Selected quad for the lemma: virtue_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
virtue_n	power_n	spiritual_a	temporal_a	1,927	5	9.8031	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20944	A defence of the Catholicke faith contained in the booke of the most mightie, and most gracious King Iames the first, King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, defender of the faith. Against the answere of N. Coeffeteau, Doctor of Diuinitie, and vicar generall of the Dominican preaching friars. / Written in French, by Pierre Du Moulin, minister of the word of God in the church of Paris. Translated into English according to his first coppie, by himselfe reuiewed and corrected.; Defense de la foy catholique. Book 1-2. English	Du Moulin, Pierre, 1568-1658.; Sanford, John, 1564 or 5-1629.	1610 (1610)	STC 7322; ESTC S111072	293,192	506

seeing that the thing can no wayes belong to mee in what sort soeuer Furthermore Bellarmine by this distinction hath no meaning to contradict the Popes whom we haue produced who speake of Kings as of their subiects and terme themselues Soueraignes in temporall affaires so that this commeth all to one It bootes not to dispute of the excellency of the spirituall power aboue the Ciuil by comparing as did Innocent the third the Pope to the Sunne and the Emperour to the Moone for albeit this were so yet doth not the excellency of one thing aboue another necessarily import that one must therefore gouerne another for if I say that the faculty of Diuinity is more noble and more excellent then the care and custody of the Kings Treasure must it needes therefore follow that Diuines and Clergy men must sway the Kings Exchequer And as litle to the purpose is it to alleadge that the temporall power is subiect to the spirituall for the question is not whether it be simply subiect vnto it but whether it be subiect to it in temporall things and with what punishments the Pastor of the Church may punish the Magistrate when he forgetteth his duety Foüiller en sa bourse to wit whether by depriuing him of his estates or by fingering his purse this is the point of the question which Bellarmine was to proue and not to suppose For what authority soeuer God hath giuen to faithfull Pastors ouer the Magistrates as they are Christians yet doe they not let for all that to be subiect to the Magistrates as they are Citizens and make a part of the Common-wealth A king that is sicke is for the time subiect to the gouernement of his Physitians and yet they neuertheles remaine his subiects As then the Temporall gouernement doth not impose spirituall punishments so the spirituall gouernement cannot impose temporall punishments vnlesse it be sometimes by miracle as S. Peter did vpon Ananias and Sapphira for ordinary power he hath none to doe it neyther doth the word of God giue him any Now if the Pope by vertue of his keyes of which he so much boasteth could dispossesse a King of his Kingdome for any fault whether it be true or pretended it should thence follow that he hath a greater power ouer Kings then oner priuate and particular men from whom he cannot by way of Penance plucke away their lands or houses to giue them to their neighbours for if it were so the Pope should be the direct Lord of all the lands and possessions of Christendome And seeing it is generally confessed that the Heathen Emperours were not subiect to the Bishops in temporall matters can it stand with reason that Princes by being become Christians should become lesse Soueraignes then they were before and that the faith of Iesus Christ should diminish their Empire I am not ignorant that the Prince ought so to administer temporall things that the spirituall administration be not thereby impeached I know also that if Princes offend God it belongeth to the Pastors not to be silent but to oppose themselues against that euil by al those wayes means which God hath permitted which are courses ful of all respect and farre from any rebellion and sedition The faithfull Pastor that shall least of all flatter the Magistrate in his vices is the man that shall carefully retaine the people in their obedience towards the Magistrate and shall keepe that golden meane which is betweene flattery and sedition As he must not be a dumbe dogge so must he not be a furious beast that had neede to be tyed vp And to the end that you may know that these two kindes of subiection doe not iustle or shoulder each other as incompatible I say that the Princes and the Pastors in a State are as the will and vnderstanding in the soule of a man The will commandeth the vnderstanding with an absolute commaund which the Greekes call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lord-like inioyning it to study or to learne this or that thing But the vnderstanding on the other side leadeth on the will by suggestion without commaund the one is done by authority the other by perswasion So Princes command Pastors Pastors sollicite and intreate Princes The respect which Princes owe vnto them is not to their persons but to their charge and calling and to