Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	court_n	great_a	king_n	2,817	5	3.7634	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07809	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.	Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659.	1626 (1626)	STC 18186; ESTC S112909	370,200	394

hee was neither accompted of them not yet esteemed 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 Constitution of Iustinian and disclaiming as you know the Title of Vniuersall Bishop of the Church as most odious euen in the now Romane signification of Vniuersall Iurisdiction hee was too little to become in that Sense a Romane Pope Againe Damasus say you called the Easterne Bishops Sonnes belike it was in loue Yet the same Easterne Bishops called Damasus Brother and Fellow Lastly Some may be confuted and indeed confounded by as Antient 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 against Pope Innocentius Our Generall Discouery of the Vanity of your Proofes of Papall Monarchy from the mouthes of Popes themseluos who haue beene anciently noted of Pride SECT 13. OVr Sauiour Christ obseruing the equity of humane Law applied it to himselfe saying 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 exception 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 by the Ancient Fahers of their owne Times Whereupon it is that we haue heard Tertullian girding at the Pope as if hee would bee Bishop of Bishops Polycrates contemning his threats of Excommunication as Vaine Terrors Cyprian noting the Popes Pride and scorning his Tyrannicall terror The Fathers of the Councell of Africke among whom Saint Augustine was one branding Three Popes with the note of Smoakie Arrogance and Saint Augustine himselfe poynting at the vaine Boasting of Rome nay euen Saint Hierom also durst say concerning the Ecclesiasticall State of that City Away with Ambition And how did Saint Basil beard the same Church with the termes of Westerne superciliousnesse Pride Others likewise albeit more couertly and closely ' twitted other Popes Cyrill We may not saith he for the speaches of Some meaning the Pope with others suffer our Canons to bee infringed and Saint Ambrose We also haue our senses about 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 otherwise holy Fathers also For we forbeare to Oppose against you the iudgement of Authors of after-ages who speake against the Romane Pride as liberally as did 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 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 solicitation of their Mother that 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 Who should be Chiefe They were likewise zealously-holy seruants of Christ that beyond their Commission would haue had fire from heauen vpon the Samaritans And certainely many of the Popes especially 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 holy 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 particulars of these our Answers together with theis more Generall are summed vp and due subtraction made of those Obiections which are satisfied thereby you shall finde that the Remainder for your aduantage will be iust nothing at all So vaine and friuolous is the pretence for your Romane Article of Vniuersall 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 Discouerie of the Vanity thereof SECT 14. THis Vniuersall Exercise of Papall Authority your Cardinall will haue vs discerne in three points 1. Of Confirming 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 other Bishops You may take for your first Answer that anciently Institutions of Metropolitans and Patriarchs were done by Communicatory letters to the Chiefe Patriarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Deposing 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 Restitution 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 fayleth 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 Authority alone without the helpe of a Councell 2. That infinite Examples are Recorded of Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs 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 Although saith he the Pope did not himselfe Confirme all other Remote Bishops

which ancient 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 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 Commission to preach as not hauing bene authorized by the other Apostles hee answereth that hee had receiued his Calling Not of men neither by man but immediatly from and by Iesus Christ. And for proofe hereof he addeth a reason saying of the time when he was at Ierusalem 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 himselfe 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 exception 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 answered saying I saw none but Peter except Iames. Plainly signifying that Peter at that time could not challenge Iurisdiction ouer the College of all the other Apostles I. CHALLENGE SEt before your eyes any Bishop as for example the Bishop 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 Cardinals 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 Conclaue 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 application 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 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 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 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 other Bishop came to visit the Pope and was dismissed by receiuing from him 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 homage to the Pope 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 Iames did in his presence If Peter had beene a Sender of any of the Apostles as he was himselfe one that was Sent by others If Peter had 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 Paul was If Peter had made as bold with Paul as Paul did with Peter by Reprouing him publikely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before them all which farre differs from the Papall Prerogatiue set downe in the Canon Law saying 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 To the Romanes If it had beene said of Peter's ship as it was of that wherein S. Paul was God hath giuen vnto thee all them that Saile with thee And Except those remaine in the ship you cannot be saued Finally and principally if Saint Peter had written of himselfe as Saint Paul did saying 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 preiudice and rashnes Hitherto we haue spoken of the Faith of Saint Paul concerning 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

