The grand imposture of the (now) Church of Rome manifested in this one article of the new Romane creede, viz: the holy, catholike, and apostolike Romane Church, mother and mistresse of all other churches, without which there is no saluation. Proued to ba a new, false, sacrilegious, scandalous, schismaticall, hereticall, and blasphemous article (respectiuely) and euerie way damnable. The last chapter containeth a determination of the whole question, concerning the separation of Protestants from the present Church of Rome: whereby may be discerned whether side is to be accounted schismaticall, or may more iustly pleade soules saluation. By the B. of Couentrie & Lichfield.

THE GRAND IMPOSTVRE Of the (now) Church of Rome, Manifested in this ARTICLE of the (new) Romane Creed, Viz. The Catholike Romane Church, &c. Without which there is no SALVATION.

THat this is the fundamentall ARTI∣CLE of your Romane Church (as it is called Romane) We cannot bee better enformed than by the Bishops of Rome, Heads of the same Church: than by the Bodie thereof, which is the Church of Rome it selfe, in her Councell of Trent: together with the Confirmation of the same by Pope Pius the IV: than by your publike Catechisme, ra∣tified by the like authority: Lastly, than by her principall Do∣ctors and Diuines, in their most approoued and priuileged Books, written vpon this Argument of THE CATHOLIKE CHVRCH. All which you may read in their owne expresse words.

CHAP. I. The expresse Profession of the (now) Church of Rome, concerning this her Article, vz. The Catho∣like Romane Church, &c. without Subiection whereunto there is no Saluation, is abso∣lutely and peremptorily proclaimed by the Authority of the Popes.

SECT. 1.

IT wil be a good Decorum, that in this case we be∣gin to consult with the Heads of your Church, the Popes of Rome themselues. Gregory the VII. in the yeere 1073 decreed thus: a 1.1 The Church of Rome (saith he) was founded only by God, and the Pope thereof is rightly stiled, The vniuersall Bishop: insomuch, that whosoeuer consenteth not with the Church of Rome cannot be a Catholike. After him in the yeere 1192. Pope Innocēt the 3. distinguishing of the Word Catholike or Vniuersall, decreed as followeth; b 1.2 If the Church (saith he) be called Catholike, as a cō∣pany consisting of al Christian Churches, so the Church of Rome is not to be termed The Catholike Church, but a part therof: but take the word, Catholike, a•• God is called vniuersall Lord, be∣cause al things are vnder his dominiō so we say that the Church of Rome only hath al other Churches vniuersally subiect vnto it. So he. More than an hundred yeeres after him, Boniface the 8. would needs be heard, not speake, but roare & thunder, by pe∣remptory decree, in this tenor, viz. c 1.3We declare, define, & pro∣nounce, that it is Necessary for euery one that is to be saued to be subiect to the Pope of Rome. Thus much for the testimonies of the Popes.

The iudgement of the late Romane Church. SECT. 2.

SInce those times, the Church of Rome her selfe, in her Councell of Trent, and by the Bull of Pope Pius the IV. set forth for the Confirmation of the same Councell, in the yeere 1556. did impose vpon her Professors a new CREED, consi∣sting of more than twentie * 1.4 Articles of the now Romane Faith; which shee hath prescribed vnto you, and all other Ec∣clesiasticall persons, of what denomination or Title soeuer, to be professed vnder the tenor and forme of an Oath; to wit.d 1.5 I N. doe firmely beleeue, sweare, and professe, that the Catholike and Apostolique Romane Church is the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches: and I doe vowe, promise, and sweare true obe∣dience to the Pope of Rome the Vicar of Christ, Successour of S. Peter, &c. And this I hold to be the true Catholike Faith, which whosoeuer beleeueth not, cannot bee saued. So your new Creed.

The now Romane Catechisme. SECT. 3.

VPon this ground was founded that, which you call the Romane Catechisme, and published by the authoritie of the same Pope Pius, and his Councell of Trent, whereby yours, as well as other Catechumenists, are instructed to beleeue, that e 1.6 The Catholike Church is One, both because of one Faith, & al∣so for that it is subiect to one inuisible Gouernour, which is Christ, and to one visible Head, the Pope. So your Catechisme.

The iudgement of Romane Doctors, of singular Note. SECT. 4.

IN the last place we are to consult with your publicke Rea∣ders in Schooles, where, by the testimonies of Three, you may iudge of the faith of the rest; especially these being as

fully accomplished with all furniture of learning as any other. The first thus. f 1.7 The Church of Rome is the vniuersall Catho∣like Church, not as it is a particular Bishopprick, but as it com∣prehendeth all Beleeuers vnder the subiection of the Bishop of Rome. And againe; g 1.8 Wee must (saith he) hold it as a point of our Catholike Faith, that this indiuiduall Congregation, which professeth the Romane Faith, and is vnited to the Pope of Rome, is the true Catholike Church; which I proue first by the Apo∣stles Creed, &c. The Second thus; h 1.9 We define (saith he) the Church to be a Companie of men obedient to the Bishop of Rome, for the time being: and we affirme the Church of Rome to be alone the Catholike and Apostolike Church. The Third and last, thus, i 1.10 None doth communicate (saith he) with the Ca∣tholike Church, except he subiect himselfe vnto the Pope; yea, although otherwise he professe the Catholike Faith: For vnion with the Head is a note of the Church. So standeth the now Ar∣ticle of your Romane Faith.

Foure remarkeable Points, more distinctly to be obserued in your former Romane Profession, concerning the Article of The Catholike Romane Church. SECT. 5.

FIrst, obserue that the word [ROMANE] is not added on∣ly for distinction-sake, to discerne it from other Churches, which, in respect of the Catholike doctrine of Faith professed in them, haue equally had that Addition, as to bee called the Catholike Corinthian, or the Catholike Ephesian, the Catho∣like Thessalonian, or (as we now) the Catholike English Church; because so it could be no more Catholike, than o∣ther particular Churches, as your * 1.11 Iesuite confesseth; and con∣sequently

there could be no matter of controuersie. But now the word [ROMANE] is added to the Article of the Catholike Church by way of Transcendencie, and (as the same Iesuite re∣solueth) supreamly comprehending all other Churches profes∣sing the Catholike faith, vnder the obedience of the Pope of Rome, as the vniuersall Vicar of Christ. So that this Article is become not onely one point of Controuersie, but indeede the chiefe Head of all the Controuersies, which are between the said Ro∣mane Church and all other Churches at this day.

Secondly, you conceiue this Appropriation to be Diuini Iu∣ris in a strict sence, ordained by Christ himselfe, and not onely by Ecclesiasticall Institution. Thirdly, vpon this pretended Or∣dinance, you exact from all other Churches Christian a Neces∣sitie of Vnion with your Church of Rome and the Bishop there∣of, both in Faith & Subiection. Fourthly, this Necessity of Sub∣iection you beleeue to be Absolute, as to exclude from hope of Saluation not onely all them that shall refuse to be subiect to the Romane Primacie, but euen all them also that * 1.12 do not be∣leeue euery soule of man to be vtterly Damned, that is not subiect thereunto.

The GENERALL CHALLENGE, against this your former Romane Profession; and the Summe of our contrarie Defence. SECT. 6.

IF therefore wee may giue credit vnto your now Romane Church, to your later Romane Bishops, to your Romane Councels, and Creed, to your selues and other sworne Profes∣sors of the same Romane faith; then must wee beleeue all the seuerall points, and (as it were) the Particles of this one Ar∣ticle, viz. The Catholike Romane Church, without subiection whereunto there is no saluation. Which notwithstanding wee hold and beleeue to be (respectiuely) False, Vnconscionable, Scandalous, Schismaticall, Hereticall, Blasphemous, and euery way Damnable. And this we cōfidently hope (God assisting vs) to proue from such your owne Grounds, and from so manifest Demonstrations, as that you shall fully perceiue vs to plead not so much our owne Cause, as the Cause of the holy Apostles; of

the renowned Martyrs, and Confessors of Christ; of the most Orthodoxe Christian Professors of the holy Faith, euen in the Primitiue Times; of other innumerable Churches of Christen∣do••e, still partakers of the Common Saluation; yea and of the Catholike and Vniuersall Church of Christ it selfe. Our proofes, for the maintaining of this Challenge, may be reduced vnto two heads. The first is the Consideration of the common Article of our Christian faith, to wit, The holy Catholike Church: The second from the state of the Visible Church of Christ it selfe, as well Primitiue as Successiue.

CHAP. II. The first Generall Foundation of our CHALLENGE is taken from the Article in the Apostles Creed, viz. The Catholike Church.

SECT. 1.

WE lay the first ground of our Challenge vpon the Apostles Creed and Symbol, so called (you know) as being a 1.13 A forme of Faith composed by the Apostles: b 1.14 accordingly as the ancient Fa∣thers haue commonly taught. Which the Schol∣lers of Christ ought to get by hart, as a watch∣word in our Christian discipline, whereby the faithfull Profes∣sors, as by a perfect Shibboleth, may be distinguished from the Iewish and Hereticall. Which Christian Symbol although it be called the Apostles Creed, yet it is so termed, not because they were Deuisers, but onely Collectors thereof, by reducing the fundamentall Articles into one Briefe: euen as a posie is called his, that gathered & trimmed it; not that he created the flowers, but because he composed the bundle: and like as the writers of the Gospell were not Inuentors and Dictators, but onely Pen∣men of the holy Ghost, and Scribes of Christ (as the Fathers vse

to speake.) Which the Euangelists themselues do sufficiently teach, by inscribing their worke, * 1.15 The Gospell of Iesus Christ. And accordingly all the Apostles, in receiuing the doctrine of saluation, are called * 1.16 Disciples, not Doctors, or Masters, in re∣spect of Christ. So then, we haue in this posie a briefe Col∣lection of those flowers of sauing truth, which spring in the Paradise of God, the Gospell of Iesus Christ.

That the Church hath no power to ordaine any new Article of faith. SECT. 2.

HE onely can make an Article of faith, as necessarily be∣longing vnto the saluation of soules, who can create a soule; and after make a Gospell or Testament, to saue this soule; and then giue vnto that soule the gift of faith, to beleeue this Gospell; and next institute a Sacrament, for confirma∣tion of that faith; and in the end bestow saluation vpon the same faithfull beleeuer. This we should prooue from Scrip∣tures, and from the constant iudgement of the Fathers, if it were not a doctrine acknowledged in your owne c 1.17 Schooles, and professed by all Christians. I proceed to that which fol∣loweth.

That the false Additions to the Creed are new Articles. SECT. 3.

THere are two kinds of additions vnto the Apostolicall Creed, the one is of Explication, the other is of Depraua∣tion. The addition onely of Explication is iustifiable, as ap∣peareth by the addition of the words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] Consubstan∣tiall, [filio{que}] which haue bene set downe in Declaratiue Creeds, composed by ancient Councels, for the clearer vnder∣standing of the great mysterie of the Trinitie. In which case those additions may be truly called (as Lirinensis saith of the like) Non noua, sed nouè dicta. But the Addition of Depraua∣tion of the sence of the Creed, in any essentiall and fundamen∣tall

part thereof, which is to be beleeued as necessary to sal∣uation, must needs be a new Article; and euery such new Ar∣ticle, in true construction, a new Heresie.

Now what one Professor is there in the Romane Church, who whensoeuer he repeateth that one Article of our Chri∣stian Creed, The Catholike Church, doth not vnderstand thereby the Romane onely? And againe, what one is there a∣mong you, that hearing mention made of the Romane Catho∣like Church, doth not take the addition of the word, RO∣MANE, to be a Declaration and exposition of the said Article, viz. The Catholike Church? As if Romane Church, and Ca∣tholike Church were vniuocall and conuertible tearmes, equally betokening one and the same Vniuersall Church.

That the Addition of the word, ROMANE, vnto the Article of the Catholike Church, is no true Exposition and Declara∣tion, but a notorious Alteration and deprauation thereof; proued by diuers Arguments.

The first Argument, in respect of the Church Triumphant. SECT. 4.

CHurch Catholike, or Vniuersall, as it is prescribed in the Apostles Creed, is a comprehension of all the members of the mysticall bodie of Christ, which is his Church. Now in your Romane Catechisme, authorized both by the Decree of your Councell of Trent, and the Bull of Pius then Pope, there are acknowledged d 1.18 Two parts of the Catholike Church, the one called Triumphant in heauen, the other Militant here on earth. Accordingly S. Augustine; e 1.19 The whole Church of Christ (saith he) is here vnderstood to be not onely that part which is in pilgrimage here vpon earth; but that part also which is in heauen. Which sence of this Article is grounded vpon diuine foundation, where it is written, * 1.20 Christ loued his Church, that he might present it to himselfe a glorious Church without spot or wrinckle. Where, by the word, CHVRCH, to vnderstand onely the Church militant, was the heresie of the

Pelagians, who peruerting the meaning of this text, concluded that the Church of Christ, here vpon earth, doth consist of them that are Perfect in this state of mortalitie: that is, of such, who in this mortall life are not tainted with sinne. To whom S. Augustine (as you know) replied, f 1.21 As though (saith he) the Church of Christ throughout the world doth not pray and crie, [Forgiue vs our sinnes.]

Therefore must this Text be vnderstood of the Triumphant part of the Church, whether alone, as Saint Augustine (you know) and Saint Hierom g 1.22 haue expounded it: or iointly with the Militant, according to the interpretation of the pro∣foundest Doctors in your Romane schooles, saying, that h 1.23 The Catholike Church is indeed without spot or wrinkle within the Militant part thereof, by grace; and in the part Triumphant by glorie. So vndoubted a truth it is, that the Article of Catholike Church, as it is prescribed in the Apostles Creed, doth com∣prize as well the Triumphant, as the Militant part thereof.

CHALLENGE.

THat then which comprehendeth not as well the Trium∣phant as the Militant part of the Church, cannot be a Declaration of the Catholike Church, as it is contained in the Apostles Creed; because no one part can expresse the whole. But in the Romish Article, (viz. The Catholike Ro∣mane Church, without subiection whereunto there is no salua∣tion) the word, ROMANE, vtterly excludeth the part Trium∣phant. Therefore it cannot possibly be a Declaration or expo∣sition of the word, Catholike, as it is vnderstood in the Apo∣stles Creed: except some of you shall be so blasphemous, as to subiect Saints, which are the members Triumphant, and Con∣querors now in blisse, to the members Militant and mortall here below; Saint Peter to your Pope; and heauen vnto earth.

Wherefore euery Christian man, who doth as seriously stu∣die the Celestiall spheare of the Saints in heauen, as others do

the Terrestriall globe of this corruptible earth, must call (in this your Article [The Catholike Romane Church) the word, ROMANE, a false deprauation of the Article of our Apostoli∣call Creed. From the Triumphant part of the Catholike Church, we descend to the Militant.

The second Argument, to prooue that the Addition of the word, ROMANE, cannot be any Declaration, but rather a Deprauation of the Article in our Creed; in re∣spect of the Church Militant. SECT. 5.

A Double consideration is to be had of the Catholike Church Militant, one in respect of her essentiall estate, as she is said to haue being: the other in respect of her acci∣dentall estate, as she is said to be outwardly Visible, be it in more or lesse degree of Visibilitie. In the first respect, when Protestants say that the Catholike Church doth essentially consist onely of persons regenerate in this life, and predesti∣nate to life euerlasting; They do not (as they are by Some slan∣dered to do) make two Churches, but one Church in a diffe∣rent habitude, relation, and consideration. For as Christ when he was on earth, although he commonly appeared euidently visible vnto men, yet sometimes he is said, after a sort, to haue vanished inuisibly out of mens sights; notwithstanding, in that his Inuisibilitie was he still the same Christ; because vsuall Vi∣sibilitie and Inuisibilitie are but outward accidents: so Christ his mysticall bodie, which is his Church, being considered in her Essentiall estate, is Inuisible, and the obiect of Faith, and not of Sense.

According to which Consideration, we affirme this Article in the Apostles Creed, I beleeue the Catholike Church, to be more peculiarly vnderstood. And this we prooue first by the nature of Faith it selfe, which (as the Apostle hath defined it) * 1.24 Is the demonstration of things not seene. Next, by the whole tenor of the Apostles Creed, wherein the obiect of euery Ar∣ticle of that Symbol (from beleefe in God vnto beleefe of life euerlasting) is vnto vs inuisible; and, so farre as it is beleeued,

is without compasse of Sense, as may be obserued in the faith of * 1.25 Thomas the Apostle; to whom albeit Christ said, Thomas, because thou hast seene mee, thou hast beleeued, yet the sense of Thomas saw onely the Visible humanitie of Christ: but his faith, which was his soules sight, beheld Christs God-head. So that Thomas could no more properly be said to haue beleeued that which hee saw, than to haue seene that which hee be∣leeued,

Lastly, diuine Scripture, in positiue doctrine, doth manifest thus much; as namely (to omit many others) in that speech of Christ to Saint Peter, Mat. 16.19. Vpon this Rocke will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it. Where the word, CHVRCH (by the iudgement of Saint Au∣gustine, and the accordance of your owne Doctors) doth sig∣nifie i 1.26 Onely the number of Predestinate. And good reason, because the godlesse and gracelesse are so farre from being the true members of the Church, against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile, that those Infernall gates stand continually wide open, as being desirous, and iustly appointed to deuoure them.

The same may be said of the Church, as it is called the flocke of Christ, Iohn 10. My sheepe heare my voice: where, by Sheepe, are onely ment The sanctified elect of God, as the testimonies of your owne k 1.27 Iesuites, the iudgement of Saint Augustine, and Saint Chrysostome doe confirme. A third Scripture we finde, Rom. 8.9. where the Apostle saith, Hee that hath not the spirit of Christ, the same is not his. Which sheweth, that none is truely a Christian, but as hee is regenerated by ••he Spirit of Christ. And so your Diuines, as well Iesuites as others, both an∣cient and moderne haue determined, that l 1.28 All that are not san∣ctified with the holy Spirit of Christ, although outwardly neuer so seeming members of the Catholike Church, yet are they no true and proper, but onely equiuocall and titularie members of

Christs Church; like as spittle, flegme, and other excrementall humours are said to be in the body of a man, whereof notwithstan∣ding they are no essentiall parts.

All this agreeth with the Doctrine of ancient Fathers, among whom Saint Ambrose. m 1.29 All that are in the Church (saith he) fight for Christ; intimating, that the wicked fight against Christ. Likewise Saint Augustine. n 1.30 The Catholike Church (saith he) is so called, because it is in euery part perfect. And againe. o 1.31 One∣ly the Predestinate cannot be diuided from this body. Whereun∣to the aboue-cited testimonies of Hierome and Chrysostome doe consent. And in this Harmonie Clemens Alexandrinus will be knowne to beare a part, calling the p 1.32 Catholike Church a Catalogue of iust men, according to the purpose of God; and a Congregation of the Predestinate. Of which Church of Christ, as his Spouse, S. Bernard arguing from the Apostle inferreth, as a thing q 1.33 without doubt, that the Elect are the Church of Christ. Lastly (lest that we may seeme to neglect the iudgement of the Fathers of the Romane Church, and the Bishops of Rome) Pope Gregorie, for his singular wisedome and deuotion cal••ed The Great, obseruing a proportion betwixt Christ the Head, and his Mysticall Body, called the Catholike Church: r 1.34 As Christ (saith he) was cōceiued by the holy Ghost, so is his Church, which is his body, replenished with the same spirit: and addeth, that All the Elect are within the compasse of this Church, and all Reprobates without it. The very same doctrine, for which Iohn Husse was condemned in the s 1.35 Councell of Constance. So that Augustine, Chrysostome, Ambrose, Bernard, yea and Pope Gregorie himselfe may seeme to haue beene condemned and burned with him.

Thus much be said in Thesi, to prooue that the Catholike Church (as it is considered in the essence thereof) is an inuisible Obiect of Faith, and not a visible Obiect of Sence.

CHALLENGE.

AN Addition, which hath no other consideration of the Church, than as it is Visible, cannot be a Declaration of a Church, which is in the essence thereof considered as Inuisible. But the Addition of the word, ROMANE, is vsed only in consi∣deration of the Church, as it is Visible, that is, consisting of a number of persons visibly knowne and discerned to professe the Christian Faith, and subiect to a Visible Romane Pope, as the visible and essentiall Head of the same Church. So as (to vse the words of your Cardinall Bellarmine) t 1.36 If wicked and carnall Professors are not to be esteemed properly, but equiuocal∣ly, and onely in name, the members of the Catholike Church, then must it follow (What? Heare, I beseech you, the Conse∣quence of your Cardinall) that a wicked Pope cannot be the Head of the Church. So he. But that all carnall Professors of the Catholike Faith are no essentiall members of the Catho∣like Church, mentioned in the Apostles Creed, you haue heard it already prooued by plaine places of Scriptures; by the ex∣presse iudgement of ancient Fathers; by your owne Confessi∣ons; by the nature of Faith, which beleeueth that which it seeth not; yea, and by the tenure of the Apostles Creed, which tea∣cheth vs to beleeue, with a diuine Faith, onely Them to be in∣fallibly the members of this Church, who (as it is in the Creed) can Beleeue, according to the Article, to obtaine Remission of sinnes in this life, and after death Life euerlasting.

Whilest that therefore you doe discerne the Catholike Church by the eye, so farre onely as it is visible, Subiect to one visible Head the Pope, who may happen to be (as All of you will confesse) as wicked and monstrous in his life, as any in the line of Caiphas; as desperate in his death as Iudas; and af∣ter as damned in hell, as that Glutton in the Gospel, who cried out, * 1.37 I am tormented in this flame: and seeing that the pro∣fession of the Church, as it is onely Visible, and an obiect of sence, can be no true Declaration or Exposition of an Article, signifying the Church of Christ, as it is also (and that more principally) Inuisible: it plainely appeareth from these Premi∣ses,

that your word ROMANE, depraueth the Article of the Apostles Creed, by incorporating the limbes of Sathan toge∣ther with the vitall members of Christ, in that one mysticall body, which is his Catholike Church: and consequently, that you haue forfeited your Head of the Romane Church, in euery damned Pope, that hath at any time professed that Romane Chaire.

The third Argument, to proue that the Addition of the word, ROMANE, cannot be any Declaration of the Catholike Church, mentioned in the Apostles Creed, is in respect of the visible parts of the same. SECT. 6.

TWo sorts of persons there are within your Romane Church, which you your selues denie to bee any visible members thereof: one is of them you call Catechumenists, who (as it falleth out in the Conuersion of Heathen and Iewes) before they can be baptized, are exercised in learning the prin∣ciples and rudiments of Faith. The other are Excommunicates, who by the publike censure of your Church happen to bee vniustly Anathematized, and disioyned from all Communion therewith. Of the Catechumenists, who are instructed in the Catholike Faith, and bring forth the fruits of Repentance, and yet depart this life without Baptisme, you pronounce, saying, that a 1.38 They are saued, albeit they are not in the Church. In like manner haue you resolued concerning such kinde of Excom∣municates, who may happen to be vniustly Excommunicated, saying, that b 1.39 Because the Church cannot iudge of things that are secret, it may happen that some are vniustly Excommunica∣ted, and excluded out of the visible Church, and neuerthelesse receiued of God, and certainely saued. So you.

We cannot but approue of both your Positions, as hauing Instances in both: for in the number of Catechumenists is re∣ckoned that Christian Emperour Valentinian, a zealous Pro∣fessor

and Patrone of the Catholike Faith, who died vnexpe∣ctedly, before he was baptized: whose Exequies and funeralls notwithstanding Saint Ambrose did solemnize, and in his Ser∣mon did honour the memory of that renoumed Emperour, as one who had beene (as the same Father speaketh) c 1.40 Indewed with the spirit of God in his life-time, and now after his death aduanced vnto ioyes eternall.

Touching Excommunicates, we reade in the Gospell of the * 1.41 Blind man healed by Christ, and, by the malice of the Priests against Christ, Cast out of their Synagogue; whom neuerthe∣lesse Christ did visit, and take into his grace, protection, and Saluation. Tell vs now, if your Romane Church be that Catho∣like Church, without which (as you beleeue) none can be saued, how then it commeth to passe, that these two sorts of Christi∣ans are saued, albeit they be without the said Romane Church? Your Iesuites doe answer, that d 1.42 Such Excommunicates, al∣though they are not of the Communion, which maketh a man to be properly of the Visible Church, yet neuerthelesse they are sa∣ued by their desire to be vnited with the Church. So they, which is full enough for your fuller conuiction.

CHALLENGE.

IF without the Romane Church some may bee actually saued, then the Addition of the word ROMANE caonot be a De∣claration of The Catholike Church, without which there is no Saluation. But the Romane Church is such, without which (as you confesse) some may be actually saued. Ergo, the Addition of the word, ROMANE, to the Catholike Church cannot bee a Declaration thereof. For although All agree in this (as your selues confesse) that e 1.43 Without the Catholike Church there is no saluation: yet haue you confessed two sorts of Christian Professors, namely Excommunicates, and Catechumenists, to bee actually saued, albeit no Members of your Romane Church.

As for being Saued only by Desire, or V••we of being in your Church, it is but a wilde and extrauagant piece of learning, in the iudgement of your owne f 1.44 Iesuite. But we will reason the matter with you. Know you not that the Church Catholike is compared by Saint Petor to the * 1.45 Arke of Noah? that as all which were within that Arke were saued, all without it were drowned (although they Desired neuer so much to haue been admitted into the Arke:) so it is in the Church Catholike; whosoeuer are essentiall members thereof cannot possibly pe∣rish: and contrarily, whoseuer is not a reall and vitall member therein * 1.46 cannot but perish.

The fourth Argument, to proue that the Addition of the word ROMANE, cannot be a Declaration of the Catholike Church, mentioned in the Apostles Creed; In re∣spect of the Diuine Authority of the Article. SECT. 7.

IT hath alwaies beene the Profession of the Catholike Church it selfe, not to esteeme any Doctrine an Article of Faith, which is not constituted, and (to speake with better Em∣phasis) Created by Diuine authority. This being a Truth vni∣uersally consented vnto you (if you will make good the Addi∣tion of the word, ROMANE, to the Article of the Catholike Church) are iustly challengable, either to proue that the Ro∣mane Church (as it is the Romane Church) was constituted by diuine Authority to be, rather than any other, transcendent∣ly THE Catholike Church; or else to confesse your Article of Romane Church, without which there is no Saluation, to be but new, and consequently a Doctrine rather of fancie than of Faith. The necessity of this Consequence was well foreseene of those your Popes, who were the first Authors and Patrons of this Article, and therefore haue published in their writings and decrees, that * 1.47 The Romane Church was by Diuine Autho∣rity ordained to be the Catholike Church.

This Question dependeth vpon the reason of the Pope of Rome his succession to Saint Peter, to wit; whether it were al∣lotted to the Bishop of Rome to succed Saint Peter, as Head

of the Catholike Church, by the institution of Christ; or else by the fact of Saint Peter himselfe. For if it were by com∣mand and appointment of Christ, then it must be allowed as a Diuine Ordinance: but if it issued onely from the fact of Saint Peter, then (by your owne Confessions) it is no doctrine of Faith. This being the state of the Question, as it is propoun∣ded by g 1.48 your selues, hereunto we desire to receiue your owne Resolutions. To this purpose when wee consult with your choisest h 1.49 Doctors, as namely Bellarmine, Suarez, Soto, Palu∣danus, Bannes, Augustinus Triumphus, Cordubensis, Arma∣chanus▪ Waldensis, and Others; they that speake more ingenu∣ously, doe freely grant, that the pretended Pontificall Dignity Romane, as it is Romane, is not from diuine authority, because onely from the fact of Peter. They that are more affectionate to the Romane See, although they attribute it to the Institu∣tion of Christ, yet dare they not say, that this is to be beleeued vpon certainty of Faith but onely as a matter Probable and Coniecturall.

Nay, if you shall haue but a little patience, vntill we descend to that point, you shall perceiue, by the iudgement of the Ca∣tholike Church it selfe, in a generall Councell of primatiue Antiquity, that The Prerogatiue, which the Church of Rome then had, was but from * 1.50 Humane authority.

CHALLENGE.

AN Addition, standing onely vpon Probability and Con∣iecture, cannot be infallibly a Declaration of an Article of Faith, founded vpon Diuine and Infallible authority. But your Addition of the word, ROMANE, standeth (as you con∣fesse) vpon probability and Coniecture onely. Ergo it cannot be an infallible Declaration of the Apostolicall Article, The Catholike Church, without which there is no saluation. And consequently, your word, ROMANE, added to the Christian Creed, thereby to make the Romane Church The Catholike

Church, without which there is no saluation, must necessarily be iudged Antichristian.

The fift Argument, to proue, that the Addition of the word, RO∣MANE, cannot be a Declaration of the Article, [The Ca∣tholike Church] as it is Visible, in respect of the Time past, whereunto the word, CATHO∣LIKE, hath relation, euen before Rome was founded a Church. SECT. 8.

WHo knoweth not that your Addition of the word, ROMANE, vnto the Apostolicall Article of [The Catholike Church] is to infuse an opinion into the mindes of Christians, that Catholike and Romane are termes vniuocall and conuertible: which is as much as to say, that whensoeuer there was a Romane Church, it was The Catholike Church; and whensoeuer there was a Catholike Church, it was Ro∣mane. Scarce shall you finde any Romish Professor, especi∣ally among the vulgar, who haue not this conceit of that Arti∣cle of Christian Faith. Notwithstanding your more learned Doctors are not ignorant, that this Apostolicall Article, The Catholike Church, was published before that in Rome was founded a Church: and that the Apostolicall Church it selfe was Catholike, before the Article of the Catholike Church was proclaimed. Which name, CATHOLIKE, or vniuersall was first attributed to the Church Christian, i 1.51 To distinguishit (as you know) from the Synagogue of the Iewes, which was cir∣cumscribed and confined to one only nation; whereas the Church Catholike is not limited to any one place; but is as broad in suc∣cession of place, as is the whole world.

Now concerning the Catholike Church, in the time of the Apostles, Card. Baronius (whose History you honour as an * 1.52 heauenly Lampe, or torch) telleth you, that k 1.53 The Creed of the Apostles (wherein is the Article of The Catholike Church) was composed by them in the yeere of Christ XLIV; and that the Catholike Church was extant sometime, before this Arti∣cle was put into the tenor of the Creed. Which he demonstra∣teth

from the act of Saint Peter, who in the yeere of our Saui∣our XXXIX is found l 1.54 Visiting the Churches in Pontus, Gala∣tia, Cappadocia, Asia, &c. That the same Apostle Saint Pe∣ter m 1.55 Constituted the Church of Antioch in the same yeere, and after that he had gouerned the See of Antioch seuen yeeres, hee in the yeere XLV translated his See from Antioch to Rome. Your other Chronologer n 1.56 Genebrard yeeldeth vnto vs eleuen yeeres, betweene the Composing of the Apostles Creed, and the first foundation of the Church of Rome by the Apostle Saint Peter.

We adde; that S. Paul, whom all the Romanists teach to haue beene a Co-founder with Saint Peter of the Church of Rome, had been before that time * 1.57 A Persecuter of the Church of Christ, as he himselfe confesseth; when Saint Steuen suf∣fered Martyrdome. But the Church of Christ, as it is called Catholike, comprehendeth (say o 1.58 you) all times.

CHALLENGE.

THe addition of a word, which betokeneth onely a part of Time, of the Churches being, cannot be a Declaration of the Church, which is called Catholike, on respect of the whole and vniuersall Time of the being of the Church: But the addi∣tion of the word, ROMANE, doth betoken but a part of Time of the being of the Church, namely after the first constitution of the Church of Christ Catholike. Ergo, It cannot be any true Explication of the Article properly called the Catholike Church, except you will exclude out of the Church of Christ (without which there is no saluation) S. Stephen the first Chri∣stian Martyr, and all other blessed primitiue Martyrs and Confessors, who died the faithfull members of Christ, before the Church of Rome had receiued her first life or breath.

Wherefore the word, ROMANE, cannot be added to our Christian Creed, as a Declaration of that Article, The Catho∣like Church, without which there is no saluation, without into∣lerable blasphemie against Apostles, Martyrs, and other Con∣fessors,

and blessed Saints of God, vnder the persecution of Saul, afterwards Paul: who because they were before the Church of Rome (and consequently without it) must be iudged by your Article to haue beene at that time without the state of Grace. Of whom notwithstanding our Sauiour Christ gaue testimonie by this voice from heauen, saying to Saul, in their behalfe, * 1.59 Why persecutest thou Mee? So false and impious is your Addition of the word, ROMANE, to that Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed.

The sixt Argument, to proue, that the Addition of the word, RO∣MANE, cannot be a Declaration of that Article in the Apostles Creed, The Catholike Church; In re∣spect of the Time to come. SECT. 9.

AGaine, the word Catholike, or vniuersall, mentioned in the Apostles Creed, as it comprehendeth (as you haue said) the Time past, so doth it (you know) implie p 1.60 The time to come, vntill the ends of the world, according to the pro∣mise of Christ, Mat. 28.20. Where••ore our next Question must be, whether the Church of Rome, which will needs be the Catholike Church, can infallibly professe a Pre∣rogatiue of continuing the the same pretended Catholike Church, vntill the ends of the world; and whether her owne principles doe not vtterly confute this vsurpation?

It is a generall principle of your Doctors, aswell Iesuites as others, that q 1.61 If the succession in the gouernement of the Ca∣tholike Church were not allotted to the Bishop of Rome, by diuine authority, then the same gouernement may bee transported from the same Bishop, and the Church of Rome may depart from the Faith, as well as other Churches, (and by name the Church of Constantinople) haue done. This Consequence being so vniuer∣sally receiued and approued in your owne Schooles, our next endeauour will be to proue that it cannot appeare infallibly

that the Church of Rome hath a Priuiledge of continuing The Catholike Church to the end of the world, by any diuine autho∣rity. This * 1.62 hath bene briefly touched already, but here is the place to handle it more at large.

Your Canus with some Others (lest they should bee com∣pelled to confesse, that the Church of Rome may possibly A∣postate in future times) haue contended to defend, that r 1.63 It was constituted the Catholike Church by the Institution of Christ. Which if it were true, then would there appeare some euidence thereof, either before, or else after the Ascension of Christ. But s 1.64 Before the Ascention of Christ, saith your Iesuite Suarez) Nothing appeareth of any such Ordinance, either in Scripture, or from Tradition. And that which is commonly alledged, out of Egesippus, of Christ his appearance after his Ascension vnto Peter, t 1.65 Commanding him to fixe his seate at Rome vntill his death (in the iudgement of your Iesuite Valen∣tianus) is of no force to proue that the Romane Church was to continue Catholike. We draw nearer our marke. u 1.66 There is no certaintie of faith (saith Bellarmine, with whom the Iesuite Suarez consenteth) that the Sea Apostolike is so fixed at Rome, as that it cannot be separated and remoued from that Church; because there is neither Scripture nor Tradition to proue this. Nor these onely, but Sotus with diuers other Schoole-men di∣rectly and peremptorily consent, that x 1.67 The Priuilege, which Rome doth challenge, is onely by the ordinance of Saint Peter, and therefore from humane authority. Yea, and Some yeeld not so much as the Institution by S. Peter, but by the Church; so farre, that y 1.68 If the Church, in a Councell, should choose the

Arch-bishop of Treuers, or of any other place, to be Head of the Church, he should be rather the Successor of Peter, than the Bi∣shop of Rome. Furthermore, we reserue vnto it's due place your Confession, that * 1.69 The Citie of Rome shall vndoubtedly bee the Seate of Antichrist.

CHALLENGE.

AN Addition, which notifieth a Church that may possibly be translated else-whither, and depart from the Faith, cannot bee a Declaration of that Article, in our Christian Creed, which signifieth a Church infallibly continuing in the Faith, to the end of the world. But the word, ROMANE, (as it signifieth the Romane Church) betokeneth a Church, which may possibly be Translated, and depart from the Faith. Ergo, it cannot be a Declaration of the Catholike Church, mentio∣ned in the Apostles Creed. So then, to make the word, Ca∣tholike, hereditarie to that Romane Church, which possibly may be as truly Antichristian, as Rome it selfe is sure to be (by your owne Confessions) The Seate of Antichrist, doth plainly discouer an Article New, False, Antichristian, and Blasphe∣mous.

The seuenth Argument, to proue that the Addition of the word, ROMANE, to the Catholike Church, cannot be a Decla∣ration of the Christian Faith, mentioned in the Apostles Creed; in respect of any Present Time. SECT. 10.

THe Certainty, whatsoeuer it is, of your Article, The Ca∣tholike Romane Church, is built vpon this foundation, that the Pope of Rome is the Catholike and Vniuersall Bishop of the Church of Christ, as the Popes themselues * 1.70 haue for∣merly defined. Now, because no structure can be more firme, than is the foundation vpon which it is built; wee make bold to demand, with what faith any of you can beleeue any Pope

(whatsoeuer he be that is elected) to be the True Pope, that is, (as you call him) The Catholike Bishop of Rome, without which the Church of Rome cannot be acknowledged The Catholike Church.

This Consequence Two of your Iesuites did truly discerne, which made Them resolue thus: a 1.71 As the visible Church (saith the one) is this indiuiduall Church, so the visible Head thereof must needs be this visible Pope, who by the common con∣sent is so ordained, vnto whom we owe obedience, as to the true Successor of Peter; or otherwise we could not know that this is a true Councell, and iustly confirmed by the Pope, &c. But with what degree of Faith do you beleeue this? b 1.72 With that Di∣uine Faith (saith the Other) wherewith we beleeue Iesus Christ, with the same ought we to beleeue this Paul the IV. to be the true Pope, and not with any humane Faith, which is subiect to be deceiued.

Behold a Iesuiticall Faith! both grosly false, and also wic∣kedly blasphemous: because, that there cannot be an Infalli∣bilitie in the Election of any Pope, is manifest by two con∣fessed and vncontrollable Consequences, taken from two pos∣sible defects; the one in the Popes Ordination, the second in his Election. First for his Ordination, your Councell of Florence defineth, c 1.73 That the truth of euery Sacrament dependeth vpon the intention of the Minister. But, d 1.74 None can be sure by certaintie of Faith (saith Bellarmine) that any such receiued the Sacrament of Ordination, because none infallibly knoweth the intention of him that Ordaineth. And Vega more vehe∣mently. e 1.75 It is as certaine (saith he) that we are not infallibly certaine of the receiuing of any Sacrament, as it is certaine that we now liue. Thus of the Popes Ordination.

Alphonsus à Castro is as bold with the Pope, about his Election. f 1.76 Which, because it may not be Canonicall, we are not to beleeue it (saith he) with a Catholike Faith: Whereof your

Cardinall g 1.77 giueth some Examples. In which two respects many of your Schoole Doctors haue concluded, that h 1.78 In the knowledge of this man, to be a true Pope, you haue no more but a morall certitude. Whereof we shall speake more hereafter.

CHALLENGE.

THat Addition, the beliefe whereof is onely humane, mo∣rall, and fallible, cannot be a Declaration of an Article of Diuine and Infallible faith, such as is that of the Catholike Church, mentioned in the Apostles Creed. But the word, ROMANE, is an Addition, the Beliefe whereof is onely hu∣mane, morall, and fallible. Ergo, the Addition of the word ROMANE, to the Catholike Church, cannot be a proper De∣claration of that Article in the Creed. So vaine and vniust is your appropriation of the word, Catholike, to your Ro∣mane Church.

The eight Argument, to proue that the Addition of the word, ROMANE, can be no Declaration of the Article of The Ca∣tholike Church, mentioned in the Apostles Creed; be∣cause it makes all periured that do professe it vpon Oath; besides the heresie and blasphemie thereof. SECT. 11.

THat in your profession of the Catholike Romane Church, the word, Romane, is an Article of Faith, challenging thereby a necessary subiection to the Bishop of Rome, we haue heard already, both in the * 1.79 Decrees of Popes, and also in that * 1.80 Forme of an Oath, which euery Ecclesiasticall person in your Church, of what condition soeuer he be, is enioyned to take, swearing that The Romane Church is the Catholike Mother and Mistris Church; vowing Obedience to the Bishop thereof: and in the same Oath, that this Romane Article, with others,

is The Catholike faith, without which there is none can be sa∣ued, which is the proper tenor of an essentiall Article of faith.

Now in as much as the word [CREDO] in the Apostles Creed doth import i 1.81 A constant and infallible persuasion of the Christian Beleeuer, as your owne Romane Catechisme doth truly instruct you; and because (to speake in the words of your owne Bozius:) k 1.82 These things which are propounded in the Creed, are the Principles or foundations of all other things that are to be beleeued, and ought at all times to be in themselues infallibly true in euery part, otherwise they should be no Principles, in as much as their truth is but doubtfull: We (by this your appropriating of the Article, The Church, with∣out which none can be saued) are constrained to pronounce you guiltie of a new Heresie in your faith; Periurie in your Oath; and Blasphemie in your excluding out of the state of Salua∣tion the most vndoubted members of the mysticall body of Christ, which is his Church.

I. CHALLENGE.

EVery new Article of Faith (that is to say, new Doctrine made necessary to saluation) is an Heresie, as you your selues will confesse: But this Article [The Catholike Romane Church, without which there is no Saluation] is a new Article, as hath bene amply prooued; because it is repugnant to the Article of The Catholike Church, professed in the Apostolike Creed; as hath bene made manifest in the Premisses by many Arguments. Therefore your Article of The Catholike Romane Church, without which there is no saluation, must needs be esteemed Hereticall.

II. CHALLENGE.

EVery one bound to beleeue, and to auouch vpon Oath any Doctrine, as necessary to Saluation, which is not of an in∣fallible truth, is thereby made guilty of Periurie. But euery Romish Priest (by the * 1.83 Bull of Pope Pius 4.) is bound to be∣leeue vpon Oath, that the Romane Church is the Catholike Church, without which there is no saluation. Albeit you your∣selues haue confessed at large, that this your doctrine standeth not vpon any infallible grounds of truth, either in respect of Time past, at the founding of the Church of Rome, which was not instituted by any Diuine Ordinance; or in respect of the Time present, wherein you haue no full assurance of your Ca∣tholike Head, the Pope: or yet in respect of the Time to come, when as you Confesse a Possibilitie that the Catholike Church may cease to be Romane, because it may possibly be translated to another place. Therefore are all Romish Priests necessarily inuolued in the crime of Periurie, by swearing that to be a necessarie Article of Faith, which is in so many respects de∣fectiue, and commeth short of all the Essentiall grounds of Faith.

III. CHALLENGE.

THat Article, which excludeth from Saluation the vn∣doubtedly essentiall and liuely members of the Mysticall bodie of Christ, which is his Church, that is a doctrine vn∣doubtedly Blasphemous. But your Article, The Romane Church, without which there is no saluation, doth exclude from Saluation both those, which (before the Church of Rome was a Catholike Church) suffered bonds, imprisonment, and Mar∣tyrdome it selfe, for the profession of Christ; next all Catechu∣menists, and persons vniustly Excommunicated, albeit depar∣ting this life in true faith and repentance: and lastly all them, who in the dayes of Antichrist, when the Church, as it is Ro∣mane (as you say, may peraduenture; but, as we thinke, will Apostate from the Faith) shall persist the constant and glori∣ous

Martyrs of Christ Iesus, &c. Therefore this Article can∣not but be manifestly Blasphemous. Thus much concerning our Proofes, taken from the Consideration of the Article of Christian Faith, in the Apostles Creed, viz. [The Catholike Church.] By which we haue euicted your Additiō of the word, ROMANE (to make an Article of Faith) to be New, False, Scan∣dalous, Pernitious, Hereticall, and Blasphemous, respectiuely.

CHAP. III. A Second generall Head of Confutation of the former Article, is from the Consideration of the Iudgement of the Church; by Examples of seuerall Chur∣ches, Councels, and Fathers.

SECT. 1.

AFter our Proofe, that the now Romane Article, The Catholike Romane Church, without Vnion and Subiection whereunto there is no Saluation, is New, Imposterous, Scandalous, &c. taken from the tenor and sence of the Apostolicall Ar∣ticle, The Catholike Church, expressed in our Catholike Creed; We proceed to confirme our former Proofe, by like euidence from currant Examples, taken from the Catholike Church it selfe. And, for our more expedite Method & passage herein, We shall proportion our Treatise according to three Distinctions of Tyme; the Tyme before, the Tyme when, and the Tyme after that the Church of Rome had her first foundation and being.

I. Of the Time before the Church of Rome was founded. First setting downe the Romane Article, intituling the Church of Rome [The Mother Church.] SECT. 2.

WEE need not tell you, that it is an Article in your Church, to beleeue that the Church of Rome is The

Mother and Mistris Church of all other Churches (where, by Mother, you vnderstand her ancient Prerogatiue of spiri∣tuall Generation: and, by Mistris, her Iurisdiction and Su∣preme Authority of directing all other Churches, as Members of the Church Catholike) seeing that the Fathers of the a 1.84 Councell of Trent, in their Canons and Decrees, haue fiue times published the same Article in expresse words, calling her The Common Mother on earth, which cannot forget whom shee hath begotten; As if all the Faithfull on earth were her of∣spring. Instantly vpon this Decree of the Councell, the Fa∣ther of all these Trent-Fathers, Pope Pius the 4. for Confirma∣tion of that Councell, enioyned euery Ecclesiasticke to professe, among other points, the same Romane Article vpon Oath, thus: I N. sweare, that I acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Mother and Mistris of all other Churches; without which faith none can be saued. So then this Article is become as Catholike among you, as is your Church. Which opinion of her Vniuersal Motherhood hath beene the greatest fascination and witcherie that of long time hath blinded the eyes of most of her Professors;b 1.85 and which we shall prooue to bee no better than a False and Imposterous inchantment, voide of all light of truth, and repugnant vnto the confessed Examples of illu∣strious Churches more ancient than her selfe.

The first Confutation of that Article of Romane Mother-hood, is taken from the rottennesse of the Foundation thereof. SECT. 3.

IF there bee any sound ground of truth in the Article, viz. that The Church of Rome is Mother of all other Churches, sure we are that your two Cardinals, for learning and deuo∣tion towards that Church most Eminent, (viz. Baronius and Bellarmine) will be most able and willing to expresse it, espe∣cially where they professedly determine the very point. Ba∣ronius teaching that Saint Peter, being constituted by Christ the ordinary Pastor of the whole Church, did fixe his seate at

Rome, doth thereupon resolue, saying, c 1.86 Hence it is that the Romane Church is called the Mother-Church of all others. And lest any might deny this Consequence, as being (that which it is indeed) fond and absurd, Bellarmine addeth the reason thereof. d 1.87 The Church of Rome (saith he) could not be called the Mother-Church, except that all the Apostles had had their ordination of Pastorship from Saint Peter. And, for proofe heereof, the Cardinall referreth vs to the Epistles of Pope Anacletus, witnessing that e 1.88 The order of Priesthood had its' beginning from Peter. So he, whereas notwithstanding Sacer∣dotall Order doth but coniecturally inferre the Episcopall. Howsoeuer these testimonies from the Epistles of Anacletus, (which your Cardinall f 1.89 Cusanus beleeueth to be Apocry∣phall, and vnworthy of beleefe) Two of your most priuileged Iesuites, g 1.90 Azorius, and h 1.91 Suarez denie, That the other Apo∣stles receiued their Episcopall Ordination from Saint Peter. Which they maintaine vpon better grounds, than the Counter∣feit Epistles of a Pope can be, euen vpon the Oracles of God's Word, where it appeareth (say they) that Matthias had his Ordination to the Bishopprick which Iudas lost, not by the hands of Peter, but by lott, immediately from God: and Saint Paul his, not by Saint Peter, but by a voice from heauen, euen im∣mediately from Christ. They adde other Reasons, & in the end adioyne the Consent of S. Augustine, & of many other Diuines.

Yet were it admitted, that Peter, as ordinarie Pastor of the Catholike Church, had ordained other Apostles Byshops, and by their Ministry begotten those innumerable Churches, which the same Apostles (as you * 1.92 Confesse) constituted seauen yeeres before the Church of Rome was erected; yet were it a mad point of Genealogizing, to conclude that Rome must be Mother to those daughters of Saint Peter, which were be∣gotten seauen yeeres before shee was borne: whereas shee could be to them but a Sister at the most, and that but a youn∣ger Sister too.

CHALLENGE.

GIue vs leaue to dispute from your owne Confessions, thus. If all the other Apostles were not ordained Byshops by Saint Peter, there can be no apparent reason, why the Church of Rome should be called the Mother-Church. Thus Bellarmine. But all the other Apostles were not ordained By∣shops by Saint Peter. Thus your Iesuites out of direct Scrip∣tures, accompanied with the Consent of Saint Augustine, and many other Diuines. Ergo there is not sufficient ground, to cal the Church of Rome the Mother of al other Churches. Twice miserable therefore is the state of your Priests, both because they are tied periuriously to sweare That to be an Article of Faith, which is a manifest false-hood; as also for that they, and all that Sect, being entangled in this error of beleeuing the Romane Church to be the Mother of all other Churches, are thereby consequently entangled in all other her errors and Idolatries.

The second Confutation of the same Article ariseth from the Respect of many illustrious Mother-Churches, more ancient than Rome. SECT. 4.

WE furthermore endeauour to impugne your former infatuation, in beleeuing the Vniuersall Mother-hood of the Church of Rome, by the faith of Fathers of Primitiue

times, farre more Reuerend for antiquity, and more credible for impartiality than were your Fathers, or rather Step-Fa∣thers of Trent. Not but that we as willingly, as worthily, doe acknowledge the Ancient Church of Rome to haue beene in former times an happie Mother of many renouned Christian Churches in the world; and we accordingly blesse the wombe of that sincere Faith and Piety, which then brought forth so innumerable an of-spring of so many holy Professors: which notwithstanding, shee might content her selfe to haue deser∣ued the Title of a Mother-Church, as other ancient Churches were, and not of THE MOTHER-CHVRCH OF ALL OTHERS. For we are verily perswaded, that no reasonable man can allowe any childe so to honour his Mother, as that he must necessarily thereby disparage all others his honoura∣ble Progenitresses, and (that we may so speake) his owne Grand-mother and Great-grand-mother, together with o∣thers of his kindred more ancient than Shee. Such was the state of the Church of Rome, in respect of other Churches, as by seuerall Instances will clearely appeare.

The first Instance of Mother-hood, before Rome, is in the most ancient Church of Hierusalem. SECT. 5.

EVe was not more truely named the Mother of all liuing, than the Church of Hierusalem may be said to haue beene the Mother of all Churches beleeuing. In which respect the whole Christian world hath giuen vnto her the due and ho∣nourable Title of Mother-hood. For almost a thousand and 300 yeeres agoe, an hundred and fiftie Orthodoxe Fathers, as∣sembled in a Councell at Constantinople, acknowledged (as you know) that i 1.93 Hierusalem was the first Church, which (to vse the words of Saint k 1.94 Hierome) engendred all the Churches of the world.

After, in the daies of Saint Augustine, when certaine He∣retikes refused to haue Communion with Hierusalem, be∣cause our Lord Christ was Crucified in that Citie, that learned Father did both wisely and wittily confute them:

l 1.95 No maruell (saith he) if you are cut off from the Church, who hate that roote Hierusalem, where the Church had her originall, and whither the holy Ghost was first sent. Another time the same Father, being opposed by Petilian a Donatist, and asked Whence first he had his Communion? m 1.96 Answereth, that he had it originally from Hierusalem. Could Saint Augustine in this Question, about the Mother-Church, against an Heretike, haue so negligently passed by Rome, without sacrilege, if the Faith of the Church of Christ, in his daies, had beene to be∣leeue that Romane Church to haue beene then the sole Soue∣raigne Mother-Church ouer all Churches in the world, as your Councell of Trent hath so often decreed?

The second Instance of Mother-hood is in the Church of Caesarea. SECT. 6.

THe Church of Hierusalem did beare, as her first daughter, the Church of Caesarea, the Metropolis of Palestina, which afterwards was made the Patriarchall Seate within that Pro∣uince. The Motherhood of which Church S. Basil, and S. Na∣zianzene did both proclaime and preferre before Rome, as by their owne testimonies may appeare. We must haue ample estimation n 1.97 (say They) of euery Church, as the body of Christ, but especially of this our Church of Caesarea, which the Chri∣stian Common-Weale doth obserue, as the Circumference doth a center. From which place (meaning, after Hierusalem) the Gospell first arose, and passed through the World. So they. What greater Encomium would you (if you could) passe vpon your Church of Rome, than by instiling her the Mother-Church, to account her as the Center, and call all other Churches as her

Circumferences? Which Attributes those Orthodoxe Fa∣thers would not haue ascribed to Caesarea, if in their Faith the Church of Rome had, in their daies, had the Prerogatiue of the Mother-Church ouer all other Churches in the world.

The third Instance of Mother-hood, before Rome, is in the Church of Antioch. SECT. 7.

ANtioch was a Church (by your owne Confessions) di∣uers yeeres, when as yet the Church of Rome was with∣out note or name, a meere non-ens in Christianity. Of which Church of Antioch Saint Chrysostome, out of the * 1.98 Acts; o 1.99 This our Citie of Antioch (saith he) is most deare to Christ, for its' Progenitors: where Saint Peter did first preach, which first re∣ceiued, as an admirable Crowne, the name of CHISTIANS. So he. Whether therefore you shall be pleased to call the Church of Antioch Mother, or (because the name of Chri∣stians was first deriued from her) God-Mother to all other Churches after her, sure it is that shee may iustly claime the Birth-right before Rome. Which Saint Chrysostome defended now, euen when the Church of Rome (and that worthily) was famous and renouned in the world.

The fourth Instance of Mother-hood, before Rome, is in the Greeke Church in Generall. SECT. 8.

THe Easterne Greeke Churches themselues challenged this Prerogatiue in their Letters to Pope Iulius, to wit, that p 1.100 They came from the East that first brought Christian Religi∣on to Rome. But none neede require a more prompt or large acknowledgement of the antiquity of the Greeke Church, in respect of the Latine, than that which was publikely pronoun∣ced by your owne Byshop of Bitontum, in a solemne assembly of Byshops, euen in your Councell of Trent, briefly thus;

q 1.101 O Greece, our Mother (saith he) to whom the Latine Church oweth all that shee hath. So he. We reade of the Crosse of Christ, that it had an Inscription written on it in Hebrew, Greeke and Latine. The same order may we obserue in the principall pro∣pagation of Churches in the Christian world: the Hebrew Church before the Greeke, and the Greeke Church constituted before the Latine; Hierusalem before Antioch, and Antioch with others before Rome. Wherefore that you should make Rome the Mother-Church ouer all others, which oweth to the Greeke Church no lesse than All that shee hath, is in true ap∣prehension a wonderfull Imposture.

The fift Instance of Mother-hood, before Rome, is in the Britaine Church. SECT. 9.

YOur Church is in the next place to be prouoked and con∣uinced by a remote Nation of Brittaine, which, by your owne accompts, receiued the Gospell (Cardinall r 1.102 Baronius, and your Iesuite s 1.103 Suarez, acknowledging thus much out of most ancient Records) By the preaching of Ioseph of Arima∣thea, in the 35 yeere of Christ, two yeeres before Peter did found the Church of Antioch, where hee was seated seuen yeeres before he founded the Church of Rome. That is to say, in Brittaine was planted a Church nine yeeres before Rome, and is hereby so much her elder Sister.

CHALLENGE.

THus much being granted by the most zealous Aduocates for your Romane Church, giue vs leaue to reason the matter with you in few words. You still defend that the Church of Rome is the Mother-Church of all other Churches of Christ, and that not as a Case of probability, but as an Ar∣ticle of Faith: nor this in any implicit beleefe, but such, without which none can be saued: nor yet in the ordinarie manner of Profession, but (by your Priests and Ecclesiastikes) vnder the Forme of an oath. Ought you not therefore to haue stood vpon infallible principles, for the making good of this Conclusion, than which you haue not any one more vulgar, pressing, and binding, among all the Tenents in your Romane Church? And yet behold an opinion of Peter's Ordaining the other Apostles Bishops, impugned by your owne most iudicious Diuines, and this grounded vpon a bastard Epistle of Anacletus. Next, that the inference from the same opinion is a Consequence, which must prooue the Sister Rome to haue begotten her Sisters (or rather indeed her Mothers and Aunts) namely the Churches of Hierusalem, Caesarea, Antioch, whole Greece, together with our Isle of Brittaine. And all this against the confessed euidence of Scripture, and the expresse testimonie of Reuerend Anti∣quity, which attributed that Mother-hood to the forenamed Churches, before Rome. Wherefore we can doe no lesse than hisse at your illogicall Consequences; blush at the impudence of your Aduocates; abhorre the periurie of your Priests, Ie∣suites, and all Ecclesiastikes; and pittie the miserable thral∣dome of your Professors, who are kept hood-winck't in the beleefe of so Imposterous, Schismaticall, and Damnable an Ar∣ticle: by which all the Churches, begot by the preaching of Saint Peter, and all the other Apostles in the compasse of sea∣uen yeers, before the begetting of Rome, must be iudged Dam∣ned for not beleeuing the Romane Church (as you teach) to haue beene the Catholike Mother-Church, without which Faith there is no saluation. Thus much in respect of the Time, BEFORE Rome was a Church.

CHAP. IV. Of the Time about when the Church of Rome had her Foundation: Arguing from the Faith of three Apostles, Saint Peter, S. Paul, and S. Iohn; and of the Apostolicall Churches in their daies.

SECT. I.

THese three Apostles! than whom what witnes∣ses can be more competent in this case? Wee appeale to your selues. a 1.104 The Popes of Rome (say you) acknowledge both Peter and Paul for their Predecessors, because both of them did found and gouerne the Romane Church. And as for Saint Iohn, his long continuance in the Church Militant will Minister some matter of resolution heerein.

I. That Saint Peter, the conceiued founder of the Church of Rome, was not of the now Romane Faith, concerning the Article of the Catholike Romane Church. SECT. 2.

WE (not to interrupt you, by questioning the truth of Saint Peter's residence in that See, as Bishop there∣of) doe punctually inquire whether it entred into his Faith to Beleeue the same Roman Church to be The Catholike Church without which there is no saluation: nothing doubting, but that you will thinke that He, of all others, would haue plaine∣ly vnfolded thus much, whom your Popes assume to haue

bene the Founder of that Church, together with Saint Paul. And because all the pretended Soueraigntie of the Romane Mother-Church is (according to * 1.105 your faith) deriued from the supreme Father-hood of your Romane Pope, and this is as originally descended from the transcendent ordinarie Pa∣storship of S. Peter ouer all the other Apostles; we begin to enquire into the faith of S. Peter.

Whatsoeuer Prerogatiue Saint Peter might challenge ouer all the other Apostles, must appeare either by some promise made singularly to him by Christ, or else by some practise of Saint Peter himselfe, in the exercise and execution of such his Iurisdiction. The due examination of both these would easily cleare the Cause.

That the Faith of Saint Peter did not conceiue any Monar∣chicall or supreme Iurisdiction promised vnto himselfe by Christ, in the most pretended speech of Christ, saying, Matth. 16. Vpon this Rocke will I build my Church. SECT. 3.

THis, this Scripture, & in it the word, ROCK, you haue still obiected, as the rocke and fortresse of your now Romane Faith, concerning the Article of your Romane Catholike Church: because b 1.106 From hence (say your Iesuites) is proued that Monarchie of S. Peter. Insomuch as that whē Luther, Caluine, and others aduentured to expound this of Christ, and Faith in him, as the Sonne of God; your two grand Cardinals oppose, the One his owne passion, calling it an c 1.107 Impudent madnesse in Protestants to expound the Rocke to signifie Christ: The other obtrudeth the Consent of your owne Schoole, saying, d 1.108 That by Rocke, is meant Peter, it is the Common opinion of all Ca∣tholikes. An Exposition approoued by your Bishop, and that not without some insultation, saying, e 1.109 In this, Truth tri∣umpheth: as if it were as cleare as the Sunne, which Sunne∣shine

(as some call it) we Protestants (alas our blindnesse!) can∣not discerne, but rather iudge that it hath bene, and is mista∣ken by you for Moone-shine; through some defect in your fa∣culties or instruments of sight. A large Librarie (I suppose) would scarce containe the bookes that haue bene written vp∣on this Text, whereas the briefe of all, that need be said, may farre more easily than Homers Iliads, be comprized within the shell of a wallnut.

The Protestants Exposition vpon this Scripture auouched by many excellent Witnesses in the Romane Church; yea euen by the Popes themselues. SECT. 4.

OVr Exposition hath euer bene to vnderstand that, by ROCK, is meant the Confession of Peter, when he said of the Godhead of Christ, Thou art Christ, the Sonne of the liuing God; and consequently signified (by a metonymie) Christ him∣selfe. Where, we meane not the Confession of Peter in Concreto, as you would haue it vnderstood, f 1.110 With relation vnto Peter: but as the said Confession of the Godhead of Christ may be the Confession of euery Christian, to which truth many of your owne Authors will beare witnesse.

To which purpose we alleage, among your Preachers, Fe∣rus saying; g 1.111 Vpon this Rocke,] That is, the Confession of Pe∣ter, and not vpon Peter. Among your Glossers, the Romane Glosse it selfe, saying, h 1.112 That is, vpon the Article then Confes∣sed, concerning Christ: and so our Lord Christ built it vpon himselfe. Among your Friers, Lyranus; i 1.113 Vpon the Rock, Christ. Among your Iesuites, Pererius. k 1.114 Christ is the Rock, vpon which the Church is builded. Among your Bishops, Abu∣lensis; l 1.115 Not vpon Peter, but vpon his Confession; and he spea∣keth absolutely of the Confession it selfe, in Abstracto, with∣out

relation to Peter, and giueth this reason, because after this Confession thus made, Peter himselfe failed in his faith, by de∣nying his Lord. Among your Cardinals, m 1.116 Hugo, and n 1.117 Cusa∣nus; By the Rocke is signified Christ. Among your Councels, the last Councell of Trent, speaking of the Nicene Christian Creed, and pointing in the margent at this Text, it saith, that o 1.118 It is the foundation, against which the gates of Hell shall not preuaile. Therefore faith in Christ, in Abstracto is the foun∣dation, for there is in that Creed no mention of Peter. Lastly and chiefly among your Popes (for now we are clymed vp to the pinnacle of your Temple) no fewer than p 1.119 Foure, Leo the first, Agatho the first, Nicolaüs the first, and Adrian the first, all of them Firsts, and therefore more ancient than all others of their names, haue (as your selues witnesse) expounded the Rock to meane the Confession of Saint Peter, in acknowledging Christ to be the Sonne of God.

I. CHALLENGE, from the iudgements of the fore-cited Authors.

IN these former Allegations although most of the Testimo∣nies themselues do sufficiently shew, that (by ROCK) is meant the Confession deliuered by Saint Peter, really in it selfe, and not personally, as it had Relation to him; yet for the better clearing of your iudgements, you may take these Con∣firmations. I. None will denie but that there was meant in Peters Confession, that matter which he confessed: but Peter confessed not himselfe, but Christ, saying, Thou art the Sonne of the liuing God. Ergo, his Confession had Relation to Christ, and not to himselfe. II. You grant, that Saint Peter confessed no more than that which he knew, q 1.120 The other Disciples to haue beleeued, before he spake; because Christs question be∣ing generall, What say yee? He answered, as the mouth of the

rest. True, (as may fully appeare in our * 1.121 Margent.) But the Apostles, before he spake, beleeued Christ confessed, and not Peter confessing.

III. ROCKE is that Confession, whereupon Christ saith he will build his Church, and members thereof: but whoso∣euer shall truly beleeue that which S. Peter confessed, to wit, Christ the Sonne of the liuing God, is accordingly built vpon the Rocke, albeit he should neuer haue heard so much as the name of Peter. Ergo, the Confession rightly vnderstood had Relation to Christ, and not to the person of Saint Peter. IV. The thing, which Christ spake of, was called the ROCKE, (as Fathers, Authors, and Professors on all sides do witnesse,) to signifie that which is Immoueable, Impreinable, and Eternall; such as is Christ, and his Truth. But Peter found his Confession (as it proceeded from himselfe) to be mouea∣ble, and shaken, at one time thrice denying this Confession of his Lord, when as also he knew himselfe to be mortall: Ergo, he did not thinke this Confession, which Christ calleth the Rocke, to haue Relation to himselfe, but onely to Christ. So impossible it is, that Saint Peter, in his Confession, should ap∣prehend the ground of your now Romane Faith. Whence you cannot but obserue, with what modestie your forecited Aduo∣cates, Baronius, Bellarmine, and Roffensis could obiect vnto Protestants Impudencie, Singularitie, and Blindnesse, for de∣fending an Exposition of the word, ROCKE, so copiously and euidently warranted by all sorts of Witnesses, euen within the Romish Church it selfe.

II. CHALLENGE:

From the iudgement of the ancient Fathers.

IN venerable Antiquitie we find some Fathers distinguishing betweene Petra the Rocke, and Peter; as plainly as between r 1.122 Christ and a Christian: Some as directly noting Christ to be the Rocke, as Saint Iohn did euer point him out to be The Lambe of God, where they say, s 1.123 This Rocke was Christ: Some, that Peter made his Confession, * 1.124 As the mouth of the other Disciples: And that t 1.125 The Faith confessed was the Rocke: Some by way of Diminution, u 1.126 Not Peter alone, more than others: Some exclusiuely, x 1.127 Not Peter. And though Some (for we may not dissemble thus much) do expound, by Rocke, Peter; yet do they meane either a Primacie of Order, or Honour in Peter; not of authoritie, and dominion: or else a priority of Confession, because he vttered the words first. And so all the Apostles and Prophets are called Foundations: by which is not meant their persons or dominions, but their doctrines. Else shew vs, where euer any Prophet had any Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction in the Church of the Iewes.

And whereas you are vrgent in obiecting the Testimonie of Saint y 1.128 Augustine, as though he would make the Case indif∣ferent, yet are you taught by your owne Bishop, that z 1.129 Augu∣stine, in that place, rather held that by Rocke was meant Christ. Albeit that, to make this Exposition indifferent, which you lay downe as a ground of your Faith, would be the vtter destru∣ction of your owne Cause: For Faith must stand vpon Infalli∣bilitie, and not vpon an Indifferencie of Choosing whether. So inconsiderate and precipitant was that your Author, in his Obiection.

Now whatsoeuer may seeme to be wanting in this second Challenge, it is plentifully supplied by One, whose iudgement ought to be as acceptable, as his learning was admirable. Cast your eye on the * 1.130 Margent, where you shall perceiue how many Fathers Interpreted the ROCKE to signifie either Christ confessed by Peter, or else the Confession of Peter: so that your Cardinall, censuring the interpretation of Protestants not to be the Exposition of Catholikes, doth in effect thereby wipe out of the number of Catholikes, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Au∣gustine, and diuers other ancient Fathers. Next, that the Ex∣pounding, by Rocke, Peter doth nothing aduantage the Romish Conclusion, which is from Rocke, to inferre Saint Peters Mo∣narchie and absolute Iurisdiction ouer all other Apostles: be∣cause Rocke can be but a Symbol or signe of such properties as are belonging to a Rocke, as Soliditie and Vnmouablenesse in the faith, but not of Dominion. Finally, he noteth in your Car∣dinall a bold licentiousnesse, who being a Romanist (to make Saint Peter the Rocke) durst correct the Vulgar Translation, which hath beene pronounced Authenticall by the Councell of Trent.

III. CHALLENGE.

BY this time you see, that your faith of Peters Monarchie, which you beare the world in hand to be infallibly built vpon the word ROCKE, mentioned by Christ vnto Peter, is according to the iudgement of the Fathers, Confessions of your owne Diuines, and irresistable demonstrations of truth it selfe meerely built vpon the sands. How then shall any con∣science

of man beleeue you in your Expositions of Scripture, seeing you to be so egregiously ouertaken in that, which you, in all your disputes concerning this Cause, obiect as if not the sole, yet the most solid Rocke of your beleefe?

As for any other place of Scripture, which can be alleaged in this Cause, it were altogether superfluous to discusse in this place; both because the euidence, which you haue recei∣ued from this one Text, may sufficiently warne you, not to pre∣sume of the learning and iudgement, whereof your grand-Lea∣dears make such boasts; as also because all other Obiections haue beene fully satisfied * 1.131 elsewhere. Where the acknow∣ledgement of Cardinall Cusanus, sometimes the Popes Legate, excellently studied in the Fathers, and primarily exercised in the Councell of Basil, is made good; who, in debating the question of the Popes Iurisdiction, with the assent of that Councell, did publikely auerre that a 1.132 Peter receiued from Christ no greater authoritie than did the other Apostles: no∣thing was said to him, which was not spoken to them. Hee pro∣ceedeth further, particularly insisting vpon the obiected Scrip∣tures, and concludeth that the other Apostles were equally called Stones; had equally the Keyes of the Kingdome of hea∣uen deliuered vnto them; equally receiued the charge of teaching, that is, Feeding of the whole flocke of Christ. As yet then you haue no foundation for your pretended Monarchie of Peter, by any promise of Christ made vnto him. In the next place we are to examine whether any ground appeare thereof by any Monarchicall or Iuridicall Act of Saint Peter, through out the whole course of his Apostleship, ouer all, or any one of the other Apostles.

II. That Saint Peter neuer exercised any Act of Iurisdiction, as properly belonging to himselfe ouer the other Apostles, whereby to testifie that hee had any Dominion ouer them, as the Monarch and Head of the Catholike Church. SECT. 5.

TOuching Saint Peters practise and conuersation among the other Apostles; wee suppose that the testimony of

your Salmeron (one of the first in the foundation of the Socie∣tie of Iesuites, and throughout all his Volumes, which are six∣teene, vpon all occasions every-where a zealous Proctor, for the prouing and promoting of Saint Peters Monarchie) may as well satisfie your selues, as it doth vs. Hee therefore, in an∣swer to the Question, why the pretended Monarchie of Saint Peter is not demonstrable by any publike Act of Peter? telleth vs (and his words are worthy of obseruation) that b 1.133 Peter, al∣though he were Head and Iudge ouer the other Apostles, yet he so behaued himselfe among them, that he might seeme, in a man∣ner, to haue neglected his Pastorship, by carrying himselfe as a Brother and Equall with them; and not as either Head, or Rector ouer them. So he. And he giueth you a Reason hereof, for If Peter (saith he) had written as a Pope, then might he be thought to haue published rather Pontificall, than Diuine Lawes, &c. Which is no more in effect, but that which a French Lawyer hath said before him; namely, that c 1.134 In the Apostles time, as often as any was ordained Bishop or Deacon, or any thing was to be decreed, which appertained to the Church, Peter neuer tooke that vpon himselfe, but permitted it to the whole Church. So hee.

How then shall any imagine, that you can truely obiect any one act of Peter, which might but probably proue his Do∣minion and Iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles, as the Pope challengeth to doe ouer all other Bishops, seeing that you are constrained to grant, that he made himselfe Equall with them so farre, as that he might seeme in a sort to haue neglected his Pastorship. Although, indeede, this could not Saint Peter doe, without exceeding iniurie to his place and Gouernment (if he had any such) because it belongeth to euery one, in his degree, to maintaine and magnifie the dignitie of his Ministrie; as Saint Paul teacheth saying, * 1.135 I will magnifie my office, inasmuch as I am Doctor of the Gentiles. Vpon which Text Pope Gre∣gory collecteth a generall lesson, for the defence of his owne Iurisdiction. d 1.136 The Apostle (saith hee) teacheth vs so to carrie humilitie in our heart, that we doe keepe and preserue the digni∣tie of that order, whereunto we are called. So he.

CHALLENGE.

WHat shall we say then? will you haue vs beleeue that Peter held his whole Monarchie (for so you call it) which he had ouer the Apostles for the space of fifteene yeeres, without any expression of any of those Notes of Catholike Iu∣risdiction, which you account to be proper vnto Papall Mo∣narchie ouer all Bishops and Pastors? As for Example: Not the e 1.137 Crowne vpon his head, to shew his Empire: nor the Mi∣ter, to shew his Pastorall Dominion ouer the other Apostles: No Legate à latere, to carrie his Mandates: no person ad∣mitted (a pride which Saint Peter * 1.138 abhorred) to kisse his feet: No one Canon of directing them: No Claime, or yet Admit∣tance of any Appeale from them: No Reseruation of any great Case, as by speciall Prerogatiue proper to himselfe, such as you attribute to the Pope; f 1.139 to wit, of Admitting any out of the Di∣oces of another; of Absoluing those that are Excommunicate by another; of Canonizing Saints; of Confirming Synods; of Gran∣ting plenarie Indulgences; of Pardoning Simonie, and almost an hundred the like sinnes? Teach vs this, when you can per∣swade your selues that there euer was Temporall Monarch, diligent in the Execution of his office, that would neuer be distinguished from his Nobles either by his Guard, or Coine, or Habit, or Commands, or publike Edicts and Constitutions, or at least by some one Note and Character of Imperiall eminen∣cie and Authoritie.

I onely adde, making bold to aske you a Question. If that the Addition of the word, ROMANE, to the article of the Ca∣tholike Church, be so necessary for the directing of the faith of Christians, to the acknowledgement of the Seat of Saint Pe∣ter at Rome, as the infallible ground of their faith, and center of their Saluation, why within the whole seauen yeares, du∣ring which time (as * 1.140 you say) Saint Peter had his Seat at An∣tioch, before it was translated to Rome, cannot you finde in all Antiquitie the Addition of the word ANTIOCHIAN, and the like Article of The Antiochian Catholike Church, without vnion and subiection whereunto there is no saluation? Farre be

it from vs to thinke, that the blessed Apostle Saint Peter (who was caught of our Lord, that The Catholike Church, whereso∣euer for Place, or whensoeuer for Time, was built vpon the Rocke of the Confession of Christ the Sonne of God) should euer haue entertained such a fancie of confining the supreme resi∣dence of Gods infallible spirit to any one singular Place. Thus much of Saint Peter himselfe. We proceed to the Pope.

That Saint Peter neuer beleeued the Priuileges, which he receiued from Christ, by the obiected Scrip∣tures, to be deriued from himselfe, and conferred vpon any Pope. SECT. 6.

NEuer had we heard you alleage any of these Scriptures, to make Peter such a Rocke, as must signifie a predomi∣nancie ouer all other Apostles, except you had sought out of that Rocke to carue a Pope, who should likewise haue a trans∣cendent power ouer all other Bishops. But seeing that (as hath beene prooued) the primitiue Peter had no such Preroga∣tiue, surely your deriuatiue Peter must needs proue a Nullity. But to the point.

The first Scripture, Luke 22.

CHRIST said, indeed, directly to S. Peter, I haue prayed for thee, that thy Faith faile not, wherefore thou being con∣uerted, strengthen thy Brethren. Which we confesse, doth signifie as great a priuilege granted to S. Peter, as any mor∣tall man can desire to enioy, namely an infalllible assurance of sauing grace in this world, and of saluation it selfe after his departure out of this life. Matter (we say) of Saluation, no∣thing of Dominion; and that also proper to the primitiue per∣son of Saint Peter, but making nothing for any person deri∣uatiue, and Successor of his, be he Pope, or whosoeuer. If you could proue this, we should need no more for our satisfaction. g 1.141 Christ (saith your Cardinall) obtained two Priuileges for S. Peter, in promising that his Faith should not faile; and that he

should neuer depart from the true Faith, in himselfe: the second, that he should not teach others any thing contrary to the true Faith. Thus of Saint Peter. How can you deriue any part of this from Saint Peter to the Pope? The first of these (saith he) peraduenture doth not; but the second without all doubt redoundeth to his Successors. So he. Which is so vn∣doubtedly an vnconscionable Answer, that it is subiect to a threefold Confutation: the first is by retorting the Cardinal's owne Assertion vpon himselfe: for whereas your Parisian Do∣ctors will haue Peter, in his answer to Crist, to haue beene the figure of the Church of Christ, and not the sole Gouernor thereof himselfe, the same your Cardinall will needs con∣fute that Glosse in this manner. h 1.142 Because Christ (saith he) did expresse one singular person, saying, Simon, Simon, adding the Pronoune of the second person, in these words, I haue prayed for [THEE] that [THY] Faith faile not; and therefore [THOV] being conuerted, strengthen [THY] Brethren: Surely if he had spoken of the whole Church, he would haue said, I haue prayed for YOV, that YOVR Faith faile not. So he. Which is a true and sound Collection indeed, and by the Law of Retor∣sion confirmeth our defence, that this Scripture doth not in∣tend any other Prerogatiue, than that which was onely proper to that, Thou Simon, and I haue prayed for Thee, that is, for Peter himselfe. But, the now Pope (you know) is not Simon, but Clemens, or Vrbane, or the like: and Christ his prayer was for one person, and not for a whole bodie of Successors, for then it should haue beene said for You, or for Thee, and Thine. Nor hath euery Pope a Priuilege (as you All grant) that falling into Temptation, he must rise againe.

Our second Confutation is taken from the nature of a Pri∣uilege: i 1.143 A personall and singular Priuilege (saith your Ie∣suite, is that which is granted vnto an Indiuiduall person, with expression of his name; and this Priuilege doth not extend to any other, but dieth with the person to whom it is granted. So he. The Case then is plaine. You therefore must first raise vp Saint Peter from death, and place him againe in the Romane Chaire, before you can challenge the Priuilege of Peter.

Our third Confutation ariseth from the Law of true expo∣sition.

The Priuilege, granted vnto Saint Peter, whatsoeuer it was, deliuered it was in one tenure of words, namely, that his Faith faile not, without any note of distinction: and it is the Law of all Lawes, Non distinguendum, vbi lex non distin∣guit. So that whereas you ascribe two Priuileges conferred vp∣on Saint Peter, by the words of Christ, one not to erre from the Faith, which was In himselfe, as a priuate Doctor: the o∣ther not to erre publikely, to seduce Others, you are necessarily chargeable either to claime both these Priuileges, in the be∣halfe of your Popes, or else to confesse that he hath no more interest in the second (that is, not to erre, as Pope, in his pub∣like Conclusions, to the seducing of Others) then he hath in the first, which is, as a priuate Doctor, not to erre in himselfe: the Cardinall himselfe confessing, that k 1.144 The Pope, as a priuate Doctor, may erre in Questions concerning as well Faith as man∣ners, as well as other Doctors; and that this hath sometime hap∣pened to your Pope. And this you call an opinion, wherein All Catholikes doe consent. And therefore your Iesuite doth reprooue those, who write against this l 1.145 Common Consent.

CHALLENGE.

ONe would maruaile that learned men, for the defence of a periurious Paradoxe of the Popes Primacie, as The Catholike Bishop; and the Soueraigntie and Infallibility of his See, as the Catholike Church; should intangle themselues in so grosse assertions, as are so easily confuted by the Common Lawes of the exposition of Scriptures, by the nature of a Pri∣uilege, and by their owne palpable Contradictions: but that it is the wisedome of God to prooue the wisedome of a man, a∣gainst God, to be no better than errant follie.

The Second Scripture obiected, for the Deriuatiue Primacie and Iurisdiction of the Pope, from Saint Peter, is Matth. 16. SECT. 7.

WE haue heard of this Text alreadie, as it concerneth Peter himselfe, when Christ said vnto him [Blessed art thou Simon.—Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it.] Wherein, againe, we see Peter, but where shall we see the Pope? The Rhemists by their Marginall note vpon this Text, as it were by a fore-finger, point him out vnto vs, willing vs to obserue that this Text * 1.146 Is the Gospel vpon the Creation and Coronation of the Pope, and on the Anniuersary thereof. So they. As though it were as true as the Gospel, that what was heere spoken to Peter doth accordingly belong to the Pope, by the right of Succession. Which being the same error, that was com∣mitted in your expounding of the former Scripture, is now refelled by the same Confutations: but especially by your owne exposition vpon this place, wherein (as your Bishop truely commenteth) m 1.147 There was granted to Saint Peter an vnfallible certainty of his soules eternall blessednesse, which is an excellent Priuilege. So he. Which also the other words do more Emphatically import, where Christ saith that The gates of hell shall not preuaile against it. Where, by gates of hell, are meant (you know) n 1.148 Temptations of Satan, Vices, Heresies, and Per∣secutions. So you.

CHALLENGE.

SO then it should haue concerned your Doctors, if they had beene men of either Faith or Front, to haue made good the Iurisdiction of your Popes deriuatiuely from Saint Peter, and not thus to haue beene void of both conscience and mode∣stie, in violating the sacred Writ. For say (we pray you) are all your Popes, by virtue of their Succession from Saint Peter,

so blessed now in their hopes, as to be infallibly perswaded that no Temptation of Satan shall preuaile against their per∣sons? But that they shall be blessed euerlastingly? Will you haue vs to be thus perswaded of those, who either haue beene, or may be desperately wicked in their liues, Heretikes, Apo∣states, Atheists, & the damned limbs of Sathan? Them, we say, of whom your Massonius witnesseth thus: o 1.149 Now a daies none requireth Sanctity in Popes, who are then held to be the best Popes, when either there is a little goodnesse in them, or else when they are not worse than other sorts of men are vsually. Or of whom your Cardinall Baronius; p 1.150 There haue beene in∣truded into Saint Peters Throne monstrous and most beastly men, and of most desperate condition. Or of whom your Genebrard thus: q 1.151 For an hundred and fiftie yeeres space haue 50 Popes beene, rather Apostaticall than Apostolicall. Or of whom Cardinall Bellarmine thus; r 1.152 Pope Iohn the 23 was of so disso∣lute a life, that common people conceiued, that he thought there was no life eternall. Or of whom your Iesuite Costerus thus: s 1.153 We confesse it possible (saith he) that Popes may become Ido∣latrous, and giue themselues to Diabolicall arts. So they. We haue not vrged you with the proofes of Protestants, but with the plaine Confessions of the most zealous Proctors and Ad∣uocates of the Romane Church. Thus much of the Faith of Saint Peter, who being ioynt-founder of the Church with S. Paul, may not be thought disioyned in beleefe from him: Of whom we are now to treate.

That Saint Paul, the Co-founder of the Church of Rome with Saint Peter, was not of the now Romane Faith, either concerning the Father-hood, or Mother-hood, which is now pretended, thereof. SECT. 8.

ALwaies you are to remember, that you haue not attri∣buted to the Church of Rome the title of Catholike and

Vniuersall Mother, further than that the Pope (as Catholike Father) is to be acknowledged the Successor vnto S. Peter in the ordinary Pastorship and iurisdiction ouer the Catholike and Vniuersall Church of Christ. Our Assertion is, that Saint Paul had no such Beleefe, concerning either the pretended Dominion of Peter, (and consequently of your Romane Pope) or of the Vniuersall power of the Romane Church aboue all o∣thers: or yet of the absolute Continuance thereof in the faith of Christ.

That Saint Paul beleeued not the supreme Pastorship of Saint Peter, aboue himselfe; proued by his com∣paring of S. Peter with himselfe. SECT. 9.

AT what time as Saint Paul was vexed with false Apostles, who (as Saint Hierome, a 1.154 you know, commenteth) Af∣firmed, that Peter, Iames, and all the Churches of the Iewes did mingle the Ceremoniall Law and Gospell together; and all to this end, that they might lessen and vilifie the authoritie of S. Paul in respect of them, as though they had bene the Disciples of Christ, and he the Disciple of the Apostles: Hereupon Saint Paul, who was otherwise the most humble among men, (in so much that he standing vpon comparison, would be held the b 1.155 Greatest, but yet of sinners, and The least of all the Apostles:) notwithstanding, when it stood him vpon to maintaine his Calling, which he had from Christ, against all malicious De∣tractors, he professeth, saying, c 1.156 In as much as I am an Apostle of the Gentiles [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] I magnifie mine office. So that vpon a Compulsarie comparison, prouoked by the Calumniation of others, he esteemed it no arrogancie, but direct iustice, to a∣uouch his owne worthinesse, for the aduancing of the worke of his Ministrie.

A long time after the exercise of his Apostleship, he would not d 1.157 Go to Hierusalem to Peter, or any of the Apostles, lest he might haue seemed to haue bene authorized by them; yet three yeares after that he taketh a iourney thither, e 1.158 To see Pe∣ter;

doubtlesse for honor sake, as one in order of Apostleship most eminent: but this he did voluntarily, in discretion and brotherly communion; and not in subiection, as the Context sheweth. Foureteene yeares also after this, he maketh a se∣cond voyage to Ierusalem, where he meeteth with Peter and others. What then? f 1.159 I conferred, [or, communicated] vnto them (saith he) that Gospell which I preached. g 1.160 It is one thing to conferre (saith Saint Hierome) another thing to learne: for among them that conferre there is Equalitie. We heare not, as yet, of any authotitie which he receiued either from Peter a∣lone, or ioyntly together with the College of the other Apo∣stles, or of any thing that might betoken his subiection: No, he vtterly disclaimeth this; for, speaking of the Chiefest, he saith, h 1.161 Those who seemed to be somewhat, in conference ad∣ded nothing vnto me. [NOTHING,] namely, i 1.162 Neither concerning doctrine, nor authoritie, as very well saith Aquinas. In a word, k 1.163 I (saith Saint Paul) am not inferiour vnto the chiefe of the Apostles. What then obtained Paul of Peter, and of the other chiefe Apostles? Heare S. Paul himselfe; l 1.164 They gaue vnto me the right hand of fellowship: which was onely a testimonie of Communion in one Profession and Apostleship; no imposition of subministration or subjection.

Hitherto we haue kept in the Negatiue, of his not Inferio∣ritie; but Saint Paul doth further instance in the Affirmatiue, of his Equalitie: m 1.165 They saw that the Gospell of the vncircum∣cision was committed vnto me, as the Gospell of the Circumci∣sion was vnto Peter. Where, to seeke no further than your Rhemists Notes, n 1.166 It is plaine by this place and others, that to them (that is, Peter and Paul) as the most renouned Apostles, the charge of all Nations was giuen, as diuided into two parts, that is, Iewes and Gentiles. So they. Their Dioces therefore was diuided, yet not exclusiuely, for the authoritie of the A∣postles was o 1.167 vnlimited, and often did as well Peter (not∣withstanding this diuision) preach to the Gentiles, as S. Paul to the Iewes; but yet differently, namely so, that the ordinarie course of their Ministration was distinguished, Peter to the Iewes, and Paul to the Gentiles; which was of infinite extent larger than the other. In which respect Saint Chrysostome

doth not sticke to say, that p 1.168 The Vniuersall dispensation was committed to Saint Paul.

I. CHALLENGE, from Reason.

IN all this we see not in Saint Paul any acknowledgement of Subiection, or Substitution to Saint Peter, but a plaine Plea of Equalitie: or else tell vs, what Pope, since Gregorie the first, would not hold it a Derogation from his Popedome to heare any Bishop in the Church stand in Contestation, and say that The Pope could adde nothing to his authoritie; nor that he was any whit inferiour to the chiefe of all the Bishops in Rome, among whom the Pope himselfe was one? What bold∣nesse, and indeed contumely would this be iudged, not onely to make many Chiefes with your Monarch; but also to ac∣count himselfe Nothing inferior to the Chiefe of them? Adde hereunto his next Assumption, that he had as good and abso∣lute right in his Dioces, as the Pope had in his. Your Iesuite Azorius saith, that q 1.169 When there were two Emperours, one in the East, the other in the West, both of them holding equall au∣thoritie throughout the whole Empire, it could not be but the authoritie of the one must needs diminish the authoritie of the other in some part, and yet neither should be subiect to the o∣ther. So he. And indeed it could not otherwise be. Neuer was there heard of Monarch (as you instile the Pope) in Im∣perio Diuiso, that is, in an Empire diuided, in an equalitie with any other. For Diuision and Equalitie is of moe, whereas Mo∣narchie can be but of one. So impossible it is, that Saint Paul should haue bene of the now Romane Faith, concerning Sub∣iection to the Pastor of the Romane Church.

II. CHALLENGE, from the Fathers.

MVch time need not be spent, in collecting the Testimo∣nies of Antiquitie, among whom Saint Ambrose saith, that r 1.170 Paul was not lesse in dignitie than Peter. Saint Maxi∣mus, that s 1.171 Whether Paul or Peter were to be preferred, it is

vncertaine. Chrysostome saith, t 1.172 Paul (that I say no more) was equall to Peter: Saint Hierome; u 1.173 The titles of these two A∣postles are equall, (saith he) they are Chiefe of the Church. S. Basil; x 1.174 They are the Pillars of the Church. y 1.175 Eucherius; Peter and Paul, two Princes of the Christians. You will not (we presume) so much preiudice these Fathers, as to thinke that they could not discerne betweene a Monarch (such as you held Saint Peter to haue bene ouer all the other Apo∣stles) and a Subiect; or so vniust, as to haue thus equalled these Two, if they had beleeued All the Apostles to haue bene sub∣iect to the Dominion and Iurisdiction of Saint Peter: much lesse could they haue attributed to S. Paul Titles of so great eminence, as to instile him One, To whom was committed the administration of the whole Church:z 1.176 and One a 1.177 obeying the gouernment of the Church Vniuersall: and One made the Head of Nations.

Saint Pauls Comparison of Others with S. Peter, against the pretended Primacie of Peter his Iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles. SECT. 10.

FIrst Saint Paul distinguisheth Iames, Peter, and Iohn from the other Disciples, and ioyneth them in one Chiefedome among themselues, saying; b 1.178 I conferred with them of repu∣tation: and againe in the title, c 1.179 They that seemed to be Pillars: and yet againe, d 1.180 They that were Chiefe of the Apo∣stles: Lastly, his last vale with them; They gaue to me the right hand of societie and fellowship. Ergo, he accounted them Equall in authoritie (which ancient e 1.181 Fathers haue collected from thence) yet so, as in alleaging their names, Iames, Peter, and Iohn, he preferreth Iames before Peter. Do you aske why? You can answer your selues. f 1.182 Because (say you) Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem, where the Apostles were at this time, when S. Paul writ. Be it so, It must then follow that Iames was, in that respect, superior to Peter.

Lastly, whiles Paul is earnest in vindicating the dignitie of his Pastorship, euen then, when he would stop the mouthes of

false Apostles, who obiected that he had no sufficient Com∣mission to preach, as not hauing bene authorized by the other Apostles; hee answereth, that hee had receiued his Calling g 1.183 Not of men, neither by man, but immediatly from and by Iesus Christ. And for proofe hereof he addeth a reason, say∣ing, of the time when he was at Ierusalem: h 1.184 I indeed saw Peter, but other of the Apostles saw I none, saue Iames the Lords brother. His Consequent is; Ergo he receiued not any authoritie of his Ministration from the Apostles. Which had bene a seelie, and indeed a sencelesse Reason, if the spirit of Papistry had reigned in those dayes, because his Aduersaries might readily haue replyed, What is that you say? Saw you none but Peter? as though Peter were not sufficient in him∣selfe to authorize you, seeing that Peter, being the Vicar of Christ, and the Ordinarie and Vniuersall Pastor of his Church, is All in all, because the Gouernor of all others, without ex∣ception. But Saint Paul, we know, spake by the Spirit of God, the Author and Fountaine of Diuine reason, and could not therefore argue absurdly: yet notwithstanding he an∣swered saying, I saw none but Peter, except Iames. Plainly signifying, that Peter, at that time, could not challenge Iu∣risdiction ouer the College of all the other Apostles.

I. CHALLENGE.

SEt before your eyes any Bishop, (as for example the Bi∣shop of Toledo,) who should defend that he was a Bishop extraordinarie, and needed not at all to be authorized from Rome: and when it should thereupon be obiected, that he had bene at Rome with the Pope, and other Bishops and Cardi∣nals there, and therefore it must needs be thought that he was established in his Calling by them; then the Bishop of Toledo should answer semblably, as did Saint Paul, saying; I confesse indeed that I went to Rome, to visite the Pope, and aboad with him certaine daies, but other of the Bishops or Cardinals there I saw none, except the Bishop of Cullen; and therefore you may not obiect vnto me, that I receiued any authoritie from the Con∣claue and College at Rome. Can you conceiue that any answer

could more derogate from the now Popedome, than to BVT, and except against his authoritie, in ordaining or establishing that Bishop of Cullen? Yet such like was the Answer and Apologie of Saint Paul for himselfe.

II. CHALLENGE.

THe Cause is waightie, and may require a further appli∣cation, as thus; whiles you giue to the Pope an absolute Iurisdiction, cum plenitudine potestatis, ouer all other Bishops, how can you suffer him to be mated or equalled with other Bishops, as Paul did Peter, by ioyning in societie with him i 1.185 Iames & Iohn? Much lesse would you permit, that the name of the Bishop of Cullen should be preferred before the name of the Bishop of Rome, (whose Dioces you extend k 1.186 To the ends of the world,) as to marshall them thus, viz. The Bishop of Cullen, the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop of Millan: as Saint Paul did, in alleaging the name of Iames before Peter. For, for you to say, that this was done * 1.187 In respect that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem, and the Cause had relation to his Dioces, is as much as to feigne that the Arch-bishop of Auignon, whilest the Pope resided there, had beene put in Catalogue before the Pope himselfe; or that the name of some King must bee placed before the name of the Emperour, euen within his owne Empire. Next, to talke that the Bishop of Toledo, or any o∣ther Bishop came to visit the Pope, and was dismissed by re∣ceiuing from him, l 1.188 The right hand of fellowship, as Paul did of Peter, how (if perhaps the phrase had such a literall sence) would you thinke this good manners in a Bishop, since you do tutor and instruct your Kings and Emperours to do ho∣mage to the Pope, m 1.189 In kissing his foote? But especially to heare any Bishop, with a BVT, to intimate the No-authoritie of the Pope in his Creation and Ordination, (as S. Paul did of Peter) might this seeme tolerable vnto you, who still honour him with the supreme Titles of ⁿ The Vniuersall Father, The Catholike Bishop, and Pastor ouer the whole Christian world?

III. CHALLENGE.

WIllingly shall we passe by other Obiections, taken from the comparison of Paul, or other Apostles with Saint Peter: although we know, that if Saint Peter had giuen sentence in the Apostolicall Synod at Hierusalem, as n 1.190 Iames did in his presence: If Peter had beene a Sender of any of the Apostles, as he was himselfe, one that was * 1.191 Sent by others: If Peter had * 1.192 leaned on Christ his brest, as Iohn did, and had therefore beene solicited by Iohn to aske a question of secrecie, as Iohn was by Peter: If Peter had beene called by a voice from heauen, as Saint o 1.193 Paul was: If Peter had made as bold with Paul, as Paul did with Peter, by Reprouing him publikely [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] p 1.194 before them all: which farre differs from the Papall Prerogatiue set downe in the Canon Law, saying, q 1.195 If the Pope be negligent, &c. So as thereby innumerable are led to Hell, yet is there none that may say, Why doe you soe? If Peter alone (as did Saint Paul) had written r 1.196 To the Romanes: If it had beene said of Peter's ship, as it was of that, wherein S. Paul was, s 1.197 God hath giuen vnto thee all them that Saile with thee; And, t 1.198Except those remaine in the ship you cannot be saued: Finally and principally, if Saint Peter had written of himselfe, as Saint Paul did, saying, u 1.199 I haue the care of all the Churches: This one (to omit the rest) would haue seemed to you a firmer Foundation than the word ROCKE; and haue caused you to lay downe your former iô paean, and insultation, raised from the depraued sence of those Scriptures, [Blessed art thou Simon,] or [I haue prayed for thee,] or, Feede thou my Flocke] or any other the like, whereby you labour to erect a Monarch of Peter, and (by your Consequence) vpon the Pope, ouer all Churches in the world. Wherein we challenge you of preiu∣dice and rashnes.

Hitherto we haue spoken of the Faith of Saint Paul, con∣cerning the authority of Saint Peter, and but consequently of the Romane Bishop. We are in the next place to trie S. Paul's Faith, directly, concerning the Romane Church it selfe.

That Saint Paul was not of the now Romane Faith, concerning the former Article, viz. The Catholike Romane Church, &c. as may appeare by his owne Accompt of the Romane Church. Our first Proofe. SECT. 11.

GReat was the estimation, doubtles, which Saint Paul had of the Christian Professors of his time in the Church of Rome; yet not so great, by farre, as you would make the world beleeue. For first, we haue heard your vaunting of the Prehe∣heminence of Rome, because * 1.200 It was founded both by Peter and Paul, the two most renouned among the Apostles: which boast is as easily blowne away, by propounding a confessed Parallell out of your Bozius, from Ecclesiasticall Records, shewing that a 1.201 Peter and Paul both founded the Church of Co∣rinth. Yet was Corinth neuer knowne to haue preheminence aboue Alexandria, or other Churches of Asia, or else∣where.

Oh! but there is a second place, which will stop all mouthes of Contradiction, in the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romanes, Chap. 1. ver. 8. I thanke my God, through Iesus Christ, for you all, that your Faith is published through-out the World. Vpon this Commendation of the Faith of those Romanes, the b 1.202 Pro∣fessors of the (now) Romane Faith vse in a manner to triumph, as though that Encomium, with the same Faith, were heredi∣tary to that Church: or as if, at that day, CATHOLIKE and ROMANE had beene all one. An Obiction now-adaies breathed into the mouth of euery Vulgar Papist. Whereas first, if you will permit your owne Cardinall Tolet, and your Iesuit Sà to be our Expositors, both will say, that These words, [through-out the world] are to be taken as c 1.203 Hyperboli∣cally spoken, and by way of excesse. Yea One of them resolueth, that by the words [Your Faith] is not, meant, d 1.204 What the Ro∣manes beleeued, but onely, That they beleeued; their Faith be∣ing

now published through-out the World. So that it appeareth not by this that the Faith then was held Catholike, because the Romanes beleeued it; but that it was now a common fame tho∣row out the whole World, that the Romanes had receiued the Christian Faith. And no maruell, seeing that Rome was then the publike stage of the World, by reason of the Imperiall Seate there: whither all sorts of people vnder that vast Empire had recourse, for the discharge of Tributes, and Accounts for their Offices, and the like: So that it was not possible that things done publikely in Rome should not be knowne to the whole visible World, as your owne Iesuite Pererius e 1.205 doth obserue. Easily therefore might that newes be spread abroad through-out all quarters, that the Romanes had receiued the Faith. This is all.

Secondly, your former Insultation is easily checked with a Parallel of the like, if not of a larger Commendation of the same Apostle vnto the Church of Thessalonica, 1 Thess. 1.2. We giue thankes alwaies to God for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, Remembring without ceasing your worke of Faith. And againe, ver. 8. From you (saith he) sounded out the Word of the Lord, not onely in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in euery place your Faith to God-ward is spread abroade, &c.

And least you may peraduenture thinke, that Rome hauing had the preheminence of Commendation before Thessalonica, therefore the Church of Thessalonica receiued their Faith from the Romanes; this Obiection will rebound vpon the Authors themselues: for although the Epistle to the Romanes haue the first place, by the Ordinance of the Church, it is not because of the Dignity of the Church of Rome, but for the excellen∣cie and necessity of the matter and Argument of the Epistle it selfe, which is the Doctrine of Iustification. For if we consi∣der the order of times, wherein the Apostle Saint Paul Writ his Epistles, your owne Authors willingly consent to the iudgement of Theodoret, that f 1.206 According to the order ob∣serued by Saint Paul, first were published the I. and II. Epi∣stles to the Thessalonians; after them, the I. and II. Epi∣stles to the Corinthians, &c. and the Epistle to the Romanes come not in till your seuenth place: or rather (according

to your * 1.207 Onuphrius his computation,) not vntill the last.

CHALLENGE.

SEeing that the Commendation of the Faith of the Thessalo∣lonians, and the Encomium of the Faith of the Romanes are both, almost, in words and in sence fully the same, as your owne Cardinall and Iesuite g 1.208 Tolet doth tell you; this shew∣eth the vanity of your obiections, from point to point. For first to argue, Ergo the Faith of the Romanes was first, it is crossed by the Church of Thessalonica, which had priority in Saint Pauls Commendation. Secondly, to argue; Ergo, Ro∣mane Faith, and the Catholike or Vniuersall Faith, (in re∣spect of Vniuersality of Place) was then conuertible and al one; this is likewise Conttadicted by the like Commendations of the Thessalonians: because by the same Argument you must grant, that before that, the Thessalonike Faith, and Ca∣tholike Faith, in the like respect, was also all one. Thirdly, to argue, that therefore the Faith of Rome shall perpetually con∣tinue in that Citie, this in like manner is confuted by the for∣mer Instance in Thessalonica, which hauing long since lost her Faith, doth warne Rome not to presume of any priuilege of Time or Place. But we are to Consult further with Saint Paul, to know what account he had of Rome at this time, when he wrote this Epistle?

Our second Proofe of Saint Paul's Account of the then Romane Church. SECT. 12.

AS oft as we heare of your Article, The Romane Catho∣like Church, without which there is no saluation, We (if we should beleeue this to be true) should expect that S. Paul

writing to the Romanes, especially now when with so diuine Oratorie he insinuateth himselfe into their affections, by com∣mending of their Faith so published through the World, should yeeld some such, albeit but implicit, Note of the eminence of that Church ouer others, which you your-selues doe vsually at∣tribute vnto it. But if it shall appeare, that he doth not call it The Catholike Church aboue others, nor a Church hauing any Prerogatiue before others, no nor yet at all so much as a Church, as he doth others, but rather the Contrarie: then may we haue more reason to suspect your Cause, and you lesse to ostentate.

First then your Rhemists to this Question, why the Epi∣stles of Saint Paul are not enstiled Catholike Epistles, as well as the Epistles of Saint Iames, Peter, Iude, and Iohn are, doe answer, * 1.209 Because Saint Paul (say they) writeth not any Epi∣stle at all (howbeit euery one of them is for all the Church) but to some particular Churches, as to the Galathians, Romanes, &c. So they. Which Reason is insufficient, because the first Catholike Epistle of Peter is directed expressely to the Chur∣ches in Pontus, Galatia, &c. and two of the Catholike Epi∣stles of Saint Iohn are inscribed to particular persons, The Elect Ladie, and Gaius. Howbeit in this Answer of the Rhe∣mists we finde Rome to bee but a Particular Church; when surely, if the Apostle had beene possessed with the spirit of the now Bishop of Rome, hee would haue instiled it The Catholike Church, and inscribed his Epistle CA∣THOLIKE.

Secondly, the Inscription of that Epistle standeth thus; To all that are at Rome, the Beloued of GOD, Saints by calling, &c. Wherein wee cannot discerne so much as one Syllable of the word, Church; as wee finde in his Prefaces to the Corinthians, To the Church that is at Corinth: To the Galathians, To the Churches of Galatia: to the Thessalonians, To the Church of the Thessalonians: But in this Epistle hee saith onely, To them at Rome, Saints by calling; to wit, the same tenure which hee vsed in his Epistles to the Ephesia••••, Philip∣pians, and Colossians. Whereunto your Iesuit•• Salmeron

giues this answer. h 1.210 There was at this time (saith he) Facti∣ons in Rome betweene Iewes and Gentiles (both Christians) when Peter the Pastor thereof was expelled out of Rome, so that it had scarce the forme of a Church: and therefore may it fitly bee said, that Paul forbore to call the Romanes a Church. If this were the meaning of Saint Paul, then are wee sure that hee who would not vouchsafe to call it a Church, did thinke Rome to bee (as other Churches) subiect to the alterations and Changes of Schismes and Factions, so farre, as not to deserue the name of a Church, how much lesse of The Catholike Church?

Now bethinke your selues what the Apostle would haue called your Rome of after-times, when not onely your Professors among themselues but also Popes and Antipopes were distracted into tedious and pernicious Schismes and Factions one against another, so that the true Pope sometimes could not bee knowne. Which thing your owne de∣uout Doctors haue greatly deplored, One reckoning the number of these Schismes to haue beene * 1.211 Twenty; Another accounting the Continuance of one of them to haue endured * 1.212 Fifty yeeres; when as the Pope, quitting the Citie of Rome for many yeeres together, kept his residence at Auignon in France.

Our third Proofe of Saint Pauls indifferent esti∣mation of the Church of Rome. SECT. 13.

THe third point concerneth the Prerogatiue, which you assume to your Romane Church before others. Wee shall desire you to consult once againe with Saint Paul in the same Epistle, Chap. 1. Ver. 13. saying, I haue oftentimes purposed to come vnto you (Romanes) — that I might haue some fruite among you ••lso [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] euen as also among other Gentiles, That one wor•• [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] euen as also among Others] must needs

prooue a prick in your eye, who can looke vpon nothing that can more equall the condition of other Churches with the Church of Rome, than that word doth, by the confession of your Cardinall Tolet; and he would haue you to Marke it (and we also pray you to Marke what he saith:) i 1.213 MARRKE (saith he) the indifferencie of the Gospel, because although the Romanes were farre more eminent than other Nations, and had the Primacie, neuerthelesse in the preaching of the Word, and soules-businesse belonging to saluation, the Apostle maketh Others equall with the Romanes; Among you (saith the Apo∣stle) as also among other Gentiles, of what Nation soeuer. So he. Heere your Cardinall (not to dissemble) maketh the Compa∣rison to stand betweene the Romanes and the Grecians, as they were before their calling vnto Christianity, namely, in the equality of Sinne, not any one deseruing to be partaker of Grace; by the Gospell, more than another.

Neuerthelesse, if you shall Marke a little better, nothing can be more cleare, than that the Apostle compareth these Ro∣manes, as they were Christians, with other Christian Gentiles conuerted to the Faith: because, of the same Romanes, to whom he said (Ver. 6.) You are called of Iesus Christ; and Ver. 8. You, whose Faith is spoken of through-out the World; and (Ver. 11.) I long to see you, that I may impart vnto you some spirituall gift to the end you may be established: of the Same he saith (here in this 13 Verse) That I might haue some fruit among you: these, you know, could not bee other than Christians, whom he thus commended, as already called to the Faith: therefore in the next words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]-as of other Gentiles he meant the Churches of the Gentiles committed vnto Christ: Those (saith * 1.214 Aquinas) vnto whom he had preached. So that the labour of the Apostle was vnpartiall vnto the Churches of Christ, further than they should bring forth the Fruites of the Gospell of Christ,

CHALLENGE.

TWo things there are, by which the estimation, which Writers haue of Persons, or Incorporations to whom they Dedicate their Epistles, may bee discerned, to wit, In∣scriptions and Comparisons. The Apostle, by the Inscription of his Epistle to the Romanes, hath giuen vs iust presumption to thinke, that he held not the Church of Rome then The Catho∣like Church, which as then he had cause to forbeare to call so much as a Church: and that the said Church (by Comparison) is subiect to alteration as well as Others. And so much the ra∣ther, because the Indifferencie of the Gospell is such, as is not to be tied to one place or people more than to another, but [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] equall to all Churches, so farre forth as they shall walke worthie of the same Gospell of Christ: accordingly as we haue beene directed by the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romanes.

The Confirmation of the same Faith of Saint Paul, by your owne Confessions, equalling Saint Paul and Saint Peter in their diuers Relations to the Church of Rome. SECT. 14.

WHat shall we say to your owne free grants? 1. That Saint Peter and Saint Paul were both a 1.215 Co-founders of the Romane Church; 2. That both were called b 1.216 Bishops of the same Church, by Epiphanius; 3. That the c 1.217 Authority of Both is cited in the Popes Breeues, for Confirmation of Papall Ordinances; 4. That both haue their d 1.218 Images ingrauen in your Popes Bulls; yea and that in such sort that Paul some∣time hath the right hand of Peter, as well as other while Pe∣ter of Paul. Thus farre your Popes and Iesuites.

CHALLENGE.

WHich being so, how may it not perswade you, that your Popes anciently iudged, that Saint Paul did not beleeue himselfe subiect to the Iurisdiction of Saint Peter, and his Roman See? except you will thinke it possible to ex∣tract a Primacy of Authoritie out of Aequalitie, as well of Ti∣tles, as of Ordinances; or else to conceiue one to be subiect vnto him, of whom he hath the vpper-hand; especially know∣ing, that to be placed on the e 1.219 Right hand, was held an Ar∣gument of greater honour among all people, the Persians onely excepted. If your Popes at this day should see any Bishops picture stamped ioyntly on his Seale (that wee may appeale to your selues in this Case) guesse (wee pray you) whether hee could behold any other matched in such an equipage with himselfe, without high indignation, and extreame Cause of Anathematization. So iustly is your new Faith of your now Popes condemned by ancient Attributes, Authorities, and Seales. Thus farre of the faith of Saint Paul, your supposed Co-founder of the Church of Rome, about the time when it was first erected.

That Saint Iohn his Faith did not conceiue the same Article of Subiection to the Catholike Romane Church, &c. SECT. 15.

NOt long after the same Time of the foundation of the Church of Rome, did Saint Iohn write his Booke of Re∣uelation, wherein he reuealeth that the Citie of Rome is Baby∣lon, according to the generall consent of your owne k 1.220 Iesuites, and other Diuines; directed not onely by the iudgement of Ancient Fathers, but especially and inuincibly by Saint Iohn

in the clearenesse of that Scripture. So iust Cause had the most iudicious of Kings Christian, l 1.221 IAMES our late Soueraigne of famous memorie, to auerre, saying; This place (viz. Reuel. chapp. 17. & 18. (doth clearely and vndeniably declare that Rome is, or shall be the seat of that Antichrist. For no Papist now denieth that by Babylon, here, Rome is directly meant, &c.

Next, that it signifieth Rome, not onely as it was Ethnicall Rome, in the dayes of heathenish Emperours (by which mist many of your Doctors a long time gulled and deceiued their Disciples, lest your Papall Rome might haue come within their ken) but also noteth Rome▪ as it shall be in the later age of the World, the Seat of Antichrist. And not thus onely, but that the same Citie shall be burnt with fire.

A Truth so euident, that your Rhemists (who otherwise, of all others, are most bleare-eyd at the sight of any light, that may any way make against Rome) doe thus farre grant, as to say, m 1.222 The great Antichrist shall haue his seat at Rome, as it may well be thought: but others thinke Ierusalem rather shall be his seat. But your Iesuites n 1.223 Ribera and o 1.224 Viega, both of ••hem Spanish Doctors, and publike Professors, doe confident∣ly auerre that They dare hold him for A MOST NOTABLE FOOLE, that shall denie it, as being a matter without all doubt. So say they; nor so onely, but also proue it by con∣uincing Arguments. 1 Because that the Text saith expresly of this Babylon, that It shall be burned. 2 They that shall then liue, shall see the smoke of her fire, and lament her destruction. 3 Because the spirit warneth all them that are in her to depart; Come out of her, my people, that yee receiue not of her plagues.

But there were then n•• Faithfull in the heathenish Rome; or if any were, yet are they commanded to Come out of her, for feare of being consumed with fire. And lastly they adde, to the euidence of the text, the Oracles of Sibyl, as it were, a torch vnto the Sunne, viz. that

The seauen-hild Rome shall be destroyed with fire. Thus farre your owne Authors, not once questioned for this doctrine; and although professing it in the fierie Region of the Spanish Inquisition, yet not so much as an heire of their beards scorch∣ed therefore: yea, these their bookes are publikely allowed by the iudgement of (besides others) the p 1.225 Prouinciall of the Iesuites.

Marry, yet the foresaid Authors (lest they might hereby seeme to yeeld any matter of insultation to vs Heretikes (as they call vs) or hereby preiudice the Church of Rome, they doe againe and againe admonish their Readers, that this Pro∣phecie, although it point out the destruction of the Citie of Rome, for her Apostacie from the faith, by her Idolatrie; yet aimeth it not at the Church of Rome, or the Bishop thereof, be∣cause the Apostacie shall be (say they) from the faith of that Church, and, Obedience to that Bishop: q 1.226 Who though he aban∣don Rome, and Rome it selfe be destroid, yet is hee still Bishop of Rome. So they.

I. CHALLENGE.

GOD himselfe, by his owne example, in his first dayes worke, taught vs to diuide the light from the darknesse. Thus then. That the people of the Citie of Rome, in the later age of the world, must generally depart from the faith, that whatsoeuer faithfull remaining must Depart out of the Citie, that the Citie her selfe, for her wickednesse and Idolatry, must be consumed by fire, seemeth now at length, euen to our Ro∣mish Aduersaries themselues, a truth as cleare as the day, and that iustly, as hath bin shewed. But that, to free their Church and Pope of Rome from the preiudice of defection and reuolt from the faith, wee must forsooth beleeue that The Pope, when

all Christian people are departed out of the Citie, and the Citie it selfe vtterly extinct, shall still remaine the Bishop of Rome: this we take to be as darke as darknesse it selfe. We shall there∣fore call for a Torch (for so you * 1.227 call Baronius his writings) to discouer this darknesse.

He sheweth that r 1.228 The Church of Rome was constituted first by Peter at Rome, where (saith he) his Pontificall seat, or chaire, was made of wood. Then hee sheweth the ancient cu∣stome of Erecting Chaires or Seats for Bishops, in their Churches, placing them aloft, and adorning them with orna∣ments, where they did sit, &c. This was the originall of Episco∣pall Chaires and Seats: so that Patriarks and Bishops had their denominations from the Churches wherein they tooke possession, and where they had their first Chaires, or seats. Hence came the distinct Appellations of the Patriarcal Church or seat of Antioch, the Seat of Constantinople, and this now specified (as they say) the Pontificall Seat of Rome. Albeit therefore that it cannot be denied that the Bishop of Rome, be∣ing excluded from his Church and Seat, is notwithstanding to b•• accounted the Bishop of that people and place; yet when hee is so departed from them, that they are also departed from him, so as there shall be no people in Rome professing his faith; nor yet that Seat, which is the Citie of Rome, extant at all, but wholly consumed with fire: then to be called the Bishop of the Church, or Seat of Rome, is but a man in the moone, and Titu∣lus sine re: namely, as it is written of Hierusalem, s 1.229 How is that faithfull Citie become a whore? The Citie is called faithfull not as being now faithfull, but onely because it had bin so.

Saint Paul, in his Inscriptions to diuers Churches, taketh their denominations from the places, where the faithfull Pro∣fessors were, thus: t 1.230 To the Churches of Galatia: u 1.231 To the Church of God in Corinth, and elsewhere: (to shew, that the Church rather doth consist in the Professors, then in the pla∣ces) and omitting the name of Church, he doth mention onely the Persons, x 1.232 To the Saints at Colosse, and faithfull brethren in Christ: y 1.233 To all the Saints in Christ at Philippi: and also for Rome, z 1.234 To them at Rome, beloued of God, called Saints. And must wee notwithstanding conceit of a Bishop of a

Church of Rome, wherein there is neither people professing, nor place of profession? As if they should call one the Shep∣heard of Vtopia, where there is neither Sheepe in the Countrey, nor Countrey for Sheepe: except 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be the Shepheard, and they speak the language of Babel, where * 1.235 None shall heare Nothing of Nobody at all.

That which we now contend for, in the Popes of Rome, may be cleared by an example of him that is called Emperour of Rome, who because hee hath neither a foot of possession in Rome, nor in the Territories thereof, nor yet any professed Subiect inhabiting therein, but the whole Princedome is be∣longing to the Pope; your owne Diuines hold it a kinde of Soloecisme to name any at this day The Romane Emperour. Therefore (to alleadge a few, of many that may be produced) Lyra; a 1.236 The Empire of Rome (saith he) hath for a long time beene without an Emperour. Faber; b 1.237 What obedience, I pray you (saith he) doth Rome yeeld to her Monarch? meaning the Emperour. So to; c 1.238 Now (saith he) is that temporall Do∣minion of the Citie of Rome ceased: and your Iesuite Salme∣ron, d 1.239 The Romane Emperour (saith hee) was ouerthrowne long agoe.

II. CHALLENGE.

THe Romish Babylon then, by the Reuelation of Saint Iohn, is that Citie of Rome, whose place and people must be destroyed. No people can be called Romane, without they haue relation to Rome; nor any people called The Church of Rome, except they be Professors of the faith in Rome. There∣fore Saint Iohn, prophecying of these things, could not but beleeue, that before the end of the world that Church, which is now called The Church of Rome, shall depart from the faith; euen because this Departure must be from the sincere doctrine and worship of God, vnto errour and Idolatrie. Oh! that this were not, at this day, a iust Cause to challenge euery

one to Come out of Babylon. Both which we shall be ready in due time to proue by as true grounds, as any haue hitherto beene deliuered.

That Saint Iohn's faith did not conceiue the now pretended Monarchie of the Pope, aboue all other Bishops and Pastors in the Catholike Church. SECT. 16.

WHat that Papall Monarchie is in your faith, and how it is deriued, we haue * 1.240 heard, namely that because Saint Peter was the Vicar of Christ vpon earth, as his ordina∣ry Pastor ouer all the other Apostles, therefore the Successors of Saint Peter in the same See are of the same authoritie and Iurisdiction ouer the whole Church of Christ, and euery mem∣ber thereof. Hence issueth the Article of your now Romane faith; that * 1.241 Without obedience and subiection to the Pope, as the Catholike Bishop of the Catholike Church, None can be saued. The meditation vpon this Article begetteth a Pro∣bleme, viz. whether Saint Iohn the Euangelist, who liued 20. yeares after Saint Peter, were indeede subordinate and sub∣iect to the Iurisdiction of Linus, or Cletus, the immediate Suc∣cessours of Saint Peter. Either Saint Iohn was subiect to the Pope, or he was not. What say you? e 1.242 It seemeth vnto mee (saith your Iesuite) that the Apostles, who suruiued Peter, were subiect to the Pope, because the power of the Pope was al∣wayes ordinary, and to continue in the Church. Haue you any ground for this? I cannot remember (saith hee) that I haue read in any Author any thing of this point. So he.

CHALLENGE.

SAint Paul (as * 1.243 hath beene proued) reckoned these Three, Peter, Iames, and Iohn equally Columnas, that is, The Pil∣lars, and (as it were) equally the three Chiefe Worthies among the Disciples: who, concerning the offices of their Apostle∣ship, receiued from Christ (as your Cardinall Cusanus * 1.244 hath

taught you) Euery way an equall charge. And without Con∣trouersie, the faith of Iohn and Paul was both the same. Is it then possible for a Christian man to thinke, that Iohn being that Apostle, who was immediately chosen by Christ, and e∣quall to Peter, should thinke himselfe subiect to Linus f 1.245 the Successour of Peter? that he, who for his sublimitie of know∣ledge in the mysteries of Christ, was called The Diuine; who was made the Pen-man of the holy Ghost, in writing the Gos∣pell; and one, for whose infallibility in the truth Christ offe∣red vp praiers to his Father; ought hee now to submit his iudgement vnto Linus, one of the line of those Popes, whereof Some haue beene by Generall Councels, and by Popes them∣selues iudged for * 1.246 Heretikes?

