Departure of Protestants from the Church of Rome occasioned by M. Luther I. Thesis Luther was vniustly Excommunicated out of the Romane Church Sect. 15. II. Thesis Luther had necessary Cause to depart from the Church of Rome Sect. 15. III. Thesis Luther and his Followers are farre more safe for their Soules state in that Separation from the Church of Rome and lesse Schismatikes than They whom they forsooke Sect. 16. IV. Thesis The Romish Obiections vrged against the Separation of Luther are notably friuolous Sect. 17. V. Thesis Their first Oiection in respect of Luthers former Vow to the Pope or Church of Rome is vaine and idle Sect. 18. VI. Thesis The second and most Popular Obiection against Luther in his Opposition to the Romane Church vrging him to prooue his Doctrine by immediate Succession and by naming his Teachers before him is as fond as the other Sect. 19. VII Thesis The Obiection That all Changes of Doctrines haue bene notorious in the Persons and Places of their Beginnings is false Sect. 20. VIII Thesis The last Obiection Of Cōtinuall and personall Succession in all ages is frustrate Sect. 21. The fourth and last Part of this Determination concerneth the state of the Churches of Protestants after the daies of Luther and their more iust Cause of continuing this Separation from the Church of Rome Sect. 22. I. Thesis Protestants are Generally Excommunicated by the Church of Rome Sect. 23. II. Thesis Protestants are vniustly Excommunicated Sect. 24. III. Thesis In the Continuance of this Separation Papists are rather Schismatikes than Protestants and consequently in the Heresie of the Donatists Sect. 25. IV. Thesis In the Continuance of this Separation the Vnion of the Protestants with the Catholike Church is both more true and more Vniuersall thā is the Vnion of the Romanists § 26 V. Thesis The Protestants granting it possible for some to be saued within the Church of Rome and the Papists denying that any can be saued in the Churches of the Protestants is but a Sophisticall proofe that there is more safety in the Romane Church Sect. 27 VI. Your common Obiection what is then become of the soules of our fore-Fathers more iustifieth the Protestants Separation from Papists than it can the Separation of Papists from Protestants Sect. 28. VII The Protestants at this day stand more Iustifiable in their Separation from Rome than did either the ancient Primitiue Churches in her Excommunicating of Them or yet Luther and his Followers in their Departure from Her Sect. 29. THE GRAND IMPOSTVRE Of the now Church of Rome Manifested in this ARTICLE of the new Romane Creed Viz. The Catholike Romane Church c. Without which there is no SALVATION THat this is the fundamentall ARTICLE of your Romane Church as it is called Romane We cannot bee better enformed than by the Bishops of Rome Heads of the same Church than by the Bodie thereof which is the Church of Rome it selfe in her Councell of Trent together with the Confirmation of the same by Pope Pius the IV than by your publike Catechisme ratified by the like authority Lastly than by her principall Doctors and Diuines in their most approoued and priuileged Books written vpon this Argument of THE CATHOLIKE CHVRCH All which you may read in their owne expresse words CHAP. I. The expresse Profession of the now Church of Rome concerning this her Article vz. The Catholike Romane Church c. without Subiection whereunto there is no Saluation is absolutely and peremptorily proclaimed by the Authority of the Popes SECT 1. IT wil be a good Decorum that in this case we begin to consult with the Heads of your Church the Popes of Rome themselues Gregory the VII in the yeere 1073 decreed thus The Church of Rome saith he was founded only by God and the Pope thereof is rightly stiled The vniuersall Bishop insomuch that whosoeuer consenteth not with the Church of Rome cannot be a Catholike After him in the yeere 1192. Pope Innocēt the 3. distinguishing of the Word Catholike or Vniuersall decreed as followeth If the Church saith he be called Catholike as a cōpany consisting of al Christian Churches so the Church of Rome is not to be termed The Catholike Church but a part therof but take the word Catholike a◠God is called vniuersall Lord because al things are vnder his dominiō so we say that the Church of Rome only hath al other Churches vniuersally subiect vnto it So he More than an hundred yeeres after him Boniface the 8. would needs be heard not speake but roare thunder by peremptory decree in this tenor viz. We declare define pronounce that it is Necessary for euery one that is to be saued to be subiect to the Pope of Rome Thus much for the testimonies of the Popes The iudgement of the late Romane Church SECT 2. SInce those times the Church of Rome her selfe in her Councell of Trent and by the Bull of Pope Pius the IV. set forth for the Confirmation of the same Councell in the yeere 1556. did impose vpon her Professors a new CREED consisting of more than twentie Articles of the now Romane Faith which shee hath prescribed vnto you and all other Ecclesiasticall persons of what denomination or Title soeuer to be professed vnder the tenor and forme of an Oath to wit I N. doe firmely beleeue sweare and professe that the Catholike and Apostolique Romane Church is the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches and I doe vowe promise and sweare true obedience to the Pope of Rome the Vicar of Christ Successour of S. Peter c. And this I hold to be the true Catholike Faith which whosoeuer beleeueth not cannot bee saued So your new Creed The now Romane Catechisme SECT 3. VPon this ground was founded that which you call the Romane Catechisme and published by the authoritie of the same Pope Pius and his Councell of Trent whereby yours as well as other Catechumenists are instructed to beleeue that The Catholike Church is One both because of one Faith also for that it is subiect to one inuisible Gouernour which is Christ and to one visible Head the Pope So your Catechisme The iudgement of Romane Doctors of singular Note SECT 4. IN the last place we are to consult with your publicke Readers in Schooles where by the testimonies of Three you may iudge of the faith of the rest especially these being as fully accomplished with all furniture of learning as any other The first thus The Church of Rome is the vniuersall Catholike Church not as it is a particular Bishopprick but as it comprehendeth all Beleeuers vnder the subiection of the Bishop of Rome And againe Wee must saith he hold it as a point of our Catholike Faith that this indiuiduall Congregation which professeth the Romane Faith and is vnited to the Pope of Rome is the true Catholike Church which I proue first by the Apostles Creed c. The Second thus We define saith
vnto them Much lesse can we be perswaded that the first Catholike Emperors albeit otherwise most godly and humble were knowne to performe it If it had bene so then would not your Massonius when he sought to shew the Antiquity of it send you to seeke it He knoweth not where much lesse would your great Antiquary Polydore abhor this as A new and naughty custome of Imperiousnesse deuised first by the Popes themselues But of all others your Bozius one so transported with zeale towards the Pope and this his honour that he held it an Iniustice in the Pope to refuse this kind of Submission from any Christian whomsoeuer will giue you the best and worst satisfaction touching the practise of ancient Emperours where speaking of this Ceremony of Kissing the Popes feet and answering this doubt why in those Ages all sorts of Bishops gaue greater honour vnto Kings and Emperours than they receiued from them Then saith he whilest that the affaires of Christianity were not as yet established Kings and Emperours swelling with Arrogancy and as yet breathing the Pride of Gentiles were not to be prouoked by Bishops by denying them outward honour Can you haue a better Answer for confirming the Ancient practise of Emperours in receiuing honour or a worse satisfaction than is this his sawcy and malepart boldnesse in blurring the estimation of those Emperours which were first as in time so in excellency of all virtues with the false imputation of Pride for receiuing Honour from all others as an homage due to their state and so prescribed by God as Saint Peter and Saint Paul do both witnesse The Estimation of those forenamed Christian Emperours SECT 4. MVch need not be spoken in the commendation of the former Emperours whom your owne Cardinall produceth both for Examples of Godlinesse and Catholike Beliefe and also as Monuments of Gods miraculous Protection vpon them for their Catholike profession sake euen Because they did heartily and sincerely cleaue vnto God The Emperours whom he nameth are Constantine the Great Theodosius the elder Honorius Theodosius the younger and Iustinian But the last with some detraction Prosperous was the Emperour Iustinian saith he so long as he was a Catholike Also Bozius The Emperour Iustinian saith he was of a sound iudgement in the Doctrine of Christianity for his first ten yeares and was so long prosperous but forthwith he handled two Popes viz. Syluerius and Vigilius so roughly that after he was afflicted with all kind of calamities and in the end fell into the Heresie of the Apthartodocites How long Iustinian was both a Catholike in his Faith and Prosperous in his affaires notwithstanding his withstanding your now Romish Subiection required of Popes of later times from their Emperours we shall willingly commit to the report of your owne Cardinall by whom you may vnderstand that the Emperour Iustinian began his Reigne in the yeare after Christ his Incarnation 528 whom vntill ten yeares after Bozius himselfe acknowledgeth to haue bene a glorious Catholike Within which compasse of yeares we reade concerning Iustinian of nothing but of Building of Churches conuersions of Idolaters Constitutions against Heretiks Edicts for the Faith and whereunto you haue taken such exceptions his booke of the Code and Paudects wherein because he medleth with Ecclesiasticall businesse he hath therefore bene censured by you for an Intruder Inuader and Vsurper of an Authoritie superiour vnto his owne Notwithstanding whatsoeuer Decrees and Constitutions Iustinian published concerning the Catholike Faith and Ecclesiasticall discipline if we may belieue your Baronius they were made by the aduise and counsell of Two Bishops and Patriarkes of Constantinople Now are we come to the Tenth yeare of his Empire being the 538. yeare of our Lord Christ wherein Iustinian sent Pope Syluerius into Exile Betweene which time and his exiling of Pope Vigilius are sixteene yeares in all which space is registred Iustinian his Confession of Faith commended by Pope Vigilius his Patronage of Antiquity and his Sanctions and Contestations against Heretikes Then cometh in the Banishment of Vigilius before the time of Iustinian his Heresie containing the space of fiue yeares in which Interim is reported vnto vs Iustinian his Peace with Vigilius his Reparation of the Temple of Sophia his Erecting a most goodly communion Table and his Discouery of treasons that were plotted against him And now at length Iustinian falleth into an Heresie which although it may be some exception to his person yet can it be none to our Cause who dispute from the Acts and Constitutions of Iustinian whilest hee was a Catholike Neuerthelesse we may not let passe the Testimonies of Such as giue vs better hope of him than to thinke that he died an Heretike who by your owne Confessions after this Emperours death esteemed otherwise of him as namely The Fathers of the sixt Generall Councell honouring his memory with the title of PIETIE So Pope Gregory accordingly calling him an Emperour of holy memory And Agatho the Pope accompting his name to be still Worthy of all religious reuerence famous vnto all for the truth so largely dispersed by his Edicts throughout the world We may conclude with your owne Spanish writer who vpon like proofes hath concluded thus It is now euident by that which hath bene said that they are not to be hearkened vnto who vniustly call Iustinian the Emperour an Heretike So he If any desire to see a iust and full Confutation of all the Obiections made against the Faith and piety of Iustinian he may throughly satisfie himselfe by reading of two worthy Authors who haue lately written both copiously and learnedly of this Subiect CHALLENGE SO many tokens of no Subiection from so famously-pious and Catholike Emperours in so high a degree of Vsurpation and Inuasion as you call it vpon the Iurisdiction of Bishops and Popes in Gathering of Councels in prescribing them Lawes in Commanding their Presence in arresting Exiling their persons and all this in times so ancient and in so admirably-glorious state of the Church of Christ when so many hundreds of most learned and godly Fathers and illustrious Lights of the Church Catholike chiefly flourished and preuailed in Generall Councels for the determining of the Doctrine of Faith All these we say do sufficiently exclaime against the falshood arrogancy and iniquity of your Romish claime by an Article by force whereof all the aforesaid pious and Catholike Emperours Constantine the Great Theodosius the Elder Theodosius the Younger and Iustinian with such others must needs forfait their saluation Is it credible if this your Article viz. The Catholike Romane Church and Pope without Subiection whereunto and beliefe of the same Subiection there is no Saluation had bene then of Faith that no one of all those Catholike Bishops would haue Catechized their godly Disciples and taught them not to Inuade and Intrude vpon the Pope his Iurisdiction Or that no
