whether the church of Rome, doth vainly and absurdly chalenge to her self, the name of the Catholike church.

THIS first paragraff or se­ction M. Abbot doth ma­ke to iustifie the manner of his proceeding, before hee come to the matter: but before all hee thought it expedient, how vndecent soever it were, to begin with a florish in his owne commendation thus.

AS for the victorie which I ominated to my self, thankes be to God I haue obtayned it, being become Maister of the field: And M. Bishop en­forced [Page 81] to leaue the mayne battle, contented now out of a corner to thrust an ambush, that hee maie make some shew, that he is not quite spent: I triūph over him in his owne conscience.

NAturam expellas furca licet, vsque recurret. see how hard a thing it is to driue a man from his old by as? M. Abbot hath been pre­tilie well canvased, for his vnmannerly vaun­ting of his owne doings: yet hee cannot bee taught to leaue it. custome is another nature. what will you? he dwelleth belike farr from good neighbors, and is therfore inforced to praise himselfe. well, if hee will needes proue himself a wisard, and one that can ominate, and tell good fortunes before they fall, how should I hinder him? I willinglie confesse that hee doth but his dutie, to thanke the Lord for his good luck: and might for more comple­te ioy, haue called in his fellowe Ministers with their wiues, to haue congratulated with him. But to put the censure of his triumph to his adversaries conscience, seemeth to excessi­ue an amplification. for hee was cock sure to be condemned by me, for singing a triumph before the victorie, that before had told him plainely inough, that I scarse found anie wei­ghtie point in his booke worth the answering: and that there was better proofe of their do­ctrine in two leaues of M. Perkins treatise,In my preface of the repro­ofe. then in ten of his. yea I moreover made so [Page 82] bold as to tell him, that his printed papers were more fitt and proper to stopp mustard potts,Ibidem. Page 94. then anie meane schollers mouth. was there anie reason after such plaine war­ning given him before hand of my dislike, on­ce to imagin (if hee had not been wonderfully conceited of himself) that I so highlie estee­med of his writings, that I would without faile giue him the prick and price. But why do I exact reason of an Augurer, or wiseman as they call him, that will needs dine into the se­crets of my conscience? may not hee peraduē ­ture by helpe of his Astronomicall skill, see there that, which I cannot espie my selfe?

In good sadnes honest sir, tell mee I praie you, why you saie, that I left the maine bat­tle, and was content out of a corner to thrust out an ambush? when as I marched in the fa­ce of your forces, and encountred with the forefront of your battle; setting downe your discourse even as your self had ranged it, ma­king answere to the verie first words, and so continuing without interruption: verie im­pertinently then do you charge mee with ly­ing in ambush, and setting on you out of cor­ners. These odd tearmes of an old rustie rag­ged soldiour, may be much more properlie returned on your selfe, that hath leapt ouer so manie scores of the first pages of my booke, and left as many of the last vnanswered; slip­ping over also some of the middest. what is to ly in ambush and to sett on a booke out of corners, if this answering of it by snatches [Page 83] bee not? but leaving these idle speeches w­herwith M. Abbots book is stiff būbasted, let vs come faire and roundly to the matter; which in this section is to shew, whether he hath proceeded orderlie or no in his dis­course? that the learned reader maie the bet­ter bee able to iudge of it, I will summarily rehearse how wee fell into this Question, whether the Romane church bee the Catho­like church or noe.

I in the Epistle Dedicatory of my first boo­ke aganist M. Perkins, humblie. besought his Maiestie that he would bee pleased to em­brace that true Catholike and Apostolike faith, in which his most royall progenitors liued and died, whervnto M. Abbot answe­red, that my petition was needles; bicause his Maiestie had already embraced the same true, Catholike, and Apostolike faith. which to prove he made as it were this argument. The Catholike church is that which is spred over all the world, but the Roman church is not spred over all the world, therfore the Roman church is not the Catholike church. To which I replied, that granting the maior or first pro­position to bee true; the minor or second was not so direct to his purpose, as if he- should haue subsumed: but the English church, (the faith wherof his Maiestie embraceth) is spred over all the world. or at least, the English church is a true member of that church, which is spred over all the world; for [Page 84] whether the church of Rome bee the Catho­like church or no, the faith which his Maje­stie embraceth cannot bee Catholike, vnles it bee that which either hath been, or now is spred ouer all the world. therfore no man can deny, but that it had been a more direct and speedie course, to have proved their owne church to bee Catholike, then to goe about to disprove the church of Rome to bee Ca­tholike. for let vs suppose that which M. Ab­bot would have, (though it bee most vntrue) that the church of Rome were not the Catho­like church; Doth it thervpō follow, that the church of England is Catholike? nothing les­se. for there have been and are manie erring & no Catholike congregations by the consent of all men, different and dissenting from the church of Rome. as for example were of old the Arrians, the Donatists, Macedonians. and att this time bee, the Trinitarians, Anabaptists, and such like. supposing then the church of Rome not to bee Catholike, and that the En­glish church doth not agree with the said church; may it not neverthelesse bee some other erronious congregation, that is fa [...]r e­nough of frō being Catholike? there being in the world so manie other of that bad marke and stampe? It must needes then follow, that M. Abbot beginning with the church of Ro­me, neither tooke a speedie and direct, nor yet a sure course, to prove his maiesties faith to bee Catholike. M. Abbot in his owne excuse saith: that to prove his maiesties faith to bee Catho­like, [Page 85] he must needes declare what the Catholike church was: bicause of the Catholike church it is, that the faith is called the Catholike faith. This I admitt for good doctrine, and do desire the Reader to beare it well in mind: that the Ca­tholike faith must needes bee sought for in the Catholike church, and cannot be found out, before wee haue the Catholike church to teach it vs. because as M. Abbot affirmeth he­ere, of the Catholike church it is, that the faith is called the Catholike faith. well go on good Sir, I grant that you did well to declare what was the Catholike faith, and what was the Catho­like church too, But having declared what was the Catholike church and faith, why did you not go in hād to proue your English faith that his maiestie maintaineth; or your English church, which hee vpholdeth, to bee that sa­me true Catholick church? To saie that that stumbling blocke, to witt, that the church of Ro­me was the Catholike church) was first to be re­moved out of the way, will not serve the tur­ne. for that was not necessary. when as the o­ther if it had been true, might haue been per­formed by it self, without any mention made of the church of Rome. And if your fingers itched to haue a fling at the church of Rome, would it not haue been more seemly and de­cent, first to haue confirmed your owne faith to bee Catholike, which you tooke in hand? then having layed that foūdation, to haue de­clared that the faith of Rome was not Ca­tholike. wherfore (I did neither idly nor pre­posterously [Page 86] (as you write) require so much att your hands. but verie preposterously do you proceede, and beyond all measure. ex­travagantly: that having spoken somewhat to declare what the Catholike church was, and that the church of Rome was not that Catholike church, do afterwards run throu­gh seaven or eight questions more, and ma­ke an end of your booke too, before you come to take one chapter to prove that your English church is the Catholike chur­ch; or that your English faith, is the Catho­like faith. Is not this to forgett your self in the highest degree that is possible? to in­stitute a treatise to prove his maiesties faith to bee Catholike, and to professe in the beginning of it, that to find out the Ca­tholike faith, wee must first find out the Catholike church: which being soone fo­und out, and agreed vpon; to bee that which is spredd over all the world: after wardes in all the ensuing discourse, not to haue one chapter to prove the English church or faith, to bee spred all the world over. was not this vtterly to leese himself, and to le­ave his reader as it were. in the middle of a maze? Pervse gentle reader the contents of all the chapters of M. Abbots booke, which bee fowreteene in number, thou shalt not find one of them, so much as pre­tend to prove directly, the faith of En­gland to have been dilated into all coun­tries, the first is, that the church of Rome [Page 87] doth vainely pretend to bee the Catholi­ke church; the second consisteth of a com­parison betweene the Papists and the Do­natists. the third is about the Papists abuse of the name Catholike. the fourth, that the church before Christ, was a part of the Catholike church: and that the old and new testament do not differ in substan­ce of faith. The fift, that religion cannot satly bee grounded vpon the example of fathers and forefathers. the sixth, that the reasons of popery are not vrgent and for­cible. The seventh, of the florishing and best state of the church of Rome: and of the fulnes of doctrine contayned in Saint Pauls Epistle to the Romanes: of Idolatry in worstipping of Saints. The eighth of iu­stification before God. The ninth, of iusti­fication before man. The tenth, that eter­nall life cannot bee purchased by meritt. The eleaventh, the first motion of concu­piscence is sinne. The twelfth; that the spirit giues witnes to the faithfull, that they bee the sonnes of God. The 13. that good workes are not meritorious of life to come The 14. that the Epistles of Saint Paul are loosely alleaged by the papists. lo here is the end of the booke and as a man may well saie, finis ante principium, a conclusion of the worke, before he begin to handle the principall point in question. to witt, w­hether that faith which his Maiestie [Page 88] embraceth, bee the Catholike faith. that is, whether at any time it hath been receiued in all Christian countries. so that in one word this booke of M. Abbots may bee answered with a nihil dicit, as our com̄on lawiers tearme it, that is, hee hath said iust nothing to that which hee vndertooke to performe therin. for having taken in hand to prove, that the faith of the English congregation is Catho­like, and consequently that it hath been vniversally planted in all nations: now to let that stand a cooling, and to argue that the church of Rome is not the Catholike church, but rather Donasticall: and that it abuseth the name Catholike: that the church in old father Abrahams daies, was a part of the Catholike church; and such other impertinent questions: was it not rather (as one maie say) to lead a wild Goose cha­se, and to wander vp and downe very stran­gelie, then to speake to the point of the question propounded? And albeit it draw some what neerer the matter to go about to proue the Protestants doctrine, to be more conformable vnto the old and new Testa­ment, then the doctrine of the Catholiks: yet that is a severall distinct question, and to bee handled after another manner. for I doe in one chapter ioyne Issue with M. Abbot therin, and doubt not to make it good a­gainst anie protestant, that the Catholike Ro­man faith is much more sutable even vnto [Page 89] the verie true text of tke Bible, then the Pro­testants: and that by conference of our doctri­ne word by word, and sentence by sentence, with the verie words and sentences of holy writt. But to prove our faith to bee Catholi­ke wee take another course, and do demon­strate that the chief prelates and Doctors of the Catholike church, who have florished in most Christian countries since the Apostles time, have taught the verie same doctrine which wee teach, and maintained the same faith, and served God with the same Religion, that we do. which M. Abbot must performe for their faith and religion, if hee will haue any wise men beleeue them to bee Catholiks: even by his owne explication of the name Ca­tholike; in his answer to my Epistle; and by his owne confession heere, when hee faith; that wee cannot find out the Catholike faith, be­fore wee have found out the Catholike church; of which the faith is named Catholike. Now no man can find out the Catholike church, but by tracing out that companie of the faithfull who have peopled all Christian nations. w­hich M. Abbot not being able to do for the protestātes faith, doth returne the same questiō to mee: and would haue mee to do the same for our doctrine, and namely, for that point of the popes power to depose Princes: which (as hee saies) Cardinal Bellarmine doth hold to be one of the chief points of our faith, Bell. Epi­stola ad A [...]b. a­pud [...]ath. To [...]um. and the ve­rie foundation of Catholike religion. Albeit M. Abbot would not at my request, do that ho­nor [Page 90] to his own religion, and right to himself as to satisfie my iust demaund, hee having be­fore also vndertaken it; yet I will not refuse at his instance, to demonstrate that article of faith (which Cardinall Bellarmin there men­tioneth) to have been beleeved, taught, and practised in most christian countries, in the most florishing time of the Catholike church: And that by the testimonie of the best renow­med fathers of the verie same age. I will bring him in more authentik evidence for this issue then would be the hands and seales of the moderne churches of Grecia, Armenia, Ethio­pia, Russia, and such like schismaticall and er­ring congregations, (which M. Abbot here demaundeth) as the reader shall see in the next paragraffe or division, where that question of the supremacy, shalbe treated of. But honest sir, why do you by the way so wound your credit in misalleadging that most learned Cardinals wordes? doth he in the place by you quoted saie, that the supremacly of the pope, for the deposing of kings, is one of the chief points of the Ca­tholike faith? will no warning serve the turne, to make you cite your authors sincerely? if this bee the shuffling wherin your best skill consi­steth, the reader in deed hath great need to looke well to your fingers; Card. Bellarmine, both there and elswhere doth teach, that the popes supremacy is one of the principalle heads of our religion. But hee doth not affir­me there, that the popes power to depo­se princes, is any chief article of our faith. [Page 91] though hee taught that to bee a most proba­ble opinion, and in some sort to appertaine to the supremacie, as a dependant thervpon. Now to that which followeth out of an o­ther place of Card. Bellarmin; hee (you saie) shall free vs from need to travell for this proofe (to wit that our English faith hath been spred all the world over) who saith, that though one only pro­vince did retaine the true faith, yet the same might properly bee called the Catholike church (and ther­fore their faith the Catholike faith) so long as it could bee cleerly shewed, that the same is one and the same, with that, which at anie time was spred over the whole world. whervpon M. Abbot in­fers, that to prove their faith to bee the Ca­tholike faith, it wilbee sufficient to prove, that is was that which once was spred over all the world. Now with the proofe therof M. Bishop (saith hee) is chooked already. Behold the babling of this vaine man. first the Car­dinall doth not ease him anie whitt at all, from proving their faith to have been spred over all the world: but only saith vpon supposi­tion, (Si sola vna provincia retineret veram fidem, if one onlie province kept the true faith) that then it might bee called Catholike: yet so, that it could bee cleerlie shewed, to haue been spred in times past, over all the world. where you see, that hee requires of necessitie, that it must bee cleerly shewed, that the same faith which wilbee accounted Catholike, hath been before at lest spredd over all the world. so that M. Abbot is as farr to seeke as hee was be­fore, [Page 92] and that hee must needes come to this sta­ke, how vnwilling soever hee bee, and either shew that their faith hath been receiued all Christendome over, or els confesse that it can­not bee called Catholike. Come of then gent­le Sir, flie not from the point, seek not to hide your head in a corner, but performe that peece of service bravely, and then hardlie talke of chooking M. Bishop. but to avouch that M. Bishop is chooked already, long before anie proof thereof be brought, with onlie hearing you to speake of it, is too too childish, and full of doting vanitie.

I found fault with M. Abbot, for shuffling and flitting from the faith and religion of the Romanes, vnto the particular persons that in­habit the cittie of Rome: bicause their faith maie bee Catholike and spredd over all the world, albeit their persons bee confined wi­thin the bounds of one countrie or cittie. hee answereth, that hee hath shuffled amisse for vs: for that hee hath shuffled vs from b [...]ing Catholikes; and the Roman church, from being the Catholike church. which is not to the purpose: And how true it is, shalbee tried in the next chapter. In the meane season it must needs bee taken for a foule fault in arguing, to change the tear­mes, and to flitt from one thing to another: and for the faith of the Romans, to take the persons that inhabit Rome; there being no lesse difference betweene the person of a man and his faith; then there is between a fox and a fearnebrake. finally M. Abbot saieth that, his [Page 93] shuffling will yeeld vs but a bad game, if I cut not wisely: And if wee haue no better Cards (saieth hee) wee shall s [...]rely le [...]se all. well gentle sir, seing you confesse your selfe to bee such a cunning shuffler, and giue mee so faire warning of it before hand: I wil take the paine to shuffle your Cards after you: or els will cutt them in such sort, that your skill in packing shall stand you in litle steed. If there bee no remedy but that you will needs haue about with the church of Rome, bee it by order, or bee it by disorder; look you handle your weapons more handsomely then you haue done hither­to, or els you are like enough to receiue the foile.

An answer vnto the second section of the first chapter.

MR. Abbot to make a smoother 1 waie to his doutie arguments, by which hee striueth to proue the Roman church not to bee the Catholike church, saith; that hee entreth vnto them, to note the absurdity implied in this comon stile of Catholiks, the Catho­like Roman church. How now good sir? have you so soone forgotten the errand wherabout you went? did not you vndertake to demon­strate, that his maiestie had alreadie imbraced the Catholike faith? And if you will needs leave that which you professed to pursue in [Page 94] the suddes for a season, and fall vpon the church of Rome; do not stand triffling vpon tearmes and titles, like an idle Caviller: but as it beseemes a Doctor of the chaire, prove soundly if you can that the now church of Rome, doth not beleeve and professe all points of the Catholike faith. whether the church of Rome, may bee called absolutlie the Ca­tholike church or no, or in what sence it is so called, are other by questions, scarse incident, at least nothing necessarie, to that wee have now in hand. for whether the church of Ro­me bee stiled the Catholike church or no, so that it hold entirely the true Catholike faith, then maie his maiestie lawfully and laudably, receiue and defend the whole doctrine of the said church: and to obtaine saluation, must make himself a member therof. which was all that I humblie craved of his most excellent Maiestie. The issue then of this present que­stion, and the marke that M. Abbot should levell att, is to shew, that his maiestie embra­cing the faith of the church of Rome, should not embrace the true Catholike faith. if hee do not effect this, hee doth nothing. if leaving his issue, hee fall to plucking of vizards (as hee to excuse his vnseasonable digression doth w­rite) from I know not whose faces, (as though he going about this matter, had mett by the waie, with some maske or mummery) may he not well bee resembled to a boy that sent on an errant falleth to blowing of feathers, whi­ther the wind will carrie them, and lets his [Page 95] Masters busines alone till hee hath ended his owne sport? but such is the mans humour, hee must bee dispenced withall for observing anie good order; well, seing there is no remedy, let him range at his pleasure, let vs winke att the method, so the matter bee tolerable. thus then doth hee goe about to prove the Roman church not to bee Catholike. No particuler church can bee the Catholike church; but the Ro­man church is a particular church. Ergo the Ro­man church is not the Catholike church. Againe to the same effect, No part can bee the whole; but the Roman church is a part of the Catholike church. therfore it cannot bee the whole Catholike church. These be his arguments reviewed, and put into the best frame that maie bee, to avoide all dis­putes about the forme. As I do verie willing­lie also let passe his most idle bables of Ba­laams and Anianus Asses, and his scarse sweet poem of horse balles singing in the poole. Nos poma natamus: bicause such scurrility becomes not divines, yea is scarse tollerable in any sort of ciuil men: to the Arguments then thus I answere.

If the conclusion were granted to M. Ab­bot, 2 he were no whitt the nearer to obtaine his intended purpose. for what is there con­cluded aganist the church of Rome, maie in the verie same forme bee concluded against the church of England. for example; no par­ticular church can bee the Catholike church, but the church of England is a particular church, therfore it cannot bee the Catholike church? [Page 96] which is soe apparant, that M. Abbot cannot denie it. whervpon it followeth most cleerly, that this argument can serve no more for dis­swading his maiesty from admitting the do­ctrine of the church of Rome,Page 13. then from en­tertayning the doctrine of the church of En­gland. therfore it is to be reiected, as wholy impertinent to this purpose. But M. Abbot saith, that atleast it will serve to convince the absurditie of the papists stile, who vse to coo­ple together these two tearmes Catholike Ro­man: which hangeth no better together (saith hee here) then vniuersall particular. though af­terward better aduised, hee within the com­passe of two leaves doth confesse, that both these tearmes maie in good sence bee ioyned together. these be his words. Particular chur­ches are called Catholike, and particuler persons are Called Catholikes, as a man would saie, vni­uersalists, for maintayning communion and fello­wship of the Catholike faith with the church of the whole world; so that even after M. Abbots owne declaratiō, a Roman Catholike is not as much to saie as a particular vniversall, but a parti­culer man or church, that holdeth cōmunion of faith with the vniversall church.

was it not then a great oversight in a man reputed to [...]ee of some Iudgment, to insist so vehement [...]e vpon trifling tearmes, that were both besides the purpose; and withall true in themselues (as you shall heare afterwardes) if they be evenlie and fairely taken. Notwith­standing bicause the foresaid arguments bee [Page 97] as it were the cōmon hackneys of protestants, ever and anone in their mouthes and writings, and haue not been formerly answered by any that I haue seen; and for that the solution of them will serve to answere all that M. Ab­bot hath raked together against the church of Rome in fower paragraffes of this chapter, I will more particularly and fully dissolue them.

I say then first, the argument is mistaken, and doth not conclude that which is in que­stion. the question is not, whether the Roman church bee the Catholike church in vniuer­sall: but whether the Roman church maie bee called the Catholike church, or rather whe­ther it maie bee couched togither in stile with the Catholike church. M. Abbot saith no, the­se bee his words. For the pulling of this vizard from their faces, I noted the absurditie that is em­ploied in that stile, of the Catholike Roman church: for the Catholike church (I saie) is the vniversall church, the Roman church is a particular church, therfore to saie the Catholike Roman church, is all one as to saie, the vniuersall particuler church. This was M. Abbots first argument; and the drift of it was to disprove that stile of ours, the Ca­tholike Roman church. Now in his latter refor­med argument, hee is come to change the tear­mes, and in stead of that, the particular Ro­man church, cannot bee said, called or stiled, the Catholike church: doth bring in his con­clusion, the Roman church is not the Catho­like church: wherin lieth a great fallacy; for [Page 98] as the learned do well know, tranfire a rebus ad voces, v [...]lè contra, à vocibus adres, est agere sophi­stam. hee plaies the part of a sophister, that passeth either from thinges to words, or from words to things. which all protestants doe, when they vse this kind of argument: for the question is about tearmes and a stile of speach: wherfore the conclusion must bee, so it may not bee tearmed, or so it cannot bee stiled; and not passing from the tearme or stile, to con­clude so it is not. here one may well demaund how things can bee so tearmed, if they bee not so in themselves? I answere that it often fal­leth out, that one thing is called by the name of another thing, though it bee not fully out the same. for example, some part maie bee cal­led by the name of whole, though it bee not the whole, as a part of the aire, is called the ai­re: anie part of the water, is called water. A­gainst which if a man should reason as M. Ab­bot doth, no part is the whole, but this is a part of water, therfore it is not the whole; the conclusion might bee graunted him, and yet had hee gotten nothing therby, but the impu­tation of misarguing, and not concluding that which was in question; the question being, whether a part might bee called by the name of the whole, which hee toucheth not: and not whether it were the whole or noe, which on­ly hee disputeth. it fareth even so in the former argument. for the questiō being whether with the Catholike church, might bee linked in the same stile, the church of Rome; hee concludes onlie that the church of Rome is not the Ca­tholike [Page 99] church: which if wee grant him, he were never the nearer: for albeit the church of Rome were not the Catholike church ta­ken in vniuerso, or absolutely: yet may it be called by the name of the whole, and much more, be in stile linked with the whole. first, bicause everie particular church (that keepeth cōmunion of faith and religion with the vni­uersall Catholike church) may bee called and tearmed the Catholike church. which M. Ab­bot himself confesseth,Page 17. and citeth divers good auctours to prooue it: asLeo E­pistola 12. Leo pope of the Ca­tholike church of Rome: Collat. cū donat. cognitio­ne 1. c. 16. Aurelius, Bishop of the Catholike church of Carthage. August. cō [...]rescon. l. 3. c. 13. All the Africane Catholike churches, and so forth. where you see by the ancient stile of approved prelates and Doctors, Catholike Roman, and Catholike Afri­can, and such like may verie well in stile bee ioyned togither, without any feare of being scorned by the vnskilfull, for a particular vni­uersall. The second reason why wee rather ioyne Roman to Catholike, then the name of anie other church, is for that the Romā church in faith and religiō never hath been, nor never shalbee separated from the vniversall Catho­like church, as shalbee here after declared. w­hervpon as they shall ever hold togither in soundnes of faith, so maie they bee alwaies linked togither in veritie of stile. Thirdly, for that wee beleeve (as euery good Christian ought to do, which in this sectiō shal bepro­ued) the Roman church to bee the chief, and as it were the head of the vniuersall church, [Page 100] and therfore the Roman maie rather in stile bee coopled with the vniversall Catholike then anie other. This then is the first fault and that a very foule one. which M. Abbot doth committ in this argument, he doth not con­clude that which is in question, but flitteth away from it and quite changeth the tearmes. wherefore having altered it he doth say vn­truly, that hee hath reduced it into moode and figure; which if he would haue done rightly, thus hee should have framed his ar­gument. No particuler church can bee ioyned in stile with the Catholike church, or can bee called the Catholike church; but the Roman church is a particuler church: Ergo, it cannot bee ioyned in stile or called the Catholike church. If it had been thus reduced into moode and figure, as true scholasticall, and plaine dealing required, it had not had in it anie one good proposition. I haue proved already that the maior is false, because anie particuler church (sound in faith and religion) may bee called the Catholike church, and ioyned in stile with the Catholi­ke: even as well and as truly, as any part of the aire, may bee called the aire. And more spe­cially the churh of Rome, for the priviledges it hath of continuing alwaies in the true faith; and for her superiority in governement. The minor also or second proposition is not vni­versally true. for albeit that church of Rome, that is conteyned within the walls and Dio­cesse of Rome, bee a particuler church: yet the church of Rome in a larger signification, maie [Page 101] bee taken for the whole Catholike church, and designe aswell the true church of fraun­ce, of England, or anie other nation, as that of Italy. which I will demonstrate in the next pa­ragraff. wherfore the minor proposition (w­hich is, but the church of Rome, is a particuler church) is not absolutely true: bicause it may aswell bee taken for the vniversall, as for a par­ticuler church. both the premisses then and former propositions, being subiect to repre­hension, the conclusion must needes bee starke naught. Briefly in that argument wherof the Protestants do make such account, there bee three foule faults. Two bee in it, as they frame it: the first, in that it mistaketh or changeth the tearmes, and in steed of cōcluding the Ro­man church, not to bee called or stiled the Ca­tholike church, they conclude, that it is not the Catholike. The second, in that they take for granted, that the Roman church is onlie a particuler church, when as it may and is of­ten taken for the vniversall. The third fault, will shew it self in the first proposition when the argument comes to bee rightly framed thus. No particuler church can be called or stiled the Catholike church: which is most false. bicau­se every true particuler church may bee called the Catholike church or stiled with the Ca­tholike.

M. Abbots secōd argument being not much vnlike the first may in like manner bee defea­ted, yet more shalbee said of it in the fourth paragraff.

3 Nowe to make good the reasons that I have given, why the church of Rome may bee mo­re speciallie linked with the Catholike in stile, namely, for her superiority in governement; this present paragraff must bee employed. w­here M. Abbot doth what hee can, to in­fringe the same. in the next section it shalbee proued that the Roman church may well si­gnifie the whole Catholike church. in the last sectiō of this chapter, wee shall speake a word or two of M. Abbots later argument.

Concerning the supremacie of the church of Rome, M. Abbot acknowledgeth to belōg vnto that church as it then was, eminency of place, precedēce of honour, authoritie of esti­mation; but no authoritie of power, or supe­riority in government, over any of the rest. w­hich to make good, hee instituteth a long dis­orderly discourse, now carping at that which I said before, in defence of that superioritie of government: then powring forth many argu­ments confusedly, some heere, some there, to disprove the same: so that, I can scarse devise how to range them in anie good order. yet to make the matter as sēsible and perspicuous, as his perplexed proceeding will give mee leave: I will gather into the first place what hee hath scatteringly disputed against the supremacy of the church of Rome, and giue answere to that. Secōdly I will confirme our part. Lastly, I will examine how sufficientlie hee hath answered my former argumēts, made to prove the same. M. Abbots first argumēt against the primacye of the sea of Rome, is taken ab authoritate ne­gative, [Page 103] as schollers do vse to speake, from au­thoritie negatiuelie. which kind of reasoning, though among the protestants it bee holden for currant in matter of faith: yet hee can not be ignorāt, that wee allow not of it; who hold some points of faith to bee deliuered by vnw­ritten tradition: wherfore if hee had not wan­ted iudgment, hee should not so confidentlie haue vsed such kind of arguments against vs.

But let vs heare them such as they be. S. 4 Peter and S. Paul, do make no mention of this su­perioritie of the churh of Rome in their Epistles, ther­fore there is none such: this is a verie vaine and in­sufficient argument, even in the waie of prote­stants. for albeit they would grant, that if the­re were no warrant for it in all the old or new testament, that then it were not to bee credit­ted: yet they would not denie, but that it might bee a matter of faith, though there were no mention made of it in S. Peter, or S. Pauls Epi­stles, so that it bee recorded in anie other part of the scriptures: for all parts of the holy scri­ptures are alike true: wherfore anie thing writ­ten in anie parcell therof, is as well to bee be­leeved, as if it were written in S. Peters or S. Pauls Epistles. But M. Abbot vrgeth in this man­ner: S. Paul writ an Epistle to the Romanes, and therfore hee would not haue omitted that their pri­viledge, if any such had been. I answere that S. Paul writt to the Romans not of all matters, but to instruct them in some importāt poīts of doctrine, and to cōfort them in their tribula­tiōs: which hee might well do, without makīg any mentiō of the priviledges of their church. [Page 104] besides neither M. Abbot not anie man els (I thinke) is able to shewe, that S. Paul in all that Epistle doth so much as once treat of Bishops, or church government: wherfore he had no occasiō ministred to talke of the Roman chur­ches supremacy. Let it for this time suffice, that S. Paul doth els where acknowledg S. Pe­ter for a person of excellency, and his supe­riour: as the holie learned Doctors do gather out of these his words. Then, after three yeeres I came to Hierusalem to see Peter, Gallat. 1.18. and tarried with him fifteene daies. That going vp of S. Paul to Hierusalem to visit S. Peter was not of curio­sity, but of dutie, and by the law of faith, asTertul. de praescrip. cap. 23. Paulus sicut ipse narrat ascendit Hierosolymam cognoscendi Petri causa ex officio, & turc scilicet eius­dem fidei & praedicationis. Tertullian taketh it. S. ChrysostomeChrysostomus superillum locum. Vi les quemad [...]odum illis tribuit congruentem honorem, neque so­lum non ducit scipsum illis melio­rem, verum ne parem quidem esse putat, id quod ex ipsa profectione liquet: non dixit [...]. sed [...]. quomodo loqui solent, quiinvisunt magnas vrbes vel viros sanctos. out of the Energie of the greeke word collecteth, that it was to see and to visit Peter, as a person of ex­cellency and maiestie. And vpon S. IohnsChrysost hom 87. in Ioannem. Petrus os erat Apostolorum, & Princeps, & vertex ipsius coetus, propterea & Paulus eum preter a­lios, visùrus ascendit, simul vt ei ostenderet tam ei fiduciam habendam. Gospell addeth another cause of. that visit to have been, to certifie Saint Peter of his extraordinary cōmis­sion to preach the Gos­pell, that he might bee creditted of the Chri­stians. which Saint Am­brose confirmeth in the­se words: It was meete [Page 105] Ambros in 1 cap. ad Galatas. Dignum fuit vt cuperet videre Petrum, qui primus erat inter Apostolos, cui delegauerat Sal­uator curam ecclesiarum: non vti­que vt aliquid ab eo disceret, quia iam ab auctore didicerit, à quo et ipse Petrus fuerat instructus; sed propter affectum Apostolatus, & vt sciret Petrus illi datam licen­tiam, quam & ipse acceperat. meete that Saint Paul should covett to see S. Peter, who was the chief amonge the Apostles, to whom our Saviour had com̄itted the charge of the churches. Not that hee should learne any thing of him, who had before been instructed of the same maister, that S. Peter was: but for the qualitie of his Apostles­hipp, and that S. Peter might know the same co­mission to bee giuen to S. Paul of preaching which hee had before receiued.Hieronimi Epla 89. Deni (que) tantae authoritatis Pe­trus fuit vt Paulus in Epistola sua scripserit: deinde post annos tres veni Hierosoliman videre Petrum, &c. S. Hierome saith to the same effect. S. Peter was of so great authoritie, that S. Paul writeth hee went to Ierusalem to visit him.Theodoret in 1. ad Galatas. Et hoc rursus Pauli virtutem ostendit: etenim cum humana do­ctrina non indigeret, vt qui ab vniuersorum deo eam ante accepis­set, Apostolorum principi quem par est honorem tribuit. Theodoret thus: w­hen S. Paul needed no in­struction of men, having been taught by the Lord of all, hee nevertheles de­ferred that honor to the ptince of the Apostles w­hich was due.Theophilactus ibidem. Paulus ad Petrum abijt non v­tilitatis gratia sed solo visendi stu­dio, honoranseum maiorem se, & notat ibidem verbum [...] si­gnificare, cum obseruatione intue­ri. Theophi­lact. S. Paul desired to see S. Peter, as a personage greater then himself, and went vp with reuerence to behold him.

By the record of all these ancient fathers S. Paul went vp to Ierusalem to visit S. Peter, as the prince of the Apostles, and as the chief governor of the church: & to acquaint him with his extraordinarie vocation; that having gotten his approbation, hee might without contradiction bee receiued of all others. Now to M. Abbots second argument, which is yet worse then the former. S. Iohn did honour to the seaven churches of Asia, Apoc. 2. & 3. writing to them; and yet hee would never speake of the seaven hills of Rome, but as of the seate of the whore of Babylon. Ergo what you please: a messe of plumme pot­tage if you will, for this pleasant Iester, rather then disputer. hath this sophisme so much as the shadow of a sorie argument? S. Iohn in the 2. and 3. chapters of the reuelations, ma­kes no mention of the church of Romes su­premacy: Ergo there is no such matter in all the scripture. M. Abbot blushing at the vglie shape of this ilfavoured argument, to botch it out, doth adde: that by those seaven churches, a­re figured the whole church of Christ, and yet there is not a word in thē of the supremacie of the church of Rome. I thinke well, nor of thundreth mat­ters moe that belonge to the christian religiō. for these seaven short letters which S. Iohn writes to the seaven churches, are contained within the compasse of three pages of one little leafe in octauo, in their owne bible: and can anie man bee so simple as to dreame, that all the points of our faith are comprehended within them? S. Iohn com̄ends the vertues, & [Page 107] reprehends the vices of those churches; but doth treat of verie few points of doctrine: and therfore no strange case, if hee spake not of the supremacie of the church of Rome.

M. Abbots third argument, the church of Rome hath a speciall caution given her, not to presume vpon her stabilitie in the faith, lest she fall. Rom. 11.20. S. Paul saying to her: Be not high minded but feare: for if God spared not the naturall branches, take heed also lest hee spare not thee. Behold the bounti­fulnes of God towards thee, if thou continue in his boūtifulnes, or els also thou shalt bee cut of. Ergo w­hat: hee had neede to bee a cūning fletcher, that could make either a bolt or a shaft of this, fit for the purpose. First, here is nothing at all a­gainst the church of Romes supremacie, nor yet anie certaine assertion against her stability in the received faith. For here is aswell a pro­mise of Gods bountifulnes towards them, if they will do well: as a threat against them, if they do evill. Againe, all this is besides the cushion: for though that Epistle bee to the Romanes, yet S. Paul there doth expresly di­rect that discourse not to the Romanes in par­ticuler, but in generall to all the Gentiles, be­ginning it thus: for to you Gentils I say, &c. Ibid. v. 13 and goes on with a comparison betweene the Ie­wes and the Gentils: so that nothing is more perspicuous, then that the warning there gi­ven, is not speciall to the Romans, but gene­rall to all Gentiles. These (loe) bee the fore­gallāts (shal I saie) or rather the forlorne ho­pe of M. Abbots terrible argumēts, marshalled [Page 108] by himself in the forefrōt of his batlle, to daūt the Enemy; are wee not like (thinke you) to haue a hott skirmish of it, where such drosse and refuse of arguments, are thought wor­thie the first and best place? but it were pittie that such a bad cause should bee burnished & sett out with anie better.

5 M. Abbot having given such a mighty pus­he at our position, cometh to confute that I said, to witt: that it is deduced out of Gods word rightly vnderstood, according to the interpretation of the ancient fathers, that the church of Rome, is that rock vpon which Christ built his church, against which the ga­tes of hell shall never prevaile. To which M. Abbot as though he went about to choke dawes, saies; that I giue him chalke for cheese; bicause I promised a deduction out of the word of God, and in steed therof, bring an exposition of the ancient fathers. Marke gentle reader my words, and then thou canst not but find M. Abbot to be an egregious wrangler. for I per­formed that deduction which I promised out of Gods word, naming the verie place out of which it is deduced. but because I ioyned with it, (according vnto the exposition of ancient fathers) hee like a man scarse well in his wits cries out, that in steed of scriptures I bring in an exposition of the fathers. when I do make mention of the fathers exposition, not as the ground of my deduction, but onlie for the true sense of those words of holy scripture, out of which I do make the said collection. [Page 109] The deduction in my former booke was verie briefe, bicause I did there point onlie at the places of holie scriptures, out of which it might bee gathered; the question of the su­premacy being there but touched by the way. wherof M. Abbot takes advantage and saies, that I am dumbe, and can say no more: becau­se I will not bee like to him, and out of season thrust forth long discourses of by questions. I hauing also before written a whole chapter of the supremacy, in my second part against M. Perkins: where M. Abbot saw well enough, that I could haue said here much more of the same matter if need had so required. but such is his impudencie, that he cares not what hee saie, so hee maie make a shewe to his simple reader, that hee hath canvased his aduersarie. seeing that M. Abbot hath here hudled toge­ther verie much of that matter, I will more at large sett downe these deductions, and order­lie confirme each member therof. The first fountaine out of which all the rest do flow as riuers, is this. The chief superiority in governmēt, and authoritie of power over all the church, was by our blessed Saviour given to S. Peter, and to his successors vnto the end of the world: but the Bishops of Rome, are S. Peters successors: therfore the Bis­hops of Rome have from our saviours grant and gift authority of power, and superiority of goverment over all the church. The maior of this argument is to bee deduced out of the word of God. the minor being a matter of fact, and that which hapned after S. Peters death, to wit, who was [Page 110] his successor: shall haue sound proofe out of the most approved testimony, of the best witnes­ses since that age. All which being performed, the conclusion, that the Bishop of Rome hath supreme commaunding power over all the church, must needs stand most assured. That our blessed saviour gaue superiority of gover­nment to S. Peter, vnder the metaphore of a rocke or foundation in building when he said, Thou art Peter, Math. 16 and vpon this rocke I will build my church; Thus I proue. Christ made Peter the rock or foundation of his church: therfore he gaue to him the chiefest place of govern­ment in it. for as the foundation is first placed and doth vphold all the rest of the building: so he that is the foundation in the spirituall buil­ding of Christes church, hath the chiefest place therin, & is to com̄and over all the rest. To make this more perspicuous, we must call to mind, that amongest other titles and names of the church of God, one is a house, as the Apostle sheweth: that thou maist knowe how to converse in the house of God, 2. Tim. 3.15. which is the church: and the faithfull are called by the same Apo­stle,1. Cor. 3.9. Ephes. 4.12. the building of God, Dei aedificatio estis. A­gaine God gaue some Apostles, some Doctors, &c. to the building vp of the bodie of Christ. S. Paul as a wise Architect laid the foundation, and others builded thervpon. Now in that super­naturall and heavenly building,1. Cor. 3. though our saviour Christ Iesus bee the chief fundation and corner stone: yet next to himself hee hath placed Saint Peter, and hath vpon him, as [Page 111] vpon a firme rock, builded his church: which is as much to say, as that hee gave him firme and infallible authoritie, vpon which all the faithfull should rely, for finall resolution, in all doubts of faith, religion, and manners, w­hich do necessarily appartayne to the edifying of Christs church. this may serue for a curso­ry exposition of the first fountaine of holy scripture, out of which I derived that our Sa­viour bestowed vpon S. Peter the supreme place of government in his church: a fuller confirmation of it shall follow by and by.

6 I might add for further proof of the same position out of Saint Iohns Gospell, how our blessed Lord severing Saint Peter from the rest of the Apostles, and intimating how S. Peter loved him more then anie of them; gave to him as head pastor, the charge of both his sheepe and lambes, that is, of all Christians, aswell the cleargy as the laity, to bee by him instructed, ruled and governed, as the flock of sheepe is fed and ruled by the shepheard, which according to the ancient doctors testi­monie, doth verie plainly confirme Saint Pe­ters supremacie, as you shall heare presently out of their own wordes. yet this, though it bee most pregnant among the rest, I then o­mitted: because the question of the suprema­cy was not to bee handled there at the full. I touched also a third text to prove that the Bis­hop of Rome, as Saint Peters successor, should never faile in confirming of his bre­thren in the true faith; taken out of Saint [Page 112] Luke. where our Lord saith. Simon, Simon, be­hold, Luca 22. satā hath required to haue you for to sifte as wheate; but I haue praied for thee, that thy faith faile not; and thou once converted, confirme thy brethrē. wher vpon it followeth that all others ought to repaire to him and his successors for resolu­tion of all controversies in faith, to bee con­firmed by him; and are bound therby to obey him as the person, to whom Christ gaue po­wer to confirme his brethren. Of the first text of scripture shalbee treated more at large in this section; for the others I will onlie note some places of the holy fathers, where the reader maie see the very same explication of Christes words and deduction that I make he­re by their auctoritie approved: bicause M. Abbot doth here verie hotly call for such te­stimonies, and seemeth so earnestly sett vpon the sight of them, that I must needes giue him out of hand, at least the quotations of them in the margent, and then (small doubt) but hee will presently bee satisfied, if there bee such honestie in him, as hee makes shew of, well, if it bee no more then for the good rea­ders content, I will giue him more then hee demaūdeth, that is not only the quotations in the margent, but their words also in the text.

Origenes in cap. 6. ad Rom. Petro cum summa rerum de pas­cendis ovibus traderetur, & super ipsum velut super terram, funda­retur ecclesia, nullius confessio vir­tutis alterius ab eo, nisi charitas cuigitur.To begin Origen saith when the church was fo­unded vpon S. Peter and supreme power of fee­ding Christs sheepe was [Page 113] com̄itted to him, the pro­fession of no other vertue then of charitie was de­maunded of him.Cipri. de vnitate eccles. Petro post resurrectionem domi­nus dicit, pasce oves meas: super illum vnum aedificat ecclesiam suam, & illi pascendas mandat, oves suas. S. Ci­prian Christ after his resur­rection said to Peter: feede my sheepe, and vpon him alone doth build his church. In both these sentences are linked two texts of the E­uangelists, that concerne Saint Peters supremacy. Ambros. 10. in Lucam cap. 24. Contristatur quia tertio inter­rogatur, Amas me? i [...] enim in­terrogatur de quo dubitatur: sed dominus non dubitabat, qui in­terrogabat, non vt disceret, sed vt doceret, quem elevandus in caelum amoris sui nobis velut vicarium relinquebat. & paulo post: ideo quia solus profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur. ibidem: tertio dominus non iam diligis me [...]? sed amas me, interrogauit, & iam non agnos vt primo, quodam lacte pascendos; nec oviculas vt secundo, sed oues pascere iube­tur, perfectiores vt perfectior gu­bernaret. Saint Ambrose. Our lord not to learne himself but to teach vs, did aske him, whom hee (being to ascend into heaven) would leave vs as it were the vicar of his loue. for so thou hast: Simon son­ne of Iohn: dost thou loue mee, &c. Peter testified his affection, and therfore bicau­se hee alone made that pro­fes [...]ion, hee is preferred be­fore the rest. and a little after: he is commaunded to feede the sheepe as well as the lambes, that the perfecter sort might be governed by him that was more perfect. behold sheepe and lambes to bee governed by Saint Peter. Chrisost. homil. 1. de peni­tentia. Poenitentia post tantum malum iterum cum ad priorem honorem reuehit, & ecclesiae primatum, gu­bernationém que ipsi per vniuer­sum orbem tradidic. Chrisost. homil 80. in Ioan­nem. Cum magna Christus Petro cōmunicasset & ei orbis terrarum curam demandasset, &c. S. Chrisostome: the prima­cie of the church and the go­vernment [Page 114] throughout the w­hole world is by Christ cō ­mitted to S. Peter. see him also in his last homily vpō S. Iohns Gospell, and in his second booke of prie­sthood. whomTheophil. cap. 21. Ioannis. Totius orbis onium praefecturam Petro committit, non autem alij, sed huic tradit. Theophi lact vpon the same place doth follow saying. Christ granteth to S. Peter and to none els, the government of the church through the whole world.

Leo sermo 3. de assump. De toto mundo vnus Petrus e­ligitur, qui & vniuersarum gen­tium vocationi & omnibus Apo­stolis, [...]unctisque Ecclesiae patri­bu [...] praeponatur: vt quamuis in po­pulo dei mul [...] sacerdotes sint, mul­tiqu [...] pastores; omnes tamen pro­prie regat Petrus, quos principali­ter regit & Christus. S. Leo amonge all the mē of the wo [...]ld onely Peter is cho­sen, who is placed over the Apostles and fathers of the church, and over the voca­tion of the Gentils. And al­beit among the peopl [...] of God there be manie priests and manie Pastors, yet Peter doth rule all them properly, over whom our Sa­viour Christ doth rule principally. observe the rule over all that appertaine to Christ, to be gi­ven by Christ to S. Peter.

Eucherius Lug in vigilia S. Petri. Dicit ei, pasce oves meas: prius agnos, deinde oues cōmisit ei. quia non solum pastorem, sed pastorum pastorem eum constituit. pascit igi­tur Petrus agnos, pascit & oues pascit filios, pascit & matres: re­git & subditos & praelatos: omniū igitur pastor est, quia praeter a­gnos & oues in ecclesia nihil est.Eucherius Archbishop of Lyōs. Christ sayd vnto peter. feed my sheep. first he committed to him his lambes, then his sheep, because he did not onely constitute him a pastor, [Page 115] but the pastor of pastors. therefore Peter doth feed the lambes and the sheep; he feedeth the yonglin­ges and their dammes, he doth gouerne the subiectes and the Prelates. wherefore he is pa­stor of all, because besides lambes and sheep, there is nothing in the church.

Gregorius lib. 4. Epist. 32. Cunctis ergo Euangelium scien­tibus liquet, quod voce dominica, sancto & omnium Apostolorum principi Petro Apostolo, totius Ec­clesiae cura cōmissa est. ipsi quippe dicitur Petro, amas me? pasce o­ues meas: ipsi dicitur, ecce Satanas expetiuit cribarevos sicut triticum, & ego pro te rogavi Petre vt non deficiat fides tua, &c.Gregory the great. it is manifest to all that know the Gospell, that the char­ge of the whole church, was by our lords voice cōmit­ted, to holy S. Peter prince of all the Apostles. for to him it was said: Peter, dost thou loue mee? feede my she­epe. to him it was said; be­hold Satan hath desired to sift you as wheate. And I haue praied for thee Peter, that thy faith shall not faile: and thou once converted confirme thy bre­thren.

In which passage you see that other place of S. Luke emploied to esta­blish the supremacie. w­hichLeo ser: 3. ass: Commune erat omnibus Apo­stolis periculum de tētatione formi­dinis, & diuinae protectionis auxi­lio pariter indigebant, &c. & tamen specialis a domino Petri cura suscipitur & pro fide Patri proprie supplicatur, tanquam a­liorum status certior sit futurus, si mens principis victa non fue­rit. S. Leo also doth in the forealleaged place in these words. Our lord to­oke speciall care of Peter, and for the faith of Peter did hee praie peculiarly: for the state of others should become more certaine, [Page 116] if the mind of the Prince were not ouercome. And after a litle. Christ made Peter prince of the whole church. S. Chrisostome vnderstood the supre­macy to bee given to S. Peter in the same words, when hee thus reasoneth.

Chrisostom. in 3. act. Apo­stolorum. Quam est feruidus? quam agnoscit creditum a Christo gre­gom? quam in choro princeps est, & obique primus onnium incipit loqui? Behold the fervour of S. Peter how well did hee know the charge of the flocke to bee committed to him by Christ? how well doth hee shew him­self the prince of that com­pany? and doth alwaies speake first: marke the reason. for to him had Christ said: And thou once conuerted confirme thy brethren. In like mannerAmbros. in Psalm: 43. Deni (que) Petrus ecclesia praeponi­tu [...] postquam tentatus a diabolo est adeoque ante significat dominus quid est illud quod postea cum pa­storem elegit dominici gregis, nam huic dixit: tu autem conuersus cō ­firma fratres tuos, &c. S. Ambrose. Peter is made President of the church; Christ did signifie before w­hat hee meant by that, that hee chose him pastor of our Lords stocke: for to him hee said, thou being conuerted confirme thy brethren. So dothTheophil in c. 22. Lu [...]ae. Tu conuersus: planus huius loci intellectus est, quia te habeo vt principem discipulorum, post­quam me abnegato, fleueris, & ad panit [...]ntiam veneris, confirma cet [...]r [...], hoc enim tedecet, qui post [...] petra es et firmamen­tum. Theophilact. the plaine sense of this place is: bicause I esteeme of thee, as of the prince of my disciples, after that thou (having den­ied mee) shalt wepe, and come to repentance, do thou confirme the rest: for that be­cometh thee, who after mee art the rock and foundation of the church.