And againe, that Iohn, who at the time of the Supper of our Lord, leaned vpon the brest of our Sauiour, when Peter (g 1.247 you know) was but next after Iohn, should now prostrate himselfe before Linus, the Successor of Peter, and (if this Ceremonie had beene so old) to doe him the honour as to * 1.248 Kisse his feet? And not this onely, but to beleeue this Article of due Subiecti∣on to the Pope, Without which none can be saued? which, in∣deede, is more than to Kisse the feet, or to licke the dust of the feet of Saint Peter's Successor. Sure we are,* 1.249 that the Disciples of Saint Iohn, to wit, the Christians of the Easterne Church, were not of your beliefe, who, to adhere to the orders of Saint Iohn, refused to obserue the Easter of the Latine Church: which they would not haue done, if they had beleeued Saint Iohn to haue beene subiect to those Romane Bishops, or yet to Peter himselfe.

Before we can conclude, you are to be exhorted to obserue the Iesuiticall front of Suarez, who in a matter of this nature, concerning Saluation, durst make this Conclusion of the Apo∣stles Subiection and subordination vnder a Pope; namely (as you haue heard him confesse) without any Author, besides him∣selfe. Whereby you may discerne, with what vntempered morter these men daube vp the Consciences of their Fol∣lowers.

CHAP. V. That the Catholike and Apostolike Church of Christ it selfe, at or about the Time of the foundati∣on of the Church of Rome, had no such Arti∣cle of faith, viz. The Catholike Ro∣mane Church, without vnion wherewith there is no Saluation.

SECT. 1.

THe Churches vnto which Saint Paul writ (for we name not the Romanes, of whom wee haue intreated before) were the Corinthians, Gala∣tians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians, and the dispersed Hebrewes. As for the other Apo∣stles, Iames, Peter, Iohn & Iude, each one writ to Diuers those their Epistles, which are intitled Catholike Epistles. And the seauen Churches of Asia were they, to whom the booke of the Apoealips, or Reuelation was directed. Among these the A∣postles are instant and vrgent, in inueying 1 against the Here∣sies of a 1.250 Iudaisme, b 1.251 Saducisme, c 1.252 of worshipping Angels. 2 Against d 1.253 Apostasie, and e 1.254 Antichristianitie. 3 Against f 1.255 Diuisions and Schismes in the Church, and abuse of Eccle∣siasticall Orders therein: And yet in all these there appeareth not any one Syllable or Iota to proue your Article of The Ca∣tholike Romane Church, without vnion and subiection whereun∣to, and to the Head thereof, there is no saluation. No, nor yet so much as to intimate any one of the particles of this Article:

as first, not to signifie that the Church of Rome was a Catho∣like, much lesse THE Catholike Church,, as being in right (which you say) The Mother and Mistris of all others. Not to note, that, in the conuincing of Heretikes, Christians ought to looke (as to their Cynosura) to the Faith of the Romane Church: nor that (for the discouering and auoiding of Anti∣christ) Christians ought to subiect themselues to the Pope of Rome, as the Vicar of Christ. Finally, nor yet that, for the preuenting of dissentions and Schismes in the Church, Chri∣stians ought to adhere and to be vnited to the same Monar∣chicall Head of the same Romane Church. All which those holy Apostles, the faithfull Embassadours of our Lord Christ, without Controuersie ought, and would haue done, if (ac∣cording to the now Romane Faith) either the name, CATHO∣LIKE, had bene then Antonomastically to be appropriated to Rome; or the Infallibilitie of Faith to be ascribed to the iudge∣ment of her Bishop; or that the Necessitie of Vnion and Sub∣iection to the authoritie of the same Head had bene so necessa∣rie, as without which no Christian could be saued.

To begin at the word [CATHOLIKE.] We desire to vnder∣stand, why the Epistles of Iames, and Iohn, and Iude were called Catholike, or Vniuersall, as well as the two Epistles of Peter, if the word [Catholike] were so proper to the Romane Chaire? Seeing that the Epistle of Saint Iames (and so of the rest) was no more sent to, or from Rome, nor had any re∣lation to Peter there, than the Epistles of Peter had to Iames at Hierusalem. Secondly, why Paul was so sole, as of him∣selfe to Anathemize the false Apostles, saying, g 1.256 If wee, or an Angell from heauen preach any other Gospell vnto you, let him be accursed: or in admonishing the Irresolute, saying, h 1.257 Behold, I Paul tell you, and I testifie againe vnto you. And that no otherwise than he did, in absoluing the penitent In∣cestuous, saying, i 1.258 I haue pardoned him in the person of Christ: that is to say, As the Vicar of Christ, as your Rhemists ob∣serue, in their Annotations vpon this place; If so (as you k 1.259 pre∣tend) The name of Vicar of Christ be wholly belonging to the Pope, as an argument of his Succession from Saint Peter, in the Monarchie ouer the whole Church.

But principally doth Saint Paul shew himselfe, in preuen∣ting and repressing of Schismes, once among the people, whom he will not haue to adhere to any one man, no more to l 1.260 Cephas, (that is, Peter) than to Paul or Apollos. Whereas your Roman Cephas would haue taught Saint Paul a contra∣rie lesson, saying, that They, who adhere vnto Cephas, cannot be called Schismatikes, as those who hold of Apollos: because Cephas was that ROCKE, whereupon the Church was built, and such a Visible Head is now as necessary on earth to auoide Schisme, as to beleeue on Christ, the inuisible Head, now glo∣rious in heauen.

Againe, among the Ecclesiasticall Orders twice, first to the Corinthians, where he alleageth them thus: m 1.261 First Apostles, then Prophets, after Doctors: and accordingly to the Ephe∣sians, n 1.262 He gaue some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Euangelists, &c. Here wee should haue had good reason to haue expected the mention of Saint Peter, as the visible Head among the Apostles, if we had bene of your Faith, to beleeue that the Pope of Rome, as Successor of Saint Peter, is the Head of the visible Church; and that therefore o 1.263 The vnion with the Bishop of Rome, as the Head thereof, is a true Note of the Church: Whereby it may be infallibly discerned, whe∣ther or no a Christian man be a member of the Catholike Church, without which there is no Saluation. Which what were it, but to call into question the iudgement of Saint Paul, the most profoundest Disputant that euer writ? as though he had bene ignorant of the maine and onely Argument, for the con∣futing of Schismatikes, and auoyding of Schisme, by kee∣ping, forsooth, the Vnion with the Pope, and Church of Rome.

As for the Seauen Churches in Asia, vnto whom Saint Iohn writ, concerning the dayes of Antichrist, when the great Departure from the sincere Faith of Christ must be: herein notwithstanding you could neuer yet find one particle, to prooue either the Right of Monarchie in the Pope; or Infalli∣bilitie of his iudgement; or Necessitie that the Faithfull be V∣nited and Subiected vnto him. But many Characters may you find, at least of an Antichrist, as well of his person in the Pope,

as you haue done of his particular Seate, confessing ingenu∣ously, that it must be at Rome.

Saint Peter in his Catholike Epistle p 1.264 To the dispersed Chri∣stians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia, exhor∣ting the Presbyters (whom he after calleth [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Superintendents, or Byshops] saith; The Elders which are a∣mong you I exhort, who am also an Elder, —Feede the flocke of God, — not [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] domineiring ouer Gods heritage, —that when our chiefe Shepheard shall appeare, &c. What may be inferred from hence, you may vnderstand in the third Challenge.

I. CHALLENGE.

NOne will make doubt, but that the Churches, to whom the Apostles haue written, were of the same faith with their Teachers, the holy Apostles: and that therefore in the point of Heresie it was not more requisite that the Church of Thessalonîca should subscribe to the Faith of the Church of Rome, than that the Romanes should be guided by the Faith of the Thessalonians: or that, in the point of Schisme, the Church of Corinth should be compelled to keepe Vnion with the Church Romane, more than the Romane with the Colossian: or yet that among the Churches, to whom the Catholike E∣pistles of Peter, Iude, Iohn, and Iames were directed, some should be thought to owe more Subiection to the Letters of Peter, than to the other of Iames, or Iohn. Else would some Items haue bene giuen out, to signifie your pretended respects due to the Romane Church, especially euery one of them be∣ing required in your Faith, vpon Necessitie of saluation.

All men would wonder (for example sake) that the Bi∣shops of Italy, being al within the Romane Iurisdiction, should write letters farre and neare, vpon all occasion of Heresie and Schisme, to diuerse Churches within the same Romane Dio∣ces, and yet neuer make mention, nay nor so much as giue in∣timation of the necessary dependance they haue and ought to acknowledge themselues to haue of the Pope, and Sea of Rome.

II. CHALLENGE.

IF it had bene as manifestly reuealed by Saint Iohn, that England was Prophesied off, to be the Seate of Antichrist in the latter times, as (according to your Iesuites * 1.265 Expositions and Demonstrations) he did of Rome, in the word, Babylon, from whence all the faithfull are commanded to depart, ex∣cept they will be Partakers of her plagues: sure we are, that your Iesuites and Professors would neede no seueritie of Lawes to quit England, and to abhorre it; especially now, when the Controuersie, whether Antichrist be alreadie come, is so daily and duly debated.

III. CHALLENGE.

SAint Peter, albeit an Apostle of Iesus Christ, yet in the ex∣ercise of his Iurisdiction, in the ordaining the Bishops of Pontus, Cappadocia, and other Churches doth intitle himselfe A q 1.266 Fellow-Priest, or Bishop; a stile not to be found in your Popes Breues. For we speake not now of termes of Humilia∣tion, as that of SERVVS SERVORVM; but of Office and Function, such as is Priest, or Bishop. And in what terme? [I BESEECH] not but that he had authoritie to command, as an Apostle of Christ, like as Saint Paul, and euery Apostle had: yet now taking vpon him the person of an Elder to El∣ders, he doth not vse that which (you know) is the proper and ordinary stile of the Bishop of Rome, WEE VVILL, AND COMMAND.

The matter of his Beseeching is hortatiue, and dehortatiue; for he exhorteth them to Feed their flocke: thus he, whom Christ charged vpon all loues, to r 1.267 Feed his flocke. But not so Hee, who for the space of many hundred yeares is not knowne to haue preached at all, euen your * 1.268 Bishop of Rome. The de∣hortatiue part is in beseeching them Not to domineire ouer the heritage of God. What meaneth this? s 1.269 The Greeke word signi∣fieth Tyrannicall rule, whereas meekenesse and moderation is required in Ecclesiasticall Officers. So your Rhemists. And they

say true, and therefore Saint Peters words wee thinke, do iustly condeme your Romish Tyrannie, especially in two points.

The first Instance of Tyrannous Romish Crueltie. SECT. 2.

THe first is your Romish Inquisition, wherein there is im∣prisonment, famishment, torment and ropes to strangle your prisoners, and all in tenebris, workes of darknesse; against all t 1.270 Beleeuers, Receiuers, Defenders, and Fauourers of He∣retikes. This word, [FAVOVRERS also] hath a great lati∣tude; it may be, if they chance to commend their learning, wit, zeale, constancie, or simplicitie, which any Christian may do in a Pagan. And how they proceed in the Inquisition, it is knowne best to your selues. This we find Confessed, that u 1.271 The Inquisitors of Heretikes deale most cruelly, whilest they relinquish all meanes of triall by Tradition or Scripture, which they reiect as a dead letter, which, say they, the Heretikes vse as their bulwarke: whereas they themselues obiect and prefixe, as the shield of their faith, onely the Church of Rome, which they hold cannot erre in the faith, whose Head is the Pope. And if the partie examined shall offer to prooue his opinion by Scrip∣ture, and other Reasons, then with swelling and angrie cheeks they tell him, that he is not now to deale with Schollers in their Schooles, but with Iudges before their tribunall: and therefore he must answer directly, whether he will stand to the Decrees of the Romane Church, or not. If he refuse, then they conclude, saying, that they are not to dispute with him by Arguments and Scripture, but (and then they shew them) with fier and fagot. So he. And is not this a barbarous crueltie? Notwithstanding Pope x 1.272 Paul the III. (and no maruaile) when he was go∣ing

out of the world, Left this Inquisition as a Legacie to his Successor, Anno 1559. when (as your Thuanus storieth) Cal∣ling vnto him his Cardinals, he exhorted them in the last place to entertaine (as he called it) the most Sacred Office of Inqui∣sition, whereby onely, said he, the Authoritie of his Holinesse was supported. So he. And so now you see that vast house stan∣ding onely vpon one pillar, which is founded vpon crueltie and bloud.

The second Instance of Barbarous Romish Crueltie. SECT. 3.

IT happeneth sometime that a man, after he hath Abiured Heresie before a Iudge, may relapse into the same againe; which may be (say you) y 1.273 By talking with an Hereticke, or doing him reuerence, or visiting him, or giuing him a reward, or else by commending him, &c. The question is, how your Church ought to proceed with this man? Your generall reso∣lution is, To condemne him of Heresie, and to deliuer him to the Secular Magistrate, without all hope of pardon: yet so, that if the partie shall continue Obstinate, he shall be imme∣diatly burnt: but if he do repent, then shall he be first strangled, and afterwards burnt. And whereas it may be obiected, that no Penitent Child ought to be kept out of the Bosome of the Church; your answer is, that The Church doth admit them into her bosome, because though they must be burned, and loose their goods, yet are they allowed the Sacraments of Absolution,

and the Eucharist. But is this reasonable? Yes (say you) be∣cause They, by their relapse, are held morally as Persons incor∣rigible.

What shall we say of this Church? what? Namely, that neuer Bubalus was so stupid, as to iudge them Morally incorrigible, which do repent so, as to make themselues Capable of Abso∣lution. Nor euer was there any Rhadamanthus so extreme, as at once to pardon, and kill. Therefore Cursed be her mercie, for it is cruell. If the Sonnes of thunder were rebuked by Christ, as not knowing what spirit they were of, for calling for fire from heauen, to consume obstinate sinners; how farre worse are these Spirits, that will needs destroy their Penitents with fire? A practise, by your owne Confession, not heard of in Anti∣quitie. Thus haue we finished the second Part, concerning the Time at, and about which the Church of Rome was first founded.

CHAP. VI. Of the TIME, AFTER the Church of Rome had her first foundation.

SECT. 1.

FRom the Consideration of the Article of our Christian Creed, viz. The Catholike Church; and, Of the Catholike and Apostolike Church it selfe, as well Before, as At the Time, when the Church of Rome was first founded, hath bene discouered and refuted that Article of The Romane Ca∣tholike Church, without Vnion and Subiection whereunto there is no Saluation: By proouing it False Hereticall, Schis∣maticall, &c. Which we are now to confirme from other E∣uidences, taken from the Profession of the Catholike Church

it selfe, SINCE the foundation of the Romane Church.

Of the more Primitiue Times, AFTER the foundation of the Romane Church. SECT. 2.

OVr easiest Course, in the disquisition and discussion of this great Mysterie of Popedome, by the iudgement of the Church Catholike, will be to follow the seuerall tracts of Times, beginning at the more ancient, and proceeding to Successiue and later Times, vntill we come to the last Ages of the Church.

Our first Argument is taken from the ancient Sence of this Article, The Catholike Church, condemning the now Romish Article, viz. The Romane Catholike Church. SECT. 3.

OFten haue we pleaded Logicke with you about this Terme, [Catholike Romane Church] desiring to know of you (seeing it is Romane, that is, a Particular Church) how it can be called Catholike, that is, Vniuersall, or the whole Church? And if it be the whole Church, how can it be a Par∣ticular Church, distinct from the Church of Greece, or Church of France? Will you make vs beleeue that the thumbe of the hand can be the whole bodie? Pope Innocent the third, as though he had foreseene this Obiection, doth preocupate (as you * 1.274 haue heard) saying; If the Church be called Catholike, as Consisting of all Christian Churches, so the Church of Rome is not the Catholike Church, but a part thereof: but in respect of the authoritie, which she hath (as an Head ouer the body) ouer the whole Church, so is she called Vniuersall, because of her Do∣minion. Answerable hereunto your Iesuite Suarez; * 1.275 The Church of Rome, (saith he) not as a particular Dioces or Bi∣shopricke, is called the Catholike Church, but as it comprehen∣deth and containeth all Beleeuers in Christ, vnder the obedience of the Pope of Rome. So they. This counterfeit Glosse vpon

these termes, The Catholike Church, as vnder the Obedience of the Pope, as Catholike and Vniuersall Head, wee shall bring to the Test of the Antient Faith, by the witnesse of more than three Fathers.

I. The iudgement of Saint Augustine. SECT. 8.

WHat was meant by the [Catholike Church,] in the Sence of Antiquity, Saint Augustine may be vnto vs herein as the mouth of the whole Church, seeing that he had more occasions to discusse this Article than any Other; espe∣cially, because in his time the Donatists did no lesse falsly than arrogantly appropriate the name of the Whole Church vnto their Church in Africke, euen as you (although in a different Sence) hold it proper to the Church of Rome, at this day. But Saint Augustine: a 1.276 The word in Greeke (saith he) is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in Latine [Totum] aut Vniuersale,] that is, whole or vniuersall: [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is not one, but the whole, whence the word, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] or Ca∣tholike is deriued. Thus, by distinguishing Whole Church from One Church, he sheweth, that it is as vnconceiuable that the Catholike, Vniuersall, or Whole should bee but one One part, as it is impossible for one part to be the Whole. Which is your Paradoxe, to call the Head the whole Body, whilest as in your Article you make, ROMANE (as the Head) The Catholike and Vniuersall Church it selfe.

Thus haue we heard Saint Augustine: will you now see him? Then behold Rem gestam. For when, by that busie fellow Petilian the Donatist, a publike Conference was held at Car∣thage, betweene seuen Orthodoxe Bishops on the one part and seuen Donatists on the other, concerning the Catholike Church: Saint Augustine was singled out by the Disputer and posed in these words; Whence art thou? Who is thy Father? Is the Bishop Caecilian he? This was the Obiection, challen∣ging Augustine to answer, whence hee receiued his Religion, and vpon whom he depended? Heare now his answer.b 1.277 My

communion (saith he) began first at Hierusalem, and from re∣mote places came nearer, vntill it entred into Africke, and so disperst it selfe through-out all the World. From this my Fa∣ther, God, and my Mother-Church will I neuer be separated for the calumnies of any man.

CHALLENGE.

SAy now, if either Petilian the Heretike could haue questi∣oned Saint Augustine, professing himselfe a Catholike, whether hee had his dependance vpon CAECILIAN Bishop of Carthage, as his spirituall Father; if it had beene a currant profession among the Churches of those times, to haue held the Bishop of Rome The Catholike Father; or the Church of Rome The Catholike Mother-Church, without which there is no sal∣uation? Or whether it could haue stood with the Conscience of Saint Augustine (if he had beene of your now Romish Faith) in a question about the Father-hood, What Bishop; and Mo∣ther-hood, what Church he professed; fo•• to (passing by all mention of the B. of Rome) acknowledge no Head but Christ? and neglecting the Romane Church, adhere to the Whole Church, dispersed throughout the whole Christian World, as in∣deed the properly called Mother-Church? How should not Saint Augustine (although neuer so admirable a Saint) haue beene held a Schismatike and Heretike, if he had liued in these daies, either for his ignorance, or Contempt of the now Ro∣mish resolution of Faith in all such Questions, to wit; that the Spirituall Father of the Church is the Pope of Rome, and the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church is selfe, because Head of all the rest?

As for the prime Mother-Church, by spirituall procreation, wee see that Saint Augustine acknowledgeth no other than Hierusalem, which verefieth that, which * 1.278 hath been largely prooued, to wit; that although the ancient Romane Church might, in many respects, be called A Mother Church of ma∣ny other Churches in Christendome, especially in respect of her admirable care, for the preseruation of diuine truth and peace in the Christian world: Yet now, since, first by vsurping an O∣riginall

Prerogatiue of the Vniuersall Mother, she is become the Mother of Arrogance and Falsehood. 2. By preiudicing the Birth-right of other Churches, more ancient than her selfe, She may be called the Mother of Schisme. 3. By excluding All from hope of Saluation, that beleeue her not to bee the Mother-Church, shee may iustly bee iudged the Mother of damnable Heresie. Of Saint Augustines iudgement, more hereafter.

II. The Iudgement of Saint Hierome, concerning the Church Catholike. SECT. 5.

SAint Hierome was a professed and deuoute Childe of the Church of Rome, when Rome was yet a true and naturall Mother, and no Step-dame, who notwithstanding, when the Custome of Rome was obiected against him (in a Case of diffe∣rence betweene Deacon and Priest) calling the Aduerse part c 1.279 An arrogant paucity, he maketh an answer full of indignity; As though (sayth he) there were more authority [in Vrbe quàm in Orbe] that is, in one Citie (the Seate of the Bishop of Rome) than in the whole Catholike Church besides.

This is the Testimonie of Saint Hierome, wherein the Fa∣thers of the Councell of Basil did in a manner triumph, in op∣position to the Papall Claime, saying; d 1.280 O Hierome, what meane you! Is there therefore greatnes in the Pope, because he gouerneth the Church? His authority is great; indeed, but not so great as the authority of the Catholike Church, which is not conteined in one Citie, but comprehendeth in it selfe the whole World.

CHALLENGE.

APply you to this former sentence of Saint Hierome, if you can, your former distinction; namely, that the Church of Rome is a Particular Church in it selfe, but Catholike, as the Head, hauing Vniuersal Dominion ouer the whole Church; and see whether it will abide the test of Saint Hierome, who,

speaking of the Customes of the Church of Rome, calleth the Custome of that Church, [Vrbem] meaning the custome but of one Particular Church, whose seate is at Rome: and oppo∣seth vnto it the Custome of the Catholike Church, which hee calleth [Orbem,] the whole world. Shewing thereby (with whom also doth accord the iudgement of the Fathers of the Councell of Basil) that the Authority of the Church Catholike, and of the Church of Rome are not equiualent, much lesse the same: for in Identity there can be no opposition, or compa∣rison. None can compare a mans head with it selfe. And what furthermore Saint Hierome did conceiue heereof, will af∣terwards appeare in due Place.

III. The Iudgement of Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome, Concerning the Head Catholike, In denying the Title of Vniuersall Bishop; as did likewise Pelagius and Leo, both Bishops of the same See. SECT. 6.

ALthough it can be no sufficient Argument, for conclu∣ding a Papall authority, to obiect vnto vs the testimonies of Popes (which is your ordinarie guize) in their owne Cause: yet will it be vnto vs Armour of Proofe, to oppose against you the authority, albeit but of one Pope disclayming that your pretended Vniuersall Head-ship, in that Article, which you call, The Catholike Romane Church.

He who, being Head and Bishop of the Church of Rome, shall denie the Title of e 1.281 Vniuersall or Catholike Bishop to be properly belonging to himselfe, doth Consequently denie that his Church of Rome can properly be called The Catholike,f 1.282 that is to say, The Vniuersall Church. This is a Consequence, in your owne iudgement, so vndeniable, that your Cardinall Bellarmine, the great Achilles in this Cause, is in nothing more studious, zealous, or instant than in the defence of this Head, and this Title of Vniuersall Bishop; as proper to the Pope, and a speciall Note of Papall Primacie, ouer the whole Church of

Christ. Which your Faith, or rather infatuation, commeth now to be confuted by the iudgement of Saint Gregory, worthily commended by your selues for a man Excellent in Morall Positions, and in the Vnderstanding of the holy Scriptures. This being so honourable a Witnesse, wee call vpon him to testifie two points; first, the Noueltie; secondly, the Iniquity of this Title of Vniuersall Bishop within the Church. In the first place he expressely calleth this Title of Vniuersall Bishop g 1.283 A new Title; which (saith he) None of my Predecessors euer vsed. It is but idle and impertinent to obiect vnto vs, that h 1.284 Leo Pope, before him, was inscribed Vniuersall in the Coun∣cell of Chalcedon; because it was not absolutely there ascribed to Pope Leo, but with a grand Restriction, as thus; i 1.285 Vniuer∣sall (to wit) of Great Rome: which is as much as to denie him to bee the Bishop of the Vniuersall Chuch: euen as when you shall instile your now Romane Emperour thus, The Vni∣uersall Emperour of Rome, you thereby distinguish him from the Emperour of Turkie, the Emperour of Persia, the Emperour of Mosco, and others; and consequently denie him to be Em∣peror of the whole world.

As vaine, and indeed ridiculous is it now, after a thousand, & two hundred yeeres, to pretend thatk 1.286The Title was by that Councel set downe at large, The Bishop of the Vniuersall Church; because it is so read in the Epistle of Pope Leo, but was altered by the Greeke Scribe, in enuie to the Church of Rome. This you should alleage to them that can be perswaded, that any priuate man could, or durst alter the stile of a publike and Generall Councell, against the dignity of the Pope, where the Popes Legates were present. And not rather, that some La∣tine Scribe hath added that Inscription to the Epistle of Pope Leo, in honour of the Church of Rome, as is Confessed to haue beene done vnto the l 1.287 Epistles of other Popes; and by three * 1.288 Popes themselues vnto the Councell of Nice. As for the point in question, we stand to the ioynt testimonies of Pela∣gius and Gregorie, both Popes, who haue witnessed to all Po∣sterity (as your owne Iesuite confesseth) that m 1.289 No Bishop of Rome before them had euer vsed the Title of Vniuersall Bishop: Which notwithstanding scarce any one Pope, since the age of

Saint Gregorie, hath not assumed as proper to himselfe. But how iustly, we shall vnderstand by the said Pope Gregorie: who, after the branding of this Title with the note of Nouelty, doth further discouer the Impiety thereof.

This he expresseth first, by bidding this Title of Vniuersall Bishop n 1.290 AVANT! as being o 1.291 Vaine,p 1.292 Prophane, ^q Hainously wicked, and r 1.293 Blasphemous. Words of high indignation and detestation. When any of you shall answer this Obiection, without either manifest falsehood, or else intollerable iniurie to Pope Gregory, then may you bragge, that Saint Gregory was that thing,s 1.294 which you call a Pope. Some of your Doctors (who are said to be t 1.295 Many) would shift off this matter, as though it were but a Verball skirmish and contention onely about words. But this were to make Pope Gregory, Pelagi∣us, and Leo the Ninth, three Popes very childish,u 1.296 who did ear∣nestly gaine-say this Title, a•• your Iesuite confesseth: who might from the mouth of Gregory himselfe haue stopped these other Many mouthes, were they neuer so wide. For when the Emperour Mauritius, in the behalfe of the Bishop of Con∣stantinople (who vsed this Title Vniuersall) was offended with Gregory for being so vehement, x 1.297 In taking a scandall at the Appellation of so friuolous a Name; Gregory himselfe made answer, that y 1.298 It was very friuolous, but withall too too perni∣cious; and that he who desired to be called Vniuersall Priest, did, by so aduancing himselfe aboue others, shew himselfe to be the fore-runner of ANTICHRIST. Yea, and so wicked hee iudged it to be, that hee would haue all the world to know, that neither Hee, nor any of his Predecessors else had euer assumed the same.

Yea, but this was not (saith your Cardinall) for that Gre∣gory might not haue vsed this Title, but because he would not vse it. And why? In humility, forsooth! z 1.299 That hee might hereby more easily represse the insolencie of Iohn, Bishop of Constantinople, who at that time vniustly vsurped the same. Thus he. Which is as much as to say, that a King would re∣nounce his Royall Title of Soueraigntie; to the end that some notorious Rebell, challenging it, might thereby the more wil∣lingly

disclaime it. Were not this a profound piece of policie, trow you, if not rather grosse foppery? Wee choose rather to beleeue Gregory himselfe, who professeth a 1.300 To bee humble in minde, but still so, as to preserue the honour and dignity of his place. So farre was hee from disclaiming any right that belonged to his Chaire. Againe, for Gregory in word to ab∣horre (with an [Absit) that Title as impious and blasphe∣mous, which he thought might notwithstanding be iustly vsed by him, what would you call this otherwise than an egregi∣ous Hypocrisie?

A Third answer you haue, which you should as much shame to vtter, as wee loath to heare: to wit, that Gregory did abhorre the Title of Vniuersall Bishop, but onely in the same sence, wherein it was then vsed by the Bishop of Constantinople. How wee beseech you? b 1.301 So to bee called Vniuersall Bishop ouer others (say you) as to bee sole Bishop, and to make all others vnder him to bee no Bishops, but onely Vicars vnto him. Where, by Vicars, you meane such as haue no Order or Iurisdi∣ction proper to Bishops at all. VVhich is so incredible a figment, that it is confuted by all those Bishops (who are very many) which submitted themselues vnto this Bishop of Constantinople, and approoued his Title; yet notwithstanding held and exercised their ancient Iurisdictions of their seuerall Archiepiscopall Sees. VVho, doubtlesse, would neuer haue allowed the Title of Vniuersalitie to that Patriarch of Constantinople (as you c 1.302 know they did) if that thereupon they should haue beene compelled, of Bishops, to become plaine Vicars, and cast out of the Parlour into the Kit∣chin.

The true and vndoubted Sence then of Gregory is that, which your Cardinall Cusan, euen one of the Popes eyes, hath seene and acknowledged, that d 1.303 Gregory (by impugning the Title of vniuersall Bishop) would haue no Bishop so prin∣cipall, as to make all other members subiect vnto him: So he. Than which what can bee more apposite, in this Cause, and opposite vnto the now Romane Profession, concerning

the Title of Vniuersall Romane Bishop, the Foundation of the sence of your owne Article, viz. The Catholike Romane Church.

Yet this is not all, but we furthermore auerre, that Gre∣gory condemned the Title of Vniuersall Bishop, then vsed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, in no other sence, than it was after the daies of Gregory assumed, and vsed by your Romane Popes: whereunto such of your owne Historians (who are very many) beare full witnesse. For they record, that Popee 1.304 Boniface (the next Successour to Gregorie, saue one) did obtaine of the Emperour Phocas, that Rome should haue the same Title of Head-ship ouer all other Churches, which the Bishop of Constan∣tinople had challenged to his See. The onely difference will be this, that the Head of the Popes vniuersall Iurisdiction, vnder that Title, as it were vnder a poysoned Miter, hath growne farre more loathsome by impostumes, and swolne with tyran∣nie, than it could possibly be, at the first vsurpation thereof; being become no lesse intollerable, than was that Emperour Phocas, of whom Pope Boniface with much importunity re∣ceiued that Title. Which Emperour your Cardinall Baroni∣us noteth to haue beene f 1.305 A bloudy Tyrant. So then we see, that this Title of Vniuersall Bishop was abandoned by Grego∣ry, as extremely Impious. But some peraduenture would bee willing to know his reason heereof. Saint Gregory will satisfie any one, that shall bee desirous to vnderstand the mischiefe heereof: g 1.306 Because the Vniuersall Church (saith hee) must needs goe to ruine, whensoeuer hee, that is the Vniuersall Bishop thereof, shall chance to fall. VVhich Asserti∣on of Saint Gregory doth brand your Church with Two blacke Notes of h 1.307 Apostasie, and * 1.308 Antichristia∣nitie.

CHALLENGE.

CAtholike, or Vniuersall Church, and Vniuersall Bishop of the same Church, are, in your doctrine, as truely Rela∣tiues as Master and Seruant; the one cannot be denied with∣out the other. Goe too now then, blazon your Papall Inscrip∣tion in the highest stile that you can inuent; more than Vni∣uersall it cannot be: and animate it with the perfectest spirit, that can be infused into it; more absolute none can expect, than that which you ascribe vnto your Pope of Rome, which is, that i 1.309 The Popes iudgement is infallible, in defining of any doctrine of faith. But why? Because (say you) if he, as a pub∣like person and Iudge of the Church, should erre, by concluding any thing against faith, then the vniuersall Church, which is bound to follow him, should likewise erre. So hee.

This is your Romane Profession, which may bee vnto vs a perfect Argument of your Apostasie from the ancient Romane faith, maintained in the dayes of Saint Gregorie: as thus. The now Romane Article is to beleeue, that the Pope of Rome is the Vniuersall Bishop of the Church Catholike, and therefore can∣not erre in any doctrine of faith: insomuch that the Church, subiect to this Romane Bishop, must be accounted the Onely Church on earth, without which there is no saluation. But the faith of Saint Gregorie contrarily standeth thus: Whatsoeuer Bishop he be (Romane, or other) that professeth himselfe the Vniuersall Bishop, or Head, is subiect to Error. Therefore none ought to assent to any such Assumption, lest that, that one er∣ring, the whole Church of Christ should erre with him. So then you, forsooth, see an Infallibility in the vsurpation of that Title, as proper to the Pope, wherein Saint Gregorie did fore∣see the baine of an Vniuersall Erring and falling from the faith. To conclude, Saint Gregorie held the title, which be∣tokeneth an Vniuersall Dominion ouer the whole Church, to be so direfully pernicious, that hee consequently condem∣ned the Vniuersall Subiection vnto one Bishop (the now Arti∣cle of the Romane Church) as Pernicious and Antichristian. To whom also your Iesuites * 1.310 haue taught you to adde two other Popes, Pelagius and Leo, who in like manner condemned and disclaimed that Title.

CHAP. VII. Our second Argument, against the Article of necessitie of Subiection to the Romane Church and Pope, is taken from Comparisons made betweene the Bishop and Church of Rome with other Bishops and Churches, by the ancient Fathers.

SECT. 1.

AGainst an Article of an vsurped Dominion of one Church ouer all other, there can be no better Argument than from the Comparison of other Churches with that one, which pretendeth her selfe to be the Mother and Mistris of all the rest. Vpon this consideration you haue beene vrged by One, who for learning and iudgement in Antiquitie was hardly to be seconded by any. He posed you from the testimonies of the writings of Dionysius Areopagita, and Ignatius, the most anci∣ent of Fathers. Where, supposing That Dionysius to be as true∣ly that great Areopagita, and as worthy an Author as you would haue him to be, hee spurreth you a necessary question: a 1.311 Why Dionysius was so vtterly silent, in not mentioning the V∣niuersall visible Head of the Church, reigning at Rome, if at that time there had beene any such Monarchicall Head there; especially seeing hee professedly writ of the Ecclesiasticall Hie∣••archie

and gouernment? or is it credible, and not rather mon∣strous that hee writing of the mysticall rites of the Church should omit all mention of this chiefe mysterie of one supreame Head and Monarch of the Church at Rome, being so perti∣nently inuited thereunto by that matter subiect, which hee had there in hand, to wit, by the Hierarchie of the Church, if this doctrine had beene of faith in that age? This (saith hee) re∣moueth your friuolous Obiection. By the same reason hee b 1.312 obiecteth against you the Epistles of Ignatius, the most ancient Martyr and Bishop of Antioch, that hee being frequent in set∣ting forth the Order Ecclesiastical and dignitie of Bishops, vpon diuers occasions, should forbeare all mention of the Monar∣chie of Saint Peter, or any Romane Pope.

But we returne to our owne Obseruations out of Antiqui∣tie, by equall Comparisons of other Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, beginning at the same Ignatius.

1 He writing to the Church of Trallis, and exhorting them vnto obedience to Bishops, as to the Apostles, c 1.313 instanceth e∣qually in Timothie, Saint Paul's Scholler, as in Anacletus Suc∣cessor to Saint Peter.

2 Irenaeus liued next to the Apostles times, who d 1.314 referreth his Reader for direction, in the right of Traditions, as well to Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna in the East, as to Linus Bishop of Rome in the West.

3 Tertullian, to secure Christians in the Doctrine of the Apostles, e 1.315 prescribeth vnto them that they consult with the Mother-Churches immediately founded by the Apostles, na∣ming aswell Ephesus in Asia, and Corinth in Achaia, as Rome in Italie. And againe for the persons, mentioning to the same purpose, aswell * 1.316 Polycarpus ordained by Saint Iohn, as Cle∣mens by Peter. Wee shall not neede to make any Notes or Comments vpon the words of Tert. your owne Beatus Rhe∣nanus

hath f 1.317 published as much as we can require. Tertulli∣an (saith hee) doth not confine the Catholike and Apostolike Church to one place: and although hee giue an honourable testi∣monie to the Church of Rome, yet did he not esteeme her so high∣ly, as we see her accounted of at this day. He reckoneth her with other Churches, yet doth not make her the onely Church, but ad∣monisheth his Readers as well to enquire what milke the Church of Corinth gaue, as Rome. So Rhenanus, who addeth, that If Tertullian were now aliue, and should say so much, hee could not escape without punishment. Thus your Rhenanus, whiles that hee had the vse of his tongue, but since you haue Gagged him, by your g 1.318 Index Ezpurgatorius (a Booke which we may call the Martyrologe of many innocent bookes.) But no mar∣uaile, for this testimonie of Rhenanus was as a poyniard, stick∣ing fast in the very bowels of this Cause. Notwithstanding, Tertullian will be Tertullian still; whom whosoeuer shall reade, he will be able to auouch as much as Rhenanus hath obserued, namely that Tertullian, euen whilest hee was a true childe of the Church, neuer allowed the Apostolike (which we commonly call the Catholike) Church to be appropriated vn∣to any one place; nor had he further respect to Rome, than he had to Corinth and other Apostolicall Churches, which hee calleth * 1.319 Original Mother-Churches; for directing of Christians in the Apostolike faith.

4 Athanasius reckoneth vp, to the Emperour Constantine, the Churches that consented to the Councell of Nice, thus: h 1.320 The Churches of Spain, of Britaine, of France, of whole Italie, of Dalmatia; without any precise mention of Rome, otherwise than it was comprized in whole Italie. A great Contempt, doubtlesse, if your Article had beene then hatch't, because the Consent of Rome onely had been more perswasiue to the Em∣perour than all the rest.

5 Vincentius Lirinensis likewise, an ancient Father, and greatly approued on all sides, in his booke written in defence of the Catholike Truth, against all prophane Nouelties, i 1.321 adui∣seth

Christians to trie the Truth equally by the ioynt consent as well of the East as of the West-Church: and to consult as well with Petrus Alexandrinus and Athanasius in the one Church, as with Felix and Iulius Bishops of Rome in the other. Concerning whom, more hereafter.

6 Saint Augustine against Iulian the Pelagian, in the que∣stion of Baptisme, speaking of Chrysostome the Bishop of Con∣stantinople, saith; k 1.322 Farre be it from him that hee should dissent from his fellow-Bishops, Innocentius Bishop of Rome, Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, Basil Bishop of Cappadocia, Gregory Bishop of Nazianzum, Hilary a French Bishop, and Ambrose Bishop of Milan. Is it possible that these orthodoxe Fathers should in this manner, and vpon such occasions haue giuen the Bishop of Rome so many Mates, in equalizing others with him, if your Article of Monarchicall Dominion had entred into their breasts or braines?

The same comparisons proued by ancient Churches. SECT. 2.

THe generall Councell of Constantinople in the East, to make known their Consent in the Faith with the Church in the West, doe endite an Epistle, and inscribe it thus; l 1.323 To their Reuerend brethren and fellowes, as well to Damasus of Rome, as to Ambrose of Milan, and others.

The Church of Egypt gathered in Councell, in their letters vnto the Emperour Leo, professe m 1.324 Their Consent in the Catho∣like faith with the chiefe Priests in the Christian world; na∣ming as well Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, Basil Bishop of Antioch, Iuuenall Bishop of Hierusalem, as Leo Bishop of Rome.

The Decree of the Church of Carthage, in her third Coun∣cell standeth thus: n 1.325 It is decreed that we consult hereupon with our brethren, Syricius (viz. Bishop of Rome) and Simplician,

viz. Bishop of Milane. Not to omit how you confesse, that o 1.326 The Bishops of Constantinople did sometime enioy the title of Vniuersall Bishops equally with the Bishops of Rome: but this they did (say you) by permission of the Bishops of Rome, and vpon conniuence. Tell you this to them, who know not that (Maiestie brooking no Corriuall) the Monarchie of Popes would neuer dispense, or continue at any One, vsurping equall Title of Monarchicall Iurisdiction, which is as much as to snatch their Papall Miters from of their heads.

CHALLENGE.

THe distinction of East and West is not more familiarly knowne to euery vulgar man, than is the distinction of East and West-Church, by euery babe in Historicall learning: vnderstanding thereby, that they were anciently held as two generall parts of the Catholike Church, and not as one sub∣ordinate to another; as will afterwards more plainly appeare. Againe, vnlesse you shall except against the most ancient and vniuersally approued Instructors and guides of the Catholike Church, we must conclude, that the East part of the world is not more opposite vnto the West, than is your now Romane Article, to wit, The Catholike Romane Church, contrary to Catholike Antiquitie. Insomuch that as when Protestants are controlled, condemned, tormented, or put to death for re∣nouncing this your Article, Ignatius, Ireneus (to omit the au∣thoritie of Councels, and Others) Tertullian, Athanasius, Vinc. Lirinensis, and Augustine may seeme to suffer in them: because it may be said of the rest, which your Rhenanus spake of one, saying; Tertullian, if he were aliue, should not escape vnpunished, for such his Praescriptions. So False and Impo∣sterous is your Article, viz. The Catholike Romane Church, as hauing Dominion ouer all Others.

CHAP. VIII. Our third Argument, taken from the iudgement of the Catholike Church it selfe, in the first Six Generall Councels after the Apostles: Besides a Seuenth and Eight Coun∣cell, in Your estimation, Generall.

SECT. 1.

EVery true Generall Councell you will esteeme to be the Representatiue Church Catholike; than which, after the euidence of diuine Scrip∣tures, the Oracles of God, no better proofe can be required by the Professors of the Christian faith. For this cause we hold it our duetie, for your better satisfaction, to giue you Instances in the first Six Generall Councels, beginning at the first Generall Councell of Nice.

I. That the Beliefe of the Romish Article, viz. The Catholike Romane Church, without which &c. damneth all the Catholike Fathers of the Councell of Nice, and their Beleeuers. SECT. 2.

THe first Generall Councell in Christianitie, after the Synod of the * 1.327 Apostles, was that famous first Councell of Nice, consisting of CCCXVIII. Bishops, by whom were made

two Decrees vtterly preiudiciall to the now Article of the Do∣minion of the Romane Church, and Pope, aboue all other Churches and their Bishops. One is against the Appeales of persons Excommunicate in any Dioces vnto remote Churches: which the Bishops of the Church of Africke, in their Councell (wherein Saint Augustine was an Actor) did absolutely denie, by virtue of the a 1.328 Canon of the Councell of Nice. The second Instance in the sixt Canon of the same Nicene Synod, decree∣ing thus; b 1.329 That the Bishops of Alexandria should haue the Gouernment ouer Aegypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— as it is in the Greek] because also the Bishop of Rome hath [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the same custome: thereby distinguishing and limi∣ting their Prouinces; so as the Bishop of Alexandria may still haue gouernment within his Prouinces, As also the Bishop of Rome hath in his. And that because of prescription of Custome [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, say they, that is] LET THE ANCIENT COVRSE HOLD; and adde, As also let Antioch and other Pro∣uinces hold their ancient Priuiledges, &c. Which taketh away all Subordination of the authoritie of Alexandria to Rome.

This was the current sence of this Canon, in the dayes of Antiquitie, vntill the boldnesse of your Authors, thinking to carry the matter by out-facing, deuised a strange Answer.c 1.330 The sence is (saith Bellarmine) that the Bishop of Alexandria should haue these Prouinces there mentioned, because the Bishop of Rome was accustomed to permitt it so to be. So he. As though they were not words of Comparison, that the Bishop of Alex∣andria should enioy his Priuileges, accordingly as the Bishop of Rome held anciently his: but that the Prerogatiue, forsooth, of the Bishop of Rome was and had beene then to Permitt, or dis∣pose of the Prouinces of the Patriarkes of Alexandria and An∣tioch, and of other Bishops at his owne pleasure. A Glosse both sencelesse and shamelesse. Sencelesse, for that it carrieth with it a Confluence of Absurdities. First, because it had beene an impietie for the Accusers to haue called the Case of the Bi∣shop of Alexandria and Antioch into question, to be determi∣ned in that Councell, if it had beene the Catholike faith then to beleeue, that it was in the power of the Bishop of Rome to order all such matters of Iurisdiction, of other Patriarks, as he

should thinke good. Next, the Councell had bene guilty of vnpardonable remissenesse, when they heard a Case, so pre∣iudiciall to the Authority of the Monarch of the Church, the Pope of Rome, and yet would not seuerely rebuke the Accu∣sers, as scandalous and Schismaticall fellowes; nor reiect the Case it selfe with indignation and detestation, as that which they could not take vpon them to decide, without the danger of their soules, against the Ordinance of Christ, in the Bishop of Rome: But much more for determining contrarily (as they did) saying, LET ANCIENT CVSTOMES HOLD; where∣as they should rather haue expresly acknowledged, in the Bi∣shop of Rome, the Ordinance of Christ, as the life and soule of euery Custome, which comprehendeth any matter of Faith ne∣cessary to Saluation.

And that this Answer is also shamelesse, is prooued by the Sun-shine light of storie: For that those words, [Because also the Bishop of Rome hath the same Custome] are words of Com∣parison, betwixt the Churches of Alexandria and Rome, in the point of maintaining their ancient Priuileges. Which not onely the words * 1.331 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Because also,] do plainly prooue, (As when one shall say, I will giue this man a Crowne, because also I gaue a Crowne to his fellow) but furthermore the three Editions, now set downe in the body of your Coun∣cels, by your Binius, wherein the words are; Because the Church of Rome hath the like Custome, without any word of Permission. Yet were all this but a kind of Modesty, if you did not know, that the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon, vpon the same ground, (namely, that it was but matter of Custome, and no Diuine Ordinance) did, against the will of the Bishop of Rome, aduance the Prerogatiue of the Bishop of * 1.332 Constantinople. If you did not know, that three of your Popes of Rome, for the giuing of an high point of Dominion, (euen the Prerogatiue of Appeales to Rome from other Pro∣uinces) alleaged, though * 1.333 forgedly and fraudulently, the au∣thority of the Councell of Nice. And if you did not further know it Confessed by a Cardinall of farre more ancient note, and greater ingenuity than his fellowes, that the direct Sence of the Nicene Canon is, that d 1.334 As the Bishop of Rome had

power and authority ouer all his Bishops, so the Bishop of Alex∣andria, according to Custome, should haue thorow-out Lybia, &c. The same Cardinall proceeds, in shewing how much Rome hath since encroached beyond her ancient limits: e 1.335 Wee see (saith he) how much the Bishop of Rome, by vse and custome of Subiectionall Obedience, hath at this day got, beyond the an∣cient Constitutions.

But how shall we expect good conscience from your Bel∣larmine, in acknowledging the true iudgement of the Councell of Nice, who, when it is obiected (against the latter Romane Councels, to prooue them bastardly and illegitimate) that it is required as a necessary Condition in a Councell, in all Di∣uine Constitutions, to stand vpon Diuine grounds, the holy Scriptures onely; f 1.336 answereth that This is no equall condition. And notwithstanding that the thrice-renoumed Emperour Constantine the GREAT required in this Synod of Nice, that g 1.337 Because the bookes of the Apostles do plainly instruct vs in Diuine matters, therefore we ought to make our Determina∣tions vpon questions, from words which are so diuinely inspired; yet answereth the same Bellarmine thus: h 1.338 Constantine (saith he) was a great Emperour indeed, but yet no great Doctour of the Church, who was yet vnbaptized, and therefore vnderstood not the mysteries of Religion. Thus doth this your Cardinall twit and taunt the iudgement of that godly Emperour, wit∣nessed by Theodoret; where expressing his testimonie, and ci∣ting the place, yet (as the Steward in the Gospell) vniustly con∣cealeth from his Reader that which followeth in Theodoret, namely, that i 1.339 The greater part of that Councell of Nice obeyed the voice of Constantine, and Concluded matters accordingly. So little regard haue the now Romanists to the authority of the Councell of Nice, which hath bene euer since worthily honourable in the memorie of all true worshippers of Christ Iesus. By which notwithstanding we see two Articles of Po∣pery quite ouerthrowne; One of the pretended Papall Do∣minion ouer the whole Church: the o••her, the Equalling of Traditions with Scriptures, for the deciding of matters of Faith.

CHALLENGE.

THe Canons of those CCCXVIII. Fathers of that Ge∣nerall Councell of Nice, who haue thus infirmed your Ar∣ticle of Vniuersall Subiection to the Romane Church, found beleefe with all the syncere Professors throughout the Chri∣stian world. Whether therefore you will haue your Article to damne so many Catholike Bishops, the admirable lights of Gods Church; or rather to esteeme your Romane Article Damnable and blasphemous in it selfe, iudge you.

II. That the beleefe of the Romish Article, The Catholike Romane Church, &c. Damneth the CL. Catholike Bishops in the second Generall Councell, being the first at Constantinople, Anno 380. SECT. 3.

WEE present before you the CL. Catholike Bishops in the second Generall Councell of Constantinople, whereunto it may seeme that both you and we do willingly referre our selues. First then we shall heare

Your Obiections.

k 1.340 The second Generall Councell (saith your Cardinall) in their Epistle to Pope Damasus say, that they were gathered by the Mandate of Pope Damasus: and confesse also that the Church of Rome is the Head, and they the members. So he. And this is all that is obiected, but vpon a mistake; the Car∣dinall himselfe confessing, that l 1.341 It was not the Epistle of the Councell, but of certaine Bishops that had bene at the Councell. And therefore, for the first part of the Popes Mandate, he re∣ferreth himselfe to another Councell; against the Vniuersall

Current of Histories, which with generall consent set downe the Mandates of Emperours, as the supreme and first compul∣sarie Causes for the collecting of Councels. But that which he looseth, in mis-citing his true Authors, he studieth to gaine by mis-interpreting of the testimonie of Theodoret. For where∣as Theodoret saith, m 1.342 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is, letters the yeare past, He (against all Lex••cons) readeth, The Man∣date of letters. Is not this fine art, trow yee? For take your owne Translation of 2. Cor. 8. ver. 10. (whether the vulgar La∣tine, or the English) This is profitable for you, who haue begun not onely to do, but also to be willing [Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Vulg. Ab anno superiori; Rhemists English,] from the yeare past. If any should translate [the yeare past] into Mandate, might it not be suspected that the mans wits were now in the waine? as being ignorant of the common Prouerb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Last yeare the better; to signifie the more and more worthie. Is there here any sound of a Commander?

As for the Similitude of the Head and Members, it hath no more colour of Superiority, than that which we haue alwaies acknowledged, namely of Order, that is of Priority of Place, of Voice, and the like; but neuer of Dominion. That which the In∣scription of the Epistle doth cōfute, which was not to Damasus alone, but ioyntly to others, thus: n 1.343 Most honourable and Re∣uerend Brethren, and Colleagues. This is the Inscription, and the Epistle it selfe is of the same thred; We declare (say they) our selues to be your proper members; but how? that your raigning, we may raigne with you. Members therefore of Colleagueship, as Cor-regnants. We haue heard your Pretence, be you as rea∣dy to heare our contrary proofe.

Our Opposition.

The said Generall Councell of Constantinople in the second Canon, decreeth thus: o 1.344 The Bishop of the Citie of Constan∣tinople ought to haue the honour of Primacie next after the Bi∣shop of Rome, because it is new Rome. Yeelding to Rome her birth-right of Primacie; which whatsoeuer it was, they iudge to haue bene established not by any Diuine Ordinance, but by

occasion of the Imperiall Seate, which was at first the Citie of Rome, as your Binius acknowledgeth to be collected from that ground. Who therefore cannot digest this Canon, but why? p 1.345 This Canon (saith he, out of Baronius) was not receiued by the Church of Rome. Truly it were more then maruaile that the Church of Rome should admit any Canon, that may any way derogate from her presumption: Albeit your owne Car∣dinall Cusanus * 1.346 hath confessed her former Encroachments. But to proceed punctually. Which of the Fathers, for the space of 60. yeares after, opposed against this Canon? what one Bi∣shop before Pope Leo thought it not most equall? Albeit there were present, in that Councell, Cyril Bishop of Hierusalem, Timothy Bishop of Alexandria, and Miletus Bishop of Antioch, Bishops of three seuerall Patriarchall Seas, who consented vn∣to it, notwithstanding that they themselues receiued some pre∣iudice by that Decree.

This Canon, you know, is of great force, to beate downe your whole bul-warke, which is your Article of Romane-Ca∣tholike and Vniuersall Dominion ouer the whole Church, and therefore we must expect some Obiection against it. One we find, and that a foule one too, that namely, q 1.347 This is a surrepti∣tious Canon, without the generall consent of that Synod. Which we shall then confesse, as soone as you shall perswade any reasonable man to thinke th••t to be a Supposititious and forged Canon, purposely against the dignitie of the Church of Rome; which the Bishops of Rome themselues, when they op∣pugned it, as being vnequall▪ yet neuer excepted against, as Surreptitious and false: Not Leo, not Gelasius, not Gregorie, although that they tooke the Sanction of that Canon in∣dignely. Or that the r 1.348 Legates of the Pope in the Councell of Chalcedon (stifly opposing against the subiect matter of this Canon) would not haue branded it with the Note of Forgerie, when they made expresse mention of it, if they had so concei∣ued thereof. Or (which is beyond all that can be opposed) that the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon, in their letters to Leo Pope of Rome, would be there knowne vnto him, that they with mutuall consent s 1.349 Confirmed the Rule and Canon of the CL. Bishops in the Councell of Constantinople, notwith∣standing

standing that his Bishops and Legates Paschasinus and Lucen∣tius did dissent therefrom; if they had not iudged the said Ca∣non to be absolutely true. So false is your obiection of Falshood against that Canon of the Councell of Constantinople.

CHALLENGE.

A Canon, then, you see of a Generall Councell, albeit neuer receiued (as you say) by the Church of Rome, because preiudiciall thereunto; which is an euident argument of their No-Subiection to the Bishop of Rome. Execrable therefore is your Article of The Catholike Romane Church, without sub∣iection whereunto there is no Saluation: whereby C L. Bi∣shops, accounted Catholikes throughout the Christian world, must be necessarily excluded from Saluation.

That the beleefe of the Article, viz. The Catholike Romane Church, without subiection whereunto there is no Saluation, damneth the C C. Bishops in the third Generall Councell at Ephesus. Anno 434. SECT. 4.

IN this Generall Councell CC. Bishops at Ephesus, some things there are, which you obiect; and some things which you must haue the patience to haue obiected vnto you.

Your Obiections.

You would proue out of this Councell an acknowledge∣ment of t 1.350 The supreme authoritie of the Popes, aboue them: but how? first. They confessed that they deposed Nestorius by the command of Pope Celestine. False, there is not the word, Command, vsed by the Councell. If that word had beene vsed, you should haue proued it out of the Popes owne Letters themselues, which we should not haue needed to put you to,

if any such word could appeare in the Councell obiected. No, you well know, that to Command was not the stile of Popes, in primitiue and ancient times. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome, about an C L. yeares after Celestine, did vtterly abhorre it. u 1.351 I COMMAND? (saith he) away with the word, COMMAND, I haue not commanded. Yet thus you labour to frame and fashion your old Popes after the models of your new, to the end your new ones may not seeme to haue degenerated from the old. Yet something there is in the words of the Councell, namely, that x 1.352 They were mooued and compelled by his letters: meaning, by the perswasions of that Orthodoxe Bishop, and that but onely [tùm, tùm] in part; for so they say, Both by the Canons, and also by your letters: and both these had rela∣tion to another part of Reasons and inducements premised in that place. And is not this then slie Sophistrie, to conclude an whole from a Part? Yea but the same Councell say, that * 1.353 They durst not iudge Iohn the Bishop of Antioch, and there∣fore reserued him to the iudgement of Pope Celestine: which plainly sheweth the supreme authority of the Pope. So you. What signifie these words, that They durst not iudge Iohn of An∣tioch? why, they do plainly relate, in the same Epistle, that they had already deposed him. y 1.354 We haue (say they) deue∣sted him of all his Sacerdotall power. So, after this referring him to the iudgement of the Pope, That (for so they say) they might with lenity ouercome his rashnesse. This was not to pre∣ferre him to another Censure, for there had bene no lenity in that, but to the aduise of Celestine, that by his perswasion he might be first reclaimed from error, and afterwards restored to his place.

For a further discouerie of the Ecclipse of the Conscience in your Cardinall, let vs consider what Supreme authority he would insinuate, to wit, that if the z 1.355 Councell could not de∣pose Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople, without the Popes Mandate; nor durst depose Iohn Patriarch of Antioch, but re∣ferred the Cause to the iudgement of the Pope, the issue here∣of must be directly this, viz. That the Pope is absolutely aboue

a Generall Councell, as the Cardinall defendeth else-where. This were a Supreme authority indeed: but in truth it is a falshood, and long since condemned (as you a 1.356 know) by your owne Councels of Constance and Basil, for a flat He∣resie: Which your Doctors of Paris haue alwaies disclaimed, as contrary to antiquity: and which no Councell, since the be∣ginning of the Christian Faith, did as yet expresly decree, as your Doctor Stapleton, a great Champion in this Cause, doth not denie; and therefore betaketh himselfe to the b 1.357 Late tacit and silent consent of the Doctors of your Church. Was not this then more than boldnesse in your Cardinall, to inferre this Supreme authority out of this Councell?

Our Opposition.

First, this Councell called Celestine Bishop of Rome c 1.358Fellow-Minister, and did (as you haue heard) Excommunicate and de∣pose the Patriarch of Antioch, before they made any Relation thereof vnto Celestine the Bishop of Rome. Ergo, It did not acknowledge the now pretended Supreme authority and pri∣uilege of the Pope; which is, to haue Cases of that nature soly Reserued to his owne d 1.359 Determination. Secondly, looke into the Councell it selfe, and into the Epistle alleaged, wherein (concerning the points which Pope Celestine had constituted) e 1.360 Wee (say they) haue iudged them to stand firme: wherefore we agree with you in one sentence, and doe hold them (meaning Pe∣lagius, and others) to be deposed. Ergo, Consent to the Con∣firmation of the Popes sentence doth gaine-say his Supreme authority.

But principally we oppose the Acts of this Councell of Ephe∣sus, in decreeing, that f 1.361 Neither the Patriarch of Antioch, who made claime, Nor any other should assume authority of ordai∣ning any Bishop within the Isle of Cyprus. The Arguments and Reasons, whereupon the Synod made this Decree, shew,

that as well the Authority of the Bishop of Rome, as of any o∣ther, is thereby excluded. And they adde more peremptorily; g 1.362 It is to be obserued (say they) in all Prouinces and Dioces, that no Bishop drawe vnder his subiection any Prouince, which was not his from the beginning, lest that vnder pretence of Priest-hood he bring into the Church Arrogance and Pride. The very selfe-same disease, which Saint Basil and Saint Au∣gustine, with the whole Councell of Africke, * 1.363 haue both ex∣pressely noted, and openly detested in the Romane Popes, euen of their times.

CHALLENGE.

NOne of you euer doubted, that this Councell of Ephesus was Generall, and the Bishops therein truely Catholikes: wherein notwithstanding you see diuers Arguments, although not of disunion, yet of no Subiection. And therefore You (ex∣cept you will condemne CC. holy Bishops) must needs iudge your Romane Article to be damnably false.

IV. That the Beleefe of the Romane Article of The Ca∣tholike Romane Church, without subiection where∣unto there is no saluation, Damneth aboue CCCC. Catholike Bishops in the fourth Generall Councell of Chalcedon. SECT. 5.

FOure hundred and thirty Bishops were assembled in this Councell of Chalcedon, with whom we are to aduize con∣cerning your Article of Necessary Subiection to the Bishop of Rome and his Church. But first wee are ready to answer, and then to replie.

Your Obiection.

THis Councell (saith your Cardinall) said that h 1.364 The custo∣die of the Vine, that is, of the Catholike Church, is com∣mitted to the Pope, by God. It saith so, and so doth that godly primitiue Pope Eleutherius say to the Bishops in France (asi 1.365you know) that The whole Catholike Church is committed by Christ vnto them. Were They therefore, thinke you, all Popes? What say you? k 1.366 The meaning of Eleutherius is (say you) that for as much as Heretikes doe oppugne the Catholike and Vniuer∣sall Church, it belongeth vnto euery Bishop to haue an vniuer∣sal care to defend & support it. And this is a true Answer indeed, else must you grant that Saint Paul was a Pope ouer Saint Pe∣ter, because he tooke vpon him * 1.367 The cure, or care of the whole Church: and that Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria was Pope aboue the then Bishop of Rome, because Gregory Nazianzene saith of him, that l 1.368 He hauing the presidence of the Church of Alexandria, may be said thereby to haue the Gouernement of the whole Christian World. By these Euidences we are compel∣led to aske, with what Conscience you could make such Ob∣iections, in good earnest, to busie your Aduersaries, and se∣duce your Disciples with all, whereunto you-your-selues could so easily make answer. But thus Catchitiue haue you beene at the shadow; let vs trie whether we can apprehend the substantiall Truth.

Our Opposition.

For what is that which you will say belongeth really to the Supreame and Papall Dominion of the Bishop of Rome? m 1.369 Because (say you, with common consent) the Pope hath su∣preme authority in gouerning the Church, therefore can hee change the Canons and decrees of General Councels. So you. But

what then say you to the equalling of other Patriarchall Seates with Rome? o 1.370The Fathers of the Councel of Chalcedon (say you) did giue Priuileges to the Patriarkeship of Constan∣tinople, equall to the Church of Rome: but Pope Leo did oppose against the Decree of the Councell, and disclaimed it. You say true: but yet let vs come to the ground of beleefe, as well of the Fathers of that Councell, in opposing your pretended Pa∣pall dignity and authority; as of your Doctors, in contra∣dicting them. Secondly therefore, p 1.371 The Pope of Rome (say you) hath his Monarchie and sole gouernment of the Church from diuine right: And,q 1.372 The Romane Church was founded by God; What Prouince then in the world is free from her Iuris∣diction? So you, and such is your now Romane Faith. But the Fathers of the Generall Councell of Chalcedon were of a con∣trary beleefe, because their reason of withstanding the Pope was (as you know) r 1.373 For that they held, that the See of Rome was founded by humane authority: s 1.374 Thinking that the Church of Rome got the Primacie (namely of Order) by reason onely that it was the chiefe Imperiall Seate. So you.

We haue heard of Oppositions enough. Gladly would we vnderstand, how you can reconcile these oddes, so that wee may not iustly condemne your now Romane Faith of Nouelty, by the iudgement of a Generall Councell? t 1.375 This was indeed (say you) the Decree of a great Councell, but the Decree was not lawfully proceeded in, because the Legates of the Pope were absent, and afterwards protested against it. And Pope Leo himselfe would not approue it, saying that hee did allow onely those Decrees and Canons in that Synod, which concerned mat∣ters of Faith. So you. And now vpon this Euidence heare our Verdict.

CHALLENGE.

IN these Premisses we finde a Councell, in your owne opini∣on, and in the Iudgement of the Christian World, lawfull

and Generall, consisting of more than 400 Fathers, without exception Catholike and Orthodoxe: These haue opposed your Article of the Necessity of Subiection to the Pope, razing the very foundation thereof, by beleeuing that his Primacie is not by diuine Authority. Vpon this beleefe they easily cast downe the roofe of your Papall building, denying the Popes power of gaine-saying the Positiue and humane Decrees and Canons of Generall Councels; and by erecting a Patriarch, whom They adorne with a Priuilege of power (excepting priority of Order, in taking place, giuing voice, &c.) Equall to the Bishop of Rome. What is, if this bee not, to ruinate your Romane Article?

Yet much more stand you entangled in your owne An∣swers. For if that so many, and so Reuerend Fathers determi∣ned against the pretended Prerogatiue of Rome, notwithstan∣ding the Contrarie protestation of the Popes Legates; they teach vs thereby another crosse point to your Article, viz. that the voice of the Pope, by his Legates, is of no more vir∣tue in a Synod, than the suffrage of any other Bishop. And what though the Legates of the Pope were absent at the ma∣king of this Act in the Councell, because they would not bee present; and were notwithstanding present the next day, and disclaimed the Act, yet could nothing preuaile? And againe, what was the nullity of authority, in the Popes Legates, whensoeuer they contended against the Maior part of a Synod?

But Pope Leo (say you) gainesaid the former Decree of that Councell, albeit he did approue of all Canons in the same, so farre as concerned marters of Faith. This Answer also proueth you faithlesse in all your defence, euen by the iudgement of Pope Leo. For if he therefore opposed the Decree of that Sy∣nod, which oppugneth the Papall Primacie and Dominion, because it was no matter of Faith, he thereby plainely confes∣seth your Article, which maintaineth the Dominion of the Romane Church, without which there is no saluation, not to be at all an Article of Faith. We conclude. Therefore either must those 430 godly & most Reuerend Fathers, together with Leo the Pope himselfe, be damned by your Romane Article, or else

must your Article be condemned by their contrarie iudgement and Decree. Which, (notwithstanding the Popes Contradi∣ction) was afterwards sufficiently confirmed in other parts of Christendome, by the vse thereof, which (as you confesse) u 1.376 Continued a long time. So large and long a false-hood is that, which your Article of Necessary Subiection to Rome doth ex∣act of the whole Church of Christ.

V. That the beleefe of the Article of an Vniuersall Sub∣iection to Rome, as the Catholike Church, dam∣neth the 165 Fathers of the first Generall Councell at Constantinople; being the second of that name, Anno 553. SECT. 6.

LEt your owne most priuileged, albeit most partial Authors, Baronius & Binius, relate the whole Cause. 1. Concerning the authority of this Councell, whether it deserue the Title of Vniuersall Councell, or no? They answer thatx 1.377It was a General Councell, and so approued by all Popes, Predecessors and Suc∣cessors to Saint Gregory: and by himselfe saying, I doe reuerence the fift Councell of Constantinople. Now come we to the rela∣tion of the Cause. First, of Pope Agapetus. y 1.378 The cause of Anthimius, which he had condemned, was afterwards ventilated in the Councell of Constantinople. This argueth the No-Do∣minion of the Pope ouer that Councell, which will take vpon them to examine that cause, which the Pope had before con∣demned. After Agapetus succeedeth Vigilius; z 1.379 At what time

In the Councell of Constantinople, that which they called [Tria Capitula] was condemned. The summe of their Answer is this. Pope Vigilius, before this Generall Councell of Constantinople, defended the Cause of the [Tria Capitula] which the Councell being gathered together condemned: The Pope resisted the De∣cree of the Councell; the Councell endeth. Pope Vigilius, for not consenting to this Councell, is banished by the Emperour Iusti∣nian. After that this Councell had so concluded, Vigilius con∣firmed the sentence of the Councell of Constantinople, and was thereupon released out of Banishment by the Emperour. In all this (say you) the Popes change of his minde cannot be preiudici∣all to him or his See, for that (the cause being no matter of Faith, but onely of Persons) he did it vpon iust reason, least the East Church and the the West should fall into Schisme, and be rent in sunder. Thus farre your Authors.

CHALLENGE.

BE the Cause matter of Faith, or onely of Fact, or Per∣sons, it mattereth not, nor to what end it was done. Wee are not to inquire into the doctrines, but the dispositions of this Councell: nor to respect the point of Vnion of Churches, but that which you haue created for a new Article of Faith, the point of Necessary subiection to the Romane Church, and Bishop thereof. First, by your owne Confession, the Pope de∣fendeth that, which afterward the Councell gain-sayeth: Next, the Pope contradicteth the Decree of the Councell, to wit, of the same Councell, determinately concluding and persisting in their Sentence against the same Pope, euen to his Banishment for the same Cause. Yet in the end he is glad (for Vnions sake) to yield vnto the former Decree of the Councel. So They, who in their Annotations conceale that, which the Text expressely deliuereth; a 1.380 We condemne (say they) all that haue defended Tria Capitula. But Vigilius (say you) had before this Councell defended those, Tria Capitula. Therefore was your Pope also condemned by this Councell.

Behold now, forsooth, your Romane Faith! Behold your Monarch! Behold his Dominion! Behold the necessary Subiecti∣on

of his Subiects! If it be called Dominion to Command, and be glad to yeeld: or accounted Subiection of that Councell, to prescribe Decrees against the sentence of your Pope: or estee∣med Faith of your Article of Necessary subiection to the Ro∣mane Church, vpon losse of Saluation, to persist in dissenting from the Pope, and his Apostolicall See in this whole Cause; and not thus onely, but in condemning him also. It must there∣fore follow, that these 165 Bishops of this Generall Councell, and the Catholike Church in them, not onely in not beleeuing this Article, but also in withstanding it, were damned; or el••e that your Article, and the defenders thereof are iustly dam∣nable.

Consider, we pray you, in what a snare of Heresie and Blasphemie you are intangled, seeing that you cannot but see, that your owne Article, viz. The Catholike Romane Church, without subiection whereunto there is no saluation, is Contradi∣cted by the truely Catholike Church it selfe, in her purer and more primitiue age of the first 500 yeeres: by those fiue Ge∣nerall Councels, the first fower whereof Saint Gregory him∣selfe professed b 1.381 To imbrace, as the booke•• of the Gospell: * 1.382 And the Fift (saith he) I also reuerence. Idle therefore, and vaine is your Obiection, out of that Synod, from one word c 1.383 Obedi∣ence, which they professed to the Catholike See; by not dis∣cerning betweene a Logicall and a Morall Obedience. For they promised Obedience to that See, in all her Orthodoxe and reasonable Perswasions; but not to her peremptory Com∣mands and Conclusions. For you may Obey Saint Augustine, by subscribing to his iudgement, without submitting to his Iurisdiction. If you know not this, then may * 1.384 you learne ìt; namely, that a Superior may be said to obey his Inferior, when he yeeldeth to his reasonable perswasion, As a sicke man to the Physitian.

VI. That the beleefe of the Article, viz. The Catho∣like Romane Church, without subiection where∣unto there is no saluation, doth damne all the Fa∣thers of the Sixt, Seuenth, and Eighth Coun∣cels, in your owne estimation, Generall. SECT. 7.

THese three Councels, which you call Generall, and which doe containe aboue the compasse of 300 yeeres more, giue vs iust Cause to iudge this your Romane Article to bee Imposterous. Wee instance, first, in the first Two.

The Sixt and Seuenth Councels, in the Cause of Pope Honorìus, condemning him for an Heretike.

d 1.385THe Sixt vniuersall Synod (saith your Cardinall) was in the yeere 681 (or according to others, 685) Celebrated at Constantinople by 289 Bishops. The Seuenth Vniuersall Councell was held at Nice, in the yeere 781, wherin were 350 Bishops. So he. Well, in both these was Honorius Pope of Rome condemned for an Heretike. How will you free your Pope from being a Monothelite? Namely, e 1.386 The Fathers of both these Generall Councels (say you) were deceiued, as they might easily be in a matter of Fact (to iudge whether Honorius were a Monothelite) not in a matter of Faith. So your Cardinall. Is it a matter of Fact then? and were these Fathers deceiued therein? Who can say so? Why, Cardinall Bellarmine doth affirme it. Good God! The rare modestie of this man, who wil haue vs to beleeue, that one Bellarmine, liuing now a 1000 yeeres since that matter was in agitation, should iudge better by his Coniectures of the Circumstances of a matter of Fact, than could 639 Bishops (for so many there were in all) in their publike Synods, [iam flagrante crimine,] when-as yet the Cause was fresh, and greene, their Witnesses liuing, and all Circumstances (which are the perfect Intelligencers) visibly before their eyes.

This Condemnation of Pope Honorius by two Councels doth vndermine the Fox-hole, wherein your great Clerkes commonly lurke, by telling vs, that Popes may be Heretikes, as g 1.387 Priuate Doctors, but not in their publike Persons, as Popes. An Answer most friuolous. 1. Because those Bishops con∣demning Him in their publike Councell, did iudge him accor∣ding to his publike person. 2. Because they Condemned Hono∣rius Bishop of Rome in the same tenor, wherein (vpon the same Heresie) they condemned Sergius Bishop of Constantinople;h 1.388 A∣nathematizing them both for their Heresie of Monothelitisme.

It would much better haue become your Cardinall, to haue Confessed, in the spirit of Ingenuitie, as your Canus hath done, that i 1.389 Howsoeuer other Popes may be excused from Heresie, yet I see not (saith he) how Honorius can be vindicated and freed from this guilt, whom Psellus, Tharasius, Epiphanius, Beda; whom Adrian, and Agatho, both Popes; whom the seauenth (he might * 1.390 haue also alleaged the VI.) Generall Councell hath branded with the Note of Haeresie. So he.

CHALLENGE.

CALL this (as you do) but a matter of Fact, if you will, which caused those Councels to condemne Pope Honori∣us for an Heretike, after his death; yet doth this plainely and ineuitably tell vs, that they were of this beliefe, that the Pope of Rome may be an Heretike; and that They, who would ex∣communicate that Bishop of Rome, being dead, would not haue Communicated with him, if (persisting an Heretike) he had beene aliue; no more than they would with his fellow-Heretike, Sergius Bishop of Constantinople. And if they would denie vnion with him, certainly they would not haue acknow∣ledged spirituall Subiection vnto him. Which flatly gain-sayeth your Article of beleeuing The Catholike Romane Church and the Bishop thereof, without subiection vnto whom there is no sal∣uation, Therefore all those 639. Bishops, besides two Popes, and all their Beleeuers, must necessarily be damned, or else your Romish Article, as a most execrable Paradox, must vt∣terly be abandoned.

VII. That the Beliefe of the Article, viz. The Catholike Ro∣mane Church, without subiection whereunto there is no Saluation, damneth the Eighth Councell, which you call k 1.391 Generall, consisting of 383. Bishops, in the yeare 870. SECT. 8.

WHat was done in this fourth Synod of Constantinople, you may vnderstand from your owne Men. These Bishops (saith your Binius) condemned a Custome of the Sabboth-fast in Lent, then vsed in the Church of Rome: and thereupon made they a Canon, inhibiting the Church of Rome from keeping that Custome any longer. Their words are these: l 1.392Wee will, that this Canon be constantly obserued in the Church of Rome. Would the Church of Rome swallow and disgest such an hot morsell at this day? wee trowe not: for m 1.393 This Canon (saith your Surius) is not receiued, because it reprehen∣deth the Church of Rome; the MOTHER-CHVRCH of all other Churches. So he.

CHALLENGE.

YEa rather it condemneth your presumption, in calling the Church of Rome the CATHOLIKE MOTHER-CHVRCH aboue all others: As though a Generall Councell were not ra∣ther to be called the Catholike Church, than Shee. So then those 383. Bishops prescribe a Canon, and impose it vpon her, and thereby sufficiently disclaime all Subiection vnto her; as Any, albeit but halfe-witted, may easily discerne. Where againe wee are constrained to iudge your fore-said Article Execra∣ble, rather than to giue those 383. Bishops ouer for dam∣ned soules.

Our generall CHALLENGES, concerning the formerly cited Eight Generall Councels.

Remember by this your Article, * 1.394 The Catholike Romane Church, without subiection whereunto there is no Saluation, and

without the beliefe whereof none can be saued, are damned not onely all those, that shall oppose themselues against the Church of Rome, but also all they that do not beleeue the same, as an Article of faith. Now wee haue proued by your owne Witnesses (as by your owne eyes) that aboue 2280. Bishops, in their VIII. Generall Councels (and euery Generall Coun∣cell you call the Catholike Church) haue opposed your Arti∣cle of pretended Subiection. The first by proportioning aswell the limits of the Romane Dioces, as of other Patriarks. The second, by iudging the Romane Primacie not to stand vpon any Diuine authoritie, and setting vp a Patriarke of Constan∣tinople, contrary to the Popes will. The third, by inhibiting any Bishop whatsoeuer from Ordaining Bishops within the Isle of Cyprus. The fourth, by aduancing the Bishops of Con∣stantinople, and establishing them in equall Priuiledges with the Bishops of Rome, notwitstanding the Popes earnest opposi∣tion against it. The fift, in Condemning the Sentence of Pope Vigilius, albeit one extreamely vehement in that Cause. The Sixt and Seauenth, in condemning Pope Honorius of Heresie. And the Eighth, by imposing a Canon vpon the Church of Rome, and challenging Obedience thereunto. Any man there∣fore, although destitute of good Conscience, if but endued with common ingenuitie, will iudge and confesse that this Ar∣ticle, which thus Condemneth aboue 2280. Bishops of the first Eighth Generall Councels (whereof most were as Catholike as they were ancient and learned) together with all their Belee∣uers, for the space of aboue 540. yeares Professours of the Christian faith, is iustly to be condemned as Scandalous, Schis∣maticall, Hereticall, Blasphemous (Respectiuely) and euery way damnable.

CHAP. IX. Our fourth Argument, taken from the Examples of particular Churches Catholike, which con∣temning the Excommunication of the Bi∣shop of Rome, were notwithstanding acknowledged to be in the state of Saluation.

SECT. 1.

THree things there are, which your new Romane * 1.395 Article requireth as Necessary to Saluation of Christians throughout the World. I. Is to haue Vnion with the Church of Rome, and Head thereof. II. Because there are two kindes of Vnions (one in Equalitie, as is betweene the Members of the same Body; and another in an Inequalitie, like as is betweene the Head and the Body) your Article exacteth Vnion of sub∣iection also. The III. is the Necessitie of faith, concerning both these; as namely that euery Christian doe beleeue the truth of the Article in both, to wit, that they are indeede Ne∣cessary to Saluation. Therefore haue wee singled out Examples of ancient Churches, which you your selues note as Excommu∣nicate by the Popo; which notwithstanding all the Christian world haue held to haue beene in the state of Saluation.

Our first Instance is in the ancient Churches of Asia, which notwithstanding the Excommunication of Pope Victor, were in the state of Saluation. SECT. 2.

YOur owne Authors boastingly relate, that in the yeare 197. n 1.396 Pope Victor did excommunicate all the Easterne Churches, for not obseruing the feast of Easter vpon the Lords day: which Excommunication (say they) is not found to haue beene afterwards reuoked, or retracted; wherein notwithstan∣ding those that were auerse continued a long time. So they. A storie certainly worthy your double consideration, whereof you cannot be ignorant, it being recorded by Eusebius at large; that namely o 1.397 Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus in Asia pleaded the Cause of the Churches of Asia, against the Excommunica∣tion of Victor, in that his Epistle, whereunto the other Bishops in Asia gaue their Consent: Prouing, that their Custome, con∣trary to the Romane, was receiued from Saint Iohn, who leaned vpon our Lords brest: that it was practised by Philip the Apo∣stle, who died in Asia: that it was continued by Saint Poly∣carpus Martyr and Bishop of Smyrna; by Thraseas Bishop and Martyr; by Sagonius Bishop and Martyr: and that then Polycrates being animated by these so worthy Examples, and the vnanimous Consent of their Bishops in Asia, stood in de∣fiance with that Pope Victor, and contemned his Excommu∣nications, saying; I who haue now liued sixtie fiue yeares in the Lord, and haue had communion in the faith with all the Bre∣thren dispersed [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] throughout the world, and nothing moued with these terrors (meaning, of Ezcommuni∣cation) which are vrged against vs. Thus farre the Ecclesi∣asticall Storie, wherein appeareth this Conclusion as manifest, as if it had beene deliuered in expresse termes, viz. That a Christian may haue Communion generally with the Catholike Church else-where throughout the world, notwithstanding the Excommunication of the Pope and See of Rome: and therefore cannot the Romane Church be called the Catholike Church,

as the Head, whereunto all others ought to professe Vnion, and yeeld Subiection.

Yea, but your Question will be, whether these Asian Churches, being thus Excommunicate by the Pope of Rome, and so without the Vnion of your Church, could therefore be said to be without the state of Saluation? This is the maine point, for satisfaction whereunto, first (if you will respect the faith of those Churches) it is plaine, that they beleeued that the Excommunication of the Bishop of Rome had no further power, than to seperate them from his owne Romane Societie and Communion; but extended not to the Church Catho∣like, and Separation from it. And this will appeare to bee true by better testimonies, from the same knowne Storie it selfe, where you may read that p 1.398 This Act of Victor did not well please all other Bishops, who did greatly reproue him for troubling the peace of the Church. And, among others, Father Irenaeus, in the person of his Brethren in France, wrote Let∣ters to Pope Victor, Dehorting him from his purpose. This is enough, to proue that Pope Victor was the Schismatike, that troubled the peace of the Church: and not the Asian Bishops, whom these other holy Bishops did so far iustifie, as not to de∣serue Excommunication.

But (to appeale to your owne Consciences) shew vnto vs, in all your reading, if you can, that Polycrates and other Asi∣an Bishops, so Excommunicate by Pope Victor, were held by any other Catholike Bishops of those times, to be thereby without the state of Saluation. For this, you know, is the ve∣ry soule of your Article, viz. The Catholike Romane Church, without which there is no Saluation. Nay, but you full well know, that Contrarily Saint Hierome, in his Catalogue of Ec∣clesiasticall Writers, numbred Polycrates among those, who did aduance the Catholike faith. And againe (relating this his opposition against Victor) q 1.399 This I therefore mention (saith hee) to make knowne what was his (meaning Polycrates) Au∣thoritie. And yet againe, Reporting the behaui••ur of Irenaeus and other Bishops, in the same Case, * 1.400 These (saith hee) albe∣it they differed in opinion from the Asian Bishops, yet did they not consent to Pope Victor in the act of Excommunication. So

hee. Where, Not Consenting to the Popes Excommunicati∣on, doth plainly inferre their inward Communion with the Bishops of Asia.

CHALLENGE.

THis one Case, if there were no other, were enough to strangle your Romane faith, in that Article, viz. The Ro∣mane Church, without vnion wherewith there is no Saluation. Wherein we finde the Bishops and Churches of Asia Excom∣municated by the Romane Bishop, and so separated from the Communion of his See: and yet notwithstanding were repu∣ted still, in the Church of Christ, Catholike Bishops; and so farre in the Communion of the Church Catholike, that many godly Bishops in the Latine Church would not seuer them∣selues from their Communion. Yet Bishop Christopherson, that you might beleeue the Excommunication of Pope Victor to be of an vniuersall power & extent, translateth the Greeke sen∣tence of Eusebius thus: s 1.401 Irenaeus exhorted Pope Victor not vt∣terly to cut off so many Churches from the body of the vniuersall Church of Christ. Which Interpretation, if true, might seeme to make the Church of Rome the Catholike Church. But, as it be∣came a sworne Scribe for the Pope, he peruerts the Text, which is to be rendred thus; t 1.402 Irenaeus exhorted Pope Victor not to cut off whole Churches of God, without any mention of the Bodie of the Church: Ergò it cannot import an Excommunication from the Vniuersall bodie of the Church, but onely from the Church of Rome, as from a particular member of that vniuer∣sall, as hath beene proued.

What then may be thought of your new Article; but as of a barbarous and Antichristian Paradox, which separateth from all hope of life all the Christians of the Easterly parts of A∣sia, who u 1.403 In multitude exceeded the Christians of the Greeke, and Latine Churches. But God be thanked that, by the do∣ctrine of those Primitiue times, the Excommunication of the Romane Church made no mortall wound: for the Asian Bi∣shops esteemed no better of it than of a Brutum Fulmen.

And if you will suffer vs to bee somewhat more equally

minded to Victor Bishop of Rome, than you your selues can be, we may perswade our selues that hee did not by this his Ex∣communication intend to shew or arrogate any Iurisdiction ouer the Greeke Churches, as Pastor ouer his flocke, but onely to denie participation of brotherly Communion with them, as they might (if they had beene so forward) haue dealt with him; this being an Act of Diuision Inter Pares: which like∣wise doth conclude the no-absolute Necessitie of Vnion with the Romane Church.

Our Second Instance is in the Churches of Africke, Numidia, and Mauritania, in the dayes of Saint Cyprian by 87. Bishops in the Councell of Carthage, Anno 256. Who (notwith∣standing the Excommunication of the Pope of Rome) were euer held, by the Catholike Church, the Essentiall members thereof, and in state of Saluation. SECT. 3.

WHen the Case of Basilides and Martial was on foot, concerning Appeales from the Church of Carthage to Rome, and the Quaestion of Rebaptization of those persons, that had renounced their Haeresies, was in agitation betweene Stephen Bishop of Rome, and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage; The Church of Africke, and others of that Primitiue age, gaue so infallible testimonies of denying the Popes Catholike Iuris∣diction ouer other Churches, and of despising his (now) pre∣tended Catholike power of Excommunication, as may s••ffice for the full determination of this whole Cause, in confutation of your new Article, to wit, The Catholike Romane Church, without which there is no saluation. This Case therefore be∣ing so pertinent and pregnant, wee will proceede therein me∣thodically.

I. The full Opposition of Saint Cyprian, and other Bi∣shops, against Stephen then Bishop of Rome. SECT. 4.

SVch was the Opposition of Saint Cyprian and others a∣gainst Stephen Bishop of Rome, that euen by your owne Confessions, a 1.404 Cyprian gathered a Councell of 87. Bishops, out of Africke, Numidia, and Mauritania, which concluded contrary to the Pope and his Councell celebrated in Italy. Se∣condly, such, that b 1.405 Cyprian iudged the same Pope to erre proudly, ignorantly, and blindly. Thirdly, such, that he im∣pugned the Popes pretended power of Appeales to Rome, ac¦compting the Appellants, to wit, Basilides and Martial, c 1.406 Re∣negados, and desperate Delinquents; challenging his right of Iudicature, for the proceeding against those notoriously wic∣ked Companions, who therefore ought to be sent backe againe, (saith he) to be censured by their owne Bishop. Fourthly, such, that this Councell of Carthage did deny to any whomsoeuer the Title of d 1.407 Bishop of Bishops. Fiftly, such, that Cyprian would not acknowledge the name of POPE, per Antonoma∣siam, that is, By way of Excellency, to be proper to the Bishop of Rome, as you teach: e 1.408 Insomuch, that at the instant, when as Cyprian was to lay downe his life to Martyrdome, for the profession of the holy Faith, f 1.409 Being demanded of the Pro-Consull

(who then had charge to put him to death) saying, Art thou Hee, who shewed thy selfe POPE among the Chri∣stians? He answered I am. Which may be enough to dash that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which you appropriate vnto the Bishop of Rome, by the name of Pope. Great therefore was the Oppo∣sition of Cyprian against Stephen, namely; Bishop against Bi∣shop, Chaire against Chaire, Councell against Councell, as flat Diameter, as possibly might be.

II. That Saint Cyprian and Others were Excommu∣nicated by Pope Stephen. SECT. 5.

IT were friuolous to stand vpon presumptions, when we haue your owne Confessions. You g 1.410 grant that at the same time, when Saint Cyprian did contend with Stephen Bishop of Rome, the same Pope Excommunicated the Easterne Bi∣shops of Cappadocia, Cilicia, and Galatia, for the same cause of Rebaptization. Secondly, that th'aforesaid Pope Stephen h 1.411 did also, as much as lay in him, cast off Cyprian, insomuch that Hee would not admit vnto his speach them that were sent from Cyprian vnto him: Nor this onely, but also commanded them that were of his owne profession not to haue any peace or communion with them, nor yet to allow them so much as house∣roome, or lodging. Yea and Pope Stephen signified by writing, that no Communion was to be held with them that did rebap∣tize. Not to insist vpon the Popes lauish and reproachfull speach, in calling Cyprian a Counterfait Christ, and a deceitfull worker. All which are prooued out of the Epistle of Firmilia∣nus Bishop of Caesara in Cappadocea; which almost in euery point doth manifest the Excommunication of Saint Cyprian.

CHALLENGE.

FOR what better proofe of the Excommunication of Saint Cyprian and other Bishops of his Fraternity, than denying by writing All communion with them, that were of the same Opinion with Cyprian; and after in Act, Forbidding all com∣munion: First, by speach and conference: Secondly, by conuersa∣tion and company: Thirdly, by eating, or hospitality? Each one of these being (according to your i 1.412 owne positiue Conclu∣sions) a proper Character of that which is called The Greater Excommunication; and consequently, in your sense, a Separa∣tion from the Body of the Romane Church.

III. That Saint Cyprian held not the Excommunication of the Pope to be an•• valid Separation from the Catholike Church, or hazardous to the state of Saluation. SECT. 6.

NOne euer was more Christianly affected to the Catho∣like Church, than was Saint Cyprian, nor more firmly belieued that the Vnion with the Catholike Church is necessary to saluation, whose profession was this: k 1.413 Although a man (saith he) were slaine for the name of Christ, yet if he be without the Vnion of the Church, he cannot be crowned with Martyr∣dome after his death. Againe, this was that Father of Saint Cy¦prian, who first vttered that excellent saying, l 1.414 No man hath God for his Father, who hath not the Church for his Mother; a speech twice vsed (and that worthily) by the same Father, Saint Cyprian.

Hardly can a Protestant change three words with any of you, in Conference, concerning the Church of Rome, but you m 1.415 are ready to vsurpe, vrge, and inculcate this Sentence of Saint Cyprian, as a full Conuiction in it selfe, thereby to proue and conclude all Protestants to be therefore without God, be∣cause they acknowledge not the Church of Rome to be (accor∣ding to your now Romane Article) The Catholike Mother

Church. Which Obiection hath bene already prooued, from the generall voyce of Antiquity, and many Examples from thence, to be as farre from Truth, as Antiquity is from No∣ueltie, and plaine dealing from meere Sophistication and iugling.

But now are we to try what is the sense of this Sentence, from Saint Cyprian himselfe, the first Author thereof. The question then will be, whether by MOTHER Church, with∣out which none can haue God for a Father, he meant the Church of Rome, or not; or rather, whether he spake it not then in Opposition to the Church of Rome. The due examina∣tion hereof may be vnto vs an absolute decision of this whole. Cause, concerning the pretended Motherhood of the Church of Rome. Saint Cyprian then at the second time, when hee made vse of this speech; He hath not God for his Father, that hath not the Church for his Mother, wrote to Pompeius, in re∣prehension of Pope Stephen, for endeuouring (as n 1.416 he saith) to defend the cause of Heretikes; wherein the same Stephen threatened Excommunication against Cyprian, which occasio∣ned him to say, What meaneth our Stephen to breake out into so vengible an obstinacy?

As for the Excommunication threatened by Pope Stephen against Cyprian, and Others that were of a contrary opinion, he doth contemne it, yea and condemne it too, when, Allu∣ding (as o 1.417 your selues confesse) vnto the same Decree of the Pope, he said, None of all vs Bishops (in Africke) doth com∣pell any of his fellowes, that are contrary minded, with any tyran∣nicall terror.

Often was the Opposition of Saint Cyprian against Stephen obiected against Sainst Augustine by the Donatists, for patro∣nage of their owne opinion, who taught, that the Catholike Church, as it is Visible, consisteth onely of perfit and sanctified men: Saint Augustine so argueth with the those Donatists, as if Hee, Cyprian, and Pope Stephen had bene vnited together: but this hee did in such manner, that we may say with your Baronius, (speaking of the same contention betweene Cy∣prian and Stephen) p 1.418 Hee vsed a kind of laudable euasion, or escape, being willing to conceale their iarres. For indeed Saint

Augustine elsewhere (albeit enclinable enough to suppose that Cyprian did recant his error of Rebaptization before his death) confesseth in direct termes, that q 1.419 It is no where found, that Cyprian did euer change his opinion.

For our better satisfaction herein, we should aduise in this case rather with Firmilianus a Bishop liuing in the dayes of Saint Cyprian, than with Saint Augustine, who came some hundred and fifty yeares after. This ancient Father Firmilia∣nus, being of the same iudgement with Saint Cyprian, spea∣king of the aboue named Excommunication giuen out by Pope Stephen, concludeth not Cyprian but Pope Stephen to be the Schismatike in this contention, because The Pope here∣by (saith r 1.420 he) cutteth himselfe off from the flocke of Christ. As for Saint Cyprian, although he (notwithstanding the Excom∣munication) held for his part a Christian and brotherly affe∣ction to the Church of Rome, yet did he still persist in his con∣trary opinion; neuerthelesse so, as holding it s 1.421 vnlawfull for either side to Excommunicate the other for this question. I passe ouer your other Obiections, as a vaine presumption, and so it is t 1.422 proued to be.

CHALLENGE.

HEre againe we appeale to your owne consciences, to iudge whether Saint Cyprian, when he contended against Pope Stephen, and in a Councell both renounced his Decree, and contemned his Excommunication, and at the same time held it impossible for any to haue God to his Father, for Salua∣tion, who had not the Church to his Mother, for Direction; could possibly by Mother-Church vnderstand the Church of

Rome, by which all of his opinion were Excommunicated: except you would make Cyprian so vtterly forlorne of grace, as wilfully to damne himselfe, by an obstinate Separation from the Church of Rome. So infallible it is, that the Church of Rome, in those times, was held to be onely a Member of the Catholike Church, and not The Catholike Mother-Church it selfe.

IV. That Saint Cyprian hath bene euer since his death esteemed a blessed Saint and Martyr, notwithstan∣ding his continuall Opposition to the Pope of Rome. SECT. 7.

ALthough it could be supposed that Cyprian did recant his opinion before his death, yet would not this any way prop or support that your Romane Claime, except it might further appeare that he sought the Absolution of the Church of Rome for his error. Neither yet would this suffice, vnlesse you could proue it an Absolution of Iurisdiction, and not of Cha∣rity; euen as contrarily the Excommunication was held by Firmilianus and Cyprian, to be an Excommunication procee∣ding rather from Pride, than good discretion. Nor were this enough, for if you will make Cyprian a Saint, you are further to prooue, that he acknowledged Subiection of his Church of Carthage to the Church or Pope of Rome, in case of Appeales; in which cause Saint Augustine did take part with Saint Cy∣prian, against your Romane Church. We conclude therefore from your Confessions, that u 1.423 Cyprian was alwaies reckoned in the number of Catholikes: as also that he is still instiled x 1.424 A most glorious Martyr; yea and registred in your Romane Ca∣lendar by the Title of y 1.425 Cyprian Saint and Martyr, notwith∣standing his continuall Opposition against the Romane Church.

CHALLENGE.

THis blessed man of God Saint Cyprian, who for his ex∣ceeding learning, care, diligence, and power in preseruing the Faith of Christ and peace of his Church Did (say z 1.426 you) as witnesseth Saint Nazianzene, gouerne not onely Africke, but also the East, yea and West Churches of Christendome him∣selfe; who was so happy at his death, as that he was crowned with the glorious Diadem of Martyrdome, for his Testimony of our Lord Iesus; who was so honourable in his memory, as to be accompted, throughout the Christian world, an excel∣lent Saint of God, may be lawfully, yea laudably produced for an excellent Patron against the titular tyrannie of Popedome. Whose example, in his Opposition against the Pope of Rome, may be vnto vs as a sharpe axe, to cut off by the very necke the now vsurped Fatherhood, or Headship, and Motherhood of the Pope and Church of Rome: because (if you shall re∣member the Premisses) you may perceiue, that 〈…〉〈…〉 Oppo∣sition of Cyprian and other Churches of Christ, the Bishop of Rome, in those dayes, was not esteemed to be The Catholike or Vniuersall Pope, not The Catholike Bishop of Bishops; his Iurisdiction not to haue any Catholike or Vniuersall Right; for Appeales; his Iudgement not to be a Catholike Rule of Faith; his Church not to be The Catholike Mother-Church; his Ex∣communication not to be a Separation from the properly cal∣led Catholike Church, and much lesse a Catholike and Vni∣uersall Separation from the state of life.

So damnable is your Article of The Catholike Roman Mo∣ther-Church, without subiection whereunto (as you say) there is no Saluation; whereby with one breath you damne not one∣ly Cyprian, that glorious Saint of Christ, but also all other his Associates and Colleagues Bishops in Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania: of whom some were Martyrs, some Confessors, all Professors of the true Faith of Christ, against the persecu∣ting Infidels of those times. It would nothing now auaile you to obiect that Cyprian, in his Contention against Pope Ste∣phen, was in an Error in the Question of Rebaptization; be∣cause

euery error is not eradicant, to roote out or cut off a Member from the Bodie of the Church Catholike: else what shall we think of Pope Stephen himselfe, who was in an error, in the other Question, concerning the vsurpation of the Right of Appeales to Rome? which not onely Cyprian in his Councell of Carthage, but Augustine also, in the Councell of Africke, resolutely withstood. But what need many words? Cyprian (say * 1.427 you) was alwaies held a Catholike.

Wee adde, that if this Obiection were of force, it would much more fortifie the Cause of Protestants. For if Cyprian being Excommunicated by the Pope, for an error, was not∣withstanding still held for a Catholike, (as hath beene con∣fessed) and hath euer since bene Registred for a Saint: then doubtlesse Protestants stand much more secure, who are ex∣communicate for withstanding not onely the grosse Idolatry, but also as many Heresies of that Church of Rome, as she hath new Articles of Faith; among which this, to wit, The Catho∣like Roman Church, without Vnion whereunto there is no Sal∣uation, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not be held the least; being (as you see) so Impo∣sterous, Schismaticall, and Execrable, as euery Instance yet giuen doth manifestly conuince.

Our third Instance in the Churches of Africke, in the dayes of Saint Augustine, in two Councels fully preiudiciall to this now Article, viz. The Romane Catholike Church, without which there is no Saluation. SECT. 8.

THE first Councell was that of Mileuis, * 1.428 Anno 402. concluding against the pretended Prerogatiue of Ap∣peales to Rome. This Case is handled at large * 1.429 afterwards. The summe of all is: This Councell, wherein Saint Augustine was present, consisted of threescore Bishops, which had beene esteemed alwaies Orthodoxe in the Catholike Church; albeit that their conclusion of denying any Right of Ap∣peales from Africke, to the Church of Rome; which Iurisdi∣ction

of Appeales is held to be a principall part of the Article, viz. The Romane Catholike Church, in the Church of Rome at this day. Which one Article, consisting of foure points of Ne∣cessitie, (first, Necessity of Ʋnion with the Church of Rome; secondly, Necessity of Subiection vnto it; thirdly, Necessity of Beleefe of both the former; fourthly, Necessitie of Saluation in them All,) is now rent in pieces by that one Prohibition of that Councell, which denying any Right of Appeales from A∣fricke to Rome, did thereby deny the pretended Catholike Subiection to the Romane Chaire. Secondly, decreeing Excom∣munication against those African Priests, that should dare to Appeale to Rome, thereby they deny an absolute Necessity of Ʋnion with Rome. Thirdly, this Excommunication being to be extended against them that should Thinke it necessary to Appeale to Rome, they thereby deny Necessity of Beliefe of the Prerogatiue of Rome. And lastly, condemning this Beliefe among themselues, they thereby deny it to be an Vniuersall Right necessary to be belieued of all Others. All this is eui∣dently prooued in the place alleaged.

The second Instance in the Churches of Africke, in the daies of Saint Augustine, was the African Councell by name, against the Church of Rome, in the Case of Appeales: concerning which, for methods sake, we are to lay open, first, the Occa∣sion of Opposition betweene the Churches of Africke and Rome: secondly, the Discussion thereof: thirdly, the Separa∣tion of the Church of Afrike from Rome: fourthly, the hono∣rable estimation had of the African Bishops, as of the Saints of God, notwithstanding their not acknowledging of Subiection to the Romane Church.

I. The Occasion of the Opposition by Saint Augustine and the Africans, against the Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome, in the supreme Case of Appeales. SECT. 9.

COnsult you with your owne Chronologers, in the body of the Councels of old, and you shall find that the Case

standeth thus. One Apiarius a leud Priest, and (as you a 1.430 know) of a scandalous, flagitious, and abhominable life, being Excom∣municated by the Bishops of Africke, fleeth to Rome, and as it were taketh Sanctuary there, by Appealing to Pope Boniface then Bishop of that Sea. The Pope sought by his owne Au∣thority to haue this infamous Priest restored againe, auouch∣ing, for the ground of his Authority, the Canon of the Councell of Nice, which (as he pretended) declared the power due to the Bishop of Rome, to take hold of all Appeales made vnto the Pope, from all other Christian Churches and Prouinces, and to order matters according to his owne wisedome.

II. The Discussion of the Cause. SECT. 10.

THE Bishops of Africke, (and among them Saint Augu∣stine) hauing read the Popes Claime of Appeale, by virtue (as was alleaged) of a Canon of the Councell of Nice, fell first to demurre with themselues, suspecting that the Pope had sug∣gested a false pretence, and therefore sought first to satisfie themselues by sight of the Copies of the Councell of Nice, be∣fore they would returne the Pope any full answer; and after diligent search into all the ancient Copies, which they could finde, they yeelded this Answer to the Bishop of Rome: b 1.431 We haue read (say they) manie Copies of the Canons of Nice, both Greeke and Latine, and yet finde we among them no such Canon (for Appeales to Rome) as you alleage.

In this case of doubt it was agreed on both sides, that mes∣sengers should be sent vnto Cyrill Patriarch of Alexandria, and vnto Atticus Patriarch of Constantinople, to the end that, vpon search of their Records, they might bee certified of the Truth of this matter. These two Patriarchs send them faith∣full Transcripts, which they themselues did auouch to be c 1.432 The most true and authenticall Copies, wherein that Canon, which Three Popes, to wit, Boniface, Zozimus, and Caelestinus suc∣cessiuely had alleaged, as their onely euidence for their right of Appeales, could not be found, nor any syllable therof. Vpon this Answer of those graue Patriarchs, these Africane Bishops,

in number 217, perceiuing the falshood of the Popes Allega∣tion, and finding that no such Canon appeared in those anci∣ent Copies of the Councell of Nice, which could aduantage that their pretence of Appeales to Rome from Carthage, but ra∣ther that there was a Canon to controll it, they descended in the end to a flat and peremptory resolution. Yet before wee set downe their Conclusion, faine would we know how your Aduocates can quit and free your three Popes from forgery of a Canon of Nice. They tell vs, first, that the Two Greeke Pa∣triarchs were deceiued, by giuing credit vnto their Greeke Copies, which were d 1.433 Corrupted by Heretikes. Next, that the Popes themselues were deceiued, in alleaging the Councell of Nice instead of the Councell of Sardis, wherein (saith your e 1.434 Cardinall) The Canon was extant. And lastly that the Bi∣shops of Africke were deceiued, in not acknowleging any Gene∣rall and Catholike Councell of Sardis by name, S. Augustine affirming that f 1.435 He knew no Sardican Councell, which was not Hereticall.

I. CHALLENGE.

WHich Answer of your Cardinalls importeth thus much, to wit, that we are to belieue that two hundred and seuenteene Bishops, two Reuerend Patriarchs, and three ancient Popes erred in their ignorance of a Generall Councell of Sardis, in those daies, wherein the matter was aduisedly and exactly discussed; rather than these Two Cardinals, which are but of yesterdaies birth, in their coniecturall presumptions: which is in effect as much as to tell vs, that those Archers canot discerne so well of a true aime, who are an hundred and fifty paces distant from the marke, as they who are of a thousand and two hundred: for such was the difference betw••ene the yeeres of those ancient Fathers, and of these Cardinalls, from the time of the Councell of Nice. Which Answer wee haue else-where proued to be no solution, but a fiction rather, and meere Illusion. Yet that we may deale liberally with you, so as not onely to suppose, but (if you will) to confesse also that there was a Generall Councell called Sardican, as such your

g 1.436 Testimonies delare; and therefore to yeeld so farre to h 1.437 Ba∣ronius, and i 1.438 Binius, as to thinke, that Augustine and the A∣fricane Bishops could not be ignorant of the Sardican Councell, which Saint Augustine himselfe calleth [Plenarium vniuersae Ecclesiae Concilium,] An Vniuersall Councell: Neuerthelesse heereupon must we likewise make bold to tell you, that the Canons which you cite for your Appeales must bee iudged fictions, because else the African Bishops, with Saint Au∣gustine, could not haue answered your Pope, that k 1.439 No Synod had ordained that any might come from his Holinesse to order these matters. Nor could those Popes haue omitted the menti∣on of such a Canon, if any such had been, when now it so much stood them vpon, both for keeping themselues free from crime of forging a false Canon of the Councell of Nice, and also for aduantaging their pretended Claime of Appeales, by virtue of a Canon of Sardis. Howsoeuer, let vs proceed to that which followeth.

III. The decision and peremptory resolution of the Afri∣cans, in Opposition against the Papall Claime of Appeales. SECT. II.

FIrst 217 Bishops (Saint Augustine being a principall one) doe addresse their letters to the Pope of Rome, shewing the false-hood of the Claime of Appeales, made by your Three Popes, Zozimus, Boniface, and Celestinus; that it had no Pa∣tronage from the Councell of Nice; but rather that there was in that Councell another Canon, making much against such Appeales; by determining that Popes, being so farre remote from Africk, could not be so competent Iudges in such Cau∣ses: ^l Except (say the Africans) Some will thinke that God will inspire some One singular man with Iustice, and denie that grace to innumerable persons assembled together in one Synod. And therefore in plaine termes they desire the Pope not to ad∣mit heereafter of any such Appeale; and in conclusion they call that Papall presumption a Smoakie secular arrogancy, which (say they) we will not indure.

Furthermore, the same Councell of Africk made Two Ca∣nons, by the one as it were taking the Crowne of Pope-dome from the Head of your Bishop of Rome; by the other piercing and wounding the Papall Primacie to the very heart. For what fairer Crowne can you put vpon that Head, than the Su∣preme title of m 1.440 Monarch ouer the whole Church? or of n 1.441 Chiefe Priest, and Bishop of Bishops? wherewith you profes∣sedly adorne, and in a manner adore your Romane Pope. But these African Fathers, vpon occasion of this contention with your Popes, decreed o 1.442 That the Bishop of the Primary Sea should not bee called the Head of Bishops, or chiefe Priest, but onely the Bishop of the Primary Sea.

Secondly, what greater Prerogatiue or higher token of Monarchie could your Popes couet, than that which you challeng, as p 1.443 A matter knowne to the Catholike Church, which is, that Appeales are to bee made to Rome from all the coasts of the world: against which the same holy Bishops made this peremptory decree, viz. q 1.444 If any Priest shall thinke that hee ought to Appeale beyond the Sea, (meaning to Rome) let him not bee receiued any longer into the Communion of the Church of Africk. So they.

All that your Cardinals can say, to helpe your Popes at a dead lift, is; that the former pretended Canon of Nice insisted vpon * 1.445 was to be found in the Councell of Sardis; which Anti∣quity hath denied. And yet if that were granted, your Mo∣narchy standeth still vpon humane Authority, For that Synod of Sardis sheweth plainely, that their grant of Appeales to Iulius Pope of Rome was but vpon fauour, and not vpon duty; being not an old Custome, but a new Constitution. r 1.446 If it please you (say they) so much to honour the memory of Peter, let vs write to Iulius Bishop of Rome, &c. And againe, If you all bee pleased; whence nothing can be gathered, but that the same pretended Grant was no more than Ad placitum, and might

by the same Authority be as easily repealed. We add, that al∣beit you challenge a right that s 1.447 All causes of great moment (among which these of Appeales is a principall one) should bee Reserued to the Bishop of Rome, you notwithstanding confesse that t 1.448 In the dayes of Saint Cyprian there was no Reseruation of any such Cases in vse.

II. CHALLENGE.

HEre haue we a faire and cleare glasse, wherein any one that doth not wilfully close his eyes may see the full face of the vsurped and conunterfeit Monarchie of the Church of Rome. For in your Romane profession, your latter Popes pro∣claimed the Papall Monarchie to bee founded vpon u 1.449 Diuine Authority: Whereas your ancient Romane Popes, at the time of the African Councell, when (if euer) they were to make good, Appeales from all the parts of Christendome to Rome, their principall part of Supreme power; they themselues not∣withstanding argued not from any diuine Law, but onely from the humane decree of the Canon of Nice; which the Fa∣thers of that Councell discouered to be notoriously false. For if the then Popes had thought that they could for this Papall pre∣tension draw a sharpe two-edged sword ex iure diuino, what needed they to haue fought with this wooden dagger of hu∣mane Constitution, which, because of the false pretence there∣of, was shattered in pieces with the very drawing thereof?

IV. That the Bishops of Africk were in the state of Sal∣uation, notwihstanding either their not-Vnion with the Pope of Rome (by reason of his Excom∣munication) or of their no-Subiection vnto him, by reason of their diuers Oppositions against him.

First of their not-Vnion. SECT. 12.

IN the Bodie of your Councels there is extant the Epistle of Pope Boniface the Second, wherein about the yeere 606, the same Pope complaineth that x 1.450 Aurelius and his fellow Bishops of Africk (with whom Saint Augustine did consent) had by the instigation of Satan (for so the Epistle speaketh) beene separa∣ted from the Church of Rome, vntill that now after an hundred yeeres space Eulalius (Bishop of Carthage) acknowledging his offence, seeketh and desireth to be reconciled to the Church of Rome. Thus farre the Epistle of your Pope.

Doe you beleeue this Epistle, concerning the Excommu∣nication of the Churches of Africk? Then had you best stand aside a while, for feare of knockes: for behold there are at hand children of the Tribe of Dan, angry fellowes, that lay a∣bout them. 1. Bellarmine: y 1.451 I greatly suspect (saith he) that this Epistle is counterfeit. 2. z 1.452 It is full of fraud, saith Binius. 3. a 1.453 Which (saith Baronius) some wicked Impostor hath fained, because if this Epistle goe for currant, then must we blot out of the Table or Booke of Monuments whole Troopes and Armies of Martyrs within the Church of Africk, together suffering persecution within the space of an hundred yeeres, vnder those bloodie Vandalls, all which were crowned with Martyrdome; and in like manner must we wipe out the memory of famous and godly professors of the same time. So he.

But do you not beleeue that Epistle of Boniface to be true, and that these holy Martyrs stood so long Excommunicate, and separated from the Church of Rome? Then hearken first

to your Lindanus: b 1.454 That this Epistle is not supposititious, but true (saith he) this may be a sufficient argument, that 500 yeeres since it was held and beleeued to be true, as Antonius of Florence doth witnesse: which if it should be counterfeit, then can wee not haue confidence in the truth of any History of Antiquitie. So he.

Your Costerus and Turrian, both Iesuites, and also Ma∣ster Harding doe greatly magnifie your Popes for c 1.455 Dischar∣ging their office, in excommunicating the Bishops of Africke, and alleage this Epistle for their ground. Your Iesuite Salme∣ron, and Sanders doe confidently hold that d 1.456 All the African Bishops were seuered from the Church of Rome, from the daies of Saint Cyprian, vntill the time of the said Boniface, the Author of this Epistle.

III. CHALLENGE.

WE doubt not but you stand halfe agast, to heare the Contradictory spirits of your owne Authors, as well Cardinals as Iesuites, in a matter of so great moment: The one side (rather than the aforesaid Bishops of Africke should seeme to perish, by their Separation from the Church of Rome) will suffer all the Epistles of ancient Popes, set downe in the body of the Councels, to incurre (as Counterfeits) the suspiti∣on of forgery. The other part, rather than that one Epistle of the Pope (which so much aduanceth the authrity of the Pope∣dome in Excommunicating other Churches, and illustrateth the necesity of Vnion with the Church of Rome, vpon danger of damnation) should want Authority, care not although (as your Baronius calleth them) whole Troopes and armies of holy Martyrs and godly Confessors doe damnably perish.

But pacifie your selues, my good friends; the matte••, vp∣on

on due consideration, will not proue worth your iarring. For if (as the one part will haue it) these and all other Bishops of Africke, for the space of an hundred yeeres, were excommu∣nicate by the Pope for their Opposition against the Church of Rome; And that (as the other side is constrained to confesse) these foresaid Bishops and others made vp whole Troopes and Armies of Martyrs and holy Professors, then this intestine * 1.457 Warre among your selues hath made this peace among vs, to beleeue that the Popes Excommunication could inferre no mortall danger of Separation. Take vnto you this This Syllo∣gisme to ruminate vpon.

No true Christian Martyrs dye out of the state of Saluation. Diuers true Christian Martyrs dye out of obedience to the Romane Church.

Ergo. Diuers dying out of obedience to the Romane Church, dye not out of the state of Saluation.

Thus ought your grand Clerkes to haue framed their Ar∣gument, for the stablishing of a true Conclusion, and not by their coniecturall Opination to lay the forgerie vpon that Pa∣pall Epistle, which in truth is to be laid vpon the Papall vsurpa∣tion it selfe. Thus much concerning the no-necessitie of Vnion with the Church of Rome.

Secondly, of their no-Subiection. SECT. 13.

WHatsoeuer that Vnion was, which the Bishops of A∣fricke, and Professours among them had with rhe Church of Rome, sure wee are that by denying Appeales to Rome, they denied that Subiection, without which your Church will acknowledge no Vnion, and consequently no Saluation: except you shall imagine that the Pope of Rome, whom you intitle Monarch of the Church Catholike, and Bishop of Bishops (to whose absolute Iurisdiction you sweare e 1.458 Obedience; as an Article of Faith, without which none can be saued) would ac∣cept it as a matter of Subiection for Protestants, with Saint Augustine and those other African Bishops, to deny that any ought to be called Bishop of Bishops; and not to yeeld to his

demands in point of Iurisdiction, vpon any pretence of Diuine Law, but to exact of him proofe by a Canon of an ancient Councell; to gain-say his challenge of Right of Appeales to Rome from remote Nations, calling this A smoakie secular pride; to inhibit their Clergie from Appealing to the Romane See, and to denounce Excommunication against them, if they should transgresse in that Case.

IV. CHALLENGE.

WHerefore if any (as some of your Church haue beene) shall be so impudent as to adiudge these Bishops and Professors in the Churches of Africke (which is a part of the world, f 1.459 Thrice as great as Europe) to haue beene without the state of saluation, we can say no lesse, than that which your Cardinall Baronius hath already put in our mouthes, to wit, * 1.460 Then must we blot out of the Table and bookes of Monuments whole Troopes and Armies of Martyrs, within the Church of Africke, for the space of an Hundred yeares (wee might haue said many more) suffering persecution for the faith of Christ: and in like manner must wee wipe out the memorie of famous and godly Professors of the same time. This Collection you must grant to be infallibly true; which doth as iustly and irrefraga∣bly teach vs that your Papall-Article, which seuereth all from Saluation, that professe not Subiection to the Pope and Church of Rome, is New, False, Scandalous, and Schismaticall; for which Article whosoeuer shall dye, may be indeed called the Popes Martyr, but no waies the Martyr of Christ. You may not forget the Councell of Mileuis, and the Threescore vniuersally reputed Orthodox Bishops therein, denouncing Ex∣communication against all African Priests, which should so much as hold it lawfull for them to Appeale to Rome. They that were thus bold to Excommunicate them that should beleeue any such Roman Iurisdiction, did plainly professe their con∣tempt of the Papall Excommunication against themselues, in such a case; and consequently their no beliefe of necessary Sub∣iection or Vnion to the Romane Chaire. Except therefore all these, so many, so learned and Orthodox, so godly and con∣stant

professors of Christ Iesus were damned, this Article, The Romane Catholike Church, without subiection whereun∣to there is no Saluation, is iustly to be condemned as most false and pernicious.

Our Fourth Instance is in the Ancient Church of Britaine. SECT. 14.

MVch adoe haue you made about this your Article, viz. The Catholike Roman Mother-Church, as though the Church of Rome had this prerogatiue, aboue and before all others; which we haue proued to be a meere delusion, by ma∣ny Examples out of the Catholike and Apostolike Churches more ancient than Rome, and among others we gaue Instance in this Isle of the Church of * 1.461 Britaine: and now we proceed to the libertie of the Britane Churches.

That the Britaines and Scots, although separated anciently from the Church of Rome, were notwithstanding ac∣counted truely Religious, and holy men. First of their Separation. SECT. 15.

CArdinall Baronius commeth on roundly, saying, g 1.462 Both Britaines and Scots were schismatically and obstinately se∣parated from the Church of Rome. You say Schismatically, not Haeretically, for you cannot impute vnto them any errour in Faith; who (as h 1.463 One of your selues hath written) Did not differ from the Church of Rome in those dayes, but onely in mat∣ters of smaller importance. For how could they be called Hae∣retikes for following the Iewish Rite, in the obseruation of Easter, without the Iewish opinion, more than the Romanists themselues, who together with vs obserue the Feast of Pente∣cost, yet not Iewishly? for, as your i 1.464 Genebrard answereth,

Iudaei Pentecostam typicè, nos mysticè & verè celebramus. How much more Orthodoxally the Britaine Church, which followed the steps of Saint Iohns Disciples, and kept the Pasche of the Easterne Churches (whence it is, as One saith, that the name of our Easter is probably deriued) rather vpon custome, than vpon any conceit of Mysterie, much lesse in an opinion of Iewish seruitude. Yet (as your Cardinall Baronius hath true∣ly said) they were separated from the Subiection of the Church of Rome; the necessitie of which Subiection you haue since made an Article of faith.

The right Estimation that ought to be had of the aforesaid Britaine, Scottish, yea and Irish Churches, notwithstanding their Separation from Rome. SECT. 16.

BE it that these Scottish and Brittish Churches were Schis∣matikes, as you call them, because not subiect to the Ro∣mane Church, will you therefore haue no better estimation of them, than of soules separated from the Catholike and Vni∣uersall Church, and consequently depriued of Saluation? So charitable indeede is your k 1.465 Baronius in his censure against the Britanes: But l 1.466 Galfridus giueth vs better hopes of them, calling the Praelates then in Wales, in the time of Augustine the Monke, Most religious Bishops; telling vs of Two thou∣sand Monkes, vnder the Abbot Dinoth, who getting their li∣uing with their owne hands, stood out, with others, and denied subiection to the Church of Rome: of which number A thou∣sand two hundred died vnder the bloudy hands of Pagans, and were thereby (saith he) crowned with Martyrdome, and made inhabitants of the kingdome of heauen.

As for the Scots, your Baronius will plead for them, because

(saith m 1.467 hee) Although they did not celebrate the Feast of Ea∣ster at the time obserued by the Church of Rome, yet did they not keepe that Feast at the time vsed by the Iewes, and therefore were not separated from the communion of the Church of Rome. With as good reason might hee haue iustified the Britaines, who though they did celebrate Easter after the manner of the Iewes, in respect of the day; yet did they it not with the same minde and Faith of the Iewes, as thinking it necessary. But the Cardinall regardeth not what hee saith, being herein contra∣dicted by Beda, who witnesseth that the Scots were in Op∣position against Rome herein; and also contradicting him∣selfe, in that he hath already called the Scots Schismatikes. As for Bede, hee reckoneth among other Scots, the Bishop Aida∣nus, and although n 1.468 Condemning and detesting his Opposition against the Church of Rome, in the point of Celebration of Ea¦ster; yet notwithstanding he testifieth of him, that o 1.469 Hee was a mercifull Bishop, indued with the spirit of Prophecie, and famous for his miracles done after his death. So he.