desire to be vnited with the Church So they which is full enough for your fuller conuiction CHALLENGE IF without the Romane Church some may bee actually saued then the Addition of the word ROMANE caonot be a Declaration of The Catholike Church without which there is no Saluation But the Romane Church is such without which as you confesse some may be actually saued Ergo the Addition of the word ROMANE to the Catholike Church cannot bee a Declaration thereof For although All agree in this as your selues confesse that Without the Catholike Church there is no saluation yet haue you confessed two sorts of Christian Professors namely Excommunicates and Catechumenists to bee actually saued albeit no Members of your Romane Church As for being Saued only by Desire or Vâ—we of being in your Church it is but a wilde and extrauagant piece of learning in the iudgement of your owne Iesuite But we will reason the matter with you Know you not that the Church Catholike is compared by Saint Petor to the Arke of Noah that as all which were within that Arke were saued all without it were drowned although they Desired neuer so much to haue been admitted into the Arke so it is in the Church Catholike whosoeuer are essentiall members thereof cannot possibly perish and contrarily whoseuer is not a reall and vitall member therein cannot but perish The fourth Argument to proue that the Addition of the word ROMANE cannot be a Declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed In respect of the Diuine Authority of the Article SECT 7. IT hath alwaies beene the Profession of the Catholike Church it selfe not to esteeme any Doctrine an Article of Faith which is not constituted and to speake with better Emphasis Created by Diuine authority This being a Truth vniuersally consented vnto you if you will make good the Addition of the word ROMANE to the Article of the Catholike Church are iustly challengable either to proue that the Romane Church as it is the Romane Church was constituted by diuine Authority to be rather than any other transcendently THE Catholike Church or else to confesse your Article of Romane Church without which there is no Saluation to be but new and consequently a Doctrine rather of fancie than of Faith The necessity of this Consequence was well foreseene of those your Popes who were the first Authors and Patrons of this Article and therefore haue published in their writings and decrees that The Romane Church was by Diuine Authority ordained to be the Catholike Church This Question dependeth vpon the reason of the Pope of Rome his succession to Saint Peter to wit whether it were allotted to the Bishop of Rome to succed Saint Peter as Head of the Catholike Church by the institution of Christ or else by the fact of Saint Peter himselfe For if it were by command and appointment of Christ then it must be allowed as a Diuine Ordinance but if it issued onely from the fact of Saint Peter then by your owne Confessions it is no doctrine of Faith This being the state of the Question as it is propounded by your selues hereunto we desire to receiue your owne Resolutions To this purpose when wee consult with your choisest Doctors as namely Bellarmine Suarez Soto Paludanus Bannes Augustinus Triumphus Cordubensis Armachanus Waldensis and Others they that speake more ingenuously doe freely grant that the pretended Pontificall Dignity Romane as it is Romane is not from diuine authority because onely from the fact of Peter They that are more affectionate to the Romane See although they attribute it to the Institution of Christ yet dare they not say that this is to be beleeued vpon certainty of Faith but onely as a matter Probable and Coniecturall Nay if you shall haue but a little patience vntill we descend to that point you shall perceiue by the iudgement of the Catholike Church it selfe in a generall Councell of primatiue Antiquity that The Prerogatiue which the Church of Rome then had was but from Humane authority CHALLENGE AN Addition standing onely vpon Probability and Coniecture cannot be infallibly a Declaration of an Article of Faith founded vpon Diuine and Infallible authority But your Addition of the word ROMANE standeth as you confesse vpon probability and Coniecture onely Ergo it cannot be an infallible Declaration of the Apostolicall Article The Catholike Church without which there is no saluation And consequently your word ROMANE added to the Christian Creed thereby to make the Romane Church The Catholike Church without which there is no saluation must necessarily be iudged Antichristian The fift Argument to proue that the Addition of the word ROMANE cannot be a Declaration of the Article The Catholike Church as it is Visible in respect of the Time past whereunto the word CATHOLIKE hath relation euen before Rome was founded a Church SECT 8. WHo knoweth not that your Addition of the word ROMANE vnto the Apostolicall Article of The Catholike Church is to infuse an opinion into the mindes of Christians that Catholike and Romane are termes vniuocall and conuertible which is as much as to say that whensoeuer there was a Romane Church it was The Catholike Church and whensoeuer there was a Catholike Church it was Romane Scarce shall you finde any Romish Professor especially among the vulgar who haue not this conceit of that Article of Christian Faith Notwithstanding your more learned Doctors are not ignorant that this Apostolicall Article The Catholike Church was published before that in Rome was founded a Church and that the Apostolicall Church it selfe was Catholike before the Article of the Catholike Church was proclaimed Which name CATHOLIKE or vniuersall was first attributed to the Church Christian To distinguishit as you know from the Synagogue of the Iewes which was circumscribed and confined to one only nation whereas the Church Catholike is not limited to any one place but is as broad in succession of place as is the whole world Now concerning the Catholike Church in the time of the Apostles Card. Baronius whose History you honour as an heauenly Lampe or torch telleth you that The Creed of the Apostles wherein is the Article of The Catholike Church was composed by them in the yeere of Christ XLIV and that the Catholike Church was extant sometime before this Article was put into the tenor of the Creed Which he demonstrateth from the act of Saint Peter who in the yeere of our Sauiour XXXIX is found Visiting the Churches in Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia c. That the same Apostle Saint Peter Constituted the Church of Antioch in the same yeere and after that he had gouerned the See of Antioch seuen yeeres hee in the yeere XLV translated his See from Antioch to Rome Your other Chronologer Genebrard yeeldeth vnto vs eleuen yeeres betweene the Composing of the Apostles Creed and the first foundation of the Church of Rome by the Apostle Saint
Peter We adde that S. Paul whom all the Romanists teach to haue beene a Co-founder with Saint Peter of the Church of Rome had been before that time A Persecuter of the Church of Christ as he himselfe confesseth when Saint Steuen suffered Martyrdome But the Church of Christ as it is called Catholike comprehendeth say you all times CHALLENGE THe addition of a word which betokeneth onely a part of Time of the Churches being cannot be a Declaration of the Church which is called Catholike on respect of the whole and vniuersall Time of the being of the Church But the addition of the word ROMANE doth betoken but a part of Time of the being of the Church namely after the first constitution of the Church of Christ Catholike Ergo It cannot be any true Explication of the Article properly called the Catholike Church except you will exclude out of the Church of Christ without which there is no saluation S. Stephen the first Christian Martyr and all other blessed primitiue Martyrs and Confessors who died the faithfull members of Christ before the Church of Rome had receiued her first life or breath Wherefore the word ROMANE cannot be added to our Christian Creed as a Declaration of that Article The Catholike Church without which there is no saluation without intolerable blasphemie against Apostles Martyrs and other Confessors and blessed Saints of God vnder the persecution of Saul afterwards Paul who because they were before the Church of Rome and consequently without it must be iudged by your Article to haue beene at that time without the state of Grace Of whom notwithstanding our Sauiour Christ gaue testimonie by this voice from heauen saying to Saul in their behalfe Why persecutest thou Mee So false and impious is your Addition of the word ROMANE to that Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed The sixt Argument to proue that the Addition of the word ROMANE cannot be a Declaration of that Article in the Apostles Creed The Catholike Church In respect of the Time to come SECT 9. AGaine the word Catholike or vniuersall mentioned in the Apostles Creed as it comprehendeth as you haue said the Time past so doth it you know implie The time to come vntill the ends of the world according to the promise of Christ Mat. 28.20 Whereâ—ore our next Question must be whether the Church of Rome which will needs be the Catholike Church can infallibly professe a Prerogatiue of continuing the the same pretended Catholike Church vntill the ends of the world and whether her owne principles doe not vtterly confute this vsurpation It is a generall principle of your Doctors aswell Iesuites as others that If the succession in the gouernement of the Catholike Church were not allotted to the Bishop of Rome by diuine authority then the same gouernement may bee transported from the same Bishop and the Church of Rome may depart from the Faith as well as other Churches and by name the Church of Constantinople haue done This Consequence being so vniuersally receiued and approued in your owne Schooles our next endeauour will be to proue that it cannot appeare infallibly that the Church of Rome hath a Priuiledge of continuing The Catholike Church to the end of the world by any diuine authority This hath bene briefly touched already but here is the place to handle it more at large Your Canus with some Others lest they should bee compelled to confesse that the Church of Rome may possibly Apostate in future times haue contended to defend that It was constituted the Catholike Church by the Institution of Christ. Which if it were true then would there appeare some euidence thereof either before or else after the Ascension of Christ. But Before the Ascention of Christ saith your Iesuite Suarez Nothing appeareth of any such Ordinance either in Scripture or from Tradition And that which is commonly alledged out of Egesippus of Christ his appearance after his Ascension vnto Peter Commanding him to fixe his seate at Rome vntill his death in the iudgement of your Iesuite Valentianus is of no force to proue that the Romane Church was to continue Catholike We draw nearer our marke There is no certaintie of faith saith Bellarmine with whom the Iesuite Suarez consenteth that the Sea Apostolike is so fixed at Rome as that it cannot be separated and remoued from that Church because there is neither Scripture nor Tradition to proue this Nor these onely but Sotus with diuers other Schoole-men directly and peremptorily consent that The Priuilege which Rome doth challenge is onely by the ordinance of Saint Peter and therefore from humane authority Yea and Some yeeld not so much as the Institution by S. Peter but by the Church so farre that If the Church in a Councell should choose the Arch-bishop of Treuers or of any other place to be Head of the Church he should be rather the Successor of Peter than the Bishop of Rome Furthermore we reserue vnto it's due place your Confession that The Citie of Rome shall vndoubtedly bee the Seate of Antichrist CHALLENGE AN Addition which notifieth a Church that may possibly be translated else-whither and depart from the Faith cannot bee a Declaration of that Article in our Christian Creed which signifieth a Church infallibly continuing in the Faith to the end of the world But the word ROMANE as it signifieth the Romane Church betokeneth a Church which may possibly be Translated and depart from the Faith Ergo it cannot be a Declaration of the Catholike Church mentioned in the Apostles Creed So then to make the word Catholike hereditarie to that Romane Church which possibly may be as truly Antichristian as Rome it selfe is sure to be by your owne Confessions The Seate of Antichrist doth plainly discouer an Article New False Antichristian and Blasphemous The seuenth Argument to proue that the Addition of the word ROMANE to the Catholike Church cannot be a Declaration of the Christian Faith mentioned in the Apostles Creed in respect of any Present Time SECT 10. THe Certainty whatsoeuer it is of your Article The Catholike Romane Church is built vpon this foundation that the Pope of Rome is the Catholike and Vniuersall Bishop of the Church of Christ as the Popes themselues haue formerly defined Now because no structure can be more firme than is the foundation vpon which it is built wee make bold to demand with what faith any of you can beleeue any Pope whatsoeuer he be that is elected to be the True Pope that is as you call him The Catholike Bishop of Rome without which the Church of Rome cannot be acknowledged The Catholike Church This Consequence Two of your Iesuites did truly discerne which made Them resolue thus As the visible Church saith the one is this indiuiduall Church so the visible Head thereof must needs be this visible Pope who by the common consent is so ordained vnto whom we owe obedience as