These texts of holie Scriptures, and testi­monies of ancient fathers (to omitt manie o­thers) I deliuer by the way, in confirmation of S. Peters primacy, to giue M. Abbot a pro­of, that I could haue said more for that cause, then I said in my former booke: where I did passe over that point speedely, as scarse belon­ging to the question then in hand.

7 Now I returne to that text recorded in S. Mathew. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke will I build my church: vpon which wee must stād the longer, bicause M. Abbot doth saie what hee could devise, against the true sense of it. by it therfore I will prove according to my former deduction, first that the primacy was giuē to S. Peter: and afterward shew that it is deriued to the popes of Rome his successors. M. Abbot confesseth that the fathers someti­mes take Peter to bee that rocke, vpon which Christ built his church; but avoucheth that none ever said that the church of Rome was the rocke, yea addes very groslie, that I be­lie the fathers, and father that on them which they never meant, when I saie, that they out of that text gathered the Pope of Romes su­premacie, how audaciously and vntruly this is spoken shall appeare, assoone as I haue dis­patched the former part, about S. Peter him­self. Let it therfore bee first duly considered, what a worthie company of the auncient re­nowmed fathers, both Greek and Latin do interprete S. Peter to bee that rocke, vpon w­hich our blessed saviour built his church, and [Page 118] therwith gaue him power & authority to go­uern the same: that no man maie doubt that to be the true literall sence first intended; though secundarily, it may admitt other con­structions. I will begin with that famous Clarke Origen, who is one of the auncienst amongst the Greekes, that hath written co­mentaries vpon the Testament: he stilethOrigin. homil. 5. in Exodum. Vide magno illi ecclesiae funda­mento, & Petrae solidissimae, super quam Christus fundauit ecclesiam quid dicatur a domino, modicae in­quit fides, quaro dubitasti? S. Peter the great founda­tion of the church, and most sound rocke vpon which Christ built his church. Hi­politus,Hipolit de constructione mundi Princeps Petrus, fidei petra, quem beatum iadicauit Christus deus nost [...]r, ille doctor ecclesiae, ille primus discipulorum, qui re­gus claues habuit, &c. Peter the prince, the rocke of faith, the Do­ctour of the church, the chief of the Apostles whom our lord pronoūced to bee blessed. EusebiusEusebius lib. 6. historiae. 19. resert ex Origine. Petrus super quem Christi ec­clesia (contra quam [...]nferorum p [...]rtae non praeualebunt) aedificata est, &c. reciteth these words: Peter vpon whom was built the church of Christ, against which hel ga­tes shall not prevaile. Epiphan in Ancorato non longe a principio. Ipse dominus constituit Petrum primum Apostolorum, petram fir­mam super quam ecclesia dei aedificata est, & portae inferorum non prae­praeualebunt aduersus illam. Epi­phanius. Our lord made Peter the chiefe of the Apo­stles a firme rock vpon which hee built his church.

Basilius super 2. cap. Esaiae. Apost [...]loram vnus erat Petrus, super quam petram pollicitus fue­rat s [...]am se aedificaturum ecclesiam & statim: anima autem beati Petri nominata merito est petra sublimis, quod in [...] de radices soli­de infixerat, & aduersus plagas stabiliter segesserit.S. Basil. One of these Apo­stl [...]s or mountaines was Peter vpon which rock our saviour promised to build his church [Page 119] for the soule of Blessed peter was worthely called a rocke, for the fastnes of his faith, and fortitude against tribu­lations &c. Gregor. Nazianz oratione 26 de moderatione in disputa­tione seruanda. Vide quemadmodum ex Chri­sti discipulus, magnis vtique omni­bus & excelsis, atque electione dign [...], hic Petrus petra vocetur, at (que) ecclesiae fundamenta in fidem suam accipiat S. Gregorie Nazianzene, thous [...]est how among Chr [...]sts disciples, who were all surelie great worthie p [...]rsons, Peter was called a rocke: and the foundation of the church cōmitted to his fi­delitie. Chrisost. de laudibus Petri & Pauli. De Petro quid dicemus, qui dulce spectaculum est ecclesiae, splendortotius mudi, Apostolorum doctor, Angelus & homo, firma fidei petra, semlu ecclesiae sapien­tia, &c Idem homil. 1. de penit. Petrum cum dico, petram omni­no infragilem, crepidinem immo­bilem, Apostolum magnum, pri­mum discipulum, &c. S. Chrysostome Peter the br [...]ghtnes of all the world, an Angel and a man, the Doctor of the Apostles, the firme rocke of faith, the grace and sage wisedome of the church &c. and in an other place, when I say Pe­ter, I name a rocke that can­not bee battered, an vnmo­veable turrett. CirillCirill. Alexand. l. 2. c. 12. in Ioannem. Respicit vt deum decet qui cor­da & renes scrutatur, videtque qui nihil ignorat, ad quantam & fidem & virtutem discipulus per­uenturus sit, &c. nec Simon fore tam nomen sibi, sed Petrus, pradi­cit, vocabulo ipso commode signifi­cans, quod in eo, tanquam in l'e­tra, lapideque firmissimo, suam esset adificaturus ecclesiam. Alex. Christ did heerby teach Pe­ter, that hee knoweth all things before they be done, & did tell him before hand that his name should not bee Si­mon, but Peter (whi [...]h is in­terpreted a rocke) by the na­me it self fitly signifying, that vpon him as vpon a rocke, and most firme stone he would build his church. [Page 120] Theodoretus libro 3.Psellus apud Theodoretum lib 3 in Cantica. Per hutus crura Petrum intellige Apostolorum principem, in hoc e­nim dominus in Euangelio, se Ec­clesiam adificaturum promisit. in Cantica doth out of an­cient Psellus teach, that our lord, promised to build his church vpon S. Peter Prince of the Apostles. Evagtius in lib 2. histor ca 4. Petrus, qui est petra, et basis Ca­tholicae Ecclesiae, et fides Orthodo­xae fundamentum, resert ex Con­cilio Chalcedonensi. E­vagrius: the most blessed A­postle Peter, with all praise to bee extolled, who is the rocke, the base and founda­tion of the Catholike Ortho­dox faith. Damascen. historia barlam. cap. 10. Princeps Apostolorum Petrus, fi­dei petra, magister orbis ordinatus fuit. Damascenus, the Prince of the Apostles Peter, the rocke of faith, who as hee was made maister of the whole world, so was hee a patterne of penance. Theophilactus in 22. Lucae: & ad cap 16. Math. Remunerat Petrum Dominus, mercedem illi dans magnā, quod super eum aedificauit Ecclesiam. The­ophilact before cited, Pe­ter after Christ is the rock and fondat [...]on of the church. and vpon Saint Mathew: saying, our lord rewarded peter, bestowing on him a great recompense in that he built his church vpon him.

Let these twelve renowmed Grecians serve for the testimony of the Greeke church: now to the Latin, I will begin withTe [...]tul. de praescriptione c. 22. Latuit aliquid Petrum adificandae E [...]clesia Petram dictum, claves regni coelorum consecutum? Tertullian for his antiquitie. Peter was called the rocke, vpon which the church was to bee builded. Cyprianus. Deus vnu [...]ed & Christus vnus, et vna ecclesia, et Cathedra vna super Petrum Domini voce fun­data epist. 40. Petrus supra quem aedificata ab eodem domino fuerat ecclesia, epi­stola 55. Loquitur hic Petrus super quem aedificata fuit ecclesia epist 69. Petrus, quem primum dominus elegit, et super quem aedificavit ec­clesiam suam, etc epist 71. S. Ciprian, Our lord cho­se Peter to bee the chief, vpon [Page 121] whom hee built his church. which hee repeateth verie often. Ambrosius serm. 2. de sanctis. Petrus pro soliditate devotionis ecclesiarum petra dicitur, sicut ait dominus: Tu [...] Petrus, & super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. petra enim dicitur, eo quod primus in nationibus fidei funda­menta posuerit: & tanquam sa­xum immobile operis totius Christiani compagem molemque contineat, recte confortium meretur nominis, qui consortium meretur et operis. S. Ambrose. Peter for the soundnes of his deuo­tion, is called a rocke, as our lord doth saie, Thou art Pe­ter, and vpon this rock I will build my church, he is called a rocke for that he first laid the foundation of faith amonge the Gentiles, and li­ke vnto an vnmoveable sto­ne, doth vphold and contei­ne the frame and waight of the whole christian worke. Hilar. in Psal. 131. Petrus super quem Ecclesiam aedi­ficaturus erat, adversus quam por­tae inferorum nihil praualerent. Idem in can. 16. in Mathaeum. O in nuncupatione novi nominis faelix ecclesiae fundamentum. Hieronim in 2. Esaiae. Vnde & super vnum montium Christus fundavit ecclesiam suam, & loquitur ad eum Tu [...]es Petrus, & super hanc petram aedific [...]ho ec­clesiam meam. Idem in 16. Matthaei. Simoni, qui credebat in petram Christum, Petri largitus est no­men, ac secundum Metapho [...]m petrae, recte deitur ei, aedificabo ec­clesiam meam superto. S. Hilary. vpon peter our lord was to build his church and in another place; o happie foundation of the church i [...] the imposition of a new name, a rock wor­thie that building, that should dissolue the lawes of hell. Hierome in 2. Esaiae. Christ built his church vpon one of the mountaines, saying to him; Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke will I build my church. Agai [...] accor­ding to the Metaphore of a rocke, it was rightly said to [Page 122] Peter, vpon thee will I build my church; which hee doth confirme expresly in diuers other pla­ces.August. in Psal. 69. Petrus qui paulo ante eum confes­sus erat filium dei, & in [...]lla con­fessione appellatus est petra, super quam labricaretur ecclesia. Paulinus epistola 4. ad seue­rum. Christus est petra: sed etiam discipulo suo buius vocabuli gra­tiam non negauit, dicens illi: super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam: & portae inferi non praeua­lebunt aduersus eam. S. Augustin. Peter did confess [...] Christ to bee the son­ne of God: and in that con­fession was called a rocke, v­pon the which Christ was to build his church. Paulinus. Christ is the rock and yet he denied not the grace of this name to his disciple (peter) saying to him: vpō this rock I will build my church: and the gates of hell, shall not preuaile against it. Petrus Chrisologus. Pe­ter is the keeper of the faith, Petrus Chrysolog. serm 107. Petrus est custos fidei, petra eccle­siae [...]anitorque coelorum. Leo hom. de transfigurat. Tantum in hac fidei sublimitate com [...]la [...]rit, vt beatitudinis faelici­tate donatus, sa [...]rae [...]nviolabilis Pe­trae acciperet firmitatem, supra quam fundata Ecclesia, portis in­feri & [...]ortis legibus pra [...] aleret. the rock of the church, the porter of the heauens. Leo the great. Peter did so much please [...]n the sublimity of this faith, that hee being rewar­ded with the felicitie of blesse­dnes, receiued the holie [...]oūd­nes of an inuiolable rocke, vpon which the church being founded, doth preuaile against hell & the lawes of death. Gregor. lib 6. regi [...] epist 37. Quis enim nescit sanctam eccle­s [...]am [...]n Apostolorum principu so­lid [...]tate firmatam? qui firmitatem mentu traxit in nomine, vt Petrus à [...]tra [...] [...]retur. Gregory the gre­at: who knoweth not the ho­ly church to be setled in the soundnes of the prince of the Apostles: because hee, in his name hath drawen firmeness of mynd, that of a ro­ [...]ke was named Peter. S. Isidore, Simon Peter, the sonne of Iohn, Isidor. de vita sanctorum. cap. 69. Simon Petrus filius Ioannis, frater Andreae, Apostolorum princeps est, pastor humani gregu, petra eccle­siae, Clavicularius regni. &c. Idem de officijs eccles. lib. 2. cap. 5. In novo testamento post Christum sacerdotalis ordo à Petro Apostolo caepit: ipsi enim primus pontificatus datus est in ecclesia Christi. Sic e­nim loquitur ad eum dominus: Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram a­dificabo ecclesiam meam, &c. Prosper de vocatione gen­tium. l. 2. cap. 28. Quis ergo ambigat, quis ignorat, hanc fortissimam petram, Petrum, (qui ab illa principali petra com­munionem & virtutis sumpsit & nominis) hoc desiderium habuisse, &c. the bro­ther [Page 123] of Andrew, is prīce of the Apostles, pastor of the flocke of mē, the rocke of the church. Againe, in the newe te­stament, priestly order af­ter Christ began of S. Pe­ter, for to him was giuen the chiefest byshoprick in the church of Christ. for thus doth our lord speak vnto him. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rock I will build my church. Prosper. who can doubt that this most valiant rocke Peter, (who received of that prin­cipall rocke Christ participa­tion both of name and vertue) had alwaies a bur­ning desire to die constantly for Christ. Maximus: this is Peter,Maximus sermone. 51. de Petro & Paulo. Hic est Petrus, cui dominus com­munionem sui nominis libenter in­dulsit: vt enim sicut Apostolus Paulus edocuit, Petra erat Chri­stus, ita per Christum Petrus fa­ctus est petra: dicente ei domino: tu es Petrus, & supra hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. to whom our lord fauorably gaue the felowship of his own name. for as the Apostle S. Paul teacheth, Christ was the rock: euen so by Christ, Peter was made the rock, our lord saying vnto him. thou art Peter, and vpon this rock, will I build my church.

Lower I will not descend. for these La­tin fathers doe suffice to certifie any reaso­nable reader, that this was the common opi­nion of the most approved writers in the west [Page 124] church. which being linkt vnto the other do­zen of most renowmed Grecians, all famous Authors, and for the greater part, the most godly, and best learned prelates of most Christian nations of the world.

These (I say) such excellent qualified perso­nages, the masters and mirrours of Christian Religion, with one consent agreeing, that our Saviour Christ Iesus did cōmunicate his owne name of Rocke vnto S. Peter, and vpon him as vpon a most sound rocke built his church: by which (as they vnderstood it) he gave vnto him the Charge over the whole church, to governe and rule it, as chief pastor therof; to containe and vphold the whole frame of that heavenly building, and holy howse of God, next vnto Christ, the principall foundation, and head cornerstone. All this and much mo­re they (whom both Catholikes and Prote­stants hold for the best learned, and most wor­thy prelates of Christes church) teaching so plainly, what Christian hart (that hath anie sparke of godlines or any care of embracing the trueth, when it is shewed him) had not ra­ther believe and follow their Iudgment the­rin, then the new opinions of late writers, par­tially pleading for their owne fancies? special­ly if they please to consider, what weake rea­sons they alleage, to delude that comon expo­sition of the ancient fa [...]hers: Amonge which these as principall M. Abbot hath heere made choice of.

8 The first is, that Christ is the rocke, vpon which [Page 125] hee built his church, vpon this that thou hast confessed (saith saint Austin) and acknowled­ged, that is, vpon my self, I will build my church. I Answer out of the fathers befo­re rehearsed that both be true: Christ is the rock, and yet he gaue the same name and title to S. Peter, as both S Hierome, Paulinus, Pros­per, and Maximus abouecited do testify. with whomAmbrosi. l. 6. in Lucam cap. 9. Tertul. l. 4. Co. Marcio. c. 13. Christus chariss. discipulo nomen communicauit suum. S. Ambrose doth agree, affirming our Sa­viour to haue communi­cated most of his titles to his disciples,S. Basil. homil. 29. ex varijs ad populum, de poenitentia. Licet Petrus sit petra, non tamen sicut Christus, nam Christus vere est immobilis petra: Petrus vero propter petram, axiomata namque sua, Iesus largitur alijs, non eva­cuatus, sed nihilominus habens. lu [...]e est: vos estis lux mundi inquit. Sa­cerdos est, & facit Sacerdotes, pe­tra est, & petram facit. qua sua sunt largitur seruis suis, argumen­tum hoc est opulenti. and in parti­culer to S. Peter, that of a Rock. and so doth Tertul­lian. to whom S. Basil ad­deth: Christ is the rock, and Peter is the rock, Christ an vnmoveable rocke of him­self, But Peter through Christ. Christ (saith this great doctour) imparts his dignities vnto others, without depriving him­self of them, hee is the light of the world, yet saies to his Apostles, yee are the light of the world; hee is the priest, and hee maketh priests: hee is the rocke, and hee maketh a rocke, with whom accordeth S. Leo saying; I am (saith our Saviour) a rocke, S. Leo 3. assump suae. Cum ego sim inuiolabilis Petrae ego lapis angularis qui facio vtra (que) vnum. Tamen tu quoque Pe­tra es, quia mea virtute solidaris; vt quae mihi potestate s [...]nt propria, sint tibi mecum participatione communia. yet thou (Peter) art also a rocke, bicause that thou shalt bee made sound by my vertue. & these things [Page 126] which are proper to mee by power, shall by participation bee comunicated to thee. so that argument of M. Abbots is nothing worth. for albeit our Sa­viour Christ bee the rocke in a farre more e­minent and excellent manner, (as hee that vpholdeth all the church from the beginning of the world vnto the latter end; and is by his owne merite and power vnmoueable; yea hee is the builder of the same church; and out of his side the same Church is builded, as Eve was out of one of Adams ribbes;) yet it followeth not therof, but that S. Peter maie bee the roc­ke chosen by Christ, to bee his vicegerent, & chief governor of his Church vnder him; by the soundnes of his faith, made fitt to confir­me all others, that shall haue anie doubt ther about. like as in the state of the old testament, Notwithstanding Christ was the head corner stone therof: yet there was one high priest, that had vnder him supreme authoritie ouer all the rest, and soveraigne power to determi­ne all doubts arising about their lawe. Albeit our Saviour bee the rocke, vpon which the church is built in a most peereles manner: yet that those words of his (vpon this rocke I will build my church) were not meant of himselfe, but of S. Peter, is most evident first, by the v­niforme consent of all the auncient fathers, both Greeke and Latin before rehersed. true it is thatAugu­stin l 1. retract c. 21. [...]arum autem duarum sententiarum, quae sit probabilior, eligat lector. S. Austin sometimes applies them, [Page 127] both to Chr st, and to S. Peter: and leaues to the readers choise, whether he will take. w­hich choise is easie to bee made, when S. Au­gustin with all the rest before recited, stand cleerly for S. Peter; and hee alone maketh so­me doubt of it. more ouer, all the circumstan­ces of the text bee on the other fathers side. first, the words next before are plainly addres­sed to S. Peter. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke, will I build my church. Againe in the lan­guage which our Saviour spake, it is so cleere, that there can bee no doubt of it: for it is: thou art Cephas, that is a stone, and vpon this stone I will build my church: the verie same word without anie alteration, being vsed in both places. Besides, these words contayne a reward bestowed vpon Saint Peter for the sincere confession of that high misterie of faith; as the auncient fathers do testifie with S. Hierom vpon that place,Hieron. in c. 16. Math. Hilarius can. 16. in Math. Confessio Petri prae­mium cō ­secuta est. Theo­phila. in c. 16. Math. Maxi­mus vbi supra. Mercedem recepit vera confessio, the true confes­sion of S. Peter received due reward. but it had been no recompense of Peters confession, for Christ to haue built his church vpon himself. doth it not in very cōmon sense seeme verie harsh, for our Saviour to pretend a great fa­vour to Peter, as to say to him, Happy art thou Peter &c: And I saie to thee, thou art Pe­ter: and in fine, to fall from Peter to himself, and saie; vpon my self I will build my church? Lastly the church being vnderstood to bee built vpon Peter, the reason is declared why our Saviour changed the name Simon into [Page 128] Peter, as if he had said I gave thee the name Peter, that doth signifie a rocke. because that vpon thee, as vpon a rocke, I will build my church. As God said to Abraham, thou shalt bee called Abraham (that is say, father of ma­ny people) Quia patrem multarum Gentium con­stituite, bicause I haue appointed thee the fa­ther of many nations: All this by the waie, to shew the true literall sence of that text to bee the verie same, which the Orthodoxe fathers have vniformally deliuered.

M. Abbots second obiection against the fathers interpretation is this: Christ built his church vpon the true faith and confession of Peter, therfore not vpon Peter. which doth not fol­low: for the true faith and confession of Christ being in S. Peter; if Christ built his church v­pon them, hee did withall ioinctly buile it v­pon him, in whom they were, for the further explication of this difficultie, it is to bee vn­derstood, that the church being a congrega­tion of men, it is to bee ruled by men: who indeed are to be chosen rulers therof, for the excellent qualities of faith, constancy, and charitie. for example, to rule the temporall state, tēporall Magistrates are chosen, indued with wisdome, Iustice, fortitude, and other vertues, that make men fitt to governe. but to speake properly, not the vertues, which bee accidentall qualities, but the men so qua­lified, bee governors: A Iudge is chosen for his sound skill in the lawes, & for his vpright conscience in the administration of Iustice. A [Page 129] Bishop for his deepe knowledg in Diuinitie, for his wisdome in governing, and holines of life: yet not these vertues, but those persons, bee this the Iudge; that the Bishop. S. Peter for the soundnes of his faith, and for the inuincible valour of his mind, asBasil. ad cap. 2. 2. Esa. S. Basil writeth: and for the fervour of his charitie and devotion, asAmbr. serm. 2. de sanctis S. Ambrose noteth, was by our Saviour chosen to bee the supreme pastor of his church, and chief Governor in Ecclesiasticall affaires, which is the same in ef­fect, thatChris. hom. 56. in Matth. S. Chrisostome andTheod. in cant. l. 2. Theodorete by M. Abbot alleaged do saie, vpon this faith and confession, that is, in respect of those ver­tues, which were eminent in S. Peter, I build my church on him. for they both do teach the church to be builded vpō S. Peter; but would haue vs to knowe, that that great dignity was not bestowed on him, vpon meere affection to his person, but in regard of those his excellent and worthy qualities. whence it doth not fol­low, that whosoever hath the like qualities, shall haue the same dignitie; vnles they also bee thervnto lawfullie called and chosen, as S. Peter was by our Saviour. No more then it doth follow, that all they shalbe made Bishops or Iudges who haue the vertues requisite for Bishops and Iudges. Now to that taken out ofAmbr. ad Ephes. cap. 2. S. Ambrose; vpon this rocke will I build my church, that is, in this confession of the Catholike faith, will I establish the faithfull to life. I ans­were first that M. Abbot hath clipped of the former part of S. Ambrose wordes, in which [Page 130] hee saith, that our Saviour did declare S. Peter to bee the foundation of his church, in that he built his church vpon him, when he said to him, Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke will I build my church. these wordes would haue marred M. Abbots market, therefore he did wisely, to ouerskip them. now that which followeth, may serve rather to confirme our opinion, then make anie whit for theirs, for thus it may bee vn­derstood: Saint Peter for that his confession of faith, received power and vertue from Christ to confirme others in the faith, the­reby to establish them to life. And so by that confession of faith made by Saint Pe­ter, the faithfull are established to life. A­gaine Saint Ambrose (who elswhere often, and in that verie place teacheth S. Peter to bee that rocke vpon which the church was built) might make a secondarie good morall construction of those wordes, teaching every man to believe as Saint Peter did, and to ma­ke the like confession of their faith, that they might be setled in the right way to life ever­lasting which moralization of Christs words doth not crosse, but suppose the true litte­rall sence, to bee as before you haue heard out of Saint Ambrose with the vniforme consent of other fathers. To that which followeth in the same Author: these words of the Apostle, in him all the building is coopled together &c. are the sense and meaning of that which our lord said: vpon this rocke I will build my church. I answer there is a cunning tricke vsed [Page 131] in cutting of the Apostles wordes in the mid­dest with an &c: and making that to be the exposition of the first part of the sentence, which Sainct Ambrose makes the interpreta­tion of the last, as may appeare vnto him, that will see the place. for his reason is, fideles enim sunt superficies templi dei, &c. for the faith­full of holy conversation, bee the walls or over parts of that temple of God. which suteth well with the latter end of Saint Pauls sentence, which is, in whom you also are built togither into an habita­tion of God in the holy Ghost: in brief S. Ambro­se meaning in that place is no other, then that the Apostle vsed the same Metaphore of building, which our Saviour did when he said, Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke, I will build my Church. Of which spirituall building the faithfull are the over partes, the Apostles the foundations, amōg whom S. Pe­ter is the rocke, and Christ the head corner stone, that closeth all togeather, and beareth vp both peoples, aswell those that went afore as those that came after his incarnation.

M. Abbots fourth obiection: Epla Iu­uenalis [...]t Epist pal. in Apen­dice Con­cil: Chol­ced: the whole num­ber of the Bishops of Palaestina in the councell of Chalcedon, vnderstood Christs words so: vpon this confession, the church of God is confirmed and strengthened.

ANSWERE. THat whole number I find to bee but two or three, and they not in the councell nei­ther, nor during the time of that councell: but after they came home from the councel. and their meaning is plaine for vs. They ha­ving been att the councell of Chalcedon, and there heard and saw, how Discorus patriarch of Alexandria was for his heresie and obsti­nacie censured and condemned, by the senten­ce of Leo the great Bishop of Rome, did cer­tifie all them that were vnder their charge, that the church of God was confirmed and streng­thned, by the confession and declaration of the Bishop of Rome S. Peters successor: and how in him was verified that sentence of our Saviour, vpon this rocke I will build my church: and that other also, Thou being conuerted, confirme and strengthen thy brethren. which is all as direct for vs as can bee. besides, what other pregnant proofe there is in that generall co­uncell for S. Peters supremacy, and that the Bishop of Rome is his successor in the same supreme authoritie, shalbee heerafter decla­red more at large.

Out of these former arguments M. Abbot maketh this inference; that by the exposition of the ancient fathers it maie appeare that Christ, euē the true faith of Christ, (for Christ is nothing to v [...] but by faith) is the true rocke, whervpon the church is builded. to which S. Iohn accordeth. This is the victorie, that over cometh the world, even our [Page 133] faith; for who is hee that overcometh the world, but hee that believeth that Iesus is the sonne of God. w­hat is this (good Sir) to the presēt purpose of the popes supremacie? though faith in some good sense may bee called a rocke, bicause it is the foundation and ground worke of all other Christian vertues: yet how doth it follow the­rof, that S. Peter is not that rocke, vpon w­hich it pleased Christ to build his church? w­hat, because ther is an order in the frame of a vertuous life, must it needes ther vpon ensue, that there is no order in the government of Christs Church? is not this a very strange inference? For the clearer explication of this doubt, [...]t this distinction bee observed: the building of Christs church as it is like to a kingdome, differeth much from the building of a spirituall temple vnto the holie Ghost in our soules. to the first kind of building belōg subiects and magistrates, Bishops, Archbis­hops and so forth, the highest wherof vnder Christ was S. Peter. To the other inward buil­ding concurre all such divine graces and qua­lities that serue for the reformation of our soule, as faith, hope, Charitie, humilitie, and such like. among which vertues, faith in Christ Iesus, is at it were the fundamentall stone. to the argument then this is the answere, that albeit faith in Christ be as it were the rocke and foundation of all Christian vertues: yet that is no let, but that in the order of Chri­stian magistrates, S. Peter may be the rock, and haue the chief commaunding power gi­uen [Page 134] to him, and to his successors the Bishops of Rome. purity of faith, boldnes of confes­sion, fervour of Charitie (rare gifts of God bestowed on S. Peter) were the principall dis­positions in him to that other high dignitie and authoritie: but the authoritie it self of go­vernment was not bestowed on those ver­tues, but vpon the person of Saint Peter: though in regard of the same divine qualities.

After these arguments M. Abbot inferreth; that if Christ bee the rocke properly and truly, Saint Peter cannot bee the rocke, but accidently and vnproperly, in respect of his doctrine and example of saith, vttered in his confession: As Abraham is the rocke from wh [...]nce wee are hewed so is Peter the rock wheron wee are built; not that either of them conferreth any thing to vs, but only for that they stād before vs for patterns of imitation.

I answer that he should rather haue made this inference: bicause Christ is the rocke of the Church most properly: therfore S. Peter is the rocke therof also properly. both for that Christ made him the rocke, who ma­keth all things well and properly: and also because the properties of a rocke, do fitlie a­gree to S. Peter: that is, to bee constant and fir­me in the faith; to strengthen and vphold o­thers, as hath been before declared. To ima­gine Saint Peter to bee called a rocke, because hee is a patterne of imitation, is as dull and blockish, as to call a duske darke stone, a cle­ere looking glasse. Abraham was more pro­perly by the prophet called though in another [Page 135] sense, a rocke, out of which the Iewes were hewen and a pitt out of which they were digged; bicause all the Israëlites descended out of his loynes, as stones are hewen or digged out of a rock.

10 M. Abbot not being able to disprove S. Peter to bee the rocke, bicause our Saviour Christ alone is the rocke, turnes himself on the other side and will needes prove that all the Apostles were rockes, and Peter therin not to haue beē alone, but that as hee spake in the person of all the Apostles; so Christes wor­des returned in answere to Peter, should ap­pertaine to them all. for saies hee, Saint Au­stin affirmeth, that Peter answe [...]ed for all, Aug. in psal. 8 [...]. one for vnitie. And Hierome by the words here spoken to Peter concludeth:Hieron. in Amos l 3 c. 6. that Chr [...]st the roc­ke, gave not to one only Apostle, but to his Apostles, that they also should bee called rockes. And in like sort Origen conceiueth when he saith.Orig in Math. c. 16. If thou thinke that the church was built vpon Peter only, what wilt thou saie to Ioh [...] the sonne of thun­der, and to every of the Apostles, &c. wee must rather say that in all and ev [...]rie one of th [...]m is ve­rified, vpon this rocke I will build my church. and in a word hee reasoneth thus: bicause that which followeth after; I will giue to th [...]e the Keies of the knigdome of h [...]aven, is co [...]on to them all: therfore that going before, is also cōmon to them all. and this the scripture confirmeth, in that it saith;Ephes. 2.20. the houshold of God are builded not vpon the foundatiō of Peter only, but vpon the founda­tions of the Apostles and Prophets. Reuel [...]t. 21.14. And not Peter onlie, but the lambes twelve Apostles, haue their [Page 136] names written in the twelue foundations of the Citie of God. hitherto M. Abbot.

Doth not this great inconstancie in answe­ring, argue plainly that there is no setled so­undnesse in the protestants doctrine, but that they are caried about with the wind? Before you heard that no other bodie saving Christ alone, could bee that rock; and to make that good M. Abbot was verie earnest there: now the wind blowing in an other dore, not only Peter is the rocke, but all the Apostles aswell as hee, yea and euerie Christian man too is a rock, as you shall heare heereafter. And all this to make men beleeve, that it is but an ordinary matter to bee that rocke, vpon which Christ built his Church. wee that hold it to bee one of the greatest priviledges that could bee grā ­ted to a mortall man, do notwithstanding graunt, that the Apostles may be called rockes as they are called foundations, after a certaine proportion; that is, as S. Peter was the fun­damentall rock, placed next vnto our Saviour over the whole Church: So the Apostles we­re constituted principall pillers or rockes of certaine countries, laying the foundation of Christian religion in them, by preaching the Gospell, and by ruling the severall flockes cō ­mitted to their charges. As Metropolitans & primates may bee said to bee the rockes and foundations of Christian religion in their provinces, bicause they do principally commaund over all Ecclesiasticall persons therin; and do keepe all vnder them in [Page 137] vnitie of faith; In like manner to preserve all Christian countries in the said vnitie of faith and vniformitie of religion; there ought to bee one supreme pastor over all the world; who first was S. Peter, and ever since have been his lawfull Successors, the Bishops of Rome. All this is good doctrine, but to saie that these words in S. Mathew. were spoken aswell to the rest of the Apostles as to S. Peter, which M. Abbot would faine haue his reader believe, is flatt against the evidence of the ve­rie text. For S. Peter is there severed from the rest by all circumstances that can bee devised in so few words. first by his owne proper na­me: for our Saviour said to him, happie art thou Simon. then by the name of his father: the son­ne of Ionas. thirdly by mention of a speciall revelation made to him: for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee. fourthly by expresse direction of this speech to him: I say to thee, (not to all the Apostles) thou art Peter; none of the rest were so called. Out of which it doth ensue most cleerly, that the words immediatly following (and vpon this rocke I will build my church) were particulerly spoken to S. Peter, and not to any other of the Apostles. To the others afterward was given the power of binding and loosing, remitting of sins and retayning: yet with out any mention made of the keies of the kingdome of heaven: w­hich albeit they do signify there a supreme cō ­maunding power: yet they maie in a certaine sence bee said to bee given vnto the other [Page 138] Apostles, as is the title of a rock. though they bee not that principall rocke vpon which Christ built his church, so they had not the prime vse of the keies, which was appropria­ted to S. Peter. I do also further grant [...], that the name of a rock, maie bee in a good mo­rall sence applied vnto everie constant Chri­stian, that doth confesse the true faith with S. Peter, and is constant and vnmoveable in the same confession, like vnto a rocke: And this is all which Origen and S. Ambrose cited by M. Abbot do saie, as may bee seene by him that pleaseth to read the circumstances of tho­se places. for Origen discourseth how all may bee called rockes, that have this effect of a roc­ke. And that the gates of hell cannot prevaile against them; that is, all that do perseuere constantly to the end in the true faith. S. Am­brose exhorteth all men to endevour to bee ro [...]kes, that is to haue soundnes in constancie and stedfastnes of faith. Origen addeth, that which I before said, that the Apostles and Prophets maie bee called rockes in a higher degree; bicause they are the foundations of others, that are builded vpon them; but these expositions (as M. Abbot saith) bee Allegori­call, or rather morall explications of these our Saviours wordes: that do not destroie the prime litterall sence therof, which accor­ding vnto the generall consent of the ancient fathers is, that Christ built his church vpon S. Peter, as the supreme governor therof, as hath been alreadie proved.

Now to M. Abbots last evasion, that the 11 fathers in all this matter make Peter to beare the figure of the whole church, and therfore that to bee applied to all and everie one in the church, which was there spoken to Peter. for these fathers hee alleageth only S.August. Epist. 165 Idem de verb Do­mini ser. 13. Austin and S.Gregor. expos. in 1. Reg li. 6. cap. 3. Gregorie, yea and S. Gregorie spea­king of another matter, thus; that which never was said to them of the old testament, is now said to the vniversall church, whatsoever thou shalt bind vpon earth. which sheweth some difference between the old and new testament; but no­thing cōcerneth these wordes of Christ. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke, I will build my church. which is another kind of matter then that: whatsoever thou shalt bind vpon earth, &c. Againe, is M. Abbot so simple as to thinke that the power of binding & loosing is giuen to every particuler member af the church? can women and Children bind and loose? all a li­ke perhaps in the protestants church, but it is not so with vs. yet that power maie bee said to bee given to the whole church, because it is given to the benefitt of the whole. though the charge and administration therof, be not committed and giuen to all and everie person in the church. But to returne to S. Austin, he saith, Aug de ver. Do­miniser. 13. that the name Peter was given to him, that by that figure hee might signifie the church. bicause Christ is (petra) the rocke, therfore Peter is the people of Christ. So M. Abbot. well, let all this bee true, what is this allegoricall interpretation of the name of Peter to our present purpose? It cannot bee but a great honor to Saint [Page 140] Peter, to haue had a name given him by our Saviour derived out of his owne na­me; and that maie represent the people of Christ: and further (which followeth in that place of S. Austin: though M. Abbot thought it policie to suppresse it) Apostolorum principa­tum tenens. S. Peter held the principalitie a­mōg the Apostles. all this maketh much for S. Peters preheminence. but doth it follow ther­vpon, that nothing which Christ said to S. Pe­ter, doth properlie appertaine to him, but all is to bee imparted to all Christian people? how absurd were it to vnderstand so iudicious a Doctors words as S. Austin was, after that childish manner? thou art Peter, that is after this new glosse, all my people; and vpon this rocke, which containes also all Christes people, I will build my church. so that the sence af­ter M. Abbots exposition must bee: Christ did build all his people, vpon all his people. One might verie well bee chosen out of the rest, as a foun­dation vpon whom Christ might lay all the rest: but how all the people, should bee built vpon all the people, passeth (I think) all vn­derstanding.Epistola 165. But S. Austin elswhere (saith M. Abbot) hath these words: to S. Peter, bearing the figure of the whole church our lord said, vpon this rocke &c. bee it so that S. Peter bare the person of the church: that doth not hinder the words to bee spoken to him effectuallie: but rather argueth him to bee the chief go­vernor of the church,Aug. in Psal. 108. c [...]cione 1. as the same saint in the like places doth expresse, in this manner: Cu­ius Ecclesiae ille agnoscitur in figura gestasse perso­nam, [Page 141] propter primatum quem in discipulis habuit. the person of which church, Peter is acknow­ledged in figure to haue represented, by rea­son of the primacie that hee had among the disciples. And yet more plainly in another pla­ce thus.Aug. Quaest. ex nouo testam. quaest. 75 Saluator cum pro se & Petro dari iubet, pro omnibus [...]xoluisse vide­tur, quia sicut in domino erant omnes causa magisterij: ita & post Saluatorem in Petro omnes continentur. Ipsum enim consti­tuit esse caput eorum, vt pastor es­set gregis dominici. when our Saviour commaunded tribute to bee paid for himself, and for Pe­ter, hee seemeth to haue paid for all. for like as in our Sa­viour there were all the par­tes of a maister; so after him all were contained in Peter. for hee cōstituted Peter head of the rest, that hee might bee the pastor of our lords flocke. By which words of S. Austin wee gather, that S. Peter someti­mes did represent the whole church, because he was head and chief pastor therof: as a king doth in some cases represent a kingdome. which is so for of from disproouing S. Peters supremacy, that hence wee maie take a strong argument to prooue it, and withall, the pro­pagation therof to his successors. for we are taught out of these wordes of S. Austen to say, that S. Peter maie bee considered, either as a priuate person, or as a publike magistrate. that which pleased our Saviour to bestow v­pon him as a private person, was proper to himself, and continued no longer then hee li­ued: but that which Christ bestowed vpon S. Peter as a publike magistrate; that was granted to the whole church, and was to con­tinue [Page 142] with the church to the worlds end. like as that which is granted to a king as a publi­ke person, is holden as annexed to the Crowne and to descend alwaies after to all his succes­sors. now to our purpose: S. Austin when hee said that that prerogatiue was giuen to S. Pe­ter, as representing the whole church; doth not deny it to bee given him trulie and actual­ly: but doth signifie that it was given him, not for his owne proper vse, but for the benefitt of the whole church, and therfore giuen in remainder for ever vnto his successors, which was in the fullest and best sort that could bee.

12 Having thus answered all M. Abbots obie­ctions, and declared how S. Peter is the speciall rock vpō which our Saviour built his church, and how the other Apostles and everie con­stant Christiā may bee called rockes, one truth not destroying, but rather fortifieing the o­ther: I now come to cleere that imputation of dishonestie, which M. Abbot would with no great honestie, haue cast on mee. I did affirme that it might bee deduced out of the ancient fathers, that the Bishop or sea of Rome, was that rocke vpon which the church was buil­ded. M. Abbot was bold to saie that I belied the fathers therin; and doth avouch perem­ptorilie, that never anie of them so vnderstood these words of our Saviour. well let vs see, w­hether of vs is like to prove the honester man of his word. I do heere omitt the manifold deductions in this Chapter before mentioned, and will add one more out of Saint Austins [Page 143] words, by M. Abbot himself last before cited, thus; whatsoever was said to S. Peter as repre­senting the person of the church, is taken to bee said to all his successors, as before hath been declared: but those words of Christe, vpon this rocke I will build my church, were spoken to S. Perer as representing the person of the church, by the verdit of S. Austin ap­proved by M. Abbot himself: therfore these verie words are to bee vnderstood as spoken vnto all S. Peters successors: who being the Bishops of Rome as in due place shalbee pro­ved, it followeth evidentlie, that the Bishops or church of Rome, (for I take both them for the same thing in this matter) is that rocke v­pon which Christ built his church. Is not this deduction plaine enough? But what will you say, if the same most Autentike Doctor do in expresse tearmes affirme the church of Rome to bee that self same rocke, then all the world maie see, that to bee most apparantly true w­hich I said: And M. Abbot must needes con­fesse that hee ouershot himself verie grosly. These bee S. Austins owne words; come my brethren if you please, August. in Psalco: partem donati. Venite fratres si vultis, vt insera­mini in vite. dolor est cum vos vi­demus praecisos ita iacere. Nume­rate Sacerdotes ab ipsa Petri sede, & in ordine illo patrum, qui [...] cui successit, videre, ipsa est petra, quā non vincunt superba inferorum porta. and bee graffed in the vine. It grieveth vs to behold you ly­ing so cutt of. Recken the pri­ests even from the seate of Pe­ter: and in that rew of fa­thers, regard to whom who succeeded. that (seate) is the rocke, which the proud gates of hell do not overcome. [Page 144] The seat of Peter, and succession of Bishop [...] of Rome, is that rock in S. Austins iudgment, against which hell gates shall not prevaile. was not that the verie same rocke, vpon which Christ built his church?

S. Hierom was another most learned Doctor of the ancient church,Hier. Epist. 57. ad Damasum. Ego nullum primum nisi Chri­stum sequens, beatitudini tua, id est, Cathedra Petri communione consocior: super illam petram aedi­ficatain ecclesiam scio, as all the learned know, hee te­stifieth the same most plainly in these words vn­to Damasus then Bishop of Rome. I following no­ne as chief, but Christ, am in communion associated vnto your holines, that is, vnto the chaire of Peter. vpon this rocke I know the church of Christ to bee builded. Lo S. Hierom knew and confessed S. Peters chaire, in which Damasus the pope then sate, to bee the same rocke vpon which Christ built his church. Pope Iulius the first was yet a more ancient, and a verie holie and grave father, hee teacheth the same plainlie in these words.Ex Iulij increpatoria ad Orientales. Ipsa Romana sedes, omnibus ma­ior & praelata est ecclesijs. quae non solum Canonum & sancto­rum patrum decretis, sed D. Sal­uatoris nostri voce, singularem ob­tinuit principatum: Tu es, inquit, Petrus, & super hanc petram adi­ficabo ecclesiam meam. The sea of Rome is preferred before all churches: which not only by decrees of Canons, and holie fathers, hath obtained that singuler principalitie, but by the voi­ce of our lord when hee said, Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my church. If the church of Rome by these words of our Saviour (vpon this rock I will build my church) were preferred before all [Page 145] others, as that graue holie prelate teacheth, then must it needes follow, that the church of Rome, was the rock vpon which Christ built his church.

Damasus was also a very ancient, holy,Ex Epistola 4. B Damasi ad Stephanum Epist. & Con­cilia Afti [...]ae. Scitis fratres dilectiss. firmamen­tum à deo fixum & immobile, at (que) titulum lucidissimum suorum sacerdotum, id est, omnium Epi­scoporum, Apostolicam sedem esse constitutam, & verticem Eccle­siarum. Tu es enim (sicut diuinum pronuntiat verbum) Petrus, & super hanc petram ad [...]ficabo Ec­clesiam meam. and lear­ned Prelate; he writeth in this sort. you know most beloued brethren, the A­postolik see (of Rome) to be constituted by God a fixed and vnmoueable fir­mament, a most bright title of all byshops, and topp of churches, euen as the word of God doth pronunce, saying: thou art Peter, and vpon this rock, I will build my church. he then also took and ex­pounded those words of Christ, to appertai­ne vnto the see of Rome.

The testimonie of these fewe ancient re­nowmed fathers, is more then sufficient to iustifie what I said: and to assure the vpright readers, that some of the ancient fathers did interprete the church of Rome to bee that rock, vpon which our Saviour built his church. wherby they maie see how vnciuil­ly M. Abbot dealt with mee, having no other ground for it, then his owne ignorance coo­pled with audaciousnes.

Bicause M. Abbot doth in this paragraff 13 thrust in here and there, manie broken sen­tences out of the fathers, against the supreme [Page 146] authoritie of the Bishop of Rome: I hold it convenient to fortifie the same, with some select testimonies of the best renowmed pre­lates of the Greeke and Easterne churches. for if they (whom it concerned most to stand for the dignitie and prerogatiues of their owne churches, being the greatest personages in that part of the world, which was farthest of from Rome) do neuertheles acknowledg the Bis­hop of Rome, to haue had in the time of pure antiquitie, commanding authoritie and po­wer over themselues, and their churches: then no vnpartiall and vpright mind can doubt, but that the church of Rome alwaies hath had, or should haue had authoritie of power, and superioritie in goverment, over all other churches of the world. Athanasius one of the prime Doctors of the Greeke church, both for holynes of life, greatnes of learning, & sound­nes of faith; and by his place patriarch of A­lexandria, which was the highest seat in the easterne coasts: This most reverend Archbis­hop and renowmed Champion of Christs church, being grievously persecuted by the Arrian heretikes, and verie iniuriously thrust out of his Bishoprike by their meanes, made his recourse vnto Iulius then pope of Rome, and besought him to call his aduersaries (being also Easterne Bishops) to Rome, to answer there for those wrongs that they had done him. by which fact of his he acknow­ledged most perspicuously the church of Ro­me to haue power and authoritie over Easter­ne [Page 147] Bishops, to determine their ecclesiasticall causes. Thus it standes of record in the Eccle­siasticall history.

Athanasius flying from A­lexādria, went to Rome. Zozomen. lib. 3. histor. cap. 7. Athanasius autem fugiens Ale­xandria, Romam venit: codem tempore Paulus etiam Constan­tinopolitanus Episcopus, forte illu [...] accessit, & Marcellus quoque E­piscopus Anciroe, & Azelopus Gazae &c. & Lucius Adriano­poli: Quorum criminationes cum Episcopus Romanus intellexisset, & omnes fidei Concilij Nicen [...] consentientes reperisset, in commu­nionem recepit. Ac cum propter se­du dignitatem cura omnium ad cum spectaret, singulis suam Ec­clesiam restituit: scripsitque ad E­piscopos Orientis, cosque incusavit, quod inconsulto de his viris iudi­cassent deditque mandatum vt quidam, illorum nomine, ad diem constitutum accederent qui etiam minatus est, se de reliquo non pas­surum eos invltos, nisi novis rebu [...] studere desisterent. Pau­lus Bishop of Constantino­ple (another great sea of the Greeke church) was also fled thither for succour, and di­uers other Bishops of the said Easterne church. who­se accusations when the Bis­hop of Rome had heard, finding these Bishops con­formable to the faith of the Nicene councell (of which Athanasius had been a principall piller) hee ad­mitted them into commu­nion of all spirituall mat­ters. And wheras by the dignitie of his sea, the char­ge of all persons did apper­teine vnto him, hee resto­red them backe to their Bis­hoprickes.

And did write vnto the Bishops of the east blaming them, for that they had vnaduised­ly iudged of those personages; and sent them a mandate that some of them should appea­re at a certaine day, in the name of the rest: [Page 148] who also threatned, that he would not after­ward let them passe vnpunished, if they gaue not ouer to molest others.

Is not heere plaine proofe of the Bishop of Rome his power and commaunding autho­ritie, ouer the greatest Bishops in the east? They appealed vnto him for iudgment, hee heard their causes, hee reversed the sentences given against them by the Bishops of the east, hee finallie restored againe their Bishopricks vn­to them. cited the others to appeare before him; and theatned to punish them, if they con­tinued in their ill doeing.

Hosius ad Imperator: Con­stantium Citatus ab Atha­nas epist. ad solit. vitam agentes. Ne te misceas Ecclesiasticis, ne (que) nobis in hoc genere praecipe, sed potius ea à nobis disce, tibi Deus imperium cōmisit: nobis quae sunt Ecclesiae concredidit, & quemad­modum qui tuum imperium ma­lignis o [...]ulis carpit, contradicit ordinationi divinae: Ita & tu ca­ve, ne quae sunt ecclesiae ad te tra­hens, magno crimini obnoxius fia [...]. The same is also witnes­sed by Athanasius himself in his epistle to them that lead a solitarie life, and in his second Apologie, where hee doth relate the whole bu­sines, and teacheth expresly that it did not belonge to Cō ­stantius then Emperour, to determine ecclesiasticall cau­ses, but that he ought to learne them of Bishops.

