The true Catholique Church.

(Jt is so necessary (saith hee) for every one to know and be­leeue the holy Catholique Church militant, that whosoever is not a sound member of that society ei­ther in act or desire, cannot bee saved.) All this is true, and there is great reason for it; for if it were once agreed among Christians which were the true Church of Christ, other diffe­rences in Religion would more easily be composed by the au­thority thereof. But so long as the doubt remaines concerning the Church it selfe (as in these daies that is the capitall contro­versie betweene Protestants & Papists) there is small hope of a­ny good accord vnlesse both sides could agree vpon some [Page 18]third party to be vmpire: Who must be such a one as is of suffi­cient vnderstanding to discerne where the truth resteth, and withall of that indifferency in affection, that he encline no way to one side more then to ano­ther; For that either the Ro­mish or reformed Church, be­ing themselues the parties liti­gant, that they should require to be made Iudges in their own cause (though some of our adver saries be not ashamed to make such a proposition) yet I thinke there is no man that hath his fiue wits about him, but will detest the impudency thereof at the first hearing. Of necessity therefore some third party must be thought vpon, who being no way intressed in either faction, is of sufficient Iudgement to de­termine which of the preten­ders make the best claime; now [Page 19]though wee should search the whole world over with a can­dle, there is none such possibly to be found vnder heaven, but only the holy Scripture: which being confessed by both sides to be the rule of faith, cannot well be denied to be the most com­petent Iudge for deciding of all doubts in that kinde arising a­mong the faithfull.

Scripture a competent judge of the true Church.

And for this question of the Church S ^t Aug. is peremptory, that there is no other way to determine it but by Scripture alone;

That whole chap­ter together with the 3. and 4. following is altogether to the same purpose; nay Bellar. him­selfe denies not but in some ca­ses the Scripture is better knowne to vs then the Church, and ex hac hypothesi, when the Church is doubted of he is con­tent to grant, that wee must seeke for it in the Scripture, de Eccles. l. 4. c. 2. And yet notwith­standing all this faire weather that he makes with Scripture, there is neither hee, nor any of the rest that are willing to ac­cept it for Iudge in this contro­versie; the most they will yeeld, is to accept it for a rule of faith, and yet they stand not to that neither, when they require tra­dition to be joyned vnto it, as if without the helpe thereof it could not measure perfectly. [Page 21]For Regula & regulatum de­bent esse adaequata. The auto­rity of the scripture. If Scrip­ture alone bee not sufficient of it selfe to measure the length of à Christians faith, vnlesse tradition bee added to helpe, then it is no rule at all, much lesse a perfect rule, but on­ly a peece of one. But how­soever they are content some­time for fashion sake to ac­knowledge Scripture for the rule of faith in part, yet by no meanes will they allow it for a Iudge, though that be the very name, whereby S. Augustine, and the Fathers of those times, did vsually call it, ‘ Ista contro­versia Iudicem requirit (saith he) lib. 2. de nup. & concup. c. 33. Iudicet ergo Christus Iudicet cum illo & Apostolus: quia in Apostolo ipse loquîtur Christus: and againe, de gratiâ & lib. arbit. c. 18. Sedeat inter [Page 22]nos iudex Apostolus Iohannes. and Optatus contra Parmen. l. 5. Quaerendi sunt iudices, saith he: Jn terris de hâc re nullum poterit reperiri iudicium.’ (You see by this, that the Pope was not acknowledged in those daies for the judge of contro­versies, & if Optatus had beene a Papist, he durst not haue spo­ken such a word) but marke how hee goes on: ‘ De coelo quaerendus est judex: sed quid pulsamus ad coelum, cùm habe­mus hic in Evangelio Testa­mentum?’ the place is too long to bee all set downe, and that which followeth, is all to that purpose. Our adversaries speake in another language now adaies, then Optatus or Augustine or any of those holy Fathers were wont to speake. When they said so often, Judicet Christus & Iu­dicet Scriptura, they would haue [Page 23]said once at the least, Iudicet Papa, if they had imagined that any such power had belonged vnto him. Here was a fit oppor­tunity for them to haue decla­red themselues true Catho­liques. But alas, good men, how could they speake of that which they knew not, or how could they teach that doctrine to o­thers that they were never taught themselues? For this vp­start judge, it is a meere novel­ty of a later edition vtterly vn­knowne to the Christian world in those daies, like that gibbrish tongue, which some mungrell Iews spake, & Neh emias com­plaines of c. 13.24. In scripturis didicimus Christum: in scriptu­ris didicimus Ecclesiam. Aug. ep. 166. & de vnitat. Eccles. c. 16.

Now when we say, that the Scripture is judge, wee doe not [Page 24]refuse to heare the voice of the Church, speaking in the ordina­ry Ministery of her lawfull Pa­stors, & interpreting the Scrip­tures vnto vs. Wee know that there are many texts full of dif­ficulty, and aboue the reach of common vnderstanding: nay, there are many which his Ho­linesse himselfe, I am sure, vn­derstands not for all his infalli­ble chaire. But we know with­all, that there are other places of Scripture, so facil and plaine, as a man of ordinary capacity may safely be his owne inter­preter: and there is nothing ne­cessary to salvation, either con­cerning faith or life, but that in some one place or other, it is de­liuered in such plaine manner, as every man may vnderstand it: if Saint Augustine deceiue vs not de Doctr. Christ. l. 2, c. 9. And many other of the ancient Fa­thers, [Page 25]as well as hee. And therefore if blinde men see not the sunne, it is not the fault of the sun, but theirs, whose eyes the God of this world hath blinded.

A lawfull Councell the Church representatiue.

Now for those places of scrip­ture which are of greatest diffi­culty, if we seeke for a vocall judge to interpret them vnto vs, it is certaine that there is none sufficient to informe vpon earth the conscience of a Christian, but only a lawfull Councell, which is fitly therefore called the Church representatiue. The de­claratiō of several Pastors though never so learned & godly, cā in­duce no more thē a probability: but the vniforme consent of thē all joyned together in a lawfull Councell, doth conclude a cer­tainty [Page 26]of truth in that that is de­clared. What conditions belong to a lawfull Councell I will not now stand to inquire. Some such there haue beene heretofore (though not so many as, would be thought so) and some there may be againe.

In the meane time, A councell the highest iudgement vpon earth. I desire you to thinke that Protestants ascribe farre greater authority by many degrees to the voice of the Church speaking in such assemblies, then Papists doe for all their great talking; and yet you must know, that there are divers learned Papists of the same opinion with Protestants in this point; namely, that the iudgement of a lawfull Coun­cell is to bee reputed the highest iudgement vpon earth, whether the Pope giue his consent there­vnto or no. The Iesuites labour hard on the contrary side to [Page 27]draw all to the Papall chayre, af­firming the sentence of a Coun­cell to be of no validity, vnlesse the Pope doe approoue it, which in effect is nothing else, but to abuse the name of Councels, and of the Church, making them meere stales to serue the Popes turne; Differēces amongst the Papists. see the differences that are among themselues about this matter in Bel, lib. 2. de conc. c. 14.17. and the base conceit the Iesuites hold of all such Councells as want the Popes confirmation: contrary to the judgement of Peter de Alliaco, Cardinall of Cambry, Iohn Ger­son, Iacobus Almaine, Card. Cu­sanus, Bishop Tostatus, Abbot Panormitan, with the Councels of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, and generally of the whole French Church at this day. I know not to which of these factions your friend enclines: if he thinke as [Page 28]the French Papists doe, I am of his opinion; if hee be Iesuited, desire him to mend his descrip­tion of the Catholique Church; and where he names it (a visi­ble Monarch) let him sit downe and write (a visible Mo­narch.) For that is Purus putus Iesuitismus; Disput. Theol. To. 3. dis. 1. By the Church we meane her head (saith Greg. de Valent.) that is the Pope: in whom there resideth the full authority of the Church, when he pleaseth to determine mat­ters of faith, whether he doe it with a Councell or without. His words are these: Est in Ec­clesiâ authoritas divinitûs insti­tuta, quâ fideles tum doctrinâ, tum praeceptis informentur: Haec authoritas, plenè in Romano Pon­tifice Christi Ʋicario, & S. Petri successore residet, qui scilicet de fidei & morum controversiis vel per se, vel vnà cum generali con­cilio [Page 29]sufficienter constituat. No­mine Ecclesiae intelligimus eius caput, id est, Romanum Ponti­ficem per se—

I haue stood thus long vpon the authority of Scripture, be­cause if the question of the Church must receiue its decisi­on from thence, as Bell confes­seth, me thinkes it is but hard dealing in him and his fellowes to keepe Lay-people from the free reading of the scripture; vnlesse they meane to keepe them from the knowledge of the true Church also; but for your friend though hee talke much of the Catholique Church, yet I cannot finde by his de­scription, that ever hee consul­ted either with scripture or any ancient lawfull councell, when he went about it. And thereup­on I would presently ioyne issue with him, but that I am bound [Page 30]to take knowledge first of a place of Malachy, which hee sets most eminently in the fore­front of his writing.

I haue no will in you saith the Lord of Hostes, and gift I will not receiue of your hand; for from the rising of the Sunne to the go­ing downe great is my name a­mongst the Gentiles, and in eve­ry place there is sacrificing, and there is offered to my name a cleane oblation, because my name is great amongst the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hostes. Mal. 1.11.

