desire to be vnited with the Church So they which is full enough for your fuller conuiction CHALLENGE IF without the Romane Church some may bee actually saued then the Addition of the word ROMANE caonot be a Declaration of The Catholike Church without which there is no Saluation But the Romane Church is such without which as you confesse some may be actually saued Ergo the Addition of the word ROMANE to the Catholike Church cannot bee a Declaration thereof For although All agree in this as your selues confesse that Without the Catholike Church there is no saluation yet haue you confessed two sorts of Christian Professors namely Excommunicates and Catechumenists to bee actually saued albeit no Members of your Romane Church As for being Saued only by Desire or Vâ—we of being in your Church it is but a wilde and extrauagant piece of learning in the iudgement of your owne Iesuite But we will reason the matter with you Know you not that the Church Catholike is compared by Saint Petor to the Arke of Noah that as all which were within that Arke were saued all without it were drowned although they Desired neuer so much to haue been admitted into the Arke so it is in the Church Catholike whosoeuer are essentiall members thereof cannot possibly perish and contrarily whoseuer is not a reall and vitall member therein cannot but perish The fourth Argument to proue that the Addition of the word ROMANE cannot be a Declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed In respect of the Diuine Authority of the Article SECT 7. IT hath alwaies beene the Profession of the Catholike Church it selfe not to esteeme any Doctrine an Article of Faith which is not constituted and to speake with better Emphasis Created by Diuine authority This being a Truth vniuersally consented vnto you if you will make good the Addition of the word ROMANE to the Article of the Catholike Church are iustly challengable either to proue that the Romane Church as it is the Romane Church was constituted by diuine Authority to be rather than any other transcendently THE Catholike Church or else to confesse your Article of Romane Church without which there is no Saluation to be but new and consequently a Doctrine rather of fancie than of Faith The necessity of this Consequence was well foreseene of those your Popes who were the first Authors and Patrons of this Article and therefore haue published in their writings and decrees that The Romane Church was by Diuine Authority ordained to be the Catholike Church This Question dependeth vpon the reason of the Pope of Rome his succession to Saint Peter to wit whether it were allotted to the Bishop of Rome to succed Saint Peter as Head of the Catholike Church by the institution of Christ or else by the fact of Saint Peter himselfe For if it were by command and appointment of Christ then it must be allowed as a Diuine Ordinance but if it issued onely from the fact of Saint Peter then by your owne Confessions it is no doctrine of Faith This being the state of the Question as it is propounded by your selues hereunto we desire to receiue your owne Resolutions To this purpose when wee consult with your choisest Doctors as namely Bellarmine Suarez Soto Paludanus Bannes Augustinus Triumphus Cordubensis Armachanus Waldensis and Others they that speake more ingenuously doe freely grant that the pretended Pontificall Dignity Romane as it is Romane is not from diuine authority because onely from the fact of Peter They that are more affectionate to the Romane See although they attribute it to the Institution of Christ yet dare they not say that this is to be beleeued vpon certainty of Faith but onely as a matter Probable and Coniecturall Nay if you shall haue but a little patience vntill we descend to that point you shall perceiue by the iudgement of the Catholike Church it selfe in a generall Councell of primatiue Antiquity that The Prerogatiue which the Church of Rome then had was but from Humane authority CHALLENGE AN Addition standing onely vpon Probability and Coniecture cannot be infallibly a Declaration of an Article of Faith founded vpon Diuine and Infallible authority But your Addition of the word ROMANE standeth as you confesse vpon probability and Coniecture onely Ergo it cannot be an infallible Declaration of the Apostolicall Article The Catholike Church without which there is no saluation And consequently your word ROMANE added to the Christian Creed thereby to make the Romane Church The Catholike Church without which there is no saluation must necessarily be iudged Antichristian The fift Argument to proue that the Addition of the word ROMANE cannot be a Declaration of the Article The Catholike Church as it is Visible in respect of the Time past whereunto the word CATHOLIKE hath relation euen before Rome was founded a Church SECT 8. WHo knoweth not that your Addition of the word ROMANE vnto the Apostolicall Article of The Catholike Church is to infuse an opinion into the mindes of Christians that Catholike and Romane are termes vniuocall and conuertible which is as much as to say that whensoeuer there was a Romane Church it was The Catholike Church and whensoeuer there was a Catholike Church it was Romane Scarce shall you finde any Romish Professor especially among the vulgar who haue not this conceit of that Article of Christian Faith Notwithstanding your more learned Doctors are not ignorant that this Apostolicall Article The Catholike Church was published before that in Rome was founded a Church and that the Apostolicall Church it selfe was Catholike before the Article of the Catholike Church was proclaimed Which name CATHOLIKE or vniuersall was first attributed to the Church Christian To distinguishit as you know from the Synagogue of the Iewes which was circumscribed and confined to one only nation whereas the Church Catholike is not limited to any one place but is as broad in succession of place as is the whole world Now concerning the Catholike Church in the time of the Apostles Card. Baronius whose History you honour as an heauenly Lampe or torch telleth you that The Creed of the Apostles wherein is the Article of The Catholike Church was composed by them in the yeere of Christ XLIV and that the Catholike Church was extant sometime before this Article was put into the tenor of the Creed Which he demonstrateth from the act of Saint Peter who in the yeere of our Sauiour XXXIX is found Visiting the Churches in Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia c. That the same Apostle Saint Peter Constituted the Church of Antioch in the same yeere and after that he had gouerned the See of Antioch seuen yeeres hee in the yeere XLV translated his See from Antioch to Rome Your other Chronologer Genebrard yeeldeth vnto vs eleuen yeeres betweene the Composing of the Apostles Creed and the first foundation of the Church of Rome by the Apostle Saint
