against the invasion of the Rights of the Church of Arles by Anastasius do fully declare the Bishop of Rome had no Superiority by the Law of Christ over any Bishop c. A most weak discourse For admit Anastasius had less prudently dealt with the Church of Arles in changing the Ancient Custom admit a confusion ensued upon this change doth it therefore follow that the Bishop of Rome had no Superiority over any Bishop in the Catholick Church Both Prince and Prelate may out of less fore-sight make a Law damnable to their people Ergo they have no Superiority over them is but a wretched conclusion made by a Doctor of Divinity who if he had read Symmachus his Letter and long it is not he might have found the Popes Superiority asserted thus Relegentes ergo veterum antistitum c. dilectionem tuam enixissime commonemus ut in ordinandis per singulas urbes cana ac reverenda servetur antiquitas nec novella constitutio vetustae sanctionis robur imminuat Reading what was anciently done c. We warn you that in your Ordination through every City Venerable Antiquity be exactly observed and that no new Constitution impair the force of old Ordinances Here are words of Power and Authority Page 68. he cites St. Ignatius and before him St. Denis two Blessed Saints who in the very words the Doctor gives speaks not a syllable for him Next he cites Origen God knows where for he points to no place Then he furnisheth you with Pope Gelasius his Authority and St. Hierom The first saith he is distinct 97. cap duo sunt He mistakes the place it is distinctione 96. rightly cited thus Decreti prima pars distinct 96. cap. 10. Duo sunt the words are these Honor fratres sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati longe erit inferius Episcopal Honour and high Dignity cannot be match'd though compared with Kings and Princes What makes this I pray you to prove that there are no intermedial Degrees between Christ and the poorest Bishop in Europe True it is that the meanest Bishop in the Church for his Character or Dignity of a Bishop precisely considered is equal to the highest so all Priests are in respect of their Characters in Priest-hood yet this shews not but that one Bishop may have a more ample power and jurisdiction then an other I think my Lord of Down and Connor will not equalize himself with the Primative of England every way though if he were a true Bishop as he is none Gelasius his words would be verified Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari The dignity of a Bishop is above comparison c. Now to St. Hierom cited in Ieremiam Homil. I answ Doctor Ieremy surely mistakes St. Hierom I have before me at this moment three Editions of St. Hierom whose Commentaries upon the Prophet Hieremias are divided into 6 books the Chapters handled are the Prophets but there is not one Word or Title of any Homily upon Ieremy I intreat him to direct me to that 7th Homily and because he cites also St. Hierom adversus Luciferianos which hath 8 or 9 Pages in Folio and 8 Chap. I desire he would point me out the page or Chapter I know what he aims at but because the objection is old it shall pass until he please to be more exact in his citations His fling at Bellarm. for speaking Truth deserves no answer nor that of St. Cyprian which he cites in Con. Carth. for who among those he speakes of could with probability make himself a Bishop of Bishops Or by Tyrannical power drive his Collegues to an necessity of Obedience No Pope pretends to this Tyranny CHAP. X. Of St. Gregory's refusing the Title of Universal Bishop Of Fathers asserting the Pope to be Supream Pastor Of the Doctors faulty Quotations NExt page 69. comes that so often answered objection out of St. Gregory who because Iohn Patriarck of Constantinople called himself Universal Bishop said it was a proud profane Sacrilegious Antichristian Title And it was so indeed in this Patriarck who had no right to the Title or thing either To clear the difficulty be pleased to know that this word Universalis may have a triple sence First it may signifie Unum Solum singulare one sole singular so we speak usually Universalis Ecclesia id est una tantum extra quam non est salus One Church only Universal out of which is no Salvation Whosoever therefore assumes to himself the Title of Universal Bishop in this sence importing that he is the sole only and singular Patriarck and that other Bishops are no more but suffragans or delegates is both Sacrilegious and Antichristian Sacrilegious because engrossing to himself the sole power he robs his Brethren of their true dignity Antichristian because he opposeth Christ who appointed Bishops with their respective power and jurisdiction to govern as spiritual Princes in the Church Now that the Patriarck of Constantinople arrogated to himself such an ample power may be proved out of St. Gregory in that often cited Epistle to Mauritius Nullus saith the Saint eorum unquam hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit nec uti consensit No one ever assum'd or consented to use that word of Singularity and mark the reason Ne dum privatim uni aliquid daretur honore debito privarentur universi Least whilst something is given to one privately the General or Universal are depriv'd of their due honour And a little before Si igitur illud nomen in ea Ecclesia sibi quisquam arripit