but will detest the impudency thereof at the first hearing Of necessity therefore some third party must be thought vpon who being no way intressed in either faction is of sufficient Iudgement to determine which of the pretenders make the best claime now though wee should search the whole world over with a candle there is none such possibly to be found vnder heaven but only the holy Scripture which being confessed by both sides to be the rule of faith cannot well be denied to be the most competent Iudge for deciding of all doubts in that kinde arising among the faithfull Scripture a competent judge of the true Church And for this question of the Church St Aug. is peremptory that there is no other way to determine it but by Scripture alone Jnter nos Donatistas quaestio est vbi sit Ecclesia iust as it is now inter nos Papistas quîd ergo facturi sumus in verbis nostris eam quaesituri an in verbis capitis sui Puto quòd in illius potius verbis cam quaerere debemus lib. de vnit Eccles c. 2. That whole chapter together with the 3. and 4. following is altogether to the same purpose nay Bellar. himselfe denies not but in some cases the Scripture is better knowne to vs then the Church and ex hac hypothesi when the Church is doubted of he is content to grant that wee must seeke for it in the Scripture de Eccles l. 4. c. 2. And yet notwithstanding all this faire weather that he makes with Scripture there is neither hee nor any of the rest that are willing to accept it for Iudge in this controversie the most they will yeeld is to accept it for a rule of faith and yet they stand not to that neither when they require tradition to be joyned vnto it as if without the helpe thereof it could not measure perfectly For Regula regulatum debent esse adaequata The autority of the scripture If Scripture alone bee not sufficient of it selfe to measure the length of à Christians faith vnlesse tradition bee added to helpe then it is no rule at all much lesse a perfect rule but only a peece of one But howsoever they are content sometime for fashion sake to acknowledge Scripture for the rule of faith in part yet by no meanes will they allow it for a Iudge though that be the very name whereby S. Augustine and the Fathers of those times did vsually call it Ista controversia Iudicem requirit saith he lib. 2. de nup. concup c. 33. Iudicet ergo Christus Iudicet cum illo Apostolus quia in Apostolo ipse loquîtur Christus and againe de gratiâ lib. arbit c. 18. Sedeat inter nos iudex Apostolus Iohannes and Optatus contra Parmen l. 5. Quaerendi sunt iudices saith he Jn terris de hâc re nullum poterit reperiri iudicium You see by this that the Pope was not acknowledged in those daies for the judge of controversies if Optatus had beene a Papist he durst not haue spoken such a word but marke how hee goes on De coelo quaerendus est judex sed quid pulsamus ad coelum cùm habemus hic in Evangelio Testamentum the place is too long to bee all set downe and that which followeth is all to that purpose Our adversaries speake in another language now adaies then Optatus or Augustine or any of those holy Fathers were wont to speake When they said so often Judicet Christus Iudicet Scriptura they would haue said once at the least Iudicet Papa if they had imagined that any such power had belonged vnto him Here was a fit opportunity for them to haue declared themselues true Catholiques But alas good men how could they speake of that which they knew not or how could they teach that doctrine to others that they were never taught themselues For this vpstart judge it is a meere novelty of a later edition vtterly vnknowne to the Christian world in those daies like that gibbrish tongue which some mungrell Iews spake Neh emias complaines of c. 13.24 In scripturis didicimus Christum in scripturis didicimus Ecclesiam Aug. ep 166. de vnitat Eccles c. 16. Now when we say that the Scripture is judge wee doe not refuse to heare the voice of the Church speaking in the ordinary Ministery of her lawfull Pastors interpreting the Scriptures vnto vs. Wee know that there are many texts full of difficulty and aboue the reach of common vnderstanding nay there are many which his Holinesse himselfe I am sure vnderstands not for all his infallible chaire But we know withall that there are other places of Scripture so facil and plaine as a man of ordinary capacity may safely be his owne interpreter and there is nothing necessary to salvation either concerning faith or life but that in some one place or other it is deliuered in such plaine manner as every man may vnderstand it if Saint Augustine deceiue vs not de Doctr. Christ l. 2 c. 9. And many other of the ancient Fathers as well as hee