so behaued himselfe among them that he might seeme in a manner to haue neglected his Pastorship by carrying himselfe as a Brother and Equall with them and not as either Head or Rector ouer them So he And he giueth you a Reason hereof for If Peter saith he had written as a Pope then might he be thought to haue published rather Pontificall than Diuine Lawes c. Which is no more in effect but that which a French Lawyer hath said before him namely that In the Apostles time as often as any was ordained Bishop or Deacon or any thing was to be decreed which appertained to the Church Peter neuer tooke that vpon himselfe but permitted it to the whole Church So hee How then shall any imagine that you can truely obiect any one act of Peter which might but probably proue his Dominion and Iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles as the Pope challengeth to doe ouer all other Bishops seeing that you are constrained to grant that he made himselfe Equall with them so farre as that he might seeme in a sort to haue neglected his Pastorship Although indeede this could not Saint Peter doe without exceeding iniurie to his place and Gouernment if he had any such because it belongeth to euery one in his degree to maintaine and magnifie the dignitie of his Ministrie as Saint Paul teacheth saying I will magnifie my office inasmuch as I am Doctor of the Gentiles Vpon which Text Pope Gregory collecteth a generall lesson for the defence of his owne Iurisdiction The Apostle saith hee teacheth vs so to carrie humilitie in our heart that we doe keepe and preserue the dignitie of that order whereunto we are called So he CHALLENGE WHat shall we say then will you haue vs beleeue that Peter held his whole Monarchie for so you call it which he had ouer the Apostles for the space of fifteene yeeres without any expression of any of those Notes of Catholike Iurisdiction which you account to be proper vnto Papall Monarchie ouer all Bishops and Pastors As for Example Not the Crowne vpon his head to shew his Empire nor the Miter to shew his Pastorall Dominion ouer the other Apostles No Legate à latere to carrie his Mandates no person admitted a pride which Saint Peter abhorred to kisse his feet No one Canon of directing them No Claime or yet Admittance of any Appeale from them No Reseruation of any great Case as by speciall Prerogatiue proper to himselfe such as you attribute to the Pope to wit of Admitting any out of the Dioces of another of Absoluing those that are Excommunicate by another of Canonizing Saints of Confirming Synods of Granting plenarie Indulgences of Pardoning Simonie and almost an hundred the like sinnes Teach vs this when you can perswade your selues that there euer was Temporall Monarch diligent in the Execution of his office that would neuer be distinguished from his Nobles either by his Guard or Coine or Habit or Commands or publike Edicts and Constitutions or at least by some one Note and Character of Imperiall eminencie and Authoritie I onely adde making bold to aske you a Question If that the Addition of the word ROMANE to the article of the Catholike Church be so necessary for the directing of the faith of Christians to the acknowledgement of the Seat of Saint Peter at Rome as the infallible ground of their faith and center of their Saluation why within the whole seauen yeares during which time as you say Saint Peter had his Seat at Antioch before it was translated to Rome cannot you finde in all Antiquitie the Addition of the word ANTIOCHIAN and the like Article of The Antiochian Catholike Church without vnion and subiection whereunto there is no saluation Farre be it from vs to thinke that the blessed Apostle Saint Peter who was caught of our Lord that The Catholike Church wheresoeuer for Place or whensoeuer for Time was built vpon the Rocke of the Confession of Christ the Sonne of God should euer haue entertained such a fancie of confining the supreme residence of Gods infallible spirit to any one singular Place Thus much of Saint Peter himselfe We proceed to the Pope That Saint Peter neuer beleeued the Priuileges which he receiued from Christ by the obiected Scriptures to be deriued from himselfe and conferred vpon any Pope SECT 6. NEuer had we heard you alleage any of these Scriptures to make Peter such a Rocke as must signifie a predominancie ouer all other Apostles except you had sought out of that Rocke to carue a Pope who should likewise haue a transcendent power ouer all other Bishops But seeing that as hath beene prooued the primitiue Peter had no such Prerogatiue surely your deriuatiue Peter must needs proue a Nullity But to the point The first Scripture Luke 22. CHRIST said indeed directly to S. Peter I haue prayed for thee that thy Faith faile not wherefore thou being conuerted strengthen thy Brethren Which we confesse doth signifie as great a priuilege granted to S. Peter as any mortall man can desire to enioy namely an infalllible assurance of sauing grace in this world and of saluation it selfe after his departure out of this life Matter we say of Saluation nothing of Dominion and that also proper to the primitiue person of Saint Peter but making nothing for any person deriuatiue and Successor of his be he Pope or whosoeuer If you could proue this we should need no more for our satisfaction Christ saith your Cardinall obtained two Priuileges for S. Peter in promising that his Faith should not faile and that he should neuer depart from the true Faith in himselfe the second that he should not teach others any thing contrary to the true Faith Thus of Saint Peter How can you deriue any part of this from Saint Peter to the Pope The first of these saith he peraduenture doth not but the second without all doubt redoundeth to his Successors So he Which is so vndoubtedly an vnconscionable Answer that it is subiect to a threefold Confutation the first is by retorting the Cardinal 's owne Assertion vpon himselfe for whereas your Parisian Doctors will haue Peter in his answer to Crist to haue beene the figure of the Church of Christ and not the sole Gouernor thereof himselfe the same your Cardinall will needs confute that Glosse in this manner Because Christ saith he did expresse one singular person saying Simon Simon adding the Pronoune of the second person in these words I haue prayed for THEE that THY Faith faile not and therefore THOV being conuerted strengthen THY Brethren Surely if he had spoken of the whole Church he would haue said I haue prayed for YOV that YOVR Faith faile not So he Which is a true and sound Collection indeed and by the Law of Retorsion confirmeth our defence that this Scripture doth not intend any other Prerogatiue than that which was onely proper to that Thou Simon and I haue prayed
which ancient Fathers haue collected from thence yet so as in alleaging their names Iames Peter and Iohn he preferreth Iames before Peter Do you aske why You can answer your selues Because say you Iames was Bishop of Hierusalem where the Apostles were at this time when S. Paul writ Be it so It must then follow that Iames was in that respect superior to Peter Lastly whiles Paul is earnest in vindicating the dignitie of his Pastorship euen then when he would stop the mouthes of false Apostles who obiected that he had no sufficient Commission to preach as not hauing bene authorized by the other Apostles hee answereth that hee had receiued his Calling Not of men neither by man but immediatly from and by Iesus Christ. And for proofe hereof he addeth a reason saying of the time when he was at Ierusalem I indeed saw Peter but other of the Apostles saw I none saue Iames the Lords brother His Consequent is Ergo he receiued not any authoritie of his Ministration from the Apostles Which had bene a seelie and indeed a sencelesse Reason if the spirit of Papistry had reigned in those dayes because his Aduersaries might readily haue replyed What is that you say Saw you none but Peter as though Peter were not sufficient in himselfe to authorize you seeing that Peter being the Vicar of Christ and the Ordinarie and Vniuersall Pastor of his Church is All in all because the Gouernor of all others without exception But Saint Paul we know spake by the Spirit of God the Author and Fountaine of Diuine reason and could not therefore argue absurdly yet notwithstanding he answered saying I saw none but Peter except Iames. Plainly signifying that Peter at that time could not challenge Iurisdiction ouer the College of all the other Apostles I. CHALLENGE SEt before your eyes any Bishop as for example the Bishop of Toledo who should defend that he was a Bishop extraordinarie and needed not at all to be authorized from Rome and when it should thereupon be obiected that he had bene at Rome with the Pope and other Bishops and Cardinals there and therefore it must needs be thought that he was established in his Calling by them then the Bishop of Toledo should answer semblably as did Saint Paul saying I confesse indeed that I went to Rome to visite the Pope and aboad with him certaine daies but other of the Bishops or Cardinals there I saw none except the Bishop of Cullen and therefore you may not obiect vnto me that I receiued any authoritie from the Conclaue and College at Rome Can you conceiue that any answer could more derogate from the now Popedome than to BVT and except against his authoritie in ordaining or establishing that Bishop of Cullen Yet such like was the Answer and Apologie of Saint Paul for himselfe II. CHALLENGE THe Cause is waightie and may require a further application as thus whiles you giue to the Pope an absolute Iurisdiction cum plenitudine potestatis ouer all other Bishops how can you suffer him to be mated or equalled with other Bishops as Paul did Peter by ioyning in societie with him Iames Iohn Much lesse would you permit that the name of the Bishop of Cullen should be preferred before the name of the Bishop of Rome whose Dioces you extend To the ends of the world as to marshall them thus viz. The Bishop of Cullen the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Millan as Saint Paul did in alleaging the name of Iames before Peter For for you to say that this was done In respect that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem and the Cause had relation to his Dioces is as much as to feigne that the Arch-bishop of Auignon whilest the Pope resided there had beene put in Catalogue before the Pope himselfe or that the name of some King must bee placed before the name of the Emperour euen within his owne Empire Next to talke that the Bishop of Toledo or any other Bishop came to visit the Pope and was dismissed by receiuing from him The right hand of fellowship as Paul did of Peter how if perhaps the phrase had such a literall sence would you thinke this good manners in a Bishop since you do tutor and instruct your Kings and Emperours to do homage to the Pope In kissing his foote But especially to heare any Bishop with a BVT to intimate the No-authoritie of the Pope in his Creation and Ordination as S. Paul did of Peter might this seeme tolerable vnto you who still honour him with the supreme Titles of n The Vniuersall Father The Catholike Bishop and Pastor ouer the whole Christian world III. CHALLENGE WIllingly shall we passe by other Obiections taken from the comparison of Paul or other Apostles with Saint Peter although we know that if Saint Peter had giuen sentence in the Apostolicall Synod at Hierusalem as Iames did in his presence If Peter had beene a Sender of any of the Apostles as he was himselfe one that was Sent by others If Peter had leaned on Christ his brest as Iohn did and had therefore beene solicited by Iohn to aske a question of secrecie as Iohn was by Peter If Peter had beene called by a voice from heauen as Saint Paul was If Peter had made as bold with Paul as Paul did with Peter by Reprouing him publikely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before them all which farre differs from the Papall Prerogatiue set downe in the Canon Law saying If the Pope be negligent c. So as thereby innumerable are led to Hell yet is there none that may say Why doe you soe If Peter alone as did Saint Paul had written To the Romanes If it had beene said of Peter's ship as it was of that wherein S. Paul was God hath giuen vnto thee all them that Saile with thee And Except those remaine in the ship you cannot be saued Finally and principally if Saint Peter had written of himselfe as Saint Paul did saying I haue the care of all the Churches This one to omit the rest would haue seemed to you a firmer Foundation than the word ROCKE and haue caused you to lay downe your former iô paean and insultation raised from the depraued sence of those Scriptures Blessed art thou Simon or I haue prayed for thee or Feede thou my Flocke or any other the like whereby you labour to erect a Monarch of Peter and by your Consequence vpon the Pope ouer all Churches in the world Wherein we challenge you of preiudice and rashnes Hitherto we haue spoken of the Faith of Saint Paul concerning the authority of Saint Peter and but consequently of the Romane Bishop We are in the next place to trie S. Paul's Faith directly concerning the Romane Church it selfe That Saint Paul was not of the now Romane Faith concerning the former Article viz. The Catholike Romane Church c. as may appeare by