To Athanasius I will ioyne Cirillus bicause hee was patriarch of the same sea of Alexan­dria,Cirillus e­pist 18 ad Celestinū. and as learned and valiant a maintayner of the third generall councell held at Ephesus, as Athanasius had been of the first kept at Ni­ce.Extat To­mo 1. Con­cil. Ephes. cap 29. This most learned Archbishop confesseth the like commanding power to haue been in Celestinus then pope of Rome, that thother [Page 149] did before in Iulius.Quoniam vero deus hisc [...] in rebus prudentiam à nobis exigit, long a (que) ecclesiarum consuetudo suadet, vt istiusmodi sanctitati tuae commu­nicētur, non possum equidem, quod apertum est, ad pietatem non per­scribere. post malefacta exposita, subiungit. Et quamvis res ita se habeat, non prius tamen illius com­munionem confidenter deserere au­si fuimus, quam haec ipsa p [...]etati tuae indicaremus. Digneris proinde quid hic sentias decl [...]rare, quo li­quido nobis constet, communicare ne nos cum illo oporteat, an vero libere eidem denunciare, neminem cum eo communicar [...] qui eiusmodi Erroneam doctrinam fovet & praedicat. Porro t [...]a integritatis mens ac super hac re sententia, non modo pijssimis Macedoniae Episto­pis, sed totius quoque Orientis An­tistibus perspicue per literas ex­poni debet. Thus hee writeth to him. Bicau­se in busines of this nature God requireth of vs wisdo­me, and the long continued custome of the church doth admonish vs to communica­te them with your holines, I cannot but giue your pietie to vnderstand, what is here discouered of Nestorius Bis­hop then of Constantinople. whose foule crimes and pesti­lent errours when hee had laid open; and certified how hee had done his endevour to move him to repentance, but all in vaine, hee after­ward addeth. Albeit these things bee soe, yet wee durst not forbeare communicating with him, before wee had related these things to your pietie. Vouchsafe therfore to declare what you deeme to bee done the­rin, that wee may assuredly know, whether wee ought to communicate with Nestorius, or els boldl [...]e denounce, that no man ought to communicate with him, that doth d [...]fend such erronious doctrine. your holines good pleasure and sentence in this matter is to bee notified not onlie to the Bishops of Macedonia, but vnto all the prelates of the east. Behold the mā ­ner of proceeding in these pure times of the church: S. Cirill who for learning was perhaps better able then Celestinus to iudge of the er­rour [Page 150] of Nestorius: and being patriarch of Ale­xandria by his place, held the highest court of Iudgment in the east church:Celestin. Papa Cy­rillo Ar­chiepiscopo habetureo­dem Tomo 1. Concil. Ephes. cap. 16. yet would hee not take vpon himself to determine of Nesto­rius heresies, or to excommunicate him: but referred both vnto the Bishop of Rome; who­se sentence therin both hee and all the Bishops of the east did require and embrace. In this manner did the same pope Celestinus returne answere vnto S. Cirill. Most Reverend brother, do you take vnto you our au­thoritie, Quamobrem nostra autoritate as­cita nostráque vice & loco cum po­testate vsus, eiusmodi non abs (que) ex­quisita severitate sententiam exe­queru; nempe vt nisi à decem die­rum intervallo ab huius nostrae ad­mon [...]tionis die numerandorum ne­fariam doctrinam suam conceptis verbis anathematize [...], eamque de Christi dei nostri [...]eneratione fi­dem in posterum confessurum se spondeat, quam & Romana & tuae sanctitatu ecclesia & vniuer­sa denique religio Christiana prae­dicat, illico sanctitas tua illi eccle­siae prospiciat and vsing our power and place, do you execute a­gainst Nestorius the senten­ce of excommunication, with exquisite severitie; vnles wi­thin ten daies after hee hath been admonished from vs, hee do recant and recall his errours: and let your holines provide a more worthy per­son for that Bishoprike. w­hich mandate of his, Ci­rillus with the whole coūcell, following, proceeded to the deposition of Nestorius in this māner. No man doth doubt, Tomo secundo eiusdem Con­cil. Ephes. cap. 16. Nulli dubium, imo seculis omnibus n [...]tum est, sanctum beatissimum (que) Petrum Apostolorum principem & caput, fide [...] (que) columnam, ecclesiae Catholicae fundamentum, à Domi­no nostro Iesu Christo caelestis regni claues accepisse, solvendique atque ligandi potestate, quam acceperat vsum fuisse: necnon per successores suos huc vsque semper vivere, cau­sas decernere, semperque victurum esse. Huius itaque ordinarius suc­cessor & vicarius, sanctus, beatissi­musque papa & Episcopus noster Celestinus, nos suos pro se quasi vi­carios misit, &c. Et hac est praefa­tio sententia. Nos canonum vi san­ctissimi que patris, & comministri nostri Celestini ecclesia Romanae Antistitis epistola compulsi, hanc tristem in illam sententiā tulimus. naie it hath been in all ages notorious, that the most blessed S. Peter (prīce & head of the Apostles, the pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholike church) did receive of our Saviour Iesus Christ (the redeemer of mankind) the keies of the kingdome of [Page 151] heaven, and the power of loosing and binding. And that also even vnto these da­ies, hee doth in his successors liue and determine causes, and shall alwaies liue. To him doth Celestinus now Bishop of Rome, in right or­der succede; finally by vertue of power receiued from the said Celestinus they proceede to pronounce sentēce against Ne­storius Bishop of Constantinople.

All which set togither, standing of record in the third generall councell, doth demonstrate that the Easterne church did acknowledge both the Bishop of Rome to bee S. Peters lawfull successor: And that it also did ap­pertaine to him, to excommunicate and depose princi­pall Bishops of the Greeke and Easterne church. which no man can doubt to bee principall and most proper a­ctes of supreme power in government. with this I will linke another like example practised and recorded in the fourth generall councell held at Chalcedon. Dio­scorus patriarch of Alexandria, being for his erronious opinions, and enormious actions called in question, was convented to answere in that generall councell: first, all the actions that are entered against Dioscorus, are stiled thus.Concil. Chalced. actio 3. Libellus Theodoridiaconi ad Leo­nem Papā & ad Chalced cōcilium. Libellus Iscyronis ad Leonem nem Papā & Chalcedon conciliū. Vnto the most holy and most happie Archbishop of the great and old Rome Leo, and to the ge­nerall councell assembled at Chalcedon. Setting the Bishop of Rome, as head, before the generall coūcell, as his bo­die. which in expresse tearmes the whole coūcel ackno­wledgeth, writing vnto the said pope Leo the great: [Page 152] That hee was President over them, Quibus tu quidem sicut membris caput prae [...]ras quam velut auro textam seriem ex veste Christi & praecepto legislatoris venientem vs­que ad nos ipse servasti. vocis bea­ti Petri omnibus constitutus inter­pres, eius si lei beatificationem su­per omnes adduc [...]ns. even as the head is to the rest of the members: that the custodie of our lords vine­yard, was cōmitted to him; that hee was the interpreter of Saint Peters sentence. Ob­serve secondlie the forme of their definitiue sentence which is thus set downe. The most ho­lie and most blessed Archbis­hop of great and old Rome Leo, Ibidem in exemplari epist. Paschacini. Vnde sanctissimus, ac beatissimus Papa caput vniuersalis ecclesiae Leo per nos vt l [...]gatos suos sancta syno­do consentiente, Petri Apostoli prae­ditus dignitate, [qui ecclesiae fun­damentum, et petra fidei & cale­stis regni lanitor nuncupatur] Epi­scopali eum Dioscorum dignitate nudavit, & ab omni sacerdotali opere facit exortem. by vs, and this present holy councell, together with the most happie & most wor­thy Apostle S. Peter, (who is the rock and topp of the Ca­tholike church) hee who is the foundation of the Ortho­dox and true faith, hath de­posed Dioscorus from all Episcopall dignitie, and deprived him of all priestlie function and ministery.

First let it bee well obserued and borne in mind, that all the parts of this my discourse be verified, in the sentences of these two generall councells. First that S. Peter was that rocke v­pon which Christ built his church. Secondlie that the Bishop of Rome succeeded him the­rin. Thirdlie that in the vertue therof, is com­prehended, power and authoritie to vphold the Orthodox saith, and to punish and depose the highest patriarches in the church, aswell of the east, as of the west, if they do obstinatlie trouble the peace of Christs church.

This having been by the verdict and practise [Page 153] of the pure Church in anciēt time so cleerly te­stified, in two of those prime generall coun­cells, which the Protestants themselues do confesse to bee Orthodox and authenticall, what reasonable Christian can take anie ex­ception against it? yet for more full confir­mation of this most important point of our faith, I will passe through all the patriarchall seas, and out of each of them choose some suf­ficient proofe, for the popes supremacie in go­uernment. Athanasius patriarch of Alexandria was absolued, and restored by Iulius pope of Rome. Dioscorus of the same sea was exco­municated, and deposed by Leo the great. Nestorius patriarch of Constantinople, was in like manner censured and depriued by Ce­lestinus pope of Rome: of whom wee haue al­readie treated. Now to S. Iohn Chrysostom Bishop of the same city of Constantinople, who was absolued and restored to his Bisho­pricke by Innocentius the first pope of Rome. This verie learned zealous and godly prelate and most eloquent preacher, was through the malice of the Empresse Eudoxia, assisted by her husbād the emperour Archadius, deposed & hoised out of his seate, euen by the verdict of many Easterne Bishops assembled in a coun­cell, wherof Theophilus patriarch of Alexan­dria was the head. wher vpon hee treading in the noble stepps of Athanasius and diuerse o­ther good Bishops, made his appeale to Innocē tius pope of Rome, craving of him to reuerse that vniust sentence which had been given a­gainst [Page 154] him:Innocentio Papae Ioannes Chrisost: ex palladio in vita eius. Quapropter ne confusio haec, omnem quae sub coelo est nationem enuadat, obsecro vt scribatis, quod baec tam inique facta, & absen­tibus nobis, & non declinanti­bus iudicium, non habeant ro­bur, sicut nec sua natura ha­bent. Illi autem qui inique ege­runt, poena [...]cclesiasticarum legum sub [...]aceant: nobis vero (qui nec conuicti, nec redarguti, nec ha­biti vt rei) literis vestris & cha­ritate vestra aliorumque om­nium, quorum scilicet & an­ [...]ea societate fru [...]bamur, f [...]ui conc [...]dite. these bee his words. I beseech thee (holie father) that their sentence, so vniustly gi­uen in my absence, (I not refusing iudgement) maie bee of no validity: fur­thermore that they who ha­ue done mee that wrong, may according to the lawes of the church bee punished: And commaund that I be­ing innocent and not to bee convicted of any crime, may bee restored to my church againe. See most evident acknowledgment of the Bishop of Romes power, to repeale the sentence of a councell holden in the greeke church, by the greatest patriarch of those coasts; yea and to inflict punishment vpon them: Item to restore Saint Iohn Chrisostome to his Bishopricke againe; which Innocentius effected,Ex epist. 30. Innocent. ad Archadium, ex Nicepho. 10 l. 13. c. 34. Itaque ego minimus & pec­cator, cui thronus magni Apo­stoli Petri creditus est, segrego to & illam a perceptione im­maculatorum mysteriorū Chri­sti dei nostri. Episcopum etiam omnem aut clericum ordinis san­cta dei ecclesiae qui administra­re aut exhibere [...]a vobis ausu [...] fuerit ab ea hora qua presente [...] vinculi meilegeritis literas, digni­tate sua excidisse decerne. thundering out a most terrible sentence of excomunication a­gainst the Emperour Ar­chadius in these tearmes.

I the least of Gods seruāts and a sinner, vnto whom the throne of the great Apo­stle S. Peter is cōmitted, do excomunicate and exclude [Page 155] thee, and thy wife, from the cōmunion of the immaculate and sacred misteries: And do declare that what Bishop or priests soever, shall presume (after the knowled­ge had of these my letters) to minister the same to you, therby to fall from his dignity and function.

This learned and holie pope (much cōmē ­ded by S. Austin) doubted not, but that the Bishop of Rome had sufficient authoritie, not onlie to depose and restore patriarches, but also to excommunicate Emperours. Now to the patriarch of Antioch; though Saint Iohn Chrysostomes testimony (who had been thir­teene yeeres preacher in that citie) might suf­fice, yet wee want not others. First Flauianus patriarch of Antioch was sūmoned to appeare at Rome, Flauianus apud Theodoret: l. 5. c. 23. Cum eo agit Imperator, vt Ro­mam adiret, cui respondit. Si qui me O Imperator, vt fidem mini­me sinceram ac sanam profitentes insimulent, dicantve vitam me traducere indignam sacerdotio, tū illis ipsis iudicibus vtar; tum pro­nunciatam ab eis sententiam lu­bens subibo. there to answere vnto mat­ters obiected against him. w­ho put not in the prote­stāts plea, that the Bishop of Rome had no authori­tie over him, being the highest Bishop in all Asia: but made meanes vnto the said pope by the frindship of Theophilus patriarch of Alexandria, and S. Chrysostome, and so appeased that matter, as the Ecclesiasticall historyes do testifie.

And Theodoret that renowmed Hstoriogra­pher,Theodoret Leoni Episcopo Romano. Post lo [...] sudores & labores ne in ius quidem vocatus, sum condemnatus. Ego autem Apo­stolicae vestrae sedu expecto senten­tiam & supplico & obsecro ve­stram sanctitatem, vt mihi opem ferat, iustum vestrum & rectum app [...]llanti iudicium, & iubeat ad vos accurr [...]re, & ostendere meam doctrinam vestigia Aposto­lica sequentem: & ante omnia rogo vt s [...]iam a vobis, an in in [...] ­sta hac depositione me oporteat acqui [...]scere, an non: vestram enim expecto sententiàm, & si iudicatis s [...]are me iusserie, stabo, nec vlli deinceps homini molestiam exhibeb [...]. [Page 126] being Bishop of Cirus, vnder the patri­arch of Antioch, did ne­verthelesse fly by appeale to Leo the great pope of Rome, for redresse: Thus hee writeth vnto him. I attend the sentence of the sea Apostolike, and do humblie beseech your holines that you defend and protect me appealing vnto your iust and vpright iudgment seat. If you comaund mee to submitt my selfe to their sentence that haue condemned mee, I will yeeld to it, and neuer bee troublesome to any other. Let these suffice for th [...] patriarkship of Antioch. There remaines only the patriarch of Ierusalem for whom Anastasius patriarch of the same sea,Anast [...]sius p [...]tri [...]cha Hie [...]o­solym [...]l [...]us epist. ad Foeli­c [...]m papam Fuit se [...]per [...]postolicae sedis v [...]stre li [...]ntia, [...]iust [...] damnatos vel [...]xcommuni [...]atos potestatis suae auctoritate restitu [...]re, & sua om­nia eu r [...]dder [...], & illos qui eos c [...]demnarunt aut excommunica­v [...]unt, Apostolico punire priui­legio: sicut etiam nostris & an­terioribus novimus factum tem­p [...]ribu [...]. & antiquis regulis san­c [...]tum est, [...]t quicquid, quamuis t [...] [...]otu prouin [...] [...]s, super corum querduant accusationibus agere­tu [...], non pr [...]s tractandum vel accipiendum esset, quam ad noti­tiam alma vestra sedis esset dedu­ctum: vt hu [...]us auctoritate, iuxta quod fuisset faciendum, infirma­retur aut firmaretur. about the sa­me time in his letters vnto foelix pope of Rome wri­teth in this manner. It was alwaies the libertie of your Apostolike sea, by the au­thoritie of your power, to ac­quite them that were vniust­ly condemned and excom­municated, and to restore them to all they had lost. evē as wee haue seene done in our times, and haue heard in [Page 127] the daies of our predecessors: for (saith hee a litle after) it is by ancient Canons de­creed, that whatsoever bee handled about the affaires of Bishops, yea though in prouinces farre remote, that the same should not bee fullie determined, before it were brought to the notice of your holie sea, and by the aucthority therof, bee either confirmed or reiected.

This great and ancient Patriarch not only witnesseth such soveraigne power and autho­ritie to belonge vnto the Bishop of Rome, but pleadeth also for the same out of the former approved Canons of the Church: Among w­hich that of the councel of Sardica I hold to bee the chiefest.Ex concilio Sardicense c. 4. Quod si aliquis episcopus adiudicatus fuerit in aliqua cau­sa, & putat se bonam causam habere, vt iterum iudicium reno­uetur, si vobis placet, S. Petri Apostoli memoriam honoremus, vt scribatur Romano Pontifici, & si iudicauerit renouandum esse iu­dicium, renouetur, & det iudicos. si autem probauerit talem causam, vt ea non refriceutur quae acta sunt. Quae decreuerit Romanus Pontifex, confirmata erunt. Si ergo omnibus placeat, statuatur. synodus respondit: placet, &c. 5. Alter episcopus post talem ap­pellationem in eadem cathedra no admittetur, nisi causa fuerit in iudicio Romani Pontificis deter­minata. where it is in expresse tearmes de­cred; that if any Bishop of what countrie soever, have his cause iudged otherwise then hee thinketh right, hee may appeale vnto the Bis­hop of Rome: who maie ap­point new Iudges and send them to heare it againe, and finallie determine it. Now that they who haue lesse skill in ancient histories may vnderstand of what creditt that councell of Sardica is, Let thē know first; that it was called by Iulius Bishop of Rome. [Page 158] Secondly there were present that famous Ho­sius (who was one of the presidents of the Nicene councell) And Athanasius, with many other renowmed Bishops which had been members of the said first generall councell of Nice: and above 300. Bishops came thither both out of the East and west asAthan. Apolog 2 in medio. Athanasius writeth. wherfore hee tearmeth it, instar Ni­ceni, such an other as the first Nicene councell was.Sulpit. l. 2. sacra histor. Sulpitius Severus tearmeth it a councell called from all parts of the word,Socrat. l. 2 hist. c. 16. Socrates in his history, a generall councell. Briefly, the Centuriators of Magdeburg Centur. 4. cap. 99. do approve the same councell for Authen­ticall.

These few testimonies for the supreme power and authoritie of the Bishop and church of Rome, being taken from verie eminent, sin­cere, and learned personages, who in the flo­rishing time of Christianity, governed the pa­triarchall seas of the greeke and east churches; confirmed also with the acts and sentences of the generall councell of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Sardica, cannot but giue full satisfaction vn­to all true Christians, that even in the purest antiquitie, the popes cōmanding power, and superioritie in government was beleeved, practized, and approved all Christendome over.

14 After so many plaine demonstrations of the Bishops of Romes supremacie in causes ecclesiasticall, I hope the curteous reader will giue mee leaue to imploy one proba­ble [Page 159] presumption, that in my poore opi­nion doth much fortifie the same. It is colle­cted out of those letters which in ancient ti­me were called, literae formatae, and granted ei­ther vnto Bishops at their first creation, or vn­to priests that were dismissed by licence from their ordinary.

This kind of letters was in great vse in the primitiue church; for no stranger was admit­ted into communion among the Catholiks without them. The invention of these leters is referred to the first generall councell hol­den at Nice: and the forme of them, is recor­ded authentically in the end of the Chalcedon councell (immediatlie before the letters of the Illustrious persons that wrote in or about that councell) vnder this title. Atticus Episco­pus, qualiter formata Epistola fiat. In this epistle, fower letters principally were set for an assu­red token, that hee in whose favour they were granted, was a sound Catholike. The three former letters, were the first letters, of the fa­ther, of the sonne, and of the holy Ghost; to testifie that hee believed aright in the blessed Trinitie, and therfore was no Arrian, Sabel­lian, Macedonian or such like heretike. the fourth letter in that formall Epistle was a the first letter of S. Peters name: therby to signifie, that the bearer was receiued into the vnitie of that church, of which S. Peter, as chief governor, kept the keies. the other let­ters, of his name that grāted that Epistle,Distinct. 73. ca. 1. & to whom it was granted, I omitt as not necessary [Page 130] to this purpose, hee that will may see a copi [...] of such an Epistle sett downe at large in Gra­tian: where the misterie also of these letters, is deciphered to bee such, as I haue declared; namely that the fourth letter was put for S. Peters name to make knowen that the bearer therof was a true member of that church, in qua, Petro datum est ius ligandi atque absoluen­di, in which, to S. Peter was giuen the right of binding and loosing. Out of which nota­ble monument of antiquitie, I draw this ar­gument. so well assured it was, and a thing so notoriously knowne and approved, in those purer daies of the primitiue church, that S. Peter, and the popes of Rome his successors, were the chief governors of Christs church, and the insoluble band of the vnitie therof; that the first letter of S. Peters name, was cho­sen for an vndoubted badge and token of be­ing a sound member, receiued into the vnity of the said Catholike church. for why should the first letter of S. Peters name, rather then a­ny other of the Apostles, bee taken for such an infallible marke of society with the ca­tholike church? had it not been a cleere overu­led case, that hee who like an even squared stone lay vpon that rocke, and did adhere vn­to the head of the church, was vndoubtedly a true member therof. This argument as it shall serue for a cōclusion of that which goeth be­fore, so it will make a conuenient passage to that which followeth in M. Abbots text.

15 There was (saith hee) a church, when there [Page 161] was no Roman church at all; how then could that church bee builded vpon the Roman church?

This is a verie poore obiection: for speaking (as wee now do) of the church, which was sin­ce our Saviours time; if hee take that season next to Christs ascension; S. Peter was head of that church, during his owne life: and after him, the Bishops of Rome his lawfull succes­sors. No man ever said that the church, or Bis­hop of Rome was head of the church, before S. Peter had placed his seate there. If M. Ab­bot will accord vs that ever since that time, the church of Rome hath been head of the rest (as in truth it hath been) wee will ea­sily grant him, that before it had no such pri­viledg.

Another like slugg M. Abbot thrusteth forth thus. If the church of Rome bee that rock, and other churches bee builded thervpon; then it would follow, that the gates of hell should never ha­ue prevailed against any other of those churches: but it hath prevayled against them. Ergo. True good Sir, if those other churches had stuck close to the said rocke, the gates of hell had never pre­vailed against them: but they foolishly flitting from that firme rocke, were sowsed in the sur­ging seas, and swallowed vp by the gulfe of hell.

M. Abbot saw this to bee so full an answe­re, that hee could not tell what to saie to it: but that wee haue no assurance that the church of Rome shall continue alwaies builded vpon Christ Iesus. this is M. Abbots last refuge, and [Page 162] to it as to a safe anchor, he doth twenty times fly in this book wherfore it shall haue a full answer in its due place. but let vs first see whether the Bishops of Rome be S. Peters lawfull successors, because that comes next. M. Abbot doth either graunt it to bee true, or at least hee supposeth it for true: for hee dispro­ues it not: wherfore I need not stād lōg about it, & so much the rather because it is recorded by S. Iraeneus,Iren. l. 3. v. 3. Tertull. de prescr. 36. Euseb. l. 2. hist. c. 2. Epiphar. heres. 27. Optat. mi leuit. l. 2. perm. Hieron. de viris ill. 1. August. Epistola. 1 [...]5. Tertullian, Eusebius, Optatus mileuitanus, S. Hierom, S. Austin, and brief­ly by the full consent of all that haue made a­nie Catalogue of S. Peters successors. It is evi­dent and confessed by both sides, that our Sa­viour established such a forme of government in his church, that hee would haue to conti­new, as long as the same church continued, that is alwaies to the worlds end. which was according to our doctrine, that one should bee head and supreme gouernor over all the rest: to preserue vnity in faith, and conformi­ty in rites of religion. And by name that one was S. Peter for his life time. All which I ha­ue before proved out of holy scriptures, and the ancient fathers. S. Peter finally making choise of Rome for the seat of his Bishoprick, liued there many yeres, and in the end, died Bishop of Rome. wherfore they that were chosē Bishops of Rome, were to succede him, as in that seate, so in that supreme governmēt of Christs church: which daily experience tea­cheth vs. for wee see that whosoever is chosen bishop of any place, for example of Canter­burie; [Page 163] hee presentlie vpon his installing, en­treth vpon all the priuiledges of honour, and government, which the former Bishops, his predecessors, died possessed of. so that no so­oner any man is created Archbishop of Can­terbury, but that im̄ediatly hee is therby Me­tropolitane of England, and hath comanding authority ouer all the Bishops of that prouin­ce, with law full Iurisdiction to heare and de­termyne all such causes, that by appeale do come to his courts. In like māner Linus being chosen Bishop of Rome after the death of S. Peter, entred into possession of full power & authoritie, not onlie ouer the Diocese of Ro­me, but also over all the Bishops of Christs church, in all such cases and causes, that do belong to the supreame governors court and cognizance, in as large and ample manner as S. Peter had before enioyed, and died posessed of. this being a matter depending vpon com­mon equity, and daily practise, doth require no other proofe, nor can haue anie better; then the aknowledgment of all the Orthodox and most eminent christian prelates of both Latin and Greeke; east and west churches; w­hich I haue before plētifully produced, and w­hē more need shalbee, will yet produce more.

17 M. Abbot admitting as I said, the pope of Rome to bee S. Peters successor yet argueth that they may faile in faith; bicause Caiphas did succeed lineally to Aaron, & yet Caiphas gaue sen­tēce against Christ. & further hee alleageth that sētence out of the law. All are not the children of [Page 164] Saints, that hold the places of saints, but they that practise the workes of saints. M. Abbot foreseeing that wee would answere, that many successors though not so holy, iust, and wise, as their pre­decessors were: yet haue the same authoritie and Iurisdiction over their floc,k which their predecessors had. And albeit they may comitt some fault, vnworthy their calling, yet they do not therby leese the dignitie of their place. And that namely our Saviour had praied for S. Peter, that his faith should not faile; but that hee not withstanding his owne frailty, should haue strength from God through the vertue of Christs praier to confirme his brethren in the true faith: This M. Abbot foreseeing doth acknowledg it to bee true, yet that hee may not bee thought to have nothing more to saie, doth aske vs with Austin as hee speaketh. Did hee praie for Peter and did hee not praie for Iames and Iohn, to saie nothing of the rest? it is ma­nifest that in Peter they all are contayned, and pray­ing for Peter, hee is knowne to praie for them all. All this is true, but not against any thing that wee saie. for it being granted that our Saviour made manie good praiers for all his Disciples, doth it follow therof, that his praier made for the preservation of Saint Peters faith, was not heard? nay rather doth it not thervpon most evidentlie ensue out of M. Abbots owne dis­course; (which is, that everie one of the elect ob­taineth that without faile, which Christ praied for, in their names) that Christ his praier made for S. Peter, obtayned for him that his faith should never faile? But M. Abbot like an [Page 165] ill Alhymist would faine distill out of those words of S. Austin; that Peter by that praier had no priviledg aboue the rest. which is both cōtrarie to the expresse words of our Saviour, who doth distinguish Peter from the rest, and to him apart did speake those wordes.Luca 22. Behold (saith our Saviour) Satan hath desired to sift you (that was all the Apostles, to whom those words we­re spoken) but I haue praied for thee Peter, see how particularly hee commeth to him, that thy faith do not faile; and thou (Peter) once conuerted, strengthen thy brethren.

M. Abbots collection is also against S. Au­stin himself. for though S. Austin do saie, that in praying for Peter, hee praied for them all: his meaning is not, that hee praied, that every one of them in particuler might receiue the same gift, which was bestowed on S. Peter: but that Christ, in praying that Peters faith might not faile, & that hee also might haue strength to confirme his brethren, may bee truly said, to haue praied for them all. because they were to rely vpon the stability of Peters faith, and to receiue comfort from him. wherfore they being assured, that Peters faith should not fai­le, they ioyning in faith with him, were also assured that they should not faile.August. quaest. & noui te­sta q. 75. And this to bee S. Austins meaning the words following in the very same sentence, (which M. Abbot did guilefully clipp of) do manifestly shew: In praying for Peter, Quid ambigitur? pro Petro roga­bat, & [...]ro Iacobo & Ioanne non rogabat, vt caeteros taceam? mani­festum est in Petro omnes contineri: rogans enim pro Petro, pro omni­bus rogasse dignoscitur: semper e­nim in praeposito populus aut cor­ripitur aut laudatur. Christ praied for them all. for that alwaies in the Governour [Page 166] the people are either corre­cted or praised. So that hee praied for them not in particuler, but as they were contained in their president, Saint Peter. Out of which so farr of is it, that thence can bee gathered as M. Ab­bot did, that Peter had not anie priuiledg aboue the rest of the Apostles, that it follo­weth cleerly in S. Austins Iudgment, that hee was president and head of that colledg of the Apostles.

18 M. Abbot being amazed at this point of succession, and not knowing well what to saie to it, makes a stand, and admitting Christ to haue meant some singuler favour to Peter doth aske, by what art I can deriue the effect of Christs praier from Peter to the popes, from an ho­lie Apostle to a ranke and succession of men, amon­gest whom there haue been so manie Atheists, Infi­dels, Idolaters, Heriticks, and so manie incarnate Devills, and hatefull monsters of mankind. This foule troubled floud of his currish eloquen­ce, I omitt as vnciuill. To the matter I haue al­readie answered, that it verie much concer­ned the perpetuall puritie & vnitie of Christs church, that the effect of our Saviours holy praier, should not bee closed vp with S. Pe­ters life, but bee continued to the worlds end: that there might bee alwaies in the church o­ne liuing, visible, and certaine Oracle, to cō ­sult in all doubtfull questions, which should arise: And one supreme governor to confirme [Page 167] the weake, to correct the proud, and to hold all in one vniforme order of perfect discipline which to haue been S. Peters successors the Bishops of Rome, Christs institution, ioyned with the ordinarie manner of proceeding of the vniuersall church, from the purest antiqui­ty doth testify, as hath been declared. And wheras M. Abbot doth demaund of mee, by what art I can deriue the effect of Christs pra­ier from Peter vnto a succession of men? I might better aske of him, what ignorance op­pressed him, when hee could not vnderstand that that which was grāted to one man, might not as well bee graunted to another man, and so continued from one to another to the wor­lds end. But (saith hee) Peter was an holy A­postle, and the others were sinfull creatures. Be it so. Did not M. Abbot himself immediat­ly before confesse, that evill men might bee lawfull successors even vnto Saints? as Cai­phas was to Aaron? And here (as though hee had cleane forgotten himself) doth seeme to woonder ar my art, that would make evill Bishops of Rome, Successors to good S. Pe­ter. how can a man of discretion rely vpon a­nie thing M. Abbot saies, when hee findeth him so contrarie to himself within the com­passe of so few lynes? yet it is well knowne to all the learned, that exceeding manie Bishops of Rome, were verie worthy successors of S. Peters fervour in faith, cōstācy in suffering, & great learning: aboue thirtie of them in a rew shedd their blood most valiently, in testimony [Page 168] of the Christiā religiō. Manie of thē that liued after, were verie great lightes of the world, & Doctors of the church: as Leo the great, Gre­gorie the great, Damasus, Innocentius, Gela­sius, and diuers others. To lett passe verie ma­ny among them of exceeding religious, holy, and exemplar life. whom if one would paral­lell with the protestants chief governors, men, women, and Children; what odds between them would bee found I leaue to the discreete readers iudgment. But be it so, that some Bis­hops of Rome haue not liued so godly & ver­tuously as they ought to haue done (though M. Abbots proofe therof takē vp of a hearsay out of M. watsons Quidlibets, or quodlibets, is too too simple) yet it hath pleased god many times to serve himself of evill Instruments, to do verie good offices. The scribes and Phari­ses in Christs daies were very bad men: yet our Saviour himself commanded the cōmon peo­ple to hearken vnto them, and to obey them. Because they did sitt in the chaire of Moses, it pleased god to assist them in their doctrine, though their liues were naught.Aug co. eras Pe­til e. 2. ca. 51. S. Austin hath a passage to Petilianus the Donatist (one of M. Abbots cosens) so fitt for this purpose, that wee neede seeke no further for the cleering therof. Thus hee greeteth him, and in him M. Abbot.Quare appellas cathedram pe­stilen [...]e, cathedram Apostolicam? si propter homines quos putas le­gem loqui & non facere, nunquid Iesus Christus propter Phari­saeos, [de quibus ait: dicunt enim & non faciunt] cathedrae in qua sedebant vllam fecit iniuriam? nonne illam cathedram Moysi commendauit, & illos seruato ca­thedra honore, redarguit? dicens. super cathedram Moysi sedent, quod dicunt facite: secundum au­tem opera eorum, nolite facere. why dost thou call the Apostolike chai­re of Rome, the chaire of pestilence? if for the mens sake that sitt in it: what, did our lord Iesus Christ [Page 169] for the Pharises sake, anie wrong to the chaire whe­rin they sate? Did hee not commend the chaire of Moses, & preserving the honor of the chaire, re­prooue the men? saying, They sitt vpon the chaire of Moses; that which they saie do yee, but doe not according to their workes. These things if you did well consider, you would not for the man whom you backbite, blasphe­me the sea Apostolike, wherwith you do not communicate. And in another place. Into that pedegree of Bishops w­hich is derived from S. Peter vnto Anastasius,Aug. Epist. 165. In illum autem ordinem Episco­porum qui ducitur ab ipso Petro vsque ad Anastasium, qui nunc eandem cathedram sedet, etiamsi quisquam traditor penilla tempo­ra surrepsisset, nihil praeiudicaret ecclesiae & innocentibus Christia­nis, quibus dominus prouidens ait de praepositis malu. Quae dicunt facite, quae autem faciunt, facere nolite, dicunt enim & non fa­ciunt vt certa sit spes fidelibus quae non in hominibus, sed in deo collo­cata, nunquam tempestate sacri­legi schismatis dissipetur. (who now sitteth in the same chaire) albeit some traitour had crept, it should not haue preiudi­ced or hurt the church, and innocent Christians, for whom our Lord pro­viding, said of evill prela­tes, do that which they saie, but do not as they do, for they saie, but do not: That the faith full might haue assured confidence, which placed not in man but in our Lord, by no tempest of sacrilegious schis­me can bee disappointed. Behold out of saint Austin, first that the Bishops of Rome are the true successors of S. Peter, Then that in doubts [Page 170] of religion, recourse is to be made vnto them for resolution. And lastly, that our blessed Lord hath taken such order for their sure di­rectiō of others in the right waie: that though some traitor or evill man should creepe into that chaire, yet everie good Christian maie for ever repose assured confidence in them. This being the auncient doctrine, and assured per­swasion of all good Christians; M. Abbots sta­le iest of the popes sitting downe in a chaire when hee is to define a matter, is to bee laug­hed at, as an idle and ignorant imagination.

It were indeed verie simple to thinke that the only sitting downe of the pope in a chai­re, should bee a sufficient helpe to define hard and doubtfull questions. But to define ex Ca­thedra, as it is tearmed, hath a farr other mea­ning among Catholike Doctors, which may bee thus declared. The pope as a learned Divi­ne may, write manie large discourses in matter of diuinitie, and make goodly commentaries vpon sundrie bookes of holy scripture, as S. Leo, S. Gregorie, and diuers other of them ha­ue done: in which his workes, hee having no further assistance of the holy Ghost, then ano­ther priuate Doctour of the same learning and holines of life hath, may as a man mistake so­methings, and bee deceiued. But when as chief pastor of Christs church, hee comes to define any deepe question for the instruction of the whole church; then hee hath (through the vertue of our blessed Saviours praier) as­sistance of the holie ghost. First to cause that [Page 171] matter to bee dulie sifted and considered of by learned Divines, according to the impor­tance and difficultie therof either by the assi­stance only of his owne ordinarie councell in his courto of Rome, if the question bee but ordinarie: or if it bee of greater consequence, and do concerne a whole nation, or the vni­uersall church: then with the aid of a natio­nall or generall councell; And finally after such mature aduise taken, to giue his sentēce and to determine it. this is that which wee meane, w­hen wee saie, that the popes holines can never erre, when hee comes for the information and instructiō of the church, to define anie doubt­full question ex cathedra, that is, iudicially af­ter due examination. the infallibility of which sentence wee do not attribute to the learning, wisdome, or godlines of the pope, and much lesse to the sitting downe in his chaire (as M. Abbot dreamed) who being a mortall man maie err and doe amisse: but vnto our Saviours provident foresight, and vnto the most assu­red verity of his promise made to S. Peter, and his successors; which prayer and promise of our blessed Saviour can neuer faile. Against the evidence of which truth M. Abbot having no­thing to saie in reason, fals a railing at his ow­ne misconceit of it, and cals it a drunken mans dreame. which if hee himself will needs haue to bee so, who cā lett him to tearme his owne dreame as hee list. Manie men of a more sober and advised spiritt can easilie vnderstand, that there was verie great reasō why our blessed Sa­viour [Page 172] (being to establish an ecclesiasticall state, which hee would haue tost and to the worlds end, incorrupt in Doctrine, & vniforme in ho­lie rites and māners) should establish some one at the least, to resolue infallibly all the rest in all doubtfull questions, that should arise a­mōg them, which he forsaw would be almost innumerable. And to endow him with suffi­cient power and authority, to kepe all the rest in order and due obedience. This is that w­hich wee maintaine he did for S. Peter, and his successors the Bishops of Rome: having his owne expresse word for our warrant, being vnderstood according vnto the learned expo­sition, and prudent practise of the most an­cient holy pastors, and prelates of Christs church, as hath been before declared.

Thus much to shew how vnsoundly M. Abbot interpreteth that text of holy scriptu­re, and how vnproperly and feebly hee see­keth to shift from the most literall and vnifor­me exposition of the ancient Doctors. Now I come to examine the exceptions that hee ta­keth against some sentēces that I alleaged out of the said holy fathers to the same purpose.

19 My first and principall author, was the most learned and holie Archbishop of Lions S. Ire­neus. who with his blood sealed his doctrine 1400 yeares agoe. Hee teacheth plainly that the Roman church is the greatest and most autentike: and that hee and others by allea­ging the traditions (which the Apostles had lest to that church) and their faith by succes­sion [Page 173] of Bishops descending downe to his da­ies, did confound and put to shame all wran­glers, who either of ignorance, vaine glorie, or envy, did teach otherwise then they should haue done. And for an vpshott, addeth this reason, which I did before cite, to prove that wee must all ioyne in matter of faith with the church of Rome: to witt. For it is necessarie that everie church (that is all the faith full everie whe­re) do agree with the church of Rome,Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine, omnium ec­clesiarum enumerare successiones, maximae & antiquissima & om­nibus cognitae à gloriosissimis duo­bus Apostolis Petro & Paulo Ro­ma fundata & constituta ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis tra­ditionem, & annunciatam homi­nibus fidem, per successiones Epi­scoporum pervenientem vsque ad nos, indicantes, confundimus om­nes eos, qui quoqu [...] modo vel per sui placentiam malam, vel vanam gloriam, vel per caecitatem & ma­lam sententiam, praeter quam opor­tet colligunt. Ad hanc enim eccle­siam propter potentiorem principa­litatem necesse est omnem conve­nire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt vndique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt vndique, conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis tra­ditio. for her more mightie principa­litie: Bicause in it the tra­ditions which descended from the Apostles, hath been alwaies preserved round about. Note first a most cleere proofe of that for which I cited it, to witt; that everie church, yea everie faith­full man, must not of cur­tesie, but of necessitie, ac­cord with the church of Rome, in matter of faith and religion. Bicause in it as in a rich treasurie, that doctrine which the Apostles taught, is kept whole and sound. to which M. Abbot saith, that if wee take the reason added by Irenaeus, but concealed by mee, it will plainly appeare why it was neces­sarie [Page 174] for the other churshes to accord with the church of Rome. for this church (saith he) for the renowme of the place, being then the seat of the Empire, was the most eminent church of the world.

I answere that I concealed nothing. And this reason added by M. Abbot is wholie mista­ken. for there is no mention in Irenaeus of ei­ther the Emperors power or seate, for that mighty principality is proper to the church of Rome, for her spirituall dignitie. And it is most absurd to thinke that the church of Ro­me in those ancient daies of S. Irenaeus, (when the Emperours were most deadly ennemies of the Christian name) gott any reputation with other churches, by the worldly renowme of those persecuting Emperors, who raigned there. for that their wicked glorie was rather a whetstone to hatred and contempt, then anie allurement to loue and estimation.

This great respect then being borne vnto the church of Rome, before the Emperors of Rome were converted to be Christians, is a most manifest argument that the principality of the church of Rome, was not gotten by the renowme of that city, nor by the glorie of these heathen peesecuting Emperors: but for that the best learned, and most holie prelats of all countries, were taught by the Apostles and their schollers, that it was our blessed Saviours pleasure and ordinance, that such regard and obediēce should bee yeelded vnto the church of Rome: were the Emperors therof heathens [Page 175] or Christians, good or bad. It was in deed ve­rie convenient, that the prince of the Apostles, and head of Christs church, should be there seated, where the Monarch of the temporall estate held his court: to the intent, that impie­tie being there crushed as it were in the head, might the sooner decaie all the bodie over: And true godlines being happely planted in the cheif place, might with more facility and speed bee spred in all other nations; and also that mē might bee more easily induced to yeeld religious obedience to the Bishop of that pla­ce, vnto whose tēporall magistrates, the whole world before had obeied in temporall affaires. But this is to bee attibuted to our Saviours de­vine wisdome, order, & institution: Not vnto the greatnes or worldlie pollicie of anie earth­ly Emperors. M. Abbot seing little hold to bee taken vpon the renowme of that place, as the state of things went then, doth acknowledg that in those daies the church of Rome was pure & sound, & therfore fitt to be propounded as a patterne for o­ther churches to imitate: But now the case is altered (as he saith) bicause the church of Rome it self is now questioned, for swarving from the tradition of the Apostles: which being soe, that cannot be said to bee necessarie now, which was necessarie then.

This answer hath as litle solidity in it as the other. For the church of Rome it self, was as well chalenged in those daies for swarving from the Apostles tradition, by the Mōtanists, Marcionists, and such like Heretikes, as now by the Lutherans, Calvinists and Anabaptists. And neuertheles the renowmed prelates of [Page 176] Christs church, and most firme pillers of our Christian religion, did then teach all Chri­stians to make their recourse vnto the same church for resolution of the true faith, wis­hing them to conforme themselues therto, and by avouching boldlie that doctrine, w­hich they found there maintained, to con­found all them that taught the contrary, as yee haue heard out of Irenaeus. Let vs therfore as kind children treading in the right steps of those our most laudable forfathers, seeke with them vnto that same church of Rome, for the veritie of that doctrine which descended from the Apostles, imbrace it most willingly, and professe it as constantlie: though we heare our holie mother to be called into question by vn­towardlie and degenerous Children, that ei­ther wilfullie run out of her house, to follow their owne pleasure and fancies; or are for pu­re feare, falne away from her and forsaken her ordinances.

M. Abbot admitting as it were, that other churches should according to S. Irenaeus rule, con­forme themselues in matter of doctrine to the church of Rome: yet to giue vs a tast of the subtility of his shifting witt, addeth, that ther is in that pla­ce of Irenaeus nothing for her superiority in gover­ment.

well, that being once granted, that all other churches should for matter of doctrine, ac­cord with the church of Rome; it would the­ron necessarily follow, that the church of En­gland, and consequently his maiestie ought to [Page 177] do the same: which was all that I sued for. yet over and besides, Irenaeus words being well weighed do import also a superiority in go­verment, to be resident in that church. which I proue, bicause he saies, that other churches must of necessity accord with the church of Rome for her more potēt principality. Now if the church of Rome haue power and principality over other churches; And do impose a necessitie v­pon them of according vnto it: it must needes haue superiority in goverment over them: or els the other could not be bound of necessitie to follow it. M. Abbot doth grammatically des­cant first vpon this word (principalitie) and saies that it may sign [...]fie eminencie in estimation, though not superioritie in goverment. And that it maie bee potent also, to move by example and perswasion on­ly, not by commaundement. Be it so, that these words maie be wrested into some such signi­fication: as what words be there, that may not be diuerslie construed? yet everie reasona­ble man will soone see, that power and princi­palitie, do properly import a commaunding superiority. And will as easily graunt, that the fathers words are rather to be fairly taken according to the more vsuall signification, then in anie such forced sense and constru­ction.

Againe, seing that power and superioritie did (even as S. Irenaeus expresseth) impose a ne­cessitie vpon others of conforming themselues to the church of Rome: it could not bee that imagined superioritie of M. Abbots, which [Page 178] imposeth no such necessitie. wherfore it re­maines evident, that M. Abbot is driuen to flie from the vsuall signification, & true meaning of S. Irenaeus words. In like manner M. Abbot to cast some better colour, vpon his new devised principalitie, or rather to shift over into ano­ther matter, that seemes more plausible, wri­teth thus.

20 That M. Bishop may vnderstand I do not answere him by a deuise of mine, Cypr. l. 1. Epist. 3. but according to the truth, hee shall find that Ciprian calleth the chu [...]ch of Rome, the princ pall church: and yet in the same place, he denieth the authority of the Bis­hops in Africa, to be inferiour vnto the Bishops of Rome.

M. Abbot and other Protestants cannot choose but stand in bodily feare, so often as they appeale vnto the ancient fathers for sup­port of their novelties. for you shall scarse find any one of them, that doth not in the verie pla­ce alledged by the Protestants, giue them such a bob, that everie beholder maie plainly see, they do not favour their cause; nor are content to be called in for their witnesses. Let S. Cy­prian now cited by M. Abbot serve for an e­xample. This is the sentence out of which M. Abbot picked the former words.Cypr. l. 1. Epist. 3. iuxta pamel Epist 55. Post ista, adhuc insuper pseudo-Episcopo sibi ab haereticis constitu­to, nauigare audent ad Petri cathedram, atque ad Ecclesiā prin­cipalem, vnde vnitas sacerdotalis [...]rta est, a schismaticis & profanis litteras ferre: nec cogitare eos esse Romanos (quorum fides, Apostolo praedicante, laudata est) ad quos perfidia habere non posset acces­sum. After those things, and more also after a false Bishop appointed them by Heretiks, they dare sai­le to the chaire of Peter, and vnto the principall [Page 179] church, whence priestlie vnity hath its beginning, and carrie letters from schismatikes, and propha­ne fellowes: not remem­bring that such are the Romanes (whose faith is praised by the Apostles voice) vnto whom perfidie can haue no accesse. I set downe the whole passage because by and by we must tre­ate of the later part therof, as well as now of the former. where is sufficientlie declared, that S. Ciprian tooke the church of Rome to be principall, not onlie in estimation, but in order of goverment. which I proue First, be­cause hee affirmes the church of Rome to be S. Peters chaire, and consequently to be end­ued with like authoritie, that S. Peter enioy­ed, vpon whom (as S. Ciprian in twentie pla­ces avoucheth) the church of Christ was buil­ded. Secondly, he describes it to be that prin­cipall church, which is the fountaine of pri­estly and ecclesiasticall vnitie. which could not be, vnles it had power and authoritie to compell all other churches to stand to her or­der, and therby to hold all in vnitie of faith, and vniformity of religiō. For as all the world now seeth, there neither is, nor can bee (in mans iudgment) any vnitie in faith, or reli­gious rites, among Protestants, bicause there is no one soveraigne cōmaūder over them all, in­dued with authoritie to cōpell the rest to agree in one. And in the self same Epistle S. Cip. cōfir­meth this verie poīt in these memorable words. [Page 180] Heresies haue not risen,Cyprian. ibidem. Neque enim aliunde haereses orta sunt, aut nata sunt schismata, quam inde, quod sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur, nec vnus in ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos, & ad tempus iudex, vico Christi co­gitatur. nor schismes sprong from any other roote, then for that obedience is not ye­elded to one priest: and for that one priest for the time, and one Iugde is not accepted of in Christs steed.

Do you see by S. Cyprians sentence, that the only way to root out heresies and to accord schismes, is to acknowledg one priest for so­veraigne Iudge in ecclesiasticall cases, and to obey him as Christs vicegerent on earth. Such a soveraigne Iudge is hee that sits in S. Peters chaire, and that principall church of Rome, by S. Ciprians owne assertion in the former pe­riod; or els Ecclesiasticall Discipline could not draw its originall vnitie thence. Thus much here to prove that the principall church in that place of S. Ciprian, is to be taken for the principall in authoritie and goverment. Now to the other part. S. Cipriā denieth not the Bis­hops in Africa to be inferior vnto the Bishop of Rome, but blameth such troublesome fel­lowes, that would not rest quiet and content, with their owne Bishops iudgment, but flie abroad to molest others with their brawles: as though their owne Bishops had not sufficient authority, or witt, to compose and end their quarrells at home. S. Ciprian supposeth, that their churches in Afrike, had no less authority then others churches to order such matters; but neither names the church of Rome, nor [Page 181] makes any comparison in matter of higher na­ture. but all this is deuised and thrust in out of the fecundity of M. Abbots vnderstanding. yet let vs grant that S. Ciprian might meane, that the Bishops in Africk had no loss autho­ritie to Iudg of their own subiects faults then any other Bishops; yea then the Bishop of Ro­me himself hath: It doth not thervpon ensue, that he thought the Bishops in Africke, not inferiour vnto the Bishop of Rome. For in ti­mes past, in our owne countrey when it was Catholike, and now in France; men cannot ap­peale to Rome from the ordinarie courts of their owne countrie, without speciall licence: and yet in farr greater matters, they acknow­ledg the pope to be their supreme governor in causes Ecclesiasticall. But of this point we shall speake more in the next obiection, which is thus propounded by M. Abbot.