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 Reuelation wherein he reuealeth that the Citie of Rome is Babylon according to the generall consent of your owne 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 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 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 Ribera and Viega both of ●hem Spanish Doctors and publike Professors doe confidently 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 conuincing 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 scorched therefore yea these their bookes are publikely allowed by the iudgement of besides others the 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 Prophecie 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 because the Apostacie shall be say they from the faith of that Church and Obedience to that Bishop Who though he abandon 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 Romish 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 therefore call for a Torch for so you call Baronius his writings to discouer this darknesse He sheweth that 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 custome of Erecting Chaires or Seats for Bishops in their Churches placing them aloft and adorning them with ornaments where they did sit c. This was the originall of Episcopall 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 being 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 Titulus sine re namely as it is written of Hierusalem 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 Professors were thus To the Churches of Galatia To the Church of God in Corinth and elsewhere to shew that the Church rather doth consist in the Professors then in the places and omitting the name of Church he doth mention onely the Persons To the Saints at Colosse and faithfull brethren in Christ To all the Saints in Christ at Philippi and also for Rome 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 Shepheard of Vtopia where there is neither Sheepe in the Countrey nor Countrey for Sheepe except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be the Shepheard and they speak the language of Babel where None shall heare Nothing of Nobody at all

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 Appeale 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 appointed 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 incongruity 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 Competere 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 vnderstand 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 belongeth not vnto me But you know that no true Court of Appeale 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 Decree of the Councell of Carthage set downe by Saint Cyprian whereof you 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 preiudged 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 Delusion 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 himselfe 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 Threescore Bishops in a Councell at Mileuis where Saint Augustine was present decreed in the words following If Priests or Deacons or Inferior 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 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 Except the Appeale be made to the Apostolike See of Rome Which is in Musicke Discantus contra punctum and in your Law Statuimus i. e. Abrogamus But thus much being granted how is not this a prohibition against your pretended Right of Appeales to Rome Satisfie this point or else yeeld the Cause 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 inferior Iudge to a Superior we reply that where there lieth a Prohibition against Appealing to a Iudge that Iudge is not held a Superior Iudge But this Councell granted a Prohibition against 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 Consequence 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 thereof 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 Pope Zozimus did command this Canon of the non-Appeales 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 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 forbad onely the Priests and Inferior sort of the Clergie to Appeale to Rome but not the Bishops this he saith is proued by Saint Augustine who was present 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 Delegation 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 also present in the African Councell at Carthage assenting to that which was there concluded by the Fathers of that Councell in their Epistle to Pope Celestine wherein grounding their Caution vpon the Councell of Nice 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 Bishops By this you may discerne the Logique taught them at Carthage 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 vnnecessary trauels beyond the Sea therefore they intended much more that they themselues should be freed Euen as an householder 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 Deacon shall Appeale to Rome out of Africke awardeth also a penalty of Excommunication vpon euery Priest or Deacon 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 Excommunicated 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 Subiection to the Pope euen his pretended Right of Appeale as being Supreme Iudge if also by their Decree of the Excommunication of them that should but Thinke of the contrary they therefore doubtlesse would haue contemned the Excommunication 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 beleeue both these and 4. All these to be Necessary to Saluation and trie then whether this Councell of Mileuis haue not vnder-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 Necessity of Vnion with it 3. They Excommunicate all such Qui put auerint as should but Thinke it lawfull to Appeale 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 Orthodoxe 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 Vniuersall 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 necessary as the former You will therefore excuse vs if to preuent 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 Cecilian The Second Case is betweene the Church of Africke in a Prouinciall Councell and Three Popes successiuely in the Cause of Apiarius The summe of both is this that because Appealing 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 former we proceed to that which followeth Our Generall CHALLENGE concerning your Romish Answers to the Testimonies obiected against 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-Vniuersall Right as strong an Argument of false Vsurpation 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 giueth 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 Champion furnished with the Panoply of learning and subtilitie as well offensiue to obiect as defensiue to answer whatsoeuer force of Argument made against all pretence of that Right But you cannot but discerne in his Obiections that he could