A Defense of the Catholic Faith, Book 2 · Article 23

A Defense of the Catholic Faith · Book 2 · Article 23

p. 413ARTICLE XXIII. Of the Popes Supremacy.

ANd for his temporall Principality ouer the Signory of Rome, The KINGS Confeſſion.I doe not quarrell it neyther, let him in God his Name be Primus Epiſcopus inter omnes Epiſcopos, and Princeps Epiſcoporum, ſo it be no otherwiſe but as Peter was Princeps Apoſtolorum. But as I well allow of the Hierarchie of the Church for diſtinction of Orders (for ſo I vnderſtand it) ſo I vtterly denie that there is an earthly Monarch thereof, whoſe word muſt be a Law, and who cannot erre in his Sentence, by an infallibility of Spirite. Becauſe earthly Kingdomes muſt hauehave earthly Monarches: it doth not follow, that the Church ſhould hauehave a viſible Monarch too: for the world hath not One earthly temporall Monarch. Chriſt is his Churches Monarch, and the holy Ghoſt his Deputy: Reges gentium dominantur eorum, vos autem non ſic.Luke 22.25.Luke 22:25 Chriſt did not promiſe before his aſcenſion to leaue Peter with them to direct p. 414and inſtruct them in all things, but he promiſed to ſend the holy Ghoſt vntounto them for that end.Iohn 14.26.John 14:26

And as for theſe two before cyted places, whereby Bellarmine maketh the Pope to triumph ouer Kings, Matth. 18.18.Matt 18:18I mean paſce oues, and Tibi dabo claues: the Cardinall knowes well enough, that the ſame wordes of Tibi dabo, are in another place ſpoken by Chriſt in the plurall number. And he likewiſe knowes what reaſon the Auncients doe giuegive, why Chriſt bade Peter paſcere oues: and alſo what a cloude of witneſſes there is, both of Auncients, and euen of late Popiſh writers, yea diuers Cardinals, that doe all agree, that both theſe ſpeeches vſed to Peter, were meant to all the Apoſtles repreſented in his perſon: Otherwiſe how could Paul di…ect the Church of Corinth, 1. Cor. 5.4.1 Cor 5:4to excommunicate the inceſtuous perſon cu ſpiritum ſuo, whereas he ſhould then hauehave ſaid, cumſpiritu Petri? And how could all the Apoſtles hauehave otherwiſe vſed all their cenſures, onelyonly in Chriſts name, and neuer a word of his Vicar? Peter (wee reade) did in all the Apoſtles meetings ſit amongst them as one of their number: And when choſen men were ſent to Antiochia from p. 415that great Apoſtolike Councell at Ieruſalem, (Acts 15.) The text ſaith, Act. 15.22, 23.Acts 15:22Acts 15:23It ſeemed good to the Apoſtles and Elders, with the whole Church, to ſend choſen men; but no mention made of the Head thereof; and ſo in their Letters no mention is made of Peter, but onelyonly of the Apoſtles, Elders and Brethren. And it is a wonder, why Paul rebuketh the Church of Corinth for making exceptions of perſons, becauſe ſome followed. Paul, ſome Apollos, ſome Cephas, if Peter was their viſible Head! 1. Cor. 1.12.1 Cor 1:12for then thoſe that followed not Peter or Cephas, renounced the Catholik faith. But it appeareth well that Paul knew little of our new doctrine, Galat. 2.Gal 2ſince he handleth Peter ſo rudely, as he not only compareth, but preferreth himſelfe vntounto him. But our Cardinall prooues Peters ſuperiority, Gal. 1.18.Gal 1:18by Pauls going to viſite him. Indeede Paul ſaith, he went to Ieruſalem to viſite Peter, and conferre with him: but he ſhould hauehave added, and to kiſse his feete.

To conclude then, The truth is that Peter was both in age, and in the time of Chriſts calling him, one of the firſt of the Apoſtles: in order the principall of the firſt twelue, and one p. 416of the three whom Chriſt for order ſake preferred to all the rest. And no further did the Biſhop of Rome claime for three hundreth years after Chriſt: ſubiect they were to the generall Councels, and euen but of late did the Councell of Conſtance depoſe three Popes, and ſet vp the fourth, And vntill Phocas dayes (that murthered his maſter) were they ſubiect to Emperours. But how they are now come to be Chriſts Ʋicars, nay, Gods on earth, triple crowned, Kings of Heauen, earth and hell, Iudges of all the world, and none to iudge them; Heads of the faith, Abſolute deciders of all Controuerſies by the infallibility of their ſpirite, hauing all power both Spirituall and Temporall in their handes; the high Biſhoppes, Monarches of the whole earth, Superiours to all Emperours and Kings; yea, Supreame Ʋice-gods, who whether they will or not, cannot erre: how they are now become (I ſay) to that toppe of greatnes, I know not: but ſure I am, Wee that are Kings hauehave greateſt neede to looke vntounto it. As for me, Paul and Peter I know, but theſe men I know not: And yet to doubt of this, is to denie the Catholique faith, Nay, the world it ſelfe muſt bee p. 417turned vpſide downe, and the order of Nature inuerted (making the left hand to hauehave the place before the right, Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 17.and the laſt named to be the firſt in honour) that this primacy may be maintained.

Thus hauehave I now made a free Confeſsion of my Faith: And (J hope) I hauehave fully cleared my ſelfe from being an Apostate, and as farre from being an Hereticke, as one may be that beleeueth the Scriptures, and the three Creedes, and acknowledgeth the foure firſt generall Councels. If J be loath to beleeue too much, eſpecially of Nouelties, men of greater knowledge may well pitie my weakeneſſe; but J am ſure none will condemne me for an hereticke, ſaue ſuch as make the Pope their God, and thinke him ſuch a ſpeaking Scripture, as they can define hereſie no otherwiſe, but to be whatſoeuer Opinion is maintained againſt the Popes definition of faith. And I will ſincerely promiſe that when euer any point of the Religion I profeſſe, ſhall be proued to be new, and not Auncient, Catholike, and Apoſtolike (I meane for matter of Faith) I will as ſoone renounce it: cloſing vp this head with the maxime of Vincentius p. 418Lirinenſis,Libello aduerſus haereſes. that I will neuer refuſe to imbrace any opinion in Diuinity neceſsary to ſaluation, which the whole Catholike Church with an vnanim conſent, hauehave conſtantly taught and beleeued euen from the Apoſtles daies, for the ſpace of many ages thereafter without interruption:

This diſcourſe beeing nothing elſe,Fol. 74. but a rich piece of tyſſue wrought full of Demonſtrations, and the very language of truth in the mouth of a King; deſerued an exact anſwer. But M. Coeffeteau not daring to confront the King to his face, doth treacherouſly aſſaile …im ſide-wiſe: for in ſtead of ſatisfying his proofes drawne out of holy Scripture, hee entrencheth himſelfe in his hold of cuſtome, and produceth ſome teſtimonies of men.

He ſaith then that Baſil writing to Athanaſius aduiſeth him to aduertiſe the Church of Rome of certaine ſchiſmes that happened in his countrey,Epiſt. 32. to the end that hee by interpoſing his authority might ſend learned and able men to extinguiſh thoſe diuiſions which troubled the Eaſt. But withal he ſhould hauehave added,foreign. that Baſil doth not intreat him to ſhew forth his power in puniſhing the obſtinate and refractarie, but onelyonly foreign, to reprehend and admoniſh the froward men of our countrey. For as touching the title of Head of the Church, S. Baſil in the ſame Epiſtle doth ſo qualifie not the Biſhop of Rome, but p. 419Athanaſius Patriarcke of Alexandria, in theſe words:foreign we thought that we could not better giuegive entrance to our affaires, then by hauing recourſe to your perfection, as to him who is the vniuerſall Head, and by winning you to be counſellour and conductour of our Actions. Now he thus ſpeaketh, not becauſe Alexandria was the firſt Sea, but becauſe there was not then any Biſhop, who did not willingly giuegive precedence to Athanaſius becauſe of his vertue. As for the priority of the Biſhops-ſea, it appeareth by his 50. Epiſtle that S. Baſill thought it due to Antioch, when he exhorteth Athanaſius to adioyne himſelfe to Miletius, Patriarcke of Antioch, of whome hee ſaith, foreign that it is he, who as we may ſo ſay, ſitteth as ruler ouer the whole Church. And ſaith alſo,He ſo calleth the Biſhop of Rome. that the Biſhops of the Weſt giuegive conſent thereunto: it is a thing remarke-able aboue the reſt, that S. Baſill, purpoſing to addreſſe himſelfe to the Biſhop of Rome, that he ſhould lend his helpe to pacifie ſome differences ſtirred vp in Aſia confeſſeth in one of his Epiſtles, that men are deceiued to hope for any ſuccour from thence, and taking offence at his pride, he accounteth all ſuch deputations idle, and to no purpoſe. For in his 10. Epiſtle to Gregory Nazianzen, after he had aduiſed him to take heede that hee vſed no requeſts or intreatyes towards the Biſhop of Rome,foreign. for feare leſt hee waxe proud thereupon, he addeth theſe words; If the wrath of God continue, what helpe ſhall we receiue from theſe Weſterlings, who neither know the truth, neither can they indure to bee taught it.

p. 420Coeffeteau ſubioyneth, that S. Chryſoſtome, beeing baniſhed and driuen from his Biſhoppricke, he had recourſe to Pope Innocent, and implored the aſſiſtance of his authority. But he ſhould alſo hauehave added, that Innocent taking the defence of Chryſoſtome in hand, wrote two Letters which are found in Sozomen, lib. 8. cap. 26. The firſt of which is nothing but a Conſolatorie Epiſtle to Chryſoſtome, exhorting him to patience, without promiſing him any aſſiſtance; which hee would doubtleſſe hauehave done, if it had bin in his power to hauehave re-eſtabliſhed him into his charge. The ſecond Letter was written to the people & Clergie of Conſtantinople, in which there is no commandement giuen to reſtore Chryſoſtom to the poſſeſſiō of his charge, but onelyonly a complaint of infringing the Canons of the Church, & an aduiſe to ſummon a generall Councell Sozomen further addeth in the 28. chapter,Ioannis hoſtes apud Conſtantinopolim hanc rem quaſi in contumeliam eius imperij fieret calumaiati ſunt, & vt illi tanquam tranſmarini imperij turbator s ablegarentur eff…cerunt. tum etiam vt ipſe Iob…na…s etiam vlte…us, P…y…atem ſcilicet, exulatum tranſferretu… pro. urarunt. that the Deputies ſent by the Pope to ſollicite Chryſoſtomes reſtitution, were ſent backe without preuailing any thing, and were further * accuſed towards the Emperour Arcadius, as hauing medled in this buſines with contempt of the Empire, and as troublers of the ſtate of the tranſmarine Empire. And indeede were the cauſe why Chryſoſtome was ſent farther away into baniſhment. So little did men then care for the Counſells or aduertiſements of the Biſhop of Rome. So alſo al his interceſſion was onelyonly by way of aduiſe and requeſt, and not by commaundement: neither ſhall you finde that S. Chryſoſtome or his ſucceſſours, did euer demaund p. 421the Biſhop of Romes Letters of Inueſtiture, or euer receiued the Pall from him.

Our Doctor addeth,Lib. 3. cap. 7. that Iulius the firſt reſtored Athanaſius Patriarch of Alexandria; Paul Biſhop of Conſtantinople, and many others; becauſe, ſaith Sozomen, that the care of all things belonged to the Biſhop of Rome, by reaſon of his Sea, he reſtored their Churches to each of them. It would be in vaine, to expect from this Doctor, any paſſages faithfully alleadged: the courſe and order of the ſtory ſheweth, that they were not reſtored at all, and that the Eaſterne Churches made little account of the Biſhop of Rome. For in the lines following it appeareth, that the Eaſterne Biſhops did nothing at all, of what Iulius wrote vntounto them, but returned Letters of mockerie, taxing his pride. They ſpake indeede honourably of the Church of Rome, by reaſon of the greatneſſe of the Citie, and becauſe that the Apoſtles had taught there, but withall they adde,Tamen indignati ſunt ſe poſteriores ideo ferre quod magnitudine Eccleſiae ſuperarentur, id que cum virtute & viuendi inſtituto longè ſuperiores eſſent. That they were moued with indignation, that they ſhould be thought to be of a lower rancke, vnderunder a pretence that their Church was not ſo great; ſeeing that if they reſpected vertue or gouernement of life, they were farre before the Church of Rome. And to the end that the Biſhop of Rome ſhould not be doing with their affaires, they tell him that they intermedled not with his, And that the Biſhops and Prieſts of the East, their predeceſſors, did not oppoſe themſelues to the Biſhop of Rome, when he cut off Nouatus from the Church. And further the ſame Sozomen, cap. 10. witneſſeth, that the ſame p. 422Orientall Biſhops depoſed Iulius Biſhop of Rome, with Oſius, Maximus, and others. They were indeed Arrians, and proceeded vniuſtly againſt Iulius, who defended the truth; but yet we ſhall not finde that this hath beene reckoned among the errours of the Arrians, that they did not acknowled…e the Biſhop of Rome to be head of the Church. They were ignorant of the true nature of Ieſus Chriſt, but they well knew what was the Eccleſiaſticall policy, and how farre the bounds of the Biſhop of Rome did extend. And if it be found in ſtory, that Iulius Biſhop of Rome wrote his Letters, to re-integrate any expulſed Biſhops into their Charges; we finde alſo that Liberius Biſhop of Rome,Scribunt literas Faelici tum Eccleſiae Romanae Antiſtiti, & Clero eiuſdem Eccleſiae, vti Liberium recipiant & ambo pariter Eccleſiam Apoſtolicam administrent. being put from his Biſhopricke, is ſent backe with the letters of the Eaſterne Biſhops, and by their commaundement re-eſtabliſhed, as Sozomen witneſſeth lib. 4. cap. 14. And yet this is not taken vp for a proofe of ſuperiority of the Eaſterne Biſhops ouer the Biſhops of Rome; but to teſtifie the mutuall helpe which the Churches lend one to another in their neceſſities: no more then when we read in the ſtory of Socrates, l. 7. cap. 33. that Cyrill of Alexandria depoſed Neſtorius Biſhop of Conſtantinople, & that Neſtoriꝰ degraded Cyrill: as alſo that Iohn of Antioch, and Cyrill condemne & excommunicate one another: this is not a proof of Superiority. So S. Hilary Biſhop of Poictiers, in the fragments of his Epiſtles oftentimes ſaith, Anathema tibi a me Liberi: and ſo excommunicateth the Biſhop of Rome, without any pretence of Superiority ouer him.

p. 423As for that which Sozomen ſaith, that the Biſhop of Rome had the care of all Churches by reaſon of the dignity of his Sea; this is true not onelyonly in the Biſhop of Rome, but alſo of all the Patriarches. Thus hauehave we heretofore ſeene that Baſil ſaith, that Athanaſius Patriarch of Alexandria had the care of all Churches, as Baſil had of his particular Church, and that the Patriarch of Antioch was ouer the whole body of the Church. We hauehave alſo but euen now produced an example, in which the Biſhops of the Eaſt, ſhew to hauehave had care of the Weſt. But this point hath neede of more cleare demonſtration.

To fetch the matter then a little higher, we muſt vnderſtand, that from the firſt Nicene Councell, held Anno 328. the Hiſtories doe make manifeſt, that in the auncient Church Biſhops had precedency each of other, according to the dignities of their Cities; which precedency was without any Superiority or Iuriſdiction ouer one another. No more nor leſſe then the Counſellors of the Court, goe in rancke according as they were admitted, although they be equall in charge. Or as when Chriſtian Princes, or their Ambaſſadours meete together to deliberate of the affaires of Chriſtendome, one hath precedencie and place before another, yet without rule or dominion one ouer another. So fared it with the Patriarchall Seas: there was the Biſhop of the firſt ſeate: the Biſhop of the ſecond, and ſo in order. The Biſhop of the firſt Sea was the Biſhop of Rome, for the dignity of his Citie, p. 424becauſe it was the ſeate of the Empire: the Biſhop of the ſecond ſeat was he of Alexandria, becauſe it was the greateſt and mightieſt City of the Empire, next after Rome: then followed Antioch and laſtly, Ieruſalem, which had more the name, then the power and authority of a Patriarch; becauſe it ſelfe was ſubiect to the Metropolitan of Ceſarea.