21 The African councell acknowledged the church of Rome, for the first and principall sea,Concil. Afric. cap. 6. and the Bis­hop therof they tearme the Bishop of the first and principall sea: and yet they deny the Bishop of Ro­me to haue anie authority over them. yea when zo­zimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus, chalenged the same by a forged Canon of the councell of Nice:Ibid. can. 101. Those African Bishops for the disproving therof, sent to the patriarches of Alexandria and Constan­tinople, for autenticall copies of the same councell, wherin they found no such matter. And thervpon wrote to Celestinus, that he should forbeare to send [Page 182] his legates to intermeddle in their matters.Ibid can. 105. And for­bad all appeales, saving to their owne councells: ex­communicating them that presumed to appeale to Rome.Ibid. can. 92. And in this recusancy of subiection, they continued afterward for the space of an hundreth yeeres, vntill Eulalius the Bishop of Carthage sub­mitted the same to Pope Boniface.

This councell of Africk, and fact of the A­frican Bishops there assembled, is very often in all protestants mouthes and writings; therfo­re I will more particulerly examin it, and ma­ke somwhat a longer staie vpon it. M. Abbot cōmitts two faults in his first allegation out of the sixt canon of that councell. the former of ignorance, in that he doth applie that to the Bishop of Rome, which the councell spea­keth of the Archbishop of Carthage, their owne primate and Metropolitane: whom though they would haue to be obeyed, as primats are in all other countries: yet they de­sired that hee should forbeare that statlie stile and title of primacie, and be contented to be called Bishop of the first sea. his other fault is an audacious averring them to deny that Bishop to haue any authoritie ouer them; of which in that canon there is never a word But the plaine contrarie is therin implied. For they there speaking of their owne Metropolitane, they must needs bee vnderstood (being no Pu­ritanes) to acknowledg him to haue authori­tie over all other Bishops in the same provin­ce. In the 101 Canon (which M. Abbot doth al­leage [Page 183] in the second place) he over reacheth al­so not a little. For wheras those Bishops do humbly request his holines, not to grant de­puties to everie one that shall come to Rome to demaund them; he saies they willed the po­pe not to intermeddle at all in their matters. And in the third place cited by them, to witt, Canon 92, there is a notorious falsification. for wheras that councell doth forbid onlie priests and deacons, & other inferiour persons to ap­peale to Rome: M. Abbot saies, they forbid all appeales: wheras they speake not of Bishops, of whom principally the question was: but leaue that in the state wherin it was before. This by the waie, to shew how corruptly M. Abbot cites his authors, and how litle cōscien­ce hee makes, to deceiue his seely reader, that is so simple as to believe what he saith. Now to the maine matter of the 101 Canon, which hee cites in the secōd place, which well considered, doth rather confirme the popes authoritie o­ver those Africane Bishopes, then infirme it. For albeit the Bishops of Africk did not ack­nowledg any such canon to be in the councell of Nice, which by the popes legat was alled­ged to prove that appellations might be made out of Africk, or anie other countrie vnto Ro­me in some cases: yet they did so behaue them­selues therin, that anie reasonable man may perceiue their great affectiō, and humble obe­dience vnto the same sea of Rome. For they not finding in their owne copies of the Ni­cene counsell that which was put into the [Page 184] Legats instructions, desired respite to make enquiry after the best copies, and in the meane season promised obedience: These be their words. These things that out of the said instructiōs are alleaged vnto vs (con­cerning the appeales of Bishops,Concilium Carthag. nomine sextum, ordine 5. n. 4. Ista nos tamen tantisper seruatio­ros, (vt antea [...] dixi) donec integra exemplaria veniant, profitem [...]r. Petendus est autem litteris nostris & venerabilis Ecclesia Romanae Episcopus Bonifacius, vt ipse quo (que) dignetur ad memoratas ecclesias a­l [...]quos mittere, qui eadem exempla­ria praedicti Niceni Concilij secun­dum eius possint scripta proferre. In Epistola Concilij ad Bo­nifacium, cap. 101. Quod donec fiant hac quae in com­monitorio supradicto nobis allega­ta sunt de appellationibus Episco­porum ad Romanae sedis Sacerdo­tem & nos vsque ad probationem seruaturos esse, profitemur: & bea­titu inem tuam ad hoc nos adiutu­ram in dei voluntate confidimus. vnto the Bishop of Rome &c: & of priests causes to bee determined, by the Bishops of their owne provinces) wee do professe and promise to obserue, vntill due triall of those canons be made, & trust in the will of God, that your holines will hel­pe vs thervnto. If those Reuerend and holy Bis­hops of Africa, had been infected with the leauen of the protestants, they would haue soone answered as M. Abbot here vntru­lie reporteth they did: that the Bishop of Rome had no authority ouer them; and haue willed him to keepe himself within his owne bounds, and not to intermed­dle with the matters of Africk: But they contrariwise promised obedience, vntill true triall were made. which argueth that the custome before was for bishops to ap­peale to Rome, and therfore that to be continued, vn­till proofe could bee made to the contrarie: according to that axiome of the law. Let him that is in possessiō kee­pe his possession, vntill good proofe bee brought against him. [Page 185] Quia melior est conditio possidentis. Secondly, w­hen those reverend fathers had receiued copies from Alexandria and Constantinople, whe­rin were not contained any Canons for ap­pealing to Rome, they certified the same in these submissiue words. Praefato debito saluta­tionis officio, impendio deprecamur, &c: Cap. 105. Prafato it aque de­bita salu­tationis officio, im­pendio de­precamur, vt dein­ceps ad vestras au­res hinc venientes non faci­lius admit tatis. The du­tie of our bounden salutations premised, wee do ear­nestly request and pray you, that you will not too easilie admitt to your audience them that come from hence. And before their letters they sett this title: Dilectissimo Domino, to their best beloued Lord, and most honorable brother. Do not these hum­ble words of bounden dutie vnto their Lord, notifie what esteeme they made of the Bishop of Rome? They saie indeed, that they found neither in the Canons of the Nicene councell, nor in anie other of their fathers, that the Bis­hop of Rome should send anie legats into their country, to heare and determine their causes. wherin (by the leaue of such worthy personages be it spoken) they shew, that they had not read or well considered the Canons of the councell holden at Sardica, which was both verie generall, and most autenticall, as I haue proved before. for in that councell it is expresly decred, that any Bishop of what coast or countrie soever, may appeale vnto the Bishop of Rome. Concil. Sard. ca. 4. & 7. And that the said Bishop of Rome maie de­pute and send others to the place, where the Bishops appellants do dwell, to heare and determine all such causes. And most probable it is, that those ho­ly popes Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus, [Page 186] meant the same canons of the councell of Sar­dica, which they called the Canons of the Nicene councell: because that councell of Sardica was both holden by some of the same principall persons that were at the Nicene councell, as Hosius, Athanasius, and such like; and did also treat much about the same mat­ters. wherfore it is said to be ioyned in the Ro­man copy with the councell of Nice, and re­puted as an appendix or parcell of it. And the­rin perhaps was the errour cōmitted, that the popes having both these councells com­pact into one, named the canons of both, af­ter the more principall and more renowmed councell of Nice: calling them the canons of the Nicene councell; which in rigour were but the canons of the councell of Sardica. yet that councell of Sardica being of the same au­thoritie and binding power, they in alleaging them vnder the name of the Nicene, did not offer any wrong vnto those Bishops of Africk, exacting onely that that their right might bee preserved entire among them, which by the approued canons of the church, was due vnto their seat. And these reverend prelates of the African church were the more excusable, for that they had not seen perhaps any true copie of the approued councell of Sardica at that time; the place being verie remote from them, and the litle space of time, which was betwe­ene the two councels of Sardica and Afrike, having been also most troblesome, by reason of the Arrians manifold violent persecutions. [Page 187] this much in brief of that great busines. wher­by it appeareth cleerly that although these re­uerend prelates of Africk, held it much more expediēt, that all perticuler cōtroversies about meū & tuum, & concerning misdemeanors and crimes, should be handled in the place where the parties and witnesses were knowen, & w­here all particulers might bee more narowly sifted, and with more speed and less charges tried, then a far of in a forrain countrie: yet for matter of faith, and rites of religion, they ne­ver denyed the explicatiō or determinatiō the­rof, to appertaine to the Bishop of Rome. Ap­peales to Rome in matters of law, haue been in our owne countrie, (when it was Catho­like) forbidden, without the expresse leaue of the prince; and at this daie are in the Christiā countrie of France, without any deniall of the popes supreme cōmanding power in cases Ecclesiasticall: which is all and more too then the African councell did;Conc. Afri. c. 92. Item pla­cuit, vt presbyteri diaconi, vel caeteri inferiores clerici, si de iudiciis episcoporū suorum questi fue­rint, &c. for that doth only for­bid priests and inferior persons to appeale thither: leaving all Bishops art their libertie. so that in fine if all were grāted, which M. Abbot goeth about to prove, yet it is not sufficient to in­fringe the supremacy of the pope. for albeit appeales to Rome in matter of law were pro­hibited; yet recourse thither for matter of faith and religiō being approued, & stāding good, the supremacy is sufficiently maintained.

21 Notwitstanding because the fact of the A­frican councell is holdē by the Protestāts (who for wāt of greater proofe, are faine to make much of a little) to be very preiudiciall vnto [Page 188] the supremacy of the sea of Rome: I will heere produce some testimonies of the best learned & most approued Africā Doctors, in favor of the pope & church of Romes supreme power over Afrike it self. The first shalbe S. Ciprian, who as in dignitie was primate of Afrike, so for his great wisedome and learning was infe­rior to few, and in his glorious martirdome over went the rest. This right worthy Archbishope declareth plainly, that they were not accustomed to end all their controversies at ho­me:Ciprian. Epistola 45. ed: Pam. Sed cum statuissemus collegae complures qui in vnum conue­neramus, vt legatis ad vos Epis­copis nostris Caldonio & fortu­nato, omnia interim integra sus­penderentur, donec ad nos ijdem collegae a nostri venirent. But he himself with the assent of other Bis­hops, did send two Bis­hops, the one called Ca­lidonius, the other For­tunatus, vnto Cornelius then pope of Rome, recomēding their causes vnto him; And sheweth, how in the meane season whiles their causes were before him, the Bishops of Africa would liue in suspence, expecting his iudgment. Is not this an evidēt demonstration, that the Bishops of Africk in S. Ciprians times (which was within 200. ye­res of Christ) held the court of Rome to be ouer and aboue their owne. which yet S. Ci­prian in the same epistle doth more expresly declare.Ibidem. Nos etiam singulis nauiganti­bus, ne cum scandalo vllo naui­garent rationem reddentes, scimus nos hortatos eos esse, vt ecclesiae Ca­tholicae radicem & matricem agnoscerent actenerent. when he doth exhort and councell the appellants, that went to Rome, to cary them­selues there without scā ­dall; and to aknowledg [Page 189] and obserue the church of Rome, as the ro­ote or foundation, and mother of the Catho­like church.Ex Epistola Stephani Ar­chiep. & concil. Africae ad Damasum Papam habetur: Tomo 1. Concil. inter Epi­stolas damasi. Notum vestrae facimus beati­tudini, quod quidam fratres in confinio nobis positi, quosdam fa­tres nostros, venerabiles videlicet Episcopos, vobis inconsultis, a proprio deijciunt gradu, vel deii­cere moliuntur: cum vestrae sedi, Episcoporum iudicia, & sum­morum finem ecclesiasticorum negotiorum, in honore beatissi­mi Petri, patrum decreta om­nium, cunctam reseruauere sen­tentiam, &c. Stephen a reuerend Bishop of Mau­ritania in Afrike, who li­ued before that African councell, thus writeth to pope Damasus. wee ma­ke knowē vnto your ho­lines, that some Bishops our neighbors haue go­ne about to depose other reuerend Bishops, not ac­quainting you with that matter: wheras the iud­gment of Bishops, and fi­nall determinatiō of their principall causes, by the decrees of our fathers doth in honor of blessed S. Peter, belong vnto your sea. Is not this a most plaine aknowled­gment of the Bishop of Romes commanding authoritie ouer the churches of Afrike? And because no exception can be iustly taken, ei­ther against pope Damasus learning and inte­gritie, or against his writings (whose secreta­ry somtimes was S. Hierome) I will set dow­ne his answer vnto the said African Bishop. These bee his words.Ex Epistola 4. damasi ad eun­dem Stephanum & ad con­cilia Africae. Nos qui supra domum eius, hoc est, vniuersalem ecclesiam Ca­tholicam, Episcopale suscepimus ministerium, solicite vigilare de bemus, etc scitis fatres dilectissimi firmamentum a deo fixum & immobile, atque titulum lu­cidissimum suorum sacerdotum id est, omnium episcorum, A­postolicam sedem esse consti­tutam, & verticem ecclesia­rum. Tu es enim [sicut diui­num pronunciat verbum veraci­ter] Petrus, &c cuius vice dei gratia hodie fungimur ideo omnia quae innotuistis non licere mandarem, nisi vos tam plene instructos scirem, quod cuncta super quibus consuluistis, illicita esse non dubitetis discu­tere nam (que) episcopos, & summas ecclesiasticorum negotiorum cau­sas, metrapolitano vna cum com­prouincialibus licet: sed definire ecclesiasticarum summas quere­las causarum, vel damnare epis­copos, absque huius sanctae sedis auctoritate minime licet, ad quam omnes appellare, si necesse fuerit, & eius fulcire auxilio oportet. It behoveth vs that haue re­ceiued Episcopall charge ouer the house of our lord, that is, the vniuer­sall church to watch car­fully, [Page 190] that nothing w­hich belonges to that function be wanting, &c. you (most beloued bro­ther) do know the sea A­postolike constituted of God an vnmoueable for­tresse, and the head of all churches. which he pro­ues by our Saviours wor­ds (Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my church) aver­ring the Bishops of Ro­me to be S. Peters succes­sors and Christs vicars. and at length saith; That it is lawfull for Metropo­litans to heare and discuss the causes of Bishops their suffragans; but vnlawfull to determin them finallie, without the authoritie of the sea of Rome. vn­to which it was lawfull for all Bishops to ap­peale, when need required, and there to find reliefe. I come now to some other councells, that were held in Africk, immediatly before that African, in which were present most of the same prelates. The councell holden at Mi­leuitan writeth to Innocentius the first (who was pope next before Zozimus, to whom suc­ceeded Bonifacius, and Celestinus, in this man­ner. Bicause our lord of his speciall grace, hath [Page 191] placed you in the sea Apostolike, and hath af­forded you such a one in our times,Ex Epist 92. inter ep. D. Aug. Quia te Dominus gratiae suae precipuo munere in sede Apostoli­ca collocauit, talemque nostris tē ­poribus praestitit, vt nobis potius ad culpam negligentia valeat, si apud tuam venerationem, quae pro Ecclesia suggerenda sunt, tac [...]eri­mus; quam ea tu pos? is vel fasti­diose vel negligenter accipere, ma­gnis periculis infirmorum membrorum Christi pastoralem diligen­tiam quaesvmus a [...]hibere digneris &c. Multo plures qui eius sensuo diligentius indagare potuerunt, aduersus eū progratia Christi, et Catholicae fidei veritate confligūt, praecipue sanctus filius tuus, frater & compresbiter noster Hieroni­mus. Sed arbitramur, adiuuante misericordia Domini Dei nostri Iesu Christi, qui te & regere con­sulentem, & orantem exaudire di­gnatur, autoritati sanctitatis tuae, de sanctorum scripturarum auto­ritate de promptae, facilius eos qui tam peruersa & perniciosa sen­tiunt esse cessuros. that it may be rather imputed to the blame of our negligence, if we conceale from your holines those things that are to be referred to the church; then that you can either disdainfully, or car­lesly heare vs. wee therfo­re beseech you that you will vouchsafe to applie your pastorall diligence vnto the weake members of Christ, &c. Many o­thers that could trace out the errors of Pelagius, ha­ue entred the combat w­ith him, in defence of the grace of Christ, & of the truth of the Catholike faith, namely your holie sonne, our brother & fel­low priest Hierome: but through the mercies of Christ (who will vouchsafe to heare you praying, & direct you giuing counsell) wee bee of opiniō, that they will sooner yeeld vnto the authoritie of your holines being deriued from the authoritie of holie scriptures. This epistle is recorded amōg S. Austins. so is another of that councell held at Carthage about the same time, wherin the Bishop of Africa wrote thus to the same pope. Holy Lord and brother, we haue thought good [Page 192] to relate to you what we haue done,Ex epist. xc. inter D. Aug. epistolas. Hoc itaque gestum Domine frater sancte charitati tuae inti­mandum duximus, vt statutis nostra mediocritatis etiam Apo­stolicae sedis adhibeatur autoritas pro tuenda salute multorum, & quorundam peruersitate etiam corrigenda. that vnto the decrees of our mediocri­ty, may be adioyned the authoritie of the sea Apostolike, aswell for the preserving of manie mens saluation, as for the correcting of some persons deprauation. By both which Epistles we may easily perceiue, how the African Bis­hops esteemed the church of Rome to bee the sea Apostolike, to be that head church, vnto which the affaires of higher nature, are to bee referred; That it had pastorall charge ouer the Churches of Africke; that it had au­thority (warranted by the word of God) for the defining of matter of faith; vnto which even heretikes would yeeld sooner, then vnto any other though esteemed never so learned. And therfore they sent the decrees of their co­uncell vp to Rome, to be confirmed by the pope. All this being of record in approved A­frican councels holden about the same time, and by the same persons, that were at that o­ther African councell; what reason hath anie man to thinke, that therin the Bishop of Ro­me was forbidden to intermeddle in their af­faires of Afrike.

Ex Epist. D. Aug. IOB. Missae sunt itaque de hac re ex duobus conciliis Carthaginensi et Mileuitano relationes ad Apo­stolicam sedem, &c. scripsimus etiam ad beatae memoria papam Innocentium, &c. Ad omnia nobis ipse rescripsit eodem modo quofas erat atque oportebat Apo­stolica sedis Antistitem.S. Austin himself rela­teth both that these two councells, to witt, of Carthage and of Mileui­tane, [Page 193] had written vnto pope Innocentius, and further doth assure vs, that the popes answer to them was sound, & such as did well beseeme the sea Apostolike. I will therfore be bold to acquaint the Reader with the same his answer. These be his words.

You do diligently,Ex epistola 93. Diligenter ergo & congrue Apostolico consulitis honori, hono­ri (inquam) illius, quem praeter illa quae sunt extrinsecus, solicitu­do manet omnium Ecclesiarum, super anxijs rebus, quae sit tenen­da sententia: antiqua scilicet re­gulae formam sequuti, quam toto semper ab orbe mecum nostis esse seruatam, verum haec missa facio, neque enim hoc vestram credo la­tere prudentiam. Qui id etiam actione firmastis, scientes quod per omnes prouincias ab Apostoli­co fonte, potentibus responsa sem­per emanant? praesertim quoties fidei ratio ventilatur, arbitror omnes fratres & coepiscopos no­stros, non nisi ad Petrum, id est sui nominis & honoris autorem referre debere, velut nunc retulit vestra dilectio, quod per totum mundum possit omnibus Ecclesiis in commune prodesse. and as it becometh you res­pect the honor of the sea Apostolik: the honor (I say) of it, that besides her owne particuler, hath a great care of all churches to declare vnto them, w­hat is to be holden of cō ­troversies that do arise; wherin you do follow the forme of the old Ca­nōs, which (as you know) haue been observed all the world ouer. This I let passe, bicause your wisdomes be not ignorāt of it, but haue by your owne deed confirmed it: know­ing that answers do flow from the sea Apostolike, as from a fountaine, into all coūtries that demaūd the same, and specially where the substance of faith is sifted out, then I thinke that all [Page 194] our brethren and fellow bishops, ought to re­ferr the decision and determination therof vnto no other then vnto S. Peter, the author of their owne name and order, as your chari­ty hath now done. This I hope is plaine e­nough, to demonstrate that in pure antiqui­tie, the Bishops of Africk and other countries for the decision of controuersies in matters of doctrine specially, were bound to seeke vnto the Bishop of Rome.

S. Austin (as all men know) was one of the greatest lights, not only of the Africā church but of the whole world since his daies, Hee was also present att the same African councell: let vs heare whether hee thought that the Bis­hop of Rome, had nothing to doe with the affaires of Africk, or that the African Bishops might not appeale to Rome. First hee with the other Bishops present at the councels of Car­thage, and Mileuitan, did send the decrees of the same councell to bee confirmed of the pope, of which I haue alreadie spoken.

Ex epistola D. August. 261. ad papam Celestinum. Collabora obsecro nobiscum pietate venerabilis domine bea­tissime papa, & iube tibi qua directa sunt omnia recitari, vide Episcopatum qualiter gesserit, &c. existat exemplo, ipsa sede Apostolica iudicata firmante. & subueni hominibus, opem tuam in Christi misericordia multo a­uidius quam ille poscentibus.2 Hee writeth vnto po­pe Celestinus about the cause of an African Bis­hop requesting him to pervse all that had pas­sed about him in Africk, and to confirme their former iudgments. whe­rin he acknowledgeth the court of Rome, to bee a­boue the highest courts in Africk.

3 He testifieth that pope Zozimus had au­thoritie to establish Bishops in Africk, and to call a councell there. shewing how hee himself was by him sommoned to assist at the same councell in these words.Aug. epistola 157. Litera quas ad Mantoniam Caesariensem misisti, me apud Caesaream presente venerunt, quo nos, iniuncta nobis a venera­bili papa Zozimo Apostolica se­dis Episcopo, Ecclesiastica Neces­sitas traxerat. Ecclesiasticall necessitie being enioyned vs, by the venerable pope Zozimus bishop of the sea Aposto­like, we were drawen vn­to Cesarea in Mauritania.

4 In the same Epistle he declareth how two nota­ble heretikes Pelagius & his disciple Celestius we­re cōdemned (vnles they did repent) all the world over,Ibidem. Cuius (haeresis) vel auctores vel certi acerrimi suasores cum Pelagius & Calestinus extitis­sent, conciliorum Episcopalium vigilantia, in adiutorio saluatoris qui suam tuetur Ecclesiam, etiam a duobus venerabilibus Antisti­tibus Apostolicae sedis, papa In­nocentio & papa Zozimo, nisi correcti etiam egerint paeniten­tiam, toto Christiano Orbe dam­nati sunt. by two renowmed popes Innocentiu, and Zozimus. wherfore he tooke their power to stretch all the world over. where also having cited the decree of Zozi­mus in his owne words, adioyneth this high commendation to it: in these words of the sea Apostolike, is comprehended so authentike, so well grounded, so certaine and cleere a de­finitiō of the Catholike faith, that it were an impietie for anie christian man to doubt of it.

5 So doth he commend the sentence of Mel­chiades pope of Rome giuen for Cecilianus Archbishop of Carthage against Donatus in these wordes. The finall sentence pronoun­ced [Page 196] by Melchiadis,Qualis ipsius beati Melchiadis vltima est probata sententia, quam innocens, quam inte­gra, quam prouida atque pacifica? & paulo post. O vi­rum optimum, o filium Chri­stianae pacis, & patrem Chri­stianae plebis. how innocent was it, how so­und, how prouident, & peaceable? and a litle af­ter. O most excellent mā, the sonne of Christian peace, and the father of Christian people. And of the same good Archbis­hop Cecilianus, Ibidem. Episcopus Carthaginis Ce­cilianus potuit non curare conspirantem multitudinem i­nimicorum, cum se videret & Romana Ecclesiae (in qua semper Apostolica cathedrae vi­guit principatus,) & cateris vnde Euangelium ad Afri­cam venit, per communicatorias literas esse coniunctum. S. Austin saith in the same place; that hee needed not care for the multitude of his enemies conspiring a­gainst him; so long as he saw himself by comuni­catory letters ioyned w­ith the church of Rome, in which alwaies the principalitie of the Apostolike chaire did florish, &c.

Saint Austin then, directing with others the decrees of their councell to be confir­med by the pope, teaching also that it w­ere an impiety to doubt of his sentence; further affirming, that he could condemne heretikes all the world over; doth plainly signifie that he held the definition of the sea of Rome, for matter of faith to be in­violable. Againe, walking himself with o­ther Bishops of Africk, to a councell at the popes commandement, and holding the popes sentence for a finall determination of the African bishops Ecclesiasticall affaires; [Page 197] yea avouching in plaine words, that the primacy of the Apostolike sea had alwaies florished at Rome; All these specialties considered, who can doubt, but that Saint Austin both in that African councell, and ever after was of opinion, that the pope of Rome might intermeddle with the Ecclesiasticall causes of Africk: and that the African Bishops, and their causes and co­uncels, might be verie well, and ought in some cases to be referred vnto the iudg­ment of the Bishop of Rome.

23 Not long after Saint Augustin liued, pope Leo the great, who directed a most graue and learned letter vnto the Bishops of Africa, wherin he decreed some Bishops there to be deposed,Leo episcopus vniuersis E­piscopis per Caesariensem Mauritaniam in Afri­ca constitutis Epi­stola: 87. Cum de ordinationibus sacer­dotum quaedam apud vos illicite vsurpata, crebrior ad nos sermo perferret, ratio pietatis exegit, vt pro solicitudine quam vniuersae ec­clesiae exdiuina institutione depen­dimus, rerum fidem studeremus agnoscere, &c. Ibidem. c 2. Causam quoque Lupicini epis­copi illic iubemus audiri cui mul­tum ac saepe postulenti cōmunionē hac rai [...]one redd [...]mus, quoniam ad nostrum iudicium prouocass [...], immerito cum, pendente negotio a comu­nion [...] videbamus fuisse suspensum. o­thers to be continued in their office: and re­stored one Lupicinus by name to his Bishoprick, who being deposed by the Bishops of that pro­uince of Africa, had ap­pealed from their sen­tence vnto the same Leo Bishop of Rome. which is a manifest evidence that the Bishops of A­frick [Page 198] did aclwaies aknowledg the Bishop of Rome his superiority, and cōmanding power over the Bishops of their countrie. victor vti­censis liued also verie shortlie after S. Austin, and before Eulalius: he writing in that inte­rim, in which M. Abbot doth beare vs in hād that the church of Africa was fallen out with the Church of Rome, he (I saie) a verie god­lie Bishop, a grave, and learned Historiogra­pher, rehearseth: How Eugenius Archbishop of Carthage, for conferring with the vanda­le Honoricus (then by inuasion king of the greatest part of Africk and an Arrian here­tike) said vnto his deputie. If the kingly po­wer desire to know our faith,Victor vticens: de persecut. vand: l: 2. Si nostram fidem (quae vna & vera est) potestas Regis cognosce­re desiderat, mittat ad amicos suos: scribam & ego fatribus meis vt veniant coepiscopi, qui cōmunē fidem nostram valeant demon­strare, & praecipue Romana ec­clesia, quae caput est omnium ecclesiarum, &c. which is the only true faith, you may con­sult with your councell; And I will write vnto my brethren, and especially vnto the church of Ro­me (which is the head of all churches) and we to­geather will declare vnto your Maiestie, that faith which is common to vs all.

Behold how even immediatly after that councell of Africk, when M. Abbot dreamed the Bishops of Africa to be fallen awaie from the sea of Rome, The primate of Carthage (the chief citie in all Africk) acknowledged [Page 199] the church of Rome to be the head of all the churches, and that for the resolution of matter of faith, that sea of Rome was prin­cipallie to bee consulted. I need not des­cend anie Lower bicause M. Abbot himself doth relate how Eulalius Archbishop of Carthage, (who liued the next age after) acknowledged the popes supremacie, and made that countrie of Africk subiect vn­to it.

Seing then that cleaven hundreth yeres a­goe (when Eulalius liued) by M. Abbots owne confession, the popes had soueraign commaund over the churches of Africk, and before: even vp to Saint Cyprian and Tertul­lians time (which was within 200. yeeres af­ter Christ) the same church of Rome was by the principall pillars and lights of Africk, esteemed the mother church of the world, and roote of Christian vnity, vnto which some of their Bishops in all ages did appea­le for succour, some others did referr the decrees of their councels to be confirmed, acknowledging the Bishop of Rome to ha­ue power to assemble councels in Africk. and to condemne heretikes all the world over: was not M. Abbot fowly over seen, and did he not ouer-reach most grieuous­ly when he said, that the Bishops of A­fricke denied the Bishop of Rome to ha­ue anie authority over them, and forbad [Page 200] him to intermeddle with matters of their country.

I haue staid the longer vpon this fact of the African Bishops, bicause the Prote­stants make such reckening of it: I will with more speede dispatch that which fol­loweth. M. Abbot obi [...]cteth, that Anicetus the pope could not perswade Policarpus to keepe the feast of Easter, after the manner of Rome. therby intimating, that Policarpus was not acquainted with that potent principality of the church of Rome. I answer that not withstanding the confessed acknowledg­ment of the popes supremacy, no man is bound to follow all his opinions, or to imbrace his aduises or perswasions: onlie he is of dutie to obey his expresse comma­undements. wherfore Anicetus not binding Policarpus by anie mandate to alter his opinion: thence cannot bee gathered anie disobedience of Policarpus; though it be most certain, that Anicetus was in the truth, and thother in errour. for that the feast of Easter, should haue been kept of all churches, according vnto the manner of Rome, And so it was afterward defined in the first generall councell of Nice. As do witnes,Atha­nas: epi­stola de Arimi­nensi con­cilio. Athanasius, Eusebius, Euseb. de vita constant: l. 3. v. 17. Epipha­nius, heres. 69. Socrates histor. lib. 1. cap. 6. Theodoret. histor. 1. cap. 10. Nicephorus hi­stor. lib. 8. cap. 19. Nevertheles Anicetus [Page 201] out of the spirit of lenity, was content to bea­re with Policarpus, being a holy, reverend, and Apostolicall man. Pope victor afterward seing the same errour creeping further ab­road, and beginning to infect euen the wester­ne church, thought it fitter to vse his authori­tie to driue the churches of Asia from the cu­stome of the Iewes, vnto conformity with the church of Rome. Neither is it apparent, nor so certaine as M. Abbot would haue it seeme, that Policrates did disobey his sentence of ex­communication. for those his words cited by M. Abbot, are set downe in Eusebius,Euseb. l. 5. histor. c. 22. & 23. when the question was yet in examination, and be­fore the sentence pronounced. So that he might verie well (as his duty required) after he saw the popes definitiue sentence, confor­me himself thervnto, though before hee was of another mind. And he being otherwise a verie godly and a learned prelate, is to be presumed and taken to haue done that which he ought to do. the contrary not being able to be prooued. S. Ciprian (whom M. Abbot ci­teth next) as all the learned know, erred in that point of rebaptizing them, that were be­fore baptized by heretikes; and therin out of humane frailtie offended, by not conforming his opinion vnto Stephen Bishop of Rome; forgetting his owne iudgment giuen, and often repeted when he was out of that distem­pered moode, to witt, that heresies and schismes doCypr. Epistola 55. Neque al [...]unde haereses ortae sunt, aut nata sunt schismata, quam inde, quod Sacerdoti Dei non ob­temperatur, &c. grow out of no other [Page 202] roote, then that the voice of one priest, and iudge for the time, in Christs steed is not harkened vnto. and many such like. M. Abbot to testify to the world that he is a blind guid, and willīg to lead his feollowers into the ditch, is not as­hamed to propound vnto them for imitation, the knowen and confessed faults and blemis­hes of men otherwise good. How much mo­re sincerly deale wee, who desire all men to follow S. Ciprian in all other matters, saving in that one, wherin hee failed, and not to lay hold of words then spoken in passion by him to make good his errour, specially when they be cōtrary even vnto himself, when he was his owne man, and out of that distemper? whence also we do gather this Christian observation worthie to be deepely printed in everie Chri­stian mans hart. If such great learned persona­ges as were S. Ciprian and Policrates, when they would not harken vnto the sentence of the Popes of Rome, did fall into errour: what a warning is that vnto men of meaner wits, and much lesser learning, to take heed, that they swarne not one haires bredth from the popes definitions in matter of doctrine; lest withall they decline from the truth, as their betters by many degrees haue done before them, when they would not be ruled?

25 Out of Africke M. Abbot sailes into Asia, taking over great paines to search out some poore relief for his bad cause, and saies: they did not imagine any such principality to appertain vnto [Page 203] the church of Rome; And for proofe therof brings in that which rather proveth the con­trarie, to witt, that Leo the great for the loue of peace yeelded to them in a faultie definitiō of theirs, about the observation of Easter. If that worthy pope should haue condescended vnto those Asians rather then to haue contended with them, doth not that rather argue, that he was their superior, and might haue dealt more se­verly with them, if he had taken it for the bet­ter course?Leo Epi­stola 93. n. 4. But I reading over all that Epistle cited by M. Abbot, do not find it so as he re­portes: but that these Asians were rather Pris­cilian heretikes, whom that holy pope much blameth and condemneth for their evill ob­servation of Easter, without anie yeelding vn­to them. wherfore I cannot see to what other purpose that can serue, than to shew that the bishope of Rome had commanding power in Asia. M. Abbot recuils back to Hierome, affir­ming him not to haue believed any such mat­ter of the popes principality, who of purpose as (hee faineth) did write in the derogation of the church of Rome, saying:Hieron. Epist ad Evagriū. that if authority be required, the whole world is greater then one City. why dost thou bring mee the custome of one Citty? why dost thou vphold a few, w­ho being proud, vsurpe vpon the lawes of the church?

Saint Hierom was alwaies a most valiant Champion of the church of Romes authori­ty,Epist. 57. and of her infallible definitions in matter [Page 204] of faith, as every one may plainly see in his e­pistle to Pope Damasus and elswhere.Epist 57. yet for matter of fact, neither he nor any other (I thinke) will go about to excuse the church, or rather the court of Rome wholy. In the place that M. Abbot doth alleage,Hieron. Epist. 77. he find [...] fault with some Deacons of the court of Ro­me, that did take place before priests, which seemed in that humble Doctors eie a great moate, growing out of the presumption of some few, vsurping against [...]he lawes and cō ­mon custome of the church. And in such a ca­se as that, the custome of all the world besids, was (no doubt) to bee preferred before the custome of that citie onely, or rather (as Saint Hierom himself interpreteth it) of some few proud deacons of that citie. But heerhence to inferr that S. Hierom did not acknowledg the primacy of that sea, is too too simple, and ra­ther to be laughed at, thē otherwise answered. That which followeth out of S. Ambrose is of the same soary sute: for that most grave holy father saith, I desire in all things to follow the church of Rome,Ambros. de Sacramentis lib. 3. ca. 10. Cupio in [...] omnibus sequi Roma­nam [...] Ecclesiam [...], sed tamen & nos homines sensum habemus, ideò quod alibi rectius seruatur, & nos recte custodimus. but we also are men that haue vn­derstanding, and therfo­re what is more rightly obserued elswhere, we iu­stly observe the same. S. Ambrose speakes the­re of rites and ceremonies vsed in the admini­stration of the sacraments: in which it was lawfull then for so excellent a prelate as saint [Page 205] Ambrose was, to make his choise of the best. Yea S. Gregorie the great would not so strict­ly tie S. Austin our English Apostle (brought vp at Rome) vnto the ceremonies of the church of Rome: but willed him if he saw any ceremonies in the church of France,Ex Bedae Histo: l. 10. c. 27. Mihi placet vt siue in Romana, siue in Galliarum, siue in qu ilibet ecclesia aliquid inuenisti quod plus omnipotenti Deo possit placere, solicite eligas &c. that might better please God or more moue those new converted Christians vn­to greater devotiō, to ma­ke his choice of them, rather then to retaine the rites of Rome. whervpon if any man should be so simple as to collect, that S. Gre­gory did not aknowledg the pope or church of Romes principality; were he not to be beg­ged for an innocent? In the like tearmes stands M. Abbot, that would out of Saint Ambrose choise of some ceremonies, different from the church of Rome, Inferr that S. Ambrose did not acknowledg the pope of Romes supre­macy. Let it be noted by the way, that S. Am­bro [...]e (who was so graue and iudicious a Doctour, and S. Austins father in Christ) desired in all things to follow the church of Rome. That their spirit and disposition who desire in all things to depart from the same church, may be dis­covered and taken to bee quite contrarie to the holy spirit, of the most approved ancient fathers.

26 M. Abbot like vnto a man that is shooting at Rovers observing no certain method, re­turnes back to the councell of Chalcedon, a­vouching [Page 206] that it did not acknowledg that principality of the church of Rome:Concil. Chalced. Act. 15. can. 28. These be his words drawen out of that councell. The priviledges of the church of Rome, were g [...]ven to it by the fathers before, because that citie was the seat of the Empire; and vpon the same consideration doth give the church of Constantinople equall pri­viledg with the church of Rome, it being then the seat of the Empire.

HEre are two or three grosse faults: First, wheras this councell is cited, as not ac­knowledging the principality of the church of Rome; It doth cleane contrarie in the first words cited by M. Abbot, acknowledg that priviledg to belong vnto the same church of Rome. whether it had that by the institution of Christ, or for that it was the seat of the Em­pire, is not now materiall: of it I haue said somthing before, and haue much more to say, when occasion shall serue. But to M. Abbots condemnation, his owne witnes doth depose, that the church of Rome had that priuiledg of principality, and that in goverment, as by manie circumstances of that councell, I haue once alreadie proved: to witt, All theIbid. Act 3 bils preferred to that councell, were directed to pope Leo, and to the councell. TheIbid. Act. 16. in Epist. Pascasini. sentence was pronounced in the name of Pope Leo; The councell is sent toIn epist. Concilij ad Leonē. pope Leo to be con­firmed. And all the Bishops there assembled, [Page 207] in their Epistle to pope Leo, do declare that he was over them, as the head is to the rest of the members. And much more is there said to testify the church of Romes principality. so that M. Abbot could not haue. directed vs, vnto a more sound and evident witnesse a­gainst this his position. Thus much of the first fault.

Secondly, he puts the sentence of 150. Bis­hops, that were of the Constantinople coun­cell, for them of Chalcedon. yet I am content to let that passe, bicause it makes no great matter. But I may not conceale how he, to ser­ve his owne purpose, hath cut of the councels words in the middest. For those fathers do saie; that the Bishop of Constantinople, Concil. Chalced. cost. 15. can. 28. was to ha­ue the like priviledges, yet, secundam post eam exi­stentem, to be second after the Bishop of Rome. And as it is in the councell of Constantinople, which they follow: vt obtineret secundum gra­dum d [...]gnitatis post antiquam Romam. Concil. Constan­tin [...]p. 1. Can. 3. That the sea of Constantinople should obtaine the second degree of dignity after old Rome. Did he not wa­rely pare of those words? would they not ha­ue displaid and laid open his cosenage? what is like to become of this honest mans credit, that durst cite this sentence to disprove the church of Romes principality, which doth so plainly approve it?

But what meant the councell then to saie, that the sea of Constantinople, should haue like, or equall priviledges with Rome? Marie they were equall or like in some priviledges, [Page 208] not in all. They desired that the Bishoprick of Constantinople might be erected vnto the title and dignity of a patriarchall sea, as Ro­me was: secondly to haue spirituall Iurisdi­ction over all Thracia, Asia minor, and Ponti­ca: Further also that it might be placed imme­diatly after Rome, and honored before the o­ther Patriarchall seas of Alexandria, Antioch, and Hierusalem, even as Rome was. Therfore in those two points specially, of being a Pa­triarchall sea, and of being preferred before the other patriarches, they desired it should be like to Rome: yet not Equall to Rome it self in dignity or principalitie, but to obtaine the next place after it. this was the highest point of their ambition then, and the vtter­most that was requested. To witt: That old Rome should enioy the primacie, and that Con­stantinople should haue the next place of dignity after Rome, and be inuested with patriarchall Iu­risdiction, over the Metropolitans of Pontica, A­sia, and Thracia. Against which grant made by manie of the councell,Concil. Chalced. Act. 16. in the absence of the popes legates, being presidents, publike exce­ption was made by the same presidents, in the behalf of the other patriarchall seas: who we­re in the councell of Ni­ce declared to haue next after Rome the highest seats of dignity.Ex Epistola 54. Leonis ad Martian Augustum: Privilogia enim ecclesiarum, san­ctorum Patrum canonibus institu­ta, & venerabilis Nicenae synodi fixa decretis, nulla possunt impro­bitate conuelli, nulla nouitate mu­tari. Hanc impij desiderij conce­ptionem, nunquam debuit intra cordis sui recipere secretum. Abstineat ergo ab ecclesiastica­rum iniuria regularum, & illi­citos declinet excessus, ne se ab v­niuersali ecclesia, dum inimica pa­cis tentat, abscindat. And Leo the great when he came to confirme that generall coūcell, approving all the [Page 209] rest, protested against that ambition of the Bishop of Cōstantinople, as both derogatorie to the De­crees of the Nicene coū ­cell, and iniurious vnto the right honorable patriarchall seas of Ale­xandria, Antioch, and Hierusalem.

well howsoever it were for the rest, certain it is to M. Abbots great confusion, that the Bishop of Constantinople did not in those daies so much as pretend anie higher pree­minence, then to be next after the Bishop of Rome, and therfore it remaineth euident that he as well as all others did acknowledg the principalitie of the sea of Rome. Thus much touching the testimonie of S. Irenaeus, my first auctor, who averreth all churches to be boūd to accord with the church of Rome for her more potent principalitie.

27 Now I come to examine what M. Abbot can saie against the evidence which I produ­ced out of S. Ciprian,Cyprian. Epist. 55. iuxta Pa­meli. my second witnesses de position, in favour of the same church of Ro­me, his words bee these (which we touched before vpon another occasion) After these things, yea they having furthermore a false Bishop set over them by heretikes, yet they presumed to sai­le vnto S. Peters chaire, (whence priestly vnity doth spring) and cary with them letters from schis­matikes, and prophane persons: not remembring the Romans (whose faith is by the Apostle prai­sed) to be such men, as perfidie can haue no accesse [Page 210] to them. Ad quos perfidia non potest habere acces­sum. Because perfidia is the contrarie to fides, and here by S. Cyprian opposed to the faith of Romans commended by S. Paul, I with perfidiousnes (which hath also another signi­fication) did for explications sake, ioyne fals­hood in matter of faith. Against which M. Ab­bot excepteth, as that which turneth S. Ci­prians words, from his true meaning. for he saith, that it made nothing for S. Ciprians purpose to say, that error in faith could haue no entrie to the Romans. because the question then was not a­bout any point of faith, but about matter of Iuris­diction, and the bad demeanors of some perfidious Africans: who hauing been iustly punished at ho­me, fled to Rome for reliefe, and were like to abuse the pope with false tales, if hee tooke not the better heed vnto their reports. It was therfore imperti­nent, (saies M. Abbot) to saie in such a case, that error in faith could haue no accesse to Rome. Yet he was not so blind, but did see that on the other side it were much more impertinent, yea vncredible that such a graue wise prelate as S. Ciprian was, should affirme that perfidious and vntrue informations in matter of fact could find no entrie in the court of Rome. He (I say) considering this absurdity is dri­ven to a great exigent, and hardly can with all his skill excuse that glorious martyr from colloging, and glosing (which no man did more abhorr then hee) and from too exces­siue commendation of the Roman courts integrity, in ordering matters brought vnto [Page 211] it by appeale, out of other countries. For ne­uer any man of experience yet held (as I wee­ne) that the court of Rome could not giue eare to false informations in matter of law, if they looked not the better about them. well to come to the answer, there we haue first the ancient custome of appealing out of Africk to Rome confirmed by saint Ciprians authority, and that by M. Abbots own con­fession.

Secondlie, that the word (perfidia) is to be taken rather for error in faith, then for perfidious reports, appeareth, for that it is there by S. Ciprian opposed as the contra­rie to the true faith of the Romans which was by saint Paul commended: and in the sa­me Epistle saint Ciprian saith: nulla societas fi­dei & perfidiae potest esse: still opposiing persi­diousnes to faith. So is it in the 57. Epistle, where he affirmeth, that if a novatian here­tike should be put to death by the heathen persecutor for the Christian faith: that death to him that dieth out of the church, should bee, non corona fidei, sed paena perfidiae, not a crowne of faith, but a punishment of his mis­belief and heresie.

Againe, that you may perceiue there to ha­ue been good cause for S. Ciprian to cōmend the faith of the Romanes, you must obserue that there is mention made in the same senten­ce, of false Bishops chosen by heretikes, who sailed towards Rome: were not they fitt instruments [Page 212] to prepare the way to heresie and misbelief? and towardes the end of the same Epistle he plainly intimateth, that they were to be as­saulted by heretikes, when he saith: albeit I knew you could not be taken with the veni­me of haeretikes &c. It was then not besides the purpose to intimate, that such fellowes should find cold entertainment of the Ro­mans, vnto whom misbelief could haue no accesse. besids in the next period going befo­re, speaking of the same sailers to Rome, he cast this imputation vpon them: quibus satis non fuit ab Evangelio recedere. who thought it not enough for them to depart from the gospell. And was it then from the purpose, to giue them that caveat, that they were like to lose their labour in sailing to Rome for relief? Bicause misbelief could not bee welcome to the Ro­manes, whose faith the Apostle had commen­ded. In a word, was it not iust as much to S. Cipriās purpose, to saie that falshood in faith, could haue no accesse to the Romans, as to speake of the Romans faith, commended by the Apostle? where faith being (as everie man seeth) to bee taken properly, it must needs argue, that that perfidiousnes in the next line lincked with the other must be taken for the flatr contrarie. Seing then that the nature of the word doth allow that signification, which I gaue it, and saint Ciprian did so vse it often in that sence, namely when he opposeth it a­gainst faith; the circumstances also of the pla­ce, and Authors intention better agreing with [Page 213] the same: it is evident that M. Abbot doth but cauill against the true sence of the word w­hich I gaue; And would very absurdly haue it so taken, that you must either plainly saie, that S. Ciprian spake glosingly and vntruly; or els did strāgely mistake his words: putting (could) for (should.) Ad quos perfidia non po­test habere accessum: for, non debuit habere acces­sum. vnto whom (saith S. Cyprian) perfidious­nes can haue no accesse. vnto whom (saith his corrector, or rather corruptor M. Abbot) per­fidiousnes ought to haue no accesse. Betwixt which two propositions there is verie broad difference, as each man knoweth. Now that in some rare case, non potest, is taken for non de­bet, it cannot, for it ought not: doth not enfor­ce that it must be so taken, when it pleaseth M. Abbot; but hee must giue men leaue to pre­fer, and to follow the naturall and vsuall si­gnification of the word, before such a strange interpretation and wresting therof.

To that which in the end of his needles dis­course (of it cannot, for, it ought not) Hee addeth; that S. Ciprian with a councell of Afri­can Bishops did teach the rebaptising of them that were before baptised of heretikes, against the know­ne sentence of pope Stephen. whence it followeth (saith M. Abbot) that they thought they might in matter of doctrine dissent from the Bishop of Ro­me, or els they would haue submitted their opinion vnto his verdict. To which I answere: That ei­ther they tooke that doctrine which the pope [Page 214] of Rome deliuered vnto them in his letters, to be deliuered as his owne priuat opinion, to which they were not bound to conforme themselues: Or els that in the heat of vphol­ding their errors, as they declined from the true doctrine, so they forgot their dutie to the sea of Rome. Because the obstinate main­taining of one error, doth oftentimes push on hoat disputers into another: But when S. Ciprian was out of that humain passion,Cypriā. Epist. 55. he wrote as plainly as any mā could; That schismes and heresies do not spring from any other fountaine, then for that the sentence of one priest and Iudge in Christs steed, is not harkened vnto. That Epistola 45. the church of Rome is to bee stuck vnto, as to the roo­te of vnity; and as the mother church to be ob­served and obeied. And els­where.De vnitate Ecclesiae. Qui Ecclesiae renititur & resi­stit, qui cathedram Petri, (super quam fundata est ecclesia) de­serit, in ecclesia se esse confi­dit? Can hee that for­saketh the chaire of Pe­ter (vpō which the church was built) haue any con­fidence that he is himself in the church? This and much more wrote Saint Ciprian to the verie high commenda­tion of the church of Rome, when he was out of that humor of rebaptization. which fault of his, was afterward by his constant martirdome purged, As S. Austin testifieth. who also saith,Aug. epist. 48. item l. 1. de baptis. co. donati­stas, ca. 18. that there wanted not some who held those writings which M. Abbot citeth for S. Ciprians, either to be none of his; or that he repented himself or them before he died. And therfore should not now be cited [Page 215] for his. But such ouersights of the fathers, a­re the fittest foode for heretikes to feede vpon; in them they find the best relish, and therfore this taint of S. Ciprian is twise or thrice serued in as a dainty dish: and drosse though it be, yet is it often set vp as a bright starr to giue light and lustre to their goodly cause. Now to that which followeth in his text, he saith, that my proofes hitherto were vayne, yet those which follow are more vaine. But god be thanked, that the bare word of a vaine mā, is but meere vanity.

