chiefe citie in all the world this reason was rendered in the Councel of Chalcedon Can. 28. An other cause thereof was the ample priuiledges and immunities which the Emperours endued it withall as Constantine the great and Gratianus the Emperour made a lawe that all men should reteyne that religion which Damasus of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria did hold A third cause was the vnquiet estate of the Greeke Church who often voluntarily referred their matters to the Bishop of Rome as being lesse partiall and a more indifferent Iudge they themselues being diuided and rent into sects And hereupon and other like causes it came about that the Bishop of Rome a little stepped aboue his fellowe Patriarkes but yet had no such preeminent authoritie as to commaund them Fourthly the Pope of Rome being thus tickled with vayne glorie because they were reuerenced of other Churches many matters were committed vnto them and their consent required vnto the decrees of Councels when they were absent Hereupon they laboured euery day more and more to aduance that See taking euery small occasion that might helpe forward their ambicious desire till Anno. 606. or somewhat after Boniface the 3. obtayned of wicked Phocas the Emperour who murthered his master the Emperour Mauritius and his children to come to the Empire and was after slaine himselfe of Heraclius that succeeded him of him I say Boniface for himselfe and his successors obtayned to bee called vniuersall Bishops ouer the whole Church and the See of Rome to haue the preeminence aboue all other Churches in the world Afterward in Pope Zacharie his time the proude and insolent iurisdiction of Rome was established by Pipinus King of France who aspired to the Crowne and obtayned it by the sayd Popes meanes first deposing Childericus the rightfull King and dispensing with the oath which the French men had made before to Childericus Calum Institut 4. cap. 7. sect 17. Thus then it sufficiently appeareth that the primacie of Rome which it now vniustly challengeth ouer other Churches is not of any such antiquitie as they would beare the world in hand neither that it had the beginning from Christ but both the time when and the authors by whom it began may bee easily assigned 2 Wee neede no better argument to proue that the primacie of Rome hath not his originall from Christ then the Iesuites owne confession First he sayth that it doth not depend of Christs institution but ex Petri facto of Peters fact that the Bishop of Rome should bee rather Peters successor then the Bishop of Antioch or any other It is not iure diuino saith he by Gods lawe neither is it ex prima institutione pontificatus quae in Euangelio legitur of the first institution whereof wee reade in the Gospell And agayne Romanum pontificem succedere Petro non habetur expresse in scripturis It is not expressely set downe in scripture that the Bishop of Rome should succeede Peter but it is grounded onely vpon the tradition of Peter Nay he saith further that Peter needed not to haue chosen any particular place for succession and he might as well haue chosen Antioch as Rome Ergo neither is the succession of Rome grounded vpon scripture neither any commandement of Christ for then Peter could not haue had free choyse to appoynt his successor where he would himselfe as the Iesuite saith if he had had any especiall direction or commaundement from Christ. So then marke I pray you they cannot proue out of scripture that the Bishop of Rome ought to succeede Peter in the chiefe Bishopricke but onely that Peter had the chiefe Bishopricke committed to him and his successors in generall whosoeuer they should appoynt Ergo the Bishops of Rome by their owne confession can alleadge no scripture institution or commandement of Christ for the primacie of the Church to bee annexed to the See of Rome and yet agaynst their knowledge they will alleadge scripture to colour the matter withall Bellarm. lib. 2. de pontif ca. 17. 3 Augustine saith Secundum honorum vocabula quae iam ecclesiae vsus obtinuit episcopatus presbyterio maior est The office of a Bishop is aboue the office of a Priest according to the names of honour which the Church by custome hath obtayned If then the difference of those two offices both named in scripture did arise rather and spring of the custome of the Church which thought it good to distinguish them for auoyding of schisme and is not grounded vpon the authoritie of scripture much lesse can the Pope whose neither name nor office is expressed in scripture fetch from thence any shew of proofe for his vsurped primacie THE SIXT PART OF THIS QVESTION CONCERning the proud names and vayne glorious titles of the Pope The Papists BEllarmine setteth downe to the number of fifteene glorious names which error 46 haue been of old giuen as he saith to the Bishop of Rome whereby his primacie ouer other Bishops is notoriously knowne but the principall are these He is called the Pope and chiefe Father the prince of Priests or high Bishop the Vicar of Christ the head of the Church the Prelate of the Apostolike See vniuersall Bishop These sixe names or titles they doe appropriate to the See of Rome Bellarm. de Roman pontif lib. 2. cap. 31. The Protestants WE will shewe by Gods grace that these sixe seuerall titles and names aforesayd are either such as ought not in their sense to be attributed to any Bishop nor any mortall man or els were common in ancient times as well to other Bishops as to him of Rome 1 For the first name of Pope it is deriued from the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Syracusane language is as much as Father which name was indifferently giuen to other Bishops which were famous in the Church for their vertue and learning As Cypriane Epiphanius Athanasius were called Papae Popes Augustine saluteth Aurelius President of the 6. Councel of Carthage by the name