Now to preuent, leaſt any vnderunder the title of preſeance or the firſt ſeate, ſhould preſume to challenge and vſurpe Dominion ouer his fellowes: the third Councell of Carthage, Canon 26. ordaineth, That the Biſhop of the firſt Sea, Vt primae ſedis Epiſcopus non appelletur Princeps Sacerdotum aut ſummus Sace…dos aut aliquid huiuſmodi, ſed tantum primae ſedis Epiſcopus.ſhall not bee called Head or Prince of the Prieſts, or high Prieſt and Biſhop, but onelyonly Biſhop of the firſt Sea, acknowledging it to be for order ſake, and not for Superiority.

But after that the abode and ordinary reſidence of the Emperours began to be in Conſtantinople, together with the forces and ſtrength of the Empire: the Biſhop of Conſtantinople did then equall himſelfe with the Biſhop of Rome, and helde himſelfe in nothing inferiour to him. Whereuppon came in the Ordinance of the Councell of Chalcedon, which ſaith, Canon 28. that, The hundred and fiftie Biſhops of the Councell of Conſtantinople, welbeloued of God, hauehave giuen to the ſeate of new Rome (which is Conſtantinople) the ſame prerogatiues with auncient Rome. Iudging it according to reaſon, that the Citie honoured with the Empire and the Senate, and which hath the ſame Priuiledges with auncient Rome, ought of right to bee magnified as much as ſhe in Eccleſiaſticall matters, being the next in rancke p. 425after her. Where you ſee that the Councell putteth a priority in order, with an equality in power: And this priority becauſe Rome had beene the ſeate of the Empire before Conſtantinople; wherevpon is to be noted, that Leo Biſhop of Rome denieth that his deputies conſented to that Article, as appeareth by the nine and fiftie and ſixtie of his Epiſtles: but the Councell for all that doth not let to goe forward; and I thinke that ſixe hundred and thirty Biſhops (for ſo many there were at the Councell of Chalcedon) are more to be credited then the Biſhop of Rome alone. And that which is more, you ſhall finde the Canon ſet downe at large in the ſixth generall Councell. Which hath moued the Canoniſts to falſifie this Canon: for in the two and twentieth Diſtinction, in the Canon Renouantes, in ſtead of theſe wordes, Etiam in Eccleſiaſticis, they hauehave put non tamen in Eccleſiaſticis, which is a manifeſt impoſture and corruption.

That little preheminence then which the Biſhop of Rome had, from the time of the Councell of Nice, and a long while after, was onelyonly in conſideration of the Nobleneſſe and greatneſſe of the Citie. For ſo alſo the Patriarches and Metropolitanes were at the firſt ordained, according to the dignities of their Cities, as appeareth in the Canon Prouinciae, in the ninth Diſtinction. And indeede the Archbiſhop of Rauenna, though it bee almoſt ſituated at the gates of Rome, yet would he neuer yeeld to acknowledge himſelfe inferiour to the Biſhop of Rome, during the time that the Exarch, p. 426which was the Emperours Lieutenant, made his abode in Italy. Which alſo appeareth, in that the Popes Boniface and Celeſtine, who liued in the time of S. Auſten, being deſirous to hauehave drawne to themſelues the Appeales of Affrica, and to hauehave played their Maſteries out of Italy; they alleadge nothing to the Councell of Affrica, where this matter was debated, not any text of Scripture, nor the power giuen by Chriſt to S. Peter, but only the ordinance of the Councell of Nice, of which they produced certaine forged Canons. Which falſehood of theirs being detected and conuinced by confronting it with the Originals brought in place, the Biſhop of Rome had the foile, and loſt the cauſe. And hereof we hauehave the whole Councell for witneſſe, in which Aurelius Biſhop of Carthage, and S. Austen Biſhop of Hippo were preſent; who together with the reſt of their fellowes, wrote letters to Celeſtine, which are inſerted into the Councell, and which ſpeake to the Biſhop of Rome in this manner: The Fathers hauehave most wiſely and iuſtly prouided, that all affaires ſhould be decided and ended in the places where they ariſe. Neyther will the grace of God be wanting to any place, through which equity ſhall prudently and conſtantly be acknowledged, and embraced of the Miniſters of Christ, ſeeing alſo that it is permitted to eueryevery man that receiueth any greeuance from his delegated Iudges, to appeale to a Prouinciall, or indeede to a generall Councell, vnleſſe perhaps any man ſhall thinke that God may giuegive ability to ſome one man to examine things vprightly, which he p. 427will not vouchſafe to a multitude aſſembled in a Councell. Or how can a Sentence or iudgement be of force, that is giuen beyond the Sea, where neceſſary witneſſes cānot be preſent, eyther by reaſon of ſex, or infirmity of olde age, and a thouſand other hinderances? For to tell vsus, that there ought Deputies [Legates a Latere] to be ſent vntounto vsus as comming from your Holineſſe ſide, it is a thing which we doe not finde to hauehave beene ordained by any Synode of the Fathers; for thoſe Articles which you ſent vsus a while agone by our fellow and Companion Fauſtinus, as being of the Councell of Nice, we could not finde it ſo in the true Copies ſent vntounto vsus by Cyril and Atticus, &c. Forbeare alſo to ſend vsus your Clerkes, men ready to ſerue eueryevery great mans turne, or indeed any that ſhall aske them;n="*" Nolite concedere ne fumoſū typhum ſeculi in Eccleſiā Chriſti v deamur inducere. leaſt it ſeeme that we goe about to bring this worldes ſmoakie pride and hautineſſe into the Church of Chriſt, which beareth the light of ſimplicity, and the brightneſſe of humility before thoſe who deſire to ſee God. After theſe checkes giuen to the Biſhop of Rome, they publiquely denounce and giuegive him warning, that he reuoke and withdraw his Deputy Fauſtinus out of Affrica; afterwards they ſalute him, calling him Sir and Brother. Domine frater.This Epiſtle is a pretious Iewell of Antiquity, and I wonder how ſo excellent a peece could eſcape the handes of theſe falſifiers and Spongers of the Fathers. Now they, who read this Leſſon to the Biſhop of Rome, who already began to be ſomewhat tickled with preſumption, were Aurelius Biſhop of Carthage, and S. Austen, and al the Biſhops of Affrica. For which cauſe Boniface the ſecond, p. 428in an Epiſtle which is found in the ſecond Tome of the Councels, ſaith, that Aurelius and his fellows had ſeparated themſelues from the Church of Rome, being waxen proude through the inſtigation of the Diuell.In the 20. chapter of my Apologie for the Supper of the Lord. An Epiſtle which witneſſeth, that S. Austen died excommunicated out of the Church of Rome, which alſo wee hauehave elſewhere defended againſt Coeffeteaus accuſations.

Neither was this the firſt ordinance, by w^ch theſe Biſhops ſought to ſtifle the growing tyrannie of the Biſhop of Rome, wherby he laboured to draw the appeales of the cauſes of Affrica to himſelfe; his purpoſe being, that they who were condemned in Affrica by the Councels, might make their appeale ouer the Sea, that is, into Italy: For theſe ſame Biſhops in another Councell aſſembled at Mileuitum, in the two and twentieth Canon, ſay: If they [who are condemned by the neighbour Biſhops] thinke that they may appeale from their iudgement, Quod ſi & ab cis prouocandum putauerint non prouocent niſi ad Affricana Concilia, vel ad Primates prouinciarum ſuarum, ad Tranſmarina autem qui putauerit appellandum à nullo intra Affricam in communione ſuſcipiatur.let them not appeale any whither elſe then to the Councels of Affrica, or to the Primates of their Prouinces. But whoſoeuer ſhall appeale beyond the Sea, let him not be admitted to the Communion, by any in all Affrica. Theſe men feared neuer a whit, leaſt there might come from Rome a lapſe vponupon their Benefices, or a deuolution to the Pope: they did not expect from him the Archbiſhops Pall, nor the Cardinals Hat, nor any liberality of conſecrated grains, nor feared they his excommunication, whoſe power in thoſe dayes paſſed little further then mount Apennine. And here out of this Diſcourſe the Reader ſhall p. 429further learne, that this very Canon is found in the Romane Decrees, in the ſecond Cauſe, in the Canon Placuit, but wholly corrupted and miſerably falſified, for after theſe wordes, Whoſoeuer ſhall appeale beyond the Sea, let him not be receiued by any to the Communion; there is a peece of another ſtuffe, and another coulour vnhandſomely patched on, vnleſſe he appeale to the Sea of Rome: Niſi forte Romanam ſedem appellancrit.how could this exception be allowable, ſeeing that this Canon of the Councell was expreſly made againſt the Sea of Rome? So is it alſo againſt the truth and euidence of all the Coppies.

Yea ſo farre are the auncient cuſtomes and ordinances from giuing any Iuriſdiction to the Biſhop of Rome ouer other Patriarches, that here is a flat Canon of the Councell of Nice, recyted by Ruffinus to the contrary, in his firſt booke and fift chapter, They ordaine alſo that in Alexandria, and in the Citie of Rome, the auncient cuſtome be kept, to wit, Et vt apud Aleandriam & in vrbe Roma vetuſta conſuetudo ſeruetur, vt vel ille Aegypti, vel hic ſuburbicarum Eccleſiarum ſolicitudinem gerat.that he of Alexandria hauehave the care of Egypt, the Biſhop of Rome of all ſuburbicary Churches, that is, of all the Cities that were vnderunder the authoritie and ciuill iuriſdiction of the citie of Rome. Theſe Fathers did liberally cut him out a large ſhare, as the times then were, but ſcant enough according to his ambition as now it is.

S. Cyprian Biſhop of Carthage, wrote many Epiſtles to Cornelius Biſhop of Rome, al which beare this inſcription, Cyprian to Cornelius his brother ſendeth greeting: which had bin a great vnreuerence if Cornelius had bin head of the Vniuerſall Church, or p. 430if he had had power of Iuriſdiction ouer S. Cyprian. So likewiſe: in the fourth booke of Socrates, cap. 11. the Eaſtern Biſhops, who write to Liberius Biſhop of Rome,Socrates lib. 4. cap. 9. Domino fratri & collegae noſtro. call him nothing but Brother and Companion, yea they ſpeake like Maſters, for qualifying themſelues the Catholike and Apoſtolike Church, they denounce Anathema againſt the Councel of Ariminum, without expecting the iudgement, or the will and pleaſure of Liberius. Thereupon Leo the firſt,This is the Title of the three firſt Epiſtles. albeit he ſpeake bigge in his Epiſtles, neuertheleſſe he commonly taketh no other Title to him but onelyonly this, Leo Biſhop of the Citie of Rome to ſuch and ſuch ſendeth greeting.

See here a notable Example: The auncient cuſtome of the Church was, that the penitents ſhould confeſſe their faults aloude in the face of the Church. But the Church being growne into wealth and riches▪ many men refuſed to vndergoe this ſhame,Sozom. l. 7. c. 16. Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 19. and iudged it intollerable. To giuegive them content herein, an order was eſtabliſhed that eueryevery Church ſhould hauehave a Penetenciary Prieſt, who ſhould receiue their confeſſions in ſecret. This order hauing beene eueryevery where receiued: Neuertheleſſe Nectarius Biſhop of Conſtantinople aboliſhed this cuſtome throughout all the Eaſt, without asking the Biſhop of Romes counſel, who alſo did not reprehend him for it: and this hath euer ſince ſo remained. Thereupon I ſay, that if Nectarius had beene ſubiect to the Biſhop of Rome, he would neuer hauehave vndertaken ſo great a matter without his aduiſe, and contrary to his example, p. 431Should a Biſhop of Paris or Lyons bee borne withall now adaies, if of his owne authority, without aduiſe from the Pope, he ſhould put away auricular confeſſion out of his Biſhopricke: Here are other examples. It appeareth by S. Auſtens 118. Epiſtle to Ianuarius, This Epiſtle is found in the 1. Tome of the Councels, in the page 461. of the Collen Edition.that in Rome they faſted on the Satterday, but at Millan they did not ſo. Damaſus Biſhop of Rome, writing to S. Ierome, complayneth, that the ſeruice, and the ſinging in the Church of Rome, was performed with ill grace and vnſeemly, and with too great ſimplicity, and requeſteth Ierome to teach him the cuſtome of the ſinging and ſeruice of the Greeke Church, that he might bring it into the Church of Rome. Is it credible that the Church of Rome would hauehave dayned to be the Diſciple of other Churches, and to correct her faults by the example of her neyghbour Churches, if ſhe had ruled and gouerned all other Churches, as ſhe doth to this day? S. Ierome in an Epiſtle to Euagrius, ſheweth, that the cuſtome of other Churches touching Deacons was better then that of Rome, which he ſaith, was but a City from whence pride firſt ſprunge. So the Canon Aliter in the 31. Diſtinction, ſaith, That the Tradition of the Easterne Churches is one, and that of the Church of Rome another; for there the Prieſts and Deacons doe marry, but here not. And this Canon is attributed to Pope Steuen, to whom Cyprian writeth. Socrates, lib. 5. cap. 21. maketh a long Bed-roule of diuers Church-cuſtoms, and ſheweth how different the Churches were in the obſeruation of Faſtes, of the marriage p. 432of Churchmen, and of the dayes of publique Aſſemblies; which diuerſity is an euident proofe that they were not all gouerned by one onelyonly vniuerſall head, otherwiſe they ſhould all hauehave beene conformed to the Ordinanances of the Church of Rome.

So ſhall we alſo finde that the Churches of Aſia, of Syria, and of Egypt, are called Catholique and Apoſtolique Churches, and yet they are neuer called Romane.

Eſpecially it is manifeſt, that the Church of Rome, in thoſe dayes did neuer giuegive the definitiue ſentence, or that her iudgements were eſteemed irrefragable not to be gaineſaid, foraſmuch as wee finde examples of ſome cauſes, iudged by the Biſhops of Rome, which the Emperours hauehave cauſed afterwards to be iudged by other Biſhops, for the better examination of the matters. S. Auſten in his 162. Epiſtle, and Euſeb. lib. 10 cap. 5. report, that the Donatiſts demaunded Biſhops of the Emperour Conſtantine, to iudge their Controuerſie: and that at their requeſt the Emperour commaunded Melchiades Biſhop of Rome, and Rheticus Maternus and Marinus his aſſociates, to take notice of their Cauſe: by whoſe iudgement the Donatiſts hauing beene condemned, and they not willing to ſtand to their ſentence, the Emperour commaunded that their cauſe ſhould again be heard and iudged more exactly at Arles by other Biſhops in a greater aſſembly, and that there the ſentence of the Biſhop of Rome and of his fellowes ſhould be ſifted and p. 433examined: and it is found that the Biſhop of Rome did complaine for that the Emperour would not that men ſhould ſtand to his iudgement, but did quietly remit the whole matter to be tried and examined by other Biſhops.

It appeareth chiefly in the conuocation and the holding of Councells, how little the power of the Biſhop of Rome was, in compariſon of that which is giuen now adayes. Damaſus Biſhop of Rome ſummoned a Councell at Rome, whereunto hee inuiteth the Eaſterne Biſhops, who were aſſembled at Conſtantinople, from diuers places, preſſing them earneſtly to meete together at Rome, to deliberate of common affaires: but the Biſhops of the Eaſt refuſed to be preſent, & excuſed themſelues by letters to Damaſus, Ambroſe, &c. whom they call their Brethren and Colleagues, ſaying,Theſe letters are found in the 1. Tome of the Councels, in the p. 484. of the Collen Edition, and in Theodoret, lib. 5. cap 9. that they had no commiſſion from their Churches, to paſſe any further then Conſtantinople, and that they were not prouided for that iourney, and therefore had onelyonly ſent their brethren and companions, Cyriacus, Euſebius, and Priſcian, to let them vnderſtand their mindes, which was a good will of peace and vnion In the end they conclude their Epiſtle with theſe words, God preſerue you (our deare ſonnes) in health and ſafetie. Deus vos fitij reuerendiſſimi conſeruet in…o lames.Where are the Biſhops now a dayes, that dare call the Pope their ſonne? That would be taken eyther for beaſtly mockery, or plaine flattery, ſeeing that now the leaſt of his Titles is to be called moſt holy Father, not content with holy Father, which is the Title that Chriſt giueth p. 434to God his Father, Ioh. 17. ver. 11. Theſe Biſhops then keepe themſelues at Conſtantinople, and there hold their Councell; ouer which was Preſident Nectarius Biſhop of Conſtantinople; & they leaue Damaſus, and Ambroſe, & the Biſhops of Italy, to hold their Councell at Rome. I beſeech the Reader to weigh that which I am now about to ſay, that is, that the Councell held at Conſtantinople, and called without the aduiſe of the Biſhop of Rome, and whereat hee had not ſo much as any one Deputy, is held for a generall Councell, and one of the firſt foure. But the Councell which Damaſus kept at Rome, is not held but for a particular Councell, and which indeede is ſcarcely named. And verily in the ſucceeding Councels that followed, they were wont to recite the Canons of the Councell of Conſtantinople, but neuer made any mention of the Romane Councell.

