. ca. Anast.
• g 1.966

  In Breviario c. 22.
• h 1.967

  Actione 13.
• i 1.968

  Actione 7.
• k 1.969

  Actione 7.
• l 1.970

  In Synod. 7. actione 3.
• m 1.971

  In Epistolâ Synodicâ quae habetur in eâ∣dem. 7. Synod. actione 3.
• n 1.972

  Synod. 7. acti∣one 6.
• o 1.973

  In Carm. de 7. Synodis.
• p 1.974

  De 6. aetatib. in vita Con∣stantini. 4.
• q 1.975

  In vita Leo∣nis.
• r 1.976

  Actione 12.
• s 1.977

  Disp. Maximⁱ cum Pyrrho in 2 Tom. Concil. apud Binnium.
• t 1.978

  Actione 12. Synod: 6. & act. 13.
• u 1.979

  Actione 11.
• x 1.980

  Concilior. Tomo 2.
• y 1.981

  Actione 4.
• z 1.982

  2. Tomo. con∣cil. apud Binni∣um.
• a 1.983

  In vitâ Hono∣rij apud Plati∣nam.
• * 1.984

  b Chap. 42.
• c 1.985

  Decret. part. 2. causa 32. qu. 7. Cano. pro∣posuisti.
• d 1.986

  Sess 24. c. 2.
• e 1.987

  Lib. 1. de ser∣mone Dom. in monte c. 29.
• f 1.988

  Sigebert. in Chronico anni 900. & Seq. Platina. in Ste∣phan. & Sergio.
• g 1.989

  De Pont. lib. 4. c. 12.
• h 1.990

  Anno 902
• i 1.991

  De haeres. lib. 1. c. 4.
• k 1.992

  In Decretal. cap laudabilem de conuersione Infidelium.
• l 1.993

  Cap. Quanto de diuortijs.
• m 1.994

  Sess. 24. can. 5.
• n 1.995

  Alfonsus à Castro. contra haeres. lib. 1. c. 2.
• o 1.996

  Cap. exijt de verb. signif. in Sexto.
• p 1.997

  Ockam oper is 90. dierum. c. 2.
• q 1.998

  In extraua∣gant. ad Condi∣torem Cano∣num.
• r 1.999

  Vid. litera•…•… Michael. Cae∣sen. in fine Di∣olog. Occami.
• s 1.1000

  Occam. in o∣pere 90. die∣rum & alibi.
• t 1.1001

  2. partis tract. 1. in initio.
• u 1.1002

  Part. 4. ope∣rum ejus. With Gerson agreeth Adrian. 6. in q. de Confirmat. circa finem.
• x 1.1003

  De Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 14.
• y 1.1004

  Instit. lib. 3. c. 20. & 24.
• a 1.1005

  August. Tri∣umphus. Alva∣rus Pelagius, & alii cit. à Bel∣larm.
• b 1.1006

  Bellar. & alii
• c 1.1007

  Waldensis, Gerson, Hart, & many other cited in the exa∣mination of Blackwell.
• d 1.1008

  De Pont. l. 5. c. 2. 3. & 4•…•….
• * 1.1009

  e 1 Cor. 5, 12.
• f 1.1010

  Dan. 2 37.
• g 1.1011

  Matth. 22. 21,
• h 1.1012

  Rom. 13. 5
• i 1.1013

  Ambros. in O∣ratione de tra∣dend. Basilicis.
• k 1.1014

  In epist. ad solitariam vi∣tam agentes.
• l 1.1015

  Leo epist. ad Martian. 38. & 43.
• m 1.1016

  Epi. ad Ana∣stas. quae habe∣tur. Dist. 96. ca. duo sunt.
• n 1.1017

  Greg. lib. 2. e∣pist. 61. ad Mauritium.
• o 1.1018

  Vers. 12.
• p 1.1019

  Ierem. 22. 30.
• q 1.1020

  Luke 1. 32.
• r 1.1021

  Luke 12. 14.
• s 1.1022

  Ioh. 6. 15.
• t 1.1023

  1. Ioh. 3. 8.
• u 1.1024

  Ioh. 12. 31.
• x 1.1025

  Colos. 2. 15.
• y 1.1026

  Ioh. 18. 36.
• z 1.1027

  Chrysostom. Theophylact. Cyril. & Aug. in hunc locum. Ambros. li. 3. in Lucam, prope finem.
• a 1.1028

  2. Chron. 26. 20.
• b 1.1029

  Num. 25. 7.
• c 1.1030

  1. King. 18. 40.
• d 1.1031

  Psal. 2.
• e 1.1032

  Dan. 2. 44.
• f 1.1033

  Aug. in 15 Ioannis.
• g 1.1034

  Gloss. super illud Matth. 21. Benedictus qui venit.
• h 1.1035

  Leo serm. de Epiphania.
• i 1.1036

  Fulg. serm. de Epiph.
• k 1.1037

  Ioh. 18. 36.
• l 1.1038

  Ockam oper•…•…s 90. dier. c. 53
• m 1.1039

  Ioh. 18. 36
• n 1.1040

  Luk. 12. 14.
• o 1.1041

  Ambros. in eum locum.
• p 1.1042

  Math. 20. 25.
• q 1.1043

  Math. 22. 21.
• r 1.1044

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2•…•… 5. &c.
• s 1.1045

  Esay 9 6.
• t 1.1046

  Luk. 19. 43.
• u 1.1047

  To which pur pose see Wal. dens. Doctr. lib: 2. art. 3. cap. 76. & 77.
• x 1.1048

  Math. 28. 18.
• y 1.1049

  De Pontif. l. 5. cap. 5.
• z 1.1050

  Epist. Nicho∣la•…•… citat. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Gra∣tian. Dist. 22. cap. omnes.
• a 1.1051

  Homil. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. de verb. Esaiae. Vi∣di Dominum.
• b 1.1052

  Math. 16. 19.
• c 1.1053

  Bonifac. 8. in extravagant. unam Sanctam de Maioritate & obedientiâ.
• d 1.1054

  Duaren. de Sac. Eccl. Mi∣nist. & Benef. l. 7. c. •…•…0.
• e 1.1055

  In 22 Lucae.
• f 1.1056

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4. de con∣sid. ad Eugen.
• g 1.1057