of Pope Epistol 77. Likewise those two epithetes of the Pope as to bee called Beatissim sanctissim pater most holy and blessed father were vsed in the stile of other Bisshops Prosper in his Epistle to Augustine twise calleth him Dominum beatissimum papam Lord most blessed Pope Tom. 7. Hierome calleth Epiphanius Beatum papam blessed Pope Ad Eustach Fabiol Augustine writing to Petrus the Presbyter or Priest being no Bishop yet thus saluteth him Ad sanctitatem tuam scripsit he hath written to your holines Nay in his booke dedicated to Renatus a lay man neither Priest nor Bishop thus he writeth Hinc angor quòd sanctitati tuae minus quà m vellem cognitus sum This grieueth me that I am not so well knowne to your holines as I desire If then these titles of holinesse and blessednesse were not onely giuen to Bishops but Priests also yea vnto lay men of vertuous and holy life what colour or
shewe of reason can our aduersaries haue to make them proper to the Bishop of Rome 2 The second name is prince of Priests or high and chiefe Bishop which title if it be taken for a chiefe power dominion and soueraigntie is proper only to Christ the chiefe shepheard 1. Pet. 5.4 and cannot in that sense agree to any man If it bee vsed onely as a title of excellencie and commendation so was it in times past ascribed to other excellent and famous Bishops as Ruffinus lib. 2. cap. 26. calleth Athanasius Pontificem maximum chiefe Bishop yea it was in common giuen to all Bishops as Anacletus Bishop of Rome in his second Epistle writeth thus Summi sacerdotes id est Episcopi a deo iudicandi sunt The high Priests that is Bishops saith he are to bee iudged of God If it be taken further for the excellencie of the ministerie of the Gospell and the worthie calling of Christians in this sense the title of summum sacerdotium of the high Priesthood is attributed to all ministers Ecclesiasticall both Bishops and others so Fabianus Bishop of Rome vseth this name Yea the holy Apostle calleth all the people of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a princely royall or chiefe priesthood Ergo the Bishop of Rome hath no especiall or proper interest in this name 3 The third name is to bee called the Vicar of Christ vpon earth Where we are to vnderstand that in respect of the spirituall regiment and kingdome of Christ he needeth no Vicegerent vpon earth for I am with you saith he to the end of the world he himselfe is alway present in power and needeth not in that respect that any man should supplie his roume Petrus scriba martyr Fox pag. 906. If we doe take it for a word of office and publike administration so the Magistrate may bee called the Vicar of Christ in gouerning the people according to the word of God In which sense Eleutherius Bishop of Rome writing to Lucius King of the Britaines calleth him the Vicar of Christ and therfore in his owne kingdome had power out of the word of God to establish lawes for the gouernment of the people So all Bishops Pastors and Ministers in ancient time were called the Vicars of Christ in preaching praying binding and loosing in the name and power of Christ. So Augustine saith or whose worke els it is that Omnis antistes est Christi vicarius Euery pastor and prelate and not the Pope onely is the Vicar of Christ. And this is confessed by our Rhemists annot in 2. Cor. 5.18 that the Bishops and priests of the Church are for Christ and as his ministers that is his Vicars Nay Augustine maketh yet a more generall vse of this word he saith that Homo imperium Dei habens quasi vicarius eius est That man by creation being made Lord of the creatures doth therein represent God and is as his Vicar vpon earth So then all ministers are the Vicars of Christ the ciuill Magistrate likewise in some good sense may bee so called yea in respect of the creatures man generallie is vpon earth in Gods steade Ergo this name cannot be appropriate to the Pope of Rome 4 It is also too huge a name for the Pope or any mortall man to beare to be called the head of the vniuersall Church this is a name only due vnto Christ neither doe the scriptures acknowledge any other head but him Ephes. 1.22.4.15 But say they wee doe not make the Pope such an head as Christ is but only a ministeriall head ouer the militant Church vpon earth We answere First Ergo the Pope by your owne confession is not head of the vniuersall Church whereof the triumphant Church in heauen is a part Secondly the Rhemists confesse that the Church in no sense can bee called the bodie of the Pope Ergo the Pope cannot be any wayes the head of the vniuersall Church Annot. in 1. Ephes. 22. Thirdly the Fathers of Basile vsed this argument The head of the bodie being dead the whole bodie also dyeth but the whole Church doth not perish with the Pope Ergo he is not properly the head of the Church Fox pag. 675. If it shall bee further obiected that the Bishop of Rome hath been called in times past caput Episcoporum the head of all other Bishops we answere that it was but a title of excellencie and commendation not of dominion and power as London is called the head or chiefe citie of England yet are not other cities of the land subiect vnto it or vnder the iurisdiction thereof But we shall haue occasion more fully to discusse this matter afterward 5 They would haue the Pope called the Prelate of the Apostolike See the Rhemists say further that the Papall dignitie is a continuall Apostleship Annot. 