That which we now contend for in the Popes of Rome may be cleared by an example of him that is called Emperour of Rome who because hee hath neither a foot of possession in Rome nor in the Territories thereof nor yet any professed Subiect inhabiting therein but the whole Princedome is belonging to the Pope your owne Diuines hold it a kinde of Soloecisme to name any at this day The Romane Emperour Therefore to alleadge a few of many that may be produced Lyra The Empire of Rome saith he hath for a long time beene without an Emperour Faber What obedience I pray you saith he doth Rome yeeld to her Monarch meaning the Emperour So to Now saith he is that temporall Dominion of the Citie of Rome ceased and your Iesuite Salmeron The Romane Emperour saith hee was ouerthrowne long agoe II. CHALLENGE THe Romish Babylon then by the Reuelation of Saint Iohn is that Citie of Rome whose place and people must be destroyed No people can be called Romane without they haue relation to Rome nor any people called The Church of Rome except they be Professors of the faith in Rome Therefore Saint Iohn prophecying of these things could not but beleeue that before the end of the world that Church which is now called The Church of Rome shall depart from the faith euen because this Departure must be from the sincere doctrine and worship of God vnto errour and Idolatrie Oh! that this were not at this day a iust Cause to challenge euery one to Come out of Babylon Both which we shall be ready in due time to proue by as true grounds as any haue hitherto beene deliuered That Saint Iohn's faith did not conceiue the now pretended Monarchie of the Pope aboue all other Bishops and Pastors in the Catholike Church SECT 16. WHat that Papall Monarchie is in your faith and how it is deriued we haue heard namely that because Saint Peter was the Vicar of Christ vpon earth as his ordinary Pastor ouer all the other Apostles therefore the Successors of Saint Peter in the same See are of the same authoritie and Iurisdiction ouer the whole Church of Christ and euery member thereof Hence issueth the Article of your now Romane faith that Without obedience and subiection to the Pope as the Catholike Bishop of the Catholike Church None can be saued The meditation vpon this Article begetteth a Probleme viz. whether Saint Iohn the Euangelist who liued 20. yeares after Saint Peter were indeede subordinate and subiect to the Iurisdiction of Linus or Cletus the immediate Successours of Saint Peter Either Saint Iohn was subiect to the Pope or he was not What say you It seemeth vnto mee saith your Iesuite that the Apostles who suruiued Peter were subiect to the Pope because the power of the Pope was alwayes ordinary and to continue in the Church Haue you any ground for this I cannot remember saith hee that I haue read in any Author any thing of this point So he CHALLENGE SAint Paul as hath beene proued reckoned these Three Peter Iames and Iohn equally Columnas that is The Pillars and as it were equally the three Chiefe Worthies among the Disciples who concerning the offices of their Apostleship receiued from Christ as your Cardinall Cusanus hath taught you Euery way an equall charge And without Controuersie the faith of Iohn and Paul was both the same Is it then possible for a Christian man to thinke that Iohn being that Apostle who was immediately chosen by Christ and equall to Peter should thinke himselfe subiect to Linus the Successour of Peter that he who for his sublimitie of knowledge in the mysteries of Christ was called The Diuine who was made the Pen-man of the holy Ghost in writing the Gospell and one for whose infallibility in the truth Christ offered vp praiers to his Father ought hee now to submit his iudgement vnto Linus one of the line of those Popes whereof Some haue beene by Generall Councels and by Popes themselues iudged for Heretikes And againe that Iohn who at the time of the Supper of our Lord leaned vpon the brest of our Sauiour when Peter you know was but next after Iohn should now prostrate himselfe before Linus the Successor of Peter and if this Ceremonie had beene so old to doe him the honour as to Kisse his feet And not this onely but to beleeue this Article of due Subiection to the Pope Without which none can be saued which indeede is more than to Kisse the feet or to licke the dust of the feet of Saint Peter's Successor Sure we are that the Disciples of Saint Iohn to wit the Christians of the Easterne Church were not of your beliefe who to adhere to the orders of Saint Iohn refused to obserue the Easter of the Latine Church which they would not haue done if they had beleeued Saint Iohn to haue beene subiect to those Romane Bishops or yet to Peter himselfe Before we can conclude you are to be exhorted to obserue the Iesuiticall front of Suarez who in a matter of this nature concerning Saluation durst make this Conclusion of the Apostles Subiection and subordination vnder a Pope namely as you haue heard him confesse without any Author besides himselfe Whereby you may discerne with what vntempered morter these men daube vp the Consciences of their Followers CHAP. V. That the Catholike and Apostolike Church of Christ it selfe at or about the Time of the foundation of the Church of Rome had no such Article of faith viz. The Catholike Romane Church without vnion wherewith there is no Saluation SECT 1. THe Churches vnto which Saint Paul writ for we name not the Romanes of whom wee haue intreated before were the Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Thessalonians and the dispersed Hebrewes As for the other Apostles Iames Peter Iohn Iude each one writ to Diuers those their Epistles which are intitled Catholike Epistles And the seauen Churches of Asia were they to whom the booke of the Apoealips or Reuelation was directed Among these the Apostles are instant and vrgent in inueying 1 against the Heresies of Iudaisme Saducisme of worshipping Angels 2 Against Apostasie and Antichristianitie 3 Against Diuisions and Schismes in the Church and abuse of Ecclesiasticall Orders therein And yet in all these there appeareth not any one Syllable or Iota to proue your Article of The Catholike Romane Church without vnion and subiection whereunto and to the Head thereof there is no saluation No nor yet so much as to intimate any one of the particles of this Article as first not to signifie that the Church of Rome was a Catholike much lesse THE Catholike Church as being in right which you say The Mother and Mistris of all others Not to note that in the conuincing of Heretikes Christians ought to looke as to their Cynosura to the Faith of the Romane Church nor that for the discouering
you and such is your now Romane Faith But the Fathers of the Generall Councell of Chalcedon were of a contrary beleefe because their reason of withstanding the Pope was as you know For that they held that the See of Rome was founded by humane authority Thinking that the Church of Rome got the Primacie namely of Order by reason onely that it was the chiefe Imperiall Seate So you We haue heard of Oppositions enough Gladly would we vnderstand how you can reconcile these oddes so that wee may not iustly condemne your now Romane Faith of Nouelty by the iudgement of a Generall Councell This was indeed say you the Decree of a great Councell but the Decree was not lawfully proceeded in because the Legates of the Pope were absent and afterwards protested against it And Pope Leo himselfe would not approue it saying that hee did allow onely those Decrees and Canons in that Synod which concerned matters of Faith So you And now vpon this Euidence heare our Verdict CHALLENGE IN these Premisses we finde a Councell in your owne opinion and in the Iudgement of the Christian World lawfull and Generall consisting of more than 400 Fathers without exception Catholike and Orthodoxe These haue opposed your Article of the Necessity of Subiection to the Pope razing the very foundation thereof by beleeuing that his Primacie is not by diuine Authority Vpon this beleefe they easily cast downe the roofe of your Papall building denying the Popes power of gaine-saying the Positiue and humane Decrees and Canons of Generall Councels and by erecting a Patriarch whom They adorne with a Priuilege of power excepting priority of Order in taking place giuing voice c. Equall to the Bishop of Rome What is if this bee not to ruinate your Romane Article Yet much more stand you entangled in your owne Answers For if that so many and so Reuerend Fathers determined against the pretended Prerogatiue of Rome notwithstanding the Contrarie protestation of the Popes Legates they teach vs thereby another crosse point to your Article viz. that the voice of the Pope by his Legates is of no more virtue in a Synod than the suffrage of any other Bishop And what though the Legates of the Pope were absent at the making of this Act in the Councell because they would not bee present and were notwithstanding present the next day and disclaimed the Act yet could nothing preuaile And againe what was the nullity of authority in the Popes Legates whensoeuer they contended against the Maior part of a Synod But Pope Leo say you gainesaid the former Decree of that Councell albeit he did approue of all Canons in the same so farre as concerned marters of Faith This Answer also proueth you faithlesse in all your defence euen by the iudgement of Pope Leo. For if he therefore opposed the Decree of that Synod which oppugneth the Papall Primacie and Dominion because it was no matter of Faith he thereby plainely confesseth your Article which maintaineth the Dominion of the Romane Church without which there is no saluation not to be at all an Article of Faith We conclude Therefore either must those 430 godly most Reuerend Fathers together with Leo the Pope himselfe be damned by your Romane Article or else must your Article be condemned by their contrarie iudgement and Decree Which notwithstanding the Popes Contradiction was afterwards sufficiently confirmed in other parts of Christendome by the vse thereof which as you confesse Continued a long time So large and long a false-hood is that which your Article of Necessary Subiection to Rome doth exact of the whole Church of Christ. V. That the beleefe of the Article of an Vniuersall Subiection to Rome as the Catholike Church damneth the 165 Fathers of the first Generall Councell at Constantinople being the second of that name Anno 553. SECT 6. LEt your owne most priuileged albeit most partial Authors Baronius Binius relate the whole Cause 1. Concerning the authority of this Councell whether it deserue the Title of Vniuersall Councell or no They answer that It was a General Councell and so approued by all Popes Predecessors and Successors to Saint Gregory and by himselfe saying I doe reuerence the fift Councell of Constantinople Now come we to the relation of the Cause First of Pope Agapetus The cause of Anthimius which he had condemned was afterwards ventilated in the Councell of Constantinople This argueth the No-Dominion of the Pope ouer that Councell which will take vpon them to examine that cause which the Pope had before condemned After Agapetus succeedeth Vigilius At what time In the Councell of Constantinople that which they called Tria Capitula was condemned The summe of their Answer is this Pope Vigilius before this Generall Councell of Constantinople defended the Cause of the Tria Capitula which the Councell being gathered together condemned The Pope resisted the Decree of the Councell the Councell endeth Pope Vigilius for not consenting to this Councell is banished by the Emperour Iustinian After that this Councell had so concluded Vigilius confirmed the sentence of the Councell of Constantinople and was thereupon released out of Banishment by the Emperour In all this say you the Popes change of his minde cannot be preiudiciall to him or his See for that the cause being no matter of Faith but onely of Persons he did it vpon iust reason least the East Church and the the West should fall into Schisme and be rent in sunder Thus farre your Authors CHALLENGE BE the Cause matter of Faith or onely of Fact or Persons it mattereth not nor to what end it was done Wee are not to inquire into the doctrines but the dispositions of this Councell nor to respect the point of Vnion of Churches but that which you haue created for a new Article of Faith the point of Necessary subiection to the Romane Church and Bishop thereof First by your owne Confession the Pope defendeth that which afterward the Councell gain-sayeth Next the Pope contradicteth the Decree of the Councell to wit of the same Councell determinately concluding and persisting in their Sentence against the same Pope euen to his Banishment for the same Cause Yet in the end he is glad for Vnions sake to yield vnto the former Decree of the Councel So They who in their Annotations conceale that which the Text expressely deliuereth We condemne say they all that haue defended Tria Capitula But Vigilius say you had before this Councell defended those Tria Capitula Therefore was your Pope also condemned by this Councell Behold now forsooth your Romane Faith Behold your Monarch Behold his Dominion Behold the necessary Subiection of his Subiects If it be called Dominion to Command and be glad to yeeld or accounted Subiection of that Councell to prescribe Decrees against the sentence of your Pope or esteemed Faith of your Article of Necessary subiection to the Romane Church vpon losse of Saluation to persist in