28 You haue alreadie heard how friuolous and idle his exceptions were against the sen­tences, that I tooke out of those golden paire of most ancient Doctors, and very glorious Martirs, S. Irenaeus and S. Ciprian. Now at­tend how simplie he behaueth himself in ans­wering to that, which I cited out of S. Am­brose, S. Austen, and S. Hierome. No man can deny, but that these holy learned fathers are for their persons without all exceptions: but M. Abbot saīth ouer lauishly and as it were dotingly, that I do report them falsly. for he himself (as you shall presently see) can­not denie but that I alleage them truly. Let vs examin the particulers.Ambros. in oratio­ne de obi­tu satyri fratris. S. Ambrose (say I) tooke it to bee all one to saie, the Catholike or the Roman church, yea he putteth the Ro­mā church as an explication of the Catholike church. His good brother satyrus after a ship­wrack arrived in Sardinia (which was infected with the Luciferiā heresie) & being carefull not to cōmunicate with any heretikes demāded of that [Page 216] Bishop whom he had sent for to baptise him,Aduocauit ad se Episcopum, nec vllam veram putauit nisi vera fidei gratiam, percontatus (que) ex eo est, vtrumnam cum Episcopis Ca­tholicis, hoc est, cum Romana Ec­clesia conueniret, & sorte ad id locorum in schismate, regionis illius ecclesiae erat. whether he did accord with the Catholike Bis­hops, that is, with the church of Rome. He fea­red lest the name Catho­like was not sufficient to describe true beleevers, in an hereticall countrie, (bicause heretikes do oftentimes call themselues Catholikes) and therfore asked whether they were such Ca­tholikes, as accorded with the church of Ro­me: that is, whether he was a Roman Ca­tholike or no? giving vs to vnderstand that they onlie were true Catholikes, and onlie to be communicated withall in holie rites, who accorded with the church of Rome in faith and religion. All this is so true and evi­dent, that M. Abbot cannot denie any one word of it. Did he not then spitefully over­reach when hee said, that I reported my au­thors falsly? He hath no other shift, then to saie; that in those daies the church of Rome, as the most famous and chief church, was most fit to bee named in such a case. But now the case is altered, bicause the church of Rome is fallen from that eminent perfection, and is it self now called into question. This answere is nothing els then in plaine tearmes, petere principium; that is, to giue that for the solution as a con­fessed truth, which is the maine question. is he so destitute of cōmon sence, as to thinke that [Page 217] we will, or ought to take that for currant coyne and good paiment, which we hold for very refuse and drosse? All the world kno­wes that we beleeve the church of Rome, not to be changed in any one article of faith. wher­fore he ought not to returne to vs for a kno­wen truth, that the church of Rome is chan­ged. yet the poore mans feeble forces being quite spent, he is constrayned to giue the same vnreasonable answere againe & againe, for he maketh the same answer vnto the like testi­mony taken out of S. Hierom who demādeth of Ruffinus (speaking of his faith) which he cal­leth his faith?Hieron. Apol. 1. c. Ruff. Fidem suam quam vocat? eam­ne qua Romana pollet Ecclesia? an illam quae in Originis volumi­nibus continetur? si Romanam responderit? ergo Catholici su­mus, qui nihil de Originis errore transtulimus. either that which the church of Ro­me professeth, or that which is contayned in the books of Origen? If he answere the Roman, faith; then are wee Catholikes, &c. which doth implie, that it was all one with S. Hierom to saie the Ro­man faith, and the true Catholike faith. All which M. Abbot confesseth to be true, and therby cleereth mee from that imputation of misreporting my authors. Afterward he as­keth what is here said of the Roman church, that might not likewise haue bene said of any other church, professing the true faith? well, let vs admitt that the same might haue been said of any other church vnder that conditiō that they had professed the true faith: yet be­cause the ancient Fathers were not so well as­sured [Page 218] of the perpetuall infallibilitie of any o­ther church, as they were of the church of Rome, therfore they preferred the commu­nion of the Roman Church before all other, and therin ordinarilie made their instances. And for that M. Abbot doth euer and anone come in with this answer, that the church of Ro­me was then the true Church, but now it is cleane changed, and takes this to be as sharpe as the sword at Delphos, and as fit to cut all knotts asonder that can not otherwise be loosed: I will here set downe some reasons which did induce these holy Doctors, and much more ought to persuade vs to beleeue that the church of Rome shall euer continue firme in the faith. The ancients made no doubte, but that Christes Church should continue to the worlds ende, and retaine the same forme of government, which he him self had establis­hed in it. which most Protestants now are also come to confesse. but as I haue before proo­ued, the same most learned and blessed fathers both beleeued and taught the Bishops and Church of Rome to be as it were the rock and foundation of Christs church. wherfore like as the house must needes fall to the groun­de, whose foundation faileth: so the catholick church could not stand inuiolable to the later day, if the Roman church which is the chief­est member & support therof, should perish. It were needelesse to repeate here those sentences of the ancient Doctors once before pro­duced in confirmation of this argument. I [Page 219] wilbe cōtent with one text of S. Austin, that doth both directly crosse M. Abbots supposition, and manifestly prooue this my assertion. These be his wordes.

If the Pedegree of Bis­hops succeding one ano­ther be to be considered,August. epistola 165. Si enim ordo episcoporum sibi inuicem succedentium consideran­dus est, quanto rectius & vere sa­lubriterab ipso Petro numeramus, cui totius Ecclesiae figuram gerenti Dominus ait, super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. how much more rightly and assuredly, do we rec­ken frō S. Peter him self, vnto whom (bearing the figure of the whole church) our Lord said vpon this Rock I will build my church. To Peter succeeded Li­nus, &c. Behold how fully S. Austin had 1200. yeares before hand confuted M. Abbots proposition: M. Ab­bot saith that the fathers might as well haue alleaged their communion with any other church as with the church of Rome. Not so saith S. Austin; but if the suc­cessiō of Bishops be to be regarded (as it is very highly to be esteemed,) and the cōmunion in faith and Reli­gion with thē, then that of the Bishops and church of Rome is more right and better assured then any other. Obserue also the same reason giuē by that most renowmed Doctor which I before deliuered. because vpon S. Peter (who was the roote and stock of the Roman Pe­degree) as vpon a Rock, Christ built his church, against which the gates of Hell shall not preuaile. wherfore in another place he is bold to tell the donatistes, that the see or church of Rome is that rock, against which the proud gates of hell shall not preuaile. Againe doth not our Sauiour comparing it to a Rock, intimate that it should neuer decay? Besides had not the gates of Hell mightely preuayled against the church of Christ, if it had ouercome the church of Rome, & therby ouerth­rowne as it were the foundation of it? finally,

August. ibid. Vt certa sit spes fidelibus qui faciunt ea quae Romani Pontifices cis facienda praecipiunt) quae non in homine sed in Domino (quidi­xit, qua dicunt facite,) collocata, nūquam tempestate sacrilegi schis­matu dissipetur.S. Austin in the same place holdeth him self so well assured of the perpe­tuall stabilitie of the Bis­hops of Rome in the true faith that he doubteth not, euen frō our sauiours owne mouth, to assure all them that cleaue fast vnto it, and do beleue, and do that, w­hich the Bishops of Rome teach them, that they shall neuer be carried away into any sa­crilegious schisme. if they shall never fall into schisme, that stik fast vnto the Roman church then without all doubt, the Roman faith should neuer after be changed. The second text of holie scripture out of which it may be prooued that the Bishop and church of Ro­me shall neuer erre in matter of faith, is this. I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy fayth faile not and thou being conuerted, confirme thy brethren. Our blessed Sauiour by the vertue of his holy and effectuall praier obtained, that S. Peters faith should not at any tyme faile, that he might be alwaies able to confirme all Chri­stians that staggered in any point of faith. And because our soueraign Lord did not establish a church that should endure no longer then S. Peter Liued, but would haue it continue for euer: in like manner he would haue one sure pillar at the least in the same, to vphold all in the true faith, that should become members of it at any time after. This to haue been S. Peters successor the Bishop of Rome, I haue [Page 221] before prooued by the consent of the aunciēt holy fathers. I will heere repeate one sentence of S. Ciprian, because it seemes to bee groun­ded vpon these very wordes of our Saviour. The Romans faith is such, Cip. epist. 55. that perfidy or misbelie­fe can haue no accesse vnto them. which is the ve­ry same in effect, that S. Peter, and the Bis­hops of Rome his successors faith, cannot fai­le. for if misbeliefe could seize or take anie hold vpon their faith, it should suerly faile: because beliefe and misbeliefe cannot dwell together. but the Roman faith being by the efficacie of our Sauiours praier warranted from failing, it remaineth most assured, that misbeliefe can haue no accesse vnto it. which could not bee true if M. Abbots exception might take place; that forsooth for three or fower hundreth yeares it should not faile; but for a 1000. yeeres after it should mightely bee corrupted. which if it were admitted, it had been truer to haue said that their faith should faile, then that it should not faile. because for longer time according to their fantasicit had failed, then cōtinued without faile. wherfore, that their new glose (being directlie opposite to our blessed Sauiours owne words, which are without anie limitatiō of time) is to bee abhorred, as that which doth corrupt the text: and the old doctors most literall interpreta­tion to bee imbraced. vnto S. Ciprian I will here onely ioyne the Zealous and most holie Father S. Bernard, who writing vnto Pope In­nocentius the third, doth take for most cer­ten [Page 222] out of this text of holie scripture, that the faith of the Romane Bishops had not failed for a thousand ye­ares after Christs daies, nor should euer afterwardes faile. These be his words. we must referr vnto your Apostleship the dangers and scandales that arise in the kingdome of God, but especiallie those that appertai­ne to the faith.Bernardus epist. 190. Oportet ad vestrum referri A­postolatum, pericula quae (que) & scandala emergentia in regno Dei, ea praesertim quae de fide contin­gunt. Dignum nam (que) arbitror, i­bi potissimum resarciri damna fi­des, vbi non possit fides sentire defectum. Hac quippe huius prae­rogatiua sedis. Cui enim alteri ali­quando dictum est. Ego pro te rogaui Petre vt non deficiat fides tua? Ergo quod sequitur, de Petri successore exigitur, & tu a­liquando conuersus, confirma fratres tuos. Id quidem modo necessarium est. Tempus est vt ve­strum agnoscatis principatum, pro­betis Zelum, Ministerium hono­retis, in eo plane Petri impletis vi­cem cuius tenetis & sedem, si ve­stra admonitione corda in fide flu­ctantia confirmetis, si vestra au­ctoritate cōteritis fidei corruptores. for I estee­me it fitt that the defect [...] of faith should bee there principallie repaired, w­here faith cannot faile: w­hich is the prerogatiue of this seate. For to what o­ther was it euer said, I ha­ue praied for thee Peter, that thy faith maie not faile? therfore that which follow­eth, is to bee exacted of S. Peters successor: And thou once conuerted, confirme thy brethren. which truly is at this present needfull. for it is high time most belo­ued Father, that you ack­nowledg your principali­tie, shew your zeale, and honor your Ministerie. you shall therin rightlie sup­plie the office of S. Peter in whose seate you sit, if you do by our admonition confirme their harts that wauer in the faith; and by your authoritie do suppresse the corrupters of the same.

Cā anie thing be more perspicuous thē that the holie, learned, & religious Abbot S. Bernard (whose testimo­nie [Page 223] the Protestants do often vse) did acknow­ledg that which our Saviour said to S. Peter, to belong vnto the Bishops of Rome? and that they had, and should euer haue by vertue of our said Redeemers praier, power and grace to strengthen good Christians in the right faith, and to beate downe all enemies of the same. If M. Abbot were not an Abbot in name only, but had in deed some of that holie Abbots he­auenlie light in him, he would soone see and confesse the same. Albeit those two texts of holie scriptures be more then sufficient to cō ­found M. Abbots bare supposition, nakedly put downe, and verie often repeated without any kind of proofe; yet for more complet cō ­firmation therof, I will cite a third sentence out of S. Paul, which rightly vnderstood, doth greatly fortifie the same.Rom. 16. These be the Apost­les words. The God of peace crush satan vnder your feet quickly. Chris. in illum locū Or as it is in the Protestants translation out of the Greeke. The God of peace shall bruise Satan vnder your feete shortly. These words of the Apostle (are as Saint Chryso­stom witnesseth) both a praier, and a prophe­cie: a praier as they stand in our text. a prophe­cy, as they are in Greek, which Caluin vpon the same text doth graunt. the true pur­port thereof is, that God should in short space so bruise and crush Satan in the head, and as it were beate him into powder vnder the feate of the Romans, that he should neuer afterward be able to lift vp his head against them in any matter [Page 224] of faith. wherin S. Hierom seemes to bee so confident, that he doubts not to write to Ruf­finus, that which M. Abbot may take as spo­ken to himself. Notwithstanding know you that the Romane faith by the Apostles mouth prai­sed,S. Hieron. Apol. 3. con. Ruffinum. Attamen scito Romanam fidem Apostolico ore laudatam eiusmodi praestigias non recipere. Etiam si Angelus aliter annunciet quam semel praedicatum est, Pauli au­ctoritate munitam non posse m [...] ­tari. doth not admit anie such deceites and trom­peries. yea if an Angel should preach anie other thing besids that which hath been alreadie prea­ched, yet that faith, being by the Apostles authoritie fortified, could neuer bee chan­ged.

will M. Abbot yet be so shameles as to stand vp, and to giue this graue holie doctor the lie? as he must needs do, if hee will yet sing his old song and saie, that the Roman faith notwith­standing all the Apostles praier and prophe­cie, is foulie changed, and that in verie manie great points. with the forsaid testimonies may be linked for the antiquitie of it, this that standeth on record in the third generall coun­cell holden at Ephesus. S. Peter the head of the Apostles and pillar of faith, &c. did receiue from Christ the keies of the kingdome of heauen, &c. and doth vnto this daie liue in his successors and deter­mine causes, And shall alwaies liue. Behold S. Peter alwaies liueth in the Bishops of Rome his successors, to determin causes, and gouer­ne the church, what then shall become of M. Abbots change? will he make S. Peter also a [Page 225] changeling? This point I will close vp with this memorable sentence of S. Leo. The so­undnes of that faith prai­sed in the prince of the A­postles is euerlasting.Leo in serm. 2. Assumptionis suae ad sumum Pontificem. Soliditas enim illius fidei quae in Apostolorum Principe est laudata, perpetua est. Et sicut permanet, quod in Christo Petrus credidit: ita permanet quod in Petro Chri­stus instituit, &c. Manet ergo dispositio veritatis & beatus Pe­trus in accepta fortitudine petra perseuerans, suscepta ecclesiae g [...] ­bernacula non reliquit. and like as that which Peter beleeued of Christ, conti­nueth for euer: so doth that which Christ did in­stitute in Peter, &c. Ther­fore the ordinance of the truth standeth fast, and blessed Peter perseuering by his successors in that strength of a rocke, hath not forsa­ken the gouernment of the church. Seing the faith and fortitude of Saint Peter shall conti­nue for euer in his successors the bishops of Rome, that cuckoes song of M. Abbots, that the now church of Rome is in matter of faith degenerated from the old, must needs be fal­se. And what more manifest signe can one demaund therof, then that all the wits of the protestants, hauing travailed after nothing more for this fiftie yeeres, cannot yet find out any one errour in matter in faith, wherin the church of Rome hath at any time dissented from her self in former ages? I know right well that they avouch boldlie that it hath changed manie articles of faith: but let him that will haue credit given to him so saying, name the error it self in particuler, and the ti­me when it was first receiued, and by what po­pe it was approued. which if no learned Pro­testant [Page 226] be able to performe, let them be well assured that repeat it neuer so often over and ouer, that the church of Rome is not the sa­me now as it was in S. Austins time; they de­serue not to be beleeued. Neither am I igno­rant that some more hardy then their fello­wes, haue gone about to designe the time, w­hen the church of Rome began her Apostacy. But therin they agree no better then the false Elders (that accused Susanna of adulterie) did of the tree, vnder which the fained fact was pretended to bee done. And therfore be no more worthy of credit, then they were.

30 M. Abbot goeth on to proue, that I rac­ked and wronged my authors and saith; that Tertullian whō I alleaged, as sending to the church of Rome to learne the true doctrine, doth send also to other churches as well as to the church of Rome. Be it so, but if he appealed vnto the church of Rome, as well as to others; did I him any wrong in saying that he appealed vnto the church of Rome? I did not saie, that he ex­cluded all, or ane ony other. Doth not M. Ab­bot rather rack my words, and wrong himself in imposing that vpon mee, which I said not? Besids M. Abbot doth offer great wrong to Tertullian, not so much by racking his words as by chopping them quite of in the middest: for where Tertullian saith, If thou border on I­taly, thou hast the church of Rome, vnde nobis au­thoritas presto est. whence authority comes to vs. M. Abbot cuts of the latter part of the sentence, which imports that men in Africk (for that was Tertullians countrie) did acknowledg [Page 227] the church of Rome to haue authority ouer them; M. Abbot then hauing so cunningly conueyed the matter, by cutting of that which made for vs, doth afterward aske mee what was there left to serve my turne? if his con­ueiance be no cleanlier then so, it were better for him to leaue those trickes ro them that ha­ue more nimbles fingers. The Cathalogue of the Bishops of Rome set downe by Epipha­nius doth serue to shew, that the Bishops of Rome are S. Peters true successors: which M. Abbot and the protestants sometimes, when they are at a stand, do not stick to deny.

Optatus Bishop of Milevitane S. Austins auncient did proue (as M. Abbot cannot deny) his part to be Catholike, in that it comunica­ted with the church of Rome: yet M. Abbot to detract some what from the see of Rome addeth, that Optatus did not proue his part Catholike by communicating simply with the church of Rome, but for that communi­cating with the church of Rome, it commu­nicated with the church of the whole world. which words of Optatus are so farr of from detracting any thing from the church of Ro­me, that they do much magnifie the comodi­ty of her communion: for he saith not, that he communicated with the church of Rome, and with all other churches, making them se­uerall parts: but that in communicating with the church of Rome, he communicated with the churches of the whole world. thereby de­claring the comunion with the church of [Page 228] Rome, to be the meanes of communi­cating with all others; which is the very same that we do now go about to proove. His words (which containe manie memorable instru­ctions) are these, spoken vnto Parmenianus a Donatist. Thou canst not deny, but that thou knowest an Episcopall chaire to haue been pla­ced in the city of Rome,Optatus mileuit. l. 2. co. par­menianum. Igitur negare non potes scire te in vrbe Roma Petro primo Ca­thedram Episcopalem esse collatam in qua sederit omnium Apostolo­rum caput Petrus: in qua vna ca­thedra vnitas ab omnibus serua­retur, ne caeteri Apostoli singulas sibi quisque defenderent: vtiam schismaticus & peccator esset, qui contra singularem cathedram, al­teram collocaret. ergo cathedra v­nica quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus: cui successit linus, &c. damaso Siricius hodie qui noster est socius. Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in vna communionis societate con­cordat. vestrae cathedrae vos origi­nem reddite, qui vobis vultis san­ctam Ecclesiam vindicare. wherin Peter (the head of all the Apostles) sate first; in which one chaire vnity is preserued amōgst all, &c. That he is now to be taken for a sinner & a schismatike, that would against that singuler or only chaire oppose ano­ther. Therfore in that o­ne chaire, (which is the first in dowry) sate Peter, vnto whom succeeded Li­nus, (and so in [...]ew dow­ne vnto Siricius that then liued) who is (saith Op­tatus) our companion, with whom the whole world by entercourse of formed letters, doth concord with vs in the same society of cōmu­nion. Hitherto Optatus. where you see by the iudgment of so great a Prelate (who liued in the time of pure antiquity) that the chaire of Rome is the only chaire of vnity: with which if you ioyne, you are in the vnitie of Christs [Page 229] church. against which if you oppose your self you become a sinner and a schismatike. fur­ther, that by communicating in faith with it, you do enter into the society of all Catholikes dispersed ouer the whole world. I do now stād more particulerly vpon those holy fathers words, bicause M. Abbot was so shamles as to write, that I did before of set purpose omitt their words: bicause if I had set them downe, euerie one might haue seene (as he saith) that they said nothing for our purpose. when as for breuities sake, I was then content only to point at these testimonies, not thinking that any man would haue been so careles of his credit, as to haue denied them to be most effe­ctuall to our purpose. Now that Optatus did prove the Donatists, to be a particuler strag­ling congregation like the Protestants, not only for that they did not comunicate with the church of Rome, but also for want of co­munication with the churches of Asia, that makes nothing against the singuler esteeme hee had of the church of Rome. for learned writers do vse diuers sorts of arguments to make their partie the more strong and proba­ble. One argument not destroying, but for­tifying the other. The Donatists were schis­matikes (saith that noble Author) bicause they opposed themselues against the church of Rome. They were also astraying company, for that they held no communion with the churches of Asia, or any other part of the world besides Africa.

From Optatus M. Abbot coms to answer that place I quoted out of S. Austin, (which I haue before set downe at large) and confes­seth,August. epist. 165. That Austin setteth downe the succession of the Bishops of Rome, and vpbraideth the Dona­tists, that no Donatist, euersate in that chaire. But M. Abbot doth add, that as well doth he obiect to them, that wheras they read the Epistles of the A­postles, they deuided themselues from the peace and fellowship of those churches, to which the Apostles wrote the same Epistles.

Is not this a worthy answer trow you? bi­cause S. Austin vsed as a second argument to confute the Donatists, their seperation from the knowne fellowship of the world: Ther­fore his former argument taken from the cō ­munion of the sea of Rome was nothing wor­th? wheras contrary wise acute disputantes, (like to wise warriours,) do cōmonly range the strongest arguments in the forefront. Or is there nothing to our purpose in the former place of S. Austin, as here M. Abbot (having put on a brasen forhead) doth avouch? Turne to it good Reader, and see. First that profound Doctor teacheth, that among all the successions of Bishops, that of Rome is most to be regarded: bicau­se the gats of hell shall never preuaile against it. Se­condly, that there had sitten from Peter vnto Ana­stasius then pope; about fortie popes, and that not so much as one of them had been a Donatist, wherfore the Donatists were to be reiected of all men. Hee thirdly teacheth in the same place, that if any trai­tor should by chance creepe into that chaire of Rome [Page 231] yet the wickednes of that man should not be preiu­diciall vnto the innocent faithfull, that do rely vpon Christs promise made to that chaire: bicause our Saviours singuler care therof is and wilbe alwaies such, that they who put their trust therin, shall ne­uer be confounded. Is all this nothing to our purpose, that the gats of hell cannot prevaile against the chaire of Rome? That they who rely vpō it, cannot faile, no not if there should be a naughty Bishop sitting in that chaire? be­sides as S. Austin did then argue, because not one of the Bishops of Rome had been a Donatist, therfore the Donatists religion was to be reiected: why may not we in like man­ner make a stronger argument against the Pro­testants and conclude; that seing among all the Bishops of Rome (that haue been frō Saint Peter vnto Paule the fift which are in number not 40. only, but more then 200) yet not one of them hath been a protestant: ther­fore the protestants religion must needs be starke naught, and of all men to te vtterly reie­cted. This I hope will serve to discouer M. Abbots over hardy audacitie, who noteth he­re that the cause why I did set downe my au­thors names without their words, was for that their names might get some credit to my cause; but their words would haue shewed, that they had said nothing for mee: when as now every man may see, that their words tru­ly set downe, do make much more for mee, then a verie good frind would haue imagined, vnlesse he had seen them himself.

M. Abbot proceedeth to another great pri­uiledg, which I related in honor of the chur­ch of Rome, to witt, that there hath not be­en any generall councell of vndoubted and sound authority, vnlesse it were by the same sea confirmed. which is a point of such impor­tance, that whosoeuer doth maturely ponder it, it is alone sufficient to perswade him in all controversies of religion, to make his recourse vnto the church of Rome, and to follow that full and wholy, which he shall find to be re­solued by it. For if the wisest and most learned heads of the world, assembled together in a generall councell, after all their owne advises vpon long examination of all particulers gi­ven, do yet hold it expedient, to send to the pope of Rome, to haue his approbation and confirmation therof: how much more ought any particuler person (be he of never so exqui­site gifts for iudgment and literature) to referr himself vnto the determination of the same seat? whervnto what doth M. Abbot ans­were? first as it were he granteth that it is in deed a thing greatly to be observed. yet that he may not seeme therby to be driven to a dumb blank, he saies: That it is as greatly to be noted, that the sentence of no bishop of Rome, was anciently holden sufficient for the deciding of a que­stion of faith, except the same were confirmed by a generall councell. which his assertion is not true, as I will presently prove, after I ha­ue disproued his seely proofe therof; [Page 233] which is,Leo epist. 61. Idem E­pist. 61. that Leo the great doth make mention of an Epistle of his, against the heresy of Eutiches sent to be confirmed by the vniuersall assent of the whole Synode. Item, he nameth certain other writings of his, as having the confirmation of the generall coun­cell added thervnto. And that he sent Deputies vn­to the generall councell of Ephesus, by sentence in common to decree with the rest, what should bee pleasing to god.

Is not this a poore proof, out of the fact of one pope to gather a common law for all po­pes? one pope (forsooth) had some sentences of his cōfirmed by a generall coūcell; therfore neither he, nor any other could giue any sētēce availeable, vnles it were confirmed by a gene­rall councell. what an absurd paralogisme is this? true it is, that popes do commonly, when there is any generall councell called, send their legates thither, to bee the presidents of the councell; and vse to deliuer to them their ow­ne opinions also in manner of instructions: partly to direct the councell, and in part also that they may be more maturely and thorow­ly discussed and ratified, by the same councell. not that they could not many times sufficient­ly otherwise with the assistance of their owne learned councell at home, or of some one pro­vince, define what were to bee beleeued and holden: but for that matters so fully sifted and debated, as they are in a generall councell, may with more facility and fuller applause, be receiued of all persons through the whole world; And namely of them that haue been [Page 234] deceiued by heretikes: who do generally see­ke to make the sea of Rome so odious to their followers, that they will not like of any thing that comes from Rome alone, be it never so true and cleere. For the sake of such abused soules specially, there needs the Assembly of generall councells, though the Popes sentence without them were neuer so well assured. To that alleaged here by M. Abbot out of the councels of Chalcedon and Africk, answer was made before.

Now that many heresies haue been extin­guished by the popes of Rome with the aid of provinciall councels, without the helpe of any generall, is most manifest to them that a­re conversant in the ancient histories of the church. and therfore M. Abbot who affirmes the contrary, doth nothing els than bewray his great ignorance in antiquity. Their error, that thaught those who were baptised of he­retikes to be rebaptised by Catholiks,August. l. 5 de ba­ptismo co. donat c. 23. was by Pope Stephen the first condemned, and wit­hout anie generall councell repressed. So was the novatian heresie by pope Cornelius, as may be gathered out of Eusebius.Euseb li. 6. hist. ca. 35. The heretike Io­vinianus with his adherents were condemned by Siritius and the Clergy of Rome in these words. we following the Apostles commaundemēt (who holdeth them ac­cursed that preach other­wise then wee had recei­ued) by common consentSiricius apud Ambrosium Epistola 6. Vnde Apostoli secuti praeceptum, quia aliter quam accepimus an­nunciabant Iouinianus, Auxen­tius &c. diuinae sententia & nostro iudicio in perpetuum damnati, ex­tra Ecclesiam remaneant. [Page 235] haue condemned, and cast out of the church Iovi­nianus and his companions: And writing vn­to S. Ambrose, and the church of Millan doth say; that wee doubt not but your holines will obserue our decree. To which S. Ambrose as­sembled in councell with diuers other Bis­hops doth give this ans­were.Ibidem Epistola 7. Recognouimus literis sanctitatis tuae, boni Pastoris excubias, qui fi­deliter commissam tibi ianuam serues, & pia solicitudine Christi ouile custodias, dignus quem oues domini audiant & sequantur, et versus finem. Itaque Iouinia­num Auxentium &c. quos san­ctitas tua damnauit, scias apud nos quoque secundum iudicium tuum esse damnatos. That Siricius as a good pastor of Christs fold had done worthily. and desired him to assure himself that Iovinianus, with his cōplices (whom his holines had condem­ned) stood also according to his iudgment condem­ned with them. which S. Austin also intimateth in his second booke of retractation, the 22. chap­ter, when he saith,Aug. lib. 2. retract. ca 22. Huic monstro (Iouiniano) san­cta Ecclesia quae ibi est (scilicet Romana) fidelissime ac fortissime restitit. That monster Iovinianus was by the church of Rome withstood most faithful­ly, and most valiantlie. The Pelagian heresie was spred all the world ouer, and yet by the Popes of Rome Innocentius the first, and Zo­zimus, with the assistance of some provin­ciall councells, without calling any generall councell, it was condemned all the world ouer:Aug. epist. 157. as witnesseth the most faithfull Regi­ster of Antiquity Saint Austin in these words. [Page 236] That new heresie against the grace of Christ,Cuius haeresis, vel auctores, vel certe acerrimi notissimi (que) suaso­res cum Pelagius & Celestius extitissent, Conciliorum Episco­palium vigilantia in adiutorio Saluatoris (qui suam tuetur Eccle­siam) etiam à duobus venerabili­bus Antistitibus Apostolica sedis, Papa Innocentio & Papa Zozi­mo nisi correcti etiam egerint poe­nitentiam, toto Christiano orbe damnati sunt. De quibus exempla recentium literarum. siue quae spe­cialiter ad Asros, siue qua vniuer­saliter ad omnes Episcopos de me­morata sede manarunt, vobis cu­rauimus mitti. where of Pelagius and Celestius were the Authors, or most sharpe defenders, by the vigilancie of Episcopall councels, in the helpe of our Saviour (who doth preserue his church) and by two most reverēd pre­lats of the Apostolicall sea, Pope Innocentius, and Pope Zozimus, are con­demned all the Christian world ouer, vnles they amend and do pe­nance.

The Donatists in Africa were finally repres­sed by Gregorie the great, Pope of Rome, as it is recorded in his life. The instances of these heresies of the Donatists, Pelagians, Iovinians, Novatians, and old Anabaptists, to omit ma­ny others, who haue been condemned by the sentence of the Bishops of Rome for hereti­kes, and so taken at length all the world ouer, without any decree of generall councell, are more then sufficient to cōfront and confound M. Abbots bare annotation, as naked and de­stitute of truth, as it is of proof, to wit, That it was greatly to be obserued, that the sentence of no Bishop of Rome was anciently holden sufficient for deciding of a question of faith, except the same we­re confirmed by a generall councell. which if he would haue any man to beleeve, let him but [Page 237] proue, that any one of the afore rehersed he­resies were condemned in generall councell: or that those popes of Rome by me named, did not condemne them.

32 It is to small purpose which M. Abbot saith (that notwithstanding the opposition of the legates of the Bishop of Rome and the popes owne reclayming also, yet it was decreed in the councell of Chalcedon, that the Bishop of Constantinople, should haue equall priuiledges with the Bishop of Rome, saue only that the Bishop of Rome had the precedence) bicause the opposition of the po­pes Legats, with some others in that councell, and the popes disclayming from that point, when the councell was sent to him to be con­firmed, as most opposit vnto the first generall councell of Nice, was sufficient to reverse and annihilate that decree, which needs no other proofe, then one argument, which the same Legats vsed then and there to suppresse that ambition of the Bishops of Constantinople. For the like decree had been made once befo­re in the second generall councell holden at Constantinople: and yet the pope not condes­cending thervnto, it tooke no effect. wher­vpon the presidents made this witty dilemma. If the Bishops of Constantinople having the like Canon made in their favour fowrscore yeres befo­re that time, had euer sithence enioyed that preroga­tiue and preeminence, why did they nowe againe seeke after it? And if notwithstanding that decree made in their fauour, they could then not obtaine it; why did they now seeke to haue the like Canon [Page 238] againe made for them? which would no more pre­vaile for them, then the other given before by the same authority. For that this would be as well withstood by Leo the great, as the other was reiected by Pope Damasus.

33 M. Abbot following his accustomed hu­mor of excepting against whatsoever I write, doth say that an nother note of mine is fond and a vaine presumption: I would haue it to be noted, that all heresies lightly which sprung vp ever since the Apostles daies, even to our time, ha­ue opposed themselues against the church of Rome, and haue been by the same sea ouercome. which argueth most cleerly, that the church of Ro­me is the seat of Christ, and fortresse of verity; against which all of the band of Antichrist do continually and daily wage battell, but all in vaine and with verie ill successe: for they all vanishing away like smoke, it continueth still, and shall do for euer, because it is an in­vincible rock which the gates of hell shall neuer over come.

M. Abbot crieth out against this as a fond presumption, but doth not bring any one in­stance to the contrary; so that his exception being without reason, may well be passed o­uer without answere.

wheras I countenanced my assertion with the authority S. Austin, who writeth,Aug. de vtili. credendi ca. 17. Dubitabimus nos eius Ecclesiae condere gremio, quae vsque ad con­f [...]ssionem generis humani ab Apo­stolica sede per successiones Episco­porum frustra haereticis circum latrantibus & culmen auctori­tatis obtiuuit? that the sea Apostolike obtained the top of authority, heretiks barking round about in [Page 239] vaine. which did prove that all heretikes, how soeuer they snarle one at another, yet do commonly ioyne all in one to barke against the church of Rome. And (w­hich is most to be noted) all in vaine.

M. Abbot to shew the profundity of his skill, doth saie that I take there sedes Aposto­lica wrong, for the sea Apostolike of Rome; when as it signifieth (saith hee) the Apostles time. And albeit the natiue signification of the words be plaine for mee, yet he avouc­heth S. Austin to vse these words to signifie the time of the Apostles. And for proofe the­rof, he citeth two places out of S. Austin;Aug. cōt. saustum mam. li. 11. ca. 2. in neither of which Apostolica sedes is vsed at all in the singular number, nor in the plurall nei­ther, to signifie any other thing then the seats and chaires of the Apostles. Take one of tho­se places of his owne alleaging for example.Ibidem l, 29. ca. 2. Vniuersa Ecclesia ab Apostolicis sedibus, vsque ad presentes Episcopos certa successione perducta. The vniuersall church deriued from the Apostolicall seats by certain succession vnto the Bishops that now are. where mention being made of lineall descent of Bishops from the Apostles seats, Great iniury should be done to those Bishops by him that would say they descended in­deed from the Apostles times, but not from the chaires of the Apostles.

For if they had descended from Simon Magus, or some other Archheretike of the Apostles time, they might bee said [Page 240] to haue descended ab Apostolicis sedibus, from the Apostles times, according to M. Abbots interpretation: because their descent was from the time of the Apostles: yet could not be said to haue descended from the Apostles chaires, as their lawfull Successors, according vnto S. Austins, or any other approved auncient Au­thors true meaning. therfore M. Abbots de­prauation, rather then interpretation of those words is too too absurd.

That S. Austin did commonly take sedes A­postolica for the Bishop or church of Rome, is most evident to all that haue read his works: let them that are not so conversant in him, ta­ke these few places for a tast therof. in his 106. Epistle. Missae sunt literae, ad Apostolicam sedem, Letters were sent to the sea Apostolike, that is to the Bishop of Rome. And in the 157. Epistle. Zozi­mus Apostolicae sedis Episcopus. Zozimus Bishop of the Apostolike sea, and Pope Innocent, Bishop of the Apostolike sea. And in his booke, De pec­cato originali, the sixt chapter: to make profes­sion before the sea Apostolike, and the seaventh, the letters of the sea Apostolike. And that you may be well assured, that in Africa at those daies sedes Apostolica was the common title of the church of Rome, both that African coun­cell cited by M. Abbot in the 35. Canon, and the fore alleaged epistles of the councels of Carthage and Milevitan vnto Pope Innocen­tius, do by it ordinarily designe the Bishop of Rome. which maie suffice for a proof, that sedes Apostolica in that place of saint Austin, is [Page 241] to be taken for the sea of Rome. And wheras M. Abbot saies, that in all that booke of S. Austin, there is no mention made of any par­ticular church, and therfore vnlike, that tho­se words should beare any speciall appli [...]a­tion to the church of Rome.

I in answer do say that sides Apostolica vsed there by S. Austin in the singular number, is sufficient to giue vs bi [...]h to vnderstand that hee spake of a particuler church, & also to lead vs to applie these his words vnto the church of Rome, which he commonly through all his workes doth describe by those verie words: which may also be much confirmed, by the like sentence vsed by S. Austin to the same purpose in another place. where hee saith.Aug. co. Epist. fundam. ca. 4. In Ecclesia gremio me tenet ab ipsa sede Petri Apostoli [cui pas­cendas ones suas dontinus commen­dauit] vs (que) ad praesentem Episco­patum successio Sacerdotum. The successiō of Bishops from the seat of S. Peter even to this present Bis­hop, doth hold mee in the bosome of the Catholike church. Are not the­se words plaine enough to expound the other? Let vs repose our selues in the bosom of that church, which by succession of Bishops from the Apostolike sea (to wit, of S. Peter) hath obtayned the top of au­thoritie. Compare the bosome with the boso­me: the succession of Bishops of the one, with the other, and they will easily lead vs to take the chaire of S. Peter, to be the exposition of the Apostolike sea. This is so sensible, that M. Abbot himself after hee had a litle wrangled against it, comes to admitt of it. how litle care, [Page 242] then had he of his owne honesty, that before charged mee with dishonest falsifying of tho­se words of S. Austin, and yet in the end, is for­ced to take them euen so as I did? And that you may in him behold the picture of one that will neuer yeeld to any truth that wee say, be it neuer so apparant: He admitting that wee ought to repose our selues in the bosome of that sea Apostolike wherin S. Peter sate: yet hee saies that it doth not heerby follow, that we ought rather to repose our selues in the bo­some of the church of Rome, thē in the church of Antioch; where Peter sate aswell as hee did at Rome, and where there had been Bishops succeedīg him vntill that time. how now good sir, had you leifer send your reader to Antioch, to relie on some schismatik vnder the Turk, then to Rome?

But this is a meere cavill, for though S. Peter was for a season Bishop of Antioch, and of so­me other cities also, which he first converted to the Christian faith, vntill he had provided them of some others: Yet he finally making choice of the city of Rome for his residence, and dying there, cōsecrating that place to God by the shedding of his blood for the Christian faith; The Bishops of Rome, and not of An­tioch, haue by consent of all antiquity been e­ver taken for S. Peters successors. I haue before produced sufficient testimonie for this mat­ter, so that it were needles heere againe to re­peat the same; when it will serve for this turne to proue that S. Austin (of whose words wee now treat) tooke the Bishops of Rome for S. [Page 243] Peters successors, and never the Bishop of An­tioch. Let M. Abbot if hee can, giue me [...] therof one instance; but because I know hee cannot doe that, I will giue him some to the contrary.

S. Austin taught the church of Rome to be S. Peters chaire,Aug. co. literas Pe­ril. l. 2. ca. 51. and the Bishops of Rome his successors in these words: what hath the church of Rome done to thee, in which S. Peter sate, and now sitteth Anastasius? who was then Bishop of Rome. Againe,Idem e­pist. 1 [...]5. where he expresly enquireth after S. Peters Successors, and by name affirmeth Linus Bishop of Rome to haue been his successor, and con­sequently, all other Bishops of Rome to his owne ti­me. He doth in like manner declare Rome to bee S. Peters chaire, and the Bishops of Rome his succes­sors In the Psalme hee made against the part of Donate, In Psal. co. partem don. and writing against the Donatists funda­mentall Epistle. Finally in the tenth question of the old and new testament, Con. E­pist. fun­damenti cap. 4. to omit many other pla­ces of his workes, out of the which the same may bee evidently deduced.

well, it being manifest by the verdict of S. Austin, that wee must repose our selues in the bosome of the sea Apostolike, and further that the same sea is the church of Rome; M. Abbot will now surely at the length to his owne eter­nall rest repose himself in the same holy boso­me of the church of Rome: beware of that in any case. He hath yet bethought himself of a­nother sorie shift. Let (saies hee) M. Bishop take those words, as he will: yet there is nothing therin concerning the church of Rome, but that as the principall church, and specially in the [Page 244] westerne parts, it serued most conveniently for in­stance of the succession. But as for the height and top of authoritie there spoken of, it belongeth to the Catholike or vniuersall church. And meere impu­dency it is, by those or any other words of Austin, to chalenge to that church any superiority in gover­ment ouer other churches, when (as wee see) both Austin, and the rest of the Bishops of Afri­ca did with one consent vtterly disclaime the same.

Turtull. co. Valēt. c. 2. vinci possunt, suaderi non pos­sunt.O how true is that ancient saying of Tur­tullian? heretikes may be overcome, but they will neuer be perswaded to yeeld and acknowledge it. M. Abbot granting that S. Austin hauing first resolued vs to repose our selues in the bosome of the sea Apostolike, that is, to embrace w­hat that church should teach vs, and wholy rely vpon her definitions. Secondly, that the church of Rome was that sea Apostolike, which had obtayned the top of authority, he­retikes in vaine barking round about it: yet presently, as if he had wholy forgotten that which stood before his eies, ot els not caring what hee said to avoid a dumbe blanck; he falleth to his old byas, and flieth back to that which he said in the beginning, albeit it had been so often before confuted: That forsooth, the church of Rome is only the principall church, and fittest to bee taken for instance in succession in westerne churches, but it hath not (saith hee) any superiority in goverment. when as S. Austin plainly teacheth, that wee must repose our selues in that churches boso­me, [Page 245] and set vp our rest vpon her decrees, that is, be sure to ioyne in faith and religion with the Bishops of the same; and that bicause that church hath obtayned the top of Authority, and highest degree in goverment. M. Abbot confessing the former part of the sentence to belong to the church of Rome, hath left him­self no shadow of reason to dismember from it, that which S. Austin doth so expresly ioyne and linke with it. Heare once againe his words. shall we doubt to repose our selues in the bosome of that church, which ever by the confession of man­kind &c: hath obtayned the top of authority, here­tikes barking round about it? Do you not see even by the cleere words of S. Austin, that he must confesse himself not to be a member of man­kind, that will deny that church (which he there spoke of) to haue the top of authority? what then shall become of M. Abbot, that granteth the church there spoken of to be the church of Rome, yet will not confesse it to haue that top of authoritie? Either he must be rased out of the number of men, or at the least be ranked in the rew of those hereticall men, that did so vainly barke against that so apparant truth, which the sound corps of all true beleeving men, do most constantly and gloriously confesse. I hauing before shewed at large, how neither S. Austin, nor the Afri­can Bishops did deny anie one branch of the Bishop of Romes primacy, no not so much as forbid their owne Bishops to appeale vnto the court of Rome: And did otherwise in [Page 246] sundry sorts declare their dutifull obedience vnto the same sea of Rome: M. Abbots infe­rence out of his owne mistaking and error, is wholy disappointed. To conclude then this paragraff it doth remaine most assured and cleere, that our blessed Saviour made S. Peter and his successors, that rock vpon which he built his church, therby giving them supreme power and authority, to govern his whole church, not for any limited nunber of yea­res, but for so long as his church should con­tinue a church, that is, to the worlds end, for against it the gats of hell shall never prevaile. Secondly, it is as certen that the Bishops of Rome be in that charge of government ouer all the church, S. Peters lawfull successors: with whom therfore whosoeuer ioyneth in matter of faith and religion shall never be de­ceiued nor fall in to schisme. and against whō whosoeuer barketh and opposeth himself, hee not only barketh and laboreth in vaine, (as S. Austin speaketh) but if he do obstinatly persever therin, he therby (to vse Optatus words before rehearsed) becometh both a sinner and a schismatike. From which most hainous crimes our sweet Saviour of his infi­nit mercie and goodnes deliuer all my most deere frinds and best beloued countrymen.

THE SVMME OF THE third paragraff or section.

ALBEIT the church of Rome strictly taken, doth comprehend those Christians only, that dwell within the citie and Diocese of Rome: yet it is vsed by men of both sides, to designe the faithfull of all coun­tries, that in religion do fully agree with the same: and that specially because they do ac­knowledg the Bishop of Rome to bee vnder Christ, the supreme governor therof: As in ti­mes past the Roman Empire did not containe the territory of Rome alone or countrie of Italy, but all lands and nations, that professed obedience to the Emperor of Rome. And like as in the primitiue church, the title Catholike was added to Christian, to distinguish true Christians from heretikes: Even so now a daies when heretiks are growne so audacious as to arrogate vnto themselues the name of Catho­liks (though their religion bee nothing lesse thē Catholike) the word Romā is ioyned to Ca­tholike; to separate true Catholikes from coun­terfeit; the Roman Catholike signifying those [Page 248] Catholiks, that in faith and religion do per­fectly agree with the church of Rome.

I Do confesse my self to bee one of those Doctors, that know not this new found distinction of the Roman church: to witt that it may bee taken ei­ther for the Diocesse of Rome, or for all churches that in faith fully agree with the Roman. M. Bishop can bring neither scripture nor any ancient writer for the warrant of it.

Secondly, it being admitted that the churche of Rome may be taken for all churches agreing in faith with it: yet it remaineth still a particular church; bicause there be many other churches in Europe and Asia, that do not agree with it in faith, nor acknowledg her chiefty ouer their chur­ches. For example, the churches of Luther, Cal­uin, and such like in Europe; and certain other schismaticall churches in other parts of the world. And as in the time of the Roman Empire, there were many other kingdomes in the world: so now besids the Roman church, there be many other churches. Moreouer the fathers haue told vs of the Latin and Greeke, of the East and west chur­ches:Pighius. Eccl. Hier. l 6. c. 3. but neuer specifie the Roman, to signifie the whole church. And Pighius asketh, who did euer by the Roman church, vnderstand the vniuersall church? Albeit the Bishops of Rome, wrote themselues Bishops of the Catholike church: Yet they meant of that part of the Catholike church, which was in Rome. when the Catholike [Page 249] french man doth say; we bee of the Catholike Roman church. wee vnderstand them therby to take part with the church of Rome; but the church of Rome, is that of Rome only and is factiously cal­led the Catholike church, which is the whole; and the Roman put to it, is a tearme of diminution, and abridgeth the whole to a part. To them therfoee may be applied that of Optatus against the Donatists, you would haue your selues. Optat. l. 2. con. Po rin. only to be the whole, who are not in all the whole. And if in ancient times, when there were so manie heresies, it was thought a sufficient distinction to ioyne Catho­like to Christian; why is it not sufficient now a [...]ies? It is the Inuention of Antichrist and his badge, to chalenge to himself and his only, to bee the whole Catholike church. That name Roman is a name of sect and schisme. This is the summe of all which M. Abbot saith in this paragraff or section.

IN this section is discouered a second falacy of that false argument, which they so often vse. No particuler church can be the Catholike church; but the Roman is a particuler church, Ergo it cannot bee the Catholike church. In the prece­dent section, I haue laid open the manifold faults of this their argument; shewing first the conclusion (if it were granted) not to bee to the purpose. for the point in question was not whether the Roman church were the whole Catholike church or no: but whether the word Roman in stile might bee couched with [Page 250] the Catholike church, that is, whether one might sensybly and trulie saie and write; The Catholike Roman church: they say yea, we say no, to make good their assertion, they a vouch the church of Rome not to be the whole church: we answere that the proof is not to the purpose, albeit that were true, for though it we­re not the whole church, yet it might be cal­led by the name of the whole: not onely be­cause euery part of that kind may be called by the name of the whole; but also for that it is such a part as shall neuer be seperated from the whole: and consequently as in existence it is alwaies close coupled with the whole, so may it very well in stile be interlaced with it.

Secondly I affirmed that taking the church of Rome for a part, yet it being the most emi­nent part, it might very iustly giue name to the whole, according to that axiome appro­ued by all the learned; A parte principaliore denominatur totum. the whole is named af­ter some principall part. the whole land of Israël was called Iury, of the principall tribe therof Iuda. And our own country wherin dwelt both Saxons and Vites aswell as English men, was named England, when one of the English attained to the monarchy. in like ma­ner the church of Rome being the head of the rest (as before I haue prooued) though it be not the whole yet may very well denomina­te the whole. And so it hath done by the con­sent of both friends and foes. for as we tearme all of our religion, Roman Catholikes. so the [Page 251] protestantes do nickname them Papists or Romanistes, both taking the name from Ro­me or the bishop of Rome. wherfore it is ma­nifest that that common hackney of the pro­testants doth not conclude the point that was in question: which no man doubteth to be one of the fowlest faults, that cā be in arguing. I laid in a second exception against the second proposition of that argument which is, But the Roman church is a particular church. For that the Roman church may bee either taken pre­cisely for the Diocese of Rome; or more larg­ly for the faithfull dispersed through the w­hole world, that do imbrace the same faith, which they of Rome do professe. The Ro­man church so taken (say I) is no particular church, but extends it self vnto the vt­most bounds of the whole Catholike chur­ch. to which M. Abbot doth make ans­were in this section: And in the begining confesseth verie strangley, that hee is one of those Doctors, that do not vnderstand this new found distinction.