4. Ephes. sect 4. We answere First if they call those Churches Apostolicall whose first founders were the Apostles then the See of Antioch Alexandria Constantinople are as well Apostolicall as Rome and this the Iesuite denyeth not Lib. 2. de pontific cap. 31. Secondly those Churches are Apostolicall which hold the Apostolike faith so is not the See of Rome Apostolicall being departed and gone backe from the ancient Catholike faith but those Churches where the Gospell of Iesus Christ is truely preached are indeede Apostolike Thirdly how can the Pope be an Apostle or haue Apostolike authoritie seeing hee preacheth not at all much lesse to the whole world wherein consisted the office of an Apostle Neither can he shewe his immediate calling from Christ as all the Apostles could for seeing he challengeth the Apostolike office by tradition from S. Peter and not by commandement from Christ he can in no wise be counted an Apostle or his office an Apostleship for the Apostles ordayned onely Euangelists and Pastors they had not authoritie to consecrate and constitute new Apostles Our aduersaries for this their Apostleship can finde nothing in scripture nor for a thousand yeeres after Christ in the ancient writers Fulk annot in Ephes. 4. sect 4. 6 Concerning the title of vniuersall Bishop it was thus decreed in the sixt Councel of Carthage as it is alleadged by Gratian Vniuersalis autem nec Romanus pontifex appelletur No not the Bishop of Rome is to be called vniuersall In Gregorie the first his time Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople obtayned of the Emperour Mauritius to be called vniuersall Patriarke but Gregorie would not agree thereunto calling him the forerunner of Antichrist that would challenge so proude a name Bellarmine and other of that sect doe answere that Gregorie found fault with this title because Iohn of Constantinople would haue been Bishop alone and none other to bee beside him but all other onely to bee his deputies and vicars To this wee replie First Iohn did onely challenge a superioritie ouer other Bishops not to be Bishop alone for this had been a thing impossible Secondly if Iohn had sought any such thing
Bellarmine answereth Princes doe rule ouer their subiects as men not as Christians and Kings are set ouer the people not as they are Christians but politike persons so the Prince is head of the kingdome not of the Church De pontif Rom. lib. 1. cap. 7. Ans. Stephen Gardiner taketh away this cauill very sufficiently we will set one Papist against another It is all one sayth he to call the Prince head of the Church of England and head of the Realme of England for if all Englishmen be his subiects why are they not his subiects as they are Christians If the wife or seruant bee subiect to the master or husband being infidels doth their conuersion or name of Christians make them lesse subiect then they were before Haec ille Againe how farre is this I pray you from Anabaptistrie to say that subiects onely as men not as Christians are in subiection to Princes for doth it not followe hereupon that as Christians they ought to haue no superiour or Magistrate 2 It is sufficient for vs that this title more fitly and properly belongeth to euery Prince in his owne kingdome thē to the Pope for the Pope can in no wise be head of the Church he is not the mysticall head neither dare they say so for Christ onely is the head in that manner neither can he be the Ministeriall head of the vniuersall Church for the Catholike Church is a bodie mysticall must needes haue a mysticall head neither is he the politicall head of any particular Church for no Bishop can be a politicall head because he that is the head and chiefe must haue a coactiue power to binde his subiects to obedience so hath not any Bishop The Prince onely beareth the sword and enforceth obedience Againe in a farre diuers sense is the Prince called the head then the Pope was for first the Pope challenged to be head of the vniuersal Church but the prince is chiefe only in his owne kingdome Secondly the Pope would be an absolute head to doe all vpon earth that Christ did yea and more to to bind and loose at his pleasure to depose Kings to dispense with the word of God to constitute and make lawes at his pleasure in so much that one of his clawback flatterers is not ashamed to say of him Christus Papa vnum faciunt consistorium excepto peccato potest Papa quasi omnia facere quae potest Deus Christ and the Pope make but one Consistorie keepe but one court sinne onely excepted the Pope in a manner can doe all things that God can doe But we doe limit the power of the Prince who is not to impose any lawes vpon the Church but such as are agreeable to the word of God neither doe we make him a spirituall officer as the Pope would be but a ciuill gouernour who by positiue lawes is to prouide for the peace and welfare of the Church Lastly S. Peter sayth Submit your selues to the King as the chiefe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or most excelling what is this els but as to the head what is it to be chiefe but to be head But we will not much contend for the name so they will grant vs the thing namely that the Prince is a commander euen in Ecclesiasticall matters as Augustine saith In hoc reges Deo seruiunt si mala prohibeant nō solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verumetiam quae ad diuinam religionem Cont. Crescon lib. 3. cap. 5. In this Kings doe good seruice to God if they forbid euill to be done not onely in matters pertaining to humane societie but in things concerning religion As for the title to bee called head let them cease to call their chiefe Bishop so who hath no right vnto it and we will promise also to lay it downe though in good sense we might vse it though the Pope had neuer layd claime thereunto THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING THE authoritie of the Prince in punishing heretikes WE doe willingly grant that obstinate heretikes and peruerters of the faith if they persist in their damnable opinions and remaine incorrigible may and ought to be cut off and punished by death to make others to feare so Seruetus at Geneua and one Valentinus at Berne both monstrous heretikes not amongst the Papists but by the Protestants were worthily put to death In this therfore we and our aduersaries agree that heretikes may