25 yeares there wherein sundrie of the ancient and all our Aduersaries to this day follow him is c Printed at Basil by Henrico Petri and elsewhere in Latin Olympiad 205. Eusebius chronicle translated by S. Ierom and yet in the Greeke d Printed an 1606. Lugduni Batauorum set forth by Scaliger * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is all he saies there is no mention of any time of his abode but onely that he went to Rome whereby it may be gathered that this matter of Peters being Bishop of Rome was much lesse at the first then afterward it came to be And whether the Fathers had any certainety of that they said or onely followed a common rumor begun by such a one as Papias was without examining it God knowes but our Aduersaries themselues feele the difficulty and cannot remoue it Thirdly that so many monuments yet remaining do testifie he was at Rome But those monuments are not so many There is e Baro. an 45. n. 11. an old chaire belike that on certaine daies is shewed the people and a sepulcher and certaine parts pretended to be relickes of his body but how shall these things be prooued to be such indeed when the iugling and imposture with relickes is so well knowne that the world hath long since abrogated all credit giuen to such monuments It hath not bene the least part of the Church of Romes policie for many ages together with fained miracles and counterfet relickes to breed and nourish in the vulgar people an opinion of the Roman holinesse But let them that will be led by such monuments first make sure they be not counterfets I would take some paines to discouer these monuments but that the thing he intends to proue by them is not so great that I will contend about it Pag. 290. A. D. To the SECOND I answer that we haue diuine authoritie to assure vs that there must be alwaies one in the Church who is S. Peters successour hauing the same absolute Pastorall authority that S. Peter had For first the name Pastour being peculiarly appropriate to S. Peter Ioh. 20.21 by these words Pasce oues meas signifieth an ordinarie office which dieth not with the person but is to be continued in a successour Secondly the end of this office being common to all ages argueth that our Sauiour meant so to institute it as it might serue for all ages and consequently that it should be continued in a succession of such Pastours Thirdly the loue and care which moued our Sauiour to institute this office for the good of the Church was common to the Church of all ages and the necessitie which the Church had of such a Pastour was not onely for that first age but for all succeeding ages and therefore it is not to be thought that Christ our Sauiour meant to institute that office onely for to continue in S. Peters person and to die with him but that he ordained it to continue in others who from time to time should succeed in his place Now that the Bishop of Rome rather then of Antioch should succeed in S. Peters office is not indeed expresly written in the Gospell but is partly gathered from that which is there written and is knowne vnto vs by tradition of the Church to be Christs institution as is learnedly declared proued See Bellarm. l. 1. de Rom. Pontif c. 12. Stapleron relect controu 3 q. 2. art 2 and defended by Gregorie de Valent. tom 3. disp 1. q. 1. de obiect fid p. 7. § 36. 37. and 38. The which to be so is confirmed in that by Christs appointment one or other is alwaies to succeed S. Peter in the office of chiefe Pastour but my Aduersarie cannot assigne any other besides the Bishop of Rome that did or could vpon so sufficient ground pretend to be S. Peters successor 2 This answer affirmes three things First that S. Peter had absolute Pastorall authoritie appropriate to him by those words Pasce oues meas Secondly that this authority was not to die with him but to continue for euer in the Church in some or other that should succeed him Thirdly that the Bishop of Rome rather then hee of Antioch was to succeed him in authoritie Touching the first and second let it be distinguished The Pastoral authority of Peter contained two things being taken in the whole latitude First his dutie to preach the Gospell and teach the people by ministring the word and sacraments to them Secondly his extraordinary and eminent power thereunto wherein he exceeded all ordinarie Pastors being called to be an Apostle and inabled to plant Churches conuert nations reueale Christ worke miracles c. Our Aduersaries adde a third his supreme iurisdiction ouer all the Apostles also and all the powers on earth spirituall and temporall whereby he was the ordinary Pastor and iudge ouer all the world directly as some say or indirectly as othersome will haue it The first of these is called his Pastorall office the second his Apostleship the third his Primacy or supremacie The which distinction being laied we grant that S. Peter had absolute Pastoral authority in the first and second sences to preach the Gospell as all other Pastors do and beyond them all to be an Apostle We grant secondly that authoritie to be an Apostle and Pastor of the Church that he might feed the flocke of Christ was either giuen or ratified to him by those words feed my sheepe We grant thirdly that the Pastorall authority taken onely