In the allegation of this Text I complaine, that there are two notorious faults committed by him. 1. That he alledgeth it to no purpose: any other text in the Bible would haue become the place as well as that. 2. That he falsifies the words of the [Page 31]Prophet, and makes him to say that which he never meant.

1. If your friend in citing these words, did purpose to proue the reiectiō of the Iews, and calling of the Gentiles, I know it is true; but I know not to what purpose alledged, to perswade any man to Popery more then the deposing of Abi­athar, and Sadocks advancement to the Priesthood, 1. Reg. 2.35. If his meaning be to shew that the Church of the Gentiles is of greater extent then ever the Iewish Synagogue was, & that it is not now confined to any one place, or people, as it was vnder the Law, but belongeth indifferently to all Nations vp­on earth, for my part, I know no Christian that ever denied it besides the Donatists of old, and some Papists of later times, who seeking to bring all Christians [Page 32]to a dependance vpon Rome, and the Bishop of that place (just as the Synagogue depen­ded vpon the Temple of Ieru­salem and the high Priest there) they turne the vniversal Church into a particular congregation, howsoever for fashiō sake they retaine the name of Catholike. They themselues doe in a man­ner acknowledge as much, when as not contenting them­selues with those known marks of Vna, Sancta, Catholica, Apo­stolica, by which the Church was wont to bee notified in the antient Creeds, and Councels, they foist in Romana amongst the rest, which being but a late tricke vnheard of in antiquity, and only devised to serue the present turne, it shewes that the Church for whose sake it was first devised, is but of a late edition, per Romanam Ecclesi­am [Page 33]nemo vnquam intellexit vni­versalem nisi forte latini sermo­nis ignarus, Pigh. hierar Eccl. l. 6. c. 3.

2. My second accusation is, that your friend deales not faith­fully in setting downe the words of Malachy. For where­as hee makes the Prophet to say ( that in every place there is sa­crificing) you may boldly tell him, that there is no one word of sacrificing in the Hebrew text at all. God saith that among the Gentiles there should be in­cense offered to his name; that is, prayers & supplicatiōs, as you shall findethe word interpreted by the holy Ghost himselfe, Rev. 5.8. and therefore the Sep­tuagint, renders it by [...], & Arias Mont. The sacri­fice of the Masse. (who vnderstood both the Hebrew and Greeke very well) in his interlineary Bible translates it incensum. As [Page 34]for Sacrificing, there is, Nec vo­la nec vestigium, neither fell, nor marke of it, as we say, in all that saying of the Prophet. You must thinke it was not without some speciall cause, that the name of Sacrificing was drawne into the text, thus by the heeles, but vpon hope that it should doe som speciall service: which though your friend doe not sig­nifie (and so I need not take knowledge of it) yet I thinke good to make you acquainted withall, because it may serue to discouer some other of our Ad­versaries mysteries. Cardinall Allen forsooth, Card. Al­len. hath vndertaken out of these words of Malachy, to proue the sacrifice of the Mas, by sixe reasons (which would make my writing swell too big if I should set them all downe) lib. de Euch. c. 5. I would desire you to reade both his reasons, & [Page 35]the answer made vnto them by Doct. Reinolds, in his confe­rence with Hart. p. 479. D. Rei­nolds and Hart. And if you receiue not full satisfacti­on in that point, besides many others, blame me for commend­ing the booke vnto you. Now what hope could hee ever haue of prouing the Sacrifice of the Masse by Malachy, vnlesse the word Sacrifice it selfe were first found in the Text.

And so I come to his descrip­tion of the Catholike Church as he calls it, though all things considered he hath little reason to giue it that name.

A description of the Catholique Church.

The holy Christian Catho­lique Church militant, which we professe in the Apostles Creed, to belieue, is a visible Monarchy or Kingdome, consisting of all the [Page 36]true belieuers vpon the face of the earth, confessing one God in Tri­nity, and Trinity in Vnity, vnder one lawfull visible head, for the time being, obseruing one Faith, Religion and Sacraments institu­ted by Christ.— In which words let it bee no offence to say, that hee deales as boatmen vse to doe, when they looke one way & row another; for what­soever he talkes of the Catho­lique Church, you shall finde presently that hee meanes the Romish Church, a meere parti­cular one, though for the credit thereof he would faine yoake it together with the Church Ca­tholique in the same description. But see his ill lucke. For while he goes about to describe them both in one, he failes to describe either of them as he should. For if the Catholique Church doth comprehend (as hee saith) the [Page 37]multitude of all true beleeuers even from righteous Abel (as Augustine speaketh) to the end of the world, how can this agree to the Romish Church? On the other side, if it comprehend no more then such as are subiect to one visible head, how can the name of Catholique in right be­long vnto it? So this descripti­on is like a shooe that will serue neither foote.

If wee should grant that the Romish faith in these daies were the true faith of Christ: yet could not that make their Church to bee the Catholique Church, but only a part thereof, and that is the most that can bee said of it, though it were farre better then it is; but the Pope lookes higher then so, & Rome scornes to be ranckt in the order of particular Churches. He must be the vniversall Bishop, and [Page 38]she the vniversall Church of the World. For if that should be de­nied, what right hath either He, or Shee to claime subiection of those, who haue their seve­rall dependance vpon other Bi­shops? Therefore to make this good, and to bring all fish into S ^t Peters net, there were some well-wishers to the Romish cause, who not finding how two such disparates in nature, as vniversall and particular, Ca­tholique and singular, might pos­sibly be joyned together in one subiect, they found a meanes at last to joyne them both together in one word; and hence it comes to passe, that instead of Romana fides, & Romana Ecclesia, which was wont to bee the common language among all Christians, wee must call it henceforth, Ro­mano Catholicam fidem, Romana Catholicam Ecclesiam, or else [Page 39]they will complaine that wee allow them not their full stile; Thus still it falls out, that Por­tenta rerū gignunt portenta ver­borum. And if it were not a new and strange doctrine, it never needs to coine such new and strange words. And yet, as if Romana Ecclesia did not speake home enough to expresse their meaning, or, as if it were too large a terme, and they durst not trust that more then Catho­lica or Apostolica, Bellarmine de effect. sacr. l. 2. c. 25. to be sure to fit the shooe to the Popes foot, restraines it to nunc Romana Ecclesia: I know not what the spirit of giddinesse is, if this bee not, or why wee should not say of these men, as it was said of the Arrians, Habent annuas & menstruas fides (Ecclesias.) If the ancient faith of Rome were the same with the present, what [Page 40]meanes nunc Romana? if it were not, how is the present faith Catholica? For that onely is so, quae est omnium temporum & lo­corum. The Councells of Late­ran or Trent will not be guided by the Councells of Basil or Constance. And therefore Cusa­nus speakes plainely, and saies, that there is fides temporum, a faith that alters with the time, and that the true sense of the Scripture is that, which the pre­sent Church giues. Non est mi­rum, si praxis Ecclesiae vno tem­pore interpretetur scripturā vno modo, & alio tempore alio modo; nam intellectus currit cum praxi: intellectus enim, qui cum praxi concurrit, est spiritus vivificans: sequuntur ergo Scripturae Eccle­siam & non è converso, Epist. 7. Bohem.

The holy christian Catholike Church, No abso­lute Mo­narchy. is a visible Monarchie [Page 41]vnder one visible lawfull head, I complained before that the Church of Rome being a meere Particular, he made it all one to the Catholique Church of Christ. Here I finde cause to complaine on the other side, of his wrong done to the Catho­lique Church, when he termes it a visible Monarchie, vnder a visible Head: which is the pla­cing of a barre in her armes, and makes her no better then the Romish, or any other particular being of the younger house.

1. When hee names the Church a Monarchie, if he mean it in respect of Christ, sole King and Monarch thereof, I will not contend with him about the name: or if hee meane it in re­gard of particular Churches we confesse, that in as much as they are subiect to their severall Bi­shops, their governement in that [Page 42]respect is a kinde of Monarchie, though not an absolute Monar­chie, but such a one as is tempe­red with an Aristocrasie; because Bishops either doe not or should not impose lawes vpon the Church, but Ex communi Con­cilio Presbyterorum, by the ad­vice and with the consent of their Presbyterie.

A visible Monarchie. Not visi­ble.) If the Catholique Church were a na­turall body, and not a mysticall: If it were some individuall and singular subiect, and not a meere vniversall (as the name of a Ca­tholique imports) Visibility might well bee an adiunct be­longing vnto it. Which other­wise, I confesse, I vnderstand not how it should, and I be­lieue, they that speake most of it vnderstand it as little; if your friend haue ever seene the Ca­tholique Church with his eye, [Page 43]let him say whether it be Dia­phanum or adiaphanum, lumino­sum corpus, or opacum; bid him tell you of what colour and com­plexion it is. And doe not thinke I iest in mouing such questions, for in good earnest it must bee qualified thus for in some such sort, if it be subiect to the eye of man. I grant he hath seene some particular persons that belong vnto the Church, and are mem­bers thereof (and so haue I of­ten) but for the Church it selfe, whose formality consisteth in a spirituall coniunction with Christ the head, & of the mem­bers themselues one with ano­ther, this mysticall vnion I am sure he did never see: & there­fore hee did never see the Church no not any particular Church, to speake properly, much lesse the Catholike church. This is an article of faith, and not [Page 44]an obiect of sense, farre aboue the spheare of all optike learn­ing; it is an Article to bee belie­ved, not a thing to be descried, by a paire of spectacles, or any other prospectiue glasse; if hee meane Ʋideo pro intelligo, by the old Grammer rule, let him and the rest speake so a Gods name, and call it hereafter the intelli­gible Church, that we may vn­derstand them: for then they shall begin to speake somewhat more like Protestants: for other­wise, while they call it the vni­versall, yet visible Church, they interfeare at every word, and speake pure non-sense.