  Cap. Licet de foro compe∣•…•…enti.
• h 1.1058

  Clem•…•…n lib. 2 Tit. 11. de Sen∣tentia & re ju∣dicat•…•….
• i 1.1059

  Decreti part. 2. causa 11. quaest. 1. ca. Quicunque.
• k 1.1060

  De Sacr. Eccl. Minist. & benef. lib. 1. c. 2.
• a 1.1061

  Bellar. de Pon. Rom. lib. 5. c. 6.
• b 1.1062

  Tert in Apol. aduersus Gen∣tes. cap. 30.
• c 1.1063

  Ans. to the re∣ports of Sir Ed. Cook. chap. 2. pag. 26.
• d 1.1064

  Diolog lib. 2. tractat. 2. part. 3. cap. 22.
• e 1.1065

  Aug. de Bono Coniugali. c. 14
• f 1.1066

  De Pont. lib. 5. cap. 7.
• g 1.1067

  Ecclus. 10 7.
• h 1.1068

  1. King. 12. 30
• i 1.1069

  Socrates. lib. 3. cap. 19.
• k 1.1070

  Doctrin. fid. l. 2. art. 3. c. 78.
• l 1.1071

  Nazianz. orat. ad Ciues tre∣pidantes.
• m 1.1072

  Chrys. hom. 5. de verb. Esaiae VidiDominum.
• n 1.1073

  Hom. 4.
• o 1.1074

  Petrus Blesen. Epist. 146.
• p 1.1075

  Lib. 2. de. Sa∣crament. part. 2. c. 4.
• q 1.1076

  Doct. Fid. li. a. art. 3. ca. 78.
• r 1.1077

  Vbi supra.
• s 1.1078

  In Orat. ad populum timo∣re perculsum & Imp. •…•…ascen∣tem.
• t 1.1079

  Bellar. in E∣pist. ad Blac∣kwellum.
• u 1.1080

  2 Cor 10. v. 4
• * 1.1081

  x Aug. de Ciu. Dei. lib. cap.
• y 1.1082

  Serm. 33. in Cantica.
• z 1.1083

  De Pont. lib: 5 cap. 7.
• a 1.1084

  Deut. 17. 15. 16.
• b 1.1085

  Exod. 18. 21.
• c 1.1086

  Vbi supr•…•….
• d 1.1087

  In Apologet. aduersus Gen∣tes, cap. 37.
• e 1.1088

  Ibid. cap. 30.
• f 1.1089

  Citat. â Gra∣tiano Decret. 2. part. causa 11. qu. 3. cap. 94.
• g 1.1090

  Citat. ibidem cap. 98.
• h 1.1091

  Eccles. 10. 20.
• i 1.1092

  1. Cor. 6.
• k 1.1093

  Ockam. 8. quaest. super potest. & dig∣nit. Papali. quaest. 1. c. 11.
• l 1.1094

  De Pont. l. 5. c. 7.
• m 1.1095

  De Matrim. Sacram. lib. 1. controv. 4. c. 12
• n 1.1096

  2 a 2 dae q. 10. art. 10.
• a 1.1097

  1. Sam 9.
• b 1.1098

  1. Sam. 15. 23
• c 1.1099

  2. Kings. 9. 1.
• d 1.1100

  1. Sam. 16. 1.
• e 1.1101

  Ierem. 1. 10.
• f 1.1102

  Lyra in hunc locum.
• g 1.1103

  Hieronym. in eundem locum.
• h 1.1104

  2. Chon. 26.
• i 1.1105

  2. King. 15. 33.
• k 1.1106

  2. Kings 15. 30
• l 1.1107

  2. Chron. 21. 22. & 23.
• m 1.1108

  De potest. & dignitate Papa∣li, qu. 1. c. 10.
• n 1.1109

  Sozomen. li. 7. c. 24. Theo∣doret. li•…•…. 5. ca. 16. & 17.
• o 1.1110

  Psal 119. •…•…5.
• p 1.1111

  In fine epist. Greg.
• q 1.1112

  Zenaras in vita Leonis I∣sauri.
• r 1.1113

  Naucler. in Chron. vol. 2. Gener. 25. pag. 654.
• s 1.1114

  Vbi suprà.
• t 1.1115

  Lib. 5. cap. 18. Chronici.
• u 1.1116

  Lib. Chron. ab initio mundi cum figuris & imaginibus in 6. aetate mundi.
• x 1.1117

  Vbi suprà.
• y 1.1118

  Chron. lib. 1.
• z 1.1119

  Chronic. anni. 731.
• a 1.1120

  Gregor. 7, lib. 8. epist. 21.
• c 1.1121

  Dialog. lib. 1. tract. 2. 3. part. cap. 18.
• * 1.1122

  b Part. 2. Causa 15. c. 6.
• d 1.1123

  Gloss. super. cap. allegat.
• e 1.1124

  Gloss. extra. de foro compe∣tenti. Ca. Siquis Clericus.
• f 1.1125

  Cent. 8. c. 10.
• g 1.1126

  De Pontif. l. 5. c. 8.
• h 1.1127

  Lib. Chron: Aetate. 6. in Pipino.
• i 1.1128

  Chron. anno. 750.
• k 1.1129

  Naucler. Chronol. vol. 2. Gener. 20.
• l 1.1130

  Chroni. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap. 21. & 22.
• * 1.1131

  m Lib. 2.
• n 1.1132

  Loco citato.
• o 1.1133

  Gerson in Serm. de pas∣chate part. 4. operum eius:
• p 1.1134

  Sigebert an∣no 801.
• q 1.1135

  Aetate. 6. in Leone.
• r 1.1136

  Anno. 800.
• s 1.1137

  Chronog. vol. 2. gener. 27.
• t 1.1138

  Great. chron. in Carolo.
• u 1.1139

  Great. chron. in Gregory 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Naucl. vol. 2. Generat. 28. & sequentibus.
• u 1.1140

  Vol. 2. Gene∣rat. •…•…4.
• x 1.1141

  Concord. Cathol. l. 3. c. 4.
• y 1.1142

  Otho Frisin∣gens. Chronic. lib. 6. c. 32. 33.
• z 1.1143

  Naucler. Vol. 2. Gener. 36.
• * 1.1144

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Otho. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. 6. cap. •…•…4. & 35.
• b 1.1145

  Otho Fris. l. 6 Chron. c. 35
• * 1.1146

  c Decr. part. 2. caus. 15. q. 6. & l. 8. ep. 21.
• d 1.1147

  In Chron. anno 1088.
• * 1.1148

  e Chro. l, 6. c. 36
• i 1.1149

  Naucler. Vol. 2. Gener. 37.
• k 1.1150

  Annal.
• l 1.1151

  Li. 6. cap. 32.
• l 1.1152

  Anno 1085.
• m 1.1153

  Annal. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pag. 563.
• n 1.1154

  Cusanus de concord. Ca∣thol. l. 3. c. 41
• o 1.1155

  See Math. Pa∣ris. Henric. 3. p. 682.
• a 1.1156

  De Concord. Cath. l. 3. c. 2.
• b 1.1157

  Locorum Theologic: lib. 12. c. 5.
• c 1.1158

  3. part. quaest. 69. in 4. argu∣mento.
• d 1.1159

  Lib. 2.
• e 1.1160

  Lib. Parerg. 7. c. 19.
• f 1.1161

  In Chronic.
• g 1.1162

  Lib. 4. de vita Constantin.
• h 1.1163

  Lib. 2. cap. 39.
• i 1.1164

  Lib. 1. hist. Ec∣cles. c. 31.
• k 1.1165

  Lib. 3. cap. 34.
• l 1.1166

  Tripart. hist.
• m 1.1167

  Concord. Cathol. l3. c. 2.
• n 1.1168

  Vbi supra. Dist. 96. cap. Constantinus.
• o 1.1169

  Lib. 15.
• p 1.1170

  Epist. Aga∣thonis. lecta in 6: actione. 4.
• q 1.1171

  Io. Diaconus. in vita Grego∣rij. lib. 1. c. 40.
• r 1.1172

  Concord. Ca∣thol. li. 3. cap. 2.
• t 1.1173

  1. Thess. 5: 21.
• u 1.1174

  Hist. part. 1. tit. 8. cap. 2.
• x 1.1175

  Cap. cum E∣nixa Dist. 5. in annot.
• y 1.1176

  Part. 1. decr. Dist. 46. cap. Constantinus.
• z 1.1177

  Centur. 4. c. 7.
• a 1.1178

  Chronogr. •…•…ol. 2. c ner. 11.
• b 1.1179

  Vbi supra.
• c 1.1180

  Decret. 2. par∣te causa. 12. qu. 1. cap. 15.
• d 1.1181

  6. Decretal. Bonifac: 8. lib. 1: tit: 6: electio∣ne & elect. po∣test: cap: 17:
• e 1.1182

  Naucler: vol 2. Gen: 19: & 20.
• f 1.1183

  Idem. gener. 25. Rhegino. lib. 1.
• g 1.1184

  Naucler. gener. 25. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• g 1.1185

  Dist. 63. cap. Adrianus.
• h 1.1186

  De regno Italiae. lib. 4.
• i 1.1187

  As Lotharius did. Naucler. vol 2. generat. 28.
• k 1.1188

  Gener. 39.
• l 1.1189

  De gestis Fre∣derici. lib. 2. c. 5.
• m 1.1190

  Radeuici Frising. appen. ad Othon em de r•…•…b. gestis Frederici lib. 2. cap. 30.
• n 1.1191