And therefore if blinde men see not the sunne it is not the fault of the sun but theirs whose eyes the God of this world hath blinded A lawfull Councell the Church representatiue Now for those places of scripture which are of greatest difficulty if we seeke for a vocall judge to interpret them vnto vs it is certaine that there is none sufficient to informe vpon earth the conscience of a Christian but only a lawfull Councell which is fitly therefore called the Church representatiue The declaratiō of several Pastors though never so learned godly cā induce no more thē a probability but the vniforme consent of thē all joyned together in a lawfull Councell doth conclude a certainty of truth in that that is declared What conditions belong to a lawfull Councell I will not now stand to inquire Some such there haue beene heretofore though not so many as would be thought so and some there may be againe In the meane time A councell the highest iudgement vpon earth I desire you to thinke that Protestants ascribe farre greater authority by many degrees to the voice of the Church speaking in such assemblies then Papists doe for all their great talking and yet you must know that there are divers learned Papists of the same opinion with Protestants in this point namely that the iudgement of a lawfull Councell is to bee reputed the highest iudgement vpon earth whether the Pope giue his consent therevnto or no. The Iesuites labour hard on the contrary side to draw all to the Papall chayre affirming the sentence of a Councell to be of no validity vnlesse the Pope doe approoue it which in effect is nothing else but to abuse the name of Councels and of the Church making them meere stales to serue the Popes turne Differēces amongst the Papists see the differences that are among themselues about
this matter in Bel lib. 2. de conc c. 14.17 and the base conceit the Iesuites hold of all such Councells as want the Popes confirmation contrary to the judgement of Peter de Alliaco Cardinall of Cambry Iohn Gerson Iacobus Almaine Card. Cusanus Bishop Tostatus Abbot Panormitan with the Councels of Pisa Constance and Basil and generally of the whole French Church at this day I know not to which of these factions your friend enclines if he thinke as the French Papists doe I am of his opinion if hee be Iesuited desire him to mend his description of the Catholique Church and where he names it a visible Monarch let him sit downe and write a visible Monarch For that is Purus putus Iesuitismus Disput Theol. To. 3. dis 1. By the Church we meane her head saith Greg. de Valent. that is the Pope in whom there resideth the full authority of the Church when he pleaseth to determine matters of faith whether he doe it with a Councell or without His words are these Est in Ecclesiâ authoritas divinitûs instituta quâ fideles tum doctrinâ tum praeceptis informentur Haec authoritas plenè in Romano Pontifice Christi Vicario S. Petri successore residet qui scilicet de fidei morum controversiis vel per se vel vnà cum generali concilio sufficienter constituat Nomine Ecclesiae intelligimus eius caput id est Romanum Pontificem per se I haue stood thus long vpon the authority of Scripture because if the question of the Church must receiue its decision from thence as Bell confesseth me thinkes it is but hard dealing in him and his fellowes to keepe Lay-people from the free reading of the scripture vnlesse they meane to keepe them from the knowledge of the true Church also but for your friend though hee talke much of the Catholique Church yet I cannot finde by his description that ever hee consulted either with scripture or any ancient lawfull councell when he went about it And thereupon I would presently ioyne issue with him but that I am bound to take knowledge first of a place of Malachy which hee sets most eminently in the forefront of his writing I haue no will in you saith the Lord of Hostes and gift I will not receiue of your hand for from the rising of the Sunne to the going downe great is my name amongst the Gentiles and in every place there is sacrificing and there is offered to my name a cleane oblation because my name is great amongst the Gentiles saith the Lord of Hostes Mal. 1.11 In the allegation of this Text I complaine that there are two notorious faults committed by him 1. That he alledgeth it to no purpose any other text in the Bible would haue become the place as well as that 2. That he falsifies the words of the Prophet and makes him to say that which he never meant 1. If your friend in citing these words did purpose to proue the reiectiō of the Iews and calling of the Gentiles I know it is true but I know not to what purpose alledged to perswade