The Pope not the head of the Church.

Vnder one lawfull visible head.) It had beene plaine dealing to haue named the Pope, rather then to vse such a circumlocuti­on [Page 45]of words: for you must not doubt but that he is that Visible head whom he meanes. Now it deserues a Quare, why the Church being but one body, should need two Heads? Why being but one Monarchy it can­not consist without two Mo­narchs? To say that one is a visi­ble, the other an invisible; the one a principall, the other a mi­nisteriall head, it is all one in ef­fect, as if they told vs of two Christs, a visible and an invisi­ble; & perhaps in time to come the world may heare of some such matter, if this doctrine goe on. In reason they ought to make two Churches; because the bo­dy must bee multiplied accord­ing to the multiplication of the heads; we are sure that Christ now in heauen, is every way as able to governe his Church by himselfe, as he was while he li­ved [Page 46]vpon earth: if in regard of his bodily absence they thinke it necessary that he should leaue some deputie behind him: Nei­ther doth this hang well toge­ther with some other popish Positions; for by their doctrine Christ is not so ascended into heauen, but that they haue his body (as they say) remaining still among them vpon earth; and that not only in a spirituall manner, but most really and car­nally. They haue freer recourse to Christ now by the helpe of Transubstantiation, Transub­stantiation. then they could possibly haue with him while he conversed here in the flesh. Nay they haue not so free accesse to the Pope I am sure, as they haue to him, with whom they may speake, when they list, vpon every Altar, and in e­very Pixe. And what folly is it to seeke to the foote, when we [Page 47]may goe to the head? To set vp a ministeriall head in the Church, where the principall himselfe is alwaies at hand? Dulciùs ex ipso fonte bibuntur aquae.

Besides, No visible head neces­sary. if this visible Head were such a necessary imple­ment in the Church of God as they would make vs beleeue, it seemes strange to mee why his name should be forgotten, and that in those very Scriptures, where the Governors, and the government of the Church is purposely treated of; or how was it possible for Saint Paul speaking of Apostles, and Pro­phets, and Evangelists, of Pa­stors, and teachers ordained by Christ for the perfecting of the Saints, for the worke of the Mi­nistry. &c. Eph. 4 11. and 1. Cor. 12.28. to forget the name of this Pastour Paramont: who now takes vpon him to be Dominus [Page 48]fac totum, and to rule the rost throughout all Christendome.

There is another thing that makes mee doubt much of this matter, namely that whereas the Church hath still bin known by the name of a Monarchy, yet the Pope among all other his ti­tles hath not ordinarily taken vpon him the name of a Mo­narch, till of late. I know some such thing hath beene mutter­ing a pretty while in the Schooles: but it never past for currant Doctrine in the Church till within these few yeares: nay, it is not so farre past yet, but that the Sorbonists of Paris, & generally the whole Church of France, oppose strongly a­gainst it. In like sort, whereas the Church hath ever beene cal­led the body of Christ, Ephes. 1.23. yet I never heard of a Pope so desperate that durst call the [Page 49]Church his body: which yet in some sort hee might be allowed to doe, if it bee lawfull for him in any sort to call himselfe the Head of the Church (by the Do­ctrine of Relatiues.)

Moreover, I finde the main­tainers of this Doctrine much puzzelled in seeking to expresse what authority it is, that the Pope may challenge in right of his headship, and Monarchie, & what power is appendant to that name: whether it bee a meere spirituall power, or a temporall, or both, or some third mixt power compounded of temporall and spirituall? Difference betweene the Papists touching the tempo­rall and the spirituall power of the Pope. Here I see them at such deadly strife among themselues, as I hold it no safe trusting either of them, vntill I shall first finde that they trust one another better. Card. Bellarmine himselfe within these few yeares knew not [Page 50]what to make of that matter, as it appeareth by his latter writings compared with the former.

When he first set forth his bookes of controuersies, he was of one opinion concerning this point, which afterward hee changed & became of another, as you shall finde by his recog­nitions, wherein hee did not mend that which was amisse, as Augustine did in his Retractati­ons, but proficiens in peius, like those, of whom the Apostle speakes, 2. Tim. 3.13. hee made that worse which was too bad before; euen in the iudgement of his owne good friends. In his former writings of this argu­ment, though hee had pleaded for the Papall authority, Quan­tum honestè potuit, Barclay. Sixtus Quintus. & plus eti­am quàm debuit: saith William Barclay a Papist, yet was Sixtus [Page 51]Quintus the Pope so disconten­ted with his booke, that he was once of the mind, to haue dam­ned all his writings, because he did not speake home to his Ho­linesse contentment: I meane, because hee did not attribute such an vnlimited, and transcen­dent power vnto him, as that proud & imperious Praelate did challenge in right of his pre­tended Monarchie; because hee did not affirme him to haue as direct a temporall power over Kings, as a spirituall over Bi­shops, making all Kingdomes, as well as all Churches, subiect to his disposition. See Barclay de potestate Papae in Principes christianos, cap. 13.

They that contract the pow­er of the Pope within the con­fines of a meere Spirituall iu­risdiction, though they speake more modestly then other of [Page 52]their fellowes; yet in as much as they extend this iurisdiction over the whole world, (which in respect of him they make to bee but as one Diocesse) even this Paradox of theirs is as false as the others, though not so im­pudent: & as iniurious to Christ and his Church, though it be not so pragmatically dangerous to secular states, and Princes Crownes: for if the Spirituall Kingdome of Christ bee of no greater extent then the Popes iurisdiction, it followeth that none are Christians but Papists; which though some Popish Pu­ritane in his fiery zeale, will make no bones perhaps to af­firme: yet all of them are not so desperate, and hee that speakes so in his heat, must recall it a­gaine in cold blood, or else hee will leaue Christ but a poore Kingdome, and a few subiects [Page 53]in respect of that multitude, which God promised vnto him, Psal. 2.8. and Psal. 72. v. 8.9. &c. Nay how shall that Prophecy of Malachy bee verified of the Church, spreading it selfe from the rising of the Sunne to the going downe thereof, if there bee no more Christians in the world then there be Papists? All the world knowes that the Popes Kingdome never exten­ded it selfe so farre, as that Pro­phecy speakes of, by many de­grees, when it was at the lar­gest. And Papists haue little hope ever to see it hereafter spread over the whole World. Now because the Pope hath no juris­diction in those parts, nor ever had, shall wee thinke therefore that Christ hath no kingdome there? Or that the Grecian, Ar­menian, Jndian, Aethiopian, and other African Churches bee no [Page 54]Churches at all, because they are no Popish Churches? (I omit to speake here of Protestants in Europe, whose multitude the Pope knowes better then hee loues.) But for those other which I was speaking of, it is certaine that either the Prophe­cies mentioned before are ac­complished in those Christians, or else they were never accom­plished hitherunto at all: eyther Christ now reigneth in those Churches, or else his kingdome was never so large as it was pro­mised that it should be. And al­though it cannot be denied, but that those Easterne & Southerne Christians are much degenera­ted from their primitiue purity, and there bee diverse things a­misse in their profession; yet, they are Christians still: and whosoever denies them that name, because they are none of [Page 55]the Popes creatures, hee robs Christ of more subiects then hee leaues him to raigne over. Vbi­cun (que) timetur, & laudatur Deus, ibi vera est Ecclesia August. in Psal. 21.

The Church for the space of sixe hundred yeares was not on­ly without this visible head, but so farre from desiring it, that when Iohn Patriarch of Constan­tinople, an ambitious Prelate be­gan to affect this matter, he was told by Gregorie the Great that his course was Antichristian: & yet it is certaine the ambition of this Patriarch was no more, then that which hath since bro­ken forth in ambitious Popes, vnder the name of their Supre­macy: and the same reasons which Gregory vsed against Iohn, being many in number, they conclude as strongly a­gainst Gregories Successors now [Page 56]a daies, as ever they did then a­gainst the other. Read Greg. on that Argument, lib. 4. Ep. 30.32.36. & alibi. If the same questi­on were made now to the Pope, which was then made by Gre­gory to that Patriarch. Tu quid Christo vniversalis Ecclesiae ca­piti in extremi iudicij dicturus es examine, qui cuncta eius membra vibi conaris vniversalis appella­tione supponere? I thinke his Ho­linesse would be to seeke of an answere. I am sure Gerson a learned Roman Catholike, was so farre from thinking such a vi­sible Head to bee any matter of necessity in the Catholique Church, that hee thought the body might doe well enough though this head were taken off from the shoulders: as appeares by his booke written, De aufe­nibilitate Papae. And so I passe from this description of the Ca­tholique [Page 57]Church.

All that followes from thence to the end almost of the first page might well haue bin spared, neither can I devise to what purpose it is brought in.

1.