  Ibid.
• o 1.1192

  Supra.
• p 1.1193

  Radeuici ap∣pend. ad Otho∣nem. lib. 1. c. 19.
• q 1.1194

  Psal. 109. 28.
• * 1.1195

  r Naucler. vol. 2. gener. 39.
• s 1.1196

  Psal. 91. 13
• t 1.1197

  Sabel. Enne∣ad. 8. l. 8
• u 1.1198

  Which Ockam dial. l. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tract. 2. part. 3. proueth to be false and hereticall •…•…y ma∣ny reasons.
• * 1.1199

  x Radeuicus Frising in Ap∣pend. ad Othon. l. 1. c. 9.
• y 1.1200

  Ibid. c. 10.
• * 1.1201

  x 1. Pet. 2. 17.
• a 1.1202

  Radeuic. vbi▪ suprà. cap. 15.
• b 1.1203

  Cap. 16.
• c 1.1204

  Cap. 17.
• d 1.1205

  Cap. 22.
• e 1.1206

  Appendix ve∣tusti scriptoris ad Radewinum in fine hist. O▪ thonis Frisin∣gensis. Naucler. vol. 2. gener. 39
• f 1.1207

  Ibidem.
• q 1.1208

  2 Thess. 2▪ 4▪
• a 1.1209

  Chap. 27.
• b 1.1210

  See D. Bilson of the perpetuall gouernment of the Church cap. 14. pag. 307.
• c 1.1211

  Concil. Car∣thag. 4. Cano∣ne. 23.
• d 1.1212

  Chap. 30.
• e 1.1213

  Aug. lib. 4. contra duos Epist. Pelagian. cap. 12.
• f 1.1214

  In praefat. Conciliorum.
• g 1.1215

  Aug. lib. 7. de Baptismo. con∣tra Donatist. cap. 7.
• * 1.1216

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cypr. cp. 45. & 55.
• i 1.1217

  Vbi supra.
• k 1.1218

  Ep. ad Proco∣pium 102.
• * 1.1219

  In the Councell of Eliberis: in the first Councell of Carthage a∣bout rebaptiza∣tion, and in the third Councell of Rome under Faelix the third many of the peo∣ple were present.
• a 1.1220

  Dist. 96. cap. Vbinam.
• b 1.1221

  Occam. Dia∣log. 2. part. lib. 6. part. 1. c. 85.
• c 1.1222

  In Epist. ad Strateg. Bithi∣niae ante Con∣cil. Chalcedon.
• d 1.1223

  Bellar. l. 1. de concilijs c. 15.
• e 1.1224

  In Cap. Signi∣ficasti de Electi∣one.
• f 1.1225

  Part. 1. de examin. Doc∣trinarum.
• g 1.1226

  Li•…•…. de con∣cilijs cap. 19.
• h 1.1227

  Ephes. 4. 11.
• i 1.1228

  Ierem. 3. 15.
• k 1.1229

  Chap. 30.
• l 1.1230

  Euagrius, lib. 1. cap. 3.
• m 1.1231

  Epist. Aga∣thon. & Rom. Synod. in acti∣one 4. Synodi sextae.
• n 1.1232

  Platina in In∣nocent. 3
• o 1.1233

  Lib. 1. de con∣cil. c. 1•…•….
• p 1.1234

  Bellarm. ibid.
• q 1.1235

  Actione 6.
• r 1.1236

  Concor. cath. l. 2. c. 3.
• s 1.1237

  Concil. Chal∣ced. actione 5.
• t 1.1238

  Bellar. lib. 1. de Concil. c. 17.
• u 1.1239

  Theodoret. hist. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 9.
• x 1.1240

  Bellarm. vbi supra.
• y 1.1241

  Cusan. de Concord. Ca∣thol. lib. 2. c. 3.
• * 1.1242

  z Leo. epist. 25.
• a 1.1243

  Vide haec om∣nia apud Cusa∣num loco cita∣•…•…o.
• a 1.1244

  Euseb de vita Constantini li. 3. cap. 10. & 11.
• b 1.1245

  Epist. ad soli∣tariam vitam agentes.
• c 1.1246

  Theodoret. hist. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 7.
• d 1.1247

  Euseb. l. 3. de vit. Constant. c. 7.
• e 1.1248

  Lib. 1. de con∣cil. c. 19
• f 1.1249

  Actione 6. p. 136. apud Bin.
• g 1.1250

  Vbi supra.
• * 1.1251

  h Apud Theod. l. 5. c. 9.
• i 1.1252

  Act. conc. Eph. Tom. 1. c. 16.
• k 1.1253

  Conc. Chal∣ced. actione 3.
• l 1.1254

  Actione 4.
• m 1.1255

  Lib. 1. c. 4.
• n 1.1256

  De 7. Synod.
• o 1.1257

  Act. Concil. Ephes. tom. 2. cap. 17.
• p 1.1258

  Binnius in Annotat. in Concil. 5.
• q 1.1259

  Greg. lib. 1. Epist. 24. ad Ioannem Cō∣stantinopol.
• r 1.1260

  Socrates lib. 2. cap. 13.
• * 1.1261

  s Cusanus Con∣cord, Cathol. lib. 2. ca: 2. lib. 3. cap. 15.
• t 1.1262

  Vide Acta •…•…orum Conci∣liorum.
• u 1.1263

  See the actes of these councels.
• x 1.1264

  Sess. ult.
• y 1.1265

  Summa de Eccles. l. 3. c. 23▪
• z 1.1266

  Desacris Ec∣cles. minist. & benef. l. 3. c. 2
• a 1.1267

  Augustin. Ep. 19. ad Hieron.
• b 1.1268

  De Gener. Concil. autho∣ritate. lib. 1. pag. 46. & 47.
• c 1.1269

  Loc. Theolog. lib. 5. cap. 5.
• d 1.1270

  De Concilijs lib. 1. cap. 18.
• e 1.1271

  Loco citato.
• f 1.1272

  Actio. 18.
• g 1.1273

  Canus loco 〈◊〉〈◊〉. pag. 164.
• h 1.1274

  Lib. 1. de Con∣cilijs. cap. 18.
• i 1.1275

  Actione. 4.
• k 1.1276

  Eodem Ca∣pite.
• l 1.1277

  Lib. 2. de Con∣cil. cap. 11.
• m 1.1278

  Lib. 1. de Concilijs. cap. 18.
• n 1.1279

  Lib. 1. de Ge∣ner. concil. au∣thoritate.
• o 1.1280

  De Pont. l. 4. c. 3.
• p 1.1281

  Lib. 1. Epist. c. 4. & 24.
• q 1.1282

  De Pont. Max. Genera∣liumque conc. authoritate ad Basilien•…•…. ora∣torem. Respon. num. 67. & 68.
• r 1.1283

  Vbi supra.
• s 1.1284

  De iusta Hae∣ret. punitione lib. 1. c. 6.
• t 1.1285

  Vt patet in Epist. Nicolai. ad Patriarchas.
• u 1.1286

  Bellarm. de Concilijs. lib. 2. cap. 11.
• x 1.1287

  Actione 3.
• y 1.1288

  De Concilijs lib. 1. cap. 17.
• z 1.1289

  Luke. 22. •…•…2.
• a 1.1290

  Matth. 18. 20.
• b 1.1291

  Bellarm. lib. 2. de Concilijs cap. 16.
• c 1.1292

  Concord. Ca∣thol. lib. 2. c. 8.
• d 1.1293

  Hactenus ex Cusano. Loco citato.
• e 1.1294

  Actione 5
• a 1.1295

  Locor. Theo∣logic. li. 5. ca. 5.
• b 1.1296

  Dist. 19. ca. In Canonicis.
• c 1.1297

  Aug. de Doc∣trin Christ. lib. 2. cap. 8.
• d 1.1298

  De fide & or∣dine credendi. Theorem. 15.
• e 1.1299

  Aduersus hae∣res. lib. 1. cap. 2.
• f 1.1300

  Turrecrema∣ta. lib. 4. summae de ecclesia par∣te 2. cap. 9. & Caietan. in lib. de primatu Rom. Ecclesiae cap. 14. were mis-led in this point. by Gratian as Alphonsus noteth.
• g 1.1301