You may read of the like Opposition of the Irish Bishops a∣gainst the See of Rome, about the same time, in the very same Question of Easter, in a late Treatise set out by a learned p 1.470 Ser∣uant of God, excellently verst and professed in the Mysteries of Antiquitie.

CHALLENGE.

IVstly therefore may we conclude, that no Doctrin or Article can be more Scandalous, than this, to taxe so infinite soules truely professing the Faith of Christ; nor more Schismaticall, than to hold them Schismatikes, who being vnited to the Church Catholike, were onely not subiect to the Church of Rome; nor more Damnable, than to condemne them, whom all Christians are to honour in their memories, as the holy and blessed Saints of God.

CHAP. X. Our Fifth Argument is, because that the Beliefe of this Article, viz. The Catholike Romane Church, without which there is no Salua∣tion, damneth the soules of the most anci∣ent and godly Emperours, whom Christianitie hath alwaies honoured.

SECT. 1.

LET vs in the next place ioyne the First Generall Councels together with those ancient Christian Emperours, by whose command the said Coun∣cels were gathered; so shall we fight with Two weapons, Spirituall and Temporall, yet both Christian. These, in respect of the Analogie of times, are set downe by your selues. For, concerning the q 1.471 Approued Gene∣rall Councels, you obserue that the First Generall Councell of Nice was vnder the Emperour Constantine: The Second, cal∣led the First Generall Constantinople Councell, was vnder the Emperrur Theodosius the Elder: The Third Generall Coun∣cell at Ephesus was vnder the Emperour Theodosius the Yon∣ger: The Fourth Generall Councell of Chalcedon was vnder the said Emperour Theodosius, and Martianus: The Fifth Ge∣nerall Councell, called the Second of Constantinople, was vn∣der the Emperour Iustinian. From these few wee shall easily vnderstand, what value your Article can be of in all the rest, af∣ter that we haue discussed these three points. First, what Subie∣ction

it is, that you would hold due from Emperours to your Popes and Church: Secondly, whether the same godly Em∣perors haue held themselues bound to performe such dueties: Thirdly, whether, notwithstanding their Opposition against your Tenure of Subiection, they haue not deserued the estimati∣on of Catholike Emperors in the Church of Christ, as those that stood in the state of Saluation.

The Subiestion required by you from Emperours to the Bishop of Rome. SECT. 2.

MAny words of Introduction neede not; your Conclusi∣ons are as followeth; That r 1.472 Princes, and whatsoeuer Po∣tentates are not to meddle in Ecclesiasticall affaires: They s 1.473 May not gather Councels by their owne Authoritie: They t 1.474 Ought to yeeld Prioritie of Place, especially to the Pope: And u 1.475 To professe Reuerence (this being a signe of Superioritie) and also Obedience vnto him. But how farre must this Reue∣rence extend, if you your selues may prescribe? namely (sauing your Reuerence) to the x 1.476 Kissing of the Popes feet: which in your iudgement is y 1.477 An honour, which the Pope may not re∣fuse; and which Pope Gregorie the Seuenth reckoneth in the Ninth place of those Priuileges, which he challenged as pro∣perly belonging to him as Pope of Rome. Not to insist vpon the barbarous boast, which you make of your Popes z 1.478 In not admitting of two Emperours to their presence, without an ex∣treame kinde of Submission; the one by approaching vpon his bare feet, the other by subiecting his necke vnto the Popes feet: While-as the Popes Oxe may bragge of more fauour than the first, and his Asse than the second.

Much more might be added out of the last worke of Bel¦larmin, entitled a 1.479 The Dutie of a Christian Prince, wherein

such is the spirit of that Cardinall, that whatsoeuer any exam∣ple of honour he could rake out of the ashes of Princes, Kings, or Emperours, yeelded to either Popes, Bishops, or Priests in the superlatiue excesse of their humilitie, zeale, and deuotion, that doth hee violently wrest, to make of it a Generall Rule of Office and Dutie; euen to the Dedignifying and abasing of Princes, to the yeelding of praeeminence to Bishops and infe∣rior Priests in Precedence, and going first; in Presidence and sitting aboue; yea and they exact also (very soberly, I wisse) a Prebibition and drinking before them. A Doctrine wherein that old Cardinall hath b 1.480 beene sufficiently (I hope) conuinced of extreame dotage.

The Opposition of the former Emperours, against the pretended Subiection. SECT. 3.

THe First point of their Opposition may be discerned in their Interesting themselues in Ecclesiasticall affaires. The Emperour Constantine (as Saint Augustine c 1.481 witnesseth at large) committed the Cause of Caecilian Bishop of Carthage vnto Pope Meltiades. Obserue, Ergò it was by the Emperors Commission, and not to him alone, but to him with others, who are called in that Commission, the Popes Colleagues. Secondly, Obserue, Ergo the Pope was not Monarch, or sole Actor herein: nay, after that the Pope had giuen his iudge∣ment, the same Emperor referred the same Cause, to be more diligently examined and ended, to the d 1.482 Bishops of Arles. Thirdly, Obserue; Ergo, the Iudgement of the Pope will suf∣fer an higher Appeale: for after, in the Case of Athanasius, the same Emperour chargeth all the Bishops of the Prouince of Tyre, what to doe? e 1.483 To appeare before mee (saith hee) with∣out delay, and to shew how sincerely and truely you haue giuen your iudgements. And not thus onely, but when the Cause Ecclesiasticall requireth, hee proceedeth to denounce f 1.484 punishment (by his owne Authoritie) against whomsoeuer

that shall honor the memory of those Bishops, Theognis and Eusebius. Other the like Demonstrations might be brought of Constantne his Authority in Causes Ecclesiasticall.

Of the Emperour Theodosius we reade, that he gaue to the Bishop Dioscorus Authority and Superiority of place, to mo∣derate Causes in a Councell. Can this consist (thinke you) with your pretended Subiection? No, g 1.485 He giueth (say you) that which he hath not to giue, but doth it out of Ignorance of the Canon, vsurping that Authority. Oh you are angrie! and no maruell though men fancie not that fruite, which setteth their teeth on edge: But we cannot be sparing in this kind; For Theodosius the younger, and Honorius, both Emperours, Say (as you know) that the Patriarch of Constantinople hath the same right ouer those in subiection vnder him,h 1.486 which the Pope hath ouer his. Where diuers Subiects must needs argue different Subiections; and equality of Right must as nessarily dissolue Monarchie, which can be but of One.

And Iustinian the Emperour will hardly please you, with whom you quarrell at the first hearing. He authorized, vnder his owne hand, The Code, or Bookes of Constitutions, and Pandects, for the Regulating of the Clergie, as well as of the Laity. Whereat you fret not a little. i 1.487 Herein he is (say you) iustly reprooued of many, as one inuading vpon, and intruding into the Office of diuine causes. The same Emperour taketh vpon him the Confirmation of the Election of the Bishop of Rome; and behold againe, you brand him withe the note of an k 1.488 Vsurper. Finally, in generall, you shape vs this Answer; l 1.489 These Emperours haue passed the bounds of their Authority.

You furthermore told vs of another Character of due Sub∣iection, which is the yeelding vnto the Pope the Prerogatiue of gathering Generall Councels; albeit nothing is more ob∣uious to Any, conuersant in Ecclesiasticall reading, than that which your owne Cardinall Cusanus hath confessed long since; m 1.490 The first eight generall Councels (saith he) were gathered

by Authority of Emperours, and not of Popes; insomuch that Pope Leo was glad to intreat the Emperour Theodosius the younger, for the gathering of a Councell in Italy, and could not obtaine it.

But can we forget your next Prerogatiue of Subiection, viz. the Popes Precedency, and Priority of place, aboue euen Em∣perours themselues? Surely if he had any ancient claime here∣unto, it should haue bene in that, wherein he challengeth the greatest praeeminence, to wit, in a Generall Councell: But when we aske the Question, why no one of your Popes were euer personally present in any of the first Generll Councels, (if he must be thought to be the sole Head of the Church, and he alone to haue an infallible iudgement in himselfe,) no not though they were in the same City (as was Vigilius) where the Councell was celebrated? You answer, that the reason, why the Popes would not present themselues in these Coun∣cels, was this; n 1.491 Because the Greeke Bishops, who were in those Easterne Councels, wherein also the Emperours were present, would haue preferred the Emperours in place aboue the Popes. So you. And we cannot but belieue you, and thereupon make bold to conuince your new Doctors of egregious impudency, who dare extend the height of the praeeminency of Popes a∣boue Emperours, euen in defiance as it were, of all Antiquity, and of the Consent of all those Catholike Bishops in Generall Councels.

As for your last and basest point of Subiection, of Kissing the Popes feet, it tasteth so ranckly of Luciferian pride, in the now Popes, that we thinke it an exceeding iniury to the me∣mory of holy Popes of the Primitiue times, to belieue that they could affect, or would admit such an homage and ho∣nour (a lesse than which Saint * 1.492 Peter refused, as too much) if it had bene offered vnto them. Much lesse can we be perswa∣ded, that the first Catholike Emperors (albeit otherwise most godly and humble) were knowne to performe it. If it had bene so, then would not your Massonius, when he sought to shew the Antiquity of it, send you to seeke it o 1.493 He knoweth not where: much lesse would your great Antiquary Polydore

abhor this as p 1.494 A new and naughty custome of Imperiousnesse, deuised first by the Popes themselues. But, of all others, your Bozius (one so transported with zeale towards the Pope, and this his honour, that he held it an * 1.495 Iniustice in the Pope to refuse this kind of Submission from any Christian whomsoe∣uer) will giue you the best and worst satisfaction, touching the practise of ancient Emperours; where speaking of this Ce∣remony of Kissing the Popes feet, and answering this doubt, why in those Ages all sorts of Bishops gaue greater honour vnto Kings and Emperours, than they receiued from them? q 1.496 Then (saith he) whilest that the affaires of Christianity were not as yet established, Kings and Emperours swelling with Ar∣rogancy, and as yet breathing the Pride of Gentiles, were not to be prouoked by Bishops, by denying them outward honour. Can you haue a better Answer, for confirming the Ancient practise of Emperours, in receiuing honour? or a worse satisfaction than is this his sawcy and malepart boldnesse, in blurring the estimation of those Emperours (which were first as in time, so in excellency of all virtues) with the false imputation of Pride, for receiuing Honour from all others, as an homage due to their state, and so prescribed by God, as Saint Peter and Saint Paul do both witnesse?* 1.497

The Estimation of those forenamed Christian Emperours. SECT. 4.* 1.498

MVch need not be spoken, in the commendation of the former Emperours, whom your owne r 1.499 Cardinall pro∣duceth both for Examples of Godlinesse, and Catholike Be∣liefe, and also as Monuments of Gods miraculous Protection vpon them, for their Catholike profession sake; euen Because they did heartily and sincerely cleaue vnto God. The Empe∣rours, whom he nameth, are Constantine the Great, Theodo∣sius

the elder, Honorius, Theodosius the younger, and Iusti∣nian. But the last with some detraction. Prosperous was the Emperour Iustinian (saith he) so long as he was a Catholike. Also Bozius; s 1.500 The Emperour Iustinian (saith he) was of a sound iudgement in the Doctrine of Christianity, for his first ten yeares, and was so long prosperous: but forthwith he handled two Popes (viz. Syluerius and Vigilius) so roughly, that after he was afflicted with all kind of calamities, and in the end fell into the Heresie of the Apthartodocites. How long Iustinian was both a Catholike in his Faith, and Prosperous in his af∣faires (notwithstanding his withstanding your now Romish Subiection, required of Popes of later times from their Em∣perours) we shall willingly commit to the report of your owne Cardinall, by whom you may vnderstand that the Em∣perour Iustinian began his Reigne in the yeare after Christ his Incarnation t 1.501 528: whom, vntill ten yeares after, Bozius himselfe acknowledgeth to haue bene a glorious Catholike. Within which compasse of yeares we reade, concerning Iusti∣nian, of nothing but of u 1.502 Building of Churches, conuersions of Idolaters, Constitutions against Heretiks, Edicts for the Faith, and (whereunto you haue taken such exceptions) his booke of the Code, and Paudects: wherein, because he medleth with Ecclesiasticall businesse, he hath therefore bene censured by you for an Intruder, Inuader, and Vsurper of an Authoritie superiour vnto his owne. Notwithstanding, whatsoeuer De∣crees and Constitutions Iustinian published concerning the Catholike Faith, and Ecclesiasticall discipline (if we may be∣lieue your x 1.503 Baronius) they were made by the aduise and coun∣sell of Two Bishops and Patriarkes of Constantinople.

Now are we come to the Tenth yeare of his Empire, being the 538. yeare of our Lord Christ: wherein y 1.504 Iustinian sent Pope Syluerius into Exile. Betweene which time, and his exi∣ling of Pope Vigilius, are sixteene yeares; in all which space is registred Iustinian his z 1.505 Confession of Faith, commended by Pope Vigilius, his Patronage of Antiquity, and his Sanctions

and Contestations against Heretikes. Then cometh in the a 1.506 Banishment of Vigilius, before the time of Iustinian his He∣resie, containing the space of fiue yeares, in which Interim is reported vnto vs Iustinian his b 1.507 Peace with Vigilius, his Repa∣ration of the Temple of Sophia, his Erecting a most goodly com∣munion Table, and his Discouery of treasons that were plotted against him. And now at length Iustinian falleth into an Here∣sie, which although it may be some exception to his person, yet can it be none to our Cause, who dispute from the Acts and Constitutions of Iustinian, whilest hee was a Catho∣like.

Neuerthelesse, we may not let passe the Testimonies of Such as giue vs better hope of him, than to thinke that he died an Heretike, who (by your owne Confessions) after this Empe∣rours death esteemed otherwise of him; as namely c 1.508 The Fa∣thers of the sixt Generall Councell, honouring his memory with the title of PIETIE: So Pope Gregory, accordingly calling him an Emperour of holy memory: And Agatho the Pope, accompting his name to be still Worthy of all religious reue∣rence, famous vnto all for the truth so largely dispersed by his E∣dicts throughout the world. We may conclude with your owne Spanish writer, who vpon like proofes hath concluded thus; d 1.509 It is now euident by that which hath bene said, that they are not to be hearkened vnto, who vniustly call Iustinian the Empe∣rour an Heretike. So he. If any desire to see a iust and full Confutation of all the Obiections, made against the Faith and piety of Iustinian, he may throughly satisfie himselfe by rea∣ding of two worthy e 1.510 Authors, who haue lately written both copiously and learnedly of this Subiect.

CHALLENGE.

SO many tokens of no-Subiection from so famously-pious and Catholike Emperours, in so high a degree of Vsurpa∣tion, and Inuasion (as you call it) vpon the Iurisdiction of Bi∣shops and Popes, in Gathering of Councels, in prescribing them Lawes, in Commanding their Presence, in arresting & Exiling their persons, and all this in times so ancient, and in so admi∣rably-glorious state of the Church of Christ, when so many hundreds of most learned and godly Fathers and illustrious Lights of the Church Catholike chiefly flourished, and pre∣uailed in Generall Councels, for the determining of the Do∣ctrine of Faith; All these, we say, do sufficiently exclaime a∣gainst the falshood, arrogancy, and iniquity of your Romish claime by an Article, by force whereof all the aforesaid pious and Catholike Emperours, Constantine the Great, Theodo∣sius the Elder, Theodosius the Younger, and Iustinian, with such others, must needs forfait their saluation.

Is it credible, if this your Article, viz. The Catholike Ro∣mane Church and Pope, without Subiection whereunto, and be∣liefe of the same Subiection, there is no Saluation, had bene then of Faith, that no one of all those Catholike Bishops would haue Catechized their godly Disciples, and taught them not to Inuade and Intrude vpon the Pope his Iurisdi∣ction? Or that no Meltiades, no Iulius, no Liberius, nor any one of those twenty Popes, who liued within the circuit of twhose two hundred and eighteene yeares, would appeare in Generall Councels, to make claime for their right of Gathe∣ring Generall Councels, of Praesidency in the same Councels, & (if peraduenture the Emperour had bene prepossessed of the highest place) to haue Lordly commanded him, saying, Friend, here is a more honorable person than thy selfe, whose feete thou oughtest to kisse, therefore sit downe lower; and so the Empe∣rour with shame should take the lower roome? But where? where, but (according as your later Popes determined) f 1.511 Next to the Popes seate? yet with this Prouiso, That the seate where

the Emperour sittteth is to be no higher than the place, where the Pope setteth his feete.

But especially when we consider the personall Summoning, Condemning, and Banishing of your Popes by the Emperour; and no Boniface the eight, nor Gregory the seauenth, aliâs Hil∣debrand, nor Alexander the sixt, Father of Borgias, nor any one Pope, Papally inspired, to cast firebrands of Curses, to the dethroning and destroying of them: we are then in good hope that you will lessen your Faith and Beliefe of an Article so false, and pernicious.

CHAP. XI. Our sixt Argument is, because the former Article, of Necessary Subiection to the Catholike Romane Church and Pope, doth damne the First and best Popes, and most Catholike Bishops of Rome.

SVbiection is either Ecclesiasticall, or Ciuill; your Article doth require both: therefore must we enquire more dili∣gently into both.

The Popes Challenge, of the Ciuill Subiection of Princes vnto them, examined by the Examples of Ancient Popes. SECT. 1.

POpes of after ages haue challenged an absolute power g 1.512 Directly, or * 1.513 Indirectly, ouer all Se∣cular Princedome, not onely of Christian, but also of Ethnicke and heathen Emperours; as well by Corporall, as by Spirituall punishments, euen to the depriuing them of their kingdomes and liues. And that they may seeme to exact this plenitude of Authority by Diuine Law, Pope Innocent the third maketh his Papall Decree, concluding h 1.514 The Emperours to be subiect to the

Popes, because it is written, God made two Great lights, the Sunne to rule the Day, and the Moone to gouerne the Night. Vpon which Glosse the Diuines and Canonists, the Popes Parats, and Parasites conclude, that * 1.515 Euery Emperour bor∣roweth his power from the Pope, as doth the Moone her light from the Sunne, be the Emperour Christian or i 1.516 Ethnicke; and therefore is to submit himselfe to the Pope; and that k 1.517 Not by order of Charity, but by duty of Subordination and Subiection; which againe the Popes exact of them, (when they meane to dispossesse them of their kingdomes, or depriue them of their liues) from Scripture, alleaging in their Bulls, for their warrant, that saying of the Prophet, l 1.518 Behold I haue consti∣tuted thee aboue Nations and Kingdomes, to plant, and to root out, to build, and to destroy. Ier. 1. So they. Whereunto also accordeth the Decree of Pope m 1.519 Boniface the eight.

Good God! that the world should be so bewitched by them, as to accompt them Pastors of the Church, who feede their people with thornes, swords, daggers, and pistols. For what else meane these Glosses, whereby the Word of God is so notoriously prophaned, for patronizing of Rebellions, and Murders? Whereas the Text hath no other meaning, than the Propheticall Function, by Planting of Vertue, and Rooting out Vice, by Preaching, as n 1.520 Lyranus one of your Friers; and one of your best Popes o 1.521 Gregory the Great doe confesse: and heerein Saint Bernard durst condemne the Papall Glosse, as it were, to the Popes owne face, writing to Pope Eugenius in these words; p 1.522 What is there in this Text, concerning pulling vp, rooting out, and destroying, that soundeth of such pride? Wherein, vnder the figuratiue speach of rurall sweat, is expressed

the spirituall labour; wherein there is a signification of Ministration, not of Dominion. Wherefore be you (speaking to the Pope) a Prophet, but will you bee more than a Prophet? If you be wise, then you will bee content with the measure that God hath measured vnto you: whatsoeuer is more, is from euill. So that Saint; shewing thereby, that your Popes might haue proued, for their aduantage, out of that Text, rather a right to become Gardeners and Carpenters, for rooting out weeds, and destroying of buildings; than Generalls of Hoasts, for con∣quest and Subiection of Kingdomes.

Neuerthelesse, some Popes haue not beene idle, but haue put their positions in practice, deposing Kings, and Emperours, as was (say q 1.523 you) Childricke King of France by Pope Zachary; the Emperour Henry the Third, by Pope Gregory the Seuenth; the Emperour Otho the Fourth, by Innocentius the Third; and the Emperour Lodowicke the Fourth, by Pope Clemens the Sixt. And thus did Popes sport themselues with tossing the Crownes from the heads of Kings and Emperours. Now then we see the Subiection that is, by this Article, required by these latter Popes: let vs trie whether this insolency bee not condemned by the Submission of ancient Popes vnto the Emperors, of their times.

The Submission of Ancient Popes vnto Emperours as well Ethnickes, as Christians, in the Pri∣mitiue ages of the Catholike Church. First to Ethnick Emperours. SECT. 2.

IN the time of the Ethnicke Emperours, the Church Ca∣tholike Militant gaue for her Ensigne the Red-Crosse, dyed in the blood of holy Martyrs, that laid downe their liues for the profession of the Faith of Christ; among which innumerable number, we shall not enuie the praise, which you giue vnto the ancient Popes of those times, when you say,

that r 1.524 No Episcopall See brought forth so many Martyrs as the See of Rome, wherein Seuen and Twenty Popes were slaine for the worship of Christ. So you; Which wee accordingly con∣fesse, and say, Blessed be the memory of those glorious Saints and Martyrs!

But what of these Martyrs? Did they euer detract from the royalty of Heathen Kings and Emperours? Or so much as touch their heads, to set their Crownes neuer so little awry? Heaarken you (among your owne Doctors) vnto one, who s 1.525 Calleth God to witnesse, that he will say nothing that shall either directly or indirectly crosse the Decrees of the Catholike Church or Faith, nor yet preiudice any power, whether Spiri∣tuall or Temporall. So he; Signifying, that hee meant not to derogate from any iust right of eitheir Estate. Can then either side desire a more indifferent Moderator, than hee professeth himselfe to be? But what? t 1.526 From the time of Christ his pas∣sion (saith he) for the space of three hundred yeeres, although Christians then indured most grieuous torment, and calamities, yet doe wee not reade in any story that an•• of them rebelled a∣gainst their Kings; No no, for by this they then proued the Christian Religion to excell all other professions, euen by suffe∣ring constantly whatsoeuer miseries, onely for the loue of God and his worship; taking their names of Christians from him, who de∣liuered this pious doctrine of Obedience to Magistrates. So hee.

I. CHALLENGE.

NEuer shall wee denie the truth of Their Martyrdome, namely of those ancient Bishops of Rome, who (wee are assured) dyed for the same Truth, which we professe, as in o∣ther points of Religion, and diuine worship, so also most ap∣parantly for this our particular defence of not exacting Tem∣porall

Subiection of Kings and Emperours: wherein we finde a vast gulfe of difference betwixt This your, and That their Ro∣mane Faith. For they (as you haue heard) would rather bee killed, than trouble States, and violate Temporall Powers and Authorities: but your Popes, in their Bulls, proclaime that their Professors and Beleeuers ought rather to kill, and be kil∣led, than not resist. The determination of this point will bee (according to the sense of your Romane Article) a requiring, (vpon losse of saluation) a beleefe of Temporall Subiection from all Kings and Emperours, to your Popes: whereby all these 27. godly Popes, the faithfull Martyrs of Christ, are dam∣ned, who (as is testified) professed Obedience and Subiection vnto them, euen to death; Whom therefore we contrarily pro∣duce, as so many Martyrs, (that is, Witnesses by their blood) that your now Article of Subiection, in the Popish sense thereof, is iustly to be condemned; and those whom you call Martyrs, for dying in defence thereof, may bee your Popes Martyrs, but nothing lesse than the Martyrs of Christ.

A Memoriall, concerning all Christian Emperours, which haue receiued Baptisme, the badge and Cha∣racter of Christianitie. SECT. 3.

PAsse we from gazing vpon the flagge with the Red-Crosse, dyed in the blood of Martyrs, to the Ensigne with the Crosse partly bloody Red, as before, (as in the daies of Iulian the Apostate) partly Blacke, through the ignominies, which Popes and other holy Professors sustained by Emperours, whether Hereticall, or Orthodoxe; and partly white, through the peace of Emperours euery way Catholike. What will your Article, concerning Subiection, determine against all these? You distinguish them either into u 1.527 Woolues, such you call all Emperors, which of Catholikes turne either Apostates, or He∣retikes; of these you conclude, that your Pope hath power to driue them away by all meanes possible: Or else into x 1.528 Rammes, signifying such Kings and Emperours, who notwithstanding they be in profession true Catholikes, yet doe any way oppresse

or destroy the Church; of whom you determine that your Pope, As Shepheard by his power ought to compell these as fu∣rious Rammes, by all meanes conuenient. And what you hold Conuenient meanes, we * 1.529 haue learned already by your obie∣cted practises, in dispossessing of Kings & Emperors, by force of Armes, as namely these, Childericke King of France, the Em∣perour Henry the Third, the Emperour Otho the Fourth, and the Emperour Lodowicke the Fourth; not for any note of Heresie, but onely for not Subiecting themselues to the Popes Dignity and Dominion. For we are now to confute the dou∣ble presumption of your now Popes; the one is their Violence agaist Emperours, the other their not Reuerence vnto them, as vnto their Superiours; and that by the Examples of godly Pop•••• of former Ages.

I. Examples of no-Violence vsed by Ancient Popes a∣against Kings and Emperours. SECT. 4.

WE are to speake of those times, when their raigned among Christians, not onely Tygers, such as were Heathenish Tyrants, but Woolues, as Constantius and Valens, both persecuting Hertikes and Iulian the Apostate, who raised the Twelfth persecution; besides Iustinian, who (as you haue heard) dealt so hardly with your Two Popes, Syluerius, and Vigilius; to omit others of the like boldnesse, whom you may reckon among your Rammes: In which cases Pope Boniface the Eighth requireth y 1.530 Both swords, viz. Temporall and Spiri∣tuall Authority to be in his owne power, so that the Temporall be subiect to the Spirituall. As though the Churh could not pos∣sibly subsist without such a predominant power Ecclesiasticall ouer whatsoeuer Temporall Ordinance, that shall any way af∣flict her, or any of her members. We are now in a Question of Fact, and finde that as then in particular Syluerius and Vigi∣lius, both Popes, being sent into * 1.531 Banishment by the Empe∣rour Iustinian, did not make resistance, but petitioned for fa∣uour and peace; so now generally, that (as is confessed) No

Pope, in all the Succession of Peter, did z 1.532 Depose any Empe∣rour, before Pope Gregory the Seuenth, that is, not vntill a Thousand and Sixty yeeres after Christ. Wee faine would know what Answer you can make to this, to quit your latter Popes from an inexcusable Innouation, and intollerable Vsur∣pation, and Inuasion vpon the Iurisdiction of Princes, whe∣ther Ethnickes, or Christians; and of these, whether Heretikes, or Catholikes; and of these, whether Peaceable, or Turbulent and obnoxious: and the onely satisfaction your Cardinall will affoord vs is this: a 1.533 If Christians (saith he) in antient times did not depose Dioclesian (an Heathen Emperour) Iulian (an Apostate) Valens (an Heretike) and others, (meaning, Di∣sturbers of the Church, which were otherwise Catholikes) the reason was, because they wanted force and power. So h•• ••han which Answer (for we must thinke your Cardinall was greatly learned) none could be more vnconscionable; all Antiquity prouing it to be agregiously false. Tertullian and Cyprian, two ancient Fathers, being vnder the persecution of Heathen Em∣perours, doe make their Apologies in the behalfe of the Chri∣stian and Catholike Church, Tertullian thus:b 1.534 God forbid that our Christian Profession should bee reuenged by humane power, or should grieue to suffer that, whereby we are tried: albeit if we would become either secret or else open Reuengers of our owne wrongs, could we want either number or power? What Warre is there that we are not fit for, yea and ready also to vndertake, if that our Religion taught vs not rather to bee killed, than to kill, for the profession thereof? Accordingly Saint Cyprian; c 1.535 Our Professors (saith he) doe not take reuenge against vniust violence, albeit our people be more in number. Saint Ambrose was vexed vnder the hand of an Heretike and slyeth to his weapons; but wot you what? d 1.536 My prayers and teares (saith he) are my weapons; I neither may nor can make any other re∣sistance. Not (as you e 1.537 confesse) that Ambrose had not power to resist, with whom the people and greatest part of the Souldi∣ers

tooke part; but because hee would not defend himselfe by Armes.

A Case so euident, vniuersall, and indeed honorable, that your owne Authors do record it for the credit and glory of the Catholike Church, in those ages, saying that f 1.538 Christians neuer plotted against the secular gouernement, no not when they were equall in strength. g 1.539 They neuer conspired against Ty∣rants, although for multitude they might easily haue made re∣sistance; because they were commanded, (namely in Scripture) to performe Obedience. And (which is as much as can be said) h 1.540 Not one ancient Father (saith Another) nor any one Writer, albeit otherwise Orthodoxe and Catholike, for more than a thousand yeeres space, whilest yet the Church abounded in power of Armes, was euer read to teach the contrarie. So they.

II. CHALLENGE.

A Thousand yeeres space from Christ, in the whole Church Catholike, wherein no such Subiection was exacted by Popes from Emperours, is a faire time, we thinke, and a strong Argument to Challenge your Church of Heresie, in prescri∣bing to Christians a new Article of Faith, as necessary to Sal∣uation; by which you againe condemne the Faith of all the Members of the Catholike Church, as well Popes, as other Bishops, and Christian Doctors and People, who with vniuer∣sall consent beleeued and taught Obedience to Ciuill Magi∣stracie, whereas you now proclaime Armes, and open resi∣stance.

And what can you now suggest for the modesty of your Cardinall, who blushed not to say, that Christians anciently wanted force to resist all vnbeleeuing, tyrannous, and turbulent Emperors? Being so euidently confuted, as well concerning the open force which latter Popes haue maintained, as also con∣cerning

all secret violence, whereof you haue giuen vs many Examples. For as wee haue heard, touching Emperours of midle age, so haue we lately seene, in our daies, your secret pra∣ctises of* 1.541 Mischiefe against Kings and Queenes, without any open warre, by armies or troupes of enemies: If ••he practice of Assassines, and Traytors, by Dagges, Daggers, Poysons, POVVDER-PLOTS, or your Cardinalls, [Quacunque ratio∣ne] that is, [by what meanes soeuer] may make any proofe: Who if they can doe it, we haue little reason to doubt of their wills, so long as the i 1.542 Rescript of Pope Vrban the Second is in force, concerning them that shall kill Schismatikes Excommu∣nicate.

For although he command Penance to be inioyned them, because of the doubt that may be had of the sincerity of their Intentions, whether they did but double, and onely seeme to slay them vpon zeale for the Catholike Cause, when-as (perad∣uenture) they did it to satisfie their selfe-malice (which Pe∣nance it may bee shall amount to no more than comming to Rome, in the daies of Iubile, or else to visit such a next Shrine, and to say a few Aue-Marie's and Pater-noster's, in honour of such a Saint:) Yet notwithstanding doth he acquit the con∣science of euery such zealous Killer, saying, If any shall chance to kill Schismatikes whomsoeuer, that are Excommunicate, vp∣on an ardent zeale to their Catholike Mother (meaning, the Church of Rome) wee doe not iudge them to be Murthe∣rers.

Goe you now, and complaine that you are vniustly perse∣cuted or abandoned by Protestants out of seuerall Kingdomes, seeing that they are all yearely k 1.543 Excommunicate at Rome for Heretikes and Schismatiks, by the Bull of MAVNDY-THVRS∣DAY; and consequently made Obnoxious vnto the blinde de∣uotion of euery Romish bloudy Assassine, who may bee per∣swaded that he shal m••rit of God, by the slaying of those sup∣posed Schismatikes. Thus much of the No-Resistance of Anci∣ent Popes against Temporall gouernment.

II. Of the Reuerence acknowledged by holy Popes vnto Kings and Emperours, as to their Superiors. SECT. 5.

SVbiection, challenged by Popes from Emperors, as their In∣feriors, is the maine Subiect your later Popes haue insisted vpon, as a Materiall Article of Faith, euen in the point of Out∣ward Reuerence, as necessarily due vnto them, by acknowledg∣ment of a personall Subordination and Subiection vnto them. But when we looke beyond this midle Region of After-times vnto the vpper spheare of Antiquitie, we finde as great a diffe∣rence betweene your later Popes, and those Ancients, as there is betweene Vp and Downe, Then and Now, Deposing of Em∣perours, and yeelding Reuerence vnto them.

We seeke no other witnesses than your Binius and Baroni∣us, against whom we are sure you will take no exception: In whom we finde Pope Liberius the First professing l 1.544 Patience in suffering indignities from the Emperour, and intreating for mercie: Pope Simplicius the First promising m 1.545 Continuall Re∣uerence to Christian Princes, and supplicating the Emperour for fauour, by this Legat: Pope Leo the First making by the Em∣presse a supplication to the Emperour, n 1.546 To command a Synod to be celebrated in Italy, and yet he could not obtaine it: Pope Gelasius the First confessing that o 1.547 Bishops are to obey the Lawes of Emperours: Pope Hormisda the First taking notice of the Emperors p 1.548 Command, of gathering a Councell, as a mo∣tion from God; and further acknowledging that hee had recei∣ued warning, and that he ought to be present thereat: Pope Vi∣gilius the First q 1.549 banished by the Emperour, and suing for peace and fauour: Pope Pelagius the First confessing and saying, r 1.550 Holy Scripture commandeth vs to be subiect vnto Kings: Pope Gregorie the First auowing himselfe to the Emperour, in these

words; s 1.551 As for mee, I performe obedience vnto your Com∣mands, whereunto I am subiect: Pope Martyn the First pray∣ing the Emperour to t 1.552 Vouchsafe to read his letters: Pope A∣gatho the First talking of u 1.553 the bending of the knees of his minde vnto the Emperour, by Supplicating his Clemencie for Others. Finally, Pope Adrian the First, Deuoting himselfe to the Em∣perour by Letters, as one in supplication, x 1.554 Fallen downe pro∣strate at the soles of his feet. So your First Popes.

When we earnestly sought for some, though but shadow of excuse, of these Popes, for betraying their right of Dominion and Soueraigntie ouer Kings and Emperours (if any had bin due vnto themselues, as is now challenged by your Popes) at length wee light vpon your Bozius, who would gladly say something, but alas! yeeldeth not so much as we haue sought for, a shadow of excuse; and yet whatsoeuer it is, hee after his manner cannot deliuer it without much insultation. y 1.555 If any Obiect (saith hee) that excellent honours haue sometimes beene yeelded of Popes, vnto Kings and Emperours, hee speaketh ab∣surdly; because these might and ought then to be performed in those dayes, when Heathens were ignorant of the dignitie of the Church, and were then by honour and dishonour to be won by Bi∣shops to the Faith. So he.

III. CHALLENGE.

IS it then absurd to obiect the Reuerence performed by an∣cient Popes, vnto Emperours of their times? is not rather the Answer, now made, fraught with many absurdities? First, because we haue not insisted onely vpon Examples of Heathe∣nish times, but of the times of Christian Emperors also. Second∣ly, because the Times, whereof wee haue alleaged examples, were not such, wherein the dignitie of the Church of Rome was so ecclipsed & obscured, that it could not appeare to Infi∣dels, but contained the Ages from the persecuting Emperours,

for the space of 420. yeares down-ward: within which time the Church of Rome was in her perfectest luster; concerning which time the same Bozius propoundeth (such is his mode∣stie) the z 1.556 Reuerence giuen by Emperours vnto the Bishops of the Church of Rome to be a note of the true Church. Thirdly, hu∣mility of Popes, and Subiecting themselues to the Emperours, was then a Motiue and Argument of drawing soules to the Romane Church: how then shall not their after-Pride bee a meanes to alienate the hearts of Christians from it? Doth the same Tree bring forth Figges and Thistles? But lastly, and prin∣cipally, because your Bozius hath altogether forgotten his Catechisme, and the Article whereunto hee and you are both sworne, namely, * 1.557 The Church of Rome and Bish••p thereof, without subiection whereunto (according to your Faith) there is no saluation; nor can any be saued that doth not beleeue the truth of this Article. If therefore those ancient Popes beliefe had bin of a Subiection due vnto them from Emperours, in such Causes, wherein they by their practise of Humilitie, Reue∣rence, and Obedience denyed all such Right; then should their Fact haue betrayed their Faith: a faithlesnesse which wee (you will pardon vs) dare not impute vnto those holy an∣cient Popes.

In all these Instances you may obserue, that wee haue allea∣ged onely such Popes, who were the FIRST of their owne name, because we would not be found superfluous: yet these First, because they must be so much the more aduantagious, to warrant our Conclusion, to wit; that either must your Arti∣cle of beleeuing such a Necessitie of Subiection damne so many, and (in your owne iudgements) excellently godly and learned Popes of Ancient times; or else must their profession con∣demne your Article of Noueltie, and you consequently of Hae∣resie, in beleeuing a Doctrine so Imposterous, Scandalous, Schismaticall, and so manifoldly Blasphemous, against so holy Emperours and Popes.

CHAP. XII. Our Seauenth Argument is, because this Article, The Catholike Romane Church, without beliefe whereof there is no Saluation, damneth the most learned Saints and Martyrs, that are placed in the Romane Ca∣lendar for Saints or Martyrs of Christs Church.

First from Saint Polycarpus. SECT. 1.

POlycarpus Bishop of Smyrna is Registred a Saint in your Roman a 1.558 Calendar; and indeede he was an excellent Saint, of whom Ecclesiasticall Hi∣storie (you b 1.559 know) giueth so notable a Testi∣monie, as shewing that hee was the Disciple of Iohn the Euangelist; who being now brought to Martyrdome, by the Proconsull his persecutor, and being moued to sweare Heathenishly, By Caesar, answered saying; I AM A CHRI∣STIAN: being then threatned to be cast into the fire, said; This fire now flameth, and will shortly be extinguished, but there is an eternall fire prepared for the torment of the wicked, which thou artignorant of: being burnt in the fire, he yeelded a smell as fragrant as the sweetest spices: whom when the Iewes and Gentiles heard professing himselfe a Christian, they cried out in their wrath, saying, c 1.560This is the Doctor of Asia, this is the Father of Christians, &c. Lastly, this Polycarpus is hee, by

whose authoritie Polycrates (in the fury of Pope Victor, then Excommunicating all the Bishops of Asia, that would not ce∣lebrate Easter according to the Romane Custome) defended and iustified himselfe, saying, d 1.561 When Polycarpus came to Rome in the dayes of Anicetus Bishop of that See, and fell into dis∣pute about the time of Obseruation of the Feast of Easter, yet could not Anicetus perswade Polycarpus to alter his Custome, which he had kept with Saint Iohn and with other Apostles, with whom he himselfe had beene conuersant, and in the end both A∣nicetus and Polycarpus (notwithstanding their dispute about these Rites) did mutually communicate with each other. Thus farre the Ecclesiasticall Storie.

CHALLENGE.

BY this it appeareth that Polycarpus and Polycrates were both of the same spirit, to maintaine their old Custome of Easter, notwithstanding whatsoeuer Opposition of the Bi∣shop of Rome; because they both tooke their Resolution from the same ground, to wit, an Apostolicall Custome of their Church: so that Pope Anicetus could no more preuaile with Polycarpus, by perswasion, for Alteration thereof, than Pope Victor could ouercome Polycrates by his Excommunication. The difference then is not betweene the Two Asian Bishops, Polycarpus and Palycrates, for both had the same Resolution; the onely difference is betweene the Two Popes: viz. Anice∣tus, notwithstanding this Contrarietie, will hold Communion with Polycarpus; but Victor will needs breake out into Ex∣communication against Polycrates, and * 1.562 was freely reproued for his presumption by godly Fathers of those times.

You will say this was but a Question of Rites, and a mat∣ter of small importance; be it so, But the meaner the matter is they contended about, the mainer and more forcible is our Consequence, by good Law of Logicke; as for example: your whole claime is, that the Pope is the Bishop of Bishops, and Spirituall Monarch in the whole Christian world, and ouer Kings and Monarchs. You know that, in them, Impe∣trare est Imperare; their Couetings and desires are Commands:

If therefore Saint Polycarpus would not yeeld his consent at the much instancing of Pope Anicetus in (as wee may so call it) a trifle, in respect; it plainly argueth, that hee ought the same Pope no Canonicall Obedience, by Law of Discipline, much lesse by Doctrine of Faith, if any of the (now) new Ro∣mane Articles had beene imposed vpon him; seeing that for all the perswasion, which the Pope could vse, he kept his owne Conclusion still.

Nor is it altogether nothing, which you may obserue, that when both Iewes and Heathen cryed out vpon him, calling him in despight The Father of Christians, as though there were no Bishop in Christianitie as Monarch aboue him, he did not vtter one word in behalfe of the Pope and his Supreme Dig∣nity aboue All other Bishops: which doubtlesse hee ought to haue acknowledged, if that this kinde of Appellation were, as you teach, so proper to the Pope, as to be an e 1.563 Argument of his Primacie aboue all other Christian Bishops.

II. Saint Cyprian was Exoommunicated by Stephen Bishop of Rome, for not beleeuing the Necessitie of Vnion with him. SECT. 2.

SAint Cyprian is also one of the Saints, inrolled in your Ro∣mane Calendar,f 1.564 vnder the title of Confessor and Martyr. This witnesse you doe as vehemently Obiect, for defence of your former Romane Article, as wee doe to impugne and confute it.

Your Obiection answered.

It is an horrour to any man of iudgement to see the vio∣lence, which is offered by your Doctors vnto Saint Cyprian, by racking his sentences, and inforcing him to say, in defence of Papall Primacy, that which he neuer ment, nor yet dreamed of. For that which hee spake of his owne onely Authority a∣gainst Schismatikes, who troubled his Iurisdiction, That soun∣deth in the preoccupation of your iudgements, as though it

concerned onely the Pope of Rome: and where hee maketh One Vniuersall Bishopricke, consisting of All Bishops equal∣ly one with another, without any respect to Rome, more than to any other Church, That also ringeth in your eares the onely Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome. All which your futilily is exactly confuted by an g 1.565 Author, who will surely satisfie any confcionable Reader.

But Saint Cyprian writing to Pope Cornelius (doubtlesse a godly Bishop) among other allurements hee inserteth this; h 1.566 Perfidiousnesse (saith he) cannot haue accesse to Rome, the chaire of Peter. Ergo (saith your i 1.567 Cardinall) Cyprian affirmed that neither the Pope nor the Church of Rome could possibly erre. No Father of the Primitiue times is more vrged by you, for proofe of this Conclusion, than Saint Cyprian; no Epistle more insisted vpon, than this now cited; no words more incul∣cated, than these, which we haue alleaged, and (for wee may iustly adde thus much) no Father, no Epistle, no Sentence more egregiously abused and peruerted.

For first he speaketh not of Perfidiousnesse in Doctrine, but onely in Discipline, by the false and perfidious reports of Schis∣maticall fellowes, who being Excommunicated by Cyprian, had notwithstanding their extrauagant recourse to Rome, seeking there before Cornelius to defame and traduce all the proceedings which Cyprian had iudiciously against them.

Secondly, wee shall earnestly desire you to ponder seri∣ously the Circumstances of the whole frame of that Epistle, and then tell vs whether that Sentence were not rather spoken Rhetorically, to perswade and moue Cornelius what he should doe; than absolutely and asseuerantly, to proue what he could not but doe. For the whole endeauor of Cyprian in that same place is to admonish, incourage, and fortifie the faint & lan∣guishing heart of that Pope, and to arme him, least he should be vndermined by the cunning and Perfidiousnesse of those ir∣regular companions, as his owne words doe plainly manifest, by exhorting Cornelius k 1.568 Not to be moued with the threats and terrors that they could suggest: reasoning the point; Because (saith he) it connot consist with the power and vigor of any Chri∣stian

Bishop, to be affraid of the craftie dealings of impious men, whereas a Bishop ought to be fore-armed with confidence against the assault and force of all floods of violence whatsoeuer. So hee. No otherwise than if any of you, writing to a Captain of some Fort, and standing in danger of being surprised by some Stra∣tagem of the enemie, and reported to be somewhat amated by apprehension of feare, should reason from the experience of his former good circumspection, and valour of his men, say∣ing; Bee you of good courage, your care and resolution is knowne to all men, that no treacherie can haue accesse to your Fort. Who knoweth not, that this is that peece of Oratory, which is called of Rhetoricians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is an Admonition by way of praising insinuated, when we admonish him whom we seeme to praise; which is, by praise of his for∣mer worthinesse, to premonish him to maintaine with constan∣cie so good a Resolution.

But if you will needes haue it Prophetically spoken of the Infallabilitie of the Pope of Rome, then must you as necessari∣ly make Saint Cyprian a False Prophet, who in this Epistle commended Pope Cornelius; but in l 1.569 another Epistle doth as much condemne Pope Stephen, a Successor to Cornelius, euen for his rashnesse, in entertaining these forenamed Perfidious out-lopers; who by gadding to Rome abused his credulitie, and occasioned dissention betweene him and Pope Stephen, as hath * 1.570 bin largely declared. And we wish that Thousands of Examples of like Perfidiousnesse could not be showne, which for these last Thousand yeares haue possessed the Romane Chaire. Yet (not knowing the appetite of euery Reader, whe∣ther he may haue a desire to know if there were any the like Example in Antiquitie) wee instance in that, which your Car∣dinall Baronius hath related. Saint Basil (saith m 1.571 hee) writing to Damasus Bishop of Rome, doth wish him to take heede, least he bring that mischiefe vpon the Easterne Church, which Pope Liberius had done, by admitting of Eustathius and his fellowes, being Heretikes, but craftily pretending themselues to beleeue the Nicene Faith.

Thus haue you a fourefold satisfaction: Pope Liberius was deceiued by the Perfidiousnesse of Heretikes; Pope Damasus

was fore-warned by that Example, lest he should be likewise deceiued; Pope Stephen was circumuented by like craft; and accordingly Pope Cornelius was instantly by many Argu∣ments perswaded, by Cyprian, to beware of the like delusion by persidious Schismatikes. Ergo, the Romane Sea is no more priuiledged from the accesse of Impostors, than the Mediter∣ranean Sea is from false Pirats. You haue posed vs with the straine of the words of Saint Cyprian, and we shall reply vpon you, with his visible Acts and Deeds.

Our Opposition, from the practise and profession of Saint Cyprian.

If Saint Cyprian his reuiling of the person of Pope Stephen, if his Contradicting, in his Councell, the Popes Decrees en∣acted in his Councell, if gain-saying the Popes pretended su∣preme Title, viz. Bishop of Bishops, if Interdicting the greatest Prerogatiue of Papall Monarchy, which is Appeales to Rome, be sufficient Arguments of disclaime of Subiection to the Pope, (all which haue n 1.572 bene proued from point to point) then are we sure that Saint Cyprian did not belieue the Arti∣cle of Necessary Subiection to the Sea of Rome. If the Excom∣munication of others, who were of Saint Cyprian his opinion; if not admitting the Legats of Cyprian to his speach; if forbid∣ding all Communication with them▪ and hospitality vnto them; if despightfull words against Cyprian, as against an intollera∣ble Aduersary, may be held proofes of the Excommunication of Cyprian, by the Pope, (all which likewise haue o 1.573 bene ex∣presly declared) than are we assured, that Cyprian was (so much as lay in the Popes power) separated from the Church of Rome.

If that Cyprian had this Faith, that None hath God for his Father, which hath not the Church for his Mother; if he, not∣withstanding the same Faith, was contented to be Excommu∣nicated by the Pope, and persisted in that his Opposition (for ought that euer could appeare) euen to the giuing vp of his spirit to God, by Martyrdome (all which haue accordingly bene confessed) then may we be bold to assume that Saint Cy∣prian

was not of your Faith, to belieue that Subiection or vi∣sible Vnion with the Pope of Rome is necessary to saluation.

If lastly Saint Cyprian (as you haue said) were alwaies held to be Catholike in Faith, godly in life, glorious in his death, and euen since his death reckoned in the Calendar of Saints, then stand we secure that the Beleefe of your Article of Ne∣cessary Vnion and Subiection to the Romane Sea, is not necessa∣ry to Saluation. So that the more blessed a Saint Cyprian is, the more cursed and damnable this your Romane Article must needs be.

III. Saint Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, beleeued not the Necessity of this Romane Article concerning Vnion and Subiection to the Sea of Rome. SECT. 3.

SAint Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria must be thought to haue bene a Saint, as to all Christian Churches, so to the Church of Rome it selfe, who (as you q 1.574 know) in his greatest extremities and persecutions by Arian Heretikes, found sup∣port and refuge at Rome, by the godly Pope Iulius, the Bi∣shop of that Sea; whose Symbol or Creed, the monument of his Faith, called the ATHANASIAN CREED, not onely Rome but the whole Catholike Church doth professe: vnto whose honour r 1.575 Gregory the thirteenth (say you) built a good∣ly Church, being desirous to draw the East-Church vnto his Vnion: and whose name is Calendred for a Saint in your s 1.576 Ro∣mane Missall at this day. This is the Saint whom we pro∣pound vnto you, as one who hath taught vs, by his example, not to regard the Papall Vnion, in our iust Cause. But whe∣ther? and why did the Pope of Rome Excommunicate such a Saint?

Saint Athanasius was Excommunicated by Pope Liberius, and notwithstanding remained a Saint.

The very names of Baronius, and Bellarmine (we know)

carry such Authority with you, that they will preponderate whatsoeuer can be said against them; who ioyntly consent in this that followeth. t 1.577 Pope Liberius (say they) through the faction of Arian Heretikes, is by the Authority of Constantius the Emperour sent into banishment: By the same Hereticall Arian Bishops is Felix made Bishop, and placed in the Romane Sea. When Liberius perceiued Felix to be intruded into his Chaire, he after two yeares Banishment, enuying and grieuing hereat, doth ioyne communion with those Heretikes, and gaue consent to the condemnation of Athanasius. So they. Our Assumption will be this, that Athanasius neither before nor after the death of Felix did regard this Excommunication of Liberius.

Immediatly after this you u 1.578 esteeme Felix to be the Legi∣timate Pope, but pronounce Liberius a Schismatike, and one remooued from the societie of Catholikes, and from his Papall function. Which your Conclusions, do notably fight against your owne Principles. First this, that x 1.579 There cannot be two Popes together in one Sea, because this were as horrible a mon∣ster as a body with two heads. One Pope then must be acknow∣ledged. Your next Principle is, that y 1.580 No Pope can be depo∣sed, except he appeare to be a manifest Heretike, whereby he ceasseth, ipso facto, to be a Pope, without any other iudgement at all. Yet grant you, concerning Liberius, that z 1.581 He was a Catholike in his inward iudgement, notwithstanding his out∣ward communion with Heretikes. Your last Principle is, that a 1.582 The Pope cannot be iudged of any on earth, because he is Prince, and therefore superior vnto the whole Church Catho∣like throughout the earth. All these Premises, being reduced into a Logicall forme, will make vp our Conclusion thus:

No Catholike Bishop of Rome can be iudged, or deposed.

But Liberius, notwithstanding his consenting to the Con∣demnation of Athanasius, and Communicating with Heretikes, was a Catholike Bishop.

Ergo, He could not be iudged or deposed from his Pope∣dome.

If therefore Athanasius, being Excommunicated by Libe∣rius, neuer sought (as you all know) any Vnion either with

him, or yet with Felix, in his stead, it must follow that he, all that time, contemned his Excommunication.

After the death of Felix, (who was Pope one yeare, and some few moneths) Liberius obtaineth againe your good re∣putation, for presenly he was accompted the Legitimate Pope. Why? b 1.583 It is euident (saith your Cardinall) that Felix being dead, Liberius vnited the Church, of Rome, which was then rent and diuided into a Schisme, and became one Sheapheard of one sheepefold. So they. Where it will be as euident, that (during the time of Felix) Athanasius, if hee would haue sought Vnion with the Church of Rome, could not know where to find it, because the Catholike Church being but One Body, One Spouse, One Sheepfold, how could now the Romane Church be called the Catholike, which was (as is confessed) rent by a Schisme from it selfe?

But why stand wee wrestling with you for that, which of your owne accord you are ready to grant willingly vnto vs? c 1.584 It is a matter worthy consideration, (saith your Cardinall, and so indeed it is) to know what Liberius did after the death of Felix, about the time of the Councell of Arimine, which hap∣pened to be some two yeares after the departure of Felix. And what this is he will haue vs vnderstand from the Epistle of Li∣berius vnto Athanasius; principally thus: This is our Con∣fession (most wished Athanasius) wherein if you consent with me, I pray you euen before our Iudge God and Christ to sub∣scribe thereunto, that I may be made the more secure thereby, and readily performe your Command. So the Pope to Athana∣sius. Which Profession of Liberius (saith your Cardinall) was a solliciter for the repayring of the rent of that Communion, which had bene formerly betweene them. So he.

CHALLENGE.

IF therefore you will not regard our Inferences, yet Liberius his owne Epistle, and your Cardinall his Comment must giue light to any that shall not wilfully stupifie and blindfold himselfe, namely to discerne; That there was a breach of Com∣munion betweene Pope Liberius and Athanasius; That this continued two yeares (for so long it was betweene the death of Felix and that Councell of Arimine) whilest that Liberius was, throughout the Church of Rome, vniuersally acknow∣ledged the Ligitimate Pope; That the Seeker for this Com∣munion was not Athanasius, who had bene Excommunicate, but Liberius, who was the Excommunicator, euen now being the true Pope; That the tenor of the same Epistle is written in all submission, both of his vnderstanding to the iudgment of Athanasius, (if he should happily consent,) & also in the same behalfe to his will, whatsoeuer he should Command. If the like Epistle had bene written by Athanasius to Liberius, we know how diligently, and exactly, and with what boldnesse you would haue pressed euery syllable thereof: scarce could you examine any one word, which should not haue seemed to weigh the weight of a Pope.

We conclude; Athanasius being diuided from the Com∣munion of the Pope so long time, and not seeking to be recon∣ciled before he was sought vnto by the Pope himselfe, doth euidently shew that he belieued not at all your Article of V∣nion with the Pope of Rome, as with the Head of the Catho∣like Church, vpon Necessity of Saluation. Must we therefore iudge Athanasius therein damned? nay rather damned be this your Article, as Imposterous, Scandalous, Schismaticall, and Hereticall, whereby such a Saint should be damned, who (as your Author confesseth) was so excellent an Organ of Truth, that d 1.585 If all the commendations of ancient Fathers should be gathered together, yet were they not sufficient to set forth the conflicts which this one hath had for defence of the Faith, be∣cause no one, (I speake confidently, sayth your Lippelous) hath after the Apostles vndergone more continuall and grieuous

conflicts for the patronage of Truth, than he, whom Gregory Nazianzene therefore calleth the Eie of the world, the chiefe Captaine and Master of Priests, and the stay and pillar of Faith. So he. So admirable was his Faith and Constancy, in impug∣ning their Obiections, and induring their infinite Calumnia∣tions and persecutions.

IV. Saint Basil Bishop of Caesarea belieued not the Article of necessary Subiection to Rome. SECT. 4.

LOoke againe into your Romane Calendar, and you shall reade thus: e 1.586 Saint Basil, Bishop and Confessor. A Saint then he was, without exception, in whom you will seeme to haue some Interest, as though he would beare witnesse to the Antiquity of your Article of Vniuersall Romish Iurisdiction ouer all other Churches of Christ.

Your Obiection.

SAint Basil f 1.587 writ an Epistle to Saint Athanasius: whence (if we belieue your Cardinall) you may conclude, that Saint Basil attributed vnto the Bishop of Rome authority of vi∣siting the Churches in the East, by whom he pleased, and of ma∣king Decrees by his Authority, and disanulling Generall Coun∣cels, such as was the Councell of Arimine. So he. And why must not this be true, if you will allow your Cardinall Bellarmine to make this Greeke Father to speake what Papall Romane Language he shall impose, by his Sophisticall translation? But your Cardinall Baronius (one otherwise as partiall as any Wri∣ter euer was, and catching at euery shadow of proofe, for the aduancement of Papall Monarchy) hath made another inter∣pretation of the words of Saint Basil, which may be a iust con∣futation of your other Cardinall, from point to point. For

Bellarmine talketh of the Popes Seeing the Easterne Bishops by a Visitation of Iurisdiction; But Baronius alloweth no more than a Seeing by g 1.588 Consideration of their estate: but euery Care and Consideration of other mens estate doth not inferre a Iurisdiction ouer them. Secondly, Bellarmine will needs haue Saint Basil to desire the Popes Decree; another tenure of Papall Authority: Baronius readeth the word h 1.589 Councell or Aduise, which may agree with a Co-equall. Thirdly, Bellar∣mine interpreteth Basil, as though he yeelded to the Pope a peremptory power of Cutting off and disanulling the Acts of Generall Councels, such as was that of Arimine; Baronius saith that the motion of Basil was, they should i 1.590 Bring with them such things as had bene done (namely by some Orthodox at Arimine) which might make for the necessary solution of that Councell; which all Catholikes haue iudged Hereticall: But this argueth not an Authoritatiue power, proper to the Pope, of dissoluing of Decrees of any Generall Councell (which, for the space of sixe hundred yeares, he neuer had) but an Arbi∣trary Authority granted vnto him, by consent of the Easterne Bishops, to exercise his fatherly and graue iudgement, for the better establishing of the East-Churches, which were now rent into sixe seuerall Schismes, through the difference of sixe diuerse Heresies.

Howsoeuer, what Authority this was, we may best know from Saint Basill himselfe, who deploring the State of the East-Churches, now pestered with diuers pernitious. Here∣tikes, desireth helpe from the Bishops of the West; how? k 1.591 To comfort the afflicted and to set right and restore those that are broken. Helpe then of Confortation it was, not of Dominion. Secondly, shewing that he desireth no more helpe from the Westerne Bishops, than the Bishops of the East both ought and would requite in the like case, he calleth it l 1.592 A mutuall helpe of louing and brotherly Visitation, or Consideration. Third∣ly, his reason, why he is so importunate to haue the helpe of the Westerne Bishops, he expresseth to be this: m 1.593 Because that priuate grudges among the Bishops of the East hindered the fruit

of their doctrine; and therefore the Westerne Bishops, the farther distant they were, so much the more Authority would they haue with the people: and he addeth, that Accustomed speach is not so preualent, as that which proceedeth from Strangers, chiefly if they were such as were more specially indued with Gods grace, as you are euery where knowne to be (saith Saint Basil, speaking of the Westerne Bishops) because you haue preserued the Faith in all sincerity among you.

So Saint Basil, who would neuer haue vsed so often, so great, and sometimes indeed so crosse and thwarting reasons, to moue the Westerne Bishops to compassionate their case, and helping them for composing of such and so pernicious distra∣ctions, by reasons taken onely from Brotherly loue, Mutuall duty, and Facility of effectuating that great good, because of the Remotenesse of their dwelling; and therefore to be estee∣med persons more indifferent, because of their Constancie in preseruation of sincere Faith, and consequently beetter wit∣nesses for the ancient Truth; without any mention at all of the Prerogatiue of the Bishop of Rome as their Pope, or of their Church of Rome, as their Mother and Mistresse (as you haue pretended) if he had any beleefe of this Article. Because this one reason, taken from the Papall & Romane Iurisdiction and dominion, if it had bene a matter of Faith, had bene more perswasiue, and would haue bene more preualent than whatso∣euer hath hitherto bene mentioned by S. Basil. Besides (which will be worthy your remarking) after fowre seuerall Legati∣ons and Messages from the Greeke Church deliuered vnto the Bishops of the Latine Church for their help, the Greekes (as n 1.594 Baronius is perswaded) neuer receiued any Answer.

Now therefore consult with your best iudgments, whether the Church of Rome and her Chiefe Bishop (whom Saint Basil more than once condemneth of o 1.595 Pride; which Pride was al∣so condemned by a Councellinp 1.596 Africke vnder Saint Cyprian, and q 1.597 another, wherein Saint Augustine was present, for intru∣ding craftily and iniustly vpon the Iurisdiction of other Chur∣ches) would in humility refuse the offer of Subiection of the whole Greeke Church: or he not haue exercised his Visitati∣on ouer them, if any such authority had beene intended by

Saint Basil. For so should Rome haue beene marked with a greater note of infamy, than was her Pride, euen her deserting of the flocke of Christ committed vnto her, and in a manner betraying the Cause of Catholikes vnto their many and most mischieuous Aduersaries, the Sects of Heretikes. But wee shall shew that Saint Basil was of a flat contrarie Faith.

Our Opposition; shewing that Saint Basil did not beleeue your Article of Necessity of Subiection to the Ro∣mane Pope, or Church.

Baronius would you should know that Saint Basil hauing written diuers letters and sent many Messages vnto Pope Da∣masus, and to other Westerne Bishops, yet receiuing no An∣swer from them, in so vexatious and perilous times, when the Greeke Church seemed as a ship almost split asunder, by the continuall billowes of most pestilent Heresies; r 1.598 He thereupon fell into distrust, and (if he might so say) hatred with the Church of Rome. So he. We had rather you should heare Saint Basil expressing his owne Cordolium, and hearts-griefe: s 1.599 What helpe can we expect (saith he) from the supercilious Pride and haughtinesse of the Westerne Bishops, who neither know the truth themselues, nor yet will (Baronius negligently rendereth it, Tell) learne it? Againe, I meant to write vnto the Chiefe of them (meanig Pope Damasus) to signifie by letters, that Pride ought not to be accompted a Dignity. And againe, the same ho∣ly Father Saint Basil, speaking of the Church of Rome, (as yout 1.600know) said, I hate the Pride and arrogancie of that Church. Yea, but wee heare him call the Bishop of Rome, CHIEFE: True; but with this limitation, their Chiefe: And yet if it had beene Chiefe of all others: could this inferre a Popedome and Dominion aboue others? Then must you con∣fesse that Athanasius was more Pope than Damasus; For Ba∣sill, that calleth Damasus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, calleth Athanasius u 1.601 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (signifying, The Crowne of the Head) The chiefe of all: Wee are (saith he) to flie vnto thy integrity, as to the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the Top or Crowne of All others.

CHALLENGE.

SAint Basil Bishop of Caesarea, speaking of the Bishops of the West, saith distinctly, I meant to write vnto Their Chiefe; meaning the Pope of Rome: and addeth, saying, I hate the Pride of That Church, meaning the Church of Rome. Marke, wee pray you, Their Chiefe, and That Church; are these notes of his Subiection to the Pope or Church of Rome? Nay are they not direct demonstrations of his no-Subiection or Subordi∣nation to either of both? can you conceiue any to bee a true and loyall Subiect, who writing to others, concerning his owne King and Soueraigne, and his Soueraignty, should say, I writ to their King, and I hate the pride of that Kingdome? Yet you heare what Saint Basil writ, concerning the Pope and his Church, and notwithstanding was he ••hen a reall Member of the Catholike Church.

Nor is this all, but he hath furthermore imputed (besides the vice of Pride) Ignorance vnto them. Notwithstanding all which, Saint Basil was euen then a Saint Militant, and hath beene euer since held in God's Church a Saint Trium∣phant; who for his excellent learning, iudgement, piety, and industrie, in protecting and propagating the Catholike Truth, obtained in the Church of Christ the attribute of THE GREAT; and in the Elegie of Ephrem, to be called x 1.602 Chiefe Priest of the Lord. Which may serue as an instrument, to launce the Papall Impostume of your Romane Pope, who ne∣uer heareth of any such Adiunct ascribed vnto himselfe, but he presently swelleth with Pride, and taketh it as Appropriate to his person, as he is Successor to Saint Peter. Although therefore we denie not but that, notwithstanding this Oppo∣sition made by Saint Basil against the Romane Church, hee held Communion with the Church of Rome, both in Faith and Charity; because at that time Rome was in her integrity: Yet that Necessity of Subiection, and the Beleefe thereof, which your Article requireth of All that shall be saued, is a doctrine (as you see) abandoned by Saint Basil. We therefore choose

rather to abhorre your new Article, as Imposterous and Im∣pious, than to suffer that blessed Father to be razed out of the number of Saints.

V. Saint Hilary of Poictou did not beleeue the Romane Article, of Necessity of Vnion with the Pope of Rome. SECT. 5.

WHat and how great a Saint this Hilary Bishop of Poictou was, your Romane Church doth shew in her y 1.603 Kalendar, as it were, in her Church-Booke, wherein is Registred his name as a Prime Saint; and that worthily. For, as your Lippelous truely saith, he for his learning and Sancti∣ty was z 1.604 Admirable both in the Greeke and Latine Churches, liuing in the yeere 356, in the daies of the Emperour Constan∣tius, and of Pope Liberius. So he. Well then, wee are to en∣quire what was his iudgement concerning this Pope Liberius, and the necessity of Communion with him; This being a part of that your Article, concerning The Catholike Romane Church, to beleeue that a 1.605 In matters of Faith the iudgement of the Pope is infallible. Saint Hilary no sooner vnderstood that Pope Liberius (as your Cardinall hath confessed) had subscribed to haue communion with the Arian Heretikes, but hee made bold to Excommunicate the Pope out of his Com∣munion and fellowship, saying, b 1.606 I Anathematize thee, Li∣berius, and thy fellowes. This you will thinke was too liberal∣ly spoken, and will iudge it rather not spoken at all. But why? (I pray you) was it not alwaies lawfull for any Catholike Bi∣shop to Excommunicate any Hereticall Bishop; that is, aban∣don his fellowship and Communion? or had not Hilari∣us iust cause so to vse Liberius at this time? This is that Libe∣rius who two yeeres after Banishment for his Catholike Faith, became an Heretike c 1.607 Interpretatiuè, saith your Cardinall, that is, in the vnderstanding of men, iudging of him by his outward Act of Subscribing to the Condemnation of Saint Athanasius, and communicating with knowne Heretikes; nor so onely, but euen expressely an Heretike: If to bee d 1.608 of

opinion with Heretikes; If to bee e 1.609 made an Heretike; If to be f 1.610 ouercome, and to consent vnto Arian Heresie, may be Testi∣monies of an expresse Heretike, as your owne Platina, Al∣phonsus de Castro, Cardinall Turrecremata, and (out of the words of Saint Hierome) Cardinall Cusanus haue confessed. Which was the very cause that moued Saint Hilary also to bid the same Pope Auant! else could hee not haue complai∣ned of the Hereticall Emperour Constantius, for releasing of the same Liberius out of Banishment, (namely vpon such con∣ditions as that Emperour inioyned the said Pope) saying, g 1.611 I know not (O Emperour) whether thou hast shewed more im∣piety in Banishing of Liberius, or in releasing him from his Ba∣nishment. What other sense could this haue, than that Liberi∣us was now as full an Heretike in his Releasement, as he had beene before a Catholike in his Banishment.

CHALLENGE.

SCanne you this matter a right, and then you must confesse that the Faith of Saint Hilary was to beleeue, that a Pope might become an Heretike in his Publike person, as (for ex∣ample) Pope Liberius did, by his publike Subscribing vnto He∣resie; and that therefore no Christian is bound to haue further Vnion of Faith with any Pope, than a Pope doth stand in the Vnion of the true and Catholike Faith. Which beeing the beleefe of all Protestants, and the Cause of dis-Vnion from the Pope of Rome at this day, is therefore censured by you, as a note of Heresie in it selfe, and (as you thinke) a sufficient cause of Separation from all hope of Saluation. As though Saint Hi∣lary, a Father of the same profession, were no more to be estee∣med a Saint. But a Saint you acknowledge him to be: know then, that he who abandoned the Popes Vnion, would neuer haue submitted to his Dominion.

VI. Saint Hierome beleeued not the now Romane Arti∣cle, concerning the Necessity of Subiection to the Romane Church, and Bishop thereof. SECT. 6.

SAint Hierom, whom the Church of Rome hath dignified and honoured with the place of a Saint in her Calendar, vn∣der the Title of h 1.612 Confessor and Doctor of the Church, liued a∣bout the yeere of our Lord, 390, and was aboue all the Fathers that we can name of those times the most deuout childe of the Church of Rome. Neuerthelesse dare we, in the examination of this Fundamentall Article of the same, or rather the founda∣tion it selfe, referre our selues vnto the iudgement of this Saint. And we proceed, in this disquisition according to our former Method of your Obiections, and our Answer, and Reply from the same Father.

Your Obiection.

SAint Hierom writing vnto the Pope i 1.613 Damasus, acknow∣ledgeth himselfe his Sheepe, although hee was vnder the Patriarch of Antioch; nameth the same Pope Successor of Pe∣ter; professeth himselfe to haue Communion with the Chaire of Peter; mentioneth, as a reason, the Rocke whereupon the Church of Christ is built, the House, without which none may eate the Lambe, (that is, Offer Sacrifice) and the Arke of Noah, without which whosoeuer is must needs perish. So Saint Hierom. Vpon this Foundation some of yourk 1.614 Master-Builders would erect an Infallibility of the Popes Iudgement, an Vni∣uersality of his Iurisdiction, and a Necessity of Subordination to his Sea; as whereunto All other Churches are subiect: But all this by a meere fallacy, in taking the words of Saint Hie∣rom simply and absolutely, which he meant in a respectiue and restrained sense, whether you consider Damasus Bishop of Rome, or the Church of Rome it selfe.

For first You Obiect, concerning Pope Damasus, that Saint Hierom calleth himselfe his Sheepe, being notwithstan∣ding vnder the Iurisdiction of Paulinus Patriarch of Antioch: As though that he might not be held a Sheepe of the Bishop of Rome, in respect of his Baptisme, the signe and, as it were, eare-marke of Christianity, being (as l 1.615 you know) Baptized at Rome in his full age: Or as though, when the Faith of Pauli∣nus his Bishop was questionable, it were not lawfull to submit to the iudgement of another Bishop, of knowne constancie in the Truth.

Secondly, That Hierom calleth Damasus The Successor of Peter. As though euery Successor in Peters Seat had an here∣ditary Right to be Successor in Peters Faith; which contradi∣cteth the iudgement of Saint Hierom, who condemned Pope Liberius (who was as lawfull a Successor in the Seate of Peter, as was Damasus) m 1.616 for Consenting vnto Heresie.

Thirdly, That Saint Hierom addresseth himselfe to Pope Damasus alone. As though Damasus were the onely man to resolue him in all the Mysteries of Faith; whereas in other Do∣ctrines Saint Hierom ingenuously confesseth, that he trauelled to remote Countries, as Greece, to Gregory Nazianzene, whom he calleth his Master, n 1.617 Of whom (saith he) I learned to interpret the Scriptures. After that he iourneyed to Alexan∣dria in Aegypt, o 1.618 To see Didymus, that I might (saith he) con∣sult with him, touching the doubts that I had in all Scriptures. This needed not Saint Hierom to haue done, if the Oracle of all Truth had resided at Rome, and had beene personated in Damasus the Bishop of that See.

Fourthly, Yet that Saint Hierom, in this question concer∣ning the vse of the word [Hypostasis] sought satisfaction onely from Pope Damasus, and relyed onely vpon his iudgement, for the sense of the word. As though Saint Hierom did not, for his Resolution, ioyne vnto Damasus Bishop of Rome, p 1.619 Pe∣ter the Bishop of Alexandria, as depending vpon Both, and professing either to be absolued or else condemned with both. Or as though Pope Damasus, in points of Diuinity, had not more need to be instructed by Hierom, than this Saint by Pope Damasus. This were to giue Pope Damasus himselfe

the lie, who desired to haue conference with Saint Hierom, that so q 1.620 I may aske questions (saith Damasus) and Thou mayst answer, that is, (as r 1.621 Baronius confesseth) that Hierom might teach, and the Pope learne; yea, and as though (if you require the sense of this word, Hypostasis) Saint Hierom did not teach Damasus; yes, he did: So doth your Espensaeus confesse; s 1.622 Hie∣ronymus consuluit Damasum? imò consuluit Damaso. That is, He rather instructed Pope Damasus, than was instructed by him. For he told Damasus that the word [Hypostasis] might haue a double sense; the one was Catholike, to signifie Per∣sons, the other Hereticall, to signifie Essentiall nature. The not vnderstanding of which word Hypostasis, was the reason that Basil imputed Ignorance to the Church of Rome, as hath beene said. You will aske, what then was the Resolution which Saint Hierom sought from Pope Damasus, concerning the vse of that word, seeing that S. Hierom could not be ignorant of the true sence? This you may know by the Answer of Pope Damasus, which was (as your Baronius collecteth) to let Hierom vnder∣stand that t 1.623 He might lawfully communicate with Paulinus the Bishop of Antioch. So that your last error is, as though you would conclude that he that could determine what person was most like to vse the word [Hypostasis] in the Catholike sense, must therefore bee accompted the onely Competent Iudge of the Catholike sense.

Concerning the Second Subiect in this Obiection, which is the Church of Rome, we complaine of your Authors for the like Sophistry. For you obiect, for the Prerogatiue of your Church, First these words of S. Hierom; I am vnited to the Beatitude, that is, to the Chaire of Peter: As though by [Chaire] he meant the See and Bishopricke of Rome, and not the true doctrine of Faith then preached in Rome; euen as Christ spake of the * 1.624 Chaire of Moses; that is (saith Saint u 1.625 Hierom) the Law of Moses.

Secondly, But Hierom saith of this Chaire, that Christ hath built his Church vpon this Rocke. As though by [Rocke] is not meant the same doctrine of Faith, which was confessed by Saint Peter (as * 1.626 hath beene proued) and which was at that time truly and faithfully professed by Damasus, and the whole

Church of Rome: or as though, because that Rome was then faithfull, shee therefore had a priuilege neuer to turne Apo∣state; which is a pernicious Paradoxe, voide of all ground of Faith (as * 1.627 hath beene also largely declared) and which can haue no support by this sentence of Hierom, where by [Rocke] he meaneth not Rome (saith x 1.628 Erasmus) because Rome may de∣generate, but he vnderstandeth the Faith which Peter profes∣sed. Bring vs now this Faith of Saint Peter, and then chal∣lenge our Faith to beleeue you. This is the Rocke vpon which Christ (saith Hierom) built his Church. He saith not, Built the Church of Rome, but the whole Vniuersall Church. This we confesse, with Saint Hierom, to bee The House of God, without which whosoeuer eateth the Paschall Lambe is profane. This is the Arke of Noah, within which whosoeuer is not peri∣sheth, as well Romane, as Grecian, as well Bishop of Rome, as Bishop of Thessaly.

Thus many waies haue you depraued the Orthodoxe mea∣ning of Saint Hierome, by expounding that, which was spoken particularly of Damasus, and of the Church of Rome, then sound in the Faith, and applying it vnto Rome, and all the Bi∣shops of Rome, from time to time; as though * 1.629 Virgine Ieru∣salem might not at length become an Whore. Secondly, by peruerting his speach, concerning the Rocke, and Buil∣ding, that is, Faith and Church generally taken; and appro∣priating it vnto the Faith and Church of Rome at all times, and in all Causes. Which in the next place we are to shew to be diametrally opposite to the iudgement of Saint Hierom.

Saint Hierom his Opposition to the pretended Soueraignty and Infallibility of the Church and Pope of Rome.

What Saint Hierom hath taught vs to conceiue of the Pope, Clergie, and Church of Rome, we shall shew from S. Hierom himselfe, not sophistically, but plainely and truly. For when we aske you of what stature euery Pope ought to bee, for his dignity and Authority? You answer that hee can bee no lesse than a Monarch and sole Head of the Catholike Church. But Saint Hierom in the same Epistle that was obiected, speaking

to Pope Damasus, saith, y 1.630 I desire of you, my Pastor, that you would preserue your sheepe: and addeth immediately, as fol∣loweth; Put away enuie, and let the ambition of the Ro∣mane height depart from you. Your Cardinall, who vrged the former words, leapt ouer these, it may be, because they were not so much for his purpose, as they are for ours; to proue, that if Saint Hierome had beleeued the pretended Mo∣narchie of Popedome in your after Popes, hee would not thus haue twitted and taunted Damasus (otherwise an excellent godly Pope) not so much for his owne pride, as for the pride of the Romane Top, or height; namely, the ambition of his Seat. In which reprehension of Papall pride, the Councell of Carthage vnder Cyprian, the Councell of Africke in the time of Saint Augustine, Saint Basil, yea and other holy Fathers haue * 1.631 bin most frequent, when as yet the Top thereof was not so high, as hath bin the after-ambition of Popedome, by the one halfe.

Wee in the next place desire to know what you beleeue, concerning the iudgement of the Pope of Rome, in matter of Faith, and we haue heard you call it Infallible: yet did Saint Hierome note Liberius, once Pope of Rome, that * 1.632 Hee was perswaded to subscribe vnto Haeresie. Your Cardinall answereth that Liberius indeede consented vnto Haeresie, but z 1.633 Hee consented thereunto (saith he) not Expresly, but Interpretatiue∣ly, because in Fact he subscribed to the condemnation of Atha∣nasius, whom he knew to be persecuted for his Catholike Faith. As though this poore ragge were sufficient to couer that na∣kednesse. No, for you looke still vpon the Pope, as vpon the Visible Head of the Visible Church. If therefore hee Visibly communicated with Haeretikes (as hath beene confessed) and so Visibly subscribed vnto Haeresie, Interpretatiuely, that is, so that none could Interpret his Fact otherwise, than as to thinke it a plaine approbation of Haeresie; then wee are perswaded that that holy Father, who was so zealous of Gods truth, as not to indure an ambiguous word, which might any way relish of Haeresie, and condemned that Pope Liberius of an Inter∣pretatiue Haeresie, would not (if hee were aliue at this day) suffer such a Deluge of Innouations by your 20. new Ar∣ticles

of the Romane Faith, neuer so much as fancied of in his dayes.

In the next place the same Father expresseth his dislike of the Clergie of Rome, crying out vpon them in the words fol∣lowing: a 1.634 When I was in Babylon, and liued an inhabitant of that purple Whore, something I desired to chirpe, concerning the holy Ghost, and to dedicate the Worke vnto the Bishop of the same Citie: And behold, the assembly of Pharisees exclaimed vpon mee, among whom there was not any learned Scribe, but the whole faction of ignorance conspired against mee, as if I had proclaimed some Doctrinall warre and strife against them. Da∣masus, who first moued me to this worke, is asleepe in the Lord; so that the song that I could not sing in a strange Countrey, I now must murmure, and noyse among you here in Iudaea. So S. Hierome. What one of you is there (if not acquainted with the Bookes of Saint Hierome) who will not iudge these words to haue beene the Exclamation and Inuectiue of some Prote∣stant (in your opinion) Schismaticall, and a professed Aduersa∣ry to the Church of Rome? to call Rome in indignation and despight Babylon, and Land of Captiuitie; to tearme it a Purple whore, and strange land, wherein it was not lawfull To sing the Lords Song concerning the Holy Ghost: yea to bespot the whole Clergie of that Citie with the note of Ignorance: and at last (after the death of Damasus) to quit ROME, as a Land of Bondage, that he might inioy his libertie in Iudaea, a∣mong the Christian Iewes? Could this be said of a Citie pri∣uiledged with a perpetuall Residence of the Holy Ghost, and deseruing the Title of Motherhood ouer the whole Catholique Church; of the Citie of the Popes Holinesse, and of the Oracle of Truth?

Passe we from the Clergie of that Citie, and come wee to the Romane Church it selfe: there we finde a Custome of pre∣ferring Deacons, before Priests. Which Saint Hierome con∣demneth, and aduanceth the dignitie of a Presbyter: vpon which occasion he falleth into a Comparison of the Church of Rome with the whole CATHOLIKE CHVRCH, and with o∣ther Parts thereof: And comparing it with the whole Church, he saith, b 1.635 The Authoritie of the whole world is greater than of

one Citie: Meaning that the Authoritie of the Church Catho∣like is more than the Authoritie of the Church of ROME. Which (as hath bin proued from the iudgement of the Fathers in the Councell of Basil) is a perfect demonstration that the Church of ROME cannot be called The Catholike Church. And least any, by that Example and Custome of the Church of ROME, should prescribe vnto other Churches, as though (ROME being, as you call her, the Mistresse of all others) All others should subscribe to her, Saint Hierome immediately addeth; c 1.636 Why doe you obiect vnto mee (saith hee) the Custome of one Citie, and challenge that for a Law, which is done of so few (in respect) whence haughtinesse hath sprung? A plaine proofe, that your now Doctrine of making one Particular Church to be in Iurisdiction Vniuersall, is an Argument of a Sacrilegious Pride, and no sound Article of Faith.

The next Comparison is betweene the Church of Rome, & other particular Churches, in respect of the Iurisdictions of Bishops in their seuerall diocesses, according to Diuine Law: d 1.637 Wheresoeuer there shall be a Bishop (saith hee) whether it be at Rome, or at Eugubium, whether at Constantinople, or at Rhe∣gium, whether at Alexandria, or at Tanais, hee is of the same worthinesse and Priesthood. What may bee collected from hence, you may know from him, who, being most conuersant in the writings of Saint Hierome, is best able to diue into his meaning, namely, that u 1.638 Saint Hierome hereby seemeth to e∣quall all Bishops among themselues, as being equally the Suc∣cessours of the Apostles, who are therefore not to be measured by the amplitude of their Diocesse, but by the worthinesse of their deseruings. In which comparison Saint Hierome hath vsed sin∣gular art, to expresse his meaning more Emphatically. For whereas there are Three most famous Patriarchships, viz. Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria, hee parallelleth the little Bi∣shopricks, vnder the same Patriarchships, with the Patriarchall Seats, as Eugubium in Italy with Rome; Rhegium in Brutia with Constantinople in Thrace; and Tanais in Aegypt, with A∣lexandria in the same Prouince. So that whatsoeuer Iurisdicti∣on any Metropolitane, Primate, or Patriarke hath ouer other Bishops, it is from Humane Constitution, and not from Di∣uine

Law. So farre then was Saint Hierome, from making Rome the Catholike Bishoprick, that he accounted it as distinct from Eugubium, as is Constantinople from Rhegium, and A∣lexandria from Tanais.

After our Comparison of the Church of Rome with others, in the Question of Iurisdiction, we proceede, with Saint Hie∣rome, to compare her in matter of Necessary and Catholike Do∣ctrine. But tell you vs First, what is that Prerogatiue, which is included in your Article of The Catholike Romane Church, as properly belonging to the Church of Rome, as it is tearmed Catholike? Your answer is, that e 1.639 Among the Causes, which by Diuine Law are referred vnto the Pope, one is, to decree what Scriptures are Canonicall. Well then, let this bee our First Question, whether the Church of Rome, in the dayes of Saint Hierome, decreed the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrewes, to be Canonicall? And Saint Hierome saith, that f 1.640 Although formerly all other Churches in the East did account it Canoni∣call, yet it was not receiued as Canonicall in the Latine, or Ro∣mane Church. In the Second place it is inquirable, whether vpon this difference Saint Hierome will yeelde to the iudge∣ment of the East and Greeke Church, rather than of the West and Latine Church, in a Cause of so great moment? And Saint Hierome resolueth, saying; g 1.641 Although the Latine Church doth not admit of this Epistle, as Canonicall, wee notwithstanding (saith hee) doe receiue it. Say now, was Saint Hierome herein a Catholike, or not? you must needs grant he was a Catholike, seeing that since his dayes your Church a 1.642 hath decreed that E∣pistle to the Hebrewes to be held Canonicall: whence it will irresistibly follow, that Saint Hierome, who held herein with the rest of the Catholike Church, against the Church of Rome, in discerning of a part of Canonicall Scripture, did there∣by iudge the Church of Rome not to bee The Catholike Church.

Wee may see the same, concerning the Canon of Scriptures of the Old Testament, whereof your Church of Rome hath de∣creed in the last Councell of Trent, as followeth: b 1.643 If any doe not receiue as Canonicall, the booke of Hester, Daniell, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdome, Iudith, Tobias, and the Two Bookes of

Maccabees, with all their parts, as they are in the Vulgar edi∣tion, let him be Anathema, and accursed. But say now, was Saint Hierome of this Faith? did he beleeue all those Bookes, and their parts now mentioned to be Canonicall? Nay, did he not abandon them as Apocrypha, and not properly Diuine Scriptures? Yes, saith your Cardinall, i 1.644 Saint Hierome said of these, that they were not within the Canon of Scriptures: where he speaketh not of the Canon of the Iewes onely. So he, meaning that hee spake of the Canon of Christians. If therefore the Church of Rome at that time were of the opinion of Saint Hie∣rome, then doth. That ancient Church of Rome, in reiecting those Bookes as Apocrypha, condemne This (now) Romane Church, which hath Canonized them for true Scriptures. And if Saint Hierome, in iudging these Apocrypha Bookes worthy to be excluded out of the Canon of Christians, did herein dis∣sent from the Church Rome, in his dayes, then did he againe beleeue that the Church of Rome was not The Catholike and Vniuersall Christian Church.

CHALLENGE.

WHereas your Obiectors haue dealt like a sort of Trades-men, who shew not their wares but in darke lights, whereby their Chapmen are often mistaken in their Trafficke, we contrarily haue set before you the best kinde of Illustration, namely the Comparison of things ioyntly, one with another. As for Example, 1. Comparing Pope with Pope, as Damasus a true Catholike with Liberius in appa∣rance an Heretike; Wee inferre Saint Hierome his no-beliefe of Gods perpetuall Assistance, by Diuine Direction of the Pope. 2. Comparing Pope with Bishop, as Damasus with Pe∣trus Bishop of Alexandria in Aegypt, vpon whom Saint Hie∣rome ioyntly relied, in his Opposition against Heretikes: Wee inferre that Saint Hierome beleeued not a Necessity of a singu∣lar Communion with the Pope. 3. Comparing the Pope with Saint Hierome himselfe, who although hee had beene a Scribe

to the Pope, and therefore so neere to the supposed fountaine of Oracles, yet was glad to take long iournies, and spend much time to Learne the Interpretation of Scriptures from Grego∣rie of Nazianzum, and Didymus of Antioch; and not so one∣ly, but did also instruct Pope Damasus, in the knowledge of Scriptures: Wee inferre that Saint Hierome did not beleeue your now Romane Principle, which is to referre the last and sa∣fest Resolution, for vnderstanding of the k 1.645 Sense of Scriptures, to the iudgement of the Pope. 4 Comparing the Citie of Rome and his Clergie, with Palestine and hirs, and Hierome not doubting to call Rome Babylon, purple Whore, strange Land; and her Clergie Factious Ignorants; and shewing his great contentment, which hee found else-where: We inferre that Rome is not alwayes to containe that Schoole of learning, that Theatre of Sanctitie, that Temple of perfit Worship, which you vsually boast off. 5 Comparing Bishopricke with Bishop∣ricke, Saint Hierome equalling the greatest, as Rome, with the least, as Eugubium, [In honore Sacerdotij] In honour of Priest∣hood (And what Saint Hierome meaneth by Sacerdotium, who knoweth not?) Wee inferre that Saint Hierome neuer beleeued the Prae-potency of the Bishop of Rome, ouer other Bishops (which you call Popedome) to be founded vpon Di∣uine Ordinance. 6 Comparing Church with Church, as the Westerne or Latine Church, whereof Rome is a chiefest mem∣ber, with the East or Greeke Church, and all other Churches besides; and Saint Hierome forsaking the Custome and iudge∣ment of the West and Latine Church, and yeelding to the East and Greeke Churches, in a Doctrine which is the Foundation of all Fundamentall Articles, to wit, the true Canon of Scrip∣tures, both in the New Testament, and in the Old: We inferre that Saint Hierome did not beleeue either a Necessitie of all Vnion with the Romane Church in Doctrine, or yet an absolute Dominion of the Romane Church aboue all others. Whatsoe∣uer your reply be, you must either expunge your now Romane Article out of the Canon of Faith, or else raze the name of Saint Hierome out of your Calendar of Saints.

VII. Saint Ambrose beleeued not the now Romane Ar∣ticle of Necessitie of Vnion and Subiection to the Romane Church. SECT. 7.

SAint Ambrose Bishop of Milane is honored by your Memo∣riall of him in your Romane l 1.646 Calendar, but much more in his owne Bookes, and in the mindes of all Orthodox Christi∣ans, in all ages since he liued, for Confessor, and Doctor of the Church: of whom Saint Augustine could say, m 1.647 I haue had experience of his graue constancie, labours, and perils, for the Catholike Cause, which the whole Romane world doth commend and report as well as I. This Saint the more excellent hee is, the more forcible his Testimony ought to be, whether it be on your side, or on ours. We are willing first to vnderstand what you can obiect.

Your Obiection out of Saint Ambrose answered.

Your Cardinall his Argument is this: n 1.648 Ambrose calleth Pope Damasus the Rector of the whole Church: and his Brother Satyrus would not admit of a Bishop, to heare him, before he vn∣derstood that he consented with Catholike Bishops: That is (saith he) with the Church of Rome. Ergo, the Church of Rome is the Head of the Church Catholike. Wherein your Cardinall labou∣reth of the same Elench, whiles hee mistakes the words (respe∣ctiuely) spoken to one person Pope Damasus, and circumstan∣tially for one time; as if they were absolutely so ment for the persons of al Popes, at all times. Againe, if the bare Title of Re∣ctor of the Catholike Church, ascribed to Damasus, must needs argue your Pope to be Head of the Church, then must you in∣large the Catalogue of your Popes, and inrolle among them as many other. Bishops as haue receiued Titles equiualent, if not more excellent than that. For (as you your-selues well know) o 1.649 Athanasius was intitled the Propp, and Foundation of the Church: Saint Basil, the Mouth of the Church: p 1.650 Saint Na∣zianzene,

the golden Pillar and Foundation of the whole Church; and Saint Ambrose himselfe was commended by the Empe∣rour Theodosius as q 1.651 THE ONELY BISHOP, VVHOME HE KNEVV VVORTHY THE NAME OF A BISHOP. These few Parallells may serue to allay your appetite, vntill we * 1.652 shall be occasioned to satisfie you in this sort to the full. In which kinde of Ascriptions there is not any acknowledge∣ment of Authority, but a commendation of their care, and di∣ligence, iudgement, and directions in behalfe of the whole Ca∣tholike Church.

Concerning the Second, Saint Ambrose addeth a reason of his speach (wisely dissembled by your Cardinall) to wit, The Bishopricke of that Bishop was in a Region diuided into diuers Schismes by Hereticall Spirits; whereas the Church of Rome professed constantly the Catholike Faith. No maruell therefore though Satyrus aske of a Bishop, whose Faith hee suspected, whether hee beleeued as that Church did, whose Faith was knowne to be truely Catholike. As it sometimes cometh to passe in the Common-Wealth, in cases of violent ruptures into many Factions repugnant each to other, and all to the Loyall and faithfull Subiects of the King; among whom some one City, (as for Example YORK) shall bee knowne more generall than any others to professe loyaltie to their Soueraigne: if thereupon an honest man aske of a Soul∣dier, liuing in one of the factious Countries, whether he were a true Subiect, and consented with the Citizens of Yorke; would you iudge it a Politicke Inference to say, that therefore Yorke is the Head ouer all other Cities in the Kigdome? And that you may know the due proportion of this Comparison, remember, we pray you, that euen in the same age of Pope Damasus, and in the time of the same Schismes, many Greeke Bishops were as truly Catholike as was Pope Damasus, and yet were not subiect vnto his Iurisdiction, as hath beene manife∣stly proued out of Saint Basil, and is heereafter to bee more copiously; yea and Confessedly declared.

Our Opposition, from the Example of Saint Ambrose his Opposing against the Church of Rome.

Sixe hundred and seuenty yeares, after the death of Saint Ambrose, his Church of Milan was visited by Petrus Da∣mianus Legat vnto Pope Leo the ninth, assuming Iurisdiction ouer them; when the Clergie of Milan withstood the Legat, alleaging that r 1.653 The Church of Ambrose had bene alwaies free in it selfe, and neuer was subiect to the lawes of the Pope of Rome. The veines of those Clergie-men must haue bene voyd of all tincture of bloud, in making a most shamelesse Answer, if that it had bene a knowne Catholike Article then, that all Churches Christian are necessarily Subordinate vnto the Au∣thority of the Papall and Romane Iurisdiction. And why did they, in challenging their libertie, call their Bishopricke of Milan Ambrose his Church? but onely that they knew that Saint Ambrose did preserue the liberty thereof, neuer ac∣knowledging Subiection vnto the Bishop of Rome. Whereof we haue more than a presumption in the writings of Ambrose himselfe, in the Question touching Washing of the feet of In∣fants baptized; which the Church of Rome iudged to be su∣perfluous, but contrariwise Ambrose and the Church of Mi∣lan held to be necessary. The same Father, lest the Authority of that Church might preiudice their custome, pre-occupateth in this manner; f 1.654 I wish in all things (saith Ambrose) to follow the Church of Rome, but yet be it knowne, that we being Men haue sense also, in continuing this Custome, which is likewise more rightly obserued else-where.

CHALLENGE.

THis one short sentence is as a Canon full charged, to bat∣ter downe your great Bulwarke, that we may to call your Article of Papall Monarchy. For first, Ambrose speaking of his owne Church of Milan, in opposition vnto the Church of Rome, and saying, Sed tamen & Nos, &c. BVT YET VVEE,

&c. Ergò, he held not his Church of Milan to be a member subordinate to the Romane Church, as to the Head thereof. But wherein is he opposite? Tamen nos homines sensum habe∣mus; But we men haue sense: As if he had said; We in Milan hold this Ceremony necessary, They of Rome iudge it super∣fluous and ridiculous, as though we were Asses, or Blocks; but neither so, for we are men; nor so, for we haue sense, and hold that which is more rightly obserued. Ergò, Ambrose held no Necessity of inthralling his iudgment to the Pope of Rome; which is a part of your Article of Faith. And in that he saith [Cupio] I wish to follow the Church of Rome in all things, yet this [TAMEN,] or Non obstante, doth againe confirme both our former Collections; because, by calling it The Church of Rome, he maketh it no Vniuersall Church in essence; and in refusing to follow it, where he thinketh hee hath iust cause so to do, prooueth that he belieued not her iudgement to be Vniuersally and Necessarily Catholike, nor her power and Iurisdiction absolute.

The Prouerbe is, A Lyon is knowne by his claw. As well may we discerne Saint Ambrose his Faith, by this Clause; who in this one Resolution teacheth all Christian Churches to follow the Church of Rome in nothing, wherein they are perswaded (as Saint Ambrose was in this Case) that the Church of Rome hath denyed to follow the Church of Christ. Now for you to answer, that his meaning was, * 1.655 To follow the Church of Rome in all things necessary, though not in a Rite; This Answer, as it is false (for Saint Ambrose held this Rite Necessary) so it is also friuolous: because if it be iust to withstand the Church of Rome in a Rite and Ceremony (as it were, in a Mite) then how much more may it be lawfull not to follow or belieue her, in her many new Articles of Faith, whereof among other this is a Principall, to wit; The Catholike Romane Church, without Subiection whereunto there is no Saluation? which can neuer be credible, as long as Saint Ambrose is belieued to haue bene a Saint.

VIII. Saint Augustine belieued not the now Romane Article of Necessary Subiection to the Church of Rome, and Pope thereof. SECT. 8.

SAint Augustine (as All will confesse) deserued to haue his memory Registred not onely (as it is in your u 1.656 Romane Calendar) in paper monuments, but in the minds and hearts of all Christians; so excellent a Saint was He. It is not long since one of your x 1.657 Priests published a booke, entituled Saint Augustines Religion; wherein he will needs be thought to haue himselfe collected all the materials of that his Treatise, out of the writings of Saint Augustine: whereas (poore man!) he oweth his whole worke vnto your Iesuite Hieronymus Torrensis, who many yeares since set out a large volume diui∣ded into foure Bookes, containing all the particulars, which Maister Breerly hath diuulged, in his owne name; without so much as giuing notice of any such Author. But they differ in their Titles; Hieronymus Torrensis styleth his booke y 1.658 Augu∣stines Confessions; Maister Breerly his, Augustines Religion: Verifying herein that saying of Tully, concerning such kind of Plagiaries, that as Theeues change the notes and markes of stolne stuffe, so They, that father other mens workes vpon themselues, vse to change the names and Titles, as it were the markes and property thereof. Is it not sufficient that you haue dealt thus with Protestant Authors, but that you must play such parts among your selues? But I shall haue more occasion to put Maister Breerly in mind of himselfe else-where: For at this present we haue but one Article of Saint Augustine in hand, touching the Necessity of Vnion and Subiection to the Church of Rome, as The Catholike Church; and are to attend whether either He, or your Iesuite, or Cardinall can euince so Imposterous a Doctrine out of the Volumes of Saint Au∣gustine.

Your Obiections out of Saint Augustine.

Saint Augustine one-where attributeth to the Church of Rome z 1.659 A Principalitie of the Apostolicall Sea: Else-where he desireth of the Pope of Rome his Pastorall diligence, for the repressing of the Heresie of the Pelagians in Palaestine and Africke: In the third place he acknowledgeth A necessary obedience to the Popes Iurisdictions; and lastly he confesseth that The Pope of Rome is set in a more high Pastorall watch-tower, than others. Now what of all these? Ergo (say you) the Church of Rome is the chiefe of all Churches, and the Pope thereof hath Iurisdiction ouer all other Churches, all other Bi∣shops being subiect vnto him, vpon paine of Damnation. But if these words, Principality, or Highest Pastorall watch-tower, or Charge, or Apostolicall Church, or Power to represse Here∣tikes, or an acknowledgment of Necessary Obedience must in∣force a Iurisdiction of Popedome ouer all others, then ought we to admit of many Popedomes. For euery Patriarch hath a Principality, and height of a Pastorall watch-tower, by reason of the greatnesse & dignity of his Patriarchship, aboue all Me∣tropolitans, and Bishops whatsoeuer: and yet haue they not ouer all Bishops power of Iurisdiction, but onely Principality of Order. And looke into the Epistle of Iohn the first, Bishop of Rome, written to an Arch-Bishop, and you shall find him grant that that Archbishop had as well a 1.660 The charge of the Church committed vnto him, for the helpe of all, in repressing of Heresies, as to himselfe. And that also therein there is a Ne∣cessity Rationis, of Cause, and Reason, to performe such Ad∣monitions, namely as a Patient obeyeth the Physitian, for the preuenting of imminent danger; and not a Necessity Imperij, of Compulsion, by right of Authority; as a souldier obeyeth his Captaine. And if that the Title of Apostolicall Church,

could carry a Monarchicall Chiefedome, then was Saint Au∣gustine farre wrong, when in the same Epistle, where he called the Church of Rome The Apostolicall Seat, he called other Churches and Seats also b 1.661 Apostolicall. Lastly, remember but what * 1.662 hath bene prooued out of Saint Basil, and you shall not need to question why the helpe of the Pope of Rome was sometime desired in some Prouinces, rather than other; shew∣ing that the Popes exercising of his Office, in such Cases, pro∣ceeded not from his Coactiue Authority, but from the Arbi∣trary consent of other Bishops. In a word, we haue receiued from you, out of Saint Augustine, nothing but specious co∣lours of words, which we shall recompence with his Acts and Deeds.

Our Opposition of S. Augustine his no-Subiection, either in Discipline, or in Doctrine, to the Church of Rome.

Nothing can better illuminate our vnderstandings in this case, than the light of Comparison. You therefore, whose Article of Faith is to belieue, that although the Church of Rome be a Particular Church, and so a distinct member from the other Churches Militant; yet in respect of the Vniuersall gouernment, which it hath throughout the Christian world, it is The Catholike and Vniuersall Church, as is the Head ouer all other parts of mans bodie; hearken to Saint Augustine, comparing the Church of Rome with another Particular Church. c 1.663 There are two Bishops (saith he) of two most eminent Churches, Stephen of Rome, and Cyprian of Carthage, being of diuerse opinions in the point of Baptisme. Therefore did not Saint Augustine hold the Church of Rome to be the Catholike Head; for there cannot be properly Two Most Eminents of the Catholike Church, whereof you say there is but One Head. One may say, that there are Two Bishops of Two most Eminent Bishopricks in England, George of Canterbury, and Tobias of York, because these are so distant, that one is not Subordinate or subiect to the other: But to say, there are two Bishops of two most Eminent Bishopricks, George of Canter∣bury, and Lancelot of Winchester, were absurd; because, ma∣king the Bishoprick of Winchester to be one of the Two most

Eminents, it doth abate and pull downe the true Eminency of Canterbury, which is an Arch-Bishopricke, and Metropolitan Seate, and hath Iurisdiction ouer the other. But Saint Augu∣stine (you know) was iudicious, and would not reason ab∣surdly. Now you, whose Faith requireth Vnion and Subiection vnto the Sea of Rome in all Causes, as well Rituall, as Crimi∣nall, or Doctrinall, lend your attention vnto Saint Augustine, in his Comparisons, concerning each one.

In the point of Rites and Ceremonies, the question was whether the Church should weekely obserue a Saturday-fast, or no: The one side which is brought in, as for the Affirma∣tiue part, alleaging that Saint Iames at Ierusalem, Saint Iohn at Ephesus, and others taught the same, which Saint Peter did at Rome, viz. that The Saturday-fast is to be kept, but other Countries forsooke this Tradition. The parties for the Nega∣tiue are supposed to answer, saying, Yea rather some parts of the West Church, wherein Rome is seated, haue not obserued the Tradition of the Apostles, Saint Peter and others, who taught that a Fast ought not to be kept vpon that day. Here you haue the East and West-Churches compared together, and the cre∣dit of them both balanced. If we should now aske you whe∣ther Church, East or West, deserueth more credit in this Case, you would abhorre the question, as men bound by Oath to belieue rather the Westerne Church of Rome, than all other Churches in the world, in point of Tradition. But Saint Au∣gustine, what? d 1.664 This contention (saith he) is endlesse and in∣determinable. And Saint Augustines words [Aliqua loca, in quibus Roma est] that is, Some places, among which Rome is, haue a sting, which wounds the Papacy. For can the Imperiall Ladie of all Churches be thus sleightly brought in among the Manie? Surely if S. Augustine had made her the patterne of all other Christian Churches, his stile should haue arrayed her otherwise, than by inuoluing her among Loca Occidentis.

Secondly, in Criminall Causes, you belieue that the Su∣preme Right of Appeale to the Sea of Rome is a Iurisdiction whereinto the Bishop of Rome is inuested, by virtue of his Succession from Saint Peter; so that all other Churches Chri∣stian ought to acknowledge this Right of Appeale vpon all

iust occasions; and the Cause being there determined, all parties are vtterly precluded, hauing no power to Appeale from it, to any Superior Iudicature. This is your pretended Prerogatiue of the Church of Rome, consisting of two Termes, Appealing to Rome, and not Appealing from Rome. Will you admit of Saint Augustines determination in both these? Saint Augustine (as * 1.665 hath bene confessed) was one of that Councell of Africke, which abandoned the Claime of Right of Appeales from all Churches to Rome, which was then challenged by three Popes successiuely, to wit, Zozimus, Boniface, and Celestine; and yet concluded against them, that it should not be lawfull for any, within the Churches of A∣fricke, to make their Appeale to Rome.

Accordingly, you that would thinke it an intolerable and sacrilegious derogation from the Papall Iurisdiction, if in a Criminall Cause, after the Pope with his whole Consistory of Cardinals had giuen iudgement, any Bishop within the Ro∣mane Iurisdiction should be so audacious, as to Appeale from that Sentence to an higher Iudicature, where you that are my Iudges shall be iudged, whether you haue giuen right iudge∣ment, or not; remember that Saint Augustine, concerning the Case of the Bishop Caecilian, which was referred to the Arbi∣trement of Pope Iulius and others, doubted not to giue such a Resolution: e 1.666 I suppose (saith he) the Bishops that were at Rome were not good Iudges, there then remained a Generall Councell, where the Cause may be discussed; so that if it shall appeare that those Iudges iudged wrongfully, their sentence may be reuersed, and disanulled.

Thirdly, from Criminall we proceed to a Doctrinall point. You that haue told vs that it is a peculiar Prerogatiue belong∣ing to the Church of Rome, as she is The Catholike Church, to direct all other Churches, which is the true Canon of Di∣uine Scriptures; and that she by her f 1.667 Councell may pro∣nounce euery one Anathema and Accursed, that shall not giue beliefe to his Decree, touching the right Canon of Scriptures: obserue, that Saint Augustine, perceiuing how the Latine or Romane Church did not in those daies con∣stantly hold the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrewes to be

Canonicall, and of Diuine Authority, resolueth thus; g 1.668 Not∣withstanding I (saith he) am rather mooued by the Authority of the East Churches. So Saint Augustine: which is so much, that a conscionable man, we thinke, should need no more. For now we are in a Doctrinall point, euen what, and which is the Scripture and written Word of God; the Principle and Doctrine of all other Principles and Doctrines. Whereof when we enquire, we are directed by Saint Augustine to consult with the Primitiue Churches, as well East, as West, and wherein these do differ in their Customes, therein to yeeld ra∣ther to the iudgement of the Greeke and Easterne Churches, (according as Saint * 1.669 Hierom also determined) than to the Romane in the West. And lest this Decision of Saint Augustine might seeme to proceed from some voluntary inclination to the Greeke Church, rather than to the Latine, he addeth that he is so moued by the Authority of the Easterne Churches. Now how all these particulars will agree with your Article, viz. The Catholike Romane Church, Mistris of all other Chur∣ches, without full Vnion and Subiection whereunto there is no Saluation, do you your-selues deliberate. Sure we are that this Resolution of Saint Augustine will easily interpret the mea∣ning of his other sentence, so often obiected by you, to wit; I should not haue belieued the Gospell, except the Authority of the Church had moued mee; that by [Church] he meant not the (then) present Church of Rome, as you pretend; which is (as you see) another vanity.

After this discussion of the Doctrinall Cause, we adde a Consideration of the Schismaticall state of that Church, ac∣cording as our iudicious h 1.670 Casaubon hath obserued. You, who accompt it the onely note of Schisme, to be diuided from the Romane Church, and the Pope thereof, as the onely Head of all Churches; Answer vs, Why Saint Augustine who in sea∣uen Books, besides many other places, confuted the Schismaticall Donatists, yet neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope, or of the Infallibility of his iudgement, whereby to reduce them to the Vnity of the Church and Truth?

Lastly, as for the Title of The Catholike Church, you that appropriate it in your Article to the Church of Rome, aduise againe with Saint Augustine, who as he * 1.671 hath already defi∣ned that Catholike is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The whole,] as a Comprehensi∣on of all Parts; and therefore that no Part can be called The Whole: so doth he further illustrate the same, in his Expositi∣ons vpon those words of the Psalmist, The Kings daughters were among thine honourable women, vpon thy right hand did stand the Queene in a Vesture of gold of Ophir: i 1.672 Behold Rome, (saith he) behold Carthage, behold other Cities, as Kings daughters, of all which is made one certaine Queene (speaking of the Catholike Church) whereunto euery one ought to bee vnited in Faith and Hope. So he. You see that in Saint Au∣gustines time, when Rome was indeed Rome, and truely glori∣ous for Faith and Holinesse, yet Behold Rome, what? The Queene, which is the Catholike Church it selfe? No, but Be∣hold Rome, a daughter of the King. And againe, Behold Car∣thage, and other Cities, How? Namely so, and no otherwise than Rome, and others, all daughters of the King, that is, Par∣ticular Churches professing Christ. But the Catholike Church as Queene, what must shee be? any one of these, bee it the Church of Milan, Carthage, or Rome? No, but One Vni∣uersall Church consisting of these, and All others.

CHALLENGE.

SEe you now with what obliquity of iudgement your Au∣thors haue obiected these colourable sayings of Saint Augustine out of his Epistles vnto Pope Zozimus, and Pope Boniface and others? Whereas, when we come to his deeds, he doth freely demonstrate his Faith contrary to your sense: when, Comparing Particular Bishopricke with Bishopricke, as Rome with Carthage, hee maketh them and their Bishops, both Most Eminent; Comparing Churches with Churches, as Rome with the Churches of Africke, he defendeth (euen a∣gainst the forenamed Popes Zozimus and Boniface) both that it is not lawfull for Remote Churches to Appeale to Rome, and that it is also lawfull for Churches, that are subordinate to

the Romane Iurisdiction to Appeale from Rome. By which the very pinnacle of the pretended Authority of the Ro∣mane Iurisdiction is quite ouerthrowne and cast to the ground.

Againe, Saint Augustine comparing the Two Moities of the whole Catholike Church, commonly diuided into the East, otherwise called the Greeke Church, and the West or Latine, wherein the Church of Rome hath the greatest pree∣minence, He, in the Case of Apostolicall Tradition, concer∣ning Rites and Ceremonies, hath made their credit equall; but in the Doctrinall, as namely a Tradition Apostolicall, con∣cerning the true and Canonicall Scriptures, he preferreth the Authority of the Greeke and East-Churches, and confesseth that it shouldereth out (in this maine Case) the Authority of the Romane.

Lastly, comparing any One part with All Churches, as by name Rome with Carthage and All others, hee proueth that Rome can bee no more The Vniuersall, or Catholike Church, than Carthage, No, nor both together: but that the Catholike Church, as the Queene, is the Whole Church of Christ, by an Aggregation and Comprehension of All together in One. So direct and absolute a Doctor was Saint Augustine of the no-Necessity of vniuersall Vnion or Subiection vnto the same Church, in poynts of Controuersie, whether Rituall, or Do∣ctrinall; and consequently of the no-Necessity of Beleefe of either of both, all which your Article doth require and exact: and yet we (notwithstanding your damning Article) must still beleeue that Saint Augustine is a blessed Saint.

IX. Saint Hilary Bishop of Arles in France beleeued not your Article of Necessary Subiection to the Pope and Church of Rome. SECT. 9.

THis Saint, albeit he haue no place in the Romane Calen∣dar of your Masse, wil notwithstanding challenge a place among our honourable Witnesses, because he is reckoned in your k 1.673 Martyrologe of Saints. He, in the yeere 445, seemed to

vsurpe vpon the Iurisdiction of the Prouince of Vienna, not∣withstanding the Inhibition of Pope Leo, who taketh it very haynously that Hilary heerein l 1.674 refused to be subiect vnto him. This Hilarius (as you without any proofe would make vs be∣leeue) yeelded at length vnto the Pope, making no further Apologie for the defence of his Cause. Which were it so, it mattereth not: for that will suffice for his Apologie, which is confessed by your Baronius, namely that m 1.675 Although Hilarius did incurre the displeasure of Pope Leo, in the defence (as he was perswaded) of the Right of his Episcopall Sea, Yet notwithstan∣ding was he worthy, (saith the Cardinall) for his singular sancti∣ty to be registred in the Romane Martyrologe of Saints.

CHALLENGE.

LEo the then Pope complaineth against this Saint, for re∣fusing to bee Subiect to his iudiciall determination, the which this Saint did (saith your Cardinall) in presumption, that his cause was iust. Yet Gennadius, Prosper, and others that set downe his life, doe not note in him any iniquity in this Case. What need many words? He that in a Question of Ecclesia∣sticall Rites, could not but doubt of the uniuersall authority of the Pope, could not bee of the (now) Romane Faith. Therefore this Saint Hilary was confidently perswaded that in some case, it was lawfull to denie Subiection to the Pope. Wherefore it will belong to you, either to renounce this sa∣crilegious Article, or to vn-hallow, and vn-saint this holy man.

The Generall CHALLENGE, concerning the forenamed Saints.

ALl this while that wee haue laboured to confute your former Romane Article, from the iudgements of ancient Fathers and holy Saints, we haue insisted onely in them, whose

names are celebrated in your Romane Church and recorded in the publike Calendar thereof, or in your Martyrologe of Saints, to wit, Saint Polycarpus, Saint Cyprian, Saint Atha∣nasius, Saint Basil, Saint Hilary of Poictou, Saint Hierom, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, and Saint Hilary of Arles, all of them (in the opinion of all Christians) deseruing of the Church of Christ the most Honourable Title of SAINTS; besides the other Attributes, which for further Amplification of their worthinesse are ascribed vnto them, as adorning Saint Poly∣carp with the Title of the Doctor of Asia; Cyprian, the most fa∣mous Doctor; Saint Hilary of Arles with the Title of Sancti∣ty. And as for the rest, you shall need no more than that which your Cardinall Baronius testifieth, in his Dedicatory Epistle vnto Pope Clement the Eight: q 1.676 I present before you (saith he) Athanasius the Great, and Basil the Great, two Chiefes, or eminent Topps of the East-Church; and Hilary, Hierom, Am∣brose, and Augustine the Foure Principalls of the Westerne Church, Pillars of the Faith, and Miracles of the World; with this company of so excellent Fathers your throne is crowned. So he.

What larger Assumption could your Cardinall haue made, in Ostentation of the Papall Monarchy, from the Authority of these Fathers, then to boast vnto the Pope of the establishing of his Throne, by the Testimonies of the same Saints? Where∣fore, seeing we likewise doe ioyntly Appeale vnto these holy Fathers, as vnto most impartiall witnesses of Truth, you are by your amplifications of their Learning, Wisedome, Con∣stancie in the Faith, and Sanctity, as by so many Obligations, bound to stand to their iudgements; by which the sinewes of your Romane Article are broken asunder: First, of Necessity of Vnion with; Secondly, of Subiection vnto the Church and Bishop of Rome, as The Catholike Church and Bishop; Third∣ly, the Beleefe of the Necessity of both these; And each of those Three vpon losse of Saluation to All them that are not of this Beleefe.

Recall to minde the former Passages, concerning the be∣hauiour of these Saints, in whom you haue seene professed Opposition, in matter of Doctrine, against the Pope and

Church of Rome, by setting Councell against Councell; by taxing the Romane Church of Pride and Ignorance; by con∣tempt of the Popes Excommunication; by condemning his Condemnation; by Anathematizing his person; by preferring the iudgement of the East-Church before hers, in the great Question of the Canon of Scriptures, as well of the Old, as of the New Testament. Can you desire a more cleare Demonstra∣tion of a Beleefe of no-Necessity of Vnion with the Pope or Sea of Rome, than this is?

But because you hold it not sufficient to Saluation, that a man professe Ʋnion in Faith with the Church of Rome, except also he acknowledge an absolute Subiection in Discipline vnto her Iurisdiction: it may not be held superfluous to repeate vnto you the liuely Characters of their no-Subiection, by denying of Conformitie with Rome, in so little as in a Rite, whether of a Fast, or of Washing of Feete; by inhibiting foraine Prouinces to Appeale To Rome; and permitting of Appeales sometimes From Rome to a Councell; by equalling other Bishops with the Bishop of Rome; and making Rome so A Church, that it can∣not be The Catholike Church any more than Carthage, or any other Particular Church is; and by maintaining of Iurisdicti∣on against the Bishop of Rome.

Lastly, for as much as neither Vnion in Faith with the Church of Rome, nor Subiection in Discipline vnto her doth (by your Romane Article) satisfie, except a Christian haue also beleefe of the Necessity of both the former, in euery one that shall seeke to be saued, ponder with your selues whether these Fathers, if they were (as both you, and wee proclaime them) Saints, could beleeue in their hearts and mindes that Necessity either of Vnion with, or Subiection vnto that Church, which they gaine-sayd and renounced in their writings and deeds. But you will say, Is it possible that the Church of Rome should honour, for Saints, those who vpon due examination are Aduersaries to this her supreme Hierarchie? Yes, why not, as well as it was possible (you know) for the Sects among the Iewes to murther the Prophets, and yet after their death to build them goodly Sepulchers and Monuments, as Christ saith. But you will pardon vs, if wee, imabracing their more

renowned Monuments, which are their Writings, professe to imitate them in their doctrine, the chiefest honour belon∣ging to these Saints, by whom wee are taught to condemne your (now) Romane Article, viz. The Catholike Romane Church, and beleefe of Necessity of Vnion and Subiestion there∣unto, without which (say you) there is no Saluation, as both Im∣posterous and Impious, because derogating from the iudge∣ments of so admirably holy Saints. If we were to speake of other Saints, not specified in the Romane Martyrologe, or Ca∣talogue of Saints, we might be infinite: but we are contented with these, adding in their due places Those who are proued to haue beene Excommunicated by the Popes, and notwithstan∣ding acknowledged holy Bishops after their death; as namely Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, Atticus Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril, and Acatius Patriarchs of Alexan∣dria, * 1.677 all little regarding the Popes Excommunication; toge∣ther with * 1.678 Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople.

CHAP. XIII. Our Eight and last Argument, to confute this Ro∣mane Article of beleeuing The Cathol••ke Ro∣mane Church, and Bishop thereof, &c. is, by discouering the Falshood, Vanity, and Nullity of your Defence, in your Obiections from Antiquity.

NOt, but that we willingly confesse that your Doctors and defenders of this Article are, and haue beene great Schollers, Professors of all Arts, diligent in the studie of Diuine knowledge, and conuersant in the Volumes of Ancient Fathers. Notwithstanding haue you not heard of a Creature that was * 1.679 the wisest of all Beasts; but (alas) wilie withall, euen to the circumuenting of all Mankinde? Doe you not reade of a * 1.680 Wise Steward, but yet vniust? And is it not written that there are some * 1.681 More wise, (but respectiuely) in their generation, who neuerthelesse are Children of darkenesse? The Authors of the most absurd Pa∣radoxes ought to haue beene men of singular wit, were it hee that defended that the Snow is blacke. But whether your Do∣ctors haue any affinity with these, wee shall in the end permit to your iudgements. Sure we are, that when Truth shall bee manifest, true Wisedome shall be iustified of her children.

Your first kinde of Obiections, which are taken from Titles attributed to the Pope, or to his Sea, by Councels: and the falshood and vanity of the Consequence thereof discouered by Parallels. SECT. 1.