any man to Popery more then the deposing of Abiathar and Sadocks advancement to the Priesthood 1. Reg. 2.35 If his meaning be to shew that the Church of the Gentiles is of greater extent then ever the Iewish Synagogue was that it is not now confined to any one place or people as it was vnder the Law but belongeth indifferently to all Nations vpon earth for my part I know no Christian that ever denied it besides the Donatists of old and some Papists of later times who seeking to bring all Christians to a dependance vpon Rome and the Bishop of that place just as the Synagogue depended vpon the Temple of Ierusalem and the high Priest there they turne the vniversal Church into a particular congregation howsoever for fashiō sake they retaine the name of Catholike They themselues doe in a manner acknowledge as much when as not contenting themselues with those known marks of Vna Sancta Catholica Apostolica by which the Church was wont to bee notified in the antient Creeds and Councels they foist in Romana amongst the rest which being but a late tricke vnheard of in antiquity and only devised to serue the present turne it shewes that the Church for whose sake it was first devised is but of a late edition per Romanam Ecclesiam nemo vnquam intellexit vniversalem nisi forte latini sermonis ignarus Pigh hierar Eccl. l. 6. c. 3. 2. My second accusation is that your friend deales not faithfully in setting downe the words of Malachy For whereas hee makes the Prophet to say that in every place there is sacrificing you may boldly tell him that there is no one word of sacrificing in the Hebrew text at all God saith that among the Gentiles there should be incense offered to his name that is prayers supplicatiōs as you shall findethe word interpreted by the holy Ghost himselfe Rev. 5.8 and therefore the Septuagint renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arias Mont. The sacrifice of the Masse who vnderstood both the Hebrew and Greeke very well in his interlineary Bible translates it incensum As for Sacrificing there is Nec vola nec vestigium neither fell nor marke of it as we say in all that saying of the Prophet You must thinke it was not without some speciall cause that the name of Sacrificing was drawne into the text thus by the heeles but vpon hope that it should doe som speciall service which though your friend doe not signifie and so I need not take knowledge of it yet I thinke good to make you acquainted withall because it may serue to discouer some other of our Adversaries mysteries Cardinall Allen forsooth Card. Allen hath vndertaken out of these words of Malachy to proue the sacrifice of the Mas by sixe reasons which would make my writing swell too big if I should set them all downe lib. de Euch. c. 5. I would desire you to reade both his reasons the answer made vnto them by Doct. Reinolds in his conference with Hart. p. 479. D. Reinolds and Hart. And if you receiue not full satisfaction in that point besides many others blame me for commending the booke vnto you Now what hope could hee ever haue of prouing the Sacrifice of the Masse by Malachy vnlesse the word Sacrifice it selfe were first found in the Text. And so I come to his description of the Catholike Church as he calls it though all things considered he hath little reason to giue it that name A description of the Catholique Church The holy Christian Catholique Church militant which we professe in the Apostles Creed to belieue is a visible Monarchy or Kingdome consisting of all the true belieuers vpon the face of the earth confessing one God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity vnder one lawfull visible head for the time being obseruing one
to haue named the Pope rather then to vse such a circumlocution of words for you must not doubt but that he is that Visible head whom he meanes Now it deserues a Quare why the Church being but one body should need two Heads Why being but one Monarchy it cannot consist without two Monarchs To say that one is a visible the other an invisible the one a principall the other a ministeriall head it is all one in effect as if they told vs of two Christs a visible and an invisible perhaps in time to come the world may heare of some such matter if this doctrine goe on In reason they ought to make two Churches because the body must bee multiplied according to the multiplication of the heads we are sure that Christ now in heauen is every way as able to governe his Church by himselfe as he was while he lived vpon earth if in regard of his bodily absence they thinke it necessary that he should leaue some deputie behind him Neither doth this hang well together with some other popish Positions for by their