the word or message which they bring for they be not the candle it selfe but onely the Candlesticke on which it is set Ioh. 1. ver 8. sent as our Sauiour saith of S. Iohn not to be the light but to beare witnesse of the light Howbeit this comparison taken from the vnderstanding and the will doth halt in more then one point for the will cannot constraine the vnderstanding but Princes may compell Pastors to obey their lawes and to punish them corporally when they doe amisse Againe the vnderstanding is to guide the will in al things but the Prince in an infinite of businesse may do well enough without the helpe and counsell of his Clergy especially in affaires that are temporall and meerely ciuill Againe the will doth neuer teach the vnderstanding for it consisteth wholly in motion and action but many Princes haue reformed their Pastors and brought them back to their dueties as did Constantine who in the Councell of Nice stifeled and smothered vp all quarrels among the Bishops by casting their diffamatorie libels into the fire as did Dauid who erected new orders in the Temple and as did Salomon who deposed Abiathar from the Priesthood being attainted of conspiracy against him And likewise Ezechias and Ichosaphat who clensed the Temple and set vp the purity of Gods seruice againe In this sense a Synodall Epistle written to Lewes the Courteous calleth him Rectorem Ecclesiae gouernor of the Church And Lewes his young sonne being at Pauia tooke an account of the liues of the Bishops and of their diligence in their charge as Sigonius witnesseth in the yeare 855. The same Authour saith in his seuenth booke that Adrian conferred vpon Charlemaigne the honour of gouerneing the Church and of choosing the Bishoppe of Rome not that he might change the doctrine of the Church at his pleasure but only to hold a strait hand for the execution of the things which were enioyned by the word of God But Bellarmine addeth for a second reason That if the Church that is to say the Pope had not the power to dispose of temporall things it could neuer attaine to perfection but should want necessary power to arriue at her intended end For saith he wicked Princes might without feare of punishment intertaine heretickes to the ouerthrow of Religion This is a reason without reason and full of impiety for it accuseth the Church which was in the Apostles times of imperfection which then had no power at all ouer the Temporalty all things being then in the handes of Infidels Add hereunto that Kings might vse the same reason and say that their power could not

of Iesus Christ is not destroyed in the Masse it followes that the naturall essence of Iesus Christ is not offered in the Masse and then is it another sacrifice then that of the Crosse where he offered his essentiall being Secondly For it is certaine that that is the destruction of Christs naturall being which is the price of our redemption and then if the Masse doe offer and sacrifice another essence of Christ then doth it not offer the price of our redemption Thirdly Besides this Sacramentall essence is a meere Chimera for one man can haue but one being 2. de Consecrat Can. Sacrificium This is taken out of S. Austin l. 10. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 5. Epist 5 Scotus in 4. dist 10. Quest 5. Oculi Christi subspecie panis non recipiunt obiecta c. Quaest 7. Corpus Christi vt hic non respirat aerem c. §. Aly vi verborum Hoc est corpus meum solum Christi corpus sine anima sine sanguine incipit esse inaltari vi aliorum verborum Hic est sangurs incipit sanguis solus seorsim a corpore esse in altari because it is the being that makes him to be one man Fourthly And seeing the Sacrament by the definition of the Church of Rome doth signifie a holy signe then a Sacramental being must signifie a being significatiue which is open mockerie Fiftly Yea this Sacramentall being of Iesus Christ which is said to be in the Masse cannot be significatiue or representatiue for whatsoeuer representeth any thing ought to be visible but this Sacramentall being is altogether inuisible Sixtly And that which representeth a thing ought to resemble it but this sacramental being is contrary to the naturall being for the natural being giues vnto Christ longitude latitude situation of partes power of mouing seeing speaking and breathing but contratiwise the Sacramentall being depriues him of all these 16 I would willingly know if this speech of Bellarmines be allowed also by their other Doctors namely that By vertue of these wordes hoc est corpus meum the bodie of Christ begins to be vpon the altar without the soule and without blood And that by the vertue of these wordes Hic est sanguis This is the bloud that the bloud begins to be alone and diuided from the body vpon the Altar For if this be so the Masse doth sacrifice a dead body but a liuing and passiue body was offered vpon the Crosse therefore is it not one and the same sacrifice 17 Our aduersaries being thus vrged and extremely perplexed at length they are forced to yeeld and as the Stagge being tyred doth sometimes yeelde