Universa Ecclesia quod absit a statu suo corruit quando qui appellabatur Universalis cadit If therefore any one takes to himself that name in the Church the Universal Church which God forbid must fall when he that was call'd Universal falls More to this purpose you may see Apud Gratianum distinctione 991. But no where speaks St. Gregory clearer then in his 4th Book of his Epistles writing to John Qui indignum te fatebaris ut Episcopus dici debuisses ad hoc quandoque perdactus es ut dispectis fraâ—ribus Episcopus appetas solus vocari Thou who didst confess thy self unworthy to be call'd a Bishop art now come to this that dispising the Brethren then covetest to be call'd the only Bishop Evident therefore it is out of St. Gregory that this ambitious Patriarck with contempt of his Brethren would be the sole and only Bishop which is Sacrilegious and Antichristian and neither due to Pope nor Patriarck 2. The Title of Universal may render you a sence that savors of Pride Hautiness and Prophaness and therefore as Remundus Rufus observes it was often used by the Roman Emperours and sounds high in the Greek Language Be pleased to hear Remumdus his own words pag. 26. circa medium Et ille Ioannes cum Graecus esset utebatur graeca voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
quae non aliud significat quam mundi vel orbis terrarum patriarcham 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enim orbis terrarum est Latine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Universalis dicitur ut Pelagius Gregorius interpretabantur And John being a Graecian used the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies no other but Patriarck of the whole World for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Universal World and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine imports Universal as Pelagius and Gregory did interpret the word This Title also as Secular and Prophane St. Gregory rejected 3. The word Universal or Universalis Episcopus without any ill sence at all may signifie that ample Power and spiritual jurisdiction which Christ's Vicar here on Earth hath over the Church and under this notion the Fathers assembled in the Council of Calcedon offered it to Pope Leo in these words Sancto amantissimo Domino Leoni Universali Episcopo Romae c. To the Holy and most belov'd Leo Universal Bishop of Rome c. Certainly those Grave and Learned Fathers cannot be supposed either to have flattered the Pope or given him a prophane Title or the Title of sole and only Bishop assum'd by Iohn of Constantinople Well Leo refused the Title and why either because it seemed new to him or because it had not been given to his predecessors by any solemn and publick Rite in former ages or finally because the blessed man waved it out of Humility Admit that St. Gregory did so likewise upon the like Motives doth it follow that he yeilds up his Supremacy No he asserts this Supremacy over and over writing to Mauritius Petro Apostolorum principi cum totius Ecclesiae principatus committitur tamen Universalis Apostolus non vocatur vir sanctissimus consacerdos meus Ioannes vocari Universalis Episcopus conatur When the Principality of the Church was commited to Peter chief of the Apostles he was not called Universal Apostle and John my fellow Priest endeavours to be called universal Bishop Now the Saint saith That he knows no Bishop that is not subject to the Seat Apostolick Now That the Seat of Constantinople is also subject to him Now That it is lawful for none to transgress the Laws of that Seat Nec nostrae dispositionis ministerium Much more to this purpose you have in every Writer on this subject The Authorities are known and vulgar This truth supposed let us see the force of the Doctors Argument which must be this or nothing St. Gregory refused the Title of Universal Bishop Ergo he denyed his Supremacy over the Church In answer I plainly deny the consequence and say that the Saint by refusing a Title which might seem new to him and which his Predecessors had not by solemn Rite or finally out of the motive of Humility doth not therefore deny his Power and Supremacy over the Church whereunto positively he laies claim so often A Principality stands good entire and unshaken Though an innocent Title harmlesly expresing that Principality be for some reason refus'd by him who justly possesses the Principality His Majesty King Charles the Second is now absolute Monarch and Soveraign over his Kingdoms and is rightly stiled King of England c. Put case that either Parliament or People should go about to invest him with a New Title and call him Emperour of England Scotland France and Ireland might not his Majesty refuse this Title which neither adds to nor deminishes his regal Power without denying his Soveraignity This is our case in St. Gregory who as he never laid claim to be Sole Bishop of the World nor to any prophane Title so he never left off to maintain his due of Spiritual Principality over the Church Thus much is said in case it can be shewed that St. Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop in the last sence above mentioned For by what I have yet read he rejects it only in opposition to Iohn or in that sence in which this ambitious Prelate laid claim to it The Doctor pag. 70. cites St. Chrisostom in cap. 1. Act. Apost Hom. 3. Answer St. Chrisostom treats in that passage of electing one in the place of Iudas and hath these words Illud considera quà m Petrus agit omnia ex Communi discipulorum sententia nihil Authoritate sua nihil cum imperio Nothing by his own Authority which the Doctor more carefully then sincerely translates nothing by special Authority intimating as I conceive no special Authority given to St. Peter whereas those words Nothing by his own Original Authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 evidently suppose both Power and Authority in St. Peter for no Prince can properly be said not to do a thing by his own Authority only but with the advise of his Counsel unless he be supposed to have Authority which is here evidenced in St. Peter by the next ensuing words of St. Chrisostom Neque simpliciter dixit hunc in locum Iudae sufficimus sed consolans illos c. As who should say St. Peter used not the Power he had in this Election but rather sought the comfort of his fellow Disciples who were much disanimated at the fall of Judas Here by the way observe a most weak kind of arguing in our Doctor St. Peter did all in this particular by common consent of the Apostles nothing by his own Power or Command Ergo he had not the Power why because he used it not Is this a tollerable discourse A Prince concludes of some weighty Affair See the Supremacy of St. Peter amply confirmed by St. Chrisostom upon the Acts even in Sir Henry Savils Edition Tom. 4. pag. 624. and 625. cheifly at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 22. Again n. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Afterwards pag. 625. at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. by and with the advice of his counsel not by his own Authority Ergo he hath not this Power Doth the not actual using of Power and Authority either imply or argue the not having of it Toyes Had our good Doctor but cast his Eyes upon St. Chrisostom's Doctrine delivered a few lines above the place now quoted he would have found St. Peters Authority made good in these words Quà m est fervidus Quà m agnoscit creditum a Christo gregem Quà m in hoc choro princeps est ubique primus omnium incipit loqui How fervent is St. Peter How doth he acknowledge or own the Flock committed to him by Christ In this assembly he was Prince and chief and everywhere first of all begins to speak Here is enough to silence the Doctor Who cites next Melchior Canus de loc is Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 8. There is saith he no Scripture no Revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed St. Peter in it Answer Here is an Emphasis too much no Scripture no Revelation and that left out of Canus which moderates all Canus his words are these Illud
so really is this very sentence if you 'll compare it with those following words of St. Chrisostom in Frobens Edition Hoc est super confessionem super sermones pietatis c. That is Christ built his Church not upon the man as man but upon Peter confessing and piously acknowledging his Saviours Divinity which Flesh and Blood taught him not c. You see therefore a sentence weighed out of its circumstances changes often most blamless Doctrine and speaks well with them less well without them One only instance in Doctor Taylors 167. page shall serve for our purpose where he cites Bellarmine thus If the Pope should Err by commanding sin and forbiding Virtue the whole Church were bound to believe that Vices were good and Virtue evil unless she would sin against her Conscience These words are Bellarmin's and as they stand in the Doctor sound harshly and therefore he Quotes them but read in Bellarmine they have an excellent sence and directly prove that neither Church nor Pope can Err whereof see more in the 28. Chapter of this Treatise So true it is that words as they run on in the Context of an Author are often harmless though stript of their adjuncta they may prove hurtful to a less diligent Reader Our Doctor in his Disswasive is almost endless with these maimed and half-quoted Authorities Observe lastly good Reader how unworthily the Doctor pag. 13. deals with Sixtus Senensis by turning the Genuine sence of his words into another highly injurious Mark I beseech you Sixtus Praiseth Pope Pius the 5th for purging the Ancient Fathers vitiated by modern Hereticks c. But our Doctor for sooth will not allow him this sence but makes him speak as if he extolled the Pope for razing out the Fathers own Doctrine To know the truth read Sixtus his Epistle Dedicatory it is before his Bibliotheca where he speaks thus to Pius Quintus Deinde expurgari emaculari curasti omnia Catholicorum Scriptorum ac praecipuè Veterum Patrum Scripta haereticorum aetatis nostrae faecibus contaminata venenis infecta You have caused saith he all the writings of Catholick Authors and chiefly the Ancient Fathers stained with the dreggs of Hereticks in this our Age and poysoned with their Venome to be purged and made clear from blemish What is here more offensive then to take Poyson out of a sound body Yet our Doctor to perswade the world that Popes are ever busie in cancelating the Records of Antiquity gives you only Sixtus his first words You have purged the Ancient Fathers c. and there fraudulently leaves of utterly concealing what follows and clears all Hereticorum