LAy you downe first your Generall Conclusion what you meane to proue: r 1.682 That (say you) the Pope of Rome doth succeed Saint Peter in the Monarchy (or Supreme Domini∣on) of the Church. Now then, seeing you know the marke, looke that you keepe true aime, still directing all your Premi∣ses to this Conclusion. One Generall Councell saith (say you) that s 1.683 The Church of Rome hath alwaies had the Primacy: Another, that t 1.684 They met by the commandement of the Pope of Rome, and that the Church of Rome is the Head, and they the members: A third, that v 1.685 They deposed a Bishop by the command of the Pope: A fourth calleth the Pope x 1.686 The Vni∣uersall Bishop of the Church, to whom is committed the Vine∣yard of the Lord: A fifth professeth to y 1.687 Obey the Bishop of Rome: A sixt, yeeldeth z 1.688 Primacy to the Romane Church, and calleth it the Head of all other Churches. So you. Your Enthymeme from hence is this; These Titles haue beene gi∣uen by Councells vnto the Pope and Sea of Rome. Ergo the Pope and Church of Rome haue Monarchicall power, that is, sole Dominion ouer all Others. Your Antecedents are to bee denyed, as wee shall finde iust occasion thereunto: but your Consequences and Arguments wee doe absolutely re∣nounce, and that most truly and nec••ssarily, as will bee eui∣dent from point to point; and that by Parallelling and com∣paring other Churches and Bishops, adorned with the equiua∣lent Termes and Titles, whereby you seeme to erect your Pa∣pall Monarchy.

Did then the Councell mention that they receiued Man∣dates from the Popes (which is indeede an egregious a 1.689 False∣hood) or did one in the Councell say that they did Obey the Apostolike Sea of Rome? And did not also Pope Liberius (as b 1.690 you know) writing to Bishop Athanasius, say I desire to heare from you, that I may speedily execute your Mandates and Com∣mands? Ought you not therefore to haue distinguished of tearmes of Courtesie, familiar in the Latine speech? as Cicero teacheth, in his familiar Epistle to his Brother Quintus, I (saith c 1.691 hee) shall diligently performe your Mandates. Is there any phrase more frequent in our English Complement, than to shew our respects to our friends by calling our yeelding to their good and wholesome admonitions, directions, and ad∣uises our Obeying; and their requests vnto vs their Commands? Will you needs draw an Argum••nt of your Popes Monarchie, out of a bare phrase of courtesie, ordinarily vsed among E∣quals? and not thus onely, but (in the rigid and exact sense thereof) contrary to the discretion of one of the best Popes? For whereas the Bishop of Alexandria, writing to Pope Grego∣rie, did signifie that he had receiued his Commands, d 1.692 I com∣mand? (saith Gregorie) I commanded not: Let not mee heare of the word Command, as proceeding from me. The same Pope acknowledged his Subiection and Obedience to the Emperour Mauritius; and your Cardinall answereth, e 1.693 These (saith hee) were words of humilitie, according to the common tenour of speech, wherein we vse to say, wee obey, when we performe an∣other mans desire. So hee. Where wee are compelled to chal∣lenge the conscience of your Cardinall, who hearing of Obe∣dience to the Pope, extendeth it to the highest note of Mo∣narchie; and reading of the Popes Obedience to the Empe∣rour, abaseth it to the lowest straine of humilitie: especially seeing that those Councels could not be said, in exact sence, to haue Obeyed the Pope, as Subiects; all which (as hath bin proued) concluded some things preiudiciall to this pretended Monarchie.

Againe, Pope Gregorie acknowledged his Obedience in the proper sense of Subiection, and performed it also as much as any Subiect possibly could euer do. As for example; The

Emperour commandeth that holy Pope Gregorie to divulge his Edict and Proclamation, touching a matter, which, in the iudg∣ment of the same Gregorie himselfe, was contrary to the Law of God: the Pope admonisheth the Emperour how repugnant his Law was to the Law of God, but performeth the Emperours Command, in publishing and diuulging his Edict, and here∣upon writeth to the Emperour, as followeth: f 1.694 I your vnwor∣thy seruant, subiect to your Command, haue published your Law, and caused it to be transferred throughout diuers parts. Wherein I haue done that which I ought, both in performing O∣bedience to the Emperour (namely by publishing the Decree) and also to God, by reuealing vnto you his will. So hee. Hardly shall any finde a more expresse example of direct Subiection and Obedience from any Subiect, than this is, of that holy Pope, vnto the Emperour Mauritius. Nor are all of your side so blinde, as not able to discerne this Midday-light, For g 1.695 Gre∣gorie, called the First and the Great (saith your Espencaeus) doth ingenuously acknowledge that Emperours haue from God a Do∣minion ouer Priests.

Your Second Title is, calling the Sea of Rome HEAD, yea, The Head of all Churches. Must they therefore meane a Mo∣narchicall Head (according to your Conclusion) ouer all other Churches, by way of Dominion? If so (to omit your Addi∣tament of h 1.696 Falsehood) then was Chrysostome to blame, to call Antioch i 1.697 The Head of the whole World: then was Iusti∣nian vniust, to require all to k 1.698 Follow Constantinople the regall Citie, as the Head of all Cities. And so, by pressing Titles, you see your Monarchie turned into a Triarchie.

A Third Title is the calling of the Pope l 1.699 The Bishop of the Vniuersall Church. which though they were not the words of the Councell, but of Two Deacons writing to the Councell, and of Paschasius the Popes Legate in the same Councell; which the Councell, being content with the Popes Subscripti∣on to their Act, would not question for the forme: Yet may

you not make of this an Argument of Monarchicall power of the Church and Bishop of Rome, except you will set more Heads, and Monarchs, than One, vpon the shoulders of the Church: because the Bishops of Syria instiled Iohn, the Bishop of Constantinople, m 1.700 The Vniuersall Patriarke; and the Bi∣shop of Rome also intitled Tharasius n 1.701 The Vniuersall Patri∣arke. The whole errour lurketh vnder an Equiuocation in the word Bishop of the Vniuersall Church, which what it may sig∣nifie, your owne Authors tell you. o 1.702 The Bishop of the Vniuer∣sall Church (say you) doth signifie one possessed with a Care and studie for the good of the Vniuersall Church. So they: which is common to euery Religious Bishop in the Church of Christ, but in a more eminent degree, and larger extent it belongeth to euery Patriarke; and this sense we doe approue of. Or else it may signifie One hauing All the Bishops of All other Churches vnder his Subiection; which sense is here seriously and zealously obiected by your Cardinall, to proue the Mo∣narchie of the Pope of Rome; and which hath bin by S. Gre∣gorie Pope of Rome as earnestly abhorred and detested, and as much as his godly heart could execrated (for so he * 1.703 speaketh of it) as a New, naughtie, proud, prophane, blasphemous, and Antichristian Title, which (saith hee) none of my Predecessors euer vsed.

The next Title attributed vnto the Bishop of Rome, by a Generall Councell, is that The Vineyard of the Lord (which is his Church) is said to be committed vnto him: which serueth for another post, to support the ruinous Monarchy of the Bi∣shop of Rome. But all in vaine; For Pope Eleutherius him∣selfe, writing to the Bishops in France, p 1.704 The Vniuersall Church of Christ (saith hee) is committed vnto you, that you may labour for the good of all men. It were more than Mon∣strous, that this your Monarch should create so many Mo∣narches ouer the Church Catholike, as were all the Bishops of France. No, these kinde of Attributes haue not other signifi∣cation, than the Care that euery Bishop should haue in wish∣ing, and to his power endeauouring the Vniuersall good of the whole Church. In which sense Saint Nazianzene, speaking in the praise of Athanasius; * 1.705 To him is committed the Praesi∣dencie

of the people of Alexandria, which is as much as to say (saith hee) the gouernment of the whole world. So hee. How should not this equall, if not exceede, whatsoeuer can be ascri∣bed to the Pope of Rome? and yet this is no vniuersall power of Iurisdiction, but onely of Prouidence and Care, namely Sic quibusdam praeesse, vt prodesse possit vniuersis.

The last Title is that, which is set downe in the First, and last place; That the Primacie aboue all Bishops is yeelded vnto the Bishop of the Church of Rome. True; and this Truth was ne∣uer denied by any Protestant. But what Primacie? of Mo∣narchie and Dominion? Noe, but of Order, and Honour. For haue you neuer heard of Two Cities in one Kingdome, Two Sheriffes in one Citie, Two Bayliffes in one Burrough, one of them being Head, and Chiefe, and hauing Superioritie, and Prioritie; that is, Primacie aboue another, and yet with∣out any right of Authoritie and Dominion one ouer one an∣other?

Our next Answer shall be by Retorsion. Foure Generall Councels haue bin produced by your side to proue the Church of Rome and Bishop thereof to haue Monarchicall power ouer all other Churches and Bishops, in an ambiguitie of phrases. Albeit not onely these Foure, but also * 1.706 Foure more haue no∣tably impugned your pretended Monarchie, as well in the Ec∣clesiasticall, as in the Temporall power and Prerogatiue there∣of. For you may remember that the First Generall Councell limited the Dioces as well of Rome, as of Alexandria: The Second erected a new Patriarkship, with the no good liking of the Church of Rome: The Third excluded the Pope from all Iurisdiction in Cyprus: The Fourth established the former Patriarkship, erected by the Second Councell, with priuileges equall to Rome; and held the Romane Primacie not to be founded by any Diuine Law: The Fifth condemned Pope Vi∣gilius as Schismaticall: The Sixt, and Seauenth condemned Pope Honorius, as Haereticall: The Eight prescribed a Law to Rome, inioyning her to Obserue it. And againe, these Eight Generall Councels were disposed, at their Assemblies, to pre∣ferre the Emperours (of their Times) in place and throne of dignitie, aboue the Popes of Rome.

CHALLENGE.

IS then the Popedome of Rome a Monarchie? why? answer vs, First is a Monarch limited of his Subiects? Secondly, doth a Monarch suffer others to create Honours within his kingdome? Thirdly, Will a Monarch indure Corriuals, or Equals? Fourthly, Can a Monarch, the supreme Iudge, be subiect to the iudgement and condemnation of his people? Fiftly, Must not a Monarch challenge the possession of his chiefe Throne, in his Parliament, and be so acknowledged by the whole state? If therefore you shall further obserue what hath bin opposed against your Titles, you may easily vnder∣stand that not any one, which hath bin obiected, doth inferre your Conclusion, to proue the Pope of Rome a Monarch: ex∣cept you shall acknowledge Athanasius Bishop of Alexan∣dria, Chrysostome Bishop of Antioch, Iohn Bishop of Constan∣tinople, and All the Bishops of France, together with all other Bishops, to whom the same Titles were ascribed, to haue bin (which breaketh the necke of Monarchie) Monarkes as well as the Bishop of Rome.

And if in the Second place you consider the Testimonies, which we haue alleaged out of twice Foure Generall Coun∣cels, directly concluding, not by any speciousnesse of Words, but by their Acts and Deedes, that Popes anciently were no Monarks at all; Then will you conclude, that we haue iust rea∣son to challenge your Authors of great vnconscionablenesse in their defence; and by the vanity of their proofes, to perswade your selues of the Truth of our Cause.

Your Second kinde of Obiections are taken from Titles attri∣buted by Ancient Fathers, to the Bishop or Church of Rome: The Vanitie of the Consequence hereof discouered, First by Equiualences. SECT. 2.

YOur Cardinall, q 1.707 to proue his former Conclusion, concer∣ning the Succession of the Pope in the Ecclesiasticall Mo∣narchie,

flieth againe after Titles, as namely such as haue beene attributed vnto Popes long since, by Ancient Fathers. Wee are to discouer the falsehood of this Consequence, knowing that the Foundation is too weake to carry so great a weight as is a Monarchie, and sole Dominion of one Atlas, the Pope, ouer all the Catholike Church of Christ, and to answer the most of those by like Parallels and Equiualences.

First, r 1.708 The Popes Primacie is proued (say you) by the word [Papa] that is, Pope, Three wayes: One, because though it had bin giuen commonly to others, yet was it attributed to the Bi∣shop of Rome by way of s 1.709 Excellencie, thus; THE Pope, Ergo Monarke. False, for it was bestowed as well vpon Saint Cy∣prian by the way of Excellencie: insomuch that at the point of his Martyrdome, when the Paganish Proconsull askt him, Art thou he, whom Christians call their Pope? Saint Cyprian an∣swered, yea, 1 1.710 IAME. Next, because (say you) he is also called t 1.711 The Pope of the Vniuersall Church. Ergò, hee is a Monarke. False, for Athanasius also, who is called 2 1.712 Pope, had his Church called by Constantine 3 1.713 The Vniuersall Church. Lastly, because (say you) u 1.714 The Bishop of Rome himselfe cal∣leth no other Bishop Pope, but Sonne, or Brother: Ergo, hee is Monarch. False, for Pope Cornelius likewise (as is 4 1.715 confes∣sed) called Cyprian Pope: yea and Cyprian 5 1.716 called Pope Cor∣nelius Brother, as also Epiphanius (as is further 6 1.717 confessed) called Pope Hormisda Brother; so little doth the name of Brother, or Title of Pope auoid the Equalitie among * 1.718 Bishops.

The Second name is x 1.719 The Father of Fathers, giuen to Da∣masus, Ergo, he was Monarch. False, for if Others were cal∣led Popes (as you haue heard) all is one; because, as is 7 1.720 con∣fessed, Papa, and Pater Patrum, Pope and Father of Fathers is the same. And also Saint Polycarpus was called * 1.721 The Fa∣ther of Christians.

Thirdly, Fourthly, and Fifthly, the Bishop of Rome (say you) was called y 1.722 The high Priest of Christians, yea,

z 1.723 The Chiefe Priest, yea a 1.724 The Prince of Priests; Ergo, Mo∣narch. False, for Basil, who was no Pope, was called 8 1.725 Great Priest: Athanasius also was called * 1.726 The Master of Priests, and you haue many in the Church of Rome, vnder Monarchs, yea or Bishops, that are called Arch Priests: and whatsoeuer your phrase be, it cannot be higher or chiefer than Summus, or Chiefe, which (by your owne Conf••ssions) hath bin com∣municated to * 1.727 Non-popes.

Sixthly, the Bishop of Rome (say you) was called b 1.728 The Vicar of Christ. Ergo Monarch. False, for Pope Eusebius, alluding to that of the Apostle, concerning all the Apostles, * 1.729 Wee are the Embassadours [in Christi vice] in Christ his stead, and applying it to Bishops, saith 9 1.730 There is one Head of the Church, Christ, but the Vicars of Christ are they, that in Christ his stead, are Embassadours for Christ.

Seauenthly, the Bishop of Rome (say you) was called c 1.731 The Head of the Church; and his Seate, or Church The Head of Churches: Ergo the Pope is Monarch. False, for Athanasius was likewise called 10 1.732 The topp of the Head of all and Cyril in a Councell 11 1.733 The Head of the Assembly; and Antioch is called 12 1.734 The Head of the whole world.

The Eight, and Ninth, The Bishop of Rome is called d 1.735 The Foundation of the Church, and e 1.736 Pastor of the Lords flocke: Ergo, Monarch. False, for Athanasius also is called 13 1.737 The Foundation of the Church of God. And (if you speake De iure) the word Pastor of the whole flocke was proper to the Apostles, who receiued in their ioynt Commission a power and Authoritie of * 1.738 Preaching throughout the world to euery humane creature, without any limitation; insomuch, that (as Saint Augustine saith 14 1.739 Peter was a Pastor, and Paul was a Pastor, and the other Apostles were also Pastors. But there could not be so many Monarchs ouer the whole Church. But

if you vnderstand thereby Curam, & Studium, Care, & Stu∣die, which by the Office of Pastorship, euery one is bound vnto, according to his possibility, towards the good of the Vniuer∣sall Church, in this, all other Bishops are Pastors as well as the Pope; as hath bin confessed.

The Tenth. The Bishop of Rome (say you) is called f 1.740 The Rector or Gouernour of the house of God. Ergo, Monarch. False, for it is not spoken Vniuersally, but Indefinitely, In ma∣teriâ contingenti, with allusion to the words of Saint Paul to Timothie, thus; * 1.741 That thou maist know how to conuerse in the house of God, which is the Church of the liuing God: namely, with an vniuersall care ouer All, but a Particular power ouer that his Church of Ephesus, which was his Bishopricke: and yet Timothie was no Monarch.

The Eleuenth. The Bishop of Rome (say you) is called g 1.742 Hee to whom the Lords Vineyard is committed: Ergo, hee is Mo∣narch. False, for Pope Eleutherius, as you 15 1.743 know, writ to the Bishops of France, thus; The vniuersall Church (saith hee) is committed vnto you: yet hee ment nothing lesse than to iudge them Spirituall Monarchs.

The Twelfth. The Bishop of Rome is called (say you) h 1.744 The Father, and Doctor of all Christians: Ergo Monarch. False, for the First of these was Attributed vnto Polycarpus a Bishop of Asia, who was called 16 1.745. The Father of Christians. And because the Second concerneth your Faith, and the iudgement of the Bishop of Rome, as an Oracle, for the full determi∣nation of Faith (as being therefore worthy to bee held Mo∣narchicall) wee say that your Consequence from this Title, The Doctor of Christians, and the like, is as false as any of the rest, because of the Equiualencie of Attributes giuen to other learned and Orthodox Fathers, as followeth.

Our second discouery of the falshood and vanity of your Papall Defence, from Titles borrowed from Ancient Fathers, by our like Equiualences. SECT. 3.

IF your Consequence from Titles must needs conclude a Monarchicall Pope, then marke (we pray you) how many Monarches must be acknowledged in the purest times of Christ his Church, after the Apostles, who notwithstanding neuer were lifted in the Catalogue of your Popes; wherein we make bold to call your owne Authors to witnesse.

First then, to answer you (as Logicians speake) in your very Termes, looke into the (17.) 1.746 Marginalls and you shall finde. (1) Origen called by Didymus, The Master of the Churches, and by Saint Hierom, Most excellent expounder of Scriptures. 2 1.747 Chrysostome called by Pope Innocentius, The Great Doctor of the whole world. 3 1.748 Augustine called The most singular Do∣ctor of all Churches. And 4 1.749 Hilarius by your Cardinall wor∣thily accompted The greatest Doctor and Pillar of the Catho∣like Church.

Next, if you would haue Metaphoricall phrases, of like effi∣cacy and Emphasis, you may obserue; 5 1.750 Athanasius anci∣ently called The stay and foundation of the Church. 6 1.751 Basil the mouth of the Church, the eye of the world, the light of the world, and the Sunne among the Starres.

Lastly, if you require a further expression and commenda∣tion of the credit and Authority of the forenamed Fathers, in the Truth of their Doctrines, then may you happen vpon some which will more Emphatically and significantly giue your Pa∣pall Monarches the mate; as namely, that the Doctrines of A∣thanasius were of that credit, that they were held for 7 1.752 A

Rule of the Orthodoxe Faith: 8 1.753 Nazianzene to haue bene of so great estimation, for his Doctrine, that he obtained the sur∣name of Diuine, primitiuely ascribed to the Euangelist Saint Iohn; insomuch that whosoeuer dissented from him in any point of Doctrine, was thereupon so much rather iudged an Heretike, euery one being deemed not to be sound in the Faith, that accorded not to him in beliefe. 9 1.754Ambrose to haue receiued and gouerned the helme of the Faith in the ship of Christ, which is his Church. 10 1.755 Augustine to haue bene honoured of all, as the builder againe of the ancient Faith; and 11 1.756 Cyril of Alexandria to haue bene called The Iudge of the whole world. Thus much of the twelfth Title.

The Thirteenth. The Bishop of Rome (say you) was called by Saint Augustinek 1.757 The Bishop of the Apostolike Sea, (mea∣ning the Romane) without addition of the word Romane. Ergò, by way of Excellency it argueth him to be Monarch. False, for so the Bishop of Alexandria was in like manner called by Saint Hierome 18 1.758 The Bishop of the Apostolicall Sea, with∣out any addition of the word Alexandrian. Yea, but you say, the Bishop of Rome is further said to l 1.759 hold the Principality or Chiefedome of the Apostolicall Sea: Ergò, Monarch. False, for the Bishop of Antioch also was said to possesse19 1.760The Pri∣macy of the Apostolike Sea: yea and * 1.761 Others also. Oh but further (say you) the office of the Bishop of Rome is called an m 1.762 Apostleship, Ergò, Monarch. False, for if this Consequence be extended to the times of the Apostles, then must Iudas Is∣cariot haue bene a Monarch, who had an Apostleship, Act. 1.25. And Matthias after him should haue bene another Monarch, who was chosen into the same Apostleship, from which

Iudas fell. And if you restraine it to after-times, then can no Bishop properly arrogate an Apostleship, which was an Office, (as your * 1.763 selues confesse) Proper vnto the immediate Apo∣stles of Christ.

Lastly, the Bishop of Rome (say you) was called n 1.764 The Vni∣uersall Bishop: Ergò Monarch. False; for (as is 20 1.765 confessed) the Popes of Rome by conniuency yeelded to the Bishop of Constantinople, that the Bishop of that Sea should vse the same Title of Vniuersall Bishop, as well as the Bishop of Rome: and yet was he no more Monarch, than Cyril the now Pa∣triarch of Alexandria, who is instiled 21 1.766 Pope and Vniuersall Iudge at this day.

Our third Discouery of the Falshood and Vanity of the Papall Defence, from bare Titles, is by your owne Contradictions. SECT. 4.

HItherto haue we examined your Titles, giuen to the Popes of Rome, in the equall scales of Comparison with other Bishops, and find them all too light, neither scale being able to carry the weight of a Monarch. We now proceed to a further Confutation of your Arguments & Consequences, in many of them from your owne Confessions and Reasons. You haue first obiected the Title of Pope of Rome, as o 1.767 The most ancient name of the Bishop of Rome: yet you confesse that there was a time so Ancient, when p 1.768 Neither the name of Papa, or Pontifex, were attributed to the Bishop of Rome, but onely the bare Title of Bishop of Rome. Againe, of this name you haue affirmed, that it was Anciently giuen to the Bishop of Rome * 1.769 Per Antonomasiam, by way of Excellence, as proper vnto him; and yet you grant that q 1.770 The name of Pope was appro∣priated onely to the Bishop of Rome by the Decree of Pope Gre∣gory the seauenth, in a Councell at Rome about the yeare 1073. Againe, you noted the Bishop of Rome to be called * 1.771 Papa Ec∣clesiae, Father of the Church, as if he were altogether Father, and could not by any Relation be Filius Ecclesiae, the Child

of the Church, or Subiect to a Councell. Which bladder of pride was pricked by the Fathers of the Councell of Basil, ar∣guing thus: r 1.772 If the Church Catholike be the Mother of all the faithfull, then the Bishop of Rome ought to be Child vnto her, else (according to that saying of blessed Augustine) he cannot haue God for his Father, that hath not the Church for his Mother. So they. Haue you not now, by your propriety of the name Papa, spunne a faire threed, whereby you strangle your Popes and Popedome it selfe?

As for the fourth * 1.773 Title of Summus Pontifex, or Chiefe Priest, you haue auouched from thence, that the Pope of Rome is the onely Monareh: And yet yeeld that there may be s 1.774 Two Chiefes in euery kind, namely Negatiuely, as that which hath none aboue it; although not Affirmatiuely chiefe, as that which is aboue all others. So then, it is not necessary, that the word Chiefe should inferre a Supremacy; else Pope Leo was farre ouershot, when speaking of Bishops in Generall, he called them t 1.775 Summi Pontifices, Chiefe Priests: and so ma∣king All other Popes, made himselfe none at all; because still the Monarchy can be but of One. Nor thus onely, but fur∣ther you, who by one Cardinall haue made these words Ponti∣fex Maximus, and Sacerdos Summus to be Notes of Mo∣narchie in the Popes, do by another Cardinall contradict it, saying, that u 1.776 The name of Pontifex Maximus may admit of Equality with others, except there be ioyned with this another Title of Bishop of Bishops. Which also, as you know, is insuffi∣cient, because Pope Clemens (in the Epistle which you call his) called the Apostle Saint Iames x 1.777 The Bishop of Bishops, euen in the dayes of Saint Peter.

The ninth Title you contended for, as proper to the Pope, was the name of Pastor, or Sheapheard of the flocke of Christ: Notwithstanding of all other Bishops in the Christian Church, the Pope hath least right to be called Pastor, except it be Per Antiphrasim, à non pascendo; because you cannot reckon for some hundreds of yeares scarce any One Pope that professedly

discharged his Function of Preaching; albeit Preaching be ac∣knowledged more than once by your Fathers of the Councell of Trent, to be y 1.778 The Chiefe office of a Bishop. If therefore (as your z 1.779 Cardinall himselfe preached) He deserueth not the name of a Pastòr, who doth not personally attend his flocke: and if (as the same Cardinall proceedeth,) Euery Bishop ought to preach, except he haue lawfull impediments, nor is it sufficient to performe this by others, because (saith he) Christ said not to Peter, haue a care that others feed, but feed Thou my sheepe. This then your Cardinals one Reason alone, of it selfe, doth most iustly vntitle your Bishop of Rome of the most proper At∣tribute of a Bishop; and if no Bishop, then no Bishop of Bishops, or Chiefe Bishop; because there cannot be a greater Soloecisme, than to call one a Chiefe in any calling, the Chiefe duty where∣of he chiefly and specially neglecteth. You will say the Ex∣ception, Except he be lawfully hindered, will excuse him: Nay, but it doth accuse him rather, because we must not ima∣gine that there was not almost any one Pope, for the space of many hundred yeares, who could not in his whole life time find iust leasure to studie and preach one Sermon.

The thirteenth (which onely hath bene hitherto omitted) is * 1.780 Sponsus Ecclesiae, The Bride-groome of the Church. This likewise you contend for, as for a Pearle proper to the Crowne of a Papall Monarch. Albeit a 1.781 you know that this was not put into the Popes Miter, vntill the yeare 1••00. And what more? the Pope with you must be (forsooth) The Vicar of Christ, who is the High Pastor of the Church; and he must be also the Spouse of the same Church, which is called by Saint Iohn * 1.782 The Spouse of Christ. How did Saint Bernard like of this Diuinity? He writing to Pope Eugenius admonisheth him not to call himselfe The Bridegroome of the Church, which is the Spouse of Christ; For b 1.783 No man (saith he) will commit his Spouse to his Vicar. Let your Cardinall Glosse hereupon (as he doth) by distinguishing betweene c 1.784 Princi∣pall and Inferior Bridegroome, and of Intrinsecall, and Ex∣trinsecall generation: all will not satisfie Saint Bernard his Reprehension of the Popes abuse of the word. For we de∣mand, did the Pope vse the Title aright? why then needed he

this Admonition of Saint Bernard? but did he need this Ad∣monition? then did he (in the iudgement of Saint Bernard) falsly arrogate the Title. We belieue your Iesuite, who saith, d 1.785 There is but one Bridegroome of the Church: but more S. Bernard; yet neither of both in respect of Saint Iohn, who saith: * 1.786 He that hath the Bride is the Bride-groome, but the friend of the Bride is he that standeth by and heareth. Which dissolueth your former distinction; for Bride and Bride-groome are Relatiues, the Bride therfore, which is the Church, is affianced vnto the Bride-groome Christ: how? onely in Soule? Is she not betrothed in Body also? Else what meaneth that saying, * 1.787 Yee are bought with a price, glorifie therefore God in your bodies, and in your soules? Ergo the Relation is both Outward and Inward: euery other (were he the best of Christians) is but a e 1.788 Paranymph, and a friend of the Bride at the most; as Theophylact and Bede do both teach.

In the foureteenth, of the name Apostleship, you seeme to glory and boast: notwithstanding you are not ignorant that it could not be properly ascribed vnto him, knowing that there is as much difference betweene f 1.789 Apostleship, and Bi∣shopricke, as there is betweene one that hath a Generall Com∣mission to go where he will, and him that hath a Particular Charge, fixed to a certaine place.

As for the last Title of Vniuersall Bishop, which you say was giuen to the Pope by a Councell, as implying a Monarchie; we answer that there is a falshood in the Antecedent: For it was not the Synod, but the Popes owne Legats that vented out that Vanity. And for the Consequence and sense of the word, betokening a Monarchie ouer All Others, as Subiects, this hath * 1.790 bene proued, from Pope Gregory, to be a detestable and Antichristian falshood. And your Gratian hath it in ex∣presse words, as the direct sense of the Councell of Africke, wherein Saint Augustine had his voyce, saying; g 1.791 Neither may the Pope of Rome be called Vniuersall.

Our fourth Discouery of the Falshood and Vanity of the Papall Defence taken from ancient Titles, by the Blasphemousnesse of some Titles, which haue bene newly conferred vpon Popes. SECT. 5.

IF your Popes had thought these former Titles sufficient, then questionlesse would they not haue affected other Attri∣butes farre more transcendent, which of later times are giuen vnto them by their Parasites, and swallowed vp of them∣selues, as their spirit and vitall breath, which you may find in the h 1.792 Marginals, as I. Pope Innocentius the eight to be cal∣led in Royaltie and Vnction CHRIST aboue his fellowes; an Attribute proper vnto Iesus Christ himselfe, Heb. 1.9. II. Pope Paulus the second to be called a Coelestiall Maiestie; which all know to be proper to God. III. Pope Pius the fourth to be called The voyce and Oracle of Truth, proper also to Christ, who saith, I am the truth, Ioh, 14.6. IV. Againe, Pope Innocent the eight to be called One aboue all Principalities and powers, and whatsoeuer is named in this or in the other world; plainly proper to Christ, Ephes. 1. V. Pope Sixtus Quintus called The corner-stone in Sion, prooued, pretious, and chiefe foundation; proper to Christ, Isa. 28.14. and 1. Pet. 2. as is confessed by your owne i 1.793 Expositors. VI. Pope Gregory the thirteenth (stop your eares) called Power, Might, or Maiesty of God vpon earth; and againe, Our Lord God the Pope. Wee pretermit many the like Blasphe∣mies.

Yea, but (will you say) Others gaue vnto them those Ti∣tles,

they required them not. Then let Herod excuse himselfe that the people cryed aloud in magnifying his wisedome, and saying, * 1.794 The voyce of God and not of man: yet became hee in the end but a lowzie god. Moreouer Simon Magus is not read to haue required that estimation, as to be called * 1.795 The mighty power of God. Nor can you deny that these Titles were vsed of Authors in their Dedicatory Epistles, and in their personall Orations vnto Popes; and this last authorized by Pope Gregory the thirteenth, in the Papall Glosse it selfe. A fifth answer remaineth, which we shall referre to the Section next following the Challenge.

CHALLENGE.

THE Fable of the Chough or Daw is not vnknowne vn∣to you, which plumed himselfe with the stolne feathers of other Birds of all sorts: in the end, when all the other Birds had challenged each one her owne feather, and pulled it from her, she poore and naked Cornicula became a matter of scorne and laughter vnto them all. Semblably this your strange and monstrous creature Papall Monarch haue you adorned and bedecked with fifteene Titles, as it were so ma∣ny Feathers, which vpon due Examination, by iust Parallels, your owne Confessions, and Reasons, are found some of them very new, most of them common to other Bishops as well as to the Pope, and almost all (in your Papall sense) very vniusti∣fiable: besides your later additament of other Epithets Trans∣cendent, and (as you see) notably Blasphemous. Then which what better manifestation can there be of the vanity and im∣piety of your Papisticall Defence? Hauing spoken of the At∣tributes, wee now come to the Sentences of Ancient Fa∣thers.

Your Obiection from Ancient Fathers is taken from their Sentences both Greeke and Latine. First of the Greeke Fathers, by discouering the Falshood and Vanity of your Papall Defence. SECT. 6.

POpes of Rome in Primitiue Times, by their constancy in the Faith, by their integrity of life, by the Primacy of their place, in their priority of Order, and by the Generall estima∣tion which was held of them in each of these respects, obtai∣ned an Authority of credit to helpe all Bishops and Patriarchs in their extremities; onely they had no Vniuersall Iurisdiction or Dominion ouer them. Hence are the Sentences of Fathers Obiected in the k 1.796 Margent, which doe appeare so notably abused by your Obiections; The absurdities of whose Con∣sequence we choose in this place to discouer by Similitudes, as the Prophet Nathan dealt with Dauid. The Case then stan∣deth thus, as if they would haue taught those holy Fathers to haue argued Absurdly. As from the l 1.797 First, namely Ignatius, thus: The Church of York hath a Seat of Primacy, in the Prouince of York, therefore that Church is the Head of all Churches within this Kingdome. From the m 1.798 Second, to wit Iraeneus, as if thus: It is now necessary for all sorts of Trades∣men to haue recourse to London for their wares, for the abun∣dant store which is in that City; therefore this Necessity is absolute, no-where but at London; and perpetuall, neuer any where else can it be, but at London. From the Third, viz. n 1.799 Epiphanius, and the Fourth, viz. o 1.800 Athanasius, as if thus:

A.R. in the County of Suffolke craued pardon of the Shiriffe of Middlesex, for a notorious offence done vnto him. Ergo he accounted that Shiriffe to haue Authority of a Shiriffe in the County of Suffolke. From the p 1.801 Fifth, that is, Dionysius Alexandrinus, as if thus: Two Gentlemen (one being Iustice of Peace) agreed to haue their difference to be ordered by ano∣ther Iustice of Peace. Ergo, one of these Iustices of Peace hath Dominion ouer the other. Of the q 1.802 Sixt, which is Basil, much hath beene said already, somewhat more presently after. From the r 1.803 Seuenth, which is Gregory Nazianzene, and the s 1.804 Eight namely Zozomene, as if thus: The Parish within the Tower of London liueth in peace, as becommeth that place, which commandeth the whole City. As though the word [Command] in this place did note the Ecclesiasticall part, that is, the Parish to be Commander, and not the Tower it selfe, Politickely vnderstood. From the t 1.805 Ninth, to wit Crysostome, as if a King of Poland vniustly deposed by his people, and fly∣ing to the King of Hungary for helpe, to preserue the Law of Nations, for rhe Regality of Kings, and thanking him for his Fatherly loue and care; did thereby acknowledge the King of Hungary to bee a King ouer the King of Poland. Of the u 1.806 Tenth, to wit, Cyrill of Alexandria, presently after. From

thex 1.807Eleuenth, that is Theodoret, some-what differing from the former, thus; As if the Bishop of Arles in France, being de∣posed by a Synod of his fellow Bishops, for Heresie, desiring helpe for his Restitution from the Bishop of Paris, and also from other Bishops within his owne Prouince, by auouching vnto him and them his Orthodoxe Faith; and being thereupon restored by the same Synod, by which hee was repulsed, did therefore iudge the Bishop of Paris the Supreme Iudge of all the other Bishops. From the y 1.808 Twelfth, who was Acacius, as if one should argue thus: The King of Great Brittaine might haue beene surnamed Pacificus, because hee had a Care of the Peace of all Christendome; therefore he ought to bee held Su∣preme aboue the Emperour. Or thus, that Saint Paul, who vsed the same speech now Obiected, of hauing the care of all Churches, must therefore be esteemed to haue had a Gouerne∣ment aboue Peter, and all the other Apostles. From the z 1.809 Thir∣teenth, viz. Liberatus, as if thus: Although Liberatus, who was an Author that had beene deceiued by Heretikes, in giuing credit to their false and forged writings, doth thus report, yet we must not distrust him, when he reporteth for the Pope. Or else thus: We must beleeue that of the Bishop of Patara, which he himselfe could not beleeue. The a 1.810 last, who is Iusti∣nian, hath beene already answered by a Parallel of other Bi∣shops and Bishoprickes, which haue beene called Heads of all Churches, without any colour of a Crowne of Monarchie.

Our Second discouery of the falshood and Vanity of your former Consequence, taken from the Testimonies of some of the Ancient Fathers aboue mentioned. SECT. 7.

THe Fathers that haue beene alleadged were of the Ea∣sterne Church, and therefore doubtlesse were of the Faith of those Generall Councels in the East, which haue * 1.811 beene knowne to oppose themselues to the pretended Papall Iuris∣diction, as oft as they had iust Cause so to doe. Which one Consideration ought to be your full satisfaction in this point. Notwithstanding, for a clearer conuiction of that falshood, which we haue beene constrained so often to complaine of in your Obiectors, We proceed to a Second Answer, which is by Retorsion, in auouching your owne witnesses against you.

Saint Basil is the * 1.812 Sixth Witnesse which your Cardinall produced: one so aduerse to your Cause, as that hee (you * 1.813 know) fell into an extreme distrust of the Church of Rome, which be iustly condemned of Pride and Ignorance; and also accompted Athanasius Bishop of Antioch to be in his time (in respect of his sound and sincere iudgement) The Chiefe Head of all others. If now Saint Basil cannot be called a Subiect to your Monarch, the Pope of Rome, then ought you to haue patience with Protestants, who haue tenne-fold more iust cause aginst the Church of Rome, than he at that time possibly could haue.

Saint Cyrill Patriarch of Alexandria hath beene cited for the* 1.814 Ninth witnesse; whom (because his Testimonie requi∣reth a larger discussion) we haue reserued to this place. The Story concerning him (as you may collect out of yourb 1.815 Ba∣ronius) consisteth of Three parts: 1. In behalfe of Theophilus, Predecessor to Cyrill, the 2. Touching Atticus Patriarch of Constantinople, an Admonisher of Cyrill, the 3. Is acted by Cyrill himselfe.

Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, and Predecessor to Cyrill, was c 1.816 Excommunicated by Pope Innocentius, for not admitting of the name of Chrysostome (now dead) into the Dyptickes, or Tables of publike Commemorations: in which Excommunication the same Theophilus continued vntill the last houre of his death. And how little support you can haue for that, which your Cardinall addeth, touching his altering of his opinion at the very point of death, will appeare in hand∣ling the Second and Third part.

Secondly therefore Atticus Patriarch of Constantinople, who had runne the same course of Opposition with Theophi∣lus, against the Restoring of the Name of Chrysostome, now after the death of Theophilus inclineth to the other side; and vnderstanding that Cyrill was chosen Patriarch of Alexan∣dria, in succession of Theophilus, he writeth to Cyril an Epistle, wherein he recompteth Theophilus in the number ofd 1.817 Saints, and seeketh to perswade Cyrill to the Restoring of Chryso∣stomes name into the publike Records. But will you know by what Reasons? euen by the Conference had with the Empe∣rour Theodosius, and signifying that he was e 1.818 Vrged vnto it by the necessity of the present distraction and tumultuousnesse of the people: but not so much as in one syllable to haue any con∣sideration of the Popes will and Command, or of the danger of his Excommunication; belike the stinch of that his Thunder∣bolt was not so rancke and noysome in his daies. Nay con∣trarily, as (f 1.819 Baronius will haue vs to obserue) Atticus (euen at this time of his yeelding to the restoring of the name of Chrysostome) being extremely displeased with the Church of Rome, by which he himselfe had beene excommunicated, called other two Easterne Bishops Schismatickes, euen because they had ioyned in Communion with her. What? call men Schisma∣tickes, for ioyning Communion with the Church of Rome? Then it is plaine, that he yeeldeth not to the Restoring of Chry∣sostome's Name by compulsion of the Pope, as hath beene fai∣ned. And it is as cleare, that Theophilus did not recant his for∣mer iudgement at the point of death; else would Atticus haue vsed this as an Argument to perswade Cyrill, in behalfe of Chrysostome; especially making mention of Theophilus in the

same Epistle: and whether rather Atticus, that liued in the same Time with Theophilus, know better the manner thereof, or a Relator that came many hundred yeeres after, iudge you. But (which is most euident of all) Atticus, although hee did now That which was desired of the Pope of Rome, concer∣ning Chrysostome, notwithstanding calling those Bishops Schis∣matickes, who for their respect to Chrysostome ioyned Com∣munion with that Excommunicating Church of Rome, and yet naming Theophilus a Saint; doth proue sufficiently that Theo∣philus, whom the Pope had Excommunicated, neuer sought to haue Vnion with him before his death. Neuerthelesse this Atticus, Eighteene yeeres after his death, was acknowledged by Pope Celestinus to haue beene g 1.820 A most strong Champion for the Catholike Faith.

Now entereth Cyrill himselfe to act his owne part. Hee, after hee had professed his defence of the Canon of Nice against Chrysostome, returneth this Answer to Atticus: h 1.821 Since the time that you Atticus (saith he) haue beene Bishop in the Sea of Constantinople, no man resisted your meetings or Synods in the Church, or if any wilfully separated themselues, yet by the grace of Christ they were recalled. And who was there among the Magistrates, that was not obedient vnto you? Or what one man for this cause is now without the Church? Surely none. But you tell me that, since your relenting, much peace hath in∣sued in the Churches: be it so, yet there being so many Chur∣ches with vs, which stand out against the restoring of the name of Chrysostome, we may not dissent from them. Thus Saint Cy∣rill in his Epistle, as your Cardinall hath related. Where hee speaketh of the Churches of Constantinople and Antioch: of Constantinople hee affirmeth that at all times (therefore in the time when Atticus himselfe the Bishop of Constantinople was Excommunicated by the Church of Rome, as hath beene con∣fessed) both Clergie, Magistrates, and people within those Churches did (notwithstanding the Papall dis-vnion, and Se∣paration) Communicate with Atticus. And now concerning his owne Patriarchall Church of Alexandria, Cyril himselfe professeth that hee must not dissent from it, and many other Churches in Greece, that yeelded not to the Decree of the

Church of Rome: which againe ouerthroweth your Article of absolute Necessity of Subiection to the Romane Church.

Cyrill proceedeth in his Answer to Atticus: i 1.822 But wee condemne them (saith he) that obey not the power of God, vsing that saying (of the Prophet,) we haue cured Babylon, and shee is not healed; let vs forsake her. For we may not (because of the speaches of some, if any such speaches be) suffer the Canons of the Church to be abolished. So he. By which words he labou∣reth to perswade Atticus againe to gaine-say the Commemo∣ration of Chrysostome, which the Pope, by all his meanes of threats of Excommunications, and perswasions, sought to effect. But what of all this? will you say. What? hearken to your Cardinall.k 1.823 Reader, I would haue thee Consider (saith he) that in this bitternesse of contention which Cyrill now had, against the Restitution of the name of Chrysostome, & against whom he inueigheth in this Epistle, yet for Reuerence sake hee durst not say any thing openly and expressely against Pope Inno∣centius, who was the Author and chiefe cause of re∣storing Chrysostomes name into the Dyptickes, and re∣uenged himselfe vpon those that withstood it, as did Theo∣philus Predecessor to Cyril, whom for that cause the Pope depri∣ued of his Communion. Thus farre reacheth your Cardinals Consideration.

From whence you may be pleased to consider with vs how slily and smoothly your Cardinall slydeth ouer this piece of ice, for feare breaking it, and of falling in. Cyrill (forsooth) for Reuerence durst not say any thing openly against Pope Inno∣centius▪ who authorized the restoring of Chrysostome, &c. As though it might not be said, Quid verba audiam, cùm facta videam? words are but shadowes, deeds are substanti∣alls. And Cyrill did more, and that openly, than your Cardi∣nall saith he durst say. For knowing that Theophilus had beene Excommunicate, for Opposing the Decree of the Pope, yet doth Cyrill persist in the same Opposition: which may be a se∣cond Argument vnto vs, that Theophilus had not recanted be∣fore his death.

Secondly, knowing that Atticus, Patriarch of Constanti∣nople

had beene likewise depriued of the Popes Communion, notwithstanding doth Cyrill perswade Atticus, by his letters, to stand in the defence of the same Cause.

Thirdly, knowing that Pope Innocentius did still vrge the aduancing of the Memory of Chrysostome, neuerthelesse doth Cyrill actually resist it. Can a man interpret it a point of Reue∣rence toward a Monarch, to say nothing, and yet openly to withstand his Monarchy? So false in those daies was your Article of Necessity of Subiection to the Church of Rome, in the iudgement of Saint Cyrill, who indeed deserued of the Church of Christ the Title of a Saint, and is so acknowledged by l 1.824 your selues.

Gladly would your m 1.825 Baronius (if it might bee) support your Cause by the Testimony of Nicephorus, who sheweth that Cyrill reformed his iudgement before his death. But if were it reasonable to beleeue a Tale of Nicephorus (an Author often reprooued by your selues, for his Fabulousnesse) being made more than Eight hundred yeere after the party is dead, yet can it not any whit serue your turne; because hee telleth that Cyrill corrected his errour, concerning his dis-estimation of Chrysostome, moued thereunto by a Vision that hee had, wherein He thought he saw Chrysostome expelling him out of the Church; and therefore he assembled a Prouinciall Synod, for the restoring of the name of Chrysostome into the publike Ta∣bles of the Church. We should haue expected, in a Case con∣cerning your Papall Monarchy, that Cyrill that was thus moued by a Vision of Chrysostome, to repent the not-restoring of his name, should haue much more beene moued by his cer∣taine knowledge of the displeasure of your Supreme Monarch the Pope of Rome, who did nothing but flash and thunder out Excommunications against all Opposites: and that the Restitution of Chrysostomes name should haue beene done simply by Submission to the same Popes Decree, and not one∣ly according to Cyrill his determination, by the consent of his owne Prouinciall Councell: or that the Cause of alteration should haue beene (if Nicephorus may deserue any credit) one∣ly by vertue of a Vision in a dreame.

The * 1.826 Eleuenth, and (for wee should bee two tedious to

pursue your Cardinalls vnconscionablenesse in each one) the last, that we shall insist in, is Acacius Bishop of Constantinople. He is brought in to witnesse, in his Epistle to Pope Simplicius, that the same Pope had The Care of all Churches, as if the word, Vniuersall Care of all Churches, did conclude an Vni∣uersall power and Monarchy ouer them all. The Vanity of which Consequence * 1.827 hath beene discouered by diuers Instan∣ces in Others, to whom the like Vniuersall Care of all Churches was applied; as vnto Saint Paul, in the dayes of Peter, to A∣thanasius in the dayes of Pope Iulius, and to the Bishops of France, in the dayes of Pope Eleutherius; in whom you will sweare (wee know) there was nothing lesse intended than a Monarchicall Popedome. But that this sense should be colle∣cted out of the words of Acacius, it exceedeth all limits of mo∣desty. For what one Bishop can you name of those times, that euer opposed himself more against the Iurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, than did this Patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius?

This you may easily try, by the manifold out-cries of Ba∣ronius vpon him, for his defence of Peter Mogge, by him esta∣blished in the Bishopricke of Alexandria, against the will of the same Pope Simplicius, calling him a n 1.828 Franticke man vio∣lently opposite vnto the Bishop of Rome; insomuch that the Pope did o 1.829 Excommunicate him: but hee shewed his contempt of that Censure sufficiently, by liuing and dying therein. Was not this Witnesse worthily selected by your Cardinall, trow you? who, in that hee saith, doth nothing aduantage Papall claime; and in that which he publikely worketh and acteth, doth quite ouerthrow it.

Wee may not let passe the publike Sanction and Decree of the Emperour p 1.830 Leo, whereby hee authorized and ratified the great dignitie of the Patriarchship of Constantinople, and the Patriarch thereof. For therein he calleth Acacius A most bles∣sed and religious Patriarke: the Church of Constantinople hee nameth The Mother of all Christians, that professe the Ortho∣dox Religion: the Priuileges of that Church hee requireth and decreeth to be as ample as euer they at any time had beene be∣fore, or in the time of his Empire; and to continue in the same latitude and extent perpetually to all future ages. This is the

effect of this Emperors Decree: and can this accord with your Romish Monarchie?

Your q 1.831 Baronius the chiefe Herald that we can read of, for the blazoning and magnifying of it, will say No: for he fretteth at the very heart in reading of it, and therefore vpon his owne sole coniecture will haue his Reader thinke, that the frame of this Sanction was stiled by Acacius himselfe, that called the Church of Constantinople, The Mother of all Christians pro∣fessing the Orthodox Faith; and that therefore these were not (saith he) the words of that godly Emperor. So he.

As though the Church of Constantinople, so large in its own Ecclesiasticall Dioces, and by reason of the Emperiall Seat in that Citie, so potent in the discharge of Patriarchall Function, might not be called the Mother of All Orthodoxall Churches; although not as Rome falsely and ridiculously stileth her selfe, as if she were the Procreating Mother of all Churches, since Christ, and so (for many * 1.832 Churches Christian were planted before Rome) a Mother, before she was borne a Childe: yet a Nursing Mother might Constantinople be then iustly named, so farre as her care and endeauor sought and laboured the Con∣seruation of all others in pietie and Religion. But, not to stand vpon the Stile, looke vpon the Matter it selfe, and then will this Godly Emperour proue, as Theodosius, and other Pre∣decessours before him, a Patron of the Priuiledges of the Church of Constantinople, Equall with the Prerogatiues of ROME, according to the Decree of the Generall Councell of * 1.833 Chalcedon, notwithstanding the much fuming and fretting of your Popes thereat, to this day. And who can blame your later and Monarchicall Popes, who know right well that Monarchie brooketh no Aequalitie. Caesar, if hee will be Monarch, must be either Solus, or Nullus; onely One, or None at all.

CHALLENGE.

IF the importunitie of the Cause had not exacted of vs so large a discourse, we might haue spared thus much paines, which wee haue bestowed in this disquisition, for the disco∣uery

of the Vanitie of your Romish Claime, by the Testimony of the Ancient Fathers in the Greeke Church, wherein haue bin laid open so many falsehoods of your r 1.834 Proctor, as that hee may be iustly suspected to haue pleaded your Romane Cause Strenuè sanè, feruently enough, but (according to the Pro∣uerbe) Graecâ fide.

Your Obiections from the Sentences of Latine Fathers for your Papall Defence, and the Falshood and Vanitie thereof discouered. First from Saint Cyprian. SECT. 8.

THE First Father, whom your Cardinall produceth, for proofe that the Church of ROME and Bishop thereof is sole Monarke ouer all other Churches and Bishops, is Cypri∣an: wee say, Cyprian that Pole-starre of true Bishops, and ad∣mirable Martyr of Christ, whom, wee haue proued, to haue beene, by his writings, as an Ecclesiasticall Hanniball at the gates of Rome, crying defiance to the presumed Monarchie thereof. And sooner shall your Cardinall pull the Club of Her∣cules out of his hands, than wrest away from Cyprians wri∣tings the Patronage, which Protestants thence haue for defence of this present Cause.

The Obiection of your Cardinall is onely a racking of cer∣taine phrases of Cyprian, as namely s 1.835 One Church, one Root, one Priest in Christ his stead, one Chaire, one Bishopricke, one Bi∣shop, &c. Euery one of these Ones hee expoundeth to point out in speciall the Proper Church of Rome, and not to be either v∣sed Generally, for what soeuer Church or Bishop else, nor yet

particularly for Cyprian himselfe, or for the Church of Car∣thage, whereof he was Bishop. This is the maine issue of this Cause, concerning the Testimonies of Cyprian.

Two Formes of Answering lye directly before vs: First is, that Cyprian may be expounded by his owne Words. Second∣ly, that his Words may be interpreted by his Workes. t 1.836 One Chaire (saith hee) beginning at Peter; but to signifie that hee ment not the Chaire of Iurisdiction in One, but of Vnion e∣qually in Many, he addeth: The other Apostles were the same with Peter, indued with equall honour and power. Therefore by [Chaire] hee meant not any particular See of Peter, but the Vnion of one Vniuersall Church, gouerned by an Aristo∣craticall Equality of many.

We leaue the true Peter, and come to the counterfeit, whom you call your Pope, and see if you can take any better hold ei∣ther at the word Episcopatus, Bishoprick, or Episcopus, Bishop. u 1.837 There is one Bishopricke (saith Cyprian) dispersed through∣out the world, consisting of the vnanimous multitude of many Bishops. If by One Bishopricke were meant onely the See of Rome, then should there be so many Bishops of Rome, as there are Bishops throughout the world. This one Sentence of Cy∣prian breaketh the necke of your Cardinals conceit, that will haue vs to vnderstand by [Bishopricke] in Cyprian the Indiui∣duall Bishopricke of the Pope of Rome, and not a generall Complexion and Comprehension of All.

But that you may further know that Cyprian himselfe will challenge a part in this Bishopricke, as well as the Pope, x 1.838 Wee (saith he) that gouerne in the Church ought to hold Vnity, that so we may proue the Bishopricke to be but one: The Bishopricke is but one, a portion whereof is wholly and fully held of Euery Bishop. To signifie that, in the Essentiall nature of a Bishop, euery Bishop is equall, and the Collection of All doth equally make vp this One Vniuersall Bishopricke. Which can no more agree (as your Cardinall would haue it) to the Particular Bi∣shopricke of Rome, than if hee would conclude, that because there is One Man-hood, whereof euery man whatsoeuer in the world hath equally a portion, therefore this Man-hood is proper to Clement Pope of Rome.

If your Plea faile in the word One Bishopricke, it will ne∣uer preuaile in the word One Bishop; for Bishopricke and Bi∣shop are Relatiues, and inferre the same Consequence. Cyprian writing to Pope Cornelius, saith that y 1.839 There ought to be but One Bishop in the Catholike Church: which soundeth in the braines of your z 1.840 Teachers, that by Catholike Church is ment the Vniuersall Church of Christ; and by One Bishop particular∣ly Cornelius the then Bishop of Rome: A Glosse which neither Cyprian, nor Cornelius himselfe will admit. Not Cornelius, who describing the lewd properties of Nouatus, who sought to snatch the Bishopricke of Rome from him, a 1.841 Nouatus (saith he) would haue vs to thinke forsooth that hee did forget that there ought to be but One Bishop in the Catholike Church, wherein there are six and forty Priests, and seauen Deacons: where the word Catholike Church is not taken in the proper sense of V∣niuersall Church (as you would haue it, to make him an Vni∣uersall Bishop) but it is taken for a Church professing the Ca∣tholike Faith: in which signification the word Catholike Church doth agree as well with any Orthodox Church, as with the Church of Rome. You discerne this as well as we, for hee speaketh expresly of a Catholike Church which hath but Fortie and six Priests, and but seauen Deacons. You are (wee thinke) already ashamed to heare of such a paucitie of Priests and Deacons within albeit but the Suburbs of the Citie of Rome: which to pronounce of the whole and Vniuersall Church Catholike, throughout the world, seemeth to be as loud a lye, almost, as can be in the Vniuersall world, and as lit∣tle truth then can there be in your Obiections.

Wee returne to Cyprian, who sometimes speaketh of One Bishop at large, and sometimes with Relation to himselfe. b 1.842 Nouatian (saith hee) could not obtaine the Bishopricke (mea∣ning of Rome) although hee had bin made Bishop (namely thereof) by his fellow Bishops, that is to say, Nouatian B••∣shops. Who then should haue the Bishopricke? Who, but Cornelius, who was made Bishop of Rome (for this is impli∣ed) by his Orthodox fellow Bishops? If in this place [Bishop] must signifie One onely Bishop, how commeth the Bishop of Rome to haue Fellow-Bishops? Doe not [Onely] and [Also]

make a plaine Solecisme? And other Bishops there alwayes were; except when you make onely the Pope the One Bishop, as the onely Vicar of Christ, you make all other Bishops (a∣gainst your owne Conclusions) to be but the Vicars of the Pope.

At the length Cyprian commeth to plead his owne Cause. Once writing to Pope Cornelius, c 1.843 I cannot but speake with griefe (saith hee) and I am constrained to say it, when a Bishop elected in peace, and approued of his people Foure yeares, &c. Where, by [Bishop] hee could not vnderstand Cornelius Pope of Rome, who liued Bishop but d 1.844 Two yeares; but ment indeede himselfe. Againe, writing to his Aduer∣sary Pupianus, who sought to ouertop him, e 1.845 Hence sprang Schismes and Haeresies (saith Cyprian) when that one Bi∣shop, that gouerneth the Church, is insolently contemned: as who should say, the Fraternitie hath not had a Bishop these sixe yeares, nor the Flocke a Shepheard, nor God a Priest. Which words, the iniurie hee receiued of his Aduersary, com∣pelled him to speake of himselfe; and his owne modestie, to speake in the Third person, as not of himselfe. Lastly, when hee calleth the Church f 1.846 One, which (saith hee) possesseth all the grace of Christ; the spouse of the Church, wherein (spea∣king of himselfe) we haue authoritie and rule: must the word [Church] here also Indiuidually point out the Particular Church of Rome? So should Cyprian be said to haue go∣uerned the Particular See of Rome, which whether it were alone, or with Cornelius, it dissolueth his Mo∣narchie?

What shall wee say to the sayings of Cyprian? if hee had beleeued your Article of Papall Monarchie, as a Doctrine of Faith, hee that laid downe his life, for the Profession of our true Monarke and Head Christ, the Lord of life, was h••e either such a Coward, that hee durst not plainely professe this Faith? or else such an Infant as that hee could not expresse it in the proper style of that Article, concerning the Pope of Rome, the Bishop of Bishops, the Father of Fathers, the High-Priest of Christ, and Monarch of the Vniuersall Church, or at least some one Syllable to that effect? of which Attri∣butes

your Cardinall hath made a faire Diademe, and fitted it onely to your Head, the Pope. And so indeede Cyprian would haue instiled Pope Cornelius, if he had bin of your Faith: For * 1.847 Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Yet what Faith did that holy mouth of Saint Cyprian vtter, in his inscribing of Pope Cornelius? In all his g 1.848 Epistles to that Pope, hee saluteth him with onely Charissime Frater, Most deare Brother, and taketh his Vale with the same, Most deare Brother, Farewell. And in his Epistles vnto others, falling into mention of the same Pope Cornelius, whom hee indeede both much loued and honoured, yet hee excee∣deth not these Epithets:h 1.849 Our fellow-Bishop Cornelius, our Col∣legue, or fellow in office Cornelius, and O Brother Antonia∣nus, our Brother Cornelius, &c. Behold this in a secular glasse, and conceiue what a despight it were vnto a King, to heare his Vassall salute him with a Farewell fellow Henrie. Fie, fie; what will you make of the Fathers? will you iudge them so witlesse, or senselesse as not to haue vnderstood their Morals? Yet so you propound them. For some where they giue glorious Titles to the Popes of Rome, and in euery such one, you point out the Pope, the Monarch of the Church; notwithstanding the same Fathers gaue the like Ti∣tles also to * 1.850 others: Sometime they ioyne more familiarly with Popes, by Tearmes of Fellowship and Brotherhood, and yet euen then also you will haue them to beleeue your Pope to be their Monarch. What Solecismes must these be? The First, as if one should put the Diadem vpon the Kings foot: the Second, as if hee should put the Kings shooe vpon his head. This is not spoken by vs, to note the holy Fathers of such default (farre be it from vs) but to condemne your Authors and Disputers of want of sobrietie, that thus reason beyond all reason. Thus haue you heard Cyprian interpret his Words by his owne Word.

Will you now heare Cyprian speake by his Acts and Deeds? wee shall but be your remembrancers of that which hath bin largely proued already, as namely Cyprian his * 1.851 Reprehen∣ding and taunting the person of Stephen the Pope of Rome, and Successour to Cornelius, contradicting his Decrees, opposing

his Romane Councell, disclaiming his claime of Appeales, con∣temning his threats of Excommunication. Can you perswade your selues that Cyprian could haue escaped the crueltie of your Romish Inquisition, if hee had liued, and so behaued him∣selfe a Bishop among you at this day? All this while we haue said nothing of the i 1.852 Corruptions of the writings of Cyprian, which your Papalists feede vpon.

Our like Discouerie of the like Vanitie of your Proofes, out of other the La∣tine Fathers. SECT. 9.

THE Second Father is OPTATVS. Concerning whom your Obiection maketh f••r vs a good Answere. For if Optatus (as hee k 1.853 saith) followed the iudgement of Cyprian, than it followeth that the foresaid Iudgement of Cyprian may resolue vs of the Doctrine of Optatus; to wit, that by One Chaire or Church, hee ment the whole Vniuersall Church professing the same Catholike Faith; and that the Particular Church of Rome, as it then stood, was an excellent Porti∣on thereof, built vpon the same Faith of Peter, which all Christians professe: but onely a Portion, because the same Father obiecteth against the Donatists their want of Vnion with the Churches of Asia (commended by Saint Iohn in his Reuelation) as well as with Rome. You haue no fellowship (saith hee) with the seauen Angels of Asia: whatsoeuer is without these Seauen Churches is an alien; namely, from the Catholike Church and Saluation. Which Doctrine of Optatus is sufficient to proue all Appropriators of an Infallible and Perpetuall Church, l 1.854 to onely Rome, to be little better then Donatists. If you require a further Answer, you may receiue it from a farre more elegant penne, which will tell you that

m 1.855 Optatus, who required a necessary Vnion with the Romane Chaire, yet neuer taught any Necessity of Vniuersall Subiection vnto it. Nay, so farre was he from acknowledgement of Mo∣narchicall Dominion in the Pope, that he calleth him abso∣lutely his Fellow. So he. As for Necessity of Vnion, it is no more than he required to be had (as you haue heard) vnto the Churches of Asia: so that whensoeuer Rome (as Asia hath done) shall depart from the sincerity of the Apostolicall pro∣fession, the departure from that must dissolue the Necessity of Vnion.

The third Latine Father is n 1.856 Ambrose, the fourth o 1.857 Hie∣rom, the fifth p 1.858 Augustine. If we thought it not an iniury vnto you to repeat the former Answers, which haue beene made to all these Obiections, it were an easie matter for vs to be superfluous. When you shall reuiew the places, then we doubt not but it will seeme, as well to you as vnto vs, an hate∣full thing to see what violence your Obiections haue offered to these witnesses of Antiquity, but much more to their owne consciences, in inforcing these witnesses to speake the language of Babell, and conspiring together to build the Tower of Pa∣pall Monarchy, which both their words and Acts (as you haue * 1.859 already heard) do in a manner confound.

The sixt is q 1.860 Prosper, whose meaning might haue bene better knowne, if he had written in prose, and not assumed vnto him the liberty of a Poet. Yet he, and the seauenth, namely r 1.861 Victor Vticensis call the Church of Rome The Head of all Churches. But how? in power and Iurisdiction? you could neuer prooue this out of any ancient Father: No, but euen as Antioch and Constantinople, with other Churches, * 1.862 haue bene so called in other respects.

The eight is s 1.863 Vincentius Lyrinensis, in whose Testimonie your Cardinall doth first mistake a mountaine for a man, and

secondly painting, for person. For Lyrinensis called not the Popes of Rome, namely Felix and Iulius; nor the Church of Rome, but the Citie of Rome, The Head of all the world. What is more frequent than Rome to be called the Head of the Church, Caput orbis, after an Ethnick stile, because of the Ci∣uill Dominion thereof ouer other Nations? Hee called also Carthage on the North, and Milan on the South, the Sides, by reason of their situations, onely figuratiuely. And although he had in like manner called the Bishop of Rome the Head, and the other two Bishops his Sides, must therefore the Pope of Rome be truly and absolutly iudged to be the Monarchicall Head of the Church, in the meaning of Lyrinensis? Then must you as absolutely beleeue that Cyprian of Carthage, and Am∣brose of Milan, and their Successors, were alwaies to continue the Sides of the Catholike Church. Is this good learning, thus to snatch at aduantages of naked Metaphors, and with * 1.864 Mi∣chol to present vnto vs an image for a man? But who is there that knoweth not how little the Church of Rome is beholden to Vincentius Lyrinensis? who writing a Booke, which you your selues call t 1.865 Little in bulke, but most great in weight and worth, wherein he giueth Resolution to all Catholikes how they should discerne the True Church; yet neuer remembred your Romane Article, of making the Church of Rome the Mother, Mistris, and Monarch of all the Churches in the world, without Subiection whereunto (as you say) there is no Saluation. But how should a man remember that which hee neuer forgot, or forget that which he neuer learnt? For if this had bene his Faith, his booke of Resolutions which you say was so Little, might haue bene comprehended in one leafe, and almost in one line, to wit; There is but one Catholike Church, which is the Roman, which hath the Promise of perpe∣tuall infallibility, stand euer to this, and then you cannot but be a good Catholike. Nay, he matcheth the Easterne Church with the Westerne, as you * 1.866 haue heard. And in the same Book, entituled Against all profane Innouations, he doth throughout condemne all your new Articles of the now Romane Church, by one infallible, and inuiolable Rule, which is this; that No Article as of Faith should be admitted into the Church, which

was not taught and professed in the dayes of the Apostles.

Your last Father, for due Antiquity, is u 1.867 Cassidore, who be∣cause he saith no more than hath bene formerly said, we for∣beare to answer more, than hath bene answered: that from Particular Answers, we may now speedily addresse our selues to the more Generall.

Our Generall Discouery of the Falshood and Ʋanity of the former Obiections, out of the Ancient Fathers. SECT. 10.

DIstingue tempora, is a necessary Aphorisme and Caution, especially in historicall Obseruations. * 1.868 Right glorious things are spoken of thee, O City of God, saith Dauid of Ieru∣salem: but when? when the Inhabitants professed the true worship of God. But assoone as they reuolted from God, then Bethel became Bethauen, and the Virgin Sion an Adul∣terous whore. So say wee; Right admirable commendations haue bene often Anciently attributed to the Church and Bi∣shops of Rome, for their Integritie of life, Constancie in the Faith, Care and Conscience for the preseruation of all Chur∣ches in the Christian profession: But not to distinguish in both these the differences of Times, by [Was] from [Is] were to confound Chastity with Adultery, God with Belial, & Christ with Antichrist.

Apply we this to the point in Question. Take vnto you this Position: x 1.869 When the Fathers say that the Church of Rome cannot erre, the word [Cannot] is not to be taken abso∣lutely, and simply. How like you this Thesis? Do you approue of it? Then do all your proofes from Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, concerning the power, dignity, and integrity of the Ancient Church of Rome, vanish with their times; because the Church of Rome is long since farre degenerated from her first integrity. But do you not allow it? why, it is the Confession of Bellarmine, the greatest Champion that your Church hath had in these later Ages. He onely addeth to the Thesis, this

Caution: So long as the Apostolicall Sea continueth at Rome; he should haue said with vs (according to the Generall Do∣ctrine of the Fathers) So long as the ancient, and sincere Faith, and diuine worship is preserued at Rome: for it is not Sedes, but Fides that defineth a Church.

And for your further knowledge, that the Commenda∣tions, giuen vnto Rome and other Churches in the dayes of Antiquity, were not absolutly and simply vnderstood, call but to mind how * 1.870 often Tertullian, Irenaeus, Augustine, Opta∣tus, and other Fathers (for the proofe of Orthodox Do∣ctrines) did instance in the Churches of Corinth, Thessaly, An∣tioch, Asia, and other Churches, as well as in Rome. To giue you one Example for all, in the last of Asia, (because it com∣meth first to hand) it is that which you receiued but euen now out of Optatus; who speaking of the Churches of Asia, * 1.871 Who∣soeuer (saith he) is without these Churches, (namely concer∣ning the Faith professed) is an Alien, and without Saluation. This was then as iustly said of Asia, as now it cannot be said thereof: and what one Encomium of Presidence, (onely that of Order excepted) or Iudgment, or Sanctity hath bene euer exhibited to Ancient Popes, by any Excellency of Titles, which (as you * 1.872 haue heard, by iust Parallells) haue not bene communicated vnto Athanasius, Basil, Augustine, and some other Fathers?

Yet are we not contented with this Answer (although o∣therwise most true) but add, for clearer Demonstration of this Truth, and auerre that the glorious Phrases, which were anciently ascribed to the Church of Rome and her Bishops, were not giuen as absolutely and simply belonging to her, no not in those very times of Antiquity, when they were more proper vnto her. For * 1.873 Cyprian that said in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius, that No perfidiousnesse could haue accesse to Rome, meant not that this his Commendation should continue in Succession with their Popes; who himselfe, in his Epistle to Pope Stephen (one who a yeare after the death of Cornelius succeeded in the same Popedome) did vehemently reproue, yea and reproach him for admitting the very same kind of Perfidiousnesse before mentioned; euen by his allowing of

False and perfidious Excommunicates, and Incorrigible per∣sons, Appealing to his See. And * 1.874 Hierom, who accompted euery one Prophane and execrable, that did not Communi∣cate with Pope Damasus, would not haue so farre honoured Pope Liberius, whom hee himselfe brandeth with a blacke marke of Subscribing to Arian Heresie. Lastly, Saint * 1.875 Au∣gustine, that magnified Rome in this style, saying, The Prin∣cipality of the Romane Chaire did alwaies flourish, extended not this to an Absolute Monarchy, who himselfe was one of them that, in the Councell of Africke, clipped the wings there∣of, by decreeing that Transmarine Appeales should not be made, meaning to Rome. The speed we make to new mat∣ter will not suffer vs to multiply Instances from other for∣mer Examples.

I. CHALLENGE.

AS often therefore as you haue obiected vnto vs the En∣comiasticall speaches of Ancient Fathers, we may chal∣lenge you to obserue the difference betweene your Obie∣ctions, and our Retorsions. You vrge onely the Phrase, and we the Reason of the speach. Againe, you haue obtruded the sound of Words of the Fathers, we haue opposed their euident Acts and Deeds, the best Interpreters of their sayings. From their Acts therefore, we take confidence to argue that (to o∣mit the great and weightier matters) if S. Polycarpus would not yeeld to the Church and Pope of Rome, no not so much as in a Feast-day; Saint Augustine, not so much as in a Fast; Saint Basil, not so much as in exception against onely the word Hypostasis; Saint Ambrose, not so much as in a Ceremo∣ny of Washing of feet; which are (you will thinke) in respect but matters of Mint, annise, and cummin: how shall not our Opposition stand iustifiable, who refuse Vnion and Subiection vnto her, for the great matter of the Law, & word of God? If vilification of the Sufficiency of his written Testaments, if Mu∣tilation of a true Sacrament, and (which is worse) the Addi∣tion of fiue false ones, if babling in vnknowne prayer, if forging of new Faiths, and (not to speake of the daily tyrannie vpon

mens Consciences, by her strange 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or New Con∣stitutions) if, in some respects, as absurd as Heathenish Idola∣trie may seeme vnto you iust cause of exception against her: wherein our Profession is iustified from point to point by the same Fathers. So damnable is your now Romane Article of Absolute Necessity of Vnion and Subiection vnto the Church and Bishop of Rome, as without which there is no Saluation: by which, together with your Aduersaries, you damne those whom euery where you assume to haue bene your owne An∣cient Fathers on earth, and now acknowledge them Saints in heauen.

II. CHALLENGE.

A Second Consideration, which is to be had in this point, is to obserue the list of all the Fathers, whom your Car∣dinall, in the strength of his learning and iudgement, hath produced to guard and defend this your Monarchy of the Church of Rome, or Bishop thereof. The number of the Greeke Fathers are but Thirteene, and of the Latine but Ele∣uen, within the space of the first sixe hundred yeares, which we call the extent of Primitiue Antiquitie: But he omitteth Origen, Tertullian, Iustin Martyr, Ruffinus, and aboue fiftie Fathers more, whom he citeth in his y 1.876 Catalogue of Ecclesi∣asticall writers, to haue written Bookes of Apologies, Pre∣scriptions, and Treatises against the Heretickes and Schisma∣tickes of those former ages.

Now would we but demand of your ingenuitie, whether you can thinke it a matter, we say not credible, but euen so much as fanciable to thinke that of almost an hundred Wit∣nesses of the Truth of Antiquity, so many as haue bene omit∣ted (and had as great conflicts with Heretickes and Schisma∣tickes) should say iust nothing at all, for the dignifying of the Monarchicall Iurisdiction of Rome, when the very acknow∣ledgement thereof might (if true) haue bene in their Time the Decision of the whole Cause, and almost of all o∣ther Controuersies in Religion; yea and a Reparation of all Schismes in the Church of Christ. And that they also, that are

alleaged, for proofe of the same Attributes, should say no∣thing more in effect for Rome and her Bishop, than vpon the like occasions they haue said of other Orthodox Churches and Bishops; and not thus onely, but that furthermore some of the same Fathers haue wrestled and iustled with that your pretended Monarch, and oftentimes giuen him the foyle. To whom we might adde Tertullian, of whom it hath * 1.877 bene confessed, that in the time of his Catholicisme he did not giue that respect to Rome, as is done at this day, but marshalled her with the Church of Corinth & Others; insomuch that if he had bene now aliue, he could not haue escaped vnpunished. And after his defection vnto Montanisme, he called indeed the then Pope High Pope, and Bishop of Bishops; but (as is also z 1.878 Confessed) by way of Ironie and scorne: so obseruable, euen in his daies (which were about the yeare 217. after Christ) was the Pre∣sumption of the Romane Pope.

III. The last CHALLENGE, concerning the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers.

IT will be Obiected, that the Popes of these daies do still re∣taine the Places and Titles, which were of their Predeces∣sors. This we deny not, no more than we do, that many No∣ble mens Heires enioy the houses, Escucheons, and Robes of their Ancestors, who haue little inheritance in their Fathers virtues. You your selues can giue vs Examples in the former, who confesse that the Denomination of your Pope, to instile him thus, [Your Holinesse] was first giuen to Pope a 1.879 Leo a∣bout the yeare 440. for his Holinesse sake, and sanctitie of life: Yet is this (you know) continued (if we may belieue euen your most b 1.880 Popish Authors) to Popes who haue bene Most wicked, yea sometimes Apostaticall rather than Aposto∣licall; and retained onely in respect of their Functions. Or if this will not serue, yet haue you another Engine, whereby to hooke in those Titles, whiles you teach that c 1.881 A Pope who

in his life defiled his Sea with most leud and beastly actions, not∣withstanding after his death, may not be intitled Pope of bad, but of BLESSED MEMORY. Why? because hereby (say you) is considered, not what he did, but what he ought to haue done. In which sense we shall as easily yeeld vnto your Romane Church (in respect of Faith) the Appellation of Catholike, as could be∣long to such Popes the Title of Holinesse.

Your fourth kind of Obiections are taken from the Testi∣monies of Ancient Popes, as well from their Titles, as in their Acts and Deeds. First of their Titles; and a Discouery of the Vanity of this Defence, out of the Testimonies of Popes of the first three hundred yeares after Christ. SECT. 11.

OVR Inquisition is concerning the iudgement of Anti∣quity: and Antiquity, properly so called, may be confi∣ned within the Circumference of the first sixe hundred yeares. In the first three hundred yeares whereof are produced a∣mong the Popes by d 1.882 your Cardinall, for the proofe of Pa∣pal Monarchie ouer the Catholike Church, the names of these Popes, to wit; Clemens, Anacletus, Euaristus, Alex∣ander, Pius, Anicetus, Victor, Zepherinus, Calixtus, Lucius, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Marcus: somewhat more than the full number of an Inquest of men; it were well, if it might be said, Good, and true. Fo•• al∣though these Popes were iust and holy men in themselues, and blessed Professors of Christ, most of them sealing their Faith with their bloud: Yet seeing that the Epistles, which are cited in their names, for witnessing your Romane Arti∣cle, were falsely fathered vpon them, it must needes be confes∣sed that you haue not all those Popes, but onely the Names of so many Popes to patronize your Cause. For albeit that

e 1.883 Stapleton, Turrian, and some other of your late Schoole∣men propound these Epistles and Testimonies as Most authen∣ticall, and no-way to be suspected; Yet your Cardinall, euen when he iudgeth them to be most Ancient, sheweth how little repose he could haue in them, when as he is compelled to grant, saying; f 1.884 I cannot denie but some errors haue crept into these Epistles, which I dare not affirme to haue beene vn∣doubtedly the Epistles, namely which were written by those Popes.

In this point a learned man in our Church, one singularly studied in the disquisition of Antiquity, for discerning of the proper workes of Fathers, from the forged and counterfeit, hath giuen you sufficient Reasons in his g 1.885 Censure of Writers, to proue the obiected Epistles, which your Cardinall him∣selfe confesseth to be Doubtfull, to bee vndoubtedly Bastard, and adulterate: Partly h 1.886 by the errors that are apparant in them, no lesse absurd than to turne Cephas into Caput, a Stone in an Head, and the like: Partly by the Confession of your owne Learned i 1.887 Authors, accompting diuers of them Suppositions and bastardly false. Thus haue almost all of these, by some of your Doctors, as namely Cardinall Cusanus, Car∣dinall Turrecremata, Cardinall Baronius, and (by your leaue) Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe, together with Contius, Binius, and other learned men, selected for the correcting of Gratian, beene excepted against.

Wee might adde heereunto, that whereas among infinite multitudes of men, each man is distinguished and discernable from another in face and countenance, in gesture and voice, yet these Epistles now obiected haue all the same style, and (for Stylus est orationis quasi Nasus) as it were the same Nose, and that, (as you cannot but know) an k 1.888 horrid barbarous one too: whereas the Writings of these Popes were doubtlesse po∣lished and elegant, as were the workes of other Authors, in

those daies. And is not this good arguing? Did not the Maid finde out Peter to bee a Galilean by his Language, when shee said Thy speach betrayeth thee? and did not the Gileadites discerne their enemies the Ephraimites by their de∣fect of pronouncing Shibboleth, euen as the Character of a man is seene by his speach?

CHALLENGE.

IN Examination of these Premises you may finde iust mat∣ter for Challenge of your owne Proctors, and Pleaders for the Popes Primacy, from these Popes, by reason of their fourefold Iniurie. First to their Aduersaries the Protestants, whom they traduce as enemies to Antiquity, in not admitting the Testimonies of so holy Popes of the Primitiue age, which all Christians ought to beleeue and reuerence. But in this cla∣mour they abuse their Readers, by deliuering vnto them onely the names of Popes Epistles; as is vsuall in false Certifi∣cates, wherein a man shall reade a Catalogue of names of men, whereunto the parties themselues neuer yeelded their consent: or as in a Stage-play, wherein are presented Personates, instead of Persons themselues; and to the chins of boyes are fixed the beards of old men. Is not this a theatricall forgery?

Secondly, to your Popes, by vrging writings in their name••, which (if they were theirs) must proue them to haue beene foolish, false, and barbarous. Our zeale therefore to those bles∣sed Popes doth challenge your Obiectors of extreme iniury to their memory.

Thirdly to the Church of Rome, as well Ancient as Succes∣siue; that when you boast so much of the truth of your Tra∣ditions, as a Nuncupatiue Testament of Christ, wherein your Chiefest Article is your Doctrine of Papall Monarchy: yet when we are to consult with the first witnesses, that should testifie this Article in tht Romane Church it selfe, namely those Ancient Popes, we can haue no better assurance of their Te∣stimonies, than as of such as are confessed to bee, both fraught with Errors, and also falsely imposed vpon those Popes. Which is in effect to condemne your Romane Church of sacrilegious

negligence and vnfaithfulnesse, in not preseruing that sacrum Depositum (as you call the Ancient Tradition of Popes from hand to hand) and consequently must inferre a iust suspition of Falshood in the Chiefest ground of your Romish Faith, the pretended Law of Tradition. Is not this also an iniury?

But the greatest Iniury that we lament is the wrong which your Obiectors doe vnto their own Consciences; when some will haue all those Epistles to be Authenticall, and worthy of absolute Beleefe without Exception, & yet are condemned by the most learned among you, who confesse and proue that they are mixed both with Theologicall & Chronologicall falshoods. Some againe (especially your l 1.889 Cardinal) obtruding Epistles in the names of Popes, and yet doubting whether they be truely the Epistles of these Popes or no; and some other-where also re∣iecting some of them as Counterfeits. So foolish is his Obiecti∣on, in alleaging them, for Ancient, who could not be ignorant that there haue beene Ancient forgeries, of which stampe your owne iudicious Authors haue noted these to bee. And that which exceedeth almost the highest note of (to speake mildely) Inconsideration, to proue your Doctrine of Romish Primacy from the word [Primatus] mentioned sometimes by the Bi∣shops of Rome in their Epistles: which (as your ownem 1.890 Conti∣us teacheth) is an Argument, to iudge them not to be so An∣cient, because that that word was not of currant stampe in that age. And what great iniurie can any man doe, than that which he doth to his owne Conscience?

Finally pardon vs, if we cannot impute such a degree of Im∣piety to those holy Popes, that they who liued in the times of those bloudy Massacres, wherin most of them, with infinite other godly Professors in the same Church of Rome, bequea∣thed their bodies to the sword, for the Faith of Christ, and their soules and spirits by Martyrdome to his armes of bles∣sednesse; should be wholly busyed in their Epistles, about poynts of Ordination of Priests, Inuention of Ceremonies, and aduancing the Prerogatiues of the Romane Church; but neuer to vtter any syllable of Exhortation, and Consolation, in behalfe of the Flocke of Christ, dayly in the iawes of the Wooluish Persecutors of these times, as those Epistles by you obiected do make appeare.

Your Obiections, from the Testimonies of Ancient Popes, of the Second Three hundred yeeres; and the Vanity thereof discouered. SECT. 12.

FOr the Second Three hundred yeeres are presented before vs a Second Iury of n 1.891 Twelue Popes, to giue their Verdicts for proofe of the extent of their owne Papall and Monarchi∣call power and Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, ouer the whole Church of Christ throughout the world. Manifold haue been the Answers; of Many to these Testimonies, which the breuity that we haue propounded to our selues in this Treatise, will not suffer vs to relate: our Answers shall be no lesse plaine, and yet more compendious. 1. Almost all of these Testimo∣nies may be denied in that sense of absolute Monarchie, for the which they are propounded. As for the first man of the Inquest, viz. Pope Iulius, he plainely speaketh of Document & Instruction receiued from Peter; and not of Dominion, or Iurisdiction: which may be an Answer to many of the rest 2. Some speake not, but their Counterfeits, as the last Iurist Pope Gregory, in an Epistle, wherein Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople is said to haue beene o 1.892 Subiect vnto him; when as (as our Doctor p 1.893 Reynolds hath proued) there was no Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople, in the daies of Saint Gre∣gory. This tricke of corrupting the writings of Antient Popes, as you haue seene in their Epistles for the first Three hundred yeeres, giue vs iuster cause to suspect the Popish Scribes, in the Second Three hundred yeeres. 3. Some haue beene already satisfied by Parallels. 4. q 1.894 Reuerence (say some Popes) is due to the Apostolike See; So you know Saint Pe∣ter doth require of the Husband, * 1.895 Honour towards his Wife; and Saint Paul of a Bishop, * 1.896 Reuerence vnto Widowes. Reue∣rence therefore, which is nothing else but a due r 1.897 estimation of all persons, according to their Order and Degree, may bee

exacted without any Note of Dominion. 5. Nine of these Popes call the Church of Rome and Bishop thereof either s 1.898 Head of all Churches, or One that hath the t 1.899 Care of all Churches, or one hauing u 1.900 Principality; Euery of which (as * 1.901 you know) were antiently ascribed to other Churches and Bishops, besides the Romane.

6. Some may be checked by Retorsion, as in the first and last witnesse. For the first; if from the words obiected out of that Epistle of Iulius, you shall inferre that he had Vniuersall Monarchy throughout the Catholike Church; then may wee more iustly conclude that the same Pope, being challenged by the Bishops of the East (whom he calleth Most dearely belo∣ued) both for writing to them Alone, and from his owne Authority, and also for transgressing the Canons of the Church, by admitting men vnto his Communion, that had beene by them deposed; and answering to the one that x 1.902 Al∣though he wrote alone vnto them, yet that he did it by consent of his fellow Bishops; and to the other standing onely vpon his iustification, in not transgressing the Canons of Ancient Councels, hee was neither accompted of them, not yet estee∣med himselfe the Vniuersall Pope and Monarch of the Church.

As for the last, to wit Gregory, if in some tearmes he seeme to speake somewhat lowd, as though he were very great, yet by confining himselfe to the y 1.903 Constitution of Iustinian, and disclaiming (as * 1.904 you know) the Title of Vniuersall Bishop of the Church as most odious, euen in the now Romane significa∣tion of Vniuersall Iurisdiction, hee was too little to become in that Sense a Romane Pope. Againe, * 1.905 Damasus (say you) cal∣led the Easterne Bishops, Sonnes: belike it was in loue. Yet the same Easterne Bishops called Damasus z 1.906 Brother, and Fel∣low. Lastly, Some may be confuted and indeed confounded by as Antient * 1.907 Oppositions; as of the Orientalls, against the Authority of Pope Iulius; of the Bishops of Africke, against the pretended Authority of Pope Zozimus; and of Cyrill a∣gainst Pope Innocentius.

Our Generall Discouery of the Vanity of your Proofes of Papall Monarchy, from the mouthes of Popes them∣seluos, who haue beene anciently noted of Pride. SECT. 13.

OVr Sauiour Christ obseruing the equity of humane Law, applied it to himselfe, saying,* 1.908 If I giue testimony of my selfe, my testimonie were not true And why then should not this Consequence, vsed by Christ, be of force against your Consequences taken from the testimonies of those Popes, who boast themselues to be the onely Vicars of Christ? Yes verily, because there is such a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Selfe-loue in euery man so bewitching him, that he can discerne Any sooner than himselfe. Yea, and if in all Courts of Pleas greatest excepti∣on is taken against selfe-Testimony, in a mans owne Cause, then ought not this our Answer seeme harsh vnto you, if we should denie the Assumptions, which the Popes of Rome, euen of more Primitiue times, haue made for the aduantage of their Romane Iurisdiction: and that so much the lesse, by how much the more many Popes of that age are noted to haue beene taxed for their great Arrogancy,e 1.909 by the Ancient Fahers of their owne Times. Whereupon it is that we haue heard a 1.910 Ter∣tullian girding at the Pope, as if hee would bee Bishop of Bi∣shops; b 1.911 Polycrates contemning his threats of Excommunica∣tion, as Vaine Terrors: c 1.912 Cyprian noting the Popes Pride, and scorning his Tyrannicall terror: The Fathers of the Councell of d 1.913 Africke (among whom Saint Augustine was one) branding Three Popes with the note of Smoakie Arro∣gance; and Saint Augustine himselfe poynting at the vaine Boasting of Rome: nay euen Saint f 1.914 Hierom also durst say, concerning the Ecclesiasticall State of that City, Away with Ambition. And how did Saint g 1.915 Basil beard the same Church, with the termes of Westerne superciliousnesse & Pride? Others likewise (albeit more couertly and closely) 'twitted other Popes; h 1.916 Cyrill, We may not, (saith he) for the speaches of Some (meaning the Pope, with others) suffer our Canons to bee

infringed: and Saint i 1.917 Ambrose, We also haue our senses a∣bout vs; speaking in Opposition to Rome, and intimating that shee conceited too highly of her own Iudgement. Thus these holy Fathers, concerning the Popes, of their daies, being o∣therwise holy Fathers also. For we forbeare to Oppose against you the iudgement of Authors of after-ages, who speake a∣gainst the Romane Pride as liberally, as did k 1.918 Nicephorus, who condemned Pope Vigilius of Insolency, in Excommunicating Mennas the Patriarch of Constantinople. Nay, and did not one of your owne Prophets, in defence of the Superiority of the Councell aboue the Pope, say that l 1.919 Popes doe commonly stretch their fringes too much arrogating that to themselues, which is proper to a Councell.

CHALLENGE.

WHat? holy Popes (wil you say) and yet proud, arrogant, and challenging Dominion aboue others without the limits of their owne Iurisdiction? Yes, why not. They were the holy Disciples of Christ, that ambitiously wished, by the soli∣citation of their Mother, that * 1.920 They might sit, the one on the right hand of Christ, and the other on the left in his Kingdome: they were also holy Apostles that sought among themselues, without any Ordinance of their Lord,* 1.921 Who should be Chiefe: They were likewise zealously-holy seruants of Christ that be∣yond their Commission would haue had * 1.922 fire from heauen, vpon the Samaritans. And certainely many of the Popes, espe∣cially of the Second Classis and rancke, within the compasse of the Second Three hundred yeeres, may be said to haue beene Successors of those Disciples and Apostles, as in many virtues, so in these kinde of defects also. And if this may be said of ho∣ly and Primitiue Popes, what shall we thinke of those Popes, who a Thousand yeeres after them haue degenerated both from the holinesse, and sincere Religion of their Predecessors? What? but as of Gyants, in respect, whose thumbs of Pride were greater than their Fathers Loynes. When the particu∣lars of these our Answers, together with theis more Generall, are summed vp, and due subtraction made of those Obiecti∣ons,

which are satisfied thereby, you shall finde that the Re∣mainder for your aduantage will be iust nothing at all. So vaine and friuolous is the pretence for your Romane Article of Vni∣uersall Iurisdiction ouer the Church of Christ.

Your Second kinde of Obiections, from the Testimonies of Popes, is from their Acts, in exercising of their pretended Papall Authority; and our Discoue∣rie of the Vanity thereof. SECT. 14.

THis Vniuersall Exercise of Papall Authority, your m 1.923 Car∣dinall will haue vs discerne in three points, 1. Of Con∣firming; 2. Of Deposing; 3. Of Restoring other Bishops, wheresoeuer, by his owne Authority: Euery which act (saith he) may be of it selfe a sufficient proofe of his Primacy ouer all o∣ther Bishops. You may take for your first Answer, that anci∣ently Institutions of Metropolitans and Patriarchs were done by Communicatory letters to the Chiefe Patriarch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ergò for Order-sake: by Communicatory Letters, we say; or (as we may call them) Letters of Correspondence, to shew their agreement in the Faith: in which case the Bishop of Rome sent his Pall, in token of his Assent. So likewise the Popes De∣posing of other Bishops, without the Romane Dioces, was but an Expression of his Assent to others, that hee thought them iustly deposed. The same may be said of his power in Restitu∣tion of others, that had beene deposed, that it was the like manifestation of his Consent, to haue such and such restored; euen as other Patriarchs often did. So that your Proofe fay∣leth in Two maine points: 1. You produce no one Example, wherein it can appeare, that the Pope could either Institute, Confirme, Depose, or Restore any such Bishop by his owne Au∣thority alone, without the helpe of a Councell. 2. That infinite Examples are Recorded of Bishops, Metropolitans, and Pa∣triarchs, which haue beene Instituted, Deposed, and Restored without the Consent of the Bishop of Rome.

Your Cardinall himselfe foreseeing thus much, seeketh to preuent it by a Second Opposition: n 1.924 Although (saith he) the Pope did not himselfe Confirme all other Remote Bishops, yet hee might allow that power vnto other Patriarkes and Primates, as it seemeth hee did some-where. Marke [Hee might] that is to say, peraduenture hee did; and [As it seemeth] which is, as if hee had said, It is but probable. Doe you not see with what rotten Timber this your Master-builder frameth the Arch∣pillar of your Romane Faith? and with what vntempered morter hee daubeth it, when hee hath done? Notwithstan∣ding it be without all Peraduenture, that (if wee must beleeue Pope o 1.925 Agapet) There was not from the Ascention of Christ, vn∣till the yeare 535. any one Bishop in all the East ordained by the hands of any Bishop of Rome, before Mennas who was now so or∣dained by Agapetus.

Secondly, know that your Cardinall, to proue that the Bi∣shop of Rome exercised his Authoritie of Instituting, Deposing, and Restoring of Bishops, within the Bishopricks of other Pa∣triarkes, giueth instance in some Bishops, which the q 1.926 Popes themselues haue challenged to be within their owne Romane Dioces, as namely the Bishops of Thessaly, of France, of Spaine, of Africke, of Salonia, and some others. If any should take vpon him to proue the Bishop of Durham to be Primate of the Prouince of Yorke, and to haue authoritie ouer the Bishop of Chester, because he exerciseth his Episcopall Iurisdiction of Instituting, Admonishing, Suspending, and Restoring Mini∣sters within his owne Bishopricke of Durham, were this tole∣rable arguing trow you?

Thirdly, there is not a greater degree of futilitie (saith Tul∣lie) than for any man to obiect that, to which, when it shall be retorted vpon himselfe, he shall not tell what to say: We shall therefore deale with you herein by the Art of Retorsion. Cy∣prian, as Primate of the Primates within Africke, did (as r 1.927 Pamelius witnesseth of him) Institute whom he would with∣in

the Prouinces of the other Primates. The same s 1.928 Cyprian Constituted Sabinus Bishop, instead of Basilides, whom hee had deposed, without the consent of Stephen the Pope of Rome; and after professed to hold the same Sabinus in his Bishopricke, notwithstanding the dislike, and as it were in despight of the same Pope. Nor thus onely, but Cyprian againe will bee knowne to haue t 1.929 Confirmed the Election of Pope Cornelius, whose Communion both hee (as himselfe speaketh) and his Col∣legues and Fellow-Bishops gaue approbation vnto.

Besides, Pope u 1.930 Gregorie the First, vpon his Election, sent his Synodicall and Communicatorie Letters vnto the Foure Pa∣triarks, viz. Iohn of Constantinople, Eulogius of Alexandria, Gregorie of Antioch, and Iohn of Hierusalem, with testificati∣on of his Orthodox Faith, in beleeuing the Foure First Ge∣nerall Councels. And lest that you may thinke hee was the First Pope, that sought this kinde of Approbation, by such Synodicall and Circular Epistles, you are to obserue (with your x 1.931 Baronious) how hee in expresse words confesseth that hee did this According to the ancient Custome of his Prede∣cessours: as was also obserued by the Bishop of Segouia in the Councell of Trent.

As for Excommunicating of Others, this being but a de∣nying to haue Communion with them, other Patriarks and Churches thought it as proper to themselues, to denie their Communion to the Pope, as the Pope could by dis-uniting him∣selfe from them. Else could not the Easterne Bishops, among whom there were many Orthodoxe, y 1.932 Capitulate with Pope Iulius to haue Communion with him; but vpon this Conditi∣on, that he should haue Communion with those Bishops, whom they had ordeined: otherwise they professed Contrarily to haue no Communion with him. Not to tell you that Dioscorus z 1.933 did Excommunicate Pope Leo. Yea, will you say, an Heretike an Or••hodoxe? It is true, yet did hee this vpon the knowne iudge∣ment of the East-Church, vpon a Common right and abilitie

in all Churches, to denie their Communion to what other Churches soeuer, that they were perswaded to deserue their dis-union. Vpon which ground a 1.934 Mennas Patriarch of Con∣stantinople Excommunicated Vigilius Bishop of Rome: which though it were in an vniust Cause (such as in the Papall Ex∣communications often happen to be) yet doth it inferre this Truth, that vpon a iust cause it was lawfull so to doe. We leaue other Examples of Retorsion, and come to the last Answer, by Opposition of your owne Popes against you, and such as were most zealous Exactors of all Rights belonging to the Pa∣pall Sea.

The matter standeth thus. After the period of iust Antiqui∣tie, which we prefix about the yeare Six hundred after Christ, Pope b 1.935 Hadrian the First, about the yeare 777. writing to the Emperour Constantine, and to his Empresse Irene, layeth Claime to Two things; First to the Temporall Patrimonie of Saint Peter; Secondly, to an Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, with∣in some part of the Patriarkship of Constantinople; which hee desireth them to restore to the See of Rome; and he expresseth in his Petition the Consecration of Bishops, & Archbishops. Foure∣score yeeres after him succeedeth Pope c 1.936 Nicolas the First, who reneweth the same Claime in his Epistle vnto Michael the Emperour, propounding vnto him the Challenge formerly made by his Predecessour Hadrian; and specially and by name hee setteth downe the particular Prouinces and Dioces, which were with-held, or (as your d 1.937 Iesuite out of Leo Sapiens saith) had bin pulled away from the Bishopricke of Rome, to wit, the Bishopricke of Thessalonica, the Bishop whereof had bin but the Popes Vicar therein; together with the Regions of Acha∣ia, Mysia, Dardania, &c. wherein were the Metropolitanes of Thessalie, Corinth, Athens, Nicopolis, and Patarae.

But to what end maketh all this his Plea? namely, that hee might exercise therein, as from his owne Authoritie, the Con∣secration of Bishops and Arch-Bishops, and (to vse the words of your Iesuite) moderate all things throughout all those Regions, according to his owne Institutions and Ordinances. And, for further Confirmation of his Right, hee pleadeth the Anci∣ent possession which his Ancestours had held from the time of Pope Damasus, vnto Pope Hormisda, that is to say, for the tearme of 154. yeares: so that now they had bin aboue Three hundred yeares depriued of these Bishopricks.

Wee now hereupon demand; Doe your Popes, after so long processe of time, require a Restitution of Right and pow∣er of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, in certaine Prouinces Chri∣stian? then doubtlesse, all this time, was not their power Vni∣uersall in All others wheresoeuer. And furthermore the Pa∣triarcke of Constantinople, hauing Iurisdiction ouer the Me∣tropolitanes of Pontus, Asia, and Thracia, consisting of e 1.938 28. Prouinces; and your Popes making claime onely vnto Eight of those, for the execution of their Ecclesiasticall and Pa∣pall power, is it not euident that they outted themselues from all such Iurisdiction in any of the rest? And what shall be fur∣ther said of the other Patriarkships of Alexandria, Antioch, and Ierusalem? Some of them hauing Seauen, and some Ten Metropolitanes vnder them, and were as exempt from the Iu∣risdiction of the Pope of Rome, as any within the Patriarkship of Constantinople could be.

CHALLENGE.

NOW from your former Argument, according to the lawes of a Syllogisme, It must be thus: What Bishop so∣euer doth exercise any Authoritie ouer others, to Institute them by Confirmation of their Election, by Letters Communi∣catorie, or otherwise, and to Depose them; he hath Ecclesiasti∣call power ouer them, and they are vnder his Iurisdiction. But Popes of Rome haue accordingly Instituted, Deposed, and Re∣stored Bishops in all Prouinces in the Christian world. There∣fore are they to be acknowledged the Vniuersall Monarchs

therein, and are not subiect to Any, nor are any-way to be e∣qualled with Others. So you.

Now apply the Examples, which haue bin granted, and then see how often you shall vn-Monarke your Popes, and set vp many vnexpected Anti-popes. First, by the power exercised by Cyprian, both in Confirming the Popes Election, and in withstanding dis Restitution: next, by the power assumed by those Patriarks, which Excommunicated your Popes, but prin∣cipally by the Testimonies of your owne Popes; Pope Grego∣rie confessing it to haue bin an Ancient custome in your Popes, to submit their Elections to the Approbation of other Patri∣arks, by their Synodicall letters, and so to be acknowledged to be in their Communion: and lastly, by the Claime made by Two Popes, Hadrian and Nicolas, for the Restoring vnto them a power of exercising their Ecclesiasticall Functions in certaine Prouinces within the Patriarkship of Constantinople.

If A. B. challenge absolute Royaltie in Eight Towneships onely, within the Manor of C. D. (that Manor consisting of 28. Towneships) wherein (saith A. B.) my Predecessours haue long since had Fishing, Fowling, Waifes, Strayes, Deo∣dants, and such like Prerogatiues, what can be the issue of this Plea, but that, whatsoeuer his Right hath bin to these Eight, yet his power for Fishing, Fowling, and the like hath not of a long time bin exercised accordingly? and againe, that plea∣ding but for Eight, it is an acknowledgement that he renoun∣ceth all Claime to any of the Twentie besides. So then your Popes Monarchicall Prerogatiue of Instituting, Deposing, and Restoring of all Bishops and Patriarkes throughout the Chri∣stian World, is now come to be somewhat abated, being con∣fined within his owne Peculiars; as well as A. B. by his Plea for Fishing and Fowling. To conclude, whatsoeuer example of the Popes Confirmation of Bishops of other Dioces can be brought, in such Cases, is not an Act essentiall or proper vnto him, but accidentall and of common Congruitie, rather than of Necessitie.

Your Fifth ground of Obiections, taken from a pretended Vni∣uersall Right of Appeales to the Church and Pope of Rome, as a Principall part of your Romane Article. Our first Discouerie of the Falsehood and Ʋanitie of the First Pretences taken from the Councell of Sardice. SECT. 15.

POwer of Appeale in any is indeede (as your f 1.939 Cardinall saith) A most certaine Argument of Dominion: to wit, if it be right, and proper; otherwise it is not Power, but Op∣pression, nor Right, but Vsurpation. There were many Cau∣ses, why the Catholike Bishops in the East should yeeld great Authoritie to the Bishops of Rome in the West, before others, but specially because of the Distractions and Schismes among themselues, by manifold Heretikes; and of the Ʋnion which in the Romane Church had continued and beene maintained by the Bishops thereof, with great wisedome and constancie: besides the aduantage that the See of Rome had gotten in the time of the Imperialtie of that Citie. Notwithstanding, neuer shall you proue your Article of Necessitie of Subiection to the Church of Rome, vpon Necessitie of Saluation, by any Right of Appeale to the Bishop thereof, which is the maine scope of your Cardinall in this place.

The First Testimonie which hee propoundeth is out of the Councell of g 1.940 Sardis. This Councell he produceth in this place, as a sound Argument, which else-where hee ranketh among those Councels, that are to be h 1.941 partly allowed, and partly re∣iected: As if Coyne partly mixed and Counterfeit ought to be taken for good paiment. Againe, in this hee alleageth such a Canon, which another Cardinall questioneth, saying, i 1.942 Wee may lawfully doubt, whether there be any such Constitution ex∣tant. And this againe is vrged to proue your Article of an

Absolute Monarchicall power, and Diuine Right thereunto in the Pope of Rome, concerning the Prerogatiue of Appeales from all Christian Churches. A doctrine quite ouerthrowne by the same Witnesse, whom your Proctor hath produced for this Cause, euen the Synod of Sardis it selfe; and that Two manner of wayes (as your Cardinall k 1.943 Cusanus will testifie) One is, that the same Synod doth limit his power, giuing him Authoritie to approue any thing concluded by a Particular Sy∣nod, but not to disallow it without the assistance of a new Sy∣nod: the Other, that the Right, which the Pope can claime for Appeales, dependeth Greatly vpon humane Constitutions. Hee might as truely haue said [Altogether] as wee * 1.944 haue al∣ready proued, and the Tenor of the Councell of Sardis it selfe doth fully purport: l 1.945 If it please you (say they, speaking of a new Constitution) let it be Ordeined, &c. Would it haue be∣come Orthodox Fathers so to haue spoken, if in their iudge∣ment they had conceiued that power of Appeales to Rome to haue beene the Ordinance of God?

Wee confesse that the Supreame Right of Appeales is pro∣per to a Monarrh, it being as Essentiall a part of his Monar∣chie to haue the Right of Appeales, as it is for him to be a Mo∣narch. Wherefore bethinke your selues, if the Nobles in any Kingdome should write vnto their Soueraigne, concerning the Exercising of his Authoritie receiued from his Ancestors (as the Pope pretendeth to haue from Saint Peter) and should say, Wee are pleased and contented that Appeales should be made vnto your Maiestie: whether this would not imply, in the eares of the Monarch, as much as Laesa Maiestas; as though he were now to receiue an Authoritie from their Grant, and beneuolence, wherein hee was inuested and established by his Primarie Right vnto the Crowne▪ By this your Cardinals be∣ginning, you may guesse with what conscience hee is like to proceede.

Examine well the m 1.946 Marginals: First, If you remoue from his witnesses Parties themselues, many being the Testimonies

of your n 1.947 Popes themselues; For if Adoniah say hee is King, will Solomon, or any wise and faithfull Counsellour of State take his word for it? and yet he was a Kings Sonne, whereas the Pope neuer was either Sonne or Successour to such a Mo∣narch, as hee faineth to himselfe. Secondly, If you except the Examples of those who Appeale to the Bishop of Rome, as be∣ing within his o 1.948 Patriarkship, and therefore rather subiect vn∣to him than others; this is as though a Procter would say, My Client had Tithe in his owne Parish, therefore doe the next Parishes adioyning owe their Tithes vnto him. Thirdly, If you passe by Appeales that were notoriously p 1.949 Impious, such as were made by Fortunatus, Felix, and Basilides: in this Case you that plead so much for the Romane Bishop, could not haue allowed Romulus to say thus; Fugitiues and Runnagates flye vnto mee for succour, in Opposition to their naturall Kings and Soueraigns; therfore am I the King of those Kings. Fourth∣ly, If you omit such holy men, as q 1.950 addressed their requests to the Bishop of Rome (such as were Theodoret, Athanasius, Chry∣sostome, Flauianus) not as to a peremptory Iudge, but as to a Patron and Arbitrary Dais-man, and one vpon whose Autho∣ritie and credit one of them depending acknowledgeth in ex∣presse words his reason, to wit; r 1.951 The integritie of the Faith of the Pope, and promising to abide his award, with the assistance of others, and to be content therewith, whatsoeuer should be de∣termined, relying vpon their iudgements, so Theodoret: (Now whom one acknowledgeth to be his Patron and A••bitratour, him he denie••h to be his Iudge.) If, we say, these many Witnes∣ses may be forborne, then is there nothing at all said for the Necessitie of your Romane Article of Papall Dominion, in re∣spect of Vniuersall Right of Appeale. Nay, Fifthly, if you will but obserue that the Popes, which are most apprehensiue of Appeales to the Church of Rome, doe not plead any Right from Diuine Authoritie, but onely from Ecclesiasticall s 1.952 Canons and Customes; so then (for the Church can no more create an Article of Faith, for mans soule to beleeue, than it can create the soule of man) your Article cannot be of Faith, which wan∣teth Diuine Ordinance, the onely Foundation of Faith.

Our second Discouery of the Vanity of your Pretence, for Vniuersall Right of Appeales to Rome, by an Argument taken from the Councell of Chalcedon. SECT. 16.

ONE whole Chapter is spent by your Cardinall, in an∣swering the Obiection of Nilus Arch-Bishop of Thessalo∣nica in Greece, proouing Appeales to haue been as generally al∣lowed vnto the Patriarch of Constantinople, as vnto the Pa∣triarch of Rome, because of the Equall Priuiledges granted by Generall Councels to the one with the other. In answer whereunto your Cardinall is so miserably perplexed, that we shall need no other Reply, than to manifest how manifoldly he is repugnant vnto a Generall Councell, to euident Truths, and oftentimes vnto himselfe; as may appeare by the t 1.953 Mar∣ginals. The Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon, held in the yeare 451. standeth thus: If any Clerke haue a Cause against a Clerke, let him be iudged by a Bishop, if against a Bishop by an Arch-Bishop, if against an Arch-Bishop, by the Primate, or by the Bishop of Constantinople. The question is what is meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, translated Primate: He answereth, by allowing the Answer of Pope Nicolas, that by Primate is there meant the Bishop of Rome. False; for the Canon vseth a Climax or Gradation from Clerke to Bishop, from Bishop to Arch-bishop, from Arch-Bishop to Primate, or the Bishop of Constantinople: Therefore doth the word [PRIMATE] signifie that which is expressed, namely the Bishop of Constantinople, and not that which is not expressed, viz. the Bishop of Rome.

Yet be it that it pointeth out the Bishop of Rome, then be∣ware the Popes Head of Monarchie, because the Bishop of

Constantinople in this Gradation, hauing the last, (that is the most excellent place) he must be confessed to be iudged, by that Canon, Superior, or at least Equall to the Bishop of Rome. As it doth appeare in the like case thus: A common Souldier is subiect to a Lieutenant, a Lieutenant to a Captaine, a Cap∣taine to a Colonell, or to a Generall; shall Generall, in this place, be inferior to a Colonell? But the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (saith he) signifieth a Prince, and therefore agreeth onely with the Pope, who onely is a Prince. False; for the Councell of u 1.954 Car∣thage, applying the same word to Priests, forbiddeth that any be called Prince of Priests. But the Councell speaketh (saith he) of Appellants that were neare to Constantinople. False, for it speaketh Generally of x 1.955 Euery Church; as If a Clerke, If a Bishop, If an Arch-Bishop; not if some certaine, but who∣soeuer. But the Canon (saith he) speaketh of the First iudge∣ment, and not of the Last, which is by Appeale. Most false; for the Canon it selfe denounceth peremptorily; y 1.956 If any whoso∣euer shall do contrary hereunto, let him be subiect to Canonicall punishments. Thus farre appeareth your Cardinalls repugnan∣cy to the Truth of the Canon.

This Obiection is a Gordian Knot, he could not vntie it with his teeth, and now Alexander-wise he will cut that which he cannot loose. * 1.957 These Canons ••f Chalcedon (saith he) Haue no force in our Church, vntill they shall be confirmed by some Pope. So he. Why, my Masters, was not this Councell one of the First and best Generall Councells? Did not your Pope Gregory adore this, with Three others, as the Oracle of God? Was there euer any ancient Orthodox Father (the Popes excepted) that tooke exception vnto any Canon of that Councell? Oh! you the Children (forsooth) of Ancient Fa∣thers, who can blow away three hundred and thirty Reue∣rend Fathers and Bishops with one breath.

But how should he agree with Others, who in the third place will be found at variance both with Pope Nicolas, and with himselfe? z 1.958 Nicolas (saith he) expounded the Canon a∣right, that by Primate was meant the Pope of Rome: and not∣withstanding, for a farewell to this Obiection, he saith that

a 1.959 The Canon is to be vnderstood of the First iudgement. Which euidently crosseth the Popes Exposition, who granting that Iudgement to be there allowed to the Bishop of Constantinople, Per permissionem, and extraordinarily, which b 1.960 Per Regulam, and ordinarily he challenged to belong to himselfe, could not but vnderstand the Last, & therfore the chiefest iudgement; for Nicolas was one of the first vsurping Popes. But your Cardi∣nall that saith, Pope Nicolas did rightly expound it, if he would haue him make his Papall Iudgement (for in gradation of Ap∣peales the Last is alwaies the highest, and most excellent) to be the First, The Popes, we thinke, would iudge him no true Proctor, but a plaine Praeuaricator in their Cause. So easie a matter it is for any, that will be repugnant to all Others, to be found sometimes contradictory to himselfe.

Our third Discouery of the Vanity of your Pretence of Right of Appeales, the Principall part of your Romane Article, out of Saint Cy∣prian. Anno 256. SECT. 17.

SAint Cyprian hath bene often an Actor with others in our former Scenes, in this he entereth the stage alone. The Ar∣gument of his Epistle vnto Pope Cornelius is. 1. His Expelling Fortunatus and Felicissimus from his Communion; 2. Their Appeale to the Pope; 3. His Preuention by his Letters to the Pope, and his Reasons to perswade the Pope not to admit of their Complaints. The summe whereof is comprized in one sentence, which if your Cardinall had set downe sincerely, without pulling our Wi••nes backe at the midst of his tale (by omitting a principall part of his speach) the very Sentence it selfe would haue, on Cyprianus part, decided the whole Cause, concerning the point of Appeales to Rome. c 1.961 For seeing

that it is decreed (saith Cyprian to Pope Cornelius) of vs all, and it is likewise both equall and iust that euery mans Cause be heard where the crime is committed: [And (which words your Cardinall thought good to pretermit) euery Pastor hath com∣mitted vnto him a portion of the flocke (of Christ) which he is to gouern, & wherof he is to giue an account vnto God.] And doubt∣lesse they who are vnder our gouernment ought not to gad and wander, nor rashly and cunningly to make a difference betweene Bishops that are at Vnity and Concord: but they should pleade their cause there, where both accusers and witnesses may be had; except some few desperate and naughty fellowes thinke the Au∣thority of the Bishops of Africke to be of lesse power or might, who haue iudged, and by the grauity of their iudgement haue condemned men whose consciences are fettered in the cords of their owne offences: their cause is already knowne and tried, and iudgement is giuen already vnto them: nor can it agree with the censure of Bishops to deserue the reprehension of light∣nesse and inconstancy. So he. Than which what could be said more to the strangling of your pretended Right of Appeales to Rome?

Your Cardinals Answeres are many, and various: it will be the most expedite way for vs to follow him step by step. d 1.962 1. Cyprian (saith he) albeit he did vnwillingly endure, yet did he not altogether abrogate Appeales. True, if you meane simply the Abrogation of All Appeales within Africke; but if you vnderstand, that he abrogated not All Appeales beyond the Seas, and consequently to Rome, then is your Answer most false.

Secondly, your Cardinall instanceth in an Example of One Appealing from Spaine vnto Rome, many hundred miles di∣stant: yet Cyprian writing hereof (saith e 1.963 he) said [Non tàm, quàm] the Pope was not so much too blame, who was deceiued by the Appellant, as was the Appellant himselfe that deceiued him. As though this were not a full Reprehension of both. If one say, that he is not so fellonious that receiueth stolne goods, as the man that did steale them, your Non tàm quàm doth distinguish them in the degree of more or lesse fellony, but maketh no difference in their nature and kind; for both

are felonies. So then the Pope was lesse blameable, Ergo he was blameable: but the other more, because the Appellant would needs Appeale in the consciousnes of his Crime, but the Pope entertained it, in a presumption of the mans integri∣ty; and therefore Both blameable, because (as Cyprian argueth) against equity and iustice.

Thirdly, but f 1.964 The decree which Cyprian speaketh of (saith your Cardinall) was against the First iudgement, which is to be made in the place where the crime is committed, but he forbid∣deth not Second iudgements else-where, by way of Appeale. Than which what can be more false? (I had almost said, faithlesse) for the Cardinall himselfe knoweth that Cyprian vseth this as a Reason against their flying to Rome for a second Iudgment, euen Because (saith Cyprian) they had bene already iudged by me and my Bishops, by whom they were condemned.

Fourthly, but Cyprian (saith g 1.965 he) argueth from this De∣cree, as it implyeth most notorious and manifest crimes. What? did your Cardinall meane, by this his Ipse dixit, to infascinate his Reader, and to depriue him both of reason and sense? For ordinary reason teacheth, in points of Law, first that A man must not distinguish, where the Law doth not distinguish: al∣though then it happened that these Crimes of the Appellant were indeed notorious, yet in the Decree it selfe there is no such Distinction. Secondly, it is a vaine thing, to thinke that any Crime can appeare so Notorious to a Iudge, who is many hundred miles off, but one report will encounter another, and the Appellant will still make faire pretence of innocency for himselfe, vntill the matter be tryed. And that we may Appeale to common sense, in reading of the Canon and Decree it selfe, it is Generall, thus: It is iust, that euery mans Cause be heard there, where the crime is committed. It seemeth then that your Cardinall dreamed of a Cause implyed in this Decree, which could not be any mans Cause, else he would haue considered that where Euery mans Cause is expressed, No cause of any man could be excepted.

Fifthly, but h 1.966 If Cyprian (saith he) should here deny Ap∣peales, then should he take away all Appeales, not onely to Rome, but euen to euery place else: which Answer how vn∣worthy

it is the iudgement of any man of learning, you will easily perceiue. Cyprian, (as your * 1.967 Pamelius noteth) was the Chiefe Primate in Africke, who held a Councell of his Bishops to Excommunicate Fortunatus, and to depose him: the Councell fore-seeing the factiousnesse of Fortunatus, that he would seeke to Rome, to trouble the Church of Christ, by working distraction betweene the Churches of Rome and Carthage, made the former Decree, expressing the iniquity of any Appeale to Remote places, where the Cause could not be iustly tryed. Heereby the said Councell tooke not away All Appeales within Africke, for it was then lawfull for a Clerke to Appeale from his Bishop to an Arch-Bishop, from a Me∣tropolitan to a Councell: and behold here was a Councell of Bishops which put the Period to all further Appeales; ex∣pressely forbidding Appealing to places so remote as Rome was, which none in Africke could come vnto, without Trans∣migration ouer Sea. Your Cardinal's Answer would teach a man to argue thus; There lyeth an Appeale from th•• Bishop of Chester to the Arch-Bishop of York, and from the Court of York to the Delegates: but the State of England denieth Transalpinari, Appeales from England ouer the Alpes to Rome. Ergò, the State of England abrogateth all manner of Appeales, whether from Chester to York, or from York to the Delegates.

Moreouer Cyprian, speaking of those Schismaticall Appel∣lants, Except (saith he) some few desperate and wretched fel∣lowes thinke the Authority of the Bishop of Africke lesse; Insi∣nuating (as we may truly, iustly, and according to their Inten∣tion interpret it) than the Authority of the Bishop of Rome; thereby impairing the power of the Bishop of Rome, in respect of the iudgement of a Nationall Councell. No, (saith your i 1.968 Cardinall) but the words [lesse Authority] haue Relation to the Cause, and not to the Bishop of Rome, as signifying that the Bishops of Africke had authority sufficient to iudge that Cause. Here againe he feigneth Cyprian to haue thought those few desperate and wretched Appellants to haue beene so absurd, as to thinke they could not be iudged by a Prouinciall Councell, whereunto they were subiect: An absurdity, which none i••

Christianitie could truely imagine. Besides the words [Lesse Authoritie of them that haue iudged] haue Relation to him, whom those Fellowes desired to re-iudge their Cause, namely the Pope: therefore it was as much as if Cyprian had said, Least those few naughty fellowes may thinke the Bishops of Africke haue lesse Authority than is that, which they Appeale vnto; and their Appeale was to the Bishop of Rome. So appa∣rant it is, that Cyprian, thus twitting those Few desperate Appellants, did imply that there were in Africke but few that would so much derogate from the Authority of the Bishops within that Prouince.

CHALLENGE.

HItherto haue wee pursued our Aduersay in his owne Tract, who all this while hath beene but beating of the aire, and (as it were) catching of Butterflies, as you may per∣ceiue. For this matter of Right of Appealing, or Not Right of Appealing being of that importance, as that it must either make or marre your Papall Monarch and Romane Article of his Vniuersall Dominion ouer all Churches; The Author Saint Cyprian being so antient in time, liuing in the 250 yeere af∣ter Christ; so singular for his learning and iudgement; and for his Sanctity and Constancie in the Faith (euen vnto death) for the name of Christ, so admirable a Saint: we shall desire you to take an exact Reuiew of the Case, and to iudge accor∣dingly.

You remember that the Epistle is directed vnto Pope Cor∣nelius, a godly Pope, but yet very timerous, and some-what dismayed at the threats of Heretickes and Schismatickes; whom therefore Cyprian laboureth to support and consoli∣date. The very scope of the letter, in that part thereof, is to disswade him from giuing any eare or Admission vnto Fortu∣natus and Felicissimus, both Excommunicate persons, and already condemned by a Councel in Africke, and seeking now, by way of Appeale, to finde redresse with the same Pope. His Sentence containeth no lesse than Eight Arguments, sufficient

to confute your pretended Right of Appeales to Rome, which we may reduce to these Three Heads. The First concerneth the Decree it selfe, the Second, the Iudges, the Third, the Appellants, and Delinquents.

1. The Decree defineth plainely that It is vnequall and vn∣iust to haue an Ecclesiasticall Cause iudged, but where the Crime is committed. But the Crime was not committed in the Romane Dioces, Therefore it is ment, that they ought not to Appeale to Rome. 2. A Reason is giuen for this: Because it is vniust to iudge, where Witnesses and Accusers could not be had: But at Rome out of Africke (whence all parties must haue taken a long iourney, both by Land and by Sea) Accu∣sers and Witnesses could not bee had; Therefore Cyprian meant, they ought not to Appeale to Rome.

