Apostles who it is manifest are Gods helpers because they are the Vicars of Christ. Therefore they the Apostles received from God the Father by Christ our Lord this power that in our Lords stead they should make the Doctrine of our Lord acceptable 116. He saith The Pope calls himself the Universal Bishop and the Vicarial Head of the Church the Churches Monarch he from whom all Ecclesiastical authority is derived to whose Sentence in things Divine every Christian under pain of damnation is bound to be subject And quotes for this the Canon Unam Sanctam when in that Canon there is not any one of these Sentences but onely that he is the Vicarial Head of the Church Of one onely Church there is one onely Head to wit Christ and his Vicar Peter and his successors we define it to be altogether necessary to every humane creature to salvation to be subject to the Roman Bishop 117. He saith S. Ambrose saith the Bishop holdeth the place of Christ and is his substitute and quotes for it S. Ambrose ubi supra and we have seen afore that S. Ambrose in none of those places saith any such thing 118. To prove that the Bishops of Rome had no superiority by the Laws of Christ over any Bishop and that his Bishoprick gave no more power to him then Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocess he quotes Pope Symmachus As it is in the Holy Trinity whose power is one and undivided or to use the expression in the Athanasian Creed none is before or after other none is greater or less then another so there is one Bishoprick amongst divers Bishops and therefore why should the Canons of the ancient Bishops be violated by their successors When 1. there is no such saying of Symmachus in the place quoted 2. The Epistle which he meant and is to be found in the Tomes of the Councils is not a little altered and mangled by him in the very words 1. Symmachus saith not as he quotes him As it is in the Holy Trinity c. So there is one Bishoprick c. And therefore why should c. But thus For whilst there is like unto the Trinity whose power is one and individual one Bishoprick c. how agrees it or is it becoming c. 2. Symmachus saith not there is one Bishoprick inter multos amongst many Bishops as he renders it as if equalling all Bishops then living one to another but there is one per multos through many that is through the line of Bishops succeeding to one another in the same See and so it onely equals the successor to his predecessor 3. Where Symmachus saith priorum of former Bishops or predecessors in that See he translates it of the ancient Bishops 4. Finding that these words would make nothing to his purpose he wrests them to it with a Gloss None is before or after other none is greater or less then another and then inferres that these words do fully declare that the Roman Bishoprick gave no more power to the Pope then Christ gave to the Bishop of the smallest Diocess when he could but know that his gloss and inference had not onely no foundation in Symmachus's words but were directly contrary to the whole substance and drift of the Epistle it being an answer to a Letter of Complaint of the Archbishop of Arles to the Pope against the Archbishop of Vienna for invading the rights of the Church of Arles for ordaining some neighbour Bishops upon pretence of some Breve or Rescript of Pope Anastasius Symmachus his predecessor wherein he had contraried the Grants of former Popes to the Church of Arles and desiring from the Pope redress in it and he promises to redress it and gives for his reason the words quoted by the Doctor because it was not well done of Anastasius to contrary the Acts of his predecessors all which proves that the Roman Bishop was superior to those Archbishops of Arles and Vienna and had jurisdiction over them and that Symmachus himself thought so We have received your Letters by which appears there is a controversie betwixt the Churches of Arles and Vienna concerning ordaining of Bishops in neighbouring Cities caused by this that our predecessor of happy memory Anastasius had commanded some things to be observed contrary to the ancient custome transgressing the Ordinance of his predecessors which he ought not to have done for any necessity whatsoever For seeing there is but one Bishoprick through divers Bishops like the Trinity whose power is one and individual how is it becoming the Statutes of former Popes to be violated by them that follow c. 119. To the same purpose he quotes S. Dionysius As the whole Hierarchy ends in Jesus so does every particular one in its own Bishop As if he had meant that every Bishop was supreme Governour next under Christ in his own Diocess when he meant onely that the order of Bishops was the supreme Hierarchical order in compare to Priests Deacons c. The Divine order therefore of Bishops is the first of those Orders which see God and he is also the highest and the last For in him is finished and compleated all the distinction of our Hierarchy For as we see all our Hierarchy to end in Jesus c. 120 121 122 123. To the same purpose he quotes Origen Gelasius S. Jerom and Fulgentius as teaching That the Bishops have the supreme place in the Church But 1. for Origen he quotes no book nor hath Origen any saying to that sense to