That our Saviour Christ be­ing a Priest for ever secundum ordinem Melchisedec, Christ the head of the Church. was the first visible Head and founder of the said holy Christian Catho­lique Church, &c.— Hee is no Christian that doubts of it: but when I heare him say, that Christ (was the first visible head of the Church) me thinkes hee speakes strangely, vnlessE hee thinke that Christ is now ceased to bee somewhat that hee was heretofore. For why else did he not say in praesenti, that Christ is the head of the Church, as well as (he is a priest for ever) vnlesse he were afraid to hurt the Popes [Page 58]head? Primus semper dicitur in ordine ad secundum, & secundus ad tertium. Now if the Church by the death of Christ her first head got her a second head, which was S. Peter, why then vpon his death shee got a third head, and so consequently hath had as many Heads, as shee hath had Popes, which is scarce good English.

2. How farre the Clergy are to bee obeyed.

That Christ did institute a Clergy & a Laity in his Church, the one to preach and administer Sacraments, the other to learne and to obey, &c.— I hope hee doth not meane that the Clergy are freed from obeying the Gospell, because they are bound to preach it; But that Christ did institute such a distinction of [Page 59]people in his Church we know before hee told vs so. Heere a man might suspect that some Priest had his finger in the fram­ing of this writing, in as much as when he speakes of the duty of the Laity, he tels them, (That they are bound to obey the Cler­gy in all things touching their Faith,—) a speech too lauish for any Priest to speake, and too sla­vish for any ingenuous Lay man to heare, except it be much cir­cumcised, (they must obey in all things) he meanes first the per­sons, then the doctrine. Ex per­sonis fidem, non ex fide personas. And Champnies, an English Sor­bonist, professeth as much, l. de vocat. minist, c. 1. And so like­wise Stapleton; In doctrinâ re­ligionis non quid dicatur, sed quis loquatur attendendum est. defens. Ecclesiasticae autorit. l. 3. c. 7. & demon strat. princip. doctrin. l. 10. [Page 60] c. 5. Which Tertullian thought a great absurdity, and so dis­claimes it, Ʋeritas docendo per­suadet, non suadendo docet: ad­ver. Valent. Hic est sacerdos de genere Aaronis, non decipiet nos. 1. Mac. 7.14. so did some over­credulous Iews say of Alcimus; but yet they were deceiued. And so would your friend per­swade you, to belieue him, be­cause he is a Romish Priest, and to take vp your faith vpon his credit. But let it first appeare, that their Clergy are so privi­ledged by speciall or common grace, that either they cannot preach false doctrine, though they would, or that they wil not though they can, & then we are content they should bee obeyed in all things. Alfonsus à Castro tells indeed strange things that hee heard a Dominican preach con­cerning the priviledges of his owne order. l. 1. de haeres. c. 9. but [Page 61]your friend goes beyond him, and saies as much of every po­pish Priest, such must bee obeyed in all things, and therefore such cannot, or should not erre; and then vbi Papae infallibilitas? what preheminence shall his holinesse haue more then every common Masse Priest? Either this Pontifex maximus this high Priest must forbeare to say his Pater noster, or forbid other Priests to say theirs, or else they will goe cheeke by cheeke with him: ne (que) sufficit dicere; neither can they say, that they are all equall potestate ordinis only: for they will be so potesta­te iurisdictionis too, if they are to be obeyed in all things. What will they say then? that the Pope alone is the infallible Church to the learned Papist; but to the common people eve­ry parish Priest is their Church: [Page 62]to this I may answere, that as Cotton seem'd to mistrust even the Popes infallibility, when he desired to know of the divell the strongest proofe in Scripture for Purgatory, Thuan. To. 5. fol. 1136. (though hee needed not haue troubled the divell so farre, when many of his owne friends can assure him, that there is no proofe of it there) so haue wee also just cause to mistrust the inferior Priests the feet, when the head begins to faile; and when we heare S. Hie­rome crying out, that all heresies and commotions both Ecclesi­asticall and Civill commonly came from Priests: nay, it seemes, they justly deserue to be thus stigmatized, when their owne Canons haue laid this note vpon them, which saies, omne malum à Sacerdotibus: dist. 50. quod retentum à Gregorio, 13. [Page 63] expunxit Sixtus Quintus Jnd. expurg. Belg. fol, 306.

Besides by this rule of blind obedience, they that followed Luthers doctrine are justified a­gainst the Pope, because he was their lawfull Pastor: and they did no more then their duty in harkening vnto him; if it be true indeede that the Laity are bound to obey the Clergy in all things touching their faith and salva­tion.

The perpetuity of Christs Church on earth.

That the Church increased by Preaching and Miracles at the first; That it shall continue vnto the end of the world by vertue of Christs promise and the assistance of the Holy Ghost,

All this is vndoubted truth, and I pray you aske your friend, whether hee know any Prote­stant [Page 64]that doth deny it? Staple­ton & some other of the shame­lesse crew haue gone about to perswade the world, that wee beleeue not the perpetuity of Christs Church for ever vpon earth; but it is so shamelesse a slaunder, that Bellarmine him­selfe stands vpon our defence, and pleads our cause against all such calumniators. Notandum est (saith he) multos ex nostris tempus terere: & let your friend note it (for hee is one of those multi whom it concernes) dum probant absolutè Ecclesiam non posse deficere. Nam Calvinus & caeteri Haeretici id concedunt. Bel­larm. lib. 3. de Eccl. milit. c. 13. in initio capit. And though him­selfe vndertaking in the same place to set downe the Prote­stants opinion, doe it very vn­towardly, yet you see what hee thinkes of those other game­sters, [Page 65]who charge vs to hold that the Church hath at some­time decayed, and consequent­ly that Christ hath failed in his promise made vnto her, Tem­pus terunt (saith he) they are all but triflers. If your friend haue any such conce it of vs, desire him to belieue Bellarmine, and hereafter to haue a better opini­on. If not, aske him to what purpose hee cited Isa. 59.22. Math. 28.19.20. Joh. 14.16.17. Math. 18.18? Howsoever let him now know that we belieue the Catholique Church to bee Regnum quod non dissipabitur, an everlasting Kingdome that shall stand when all earthly Kingdomes faile. But wee doe not beleeue that this is true of every particular Church, and wee know that the Romish Church is no more then a par­ticular, and therefore as subiect [Page 66]to mutability and corruption, as any other of the same nature. Se­condly, tell him how wee be­leeue that the holy Ghost doth, and ever will guide the same Catholique Church into all ne­cessary truth: but we deny first that all those things are necessa­ry to be beleeved, which Rome professeth as truths. Secondly that the guidance into such truths is a grace entailed to any one succession of Bishops more then to other, or that the Popes chaire hath any greater reason to presume of her infallibility, then any other Patriarchicall Seas had heretofore of theirs. But we must talke more of this hereafter.

Saint Peter not the ministeriall head of the Church.

That our Saviour did consti­tute S ^t Peter to bee Ministeriall [Page 67]of his Church—) Well may the name of a Ministeriall head be given to Saint Peter in respect of his Apostleship, and there is not one of the twelue, but that in the same respect, the same name belongs vnto him; as they are called the twelue foundati­ons of the holy Ierusalem, Apoc. 21.14. so they may bee called 12. Ministeriall Heads of the Church vnder Christ. But to ap­propriate these names vnto Pe­ter alone, to make him not a Ministeriall, but the Ministeri­all head, as if the rest were no Heads at all, it is such a wrong done to the other Apostles, as cruell Landlords sometimes of­fer to their Tenants, when they take away their common from them, and make it their owne inclosure. As for the curtesie which perhaps they thinke they doe vnto Saint Peter, it is such a [Page 68]one as he will never giue them thankes for; that blessed Saint knowes well enough, that all this quarrelling about Suprema­cy is not for his sake, but for the Popes, and that his name is vsed only for a leaping stocke to helpe the other to horse. Hee takes as much delight in this ho­nourable supremacy, which they would cast vpon him, joy­ned with the disgrace of his fel­low Apostles, as Paul and Bar­nabas did when the men of Ly­stra would haue sacrificed vnto them, Act. 14.14. Hoc erant vti (que) & caeteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & Honoris & Potestatis: Cip. de vnit. Eccles. And yet we doe not say that this equality betweene the Apostles was so equall, but that there was ever a Prius & Posterius among them, as in all well-guided societies it is fit [Page 69]there should bee, for avoiding confusion; Iames, and Peter and Iohn, are termed Pillars, by which they are vnderstood to be persons of speciall note a­mong the rest, Gal. 2.9. and like enough that Peter, in regard ei­ther of his seniority in the Apo­stleship, or the fervency of his zeale to Christ, or some other speciall grace, wherein hee did excell, might be a more eminent pillar then any one of the other; vt Plato Princeps Philosophorum, sic Petrus Princeps Apostolorum. Hierom. adversus Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 4. Now as that name made not other Philosophers subiect to Plato, so neither doth the like giuen to Peter inferre any Iu­risdiction that hee had over his fellowes, or makes them any whit inferiour vnto him that way. Saint Ambrose saith of Paul, that he was not inferiour [Page 70]to Peter, or to any other of the Apostles that went before one­ly in time in 2. Cor. 12.9. And in his booke de Incar. Dom. Cap. 4. speaking of that Primacy that Peter had, he calleth it Prima­tum Confessionis, wherein Peter was preferred; a primacy of con­fession, faith he, not of honour, a primacy of faith, but not of degree. Your friend is of another minde, and brings Scripture to proue a greater supremacy gi­ven vnto Peter then all this we speake of, consider his proofes.

S ^t Peters supremacy.