and yet notwithstanding were reputed still in the Church of Christ Catholike Bishops and so farre in the Communion of the Church Catholike that many godly Bishops in the Latine Church would not seuer themselues from their Communion Yet Bishop Christopherson that you might beleeue the Excommunication of Pope Victor to be of an vniuersall power extent translateth the Greeke sentence of Eusebius thus Irenaeus exhorted Pope Victor not vtterly to cut off so many Churches from the body of the vniuersall Church of Christ. Which Interpretation if true might seeme to make the Church of Rome the Catholike Church But as it became a sworne Scribe for the Pope he peruerts the Text which is to be rendred thus Irenaeus exhorted Pope Victor not to cut off whole Churches of God without any mention of the Bodie of the Church Ergò it cannot import an Excommunication from the Vniuersall bodie of the Church but onely from the Church of Rome as from a particular member of that vniuersall as hath beene proued What then may be thought of your new Article but as of a barbarous and Antichristian Paradox which separateth from all hope of life all the Christians of the Easterly parts of Asia who In multitude exceeded the Christians of the Greeke and Latine Churches But God be thanked that by the doctrine of those Primitiue times the Excommunication of the Romane Church made no mortall wound for the Asian Bishops esteemed no better of it than of a Brutum Fulmen And if you will suffer vs to bee somewhat more equally minded to Victor Bishop of Rome than you your selues can be we may perswade our selues that hee did not by this his Excommunication intend to shew or arrogate any Iurisdiction ouer the Greeke Churches as Pastor ouer his flocke but onely to denie participation of brotherly Communion with them as they might if they had beene so forward haue dealt with him this being an Act of Diuision Inter Pares which likewise doth conclude the no-absolute Necessitie of Vnion with the Romane Church Our Second Instance is in the Churches of Africke Numidia and Mauritania in the dayes of Saint Cyprian by 87. Bishops in the Councell of Carthage Anno 256. Who notwithstanding the Excommunication of the Pope of Rome were euer held by the Catholike Church the Essentiall members thereof and in state of Saluation SECT 3. WHen the Case of Basilides and Martial was on foot concerning Appeales from the Church of Carthage to Rome and the Quaestion of Rebaptization of those persons that had renounced their Haeresies was in agitation betweene Stephen Bishop of Rome and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage The Church of Africke and others of that Primitiue age gaue so infallible testimonies of denying the Popes Catholike Iurisdiction ouer other Churches and of despising his now pretended Catholike power of Excommunication as may sâ—ffice for the full determination of this whole Cause in confutation of your new Article to wit The Catholike Romane Church without which there is no saluation This Case therefore being so pertinent and pregnant wee will proceede therein methodically I. The full Opposition of Saint Cyprian and other Bishops against Stephen then Bishop of Rome SECT 4. SVch was the Opposition of Saint Cyprian and others against Stephen Bishop of Rome that euen by your owne Confessions Cyprian gathered a Councell of 87. Bishops out of Africke Numidia and Mauritania which concluded contrary to the Pope and his Councell celebrated in Italy Secondly such that Cyprian iudged the same Pope to erre proudly ignorantly and blindly Thirdly such that he impugned the Popes pretended power of Appeales to Rome accompting the Appellants to wit Basilides and Martial Renegados and desperate Delinquents challenging his right of Iudicature for the proceeding against those notoriously wicked Companions who therefore ought to be sent backe againe saith he to be censured by their owne Bishop Fourthly such that this Councell of Carthage did deny to any whomsoeuer the Title of Bishop of Bishops Fiftly such that Cyprian would not acknowledge the name of POPE per Antonomasiam that is By way of Excellency to be proper to the Bishop of Rome as you teach Insomuch that at the instant when as Cyprian was to lay downe his life to Martyrdome for the profession of the holy Faith Being demanded of the Pro-Consull who then had charge to put him to death saying Art thou Hee who shewed thy selfe POPE among the Christians He answered I am Which may be enough to dash that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you appropriate vnto the Bishop of Rome by the name of Pope Great therefore was the Opposition of Cyprian against Stephen namely Bishop against Bishop Chaire against Chaire Councell against Councell as flat Diameter as possibly might be II. That Saint Cyprian and Others were Excommunicated by Pope Stephen SECT 5. IT were friuolous to stand vpon presumptions when we haue your owne Confessions You grant that at the same time when Saint Cyprian did contend with Stephen Bishop of Rome the same Pope Excommunicated the Easterne Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia for the same cause of Rebaptization Secondly that th' aforesaid Pope Stephen did also as much as lay in him cast off Cyprian insomuch that Hee would not admit vnto his speach them that were sent from Cyprian vnto him Nor this onely but also commanded them that were of his owne profession not to haue any peace or communion with them nor yet to allow them so much as house-roome or lodging Yea and Pope Stephen signified by writing that no Communion was to be held with them that did rebaptize Not to insist vpon the Popes lauish and reproachfull speach in calling Cyprian a Counterfait Christ and a deceitfull worker All which are prooued out of the Epistle of Firmilianus Bishop of Caesara in Cappadocea which almost in euery point doth manifest the Excommunication of Saint Cyprian CHALLENGE FOR what better proofe of the Excommunication of Saint Cyprian and other Bishops of his Fraternity than denying by writing All communion with them that were of the same Opinion with Cyprian and after in Act Forbidding all communion First by speach and conference Secondly by conuersation and company Thirdly by eating or hospitality Each one of these being according to your owne positiue Conclusions a proper Character of that which is called The Greater Excommunication and consequently in your sense a Separation from the Body of the Romane Church III. That Saint Cyprian held not the Excommunication of the Pope to be anâ— valid Separation from the Catholike Church or hazardous to the state of Saluation SECT 6. NOne euer was more Christianly affected to the Catholike Church than was Saint Cyprian nor more firmly belieued that the Vnion with the Catholike Church is necessary to saluation whose profession was this Although a man saith he were slaine for the name of Christ yet if he be without the Vnion of the Church he cannot