Next, here is the Consideration of the Iudges that had con∣demned these Excommunicates, namely Cyprian and the Bi∣shops of Africke. 1. Cyprian telleth the Pope that Euery Bi∣shop in his owne Dioces hath a por••ion of the flocke of Christ com∣mitted vnto him: Which being vsed as a Reason, to disswade the Pope from entertaini••g any Appeale, doth conclude that therefore the Whole Flocke of Christ is not subiect to the Pope, and consequently your pretended Right of Appeale to Rome is but a Romane Pigment. 2. As the charge ouer a portion of the Flocke of Christ is vpon euery Bishop, so in the discharge thereof, Euery Bishop (saith Cyprian) is to giue accompt vnto God, namely as Supreme. Which againe, being vrged as a Motiue to withdraw the Pope from intermedling in that businesse, doth proue that therefore the Pope is not Monarch of the Church, to call All other Bishops to Accompt; and Consequently hath not the Vniuersall power of Appeales. 3. The cause of these men (saith Cyprian) is already iudged, and wee may not incurre the reproofe of leuity, in giuing our Sentence; heereby intimating vnto the Pope, that though hee should oppose, they notwithstanding must bee found Constant in withstanding him, which doth argue, that although Appeales from those parts were ad∣mitted at Rome, yet might they iustly bee opposed a∣gainst.

The last Head is the Obseruation of Cyprian his Taxation of the Appellants, or parties Delinquent, now flying for suc∣cour to Rome. 1. He telleth the Pope, Those (saith he) whom we rule ouer, [oportet non circumcursitare,] ought not thus to gadd about; calling their contumacious forsaking of the iudgement of their Ordinary, and seeking Restitution at Rome, a Gadding and vagrant kinde of wandering: which had beene a Contu∣macy against the Pope, by Cyprian, if Appeales to Rome had beene inherent in the Romane Mitre and Monarchie. 2. Hee calleth them and their Accomplices, that thus laboured an Appeale, A few desperate Fellowes, that thereby vndermined the Authority of the Bishops of Africke ouer them, being Africans, as Lesse; meaning (as hath beene proued) Lesse than the Au∣thority of the Bishop of Rome. And would not your now Pope haue held this also a Contumely (if he had thought himselfe such a Monarch) to heare one of his vnderlings to call men Desperate fellowes, and A few; for acknowleging his Soue∣raignty and Monarchy, by Appealing vnto him, and thereby to signifie that there were but Few that would thinke this power of Appeales to belong of Right to the Pope of Rome? Lastly, he chargeth them that by this their Act, of Appealing thus irregularly to the Bishop of Rome, they did but thereby goe about [Episcoporum concordiam collidere,] to burst the Vni∣on and concord of Bishops. But the suffering of any one to make his iust Appeale could be no breach of Vnity, betweene a Substitute Bishop and a predominant Bishop, to whom Appeales doe of right appertaine: nay it were an iniurie and sufficient cause of breach of Concord not to suffer such Ap∣peales to passe, and take place. Therefore Cyprian, alleaging this vnto the Pope as a matter of their iust reproofe, did not beleeue that they could iustly Appeale vnto Rome.

Who is ther now but must conclude, that as long as the Article of your Romane Faith, concerning the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome, and Appeales vnto him, as the principall note of his Monarchie, shall bee examined by the Decree of Cyprian and the other Bishops of Africke, which thus oppose against Them, who (as they say) Nauigârunt Romam] sayled to Rome by way of Appeale; your pretence of so Appealing

must needs be split vpon the same Decree, as vpon a Rocke, and suffer shipwracke.

Our Fourth Discouery of the Vanity of your former Pre∣tonce of Vniuersall Right of Appeales to Rome, from the Testimonie of Pope Damasus. SECT. 18.

ABout the yeere of our Lord God 367, one offered an Appeale to Damasus Pope of Rome, and receiueth this Answer; k 1.969 In as much (saith the Pope) as the Councell of Ca∣pua hath so iudged this matter already, that those who were next adioyning should be Iudges, both to Bonosus, and his Ac∣cusers, We obserue that the forme of iudging [Nobis competere non potest,] cannot appertaine vnto vs. Whereby we conceiue the Pope confesseth his no Right of admitting an Appeale, af∣ter the Sentence, and Iudgement of a Prouniciall Councell. And we are answered by your Cardinall, thus: that l 1.970 [Non competere] in this place, is no more than [Non conuenire,] it is not conuenient; because that when a Prouinciall Synod had iudged a Cause, it could not be conuenient for Damasus to iudge it without cause. And this is all the Answer which Protestants could, by whatsoeuer importunity, wrest from the professed Aduocate of your Popes; which, say wee, fighteth against all forme and stile of Law. For the very word [Competit,] in the stile of the Iudiciall Court, signifieth one that is Sufficient, as Iudex competens, vsed by Vlpian, A Competent Iudge, and not onely a Conuenient Iudge.

And for the strict sense of the word, in the point of Ap∣peale, we may iustly Appeale to all Courts to Christendome, whether Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill, which may challenge any Right of Appeale: Because if (for example) the Iudge of the Audience or Arches should answer an Appellant; Sir, the matter hath beene iudged by the Court of York, and I know the Chancellor there to be a learned, and a iust man, therefore (to vse your Cardinalls phrase) It cannot be ••onuenient for mee

to iudge that, which hath receiued a former iudgement; might not the Appellant reioyne? What Sir? Not conuenient for you to receiue an Appeale! Why, you are therefore appoin∣ted Iudge in Cases of Appeale, yea, and sworne to discharge your Office of Iudgement, and not to preiudice any Cause, by saying you see no cause to admit it, before you haue heard it. For bee you assured, that I shall either shew iust proofe of iniustice offered vnto me, by my former Iudge, or else I must submit my selfe to the Censure of your Court. Such an incon∣gruity and absurdity it is, to modifie the word [Competere] with the bare sense of, Conueniency, as though it were not Conuenient for one to performe that, which hee is bound in Conscience to discharge.

Wee therefore contend for the strict sense of [Non Com∣petere] that is to say, Not appertaining, in the Sentence of Pope Damasus; as may furthermore appeare clearely by the Sentence it selfe, wherein Damasus will haue the man vnder∣stand Two things; One is, [Forma iudicandi non competit, The Forme of iudging doth not belong vnto me;] hee saith not, [Causa iudicandi non competit, The Cause of iudging belon∣geth not vnto me.] But you know that no true Court of Ap∣peale can say, that it hath not a Forme of iudging: the Second is the Cause, why he said [Non competit,] to wit, because the Cause had beene iudged by a Prouinciall Synod, as by those, who were [Finitimi,] Neere to the parties, as well Accusers, as Accused: as if he had taken his reason from the very De∣cree of the Councell of Carthage, set downe by Saint Cyprian, whereof you * 1.971 haue heard at large, calling it Vnequall, and Vniust, that a Cause should bee iudged in Remote Courts, where the parties cannot appeare; but especially that any one Iudge should take vpon him to re-iudge that, which was pre∣iudged by a Prouinciall Councell.

Otherwise, how easie a matter had it beene for the man, that tendered his Appeale, to haue pushed the Popes Answer away with the hornes of a Dilemma, thus; Eitheir haue you a Right of iudging in this Case of Appeales, after a Prouinciall Councell, or you haue not: If you haue, then do me right and iustice to heare it: If you haue not, then it is but a false De∣lusion

in men to Attribute to the See of Rome an Vniuersall power of iudging all Iudges, as being the Supreme Monarch ouer all Bishops, and their Prouinciall Counsells. Damasus therefore in this Answering, to wit, The forme of Iudging [Non potest nobis competere,] did meane that he could not, in such a Cause, be held a Competent, sufficient, or lawfull Iudge. Behold now your Vniuersall Iudge! behold your Monarch! controlled and confuted out of the mouth of your Iudge him∣selfe.

Our Fifth Discouery of the Falshood of your Pretence of Vniuersall Right of Appeales to Rome, from the Councell of Mileuis. SECT. 19.

IN the yere of Christ 416, m 1.972 Threescore Bishops in a Coun∣cell at Mileuis, (where Saint Augustine was present) de∣creed in the words following: n 1.973 If Priests or Deacons, or In∣ferior Clerkes shall haue complaint against their Bishops, let their next bordering Bishops heare their Cause and determine it, but if they shall Appeale from those Bishops, yet let them not Appeale any whither, but to an African Councell, or to the Primates of the Prouinces wherein they are: And whosoeuer shall thinke he may Appeale beyond the Seas, let none within Africke admit him into their Communion. Two points are considerable in this Inhibition of Appeales: First concerneth the Place, the Second the Persons, Touching the Place, it is at length granted by your great Aduocate in this Cause, to wit, that by those words [If any Appeale beyond the Sea, let none in Africke admit him into his communion] is s 1.974 forbidden Appeales vnto Rome. Where, by the way, is to bee taxed ••he impudencie of your Gratian, who whereas the Canon was made purposely against Appeales to Rome, yet shamed he not to add to that Canon of himselfe this exception: t 1.975 Except the Appeale be made to the Apostolike See of Rome. Which is, in Musicke, Discantus contra punctum; and in your Law, Statui∣mus, i. e. Abrogamus.

But thus much being granted, how is not this a prohibiti∣on against your pretended Right of Appeales to Rome? Satisfie this point, or else yeeld the Cause. u 1.976 Although (saith your Cardinall) the Councell prohibited and forbad that Priests and inferior Clerkes should Appeale to the Bishop of Rome, yet did they not forbid that the Pope of Rome should admit of Appeales made vnto him, nor had they any power or authority so to doe. So he. This being the onely Answer, which, after his perusall of all other Answers, hee thought to haue any colour of satisfaction in, we take it to be in effect the losse of the cause. For our Question is, whether the Bishop of Rome haue a sole and Soueraigne Right, ouer the whole Church of Christ, to iudge all Causes, by his absolute Prerogatiue of Popedome: And an Appeale, being A remouing of a Cause from an inferi∣or Iudge to a Superior, we reply that where there lieth a Prohi∣bition against Appealing to a Iudge, that Iudge is not held a Superior Iudge. But this Councell granted a Prohibition a∣gainst the Appealing of Priests within Africke, vnto the Pope of Rome; therefore was not the Pope of Rome in this Case of Priests held a Superiour Iudge, much lesse the Supreme of all others, as you pretend.

And although that Councel could not forbid the Pope (who was in a Transmarine Prouince) to admit of such Appeales, yet, in forbidding the Appeales vnto the Pope, they thereby denyed that he had lawfull power to receiue them. As heere in England, the prohibiting of euery person to Appeale vnto any, without the Kings Dominions, doth by vndenyable Con∣sequence shew, that none without the Kings Dominions hath iust power to admit of any such Appellants. How victorious then is Truth, in this one Cause, which by the euidence there∣of ha••h inforced her aduersary, by necessary Sequele, thus farre to professe it? Which Answer of his notwithstanding hee would gladly patch vp with an Addition of a meere falshood, saying; x 1.977 Pope Zozimus did command this Canon of the non-Ap∣peales of Priests to be confirmed. False, for Pope Zozimus is knowne, by the whole processe of the Councell of Africke, to haue admitted of the Appeale of Apiarius a Priest, but not without a shamefull repulse giuen him by the same Councell,

for his bold vsurpation: Which your other Cardinall could not dissemble; For y 1.978 It is euident (saith he) that Zozimus did not allow that Decree, concerning Priests not Appealing vnto places beyond the Sea. So triumphant is Truth!

The Second point that your Cardinall insisteth vpon is to giue vs to weet, that the Decree z 1.979 forbad onely the Priests and Inferior sort of the Clergie to Appeale to Rome, but not the Bi∣shops: this (he saith) is proued by Saint Augustine who was pre∣sent in this Councell, and yet saith in one of his Epistles, that it is lawfull for the Bishops of Africke to Appeale beyond the Sea. So he; yet so still, as though hee were scarce able to report a Truth. For Augustine, in the place alleged, doth not iustifie Appeales beyond the Sea to Rome, but onely speaketh of one Case of Cecilian, which was not a Case of Appeale, but of De∣legation (by the Authority of the Emperour) to the Pope, and after to other Bishops; as our next Discouery will proue. As for Saint Augustine, who was present in this Synod, he was al∣so present in the African Councell at Carthage, assenting to that which was there concluded by the Fathers of that Coun∣cell, in their Epistle to Pope Celestine; wherein grounding their Caution vpon the Councell of Nice, a 1.980 Your Reuerence knoweth right well (say they) that if they haue so cautelously prouided & decreed, concerning Clerkes of Inferior Orders, how much more would they haue this obserued in respect of Bi∣shops?

By this you may discerne the Logique taught them at Car∣thage, by those Fathers arguing thus: The Bishops of Africke prouided for the conueniencie of their Priests and Inferior Clergie, to hinder them from vexatious courses, and wastfull expences, in the point of Appeale, by sauing them from: vnne∣cessary trauels beyond the Sea; therefore they intended much more that they themselues should be freed. Euen as an house∣holder that doth compound with a Captaine, in behalfe of his seruant, to free him from being pressed for a Souldier, doth much more intend thereby his owne freedome, although hee make no expresse mention thereof.

CHALLENGE.

THe same Decree that forbiddeth that No Priest, or Dea∣con shall Appeale to Rome, out of Africke, awardeth al∣so a penalty of Excommunication vpon euery Priest or Dea∣con that shall transgresse heerein; saying, Let none within Africk ioyne in Communion with him. Now then (that we may close with you) those holy Fathers, who Excommunicated them that should Appeale to Rome, would not haue regarded the Excommunication of the Pope, if he should haue Excom∣municated them for denying such Appeales vnto Rome. This woundeth your Cause to the very heart. For if those godly Fathers of that Councell of Mileuis did denie that, which you accompt to be the Principall Character of your Article of Sub∣iection to the Pope, euen his pretended Right of Appeale, (as being Supreme Iudge;) if also by their Decree of the Excom∣munication of them, that should but Thinke of the contrary: they therefore doubtlesse would haue contemned the Excommuni∣cation of the Pope, if peraduenture he had returned the Dint of his Excommunication against them.

Then reuiew againe your now Romane Article, viz. The Catholike Romane Church, and the foure pillars of Necessity, whereupon it standeth, to wit, 1. Necessity of Vnion with it. 2. Necessity of Subiection vnto it. 3. Necessity of Faith, to be∣leeue both these: and 4. All these to be Necessary to Saluation; and trie then whether this Councell of Mileuis haue not vn∣der-mined and ouerthrowne each one. For 1. They forbid Appeales to Rome; therefore they acknowledged no absolute Subiection vnto it. 2. They Excommunicate all African Priests Appealing to Rome; Ergò they held no absolute Ne∣cessity of Vnion with it. 3. They Excommunicate all such [Qui put auerint] as should but Thinke it lawfull to Ap∣peale to Rome; Therefore they had no Necessity of Beleefe either of Subiection or Vnion with that Church. 4. That which they thought iust in themselues to oppose, the same they could not think Necessary for others to beleeue. Except therefore we shall condemne at once Threescore Antient, Godly, Ortho∣doxe

Bishops, and euery way without exception (among whom Saint Augustine was one) to be depriued of spirituall life, wee must conclude that your Romane Article is most Schismaticall and Damnable.

Our Sixt Discouery of the Falshood of the pretended Vni∣uersall Right of Appeales to Rome, by opposing Two other Cases, out of Saint Augustine. SECT. 20.

NE quid nimis, is an Aphorisme which ought to take place in euery kinde of discourse; for enough is enough: and, Noli actum agere, not to doe one thing twice, is as nece∣ssary as the former. You will therefore excuse vs, if, to pre∣uent tediousnesse, we referre you to that which hath beene already as exactly argued from both, as the Cases themselues did require. The first was the Case of the Bishop * 1.981 Cecilian. The Second Case is betweene the Church of Africke, in a Pro∣uinciall Councell, and Three Popes successiuely, in the Cause of * 1.982 Apiarius. The summe of both is this; that because Ap∣pealing (as hath beene said) is a Remouing of a Cause from an Inferiour Court to an Higher; the first Case, Transferring a Cause, iudged by Pope Iulius, vnto another Iudge, by way of Delegation, proueth that the Pope was not by his owne place the Supreme Iudge. The Second, Inhibiting Appeales to Rome, proueth that, concerning the Right of Appeales in Africke, the Pope was no Iudge at all. Wherefore (willingly pretermitting many other your Answers, in these kindes of Disputes, farre more friuolous and vaine than any of the for∣mer) we proceed to that which followeth.

Our Generall CHALLENGE, concerning your Romish Answers to the Testimonies obiected a∣gainst your pretended Right of Appeales to Rome.

VNiuersall Right of Appeales is indeed (as you haue said) A most strong Argument, for proofe of an Vniuersall

Iurisdiction, in any one that is truely inuested there in. And as truely is the No-Ʋniuersall Right as strong an Argument of false Ʋsurpation, to proue the No-Vniuersall Iurisdiction of Any that shall falsely pretend such a Right. For as it is true, that the Sunne is the Vniuersall light of the World, because it gi∣ueth light vnto all other Starres and Planets: so is it as true, that neither Moone, nor Mercurie, nor any Planet or Starre besides can be called such an Vniuersall light, because it hath not that Vniuersall power of giuing light to all others. This Vniuersall Right of Appeale you haue appropriated vnto your Bishop of Rome and his See, which all Churches Christian now, not subiect to the same See, doe as absolutely gaine-say. Now commeth in your choice * 1.983 Champion, furnished with the Pa∣noply of learning and subtilitie, as well offensiue to obiect, as defensiue to answer whatsoeuer force of Argument made a∣gainst all pretence of that Right.

But you cannot but discerne in his Obiections, that he could obiect nothing, but either the parties themselues, namely the Popes for Witnesses in their owne Cause; or the exorbitant Ex∣amples of Factious and Criminall Persons Appellant, in stead of regular and Conformable; or (in the Examples of some Godly Fathers, that sought helpe at the Pope of Rome) a pow∣er Arbitrarie, for Iudicatorie; or a friendly support, issuing from the Estimation and grace that some Popes then had to perswade, in stead of Authoritie of Iurisdiction: or lastly, a restrained power, and that onely by humane and Ecclesiasti∣call Canon and Custome (which is alterable) instead of a pre∣tended, proper, and Diuine Right. Such we haue proued to be the vanitie of his Proofes.

As easily may you obserue that notwithstanding his Answers he furthermore lyeth open to manifold Exceptions. For Anno 216. Restraint of Appeales to Rome was made by the Councell of Carthage: Anno 337. a Delogation was made by a godly Emperor Constantine to Pope Iulius, and transferred from him to other Bishops: Anno 367. Pope Damasus disclaimeth all Right of Appeale to Rome, after the Iudgement of a Prouinciall Synod: Anno 416. the Councell of Mileuis denieth Appeales out of Africke to Rome: and Anno 420. the Councell of

Africke is as peremptorie against this pretence of Papall Pri∣uiledge of Appeale. Among which, Three Councels, to wit, that of Carthage vnder Cyprian, the other of Mileuis, and the Third of Africke, all African Councels, are challenged by your Authors to haue bin within the Patriarkship of the Bishop of Rome, and yet they denied vnto him the Prerogatiue of Right of Appeale from Africke to Rome. Than which what can be a more euident Discouery of the Falsehood of your Ar∣ticle?

Wee conclude. Either must 600. Bishops in the Councell of Chalcedon, 87. Bishops in the Councell of Carthage, 60. in the Councell of Mileuis, 217. in the Councell of Africke, and among them Saint Cyprian & Saint Augustin (who All may seeme to haue conspired to pull downe this great Pinacle of the Roman•• Babel, and principall part of her Article of Catholike Iurisdi∣ction) bee iudged depriued of Saluation; or else must wee say, and professe, Cursed is this your Article, of The Catholike Romane Church, without which there is no Saluation.

And now haue we finished the Consideration of the Romane Church, after her first Foundation, in the Ancient ages thereof, within the compasse of the First Six hundred years after Christ: and Antiquity in Doctrine (you know) is, of all humane proofs, the best Argument for Christian Resolution. This Treatise would grow into a vast Volume, if we should proceed through∣out all former Successiue ages; we therefore rather choose, for breuitie-sake, to hasten to the Consideration of the Later ages of the Church.

CHAP. XIV. Our Fourth Generall Consideration is of the Churches Catholike, in the Last ages thereof; manifesting thereby the Impietie of your Article, The Romane Ca∣tholike Church, without which there is no Saluation.

BY this Consideration wee shall be occasio∣ned to giue Instances in diuers Christian Churches, which professe not either that Sub∣iection, or else that Vnion with the Pope or Church of Rome, as your Article, viz. The Romane Catholike Church, &c. doth exact.

• These Instances are of Three kinds;
  • 1. In Churches of Nations Remote from the Church of Rome.
  • 2. In Churches of neerer Countries: wherein are the Churches of Pro∣testants.
  • 3. In the Romane Church it selfe.

Our First Instance, concerning Remote Churches, not Subiect nor vnited to Rome, is in the Greeke Church. SECT. 1.

BVt First be it knowne vnto you, that there are Foure Pa∣triarkships Christian at this day dis-united from Rome, to

wit, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Ierusalem, the Patriarkes whereof haue, of later Times, their Ancient Pa∣triarchall stile, as thus: Hieremias by the mercie of God Arch-Bishop of Constantinople, Oecumenicall Patriarch: Michael by the Mercy of God Patriarch of Great Theopolis, or Antio∣chia: Ioachim, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of the Great Citie of Alexandria: Sophronius by the Mercie of God Patri∣arch of Ierusalem and all Palaestina. Whatsoeuer Christians are vnder these Patriarkships, or in other remote Nations, and haue not ruinated any Fundamentall Article of sauing Truth, set downe in our ancient Creeds, and are vnited vnto the true Catholike Head Christ Iesus our Lord, by a liuing Faith: all Protestants esteeme Them as true members of the Catholike Church, and (notwithstanding diuers their more tolerable Er∣rors and superstitions) to be in the state of Saluation, albeit no-way subiect or Subordinate to the Romane Church. And from this Generall Consideration, wee descend vnto our Particular Instances.

For our more expedite passage, and your expert apprehensi∣on of the Validitie of this Instance, wee shall Methodically lay downe before you Fiue obseruable points. First, the Conti∣nuance of the No-Subiection of the Greeke Church to the Ro∣mane: Secondly, the Dis-union and Opposition thereof vn∣to this day: Thirdly, the Estimation which is to be had of it, in respect of their Religion, notwithstanding their said Dis-uni∣on from Rome: Fourthly, the extent of the said Greeke Church; shewing the innumerable Multitudes of them: and Lastly, vp∣on these Premises, a Manifestation (by way of Challenge) and discouery of the Iniquitie of your now Romane Article, which pronounceth Damnation vpon all such, as professe not Subiesti∣on and Vnion with the Church of Rome.

I. The Continuance of the No-Subiection of the Greeke Church to Rome. SECT. 2.

BEsides all that which hath * 1.984 bin copiously already deliue∣red, concerning the Greek Church, we shal in this place rest

much vpon your Confessions. Wherefore wee would First demand of you, how many yeares you thinke the Church of Greece hath bin diuided from the Church of Rome, as a Church distinct, and not subiect to the Iurisdiction thereof. Some of you indefinitely set downe a 1.985 Many Hundreds of yeares: Whereas your Cardinall more precisely doth (al∣though in his indignation) note how the b 1.986 Greeke Church op∣posed it selfe to the Latine in the yeare 381. in a Generall Councell; wherein, contrary to the likeing of the Pope of Rome, a Hundred and Fiftie Bishops constituted a Patriarke of Constantinople, and placed him next to the Bishop of Rome: And being not content with this (saith hee) in the yeare 451. in the Fourth Generall Councell of Chalcedon, by the Consent of Six hundred Bishops, they endeuored to make the Patriarke of Constantinople equall with the Bishop of Rome, in the Priuiledges of his Patriarkship. All this argueth no Sub∣iection of the Greeke Church vnto Rome.

And albeit some would scrape acquaintance with the Greek Church, in the yeere 1549, at the Councell of c 1.987 Florence, as though all then had become Subiects to the Pope; yet vpon due examination you your selues finde the Grecians there to haue beene so farre from Subiection to the Pope, that d 1.988 They would not permit him to constitute a Patriarch among them: professing that they could doe nothing, without the consent of their owne Church. And as farre were they from Subie∣cting themselues in Doctrine, for when some few points were propounded, the Greekes answered the Pope, that e 1.989 They had no license to treat of such matters. Yea and their Emperour Pa∣laeologus, that was so earnest to piece them together, was him∣selfe but hardly welcomed home to the Greeke Church, which was now much more exasperated against the Romane Church: insomuch that (as f 1.990 you say) They did now Pronounce their Patriarch of Constantinople the Supreme, and Chiefe of all Bishops. Thus farre therefore haue you confessed the no-Sub∣iection

of the Greeke Church, from the first foure hundred yeeres, vnto the yeere 1549; which make vp 1149 yeeres.

Yet are we not content with this short reckoning, but ra∣ther hearken vnto your Iesuite Maldonate, and Prateolus: the first, g 1.991 The Greekes (saith he) alwaies enuied and disliked the supreme dignity of the Pope. The other thus: h 1.992 And they were (good words, good friend) so rebelliously aduerse to the Church of Rome, that they neuer would obey his Decrees. So they. This is enough to shew the Vniuersall freedome they still challenged from the Dominion and Iurisdiction of Rome.

II. The Dis-vnion and Separation of the Latter Greeke Church from Rome. SECT. 3.

THe No-Subiection doth not alwaies argue necessarily a Dis-vnion of Separation, for the King of France and King of Spaine are vnited in league, albeit neither of them subiect to other; but then onely when-as Subiection is due, as it is seene in all Cases of Rebellion. Now this Dis-vnion in Chur∣ches is most commonly either in Faith or in Affection. What kinde of Separation hath beene a long time between the Greek and Latine Church, we neede not tell you, your owne Com∣plaints and cries are loud enough against them. i 1.993 The Greekes (say you) hold the Pope of Rome and all Latines vnder him to be Excommunicate: Yea and k 1.994 So farre forth doe they abhorre the Church of Rome (as your Lateran Councell at Rome noteth) that if the Priests of the Romane Church shall chance to cele∣brate vpon any of their Altars they themselues would not cele∣brate vpon the same Altars, before they had washed them, as thinking them polluted by the others sacrificing: Nay and fur∣thermore, they Rebaptize them that had bin baptized in the Church of Rome.

Will you know one maine reason of this the Greeke Op∣position?

Harken then to Nilus the Greeke Arch-Bishop of Thessalonica: l 1.995 The Latines (saith hee) giue vs cause to dis∣sent from them, whiles that they take vpon them to be Masters of the Church, and vse, as if wee were but their Schollers: Con∣trarie to the Decrees of ancient Fathers, which are extant in their writings at this day. And the Latines affirme, that it is the office of their Popes to call Synods, and to determine of all matters Ecclesiasticall; which if it be true, then to what end were the assemblies of holy Fathers in former Councels? these were all but superfluous. So he.

But yet shall wee thinke that there can be so great distance betweene the Greeke Church and Protestants, as to Excom∣municate them, or to Rebaptize any of their Profession? Cer∣tes no. For, Anno 1584. m 1.996 Ieremias Patriarke of Constan∣tinople, in his Answer to the Protestants of Wittenberge, did thus farre congratulate with them, saying: Wee giue thankes to God the giuer of grace, and reioyce with many Others, that your Doctrine is in many things so consonant vnto the Doctrine of our Church. And it is not long since the most Reuerend Father in God, GEORGE by the Diuine Prouidence Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterburie Primate and Metropolitan of all England receiued Letters from the Greeke Patriarke of A∣lexandria, instiling himselfe n 1.997 Cyrill by the Mercie of God Pope and Patriarke of the great Citie Alexandria: commen∣ding one of his Monkes, called Metrophanes Chrysopulus, vnto the said Lord Arch Bishop of Canterburie, that vnder his Patronage he (••hough otherwise learned) might be exerci∣sed in our Vniuersities of England, and instituted in the Rudi∣ments of our Profession. Who purposely auoiding the Romish Sect, did daily frequent the publike Seruice of our Church, e∣uen as other Graecians in their trauels through England wil∣lingly vse to doe. Which may iustly confute the fabulous re∣port of o 1.998 Baronius, concerning a late Reconciliation of the Church of Alexandria, to the See of Rome. And you haue, no doubt, heard of the Epistle to the Patriarke of Constantinople,

vnto the Protestant Church at Prague in Bohemia: p 1.999 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that is, Wherefore, louing Bre∣thren, and Children, if it be so, as wee heare, and hope, make haste that wee may ioyne together in Vnitie. So then the Grae∣cians seeme to be as accordant with Protestants in Communion, as they are dissenting from you Romans.

III. The Estimation which is to be had of the Greeke Church, in respest of their Religion. SECT. 4.

OVr next Question will be, whether in your owne Esti∣mation the Greeke Ghurch be worthy of Christian Com∣munion, or no. The greatest exception that some of you haue taken against them is the deniall of the Article, touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne. But another Ie∣suite and Cardinall will free them from the crime of Haeresie, in this point: q 1.1000 The vnderstanding Greekes (saith hee) saying that the Holy Ghost proceedeth by the Sonne, signifie thereby nothing but that which wee our selues professe. So hee. And indeede Faith consisteth not in the outward Syllables, but in the true meaning of an Article. Another Iesuite saith, r 1.1001 The Graecians are properly called Schismatikes, by being dis-united from the Church (meaning of Rome) albeit they also become Haeretikes, by denying Vnion with the Head. Others doe more fauourably say, that s 1.1002 The Graecians are to be iudged Schis∣matikes, because they withdraw themselues from the Iurisdicti∣on of the Pope of Rome: but not Haeretikes, because they agree in the aforesaid Articles of Faith.

IV. The Extent of the Greeke Church, Opposite vnto Rome, as well in respect of Time, as of Place. SECT. 5.

IF you enquire into the length of Time, since the Greeks haue denyed Subiection to the Church of Rome, this (as you haue heard confessed) hath bene Alwaies: If how long they haue denyed Vnion also with the same Church, this is (as hath bene likewise confessed) about 200. yeares agoe. If lastly you seeke to know the Latitude of the Greeke Church, whereby you may the better guesse at their number, A * 1.1003 faithfull Ser∣uant of God, and one excellently studied in this Argument of Diuersities of Religions, hath deliuered vnto vs the iust extent thereof; obseruing that the Grecians acknowledge Obe∣dience vnto the Patriarch of Constantinople, vnder whose Iurisdiction are in Asia the Churches of Greece, Macedonia, Epirus, Thracia, Bulgaria, Podolia, Moscouia, Walachia, Russia, together with the Ilands of the Aegean Sea, a good part of Polonia, Dalmatia, and Croatia, Countries subiect to the Turke: Grecians dispersed in all these Countries, together with other Greeke Churches, deny the Primacy of Rome. Be∣sides the same Author addeth, that the Melchytes are of the same Religion of the Grecians, and the greatest Sect of Chri∣stians in the East: and after a iust view taken of the number of the Countries, wherein the Greeke Religion is professed, he concludeth, that If the Greeke Church be compared with the now Romane (excepting the new Addition of the Indians) the Greeke Church would farre exceed.

V. Our Discouery of the extreme Impiety of your Article, by way of Challenge. SECT. 6.

YOur Article requireth a Necessity both of Subiection and of Vnion vnto the Church of Rome, vpon infallible dan∣ger

of Damnation: In the Premises you haue before you the same Necessity of Subiection to Rome, denyed by the Ancient Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon, about the yeare 450. after Christ; and so continuing in the Greeke Church vnto this day: and the Necessity of Vnion denyed by the same Greeke Church 200. yeares together, and all this by Professors, in your owne iudgement (excepting for the denying of this Ro∣mish Article) no Heretikes, and in number Exceeding the Multitudes of them (the Indians excepted, and yet the Indian Conuerts, if you examine their Faith, are but poore Catho∣likes, God wot!) who call themselues the Romane Catholikes. How then shall we not accompt it a Luciferian pride, in your Romane Pope, to take vpon him to ascend vnto the Throne of God, and to pronounce Sentence of Damnation vpon so infi∣nite Christian soules? who (while your Bishops, excepting their raysing of Persecutions against Protestants, liue in peace, and fare deliciously euery day) do suffer daily grieuous and la∣mentable Persecutions and Oppressions vnder the Turkish ty∣rannie, for the Gospell of Christ. What man is there, in whom there are any bowells of Christianity, who will not rather condemne your Article, as a Praesumptuous, Pernicious, Sa∣crilegious, Schismaticall Delusion, and execrable Fascination of mens soules, by the which they are held fast vnder that Ro∣mane thraldome?

A particular Instance, for the Corroboration of the former Argument, in Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople. SECT. 7.

BAronius t 1.1004 doth present before you Ignatius the Patriarch of Constantinople, who liued about the yeare of our Lord 869. (in your owne iudgement) An excellent man. Whom notwithstanding Iohn the then Pope pronounced Excommu∣nicate, except within 30. dayes the said Ignatius should Ex∣communicate certaine Bishops in Bulgaria; for that the Pope then made claime to that Prouince, as belonging to the Ro∣maine

Church. But the Popes Excommunication against Ig∣natius was contradicted by the Patriarchs of Alexandria, and Antioch: and as for Ignatius himselfe, Hee is not found (saith your said Cardinall) to haue obeyed the Popes command. Ne∣uerthelesse, God graced this Ignatius with Miracles after his death. All this you haue in Baronius.

CHALLENGE.

HEre you haue (to omit the Opposition of the Two other Patriarches) Ignatius the Patriarch of Constantinople (for ought that can be prooued to the contrary) liuing and dying a person Excommunicate from the Church of Rome; and notwithstanding acknowledged by you to be one worthy, whose life should be Registred in the Body of your publike volume of u 1.1005 Councells; and after his death hauing the wit∣nesse of God, by his Seale of Miracles, that he was his owne seruant and Saint. As if you would teach vs this Syllogisme. Euery one that dyeth Excommunicate, out of the Church of Rome, dyeth out of the Catholike Church, and is consequently Damned. But Ignatius, a godly man in his life, and blessed after his death, dyed Excommunicate out of the Church of Rome. Ergo the same man, godly in his life time, and Blessed after his death, is immortally Damned. Either must you thus conclude, or else condemne your Article of Necessity of Sub∣iection and Vnion to the Romane Church, without which None can be saued, to be iustly damnable. For as for the Comment of Baronius, who acknowledging him thus Excommunicate, and so dying, yet notwithstanding saith that he departed this life in the Popes x 1.1006 Communion; we haue nothing to say, but onely Ridle me this Ridle, because we are to yeeld to the truth of the Story, and not vnto the figment and fancy of a Papall Commentator.

Our second Instance is in the Churches Christian in Assyria, dis-united from Rome. SECT. 8.

YOu haue a y 1.1007 Narration commended by Pope Pius the 4. vnto the Councell of Trent, concerning Abdisu Patriarch of the Assyrians, and all Churches vnder him, subiecting them∣selues to the Church and Pope of Rome. Our intended Breuity will not permit the Repetition of so large a Narration. Take vnto you summarily those Aduertisements, which are proper to this Cause in hand. It giueth vs to know, 1. That the Na∣tion of the Assyrians was so farre remote from Rome, that At Rome it was scarce knowne that there was any Church there. 2. That there was Two hundred thousand Christian Professors within the Patriarchship of Abdisu. 3. That their Faith was sound, and forme of worship pure, and so had continued, as they had receiued it in the beginning from Saint Thomas the Apo∣stle. And 4. that many of them oftentimes had suffered Mar∣tyrdome by the malice of Infidels, for the profession of our Lord Christ. This and much more in the Narration made in the Councell of Trent, by your Cardinall.

CHALLENGE.

THis Story is noted by our z 1.1008 Gentillettus to be meerely Fabulous. Not, that there are not Christian Churches in Assyria, professing the Catholike Faith, and to haue so conti∣nued from the Apostolike times; but that there was no such Submission of the said Churches, made by Abdisu, to the Pope of Rome. Notwithstanding, supposing the Tale of Robin-Hood to be true, and granting vnto you that the said Churches of Assyria had subiected themselues to the Pope, according to the Tenure of the Narration it selfe; then may we lawfully dispute (as Saint Paul often did) though not from the truth of the thing belieued, y••t from the Faith and credulity of the Beleeuer.

You therefore that belieue (as the Story teacheth) this Narration of a Nation of Christians, continuing in the syncere Faith and holy Worship, as they had receiued it from the A∣postles, for the space of 1500. yeares down-wards, (yea ma∣ny of them with Constancy euen vnto death:) Tell vs, do you beleeue that so many thousand thousands, which had bene within the compasse of those times, are notwithstanding Dam∣ned, because they did not formally professe Subiection to the Church of Rome, or not? If you say they are Damned; This were impiously calumnious against the Apostle Saint Thomas, that taught them not your Article of the (now) Ro∣mane Faith: If you say they are not Damned, then are you damned in that your Romane Article, which denounceth Damnation against all them that do not belieue, that without Subiection to the Romane Catholike Church there can be no Saluation. Howsoeuer you, yet farre be it from vs, who are Ministers of His Gospell, that pronounced Saluation to them of little Faith; that we should open, where he shutteth, by set∣ting broad-wide the Gates of Hell to swallow vp in despaire such as hee hath called to the Profession of the Gospell of Life.

Our third Instance, concerning Remote Nations, is in other Churches Christian, viz. Aegyptians, Aethio∣pians, Armenians, Russians, and the like, not subiect to Rome. SECT. 9.

WHen Protestants, in Confutation of a Sacrilegious a∣buse in the Church of Rome, by allowing of Publike Seruice in an vnknowne tongue, thereby depriuing God of a principall part of his Worship, euen the vnderstanding of the Worshipper, and Gods people of their comfort, do obiect vn∣to you the Examples of the Churches of the Aegyptians, and the like; they can receiue no better Answer than that which the yellow choler of your Cardinall would vouchsafe them: a 1.1009 We are no more mooued (saith he) with the Examples of these Aethiopians, Aegyptians, &c. than we are with the Customes of the Lutherans, because they were either Heretitkes or Schis∣matickes. So he; plainly notifying vnto you, that were they

onely Schismatickes by denying Subiection to the Church of Rome, yet that alone, without any suspition of Heresie, might be held sufficient (in his opinion) to conclude them in the state of Damnation: and indeed there are scarce Any, among these, challengeable for any Fundamentall Heresie. Whom there∣fore b 1.1010 Protestants embrace as Partakers of that which Saint Iude calleth * 1.1011 The common Saluation.

CHALLENGE.

AS often as we reade how gratiously Christ the Sonne of God entertained the woman diseased with a Bloudy issue, by affoording the Operation of a Diuine virtue to cure her maladie, at the very * 1.1012 Touching of but the hemme of his gar∣ment; so often are we to acknowledge that Super-abundant grace of God in Christ, euen to the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] men of * 1.1013 Small Faith: nay once to one bringing with him a beleeuing vnbe∣liefe, and saying, Lord I belieue, helpe my vnbeliefe. But here behold infinite soules of professed Christians, whom you dare not directly charge with Heresie, and yet (O the cursed mali∣ciousnesse of the pride of Rome!) must they all be Damned, and, by one Romane Article of Necessitie of Subiection to the Church of Rome, are excluded from all possibility of Salua∣tion. The like must be said of multitudes of other Christians in Africke, and Asia, besides Iaponia; wherein not long since hath bene reckoned to be b 1.1014 Two hundred thousand Chri∣stians. To omit other Countries Christian, too many to bee recited.

Our second kind of Instance, in respect of Churches nearer to the Territories of Rome, yet not Subiect to the Romane Church, which are the Churches of Protestants. SECT. 10.

WHole volumes would not suffice to containe the Ex∣ceptions, which we may iustly take against the

Church of Rome, not onely in respect of her Professors, and their differences in Doctrine, but euen in your Profession and Religion it selfe, as well Morall as Theologicall: but you had rather that we should giue Answer to your Calumniations. Know therefore, First that the number of Protestant Profes∣sors is not (in comparison of yours, that will be the onely Ca∣tholikes) so very a Pusillus Grex, that you can haue any Rea∣son to contemne it. For if so, then would not your Cardinall so greatly enuie and maligne the Extent and latitude thereof; who, speaking of Protestants, saith that c 1.1015 They at this day possesse so many and ample Prouinces, as England, Scotland, Denmarke, Norway, Sweuia, and no small part of Germa∣nia, Polonia, Bohemia, and Hungaria. Yet he pretermit∣teth, France, Heluetia, Ireland, and many other places, where these Professors are visible.

I. CHALLENGE, in Particular.

ALL these Churches of Protestants may seeme to containe in them one Moity of the Christian world, in the We∣sterne parts thereof, whose greatest Error, which you can im∣pute vnto them, is that They, for their Faith, immediatly de∣pend vpon Christ Iesus, as the Head of the Catholike Church; and their greatest vice, that they impugne the Popes Indul∣gences, the nourceries of all vices; and their greatest Schisme, that they will be diuided from that Church of Rome, which proudly and impiously diuideth her selfe from all other Churches of the world. And must all These, that are willing to sacrifice their liues for Christ, and his Ancient Faith con∣tained in the Catholike Creeds, be necessarily Damned, for denying of one new Article of Necessity of Subiection to the Catholike Romane Church? which Article (as hath beene plentifully proued) doth manifoldly contradict the sense of the Article in the Apostles Creed, concerning The Ca∣tholike Church.

II. CHALLENGE, in Generall.

OVR Question still is concerning the Church Catholike, which is the whole Church of Christ, consisting of all Particular Churches, as the members and parts thereof. You haue heard of the multitudes of Remote Churches Christian in Greece, Assyria, Aegypt, Aethiopia, &c. The like instance haue you heard of the Churches of Protestants, in Denmarke, Saxonia, Bohemia, &c. Try now whether that Obiection, made by Optatus against the Donatists, may not some-way checke you. d 1.1016 You (saith he) will haue the Church to be onely where you are, but in Dacia, Misia, Thracia, Achaia, &c. Where you are not, you will not haue it to be, nor will you haue it to be in Graecia, Cappadocia, Aegypt, &c. And innumerable other Isles and Prouinces, where you are not. His Reason; For you will haue your selues onely to be the Whole, who are not in euery Whole. So he. Tell vs now, when euer any Church could more professe it selfe to be Whole, in respect of other Chur∣ches, than that which will haue it selfe onely to be called The Catholike or Vniuersall Romane Church? or else to be more Alone than she that excludeth from hope of Saluation all other Churches which are not subiect vnto her?

Our third kind of Instance is in the Church of Rome her∣selfe: proouing that this Article, The Catholike Romane Church, without which there is no Saluation, becometh pernicious to them that will be called the Body, or Members thereof. SECT. 11.

BY this time we are drawing neare to the Gates of Rome, to try what peace there is within her walls, and what security can be had in Apocalypticall Babylon; for so is Rome called by Saint Iohn, according to the common Interpretation of your owne Doctors. And in as much as we are now to fight

within her owne Territories, in this conflict wee shall ende∣uour to make good vpon you Two most Obseruable Positions. The first concerneth the (almost) desperate estate of your Church of Rome; the Next is the Safety and security of the Churches of Protestants.

The danger of the Church of Rome, and some Members thereof, is that it is made twice Damnable; Once, by the Article which it professeth,viz. The Catholike Mother, and Mistris Church of Rome, without Vnion, and Subiection where∣unto there is no Saluation: Next, and more especially, by the Apostolicall Article, as it is vnderstood in our Christian Creed, of beleeuing THE CATHOLIKE CHVRCH.

The State of the Question, by Comparison of the Head, and Body of the Romane Church together; accor∣ding to the sense of your now Article, The Catholike Romane Church, without which, &c. SECT. 12.

THe Church of Rome consisteth of a Pope, and his Subordi∣nates, as of an Head, and a Body; yet so, as the Body your Church taketh the Denomination to be called Catholike from the Head the Pope, as the Successor of Peter; and not the Pope from the Church. Your Article of beleeuing The Ca∣tholike Church of Rome, &c. consisteth of many other Arti∣cles, and ioynts, which ought to bee obserued, because euery one containeth in it, according to your Faith, a Necessity of Beleefe. As 1. The Necessity of Beleeuing that there ought to bee e 1.1017 An Vniuersall Iudge vpon earth, as the distinct Vi∣car of Christ: 2. The Necessity of Beleeuing that this Iudge ought to be but f 1.1018 One Alone; because Two Heads vpon One Body, would make it Monstrous. 3. The Necessity of Belee∣uing that this One Head is g 1.1019 Aboue a Councell; and you may haue as good Reason for that, (if, as you fondly conclude, there be the same Reason of the Ecclesiasticall Body, as there is of

the Naturall) because it is Necessary that the Head be pre∣dominant ouer the Body. 4. The Necessity of Beleeuing that this predominant Head must be h 1.1020 Romane, so farre as to hold that, by virtue of this Head, Not onely the Romane Church taken at large, but euen the Parti••ular Romane Church, as it is in the City of Rome, ouer-ruleth throughout the world. 5. The Necessity of Beleeuing that this Romane Head must bee i 1.1021 Visible, because it is the Head of a Visible Church. 6. The Necessity of Beleeuing this Visible Head to be so Visi∣ble, in one Indiuidual person, that k 1.1022 It is as necessary for euery one to beleeue THIS man (as if you should say This Clement, or this Vrban) to be the Head, as it was necessary for the Iewes to be∣leeue THIS IESVS, when he was reuealed vnto them: because if there be not infallible beleefe of his person, there can be no cer∣tainty in his Decrees. And therefore it is requisite that you be∣leeue This man to bee the true Head, with an infallible Faith. 7. The Necessity of Beleeuing the Iudgement of this Visible Head to bee l 1.1023 Infalliby true. 8. The Necessity of Beleeuing that the m 1.1024 Vnion of this Infallibly-true Head and the Body thereof; as also the Vnion of the Members one with ano∣ther, are A true and proper note of the true and Catholike Church.

That so many Necessities of Beeleefe doe inforce as many Necessities o•• Damnation, partly vpon your preten∣ded Head, partly vpon your Body and Members thereof.

All that can bee said to this purpose may bee reduced to these Obseruations, concerning the Head, and Body, and Members of your Church, viz. as it may be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] a Body without an Head; or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as hauing a False Head; or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] with Multitudes of Heads; or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] One Head repugnant vnto the whole Body; or to the Essentiall Members thereof; or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Doubtfully Headed.

I. The Church of Rome sometimes a Body Head-lesse. SECT. 13.

THis happeneth as often and as long as there is a Vacancy in that See, by reason of the death of the former Pope, which hath beene often for n 1.1025 One, or Two, and sometimes for Eight yeeres space. Where then is your [Tibi dabo claues?] what becommeth of the Keyes of your Romane Catholike Church? o 1.1026 These (saith your Cardinall,) the Pope being dead, continue not formally in the Church (will you see a iugler?) except as they are committed vnto the Inferior Ministers, but are in the hands of Christ: and after that a new Pope is Chosen, the Keyes are deliuered vnto him, not by the Church, but by the hands of Christ.

CHALLENGE.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉! O the Depth of Delusion! Doe then, indeed, Saint Peters Keyes flie into heauen, at the death of eue∣ry Pope? If so, we demand what you vnderstand by those

Keys, which were promised by Christ to Peter, Mat. 16. saying, To thee will I giue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen. p 1.1027 Keyes in this place (saith hee) signifie principalitie of Eccle∣siasticall power ouer all the Church, and not remission of sinnes: because Christ addeth, saying [Whatsoeuer thou bindest vpon earth, &c.] Where by Binding is ment power of Praecept and of punishment, by Excommunication. So hee. What power then is that, which remaineth formally in the Inferior Mini∣sters of the Church, at the death of the Pope? if it be the Keyes of Principality, then is euery Inferior Priest a Pope: if it be the Keyes onely of Order and Absolution, then shall it not be law∣full for any Bishop to exercise any power of Iurisdiction by Praecept, or punishing by Excommunication during all the time of the Vacancie; be this for the space of Two, Three, Foure, or (as it is said to haue hapned) Eight yeares together.

You will easily guesse what it was that drew your Answerer into this most vncouth and extreme corner, wherein neuer any ancient Father before him set so much as the least print of his shooe: for your owne Binius will tell you a story to some good purpose. q 1.1028 In the Interregnum, or Vacancy, betweene the death of Pope Agapetus, and his Successor, was celebrated (saith he) the Councell of Constantinople, wherein there were present Two Legates of the Church of Rome, together with Menna the Bishop of Constantinople, and Vicar of (meaning Ro∣mane) the Apostolicall See. So he. Heere you see the Pope is dead, notwithstanding you obserue a Generall Councell ga∣thered, which is an act that you haue called Proper to the Pa∣pall Primacy, and Principality: and in Councells are com∣monly Acts both of Generall Decrees and Precepts, as also of punishments by Excommunication, in the name of the Catho∣like Church. Besides, you may behold heere Legates, yet not of the dead Pope, but of the Romane Church liuing. If then your Article take place in that sense, as to denie any Formall power of Keys vnto Inferior Bishops, then is heereby condem∣ned the whole Romane Church, not onely ancient, in the Councell of Constantinople, but also at all times of Interim, betweene the death of one Pope, and Election of another, whensoeuer they execute any Act of Iurisdiction. Answer

then, we pray you, doe you vpon this conceit of Bellarmine iudge all these condemned? then may, and must we most iustly renounce your Article, as execrable. Or doe you beleeue that in the Church there remaineth Formally the power of the Keyes, for the execution of all functions belonging to the ne∣cessary preseruation of the Church, and Members thereof? then must it follow (which your r 1.1029 Cardinall fore-saw right well) that the Pope receiueth his Authority from the Church, and not immediately from Christ: and that therefore the Church hath no absolute necessity of a Pope. And so may you bury your Article of Necessary Obedience to the Papall Mo∣narchy in the graue of euery dead Pope, and instead of that Ar∣ticle you may frame another De Anferibilitate Papae ab Eccle∣siâ, out of Gersons Instructions; which may serue you for a Catechisme. Because if the Church may consist sufficiently, in that which you call her Widow-hood, destitute of her Monar∣chical Head, for Six or Eight yeeres, why not also for Eighty, yea and Eighty times Eighty, if shee would so Decree?

II. That the Church of Rome hath sometimes a False Head. SECT. 14.

WHich false Head may bee easily seene thorrow many holes; as First to make him (as you do) Vni∣uersall Head ouer the Whole Church of Christ, throughout the world, is to erect a False Head, as * 1.1030 Saint Gregory, once Head of the Particular Church of Rome did often teach; by calling the Title and Doctrine of Vniuersall Bishop, Prophane, Sacrilegious, Blasphemous, and Antichristian.

2. God neuer ordained an Head, no bigger then of a wren, to stand vpon the shoulders of a man; and so little (in respect) is One Bishop of One City of Rome, to bee set ouer the Church Vni••ersally dispersed throughout the whole world; as you may guesse by the exceptions which Saint * 1.1031 Cyprian, and after him S. Augustine, and the Churches wherein they liued tooke a∣gainst the Bishops of Rome: accompting them Incompetent

Iudges in Cases of Appeale from Remote Nations, by reason of the distance of places; and yet their Churches in Africke might be said to be neare neighbours to Rome, in respect of many farre more distant from thence: therefore an Head ex∣treamely disproportionate, is a False Head.

3. None call that a Necessary and liuing Head, which was not created by God; no more can that Ecclesiasticall Head be iudged Necessary, for the Church of Christ, which was not in∣stituted by Diuine Ordinance. But that the Head of the Church of Rome was not ordained by Diuin•• Authority, you haue (for proofe) not onely the Church Catholike, in the Councell of * 1.1032 Chalcedon, but also the Romane Church it selfe, in the Coun∣cell of Constance. Therefore an Humane Head, in pretence of a Diuine one, is a False Head.

4. An Head subiect to Heresie cannot be truely adequate, and proper to a Body, which dependeth vpon Infallibility in matters of Faith: But he that will be called Vniuersall Head is obnoxious to Heresie (as Pope * 1.1033 Gregory excellently taught) when he denied that either He, or any Bishop in the Church ought to be called Vniuersall Bishop of the whole Church; lest that the same Vniuersall Bishop falling into error, the whole Church (saith he) might erre with him. An Example of an Hereticall Pope you haue had * 1.1034 Confessed in Honorius, from the Testimonies of Romish Doctors, of Ancient Fathers, of Councells, and of Popes themselues. And certainely that can∣not be but a False Head, which cannot be a True Member of the Body of the Church Catholike, which no Heretike (as * 1.1035 you haue confessed) can be.

5. You your selues admit of no Head on earth (of the Visible Body of Christ, that is, his Church) which is not also so Visible, that a man may point at it vndoubtedly, and Indi∣uidually, saying of it This is the Bishop of Rome: But you can haue no such Certainty of any Bishop of Rome, both because his Ordination, without which he cannot be truely Pope, depen∣deth vpon the Intention of the Ordeinour, than which what can be more vncertaine vnto you? as also because you are of∣ten constrained to doubt of the truth of his Election. For you cannot be ignorant, how plentifull a matter wee haue now in

hand, if we intended to prosecu••e the manifold Examples that are extant in your owne Bookes, of Popes who haue taken possession of the Romane Chaire by Intrusion. One you may receiue from the Relation of your Baronius, viz. of Iohn the Twelfth, who s 1.1036 was no manner of way (saith he) to be termed a legitimate and lawfull Pope, because no law was obserued in his Election, but all things carryed with terror and Violence; who although, by reason of his young yeeres, he could not be made so much as Deacon, yet did the Church honour him for her Pope, accompting it a Lesse euill to tolerate one, although a Mon∣strous Head, than to be diuided into many Heads. So he. This is plaine dealing, openly confessing what kinde of Heads your Romane Church is sometimes vnited vnto. One, for his life Monstrous, and therefore a braine-sicke Head; One, for his yeeres, not fit to be so much as a Deacon (that is, as wee may so say, an Elbow of the Church) is made Head & Chiefe Pastor thereof; therefore a braine-lesse Head. One that is an Intru∣der, and No-way a lawfull Pope, and therefore nothing lesse than a true Head; because an Example differing from your Rule, which your Iesuite Salmeron confesseth to be this: t 1.1037 To beleeue with a Diuine (or, Infallible), Faith THIS singular and Indiuidual man to bee our Pope, who is defined by the Ele∣ctors; yet so, that it doth not appeare that there was any defect or fault in his Election. But behold, heere is one with a Constat, that there was nothing but Defects in his entrance, because no law of iust Election was obserued therein; and yet notwithstan∣ding acknowledged and honoured as true Pope of your Ro∣mane Church.

6. As the Body cannot boast of Vnion with a Head, that is Headlesse, no more can an Head be truely so called, which is Bodilesse. But we * 1.1038 haue proued that that which you call Prin∣cipally the Church of Rome, as resident at Rome, shall haue no being, and therefore be no Bodie in Rome; namely when-as the City of Rome shall be the Seate of Antichrist.

CHALLENGE.

ALas my Masters! what meane you? will you needs condemne your selues, and your whole Romane Church, by your owne Faith? Your Article is, to Beleeue with an Infal∣lible Faith, One singular man to be the True Pope of Rome, and Vniuersall Pastor hauing Monarchicall power in the Church: wherein, by the word [Vniuersall] you condemne the Romane Church, as it was in the daies of Pope Pelagius the Second, and Pope Gregory the First; * 1.1039 both which held the Title of Vniuer∣sall, as execrable, and Anti-christian. By Monarchicall, and absolute power, you condemne the Romane Church, in the daies of Pope Damasus, who * 1.1040 held himselfe no Competent Iudge, in Cases fore-iudged by a Prouinciall Councell. By [True] you condemne the Romane Church, in the daies of Pope Iohn the Twelfth, which acknowledged (for her Pope) Him, whom shee knew to bee euery way Vnlawfully pos∣sessed of the Popedome, and therefore no True Pope. Yet what maruell, if they doubt not to obey false Pastors, who daily Worship false Saints? By [Romane] you condemne that Christian Church, which shall be in the daies of Anti∣christ, when-as the City of Rome, from whence the Denomi∣nation of Romane is deriued, shall be the Seate of Antichrist. And by beleeuing [Hunc, This] Indiuiduall Pope to bee verily the Pope, with that Infallible Faith, wherewith you beleeue any thing necessary to Saluation, you condemne here-in the Ro∣mane Church, throughout the whole Succession thereof, from Saint Peter to this day; and therein also your owne soules, in professing that to bee Infallible, which by reason of many defects, both in the Ordination, and Election of any Pope, is knowne to be full of Fallibilities and vncertainties; as all your owne Historians doe proue; and as will bee further euident De Facto, in that which followeth in the nex Section.

III. The Church of Rome was often diuided into Many Heads. SECT. 15.

SChisme (as the Apostle teacheth) is when the Body is diui∣ded, and depending vpon many Heads; as if some held of Paul, some of Cephas, and (but) some of Christ. So hath it often hapned in your Church, some depending of one, and some of another, and some of the Third Pope, and among all these yet could but one sort hold of the True. You your owne selues can reck on for vs u 1.1041 Twentie, yea * 1.1042 Thirty Schismes and Diuisions among your Popes; yet is this but a sparing Ac∣compt. But wee stand not vpon the number of their Diuisi∣ons, but vpon their Duration. Of which your Onuphrius hath Registred One for x 1.1043 The most pernicious and pestilent (be∣tweene Vrban the 6. and Clement the 7.) which continued and lasted for Fiftie yeares in the Church of Rome. During which Schisme, what Parts taking and factions there were on foot amongst the Members of that Church, throughout the most Countries in Europe, it is easie to imagine.

Your Cardinall telleth vs ofz 1.1044Three Popes at one time, eue∣ry one whereof would be accounted the Pope, so that hardly could any discerne which was the true Pope. So you. What Re∣solution can your Church haue in such a Case? your Iesuite would haue vs to note that a 1.1045 The Councell of Constance put them All downe; and this stood with good reason (saith hee) be∣cause when the true Pope was not certaine, it was as much as if there had beene none at all. So hee. Moreouer, Baronius hath found out another matter of wonderment, how that b 1.1046 When Sergius the Third, an illegitimate Pope, intruded himselfe in∣to that Seat, by monstrous sacriledge and most beastly filthinesse, yet such was the Reuerence (saith hee) which all faithfull Pro∣fessours, especially the remote Northerne People had vnto the

Church of Rome, that whomsoeuer they heard to sit in that See, although Pope onely in name, without any further inquirie con∣cerning his manner of entrance, they reuerenced him as S. Pe∣ter himselfe. So hee.

CHALLENGE.

LOoke againe to your Article of Beliefe, concerning This One Romane Pope, without which Faith none can be saued. Now your Church of Rome being diuided into Two Factions, one halfe adhering to One Pope, and another halfe to a Se∣cond, your Article requiring Beliefe of [Hunc, This onely One] doth damne halfe the Romane Church, for the space of aboue twice Fortie yeares. And afterwards, so long as it was diuided into Three Factions, adhering vnto Three seuerall Heads, your Article of [Hunc, This singular Pope] damneth Two of the Three Parts of your Romane Church at that time. At which time the Councell of Constance, the Representa∣tiue Body of the Romane Church (in this distraction) vsing no other remedie but abscission, and cutting off euery Head, by remouing All the Three, and choosing a Fourth; your Arti∣cle challenging the acknowledgement of [Hunc] doth neces∣sarily damne the whole Romane Church, either in admitting any of the Three, or else in preferring a Fourth.

As for our Northerne Professours of those dayes, whose Faith your Baronius extolleth, for their Beliefe of any Pope, whomsoeuer they heard named Pope, were hee neuer so ille∣gitimate, and indeede no Pope at all, (as for Example Sergius the Third) wee are in a great straight, which rather to ad∣mire: to wit, whether the Foolishnesse of those Northerne peo∣ple, in beleeuing an Ape to be a Man; or the Faithlesnesse of your Cardinall; who against the Article of his Faith, requi∣ring [Hunc Verum, that is, the acknowledgement of This true Pope, and none else, notwithstanding commendeth men for entertaining, and honouring a False one. But alas! what will they not beleeue, that will needes follow such Guides, as leade them by the nose, and make them to beleeue not that which God prescribeth, but what they please, albeit herein

also condemned by your owne Article? And moreouer, you your selues, that are sworne to beleeue Infallibly [Hunc] when as it is possible (for that which hath hapned, may happen) that your whole Church cannot discerne between Hunc and Hunc, by the same Article stand you continually condemned, in your owne Consciences.

IV. That the Church of Rome is oftentimes troubled with an Head repugnant sometime to the whole Body; and sometimes to the Seuerall Members thereof. SECT. 16.

THe First worke in a building, is laying a right Foundati∣on, which in euery Dispute is the true state of the Questi∣on; and then, Dimidium facti qui bene cepit, habet. The Forme of your owne Oath will giue vs good light for this First point.

c 1.1047 IN. doe beleeue the Catholike Romane Church to be the Mo∣ther and Mistresse ouer all other Churches, and I sweare O∣bedience to the Pope, as to the Vicar of Christ.

You professe then in this to honour the Church of Rome, as Mother and Mistresse ouer All Churches; and the Bishop and Pope of Rome, as Chiefe Pastor, and Head of it. It onely remaineth to know, whether as you haue made all other Churches, diuided from this Head, to be Schismatikes out of the Church, and de∣stitute of spirituall life; so also there may not be a Schisme be∣tweene this Romane Head and Body; so that, the One being di∣uided from the other, in some Cases, either of them may be∣come Schismaticall.

Your publike Professor and Iesuite Suarez is at hand to re∣solue you: d 1.1048 Schisme, (saith hee) as it is distinguished from Hae∣resie, is a separation either from the Head or from the Body; so as the Body, if it denie its Head [This true Pope] it is Schismati∣call; and the Pope the Head, if hee denie due Communion with the Body, as to Excommunicate the whole Church, is also Schis∣maticall. So he. Whose ingenuitie we must commend, in that hee confesseth it possible for the Pope, in some Case, to be a Schismatike. It will be our part to giue some Instance hereof.

That your Church commonly is Doubtfully-Headed; proued by an Instance made in the state of the great Question of the Supreame Iudge in your Church, whether it must be the Romane Pope, or Councell. And First for the Pope. SECT. 17.

IT is necess••ry that that Church, which will needes be Iudge of all other Churches, should first determine with it selfe who is the Supreme Iudge; nor should she euer take vpon her to determine of other Controuersies in Faith, against Prote∣stants, before shee haue satisfied Protestants in this, whether Pope or Councell be indeede the Supreame Iudge. In this Que∣stion Romane Doctors of all sorts haue bin distracted in their iudgements. To leaue all other Disputes, we desire to know how this hath bin determined by any Councell. Bellarmine, although the sworne Proctor for the Pope, yet against such as laboured to deduce a Confirmation of the Popes Iudgement a∣boue a Councell, from the Councels either of Florence or Late∣ran, doth reiect both; e 1.1049 So that (saith he) the matter is still que∣stionable vnto this day.

Is not this Acknowledgement worthy your thrice rumina∣tion, to vnderstand that the Romane Church, which boasteth her selfe to be the Mistresse of all Churches, and Iudge of all matters of Faith, is not, after a Thousand Six hundred yeares, fully assured whether (Comparison being made betweene her Pope and her selfe.) Hic, or Haec, Hee, or Shee, be the Su∣preme Iudge? When then, and how will you resolue in this so principall a Case? must the Scales still stand euen, that neither of them shall ouer-poise? Not so, for you teach (if One, as your fore-man, may speake for you all) that f 1.1050 Although this case haue not beene decided by any absolute Decree, yet it is de∣fined (saith hee) by the tacit and secret censent of the Doctors of the Church, scarce any one Diuine holding any other

opinion herein, than that which, before that of late this Contro∣uersie was moued, was anciently in force; namely that the Pope is aboue a Councell, as the Head is aboue the Body. As if he should say, Sirs, if the Question be whether Iohn an Oake or Iohn a Stile be heire to that Land, because the Witnesses conceale their meaning; without question they by a tacit Consent are for the Complainant, that Iohn an Oake must carry the Land. O Quacksaluer!

Consider you not now that the Subiect of all this Dispute is The Catholike Visible Church, whose Consent likewise is to be discerned onely by Visible Characters, whether it be by word or by writing? And are you now come to this passe, as that in a Cause of so great moment you must depend vpon the iudgement of the Tacit Consent of your Doctors? Wee doe not therefore maruell why they must needes be blinde Guides, who themselues haue no better Direction, than dumbe Iudges. All other Christian Churches in the world stand for the Authoritie of a Generall Councell, against whatsoeuer Pope; which (the Cause of your Pope hauing now bin heard) we are to proue from the Romane Church it selfe.

That the Romane Church is rather Iudge, than the Romane Pope, in all Causes of that Church; by the publike Decree of the same Church in it selfe. First in the Councell of Constance. SECT. 18.

IN the yeare of Christ our Lord 1415. was celebrated the Councell of Constance in Germanie, a place then most fit, con∣sisting (as you know) g 1.1051 of almost a Thousand Fathers, where∣of more then Three hundred were Bishops. This Synod with an Inprimis beginneth with this Article; h 1.1052 The Holy Synod,

inspired with the Holy Ghost, being lawfully assembled, & making vp a Generall Councell, which representeth the whole Catholike Church, hath immediate power from Christ; whereunto euery state and condition, be it the Papall, or whatsoeuer, is bound to obey in all things, which concerne either Faith, or Generall re∣formation of the Church, whether in the Head or Members thereof. Thus farre that Councell: which was expresly con∣firmed by Pope Martin, to be held i 1.1053 Inuiolable in mat∣ter of Faith.

CHALLENGE.

TEll vs now whether euer the Church of Rome had a Coun∣cell more ample for multitude of Fathers, being almost a Thousand; whether euer any Councell could assume more In∣fallibilitie to it selfe, than to be congregated by the Holy Ghost, thereby making her Degrees Authenticall; or whe∣ther euer any Councell could Derogate more from the Papall Power, as it is now beleeued and Attributed to your Popes, than to subiect him to the Determination of a Councell, in mat∣ters both of Direction in Faith, and Reformation of manners; or can any of you require a more fundamentall reason there∣of, than that which is intimated in the Decree it selfe, saying that The Councell hath its Authoritie immediately from Christ? The meaning whereof is (as you are * 1.1054 taught) that the Popes Authoritie is not of Diuine, but onely of Humane Instituti∣on: or Lastly, can you expect a stronger confirmation of all this, than is the Ratification thereof, by the (then) Lawfull Pope?

Now then (for now wee are come to our conflict, by Com∣parison) If (as your Cardinall, and others answer) k 1.1055 The Pope confirmed other matters of Faith decreed in that Councell, but would not ratifie this Decree, as being so derogatiue to his Head∣ship, and supreme Iudicature; then behold (that which wee assumed to proue) as great a Difference betweene that Assem∣bly of Fathers, which was as much the Representatiue Body

of the Romane Church, as any can be named. Whence it must as well follow, that your Pope (if hee had hereupon Excom∣municated the Fathers of that Councell) had bin a Schisma∣tike, as it doth follow, that diuiding himselfe from their De∣cree, hee could (by your Romane Principles) be no lesse than an Haeretike. For the Decree is peremptorie, as a matter of Faith: the Reason they gaue was concluded against the Pope, namely that the Pope of Rome is not Head of the Church by any Diuine Ordinance: euen as a Thousand yeares before this, the Fathers of the Councell of l 1.1056 Chalcedon anciently beleeued.

Another like Example in the Councell of Basil. SECT. 19.

IN the yeare 1431. there was a Councell gathered at Basil by the Authoritie of Pope m 1.1057 Martin the Fift, and after con∣firmed by Eugenius; wherein were 90. Fathers, who hauing confirmed the Decrees of the Councell of n 1.1058 Constance, where∣by the Pope is made subiect vnto a Councell, and the Censure thereof: now at the length Pope Eugenius, perceiuing they held this course, will needes dissolue the Councell, and trans∣late it to Florence. The Councell it selfe withstandeth this, and o 1.1059 Commandeth the contrary, shewing thereby, that p 1.1060 The Pope sought nothing, but, by abrogating of Councels, the de∣struction of the Church. Therefore they fairely q 1.1061 suspend the Pope: and in the end, according to the iudgement of the Councell of Constance, they Decree, as an r 1.1062 Vniuersall Truth, that the Pope hath no Authoritie aboue a Councell, nor power of himselfe to dissolue it; which truth whosoeuer (say they) shall obstinately contradict, is to be iudged an Heretike. So They.

Will you now see the Pope and the Councell grapple toge∣ther?

The Councell hath suspended the Pope, and iudgeth him no better than a Schismatike: The Pope pronounceth the Fathers of the Councell Schismatikes, s 1.1063 Separated from the Mother Church of Rome (meaning the Conclaue of some Cardinals at Rome,) and the Head thereof, for the space of sea∣uen yeares last past. The Councell answereth, saying: t 1.1064 What? will the Pope then damne for Schismatikes all the Cardinals, Bishops, and the Emperour himselfe, with Kings and Princes there present, yea, and the whole Church, which doth ap∣proue of this Councell? In the end (to end the fray) u 1.1065 The Pope (saith the Councell) did yeeld to the Admonition made vn∣to him, of not dissoluing the Councell.

Here is presented before you the Romane Head, and (in the Opinion of the Fathers of that Councell) the Catholike Bo∣die of the Romane Church, in a Distraction and Separation ei∣ther from the other, for Seauen yeares space. As for the Popes Pretence of his Romane Church, which were but a few Dome∣sticall Cardinals, the Councell did not accompt them worthy the name of the Members of the Church. This being the Case, whether shall we call the Schismatikes? for so the one party necessarily must be.

That, in this Case, the Pope is the Schismaticke. SECT. 20.

SOme would thinke that the Pope could not be the Schis∣matike, because (which is your common Argument) the Head, although it be diseased, yet it is not separated, without the destruction of the Body. If there be any peircing sharp∣nesse in the point of this Reason, it may (to your owne mis∣chiefe) easily be turned backe into your owne bowels, as the Fathers of the same Councell wisely did: because (say they) x 1.1066 If the Case could be the same in a Naturall Body, as it is in a Body Ecclesiasticall, that assoone as one Head is remoued, ano∣ther might be had, then in many head-aches, would men make often changes of their Heads. And indeed, if there were not

this difference betweene the Ecclesiasticall and Naturall Head, it should follow, that as oft as the Ecclesiasticall Head, the Pope, should die, the Ecclesiasticall Body and Church of Christ should perish also. So they.

Come we to their other Reason: y 1.1067 That which Christ pro∣mised to his Church, doth more especially agree to a Generall Councell: now Christ said vnto Peter, if he should take any offence, [Dic Ecclesiae] Tell the Church; the Complainant is not of equall Authority with the Iudge. It were ridiculous, to interpret, that by Church was meant Peter himselfe; and as fond to send him vnto any Inferiour to himselfe; and no lesse absurd had it bene to send him to the whole Church diffused euery-where, therefore Christ meant the assembly in a Councell. Besides, The Pope is z 1.1068 Minister and but one part, in Comparison to the whole, therefore lesse, yea in Authority, for the greatnesse of the Authority dependeth vpon the [Maior pars] the greater part of suffrages and voyces. So that Synod of Basil.

We might adde hereunto the Argument of Nilus the Greek Arch-Bishop of Thessalonica: * 1.1069 If that (saith he) the Pope had Infallibility of Iudgement, to what end were the cost and la∣bour of troubling all parts of Christendome for gathering Ge∣nerall Councels? Nor he alone, but another more Romish than he could be; a 1.1070 If so, (saith he) why should the learned in Lawes be sought for? Why so many Vniuersities vexed by dis∣cussing of Questions belonging to Faith? &c. So he.

CHALLENGE.

AFter your perusall of these Premises, remember but your Iesuites Assertion: * 1.1071 If the Pope should diuide himselfe from the whole Church, Hee should be iudged a Schismatike. But whether the guilt of Schisme be in Pope, or Councell, your owne guilt in such a Case can be no lesse than Periury, who by your Article are bound to belieue, that both Subiection and Vnion, vnto both Romane Church and Pope are Necessary to Saluation. You haue now a Woolfe by the eares, whether you hold him, or let him loose, you are sure to be bit. Thus much of the Dis-union betweene the Head and Body of the Romane Church.

The fourth Instance of the Dis-union betweene the Romane Church, and some Members thereof, in the Examples of France and England. SECT. 21.

ANb 1.1072 Appeale was made about the same time of the Coun∣cell of Basil, against Pope Leo the tenth, by the Vniuersi∣tie of Paris, in Defence of the Authority of the same Councell: wherein the same Vniuersity taxeth the Session of the Pope and his Cardinalls, as Not gathered together by the Spirit of God; professing herein, that Not the Popes particular Assem∣bly in the Citie, but the Congregation in the publicke Coun∣cell is to be called The Church of Rome. And this Right of Ap∣peale from the Pope is a liberty which the Vniuersity of Paris hath alwaies challenged to this day; yea and the whole Church of France, whose King (by his Orator in the Councell of Trent) made knowne the Vniuersall Tenet of that Church, namely, that The Pope is not Superiour to a Councell. Which they still maintaine, notwithstanding Pope Pius the fourth his contention by Arguments, in his letters to the contrary. And how little accompt they make of the Trent-Canons, which are the Articles of Faith whereunto you are sworne, is more than manifest, seeing they haue not yet admitted of that Councell, within the Kingdome of France; and there∣fore are yet at libertie to beleeue as much thereof as they list.

Not long after this, in the dayes of Henry the Eight (then) King of England, Stephen Gardiner, being of the Romane Reli∣gion, yet withstood the Romane Dominion in this kingdome, saying as followeth: c 1.1073 The Authority, which the Bishop of Rome would be thought to haue by Gods Law, is no Authoritie with vs, like as no manner of forraine Bishop hath Authority among vs. Afterwards he descanteth vpon the Title of Head, as it is attributed to the Church and Pope of Rome, and deny∣eth him to be the Head by Dominion, but by Order: in like

respect as Appelles was called the Head of Painters, and Lute∣tia, or Paris the Head of Vniuersities. As for the other Su∣premacy, which the Pope challengeth, it is that which Pope Boniface the second begged of the Emperour Phocas. It is an ambitious vanity for them to be called Supremes, who are Postremes in that which is least. All sorts of people (in England) are agreed vpon this point, with most stedfast consent, learned and vnlearned, both men and women, that no manner of per∣son bred or brought vp in England hath ought to do with Rome. So he. This was the Faith of the Church of England then, notwithstanding the d 1.1074 Excommunication of the Pope, against the King, and All his Adherents.

CHALLENGE.

IN these Examples (to omit others) you haue two most po∣tent Kingdomes (excepting the Article now in Question) vnited in Faith, and the one also professing Subiection to your Church of Rome, as noble Members thereof; who all (in all the time of their Opposition, if your Article of Necessary Subiection and Vnion to the Church of Rome and Pope there∣of bee of Faith,) are made liable, with all their people, vnto eternall Damnation. Wherefore as we do complaine of the maliciousnesse of your Romane Article, which denounceth Curses vpon all Protestants, and Others of a different Reli∣gion from Rome; so may wee cry out vpon the madnesse thereof, by which she strangleth the children of her owne wombe, yea and her whole Representatiue Bodie, in her late Generall Councels, as hath bene proued.

CHAP. XV. The Determination of the whole Controuersie be∣tweene the Church of Rome, and the Church of England, together with other Protestant Churches, concerning the CHVRCH CA∣THOLIKE; to discerne whether Side is ra∣ther to be accounted Schismaticall, or may more iustly pleade Soule's Saluation.

First by Generall THESES. SECT. 1.

THE word, CATHOLIKE CHVRCH, is that which you oppose vnto vs in euery Dis∣pute, as it were a Gorgons head, able to ter∣rifie Protestants at the first mention thereof. Which name, as it is appropriated to the Ro∣mane Church, we haue prooued to be but a bare name, and indeed Medusa's head painted in a shield, a meere delusion, able to feare none but Ignorants. For your fuller Satisfaction herein, We thought good, vpon Contemplation of the Pre∣misses, to descend vnto this DETERMINATION of the Cause; which wee shall performe punctually by certaine Theses, or Positions, by which are repelled those Popular Ob∣iections, which you vsually cast as Impediments in our way. This Tractate then we diuide into foure parts. I. Concerning

All Churches in generall. II. Particularly comparing the Ro∣mane Church with other now Remote Churches. III. Com∣paring her with the Churches of Protestants, at the time of LVTHERS departure from her. IV. Comparing her with the Churches of Protestants at this day.

The first part of Comparison, which is by Generall Theses. I. THESIS. An Absolute Decay of the Catholike Church was neuer defended by any Protestants. SECT. 2.

MAny Papists, in their aduersnesse to Protestants, whom they seeke to traduce, do impute vnto them this faith∣lesse Paradox, as to say, that the Catholike Church is some∣time extinguished: whereas a 1.1075 Caluine and other Protestants grant (saith your Cardinall) that the Catholike Church can∣not perish. And therefore he telleth those MANY that they do but Loose their time, in proouing the perpetuall existence of the Catholike Church. Hee might as well haue noted in them a Losse of good Conscience, by their falsly imposing vpon Protestants a false Doctrine, which they neuer taught: as you may more perfectly see afterwards by a Sentence of * 1.1076 Caluin himselfe.

II. THESIS. The Church Symbolicall, and properly called Ca∣tholike, cannot erre in Faith. SECT. 3.

THat wee call the Symbolicall and properly Catholike Church (as it is Militant) which is set downe in the A∣postles

Symbol or Creed, beleeued of all Christians, viz. The multitude of all Christian Beleeuers whensoeuer and wheresoeuer dispersed through-out the world, vnto which belong all those Royall Promises, made by Christ vnto her, of being Led into all truth, Ioh. 16. Of hauing his residence with it Vnto the ends of the world, Matth. 28. Of Hell-gates not preuailing against it, Matth. 16. Neuer shall you find any Protestant gain-saying this Truth.

III. THESIS. How the Church Representatiue (improperly called the Catholike Church) may bee said to be subiect to Errour. SECT. 4.

THe Church, improperly called Catholike, is the Congre∣gation of Christians assembled in a Generall Synod (as being the Representatiue body of the Church in the Symbol, properly called Catholike) whereof wee say no more than Saint Augustine spake, to wit, that b 1.1077 Sometimes former Ge∣nerall Councels may be corrected by the latter. Vnto which sentence of Augustine you could not hitherto giue any An∣swer, but that, which Saint Augustine (if he were aliue) would say is directly contradictory to his meaning. For c 1.1078 Au∣gustine (saith your Cardinall) spake not of matter of Faith, but of Fact; nor of a point of Doctrine, but of Manners. Whereas the whole dispute of Augustine in that place is about a Do∣ctrine of Faith, Whether there can be true Baptisme in a false Church. And what hath Saint Augustine said herein, which Some of your owne Romish Schoole haue not thorowly auouched? viz. that d 1.1079 Generall Councels rightly gathered, haue erred: and that A Generall Councell so erring doth not preiudice the Catholike Church: Because e 1.1080 A Generall Coun∣cell

is not the Catholike Church, but onely a part thereof: f 1.1081 Which erring, yet notwithstanding Some of the Church shall be still assisted to vphold the truth. So they.

Nor doth this any whit impeach the Promise of Christ, to wit, * Whensoeuer two or three shall be gathered together in my Name, there I will be in the middest of them. For Christ promising his presence to all Christians, Assembled in his Name, did not thereby promise that all Christian Assemblies should be gathered in his Name duly, that is, with sincere hearts to inuocate him, and to subscribe to his reuealed Truth. It was an Academicall and Scepticall Paradox, to say, that because one Sense might be deceiued, therefore no Sense was to be belieued. Whereunto the Answer was, that euery Sense, as it might be deceiued, so might it also be not de∣ceiued, if requisite Circumstances were duely obserued: as namely, if the Organ and Instrument were sound, the Me∣dium rightly disposed, the Obiect proper, the Distance due and proportionable. Accordingly in Councels, if the persons assembled, as it were the Organs, be sincerely affected to Gods glorie, with desire of Truth, as their proper Obiect; and in the maior part thereof not led with the spirit of Contention and Faction, which is the Cause of vnequall difference and Di∣stance; and if their Diaphanum, and Medium be illuminated with the true light, as Saint Peter calleth the holy Scripture: Then is it not possible for such an Assembly to erre in any principle of Faith.

So then the difference betweene the Romane Church and the Church of the Protestants is no more but this, that the Romanists say, that all Generall Councels may erre, ex∣cept they bee confirmed and authorized by the Pope: but Protestants say, that all Generall Councels may erre, except they be directed by the Spirit of Gods word, as our g 1.1082 Church of England hath truly defined. In which difference we seeke no other moderation than the iudgement of the first fiue Ge∣nerall Councels, which in points of Faith propounded to themselues the holy Scripture, as the onely Rule of their Do∣ctrines: & esteemed of the Popes iudgement no otherwise than of a particular suffrage, and in it selfe but equall (excepting

the Dignitie of Order) vnto the voices of other Patriarches and Bishops, as hath bene prooued.

IV. THESIS. Protestants hold not any greater Inuisibilitie, or rather Obscuritie of the Church Catholike, than that which the Romanists themselues are forced to confesse. SECT. 5.

NOt but that many of you pretend and boast of a Catho∣like Church, not onely Visible, but also Conspicuously and notoriously Visible, alwaies, both in the h 1.1083 Amplitude of compasse, and in the i 1.1084 Multitude of Beleeuers; as the Perpe∣tuall note of the Church, which our Sauiour Christ compareth to a Citie set vpon a hill. And you are not ignorant of the Epistle, which Mr. Fisher a Iesuite presented not long agoe vnto our late Soueraigne King Iames of blessed memorie; wherein he professeth a Catholike Church to be alwaies so conspicuous, that The whole knowne world may take notice of her, yea euen in the dayes of Antichrist shall she be visibly v∣niuersall: for she shall be then euery-where persecuted, which she could not bee, except she were euery where Visible. So He,

Who neuer regarded, that the Church of Christ, as it is sometime in lustre glorious as the Sunne, so againe it is (ac∣cording to the iudgement of Saint k 1.1085 Augustine, and Saint l 1.1086 Ambrose) sometime as the Moone, which hath her encreases and decreases. In which respect we are to obserue two Sea∣sons of the Church, the one long since past, in the dayes of that Deluge of the Arian Heresie; the other prophesied to happen in the dayes of Antichrist. Of both which as well Fa∣thers as your owne Authors say as much, concerning the Ecclipse and obscurity of the Church Catholike, as commonly

doe the Professed Protestants. The words of your owne Au∣thors amount to no lesse than a plaine Confession, that m 1.1087 The Arian Heresie trauelled almost ouer the whole Romane Orbe. Euen, n 1.1088 From the rising of the Sun to the noone-point, and after passing by the North, at length it infected almost the whole We∣sterne part of Christendome. That the same o 1.1089 Heresie polluted almost all Christian Churches, and the Patriarchall Seates of Antioch, Alexandria, and Hierusalem; and at length passing into the Westerne parts (meaning the Romane Iu••isdiction) substituted Felix into the Romane Chaire, instead of Liberius; and so ran his Course through-out the whole world in a trice. When the Church was brought to that lowe ebbe, that the same Pope Liberius, hearing the Arian Emperour to obiect the Paucity of Orthodoxe Fathers, doubted not to make his Answer; p 1.1090 It mattereth not (saith he) whether the true Pro∣fessors be moe, or fewer, for the Church of the Iewes was once re∣duced to the number of Three. So accordingly q 1.1091 Saint Hilae∣ry bewailed the state of the Church, saying, that it had forsa∣ken Temples and buildings; and was more safe in Mountaines, Lakes, and Prisons. And Greg. Nazianzene speaking of his own Church at that time, r 1.1092 It was proper to our Fold (saith he) that it could not be broken, insomuch that we were often termed the Arke of Noah; as those who onely escaped drowning in the flood. So he. Would it not pose you to tell what was the face and appearance of the Romane Church, when onely the Church of Nazianzum was said to escape the Deluge of that Arrian Heresie?

But how much greater is the Cloude of Obscurity of the Church, prophecied of in the daies of Antichrist? Let your Rhemists shout as loud as they can, that the Catholike Church is alwaies s 1.1093 Notably visible in her visible Pastors, Sacraments, and names of her Professors; yet at length, as it were with shouting, they waxing hoarse, tell you of an t 1.1094 Externall cessa∣tion

of all outward Communion from the Catholike Church, excepting the Communion in the hearts of her Professors. And falling into a Meditation of these words of the Apoc. Chap. 12. ver. 6. [The Woman fledd into the Wildernesse;] whereby is ment the Church Catholike, seeking resuge from the vio∣lance of Antichrist, They giue you this Note: u 1.1095 At which time for all that (say they) the Church shall not want our Lord's protection, nor Pastors, nor be so secret, but that all faithfull men shall know and follow her, much lesse shall she decay and erre from the Faith, as Heretikes wickedly feine; but be as the Ca∣tholike Church now in England in the time of Persecution, be∣cause it hath no publike Seate of Regiment, nor open free exer∣cise of holy function. And although it may be said to be fledd in∣to the Desert, yet is it neither Vnknowne vnto the Faithfull that followe it, nor to the Enemies that persecute it. So They.

In which one testimonie we haue an hotch-potch of Truth, Folly, and Falshood together. Truth, in acknowledging such an Obscurity of the Church, as that whereby shee is depriued of publike gouernement, and free exercise of Ecclesiasticall Function. Falshood, in obiecting vnto Protestants (whom they as falsly call Heretikes) an opinion of Decay and errour from Faith in the whole Catholike Church; which vnto your own * 1.1096 Bellarmine seemed, in effect, to be a lewd Slander. And thirdly, what greater Folly and absurdity can there bee, than to dreame (as Master Fisher likewise hath done) of a Church Flying into the Desert vnder God's protection, that it should not be knowne; and yet in his opinion, not vnknowne to her Persecutors? With like reason might they assure you, that the Hare is still knowne to the Hunter, when shee flieth into a thicket and place (by God's prouidence) of such safety, that neither man, nor dogg can hunt her out.

We had rather you should heare the more iudicious and ingenuous Acknowledgements of your other Iesuites Ribera, Pererius, Acosta, Viega••, from whom you may heare of the Church flying into the Wildernesse, to a place prepared for her of God; So that x 1.1097 Shee can either not be enquired of, where shee is, by the Ministers of Antichrist, or at least not be found out.

y 1.1098 When the Churches seruice and worship shall be in secret, the Sacrifice of the Masse shall cease, the Liturgie and forme of prayer shall be abolished; and all shall adore Antichrist, except the Predestinate, whose names are written in the Booke of Life. So they. Did you euer heare, from any Protestant, a significa∣tion of any greater Obscurity of the Church than this is? Which differeth not from the iudgement of ancient Fathers, who, speaking of the Catholike Church, say that z 1.1099 This Sunne shall be darkened, and the Moone shall not giue her light: Not appearing to her Persecutors. And this Mother shall be vnable to bring forth the Children of her wombe.

Of Departure from some particular Churches. THESIS. V. All particular Churches are not to bee forsaken for euery Vnsoundnesse in either Manners, Worship, or Doctrine. SECT. 6.

WEe haue Christ his Warrant, in the Case of Vnsound∣nesse in Manners, Mat. 23.3. — Whatsoeuer they bid you doe, that obserue and doe, but after their workes doe not. Shall the Iniquity of the Minister make the promises of God of none effect? God forbid! Or because they haue foule hands, must I haue deafe yeeres? Abel and Cain might offer Sacrifice at one Altar. Peter and Iudas present themselues

together at one sacred Supper. The Publican and Pharisee pray in one Temple. Peruse but the Booke of God, the holy Scripture, from the beginning of Genesis vnto the end of the Apocalypse, and you shall scarce finde one example of any par∣ticular Church consisting onely of sanctified Professors, with∣out mixture (as in the barne) of both Chaffe and Wheate; or without (as the net) good and badd fishes; or without (as the fold) sheepe and goats, still diuers in dissimilitude of man∣ners, not in diuision of Sacraments; no not in the family of Noah, within the Arke. Which we speake to the iust Con∣demnation of all such Separatists, who (as of old the Donatists) for onely scandall taken at the wicked liues of the Professors, doe breake the barne, burst the net, ouerthrowe the fold, and rend the vn-seamed Coat of Christ, by diuiding themselues from the Church of their owne Profession.

Next, euery corrupt Custome, in the publike Worship of God, is no sufficient Warrant or cause of Separation from the particular Church, wherein we haue beene baptized, or haue made profession of our Faith; except the forme thereof bee some-way Idolatrous. For we reade how the High places and Groues were forbidden of God, Deut. 12. yet, in the time of their Iudges, God suffred their Sacrifice, Iud. 6. and (as Saint a 1.1100 Augustine, you know, saith) God accepted their Offerings.

As for errour in Doctrine, your Cardinall will haue you vnderstand, that b 1.1101 Particular Churches may erre in some points of Faith, and yet be accounted true Churches: and hee giueth instance in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia, both which Saint Paul stileth, Churches of the Saints: albeit the one is re∣prehended by the Apostle, for denying the Resurrection, 1 Cor. 15. the other for teaching a necessary Obseruation of the Law of Moses with the Gospell of Christ. Gal. 1. So he. Yet lest you may erre, in terming that a True Church, which is wilfuliy intangled in any Heresie, he giueth this Condition,

that The same that erre be ready to be reformed, and to obey the truth, as were the Corinthians and Galatians: Otherwise to bee vnwilling either to learne, or to yeeld vnto a manifest truth, is proper (saith your Author) vnto a Satanicall Synagogue, and to the Churches of the Malignant. So your Cardinall, and that most truely.

THESIS. VI. Some Vnsound Churches are necessarily to bee auoided, and the iust Causes why? SECT. 7.

AS Leprousie, Plague, and whatsoeuer contagious Disea∣ses are necessarie causes of separation from vnsound hou∣ses; so Obstinacie of error in Teachers, affected Ignorance, and obduration of people, Idolatry in Gods Worship, Tyran∣nie, and Persecution against the true and sincere Professors, may be iudged necessary Causes of Separation from any par∣ticular Churches. Against a generall Obstinacie of false-Tea∣chers, opposing to the wholesome doctrine, We haue a Caue∣at, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Depart from such, 1 Tim. 6.5. Against the gene∣rall Obdurancie of hearts, our Caueat is both Christ's * 1.1102 Shake off the dust of your feet, in departing; and Saint Paul's [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] When certaine obstinate persons speake euill of the Word of God, before the people, he departed from them, and separated the Disciples, Act. 19.9: because else they should heare nothing but blasphemies against the truth of God. Against the Cor∣ruption of Gods Worship, Idolatrously, the Command is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Flie from Idolatry, 1 Cor. 10.4. euen as vnto the peo∣ple vnder the Law, when Bethel, that is, the House of God, was turned into Bethauen, that is, the House of Vanity (the Epithet of Idolatry) then the Watch-word to the Faithfull was, Separate your selues from among them, Hos. 10. Against Tyrannie in Persecuting of Preachers, or Professors in any

one City, the warning is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] likewise Flie vnto another, Mat. 10.23. And lastly, in the time of Antichristian Tyrannie and Idolatry in Romish Babylon, the Spi••it saith, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] Come out of her, my people. Apoc. 18.4.

THESIS. VII. No vniust Excommunication, out of a true Church, can preiudice the Saluation of the Ex∣communicate, SECT. 8.

YOur Romance Glosse, authorized by Pope c 1.1103 Gregory the XIII, will speake as much as need be said, to wit, d 1.1104 The Keyes of the Church erring in her binding and loosing, the par∣tie so bound is not then bound with God: for it happeneth many times, that he who is excommunicated out of the Church Mili∣tant is notwithstandeng in the Church Triumphant. So your owne Glosse. According as it hath beene obserued by you in the Blinde-man cured by Christ, and professing the power of Christ, whom therefore the Church of the Iewes [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Cast out of their Synagogues, Ioh. 9.34. That is (saith your Cardinall) they excommunicated and separated him from the communion of Them, who at that time were accounted faithful; but yet happie was that Blinde-man, who was Excommunicated for the name of Christ. So he.

e 1.1105And so may we say of Luther, who was as one borne Blinde, whilst hee continued in your Church (according to your Assumption) true; vntill that Christ opened his eyes, and he for acknowledging the diuine light was Excommunicate by your High Priest. Yet happie man he! who was taken into the protection of Christ, whom he professed and worshipped. Something more of Excommunication you may reade in the XV. Section Following.

The Second Part is concerning Departure from Rome, more particularly comparing the Church of Rome with other Churches.

We are approached to the Walls of Rome, and behold wee discouer in her, iust iust Causes of Separation from her; which we shall represent vnto you in that due place, whereunto we now proceed by certaine Theses, as it were by iust pases; Com∣paring her, first, with other Remote Christian Chur••hes.

THESIS. I. The Church of Rome is as subiect to Errors, as any other Church. SECT. 9.

WHat Prerogatiue had the Church-of your Romanes aboue the Church of the Ephesians, or Thessalonians, in respect of any possibilitie of not * 1.1106 Erring? or of Contemning other Churches in respect of her selfe? to which that may be obiected which the Apostle writ to the Corinthians, to wit, * 1.1107 Came the Word of God first from you? nay came it not * 1.1108 First from Hierusalem to Antioch, and many other places, before Rome; and at length from Greece to Rome? And after that Rome is established a Church, was it freed from Erring more than other, through the Primacie, which it challengeth ouer Others? By what Law? Humane? that could not; Diuine? that did not authorize any such Primacy. Which you are com∣pellable to Confesse, except you will say that the Catholike Church hath erred in the Generall Councell of Chalcedon, which (as hath * 1.1109 beene confessed) denied that Rome had her Primacie from diuine Ordinance: except you will also Grant

that the Church of Rome it selfe hath erred in her * 1.1110 Councell of Constance; which maintained the same Axiome, to wit, that the Church of Rome held not her Primacie from diuine autho∣rity. Lastly, except you will impeach the Apostle Saint Paul of error; who by his [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] taught an indifferencie of all spi∣rituall respect to Rome, with other Churches, as * 1.1111 hath beene proued. Take vnto you one infallible Argument, that the Church of Rome may erre in matter of Faith. It hath erred, Ergo, It may possibly erre. That it hath, one confessed in∣stance may sufficiently resolue you, if it bee pregnant. Such is the doctrine of the Administration of the f 1.1112 Eucharist vnto In∣fants, vp••n Necessity of Saluation. A doctrine, by your owne Confession at this day, false: and yet at that day (as is likewise Confessed) taugh and continued in the Church of Rome for the space of 600 yeeres together.

THESIS. II. That the Church of Rome is more subiect to Er∣ring, than any other Church Christian. SECT. 10.

WHy is it that Christ said, * 1.1113 The whole need not the Physitian, but those that be sicke? but onely to shew, that the state of one in an health falsly-conceited is farre more desperate, than the state of the most extreme disease sensibly ••elt; in as much as that man is more incapable of remedie, that feeleth not his owne maladie, than hee that is sensible of his griefe. Such is the Case of the Romane Church, which is so much more obnoxious to Error, as shee is flalsly perswaded shee cannot possibly erre, and that vpon two notoriously-erroneous Articles, which are fancied and fained onely by her selfe.

One is, that shee beleeueth, as an Article of her Faith, that shee (the Romane Church) is that The Catholike Church, which cannot erre. Which * 1.1114 hath beene prooued by the Testi∣monies

of Catholike and General Councels, Fathers and Mar∣tyrs to be an Errour in it selfe. The other Principle is that, whereon the former dependeth, to wit, that the Bishop or Pope of Rome is the Vniuersall Head of the Catholike Church. which in the iudgement of a most ancient and holy * 1.1115 Pope, is not onely a Prophane and Antichristian errour in it selfe, but also the high-way of erring vniuersally: Because (saith hee) if that One Vniuersall Bishop erre, then must the whole and V∣niuersall Church erre with him. Where the same Saint Gre∣gorie, vpon a particular occasion taken at Iohn the Patriarke of Constantinople (who ambitiously sought the Title of Vniuersall Bishop) gaue this his foresaid generall Doctrine, concerning any Bishop whatsouer, whether in the See of Constantinople, or Rome, or wheresoeuer. Euen as the Apostle, vpon occasion of confuting of one new error among the Galatians, giueth them a generall lesson, against all other the like Nouelties of Doctrin; * 1.1116 If we, or an Angel from heauen preach otherwise than hath been preached vnto you, let him be Anathema, or Accursed.

And that diuerse Popes haue beene Heretikes, your owne Histories doe sufficiently proclaime, especially in the example of Pope * 1.1117 Honorius, whom two Generall Councels, three Ro∣mane Popes his Successours, and diuers others your owne zea∣lous Popish Writers haue reckoned among the Monothelites. But you will say, albeit that Pope were a Monothelite, yet did not the whole Catholike Church fall into that Heresie with him. True, which manifesteth the falshood of your now Ro∣mane Article; in as much as (in those ancient times) neither did the Church, truely called Catholike, hold the Pope to be the Catholike or Vniuersall Head of the Church: neither yet did that, which you abusiuely, absurdly, and falsely call the Catholike Church (to wit the Church of Rome it selfe) beleeue your Article of Infallibilitie of iudgement in your Popes. A memorable example wee haue in your Pope * 1.1118 Liberius, who professing himselfe an Arian, and seeking by his Arian facti∣on to returne to his See, found a bloudy resistance by both the Clergie and people of the Church of Rome, as your selues well know. But now when as the falsly-vsurped Title of Vniuer∣sall Head carrieth, in the beliefe of the new Church of Rome,

a confidence of an Vniuersall truth, in whatsoeuer new Do∣ctrine of faith: in this Case that saying of Christ is verified; * 1.1119 If the blinde (such is hee, that in the opinion of his Vniver∣sall Headship, presumeth vpon an Infallibilitie of iudgement) leade the blinde (such are all they, who by an Implicit and blind beliefe adhere vnto him, as to an Oracle of Diuine truth) Both shall fall into the ditch.

THESIS. III. There is not in all Scripture any Prophecie of the fall of any Church Christian from the faith, but onely of the Church of Rome; from which it may sometime be Necessary to depart. SECT. 11.

FOr where can you finde in all Scripture (tell vs) that the Spirit of God brandeth any Citie Christian with the note of certaine Apostasie from the truth, but onely the Citie of Rome? Your owne Iesuites haue * 1.1120 confessed Themselues, being compelled thereunto by the light of the Reuelation of the holy Ghost (in the booke of Reuelation, Apoc. 12.) to acknowledge, saying, The Citie of Rome is Babylon; there prophesied of to become (before the end of the world) The Seat of Antichrist; and after to be suddenly and visibly Destroyed by the venge∣ance of God. And although they are not more ingenuous in this Confession, concerning the Citie of Rome, in the dayes of Antichrist to come; than they are (not to dissemble with you) zealous, and indeede obstinate in denying that it can be ment of the Church of Rome: yet would we faine know, what you would thinke of the Church of England, if the like Prophecie were extant in God's booke, pointing out the Citie of Lon∣don to be, in times to come, The Seat of Antichrist? Would you desire a more Popular argument (especially in these times, wherein the ends of the world are come vpon vs) to perswade

your people to abhorre and detest the Church of England, euen for that Citie sake?

But you are further to remember (that which hath * 1.1121 beene already prooued) that your Church cannot be called The Church of Rome, but by reason of the Seate thereof, which is in the Citie of Rome. Which wee now moreouer Confirme by the Apostle Saint Paul, who writing to the Romanes, maketh this the Inscription of his Epistle, Chap. 1.7. To all you that are at Rome. And againe, ver. 15. I am ready to preach vnto you that are at Rome. Signifying that it cannot hereby be cal∣led the Church of Rome, without relation to a company of Professours, in the Citie of Rome. Whensoeuer therefore Rome (as is confessed) shall become that Babylon, and Seate of An∣tichrist, whereof the Spirit saith to the faithfull, Come out of Babylon my people, Apoc. 18.4. then the necessitie of Departure must needes follow.

THESIS. IV. The Church of Rome hath long beene, and still is the most Schismaticall Church of all other Churches Christian, that carry in them a Visi∣ble face of a Church. SECT. 12.

OH! that this could be iustly doubted of: your owne su∣preame Article doth abundantly proue it, to wit, The Catholike Romane Church, without Vnion and Subiection whereunto there is no Saluation. By which one Article, as you haue * 1.1122 heard, doe stand Excommunicate (as much as lyeth in your Romane Church) and depriued of all hope of Saluation, the most renoumed godly Emperors, the most ancient and Re∣uerend Popes, the most graue and Orthodoxe Patriarkes and Fathers of the first Eight (in your owne estimation) Generall Councels, the most famous Christian Churches, the most con∣stant Martyrs, Confessours, and Saints of God, that the primi∣tiue

times of Christ his Church haue knowne and recorded to posteritie: many whereof are at this day registred in the Ro∣mane Martyrologe, and Calendar of Saints (All which hath beene fully proued;) than which what Doctrine of Schisma∣tikes can be more Schismaticall?

And what shall wee say of the After-ages of the Church, wherein wee * 1.1123 haue obserued the Church of the Graecians, Ae∣thiopians, Aegyptians, Assyrians (not to mention, as yet, the Churches of Protestants) Armenians, Russians, and others for extent, more large than Rome; for worship, more pure; for faith, more sound; and for profession thereof, more constant, by sustaining daily iniuries and thraldomes vnder the Mahu∣metans, and other Pagan Enemies: all which Churches a∣mount to innumerable numbers of Christian soules; who be∣ing, by your Article of The Catholike Romane Church, ex∣cluded from your Communion, must accordingly be held to perish euerlastingly.

But pardon vs, if wee from the Example of these so many Churches Christian, of so large extent and long Continuance, make bold to vse a little Logicke with you, in this manner. That Church, which onely diuideth it selfe from the Commu∣nion of all other truely professed Christian Churches in the world, the same is the most Schismaticall Church in the Chri∣stian world. But your Church of Rome, onely, diuideth it selfe peremptorily from the Communion of all other such Christian Churches. Ergo, it is the most Schismaticall of all other. Here∣in plainely like to Ismael, * 1.1124 whose hand was against euerie man, and euery man's against him. Vntill you shall be able to an∣swer this Argument, you are bound to forbeare the obiecting to any Church Christian Schisme from the Catholike Church; and consequently Separation from Saluation in Christ.

When wee talke of a Schismaticall Church, we may not let passe the recognition of the manifold ruptures and Schismes of the Romane Church, in her owne wombe: where wee haue seen not Iacob and Esau strugling for birth-right each with o∣ther onely, but as it were a rough Esau, sometimes of Two; or rather a Cerberus and Hydra sometimes of Three heads striuing one against another for the prerogatiue of Popedome,

euen for the space of fortie or fiftie yeares together. Sometimes the pretended Head, the Pope, fighting with his whole Body Representatiue, in a Councell, for the right of Supreame iudge∣ment, as you haue heard. In a word, shee hath almost at all times beene so presumptuous, by Excommunicating Primitiue, Successiue, and Moderne Churches, which were not subordi∣nate vnto her; and so often distracted in her selfe, as if all the Waters of Marah (for so we may call Schisme) had exonera∣ted and emptied themselues into the Romane See. Thus much of the second Part, by Comparing the Church of Rome with Re∣mote Churches.

The Third Part of this DETERMINATION concerneth the Departure of Protestant Churches from Rome; occasioned by MARTIN LVTHER. SECT. 13.

HEre wee enter into the maine question of Luther his de∣parture from Rome, which hath occasioned your impetu∣ous and clamorous out-cries against him, as against an vnpar∣donable and damnable Schismatike: and thereupon, in all your Conferences and Disputes, you exact of Protestants an Answer to your popular Octiections, as of, What? Where was Then Your Church? Who were Your Professours? What were Their Names? and, What is become of Your Ancestors? with the like. Wee now desire you but to haue so much patience, till we col∣lect our diuerse Theses, and in the end you will finde (we hope) that vpon a full Reckoning we shall be indebted vnto you iust nothing at all.

THESIS. I. LVTHER was vniustly Excommunicated out of the Romane Church. SECT. 14.

IF the odiousnesse of the very name of Luther among you haue not engendred so obstinate a preiudice in you; as not

willingly to heare, or trie the iustice of his Cause, then are we without all doubt perswaded, that you your selues will iustifie his Departure out of the Church of Rome. Not to spend time. Luther his Excommunication by Pope Leo must haue beene either for Manners, or Doctrine: but it was not for any exorbitancy in his life, g 1.1125 Who (as is testified of him) was ac∣counted a good man, euen of his very Enemies. Which kinde of Certificate is the most exact approbation of all others, as Mo∣ses shewed, when he made this kinde of Appeale, saying,* 1.1126Our Enemies being Iudges. By which it may appeare, what diffe∣rence of Enemies the Church of Rome hath hatched, whose Professors, in the dayes of Luther himselfe, were so ingenu∣ous, as to esteeme him a Godly man. Since when haue risen vp spirits of a lying malignancie, that haue blurred and bespotted his life with all the reproachfull Notes of monstrous infamy; as if hee had had h 1.1127 Familiarity with the Diuell, and was a Wine∣bibber. But * 1.1128 The Seruant is not better than his Master, saith our Sauiour Christ to his owne Disciples. If therefore the Ir∣religious haue called Christ himselfe familiar with * 1.1129 Beelze∣bub, and a * 1.1130 Friend to Publicanes, and Sinners (were they Drunkards, or the like) what Christian must pleade exempti∣on from the virulencie of venemous mouthes? But why doe wee busie our selues with Impertinencie? wee proceed to his Doctrine, concerning which we are to enquire into the princi∣pall Cause of his Excommunication.

The First and principall Cause of Luther's Opposition a∣gainst the Pope of Rome, without which he had not beene Ex∣communicated, was the point of Papall Indulgences; wherein he condemned the iniquitie of the Popes practise, and the fals∣hood and impietie of his Doctrine herein: as will be testified by a cloud of witnesses.

First is the Iniquity and iniurie done in the dayes of Luther, by the craft of Papall Indulgences; howbeit, at the First hearing of this Accusation, your Cardinall waxing somewhat chole∣ricke steppeth forth, desirous as a feed-man to be heard speake in the Pope his Masters behalfe, and calleth it i 1.1131 A Calumnie of Luther and such like Nouellists, to say that the Popes heape vp riches by the art of Indulgences. So hee. Oh the forehead of

some kinde of men! to denie that which the Germane Nation, at and before the dayes of Luther, cried out vpon, k 1.1132 As be∣ing a burthen intollerable, wherewith the Popes, vnder the co∣lour of pietie, extract the very marrow of moneys out of mens purses. Whereof your Fathers of the Councell of Trent tooke notice, to wit, that the Popes Officers, in collecting money for Indulgences, gaue a l 1.1133 Scandall to all faithfull Christians, which might seeme to be without all hope of Remedie. And which your Venetian Doctor will haue you to obserue, to haue beene the First Cause of Luther his Opposition. m 1.1134 It is now euident to all men (saith hee) and Histories on all sides write hereof, that the Separation made an hundred yeares agoe, by the Protestants in Germanie, arose from the vnlawfull Exactions, and the immo∣derate grants of Indulgences. This then was the first point, in the matter of Romish Indulgences, which moued Luther to preach against them, euen the Iniquitie of the practice thereof.

The Second point is the Falshood of the Doctrine of Indul∣gences, whereof your Cardinall testifieth, saying; n 1.1135 The first Cause of Luther's diuiding himselfe from Rome was the Popes pronouncing Him an Heretike, for inueighing against Indulgen∣ces. So hee. o 1.1136 And for that his gain-saying the Doctrine of In∣dulgences (saith Polydore) the Popes Proctors conueied the name of Luther to Rome, where hee is accused; and because hee appeared not at the day, hee was declared an Heretike. So hee. Now then, according to the stile of all Iudiciall Courts, let vs first heare the Accusation, and then allow vnto him to Answer for himselfe.

His Accusation is laid downe in Pope Leo's Bull against him. p 1.1137 This Luther maintaineth, as a thing most certaine, that it is not in the power of the Church to appoint new Arti∣cles of Faith. This was his Crime, now heare his answer.

q 1.1138 I (saith Luther) haue plainly protested, that if they would not haue constrained me to allow of their impious and blasphemous Articles, I should haue defended a great part of their Episco∣pall Iurisdiction: but needes would they compell vs to approue of their Satanicall lies, and theref••re disdainfully despised mee, for blowing away (for indeede they were but bubbles) the Popes Bulls and Indulgences. So Luther.

What hath Luther said in all this, which is not iustifiable in the Conscience of euery sound Christian? First hee held it a way to Heresie, for any Church to take vpon her to create a new Article of Faith, such as hee beleeued the Romish Do∣ctrine of Indulgences to be. Secondly, he taught it to be a Sa∣tonicall lye, to constitute that for an Article of Faith, which is in it selfe a meere falshood. Thirdly, hee proclaimed your Doctrine of Indulgences to be a Blasphemous Article, because it is not onely a new and false Doctrine, but also the very Nurse of all Impietie. Each point is worthy to be Dis∣cussed.

Touching the First point, your Philiarchus will haue you to r 1.1139 Take heede of the Heresies of Luther, in teaching that the Church hath no power to create new Articles of Faith. So hee. If this be true, then marke (I pray you) what fellowes, and Companions Luther hath, or Patrons rather of his Heresie, accordingly as your owne Doctors will teach you; who doe not onely openly professe for themselues, that s 1.1140 The now Church ought to relie vpon the Doctrine anciently taught in the Apostles times; but also confesse that t 1.1141 The ancient Fathers taught that the Church deliuereth no new Faith, but alwaies confirmeth and explicateth the ancient Faith. Alleaging, for proofe hereof, the authoritie of Irenaeus, Hierome, Vincentius Lirinensis. Nor can any produce one Father, in all Antiquitie, that did not account euery new Article of Faith (that is to say, euery new Doctrine made necessary to saluation) to be no bet∣ter than a new Heresie. So iustifiable is Luther, in this point.

Next, Luther in his first Assumption saith, that the Do∣ctrine of the Popes Indulgence is a New Doctrine of Faith; and that it is imposed vpon the Church of Rome as an Article of Faith. Whereof, if peraduenture you should be ignorant, your owne Popes would instruct you. Pope u 1.1142 Pius the IV. setteth downe this of Indulgences among his other Articles, concluded of in the Councell of Trent, as Necessarily to be be∣leeued, vpon danger of Damnation. And Pope * 1.1143 Leo the X. tooke this as his hint, in condemning Luther, for denying any power to be residēt in the Church, to establish a new Article of Faith.

An Article ••hen it is made; and that it is also New (which Doctrine of Indulgēces you beleeue to be an easing or helping of Soules out of the paines of Purgatorie-fier) we hope you may be satisfied from your selues: who teach, first, that all Doctrine, which is not New, is deriued either from Scrip∣ture, or antient Tradition. But, concerning your Do∣ctrine of Indulgences, some of your owne Doctors haue made bold to proclaime, saying, x 1.1144 It is not found either in Scripture, or in other writings of ancient Fathers. Whereof also your Romane Champion against Luther, euen in this Question concerning Indulgences, doth grant, that y 1.1145 There was no vse of Indulgences in the beginning of the Church Christian. Which must necessarily haue then bene, if at that time it had bene a Doctrine of Faith: except you will confesse, that there was then no Purgatory-fier at all; nor any soules of men de∣parting this life in the guilt of veniall sinnes: but that all the scores of debts of temporall punishments were then wiped off at the death of euery Christian, in those Apostolicall times. And accordingly giue vs some reason, how afterwards that Fier was kindled, and what was the fewell that set it on a flame, after the space of 1294. yeares, when Boniface the 8. was Pope; Who (as your * 1.1146 selues know,) after that the world was affrighted with Purgatory-torments, was the first that ex∣tended and applyed Indulgences vnto Purgatory. This made your Frier Castro, in his coniecture of greater antiquity in them, to excuse their Noueltie, saying; z 1.1147 Indulgences are not therefore to be contemned, as being admitted but of late, because many things (saith he) are made knowne to posteritie, of which

the more ancient times were ignorant.

Behold now the great reuerence (forsooth) you haue of the iudgement of Antiquity! Besides (to pull vp this weede by the roots) the ground of Indulgences (as you teach) is a 1.1148 The spirituall Threasury of the Church, consisting in the satisfactory and meritorious workes of Supererrogation, done by the faith∣full. Which notwithstanding (as you likewise know) your Doctors of Louaine, and some Schoolemen affirme were anci∣ently wanting in the Church. So then your Doctrine of In∣dulgences is New in Institution, New in Practise, New in the Extent, New in the Roote and foundation, and euery way a New Article. So iustifiable is Luther in his Assumption, cal∣ling it New.

Thirdly, Luther called this Doctrine False, yea and Im∣pious also, and Blasphemous. And false it must needs be, if it be but New. But how naughty also and impious the vent of Indulgences was, your noble Historian can best re∣port, giuing you an instance in the same Pope Leo: b 1.1149 Who, (saith he) vnto his sinne of ill dispersing of Indulgences, added a farre greater; for although he was of himselfe prone enough to all licentiousnesse, yet by the instigation of Cardinall Puccius in whom he had great confidence, he gathered huge summes of money, by sending his Breeues abroad, euery where promising expiation of all sinnes, and life euerlasting vpon a certaine price, which any should giue according to the haynousnesse of his of∣fence. Then rose vp Martin Luther a Professor of Diuinity in Wittemberge, who first confuting, and then condemning the Sermons which were made for Indulgences▪ at length questio∣ned that power, which the Pope assumed to Himselfe in the same Breeues. So he. And what other (we pray you) can be the Consequence of this piece of Doctrine, but that which (if you be to seeke) you may learne from experienced Authors within your owne Church, who say (as appeareth in the Mar∣gent) that c 1.1150 When first Indulgences were set on sale, with full Pardons, men did lesse abstaine from wickednesse, and the keyes of the Church became vile. That Pope Leo the 10. was d 1.1151 Too too indulgent, in granting Indulgences. That Popes are the

most expert Alchemists, (By e 1.1152 Turning their leade into gold through their Negligences, otherwise called Indulgences) No∣ting, that Papall Indulgences to Sinners worketh Negligence in well doing. That They f 1.1153 Measuring all things by gaine, tyrannize ouer the people, sitting in the seate of Simon Magus, or else of Caiphas.

We might easily loade you with multitudes of Inuectiues of your owne Authors, against the Impiety of Papall Indul∣gences; so iustifiable is Luther in his Opposition against them: insomuch that Erasmus held it g 1.1154 An Impiety not to defend him. This Luther, who (in the opinion of the Popular Audi∣tors) so farre ouercame his Aduersarie Ecchius in a Disputa∣tion held at Lipsia, that your Castro doth instance in this Ex∣ample, and thereupon prefixeth a Rule; h 1.1155 To auoide publike Disputation with (as he accounteth, and calleth Protestants) pertinacious Heretikes.

The Summe of All may be comprized in a few words. The Patrons of Romish Indulgences, by making it an Article of Faith, do Canonize and Deifie a Nouelty, a Falshood, and a very Baud of all Impietie: i 1.1156 Whence (to vse your owne words) Adulteries, Incests, Periuries, Homicides, and the spawne of all euils did arise.

THESIS. II. LVTHER had necessary Cause to Depart from the Church of Rome. SECT. 15.

IT is not (as you * 1.1157 haue heard) the corruption of a Doctrine, which can alwaies driue a man out of the Church, except other properties of necessary Remoouing do concurre. What

these are, you may call to your * 1.1158 remembrance: Which may be obserued in this Case of Luther, and iustifie him before God and Man. As first the generall Obstinacie of contrary Teachers, such as were the Romish, of whom Luther com∣plained, saying, * 1.1159 They [Alto fastu] with high disdaine con∣temned my Preaching against Indulgences. Secondly, Luthers hearing (if he had stayed) the way of Truth often blasphemed. Thirdly, Luthers complaining of violent forcing of men to subscribe vnto New Articles; this is Tyrannie. And lastly, he further chargeth them with Compelling him to submit to Satanicall Doctrines, speaking both of the vilenesse of Indul∣gences, and the Idolatrie of and in the Romish Masse. Albeit any One of all these had bene a sufficient cause for him, to warrant his Departure out of Romish Babylon.

THESIS. III. LVTHER and his Followers were farre more safe, for their Soules state, in that Separa∣tion from the Church of Rome, and lesse Schismatikes than They, whom he forsooke. SECT. 16.

ALL sound knowledge is by vnderstanding of the true Causes of things. It is the Cause that distinguisheth a Martyr from an Heretike; and the same iust Cause also true∣ly and essentially vniteth one with the true Catholike Church, discerneth him both from an Excommunicate (properly so called) and from a Schismatike. Attend then to that, which your Cardinall would haue you to MARKE. i 1.1160 Marke (saith he) that an vniust sentence of Excommunication is of no force at all. Accordingly Saint Augustine; [Iniusta vincula iustitia disrumpit:] Vniust bonds are more iustly broken then kept. Of this somewhat more hath bene said in a * 1.1161 former Thesis. This knowne, it wil be no hard matter to find out the true Schisma∣tike.

For as it is the vnlawfull Agent, and not the Innocent Patient that maketh the Fray: so in Excommunication, k 1.1162 Whosoeuer Excommunicateth another vniustly, condemneth not that other, but himselfe. Accordingly in Separation from any Church, the Actiue (if vniust,) and not the partie Passiue, is the Schismatike: vpon which Suppositition * 1.1163 Firmilianus Concluded against Stephen Pope of Rome, that the said Ste∣phen was the Schismatike, by his Excommunicating and sepa∣rating S. Cyprian, with many Others in the Africane Chuches, and else-where, from his Communion. In like Case, well said once your ¶ 1.1164 Cardinall Benno, that Eusebius did binde Libe∣rius, by forsaking his Communion: Euen as did also the b 1.1165 A∣fricane Bishops in their Synod, by Excluding Pope Vigilius out of their Communion, in the dayes of Iustinian.

Now, that Luther was vniustly Excommunicate by your Pope, the first Thesis hath fully prooued. And that Luther was a Passiue in this Separation, appeareth not onely by his owne Complaints, saying, * 1.1166 I was Compelled, Constrained, &c. but also by the Proceedings of Pope Leo against him. Else, why is it that your owne Thuanus, speaking of this Separa∣tion, said that l 1.1167 Some in those dayes layd the fault vpon Pope Leo? More fully your Cassander, an Author selected in those dayes by the King of the Romanes, as the chiefest Diuine of his time, and one most fit to be Consulted with, concerning the same Separation of Protestants: m 1.1168 I cannot (saith he) de∣nie many of them, in the beginning, to haue bene mooued and prouoked with a pious zeale to a sharpe reprehension of manifest Abuses, and that the principall cause of this calamity and Dis∣union is to be imputed to them, who superciliously and disdaine∣fully contemned such godly Admonitions. Neither yet euer had there bene (as I am perswaded) any Contention about the exter∣nall Vnitie of the Church, except the Popes had abused their authority to an ambitious and Domineiring manner of Rule, aboue the limits which Christ prescribed to his Church. So He.