And I say to thee, thou art Pe­ter, and vpon this rocke will I build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it; and J will giue to thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Hea­ven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind vpon earth, it shall be bound [Page 71]also in the heavens: and whatsoe­ver thou shalt loose in earth, it shall be loosed also in the heavens, Math. 6. vers. 18.19.) Before that ever our Saviour spake these words to Peter, you must vnderstand that hee had propo­sed a certaine question to them all in generall. Ʋos autem quem me esse dicitis, v. 15. Vnto which question Peter making answere in the name of them all, saith. Tues ille filius Dei viuentis, vers. 16. Wherevpon hee receiued the promise of the keyes, and those other comfortable words spoken by Christ vnto him, vers. 18.19. yet not so spoken to him alone, but that it is apparent that the substance of the promise did equally belong vnto them all: and there is nothing singular­ly belonging vnto Peter alone throughout the whole speech, but only an allusion betweene [Page 72]his name and the nature of his confession, betweene Petrus & Petra; for the rest, it is all com­mon, for either wee must say that the disciples did make no answere at all to their Masters question, which had beene a point of great incivility, and so not likely; or else the answer that Peter made must bee taken for their common answer, and his confession the common con­fession of them all. Now if it be granted that it was the com­mon confession, and only deli­vered by Peter as the fore-man of the Jury, [...] lib. 2. Hist. Eccl. cap. 14. [...]. (for so Eusebius calls him) our Saviours-reply therevnto cannot with any con­gruity be otherwise vnderstood then to belong vnto them all, though spoken vnto Peter; as judges vse to direct their speech to the foreman, when they would haue the whole Iury [Page 73]take knowledge of it: Petrus pro omnibus dixit, & cum omni­bus accepit, Orig. tract. 1. in Mat. & Aug. de verbis Dom. secund. Mat. Ser. 13. Quia tu dixisti mihi, Tu es filius Dei vi­ui, & ego tibi, tu es Petrus.

Vpon this rocke will I build my Church-). Whether by the rocke wee vnderstand Christ himselfe, or whether wee vn­derstand the confession of Saint Peter made of Christ, all comes to one; if there be any difference betweene them it is meerely verball, and consisteth rather of a diverse manner of mens ex­pressing their mindes, then in a­ny matter of substance. But for the person of Peter, the Church of Christ did never vnderstand her selfe to bee any otherwise built vpon it, then vpon the rest of the Apostles; Apoc. 21.14. or then Saint Paul when hee saith, [Page 74]it is built vpon the foundation not only of the Apostles, but al­so of the Prophets, that is vpon their doctrine. Eph. 2.20. ‘ Tu es Petrus & super hanc Petram, quam con­fessus es, super hanc Petram quam cognovisti, dicens, tu es Christus filius Dei viui, aedifi­cabo Ecclesiam meam: super me aedificabo te, non me super te, Aug. vbi supra;’ I could cite twenty places out of August. to the same purpose, besides Ambr. Ser. 84. Hil. de Trin. l. 2. Hier. in Mat. l. 1. c. 7. Tert. adversus Marcion. l. 4. c. 13, Theod. in Psal. 47. But for August. he is so plain for vs against the Popish inter­pretation, that Bellarmine would faine quarrell with him vpon the point, & chargeth him with ignorance of the Hebrew tongue. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 10. and Stapleton calls it lapsum hu­manum in that holy Father, be­cause [Page 75]he could not thinke of the matter as they would haue him; ( Princip. doctrinal. lib. 6. c. 3.

And the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it—) This makes it more plaine that the other part of the speech was not spo­ken to Peter alone, because this cannot bee vnderstood of Peter alone, and so Origen collecteth Tr. 1. in Mat. shall we dare to say (saith he) that the gates of Hell shall not overcome onely Peter, and that the same gates shall prevaile against all the o­ther Apostles? And againe in the same Tract. 1. in Mat. If you thinke that the whole Church was builded only vpon Peter, what will you say of Iohn the sonne of thunder, and of every of the Apostles?

And I will giue to thee the keyes &c. Here is nothing pro­mised in the Keyes to Peter, nor [Page 76]in the power of binding & loos­ing, but what is likewise pro­mised to all the Apostles, Mat. 18.18. Quaecun (que) ligaveritis in terrâ, erunt ligata & in coelo, and when this promise came to per­formance Ioh. 20.22.23. you shall finde that it was perfor­med to all alike. Accipite Spiri­tum Sanctum, quorum remiseri­tis peccata, remittentur iis.-Now it is certaine that remitting and retaining of sins is a power of the same extent with the pow­er of the keyes, and that being giuen to them all, Ioh. 20. as well as vnto Peter, proues that there was nothing promised vn­to Peter, Mat. 16. but was in­tended to them all, ‘ Cuncti A­postoli claves regni coelorum accipiunt. Hier. adversus Iovi­nianum l. 1. & Origen. An ve­ro soli Petro dantur claves regni coelorum, nec alius beato­rum [Page 77]quisquam eas accepturus est? Quod si dictum hoc tibi da­bo claves,- caeteris quo (que) com­mune est, cur non simul omnia communia Tract. 1. in Mat. & Cypr. Christus Apostolis om­nibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuit l. 1. de vnitat. Eccl. & August. in Ioh. tractat. 124.— quando Petro dictum est, tibi dabo claves—& quodcun (que) ligaveris- vni­versam significabat ecclesiam vide eundem Tra. 50. & The­oph. vpon Math. 16.’ Nay An­selme that was a child in com­parison of the Fathers, yet hee vnderstood this truth. Notan­dum est (saith he) quod haec po­testas non solum Petro data est: sed siout Petrus vnus pro omni­bus respondit, sic Christus in Pe­tro omnibus hanc potestatem de­dit.

And our Saviour said, Simon [Page 78]Simon, behold Satan hath requi­red to haue thee for to sift as wheat, but J haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not, and thou being converted confirme thy brethren, Luk. 22. vers. 31.32.) The first part of this speech was spoken to all the Disciples, Sa­tanas expetivit vos vt cribraret: as the vulgar likewise translat­eth: and therefore it is no good dealing in your friend to render it in the singular number (Satan hath required to haue thee for to sift) as if these words had beene spoken to Peter alone, which is a meere falsifying of the Text: as if a man would pay his credi­tor with counterfeit coine; but let that passe with his former citation of Malachy. In the words themselues, 1. Christ signifies to his Disciples the ma­lice of Satan against them all, and consequently the dāger where­in [Page 79]they stood, vnlesse his grace did stand by them. 2. Because he knew that Peters danger was greatest, & that he would proue the weakest in his performance, who had made the greatest pro­mises of loue to his Master: Christ I say, foreseeing that Pe­ters fall would bee more dange­rous in many respects then the fall of any of his other fellowes, therefore hee turnes the latter part of his speech to him alone, promising to assist him with his speciall prayer, as the greatnes of his sinne had speeciall need of; ‘If Satan desire to sift them all (saith Chrysostome) why did not Christ pray for them all? it is evident that to touch Peter more deepely and to shew his fault to bee more grievous then any of the rest, Christ turned his speech to him in particular, in Math. [Page 80]Hom. 83.’ All this proues no greater Monarchy, but rather a greater infirmity in Peter then in any of the rest, and greater mercy in Christ towards him, whose sinne did deserue à grea­ter iudgement. As S. Paul in­ferres the like of himsele 1. Tim. 1.16. I am sure the Pope will not bee thought to succeed Peter in the sinne of his deniall: why then doth hee claime the benefit of Christs prayer, Ego pro te oravi,- which was made purposely for Peter in regard of that sinne? For as Peters deniall was his personall fault, and is not derived per traducem to his Successors, (for then not only many Popes should Apostatare, as Lyra in Math. 16. saith, but all Popes should be Renegates which I beleeue not.) As there­fore it was a personall sinne in Peter to deny Christ, so the [Page 81]prayer of Christ for Peter was a personall favour bestowed vpon him: and the Pope hath no more right to the one then the other; besides, let it bee considered, that the faith which Saint Peter obtained by Christs prayer was not only fides notitiae, such as Di­vels haue and tremble, but it was fides fiduciae vera & salvifica sides: such a faith as worketh with charity, and whosoever hath it shall vndoubtedly be sa­ued; and so Chrysostome vnder­stands it, Oraui proute ne defice­ret fides tua, hoc est, ne in fine pe­reas, Hom. 72. in Ioh. Now it is confessed by all Papists, that all Popes are not furnished with this kinde of faith. Pope Adrian 6. is said to haue doubted of the salvation of many of his prede­cessors: and Bellarmine (if the Seminary Priest bely him not) hath passed a peremptory iudge­ment [Page 82]vpon Pope Sixtus Quin­tus. Quia sine poenitentiâ vixit, & sine poenitentiâ mortuus est, quantum sapio, quantum capio descendit ad inferos. Watson in his Quodlibets. Now if this be true, that Popes may bee dam­ned, it must needs follow, that either Christs prayer did not prevaile with God, (which were impiety to thinke) or that the Pope was never thought vpon by Christ, when this pray­er was a making. Now to his third proofe.

3.