  2. Pet. 1. 21.
• h 1.1302

  2. Tim. 3. 16.
• i 1.1303

  Clementina vnicâ De sum∣mâ Trinitate & fide Catho∣licâ.
• k 1.1304

  Quodlibet. 9. art. vlt.
• l 1.1305

  Locorum. Theol. li. 5. c. 5. Citat etiam Antoninum. part. 3. tit. 12. cap. 8. Idem & Caietan. Opusc. de indulgent ad Iulium. ca. 8.
• m 1.1306

  Vide Canum Loco citato.
• n 1.1307

  Andrad. de authoritate 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Concilior. lib. 1. sol. 66.
• o 1.1308

  Occam. Di∣alog. li. 3. primi tract. 3. part. cap. 8.
• p 1.1309

  Dan. 2. 23.
• q 1.1310

  Math. 10. 19 & 20.
• * 1.1311

  Math. 11. 25
• s 1.1312

  2 Kings 22.
• t 1.1313

  Acts 15
• u 1.1314

  Loc. Theolog. lib 5. cap. 5.
• x 1.1315

  Hieronym▪ lib: 1: contra Pelagianos.
• y 1.1316

  Doctrinal fi∣dei. li: 2. c. 19.
• z 1.1317

  Ibid. cap. 27.
• a 1.1318

  Booke. 4. ca. 5.
• b 1.1319

  Cap. 19.
• c 1.1320

  De fide & ord. credendi Theorem. 4.
• * 1.1321

  See▪ Cleman∣gis his disputati∣on, with a certain Schoole-man of Paris, wherein he proueth by ex∣cellent reasons that Generall Councells may erre. This dispu∣tation is found in the book in•…•…uled Speculum Ec∣clesiae Pontifi∣ciae, lately prin∣ted at London.
• d 1.1322

  Syluester: vt est apud Ca∣num. lib. 5. c. 5.
• e 1.1323

  Vt idem Ca∣nus refert.
• f 1.1324

  Lib. 2. de Bap∣rismo. cap. 3.
• g 1.1325

  De Concil. li. 2. cap. 7.
• h 1.1326

  Apud Grati∣an. dist. 50. Ca. Domino Sanc∣to.
• * 1.1327

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Socates. lib. 2. cap. 29.
• k 1.1328

  Leo ep. 25.
• l 1.1329

  Vt patet ex Epistola Nico∣lai ad Patriar∣chas & caeteros Episc. Orientis, & ex Zonarâ in vita Mic•…•…. Imp.
• m 1.1330

  In chron: an. 90
• n 1.1331

  Ce conc. in Lib: 2. c. 2.
• o 1.1332

  De Pont. l. 4. c. 3.
• p 1.1333

  De conc. l. 2. c. 5.
• q 1.1334

  Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 2. 3. & 4.
• r 1.1335

  Ep 74. ad p•…•…mp.
• s 1.1336

  Theorem. 4.
• t 1.1337

  Ibidem.
• u 1.1338

  Ockam. Dia∣log. lib. 3. primi tract. 3. part. cap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• x 1.1339

  Greg. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Epist. 24.
• y 1.1340

  Cap. 5.
• z 1.1341

  Actione. 15. Canon. 28.
• a 1.1342

  De Concilijs li, 2. cap. 12.
• b 1.1343

  Chap. 29.
• c 1.1344

  Canon. 19. & 20.
• d 1.1345

  Canon. 6.
• e 1.1346

  Canone 1
• f 1.1347

  Canone 1
• g 1.1348

  Canone 17
• h 1.1349

  De concord cath. l. 2. c. 18. cit. dist. 93. c. 4
• i 1.1350

  Apud Atha∣nas. Apol. 2.
• k 1.1351

  Theod. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 9.
• l 1.1352

  Bellar, ait Ali∣qua Concilia Simpliciteresse necessaria, ge∣neralia non simpliciter sed suo quodam modo. lib. 1. de Conciliorum authorit. cap. 11. & 10.
• m 1.1353

  Sozomen. lib. 8. cap. 18.
• n 1.1354

  Tom. 1. Con∣ciliorum. pag. 267. apud Bin∣nium.
• o 1.1355

  Pag. 523.
• p 1.1356

  Tom. 1. Con∣cil. pag. 535. Binnius ex S•…•…∣uero. lib. 2. & Prospero in Chronico Ma∣ximum Imp. in∣dixisse oftendit
• q 1.1357

  Pag. 304.
• r 1.1358

  Tom. 2. Con∣cil. pag. 309.
• s 1.1359

  Tom. 2. pag. 314.
• t 1.1360

  Tomo. 2. pag. 477.
• u 1.1361

  Tomo. 2. pag. 508.
• x 1.1362

  Tomo. 2. pag. 514.
• y 1.1363

  Tomo. 2. pag. 640.
• z 1.1364

  Tomo. 2. pag. 656.
• a 1.1365

  Tomo. 2. pag. 663.
• b 1.1366

  Tomo. 2. 697.
• c 1.1367

  Tomo. 2. 698.
• d 1.1368

  Tomo. 2. 705.
• e 1.1369

  Tomo. 2. 706.
• f 1.1370

  Tomo. 2. 722.
• g 1.1371

  Tomo. 2. 956.
• h 1.1372

  Lib. 7. Epist. 114. citat. à Cusan. lib. 3. Concord. Ca∣thol. cap. 10.
• i 1.1373

