A treatise concerning the church Wherin it is shewed, by the signes, offices, and properties therof, that the Church of Rome (and consequently such particuler churches as liue in her communion) is the only true church of Christ. VVritten in Latin, by the Reuerend Father Iames Gordon Huntley of Scotland, Doctour of Diuinity, of the Society of Iesus. And translated into English by I.L. of the same Society. The third part of the second controuersy.

CHAP. VII. That the Church of Rome is the chiefes•• and head of all other, is proued out of the auncient Fathers and euen by the confession of our Aduersaries thē∣selues. (Book 7)

THE auncient holy Fathers do no•• only wi••h v••iforme consent af∣firme the Roman to be the true Church of Christ, but also that it is the chiefest & most principall Church of all: in so much that they affirme it to be the head of the whole visible Church of Christ: and many other things they do write in the prayse and commenda∣tion of the Roman Church, and of th•• Pope the supreme Pastor thereof, as may

euident••y be ••eene in Catholike writer•• which are related by Bellarmine and Coccius.* 1.1 We for breuity sake wi••l only all••dge two of the holy Fathers, by whom it may e••si••y be gathered what was the iudg••ent and ••pinion of the ••e•••• concer∣ning this matter.

2. The first is that most ancient holy S. Ir••naeus who liued euen in the Apos••les tym••,* 1.2 because sayth 〈◊〉〈◊〉, it would be to long to re••ount in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vol••me the succession of al Churches, w•• pro••osing t••e tradition, and ••ay••hos the greatest, most anci••••t and left knowne Church, founded by the two glorious Apos••les Peter and Paul, which by preaching and succession of Bishops hath descended e••en f••••m the Apostles to vs, do con••ound all those who by any meanes gat••er any thing contrary to that they should eyt••er by their owne ••oolish fancies or by vayne glory, or by the great blindnesse of their vnders••anding, or ••ol••owing any badde opinion. For all other Churches that is to say, all faythful•• true belieuers th••oughout the whole world must needes come vnto this Church by reason of the most potent principality thereof. Hitherto are the wordes of S. I••enaeus. And afterward he recoun∣teth the succession of all the Popes of Rome till his tyme.* 1.3

3. The other is S. Augustine whom our Aduersaries also esteeme very much, who knoweth not, sayth he, that blessed S. Peter

was the chiefest and head of all the Apostles?* 1.4 thus S. Augustine of S. Peter. But speaking of the Church of Rome, ••e sayth: In the Ro∣mane Church hath alwayes florished the chiefe powe•• an•• ••••••••••••ity of t••e Ap••st••licall chayre. If we belieue S. Augustine, nothing is more clea••e an•• mani••••••.

4. But it is not necessary to cite any ••ore places of the holy Fathers. For euen our Adu••rsari••s conf••ss•• that this was the common opinion of a••l the auncient Fa∣ther concerning this matter.* 1.5 Thus w••i∣teth Martin Bu••••r ••••m••ty••es ••aluins mai∣s••er and chiefe Pa••••••n, not only in his owne name, but also of all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lutheranes: we confess•• plai••ly with all our harts, sayth he, that among the auncient Fathers of the Church, the C••u••ch of ••ome hath alwayes obteined the chiefest aut••o••ity and s••pr••macy aboue all others, because it hath the c••ayre of S. Peter, and whose Bishops haue alwayes byn acc••ū••ed the successors of S. Peter. thus Bucer.

5. And Caluin albeit he inueigheth bit∣terly against the Church of Rome,* 1.6 yet constreined to speake truth, writeth in this manner: I will first say this aforehand, that I deny not but that the old writers doe euery where giue great honour to the Church of Rome, and do speake reuerently of it. And a little after he sayth thus. For that same opinion which I wo••e

not how was growen in force, that it was founded and ordeined by the ministery of Peter, much a∣uail••d to procure sauour and estimation vnto it. Th••refore in the west partes it was for honours sake called the Sea Apost••l••ke.* 1.7 And in another place. I graunt, sayth he, that there remayn•• al••o t••ue Epis••les of the old Bishops, wherein they set ••orth the honour of their sea with glorious titles, of which sort are some Epistles of Leo.* 1.8

6. But t••e Lutherans in their Synodicall actes doe acknowledg that euē in the tyme o•• the fi••st Councell of Nice, & in the dayes of Cyprian, S. Hierome, and S. Augustine the Pope o•• Rome had the chiefe supremacy, the which say they, we willingly admit and imbrace to in∣crease the good agreement in fayth, piety, and Eccle∣sias••icall policy, for they very well perceiued that this supremacy of the Pope of Rome did auaile much to keepe vnity and concord in doctrine and Eccle∣siasticall policy.

7. And hence it is, that the sayd Lu∣theranes in their articles agreed vpon at Smalcalde, the which they made in the yeare 1537. to be exhibited to the generall Councell which was reported to be holden at Mantua, among other articles they appr••ued t••is of the Popes authority, and vnto these Philip Melancthon also subscribed. Who also afterward in the yeare 1548. far more euidētly approued the Popes autho∣rity,

writing thus in his Epistle to the Lord Embassador Theopulus: Besides these, sayth he,* 1.9 we reuerently honour and worship the authority of the Roman Bishop and all Ecclesiasticall policy, so that the Bishop of Rome do not reiect vs. Thus Philip in that place.