made her the patterne of all other Christian Churches his stile should haue arrayed her otherwise than by inuoluing her among Loca Occidentis Secondly in Criminall Causes you belieue that the Supreme Right of Appeale to the Sea of Rome is a Iurisdiction whereinto the Bishop of Rome is inuested by virtue of his Succession from Saint Peter so that all other Churches Christian ought to acknowledge this Right of Appeale vpon all iust occasions and the Cause being there determined all parties are vtterly precluded hauing no power to Appeale from it to any Superior Iudicature This is your pretended Prerogatiue of the Church of Rome consisting of two Termes Appealing to Rome and not Appealing from Rome Will you admit of Saint Augustines determination in both these Saint Augustine as hath bene confessed was one of that Councell of Africke which abandoned the Claime of Right of Appeales from all Churches to Rome which was then challenged by three Popes successiuely to wit Zozimus Boniface and Celestine and yet concluded against them that it should not be lawfull for any within the Churches of Africke to make their Appeale to Rome Accordingly you that would thinke it an intolerable and sacrilegious derogation from the Papall Iurisdiction if in a Criminall Cause after the Pope with his whole Consistory of Cardinals had giuen iudgement any Bishop within the Romane Iurisdiction should be so audacious as to Appeale from that Sentence to an higher Iudicature where you that are my Iudges shall be iudged whether you haue giuen right iudgement or not remember that Saint Augustine concerning the Case of the Bishop Caecilian which was referred to the Arbitrement of Pope Iulius and others doubted not to giue such a Resolution I suppose saith he the Bishops that were at Rome were not good Iudges there then remained a Generall Councell where the Cause may be discussed so that if it shall appeare that those Iudges iudged wrongfully their sentence may be reuersed and disanulled Thirdly from Criminall we proceed to a Doctrinall point You that haue told vs that it is a peculiar Prerogatiue belonging to the Church of Rome as she is The Catholike Church to direct all other Churches which is the true Canon of Diuine Scriptures and that she by her Councell may pronounce euery one Anathema and Accursed that shall not giue beliefe to his Decree touching the right Canon of Scriptures obserue that Saint Augustine perceiuing how the Latine or Romane Church did not in those daies constantly hold the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrewes to be Canonicall and of Diuine Authority resolueth thus Notwithstanding I saith he am rather mooued by the Authority of the East Churches So Saint Augustine which is so much that a conscionable man we thinke should need no more For now we are in a Doctrinall point euen what and which is the Scripture and written Word of God the Principle and Doctrine of all other Principles and Doctrines Whereof when we enquire we are directed by Saint Augustine to consult with the Primitiue Churches as well East as West and wherein these do differ in their Customes therein to yeeld rather to the iudgement of the Greeke and Easterne Churches according as Saint Hierom also determined than to the Romane in the West And lest this Decision of Saint Augustine might seeme to proceed from some voluntary inclination to the Greeke Church rather than to the Latine he addeth that he is so moued by the Authority of the Easterne Churches Now how all these particulars will agree with your Article viz. The Catholike Romane Church Mistris of all other Churches without full Vnion and Subiection whereunto there is no Saluation do you your-selues deliberate Sure we are that this Resolution of Saint Augustine will easily interpret the meaning of his other sentence so often obiected by you to wit I should not haue belieued the Gospell except the Authority of the Church had moued mee that by Church he meant not the then present Church of Rome as you pretend which is as you see another vanity After this discussion of the Doctrinall Cause we adde a Consideration of the Schismaticall state of that Church according as our iudicious Casaubon hath obserued You who accompt it the onely note of Schisme to be diuided from the Romane Church and the Pope thereof as the onely Head of all Churches Answer vs Why Saint Augustine who in seauen Books besides many other places confuted the Schismaticall Donatists yet neuer spake word of the Monarchy of the Pope or of the Infallibility of his iudgement whereby to reduce them to the Vnity of the Church and Truth Lastly as for the Title of The Catholike Church you that appropriate it in your Article to the Church of Rome aduise againe with Saint Augustine who as he hath already defined that Catholike is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The whole as a Comprehension of all Parts and therefore that no Part can be called The Whole so doth he further illustrate the same in his Expositions vpon those words of the Psalmist The Kings daughters were among thine honourable women vpon thy right hand did stand the Queene in a Vesture of gold of Ophir Behold Rome saith he behold Carthage behold other Cities as Kings daughters of all which is made one certaine Queene speaking of the Catholike Church whereunto euery one ought to bee vnited in Faith and Hope So he You see that in Saint Augustines time when Rome was indeed Rome and truely glorious for Faith and Holinesse yet Behold Rome what The Queene which is the Catholike Church it selfe No but Behold Rome a daughter of the King And againe Behold Carthage and other Cities How Namely so and no otherwise than Rome and others all daughters of the King that is Particular Churches professing Christ. But the Catholike Church as Queene what must shee be any one of these bee it the Church of Milan Carthage or Rome No but One Vniuersall Church consisting of these and All others CHALLENGE SEe you now with what obliquity of iudgement your Authors haue obiected these colourable sayings of Saint Augustine out of his Epistles vnto Pope Zozimus and Pope Boniface and others Whereas when we come to his deeds he doth freely demonstrate his Faith contrary to your sense when Comparing Particular Bishopricke with Bishopricke as Rome with Carthage hee maketh them and their Bishops both Most Eminent Comparing Churches with Churches as Rome with the Churches of Africke he defendeth euen against the forenamed Popes Zozimus and Boniface both that it is not lawfull for Remote Churches to Appeale to Rome and that it is also lawfull for Churches that are subordinate to the Romane Iurisdiction to Appeale from Rome By which the very pinnacle of the pretended Authority of the Romane Iurisdiction is quite ouerthrowne and cast to the ground Againe Saint Augustine comparing the Two Moities of the whole Catholike Church commonly diuided into the East otherwise called the