be punished by death by the ciuill Magistrate If Luther or any other haue held any priuate opinion to the contrarie let them answere for themselues but although we vary not in the principall yet there are certaine circumstances and accessaries greatly material wherein they both dissent from vs and from the truth 1 They would haue the Magistrate onely to be their executioner the iudgement of heresie they say belongeth to the Church for they cited examined iudged disgraded condemned heretikes and then gaue them ouer to the secular error 102 power this was the common practise of their Church But we hold that the hearing iudgement sentence and condemnation of heretikes belongeth to the ciuill Magistrate as well as the execution because these actions are proper to the ciuill sword which the Magistrate beareth Rom. 13. and Deut. 17.5 The false Prophets and Idolaters were brought to the gates of the citie where the ciuill Magistrate was wont to sit Augustine is of the same mind Cur in veneficos vigorē legū exerceri iuste fatentur in haereticos schismaticos nolunt fateri Cont. epist. Parmen 1.7 Why doe they grant that the vigour of the law may iustly be executed vpon witches and not as well vpon heretikes and schismatikes But the causes of witches are heard iudged and handled before the ciuill Magistrate Ergo also the cause of heretikes Augustines reason is out of the 5. Galath 20. The works of the flesh are manifest which are adulterie fornication idolatrie witchcraft and heresies are also reckoned vp amongst All these are workes of the flesh Ergo the Magistrate being appoynted to punish euill doers hath as full right to deale against them all as some 2 We differ about the way and meanes to try an heretike by They affirme that he is an heretike onely that is so iudged by a generall Councel or the sentence error 103 of the chiefe pastors of the Church they would haue an heretike tryed by the constitutions and Canons of their Church Annot. Tit. 3. sect 2. Rhemist We say that an heretike is to be conuicted by the scriptures and that he that holdeth any opiniō obstinately against the manifest authoritie of scripture may be iudged an heretike without a generall Councel So Augustine writeth answering the Pelagians who obiected that they were condemned without a Synode Ac si congregatione synodi opus erat vt aperta pernicies damnaretur quasi nulla haeresis aliquando nisi synodi congregatione damnata sit As though a Synode neede to be
Bellarm. They did it by an extraordinarie authoritie not as Kings but as Prophets Nay it was an ordinarie power for all the good kings of Iuda beside as Iehosaphat Hezekiah and others did take care of religion this was so properly annexed to the kingly office that idolatrous kings also tooke vpon them to command false religion as Ieroboam set vp two golden calues and Ahaz king of Iudah cōmanded Vriah the high Priest to make an Altar according to the patterne which he sent from Damascus 2. King 16.11 This power also was afterward exercised by Christian Kings and Emperours as Constantinus Theodosius Martianus made lawes for the Church Fulk annot 1. Cor. 14. sect 16. Iustinianus the Emperour decreed many things concerning Church affayres as how excommunication should be vsed how Bishops and Priests should be ordained concerning the order and manner of funerals that the holy mysteries should not be done in priuate houses Carolus magnus decreed that onely the Canonical bookes of scripture should be read in the Church he chargeth all Bishops and priests to preach the word Lodouicus Pius his sonne and Emperour after him ordained that no entrie should bee made into the Church by Simonie that Bishops should bee chosen by the free election of the Clergie and the people All these Emperours did lawfully exercise their princely authoritie in Ecclesiastical matters Ergo other princes may doe the same still 3 Augustine saith Epistol 50. Quis mente sobrius c Who in his right wits would say to the King It pertaineth not to you who in your kingdome is religious or sacrilegious to whom it cannot be said let it not pertaine vnto you who in your kingdome will be chast or vnchast And in another place Ad fratres in erem serm 14. Tunc iustitia dicitur gladius ex vtraque parte acutus quia hominis defendit corpus ab exterioribus iniurijs animam à spiritualibus molestijs Then iustice is rightly called a sword with a double edge because it doth both defend the bodie from externall and corporall wrongs and the soule from spirituall vexation That is the sword of the Magistrate serueth as well to prune the Church and to cut off all errors and heresies in religion as to destroy the vices and corruptions in manners AN APPENDIX OR FOVRTH PART OF THE QVEstion whether the Prince in any good sense may be called the head of his kingdome and consequently of the Church in his kingdome The Papists THey do appropriate this title to be called heads of the vniuersall Church to error 101 the Pope of Rome most blasphemouslie for there can be no head of the vniuersal bodie but Christ But for Princes to be called the head that is chiefe gouernours of the Churches in their kingdomes they do abhorre it Whereupon Bellarmine is so saucie as to checke and controule King Henrie the 8. because he was called the head of the English Church 1 The heathen Emperours were not heads of the Church being not so much as members thereof therefore neither Christian Magistrates which doe succeede them in that authoritie Rhemist annot 1. Pet. 2. sect 6. Ans. 1. The argument followeth not they were no true mēbers of the Church therefore could not be heads that is haue the soueraigntie of the externall gouernment for wicked kings and princes doe keepe their magistracie gouernment still who though they be not true members of the Catholike Church yet ought to be obeied as princes 2. Though the metaphorical name of head agreed not vnto