Hee might perhaps haue said truly, that hee liked it not: but for a Doctor to say, that hee could not reach to that, which a mea­newitted scholler would make no difficul­tie to conceiue, cannot bee but a great disparagement either to his witt, or to his will, or to both. About the first acception of the Roman church there is no manner of doubt; And touching the 2. what difficutie is it [Page 252] to vnderstand all those to bee members of the Roman church, who take the Bishop of Ro­me to bee their chief pastor, and besides are in all articles of faith, and forme of government vnited with the Roman. Do not the protestāts themselues in euery countrie, by nicknaming vs Romanists, and Papists giue all men to vn­derstand, that they take all such to be mem­bers of the Roman church? If then both in England, France, Germany, and other coun­tries, by the testimonie aswell of protestants as Catholikes, all they that in faith and reli­gion agree with the church of Rome, bee ta­ken for members of the same church: would any man master of his owne wits make any difficultie to grant that all such may be said to bee of the church of Rome? And that ther­fore the church of Rome may bee taken to cō ­prehend all them of what nation soeuer they bee? what warrant I can bring for this out of the ancient writers shalbee shorrly after she­wed; though this matter be in it self so sensi­ble and almost palpable, that hee must needs confesse himself to be little better then a verie blockhead that cannot vnderstand it. yea M. Abbot presently after shewes himself to per­ceiue that well enough, for better aduised he admits it for true, and disputs against it in this manner. Be it so, that the church of Rome is vsually taken to signifie other churches submitting themselues to the church of Rome; yet it doth not comprehend other churches that do not submit themselues to the same, nor acknowledg her chiefty [Page 253] As the protestant churches in Europe, and some schismaticall churches in Asia. Ah sir, you shew cleerly enough that you vnderstood before that distinction of mine, why then did you that wrong to your owne reputation, as to confesse your self to be one of those Doctors that could not conceiue it? You meant then (belike,) to make some simple foole beleeue, that I to vphold my part was forced to coyne a new found distinctiō neuer heard of before: but the wind being presently changed, it is but an ordinary and vsuall distinstion, and may bee answered in the manner that you ha­ue endeuored to answere it. To which I replie briefly and roundly, that those churches w­hich acknowledg not the chiefty of the chur­ch of Rome, or do obstinatlie denie any other article of the christian faith professed by the sa­me church, be no Orthodox nor true chur­ches at all; but either hereticall or schismati­call congregations, members onlie of the ma­lignant church. And therfore though the church of Rome do not comprehend them, yet it doth neuertheles comprehend all Orthodox and Catholike churches. That all those malignant churches, and euerie member of them that either err in matter of faith defined, or are by schisme deuided from the church of Rome be no true churches at all, To omit di­uerse other arguments, (because this is not a place to handle at large that question) let the­se few testimonies suffice. Saint Austin saith. He that beleeueth any false thing of God, or [Page 254] of anie part of the doctri­ne that appertains vnto the edification of faith,Aug. l. quest. in Math. q. 11. Si enim falsa de deo credit, vel de aliqua parte doctrinae quae ad fidei pertinet aedificationem, ita vt non quaerentis cuncta­tione tentatus sit, sed incon­cusse credentis, nec omnino scientis opinione atque errore discordans, Haereticus est, & foris est animo, quamuis corporaliter intus videa­tur. & that not doubtingly, with a mind to bee better en­structed, but resolutely & obstinately; hee is an he­retike, and in soule out of the church; though in body hee seeme to liue in it. which elswhere he repeats coupling schis­matiks and heretiks together, and declaring both their congregations to bee no part of the Catholik church in these words. we be­leeue the holie church, that surelie which is Ca­tholike.Idem de fide & Simbolo ca: 10. Credimus & sanctam Eccle­siam, vtique Catholicam: nam & haeretici & schismatici, con­gregationes suas Ecclesias vocant. Sed Haeretici de deo falsa sentien­do ipsam fidem violant: schis­matici autem discissionibus iniqùis a fraterna Charitate dissiliunt quamuis ea credunt quae credimus. Quapropter nec haereticus perti­net ad ecclesiam Catholicam, quae diligit deum; nec schismati­tus, quoniam diligit proximum. for heretikes and schismatikes do call their congregations churches: but heretikes beleeuing false things of God do breake their faith; and schismatiks by wilfull di­uisions do leape from brotherly charitie: wherfo­re neither doth the here­tike belong to the Catho­like church, bicause shee loues god: nor the schismatike, for that shee loues heir neighbor. which doctrine he might haue drawen out of Saint Ciprian, who vnder the name of the Novatians doth teach: That heretikes be like vnto Apes; who though they [Page 255] bee no men,Ciprian. epistola 73. ad Iu­baianum. Nouatianus simiarum more (quae cum homines non sint, homines tamen imitantur) vult ecclesiae Catholicae auctoritatem sibi & veritatem vindicare, quando ipse in Ecclesia non sit, imo, &c. yet do co­unterfeit men: so hereti­kes, albeit they bee out of the church, yet do chalenge to themselues the truth and authority of the church. with them accordeth Saint Hierom saying. when you shall heare of any Christians that take not their name from Iesus Christ,Hieron. co. lucif in fine. Sicubi audieru eos qui dicuntur Christi, non a Iesu Christo sed a quoquam alio nuncupari, vtputa Marcionistas, valentinianos, mon­tenses: scito non Ecclesiam Christi sed Antichristi esse synagogam. but frō other men, as Marcio­nists, valentinians, (or such like as are now a daies, Lutherans, Zuin­glians, &c.) be you well assured, that they belong not to the church of Christ, but to the Sinagogue of Antichrist. Out of this sound doctrine of the ancient fa­thers, and approued doctors, M. Abbots ob­iection is easily solued. For albeit there be ma­ny erring congregations, which would glad­lie bee called churches, and do chalēge to thē ­selues the name and authoritie of the church, which the church of Rome doth not compre­hend: yet those congregations being no more true churches, then Apes be men: the church of Rome maie bee truly said to comprehēd all the Catholike church, though it do not con­taine any of thē: they being for their ertors in faith, and disvniō in matter of religion, by the verdict of the aunciēt fathers esteemed rather schismatikes & parts of sathās sinagogue, then any members of Christs Catholike church.

I am not ignorāt that there be certain good fellowe Libertins, who more willing to plea­se men with plausible doctrine, then to ac­quaint them with Gods iust iudgments, And to make some shew that theire church hath been alwaies a member of the visible Catho­like church do teach, that even schismatikes and heretikes (so they erre not in some funda­mentall points of religion) be notwithstan­ding reall and true members of the Catholike church. Against whose error I meane god willing to make a chapter in this booke, w­herfore I will not here stand to confute it: But admitting it here for passable, I do not see any reason why in the waie of that opinion, the Roman church may not comprehend e­ven those vnpure churches too. For albeit they do not acknowledg the chiefty of the Roman church, nor agree with it in all articles of faith yet they acknowledging the Roman to hold all those fundamentall articles of faith, must needs grant that they do agree with it in all points that are of necessitie to bee beleeued. On the other side they cannot deny but that they are all descended out of the same Roman church; not being able to shew any other stocke or pedegree, out of which their church is issued and sprung. why then should they not yeeld that honor vnto the same, as to ac­knowledg themselues members of her from whom they deriue their descent and pedigree? and with whom they do agree in all fundamē ­tall points of doctrine, though in some other [Page 257] (not necessarie in their opinion to be belee­ued) they do dissent from her? Neither is that example of the Roman Empire well applied by M. Abbot: For albeit there were and bee many kingdomes in the world besids the Ro­man Empire, not subiect therto, nor any mē ­bers therof: yet there be not, nor cannot bee many christian churches, wherof the one is not a member of the other. For all Christian creeds do teach vs to beleeue, that there is but one only church, not many:Ephes. 4. Cant. 6.8 One spouse of Christ one body of Christ, vna est columba mea, &c. w­hich is the common doctrine of the auncient fathers, after S. Ciprian and Saint Austin, w­ho haue made whole treatises of the vnitie of the church. So that though there be many di­stinct kingdomes independent one of the o­ther; yet there cannot bee many such chur­ches; but all and euerie particuler true church is a true member of the one only Catholike church. All of them perfectly agreeing togi­ther in society of faith, in vnity of sacraments and in forme of government. Consequently, the head & mother church, (such as before I haue proued the Roman church to bee) may convenientlie bee vsed to signifie all the rest. No man denies the more proper signification of the church of Rome to bee the city or Diocese of Rome it self; in which sense Al­bertus Pighius doth truly say of it, That it is a particular church, and not to be taken for the vniuersall church: Notwithstanding it is [Page 258] in more large signification often taken for the whole Catholike church, not only of moderne writers, but also of the most an­cient and holy fathers. to witnes wherof I take these few following. Saint Ciprian sent the copie of Antonianus letter to Cornelius bishop of Rome,Cipr. epi­stola 52. to assure him that the said Antonian did comunicate with him, that is, with the Catholike church. vt sci­res illum tecum, hoc est, cum Catholica ecclesia co­municare. where that most learned prelate, and glorious Martir put as a thing by it self well knowen, that to comunicate with the pope of Rome, is to communicate with the Catholike church with him accordeth Saint Ambrose,Ambros. oratione defratic Satyro. relating how his brother Satyrus was cast on shore in Sardinia or therabout, where Catholiks and heretiks were blended and mixt together: and being desirous to bee baptised by a Catholike Bishop, when one was presented to him to do that good of­fice, he to trie wh [...]ther he were Catholike or no, demaunded of him. Si cum Catholi­cis, hoc est, cum Romanis consentiret. If he did agree with the Catholikes, that is to say, with the Romanes. Putting as we do now Roman for a certaine marke, and as it were an expli­cation of a true Catholike. The like doth Saint Hierom, when he asked of Ruffinus, what faith hee professed,Hic oni. Apol [...] c [...] Ruf­finum. whether that that florished in the church of Rome, or that which was contayned in the bookes of O­rigine? [Page 259] Si Romanam responderit, ergo Catho­lici sumus. If hee answere the Roman faith, then bewe Catholiks, and free from the errors of Ori­gen. where he setteth the Roman faith, to signifie the Catholike faith, yea sheweth that of the Roman faith, Christians are de­nominated Catholikes. The same doth the auncient christian poet Prudentius chaunt in these verses.

This godly and holy man esteemed it all one to yeeld your self to the Catholike partie, and to vnite your self to the sea of Rome. So did that puissant Christian Emperor Theodosius the younger, when hee exhorted the Bishop of Berca and his followers, to declare themselues approued priests of the Roman religion; imploing the Ro­man for the Catholike religion, which was with all persons so vsuall and current in those better times,Concil: Ephesin. Tom. 1. c. 10. that even the old rotten Ar­rian heretikes did by the same name of [Page 260] Roman, designe all true beleeuers, as may bee gathered by that godly Historiographer Vi­ctor Bishop of vtica in Africke: who relateth, how locundus, to diswade the cruell Arrian Theodoricus,Victor v­ti: de pers: vand: l. 1. the kings sonne, from putting a Christian to death vsed these words. If you put him to the sword, the Romans will honor him for a Martir. By the word Romans, signifying the true Catholikes. And another worthy wit­nes heerof is Gregory that learned and Zea­lous Bishop of Toures, who citing these words of the Arrians,Greg de gloria Martyrū l. 1. c. 25. Quia ingenium est Roma­norum, doth enterlace this explication, Roma­nos enim vocitant, nostrae religionis homines) they do cōmonly call men of our religion (to wit, the true Catholiks, by the name of Romans. These ancient graue and renowmed authors may serue to convince any reasonable man, that the name Roman both anciently did, and now verie well maie comprehend all the true beleeuers of the vniuersall world. what shall we then say to M. Abbot, that in all his reading (as he confesseth to the reproch of his ignorance) could never light vpon any one that by the Roman church, did signify the whole Catho­like church? He must acknowledg either that there remaineth very much in antiquity, which hee hath not yet read; or that passing ouer much in post, was not at leasure to mar­ke that which made against himself. Hee fo­und the East and the west, the Greeke and La­tin churches: but hee could neuer find, that by the Roman church was signified the vni­uersall [Page 261] church. Be it so good Sir, bicause you will needs haue it to be so, that you through the dimnes of your sight could not discerne that which stands on record in Saint Ciprian, Saint Ambrose, Saint Hierome, and diuers others well knowen and approued Authors: doth it there vpon follow, that no man els could do it? or that I vpon the acknowledg­ment of your want of reading the fathers, was presently blanked, and had not a word to say? Alas seely man haue you neuer heard of this triviall Adage? Bernardus non vidit omnia. If that enlightned and Eagle eied Abbot did not see all; what maruell though a poore purr­blind Abbot ouersee & mistake many things? Learne gentle sir by this little, not to beare your self to confidently vpon your owne rea­ding; be you well assured that there bee ma­ny worthy things in antiquitie, that you haue not read; manie also that you do not vnder­stand: and not a few (if I do not greatly mi­stake) that you having both read and vnder­stood, yet will not acknowledge, for feare of hurting your owne cause. Out of the premises it followeth most manifestly, that the word Roman (taken in that larger signification) is no tearme of diminution, nor abridgeth) the whole vnto a part, but is of as large extent, and hath the same latitude, with the who­le Catholike and Orthodox church. So that whosoeuer is of the Roman church, is a true member of the Catholike church. And on the other side, whosoeuer will [Page 262] bee esteemed a mēber of the Catholike church must not refuse to be made a member of the Roman church. It only seperateth Catholikes from heretikes,Epist. 73. who like Apes (to vse S. Ci­prians tearme) counterfeit the Catholike, & would verie fayne bee so saluted: but because they will not acknowledge,Epist. 45. radicem & matri­cem, (as the said Doctor speaketh elswhere) the originall & mother church of Rome, they cannot bee liuely branches & true children of the same.

Optatus l. 2. co. par­men. The Donatists (as Optatus wisely noteth) becau­se they seperated themselues from the cōmunion of the church of Rome, avouching their particuler sect to bee the whole church, were no part of the whole: but lay like rotten boughes cut of from the body of the Catholike church. In the same tearmes stand protestants & all other sectaries of what sort soeuer they be, that after the fashion of Dona­tists diuide themselues from the same church of Rome, and make peculier seperations. And if the particular church of Rome would and could forsake their Ancestors faith, and divide it self from other Catholike churches as protestants do, And neuertheles avouch it self alone to be the whole church: then in deed it might well incurr that censure of Op­tatus. But because it cannot so do, being by the vertue of our Saviours prayer, and conti­nuall assistance of the holy Ghost, alwaies pre­serued from all error in matter of faith: ther­fore it cannot bee separated frō the rest of the Catholike church, as the Donatists were, but [Page 263] be perpetually so closelie vnited, & insepara­bly associated with it, that whosoeuer ioyneth himself with the church of Rome, doth euen therby enter in to societie of the whole catho­like church. which the same ancient prelate Optatus doth teach in these most expresse wordes which I haue cited before. Si [...]icius, [that now sitteth S. Peters success [...]r in the chaire of Rome] is our cōpanion, with whō the whole world by enter course of formed letters, agreeth with vs in one vni­forme societie of comunion. Behold how by socie­tie with the Bishop and church of Rome, the Bishops of Afrike entred into cōmunion, and kept correspōdēce with the vniuersall church dispersed ouerall the whole world.

4 M. Abbot would gladly learne, seing that in anciēt time whē there were very manie he­resies, the additiō of Catholike was taken for sufficiēt to distinguish the Orthodox from all kind of sectaries; why it will not now serue the turne, but that Romā must bee added thervn­to. The answere is readie, because sectaries bee waxen more audacious now, thē they were of old: for in S. Austins daies,Aug [...] til. cred c. 7. albeit the heretikes c ueted to be called Catholikes, and so did call them­selues, putting names of reproch vpon the true belee­uers, as Protestants vse to do now: yet as the same most trustie Doctor witnesseth: when any stranger came to demaund of them, which was the Catholike congregation, Idem de vera rel. c. 7. they alwaies directed and sent them to the true Catholike, & not to their owne, well knowing that hee who enquired after the Catholikes, meant not their sect. neither [Page 264] could they otherwise bee well vnderstood, vnles they called the true church by the same name, as it was called all the world ouer.

But the heretikes of our times having put on more brasen faces then their predecessors, though there be no vniuersality neither of ti­me, place, or people in their congregations; yet forsooth will needs bee called Catholiks, by Antiphrasis or contraries (belike,) vt Lu­cus dicitur a Lucendo, quia minime lucet, lucus that is Latin for a wood is deriued of lumen, light, because in it is litle light; so Protestants may be named vniuersalists, bicause there is among them litle or no kind of vniuersality. To the purpose then, to declare what manner of Catholiks we meane, wee add Roman: to signifie that we vnderstād not a counterfeit, or corner catholike that lay lurking in obscuri­ty for a thousand yeres together, and whose faith was neuer spred one quarter of the wor­ld ouer. But such Catholikes as ioyne with the church of Rome, whose faith and religion was first cōmended in the Apostles daies, and hath continued ever since vnmoveable, and besids hath florishedd in all christian nations of the world, and therfore is indeed truly Catholike. Our coniunction therfore with the Roman church associateth vs with the faithfull not only of all Europe, Afrike, and Asia; but also with the faithfull of the East and west Indies and of all the world besi­des.

wherfore M. Abbot was fowly deceiued, when he said that the word Roman, was a tear­me of diminution, or that it abridgeth the w­hole vnto a part; wheras the Roman is fully as large and ample, and hath the very same, and no narrower limits and borders then the Catholike faith and religion: excluding none of any nation of the world out of that com­munion, but heretiks only and schismatiks, and such like counterfeit Catholikes. And let him and his companions that blush not to lay that imputation of sect and schisme vpon the Roman church declare if they can, from what church the Roman deuided it self? in what po­pes daies it became schismatike? And in what countrie was the vnity of the true church then preserued? None of all which if they bee able to declare, we must needs take their words for wind, if not for passionat and womanish scol­ding without any colour of reason.

I maruell where M. Abbot hath read, that it is the peculiar badg of Antichrist, to chalen­ge to him & his alone to be the whole church of Christ. May not Christs lieutenant on earth chalenge that truly, which Antichrist by in­trusion will presume to do vniustly? Or is the­re no whole church of Christ in the world out of Antichrists tents? And may he not ra­ther be thought to rove at random, then to speake in his right senses, that averreth Anti­christ to bee willing to stand for Christ, and to professe to fight vnder Christs banner? a­gainst whom as the holy scripture and ancient [Page 266] fathers most manifestly teach, hee will pro­clayme open warr, and do the vttermost of his most wicked endeauor to cōpell all Chri­stians openly to forsake and forsweare Christ too, and that not covertly and by consequen­cies, but in plaine and formall tearmes, and to acknowledg no other soueraigne lord besids himself. wherfore to conclude this section, let the indifferent reader duly consider whether I haue deliuered in sufficient premises to proue, that the church of Rome may be vsed to si­gnifie any church of the world, that in faith and religion doth agree with it. My promises are, not the practise only of Catholiks but al­so of Protestants, who in all countries giue vs a name taken from the church of Rome, as Romanists or Papists; to signifie that we all be members of the same church in what coun­trie soever we dwell; And not only men of our d [...]es do so commonly speake, but in ancient tymes also it is as well recorded of the Ortho­dox fathers as by heretiks; that men of all co­untries who imbraced the true faith were cal­led Romans, as I haue once before proued at large. wherfore it is no novelty to avouch the church of Rome to comprehend all the true Christians of the world. Against which it ma­keth nothing that heretiks and schismatiks be no members of the church of Rome: for they be no better then rotten boughes cutt of from the vine, & like scattered sheepe out of Christs fold, wherfore no part nor parcell of Christs church.

THE FOVRTH Paragraffe.

NOw to M. Abbots second so­phistication. The Roman church by your rule is the head, and all other churches are members to it: but the Catholike comprehendeth all. Ergo, to say the Roman is the Catholike church, is to say, the head is the whole body.

To which I saye first, as I said to the former argument, that it is missshapen, and by the like it maie bee proued, that their English church is not the Catholike church, which M. Abbot is content to grant. Se [...]ondly I say, that it is a fault in arguing when a word is v­sed Metaphorically, to take hold vpon anie other property of the Metaphore, besides that wherin the resemblance lieth. I gaue for e­xample, that our blessed Saviour is called a Lion for his invincible fortitude. Now if anie man would out of that metaphore ar­gue, that our Saviour had foure feete, bicau­se a Lion hath so, he should be not only ridi­culous, but also blasphemous. In like manner though the church of Rome be by vs called the head church, bicause of her superiority: [Page 268] Yet doth it not follow, that anie other pro­perties belonging to a head, be of necessity at­tributed to the same church. And to our pre­sent purpose, though a head cannot be called by the name of the whole, it being but one part of the whole, called dissimilare, that con­sisteth of diuers parts, one vnlike to the other; yet might the church of Rome, not withstan­ding that it is the head, be called by the name of the whole Catholike church. For that the Catholike church is, totum similare, a whole consisting of parts, that bee all a like as the ai­re is: every part wherof is called by the name of the whole, as euery part of the aire, is called the aire, euery part of water, is called water: so every particular church, that is part of the Ca­tholike church, may truly be called the Ca­tholike church: though it be not the whole Catholike church. To which M. Abbot after much idle speech mingled with scornfull sco­ffing, answereth nothing els in effect, but that hee had said before, these be his wordes.

TAke a head in what sence you will, it must needs bee a distinct part from the rest of the body, and then repeats his goodly argument in the­se tearmes. The church of Rome is by their le­arning the head of all other churches, and all other churches are as the members and body of this head. But the Catholike church com­prehendeth all both head and body. To say [Page 269] then that the Roman church is the Catholike church is all one, as if a man should say, the head is the whole bodie. After which he addeth, who can speake more cleerly then I haue do­ne? where if you wilbe his favorable and fast frind, you must applaud him and say, that no man is able to do better, nor to set it out more cleerly then hee hath done. A high conceit of his owne writing, vt­tered with vanity enough. Now of mee his poore Antagonist hee saith, who can answere more ab­surdly then he hath done? I haue put him to his trumps I warrant him &c: to omit much such trumpery which followeth, without any forti­fication of reason, or temper of modestie.

I am so farr of from being troubled with his trumpes, which are nothing els indeed then very frumpes (besids that one old halting spurgald Iade of an argument so confusedly set downe by him, even there where hee cra­kes most of cleernes) that I will do that for him, which hee blinded with self loue imagi­ned impossible for any man to do, to wit; I will put downe his argument more cleerly and formerly, then he hath done himself, as every scholler that can Iudge of the forme of an argument may easily perceaue, in this man­ner. No part can be the whole, but the church of Rome is but a part (to wit the head of the church) Ergo it cannot be the whole. This his so often re­peated argument, without any new fortifica­tiō, [Page 270] needs no other refutatiō, than that which hath been once or twice giuen before.

Thus at length we come to the end of M. Abbots first chapter, which was diuided in­to fower sections or parts; and haue by the helpe of Gods good grace both defended and proued that supreme commanding power of Iurisdiction, which consisteth in the chief go­vernment of Christs church vpon earth, to haue been by our blessed Saviour first establis­hed and placed vpon the person of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles; that there should be perfect vnity in his Ecclesiasticall kingdome: then that the same might endure not for tear­me of S. Peters life only, but alwaies continue vnto the worlds end, He ordained that S. Pe­ters successors the Bishops of Rome should enioy the same soveraigne authority, ouer the whole Catholike church vntill the worlds end. which I made good specially by the con­fession and acknowledgment of the greatest Patriarks, most learned and best approued Prelats of the East churches; because the better learned Protestants do after a manner grant vnto the Bishop and pope of Rome,Of this read more in the no­te at the end of this chapter. as patri­arch of the west, supreme authoritie and Iu­risdiction ouer all the west churches. Moreo­uer, because the protestants do all and some obiect that fact of the African Bishops, whe­rin they seemed to deny appeales of all vnder the degree of Bishops vnto the court of Rome, as an argument of great moment against the said supreme commanding power of the sea [Page 271] of Rome, I haue produced testimonies of the most ancient, and best learned Bishops and Doctors of the African church, averring the Iurisdiction of the church of Rome ouer themselues and their countrie. So that there can remaine no scruple in the vpright and iu­dicious Readers vnderstanding, but that the Bishop of Romes supremacy hath been ac­knowledged, witnessed and obeyed all the world ouer, even in the pure times of most florishing Christianity. And consequently, that all they who desire to bee sound and per­fect Catholiks, must imbrace and professe the faith and religion of the same Roman church, or els be content to bee reckened in the rew of hereticall or schismaticall Congregations. And as in this life they willingly take part with them in their schisme and errors: so they may assure themselues (vnles God giue them grace to repent) to bee against their wils, sor­ted with them in the finall separation at the last day, and to haue their vnlucky lott with them in the lake euer burning with fire and brimstone. from which our most mercifull Lord and sweet Saviour Christ Iesus deliuer all them that professe his truth and holy na­me. Amen.

The comparisons betweene the Donatists and Papists iustified and enlarged, page 51.

IT is a meere vsurpation wherby the Papists call the Roman church the Catho­like church, and the same that the Donatists of old did. They held the Ca­tholike church to be art Cartenna in Africk, and the Papists hold it to be at Rome in Italy.

THis cōparison is a fond new deuise of M. Abbot, wherin there is skarce one spark either of wit or learning; wherfore it deserued rather to be abridged or wholy cāceld, then to [Page 276] haue been enlarged. Iustified it can never bee, because it hath not many true words in it. Ta­ke a tast of this first branch which is false on both sides. for neither was Cartenna in Afri­ca, but in Mauritania: nor did the Donatists hold their pretended Catholike church to bee at Cartenna, but esteemed the Rogatists (who so much magnified Cartenna) to be wic­ked Schismatiks, altogether vnworthy the name or communion of their supposed Ca­tholik church; as S. Austin (M. Abbots owne author) doth testifie,Aug. E­pist. 48. in the place cited by himself. was hee not then fowly mistaken to father such a strange vntruth vpon S. Augu­stin? And on the other side, is it not a prodi­gious impudent assertion to avouch, that wee Catholiks do maintaine the Catholike church to be inclosed within the walls of Rome, or confined in those quartiers, as the Rogatists did their church to be concluded within the Coastes of Cartenna? wheras we teach it to bee dispersed all the world ouer.

I Confesse I committed some oversight by vnder­standing that generally of the Donatists, which belonged only to the Rogatists. Let this be amen­ded thus. The Donatists did set vp a particular church, all of them first in the south of Africa, some afterward (as the Rogatists) at Cartenna in Mau­ritania. And so haue the Papists done at Rome in Italy. Against which M. Bishop giues two exce­ptions: [Page 277] First, that they do not hold the Catho­like church to be inclosed within the wals of Rome, as the Rogatists did theirs within Car­tenna: but do say that it was dispersed all the world ouer; wheras the Rogatists congrega­tion was holden to be confined within the bounds of Cartenna. The first part of which answere on their behalf is false; and the second part concerning the Rogatists is vayne: for it is false that the Romish church is dispersed over all the world: because the Greeke and Easterne churches disclaime subiection to the church of Rome; and alt­hough the communion of the church of Rome be farr larger then that was of the Rogatists at Car­tenna; yet doth neither of them containe any more then a part. And we cannot doubt but that the Ro­gatists would as w [...]llingly haue had the whole world to ioyne with their church, as the Romans: And so it was not by position of doctrine that their church was not of larger extent; but forwant of better suc­cesse. And the exprobration of the same mad fancy lieth vpon the church of Rome, to wit, that who­soeuer in the further parts of the world shalbe de­sirous of salvation, vnles hee come to Rome, or in­to some place where hee may meete with a Popish priest, he cannot be baptised or reconciled to God. As touching the second exception though it bee not generally true, that the Donatists placed the Ca­tholike church at Cartenna, yet it is not altogither vntrue. because the Rogatists were a kind of Do­natists, albeit devided from them by schisme. A­gaine although the Donatists did not place the Catholike church at Cartenna, yet they designed [Page 278] the place therof to bee Africa; for albeit they ac­knowledged the church by the Apostles preaching to haue been spred ouer all the world; yet they held that it was perished in all other parts of the world, and onlie remained with their part in Africa: they did not exclude the rest of the world out of their communion, so they would be of their opinion. The foundation of their church was laid in Africa, and from thence they would haue it dispersed all the world ouer. In the same sort standeth the mattr with the Papists, they tell vs that the other patriar­chall seas are all either extinguished or fallen into Schisme, and the Roman church only remayning: whence all other churches of the world are to be re­duced to the Pope.

They tell vs of strange wonders done amongst the Indians, whither they know it vnlikly for vs to come to search out the truth: but those nations pre­tended to be converted by them, are either colonies of their owne, or some Infidels forced to accept of Baptisme without religion, or such as by wiles they haue surprised. Thus is M. Bishop by avoyding to be a Donatist by putting the matter ouer to the Rogatists, become both a Donatist and Rogatist, by tying the seate of the Catholike church to one only particular place.

M. Abbot perceiuing well that hee had behaued himself exceeding drowsily in that comparison between the Donatists and Catholikes, yet being (as it seemeth) over farr [Page 279] in loue with his owne conceit simple though it were, would not so giue it ouer: but to make vp the full measure of his folly, will needs go forwards with it; and endevoreth not only to iustify that which he had before written, but doth also make some new additions. If I could perswade my self that my time should bee fruitfully spent in answering him at lēght, I would not desire greater advantage to be given mee, to display and laie open to the view of the world his lacke of Iudgment, lacke of learning, and l [...]cke of honestie: but conside­ring that this cōparison can be no great mat­ter of edification to the Reader, I hold it not worthy anie amplification, but will abridg it as much as I may: yet so, that no substantiall point of it be left vnanswered. M. Abbot not finding any poore meanes to vnderproppe his palpable absurdities, is driven to confesse them in the very first branch, and doth therfore post that over to the latter place, and preposterous­ly maketh answere before vnto the secōd part of the comparison; which was, that we Roman Catholiks do not tie the Catholike church to the Ci­ty of Rome, as the Rogatists did theirs to Cartenna. For we hold that men may be baptised and saued in anie part of the world, without repayring to the City of Rome, or to the coastes adioyning neere ther­vnto; wheras the Rogatists did hold, that in what part soever of the world any persō were cōverted, he must of necessity go vnto Cartēna, or therabouts to bee baptised and obtaine sal­vation. [Page 280] To which M. Abbot replies that the former part on our behalf is false. because our church is not spred ouer all the world, and therfore saluation cannot bee gotten all the world ouer. for that to obtaine salvation as he saith, a popish priest must needs be foūd out. This reply is not to the purpose. For whe­ther our church bee spred ouer all the world or no, of which more shalbe said presently: yet it is certainly knowen to be in diuers great monarchies besids Italy: in all which if any person be to be baptised or reconciled, we send them not to Rome to receiue those sa­craments, but administer them in the place where the person is by the inspiration of God converted, which is cleane contrarie to the doctrine of the Rogatists, that exacted the personall repaire of all such convertites to Cartenna, or to her confines which doth most cleerly ouerthrow M. Abbots answere. Yet to bolster out his flaggy resemblance he ad­deth, that it was not by position of doctrine, that the Rogatists forced all convertits to co­me into that country; but because they had not any Bishops of their sect els where, which if they had had (as no doubt they desired to haue) then they who were touched with the preaching of the Gospell, might haue been baptised by them in any other country where these godly prelats were. To which I reioyne, that had there been Rogatists all the world o­uer as they desired to bee, thē there had beē no place for this brāch of the comparison, which [Page 281] likeneth the Roman Catholikes to the Roga­tists, in that they bee both of them priuate and confined within the compasse of some particular places. M. Abbot therfore full wi­sely goeth about to vphold his former resem­blance by the quite ouerthrow of it. for he­rein (said he before) stands the resemblance betwene the Papists and Rogatists, that both of them do restraine the vniuersality of the Catholike church to one particular place or country. And now confessing the Papists cō ­munion and fellowship to be farre larger thē the Rogatists, he flies to this silly shift, that the Rogatists desire to haue their church as largly extended as the Romanists, that is both of them all the world ouer. So that the wind being come round about and sitting now in the cleane contrary corner, the resemblance is to be turned the other way; to wit, that as the Roman church desireth to be spred all the world ouer, so did the Rogatists. But good Sir tell me I pray you, is it sufficient to make a church Catholike to desire to be dilated all the world ouer? Then without doubt not on­ly Rogatists, but all other sectaries too, were also Catholiks; for none of them suerly wan­ted that desire. yet being bastard slips, and destitute of that vertue, which proceedeth by the trunck of true succession from the right roote, they could neuer be generally receiued all the world ouer, and therfore could not bee called Catholikes. wheras the Roman church ingraffed by the Apostles in to the true Oliue [Page 282] Christ Iesus through the force of his blessed passion, and by power of the holy Ghost, hath not only desired to spred her branches into all nations, but hath actually performed that her holy desire. for truth is strong, and doth prevaile. wherfore it alone hath worthily archieued the name of Catholike, which all other con­gregations haue in vaine gaped after and desi­red.

Obserue by the way M. Abbots grosse ignorance in two points of our doctrine: the former, when he imagineth vs to hold that no man can be baptised to saluation without hee meet with one of our priests. wheras we teach the Baptisme even of Protestants, be they men, be they women, to bee availeable to saluation. The latter, in that he affirmeth vs to hold the same of reconciliatiō; we teaching that any person of discretion may by true con­trition and repentance obtaine saluation, al­beit they cannot meete with any priest. Let therfore these his assertions be scored vp for an after reckening.

Now to the second exception, albeit the Rogatists were a Cantell or fragment broken out of the Donatists, yet they by their division from them forsooke the name of Donatists, and tooke their owne proper name of Roga­tists, and in that question of the true church were at open warr with the Donatists. so that it was a grosse ouersight in M. Abbot to say the Donatists held the Catholike church to bee at Cartenna: Because they esteemed no better [Page 283] of that church at Cartennna then of a den of theeues. In like manner they of Cartenna reputed the Donatists for damned creatures. wherfore albeit the Rogatists in some other matter, wherin they did agree with the Dona­tists, might haue passed vnder that generall name: yet they could not in that point, whe­rin they were at so great square. It is then clee­re that M. Abbots error therin cannot bee ex­cused.

well if he hath hitherto behaued him­self like one that being half a sleepe knew not well what he said; yet now being awaked by his aduersary hee will (no doubt) spitt on his fingers, and take better hold, secundae enim co­gitationes sunt prudentiores. To it then Iollie Sir, touch the Papists home, and if you cannot for­ce the Rogatists vpon them, yet driue them at the least to be Donatists, and you shall do somewhat. That (saith M. Abbot) I will ea­sely performe by this new framed resemblan­ce. like as the Donatists held the Catholike church to haue perished in all other countries, and to haue remayned only with their part in Africa, and desi­red that from thence it might be spred into all other nations: Even so the papists tell vs that the churches in all the farr parts of the world haue failed, that the patriarchall seas are all fallen away, and only the Roman remayneth, whence the rest are to be reduced to the obedience of the pope.

This loe seemes to be something. True it is that the Donatists did in many things [Page 284] things counterfeit the true Catholiks, and a­mong the rest pretended (as all other heretiks cōmonly do) that their congregation was the only true reformed church, and that the rea­die way to saluation was to enter into their society. But this is so triviall and common as­well to the true Catholike, as to all maner of dissēbling cōgregatiōs that hee who delights to enlarge himself therin, shall but loose his time, abuse his reader, and purchase to him­self the reputation of a trifler. yet let vs descēd to the particulars of this new coyned compa­rison, and see whether it will abide the touch ar noe. The Roman church and the Donatists did not agree in the first point of that resem­blance. for wheras the Donatists held the church to haue perished all the world ouer, saving in some part of Africk: the Roman Ca­tholike doth not hold the true church to haue perished all the world over, saving in Italy, or in some parts of Europe: but teacheth that it hath alwayes continued, and even in this last hundreth yeeres, to haue gained more both in the East and west Indies, then it hath lost in these parts of the world. Secondly, it is not long sithence all the patriarchall seas did opē ­ly agree with the church of Rome, to wit, in the yeare of our Lord god 1439. as may be seen in the councell of Florence, and by the profession of faith which Ioseph patriarch of Constantinople,Concil. florent. sess. 25. then and there made in these words. whatsoeuer the Catholike church of our Lord Iesus Christ, which is of old Rome [Page 285] doth beleeve and wor­ship;Ioseph miseratione diuina Constan. Patriarcha. Quoniam ad extremum vitae mea perueni, idcirco pro meo mu­nere dilectis filijs benignitate dei meam sententiam his literis palam facio. Nam quae Iesu Christi catholica & Apostoli­ca Ecclesia Roma veteris sentiat ac celebrec, omnia me quoque sentire credereque profiteor, at ipsis plurimum acqui [...]sco. Beatis­simum autem Patrum Patrem ac Summum Pontificem Roma (que) veteris Papam, domini nostri Ie­su Christi vicarium esse concedo, &c. datum Florentiae 8. Iulij, an­no 1439. all the same do I confesse my self to belee­ue and thinke, and ther­vnto do yeeld my perfect consent. And I do further confesse, the most bles­sed father of fathers, the chief Bishop and pope of Rome, to bee the vicar of our lord Iesus Christ. To these points of doctri­ne, and to all other of the church of Rome, did at the same time subscri­be the legats and deputies of the other three patriarchall seas, Alexandria, Antioch, and Ierusalem; as is recorded in the same councell. In which faith continued the said three pa­triarchall seas, till the yeare of our lord 1517, (when Luther began his tragedy) as stands of record in the generall councell of Laterā held vnder Leo the tenth. where the obedience al­so of Peter Patriarch of the Armenians vnto the church of Rome was presented by his ora­tors since which tyme (as somtimes also be­fore) albeit those churches for the greater part fell often away into schisme and heresie; yet there remained alwaies, and do to this ti­me continue still among them, many good soules that do constantly retayne and keepe the true doctrine of the church of Rome in all points. And the Greeke church hath in Ro­me [Page 286] it self a Seminary (as many other nations haue) at this daie, to breed and trayne vp their young students, as in all other vertues and pietie, so principally in the true faith of the church of Rome. wherfore albeit the publike face of religion be now in those churches as it is in our countrie, yet there want not true Roman Catholikes in those parts no more then there do (God be thanked) in our co­untry to baptise, reconcile, and to perfome all other christian duties appertayning to the rites of the Roman church. whence it follo­weth, that there are two vntruthes in the for­mer part of M. Abbots new resemblance; for we are so farr of from saying the Catholike church to be perished ouer all the world, that wee affirme it rather to be at this present day much increased and multiplied, which doth controwle the former part of M. Abbots position: we say more ouer that in those verie patriarchall seas, though the outward face of religion be disfigured and corrupted, yet doth the Roman religion remayne there entire and sound, though not openly countenanced by the state, yet by the godly practised in secret.

Let vs now proceed to the second particu­larity, to wit that the Donatists laide the fo­undation of their church in Africa, and from thence would haue had all other churches to haue bene restored to their former integrity: when did they begin to laie that foundation? about 300 yeares after Christ in constantine the great his raigne. who was he that laid that [Page 287] foundation? One Maiorinus or Donatus, of whom the rest tooke their name, doth it not herehence (that I go no further) presently ap­peare a great difference between the church of Rome, and the church of the Donatists? The church of Rome began in the Apostles dayes, and had for her chief Architects the princes of the Apostles S. Peter, and S. Paul; wheras the Donatists began their revolt from the said church of Rome 300 yeares after, vn­der the afore said blind guides. wherfore the­re is no comparison to be made betweene ei­ther the foundation or founders of the one with the other. But saith M. Abbot. The Do­natists gaue their church as gallant and braue a title as the church of Rome had, for they called it the Catholike church: and desired as earnestly as the Romanistes do, to haue had it spred all the world ouer. True for the title of Catholike; true also that they had a feruent desire to haue had it spred farr and neare. But their doctrine being the vaine leasings of fee­ble mortall men, had too small force and ver­tue in it, to disperse it self so farr abrode; and not being planted by the heavenly father, it did not take any deepe root. so that albeit tho­se busy fellowes laboured tooth and naile to in large the limits of their doctrine into the out most coasts of the earth, that it might haue wonn the name of Catholike, yet they could neuer obtaine it, nor come within tenthous­and mile of it. wheras the doctrine and religiō of the church of Rome, as a fruitfull tree plā ­ited [Page 288] by the watet side, did spread her branches nto all nations, and hath even since the A­postles daies even to our time continued a true part of the Catholike church by M. Abbots owne confession, as you shall see heer­after in this chapter. so that in fine there is left no resemblance at all in this reformed part of the comparison, saving that the Donatists had a vaine desire to haue their sect dilated as am­ply as was the Catholike Roman faith. But it began 300. years after the Roman, and hath not by 1300 continued so long, nor yet could for any short space of time dilate it self so lar­gely. wherfore it could not come neere vnto a shadow of the title of Catholike. Touching the cōuersion of the Indies, it must needs grie­ve any good christian hart to heare how con­tēptuously and prophaneliet his vnsanctified Abbot doth speake of it: first he writes that we may say of their conversion what wee list, because those countries are so farr of, that they are not like to trauaile so farr to search whether we say true or no. They are perad­venture more like to make some iournay thi­therward to search out some of the Indiā gold, then to seeke after the conuersion of the poo­re Indian soules: yet if they will not of them­selues take the paynes nor vndergo the hazard to win soules, let thēat least afford others their good word that will refuse no paines nor pe­rill in so blessed an enterprise. If there were any sparke of Christian Charity in thē, would they not rather reioyce then repine, that the [Page 289] faith of Christ is so vniuersally embraced, so religiously obserued in those most ample and rich dominions? If M. Abbot hath not (as hee here pretendeth) inquired after the man­ner of their conuersion, how knowes he that there bee so few, and they so bad Christians? should not an even mind out of commō chri­stian charity in cases vnknowne, iudge the best and giue his sentence rather in fauour of the Christian Religion then against it? but M. Ab­bot making out of his owne mind that bad construction, may not that of the poet be iust­lie cast vpō him? mala mēs, malus animus. for vn­les hee did cary a wicked affectiō towards the enlargemēt of Christs kīgdome, not knowing how the case there standeth, hee would neuer haue chosen, to make the worst report therof that can bee imagined. well, he that doth not desire to remayne wilfully blind, and altogi­ther ignorāt in those happy tidings of the re­ducing of so many millions of soules from I­dolatry to the knowledg of the true & liuing God, and vnto the participation of the merits of our most blessed Saviour Iesus Christ, may read the histories of their cōversiō, cōposed by men almost of all nations (of whom many were eye witnesses of that they writ.) There shall they find manie notable monuments as­well of the holines of their preachers testifyed by miracles, as of the devotion of the people newly converted, and of their great sincerity. If among the souldiers and marchants, which went with the religious priests and preachers, [Page 290] th [...]re were more covetousnes, cruelty and dis­agrement then was convenient, let not the di­sorders of those worldly and vnrulie creatures bee brought to disgrace the good meaning & godly endevors of others most godlie and re­ligious persons, who in true Apostolicall mā ­ner, haue through Gods inestimable mercy, converted infinite multitudes of those heathēs vnto the Christian religion. I haue staid the longer in this paragraff (bicause M. Abbot by the way touched many great matters in it) rather to giue the Reader reasonable satisfa­ction therin; then that his resemblance deser­ued half the paines: which holdeth no pro­portion at all in the mayne point. The reader shall do well to note by the way, how many vntruthes M. Abbot lets slip in this section, bicause he doth in the end of this chapter bragg, that he hath not once lied in all this discourse, h [...]re we haue these. I. that we teach the Catholike church to be in closed within the wals of Rome, and do tie the seat therof to one part [...]culer place. secōdly, that we hold no man can be baptised to saluation vnles he meet with a priest. 3. That no man can obtaine saluation vnles hee repaire to Rome, or meete with a Roman Priest. wheras we hold milliō [...] to be saued, that neuer saw Rome, Againe that any true repentant soule, that cannot me­et [...] with a Roman priest to make his confes­sion, may nevertheles by true contrition ob­tey [...]e pardon of his sinnes and eternall salua­tion. I omitt as fleabitings those other his pec­cadilia [Page 291] of taking Donatists for Rogatists, and Cartenna for Africa, bicause M. Abbot by cōfessing that oversight hath made satisfactiō.

THE SECOND SECTION of the second chapter.

THE second branch of M. Ab­bots comparison between the Roman church and the Dona­tists, is as faulty as the first. Thus he proposeth it. The Do­natists would haue the church to be called Catholike, Aug. in bre: collat [...] diei. 3. c. 2. not by reason of the communion therof throughout the whole world, but for the per­fection of doctrine and Sacraments, which they fal­sly chalenged to thēselues. The same perfection doth the church of Rome arrogate to her self. This hal­teth on both sides, as the former did: for the Donatists (as S. Austin M. Abbots Authour relateth) did not call their church Catholike for perfection of doctrine or Sacraments, as M. Abbot fableth:Epist. 48. but for the fulnes of Sacra­ments and for observation of all gods com­mandements: they were not so dull and bloc­kish (as S. Austin noteth) to argue an vniuer­sality out of perfection, which is seldome vni­uersall, but aymed alwaies at some kind of vniuersality. On the other side there is no Ro­mā Catholike that would haue the church be [Page 292] called Catholike, rather for her perfection in doctrine and Sacraments, then for her com­munion over all the world.

IT is true, that S. Austin chalenged vnicentius the Donatist for interpreting the word Catholike,Aug. epi­stola 48. Idem in Breuic: collat die 3. cap. 2. not for the communion of the whole church, but for the obseruation of all Gods cōmaundements, or for the fulnes of Sacraments. yet I did not amisse to put perfection for fulnes; because they do both signifie the same thing. for is not fulnes of Sacraments, the sa­me with perfection of Sacraments? and observation of all gods commaundements, with perfection of observing them?Collat 3. cū donat. cap. 102. like as perfection of doctrine is to teach all truth. Besids Gaudentius a Dona­tist doth tell vs, that by Catholike they vnder­stood perfect, when he said: the word Catho­like importeth, Replito fulc. c. 10. dem. 6. that which is full in Sacra­ments, which is perfect, and which is vnspotted. To the second member I say, that Bristow a great Romanist, granteth the church to bee called Catholike, bicause she is vniuersally perfect, halteth in nothing, and is spred ouer all the world: and Austin himself in his youn­ger daies did so expound the same word, though in his further experience and Iudgment, hee abhorred from it, and left it wholy to the Do­natists. So did Ciril of Ierusalem and also Pa­cianus. wherfore M. Bishop sheweth himself scarce wise in denyall of it,

I haue M. Abbot guilty and confessing that hee changed his Authors words, yet never without one idle excuse or other; he hath (forsooth) given another word, but which signi­fieth the same in effect. If the words had been of the same signification, yet it had been plainer dealing to haue kept the authors ow­ne words; but if there be great diuersity bet­weene them, then there was litle shew of ho­nest dealing to shift from the one to the other. who but M. Abbot will say, that perfection of Sacraments, and fulnes of Sacraments bee all one? where fulnes is referred to the com­pleat number of Sacraments: and perfection may bee attributed to the right vse of them, or to the vertue and efficacy of them. For they bee two distinct controversies betweene the Protestants and vs. The one, how many sa­craments there bee; the other, of what perfe­ction and efficacy they are. That is, whether they conferre grace or no. wherfore it was not well done to thrust in perfection for fulnes, there being such ods betwene the nature and vse of those two words. Againe, betwene the obseruation of all Gods cōmaundements, and perfection, there is a notable difference in the way of our religion; for it appertains to all the faithfull to obserue all Gods commaunde­ments; but the counsels of perfection are left to the free choice of them, whose harts it shall [Page 294] please God to dispose that way. wherfore if M. Abbot had had an honest good meaning he would not haue so changed his authors words, but hee more like a Ioly wise politike protestant, that beleeveth neither the full number of the sacraments, nor thinketh it possible to keepe all Gods cōmaundements, flieth from those tearms of fulnes of sacra­mentes and obseruation of all the cōmaunde­ments as frō checks and reproues of their new belief; and choppeth in perfection of doctrine bicause he can therin better wrangle. And al­beit Gaudentius did ioyne perfect and vnspot­ted with fulnes; yet it followeth not therof, that he tooke those words for all one; but ra­ther ioyned together many words of diuers significations, to explicate more fully the for­ce of the word (Catholike.)