he the Church to be a Companie of men obedient to the Bishop of Rome for the time being and we affirme the Church of Rome to be alone the Catholike and Apostolike Church The Third and last thus None doth communicate saith he with the Catholike Church except he subiect himselfe vnto the Pope yea although otherwise he professe the Catholike Faith For vnion with the Head is a note of the Church So standeth the now Article of your Romane Faith Foure remarkeable Points more distinctly to be obserued in your former Romane Profession concerning the Article of The Catholike Romane Church SECT 5. FIrst obserue that the word ROMANE is not added only for distinction-sake to discerne it from other Churches which in respect of the Catholike doctrine of Faith professed in them haue equally had that Addition as to bee called the Catholike Corinthian or the Catholike Ephesian the Catholike Thessalonian or as we now the Catholike English Church because so it could be no more Catholike than other particular Churches as your Iesuite confesseth and consequently there could be no matter of controuersie But now the word ROMANE is added to the Article of the Catholike Church by way of Transcendencie and as the same Iesuite resolueth supreamly comprehending all other Churches professing the Catholike faith vnder the obedience of the Pope of Rome as the vniuersall Vicar of Christ. So that this Article is become not onely one point of Controuersie but indeede the chiefe Head of all the Controuersies which are between the said Romane Church and all other Churches at this day Secondly you conceiue this Appropriation to be Diuini Iuris in a strict sence ordained by Christ himselfe and not onely by Ecclesiasticall Institution Thirdly vpon this pretended Ordinance you exact from all other Churches Christian a Necessitie of Vnion with your Church of Rome and the Bishop thereof both in Faith Subiection Fourthly this Necessity of Subiection you beleeue to be Absolute as to exclude from hope of Saluation not onely all them that shall refuse to be subiect to the Romane Primacie but euen all them also that do not beleeue euery soule of man to be vtterly Damned that is not subiect thereunto The GENERALL CHALLENGE against this your former Romane Profession and the Summe of our contrarie Defence SECT 6. IF therefore wee may giue credit vnto your now Romane Church to your later Romane Bishops to your Romane Councels and Creed to your selues and other sworne Professors of the same Romane faith then must wee beleeue all the seuerall points and as it were the Particles of this one Article viz. The Catholike Romane Church without subiection whereunto there is no saluation Which notwithstanding wee hold and beleeue to be respectiuely False Vnconscionable Scandalous Schismaticall Hereticall Blasphemous and euery way Damnable And this we coÌ„fidently hope God assisting vs to proue from such your owne Grounds and from so manifest Demonstrations as that you shall fully perceiue vs to plead not so much our owne Cause as the Cause of the holy Apostles of the renowned Martyrs and Confessors of Christ of the most Orthodoxe Christian Professors of the holy Faith euen in the Primitiue Times of other innumerable Churches of Christendoâ—e still partakers of the Common Saluation yea and of the Catholike and Vniuersall Church of Christ it selfe Our proofes for the maintaining of this Challenge may be reduced vnto two heads The first is the Consideration of the common Article of our Christian faith to wit The holy Catholike Church The second from the state of the Visible Church of Christ it selfe as well Primitiue as Successiue CHAP. II. The first Generall Foundation of our CHALLENGE is taken from the Article in the Apostles Creed viz. The Catholike Church SECT 1. WE lay the first ground of our Challenge vpon the Apostles Creed and Symbol so called you know as being A forme of Faith composed by the Apostles accordingly as the ancient Fathers haue commonly taught Which the Schollers of Christ ought to get by hart as a watch-word in our Christian discipline whereby the faithfull Professors as by a perfect Shibboleth may be distinguished from the Iewish and Hereticall Which Christian Symbol although it be called the Apostles Creed yet it is so termed not because they were Deuisers but onely Collectors thereof by reducing the fundamentall Articles into one Briefe euen as a posie is called his that gathered trimmed it not that he created the flowers but because he composed the bundle and like as the writers of the Gospell were not Inuentors and Dictators but onely Pen-men of the holy Ghost and Scribes of Christ as the Fathers vse to speake Which the Euangelists themselues do sufficiently teach by inscribing their worke The Gospell of Iesus Christ. And accordingly all the Apostles in receiuing the doctrine of saluation are called Disciples not Doctors or Masters in respect of Christ. So then we haue in this posie a briefe Collection of those flowers of sauing truth which spring in the Paradise of God the Gospell of Iesus Christ. That the Church hath no power to ordaine any new Article of faith SECT 2. HE onely can make an Article of faith as necessarily belonging vnto the saluation of soules who can create a soule and after make a Gospell or Testament to saue this soule and then giue vnto that soule the gift of faith to beleeue this Gospell and next institute a Sacrament for confirmation of that faith and in the end bestow saluation vpon the same faithfull beleeuer This we should prooue from Scriptures and from the constant iudgement of the Fathers if it were not a doctrine acknowledged in your owne Schooles and professed by all Christians I proceed to that which followeth That the false Additions to the Creed are new Articles SECT 3. THere are two kinds of additions vnto the Apostolicall Creed the one is of Explication the other is of Deprauation The addition onely of Explication is iustifiable as appeareth by the addition of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantiall filioque which haue bene set downe in Declaratiue Creeds composed by ancient Councels for the clearer vnderstanding of the great mysterie of the Trinitie In which case those additions may be truly called as Lirinensis saith of the like Non noua sed nouè dicta But the Addition of Deprauation of the sence of the Creed in any essentiall and fundamentall part thereof which is to be beleeued as necessary to saluation must needs be a new Article and euery such new Article in true construction a new Heresie Now what one Professor is there in the Romane Church who whensoeuer he repeateth that one Article of our Christian Creed The Catholike Church doth not vnderstand thereby the Romane onely And againe what one is there among you that hearing mention made of the Romane Catholike Church doth not take the addition of the word ROMANE to be a Declaration and exposition of the
