Professors who are kept hood-winck't in the beleefe of so Imposterous Schismaticall and Damnable an Article by which all the Churches begot by the preaching of Saint Peter and all the other Apostles in the compasse of seauen yeers before the begetting of Rome must be iudged Damned 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 witnesses can be more competent in this case Wee appeale to your selues 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 thereof 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 plainely 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 your faith deriued from the supreme Father-hood of your Romane Pope and this is as originally descended from the transcendent ordinarie Pastorship 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 Monarchicall 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 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 Impudent madnesse in Protestants to expound the Rocke to signifie Christ The other obtrudeth the Consent of your owne Schoole saying That by Rocke is meant Peter it is the Common opinion of all Catholikes An Exposition approoued by your Bishop and that not without some insultation saying In this Truth triumpheth as if it were as cleare as the Sunne which Sunne-shine as some call it we Protestants alas our blindnesse cannot discerne but rather iudge that it hath bene and is mistaken by you for Moone-shine through some defect in your faculties or instruments of sight A large Librarie I suppose would scarce containe the bookes that haue bene written vpon 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 himselfe Where we meane not the Confession of Peter in Concreto as you would haue it vnderstood 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 Ferus saying Vpon this Rocke That is the Confession of Peter and not vpon Peter Among your Glossers the Romane Glosse it selfe saying That is vpon the Article then Confessed concerning Christ and so our Lord Christ built it vpon himselfe Among your Friers Lyranus Vpon the Rock Christ. Among your Iesuites Pererius Christ is the Rock vpon which the Church is builded Among your Bishops Abulensis Not vpon Peter but vpon his Confession and he speaketh absolutely of the Confession it selfe in Abstracto without relation to Peter and giueth this reason because after this Confession thus made Peter himselfe failed in his faith by denying his Lord. Among your Cardinals Hugo and Cusanus 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 It is the foundation against which the gates of Hell shall not preuaile Therefore faith in Christ in Abstracto is the foundation 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 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 Testimonies 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 Confirmations 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 The other Disciples to haue beleeued before he spake because Christs question being generall What say yee He answered as the mouth of the rest True as may fully appeare in our 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 whosoeuer 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 moueable 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 apprehend the ground of your now Romane Faith Whence you cannot but obserue with what modestie your forecited Aduocates Baronius Bellarmine and Roffensis could obiect vnto Protestants Impudencie Singularitie and Blindnesse for defending 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 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 This Rocke was Christ Some that Peter made his Confession As the mouth of the other Disciples And that The Faith confessed was the Rocke Some by way of Diminution Not Peter alone more than others Some exclusiuely 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 Augustine as though he would make the Case indifferent yet are you taught by your owne Bishop that Augustine 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 destruction of your owne Cause For Faith must stand vpon Infallibilitie 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 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 Augustine and diuers other ancient Fathers Next that the Expounding by Rocke Peter doth nothing aduantage the Romish Conclusion which is from Rocke to inferre Saint Peters Monarchie and absolute Iurisdiction ouer all other Apostles because 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 Cardinall 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 conscience 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 receiued from this one Text may sufficiently warne you not to presume of the learning and iudgement whereof your grand-Leadears make such boasts as also because all other Obiections haue beene fully satisfied elsewhere Where the acknowledgement 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 Peter receiued from Christ no greater authoritie than did the other Apostles nothing was said to him which was not spoken to them Hee proceedeth further particularly insisting vpon the obiected Scriptures and concludeth that the other Apostles were equally called Stones had equally the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen 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 Societie of Iesuites and throughout all his Volumes which are sixteene 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 answer 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 Peter although he were Head and Iudge ouer the other Apostles yet he
so behaued himselfe among them that he might seeme in a manner 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 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 Dominion 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 I will magnifie my office inasmuch as I am Doctor of the Gentiles Vpon which Text Pope Gregory collecteth a generall lesson for the defence of his owne Iurisdiction The Apostle saith hee teacheth vs so to carrie humilitie in our heart that we doe keepe and preserue the dignitie 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 Iurisdiction which you account to be proper vnto Papall Monarchie ouer all Bishops and Pastors As for Example Not the Crowne vpon his head to shew his Empire nor the Miter to shew his Pastorall Dominion ouer the other Apostles No Legate à latere to carrie his Mandates no person admitted a pride which Saint Peter abhorred to kisse his feet No one Canon of directing them No Claime or yet Admittance 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 to wit of Admitting any out of the Dioces of another of Absoluing those that are Excommunicate by another of Canonizing Saints of Confirming Synods of Granting plenarie Indulgences of Pardoning Simonie and almost an hundred the like sinnes Teach vs this when you can perswade 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 eminencie 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 Catholike Church be so necessary