exclude the Primacy of the Roman See 2 For Fulgentius he quotes him in Concil Paris l. 1. c. 3. but tells not what Council of Paris he means nor what Fulgentius nor in what Collection the book is to be found I can finde no such in Fulgentius his Works nor in the Tomes of Councils nor in the Councils of France set out by Syrmondus 3. For Gelasius he teaches no such thing for all he saith is this There are two things by which this World is principally governed the sacred Authority of Bishops and Regal power Betwixt which the burthen of Bishops is so much the heavier by how much they are in the divine examen to give an account even for Kings themselves c. 4. For S. Jerom he quotes two places one is in Hom. 7. in Jerem. when he hath no such work of Homilies upon Jeremy and if he meant his Commentary upon the seventh Chapter of Jeremy there is not a tittle in it to any such purpose The other is in his Book adversus Lucifer in which likewise I can finde nothing to this purpose 124. He saith that when Bellarmin is in this question about the Pope's Supremacy press'd out of the Book of Nilus by the authority of the Fathers standing against him he answers the Pope acknowledges no Fathers in the Church for they are all his Sons As if Bellarmin had
answer'd this in contempt of the authority of the Fathers urged by Nilus against the Pope's Supremacy when there was no such thing For the objection of Nilus there urged was not from Fathers but from Reason and it was onely to prove that the Pope ought to be subject to the Canons of holy Fathers because he had his Dignity from the Fathers and Popes themselves had made divers Canons and he were unworthy to be honoured as a Father if he contemn'd the Fathers To which reasons Bellarmin answer'd That the Pope had not his Dignity from the Fathers and that if he made Canons he could not binde himself and that if he be honoured as a Father by all he hath no Fathers in the Church but all Children and therefore he cannot be subject to them and that he contemns not the Fathers c. 125. He saith this speech of S. Cyprian in the Council of Carthage None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops or by tyramical power drives his Colleagues to a necessity of obediance c. was spoken and intended against Pope Stephen to reprehend him for his Lording it over God's Heritage and excommunicating his brethren and this his chastising of Pope Stephen for this usurpation was also approved in him by S. Augustin when S. Augustin in the place quoted saith no such thing nor understood it as spoken against Pope Stephen but as spoken modestly and humbly to encourage the Bishops to deliver their Sentence without fear of excommunication and he interprets the words not to mean as if the Bishops were exempted absolutely from being judged by their Superiors but onely in such cases as that which were undetermined by the Church None of us makes himself a Bishop of Bishops c. What more meek what more humble Certes no authority should deterre us from inquiring what is true Since every Bishop c. I suppose he means in those questions which have not yet been discussed by the most eliquate perspection For he knew how great a profundity of Sacrament then the whole Church did by various disputation discuss and he made free the choice of enquiring that by examination the truth might be manifested For he did not lye or desire to catch his more simple Colleagues in their words that when they had discovered themselves to hold contrary to him he should censure them to be excommunicate This was it he approved in S. Cyprians speech and this was all he approved 126. Against S. Peters Primacy he quotes S. Chrysostom He did all things with the common consent nothing by special authority or principality when in that very place he most strongly asserted S. Peters Primacy as would have appear'd had the Doctor set down the words before and after Peter arising up in the midst of the Disciples said c. How fervent is he How doth he acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ How is he Prince in the Chair and ever first begins to speak Now consider that also how he doth act all things by the common vote of the Disciples nothing by his own authority nor did he simply say we set up this man in the place of Judas And although he had a right equal to all of constituting him yet out of vertue or modesty congruently he did it not But deservedly doth he first exercise authority in the business as who had them all in his hand for to him Christ said Confirm thy Brethren 127. He saith Canus confesses That there is in Scripture no revelation that the Bishop of Rome should succeed S. Peter in his special authority But Canus saith not all out so but that it is not indeed per se there revealed And in the next words he saith That it is had out of the Gospel that the Pastor substituted by Christ in the Church after Peter hath all the ordinary power of Peter and all other priviledges granted to Peter for the Churches sake 128 129 130 131. He saith it is confessed by Cusanus Soto Driedo and Canus that this succession of Peter's Chair was not addicted to any particular Church nor can be proved that the Bishop of Rome is Prince of the Church which last is not confessed by any out of them and for the first Driedo saith to the contrary in the very place quoted Not rashly therefore but with pious faith we believe with the Fathers our predecessors that the Faith and Primacy of the Church and the Chair of Peter are inseparable from the Roman Diocess Sect. 11. 