  Concor. Cath. lib. 3. cap. 13.
• k 1.1374

  Apolog. 2. contra Ruffinū.
• l 1.1375

  De Concilijs. lib. 1. cap. 13.
• m 1.1376

  Euseb. de vita Constantini. lib. 3. cap. 6.
• n 1.1377

  Theodoret. lib. 1. cap. 7.
• o 1.1378

  Lib. 10. cap. 1.
• p 1.1379

  Lib. 1. cap. 7.
• q 1.1380

  Lib. 3. cap. 6.
• r 1.1381

  Lib. 5. cap. 9.
• s 1.1382

  Euagrius. lib. 1. cap. 3.
• t 1.1383

  Idem. lib. 1. cap. 9. & 1•…•….
• u 1.1384

  Vt patet in Epist. Leonis 42. & 43.
• x 1.1385

  Lib. 4. c. 13
• y 1.1386

  Cap. 49.
• z 1.1387

  Bell. de conc. l. 1. c. 12.
• a 1.1388

  Ibid.
• b 1.1389

  Andrad. de author. Gener. conc. l 3. p. 59.
• c 1.1390

  Vbi supra.
• * 1.1391

  d De conc. l. 2 c. 2.
• e 1.1392

  De conc. au∣thor. l. 1. p. 13 & 14
• f 1.1393

  Hom. 6•…•…. in Matthaeum.
• g 1.1394

  Epist. 25.
• h 1.1395

  Serm. 3 in die Assumptionis.
• i 1.1396

  Cap. 24.
• * 1.1397

  Esay 49. 23.
• k 1.1398

  Lib. 2. cap. 13.
• l 1.1399

  Lib. 3. cap. 9.
• m 1.1400

  Chap. 49.
• * 1.1401

  Leo Epist. 53. 54. 55.
• * 1.1402

  n Actione. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• o 1.1403

  Actione. 3. pag. 73. apud Binnium.
• p 1.1404

  Concil. 2. Actione 6.
• q 1.1405

  Concil. Rom. 4. sub Symma∣cho.
• r 1.1406

  Epist. 93. cap. 17.
• s 1.1407

  Epist. 1. ad O∣rientales.
• t 1.1408

  De Concilijs lib. 1. cap. 12.
• u 1.1409

  Zozom. l. 6. c. 7.
• x 1.1410

  Theod. hist. Eccl. l. 2.
• y 1.1411

  Leo ep. 24 & 43.
• z 1.1412

  Lib. 1. c. 2.
• a 1.1413

  De authorit. Gener. Concil. l. 1. p. 59
• b 1.1414

  In vita Sylv.
• c 1.1415

  Actione 18. p. 88. apud Bin.
• d 1.1416

  Lib. 1. c. 16.
• e 1.1417

  Lib. 5. c 8.
• f 1.1418

  Lib 7. c. 7
• g 1.1419

  Lib. 5. c. 7.
• h 1.1420

  Constat ex Euagrio lib. 1. cap. 4. Epistol. Caelestini ad Cyril. Photio in lib. de 7. Synodis.
• i 1.1421

  Inter Epist. ad Concilium Chalced. per∣tinentes.
• k 1.1422

  Epist. ad E∣pisc. Dardaniae.
• l 1.1423

  Lib. 2. cap. 16.
• m 1.1424

  Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 7.
• n 1.1425

  Socrates lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap. 18.
• o 1.1426

  In vita Sixti. 3.
• * 1.1427

  Adrian wrote this Epistle after he had receiued the Emperours letters, calling him to the Coun∣cell, and therefore 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may be thought, that when hee saith, wee will &c. he expresseth his consenting to the Emperours mandate, and not any commanding of him.
• p 1.1428

  Lib: 1. de au∣thorit. general. Concil. pag. 59.
• q 1.1429

  De conc. l. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 c. 13.
• a 1.1430

  Euseb. de vita Constant. l. 3. c. 10.
• b 1.1431

  Conc. Chal∣ced. act. 1. p. 4. apud Bin.
• c 1.1432

  Conc. 6. act. 1 to. 3. apud Bin. p. 8.
• d 1.1433

  Vt patet in act. conc. 8.
• e 1.1434

  Act. Ephel. conc. tom. 1. c. 32.
• f 1.1435

  Vide act Sy∣nod. Chalced.
• g 1.1436

  Euseb. de vitâ Constant. l. 3. c. 10.
• h 1.1437

  Vbi suprà.
• i 1.1438

  Vbi suprà.
• k 1.1439

  Concord. Ca∣thol. lib. 3. cap. 28.
• l 1.1440

  Concil. Chal∣ced. Actione. 4.
• m 1.1441

  Actio. ead.
• n 1.1442

  Naucler. vol. 2. generat. 25.
• o 1.1443

  Cusanus Con∣cord. Cathol. li: 3. cap. 8.
• p 1.1444

  Ibid. cap. 40:
• p 1.1445

  2 Chro. 26. 16
• q 1.1446

  Anno. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Eli∣zab.
• r 1.1447

  Waldens. do∣ctrin. fidei. lib. 2. c. •…•…0.
• s 1.1448

  Epistolar. lib. 5. ep. 32.
• u 1.1449

  August. Epist. 162.
• x 1.1450

  Euseb. li. 10. cap. 5.
• y 1.1451

  In Henrico. 2. pag. 96.
• z 1.1452

  De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 28.
• a 1.1453

  Rom. 13. 1.
• b 1.1454

  Ver. 16.
• c 1.1455

  Decr. 2. part. causa 23. qu. 8. ca. Tributum.
• d 1.1456

  Ino•…•…at detra∣dend. Basilicis.
• e 1.1457

  Math. 17. 25.
• f 1.1458

  Erasm. citat. 3 Sixto Senense. Bibl. sanct. l. 6. annot. 75.
• g 1.1459

  Ibid.
• h 1.1460

  Quaest. 2•…•….
• i 1.1461

  Secunda se∣cundae q. 104. art. 6.
• k 1.1462

  Lib. supradict. annot. 76.
• l 1.1463

  Com. in con∣cord. Evang. c. 69.
• m 1.1464

  In 6. cap. Quanquam de de Sensibu•…•….
• n 1.1465

  Gen. 47.
• o 1.1466

  Galath. 4. ver. 14. 15.
• p 1.1467

  Ruffin. l. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. c. 2. Theodoret. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap. 11.
• q 1.1468

  Lib. 10. Hist. Eccl. cap. 7.
• r 1.1469

  Nouel. Con∣stit. 79. 83. & 123.
• s 1.1470

  Concil. Matis∣conen•…•…. 1. Ca∣non 7.
• t 1.1471

  Matth. Pari•…•… in Henrico. 2. pag. 98.
• * 1.1472

  u De Clericis. lib. 1 cap. 28.
• x 1.1473

  Canone. 9.
• * 1.1474

  y Toletanum. 3. Can. 13.
• z 1.1475

  Catthag. canone. 9.
• a 1.1476

  Canone. 23.
• b 1.1477

  Ambros. in Orat. de tra∣deud. Basilie•…•….
• c 1.1478

  Codice Iusti∣nian l. sanci∣mus. Tit. de Sa∣crosanctis Ec∣clesijs.
• d 1.1479

  Cap. 47.
• e 1.1480

  Dried o de li∣bert. Christian. l. 2. c. 3.
• f 1.1481

  Canone 19.
• g 1.1482

  Canone 46.
• h 1.1483

  De •…•…cr. Eccl. Mini•…•…t. & Be∣nef. l. 7. c. 10.
• a 1.1484

  Heb. 5. 4
• b 1.1485

  Lib. 1. com. in ep. ad Galat. c. 1
• c 1.1486

  Iohn. •…•…0. 8.
• d 1.1487

  Ier. 23. 21.
• * 1.1488

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Canone 9:
• f 1.1489

  De sacris Ec∣cles: minist: & Benefi: lib: 1: cap: 16:
• g 1.1490

  Canon•…•… 1:
• h 1.1491

  Leo ep: 8•…•…: cap: 8:
• i 1.1492

  Lib. 5. cap. 8.
• k 1.1493

  Ibidem.
• l 1.1494

  Lib. 7. cap. 39.
• m 1.1495

  D. Bilson. perpet. gouern∣ment. cap. 15. pag. 339.
• n 1.1496

  Epist 89.
• o 1.1497

  Lib. 1. Epist. 4.
• p 1.1498

  Lib. 3.
• q 1.1499

  Lib. 1. cap. 9.
• r 1.1500

  Theod. l. 5. c. 9
• s 1.1501

  Leo ep. 84. c. 5.
• t 1.1502

  Gre. l. 2. ep. 2•…•…
• u 1.1503

  Lib. 2. ep. 2•…•…
• x 1.1504

  In Epi•…•…. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• y 1.1505

  Lib. 1. c. 24.
• z 1.1506

  Euag. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2. c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. & 8.
• a 1.1507

  Ruffin. l. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 c. •…•…1.
• b 1.1508

  Ibid. cap. 10.
• c 1.1509

  Canone 13.
• d 1.1510

  Vbi suprà.
• e 1.1511

  Decreti part. 1. dist. 23. ca. 1.
• f 1.1512

  Platina in vi∣ta Greg. 7.
• g 1.1513

  Lib. 8. cap. 2.
• h 1.1514

  Socrates. lib. 7. cap. 29.
• i 1.1515

  Idem. l. 7. c. 39.
• k 1.1516

  Annot in Platinam, in Pelag•…•…o. 2.
• l 1.1517

  Platin•…•… in Benedicto 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• m 1.1518