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
vexed with false Apostles who as Saint Hierome you know commenteth Affirmed that Peter Iames and all the Churches of the Iewes did mingle the Ceremoniall Law and Gospell together and all to this end that they might lessen and vilifie the authoritie of S. Paul in respect of them as though they had bene the Disciples of Christ and he the Disciple of the Apostles Hereupon Saint Paul who was otherwise the most humble among men in so much that he standing vpon comparison would be held the Greatest but yet of sinners and The least of all the Apostles notwithstanding when it stood him vpon to maintaine his Calling which he had from Christ against all malicious Detractors he professeth saying In as much as I am an Apostle of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I magnifie mine office So that vpon a Compulsarie comparison prouoked by the Calumniation of others he esteemed it no arrogancie but direct iustice to auouch his owne worthinesse for the aduancing of the worke of his Ministrie A long time after the exercise of his Apostleship he would not Go to Hierusalem to Peter or any of the Apostles lest he might haue seemed to haue bene authorized by them yet three yeares after that he taketh a iourney thither To see Peter doubtlesse for honor sake as one in order of Apostleship most eminent but this he did voluntarily in discretion and brotherly communion and not in subiection as the Context sheweth Foureteene yeares also after this he maketh a second voyage to Ierusalem where he meeteth with Peter and others What then I conferred or communicated vnto them saith he that Gospell which I preached It is one thing to conferre saith Saint Hierome another thing to learne for among them that conferre there is Equalitie We heare not as yet of any authotitie which he receiued either from Peter alone or ioyntly together with the College of the other Apostles or of any thing that might betoken his subiection No he vtterly disclaimeth this for speaking of the Chiefest he saith Those who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing vnto me NOTHING namely Neither concerning doctrine nor authoritie as very well saith Aquinas In a word I saith Saint Paul am not inferiour vnto the chiefe of the Apostles What then obtained Paul of Peter and of the other chiefe Apostles Heare S. Paul himselfe They gaue vnto me the right hand of fellowship which was onely a testimonie of Communion in one Profession and Apostleship no imposition of subministration or subjection Hitherto we haue kept in the Negatiue of his not Inferioritie but Saint Paul doth further instance in the Affirmatiue of his Equalitie They saw that the Gospell of the vncircumcision was committed vnto me as the Gospell of the Circumcision was vnto Peter Where to seeke no further than your Rhemists Notes It is plaine by this place and others that to them that is Peter and Paul as the most renouned Apostles the charge of all Nations was giuen as diuided into two parts that is Iewes and Gentiles So they Their Dioces therefore was diuided yet not exclusiuely for the authoritie of the Apostles was vnlimited and often did as well Peter notwithstanding this diuision preach to the Gentiles as S. Paul to the Iewes but yet differently namely so that the ordinarie course of their Ministration was distinguished Peter to the Iewes and Paul to the Gentiles which was of infinite extent larger than the other In which respect Saint Chrysostome doth not sticke to say that The Vniuersall dispensation was committed to Saint Paul I. CHALLENGE from Reason IN all this we see not in Saint Paul any acknowledgement of Subiection or Substitution to Saint Peter but a plaine Plea of Equalitie or else tell vs what Pope since Gregorie the first would not hold it a Derogation from his Popedome to heare any Bishop in the Church stand in Contestation and say that The Pope could adde nothing to his authoritie nor that he was any whit inferiour to the chiefe of all the Bishops in Rome among whom the Pope himselfe was one What boldnesse and indeed contumely would this be iudged not onely to make many Chiefes with your Monarch but also to account himselfe Nothing inferior to the Chiefe of them Adde hereunto his next Assumption that he had as good and absolute right in his Dioces as the Pope had in his Your Iesuite Azorius saith that When there were two Emperours one in the East the other in the West both of them holding equall authoritie throughout the whole Empire it could not be but the authoritie of the one must needs diminish the authoritie of the other in some part and yet neither should be subiect to the other So he And indeed it could not otherwise be Neuer was there heard of Monarch as you instile the Pope in Imperio Diuiso that is in an Empire diuided in an equalitie with any other For Diuision and Equalitie is of moe whereas Monarchie can be but of one So impossible it is that Saint Paul should haue bene of the now Romane Faith concerning Subiection to the Pastor of the Romane Church II. CHALLENGE from the Fathers MVch time need not be spent in collecting the Testimonies of Antiquitie among whom Saint Ambrose saith that Paul was not lesse in dignitie than Peter Saint Maximus that Whether Paul or Peter were to be preferred it is vncertaine Chrysostome saith Paul that I say no more was equall to Peter Saint Hierome The titles of these two Apostles are equall saith he they are Chiefe of the Church S. Basil They are the Pillars of the Church Eucherius Peter and Paul two Princes of the Christians You will not we presume so much preiudice these Fathers as to thinke that they could not discerne betweene a Monarch such as you held Saint Peter to haue bene ouer all the other Apostles and a Subiect or so vniust as to haue thus equalled these Two if they had beleeued All the Apostles to haue bene subiect to the Dominion and Iurisdiction of Saint Peter much lesse could they haue attributed to S. Paul Titles of so great eminence as to instile him One To whom was committed the administration of the whole Church and One obeying the gouernment of the Church Vniuersall and One made the Head of Nations Saint Pauls Comparison of Others with S. Peter against the pretended Primacie of Peter his Iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles SECT 10. FIrst Saint Paul distinguisheth Iames Peter and Iohn from the other Disciples and ioyneth them in one Chiefedome among themselues saying I conferred with them of reputation and againe in the title They that seemed to be Pillars and yet againe They that were Chiefe of the Apostles Lastly his last vale with them They gaue to me the right hand of societie and fellowship Ergo he accounted them Equall in authoritie