in the first degree thereof was not to die with him but to remaine for euer in his successors the ordinary Bishops and Pastors of the Church But all this will do the Pope no good for it neither preferrs him of Antioch nor him of Rome but makes them both equall Fourthly we deny any to haue succeeded him in his Apostleship or God to haue ordained any succession in that second and eminent degree of his Pastoral charge neither dare our Aduersaries themselues simply and absolutely affirme it The Iesuite therefore in this his answer meanes the authoritie of Peter in the last sense as it imports the PRIMACY and iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles and the Kings and nations of the earth to rule and ouergouerne them This is denied and the Text alledged Feed my sheepe proues it not as I haue fully shewed in * Digress 26. nu 15. 22. The learned Reader may see Is Casaub exercitat 16. nu 132. p. 705. THE WAY where it was first offered me Whence it followes that hee could haue none to succeed him in any supremacy because he had none such himselfe For no man succeeds another in more then he hath himsâ—lfe And the Repliars three arguments proceeding onely for the first degree of his Pastorall authority proue nothing for the second or third By reason the Apostleship was not needfull for all ages and the supremacy intended was neuer giuen him at all nor meant
to his sect is to expose religion to euident danger but Christians are not bound nor may with the euident danger of religion tolerate an vnbeleeuing King When Kings and Princes become heretickes or hinder religion they may be iudged by the Church and be deposed from the gouernement neither is there any wrong done them if they be deposed If any Prince of a sheepe become a wolfe that is to say of a Christian become an hereticke the pastor of the Church by excommunication may driue him away and withall commaund the people that they follow him not and so depriue him of his dominion ouer his subiects g Cap. 8. § Praeterea cogere Any Bishop whatsoeuer much more the Prince of Bishops may exercise temporall power ouer them that haue receiued temporall power ouer other h Tract de potest sum Pont. adv Gul. Barcl pag. 97. When the Pope sees a Christian Prince infected with heresie by the sentence of excommunication he separates him from the companie of the godly and least he infect others he absolues his subiects from the oath of their alleagiance and if need so require he commaunds them vnder the paine of the same excommunication that they neither reckon of him nor obey him as their King i An. â—089 n. 11. Caesar Baronius alledges and commends out of Ivo a Breue of Pope Vrbane the second wherein it is pronounced that they are no homicides who kill such as are excommunicate For we do not iudge them to be murderers who burning with the zeale of their Catholicke Mother against such as are excommunicate happen to haue killed any of them Gregorie 7 commonly called Pope Hildebrand k Baro. an 1076 n. 32. Gregor 7. epist l. 2. ep 55. set downe these among the Popes priuiledges that the Pope may vse the armes of the Empire that Princes must kisse his feete that it is lawfull for him to depose Emperors that he is no Catholicke man nor so to be accounted that agrees not with the Church of Rome that he may absolue subiects from their fidelitie to the wicked Suarez the Iesuite in his l Def sid Cath. adu Angl. sect erro l. 6. c. 4. nu 18. late booke against the King writes thus It is to be said that after the sentence condemnatorie is giuen against the King by lawfull authoritie touching the depriuing him of his kingdome or which is all one when by sentence his crime is declared to be such as by the law hath such a penaltie imposed then he that hath pronounced the sentence or he to whom it is committed may depriue the King of his kingdome euen by killing him if either he cannot otherwise do it or if the sentence be iustly extended to this punishment If the Pope depose the King yet he may not be killed or expelled but by those onely to whom he shall commit the doing thereof but if he commit the execution to no bodie then it belongs to him that is lawfull successor of the kingdome or if there be no successor it shall appertaine to the kingdome it selfe and therefore as I said onely his lawfull successor if he be a Catholicke hath that authoritie to kill or depose him or if he neglect it or there be no successor then the communitie of the kingdome so that it be Catholicke succeeds in that right thus to kill or expell him Let the Reader here note not onely that the Pope and his Church teach and command the murder of Gods annointed Kings which any heart not stupified with Atheisme and reprobate sence would tremble at but appropriate the doing thereof to Papists alone challenging the right of committing so execrable wickednesse to appertaine to none but Romish Catholickes and disdaining that any should haue a hand in doing this execrable mischiefe against the King but onely a follower of the Popes religion This is the doctrine that I mentioned and meant when I said their religion was full of doctrine teaching conspiracie against the State stirring subiects vp to treason and rebellion For when m Rex autem Jacobus vt in libro primo