132 133 134 135. He quotes four Canons as shewing that private Mass is against the Doctrine and practice of the ancient Church of Rome and the Tradition of the Apostles and is also forbidden under pain of Excommunication when not one of them hath any such thing nor forbids the Priest to celebrate without Communicants but onely enjoyns the Deacons or people at due times to communicate with the Priest So C. Peracta When Consecration is done that is when the Priest hath consummated let all Communicate that will not be excluded from the Church for so the Apostles have appointed and so holds the holy Roman Church Which Canon yet meant not of the Lay-people who as appears by another Canon made within twenty years after were obliged to Communicate onely three times a year Christmas Easter and Whitsuntide when yet the Priests said Mass every day but onely of the Deacons who assisted at Mass. For so declares the Title of it Let the Minister who after Consecration contemns to Communicate be excluded from entring into the Church And so the Gloss Let all Communicate that is all who minister the body and blood So C. in coena Upon Maundy Thursday the receiving of the Eucharist is by some neglected which that it is to be received on that day by all the faithful except those to whom for great crimes it is prohibited the use of the Church demonstrates seeing even Penitents are on that day reconciled to receive the Sacraments of our Lords body and blood So C. Si quis If any one come into the Church and hears the sacred Scriptures and out of wantonness averts himself from receiving the Sacrament and in observing the Mysteries declines from the constituted rule of Discipline we decree such a one to be cast out of the Church So C. omnes fideles All the faithful who come to the Church in the sacred Solemnities of Easter Christmas c. let them hear the Scriptures of the Apostles and the Gospels but they that persevere not in Prayer whilst Mass is finished nor receive the holy Communion it is fit they be deprived of Communion as raising disturbances of the Church Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 136. He saith It is taught by Navar that though the Church calls upon sinners to repent on Holy-Dayes and at Easter yet by the Law of God they are not tyed to so much but onely to repent in the Article or danger of
believed but may not salubriter be searcht into 48. To the same purpose he quotes Durandus as even after the Lateran Council maintaining That even after Consecration the very matter of Bread remained which Durandus maintains not but the contrary for his first conclusion there is The substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood And in the very next words the Doctor himself saith that Durandus saith That by reason of the authority of the Church it is not to be held How then did he hold it All that he there maintain'd was the possibility of it supposing it were true which he saith it is not 49. To the same purpose he quotes Alphonsus de Castro fraudulently as if he had meant of the thing or Doctrine of Transubstantiation Rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio when he meant it onely of the name Of the Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of Christ there is rare mention in ancient Writers Of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son much rarer c. yet who but an Heretick will dare to deny these because in ancient Writers they are not mentioned under these names 50. Against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he quotes Justin Martyr The Bread of the Eucharist was a Figure which Christ commanded to do c. when Justin Martyr saith no such thing but onely that the oblation of a Cake in the old Law was a figure of our Eucharist Truly the Oblation also of the Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical Bread which our Lord Jesus Christ commanded to do or make in remembrance of his Passion 51. To the same purpose he quotes Eusebius Demonstrat Evang. l. 1. c. 1. when the first three Chapters of that Book are not extant 52. To the same purpose he quotes another saying of Eusebius The Apostles received a command according of the constitution of the New Testament to make a memory of this Sacrifice upon the Table by the Symbols of his body and healthful blood when he saith not so but thus Seeing therefore we have received the memory of this Sacrifice to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table and the memory of that body and healthful blood as is the institute of the New Testament 53. To the same purpose he quotes S. Macarius In the Church is offered Bread and Wine the antitype of his Flesh and of his Blood when Macarius saith not so but rather the contrary Bread and Wine exhibiting the exemplar or antitype his Flesh and Blood 54. To the same purpose he quotes S. Augustin as denying a real eating of Christs body in the Eucharist but in figure onely when he denied not that but onely the eating it in that gross carnal or sensible manner as the Capernaites conceived as would have appeared had the Doctor set down the words before which he fraudulently suppressed Durum illis c. It seemed hard to them what he said Except ye eat the flesh c. they took it foolishly they understood it carnally and thought that our Lord would cut off some gobbets of his body and give them c. But he instructed the twelve c. understand spiritually what I speak You are not to eat this body which you see c. 55. To the same purpose he quotes S. Augustin lib. 10. cont Faustum as saying That which by all men is called a Sacrifice is the sign of the true Sacrifice c. when S. Aug. hath no such words in that book Sect. 6. 