them yet were they by Gods ordinance appointed to be heads gouernours of his people protectors of his Church should haue been if they had not abused their authoritie 3. Christian princes though they haue the same authoritie which they had yet now exercising the sword according to Gods law and being Nurses of the Church may vse and retaine those princely titles in deed to be called Patrones and defenders of the faith head that is chiefe gouernours and protectors of the Church which by right had been due vnto the other if they had vsed their authoritie as they should 2 Christian princes are members of the Church Ergo not heads for if they were heads how could the Church stand without them as it did in the time of persecution Ans. First as though the head is not a member and part of the bodie though a principall one so the Prince is a member of the Church but a principall and chiefe member not of the inuisible Church for so Christ is onely head but of a particular visible Church Secondly we denie not but that the inuisible and spiritual Church may consist without the Magistrate but a visible flourishing and wel-gouerned Church cannot want a head or chiefe gouernour that is as a wall or hedge vnto it The Protestants TO bee head of the vniuersall Church is proper onely to Christ and in that sense is not communicable to any creature for he is to his Church as the head to the naturall bodie giuing vnto it influence of grace spirit and life he is therefore the onely mysticall head of the vniuersal Church But in another sense the Prince may be said to be the head and chiefe gouernour of his kingdome of that particular visible Church where he is king We make him neither the mysticall head which is only Christ farre be that blasphemie from vs nor a ministerial head as they make the Pope to be as Christs Vicegerent in the Church but a politicall head to keepe and preserue the peace of the Church and to see that euery member doe his office and duetie But this name we confesse is vnproperly giuen to the Prince neither were we the first inuentors of it for the papists first gaue it to Henry the 8. And there are other titles which doe sufficiently expresse the office of the Prince and may bee more safely vsed If any man thinke it too high a name for any mortall man and so not to be giuen to any we will not greatly contend about it But if any denye it to the Prince as thereby to abridge her of her power in Ecclesiastical matters we doe stand stiffely for it and are bold to affirme that with much better right is this title attributed to the ciuill Magistrate then it was to the Pope yea and that it hath been of old giuen in a modest and sober sense to Kings and Princes and may with a fauourable exposition be still and Princes also may receiue this honour and title at their subiects hands with protestation of their Christian meaning herein 1 This phrase for the King to be called the head is not vnusuall in scripture 1. Sam. 15.17 Saul is sayd to be the head of the tribes Psal. 18.43 Dauid the head of the nations Isay. 9.15 The Prince or honourable man the head of the people yea Princes are called Gods Psal. 82.2 which is a name of greater Soueraigntie then to be called heads
commaundement of Christ who inioyned them not to depart from Ierusalem The second Act. 6. congregate by the twelue not Peter onely for the election of Deacons The third which was holden as touching the taking away of circumcision and other ceremonies of the lawe was gathered together by a generall inspiration Act. 15.6 The fourth wherein certaine things contained in the lawe are permitted seemeth to be gathered by Iames. Act. 21.18 Vpon these reasons the Councel thus concludeth that if the Pope would resist and haue no Councel congregate yet if the greater part of the Church doe iudge it necessarie to haue a Councel the Councel may bee congregate whether the Pope will or not Ex Aenea Syluio Fox pag. 676. Col. 2. 5 Augustine saith Catholicos Episcopos partis Donati iussu imperatoris disputando inter se contulisse Breuicul collation lib. 1. cap. 1. That the Catholike Bishops and the Donatists did meete together to dispute at the commaundement of the Emperour There were in that Councel which was at Carthage of the Catholike Bishops 286. and of the Donatists 279. THE THIRD QVESTION OF WHAT PERSONS the Councel ought to consist The Papists WHereas there are foure sorts of men vsually present at Councels the Princes error 31 and Magistrates Bishops and inferiour Ministers and Priests and other lay people of all these Bishops they say onely must haue a deciding or determining voyce Priests and other learned may dispute and haue a consultatiue voyce Princes are there to defend the Councel and see order kept other of the Laitie may be there as officers and ministers as Scribes and Notaries but the suffrages and voyces must onely be giuen by Bishops Eckius loc de concil Bellarm. de concil lib. 1. cap. 15. Let vs see some of their reasons First to teach and to feede is proper for the Pastors only and to establish and decree in Councel is nothing els but to feede and teach Ergo Pastors onely must rule in Councel which none are but Bishops Soli Episcopi pastores sunt sayth the Iesuite neque laici neque ecclesiastici quicunque Onely Bishops are pastors and none other of the Clergie besides and to them onely he sayth that is to bee applyed Act. 20. Take heede to your selues and the flocke ouer the which God hath made you ouerseers I answere First what an absurd saying is this and voyde of sense that the Bishop is the onely pastor of his Diocesse and that euery Minister is not pastor in his owne parish Nay if the Iesuite would speake trueth he shall finde that popish Bishops are neither Pastors nor Doctors for the most of them neither feede nor teach And they be not ashamed to professe it Ann. 1540. or thereabout Thomas Forret Martyr being found fault withall by the Bishop of Dunkelden in Scotland because he preached so oft exhorted the Bishop agayne and wished that he did preach The Bishop answered nay nay let that bee we are not ordayned to preach and in further talke the blind blockish Bishop bewrayed his owne ignorance I thanke God sayth he that I neuer knewe what the olde and newe Testament was Thereupon rose a common prouerbe in Scotland you are like the Bishop of Dunkelden that knewe neither the old nor new lawe Fox Martyrol pag. 1266. With this blind saying of the popish Bishop our countrey men of Rhemes also doe agree which doubt not to say that many which haue no gift to preach yet for their wisedome and gouernment are not vnmeete to be Pastors and Bishops Annot. in 1. Timoth. 