for the directing of the faith of Christians to the acknowledgement of the Seat of Saint Peter at Rome as the infallible ground of their faith and center of their Saluation why within the whole seauen yeares during which time as you say Saint Peter had his Seat at Antioch 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 wheresoeuer 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 residence 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 Scriptures 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 predominancie ouer all other Apostles except you had sought out of that Rocke to carue a Pope who should likewise haue a transcendent power ouer all other Bishops But seeing that as hath beene prooued the primitiue Peter had no such Prerogatiue 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 conuerted strengthen thy Brethren Which we confesse doth signifie as great a priuilege granted to S. Peter as any mortall 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 nothing of Dominion and that also proper to the primitiue person of Saint Peter but making nothing for any person deriuatiue and Successor of his be he Pope or whosoeuer If you could proue this we should need no more for our satisfaction 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 vndoubtedly 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 Doctors 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 confute that Glosse in this manner 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 Retorsion confirmeth our defence that this Scripture doth not intend any other Prerogatiue than that which was onely proper to that Thou Simon and I haue prayed
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 Hierom 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 notwithstanding 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 you know Baptized at Rome in his full age Or as though when the Faith of Paulinus 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 hereditary Right to be Successor in Peters Faith which contradicteth the iudgement of Saint Hierom who condemned Pope Liberius who was as lawfull a Successor in the Seate of Peter as was Damasus 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 Doctrines Saint Hierom ingenuously confesseth that he trauelled to remote Countries as Greece to Gregory Nazianzene whom he calleth his Master Of whom saith he I learned to interpret the Scriptures After that he iourneyed to Alexandria in Aegypt To see Didymus that I might saith he consult 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 concerning 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 Peter 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 I may aske questions saith Damasus and Thou mayst answer that is as 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 Hieronymus 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 Persons 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 vnderstand that 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 Chaire of Moses that is saith Saint 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 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 Apostate which is a pernicious Paradoxe voide of all ground of Faith as hath beene also largely declared and which can haue no support by this sentence of Hierom where by Rocke he meaneth not Rome saith Erasmus because Rome may degenerate but he vnderstandeth the Faith which Peter professed Bring vs now this Faith of Saint Peter and then challenge 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 perisheth as well Romane as Grecian as well Bishop of Rome as Bishop of Thessaly Thus many waies haue you depraued the Orthodoxe meaning 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 Bishops of Rome from time to time as though Virgine Ierusalem might not at length become an Whore Secondly by peruerting his speach concerning the Rocke and Building that is Faith and Church generally taken and appropriating 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 I desire of you my Pastor that you would preserue your sheepe and addeth immediately as followeth Put away enuie and let the ambition of the Romane height
said Article viz. The Catholike Church As if Romane Church and Catholike 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 Declaration 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 Two parts of the Catholike Church the one called Triumphant in heauen the other Militant here on earth Accordingly S. Augustine 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 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 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 haue expounded it or iointly with the Militant according to the interpretation of the profoundest Doctors in your Romane schooles saying that 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 comprize as well the Triumphant as the Militant part thereof CHALLENGE THat then which comprehendeth not as well the Triumphant 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 Romane Church without subiection whereunto there is no saluation the word ROMANE vtterly excludeth the part Triumphant Therefore it cannot possibly be a Declaration or exposition of the word Catholike as it is vnderstood in the Apostles Creed except some of you shall be so blasphemous as to subiect Saints which are the members Triumphant and Conquerors 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 studie 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 Apostolicall 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 respect 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 accidentall 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 predestinate to life euerlasting They do not as they are by Some slandered to do make two Churches but one Church in a different 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 Visibilitie 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 Is the demonstration of things not seene Next by the whole tenor of the Apostles Creed wherein the obiect of euery Article 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 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 beleeued 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 Augustine and the accordance of your owne Doctors doth signifie 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 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 â—he Spirit of Christ. And so your Diuines as well Iesuites as others both ancient and moderne haue determined that All that are not sanctified with the holy Spirit of Christ although outwardly neuer