doctrine Christ is not so ascended into heauen but that they haue his body as they say remaining still among them vpon earth and that not only in a spirituall manner but most really and carnally They haue freer recourse to Christ now by the helpe of Transubstantiation Transubstantiation then they could possibly haue with him while he conversed here in the flesh Nay they haue not so free accesse to the Pope I am sure as they haue to him with whom they may speake when they list vpon every Altar and in every Pixe And what folly is it to seeke to the foote when we may goe to the head To set vp a ministeriall head in the Church where the principall himselfe is alwaies at hand Dulciùs ex ipso fonte bibuntur aquae Besides No visible head necessary if this visible Head were such a necessary implement in the Church of God as they would make vs beleeue it seemes strange to mee why his name should be forgotten and that in those very Scriptures where the Governors and the government of the Church is purposely treated of or how was it possible for Saint Paul speaking of Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists of Pastors and teachers ordained by Christ for the perfecting of the Saints for the worke of the Ministry c. Eph. 4 11. and 1. Cor. 12.28 to forget the name of this Pastour Paramont who now takes vpon him to be Dominus fac totum and to rule the rost throughout all Christendome There is another thing that makes mee doubt much of this matter namely that whereas the Church hath still bin known by the name of a Monarchy yet the Pope among all other his titles hath not ordinarily taken vpon him the name of a Monarch till of late I know some such thing hath beene muttering a pretty while in the Schooles but it never past for currant Doctrine in the Church till within these few yeares nay it is not so farre past yet but that the Sorbonists of Paris generally the whole Church of France oppose strongly against it In like sort whereas the Church hath ever beene called the body of Christ Ephes 1.23 yet I never heard of a Pope so desperate that durst call the Church his body which yet in some sort hee might be allowed to doe if it bee lawfull for him in any sort to call himselfe the Head of the Church by the Doctrine of Relatiues Moreover I finde the maintainers of this Doctrine much puzzelled in seeking to expresse what authority it is that the Pope may challenge in right of his headship and Monarchie what power is appendant to that name whether it bee a meere spirituall power or a temporall or both or some third mixt power compounded of temporall and spirituall Difference betweene the Papists touching the temporall and the spirituall power of the Pope Here I see them at such deadly strife among themselues as I hold it no safe trusting either of them vntill I shall first finde that they trust one another better Card. Bellarmine himselfe within these few yeares knew not what to make of that matter as it appeareth by his latter writings compared with the former When he first set forth his bookes of controuersies he was of one opinion concerning this point which afterward hee changed became of another as you shall finde by his recognitions wherein hee did not mend that which was amisse as Augustine did in his Retractations but proficiens in peius like those of whom the Apostle speakes 2. Tim. 3.13 hee made that worse which was too bad before euen in the iudgement of his owne good friends In his former writings of this argument though hee had pleaded for the Papall authority Quantum honestè potuit Barclay Sixtus Quintus plus etiam quà m debuit saith William Barclay a Papist yet was Sixtus Quintus the Pope so discontented with his booke that he was once of the mind to haue damned all his writings because he did not speake home to his Holinesse contentment I meane because hee did not attribute such an vnlimited and transcendent power vnto him as that proud imperious Praelate did challenge in right of his pretended Monarchie because hee did not affirme him to haue as direct a temporall power over Kings as a spirituall over Bishops making all Kingdomes as well as all Churches subiect to his disposition See Barclay de potestate Papae in Principes christianos cap. 13. They that contract the power of the Pope within the confines of a meere Spirituall iurisdiction though they speake more modestly then other of their fellowes yet in as much as they extend this iurisdiction over the whole world which in respect of him they make to bee but as one Diocesse even this Paradox of theirs is as false as the others though not so impudent as iniurious to Christ and his Church though it be not so pragmatically dangerous to secular