himselfe to the Hunters so they vnable to resist so euident a truth they fairely come ouer to our side which is a point whereof I pray the Reader to consider Our aduersaries say that the sacrifice of the Crosse and the sacrifice of the Masse are one sacrifice and that the sacrifice of the Crosse is re-iterated in the Masse but the truth is so strong and the euidence thereof so plaine to the contrary that oftentimes it slips from them and they giue sentence against themselues For the Councell of Trent Ses 22. cap. 1. saith that Christ hath left vnto his Church a sacrifice by which the bloudy sacrifice which he was to make vpon the Crosse was represented and the memory thereof perpetuated The same Councell addeth that the sacrifice of the Crosse and the vertue thereof is applyed vnto vs by this sacrifice And this doe we beleeue and many of ours haue beene burned for so saying And indeed if the Eucharist be the commemoration and application of the Sacrifice of the Crosse it is then certaine that it is not the same sacrifice with that of the Crosse and that it cannot be a sacrifice propitiatory First for the commemoration of a thing is not the thing it selfe the commemoration of a battell is not a battell the commemoration of a sacrifice is not the same sacrifice Secondly In like manner the application of a thing is not the thing it selfe the application of a fashion is not the fashion the application of a Plaister is not the Playster the application of the propitiatory sacrifice of Iesus Christ is not the propitiatory sacrifice of Iesus Christ Thidly Which is most true in matter of payment for the Sacrifice of Christ is the payment ransome for our soules being cleare that the commemoration of a payment is not the payment to remember a payment it needes not to begin it againe and the Priest doth but mocke with God if he thinke eyther to pay him or redeeme vs by a commemoration Fourthly if the sacrifice propitiatory of Iesus Christ be applyed in the Masse then certainly it is not re-iterated for a thing is not reiterated by the application thereof a medicine is not re-iterated by applying it to re-iterate a writing or a sacrifice to apply it this needes purgation more then refutation Let them learne then to speake things in congruity for they must of necessity eyther say that the Masse is neyther application nor commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse or if in that point they be vnremoueable let them confesse that it is not the Sacrifice of Christ nor a sacrifice propitiatory Fiftly and finally if they will needes haue that the death of Christ is applied vnto vs by sacrificing they must shew out of the Scripture that God will haue it so applyed We finde in the Scripture that Iesus Christ is applyed vnto vs and that wee haue communion with him by baptisme Gal. 3.27 1. Cor. 10 16. Ioh. 14.23 Ephes 3.17 by breaking of bread by the word and by faith but of application by sacrificing not a word All which already said is more then sufficient to discouer the abuse and conuince the falshood If they will yet haue any ouer-measure to make the strangenesse of their errour more plaine Then if the Masse be truely and properly a Sacrifice wherin Christ Iesus is sacrificed for a Sacrifice propitiatory for our redemption they must of necessity tell vs in what action this Sacrifice consisteth and that they shewe vs in the institution of the Eucharist which is comprized in the Gospell what were the actions by which Iesus was sacrificed Cardinall Bellarmine after hee hath beene a long while tormented about the matter §. Haec mihi in the last chapter of the first booke of the Masse in the end he fals vpon the opinion of Thomas who sayth that the sacrifice consisteth in these three things in the breaking blessing and eating of the bread But he attributes the principall essence of the Sacrifice to the blessing or consecration which is worthy the examination Of the breaking Touching the fraction or the action of breaking the host it is not onely not of the essence of the sacrifice but also it cannot be an action necessarily in the sacrifice 1. for if by chaunce the Priest let fall

should haue beene sacrificers as well as the Priests fiftly We know also that the Israelites did often eate things sacrificed in their priuate houses as the woman mentioned Prou. 7. I haue with me sacrifices of prosperity I haue paide my vowes Whence I gather that if eating be sacrificing it must follow that women did sacrifice in their houses which is contrary to the law and without example The sacrifice of the Masse being built on no foundation and being an Altar erected against the onely Altar which is the Crosse of our Sauiour an Altar newly built vpon the ruines of the Gospell yea being the crosse of the Crosse of Christ and an annihilating of his death it hath not come to passe without the iust iudgement of God that they themselues haue let fall the price thereof so low employing it for the healing of Horses the preseruing of Sheepe for blasted corne and for frost-bitten Vines as a general salue for euery sore But