5. sect 13. 2 I answere the Iesuite bewrayeth his ignorance in making no difference betweene communis and propria politia ecclesiae the common and speciall policie and office of the Church for there are proper offices and dueties some of Pastors some of gouernours some of other Ministers but this office to be performed in general Councels is not proper to Pastors but common to the whole Church whereupon wee denye that it is Proprium pastorum munus suffragia ferre in concilijs It is not the proper duetie of Pastors to giue voyces and make decrees in Councels 3 By the Iesuites argument the fathers of Basile doe conclude cleane contrarie out of that place 4. Ephes. That because Christ instituted not onely Apostles and Prophets but pastors and teachers for the work of the Ministerie who doubteth say they but that the gouernance also of the Church is committed vnto others together with the Apostles And hence they inferre because the worke of the Ministerie is layd vpon the rest of the Clergie that therefore they ought not to be excluded from Councels Secondly Panormitane in the Councel of Basile thus reasoneth for Bishops that they were the pillars and keyes of heauen and therefore had onely deciding voyces Vnto him answered at that time the wise and couragious Cardinall Arelatensis shewing Augustines iudgement vpon those words I will giue thee the keyes of heauen that the iudiciall power was giuen not onely to Peter but also to the other Apostles to the whole Church the Bishops the Priests Whereupon he inferreth that if the Priests haue a iudicial power in the Church they also ought to haue a determining voyce in Councels Thirdly Lodouicus the Prothonotarie in the same Councel thus argued Albeit sayth hee Christ chose twelue Apostles and 70. Disciples notwithstanding in the setting forth of the Creede onely the Apostles were present thereby giuing example that matters of faith did pertaine onely to the Apostles and so consequently to Bishops To him Arelatensis made this answere First it followed not because the Apostles onely are named that they therefore only were present at the setting forth of the Creede for wee see that Princes beare the name and commendation of many actions which are done notwithstanding by their helpers 2. Lodouicus cannot be ignorant sayth he that there be some articles in the Creede which were not put to by the Apostles but afterward by generall Councels as that part wherein mention is made of the holy Ghost which the Councel of Lions did adde Thus much out of the Councel of Basile The Protestants confession OVr opinion grounded vpon trueth and scripture is this that not onely Bishops but all other pastors admitted to the Councel and the learned and discreete amongst the Lay men ought to haue concluding voyces in Councel and that rather the discussing and consulting of matters pertayneth to the learned Diuines the deciding to all then contrariwise First that inferiour pastors are to bee ioyned with Bishops and Prelates it was amplie proued in the Councel of Basile of the which I haue so often made mention as noble Arelatensis reasoneth thus The dignities of the fathers is not to be respected but the trueth neither will I preferre a lye of any Bishop be he neuer so rich before a veritie or a trueth of a poore Priest this is his first reason that the trueth ought to bee receiued at any mans mouth bee
yeare after Christ and that being expelled the citie by Claudius with the rest of the Iewes he returned to Ierusalem and there spake with Paul and after that went to Rome agayne and there ended his life This answere we shewe to bee very insufficient First Act. 15.2 it appeareth that there was as it were a standing and set councel of the Apostles at Ierusalem of the which Peter was one for the Church thought good to send vp to the Apostles and Elders which were at Ierusalem Secondly till the 18. yeare when this Councel was held it seemeth that Peter had laboured onely or especially amongst the Iewes of whom there were then but fewe at Rome for saith the Apostle he that was mightie in Peter in the Apostleship ouer the circumcision was also mightie in me Gal. 2.8 Therfore Peter was not knowne to haue laboured vntill this time in the circumcision Thirdly afterward it is more like he went to Antiochia then to Rome for after this Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch Gal. 2. Fourthly these are but bare coniectures of our aduersaries and craftie euasion without scripture but seeing we appose them out of scripture it is great reason they should likewise answere vs out of scripture 3 We haue diuers other obections also out of the scriptures as first that if Peter were at Rome it is not like that Paul would leaue him out in his salutation in the end of his Epistle Rō 16. sent to the brethren Our aduersaries answere but very simplie that at that time when S. Paul wrote his Epistle either Peter was not at Rome or els Paul might write some especiall letters to him by himselfe and this Epistle enclosed in them such goodly coniectures they haue But I pray you what needed S. Paul to haue written vnto the Romanes if S. Peter so faithfull and vigilant a Pastor were continually amongst them Other places also of scripture we haue as Philipp 2.20 speaking of Timothy he saith I haue none like minded to him that will faithfully care for your matters Coloss. 