states and Princes Crownes for if the Spirituall Kingdome of Christ bee of no greater extent then the Popes iurisdiction it followeth that none are Christians but Papists which though some Popish Puritane in his fiery zeale will make no bones perhaps to affirme yet all of them are not so desperate and hee that speakes so in his heat must recall it againe in cold blood or else hee will leaue Christ but a poore Kingdome and a few subiects in respect of that multitude which God promised vnto him Psal 2.8 and Psal 72. v. 8.9 c. Nay how shall that Prophecy of Malachy bee verified of the Church spreading it selfe from the rising of the Sunne to the going downe thereof if there bee no more Christians in the world then there be Papists All the world knowes that the Popes Kingdome never extended it selfe so farre as that Prophecy speakes of by many degrees when it was at
the largest And Papists haue little hope ever to see it hereafter spread over the whole World Now because the Pope hath no jurisdiction in those parts nor ever had shall wee thinke therefore that Christ hath no kingdome there Or that the Grecian Armenian Jndian Aethiopian and other African Churches bee no Churches at all because they are no Popish Churches I omit to speake here of Protestants in Europe whose multitude the Pope knowes better then hee loues But for those other which I was speaking of it is certaine that either the Prophecies mentioned before are accomplished in those Christians or else they were never accomplished hitherunto at all eyther Christ now reigneth in those Churches or else his kingdome was never so large as it was promised that it should be And although it cannot be denied but that those Easterne Southerne Christians are much degenerated from their primitiue purity and there bee diverse things amisse in their profession yet they are Christians still and whosoever denies them that name because they are none of the Popes creatures hee robs Christ of more subiects then hee leaues him to raigne over Vbicunque timetur laudatur Deus ibi vera est Ecclesia August in Psal 21. The Church for the space of sixe hundred yeares was not only without this visible head but so farre from desiring it that when Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople an ambitious Prelate began to affect this matter he was told by Gregorie the Great that his course was Antichristian yet it is certaine the ambition of this Patriarch was no more then that which hath since broken forth in ambitious Popes vnder the name of their Supremacy and the same reasons which Gregory vsed against Iohn being many in number they conclude as strongly against Gregories Successors now a daies as ever they did then against the other Read Greg. on that Argument lib. 4. Ep. 30.32.36 alibi If the same question were made now to the Pope which was then made by Gregory to that Patriarch Tu quid Christo vniversalis Ecclesiae capiti in extremi iudicij dicturus es examine qui cuncta eius membra vibi conaris vniversalis appellatione supponere I thinke his Holinesse would be to seeke of an answere I am sure Gerson a learned Roman Catholike was so farre from thinking such a visible Head to bee any matter of necessity in the Catholique Church that hee thought the body might doe well enough though this head were taken off from the shoulders as appeares by his booke written De aufenibilitate Papae And so I passe from this description of the Catholique Church All that followes from thence to the end almost of the first page might well haue bin spared neither can I devise to what purpose it is brought in 1. That our Saviour Christ being a Priest for ever secundum ordinem Melchisedec Christ the head of the Church was the first visible Head and founder of the said holy Christian Catholique Church c. Hee is no Christian that doubts of it but when I heare him say that Christ was the first visible head of the Church me thinkes hee speakes strangely vnlessE hee thinke that Christ is now ceased to bee somewhat that hee was heretofore For why else did he not say in praesenti that Christ is the head of the Church as well as he is a priest for ever vnlesse he were afraid to hurt the Popes head Primus semper dicitur in ordine ad secundum secundus ad tertium Now if the Church by the death of Christ her first head got her a second head which was S. Peter why then vpon his death shee got a third head and so consequently hath had as many Heads as shee hath had Popes which is scarce good English 2. How farre the Clergy are to bee obeyed That Christ did institute a Clergy a Laity in his Church the one to preach and administer Sacraments the other to learne and to obey c. I hope hee doth not meane