Christ Iesus instituted the Supper for a memoriall of himselfe and to shew forth his death till he come There is also good reason why so many Masses are required to free one single soule out of Purgatory and why they make this sacrifice so infinitely inferiour in vertue to that of the Crosse which yet should not be so if it be the same sacrifice and consequently the same price of a redemption neyther doth it serue the turne to say that the sacrifice of the Crosse is of more efficacy because Christ Iesus did immediately offer it wheras this is offered by the mynistery of a Priest for a payment or ransome whether I doe immediately pay it my selfe or send another to carry or tell the money is of like validity I do also exceedingly wonder that the Church of Rome establishing in the Eucharist both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice which are made one action that yet it makes so great a difference betweene them both in vertue and efficacy greatly vnder valuing the efficacy of the Sacrament saying that it serues onely for petty sinnes which they terme veniall and of which a mans conscience is already discharged that is to say it is a plaster for wounds perfectly healed Bellar. l. 4. de Eucharist cap. 17. 18. a remedy for euils passed a discharge of burdens already vnloaded But touching the sacrifice of the Masse the Councel of Trent Session 22. cap. 2. saith that by this Sacrifice the most hey nous sinnes are remitted And this Sacrifice is profitably offered for them that are absent yea for the dead yea for them that make a mocke of it for Masses are sung for Infidels and prophane persons and this sacrifice is of force say they Ex opere opera to the disposition of the partie for whom the Masse is said not being necessarily required thereunto To what end is all this but to debase the power of a Sacrament instituted by God and to enhance the vertue of a sacrifice inuented by man And because the Sacrament cannot be bestowed vpon the dead but Masses are solde both for the dead and for the liuing And out of what passage of Scripture haue they extracted so nice a difference between the efficacy of he one and of the other But this is sufficient for souldiers that forsake the fielde for Bellarmine and his associates lighting vpon this subiect they wander in large impertinent questions which make nothing to the point in controuersie they winde vp long Discourses to proue that the death of Iesus Christ is a sacrifice a point denyed not by any that the Eucharist is a sacrifice which is true but it is a sacrifice Eucharisticall that is to say a giuing of thankes and as it is called in the Masse Sacrificium laudis a Sacrifice of praise Againe they bring the sacrifice of Melchisedech and the figure of the Passeouer and the sacrifices of the law which they say prefigured the sacrifice of the new Testament with diuers places of the Prophets especially that of Malachy which foretell the sacrifice of the New Testament with many such like things wherein howbeit they deliuer the truth yet doe they not helpe themselues thereby because it is all beside the purpose and comes not neere the point that is controuerted for although the Masse were the sacrifice of Melchisedech and the sacrifice forespoken of by Malachy and prefigured by the Passeouer yet is it not proued thereby that Christ ought to be really sacrificed vnder the formes of bread and wine nor that the sacrifice of the Masse is propitiatory for the redemption of soules Reade Bellarmine who hath compiled two great Bookes of the Masse wherein he is copious in impertinent proofes but you shall not finde in him any answere to the Arguments which I haue formerly alleadged which are the very sinewes of the body of this disputation the armor of proofe of the holy truth for none among them could euer yet satisfie these obiections And out of him is it that Coeffeteau hath collected a number of the Fathers whereof some make against him some are vntrue and others impertinent It makes against him which hee alleadgeth out of Iustin Martyr against Tryphon saying Malachy speaketh prophetically of the Sacrifices which we offer Suis discipulis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis non quesi indigenti sed vt ipsi nec infructuosi nec ingrati sint Noui Testamenti nouam doeuit oblationemq uā Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in 〈◊〉 niuers● mundo offert Deo ei qui alimenta nobis praestat primitias suoram munerū namely the bread and wine in the Eucharist Surely if this be a sacrifice of bread and wine then is it no sacrifice propitiatory wherein Iesus Christ is really sacrificed The second place is out of Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 32. which Coeffeteau by his shamefull wrangling hath falsified Irenaeus saith Christ counselling his Disciples to offer vnto God the first fruites of his creatures not because he hath any neede of them but that they might not be vnthankefull or vnfruitfull tooke bread among the creatures which are common amongst vs and gaue thankes saying This is my body and likewise tooke the cup among the creatures which are common among vs and said it was his blood and hath taught a new offering of the new Testament which the Church hauing receiued of the Apostles doth throughout the world offer vnto God which bestoweth vpon vs the first fruites of his gifts From this place doth Coeffeteau cut off the three first lines which say that this sacrifice is an offering of the first fruites of his creatures that is to say of bread and wine and the last line which affirmeth the same for we shall see hereafter that the manner of the auncients was for the people to come and offer bread and wine and fruit vpon the Table of the holy Supper which offering was called the sacrifice of the Eucharist that is a giuing of thankes Concerning