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 Priuilege A personall and singular Priuilege saith your Iesuite 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 exposition 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 distinguit So that whereas you ascribe two Priuileges conferred vpon Saint Peter by the words of Christ one not to erre from the Faith which was In himselfe as a priuate Doctor the other not to erre publikely to seduce Others you are necessarily chargeable either to claime both these Priuileges in the behalfe 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 publike 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 The Pope as a priuate Doctor may erre in Questions concerning as well Faith as manners as well as other Doctors and that this hath sometime happened 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 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 Priuilege and by their owne palpable Contradictions but that it is the wisedome of God to prooue the wisedome of a man against 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 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 committed 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 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 Temptations of Satan Vices Heresies and Persecutions 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 modestie 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 persons 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 Apostates Atheists the damned limbs of Sathan Them we say of whom your Massonius witnesseth thus 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 There haue beene intruded into Saint Peters Throne monstrous and most beastly men and of most desperate condition Or of whom your Genebrard thus For an hundred and fiftie yeeres space haue 50 Popes beene rather Apostaticall than Apostolicall Or of whom Cardinall Bellarmine thus Pope Iohn the 23 was of so dissolute a life that common people conceiued that he thought there was no life eternall Or of whom your Iesuite Costerus thus We confesse it possible saith he that Popes may become Idolatrous 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 Aduocates 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 attributed 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 others 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 comparing of S. Peter with himselfe SECT 9. AT what time as Saint Paul was
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 Titles also to 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 Reprehending 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 contemning 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 himselfe a Bishop among you at this day All this while we haue said nothing of the 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 Latine Fathers SECT 9. THE Second Father is OPTATVS Concerning whom your Obiection maketh fâ—r vs a good Answere For if Optatus as hee 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 Portion 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 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 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 Monarchicall Dominion in the Pope that he calleth him absolutely 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 profession the departure from that must dissolue the Necessity of Vnion The third Latine Father is Ambrose the fourth Hierom the fifth 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 hatefull 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 Papall Monarchy which both their words and Acts as you haue already heard do in a manner confound The sixt is 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 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 haue bene so called in other respects The eight is 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 Ciuill 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 Ambrose 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 Michol 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 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 perpetuall infallibility stand euer to this and then you cannot but be a good Catholike Nay he matcheth the Easterne Church with the Westerne as
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 A Persecuter of the Church of Christ as he himselfe confesseth when Saint Steuen suffered Martyrdome But the Church of Christ as it is called Catholike comprehendeth say 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 addition 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 Christian 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 Catholike Church without which there is no saluation without intolerable blasphemie against Apostles Martyrs and other Confessors 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 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 ROMANE cannot be a Declaration of that Article in the Apostles Creed The Catholike Church In respect 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 The time to come vntill the ends of the world according to the promise of Christ Mat. 28.20 Whereâ—ore our next Question must be whether the Church of Rome which will needs be the Catholike Church can infallibly professe a Prerogatiue 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 If the succession in the gouernement of the Catholike 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 vniuersally 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 authority This 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 compelled to confesse that the Church of Rome may possibly Apostate in future times haue contended to defend that 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 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 Commanding him to fixe his seate at Rome vntill his death in the iudgement of your Iesuite Valentianus is of no force to proue that the Romane Church was to continue Catholike We draw nearer our marke 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 directly and peremptorily consent that 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 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 Bishop of Rome Furthermore we reserue vnto it's due place your Confession that 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 mentioned in the Apostles Creed So then to make the word Catholike 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 Blasphemous The seuenth Argument to proue that the Addition of the word ROMANE to the Catholike Church cannot be a Declaration 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 Catholike 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 haue formerly 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 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 consent is so ordained vnto whom we owe obedience as
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