Now to the second member albeit Doctor Bristow (a man of singuler vertue and lear­ning) and some others haue taught the word (Catholike) to comprehend within the latitu­de of his signification that which is vniuersal­ly perfect, and halteth in nothing; yet no one of them doth exclude the more vsuall and bet­ter allowed signification of the same, which is to designe the communion and society of the whole world. Nay Doctor Bristow in the ve­ry wordes cited by M. Abbot doth expresly include it (and is spred over all the world,) and that after the example of Saint Austin euen by M. Abbots owne confession. For albei [...] that great Doctor in his youth vsed the wor [...] [Page 295] Catholike to signifie perfection of doctrine; yet growing to riper iudgment and being of better experience, he abhorred that significa­tion of the word as Donatisticall, & left it w­holy to the Donatists. wherfore let the indif­ferent reader iudg, who dealeth more sound­ly in the exposition of this word Catholike, whether I, that do follow S. Austin in his more advised and riper iudgment: Or M. Ab­bot that would haue him followed in that he taught being yet young, and which hee him­self afterward vpon better consideration thought good to alter. Is it not a signe of most wilfull blindnes to alledge that as imitable out of an Author, which hee himself advisedly corrected, and taught to bee abhorred?

THE THIRD SECTION.

THE third particle of the resem­blance, M. Abbot hath cou­ched in these words. That as from Cartenna the Donatists did send Bishops to other countries, even to Rome it self: so from Rome by the papists order Bishops be authorised to all other countries. This is of small moment, if it were true. But I [Page 296] read not in S. Austin that the Rogatists sent a­ny Bishops from Cartenna into other coasts, but rather required men of all other places, to come to their quarters if they would ob­teyne Saluation: That then may passe for ano­ther ouersight. Neither bee all Catholike Bis­hops consecrated at Rome, and thence sent into other countries: but they be ordinarily made in every Catholike countrie, though to preserve vnity and good order, their election bee approued by the Bishop of Rome Christs vicar generall on earth, and supreme pastor of his church.

PVT Africa in steed of Cartenna, and then M. Bishop can say nothing against the resem­blance.August. epist. 48. I not weighing the matter so strictly did put Africa for the third part of the world, and in that signification Cartenna is within Africa. well, let Cartenna be put out, bicause Libia and Mau­ritania refused to be called by the name of Africa (as Austin noteth,) and let it run thus. The Do­natists sent Bishops out of Africa to dwell at Rome, or some Bishops out of Africa to create some other bishops of their faction at Rome. So doth the church of Rome send Bishops into all other countries of their religion, or if they do not send such bishops abroad; yet in that Bishops made in other countries must haue the Bishop of Rome his confirmation, it is all one as if hee had sent them from thence.

well seing the poore man acknowledgeth his error, let him be pardoned. Let Cartenna and the Rogatists (who only raigned there) bee changed into the Donatists of Africa. That silly excuse that Africa contaynes the third part of the world, might be to purpose, if A­frica had been sett for Cartenna; Continens pro contento: but Cartenna was set for Africa, w­hich being so obscure a part of Africa, could not decently be put for the whole. wherfore M. Abbot hath reason to wish Cartenna to be blotted out, and so might hee haue done by all these resemblances, had not his fingers itched to blase abroad his owne folly. As for his reformation of it, though he saw the dis­proportion, yet could he not let it alone. For he was not ignorant that most Catholike Bis­hops neither went to Rome to be there con­secrated, nor were consecrated by any Bishops that came from thence: As all the Donatists were either consecrated in Africa, or els by Bishops who were sent out of Africa to con­secrate them. what salve then hath hee for this sore? Mary that it is all one to haue the popes confirmation, and to be consecrated by Bishops sent from Rome.

Some what like hee might haue said, but not all one. for to approue the election of a Bishop, and to elect a bishope, or to consecra­te him, bee farr different things, as every man [Page 298] that is acquainted with these matters can rea­dily tell. I admit Donatists would gladly haue had Bishops of their owne sect in every coun­trie, that they might haue had no need to send Bishops out of Africa to consecrate them in other places: And thervpon I do inferr, that euen therby they were convinced not to bee Catholikes. bicause their pastors & preachers were not vniversally spred ouer all countries. contrarywise the Roman church is proued to be Catholike, because it had in everie coun­try Bishops of their owne faith and commu­nion. So that M. Abbot winding and turning on both sides to get out of the briars, doth still more and more intangle and fasten himself in the same.

THe fourth point of M. Abbots compari­son is this. The Donatists would be taken to bee Catholiks, for keeping communion with the church of Cartenna, even so will the Papists for hol­ding society with the church of Rome. The former point of the resemblance is too too absurd. for the Donatists abhorred the Conventicle of Cartenna as schismaticall, as hath been of­ten repeated. And the secōd part taken as true proportion requireth, is not perfect: for wee should not esteeme men Catholiks for com­municating with the church of Rome, if that communion were closed vp within the wals of Rome, or within her confines; as the Roga­tists [Page 299] were pinned vp in Cartenna: but for that by communicating with the church of Rome, wee do enter into communion with all other churches of the same religion, which are spred over all the world.

I Said the Donatists, I should haue said the Roga­tists, who expounding the word Catholike for in­tegrity and perfection of faith, as before wee haue seen, and affirming themselues only to be Catholiks, left it as a consequent, that none could bee called Ca­tholiks, but by ioyning with them. The Donatists were in the same error concerning their church in Africa. The Papists are like vnto them both, who plead the same for the church of Rome: but M. Bis­hop tels vs that they do not call men Catholiks for communicating with the church of Rome, if it bee taken for that particular church, which is closed wi­thin the wals of Rome: which is contrary to that hee taught himself a litle before. For he taught before that men became Catholikes by holding the Roman faith, and communicating with the church of Ro­me. but to shift ouer this, hee addeth; that therfore they become Catholiks in communicating with the church of Rome, bicause that by that communion, they enter into societie with all other churches of the same religion, which are dispersed all the world ouer. But against this it may bee said, that thē men do not now become Catholike as they did of old: because of old it was enough to communicate with the church spred ouer the world: but now it is to be added, that [Page 300] by cōmunication with the church of Rome, wee must communicate with the church spred ouer all the world. what if the church of the whole word do not hold communion with the church of Rome? as when Arrianisme had in a manner ouerflowed all the world, and when the East and west churches were deuided from Rome: and before the brood of Ignatius had converted the Indians; whence was the name of Catholike to bee taken then? Put the case that all other churches saue the Roman do err (as they say they maie) how shall a man then in com­municating with the Roman, communicate with all other churches? then must you needs saie, that by communicating with that particular church of Ro­me you do become Catholike. finally M. Bishop doth overthrow himself. For if a man become a Ca­tholike by communicating with the church of the whole world; and by cōmunicating with the church of Rome he doth communicate with the church of the whole world: then communicating with the par­ticular church of Rome, the name of Catholike doth belong to him. To be short, if the Donatists could haue had their way, they would not haue doubted to say asmuch of their church, as M. Bishop doth hereof his; to wit, that men should bee called Ca­tholiks by communicating with the African church, not as it was contained within the bounds of Africa, but for that in communicating with that church, you did enter into communion with all other chur­ches spred over all the world.

IN the forefront of this chapter M. Abbot ingraued this title: The comparison betwixt the Donatists and Papists iustified. And yet we see in the beginning of euery section an open con­fessiō of some fault made by himself in the sa­me comparison. I said the Donatists, I should haue said the Rogatists &c: well, though it cannot be denied but that this is a very simple kind of Iustification, yet I am content it passe for some kind of satisfaction. be it permitted to M. Abbot for a sory shift, to flit vp and downe, before from the Rogatists in Mauri­tania, to the Donatists in Africa; now back againe from the Donatists to the Rogatists: who (saith hee) did expound the word Ca­tholike, of perfection of faith. which to haue been otherwise I haue shewed in the second section of this chapter. well, those honest Roga­tists affirmed themselues only to bee true Catholiks, and by consequence held none to be Catholikes but such as ioyned with them. So did the Donatists in Africa. The Papists do the like for their church, therfore they resemble the Donatists. And do not the protestants put in the same plea for their church? therfore they be also Donatists. And did not the old Arrians affirme and say asmuch in favour of their church? were they also Donatists? Is not this then a proper re­semblance betwixt the Donatists and Papists, that will agree vnto all kind of sects? yea vnto [Page 302] the true Catholike church it self, to which a­lone in deed it doth rightfully apperteine. yet it is vsuall to all sectaries that take their errors for truth, to qualify and grace their sect with the title of the true reformed church. This re­semblance then is so triviall, that a man of any sharpnes of wit, would haue been ashamed to haue framed it. But if M. Abbots inventiō we­re dry and dull when he proposed that, we shall now find it fluent and acute in reproving what I answered of the church of Rome, to wit: If the communion of the church of Rome passed not out of the wals of Rome, then by communica­ting with the church of Rome wee should not become Catholiks. But bicause it is farr otherwise with the church of Rome, then it was with the church of Cartenna, and that in communica­ting with the church of Rome, we enter into the communion of the church dilated all the world ouer, therfore wee become Catholiks in communicating with the church of Rome; about which M. Abbot makes a foule fum­bling, but in fine cannot impeach it; hee saith first it is contrary to that which I had before taught, viz: to communicate with the church of Rome, was to become Catholike. But this hee saw to be so simple, that hee corrected it himself presently, for I never said otherwise, but by communicating with the Roman church, wee became Catholiks. And my reason alwaies was, bicause the communion of the church of Rome did reach into all the coasts of the earth. He giueth the second assaut against it, [Page 303] by averring that therof it would ensue, that one became Catholike now a dayes, otherwise then of old; bicause then it was sufficient to communicate w [...]h the church dispersed ouer all: and now wee must communicate with the church of Rome, to communicate with the church spred ouer all. Is not this a high point, and a very great subtiltie? when one doth communicate with the church spred ouer all, doth hee not euen then com­municate with the church of Rome also, that is the chief of them all? Or was there any time since the Apostles dayes when there was no church of Rome, that one might haue com­municated with the church spred ouer all, and yet not haue communicated with the church of Rome? Yea did not they that wrote against the Donatists, (I meane S. Austin and Optatus) make speciall instance in the com­munion of the church of Rome, (aswell as I do now) to proue their societie with the who­le Catholike church? S. Austin saith of Ceci­lianus Archbishop of Carthage, who was principally oppugned by the Donatists, that hee holding communion with the church of Rome, as with the chiefest Apostolicall chaire, needed not care for the conspiracy of the Donatists ag [...]nst him. And Optatus speaketh iust to the same sence that I do. In the Bishop of Rome the who­le world doth accord together with vs in one society of communion.

Note how in those old daies, by cōmunion with the pope & church of Rome, the prelat [...] [Page 304] in Africa, esteemed themselues to hold com­munion with the whole world. M. Abbot puts forth a new case. what if the church of the whole world do not hold communion with the church of Rome, as it was when Arrianisme did ouerflowe the whole world? Then at least by holding commu­nion with Rome, one held not communion with the church of the world. M. Abbot is content to lea­ue the Donatists to dreame awhile, and flieth for aduantage to the Arrians, but they will helpe him no more then did the Donatistes. For though their heresies infected many cities & countries, and drew many Bishops to their party: yet M. Abbot I thinke can hardly na­me mee any one city of the world so wholy possessed with that Arrianisme, that it had not at the same time many true beleeuers in it, that would not ioyne in faith and religion with the said Arriās, but stuck close to the church of Rome, and to all other true beleeuers. The li­ke we say of the Easterne churches when they fell into schisme and heresie: that albeit the outward face of their congregations were schismaticall; yet there remained alwaies in those countries, as there do now in England, very manie that did cōstantly defend and em­brace the Roman religion. The Indians for the most part of late time were converted: yet many millions of soules were wonne vnto Christian religion in the west and East Indies by good priests, Franciscan Fryers, and other religious men, before any mission of Iesuits were sent into that heavenly haruest, as the [Page 305] Indian storie doth testifie, yea before their so­ciety was established and cōfirmed. If through the abundance of iniquitie it should come to passe, that the Catholike religion should bee cleane rooted out of many countries (for I ma­ke no doubt but that it shall also continue in many besids Rome vnto the worlds end) yet those countries that retaine the aunciēt faith, shall also kepe the old title and name of the Catholike church, though their faith be not then spred ouer all the world. Because it was the same faith which had been in time past preached and beleeued ouer all. for no man holdes it necessarie that at one and the same time, it should be imbraced of all nations. The Donatists I grant (if they might haue had their way) would haue ouersowed their tares in the fields of all countries. They lacked not good will then, no more then the protestants do now, to sow their cockle farr & neere; but with all their tossing and turmoyling they were not able to infect half Africa only; God sending vnto curst cowes short hornes, and not yeel­ding such successe to the false doctrine of vai­ne men, as to his own divine word. when will M. Abbot take out this lesson, that the church is called Catholike, not because it desireth and wisheth to bee spred ouer all, but for that it is so really and actually, at one time or another? which the Donatists, protestātes, nor any other sectaries were yet ever able to compasse; but must perforce whether they will or no, leaue that singuler priviledge vnto the Romā church.

THE FIFTH SECTION.

THe fifth branch of the com­parison M. Abbot doth pro­pose in this manner: As the Do­natists held there could be no sal­vation out of the church of Car­tenna: so the Papists hold there can bee none out of the church of Rome. this is minced out of the fourth, and in the like sort to bee confuted. It is a principle receiued of both Ca­tholiks and sectaries, that there is no saluation out of the true church, no more then there was life to be hoped for out of the Arke of Noe. Sectaries do attribute that salvation ech vnto their owne church. But the church of Rome (as hath been heertofore largly proued) hath alwaies been and ever shalbe a principal mem­ber of the same true Catholike church. wher­fore whosoeuer doth not hold communion with the church of Rome, he is out of the sta­te of salvation according to that memorable sentence of S. Hierom written vnto pope Da­masus. I following no chief but Christ,Hieronim. Epist. 57. ad Da­masum Papam. Ego nullum primum, nisi Chri­stum sequens, beatitudim tuae, id est cathedrae Petri, communione censocior; super illam Petram aedi­ficatam Ecclesiam scio. quicun­que extra haue domum agnum co­mederit, profanus est. si quis in ar­ [...]ha No [...] non fuerit, peribit regnan­te diluuio. ioyne in communion with your holines, that is, with the chaire of S. Peter, vpon this rocke I knowe the [Page 307] church of Christ to bee built: whosoeuer doth ea­te the Paschall lambe out of this house hee is pro­fane: he that is not found within the Arke of Noe shalbee drowned when the flouds do ri­se: where is much more to the same purpose.

M. Bishop acknowledgeth the Donatists to haue been of opinion, that to obtaine salvation one must communicate with their church: what then hindreth but that the resemblance standeth good? for the Papists bee of the same mind touching their church. but he saith, that the Donatists, and all o­ther sectaries do vntruly atttibute to their congre­gations, that which is truly appropriated vnto the church of Rome, which was and is the chief member of the Catholike church. so was Ierusalem the chief member of the sinagogue, and yet it put Christ to de­ath, in that communion then there was no salvatiō. Is not a cheif member of the same substance with the rest of the body? and what hindreth then but that the chief member may aswell as the rest bee corrup­ted and wounded? notwithstanding I desire him to proue that it is the chiefe member? I regard not what humane estimation it hath had for the eminencie of the place. But with god there is no more respect of the church of Rome then of any other church. If they will haue any more,Aug de vnit. ec [...]l. cap. 6. let them reade it to vs out of the scriptures, as saint Austin said to the Donatists. But they loue not to bee called vpon for [Page 308] scriptures. hee hath out of Ierome that he ioyned with the pope of Rome, that is with Peters chaire, bicause vpon that rocke hee knew the church of Christ to bee built, and that hee was prophane and not of Christs flocke, that out of that house did ea­te Christ the Paschall lambe; and further that hee who dwelled not in that Arke should be drowned.

To the which I answere that albeit Ierome did ioyne with Damasus, yet hee would not haue ioy­ned with Liberius, whom hee reporteth to haue subscribed to the Arrian heresie. wherfore Ierom did warely expound himself that hee gaue the pri­macy to none but to Christ:Hiero. in Catalo­go. In fellowship of faith, hee ioyned with Damasus: yet no further then hee followed the doctrine of S. Peter; which hee signi­fieth by adding the chaire of Peter. Hee would not haue ioyned with pope Liberius, because though hee were Bishop of Rome, yet hee sate not in Peters chaire, that is, he held not the doctrine which Pe­ter taught. Of S. Peters chaire in Rome w [...] deeme the same, as of S. Peters chaire in Antioch, wherin then sate Paulinus: yet Ierome there disclaimeth Paulinus, because hee taught not the doctrine of Pe­ter. vpon Peters faith and confession it is that Ie­rom knew the church to be built, as Erasmus vpon that Epistle verie well noteth. Not vpon Ro­me, for Rome also may hap to degenerate. The communion of this faith is the house wherin Christ our Paschall lambe must be eaten; And the Arke of Noe to saue vs. So long as the pope shall hold the doctrine of Peter wee will ioyne with him. But M. Bishop can shew vs no warrant that the church of [Page 309] Rome shall alwaies continue in the doctrine of Pe­ter, and therfore his cōclusion; that out of the church of Rome there is no salvation, is but a vayne pre­sumption.

ALbeit the resemblance were true, because heretikes in some things are like vnto true beleeuers, ye [...] it was nought worth; be­cause it maketh the Catholiks no more like to the Donatists, then vnto any other sort of se­ctaries, nay then vnto the verie true church of Christ, in whose participation only there is that salvatiō which all sectaries do vainly pre­tend to be found in their companie. That the church of Rome is the chief and principall member of the Catholike church, and that it never did, nor never shall faile in matter in faith, I haue already proued at large, not onlie by the depositions of the most and best appro­ued ancient fathers and Doctors both of the Greeke and Latin church; but also by diuers plaine texts of holie scriptures rightly vnder­stood according vnto the same most holie and learned Prelates interpretation. whom all good Christians are bound to beleeue as the Pastors and Doctors, to whom our Saviour Christ committed both the preaching of his word, and government of his church in the purer times therof. To repeate the same here againe is needles, and would bee ouer tedious. The reader may if hee please but turne backe [Page 310] to the second section of the first chapter, whe­re he shall find them: there M. Abbot himself attributeth to the church of Rome, eminen­cie of place, precedence of honour, authoritie of estimation and accompt: and yet here would seeme to deny the same church to bee the chief member of the Catholike church: as though eminencie of place and precedence of honor, could belong to any other then to the chief church. how simple is that which folo­weth? that albeit in humane estimation the church of Rome may bee more eminent then any other, yet with God there is no more respect of the church of Rome then of anie other. For those men (of w­hich hee himself is one) should bee much to blame, if they would account that more emi­nent and honorable, which they know God to esteeme but as equall and of the same de­gree. because we are bound to conforme our iudgments, to the straight rule of Gods vpright censure. wherfore for that wee are fully per­swaded that it hath pleased god, to graunt that preeminence and priuiledge vnto the church of Rome, wee do attribute the same vnto it. If wee did thinck that god did not alowe of it, neither would we condescend thervnto. And who in his right senses can imagine that God doth not esteeme better of them, whom it hath pleased his diuine bounty to make better? As for the church of Ierusa­lem it had no such promises, that hellgates should not prevaile against it: or that their go­vernors faith should not faile. Nay rather it was by the prophets fortold, that they should [Page 311] faile both inEzechielis 7.26. Lex peribit à Sacerdote, & Con­silium à Sapientibus. knowledg, by not beleeving in their Messias, and inHierem. 11.19. Ego quasi agnus mansuetus qui portatur ad victimam: & non co­gnoui quia cogitauerunt super me consilia dicentes, mittamus lignum in panem eius, & eradicemus eum de terra viuentium. practise also by compassing of his death. Thus much for the church of the Iewes. Tou­ching the Rulers of seue­rall churches since Christ his time, others not ha­ving the like good assu­rance from our Saviour as the pastors of the church of Rome had: wee haue more reason to relie vpon the perpetuall stabilitie of the church of Rome, then vpon any other. This (I say) having been proued already not onlie by the testimony of all antiquitie, but also by the expresse word of God, M. Abbots demaund is fully satisfied, and therwith (I hope) hee will rest content. Now to his answere vnto that place of S. Hierom. first, whilst hee would see­me an over subtle sifter of S. Ieroms words, hee ouerthroweth himself horse and foote. For wheras hee affirmeth that Ierom would not haue said the same of ioyning with Li­berius that hee said of Damasus, it is very cleere that hee would, and might also very well haue so done, according as M. Abbot himself ex­pounds S. Hieroms words. For if S. Hierom said no more of Damasus, then that hee would ioyne with him so farre forth as he sate in S Peters chaire, that is, so long as hee taught the same doctrine that saint Peter taught: might he not haue, said boldly as much [Page 312] of Liberius, though hee tooke him to halt in some things? hee needed not doubt I hope, to follow him so farr forth as he followed S. Pe­ter. was he not sure enough if hee followed him no further neuer to faile? M. Abbots ans­were then destroying it self, needs no other confutation. Yet for the readers further satif­faction concerning pope Liberius I add, that there be manyRuffin. l. 10. eccl. hist. 17. Theodor. 2. hist. eccl 16. Sozom 4. hist 14. Niceph. 9 hist. 35: ancient good Authors who write that Liberius was not faultie in any mat­ter of faith, though hee yeelded vnto the con­demnation of S. Athanasius. because hee was by the Arrians accused not of his faith, but of many pretended haynous crimes. And albeit Liberius subscribed to the councell of Smirna, yet hee could not bee condemned therfore of heresy: for therin was not couched any one word contrary to the true faith, though the word Consubstantiall were left out. yetAtha­nas Apol. de fuga. Hieron. in Catal. in fortu­nat. others who for their greater iudgment and know­ledg are to be more respected, do blame Libe­rius as favoring the Arrian heresy: not that hee beleeued any point of it, but for that hee through tediousnes of exile, and feare of tor­ments, yeelded to do that which redounded vnto the countenancing of the Arrian heresie. And in like manner though there were not­hing in that confession of faith to which hee subscribed that was not true; yet in that time when there was so much ado about the word cōsubstātiall, to cōsent vnto them that reiected that word, was interpreted and taken of many for litle lesse thā to reiect the Catholike faith. [Page 313] Briefly although his faith was sound, yet his fact was preiudiciall vnto the Catholike faith, and verie aduantagious for the Arrian heresy wherfore not to bee excused. nevertheles albeit of humane frailty hee therin failed, yet after­wards hee made good satisfaction therfore, & carried himself so vprightly and vertuously, that he died a Saint: as testifieth besides otherAmbr. de virg. l. 3. in i­nitio. Soles me­cum Bea­tae memo­riae Libe­rij praecep­ta reuolue re, & quo virsāctio [...] eo sermo accedat gratiosior S. Ambrose, who citeth his testimony as a mans of holy and happie memorie. AndBasil e­pist. 74. Quae illia beatissi­mo Libe­rio propo­sita sunt. S. Basil, who stileth him a most blessed man. This by the waie of pope Liberius. Now to the true meaning of S. Hieroms words, which cannot be drawen to that sense that M. Abbot would rack out of them, to wit, That hee would ioyne with Damasus so farforth only as he followed S. Peter: for so might hee haue been bold to saie of Liberius and of his owne prelate Paulinus, or of any man els; but his true intent was to declare, that in all doubt­full questions of faith, every good Christian ought to make his recourse vnto the Bishop of Rome, who sitteth in S. Peters chaire as his lawfull successor; And therfore by vertue of our Saviours praier (made for S. Peter, and his successors) shall never faile in question of faith. whosoever therfore cleaveth fast vnto the popes resolution, is assured never to faile. This to haue been the true meaning of that fa­mous doctor, may most easily bee perceiued by the occasion and circumstance of the very same Epistle. S. Ierom finding the Bishops of the East (vnder whom hee then liued) to bee [Page 314] at fowle square about the word Hypostasis (w­hich may signifie either a substāce or a person) and being vehemently sollicited as a very lear­ned man, to deliuer his opinion whether they should say one, or three hipostases, would neither trust his owne learning, which was singular, nor rely vpon the iudgment of Pau­linus (by whom hee was made Priest) who was both a very learned man, and the patriar­ch of Antioch, his proper pastor and prelate; but knowing well that the finall and infallible resolution of all such doubts appertained vnto the Bishops of Rome, addressed himself vnto him as vnto Christs vicar and S. Peters succes­sor: And was so far of from saying, that hee would follow it no farther then hee followed S. Peter, or from taking vpon himself so much as once to iudge of the popes sentēce; that hee would beleeue and embrace whatsoever hee should determine,Hi [...]ron. epist 57. ad dama sum pa­pam Dis [...]erni­te (si pla­cet) obse­ero, non ti meho tres hypostases dicere si iuhetis. Ibidem. Obtestor beatitudinē tuam per crucifixum &. vt mihi Epistolis tuis siue tacendarum, siue dicendarum hypostaseon detu [...] auctoritas. Ibidem. Non nouivitalem, miletum respuo, ignoro Paulinum. Quicunque tecum non colligit, spargit: hoc est, qui christi non est, Antichristi est. and most instātly besought Pope Damasus to commaund him, and give him authority, to say either three hypostases or but one. And finally doth conclude, that hee who would not be ruled by the pope in such doubtfull causes, was none of Christs flo­cke, but belonged to Antichrist. Let S. Hie­rom then bee taken for a perfect patterne of true obediēce vnto the popes sentēces: and let M. Abbot stād for an exāple of wranglers, and perverters of the anciēt fathers true meaning.

And for that M. Abbot brags in the end of this discourse that hee told not one lie in it (w­hich might bee taken for a miracle if it were true) Let the reader know that hee belieth he­re that worthy patriarch Paulinus,Ex phan. heres. 77. whē he sa­ith of him, that hee taught not the doctrine of Peter in that questiō. For Paulinus was of no o­ther opiniō touching the blessed Trinity then was that great light of that parte of the world S. Athanasius, as witnesseth that sound recor­der of antiquity & most holy Bishop Epipha­nius. So that for no other cause in the world did S. Ierō write vnto pope Damasus for finall resolutiō of that difficulty, thē for that hee was fully perswaded that it belōged vnto the Bis­hop of Rome rather thē to any other Patriarch, to determine all such hard & doubtfull que­stiōs. M. Abbots key-cold glosse takē out of E­rasmus his scholies vpō that Epistle, is not wor­th the answering; for hee being but a late and slipperie writer, no fast hold can bee taken on him. Againe his words bee as vncertaine, as hee that spoke thē: he supposeth that the Cyty of Rome may hap to degenerate in the end. May hapso, may hap no. So the Bishop of Rome do continue alwaies Orthodox (as we make no doubt but through the vertue of our Saviours praier hee shall) our pole-starr in darke que­stions shall alwaies remayne firme and clee­re, Though the city of Rome (which god for­bid) should bee ouerrun either by the Turke, or by any other wicked race of misbelieuers to wars the later end of the world, as it was in the beginning of the Christian religion ruled [Page 316] by heathen Emperors. Of M. Abbots inter­pretation of S. Peters faith and cōfession, hath been spoken sufficiently (I hope) in the first chapter, whither I referre the Reader. Hit­herto of M. Abbots former resemblances bet­wene the Donatists and the Papists, in steed of iustification wherof, hee hath in each of them confessed some one oversight or other: besids hee hath made many sorie shifts to v­phold them; And hath poudered them also with diuers vntruths. M. Abbot hauing ac­quited himself so brauely in his precedent brā ­ches of comparison, now hee will no doubt as worthily and wisely multiply and increase them. The first staffe of his multiplication stā ­deth vpon Donatus the pope (as hee stileth him, but hee might more modestly haue ter­med him the Abbot) of the Donatists.

THAT Archheretike exalted himself abo­ue the Emperor; Optatus l. 3. co. [...]arm. and therby (as Optatus re­porteth) made himself more then a man, euen 1 as it were a God, bicause there is none aboue the Emperor but God. And albeit hee did not expresly call himself God, yet he did that which was aequivalent; for hee made his party to stand in more feare of him, then they did of God. Hee advanced himself aboue all other Bishops; thinking none com­parable to himself. Is not the pope of Rome such ano­ther? Hee hath exalted himself aboue all other Bishops, he hath lifted himself aboue the Emperor, [Page 317] and therby (as Optatus concludeth) made a god of himself.Extrauag Iohis, 22. Cum in­terim, in glossa in edit. Par. 1601. cū priuilegio Gregorij 13. besids he in effect taketh vpon him to bee God by dispensing against the law of God, and by disanulling the institution of Christ: yea in very words hee hath yeelded to be called a god, leaving yet standing in the glosse of the Canon Law vncor­rected, Our lord god the pope. he will haue men stand in no lesse awe of him then of God himself, w­hiles he maks shew of Gods anger at his cōmaund to inflict it where hee will.

IF mens owne inventions (how silly soever seemed not vnto themselues ouer daintie & pretious, M. Abbot would haue chosen rather to haue blotted out his former childish resem­blances, then to haue added new vnto them of the like light nature. This his first is so gene­rall on the parte of the Donatists, and so vn­proper to bee applied to the pope and papists, (as he tearmeth them,) that it is worse then naught. was there ever any Archheretike that preferred not his owne iudgement and inuen­tion before both Popes and Emperors too, if they could not get them to imbrace their he­resies? and in this high kind of pride and dis­daine, there was never any perhaps that passed the protestants Grandsier and Ringleader Martin Luther, who with his Bible, Luther: libro ad­uersus Re­gem An­gliae. Ibidem. was (in his owne conceit) to be preferd before a thousand Au­stins, a thousand Ciprians, and a thousand churches. In the eie of the world I wilbe (saith hee) so [Page 318] honest, that they shall not be worthy to loose the l [...] ­chet of my shoe. And touching my doctrine, I am to Deuils, Kaysars, kings, princes, and to all the world too too froward and proude. In glossa co: praeten sum edi­ctum Im­periale. And in ano­ther place. I Doctor Martin Luther of Iesus Christ an vnworrhy Euangelist do say, that the Em­perors of Rome Turky and Persia; the Pope, Car­dinals, Bishops, priests, fryers and Nunnes; kings princes and Lords with all the world, and all the de­uils must approue this article: that faith alone without any worke doth iustifie before god: and they shall haue over and aboue the fire of hell on their heads, and no thanks for their labour. This is Martin Luthers inspiration by the holie spirit, the true and holy Gospell. behold the superlatiue pride of this pelting Apostate, he and his spi­rit, are to be preferd before all the world. How scornfully and contumeliously he esteemed of kings and Emperors, and how contemptu­ously they were to be dealt withall in his iud­gement, any man that will read his answere vnto king Henry the eight may see. I say (saith hee) openly without a vizard, that this Harry king of England doth plainly lie, and with his lies resem­bleth rather a most light scoffer then a king, &c. this for a tast of his vnciuill and spitefull de­meanor towards Monarches, conformable to his doctrine of kings deliuered in these tearmes. A wise king is a rare bird, and more rare yet is an honest king, they are cmmonlie the greatest fooles and the most wicked knaues on the earth; wherfore the worst that can be, is to be expected at their hāds, & litl [...] good specially in matters that belōg to god: for [Page 319] they are gods Catchpoles and hangmen, Luther de potesta te secui. ad Ioh du [...]em sa­ [...]o: Our god is a great Lord, and therfore will haue noble illustri­ous and rich catchpoles and hangmen. It is gods pleasure that we should call his hangmen our cle­ment Lords, &c. This and a tumbrell more of like scurrility may be raked out of that ru­de renegats writings against the Maiesty of kings and Emperors, with more contempt scorne and contumely out of him alone, than out of all Catholike authors that haue wri­ten this five hundred yeres sett togither: so that none may bee compared to Protestants (if they wilbe sibbe to their sire) for abusing kings and Emperors, and for exalting them­selues aboue them. But let vs leaue Luthers pride, and descend to the particulars of Do­nats presumption, and see how it may bee applied to the pope. Donate would not ac­knowledgeCartha­gini se principa­tum [...]enere credi­dit dona­tus. the Emperors Soveraigne tem­porall power,Optatus l. 3. co: Parm. but out of his owne pride sought to withstand even the Emperors pious gifts of holy vestments to the church, and of almes to the poore, charging his party not to receiue any such gifts from the Emperors officers. what like to this, is there to bee found in any pope? They ac­knowledg themselues to haue receiued of the Emperors courtesies most of all theirMiserat Imperator ornamenta domibus dei, m [...]serat eleemosinam pauperibus: d [...]natus literu praemisit, ne id quod allatum [...]uera [...], pau­peribus d [...]spensaret [...]. [Page 320] temporalties, and never yet was any one of them found that did not acknowledg the Em­peror to bee supreme governor of his Empire in all temporall affaires; although there haue been among them that thought Emperors might for some enormious faults deserue to be punished even by depriuation from that di­gnity.Ibidem. Donatus tooke himself to good toDat do­natus so­lus secreto nescio quid age­bat. pray in company with others, The pope daily not only praieth with others, but also hum­bly confesseth his sins to others. Donatus too­ke himself to bee better then all other bishops yea did scarse vouch safe to bee called a Bishop:Raro est appellatus episcopus, sed dona­tus cartha ginis. The popes albeit higher in dignity then other Bishops, yet in true humility esteeme them­selues farr inferior to many of the common people. The popes may iustly terrifie men with gods Iudgments and indignation, if they pre­sume to transgresse Gods or their superiors comaundements. For god hath promised to blesse them whom his priests, principally such as be in authoritie do blesse, & to hold thē for accursed, whō they do deseruedly accurse. Ma­ry, so to deliuer the matter, as though the po­pes were cōmaūders ouer Gods sentences, is as malicious, as that which M. Abbot ioyneth with it, is slanderous, to wit, that the popes ta­ke vpon them to dispence against the law of God, and to disamill the institution of Christ. But vntil M. Abbot do bring in some better proo­fe heerof then his owne bare words, these points may bee scored vp in the rew of his for­mer [Page 321] slanderous vntruthes. And I would glad­ly know how M. Abbot can proue that the pope doth suffer himself to bee called by the name of God? right worthily (I warrant you) and like himself. a gloser forsooth vpon the Canon law, neither speaking to the pope, nor writing to him but in a by-treatise saith (Our Lord God the pope. (Marke I pray you how hād­somly this hangeth togither. One, (and he parhaps none of the wisest) writeth such a thing in the latter end of a long glosse, that many a pope neuer saw, and some perhaps ne­uer heard of; how then can that bee in any reasonable construction imputed to all popes? It stands (saies M. Abbot) vncorrected in a glosse of his canon law, in the edition of Pa­ris printed 1601 with the priuiledg of Grego­ry the thirteene. He should haue added ther­vnto, who died fifteene yeeres before the da­te therof; for Gregory the 13. died the tenth of Aprill 1585. Let that passe as a light ouer­sight, this that foloweth is worse. for if it stand still in that edition vncorrected, why is not that the fault of the corrector rather then the popes, who be not at leasure thēselues to sur­vey ouer newe impressions? But what if that word (God) be not to bee found at all in tho­se copies of the canon law which are in the popes library, as some right honest men (who haue caused diligent search to bee made in the vaticane copies) haue related and certi­fyed? then no marvell though the popes did never correct that, which never was to bee [Page 322] found in the true originals. Sure I am that I my self haue seen three severall copies printed at Paris, one of Anno 1517. another of 1536. & the third of 1550 or therabout, that had not that word (God) in them. So that all M. Ab­bots great outcry so often repeated, hangs vpon the ouersight of a poore corrector, or at most, depends vpon a diuerse reading: which euery wiseman knowes to be a very sandy and weake foundation. And who is ignorant that the word (God) may be attributed vnto crea­tures,Exod. 7.1 though in a farre different sense? Doth not God himself say to Moises, I haue made thee the God of Pharao? Our blessed Saviour out of that text of the old Testament,Psal 81 6 Ioh. 10.35 I sayd you are gods, doth proue that many others beside God may bee called Gods, namelie princes and chiefe governors, either ecclesiasticall or tem­porall. hauing for this the testimony of God himself, I need add none other. Now to Do­natus that so behaued himself in some things, as if hee meant to make himself a God.Optat. l 3 co Parm. Cum per solum de­um soleāt homines iurare, passus est ho­mines per se iurare tanquam per deum. Ibid. Omnes discipulos suam Par­tem appel labat, etc. quasi iam populum cum deo diuiserat. among the rest, hee would haue men to sweare in his name, as Christian men vse in lawfull causes to sweare by the name of God. Besides hee tear­med all of his sect, pars mea, my part; seuering them (as Optatus takes it) from the part of Christ, and people of God. in these points specially according to Optatus did hee aspire to bee like God. what pope did euer the like? they are so farre of from parting stakes with Christ, as that they professe themselues to bee the seruants of all Christs seruants. And who [Page 323] was euer yet required to sweare by the popes name? so that M. Abbot by multiplying such lame halting similitudes must needs looke for little credit of either iudgment or honesty.

SEcondly the Donatists tooke vpon them that they had alwaies been possessors of vnity and of 2 the church of God, insomuch as they reckened Nero, Domitian, and the rest to haue been per­secutors of their church; wheras their beginning to bee Donatists was after the time of those per­secutions. No otherwise do the papists take vpon them to haue been alwaies the church of God, and that their Martirs were slayne: wheras their beginning to bee papists (which properly is for worshipping their Lord God the pope) is of farr latter time, &c.

VVhat a ridiculous and lowsie resemblan­ce is this? First it differeth little from that which hath been said three times before at the least, that the Donatists take their church for the true church, therfore it de­serues to be let passe as it comes. This might haue some grace, if it had been applied to the Protestants, who take their beginning of a late vpstart Frier not one hūndreth yeres agoe as all [Page 324] the world knoweth; and yet blush not to a­vowch that it was their church that was per­secuted 1400 yeres before it was hatched. as the Donatists who descending of Donatus, would not withstanding haue had the church that was persecuted long before Donatus was borne, to haue been their congregation. As for the Roman church M. Abbot doth in this chapter (as you shall see anon) confesse it to haue been alwaies, and therfore they may tru­lie saie even by his own confession, that Nero, Domitian, & the rest persecuted their church. As for those papists that worship the pope for their God. Dic quibus in terris, & eris mihi ma­gnus Apollo. If M. Abbot can tell vs where they dwell, or in what land they liued and w­hen, what were their names, I shall hold him if not for a great Apollo; yet for as great an oracle as that of Apollo; in the meane season, let it run on in the reckening of his other ba­bles and tales.

THE Donatists alleaged that Emperors and princes had nothing to do in church matters, Optat. l. 3. con. Par men. & held it a great fault in the Catholike Bishops to cō ­playne to the Emperor of them: what hath the Emperor to do with the church, sayd their po­pe Donatus? Aug. con Gaudent l. 2. c. 26. For the teaching of Israël (saith Gaudentius) God gaue charge to prophets not to kings. And Christ sent fishermen and not souldiers, for the planting of the faith. Thus [Page 325] vpbraiding the Emperors for cōdemning their schis­me, and vsing force of armes to represse the infinit rage of their mad-braind Circumcellians. Of the same humour bee the papists, who make princes to be sonnes onlie of the church but no gouernors therof: Dist. 96. si Imper: Kings must learne of Bishops and not teach them what appertaines to Religion: because God will haue church matters governed by priests and not by secular powers. And Chri­stian Emperors must submit their executions vnto the rulers of the church. therfore they hold the comissioners and officers of Princes to bee no com­petent Iudges in their causes, they cary themselues contemptuously towards them, &c.

THE Donatists are no sure cards to trust vnto in that cause of princes dealing with ecclesiasticall persons, and in ecclesiasticall causes. Because they maie serue for an example on all sides. For like audacious and restles w­rangling spirits, they did run in that cause frō one extremitie to the other. First, against the rules and practise of the primitiue church, they would needs appeale from the iudgment of Bishops vnto the Emperor, hoping by fal­se informations to haue found some vnlawfull fauour in his court.Opt. l. 1. co: Parm. Donatus appellan­dum esse ab episco­pis credi­dit. wherof we haue for most soūd witnesses both Optatus in these words. Donate the ringleader of the Donatists thought good to appeale from the Bishops to the Emperor. And S. Austin, who saith of them. That they wearied the Emperor with their daily appeales. Agai­ne they first of all sued vnto the Emperor, then [Page 326] appealed vnto him,Aug. ep. 166. Quotidia nis inter­pellationi­bus, ipsi imperato­ri taedium fecerunt. Ibidem. A iudici­bius Epis­copis ad constanti­num ap­pellauerūt a quo to­ties conui­cti & con fusi redie­runt, & a pernicie furoris nō recesserūt. and after all that, would not stand to his iudgmēt. This was their first attempt wherin they shewed thēselues kindly protestants after wards, being beatē with their own rod, they began like wiser children to ac­knowledg that it did not belong to temporall princes to heare and determyne ecclesiasticall causes, as their sentēces cited by M. Abbot do declare. where if they had staid, the Catholike Bishops of those times would not haue blamed them, as you shall heare. But they fell at last to the other extremity, crying out against the Emperor both for punishing their mad-braynd Circumcellians (that set churches on fire, rob­bed and murdered) and also for that hee came ouer all the Donatists (as schismatiks and He­retiks) with a pecuniary mulct, making them to pay for their obstinate folly. for which they cried out against the Emperor and his officers. This did the Donatists, Now to the applicatiō. Both the protestants and wee condēne the Do­natists for denying princes to haue temporall power to suppresse seditious persons, robbers and murtherers, and to punish them that be by the church declared heretiks, either by the purse or otherwise. But wee differ in the other point. The protestants do hold princes to bee supreme iudges aswell in causes ecclesiasticall as temporall, and therfore must needs appro­ue of appeales made fro the Bishops to them. wee granting to them full soueraigne power in causes tēporall, do affirme that they be not ordinarie Iudges in causes Ecclesiasticall. I say ordinary because by cōsent of both parties (as [Page 327] it was in some causes of the Donatists) they maie bee chosen arbitrators or iudges. The Donatists held both these opiniōs: first, that of the protestāts, & afterwards ours. Now it is to be cōsidered in whether they did well, & in whether ill. To decide this cōtrouersie, let vs heare the cēsure of the best Catholike Authors of those times. Optatus a most worthy prela­te that liued amōg the Donatists,Lib 1. con Parm. blamed them greatly for appealing frō the iudgment of Bis­hops vnto the Emperor constantine the great, & relateth how the same good Emperor dete­steth that their appeale, breaking out into the­se words. O furious and mad boldnes: they, Ad quam appellatio nem con­stantinus Impera­tor sic res­pondit O rabida fu­roris auda cia, sicut in causis gentilium fieri solet, appellatio nem inter posuerunt. Aug. Ep. 166. Quia constantinus non est ausus de causa episcopi iudicare, eam finien­dam Episcopis delegauit. Idem Epistola 162. Neque est ansus Chri­stianus imperator sic eorum fallaces querelas suscipere, vt de iudicio epis­corum ipse iudicaret, sed alios episcopos dedit, a quibus ipsi rursum ad ip­sum imperatorem prouocarent. quam re illos quemadmodum detestetur, audistis. eorum peruersitatibus tandem cessit, vt de illa causa post episco­pos iudicaret, a sanctis antitistibus postea veniam petiturus, &c. like the pagans, haue put in an appeale. which was from the Bishops to the Emperor. S. Austin an o­ther Antagonist of the Donatists, in rehearsing the demeanor of the said Emperor towards the same appeale, sheweth his owne opinion therabout. He first recordeth that the Em­peror would not take vpon him to iudge of the iudgments of the Bishops, till hee was pressed thervnto by the Donatists impuden­cie; which to represse, hee finallie gaue them the hearing, yet vnder the correction of the Bishops, meaning afterward to craue pardon of them therfore. all this that great doctor [Page 328] hath set downe in expresse tearmes. further S. Athanasius of this matter vseth these words. If the iudgmēt of this cause belōg to Bishops, what hath the Emperor to do therwith? if contrarywise these thinges be forged by the threates of Emperors, what need is there of Bishops? when was it e­uer heard that the iudgmēt of the church took its authority from the Emperour? he relateth there this sentēcee of the great Hosius to the Emperor:Athanasius epist. ad solitar. vi­tam agentes. Si istud est iudicium episcoporum, quid commune cum eo habet im­perator? sin contra, ista minis Cae­saris constantur, quid opus est ho­minibus titulo episcopis? quando a condito aeuo auditum est quod iudicium Ecclesiae authoritatē suā ab imperatore accepit? ibidem in epistola Hosii ad Imperatorem. Ne te misceas ecclesiasticis, ne (que) nobis in hoc genere praecipe, sed potius ea a nobis disce. tibi Deus imperium commisit, nobis qua sunt ecclesiae, concredidit. intermedle not with ecclesiasticall causes, nor cōmaund vs in that kind, but rather learne those matters of vs: God hath giuē you the Empire, but hath cōmitted to vs the charge of the church. To whō I will ioyne S. Am­brose, who to the Empe­ror Valētinian addresseth this discourse. whē haue you heard (most gratious Em­peror) that laymē did iudge ouer Bishops in causes of faith? Surely if your sacred maiesty please to pervse the course of holy scriptures, or practise of former ti­mes, you shall find none that deny bishops in mat­ter of faith,Ambros. l. 2 epist. 13. ad Aug. valentin. Quando audisti clemētissime im­perator in causa fidei laicos de epis­copis iudicasse, &c. At si certe vel scripturarum seriem diuinarum, vel vetera tempora retractemus, qui [...] est qui abnuat in causa fidei, in causa inquam fidei Episcopos solere de imperatoribus Christianis, non imperatores de episcopis iudicare, &c. Pater tuus deo fauente vir maturioris atatis qui dicebat: non est meu [...] iudicare inter Episcopos, &c. in matter I say of faith to haue been Iud­ges over Emperors, & not Emperors ouer Bishops. [Page 329] your father being by the fauour of God a man of riper yeres did say; it belongeth not to me to iudg ouer Bishops. It being then most certain and evident by the verdit of S. Athanasius, Hosius, S. Ambrose, S. Austin, and Optatus, that the Catholike church in that her natiue purity, did mainteyne that opinion that temporall Princes had no authoritie to determyne eccle­siasticall causes; The Donatists therin agreed with the true Catholike church. and when they did fly from the iudgment of Bishops vnto temporall princes as supreme iudges in causes ecclesiasticall, then they traced out the pathway vnto the protestants misbelief, and therin were condemned, and the protestants in them, by the verdict of the most approued Prelats and best learned doctors of the primi­tiue church. Let this then bee scored vp for a principall resemblance betweene the prote­stants and the Donatists.

THe Donatists by false rumors discouraged men from coming to church, and gaue out of the Catholike Bishops that some of them at the time of celebration of the sacraments,Optatus l. 3. & 7. did set an image vpon the aultar, or communion table, wherat the minds of men were greatly moued, and euery one said, hee that tasteth therof, tasteth of a prophane thing, so contrary was it holden to religion then which M. Bishop approueth now, to set images vpon the Aultar. But in this also the Papists are their follo­wers, [Page 330] who in the like sort devise rumors and tales of our divine service, to make men abhorre to haue communion with vs.

THis resemblance is more common then the high way. For men of what religion soever they bee, do seeke out reasons to disswade others from participation in holy ri­tes with all other religions, and specially from that which is most contrarie to their owne. And neuer were any sectaries that deuised mo­re lewd and vile slanders of any religion, then the protestants haue done of the Roman. And among others they do vse the verie same mo­tiue of the Donatists to discourage men from going to masse. To wit that there are Images in the churches set vpon the high aultars. So that M. Abbot in multiplying his resemblan­ces, doth but multiply and increase the prote­stants conformity with the Donatists, to the shame of their owne religion. what kind of Image that was, which the Donatists rumo­red should bee set vpon the Aultar (for of the communion table or of Ministers, there was no newes in the old daies of Optatus, but of Aultars, sacrifice, and priests) it is not certaine: whether it were of Dragons and Leopards, (such as the protestants set vp in their chur­ches) or rather of some false God, I cannot find in that Author: Only I am assured it could not bee of any holy picture of Christ, or of anie of his Saints, such as Catholiks place in their [Page 331] churches; because long before that, in Tertul­lians daies, there was engraven vpon the chalice (wherin they offred vp the sacrifice of Christs blood) the picture of Christ in the forme of a good shepheard carrying home the lost sheepe on his shoulders, Tertul. de pudicitia cap. 7. & 10. as witnesseth Tertulian. And that the Crucifixe was set vp in churches in S. Hieroms daies,Hieron. epist. 27. de Epi­tha. Pau­lae cap. 3. he declares plainly where he recordeth, how the most holy widow Paula visiting the holie places, was wont to fall downe prostrate before the Crosse, and to adore, as if she had seen our Lord Iesus hanging on it. And Gregory Nazianzene reporteth that his father built to the honor of God a stately church,Naz. ora­tione 19. in laude prat. Bas. con. Iulianum Imper. ci­tatur ab Adriano, Act. 2. Niconi 2. Nissen de laudibus Theodor. Chrysost. in Litur­gia. and among other ornaments did decke it with verie goodlie Images. S. Basil testifieth the same, saying, in all our churches wee do set vp the Images of Saints. So doth Gregorie Nissene in his oration made in the praise of the Martir Theodore. And in the beginning of S. Chri­sostomes Liturgie, translated by Erasmus, it is recorded how the priest turning towards the Image of Christ, was to say a certaine praier. whence it followeth evidently, that the Ima­ge of Christ was by the Aultar, where that Li­turgie or Masse was said. wherfore when so many worthy Prelates and Doctors of both greek and Latin church do teach holy pictu­res to haue been vsuall ornamentes of Christiā churches in those ancient and pure times, it re­maineth most certaine, that true Christians could not bee frighted from Catholike chur­ches by setting any pictures of saints in the sa­me, and consequently that which the Dona­tists [Page 332] spake of, must needs bee the Image of so­me false God or of some monster, which they did so much abhorre.