56 57 58. In citing the Decree of the Council of Constance against Communion in both kindes to make it fit his purpose and render it more odious to the Protestant Reader he commits three gross Falsifications and which unless he took not the words out of the Decree himself but upon trust could not but be wilfull For 1. Whereas the Decree recites three Errors and Innovations as the causes of it viz. 1. The maintaining it necessary to communicate the people under both kindes and the practice of that innovation 2. The maintaining that the Eucharist ought to be given after supper 3. Or otherwise to people that were not fasting Whereas in some Countreys some temerariously presume to assert that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kindes and do ordinarily communicate the Lay people under the species of wine also affirm that the people ought to be communicated after supper or otherwise not fasting c. He recites it as made against the first onely concealing the other two fraudulently under a line of pricks Whereas in certain parts of the world some temerariously affirm that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kindes of Bread and Wine and do every where communicate the Laity not onely in Bread but in Wine also ... Hence it is that the Council decrees and defines against this error that although c. 2. That he sets down the Decree as containing an express and direct opposition to the institution of Christ and practice of the Primitive Church for communicating the people under both kindes The Council decrees and defines against this error of giving the Chalice to the Laity that although Christ instituted after supper and administred this venerable Sacrament under both kindes yet this notwithstanding ... And although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received of the faithful under both kindes Here is the acknowledgement both of Christs Institution in both kindes and Christs ministring it in both kindes and the practice of the Primitive Church to give it in both kindes yet the conclusion from these premises is We command that no Priest communicate the people under both kindes The opposition is plain c. Thus far he Whereas in the Decree there is no such thing for these are the words of it Although Christ instituted after supper and administred this venerable Sacrament to his Disciples under both kindes yet this notwithstanding the laudable authority of holy Canons and the approved custom of the Church observes that this Sacrament ought not to be Consecrated after supper nor received of the faithful not fasting unless in case of the Article of death And as this custom was reasonably introduced to avoid some dangers and scandals that although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received under both kindes afterward it came to be received under the species of Bread onely by the Laity it is to be had for a Law which is not lawful to reject or alter without authority of the Church 3. That he sets down these as the words of the Decree We command under the pain of Excommunication that no Priest communicate the people under both kindes whereas in the Decree are no such words for this is all it saith Wherefore to say that it is sacrilegious or unlawful to observe this custom or
which could not mean the second Nicene and Blondus saith it abrogated the seventh Synod and the Felician Heresie for taking away of Images 83 84 85. He saith it appears in the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen that in those times they would not allow the making of Images when Tertullian saith no such thing and neither of the other two speaks of the Images of Christ or his Saints but of Jupiter and the other Heathen gods Sect. 9. 86 87 88 89 90 91 92. Against picturing those forms wherein God hath appeared which is all that some of ours do allow and practise he quotes Tertullian Eusebius Athanasius S. Hierom Theodoret Damascen Nicephorus and others when divers of these as namely Tertullian Eusebius and Jerom have nothing to this purpose and the rest spake onely against representing God as in his own essence shape or form as appears by their words which it would be too long to set down But to instance in one or two Theodoret Ye saw no likeness c. He saith this instructing them that they should not make any Idol nor at any time attempt to counterfeit the Divine Image when they never saw the species of the archetype c. Nicephorus They made Images of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is most absurd for Images are of bodies that may be seen and circumscribed not of those who are invisible and incomprehensible by our understanding Sect. 10. 