But it will be said, Why did not Luther seeke remedie and redresse of his wrong somewhere? where (we pray you) should he haue sought it, can you tell? By Appealing to a Generall Councell? why, that meanes was barred by the Popes Extra∣uagant denouncing him to be n 1.1169 Anathema, whosoeuer shall so much as consult or deliberate to Appeale from the Pope to a future Generall Councell: Albeit this preferring the Popes iudgement before a Councel's is, by the sentence of two Ro∣mish Councels, (as * 1.1170 namely Constance and Basil) held a Doctrine, of all others, most Schismaticall. Oh! but he being but a Sheepe, cited to Rome, should haue appeared before Leo his Pastor, notwithstanding the Popes high indignation a∣gainst him. As though you could be ignorant of the Apologue of the Sheepe and the Lion at their meeting, the end whereof could be no other then this, Ora Leonis habes; for the sheepe to run head-long into the Lions mouth. A Fable, which of later times the Venetian Fulgentius, the French Abbot of Boys, and after them the Dalmatian Spalatensis verified (seelie Sheepe!) with the losse of their liues.

THESIS. IV. The Romish Obiections, vrged against this Separation of LVTHER, are notably fri∣uolous. SECT. 17.

STill we say, that an ill Cause oftentimes bewrayeth it selfe as much by the friuolous Obiections of an Opponent, as it is discouered by the iust Euidences of a Defendant. There are but foure kinde of Obiections, (besides such as haue bene al∣readie answered) which you do usually vrge against Luther.

THESIS. V. The I. Obiection, in respect of LVTHER'S former Vow to the Pope, or Church of Rome, is vaine and idle. SECT. 18.

IT is true, Luther had bene a Vowed, and (if you will) a sworne Vassall to the Pope, and to the Romane Church. And so was once your owne Stephen Gardiner, sometimes Bishop of Winchester; whose answer in like case may satisfie your Curiositie, and controlle your scurrilitie in this point. Hee, in his booke of True Obedience to the King (notwithstanding the Popes Breeues to the contrary) enlargeth himselfe in his Answer, after this manner following. o 1.1171 Some (saith he) pull me backward, asking why I enterprize so to teach Obedience, as that I do disclose my owne Disobedience to the authority and power (meaning of the Pope,) for whose Defence I was bound by my Oath, to defend his authority to my possible Power. Where is his keeping of Oaths become? (say they) where is his fidelitie? He was sworne to defend the Rights of the Church of Rome, and now professeth himselfe an open enemie ther-unto. But this their talke no more mooueth me, than the bumbling sound of an old barrell, because where vnlawfull Oathes, there also vnlawfull Vowes are not to be kept; for none are to sweare to any wickednesse. Thus your owne Bishop; and after illustrateth this by an elegant Similitude. A certaine married man (saith he) when he thought, by iust likely-hoods, his first wife was dead, did, as one that had bene freed, take another wife by the authority of the Church, and consent of her Parents, by which wife after some yeares he had children. But loe, his former wife, vnlooked for, returneth againe, and requireth to haue her hus∣band againe, that had done ill in marrying another. The man maruailing hereat, and being loath to be diuorced from his lat∣ter

wife, maketh long delaies, yet at length brought into Law, and being cast, gaue way to the Truth, and taketh his first wife againe, by the iudgement of the Church. When now the Parents & friends of the latter wife made the like wonderment, as these men do against me, saying vnto him, thou hel-hound, thou wicked couenāt-breaker, &c. And if a man would consider this businesse, shall he not see, as it were in a glasse, the very image of that Hus∣band in me? For indeed I (seeing I beleeued that no such Truth of obedience had bene, &c.) I compelled my selfe in a second Couenant, and thereto plighted my troth. Wherefore I thought that I had kept lawfull Companie: but when the TRVTH came, which is euery mans first wife maried to him in publike Baptis∣me, which wil require the first Promise at al mens hands, to her I applyed, to her I cleaued, and from my second knot, as of none effect, by the iudgement of my Church, I departed. And shall any man thinke it indifferent, that I shall be called a Liar, be∣cause I obey the Truth? &c. I am by most graue iudgement of the Truth diuorced from the Church of Rome, which it was not lawfull for me to keepe still, and am compelled to take my wife, TRVTH, to me when she cometh againe. Thus farre B. Gardiner.

The right and accurate Sence of this Similitude may, as the beames of the Sunne, dispell the foggie myst of Romish error, concerning the Question we now haue in hand; it being ta∣ken from the consideration of our Christian Vow made in Bap∣tisme. Wherein we are to obserue the Parties betrothed to∣gether, which are the Soule of a Christian, and the Truth of God in Christ: and secondly the Parties, and (if I may so say) Parents, by whose consent and Authoritie this mariage is made, which in the inward is our Father, euen GOD in the vnity of Three persons, Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost; and in the outward, is our spirituall Mother mentioned in our Creed, at the rime of our Vow in Baptisme, The holy Catholike Church.

It especially therefore concerneth euery Votarie, that hath vowed himselfe in Baptisme, to learne to acknowledge his true Father, his true Mother, and his owne true Wife. For Father, he is baptized in the name of the Blessed Trinitie, in

the vnity of one God euerlasting, not in the name of any man whatsoeuer; as Saint Paul prooueth against the Schismatikes in the Church of Corinth, that would seeme Some to hold of Cephas, that is, Peter; Some of Paul, as though the Gospell or Truth were Pauls or Peters: he answereth them, No: his Reason is interrogatiuely, * 1.1172 Were you baptized in the name of Paul? As much as to say, He onely is essentially your spiritu∣all Father, in whose Name you are baptized.

Secondly, the Mother is mentioned, in our Vow at Bap∣tisme, to be The holy Catholike, or Vniuersall Church; not any particular Church, though by the particular Church I am brought into the Catholike. We say, not any Particular Church, because euery Particular Church (as * 1.1173 hath beene Confessed) may possibly erre, and Apostate from Truth. But the Catholike is built vpon a Rocke immoueable as the earth, yea or the highest heauens.

Lastly, the Wife, whereunto euery Soule is betroathed in Baptisme, is onely that Truth, which was first reuealed by Christ vnto his Apostles, as the Apostle teacheth; * 1.1174 If any preach any other Gospell, than that which you haue receiued (that is to say, already) hold him Accursed.

Now giue vs leaue to trie what kind of Mariage is made by your Votaries in the Church of Rome. First, by beleeuing the Infallibility of the Pope, in whatsoeuer Reuelations, which he shall propound to be beleeued of all Christians; it is to assume a new Father, which is thus prooued. If I (saith Saint Paul) or an Angel from heauen preach otherwise, let him be Accur∣sed: but who in all the Church of Rome will say, Though the Pope teach vs otherwise then was Apostolically and Primi∣tiuely taught, from the immediate Doctrine of Christ, I shall account him Anathema?

Next, the Partie baptized in your Church is Catechized to beleeue the Church of Rome to be The Catholike and Mo∣ther-Church of all other Churches: which wee through-out this Treatise haue prooued to be an Imposterous, Schismati∣call, and Blasphemous Article. First Imposterous, because The Catholike Church, mentioned in the Apostles Creed, was extant in the dayes of the Apostles, diuerse yeares before

Rome was (that we may so say) Baptized, to haue the name of a Church. Secondly Schismaticall, because it being (as hath bene shewed) but a Particular Church, and vsurping the Title of The Catholike Church, doth thereby perempto∣rily diuide her selfe from All other Churches of Christ, which both for Truth, and Extent make a farre more Catholike Church than she is. Thirdly Blasphemous, in Damning, by this Article of the Catholike Romane Church, all the most glo∣rious Christian Fathers, Martyrs, Professors, and Churches as well Primitiue as Successiue, (which are infinite) that haue denyed Subiection to the Romane Church. All which Particu∣lars haue bene prooued at large.

In the last place, each Christian in Baptisme being espou∣sed to his wife Truth, which can be but One, euen that where∣of Saint Paul spoke, saying, * 1.1175 That which you haue receiued before: and accordingly Saint Iude, * 1.1176 Contend for the Faith, which once was deliuered to the Saints: therefore euery other New Article of Faith, as it were a later Consort and wife that shall bee admitted, is no true loyall wife, but an vnlawfull Concubine and strumpet. So then, so many Concubines may the Church of Rome be said to betroath her Children vnto, as she hath set downe New Articles in her Romane Creed, and imposed vpon all her Ecclesiastikes, vnder the bond of an Oath. Among which is your Article of Indulgences; from which, as from a supposititious wife, Luther necessarily made his diuorce, returning vnto the Primitiue Truth, whereunto in holy Baptisme he had formerly plighted his Troth.

THESIS. VI. Your Second and most Popular Obiection a∣gainst LVTHER, (in his Opposition to your Romane Church) vrging in him to prooue his Doctrine by immediate Succes∣sion, and by Naming his Teachers Before him; is as fond as the other. SECT. 19.

I. FOr the no-Necessitie of Name, we reade first that our Sauiour Christ, answering a question concerning Di∣uorce, whether it were lawfull for the husband to put away his wife at his pleasure, or no (an Abuse which, by the hard∣nesse of the Iewes hearts, had continued among them many hundred yeares) sendeth them to Gods first Institution of Mar∣riage, set downe in the beginning of Scripture saying; * 1.1177 From the beginning it was not so. But how? Flat contrary, * 1.1178 There∣fore shall a man leaue Father and Mother and cleaue to his wife, and they shall be one flesh. Willingly passing ouer all men∣tion, or meaning of any former Teacher, for the space of thou∣sands of yeares. Teaching vs thereby; first, that there can be no truer Doctors than Gods word; secondly, no better Argu∣ment, than Proofe that It was not so from the beginning.

II. Saint Cyprian, being busied in a Question concerning Baptisme, p 1.1179 Wee are not to regard (saith he) what any hath done before vs, but what he did, who is before all, Christ our Lord; not following the Custome of men, but the Truth of God.

III. Suarez your most celebrious Spanish Iesuite, and publike Professor; q 1.1180 Sometimes (saith he) we know the begin∣ning

of a Tradition onely Negatiuely, because it may appeare that sometime it was not so neare the beginning of the Church. So he, in your publike Schooles, teaching you, that if it may be shewed, concerning any Doctrinall Tradition, that there was a time neare to the beginning of the Church (namely in the dayes of the Apostles) when it was not taught; it will bee a sufficient Confutation therof, to proue it to be but an humane Inuention, without any further enquirie after the Names of Persons, who in succeeding ages haue gone before vs.

IV. An Example we may take from your owne former Relation of a Tradition professed by Pope Innocentius the first, who taught that r 1.1181 The administration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist was necessary to Infants, for their Saluation. Which doctrine and practize continued about 600. yeares in the Church (namely of Rome) but since is reiected thereby. So you. Here had bene a Matter for your Obiectors to haue ar∣gued vpon, if they had liued at the end of those 600. yeares when this Error was first reiected. Would they haue said, Shew vs that any Fathers by name, for 600. yeares passed, euer taught the contrary? or else we must continue this custome still. Thus should they condemne the Present Church of Rome, which hath reiected that Custome. Or would they haue said? We regard not the time of the Continuance thereof for so many hundred yeeres, seeing it may bee prooued, that before that time there was no such Doctrine: And the Institution of Christ, which requireth Remembrance in them that partake of this Sacrament, doth instruct vs otherwise. And so must they (as they ought) condemne the former Romane Church in the daies of Innocentius, and from henceforth silence them∣selues, in exacting the Names of Persons, who immediately before that time had taught the Contrarie: because (accor∣ding to your Iesuites Confession) it is lawfull in such a Case to proceed Persaltum, Negatiuely saying; It was not so, neare the beginning of the Church, Ergo, it is not a necessarie Tra∣dition. Which was the very Apologie that * 1.1182 Luther made a∣gainst the doctrine of Indulgences, in his first Opposition a∣gainst your Church of Rome: and the same is the defence of Protestants, in their whole Profession at this day.

V. But supposing a Necessity of Names, why aske Yov names? As though the Church of Rome had beene then The Catholike Church, without which there was none then, or be∣fore the daies of Luther, who reiected the doctrine of Romish Indulgences, and of Papall Iurisdiction, as well as he: when (as you haue heard) there were, euen since the Apostles times, the Churches of the Grecians, Aethiopians, Aegyptians, Assy∣rians, Russians, and indeed a world of faithfull Christians, that wanted not names, who Communicated not with the Church of Rome.

And what meaneth this Importunity, or rather peruersnes, to seeke for that, which is by your owne Historians set before your eyes, the Protesters against your Romish Nouelties be∣fore Luther, whom they call Albigenses, Waldenses, Wiclefi∣ans, Hussites? &c. Could these bee so called by your selues (who persecuted them vnder these names) without Names? Yet know, that this diuersity of Names may not argue the Sects and differences of their Religion, no more than ma∣ny names giuen vnto the same Riuer, passing through diuers countries, can argue a diuersity of the streames. But these Professors and their Names you may vnderstand, if you will reade * 1.1183 Them, who haue purposely entreated of this Subiect; who are furnished with answers, and can shew you, out of your owne Authors, their Innocent conuersation of life, their Multitudes in number, their Consent, and Constancie in their Profession, by enduring of Imprisonments, banishment, deaths, and whatsoeuer Cruelties your Inquisitors could inflict on them. And were these then Namelesse, trowe you?

VI. And if this may not content you, what then if we shall name them Romanes (for such were Luther, Melancthon, and other Protestants at the beginning of their Opposition) as sound Members of an vnfound Particular Church? from whence it was lawfull and necessary for them to depart as hath beene proued. Thus much in confutation of your Vulgar Obiection by Six Answers, which deserueth onely this briefe Answer, It is friuolous, and superfluous.

THESIS. VII. Your Obiection, That all Changes of Do∣ctrines haue beene Notorious in the Persons, and Places of their first Beginnings, is false. SECT. 20.

A principall Obiection, wherewith your Cardinall doth colourably delude his Disciples, is this,s 1.1184 In al Changes of doctrines in any Church, the tokens there are visible in the Author, Time, Place, and Person oppugning the same. So he; that so hee may iustifie many Errors, which must therefore seeme Truths, because there is none of these visible Notes of Changes to discouer them. We answer, that this your Obie∣ction conctradicteth the ordinarie growth of Heresie, the ex∣perience of former Heretikes, the Changes of Doctrine in the Romish Church, and the Confession of your owne Schooles.

I. The nature of Heresie, as Saint Paul describeth it, 2. Tim. 2.17. is like a Cancer, or Gangraena: t 1.1185 By which (as you know) both the Greeke and Latines vnderstand that vlcer, which is bredd in womans papps, which if it be not preuented, doth putrifie by by little and little, vntill it possesse all the parts of the Body. Therefore an insensible groweth at the begin∣ning.

II. The experience of an hundred Heresies, whose Au∣thors haue not beene notorious, might bee propounded vnto you; but that taste may suffice, which your owne u 1.1186 Prateolus doth offer vnto you, by an Instance in the Abstinents, of which (Heretikes) it is not remembred (saith he) what time they liued. In the Acephali, of which kinde (saith he) the first Author is not

found. In the Aquarij, whose Author (saith he) is not mentio∣ned by any. And in the Predestinati, whose first leader (saith he) is not knowne. Wee migh reckon vp the Alogiani, An∣thropomorphitae, Aphthratodocitae, Collyridiani, Gnostici, Con∣cerning all whom, and many others (as the Angelici, Aposto∣lici, Cainani, Catharistae, Ophitae, Passionistae) because you your selues cannot tell vs from whom they first arose, [or By whom they were impugned, it appeareth that you obiect you know not what.

III. And as though (forsooth) no such Gangrene or disease could be found in the bodie of your Church; how then (to speake onely from your owne Confessions) hath growne the opinion of the foresaid Necessity of the* 1.1187 Administration of the of the Eucharist vnto Infants, not onely with no Opposition, but euen with the great approbation of your Popes? how your Custome of Communicating but in one kinde, whereof you your selues grant a x 1.1188 Non constat, or Ignoramus, when it first began? Whereas for a Thousand yeeres cantinuance, the Con∣trarie was held (as you y 1.1189 know) in the Catholike Church, yea and in the Romane Church it selfe? Or how will you answer for the Corruption of your Romane Worship, whereof wee haue your Fathers in the Councell of Trent decreeing, that z 1.1190 Because many Corruptions haue crept into the celebration of the Romane Masse either by the errour of the time, or negli∣gence, and improbity of men, therefore an order must bee taken to purge them. So They. Are not diseases, diseases, because we can but coniecture the first Cause or time of their being? The former Confession of your Professor and Iesuite before pointed at, & now set downe at large, wil giue vs the vpshot. a 1.1191 Some Traditions (saith he) are perpetual in time, euen from the beginning of the Church: Others are onely temporall, the begin∣ning whereof may be knowne somtimes positiuely what time they

began, and sometimes onely negatiuely, by being able to shew what time neere the beginning of the Church such a custome or do∣ctrine had no being, though afterwards it was inuented. Where∣by it may be iustly collected that such a Tradition had it's be∣ginning after the Apostles, albeit the certaine and determinate time, in which it began, be not knowne. Which Tradition, because it is not vniuersall in time, it cannot beget any Ca∣tholike beleefe. So he, euen such an He, whom your Romane Church esteemeth for the most eminent & general both Doctor and Proctor of her Cause, at this day. By which Sentence are auoided both your former Obiections of the Necessity of giuing of Names of Authors before Luther; and of demonstrating the Time, Persons and Place of the beginning of Errors in the Church. As also there is reached vnto Protestants a strong en∣gine to the vtter ouerthrowe of your now Romane Creed, con∣sisting of more then 12. new Articles, concerning Worship∣ping of Images, Purgatory, Indulgences, and the like: which can neuer be shewed to haue sprung in the ages af Antiquity bordering on the Apostles time; and therfore, according to this former true and necessary Rule set downe by your Iesuite, can beget no Catholike Beleefe.

THESIS. VIII. Your last Obiection, of Continuall and Personall Succession in all Ages, is frustrate. SECT. 21.

LEst that Succession and not Succession may seeme to alter the Case, because the Romane Church is by Personall Succession of Catholike Pastors, the Protestant Church is by Secession and Departure; whereas true Succession doth mani∣fest a true Church, euen as no true Succession doth notifie a false Church, (as you vse to say:) you need doe no more but cast your eyes vpon your owne Historians, who reporting the great deluge of that horrible Heresie of the Arrians, declare

that in the most Churches Christian ••he true and Orthodoxe Bishops were remoued out of their Bishopricks, and cast into Banishment. As for example the Chiefe Patriarks, b 1.1192 Liberi∣us out of Rome, Athanasius out of Alexandria, Paulus out of Constantinople, &c. Againe, the Wheele of God's prouidence turning backwards, the Arian Heretikes lost their Bishopricks and Patriarkships, the Orthodoxe and Catholike Professors succeeding in their places. We demand, will you then indeed say, that Succession in place is absolutely an affirmatiue Note of a true Church? How then shall those Churches bee iudged Hereticall, wherein Arians immediately succeeded Catho∣likes? Or is not Succession negatiuely a Note of no true Church? How then were not the Churches false, wherein Catholikes immediately succeeded Heretikes? So then, if you pronounce any Church true, by the Succession of Persons onely, you doe but waste your winde: if by the Succession of Doctrine, then Luther's doctrine being truly Apostolicall, his Church can∣not be but truly Catholike.

The Fourth and last part of this DETERMI∣NATION concerneth the state of the Churches of Protestants, after the daies of Luther; and their more iust Cause of Continuing this Separation from Rome. SECT. 22.

WHy should we not thinke that after, our iustification of the first Departure of Protestants from the Church of Rome, you should expect some Addition, for the Defence of our Continuance of that Separation; lest otherwise some might surmize, that now sure the Councell of Trent (pre∣tending a Generall reformation of all Abuses) the Protestants might haue iuster Cause to re-unite themselues to the Church of Rome.

THESIS. I. Protestants are Generally Excommunicated by the Church of Rome. SECT. 23.

YOur Pope of Rome doth by his Bulls yearely bellow out his c 1.1193 Excommumications, Anathematismes, or Curses (by name) against all Lutherans, Caluinists, Hugonots, and all Protestants; together with all their Defenders, Fauourers, Receiuers, Readers of their Bookes, without speceall Licence, whosoeuer they be.

THESIS. II. Protestants are Vniustly Excommunicated. SECT. 24.

ALl the Causes, for which Scripture hath authorized a Departure from any visible Church, do accordingly iusti∣fie our Separation from the Church of Rome. I. Falshood, by Creation of a d 1.1194 new Creede; consisting of so many Articles. II. To a false Faith is ioyned false Worship, by Idolatrie; not onely by the vulgar, in Worshipping of Relikes, Images, and Saints Idolatrously (* 1.1195 as is witnessed by your selues:) but al∣so generally, by the Adoration of your Romish Moloch in the Masse, Wherein that, which after Consecration you adore, take it at the best, is but a Christ (as you * 1.1196 teach) voide of all sence, naturall power of motion, and facultie of vnderstanding. Which Doctrine, touching the glorified body of Christ, Wee thinke to be Blasphemous.

Take it as it may possibly be, and then by your owne gene∣rall Confession (in all probabilitie, Fiue hundred to one) after Consecration the thing you adore is but Bread still, which is a possible (yea and, as you your selues tearme it, a materiall) I∣dolatrie.

And take it as we are ready to proue, to wit, that it is infallibly still (euen after Consecration) the substance of Bread; and consequently your Adoration is really, necessa∣rily and formally Idolatrous. All these points are to be fully prooued in a Treatise to be intituled CHRIST HIS MASSE; which in due time may salute you in like manner as this doth, if God permit.

III. To Heresie and Idolatrie your Church ioyneth Ob∣stinacie, not that wee can denie but that the Fathers of the Councell of Trent e 1.1197 decreed A safe Conduct and full securitie to all Protestants in Germanie to come to that Councell; and (according to the tenure of that same Decree) To propound, whether by word or writing, what Articles they would, and with free libertie to dispute thereof. So they. And was not this a Fa∣therly Consideration, shall Wee thinke? but your Thuanus will tell you of diuerse Protestants that came to the Councell, desiring of the Popes Legates to haue liberty to dispute, accor∣ding to the former Decree: When One of them f 1.1198 Exhibiting their ioynt Confession to the whole Councell assembled, pub∣lished the same, whereat (saith your Historian) the Fathers of the Councell were greatly offended: then after it was made knowne, that the Protestants were ready to defend their Con∣fession. But they could haue no answer to it, and therefore de∣sired leaue to be gone, which assuredly obtained, they commen∣ded their Cause to the Emperours Oratour, and departed from the Councell.

Where are now our great Disputers of Rome, who can teach Protestants Logicke, and all manner learning, as you vse to boast? if euer they ought to appeare, then doubtlesse in their generall Synod, when the most selected Schollers were assem∣bled for the discussion of al Questions. Iohn Husse in the Coun∣cell

of Constance had safe-Conduct to come and Dispute for himselfe, but that was all: for that Conduct was but a trap to catch him in, and so to burne him, as they did. In the Coun∣cell of Trent the Protestants are promised, with their safe-Conduct, a libertie of Disputation, but are not allowed it, when they offer themselues: yet no sooner, almost, are they come, but they are saluted by your Tridentines; as Christ was by the Gadarenes, when they wished him to * 1.1199 depart out of their coasts. What greater argument can there be of a perfidi∣ous promise, then to grant a Disputation vnder a solemne In∣strument, in the name of the Pope, and the whole Councell, in pretence of Satisfaction to all Consciences, and not to per∣forme it? or of Impotencie in your Cause, than not to indure to haue it discussed? or yet of Obstinacy in your Errours, than to reiect the ordinary meanes of Detecting them, allowed vn∣to all Aduersaries, in all ancient Councels? This directly con∣firmeth the Censure, which that Phoenix of learning Master Isaac Casaubon, gaue of your Church. g 1.1200 Hee is fouly deceiued (saith hee) whosoeuer hee be that will be a Medijst, thinking that there can be any Reconciliation with the Church of Rome, a thing to be vtterly despaired of.

To all the former Crimes, your Church addeth Tyrannie: your Positions are Excommunications to all that denie Sub∣iection to the man of Rome: After Excommunications come Eradications against States, Lawes, and Kingdomes, by Con∣spiracies, Rebellions, and all hostile Machinations; yea and a∣gainst whatsoeuer inferiour Persons, whensoeuer there is abi∣litie, either by generall Massacres, or by particular torments. Nor are your hands shorter than your tongues, for As wee haue heard, so haue wee seene KINGS wallowing in their gore∣blood, shed by your desperate Assassines: Rebellions, Sediti∣ons, and Combustions in all Christian Kingdomes haue beene raysed by the fierie spirits of the Disloyall Ignatians: h 1.1201 a Mas∣sacre in France, for Crueltie (as witnesseth your owne Histo∣rian) not to be parallelled by any example in all the antiquitie of former times. But you would not that England should be lesse noble than France, in the excellencie of your mischiefe; witnesse your Acheronticall POVVDER-PLOTT for the de∣struction

of the three Estates of this whole Kingdome; an Ex∣ample beyond all examples of ages past; and, for the hainous∣nesse thereof, hardly credible in the generations to come. Adde hereunto your Inquisition now established in the most parts of the Romish Iurisdiction, by Pope Paul the Fourth, as * 1.1202 The onely fortresse of Popedome, and esteemed the chiefest meanes to preserue the Romish Profession; what is it but that Lion's Denne to all them that are caught (except they shall abiure the Doctrine of Protestants)—Vestigia nulla retrorsùm.

THESIS. III. In the Continuance of this Separation, Papists are rather Schismatikes than Protestants; and consequently in the Heresie of the Dona∣tists. SECT. 25.

GLadly would your Cardinall make an alliance betweene the Schismaticall Donatists and Protestants; be you so good as heare his Charge. i 1.1203 The Donatists (saith hee) held that the Church Catholike consisted onely of iust persons: whence they concluded that the whole visible Church was perished vpon earth, and that it was onely in Africa, where they were. Well, but what is this to the Tenent of Protestants? Caluinists like∣wise (saith hee) hold the whole visible Church of Christ to haue perished for diuers ages, and that now it is onely in the Nor∣therne parts among themselues. So hee. But how truely and conscionably, Caluin himselfe will proue, in reprouing your Romane Church for k 1.1204 Magnifying her selfe, as being the onely Church on earth, and for not acknowledging the Churches of Africke, of Aegypt, of Asia, and other Christian Churches. And dare you say (saith Caluin) that the Church is wholly perished, which was among the Graecians? Thus plainly sheweth Cal∣uin

that his opinion was not to denie the African, Aegyptian, Asian, and Graecian Churches to haue continued visible parts of the Catholike Church.

Trie wee, in the next place, what affinitie the Church of Rome may seeme to haue with the Schismaticall Donatists. Saint Augustine (as your Cardinall confesseth) did iustly de∣ride the Donatists for that they, l 1.1205 from the mysticall speech in the Canticles, concerning the Church, the Spouse of Christ, saying, [Tell mee where my beloued lieth at noone day] gathered that the Catholike Church remained onely in Africke. And is not this your Article, viz. The Catholike Romane Church, without vnion and subiection whereunto there is no Saluation, a manifest appropriation of a Priuiledge proper to Rome, as remaining alwayes a Catholike Church? The Differences are, They challenged this Prerogatiue, as due to Africke in the South, you to the Romane Church in the West. They erred by a false Interpretation of a Text of Scripture, which was of mysticall Signification [In meridie;] you from another of figuratiue Sence [* 1.1206 Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram] as though it were ment necessarily of Peter: or if so, did Consequently authorize the Pope. Both which haue beene confuted, as egregiously false. As for the Reason of the Donatists Separation from the other constituted Churches in Africa (that which was the true marke of a Schismatike) it was without iust Cause, when they neither did, nor could obiect either errour in Doctrine; or Su∣perstition in worshipping; or tyranny constraining men to op∣pose the ancient truth; but especially (That which * 1.1207 Cannot be a iust Cause) the mixture of godly and wicked Professours in one Communion. If you shall require any further iustifica∣tion of this our Separation, and euidence that herein your Ro∣manists are the Schismatikes, recall to minde that which hath beene said hereof in a former Section.

THESIS. IV. In the Continuance of this Separation, the Vnion of Protestants with the Catholike Church is both more True and more Vniuersall than is the Vnion of the Romanists. SECT. 26.

TRue vnion We call only that, which is only in Gods truth, and for Truths sake, otherwise (as S. Hilarie saith) m 1.1208 It is not vnion of faith, but of perfidiousnesse; nor Christian commu∣nion, but Antichristian conspiracie and coniuration. Vniust V∣nities there are many among men, the first of compulsion and terror, which may be called Vnio Leonina, as when beasts, for awe of the Lion, goe in troopes, and follow at his becke. The Second is Vulpina, a craftie combination made and maintai∣ned by Foxes. The Third is Asinina, the heard of seely Igno∣rants. Loud and frequent are the boasts of your Catholike V∣nion, neuer regarding whether it haue the Characters of these kindes of Vnions, now spoken of: although that none can bee more Tyrannous, than that which (as you * 1.1209 haue beene instru∣cted by Pope Paul the IV.) vseth the extent of the Inquisiti∣on, as the onely Fortresse and support thereof. None more craf∣tie than that Church, which is fed at home (as with naturall sustenance) with false Legends, and fained Miracles, and pre∣serued abroad with Aequiuocations, and Mentall Reseruati∣ons; and specially by Politike Maximes, for alterations of States. Lastly, there can be no greater blockishnesse, than to be wholly guided by an Implicit faith of beleeuing you know not what, according to your COLIERS FAITH, which be∣cause it seemeth so commendable vnto your Cardinall Hosius, I will deliuer it in his owne words. * 1.1210 It will be most safe (saith

he) to follow the Example of a certaine Colier, of whom when a learned man asked him, for his soules behoofe, what he beleeued, hee repeated the Apostles Creed: and being asked what hee beleeued more, said, that which the Catholike Church belee∣ueth: But what (quoth the other) doth the Catholike Church beleeue? that which I beleeue, quoth the Colier: The other be∣ing still vrgent, the Colier vsed the same Circle, and made no other Answer, than that hee beleeued as the Church beleeued, and the Church, the same that hee beleeued. Some while after it happened, that the same learned man was by sickenesse in dan∣ger of death; at what time Sathan tempted him, vrging him what was his beliefe, insomuch that he poore wretch was not able sufficiently to expresse himselfe; but calling to minde the Coliers Answer, hee himselfe made no other Answer to the Diuell than this; AS THE COLIER; Confessing afterwards that hee had bin dangerously assaulted, had not this example of the Colier holpen him. Thus farre your Cardinall of your Colier, like an Horse in a Milne going all in a round, as if he would teach you that this Implicit Faith were the onely safe Circle (God blesse you) to keepe out the Diuell.

Wherein you are little inferior to the Iewish Rabbines, who taught their Disciples, n 1.1211 To haue rather regard to the words of the Scribes, than to the Law of Moses, the word of God. Whom also they instructed, that (in case the Iudge once pas∣sed sentence) hee must be absolutely beleeued, o 1.1212 Though he say that the right hand is the left, or the lest the right.

In all this you crye Pax, Pax, when as indeede it is nothing else but a paction and accordance in Error and Idolatrie. The whole Colledge of Priests were against * 1.1213 Ieremie: All the Priesthood, with the Scribes and other Sects, conspired against Christ; So little cause haue you to glorie in the nature of your Vnion. As for Vnion with the Church Catholike, there is no o∣ther difference than this: Protestants (as you haue heard) stand in Christian Vnion with Graecians, Aegyptians, Asians, Assyri∣ans, Aethiopians, and all Churches Christian, that haue not o∣uerthrowne the fundamentall Articles of faith. Whereas the Romane Church, by Excommunicating all other Christian Churches from her, hath Excommunicated her selfe, and made

a Separation from all other Christian Churches. And therefore being alone is nothing lesse than Catholike. * 1.1214 Vae Soli!

THESIS. V. The Protestants granting it possible for Some to be saued within the Church of Rome; and the Papists denying that any can be saued in the Churches of the Protestants, is but a So∣phisticall proofe that there is more Safetie in the Romane Church. SECT. 27.

MAny Protestants grant (p 1.1215 say you) that some may be pos∣sibly saued within the Church of Rome: whereas the Pa∣pists absolutely deny that Any, adhering to the Churches of Pro∣testants, can be saued. This Argument to the Ignorant may be an efficacious inchantment to perswade to Poperie; which to the iudicious and Discreete Reader will appeare to bee but Childish, and ridiculous, whether we consider your Deniall, or our Grant. The first, because your Deniall proceedeth not either from Truth, or Conscience. Not from Truth; because first our Separation from you (as hath * 1.1216 bene prooued out of your owne Authors) was for Truth and equitie-sake. And secondly what Conscience can it be in such Obiectors, which the more Ingenuous among you will gain-say? acknowledg∣ing it possible that such as are diuided from the outward Com∣munion of your Church, (if yet they ruine not the Foundations of Faith,) q 1.1217 May by their inward will otherwise be ioyned vnto her. Such as was (saith he) the case of Cyprian, from the Church of Rome.

Now what Christian is there, opposite to the Church of Rome, but he hath a desire and will that she were as Ortho∣doxe in faith, and as sincere in worship as euer she was, that

so he might be vnited vnto her? Nay, we dare herein appeale to many of your owne Consciences, nothing doubting but that many of you conceiue Saluation towards all Protestants, that in faith and repentance finish this their earthly pilgri∣mage: accordingly as * 1.1218 Some (we speake from knowledge) euen of the Society of the Iesuites haue done, in desiring the prayers of Some Protestant; yea and (to vse their owne words) Ex animo desiring the same. And yet did these also as bitterly inueigh against Protestants, as did other of their Sect: which sheweth that your Authors tongues and pens are not directed by the same spirit.

Howsoeuer, you your selues will condemne your Obie∣ctor of follie, after that you haue heard some Instances. First then in the Donatists; They held all men damned that were not of their Church. Whereas Saint r 1.1219 Augustine, their principall Aduersarie, did thinke that Some of them were in the state of life. Would you suffer your Obiector hereupon (if he had liued in those daies) to haue perswaded Saint Augustine, by reason of this odds of opinion, to leaue the Catholike Church and turne Donatist?

Secondly, in the Grecians. s 1.1220 They (you know) at this day condemne the Church of Rome, for consecrating the Sacrament in vnleauened bread, for which cause they call them Azymites and Heretikes, as impugners of the Gospell. But yet you ex∣cuse Them, in their Consecrating with leauened bread, say∣ing They may lawfully do it. Here is then great odds also in these Censures. Would you thereupon aduise your Fathers of the Councell of Trent necessarily to confesse, that the Church of Rome hath for a long time bene Hereticall in that point, and therefore ought to forbeare to Consecrate in Azymes any more?

A third Instance you may receiue from Pagans. The Indian Priests, called t 1.1221 Bramenes, beleeued and taught, that to take bread from the hand of a Christian is Sacriledge: whereas Christian Doctrine saith to the Christian,* 1.1222 If an Infidel bid thee to a feast, whatsoeuer is set before thee eate, &c. In which diffe∣rence the Paynime may seeme to haue the aduantage. Is there therefore more safetie in the Conuersation of the Infidell, be∣cause

there is lesse truth in his exception against the Christian? A mad man thinketh that all other men are beasts; a sober man confesseth that mad man to be a man. Hence then, by Romish sophistrie, the mad man must bee iudged to be in the better Case.

But how farre, and why do Protestants conceiue hope of Saluation in Some, dying in the Church of Rome? both these points are very considerable. They say that Some, for their be∣liefe in Christ, although otherwise intangled in Antichristian blindnesse, yet by reason of Inuincible ignorance (being both without Affectation of ignorance, and voide of the meanes of receiuing the light of Truth) may neuerthelesse be in the state of life. But as ••or Them, that may heare the preaching of the word, for their Conuersion, and will not; vpon all such (in the iudgement of Protestants) is the saying of our Sauiour Christ spoken of the Iewes verified, * 1.1223 If I had not come and spoken vnto them, they should not haue had sinne; that is, their Dam∣nation is, now, more iust. Hence it is, that Protestants teach, that of two Papists, professing the same Romish doctrine, the one in Spaine, the other in England, the Spanish may be saued, and the English damned. The reason is plaine, the first desired light of iudgement in necessary doctrines: the other may pos∣sibly see the light, but loueth the darkenesse of errour and su∣perstition more than the light of Truth. The error of the first being purae negationis, or incapacitie to come to the know∣ledge of the Truth, the error of the other being prauae disposi∣tionis, through the peruersenesse of their will.

If you demand, why Protestants haue so charitable an opi∣nion of some Romanists, you are to vnderstand, that it is in re∣gard of that (without which they cannot be saued) that they died in the beliefe of this Protestant Article of Faith, which is, To be iustified by remission of all their sinnes, through the satis∣factorie righteousnesse of Christ, apprehended by Faith; and not by the legall iustice of Perfection of inherent righteousnesse in themselues; as your Councell of u 1.1224 Trent hath decreed. And this opinion we finde verified, in the experience of many Pa∣pists, who howsoeuer in their life time they professe and mag∣nifie your doctrine of Perfection of workes; yet on their death∣bed,

as soone as the least glimpse of the Maiesty of Gods Tri∣bunall is reuealed to their consciences, and the bookes of their Consciences begin to be vnclasped, and so layd open, that they cannot but reade their sinnes (which in their life time they held as Venial) to be written in capitall letters, and to bee Deadly; then they take Sanctuary in the wounds of Christ, from whence flyeth the Ocean of all Expiatorie merit and sa∣tisfaction, by which it is impossible but euery faithfull Peni∣tent should receiue life.

Euen as did of late Cardinall Bellarmine, who writing his owne last Will and Testament, casteth the anchor of his hope vpon the same Rocke which we do, saying; x 1.1225 I pray God to receiue me into the number of his Elect, not as weighing my me∣rits, but as pardoning my offences. So iust cause haue you to thanke God, that the doctrine of Protestants, concerning Iustification, hath brought Some of you, (as it did your Ecchius and others) to their Iustifying Faith, and by it to Saluation.

Neither yet do Protestants (a point to be obserued) In this their former Grant, yeeld more safety to the Members of the Church of Rome, in such a Case, than they do to whatsoeuer Heretikes, whose beliefe doth not vndermine the Fundamen∣tall Doctrine of Faith. Will you see, in a Similitude, what we conceiue of your Church? Of many men that are in a Pest∣house, infected with the Plague, some happily may be saued: and yet it were but a damnable Presumption for sound men to runne head-long into the Pest-house, thereby, as much, as in them lyeth, making themselues guilty of their owne deaths. And whether your Romane Articles of a New Faith, whether Idolatrie, whether professed Obstinacie in errors, whether Ty∣rannie ouer both bodies and soules of men, and whether ne∣cessarie Periurie, in swearing to your foresaid false Articles, be plaguy diseases or no, iudge you.

THESIS. VI. Your common Obiection, (What is then be∣come of the soules of our fore-Fathers?) more iustifieth the Protestants Separation from Papists, than it can the Separation of Papists from Protestants. SECT. 28.

HOnour and loue, which man naturally oweth to his Pa∣rents and Progenitors, is felt in euery mans heart, as a forcible motiue to draw on a conceite in the Child, both of their godlinesse, and also of their after-blessednesse; and con∣sequently to inforce an inclination to adhere to their Religion, whatsoeuer it was. Which we, in our experience, find in your Disciples to be the greatest barre and hinderance vnto vs, for their Conuersion. Which Motiue, if it be alone, is onely pre∣ualent in them, who consult onely with flesh and bloud: yea verily, and this your Iesuites will not denie, who tell vs, from their experience among the y 1.1226 Indian Pagans, that the like conceit of the soules of their fore-fathers was the greatest rea∣son of their obstinacie in Paganisme. Whereas, if the matter be rightly discerned, the whole interest that man hath in his naturall Parents is bodily onely (for man's Soule is not by Traduction:) in which respect the Apostle setteth a plaine An∣tithesis betweene our naturall Fathers, whom he calleth the * 1.1227 Fathers of our flesh, and God, whom he nameth The Father of Spirits, saying; * 1.1228 We haue had fathers of our flesh which cor∣rected vs, and we gaue them Reuerence: shall we not much ra∣ther be in subiection vnto the Father of Spirits and liue?

Howsoeuer it be in me, as a man, surely, as I am a Chri∣stian man, this is not by generation, naturall, but by spirituall Regenaration; and Faith is a gift of this Spirit. Therefore do the Fathers of our flesh, after our naturall birth, send vs to the

Priest to be baptized, and to receiue a spirituall birth, where∣in we are not baptized in the name of our Parents, nor do we vow to professe the faith of our naturall Progenitors, but in the name, and to the profession of Christ, for * 1.1229 The iust shall liue by his owne Faith. Not but that we ought to haue a reue∣rend estimation of the state of our Ancestors, to imitate them in faith and godlinesse, as it is written; * 1.1230 Be you Imitators of them, who in faith and puritie obtained the promised inhe∣ritance. Yet not simply Imitators neither, but with a [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Quatenus] * 1.1231 Be ye followers of me, as I am of Christ.

Let vs now descend from the Thesis to our Hypothesis. First to answer your Obiection against Protestants, which standeth thus: If your Religion be the Truth, what then is become (thinke you) of all our and your Ancestors, who for many a∣ges liued in that, which you call Papisticall Faith? Take vnto you an Answer, which may reciprocally satisfie both you and vs, accordingly as we are both directed by Saint Augustine, and Saint Cyprian, two ancient and godly Fathers. z 1.1232 They (saith Saint Augustine, concerning the Donatists, who were knowne to be notorious Schismatikes) that do defend their false opinion without pertinacie, especially if it be such as they are no Authors of themselues, but which they haue receiued from their seduced Ancestors, yet cautelously seeking after the Truth, and prepared to embrace the same, so soone as it shall be reuealed; Such (saith he) will not I account Heretikes. Accor∣dingly Saint Cyprian; a 1.1233 If any of our Elders (saith he) haue not obserued thus much, either through their ignorance, or sim∣plicity, not holding that which Christ hath taught and comman∣ded vs, such may through the mercie of God find pardon: where∣as we stand without pardon, if, against our knowledge, we shall reiect the admonitions of Christ.

This agreeth with that of holy writ, spoken of them who were ignorantly plunged in rebellion, and therefore as being excusable, are said to haue gone in * 1.1234 Simplicitie. If hereuponn we shall enter into Comparison with you, by supposing an er∣ror in both Churches, yet cannot the ignorancee of the Pro∣testants be called Affected, because they are willing (as the A∣postle directeth) * 1.1235 To trie all things, and ready to keepe that

which is good. Nor are they stupidly and wilfully ignorant, led by the nose, hood-winked through an Implicit Faith, as your Profession teacheth. Which one point maketh the state of Protestants far more iustifiable than yours can be.

Come we now (seeing that you will needs) to the Censu∣ring of fore-Fathers, wherein three points will be very consi∣derable for our Iustification, in comparison of you. I. Is by examining whether side is more peremptorie, in damning of any other Christian Churches. II. Whether are guiltie in condemning the more sincere, ancient, and Orthodoxe Fa∣thers. III. Whether do by their Profession iudge and deliuer ouer to Sathan greater multitudes of fore-fathers and pro∣fessed Christians.

The first point is more than euident: for the Article of your Creed is absolutely to iudge as damned (without all pos∣sibility of Absolution) all Christians whatsoeuer, that are not professedly Papists. We farre more Christianly display Christ opening his armes of mercy vnto all that beleeue in him, with∣out wilfull blindnesse in erring, and obstinacie in transgres∣sing: and also we beleeue that All such as seeke the know∣ledge of the Truth with a simple heart, are not secluded from life, which issueth from Christ to all, who shall by Faith * 1.1236 Touch but the hemme of his garment.

Secondly, well it were you would vnderstand what fore-Fathers ye or we condemne, for some may be more condem∣nable than others, as may be discerned by that Testamentarie Exhortation which Ioshuah gaue to Gods people immediatly before his death. * 1.1237 Feare ye the Lord (saith Ioshuah) and serue him in sincerity and Truth, and put away the gods, which your Fathers serued on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt, and serue you the LORD. The people, to whom he spake, had three kind of Fore-fathers; some immediate, and those were of the same profession with Ioshuah; Some rather mediate, and (as it were) once remoued, namely they that had Aposta∣ted from Gods worship to Idolatry, in seruing strange Gods: And some Primitiue, such as were Abraham, and the other Patriarchs in the direct line of the Messiah. The first, and last ranke of Fathers they were taught to heare and imitate; onely

from the middle sort, that had declined from God, the peo∣ple were commanded to depart, as from Fathers of a damna∣ble condition.

Will you bee tried by this Example? Your Proselites are taught to condemne their Protestant Parents and Progeni∣tors, being of the Reformed Religion; and the Articles of your New Creede haue condemned the ancient Fathers of Primi∣tiue times, as hath bene prooued to the full. We honouring the memorie of all Fathers of the Primitiue ages, yea of the Popes of the Church of Rome for more than 600. yeares space, do onely condemne them (although not absolutely) who were the fore-Fathers of the middle order, who degenerated from their first integritie, and were drowned in Superstition.

Thirdly, as for the numbers of fore-Fathers damned by your new Romane Creed, they are innumerable. For what millions of millions of the truly ancient Fathers were not (as * 1.1238 hath bene prooued) Subiect to your Romane Church, and therefore haue incurred your sentence of Damnation? What myriads of myriads of soules of Grecians, Assyrians, Aegyp∣tians, and others, professing the same Christian Faith, do not your cursing and cursed Romish * 1.1239 Mount Ebal daily damne to the pit of hell? And yet you blush not to obiect vnto Pro∣testants their Damning of their fore-Fathers. God grant that this make not to your greater Damnation.

THESIS. VII. The Protestants, at this day, stand more Iustifia∣ble in their Separation from Rome, than did either the Ancient Primitiue Churches in her Excommunicating of Them, or yet LV∣THER and his FOLLOVVERS in their Departure from Her. SECT. 29.

IT is high time Wee end this Taske, which We conclude in this Thesis; for Proofe whereof be you pleased to call to

mind the Romish Excommunications denounced, first, against the Asian Churches, and that onely for a matter of Ceremonie: next against Saint Cyprian, and the Africane and Numidian Byshops and Churches, in a Question of Rebaptization; which was but One, and that no fundamentall Error: then against Theophilus and Cyrill, both Bishops of Alexandria; together with Acacius and Atticus, both Bishops of Constantinople, onely about Admitting or not Admitting of the Name of Chrysostome into the Diptikes, or Tables of Commemoration: then against the Opposition of the Churches of Africke in the dayes of Saint Augustine, onely against the pretended Iuris∣diction of Rome, in the Case of Appeales: All which, with many other Catholike Churches and Fathers as well Greeke as La∣tine, haue contemned the Pride of the Church of Rome in Pri∣mitiue Ages, when-as other wise the Bishops of Rome were Godly and Orthodox.

But LVTHER contented with Rome, not about Ceremo∣nies, or Iurisdictions, but about the Soule's life, both in the point of the Iustification of a Sinner before God; and of the re∣ligious and spirituall Worship, properly due to our Iealous God: which Contention was begun before the Councell of Trent Secondly, after that was a Generall free Councell desired, as a Remedie for all Diseases in the Church: but alas! whiles Rome would needs be that Catholike Church, the Remedie was turned presently into a Poison; so desperate is her Case. 1. By enthralling All to the pleasure of the Pope, which is a depriuing of the Church of Christ of her Liberty. 2. By autho∣rizing her Idolatrie. 3. By giuing Safe-Conduct to Protestants, for the discussion of their Opinions, and yet not suffering Them to Dispute in their Councell, (an Argument of their Ob∣stinacie.) 4. By Decreeing and Creating a CREED, consisting of aboue XX. new Articles of Faith, as Necessary to Salua∣tion. Whence it will follow, by the Apostle's Doctrine (pro∣nouncing him Anathema that shall Preach any thing, as Ne∣cessary to Saluation, * 1.1240 BESIDES that which was then prea∣ched) so many Articles must necessarily be so many Heresies. 5. By imposing the Beleefe of these Articles vpon all Profes∣sors vnder a Curse spirituall, and a temporall Punishment,

which is the Extremitie and height of Tyrannie And lastly by prescribing them to be professed of all Ecclesiastikes vnder the Forme of an Oath; which inferreth (almost) in euery Ar∣ticle an ineuitable Periurie, as well as in this one Article, which hath bene discussed thorow-out this whole Treatise: whereby you Sweare that The Church of Rome is THE CA∣THOLIKE MOTHER and MISTRIS-CHVRCH, and the Pope of Rome The CATHOLIKE PASTOR of the Church, without Vnion and Subiection vnto whom there is no Saluation. Which we haue prooued, according to our first Assumption, to be FALSE, IMPOSTEROVS, SCANDALOVS, SCHISMATICALL, BLASPHEMOVS, (Respectiuely) and euery-way DAMNABLE.

LAVS DEO.

FINIS.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Romana Eccle∣sia à solo Deo fun∣data, &c. Lib. 2. Epist. 55. Apud Bi∣nium Tom. 3. Conc. pag. 1196.
• b 1.2

  Dicitur vniuer∣salis Ecclesia, quae de vniuersis con∣stat Ecclesijs, quae Graeco vocabulo Catholica nomi∣natur, & secūdùm hanc acceptionem vocabuli, Ecclesia Romana non est vniuersalis Ecclesia, sed pars uniuersalis Ecclesiae prima sc. & praecipua, ve∣lut caput in corpo∣re, quoniam in ea plenitudo potesta∣tis existit. — Et dicitur vniuersalis Ecclesia illa vna, quae sub se cōtin••t Ecclesias vniuer∣sas, & secundum hanc nominis ra∣tionem Romana tantùm Ecclesia vniuersalis nuncu∣patur, quoniam ipsa sola singula∣ris priuilegio dig¦nitatis caeteris est praelata: sicut & Deus v••iuersalis Dominus appella∣tur, — quoniam vniuersa sub eius domino continen∣tur. Jnnocent. Pa∣pa 3. apud Bzo∣••ium Annal. 1199
• c 1.3

  Subesse Roma∣no Pontifici omni humanae creaturae dec••aramus, dicimus, definimus, & pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. — Datum Lateran. Anno Pontifica••us nostri octauo. Extrau. Cap. vnam Sanctam. de maior. & ••bed. col. 212.
• * 1.4

  If they were exactly examined, they would amount vnto many Scores.
• d 1.5

  Ego N. firmâ fide credo & affir∣mo—Sanctam Catholicam & Apostolicam Ro∣manam Ecclesi∣am, omnium Ec∣clesiarum matrem & magistram; —Romano{que} Pontifici B. Petri successori ac Iesu Christi Vicario veram obedienti∣am spondeo ac iuro.—Hanc ve∣ram & Catholi∣cam fidem teneo, extra quam nemo saluus esse potest.

  Bulla Pij Quarti pro formae iuramēti professionis fidei. Dat. Romae, Anno. 1564.
• e 1.6

  Ecclesia Catho∣ca, &c. Catechis. Rom. in hunc Ar∣tic. num. 10.11. & 13.
• f 1.7

  Ecclesia Roma∣na, non vt est par∣ticularis dioecesis seu Episcopatus, sed vt comprehē∣dit omnes creden∣tes in Christum, sub obedientia Episcopi Roma∣ni, haec est Eccle∣sia Catholica.

  Suarez. Ies. trip. virt. Theol. disp. 5. Sect. 6. num. 2. & lib. 1. con. Ang. sectae errores, c. 12. num. 9.
• g 1.8

  Catholicâ fide tenendum est, hanc certā ac in∣diuiduam congre∣gationem, quae Romanā fidem profitetur, & cum Rom. Pontifice coniuncta est, esse veram Christi Ec∣clesiam Catholicam. Probatur, primò ex Symbolo Apostolorum constat teneri nos ad credendum veram Christi Ecclesiam Catholicam; quod autem satis non sit eam confusè & vniuerse crede••e, sed oportet de∣terminatè & in indiuiduo, &c. Idem. ibid. disp. 9. Sect. 9. num. 13.
• h 1.9

  Ecclesiā veram asse••imus esse coetum eorum hominùm, qui Rom. Pontifici pro tempore existenti parent. Greg. de Valent. Analys. l. 6. cap. 1. Dico solam Romanam Ecclesiam esse Catholicam & Apostolicam. Ibidem. & deinceps, lib. 6. cap. 10. & 12.
• i 1.10

  Nullus cum Ecclesia communicat, qui non subest Pontfici, licet alioqui fidem Catholicam profiteatur. Bellar. de Eccles. milit. l. 3. c. 5. Vnio enim cum Capite est nota Ecclesiae. Id. de notis Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 10.
• * 1.11

  Quanquam etiam particula∣res Ecclesiae sole∣ant Catholicae vocari, vt constat ex modo loquen∣di Augustini, Pa∣ciani, Cyrilli, & ex communi vsu; sicut & quilibet fidelis vocatur Catholicus, vel ex professione fidei, vel quià est pars Catholicae Eccle∣siae. Ergo multò magis quaeuis particularis Ec∣clesia; sic etiam Romana. Paulò supra. At vt acci∣pitur pro vniuer∣sa••i Ecclesiâ, quae Pontifici Romano, tanquam vniuersali Christi Vicario obedit, iure ac merito Catholicae nomen sibi vendicat. Suarez. Iesuita Defensi. fidei aduersus Anglican. errores. lib. 1. cap. 1••. num. 19.
• * 1.12

  See aboue, Sect. 2. letter. d.
• a 1.13

  Apostoli Chri∣stianae fidei for∣mulam compo∣nendam censue∣runt quam Sym∣bolum appella∣runt. Catechis. Trid part. 1. ca. 1. de Sym∣bolo.
• b 1.14

  Nam esse hoc Symbolum ab A∣postolis composi∣tum affirmant communiter anti∣qui Ecclesiae Pa∣tres, nempe Cle∣mens 1. Epist. 1. Irenaeus l. 1. c. 2. Tert. in praescript. Ambros. epist. 81. ad Syriciū. Ruffin. in exp. Symb. Hier. Epist. ad Pam∣mach. de erroribus Iohannis Hieros. Chrys. hom. 1 & 2. in Symb. Aug. Serm. 125. & 180. de Temp. Leo Serm. 11. de passi∣one Domini. Et E∣pist. 13. ad Pulche∣riam. Greg. de Va∣lent. Comm. theol. in 2. 2. D. Thom. Tom. 3. disp. 1. qu. 1 de obiecto fidei. puncto. 5.
• * 1.15

  Mark. 1.1.
• * 1.16

  Matth. 28.16. & 20.
• c 1.17

  Thomas Wal∣densis lib. 2. do∣ctrinae fidei. cap. 22 rectè probat Ec∣clesiam non posse nouum Articulum proponere. Atque etiam Canus lib. 2. de locis cap. 7. & lib. 4. cap. 4. Et Al∣fonsus à Castro in summâ suâ l. 1. c. 8. & alij rectè ne∣gant expectan∣dam iam esse no∣uam religionem veritatis incognitae Apostolis, &c. Greg. de Valen. quo sup. punct. 6.
• d 1.18

  Ecclesiae duae potissimùm sunt partes, quarum al∣tera triumphans, altera militans vo∣catur, &c. Catechis. Rom. part. 1. cap. 10
• e 1.19

  Ecclesia, quae to∣ta hîc accipienda est, non solum ex parte, quae pere∣grinatur in terris, —sed etiam ex illa, quae in coe∣lis, &c. Aug. En∣chirid. ad Laurent. cap. 56.
• * 1.20

  Ephes. 5.27.
• f 1.21

  Quasi non sit Christi Eccl. sia, quae in toto orbe terrarum clamat ad Deum [Dimitte nobis debita no∣stra.] Verba Au∣gustini in libello de Haeres. teste Staple∣tono de vera Eccles. Contr. 1. lib. 1. c. ••.
• g 1.22

  Locus hic Apo∣stoli intelligitur de Ecclesia trium∣phante (teste Hie∣ronymo & Augu∣stino) Sal. in Epist. ad Rom. Part. 2. disp. 1. Et verè, nam in Eccesia militante nullum membrum est, quod non inficia∣tur maculâ venia∣lis peccati. Idem in Ephes. 5. locum citatum. p. 257. col. 1.
• h 1.23

  Ecclesia immaculata, hîc per gratiam, in futuro per gloriam. Aquinas in Ephes. 5.
• * 1.24

  H••b. 11.1.
• * 1.25

  Iohn 20.29.
• i 1.26

  Congregatio fi∣delium, qui chari∣tate praediti sunt. Ca••etan. Card. in eum locum. Eccle∣sia secundum spi∣ritum, quae solos Electos complecti∣tur. Ferus in ••um locum. Ecclesia eorum, qui nulla tentatione sepa∣rantur, vt B. Paulus ait, Quis nos s••pa∣bit? &c. Stella in Luc. 6. Soli Boni supra Petram. Aug. Teste Salmer. Jes. in 1. Tim. 3. disp. 12. Tom 15.
• k 1.27

  Sine dubio propter Praedesti∣natos, qui infalli∣biliter saluabūtur, vt ex verbis cōstat, & vt A••g. & Chry∣sost. & omnes exponunt. Suarez Ies. l. 3. de auxilijs gratiae c. 16. nu. 18. Vera haec senten∣tia Tole•• Ies. in eum locum, & Bellarm. l. 3. de verbo Dei, c. 10.
• l 1.28

  Qui spiritum Christi non habet. potest esse flegma, pituita, sanies, saliua, sanguis a∣bundans, & excre∣mentum corporis Christi; ista enim viuentis hominis ne{que} membra sunt neque partes, & tamen non sunt extra corpus humanum, sed ad superfluos humores referuntur, qui suo tem∣pore vbi maturi fuerint cùm stercoribus egeruntur. Coster. Ies. Apol. pro parte 3 Enchirid. c. 12 §. Qui non p. 631. Ioh Turrecremata dicit, Impios, qui sunt in Eccesia, non esse membra corporis Christi mystici nisi a••qui∣uocè: idq́ue probat ex Alex Hal. Hugone, B Thom. item Petrus à Soto Melch. Canus & alij. Teste Bellar. de Eccles. milit l. 3. c. 9. p. 935. Haereticum occultum non esse verè Christianum (aut verè membrum Christi) Pa∣tres communiter docent, Athanas. serm. 7. con. Arium, Cyprian. l. 4. Epist. 2 Tert. de pudicitia. Aug. de Gratia. Teste Suaer. de trip. virt. theol. disp. 9. Sect. 1. nu. 24.
• m 1.29

  Omnes qui sunt in Ecclesia Dei, &c. Ambr. l. 1, Epist. 4. ad sinem.
• n 1.30

  Mater. Cathol. &c. Aug. de Gen. ad literam cap. 2. Tom 3.
• o 1.31

  Praedestinati di∣uidi ab Ecclesia nullo modo pos∣sunt. Idem Tom. 10 Serm. de Temp. 181 Et in lib de Ciuit. Dei per totum, prae∣cipue lib. 20. c. 8. Nunquàm ab illo Ecclesia seducetur Praedestinatorum & Electa, &c.
• p 1.32

  Ex his manife∣stū esse existimo, vnam esse veram Ecclesiam eam, quae verè est anti∣qua, in cuius Cata∣logum referuntur ij, qui sunt iusti se∣cundum proposi∣tum — Ecclesiam solā esse dicimus, quam etiam anti∣quam & Catholi∣cam in vnius fidei — vnitatem Dei voluntate, per Do∣minum congregat eos, qui iam sunt ordinati, quos prae∣destinauit Deus, cum eos iustos cognouisset ante mundi constitutio∣nem Clemens A∣lexandrinus Strom. li. 7. fe. 157. in fine. Item. Electorum congregationem appello Ecclesiam melius. &c Ib. fol. 147.
• q 1.33

  Ephes 1. [Qui praedestina∣uit nos in adoptionem filiorum per Christum Iesum.] —Nec dubiom est, quin voce omnium Electorum ista dicantur, & ipsi Ecclesia sint Bern. in Cant. Serm. 78.
• r 1.34

  Sicut Christus, qui est caput Ecclesiae, de spiritu sancto conceptus est; sic eius Ecclesia, quae est eius corpus, eodem spiritu repletur vt viuat. Greg. in Psal. 5. Poenit. A∣gaine; Intra has mensuras sunt omnes Electi, extra has omnes Reprobi, etiamsi intia fidei limites esse vi∣deantur. Idem lib. 28. Moral. cap. 9. Sanctam Ecclesiam de Sanctis in aeternum permansuris st••uxit. Idem in Cant.
• s 1.35

  Vnica est Sancta Ecclesia vniuersalis, quae est Praedestinato••um vniuersitas. Conc. Constant. Sess. 15. Art. 1. ap. Surium.
• t 1.36

  A multis solet concedi, malos non esse membra vera, nec simplici∣ter corporis Ec∣clesiae, sed tantùm secundùm quid & aequiuocè.—At si ita est, sequitur Pontificem ma∣lum non esse Ca∣put Ecclesiae. Bel∣larmin. lib. 3. de Ecclesiâ Militan∣te Cap. 9. §. Ad vl∣timum. & §. Atsi.
• * 1.37

  Luke 16.24.
• a 1.38

  Quòd in Eccle∣sia non sint, do∣cent Catechismus Rom. Waldens. & probatur. Bel∣lar. l. 3. de Eccles. milit. cap. 6. initio. Ex Ecclesia ex∣cluduntur Cate∣chumeni, quià nō participant Sacra∣menta. Idem ibid. cap. 20. §. Ratione. Tamen cum con∣tritione & voto Baptismi saluan∣tur. Tolet. Ies. In∣struct. Sacerd. lib. 2. c. 21. ante finē, & Bell. quo supra c. 3.
• b 1.39

  Iudex Ecclesiae in Excommuni∣catione falli po∣test, quia potest iustus conuinci per falsos testes, & sic potest Iudex falli.— & sic apud Ecclesiā mi∣litantem Excom∣municatus, non tamen est Excom∣municatus apud Triumphantem. Abulens. Epis. Defensor. part. 2. cap. 32. p. 46. In foro exteriori & contentioso multi sunt Excommunicati, quoad Deum, qui non sunt quoad Ecclesiam: & è contra, multi Excommunicati quoad Ecclesiam, qui. non sunt quoad deum, quia Ecclesia non iudicat de occultis. Cosmus Philiarch. de offic. Sacerd. Tom. 1. lib. 3. c. 4 p, 89.
• c 1.40

  Sed audio vos dolere, quòd non accepit Sacramē∣ra baptismatis; di∣cite mihi, quid aliud in vobis est nisi voluntas, nisi petitio? — non habet igitur gra∣tiam, quam desi∣derauit? —cer∣te accepit, quia poposcit, qui habuit Spiritum tuum [Sancte Pa∣ter] quomodò non accepit gra∣tiam tuam?

  Ambros. de obitu Valent. Tom. 3 p. 9. And before; vitâ iam fruitur aeternâ.
• * 1.41

  Ioh 19.
• d 1.42

  Respoudeo, Ta∣lem esse Eccle∣sia animo & desi∣derio, quod suffi∣cit illi ad salutē non tamen esse corpore, siue externâ communicatione, quae propriè facit hominem esse de Ecclesia visibili, quae est in terris. Bellar. lib. 3. de Eccles. milit cap. 6. §. Resp. autem. & cap. 3. §. Deni{que} Sic To∣letus de Instruct. Sacerd. l. 2. c. 21. ante finem, & Greg Valent. in 3. Tom. Disp. 1. q 1 punct. 5. Tom. 3.
• e 1.43

  Cùm haec res apud omnes sit in cōfesso, Ecclesiam Catholicam eam esse, extra quam nulla est salus. Greg Valent. quo iam sup. punct. 7. §. 16. Jtem. Est & illud in Ecclesiae Catholicae prae••o∣gatiuis vel maxi∣mum, quod — extra ipsā nemini patet salus. Quae ratio est cur B. Petrus Ecclesiam cum Arca Noë rectissimè compa∣rârit Analys. fidei lib. ••. cap. 4.
• f 1.44

  Mihi non placet, si dicatur ad salutē satis esse votum & desiderium exi∣stendi in Ecclesia, si alias absolutè quispiam manet extra Ecclesiam. Suarez Tract. de trip. virt. Theol. disp 9. de Eccles. milit. Sect. 1. num. 18.
• * 1.45

  1 Pet. 3.20.
• * 1.46

  Vt qui extra Ar∣cam Noē, sic qui, extra Ecclesiam Christi. Cyprian. de Simplicitate Prae∣lat••rum. Cap. 5.
• * 1.47

  See aboue, Chap. 1. Sect. 1.
• g 1.48

  Bellar. l. 2. de Pon. cap. 12. & Azor. Ies. Moral. part. 2. l. 4. cap. 11.
• h 1.49

  An haec annexio principatus Petri ad sedem Roma∣nam ita sit eius authoritate con∣stituta, an verò Petrus ex Christi praecepto id ege∣rit, de hac nihil fide certum habe∣mus. Suarez de trip. virt. disp. 10. §. 3. num. 9. — Opinio prima est —esse eam tan∣tùm ex iure hu∣mano. Sic Soto, Paludanus, Ar∣machanus, & alij quidam. Teste Su∣ar. ibid. Soto Cor∣dubens. Bannes, Aug. Triumphus & ante Sotum Waldensis dicūt. non diuino jure, sed ex facto & morte Petri con∣tigisse, vt Roma∣nus Pontifex Pe∣••o succederet. Teste Azor. Ies. quo suprà, §. Alterum est. Vt Pontifex Rom. quà Romanus, potiùs quàm ali∣quis alius succederet, ex facto Petri ortum habuit.—Non est improbabile, Dominum iussisse Petrum Romae sedem figere. Bellar. quo sup. lit. g.
• * 1.50

  See belowe, §. 9.
• i 1.51

  Catholica, i. e. vniuersalis Eccle∣sia dicitur, in quo primùm differt à Synagoga, quae certis locis, & populi limi••ibus circumscribitur, at nunc non alligata vlli loco. Salmeron Ies. Prolog. in Comment. Epist. ad Rom. par. 2. p. 176.
• * 1.52

  Possiuinus appa∣rat. Sest. 3. c. 35.
• k 1.53

  Hoc tempore gentibus ostio aperto, Apostoli Catholicae fidei consulturi, Cano∣nes, quibus vni∣uersam fidem fir∣marent, constitue∣runt, quos Eccle∣sia proprio nomi∣ne Symbolum Apostolicum ap∣pellare consueuit. Baronius Anno Chri. 44. num. 15.
• l 1.54

  Jdem Anno. 39· Hoc tempore per∣transit prouinci∣as, & inuisit Ec∣clesias, &c. The Churches which S. Peter visited An∣no 39. he reckoneth to haue beene — In Ponto, Gala∣tia, Cappadocia, Asia, silicet mino∣ri, & Bithynia, quas S. Petrus erexit. Anno 45. num. 15.
• m 1.55

  Dicimus Eccle∣siā Antiochenam hoc potissimùm Anno à sancto Pe∣tro institutā fuisse, eundem septem Annis eidem prae∣fuisse, quousque sanctā Romanam Ecclesiam erigens vna cùm persona omne suum Pontificium ius in eam transtulit. Idem Anno 39. num. 23.
• n 1.56

  Apostoli post Ascensionem Symbolū constituerunt Genebrard. Chron. Anno D. 32, lib. 3. p. 370. Petrus primùm Romam venit, atque ibi se Pontificem gessit. Idem Anno 44. lib. 2. pag. 219.
• * 1.57

  1 Cor. 15.9. & Philip. 3.6.
• o 1.58

  Ec∣clesia Catholica complectitur omniatempora & loca. Bellar. lib. 4. de notis Eccles cap. 7. §. Quarta.
• * 1.59

  Act. 9.4.
• p 1.60

  Dicitur quoque Ecclesia Catholi∣ca à temporis vniuersitate, nam ad finem vsque mundi perseue rabit, vt Scriptura docet, Mat 16. Portae inferi non praeualebunt ad∣uersus eam: & Mat. 28. Ero vo∣biscum vsque ad consummationem seculi. & Ephes. 4. Donec occurri∣mus omnes in vni¦tate fidei in virum perfectum. Greg. de Valent. in 3. Thom. disp. 1. q. 1. punct. 7. §. 16. Tom. 3.
• q 1.61

  Refert non pa∣rùm hoc scire.— Nam si solùm ex iure humano Ec∣clesiastico ratio haec successionis cum Romanae Dioecesis Episcopatu coniuncta sit, possit fieri — vt is, qui vniuersalis Ecclesiae pater est, non idem sit ••o∣manae Dioecesis Episcopus, sed vel alterius dioecesis, vt cum Petrus Antiochiae sedebat.—Sin autem di∣uino iure constitutum est, vt non alius praeterquàm Romanus Pontifiex sit Petri successor, non erit in Ec∣clesiae potestate id institutum mutare.—Ex hac quaestione pendet,—quomodò illud Ecclesia Rom. pri∣uilegium intelligendum sit, cum dici solet recta & Apostolica fides, non posse à Romana Ecclesia deficere▪ sicut jam defecit (exempli causâ) ab Ecclesia Constantinop. Greg de Valent. quo supra §. 38.
• * 1.62

  See aboue, Sect. 7
• r 1.63

  Canus, Driedo, Turrecr••mata, & alij communiter sine dubitatione affirmant, ex Chri∣sti Domini institu∣tione Romanum Episcopum con∣stitutum fuisse Pe∣tri Successorem in cura vniuersalis Ecclesiae: — at{que} ità Romanam se∣dem habere priui∣legium, vt sit pecu∣liariter Apostolica sedes, à qua fides recta nequeat de∣ficere. Valent. quo iam supra. Atque huic parti idem se Valent. adiungit.
• s 1.64

  Quòd ante as∣censionem Domi∣ni—Christus ni∣hil de hoc ordina∣uerit patet, tum quia nihil tale vel ex Scripturis, vel ex Traditione ha∣bemus, — tùm quòd Petrus fixit suam sedem pri∣mò in vna Eccle∣sia, postmodum in altera. Suarez. de Trip virt theol. disp 10 §. 3. nu. 10.
• t 1.65

  Quod verò at∣tiner ad illam hi∣storiam ex Ege sippo; licet Chri∣stus Dominus prae∣ceperit tunc Petrò, vt Romae maneret vs{que} ad mortem, inde tamèn nō necessariò sequi, praecepisse etiam eum vt Successor illius in cura Ecclesiae vniuersali esset perpetuò Rom. Pōtifex. Valēt. quo supra. col. 218.
• u 1.66

  Non est omninò de fide, à Rom. Ecclesia non posse separari Apostolicam sedem: Patet, quia nec Scriptura, nec Traditio habet, ita sedem Apostolicam fixam Romae esse, vt inde auferri non possit. Bellar. l 4 de Pont. c. 4. §. At secundum. Item Suarez Jes. vide supra, Sect. 7. lit h.
• x 1.67

  Sotus, Cordubensis, & quidam Iuniores Theolo∣gi, inter quos Bannes, Aug Triumphus, & Waldens. ante Sotum, non Diuino Iure, sed ex facto Petri, quòd Romae ei obire contigit, factum esse dicunt, vt Episcopus Rom. Petro succederet. Azor. Ies. Just. Mor. part. 2. lib 4. cap. 11. Et eiu••dem sententiae videtur esse Paludanus, Armachanus, & quidam alij. Teste Suar. de Trip. virt. disp. 10 §. 3. num. 9.
• y 1.68

  —Quare si per possibile Treuirensis Archiepiscopus per Ecclesiā con∣gregatam pro Praeside & Capite eligeretur, ille propriè plus Successor S. Petri in Principatu foret, quàm Rom. Episcopus: Licet credendum fit Rom. Pontificem sicut locum Petri, ità & principatum nunquam perditurū. —Nec cessaret ille Principatus in Ecclesia, etiamsi Rom. vrbis ••edes Episcopalis deficeret. Card. Cusan. Con∣cord. Ca••h. l. 2. c. 34. ••d finem: where he laboureth to proue that the B of Rom••••••••th his Primacie from the consent of the Church.
• * 1.69

  See hereafter, Chap. 5. Sect. 1.
• * 1.70

  See aboue, Chap. Sect. 1.
• a 1.71

  Sicut Ecclesia Christi visibilis est hoc numero, ità habere posse hoc numero visibile caput; at{que} adeo de fide est, hunc hominem, qui cō∣muni Ecclesiae cō∣sensione acceptus est, vt caput Ec∣clesiae, cui ipsa te∣netur obedire, esse verum Ecclesiae Pontificem, Petri Successorem.— Alioqui Con∣stare non potest, hoc esse verum Concilium. Suar. Jes. de Trip. virt. disp. 10. Sect. 5. nu. 2.
• b 1.72

  Fides diuina est, quâ credimus Ie∣sum, — eâdem credimus hunc Paulum 4. Ponti∣ficem esse; —nō tantùm humanâ fide, cui subesse possit falsum. Sal∣meron Jes. in epist. Pauli in Gen. part. 3. disp. 2. pag. 183.
• c 1.73

  Omnia Sacra∣menta ex inten∣tione ministri pen∣dere, &c. Conc. Flo∣rent. Decret. Euge∣nij PP. ad. Binium.
• d 1.74

  Nullus certus esse potest certi∣tudine fidei, se percipere verum Sacramentum, cùm Sacramentum sine intentione Ministri non conficitur. Bellar. l. 3. de Iustif. cap. 8. §. Dicent.
• e 1.75

  Nemini potest ex fide constare, se recepisse Sacramentū, esse{que} hoc ita certum ex fide, ac clarum est nos viuere. Vega de Justif. l. 9. cap. 17.
• f 1.76

  Quamuis credere tenemur ex fide, verum Petri Successorem esse supremum totius Ecclesiae Pastorem, non tamen tenemur eâdem fide credere Leonem, aut Clementem esse verum Pe∣tri Successorem, quoniam non tenemur ex fide Catholicâ credere eorum quemlibet ritè & Canonicè fuisse electum. Alphonsus á Castro. lib. 1. de Haeres. c. 9.
• g 1.77

  Respondeo, Ste∣phanum 6. & Ser∣gium 3. errâsse in quaestione facti, vtrùm Formosus legitimus Papa fuisset. Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. cap. 12.
• h 1.78

  Aliqui ex Catholicis moralem tantùm certitudinem tenent, quam sufficere dicunt —ad credendum res, quas de fide Papa definiuerit. Hi-sunt Turrecremata, Albertin. Caiet. Bannes, Canus, Vega, Cordub. Castro. Teste Suar. de Trip. virt. disp. 10. § 5. nu. ••.
• * 1.79

  See aboue, Chap. 1. Sect. 1. & 2.
• * 1.80

  Bulla Pij quarti. See aboue, Chap. 1. Sect. 1.2. &c.
• i 1.81

  CREDO in hoc loco non signi∣ficat opinari, aut existima••e, sed vt docent sacrae li∣terae, certissimae assensionis vim habet, quâ mens Deo sua mysteria aperienti firmè constanterq́ue as∣sentitur. Quamob∣rem is credit, — cui aliquid sine vl∣la haesitatione cer∣tum & persuasum est. Catechis. Rom. in hanc vo∣cem Symboli, Cre∣do, pag. 11.
• k 1.82

  Quae in Symbo∣lo sunt & credenda proponuntur, — sunt principia eo∣rum omnium, qui∣bus fides est ha∣benda. Principia autem semper & ex omni parte vera, alioqui principia haud forent, quorum veritas est dubia. Bozius Tom. 1. de signis Eccles lib. 3. cap. 10. p. 223.
• * 1.83

  See aboue, Chap. 1. Sect. 2.
• a 1.84

  Synod. Trid. Sess. 7. de Baptis. Can. 3. Ecclesia Romana omniū Ecclesiarū mater & magistra. Et Sess. 14. cap. 3. Et Sess. 22. cap. 8. & 25. Decret. de delectu ciborum. And againe, Sess. 18. Decreto de li∣brorum delectu. Matrem commu∣nem in terris ag∣noscentes, quae nos peperit, obliuisci non potest.
• b 1.85

  Forma Iuramēti à Pio 4. edita. San∣ctam Ecclesiam Catholicam Ro∣manam omnium Ecclesiarum ma∣trem & magistram agnosco.—Ex∣tra quam fidem nemo salnus esse potest.
• c 1.86

  Romana Eccle∣sia, cum Petri pe∣culiaris erat—qui totius Eccle∣siae Caput à Chri∣sto institutus erat, — ita ipsa meri∣tò Mater omnium diceretur Eccle∣siarum. Baron. An. 58. num. 50.
• d 1.87

  Passim docent vete••es, Rom. Ec∣clesiam esse ma∣trem omnium Ec∣clesiarum, & ab ea omnes Episco∣po•• habuisse— consecrationem & dignitatē suam, Quod non vide∣tur esse verum, nisi eo sensu quia Petrus, qui Epis∣copus f••it Roma∣nus, omnes Apo∣stolos, Omnes{que} alios Episcopos vel per se, vel per alios ordinauit. Alioqui enim cùm omnes Apo∣stoli plurimos Episcopos in varijs locis constituerunt, si Apostoli ipsi non sunt facti Episcopi à Petro; certè maxima pars Episcoporum non deducet originem suam à Petro Bellar. lib. 1. de Rom. Pont cap. 23. Vbi addit,
• e 1.88

  Anacletus Epist. 1. dicit In nouo Testamēto post Christum à Petro Sacerdotalis coepit ordo. Vbi non loqui potest de ordine Presbyterorum; nam constat Apostolos in vltima coena simul omnes ordinatos Sacerdo∣tes. Loquitur ergo de ordine Episcoporum, qui à Petro non rectè dicitur incepisse, si omnes Apostoli im∣mediatè à Christo ordinati fuerunt Episcopi. Jdem ibid. All this is but Coniecturall.
• f 1.89

  Ego has Epi∣stolas Apoch••yphas esse credo. Cusan Card. Concord. Cathol. c. 34. p. 771
• g 1.90

  Omnes Apostoli à Christo Do∣mino ordinati sunt Episcopi, & potestatem non solum ordinis, sed etiam iurisdictionis acceperunt — quia omnes Apostoli sunt à Christo electi, vt ex Euangelio cōstat, ità ipse Paulus apertè tradit, Gal. 1. & 2. Se non esse ab hominibus, ne{que} per hominem, sed per Christum Apostolum institutum. Matthias item, non erat ab Apostolis, sed à Deo creatus. At Apostolica potestas continebat in se non solùm ordinis, sed & Iurisdictionis potestatem, & ideò Apostoli vbique terrarum Episcopos & Presbyteros constituebant—& omnibus plenis∣sima iurisdictio data est, Mat. 18. illis verbis, quaecunque alligaueritis, &c. Omnibus etiam dictum est, Euntes in vniuersum mundum praedicate. Et de Iuda dictum est, Episcopatum eius accipiet alter. Azor. ••es. Inst mo∣ral. part. 2. l. 4. c. 11. §. Altera opinio.
• h 1.91

  Vt verum sit — Petri Cathedram matrem esse & radicem omnium Ecclesiarum, & à Rom. Eeclesia omnem consecrationē & dignitatem Episco palē promanâsse — Tur∣recremata conatur probare solum Petrum ordinatum à Christo Episcopum, & ipsum reliquos Apostolos con∣secrâsse. — Alij tenent alios omnes Apostolos ordinatos immediatè à Christo: Sic Glossa & multi Theo∣logi, videturque expressa sententia August. lib quaest. vet. & noui Testamenti 97.—nam si Christus im∣mediatè Apostolos omnes ordinauit Sacerdotes, cur non Episcopos? — nam Presbyteri aequales sunt in ordine. Suarez. Ies. Tract. de Trip. virt. Theol. disp. 10. Sect. 1. num. 5. & 7. Jtem Cosmus Philiarch. Tom. 2. pag.. 93.
• * 1.92

  See in the fol∣lowing Sections.
• i 1.93

  Conc. Constan∣tinopolit. Oecu∣menicū de Cōse∣cratione Cyrilli. Porrò Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae quae est aliarum omnium Mater, Cyrillum Episco∣pum vobis osten∣dimus. Teste Ba∣ronio Anno 382. num. 15 p. 571.
• k 1.94

  Ex Sion lex exibit, & verbum Domini ex Hie∣rusalem.] In Hie∣rusalem primùm fundata Ecclesia totiùs orbis Eccle∣sias seminauit. Hiero. in ill••m lo∣cum. Isa. 2.
• l 1.95

  Act. 1. Incipiens ab Hierusalem.] Nemo dubitat de Ecclesia — quià ab Hierusalem coepit, & omnes gentes impleuit. —Cum ijs dici∣mus,—Com∣municate cum illis Ecclesijs, vnde Euangelium to∣to orbe disfun∣ditur.—Illi de Hierusalem re∣spondent, Non communicamus illi ciuitati, vbi occisus est Domi∣nus noster.—Pij homines & miserie ordes! —Neque mirum, si praecisi oderunt radicem,—vbi inchoata est Ecclesia, missus de coelo Spiritus Sanctus. Aug. in Epist. Ioh. Tract. 2.
• m 1.96

  Quaeris (Petiliane) vnde communio mea sumat exordium? Dominus Christus ipse dixit, —Coepit praedicari ab Hierusalem. Inde diffundens Eccle∣siam quam tenemus. Collatio Carthag. Cathol. cum Donatistis par. 3. num. 230. Which is ioyned with Optatus.
• n 1.97

  Cujussibet Ec∣clesiae, tanquàm corporis Christi, habenda est ratio, maximè verò no∣strae (speaking of the Church of Caesa∣rea) quae propè Mater omnium Ecclesiarum, & fuit ab initio & nunc quoque est, & nominatur.— Quam Christiana Resp. veluti cen∣trum suum circu∣lus, vndique ob∣seruat Apud Ba∣sil. Tom. 2. Epist. 30. Greg. Nazian. De eadem Ciuitate Basilius Magnus. A nostris locis exortum Euangelium regni, in totum orbem egressum est. Tom. 2. Epist. 70.
• * 1.98

  Act. 11.26.
• o 1.99

  Ciuitatum om∣nium nostra Christo optatissi∣ma est, tùm prop∣ter Progenito∣rum, tùm etiam propter vestram virtutem. Et sicut Pe trus inter Apo∣stolos primus prae∣dicabat, sic inter ciuitates, sicut dixi, haec prima tanquam coronā quandam admi∣rabilem Christia∣norum tulit ap∣pellationem. Chrysost. de Eccle∣sia Antiochena Tom. 5. Orat. ad pop. Antioch. hom. 3. plura habet Ibid. Hom. 17.
• p 1.100

  Orientales in Responsis fuis ad Iulium Papam Rom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sozom. hist. lib. 3. cap. 7.
• q 1.101

  Eia igitur Grae∣cia mater nostra, cui totum id de∣bet quod habet Latina Ecclesia. Bitom. Episc. orat. in Conc. Trid. ha∣bita, vid. lib. de Actis eius Conc. pag. 18. Eia His∣pania, cujus con∣seruatae religionis perpetua gratula∣tio. Ib. Serio loqui∣tur.
• r 1.102

  Anno Christi 35. & Anno Tiberij Imp. 19. Comi∣tem fuisse eius∣dem discriminis Iosephum ab Arimathea nobi∣lem Decurionem, quem tradunt ex Gallia in Britan∣niam nauigâsse, illicque post prae∣dicatum Euange∣lium diem clausisse extremum. Baronius An. 35. num. 5. Addit in Marg. Manuscript hist. Angl. quae ha∣betur in Bibliotheca Vaticana. Anno Christi. 39. & primo Anno Ca••j Ecclesiam Antiochenam à Petro in∣stitutam, eundem septem Annis eidem praefuisse, quousque se, Rom. Ecclesiam erigens vna cum persona omne summi Pontificij jus in eam transtulit. Baron. Anno 39. num. 23.
• s 1.103

  Interea glaciali frigore rigent Insulae, tempore, vt scimus, summo Tiberij Caesaris radios suos primus indulget, id est, fua praecepta Chri∣stus; quae licet ab Incolis tepide suscepta sunt, apud quosdam tamen integrè, &c. Gildas in Epist. & Po∣lyd. Virgil. Hist. Angl. lib. 1. Quibus assentitur Suarez Ies. lib. 1. cap. 1. con. Ang. Eccles. error. Britan∣niam ab initio orti Euangelij Christianam recepisse religionem &c. & Couarruvias more largely. Venerat olim in Britaniā, quae nunc Anglia est, Ioseph ille ab Arimathaea civitate oriundus, atque in eo loco tàm ipse, quàm eius socij cum de Euangelio praedicarent, dogma Christi sedulò docerent, multi per haec ad veram pietatem traducti salutiferáque fruge imbuti baptizati sunt. Isti deinde cum à rege Arvirago parum terrae ad habitandum proximè Welliam Op. accepissent, ibi novae rel••gionis prima jecerunt fundamenta. — Haec pietatis in Britannia extitere primordia, quam deinde Lucius Rex pro••e extinctam mirabiliter adauxit. Couarrum vias Episc. in Praefat. ad Philipp. Hispan. Regem ante lit. Quaest. Practic. Also, Bozius de signis Ec∣clesiae lib. 4. cap. 1. Ex Papyrio Massonio lib. 2. de vita Caroli Simplicis, Et Polydoro Virg. lib. 2. Hist. Anglorum.
• a 1.104

  Pontifices Ro∣mani tàm Petrum quàm Paulum Praedecessorem & Parentem suum agnoscunt, siqui∣dem vter{que} Apo∣stolus Rom. Ec∣clesiam fundauit & gubernauit, vt praeter alios te∣statur Irenaeus. l. 3. cap. 3. Sic Bel∣lar. l. 1. de Rom. Pont cap. 27. §. Tamen.
• * 1.105

  See aboue, Chap. 1. Sect. 2. & 3. &c.
• b 1.106

  Ex hoc loco probatur Monar∣chia Petri, &c. Bellar. l. 1. de Pont. c. 10. initio. Greg. de Valent. Analys. l. 7. c. 2. Maldon. Jes. in eum locum.
• c 1.107

  Per Petram Pe∣trum — Hanc sententiam Noua∣tores destruere volentes, eò a∣mentiae prouecti sunt, vt dicere non erubescant, eam non intelligendam esse de Petro, sed de Christo. Baron. Anno 33. nu. 21.
• d 1.108

  Communis Ca∣tholicorū senten∣tia est, Petram esse Petrum, id est, illam personam, non vt est particularis, sed vt est Pastor Ecclesiae. Bellar. ibid. §. De pri∣ma.
• e 1.109

  Adsis tu, Luthere, aduersus vos stat veritas inuicta, quae triumphabit, per Petram Petrum in∣telligi apertissimè constat. Roffens. Episcopus Art. 25. con. Luth.
• f 1.110

  Qui dicit Con∣fessionem fidei à Petro prolatam esse, Petram non absolutè eam in∣telligunt, sed cum relatione ad Pe∣trum confitentem. Bellar. de Pont. l. 1. cap. 10. Valent. A∣nal. l. 7. c. 2. §. Vt autem. Stapleton. Cont. 2. l. 6. cap. 2. Maldon. in Matth. 16.

  Hilar. l. 6. de Tri∣nit. Chrysost. hom. 55. in Mat. 16. Cy∣ril. Alex. dial 4. de Trin. Author in E∣pist. ad Gal. c. 4. qui Ambrosio tri∣buitur. Aug. in Ioh. 27. Maldon. Jes. in hunc locum.
• g 1.111

  Super Confes∣sionem, —non super Petrum, aut quemuis alium hominem. Ferus l. 3. Comment. in Mat. 16. p. 24.
• h 1.112

  Super illo Articulo fidei: ita super se Dominus fundauit Ecclesiam. Glossa decret. part. 1. dist. 19. in Ca. Ita Dominus noster.
• i 1.113

  Supra Christum. Lyranus in Matth. 16.
• k 1.114

  Christus est Petra, supra quam fundata est Ecclesia. Pererius Ies. Com. in Dan. lib. 2. super illa verba; Abscissus est lapis, &c. Vbi citatur locus, Mat. 16.
• l 1.115

  Non Petrus, sed, vt melius alij, Christus▪ imò super Confessionem ipsam, &c. Abulensis in Matth. 16. Petrus defecit à fide. Idem quast. 67.
• m 1.116

  Petra, seu fun∣damentum Chri∣stus. Hugo. Card. i•• Matth. 16.
• n 1.117

  Per Petram in∣telligimus Chri∣stum, quem con∣fessus est Petrus. Cusan. Card. l. 2. Concord. Cath.
• o 1.118

  Symbolum illud (nempè Nicaenum) fundamentum v∣nicum, contra quod (in marg. designat ipsiss. lo∣cum Mat. 16.) Portae inferi non praeualebunt. De∣clarat. Conc. Trid. Sess. 3. Decret. de Symbolo fidei.
• p 1.119

  Per Petram in∣tellexerunt con∣fessionem Petri— apud quosdam Pontifices Leo primus, Agatho, Nicolaus primus, Adrianus primus in suis Decret. Stapletonus de doctrin. Princip. Controu. 2. lib. 6. cap. 2.
• q 1.120

  Dicendum est, caeteros Apo∣stolos idem cre∣didisse quod Pe∣trus; & si sigilla∣tim eodem voto peteret Christus, idem responde∣rent. Abulens. Ex∣plic. cap. 16. Matth. q. 57. p. 286. Pergit idem Author, & probat 1. Quia Christus interro∣gabat omnes [Quid vos? &c.] 2. Quia dicitur, Mar. 8. & Luc. 9. Quod Christus comminatus Dis∣cipulis, ne cui di∣cerent se esse Christum. Et paulò ante.—Praeuenit alios Petrus, & vt os totius collegij respondit. Cyril. Tes••e Abulens. Episc. ibidem.
• * 1.121

  Mr. Isaac Ca∣saubon hath exact∣ly prooued this, Ex∣ercit. 14. & 15. in Baron. from the Authors following, viz. Cassian. de In∣carnat. l. 3. Idem habuit eius re∣sponsio, quod ha∣bet fides omnium. Ambros. Petrus prae coeteris, imò pro coeteris re∣spondet. Aug. Vnus pro multis, vnitas in multis. Chrysost. Petrus sermonem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hier. Petrus erat lingua omnium. Cyril. in Ioh. lib. 4. Respon∣sionem illi Chri∣stus committebat, qui ordine maior. Glossae ordinariae Author, Petrus, tanquàm Princi∣palis inter alios, pro alijs dat re∣sponsum. Dionys. Richel, & Car∣thus. Petrus osom∣nium. Sic Ianse∣nius. Et confirma∣tur ex ipsius Petri testimonio, qui Joh. 6. ver. 69. ante hanc Confes∣sionem, de commu∣ni omnium fide fassus est, dicens, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Credimus & cognoscimus Te esse Christum silium Dei.
• r 1.122

  Petrus à Petra, vt Christianus à Christo. Aug. de verbis Domini se∣cundum Matth. Serm. 13. Ambros. Serm. 47. Hieron. & alij multi; Pe∣trus nominatus à Petra.
• s 1.123

  Petra est Chri∣stus. Ambros. in Luc. c. 9. Hieron ad Eustoch. & in Isai∣am. 28. Aug. Tract. 124 in Ioh. Ans••l∣mus in Matth. Be∣da, & Alij. Non super Petrum, sed super Christum. Chrysost. Serm. de Pentecost. Non su∣per te, Petre. Aug. Ser. 13. de verbis Domini, init. Pe∣tra, quam confes∣sus est Petrus.
• * 1.124

  Cyril. See aboue. at q.
• t 1.125

  Vna haec fidei Petra. Petriore confessa, [Tues filius Dei. Hi∣lar. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Epi∣phan. Haer. 59. & Chrysost. hom. 55. in Matth Greg Nis∣sen in Test. ca. vlt. Hilar. de Trin. lib. 6. Ambros. in ca. 2. ad Ephes.
• u 1.126

  Quod si super vnum Petrum, quid de Iohanne? an aduersus vnum Pe∣trum non praeualiturae portae Inferorum? Orig. in Mat. 16. Tract. 1.
• x 1.127

  Non me supet te, Petre, sed te super me. Aug. de verbis Domini Serm. 13. Non dixit Christus, super hunc Petrum. Chrysost. Serm. de Pentecost. Pe∣tra, à qua Petrus sortitus est nomen. Hier. in Matt. c. 7.
• y 1.128

  Brereley August. Relig. Eligat Lector. &c Au∣gust.
• z 1.129

  Augustin. Retract. Tom. 1. lib. 1. c. 21. ait, Harum duarum sententiarum, quae sit probabilior, eli∣gat Lector. Hoc tamen dicit Augustinus (saith Abulensis) vt non videatur supra contradicere, quasi vtra∣que sit sustentabilis sententia: & tamen ipse secundam tenet, quod patet ex propositis Verbis eius; Nam primam dicit se tenuisse in quodam loco, secundam autem dicit se saepissime posuisse; & hic istam tenet ip∣se; & est verior. Abulens. in Mat. 16. qu. 67.
• * 1.130

  Jsaac Casaub. Exercitat. vpon Baron. obserueth 3. Expositions of the word Rocke in the Fathers. The 1. making Christ the Rocke, and di∣stinguishing Pe∣trum, à Petra, as a deriuatiue from the Primatiue, as Christianus à Christo. Petrum à Petra denomi∣natum credide∣runt Aug. Ambros. Euseb. Emissen. & alij. Casaub. Exer∣cit. 13. Againe. Ambrosius & Au∣gustinus; Vt à Christo Christia∣nus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Orig. in Mat. Petra vnusquisque imi∣tator Christi. Ex∣ercit. 15. And, by an elegant Simily, hee sheweth how Christ might haue ment himself; Vt si Leo Imperator diceret Leoni militi, Tu es Leo, & in hoc Leone sita est spes omnis praemij. The 2 Exposition, by Rocke to signifie the Confession of Saint Peter, or Christ confessed, hee opposeth against Baronius, who imputeth impudent madnesse to Protestants for so expounding it. Sic (saith Casaub.) ex Catholi∣corum albo expungendi sunt Ambros. Chrysost. Aug. Basil. Seleusiens. Theodorit. Theophyl. Lyranus, & Glossae ordinariae Author Suidas. The 3. Exposition. Per Petram intelligunt Petrum.— Alij per plus∣quam puerilem errorem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 à 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quod est caput; vt Optatus & Innocent. 3. Papa. lib. 1. my∣ster. c. 8. Contra ipsum Euangelistam Iohannem, [Cephas, cuius est interpretatio Petrus, Ioh. 1.43.] Alij ita tamen, vt per Petram intelligerent aliquam Petrae proprietatem, quatenus symbolum est fortitudinis & soliditatis in fide, Ambros. Cyprian. Sed nullus omnium propter Dominium. Sic Baronius; Latinè dicen∣dum, Tu es Petra, & super hanc Petram. Mirâ licentiâ factum Tridenti authenticum corrigit. Haec Ca∣saubonus loc. supra citas.
• * 1.131

  Videat Lecto•• Apologiae nostrae partem secundam.
• a 1.132

  Sed scimus quod Petrus nihil plus potestatis ac∣cepit, alijs Apo∣stolis, &c. Nam. &c. Cusan. Card. Concord. Cathol. l. 2. cap. 13.
• b 1.133

  Petrus in Pa∣storatu suo, in quo erat Coryphaeus & Iudex aliorum, ità se gessit, vt vi∣deretur quodam∣modò Pastoratum negligere; & cum caeteris Apostolis tanquam frat••em & aequalem se gerere elegit, non autem vt maio∣rem, & ipsorum caput & Recto∣rem. — Nam si Petrus vt Rom. Pontifex, & ipse Vicarius Christi scripsisset, videretur in suis scriptis ius Eccle∣siasticum, seu, quod idem est, Pontificium di∣ctâsse potius quàm Diuinum. Salme∣ron Ies. in. 1 Pet. 1. Disp. 1. Tom. 16.
• c 1.134

  Franciscus Duaren. de Eccle∣siae Minist. & Be∣nefic. lib. 3. cap. 2.
• * 1.135

  Rom. 9.13.
• d 1.136

  Ità docet A∣postolus humilita∣tē tenere in men∣te, vt tamen ordi∣nis nostri dignita∣tem seruemus in honore. Greg. l. 4. Epist. 36. initio.
• e 1.137

  Durand. Ratio∣nal. l. 3. cap. 13.
• * 1.138

  In his Answere to the Centurion. Acts 10. Commen∣ded by Polydore Virg. Jnuent. l. 4. c. 13. impress. Lugdū. 1558. Yet by the Pope exacted as proper to himselfe. Solius Papae pe∣des Principes omnes exosculā∣tur. Lorin. Ies. in Act. 10. & Suar. de trip. virt. disp. 10. §. 2.
• f 1.139

  These Appeales and Reseruations are recorded as proper to the Pope by Azorius Ies. Inst. Moral. part. 2. lib 4. cap 35.
• * 1.140

  See aboue Chap. 3. Sect. 9.
• g 1.141

  Duo priuilegia, &c. Bellar. lib. 4. de Pont. cap. 3. §. Est igitur. — Primū fortasse non manauit, &c. —Alterū. si••e dubio. Ibi••.
• h 1.142

  Quià Dominus vnā tantùm per∣sonā de signa, vit. —&c, Bellar ibid. §. Quae Expositio.
• i 1.143

  Priuilegiú per∣sonale singulare, quod individuae personae indiuiduò tantùm concedi∣tur, expresso ejus nomine—& hoc in iure absolutè vocatur personale.—tale non trans∣greditur personā. Salas de legg. qu. 9••. Tract. 14. §. 2. disp. 17. Cum per∣sona extinguitur. Ibidem.
• k 1.144

  Conueniunt omnes Catholici —in haec, quòd Pontifex, vt pri∣uatus Doctor, pos∣sit errare etiam in quaestionibus juris vniuersalibus tam fidei quàm morū, id{que} ex ignoran∣tia, vt alijs Docto∣ribus interdum accidit. Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. c. 2. §. His notatis.
• l 1.145

  Papam quem∣libet —vt pri∣uatam personam, errare posse, & à fide deficere; etsi noui Scriptores aliud defendere tentauerint, praeter communem sensum Doctorum, &c. Salmeron Ies. Com. in Gal. 2. disp. 24. §. Excusabilius. pag. 107.
• * 1.146

  Rhemists vpon the place.
• m 1.147

  Petrus Beatus dicitur ex certitu∣dine beatitudinis futurae, per reuela∣tionem, de qua dubitare non po∣terat. Et hoc fuit magnum donum. Abulens. Episc. in Matth. 16.
• n 1.148

  Per Portas In∣ferorum, intelligi∣tur absque omni restrictione omnis Diaboli potentia, siue per haereses, vel per alia vitia, vel per persecu∣tiones. Maldon. Ies. in Matth. 16.
• o 1.149

  In Pontificibus nemo hodiè san∣ctitatem requi••it: Optimi putantur, si vel leuitèr boni sunt, vel minùs mali quàm caeteri mortales esse so∣leant. Massonius de vitis Pont. in Iulio 3.
• p 1.150

  Intrusos fuisse in Cathedram Pe∣tri homines mon∣strosos, vitâ tur∣pissimos, moribus perditissimos. Ba∣ron. Anno Domini 897. nu. 4.
• q 1.151

  Per annos ferè 150. Pontifices circiter 50. à vir∣tute Maiorum de∣ficientes, Apota∣cticos, Apostati∣cosvè potius quàm Apostolicos fuisse. Genebrar. Chron. Anno Christi 901. pag. 553.
• r 1.152

  Iohannes 23. tam dissolutae vitae, vt vulgus hominum existimaret eum negare vitam aeternam. Bellar. lib. 4. de Pont. c. 14. §. Ita{que} iste.
• s 1.153

  —Quia fieri potest vt Papa idola colat, & Diabolicis artibus operam nauet. Coster. Ies. Enchirid. de Summo Pont. cap. 3. §. Fatemur.
• a 1.154

  Hieron. Praef. in epist. ad Gal. — Pseudapostoli as∣serebant Petrum & Iacobum & to∣tas Iudaeae Eccle∣sias Euangelium Christi cum lege veteri miscuisse. Deinde Pauli au∣thoritatem prae il∣lis i••m nominatis Apostolis huius∣modi sermonibus eleuare studebant; Non Paulus hic ferendus, nam hic Apostolorum dis∣cipulus, illi Iesu Christi, &c. Ederus partit. Theol. p. 451. in Epist. ad Gal.
• b 1.155

  1. Cor. 15.
• c 1.156

  Rom. 11.13.
• d 1.157

  Gal. 1.17.
• e 1.158

  Jb. verse 18.
• f 1.159

  Gal. 2.2.
• g 1.160

  Aliud est con∣fe••re, aliud disce∣re. Inter conferen∣tes aequalitas est, discens à docente minor, ait Hieron. Teste Salmeron Ies. in hunc locū. Tan∣quàm cum Amicis & paribus. Aqui∣nas in hunc locum.
• h 1.161

  Gal. 2.6.
• i 1.162

  Nihil doctrinae, aut potestatis. A∣quinas.
• k 1.163

  2. Cor. 11.5.
• l 1.164

  Gal. 2.9.
• m 1.165

  Gal. 2.7.
• n 1.166

  Rhemists vpon this place.
• o 1.167

  Go and teach all Nations. Mat. 2••.19.
• p 1.168

  Cui omnis prae∣dicatio, cui res or∣bis, mysteria cun∣cta, vniuersaq́ue dispensatio à Deo creditur, Chrysost. Hom. 18. in epist. ad Rom.
• q 1.169

  Olim duo erant Imperatores, vnus in Oriente, alter in Occidente summa potestate potiti: hâc ratione neuter ius habet in alte∣rum, ità vt vterque in solidum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 esset: sic quoque vtriusque potestas minuitur ex parte, nec vnus alteri praeest. Azor. Jes. Tom. 2. l. 4. c. 12. §. Tribus modis.
• r 1.170

  Paulus tempore, non dignitate mi∣nor. Ambros. in 2. Cor. cap. 12.
• s 1.171

  Quis cui prae∣ponatur incertum est admitti. San∣ctus Maximus Ser∣mone vlt. de sanctis Petro & Paulo.
• t 1.172

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (sc. Petro) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Chrysost. in Epist. ad Galat. 1.18.
• u 1.173

  [Tituli Aposto∣lorum aequales,] Principes Eccle∣siae. Hiero. in Psal. 44.
• x 1.174

  Columnae Ec∣clesiae, Basil. in Epist.
• y 1.175

  Duo Christia∣norum Principes. Eucherius Lugdun. vt citatur à Casaub. Exercit. 16. in Ba∣ron. §. 145.
• z 1.176

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrysost. Hom. 18. in Epist. ad Roma∣nos.
• a 1.177

  Paulus obtinuit totius Ecclesiae principatū. Greg. in 1. Reg. l. 4. c. ••. Et effectus est Ca∣put nationum. Ibi∣dem.
• b 1.178

  Gal. 2.2
• c 1.179

  Jb. ver. 9.
• d 1.180

  2. Cor. 11.5. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]
• e 1.181

  Chrysost. Am∣bros. Oecumen.
• f 1.182

  Praemittitur Ia∣cobus, quia erat Episc. Hierosoly∣mitanus. Aquinas, Rhemists, Salme∣ron Ies. in hunc lo∣cum Lorinus Ies. in Act. 1. pag. 38. vbi adiungit Ansel∣mum.
• g 1.183

  Gal. 1.1.
• h 1.184

  Ib. ver. 18, 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• i 1.185

  Gal. 2.9.
• k 1.186

  Bellar. Vide Refutat. in nostra Causa Regia, cap. 4. Sect. 7.
• * 1.187

  See aboue in this Chap. Sect. 11.
• l 1.188

  Gal. 2.9.
• m 1.189

  Bellar. & alij. Videat Lector Cō∣futat. in nostra Causa Regia, per totum.
• n 1.190

  Act. 15.13.
• * 1.191

  Act. 8.14.
• * 1.192

  Io. 13.23.
• o 1.193

  Act. 9.4.
• p 1.194

  Gal. 2.14.
• q 1.195

  Non est qui audeat dicere, cur sic facis? Part. 1. Dist. 40. Si Papa.
• r 1.196

  Rom. 1.
• s 1.197

  Act. 27.24.
• t 1.198

  Ib. ver. 31.
• u 1.199

  2. Cor. 11.28.
• * 1.200

  See aboue Chap. 4. Sect. 1.
• a 1.201

  Dionysius Epis¦copus Corinthio∣rum scribens ad Romanos: Petrus & Paulus ambo, cùm & nostram Corinthi, & vestrā Romae Ecclesiam fundâssent, &c. Apud Euseb. Hist. lib. 2. c. 24. Teste Bozio de signis Ec∣cles. lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 241.
• b 1.202

  Bozius ib. lib. 3. cap. vls pa. 225. & Rhemists Annot. in hunc locum. & Baron. An. 58. num. 48.
• c 1.203

  Hyperbole. Tolet. & Eman. Sà Ies. in eum locum.
• d 1.204

  Fides vestra:] Non quam vos creditis annunci∣atur, sed vos cre∣didisse in toto mundo vulgatur. Tolet in bunc locum. Annot. 16.
• e 1.205

  Ne{que} enim fi∣eri poterat, vt quae Romae eue∣niebant, ea illos, qui in toto erant terrarum orbe, la∣terent. In illa enim vrbe Roma∣norū Imperatores Regiam suam ha∣bebant. &c. The∣odoret. Teste Pe∣rerio Ies. in Rom. 1. Disput. 4.
• f 1.206

  Epistolarū Pau∣linarum, vt ab ip∣so Paulo priùs scriptae sunt, The∣odoreto teste, primò 1. ad Thes∣sal. secundò, 2. ad eosdem; tertò 1. ad Corinth. quartò, 2. ad eos∣dem: quintò 3. ad Timoth. Sextò Epistola ad Titū, Septimò ad Ro∣manos, &c. Ederus partit. Theol. lib. 4. p. 426. & Salmeron Jes. To. 13. Tract. 3. & 4. in Epist. Pauli in gen. Disp. 4. Ex Theodoret. part, 2. in princip. 1. Thess. 3.
• * 1.207

  Onuphrius ex∣actly collecteth and accompteth. 1. Erat 1. ad Thess 2.2. ad Thess. 3. ad Gal. 4. Prior ad Cor. 5. Prior ad Tim 6. Posterior ad Cor 7. ad Ephes 8. Posterior ad Tim. 9. ad Philip. 10. ad ••oloss. 11. ad Philem. 12. ad Hebraeos. 13. ad Titum; 14. ad Romanos. Onuphrius de Primati•• Petri part 3. Dissuasio. 5.
• g 1.208

  Non quod Ro∣mani credebant annunciatum di∣cit in vniuerso mundo, sed ipsos fidem recepisse & credidisse, sicut illud ad Thessalo∣nicenses Cap. 1. A vobis, &c. Tolet. in Rom. 1. pag. 30. quo supra.
• * 1.209

  Rhemists in their Argument of the Epistles in Generall.
• h 1.210

  Possit commo∣dè dici, Paulū Romanos Eccle∣siam non vocasse, quòd in ea inter Iudaeos & Gen∣tiles essent contē∣tiones & factio∣nes. Nam Gentes Iudaeis probro dabant turpem crucis necem Messiae illatam: contra Iudaei Gē∣tibus obijciebant sordes Idolola∣triae.—Er eo t••mpore Petrus ex vrbe expulsus Ecclesiae Rom. Pastor, ità vt Ro∣ma eo tēpore vix Ecclesiae formam haberet. (Tū allatâ aliâ solutione, ad hanc redit, decens,) —Sed prima solutio solidior est meo iudicio. Sal∣meron Ies. Tom. 13. in Rom. 1. Disp. 7. p. 2••9.
• * 1.211

  Schismata vigin∣ti Stapleton de doct. Princip. lib. 13. cap. 15.
• * 1.212

  Vnum Schisma erat quinquagin∣ta Sex annorum. Onuphrius in vitâ Benedicti.
• i 1.213

  Perpende Euā∣gelij indifferenti∣am, quamuis enim Romani inter coe∣teras gentes emi∣nerent, & primatū tenerent, tamen in praedicatione Euangelij & salu∣tis negotio pares eos facit: [In vo∣bis, inquit, sicut in coeteris.] Non enim apud Deum est distinctio Iu∣daei, Graeci, Ro∣mani, aut vllorū hominum condi∣tionum, omnes peccatores inue∣nit, pro omniūsalu∣te mortuus est. T••let. Jes. in eum locum Pauli ad Rom. 11. Annot. 22.
• * 1.214

  Quibus sc. prae∣dicasset. Aquinas in ••um locum.
• a 1.215

  See aboue Chap. 4. §. 1.
• b 1.216

  Epiphanius Haeres 17. Vocat Petrum & Paulum Episcopos Roma∣nos. Lorinus Ies. in Act. Apost. vlt. ver vlt. That which he addeth, is confuted in the next Testi∣monie, and in the Challenge fol∣lowing.
• c 1.217

  Bulla Pauli 3. & Pij 4. in Concil. Trident. Petri & Pauli Authoritate, quâ fungimur, Ordina∣mus, &c.
• d 1.218

  Objicitur in antiquis sigillis, quibus diplomata summi Pontificis obsignabantur, inueni∣ri imagines Petri & Pauli, sed huius a Dextris, illius a sinistris, &c.—Potest responderi hoc non fuisse per∣petuum, nam in non paucioribus Paulus cernitur ad sinistram. Bellar. lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 27. Adding; Et olim obseruabatur vt senior, & honoratiora•• laeuam esset. But where, except onely among the Persians? as the next Testimonie proueth.
• e 1.219

  Denique, col∣locari ad dextram est Argumentum maioris honoris, quanquam apud Persas contrarius mos est. Pererius in Gen. cap. 48. disp. 1.
• k 1.220

  Babylon Apo∣calyptica est Ro∣ma. Bellar. l. 3. de Pont. ca. 13. & l. 2. c. 2. Ribera, & Vie∣ga Ies. in Apoc. 14. Et est consensus omnium.— Probat Ribera ex Victorino Martyre, & Hieron. locis plurimis, Tertulliano, Ambrosio (postquam negâsset) ex Doctoribus Pontificijs, ex septem montibus, quos nominat, ex Apoc. quia dicitur Ciuitas illa magna, quae habet regnum super Reges terrae, &c. Quo supra in cap. 14.
• l 1.221

  K. Iames Pre∣mouit. pa. 309.310
• m 1.222

  Rhemists An∣not. in Apoc. 17.5.
• n 1.223

  Quod aliquan∣dò a fide defectura Roma sedes Anti∣christi, Probatur ex Apoc. 14. Cecidit Babylon, &c. Ro∣ma in sine seculi futura.—Diui∣nare me dicet quispiam, sed hunc ego orabo, vt prae∣iudicium deponat, rem toram apud se maturo iudicio examinet, ne plus mihi credat, quàm Ratio & veritas persuaserint. — Conflagraturam esse, non tantùm propter praeterita scelera, sed & propter illa quae in extremis temp. commissura est, ex huius Apoc. verbis adeo perspicùe cognoscimus, vt ne Stultissimus quidem negare pos∣sit.— Nam cap. 18 vbi de eius incendio est sermo, hoc scriptum est, Flebunt qui cum ea fornicati sunt, cum viderint fumum incendij eius. —Vae, vae, ciuitas magna Babylon, venit vnâ hora iudicium tuum.—Vtrum illi lugebunt, qui ante mille & multò plures annos mortiui sunt? an qui nunc viuent & videbunt fumum in∣cendij eius? —vnde de persecutione illius temporis loquens, Cap. 18. Exite ex illa, ne Participes sitis de∣lictorum. Quoniam igitur dubium non est, Babylonem omnis Idololatriae, & omnium scelerum officinam esse, si fidem fecimus Babylonem Romam dici, dubitari non potest eam — à fide & ab obedientia Ponti∣ficis defecturam. —Post, ex Sibyllarum vaticinijs — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Haec & alia multa in hanc sententiam Ribera Ies. quo supra.
• o 1.224

  Sequi∣tur hunc Blasius Viega, & atque eisdem rati••nibus, Comment. in Apoc. 18. & Concludit, — Ex hoc loco (in∣quit) manifestè colligitur Romam extremis mundi temporibus, postquàm à fide defecerit, &c. — Et vbi dicitur, Exire ex illa populus meus, &c. Cùm enim fidelibus praecipitur, vt ex illa exeant, ne simul eius ca∣lamitate inuoluantur profectò ostenditur sermonem esse non de illa Roma antiqua, cùm nulli in ea fideles erant, sed de illa quae conflagrabit extremo mundi tempore. Haec ille in Apoc. 18.
• p 1.225

  Commentarium Viegae tanquam in re nulla Ortho∣doxae fidei repug∣nantem, Approba∣runt Eman. Coe∣cho, Alphontus de Melto Archiepis. Eborens Christo∣ferus Gouea Praepositus so∣cietatis Prouin••••∣alis, Ferdinan∣dus Academiae Eborens. Can∣cellarius. Ri∣beram Ies. Appro∣barunt Gil. Gon∣zales, Alphonsus Curiel; etiam Posseuinus Ies. in Apparat.
• q 1.226

  Pontifex, licet eiectus, tamen semper Ecclesia•• est habiturus, at que hic vbicunque sit, Episcopus Ro∣mae erit, etiamsi illa penitùs excis•• sit. Riberaquo su∣pra.
• * 1.227

  See aboue Ch. 2. Sect. 8.
• r 1.228

  Secundo Clau∣dij Romana Ec∣clesia à Petro in∣stituiur, & sedes ei erigitur. Baron. An. 45. num. 1. Ipsa prima Pontificia sedes Petri Ca∣thedra lignea erat.—In more Maiorum erat, Episcopis sedes in Ecclesia posue∣runt egregiè or∣natas,—quibus illi, cum sacras synaxes agerent, insiderent. Jb. num. 11.
• s 1.229

  Jsa. 1.21.
• t 1.230

  Gal. 1.
• u 1.231

  1 Cor. 1.
• x 1.232

  Col. 1.
• y 1.233

  Phil. 1.
• z 1.234

  Rom. 1.
• * 1.235

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.236

  Iam à multis Annis imperium illud caruit Impe∣ratore. Lyra in 2 Thess. 2.
• b 1.237

  Quam, obsecro, Roma suo Regi, suo Monarchae praebet obedienti∣am? nescio qui∣bus temporibus maior potuit de∣fectio apparere. Faber Stapulens. in 2 Thess. 3.
• c 1.238

  Temporale Romanae vrbis imperium iam cessa∣uit. Domin. à Soto, Teste Viega Jes. in Apoc. 13. Sect. 17.
• d 1.239

  Imperium Rom, iamdiu euersum est. Salmeron Ies. in 2 Thess. 2.
• * 1.240

  See aboue Chap. 1.
• * 1.241

  See aboue Cha. 1. Sect. 2. & 3.
• e 1.242

  An Apostoli, qui Petro super-vixe∣rant, fuerint verè subditi Episc. Ro∣mano (de qua re nihil apud Autho∣res me legisse me∣mini)—videtur tamen extitisse in∣feriores Iurisdicti∣one, atque adeò Iurisdictioni Pon∣tificis Rom. sub∣iectos—quià po∣testas Rom. Pon∣tificis semper fuit ordinaria & per∣petuò in Ecclesia mansura. Suarez Ies. lib. de trip. virt. theol. disp. 10. Sect. 1. num. 28.
• * 1.243

  See aboue Cha. 4. Sect. 11.
• * 1.244

  See aboue Chap. 4. Sect. 4. lit. A. prope finem.
• f 1.245

  Baron. Ann. 80.
• * 1.246

  See hereafter Chap. 8. Sect. 7.
• g 1.247

  Christus Io∣hannem in sinu habuit, cui Petrus erat proximus. Baron Ann. 34. num. 40.
• * 1.248

  See Aboue, Ch. 4. §. 5 Hereaf∣ter, Cha. 10. §. 4.
• * 1.249

  See hereafter, cap. 9. Sect. 2.
• a 1.250

  Iudaisme. Gal. 1.8. Coloss. 2.
• b 1.251

  Saducisme, de∣nying the Resur∣rection. 1 Cor. 15.
• c 1.252

  Worship of Angels. Coloss. 2.
• d 1.253

  Apostasie. 2 Thes. 2. & 2 Tim. 4.3. & Iude.
• e 1.254

  Antichristiani∣tie 2 Thes. 2. 1 Ioh. 2.24. Apoc. 13. &c.
• f 1.255

  Dissentions and Schismes, 1 Cor. 11 and Concerning Orders Ecclesi∣asticall, Rom. 12. Eph. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.
• g 1.256

  Gal. 1. ver. 8. & 9.
• h 1.257

  Gal. 5.
• i 1.258

  1. Cor. 2.10.
• k 1.259

  Pontificem Ro∣manum succedere Petto in Ecclesiae Monarchia, ex iu∣re Diuino, & ra∣tione successionis probatur. Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. cap. 12. Probatur ex no∣minibus, quae Rom. Pontifici tri∣bui solent. — Sextum est Vica∣rius Christi. Ib. Cap. 31.
• l 1.260

  1. Cor. 1.12.
• m 1.261

  1. Cor. 12.
• n 1.262

  Ephes. 4.11.
• o 1.263

  Vnio cum Pon∣tifice Rom vt cum Capite, est nota Ecclesiae. Bellar. l. de Notis Eccles. c. 10.
• p 1.264

  1. Pet. 5.1.
• * 1.265

  See aboue, Chap. 4. Sect. 14.
• q 1.266

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• r 1.267

  Simon, louest thou me, feed my flocke. Joh. 21.
• * 1.268

  See hereafter, Chap. 13. Sect. 5.
• s 1.269

  Rhemists Annot. on this place, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]
• t 1.270

  Bulla Coenae.
• u 1.271

  Haereticorum Inquisitores, quo∣rum Iurisdictio cùm tota in Theo∣logicis traditioni∣bus, & sacris pagi∣nis fundata esse debeat, ipsi tamen han•• omnem ex iure Canonico & Pontificum De∣cretis crudelissimè exercent: Ipsam sacram Scriptu∣ram veluti mortu∣am literam à ter∣go relinquentes, qui eam vt Haere∣ticis (vt aiunt) scutum & propug∣naculum reji∣ciunt.— sed v∣nam Rom. Eccle∣siam, quae (vt di∣cunt) errate non potest, praefigunt sibi fidei scopum, cui Papa caput est. Non aliud ex∣postulantes, quam si in Rom. Eccle∣siam credant. —Quodsi Inquisitus conetur opinionem suam Scripturae testimonijs, alijs{que} rationibus tueri, — iratis ••uccis dicunt, non esse illi negotium cum Scholaribus, sed cum Iudicibus ad tribunal: — ideo simpliciter esse respondendum, si velit stare Decreto Rom. Ecclesiae: — sin minùs fasciculos & ignes ostendunt, dicen∣tes, cum Haereticis non Argumentis & Scripturis, sed facsiculis & ignibus decertandum. Agrippa de vanit. scient. cap. 96.
• x 1.272

  Paulus Tertius Pont. Anno 1559. senio effoetus — Cardinales in cubiculum ac∣cersi iussit, — deinde ipsos hortatus est, vt in optimo Successore deligendo vota coniungerent. Postre∣mò vt illud sanctissimum (sic illud vocabat) Inquisitionis officium, quo vno S. S. authoritatem niti affirmabat, commendatum haberent. Thuanus Hist. Tom. 2. lib. 16. An. 1559.
• y 1.273

  Relapsus est, qui postquam in iudicium vocatus, & ob haeresin ac∣cusatus & conui∣ctus, eam abiura∣uit, & rursus in eā∣dem haeresim in∣currit. Azor. Jes. Inst. Moral. part. 1. lib. 8. c. 14. Qui si, post Abiuratio∣nem haeresis, dein∣de Haereticos al∣loquitur, reveré∣tur, inuisir, se illis adiungit, eos muneribus afficit, laudat, praedicat, commendat, vt testa••ur Simanc. Azor. ibid. — Quod si rursùs Hae∣reticis adhaeret, eos comitatur, ho∣nore prosequitur, Relapsus censeatur. Sic Archidiac. Andraeas, & alij; Azor. ib. Relapsis, quamuis actâ poeni∣tentiâ, spes omnis veniae denegatur,—& deinde eos Iudici seculari tradit Ecclesia, vt in eos secundum le∣ges animaduertat.—Qui si pertinaces sunt, v••ui igne comburuntur, si verò pertinaces non sunt, prius stran∣gulari solent, & posteà comburi. Quare ante Relapsum, vtitur Ecclesia misericordiâ, cum redeuntibus ab Haeresi, vitam eis concedendo, poenâ mortis in poenam carceris perpetui commutatâ, publicatis tamen bo∣nis. — Post relapsum tamen vtitur Ecclesia seuero Iure, etiam spe veniae denegatâ, etiamsi eos sui peccati poeniteat. — Ob. Sol. Respondet Glossa, Ecclesiam gremium suum redeuntibus non claudere, quià quamuis illis bona & vitam eripiat, non tamen denegat Sacramenta poenitentiae & Eucharistiae. — Ob. Commu∣nem naturam subleuandam esse, nec peccatores deserendos vnquàm. Sol. Subleuatur natura subsidijs ad ani∣mae salutem necessarijs: vel dicendum est. legem suprà citatam tunc temporis editam fuisse, quandò omnes in vniuersum Haereticos ad saniorem mentem reversos recipiebat Ecclesia. [Paulo post quaeritur,] vtrùm latâ semel sententiâ, recipi in gremium possint, si ad saniorem mentem redierint? & resoluitur per et••am, & non. Azor. Ies. quo supra. Etiam Suarez Ies. Relapsi, etiamsi verè poenitentes, poenâ mortis afficiendi, absque vllâ remissione, Ex Iure Cononico expresse probat. — Ratio est quia censentur incorrigibiles, & moralitèr lo∣quendo, &c. Lib. de Trip. virt. theol. disp. 23. Sect. 2. nu. 7.
• * 1.274

  See aboue, Chap. 1. Sect. 3.
• * 1.275

  See in the same place.
• a 1.276

  Quod Graecè 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dicitur, La∣tinè totum vel vniuersum inter∣pretatur: per to∣tum ergò, siuè, se∣cundum totum est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vnde Catholicum nun∣cupatur. Aug. Tom. 7. l. 3. con Gaudent. post princip. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non est vnum sed to∣tum, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 secundum Totum, [vnde Catholica nomen accepit.] Idem Tom. 7. con. Epist. Petil. c. 2.
• b 1.277

  Coepit ista prae∣dicario ab Hieru∣salem, inde se ab illustrissimo exordio diffudit, diffundens Ecclesiam, quam tenemus, primò per vicinia, deinde per longinqua etiam in Asricam venit. In hanc oculos aperuimus, hanc in diuinis eloquijs & testimonijs, sicut ipsum Domi∣num & Redemptorem comperimns. Ab illo Deo Patre, ab hac Ecclesia matre nullius me hominis crimina, nullius calumniae separabunt, Collat. Carthag. 3. num. 230. It is ioyned with Optatus.
• * 1.278

  See aboue Chap. 3. Sect. 3. &c.
• c 1.279

  Quòd sen••it Romae Diaconos Presbyteris ante∣ferri. Quid mihi profers, ait, vrbis consuetudinem? quid paucitate••, de qua ortum est supercilium? Et paulo ante, —si authoritas quae∣ratur, orbis major est quam vrbis. Hier. Tom. 2. ad Euagr, p. 329.
• d 1.280

  Quid ais, Hie∣ronyme? an mag∣nus est Papa quià Romanae praeest Ecclesiae? major autem vniuersa∣lis, quae non vrbē duntaxat, sed totū complectitur or∣bem. Aenaeas Syl∣uius de gestis, Conc. Basil. fol. 5.
• e 1.281

  Vnum ex no∣minibus, ex qui∣bus colligitur Primatus Rom. Pontificis, est Vni∣uersalis Episcopus quod Rom. Ponti∣fici tribui solet. Bellar. l. 2. de Pōt. c. 31. initio.
• f 1.282

  B. Gregorius vitae meritis ho∣norandus, & in moralibus asser∣tionibus cunctis praeferendus, in Sacrarum Scrip∣turarum intelli∣gētia pollens. Ca∣nus Jes. ante Catechis. Conc. Trid. de Encom. Patrum.
• g 1.283

  Vocabulum nouum. Greg. l. 4. Epist. 32. Nullis Praedecessornm, &c. Epist. 36.
• h 1.284

  Leo Papa vni∣uersalis inscribi∣tur in Conc. Chalced. Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 31.
• i 1.285

  Vniuersali Ar∣chiepiscopo mag∣nae Romae. Conc. Chalced. Act. 3.
• k 1.286

  Episcopus vni∣uersalis Ecclesiae, &c. Binius Annot. in Conc. Chalced. Act. 3. ex Baronio.
• l 1.287

  This Causanus confesseth of the Epistle of Anacle∣tus; and Baronius of the Epistle of Pope Boniface.
• * 1.288

  See heereafter Chap. 9. Sect. 9. & 10.
• m 1.289

  Hi duo con∣tendebant, nul∣lum Ecclesiarum Antistitem, imò nec Romanum, sibi hoc nomen assumpsisse Azor. Ies. Inst. Moral. part. 2. lib. 4. cap. 4.
• n 1.290

  Absit, &c. lib. 4. Epist. 32.
• o 1.291

  Nomen vani∣tatis. Epist. 32.
• p 1.292

  Vocabulum prophanum. Ibid. & Ep. 36.
• r 1.293

  Scelestum & nefandum. Ep. 38. & 39.
• s 1.294

  Nomē blasphe∣miae. Ep. 32.
• t 1.295

  Multi, &c. Azor. Ies. quo supra.
• u 1.296

  Si sic, tunc nec Pelagius secūdus, nec Gregorius, nec post eum Leo nonus tàm acriter huic rei restitissent, Azor. Ibid.
• x 1.297

  Pro appellatio∣ne friuoli nominis scandalum, &c. Verba Mauritij à Greg. repetita, l. 6. Ep. 30. ad Mauritiū Imper.
• y 1.298

  Valde friuolū, sed nimis pericu∣losum. Ibid.