THe Donatists alleadged their owne councels assembled by their owne authority, against the Maximianists their owne schismatiks,August. ep [...]st. 162. and against the Bishops of the Catholike church. Even so do the Papists alledge against vs their owne con­venticles.

HEre is falshood vpon falshood: for albeit the Donatists did alleadg their owne coū ­cels against the Maximianists that were fallen from them as the protestants do their new ar­ticles and Canons against their schismatiks the Puritans: yet M. Abbot cited no place to proue that they alledged their owne councels against the Catholiks. No more do wee vse to produce against Protestants any late coun­cel of ours, or any late Catholike Author, o­therwise then to verify what our doctrine is, and what they do teach. neither can hee ta­ke any iust exception against the councell of Trent (if it should bee produced against them) as consisting wholy of men of our religion; because men of their party might haue been there present if they had so pleased. For they were requested to come, and safe conduct was offered them, the surest that could bee devi­sed, to perswade them to haue appeared the­re in their liknes, to haue defended their new [Page 333] devised religion: but they like valiant men, feared to shew their face before that most learned assembly. They lay barking at home out of their owne kennells against it, but durst not in disputation encounter with the Catho­like Doctors there assembled.

THe Donatists not knowing how to make good their rent from the church by argument,August. epist. 137. devi­sed crimes and slaunders against their persons that defended the Catholike partie. In the same steps walke the Papists, who labour to blemish the na­mes of Luther, Calvin, Beza, and others by whom the Gospell of Christ hath been defended.

THis proper resemblance is borrowed out of the common of Dunses, and by none more practised then by protestāts. who litle spare the name or fame of any Ca­tholike writer against them, how high in di­gnity, how holy and learned soeuer hee bee. Nay they are not ashamed to professe o­penly to the world that they take a speciall pride in railing against vs.Luth. Con. Si­carium Dresd [...]n­sem. Let this one senten­ce of their great maister Martin Luther serue for a pregnant proofe therof. I (saith hee) re­gard not his complaints, that in my booke there are few other things then taunts, reproches and devils; for this ought to bee my glorie, and from henceforth [Page 334] so will I haue it reputed of mee, that I am full of revyling, taunting, and cursing the papists, for I will exercise my self against those knaues in taunts and curses even to my graue. And out of Calvins sweet workes may be piked a volume of vile railing words, as big as the bible, as Sieur de meres relateth.Manifi. n. 17. As for Luther himself, Calvin, and Beza (to omit others, because M. Abbot for honors sake nameth these three, as the three worthies of their new Gospell) they are euen by principall men of their owne religion so curried and reuiled, that in comparison the­rof, all that the Catholiks do say of them are but fleabitings. Take a tast of these fewe. First of their holy father frier Luther thus writeth his sanctified sonne Zuinglius, in his answer to Luthers book of the Sacrament.Resp. Zuingly ad l. Lu­ther de Sacra­ment. Here the word of God shall obtayne the victory, and not those frantike reproches wherwith thou criest out, that wee bee Lutters, Devils, Lunatike, mischievous, robbers, rebels, dissemblers, Hyppocrites, and what not? Thou coynest rules after which the scriptures must bee vnderstood, which otherwise thou couldst not alledge for thy purpose, &c: Then he comes to his commendation. Thou canst not deny thy self seised with the passion of Anger to rage, and to bee mad, If thou wilt but soberly vew ouer thi­ne owne booke such a multitude of reproches and swarme of perverse opinions could never flow out of the fountaine of charitie, or any reposed pre­meditation. In the meane season I will make it more cleere then the daie light, that thou never ye [...] [Page 335] didst know the glittering brightnes of the Gospell, Mark this cen­sure of Zuinglius of his ma­ster Mar­tin. vnles thou hast cleane forgotten it &c. Thou adul­teratest, and corruptest the word of God; thou dost imitate the Marcionists and Arrians. Thus much out of Zuinglius may serue for blaso­ning and displaying the armes of his reve­rend maister Frier Martin Luther. Now let vs heare how Doctor Hunneus (a very lear­ned Lutheran) doth describe and paint out the man of God Iohn Calvin. I suppose, Hūnaeus de Calvi­no Iudai­sante. fol. 181. (saith hee) that Angel of darknes Iohn Cal­vin to be sufficiently discouered, who peeping out of the pitt of hell, par [...]lie by his detestable fran­tike lust of wresting the scripture to the subver­sion of those fortresses, which the Christian reli­gion had against the perfidious Iewes and Ar­rians: Partly, by his writing against the sacred Maiestie of Iesus Christ exalted: and in part al­so by his perverse opinion of the whole matter of the Sacraments: Finally by his horrible parado­xes of inevitable predestination, hath in these lat­ter times darkned no small part of the sunne (as it is in the revelation) drawing after him a great number of the starres, and pulling them do­wne headlong with himself into the pit of hell. Of Beza thus writeth Conradus Sclussel­burg a famous superintendent of the Lu­theran church.Conrad. de Theo­log. Cal­viniana, lib. 2. arb. 1.

Theodore Beza in his sacramentary Basiliske against Heshusius which hee entituleth Chr [...]o­phagia, doth not onlie in the treatise it self ta­ke his leaue of all godlines and modestie, letting [Page 336] loose all the reynes of railing, but in the very title doth vomite vp his blasphemie and diuelish scof­fes &c: in the first six pages and a half, hee hath powred out such horrible filthy and beastlie taunts, that euen souldiers of his owne band haue wished them to bee suppressed, with his bawdy and most vnpure verses made in praise of his harlot Candida. Beza hath with his rotten rayling, and beastly bel­ching assaulted the most holy testament of the son­ne of God. He revileth that worthy superintendent Heshusius most spitefully calling him a Buskin or tragicall Polypheme, an ape, an huge great capped Asse, a dog in a bath, a most doltish Sophister, an impure sicophant, a most impudent knaue. Finally hee likeneth him to a deuil incarnate, that hath belched vp such Satanicall blasphemies, that hee trembleth to relate them. This may suffice for a scantling to shew how the names of Luther Calvin & Beza (the great Rabbins of the pro­testant Gospell) be already by no meane men of their owne coate so canuased, disgraced and vilified, that the iudicious reader may see how litle need we haue to trouble our selues to se­arch after matter against them, to make kno­wen to the world, what odious companions they were: seing their owne brotherhood do so fully paint them out to the life, that any true Christian hart must needs abhorre them. And they that will not vpon so faire warning take heed of them & fly from them, can haue no lawfull excuse of their wilfull and doting folly.

PEtilian the Donatist being offended that they were called Donatists retorted vpon the godly Bishops the names of Mensurists and Cecilia­nists deriued from two principall Bishops of their party, Mensurius and Cecilianus:Collat. Carth. 3. ca. 30. So the Papists being vexed at that name Papists, giuen to them for being wholy at the devotion of the Pope, seeke to disgrace vs with the names of Lutherans, Zuin­glians and Calvinists, as though wee were in li­ke sort devoted to Luther, Zuinglius, and Cal­vin.

HEere M. Abbot being at a low ebbe, in steed of the body of the Donatists, is fay­ne to lay hold vpon one of the companie na­med Petilian, to patch vp a paltrie peece of a triviall resemblance. where M. Abbots gentle spirit is to be obserued: for before hee would touch vs for calling them by their right na­mes, either Lutherans, Zuinglians, or Calvi­nists; because they left the communion of the whole church, to imbrace those Arch here­tiks doctrine and felowship: Hee confesseth ingenuously, that the Protestāts before hand had plaid with vs the part of that Donatist Pe­tilian, by nicknaming vs Papists. For hee saith, that wee being angrie with them for giving vs the name Papists, did for a revenge call them Lutherans &c: Ergo hee granteth that they [Page 338] began with vs: but were it before or after, M. Abbots resemblance may bee most iustly re­turned vpon themselues. For as the Catholiks of those times called those Sectaries Donatists, for leaving the communion of the church spred ouer all, to follow one Schismaticall fellow called Donate; so the protestants that were so sottish as to forsake the faith of the Catholike church, to cleave vnto the peevish opinion of some lewd or loose renegate, are most worthy to bee called after their blind guids names, either Lutherans, Zuinglians, Cal­vinists, or such like. And they to wreake their teene on vs nickname vs Papists; wherin albeit they imitate the Donatists, yet their inuention is not so proper as was the Donatists: who of some one eminent person, christened the Ca­tholikes after their names: but the protestants cannot tell vs of what one pope or other wee tooke our name. If it bee of all the ranke of Popes, then haue wee no need to bee ashamed of it: for the protestants themselues are not yet become so impudent, as to deny thirtie or for­tie of the first of them to haue been right be­leeuers, yea very holy Martyrs or confessors: And good reason it is, that of the first and best of them, the rest should take their names.

Aug. co. literas Pe­til l. 2. ca. 43. & co. Gaudent: l 2. c. 28.THe Donatists complained that the revenues bestowed by their ancestors on the churches were taken a way from them, and given to the [Page 339] Catholike Pastors. The same complaint M. Bis­hop and his fellowes vse; that Bishopricks, Dea­neries, and other benefices founded by men of their religion and to the vse therof, are now (as they pretend) wrongfully taken from them, and given to vs.

I Do not find in S. Austin alledged by M. Abbot, that the Donatists were founders of Bishopricks or any such like church livings; And heretiks bee seldome any such founders, but as latter commers do rather intrude wrōg­fully into them that were before founded by the Catholiks. They complayned without iust cause, when they were worthely expelled out of them. they pretended in deed that they we­re lawfully discended of the former Catholi­ke Bishops, and that therfore those livings were due to them; which would bee iust the protestants case, if it should please God to in­spire into our Soveraigne Lord king Iames his hart, to dispossesse them of their benefices as vsurpers, and to restore the dignities and li­vings founded by Catholiks for the exercise of Catholike religion into the hands of Ca­tholike Bishops and Priests. who seeth not therfore how fairly the Donatists did in most things pourtraict their white sons the prote­stants?

THe Rogatists being one part of the Donatists, affirmed themselues only to bee Christians: even as the Donatists did chaleng to themselues only to bee the church of Christ: and so now the Papists es­teeme themselues only to bee Christians.

THis hath been in effect both obtruded by M. Abbot, and by me answered, some foure or five times ouer already, wher­fore is to be now loathed as ouer stale. what so me mā may say in some sense, we do not much esteeme: but the body of the Catholike church doth not deny heretikes to bee Christians: be­cause they bee christened, and do hold some points of the Christian faith; though such Christians, as shall never (vnles they amend) haue any part with Christ in his kingdome. For that they refuse to beleeue many articles of the Christian faith, & haue seperated them­selues from the vnion and communion of Christ his true church.

Aug co. literas Pe­tilian. l. 2. c. 83 & l. 2. cap. 71. Epist. 106THe Donatist provoking Emperors by their vntolerable outrages to make lawes against them, yet when the same were executed, complayned of persecution, and their church they tea [...]med the [Page 341] persecuted church, that did not persecute; And such on their side as were iustly punished for murders and other crimes, they called their martirs, and to their relikes they did great devotion. Even the same course do the Papists take, who by their wicked pra­ctises having giuen cause of making lawes against them, do vpon the execution therof cry out of perse­cution; and do call them Martirs that are put to death for such horrible treasons, and do honor their relikes &c.

will not this proper resemblance bee much more truly verified in the protestants, who ha­uing by their mutinous and seditious practi­ses in many Christian countries, provoked most Catholike Princes to enact severe lawes against them: and being afterward for their o­pen rebellions executed, yet the protestāts wit­hout blushing, do in print proclaime them for martirs, thrust their names into their Calen­der? In which kind M. Fox (our doating coun­tryman) hath (I thinke) excelled all his fello­wes. As for devotion vnto their mad martirs relicts, I reade not in any place quoted by M. Abbot that the Donatists vsed any; that is but a florish of his Rhetorike, to make them seeme somewhat more like vnto vs, that do honor the reliks and memories of those holy perso­nages, that haue honored God by their noble Martirdomes, & traced vs out the true steps to eternall glory. but therin they were (for ought I can find) no more devoute, then bee the pro­testants, [Page 342] who do litle esteeme the dead bones of their dreaming Saints and mad Martirs. nay S. Austins words cited by him self do de­clare, that the Donatists did not, and that the Catholiks did, worship the relicks of martirs. these they be (l. 2. co. Petil. c. 71) you donatists be not blessed, but you make blessed martirs, with whose soules the heavens are replenished, and the earth flo­risheth with the relicks of their bodies: vos non co­litis, sed facitis quos colamus: you do worship them, but make them such as may be wors­hipped by vs.

ALbeit the Emperors to represse the enormious crimes of the Donatists,Aug co. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 92. made such lawes against them; yet they would haue it thought, that the Em­perors did it not of their owne mind, but through the instigation of the godly Bishops: Even so do the Pa­pists, and namely M. Bishop, though they know the Prince to haue iust cause to deale so severely with them, yet doth hee impute his proceedings vnto the instigation and exasperation of his Ministers.

I Must needs confesse, that I know no cause why his Maiestie in the first parlament of his raigne in England, did confirme all those severe lawes (with some additions) which had been enacted against Catholikes in Queene Elizabeths daies. for the same Catholikes had as much, if not more, trauailed to make his highnes true title vnto the Crowne of Englād knowen, and his person acceptable, then the [Page 343] protestants, and did as willingly receiue him into the possession therof. And albeit some few Catholikes did rashly ioyne with protestants, to haue attempted the surprising of his royall person out of their hands, whom they presu­med to abuse his Maiesty verie much with fal­se and malitious informations: Yet that could hardly bee (in my poore opinion) any iust cau­se to confirme so many rigorous lawes against the whole body of Catholikes: no more then to haue made the like against protestants, who were principall sticklers in that desperate en­terprise. All which considered had I not rea­son, writing in that time, to remoue that im­putation which seemed to touch his Maiesty, and to impute it rather vnto the malice of so­me certaine crept to farre into his royall fa­vour, and knowen to bee maliciously bent a­gainst our religiō, then to his highnes: who (as many haue reported) did in the beginning of­ten protest that hee would take no soule mo­ny, and that hee would like of no Catholike the worse for his religion, so that otherwise hee found him loyall and faithfull. Since the horrible plot of the Gunpowder, though the­re bee more colour for those seuere lawes, yet there is in my slender iudgmēt no iust cause. for what equity or cōscience teacheth, for the cri­mes of some fewe offenders to punish innu­merable Innocents, that never consented vnto them, nor were any waie culpable of the same crime? It is the vniforme consent of all the learned, that paena sunt restringēdae, non ampliādae. [Page 344] Punishments are to bee restreyned and short­ned, and not to bee inlarged or lengthned. To forgiue offēders is an honorable duty of Chri­stians: but to inflict punishment where there is no iust desert, is not excusable even amōgst pagans. Therfore it being the dutifull part of a subiect rather to excuse his soveraigne, then to accuse him: wee that hold our selues so well assured of his maiesties most clement naturall disposition, fortifyed also with iust and even proceeding in civill affaires, could not but lay the blame of those extreme courses vpō other more violent spirits, were they temporall Lords, or ministeriall I know not: but sure I am that they haue shewed themselues to­wards men of our religion too too malitious and spitefull, God Almighty pardon them, and giue those of them that yet liue grace to a­mend: those that bee dead would not haue vs to pray for their soules, and therfore wee can do no more for them, but to leaue them to Gods mercifull Iudgments.

THe Donatists albeit they knew well, that it was but a small part of the world that ioyned with them, yet gloried to vse words as though they had had a church throughout all the world. E­ven so the papists, although they know the commu­nion of the church of Rome to bee accepted of but in a small part of the world, yet take pleasure to bable as if the Popes triple crowne were so wide, as to com­passe the whole earth.

AS the former resemblance was pared out of that which went next before it, so hath this been thrice before touched. The odd idle man that purposed to arriue vnto the full nū ­ber of twelue, is forced to mince them into mammocks, and to make no bones to repeate the same thing in effect very often ouer; all to retourne a full Iury of twelue, that may bring in a verdict against himself, either of Ignora­mus; or els a billa vera, for a poore peece of Inuention, to frame resemblances as common as the high way; and for the most part such, as may bee imputed to what sect soeuer you plea­se, but do indeed not more properly apper­taine vnto any, then vnto the protestāts them­selues. Thus farre to refute M. Abbots addi­tion of triuiall and improper resemblances.

Now I come to confirme those points of comparison, which I to requite him, did pro­pose. I stood not vpon cōmon accidēts, which lightly are incident vnto all kind of sects, as M. Abbot hath done very trifflingly: but at the first do set vpon the head of the cause, and propose one similitude betwene the Protestāts and Donatists of that nature and force, that if it bee verified, no vpright iudge can deny the protestants to bee Donatists indeed. This it is. S. Austin, Optatus and all antiquity do testify, that the maine point of the Donatists heresie consisted in this, that they affirmed the church of [Page 346] Christ, planted by the Apostles, to haue perished all the world ouer, saving in those coasts of Africa, where their party remayned. Therfore whosoe­ver mainteynes this error obstinatly, though hee faile in no other article of belief, hee is a very Donatist. And whosoeuer should vphold all the branches mentioned by M. Abbot, or any other that any man els can produce; if hee do not maintaine this, to wit, that the Ca­tholike church is perished in most parts of the world, hee can neuer be come a Donatist the reason is most euident. because hee doth not concord with them in that error, for which they we­re Christned by that name. As for the error of rebaptization it sprong vp before their da­ies, and was but an appendix to the other: which the donatists vndertook to currie fa­vour in that coūtrie, where it had been taught before by great personages. Now then to the purpose, If the Protestants do teach the true church to haue perished all the world ouer for many hundreth yeres, saving that it remay­ned among men of their religion in certaine darke and vnknowne corners, who can deny them to bee as true Donatists as ever were any? which M. Abbot perceiuing to bee as plaine as Dunstable high way, maketh as though the protestants never taught the true visible chur­ch to haue faild at any time, but to haue al­waies, euen from Gregorie the great his time downe to our daies, continued visibly in all these parts of the world, though blemished [Page 347] with some corruptions; yea that the church of Rome it self was a part therof, as also the ancient church of England. doth not this seeme strange? was it not their common doctrine that from Pope Boniface his time (that is, for these nine hundreth yeres at le­ast,) there was a generall Apostacy from the true church, and that Antichrist with his band possessed the outward visible church, Gods true church lying hid all that while invisible, vntill frier Luther cast of his frock, coupled himself with a Nunne, and began to set abroach the true light of the new Gospell? If M. Abbot will not acknowledg it, let him and the reader that doubts of it, but turne to those Authors of our owne country To omitt others: M. Parkins in his reformed Catholike page 331. M. Fulke in his answere to the counterfeit Catholike; and against Stapleton and M. Martiall page 377. M. whitakers de ecclesia contra Bellar­minum page 144. M. Napper vpon the re­uelations page 143. & 126. who with the greater parte of Protestants do openly crie out, that from Pope Boniface his raigne, the visible church of God Perished from the face of the earth; the pope of Rome and his adherents (whom they make Antichrist and his mi­nisters) having deuowred and ruined the Gos­pell, and in steed of it brought in Idolatry, According vnto this opinion of those lear­ned and famous pillars of the new Gospell (which was in times past commonly taught [Page 348] among them.) The Protestants are Donatists and worse then Donatists, for first they agreed with the Donatists in the essentiall point of their heresie; that the true church of Christ was perished. And in this they went farr beyond them; for the Donatists did not affirme the church to bee perished in all places, they thē ­selues having for a hundreth yeares and more some face of a church in many cities of Africa, and aboue 300 Bishops of their sect. But the protestants ancient churches were at the first so soare beaten & vtterly blasted, that they cā ­not so much as name one prouince, where their religion had any bishops or florished for any one age of the nine hūdreth yeeres of that supposed defection. wherfore M. Abbot to a­voide the open profession of that damnable Donatisme, is faine to fall into a newe phan­tasie, that (forsooth) the Roman church notwithstanding all her grosse errors and fowle faults (in their imagination) is a true mem­ber of Christs Catholike church: because she held alwaies the foundation entire, though she built hay, straw, and stubble theron. well fare your hart gentle sir, wee are much be­holding vnto you for the good opinion you haue of our church and religion: but how co­mes it then to passe, that our church her self being so hart-whole and tollerable, the mem­bers therof bee by you esteemed so blasphe­mous & horrible? why are the lawfull pastors therof, only for being consecrated priests, and for coming into England, to execute the anciēt [Page 349] and accustomed rites of priesthod made hai­nous traitors? why are honest and otherwise harmles men for receiuing of priests, and ser­ving God after the old accustomed manner, most grieuously punished by losse of all their goods, lands, libertie and life? how vnreaso­nable and conscienceles men bee you Ministers to cry out for so severe lawes, and most bitter execution therof, against recusants for that religion which you your selues hold to bee Catholike? If there were any good nature left in you, or sparke of any kindnes; you should rather intreat pardon for men of our religion, of whom you now chalenge yourselues to bee lineally descended; and in right of which des­cent you enioy many high Ecclesiasticall di­gnities, and rich benefices. This in courtesy you ought rather to do, then for humane & tollerable faults to incense the prince and state against vs. Tollerable I say in the course of mans law, if Almightie God will beare with them. And if they do not exclude a Christian man out of Gods Catholike church, as they do not in the way of your opiniō, why should earthly potentats depriue them of the commō benefits of their dominions, and not rather after the example of the soveraigne Lord of heaven and earth, suffer them to liue quietly in their kingdome, and to enioy their owne livings, which bee rightfully descended vnto them from their predecessors, men also of the same religion? I cannot see how M. Abbot & all they that imbrace the same opinion, can in [Page 350] equity require any recusant to bee so highly punished for that religion, which they hold to bee good in all substantiall and fundamen­tall points therof, though they thinke it in o­ther of smaller moment to neede reformatiō. well; though that their opinion bee more fa­uorable and indulgent to vs, yet in my poore iudgment it is farre of from being true. And to my slender conceite it doth seeme (as it we­re) prodigious, how they can take that chur­ch to bee a true member of the right church, whose head they hold to bee Antichrist; who­se sacrifice and common service, Idolatrie; whose Sacraments, sacrilegious superstitions; the greater part of their doctrine, blasphemies: their pastors, beasts, foxes and swine, as M. Abbot here out of his litle ciuility tearmeth them. Briefly, the whole face of their church being (as he raileth and writeth) berayed with the filth of Idolatry. if the church of Ro­me be such a monster, as hee would make her, I desire him to explicate in particular which be those fundamentall points that do consti­tute church a the true member of the Catho­like church? In the meane season it is pleasant to heare how roundly hee reckeneth vp wit­hout either staggering or blushing, the Iolly agreement which hee takes to bee betweene their church and ours. wee do not (saith hee) take vpon vs to bee any other church then that w­hich they call the old, but the same church refor­med: wee reteyne still the same scriptures which [Page 351] they acknowledge: true, saving that you haue cut of at one clap fiue books of the old te­stament. wee retayne the same articles of faith which they professe; you should for modesties sake haue added except some twentie or thirtie. wee retayne the same sacraments of Bap­tisme, and the supper of the Lord. Iust, if bre­ad and wine bee the same with the blessed bodie and bloud of Christ. Besids how do wee agree about the other five Sacraments, which wee retayne and you haue cast a­way? They finally retaine the same forme of service, except that they haue cut of the best parts of it, and as it were pulled out the hart and bowells, of the sacrifice and consecration, leaving to themselues and their miserable followers onely the pa [...]ings and offals. Behold the goodlie conformitie of the old and new English church, of late devised and published by M. R. Abbot mi­nister of the word, and teacher of the re­formed church of England; Hee is so farr of (as hee saies) from Donatisme, as that he doth teach the church never to haue pe­rished, no not in the City of Rome it self: why then hath hee taken so much paines to proue the church of Rome to be turned Donatisticall, vnles hee will now also in a very calme and pitifull humour, allow e­ven the Donatists church it self to haue been a part of the true Catholike church.

And so consequently like a good Athe­isticall [Page 352] libertine, allow all heretikes that professed Christs name, to haue been true members of his church. Hauing thus confu­ted that which M. Abbot had to obiect against their agreement in the maine point of the Do­natists heresie; I now come to the second re­semblance, that is betweene the Anabaptists (an ofspring of the protestants) and the Do­natists; who now do teach rebaptisation, as the Donatists did then: which M. Abbot gran­teth, but saith my foolerie therin needeth no answere. because the Anabaptists bee exploded out of all pro­testant churches; And to that comparison which I made betweene the diuision of the protestants into Lutherans, Sacramentaries and Anabaptists; with the partition of the Donatists into Donatists, Ma­ximianists and Rogatists: hee saith that I should ra­ther haue devided Papists into Anabaptists, secula­rists, and Iesuists.

what voluntary light babling is this? who ever before M. Abbot tooke the Anabaptists to bee papists? when as they as stifly deny the popes authoritie, the sacrifice of the Masse, the reall presence, the merites of good wor­kes, and most other articles of our religion, as any other protestants. And albeit they differ from the Sacramentaries in some few matters, as the Sacramentaries do also from the Luthe­rans: yet they bee descended from them, and do agree with them in most points of religion; wherfore they may bee aswell sorted and ran­ked with them, as the Rogatists and Maxi­mianists [Page 353] were with the Donatists; neither will it helpe M. Abbot to say, that they cast the Anabaptists out of their congregation. For the Donatists did no lesse excommunicate and chace out of their churches the Maximianists and Rogatists, then the Sacramentaries do the Anabaptists. It was then rather a foolery of M. Abbots vpon so foolish a reason to deny the Anabaptists to belong vnto the common body of the protestants; and more impudent folly is it to associate them to vs, from whom they dissent further then the other protestāts do. And because wee bee now entred into degrees of comparison, let it bee taken for a superlatiue folly in M. Abbot, to divide all men of our religion into Anabaptists, Secula­rists, and Iesuists. for to returne the Anabap­tists to themselues as their owne sweet brood, with whom they consent against vs in most controversies of religion: Do the other names of Secularists, and Iesuists comprehend all Romane Catholikes? bee there no lay Catho­liks at all, nor any other religious persons in our church besids secularists and Iesuists? what was become of M. Abbots senses when hee wrote this? The Seminarists and Iesuists being compared vnto all other Catholiks both re­ligious and lay, do scarse amount, (as I gesse) vnto the thousand part of that body. So that here M. Abbot infabling, fumbling, and con­founding rather then in diuiding, surmounts the highest degree of comparison.

THE third resemblance that M. Bishop men­tioneth is this. They held not the faith of the blessed Trinitie entire. For some of them like the Arrians, taught the sonne of God to bee lesser then the father. Though (as S. Au­stin noteth) this was not marked of their fol­lowers. This hee applieth to vs in this sort: sun­drie of their principall teachers, as Melan­cthon, Caluin, and others do corrupt the so­und doctrine of the holy Trinitie (as I haue shewed in the preface of my second part of the reformatiō of a deformed Catholike,) though the common sort of their followers do not greatly obserue it. In which third point hee verie wilfully belieth S. Augustin, the Donatists, and vs. For S. Austin doth not saie that of the Donatists, but only of a second Donatus, who was a follower of the first, who had an vnsound opinion of the Trini­ty. which the Donatists were so farre of from appro­uing, that there was scarse one among them that knew that hee thought so: to him only is that to bee referred which S. Austin saith, If any of them haue said that the sonne is lesser thē the father; yet they haue not denied him to bee of the sa­me substance. S. Austin never vpbraided the Do­natists with this error, Aug. E­pistola 50 though Theodoret do, But hee spake by hearsay: How M. Bishop dealeth with Melancthon, Caluin, and others, I haue fully declared in my answere to that preface.

HERE is a whot charge, and a perempto­ry condemnation before due examinatiō (as you shall heare) that I haue at one clap be­lied S. Austin, the Donatists, and their good Maisters, Melancthon, Caluin, and others. But if M. Abbot can make good no one of tho­se imputations, then it must bee granted that hee hath at once let slip a leash of slanderous lies. Let vs descend to the particulars. I write that S. Austin reporteth some of the Donatists to haue had a bad opinion of the blessed Tri­nity. M. Abbot taketh mee vp short, auouc­hing that hee affirmeth that of a second Dona­tus onely. well was not that second Donatus a great famous Donatist, and had hee not many followers? but not one of them held with him in that error saith M. Abbot. yet hee seeing S. Austin to speake of them, as of many more then one, presumeth out of his owne audaci­ty, to expound S. Austin contrary to his ow­ne expresse words. what maruell then if the good fellow bee bold with mee? But if those words bee not full enough, (If any of them haue said, &c. yet they haue not denied, &c.) what cā M. Abbot say vnto these plaine words of the said most sound doctor. Very manie of the Donatists do confesse the same of the son­ne of God which wee do;Aug. de verb. Apost. ser. 31. c. 5. Donatistae plurimi hoc confitentur de filio quod nos, quod aequalis sit patri filius, eiusdem (que) substantiae: alij vero eorū, eiusdē quidē substā ­tiae confitentur, sed aequalē negant. to wit, that hee is not only of the same substāce with the father, but also equall vnto him. Alij vero [Page 356] eorum, &c. note these words; (but others of them) do graunt that hee is of the same sub­stance, but not equall to the father.

Now let the indifferent reader iudge whe­ther of vs two bee the liar, I that reported Saint Austin to saie, that some of the Dona­tists held an vnsound opinion of the sacred Trinity; or M. Abbot that saith it was but one of them only? when as Saint Austin teacheth, most plainly, that not one only, but diuers of them so taught. And thus brief­ly I haue cleerly wiped away the imputation of belying both Sainct Austin and the Dona­tists, leaving the shame of that slaunder to the rash censure and little iudgment of M. Abbot. Touching the third, bicause hee re­ferreth the reader to another place, I will also let it alone till wee come thither; where hee shall see that I haue no more misreported their rabbins, then I did here the Donatists: yea that I dealt with them verie reservedly & sparingly, when I might haue charged them much deeper: because many of their follo­wers haue not onlie obserued what evill seeds they sowed against the sound doctrine of the most glorious Trinity, but haue also watred and nourished them, till they bee now grow­ne vp vnto the most ranke and stinking we­eds of the Arrian and Trinitarian here­sie.

THE fourth branch wherin the protestants re­semble the Donatists is, (as M. Bishop rehe­arseth) that among the Donatists were certaine fu­rious, and frantike fellowes that set churches on fire, cast the blessed Sacrament of Christs body to brute beasts, threw downe Altars, broke Chalices, defiled holy oiles, made ha­vocke and sale of the rich ornaments of the church; In all which points the protestants haue not been one inch behind them, but ra­ther in those irreligious and furious actions haue out stripped them, and gone farr beyond them. This I let passe as an other part of his idle babling, only telling him, that to fit the example of the Circumcellions, hee should looke vnto the acts of the leaguers and Iesuists in France, Germany, Poland, and other countries, wherof histories might bee made, if it were to the purpose.

THis fourthe resemblance hitting the pro­testants so right on the head, makes M. Abbot so to stagger, that hee hath not one wise word to answere in their defence. Is it id­le good S. or of small regard, that the prote­stants do resemble the wicked Donatists, in their irreligious and malicious carriage tow­ards the consecrated houses of God, yea tow­ards his blessed body in the Sacrament of the [Page 358] altar, towards holy oyles, vestments, and all ornaments of the church? Doth it not argue verie apparantly that there lieth lurking in them a verie prophane and spitefull spirit, that cannot abide the maiestie of Gods seruice; but abhorreth all things thervnto belōging? Here­vnto may bee added, that like as the Donatists did plucke of the veyles of virgins, wherby they professed themselues to bee the spouses of Christ, and to haue renounced all secular marriages, and vaine worldly conuersation: Even so did and do the protestants, where any such professed virgins do fall into their hands, robbing Christ of his spouses that professe chastity, fasting, praier and all holines of life, and turning them out into the wild and wic­ked world, there to liue at large like other worldlings. for this loe is a speciall priuiledg of Luthers sweete Gospell.

Now for that hee fableth of leaguers and Iesuists in France and other countries, hee spea­king without booke, must giue mee leaue to beleeve mine owne eies rather then his slaun­ders. For I haue to my grief often seene the ruines of many goodly faire churches and re­ligious houses blowne vp, or beatē downe by men of their religion; and haue read of extre­me outrage offered by them to preists & other religious people. To omitt their robbing of churches, pulling downe of religious houses, deflouring of virgins, with other their ou­tragious and irreligious behauiour in France only, to say nothing of our owne country [Page 359] and others, wherof a large and lamentable historie might bee compiled.

THE last point of resemblance M. Bishop maketh to consist in this. That like as the Donatists deuised a new kind of psalmes to stir vp their drunken and drowsie spirits, to their seruice and sermons: So the protestants haue framed a new kind of Geneua psalmes to bee song before their preachings. A new kind of psalmes say you M. Bishop? do not you know that they bee the psalmes of Dauid, and of other prophets and holy men? And do they seeme new bicause they are translated into English meeter, and fitted with plaine and easy tunes to serue for the peo­ples vse? Or is it not laudable to vse songs and psal­mes in the church? That the Donatists vsed such songs in their churches is M. Bishops lie. For Saint Austin rather signifieth that they vsed them at their drunken bankets. Saint Austin commendeth sober singing of psalmes, and so doth Saint Leo.Leo de col­lec. ser. 4. But the Papists vse to ioyne fil­thy songs, euen with the canon of their Masse, as witnesseth Cornelius Agrippa.Cornel. de vanit. scientiarū c. 18. Thus you see that M. Bishop very vnfortunatelie entred into retorting of this comparison of the Donatists, no­thing fitting his turne, &c.

LET that first bee remembred, which all the world can witnes for our religion, that wee both highlie esteeme, and do daily practi­se the singing of king Dauids Psalmes, & ther­fore M. Abbot spendeth his mouth in wast, when hee endeuoreth to recommend vnto vs the laudable vse of sober singing them in our churches: which their church hath receiued of ours, and hath somewhat to do, to maintey­ne the same singing against their yonger bre­thren the puritanes, who like of no such Ro­mish rites. But how dares M. Abbot to auouch so peremptorily, that all their Geneva psalmes bee nothing els but the psalms of Dauid? How many peeces and broken sentences haue they deuised of their owne heads to patch the rest togither, and to make them vp into broken meeter? what, will they saie that all their ad­ditions ioyned and sowdered to the rest, bee inspired by the holie Ghost? Or can that trulie bee called a psalme of Dauid, that hath one sentence in it not dictated by the holy Ghost? But in their meeters manie such sentences bee added, which are not assured to bee of the ho­lie Ghost: wherfore they may well marre, but cannot make vp any psalmes of Dauid. Besids they haue some very hereticall sentences inter­larded among the rest: As for example this, in the inuocation of the holy Ghost before the Sermon: Keepe vs from all papistry. Finally there bee some whole psalmes made by [Page 361] by Robin woodcocke I trow or some of his fellowes no lesse Dunsticall then hereticall. Take for a tast therof the first staffe of the last song in their psalter, composed by R. W. which I thought good to record here, that the rea­der may see how elegant and pleasant they bee both for meeter and matter.

These must needes bee verie noble verses, that haue thrice Lord in them. And as for word and Lord, Throne and sonne; though the words do end in the like syllables, yet they agree not in sound. If M. Abbot would haue the simple reader beleeve, that S. Austin, and S. Leo (when they speake in the praise of sing­ing of Psalmes) did meane Davids psalmes in meeter, let him produce but one good Au­thor to testify that they were so turned wi­thin 900. yeares of those Doctors deathes, and then hardely beleeue him. If hee cannot, then every man may see what credit is to bee given to his allegations. That S. Austins words w­hich I alleaged are to bee vnderstood of Psal­mes, which the Donatists sung in their chur­ches, rather then of songs in their drunken bankets; may bee gathered out of the compa­rison that hee makes betweene them, and the psalmes that were sung in the Catholike [Page 362] church. And S. Austin might well by a Meta­phore vsuall in the holy scripture, call the Do­natists new mad devises against the ancient custome of grave singing in the quire, their drunkennes. As for the worshipfull testimony of Cornelius Agrippa of our mingling holie things with prophane, it being recorded in a booke of condemned memorie, I hold it not worth the answering. Sure I am that M. Ab­bot by producing of such Authors, cracketh his owne credit. for hee promised in his Epi­stle to the reader, that hee would only vse the te­stimonie either of some learned Bishops of Rome, or of some other famously approued author, and com­mended in that church; And this booke of Agrippa de vanitate scientiarum, is by name condemned by the same church, in the Cata­loge of forbidden books; wherfore M. Abbot is no man of his word. Finally like to a tatling tennis plaier that comes well beaten out of the tennis court, yet to comfort himself, and to saue his poore credit with his friends, brags that those mates with whom he plaid, were no matches for him: yea that no man that daie was able to stand in his hands: Even so M. Abbot having behaued himself as simply, as a man of either wit or learning could doe, ei­ther for defending of his owne, or for offen­dīg his aduerse party, yet cōcludeth as though hee had gotten the field, and cleane foiled his adversary, saying, that I did vnfortunatly enter into retorting of that comparison, nothing serving my turne, but that hee like a nimble tēnis player [Page 363] had returned my owne bals vpon mee, & that with very great advantage. well, bragge is a Iolly dog, and leesers must sometimes bee suf­fred to haue their words. Let the iudicious and indifferent reader but weigh well, first, what kind of resemblance M. Abbot endevored to make betweene the Donatists and the Papists: to wit, to chalenge to themselues to bee the Catho­like church: To bee, or rather to desire to bee dilated all the world over: that out of their church there was no salvation; To spred ill rumors of their adversa­ries: To discourage men from ioyning with them, with a Ragmans roll of such rotten riff raffe common to all sects, and to none more vsuall then to the protestantes themselues; So tri­viall I say, that any man of ordinarie discretiō, would haue been ashamed to haue put them downe in print to the view of the world. Af­terward on the other side let him but call to mind, what resemblances I haue proposed betweene the Protestants and the Donatists, and weigh how substantiall they bee in them­selues, and how properly they fitt the prote­stants. The first was, that the spirit and soule of Donatisme cōsisted in affirming the church of Christ not to appeare in any other part of the world visibly, but to haue cleā perished, sa­ving in some few places where men of their religion liued: Of the same mind were the chief protestants for many yeares. Second­ly, the Donatists were the first among Christians that appealed from the iudgment of Bishops vnto temporall Princes, though [Page 364] they afterwards repented themselues the­reof, when they saw that the said princes would not helpe them. Is not this one of the chiefe heads of the protestants Gospell? yea doth not the whole frame of their new reli­gion hang vpon the supreme ecclesiasticall au­thority of kings? Thirdly, they beate downe Altars, abused the blessed Sacramēt of Christs body, defiled holy oiles, confiscated sacred chalices, and sold them, togither with the ve­stments, and other holie ornaments of the church. All which are so proper to the Prote­stants, that they blush not daily to practise it, and make open profession of the same. 4. The protestāts (like vnto the Donatists) by putting innocēt priests to death, make martirs, whom we may worship. Finally they pulled of the veiles of religious women, which were signes of their professed virginity, exposing them to the hazard of the wild world. In which vn­godlie and irreligious practise, the protestāts haue gone farre beyond the Donatists. But that they maie not take too great pride therin, let them heare the vpright censure of the holy prelate Optatus, passed 1200. yeares agone a­gainst them, in the name of their deere breth­ren the Donatists. In this kind you haue done as great damage to god,Optat. l. 6. co Parm. In hoc genere tanta damna fe­cistis Deo, quanta lucra diabo­lo procurastu Conflastis impie calices, crudeliter fregistis & in­consulte rasistis altaria Nudastis denuo capita iam ve­lata: de quibus professionis detra­xistis indicia, qua contra rapto­res aut petitores videntur inuenta. Spiritale hoc nubendi genus est, in nuptias Sponsi iam venerant voluntate & professione sua, & vt secularibus nuptiijs se renun­tiasse monstrarent, spiritali spon­so soluerant crinem, iam caelestes celebrauerant nuptias. as you haue procured gaine to the devill. you haue impiously melted Chali­ces: you haue barbarously [Page 365] broken downe Altars &c. and a litle before: you ha­ue vncouered the heads of virgins, that were vei­led, drawing from them the markes of their pro­fession, which were in­uented to declare that in will and professiō they were maried to Christ. By these few resemblances hitting the prote­stants so right on the thumbes (to omitt many other) the indifferent reader may see, whether my retorting of M. Abbots comparisons were to the purpose or no, and whether of vs haue more fortunatly travailed therin.

TO conclude this passage, seing M. Abbot went about to prove the church of Ro­me to bee like that of the Donatists, by no one sound argument, but by diuers trifles and vntruthes, hee must looke (vnles hee re­pent) to haue his part with liars in the poole burning with fire and brimstone. And if it please the reader to heare, at what great square the Donatists were with the said church of Rome, (to which M. Abbot would so fayne resemble them) I will briefly shew it out of the best records of that time.L. 2 co. lit. Petil. c. 51. S. Austin speakes thus to the Donatist Petilian: what hath the church or sea of Rome (in which Peter sate and now [Page 366] sitteth Anastasius) done vnto thee? why doest thou call the Apostolicall chaire, the chaire of pestilen­ce? See how friendly the Donatists were wont to salute the church of Rome, stiling it the chaire of pestilence. That noble prelate Op­tate to this Issue hath thus deposed. whence is it that you Donatists take vpon you to vsurpe the keies of the kingdome, and that presumptuous­ly, and with sacrilegious audacity, you do wage battell against the chaire of Peter? If the Dona­tists did wage warre against the church of Rome, surely there was no likelihood of a­ny good intelligence betweene them. wher­fore like as the Catholiks of Africa then, so they were linked in communion with the church of Rome, sett light by the outcries of the Donatists against them (as witnesseth S. Austin when hee said of Cecilianus Arch­bishop of Carthage,Epist. 162 one of the princes of the Catholike party; hee needed not to care for the multitude of his conspiring enemies the Donatists, when hee saw himself by communicatorie letters ioyned with the Romane church, in which al­waies florished the primacie of the Apostolicall chaire &c.) Even so wee at this time need as litle to esteeme of the bitter reproches, and deceitfull arguments of the protestants, So wee stand vpright and firme in the like socie­ty of faith and religion with the same church of Rome.

MIstake I did in some circumstance, but lie I did not, because to lie is to go against a mans owne mind and knowledge. That the Do­natists were at square with the ancient church of Rome wee confesse: But what is that to the latter church of Rome, which is degenerated from the old, and in tying the Catholike church to her ow­ne place and function doth rather resemble the old Donatists? besids the Donatists were at as great square with all other Catholike churches, some of which were also mentioned by saint Augustin in that and other places: why then doth M. Bishop make that peculiar vnto the church of Rome, w­hich S. Austin leaueth indifferent to that and o­ther churches? and as other churches afterward became chaires of pestilence, so might the church of Rome, for ought that S. Austin there saith of it. The like is to bee answered vnto Optatus, who te­aching the Donatists to haue been whole enemies vnto the church of Rome, doth not hinder but that the latter church of Rome might agree well enough with them. Finally S. Austin doth not say, that Ce­cilianus ioyned with the church of Rome alone, but ioyning with that and other Catholike churches, nee­ded not to care for the Donatists. So that there is no more there for the cōmuniō of the church of Rome, thē for the cōmuniō of other churches. Hee will say, that a principality is there attributed vnto the church of Rome: I answere as before I haue done, that a princi­pality of honour may bee givē to it, but not a princi­pality of power. And doth it follow that because the [Page 368] principality of the Apostolike chaire florished there till that time, therfore it should do so ever vnto the worlds end? These are loose and vaine collections vnfit to stablish the conscience of sober and advi­sed men.

FOr a conclusion of this chapter M. Abbot tells vs, that albeit hee mistooke some­things, yet hee did not lie in any part therof; and the proofe in part is very prettie: because (for sooth) hee went not against his owne mind. His mind and pleasure then being to say, that the Donatists taught the true church to bee only at Cartenna; Secondly, That the Papists do teach now that the same true church is con­teyned within the wals of Rome only; 3. That no other mans Baptisme besids a papist priests is avaylable to Salvation; 4. That none among the Indians bee truly converted to the Chri­stian faith, but all of them are forced to recei­ue baptisme with out religion; when hee (I say) wrote these and twentie mo such like most luculent lies, yet in all this hee did not once lie; the reason is in readines, bicause hee never went against his owne mind: His mind then giving him (belike) that to vilify and slaunder the Papists, he might tell a hundreth worse ta­les of them then those are. Good Sir, if vpon Etymologies of words you presume to deliuer such senseles and wicked doctrine, it may tru­lie bee said to you for ought I see Domine men­tiris, whether you teach it against your owne [Page 369] mind or no. For although a man that of mee­re ignorance telleth an vntruth, doth not pro­perly lie; yet when hee presumeth to shoote his bolt, & to giue his censure rashly of things commonly spoken of contrary to the truth, as M. Abbot hath done: then hee may bee said to lie, though hee know not perfectly the con­trarie; Because hee might and ought to haue learned out the truth therof, before hee presu­med to deliuer his Iudgment theron in such absolute and peremptorie tearmes.

As the Donatists were at open warre with the old church of Rome: So doth the moder­ne church of Rome, as greatly as the old, de­test the same positions of the Donatists. To wit, that the church of Christ is perished all the world ouer, saving in some odd corners. 2. That men baptised by vnsanctified Ministers ought to bee rebaptised. And so of all the rest, which either Optatus or S. Austin then recor­ded for speciall points of the Donatists doctri­ne. That the now church of Rome doth dif­fer in any one article of faith from the ancient, is that which M. Abbot doth often say and re­peate, but never yet could, nor here after shall ever bee able to bring any one sufficient proo­fe therof, wherfore by all right and reason, the said church is to retaine her former good re­putatiō and credit, with all honest and vpright consciences. For if everie man haue title vnto his good name, vntill hee bee conuicted to ha­ue committed some such fault; as meriteth the losse therof: much more the church of Rome, [Page 370] (being the most honorable congregation of Christendome) ought to hold her due estima­tion and credit, and enioy all her priviledges, vntill it bee lawfully proved, that it hath iust­lie deserved to bee deprived of them. for, in dubijs, mel or est conditio possidentis. In all doubt­full causes shee that is and hath been fifteen hundreth yeres in possession, is to keepe it still. I grant that when S. Austin either defended the honour of the church of Rome, or magni­fied the society and communion with it, did thervnto ioyne some other church: But the mention of them not being to our present pur­pose, what reason had I to recite that which was needlesse? when as every man knowes that aswell as then, so now, whosoever shall recō ­cile himself to the church of Rome, hee shall therby reenter into communion with all other Catholike churches throughout the whole world. And wheras M. Abbot would haue his credulous reader suppose, that S. Austin made no more reckoning of the church of Rome, then hee did of any others; That is flat contra­ry to that which S. Austin setteth downe in the very same place, who to prevent that Cavill, doth enterlace this Parenthesis in the honour of the church of Rome (where alwaies florished the primacie of the Apostolicall chaire.) And in his Epistle 165. being to giue an instāce of the per­petuall successiō of pastors in the church, ma­keth choice of the church of Rome, as of the better assured and more safe and sound, & the­re doth intimate that the Bishops of Rome, [Page 371] though they might liue amisse, yet should ne­ver faile to instruct aright all that seeke vnto them for resolutions of their doubts in matter of faith. wherfore M. Abbot if hee will giue credit vnto that most holy and learned Doctor (whom aswell protestants as wee do esteeme for one of the soundest recorders of antiquity) hee must needs yeeld vnto the church of Ro­me; both that it is the principall of all the rest, and that it shall for ever continue the most as­sured Oracle of the holy Catholike faith. w­hich if hee refuse to do, hee leaueth apparent proofe vnto all the world, that hee had rather with the Donatists raile at her and revile her; then with S. Augustine and other holy prelats, extoll and magnify the primacy of that Apo­stolicall chaire, and defend the ever durable succession of her pastors, as wel in truth of do­ctrine, as in order of persons. of which I haue more largly spoken in the 2. Section of the first chapter n. 29.