4.11 These onely are my workfellowes 2. Timoth. 4.11 onely Luke is with me Ergo Peter all this while was not at Rome for Paul would not haue left him out of the number of his fellowe-helpers at the lest he would not haue commended Timothy though he were a worthie yong man before him That which Bellarmine answereth is iust nothing that S. Paul speaketh in those places onely of his domesticall helpers which did minister vnto him When S. Paul speaketh plainly of his fellowe labourers these onely are my workfellowes to the kingdome of God Coloss. 4.11 An other argumēt doth arise out of S. Pauls words 2. Timoth. 4.16 At my first answering no man assisted me Ergo it is like that Peter was not then at Rome for he would not haue forsaken Paul Bellarmine answereth that he speaketh onely of such fauourers as hee had in Caesars court that they would not make sute for him to the Emperour But this is a weake solution First it appeareth by that which followeth that they left him without helpe in his open Apologie or defence they did not assist me sayth he but the Lord assisted me that is gaue me strength to defend my cause so that the word assisting must bee taken in the same sense before that they fayled him in that wherein God assisted him that is in speaking boldly in the defence of the truth Secondly it is proued by the diuers successe that he had at his first and second answering at the first all left him but at the next many were emboldened through his bonds what to doe more frankly to speake the word Philipp 1.14 Ergo at the first they forsooke him because they were afrayd to speake the word THE SECOND PART WHETHER PETER were Bishop of Rome error 39 OVr aduersaries would gladly bring it about that Peter was Bishop of Rome there enthronised and sate in the Bishoplike chayre many yeares and after left it to his successors 1 The Romane faith was first planted by Peter for he first preached to the Gentiles Act. 15.7 Ergo he was the first Bishop Answere First that Peter first preached to the Gentiles it is contrarie to the storie of the Acts for Paul was conuerted before Peter sawe the vision from heauen Act. 10. before which time Peter made a great question whether it were lawfull to preach to the Gentiles But Paul immediatly after his conuersion preached to the Gentiles Galath 2. therefore before Peter Neither is there any thing to the contrarie Act. 15.7 the Gentiles beleeued by S. Peters mouth as he sayth but not first Secondly that Peter first preached not at Rome it is thus gathered because it is not like that the Christian faith being spread farre abroad could be kept from Rome the space of 12. yeares for so long it was by their account before Peter came to Rome Agayne there were diuers that dwelled at Rome which heard the Apostles speake diuers tongues Act. 2. being straungers then and soiourners at Ierusalem and Rom. 16.7 he maketh mention of Andronicus and Iunia which were in Christ before him By these it is most like that the Christian faith was first sowed at Rome Thirdly it is more like that Paul preached at Rome before Peter for when he came to Rome he called the Iewes together who sayd vnto him that they had heard nothing concerning him by letters or from the brethren out of Iudea Act. 28.22 But if Peter had beene there Paul no doubt should haue been knowne at the least by name The Iewes also say vnto him wee will heare of thee what thou thinkest and some of them were perswaded by Paul some beleeued not It seemeth by this place that the Iewes in Rome had not heard of the Gospell before But if Peter had been amongst them who had an especiall charge of the circumcision he would haue had the greatest care of the Iewes to winne them to Christ. Fourthly though Peter had first preached to the Romanes it would not followe that therefore he was Bishop there for Paul first founded the Church of Ephesus yet they say Iohn was first Bishop there wherefore they should gayne nothing by this argument if it were true but that Peter was the first preacher and conuerter of the Romanes to the faith The Protestants IF wee take the name of Bishop generally for that office which hath the publique cure and charge of soules in that sense we denye not but Peter and the rest of the Apostles may be called Episcopi Bishops as Christ is called the shepheard and Bishop of our soules 1. Pet. 2.23 But taking it strictly for a Bishop of this or that place which is called Episcopus intitulatus a Bishop entituled wee denie that either Peter or Paul were Bishops Fox pag. 15. 1 Paul was Apostolus Gentium the Apostle of the Gentiles and Peter of the circumcision therefore it is more like that Paul was chiefe Pastor of the Romanes because
so exhorteth the superiour Pastors and Bishops to looke to their Clergie as the Rhemists would haue it for S. Peter speaketh of the whole flocke and congregation which cannot bee vnderstood properly of many Ministers dispersed into seuerall places 2 Neither shall wee finde this word Clerus the Clergie properly applied to the Ministers throughout the newe testament let our aduersaries brag neuer so much of scripture as they doe Galat. 6.6 S. Paul vseth these names of difference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the teacher and he that is taught and 1. Corinth 14.