that the Clergy are freed from obeying the Gospell because they are bound to preach it But that Christ did institute such a distinction of people in his Church we know before hee told vs so Heere a man might suspect that some Priest had his finger in the framing of this writing in as much as when he speakes of the duty of the Laity he tels them That they are bound to obey the Clergy in all things touching their Faith a speech too lauish for any Priest to speake and too slavish for any ingenuous Lay man to heare except it be much circumcised they must obey in all things he meanes first the persons then the doctrine Ex personis fidem non ex fide personas And Champnies an English Sorbonist professeth as much l. de vocat minist c. 1. And so likewise Stapleton In doctrinâ religionis non quid dicatur sed quis loquatur attendendum est defens Ecclesiasticae autorit l. 3. c. 7. demon strat princip doctrin l. 10. c. 5. Which Tertullian thought a great absurdity and so disclaimes it Veritas docendo persuadet non suadendo docet adver Valent. Hic est sacerdos de genere Aaronis non decipiet nos 1. Mac. 7.14 so did some over-credulous Iews say of Alcimus but yet they were deceiued And so would your friend perswade you to belieue him because he is a Romish Priest and to take vp your faith vpon his credit But let it first appeare that their Clergy are so priviledged by speciall or common grace that either they cannot preach false doctrine though they would or that they wil not though they can then we are content they should bee obeyed in all things Alfonsus à Castro tells indeed strange things that hee heard a Dominican preach concerning the priviledges of his owne order l. 1. de haeres c. 9. but your friend goes beyond him and saies as much of every popish Priest such must bee obeyed in all things and therefore such cannot or should not erre and then vbi Papae infallibilitas what preheminence shall his holinesse haue more then every common Masse Priest Either this Pontifex maximus this high Priest must forbeare to say his Pater noster or forbid other Priests to say theirs or else they will goe cheeke by cheeke with him neque sufficit dicere neither can they say that they are all equall potestate ordinis only for they will be so potestate iurisdictionis too if they are to be obeyed in all things What will they say then that the Pope alone is the infallible Church to the learned Papist but to the common people every parish Priest is their Church to this I may answere that as Cotton seem'd to mistrust even the Popes infallibility when he desired to know of the divell the strongest proofe in Scripture for Purgatory Thuan. To. 5. fol. 1136. though hee needed not haue troubled the divell so farre when many of his owne
did not Christ pray for them all it is evident that to touch Peter more deepely and to shew his fault to bee more grievous then any of the rest Christ turned his speech to him in particular in Math. Hom. 83. All this proues no greater Monarchy but rather a greater infirmity in Peter then in any of the rest and greater mercy in Christ towards him whose sinne did deserue à greater iudgement As S. Paul inferres the like of himsele 1. Tim. 1.16 I am sure the Pope will not bee thought to succeed Peter in the sinne of his deniall why then doth hee claime the benefit of Christs prayer Ego pro te oravi which was made purposely for Peter in regard of that sinne For as Peters deniall was his personall fault and is not derived per traducem to his Successors for then not only many Popes should Apostatare as Lyra in Math. 16. saith but all Popes should be Renegates which I beleeue not As therefore it was a personall sinne in Peter to deny Christ so the prayer of Christ for Peter was a personall favour bestowed vpon him and the Pope hath no more right to the one then the other besides let it bee considered that the faith which Saint Peter obtained by Christs prayer was not only fides notitiae such as Divels haue and tremble but it was fides fiduciae vera salvifica sides such a faith as worketh with charity and whosoever hath it shall vndoubtedly be saued and so Chrysostome vnderstands it Oraui proute ne deficeret fides tua hoc est ne in fine pereas Hom. 72. in Ioh. Now it is confessed by all Papists that all Popes are not furnished with this kinde of faith Pope Adrian 6. is said to haue doubted of the salvation of many of his predecessors and Bellarmine if the Seminary Priest bely him not hath passed a peremptory iudgement vpon Pope Sixtus Quintus Quia sine poenitentiâ vixit sine poenitentiâ mortuus est quantum sapio quantum capio descendit ad inferos Watson in his Quodlibets Now if this be true that Popes may bee damned it must