him be deposed Or if he be a Lay-man let him be excommunicated Would they thus haue spoken if they had beleeued the Pope to haue beene their Superiour or the Church of Rome cheefe ouer other Churches and that it could not erre That the Passages of the Fathers alleadged by Coeffeteau for the Primacy of S. Peter are partly false Fol. 77. 78. partly maymed and partly impertinent FRom this point Doctor Coeffeteau passeth ouer to the Primacy of S. Peter Fol. 76. howbeit before he commeth thereto he giueth in passing by a blow to his Holinesse affirming that he is not Lord ouer any Towne thus doth he dispute the Souerainty of the City of Rome Wee leaue themselues to cleare this doubt and end this Processe He alleadgeth then for the Primacy of S. Peter the 11. Homily of S. Chrysostome and that very falsely for in all the Homily there is no mention of S. Peter nor of his Primacy But Bellarmine did deceiue him out of whom Coeffeteau copied his allegations This other is like it S. Cyprian saith Coeffeteau affirmeth Hoc erant vtique caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis sed exordium ab vn●tate profici● cit●r v●●●●●●sia vna monstretur that the other Apostles were certainly the same that S. Peter was fellowes and partners of his honour and of his power but the beginning proceedeth from Vnitie and therefore the Primacy was giuen to S. Peter the true reading is this the Apostles inde de were the same things that S. Peter was hauing ONE EQVALL SOCIETY In honour and in power but the beginning was made by one to shew the vnity of the Church Coeffeteau hath razed out the word EQVAL which troubled him and hath clapt on a Tayle of a sentence which is not in Cyprian and therefore the Primacy was giuen to S. Peter S Cyprian had said a little before that Iesus Christ after his resurrection gaue a like power to his Apostles and yet to shew the vnity of the Church he so disposed by his authority that the fountaine of this vnity should begin from one That is to say that he gaue to all his Apostles an equall power but to shew that the Church is one he gaue his power first vnto one namely to Peter and afterwards gaue equall power to the rest With like falshood he dealeth with S. Ierome Fol. 78. pag. 2. lib 1. against Iouinian whom he thus alleadgeth One is chosen among the twelue to the end that there being one head established all occasion of Schisme might be taken away At dicis super Petrū fundatur Ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claues regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur●sed vnus eligitur vt capite constituto seismatist ollatur occasio But he omitteth the wordes that went before thou tellest me that the Church is founded vpon S. Peter notwithstanding that the same is done vpon al the other Apostles and that all do receiue the keyes of the Kingdom of heauen and that vpon them the stability of the Church is EQVALLY grounded whence appeareth that the Head and cheefe of which he speaketh is nothing else but a superiority in ranke without any Iurisdiction and power ouer his fellowes seeing that they had all the Keyes alike and were alike the foundations of the Church VVhich may serue to the end we may not trouble our selues with examining the rest of his falsifications for solution of all the rest of Coeffeteaus quotations in which S. Peter is called head and first among the Apostles S. Austen indeede in the beginning of his second booke of Baptisme which place Coeffeteau alleadgeth calleth S. Peter the first of the Apostles but he saith also in the same place that for all that he did not presume that the new-commers Nee Petrus quē primum Dominus elegit super quem aedificauit Ecclesiā suam cum secum Paulus de circumcisione disceptaret postmodum vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit vt diceret se primatum tenere obtemperari à nouellis posteris sibi potius debcri and latter Apostles were to yeelde him obedience The same S. Austen as he is alleadged in the 24. Cause Quaest 1. Canon Quodcunque speaketh thus S. Peter when he receiued the Keyes represented the Church if then all the good were signified in the person of Peter so were all the wicked also signified in the person of Iudas Seeing then that S. Peter was the same among the faithful that Iudas was among the wicked it followeth that as Iudas was