vnto the 15. verse of the 21. chapter Seauen dayes after his arriuall he is taken and to auoyd the violence of the Iewes he appealeth vnto Caesar when he came to Rome he preached there two yeares Acts 28.30 and there suffered Martyrdome as we may easily gather out of the 2. Timothy Chapter 4. verse 6. and by the subscription of the Epistle From whence it appeareth that the Epistle to the Romanes could not be written aboue three yeares before his death and not to be too strict let vs admit that it might be 4. yeares let vs now shew that S. Peter had not beene at Rome when S. Paul wrote this Epistle for that is prooued by the fifteenth chapter of the said Epistle to the Romanes where Saint Paul saith that he is resolued to goe to Rome whereof he rendreth this reason to wit I study to set forth the Gospell not in those places where mention hath beene already made of Iesus Christ to the end faith he that I build not vpon another mans foundation He presupposeth then that neyther S. Peter nor any Apostle had till that time laid nay foundation in the Church of Rome otherwise S. Paul going thither soone after should haue built vpon anothers ground-worke The renowne and credite and the mutual conference and conuersation of the Christian strangers with the Romanes had sowen the Christian Religion at Rome but before S. Pauls comming thither there was not any forme of a Church gouerned S. Paul laid the first foundation as is manifest by the place alleadged This being thus gained let vs end the rest of the combat The Kings Maiesty of England hath aduisedly noted that the Apostle S. Paul did excommunicate the incestuous person of his owne authority the spirit of the Corinthians ioyning with his spirit without making or medling with S. Peters spirit Coeffeteau here answereth that by the spirit S. Paul meant not authority but knowledge and declaration of will as Beza expoundeth it I aunswere that this declaration of will was done by vertue of the power and authority which he had as he addeth in the wordes following In the name of our Lord Iesus and by his power so calleth he that power which Christ had giuen him and which hee denieth to haue receiued from any man Gal. 1. v. 1. and chap. 2. v. 6. n = * They which were the cheef brought nothing vnto it But saith Coeffeâ—eau it is not necessary at all times to expresse all the functions of the Church nor the Primacy of S. Peter it being sufficient to beleeue it Then say I if he omitted it in this place and neuer thelesse beleeued it you must then shew vs some other place wherehe confesseth that he beleeued it Coeffoteau goeth further and saith Coeff fol. 89. That in the Letters of the Councell of Ierusalem the decision was made by the authority of the whole Assembly without speaking of Peter Acts 15.23 because the Letters were sent in the name of all the company n = * The apostles and the Elders brethren to the brethren that are of the Gentils in Antiochia Besides it is sufficient that elsewhere S. Peter is called cheefe by the Oracle of truth and that Peter himselfe speaketh first To this I say that if in these dayes a Councell where the Pope were present should write Letters to decide a Controuersie it would be thought very strange if in those Letters there were no mention made of the Pope Againe we cannot finde that the Oracle of truth did euer giue vnto S. Peter any power or Iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles Furthermore in this Councell Peter spake as a man that gaue his aduise or iudgement but it was Iames that spake last and pronounced the finall decision as President in the action But among all the reasons alleadged by the King of great Britaine that is most witty and forcible which is drawne from the first chapter of the first to the Corinthes which hath not beene yet noted by any other S. Paul had founded the Church of Corinth and had laboured mightily but after his departure from them they fell to faction and partaking one saying I am of Paul another of Apollo and another of Peter Those that said they were of Paul had a desire rather to become his followers then Peters it appeareth then that S. Paul had not taught them to acknowledge S. Peter to be his Superior and to be the head of the vniuersall Church for if he had so taught them they would neuer haue resisted and withstood that his instruction Neyther is it possible that any man would oppose himselfe herein against S. Paul thinking in so doing to become his Disciple or that he would not beleeue him to the end he might become his follower This is not onely absurde but it is also impossible from this argument so aptly collected Coeffeteau being vnable to comprehend the force thereof is driuen to shifts and querkes cleane from the purpose To as little purpose is it when he saith that Caluine speaking of the Controuersie betweene Paul and Peter Coeff fol. 90. Gal. 2. did not inferre a Preference of S. Paul before S. Peter but onely an equalitie for his Maiestie doth not intend a preheminence of S. Paul aboue S. Peter in generall but onely in this particular action Forasmuch as iustly to reprehend is a thing more noble then to be reprehended and to teach better then to learne I also adde that it is very likely that if S. Peter had had his Cardinals about him or a guard of Swyssers and Light Horsemen See Crysostome vpon chap. 1. to the Galathians he would not haue suffered S. Paul to haue withstood him to his face But follow on the line and leauell of S. Pauls purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it will lead you directly to the truth that S. Pauls drift was to meete with and to preuent the mis-regard which some had of his Apostleship which some held to be of an inferior ranck because he was none of the twelue but came after them Against this opinion of theirs he iustly armeth himselfe and saith in the very beginning of his Epistle that he is an Apostle not of men nor by man but by Iesus Christ where he teacheth vs sufficiently that hee had no commission from S. Peter And chap. 2. verse 6. he saith that they that seemed to be in estimation added nothing vnto him He saith that the charge was diuided betweene him and Peter to him were the Gentiles committed euen as to Peter those of the circumcision that Iames Peter and Iohn who were accounted the Pillars gaue him the right hand of Fellowship that he withstood Peter to his face when he came to Antioch Petrum solum nominant sibi comparat quia primatum ipse accepit ad fundandam Ecclesiam se quoque pari modo electum vt primatum haberet in fundandis gentis um Ecclesijs and went not the right