The example which followeth, is no leſſe direct to the purpoſe. Leo Biſhop of Rome aſſembleth a Councell at Rome: he writeth to the Emperour Theodoſius the yonger, andn="*" This is the 23. Epiſtle of Leo. beſeecheth him verie inſtantly, that it would pleaſe his Maieſty to call a Councell in Italy. Theſe bee the termes of the Councels requeſt.Omnes manſuetudinem veſtrā cum gemitibus & lacrymis ſupplicant ſacerdotes? generalem Synodum iubeatis intra Italiam celebrari. All the Prieſts doe beſeech your Clemency with ſighes and teares, that you would commaund a generall Councell to be celebrated in Italy. But Leo and his fellowes were denied their requeſt. In the end the Synode was aſſembled at Chalcedon, which Synode Leo ſeeing that he was not able to p. 435tranſport it into Italy, beſought at leaſtwiſe that it might be deferred. But the Emperour Martian, Theodoſius ſucceſſor, would not gratifie him in that, but the Councell was held at Chalcedon for the eaſe and commodity of the Biſhops of Aſia, as was the Emperours pleaſure. Whereat Leo complayneth in his one and fortieth Epiſtle to Martian, and in the nine and fortieth to Pulcheria the Empreſſe, in ſuch ſort notwithſtanding, that hee ſubmitted himſelfe thereunto, and ſent thither his Deputies by their commaundement.

Socrates the hiſtorian, lib. 7. cap. 11. obſerueth that the Biſhops began to goe beyond the bounds of their charge euen in the time of Theodoſius the yonger, the ſonne of Arcadius, and that they already began to make themſelues Princes in ſecular affaires, and that the Biſhop of Alexandria hauing begun, he of Rome followed his example. Theſe be his words, There brake forth a great flame of enuie againſt the Nouatians, Cum Epiſcopatus Romanus non aliter at que Alexandrinus quaſi extra ſacerdotij fines egreſſus ad ſecularem principatum erat iaw ante delapſus.the Biſhoppricke of Rome hauing paſt the bounds of Prieſthood, after the maner of that of Alexandria, and hauing carried it ſelfe forward to a ſecular Princedome.

One of the ſubtle trickes of the Biſhoppes of Rome was, neuer to be preſent at generall Councels, for feare leaſt ſome one of the other Patriarches ſhould take place before him; euen ſo farre that Vigilius Biſhop of Rome, being in the Citie of Conſtantinople, whilſt the fift generall Councell was held there, Vigilius notwithſtanding refuſed to aſſiſt, and to be preſent, for feare leaſt Menas Biſhop p. 436of Conſtantinople ſhould take the precedency. With ſuch a like cunning, when any Biſhop of Aſia, or Egypt, or Greece, was choſen by ioynt conſent of a generall Councell to bee Preſident therein, the Biſhop of Rome well perceiuing, that his Deputies could not hauehave the firſt place, intreated him who was choſen to be Preſident, to keepe his place, and to repreſent his perſon; as he did Cyrill in the firſt Councell of Epheſus, who notwithſtanding this counterfeit Commiſſion, would not hauehave let to hauehave beene Preſident of the Councell: As well as did Dioſchorus, who was Preſident in the ſecond Councell of Epheſus, without being Legate of the Biſhop of Rome, and where the Biſhop of Rome had his Deputies, who did not conteſt for the firſt place. The iſſue and the end indeed of the Councell was turbulent, but yet it was lawfully aſſembled according to the vſuall forme, and there was good order kept in the firſt Seſſions. So Menas and Euticheus Patriarches of Conſtantinople ſate Preſidents in the fift Councell of Conſtantinople, albeit Vigilius Biſhop of Rome were in the ſame Towne: which doubtleſſe was the cauſe why he refuſed to be preſent at the Councell: All which notwithſtanding after the cloſe and concluſion of the Councell, he approued the Acts.

Read carefully the ſecond Councell of Nice, and you ſhal ſee, that in reckoning vp the Biſhops, who were aſſiſting thereat, hee who hath tranſlated the Acts of the Councell, hath oftentimes placed (to gratifie the Pope) the Deputies of Rome the firſt; p. 437yet notwithſtanding the whole action of the councell doth plainely ſhew, that they were not Preſidents at all: they ſpeake almoſt neuer a word, and they giuegive in their opinions ſometimes amongſt the reſt. But Tharaſius Patriarch of Conſtantinople ſpeaketh to eueryevery matter, gouerneth the whole action, pronounceth the concluſions, and is cheefe Preſident in the Councell.

And to come vp a little higher, the moſt famous Councell that euer was, was the firſt Councell of Nice; in which ſurely the Biſhop of Rome was not Preſident: but if we will beleeue the teſtimony of Athanaſius who was there preſent, Hoſius Biſhop of Corduba in Spaine, ſate in the firſt place. His teſtimony is reported by Theodoret in the ſecond booke of his ſtory, and fifteenth chapter, where he ſaith, that there was no Councell helde, wherein Hoſius was not Preſident: And this hee ſpeaketh agreeable to that which the ſame Athanaſius ſaith in his Epiſtle to them that liue in the deſert. The firſt ſpeaker was Euſtachius Biſhop of Antioch, who ſate at the Emperours right hand; Which hath made ſome men to thinke that he was Preſident: but it appeareth not throughout the whole action that the deputies of Rome did any thing. In the Tomes of the Councels, though made for the Popes greateſt aduantage, yet Hoſius ſubſcribeth the firſt, and the deputies of Rome vnderunder him. And leaſt any man ſhould ſay that he was the Biſhop of Romes Legate, he ſubſcribeth apart in theſe wordes, Hoſius, Epiſcopus Cordubenſis, Ita p. 438credo. Then the deputies of Rome ſubſcribe apart. Victor & Vincentius Presbyteri vrbis Romae pro venerabili Papa Sylueſtro ſubſcripſimus. For if they had beene all three deputies for the Biſhop of Rome, they would thus hauehave ſubſcribed, Hoſius, Victor, & Vincentius pro Sylueſtro, &c. And Hoſius ſhould rather hauehave taken this title, then to be qualified only Biſhop of Corduba, &c.

Whoſoeuer hath neuer ſo little looked into the ſtories, knoweth that the Biſhops of Conſtantinople, conſidering that the dignity of the ſea of Rome came, for that Rome had for a long time beene the ſeate of the Empire; and ſeeing that the Empire was now tranſlated to Conſtantinople, hauehave laboured to hauehave themſelues to be credited and preferred before the Biſhop of Rome. Euen ſo farre forth, that Iohn the Biſhoppe of Conſtantinople, whom Greekes call S. Iohn the Almoſner, began vnderunder the Emperour Mauritius about the yeare ſixe hundred, to call himſelfe the firſt and chiefe Biſhop, and Oecumenicall Biſhop, that is to ſay Vniuerſall. Whereupon Gregory the firſt, Biſhop of Rome doth not complaine that Iohn did ſet footing vponupon the Sea of Rome, or that he did him any wrong by vſurping that which belonged to the Biſhop of Rome: but ſaith, that this was a new Title, and That he which will be called vniuerſal Biſhop is the forerunner of Antichrist, becauſe that in the Pride of his heart, he preferreth himſelfe before others. Now the intent of this Iohn was not to hauehave denyed the others to hauehave beene Biſhops alſo: but he ſaid that p. 439he was the firſt and aboue the reſt. And indeede this Iohns ſucceſſors continued this title, and are ſo called in Zonaras and Cedrenus. And further in the ſecond Councel of Nice, the ſecond Action: there is an Epiſtle of Adrian Biſhop of Rome, wherein he callethn="a" Dilecto fratri Tharaſio generali Patriarchae. Tharaſius Biſhop of Conſtantinople vniuerſall Patriarch. Howbeit Gregory in his Epiſtles, thinketh that he who will be vniuerſall Biſhop, doth by conſequent ruine the Biſhopricke of others, and ſeeketh if not directly, yet at leaſtwiſe by conſequence, to be the onelyonly Biſhop: the Biſhopricke of others, after that, being nothing elſe but a bare name without ſubſtance, as is the charge of Biſhops vnderunder the Papacy. Thus hath God pluckt out of the mouth of Gregory the condemnation of his Succeſſors; for this good man was not aware that in ſo ſpeaking, he called Boniface the third his Succeſſour, the forerunner of Antichriſt, to whom the Emperour Phocas gaue the title of vniuerſall Supremacy, within a while after the death of Gregory. And yet for all this the Biſhops of Conſtantinople, would neuer acknowledge themſelues inferiors to the Biſhop of Rome; no nor thoſe of Antioch and Alexandria, vntil that the Turkes and Saracens hauing ouerthrowne all the reſt, the Biſhop of Rome onelyonly finding in our Kings ſoft ſpirits, and that they were litle ſeene and verſed in Diuinity, drew from them huge liberalities, perſwading them to whatſoeuer he would, euen to ſubiect their Crownes vntounto him, and to pill and rifle their Kingdomes, and to take vponupon himn="b" Gregor. in Regiſtro l. 4. Epiſt. 32. & Epist. 24. & Epiſt. 36. & Epiſt. 38. & li. 6. Ep. 30. Ad Mauricium &c. p. 440thoſe Titles, of which we ſhall ſpeake anone. He that wil ſee how much the Pope hath exalted himſelfe, let him compare the foure firſt Councels, where all thinges are paſſed by common voices, with the Councell of Florence, in which they gaue power and authority to the Pope, to make new articles of faith: And with the latter Lateran Councell, in which all is referred to the will of Pope Leo the tenth, who there is called the diuine Maieſtie, the corner ſtone laid in Sion, the Lyon of Iuda, the King and Prince of all the world, whom all the Kinges of the earth ought to adore. To ſuch Councels the Pope doth willingly affoord his perſonall preſence, becauſe he doth there rule and domineere with abſolute authority: but in the ancient Councels he refuſed to bee preſent, becauſe there hee ſhould hauehave found Biſhops as ſtout and as ſtrong, and as ambitious as himſelfe. Adde hereunto that in the generall Councels, they vſed the Church of Rome and her Biſhop no otherwiſe then they did their particular Churches. So in the ſixe generall Councels, re-aſſembled at the Pallace: Pope Honorius is condemned for an Hereticke. And the thirteenth Canon doth by name condemne the Church of Rome, becauſe it diſalowed the marriage of Prieſts. And further in the 55. Canon the Church of Rome is expreſly forbidde to faſt any more the Satterdy and the Sunday, vponupon payne of incurring the rigour of the Canon of the Apoſtles which ſaith,This is the 65. Canon of the Apoſtles. If a Clerke be found faſting on the Satterday or the Sunday (one onelyonly excepted) let him be depoſed; p. 441Or if he be a Lay-man, let him be excommunicated. Would they thus hauehave ſpoken, if they had beleeued the Pope to hauehave beene their Superiour, or the Church of Rome cheefe ouer other Churches, and that it could not erre?

That the Paſſages of the Fathers alleadged by Coeffeteau for the Primacy of S. Peter are partly falſe, Fol. 77. & 78.partly maymed, and partly impertinent.

FRom this point Doctor Coeffeteau paſſeth ouer to the Primacy of S. Peter: Fol. 76.howbeit before he commeth thereto, he giueth in paſſing by a blow to his Holineſſe, affirming, that he is not Lord ouer any Towne: thus doth he diſpute the Souerainty of the City of Rome. Wee leaue themſelues to cleare this doubt, and end this Proceſſe.

He alleadgeth then for the Primacy of S. Peter the 11. Homily of S. Chryſoſtome: and that very falſely; for in all the Homily there is no mention of S. Peter, nor of his Primacy. But Bellarmine did deceiue him, out of whom Coeffeteau copied his allegations.

This other is like it. S. Cyprian (ſaith Coeffeteau) affirmeth,Hoc erant vti que & caeteri Apoſtoli quod Petrus pari conſortio praediti & honoris & poteſtatis, ſed exordium ab vn…tate profici… cit…r v… …ſia vna monſtretur. that the other Apoſtles were certainly the ſame that S. Peter was, fellowes and partners of his honour, and of his power: but the beginning proceedeth from Vnitie: and therefore the Primacy was giuen to S. Peter, the true reading is this, the Apoſtles inde de were the ſame things that S. Peter was, hauing ONE EQVALL SOCIETY In honour and in power, but p. 442the beginning was made by one, to ſhew the vnity of the Church. Coeffeteau hath razed out the word EQVAL which troubled him, and hath clapt on a Tayle of a ſentence, which is not in Cyprian, and therefore the Primacy was giuen to S. Peter.

S Cyprian had ſaid a little before, that Ieſus Chriſt after his reſurrection gaue a like power to his Apoſtles, and yet to ſhew the vnity of the Church, he ſo diſpoſed by his authority, that the fountaine of this vnity ſhould begin from one. That is to ſay, that he gaue to all his Apoſtles an equall power: but to ſhew that the Church is one, he gaue his power firſt vntounto one, namely to Peter, and afterwards gaue equall power to the reſt.

With like falſhood he dealeth with S. Ierome, Fol. 78. pag. 2.lib 1. againſt Iouinian whom he thus alleadgeth, One is choſen among the twelue, to the end that there being one head eſtabliſhed, all occaſion of Schiſme might be taken away. At dicis ſuper Petrū fundatur Eccleſia licet id ipſum in alio loco ſuper omnes Apoſtolos fiat, & cuncti claues regni coelorum accipiant, & ex aequo ſuper eos Eccleſiae fortitudo ſolidetur…ſed vnus eligitur, vt capite conſtituto ſeiſmatist ollatur occaſio.But he omitteth the wordes that went before, thou tellest me that the Church is founded vponupon S. Peter, notwithſtanding that the ſame is done vponupon al the other Apoſtles, and that all do receiue the keyes of the Kingdom of heauen, and that vponupon them the ſtability of the Church is EQVALLY grounded: whence appeareth, that the Head and cheefe of which he ſpeaketh, is nothing elſe but a ſuperiority in ranke, without any Iuriſdiction and power ouer his fellowes, ſeeing that they had all the Keyes alike, and were alike the foundations of the Church. VVhichWhich may ſerue (to the end we may not trouble our ſelues with examining the reſt of his falſifications) for ſolution p. 443of all the reſt of Coeffeteaus quotations, in which S. Peter is called head and firſt among the Apoſtles.

S. Auſten indeede in the beginning of his ſecond booke of Baptiſme, which place Coeffeteau alleadgeth, calleth S. Peter the firſt of the Apoſtles, but he ſaith alſo in the ſame place, that for all that he did not preſume that the new-commers, Nee Petrus quē primum Dominus elegit, & ſuper quem aedificauit Eccleſiā ſuam, cum ſecum Paulus de circumciſione diſceptaret, poſtmodum vindicauit ſibi aliquid inſolenter aut arroganter aſſumpſit vt diceret ſe primatum tenere & obtemperari à nouellis & poſteris ſibi potius debcri.and latter Apoſtles were to yeelde him obedience. The ſame S. Auſten, as he is alleadged in the 24. Cauſe, Quaeſt. 1. Canon Quodcun que , ſpeaketh thus: S. Peter when he receiued the Keyes, repreſented the Church: if then all the good were ſignified in the perſon of Peter, ſo were all the wicked alſo ſignified in the perſon of Iudas. Seeing then that S. Peter was the ſame among the faithful, that Iudas was among the wicked, it followeth, that as Iudas was not the head of the wicked, to hauehave power and Iuriſdiction ouer them, but onelyonly was the moſt remarkeable among them: ſo S. Peter ſhould be ſuch a one among the beleeuers. He might hauehave had perhaps a priority eyther in age, or in vertue, or in zeale, or in eloquence, or in preſeance, and taking the firſt place: but yet without Dominion or power of Iuriſdiction. As touching that which ſomtimes he ſaith, that the Church is founded vponupon S. Peter; we ſhall ſee hereafter, that he retracted that ouer ſight afterwards: and we hauehave heard before S. Ierome to hauehave ſaid that the Church is Equally founded vponupon all the Apoſtles. As for that which he ſaith, that he that is without the Communion of the Church is to be accounted prophane, and that he that is without the Arke ſhall periſh in the p. 444floud, the ſame may be ſaid of eueryevery other Church which holdeth the true Orthodox Doctrine, yea of the leaſt of the faithfull, for that a man cannot ſeparate and withdraw himſelfe from him, but by renouncing the truth: Now in the quarrell which then was in debate, Damaſus maintained the truth and ſounder opinion.