  Decreti. part. 1. Dist. 63. c. 22.
• n 1.1519

  Platina in Adriano. 3.
• o 1.1520

  Decreti. part. 1. dist. 63. c. 23.
• p 1.1521

  See before cap. 46.
• q 1.1522

  In vita Gre∣gorij, 1.
• r 1.1523

  In vita. Bene∣dicti. 2.
• s 1.1524

  Part. 1. dist. 63. c. 22.
• t 1.1525

  Plat. in Ad•…•…. 3.
• u 1.1526

  Dist. •…•…3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 26.
• k 1.1527

  Naucler. vol. 2. G•…•…ner. 36.
• y 1.1528

  Ibidem Ge∣ner. 38.
• z 1.1529

  In Henrico. 1: pag. 62.
• a 1.1530

  Annal. lib. 4. pag. 3 22.
• b 1.1531

  Chronograph. lib. 4. saeculo. 10.
• c 1.1532

  Annot: in Pla∣tinam in Ioan∣ne 8.
• d 1.1533

  Lib. Chron: in Benedicto. 4.
• e 1.1534

  Otho Frisin∣gens. chron. li. 6. cap. 23.
• f 1.1535

  De regno Ital. lib: 7.
• g 1.1536

  Platina in Gregorio. 6.
• h 1.1537

  Otho Frisin∣gens: Chron: lib: 6. cap. 31.
• i 1.1538

  De regno I∣tal. lib. 8.
• k 1.1539

  Vbi suprà.
• l 1.1540

  Platina in Bonifacio. 8. & Wal•…•…ngham in Edwardo. 3.
• m 1.1541

  Vide acta Concilij Con∣stantiensis Sess. 11. act. 6. & Sess. 12.
• n 1.1542

  In Alexandro 6.
• o 1.1543

  Anthropolo∣giae lib. 22.
• p 1.1544

  O•…•…ho 〈◊〉〈◊〉. de gestis Frederic. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 11. ca. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• q 1.1545

  Vol. 2. gen. 38.
• r 1.1546

  Defens pro li∣bertate Eccle∣siae Gallicanae. cap: 43.
• s 1.1547

  Canone 6.
• * 1.1548

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 In Henrico. 1. pag: 56.
• u 1.1549

  Conc. Carth. 4. Canone 22.
• x 1.1550

  Novel. Con∣stit. 123. c. 1. 8
• y 1.1551

  Conc. Tole∣tan. 9. Canon.
• z 1.1552

  Duaren. de sacris Eccl. Mi∣nist. l. 5. c. 4
• a 1.1553

  In Henrico. 3. pag. 672.
• b 1.1554

  Armacanus Serm. 4. fact. in vulgari apud crucem S. Pauli London. Anno. 1356.
• * 1.1555

  See to this pur∣pose Clemangis de corrupto Ec∣clesiae statu. Gerson contra Bullam. Men∣dicantium.
• c 1.1556

  Hier. contra. Vigilantium non procul à fine.
• d 1.1557

  Ad Heliodo∣rum.
• e 1.1558

  De Sacris Ec∣cles. minist. & Benef. li. 1. c. 20.
• f 1.1559

  Panopliae lib. 4. cap. 75.
• g 1.1560

  Erudition. Theol. de sacra. fidei lib. 2. part. 3. cap. 4.
• h 1.1561

  Vbi supra.
• i 1.1562

  Ibidem ca. 21:
• k 1.1563

  Vide Cassan∣dri cosultat. de Canonicis.
• l 1.1564

  Duarenus vbi suprà. cap. 22.
• m 1.1565

  Canone 4.
• n 1.1566

  Cap. 43.
• o 1.1567

  De Cosinliis Euangelicis & statu perfect.
• p 1.1568

  In extrava∣gant. tit. de verb▪ signif. & in extravag. ad Conditorem Canonum.
• * 1.1569

  Com. in con∣cord. Evangel. c. 100.
• q 1.1570

  De sacr. Eccl Minist. & Be nef. l. 5. c. 8. All commendams are not to bee condemned, not∣withstanding any abuse of the same: for sometimes by reason either of the scarcity of sufficient Pastors, or th•…•… insuffici∣ency of the Pa∣stors mainte∣nance arisi•…•…g out of one C•…•…urch. more Churches then one are com∣mitted to one.
• r 1.1571

  Binnius in vita Adrian•…•… se∣cundi. tom. 3. Concil. part. 2.
• s 1.1572

  Action. 16.
• t 1.1573

  De Sacris. Ec. minist. & Be∣nef. l. 3. cap. 1.
• u 1.1574

  Li. 9. de rebus gestis Francor.
• x 1.1575

  Matth. Pari∣siens. in Henri∣co: 3. p. 639.
• y 1.1576

  Pag. 669.
• z 1.1577

  Ibidem.
• a 1.1578

  Pag. 674.
• b 1.1579

  Pag. 667.
• c 1.1580

  Pag. 687.
• * 1.1581

  c P. 689.
• d 1.1582

  Pag. 791.
• e 1.1583

  Pag. 843.
• f 1.1584

  Pag. 848.
• g 1.1585

  Pag. 496. Pag. 791.
• h 1.1586

  Epist. 83.
• i 1.1587

  Actes. 6.
• k 1.1588

  Acts. 14. 23.
• l 1.1589

  Acts. 10. 41.
• m 1.1590

  Can. Apost. cap. 1. Chryso∣stom. hom. 14. in Acta. in illa verba. cum o∣rassent impo∣•…•…uerunt illis manus. Concil. Nicen. in epist. ad Alexandri∣nos. apud The∣odoret. hist. Ec. li: 1. cap. 9.
• a 1.1591