needs follow that either Christs prayer did not prevaile with God which were impiety to thinke or that the Pope was never thought vpon by Christ when this prayer was a making Now to his third proofe 3. Our Saviour Christ asking Peter îf he loved him more then these said yea Lord thou knowst J loue thee wherevpon Christ said to him twice feed my Lambes and the third time feed my sheepe Ioh. 21. vers 16.17 Here is some mistaking of the Text againe for Christ did not say twice to Peter feed my Lambs once feede my sheep but twice feed my Sheepe and once feed my Lambs But let this passe for a peccadillo I say farther that in the words there is nothing spoken more to Peter then is elsewhere spoken to all the Apostles When they are commanded to goe and teach all Nations baptizing them Mat. 28.19.20 And if hee thinke that there lies any speciall mystery in these words because there is such distinct mention of lambs and sheepe both committed to Peters charge the like whereof we doe not find in the mission of the other Apostles Let him not be too hasty to say so till hee haue considered the words of their generall commission Mark 16.15 Goe into all the world Saint Peter could not haue a larger Dioces and preach the Gospell to every creature Therefore whether they be Lambes or sheepe they belong to the charge of euery other Apostle as well as to Saint Peters But they will say that Peter is commanded not only Pascere but regere and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies more then a Pastorall duty even a kinde of Regall authority to bee given by Christ vnto him Bellarmine stands much vpon the word though there bee little cause Lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 15. I know that Kings are sometimes called Shepheards as Homer calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nay God himselfe cals Cyrus so Jsa 44.28 But I thinke it were harsh because Kings are sometimes called shepheards to infer that Shepheards therefore are Kings whether wee speake of rustike or Ecclesiastick Shepheards But if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bee such a mysticall word and doth imply such a soveraigne authority what meant Saint Paul to vse that word speaking to the ordinary Presbyters of Ephesus whom he willed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Act. 20.28 You haue heard his three texts of Scriptures which if they be so cleere for the supremacy as hee would haue you thinke let him giue you some reason why Pope Zozimus Bonifacius Caelestinus did not alledge any of these Scriptures in the 6. Councell of Carthage when their supremacy lay a bleeding but only made their claime by the Councell of Nice it is not likely that ever such learned and wise Prelates as they would haue sought for humane proofes to iustify their cause if they had knowne how to doe it by divine authority which is to mee an vndoubted argument that these fore-alleadged places Mat. 16.18 Luk. 22.31 Ioh. 21.16 either were not thought on in those daies to imply any such Supremacie in Peter or that Peters supremacy whatsoever it bee was not thought to belong any whit to the Pope Else why did they not stand vpon the Scriptures Why did the Popes Legates vrge the Nicene Canon Or rather why did they forge it to serue their turnes for so it is certaine that they did and the forgery remaines vpon record in the Acts of the Councell And though Cardinall Baron Tom. 5. Annal haue strained his wits hard to salue the matter yet it will not be Haeret lateri lethalis arundo But as I was about to say if these Scriptures make any good proofe for the Popes Supremacy why were not they brought forth in that Councell of Carthage either by the Pope or his Legates rather then the Nicene Canon Saint Augustine was one of the Fathers present in that Carthagenian Councell when this cause was debated and is it likely that either the Pope would haue stood then vpon Canons if he had known any Canonicall scripture for it or that Saint Augustine and the rest would haue denied him any authority that was due to him by Gods word I conclude that either the Church in those daies did not vnderstand these places of Scripture or the Romish doth not vnderstand them now But see whether these proofes that follow doe helpe his cause any better 1. When all the holy Apostles are named S. Peter is the first Mat. 10.2 That is not so for Saint Andrew is named before him Ioh. 1.44 James is named before him Gal. 2.9 Paul and Apollos were both named before him 1. Cor. 3.22 Nay see 1. Cor. 9.5 and Mark 16.7 and you shall finde him named last of them all 2. If it were so that Peter were still first named yet what a weake foundation is that for so great