Whether the Pope may erre in faith or no.

TO that which the King of great Britaine denieth, that there is any Monarch of the Church on earth, whoſe wordes ought to be held for laws, & who hath the gift to be able not to erre;Fol. 80. Coeffeteau thus anſwereth: We know that the Pope is a ſinfull man, as another man is, and therefore may erre in Doctrine and Manners if we conſider him in particular: but in the quality of S. Peters Succeſſour, hee cannot teach any thing contrary to piety. This is it which is commonly ſaid, that the Pope indeede may erre as he is a man and a particular Doctor, but not as he is Pope: Or that he may erre in manners, but not in faith:Cap. licet. titulo 2 de Conſtitutioni. in 6. They ſay alſo, that he may erre in the queſtion de facto, but not in the queſtion de Iure. For (as Boniface the eighth ſaith) the Pope hath all law and right in the cheſt of his breaſt.

A man had neede of a good ſtomach to digeſt this: And I doe not ſee how all this can agree. For firſt if the Pope may erre in the queſtion of fact, it followeth alſo that he may erre in the queſtion of p. 445Right, ſeeing that the one dependeth vponupon the other: if he may be ignorant, whether Ieſus Chriſt came into the world, or whether hee died for vsus, he may alſo be ignorant whether we ought to beleeue in him or no.

So likewiſe if he may erre in maners, it followeth that he may teach falſe doctrine: for to lie and to ſpeake againſt his conſcience, is certainly a defaillance in manners. If then the Pope cannot be ignorant of the true doctrine, and yet through malitiouſneſſe will bury the truth, wilfully to deceiue, to what end ſerueth this truth hidden in the Popes vnderſtanding, if the people in the meane time be fed with lies? But this is an abſurdity aboue the reſt, to thinke that the Pope may erre as man, or as a particular Doctor, but not as Pope: for why doth not the Pope correct the doctor? Or when Pope Boniface or Clement doe erre as Boniface, but not as Pope, why doth not Boniface aske counſell of the Pope? why dooth hee not conſult himſelfe? why doth he not betake himſelfe from his priuate chaire to the Popes Seate, to the end to change his opinion? If the Popes diuine knowledge be tyed to his Chaire or Papall habite, it followeth that when he riſeth from his ſeat, or putteth off his Robes,Titulo. 2. de Conſtitutionib. cap. licet. in 6. that withall he ſtrippeth himſelfe out of his knowledge: And that Boniface the eight was to blame to incloſe the Popes knowledge in his breaſt. Shall we thinke that theſe men hauehave a deſire to be credited, and that by theſe pleaſant diſtinctions, they do not mocke the Pope?

p. 446Put the caſe that all this may be reconciled, and that the Pope may be contrary to himſelfe, and worſe then himſelfe, and at one inſtant both Hereticke and an Orthodox; what doth all this auaile the people, ſeeing that in what ſort ſoeuer the Pope teacheth, whether as Pope or as Doctor, he will alwayes be beleeued? Neyther can the people diſcerne theſe ſubtle Diſtinctions.

Neyther may wee omit that the Pope vponupon Maundy Thurſday doth excommunicate all Heretickes; whence it ſhould follow, that if himſelfe be an hereticke, as man, he is alſo excommunicate, and conſequently is out of the Church: and ſo it ſhould come to paſſe, that the man may be out of the Church, but the Pope be within it; which is as if I ſhould ſay, that the King at the ſame inſtant is within his Palace as King, but without it as man; or that Coeffeteau is at the ſame time in the Refectory or dyning-hall as Fryer, and without as man; ſo that a man ſhall finde him in two places at once.

It was then a great vnhappineſſe to the auncient Fathers to hauehave beene ignorant of this Diſtinction, and to hauehave aſſembled ſo many Councels, ſo long and ſo painful for the deciding of differents in Religion, ſeing that they needed only to hauehave addreſſed themſelues to the Biſhop of Rome, and to intreate him not as man, or as Doctor, but as Pope to pronounce the ſentence, & giuegive deciſion of the Controuerſie. Whence alſo it followeth, that then the Popes had but ſmall zeale to the publique p. 447good of the Church, ſeeing that they refuſed to be preſent at generall Councels, which were the ſpeciall places in which they ought to hauehave put on this their Infallibility. As alſo when the Romane Biſhop had giuen his aduiſe by his Deputies, the Councels did not forbeare for all that, to ſound and examine the matter to the bottome, and to heare the opinions of others.

Howbeit Coeffeteau produceth this Scripture, to ſhew that the Pope cannot erre; he ſaith that our Lord ſaid to S. Peter, I hauehave prayed for thee that thy faith ſhould not faile. Whence he concludeth, that the Pope cannot erre in faith. Surely wee hauehave no greater proofe of the patience of God, then that he ſuffreth his holy word thus to be abuſed: for firſt, is there any mention here of the Pope? Is all that that was ſpoken to S. Peter ſpoken alſo to the Biſhop of Rome? If that be ſo, then muſt we needes ſay, that that which our Sauiour ſaid to Peter, Mat. 16. he ſaid alſo to the Pope, Get thee behinde me Sathan: Secondly, adde that which wee will hereafter ſhew, that the Pope is not the Succeſſour of S. Peter, vnleſſe it be as ſickeneſſe ſucceedeth health: Thirdly, and albeit this had beene ſpoken to the Pope, yet by theſe words Chriſt doth not promiſe to S. Peter that he ſhould not erre at all in faith; for it is one thing not to faile, another thing not vtterly to fall away. There be many that miſſe and faile, but yet doe they not wholly miſcarrie; whence enſueth, that though Chriſt ſhould hauehave prayed for the Pope, that his faith ſhould not p. 448vtterly faile, yet can he not for all that be exempted from power of erring: Fourthly, if the Succeſſors of S. Peter enter alſo vponupon this vertue of his, neuer to erre, then ſhould the Biſhop of Antioch who ſtileth himſelfe Peters Succeſſor, be exempted alſo from erring: Fiftly, ſeeing that Saint Iohn, S, Paul, S. Iames, &c. were no leſſe exempted from this power of erring then was S. Peter, why ſhould not their Succeſſours inherite the infallibility of the reſt of the Apoſtles, as well as the Succeſſors of S. Peter: Sixtly, but without any more adoe, let vsus looke vponupon the place, and reade with one breath the verſes following, and we ſhall finde that Chriſt in that place did foretell to S. Peter his fall and deniall, and promiſeth that his faith ſhould not vtterly be vanquiſhed in that temptation: that was then perſonall and peculiar to S. Peter; yet ſo that our Sauiour would hauehave his fall and riſing againe, to ſerue to confirme his brethrē. Here by the way the Reader may note, that this Paſſage and Text of Scripture is the onelyonly foundation that the Church of Rome can finde, to prop vp the Popes infallibility, which is as if a man would plant and reare vp an huge Coloſſus vponupon Reedes, or from a thing of nothing to make a long chaine of Conſequences to depend.

Wherefore Coeffeteau being put off from Scripture, he hath recourſe to the Fathers, and ſaith, that S. Cyprian is bold to ſay, that the Church of Rome is that, to which treachery and falſe hood can hauehave no acceſſe. Cyprian thereby vnderſtands that it cannot p. 449be the refuge of perfidious men, neyther can they be receiued there to finde ſhelter; which is true of eueryevery Orthodox Church: for Cyprian varied from the Biſhop of Rome vponupon the poynt of Rebaptization of heretickes; which is an euident proofe that he did not beleeue that the Biſhop of Rome could not erre: and indeede in the Epiſtle to Pompeius (written after that which Coeffeteau alleadgeth) he ſaith that Stephen Biſhop of Rome was in an errour,Stephani errorē denotabis — inter caetera, vel ſuperuacanea vel ad rem non pertinentia, vel ſibi ipſi contraria, quae imperite atque improuidè ſcripſit. and that hee had written many things idle and contradictory, very ignorantly and vnwiſely. It is not materiall to enquire whether Cyprian were in an errour, or no; it is ſufficient, that Cyprian thought that the Biſhop of Rome was ſubiect to erre and to miſtake.

Our Doctor addeth S. Ierome, who in his third Apology againſt Ruffinus, ſaith, That the Romane faith, Romanam fidem Apoſtolica voce baudatam iſtiuſmodi praeſtigias non recipere.commended by the voyce of the Apostle doth not admit any ſuch iuglings. (For ſo is it read, and not as Coeffeteau doth falſly alleadge it) The Trickes of which he ſpeaketh, were, to put the title of a good Authour to an euill booke; ſo that this place is neyther to the purpoſe, nor yet faithfully alleadged: and if it were to the purpoſe, yet doth hee not ſay, that the Church of Rome or her Biſhop cannot erre in faith, but ſayth that the Faith which S. Paul commended in the Romans, could not ſubſiſt together with ſuch impoſtures; for the faith which S. Paul prayſeth in them was the true faith, which doth not approue of any ſeducing. The ſame may be ſaid of the fayth of the Epheſians and Theſſalonians, p. 450to whom the ſame Apoſtle giueth the ſame teſtimony as well as to the Romanes, to wit, that their faith was ſpread abroad in all quarters. 1. Theſ. 18.

Now that S. Ierome did not beleeue that the Biſhop of Rome could not erre in the faith,in hoc habetur deteſtabilis quod Liberium Romanae vrbis Epiſcopum pro fide ad exilium pergentem primus ſollicitauit, ac fregit & ad ſubſcripti. onem haereſeos compulit. it appeareth by this, that in the Catalogue of Eccleſiaſticall writers, he thus ſpeaketh of Fortunatianus: In this he is accounted deteſtable, that he was the firſt that ſolicited Liberius Biſhop of Rome, who went into baniſhment for the faith, and made him to yeelde, hauing induced him to ſubſcribe to Hereſie. And in the ſame Catalogue he calleth Felix Biſhop of Rome, Arrian, as doth alſo Socrates, lib. 2. cap. 2.

S. Hilary in his fragments, lately publiſhed by Monſieur le Feure, doth often excommunicate Liberius, in theſe termes: Anathema tibi a me Liberi. For hauing ſubſcribed to the Confeſſion of the Arrians framed at Sirmium: foreign.S. Athanaſius an inward friend to Liberius, in his Epiſtle to them that liued in the Deſert, after that he had greatly commended Liberius, he ſaith, that after two yeares baniſhment, he yeelded and ſubſcribed. As alſo the Arrians would neuer hauehave giuen him Letters to reſtore him to his Biſhopricke:Tomo 1. Concil. p. 431. Ingreſſus Liberius in vibē 6. Nonas Auguſti conſenſit Conſtantio haeretico —& perſe… utio magna fuit in vrbe Roma. if he had ſtill perſiſted in the true faith. Damaſus in the Pontificall alleadged in ther. Tome of the Councels, ſaith, that Liberius being re-entred into the Citie conſented to the Emperour Conſtantius an Hereticke, and that vponupon his arriuall there happened a great perſecution at Rome.

p. 451Liberatus a great flatterer of the Biſhoppes of Rome, hath written a booke, which is found in the ſecond Tome of the Councels; where in the two and twentieth Chapter is produced an Epiſtle of Vigilius Biſhop of Rome, written to the Eutychian Heretickes, in which he declareth himſelfe an Eutychian, and denyeth two natures in Chriſt, euen ſo farre as to excommunicate thoſe that ſay the contrary.

Honori the firſt is condemned for a Monothelite hereticke by three Councels which our aduerſaries call Generall, to wit, by the ſixth, ſeuenth, and eighth, that is to ſay, by a thouſand witneſſes; the Deputies of Rome then and there preſent neuer gainſaying it.

On the contrary, his Succeſſors Agatho and Leo the ſecond doe there accurſe and deteſt him for hauing polluted the Sea of Rome through his hereſie. Who will beleeue that theſe Popes would hauehave defamed their owne Sea with a falſe accuſation? Or that ſo many witneſſes had beene ill informed? ſeeing that euen in theſe Councels the Epiſtles of Honorius, in which he defendeth hereſie, are produced and alleadged. And although they ſhould hauehave condemned him vniuſtly, yet it appeareth hereby, that they held it in thoſe times for a thing certaine, that the Biſhop of Rome might erre.

Bellarmine in his fourth booke de Pontifice Romano, maketh no difficulty to ſay,Poteſt dici Pontificem ex ignorantia lapſum eſſe. that Pope Gregory the third, who taught, that a man whoſe wife was through ſickeneſſe become vnfit for the dueties of p. 452marriage, might take another woman, had erred and failed through ignorance.

Iohn the two and twentieth beleeued and taught that the ſoules of the faithfull did not ſee God be fore the reſurrection, as wee hauehave proued heretofore by many witneſſes.

Iohn the three and twentieth out-ſtripped and exceeded them all; for he denyed the immortality of the ſoule, and maintained that there was neither Heauen nor hell. For which cauſe, beſides many other crimes laid downe in the eleuenth Seſſion of the Councell of Conſtance, he was depoſed from the Papacy by the ſame Councell, whoſe wordes are theſe: IOHN the three and twentieth hath often and many a time, in the preſence of diuers Prelates, and other honeſt men of worth, ſaid, held, determined, and obſtinately maintained by the inſtigation of the diuell, that there is no life eternall, nor any other after this life; yea and hath obſtinately ſaid and beleeued, that the ſoule of man dieth together with the body, and is extinguiſhed as that of brute beaſts; and hath ſaid, that a man once dead, ſhall not riſe againe the laſt day. And to the end that no man may doubt of the truth of the Accuſation, it is a little after added, that it is publiquely and notoriouſly knowne. Note alſo, that the Councell, before that it depoſed him, acknowledged him for lawfull Pope, and all the Church of Rome doth reckon him among the number of Popes.

Furthermore that prodigious Canon, which beginneth Si Papa in the fortieth Diſtinction, after p. 453it hath ſaid,Si Papa ſuae &… fraternae ſalut s negligens innumerabiles popules ſecum ducit primo mancip io gehennae, cum ipſo plagis multis in aeternum vapulaturos, huius cu pas iſtic reprehendere praeſumit mortalium nullus. &c. that though the Pope ſhould draw with him an innumerable multitude of ſoules into hell, there to be euerlastingly tormented, yet no man ſhould preſume to reproue him; becauſe he that iudgeth all men, ought to be iudged of no man: Addeth this exception, Niſi deprehendatur a fide deuius; vnleſſe he be found to hauehave ſwarued from the faith.

Paſſages of Scripture touching this matter.

THe King of great Britain alleadged againſt the Eccleſiaſticall Monarchy theſe wordes of our Sauiour, Luc. 22. The Kings of the Nations rule ouer them, but it ſhall not be ſo among you. Coeffeteau anſwereth, that hereby Chriſt ſought onelyonly to take away Ambition from his Diſciples; But I ſay, that it was not onelyonly his meaning to take from them ambition, but all ſuch occaſions as tend to ambition, together with the fewell of contentions and pride: for the worde of God forbiddeth both the euill, and the occaſions of euill. Now that the Monarchy of the Church doth nothing but puffe vp the hearts of thoſe that are climed vp to it: there is none that doubteth, but ſuch as are hired to flatter, or hauehave not much troubled themſelues with the reading of hiſtories, whereof we ſhall produce ſome proofes hereafter: yea Leo Biſhop of Rome, in his 82. Epiſtle confeſſeth this fault to be in himſelfe, and after he had ſpoken againſt thoſe Biſhops that hunt after Lordſhip and authority, he addeth theſe wordes, meipſum quodenimodo in p. 454Culpam trahi ſentio: I finde my ſelfe in a ſort drawne into this fault. And further, the wordes of Ieſus Chriſt herein are very expreſſe: for after hee had ſaid The Kings of Nations rule ouer them, hee ſaith not, take you heede, that you deſire not Souerainty in the Church, but thus he ſaith, It ſhal not be ſo among you. As if he ſhould ſay, they beare rule, but you ſhall not beare rule, hee forbiddeth not onelyonly the deſire of Dominion but Dominion it ſelfe.

Coeffeteau addeth, that when Ieſus Chriſt went vp into heauen, he did in ſuch ſort ſubſtitute a viſible head, as that he hath not bereaued himſelfe of the title and quality of Monarch, and that he is a more perfect and abſolute head then the Pope, but of leſſe vertue and power then the holy Ghoſt, whereof he doth well to aduertize vsus: And ſurely in my opinion Ieſus Chriſt is much bound vntounto him.