and Soueraigns therfore am I the King of those Kings Fourthly If you omit such holy men as addressed their requests to the Bishop of Rome such as were Theodoret Athanasius Chrysostome Flauianus not as to a peremptory Iudge but as to a Patron and Arbitrary Dais-man and one vpon whose Authoritie and credit one of them depending acknowledgeth in expresse words his reason to wit The integritie of the Faith of the Pope and promising to abide his award with the assistance of others and to be content therewith whatsoeuer should be determined relying vpon their iudgements so Theodoret Now whom one acknowledgeth to be his Patron and Aâ—bitratour him he denieâ—h to be his Iudge If we say these many Witnesses may be forborne then is there nothing at all said for the Necessitie of your Romane Article of Papall Dominion in respect of Vniuersall Right of Appeale Nay Fifthly if you will but obserue that the Popes which are most apprehensiue of Appeales to the Church of Rome doe not plead any Right from Diuine Authoritie but onely from Ecclesiasticall Canons and Customes so then for the Church can no more create an Article of Faith for mans soule to beleeue than it can create the soule of man your Article cannot be of Faith which wanteth Diuine Ordinance the onely Foundation of Faith Our second Discouery of the Vanity of your Pretence for Vniuersall Right of Appeales to Rome by an Argument taken from the Councell of Chalcedon SECT 16. ONE whole Chapter is spent by your Cardinall in answering the Obiection of Nilus Arch-Bishop of Thessalonica in Greece proouing Appeales to haue been as generally allowed vnto the Patriarch of Constantinople as vnto the Patriarch of Rome because of the Equall Priuiledges granted by Generall Councels to the one with the other In answer whereunto your Cardinall is so miserably perplexed that we shall need no other Reply than to manifest how manifoldly he is repugnant vnto a Generall Councell to euident Truths and oftentimes vnto himselfe as may appeare by the Marginals The Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon held in the yeare 451. standeth thus If any Clerke haue a Cause against a Clerke let him be iudged by a Bishop if against a Bishop by an Arch-Bishop if against an Arch-Bishop by the Primate or by the Bishop of Constantinople The question is what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Primate He answereth by allowing the Answer of Pope Nicolas that by Primate is there meant the Bishop of Rome False for the Canon vseth a Climax or Gradation from Clerke to Bishop from Bishop to Arch-bishop from Arch-Bishop to Primate or the Bishop of Constantinople Therefore doth the word PRIMATE signifie that which is expressed namely the Bishop of Constantinople and not that which is not expressed viz. the Bishop of Rome Yet be it that it pointeth out the Bishop of Rome then beware the Popes Head of Monarchie because the Bishop of Constantinople in this Gradation hauing the last that is the most excellent place he must be confessed to be iudged by that Canon Superior or at least Equall to the Bishop of Rome As it doth appeare in the like case thus A common Souldier is subiect to a Lieutenant a Lieutenant to a Captaine a Captaine to a Colonell or to a Generall shall Generall in this place be inferior to a Colonell But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he signifieth a Prince and therefore agreeth onely with the Pope who onely is a Prince False for the Councell of Carthage applying the same word to Priests forbiddeth that any be called Prince of Priests But the Councell speaketh saith he of Appellants that were neare to Constantinople False for it speaketh Generally of Euery Church as If a Clerke If a Bishop If an Arch-Bishop not if some certaine but whosoeuer But the Canon saith he speaketh of the First iudgement and not of the Last which is by Appeale Most false for the Canon it selfe denounceth peremptorily If any whosoeuer shall do contrary hereunto let him be subiect to Canonicall punishments Thus farre appeareth your Cardinalls repugnancy to the Truth of the Canon This Obiection is a Gordian Knot he could not vntie it with his teeth and now Alexander-wise he will cut that which he cannot loose These Canons â—f Chalcedon saith he Haue no force in our Church vntill they shall be confirmed by some Pope So he Why my Masters was not this Councell one of the First and best Generall Councells Did not your Pope Gregory adore this with Three others as the Oracle of God Was there euer any ancient Orthodox Father the Popes excepted that tooke exception vnto any Canon of that Councell Oh! you the Children forsooth of Ancient Fathers who can blow away three hundred and thirty Reuerend Fathers and Bishops with one breath But how should he agree with Others who in the third place will be found at variance both with Pope Nicolas and with himselfe Nicolas saith he expounded the Canon aright that by Primate was meant the Pope of Rome and notwithstanding for a farewell to this Obiection he saith that The Canon is to be vnderstood of the First iudgement Which euidently crosseth the Popes Exposition who granting that Iudgement to be there allowed to the Bishop of Constantinople Per permissionem and extraordinarily which Per Regulam and ordinarily he challenged to belong to himselfe could not but vnderstand the Last therfore the chiefest iudgement for Nicolas was one of the first vsurping Popes But your Cardinall that saith Pope Nicolas did rightly expound it if he would haue him make his Papall Iudgement for in gradation of Appeales the Last is alwaies the highest and most excellent to be the First The Popes we thinke would iudge him no true Proctor but a plaine Praeuaricator in their Cause So easie a matter it is for any that will be repugnant to all Others to be found sometimes contradictory to himselfe Our third Discouery of the Vanity of your Pretence of Right of Appeales the Principall part of your Romane Article out of Saint Cyprian Anno 256. SECT 17. SAint Cyprian hath bene often an Actor with others in our former Scenes in this he entereth the stage alone The Argument of his Epistle vnto Pope Cornelius is 1. His Expelling Fortunatus and Felicissimus from his Communion 2. Their Appeale to the Pope 3. His Preuention by his Letters to the Pope and his Reasons to perswade the Pope not to admit of their Complaints The summe whereof is comprized in one sentence which if your Cardinall had set downe sincerely without pulling our Wiâ—nes backe at the midst of his tale by omitting a principall part of his speach the very Sentence it selfe would haue on Cyprianus part decided the whole Cause concerning the point of Appeales to Rome For seeing that it is decreed saith Cyprian to Pope Cornelius of vs all and it is likewise both equall and iust
Church and inscribed his Epistle CATHOLIKE Secondly the Inscription of that Epistle standeth thus To all that are at Rome the Beloued of GOD Saints by calling c. Wherein wee cannot discerne so much as one Syllable of the word Church as wee finde in his Prefaces to the Corinthians To the Church that is at Corinth To the Galathians To the Churches of Galatia to the Thessalonians To the Church of the Thessalonians But in this Epistle hee saith onely To them at Rome Saints by calling to wit the same tenure which hee vsed in his Epistles to the Ephesiaâ—â— Philippians and Colossians Whereunto your Iesuitâ— Salmeron giues this answer There was at this time saith he Factions in Rome betweene Iewes and Gentiles both Christians when Peter the Pastor thereof was expelled out of Rome so that it had scarce the forme of a Church and therefore may it fitly bee said that Paul forbore to call the Romanes a Church If this were the meaning of Saint Paul then are wee sure that hee who would not vouchsafe to call it a Church did thinke Rome to bee as other Churches subiect to the alterations and Changes of Schismes and Factions so farre as not to deserue the name of a Church how much lesse of The Catholike Church Now bethinke your selues what the Apostle would haue called your Rome of after-times when not onely your Professors among themselues but also Popes and Antipopes were distracted into tedious and pernicious Schismes and Factions one against another so that the true Pope sometimes could not bee knowne Which thing your owne deuout Doctors haue greatly deplored One reckoning the number of these Schismes to haue beene Twenty Another accounting the Continuance of one of them to haue endured Fifty yeeres when as the Pope quitting the Citie of Rome for many yeeres together kept his residence at Auignon in France Our third Proofe of Saint Pauls indifferent estimation of the Church of Rome SECT 13. THe third point concerneth the Prerogatiue which you assume to your Romane Church before others Wee shall desire you to consult once againe with Saint Paul in the same Epistle Chap. 1. Ver. 13. saying I haue oftentimes purposed to come vnto you Romanes that I might haue some fruite among you â—lso 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen as also among other Gentiles That one wor◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen as also among Others must needs prooue a prick in your eye who can looke vpon nothing that can more equall the condition of other Churches with the Church of Rome than that word doth by the confession of your Cardinall Tolet and he would haue you to Marke it and we also pray you to Marke what he saith MARRKE saith he the indifferencie of the Gospel because although the Romanes were farre more eminent than other Nations and had the Primacie neuerthelesse in the preaching of the Word and soules-businesse belonging to saluation the Apostle maketh Others equall with the Romanes Among you saith the Apostle as also among other Gentiles of what Nation soeuer So he Heere your Cardinall not to dissemble maketh the Comparison to stand betweene the Romanes and the Grecians as they were before their calling vnto Christianity namely in the equality of Sinne not any one deseruing to be partaker of Grace by the Gospell more than another Neuerthelesse if you shall Marke a little better nothing can be more cleare than that the Apostle compareth these Romanes as they were Christians with other Christian Gentiles conuerted to the Faith because of the same Romanes to whom he said Ver. 6. You are called of Iesus Christ and Ver. 8. You whose Faith is spoken of through-out the World and Ver. 11. I long to see you that I may impart vnto you some spirituall gift to the end you may be established of the Same he saith here in this 13 Verse That I might haue some fruit among you these you know could not bee other than Christians whom he thus commended as already called to the Faith therefore in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as of other Gentiles he meant the Churches of the Gentiles committed vnto Christ Those saith Aquinas vnto whom he had preached So that the labour of the Apostle was vnpartiall vnto the Churches of Christ further than they should bring forth the Fruites of the Gospell of Christ CHALLENGE TWo things there are by which the estimation which Writers haue of Persons or Incorporations to whom they Dedicate their Epistles may bee discerned to wit Inscriptions and Comparisons The Apostle by the Inscription of his Epistle to the Romanes hath giuen vs iust presumption to thinke that he held not the Church of Rome then The Catholike Church which as then he had cause to forbeare to call so much as a Church and that the said Church by Comparison is subiect to alteration as well as Others And so much the rather because the Indifferencie of the Gospell is such as is not to be tied to one place or people more than to another but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall to all Churches so farre forth as they shall walke worthie of the same Gospell of Christ accordingly as we haue beene directed by the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romanes The Confirmation of the same Faith of Saint Paul by your owne Confessions equalling Saint Paul and Saint Peter in their diuers Relations to the Church of Rome SECT 14. WHat shall we say to your owne free grants 1. That Saint Peter and Saint Paul were both Co-founders of the Romane Church 2. That both were called Bishops of the same Church by Epiphanius 3. That the Authority of Both is cited in the Popes Breeues for Confirmation of Papall Ordinances 4. That both haue their Images ingrauen in your Popes Bulls yea and that in such sort that Paul sometime hath the right hand of Peter as well as other while Peter of Paul Thus farre your Popes and Iesuites CHALLENGE WHich being so how may it not perswade you that your Popes anciently iudged that Saint Paul did not beleeue himselfe subiect to the Iurisdiction of Saint Peter and his Roman See except you will thinke it possible to extract a Primacy of Authoritie out of Aequalitie as well of Titles as of Ordinances or else to conceiue one to be subiect vnto him of whom he hath the vpper-hand especially knowing that to be placed on the Right hand was held an Argument of greater honour among all people the Persians onely excepted If your Popes at this day should see any Bishops picture stamped ioyntly on his Seale that wee may appeale to your selues in this Case guesse wee pray you whether hee could behold any other matched in such an equipage with himselfe without high indignation and extreame Cause of Anathematization So iustly is your new Faith of your now Popes condemned by ancient Attributes Authorities and Seales Thus farre of the faith of Saint Paul your supposed Co-founder of the