acknowledged that Gregory by impugning the Title of vniuersall Bishop would haue no Bishop so principall as to make all other members subiect vnto him So he Than which what can bee more apposite in this Cause and opposite vnto the now Romane Profession concerning the Title of Vniuersall Romane Bishop the Foundation of the sence of your owne Article viz. The Catholike Romane Church Yet this is not all but we furthermore auerre that Gregory condemned the Title of Vniuersall Bishop then vsed by the Patriarch of Constantinople in no other sence than it was after the daies of Gregory assumed and vsed by your Romane Popes whereunto such of your owne Historians who are very many beare full witnesse For they record that Pope Boniface the next Successour to Gregorie saue one did obtaine of the Emperour Phocas that Rome should haue the same Title of Head-ship ouer all other Churches which the Bishop of Constantinople had challenged to his See The onely difference will be this that the Head of the Popes vniuersall Iurisdiction vnder that Title as it were vnder a poysoned Miter hath growne farre more loathsome by impostumes and swolne with tyrannie than it could possibly be at the first vsurpation thereof being become no lesse intollerable than was that Emperour Phocas of whom Pope Boniface with much importunity receiued that Title Which Emperour your Cardinall Baronius noteth to haue beene A bloudy Tyrant So then we see that this Title of Vniuersall Bishop was abandoned by Gregory as extremely Impious But some peraduenture would bee willing to know his reason heereof Saint Gregory will satisfie any one that shall bee desirous to vnderstand the mischiefe heereof Because the Vniuersall Church saith hee must needs goe to ruine whensoeuer hee that is the Vniuersall Bishop thereof shall chance to fall VVhich Assertion of Saint Gregory doth brand your Church with Two blacke Notes of Apostasie and Antichristianitie CHALLENGE CAtholike or Vniuersall Church and Vniuersall Bishop of the same Church are in your doctrine as truely Relatiues as Master and Seruant the one cannot be denied without the other Goe too now then blazon your Papall Inscription in the highest stile that you can inuent more than Vniuersall it cannot be and animate it with the perfectest spirit that can be infused into it more absolute none can expect than that which you ascribe vnto your Pope of Rome which is that The Popes iudgement is infallible in defining of any doctrine of faith But why Because say you if he as a publike person and Iudge of the Church should erre by concluding any thing against faith then the vniuersall Church which is bound to follow him should likewise erre So hee This is your Romane Profession which may bee vnto vs a perfect Argument of your Apostasie from the ancient Romane faith maintained in the dayes of Saint Gregorie as thus The now Romane Article is to beleeue that the Pope of Rome is the Vniuersall Bishop of the Church Catholike and therefore cannot erre in any doctrine of faith insomuch that the Church subiect to this Romane Bishop must be accounted the Onely Church on earth without which there is no saluation But the faith of Saint Gregorie contrarily standeth thus Whatsoeuer Bishop he be Romane or other that professeth himselfe the Vniuersall Bishop or Head is subiect to Error Therefore none ought to assent to any such Assumption lest that that one erring the whole Church of Christ should erre with him So then you forsooth see an Infallibility in the vsurpation of that Title as proper to the Pope wherein Saint Gregorie did foresee the baine of an Vniuersall Erring and falling from the faith To conclude Saint Gregorie held the title which betokeneth an Vniuersall Dominion ouer the whole Church to be so direfully pernicious that hee consequently condemned the Vniuersall Subiection vnto one Bishop the now Article of the Romane Church as Pernicious and Antichristian To whom also your Iesuites haue taught you to adde two other Popes Pelagius and Leo who in like manner condemned and disclaimed that Title CHAP. VII Our second Argument against the Article of necessitie of Subiection to the Romane Church and Pope is taken from Comparisons made betweene the Bishop and Church of Rome with other Bishops and Churches by the ancient Fathers SECT 1. AGainst an Article of an vsurped Dominion of one Church ouer all other there can be no better Argument than from the Comparison of other Churches with that one which pretendeth her selfe to be the Mother and Mistris of all the rest Vpon this consideration you haue beene vrged by One who for learning and iudgement in Antiquitie was hardly to be seconded by any He posed you from the testimonies of the writings of Dionysius Areopagita and Ignatius the most ancient of Fathers Where supposing That Dionysius to be as truely that great Areopagita and as worthy an Author as you would haue him to be hee spurreth you a necessary question Why Dionysius was so vtterly silent in not mentioning the Vniuersall visible Head of the Church reigning at Rome if at that time there had beene any such Monarchicall Head there especially seeing hee professedly writ of the Ecclesiasticall Hieâ—archie and gouernment or is it credible and not rather monstrous that hee writing of the mysticall rites of the Church should omit all mention of this chiefe mysterie of one supreame Head and Monarch of the Church at Rome being so pertinently inuited thereunto by that matter subiect which hee had there in hand to wit by the Hierarchie of the Church if this doctrine had beene of faith in that age This saith hee remoueth your friuolous Obiection By the same reason hee obiecteth against you the Epistles of Ignatius the most ancient Martyr and Bishop of Antioch that hee being frequent in setting forth the Order Ecclesiastical and dignitie of Bishops vpon diuers occasions should forbeare all mention of the Monarchie of Saint Peter or any Romane Pope But we returne to our owne Obseruations out of Antiquitie by equall Comparisons of other Bishops with the Bishop of Rome beginning at the same Ignatius 1 He writing to the Church of Trallis and exhorting them vnto obedience to Bishops as to the Apostles instanceth equally in Timothie Saint Paul's Scholler as in Anacletus Successor to Saint Peter 2 Irenaeus liued next to the Apostles times who referreth his Reader for direction in the right of Traditions as well to Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna in the East as to Linus Bishop of Rome in the West 3 Tertullian to secure Christians in the Doctrine of the Apostles prescribeth vnto them that they consult with the Mother-Churches immediately founded by the Apostles naming aswell Ephesus in Asia and Corinth in Achaia as Rome in Italie And againe for the persons mentioning to the same purpose aswell Polycarpus ordained by Saint Iohn as Clemens by Peter Wee shall not neede to make any Notes or Comments vpon the