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 vnâ—tate proficiâ— citâ—r vâ—â—â—â—â—â—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 PetruÌ„ fundatur Ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claues regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solideturâ—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 queÌ„ primum Dominus elegit super quem aedificauit EcclesiaÌ„ 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
cryme but because Pipin was more capable of gouernement then he How many Emperours and Kings vnfit to gouerne were there before this Childericke whose Crownes the Popes neuer touched But this Pope flattered Pipin to the end to be succoured by him against the Lumbards who kept him in seruitude Now to shut vp this whole matter seeing that the Pope doth challenge to himselfe this power ouer Kings who is it that hath giuen it vnto him Is it from the vnwritten worde Is it a custome authorised by the time or suffered by Princes or slid it along by the fauour and sleepinesse of an age that liued in darkenesse Or if God hath giuen him this power let him produce his Title let him shew the clauses of this Donation 2. Againe If Christ left a Successour or Lieftenant here on earth it is certayne that he can exercise no other charge then that which Iesus Christ did being in the world Now he did neuer degrade Kings nor translate Empyres Nay how is it like he would haue done that seeing that he could not be intreated to become a Iudge betweene priuate men in a Controuersie that was of ciuill nature He that teacheth vs to yeelde tribute to Caesar is it likely that hee would haue left a Lieftenant that should make Caesar himselfe tributary 3. If it be so that S. Peter or any other Apostle had this power ouer Kingdomes where dooth it appeare that euer he exercised it And to what end serueth an authority without the execution Or where did this power of the Bishops ouer the temporality of Kings lie couring all this while that it should need to be rouzed vp some eleuen hundred yeares after Iesus Christ 4 Moreouer It is God that giueth Kings and Princes their power as Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar though an Infidel Dan. 2.37 Thou O King art a King of Kings because the God of heauen hath giuen thee a Kingdome and power and strength and glory And the Apostle Rom. 13.1 hath tolde vs that all powers are ordayned of God Now that which God giueth man cannot take away Let the Pope take away if it please him that which himselfe hath giuen let him take his Cardinals redde hattes Archbishops pals if euer he gaue any without money Let him giue out against them that holde Benefices from him that their Benefices are deuolted vnto him by lapse but let him abstaine from the Crowes of Kings let him not touch the Lords annoynted 5. Adde hereunto those passages which the King of great Britaine hath learnedly obserued in his Apology by which he proueth that God willeth that his pleople yeelde obedience to Kings euen to Infidels So in the 27. of Ieremie Submit your neckes vnder the yoake of the King of Babell and serue him and his people and cap. 29. Seeke the peace of the Citie whether I haue carried you and pray for it for in her peace you shall haue peace This was farre from mouing them to reuolt Thus did the Israelites obey Pharaoh And euen then when the Kings of Iuda were Idolaters as Ahaz and Manasse yet did the High Priests neuer for all that incite the people to Rebellion The Emperour Nero was a prodigious monster for all kinde of wickednesse notwithstanding S. Paul would haue men to obey him for conscience sake Rom. 13.1 Timoth. 1. and for feare of offending God But wee now a dayes stand vpon better termes for if wee ought to obey a Prince that is a Pagan euen for conscience sake in Ciuill causes how much more one that is truely a Christian And if a Tygre that hath climed to the top of the Empire how much more a Prince that is wise and mercifull who preserueth the liues of those that desire his death And if we may not obey any man that leadeth and commaundeth a mutiny and treason how much lesse ought we to obey the Pope whose Empire is founded vpon the ruines of the Gospell and who being prodigall of the blood of those who are his draweth persecution vpon them to the end that they for him may loose goods and life yea and life eternall Now if any man vnwilling to enter this list shal say that this is a matter of pollicy and that we prye into matters of State such a one by his tergiuersation wil more ouerthrow the Popes power then if hee had expresly fought against it For if this power be a point without the compasse of Religion it followeth thereupon that it is not sounded vpon the word of God And if God had spoken of it in his worde it were a point of Religion to beleeue it The Pope then is to blame for making such bragges of his keyes in this case if it be nothing but a matter of pollicy and such as hath no sparke of Diuinity in it which thing Pope Clement the fift doth couertly confesse in the extrauagant Meruit Meruit Charissimi filij nostri Philippi regis Francorum c. where he declareth that he doth not vnderstand that the extrauagant Vnam Sanctam of Boniface the eight which giueth