Church of Rome about the time when it was first erected That Saint Iohn his Faith did not conceiue the same Article of Subiection to the Catholike Romane Church c. SECT 15. NOt long after the same Time of the foundation of the Church of Rome did Saint Iohn write his Booke of Reuelation wherein he reuealeth that the Citie of Rome is Babylon according to the generall consent of your owne Iesuites and other Diuines directed not onely by the iudgement of Ancient Fathers but especially and inuincibly by Saint Iohn in the clearenesse of that Scripture So iust Cause had the most iudicious of Kings Christian IAMES our late Soueraigne of famous memorie to auerre saying This place viz. Reuel chapp 17. 18. doth clearely and vndeniably declare that Rome is or shall be the seat of that Antichrist For no Papist now denieth that by Babylon here Rome is directly meant c. Next that it signifieth Rome not onely as it was Ethnicall Rome in the dayes of heathenish Emperours by which mist many of your Doctors a long time gulled and deceiued their Disciples lest your Papall Rome might haue come within their ken but also noteth Rome as it shall be in the later age of the World the Seat of Antichrist And not thus onely but that the same Citie shall be burnt with fire A Truth so euident that your Rhemists who otherwise of all others are most bleare-eyd at the sight of any light that may any way make against Rome doe thus farre grant as to say The great Antichrist shall haue his seat at Rome as it may well be thought but others thinke Ierusalem rather shall be his seat But your Iesuites Ribera and Viega both of â—hem Spanish Doctors and publike Professors doe confidently auerre that They dare hold him for A MOST NOTABLE FOOLE that shall denie it as being a matter without all doubt So say they nor so onely but also proue it by conuincing Arguments 1 Because that the Text saith expresly of this Babylon that It shall be burned 2 They that shall then liue shall see the smoke of her fire and lament her destruction 3 Because the spirit warneth all them that are in her to depart Come out of her my people that yee receiue not of her plagues But there were then nâ— Faithfull in the heathenish Rome or if any were yet are they commanded to Come out of her for feare of being consumed with fire And lastly they adde to the euidence of the text the Oracles of Sibyl as it were a torch vnto the Sunne viz. that The seauen-hild Rome shall be destroyed with fire Thus farre your owne Authors not once questioned for this doctrine and although professing it in the fierie Region of the Spanish Inquisition yet not so much as an heire of their beards scorched therefore yea these their bookes are publikely allowed by the iudgement of besides others the Prouinciall of the Iesuites Marry yet the foresaid Authors lest they might hereby seeme to yeeld any matter of insultation to vs Heretikes as they call vs or hereby preiudice the Church of Rome they doe againe and againe admonish their Readers that this Prophecie although it point out the destruction of the Citie of Rome for her Apostacie from the faith by her Idolatrie yet aimeth it not at the Church of Rome or the Bishop thereof because the Apostacie shall be say they from the faith of that Church and Obedience to that Bishop Who though he abandon Rome and Rome it selfe be destroid yet is hee still Bishop of Rome So they I. CHALLENGE GOD himselfe by his owne example in his first dayes worke taught vs to diuide the light from the darknesse Thus then That the people of the Citie of Rome in the later age of the world must generally depart from the faith that whatsoeuer faithfull remaining must Depart out of the Citie that the Citie her selfe for her wickednesse and Idolatry must be consumed by fire seemeth now at length euen to our Romish Aduersaries themselues a truth as cleare as the day and that iustly as hath bin shewed But that to free their Church and Pope of Rome from the preiudice of defection and reuolt from the faith wee must forsooth beleeue that The Pope when all Christian people are departed out of the Citie and the Citie it selfe vtterly extinct shall still remaine the Bishop of Rome this we take to be as darke as darknesse it selfe We shall therefore call for a Torch for so you call Baronius his writings to discouer this darknesse He sheweth that The Church of Rome was constituted first by Peter at Rome where saith he his Pontificall seat or chaire was made of wood Then hee sheweth the ancient custome of Erecting Chaires or Seats for Bishops in their Churches placing them aloft and adorning them with ornaments where they did sit c. This was the originall of Episcopall Chaires and Seats so that Patriarks and Bishops had their denominations from the Churches wherein they tooke possession and where they had their first Chaires or seats Hence came the distinct Appellations of the Patriarcal Church or seat of Antioch the Seat of Constantinople and this now specified as they say the Pontificall Seat of Rome Albeit therefore that it cannot be denied that the Bishop of Rome being excluded from his Church and Seat is notwithstanding to bâ— accounted the Bishop of that people and place yet when hee is so departed from them that they are also departed from him so as there shall be no people in Rome professing his faith nor yet that Seat which is the Citie of Rome extant at all but wholly consumed with fire then to be called the Bishop of the Church or Seat of Rome is but a man in the moone and Titulus sine re namely as it is written of Hierusalem How is that faithfull Citie become a whore The Citie is called faithfull not as being now faithfull but onely because it had bin so Saint Paul in his Inscriptions to diuers Churches taketh their denominations from the places where the faithfull Professors were thus To the Churches of Galatia To the Church of God in Corinth and elsewhere to shew that the Church rather doth consist in the Professors then in the places and omitting the name of Church he doth mention onely the Persons To the Saints at Colosse and faithfull brethren in Christ To all the Saints in Christ at Philippi and also for Rome To them at Rome beloued of God called Saints And must wee notwithstanding conceit of a Bishop of a Church of Rome wherein there is neither people professing nor place of profession As if they should call one the Shepheard of Vtopia where there is neither Sheepe in the Countrey nor Countrey for Sheepe except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be the Shepheard and they speak the language of Babel where None shall heare Nothing of Nobody at all
so they say Both by the Canons and also by your letters and both these had relation to another part of Reasons and inducements premised in that place And is not this then slie Sophistrie to conclude an whole from a Part Yea but the same Councell say that They durst not iudge Iohn the Bishop of Antioch and therefore reserued him to the iudgement of Pope Celestine which plainly sheweth the supreme authority of the Pope So you What signifie these words that They durst not iudge Iohn of Antioch why they do plainly relate in the same Epistle that they had already deposed him We haue say they deuested him of all his Sacerdotall power So after this referring him to the iudgement of the Pope That for so they say they might with lenity ouercome his rashnesse This was not to preferre him to another Censure for there had bene no lenity in that but to the aduise of Celestine that by his perswasion he might be first reclaimed from error and afterwards restored to his place For a further discouerie of the Ecclipse of the Conscience in your Cardinall let vs consider what Supreme authority he would insinuate to wit that if the Councell could not depose Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople without the Popes Mandate nor durst depose Iohn Patriarch of Antioch but referred the Cause to the iudgement of the Pope the issue hereof must be directly this viz. That the Pope is absolutely aboue a Generall Councell as the Cardinall defendeth else-where This were a Supreme authority indeed but in truth it is a falshood and long since condemned as you know by your owne Councels of Constance and Basil for a flat Heresie Which your Doctors of Paris haue alwaies disclaimed as contrary to antiquity and which no Councell since the beginning of the Christian Faith did as yet expresly decree as your Doctor Stapleton a great Champion in this Cause doth not denie and therefore betaketh himselfe to the Late tacit and silent consent of the Doctors of your Church Was not this then more than boldnesse in your Cardinall to inferre this Supreme authority out of this Councell Our Opposition First this Councell called Celestine Bishop of Rome Fellow-Minister and did as you haue heard Excommunicate and depose the Patriarch of Antioch before they made any Relation thereof vnto Celestine the Bishop of Rome Ergo It did not acknowledge the now pretended Supreme authority and priuilege of the Pope which is to haue Cases of that nature soly Reserued to his owne Determination Secondly looke into the Councell it selfe and into the Epistle alleaged wherein concerning the points which Pope Celestine had constituted Wee say they haue iudged them to stand firme wherefore we agree with you in one sentence and doe hold them meaning Pelagius and others to be deposed Ergo Consent to the Confirmation of the Popes sentence doth gaine-say his Supreme authority But principally we oppose the Acts of this Councell of Ephesus in decreeing that Neither the Patriarch of Antioch who made claime Nor any other should assume authority of ordaining any Bishop within the Isle of Cyprus The Arguments and Reasons whereupon the Synod made this Decree shew that as well the Authority of the Bishop of Rome as of any other is thereby excluded And they adde more peremptorily It is to be obserued say they in all Prouinces and Dioces that no Bishop drawe vnder his subiection any Prouince which was not his from the beginning lest that vnder pretence of Priest-hood he bring into the Church Arrogance and Pride The very selfe-same disease which Saint Basil and Saint Augustine with the whole Councell of Africke haue both expressely noted and openly detested in the Romane Popes euen of their times CHALLENGE NOne of you euer doubted that this Councell of Ephesus was Generall and the Bishops therein truely Catholikes wherein notwithstanding you see diuers Arguments although not of disunion yet of no Subiection And therefore You except you will condemne CC. holy Bishops must needs iudge your Romane Article to be damnably false IV. That the Beleefe of the Romane Article of The Catholike Romane Church without subiection whereunto there is no saluation Damneth aboue CCCC Catholike Bishops in the fourth Generall Councell of Chalcedon SECT 5. FOure hundred and thirty Bishops were assembled in this Councell of Chalcedon with whom we are to aduize concerning your Article of Necessary Subiection to the Bishop of Rome and his Church But first wee are ready to answer and then to replie Your Obiection THis Councell saith your Cardinall said that The custodie of the Vine that is of the Catholike Church is committed to the Pope by God It saith so and so doth that godly primitiue Pope Eleutherius say to the Bishops in France as you know that The whole Catholike Church is committed by Christ vnto them Were They therefore thinke you all Popes What say you The meaning of Eleutherius is say you that for as much as Heretikes doe oppugne the Catholike and Vniuersall Church it belongeth vnto euery Bishop to haue an vniuersal care to defend support it And this is a true Answer indeed else must you grant that Saint Paul was a Pope ouer Saint Peter because he tooke vpon him The cure or care of the whole Church and that Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria was Pope aboue the then Bishop of Rome because Gregory Nazianzene saith of him that He hauing the presidence of the Church of Alexandria may be said thereby to haue the Gouernement of the whole Christian World By these Euidences we are compelled to aske with what Conscience you could make such Obiections in good earnest to busie your Aduersaries and seduce your Disciples with all whereunto you-your-selues could so easily make answer But thus Catchitiue haue you beene at the shadow let vs trie whether we can apprehend the substantiall Truth Our Opposition For what is that which you will say belongeth really to the Supreame and Papall Dominion of the Bishop of Rome Because say you with common consent the Pope hath supreme authority in gouerning the Church therefore can hee change the Canons and decrees of General Councels So you But what then say you to the equalling of other Patriarchall Seates with Rome The Fathers of the Councel of Chalcedon say you did giue Priuileges to the Patriarkeship of Constantinople equall to the Church of Rome but Pope Leo did oppose against the Decree of the Councell and disclaimed it You say true but yet let vs come to the ground of beleefe as well of the Fathers of that Councell in opposing your pretended Papall dignity and authority as of your Doctors in contradicting them Secondly therefore The Pope of Rome say you hath his Monarchie and sole gouernment of the Church from diuine right And The Romane Church was founded by God What Prouince then in the world is free from her Iurisdiction So