probauimus a crimine infidelitatis sâ—u haeresis apostasiae excusari non potest Suar. ibid. c 6. nu 10. the King by reason of his religion is made an heretick and reputed a persecutor of the Church and disobedient to the Pope and the Pope not onely hath power but is also bound by his place to excommunicate depriue and depose such and to absolue the subiects from their obedience to them yea howsoeuer to rid the world of them as of tyrants it being the dutie of all and that vnder paine of damnation and as they will be counted good Catholickes to obey the Pope in all things against the King Now may any Papist warrant his religion from the imputation and what securitie can he giue to the State what pawne to his Soueraigne for his loyaltie that the King and his State may be certen he will neuer practise or stirre against them For if the Pope by right may do all this and he beleeue as his religion teaches that he is bound in all things to obey the Pope as the supreme Pastor of his soule and monarch of the world he must whensoeuer occasion shall be offered do his vttermost to fubuert the present State and to plant the Popes religion and iurisdiction I will suffer my selfe per possibile to be perswaded that many Recusants and some Masse-priests loue the King and are true hearted to the State and wil neuer consent to trechery but this is that I say they cannot do this out of the principles of their owne religion which teaches them to obey the Pope against all the world or if they say the Pope erres and his Diuines speake vntruly in these points what infallible assurance can they haue that they erre not and misleade them not in the rest of their religion Let it be well and seriously considered if it be not possible that they which vniustly and erroniously condemne the oath of alleagiance do as erroniously condemne the faith which by that oath they say is ratified They shall giue me leaue to thinke for my part that as his Maiestie by the confession of so many Papists holds the truth against the Pope in the matter of the oath so he holds the same truth against him in the matter of his faith and they that deceiue the Papists in forbidding them to take the oath deceiue them no lesse in forbidding them to come to Church and communicate with our religion 3 The Popes practise hath bene answerable to his doctrine in regard whereof I said as I did that he and his clergie were no better then so many Beares and Tygars the fatall enemies of Princes and their people to sucke their bloud The which because the Reply outfaces with passion I will demonstrate by examples and then let the Reader iudge if euer any sauage Beare or Tygar filled his den with the
here mentioned For though there be a Church in any sense that a true Church can be meant ordained to teach vs yet it followes not that it hath any such authority or any authority at all to propound vnwritten traditions and there may be a Church and yet the iudgement thereof not be the authority whereon our faith is grounded and the same Church may be ordained to teach vs yet not allowed to teach these vnwritten verities For God hath propounded all doctrine of faith in the Scriptures and appointed his Church to reueale and expound it to his people the which doctrine thus expounded inlightens the mind begets faith and is the rule of all mens iudgement through the worke of the Holy Ghost that confirmes it in the mind Granting therefore that which the Repliar so much desires that all his meaning is that once or in one age there was a company of men who in one sense or other may be called the Church whom God hath appointed and furnished to teach all men the things of faith yet it helps not his conclusion nor makes it true in that sense wherein he meanes it CHAP. XXXV 1 The Papists pretending the Church meane onely the Pope 2. How and in what sense they vnderstand the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule of faith 3 They hold that the Pope may make new articles of faith 4 And that the Scripture receiues authority and credit from him 6Vnlearned men may see the truth when the Pope and his crew sees it not 7. And they may iudge of that they teach 8 The Iesuites dare not answer directly Pag. 204. White pag. 67. A. D. This being proued my Aduersaries may see how much they mistake when they thinke me to meane in this Chapter by the name Church onely the Pope or onely the present Pastours of the Church when as rather I meant to include these onely secondarily meaning here by the name Church principally the Apostles themselues who for the time they liued on earth were principall Doctours and Pastours of thâ— Church being by me therfore tearmed the Church which I said is the rule of faith not taking the verbe is so strictly as onely limited to this present time but â—â—ther indefinitely abstracting from all time or per ampliationem as it may extend it selfe to the by-past as well as to the present time This to be my meaning my Aduersaries might haue perceiued by the texts of Scripture which I bring for the proofe of my conclusion For those texts are by me here applied as they were by our Sauiour spoken and meant to wit principally to the Apostles being the primitiue Pastours and principall members of the Church and are onely