Our Saviour Christ asking Peter îf he loved him more then these, said yea Lord, thou knowst J loue thee: wherevpon Christ said to him twice, feed my Lambes, and the third time feed my sheepe, Ioh. 21. vers. 16.17.) Here is some mistaking of the Text againe: for Christ did not [Page 83]say twice to Peter feed my Lambs, & once feede my sheep: but twice feed my Sheepe, and once feed my Lambs. But let this passe for a peccadillo. I say farther, that in the words there is nothing spoken more to Peter, then is elsewhere spoken to all the Apostles: When they are com­manded to goe, and teach all Na­tions baptizing them, Mat. 28.19.20. And if hee thinke that there lies any speciall mystery in these words, because there is such distinct mention of lambs, and sheepe both com­mitted to Peters charge, the like whereof we doe not find in the mission of the other Apostles: Let him not be too hasty to say so, till hee haue considered the words of their generall com­mission. Mark. 16.15. Goe into all the world (Saint Peter could not haue a larger Dioces) and [Page 84]preach the Gospell to every crea­ture. Therefore whether they be Lambes or sheepe, they be­long to the charge of euery o­ther Apostle as well as to Saint Peters. But they will say that Peter is commanded not only Pascere, but regere: and that [...] signifies more then a Pa­storall duty, even a kinde of Re­gall authority to bee given by Christ vnto him. Bellarmine stands much vpon the word though there bee little cause. Lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 15. I know that Kings are sometimes called Shepheards, as Homer calls [...], Nay God himselfe cals Cyrus so, Jsa. 44.28. But I thinke it were harsh, because Kings are sometimes called shepheards, to infer that Shepheards there­fore are Kings, whether wee speake of rustike or Ecclesiastick Shepheards. [Page 85]But if [...] bee such a mysti­call word, and doth imply such a soveraigne authority, what meant Saint Paul to vse that word speaking to the ordinary Presbyters of Ephesus, whom he willed [...], &c. Act. 20.28.

You haue heard his three texts of Scriptures: which if they be so cleere for the supre­macy, as hee would haue you thinke: let him giue you some reason why Pope Zozimus, Bo­nifacius, & Caelestinus, did not alledge any of these Scriptures in the 6. Councell of Carthage, when their supremacy lay a bleeding, but only made their claime by the Councell of Nice. it is not likely that ever such learned and wise Prelates as they, would haue sought for hu­mane proofes to iustify their cause, if they had knowne how [Page 86]to doe it by divine authority: which is to mee an vndoubted argument that these fore-al­leadged places ( Mat. 16.18. Luk. 22.31. Ioh. 21.16.) either were not thought on in those daies to imply any such Supre­macie in Peter: or that Peters supremacy (whatsoever it bee) was not thought to belong any whit to the Pope. Else why did they not stand vpon the Scrip­tures? Why did the Popes Le­gates vrge the Nicene Canon? Or rather why did they forge it to serue their turnes? for so it is certaine that they did, and the forgery remaines vpon record in the Acts of the Councell. And though Cardinall Baron. Tom. 5. Annal haue strained his wits hard to salue the matter, yet it will not be.— Haeret lateri le­thalis arundo. But as I was about to say: if these Scriptures make [Page 87]any good proofe for the Popes Supremacy, why were not they brought forth in that Councell of Carthage, either by the Pope or his Legates, rather then the Nicene Canon? Saint Augustine was one of the Fathers present in that Carthagenian Councell, when this cause was debated, and is it likely that either the Pope would haue stood then vpon Canons, if he had known any Canonicall scripture for it, or that Saint Augustine and the rest would haue denied him any authority that was due to him by Gods word? I conclude that either the Church in those daies did not vnderstand these places of Scripture, or the Ro­mish doth not vnderstand them now. But see whether these proofes that follow doe helpe his cause any better.

1.

When all the holy Apostles are named, S. Peter is the first, Mat. 10.2.-) That is not so: for Saint Andrew is named before him, Ioh. 1.44. James is named be­fore him, Gal. 2.9. Paul and A­pollos were both named before him, 1. Cor. 3.22. Nay see 1. Cor. 9.5. and Mark. 16.7. and you shall finde him named last of them all. 2. If it were so that Peter were still first named, yet what a weake foundation is that, for so great a building as they would raise vpon it? The most that can be inferred there­vpon is a primacy of order which no man ever denied. If that will content the Pope when a generall scrutinie of Bi­shops is called, to haue his name set in the first place, let him take it.

2.

After the Apostles had visi­bly receiued the Holy Ghost, S ^t Peter made the first Sermō there­of: whereat 3000. persons were converted Act. 2.4.) For Peter to haue his name placed first, or to preach the first Sermon, these are poore proofes for a Supre­macy, and it is but a poore Su­premacy that can bee drawne from such proofes. Why should it argue any Supremacy more in him that hee preached the first Sermon, then in Mary Magdaa­len, that shee published the first newes of Christs resurrection to the Disciples, even to Peter himselfe? Mark. 16.7. Ioh. 20.2.

But how if Peter did not preach the first Sermon after the visible descent of the Holy Ghost? Why then all that hee vrgeth is to little purpose. Con­sider [Page 90]the text well, Saint Peters sermon begins at the 14. Verse of the 2. Chap. of the Acts: the effect thereof was the conver­sion of 3000. soules mentioned vers. 41. It is plaine in the 4. Ʋers. that all the Apostles had spoken publikely to the people, before Peter stood vp to begin his Sermon. The argument whereof they intreated, was the same that Peter handled. they declared vnto them Mag­nalia Dei, the wonderfull works of God, Vers. 11. and Pe­ter declared nothing else. That preaching of theirs was not without good effect, as well as S. Peters, though we know not the iust number of the converts. Nay it seemes that the conver­sion of those 3000. was the fruit of all their preaching at that time, and not of Peters a­lone, and so it is said vers. 41. [Page 91] That vpon the same day were ad­ded vnto the Church about 3000 soules: Hee doth not say that all this was the effect of Peters one sermon: but that so many were converted vpon that day. To the next proofe.

With his word and power hee killed Ananias and Saphira for their Sacriledge, Act. 5. vers. 5.) It was for their lying to the Ho­ly Ghost that Peter slew them (and so he tells them, vers. 3.4.) & so not for sacriledge alone. But let it be as hee would haue it. I say it proues not that for which he brings it. S. Paul by the like power smote Elimas the Sorcerer with blindnesse, Act. 13. Now if at the same time Paul had slaine Elimas out­right, and in stead of taking his eye-sight from him, had taken away his life (as I thinke no [Page 92]man doubts but hee could haue done) aske your friend, whether he thinke that such an act would haue made Paul head of the A­postles? Let him spit and speake out plainely. His fourth proofe followeth with some more shew, though of as little force as the former.

4.

St Peter called the first Coun­cell of the Apostles holden at Ie­rusalem and first spake therein: Act. 15. v. 7. Bellar. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 22. saith, Petrus in conci­lio primus loquitur: & sententi­am eius Jacobus omnes (que) alij se­quuntur. This is more then hee should haue said, because it is more then he can proue: but yet he durst not say as your friend doth, that Peter called the Coun­cell (he knew it to bee vntrue) and if you read the whole Chap. you shall not find one word to [Page 93]that purpose. Peter spake first in the Councell, so Bellarm. saith indeed: and your friend speakes it vpon his credit. But yet the Councell it selfe saies no. Act. 15. v. 7. When there had beene much disputing Peter rose vp, and said; Men and Brethren,—Therefore some other there spake of the matter before Peter. And what if hee had beene the first speaker in that Councell? would that proue his suprema­cy? Iust as it was proued before by his making the first sermon? Nay rather it is an argument that doth overthrow his supre­macy altogether. For it is well knowne that in such kinde of as­semblies the inferiour doe com­monly speake first, and the Pre­sident of the Councell hauing heard and gathered their opini­ons deliuereth his iudgement last of all, according whereunto [Page 94]the decree commonly passeth. So I haue heard that the Lord Chancelour doth in the Star-Chamber, and the chiefe Iudges vpon other benches. And in this very Councell of Ierusalem, when Peter and Paul and Bar­nabas had spoken their minds concerning the matter in questi­on, Iames stands vp and vsing a speciall kinde of authority, Men and brethren harken vnto me, v. 13.—he concludes the busines: which shewes that he, and none but hee was President in that Councell: and so Chrysostome tearmes him, calling his sen­tence the definitiue sentence, according whereunto the de­cre of the councell was framed, Chrysostom. Hom. 33. in Act. A­postolorum.

It is affirmed by old writers, and some moderne learned Pro­testants, [Page 95]that S. Peter was 25. yeeres Bishop of Rome, and by the auncient Ecclesiasticall wri­ters, that Saint Peter and S. Paul were both of them martyred toge­ther in Rome vnder the Empe­rour Nero. Origen. apud Eusebi­um l. 3. c. 1. Euseb. c. 24. l. 2. Hist. Eccl. Tert. depraescrip. c. 36. Aug. Tract. 123 in Ioh. Chysostom & Beda in hunc locum, S. Ambr. Ser. 66.68, S. Maximus. How Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome. When Peter is called Bishop of Rome, or Iames of Ierusalem or any o­ther Apostle of any other parti­cular City, we must vnderstand that in those speeches, the name of Bishop is taken in a larger ex­tent, then the strict Ecclesi­asticke vse of the word will al­low. As when Presbiters are called Bishops, Act. 20.28. And the Apostleship it selfe is called [...] Act. 12.25. Rom. 11.13. For as in propriety of speech [Page 96]a Deacon is inferiour to a Pres­biter, & a Presbiter to a Bishop: so is a Bishop vnto an Apostle by many degrees, though the names be often vsed promiscu­ously; the calling of the one is extraordinary, and the whole world is within the compasse of his commission: the other is a meere ordinary vocation, and his Iurisdiction confined within the limits of one Diocesse. But because the Apostles, being sent by Christ to preach the Gospell to all nations, made their chiefe abode in Citties of greatest re­sort, as Jerusalem, Antioch, E­phesus, Rome,-hence it comes to passe that they are often cal­led Bishops of those Citties, not in that sense that in times suc­ceeding the chiefe pastors of e­very Citty were knowne by that name of Bishops, but af­ter a more large, or rather licen­tious [Page 97]vse of the words: & who­soever calls S. Peter Bishop of Rome in any other sense then so, he speakes as wisely as if he should say, the King of England were Constable of New-mar­ket, because his Maiesty resides often in that place.