  Quisquis se vni∣uersalem sacerdo∣tem vocari desi∣derat, in elatione sua Antichristum prae currit, qui à superbiendo se co••teris praepo∣nit. Greg. Ibid.
• z 1.299

  Illud recusauit, quamuis sibi in aliquo sensu con∣ueniret, ad melius & facilius com∣primendam su∣perbiam Episc. Constantinopoli∣tani, &c. Bellar. de Pont. lib. 1. cap. vlt.
• a 1.300

  Ità humilitatem tenemus in mēte, vt tamen ordinis nostri dignitatem teneamus in ho∣nore. Greg. l. 4. Ep. 36.
• b 1.301

  Vt sic intelli∣gatur Vniuersalis, vt solus Episcopus aliorum, vt alij nō sint Episcopi, sed Vicarij. Bellar. de Pont. l. 2. cap. 31.
• c 1.302

  Dices Episcopū Constantinopoli∣tanum, &c.— Esto—&c.— Azor. Ies. Jnst. par. 2. l. 4. c. 4.
• d 1.303

  Dicit Gregori∣us, nullum Episco∣pum ita principa∣tum gerere, vt omnia membra fint ei subjecta. Card. Cusanus Conc. Eccles. l. 2. c. 34. And so, indeed, are the words of Greg. in his Epist. ad Iohannem Constantinop. Omnibus prae∣esse, nulli subesse vis, &c.
• e 1.304

  Bonifacius ter∣tius à Phoca Imp. obtinuit, vt sedes Petri, sicut est ca∣put omnium Ec∣clesiarum, ità di∣ceretur & habe∣retur: Quem quidem locum Ecclesia Constā∣tinop. sibi vendi∣care conabatur. Platina in vita Bonifacij, & Bal∣bus de coronat. Obtinuit à Phoca, vt Rom. sedes om∣ninò & absolutè prima diceretur, ••este Paulo Dia∣cono, qui circa illa tempora vixit: —cùm priùs Constantinopo∣litana se primum omnium Ecclesia∣rum diceret. Mas∣son. in vita Boni∣fa••. 3. & Polyd. Virg. l. 4. Iuuent. c. 9 Etiam citantur ab alijs Rhegino, Anastas. Her∣man. Contract. Marianus Scotus, Sabellicus, Otto Frisingens.
• f 1.305

  Baron. Anno 603. num. 9.
• g 1.306

  Vniuersa Ecclesia corruit, quandò is, qui vniuersalis appellatur, cadit. Greg. l. 4. Epist. 32.
• h 1.307

  In isto scelesto vocabulo consentire, est nihil aliud quàm fidem perdere. I••▪ Ep. 39.
• * 1.308

  See aboue, lit. y.
• i 1.309

  Pontifex in definiendo infal∣libiliter iudicat— qui si posset vt persona publica in definendo e••∣rare contra fidem, & teneretur Ec∣clesia tota eam sequi, ità fieret vt Ecclesia vniuersa posset errare: quod est Haere sis intolerabilis. Greg. de Valent. Analys. fid. l. 8. c. 3. & alibi sapiùs.
• * 1.310

  See aboue in this Chap. Sect. 6.
• a 1.311

  Quaero igitur, vnde Dionys••j hu∣ius silentium de ••apite visibili Ec∣clesiae in terris Ro∣mae regnante, &c. —Petrus supre∣mus dicitur [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] quod apud Graecos ho∣noris excellentiam denotat, non dominij. In qua voce Maximus & Pachymeres duo Interpretes Dio∣nysij eruditiss. ac diligentiss. nullam dominationem inueniunt. Casaub. Exercit. 16. in Baron. ad finem. scil. Anno. 34. num 209.
• b 1.312

  Idem dicimus de Epistolis Ig∣natij Martyris & Episcopi Antio∣cheni —Hic in singulis ferè Epi∣stolis dignitatem Episcopalem miro studio asserit, & totum ordinem Ecclesiasticum in illis epistolis est inuenire—De Monarchia autem vel Petri, vel Ro∣mani Pontificis vir hic sanctus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. — Ob. Sol. Epistolam eius ad Romanos 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 esse, Graecè periti numquam sinent se persuaderi. Ca∣saub. ibid.
• c 1.313

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Ignat. E∣pist. ad Trallens.
• d 1.314

  Discite ab Apostolicis Ecclesijs, Habetis Romae Linum,—& Polycarpum Smyrnae ab Apostolis edo∣ctum, &c. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. p. 140.142. As for the words [Propter Principalitatem] they are answered here∣after.
• e 1.315

  Constat omnem doctrinam, quae cum Matricibus & Originalibus Ecclesijs conspirat, veri••ati deputandam. Tert. Praescript. p. 76. Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum à Iohanne collo∣catum refert, sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit: proinde vtique, &c. p. 80. Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas— proxima est tibi Achaia, habes Corinthum. &c. p. 82. In Italia Romani. &c.
• * 1.316

  See the Testimonie next before, Sicut Smyrnaeorum &c.
• f 1.317

  Tertullianus Ecclesiam vnam Apostolicam nulli loco affigit—Ro∣manam Ecclesi∣am or••at magni∣ficae laudis elogio, — non tamen tan∣tam illam facit, quantam hodiè fi∣eri videmus: nam Apostolicis Ec∣clesijs illam nu∣merat, non solam facit Apostoli∣cam. Videamus quod Lac à Paulo Corinthij hause∣rint. Si superesset Tertullianus, non impunè illud dice∣ret. Rhenanus Argum. in Tert. de Praescrip. & alibi. Jmpress. Basil. 1521.
• g 1.318

  Index Expurg. Belg. p. 78. Dele∣antur, &c.
• * 1.319

  Matrices & O∣riginales. Tert. lib. de Praescript. Cap. 21.
• h 1.320

  Huic (nempè Canoni Nicaenae Synods) omnes Ecclesiae assensae sunt Hispaniae, Britanniae, Galliae, Italiae totius, Dal∣matiae. Athanas. & reliqui Episcopi Aegypti ad Im∣perat. test•• Theo∣doret. Hist. l. 4. c. 3.
• i 1.321

  In Ephesina Synodo Petrus Alexandrinus — sed nec sola Graecia & oriens tantùm, verùm etiam occidentalis & Latinus o••bis ità sensisse approbetur. Lectae sunt — Epistolae Felicis & Iulij vrbis Romae Episcoporum. &c. Lyri∣nen. cap 42.
• k 1.322

  Absit vt Con∣stantinopolitanus Iohannes de par∣vulorum liberati∣one per Christum tot ac tantis Coë∣piscopis suis, maxi∣méque Romano Innocentio, Car∣thaginensi Cypri∣ano, Cappadoci Basilio, Gregorio Nazianzeno, Gallo Hilario, Mediolanensi Ambrosio resistat. Aug. cont. Iulian. Pelag. l. 1. cap 2.
• l 1.323

  Dominis ho∣noratissimis, & cum-primis Reue∣rendis fra••ribus & collegis Damaso, Ambrosio, Britto∣ni, &c. Apud Theodoret. hist. l. 5 cap. 9.
• m 1.324

  Epist. Aegypti Epis. ad Leonem Augustum. Con∣sentimus vnani∣miter cum vniuer∣sis totius orbis Christi sacerdoti∣bus, & prae omni∣bus cum summis Sanctis Episcopis, i. e. Romano Leone, Regiae Constantinopolis Anatolio, Antiocheno Basilio, & Iuuenale Hierosolymorum. Teste Binio Tom. 2. inter Epist. illustrium personarum, p 147.
• n 1.325

  Conc. Catthag. 3. cap 48. Placuit vt consulamus fratres consacerdotes nostros Sy••ici••um & Simplicianum (de infantibus qui baptizantur.) Apud Surium. Tom. 1. Conc.
• o 1.326

  Post Photium Patriarcham Con∣stantinopol. Ro∣manis Pontificibus conniuentibus, illud vsurpari coeptum est, vt am∣bo Episcopi, Ro∣manus sc. & Con∣stantinopolitanus à Graecis Oecu∣menici. i. Vniuer∣sales dicerentur, hic quidem in Oriente Oecume∣nicus, ille Oecu∣menicus in Occi∣dente. Azor. Ies. Moral. Inst part, 2. l. 4. c. 4.
• * 1.327

  Acts 15.
• a 1.328

  Vt non ad communionem vestram à nobis excommunicatos vltràvelitis arripe∣re, quià hoc Nice∣no Concilio defi∣nitum facilè ad∣uertet venerabili∣tas tua. Apud Surium Tom. 1. Conc. African. Epist. ad Coelest. c. 105.
• b 1.329

  Mos antiquus perdurat in Ae∣gypto, vel Lybia, & Pentapoli, vt Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, quoniam quidem & Episcopo Rom. parilis mos est. Binius Tom. 1. in Conc. Nic. 1. Can. 6.
• c 1.330

  Sensus est, quià ità Pontifex Rom. consueuit permit∣tere. Bellar. l. 2. de Pot. c. 13. §. Quarta.
• * 1.331

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— quoniam etiam, &c. vid. supra. a•• b.
• * 1.332

  See hereafter.
• * 1.333

  See below, Chap. 9. Sect. 9. & 10.
• d 1.334

  Quoniam pari∣lis mos est.] Id est, sicut Romanus habet omnium suorum Episcopo∣rum potestatem, ità & Alexandri∣nus ex more ha∣bet per Aegyptum, &c. Card. Cusan. Conterd. Cath. l. 2. cap. 12.
• e 1.335

  Videmus quan∣tum Rom. Ponti∣fex vltra antiquas obseruationes ex vsu & consuetudi∣ne subiectionalis obedientiae hodiè acquisiuit. Cusan. ib.
• f 1.336

  Conditio iniqua —Bellar. l. 1. de Conc. c. 21. §. 4. Conditio.
• g 1.337

  Euangelici & A∣postolici libri pla∣nè instruunt nos quid de rebus di∣uinis sentiendum sit: proinde omni hostili discordiâ positâ, ex verbis diuinitùs inspiratis sumamus quaestio∣nū explicationes. Theodoret. lib. 1. c. 7
• h 1.338

  Magnus Impe∣rator Constanti∣nus, sed non mag∣nus Ecclesiae Do∣ctor, &c. Bellar. l. 4 de verbo Dei. c. 11. §. Respondeo.
• i 1.339

  Ista, alia{que} de eodem genere, dùm doctrinae A∣postolicae consen∣sum stabilite moli∣retur, [Constanti∣nus] tanquàm fi∣lius Patris aman∣tiss. Episcopis & Sacerdotibus pro∣posuit: Et maxima pars Concilij ver∣bis eius obtempe∣••auit. Theod. quo supra.
• k 1.340

  Secundū Conc. generale in Epist. ad Damasum, quae extat apud Theod. l. 5. hist. c. 9. dicit se conuenisse apud vrbem Constanti∣nop. ex mandato literarum Pontifi∣cis per Imperato∣rem ad se missa••ū. Et. ibidem fatetur Rom. Ecclesiam caput esse, se au∣tem membra. Bel∣lar. l. 2. de Pont c. 13. §. Secundum.
• l 1.341

  Sed posteà animaduerti, eam Epistolam non esse secundae Synodi generalis, sed Episcoporū qui in eo Synodo interfuerant, & sequente Annoiterum Constantinopoli conuene∣rant.—Congregatam tamen fuisse ex mandato Damasi, satis probatur ex Conc. 6. Act, 18. Bel. Recog. p. 46. in hoc Conc.
• m 1.342

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••.e. An∣no praeterito, vel proximè elapso; vt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, frumentum Anni superioris: Et a∣pud Xenoph. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Iidem nunc sumus, qui ante hoc tem∣pus.
• n 1.343

  Synodicae Epi∣stolae Inscriptio. Dominis honora∣tissimis & cum pri∣mis Reuerendis fratribus & Colle∣gis Damaso, Am∣brosio, Britoni, &c. Vt nos vobis pro∣pria membra ostenderemus,— nè vos sine nobis ••egnaretis, & nos vobiscum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theod. loco supra citato.
• o 1.344

  Binnius Tom. 1. in Conc. Constan. Can. 2. Noua Ro∣ma, seu iunior Roma.
• p 1.345

  Hunc Canonem ab Ecclesia Rom. minimè receptum fuisse constat, &c. Binius in Notis su∣per idem Conc.
• * 1.346

  See aboue, Sect. 2. lit. c.
• q 1.347

  Canon hic inter Acta Concilij fur∣tiuè relatus, Baron. Anno 381. nu. 35. &c.
• r 1.348

  Conc. Chalced. Act. 16.
• s 1.349

  Conc. Chalced. Act. 16. Relatio sanctae Synodi ad Papam Leonem. Confirmauimus autem centum & quinquaginta san∣ctorum Patrum, qui in Constanti∣nopoli congregati sunt, regulam — quae praecepit, post vestram sanctissi∣mam & Apostoli∣cam sedem, hono∣rem habere Con∣stātinopolitanam, quae secunda est ordinata. — Qui locum vestrae Sanctitatis obti∣nent —Pascha∣sinus & Lucentius — ijs ità consti∣tutis vehementer resistere tentaue∣runt. Apud Biniū Tom. 2. Act. 16.
• t 1.350

  Concilium dicit, se Nestorium de∣ponere ex manda∣to literarum Pon∣tificis.—Et in Epist. ad Celesti∣num scribit, se Io∣hannis Antiocheni Patriarchae cau∣sam non fuisse au∣sum iudicare, sed reseruâsse Iudicio ipsius Celestini. Quae omnia perspicuè indicant supremam Rom. Pontificis authoritatem. Bellar•• de Pont lib. 2. cap. 13. § Tertium.
• u 1.351

  Hoc verbum Iussionis a meo auditu remouete. Ego non Iussi. Greg. lib. 7. Epist. 30.
• x 1.352

  Cùm partim ex ipsius Epistolis & libris, à nobis per∣lectis, partim ex verbis ab eo in hac vrbe recitatis, eum impiè sensisse deprehenderimus, tùm Ecclesiae Ca∣nonibus, tum Epi∣stolâ sanctss. Patris nostri & Collegae Celestini Episcopi Rom. Ecclesiae compulsi, ad sen∣tentiam contra eum pronuncian∣dam venimus. Ver∣ba Concilij de Ne∣storio apud Euag. lib. 1. cap. 4.
• * 1.353

  See aboue, lit. ••.
• y 1.354

  Epistola Syno∣dalis, post acta Conc. ad Celesti∣num. Vbi dicit Con∣ciliū se Iohannem Antiochenum Ce∣lestino reseruâsse: dicit tamen se il∣lum prius excom∣municâsse, & omni potestate Sacer∣dotali exuisse. Cur ergo Celestino eum amandauit? Concilium se expli∣cat; vt illius teme∣ritatem animi le∣nitate vincere∣mus. Id est, vt ex∣periretur Celesti∣nus, si qua ratione ad saniorem men∣tem eum reddere queat, vt deinde in gratiam reciperetur. Haec apud Binium Tom. 1. pag. 806.
• z 1.355

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Conc. cap. 17.
• a 1.356

  Pertinacitèr Haereticum. Con∣cil. Basil. Sess. 33. vbi etiam mentio facta est Conc. Constant.
• b 1.357

  Quamuis nullo Decreto publico, tamen tacito Do∣ctorum consensu definita, &c. Sta∣pleton. doctrin. princip. l. 13. c. 15.
• c 1.358

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Comminister. Epist. Synod. suprae obiect. in tit.
• d 1.359

  Est casus reser∣uatus (secundum doctrinam Casu∣istarum) crimen graue, cuius ab∣solutio inferiori∣bus interdicta, dum{que} reseruatur Papae. Stephanus d' Aluin. de Episc. Abbat, &c. cap. 31.
• e 1.360

  Ea quae Celesti∣nus depositione Pelagij, aliorum{que} constituit, in Sy∣nodo perlecta Iu∣dicauimus & nos (inquiunt) firma & solida permanere debere: quare & nos idem sentien∣tes, itidem & eos pro depositis ha∣bemus. Epist. Sy∣nod. Apud Binium quo suprà.
• f 1.361

  Zenon Episeo∣pus Curij Cypri dixit: A sanctis Apostolis numquàm possunt ostendere, quod affuerit Antiochenus, & ordinaueri••, vel com∣municauerit vnquàm Insulae ordinationis gratiam, neque alius quispiam. — Synodus Sancta dixit, — In Cypro Praesules, secundum Canones Sanctorum Patrum (namely at Nice) & veterem consuetudinem per seipsos ordinationes pientissimorum Episcoporum faciant. Apud Binium Tom. 2. Act. Conc. Ephes. Append. 1. cap. 4. pag. 768.
• g 1.362

  Istud autem etiam in alijs dioecesibus, & in omnibus prouin∣cijs seruetur, vt nullus Episcopus aliam p••ouin∣ciam, quae non antea, & ab initio fuit sua, sub suam manum trahat. —nè sa∣cerdotij pr••••textu, mundanae potestatis fastum subintroducat. Jdem Ibidem.
• * 1.363

  See heereafter Chap. 9. §. 8. & 9. &c.
• h 1.364

  Conc Chalce∣don. Act. 1.2. & 3. dicit, Pontifici Rom. à Deo ipso vineae. i e. Eecle∣siae vniuersae custodiam com∣missam esse. Bel∣lar. de Pont. l. 2. cap. 13.
• i 1.365

  Eleutherij Papae Decretal. ad Gal∣liae prouincias, ad finem Hujus rei gratiâ, vniuersalis vobis à Christo Iesu commissa est Ecclesia, vt pro omnibus labore∣tis, & cunctis opē ferre non negli∣gatis. Apud Bini∣um Tom. 1. Ep. Decret. Eleuther.
• k 1.366

  Id est, Dùm Haeretici vniuer∣sam Ecclesiam oppugnarunt, non modò Episcopis, sed vnicuique Christiano eius defendendae cura & studium demādata sunt. Binius Annot. Ibid.
• * 1.367

  2 Cor. 11.28.
• l 1.368

  Greg. Nazian. de Athanasio. Cui creditur populi Alexandrini praesidentia, quod per indè est (inquit) ac si dicam totius orbis praefectura. Id est, sic praefuit, vt vniuersis praeesset, &c. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 16. in. 1 Pet. 5. disp. 8. pag. 102.
• m 1.369

  Canones & Decreta Concilij, quae ad jus huma∣num spectant, Po∣test Pontifex Rō. ex toto, vel ex parte delcre aut mutare. Haec est Theologorum & Canonistarum communis opinio. Ratio enim est, quoniam supremam gubernandi Ecclesiam potestatem habet Azor. Ies. Just. Moral. par. 2. l. 5. c. 14. §. Q••rrtò quaeritur.
• o 1.370

  Patres hujus Synodi (nempe Chalcedonensis) priuilegia aequalia Constantinopo∣litanae sedi dede∣runt cum Roma, propter imperium ciuitatis,— Huic post Leo Papa re∣stitit. Bellar. l. 2. de Pont c. 18.
• p 1.371

  Rom. Pontificē succedere Petro in Ecclesiasti•••• Monarchia Ec∣clesiae, probatur jure diuino. Bel∣lar. Jb. cap. 12.
• q 1.372

  Sciendum est, tempore Nicolai secundi, Petrum Damiani—à Pontifice Rom. Legatum missum fuisse,—& in Ecclesia Mediola∣nensi, conuocato populo,—Quae (inquit) prouincia in terris à Pontifi∣cis ditione libera? — Ecclesiam Rom. à deo ipso fundatam esse, &c. Teste Azor Ies. Instit. par. 2 l 4. c. 17.
• r 1.373

  Supponit hoc Concilium, quòd Rom. sedes tunc non diuino, sed humano jure primatum habe∣ret. Binius An∣not in Act. 15. Conc. Chalced.
• s 1.374

  Senserunt Rom. Ecclesiam Primatum habuisse, eò quòd ea ciuitas impe∣tio orbis terrae potiretur. Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont c. 17. §. Alterum.
• t 1.375

  Decretum illud magni Concilij, sed non legitimè factum, absentibus Romanae sedis legatis, & posteà reclamantibus. Bellar. Ibid. §. Quarè. Nam Leo Papa scribit, se Concilium illud approbasse, solùm quantum ad explicationem fidei. Epist. 59. Sic Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 22. §. Secundo.
• u 1.376

  Sed ita vsus obtinuit longo tempore. Cusan. Card. Cōcord. Cath. lib. 1. c. 16.
• x 1.377

  Hoc quintum Concilium vni∣uersale fuisse, at∣testatur Nicaenum Conc. 2. Act. 1. Pa∣pa Pelagius ap∣probauit.— De quo Greg. primus Epist. 24. ad Ioh. Constantinop. ait, Quintum quo{que} Concilium vene∣ror.—Nec Gre∣gorius tantum, cū Praedecessoribus Romanis Pontifi∣cibus, sed & succes∣sores omnes hanc Quintam Synodū receperunt. Barō. Anno. 553. num. Tom. 2. Notis ad 224, &c. Binius Conc. Constant. 5.
• y 1.378

  Anthimii causa ab Agapeto Papa condemnata. Biniu•• Tom. ••. p. 416. Post in Synodo Constantinopol. ven∣tilata. Idem in Not. Conc. Constant: sub Menna.
• z 1.379

  In quo Concilio Vigilius Synodali sententiae de condemnandis tribus Capitulis plane contradicebat.—Post finem Conc. Iustinianus Vigilium relegabat.—Post exilium Pontifex Synodum hanc, de condemnatione trium Capp. authoritate suâ confirmabat.—Post absolutum Con••. Oecumenicum ab exilio solutus ab Imp. acerrimo trium Capitulorum hoste, in Italiam redire permissus est.—Ne quis tamen de hac causa Vigilio sedi{que} Apostolicae errorem vel turpitudinis ma∣culam impingere possit, sciendum est, in his Disputationibus, teste Greg. l. 3 Epist 37 de tribus Capp. non fuisse quaestionem vllam de fide, sed tantummodò de personis. Cum igitur Schismatis euitandi gratiâ Vigilius pro defensione trium Capp. constitutum ederet, cuius virtute Orientales vnirentur.— Cùm verò post finem hu∣jus Conc. Q••inti Ecclesia grauiori damno afficeretur, Imperator cōtradicentes Synodali decreto persequere∣retur, totus{que} Oriens à Rom. atque occidentali Ecclesia diuidendus atque separandus metueretur, si non Rō. Pontisex Quintam Synodum approbaret, idcirco Vigilius nouis emergentibus causis jure merito{que} priorem sententiam mutauit. Baron. Anno. 553. num. 223. Binius Tom. 2. Conc. Not in Conc. quint. Oecumen.
• a 1.380

  Factâ à no∣bis condemna∣tione contra Hae∣reticos, & eorum impietaem, nec non contra eos qui defenderunt, vel defendunt tria Capitula, Sic ipsum Conc. ad fi∣nem eius, ante Sub∣scriptiones. Collat. 8. apud Biniū. Tria Capitula erant Theodorus, Mop∣suestenus, Epistola Ibae, & Scripta Theodoreti ad∣uersus Cyrillum. Binius Jbid. Tom. 2. Annot. in in id. Concil. 5. Oecumen.
• b 1.381

  Quatuor Syno∣dos Sanctae Vni∣uersalis Ecclesiae, veluti quatuor libros Sancti Euā∣gelij, recipimus. Greg. l. 1. Epist. 24.
• * 1.382

  See aboue. lit. x.
• c 1.383

  Haec Synodus per Menam Patri∣archam Concilij Praesidem ita lo∣quitur: Nos, in∣quit, Apostolicam sedem sequimur, & obedimus, &c. Si totum Conc. Apostolicae sedi obedire se profite∣tur, certè Aposto∣lica sedes toti Ec∣clesiae cum autho∣ritate praeest. Bel∣lar. l. 2. de Pont. c. 13
• * 1.384

  Sciunt Graecae linguae periti, ver∣bum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nul∣lam vt plurimùm Dominatio nis habere signisica∣tionem: nam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saepè dicitur à Graecis, cùm vel par, vel etiam inferior superiorem alloquitur. Sic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 de eo vsur∣pa••ur, qui suadentis & monentis consiliū probat & sequitur, vt aeger Medici. Jsaac. Casaub. Exercit 16. num. 161.
• d 1.385

  Sexta Synodus Vniuersalis Con∣stantinopoli ce∣lebrata Anno 685. Episcoporum 289. in qua damnata est Haeresis eorū, qui vnam tantùm in Christo volun∣tatem esse vole∣bant. Bellar. l. 1. de Conc. c. 5. §. Sexta. Septima ad Nicae∣am, An. 781. Epis∣coporum 350. Bel∣lar. Jbid. §. Septi∣ma.
• e 1.386

  Patres Sextae Synodi, qui Ho∣norium damna∣narunt, fuerunt decepti.—De∣cepti septimae Synodi Patres, qui Sextae Synodi sententiam con∣firmabant. De∣ceptus Adrianus Papa, qui Hono∣rium Haereticum fuisse putabat. Deceptus Leo secundus, qui Pa∣pam Honorium vt Haereticum execratus est. Nā accidere potest, vt Conc. Genera∣le erret in mate∣ria facti, non fidei. Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. cap. 11. per totum.
• g 1.387

  Greg. de Valent. Ies. Anal. fidei. lib. 8. cap. 2. & Bel∣lar. de Pont.
• h 1.388

  Cum his simul proijci à Sancta Dei Eccle∣sia simúlque A∣n athematizari praeuidimus Ho∣norium, qui fuerat Papa antiquae Ro∣mae, eò quod inue∣nimus per scripta, quae ab eo facta sunt ad Sergium, quod eius men∣tem per omnia se∣cutus est, & im pia dogmata confir∣mabat. Surius Tom. 2. Conc in Sy∣nod. 6. Constant. Act. 13. p. 992. &c. Idem habe•• de Sergio.
• i 1.389

  Honorium quo∣modò ab errore vindicabir? quem Haereticum fuisse tradit Psellus, Tha∣ràsius, Epiphaniu••, Beda, totaque do∣nique Septima Synodus.—A∣drianus, Agatho Haereticum esse iudicabant. Canus loc. theol. lib. 6. c. 8. pag. 213.
• * 1.390

  See aboue lit ••.
• k 1.391

  Octauum Conc. Generale est Constantinopoli∣tanum quartum Anno 870. Epis. cop. 383. ap. Bin. Tom. 3. p. 143.
• l 1.392

  Quoniam in∣telleximus Roma∣nam ciuitatem in Sanctis Quadra∣gesimae ieinnijs in eius Sabbatis je∣iunare, praeter Ecclesiae tradi∣tam consuetudi∣nem, —Sanctae Synodo visum est, vt in Romanorum Ecclesia Canon inconfusè vires habeat. Biniu Tom. 3. pag. 149.
• m 1.393

  Hic quoque Canon 55. quia Matrem Eceesia∣rum omnium Rom. Ecclesiam repraehendit, non recipitur. Surius Tom. 2. in Conc. Constant. 6. p. 1048 ad Canon. 65. in No••. Bin.
• * 1.394

  See aboue, Cha. 1. Sect. 2. &c.
• * 1.395

  See aboue, Chap. 1. Sect. 1.3. &c.
• n 1.396

  Victor Papa Ecclesias omnes orientales ob Pas∣chae diem Excom∣municabat. Bellar. l. 3. de verbo Dei. c. 6. §. Secundo. Sal∣meron Jes. Com. in Gal. 4. disp. 29. Binius Tom. 1. Conc. p. 131. Quod Victor sen∣tentiam suam mu∣tauerit, nunquam legitur. Bellar. l. 2. de Pont. cap. 19. §. Resp. Qui au∣tem in hoc schis∣mate avulsi sunt ab Ecclesia, per∣manserunt in eo, & quidem in lon∣gum tempus. Baron. Ann. 198. num. 17.
• o 1.397

  Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. ca. 23. & 24.
• p 1.398

  Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 24.25.
• q 1.399

  Hier. Tom. 1. Catal. in Tit. Poly∣crates.
• * 1.400

  Idem ibid. Tit. Irenaeus.
• s 1.401

  Irenaeus horta∣batur Victorem, ne tam multas Ecclesias à cor∣pore vniuersae Ec∣clesiae Christi pe∣nitus ampure••. Joh. Christoph. interp. Euseb. Hist. l. 5. cap. ••4.
• t 1.402

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. ib.
• u 1.403

  Master Brere∣wood in his Enqui∣rie of diuers Reli∣gions, out of Iacob. à Vitriac. de Hist. Orient. pag. 73.
• a 1.404

  Cùm igitur vi∣disset Cyprianus Stephanum obni∣tentem ijs, quae in Concilio Africano de Baptismate Haereticorum sta∣tuta fuerant, haud cunctatus est ma∣iore numero E∣piscoporum Car∣thagine aliud Cō∣cilium celebrare. Conuocatis igitur ex Africâ, Numi∣diâ, Mauritaniâ Episcopis 87.— Cyprianus [Ste∣phano Papae Roma∣no aliter definienti opposuit.] Baronius anno 238. num. 47.
• b 1.405

  Constat. Cor∣n••lium Papam, cum nationali Sy∣nodo omnium E∣piscoporum Ita∣liae, statuisse non debere Haereticos rebaptizari, & eandem sententiam ••ostea approbasse Stephanum Papam. Bellar. lib. 2. de Concilijs. ca••. 5. Sed Cyprianus in Concilio 80. Episcoporum definit Haereticos esse rebaptizandos; pu∣tauit enim Pontificem pernitiosè errâsse, & Stephano Papae seriò praecipienti parere noluit: sed verba contu∣meliosa protulit, vocans eum superbum, imperitum, & caecae mentis Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pontifice. cap. 7. §. Tertio Ratio, &c. Ex Eusebio lib. 7. cap. 2.
• c 1.406

  Sciunt quo reuertuntur. Nam cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis vt—causa illic audiatur, vbi est crimen admissum, — oporter eos quibus praesumus non circum-cur∣sare,—nisi si paucis desperatis & perditis minor videtur esse auctoritas Episcoporum in Africâ constitutorum, &c.— Iam causa eo••um cognita est, iam de ijs dicta sententia est. Cyprianus Epistola 55. ad Cornel.
• d 1.407

  Concilium Carthaginense sub Cypriano Episcopo. Superest vt hac ipsâ de re, quid singuli sentiamus, proferamus; neminem iudicantes, aut à iure communionis aliquem, si diuersum senserit, amouentes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, aut Tyrannico terrore, ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suas adigit, quando habeat omnis Episcopus, pro licentiâ libertatis & potestatis suae, arbitrium proprium, tanquam iudicari ab alio non possit, cùm n••c ipse possit alium iudicare. Sed expecte∣mus vniuersi iudicium Domini nostri Iesu Christi, qui solus habet potestatem — de actu nostro iudicandi. Apud Surium Tom. 1. Concil. in Conc. Carthag. Alludit ad Decretum Stephani Papae— qui aliter sentientibus poenam Excommunicationis acriter comminatus est. Binius Tom. 1. Notis in hoc Concilium, ex Baronio.
• e 1.408

  Bellarm. lib. 2 de Rom. Pont. cap. 31. in initio. Per Antonomasiam Papa, &c.
• f 1.409

  In eius Passione, Proconsuli quaerenti ab eo, An tu is es, quem Christiani suum Papam vocant? respondit Cyprianus, Ego. Pontius de Passione Cypriani, an••e opera eiu••. Non se••ùs Baronius: Proconsul dixit, Is ne tu es, qui hominibus ••e Papam praebuisti? Cyprianus, Ego. Anno 261. num. 30.
• g 1.410

  Baronius, Anno 258. nu. 14. & 15. Ex Epistolis Firmi∣liani, apud Cypria∣num Epist. 75. & ex Eusebio lib. 7. cap. 4. Orientis Episco∣pos ex Cappado∣ciâ, Ciciliâ, Gala∣tiâ omnes in eâ sententiâ persi∣stentes commu∣nione priuabat.
• h 1.411

  Cùm Stepha∣nus Episcopus Romae vrbis Cy∣prianum, quod in ipso erat, repelle∣ret, & Episcopos ad ipsum ex Afri∣câ legatos, nec ad sermonem com∣munis colloquij admitteret, & prae∣ciperet vniuersae fraternitati, — vt venientibus non solùm pax & com∣munio, sed & tectum & hospitium negaretur: insuper & Cyprianum ipsum Pseudo-Christum & dolosum operarium diceret. Haec scribit Firmilianus Episcopus è Cappadociâ ad Cyprianum; cuius Firmiani meminit Eusebius Hist. li. 6. ca. 25. & l. 7. ca. 13· Ad quem Stephanus scripsit, non esse communicandum ijs, qui ad Haere∣ticos transeuntes rebaptizant. Cassander. Consult. Art. 7.
• i 1.412

  Excommunica∣tio maior priuat omnibus contentis sub hoc versiculo [Os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negetur] per Os intelligitur parti∣cipatio colloquij; per cōmunionem, simul conuersari: per mensam, par∣ticipatio come∣dendo Nauarr. Vol. 2 Tom. 3. c. 27. §. Quid operatur.
• k 1.413

  Etsi occisu•• propter nomen Christi, post-mo∣dum fuerit extra Ecclesiam consti∣tutus, & ab Vnita∣te & charitate di∣uisus, coronari morte non pote∣rit. Cyprian. lib. 4. Epist. 2.
• l 1.414

  Non habet Deū Patrem, qui non habet Ecclesiam matrem. Cyprian. lib. de Simplicitate Praelatorum.
• m 1.415

  Costerus Jes. part. 3. Praefatione. De Vnitate Eccle∣siae, seu simplicita∣te Praelatorum. Sic etiam Bellar∣minus & alij.
• n 1.416

  Cyprianus in E∣pistola ad Pompei∣um. Stephanus Haereticorum cau∣sam contra Eccle∣siam Dei asserere conatur.— quo∣modo potest ha∣bere Deum pa∣trem, qui non ha∣bet Eccesiam ma∣trem? Et paulò post. Cur tantum Stephani nostri dura obstinatio prorupit?
• o 1.417

  Alludit &c. Nemo nostrum, &c. See aboue lit. d.
• p 1.418

  Laudabili tergi uersatione vtens, ea relinquere ma∣luit obuoluta si∣lentio. Baronius anno 258. num. 40.
• q 1.419

  Correxisse au∣tem istam senten∣tiam non inueni∣tur. August. Epist. 48. Et lib. 1. de Bap∣tismo. cap. 18.
• r 1.420

  Jnter Epistolas Cypriani 75. Pec∣catum verò quàm magnum tibi ex∣aggerasti, quando te à tot gregibus scidisti? De Ste∣phano Papa loqui∣tur. Hoc est ser∣uâsse spiritum vni∣tatis in vniculo pacis, abscindere se à charitatis V∣nione? Ibidem.
• s 1.421

  See aboue.
• t 1.422

  Obijciunt Ba∣ronius & Pame∣lius Epistolam Di∣onysij Alexandri∣ni apud Eusebium lib. 7. cap. 4. quâ scribit ad Stepha∣num Papam, per∣secutionis flucti∣bus sedatis, omnes Orientales Ecclesias, nouâ & peruersâ Nouati Haeresi repudiatâ, pacem inter se cōciliasse, ad concordiam esse redactos, & inter alios Ecclesiae Doctores — Firmiliani meminit. Respondet noster Re∣uittus, Annotat in Cyprian. Inter se reconciliati dicuntur, non autem cum Pontifice & Occidentalibus; aut Haeresin Nouati eiurantes, propterea alterum Decretum de Rebaptizando antiquasse. Nam illam secundam controuersiam de Rebaptizando nondum fuisse sublatam ostendit idem Dionysius, ibidem loci, in Epistolâ ad Xistum Stephani Successorem, qui cum eodem Xisto adhuc viuente in illum adhuc inclinaret, rogaret{que} vt attenta cogitatione rei magnitudinem contemplaretur, audire enim se Decreta in maximis Episcoporum Concilijs facta fuisse, vt qui ab Haeresis impietate recedunt, debeant primùm fide institui, deinde veteris & impuri fermenti eluuie ac sordibus ablui. His adde, quòd Basilius ad Amphilochium scribens, de hac ipsâ controuersiâ quid sentiret, de Firmiliano ita loquitur, ac si in illâ sententiâ mortuus sit. Haec noster Reuittus in suo Crit. Sacr. cap. 7.
• u 1.423

  Cyprianus sem∣per est habitus in numero Catholi∣corum. Bellar. l. 2. de Concilijs. cap. 5. §. 1.
• x 1.424

  Praeclarissimus Doctor (vt ait Au∣gustinus) & Mar∣tyr gloriosissimus. Canisius Ies. Cate∣chis. in init. En∣com. Patrum.
• y 1.425

  Septembris die 26.
• z 1.426

  Cyprianus non solùm Ecclesiae Africanae, vt ait Nazianzenus, sed etiam toti Occi∣denti praefuit, im∣mo Orienti fere ipsi, & Meridiei & Septentrioni. Sal∣meron. Ies. Com∣ment. in 1. Pet. 5. disp. 8. §. Et dicen∣do.
• * 1.427

  See aboue, at u.
• * 1.428

  Binius.
• * 1.429

  See after, cap. 13 §. 21.
• a 1.430

  Concil. ex Epis∣copis 217. Suriu•• Tom. 1. Concil. Scandalum non leue, immania flagitia, turpitudi∣nes nefandas. Item Binius Tom. 1. Concil. Carthag. 6. in Not. §. Causa. & §. De modo.
• b 1.431

  Quamuis enim plurimos codices legerem us, tamen nunquā in Nicae∣no Concilio in la∣tinis codicibus, in nullo Graeco Co∣dice ea potuimus inuenire. Surius Tom. 1. Concil. pag. 589.
• c 1.432

  Epistola Cyrilli Alexandrini. Ex∣emplaria Authen∣tica Epist. Attici Patriarchae Con∣stantinop. verissi∣mos Canones. Surius Tom. 1. Conc. Ibid.
• d 1.433

  Sic Bellar. lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. Cap. 25. §. Respon∣demus.
• e 1.434

  Baronius An∣no 347, num. 34. & 99. Bellar. quo su∣pra & Binius Annotat. in Conc. Sard.
• f 1.435

  Augustinus non agnoscit alium Concilium Sar∣dicense, quàm quoddam Haere∣ticum Orientaliū. — Catholicum nullum vidit. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap 25. §. Adde.
• g 1.436

  Vt patet ex Athanasio Apol. 2. Magnum Con¦cilium. Socrates lib. 2. Cap. 16. Con∣cilium generale. Su••pitius Seuerus Epist. lib. 2. Impe∣rator iubet apud Sardicam, Conci∣lium congregari. Iustinian in Edicto contra Triae Capi¦••ula vocat Vniuer∣sale Concilium. Et Conciliū Chal∣cedonense mentio∣nem facit Sardi∣censis. Numerus Episcoporum 344. Primum Concilium Carthaginense tempore Iulij, de quo Grantianus. Sic decretum est in Sanctissimo Sardicensi Con∣cilio.
• h 1.437

  Baronius Anno 347. num. 97.
• i 1.438

  Binnius Annotat. in Concilium Sar∣dicense. pag. 439.
• k 1.439

  In nullâ patrum Synodo inueni∣mus constitutum. Conc. Afric. c. 105. Apud Sur.
• m 1.440

  Papa Monar∣cha Ecclesiae. San∣derus lib. de visibili Monarchiâ. Bel∣larmin lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. cap. 5. Costerus Jes. En∣chirid. de Religio∣ne: Tract. de Pon∣tif. §. Quaestio porro.
• n 1.441

  Sacerdos mag∣nus, seu Pontifex Maximus est ho∣norificentissimum nomen. Bellar. lib. de Officio Principis Christ. pag. 35. At∣tamen Baroni••s: Pontifex Maxi∣mus quinto in lo∣co est positus,— is potest habere alios sibi aequales; ideo Pontificis Maximi ampli∣tudini jure jun∣ctus est titulus, Episcopus Episco∣porum. Baron. Tom. 2. Anno 2.6. num. 11.
• o 1.442

  Vt Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Prin∣ceps Sacerdotum, aut Summus Sa∣cerdos, aut aliquid hujusmodi, sed tantùm Primae sedis Episcopus. Concilium Afri∣canum, Canon 6. Apud Surium Tom. 1. Conc.
• p 1.443

  Cuncta (ex Gelasio habetur) per mundum nouit Ecclesia, quòd ad Sanctam Romanam Ecclesiā de qua∣libet parte mundi appellandum. Egidius probat nemini licere a Papa appellare, quià credere omnem creatu∣rem subesse Rom. Pontifici est de necessitate salutis, vt in Extra. C. Vnam Sanctam. Azorius Instit. Moral. lib. 5. part. 2. cap. 13. Valentianus probat primatum ex Appellat. lib. 1. cap. 11. & Bellar. lib. 2. de. Rom Pont. Cap. 21.
• q 1.444

  Si quis ex Presbyteris ad transmarina putauerit esse appellandum, a nullo intra Africam in communio∣nem suscipatur. Canon. 92. Apud Surium Tom. 1. Conc. Aphric.
• * 1.445

  See aboue at e
• r 1.446

  Concil. Sar∣dic. Cap. 3. Si vobis placet vt Sancti Petri Memoriam honoremus, vt Iulius Pontifex, &c.—Si hoc omnibus vobis placet: Synodus respondet, Placet. Apud Surium Tom. 1. Conc.
• s 1.447

  Omnes ma∣jores causae ad se∣dē Apostolicam referuntur,— quae spectant ad Articulos fidei in∣telligendos.— Secundùm, causae Episcoporum om∣niū & Antistitum in jure ab eo dirimuutur, [Cùm alijs priuilegijs octoginta nouem] Azorius Instit. Moral. part. 2. lib. 4. cap. 35. §. Quintum, & Secundum.
• t 1.448

  Tempore Cypriani non erant casus peculiares reseruati consciē∣tiae Pontificis, proindc quisque poterat quae alij in suâ Dioecesi, & ob eam causam partē sui Episcopatus in so∣lidum tenebat. Salmeron. Ies. in 1. Pet. 5. disp. 8. § Et dicendo.
• u 1.449

  Romane pro∣fession. See aboue Cap. 1. §. 1.
• x 1.450

  Epistola Bonifae∣cij 2. quae est ad Alexandrum Episcopum. Aureli∣us Carthaginensis Ecclesiae olim Episcopus cum collegis suis, insti∣gante Diabolo, superbire, tempo∣ribus Praedecesso∣rum nostrorum Bonifacij & Ce∣lestini, contra Romanam Eccle∣siam coepit: sed videns se modò peccatis Aurelij Eulalius à Rom. Ecclesiae commu∣nione segregatū, humilians recog∣nouit se & com∣munionem Ro∣manae Ecclesiae petens,— dam∣nauit Scripturas, quae aduersus Ec∣clesiae Romanae priuilegia factae fuerant. Apud Surium. Tom. 2. Conc. pag. 384.
• y 1.451

  Respondeo, valdè mihi eas Epistolas esse suspectas. Bellar. lib 2. de Pont. Rom cap. 25. §. Respondeo pri∣mo, & §. Sed si.
• z 1.452

  Quis impostura & fraude non dicat Epistolam hanc plenissimam esse, quâ scri∣bitur Africanam Ecclesiam vltra centum Annos Schismaticam fuisse? Binnius Tom. 1. Conc. Annot. in hanc Epistolam sc. Bonifac. 2. ad Eulalium.
• a 1.453

  Quid improbè improbus finxit Impostor? —Quae Epistola nisi falsa esse conuinci posset, planè ex Ecclesiae Catholicae Albo expungenda fuissent Sanctorum Africano∣rum agmina Martyrum—qui persecutione Vandalicâ — consequunti sunt Martyrij palmam: deludi{que} pa∣riter forent clarissimi Confessores, qui in illo spatio centum annorum in Africanâ Ecclesiâ, doctrinâ & vitâ claruere conspicui. Baronius Tom. 5. Anno 419. num. 92.93.
• b 1.454

  Coeterùm hāe Bonifacij 2. Epi∣stolam esse genui∣nam & minimè supposititiam, satis super{que} arguit, quod ante Annos 500 talis indubi∣tatò credebatur, quam Antonius Florentinus testa∣tur esse longè verissimam. — at Africanos circiter centum annos sacrilegâ defectio∣ne se subduxisse— quare qui in hanc vt fictitiam ridēt, quid quaeso no∣bis, imò sibi re∣linquent saluum, ex omni Eccles. Antiquitatis Historia? &c. Lindamus Panopl. Euang. lib. 4. cap. 89.
• c 1.455

  Rectè & pro officio fecerunt Romani Pontifices, malè autem Africani, qui etiam vt testatur Bonifacius 2. (citatur haec Epistola in mar gine) meditati videbantur defectionem a Romanâ sede. Costerus Enchirid. Tract. de Pontifice. §. Rectè. Sol. 10. & Turrianus vt citatur a Sadaele Resp. ad Repet. Turriani p. 430. & Harding contra Iuellum Art. 4. diuisio. 28.
• d 1.456

  A tempore Cypriani coeperunt Africani separati ab Ecclesia, tempore Au••elij Carthaginensis Episcopi: —exacerbato animo erant erga Ecclesiam Romanam, donce tempore Bonifacij 2. reconciliati sunt Salmeron Ies. Tom. 12. Tract. 68. §. Ad Canonem. Etiam Sanderus de visibili Monarch. lib. 7. num. 411. pag. 368.
• * 1.457

  Bellum Haere∣ticorum pax Ec∣clesiae Hierom.
• e 1.458

  Forma Iura∣menti Pij 5. Ego obedientiam Pon∣tifici Romano spondeo, & hanc veram fidem esse, extra quam nemo saluus esse potest.
• f 1.459

  Master Brere∣wood in his Booke of Religions. pa. 68.
• * 1.460

  See aboue at a.
• * 1.461

  See aboue Cap. 3. §. 8.
• g 1.462

  Brittanni a Communione Ca∣tholicae Ecclesiae diro Schismate diuisi — & planè vides Brittanno∣rum Episcoporum eorundem Schis∣maticorum ani∣mum refractarium ab Vnitate Eccle∣siae Catholicae re∣silientem. Baronius Anno 605. Num. 55. & 60. Eadem plane quâ Britan∣ni pariter & Scoti erant Schismatis
• h 1.463

  Brerely in his fuligine tincti, ac discessionis a Romanâ Ecclaesiâ rei. Baronius Anno 604. Num. 65. Catholike Apologie, the First Chapter.
• i 1.464

  Genebrard. in Psal. pag. 341.
• k 1.465

  Britanni & Scoti erant Disces∣sionis ab Ecclesiâ Rom. rei, ob idque feris Barbaris tra∣diti, Anglis sc. & Saxonibus. Quare dicit Hier. cap. 5. Quia reliquisti me, & seruiisti dijs alienis &c. — Deos plane alie∣nos colere omnes Schismatici con∣••incuntur. Baronius An. 604. Num. 56.
• l 1.466

  Galfridus Monu∣metens. Hist. Britt. li. 11. ca. 12. & 13. cited by the Centu∣rists, Cent. 6. cap. 3. Religio sissimis Praesulibus muniti —omnes labore manuum suarum viuentes. — Abbas eorum Dinoth vo∣cabatur, mirè liberalibus artibus eruditus—diuersis monstrauit Argumentis ipsos Augustino [à Gregorio Pp. Misso] nullam subiectionem debere.—Edelbertus ergò—Edelfridum Regem Nortdan-humbrorum instimulauit,—vt Abbatem Dinoth & caeteros Clericos perditum iret,—qui collecto mirabili exercitu &c. mille ducenti eorum ea ipsâ die Martyrio decorati regni caelestis adepti sunt sedem.—Duces Briton∣um Edelfridum vulneratum in fugam propulerunt, & decem millia sexaginta sex perierunt. Haec Galfridus ci••ant. Cent. quo supra. Tit. de Tranquillitate & persecutione sub Mauritio Sacerdote. pag. 37.
• m 1.467

  Scotorum Ec∣clesia, licet di∣uerso tempore — a communi ritu Catholicae Eccle∣siae Pascha cele∣braret, non tamen ob id a communi∣one sedis Aposto∣licae separatam fuisse— quia etsi non Romano, neque tamen Iu∣daico more Pas∣cha celebrarent. &c. Baronius Tom. 8. Anno 634. Num. 11.
• n 1.468

  Nequaquam laudans quod de Paschae obseruati∣one minus perfectè sapiebat, imò haec multum detestans. Beda Hist. Anglic. lib. 1. cap. 17.
• o 1.469

  Erat Episcopus multum miseri∣cors. Beda Hist. Angl. lib. 3. c. 14. Vir Dei Spiritu Prophetiae prae∣dicens tempesta∣tem futuram, & virtute eiusdem spiritus sopiuit eam. Cap. 15. Mi∣raculis post mor∣tem celebris. Ca. 17
• p 1.470

  Doctor Vsher L. Primate of Ar∣magh. Tract. of the Religion of Jre∣land.
• q 1.471

  Bellarmin l. 1. de Concil. c. 5. Ge∣neralia approbata Concilia, &c.
• r 1.472

  Principes se∣culares non ha∣bent Ecclesiae re∣gimen, nec debent Ecclesiastica ne∣gotia tractare. Bellar. lib. 1. de Pont. Cap. 7.
• s 1.473

  Principum se∣cularium authori∣tate nec possunt nec debent Gene∣ralia Concilia congregari.— Quod munus pro∣priè ad Pōtificem pertinet. Bellar. lib. 1. de Concil. c. 12
• t 1.474

  Praesidentia & praecedentia ab Imperatoribus Pontifici debetur. Bellar. Lib. de Of∣ficio Principis Chri∣stiani, per totum.
• u 1.475

  Reuerentiam etiam debent, quòd certè est su∣perioris. Ibid. p. 40. Haec est causa cur reges Christiani Pontificibus per legatos reueren∣tiam & obseruantiam promittunt. Ib. p. 26.27.
• x 1.476

  Rex Hispaniae & Franciae (quod vidimus) Pontificis pedes exosculati sunt. Bellar lib. contra Apolog. de Triplici Nodo. cap 2.
• y 1.477

  Peccaret Pontifex si honores ••••tos non admitteret. Bozius de signis Ecclesi••e, lib. 11. cap. 10. Inter praecipua Romani Pontificis priuilegia Nono loco recenset Greg. 7. Solius Papae pedes a Principibus exosculari. Epist. 51. dictat. 9. Apud Lorinum Ies. in Act. 10. vers. 25.
• z 1.478

  Henricum quartum non admissum a Pontifice Gregorio septimo, nisi nudis pe∣dibus ad se venientem, nec Fredericum Barbarossam, nisi collum pedibus Alexandri 3. Pontificis submit∣tentem. Primum Testimonium habet Baronius Anno 1077. Alterum Massonius in vita Alexand.
• a 1.479

  Bel∣larmin. lib. de Officio Principis Christiani.
• b 1.480

  Vid. Librum nostrum qui inscri∣bitur, Causa Regia.
• c 1.481

  August. Tom. 2. Epist. 16••. Quod posteà quam fa∣ctum est, praesente Caeciliano, &c.
• d 1.482

  Augustin. quo supra. Jtem E∣pist. 66.
• e 1.483

  Vt omnes qui ad Concilium Tyri conuenistis è ve∣stigio ad castra no∣stra maturaretis, reque ipsâ ve∣strum iudicium aequum syncerum-commonstraretis, me audiente: Quem ingenuum dei famulum esse vos ipsi inficias non iueritis. So∣crates Hist. lib. 1. cap. 22.
• f 1.484

  Sin autem quisquam eas Ec∣clesiae pestes (lo∣quitur de Theoguide, & Eusebio) vel memori••, vel laudibus celebrare aggrediatur, confestim—paenas suae in••citiae dabit. Theodoret. Hist lib. 1. cap. 20.
• g 1.485

  The odosius dat quod non habet, nisi ex vsurpatâ potestate, ex Im∣peritiâ Ecclesiasti∣ci Canonis.

  Binius Tom. 2. Conc. Chalced. Act. 1. in Marg. Ius sibi arrogat & vsurpat. Baronius Anno 449. nu. 27.
• h 1.486

  Glossa apud Gratianum Decret. Distinct. 22. C. Re∣nouantes. Honorius & Theodosius Imperator dicunt quod Patriarcha Constantinopoli∣tanus habet idem ius in suis subditis, quod Papa habet in fuis.
• i 1.487

  Quòd frequen∣tissimae sunt leges de rebus sacris, Ecclesiasticisq́ue personis à Iusti∣niano Imperatore sancitae, non im∣meritò arguitur, quasi rerum diui∣narum inuasor, dum diuinis se miscuit, qui huma∣nis tantùm praefe∣ctus esset rebus. Baronius Tom. 7. Anno 528 num. 1.
• k 1.488

  Iustinianus sa∣crilegè hoc in lo∣co Confirmatio∣nem & abrogatio∣nem Pontificis Romani vsurpat. Binius Tom. 2. Concil. Arrogantèr assumpsit. Jd. ibid. p. 635.
• l 1.489

  Potestatis suae limites egressi sunt. Bellar. aduersus Marsilium, de Statu Veneto. Vide librum qui inscribitur Controuersiae memorabiles, pag. 261.
• m 1.490

  Octo Concilia generalia erant ab Imperatoribus congregata, non per Papam: Vt vnum, per Theo∣dosium Imperatorem, à quo Leo Papa, licèt multa supplicatione, tamen vt Concilium celebraretur intra Ita∣liam non obtinuit. Card. Cusanu•• Concord. Cathol. lib. 2. cap. 25.
• n 1.491

  Quaestio cur Pa∣pa nunquam in∣terfuit in Concilijs Orientalibus, per se, nec Constan∣tinopoli, cùm ta∣mē in Ciuitate Vi∣gilius fuit, quod erat quintū Con∣cilium Generale. —Altera ratio est, quia in Conci∣liis Orientalibus semper interfuit Imperator, aut eius Legatur; Graeci autem Im∣peratorem in sum∣mo loco colloca∣bant, hoc toleran∣dum non est, vt Imperator ante summum Pontifi∣••em sederet, vel ••umultus excita∣retur. Ideò non ibat ad Concilia, sed tamē Legatos mittebat. Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 19.
• * 1.492

  Act. 10.26.
• o 1.493

  Qui mos an ••it antiquissimus nescio, non enim omnia legi. Massonius in vita Benedicti 12.
• p 1.494

  Si benè multi hodiè se homine•• esse perpende∣rent, qui quia Sa∣cerdotio praediti. imperiosissimos dominos se prae∣bent— ita vsu∣venit, vt nos Pon∣tificum nostrorum pedes exoscula∣mur, illudq́ue in∣stitutum à Roma∣nis Pontificibus dixerim. Polydor. Virgil. lib. 4. c. 13. Lugduni. Anno 1558.
• * 1.495

  See below in the next Chap. at y. 2.
• q 1.496

  Neque Reges & Imperatores, nondum bene re∣bus Christianis constitutis, nimio fastu inflati & ad∣huc Gentium su∣perbiam spirantes, externa honoris denegatione irri∣tari debebant. Bo∣zius de signis Eccle∣siae. lib. 20. cap. 5.
• * 1.497

  Honora Regem. 1. Pet. 2.17.
• * 1.498

  Honorem, cui honor. Rom. 13.7.
• r 1.499

  Nunquam Ca∣tholici Principes ex animo Deo ad∣haeserunt, quin fa∣cilimè de hosti∣bus triumpharent. —Vt in Testamen∣to nouo Constan∣tinus magnus, qui primus publicè ex Imperatoribus Ecclesiam defen∣dit. De Theodosio seniore August. lib. 5. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 26. eum verè pium & Catholicum fuisse. Ho∣norius etiam planè Catholicus, & Theodosius iunior; etiam Iustinianus senior, donec Catholicus fuit, foeli∣cissimè imperauit. Bellar. lib. de. No••i•• Ecclesiae. cap. 18.
• s 1.500

  Iustinianus pri∣mis decem annis benè de rebus di∣uinis sensit, se∣cundis maximè rebus est vsus: mox impias ma∣nus in Papam Syluerium Vigili∣um{que} iniecit: deni∣que in Haeresin Apthartodocitarū incidit; post illa∣tam vim Syluerio & Vigilio nullo non calamitatis genere perculsus. Bozius Tom. 2. lib, 23. cap. 4.
• t 1.501

  Baronius Tom. 7. Anno 528.
• u 1.502

  Baronius Anno 521. Codicem ab∣solutum confirmat Anno 530. Idolo∣latras ad fidem conuertit, templa multa construit. Anno 533. Resistit Haereticis, & libros Institutionum edi∣dit. Anno 534. Plures Ecclesias Carthagine e∣rexit. Anno 536. Constitutio ad∣uersus Haereticos.
• x 1.503

  Par est credere quotquot de fide Catholicâ & dis∣ciplina Ecclesiasti∣câ latae sunt Iusti∣niani Sanctiones, tot esse ipsorum duorum Constan∣tinopolitanorum Antistitum decre∣ta. Baronius Anno 528. num. 2.
• y 1.504

  Syluerium Pa∣pam in exilium mittit. Baronius Anno 538. num. 8.
• z 1.505

  Iustiniani recta Confessio fidei à Vigilio Papa laudata. Anno 540. num. 15. Vindex & tutor vetustatis. Anno 541. num. 12. Sanctio aduersus Haereticos. Jbidem num. 25. Contestatio aduersus Haereticos. Anno 546. num. 37.
• a 1.506

  Mandatur Vigi∣lius in exilium. Anno 551.
• b 1.507

  A Iustiniano pacem petit Vigi∣lius: Iustinianus ei cedit. Anno 552. Iustinianus instaurat Basili∣cam; rursus redit in gratiam Vigi∣lius. Anno 554. Iustinianus instau∣rat Templum So∣phiae. An•••• 557. Sacram mensam fecit pulcherri∣mam. Ibid. Insidiae aduersus eum de∣teguntur. Anno 561. num. 2.
• c 1.508

  Patres sextae Synodi elogio ho∣mine Catholico digno, & titulo Pietatis reperiun∣tur eius memo∣riam prosequi. Gregorious Pap•• eum piae memo∣riae Iustinianum appellat. lib. 2. E∣pist. 10. Accipe de eodem Impe∣ratore in Synodo Rom. ab Agatho∣ne Papa pronun∣ciatum praeconiū, extat Epist. in Sy∣nod. 6. Act. 4. Iu∣stiniani ab omni∣bus gentibus me∣moria religiosâ veneratione dig∣na censetur, cuius fidei rectitudo, per augustissima eius Edicta in toto orbe diffusa laudatur. Haec Baronius Tom. 7. Anno 565. num. 3.
• d 1.509

  Constat igitur ex his, audiendos non esse eos, qui haereticum in∣iustè appellant Eum (loquitur de Iustiniano.) Fernandus de Cordoua, Didascal. multiplex. pag. 166.
• e 1.510

  See Doctor Crackenthorp his Defence of Iustinian against Baronius: and a late Treatise of Doctor Riues, the Kings Aduocate, stiled, Imperatoris Iustiniani Defensio, contra Alemannum.
• f 1.511

  Sedes Impera∣toris parabitur iuxtà sedem Pa∣pae, sed non tantae longitudinis aut latitudinis.— —Et aduerten∣dum, quòd locus vbi sed & Impa∣ter non sit altior loco vbi tenet pe∣des Pontifex. Lib. 1. Ritual. siue Ce∣rimonial. Sect. 14.
• g 1.512

  Papam habere potestatem plenis∣simam in vniuer∣sum orbem terra∣rum Iure Diuino in rebus Ecclesi∣asticis & Politicis, Communis est Theologorū sen∣tentia (enumerat authores viginti duos.) Eadem est Canonistarum sententia, quae su∣mitur ex C. Solitae. De maior. & obedientiâ Carerius de potestate Pontificis Romani. lib. 2. cap. 9.10. & 12.
• * 1.513

  See after at k.
• h 1.514

  C. Solitae de maior. & obedientiâ. Ibi Innocentius tertius: Deus creauit duo lumina in coelo, Solem & Lunam. Id est, Duas instituit dignitates, quae sunt Pontificalis & Regalis, vt quanta sit inter Solem & Lunam, tanta inter Papam & Imperatorem cognoscatur differentia: vt optimè explicat Pontifex.—Igitur Impe∣ratoris potentia à Papa dependet, Carerius quo iam supra.
• * 1.515

  See lit. g & h
• i 1.516

  Ethnicos quoad Temporalia, Ec∣clesiae subijci do∣cent Innocentius, Andreas,—cae∣teri{que} Doctores Canonistae; eos{que} puniri posse affir∣mant — poena temporali directè Bozius lib. 1. de Temporal. Ecles. Monarch. cap. 2.
• k 1.517

  Habet Papa Temporalem Potestatem prin∣cipalem, etsi non Directè, tamen Indirectè in ordi∣ne ad bonum spi∣rituale. Bellar. lib. 5. de Pont. Rom. Cap. 6. Deinde ne{que} hoc habet propter ordinem charitatis, sed propter subiectio∣nem & subordi∣nationem ad de∣ponendos Reges, & disponendum de Regnis. Jbid. Cap. 7.
• l 1.518

  Paulus Episco∣pus Seruus ser∣uorum Dei, &c. Nos in iustitiae sede constituti iuxta Prophetae Vaticinium dicentis; Ecce te constituti super gentes & regna, vt euellas, destruas, plantes, aedifices. Bulla Pauli 3. aduersus Henricum Octa∣uum Angliae Regem. Pius Episcopus, &c cui data est omnis potestas in coelis & in terris, quem super omnes gentes, & regna omnia constituit deus, vt euellat, destruat, dissipat, disperdat, &c. Bulla Pij 5. in Elizabetham Angliae Reginam. Propheta iu personâ Christi ad Romanum Pontificem loquitur. Carerius de potestate Ponti∣fices Rom. lib 2. cap: 3.
• m 1.519

  Extrauag de Maior. & Obed. Vnam Sanctam.
• n 1.520

  Tantùm de denunciando eas esse destruendas Lyranus in eum locum.
• o 1.521

  Hieremias nisi priùs peruersa destrueret, aedificare vtiliter recta non posset, quia nisi ab auditorum suorum cordibus spinas vani amoris auelleret, nimirum frustra in ijs sanctae praedicationis verba plantaret. Greg Pastoral. Cur. part. 3. Admonit 35.
• p 1.522

  Vt euellas, &c. Quid horum fastum sonat? Rusticani magis sudoris schemate labor spiritualis expressus o••t, —vt nos etiam sentiamus magis esse nobis impositum ministerium, non dominium datum,—Esto Propheta; sed nunquid plus quàm Propheta? Sisapis, eris contentus mensurâ quam tibi mensus est Deus; Nam quod amplus est a malo est. Bernard. lib. 2. Consid. ad Eugenium. Cap. 6.
• q 1.523

  Zacharias Chil∣dericum deponit; Gregorius sept. Henricum tertium Imperatorem: Clemens sextus Ludouicum 4. Imperatorem. Bellar. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 8.
• r 1.524

  Haec vna Vrbs potest stare ad∣uersus impios om∣nes à vero Christi cultu alienos, sic in eius Pontifici∣bus amplissimè re∣splenduit, nulla nam{que} sedes tot Martyres Episco∣pos produxit, vt Romana, quae vi∣ginti septem suo∣rum Pontificum pro cultu Christi interfectorum nu∣m••••um recenset. Bozius de Signi•• Ecclesiae. Tom. 1. lib. 7. cap. 5. §. 5.
• s 1.525

  Testis est ipse Deus, nihil me vo∣luisse, cogitasse, aut scripsisse, quod vel minimâ ex parte possit De∣cretis S S. Catho∣licae Ecclesiae Re∣ligionis & fidei di∣rectè vel per ob∣liquum retorque∣ri, vel in odium, vel inuidiam ali∣cuius potestatis Spiritualis, aut Tē∣poralis, Greg. Tolossanus I.V. Doctor ante libros suos de Republicâ.
• t 1.526

  A Christo passo, per interuallum trecentorum annorum, etsi crudelia tormenta Christiani passi fuerint, & clades atrocissimas, — nusquam tamen legitur eos aduersus Reges rebellasse — sed hoc fere Argumen∣to ostenderunt se suam{que} Religionem omnibus anteferri debere, — quod in eâ sententiâ ita pertinaciter & obnixè perdurant, vt vnico amore Dei, & diuini cultus, se ab eo dicerent Christianos appellari, cuius fuit hoc piissimum dog••a, vt Magistratibus pareant. Jdem lib. 26. de Repub. Cap. vlt. num. 10.
• u 1.527

  Pontifici vt Pastori necessa∣ria est Potestas, circa Hereticos, tanquam circa Lupos, arcendi omni ratione quâ possit. Bella. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 7.
• x 1.528

  Altera potestas necessaria Ponti∣fici circa furiosos, velut Arietes, co∣gendo eos per omnes commo∣das rationes. Jbidem.
• * 1.529

  See aboue at q
• y 1.530

  In eius Potesta∣te duos esse gla∣dios, Spiritualem viz. & Temporalē. —Opertet au∣tem gladium esse sub gladio, Temporalem sub Spirituale. Bonifacius Octa∣uus, Extrau. Vnam Sanctam.
• * 1.531

  See aboue. Chap. 10. §. 4.
• z 1.532

  Lego & relego Regum & Impe∣peratorum res gestas, & Grego∣rius Septimus pri∣mus erat, qui Ex∣communicauit & deposuit Impera∣torem. Otho Frsin∣gensis, lib. 6. Chro∣nic. Cap. 35. Vt re∣fert Tolossanus lib. 26. de Repub. Cap. 5.
• a 1.533

  Quòd si Ch••i∣stiani olim non deposuerunt Dio∣clesianum, Iulia∣num, Valentem, & alios, id fuit, quia deerant vires Temporales Christianis, Bel∣lar. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 4, & 7.
• b 1.534

  Absit vt virtute humanâ vindice∣tur Christiana secta, aut doleat pati, in quo pro∣batur. Si enim ho∣stes extraneos, nō tantùm occultos vindices agere vellemus, deesset nobis vis nume∣rorum aut copia∣rum? —cui bel∣lo non idonei, non prompti fuis∣semus? — si non apud istam disci∣plinam magis oc∣cidi liceret, quàm occidere. Tertul. Apol. Contra Gen∣tes Cap. 37.
• c 1.535

  Nemo nostrum, quam vis appre∣henditur, se ad∣uersus iniustam violentiam, quam∣uis nimius, & copiosus sit noster populus, vlciscitur. Cyrian ad Demetr. §. 14. cum Annot. Pamelij. pag. 328.
• d 1.536

  Preces & Lacrymae arma mea sunt, aliter nec debeo, nec possum resistere. Ambros. Tom. 3. lib. 5. post Epist. 32. Orat. ad Auxentium.
• e 1.537

  Possit Ambrosius arm••s Ecclesiam suam tueri & vim vi repellere, nec ideo armis abstinuit quod armis esset inferior; ab eo nam{que} populus stabat, ab eo maxima pars militum. Barkleius lib. 3. Contra Monarcho. Cap. 5 pag. 138.
• f 1.538

  Christiani nihil mol in contra Rempub. etiam quum pares nu∣mero & viribus fuerunt. Tolossanu•• lib. 26. de Repub. Cap. 7. num. 10.
• g 1.539

  Martyres noui Testamenti, prop∣ter multitudinem, facilè contra Ty∣rannides perse∣quutorum suorum conspirare po∣tuissent; pro obe∣dientia tamen, quam iussi sunt sublimiori pote∣stati deferre, maluerunt pati quam resistere. Carerius de Officio Principum.
• h 1.540

  Sed id grauissimo Argu∣mento esse debet, quòd nemo Sanctorum Patrum vel Scriptorum alioqui Orthodoxorum per totos mille an∣nos & ampliùs, licet Ecclesia tunc omnibus floreret copijs; & impiorum Principum magnus esset numerus, ••ale quid vnquam vel verbo vel scripto docuisse legitur. Barkleus lib. 6. aduersus Monarc. Cap. 26.
• * 1.541

  Why boastest thou thy selfe, ô Tyrant, that thou canst doe mis∣chiefe? Psal. 52.1.
• i 1.542

  De occisoribus autem Schismati∣corum Excom∣municatorum extat Rescriptum Vrbani Papae 2. ad Godefridum, apud Iuonem his verbis. Excom∣municatorum interfectoribus, prout morē san∣ctae Ecclesiae no∣sti, secundum ip∣sorum Intentio∣nem, modum cō∣gruae satisfactionis injunge. Non enim eos Homici∣das arbitramur, qui aduersus Ex∣communicatos zelo Catholicae Matris ardente••, eorum quoslibet trucidasse conti∣gerat, ne tamen ejusdem Ecclesiae disciplina desaeui∣at, tenore quem diximus paeniten∣tiam ijs iniungito congruentem, quae diuinae sim∣plicitatis oculos aduersum se com∣placare peruale∣ant, si forte ali∣quid duplicitatis pro humana fragi∣litate ex eodem flagitio contraxe∣runt, Apud Baron. Anno 1089. num 11.
• k 1.543

  Excommunica∣mus omnes Lu∣theranos, Hussitas, Caluinistas, Hugo∣notos, &c. Bullae Canae.
• l 1.544

  Liberius. 1. Ser∣mo pietàtis tuae. — Me quidem. quem patienter omnia ferre ne∣cesse est, pluri∣mum lacerat — Ego enim tecum veram pacem re∣quiro. Apud Bi∣nium Tom. 1. Conc. Epist. 2. ad Con∣stantinum.
• m 1.545

  Simplicius. Principes Christi∣anos iugi venera∣tione s••scipio — Clementiae vestrae Acatius meâ vice supplicabit. Epi. 4. apud Binium Tom. 2
• n 1.546

  Leo Epist. 26. Vt iubeatis Syno∣dum intra Italiam celebrari Sacer∣dotes supplicant. Supplicationem nostram pietas ve∣stra apud eum dignetur asserere. Apud Binium. Tom. 1.
• o 1.547

  Gelasius Le∣gibus tuis ipsi quoque parent Religionis Antistites. Epist. 8. apud Binium. Tom. 2.
• p 1.548

  Hormisda. Futuram Synodam indicari mandas, cui nos interesse debere iisdem literis, deo (vt credimus) tibi imperanti, commonuisli.—ad literas vestras, re∣spondi. &c. Epist. 5. apud Binium. To. 2.
• q 1.549

  Vigilius. See aboue, Cap. 10. §. 4.
• r 1.550

  Pelagius 1. Regibus nos subditos esse sacrae scripturae praecipiunt. Epist. 10. apud Binium. Tom. 2.
• s 1.551

  Gregorius. Quod ad me attinet, ••e∣renissimis vestris iussionibus obedi∣entiam praebeo. lib. 4. Epist. 32. Et rursus: Ego iussioni vestrae subiectus. Lib 2. Epist. 62. Apud Binium. Tom. 2.
• t 1.552

  Martinus. Nos orantes Serenita∣tem vestram, vt haec diligenter le∣gere dignetur. E∣pist. 3. apud Bini∣um. Tom. 2.
• u 1.553

  Agatho. Secun∣dum piissimam missionem ve∣stram, pro obedi∣entiâ quam debu∣imus, confamulos nostros—cura∣uimus demandare—pro quibus flexo mentis po∣plite suppliciter vestram—Clemē∣tiam deprecamur. Apud Binium Tom. 3. Actio quarta in Conc. Oecum. 6. sub Agathone.
• x 1.554

  Adrianus. Tanquam praesentialiter humo stratus & vest••is vestigiis prouolutus quaero &c. Epist. 1. apud Binium. To. 3.
• y 1.555

  Quod si quis dicat a Pontificibus summis honores eximios aut Regibus, aut Imperatoribus delatos, insulsè loquetur. Id namque fieri po••uit aut oportuit quoque olim, cùm gentes nondum bene agnoscerent, quanti esset Ecclesia dei, & Antistites ipsius, qui & honores & ignominias ex aequo ferre debent, vt ad Christum possint homines producere. &c. Bozius lib. 20. de Sign. Eccl. cap. 5.
• z 1.556

  Signum 86. est Regum sum∣ma reuerentia erga Ecclesiae nostrae Episcopos. Bozius quo suprae.
• * 1.557

  See aboue, Cap. 1. §. 2.
• a 1.558

  Mense Ianua∣rij die 26. Missal. Rom.
• b 1.559

  Ribadineira & Grasius de Vitis Sanctorum. Tom. 1. Jan. die 26.
• c 1.560

  Eusebius li. 4. Hist. Eccl. cap. 14. Iste est Asiae [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Iste [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]
• d 1.561

  Eusebius lib. 5. Hist. cap. 24.
• * 1.562

  See aboue C••p. 9. §. 2.
• e 1.563

  Argumentum sumimus ex no∣minibus Episcopi Romani, viz. Do∣ctor & Pater om∣nium Christiano∣rum,—& alia ex quibus omnibus & singulis apertè co••ligitur Prima∣tus Pontificis. Bel∣marmin. lib. 2. de Rom. P••nt. cap. 31.
• f 1.564

  Missale Rom. Cal. Septembris die 16. Cyprianus Confessor & Mar∣tyr.
• g 1.565

  Vide, Lector, nostrum Goulartiū in Cyprianum, qui passim Obiectiones Pamelij infringit▪ Doctè sanè & fae∣liciter.
• h 1.566

  Nauigare au∣dent ad —Petri Cathedram, nec cogitant eos esse Romanos ad quos non potest perfi∣dia habere acces∣sum. Cypr. lib. 3. Epist. 3.
• i 1.567

  Ergo non solùm Pontificem, sed etiam Ecclesiam Romanam non posse errare, asse∣rit inter alios San∣ctus Cyprianus. Bellarmin. l. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 4.
• k 1.568

  Minis & terro∣ribus eorum com∣motum — à vi∣gore & potestate Episcopi alienum perditorum ho∣minum insidias pertimescere:—inconcussa virtus contra omnes im∣petus oblatranti∣um fluctuum. Ibid. Cypr.
• l 1.569

  Cyprian Epist. ad Pompeium.
• * 1.570

  See aboue, cap. 12. §. 2.
• m 1.571

  Basilius Epist. 59. Caueri cupit a Damaso Romano Pontifice, quod sub Liberio illa∣tum est Ecclesiae Orientali, cum re∣cepisset Eustathi∣um—& Collegas, eosdem omnes Haereticos, sed do∣losè professos Ni∣caenam fidem. Bae∣ronius Anno 471. Num. 21.
• n 1.572

  See aboue, cap. 9. §. 3. &c.
• o 1.573

  Ibidem.
• q 1.574

  Lippelous in li∣bro qui inscribitur, Vitae Sanctorum. Tom. 2. Maij. 2. Romam venit—Athanasius, Symbolum Romae composuit, insigne fidei suae monu∣mentum, quod hactenus Athana∣sij nomine in Ec∣clesiâ publicè re∣citatur. pag. 436,
• r 1.575

  Gregorius 13. Pontifex cupidis∣simus Orientalis Ecclesiae Vnionis & pacis, templum egregium nomine Athanasij con∣struxit. Jbidem pag. 464.
• s 1.576

  Missale Roman. Cal. Meuse Maij, die 2.
• t 1.577

  Liberius taedio & inuidiâ quod aegro animo ferebat Fe∣licem intrusum ab Arianis Ponti∣ficem agere, com∣munionem inijt cum ijs, quos Hae∣reticos esse mini∣mè ignorabat, & consensit in dam∣nationem Atha∣nasij. Baronius Anno 357. num. 42.46. & Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 9.
• u 1.578

  Baronius Anno 357. num. 57. Nec dissentit Bellarmi∣nus.
• x 1.579

  Duo Papae si∣mul esse non pos∣sunt Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. Vnius Ecclesiae v∣num tantùm ca∣put esse oportet, cui si alterum ad das, horrendum monstrum profe∣ctò erit. Baronius Anno 355. nu. 56.
• y 1.580

  Papa manifestè Haereticus eo ipso est depositus, & desinit esse Papa. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 30.
• z 1.581

  Liberius per fuum lapsum Hae∣reticus non fuit. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 9. Et Baronius: Libe∣rius semper con∣stitit in fide Ca∣tholicus. Anno 357. num. 55.
• a 1.582

  Pontifex â ne∣mine in terris in∣dicati potest, quia Princcps est Ee∣clesiae totius, & proinde superio∣rem in terris non habet Bellar. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 26.
• b 1.583

  Constat Libe∣rium (defuncto Felice) Ecclesiam Romanam scis∣sam vniisse eum{que} factum pastorem Vnum Ouilis v∣nius. Baronius An∣no 357. num. 61.
• c 1.584

  Operae pretiū est res gestas Li∣berij ostendere, quae post Felicis obitum sunt subse∣quutae. Baron. An∣no 357. num. 70. Post Arimineuse Concilium, quod fuit. anno 357. Nu. 72. Ipsa quae ad Athanasium scrip∣ta est Epistola, ita se habet; Est igi∣tur haec nostra confessio (opta∣tissime Athanasi)—cui, si mecum fentis, coram Iudice Deo & Chri∣sto, quaeso, subscri∣bas; vt ego secu∣rior efficiar, tua{que} mandata inhaesi∣tanter obeam, &c. Hactenùs Liberij professio sequestris, vt ap∣paret, ad disrup∣tam, quae inte•• eos iniercedebat▪ commuuionem Catholicam conciliandam. Ibidem uum. 73. And Binius Tom. 1. pag. 467. citeth the same as the vndoubted Epistle of Liberius, because first he taketh no exceptions against it, as he doth against diuers others falsly entituled the Epistles of Liberius, and secondly he vrgeth it as a speciall ground to proue, as he saith; Manifestè Libe∣rium ipsum post obitum Foelicis Sedi Apostolicae restitutum fuisse, & fidei Orthodoxae Vexillum, Arianorum ictibus labefactatum, integerrimè vicissim erexisse.
• d 1.585

  Lippelous de Vi∣tis Sanctorum. Tom. 2. Maij 2. Si omnes praestantis∣simi huius Praesu∣lis laudes quis si∣mul in vnum con∣gereret: cùm nihi∣lo minus impar sit omnis lingua ad recensenda om∣nia eius certamina pro fide suscepta; vt nullus alius (fi∣dēter dicam) possit inueniri post Apo∣stolos in Ecclesiâ Dei, qui acerbiora diuturnioraq́ue subiret praelia pro eâ tuendâ: quem Gregorius Nazi∣anzenus oculum orbis, Sacerdotum Antitistitem, du∣cem, magistrū, fidei columen appellat.
• e 1.586

  Calend. ante Missal. Roman. Mensis Iunij die 14. Basilius Epis∣copus & Con∣fessor.
• f 1.587

  Basilius Epist. 52. ad Athanasium [visum est (inquit) consentaneum scribere ad Epis. copū Romanum, vt videat res no∣stras, & iudicij Decretum suum interponat: vt quia difficile est aliquos inde de Concilij sententiâ mitti, ipse authoritatem tribuat delectis vi∣ris,—qui pru∣denti oratione eos qui à recta ratione deflexerunt mo∣neant, quique acta Ariminensis Concilij secum serant, ad rescindenda quae illic violenter acta sunt.] Hic Basilius tribuit Romano Pontifici authoritatem visi∣tandi Ecclesias Orientis, & ex authoritate Decreta faciendi, & rescindendi Concilia generalia, quale erat Ari∣minense. Bellar. lib. 2. de Pont. Rom. cap. 15.
• g 1.588

  Baronius Anno 371. num. 10. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] [Vt quae hic ge∣runtur cōsideret.]
• h 1.589

  Detq́ue Consi∣lium, &c. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Ibidem.
• i 1.590

  Quae Arimini ad necessariam rerum gestarum solutionem facta sunt. Jbidem.
• k 1.591

  Epistola 70. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Et E∣pist. 74. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• l 1.592

  Epist. 77. Omi∣sistis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Quasi indignos nos iudi∣caretis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Et si∣milia.
• m 1.593

  Epist. 74. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Et Epist. 1. Obse∣cramus vt manum. Orientalibus Ec∣clesijs porrigatis, — ac viros ali∣quos mittatis, qui illas de praemijs admoneant, quae patientiae, ac pas∣sionibus pro Chri∣sto toleratis reser∣uantur. Haud e∣nim tantum habet efficaciae sermo consuetus, quantū vox peregrina, ad consolandum de∣iectos valet: praesertum si illa afferantur à viris qui cum primis gratiâ Dei instructi esse cognoscuntur, quales vos cunctis mortalibus praedicamini, quòd in fide illibatè permaneatis, &c. Apud Baronium Anno 373 nu. 33.
• n 1.594

  Baronius quo supra.
• o 1.595

  See after at s and t.
• p 1.596

  See aboue, cap. 9. §. 3.
• q 1.597

  See aboue, cap. 9. §. 8.
• r 1.598

  Sane quidem nonnihil diffiden∣tiae, ne dicam simultatis & odij —inter Basilium & Occidentales intercessisse cert•• est. Baronius, An∣no 372. num. 24.
• s 1.599

  Quale nobis auxilium ab Oc∣cidentalium [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] superci∣lio & fastu aderit, qui veritatē ne{que} nôrunt, ne{que} [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] (Baro∣nius, Dicere) di∣scere sustinent? —Ego quidem volebam, ad eor•• [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Antesig∣nanum scribere, vt litetis significa∣rem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ba∣sil Epist. 10. Baro∣nius Anno 372. num. 25.
• t 1.600

  Et alibi de roma∣nâ Ecclesiâ, Odi fastum illius Ec∣clesiae. Apud Ba∣roniū lb. num. 32.
• u 1.601

  Epist. 52. ad Athanasium. Ad te, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• x 1.602

  Ephraem. de Basilio, O felix Basilî! Tu vt Aa∣ron summus Sa∣cerdos Domini fuisti. Lippelous Lib. de vitis San∣ctorum.
• y 1.603

  Missal. Roma∣num Mens. Ja∣narij die 14. San∣ctus Hilarius Pi∣ctauiensis Episco∣pus, & Confessor.
• z 1.604

  Vita Sancti Hi∣larij Pictauorum Episcopi, qui cla∣ruit maximè à partu virgineo, 356. Tempori∣bus Constantij Imperatoris, & Li∣berij Romani pō∣tificis,—non La∣tinis solùm, sed & Graecis vir San∣ctus extitit admi∣randus, Lippelous in vitâ Hilarij.
• a 1.605

  De infallibili iudicio Summi Pontificis. Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pot. Cap. 3.
• b 1.606

  Hilarij Frag∣menta lib. 4. ••. 47. Anathema tibi à me dictum, & so∣cijs.
• c 1.607

  Bellar. See aboue §. 3.
• d 1.608

  Sensit Liberius cum Arianis. Pla∣tina in vitâ Libe∣rij: & Alphonsus de Castro lib. 1. Cap. 5.
• e 1.609

  Factus Haereti∣cus. Turrecremata lib. 2. de Ecclesiâ, Cap. 103.
• f 1.610

  Redijt de exilio victus, & consen∣fit errori, vt scribit Hieronymus in Chronicis. Card. Cusanus Conc. lib. 2. Cap. 5.
• g 1.611

  Nescio maiore ne impietate re∣miseris, quàm re∣legaueris. Hilarius ad Constantium. p. 201.
• h 1.612

  Sancti Hierony∣mi Presbyteri, Confesso••is & Doctoris Eccle∣siae. Missal. Romā. Cal. Mens. Septē∣bris die 30.
• i 1.613

  Epist. ad Dama∣sum de nomine Hypostasis. A pastore praesidiū Ouis peto — Cum successore piscatoris loquor. — Beatitudini tuae, i.e. Cathedrae Petri Commu∣nione consocior, — super illam Petram aedificatā Ecclesiam scio. Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comede∣rit, profanus est. Si quis in Arcâ Noe non fuerit, peribit regnante diluuio. Non noui Paulinum, &c. Tom. 2. Epist. Quoniam, &c.
• k 1.614

  Obserua, Hieronymus qui Presbyter Antio∣ocherius, &c. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap 16. Et Hardingus Contra Iewellum.
• l 1.615

  Adultâ aetate Romae Baptizatus est. Baron. Anno 372. num. 40,
• m 1.616

  Fortunatianus Episcopus Libe∣rium Romanae Vrbis Episcopum ad subscriptionē Haereseos com∣pulit. Hieron. Catolog. Script. Eccles. pag. 297.
• n 1.617

  Hieron de Script. Eccles. in Greg. Nazian. Gregorius Na∣zianzenus, a quo Scripturas expli∣care didici. p. 301.
• o 1.618

  Hieronym. In Alexandriam perrexi, vt vide∣rem Didymum, vt ab eo, in Scrip∣turis omnibus quae haberem du∣bia s••scitarer. Tom. 2 Epist. ad Pammach.
• p 1.619

  Hieron. Tom. 2. Epist. 36. Me, cum Damaso & cum Petro (Alexan∣drino) cōdemnēt.
• q 1.620

  Ne{que} vllam pu∣to digniorem dis∣putationis nostrae confabulationem fore, quàm si de Scripturis sermo∣cinaremur inter nos. i.e. vt ego in∣terrogem, Tu re∣spondeas. Dama∣sus Epist. 2. Tom. 3.
• r 1.621

  Vt pleniùs dis∣ceret. Baronius Anno 378. num. 63.
• s 1.622

  Espensaeus in fine Comment. in 2. ad Tim. Tract. de Vocibus non scrip∣tis. p. 254.
• t 1.623

  —Respondisse, vt cum Paulino cō∣municaret. Baro∣nius Anno 372. num. 50.
• * 1.624

  Matth. 23.
• u 1.625

  Per Cathedrā Mosis, doctrinam legis intelligit. Hieron in eum locum.
• * 1.626

  See aboue Cap. 4, §. 3.4, &c.
• * 1.627

  See aboue Cap. 2. §. 9.
• x 1.628

  Supra illam Petram. Non su∣pra Romam, vt arbitor, nam fieri potest vt Roma quo{que} degeneret, sed supra eam fi∣dem, quam Petrus professus est. Erasmus.
• * 1.629

  Jsa. 1.21.
• y 1.630

  A Pastore prae∣sidium ouis flagi∣to: facessat inui∣dia Romani cul∣minis, recedat ambitio. Hieron. Epist. 57.
• * 1.631

  See aboue §. 4.
• * 1.632

  See aboue, at a.
• z 1.633

  Respondeo Li∣berium non ex∣pressè sed Inter∣pretatiuè consen∣sit ad subscriptio∣nem Haereseos. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. cap. 9. §. Respondeo.
• a 1.634

  Hieron: ad Paulinum in lib. Didymi de Spir. Sancto Praefat To. 9. ad finem. Cum in Babylone ver∣sarer, & purpuratae Meritricis essem colonus, volui ali∣quid garr••re de Spiritu Sancto, & coeptum opuscu∣lum eiusdem vrbis Pontificidedicare. Et Ecce Pharisaeo∣rum conclamauit senatus, & nullus scriba vel doctus, sed omnis quasi sibi indicto praelio Doctrinarum, ad∣uersus me impe∣ritiae factio con∣iurauit—Da∣masus, qui me ad hoc opus prius impulerat, iam dormit cum Chri∣sto—Cauticum quod cantare non potui terrâ alienâ, hic a vobis prouocarus in Iu∣daea immurmuro.
• b 1.635

  Hieronym. Epi. ad Euagrium. Si quaeritur authori∣tas, Orbis Maior est quam vrbis. Tom. 2.
• c 1.636

  Quid mihi pro∣fers vnius vrbis consuetudinem? quid paucitatem, de quâ ortum est supercilium, in le∣ges Ecclesiae ven∣dicas? In eadem Epistolà de quae vide supra.
• d 1.637

  Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus, siue Romae, siue Eugubij, siue Con∣stantiopoli, siue Rhegij, siue Alex∣andriae, siue Tana∣is, eiusdem meriti est, & eiusdem Sa∣cerdotij. Hiero∣nym. in eadem Epi∣stolâ, de qua supra.
• u 1.638

  Erasmus Schol. in hanc Epist. Do∣cet Episcopi dig∣nitatem non aesti∣mari magnitudine ditionis, sed meri∣to, vitae officio— & aequare videtur omnes Episcopos inter se, perinde ac si omnes ex aequo Apostolis successerunt.
• e 1.639

  Causae, quae iu∣re Canonico & Diuino sunt Ro∣mano Pontifici reseruatae, —vt quae spectant ad Articulos fidei in∣telligendos, & li∣bros Canonicos discernendos. A∣zorius Ies. Moral. li. 4. Tom. 2. cap. 35.
• f 1.640

  Sic Paulus A∣postolus ad He∣braeos, quam Lati∣na consuetudo non suscipit. Hie∣ronym. in Isaiae c. 6. Et rursus Epist. 29. ad Euagrium. Epi∣stolam ad Hebrae∣os non solum in Ecclesiis Orienta∣libus, sed etiam ab omnibus retro Ec∣clesiis, & Graeci sermonis Scrip∣toribus receptam. Tom. 3.
• g 1.641

  Quod filatiua consuetudo non recipit inter Scrip∣turas Canonicas, —Nos tamen suscipimus. Hie∣ronym. Jbid.
• a 1.642

  Concil. Trident. Sess. 4.
• b 1.643

  Conc. Trid. Sess. ••. Si quis, &c.
• i 1.644

  Sane Hierony∣mus in Prologo Galeato omnes istos dicit non esse in Canone, nec loquitur tan∣tùm de Canone Iudaeorum-Ad∣mitto Hierony∣mum in eâ senten∣tiâ fuisse, excepto libro Iudith, quem ille postea recepit. Bellarmin. lib. 1. de Verbo Dei. cap. 10. Quòd Bellarminus excipit librum Judith, errat, tantum dicit; Nicaena Sy∣nodus legitur computasse li∣bru•• Iudith in numero Canoni∣corum: non quòd ita senserit, quia ipse Hieronymus planè reijciebat hunc librum in Prologo Gal. & ità Hieronymum interpretatur Lyndanus Pa••••pl. lib. 3. ca. 3. A∣••••sta Ies. lib. 2. de Christo Reuelato, cap. 13. Salmeron Ies. Com. in Hebr. Disp. 2.
• k 1.645

  Inter Maiores causas, quae ad se∣dem Apostolicam referuntur, vna est ad sensum sacra∣rum literarum de∣clarandum. Azo∣rius Moral, l. 4. c. 35
• l 1.646

  Sanctus Ambro∣sius Confessor & Doctor Ecclesiae. Missale Romanum Decembris die 7.
• m 1.647

  Augustin. Con∣tra Iulianum Pe∣lagianum l. 1. ca. 9. Audi excellentem dei dispensatorem &c. Et mecum non dubitat orbis praedicare Roma∣nus.
• n 1.648

  Cùm totus Mundus Dei sit, tamen Dominus eius Ecclesiae dici∣tur, cuius hodie Rector est Dama∣sus. Et Orat. in Sa∣tyrum. Percuncta∣tus est Episcopum, si cum Episcopis Catholicis, hoc est cum Romanâ Ec∣clesiâ consentiret. Haec Ambrosius. Cur quaeso Catho∣lici sunt, nisi quiâ cum Roma∣nâ Ecclesiâ con∣ueniunt? nisi quià Romana Ecclesia caput est Catholi∣cae Ecclesiae? Bel∣larm. l. 2. de Ram. Pont. c. 16. §. Ter∣tius.
• o 1.649

  Canisius Ies. Ca∣tech init. in Encō. Patrum. Athana∣siú Nazianzenus appellat Columen Ecclesiae, & Ecclesiae dei fundamentum. Basilium Gregorius Nyssenus, Os Ecclesiae.
• p 1.650

  In vitae Hieronymi Tom. 4. Eusebius Nazianzenum appellat Columnam auream, & to∣tius Ecclesiae Fundamentum.
• q 1.651

  De Ambrosio sic Theodosius Ambrosium 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Senensis Bibliothec. l. 4. Tit. Ambrosius
• * 1.652

  See after, ca. 12.
• r 1.653

  Post diem alter••, factione Clerieo∣rum, repentè in popul•• murmur exoritur, non de∣bere Ambrosia∣nam Ecclesiam Romanis legibus subiacere, nullam∣q́ue iudicandi vel disponendi Vim Romano Pontifici in illâ sede com∣petere. Nimis in∣dignum, inquiunt, vt quae progenito∣ribus nostris sem∣per extitit libera, ad nostrae confu∣sionis opprobriú nunc alteri, quod absit, Ecclesiae sit subiecta. Apud Ba∣ronium, Anno 1059. num. 46.
• f 1.654

  Ambros. lib. 3. de Sacr. Cap. 1. In omnibus cupio se∣qui Romanam Ec∣clesiam, sed tamen & nos homines sensum habemus, id quod alibi re∣c••ius seruatur no•• custodimus. Bel∣lar. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 16. §. Ibid.
• * 1.655

  Illud [in omni∣bus ••upio sequi] intelligit de ne∣cessarij••. Bellar. lib. 2. Rom. Pont. ••••.16. §. Idem.
• u 1.656

  Augustinus E∣piscopus & Con∣fessor. Cal. Miss. Rom. August. 28.
• x 1.657

  John Breerly.
• y 1.658

  Confessio Au∣gustinana, in libros quatuor distributa, per Hieronymum Torrensem Socie∣tatis Iesu Theolo∣gum, & Academiae Dilinganae Profes∣sorem. Dilinguae Anno 1567.
• z 1.659

  In Romaná Ec∣clesiâ semper A∣postolicae Cathe∣drae viguit princi∣patus. August. E∣pist. 162. Quia se dominus in sede Apostolicâ collo∣cauit, talemq́ue nostris tempori∣bus praestitit, &c. magnis periculis infirmorum mem∣bro••um Christi Pastoralem dili∣gentiam quaesu∣mus adhibere dig∣neris. August. E∣pist. ad Innocent. 92. Hic non pete¦ret, vt Innocen∣tius Pastoralem curam adhiberet Ecclesiae, coercen∣do Pelagianos qui Palaestinam & A∣fricaminsiciebant, nisi Innocentium Palaestinae & A∣fricae Pastorem esse crederet. De∣inde cur non Hie∣rosolymitano Pa∣triarchae, & alijs potiùs scribi••? Et Epist. 157. In∣iunxit Zozymu•• Papa, vt Episcopi Africae apud Cae∣saream Concilium celebrarent, & Augustinus Zozi∣mo necessariò pa∣rendu•• esse exi∣stimaui••. Et lib. 1. ad Bonifac. cap. 1. Co••munis, inquit, est omnibus nobis, qui fungimur Episcopatus officio, quamuis ipse in eo praeemineas cel∣siore fastigio specula Pastoralis. Sic Augustinus. Vide ab Augustino omnes Episcopos subijci celsiori fastigio Romani Pontificis Hactenus Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Nec dissentit Torrensis quo supra. lib. 1. cap. 9.
• a 1.660

  Iohannes 1. ad Zachariam Archiepiscopum. Vsque ad mortem certa pro veritate: — huius ••ei gratiâ vobis & nobis commissa est Ecclesia, vt cunctis opem ferre non negligamus. Itaque tanta vrgente ne∣cessitate, summopere vestrâ Apostolicâq́ue Authoritate, & reliquos Episcopos oportet reprimere infestos &c, Apud Binium. Tom. 2. pag. 378.
• b 1.661

  Collegae Apo∣stolicarum Eccle∣siarum. August. Epist. 162. See fur∣ther of this hereaf∣ter.
• * 1.662

  See aboue, §. 4.
• c 1.663

  Duo sunt emi∣nentissimarum Ec∣clesiarum, Romae scilicet & Cartha∣ginensis Episcopi, diuersa de Baptis∣mo sentientes, Stephanus & Cy∣prianus. August, de Vnico Baptismo, contra Petilian. cap. 14.
• d 1.664

  Augustin. Epist. 86. Si responde∣tur, &c. coeteras terras ab hac do∣ctrinâ deuiâsse: Occidentis potiùs aliqua loca, in qui∣bus Roma est, &c. Indeterminabilis est ista quaestio.
• * 1.665

  Cap. 9. §. 8. &c.
• e 1.666

  August. Epist. 162. De Collegis i. e. Episcopis a∣gebatur, qui pos∣sent aliorum Col∣legarum, praeser∣tim Apostolicorū iudicio causam suam reseruare. — Et ecce, put••∣mus illos Episco∣pos, qui Romae iu∣dicarunt, non bo∣nos iudices fuisse, restabat adhuc plenarium Conci∣lium, vbi etiam cum ipsis Iudici∣bus causa possit agitari; vt si malè iudicasse conuicti essent, eorum sen∣tentiae solueren∣tur.
• f 1.667

  Concilium Tri∣dent. Sess. 4.
• g 1.668

  Augustin. de Peccat. merit. & Remiss. lib. 1. c. 27. Ad Hebraeos quo∣que Epistola, quan∣quam nonnullis incerta sit, tamen me magis mouet Authoritas Eccle∣siarum Orienta∣lium, quae hanc e••iam intet Cano∣nicas habent. Sic Augustinus. Ego praeoccupo: nec est quòd quis obgan∣niat, Augustinum veteris Testamenti Canonem eundem amplexum, qui à Conc. Tridentino praescribitur, quia Caietanus iampri∣dem ex Patribus docuit distinguen∣dum esse inter Ca∣nonem morum, & Canonem fidei.
• * 1.669

  See aboue, Chap. 12. §. 6.
• h 1.670

  Casaubon. Exer∣cit. aduersus Ba∣ronium. 16. §. 135. Meminit tot locis Augustinus, in sep∣tem libris de Vno Baptismo & alijs contra Donatistas, eius controuersiae, quae fuit inter Ste∣phanum Papam & Cyprianum, quo Authore Dona∣tistae errorem suū tuebantur, quaero igitur cùm nihil sit praetermissum ab Augustino, quod ad rem faceret, vt Donatistas ad sa∣nam mentem re∣uocaret, cur nun∣quam in tot libris de Monarchiâ Papae vllum ver∣bum facit? cur tacetur Papae Infallibilitas, quae hodiè veri & falsi norma proditur? Cur Vicariatus—iu∣ra silentur? &c.
• * 1.671

  See aboue Cap. 1.
• i 1.672

  Sumus Christia∣ni, non Petriani, per illum nati, non illi nati. Ecce. Roma, ecce Car∣thago, ecce aliae & aliae ciuitates filiae Regum: ex omni∣bus fit vna quae∣dam Regina. August. in Psal. 44. Loquitur de Catholica Ecclesia, quam vocat Sponsam. Et paulò post; Alloquitur Propheta Regi∣nam istam,— & ad illud corpus pertineamus vniti fide ac spe, &c.
• k 1.673

  Martyrolog. Roman. Maij. 5.
• l 1.674

  Hilarius Eccle∣siarum statum, & concordiam sacerdotum no∣uis praesumptioni∣bus turbaturus ex cessit, ita suae vos cupiens sub∣dere potestati, vt se Beato Aposto∣lo Petro non pa∣tiatur esse sub∣iectum. Leo Papa Epist. 89 ad Epis∣cop. Viennens. Prouinciae, Apud Binium.
• m 1.675

  Laudatus hic propter vitae sanctitatem a Gennadio & Prospero.—Satis ad coronam Hilarij, quòd licèt pro tuendis (vt sibi videbatur) iustè iuribus Ecclesiae Arelatensis, offensam meruit tanti Pontificis, tamē quòd sanctitate non vulgari claruerit, in publicis etiam Romanae Ecclesiae monumentis titulo meruit Sā∣ctitatis ascribi, anniuersariaque memoriâ eiusdem vbique locorum dies natalis coli. Baronius Anno 1445. num 17.18.19. Addit eum tandem conqu••euisse, nec contrarijs editis Apologijs suam causam defendisse.
• q 1.676

  Afferens Oriē∣tales Ecclesiae vertices sanctissi∣mos Episcopos — Magnum Athanasium, Basi∣lium itidem mag∣num, —cumque ijs adducens qua∣tuor Occidenta∣lis Ecclesiae cul∣mina, fidei columnas, lumi∣naria magna, Or∣bis Miracula, Hi∣larium (Pictauen∣sem sc.) Hierony∣mum, Ambrosi∣um, & Augustinū: tantorum patrum coronâ cingens thronum tuum. Baronius Epist. ad Clementem Octa∣uum ante Tom. 4. Annal.
• * 1.677

  Of all these Pa∣riarchs, See after §. 7.
• * 1.678

  Ignatius, See after Cap. 14. §. 7.
• * 1.679

  Gen. 3. ••.
• * 1.680

  Luke 16.8.
• * 1.681

  Jbidem.
• r 1.682

  Romanum Pon∣tificem succedere Petro in Monar∣chiâ Ecclesiasticâ probatur, &c. Bellar. lib 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 12. Hic primatus pro∣batur ex Conci∣lijs. Jdem Cap. 13. Tùm pergit.
• s 1.683

  Concilium Ni∣caenum in initio ante Canonem 6. (Deest in vulgatis, quod alij repetunt in Graecis) Eccle∣sia Romana sem∣per habuit prima∣tum: Vnde Ch••l∣ced. Concilium, Act. 16. Primatum antiquae Romae reseruari, &c.
• t 1.684

  Concilium 2. quod est Constan∣tinop. Theod lib. 5. Hist. Cap. 9. Dicit Se cōuenisse ex mandato lite∣rarū Damasi Pon∣tificis. — Et Ec∣clesiam Romanā caput esse, se autem membra. See also after at Lit. (z.) & (h).
• v 1.685

  Conciliū Ephe∣sinum dicit se de∣ponere Nestori∣um ex ma••dato literarum Coele∣stini, — nec iudi∣care ausum esse, sed Coelestini iu∣dicio reseruasse. Euagrius l. 1 c. 4.
• x 1.686

  Concilium Chalcedon. vocat Leonem Vniuersalis Ecclesiae Pontificem, — cui Vinea domini commissa est custodia.
• y 1.687

  Synodus quinta Constantinop. sub Menna: sedem Apostolicam sequimur & obedimus, con∣demnatos ab ipsâ condemnamus.
• z 1.688

  Septima Synodus Nicaena 2. Act. 2. Petri sedes — primatum obtinet, — omnium{que} Ecclesiarum Dei caput existit. Haec omnia citantur à Bellarmino quó supra.
• a 1.689

  Vid. lit. (t) We haue proued this false, by your te••r∣ming the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Yesterdaies let∣ters, into Man∣dates by letters. See aboue cap. 8. §. 3. And in the other testimonie at the letter (v) the Greeke is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] à legibus Ecclesiasticis: and They adde that they were moued by the Epistles of Calestine, which were not Mandat••∣ry, but Hortatory.
• b 1.690

  Liberius in E∣pistolâ ad Atha∣nasium. Vt tua mandata inhaesi∣tanter obeam, &c. Apud Baronium, Anno 357. num 73.
• c 1.691

  M. T. Cicero ad Quimum fra∣trem. Tua man∣data persequar diligentèr.
• d 1.692

  Verbum Iussio∣nis cupio ab audi∣tu meo remoueri: ego non iussi. Gre∣go. 1. li. 7. Indict. 1. Epist. 30. ad Eu∣logium Alexan∣drin.
• e 1.693

  Quod attinet ad obedientiam & subiectionem— ex humilitate — Neque id abhor∣ret a communi vsu loquendi, vt obedire nos dica∣mus, quum faci∣mus quod alter cupit. Bellarmin. lib. 2. de Rom. P••nt. cap. 28.
• f 1.694

  Ego indignus famulus vester, vestrae iussioni subiectus, ean∣dem legem per diuersas terrarum partes transmitti feci. Et quia lex ipsa Omnipotenti deo minimè con∣cordat, ecce per suggestionis meae paginam serenis∣simis dominis nunciaui. Vtrobi∣que ergo absolui quod debui, qui & Imperatori obe∣dientiam praebui, & pro deo quod sensi minimè tacui. Gregor. l. 2. Indict. 11. Epist. 62. aut (vt quidam libri habent) 65. Apud Bin. Tom. 2.
• g 1.695

  Gregorius pri∣mus, idem & Magnus, l. 2. Epist. 64. ingenuè ag∣noscebat Impera∣tori à deo con∣cessum ••acerdo∣tibus dominari. Espensaeus in Tit. digress. 10. Paris. 1568.
• h 1.696

  For the Coun∣cell speakes not particularly of the Church of Rome, but of the whole West-Church, whereas your Ar∣ticle is praecisely of the Church of Rome.
• i 1.697

  Chrysostom. Hom. 3. ad Populum Antiochenum. Nobis consideratio est de infinitis animabus, de totius or∣bis Capite.
• k 1.698

  Iustin. Institut. lib. 4. tit. 11. §. Quam formam. Cum necesse est omnes Prouincias caput om∣nium nostrarum ciuitatum. i. e. hanc reginam vrbem sequi. Loquitur de Constantinopoli.
• l 1.699

  See aboue at (••.) These were not the words of the Councell, but of Theodorus a Deacon, and of Ischarion another Deacon, and of Paschasius the Legate of the Pope. Haec singula in Actione 3. Concilij Chalcedon.
• m 1.700

  Domino no∣stro beatissimo, Patri Patrum, Ar∣chiepiscopo, & Oecumenico Patriarchae Io∣nanni, & Sanctae Synodo, Episcopi secundae Syriae. &c. Epist. ad Io∣han. Patriarch. & Synod. Con∣stantinop. 5. apud. Binium. Tom. 2.
• n 1.701

  Cod. Authent. Constitut. 3. Tha∣rasium Generalem Patriarcham, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• o 1.702

  Episcopus V∣niuersalis Eccle∣siae habet talem in omnes Christi∣anos curam, vt singulis tamen praesulibus sua re∣maneat admini∣stratio, atque offi∣cium. Costerus Ies. Euchirid. Tract. de Pontif. Solut. 7. & Lindanus Panop. lib. 4. cap. 93.
• * 1.703

  See aboue, ca. 6. §. 6.
• p 1.704

  See aboue, ca. 8. §. 5. And as Pope Iohn the First also by the saue Argu∣ment moued an Archbishop to re∣presse Haeretikes, See aboue, p. 196.2.
• * 1.705

  See aboue, cap. 12. §. 3.
• * 1.706

  See aboue, ca 8.
• q 1.707

  Bellarmin. li. 2. d•• R••m. P••nt. ••. 12.
• r 1.708

  Bellar. Ibid. ca. 31. vt & in literis marginal. seq. vsque ad (••) Papa, vt Linus per Ignatium, quod quamuis communiter alijs, —tamen ex co colligitur Prima∣tus.
• s 1.709

  1. Roma∣no, per Antono∣masiam. Conc. Chalced. Act 16—
• 1 1.710

  In Cypriani passione, Procon∣suli quaerenti, An tu is es, quem Christiani suum Papam vocant? Respondet Cypri∣anus, Ego. Pontius de vitâ Cypriani.
• t 1.711

  2. Quia voca∣tur Papa Vniuer∣salis Ecclesiae.
• 2 1.712

  Dilecte Papa Athanasi. Arsinius in Apologia A∣thanasii.
• 3 1.713

  See aboue,
• u 1.714

  3. Quia a ge∣neralibus Conci∣lijs vocatur Papa; ipse verò nemi∣nem vocat Papam vel Patrem, sed omnes filios, aut frates.
• 4 1.715

  Cornelius Epis∣copus Romanus Cyprianum Car¦thaginensem Pa∣pam vocat, & Pa∣patem. On••iphrius initio Tract. ob∣scurarum vocum.
• 5 1.716

  Cyprianus li. 2. Epistola 8.
• 6 1.717

  Binius Tom. 2. Conc. pa. 365. a
• * 1.718

  See herafter at (o)
• x 1.719

  Pater Patrum, fic Damasus ab Episcopo Cathag.
• 7 1.720

  Papa, i. e. Pater Patrum. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 13. in Epist. Pauli▪ pa. 172. Col. 2.
• * 1.721

  See after, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 16. and aboue cap. 12. §. 1.
• y 1.722

  Po••tifex Christiano∣rum 〈…〉〈…〉.
• z 1.723

  Summus Pon∣tifex ab Hiero∣nymo, & alijs.
• a 1.724

  Princeps Sa∣cerdotum a Va∣lentiniano, & quod Concilium Car∣thaginense vetat ne quis sic voce∣tur, Concilium hoc statuit solum de Episcopis A∣fricae.
• 8 1.725

  Nazianzenus vocabat Basilium Magnum, Mag∣num Pontificem Canis. Ies. ex Na∣zian. Epist. 38. ad Simplic.
• * 1.726

  See hereafter at the letter s.
• * 1.727

  See aboue ca. 12. §. 3.
• b 1.728

  Vicarius Chri∣sti a Bernardo.
• * 1.729

  2 Cor. 5.20.
• 9 1.730

  Eusebius Papa Epist. 3. apud Bin. Tom. 1. Epis∣copis Tusciae & Campaniae (allu∣ding to that of Saint Paul, Ephes. 1. & 2. Cor. 5.) Legatione fungi∣mur pro Christo, Caput enim Chri∣stus est, Christi autem Vicarij sunt eius sacerdotes, qui vice Christi, legatione fungun∣tur.
• c 1.731

  Caput Eccle∣siae, a Concilio Chalced. & à Gre∣gorio Omnium Ecclesiarum Ca∣put sedes Romana.
• 10 1.732

  Athanasius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See aboue, Cap. 12. §. 4.
• 11 1.733

  Patres Concilij Ephesini in Epistolâ ad Imperatorem, vocant Cyrillum Caput Episcoporum congregatorum. Bin. Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 4. c. 8.
• 12 1.734

  Chrysostom. Hom. 3. ad pop. Antioch. Antiochia. caput totius orbis. Ibidem de Constantinop. in Epistolâ ad Jnnocentium, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• d 1.735

  Fundamentum Ecclesiae ab Hiero∣nymo.
• e 1.736

  Pastor ouilis Dominici ab Ambrosio.
• 13 1.737

  Damascenus appellat Athanasium Ecclesiae dei Fun∣damentum. Teste Canisio Catechis. initio, Encom. Patrum.
• * 1.738

  Mark. 16.15.
• 14 1.739

  Nam & Petrus pastor, & Paulus Pastor, caeterique Apostoli Pastores. August. Tract 47. in Iohan.
• f 1.740

  Rector Domus ab Ambrosio.
• * 1.741

  1 Tim. 3.15.
• g 1.742

  Custos vineae a Concil. Chalce∣donensi: cui vinea Domini commissa est.
• 15 1.743

  See aboue, cap. 8. §. 4.
• h 1.744

  Pater & Do∣••••or omnium Christianorum.
• 16 1.745

  Euseb. hist. l. 4. ca. 14. Iste est Pa∣••er Christianorum.
• (17.) 1.746

  1. Orige∣nes est secun∣dus post Apo∣stolos Ecclesia∣rum Magister: sic •• Didymo. Sacro∣rum omnium ex∣positorum victor, ab Hieronymo. Teste Sixto Senen∣si Bibl. lib. 4. Tit. Origen. §. Sed.
• 2 1.747

  Chrysostomus, de quo Innocen∣tius Papa Epistolâ ad Arcad. Impe∣ratorem: Eiecisti à Throno suo mag∣num totius orbis Doctorem. Teste Canisio Ies. initio Catechismi.
• 3 1.748

  Augustinus, de quo venerabilis. Beda in Chron. Omnium Doctor eximius Ecclesia∣rum.
• 4 1.749

  Hilarius, Do∣ctor maximus, Ec∣clesiae Ca••holicae columna meritò habitus. Bellarm. de Script. Ecclesi∣ast. Tit. Hilarius.
• 5 1.750

  Athanasius e∣gregium Ecclesiae columen, cuius dogmata pro Orthodoxae fidei lege haberentur. Sic Nazianzenus, in Oratione de laude eius. Et Ecclesiae Dei columen; sic Damascenus in sermone de Defunctis. Teste Canisio Jes. ante Catechis∣mum.
• 6 1.751

  Basilius Magnus à Nazianzeno Epistolâ ad Basilium, Oculus orbis: & à Gregorio Nysseno in vita Epiph: Os Ecclesiae, Teste Canisio, quò supra. Et it••rum à Gregorio Nazianzeno, Orbis Lumen, Sol in∣ter Sydera, in Oratione ad Basil. Teste Baronio, Anno 371. num. 93.
• 7 1.752

  See aboue at the num∣ber 5.
• 8 1.753

  Gregorius Na∣zianzenus, Is in diuino Eloquio potens, Theologi nomen sortitus est: sic Damascen. serm. de Defun∣ctis. Teste Canisi•• initio Catechism••, Et de eo Ruffinus; Qui solus sit, de cuius fide ne dissi∣dentes quidem in∣ter se (vt fieri so∣let) partes dispu∣tare potuerint: quia & hoc obti∣nuit apud Deum, & Ecclesias Dei, meriti, vt quicun∣que ausus fuerit eius doctrinae in aliquo refragari, ex hoc ipso, quia ipse magis Haere∣ticus arguitur. Manifestum enim iudicium est, non esse rectae fidei, qui in fide Gre∣gorio non concor∣dat. Teste Posse∣uino Apparat. Tit. Greg. Nazian.
• 9 1.754

  Ambrosius, de quo Basilius Epist. 55 ad Ambrosium: Commissa sibi magni & praeclari nauigij Christi, Ecclesiae videlicet Dei, in fide Chri∣sti gubernacula accepit. Teste Ca∣nisio Ies. quo suprà.
• 10 1.755

  Augustinus, ad quem Hieronymus Epist. 80. Ca••holici omnes te vt antiquae rurs••s fidei con∣ditorem venerantur. Teste eodem Canisio.
• 11 1.756

  Cyrillus Alexandrinus, de quo Niceph Hist. lib. 14. cap. 34. Ex quo tempore Caelestini Pontificis locum in Synodo obtinuit, fama est, Papae appellationem, & vt orbis vniuersi I••dex appellaretur, accepisse. Teste Canisio Jes. quo supra.
• k 1.757

  Ecclesiae Apostolicae prasul per Antonomasiam, sine additione Romanae.
• 18 1.758

  Quid facient Ecclesiae orientis, quid Aegypti, & sedis Apostolicae. Hieron. aduersus Vigilantium. By which are vnderstood the Churches subiect to Alex∣andria the Patriarchall and Apostolicall Seate in Aegypt, where Vigilan••ius liued: euen as Saint Augustine called Rome, because it was the onely Apostolicall Seate in the West, wherein Augustine liued.
• l 1.759

  Et dici∣tur Principatum Apostolicae sedis tenere.
• 19 1.760

  Iohannes Antiochiae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. Theod. lib. 3. cap. 17.
• * 1.761

  Age, percurre Ecclesia•• Apostolicas apud quas Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur; Corinthus, Philippis, Ephesus, &c. Tert. Praescript. cap. 36.
• m 1.762

  Et per Vicarios Leonis, sedes eius dicitur Apostolatns.
• * 1.763

  See below at f.
• n 1.764

  Vniuersalis, in Concilio Chal∣ced. Hactenùs Bel∣larmin.
• 20 1.765

  Azorius Mo∣ral. part. 2. lib. 4. pag. 423.
• 21 1.766

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In his letters to George Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury.
• o 1.767

  Antiquissimum Episcopi Romani nomen. Bellar. lib. 2. d•• Rom. P••nt. cap. 31.
• p 1.768

  Antiquitùs nec Papae, nec Pontifi∣ces, sed tantum Romani Episcopi vocabantur. Bal∣dus de Coronat. §. Haec verò.
• * 1.769

  See aboue at s page 214. and at k page 218.
• q 1.770

  Papae nomen peculiariter attri∣butum est Roma∣no Pontifici ex Decreto Gregorij 7. in Synodo Ro¦manâ, anno 1073. Lorinus Ies. in Act. 16. & Azo∣rius Ies. Jnstitu••. Moral. part. 2. lib. 2 cap. vlt.
• * 1.771

  See aboue at t and u page 214.
• r 1.772

  Si mater omniū fidelium est Eccle∣sia, Romanum e∣tiam Episcopum filium habet, alias (sicut beatissi••us Augustinus praedi∣cat) numquam ha∣bebit deum pa∣trem, qui non ha∣bet Ecclesiam ma∣trem.—Papa igitur subesse de∣bet Concilio. Ae∣neas Syluius Com. de Gestis Conc. Ba∣sil. Fol. 5.
• * 1.773

  See aboue at z.
• s 1.774

  Dico, in vno∣quoque genere possunt esse duo Summa, per Nega∣tionem, i.e. quorū nihil est superius: sed non per Affir∣mationem, i.e. vt vnumquodque sit omnium supre∣mum. Azorius Ies. Institut. Moral. lib. 4. cap. 4. part. 2.
• t 1.775

  Haec Praesbyte∣ris non licent, qui Pontificatus Api∣cem non habent. Quae omnia solis deberi summis (loquitur de omni∣bus Episcopis) Pon∣tificibus authori∣tate Canonum praecipitur. Leo Papa Epist. 88. de priuilegio Chore∣piscoporum.
• u 1.776

  Nè Pontifex Maximus alios su∣per se, vel sibi ae∣qualem habere videretur — Pontificis maximi nominis amplitudini iure iunctus est titulus, Episcopus Episcoporum. Baronius Tom. 2. Annal. Anno 216. num. 11.
• x 1.777

  Clemens in Epistola ad Jacobum. Clemens Iacobo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• y 1.778

  Praedicatio est praecipuum munus Episcopi. Concil. Trid. Sess 24. De∣cret. Reform. cap 4.
• z 1.779

  Non meretur nomen Pastoris, qui non personali∣ter intendit Gre∣gi suo B••llarm. Admoni••. ad E∣pis. Theanens. p. 10. — Omnes Epis∣copi, nisi legitimè impediuntur, te¦nentur per se prae∣dicare, quia dixit Christus, Pasce oues meas; non dixit, cura vt alij pascant. Ibidem pag. 22.
• * 1.780

  See aboue at i.
• a 1.781

  Concilium Lug∣dunense, See aboue.
• * 1.782

  Joh. 3▪29.
• b 1.783

  Bernard. Epist. 237. ad Papam Eu∣gen. Nemo com∣mittit Sponsam suam Vicario. Vt citat à Bell. loc. seq.
• c 1.784

  Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 31.
• d 1.785

  Pererius in Gen. 29. disp. vlt. Spon∣sus nisi Vnicus.
• * 1.786

  Joh. 3.
• * 1.787

  1. Cor. 6.20.
• e 1.788

  Aquinas Catenâ aureâ in Ioh. cap. 3. Theophylact: Nul∣lus alius Sponsus nisi solus Christus, omnes namque Doctores Para∣nymphi sunt. Et Beda: Sponsum commendauit a∣mico, i.e. Ordini praedicatorum, qui eam non sibi sed Christo zelare de∣bet.
• f 1.789

  Apostolatus ab Episcopatu differt, quia ille immedia∣tè à Christo voca∣tur, & certè habet Spiritum sanctum, & omnium E••cle∣siarum curam su∣stinet: immediatè vocatus, vni certae sedi praeest. Espen∣saeus Comment. ad 1. Tim. 1. in princ.
• * 1.790

  See aboue cap. 6. §. 6.
• g 1.791

  Vniuersalis au∣tem nec etiam Romanus Ponti∣fex appelletur. Gratian: Decret. part. 1. Distinct. 99. Primae sedis.
• h 1.792

  1. Bzouius in li∣bro qui inscribitur Romanus Ponti∣fex. Vbi citatur A∣brahamus Polanus, ex Tigliatio Ar∣chiepiscopo ad Ju∣nocentium octauū. Regno & vnctione Christus prae pa••∣ticipibus suis. Heb. 1.9.