secondarily or by consequence applied to other Pastours succeeding in their places Now taking my conclusion in this chiefly intended sense it cannot be denied to be true neither can the reason by which I proue it with any reason be denied to be good 1 IT is easie to see that he knownes not in what sense he should take his conclusion that it might be defended For if by the Church he meant no more but the Apostles and primitiue Pastours and by the doctrine of the Church no more but that which is the doctrine indeed contained in the Scripture no man would deny the doctrine and teaching faith and beleefe of the Apostles contained in the written word to be the rule of faith but he meant and still meanes otherwise that this Church which all men ought to follow is the B. of Rome alone for the time being wherein a See Chap. 34. nu 1. I mistooke him not For he meanes that which in all ages for the time being is the supreame iudge and hath subiectiuely in it all the Church authority But such is the Pope alone according to the principles of Papists Therefore he meanes the Pope alone againe he meanes that Church whereof he expounds the texts of Scripture alledged in that Chapter to proue the doctrine of the Church to be the rule but all those texts he expounds of the Pope alone for the time being Ergo. Thirdly I suppose the Repliar to be a Papist and in this place a maintainer of the Popish doctrine touching the rule of faith but that doctrine meanes the Church as I expound For the order which God hath left in his Church for the iudging and deciding of matters of faith according to the Iesuites doctrine b Staplet Princ. doctrin fid l. 6. praef 1 Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 1. 2 Staplet Princ. doctr l. 5. c. 1. 3 c. 2. 4 c. 5. 5 l. 6. c. 1. is this 1. That not the Scripture but the Church is this supreme iudgâ— of all controuersies and things of faith 2 Yet this Church as it is taken for the whole body iudges not 3. Nor lay priuate men therein 4. But the power of iudging belongs to the Bishops and Priests alone 5. And among them the B. of Rome alone as the successor of S. Peter is so the head of the whole Church and the primary and highest subiect of this Church iudgement that he hath power alone aboue all others whether Pastors or sheepe to pronounce 6 Grets def Bellar. tom 1 p. 1218. c. and determine touching the matters of faith 6. So that besides the Doctors and Pastors there must be in the Church some other supreme iudge and he is the B. of Rome either alone or with a Councell Here it is plaine that howsoeuer the name of the Church be pretended yet the whole power is limited and restrained to the Pope alone For they hold the gouernment and power of the Church not to be Aristocraticall placed in Councels or Bishops but Monarchicall where all the gouernment power and infalliblenesse is in the Pope alone Councels Bishops Priests and all other parts of the Church are but cyphers the power is eminently and infallibly and authoratiuely in the Pope alone either with them or without them Bellar. c De Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 9. §. sed nec sayes plainely Neither the Scripture nor secular princes nor priuate men are iudges of controuersies but Ecclesiasticall Prelates and Councels may iudge of the controuersies of religion but that iudgement is not firme or ratified till the Pope haue confirmed it and therefore the last iudgement belongs to him for either there must be no iudge among men at all or else he must be the iudge that is aboue the rest I haue alledged the words of Gregory of Valence diuers times d Tom. 3. in 22. pag. 24. When we say the Proposition of the Church is a condition necessary to the assent of faith by the name of Church we meane the head thereof that is to say the B. of Rome either alone by himselfe or with a Councell Syluester Prierias e In Luth. tom 1. pag. 159. fundam 1. The vniuersall Church essentially is the conuocation of all that beleeue in Christ but
whether this doctrine of these succeeding Pastors shal need to be the same that the doctrine of the Apostles was but onely affirmes that as the Apostles doctrine for the time they liued was the rule so the doctrine of the succeeding Pastors is the rule leauing roome enough for this doctrine of these succeeding Pastors to vary from the doctrine of the Apostles that when we shew the present abuses in the Church of Rome and decrees of their latter Popes for these last 800. yeares to haue swarued from the Apostles doctrine and practise they may pleade the authoritie of their succeding Pastors And indeede it is true that the Church of Rome holds that it is not necessary the doctrine and teaching of the present and succeeding Pastors be the same in all things that it was in the Apostolicke and Primitiue Church but the Pope hath power to make a NEW CREED and NEW ARTICLES of faith For Iacobatius m De Concil p. 310. A. saies The Pope alone may make new articles of faith according to one acceptation of the word Article that is for such as must be beleeued which before needed not be beleeued and Zenzelin a Popish doctor n Gl. extr Ioh. 22. cum inter § doclaramus saies The Vicar of Christ may make an Article of faith taking an article not properly but in a large