to the Pope soueraigne power ouer the Temporalties of Kingdomes as well as ouer the Spiritualtie could bring any preiudice to the Kingdome of France to make it more subiect to the Church of Rome then before it was but reintegrateth the said Kingdome into the same estate that it was before the abouesaid definition of Boniface and that in acknowledgement of the merites of King Philip the faire albeit hee had somewhat rudely accorded matters with Boniface Let the Reader weigh and consider this point aduisedly For in this extrauagant which Bellarmine dooth approue and commend Pope Boniface foundeth his pretensions ouer the Temporalties of Princes vppon many passages of the word of God He meaneth then that his right is by the lawe of God where against King Philip hedoth maintaine that in temporal things he is subiect to no man Within a while after Clement the fift passed it so in fauor of the King and exempted him from the rigour of this Bull the Pope then made bolde to dispense with the law of God or if on the other side it be nothing else but an humane positiue law then Boniface dealt very wickedly in seeking to ground it vppon the holy Scripture But why shall Fraunce alone be exempted from this yoake and other Kingdomes shall be enforced to beare it Could Philips merites dispense with him for obeying the word of God produced by Boniface These Popes make a Religion of waxe depending vpon the conditions of the times and the traine of their affaires and make it a prop of their Dominion they stretch it and shorten it like a stirrup leather fitting not their wils to Religion but Religion to their will Now if Philip had bin Master of Rome and absolutecommander in Italy the Bishops of Rome would haue thrown themselues on their knees before him as did Pope Adrian in the second Counsell of Nice 2. Act. and would haue called
the vsurpation of the Gothes out of a base coueteous humour for it makes not whether their proceedings were tainted with auarice or no some one in the prosecution of his right may mingle his particular vices Now if this custome be not then are the Popes and Councels worthy of blame that haue adiudged them both iust and necessary as Adrian the first Leo the eigth and others which vnrequested did voluntarily referre this choyce to the Kings of Italy and to the Emperors And indeed Sigonius Anno 963. saith that Leo the eigth was of opinion Non sine causa AdrianuÌ„ 1. Ca rolo magno tribuisse vt Ecclesiam ordimaret Pontisicemlegeret Labertate populo â—eddita Romanos in dies deteriores effectos that Adrian the first had cause to referre the honour of gouerning the Church and chusing the Pope vnto Charlemaine and that when liberty was giuen to the popular Assembly for the election of the Pope things greweuery day from bad to worse It is heere more remarkable that Coeffeteau doth a little after contradict himselfe for after hauing condemned this electiue custome as as an vniust vsurpation of the Emperours a little after he saith that the Emperour did not vsurpe this right Fol. 18. pag. 2. but receaued it from the Pope If then the Emperours did not vsurpe this power he doth vniustly call it vsurpation And if the Popes gaue this authority the fault was onely in the Popes And if it be a Right as Coeffeteau cals it it can be neyther wrong nor iniustice not vsurpation The feare of the Lombards should haue beene no motiue to the Popes to iniure their own See to pâ—ssesse the Emperours of that which appertained not vnto them Touching that which he addes Fol. 19. p. â— that Lewes the sonne of Charles disclaymed this right I haue already disproued it as vntrue The Canon Ego Lodouicus in the 63. Distinction is of the same touch and as true as the Donation of Constantine It is also vntrue which he saith that the Popes acknowledged Lewes for a benefactor of this See and that they should thinke themselues obliged to him and other Princes which haue bestowed on them the temporalities which they possesse For first the Popes would not acknowledge any such obligation to this Lewes nor to his predecessors notwithstanding all their gifts vnto them hauing forged the Donation of Constantine to obliterate the memory of this benefite and cast an immaginary Conduit-pipe that might from others of farther distance deriue this bountie vnto them Besides their abusing and thundring their stormes vppon our Kings and robbing their Kingdomes is their faire acknowledgement of this good turne like him that hauing gathered the fruite and refreshed himselfe in the shadow of a tree doth with his bil-booke lop off the boughs and branches for recompence Moreouer we denie notwithstanding any thing Coeffeteau sayth that the Popes held their temporal possessions of Pipin or Charles or of Lewes or of any King or Emperour I am not ignorant that these Princes haue exceeded in their liberalities to the Bishop of Rome which they haue performed to their hinderance but they euer did as Princes vnto subiects reserue the Soueraignty ouer the Donce To examine the matter by auncienter proofes and better Sigonius in the History of the yeare 687. saith that the Exarches sent Iudges vnto Rome to administer iustice vnto the people Platina hath the fame in the life of Sergius the second who was the first that chaunged his name after his election because he was formerly called Hogs-snout In the diuision betweene the children of Lewes le Debonaire Lotharius the eldest sonne had for his part the City of Rome with Italy c. Platina in the life of Eugenius the second saith that †Sigonius p. 116 Lotharius in Italiam veniens Magistratum delegit qui populo Romano ius diceret Lotharius comming into Italy established Magistrates at Rome to iudge the people of the Citie Aboue all we haue expresse testimony of Sigonius in the seuenth booke of the History of the Kingdome of Italy Ann. 973. * Pontifex RomaÌ„ Rauennamque ditiones reliquas tenebat authoritate magis quam imeprio