hath beene prooued by the Testimonies of Catholike and General Councels Fathers and Martyrs to be an Errour in it selfe The other Principle is that whereon the former dependeth to wit that the Bishop or Pope of Rome is the Vniuersall Head of the Catholike Church which in the iudgement of a most ancient and holy Pope is not onely a Prophane and Antichristian errour in it selfe but also the high-way of erring vniuersally Because saith hee if that One Vniuersall Bishop erre then must the whole and Vniuersall Church erre with him Where the same Saint Gregorie vpon a particular occasion taken at Iohn the Patriarke of Constantinople who ambitiously sought the Title of Vniuersall Bishop gaue this his foresaid generall Doctrine concerning any Bishop whatsouer whether in the See of Constantinople or Rome or wheresoeuer Euen as the Apostle vpon occasion of confuting of one new error among the Galatians giueth them a generall lesson against all other the like Nouelties of Doctrin If we or an Angel from heauen preach otherwise than hath been preached vnto you let him be Anathema or Accursed And that diuerse Popes haue beene Heretikes your owne Histories doe sufficiently proclaime especially in the example of Pope Honorius whom two Generall Councels three Romane Popes his Successours and diuers others your owne zealous Popish Writers haue reckoned among the Monothelites But you will say albeit that Pope were a Monothelite yet did not the whole Catholike Church fall into that Heresie with him True which manifesteth the falshood of your now Romane Article in as much as in those ancient times neither did the Church truely called Catholike hold the Pope to be the Catholike or Vniuersall Head of the Church neither yet did that which you abusiuely absurdly and falsely call the Catholike Church to wit the Church of Rome it selfe beleeue your Article of Infallibilitie of iudgement in your Popes A memorable example wee haue in your Pope Liberius who professing himselfe an Arian and seeking by his Arian faction to returne to his See found a bloudy resistance by both the Clergie and people of the Church of Rome as your selues well know But now when as the falsly-vsurped Title of Vniuersall Head carrieth in the beliefe of the new Church of Rome a confidence of an Vniuersall truth in whatsoeuer new Doctrine of faith in this Case that saying of Christ is verified If the blinde such is hee that in the opinion of his Vniversall Headship presumeth vpon an Infallibilitie of iudgement leade the blinde such are all they who by an Implicit and blind beliefe adhere vnto him as to an Oracle of Diuine truth Both shall fall into the ditch THESIS III. There is not in all Scripture any Prophecie of the fall of any Church Christian from the faith but onely of the Church of Rome from which it may sometime be Necessary to depart SECT 11. FOr where can you finde in all Scripture tell vs that the Spirit of God brandeth any Citie Christian with the note of certaine Apostasie from the truth but onely the Citie of Rome Your owne Iesuites haue confessed Themselues being compelled thereunto by the light of the Reuelation of the holy Ghost in the booke of Reuelation Apoc. 12. to acknowledge saying The Citie of Rome is Babylon there prophesied of to become before the end of the world The Seat of Antichrist and after to be suddenly and visibly Destroyed by the vengeance of God And although they are not more ingenuous in this Confession concerning the Citie of Rome in the dayes of Antichrist to come than they are not to dissemble with you zealous and indeede obstinate in denying that it can be ment of the Church of Rome yet would we faine know what you would thinke of the Church of England if the like Prophecie were extant in God's booke pointing out the Citie of London to be in times to come The Seat of Antichrist Would you desire a more Popular argument especially in these times wherein the ends of the world are come vpon vs to perswade your people to abhorre and detest the Church of England euen for that Citie sake But you are further to remember that which hath beene already prooued that your Church cannot be called The Church of Rome but by reason of the Seate thereof which is in the Citie of Rome Which wee now moreouer Confirme by the Apostle Saint Paul who writing to the Romanes maketh this the Inscription of his Epistle Chap. 1.7 To all you that are at Rome And againe ver 15. I am ready to preach vnto you that are at Rome Signifying that it cannot hereby be called the Church of Rome without relation to a company of Professours in the Citie of Rome Whensoeuer therefore Rome as is confessed shall become that Babylon and Seate of Antichrist whereof the Spirit saith to the faithfull Come out of Babylon my people Apoc. 18.4 then the necessitie of Departure must needes follow THESIS IV. The Church of Rome hath long beene and still is the most Schismaticall Church of all other Churches Christian that carry in them a Visible face of a Church SECT 12. OH that this could be iustly doubted of your owne supreame Article doth abundantly proue it to wit The Catholike Romane Church without Vnion and Subiection whereunto there is no Saluation By which one Article as you haue heard doe stand Excommunicate as much as lyeth in your Romane Church and depriued of all hope of Saluation the most renoumed godly Emperors the most ancient and Reuerend Popes the most graue and Orthodoxe Patriarkes and Fathers of the first Eight in your owne estimation Generall Councels the most famous Christian Churches the most constant Martyrs Confessours and Saints of God that the primitiue times of Christ his Church haue knowne and recorded to posteritie many whereof are at this day registred in the Romane Martyrologe and Calendar of Saints All which hath beene fully proued than which what Doctrine of Schismatikes can be more Schismaticall And what shall wee say of the After-ages of the Church wherein wee haue obserued the Church of the Graecians Aethiopians Aegyptians Assyrians not to mention as yet the Churches of Protestants Armenians Russians and others for extent more large than Rome for worship more pure for faith more sound and for profession thereof more constant by sustaining daily iniuries and thraldomes vnder the Mahumetans and other Pagan Enemies all which Churches amount to innumerable numbers of Christian soules who being by your Article of The Catholike Romane Church excluded from your Communion must accordingly be held to perish euerlastingly But pardon vs if wee from the Example of these so many Churches Christian of so large extent and long Continuance make bold to vse a little Logicke with you in this manner That Church which onely diuideth it selfe from the Communion of all other truely professed Christian Churches in the world the same is the most Schismaticall Church in the Christian