sense for that which must be beleeued when before by the precept of the Church it was not necessary to be beleeued Augustinus Triumphus writes o August Anconit sum de eccle potest q. â—9 art 1. that it belongs to the Pope alone to make a new Creed For in a Creed those things are put that vniuersally belong to Christian faith he therefore hath authority to make such a Creed who is the head of Christian faith and in whom as in the head all the members of the Church are vnited and by whose authoritie all things pertaining to faith are confirmed and strengthened And p Art 2. againe That the Pope may dispense in adding articles may be vnderstood 3. waies First in respect of the multiplication of the articles themselues Secondly in respect of expounding the things contained in the articles Thirdly in respect of the augmentation of such things as may be reduced to the articles ALL THESE WAIES the Pope may dispense in adding articles because as he may make a new Creed so he may MVLTIPY NEW ARTICLES OVER AND ABOVE THE OTHER Secondly he may by more articles explicate the articles already placed in the Creed Thirdly because peraduenture all things beleeued in the Creed may be reduced after the aforesaid articles and by such reduction may be increased so that vnder each article MORE THINGS NECESSARY TO BE BELEEVED MAY BE PVT THEN ARE YET PVT The which being done marke what they say touching their authority q Roder. Dosm de auth script l. 3. c. 12. The Popes assertions ascend to the height of diuine testimony as the assertions of the Apostles did and of such as made the holy Scripture and there be who contend that they belong to the sacred Scripture it selfe which is contained in the bookes of the Bible This doctrine whereof all our aduersaries bookes are full shewes plainely that they intend not that this their Church teaching so much magnified to be the rule should alway be one and the same but such as shall follow the Popes lust and be altered with the time that so this Antichrist of Rome might abolish the whole Testament of Christ this is the first thing to be noted that the reader may see what he meanes by his Church doctrine that is the rule 4 The next thing is his distinction about this doctrine of the Church that it was the rule in the Apostles dayes and is the rule in succeeding ages but not as contained in onely Scripture but as deliuered by these Pastors Which speech containes 2. things a Negatiue and an affirmatiue the negatiue is that the doctrine of the Church is not the rule as it is contained in onely Scripture Meaning as * Ch. 27. n. 3. I haue shewed that all diuine doctrine belonging to the rule is not contained in the Scripture but much or the most of it in tradition vnwritten and that which is contained is not the rule by vertue of writing but by vertue of the Church that makes it authenticall Panormitan r Panorm tom 2. de praesumptione c. Sicut noxius sayes The words of the text of Scripture are not the Popes words but the words of Salomon in the Prouerbs but because this text is made Canonicall it is to be beleeued and induceth necessity so to do as if the Pope had set it foorth himselfe Because we make all those things to bee ours whereto we might impart our authority But whether without Canonization the sayings of Salomon be approued in the Church seeing they are in the body of the Bible say as the glosse saith and Ierom holdeth who seemes to conclude that they are Apocrypha which is to be noted and that because of this as also because Salomon had no power to make Canons This also must be obserued that the Reader may know the meaning of his conclusion and what it is that we deny therein For NO DOCTRINE EITHER OF THE APOSTELS IN THEIR TIME OR OF THE SVCCEEDING PASTORS OF THE CHVRCH IN ANY TIME IS THE RVLE OF FAITH BVT ONELY THAT WHICH IS CONTAINED IN THE SCRIPTVRE As I haue Å¿ In the WAY digr 3. shewed His affirmatiue is that the doctrine of the Church is the rule as it is deliuered by the Pastors or the Pastours deliuering this doctrine are the rule which is the same that he said a little before the doctrine as deliuered by the Church or the Church as deliuering doctrine is the rule t Pars obiecti formalis fidei est vox Ecclesiae D. Stapler relect p. 484. Saltem aequalis est Ecclesiae Scripturae authoritas ibi pag. 494. His meaning is that the Churches testimony and authority mingles it selfe with the authority of the doctrine and is ioyntly with it or aboue it the rule of faith as when diuers simples haue their ingredience into one compound and two men equally carry betweene them one burthen Their doctrine this way is knowne wel enough how the Scriptures in regard of vs haue all their authority from the Church the sense of the Scripture is to be fetched from the Church whatsoeuer the Church of Rome shall teach is the word of God c. The which things being couched in the Iesuites conclusion as he vnderstands it we detest and spit vpon when he shall thus debarre the Scripture from being the rule to set vpon the bench his Papall Antichristian authority If the shame either of God or men or any respect of truth were with them they durst not thus presumptuously and basely steale the authority to themselues whereby both themselues and we and all the world