quod ci uitates Pontificem vt Reip. Principem Regem verò vi summum Dowinum intue entur atque ei tributa obsequiaque praeberent Then sayth he the Bishop of Rome helde the City of Rome and Rauenna rather by anothers authority then their owne commaund Because these Cities acknowledged the Bishop as a Prince in the Common wealth but did euer looke toward the King as their soueraigne Lord payde him tribute and to him yeelded their obedience And yet it was a long while after ere the Emperours came to Rome to take their Crownes which they held not of the Pope who had onely a hand in the Ceremony but of the people of Rome So that all that which the Pope dooth at this day holde in the nature of a soueraigne Prince is a meere vsurpation ouer the Empire and he cannot exhibite his titles nor shew vs the beginning of his Princely Soueraignty Coeffeteau goes on and condemnes the Emperor Otho for deposing Iohn the thirteenth for his irregular life and Henry the third for deposing three Popes in a short time and saith that in this proceeding he shewed a zeale but no knowledge Whereunto I answerre that this Iohn being maintayned by an Army and a very potent faction he could not be expulsed but by the power of the Emperour nor is it zeale without knowledge to apply vnto an extreame malady the onely and most necessary medicine that can possibly the prouided Our Doctor doth further adde that Constantine did shew much more Religion when in the Councell of Nice he acknowledged that it belonged not to him to iudge of the faults of Bishops But these were but words of his gratious respect vnto them such as the same Prince vsed when he said that if he should finde a Clergy-man offending with a woman he would couer him with his cloake but before in the sixt Chapter we saw that the lawes of Constantine did not priuiledge the offences of the Clergy from the ciuill authority no not the lawes of Iustinian which were made more then two hundred yeares after And indeede Theodoret lib. 1. cap. 19. alleageth an Epistle of Constantine to Nâ—comedians in which speaking generally of all sorts of men he saith that * Si quis audacter inconsulteque ad memoriam aut landem pestium illarum exarserit illias statim audacia ministri Dei hâ—e mea executione coercebitur If any one will rashly and inconsiderately maintaine those pestilent assertions speaking of the Arrians his audatiousnes shall be instantly curbed by the Emperours execution who is Gods Minister I doe plainely confesse that they caused them to be very often deposed by a Synode but yet they ceased not to haue soueraigne authority ouer the Bishops before their deposition or to haue power
which did neyther sweat nor suffer Which of these two was our Sauiour If hee bee but one how is he contrary to himselfe For we haue shewed else where that the Distinction of diuers respects cannot be but when onething is compared to diuers things at one time as when one and the same man is poore and rich little and great in comparison of diuers persons But here they apply these diuers respects to the body of Iesus Christ without comparing him to any other body nay they oppose him to himselfe That I may not further say that this doctrine doth annihilate the body of our Lord by being receiued into the stomacke for when the formes are altered in the stomacke by the digestion they say that the body of the Lord is no longer there neyther yet is it come forth it must follow then that eyther it is reduced to nothing or changed into something else Both the one and the other are alike blasphemous ARTICLE XII Touching the Adoration of the Host THe Confession of the Kings Booke doth place among the new inuentions of the Church of Rome The Adoration of the Host and the Eleuation which is made to haue it adored This poynt is important and which doth surprise our spirits with a heauinesse mixt with horrour when at the sound of a little Bell the Priest lifteth vp the breade and euery man prostrateth himselfe to adore it Or when the people doth not let to kneele in the dyrt to adore their God which passeth along the street inclosed in a Pixe or Boxe It had beene greatly therefore to haue beene wished that Coeffeteau could haue produced some commandement of God for the same or some example of the Apostles but that could he not doe neyther hath any man done it hithervnto He commeth therefore to the Fathers and produceth for the same three passages the one of Chrysostome in his foure and twentieth Homily vpon the first to the Corinth the other of S. Ambrose in his third booke of the Sacraments chap. 12. And the last of S. Austin vpon the foure-score and eighteene Psalme All three exhort the faithful to adore the flesh of Iesus Christ and that which is more to adore him in the Eucharist Neuer did man more abuse his Reader and he seemeth to thinke that we are beside our selues for is there any thing in all this which we doe not willingly graunt him Is there any amongst vs who hath euer denied that wee ought not to adore the flesh of Iesus Christ Yea who hath euer doubted that we ought not to adore him in the Eucharist Ought not God the Father also to be adored And what is this to the purpose to inclose Iesus Christ vnder formes He that doth adore Iesus Christ in the Eucharist doth not for al that adore that which the Priest holdeth in his hand but he adoreth Iesus Christ which is in heauen Of these three places that which our aduersaries doe most presse is the place of S. Austin vpon the foure-score and eyghteene Psalme where hee saith that no man doth eate this flesh vnlesse hee haue first adored it Nemo carnem illam manducat nisi prius adorauerit An excellent passage For doth not S. Austin speake of the true and serious adoration Iudas then did not eate this flesh for he did not adore it According to this rule the Hypocrites who partake of the Sacrament doe not eate the flesh of the Lord for they doe not adore it Now