  1. Tim. 5. 22.
• b 1.1592

  Canone. 4.
• c 1.1593

  Canone 19.
• d 1.1594

  Canone. 1•…•….
• e 1.1595

  Bellar. de no∣tis Ecclesiae. li: 4. cap. 8.
• f 1.1596

  Canone. 2.
• g 1.1597

  Hispalens. Canone. 6.
• h 1.1598

  Carthagi. 4. Canone. 3.
• i 1.1599

  Ibid. Canone 4.
• l 1.1600

  Athan. Apol. 2.
• m 1.1601

  In 4 Cap. ep. ad Ephes.
• n 1.1602

  Lib. 3. Ep. 26.
• o 1.1603

  Chap. 39.
• p 1.1604

  In Sent. l. 4. dist. 24. q. 5.
• q 1.1605

  Chap. 29.
• a 1.1606

  1 Tim. 3.
• b 1.1607

  Secunda. se∣cundae. quaest. 88. art. 11.
• c 1.1608

  Part. 3. quaest. 53. art. 3.
• d 1.1609

  In Sent. lib. 4. dist. 39. quaest. 2. & 3.
• e 1.1610

  In 4. sent. dist. 37.
• f 1.1611

  Dialog.
• g 1.1612

  In respons. ad articulos Pari∣sienses. Opusc. tom. 1. tract. 27.
• h 1.1613

  De Clericis lib. 1. c. 8.
• i 1.1614

  Lib. de Conti∣tinentia Sace•…•…∣dotum. cap. 4.
• k 1.1615

  Cap. cum O∣lim. De coniu∣gatis.
• l 1.1616

  Cap. 10. & Di: 20. ca. de Libel∣lis.
• m 1.1617

  Epist. 49.
• n 1.1618

  Dist. •…•…6
• o 1.1619

  Ibid.
• p 1.1620

  Lib. 5. c. 2•…•…
• q 1.1621

  In Carm. de vitâ suâ.
• r 1.1622

  Ep. ad Drac.
• s 1.1623

  Stromat. l. 3 p. 196
• t 1.1624

  In 1 ad Tim. 3
• u 1.1625

  Lib. 1. cap. 11.
• y 1.1626

  Epipanius Heres. 59.
• z 1.1627

  Lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap. 21.
• a 1.1628

  Synesius ad fratrem pag. 68. lib. Epist.
• b 1.1629

  Canone 12.
• c 1.1630

  1. Cor. 9. 5.
• d 1.1631

  Stromat. lib. 3. pag. 192.
• e 1.1632

  Decreti part. 1. dist. 31. ca. 11.
• f 1.1633

  Hier. contra Iouinian. lib. 1.
• g 1.1634

  1 Tim. 3. 3.
• h 1.1635

  1. Cor. 7. 4.
• i 1.1636

  Part. 3. qu. 53. art. 4. ad Pri∣mum.
• * 1.1637

  k 1. Cor. 7. 5.
• * 1.1638

  l Canone. 6.
• m 1.1639

  In explicati∣one canounm.
• n 1.1640

  Hebr. 13. 4.
• o 1.1641

  Canone•…•… 12.
• p 1.1642

  Socrates. lib. 1. cap. 8.
• q 1.1643

  Vbi supra.
• r 1.1644

  Lib. 1. c. 22
• s 1.1645

  In vita Paph∣nutii.
• t 1.1646

  Hist. Eccles.
• u 1.1647

  Dist. 31. c. 12.
• x 1.1648

  De Clericis l. 1. c. 20.
• * 1.1649

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Heres. 59:
• z 1.1650

  Canone 10.
• a 1.1651

  Contra Vigi∣lantium.
• b 1.1652

  As in the coun∣cell of Constanti∣nople, Can. 2. E∣gypt, and the East a•…•…e opposed to A∣•…•…a, Thracia, &c.
• c 1.1653

  Canone 3.
• * 1.1654

  Canone 4.
• d 1.1655

  Lib. 2. cap. 33. & Sozome. lib. 3. cap. 13.
• e 1.1656

  Canone 4.
• f 1.1657

  Canone 13.
• g 1.1658

  Canone 12.
• h 1.1659

  In explicatio. Canonum A∣postol:
• i 1.1660

  Cap. 21.
• k 1.1661

  Canone •…•…3.
• l 1.1662

  Damian. a Goes de morib. Aethiop.
• m 1.1663

  Canone. 33.
• n 1.1664

  Tom. 1. Con∣ciliorum:
• o 1.1665

  Locor. Theo∣log. lib. 5. cap. 4.
• p 1.1666

  De Imaginib. lib. 2. cap. 9.
• q 1.1667

  Tom. 1. anno. Domini 57. num. 119. & trib. sequent.
• r 1.1668

  Tom. 2. anno 305. num. 42.
• s 1.1669

  Canone. 4 & 5.
• t 1.1670

  Canone 9.
• u 1.1671

  Dist. 20. cap. de Libellis.
• x 1.1672

  Actione 4.
• y 1.1673

  Inter Episto∣las Dec•…•…etales
• z 1.1674

  Can. 2. & 3.
• a 1.1675

  Epist. 3.
• b 1.1676

  Canone 3.
• c 1.1677

  Canone 1.
• d 1.1678

  Canone 9.
• e 1.1679

  Canone 2.
• f 1.1680

  Lib. 5. Annal. Boiorum. pag. 564.
• g 1.1681

  Naucler. vol. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. generat. 36.
• h 1.1682

  De Clericis. lib. 1. cap. 19.
• i 1.1683

  Vbi suprà.
• k 1.1684

  Vbi suprà.
• l 1.1685

  Lib. 7.
• * 1.1686

  Math. Paris. in Henrico. 1. pag. 67.
• m 1.1687

  Math. Paris. in Henrico. 1. pag. 68.
• n 1.1688

  Constit. O∣thonis de vxo∣ratis à Benefi∣ci•…•… amouendis.
• * 1.1689

  n De Sacr. Eccl∣minist, & Be∣nef. l. 4. c. 8.
• p 1.1690

  Heb. 13. 4
• q 1.1691

  Socrat. l. 1. c. 8
• * 1.1692

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 In 1 ad Tim. 3
• s 1.1693

  De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10
• * 1.1694

  t Syricli ad Hi∣mericum c. 7. Innocen▪ ad Victricium c. 9. & in cp ad Ex∣uperium c. 1
• u 1.1695

  Can. 1.
• x 1.1696

  Can. 33. & 18
• y 1.1697

  Can. 12.
• z 1.1698

  Turonens. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Canone. 2.
• a 1.1699

  Canone. 4.
• * 1.1700

  b Canone. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• c 1.1701

  Canone. 10.
• d 1.1702

  Concil. Tolet. 1. Canone. 4.
• e 1.1703

  Canone. 10.
• * 1.1704

  f Canone. 15.
• g 1.1705

  Canone. 32.
• h 1.1706

  Canone. 29.
• i 1.1707

  Canone. 22.
• k 1.1708

  Matisconens. 2. Canone 16.
• l 1.1709

  Annal. Boio∣rum. lib. 5. pag. 565. & 571.
• m 1.1710

  Bernard. de Conuersione, ad Clericos. c. 29.
• n 1.1711

  Saluianus de Diuina proui∣deutia lib 5. ci∣tat. ab E•…•…en∣caeo. lib. 1. de Continentia. cap. 12.
• o 1.1712

  Sigebertus in C•…•…onico. Anni 1074.
• * 1.1713

  Rubric. 4•…•… fol. 35
• p 1.1714

  AEn. Sylv. de gest. concil. Bas.
• q 1.1715

  Ep. 307. ad Ioan. Fiundt.
• r 1.1716

  In Pio 2.
• s 1.1717

  Ennead. 10 l. 6. pag. 731.
• t 1.1718

  Fastorum l. 1.
• u 1.1719

  Tit. Qui Cle∣rici vel •…•…oven∣tes matrimo∣nia contrahere possunt. Citat. ab Andr. Frisio l. 4. de Ecclesia.
• x 1.1720

  1 Cor. 7. 25.
• * 1.1721

  y De Clericis conjugatis. cap. cum olim.
• z 1.1722

  Citat. ab An∣dre•…•…. Frisio. de Ecclesia, lib. 4.
• a 1.1723

  De Inuent. Rerum. lib. 5. cap. 4.
• b 1.1724

  Citat. a chem∣nitio•…•…n exami ne Trident. Concil.
• c 1.1725

  In Declamat. de la•…•…dib. Ma∣trimonij.
• d 1.1726

  Vbi spurâ.
• e 1.1727

  In Consultati∣one de Sacerd. Caelibatu.
• * 1.1728

  Aeneas Sylui∣us writing to Pe∣trus Noxetus hath these words. Adhuc caui ne me •…•…acer ordo inuolueret. Ti∣meo enim con∣tinentiam &c. Epist. 50.
• f 1.1729

  Canone. 10.
• g 1.1730

  De Clericis. lib. 1. cap. 18.
• h 1.1731

  Vide suprâ.
• i 1.1732

  Vbi suprà.
• * 1.1733

  For farther proofe hereof see the first booke of Claudius Es∣pencaeus de Continentiâ.
• k 1.1734

  Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 11.
• l 1.1735

  De Monach, l. 2. c. 34
• m 1.1736

  Aug. de bono Viduitatis.
• n 1.1737

  Epist 70
• o 1.1738

  De sancta Virginitate. cap. 34.
• p 1.1739

  Hieron. Epist. 47. de suspecto Con•…•…bernio vitando.
• q 1.1740

  Heresi. 61.
• r 1.1741

  Erudit. Theo∣log. de Sacram. fidei. lib. 2. part. 11. c. 12.
• s 1.1742

  Epist. 2. ad Victricium. cap. 12.
• t 1.1743

  In secundam secundae. quaest. 38. art. 11.
• u 1.1744

  De Mona∣chis. lib. 2. c. 34.
• x 1.1745

  Secunda se∣cundae, quaest 88. art. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• y 1.1746