The wordes of S. Luke, 22. I hauehave prayed for thee that thy faith faile not, hauehave already beene ſufficiently examined, and ſo hath that ſaying of S. Ierome, lib. 1. againſt Iouinian, cap. 14.

There ſo loweth after that, Controuerſie about the Keyes, which the Pope cauſeth to ringe ſo loude, ſtil grounded vponupon this falſe ſuppoſition, that he is the Succeſſor of S. Peter, not onelyonly as Biſhop of Rome, in which ſenſe the Ancients vnderſtood it, but alſo in the charge of Apoſtleſhip, and as the vniuerſall head of the Church, which neuer any Father eyther beleeued or thought: Albeit that, p. 455that which was ſpoken to S. Peter, doth nothing at all belong to the Biſhop of Rome; yet we will examine the wordes. Ieſus Chriſt then, Mat. 16. after Peter had confeſſed him to be the Sonne of the liuing God, ſaith, Bleſſed art thou Simon the ſonne of Iona, for fleſh and bloud hath not reuealed this vntounto thee, but my Father which is in heauen: And I ſay vntounto thee, that thou art Peter, and vponupon this Rocke will I build my Church, and the gates of hell ſhal not preuaile against it: And I will giuegive thee the Keyes of the King dome of heauen, and whatſoeuer thou bindeſt on earth, ſhall be bound in heauen, and whatſoeuer thou looſeſt on earth ſhall be looſed in heauen. M^r. Coeffeteau produceth this ſaying,Fol. 85. for to Eſtabliſh the Primacy of S. Peter ouer the other Apoſtles, but he ſheweth not how, nor wherein, nor alleadgeth he any proofes at all.

It is peraduenture, becauſe Chriſt hath ſaid, Thou art Cephas, and that Cephas ſignifieth the Head: If a man will beleeue Pope Anaclet in the two and twentieth Diſtinction,Can. Sacroſācta. Cephas id eſt caput & principiū. with a profound and compleat skill in Grammer.

It may be alſo that it is becauſe he ſaid to Saint Peter, Thou art Peter, and vponupon this Rocke will I build my Church: Whereupon they inferre, that the Church is founded vponupon S. Peter: But I ſay, that theſe wordes import no ſuch matter, for hee ſaith not, Thou art Peter, and vponupon thee Peter, but vponupon this Rocke, that is to ſay, vponupon Ieſus Chriſt, whom hee confeſſed a little before, and who is oftentimes termed a Rocke, And it is euident, that our Lord doth p. 456manifeſtly diſtinguiſh betweene Petrus and Petra, the perſon of Peter and the Rocke, and eſpecially it is to be obſerued, that in Greek foreign is a word of a double ſenſe, for it is both the proper name of a man, and it doth alſo ſignifie Rocke, whereof it followeth, that the alluſion would hauehave carried a farre better grace, if S. Matthew had ſaid foreign. But the ſpirit of God, that guided the handes of the Apoſtle, choſe rather to let go that ornament of ſpeech, for preuenting of errour, and ſayth foreign, expreſly diſtinguiſhing the perſon of Peter from the Rocke.

For if the Church be founded vponupon S. Peter, it muſt needes be done, eyther vponupon his perſon or vponupon his Doctrine, that was all one with the reſt of the Apoſtles: and in this reſpect, they are all Foundations alike: if vponupon his perſon, then aſſoone as he is dead and another in his place, the foundation of the Church is changed, and it may be, much for the worſe. Likewiſe when the Papall Sea hath beene many yeares voyde (which hath often happened) the Church of God hath then beene without Foundation. Furthermore if the queſtion be of the firſt and moſt principall Foundation: S. Paul 1. Cor. 3. ſaith, No man can lay another Foundation, then that which is already laid, which is Chriſt Ieſus: And that maketh S. Peter to call him the cheefe Corner-ſtone.1. Pet. 2.1 Pet 2 And if the Apoſtles be at any time called Foundations, it is in reſpect of the Doctrine that they teach: And for this reaſon the holy Scriptures make them equally Foundations, as Epheſ. 2. p. 457verſ. 20: Being builded vponupon the Foundation of the Apoſtles and Prophets, Ieſus Chriſt himſelfe being the cheefe Corner-ſtone. And Apocalip. 21.14. The wall of the Citie (which is the Church) had twelue foundations, in which were the twelue names of the Apoſtles of the Lambe. Since then they be all foundations, who can ſhew any place of the word of God, that maketh one of the Apoſtles a Foundation aboue the reſt.

The Fathers hauehave vnderſtood it thus: Origen vponupon Matth. 16. If thou thinkeſt (ſaith he) that the whole Church was founded vponupon Peter onelyonly, Quod ſi ſuper v. num illum Petrū tātum exiſtimas aedificari totam Eccleſiam quid dicturus es de Iohanne filio tonitrui & deſingulis Apoſtolis. Omnibus Apoſtolis & omnibꝰ per fectis fidelibꝰ dictum videtur. Petra Chriſtus qui donauit Apoſtolis ſuis vt ipſi quo que petrae vocentur Tu es Petrus, &c.what wilt thou then ſay of Iohn the ſonne of Thunder, and of all the other Apoſtles? And hee vrgeth much theſe wordes, VponUpon this Rocke I will build my Church, as ſpoken to all the Apoſtles, yea further, to all the faithfull: This ſeemeth (ſaith he) to be ſpoken to all the Apostles, and to all the perfect faithfull, for they are all stones or Rockes, and vponupon them is the Church builded.

S. Ierome in his firſt booke againſt Iouinian, The Church (ſaith he) is founded vponupon S. Peter, albeit in an other place the ſame is alſo built vponupon the other Apoſtles, and the ſtrength thereof is equally grounded vponupon them all.

Ʋnica est faelix fidei p…tra, Petri ore confeſſa.Hilary in his ſecond booke of the Trinity, It is the only bleſſed ſtone of the faith, confeſſed by the mouth of S. Peter. And in his ſixth booke, VponUpon this Rocke of the Confeſsion the Church is founded.

S. Ambroſe vponupon the nine and thirtieth Pſalme, Quod Petro dicitur caeteris Apoſtolis dicitur, That which was ſaid vntounto S. Peter was ſaid vntounto the reſt of the Apoſtles alſo.

p. 458Cyril in his fourth booke of the Trinity, expounding the ſame place, ſaith, Opinor per Petram nihil aliud quam inconcuſſam, & fir miſ…mam diſcipuli fidem voluit, I thinke that by the Rocke was nothing elſe meant, but the firme and constant faith of the Diſciple.

S. Auguſtine, in his 124. Treatiſe vponupon S. Iohn, expounding theſe wordes,Super hanc ergo petram quam confeſſus es aedificabo Eccleſiam meam. Petra enim erat Chriſtus Quid eſt ſupra hanc petram aedificabo Eccleſiam meam? Super hanc fidem Super id quod dictum eſt Tues Chriſtus filiꝰ Dei viui. Bellar. lib. 1. cap. 10. § Addo Augustinum ex ſola ignorantia Hebreae linguae deceptum eſſe. faith, VponUpon this Rocke that thou haſt canfeſſed will I found my Church. And vponupon the Epiſtle of S. Iohn, his 10. Treatiſe and 60. Sermon vponupon the wordes of our Lord: What meaneth this, VponUpon this Rocke will I build my Church? Surely thus much is meant; VponUpon this faith, vponupon this that hath beene ſaid, Thou art that Chriſt the Sonne of the liuing God. And foraſmuch as he had ſaid in other places that the Church was founded vponupon Peter, he recalleth himſelf in his firſt book of retractations cap. 21. Becauſe, ſaith he, that Ieſus Chriſt ſaid not vntounto him, Tu es petra, Thou art the Rocke; But, Tu es Petrus, Thou art Peter: Now this Rocke, ſaith he, is Chriſt. Which Bellarmine vnable to denie thought it better to affirme that Auguſtine erred for want of knowledge in the Hebrew tongue.

Chryſoſtome vponupon Matth. 16 VponUpon this Rocke, that is, vponupon the faith of this confeſsion, And in this Sermon vponupon the Pentecoſt,foreign. he hath ſaid vponupon this Rock and not vponupon Peter, for he hath not founded his Church vponupon men, but vponupon faith: and what faith was this? Thou art Christ, &c.

Euſebius Emiſſenus in his homily vponupon the Natiuity of S. Peter, expoundeth theſe wordes in this manner: I will build my Church vponupon that ſtone p. 459which thou beginneſt to lay in the Foundation of faith, vponupon that faith which thou teacheſt, ſaying, Thou art Chriſt the Sonne of the liuing God. For the Apoſtle agreeing with this opinion, ſaith, That none can lay any other Foundation then that that is laid Ieſus Chriſt.

What ſay the Councels hereunto? In the Councell of Calcedon,Super hanc confeſſionem robora ta eſt Eccleſia Dei & fidem. pag. 223. of the Edition of Collen, vponupon this Confeſsion (which Peter hath made) and vponupon that faith is the Church grounded.

Super hanc petrā id eſt ſuper meipſū qui ſignificor per petram aedificabo Eccleſiam meam.Nay the Gloſſe of the Canon-Doctors themſelues vponupon the goodly extrauagant, Vnam ſanctam ſaith, Super hanc petram id eſt ſuper meipſum qui ſignificor per petram, aedificabo Eccleſiam meam VponUpon this Rocke, that is to ſay, vponupon my ſelfe that am the Rocke, and am ſignified by the Rocke, will I found my Church.

Reade the expoſition of Lyranus vponupon Matth. 16. for it agreeth fully with this, and ſetteth it downe in expreſſe termes.

But it may be Coeffeteau alleadgeth this paſſage or ſentence, becauſe it ſaith, I will giuegive thee the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen, and whatſoeuer thou bindeſt on earth ſhall be bound in heauen, and whatſoeuer thou ſhalt loſe on earth ſhall be loſed in heauen.

By the Kingdome of God, the Goſpell ordinarily doth vnderſtand the Church of God vponupon earth, and conſequently the Keyes of the Kingdome of God ſignifie the Church, to bring men into the Church, or exclude them from it. This is cheefly done by preaching the word of God, which our Lord for that cauſe, Luc. 11. calleth the key of knowledge p. 460vntounto which Preaching is annexed, the power of admitting ſinners to repentance, and to the peace of the Church, when they are come to receiue the word and ſubmit themſelues vntounto it: or if they are impenitent to ſhut them out from the communion of the faithfull.

This ſame power is ſignified by the wordes of binding and loſing: for wee are naturally in the bondes of Sathan, but the preaching of the Goſpel freeth and deliuereth vsus, when by faith we apprehend it; by which the children of Abraham are vnbound, whom Sathan hath fettered, Luc. 13. ver. 16. And if any man oppoſe himſelfe againſt this word, either by vnbeleefe or of a prophane humor: by the ſame preaching; firſt generally propounded, and after particularly applied to the impenitent ſinner by Eccleſiaſticall cenſure, the iudgements of God and his curſe, are denounced vntounto him: the which holdeth the ſinner bound, and are vntounto him as chaines, by which Sathan leadeth him captiue, and draweth him with an inſenſible violence into perdition, vnleſſe by his earneſt repentance hee free himſelfe of thoſe bonds, and returne to God. Here then Ieſus Chriſt ſheweth, that God ratifieth in heauen both the reception of a repenting ſinner, and the reiecting of him that is impenitent; and willeth, that during his obſtinacy, by which he diſpiſeth the Church, he be held as a Publican, and an heathen, Matth. 18.17.18.

We are then to learne, whether this power was giuen to S. Peter alone, or to all the Apoſtles: I ſay, p. 461that that which was promiſed to S. Peter, Matth. 16. was alſo promiſed to all the Apoſtles: the eighteenth of the ſame Euangeliſt, ver. 18. Verily I ſay vntounto you that whatſoeuer you ſhall binde vponupon earth, ſhall be bound in heauen, and whatſoeuer you ſhall loſe vponupon earth the ſame ſhall be loſed in heauen.

2 Aſſuredly it is a moſt ridiculous preſumption, to thinke that any man now adayes doth better vnderſtand the wordes of Ieſus Chriſt then the Apoſtles did: But it is more then euident that the Apoſtles did neuer ſuppoſe that by theſe wordes of Chriſt, any ſuperiority was giuen to S. Peter: for had they ſo beleeued, they would neuer after that hauehave contended amongſt themſelues for preheminence as they did, Luke 22. but one day before the death of our Lord.

3 Aboue all things this is to be noted, that Ieſus Chriſt doth not here giuegive vntounto Peter the power of binding and loſing, but only promiſeth to giuegive it him, which he performed after his reſurrection. Iohn 20. in which place he giueth like power to all his Diſciples, ſaying: Receiue yee the holy Ghoſt, to whom ſoeuer you ſhall forgiue their ſinnes, they ſhall be forgiuen, and looke whoſe ſinnes yee retaine, they ſhall be retained. Now to vnderſtand how farre the gift of any charge extendeth it ſelfe, we muſt not ſo much reſpect the promiſes made, as the actuall donation, and the maner how it is receaued.

4 Doubtleſſe if by theſe words Ieſus Chriſt had giuen vntounto S. Peter power ouer the other Apoſtles, he would hauehave commanded them to obey S. Peter, p. 462and to acknowledge him for their Superior, which is not found in any place of Scripture.

Now that Ieſus Chriſt gaue the Keyes and power of binding and loſing to all the Apoſtles,Putas ſoli Petro dantur à Chriſto claues coelorum & nemo ali bea torū accipiet cas? Si autē cōmune eſt inter omnes quod dicitur, dabo tibi claues reg ni coelorum, quomodo non omnia quae ſuperius ſunt dicta ad Petrum omnium videantur eſſe communia? it doth appeare not only by the reaſons afore alleadged, but alſo by the teſtimony of auncient Fathers. Origen vponupon the ſixteenth of Matthew, the firſt Treatiſe, How then (ſaith he) hath Ieſus Chriſt giuen the Keyes onelyonly to S. Peter: And ſhall not the other receiue them alſo? Or if that which is ſaid, I will giuegive vntounto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen, be alſo common to all the other; why ſhould not as well alſo all that that goeth before, and that which followeth after be common, though it were ſpoken to Peter?

Hilary in the fixth booke of the Trinity, ſpeaking to the Apoſtles,Vos ô Sancti & beati viri ob fidei veſtrae meritum claues regai coelorum & ligandi & ſoluen d…ius in terra adepti. O ye bleſſed men that by the merite of your faith hauehave the Keyes of the Kingdome, and the power to binde and loſe, And then hee further ſaith, Heare the Lordſaying, I will giuegive thee the keyes, &c. That which is ſpoken to Peter, is ſpoken to the Apoſtles.Audi dicentem Tibi dabo, &c. Quod Petro dicitur Apoſtol's dicitur.

S. Ierome in his firſt booke againſt Iouinian: All the Apoſtles receiue the Keyes of the Kingdome of heauen.

Cum & illud vnus pro omnibus dixerit, & hoc cum omaib. tauquam berſonam gerens ipſius vnitatis acceperit. Ideo vnus pro omnib. quia vnitas eſt in omnib.S. Auguſtine in his 218. Tract vponupon Iohn ſaith, S. Peter ſpake theſe wordes for all, and receiued the aunſwere with all the other, as repreſenting the vnity in his perſon, and therefore one receiued it for all, becauſe there was one vnity amongſt them all.

In the Councell of Aix, vnderunder Lewes the courteous, the people is brought in ſpeaking thus of the p. 463Clergy in generall: By whom we are made Chriſtians, Tom. 3. Concil. pag. 416. per quos Chriſtiani ſumus qui claues regni coelorum habentes quodommodo ante diem iudicij iudicant.Who hauing the Keyes of the kingdome of heauen, doe after aſort Iudge before the day of Iudgement. In the Councell of Paris vnderunder Lewes and Lotharius Emperours, the third booke and eight chapter, the Biſhops of France ſpeake thus; This may eaſily be vnderſtood by the wordes of the Lord, Quod ex verbis Domini facile intelligere poſſunt, quibus beato Petro cuiꝰ vicem indigni gerimus ait Quaecunque liga ueris &c.when he ſaid to Peter, Whoſe place we vnwrothily occupie, whatſoeuer thou bindeſt, &c. you ſee that they be all called the Succeſſours of Peter, and that they enioy his place. And chap. 3. they giuegive thoſe titles vntounto Prieſts, They are the ſtrong Pillars, vponupon whom the whole multitude of beleeuers being founded, Cap. 9. Ipſi ſunt Ianitores quibus claues datae ſunt regni coelorum. Fol. 84. p. 2.are by them vpheld and ſupported. Againe, they are the Porters, vntounto whom the keyes of the kingdome of heauen are giuen. But the Prieſts of Fraunce dare not ſpeake now adayes in this ſtile.