what it is to eate the flesh of the Lord himselfe hath tolde vs as hath beene before alleadged Lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ cap 16. That to eate his flesh is a figure which signifieth to communicate of his passion and to meditate thereof in our memories And as he speaketh in his twenty sixe Tract vpon S. Iohn To beleeue in him is to eate the bread of life Credere in eum hoc est manducare panem vivumâ—qui credit in eum manducat eum he that doth beleeue in him doth eate him We hoped then that Coeffeteau would here haue produced the publique customes to shewe that it was then the custome to adore the Host which the Priest doth holde vp with diuine worship called Latria but he hath not beene able to finde any Dionysius who in his Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy discribeth very exactly the forme of the publique seruice which was some foure hundred yeares after Iesus Christ and the Apostolical constitutions of Clement where all the Ceremony of that time is depainted and the auncient Liturgies howsoeuer fouly falsified doe in no wise speake of this adoration of the Host Theodoret saith indeede that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the signes are reuerenced This word Signes sheweth sufficiently that he doth not speake of diuine adoration which they call Cultus Latriae For that should be impiety ARTICLE XIII Touching the Eleuation of the Host to haue it to be Adored THe King of great Britaine demaunded proofes out of the fiue first ages or first fiue hundred yeares after Christ that is to say aswell Scripture as the auncient Doctors by which it might appeare that Iesus Christ or his Apostles made eleuation of the host Hereat Coeffeteau holdeth his peace Fol. 50. pag. 2. and in stead thereof saith that the auncient Church did shew the mysteries or sacraments to the people by drawing a Vaile or Curtaine from before the Table which is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and he hath learned that out of my booke of the Apology of the Lords Supper Chrysostome in his third Homily vpon the Epistle to the Ephesians When thou shalt see the double Curtaines to be drawne then thinke that heauen doth open and inlarge it selfe And Dionysius in his Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy The Bishop discouereth and setteth out to open view the thing celebrated by the signes holily proposed And Basil in like manner in his booke of the holy Ghost Who is it of the Saints who hath left in writing the wordes of the prayer when they shew abroad the bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of blessing This vncouering of the Sacrament was done saith Coeffeteau to cause it to be adored and as he speaketh this without all proofe so doth he it most falsely and was not able to alleadge any one authority where mention is made eyther of the eleuation or of the Adoration of the host but in stead thereof he bringeth certaine passages which speake of the vncouering of the bread and of the drawing of a Curtaine ARTICLE XIIII Touching the carrying of God in the Procession The KINGS Confession Pope Vrbane the fourth instituted this feast in the yeare 1264. THe God-feast or Corpus Christi day and the walking or Circumportation of the Sacrament in procession is of this ranck and the King of great Britaine doth place it among the Nouelties Hereupon Coeffeteau fearing the touch and triall maketh an honest retreat without standing vpon his defence for he onely saith Fol 51
Christians and the very fertilitie thereof so farre degenerated into a pitifull sterilitie as he must bee accursed that accounteth it blessed Nay when a certaine Woman blessed the belly that bare Christ and the breasts that gaue him sucke Luke 11.28 Nay rather saith he Blessed are those that heare the Word of God and keepe it Except then they could first prooue that Christ had resolued to blesse that tree of the Crosse wherevpon he was nayled they can neuer prooue that his touching it could giue it any vertue And put the case it bad a vertue of doing Miracles as Peters shadow had yet doeth it not follow that it is lawfull to worship it which Peter would neuer accept of Surely the Prophets that in so many places curse those that worship Images that haue eyes and see not that haue eares and heare not would much more haue cursed them that worship a piece of a sticke that hath not so much as any resemblance or representation of eyes or eares To this M. Coeffeteau opposeth not the commandement of God Coëff fol. 65. but the authority of Chrysostome in his Sermon of the adoration of the Crosse who saith The Crosse his picture ought to be worshipped In like manner Prudentius the Poet and Paulinus Bishop of Nola and Ambrose who speake of the worshipping of the Crosse that Iudas kisse or the touching of the executioners and the touch of the Crosse is not al one because the mouth of the one and the hands of the other were liuing mem-bers of those Reprobates that committed the most detestable crime in the world but the Crosse was a dead thing and a harmelesse instrument of our Sauiors death that this worship is not done to the wood but to him that was fastened thereunto and sanctified it by his touching of it again that the representation of the cheife mistery of our saluatioÌ„ doth make it venerable which cannot be said of the land of Canaan because it was no particular instrument of our saluation The Doctor is not willing to leaue his good custome of paying vs with falsehoods Answere For Chrysostomes Sermon of the adoration of the Crosse which saith that the Crosse the effigies thereof are to be worshipped is suppositious and not found in Greek among Chrysostomes works Gretseri notae in orationes de cruce pag. 601. Hanc orationem neque in Augustana bibliotheca reperimus neque aliunde nancisci potuimus Ioachimus Perionius hath set forth in Greeke and Latine what himselfe pleased but