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 Gathering 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 Emperour with shame should take the lower roome But where where but according as your later Popes determined 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 Hildebrand 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 diligently 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 Directly or Indirectly ouer all Secular 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 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 Euery Emperour borroweth his power from the Pope as doth the Moone her light from the Sunne be the Emperour Christian or Ethnicke and therefore is to submit himselfe to the Pope and that 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 Behold I haue constituted 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 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 Lyranus one of your Friers and one of your best Popes 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 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 conquest 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 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 Primitiue ages of the Catholike Church First to Ethnick Emperours SECT 2. IN the time of the Ethnicke Emperours the Church Catholike 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 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 confesse 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 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 Spirituall 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 From the time of Christ his passion 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 against their Kings No no for by this they then proued the Christian Religion to excell all other professions euen by suffering constantly whatsoeuer miseries onely for the loue of God and his worship taking their names of Christians from him who deliuered this pious doctrine of Obedience to Magistrates So hee I. CHALLENGE NEuer
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 Schismaticall 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 seriously 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 languishing heart of that Pope and to arme him least he should be vndermined by the cunning and Perfidiousnesse of those irregular companions as his owne words doe plainly manifest by exhorting Cornelius 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 Christian 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 Stratagem 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 saying 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an Admonition by way of praising insinuated when we admonish him whom we seeme to praise which is by praise of his former worthinesse to premonish him to maintaine with constancie 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 necessarily make Saint Cyprian a False Prophet who in this Epistle commended Pope Cornelius but in 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 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 whether he may haue a desire to know if there were any the like Example in Antiquitie wee instance in that which your Cardinall Baronius hath related Saint Basil saith 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 Arguments 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 Mediterranean 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 enacted in his Councell if gain-saying the Popes pretended supreme 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 bene proued from point to point then are we sure that Saint Cyprian did not belieue the Article of Necessary Subiection to the Sea of Rome If the Excommunication of others who were of Saint Cyprian his opinion if not admitting the Legats of Cyprian to his speach if forbidding all Communication with them and hospitality vnto them if despightfull words against Cyprian as against an intollerable Aduersary may be held proofes of the Excommunication of Cyprian by the Pope all which likewise haue bene expresly 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 notwithstanding the same Faith was contented to be Excommunicated 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 Cyprian was not of your Faith to belieue that Subiection or visible 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 Necessary Vnion and Subiection to the Romane Sea is not necessary 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 know in his greatest extremities and persecutions by Arian Heretikes found support and refuge at Rome by the godly Pope Iulius the Bishop 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 Gregory the thirteenth say you built a goodly Church being desirous to draw the East-Church vnto his Vnion and whose name is Calendred for a Saint in your Romane Missall at this day This is the Saint whom we propound vnto you as one who hath taught vs by his example not to regard the Papall Vnion in our iust Cause But whether and why did the Pope of Rome Excommunicate such a
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 husband againe that had done ill in marrying another The man maruailing hereat and being loath to be diuorced from his latter 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 Husband 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 Baptisme 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 because 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 taken from the consideration of our Christian Vow made in Baptisme Wherein we are to obserue the Parties betrothed together 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 Were you baptized in the name of Paul As much as to say He onely is essentially your spirituall Father in whose Name you are baptized Secondly the Mother is mentioned in our Vow at Baptisme 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 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 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 Accursed but who in all the Church of Rome will say Though the Pope teach vs otherwise then was Apostolically and Primitiuely 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 Mother-Church of all other Churches which wee through-out this Treatise haue prooued to be an Imposterous Schismaticall 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 peremptorily 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 glorious Christian Fathers Martyrs Professors and Churches as well Primitiue as Successiue which are infinite that haue denyed Subiection to the Romane Church All which Particulars haue bene prooued at large In the last place each Christian in Baptisme being espoused to his wife Truth which can be but One euen that whereof Saint Paul spoke saying That which you haue receiued before and accordingly Saint Iude 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 against LVTHER in his Opposition to your Romane Church vrging in him to prooue his Doctrine by immediate Succession 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 Diuorce whether it were lawfull for the husband to put away his wife at his pleasure or no an Abuse which by the hardnesse of the Iewes hearts had continued among them many hundred yeares sendeth them to Gods first Institution of Marriage set downe in the beginning of Scripture saying From the beginning it