faecibus contaminata c. that is You have purged the Ancient Fathers contaminated with Heresie in these our days Briefly then our Doctor by this Quotation would either have his Reader judge that Sixtus praised the Pope for blotting out the Authentick writings of the Fathers or only for purging them from later Heresie If the second its worthy praise if the first viz. that the Pope is here commended for blotting out the writings of the Ancient Fathers which is the only thing aim'd at I do affirm this a flat corruption a wrong as you see to Sixtus A ginne to catch the unwary Reader and therefore deplorable in a Doctor of Divinity What is further opposed in that 13. page of places razed out of St. Austin is an Error read the above mentioned Expurgatory Index pag. 37. and you shall find the correction to be made upon Erasmus and Ludovicus his Notes not on St. Austins words and page the 39 you have Cluadius Chevalonius his Index upon St. Austin amended not any syllable of the Saint's corrected And this is the first which our Doctor storms at Solus Deus est adorandus God only is to be adored Frobens Indices mentioned in the same page of our Doctor deserved correction wholly contrary to the Originals CHAP. III. The Doctors Quotations not right Prayer for the dead proves a Purgatory TO what the Doctor hath in his 2d Section page the 14th concerning the power of making new Articles we have answered already and say that the Church coyns no Novelty yet may explicitly declare what anciently was believed implicitly The Declaration is new the substance of the Article as old as Christianity In the next page after he had a fling at a new Article ready for stamp concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin which is more then he knows He passeth to his third Section of Indulgences page 16. where he cites St. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence parte 1. summae cap. 3. saying We have nothing expresly for Indulgences in Scripture c. The Doctor omits what follows immediately quamvis ad hoc inducatur illud Apostoli 2. cor 2. si quid donavi vobis propter vos in persona Christi Although saith Antoninus that of the Apostle is alledged si quid c. He cites again our Bishop Fisher in Art 18. Lutheri to this sence At the beginning of the Church there was no use of Indulgences Answer he saith it not so absolutely but with this interrogation Quis jam de Indulgentjis mirari potest and expresly in the beginning of that Article hath these words Fuit tamen non nullus earum usus ut aiunt apud Romanos vetustissimus quod vel ex stationibus in urbe frequentissimis intelligi datur There was as they say a most ancient Use and Practise of these Indulgences at Rome which thing the most frequented Stations of that City gives us to understand In the rest of that Section he hath only Vulgar Objections answered over and over and a number of calumnies a rising from the misunderstanding of Catholick Doctrine I therefore leave him for it is not my task to repeat what hath been most largely writ concerning Indulgences by others What I find more material in the Doctors fourth Section is page 27. Where he tells us our Writers vainly suppose that when the H. Fathers speak of Prayer for the dead they conclude for Purgatory For it is true saith he the Fathers did Pray for the dead But how that God would shew them Mercy and hasten their Resurrection c. Mark well that God would shew them Mercy whence I argue if the Souls prayed for be in Heaven they have Mercy the sentence is given for their Eternal happiness if in Hell they are wholly destitute of Mercy vain therefore were the Prayers of the Fathers for Mercy unless there be a third place where mercy can be shewed them I would willingly know of the Doctor if he would deal candidly what St. Austins ingenious meaning was when he prayed thus for his Mother Monica lib. 9. confess cap. 13. Dimitte illi tu debita sua si qua etiam contraxerit post tot annos post aquam salutis Forgive my Mother her debts if she hath after so many years contracted any since Baptism What are these debts Again
St. Cyprian and St. Hierom now cited Hoc erant utique saith the first caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti That is equal in this fellowship and office of being Apostles Sed Primatus Petro datur But the Primacy is given to Peter Where you see that Cyprian clearly grants an equality common to the whole Colledge of Apostles and withal establisheth a Superiority proper to St. Peter only either the words of this Saint are senceless or the distinction of equality in many and Supremacy in one must stand And In this sence St. Hieroms Doctrine is most significant without gloss or wresting one syllable Ex aequo super eos c. The strength of the Church was equally built upon the Apostles viz. as Masters as Doctors and Teachers illuminated by the Holy Ghost yet therefore among twelve One was chosen that a Head or Governer being constituted all occasion of schism might be prevented Here is certainly more then that Dimunitive orderly Precedency our Doctor allows good St. Peter Ut schismatis tollatur occasio are significant words and point at what is most essential to the Church The Unity of it See the absolute necessity of this Head in order to Unity most solidly laid out by S. G. and remember well what I was to shew that