Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

preme Pontiff, Universal Bishop, or Head of the Church? By whom were you armed with the

Tertullian saithe, "Dandi Baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus:" The Higheste Prieste, that is the Bishop, hath authoritie to minister Baptism. St. Augustin saithe, "Quid est Episcopus, nisi Primus Presbyter, hoc est Summus Sacerdos ?" What is a Bishop but the firste Prieste, that is to saie, the Highest Prieste? St. Ambrose writing not unto the Pope, but unto Fælix the Bishop of Comum, saithe thus, "Suscepisti Gubernacula Summi Sacerdotii:" Thou haste taken the Governmente of the Highest Priesthoode.Againe he saithe, speakinge likewise of any one Bishop, “ Vidisti Summum Sacerdotem Interrogantem, et Consecrantem." Thou sawest the Highest Prieste examininge the People, that was to be Baptized, and consecrating the Water.§

The Defence of the Apologie, p. 526-7.

* One of the Popes declared that to him belonged of right both the Heavenly and Earthly Empire! Pope Boniface VIII. openly wore the Crown Imperial, and commanded the naked Sword to be borne before him, and Proclamation to be made. Ecce duo Gladii hic. Behold here are the two Swords. It was said of this Pontiff that "he entered like a Fox; reigned as a Wolf; and died as a Dog."

Paralipom, Urspergensis, Carion, &c. Hervey, in his work concerning the Papal Authority, says, Unum istorum Gladiorum Petrus non tetigit, scilicet Sæcularem, qui suus non erat. One of these Swords Peter never even touched, namely the Secular or Temporal Sword, for that was not his. Herveus De Potestate Papa, cap. xviii. With whom St. Cyprian agrees, Christus actibus propriis,

* Tertullian De Baptismo.

+ Augustin in quæstionibus ex utroque Testamento quæst. 101.
§ Ambrosius de Iis qui initiantur, cap. 3.

Ambros. Lib. i. Epist. 5.

Temporal and Spiritual Swords?* Whence is your Authority derived of convening Councils?† Who assigned you the whole world for your Diocese? Which of the Fathers ever said that from the Plenitude of Papal Authority the Bishop received his Sacerdotal Character? Which of them alleges that all Power is given unto you both in Heaven and in Earth? Who declares you exempt from the judicial authority of Monarchs; of the whole body of the Clergy; and in a word of all people? Which of them says that by the express command and will of Christ all Princes and Poten

et dignitatibus distinctis, Officia Potestatis utriusque discrevit. Christ by appropriate Duties, and distinct dignities, has divided the Offices of either power; on which passage the Popish Commentator observes, Ergo est argumentum, quod Papa non habet utrumque Gladium: This therefore is an argument that the Pope ought not to have both the Swords.

Dist. x. Quoniam idem. * De Major et obed. Unam Sanctam in Extravag. Bonifac. VIII. Durandus Concil. Later sub Julio ii.

+ Not to multiply authorities against the assumption of this right, I would merely observe that the four first great Councils of Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople: were convened by the Emperors, and not by the Pope. At that period indeed the whole world was not under his Spiritual controul, nor did he possess either power or authority to call Councils; but was himself commanded by the Emperor, like other Prelates, to attend the Councils.

tates derive their power from you? Who has calculated with such nice mathematical precision

that you are seventy times seven greater than the most powerful Monarchs? Which of them ever declared your authority superior to that of the other Patriarchs? By which of them have you been proclaimed Lord God; or not a mere natural man, but something compounded, and as it were proceeding from both God and Man? Which of them has ever professed his Belief that you were the fountain of all Law? That you had dominion over Purgatory?† or were the arbitrary Ruler of the Angels of God? Did they ever speak of you as King of Kings, and Lord of

* Distinct. ix. Innocentii de major in obed. solite in Extravag. Johan. xxii. c. cum inter nonnullos. In glossa finali in impressa Editione, Parisiis, 1508.

† Antonius de Rosellis.

Bishop Bonner declares that notwithstanding the Pope be a ravening wolf, dressed in sheep's clothing, yet he calleth himself" the Servant of Servants."

Bonner in Præfat. in libel, Step. Gardiner de vera obed. Hear the words of Jewell on this subject: "Good Reader, pul of this painted Visarde; and under this vaine title of Servant of Servantes, thou shalt finde a Lorde of Lordes. For proufe hereof, thus the Pope himself saith: "Neither Em

* Epistola Nicolai Papæ, inter Decreta Adriani Papæ. Conoil. tomo i. In purgatione Sixti,

Lords? We can here, whilst we are upon the subject, enumerate a few more things of the same nature. What individual of all the Ancient Bishops and Fathers ever taught you to say private Mass; the people being mere spectators? or to elevate the Host; in which Rites the whole of your Religion is now comprized? Which of them again hath authorized you to mutilate the Sacraments of Christ; and, in opposition to his express command and institution, to defraud the people of one of the Elements? And to con

*

perour nor Kinge maie judge the Pope," and his reason is this, Non est servus supra Dominum: For the (Emperoure beinge a) Servante, is not above (the Pope, that is) his Lorde. Thus yee see, he that so humbly calleth himselfe the Servante of Servantes, if ye touche him, or anger him, wil suddainely change himself into the Kinge of Kinges and Lorde of Lordes. For in these wordes he plainly and expressely calleth the Emperoure the Servante, and himselfe the Lorde.

The Defence of the Apologie, p. 544.

*The words of our Saviour himself amply prove the absurdity and impiety of this practice of the Roman Church, “Except ye EAT the FLESH of the SON of MAN, and DRINK his BLOOD, you have no Life in you. John vi. 53.

See also The Book of Bertram, p. 43. Ed. 1686.

"But for the particular Church of Rome, and the Pope with it, erred it hath, and therefore may err: Erred I say in the Worship of Images, and in altering Christ's Institution in the Blessed Sacrament, by taking away the Cup from the People."

clude at once, can you instance any one single individual of all the Fathers who taught you to make distributions of the Blood of Christ and the Merits of the Martyrs; to dispose of your Indulgences, and to sell as it were Apart

Again, in speaking of the opinions of the Papists respecting Communion in both kinds, 66 Consider now with me, is this an Error or not? Bellarmine, Stapleton, and you too say 'tis not, because to receive under both kinds is not by Divine Right. No? No sure: For it was not Christ's Precept, but his Example. Why, but I had thought that Christ's Institution of a Sacrament had been more than his Example only, and as binding for the necessaries of a Sacrament, the matter and form, aș a Precept. Therefore speake out, and deny it to be Christ's Institution; or else grant with Stapleton it is a damnable error to go against it. If you can prove that Christ's Institution is not as binding to us as his Precept, (which you shall never be able) take the Precept with it, Drink ye all of this, which though you shift as you can, yet you can never make it other than this: A BINDING PRECEPT.

Archbishop Laud against Fisher the Jesuit, p. 12. 170. folio Ed. Lond. 1686.

* Sylvester Prierias, the master of the Pope's Palace, has left us in no doubt as to the source of this criminal and impious traffic Indulgentia Authoritate Scripturæ non innotuere nobis; sed authoritate Ecclesiæ Romanæ, Romanorumque Pon❤ tificum, quæ major est. Pardons are not known to us by the authority of the Scriptures; but by the authority of the Church of Rome, and the Popes, which is greater!!!

Sylvester Prierias. Contra Lutherum.

No better or more forcible argument can be adduced to

« ZurückWeiter »