Greeke Church and the West or Latine wherein the Church of Rome hath the greatest preeminence He in the Case of Apostolicall Tradition concerning Rites and Ceremonies hath made their credit equall but in the Doctrinall as namely a Tradition Apostolicall concerning the true and Canonicall Scriptures he preferreth the Authority of the Greeke and East-Churches and confesseth that it shouldereth out in this maine Case the Authority of the Romane Lastly comparing any One part with All Churches as by name Rome with Carthage and All others hee proueth that Rome can bee no more The Vniuersall or Catholike Church than Carthage No nor both together but that the Catholike Church as the Queene is the Whole Church of Christ by an Aggregation and Comprehension of All together in One. So direct and absolute a Doctor was Saint Augustine of the no-Necessity of vniuersall Vnion or Subiection vnto the same Church in poynts of Controuersie whether Rituall or Doctrinall and consequently of the no-Necessity of Beleefe of either of both all which your Article doth require and exact and yet we notwithstanding your damning Article must still beleeue that Saint Augustine is a blessed Saint IX Saint Hilary Bishop of Arles in France beleeued not your Article of Necessary Subiection to the Pope and Church of Rome SECT 9. THis Saint albeit he haue no place in the Romane Calendar of your Masse wil notwithstanding challenge a place among our honourable Witnesses because he is reckoned in your Martyrologe of Saints He in the yeere 445 seemed to vsurpe vpon the Iurisdiction of the Prouince of Vienna notwithstanding the Inhibition of Pope Leo who taketh it very haynously that Hilary heerein refused to be subiect vnto him This Hilarius as you without any proofe would make vs beleeue yeelded at length vnto the Pope making no further Apologie for the defence of his Cause Which were it so it mattereth not for that will suffice for his Apologie which is confessed by your Baronius namely that Although Hilarius did incurre the displeasure of Pope Leo in the defence as he was perswaded of the Right of his Episcopall Sea Yet notwithstanding was he worthy saith the Cardinall for his singular sanctity to be registred in the Romane Martyrologe of Saints CHALLENGE LEo the then Pope complaineth against this Saint for refusing to bee Subiect to his iudiciall determination the which this Saint did saith your Cardinall in presumption that his cause was iust Yet Gennadius Prosper and others that set downe his life doe not note in him any iniquity in this Case What need many words He that in a Question of Ecclesiasticall Rites could not but doubt of the uniuersall authority of the Pope could not bee of the now Romane Faith Therefore this Saint Hilary was confidently perswaded that in some case it was lawfull to denie Subiection to the Pope Wherefore it will belong to you either to renounce this sacrilegious Article or to vn-hallow and vn-saint this holy man The Generall CHALLENGE concerning the forenamed Saints ALl this while that wee haue laboured to confute your former Romane Article from the iudgements of ancient Fathers and holy Saints we haue insisted onely in them whose names are celebrated in your Romane Church and recorded in the publike Calendar thereof or in your Martyrologe of Saints to wit Saint Polycarpus Saint Cyprian Saint Athanasius Saint Basil Saint Hilary of Poictou Saint Hierom Saint Ambrose Saint Augustine and Saint Hilary of Arles all of them in the opinion of all Christians deseruing of the Church of Christ the most Honourable Title of SAINTS besides the other Attributes which for further Amplification of their worthinesse are ascribed vnto them as adorning Saint Polycarp with the Title of the Doctor of Asia Cyprian the most famous Doctor Saint Hilary of Arles with the Title of Sanctity And as for the rest you shall need no more than that which your Cardinall Baronius testifieth in his Dedicatory Epistle vnto Pope Clement the Eight I present before you saith he Athanasius the Great and Basil the Great two Chiefes or eminent Topps of the East-Church and Hilary Hierom Ambrose and Augustine the Foure Principalls of the Westerne Church Pillars of the Faith and Miracles of the World with this company of so excellent Fathers your throne is crowned So he What larger Assumption could your Cardinall haue made in Ostentation of the Papall Monarchy from the Authority of these Fathers then to boast vnto the Pope of the establishing of his Throne by the Testimonies of the same Saints Wherefore seeing we likewise doe ioyntly Appeale vnto these holy Fathers as vnto most impartiall witnesses of Truth you are by your amplifications of their Learning Wisedome Constancie in the Faith and Sanctity as by so many Obligations bound to stand to their iudgements by which the sinewes of your Romane Article are broken asunder First of Necessity of Vnion with Secondly of Subiection vnto the Church and Bishop of Rome as The Catholike Church and Bishop Thirdly the Beleefe of the Necessity of both these And each of those Three vpon losse of Saluation to All them that are not of this Beleefe Recall to minde the former Passages concerning the behauiour of these Saints in whom you haue seene professed Opposition in matter of Doctrine against the Pope and Church of Rome by setting Councell against Councell by taxing the Romane Church of Pride and Ignorance by contempt of the Popes Excommunication by condemning his Condemnation by Anathematizing his person by preferring the iudgement of the East-Church before hers in the great Question of the Canon of Scriptures as well of the Old as of the New Testament Can you desire a more cleare Demonstration of a Beleefe of no Necessity of Vnion with the Pope or Sea of Rome than this is But because you hold it not sufficient to Saluation that a man professe Vnion in Faith with the Church of Rome except also he acknowledge an absolute Subiection in Discipline vnto her Iurisdiction it may not be held superfluous to repeate vnto you the liuely Characters of their no Subiection by denying of Conformitie with Rome in so little as in a Rite whether of a Fast or of Washing of Feete by inhibiting foraine Prouinces to Appeale To Rome and permitting of Appeales sometimes From Rome to a Councell by equalling other Bishops with the Bishop of Rome and making Rome so A Church that it cannot be The Catholike Church any more than Carthage or any other Particular Church is and by maintaining of Iurisdiction against the Bishop of Rome Lastly for as much as neither Vnion in Faith with the Church of Rome nor Subiection in Discipline vnto her doth by your Romane Article satisfie except a Christian haue also beleefe of the Necessity of both the former in euery one that shall seeke to be saued ponder with your selues whether these Fathers if they were as both you and wee proclaime them Saints could beleeue in their hearts and mindes that
Scriptures Chrysostome called by Pope Innocentius The Great Doctor of the whole world Augustine called The most singular Doctor of all Churches And Hilarius by your Cardinall worthily accompted The greatest Doctor and Pillar of the Catholike Church Next if you would haue Metaphoricall phrases of like efficacy and Emphasis you may obserue Athanasius anciently called The stay and foundation of the Church Basil the mouth of the Church the eye of the world the light of the world and the Sunne among the Starres Lastly if you require a further expression and commendation of the credit and Authority of the forenamed Fathers in the Truth of their Doctrines then may you happen vpon some which will more Emphatically and significantly giue your Papall Monarches the mate as namely that the Doctrines of Athanasius were of that credit that they were held for A Rule of the Orthodoxe Faith Nazianzene to haue bene of so great estimation for his Doctrine that he obtained the surname of Diuine primitiuely ascribed to the Euangelist Saint Iohn insomuch that whosoeuer dissented from him in any point of Doctrine was thereupon so much rather iudged an Heretike euery one being deemed not to be sound in the Faith that accorded not to him in beliefe Ambrose to haue receiued and gouerned the helme of the Faith in the ship of Christ which is his Church Augustine to haue bene honoured of all as the builder againe of the ancient Faith and Cyril of Alexandria to haue bene called The Iudge of the whole world Thus much of the twelfth Title The Thirteenth The Bishop of Rome say you was called by Saint Augustine The Bishop of the Apostolike Sea meaning the Romane without addition of the word Romane Ergò by way of Excellency it argueth him to be Monarch False for so the Bishop of Alexandria was in like manner called by Saint Hierome The Bishop of the Apostolicall Sea without any addition of the word Alexandrian Yea but you say the Bishop of Rome is further said to hold the Principality or Chiefedome of the Apostolicall Sea Ergò Monarch False for the Bishop of Antioch also was said to possesse The Primacy of the Apostolike Sea yea and Others also Oh but further say you the office of the Bishop of Rome is called an Apostleship Ergò Monarch False for if this Consequence be extended to the times of the Apostles then must Iudas Iscariot haue bene a Monarch who had an Apostleship Act. 1.25 And Matthias after him should haue bene another Monarch who was chosen into the same Apostleship from which Iudas fell And if you restraine it to after-times then can no Bishop properly arrogate an Apostleship which was an Office as your selues confesse Proper vnto the immediate Apostles of Christ. Lastly the Bishop of Rome say you was called The Vniuersall Bishop Ergò Monarch False for as is confessed the Popes of Rome by conniuency yeelded to the Bishop of Constantinople that the Bishop of that Sea should vse the same Title of Vniuersall Bishop as well as the Bishop of Rome and yet was he no more Monarch than Cyril the now Patriarch of Alexandria who is instiled Pope and Vniuersall Iudge at this day Our third Discouery of the Falshood and Vanity of the Papall Defence from bare Titles is by your owne Contradictions SECT 4. HItherto haue we examined your Titles giuen to the Popes of Rome in the equall scales of Comparison with other Bishops and find them all too light neither scale being able to carry the weight of a Monarch We now proceed to a further Confutation of your Arguments Consequences in many of them from your owne Confessions and Reasons You haue first obiected the Title of Pope of Rome as The most ancient name of the Bishop of Rome yet you confesse that there was a time so Ancient when Neither the name of Papa or Pontifex were attributed to the Bishop of Rome but onely the bare Title of Bishop of Rome Againe of this name you haue affirmed that it was Anciently giuen to the Bishop of Rome Per Antonomasiam by way of Excellence as proper vnto him and yet you grant that The name of Pope was appropriated onely to the Bishop of Rome by the Decree of Pope Gregory the seauenth in a Councell at Rome about the yeare 1073. Againe you noted the Bishop of Rome to be called Papa Ecclesiae Father of the Church as if he were altogether Father and could not by any Relation be Filius Ecclesiae the Child of the Church or Subiect to a Councell Which bladder of pride was pricked by the Fathers of the Councell of Basil arguing thus If the Church Catholike be the Mother of all the faithfull then the Bishop of Rome ought to be Child vnto her else according to that saying of blessed Augustine he cannot haue God for his Father that hath not the Church for his Mother So they Haue you not now by your propriety of the name Papa spunne a faire threed whereby you strangle your Popes and Popedome it selfe As for the fourth Title of Summus Pontifex or Chiefe Priest you haue auouched from thence that the Pope of Rome is the onely Monareh And yet yeeld that there may be Two Chiefes in euery kind namely Negatiuely as that which hath none aboue it although not Affirmatiuely chiefe as that which is aboue all others So then it is not necessary that the word Chiefe should inferre a Supremacy else Pope Leo was farre ouershot when speaking of Bishops in Generall he called them Summi Pontifices Chiefe Priests and so making All other Popes made himselfe none at all because still the Monarchy can be but of One. Nor thus onely but further you who by one Cardinall haue made these words Pontifex Maximus and Sacerdos Summus to be Notes of Monarchie in the Popes do by another Cardinall contradict it saying that The name of Pontifex Maximus may admit of Equality with others except there be ioyned with this another Title of Bishop of Bishops Which also as you know is insufficient because Pope Clemens in the Epistle which you call his called the Apostle Saint Iames The Bishop of Bishops euen in the dayes of Saint Peter The ninth Title you contended for as proper to the Pope was the name of Pastor or Sheapheard of the flocke of Christ Notwithstanding of all other Bishops in the Christian Church the Pope hath least right to be called Pastor except it be Per Antiphrasim à non pascendo because you cannot reckon for some hundreds of yeares scarce any One Pope that professedly discharged his Function of Preaching albeit Preaching be acknowledged more than once by your Fathers of the Councell of Trent to be The Chiefe office of a Bishop If therefore as your Cardinall himselfe preached He deserueth not the name of