not the head of the wicked to haue power and Iurisdiction ouer them but onely was the most remarkeable among them so S. Peter should be such a one among the beleeuers He might haue had perhaps a priority eyther in age or in vertue or in zeale or in eloquence or in preseance and taking the first place but yet without Dominion or power of Iurisdiction As touching that which somtimes he saith that the Church is founded vpon S. Peter we shall see hereafter that he retracted that ouer sight afterwards and we haue heard before S. Ierome to haue said that the Church is Equally founded vpon all the Apostles As for that which he saith that he that is without the Communion of the Church is to be accounted prophane and that he that is without the Arke shall perish in the floud the same may be said of euery other Church which holdeth the true Orthodox Doctrine yea of the least of the faithfull for that a man cannot separate and withdraw himselfe from him but by renouncing the truth Now in the quarrell which then was in debate Damasus maintained the truth and sounder opinion Whether the Pope may erre in faith or no. TO that which the King of great Britaine denieth that there is any Monarch of the Church on earth whose wordes ought to be held for laws who hath the gift to be able not to erre Fol. 80. Coeffeteau thus answereth We know that the Pope is a sinfull man as another man is and therefore may erre in Doctrine and Manners if we consider him in particular but in the quality of S. Peters Successour hee cannot teach any thing contrary to piety This is it which is commonly said that the Pope indeede may erre as he is a man and a particular Doctor but not as he is Pope Or that he may erre in manners but not in faith Cap. licet titulo 2 de Constitutioni in 6. They say also that he may erre in the question de facto but not in the question de Iure For as Boniface the eighth saith the Pope hath all law and right in the chest of his breast A man had neede of a good stomach to digest this And I doe not see how all this can agree For

first if the Pope may erre in the question of fact it followeth also that he may erre in the question of Right seeing that the one dependeth vpon the other if he may be ignorant whether Iesus Christ came into the world or whether hee died for vs he may also be ignorant whether we ought to beleeue in him or no. So likewise if he may erre in maners it followeth that he may teach false doctrine for to lie and to speake against his conscience is certainly a defaillance in manners If then the Pope cannot be ignorant of the true doctrine and yet through malitiousnesse will bury the truth wilfully to deceiue to what end serueth this truth hidden in the Popes vnderstanding if the people in the meane time be fed with lies But this is an absurdity aboue the rest to thinke that the Pope may erre as man or as a particular Doctor but not as Pope for why doth not the Pope correct the doctor Or when Pope Boniface or Clement doe erre as Boniface but not as Pope why doth not Boniface aske counsell of the Pope why dooth hee not consult himselfe why doth he not betake himselfe from his priuate chaire to the Popes Seate to the end to change his opinion If the Popes diuine knowledge be tyed to his Chaire or Papall habite it followeth that when he riseth from his seat or putteth off his Robes Titulo 2. de Constitutionib cap. licet in 6. that withall he strippeth himselfe out of his knowledge And that Boniface the eight was to blame to inclose the Popes knowledge in his breast Shall we thinke that these men haue a desire to be credited and that by these pleasant distinctions they do not mocke the Pope Put the case that all this may be reconciled and that the Pope may be contrary to himselfe and worse then himselfe and at one instant both Hereticke and an Orthodox what doth all this auaile the people seeing that in what sort soeuer the Pope teacheth whether as Pope or as Doctor he will alwayes be beleeued Neyther can the people discerne these subtle Distinctions Neyther may wee omit that the Pope vpon Maundy Thursday doth excommunicate all Heretickes whence it should follow that if himselfe be an hereticke as man he is also excommunicate and consequently is out of the Church and so it should come to passe that the man may be out of the Church but the Pope be within it which is as if I should say that the King at the same instant is within his Palace as King but without it as man or that Coeffeteau is at the same time in the Refectory or dyning-hall as Fryer and without as man so that a man shall finde him in two places at once It was then a great vnhappinesse to the auncient Fathers to haue beene ignorant of this Distinction and to haue assembled so many Councels so long and so painful for the deciding of differents in Religion seing that they needed only to haue addressed themselues to the Bishop of Rome and to intreate him not as man or as Doctor but as Pope to pronounce the sentence giue decision of the Controuersie Whence also it followeth that then the Popes had but small zeale to the publique good