How long Saint Peter sate Bishop there.

You vnderstand by this, that Saint Peter is called some-times Bishop of Rome, your friend adds, that hee sate Bishop there 25. reeres as old writers assirme, and some moderne learned Pro­testants.-) Eusebius indeed saith so in his Chronicle, and withall that he sate 7. yeare before hee came to Rome at Antioch: both which cannot possibly be true, and is evidently contradicted by the history of the Acts, and S. Pauls Epistle to the Galath. [Page 98]as Onuph. a learned Papist prou­eth in his Annot. vpon Platina de vit. Pont. Rom. I will not en­ter into that discours, but desire you to read what others haue written. I thinke there bee few learned Papists now but thinke, that Eusebius was deceiued in that point of his Chronicle, or else they must thinke that Saint Luke and Saint Paul were de­ceiued. But it is generally a­greed that hee was first Bishop of Antioch before hee was Bi­shop of Rome; Now desire your friend to giue you some reason why the prerogatiue of Peters Supremacy (if there were any such thing in rerum naturâ) why it should not belong vnto the Patriarch of Antioch, as well as to the Pope of Rome, both be­ing his successors alike in their severall places. Perhaps he will say because Peter was put to [Page 99]death in Rome, and not in An­tioch: and to that purpose it is likely that he cited Tertullian. statu foelix Ecclesia, cui totam doctrinam Apostolicum sangui­ne suo profuderunt, vbi Petrus passioni 'Dominicae adaequatur, vbi Paulus Iohannis exitu coro­natur, Tert. de praescrip. c. 36. For else I know not what those words doe there; but if that be his meaning he might well haue spared that quotation; for if S. Peters Martyrdome at Rome be a good plea for the suprema­cie of that Sea aboue Antioch; why should not Ierusalem claime it from them both, seeing Christ the Son of God and Savi­our of the world was put to death there?

S ^t Peters successors.

That S. Peters Successors Bi­shops of Rome, haue exercised [Page 100]chiefe authority in the Church militant ever since to this day.-) And how doth hee proue this. 1. Because that after the Mar­tyrdome of S. Peter 32. of the succeeding Bishops were like­wise Martyred. This piece of his reading in old history might serue for some vse in another place, but I cannot see how it helpes to proue that Popes haue ever exercised chiefe authority in the Church, to which end it is brought here in this place. I am sure that Popes in these lat­ter ages haue neither succeeded Peter in his Martyrdome, nor desire to be his successors that way. All the world sees they haue beene more busy in make­ing of Martyrs, then in suffering of Martyrdome; and in that re­spect may better bee called the Successors of Nero, Decius, and Dioclesian: then of S. Peter and those [Page 101]32. holy Bishops that succeeded him. It is certaine that by the cruelty of Popes, and their Po­pish instruments there hath beene more Christian blood shed in the world, then ever was shed by those heathen ty­rants in the greatest heat of their persecuting. What though the Pope succeeded in place to those 32. holy Bishops and Martyrs: It is no otherwise then as cor­ruption succeedeth generation, vinegar succeedeth wine, as the Turke succeedeth Iames in Ie­rusalem, and other of the Apo­stles in other places.

Pope Victor, in the 200, yeere excommunicated the Asian Bi­shops about the observation or keeping Easter day.-) So they say; but doe you speake this to his credit, or to disgrace his per­son? Certainely it was a foule [Page 102]fact that he did commit therein, and so it was censured by most learned and godly Bishops of that age, and namely by S. Ire­neus, who wrote vnto him pur­posely about the matter, and re­proved him sharpely for it, as he well deserued. Jreneus in Victo­rem per Epistolam graviter in­vectus est, saith Socrates Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 21. And that it dis­pleased other Christian Bishops besides Jraeneus you shall finde in Euseb. l. 5. Hist. Eccl. c. 23.24.

The foure first gener all Councells not called by Popes.

Pope Silvester in the (314) yeare called the first generall councell of Nice against the Ari­an Heresy.-) Baronius then is out in his reckoning of anno 325. Eusebius who liued in that time, and was well acquainted [Page 103]with the businesse, affirmeth that it was called by Constan­tine the Emperour, l. 3. de vit. Constant. c. 6. and 7. And I thinke it were hard to name any auncient writer that denies it. The Councell it selfe acknow­ledgeth so much in a Synodicall Epistle to the Church of Alex­andria, Aegypt, Libia, and Pen­tapolis. Quoniam Dei gratiâ & mandato Sanctissimi Jmpera­toris Constantini, qui nos ex va­riis civitatibus, & provinciis in vnum congregavit, magnum & sanctum Concilium Nicenum co­actum est.—apud Socrat. l. 1. Hist. Eccles. c. 6. This case is so plaine that Pigh. Eccles. hier. l. 6. c. 1. calls generall Councells (Inven­tum Constantinum) though Bel­larm. chid him for it, l. 1. de Con­cil. c. 13. To. 2.

Pope Damascus in the (367) [Page 104] yeare called the second gener all Councell at Constantinople a­gainst Macedonius the Here­tique-) As true as Silvester cal­led the first. Sozomen Hist. Ecles. l. 7. c. 7. saith directly that Theo­dosius the Emperour called it: & the Councell it selfe in a let­ter writen to him, [...] doth acknow­ledge that it was assembled to­gether by vertue of a writ di­rected from his (Imperiall) Pie­ty.

Pope Caelestine (414) called the third generall Councell at E­phesus against Nestorius the He­retique,-) It seemes that Pope Caelestine himselfe was not pre­sent at this Councell: But for the Councell it selfe it was cal­led ‘ Authoritate & nutu Theodosii junioris, qui tum ori­rient ale administravit imperi­rium saith Evag. lib. 1. cap. 6.’ [Page 105]And Literae Jmperatoris erant ad Cyrillum & ad alios omnes vbi (que) sanctarum Ecclesiarum Praesides missae) Ibid. and the Ca­nons of the Councell in the ve­ry beginning doe testify so much.

Pope Leo (440) called the Fourth genera all Councell at Cal­cedon against the Heretique Eu­tiches,-) Let the acts of the Councell speake; which begin thus, In civitate Calcedonensi Metropoli Provinciae Bythiniae facta est Synodus ex decreto pi­issimorum Imperat. Ʋalentinia­ni & Marciani: and hee that reades the Epistles of Leo, shall finde in what humble and sub­missiue manner hee wrote di­vers times to the Emperour to call a Councell, not challeng­ing any authority therein to himselfe, but intreating it as a [Page 106]favour from his Lord the Empe­rour. Vide Epistolam. 9. ad Theo­dos. & Epist. 12. & Epist. 23. ad Clerum & Plebem Constantinop. & Epist. 24. & 26. And thus you see how the foure Popes did call the first, foure generall Councels.

For when your friend begins to speake of the Councell of Trent, he begins to draw vpon the lees. And here Bellarmine, who thinkes generall Councells profitable and convenient, but not absolutely necessary for the Church l. 1 de concil. c. 10. when he comes to the Councell of Trent, he pleades for the neces­sity thereof, vt pro aris & focis, as Demetrius for Diana: Act. 19. Our trade is like to decay and be vndone, if that be toucht. Si tollamus autoritatem praesen­tis Ecclesiae & Concilij (Triden­tini) then all will come to no­thing, [Page 107] de effect saor. l. 2. c. 35. q. d. Though all other councells were expunged, yet that may stand by it selfe, and so long we shall stand. One thing more by the way I would haue you take notice of in Bellarmine, how when hee had first ende­voured to proue that the first foure generall Councels were all called by Popes (just as your friend would haue it) yet pre­sently after in the same chapter he sets downe foure reasons, why the Emperor did call call those 4. Councels and not Popes alone l. 1. de Concil. to. cap. 13. to. 2.

