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
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
those sometimes unwritten c. But if our Lord be faithful in all his words c. without doubt it is a most manifest argument of infidelity either to detract from the things that are written or to introduce any thing that is not written seeing our Lord hath said My sheep c. wherefore we also as heretofore we have ever had that determined in our mindes to avoid all voice or speech contrary to the Doctrine of our Lord so at this time c. But in all his discourse he hath no such words as the Dr. quotes for his to adde any thing to the Faith that is not there found 3. To the same purpose he quotes Theophilus Alexandrinus It is the part of a devilish spirit to think any thing to be Divine that is not in Scripture when he spake likewise onely of a particular Heresie that Origen had devised of his own proud head against express Scripture viz. that Christ was at one time or other to lose his Kingdom I cannot know with what temerity Origen feigning such things and following not the authority of Scriptures but his own error c. But being ignorant that it is an instinct of a devilish spirit to follow the sophismes of humane mindes which words the Dr. craftily left out and to think any thing Divine extra Scripturarum authoritatem without the Scriptures authority 4. To the same purpose he quotes S. Athanasius The Catholicks will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in Religion that is a stranger to Scripture it being immodestiae vecordia to speak those things which are not written when he spake it likewise onely of a particular Heresie contrary to Scripture viz. That Christs flesh was consubstantial to the Godhead If therefore ye be Disciples of the Gospels speak not against God iniquity but walk by the Scriptures But if ye will prate things dissonant from the Scripture why do ye contend with us who endure not either to speak or hear any thing beside what is written What is therefore the madness of your immodesty that ye speak things which are not written and think things that are dissonant from piety which words likewise the Dr. craftily left out as who presume to say that the flesh of Christ is consubstantial to the Deity 5. Against our veneration of the Images of Christ and his B. Mother and Heavenly Saints he quotes Lactantius Without all peradventure whereever an Image is meaning for worship there is no Religion when he knew Lactantius spake onely of worshipping with Divine honour the Idols of the Heathen Gods as his whole discourse afore and after manifests which it would be too long to set down 6. To the same purpose and in the same fraudulent manner he quotes Origen We ought rather to dye then pollute our Faith with such impieties when Origen spake onely of the worshipping of Idols of the Heathen Gods But the Christians not onely shun the Temples Altars and Idols of the Gods but go more readily to death lest with any excess or impiety they should altogether pollute that which they most rightly believe of God the Creator of all things 7. Against our giving the Communion in one kinde he saith The Primitive Church did Excommunicate them that did not receive the Sacrament in both kindes and quotes for it the Canon Comperimus when the Canon spake not of receiving the Sacrament by the Communicants but of the consummating of the Sacrifice by the Priest as appears by the reason given Because the division of one and the same Mystery or Sacrifice cannot be without great Sacriledge and by the title of the Canon The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without his Blood 8. To the same purpose he quotes S. Ambrose He who receives the Mystery otherwayes then Christ appointed that is saith the Doctor in one kinde when he hath appointed it in two is unworthy of the Lord c. where to wrest it to his purpose he first corrupts the words for S. Ambrose saith not who Receives but who Celebrates it plainly meaning the Priest alone nor doth he say otherwayes then Christ appointed but otherwayes then it was given by him 2. He corrupts the sense with his ridiculous gloss devised out of his own brain without any least colour of ground for it in the place nay S. Ambrose gives another reason for it Quia sine disciplinâ traditionis conversationis qui accedunt rei sunt c. They who come without the discipline of tradition and conversation are guilty c. In his 1. Chap. 1. Sect. 9. To prove that all who believe the unity of substance and Trinity of persons in the Godhead are Catholiques he quotes the Imperial Law All who believe this Doctrine that is in the Father Son and holy Ghost c. are Christians and Catholiques when he could not but know that that Law meant not that they were Catholiques absolutely but onely as to those points for after that Law the Novatians Donatists Nestorians Eutychians c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks notwithstanding their belief of the Trinity and Unity of the Godhead 10. To prove that in the Church of Rome there is a pretence made to a Power not onely to Declare but to Make new Articles of faith and new Creeds he quotes the Bull of Pope Leo X. condemning this Article of Luther It is not in the power of the Pope to constitute Articles of faith when Luthers word was not constituere but statuere i.e. to decide declare determine or settle Articles of Faith which may be without making them such 11. To the same purpose he quotes Turrecremata l. 2. c. 203. where he hath no such words as he is quoted for but cap. 107. he hath but then the words say not that the Pope hath power to make Articles of Faith nor do they mean any more but as the title of the Chapter proposeth to prove that to him belongs to declare or determine matters of Faith nor do they say absolutely as the quotes them The Pope is the measure and rule c. but onely that because the Pope is primus maximus Praelatorum ad eum maximè pertinebit c. To him most or above any other it will pertain to be the measure c. 12. To the same purpose he quotes Augustinus Triumphus who saith no such thing as he quotes him for viz. that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith or new Creeds nor did he mean that he could multiply any new Articles or put them into the Creed that were not alwayes of Faith and implicitely at least contained in holy Scripture as is manifest 1. from the reason given by him For in the Creed are put those things which universally pertain to Christian Faith which words are fradulently left out by the Doctor 2. From his express Doctrine in his Resolvendum There hath been one Faith of the