of the Church seeing that they refused to be present at generall Councels which were the speciall places in which they ought to haue put on this their Infallibility As also when the Romane Bishop had giuen his aduise by his Deputies the Councels did not forbeare for all that to sound and examine the matter to the bottome and to heare the opinions of others Howbeit Coeffeteau produceth this Scripture to shew that the Pope cannot erre he saith that our Lord said to S. Peter I haue prayed for thee that thy faith should not faile Whence he concludeth that the Pope cannot erre in faith Surely wee haue no greater proofe of the patience of God then that he suffreth his holy word thus to be abused for first is there any mention here of the Pope Is all that that was spoken to S. Peter spoken also to the Bishop of Rome If that be so then must we needes say that that which our Sauiour said to Peter Mat. 16. he said also to the Pope Get thee behinde me Sathan Secondly adde that which wee will hereafter shew that the Pope is not the Successour of S. Peter vnlesse it be as sickenesse succeedeth health Thirdly and albeit this had beene spoken to the Pope yet by these words Christ doth not promise to S. Peter that he should not erre at all in faith for it is one thing not to faile another thing not vtterly to fall away There be many that misse and faile but yet doe they not wholly miscarrie whence ensueth that though Christ should haue prayed for the Pope that his faith should not vtterly faile yet can he not for all that be exempted from power of erring Fourthly if the Successors of S. Peter enter also vpon this vertue of his neuer to erre then should the Bishop of Antioch who stileth himselfe Peters Successor be exempted also from erring Fiftly seeing that Saint Iohn S Paul S. Iames c. were no lesse exempted from this power of erring then was S. Peter why should not their Successours inherite the infallibility of the rest of the Apostles as well as the Successors of S. Peter Sixtly but without any more adoe let vs looke vpon the place and reade with one breath the verses following and we shall finde that Christ in that place did foretell to S. Peter his fall and deniall and promiseth that his faith should not vtterly be vanquished in that temptation that was then personall and peculiar to S. Peter yet so that our Sauiour would haue his fall and rising againe to serue to confirme his brethrē Here by the way the Reader may note that this Passage and Text of Scripture is the onely foundation that the Church of Rome can finde to prop vp the Popes infallibility which is as if a man would plant and reare vp an huge Colossus vpon Reedes or from a thing of nothing to make a long chaine of Consequences to depend Wherefore Coeffeteau being put off from Scripture he hath recourse to the Fathers and saith that S. Cyprian is bold to say that the Church of Rome is that to which treachery and false hood can haue no accesse Cyprian thereby vnderstands that it cannot be the refuge of perfidious men neyther can they be receiued there to finde shelter which is true of euery Orthodox Church for Cyprian varied from the Bishop of Rome vpon the poynt of Rebaptization of heretickes which is an euident proofe that he did not beleeue that the Bishop of Rome could not erre and indeede in the Epistle to Pompeius written after that which Coeffeteau alleadgeth he saith that Stephen Bishop of Rome was in an errour Stephani errorē denotabis inter caetera vel superuacanea vel ad rem

the Church and the first of all other and this is found in the 16 Session But note that it is not the Councell which speaketh thus but Paschasin deputed from Rome who pleadeth his owne cause and yet this hindred not this Councell from making a Canon expresly declaring and defining that the Bishop of Constantinople is equall with him of Rome in all things yea euen in causes Ecclesiasticall the Canon hath beene produced by vs before He further saith that Irenaeus chap. 3. lib. 3. doth attribute vnto the Church of Rome a principality more powerfull thē vnto others which is most false and an euident corruption of the place Irenaeus speaketh of the principality and power of the city for being the seate of the Empire the faithfull of all Churches had necessary occasions to repaire thither The words are these Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire c. Ecclesiam vnto this Church by reason of the more mighty principality it is necessary that euery Church should resort As if I should say that all the Churches of France should come to that of Paris because there is the principality and power of the Realme and yet can I not for all this say that the faithfull ministers of the Church of Paris haue a principality ouer the rest Saint Cyprian in the third Epistle of his first booke doth directly call the Church of Rome the principall Church because in all the West there was no Church so great or so remarkable as it He saith that the vnity of Priesthood came from thence because his opinion was Hoc crant vtique caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus pari consortio honoris potestatis sed exordium ab vnitate proficisc it ur vt Ecclesia vna monstretur that albeit the Apostles were all equall in power and honour yet S. Peter was entertained into his charge some small time before the other Apostles Iesus Christ hauing a determination to begin from one to the end to shew the vnity of the Church as he saith in his treatise of the simplicity of Prelates He beleeued then that S. Peter who for a season held the sacerdo tall dignity alone to testifie the vnity of the Church had beene at Rome and that from thence Christiā religion spred it selfe into the West Now in this Cyprian goeth about to soften and to gratifie the Bishop of Rome to the end to prepare him the better to taste and to brooke the checkes and reproofes which afterwards he adioyneth whereby he proueth to Cornelius that he hath no power at all ouer Affricke and that he neither could nor ought to receiue the causes of those whom the Bishops of Affricke had condemned for saith he presently after seeing it is ordered among vs all and that it is a thing iust and reasonable that euery mans cause should be examined where the crime was committed and that vnto euery Pastor there is allotted a portion of the flocke which each one ought to gouerne and leade as being to render an account vnto the Lord of his carriage and behauiour there is no reason that those whom we guide should runne from one place to another and through their fraudulent rashnesse seeke to breake the concord of Bishops friendly knit together but that they should there pleade their causes where they may haue accusers and witnesses of their crimes lest it fall out that some desperate and forlorne persons should thinke that the authority of the Bishops of Affricke who haue condemned them should be lesse then others their cause hath beene alreadie examined the sentence hath beene alreadie pronounced To conclude he maintaineth that Cornelius may not take knowledge of any causes determined by the Bishops of Affrica without accusing them of lightnesse and vustaydnesse and so trouble the peace and quiet of the Church This is the cause that made Cyprian to gild his pill to extol the dignity of the Church of Rome before he would shew him that he ought not to thrust himselfe into the affaires of other Churches For it is diligently to be noted that those among the ancient Fathers that affirme that the Bishop of Rome is successour to Peter doe thereby vnderstand that he is successour in the charge of Bishop of Rome but not in the Apostleship After this sort also the Bishops of Ephesus were successors to S. Iohn and S. Paul the Bishops of Ierusalem successors to S. Iames so farre as these Apostles were Bishops of Ephesus and Ierusalem but they neuer were successors to the Apostleship and to the gouernment of the Church Vniuersall Nor is there any reason why the Bishop of Rome should be successor to Peter in his Apostleship and yet the Bishop of Ierusalem should be onely successor to S. Iames in his Bishoppricke Besides the Bishop of Antioch more auncient then the Bishop of Rome hath alwaies beene called the successor of S. Peter and why should it not be aswell in the Apostleship and gouernment of the Vniuersall Church If you will say that Peter hath taken away the prerogatiue and preheminence from Antioch and hath transported it to Rome we vtterly deny it and thereof no proofe worthy the receiuing can be brought If they further say that Peter dyed at Rome I will also say that Iesus Christ dyed at Ierusalem And why should not Christ his death at Ierusalem haue in it more power and vertue to make the Bishop of Ierusalem chiefe of the Church then the death of S. Peter at Rome to conferre this great dignity vpon the Bishop of Rome I leaue it likewise to the Readers to iudge who after the death of Peter ought of right to bee the chiefe of the Vniuersall Church For S. Iames liued yet at Ierusalem after S. Peter was dead And the Apostle S. Iohn out-liued him 32 yeares Eusebius in his Chronicle saith that Peter and Paul died the yeare of our Lord 69. and that S. Iohn dyed at Ephesus in the yeare 101. according to the accompt of Eusebius and Irenaeus Is it a thing to bee beleeued that S. Iohn the Disciple whom Iesus loued who leaned on his breast vnto whom he recommended his mother at his death whose writings are diuine oracles as the Reuelations in the Apocalips doe witnes that he should bee inferior to Linus the Disciple of Paul and indeed our aduer saries themselues haue inserred into the first Tome of their Councels certaine Epistles which they say were Clements Bishoppe of Rome amongst which there is one to S. Iames Bishop of Ierusalem and thus it beginneth Clemens to Iames brother of the Lord Bishop of Bishops gouerning the holy Church of the Hebrewes which is in Ierusalem Clemens Iacobo fratri Domini Episcopo Episcoporum yea all the Churches which are founded euery where by the prouidence of God And a little after hee calleth him his Lord words which witnesse that Clemens acknowledged Iames for his superior and chiefe of all