93. To prove that Christ left his Apostles without any Eminency in one above the rest he saith S. Paul gave the Bishops congregated at Miletum caution to take care of the whole flock of God when the Text hath no such thing but rather the contrary The flock over which the H. Ghost hath made you Bishops 94. To the same purpose he quotes S. Cyprian The other Apostles are the same that S. Peter was c. wresting them against that which S. Cyprian did in that very place expresly assert to wit an Eminency in S. Peter above the rest of the Apostles though not in the species of the power yet in the manner and degree of it viz. that Christ gave it first to S. Peters person as the origen of unity as would have appeared had he set down the words immediately before and after which most plainly and solidly maintain S. Peters Primacy notwithstanding that parity Our Lord said to Peter Upon this Rock I will build my Church and again Do thou feed my sheep Upon him one person he builds his Church and to him he commends his Sheep to be fed And although after his Resurrection he gave to all his Apostles equal power and say As my Father sent me so I send you yet that he might manifest unity that the Church was to be one by the unity of the Governour he constituted one Chair in S. Peters person and by his authority disposed the origen of unity beginning from one person S. Peter Then follow the words quoted by the Doctor The other Apostles are the same that S. Peter was c. After which these But the beginning comes from unity the Primacy is given to Peter that one Church of Christ and one Chair may be monstrated That is they were all equal in power and honour but Peter had it with this Eminency above the rest that it was settled first in his single person 95 96 usque 113. To prove that all Antiquity does consent and teach that all the ordinary power of the Apostles descended to the Bishops as their successors though it be a truth and maintained by us yet of his twenty Quotations brought for it no less then eighteen are false or wrested viz. 1. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 43. saith onely We ought to obey the Presbyters that are in the Church that have succession from the Apostles who with succession of Episcopacy have received the certain Charisma of truth 2. Id. ib. c. 44. Hath not a word to this purpose 3. S. Cypr. l. 1. Ep. 6. Hath not a word to this purpose 4. Id. l. 2. Ep. 10. He saith onely this The unity delivered by our Lord and through the Apostles to us successors 5. Id. l. 4. Ep. 9. Saith nothing of Bishops but what is as true of Presbyters Christ said to his Apostles and by this to all that are praepositi who by Vicarious Ordination succeed to the Apostles He that despiseth you despiseth me 6. S. Ambrose de dign Sacred c. 1. Saith nothing but what rather makes against the Doctor viz. That all Bishops received the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven in the B. Apostle Peter 7. S. Aug. de Bap. co Donat. l. 7. c. 43. onely sets down the Sentence of one of the African Bishops Clarus a Muscula for the rebaptizing of Hereticks 8. Id. de verb. Dom. Serm. 24. saith nothing but what pertains to Priests as much as Bishops He that despises you despises me If he had said this to the Apostles alone despise us But if his word have come unto us and called us and placed us in their room see that ye despise not us 9. Conc. Rom. sub Sylv. saith nothing but that men should not detract from the Disciples of our Lord that is the successors of the Apostles 10. Anacletus P. Ep. 2. saith nothing but that the Pillars of the Holy Church which the Apostles and their successors are not unrightly called should not be easily shaken or accused 11. S. Clem. P. Ep. 1. saith nothing but that the Bishops supply the place of the Apostles as Priests do of the 72. Disciples whose successors properly they are not 12. S. Hieron Ep. 13. hath not a word to this sense 13. Id. Ep. 54. saith no more but that Bishops with us Catholiques hold the place of the Apostles whereas the Montanists put them down to the third place 14. Euthym. in Ps. 44. hath nothing to this purpose 15. S. Greg. in Evang. Hom. 26. saith no more but that Bishops hold now in the Church the place of them to whom Christ said Whose sins ye forgive c. 16. S. Jerom whom I suppose the Doctor meant for S. Gregory hath no such Epistle Ep. 1. ad Heliodor speaks not of Bishops properly but of Priests God forbid I should speak any sinister thing of them who succeeding to the Apostolique degree with their sacred mouth make Christs Body 17. S. Damasc. de Imag. Or. 2. onely useth the words of the Apostle God hath set in the Church first Apostles then Prophets c. 18. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. de Laud. Athanas. not as he quotes it Basilii hath not a word to this purpose 114 115. He saith Bishops are in express terms called by S. Ambrose Vicars of Christ and quotes two places for it in neither of which S. Ambrose speaks of Bishops but onely of the Apostles We are the helpers of God This pertains to the person of the