To be ſhort, the caſe is ſo cleare, that Coeffeteau is conſtrained to confeſſe, that the Keyes were giuen to all the Apoſtles: but he ſaith not with ſo large extent, as they were to Peter. See then the iſſue of this difference: all our aduerſaries acknowledge, that the Keyes were equally giuen to all the Apoſtles, but not in ſo high a degree, as to S. Peter, being demaunded where they finde this difference: Or if there be any place of Scripture where Ieſus Chriſt giueth the Keyes to S. Peter more then to the reſt: here they are as dumbe as fiſhes, and when they come to the very exigent and iſſue of the matter, they bleede at the noſe, and cannot produce any kind of proofe from the word of God. Coeffeteau p. 464onelyonly alleadgeth Hilary, which is to bring in mans teſtimony againſt God: and yet hee ſpeaketh not any thing that eyther contradicteth the Goſpell or vsus, for he onelyonly ſaith, that S. Peter is the Foundation of the Church, and that he hath the Keyes, but he ſaith not that he hath them more then the reſt of the Apoſtles. And if that Coeffeteau acknowledge that the Keyes are giuen to all the Apoſties, let him ſhew me in what place of ſcripture: for there is not any place in the Goſpell, that ſpeaketh of the giueing of keyes but this onelyonly: and here is no ſpeech made of two kindes of giuing the keyes.

Beſides it is eaſie for vsus to proue, that the Pope doth vniuſtly diminiſh the power of the Keyes, giuen to all Biſhops and Prieſts; for ſince they be all Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, they ought to hauehave the ſame Keyes which the Apoſtles had. Whence it followeth, that God ſaith to all the faithful Paſtors of the Church, in the perſon of the Apoſtles, That whatſoeuer they ſhal binde on earth ſhalbe bound in heauen. But the Pope correcteth this, and ſayth vntounto them, whatſoeuer you loſe ſhall not be vnbound; for there are certaine great offences which are called Caſes reſerued: the abſolution whereof lyeth not in your power, but is a priuiledge peculiar vntounto me. Vnderſtand now what theſe greeuous ſinnes are, that are thus reſerued to the Pope, Is it Paricide, Inceſt, treaſon againſt Princes, murder, or blaſphemy againſt God? No ſuch matter; that is euer pardoned by eueryevery Biſhop; for ſuch ſinnes are but againſt the law of God: but the ſinnes that p. 465be out of their power are theſe;See the Bull de caena Domini which is of caſes reſerued to the pope. If any man hinder them that goe to Rome for Pardons, if any man be an intruder into any Benefice, or office Eccleſiaſticall, if any hauehave purloyned the goods of the Church, or if any hauehave offended the Sea Apoſtolicall; the abſolution of ſuch horrible ſinnes as theſe are, is no where elſe to be had, but at Rome: Theſe are the caſes reſerued. For, to offend the Pope, or to bereaue him of his profite, is matter farre more heynous then to offend againſt the Maieſty of God. And in the booke of the Penitentiary Taxe, in the chapter of Abſolutions, the falſifying of Letters Apoſtolical, is taxed at ſeuenteene groats, whereas for a man to company with his mother, but at fiue groates onelyonly.

Seeing then that about this inequality of the Keyes, which giueth a ſuperiority to S. Peter aboue the other Apoſtles: our aduerſaries cannot defend themſelues by any authority out of the holy Scripture: let vsus ſee whether wee can furniſh our ſelues with any places directly againſt it.

1 I ſay then, that if the Apoſtles had not the Keyes of heauen, nor the power to binde and loſe, but ſubordinately vnderunder S. Peter: the Apoſtle S. Paul ſhould hauehave ſpoken very vnaduiſedly in ſaying 2. Cor. 11.5. I thinke that I hauehave not in any thing beene inferiour to the reſt of the Apoſtles: when hee ſayth (in any thing) he admitteth no exception.

foreign2 Adde hereunto, that if he had beene ſubiect to S. Peter he ſhould much hauehave forgotten himſelfe when Galat. 2. he ſaid that there was no difference p. 466betweene him and thoſe that ſeemed to bee the chiefe; for then there muſt needes hauehave been great difference betwixt their charges.

3 And againe this that he ſpeaketh is yet much more, That thoſe who were in the greateſt account among the Apostles added nothing vntounto him, whereas doubtleſſe S. Peter would at the leaſt hauehave giuen authority to S. Pauls charge, if it had depended from the authority of S. Peter.

4 But cheefely that which Paul addeth is worthy of conſideration, that the charge of preaching to thoſe of the vncircumciſion was in as large a maner committed vntounto him, as that of the circumciſion was vntounto Peter: See here how they parted the labour betwixt them; it fel vntounto S. Peters lot to preach vntounto the Iewes, and S. Pauls to preach vntounto the Gentiles: a thing that would be ridiculous and ſtrange now a dayes, if any Biſhop ſhould ſeeke to diuide the charge of gouerning Churches, betweene him and the Pope: or ſhould ſend the Pope to preach in Almaine or Spaine to conuert the Iewes.

5 It is alſo worth the noting, that S. Paul in the ſame place, verſe 9. naming thoſe three Apoſtles, Iames, Cephas and Iohn; placeth Cephas, which is Peter, after Iames. Now in theſe our dayes if a man ſhould ſpeake thus, The Biſhop of Lyons, the Biſhop of Rome, and the Biſhop of Ambrun, men would holde him for a madde man. But S. Paul in ſetting Peter betweene others, he ſheweth that he had not yet learned that S. Peter was chiefe of the Church vniuerſall, or that he had iuriſdiction ouer the reſt of the Apoſtles.

p. 467For their laſt aſſault and encounter, they produce the wordes of Ieſus Chriſt vntounto Peter, Feede my Lambes; which wordes they hauehave made wonderfull fruitfull, and full of many conſequences: for thus they expound them, Thou Peter and thy Succeſſours, Popes of Rome, feede you alone all my lambes, and doe you take vponupon you a ſoueraignty ouer all other Pastors. How many ſtrange and venterous Gloſſes are here on the Text? And how hauehave they peeced out this latchet, to make it reach home? For though Ieſus Chriſt doe expreſly commaund Peter to feede his ſheepe, yet he excludeth not the other Apoſtles: They are all called Paſtors: and all faithfull Biſhops and Miniſters, are enioyned to feed the Church of God, Acts 20.28. True it is that S. Peter was Paſtor of all the ſheepe of Ieſus Chriſt throughout the world, but ſo were likewiſe the other Apoſtles: For S. Paul alſo 2. Cor. 11. verſe 28. ſaith, that he hath the care of all Churches: their charge was to walke and to hauehave an eye eueryevery where, for thus ſaith Ieſus to them all, Acts 1. And you ſhall be witneſſes vntounto me to the very endes of the earth: And hereupon S. Auguſtine is very plaine in the thirtieth chapter of his booke of the chriſtian combate, When the Lord ſaith vntounto Peter, Cum dicit Petro amas me? paſce oues meas, idem dixit & caeteris.Loueſt thou me? feede my ſheepe, he ſaith the ſame vntounto all. But why ſpeaketh he to him alone? Becauſe not long before he onelyonly had denyed him: He onelyonly that fel had onelyonly neede to be raiſed vp, and to be re eſtabliſhed in his charge: for otherwiſe a man might well hauehave called his Apoſtleſhip into queſtion p. 468And why doth he rehearſe the ſame wordes vntounto him thrice? Becauſe he had denied the Lord three times: as many fals, ſo many reſtorings: Theſe be not raiſings of him vntounto dignity, but ſtrengthnings of his infirmity. As ſaith S. Auguſtine, Treatiſ. 123. vponupon S. Iohn. A triple deniall is recompenced with a threefold confeſsion, Redditur negationi trina confeſſio, ne minus amori lingua ſeruiat quam timori, &c.to the end that his tongue might ſerue him no leſſe to declare his louelove, then it had done in diſcloſing his feare.

In the meane time, albeit all the Apoſtles had a generall care ouer all Churches, yet this doth not hinder, but that each of them might hauehave a peculiar charge, beſides their generall: S. Paul was charged with inſtructing the Gentils, and S. Peter with teaching the Iewes, and it appeareth not that this his commiſſion was at any time changed, and that in ſtead of being the ſpeciall Teacher of the Iewes, he was made Biſhop of Rome. Beſides that, his dwelling at Rome could not well hauehave ſorted and agreed with the teaching of the Iewes,Act. 18.11.Acts 18:11 who now were baniſhed from Rome vnderunder Claudius the Emperor, which was the very time of S. Peters preaching: during which time, he viſited the Iewes ſcatteredinto Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Bithinia, and into all Aſia, as appeareth by the firſt verſe of his firſt Epiſtle. This was ſomewhat too farre from his Biſhopricke of Rome, and nothing ſutable with the dignity of the Monarch of the Vniuerſall Church.

We will not here contend whether S. Peter were euer at Rome: for albeit this Hiſtory be full of p. 469darkneſſe, yet I am enclyned to beleeue, that he ſuffered Martyrdome at Rome, becauſe Tertullian, Euſebius, and others doe affirme the ſame: But yet the day-light is not more cleare, then it is euident that ſtayed there but a very ſmall time, and not twenty fiue yeares, as our aduerſaries doe calculate. One proofe ſhall ſerue to be added to thoſe which are alleadged by others.

We graunt then that S. Peter and S. Paul did ſuffer Martyrdome at Rome, vponupon one and the ſame day, as Euſebius and ſome others affirme. This being ſo, we will ſhew moſt plainly, that S. Peter had not yet beene at Rome three yeares before his death. For S. Paul being to depart from Corinth to goe towards Ieruſalem, wrote an Epiſtle to the Romanes, as appeareth by the ſubſcription of his Epiſtle dated from Corinth; and by the fiue and twentieth verſe of the fifteenth Chapter, Now I goe vp to Ieruſalem. His voyage to Ieruſalem is deſcribed in the 18, 19, and 20. chapters of the Acts vntounto the 15. verſe of the 21. chapter: Seauen dayes after his arriuall he is taken, and to auoyd the violence of the Iewes, he appealeth vntounto Caeſar: when he came to Rome he preached there two yeares, Acts 28.30. and there ſuffered Martyrdome, as we may eaſily gather out of the 2. Timothy, Chapter 4. verſe 6. and by the ſubſcription of the Epiſtle. From whence it appeareth, that the Epiſtle to the Romanes could not be written aboue three yeares before his death: and not to be too ſtrict, let vsus admit that it might be 4. yeares: let vsus now ſhew, that p. 470S. Peter had not beene at Rome, when S. Paul wrote this Epiſtle; for that is prooued by the fifteenth chapter of the ſaid Epiſtle to the Romanes, where Saint Paul ſaith that he is reſolued to goe to Rome, whereof he rendreth this reaſon, to wit, I ſtudy to ſet forth the Goſpell, not in thoſe places where mention hath beene already made of Ieſus Chriſt, to the end (faith he) that I build not vponupon another mans foundation. He preſuppoſeth then that neyther S. Peter nor any Apoſtle, had till that time, laid nay foundation in the Church of Rome, otherwiſe S. Paul going thither ſoone after, ſhould hauehave built vponupon anothers ground-worke. The renowne and credite, and the mutual conference and conuerſation of the Chriſtian ſtrangers with the Romanes had ſowen the Chriſtian Religion at Rome: but before S. Pauls comming thither, there was not any forme of a Church gouerned, S. Paul laid the firſt foundation as is manifeſt by the place alleadged.

This being thus gained, let vsus end the reſt of the combat: The Kings Maieſty of England hath aduiſedly noted, that the Apoſtle S. Paul did excommunicate the inceſtuous perſon of his owne authority, the ſpirit of the Corinthians ioyning with his ſpirit, without making or medling with S. Peters ſpirit: Coeffeteau here anſwereth, that by the ſpirit S. Paul meant not authority, but knowledge and declaration of will, as Beza expoundeth it: I aunſwere, that this declaration of will, was done by vertue of the power and authority which he had, as he addeth in the wordes following, In the name p. 471of our Lord Ieſus and by his power: ſo calleth he that power which Chriſt had giuen him, and which hee denieth to hauehave receiued from any man, Gal. 1. v. 1. and chap. 2. v. 6.n="*" They which were the cheef brought nothing vntounto it. But (ſaith Coeffe…eau) it is not neceſſary at all times to expreſſe all the functions of the Church, nor the Primacy of S. Peter, it being ſufficient to beleeue it. Then ſay I, if he omitted it in this place, and neuer theleſſe beleeued it: you muſt then ſhew vsus ſome other place wherehe confeſſeth that he beleeued it.

Coeffoteau goeth further, and ſaith,Coeff. fol. 89. That in the Letters of the Councell of Ieruſalem, the deciſion was made by the authority of the whole Aſſembly, without ſpeaking of Peter, Acts 15.23. becauſe the Letters were ſent in the name of all the company:n="*" The apoſtles and the Elders & brethren, to the brethren that are of the Gentils in Antiochia. Beſides it is ſufficient, that elſewhere S. Peter is called cheefe, by the Oracle of truth, and that Peter himſelfe ſpeaketh firſt.

To this I ſay, that if in theſe dayes a Councell, where the Pope were preſent, ſhould write Letters to decide a Controuerſie, it would be thought very ſtrange, if in thoſe Letters there were no mention made of the Pope. Againe, we cannot finde that the Oracle of truth did euer giuegive vntounto S. Peter any power or Iuriſdiction ouer the other Apoſtles. Furthermore in this Councell Peter ſpake as a man that gaue his aduiſe or iudgement but it was Iames that ſpake laſt, and pronounced the finall deciſion, as Preſident in the action.

But among all the reaſons alleadged by the King of great Britaine, that is moſt witty and forcible, p. 472which is drawne from the firſt chapter of the firſt to the Corinthes, which hath not beene yet noted by any other. S. Paul had founded the Church of Corinth, and had laboured mightily: but after his departure from them, they fell to faction and partaking, one ſaying, I am of Paul, another of Apollo, and another of Peter. Thoſe that ſaid they were of Paul, had a deſire rather to become his followers, then Peters: it appeareth then, that S. Paul had not taught them to acknowledge S. Peter to be his Superior, and to be the head of the vniuerſall Church; for if he had ſo taught them, they would neuer hauehave reſiſted and withſtood that his inſtruction: Neyther is it poſſible that any man would oppoſe himſelfe herein againſt S. Paul, thinking in ſo doing, to become his Diſciple, or that he would not beleeue him, to the end he might become his follower. This is not onelyonly abſurde, but it is alſo impoſſible: from this argument ſo aptly collected, Coeffeteau being vnable to comprehend the force thereof, is driuen to ſhifts and querkes cleane from the purpoſe.