8. But what was the most true opi∣nion of Melancthon concerning this matter appeareth more euidently by a certaine epistle he wrote in the yeare 1535. of the Ecclesiasticall iarres, and the agreement which was made concerning the articles in controuersy,* 1.10 wherein he alledgeth some reasons for the Popes Supremacy. These are Phi∣lippes wordes speaking of some of his who did hinder & resist the agreement which was to be made with Catholikes: Some of them, saith he, do thinke that nothing els is de∣maunded, but that hauing shaken of the Popes Mo∣narchy, and reiecting all the old Ecclesiasticall ordi∣nances, a certaine Barbarous liberty should be established. And a little after. Ours do grant that the Ecclesiasticall policy is a thing very lawfull in it selfe, that is to say, euen as there are some Byshops who haue charge, or rule diuers Churches: so also the Pope of Rome exceedeth all other By∣shopes in authority. This Canonicall policy, as I think, no wise man eyther can or should reiect, if he desire to keepe himselfe within his owne limits. And againe. As concerning the riches and reue∣newes

they are the liberall and magnificēt gyftes of Kinges and Princes. VVherfore as concerning this article of the Popes supremacy, and the authority of other Byshopes, there is no Controuersy among vs. For both the Pope of Rome may easily retaine his au∣thority and the other Byshops may also keepe theirs. And there must needes be some gouernours in the Church of God who may ordayne those which are called to Ecclesiasticall offices, and may exercise the authority of the sayd ••hurch in all ••udiciall and difficulte matters, as also may examine the do∣ctrine of the Priestes therof. And that if there were no such Bishops, yet there should be such ordayned for that purpose. And a little after. That Mo∣narchy of the Pope is very good in my iudgment & necessary, to the end that the vni••orme good agree∣ment in doctrine may be kept in many Nations. VVherfore a perfect good agreement in this one ar∣ticle concerning the Popes supremacy may easily be established, if they could once agree about other articles. Hitherto Philip.

9. Much like vnto these wrote Martin Bucer by the consent of Capito, Hedio, and Niger his confederates of the Church of Argentine,* 1.11 who were as Beza saith, great fauorits of Caluin. For in the same Century of Epistles there is one extant with this title: Martin Bucer doth testify his agreemēt in all thinges with Philip Melācthon both in his owne name, and of the whole

Church of Argentine.* 1.12 And this Epistle of Bucer is next vnto the fore sayd Epistle of Philip Melancthon.

10. Moreouer in this very Epistle when Bucer treateth of this Ecclesiasticall Monarchy (the which he calleth Policy) he writeth thus. But we desire nothing lesse then that the Kingdome of Christ should want her policy or authority to commaund. No where should thinges be done in better and more certaine order, no where should the obedience be greater, the subi••ction more perfect, the reuerent respect of authority more religiously obserued. But now the outward power whatsoeuer it be, is of God, and he resisteth Gods ordination, who is not obedient vnto this. Fin••l∣ly towards the end of the same Epistle, thus he concludeth. VVe wi••l therfore in no sorte hinder the small and per••ect agreement of Churches. The Pope of Rome and all the other By∣shops may lawfully keepe their authority, yea and their dominions also; let them vse their aut••ority only to the edification and not to the destruction of the Church: seing that there is no authority at all the which we do not account holy, and we teach the same vnto them. VVe seeke for nothing so diligent∣ly as for the discipline of the Church. Hitherto Bucer with his companions, who did eui∣dently foresee, that neyther any good a∣greement in doctrine nor Ecclesiasticall discipline can continue any long tyme

without one supreme head & Monarch of the visible Church.

11. Finally, now also as many of our Aduersaries as haue any experience in matters of Policy, and are well affected towards the monarchy of Kinges and Princes doe willingly acknowledge that there must needes be one supreme By∣shop in the Church of God, and that this is to be iustly graunted to the Pope of Rome, if we could once agree among our selues about other matters in Contro∣uersy. For they see very well, that all those arguments wherby the monarchy of secu∣lar Kinges and Princes is established do proue in the same manner also the Eccle∣siasticall Monarchy. And of the other syde all those arguments which do impu∣gne the Ecclesiastical Monarcy do no lesse ouerthrow the temporall Monarchy of ••ll Christian Kinges and Princes.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Bell l. 2. de Ro•• ••ont. c. 1•• & s••q. Coc•• Tom 1 l 7. a••t. ••. 6. & 7.
• * 1.2

  S. Iren l. 3. a••••ers hae∣res. ca••. 3.
• * 1.3

  S. August. T••m. 9. tract. 5••. in Euang S. Io••n.
• * 1.4

  S. August. Tom. 2. Epist. 162. a•• Episcop. Donatista∣••um.
• * 1.5

  Bucerus in prapa∣••ator. ad Concil.
• * 1.6

  Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 6. sect. 16.
• * 1.7

  Calu. l. 4. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 c. 7. s••ct. 11.
• * 1.8

  Ve••ba isto∣••••m a••••or. 〈…〉〈…〉 1. ••••retur in •• afacult. VVittēb. edito cōtra Gasp. Peu∣cerum an. 1••••7 l. in principio c. 6. e••••saē l. ••ol. 60. p. 1.
• * 1.9

  Habentur¦ista eodem c. 6. fol. 7. Pag. 1.
• * 1.10

  Extat in∣tegra ista Epist. Phi∣lip. in cent. Epist. Theol. ad lo. Schu∣nebelium ministrum Biponti••ū est{que} ista Epist. in∣ter caeteras ordine 74. iuxta edit, Bipont. Anno 1597.
• * 1.11

  Beza in vita Calu. An. 15••8. sub finem.
• * 1.12

  Centuria Epist. Sch••neb▪ Epist. 75.