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the speaker and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the priuate or vnlettered man So that all their names are giuen in respect of their outward ministerie and calling not in regard of any difference before God For before the Lord as there is neither Graecian nor Iewe bond nor free male nor female so neither is there Clerke or lay man 3 Augustine thus writeth concerning this name Cleros qui sunt in ecclesiastici ministerij gradibus ordinati sic dictos puto quia Matthias sorte electus est in Psal. 67. Clerkes which serue in the Ministerie I thinke were so called because Matthias was chosen by lot See then they are not called Clerkes because they are the Lords lot but because they are allotted and chosen out of the people for that seruice as the Leuites are called the peoples gift Numbers 18.6 and the Priests office an office of seruice not of more merite or holinesse or an office of Lordly preeminence but of ministerie and seruice Augustine therefore hath a notable saying Non nos digni qui pro vobis oremus vos indigni qui pro nobis oretis Psal. 68. We are not onely worthie to pray for you and you vnworthie to pray for vs Auditoribus suis quibus verbum praedicauit se commendauit Apostolus ibid. The Apostle commendeth himselfe to their deuout praiers to whom he preached By this their error is confuted that thinke the prayer of a Priest to be the rather heard for the merite and dignitie of his calling howsoeuer els he be affected in his prayer So the Rhemists say that a prayer not vnderstood profiteth by the vertue of the worke wrought and the office of the Priesthood Annot. 1. Corinth 14. sect 10. THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING the election and institution of Bishops and Pastors THis question hath two parts First of the election generally of Pastors and Ministers Secondly of the election of the Bishop of Rome THE FIRST PART CONCERNING THE ELEction generally of all Bishops and Pastors The Papists error 67 THey say that the election of Bishops neither belongeth to the Clergie nor the people but wholly appertayneth to the Bishop of Rome as for the people they haue they say nothing at all to doe in the election of their pastors or ordayning of them that neither their suffragium consilium or consensus suffrage counsell or consent is to be required Bellarm. de clericis lib. 1. cap. 7. 8. 1 That the people are to be vtterly excluded thus they would proue it Aaron was onely elected of Moses without consent of the people so were the Apostles by our Sauiour Ergo the peoples consent is not required Bellarm. Ans. Who seeth not that there is great difference betweene ordinary and extraordinary callings such as the calling of the Apostles was and Aarons at the first though the office of the high Priest afterward became ordinarie Also it followeth not the Apostles were chosen without consent of the people when there were yet no faithfull and Christian congregations and because they were pastors of the whole world Ergo as well the peoples consent may be wanting in the election of ordinarie Bishops and Pastors which haue their peculiar proper charges and there being now many faithfull and well instructed congregations It is one thing to appoynt Pastors for the Church not yet planted an other thing to constitute them in a Church alreadie reformed and instructed for we reade of nations that haue been conuerted to the faith by those that had no calling of the Church as a great nation of the Indians was by Aedesius and Frumentinus Ruffin lib. 1.9 and the Iberians by a captiue woman Ruffin 1.10 2 The people cannot iudge who are fit to be pastors and their elections are tumultuous as we may reade how in the election of Damasus there were 137. persons slaine and therefore it is not meete nor conuenient that the matter should be committed to the people either to elect or ordayne but whatsoeuer they did in times past it was either by sufferance or negligence of the Bishops Bellarmin cap. 7. Ans. First meere popular elections were neuer allowed in any well ordered Church neither was the allowāce of their pastors wholly referred to the people neither did they beare the chiefe stroke but the election was moderated by the wisedome and grauitie of the Clergie Fulk Tit. 1. sect 2. Secondly the question is not betweene vs concerning the ordayning of pastors for that belonged only to the Eldership and was done by laying on of their hands 1. Timoth. 4.14 but concerning the electing and choosing of them Thirdly neither doe we dispute whether it be conuenient and necessarie at al times but whether it be lawfull for neither doe we affirme that it is of the essence and substance of the calling of ministers to be chosen by the voyces of the people as though they were no ministers but vsurpers and intruders that are not so called but whether it hath been at any time may yet be lawfull to require the consent of the people Fourthly it is false that the people had this right by vsurpation or els sufferance of the Pastors for Cyprian sayth it did De diuina authoritate descendere lib. 1. Epistol 4. That this custome was grounded vpon diuine authoritie yea it was established by the lawes of Kings as there was a lawe made by Lodouicus Pius King of France that Bishops should bee ordayned by the free election of the Clergie and the people ex Ansigis lib. 1. cap. 20. 3 Therefore say they elections of Bishops ought to bee at the Popes assignement for vnto Peter was committed the care of the vniuersall Church when he bad Peter feede his sheepe Hereupon they are bold to affirme that we haue neither true Bishops nor Ministers because they are not lawfully sent that is as they interprete it from the See Apostolike Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 3.8 Rhemist Rom. 10. sect 5. Answere First the charge giuen to Peter beareth no such sense that because Christ bad him feede his sheepe therefore he and his successors should onely haue authoritie to consecrate Ministers for if Peter had it by this grant other Elders and Pastors had it in like sort to whom it as well appertayned to feede the flocke of Christ 1. Peter 5.2 And agayne not Peter onely but the rest also of the Apostles did ordayne and consecrate Pastors