  In 4. sent. dist. 58.
• z 1.1747

  In secunda se∣cundae loc. cit.
• a 1.1748

  Lib. 4. de eccl.
• b 1.1749

  Opus. tom. 1. tract. 27.
• c 1.1750

  Erudit. theol. de sacr. fid. l. 2. part. •…•…2. c. 4
• d 1.1751

  Acts 23. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• e 1.1752

  Vbi supra.
• f 1.1753

  In Consult de Caelibatu Sacer∣dotum.
• g 1.1754

  De vita spi∣rituali.
• * 1.1755

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 E•…•…ud. Theo∣log. de Sacra∣ment. fidei lib. 2. part. 11. ca. •…•…2.
• i 1.1756

  Vbi supr•…•….
• a 1.1757

  1. Tim. 3. 2.
• b 1.1758

  Apologia. 2.
• c 1.1759

  In locum Ti∣mothei prae∣dict & in Titu.
• d 1.1760

  De Cleric•…•…. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap. 23.
• e 1.1761

  Annotations vpon that place
• f 1.1762

  Theod. in loc. Tim. praedict.
• g 1.1763

  In •…•…und. loc.
• * 1.1764

  Hier. ad Oce∣•…•…m.
• l 1.1765

  Vbi supra.
• m 1.1766

  Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 11.
• n 1.1767

  Epist. 22. cap. 1. & 2.
• o 1.1768

  De bono coniugali.
• p 1.1769

  Bibliothecae Sanctae. lib. 6. annot. 318. & 325.
• q 1.1770

  Lib. 10. Epist 82.
• r 1.1771

  August. de bo∣no Coniugali.
• s 1.1772

  Bonauentura in 4. sent. dist. 25. quaest. 3.
• t 1.1773

  In duab. Epist. Citat. ab Eras∣mo in vita Hieronymi.
• u 1.1774

  Aug. confess. lib. 4. cap. 2. & lib. 6. cap. 15.
• * 1.1775

  Hieron. ad •…•…num.
• x 1.1776

  De sacr. eccl. minist. & Ben. l. 4. c. 8.
• y 1.1777

  Can. 3. & 7.
• z 1.1778

  Referente Ambrosio in 7. c. 1. ad Cor. & in 3. 1. ad Tim. Aug. serm. 243. de temp. Isid. l. 2. de Divin▪ offi∣ciis c. 19
• a 1.1779

  Can 1.
• b 1.1780

  Apud Grati∣an. part. 2. caus. 31. q. 1
• c 1.1781

  Can. 8.
• d 1.1782

  In Triphone.
• e 1.1783

  In Apol. post.
• f 1.1784

  In loc. Tim.
• g 1.1785

  Rhemenses in locum Titi.
• h 1.1786

  In hunc lo∣cum.
• i 1.1787

  Lib. 3. cap. 15.
• k 1.1788

  Haeresi. 79.
• l 1.1789

  Haeresi. 61.
• m 1.1790

  De Bono vi∣duitatis.
• n 1.1791

  Epist. 9. ad E∣pisc. Lucaniae.
• o 1.1792

  Vide Binni∣um tomo 2. Concil. pag. 115. annot. in Toletan. 4.
• a 1.1793

  1. Cor. 9. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• b 1.1794

  Ibid. vers. 11.
• c 1.1795

  Galat. 6. 6.
• d 1.1796

  Galat. 4. 15.
• * 1.1797

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Philem. 29
• f 1.1798

  In Trialogo.
• h 1.1799

  Leuit. 27. 30.
• i 1.1800

  Malach. 3. 10.
• k 1.1801

  Numb. 35. 2. &c.
• l 1.1802

  Numb. 18. 12.
• m 1.1803

  1. Cor. 9. 13
• n 1.1804

  De Clerici^s lib. 1. cap. 25.
• o 1.1805

  Secunda se∣cundae. quaest: 87. art. 1.
• p 1.1806

  Gen. 14. 20,
• q 1.1807

  Gen. 18. 22.
• r 1.1808

  De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 25.
• s 1.1809

  Ver. 21.
• t 1.1810

  Orig. Hom. 1•…•… in Numeros.
• u 1.1811

  In Malach. 3.
• x 1.1812

  De tempore▪ serm. 219.
• y 1.1813

  Aug. in Psal. 146.
• z 1.1814

  In Math. 23
• a 1.1815

  Iuo: part. 2. c. •…•…74. in 2. tom. concil. p. 954. apud Bin.
• b 1.1816

  Ca. 17.
• c 1.1817

  Can. 5.
• d 1.1818

  Can. 14.
• e 1.1819

  Canone. 9.
• f 1.1820

  Cap. 38.
• g 1.1821

  Homil. 48.
• h 1.1822

  Canone. 13.
• i 1.1823

  Linwood Pro∣vincial. lib. 1. de consuetudi∣ne.
• k 1.1824

  De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 25.
• l 1.1825

  M. Carleton of Tithes.
• m 1.1826

  Comment. in Concord. Euang. cap. 84.
• n 1.1827

  De Clericis, li: 1. cap. 25.
• o 1.1828

  Eod. capite, Dubio. 4.
• p 1.1829

  Gelas. cp. 9. ad Episc. Lucaniae. Vide Gratian. part. 2. decreti caus 12. q. 2
• * 1.1830

  This word im∣ported no base but an honorable allowance.
• q 1.1831

  Cypr cp. 66. & 34.
• r 1.1832

  In indice in appendicem Concil. Latera∣nens. 3. de Pa∣ctionib. 39. & 40.
• s 1.1833

  Part. 2. causa. 16. qu. 42. 1. c.
• t 1.1834

  Citatus. part. 2 causa. 16. qu. 1. cap. 55.
• u 1.1835

  Ibid. cap. 45.
• x 1.1836

  Canone. 47.
• y 1.1837

  Habetur. To∣mo. 3. Concil. apud Binnium. pag. 65•…•….
• z 1.1838

  Cap. 13.
• a 1.1839

  Indice in ap∣pendicem.
• b 1.1840

  Cabilonens. 2. Canone 19.
• c 1.1841

  Hier. ad Heli∣odorum de lau∣de vitae solita∣riae.
• d 1.1842

  De Sacris 〈◊〉〈◊〉. minist. & benef. l. 7. c. 1.
• e 1.1843

  In Iohan. 13.
• f 1.1844

  Acts 4. 34. 35.
• g 1.1845

  Decr. part. 2. caus. •…•…2. q. 1. c. 15
• * 1.1846

  Ibid. c. 16
• h 1.1847

  Canon. 15.
• i 1.1848

  Canon. 25.
• k 1.1849

  Duaren. de sacr. eccl. min. & benef. l 2. c. r
• l 1.1850

  Ibid.
• m 1.1851

  Devit a con∣templativa. l. 2. c. 9.
• n 1.1852

  Vol, 2. gene∣rat. 11. pa. 505.
• o 1.1853

  De potest Ec∣cle•…•…ast. consi∣derat. •…•…2.
• p 1.1854

  De sacris Ec∣cles. minist. & Benef. lib. 7. cap. 5.
• q 1.1855

  Sub. Alexand. 3. cap. 4.
• r 1.1856

  Doctr. fideili. 4. art. 3. cap. 42.
• s 1.1857

  De Clericis. lib. 1. cap. 7.
• t 1.1858

  1. Tim. 3. 4.
• u 1.1859

  Can. 40.
• x 1.1860

  Can. 48.
• y 1.1861

  Canon. 15.
• z 1.1862

  Canon. 1.
• a 1.1863

  In cap. Cleri∣cos. 1. qu. 2.
• b 1.1864

  Math. 10. 10.
• c 1.1865

  1. Cor. 9. 7.