Gretser a Iesuit who hath very lately inserted it among other orations that speake of the Crosse saith that he hath made diligent search for the manuscripts of Chrysost in the Libraries at Bauaria and Ausburg and that the hath neither found it there nor any where else Coeffeteau addeth that Prudentius writing against Simmachus saith that the Christians bowed their knees before the Crosse to worship it and yet this is false He could not alleage the wordes but the verses of Prudentius are these Tunc ille Senatus Militiae vltricis titulum Christique verendum Nomen adorauit quod collucebat in armis Which sounds in English to this sense Then did the Senate graue adore The title of Christes name diuine Which the reuengefull Armie bore And did in glorious banner shine The meaning is that the Senate hauing seene a Romane banner which they called Labarum whervpon the name of Christ was written for an inscription in this forme ☧ did worship this title and the venerable name of Christ But of adoring the crosse he makes no mention He further saith that S. Ambrose in the Oration made vpon the death of Theodosius speaking of Helena that put one of the nayles of the Crosse in Constantines crown Sapienter Helena egit quae crucem in capite regum leuauit vt crux Christi in râ—gibus adoretur saith that she did wisely in aduancing the Crosse aboue the heads of Kings that in Kings the Crosse of Christ might be worshipped Let vs here resolue that this Oration as also others of the third Tome be adiudged counterfeit by Erasmus a man of good iudgement in the reading of the Fathers And indeed it is not credible that S. Ambrose should speake so ridiculously as to * Illum qui sicut Scarabeus clamauit vt persecutoriâ— sâ—is peccata donaret compare Christ Iesus crying on the Crosse to the beetle flie a base creature and that crieth not as the Author of this Oration doth yet beeing graunted to be true doth Coeffeteau still shew himselfe a falsifier both of the words of the sense of the sense for these words Vt crux Christi in regibus adoretur doe signifie that Kings being adored the crosse by that means might be adored whereby it is euident that he speakes of a ciuill adoration because he makes it one with that which is performed vnto Kings now the question is here of religious worship Secondly Coeffeteau doth curtaile this place with like falshood suppressing the words following which doe explane what is meant by the Crosse This is no arrogance saith he but piety when it hath reference to the redemption he speakes then of worshipping the redemption and not a woodden Crosse In like manner hath Coeffeteau dissembled the precedent words which are wonderfull plaine Helena adored the King Helena regem adorauit noÌ„ lignuÌ„ vtique quia Gen tilis est hic error vanitas impiorum and not the wood for this is a heathenish error and a vanity of the vngodly But shee worshipped him that was hanged on the wood This licentious falsifying and clipping of the Fathers is horrible if our Doctor durst falsifie the Scripture with like liberty hee would questionlesse alleadge some passages therehence Concerning Paulinus who liued in the fifth age Crux enim pisius columna est generis humani In ipsa columna aedificata est domus eius Ego crucem dico non lignum sed passionem and al others that speake of honouring or reuerencing the Crosse yea or if there be any that speake of adoring it S. Ierome vpon the 95. Psalme giues vs a generall rule whereby to expound such places His Crosse saith he is the Pillar of mankind vpon this Pillar his house is built now by the Crosse I vnderstand not the wood but the passion The same Father vpon S. Matthew lib. 4. cap. 23. complaining that certaine women carried about them some wordes of the Gospell written in little rolls of parchment and superstitiously worshipped the Crosse Some odde huswiues among vs saith hee vse to doe this with little Gospells Hoc apud nos superstitiosae quaedaÌ„ mulierculae factitant in paruulis Euangelijs in crucis ligno istiusmodi rebus quae habeÌ„t quidem zelum Dei sed non secundum scientiam and the wood of the Crosse such like things which haue the zeale of God but not according to knowledge What would he haue said if
offend against the Maiesty of God And in the booke of the Penitentiary Taxe in the chapter of Absolutions the falsifying of Letters Apostolical is taxed at seuenteene groats whereas for a man to company with his mother but at fiue groates onely Seeing then that about this inequality of the Keyes which giueth a superiority to S. Peter aboue the other Apostles our aduersaries cannot defend themselues by any authority out of the holy Scripture let vs see whether wee can furnish our selues with any places directly against it 1 I say then that if the Apostles had not the Keyes of heauen nor the power to binde and lose but subordinately vnder S. Peter the Apostle S. Paul should haue spoken very vnaduisedly in saying 2. Cor. 11.5 I thinke that I haue not in any thing beene inferiour to the rest of the Apostles when hee sayth in any thing he admitteth no exception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Adde hereunto that if he had beene subiect to S. Peter he should much haue forgotten himselfe when Galat. 