is not iustifiable in the Conscience of euery sound Christian First hee held it a way to Heresie for any Church to take vpon her to create a new Article of Faith such as hee beleeued the Romish Doctrine of Indulgences to be Secondly he taught it to be a Satonicall lye to constitute that for an Article of Faith which is in it selfe a meere falshood Thirdly hee proclaimed your Doctrine of Indulgences to be a Blasphemous Article because it is not onely a new and false Doctrine but also the very Nurse of all Impietie Each point is worthy to be Discussed Touching the First point your Philiarchus will haue you to Take heede of the Heresies of Luther in teaching that the Church hath no power to create new Articles of Faith So hee If this be true then marke I pray you what fellowes and Companions Luther hath or Patrons rather of his Heresie accordingly as your owne Doctors will teach you who doe not onely openly professe for themselues that The now Church ought to relie vpon the Doctrine anciently taught in the Apostles times but also confesse that The ancient Fathers taught that the Church deliuereth no new Faith but alwaies confirmeth and explicateth the ancient Faith Alleaging for proofe hereof the authoritie of Irenaeus Hierome Vincentius Lirinensis Nor can any produce one Father in all Antiquitie that did not account euery new Article of Faith that is to say euery new Doctrine made necessary to saluation to be no better than a new Heresie So iustifiable is Luther in this point Next Luther in his first Assumption saith that the Doctrine of the Popes Indulgence is a New Doctrine of Faith and that it is imposed vpon the Church of Rome as an Article of Faith Whereof if peraduenture you should be ignorant your owne Popes would instruct you Pope Pius the IV. setteth downe this of Indulgences among his other Articles concluded of in the Councell of Trent as Necessarily to be beleeued vpon danger of Damnation And Pope Leo the X. tooke this as his hint in condemning Luther for denying any power to be resideÌ„t in the Church to establish a new Article of Faith An Articleâ—hen â—hen it is made and that it is also New which Doctrine of IndulgeÌ„ces you beleeue to be an easing or helping of Soules out of the paines of Purgatorie-fier we hope you may be satisfied from your selues who teach first that all Doctrine which is not New is deriued either from Scripture or antient Tradition But concerning your Doctrine of Indulgences some of your owne Doctors haue made bold to proclaime saying It is not found either in Scripture or in other writings of ancient Fathers Whereof also your Romane Champion against Luther euen in this Question concerning Indulgences doth grant that There was no vse of Indulgences in the beginning of the Church Christian. Which must necessarily haue then bene if at that time it had bene a Doctrine of Faith except you will confesse that there was then no Purgatory-fier at all nor any soules of men departing this life in the guilt of veniall sinnes but that all the scores of debts of temporall punishments were then wiped off at the death of euery Christian in those Apostolicall times And accordingly giue vs some reason how afterwards that Fier was kindled and what was the fewell that set it on a flame after the space of 1294. yeares when Boniface the 8. was Pope Who as your selues know after that the world was affrighted with Purgatory-torments was the first that extended and applyed Indulgences vnto Purgatory This made your Frier Castro in his coniecture of greater antiquity in them to excuse their Noueltie saying Indulgences are not therefore to be contemned as being admitted but of late because many things saith he are made knowne to posteritie of which the more ancient times were ignorant Behold now the great reuerence forsooth you haue of the iudgement of Antiquity Besides to pull vp this weede by the roots the ground of Indulgences as you teach is The spirituall Threasury of the Church consisting in the satisfactory and meritorious workes of Supererrogation done by the faithfull Which notwithstanding as you likewise know your Doctors of Louaine and some Schoolemen affirme were anciently wanting in the Church So then your Doctrine of Indulgences is New in Institution New in Practise New in the Extent New in the Roote and foundation and euery way a New Article So iustifiable is Luther in his Assumption calling it New Thirdly Luther called this Doctrine False yea and Impious also and Blasphemous And false it must needs be if it be but New But how naughty also and impious the vent of Indulgences was your noble Historian can best report giuing you an instance in the same Pope Leo Who saith he vnto his sinne of ill dispersing of Indulgences added a farre greater for although he was of himselfe prone enough to all licentiousnesse yet by the instigation of Cardinall Puccius in whom he had great confidence he gathered huge summes of money by sending his Breeues abroad euery where promising expiation of all sinnes and life euerlasting vpon a certaine price which any should giue according to the haynousnesse of his offence Then rose vp Martin Luther a Professor of Diuinity in Wittemberge who first confuting and then condemning the Sermons which were made for Indulgences at length questioned that power which the Pope assumed to Himselfe in the same Breeues So he And what other we pray you can be the Consequence of this piece of Doctrine but that which if you be to seeke you may learne from experienced Authors within your owne Church who say as appeareth in the Margent that When first Indulgences were set on sale with full Pardons men did lesse abstaine from wickednesse and the keyes of the Church became vile That Pope Leo the 10. was Too too indulgent in granting Indulgences That Popes are the most expert Alchemists By Turning their leade into gold through their Negligences otherwise called Indulgences Noting that Papall Indulgences to Sinners worketh Negligence in well doing That They Measuring all things by gaine tyrannize ouer the people sitting in the seate of Simon Magus or else of Caiphas We might easily loade you with multitudes of Inuectiues of your owne Authors against the Impiety of Papall Indulgences so iustifiable is Luther in his Opposition against them insomuch that Erasmus held it An Impiety not to defend him This Luther who in the opinion of the Popular Auditors so farre ouercame his Aduersarie Ecchius in a Disputation held at Lipsia that your Castro doth instance in this Example and thereupon prefixeth a Rule To auoide publike Disputation with as he accounteth and calleth Protestants pertinacious Heretikes The Summe of All may be comprized in a few words The Patrons of Romish Indulgences by making it an Article of Faith do Canonize and Deifie a Nouelty a Falshood and a
very Baud of all Impietie Whence to vse your owne words Adulteries Incests Periuries Homicides and the spawne of all euils did arise THESIS II. LVTHER had necessary Cause to Depart from the Church of Rome SECT 15. IT is not as you haue heard the corruption of a Doctrine which can alwaies driue a man out of the Church except other properties of necessary Remoouing do concurre What these are you may call to your remembrance Which may be obserued in this Case of Luther and iustifie him before God and Man As first the generall Obstinacie of contrary Teachers such as were the Romish of whom Luther complained saying They Alto fastu with high disdaine contemned my Preaching against Indulgences Secondly Luthers hearing if he had stayed the way of Truth often blasphemed Thirdly Luthers complaining of violent forcing of men to subscribe vnto New Articles this is Tyrannie And lastly he further chargeth them with Compelling him to submit to Satanicall Doctrines speaking both of the vilenesse of Indulgences and the Idolatrie of and in the Romish Masse Albeit any One of all these had bene a sufficient cause for him to warrant his Departure out of Romish Babylon THESIS III. LVTHER and his Followers were farre more safe for their Soules state in that Separation from the Church of Rome and lesse Schismatikes than They whom he forsooke SECT 16. ALL sound knowledge is by vnderstanding of the true Causes of things It is the Cause that distinguisheth a Martyr from an Heretike and the same iust Cause also truely and essentially vniteth one with the true Catholike Church discerneth him both from an Excommunicate properly so called and from a Schismatike Attend then to that which your Cardinall would haue you to MARKE Marke saith he that an vniust sentence of Excommunication is of no force at all Accordingly Saint Augustine Iniusta vincula iustitia disrumpit Vniust bonds are more iustly broken then kept Of this somewhat more hath bene said in a former Thesis This knowne it wil be no hard matter to find out the true Schismatike For as it is the vnlawfull Agent and not the Innocent Patient that maketh the Fray so in Excommunication Whosoeuer Excommunicateth another vniustly condemneth not that other but himselfe Accordingly in Separation from any Church the Actiue if vniust and not the partie Passiue is the Schismatike vpon which Suppositition Firmilianus Concluded against Stephen Pope of Rome that the said Stephen was the Schismatike by his Excommunicating and separating S. Cyprian with many Others in the Africane Chuches and else-where from his Communion In like Case well said once your Cardinall Benno that Eusebius did binde Liberius by forsaking his Communion Euen as did also the Africane Bishops in their Synod by Excluding Pope Vigilius out of their Communion in the dayes of Iustinian Now that Luther was vniustly Excommunicate by your Pope the first Thesis hath fully prooued And that Luther was a Passiue in this Separation appeareth not onely by his owne Complaints saying I was Compelled Constrained c. but also by the Proceedings of Pope Leo against him Else why is it that your owne Thuanus speaking of this Separation said that Some in those dayes layd the fault vpon Pope Leo More fully your Cassander an Author selected in those dayes by the King of the Romanes as the chiefest Diuine of his time and one most fit to be Consulted with concerning the same Separation of Protestants I cannot saith he denie many of them in the beginning to haue bene mooued and prouoked with a pious zeale to a sharpe reprehension of manifest Abuses and that the principall cause of this calamity and Disunion is to be imputed to them who superciliously and disdainefully contemned such godly Admonitions Neither yet euer had there bene as I am perswaded any Contention about the externall Vnitie of the Church except the Popes had abused their authority to an ambitious and Domineiring manner of Rule aboue the limits which Christ prescribed to his Church So He. But it will be said Why did not Luther seeke remedie and redresse of his wrong somewhere where we pray you should he haue sought it can you tell By Appealing to a Generall Councell why that meanes was barred by the Popes Extrauagant denouncing him to be Anathema whosoeuer shall so much as consult or deliberate to Appeale from the Pope to a future Generall Councell Albeit this preferring the Popes iudgement before a Councel's is by the sentence of two Romish Councels as namely Constance and Basil held a Doctrine of all others most Schismaticall Oh! but he being but a Sheepe cited to Rome should haue appeared before Leo his Pastor notwithstanding the Popes high indignation against him As though you could be ignorant of the Apologue of the Sheepe and the Lion at their meeting the end whereof could be no other then this Ora Leonis habes for the sheepe to run head-long into the Lions mouth A Fable which of later times the Venetian Fulgentius the French Abbot of Boys and after them the Dalmatian Spalatensis verified seelie Sheepe with the losse of their liues THESIS IV. The Romish Obiections vrged against this Separation of LVTHER are notably friuolous SECT 17. STill we say that an ill Cause oftentimes bewrayeth it selfe as much by the friuolous Obiections of an Opponent as it is discouered by the iust Euidences of a Defendant There are but foure kinde of Obiections besides such as haue bene alreadie answered which you do usually vrge against Luther THESIS V. The I. Obiection in respect of LVTHER'S former Vow to the Pope or Church of Rome is vaine and idle SECT 18. IT is true Luther had bene a Vowed and if you will a sworne Vassall to the Pope and to the Romane Church And so was once your owne Stephen Gardiner sometimes Bishop of Winchester whose answer in like case may satisfie your Curiositie and controlle your scurrilitie in this point Hee in his booke of True Obedience to the King notwithstanding the Popes Breeues to the contrary enlargeth himselfe in his Answer after this manner following Some saith he pull me backward asking why I enterprize so to teach Obedience as that I do disclose my owne Disobedience to the authority and power meaning of the Pope for whose Defence I was bound by my Oath to defend his authority to my possible Power Where is his keeping of Oaths become say they where is his fidelitie He was sworne to defend the Rights of the Church of Rome and now professeth himselfe an open enemie ther-unto But this their talke no more mooueth me than the bumbling sound of an old barrell because where vnlawfull Oathes there also vnlawfull Vowes are not to be kept for none are to sweare to any wickednesse Thus your owne Bishop and after illustrateth this by an elegant Similitude A certaine married man saith he when he thought by iust likely-hoods his first wife was dead