Ancients and Moderns 3. From what he saith Art 2. in resp ad 2. To adde a truth which is contained in holy Scripture to explicate or declare hath alwayes been lawful for the Church 13. To the same purpose he quotes Petrus de Ancorano who spake not of making new Articles of Faith as making opposeth declaring which was the sense for which he quoted him for this was his charge The Church of Rome pretends to a power not onely of declaring but of making new c. but onely of making them such quoad nos by declaring them to be of Faith as appears by his own explication The Pope may make new Articles of Faith that is that a thing ought now to be believed when afore it ought not so c. 14. To the same purpose he quotes Panormitan when he saith no such thing neither but rather the contrary viz. that the Pope cannot make but onely declare as would have appeared had the Dr. set down his words at length which he fraudulently curtail'd for these are his words The Pope can induce a new Article of Faith declaring this Divine right of which he had afore spoken and of this is inferred that this Constitution or Canon cum Christus looks back upon things past 15. To prove our corrupting the writings of the ancient Fathers he saith That when not long since we printed Origen we left out that whole 6. Chap. of S. John and Origens Commentary upon it and so maim'd the Author for the same cause that is because Origen argued there against Transubstantiation A meer slander as is manifest by the very Protestant Editions for in the Edition of Basil by Froben Anno 1545 there was no Commentary at all upon John And in a later Edition of Basil 1620. his Comment upon John is set out in the same manner as it is in our Catholique Editions and no other viz. without any Comment either upon the 5 6 or 7. Chap. of that Gospel To the same purpose he quotes our Index Expurgatorius in which in S. Chrysostoms Works printed at Basil these words The Church is not built upon the Man but upon the Faith are commanded to be blotted out and these There is no Merit but what is given us by Christ. And the like he saith we have done to S. Ambrose and to S. Austin and to them all insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Corrector of the Press of Lyons complained of it to Junius that he was forced to blot out many sayings of S. Ambrose in that Edition of his Works which was printed at Lions 1559. so that we think it not sufficient to feign some convenient sense when they are opposed in Disputation but the words which make against us we wholly leave out of our Editions Nay saith he we correct the very Tables or Indexes made by the Printers or Correctors c. A notorious slander as appears 1. Because the Index Expurgatorius was not appointed till the end of the Council of Trent which was in Anno 1563. and therefore that could put no force upon Saurius for maiming S. Ambrose in Anno 1559. 2. Because the Index Expurgatorius extended not to any Writings or Works of the Fathers but onely to the Indices or marginal Notes or other corruptions made by Protestants as is confessed by his own Author Junius that published the Index for in his Preface to that Book he makes this Objection But here the Fathers are not purged and answers it 1. That yet by the purging of later Authors the truth of Doctrine and History is in many places expurged 2. That what they dare not with the Fathers they practise upon us Protestant Printers and Writers and with their little forks they thrust out our Annotations in the Margin and Sayings in the Indices although consonant to the Fathers minde For example saith Junius In the Index of S. Chrysostom printed at Basil this is commanded to be blotted out The Church is not built upon the Man but his Faith And likewise this There is no merit but what is given us by Christ. 17. To the same purpose he quotes Sixtus Senensis as saying to Pope Pius V. Expurgari emaculari curasti omnium Catholicorum Scriptorum ac praecipuè veterum Patrum Scripta Thou hast taken care for the purging of the Writings of all Catholique Writers and especially of the ancient Fathers most shamefully corrupting the sense of the Quotation by leaving out the words that follow Haereticorum aetatis nostrae faeâ—ibus contaminata venenis infecta Contaminated with the dregs and infected with the poisons of the Hereticks of our age 18. Against the power of the Church to adde any Articles to the Creed he quotes the Ephesine Canon That it should not be lawful for any man to publish or compose another Faith or Creed then that which was desined by the Nicene Council c. when that Canon did not mean adding Articles to the Faith defined by that Council for how could the supreme power binde its own hands or make that unlawful for another General Council which the Council of Constantinople had already done in adding divers Articles to the Nicene Creed but publishing any Creed repugnant by adding or detracting to the Nicene 19. To prove that the Council of Constance declared not for the Popes Supremacy he quotes John Gerson as saying That the Council of Constance did abate those heights to which slattery had advanced the Pope and that before that Council they spoke such great things of the Pope which afterwards moderate men durst not speak whereas he saith no such words nor had any meaning against the Popes Supremacy for this is all he saith Fallor si non ante celebrationem hujus S. Constantiensis Synodi c. I am deceived if afore the celebrating of this holy Council of Constance this Tradition which slattery suggested viz. that the Pope was supreme Monarch even in Temporals that he was above the Law could take away mens rights from them c. had not so possessed the mindes of the most that he that should have taught the contrary would have been noted or condemned of Heretical pravity Take a sign of this that after the determination and practice of the same Council there are found who fear not to assert openly such things 20. He puts down these for the words of the Council of Trent Although the ancient Fathers did give the Communion to Infants yet they did not believe it necessary c. whereas the words of the Council are not with any such Antithesis but thus onely Nor therefore is antiquity to be condemned if sometime they used that custome in some places For as those most holy Fathers had a probable cause of their so doing according to the condition of that time so truly it is without question to be believed that they did it with no necessity of salvation 1. Chap. 3. Sect. 21. He quotes Bishop Fisher as saying That
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