It is confessed by divers lear­ned Protestants, that the Romane Church was the true Mother Church, which Christ our Savi­our planted: some for 300, yeeres, some for 400. yeares, some for 600. yeares, &c.) Among other [Page 108]particular. ‘Churches planted by the Apostles, the Romane Church with the first was of speciall note:’ and the faith of the Romans in the beginning renowned through the whole world. Rom. 1.8. But what doth S. Paul say more of the Ro­manes in that place, The Romish Church not the mother of all Christi­ans. then hee doth of the Thessalonians else­where? Read 1. Thes. v. 7.8. 2. Thes. 1. v. 3.4. and you shall finde as great praise if not grea­ter given to them, then to the other. What would hee inferre hence? Did hee ever heare any Protestant confesse (because he would so faine worke some­what out of their confession) that the Romish Church, when it was at the best, was the Mo­ther of all Christians? Or that the holy Catholique Church which we belieue in our Creed, was nothing else but the [Page 109]Church of Rome? Or, because that Church was faithfull in the Apostles daies, doth it follow that it must needs continue so still? Egesippus an auncient Ca­tholique writer saith, that so long as the Apostles liued, Vir­go pura & incorrupta mansit Ec­clesia, &c. apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 29. And whereas hee talkes of 300 and 400. nay of 800. years, as if we did acknow­ledge Rome so long to haue bin the Church of Christ; tell him for his further learning, that we acknowledge her for a Church still (though a most degenerate, and corrupted one:) Whose do­ctrine is full of Novelty, and her practise as full of pride, and cruelty; and yet a Church in respect of some truths that shee teacheth among many fals­hoods, as a man that is heart­sicke and ready to dye, ceaseth [Page 110]not for all that to bee a man; so we likewise thinke of divers other Christians in the world: though there be many errors in their doctrine, and much scan­dall in their liues, yet so long as they hold the foundation, the name of the Church is not to be denied them; and if your friend thinke otherwise tell him that his faith is never the better, be­cause his charity is worse then ours.

The corruptions of Rome.

But hee will deny perhaps that there are any such corrup­tions, as we speake of, growne into the Church of Rome. What then meane so many grievous complaints made by men of speciall note in that Church long before Luther was borne? Bernard. in [...]antic. [...]on. serm. [...]. What meant Bernard to say that there was putida tabes, a filthy [Page 111]disease that had spred it selfe throughout all the parts of the Church? & that Ministri Chri­sti, in his time did servire Anti­christo? If nothing be amisse in the Church of Rome, what meant Paulus Tertius to set cer­taine delegate Cardinals and o­thers a worke to giue their ad­vice how reformation might be made? Or what meant those Cardinalls to write such a booke as they did (called Concilium delect. Card. & aliorum Praelat.) which if you will read (as it is extant in Tom. 3. Concil. edit. per Crab. editionis Colon. 1551.) you shall find that their Church hath both rugas & maculas, Concil. Trident. sess. 22. d [...] eret. de O [...] serb. & [...] vit. in cel bratione Missae. as well in matter of doctrine as in manners. What meant the Councell of Trent to decree, that the Masse it selfe ought to be purged out of all such abuses, as vel avaritia, vel superstitio [Page 112]induxit: if all were as it should be, what needed such a refor­mation of your Breviary and Missal, & officium beatae virgi­nis? But that they were refertae superstitionibus, and so confessed in Pij Quinti, constitut. super re­citat. offic. Beat. virginis: Read also his preface in Breviar, & Missale restitut.

Indeficiency of faith not promi­sed to one particular Church.

Now let him answere him­selfe, how it may bee true that Rome was once a sound Church of Christ, and yet is not so now. Let him remember what Isaiah said, c. 1. v. 21. How is the faith­full City become a Harlot-) De­sire him to read that whole pas­sage in the Prophet, and he shall finde how changing of the name, the words doe as well fit Rome in these daies, as ever [Page 113]they did Ierusalem then. And whereas he talkes of the pro­mises of God, it is but the same vanity that the Iewes were possessed with, when they stood so much vpon Templum Domi­ni, Jer. 7. v. 4. The promises that Christ made to his Church; that he would be with it to the end of the world: That hee would send the spirit of truth to abide with it for ever: that Hell gates shall not prevaile against it: They were made to the Catholique Church, and not to any particu­lar one, such as Rome is; and to that Catholique Church they haue beene and ever shall bee most truly performed. God will haue his Church vpon earth though Rome were as deepe buried vnder the earth, as now she stands aboue it.

And to end with a demon­stration-) Hee doth well to end [Page 114]with one, for I am sure that from the beginning hitherto such Arguments haue beene geason with your friend and if this bee one, Aristotle never knew what demonstrations meant: in that kinde of argu­ment, the propositions ought to be evidently true: and the con­clusion to be drawne from the premises not by probable, but by necessary consequence. And here is no such matter.

The Patriarchall and Episcopall seates of the Apostles not extinguished.

That all the Patriarchall and Episcopall seates of the A­postles.-) This is not true; nay, in saying so he doth vnreasona­bly overlash: For it is well knowne to the world, that there is at this day a Patriarch of Con­stantinople, to whose Iurisdicti­on [Page 115]are subiect all the Christians of Asia minor (excepting Ar­menia the lesse, and Cilicia) be­sides Circassia, Mengrelia and Russia; moreover that in Eu­rope it selfe the Christians of Greece, Macedonia, Epirus, Thracia, Bulgaria, Rascia, Ser­via, Bossina, Walachia, Molda­via, Podolia,- doe acknow­ledge the Iurisdiction of that Patriarch, and cannot endure the Bishop of Rome; vnder this Patriarch there is the Metropo­litan of Salonichi (Thessolonica) and thirtie Churches of Christi­ans in that one Citty: and no lesse then ten Suffragan Bi­shops subiect to his Iurisdiction: besides this the Metropolitan of Philippi, hath 150. Churches vnder him: Athens as many: Hee of Corinth hath a hundred; besides all the Ilands of the Ae­gean Sea, Constantinople it selfe [Page 116]the very seat of the Turkish Empire hath aboue twenty Churches of Christians. Put all these together, and you shall see that Papists haue little cause to boast of their multitude, or to sleight this Patriarch, as if there were but few Christians sub­ject vnto him. There are like­wise at this day Patriarchs, though poore ones of Alexan­dria and Antioch, and great mul­titudes of Christians that are subiect to each of them; though nothing so many in number as were wont to bee heretofore, (by reason of the Turkish ty­ranny and oppression, vnder which they are brought:) yet neither so few that it can bee truely said of the meanest of them, as your friend ventures to affirme of them all. (That they bee extinguished and worne out many yeares since:) They be [Page 117]poore, and suffer much affliction vnder the Turke, and other In­fidels, and yet they may be ne­ver the worse Christians for all that. True piety and godlinesse did never so much flourish in the Church, as when the Church it selfe was most perse­cuted and afflicted by Tyrants. Schola Crucis, est Schola Lucis, & semen Ecclesiae, est sanguis Martyrum; and therefore they that make temporall prosperity a note to know the Catholique Church by, (as generally our Iesuites doe) speake more like Epicures, then Divines and Christians.

Besides your friend shewes himselfe very ignorant in the state of his owne Romish Church, if he doe not know that the Pope at this day doth vsually create certaine titular Praelates; Whereof one is called Patriarch [Page 118]of Alexandria, the other of Antioch, another of Ierusalem. It is true that these all are but meere puppets and Idols, and possesse not a foote of revenew or the least part of Iurisdiction in those places whereof they beare names; yet your friend should not haue denied that there were any such Patriarchs, seeing they are Creatures of the Popes owne making, whose greatest vse is to gull the world vnder those names, as if those foure Patriarchs did performe him obedience: when indeed they bee but foure vizzards in comparison of the Patriarchs themselues.

Only the Church of Rome, the seat of Saint Peter stands at this day-) Let him not stand too much vpon the standing of his Church: Rome no sound Church of Christ. For sure the leggs [Page 119]thereof are not so sound as they should bee; a church may be worne out as well by diseases bred inwardly in her body, as by the violence of externall persecution: If Rome bee free from this latter, yet a great part of the world thinkes her ill af­fected in her inward, and vitall parts. She thinkes not so her selfe: no more doth many a dy­ing man, but will say he is well, when he is ready to giue vp the Ghost. Sacerdotium quod intus cecidit, foris diu stare non potest, Greg. Mor. You see the falshood of those propositions vpon which his demonstration is built, see now how loosely his conclusion hangs vpon those propositions, though I should grant them to be true. If there be any sense at all in the con­nexion of the parts together, this it is. All the other Patriar­chall [Page 120]Churches are fallen: One­ly Rome is not fallen: There­fore it shall never fall. Let him take his answere from S. Paul Rom. 11.17. If some of the bran­ches be broken off, and thou being a wild Oliue tree, &c. Now let him remember to what Church Saint Paul there writes, and what they were to whom hee gaue such earnest premonition to take heed least for their infi­delity God should cast them off, as hee had done the Iewes in their sight. This had beene a ve­ry needlesse admonition espe­cially from the Apostle to the Romanes, if he knew certainly that God had promised them such indeficiency of faith, that whatsoever became of other Churches, theirs should never turne Infidell. Be not high min­ded but feare, saith hee vnto them, vers. 20. and againe, If [Page 121]God spared not the naturall bran­ches (the Jewes) take heed least hee also spare not thee, v. 21. and againe. Behold the goodnesse of God towards thee (if you conti­nue in his goodnesse) otherwise thou shalt be cut off, v. 22. And yet your friend would make you thinke that the Romanes haue no cause to feare, and that they cannot be cut off, and all by ver­tue of an imaginary promise which hee supposeth Christ made to thē: by which reckon­ing all Saint Pauls (iffs) were but Panici timoris: Hee feared where no feare was: and there­fore might well haue spared all the breath he spent that way.

To conclude let mee now at the Parting, giue him a demon­stration out of these words of the Apostle. That Church which may possibly bee cut [Page 122]off from Christ and fall into infidelity, is not the true Ca­tholique Church. But it is possible the Romish Church may be cut off from Christ, and fall into infidelity. Teste Apostolo vt supra. Therefore the Romish Church is not the true Catholique Church.