2. he said that there was no difference betweene him and those that seemed to bee the chiefe for then there must needes haue been great difference betwixt their charges 3 And againe this that he speaketh is yet much more That those who were in the greatest account among the Apostles added nothing vnto him whereas doubtlesse S. Peter would at the least haue giuen authority to S. Pauls charge if it had depended from the authority of S. Peter 4 But cheefely that which Paul addeth is worthy of consideration that the charge of preaching to those of the vncircumcision was in as large a maner committed vnto him as that of the circumcision was vnto Peter See here how they parted the labour betwixt them it fel vnto S. Peters lot to preach vnto the Iewes and S. Pauls to preach vnto the Gentiles a thing that would be ridiculous and strange now a dayes if any Bishop should seeke to diuide the charge of gouerning Churches betweene him and the Pope or should send the Pope to preach in Almaine or Spaine to conuert the Iewes 5 It is also worth the noting that S. Paul in the same place verse 9. naming those three Apostles Iames Cephas and Iohn placeth Cephas which is Peter after Iames. Now in these our dayes if a man should speake thus The Bishop of Lyons the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Ambrun men would holde him for a madde man But S. Paul in setting Peter betweene others he sheweth that he had not yet learned that S. Peter was chiefe of the Church vniuersall or that he had iurisdiction ouer the rest of the Apostles For their last assault and encounter they produce the wordes of Iesus Christ vnto Peter Feede my Lambes which wordes they haue made wonderfull fruitfull and full of many consequences for thus they expound them Thou Peter and thy Successours Popes of Rome feede you alone all my lambes and doe you take vpon you a soueraignty ouer all other Pastors How many strange and venterous Glosses are here on the Text And how haue they peeced out this latchet to make it reach home For though Iesus Christ doe expresly commaund Peter to feede his sheepe yet he excludeth not the other Apostles They are all called Pastors and all faithfull Bishops and Ministers are enioyned to feed the Church of God Acts 20.28 True it is that S. Peter was Pastor of all the sheepe of Iesus Christ throughout the world but so were likewise the other Apostles For S. Paul also 2. Cor. 11. verse 28. saith that he hath the care of all Churches their charge was to walke and to haue an eye euery where for thus saith Iesus to them all Acts 1. And you shall be witnesses vnto me to the very endes of the earth And hereupon S. Augustine is very plaine in the thirtieth chapter of his booke of the christian combate When the Lord saith vnto Peter Cum dicit Petro amas me pasce oues meas idem dixit caeteris Louest thou me feede my sheepe he saith the same vnto all But why speaketh he to him alone Because not long before he onely had denyed him He onely that fel had onely neede to be raised vp and to be re established in his charge for otherwise a man might well haue called his Apostleship into question And why doth he rehearse the same wordes vnto him thrice Because he had denied the Lord three times as many fals so many restorings These be not raisings of him vnto dignity but strengthnings of his infirmity As saith S. Augustine Treatis 123. vpon S. Iohn A triple deniall is recompenced with a threefold confession Redditur negationi trina confessio ne minus amori lingua seruiat quam timori c. to the end that his tongue might serue him no lesse to declare his loue then it had done in disclosing his feare In the meane time albeit all the Apostles had a generall care ouer all Churches yet this doth not hinder but that each of them might haue a peculiar charge besides their generall S. Paul was charged with instructing the Gentils and S. Peter with teaching the Iewes and it appeareth not that this his commission was at any time changed and that in stead of being the speciall Teacher of the Iewes he was made Bishop of Rome Besides that his dwelling at Rome could not well haue sorted and agreed with the teaching of the Iewes Act. 18.11 who now were banished from Rome vnder Claudius the Emperor which was the very time of S. Peters preaching during which time he visited the Iewes scatteredinto Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Bithinia and into all Asia as appeareth by the first verse of his first Epistle This was somewhat too farre from his Bishopricke of Rome and nothing sutable with the dignity of the Monarch of the Vniuersall Church We will not here contend whether S. Peter were euer at Rome for albeit this History be full of darknesse yet I am enclyned to beleeue that he suffered Martyrdome at Rome because Tertullian Eusebius and others doe affirme the same But yet the day-light is not more cleare then it is euident that stayed there but a very small time and not twenty fiue yeares as our aduersaries doe calculate One proofe shall serue to be added to those which are alleadged by others We graunt then that S. Peter and S. Paul did suffer Martyrdome at Rome vpon one and the same day as Eusebius and some others affirme This being so we will shew most plainly that S. Peter had not yet beene at Rome three yeares before his death For S. Paul being to depart from Corinth to goe towards Ierusalem wrote an Epistle to the Romanes as appeareth by the subscription of his Epistle dated from Corinth and by the fiue and twentieth verse of the fifteenth Chapter Now I goe vp to Ierusalem His voyage to Ierusalem is described in the 18 19 and 20. chapters of the Acts
of inflicting corporall punishment vpon them but of this we haue spoken at large before Thence doth Coeffeteau proceede to the Example of Henry the fourth which he saith cannot be alleadged because the times were then troublesome but the example suits very well to our purpose for that the Popes were the onely instruments of raising those troubles to exempt themselues from the Emperours subiection and to subiect the Emperours to themselues euen in seruices more seruile then seuuitude it selfe stirring vp the sonne to seeke the life and Crowne of Henry his father who died being depriued of his Imperiall dignity by his sonne the Popes instrument therein who vouchsafed not his father so much fauour See Helmoldus in the Chronicles of Sclauonia Naucl. 