To as little purpoſe is it, when he ſaith that Caluine ſpeaking of the Controuerſie betweene Paul and Peter, Coeff. fol. 90.Gal. 2. did not inferre a Preference of S. Paul before S. Peter, but onelyonly an equalitie, for his Maieſtie doth not intend a preheminence of S. Paul aboue S. Peter in generall, but onelyonly in this particular action; Foraſmuch as iuſtly to reprehend, is a thing more noble then to be reprehended, and to teach better then to learne: I alſo adde that it is p. 473very likely, that if S. Peter had had his Cardinals about him, or a guard of Swyſſers and Light Horſemen,See Cryſoſtome vponupon chap. 1. to the Galathians. he would not hauehave ſuffered S. Paul to hauehave withſtood him to his face. But follow on the line and leauell of S. Pauls purpoſe,foreign. and it will lead you directly to the truth, that S. Pauls drift was to meete with, and to preuent the miſ-regard which ſome had of his Apoſtleſhip, which ſome held to be of an inferior ranck, becauſe he was none of the twelue, but came after them. Againſt this opinion of theirs, he iuſtly armeth himſelfe, and ſaith in the very beginning of his Epiſtle, that he is an Apoſtle not of men, nor by man, but by Ieſus Chriſt: where he teacheth vsus ſufficiently that hee had no commiſſion from S. Peter And chap. 2. verſe 6. (he ſaith) that they that ſeemed to be in eſtimation added nothing vntounto him. He ſaith that the charge was diuided betweene him and Peter: to him were the Gentiles committed, euen as to Peter, thoſe of the circumciſion: that Iames, Peter and Iohn, who were accounted the Pillars gaue, him the right hand of Fellowſhip: that he withſtood Peter to his face, when he came to Antioch,Petrum ſolum nominant & ſibi comparat quia primatum ipſe accepit ad fundandam Eccleſiam, ſe quo que pari modo electum vt primatum haberet in fundandis gentis um Eccleſijs. and went not the right way to the Goſpell. And all this was ſpoken to make his charge equall with the reſt of the moſt excellent Apoſtles, and not as Coeffeteau dreameth, to be an example of humilitie to his Superior, and of liberty in place of an inferiour: indeede S. Ambroſe vponupon this place, giueth to S. Paul and S. Peter, an equall ſoueraignty, ſaying, he nameth Peter onelyonly, and compareth him with him, becauſe he receiued the p. 474Primacy to found the Church, and ſaith, that Paul was in like manner choſen to hauehave the ſuperiority in founding the Churches of the Gentils. And againe hee ſaith,And a little after. Vt dignus eſſet habere primatum in praedicatione gentium ſicut & habebat Petrus in praedicatione Circumciſionis. to the end that Paul might he well worthy to hauehave the Primacy in preaching to the Gentiles, as Peter in preaching to thoſe of the Circumciſion. Now leſt any man ſhould ſay, that S. Peter had alſo the Primacy ouer the Gentiles, he addeth, Paulus gratiam primatus gentium ſibi ſoli vendicat conceſſam a Deo: Paul challengeth that the Soueraignty ouer the Gentiles was by the fauour of God graunted to him alone. By this it appeareth with how ſmall credite Coeffeteau alleadgeth Ambroſe vponupon this place. Chryſoſtome vppon the ſame text of the ſecond to the Galat. compareth S. Peter to S. Paul in theſe wordes: Paul after ſo many and ſo mighty effects, foreign.hauing no need of S. Peter nor of his inſtruction, but being equall vntounto him in dignity; for I will at this preſent ſay no more. Hee would perhaps hauehave ſaid, that Paul was greater then he, as ſaith Origen, Homily 3. vponupon Numbers, that S. Paul was the greateſt of the Apoſtles; whence it followeth,Ipſe ergo Paulus Apoſtolorum Maximus, qui ſciret multos eſſe &c. that if Chryſostome, or any other call S. Peter the firſt or chiefe of the Apoſtles, he vnderſtood it eyther in age or in order of place, and not in Iuriſdiction ouer the reſt of the Apoſtles, otherwiſe theſe Fathers ſhould hauehave contradicted themſelues: and as for rancke and precedency S. Paul ſeemes little to hauehave regarded that too; for he nameth S. Iames before S. Peter, Gal. 2. ver. 9. Iames, and Cephas, and Iohn, 1. Cor. cap. 9. The brethren of the Lord and Cephas, As alſo doth S. Iohn, cap. 1. p. 475verſ. 44. ſaying, Philip was of B…thſaida, the towne of Andrew and of Peter.

In like manner when Ieſus ſent them to preach, two and two together, S. Peter was coupled with another as his fellow in that holy labour: And in Acts 8. the Apoſtles ſent Peter and Iohn to preach in Samaria. Oh what a goodly matter would it be now, adayes if an Aſſembly of Biſhops ſhould ſend the Pope and a companion ioyned with him, to preach in Swiſſer-land, or in the valley of Augrogne? I thinke ſure M^r. Coeffeteau would not like well of it; who auoyding this poynt, anſwereth nothing to that which his Maieſty of England affirmeth, to wit, that the Biſhops of Rome hauehave alwayes beene ſubiect to the Councels, and that the Councell of Conſtance not long ago, vſing this authority did depoſe three Popes: but he therein ſhifteth & betaketh himſelfe to thoſe Titles which the Pope aſſumeth, and which the ancients do giuegive vntounto him.

Of the Titles of quality of the Romane Biſhop, and whether he be S. PETERS Succeſſor, or no.

M^r. Coeffeteau confeſſeth to the King of England that the Pope is called GOD,Coeff. fol. 93. and that he is a God on earth, but in the ſame ſenſe that the Scripture calleth Kings and other Potentates Gods. But this is a faint and trifling excuſe, and much contrary to his Holineſſe meaning.

For in the old Teſtament the title of God is expreſly p. 476giuen vntounto Princes in the plurall number; but to attribute vntounto himſelfe the name of GOD in the ſingular, is a thing that no Chriſtian Prince or Prelate euer did. The Biſhop of Rome is the firſt that hath vſurped this title in this later age.

The new Teſtament alſo, attributeth the name of God in the ſingular, to none but the ſoueraigne God,2. Cor. 4.2 Cor 4 or elſe Sathan, whom the Apoſtle calleth the God of this world, becauſe in this world he ſeeketh to ſet footing into Gods roome: and the Pagan Emperors hauehave alſo taken vponupon them the Title of God, Sueton. in Domitiano cap. 13. Dominus Deus noſter fi… fieri in b…. Martialis l. 5. Epig…. 8. Edictu… Dom ni D… que noſtri.as Domitian and Baſsian Caracalla. And ſo the Pope in the Canon, Satis, Diſt. 96▪ And in the Gloſſe of the Extrauagant, Cum inter, he is called Dominus Deus noſter, the Lord our God. And in the laſt Councell of Lateran, Seſſ. 9. Diuinae Maieſtatis tuae conſpectus, The beholding of your diuine Maieſty. And in the firſt booke of holy Ceremonies, Sect. 7. cap. 6. The ſeat of God, that is to ſay, the Sea Apoſtolicall. And ſo likewiſe Steuchus the Popes Library-keeper in his booke of Conſtantines Donation,Sedes, Dei, id eſt ſedes Apoſtolica ſaith, that Conſtantine held Sylueſter for God, & ador auit vt Deum, and worſhippted him as God. In Italy at the gate of Tolentine, there is this inſcription, Paulo 3. Optimo Maximo in terris Deo, To Paul the third the beſt and greateſt God on earth. Of this there are infinite examples.

Now that the Pope is not called God in the ſame ſenſe that Kings are called Gods in the Scripture, appeareth by this, that he doth not onelyonly attribute vntounto himſelfe the name of God, but alſo p. 477thoſe very honours and preheminences that belong vntounto none but God alone, for he wil be worſhipped on earth as God. The laſt Councell of Lateran, Seſſion 3. and Seſſion 10. ſayth, that the Pope ought to be worſhipped of all people, and doth moſt reſemble God. And leſt a man ſhould thinke that it ſpeaketh of a ciuill kinde of worſhip, it expoundeth it ſelfe, and ſheweth with what worſhip it ſhould be worſhipped, to wit, with the ſame adoration that is ſpoken of, Pſalme 72. Ador abunt eum omnes reges terrae, All the Kings of the earth ſhall worſhip him: where the Pſalmiſt ſpeaketh of that adoration which is due vntounto Ieſus Chriſt, as Tertullian teacheth, lib. 5. againſt Martion, cap. 9. And ſo doth the Poet Mantuan vnderſtand it that ſpeaketh thus of the Pope:

Enſe potents gemino, cuius veſtigia adorant

Caeſar, & aurato vestit imurice Reges.

That is,

His power hath two ſwords in ſtore,

Him Emp…rours ſerue and do adore:

Kings in Robes for Princes meete,

Of golde and Purple, kiſſe his feete.

The Hiſtories of theſe later ages are full of examples of this adoration of Popes.Sigonius lib. 9. Populum diuiſa per vicos pecunia ad ador andum inuitant. In the ſecond Tome of the Councels they would perſwade the Emperour Iuſtinian, that he ought to adore Pope Agapet. But the moſt remarkeable adoration is that which is giuen vntounto him in the Conclaue preſently after his election; for ſo ſoone as hee is named Pope by the Cardinals ſhut vp in the Conclaue, p. 478he is ſtript out of his ordinary habites, and there are others giuen him: amongſt other things redde hoſe and redde ſhoes, hauing a Croſſe of golde, a redde girdle with buckles of golde, a redde bonet and a rochet. And thus being armed at all points with his redde cloake and triple Crowne,See this Ceremony deſcribed in the firſt booke of the Ceremonies Sect. 1. cap. 6. glittering with Diamonds, they lift him vp as a ſacred body, and ſet him on the Altar; there the Cardinals kiſſe his hands and feete. This is vulgarly called among the Italians Adoratione; which is the more to be noted, becauſe they ſet him vponupon the Altar, which is the place where they place their Maſſe-god, and it is the place appointed for diuine adoration. So that this manner of adoration cannot be taken for ciuill adoration. By this alſo it is euident, that foraſmuch as Kings are more mighty and powerfull then Popes in ciuill cauſes: if this were a ciuil worſhip, then cōſequently they ought the rather to be worſhipped. But they are ſo farre from being worſhipped, as that themſelues are enforced to worſhip the Popes. And if a King ſhould call himſelfe God, it ſhould little auaile him to alleadge places of the old Teſtament, where Princes are called Gods; for that would no way ſerue his turne, but that among Chriſtians he would be accounted a blaſphemer: for now the Pope taketh this Title vponupon himſelf excluſiuely, ſhutting out al other Princes: becauſe with him it carrieth a religious ſenſe, and that importeth adoration. Againe, Princes in reſpect that they are called Gods, doe not arrogate to themſelues a liberty of being free … p. 479reprehenſion, or of being iudged of any man, as doth the Pope in the Canon Satis, diſt. 96. the words whereof are theſe: It is euidently ſhewed, that the Pope can neyther be bound nor vnbound by any ſecular power; Satis euidenter oſtenditur à ſeculari poteſtate nec ſolui prorſus nec ligari pontificem quem conſtat à pio principe Conſtantino quem longè ſuperꝭ memorauimꝭ Deum appellatum, cum nec poſſe Deum ab hominibus iuiudicari manifeſtum ſit.becauſe we know he hath beene called God by that religious Prince, Conſtantine before mentioned, and God cannot be iudged by man. He excludeth Princes from the Title of Gods, to reſerue it to himſelfe: and approuing the ſaying of Conſtantine that called him God, hee inferreth thereupon that the Pope cannot be iudged of any man. But let vsus note by the way that Constantine ſaid in the Councell of Nice, ſpeaking to all the Biſhops there preſent, You are Gods: but he neuer ſpake this particularly to the Biſhop of Rome.

In conſequence alſo of this Title the Pope calleth his Decrees and Canons Oracles: Oracle ſignifieth the anſwer of God,Extra de Maioritate & obed. Titulo 33. cap. Per tuas. Rom. 3.2. & 11.4. With like modeſty hee termeth his Decretall Epiſtles Canonicall Scriptures, Dist. 19. in the Canon, In Canonicis, the inſcription whereof is this; Inter Canonicas Scripturas Decretales Epiſtolae connumerantur, The Decretall Epiſtles are numbred among the Canonicall Scriptures. Hee boaſteth himſelfe to hauehave all power in heauen and vponupon earth, in the laſt Councell of Lateran, Seſſ. 9. and 10. and attributeth it vntounto himſelfe in his booke of ſacred Ceremonies, Sect. 7 Cap. 6. according to which power Innocent the third, in his Bull Adliberandam, In retributionem iuſtorum ſalutis aeternae pollicemur augmentumwhich is at the end of the ſecond Councell of Lateran, giueth vntounto Pilgrims that came from beyond the p. 480Seas an encreaſe of glory aboue the reſt.

Among all theſe I finde none ſo odious, as that Title which he taketh of being the Spouſe of the vniuerſall Church, which belongeth particularly to Ieſus Chriſt, as S. Paul ſayth, 2. Cor. 11. For I hauehave married you vntounto one man, to preſent you as a chaſte Virgin vntounto Chriſt. Extrauag. de immunitate Eccleſ. Tit. 22. Capite Quoniam in 6And yet this is the quality which the Pope taketh vntounto himſelfe in more then thirty places in his Decrees and Decretals, and in the laſt Councell of Lateran. And to the end you may know his bookes, in what ſenſe he is called the Spouſe of the Church, Bellarmine who wrote at Rome,§ Ac ne fortè. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. ſayth, that the Pope is the Spouſe of the Church, etiam Chriſto excluſo, Chriſt being excluded. And albeit Chriſt were not excluded, yet in matter of marriage, we are not accuſtomed to accept of a Deputy.

Whoſoeuer would here heape vp places, in which both the Pope and his flatterers attribute vntounto him, that he is aboue the law and aboue all right; and that he may diſpenſe againſt the Apoſtles, nay againſt the Goſpell it ſelfe: that likewiſe he hath power to diſpenſe with oathes made vntounto God, and a thouſand things of the like nature, whereby he ſetteth himſelfe aboue God; might well of theſe things compoſe a great volume, and grieue the heart of the godly Reader, who is touched with a zeale of Gods houſe: But this ſhall ſuffice to ſhew that Coeffeteau wrongeth the Pope much in ſaying, that he is called God onelyonly in that ſenſe that Princes are, that is to ſay, for ciuill conſiderations: p. 481for in all that is aboueſaid, there is no one thing ſpoken of ciuill reſpect, all is built vponupon conſideration of Religion, I ſhould hauehave ſaid againſt Religion.

And as little grace hath hee in defending the Popes triple crowne, when he is driuen to ſay, that the title of Maieſty is very fit to bee giuen to the holy things. For certainly S. Peter was farre more holy then the Pope, and conſequently ought to hauehave had the greater Maieſty: and yet neyther Peter nor any other Prelate, many ages after him, did euer weare three crownes, or adorned their heads with Diamonds. This luſtre well becommeth worldly Maieſty, but not ſpirituall holineſſe, which ought to ſhine in vertues and not in pretious ſtones, and to appeare rather in Martyrdome then in pompe, and to edifie mens hearts, in ſtead of dazeling their eyes: yet all the Maieſty of Kings was neuer comparable to this worldlineſſe: neuer did any of them thinke it fit to weare three Crownes: The onelyonly name of this Head-tire teacheth vsus what to iudge: for in Italy it is called It regno, The Kingdome: and the booke of holy Ceremonies doth ordinarily ſo call it, to ſhew that the Pope weareth that Crowne as a King, and not as a Biſhop or Paſtor of the Church. The marke of the Biſhopricke in the Church of Rome, is the Paſtorall ſtaffe, which they call the Croſier. But the Pope carrieth none ſuch, as Innocent the third teacheth vsus in his firſt booke of the myſteries of the Maſſe, cap. 42. Becauſe ſaith he, S. Peter ſent his Croſier to Eucharius p. 482Biſhop of Treuers, which is there kept for a relique. The firſt Author of this Fable is vnknown, but it was deuiſed to perſwade the people that S. Peter hauing layde aſide his Croſier, wore the triple Crowne as Monarch of the earth, of hell, and of heauen or as gouernour of Aſia, Affricke and Europe.

Now it is not without cauſe that this Crowne is called the Kingdome, becauſe the Pope quallifieth himſelfe with the Titles of King and Monarch: The laſt Councell of Lateran, Seſſ. 10. ſpeaketh thus to the Pope, The Empire of your Holineſſe: and Seſſ. 9. Regale Romanorum Pontificum genus, The Royall race of the Romane Biſhops, Imperium Sanctitatis verſtrae. Papa Sacerdos & Rex.and in the 3. Seſſ. The Pope is Priest and King: and in the firſt Seſsion he is called Princeps totius orbis, Prince of the whole world: and therefore he preacheth no more. Sometimes he ſaith Maſſe on ſome ſolemne day, but in that Maſſe he cauſeth himſelfe at ſundry times to be adored: If any King be preſent, he muſt holde the Napkin, but it muſt be vponupon his knee, as did King Charles the eight to Pope Alexander the ſixth.

And for his better reading in the Miſſall, he hath a Cardinall that poynteth to the letters with his finger,Liber ſacrarum Cerem. l. 2. ſect. 1 as men vſe to teach young children; he then changeth his Hoſe and Shooes many times, hee ſucketh the Chalice with a reede: at his going away he ſwelleth and puffeth vp his cheekes, and giueth the benediction by blowing vponupon them, as though he gaue the holy Ghoſt.

As touching the Titles of Head of the faith, p. 483ſupreame Iudge of all Controuerſies, which his Maieſty of England vpbraydeth the Pope withall, Coeffeteau paſſeth that ouer, and ſpeaketh nothing, as thinking it a thing not able to be maintayned: So doth he diſclaime that Title of Monarch of the world, condemning therein the Councell of Lateran before alleadged, that calleth him King and Prince of the whole world. And we hauehave before produced certaine Theſes lately diſputed of at Naples, and dedicated to the Pope now reigning,Paulo 5. Vice-Deo Chriſtiani orbis monarch. wherein he is called Vice-God, Monarch of the Chriſtian world.