Saluation Whence it will follow by the Apostle's Doctrine pronouncing him Anathema that shall Preach any thing as Necessary to Saluation BESIDES that which was then preached so many Articles must necessarily be so many Heresies 5. By imposing the Beleefe of these Articles vpon all Professors vnder a Curse spirituall and a temporall Punishment which is the Extremitie and height of Tyrannie And lastly by prescribing them to be professed of all Ecclesiastikes vnder the Forme of an Oath which inferreth almost in euery Article an ineuitable Periurie as well as in this one Article which hath bene discussed thorow-out this whole Treatise whereby you Sweare that The Church of Rome is THE CATHOLIKE MOTHER and MISTRIS-CHVRCH and the Pope of Rome The CATHOLIKE PASTOR of the Church without Vnion and Subiection vnto whom there is no Saluation Which we haue prooued according to our first Assumption to be FALSE IMPOSTEROVS SCANDALOVS SCHISMATICALL BLASPHEMOVS Respectiuely and euery-way DAMNABLE LAVS DEO FINIS Faults escaped in some Copies PAge 4. in the marg at the letter g. line 13. Idem Adde de Trip. virt disp 9. c. Page 7. marg letter c l. 16 lege nouam reuelationem veritatis P. 9. marg lâ—t f. l. â—7 Sal. supple Salmeron Ies. in Epist. c. P. 14. l. 6. professed for possessed P. 20. letter g. 18. lege vt aliquando is Ib. for Pater lege Pastor P. 23. marg lit b. l. 18. lege apud Binâ—um P. 33. marg lit p. l. 5. lege 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 34. marg lin antepenult lege Couarâ—uvias P. 36 l. 2. dele verbum about P. 38. marg lit fl 1. lege Qui dicunt P. 46. l. 21. Luc. â—2 adde ver 32. P. 47. marg lit h. l. 7. lege designauit P. 49. l. â— Matth 16. add ver 17 18 P. 54. l. 14. Obeying for Obtaining P. 79. l 3. in the white line supple CHALLENGE P. 81. l. 6. Sect. 8. for 4. P. 88. marg lit e. num 25. se primum for primam P. 94 l 7. continue for conniue P. 97. lit d. lin penult conterd for concord P. 97. marg * See heereafter adde p. 107. o P. 109. l 10. first for fift generall P. 111. marg lit c. l. 2. lege Mennam P. 123 l. 23. Father dele of P. 125. marg s. See aboue adde at thâ— lit d. P. 132. l 1. declare P. 136. l. 24. lege Lindanus P. 146. marg lit n. l. 16. Legatur for Legatus P. 147. marg * See adde aboue page 143. at y. and below in the next Chap. adde p. 162. P. 150. marg fl 9. Sed Impater lege Sedet Imperator P. 157. l. 12. lege against P. 171. l. 7. reade Counsaile P. 186. marg lit a. l. 29. lege Canticum P. 188. marg lit g l. 1. lege Latina P. 192. l. 23. lege generally P. 201. marg * See aboue for Chap. 1. lege Cap. 5. § 8. P. 211. marg lit o. l. 11. lege Enchiridion P. 221. Thirteenth lege Foureteenth P. 225 l. 14. lege Obiectors P. 232. l. 15 16. lege But if it were reasonable c. P. 3â—4 l. 9. I compelled for coupled P. 349. l. 11. before And prefix the numerall VI. Ibid l. 29. make that number VII Pag. 347. l. 4. vrging dele the word in Some other Errors there are committed especially in the margent as superfluous letters wrong Interpunctions mis-Accents in some Greeke words most-what occasioned by the smallenesse and falsnesse of the letter which the iudicious and ingenuous Reader may obserue and well amend * Luke 1.3 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 23.26 Act. 24.3 * Gal. 3.23 * 1 Cor. 9.18 23. * Ephes. 4.5 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Iude ver 3. * Gal. 1.8 9. Annuntiare quid c. Lirinens Bulla Pij Quarti * Iosh. 9. * Exod. 7. * Epist. ad Front Ducaeum S. Iude v. 23. * Leo. 1. Thess. 5.21 * Cyprian See Chap. 9. Sect. 6. of this Treatise * Epist. Dedicatory a Romana Ecclesia à solo Deo fundata c. Lib. 2. Epist. 55. Apud Binium Tom. 3. Conc. pag. 1196. b Dicitur vniuersalis Ecclesia quae de vniuersis constat Ecclesijs quae Graeco vocabulo Catholica nominatur secuÌ„dùm hanc acceptionem vocabuli Ecclesia Romana non est vniuersalis Ecclesia sed pars uniuersalis Ecclesiae prima sc. praecipua velut caput in corpore quoniam in ea plenitudo potestatis existit Et dicitur vniuersalis Ecclesia illa vna quae sub se coÌ„tinâ—t Ecclesias vniuersas secundum hanc nominis rationem Romana tantùm Ecclesia vniuersalis nuncupatur quoniam ipsa sola singularis priuilegio dignitatis caeteris est praelata sicut Deus vâ—iuersalis Dominus appellatur quoniam vniuersa sub eius domino continentur Jnnocent Papa 3. apud Bzoâ—ium Annal. 1199 c Subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae decâ—aramus dicimus definimus pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis Datum Lateran Anno Pontificaâ—us nostri octauo Extrau Cap. vnam Sanctam de maior â—bed col 212. * If they were exactly examined they would amount vnto many Scores d Ego N. firmâ fide credo affirmo Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam omnium Ecclesiarum matrem magistram Romanoque Pontifici B. Petri successori ac Iesu Christi Vicario veram obedientiam spondeo ac iuro Hanc veram Catholicam fidem teneo extra quam nemo saluus esse potest Bulla Pij Quarti pro formae iurameÌ„ti professionis fidei Dat. Romae Anno. 1564. e Ecclesia Cathoca c. Catechis Rom. in hunc Artic num 10.11 13. f Ecclesia Romana non vt est particularis dioecesis seu Episcopatus sed vt compreheÌ„dit omnes credentes in Christum sub obedientia Episcopi Romani haec est Ecclesia Catholica Suarez Ies. trip virt Theol. disp 5. Sect. 6. num 2. lib. 1. con Ang. sectae errores c. 12. num 9. g Catholicâ fide tenendum est hanc certaÌ„ ac indiuiduam congregationem quae RomanaÌ„ fidem profitetur cum Rom. Pontifice coniuncta est esse veram Christi Ecclesiam Catholicam Probatur primò ex Symbolo Apostolorum constat teneri nos ad credendum veram Christi Ecclesiam Catholicam quod autem satis non sit eam confusè vniuerse credeâ—e sed oportet determinatè in indiuiduo c. Idem ibid. disp 9. Sect. 9. num 13. h EcclesiaÌ„ veram asseâ—imus esse coetum eorum hominùm qui Rom. Pontifici pro tempore existenti parent Greg. de Valent. Analys l. 6. cap. 1. Dico solam Romanam Ecclesiam esse Catholicam Apostolicam Ibidem deinceps lib. 6. cap. 10. 12. i Nullus cum Ecclesia communicat qui non subest Pontfici licet alioqui fidem Catholicam profiteatur Bellar. de Eccles. milit l. 3. c. 5. Vnio enim cum Capite est nota Ecclesiae