39. genera Baronius de vitis Pontificum and many others as to cause his body to be buried Fredericke Barbarossa being come soone after into Italy to be Crowned Emperour the Pope enforced him to hold his stirrope when he tooke horse But this Emperour little-skil'd in these seruices putting himselfe forward to hold the left in stead of the right stirrop was adiudged to practise the same submission the day following and howbeit he performed it very mannerly yet in conclusion the Pope sought to pull his Crowne from him And in the same degree of pride did Alexander the third treade vpon the said Frederickes necke vpon the staires of S. Markes Church in Venice the History is reported by many writers and alleadged by the King of great Britaine in his confutation of Bellarmine about the end of the booke and it is paynted at Venice in the hall of del Scrutinio del grand Constiglio the Maps and Tables thereof are reckoned vp and expounded by Girolam Bardi in a booke expresly written of that argument In the sequel of his discourse Coeffeteau fals into that wretchlesse negligence that he accuseth the King of mistaking the History not alleadging so much as one passage for his confutation And sure it is not Platina that doth alone record the deposition of these three Popes by Henry the fourth for Stella a Venetian Monke who hath written the liues of the Popes hath the same in these wordes Henricus Caesar habita Synodo Benedictum praedictum Syluestrum hunc Gregorium abdicare se Pontificatu coegit His Maiesty of England alleadgeth to the same purpose the example of Philip le bel K. of France that wrote with liberty enough vnto Boniface the eight who first inuented the Iubile Platina Stella in these wordes Let your great folleship vnderstand that in in temporall matters we are not subiect to any man c. And he it was that surprised the aforesaid Pope at Anagnia and committed him to prison at Rome where for griefe hee died An. 1303. To the example of Lewes the ninth King of Fraunce that established the law called Pragmatica sanctio against the pillaging and merchandizing of the Court of Rome he ioyneth the example of Lewes the eleauenth who being vrged by Pius the second to repeale that Sanction remitted his Legates to the faculty of the Diuines of Sorbone Iohannes Maierius libra de schismat Concil who made it good against the Pope with whom Iohannes Romanus the Kings Aduocate was ioyned that opposed them so farre with his conclusions that the Court appealed to the next Councell as indeeede they did The said King saith farther that the facultie of Sorbone came to maintaine this point that if the Pope should offer violence to our King the French Church had authority to establish a Patriarch and seuer themselues from the See of Rome And that Gerson Chaunceller of the Vniuersitie of Paris was so farre from defending this pretended temporall power of the Popes that he wrote a booke De auferibilitate Papae ab Ecclesia that is Of the possibility of forsaking the Pope and remoueing him from the Church How much more did hee beleeue then that the temporall power of Kings might be free from the insulting of Papall authority To this doth Coeffeteau make no other answere but that these contentions were onely for temporall matters and that Philip or Lewes or the faculty of Sorbonne or the Kings Aduocate desired not to preiudice the Popes authority in any regard as he is head of the Church so that here he answeres well to the King of Englands question whose ayme is onely vnto matters temporall and to the vsurpation of Popes ouer Monarches Touching the title of Head of the Church which is an abuse more intollerable hee reserues that for an after-discourse Now if so be the dissention betweene Philip and the See of Rome continued not many yeares as Coeffeteau obserueth Fol. 22 pag 2 it was because the Pope gaue way vnto him and Benedict the eleuenth was very glad to giue Philip absolution Platina Stella which he graunted of his owne accord because the other might haue beene well without it That we may close vp this point the King of great Britaine drawes many examples out of Matthew Paris and out of the Records of his Kingdom to this purpose as William Gifford whom King Henry the first inuested with his Bishopricke and Rodulphus whom the same King inuested with the Archbishopricke of Canterbury by his Ring and Crosier-staffe and Thurstan nominated to the Archbishopricke of Yorke depriued by the King of his temporalties for corrupting with bribes the Popes agents in the Councell of Rhemes The said King alleadgeth many examples of Abbots Bishops and Deanes in England that haue eyther against the Popes will yeelded obedience to their Soueraignes or haue beene degraded censured and imprisoned by their Princes for their disobedience in adhaering to the Popes And which is more considerable these are late examples such as haue happened while the Papacy domineered most How stood the case then when the Bishoppe of Rome had nothing to doe in England with matters eyther temporall or spirituall The Kingdome of Fraunce doth furnish vs with examples of more pregnancy The Synode of Fraunce is of speciall note to this purpose which is to be found in the third Tome of the Councels of the Colleyn Edition pag. 39. where Carolomanus qualifying himselfe as Duke and Prince of Fraunce vseth this speach By the aduise of my Clergie and others of principall esteeme of the Realme Ordinauimus Episcopos We haue ordayned Bishops in the Cities and haue established Boniface Archbishop ouer them The Councell of Maurice holden vnder Charlemaine Anno 813. beginneth thus Carolo Augusto verae religionis rectori ac defensori sanctae Dei Ecclesie and the first Councell of Mayence vnder Lewes le Debonaire Ludouico verae relligionis serenissimo rectori And these I trow should haue been accounted irreligious Titles now-a-dayes And here let it be principally noted that Coeffeteau trusts more to his heeles then to his hands for he buckles onely with the first of these examples and all his answere is that Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury opposed this