St. Hierom acknowledgeth an equality amongst many and a Supremacy in One. Once more I repeat it equality relates to their Apostolical dignity Supremacy to the Head and Governour 2. I draw this distinction of Apostles-ship in All and Head-ship in One from St. Gregory the Great lib. 2. Epist 38. indictione 13. so it is with me in his works printed at Antwerp anno 1572. though others cite lib. 4. Certe saith the Saint Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae Universalis Ecclesiae est Paulus Ioannes Andreas quid aliud quam singularium sant capita tamen sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae St. Peter is the first Member of the Universal Church the other Apostles not so nor in like manner Universal Yet with this Supremacy in Peter our Opponent must acknowledge an equality of their Apostle-ship I will add one word more and tell you though the Doctor should alledge out of some Fathers that St. Paul may be rightly stiled the Head of Nations and be said to have had a Principality over the Church yet the difference between him and St. Peter is most remarkable St. Paul and the other Apostles had this Principality as Legats by extraordinary concession St. Peter had it over the whole Church in solidum yes over the Apostles themselves as Pastor Ordinary I say Over the Apostles themselves so Anacletus Scholler to St. Prter cited by Remumdus Rufus in Molinaeum pag. 86. Inter beatos Apostolos saith he fuit quaedam discretio licet omnes essent Apostoli Petro tamen a Domino est consessum ipsi inter se voluerunt id ipsum ut reliquis praeesset Apostolis Cephas id est caput principium teneret Apostolatus There was a difference a distinction among the Blessed Apostles and although all were Apostles yet our Lord gave to Peter and the other Apostles among themselves will'd the same thing that Peter should be Superiour to the rest and Cephas that is Head and chief of Apostleship See this Authority more largely in the Cannon Law Decreti prima par distinct 22. cap. 2. and never leaveâ— of to wonder at the bold assertion of our Doctor pag. 65. viz. That by the Law of Christ one Bishop is not Superiour to another Christ gave the Power to all alike he made no Head of the Bishops he gave to none a Supremacy of Power c. So the Doctor In the same pag. 65. he fills his Margent with a cluster of Authors but to what purpose God only knows if they be to prove that Apostolical power is and shall be ever in the Church We grant it to the Pope of Rome If to prove that Bishops succeed the Apostles in all priviledges and ample power they had in the Church not one Father in the Doctors Margent asserts it though in a real sence Bishops that have a true mission may be called the Apostles successors by reason of their duty which is to uphold the Doctrine of Christ taught by the Apostles by reason of their spiritual power and Princely and Priestly Dignity and this is all St. Irenaeus saith in the place cited by the Doctor lib. 4. cap. 43. Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sunt Praesbiteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis Wherefore we ought to obey those who are Priests in the Church those who have succession from the Apostles Thus St. Irenaeus and the other Fathers say no more I see not to what purpose the Doctor cites those words of St. Paul We are Embassadors or Legats for Christ unless it be to prove what I asserted above that the other Apostles though Princes of the Church were not Pastors Ordinary as St. Peter was Less do I know why the Preface of the Mass Quos operis tui vicarios c. is brought in Pastors they were but all subordinate to St. Peter as I have shewed In his pag. 66. he jerks the Jesuits Monks and Cajetane for defending the Popes Authority over Bishops But frivolous stories are but weak Arguments yet the best the Doctor hath at hand Next he cites Pope Elutherius saying That Christ committed the Universal Church to Bishops How good Doctor That every Bishop hath jurisdiction over the Universal Church T is very strange the Bishop of Down and Connor will not pretend to such a power Christ indeed committed the Universal Church to Bishops by parts or portions whereof the whole Church is made yet ever with subordination to one head which prevents schism and conserves Unity Page 67. he cites the famous words of St. Cyprian The Church of Christ is one through the whole world divided by him into many members and the Bishoprick is but one c. No hurt in this which makes against the Doctor for if the whole Church of Christ be rightly called one Bishoprick there must be certainly one Head over so Vast a Bishoprick no other can be but the Pope who Governs in Ecclesiastical affaires Other Bishops have only a portion in the Flock He next cites you Pope Symmachus his words apud Baronium Tomo 6. anno D. 499. num 36. but falsly for Symmachus writing to Eonius speaks thus Nam dum ad Trinitatis instar cujus una est atque individua potestas unum sit per diversos Antistites sacerdotium As in the Blessed Trinity whose Power is one and individual so their is one Priest-hood our Doctor reads one Bishoprick amongst divers Bishops and thus he reads after he had thrust in a Parenthesis of his own head not in Symmachus his Letter But the worst is the inference he draws from Symmachus his words They being spoken saith he