  2. Ex Barnardin•• Just. Veneto Orat. Paul. 2. Cum cuius coelesti maiestate nullum Diadema comparetur.

  3. Ex Balbo Galliae Orat: Pio 4. Papae: Cuius vox pro O∣raculo.

  4. Ex Ferdinando Val. Lusitano Ora∣tione ad Innocent. 8. Vniuersalis Ec∣clesiae Pastor (iux∣ta Apostolum) su∣per omnem Po∣testatem, & Prin∣cipatum, & omne quod nominatur, siue in hoc, siue in futuro seculo (Ephes. 1.) à Deo constitutus. Bzou. pag. 56.

  5. Bellar-Contr. de Rom. Pont. in Praefat. Sixto Quinto Pontifici Est lapis positus in Sion, probatus, pretiosus, angularis, fundamentum summum. Isa. 28.16. And by Justus Baronius lib. 3. Epist. 1.

  6. Stapleton Ep. Nuncupat. ad Gregorium 13. ante Princip. Doctrin. Sub cuius supremi in tertis numinis tutelâ opus meum in lucem emis∣sum. Et in Glossa edit. approbat. Greg. Extrauag. verb. Significanti. Tit. 14. cap. 4. Dominus noster Deus Papa.
• i 1.793

  Sixtus Senenfis Bib. in locum Isaiae. Pintus in Isaiam 28. Aquinas in 1. Cor. 13. & 1. Pet. 2. Salmeron. in 1. Pet. 2. Maldonat. in Mat. 21.41. Perer. in Dan. 2.
• * 1.794

  Act. 12.22.
• * 1.795

  Act. 8.10.
• k 1.796

  Bellarmin. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 15. Ex patribus Graecis.
• l 1.797

  Jgnatius. Eccle∣siae sanctificatae quae praesidet in regio∣ne Romanorum. Ergo intelligit Ecclesiam Roma∣nam esse Caput omnium aliarum.
• m 1.798

  Iraeneus Triae. 1. Necesse esse ad Romanam Eccle∣siam omnem Ec∣clesiam cōuenire. 2. propter poten∣tiorem principali∣tatem. 3. In hoc conseruata est ea, quae ab Apostolis recepta est Tradi∣tio. This might haue beene spoken of the Imperiall power of that Citie. For although Con∣stantinople was the place of the Emperours residence, yet the Emperor was at that time really the Emperor of the Romans: but be it Ecclesiasticall power, yet was not the necessitie of r••course vnto it absolute and perp••tuall, but occasionall for that time. For Iraenaeus sheweth that he might haue proued his Traditions from other Churches (Longum esset om∣nes enumerare Ecclesias, &c.) but for breuitie sake he instanced only in Rome, and the rather for the powerfull principality of that Sea, in the preseruation of Originall Truth. And remember this Irenaeus was hee, that con∣sented with the Asian Bishop•• that were excommunicated by Pope Victor. See abou••. Cap. 9. §. 2.
• n 1.799

  Epiphanius Haeres. 68. Vrsatius & Valens Episcopi — ad Papam ••ulium prosecti, pro reddendâ ratione de suo delicto. Ergò, Papa Romanus Episcoporum Iudex. The same parties that had columniated Athanasius, and thereby, as much as lay in them discredited the Pope, who had iustified him, asked pardon for their offence, both of Athanasius and of Pope Iulius
• o 1.800

  Athanasius Apolog. 2. Episcopos eosdem à Papa Iulio Delicti veniam petijsse Et Epistolâ ad Felicem Papam: Episc••pos Romanos in summitatis arce constitutos omnium Ecclesiarum Cu∣ram habere. Of [Cu••am habere] see aboue Cap. 8. §. 5.
• p 1.801

  Dionysius Alex∣drinus. Is apud Romanum Pon∣tificem accusatus; Ergo, Papa com¦munis omnium in lex. Jt is no extraordinary thing for one Pa∣triarch to be ac∣cused before his fellow-Patriarch, yet not iudicially, but by Confedera∣tion, that the guilty person be depriued of his Communion with whom the Cause is pleaded.
• q 1.802

  Basilius Epist. 52. ad Athanasiū; tribuit Romano Episcopo authori∣tatem visitandi Ecclesias orientis. See aboue Capit. 12. §. 4. & after at §. 7.
• r 1.803

  Gregorius Na∣zianzenus in Car∣mine dicit Roma∣nam Ecclesiam semper conse••uasse veram de Deo sententi••m, vt decet vrbem quae toti orbi praesidet. He saith not Ecclesia praesidet, but V••bs; meaning the Temporall state of Rome. Ob Sol. Although the Emperour resided at Constantinople, yet was he stiled of Rome, The Romane Emperour. For Rome was after this time called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i.e. Omnium Ciuitatum facilè Princeps. Socrates lib. 2. Cap 11. Theod. lib. 4. Cap. 8.
• s 1.804

  Zo∣men. lib 3. Cap. 9. Propter sedis dignitatem cura omnium ad Iulium spectabat, singulis Ecclesiam suam restituit, nempe Athanasium Alexandrino, & Paulo Constantinopolitano He did so pro posse suo, but was resisted by the Easterne Bishops, and reuiled. Ibid Where Zozomen is not to be vnderstood to speake these words from his owne iudgement, but from the opinion that Pope Julius had of himselfe. For it followeth in Zozomen, that those East-Bi∣shop••, expostulating the Cause with Pope Iulius, did protest against him, saying that hee had no more to doe with restoring Athanasius Excommunicated by them, than they had to restore Nouatus Excommunicated by himselfe. And the helpe that Athanasius had was not in the Pope absolutely, but in the Synod.
• t 1.805

  Chrysost. Epist. 1. ad Inno∣centium Papam. Obsecro vt scribas, vt illi qui iniquè egerunt poenae Ecclesiastic••rum legum subiaceant. Ergò Papa summus Pontifex etiam Graecorum 2. Agnoscit Papae Paternam beneuolentiam; Ergò patrem. 3. Orat Papam nè mimicos ejus eijciat. When the Generall Canons of Election of a Patriarch were broken, well might Chrysostome seeke helpe of a Co-Patriarch Innocentius, to defend the Canon, so farre as his Authority would reach, and to punish ••hem by Excommunication, which was but only a Separation from Communion with his own Church. And Innocentius himselfe confesseth (Epist. ad Chrysost.) that he would not restore Chrysostome without a Synod. See Binius Tom. 1. and when he had done his best, his Authority was reiected with scorne; yet could Chrysostome doe no lesse than thankefully acknowledge his Fatherly care, being now no Bishop, but Deposed.
• u 1.806

  Cyrillus Alex∣andrinus Epist. 10. ad Nest. & Epist. 11. ad Clerum et populum Constantinop. Nestorium dicit excommunicandum ab omnibus, nisi intra terminos à Papa praescriptos se reuocet. Et ad Coelestinum. Num velit cum Nestorio ad tempus aliquod communicari, petit ab eo. Ergò Is administer, Papa iudex. Rursus in libro de Thesauro; Debemus capiti nostro Romano Pontifici adhaerere. See after §. 7.
• x 1.807

  Theodoretus E∣piscopus Asianus ad Leonem. Obse∣cro vt mihi opem feras, iudicium tuum appellanti. Meaning a Subsi∣diarie iudgement, not absolute. Binius Tom. 2. Annot in Conc. Chalced. Sess. 8. pag. 184. Theodo∣retus Cypri Epis∣copus depositus, & tanquam qui Nestorianus esset exulate coactus, ad Romanum Pontificem, alios∣que orientis E∣pi••copos, hac de re diu multum∣que conquestus, se vere Catholi∣cum esse probans literis significauit, —in hoc con∣sessu ins••iterunt, vt Anathema Ne∣storio dicerent, sed in pristiuam fidem est restitu∣tus; namely, by the Synod of the Bi∣shops in the East.
• y 1.808

  Acacius in Epist. ad Smplici∣um. Solicitudinem omnium Ecclesia∣rum, secundùm Apostolum, circum-ferentes, nos indesinenter hortamini. Acacius meant not to make the Pope a Monarch by this, because he alludeth to that saying of the Apostle, (not of Peter, but of Paul) that said, I haue the care of all Churches: and Chrysostome himselfe; Curam Vniuersae Ecclesiae gerimus. Hom. 18. in 2. Cor. 11.
• z 1.809

  Liberatus de Episopo Patarensi, in Breuiario Cap. 22. Pontifex Romanus praeest Ecclesiijs to∣tius mundi. De quo Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 10. §. Posset. Possit dici epistolam illam Vigilij cuius me∣minit Liberatus, confictam fuisse ab Haereticis, Liberatum autem credidisse falso rumori, quem Haeretici spar∣serant. And would he not be as well deceiued in this? 2. This Greeke Author must bee taken in the Greeke sense, of Primacy or Order. 3. Iustinian promised to restore Syluerius, vpon condition that he would cleare him∣selfe, otherwise to be confined to one City Patarensis that laboured the Release of Syluerius, did not oppose against this Condition. Baronius, anno 538 num. 13.
• a 1.810

  Iustinianus Epistolâ ad Iohannem 2, quae habetur, in Codice, in primo Titulo. Quae est Caput omnium Ecclesiarum. If we should grant you, that that Rescript is not Counter∣feit, yet He meaneth no more, but Primus Episcoporum. As for the word [Caput] you haue heard how common •••• hath beene, without any sense of Monarchy.
• * 1.811

  See aboue Cap. 9.
• * 1.812

  See after at q.
• * 1.813

  See aboue, Cap. 12. §. 4.
• * 1.814

  See aboue at t.
• b 1.815

  Baronius An∣no 412. ••um. 43.
• c 1.816

  Ibidem num 44. &. 46.
• d 1.817

  Jbidem num. 47. Theophilus i•• Sanctis.
• e 1.818

  Jbidem num. 47 Populi concordiae gratiâ, (necessita∣te premente) ne Religionis res ex populi arbitrio penderet. Baro∣nius in the Mar∣gent noteth: Cogi∣tur Atticus resti∣tuere nomen Io∣hannis. And An∣no 425, num. 19. Ostendimus At∣ticum coactum fuisse ab Inno∣centio Roman•• Pontifice restitue∣re nomen Iohan∣nis. And yet ne∣uer produceth any place to proue it, but this forenamed in Num 49. which speaketh onely of ae Necessity occasio∣ned by the Tu∣mult of the peo∣ple; as the Pre∣cedents and Con∣sequents of that Parenthesis doe plainely shew.
• f 1.819

  Ibidem num. 50. Scil. ad — 412. Quòd in Roma∣nam Ecclesiam, a cuius commu∣nione iamdiu re∣jectus fuerat, esset perinfensus, Paulinum & Eua∣grium Episcopos defunctos, qui illi commnunicaue∣rant, Schismaticos vocat.
• g 1.820

  Baronius anno 432. num. 13. Atticus reueren∣dissimae momoriae vi••, & Catholicae fidei propugnator fortissimus. Ex Epistolâ Coelestini.
• h 1.821

  Idem anno 412. num. 53. Ex quo, &c. Epistola Cyril∣li ad Atticum.
• i 1.822

  Inobedientes. &c Ibid. num. 56.
• k 1.823

  Ibidem num. 60. Consideres hic velim, &c.
• l 1.824

  Bellar. lib. de Scriptoribus Ec∣clesiasticis. Tit. Sanctus Cyrillus Alexandrinus.
• m 1.825

  Baronius Anno 412. num. 69. Vt Nicephorus lib. 14. Cap. 28. Videre (inquit) visus est Cyrillus se ipsum sacris aedibus ex∣pulsum a Ionan∣ne, comitatu, & diuino, quod cir¦ca eum erat, satel∣litio maximè fre∣to.— Proinde Synodum Prouin∣cialem coegit, & Iohannis nomen simul & ipse & reliqui — in sacro Albo proposuerunt.
• * 1.826

  See aboue at x.
• * 1.827

  See aboue in di∣uers places.
• n 1.828

  Baronius Anno 478. num. 6 Aca∣cius phrenesi a∣bre••tus, aduersus Rom Pontificem violentus insurgit. Et anno 483. num. 78. Recipit, quos Felix Papa dam∣nauit.
• o 1.829

  Idem anno 484. num. 17. Papa sen∣tentiam Excom∣munications in Acacium profert.
• p 1.830

  Leo Imperator lib. 16. ca. de sacro∣sancta Eccl. Ijs quae contra haec—in∣nouata sunt, tam contra venerabi∣les Ecclesias, qua∣rum sacerdotium gerit Beatissimus ac religiocissimus Patriarcha nostrae Pietatis pater A∣cacius &c. —Sa∣crosanctam quo∣que religiosissimae huius Ciuitatis Ecclesiam, & Ma∣t••em nostrae pie∣tatis, & Christia∣norum O••tho∣doxae Religionis omnium, & eius∣dem regiae vrbis sanctissimam se∣dem priuilegia & honores omnes super Episcopo∣••um creationibus, & iure ante alios residendi & coete∣ra omnia, quae an∣te Imperium no∣strum, vel nobis imperantibus ha∣buisse dignosci∣tur, habere in per∣pe••uum firmiter Regiae Vrbis in∣tuitu iudicamus & sancimus. Baro∣nius an. 472. Num. 3.4.
• q 1.831

  Ad haec Leonis verba sic Baronius, Anno 47••. num. 4. Haec Leo, sed Aca∣cij fastu tumentis proculdubio ver∣bis concepta, & stylo superbiae exarata. Haud enim pij Principis verba illa esse po¦tuerint, quibus di∣citur Constanti∣nopolitanam Ec∣clesiam Christia∣norum omnium, & Orthodoxae Religionis Ma∣trem esse.
• * 1.832

  See aboue dis∣cussed at large Cap. 3.
• * 1.833

  See aboue Cap. 8. §. 5.
• r 1.834

  Bellarmine.
• s 1.835

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 16. ex Cypriano de Vnitate, [Ne{que} Ca∣put quaeritur,— Ecclesiam vnam in radice.] Ex lib. 1. Epist. 1. ad Cor∣nelium. [Haere∣ses obortae sunt, quòd non sacer∣doti Dei obtem∣peratur, nec vnus — ad tempus sacerdos, & iudex — vice Christi cogitatur] &c. Vbi intelligit Corne∣lium. Et lib. 2. Epist. 1••. ad eun∣dem Cornelium: [Nouatianus con∣trar••um caput ex∣tra Ecclesiam fe∣cit;] nempe Con∣tratium Cornelio tanquam Capiti Or••hodoxorum. Et lib. 1. Epist. 8 ad plebem vniuersam. [Deus vnus, vna Ecclesia, & Cathedra vna super Petrum fundata —vnum Sacerdotium.] Certè intelli••it vnam Cathedram, & Ecclesiam unam numero, non specie; & Cathedram vnam singularem quae totam Ecclesiam docet. Et lib. de Vnitate, vbi dicit. [Episcopatus vnus est, &c] vbi Episcopatus vnus intelligitur vt Ecclesia vna: vt multi rami vna arbor, ratione vnius radicis seu Ca∣pitis. Et cùm dicit [Episcopatus vnus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur] sed non aequalis, neque eodem modo. Et Epist. ad Quintum, vbi dicit [Neminem se facere Episcopum Episcoporum] loquitur de ijs qui erant in Carthaginensi Ecclesiâ. Et vbi addit [Episcopum non iudicari nisi à solo Deo] loquitur de rebus dubijs & occultis. Haec Bellarminus. This last, as well as the rest, he could not but know to be false, for he spake it in the Question concerning Rebap••ization, which he himselfe beleeued (his owne word) as Manifest.
• t 1.836

  Cyprian de V∣nitate Ecclesiae. Vnam Cathedram cōstituit, & vnitatis Originem ab vno incipientem suâ authoritate dispo∣suit. Hoc erant v∣tique & ceteri A∣postoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari con∣sortio praediti, & honoris & pote∣statis, sed exordi∣um ab vnitare proficiscitur, vt Eccles••a vna mon¦stretur Tract. 3. de Simplicit. Prae∣latorum. Edit. Basil. apud Frob. Anno 1525.
• u 1.837

  Cum sit a Chri∣sto Ecclesia vna per totum mun∣dum in multa membra diuisa, item Episcopatus vnus Episcoporum multorum concor∣di numerositate diffusus. Cyprian lib. 4. Epist. 2. ad Antonianum.
• x 1.838

  Quam vnita∣tem firmiter tene∣re debemus, qui in Ecclesiâ praeside∣mus vt Episcopa∣tum quoque ipsi vnum & indiui∣sum probemus. Item.—

  Episcopatus vnus est, cuius a singu∣lis in solidum pars tenetur. Cyprian. de Vnitat. Eccle∣si••e.
• y 1.839

  Vnum E••isco∣pum in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ esse de∣bere. Cyprian li. 3. Epist. 11.
• z 1.840

  Pamelius in e∣um locum, & Bel∣larminus.
• a 1.841

  Nouatum om∣nino praeterijt, sci∣licet, vnum solum Episcopum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —in quâ tamen non ignorabat Presbyteros esse quadraginta sex, Diaconos septem, &c. Apud Eusebi∣um. li. 6, cap. 35.
• b 1.842

  Cyprian lib. 4. Epist. 2. ad Antoni∣anum, de Nouatia∣no. Episcopatum autem tenere non posset, etiamsi E∣piscopus priùs fa¦ctus a Coepis∣corporm suorum Corpore.
• c 1.843

  Dico dolens, dicoque compul¦sus, quando Epis∣copus in locum defuncti substitui∣tur, quando a po∣spuli vniuersi suf∣iragio in pace de∣gitur, quando — collegis omnibus fideliter iunctus, plebi suae in Epis∣copatu quadrien¦niò iam probatus &c. Cypr. l. 1. Epi. 3.
• d 1.844

  Bellar. Chronol. pars 2. Anno 254.
• e 1.845

  Cyprian. l. 4. Ep. 9. ad Pupianum. Vnde Schismata & Haereses obor∣tae sunt, nisi dum Episeopus, qui V∣nus est, & Eccle∣siae praeest, super∣bâ quorundam praesumptione contemnitur? — Etiam sex annis (Jronic〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) nec fraternitas habue¦rit Episcopum, nec grex Pasto∣rem, —nec Christus Antisti∣tem, nec deus sa∣cerdotem. — Tu iudicem te nostri constitueris.
• f 1.846

  Haec est vna (Ecclesia) quae possidet omnem sui domini pote∣statem: in hac praesidemus. Cy∣prian. ad Iubaia∣num. Ep. 77. edit. Pamil.
• * 1.847

  Mat. 12.34.
• g 1.848

  See his Epistles.
• h 1.849

  Lib. 4. Epist. 2. ad Antoni. Coëpis∣copo nostro Cor∣nelio:— Fratrem Cornelium—Col∣legam nostrum Cornelium, &c. Frater Antoniane. And so in his Epi∣stles ad Iubaia∣num, ad Pupianú, and others.
• * 1.850

  See aboue,
• * 1.851

  See aboue, cap. 12. §. 2.
• i 1.852

  See our Doctor Iames Obseruations, In operibus Cy∣priani suppositi∣tia Epistola 3. Cle∣ri Rom. ad Cle∣rum Carthaginen. Supposititia Epist. 67. Stephano Fratri.
• k 1.853

  Bellarmin. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 16. Optatus Cypriani senten∣tiam sequitur de Vnica Cathedrâ & singulari non solum Petri, sed successorum eius, vsque ad Sy••ici∣um. Optatus con∣tra Parmenianum. Vbi dicit Quin∣que esse Eccle∣siae totius dotes, ac primam esse Vnicam Petri Cathedram, in quâ ab omnibus seruari debet V∣nitas.
• l 1.854

  Optatus lib. 2. Catholica est Ec∣••lesia, quae est in ••oto terrarum orbe diffusa, eius iam sunt com∣memoranda ornamenta — inter quas Cathedra est prima —quae Vnica pag. 39. But not s••le Romane: For hee addeth Pag. 47. Nullam communionem habere probamini cum septem Angelis, qui sunt apud so∣cios nostros in Asiâ. — Extra septem Ecclesias, quicquid foris est alienum est.
• m 1.855

  Optatus in eo∣dem libro Octauo loquitur apertè de Communione vni∣tatis non Do∣minii; paulò post dicit, poterant Apostoli non communicare cum B. Petro, & recitare verba Christi de Petro negaturo se, & ta∣men bono vnita∣tis, &c. Et in lib. 5. Est ergo in v∣niuersis seruien∣tibus non Domi∣nium sed obse∣quium: & in eo∣dem libro post∣quam de Cathe∣drâ Petri, Liberio (inquit) suc••essit Damasus, Damaso Syricius, hodie qui noster est Zozi∣mus, cum quo to∣tus orbis com∣mercio formata∣rum in vnâ Com∣munionis societa∣te concordat. Au∣det Optatus Ro∣manum Papam Socium simpliciter vocare. Casaubon. Exercit in Baroniū 16. §. 140.
• n 1.856

  Bellarm. quo su∣pra. Tertius est Ambrosius, in 1. ad Timotheum. cap. 3. Ecclesia Dei domus, cuius Rector est Dama∣sus. Et lib. 3. de Sacramentis cap. 1. In omnibus cu∣pio sequi Romanam Ecclesiam, &c.
• o 1.857

  Quartus est Hieronymus. Epist. ad Ageruchiam: Cùm inuarem Dama∣sum. Et in Epist. ad Damasum de nomine Hypostase〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• p 1.858

  Quintus est Augustinus Epist. 162. In Ro∣manâ Ecclesiâ semper viguit Principatus.
• * 1.859

  Ambrose. See aboue, cap. 12. §. 7. August. Ibid. §. 8. Hie∣rom cap. 12. §. 6.
• q 1.860

  Sextus Prosper. Sedes Roma Petri, quae Pastoralis honoris facta caput mundi, &c. Lib. de Jngratis.
• r 1.861

  Septimus Victor Vticensis, qui appellat Romanam Ecclesiam caput omnium Eccle∣siarum. Lib. 2. de Persec. Vandal.
• * 1.862

  See aboue in this Chapter.
• s 1.863

  Octauus Vincentius Lyrinen∣sis in suo Commentario. Lectae sunt Epistolae Felicis & Iulij vrbis Romae Episcopo••ū: & vt non solùm caput orbis, verùm etiam latera illi iudicio testimonium perhiberent, adhibitus est à Meridie Beatus Cyprianus, à Septent••ione Sanctus Ambrosius, &c Vides Romanū Pontificem vocari caput orbis terrarum. Bell. quo supra.
• * 1.864

  1. Sam. 19.
• t 1.865

  Opusculum par∣••um mole, sed vir∣tute maximum, de profanis vocum nouitatibus. Bell. lib. de Scriptoribus Eccles. Tit. Vin∣cent. Lyrin.
• * 1.866

  See aboue, Cap. 7. §. 1.
• u 1.867

  Nonus est Cassi∣odorus lib. 11. E∣pist. 2. Bellar. quo supra.
• * 1.868

  Psal. 87.2.
• x 1.869

  Cùm dicunt Pa∣tres Romanam Ecclesiam non posse errare, vox [posse] non ascri∣bitur absolutè, & simpliciter, sed quamdiu sedes Apostolica ibi manet. Bellar. lib. 4. de Rom. Pout. c. 4.
• * 1.870

  See aboue in di∣uers places.
• * 1.871

  See aboue at m.
• * 1.872

  See aboue in this Chapter.
• * 1.873

  See aboue, Chap. 12. §. 2.
• * 1.874

  See aboue, cap. 12 §. 6.
• * 1.875

  See aboue, Cap. 12. §. 8.
• y 1.876

  Bellerm. lib. de Scriptoribus Eccle∣siasticis.
• * 1.877

  See aboue, cap. 7. §. 1.
• z 1.878

  Te••tullianus magnus vir pro∣fectò quo Beatus Cyprianus vsus est magistro.— Non fuisse satis, ••equum Pontifici Rom. ex libro de Pudicitiâ intelli∣gimus, Benedi∣ctum Papam ap∣pellans, & Pon••••∣ficem sc. Maxi∣mum Episcopum Episcoporum; quae Ironic〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ab eo dicta videntur, seu in Victorem, seu in alium. Massonius de Episcop. Vrbis Romae. Tit. Victor.
• a 1.879

  Licèt haec no∣mina [Sanctissi∣mus, & Beatissi∣mus] Leoni pri∣mo coeperint tri∣bui, tanquam Prae∣suli cuidam vitae ac morum digni∣tate sanctissimo, postea verò re∣tenta sunt ratione muneris & officij, quod Pontifex gerit. Azorius Ies. Institut. Moral. par. 2. lib. 2. cap. 4.
• b 1.880

  Bellarmine and Genebrard. See a∣aboue.
• c 1.881

  Quaerenti num Papa qui turpissi∣mis actionibus Ecclesiam foeda∣uit, dici potest Pontifex malae memoriae, dic quòd non: quia respiciendum est non ad id quod fecit, sed quod fiere debuit. Glossa apud Extrauag. lib. 4. cap. Dudùm.
• d 1.882

  Bellarm. lib. de Rom. Pont. cap. 14.
• e 1.883

  Primi Pontifices Romani Ecclesiae Rom. Primatum constanter colle∣gerunt, Clemens, Anacletus, — quorum omnium testimonia nec su∣specta (cum Hae∣reticis) sed vt Au∣thentica esse non dubites. Lege Franc. Turrian•• aduersus Mag. haec Stapleton. de do∣ctrinal Princip. lib. 6. cap 15. Et Canus loc. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 8. Castro lib. 1. cap. 2.
• f 1.884

  Quamuis aliquos — errores in eos irrepsisse non ne∣gaue••im, nec in∣dubitatas esse af∣firmare ausim, cer∣tè tamen antiquis∣simas esse nihil dubito. Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 14.
• g 1.885

  Rob. Cocus no∣ster in Censura Scriptorum.
• h 1.886

  Anacletus Epist. 3. Clemens Epist. 1. Anicet Epist 1. Teste Bellarm. lib. 2. de Monach. cap. 40.
• i 1.887

  De Epist. 1. Cle¦mentis, Adulterinā esse. Cardinal. Cu∣sanus Concord Cath. lib. 3. Cap. 2. Comestor Epist. Scholast. in Act. Apost. c. 101. Card. Turrecremata Sum. lib. 2. cap. 101 Baronius An. 69. num 43. Binius Annot. in Epist. Anacleti. 3. Cusanus lib. 2. cap. 34. Contius dist. 6. qu. 1. cap. Beatus. Euaristi Omnia istius Decreta videri possunt su••posit••tia. Contius Annot. in cap. 30.45. Aliter. Calixti Epistolas se∣lecti viri, in emendando Gratiano, rejecerunt: Teste Antonio Augustino de Emendatione Gratiani l. 2. Deindè de Epistolâ Clementis, Eusebij, Milti••dis, Bellarminus: Incertū est, vtrum illi authores sunt, quorum nomi a prae se ferunt. lib. 2. de Confirmat. cap. 7. Haec omnia habentur in Coco nostro, in Censura Scriptor••m.
• k 1.888

  ••pis∣copi Obediendi: Peto vt prome orare Debeas: Rigosus tortor▪: Lugere indisciplinitatem: Charitatiuè agere: Iugiabiliter stare, &c.
• l 1.889

  Probatur ex testimonijs sum∣morum Pontifi∣cum, &c. Bellar. lib. 2, de Rom. Pont. Cap. 14.
• m 1.890

  Contius Annot. in Cap. 6. q. 1. Bea∣tus: Teste Coco no∣stro in Censurâ Scriptorum. pag. 24.
• n 1.891

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 14. Primus sit Iulius 1. Epistolâ ad Orientales. An ignari estis, &c. His verbis affir∣mat ad se perti∣nere ius om∣nium Causas iudicandi. 2. Da∣masus; Sedi Apo∣stolicae Reueren∣tiam debitam, &c. Orientales vocat filios. Et alibi, Ad nos tanquam Caput. 3 Syricius: Romana Eccle∣sia vt Caput Cor∣poris. 4. Zozimus Quisquis post-ha∣bitâ Apostolicae sedis authoritate neglexerit, &c. 5. Innocentius ••. Sedes Apostolica caput Ecclesiarū. Et iterum, Quem solicitudo manet omnium Ecclesia∣rum. 6. Leo ad E∣piscopos Thessa∣lon: Constanti∣nop. Antiochen, &c. 7. Gelasius: Se∣des Apostolica omnes iudicans, à nullo iudicatur. 8. Iohannes 2. Ro∣manae sedis Re∣uerentiam:— omnium Ecclesia∣rum Caput. 9. Anastasius: Sedes Petri tenet Prin∣cipatum. 10. Fe∣lix 4. Ad sedem Apostolicam tanquam ad Caput. 11. Pelagius 2. Romana sedes caput est omnium Ecclesiarum. 12. Gregorius 1. ius exercuit in multos: Constantinopolitanam Ecclesiam Romanae Sub∣iectam:—Caput Ecclesiae, &c.
• o 1.892

  Greg. lib. 7. Epist 63. ad Eusebium Constantinopolitanum subiectum.
• p 1.893

  In Colloq. cum Harto. Cap. 8. §. 5.
• q 1.894

  So Damasus, & Iohn 2.
• * 1.895

  1. Pet. 3.7. Mariti-mulieri impartientes ho∣••orem,
• * 1.896

  1. Tim. 5.3. Viduas honora.
• r 1.897

  See aboue in this Chapter. t. r. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Aris Rhet. l. 1. c. 7
• s 1.898

  Damasus, Sy••i∣cius, Innocentius, Leo, Iohannes, Felix, Pelagius, Gregotius.
• t 1.899

  Innocentius.
• u 1.900

  Anastasius.
• * 1.901

  See aboue in di∣uers places.
• x 1.902

  Iulius in Episto∣lâ supra obiectâ. Etsi solus sim qui sc••ipsi, non ta∣men meam solus sententiam scrip∣si, ••ed om••ium Italorum & omni∣um Episcoporum: quapropter (Di∣lectissimi) etsi so∣lus scribo, tamen communem sen∣ten••iam vos scire volo, Coēpisco∣pos nostros Atha∣nasium & Martia∣lem in comunio∣nem recepimus. Apud Binium p. 407. They charge him also with the breach of Canons of the Church in antient Councels.
• y 1.903

  Greg. lib. 11. Epist. 54. Citans No∣uellam Iustiniani, in qua decernitur Archiepiscopum & Patriarcham Dioecesis finite causas debere, iuxta Canones Nouellae. 123. Cap. 22
• * 1.904

  See aboue Cap. 6. §. 6.
• * 1.905

  See aboue at n
• z 1.906

  Apud Theodo∣retum lib. 5. Cap. 9. Orientales fratri∣bus & Collegis, Damaso, Ambro∣sio, &c.
• * 1.907

  Of all these we haue spoken alrea∣dy See aboue in their places.
• * 1.908

  Joh. 5.31.
• e 1.909

  Augustinus Qu. Vet. & Nou. Testam. num. 101. Quidam igitur Flaceidij nomine, duce stultitia, & Romanae Ciuita∣tis iactantiâ, Leui∣tas Sacerdotibus, & Diaconos Presbyteris coē∣quare contendit.
• a 1.910

  Tertullian de Pudicitiâ in initio. Pontifex sc. Max∣mus, & Episcopus Episcoporum.
• b 1.911

  Polycrates: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 25.
• c 1.912

  Cyprian. Ste∣phanus superbus. —Nemo nostrū tyrannico terrore, &c. See aboue. chap. 12. §. 2.
• d 1.913

  Concil. Africa∣num. Appellatio∣nis ius, typhus fumosus. See a∣boue Cap. 9. §. 8.
• f 1.914

  Hieron Re∣cedat Ambitio. See aboue.
• g 1.915

  Basilius Epist. 10 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—
• h 1.916

  Cyrill: Non possumus propter sermones quorū∣dam permittere Canones violari, &c. See aboue.
• i 1.917

  Ambros. Nos quoque ho mines sensum habemus. See aboue, Cap. 12 §. 7.
• k 1.918

  Vigilius eo in∣solentiae progres∣sus est, vt Mennā Constantino poli∣tanum Episco∣pum a Commu∣nione excluserit. Niceph Hist. lib. 17. Cap. 26.
• l 1.919

  Almain See aboue
• * 1.920

  Marke 10.
• * 1.921

  Luke 22.
• * 1.922

  Luke 9.
• m 1.923

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 18. Ex authoritate, quam Pontifices exercuerunt in alios Episcopos toto orbe Institu∣tos, Depositos & Restitutos: quorū singula per se suf∣ficerent ad Pri∣matum eius osten∣dendum.
• n 1.924

  Etsi ex Con∣fi••matione &c. Bellarm. Ibid. §. Notandum.
• o 1.925

  Conc. Constant. 2. quod erat. 5. Ge∣nerale anno. 535. Act. 1. Interpretati•• Epistolae Synoda lis; Literae Agapeti Papae ad Petrum E∣piscopum Hieroso∣lymitanum. A temporibus Apo∣stoli nullum alium vnquam (nempe praeter hunc Men∣nam Episcopum Constantinop) orientalis Ecclesia suscepit Episco∣pum manibus no∣strae sedis Ordina∣tum. Apud Surium Tom. 2. pag. 431.
• q 1.926

  Dist. 11. C. Qui•• nesciat. Enume∣rantur Prouinciae quae Romano Pa∣triarcha••ui sub∣iecta sunt. Card. Cusanus Concord. Cath. l. 2. c. 7. Ibi autem numerantur & nominantur Hispania, Gallia, Africa; And af∣terwards you haue Thessaly and other Prouinces; within which also Dal∣m••tia is comprehen∣ded, and Salonia.
• r 1.927

  Per omnem Africam Prouinciae Sex — totidem erant Primates, siue Primae sedis Episcopi: ho••um omnium prima erat Episcopus Carthaginensis; apud illum summa erat potestas in crea∣tionibus Episcoporum quos vellet per Africam. Pamelius in Cyprian. lib. 4. Epist. 8. Jta Salmeron. ex Epist. Leonis. 9. ad P••tr. & Ioh. African. Tom. 12. tr. 68. §. Ad Canonem.
• s 1.928

  Quod factum est in Sabini Col∣legae nostri Ordi∣natione, — Vt manus ei in lo∣cum Basilidis im∣poneretur. Neque rescindere Ordi∣nationem iure perfectam potest, quòd Basilides post crimina sua detecta — Romam pergens Stepha¦num Collegam nostrum veritatis ignarum fefellit. Cyprian li. 1. Epi. 4. de Martiali, & Ba∣silide.
• t 1.929

  Retentâ a nobis rei veritate, ad comprobandam Ordinationem tu∣am, factà authori∣tate maiore, tum demum scrupulo omni ex singulo∣rum pectoribus excusso, vt per omnes omnino in Prouinciâ istâ po∣sitos literae fierent, vt te Vniuersi col∣legae nostri, & commnucatio∣nem tuam, i.e. Catholicae Eccle∣siae Vnitatem pari∣ter & Charirat••m probarent firmi∣ter, & tenerent. Cyp. li. 4. Epist. 8. Cornelio.
• u 1.930

  Iohannes Diaco¦nus in vitâ Grego∣rij, lib. 2. ca. 3. & 4. Synodicam quo∣que suam Grego∣rius secundum priscum praede∣cessorum suorum morem Iohanni Constantinopolitano, Eulogio Alexandrino, Gregorio Antiocheno, & Iohanni Hieroso∣lymitano destinauit: — Quatuor Concilia ••uscipere & venerari me fateor, Nicaenum sc. — Constantino∣politanum — Ephesinum primum —Chalcedonense — Quintum quoque veneror. Haec habentur apud ipsum Gregorium, lib. 1. Epist. 4. & 24.
• x 1.931

  Baroniu•• Anno 591. num. 4.
• y 1.932

  Sozomen Hist. lib. 3. cap. 7.
• z 1.933

  Apud Gratianum, dist. 11. Jn tantum.
• a 1.934

  Nicephorus lib. 17. cap. 26.
• b 1.935

  Hadrianus 1. Epist. 1. ad Constan∣tinum Imperato∣rem, & Irenem. A∣pud Binium Tom. 3. part. 1 p. 258. Pos∣cimus vt oblata & Christianis & con∣cessa Patrimoni∣um Beati Petri, — nobis restituere dignemini,—imo & Consecratione•• Episcoporum, & Archiepiscopo∣rum, sicut olitana constat Traditio, nostrae Dioecesis existentes, penitus canonicè Sanctae Romanae nostrae restituantur Ec∣clesiae.
• c 1.936

  Etiam Nicolaus primus Epist. 2. ad Michaelem Jmpe∣ratorem. Oportet vestrum Imperia∣le decus— vt An∣tiquum morem, quem ro••tra Ecclesia habuit, vestris temporibus restaurate dignemini; quatenus vicem quam nostra sedes per Episcopos vestris in partibus constitutos habuit, viz. Thessalonicensem, qui Romanae fedis vicem per Epirum veterem, Epirumque nouum, atque Illyrium, Macedoniam, Thessaliam, Achaiam, Da∣ciam — Mysiam, Dardaniam, & Praeualim, B. Petro —contradicere nullus praesumat; quae Antecessorum nostrorum temporibus sc. Damasi &c. Numerat Papas vsque ad Hormisdam. Apud Binium Tom. 3. part. 1. pag 647. Et ibedem pauló ante. Quia Hadrianus sanctissimus Praesul Antecessor noster, &c.
• d 1.937

  Iacobus Syrmundus Ies. Censura de Suburbicarijs Regionibus: Discas a Leone Sapiente in Diatyposi, auulsos esse a Dioecesi Romanâ, iamque throno Cōstantinopolitano subiecto•• Metropolitanos Thessalonicensē, Corinthi∣um, Nicopolitanum, Atheniensem, Patarensem. Addit Regiones supra-nominatas a Papis, & subiungit: Do∣cet Papa Nilolaus Antecessores suos omnes illas oras sacris dispositionibus institutisque temperasse. Cap. 3.
• e 1.938

  Theodoret. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 38.
• f 1.939

  Bellarmin li. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 21. Appellatio est cer∣tissimum Argu∣mentum Princi∣patus.
• g 1.940

  Bellarmin. li. 2. de Rom. Pont. ca. 21. Primò ex Conci∣lio Sardicen. Can. 4. Cùm ali∣quis. Et Can. 7. Placuit, vt si deie∣ctus confugerit ad Episcopum Ro∣manae Ecclesiae &c.
• h 1.941

  Sardicense par∣tim confirmatum, partim reproba∣tum. Bellarmin. l. 1. de Concilijs cap. 7. §. Primum.
• i 1.942

  Verum est ipsos Patres Aphricani Concilij (in quo & Sanctus interfu∣it Augustinus) in praefatâ ad Ce∣scribere Episto∣la lestinum hanc Constitutio∣nem, quam Grati∣anus ascribit Sar∣dicensi Concilio, nullâ Patrum Sy∣nodo inuenisse constitutam. Quare satis posset dubitari, an Sardicensis Concilij constitutio existat. Card. Cusanus lib. 2. de Concord. Cathol. Cap. 25.
• k 1.943

  Fuit autem in Sardicense Con∣cilio, in honorem memoriae Sancti Petri, statutum— Romanum Ponti∣ficem praelatum in iudicandis Par∣ticularibus Conci∣lijs, non nisi per formam ibi tradi∣tam, si quòd ipse potest sententiam approbare, sed non improbare nisi per Nouam Synodum. Et pro∣bat ille textus Administratio∣nem Papae valdè a ••ure positiuo, & consensu Synodi∣co dependere, Cu∣sanus quo supra. cap. 15.
• * 1.944

  See aboue the Conncell of Chal∣cedon. ca. 8. §. 5.
• l 1.945

  Si omnibus placet, statuat: Sy∣nodus respondet, Placet. Conc. Sar∣dic. Can. 4.
• m 1.946

  Bellarmin. quo supra. 1. Gelasius Papa ad Episco∣pos Dardaniae: de qualibet mundi parte ad illum Canones appellari voluerunt. 2. Leo Epist. 89. ad Epis∣copos Galliae: esse Antiquissimam consuetudinem. 3. Marcion excom∣municatus Roman venit. Epiph. Haeres 42. 4. Fortunatus & Felix a Cypriano depositi ad Cornelium ap∣pellant, & Basilides ad Stephanum. 5. Athanasius ad Iulium. 6. Chrysostomus ad Innocentium. 7. Hauia∣nus Constantinopolitanus ad Leonem. 8. Gregorius li. 2. Epist. 6. de Theobano.
• n 1.947

  So at 1. Gela∣sius: at 2, Leo: at 8. Gregory.
• o 1.948

  So at 7. Darda∣nia: at 8. Gallia: at 14. Thebanus.
• p 1.949

  Heretikes at 3. Marcion at 4. Fortunatus, and Felix called by Cy∣prian Hostes Dei. lib. 1. Epist. 4. and Basilides Idolo∣latra. Ibid.
• q 1.950

  So Athanasius at 5. Chrysostom at 6. Flauianus at 7.
• r 1.951

  Of Theodoret Baronius, Anno 449. num 124. Scribit ad Rena∣tum Presbyterum, vt persuadeat Pa∣pae, propter eius fi∣dei integritatem, Causam suam au∣diat: sed per Con∣cilium addit, quae omnia a vobis di∣centur his conten∣ti erimus, quae∣conque illa fue∣rint, vestris iudi∣cijs confisi.
• s 1.952

  Gelasias Cano∣nes, at 1. Leo Con∣suetudinem at 8. and Stephen. Bel∣larm. quo suprae.
• t 1.953

  Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 22. Ad Obiect. Ni∣li. 1. Sexta Syno∣dus Episcopo Cō∣stantinop. paria priuilegia conces∣sit cum Romano. Resp. hoc suprae confutatum. 2. Conciliū Chal∣ced. cap. 9. sic sta∣tuit. Si Clericus aduersus Clericū, ab Episcopo iudi∣cetur, si aduersus Episcopum ab Archiepiscopo, si aduersus Archi∣episcopum, à Pri∣mate Dioeceseos vel ab Episcopo Constantinop. Itaque vltimum iudicium refer••ur Constantinopolitano. Resp. Nullum per 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dioeceseos intelligi posse, nisi Romanum Quae sententia verior esse videtur tum quia vox Graeca 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non propriè Primatem sed Principem significat, Papa autem solus Princeps cuiuslibet Christianae Dioeceseos.— 1. Canon significat tantùm permissionem Constantino∣politano Episcopo, at lex generalis est adeundi Romam. 2. Canones isti non habent robur apud nos, nisi quatenus sunt renouati à Romanis Pontificibus.— Nec est Canon iste de Appellatione, sed de Primo iudi∣cio.—Nec enim Chalcedonenses Canones Sardicensibus vllo modo repugnant.
• u 1.954

  Conc. Carthag. 3. sub Cypriano. An∣no 397. Ne quis appelletur (Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) Princeps Sacerdotum. Su∣rius Tom. 1. Conc. Carthag. cap. 26.
• x 1.955

  In quacunque Ecclesiâ, si Cleri∣cus, &c. Et 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Apud Bi∣nium. Tom. 2. Conc. Chalced. can. 9.
• y 1.956

  Si quis autem contra haec fece∣rit, Canonicis poe∣nis subiacebit.
• * 1.957

  See aboue at t.
• z 1.958

  Bellarm. quo su∣pra. Quae senten∣tia Nicolai verior, antiquior, doctior. §. Quae. Et, Rectè exponi à Nicolao. §. His.
• a 1.959

  Iste Canon Chalced. non est de Appellatione, sed de primo iudi∣cio: quod Nilus non animaduertit. §. Adde.
• b 1.960

  Nicolaus Epist. ad Michaelem Im∣peratorem apud Binium, Tom. 3. part. 1. p. 688. Cùm dixit Synodus Primatem, prae∣ceptum dedit, re∣gulamq́ue consti∣tuit: Cùm verò disiunctiuâ eon∣iunctione addidis∣ser, Aut sedem Constantinopoli∣tanam, hoc secun∣dùm permissio∣nem indulsit.
• c 1.961

  Nam cùm sta∣tutum sit omnibus nobis, & aequum sit pariter ac in∣stum, vt vnius-cu∣iusque causa illic audiatur, vbi est crimen admissum, & singulis Pasto∣ribus portio gre∣gis sit asc••ipta, quam regat vnus∣quisque & guber∣net, rationem sui actus domino red∣diturus; oportet v••ique eos, quibus praesumus, non circumcursare, nec Episcoporum concordiam cohoerentem suâ subdolâ & fallaci temeritate collidere, sed agere illic causam suam, vbi & accusatores habere, & testes sui criminis possunt: nisi si paucis desperatis & perditis minor vi∣de••ur esse authoritas Episcoporum in Africâ eonstitutorum, qui iam de illis iudicauerunt, & eorum con∣scientiam multis delictorum laque••s vinctam iudicij sui nuper grauitate damnarunt: iam causa eo••um cog∣nita est, iam de ijs dicta sen••entia est: nec censurae congruit Sacerdotum mobilis atque inconstantis animi leuitate reprehendi. Cyprian. lib. 1 Epist 3.
• d 1.962

  Cyprianum ae∣grè tulisse Appel∣lationes, non om∣nino sustulisse. Bellar. lib 2 de Rom. Pont. cap. 23.
• e 1.963

  Basilides in His∣paniâ damnatus ad Stephanum appellauerat. nec enim tam culpan∣dus est (Stepha∣nus) cui negligen∣ter obreptum est, quàm Basilides execrandus, qui fraudulenter ob∣repsit. Cyprian. teste Bellar. quo supra.
• f 1.964

  Dico hoc de∣creto constitui, vt primum iudicium fi••t, vbi carmen admissum: non tamen prohibi∣beri, quo minus secundo etiam alibi iudicetur. Bellar. Ibidem.
• g 1.965

  Cyprianus ar∣gumentatur ex hoc Decreto, ad∣iunctis manifestis∣simis criminibus. Bellar. quo supra.
• h 1.966

  Quod si hoc Decreto ipso pro∣hiberentur Ap∣pellatio••es, pro∣hiberetur non so∣lùm ad Romanū Pontificem, sed etiam ad quemuis alium iudicem. Bellar. quo supra.
• * 1.967

  See aboue Cap. 12.
• i 1.968

  Quòd Cypria∣nus addit, non esse minoris Au∣thoritatis Episco∣pos Africae, illud [Minoris] non referre compara∣tionem ad Roma∣manos Pontifices, sed ad causam de quâ nunc ageba∣tur: est enim sen∣sus, Episcopos Africae non esse minoris Authori∣tatis quàm suffici∣at ad eam iudi∣candam. Bellar. Ibidem.
• k 1.969

  Damasus Epist. ad Theophilum, quae est Epist. 79. inter Epistolas Ambrosij. Cùm huiusmodi fuerit Concilij Capuen∣sis iudicium, vt fi∣nitimi Bonoso, at{que} eius Accusa∣toribus iudices tribuerentur, — aduertimus quod nobis iudicandi forma competere non potest
• l 1.970

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont Cap. 24. Damasus non dicit se non posse iudieare, sed post Prouinciale iudi¦cium, non ei con∣uenire, nempe vt fine causâ iudi∣caret.
• * 1.971

  See aboue, Cap. 12. §. 2.
• m 1.972

  Binius Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 599.
• n 1.973

  Quòd si ab ijs (i.e. Episcopis vi∣cinis) prouocan∣dum putauerint, non prouocent; nisi ad Africana Concilia, & ad Primates Prouin∣ciarum suarum. Ad transmarina autem qui putaue∣••it appellandum, a nullo intra Afri∣cam ad Commu∣nionem suscipa∣tur. Conc. Mileuit. Can. 22.
• s 1.974

  Respondent Aliqui, &c.— Nam praecipuè propter Roma∣nam Ecclesiam Africani statue∣runt, vt non lice∣ret appellare vl∣tra mare ab Afri∣canis. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 24.
• t 1.975

  Addit Gratianus hanc exceptionē: nisi fortè ad se∣dem Apostolicam appelletur. Bellar. Ibidem.
• u 1.976

  Non tamen propositum fuit. nec prohiberi potuit summo Pontifici, ne, si vellet, eos admit∣teret. Bell••r. Ibidem.
• x 1.977

  Zozimus iussit hunc Canonem confirmari, & in praxim redigi. Bellar. quo supra.
• y 1.978

  Vt planè liquet Zozimum mini∣mè probasse, quod ab Africa∣nis fuerat defini∣tum, ne Presbyte∣••i i••dicia transma∣rina Appellarent. Baroniui Anno. 419. num. 70.
• z 1.979

  Canon iste Mil••uitanus lo∣quitur de Presby∣teris & Minoribus Cle••icis, non de Episcopis: vt patet ex Augustino, qui huic Concilio in∣terfuit, & tamen scribit in Epistpla 162. Licere Epis∣copis Africanis appellare vltra mare. Bellar. quo supra.
• a 1.980

  Quia hoc etiam Nicaeno Concilio definitum ••acilè aduertet venera∣bilitas vestra. Nam etsi de in∣ferioribus Cleri∣cis, vel Laicis, vi∣detur ibi praeca∣ueri, quantò ma∣gis hoc de Episco∣pis voluit obser∣uari, ne in suâ Pro∣uinciâ commu∣nione suspensi, à tuâ sanctitate vel festinatò, vel praeposterè, vel indebitè videan∣tur communioni restitui? Apud Bi∣nium Tom. 1. Conc. Afric. Cap. 105. Epist. •••• Gael••stinū.
• * 1.981

  See aboue Chap. 12. §. 8.
• * 1.982

  See aboue, Cap. 9. §. 8, &c.
• * 1.983

  Bellarmine.
• * 1.984

  See aboue, Cap. 7.
• a 1.985

  Per multas an∣norum centurias —Graeci à Latinis diuisi. Alphonsus à Castro de Haeres. Tit. Deus Haeres. 12.
• b 1.986

  Graeci ab an∣no 381. in Conc. Gen. 2. Patriar∣cham Constan∣tinop. secundum à Romano Ponti∣fice facere volue∣runt, — Deinde eo non contenti, Anno 451. Patri∣archam eum Ro∣mano Episcopo parem efficere conati sunt, & pa∣ria ei priuilegia tribuere. In Conc. Chalced. Act. 6. Bellarmin. Praefat. ante Controuersiam de Rom. Pont. §. Ven••o.
• c 1.987

  In Concilio Florentino scimus Graecos erroris conuictos, ad fi∣dem Latinorum redijssè. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. ••.
• d 1.988

  Respondebant Graeci Patriar∣cham nostrum minime extra Constantinopo∣lim eligi posse. Surius Tom. 4. Conc. pag. 489.
• e 1.989

  De summi Pontificis prin∣cipatu, de Azy∣mo, Fermenta∣to, Transsubstantiatione Panis in Eucharistia, Responderunt Graeci, de his, sanctissime Pater, nullam ad haec respondendi facultatem habemus. Conc. Florent. ibid. quo supr.
• f 1.990

  Denique Anno 1454. apertè pronunciarunt Episcopum Constantinop. Episcoporum omnium primum, & summum Pontificem fuisse. Bellarm. in Praefat. ••nte Controuers. de Rom. Pont. §. Venio.
• g 1.991

  Graeci maximè hanc potestatem semper Romano Pontifici inuide∣runt. Maldonat. in Mat 10.2.
• h 1.992

  Vs{que} adeo Ro∣manae Ecclesiae, infesti rebelles, vt nec Romanae Ec∣clesiae, nec Sacro∣rum eius Conci∣liorum Decretis obtemperare vn∣q••am voluerint. Prateolus in Hae∣res. Tit. Graeci.
• i 1.993

  Summum Pon∣tificem omnes{que} Latinos pro Ex∣communicatis ha∣bent. Prateolus Elench. Haer. Tit. Graeci.
• k 1.994

  In tantum Graeci coeperunt abhominari Lati∣nos, —vt si quā∣do Sacerdotes Latini super illo∣rum celebrassent Altaria, non prius ipsi sacrificare volebant in illis, quàm ea tanquam per hoc inquinata lauissent. Baptiza∣tos etiam a Lati∣nis Graeci ausu ••emerario rebap∣tizate praesumebāt. Conc. Lat. 4. Sub Innocent. 3. Cap. 4. apud Binium. Quando Latini super eorum alta••ia ce∣lebrassent, non priùs ipsi sacrificare volebant, quàm illa iam ab ijs inquinata lauissēt. Etiam baptizaros à La∣tinis rebaptizare praesumebant. Prateolus quo supra, & Sanderus de Visib. Mon. Ecclesiae. Anno 942. l. 7. p. 425.
• l 1.995

  Nostri dissidij causa fuit, quid Latinis quidam Magistrorum par∣tes sibi sumunt, al••o••que instar discipulorum ha∣bent: sed non ita se habent Patrum Deecreta, quae in hunc vsque diem literis consignata fuerunt. Dicunt Latini, Papae par∣tes esse Concilia conuocare, de Ec∣clesiasticis nego∣cijs statuere: quod si verum est, superfluus est san∣ctorum Patrum conuentus. Nilus Archiepiscopus Thessal. De prima∣tu Papae.
• m 1.996

  Patriarcha Ieremias Respon. 2. pag. 200. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• n 1.997

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• o 1.998

  Baronius Tom. 6. pag. 906. ad fi∣nem. Reporting that an Embassa∣dor was sent from Ma••••us Patriarke of Alexandria vn∣to Pope Clement the 8, by whom he is said to haue reconciled himselfe and all his Prouinces of Aegypt vnto the Bishop of Rome. Which our Author Master Breerewood in his Booke of Religions hath obserued, saying, that The matter being more diligently ex∣amined, it proued to be but a tricke of Imposture.
• p 1.999

  Epistola Eccle∣siae Constantin••p. ad Ecclesi••m Pra∣gensem. Teste I••∣ello nostro Apo∣log. part. 1. pag. 34.
• q 1.1000

  Graecus intel∣ligens dicit Spiri∣tum Sanctum pro∣cedere per filium, quod non aliud significat, quàm quod nos dicimus. Tolet. in Ioban. ca. 15. Annot. 25.
• r 1.1001

  Graeci propriè Schismatici di∣cuntur, quamuis reuerà in eo ipso sint Haeretici, ne∣gantes Vnitatem Capitis. Suarez de Tripl. virt. Theol. Disp. 9. Sect. 1. num. 15.
• s 1.1002

  Alij opinantur Graecos esse Schismaticos, quia se Romani Pontificis iurisdictione subtrahunt: Haereticos autem non esse, quia in praedictis fidei Articulis potius nomine quàm re a Romanae Ecclesiae sensu dissenti∣unt. Teste Az••rio Moral. part. 1. lib. 8. cap. 20. §. Decimò.
• * 1.1003

  Mr. Breerwood in his booke of Re∣ligions.
• t 1.1004

  Baronius Anno 869. num 68. & Anno 878. à nu. 6. ad num. 42. Papae mandatum ab Ig∣natio impetum non inuenitur.
• u 1.1005

  Binius Tom. ••. part. 2. pag. 862. Vita Sancti Igna∣tij Patriarchae Constantinop.
• x 1.1006

  Baronius quo supra.
• y 1.1007

  Narratio Cardi∣nalis Amulei ad Conc. Trid. à Papa. Agnoscitur quòd in tam longinquis nationibus, quae nobis vix nota sunt, verae fidei cultus viget, & Christiana Religio non minori for∣tasse, quàm apud nos pietate ex••o∣litur, & conseruata Doctrina quàm S. Thomas docuit.—Huic Patriar∣chatui subiectos esse ducenta mil∣lia,—apud hos, an∣nos mille ducen∣tos Ecclesiae dig∣nitas & salutaris doctrina perman∣sit, &c. Extat haec Professio in libro qui inscribitur Acta Concilij Tri∣dentini, pag. 195. Inscriptio literarū huiusmodi: Literae Illustrissimi Do∣mini Marci Anto∣nij Cardinalis A∣mulei ad Legatos Concilij Trid. su∣per Professionem fidei Patriarchae & Assyriorum Ori∣entalium.
• z 1.1008

  Gentillettus in Examine Conc. Trid. lib. 4 Sess. 21. §. 20. Festiua fa∣bula, &c. And if it were not indeed fa∣bulous, why had it no better accep∣tance, in the Coun∣cell of Trent it selfe, than a plaine neg∣lect? as a late Story set out, concerning that Councell, doth shew.
• a 1.1009

  Bellar. lib. 2. de Verbo Dei cap. vlt. §. vlt. Vel Haereti∣ci, vel Schismatici fuerunt.
• b 1.1010

  See hereafter, Cap. 15. §. 25.
• * 1.1011

  S. Jude.
• * 1.1012

  Matth. 9.20.
• * 1.1013

  Matth. 14.31.
• b 1.1014

  See Mr. Breer∣wood his booke of Religious.
• c 1.1015

  Haeretici (loqui∣tur de Protestanti∣bus) nostri tempo∣••is, cùm satis mul∣tas & amplas Pro∣uincias obtinent. Angliam, Scotiam, Daniam, Noruegi∣am, Suetiam, & Germaniae, Poloniae, Bohemiae, Hungariae non ex∣iguam partem. Bellarm. in Praefat. ante Controu. de Pont. Rom. §. vnde Et lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 22. §. Et hoc Et §. Postea.
• d 1.1016

  Si apud vos tantummodo esse vultis, in Dacia, Misia, Thracia, Achaia, Macedo∣nia, & in totâ Grae¦ciâ, vbi vos non estis, non erit.— in Ponto, Galatia, Cappadociâ, Pam∣phyli••, Phrygiá, &c. in duabus Ar∣meniis & in totâ Aegypto—vbi vo•• non estis, non erit. Et per tot in∣numerabiles insu∣las, & caeteras Pro∣uincias — vbi vos estis non erit, —vultis vos so∣los esse Totum, qui in omni Toto non estis. Optatus lib. 2. paulò post initium,
• e 1.1017

  Vnum in ter∣ris Vicarium, Iu∣dicem, &c. Coste∣rus Enchirid. Tract. de Pontif.
• f 1.1018

  Vnum, non duo, alioqui monstro∣sum corpus. Baro∣nius & Bellar. su∣pra. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 12. Tract. 68. Qui solus omni∣bus praesit. Etiam Bellar. de Pont. & de Concilij••.
• g 1.1019

  Supra Concili∣um, vt aliquandò▪ defi••itum. Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. Cap. 7. §. Quintum. Nempe in Conci∣lio Lateranensi 2. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 12. Tract. 68. §. Quarto Ar∣gu••••t.
• h 1.1020

  Romanum. Be••lar. supra. (Per quem failum est vt) non solù•• Ro∣mana Ecclesia ve∣ra sit Ecclesia, sed etiam quae in vrbe Romanâ est omnibus Eccesijs mundi praesit. Gordionus Ies. Epitome Contro∣uer. 2. Cap 23.
• i 1.1021

  Visibilem Iudi∣cem, qui possit pronunciare sen∣tentiam, & dicere parti vni, tu ceci∣disti causâ. Tanne∣rus Ies Colloq. Ra∣tisbon
• k 1.1022

  Visibilem hunc; non Indiuiduum vagum, sed per∣sonam vndique definitam, vt Hunc Clementē 8. Salmeron Ies. quo supra. Sicut Iudaeis non satis fuit credere Mes¦siam quendam, sed hunc signatum Iesum à Iohanne demonstratum, ita non satis erit nobis credere Catholicam quandā inueniri congregationem, nisi in specie hanc ipsam credas esse, quae Romanae Ecclesiae Praefidi sub est — Eâdem ergo fide diuinâ, quâ me scio in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ agere, cognosco non tantum Romanum Pontificem, sed in singulari hunc signatum Paulum 4. — ab Electoribus propositum, dummodo nullum vitium aut defectum in eius eanonicâ Electione admissum fuisse constare possit. Salmeron Jes. Tom. 13. in Epist. Pauli in genere. Part. 3 disp. 2. Aliqui tantum Moralem certitudinem tenent, quam sufficere dicunt, vt tene amur illi obedi∣••e in omnibus etiam credendis rebus, quas de fide este definiuerit: hi sunt Turrecremata, Albertin. Caieta∣nus, Bannes, Cano, Vega, Corduba, de Castro, & alij — Alij simpliciter pro••••••ciant ad fidem non pertinere, quod mihi non placet; atque dico sicut Christi Ecclesia Visibilis & haec numero ita habere posse hoc numero caput visibile, atque a••eò de fide esse Hunc hominem, qui communi consensione acceptus est, vt caput Ecclesiae, cui ipsa obedire tenetur, esse verum Ecclesiae Pontificem, &c.— Alioqui constare non potest hoc esse verum Concilium: —Nam certitudo Ecclesiae pendet maximè ex coniunctione cum vero Capite: impossible enim erit me tenere certitudinem, ad credendum quae Hic definiuerit. Suarez Jes. lib. de Trip virtute Theolog. Disput. 10. Sect. 5 num 2.
• l 1.1023

  Iudex —cuius iudicium in definiendis rebus fidei est infallibilis veritatis. Bellar de Rom. Pont. Valentinian in. Analys. Suarez de Trip. Virt. Theol. & Iesuita quis non?
• m 1.1024

  Nota 7. Ecclesiae est vnio membrorum cum Capite, & Membrorum inter se: & haec vnio fa∣cit Ecclesiam veram. Bellar. lib. 4. de Eccles. Milit. Cap. 10.
• n 1.1025

  Paulo mortuo, vacabat sedes an∣num vnum: Euge∣nio mortuo an¦nos duos: Nicolao 1. mortuo (vt quidam sc••ibunt) annos Octo, & Menses Septem. Platina in Vitis horum Pontificum.
• o 1.1026

  Non manent formaliter in Ec∣clesiâ, nisi quate∣nus sunt comma∣nicatae inferiori∣bus ministris, sed manent in manibus Christi, & Pontifici nouo dantur, non ab Ecclesia sed a Christo. Bellar. lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 12. §. Respondeo moriente.
• p 1.1027

  Cùm dictum est Petro. &c;. Per claues intelligi∣mus summam Po∣statem in omnem Ecclesiam, non re∣missionem Pecca∣torum, aut mini∣sterium Euange∣lij, sed principa tum Ecclesiasticū. —Quia dicit, Quod cunque Li∣gaueris. Ligare autem idem signi∣ficat, quod praeci∣pere, & punire paenâ Excommu∣nicationis Bellar. lib 1 de Rom. Pont. Cap. 13. § Hic apertò.
• q 1.1028

  Synodo Con∣stantinop. praesi∣disse legatos Se∣dis Apostolicae, vna cum Menna Constanpolitano Antistite, & sedis Apostolicae Vica∣rio. Hanc Syno∣dum celebratam dicitis tempore Interregni Ponti∣sicij post obitum Agapeti, vt con∣stat ex singularum fere Actionum Exordio, vbi San∣ctae Memoriae Agapetus nomi∣natur Binius Tom. 2. Conc. Annot. in Act. 5. Concilij Constantinop. sub Menna, Anno 536.
• r 1.1029

  Obiectio. Qui eligitur Pontifex, claues accipit ab Ecclesiâ. Huic Bellarminus aptat suum Responsum, quo supra.
• * 1.1030

  See aboue. Cap. 6. §. 6.
• * 1.1031

  See aboue, Cap. 12. & 13. &c.
• * 1.1032

  See aboue Cap. 8. §. 5.
• * 1.1033

  See aboue, Cap. 6. §. 6.
• * 1.1034

  See aboue Cap. 8. §. 7.
• * 1.1035

  See aboue, Cap, 2. §. 5.
• s 1.1036

  Iohannes duo∣decimus (dictus ante Octauianus) qui nullo modo dicendus erat le∣gitimus Pontifex, in cuius Electione lex nulla sit suffra∣gata, sed omnia vis & metus im∣pleuerint: cum{que} prae aetate nec Diaconus esse po∣tuit, — tamen hunc Ecclesia Romana Pontifi∣cem venerata est, minoris esse mali existimans mon∣strosum quantum∣libet caput ferre, quàm duobus Capitibus infir∣mari. Baroni∣us Anno 955. num. 1.3. &. 4.
• t 1.1037

  Diuinâ fide cre∣do hunc Papam in singulari ab Electoribus defi∣nitum, dummodo nullum vitium aut defectum in eius Electione admis∣sum fuisse consta∣re possit. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 13. in Epistolas Pauli in genere, part. 3. Disput. 2. §. Angeli.
• * 1.1038

  See aboue, Cap. 2. §. 9.
• * 1.1039

  See aboue, Cap. 6. §. 6.
• * 1.1040

  See aboue, Cap. 13. §. 18.
• u 1.1041

  Schismata Rom. Pontificum Viginti numeran∣tur. Staplet Doctr. Princip. l. 13. c. 15.
• * 1.1042

  See Onuphrius in Cata••og. Pontif.
• x 1.1043

  Perniciosissi∣mum & teterrinū Schisma eiusdem (sc. Vrbani 6.) oc∣casione alio Pon∣tifice ab eisdem Cardd. qui eum elegerant creato Clemente 7. in∣choatum, in 50. Annos productum est. Onuphrius ad Platinam, in vitae Vrbani 6. Schis∣ma omniū pessimū & diuturnius. Ibid. in Catalog. Pontif.
• z 1.1044

  Tempore Io∣hannis 23, erant Tres qui Pontifi∣ces haberi vole∣bant,—nec po∣terat facilè iudi∣cari quis eorum verus esset Ponti∣fex. Bellar. li 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 14. §. Respondeo.
• a 1.1045

  Licè•• tres illi pro Papis habe∣re••tur, Greg. 12. Ben. 13. Io. 23. donec concilium Constantiense omnes de gradu deijceret — ratione naturalì id persuadente, quia cùm non esset certus Pontifex, perinde est, ac si Pontifex omnimò nullus esset. Azorius Ies. Instit. l. 4. part. 2 c▪ 7.
• b 1.1046

  Sergins 3. Papa illegitimus —qui ad sacrilegium nefandum turpissimam impudiciam addidit, — nihilominus eâ reuerentiâ—fideles omnes, praesertim longè positi Boreales populi prosequebantur Rom. Ecclesiam, vt quemcunque in eâ seden∣tem audirent, nomine-tenus Pontificem, eundē —nullâ habitâ eius ingressus discussione, vt Petrū colerent. Baronius Anno 908. num. 4.
• c 1.1047

  Bulla Pij 4. pro forma Juram∣enti &c.
• d 1.1048

  Schisma (vt di∣stinguitur sine Haeresi) est separa∣tio vel a Capite, — vel a reliquo Corpore Ecclesiae. à Capite, temerè negando Hunc in Particutari esse verum Pontificem; — A Corpore,— vt si Papa nollet tenere vnionem & coniunctionem cum toto Ecclesiae corpore, quam▪ debet, vt si tenta∣ret totam Eccle∣siam Excommu∣nicare: potest hoc modo esse Schis∣maticus. Suarez Jes. de Trip. virt. Theol. disp. 12. Sect. 1. num. 2.
• e 1.1049

  Quia Florenti∣num Concilium non ••ta expressè hoc definiuit, & de Conc: Lateranen∣si quod expressis∣simè rem defini∣uit, nonnulli dubi∣tant, an fuerit verè Generale, ideo vs∣que ad hanc diem quaestio superest. Bellar. l. 2. de Con∣cilijs. c. 13. §. Sed dum.
• f 1.1050

  Quamuis nullo sanè Decreto pub∣lico definita sit, — tacito tamen Do∣ctorum consensu —planè definita est, vix vno ampli∣ùs Doctore Theo∣logo aliam de hac re sententiam te∣nente, quàm quae ante hanc contro∣uersiam à paucis annis motam apud maiores nostros olim obtinuerat; Papam viz. Con∣cilio, sicuti Caput corpori praeesse & praesidere. Sta∣plet. Doct. Prin. lib. 13. c. 15.
• g 1.1051

  Constantiense Concilium Pa∣trum fere Mille, ex quibus ampli∣us trecenti Epis∣copi. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 7.
• h 1.1052

  Et primó quod ipsa Synodus in Spiritu Sancto congregata legitimè, Generale Concilium faciens, Eccle∣siam Catholicam Militantem repraesentans potestatatem a Christo immediatè habet, cui quilibet cuiuscun∣que status, vel dignitatis, etiam si Papalis existat, obedire tenetur in his quae pertinent ad fidem, — & Refor∣mationem generalem Ecc••esiae dei in Capite, & in Membris. Concilium Const. Sess. 4. Apud S••rium. Tom. 3. Conc.
• i 1.1053

  Dominus no∣ster (Martinus Quintus) dixit— quòd omnia, & singula determi∣nata conclusa & Decreta in mate∣rijs fidei per praesens Concilium, Conciliariter tenere, & inuiolabiliter obseruare volebat: —Ipsaque sic Conciliariter facta approbat & ratificat, Ibid.
• * 1.1054

  Binius, See a∣boue, Cap. 8. §. 5.
• k 1.1055

  Binius Tom. 3. Conc. part. 2. Notis in Concilium Constantiense. Quoad ea, quae nimirum ad fidem pertinebant con∣tra Wicklefium, &c. Sic etiam Bel∣larm. l. 1 de Conc. c. 7. Falso. quia ge∣nerali••er loquitur, & Causa de Ju∣dice Ecclesiae annon est materia fidei? certè Patrum horum iudicio & decreto de fide esse habetur.
• l 1.1056

  Binius. See Con∣fessed aboue, ca. 8. §. 5.
• m 1.1057

  A Martino 5. indicta Synodus, ab Eugenio post aliquandiu con∣firmata. Binius Tom. 4. Not. in Conc. Basil initio.
• n 1.1058

  Sess. 12. Prius autem ne quis∣quam Constanti∣enfis Concilij Decreta. &c. Sess. 4. & 5.
• o 1.1059

  Sess. 11. San∣cta Synodus prae∣cipit, vt praesens Basileense Con∣cilium per nemi∣nem, etiamsi Pa∣palis fuerit digni∣tatis, dissoluatur, aut loco ad locum transferri possit.
• p 1.1060

  Sess. 12 Nihil aliud praetendere videtur, nisi vt Ecclesiam pessun∣det, iusque sibi & successoribus acquirat ritum sacrorum Conciliorum abrogandi.
• q 1.1061

  Sess. 31. Decretum 3. promulgatum de suspensione Eugenij Papae. Ab omni administra••ione Papatus suspendet Eugenium, in spiritualibus, & temporali••us.
• r 1.1062

  Sess. 33. Veritas Generalis Concilij super Papam declarata per Constantiense & Basi∣leense Concilium, est veritas Catholicae fidei. — Veritas haec, Papa Ecclesiam hanc congregatam non potest dissoluere sine ••eins consensu:—veritatibus his—pertinaciter repugnans Haereticus est censendus.—Sess. 34. Depositio Eugenij.
• s 1.1063

  Epistola Syno∣dalis contra Inue∣ctiuam factam no¦mine Eugenij Pa∣pae, —qui Epi∣stolae illi exordio dicere ausus est Patres in Concilio congregatos iam ferè septem An∣nis ab ipso Christi Vicario, & supre∣mâ Apostolicâ Romanâ sede Christianorum matre & capite se∣gregatos esse.—
• t 1.1064

  Nunquid in hoc damnabit Vni∣uersos Cardinales, Episcopos, Impe∣ratorem, Reges, & Principes, & deni∣que Ecclesiam per orb••m disper∣sum, hoc Concili∣um approbantem? Haec omnia haben∣tur apud Surium Tom. 4. Concil.
• u 1.1065

  Jbidem. p. 178. Responsio Syno∣dalis. Cùm esset ab omni Administratione Papali suspensus, tandem huic admonitioni paruit in formâ sibi per hoc Concilium designatâ.
• x 1.1066

  Aeneas Syluius, in Gestis Conc. Ba∣sil. Conuerte Ar∣gumentum: Si vt in naturali &c. Alioquin mortuo Papa, Ecclesia pe∣riet. Lib. 1. §. Con∣stare.
• y 1.1067

  Competit Con∣cilio. Ibidem lib. 1. §. Opinio.
• z 1.1068

  Minister, non Dominus Eccle¦siae. Conc. Basil. in Epist. Synodal. sis∣pra citata. Apud Surium.
• * 1.1069

  See aboue. §. 3.
• a 1.1070

  Quid opus erit Generalibus Con∣cilijs, aut Iuris∣consultos accer∣sere?—quorsum attinet tot Acade∣mias in fidei quae∣stionibus distor∣queri, cùm ex v∣no Pontifice quod verum est audire liceat? Erasmus Annot. in 1. C••r. 7.
• * 1.1071

  See aboue in this Chapter §. 16.
• b 1.1072

  Appellario V∣niuersitatis Pari∣siensis cōtra Leo∣nem Decimum, in robur, ac firma∣mentum sacratissi∣mi Concilij Basi∣lēensis. Inter alia: Dominus Papa Leo Decimus, qui Romanis plus de∣bito fauens, in quodam coetu, in Romanâ Ciuitate, quae contra nos est, nescimus qua∣liter, non tamen in Spiritu Sancto congregato— Sacrum Conciliū damnauit. Haec ha∣bentur in fasciculo rerum. fol. 35. f.
• c 1.1073

  The Oration of Stephen Gardiner concerning True Obedience. His Testimonies, which are in seuerall pa∣ges, are here ioyned together, for breuity sake.
• d 1.1074

  Bulla Pauli 3. Sub Excommuni∣cationis paenâ mandamus, ne vl∣lus Princeps Chri∣stianus dicto Hen∣rico ••ut eius fau∣toribus se adiun∣gat.—Iisque in virtute sanctae o∣bedientiae man∣dantes, vt aduersus ipsum eiq́ue fa∣uentes armis in∣surgant, &c.
• a 1.1075

  Multi ex nostris tempus terunt, dum probant ab∣solute Ecclesiam non posse deficere à fide: nam Cal∣uinus & caeteri concedunt, sed hoc dicunt de Eccle∣sia inuisibili (i.e. Electorum) Bellar. l. 3. de Eccles. milit. cap. 13.
• * 1.1076

  See after. §. 25.
• b 1.1077

  Plenaria priora saepe à posteriori∣bus emendari.

  Aug. l. 2. de Bap. cap. 3.
• c 1.1078

  Loquitur de materia facti, non iuris: & de prae∣ceptis morum, nō fidei. Bellar. l. 2. de Conc. c. 7. §. Aliud.
• d 1.1079

  Concilia multa ritè congregata errâsse legimus. Cusan. Conc. lib. 2. cap. 3. & Gerson lib. de Appellat. Prop. 4. Conc. Ge∣nerale congrega∣tum Romani Pon∣tificis authoritate errare in fide po∣test. Hoc demon∣stratur aperte exemplo Ephe∣sini Concilij 2. — quod Dioscori Haeresi subscripsit. Canus l. 5. c. 4. Conclus. 2. de Auth. Concil.
• e 1.1080

  Conc. Generale, licet sit pars Ecclesiae mili∣tantis, tamen non est Vniuersalis Ecclesia. Igitur temerarium est dicere, quod Generale Concilium contra ••••dem errare non potest. Occham. par. 1. lib. 5. cap. 25.
• f 1.1081

  Si Con cilium haeresin laberetur, —etiam omni∣bus in Conc. Ge∣nerali lapsis, Po∣tens est Deus ex la pidibus, id est, laicis rudibus & abiectis pauperi∣bus, & despectis Catholicis filios suscitare spiritua∣les. Occham ibid. cap. 28. ad 8. in fine. Quod dicimus Ecclesiam in fide & moribus errare non posse, sic ac∣cipiendum est, quod Deus ità as∣sistat ei vsque ad consummationem seculi, vt semper aliqui sint, etsi non omnes, qui veram fidem per charita∣tem operantem habeant. Turrecr. Summa de Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 91.
• g 1.1082

  Generall Coun∣cels may erre euen in things appertai∣ning to God: where∣fore things ordai∣ned by them, as ne∣cessary to Salua∣tion, haue no autho∣rity, except it may be declared that they be taken out of Scripture. Art. 21
• h 1.1083

  Voluit Christus Ecclesiam suam esse non modò vi∣sibilem, sed & val∣dè conspicuam, vt omnibus inno∣tescat gratia Dei. Coster. Ies. de Eccl. §. His. &c.

  In conspicuo po∣sita omnibus vo∣lentibus eam vi∣dere. Salmeron Ies. in Epist. Pauli in genere, part. 3. disp. 7.
• i 1.1084

  Haec amplitudo, & multitudo, & varietas Creden∣tium est Nota Ec∣clesiae. Bellar. lib. 4. de Notis Eccles. cap. 7.
• k 1.1085

  Obscuram Lu∣nam Eccles. &c. Aug. in Psal. 10.
• l 1.1086

  Ecclesia vt Lu∣na, defectus & or∣tus suos habet. Ambros. l. 5 Epist. 31.
• m 1.1087

  Ariana Haere∣sis Romanum orbem ferè peruagabatur. Costerus Jes. Enchirid. Tract. de Eccles. §. Postquā.
• n 1.1088

  Ab ortu solis & meridie per Grae∣ciam venit in A∣quilonem, vbi Gotthi, qui totum ferè occidentem infecerunt,— pene per annos trecentos durabat. Alphons à Castro Haeres. lib. 5. Tit. Deus.
• o 1.1089

  Omnes ferè to∣to orbe Ecclesias Arianorum con∣sortio pollutos fu∣isse. Lindan. Pa∣nop. lib. 2. cap. 6. Antiochena pri∣mùm, tunc Alex∣andrina, post Hie∣rosolymitana.— Et tandem in Oc∣cidente Felicem Liberio in Rom. sedem substituit. Jbid. Vno quasi impetu per vni∣uersum orbem peruagata est. Staplet. de Causae grassat. Haeres. pag. 642.
• p 1.1090

  Constantio Im∣peratori multitu∣dinem Arianorum obijcienti, & Ca∣tholicorum paucī∣tatem Respondit, Non referre nu∣merum esse mag∣num aut parvum: nam Iudaeorum Eccelesia in Babylone constituta ad tres pueros redacta fuit. Ex Tom. 1. Conc. Salmeron Jes. Tom. 3. Tract. 23. in verba Luc. [Ad dandam salutem plebi] pag. 168.
• q 1.1091

  Malè Ecclesiam Dei in tectis aedificijsque ve∣neramini: montes mihi & lacus, & carceres sunt tutiores. Hilar. lib. con. Auxent.
• r 1.1092

  Nostri Ouilis hoc maxi∣mè proprium [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] esset, quod minime infringi posset; ità vt per saepè 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Arca Noē voca∣ti simus, vt qui soli orbis vniuersi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, diluvium effugissimus. Greg. Nazian. Orat. 12.
• s 1.1093

  Rhemists An∣not. in Act. 11.24.
• t 1.1094

  The same in their Annot. in 2. Thess. 2.3.
• u 1.1095

  Annot. in Apoc. 12.6.
• * 1.1096

  See aboue in this Chap. Sect. 2. a
• x 1.1097

  Mulier fugiet in solitudinem — locum sibi paratū à Deo. Scilicet, vbi ab Antichri¦sti Ministris aut non inquiretur, aut non inuenie∣tur. Ribera Jes. Com. in Apoc. 12.6.
• y 1.1098

  Tollet Anti∣christus de medio omnia officia publica, — sed cultus tantum pri∣uatim & occultè seruabicur. Pere∣rius Ies in Dan. lib. 15. super haec ver∣ba. [Veniet tem∣pus.] Omnis Ec∣clesiastici ordinis splendor & decus exolitum & se∣pultum iacet. Acosta Ies. de temp. nouiss. lib. 2. cap. 15. Ecclesia••ū aedes sacrae tugurij instar erunt. — Liturgia extinguetur. Acosta ibid. Cap. vlt. In Apoc. 13. [Et adorauerunt eam omnes qui inhabitant terram.] Docet innumerabilem eotum multitudinem, qui Antichristo adhaere∣bunt. — Omnes illi nimirùm, qui praedestinati non sunt, quorum nomina non suut scripta in libro vitae. Ri∣bera Ies. in Apoc. 13.7. Haec sunt quae sâcrificium Eucharistiae cessaturum Antichristi tempore confirmant. Viegas Ies in Apoc. Cap. 13. Com. 2. Sect. 12.
• z 1.1099

  Ecclesia est, cui dictum est, Sponsa es sicut luna, electa sicut Sol. Quandò enim Sol obscuratur, luna non dabit lumen suum — Ecclesia non apparebit, impijs tunc vltrà modum saeuientibus. Aug. Tom. 2 Epist 80 ad Hesych. Luna obscurabitur, &c. Haec dies in exitu mundi, ini∣quitatum & errorum tenebris obscurata. Chrysost. Tom. 2. in Math. 24. Hom. 49. Tunc Ecclesia, quasi senio de∣bilitata, per praedicationem filios parere non valet. Greg. lib. 19. Cap. 9. in Iob Cap. 29.
• a 1.1100

  De hoc institu∣to sic Augustinus in l••b. Iudic. Deus consuetudinem populi sui, quâ, praeter eius ta∣bernaculum, ta∣men non Dijs alienis offerebāt. sed Domino Deo suo, sustinebat po∣tius quàm veta∣bat, etiam sic ex∣audiens offeren∣tes. Sigon. de Re∣pub. Heb. lib. 2. c. ••.
• b 1.1101

  Ecclesia Corin∣thiorum & Gala∣tarum, ad quos scribebat Paulus, verae Ecclesiae erant, & tamen ibi non erat ali∣quandò syncera praedicatio ver∣bi, vt ex Apo∣stolo cognosci potest, qui dicit se scribere Ecclesijs Dei, quae sunt Corinthi, vel in Galatia. 1 Cor. & Gal. 1. Et tamen 1 Cor. 15. Arguun∣tur Corinthi••, quòd docerent non esse futuram resurrectionem; & Galatae per totam ferè epistolam re∣prehenduntur, quod docerent seruandam esse legē Mosis cùm Euangelio. Dub. Sol: sed dices, quomodò erant istae verae Eccle∣siae, cùm haeresin docerent? Resp. aliud esse errare, & paratum esse ad discendum, — aliud nolle discere, & auditâ veri∣tate nolle acquiescere.—In Ecclesia particulari potest esse illud primum, at illud secundum solùm in Sy∣••agogis Satanae, & Ecclesijs malignantium. Bellar. lib. 4. de Notis Eccles c. 2. §. Tertio. The same hath Cosmus Philiarchus almost verbatim, Tom. 2. de Officio Sacerdotis lib. 2. Contra Maereticos. Cap. 8.
• * 1.1102

  Mat. 10.14.
• c 1.1103

  Greg. 13. Ad perpetuam rei memoriam, &c.
• d 1.1104

  Matth 26. — Intellige claue non errante; aliàs enim si ligando & soluendo erra∣ret, non dicitur ligatus apud Deum: frequenter enim fit, vt qui per Ecclesiam mili∣tantem foras mit∣titur, intus habe∣tur in Ecclesia tri∣umphante, & contrà. Glossa in Extra. Ioh. 22. Tit. 14. cap. 5. Solutum in coelis.
• e 1.1105

  Excommuni∣cant eum, & à Synogoga & con∣sortio Iudaeorum, qui tùm fideles habebantur: at felix ille Coecus, qui pro nomine Christi abs{que} Sy∣nagogis factus. T••let in Ioh. 9.
• * 1.1106

  See aboue, Chap. 3. Sect. 5. &c.
• * 1.1107

  1. Cor. 14.36.
• * 1.1108

  Aboue, c. 3. §. ••.
• * 1.1109

  See aboue Chap. 8. Sect. 5. &c.
• * 1.1110

  Ibidem.
• * 1.1111

  See aboue. Cap. 4, Sect. 13. &. 14.
• f 1.1112

  Sententia Inno∣centii primi 600 circiter Annos viguit in Ecclesia, Eucharistiam etiā Infantibus neces∣sariam esse. Ex Eucharistiae ne∣cessitate Inno∣centtius vrget Baptismi necessi∣tatem. Maldon. Ies. in Ioh. 6.53. & Tract. de Euchar. p. 200. Espencaeus l. 2. de Adorat. Euch. cap. 12. Idem probat Binius ex verbis Innocentij Tom, 1. Conc. p. 585. Edit. 1606.
• * 1.1113

  Luc. 5.31.
• * 1.1114

  See aboue in di¦uers places.
• * 1.1115

  See aboue, Chap. 6. Sect. 6.
• * 1.1116

  Gal. 1.8.
• * 1.1117

  See aboue, Cap. 8. §. 6.
• * 1.1118

  See aboue, Chap. 12. Sect 3 & 4.
• * 1.1119

  Matth. 15.14.
• * 1.1120

  See aboue, Cha. 4. Sect. 15.
• * 1.1121

  See aboue, Cha. 4 Sect. 15 &c.
• * 1.1122

  See aboue from Chap. 8. to 13.
• * 1.1123

  See aboue Sect. 10.
• * 1.1124

  Gen. 16.12.
• g 1.1125

  Si Luthero fa∣uerem vt viro bo∣no, quod fatentur & hostes. Eras. To. 8. Epist. Albert. Card Mogunt pag. 401.
• * 1.1126

  Deut. 32.31.
• h 1.1127

  Seraerius Ies in Tract. de Lutheri Magistro.
• * 1.1128

  Io. 13.16.
• * 1.1129

  Matth. 12.
• * 1.1130

  Luc. 7.34.
• i 1.1131

  Quae rex dicit de cumulandis o∣pibus per artifici∣um —Indulgen∣tiarum, satis osten∣dit eum plus fidei habuisse calumni∣is Lutheri & simi∣lium Nouatorum, quam simplici ve∣ritati. Bellarmin. Apolog. Cap. 12. §. De multitudine.
• k 1.1132

  Importabile iam olim incre∣buit Rom. Indul∣gentiarum onus, quandò sub per∣sona pietatis — Rom. Pontifices Omnem à simpli∣cibus nimiumque credulis Germa∣nis exuxerunt pecuniarum me∣dullam. Sacri Rom. Imperij Principum, ac Procerum Gra∣uam. 100. apud Fascic. rerum ex∣petend. fol. 177.
• l 1.1133

  Quaestorum ab∣usus, — quorum malitia ità quoti∣diè magno fide∣lum scandalo & querelâ depre∣lienditur, vt de eorum emendati∣one spes nulla re∣licta videatur. Conc. Trid. S••ss. 22. cap. 9.
• m 1.1134

  Iam omnibus constat, & vbique personāt historiae, Separationem, quae in Germania ante centum an∣nos contigit, à potestatibus insul∣tantibus initium habuisse: Notum est eam ab illegi∣timis exactionib. & ab inusitatis In∣dulgētiarū conce∣dendi modis or∣tum duxisse. Pau∣lus Ven••t. Apol.
• n 1.1135

  Nostro seculo, ab Indulgentiarum reprehensione princi••ium fecit Sect••e suae Lutherus, vt perspicuum est ex assertionibus Articulorum à Leone 10. damnatorum. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Jndul. cap. 1. Lutherum Papa Haereticum denunci∣at. Jbidem de offic. Princ. Christ. p. 30.
• o 1.1136

  Quòd Doctrinam Indulgentiarum improbaret, primò quo∣que tempore Procuratores ea de re Lutheri nomen Romam deferunt; is continuò Deorum contemptor ac∣cusatur, causa agitur; sed quia ad dictum diem non adfuit Romae praesens, vt responderet, paulò post de••la∣ratur Haereticus. Polyd. Virgil. lib 8. de Jnuent. ca. 4.
• p 1.1137

  Certum est (ait) in manu Ecc••esiae aut Papae non esse statuere nouos Articulos fidei. Bulla Leonis-Papae in Art. 26. ••on. Luth apud Binium.
• q 1.1138

  Clarè est di∣sertè testati su∣mus, vt si non co∣gerent nos ad probandum Arti∣culos impios & blasphemos, nos —bona ex parte Episcopalem eo∣rum Iurisdictio∣nem defensuros. —Sed nos ad Satanica sua menadacial coge∣re volebant — & ex alto me despi∣ciebant, quòd In∣dulgentias eorum (bullae enim e∣rant) Difflâssem. Luther de Missae priuata.
• r 1.1139

  Cauenda est impia Lutherano∣rum haeresis, qui dixerunt nullam esse in Ecclesia potestatem con∣dendi Articulos fi∣dei. Cosmus Phili∣••r. de offic. Sacord. To. 1. li. 3. c. 2. intio.
• s 1.1140

  Ecclesia, quae nunc est, nititur fi∣dei antiquae, quae fuit Apostolorum tempp. Driedo Tract. de dogmat. l. 4. c. 1.
• t 1.1141

  Asserendum est, Ecclesiam non cudere no∣uam fidem, sed antiquam semper stabilire & expli∣care; nam prop∣••ereà rec••rrit semper ad scripturam, & Apostolicas traditiones. Et ità docent antiqui Patres, Irenaeus. l. 3. con. Haeres. c. 2. Hier. in Psal. 86. Vin. Lirinen. con. prophanas nouit. —Hoc tamen non obstante, verum est aliquam Pro∣positionem explicitè nunc credi de fide, quae antea explicite credebatur ab Ecclesia, quamuis implicite in Doctrin•• antiqu•• credebatur. Suarez Ies. de Trip. vir. Disp. 2. §. 6. ••um. 10.
• u 1.1142

  Bulla Pij 4. pro forma iuramenti fidei.
• * 1.1143

  See aboue, li••. p.
• x 1.1144

  Antonius, & Syluester Pierias dicunt, nihil ex∣pressè haberi de Indulgentijs nec ex Scripturis, nec ex dictis antiquo∣rum Doctorum. Teste Chemnisio nostro in Exam. Conc. Trid.
• y 1.1145

  In p••incipio nascentis Ecclesiae nullus fuit Indul∣gentiarum vsus. Roffens. Art. 18.
• * 1.1146

  Agrippa de va∣nitate Scient. cap. 61.
• z 1.1147

  Non ideò con∣temnendas ess•• Indulgentias quòd earum vsus serò fuit in Eccle∣sia receptus: quià multa sunt poste∣rioribus nota, quae vetustiores Scrip∣tores ignorârunt. Alphon. de Castro Haeres. l 8. Tit. In∣dulgentiae.
• a 1.1148

  Thesaurus Ec∣clesiae spiritualis satisfactionum est fundamentum In∣dulgentiarum. Bellar. de Indulg. l. 1. c. 2. Hoc caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Loua∣nienses. Ibidem. Et ex Scholasticis Mayro & Duran∣dus. Teste Suar. Tom. 4. in Thom. disp. 5. §. 2.
• b 1.1149

  Peccatum in sacris muneribus dispensandis Leo mox grauiore cu∣mulauit, &e. — Thuan. Tom. 1. Hist. Anno Domini 1515.
• c 1.1150

  Tempore cum∣primis Bonifacij noni Pont. quan∣dò huiusmodi ve∣nia plenâ manu non concedebatur modò, verum∣etiam (teste Pla∣tina) vti quaedam merces vendeba∣tur, — minùs multi à malefactis abstinebant, & clauium potestas multò vilior erat. Polydor. Virg. de Jnuent. lib. 8. c. 1. Edit. Lugd. 1558.
• d 1.1151

  Reuertor ad Indulgentias, vt illud verissimè dicam, Romanos Pontifices nimiùm indulgentes fuisse. Masson. in vita Leon. 10.
• e 1.1152

  Aurum pro plumbo mut••∣mus, negligentias (hem lapso cala∣mo!) indulgentias passim admitti∣mus. Exhort. apud Fascic. rerum expe∣tend. fol. 38.
• f 1.1153

  Exercent in po∣pulum tyranni∣dem, quaestu suo omnia metientes.—Non sedent in Cathedra Euan∣gelica, sed Simo∣nis Magi, autipsius Caiphae. Eras. i•• Matth. 23.3.
• g 1.1154

  Impium esset, Lutherum, in ijs quae rectè dixit, indefensum relin∣quere. Eras. Epist. Rectori Scholae Er∣ford.
• h 1.1155

  Non est publicè disputandum cum Haeretico, praeser∣tim pertinaci.— — Sunt enim saepè Haeretici in dispu∣tando disertissimi, & sciunt optimè disputationum re∣tia tendere.— Huius rei exemplum nobis praebuit publica disputatio cum Luthero Lipsiae habita, vbi vir doctiss. Ecchius cum Luthero disputans, &c. Alfonsus à Castro lib. 1 de Punit. Haeret. cap. 29. pag. 182.183.
• i 1.1156

  Quilibet pro pretij solutione peccandi impunitatem sibi pollicebatur, hinc stupra, incestus, adul∣teria, periuria, homicidia, & tota malorum Lerna. Orthunius Gratius de Grauaminibus Germaniae.
• * 1.1157

  See aboue in this Chapter Sect. ••.
• * 1.1158

  See aboue, Sect. 7.
• * 1.1159

  See the last Sect. lit. q.
• i 1.1160

  Aduerte, senten∣tiam Excommu∣nicationis iniustā nullam nec quoad Deum, nec quoad Ecclesiam ligare. Tolet. Ies. Instit. Sac. l. 1. cap. 10.
• * 1.1161

  See aboue, Sect. ••. Thesis 7.
• k 1.1162

  Si quis illicitè quemquam ex∣communicat, se∣metipsum, non il∣lum condemnat. Greg. Epist. vt ha∣betur Indice ad cal∣cem libri.
• * 1.1163

  See aboue, Chap. 9. Sect 6 & Chap. 4. Sect. 8.
• ¶ 1.1164

  Benno Cardi∣nal. de vita Hild. Eusebius Liberij communionem deserendo—eū ligauit. Apud Fas∣cic. Rerum. fol. 41. cap. 2.
• b 1.1165

  Africani Anti∣stites Vigilium Rom. Episcopum damnatorem triū Capitulorum à Catholica com∣munione, reserua∣to ei Poenitentiae loco, recludunt, Victor Episcopus Tunnunensis in Chron.
• * 1.1166

  See aboue, Sect. 15. at q.
• l 1.1167

  Non defuerunt, qui iam tùm cul∣pam in Leonem (Papā) reijcerent. Aug. Thuan. Hist. l. 1. Anno 1515. pag. 25.
• m 1.1168

  Non negârim tamen multos ini∣tio pio studio ad acriorem repre∣hensionem quo∣rundam manife∣storum abusuum impulsos fuisse, & praecipua•• cau∣sam huius calami∣tatis & distractio∣nis Ecclesiae illis assignandam, qui inani quodam fastu Ecclesiasticae potestatis instati rectè & modestè ad∣monentes superbe & fastidiosè contempferunt & repulerunt. — Neque vnquam, credo, controuersia a∣pud nos de externa Ecclesiae vnitate extiti••••et, nisi Pontifices Rom. hac authoritate ad dominationis quan∣dam speciem abusi fuissent, eam{que} extrà fines à Christo praescriptos ambitionis & cupiditatis causâ extulis∣sent. Cassander Consult. Art. 7. de Ecclesia vera.
• n 1.1169

  Quicunque de∣creuerint,—seu delibera••erin••, &c vt ad futurum vni∣uersale Conc. à nobis vel Succes∣soribus nostris Rom. Pontificibus contra praedictam Constitutionem appellare liceat, possit, vel debeat; Anathematizamus Apud Nauarram. Tom. 2. Com. de Da∣tis, num. 15.
• * 1.1170

  See aboue, Chap. 13. Sect. 18.19.
• o 1.1171

  Step. Gardiner in lib. de vera O∣bed. fol. 54. accor∣ding to the English Translation.
• * 1.1172

  1. Cor. 1.13.
• * 1.1173

  See aboue.
• * 1.1174

  Gal. 1.9.
• * 1.1175

  1. Cor. 15.1.
• * 1.1176

  S. Iude ver. 3.
• * 1.1177

  Matth. 19.9.
• * 1.1178

  Gen. 2.24.
• p 1.1179

  Non debemus attendere quio a∣lius ante nos fece∣rit, sed quid qui est ante omnes Christus prior fe∣cerit: neque enim hominis consue∣tudinem sequi o∣portet, sed Dei ve∣ritatem. Cyprian Epist. 63. And al∣though Saint Au∣gustine confuted Cyprians Assumption, yet he iustifieth his Proposition.
• q 1.1180

  Aliquandò solùm constat de initio (Traditionis) per negationem, quià potest constare in aliquo temporepropè initia Ecclesiae nō fuisse, &c. Suarez. Ies. de Trip. vir••. Theol. disp. 5. §. 4. nu. 4. See this Testimonie set downe at large in the next Sect lit. 2.
• r 1.1181

  Innocent. 1. ad Conc. Mileuet. Epist. 25.—Ex qua constat. Inno∣centij sententia, Eucharistiam In∣fantibus necessa∣riam esse, ex loco Ioh. Nisi manducauerits, &c. Binius Tom. 1. Conc. ex Rescript. Innoc. Pa••. Haec Inno∣centij sen••entia, quae Eucharistiam infantibus neces∣sariam fuisse — (quae 600 circiter Annos viguit in Ecclesia) iam re∣iecta est. Maldon. Ies. in Ioh. 6.53. & Espen. de Adorat. Euch. l. 2. c. 12.
• * 1.1182

  See aboue Sect. 15.
• * 1.1183

  Doctor Vssher (now) L. Prim••t•• of Armagh. H••st. Eccles. Doctor Crakanthorp. in Defens. Eccles. Anglican. and Doctor Feateleys late Con∣ference published.
• s 1.1184

  In omni insigni mutatione sem∣per ista sex de∣monstrari pos∣sunt: 1. Author eius: 2. Dogma. 3. Tēpus quo coe∣pit 4. Locus vbi. 5. Quis eam op∣pugnuuerit. 6. Exi∣guus coetus vnde coeperit. Bellar. l 4. de Notis Ec∣cles. c. 4. §. In omni.
• t 1.1185

  Graeci Latini{que} morbum intelli∣gunt, horrendū sanè vulnus, vel potius vlcus quod in foeminarum praesertim mamil∣lis enatum, nisi citò subventum fuererit, putrescit, & quod in corpo∣re sanum est pu∣tridum reddit, —& paulatim omnem corporis partem occupat. —Sic Haeretici, &c. Espencaeus in illum locū 2. Tim. 2
• u 1.1186

  Abstinentes quo tempore vi∣guerunt, non memoratur.—Acephali, quorum nullus Author repertus est, à quo originem traxisse dicerē∣tur.—Aquarij, —quis huius Haeresis Author fuerit, & ex quo tempore coeperit, nemo est qui indicat. —Praedestinati,—quis horum du••. fuerit, nescitur Prateolus Elench. Haeret.
• * 1.1187

  See aboue in the last Sect. lit. r.
• x 1.1188

  Quae quandò primùm vigere coepit in aliquibus Ecclesijs, minimè constat. Valent. Ies. de Euchar. c. 10. p. 499. §. Haec igitur.
• y 1.1189

  Constat vniuer∣salem Christi Ec∣clesiam in hunc vsque diem, Occidentalem verò seu Roma∣nam mille am∣plius à Christo Annis —vtram∣que panis & vini speciem omnibus Christi membris exhibuisse Cassa••∣der Consult. Art. 22, initio.
• z 1.1190

  Cùm multa. iam temporum vitio, siue hominum in∣curiâ ac impro∣bitate irrepsisse videantur, quae à tanti Sacrificij dignitate aliena sunt, &c. Conc. Trid Sess. 22. Deret. De obseruand. & euitand. in celebrat. Missae.
• a 1.1191

  Tra∣ditio alia perpetua ab initio Ecclesiae, alia temporalis, cuius initium cognoscitur, — seu positiuè quo anno∣vel tempore inceperit: — aliquandò verò solum constat de initio per negationem, quià potest constare ali∣quo tempore, propè initia Ecclesiae non fuisse in illa tal••m consuetudinem vel doctrinam, at posteà in illa inueniri: nam tunc rectè colligitur, huiusmodi Traditionem habuisse initium post Apostolos, etiamsi determi∣natum tempus, in quo inceperit, ignoretur: — quae cum non sit vniuersalis in tempore, non potest per se fidem facere Catholicam, quae debet esse tempore ••niuersalis. Suarez. Ies. de Trip. virt. Disp. 5. §. 4. num. 4.
• b 1.1192

  Ex Alexandri∣na Athanasium exturbant Ariani, à Constantinopo∣litana Paulum, Liberium à Ro∣mana sede, &c. Lindan. Pa••op. l. 2. c. 6. §. Quanquam. Legere est egregi∣am Catholicorum ab exilio reuersio∣nem. Espen. in Tim. l. 3. Digress. ca. 18. Bozius de Signi•• Eccles.
• c 1.1193

  Bulla Coenae per Sixtum Quin∣tum Papam. vide Tolet. Ies. de In∣struct. Sacerd. lib. 1. cap. 18.
• d 1.1194

  Forma Iura∣menti per Pium Quartum·
• * 1.1195

  Espencaeus, Vi∣nes, Polyderus.
• * 1.1196

  Suarez Ies. To. 8 Qu. 76▪ Resp. 53. §. 1. & 13.
• e 1.1197

  Sacrosancta Ge∣neralis Tridenti∣na Synodus in Sp. Sancto legitime congregatas, prae∣sidentib. in ea e∣iusdem Sanctae se∣dis Apostolicae le∣gatis & Nuntijs, Omnibus & singu∣lis siue Ecclesiasti∣cis siuè seculari∣bus personis vni∣uersae Germaniae cuiuscunque gra∣dus &c.—qui ad Oecumenicum hoc & generale Conc. accedere voluerunt, vt de rebus ijs. quae in ipsa Synodo tra∣ctari debent, omni libertate conferre, proponere, & tra∣ctare.—Ac arti∣culos, quot illis vi∣debitur, tam scrip∣to quam verbo of∣ferre, proponere, & cùm Patribus, fiue ijs qui ab ip∣sa sancta Synodo delecti fuerint, conferre,—nec∣nen. quandò illis placuerit, recede∣re possint,—ple∣nam Securitatem, quam saluum con∣ductum appellant,—concedit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 8. Saluus conductus datus Protestantibus.
• f 1.1198

  Aug. Thuanus de quibusdam Protestantibus, qui tempore Conc. Trident. ad Synodum venerunt, habito Saluo Conductu. —Ad ipsum Monfortium veniunt, orant vt cum Collegis det operam, vt ad postulata respondeatur, & dis∣ceptatio de controuersis Religionis Capp. inchoetur. Postridiè —Patres in Legati Pontificij aedes conue∣niunt.—Virtem bergicus Confessionem iam Concilio exhibitam publicauerat, quod molestè admodum tulere Patres.—Dixerunt Protestantes, suos venisse Theologos, vt doctrinam, eo libro comprehensam, tue∣••ntur. Cum nihil ad ea responderetur, & Sleidanus vbi domum redeundum esse diceret,—Toletanus lice∣re quidem respondit, neque repugnare quo minùs abirent.—Igitur Theologi, qui remanserant, postquam Causam suam Caesaris Oratoribus probauerant, Tridento discedun. Thuan. Hist. sui temp. Tom. 1. lib. 7. Anno 1552.
• * 1.1199

  Matth. 8.34.
• g 1.1200

  Indubitatum est, & omni certo certius debet ha∣beri (errant gra∣uissime qui aliter iudicant, & nescio quae media con∣silia sectantur, quae nulla sunt) ineun∣dae concordiae nullam amplius neque rationem, neque spem in ter∣ris omninò supe∣resse. Casaub. in E∣pist. ad Jacobum Regem, ante Exer∣cit. in Baronij An∣nales.
• h 1.1201

  Nullum simile sauitiae exemplū in tota Antiquita∣te reperiri. Natalis Comes. Circiter sexaginta millia hominum circa i••lud tempus tru∣cidata, &c.
• * 1.1202

  See aboue, Cha. 6. Sect. 2. lit. x.
• i 1.1203

  Donatistae Ec∣clesiam ex solis iustis constare vo∣lebant, & inde col∣legebant, Ecclesi∣am visibilem peri∣isse ex orbe terra∣rum. Eadem est Doctrina Calui nistrarum, Eccelesi∣am visibilem mul∣tis seculis perijsse, nunc solum esse in partibus septentri∣onalibus, vbi ipsi sunt. Bellarm. de Notis Eccles. cap. 9. & Bozius de signis Ecclesiae, Tom. 1. lib. 5. pag. 377.
• k 1.1204

  Quòd magni∣ficè Ecclesiam ve∣stram commendatis, quasi alia in mundo esse videatur—Cùm vos Africam, Aegyptum, Asiam Ecclesias non agnoscitis, numquid apud Graecos dicetis perijsse Ecclesiam? Caluin. Instit. l. 4. c 2. §. 2.
• l 1.1205

  Augustinus E∣pist. 48. ad Vincēt. meritò ridet Do∣natistas, qui ex verbis illis mysti∣cè explicatis [In∣dica vbi cubas in meridie, Can. 1.] colligebant Ec∣clesiam Christi in sola Africa re∣mansisse. Bellarm. l. 3 de verbo Dei, c. 3. §. Quocirca.
• * 1.1206

  See aboue, cap. 4.
• * 1.1207

  See aboue in this Chap.
• m 1.1208

  Per speciosum pacis nomen in vnitatem perfidiae subrepimus. Hilar. Pictau. Lib. ad Constantium Au∣gust.
• * 1.1209

  See aboue, Chap. 5. §. 2.
• * 1.1210

  Tutist••mum fuerit exemplum sequi Carbonarij cuiusd am ex quo cum vir doctus quae∣siuisset animi cau∣sâ, quid crederet, Symbolum recita∣uit, interogatus quid praeterea crederet, respon∣det, quod Ecclesia credit Catholica: Ille vero, quid cre∣dit Ecc••esia? quid inquit, ego credo: Cumque subinde alter quaereret, circulo hoc vsus Carbonarius nil aliud respondit, quàm se credere quod Ecclesia credidit Catholica, Ecclesia quod ipse. Fertur autem euenisse postea, vt vir ille doctus, cùm de vitâ periclitaretur, vrgente Satana quid crederet, neque se miser satis explicare posset, venit ei in mentem Carbonari••, nec alia fuit eius vox audita, praeter hanc, vt Carbonarius.—Cuius nisi sibi succurrisset exemplum, ingens se dixit periculum & discrime•• aditurum. Hosi••s de Authoritate sacrae scripturae lib. 3. §. Quae rit Brentius.
• n 1.1211

  Memento po∣tius sermonis scri∣barum, quam Ser∣monis légis Mosis. Apud Buxdorf. de Synag. Iud. c. 1.
• o 1.1212

  Nec declina∣bis ad dextram, nec ad sinistram.] Hic dicit Glossa Hebraica, si dixe∣rit Tibi quòd dex∣tra est finistra vel finistra dextra, ta∣lis sententia est, tenenda. Lyranus Com. in Deut. 17.
• * 1.1213

  Ier. 18.
• * 1.1214

  Eccles. 4.10.
• p 1.1215

  Breerly in his Apologie.
• * 1.1216

  See aboue in this Chap. §. 14.15.
• q 1.1217

  Horum (Cy∣priani nempè, & aliorum Patrum) modestiam & mansuetudinem si qui hodie quo∣que immitarentur, etiamsi ab Eccle∣siae societate se∣clusi viderentur, & in aliquo errore per ig∣norantiam ver∣sarentur, non pu∣tarem tamen ab interna illa Eccle∣siae Societate, quam animo & voluntate cole∣rent, alienos esse habendos. Cassan. Consult. Art. 7.
• * 1.1218

  Serarius, and Muhusinus, both Iesuites, at Mentz.
• r 1.1219

  Aug. de Vnit. Eccles. cap. 12. See this point below in in the next §. at z. a.
• s 1.1220

  Graeci credunt, in Azymo confi∣cientes grauiter in Euangelium peccare, & haeresin quandā in praxim deducere, & vo∣cant eos Azymi∣tas.—Ecclesia Latina definiuit in vtroque posse confici. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 4. pag. 24.
• t 1.1221

  Mr. Purchasse in the 2. Edition of his Relation of the world, pag. 490. out of other Au∣thors.
• * 1.1222

  1. Cor. 10.27.
• * 1.1223

  Ioh. 15.22.
• u 1.1224

  Conc. Triden••. Sess. 6. cap. 7.
• x 1.1225

  Precor vt me in Electorum suorū numerum, non aestimator meriti, sed veniae largitor, admittat. Testam. Card. Bellar.
• y 1.1226

  Acosta Ies. de Indorum Salute.
• * 1.1227

  Heb. 12.9.
• * 1.1228

  Heb. 12.9.
• * 1.1229

  Hab. 2.4.
• * 1.1230

  Heb. 6.12.
• * 1.1231

  1. Cor. 11.1.
• z 1.1232

  Qui sententiam suam quamuis fal∣sam, ac peruer∣sam, nullâ per∣tinaci animositate defendunt; prae∣sertim quam non animositate suae praesumptionis pepererunt sed à seductis, & in er∣rorem lapsis Pa∣rentibus accepe∣runt, quaerunt au∣tem cautâ sollici∣tudine veritatem, corrigi parati, cùm inuenerint; nequa∣quam sunt inter Haereticos depu∣tandi. Aug. Epist. 162. ad Donatist. in initio.
• a 1.1233

  Si quis in An∣tecessoribus no∣stris vel ignoran∣ter, vel simpliciter haec non obserua∣••it, nec tenuit quod nos Domi∣nus exemplo & magisterio suo do∣••uit; potest sim∣plicitati eius Indulgentia Do∣mini concedi; no∣bis verò non po∣terit ignosci, qui nunc à Domino admoniti instructi sumus. Cyprianus Epist. 63.13.
• * 1.1234

  2. Sam. 15.11.
• * 1.1235

  1. Thess. 5.21.
• * 1.1236

  Matth. 9.20.
• * 1.1237

  Iosh. 24.14.
• * 1.1238

  See aboue, per titum.
• * 1.1239

  Deut. 27.12.
• * 1.1240

  Gal. 1.8.