Titles of greater Antiquity.

THeſe new titles being thus taken away, Coeffeteau comes on with a freſh ſupply, and bringeth ſuch as are more auncient; and herein he craueth the aſſiſtance of the Fathers: but firſt he racketh and tortureth them, and by ſtrayning conſtrayneth them to ſpeake things againſt their will.

The firſt place is out of Tertullian, cap. 1. of his booke of chaſtity,Pontifex ſcilicet Maximus Epiſcopus Epiſcoporum dicit, ego & moechiae & fornicationis delicta poenitentia functis dimitto. O edectum cui aſcribi non poteſt bonum foctum. where he calleth the Biſhop of Rome Soueraigne Biſhop, Biſhop of Biſhops. The Reader that will giuegive himſelfe leiſure but to looke vponupon the place, ſhall finde that Tertullian ſpeaketh this by way of flouting and mocking the Biſhop of Rome, for theſe are his words: Yea indeed the chiefe Biſhop, the Biſhop of Biſhops ſaith thus: I forgiue the ſinnes of Adultery and Fornication, to thoſe that hauehave p. 484performed their due time of Penance. O Edict, vponupon which a man may write, It was the cuſtome of the …omanes to write ouer their Edicts B. F. Bonumfactum, a good deed. Sueton. in Iulio cap. 81. & in Vitellio cap. 14. Plautus Poenulo. Banum factum edicta vt ſeruetis mea.THAT SHALL BE WEL DONE. Beſides, we know not whether he ſpake of the Biſhop of Rome, or of the Biſhop of Carthage a Metrapolitane in Affricke: but howſoeuer cap. 21. he followeth the Biſhop of Rome farre more plainely, faying▪ If becauſe the Lord ſaid vntounto Peter, vponupon this Rocke I will build my Church, therefore thou pretendeſt that the power to binde and looſe is deriued vntounto thee, that is to ſay, to eueryevery Church that hath an affinity or neereneſſe with S. Peter: who art thou that changeſt and ouerthroweſt the manifeſt meaning of Ieſus Chriſt, Si quia dixerat Petro Dominus, ſuper hanc petram &c. id circo praeſumis & ad te deriuaſſe ſoluendi & alligandi poteſtatem qualis es euertens at que commutansmanifeſtam, Domi…, intentionem perſonaliter hos Petro conferentem?who conferred the ſame perſonally vntounto Peter?

The next is S. Ierome, who calleth the Biſhop of Rome ſoueraigne Prieſt, a name which the Ancients giuegive to eueryevery Biſhop, as doth alſo the Greeke word foreign. The name alſo of a Foundation of the Church is common the all the Apoſtles, as wee hauehave ſhewed, and to all their true Succeſſors. S. Ierome ſayth not, that the Biſhop of Rome is the only Foundation of the Church: and if hee ſhould hauehave ſo ſayd, he would ſurely hauehave beene ſuſpected of flattering his Biſhop, as being himſelfe a Roman Prieſt; which neuertheleſſe did not hinder him in an Epiſtle written to Euagrius, to affirme that all Biſhops are of equall dignity, and to place the Biſhop of Rome but in equality with others. The place is very remarkeable: In what place ſoeuer (ſaith he) a Biſhop be, whether he be at Rome, at Agubium, at Conſtantinople, at Rhegium, at Alexandria, or at Tanis, p. 485he hath one and the ſame prieſthood; the power of wealth or baſeneſſe of pouerty, maketh not one Biſhop higher or lower then another. In briefe they are all the ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles. But thou wilt ſay vntounto me, how commeth to paſſe, that at Rome, a Prest is receiued to his charge vponupon the teſtimony of one Deacon? To this obiection, propounded to the end to hauehave all other Churches ruled after the example of the Romane, he anſwereth thus: Why bringeſt thou me in here the cuſtome of one towne? why doſt thou bring in a ſmall number, by whoſe meanes pride is crept in among the lawes of the Churches.

In the third place he alledgeth S. Auguſtine ſaying: That in the Romane Church, the principality of the Apostolike Sea hath alwaies flouriſhed. If he had read the ancient hiſtories, he ſhould hauehave learned that antiquity giueth alſo this principality to the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and of Ieruſalem.

Sozomene chap. 16. of his booke eleuenth, ſpeaking of the Councell of Nice,Fluic Concilio interfuere in Epiſcopis qui ſedes tenebāt Apoſtolicas Macarius Hieroſolymorum Antiſtes, &c. At this Councell were preſent amongſt the Biſhops, that held the Apoſtolike Seas. Macharius Biſhop of Ieruſalem, Euſtance Biſhop of Antioch, and Alexander Biſhop of Alexandria, … Ruffinus lib. 2. chap. 21. ſaith, that Damaſus at Rome, Timothy in Alexandria, and Iohn in Ieruſalem, reeſtableſhed the Seas Apoſtolike.

In Theodoret lib. 5. chap. 9. the Church of Antioch is called the moſt ancient Church & of all the moſt Apoſtolike; & preſently after, the mother of all the Churches, as it is likewiſe called in many other places.

p. 486Coeffeteau after theſe addeth a falſhood: he ſaith that the Councell of Chalcedon acknowledgeth the Biſhop of Rome to be head of the Church, and the firſt of all other: and this is found in the 16 Seſſion. But note that it is not the Councell which ſpeaketh thus, but Paſchaſin deputed from Rome, who pleadeth his owne cauſe: and yet this hindred not this Councell from making a Canon expreſly declaring and defining, that the Biſhop of Conſtantinople is equall with him of Rome in all things, yea euen in cauſes Eccleſiaſticall: the Canon hath beene produced by vsus before.

He further ſaith, that Irenaeus chap. 3. lib. 3. doth attribute vntounto the Church of Rome, a principality more powerfull thē vntounto others: which is moſt falſe, and an euident corruption of the place: Irenaeus ſpeaketh of the principality and power of the city; for being the ſeate of the Empire, the faithfull of all Churches, had neceſſary occaſions to repaire thither. The words are theſe: Ad hanc Eccleſiam propter potentiorem principalitatem neceſſe eſt omnem conuenire &c. Eccleſiam: vntounto this Church by reaſon of the more mighty principality it is neceſſary that eueryevery Church ſhould reſort. As if I ſhould ſay, that all the Churches of France ſhould come to that of Paris, becauſe there is the principality and power of the Realme: and yet can I not for all this ſay, that the faithfull miniſters of the Church of Paris, hauehave a principality ouer the reſt.

Saint Cyprian in the third Epiſtle of his firſt booke, doth directly call the Church of Rome the p. 487principall Church, becauſe in all the Weſt there was no Church ſo great, or ſo remarkable as it He ſaith that the vnity of Prieſthood came from thence, becauſe his opinion was,Hoc crant vti que & caeteri Apoſtoli quod Petrus, pari conſortio & honoris & poteſtatis, ſed exordium ab vnitate proficiſc it ur vt Eccleſia vna monſtretur. that albeit the Apoſtles were all equall in power and honour, yet S. Peter was entertained into his charge, ſome ſmall time before the other Apoſtles, Ieſus Chriſt hauing a determination to begin from one, to the end to ſhew the vnity of the Church, as he ſaith in his treatiſe of the ſimplicity of Prelates: He beleeued then, that S. Peter, who for a ſeaſon held the ſacerdo tall dignity alone, to teſtifie the vnity of the Church, had beene at Rome, and that from thence Chriſtiā religion ſpred it ſelfe into the Weſt. Now in this Cyprian goeth about to ſoften and to gratifie the Biſhop of Rome, to the end to prepare him the better to taſte, and to brooke the checkes and reproofes which afterwards he adioyneth, whereby he proueth to Cornelius, that he hath no power at all ouer Affricke, and that he neither could nor ought to receiue the cauſes of thoſe whom the Biſhops of Affricke had condemned: for (ſaith he preſently after) ſeeing it is ordered among vsus all, and that it is a thing iuſt and reaſonable, that eueryevery mans cauſe ſhould be examined where the crime was committed, and that vntounto eueryevery Paſtor there is allotted a portion of the flocke, which each one ought to gouerne, and leade, as being to render an account vntounto the Lord of his carriage and behauiour: there is no reaſon, that thoſe whom we guide ſhould runne from one place to another, and through their fraudulent raſhneſſe, ſeeke p. 488to breake the concord of Biſhops friendly knit together: but that they ſhould there pleade their cauſes, where they may hauehave accuſers and witneſſes of their crimes, leſt it fall out that ſome deſperate and forlorne perſons ſhould thinke, that the authority of the Biſhops of Affricke, who hauehave condemned them, ſhould be leſſe then others, their cauſe hath beene alreadie examined, the ſentence hath beene alreadie pronounced. To conclude, he maintaineth that Cornelius may not take knowledge of any cauſes determined by the Biſhops of Affrica without accuſing them of lightneſſe, and vuſtaydneſſe, and ſo trouble the peace and quiet of the Church. This is the cauſe that made Cyprian to gild his pill, & to extol the dignity of the Church of Rome, before he would ſhew him, that he ought not to thruſt himſelfe into the affaires of other Churches.

For it is diligently to be noted, that thoſe among the ancient Fathers, that affirme that the Biſhop of Rome is ſucceſſour to Peter, doe thereby vnderſtand that he is ſucceſſour in the charge of Biſhop of Rome, but not in the Apoſtleſhip. After this ſort alſo the Biſhops of Epheſus were ſucceſſors to S. Iohn and S. Paul: the Biſhops of Ieruſalem ſucceſſors to S. Iames, ſo farre as theſe Apoſtles were Biſhops of Epheſus and Ieruſalem: but they neuer were ſucceſſors to the Apoſtleſhip, and to the gouernment of the Church Vniuerſall. Nor is there any reaſon why the Biſhop of Rome ſhould be ſucceſſor to Peter in his Apoſtleſhip; and yet the Biſhop of Ieruſalem ſhould be onelyonly ſucceſſor to p. 489S. Iames in his Biſhoppricke. Beſides, the Biſhop of Antioch, more auncient then the Biſhop of Rome, hath alwaies beene called the ſucceſſor of S. Peter: and why ſhould it not be aſwell in the Apoſtleſhip and gouernment of the Vniuerſall Church? If you will ſay that Peter hath taken away the prerogatiue and preheminence from Antioch, and hath tranſported it to Rome, we vtterly deny it; and thereof no proofe worthy the receiuing can be brought. If they further ſay that Peter dyed at Rome. I will alſo ſay, that Ieſus Chriſt dyed at Ieruſalem: And why ſhould not Chriſt his death at Ieruſalem, hauehave in it more power and vertue to make the Biſhop of Ieruſalem chiefe of the Church, then the death of S. Peter at Rome to conferre this great dignity vponupon the Biſhop of Rome?

I leaue it likewiſe to the Readers, to iudge who after the death of Peter ought of right to bee the chiefe of the Vniuerſall Church. For S. Iames liued yet at Ieruſalem, after S. Peter was dead. And the Apoſtle S. Iohn out-liued him 32 yeares,Euſebius in his Chronicle ſaith, that Peter and Paul died the yeare of our Lord 69. and that S. Iohn dyed at Epheſus in the yeare 101. according to the accompt of Euſebius and Irenaeus. Is it a thing to bee beleeued that S. Iohn, the Diſciple whom Ieſus loued, who leaned on his breaſt, vntounto whom he recommended his mother at his death; whoſe writings are diuine oracles; as the Reuelations in the Apocalips doe witnes; that he ſhould bee inferior to Linus the Diſciple of Paul? and indeed, our aduer ſaries themſelues hauehave inſerred into the firſt Tome of their Councels, certaine Epiſtles, which they ſay were Clements Biſhoppe of p. 490Rome, amongſt which there is one to S. Iames Biſhop of Ieruſalem: and thus it beginneth: Clemens to Iames brother of the Lord, Biſhop of Biſhops, gouerning the holy Church of the Hebrewes which is in Ieruſalem, Clemens Iacobo fratri Domini Epiſcopo Epiſcoporum.yea all the Churches which are founded eueryevery where by the prouidence of God. And a little after hee calleth him his Lord: words which witneſſe that Clemens acknowledged Iames for his ſuperior, and chiefe of all the Biſhops of the world.

We graunt then willingly, that the auncient Biſhops of Rome, before the corruption of Doctrine and vſurpation of the Monarchie in the Church, were ſucceſſors of S. Peter in the Biſhoppricke of Rome onelyonly, euen as the Biſhop of Corinth was ſucceſſor to S. Paul: but withall we adde this, that through the corruption of Doctrine which hath by little & little crept into the Church of Rome (eueryevery age hauing added and contributed thereunto) hee is now wholy and iuſtly falne from that ſucceſſion. For he may not in no wiſe be called Peters ſucceſſor, who oppugneth the Doctrine preached by S. Peter, and who in the Chaire of verity doth eſtabliſh a lie. The Turke may not bee called ſucceſſor to the Emperour of Greece, albeit he be ſeated in his place, ſeeing that he is rather his ſubuerter. I would hauehave one ſhew me that euer S. Peter preached any other purgatory then the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt: or any other ſatisfaction to the iuſtice of God, then his obedience: any other ſacrifice propitiatory, then his death. That euer he gaue pardons for an hundred thouſand p. 491yeares, or drew ſoules out of Purgatory with buls and indulgences: that he euer degraded Emperours: that he tooke away from the people the reading of the holy Scriptures, or the Communion of the Cup: or that he commaunded the worſhipping of Images, and publique Seruice to bee ſaid in an vnknowne tongue: or that he euer conſtrayned other Biſhops to take from him letters of Inueſtiture, and to pay vntounto him Annates: Or that euer S. Peter was called God on earth, the Spouſe of the Church, and cauſed himſelfe to be worſhipped: or that euer he ſung Maſſe, or commaunded the Hoſt to be adored: or that euer he left off preaching the Goſpell, or quitted the Croſier-ſtaffe, to take vntounto him a triple Diaderne: If, I ſay, they can ſhew me that S. Peter euer did theſe things, then though the Pope were Biſhop but of one Village alone, I will willingly acknowledge him for S. Peters Succeſſor, but ſtill in the Biſhopricke only, and not in the Apoſtleſhip, which ended in his perſon, and is not deriued vntounto his Succeſſors in particular Churches.

THus doth the confeſſion of the King of Englands faith remain firme and vnſhaken, againſt which Coeffeteau hath armed himſelfe with humane teſtimonies, being vtterly deſtitute of any authority out of the booke of God. For as they that are ready to drowne, catch hold on any thing, ſo theſe men in a deſperate cauſe embrace all defences, but leaſt of all, thoſe that be good. Againe, whatſoeuer p. 492this Doctor alleadgeth out of the Fathers, is found to be eyther falſe, or clipt, or vtterly counterfeit. This payment is not currant, eſpecially to ſuch a Prince who hath conſecrated his penne to the defence of the truth. But this is not to be imputed to Coeffeteaus diſability, but to the vnlawfulneſſe of the cauſe, vntounto which we hauehave in ſuch ſort ſatisfied, as whoſoeuer ſhall examine my worke, he ſhall finde an anſwere to Bellarmines booke alſo, which he hath not long ſince made againſt the ſaid booke of the King of great Britaine, with more weakeneſſe and leſſe dexterity then Coeffeteau hath done.

There remayneth the laſt part of his Maieſties booke, wherein with a ſtraine of admirable wit, aſſiſted by the ſpirit of God, hee openeth the booke cloſed with ſeuen ſeales: and piercing into the ſecrets of ſacred Propheſies, he findeth in the ſeat of Rome the full accompliſhment of the Apocalyps. When hate and bitterneſſe ſhall be extinguiſhed through time, Poſterity ſhall admire both the worke and the perſon, and looking backe into ages paſt for the like patterne, ſhall not be able to finde any thing to be compared with it. We will not feare then to enter into theſe darkeneſſes vnderunder ſo great a guide: for it is hard eyther to ſtumble or to ſtray, where ſo faire a Torch doth light and ſhine before vsus. But we muſt here take breath a while before we enter into this taske: For the ſudden death of our King like a great cracke of Thunder benummeth our handes with aſtoniſhment, and p. 493troubleth our ſpirits with griefe and anguiſh. Let vsus then giuegive place to neceſſity, and leaue to write, that we may hauehave leiſure to lament: and let Poſterity carefully bethinke it ſelfe of remedies, and hold it for a thing moſt certaine, that hee that ſetteth light by his owne life, is maſter of another mans; and that there is nothing ſo forcible to make vsus to contemne our owne liues, as this new doctrine, which by the murther of Kings openeth the way to the Kingdome of heauen.

FINIS.